U.S. District Court Southern District of Florida (Miami) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:20-cv-21553-MGC

Gayle et al v. Field Office Director Miami Field Office et al Assigned to: Judge Marcia G. Cooke Referred to: Magistrate Judge Jonathan Goodman Cause: 28:1651 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

Date Filed: 04/13/2020 Jury Demand: None Nature of Suit: 890 Other Statutory Actions Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Defendant

Special Master
Matthew C Dates Stearns Weaver Miller, et al 150 W. Flagler Street Suite 2200 Miami, FL 33130 305-789-3200

represented by Jennifer Rae Coberly Americans for Immigrant Justice 6355 NW 36th Street Suite 2201 Miami, FL 33166 305-573-1106 Fax: 305-576-6273 Email: jcoberly@aijustice.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Matthew Clarence Dates Stearns Weaver Miller Weissler Alhadeff & Sitterson, P.A. 150 West Flagler Street Suite 2200 Miami, FL 33130 (305)789-4159 Fax: (305)789-2646 Email: mdates@stearnsweaver.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Petitioner Patrick Gayle

represented by Andrea Montavon-McKillip Legal Aid Service of Broward County, Inc. 491 North State Road 7 Plantation, FL 33317 954-736-2493 Fax: 954-736-2484 Email: amontavon@legalaid.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Anthony Richard Dominguez Prada Urizar, PLLC 3191 Coral Way Suite 500 Miami, FL 33145 4403154610 Email: adominguez@pradaurizar.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mark Andrew Prada Prada Urizar, PLLC 3191 Coral Way, Suite 500 Miami, FL 33145 (786) 238-2222 Fax: (786) 708-9508 Email: mprada@pradaurizar.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Romy Louise Lerner University of Miami School of Law Immigration Clinic 1311 Miller Dr. E-261 Coral Gables, FL 33146 3052845448 Email: rlerner@law.miami.edu LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Chad Andrew Peterson King and Spalding 1180 Peachtree Street NE Suite 1700 Atlanta, GA 30309 4045724871 Email: cpeterson@kslaw.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Drew Thompson Bell 6304 Bon Terra Drive Suite 1800 Austin, TX 78731 6107909811

Email: dbell@kslaw.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gregory P. Copeland Rapid Defense Network 11 Broadway Suite 615 New York, NY 10004 212-843-0910 Email: gregory@defensenetwork.org TERMINATED: 02/02/2021 PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jennifer Rae Coberly (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kathryn Stewart Lehman King , Spalding LLP 1180 Peachtree Street NE 1180 Peachtree Street NE Atlanta, GA 30309 4045724600 Fax: 4045724600 Email: klehman@kslaw.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lisa M Berlow-Lehner Americans for Immigrant Justice Americans Immigrants Just 6355 NW 36th St. Ste 2201 Miami, FL 33166 305-573-1106 X1020 Fax: 305-576-6273 Email: llehner@aijustice.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Maia Fleischman Southern Poverty Law Center 7865 SW 57th Ave Unit C Miami, FL 33143 5616293981 Email: maia.fleischman@splcenter.org

Petitioner Aparicio P. Jeronimo

TERMINATED: 07/17/2020
Paul R. Chavez Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) 2 S. Biscayne Blvd., Ste. 3200 Miami, FL 33101 (305) 537-0577 Email: paul.chavez@splcenter.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sarah T. Gillman Rpaid Defense Network 11 Boradway, Suite 615 New York, NY 10004 212-843-0910 Email: sarah@defensenetwork.org PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Scott Michael Edson King & Spalding LLP 1700 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington, DC 20006 (202) 626-2908 Fax: (202) 626-3737 Email: SEdson@kslaw.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Rebecca Ann Sharpless University of Miami School of Law Immigration Clinic 1311 Miller Drive E-273 Coral Gables, FL 33146 305-284-6092 Fax: 305-284-6093 Email: rsharpless@law.miami.edu ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Andrea Montavon-McKillip (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Anthony Richard Dominguez

(See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mark Andrew Prada (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Rebecca Ann Sharpless (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Romy Louise Lerner (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Chad Andrew Peterson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Drew Thompson Bell (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gregory P. Copeland (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/02/2021 PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jennifer Rae Coberly (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kathryn Stewart Lehman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lisa M Berlow-Lehner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Maia Fleischman

Petitioner Tolentino Martinez Rios

(See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/17/2020
Paul R. Chavez (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sarah T. Gillman (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Scott Michael Edson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Andrea Montavon-McKillip (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Anthony Richard Dominguez (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mark Andrew Prada (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Rebecca Ann Sharpless (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Romy Louise Lerner (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Chad Andrew Peterson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Petitioner Wilder Perez Limones

Drew Thompson Bell (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gregory P. Copeland (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/02/2021 PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jennifer Rae Coberly (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kathryn Stewart Lehman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lisa M Berlow-Lehner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Maia Fleischman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/17/2020
Paul R. Chavez (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sarah T. Gillman (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Scott Michael Edson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Andrea Montavon-McKillip (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Anthony Richard Dominguez

(See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mark Andrew Prada (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Rebecca Ann Sharpless (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Romy Louise Lerner (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Chad Andrew Peterson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Drew Thompson Bell (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gregory P. Copeland (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/02/2021 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jennifer Rae Coberly (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kathryn Stewart Lehman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lisa M Berlow-Lehner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Maia Fleischman (See above for address)

Petitioner Javier Antonio Arias-Martinez

TERMINATED: 07/17/2020
Paul R. Chavez (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sarah T. Gillman (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Scott Michael Edson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Andrea Montavon-McKillip (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Anthony Richard Dominguez (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mark Andrew Prada (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Rebecca Ann Sharpless (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Romy Louise Lerner (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Chad Andrew Peterson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Drew Thompson Bell

Petitioner Juan Carlos Alfaro Garcia

(See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gregory P. Copeland (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/02/2021 PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jennifer Rae Coberly (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kathryn Stewart Lehman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lisa M Berlow-Lehner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Maia Fleischman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/17/2020
Paul R. Chavez (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sarah T. Gillman (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Scott Michael Edson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Andrea Montavon-McKillip (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Anthony Richard Dominguez (See above for address)

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mark Andrew Prada (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Rebecca Ann Sharpless (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Romy Louise Lerner (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Chad Andrew Peterson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Drew Thompson Bell (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gregory P. Copeland (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/02/2021 PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jennifer Rae Coberly (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kathryn Stewart Lehman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lisa M Berlow-Lehner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Maia Fleischman (See above for address)

Petitioner Fermin Tepetate-Martinez

TERMINATED: 07/17/2020
Paul R. Chavez (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sarah T. Gillman (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Scott Michael Edson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Andrea Montavon-McKillip (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Anthony Richard Dominguez (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mark Andrew Prada (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Rebecca Ann Sharpless (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Romy Louise Lerner (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Chad Andrew Peterson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Drew Thompson Bell

Petitioner Abdul Jalloh

(See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gregory P. Copeland (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/02/2021 PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jennifer Rae Coberly (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kathryn Stewart Lehman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lisa M Berlow-Lehner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Maia Fleischman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/17/2020
Paul R. Chavez (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sarah T. Gillman (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Scott Michael Edson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Andrea Montavon-McKillip (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Anthony Richard Dominguez (See above for address)

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mark Andrew Prada (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Rebecca Ann Sharpless (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Romy Louise Lerner (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Chad Andrew Peterson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Drew Thompson Bell (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gregory P. Copeland (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/02/2021 PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jennifer Rae Coberly (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kathryn Stewart Lehman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lisa M Berlow-Lehner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Maia Fleischman (See above for address)

Petitioner
Darwyn Yovanny Navarrette Sanchez

TERMINATED: 07/17/2020
Paul R. Chavez (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sarah T. Gillman (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Scott Michael Edson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Andrea Montavon-McKillip (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Anthony Richard Dominguez (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mark Andrew Prada (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Rebecca Ann Sharpless (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Romy Louise Lerner (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Chad Andrew Peterson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Drew Thompson Bell

Petitioner Muhammad Alam Khan

(See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gregory P. Copeland (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/02/2021 PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jennifer Rae Coberly (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kathryn Stewart Lehman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lisa M Berlow-Lehner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Maia Fleischman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/17/2020
Paul R. Chavez (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sarah T. Gillman (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Scott Michael Edson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Andrea Montavon-McKillip (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Anthony Richard Dominguez (See above for address)

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mark Andrew Prada (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Rebecca Ann Sharpless (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Romy Louise Lerner (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Chad Andrew Peterson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Drew Thompson Bell (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gregory P. Copeland (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/02/2021 PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jennifer Rae Coberly (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kathryn Stewart Lehman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lisa M Berlow-Lehner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Maia Fleischman (See above for address)

Petitioner Jose Chavez

TERMINATED: 07/17/2020
Paul R. Chavez (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sarah T. Gillman (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Scott Michael Edson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Andrea Montavon-McKillip (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Anthony Richard Dominguez (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mark Andrew Prada (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Rebecca Ann Sharpless (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Romy Louise Lerner (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Chad Andrew Peterson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Drew Thompson Bell

Petitioner Lazaro Ocana Guzman

(See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gregory P. Copeland (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/02/2021 PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jennifer Rae Coberly (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kathryn Stewart Lehman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lisa M Berlow-Lehner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Maia Fleischman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/17/2020
Paul R. Chavez (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sarah T. Gillman (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Scott Michael Edson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Andrea Montavon-McKillip (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Anthony Richard Dominguez (See above for address)

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mark Andrew Prada (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Rebecca Ann Sharpless (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Romy Louise Lerner (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Chad Andrew Peterson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Drew Thompson Bell (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gregory P. Copeland (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/02/2021 PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jennifer Rae Coberly (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kathryn Stewart Lehman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lisa M Berlow-Lehner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Maia Fleischman (See above for address)

Petitioner Naim Arrak

TERMINATED: 07/17/2020
Paul R. Chavez (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sarah T. Gillman (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Scott Michael Edson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Andrea Montavon-McKillip (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Anthony Richard Dominguez (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mark Andrew Prada (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Rebecca Ann Sharpless (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Romy Louise Lerner (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Chad Andrew Peterson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Drew Thompson Bell

Petitioner Agane Warsame

(See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gregory P. Copeland (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/02/2021 PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jennifer Rae Coberly (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kathryn Stewart Lehman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lisa M Berlow-Lehner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Maia Fleischman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/17/2020
Paul R. Chavez (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sarah T. Gillman (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Scott Michael Edson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Andrea Montavon-McKillip (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Anthony Richard Dominguez (See above for address)

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mark Andrew Prada (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Rebecca Ann Sharpless (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Romy Louise Lerner (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Chad Andrew Peterson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Drew Thompson Bell (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gregory P. Copeland (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/02/2021 PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jennifer Rae Coberly (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kathryn Stewart Lehman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lisa M Berlow-Lehner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Maia Fleischman (See above for address)

Petitioner Hassan Mohamed Farah

TERMINATED: 07/17/2020
Paul R. Chavez (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sarah T. Gillman (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Scott Michael Edson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Andrea Montavon-McKillip (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Anthony Richard Dominguez (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mark Andrew Prada (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Rebecca Ann Sharpless (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Romy Louise Lerner (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Chad Andrew Peterson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Drew Thompson Bell

Petitioner Ruben Orlando Flores Ramos

(See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gregory P. Copeland (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/02/2021 PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jennifer Rae Coberly (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kathryn Stewart Lehman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lisa M Berlow-Lehner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Maia Fleischman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/17/2020
Paul R. Chavez (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sarah T. Gillman (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Scott Michael Edson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Andrea Montavon-McKillip (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Anthony Richard Dominguez (See above for address)

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mark Andrew Prada (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Rebecca Ann Sharpless (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Romy Louise Lerner (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Chad Andrew Peterson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Drew Thompson Bell (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gregory P. Copeland (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/02/2021 PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jennifer Rae Coberly (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kathryn Stewart Lehman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lisa M Berlow-Lehner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Maia Fleischman (See above for address)

Petitioner Mohamed Hasan

TERMINATED: 07/17/2020 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Paul R. Chavez (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sarah T. Gillman (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Scott Michael Edson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Andrea Montavon-McKillip (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Anthony Richard Dominguez (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mark Andrew Prada (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Rebecca Ann Sharpless (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Romy Louise Lerner (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Chad Andrew Peterson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Petitioner Eliseo Antonio Zamora Mendoza

Drew Thompson Bell (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gregory P. Copeland (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/02/2021 PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jennifer Rae Coberly (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kathryn Stewart Lehman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lisa M Berlow-Lehner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Maia Fleischman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/17/2020
Paul R. Chavez (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sarah T. Gillman (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Scott Michael Edson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Andrea Montavon-McKillip (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Anthony Richard Dominguez

(See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mark Andrew Prada (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Rebecca Ann Sharpless (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Romy Louise Lerner (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Chad Andrew Peterson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Drew Thompson Bell (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gregory P. Copeland (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/02/2021 PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jennifer Rae Coberly (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kathryn Stewart Lehman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lisa M Berlow-Lehner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Maia Fleischman

Petitioner Cesar Ariel Mendez Escobar

(See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/17/2020
Paul R. Chavez (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sarah T. Gillman (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Scott Michael Edson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Andrea Montavon-McKillip (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Anthony Richard Dominguez (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mark Andrew Prada (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Rebecca Ann Sharpless (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Romy Louise Lerner (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Chad Andrew Peterson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Petitioner Roseline Ostine

Drew Thompson Bell (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gregory P. Copeland (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/02/2021 PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jennifer Rae Coberly (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kathryn Stewart Lehman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lisa M Berlow-Lehner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Maia Fleischman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/17/2020
Paul R. Chavez (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sarah T. Gillman (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Scott Michael Edson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Andrea Montavon-McKillip (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Anthony Richard Dominguez

(See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mark Andrew Prada (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Rebecca Ann Sharpless (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Romy Louise Lerner (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Chad Andrew Peterson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Drew Thompson Bell (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gregory P. Copeland (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/02/2021 PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jennifer Rae Coberly (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kathryn Stewart Lehman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lisa M Berlow-Lehner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Maia Fleischman

Petitioner Tahimi Perez

(See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/17/2020
Paul R. Chavez (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sarah T. Gillman (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Scott Michael Edson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Andrea Montavon-McKillip (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Anthony Richard Dominguez (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mark Andrew Prada (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Rebecca Ann Sharpless (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Romy Louise Lerner (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Chad Andrew Peterson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Petitioner Franklin Ramon Gonzalez

Drew Thompson Bell (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gregory P. Copeland (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/02/2021 PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jennifer Rae Coberly (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kathryn Stewart Lehman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lisa M Berlow-Lehner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Maia Fleischman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/17/2020
Paul R. Chavez (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sarah T. Gillman (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Scott Michael Edson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Andrea Montavon-McKillip (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Anthony Richard Dominguez

(See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mark Andrew Prada (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Rebecca Ann Sharpless (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Romy Louise Lerner (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Chad Andrew Peterson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Drew Thompson Bell (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gregory P. Copeland (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/02/2021 PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jennifer Rae Coberly (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kathryn Stewart Lehman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lisa M Berlow-Lehner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Maia Fleischman

Petitioner Francisco Rivero Valeron

(See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/17/2020
Paul R. Chavez (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sarah T. Gillman (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Scott Michael Edson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Andrea Montavon-McKillip (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Anthony Richard Dominguez (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mark Andrew Prada (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Rebecca Ann Sharpless (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Romy Louise Lerner (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Chad Andrew Peterson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Petitioner Irvin Medoza Silis

Drew Thompson Bell (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gregory P. Copeland (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/02/2021 PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jennifer Rae Coberly (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kathryn Stewart Lehman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lisa M Berlow-Lehner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Maia Fleischman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/17/2020
Paul R. Chavez (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sarah T. Gillman (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Scott Michael Edson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Andrea Montavon-McKillip (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Anthony Richard Dominguez

(See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mark Andrew Prada (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Rebecca Ann Sharpless (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Romy Louise Lerner (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Chad Andrew Peterson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Drew Thompson Bell (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gregory P. Copeland (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/02/2021 PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jennifer Rae Coberly (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kathryn Stewart Lehman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lisa M Berlow-Lehner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Maia Fleischman

Petitioner Geraldo Vargas

(See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/17/2020
Paul R. Chavez (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sarah T. Gillman (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Scott Michael Edson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Andrea Montavon-McKillip (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Anthony Richard Dominguez (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mark Andrew Prada (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Rebecca Ann Sharpless (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Romy Louise Lerner (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Chad Andrew Peterson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Petitioner Dairon Barredo Sanchez

Drew Thompson Bell (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gregory P. Copeland (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/02/2021 PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jennifer Rae Coberly (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kathryn Stewart Lehman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lisa M Berlow-Lehner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Maia Fleischman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/17/2020
Paul R. Chavez (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sarah T. Gillman (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Scott Michael Edson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Andrea Montavon-McKillip (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Anthony Richard Dominguez

(See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mark Andrew Prada (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Rebecca Ann Sharpless (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Romy Louise Lerner (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Chad Andrew Peterson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Drew Thompson Bell (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gregory P. Copeland (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/02/2021 PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jennifer Rae Coberly (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kathryn Stewart Lehman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lisa M Berlow-Lehner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Maia Fleischman

Petitioner Rene Jonathan Rosas Cardenas

(See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/17/2020
Paul R. Chavez (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sarah T. Gillman (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Scott Michael Edson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Andrea Montavon-McKillip (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Anthony Richard Dominguez (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mark Andrew Prada (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Rebecca Ann Sharpless (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Romy Louise Lerner (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Chad Andrew Peterson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Petitioner Adrian Sosa Fletes

Drew Thompson Bell (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gregory P. Copeland (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/02/2021 PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jennifer Rae Coberly (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kathryn Stewart Lehman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lisa M Berlow-Lehner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Maia Fleischman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/17/2020
Paul R. Chavez (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sarah T. Gillman (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Scott Michael Edson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Andrea Montavon-McKillip (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Anthony Richard Dominguez

(See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mark Andrew Prada (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Rebecca Ann Sharpless (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Romy Louise Lerner (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Chad Andrew Peterson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Drew Thompson Bell (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gregory P. Copeland (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/02/2021 PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jennifer Rae Coberly (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kathryn Stewart Lehman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lisa M Berlow-Lehner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Maia Fleischman

Petitioner Alejandro Ferreira Borges

(See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/17/2020
Paul R. Chavez (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sarah T. Gillman (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Scott Michael Edson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Andrea Montavon-McKillip (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Anthony Richard Dominguez (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mark Andrew Prada (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Rebecca Ann Sharpless (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Romy Louise Lerner (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Chad Andrew Peterson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Petitioner Maikel Betancourt

Drew Thompson Bell (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gregory P. Copeland (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/02/2021 PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jennifer Rae Coberly (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kathryn Stewart Lehman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lisa M Berlow-Lehner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Maia Fleischman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/17/2020
Paul R. Chavez (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sarah T. Gillman (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Scott Michael Edson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Andrea Montavon-McKillip (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Anthony Richard Dominguez

(See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mark Andrew Prada (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Rebecca Ann Sharpless (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Romy Louise Lerner (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Allison Norris Americans for Immigrant Justice 6355 NW 36th Street Suite 2201 Miami, FL 33166 3055731106 Ext. 1992 Email: anorris@aijustice.org TERMINATED: 07/24/2020
Chad Andrew Peterson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Drew Thompson Bell (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gregory P. Copeland (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/02/2021 PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jennifer Rae Coberly (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Petitioner Gelber Sontay Funez

Kathryn Stewart Lehman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lisa M Berlow-Lehner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Maia Fleischman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/17/2020
Paul R. Chavez (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sarah T. Gillman (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Scott Michael Edson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Anthony Richard Dominguez (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mark Andrew Prada (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Rebecca Ann Sharpless (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Romy Louise Lerner (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Andrea Montavon-McKillip (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Chad Andrew Peterson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Drew Thompson Bell (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gregory P. Copeland (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/02/2021 PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jennifer Rae Coberly (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kathryn Stewart Lehman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lisa M Berlow-Lehner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Maia Fleischman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/17/2020
Paul R. Chavez (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sarah T. Gillman (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Scott Michael Edson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Petitioner Sirvanildo Bibiano Soares

represented by Andrea Montavon-McKillip (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Anthony Richard Dominguez (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mark Andrew Prada (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Rebecca Ann Sharpless (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Romy Louise Lerner (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Chad Andrew Peterson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Drew Thompson Bell (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gregory P. Copeland (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/02/2021 PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jennifer Rae Coberly (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kathryn Stewart Lehman (See above for address)

Petitioner Maykel Valera Ramirez

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lisa M Berlow-Lehner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Maia Fleischman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/17/2020
Paul R. Chavez (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sarah T. Gillman (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Scott Michael Edson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Andrea Montavon-McKillip (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Anthony Richard Dominguez (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mark Andrew Prada (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Rebecca Ann Sharpless (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Romy Louise Lerner (See above for address)

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Chad Andrew Peterson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Drew Thompson Bell (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gregory P. Copeland (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/02/2021 PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jennifer Rae Coberly (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kathryn Stewart Lehman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lisa M Berlow-Lehner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Maia Fleischman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/17/2020
Paul R. Chavez (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sarah T. Gillman (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Scott Michael Edson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Petitioner Ervin David Rodas Pedro

represented by Andrea Montavon-McKillip (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Anthony Richard Dominguez (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mark Andrew Prada (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Rebecca Ann Sharpless (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Romy Louise Lerner (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Chad Andrew Peterson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Drew Thompson Bell (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gregory P. Copeland Email: gregory@defensenetwork.org TERMINATED: 02/02/2021 PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jennifer Rae Coberly (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kathryn Stewart Lehman (See above for address)

Petitioner Julio Edwards

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lisa M Berlow-Lehner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Maia Fleischman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/17/2020
Paul R. Chavez (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sarah T. Gillman (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Scott Michael Edson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Andrea Montavon-McKillip (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Anthony Richard Dominguez (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mark Andrew Prada (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Romy Louise Lerner (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Chad Andrew Peterson (See above for address)

Petitioner

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Drew Thompson Bell (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gregory P. Copeland (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/02/2021 PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jennifer Rae Coberly (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kathryn Stewart Lehman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lisa M Berlow-Lehner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Maia Fleischman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/17/2020
Paul R. Chavez (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sarah T. Gillman (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Scott Michael Edson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Rebecca Ann Sharpless (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Eitan Yefet

represented by Andrea Montavon-McKillip (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Anthony Richard Dominguez (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mark Andrew Prada (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Romy Louise Lerner (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Chad Andrew Peterson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Drew Thompson Bell (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gregory P. Copeland (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/02/2021 PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jennifer Rae Coberly (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kathryn Stewart Lehman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lisa M Berlow-Lehner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Petitioner Fernando Goncalves

Maia Fleischman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/17/2020
Paul R. Chavez (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sarah T. Gillman (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Scott Michael Edson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Rebecca Ann Sharpless (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Andrea Montavon-McKillip (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Anthony Richard Dominguez (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mark Andrew Prada (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Romy Louise Lerner (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Chad Andrew Peterson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Petitioner Manuel Lopez Perez

Drew Thompson Bell (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gregory P. Copeland (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/02/2021 PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jennifer Rae Coberly (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kathryn Stewart Lehman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lisa M Berlow-Lehner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Maia Fleischman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/17/2020
Paul R. Chavez (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sarah T. Gillman (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Scott Michael Edson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Rebecca Ann Sharpless (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Andrea Montavon-McKillip (See above for address)

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Anthony Richard Dominguez (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mark Andrew Prada (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Romy Louise Lerner (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Chad Andrew Peterson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Drew Thompson Bell (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gregory P. Copeland (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/02/2021 PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jennifer Rae Coberly (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kathryn Stewart Lehman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lisa M Berlow-Lehner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Maia Fleischman (See above for address)

Petitioner Ricardo Perezo Alonzo

TERMINATED: 07/17/2020
Paul R. Chavez (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sarah T. Gillman (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Scott Michael Edson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Rebecca Ann Sharpless (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Andrea Montavon-McKillip (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Anthony Richard Dominguez (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mark Andrew Prada (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Romy Louise Lerner (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Chad Andrew Peterson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Drew Thompson Bell (See above for address)

Petitioner Thomas Lenor

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gregory P. Copeland (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/02/2021 PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jennifer Rae Coberly (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kathryn Stewart Lehman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lisa M Berlow-Lehner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Maia Fleischman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/17/2020
Paul R. Chavez (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sarah T. Gillman (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Scott Michael Edson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Rebecca Ann Sharpless (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Andrea Montavon-McKillip (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Anthony Richard Dominguez (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mark Andrew Prada (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Romy Louise Lerner (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Chad Andrew Peterson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Drew Thompson Bell (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gregory P. Copeland (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/02/2021 PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jennifer Rae Coberly (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kathryn Stewart Lehman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lisa M Berlow-Lehner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Maia Fleischman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/17/2020

Petitioner
Alejandro Vincenzo Mugaburu Tapia

Paul R. Chavez (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sarah T. Gillman (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Scott Michael Edson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Rebecca Ann Sharpless (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Andrea Montavon-McKillip (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Anthony Richard Dominguez (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mark Andrew Prada (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Romy Louise Lerner (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Chad Andrew Peterson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Drew Thompson Bell (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Petitioner Ariel Lucien

Gregory P. Copeland (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/02/2021 PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jennifer Rae Coberly (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kathryn Stewart Lehman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lisa M Berlow-Lehner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Maia Fleischman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/17/2020
Paul R. Chavez (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sarah T. Gillman (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Scott Michael Edson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Rebecca Ann Sharpless (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Andrea Montavon-McKillip (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Anthony Richard Dominguez

(See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mark Andrew Prada (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Romy Louise Lerner (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Chad Andrew Peterson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Drew Thompson Bell (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gregory P. Copeland (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/02/2021 PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jennifer Rae Coberly (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kathryn Stewart Lehman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lisa M Berlow-Lehner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Maia Fleischman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/17/2020
Paul R. Chavez (See above for address)

Petitioner Mohamed Hassan Ali

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sarah T. Gillman (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Scott Michael Edson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Rebecca Ann Sharpless (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Andrea Montavon-McKillip (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Anthony Richard Dominguez (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mark Andrew Prada (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Romy Louise Lerner (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Chad Andrew Peterson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Drew Thompson Bell (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gregory P. Copeland (See above for address)

Petitioner Carlos Hedman Perdomo

TERMINATED: 02/02/2021 PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jennifer Rae Coberly (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kathryn Stewart Lehman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lisa M Berlow-Lehner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Maia Fleischman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/17/2020
Paul R. Chavez (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sarah T. Gillman (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Scott Michael Edson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Rebecca Ann Sharpless (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Andrea Montavon-McKillip (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Anthony Richard Dominguez (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mark Andrew Prada (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Romy Louise Lerner (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Chad Andrew Peterson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Drew Thompson Bell (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gregory P. Copeland (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/02/2021 PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jennifer Rae Coberly (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kathryn Stewart Lehman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lisa M Berlow-Lehner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Maia Fleischman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/17/2020
Paul R. Chavez (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Petitioner Evarado Orantes Acevedo

Sarah T. Gillman (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Scott Michael Edson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Rebecca Ann Sharpless (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Andrea Montavon-McKillip (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Anthony Richard Dominguez (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mark Andrew Prada (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Romy Louise Lerner (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Chad Andrew Peterson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Drew Thompson Bell (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gregory P. Copeland (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/02/2021 PRO HAC VICE

Petitioner
Jose Galdino Montalvo Rodriguez

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jennifer Rae Coberly (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kathryn Stewart Lehman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lisa M Berlow-Lehner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Maia Fleischman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/17/2020
Paul R. Chavez (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sarah T. Gillman (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Scott Michael Edson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Rebecca Ann Sharpless (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Andrea Montavon-McKillip (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Anthony Richard Dominguez (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Mark Andrew Prada (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Romy Louise Lerner (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Chad Andrew Peterson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Drew Thompson Bell (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gregory P. Copeland (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/02/2021 PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jennifer Rae Coberly (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kathryn Stewart Lehman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lisa M Berlow-Lehner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Maia Fleischman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/17/2020
Paul R. Chavez (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sarah T. Gillman (See above for address)

Petitioner Abel Carrillo

PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Scott Michael Edson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Rebecca Ann Sharpless (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Andrea Montavon-McKillip (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Anthony Richard Dominguez (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mark Andrew Prada (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Romy Louise Lerner (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Chad Andrew Peterson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Drew Thompson Bell (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gregory P. Copeland (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/02/2021 PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Petitioner Maikel Carrasco Polo

Jennifer Rae Coberly (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kathryn Stewart Lehman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lisa M Berlow-Lehner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Maia Fleischman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/17/2020
Paul R. Chavez (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sarah T. Gillman (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Scott Michael Edson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Rebecca Ann Sharpless (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Andrea Montavon-McKillip (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Anthony Richard Dominguez (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mark Andrew Prada (See above for address)

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Romy Louise Lerner (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Chad Andrew Peterson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Drew Thompson Bell (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gregory P. Copeland (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/02/2021 PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jennifer Rae Coberly (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kathryn Stewart Lehman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lisa M Berlow-Lehner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Maia Fleischman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/17/2020
Paul R. Chavez (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sarah T. Gillman (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Petitioner Miguel Angel Marroquin Perez

Scott Michael Edson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Rebecca Ann Sharpless (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Andrea Montavon-McKillip (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Anthony Richard Dominguez (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mark Andrew Prada (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Romy Louise Lerner (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Chad Andrew Peterson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Drew Thompson Bell (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gregory P. Copeland (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/02/2021 PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jennifer Rae Coberly (See above for address)

Petitioner Maria Eugenia Rodriguez Claras

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kathryn Stewart Lehman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lisa M Berlow-Lehner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Maia Fleischman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/17/2020
Paul R. Chavez (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sarah T. Gillman (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Scott Michael Edson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Rebecca Ann Sharpless (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Andrea Montavon-McKillip (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Anthony Richard Dominguez (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mark Andrew Prada (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Romy Louise Lerner (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Chad Andrew Peterson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Drew Thompson Bell (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gregory P. Copeland (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/02/2021 PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jennifer Rae Coberly (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kathryn Stewart Lehman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lisa M Berlow-Lehner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Maia Fleischman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/17/2020
Paul R. Chavez (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sarah T. Gillman (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Scott Michael Edson

Petitioner Crisley Sacrab-Bin

(See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Rebecca Ann Sharpless (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Andrea Montavon-McKillip (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Anthony Richard Dominguez (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mark Andrew Prada (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Romy Louise Lerner (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Chad Andrew Peterson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Drew Thompson Bell (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gregory P. Copeland (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/02/2021 PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jennifer Rae Coberly (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Petitioner Danny Ruiz Garcia

Kathryn Stewart Lehman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lisa M Berlow-Lehner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Maia Fleischman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/17/2020
Paul R. Chavez (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sarah T. Gillman (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Scott Michael Edson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Rebecca Ann Sharpless (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Andrea Montavon-McKillip (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Anthony Richard Dominguez (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mark Andrew Prada (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Romy Louise Lerner

(See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Chad Andrew Peterson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Drew Thompson Bell (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gregory P. Copeland (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/02/2021 PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jennifer Rae Coberly (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kathryn Stewart Lehman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lisa M Berlow-Lehner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Maia Fleischman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/17/2020
Paul R. Chavez (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sarah T. Gillman (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Scott Michael Edson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Petitioner Deivys Perez Valladares

Rebecca Ann Sharpless (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Andrea Montavon-McKillip (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Anthony Richard Dominguez (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mark Andrew Prada (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Romy Louise Lerner (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Chad Andrew Peterson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Drew Thompson Bell (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gregory P. Copeland (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/02/2021 PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jennifer Rae Coberly (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kathryn Stewart Lehman (See above for address)

Petitioner Rolando Aguabella Martinez

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lisa M Berlow-Lehner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Maia Fleischman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/17/2020
Paul R. Chavez (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sarah T. Gillman (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Scott Michael Edson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Rebecca Ann Sharpless (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Andrea Montavon-McKillip (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Anthony Richard Dominguez (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mark Andrew Prada (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Romy Louise Lerner (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Chad Andrew Peterson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Drew Thompson Bell (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gregory P. Copeland (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/02/2021 PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jennifer Rae Coberly (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kathryn Stewart Lehman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lisa M Berlow-Lehner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Maia Fleischman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/17/2020 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Paul R. Chavez (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sarah T. Gillman (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Scott Michael Edson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Petitioner Yaniel Machado Aguila

Rebecca Ann Sharpless (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Andrea Montavon-McKillip (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Anthony Richard Dominguez (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mark Andrew Prada (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Romy Louise Lerner (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Chad Andrew Peterson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Drew Thompson Bell (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gregory P. Copeland (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/02/2021 PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jennifer Rae Coberly (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kathryn Stewart Lehman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Petitioner Omar Lopez-Jaramillo

Lisa M Berlow-Lehner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Maia Fleischman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/17/2020
Paul R. Chavez (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sarah T. Gillman (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Scott Michael Edson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Rebecca Ann Sharpless (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Andrea Montavon-McKillip (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Anthony Richard Dominguez (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mark Andrew Prada (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Romy Louise Lerner (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Chad Andrew Peterson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Drew Thompson Bell (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gregory P. Copeland (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/02/2021 PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jennifer Rae Coberly (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kathryn Stewart Lehman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lisa M Berlow-Lehner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Maia Fleischman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/17/2020
Paul R. Chavez (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sarah T. Gillman (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Scott Michael Edson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Rebecca Ann Sharpless

Petitioner Farhan Nawabit

(See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Andrea Montavon-McKillip (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Anthony Richard Dominguez (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mark Andrew Prada (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Romy Louise Lerner (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Chad Andrew Peterson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Drew Thompson Bell (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gregory P. Copeland (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/02/2021 PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jennifer Rae Coberly (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kathryn Stewart Lehman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Petitioner Maxuel A De Souza

Lisa M Berlow-Lehner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Maia Fleischman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/17/2020
Paul R. Chavez (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sarah T. Gillman (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Scott Michael Edson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Rebecca Ann Sharpless (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Andrea Montavon-McKillip (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Anthony Richard Dominguez (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mark Andrew Prada (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Romy Louise Lerner (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Chad Andrew Peterson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Drew Thompson Bell (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gregory P. Copeland (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/02/2021 PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jennifer Rae Coberly (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kathryn Stewart Lehman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lisa M Berlow-Lehner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Maia Fleischman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/17/2020
Paul R. Chavez (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sarah T. Gillman (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Scott Michael Edson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Rebecca Ann Sharpless (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Petitioner Alvaro Roa Calicchio
Petitioner Miryam Elizabeth Lopez Herrera 1 45 NE 42nd Street Miami, FL 33137

represented by Gennaro Cariglio , Jr 8101 Biscayne Blvd PH 701 Miami, FL 33138 305-899-0438 Fax: 305-373-3832 Email: Sobeachlaw@aol.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Drew Thompson Bell (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gregory Vincent Alcaro Gregory Vincent Alcaro, P.A. 8101 Biscayne Boulevard PH-701 Miami, FL 33138 4132819288 Email: gregory.alcaro@gmail.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jennifer Rae Coberly (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Maia Fleischman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/17/2020
Scott Michael Edson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Drew Thompson Bell (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jennifer Rae Coberly (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Petitioner Hilcias Ricardo Hujber
Petitioner Hilcias Batz

Linda Marguerite Osberg-Braun Osberg Braun Immigration 10800 Biscayne Boulevard Suite 925 Miami, FL 33161 305-350-0707 Fax: 305-895-0364 Email: osberg@osberglaw.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Maia Fleischman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/17/2020
Scott Michael Edson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Drew Thompson Bell (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Scott Michael Edson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Drew Thompson Bell (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Richard Arpad Hujber Hujber Law Group, P.A. 703 W Boynton Beach Boulevard Boynton Beach, FL 33426 5614178472 Fax: 5614172575 Email: richardhujber@yahoo.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Scott Michael Edson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Petitioner Hilcias Batz 703 West Boynton Beach Blvd Boynton Beach, FL 33426 United Sta 5614178472
V. Intervenor Plaintiff Rodney Martin

represented by Drew Thompson Bell (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Scott Michael Edson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Erica Perdomo Stumphauzer Foslid Sloman Ross & Kolaya, PLLC Two South Biscayne Boulevard Suite 2550 Miami, FL 33131 305-371-9686 Email: eperdomo@sfslaw.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Drew Thompson Bell (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ian M. Ross Stumphauzer Foslid Sloman Ross & Kolaya, PLLC Two S. Biscayne Boulevard Suite 1600 Miami, FL 33131 305-614-1400 Email: iross@sfslaw.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jennifer Rae Coberly (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Scott Michael Edson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Intervenor Plaintiff Hatem Chourabi A089568906 Glades County Detention Center Inmate Mail/Parcels P.O. Box 39 Moore Haven, FL 33471 863-946-0062
Intervenor Plaintiff Esq. Sharon Kegerreis 1450 Brickell Ave Suite 1900 Miami, FL 33131
Intervenor Plaintiff Lathario G Rolle c/o Berger Singerman LLP Sharon Kegerreis 1450 Brickell Avenue Suite 1900 Miami, FL 3313`

represented by Mark Andrew Prada (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Patrick Farrell Trese The Law Office of Patrick Trese 12 SE 7th Street, Suite 703 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 (954) 761 9166 Fax: (954) 761 9149 Email: ptrese@gmail.com TERMINATED: 11/17/2020 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Drew Thompson Bell (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jennifer Rae Coberly (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Scott Michael Edson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Drew Thompson Bell (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Scott Michael Edson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Drew Thompson Bell (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mitchell Wayne Berger Berger Singerman

V.
Respondent
Field Office Director, Miami Field Office, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Michael W. Meade

Las Olas Centre II 350 E Las Olas Boulevard Suite 1000 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 954-525-9900 Fax: 523-2872 Email: mberger@bergersingerman.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Scott Michael Edson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sharon L. Kegerreis Berger Singerman LLP 1450 Brickell Avenue Suite 1900 Miami, FL 33131 305-755-9500 Fax: 305-714-4340 Email: skegerreis@bergersingerman.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Noticing 2241/Bivens US Attorney Email: usafls-2255@usdoj.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Dexter Lee United States Attorney's Office 99 NE 4 Street Miami, FL 33132 305-961-9320 Fax: 530-7139 Email: dexter.lee@usdoj.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Natalie Diaz U.S. Attorney's Office

Respondent
U.S. Attorney General William P. Barr

99 NE 4th Street 3rd Floor Miami, FL 33132 305-961-9306 Fax: 305-530-7139 Email: natalie.diaz@usdoj.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Noticing INS Attorney Email: usaflsimmigration@usdoj.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jennifer Rae Coberly (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael A. Celone U.S. Department of Justice Civil Division Office of Immigration Litigation, District Court Section P.O. Box 868, Ben Franklin Station Washington, DC 20044 202-305-2040 Email: michael.a.celone@usdoj.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Noticing 2241/Bivens US Attorney (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Dexter Lee (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Natalie Diaz (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Noticing INS Attorney

Intervenor Reinier Guiba Avila

(See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jennifer Rae Coberly (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael A. Celone (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Francisco Armada Nelson Mullins Broad and Cassel 2 South Biscayne Blvd. 21st Floor Miami, FL 33131 (305) 373-9474 Fax: (305) 995-6440 Email: francisco.armada@nelsonmullins.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kayla Nicole Keller Nelson Mullins Broad and Cassel Nelson Mullins 2 South Biscayne Boulevard Ste 21st Floor Miami, FL 33131 210-573-5327 Email: Kayla.Keller@NelsonMullins.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sara Michele Klco Nelson Mullins Broad and Cassel One Biscayne Tower 2 S. Biscayne Boulevard - 21st FL Miami, FL 33131 3053739461 Email: sara.klco@nelsonmullins.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Intervenor Luis Enrique Lopez-Pena
Intervenor

Drew Thompson Bell (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Megan Nicole Kilissanly Nelson Mullins Riley , Scarborough LLP 2 S Biscayne Blvd. 21st Floor Miami, FL 33131 (305) 373-9407 Email: megan.kilissanly@nelsonmullins.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Scott Michael Edson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Francisco Armada (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kayla Nicole Keller Nelson Mullins Broad and Cassel 2 South Biscayne Boulevard Ste 21st Floor Miami, FL 33131 210-573-5327 Email: Kayla.Keller@NelsonMullins.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Drew Thompson Bell (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Scott Michael Edson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Lazaro Jose Gutierrez Suarez
Intervenor Iran Antonio Pichardo PerezBorroto
Intervenor Miguel A Zetina

represented by Francisco Armada (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kayla Nicole Keller (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Drew Thompson Bell (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Scott Michael Edson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Kayla Nicole Keller (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Drew Thompson Bell (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Megan Nicole Kilissanly (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Scott Michael Edson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Mark Andrew Prada (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Drew Thompson Bell (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Scott Michael Edson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 04/13/2020
04/13/2020 04/13/2020
04/13/2020

# Docket Text
1 APPLICATION/PETITION (Complaint) for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2241 and Complaint. Filing fee $ 5.00 receipt number AFLSDC-12733241, filed by Patrick Gayle. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Notice of Related Case, # 2 Exhibit Dr. Shin Declaration, # 3 Exhibit Dr. Greer Declaration, # 4 Appendix I, # 5 Exhibit Motion for Emergency Hearing, # 6 Civil Cover Sheet, # 7 Exhibit Emergency Motion for Temporary Restraining Order, # 8 Text of Proposed Order, # 9 Exhibit Motion to Exceed Page Limitation, # 10 Text of Proposed Order, # 11 Summon(s))(Sharpless, Rebecca) (Entered: 04/13/2020)
2 Clerks Notice of Judge Assignment to Judge Marcia G. Cooke. (ebz) (Entered: 04/13/2020)
3 MOTION FOR EMERGENCY HEARING by Juan Carlos Alfaro Garcia, Javier Antonio Arias-Martinez, Naim Arrak, Dairon Barredo Sanchez, Maikel Betancourt, Sirvanildo Bibiano Soares, Jose Chavez, Hassan Mohamed Farah, Alejandro Ferreira Borges, Ruben Orlando Flores Ramos, Patrick Gayle, Franklin Ramon Gonzalez, Mohamed Hasan, Abdul Jalloh, Aparicio P. Jeronimo, Muhammad Alam Khan, Tolentino Martinez Rios, Irvin Medoza Silis, Cesar Ariel Mendez Escobar, Darwyn Yovanny Navarrette Sanchez, Lazaro Ocana Guzman, Roseline Ostine, Tahimi Perez, Wilder Perez Limones, Francisco Rivero Valeron, Ervin David Rodas Pedro, Rene Jonathan Rosas Cardenas, Gelber Sontay Funez, Adrian Sosa Fletes, Fermin Tepetate-Martinez, Maykel Valera Ramirez, Geraldo Vargas, Agane Warsame, Eliseo Antonio Zamora Mendoza. (ebz) (Entered: 04/13/2020)
4 PETITIONERS EMERGENCY MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION FOR PROPOSED CLASS AND INCORPORATED MEMORANDUM OF LAW (Responses due by 4/27/2020). by Juan Carlos Alfaro Garcia, Javier Antonio Arias-Martinez, Naim Arrak, Dairon Barredo Sanchez, Maikel Betancourt, Sirvanildo Bibiano Soares, Jose Chavez, Hassan Mohamed Farah, Alejandro Ferreira Borges, Ruben Orlando Flores Ramos, Patrick Gayle, Franklin Ramon Gonzalez, Mohamed Hasan, Abdul Jalloh, Aparicio P. Jeronimo, Muhammad Alam Khan, Tolentino Martinez Rios, Irvin Medoza Silis, Cesar Ariel Mendez Escobar, Darwyn Yovanny Navarrette Sanchez, Lazaro Ocana Guzman,

04/13/2020 04/13/2020 04/13/2020
04/13/2020

Roseline Ostine, Tahimi Perez, Wilder Perez Limones, Francisco Rivero Valeron, Ervin David Rodas Pedro, Rene Jonathan Rosas Cardenas, Gelber Sontay Funez, Adrian Sosa Fletes, Fermin Tepetate-Martinez, Maykel Valera Ramirez, Geraldo Vargas, Agane Warsame, Eliseo Antonio Zamora Mendoza. (ebz) (Entered: 04/13/2020)
5 NOTICE of Attorney Appearance by Noticing INS Attorney on behalf of Field Office Director, Miami Field Office, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, U.S. Attorney General. (asl) (Entered: 04/13/2020)
6 Summons Issued as to Field Office Director, Miami Field Office, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, U.S. Attorney General, U.S. Attorney and U.S. Attorney General (ebz) (Entered: 04/13/2020)
7 APPENDIX to 1 Application/Petition (Complaint) for Writ of Habeas Corpus,, 4 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order MOTION for Preliminary Injunction by Juan Carlos Alfaro Garcia, Javier Antonio Arias-Martinez, Naim Arrak, Dairon Barredo Sanchez, Maikel Betancourt, Sirvanildo Bibiano Soares, Jose Chavez, Hassan Mohamed Farah, Alejandro Ferreira Borges, Ruben Orlando Flores Ramos, Patrick Gayle, Franklin Ramon Gonzalez, Mohamed Hasan, Abdul Jalloh, Aparicio P. Jeronimo, Muhammad Alam Khan, Tolentino Martinez Rios, Irvin Medoza Silis, Cesar Ariel Mendez Escobar, Darwyn Yovanny Navarrette Sanchez, Lazaro Ocana Guzman, Roseline Ostine, Tahimi Perez, Wilder Perez Limones, Francisco Rivero Valeron, Ervin David Rodas Pedro, Rene Jonathan Rosas Cardenas, Gelber Sontay Funez, Adrian Sosa Fletes, Fermin Tepetate-Martinez, Maykel Valera Ramirez, Geraldo Vargas, Agane Warsame, Eliseo Antonio Zamora Mendoza (Prada, Mark) (Entered: 04/13/2020)
8 APPENDIX to 1 Application/Petition (Complaint) for Writ of Habeas Corpus,, Appendix II, Detainee Declarations by Juan Carlos Alfaro Garcia, Javier Antonio Arias-Martinez, Naim Arrak, Dairon Barredo Sanchez, Maikel Betancourt, Sirvanildo Bibiano Soares, Jose Chavez, Hassan Mohamed Farah, Alejandro Ferreira Borges, Ruben Orlando Flores Ramos, Patrick Gayle, Franklin Ramon Gonzalez, Mohamed Hasan, Abdul Jalloh, Aparicio P. Jeronimo, Muhammad Alam Khan, Tolentino Martinez Rios, Irvin Medoza Silis, Cesar Ariel Mendez Escobar, Darwyn Yovanny Navarrette Sanchez, Lazaro Ocana Guzman, Roseline Ostine, Tahimi Perez, Wilder Perez Limones, Francisco Rivero Valeron, Ervin David Rodas Pedro, Rene Jonathan Rosas Cardenas, Gelber Sontay Funez, Adrian Sosa Fletes, Fermin Tepetate-Martinez, Maykel Valera Ramirez, Geraldo Vargas, Agane Warsame, Eliseo Antonio Zamora Mendoza (Attachments: # 1 Appendix Appendix II: Detainee Declarations)(Dominguez, Anthony) (Entered: 04/13/2020)

04/13/2020

9 MOTION to Appear Pro Hac Vice, Consent to Designation, and Request to Electronically Receive Notices of Electronic Filing for Gregory Copeland. Filing Fee $ 200.00 Receipt # AFLSDC-12735426 by Juan Carlos Alfaro Garcia, Javier Antonio Arias-Martinez, Naim Arrak, Dairon Barredo Sanchez, Maikel Betancourt, Sirvanildo Bibiano Soares, Jose Chavez, Hassan Mohamed Farah, Alejandro Ferreira Borges, Ruben Orlando Flores Ramos, Patrick Gayle, Franklin Ramon Gonzalez, Mohamed Hasan, Abdul Jalloh, Aparicio P. Jeronimo, Muhammad Alam Khan, Tolentino Martinez Rios, Irvin Medoza Silis, Cesar Ariel Mendez Escobar, Darwyn Yovanny Navarrette Sanchez, Lazaro Ocana Guzman, Roseline Ostine, Tahimi Perez, Wilder Perez Limones, Francisco Rivero Valeron, Ervin David Rodas Pedro, Rene Jonathan Rosas Cardenas, Gelber Sontay Funez, Adrian Sosa Fletes, Fermin Tepetate-Martinez, Maykel Valera Ramirez, Geraldo Vargas, Agane Warsame, Eliseo Antonio Zamora Mendoza. Responses due by 4/27/2020 (Prada, Mark) (Entered: 04/13/2020)

04/13/2020

10 MOTION to Appear Pro Hac Vice, Consent to Designation, and Request to Electronically Receive Notices of Electronic Filing for Sarah Gillman. Filing Fee $ 200.00 Receipt # AFLSDC-12735443 by Juan Carlos Alfaro Garcia, Javier Antonio Arias-Martinez, Naim Arrak, Dairon Barredo Sanchez, Maikel Betancourt, Sirvanildo Bibiano Soares, Jose Chavez, Hassan Mohamed Farah, Alejandro Ferreira Borges, Ruben Orlando Flores Ramos, Patrick Gayle, Franklin Ramon Gonzalez, Mohamed Hasan, Abdul Jalloh, Aparicio P. Jeronimo, Muhammad Alam Khan, Tolentino Martinez Rios, Irvin Medoza Silis, Cesar Ariel Mendez Escobar, Darwyn Yovanny Navarrette Sanchez, Lazaro Ocana Guzman, Roseline Ostine, Tahimi Perez, Wilder Perez Limones, Francisco Rivero Valeron, Ervin David Rodas Pedro, Rene Jonathan Rosas Cardenas, Gelber Sontay Funez, Adrian Sosa Fletes, Fermin Tepetate-Martinez, Maykel Valera Ramirez, Geraldo Vargas, Agane Warsame, Eliseo Antonio Zamora Mendoza. Responses due by 4/27/2020 (Prada, Mark) (Entered: 04/13/2020)

04/13/2020

11 ORDER OF REFERRAL AND ORDER REGARDING COURT PRACTICES AND PROCEDURES. Motions referred to Judge Jonathan Goodman. Signed by Judge Marcia G. Cooke on 4/13/2020. See attached document for full details. (kou) (Entered: 04/13/2020)

04/13/2020 12 ENDORSED ORDER Regarding Phone Calls to Chambers.

The following rules apply in this and all other civil matters pending before Judge Marcia G. Cooke:

1. Do not call Chambers to ask about the status of pending motions, including motions for extension of time. The Court is aware of all pending motions and will address each of them in due course.

2. Do not call Chambers if the information you seek, or seek to provide, can be conveyed through a filing on the docket.

3. Do not call Chambers if the information you seek is available from other sources, including Court Orders and the Local Rules.

4. If you call Chambers for a permissible purpose, counsel for all affected parties must be on the line. Calls from non-attorneys and ex parte calls will not be accepted.

Signed by Judge Marcia G. Cooke on 4/13/2020. (kou) (Entered: 04/13/2020)

04/14/2020

13 PAPERLESS ORDER granting 9 , 10 Motions to Appear Pro Hac Vice, Consent to Designation, and Request to Electronically Receive Notices of Electronic Filing for Attorneys Gregory Copeland and Sarah Gillman. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jonathan Goodman on 4/14/2020. (jzn) (Entered: 04/14/2020)

04/14/2020

14 ENDORSED ORDER REFERRING 3 Motion for Hearing and 4 Motion for Temporary Restraining Order. Motions referred to Judge Jonathan Goodman. Signed by Judge Marcia G. Cooke on 4/14/2020. (kou) (Entered: 04/14/2020)

04/14/2020

15 PAPERLESS ORDER Setting Emergency Telephonic Status Conference for 4/14/2020 at 4:15 PM in the Miami Division before Magistrate Judge Jonathan Goodman.

Attendance may be made by following the call-in procedures: (1) dial 1888-684-8852; (2) enter Access Code Number 8004594, followed by the # sign; and (3) enter Security Code Number 1213, followed by the # sign. The Undersigned prefers that the primary advocate attorneys use a landline, but the Court understands that attorneys may now be working remotely and lack landline access, so those attorneys may use cell phones without placing them on mute. Cellphone attendees other than the primary participating attorneys (such as co-counsel, members of the public, etc.), after noting their appearances, must remain on mute.

Counsel should be prepared to discuss an expedited briefing schedule and the scheduling of an emergency hearing. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jonathan Goodman on 4/14/2020. (jzn) (Entered: 04/14/2020)

04/14/2020

16 NOTICE of Attorney Appearance by Natalie Diaz on behalf of Field Office Director, Miami Field Office, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, U.S. Attorney General. Attorney Natalie Diaz added to party Field Office Director, Miami Field Office, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement(pty:res), Attorney Natalie Diaz added to party U.S. Attorney General(pty:res). (Diaz, Natalie) (Entered: 04/14/2020)

04/14/2020

17 PAPERLESS ORDER Setting Telephonic Motion Hearing on 4 Plaintiffs' Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Motion for Preliminary Injunction for 4/17/2020 at 4:00 PM in the Miami Division before Magistrate Judge Jonathan Goodman.

Attendance may be made by following the call-in procedures: (1) dial 1888-684-8852; (2) enter Access Code Number 8004594, followed by the # sign; and (3) enter Security Code Number 1213, followed by the # sign. If feasible, counsel who will be arguing the motion or speaking at the hearing must dial in from a landline; cellphone attendees other than the primary participating attorneys (such as co-counsel, members of the public, etc.), after noting their appearances, must remain on mute. The Undersigned prefers that the primary advocate attorneys use a landline, but the Court understands that attorneys may now be working remotely and lack landline access, so those attorneys may use cell phones without placing them on mute. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jonathan Goodman on 4/14/2020. (jzn) (Entered: 04/14/2020)

04/14/2020

18 POST-HEARING ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jonathan Goodman on 4/14/2020. See attached document for full details. (jzn) (Entered: 04/14/2020)

04/14/2020 19 SUPPLEMENTAL PAPERLESS ORDER re 18 Order Following Telephone Hearing.

This Order supplements the post-hearing Order [ECF No. 18] I entered this afternoon. It imposes an additional disclosure requirement on the Defendants.

The Defendants shall, by noon on Thursday, April 16, 2020, explain in a declaration whether any of the 34 named class action plaintiffs have been transferred out of an immigration detention facility after the lawsuit was filed. If the answer is "yes," then the Defendants shall provide the name of each plaintiff transferred, when the transfer occurred and the facility to which the detainee was transferred.

The person who signs this declaration need not be the same person who signs a declaration concerning the allegations in the Verified Complaint and emergency motion for a TRO, though it certainly can be that same

person (or persons). Signed by Magistrate Judge Jonathan Goodman on 4/14/2020. (JG) (Entered: 04/14/2020)

04/14/2020 20 PAPERLESS ORDER re 18 Order.

This Order clarifies the post-hearing administrative order. Specifically, it provides more-specific information about the phrase "staff members" in numbered paragraph 2 of the Order.

"Staff members" is not limited to actual ICE employees or employees of the United States or one of its agencies or departments. To the contrary, it is designed to encompass anyone and everyone who works at the three facilities -- including, by way of example, employees of third party contractors who provide services and personnel to the detention centers.

Thus, to provide one specific illustration, if a company, such as Akima, provides services or employees at the Krome detention facility, then Akima employees who work as guards (or nurses or counselors or administrative aides or any other position at the detention center) would be included in the term "staff members."

This same definition applies for all three detention centers.

The purpose of the declarations is to provide the Court with information, and the information should be comprehensive and not limited by technicalities, such as whether a guard or officer is a government employee or an employee of a third party contractor or contracting vendor. For purposes of gauging the health risk to detainees, it matters little whether a COVID-19-infected guard or officer receives a paycheck from the United States or from Akima (or some other company).

If this clarification requires Defendants to obtain information from Akima and/or other contracting parties, then so be it. The point is, I don't want to be on the short end of the information stick. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jonathan Goodman on 4/14/2020. (JG) (Entered: 04/14/2020)

04/14/2020

21 PAPERLESS Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Jonathan Goodman: Telephonic Status Conference held on 4/14/2020. Total time in court: 1 hour. Attorney Appearance(s): Mark Andrew Prada, Anthony Richard Dominguez, Andrea Montavon-McKillip, Gregory P. Copeland, Sarah T. Gillman, Rebecca Ann Sharpless, Natalie Diaz, Alex Izzo, Michelle Ressler, Maia Fleischman, Luiba Gonzalez-Lopez, Paul Chavez, Angel Flemin, Michael Lee, and Dexter Lee. (Digital JG_01_0414-2020) (fbn) (Entered: 04/14/2020)

04/15/2020

22 NOTICE of Attorney Appearance by Maia Fleischman on behalf of Juan Carlos Alfaro Garcia, Javier Antonio Arias-Martinez, Naim Arrak, Dairon Barredo Sanchez, Maikel Betancourt, Sirvanildo Bibiano Soares, Jose Chavez, Hassan Mohamed Farah, Alejandro Ferreira Borges. Attorney Maia Fleischman added to party Juan Carlos Alfaro Garcia(pty:pet), Attorney Maia Fleischman added to party Javier Antonio AriasMartinez(pty:pet), Attorney Maia Fleischman added to party Naim Arrak(pty:pet), Attorney Maia Fleischman added to party Dairon Barredo Sanchez(pty:pet), Attorney Maia Fleischman added to party Maikel Betancourt(pty:pet), Attorney Maia Fleischman added to party Sirvanildo Bibiano Soares(pty:pet), Attorney Maia Fleischman added to party Jose Chavez(pty:pet), Attorney Maia Fleischman added to party Hassan Mohamed Farah(pty:pet), Attorney Maia Fleischman added to party Alejandro Ferreira Borges(pty:pet). (Fleischman, Maia) (Entered: 04/15/2020)

04/15/2020

23 NOTICE of Attorney Appearance by Maia Fleischman on behalf of Ruben Orlando Flores Ramos, Patrick Gayle, Franklin Ramon Gonzalez, Mohamed Hasan, Abdul Jalloh, Aparicio P. Jeronimo, Muhammad Alam Khan, Tolentino Martinez Rios, Irvin Medoza Silis, Cesar Ariel Mendez Escobar, Darwyn Yovanny Navarrette Sanchez, Lazaro Ocana Guzman, Roseline Ostine, Tahimi Perez, Wilder Perez Limones, Francisco Rivero Valeron, Ervin David Rodas Pedro, Rene Jonathan Rosas Cardenas, Gelber Sontay Funez, Adrian Sosa Fletes, Fermin Tepetate-Martinez. Attorney Maia Fleischman added to party Ruben Orlando Flores Ramos(pty:pet), Attorney Maia Fleischman added to party Patrick Gayle(pty:pet), Attorney Maia Fleischman added to party Franklin Ramon Gonzalez(pty:pet), Attorney Maia Fleischman added to party Mohamed Hasan(pty:pet), Attorney Maia Fleischman added to party Abdul Jalloh(pty:pet), Attorney Maia Fleischman added to party Aparicio P. Jeronimo(pty:pet), Attorney Maia Fleischman added to party Muhammad Alam Khan(pty:pet), Attorney Maia Fleischman added to party Tolentino Martinez Rios(pty:pet), Attorney Maia Fleischman added to party Irvin Medoza Silis(pty:pet), Attorney Maia Fleischman added to party Cesar Ariel Mendez Escobar(pty:pet), Attorney Maia Fleischman added to party Darwyn Yovanny Navarrette Sanchez(pty:pet), Attorney Maia Fleischman added to party Lazaro Ocana Guzman(pty:pet), Attorney Maia Fleischman added to party Roseline Ostine(pty:pet), Attorney Maia Fleischman added to party Tahimi Perez(pty:pet), Attorney Maia Fleischman added to party Wilder Perez Limones(pty:pet), Attorney Maia Fleischman added to party Francisco Rivero Valeron(pty:pet), Attorney Maia Fleischman added to party Ervin David Rodas Pedro(pty:pet), Attorney Maia Fleischman added to party Rene Jonathan Rosas Cardenas(pty:pet), Attorney Maia Fleischman added to party Gelber Sontay Funez(pty:pet), Attorney Maia Fleischman added to party Adrian Sosa Fletes(pty:pet), Attorney Maia Fleischman added to

party Fermin Tepetate-Martinez(pty:pet). (Fleischman, Maia) (Entered: 04/15/2020)

04/15/2020

24 NOTICE of Attorney Appearance by Maia Fleischman on behalf of Maykel Valera Ramirez, Geraldo Vargas, Agane Warsame, Eliseo Antonio Zamora Mendoza. Attorney Maia Fleischman added to party Maykel Valera Ramirez(pty:pet), Attorney Maia Fleischman added to party Geraldo Vargas(pty:pet), Attorney Maia Fleischman added to party Agane Warsame(pty:pet), Attorney Maia Fleischman added to party Eliseo Antonio Zamora Mendoza(pty:pet). (Fleischman, Maia) (Entered: 04/15/2020)

04/15/2020

25 NOTICE of Attorney Appearance by Lisa M Berlow-Lehner on behalf of Juan Carlos Alfaro Garcia, Javier Antonio Arias-Martinez, Naim Arrak, Dairon Barredo Sanchez, Maikel Betancourt, Sirvanildo Bibiano Soares, Jose Chavez, Hassan Mohamed Farah, Alejandro Ferreira Borges, Ruben Orlando Flores Ramos, Patrick Gayle, Franklin Ramon Gonzalez, Mohamed Hasan, Abdul Jalloh, Aparicio P. Jeronimo, Muhammad Alam Khan, Tolentino Martinez Rios, Irvin Medoza Silis, Cesar Ariel Mendez Escobar, Darwyn Yovanny Navarrette Sanchez, Lazaro Ocana Guzman, Roseline Ostine, Tahimi Perez, Wilder Perez Limones, Francisco Rivero Valeron, Ervin David Rodas Pedro, Rene Jonathan Rosas Cardenas, Gelber Sontay Funez, Adrian Sosa Fletes, Fermin Tepetate-Martinez, Maykel Valera Ramirez, Geraldo Vargas, Agane Warsame, Eliseo Antonio Zamora Mendoza. Attorney Lisa M Berlow-Lehner added to party Juan Carlos Alfaro Garcia(pty:pet), Attorney Lisa M Berlow-Lehner added to party Javier Antonio Arias-Martinez(pty:pet), Attorney Lisa M Berlow-Lehner added to party Naim Arrak(pty:pet), Attorney Lisa M Berlow-Lehner added to party Dairon Barredo Sanchez(pty:pet), Attorney Lisa M Berlow-Lehner added to party Maikel Betancourt(pty:pet), Attorney Lisa M Berlow-Lehner added to party Sirvanildo Bibiano Soares(pty:pet), Attorney Lisa M Berlow-Lehner added to party Jose Chavez(pty:pet), Attorney Lisa M Berlow-Lehner added to party Hassan Mohamed Farah(pty:pet), Attorney Lisa M Berlow-Lehner added to party Alejandro Ferreira Borges(pty:pet), Attorney Lisa M Berlow-Lehner added to party Ruben Orlando Flores Ramos(pty:pet), Attorney Lisa M Berlow-Lehner added to party Patrick Gayle(pty:pet), Attorney Lisa M Berlow-Lehner added to party Franklin Ramon Gonzalez(pty:pet), Attorney Lisa M Berlow-Lehner added to party Mohamed Hasan(pty:pet), Attorney Lisa M Berlow-Lehner added to party Abdul Jalloh(pty:pet), Attorney Lisa M Berlow-Lehner added to party Aparicio P. Jeronimo(pty:pet), Attorney Lisa M Berlow-Lehner added to party Muhammad Alam Khan(pty:pet), Attorney Lisa M Berlow-Lehner added to party Tolentino Martinez Rios(pty:pet), Attorney Lisa M BerlowLehner added to party Irvin Medoza Silis(pty:pet), Attorney Lisa M Berlow-Lehner added to party Cesar Ariel Mendez Escobar(pty:pet),

Attorney Lisa M Berlow-Lehner added to party Darwyn Yovanny Navarrette Sanchez(pty:pet), Attorney Lisa M Berlow-Lehner added to party Lazaro Ocana Guzman(pty:pet), Attorney Lisa M Berlow-Lehner added to party Roseline Ostine(pty:pet), Attorney Lisa M Berlow-Lehner added to party Tahimi Perez(pty:pet), Attorney Lisa M Berlow-Lehner added to party Wilder Perez Limones(pty:pet), Attorney Lisa M BerlowLehner added to party Francisco Rivero Valeron(pty:pet), Attorney Lisa M Berlow-Lehner added to party Ervin David Rodas Pedro(pty:pet), Attorney Lisa M Berlow-Lehner added to party Rene Jonathan Rosas Cardenas(pty:pet), Attorney Lisa M Berlow-Lehner added to party Gelber Sontay Funez(pty:pet), Attorney Lisa M Berlow-Lehner added to party Adrian Sosa Fletes(pty:pet), Attorney Lisa M Berlow-Lehner added to party Fermin Tepetate-Martinez(pty:pet), Attorney Lisa M BerlowLehner added to party Maykel Valera Ramirez(pty:pet), Attorney Lisa M Berlow-Lehner added to party Geraldo Vargas(pty:pet), Attorney Lisa M Berlow-Lehner added to party Agane Warsame(pty:pet), Attorney Lisa M Berlow-Lehner added to party Eliseo Antonio Zamora Mendoza(pty:pet). (Berlow-Lehner, Lisa) (Entered: 04/15/2020)

04/15/2020

26 Plaintiff's MOTION to include supplemental questions in administrative orders re 18 Order, 19 Order,,, 20 Order,,,,,,, by Juan Carlos Alfaro Garcia, Javier Antonio Arias-Martinez, Naim Arrak, Dairon Barredo Sanchez, Maikel Betancourt, Sirvanildo Bibiano Soares, Jose Chavez, Hassan Mohamed Farah, Alejandro Ferreira Borges, Ruben Orlando Flores Ramos, Patrick Gayle, Franklin Ramon Gonzalez, Mohamed Hasan, Abdul Jalloh, Aparicio P. Jeronimo, Muhammad Alam Khan, Tolentino Martinez Rios, Irvin Medoza Silis, Cesar Ariel Mendez Escobar, Darwyn Yovanny Navarrette Sanchez, Lazaro Ocana Guzman, Roseline Ostine, Tahimi Perez, Wilder Perez Limones, Francisco Rivero Valeron, Ervin David Rodas Pedro, Rene Jonathan Rosas Cardenas, Gelber Sontay Funez, Adrian Sosa Fletes, Fermin Tepetate-Martinez, Maykel Valera Ramirez, Geraldo Vargas, Agane Warsame, Eliseo Antonio Zamora Mendoza. Attorney Andrea Montavon-McKillip added to party Gelber Sontay Funez(pty:pet). (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Montavon-McKillip, Andrea) (Entered: 04/15/2020)

04/15/2020 27 PAPERLESS ORDER denying 26 Without Prejudice Plaintiffs' Motion For Supplemental Questions.

Plaintiffs' motion asks for supplemental questions, but their request is more akin to a comprehensive written discovery package. In effect, it is a request for production of documents, interrogatories and a de facto Rule 30(b)(6) deposition of a government entity.

In reality, because most of proposed supplemental questions contain multiple sub-parts, it essentially seeks detailed information about more

than 110 topics. Moreover, it asks for the information about three separate facilities, which means it actually seeks answers to more than 330 inquiries.

Remarkably, it asks that I order the Defendants to respond by tomorrow at noon and to include the answers in the declarations previously ordered. Alternatively, Plaintiffs' motion asks that Defendants include the supplemental information and documents and produce all of it by noon on Friday.

Wow.

Notwithstanding the massive effort which would be required to adequately respond to these questions and requests for documents and fact-specific details, Plaintiffs say they do not want the requested discovery to delay the hearing -- scheduled for 4:00 p.m. the day after tomorrow.

Although the requested information may well be relevant, it is patently unreasonable to expect Defendants to comply by either of the two incredibly tight deadlines proffered by Defendants.

Plaintiffs' motion represents that they want the hearing to go forward, so I am taking them at their word and will not postpone the hearing. But, by the same token, I will not impose an unreasonable burden on Defendants and set them up for failure by requiring the impossible.

Perhaps the information and documents requested in the motion will be required at some point in this case. But it surely won't be within 48 hours. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jonathan Goodman on 4/15/2020. (JG) (Entered: 04/15/2020)

04/15/2020

28 PAPERLESS ORDER re 18 setting Zoom Hearing set for 4/17/2020 04:00 PM in Miami Division before Magistrate Judge Jonathan Goodman. The hearing will be conducted via ZOOM, as follows: Join ZoomGov Meeting- https://www.zoomgov.com/j/1611592378. Meeting ID: 161 159 2378. Password: 639688. This Zoom hearing is the digital equivalent of an actual, in-court hearing, so counsel are expected to dress as though they are in an actual federal courtroom. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jonathan Goodman on 4/15/2020. (fbn) Modified text on 4/15/2020 (fbn). (Entered: 04/15/2020)

04/15/2020

29 AMENDED PAPERLESS ORDER re 18 setting Zoom Hearing set for 4/17/2020 04:00 PM in Miami Division before Magistrate Judge Jonathan Goodman. All parties will need to download the Zoom App for cell phone, tablet (iPad), and for those using a desktop or a laptop equipped

with a webcam to click on the meeting link and install the plug-in when prompted. Then enter the Meeting ID and Password. Each participant needs to log in 10 minutes early, to make sure there are no glitches. The hearing will be conducted via ZOOM, as follows: Join ZoomGov Meeting- https://www.zoomgov.com/j/1611592378. Meeting ID: 161 159 2378. Password: 639688. This Zoom hearing is the digital equivalent of an actual, in-court hearing, so counsel is expected to dress as though they are in an actual federal courtroom. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jonathan Goodman on 4/15/2020. (fbn) (Entered: 04/15/2020)

04/16/2020

30 NOTICE by Field Office Director, Miami Field Office, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, U.S. Attorney General of Filing Declarations (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B) (Diaz, Natalie) (Entered: 04/16/2020)

04/16/2020

31 VACATED per DE# 36 , PAPERLESS ORDER re 30 Notice (Other) filed by Field Office Director, Miami Field Office, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, U.S. Attorney General

About half an hour ago, Defendants filed a notice of filing declarations, and they attached two declarations. The notice does not expressly say that it and the declarations were being filed under seal. Defendants did not file a motion for leave to file under seal. Nevertheless, these materials were, in fact, filed under seal.

There are three major problems with this.

First, Plaintiffs' counsel cannot access these materials, so how are they going to be prepared for tomorrow afternoon's emergency hearing? If defense counsel emailed copies to Plaintiffs' counsel, then this development was not explained to the Undersigned.

Second, Defendants have not established good cause to file these materials under seal, nor have they even tried to accomplish that goal. As a federal magistrate judge involved in this case, I have access to the materials, and I have reviewed them. But others outside of Court staffers do not.

I see nothing there which cries out for under-seal status. The materials do not mention the names of any specific detainees or staff members or independent contractors. They do not disclose social security numbers or other personal identification information. Not only are the materials not confidential, but they are relatively bland and innocuous.

Third, there may well be a public interest in this case. Our courts are presumed to be open. Filing documents under seal without leave of Court

and without a sound basis for confidential treatment is inherently at odds with the basic principle of open courts.

So Defendants shall re-file the notice and attached declarations as public filings on CM/ECF or they shall immediately file a motion seeking leave and explaining why the materials must remain secret and hidden from the public and Plaintiffs' counsel.

One final point:

It appears to me that additional declarations will be forthcoming because the two which were filed (albeit under seal) do not address all the topics which should have been covered and because nothing was filed in connection with one of the three detention centers (i.e., Glades).

Therefore, any additional, similar filings shall be public and not under seal, unless Defendants obtain an Order permitting under-seal status. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jonathan Goodman on 4/16/2020. (JG) Modified text on 4/17/2020 (jas). (Entered: 04/16/2020)

04/16/2020

32 NOTICE by Field Office Director, Miami Field Office, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, U.S. Attorney General re 31 Order,,,,,,,,,, (Diaz, Natalie) (Entered: 04/16/2020)

04/16/2020

33 NOTICE by Field Office Director, Miami Field Office, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, U.S. Attorney General re 30 Notice (Other) of Supplemental Declaration (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit C) (Diaz, Natalie) (Entered: 04/16/2020)

04/16/2020

34 NOTICE of Attorney Appearance by Dexter Lee on behalf of Field Office Director, Miami Field Office, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, U.S. Attorney General. Attorney Dexter Lee added to party Field Office Director, Miami Field Office, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement(pty:res), Attorney Dexter Lee added to party U.S. Attorney General(pty:res). (Lee, Dexter) (Entered: 04/16/2020)

04/16/2020

35 PAPERLESS ORDER re 30 Notice (Other) filed by Field Office Director, Miami Field Office, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, U.S. Attorney General, 31 Order,,,,,,,,,,

This Order is an apology to Defendants and their counsel for incorrectly and unfairly criticizing them for purportedly filing two declarations under seal. They did not do that. I mistakenly believed that they had.

My error happened under the following scenario:

Earlier today, at my instruction, Defendants filed [ECF No. 30] two declarations. I assumed (incorrectly, as it turns out) that Defendants filed the documents under seal. I reached this conclusion because the same notice -- "Warning! This document is restricted" -- which accompanies sealed documents appeared. Half an hour later, I entered an Order [ECF No. 31] which took issue with the purported "under-seal" filing, noting that Defendants had not obtained Court approval to make an under-seal submission and observing the non-confidential nature of the information in the declarations.

Defendants then explained [ECF No. 32] that they did not file the declarations under seal and never sought to restrict access to the documents. Defense counsel, a high-ranking and well-respected AUSA, advised that the Pacer docket might be restricted because this case is an immigration case and might not be available to the public.

Apparently, the Clerk's Office imposes a restricted access designation to all immigration cases -- and does so automatically. This case concerns immigration detention centers in South Florida and appears to be classified as an "immigration case."

In any event, this restricted access permits the parties and their attorneys to have remote electronic access to the case file. However, it permits "other persons" (e.g., the public) remote electronic access only at the courthouse. Moreover, the "other persons" may at the courthouse review only the docket and opinions, orders, judgments and "other dispositions of the Court." Other parts of the case file -- such as Defendants' submission of the declarations -- are not available to the public (i.e., "other persons"). See Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.2(c).

Neither the Clerk's Office nor Defendants (including the AUSAs who represent them) acted improperly. The defense lawyers merely filed the declarations and the Clerk's Office simply followed the Rule.

The only person who goofed was me.

Therefore, I owe Defendants and their attorneys an apology. I am sorry that I incorrectly assumed that you tried to file the declarations under seal or otherwise restrict access to them. I regret my mistake and the entry of that incorrect Order. I will vacate it. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jonathan Goodman on 4/16/2020. (JG) (Entered: 04/16/2020)

04/16/2020

36 PAPERLESS Order vacating 31 Order re 30 Notice (Other) filed by Field Office Director, Miami Field Office, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, U.S. Attorney General, as explained in ECF No. 35. Signed

by Magistrate Judge Jonathan Goodman on 4/16/2020. (jzn) (Entered: 04/16/2020)

04/17/2020

37 STRICKEN per DE# 38 , MOTION for Leave to File Supplemental Exhibits by Juan Carlos Alfaro Garcia, Javier Antonio Arias-Martinez, Naim Arrak, Dairon Barredo Sanchez, Maikel Betancourt, Sirvanildo Bibiano Soares, Jose Chavez, Hassan Mohamed Farah, Alejandro Ferreira Borges, Ruben Orlando Flores Ramos, Patrick Gayle, Franklin Ramon Gonzalez, Mohamed Hasan, Abdul Jalloh, Aparicio P. Jeronimo, Muhammad Alam Khan, Tolentino Martinez Rios, Irvin Medoza Silis, Cesar Ariel Mendez Escobar, Darwyn Yovanny Navarrette Sanchez, Lazaro Ocana Guzman, Roseline Ostine, Tahimi Perez, Wilder Perez Limones, Francisco Rivero Valeron, Ervin David Rodas Pedro, Rene Jonathan Rosas Cardenas, Gelber Sontay Funez, Adrian Sosa Fletes, Fermin Tepetate-Martinez, Maykel Valera Ramirez, Geraldo Vargas, Agane Warsame, Eliseo Antonio Zamora Mendoza. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A - Venters Declaration (Apr. 16, 2020), # 2 Exhibit B - ICE Memo (Apr. 10, 2020), # 3 Exhibit C - Venters Declaration (Mar. 24, 2020), # 4 Text of Proposed Order)(Prada, Mark) Modified text on 4/17/2020 (jas). (Entered: 04/17/2020)

04/17/2020 38 PAPERLESS ORDER striking 37 Motion for Leave to File.

Plaintiffs' motion violates Local Rule 7.1's pre-filing conferral and certification of conferral requirements. For those reasons, the Undersigned strikes it. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jonathan Goodman on 4/17/2020. (JG) (Entered: 04/17/2020)

04/17/2020

39 MOTION for Leave to File Supplemental Exhibits by Juan Carlos Alfaro Garcia, Javier Antonio Arias-Martinez, Naim Arrak, Dairon Barredo Sanchez, Maikel Betancourt, Sirvanildo Bibiano Soares, Jose Chavez, Hassan Mohamed Farah, Alejandro Ferreira Borges, Ruben Orlando Flores Ramos, Patrick Gayle, Franklin Ramon Gonzalez, Mohamed Hasan, Abdul Jalloh, Aparicio P. Jeronimo, Muhammad Alam Khan, Tolentino Martinez Rios, Irvin Medoza Silis, Cesar Ariel Mendez Escobar, Darwyn Yovanny Navarrette Sanchez, Lazaro Ocana Guzman, Roseline Ostine, Tahimi Perez, Wilder Perez Limones, Francisco Rivero Valeron, Ervin David Rodas Pedro, Rene Jonathan Rosas Cardenas, Gelber Sontay Funez, Adrian Sosa Fletes, Fermin Tepetate-Martinez, Maykel Valera Ramirez, Geraldo Vargas, Agane Warsame, Eliseo Antonio Zamora Mendoza. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A - Venters Declaration (Apr. 16, 2020), # 2 Exhibit B - ICE Memo (Apr. 10, 2020), # 3 Exhibit C - Venters Declaration (Mar. 24, 2020), # 4 Text of Proposed Order)(Prada, Mark) (Entered: 04/17/2020)

04/17/2020

40 RESPONSE in Opposition re 4 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order MOTION for Preliminary Injunction filed by Field Office Director, Miami Field Office, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, U.S. Attorney General. Replies due by 4/24/2020. (Lee, Dexter) (Entered: 04/17/2020)

04/17/2020

41 PAPERLESS ORDER granting 39 Motion for Leave to File. Clerks Notice: Filer must separately re-file the amended pleading pursuant to Local Rule 15.1, unless otherwise ordered by the Judge.

Plaintiffs ask the Court to "accept" supplemental exhibits in connection with this afternoon's scheduled emergency hearing on their motion for a TRO and a preliminary injunction.

This Order permits Plaintiffs to submit the exhibits, which consist primarily of two declarations from Dr. Homer Venters, an expert witness who submitted the declarations in a federal lawsuit pending in California.

I'm not sure what Plaintiffs mean when they ask me to "accept" the exhibits. They are now part of the file and are now of record. Like any submission, they can be afforded great weight, little weight or no weight. I have not yet determined what weight, if any, I will give them. These exhibits, however, are now part of the record and the parties can make arguments about their significance (or lack of significance).

Although I have not yet had time to thoroughly review the declarations, I note that they do not refer to the three detention centers involved in the instant case, do not mention the declarations filed in the instant case, and do not discuss the allegations of the instant lawsuit. Instead, the declarations opine on conditions in general and appear to largely focus on a comparison between guidelines, mandatory procedures and best practices, based on the doctor's experience with the medical treatment provided in the State of New York's prisons and his familiarity with some ICE detention facilities.

Plaintiffs need not refile the exhibits, however. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jonathan Goodman on 4/17/2020. (JG) (Entered: 04/17/2020)

04/17/2020

42 POST-HEARING ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jonathan Goodman on 4/17/2020. See attached document for full details. (jzn) (Entered: 04/17/2020)

04/17/2020

43 PAPERLESS Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Jonathan Goodman: Zoom Motion Hearing on 4 Plaintiffs' Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Motion for Preliminary Injunction Hearing held on 4/17/2020. Post-Hearing Administrative Order to follow.

Total time in court: 2 hour(s) : 40 minutes. Attorney Appearance(s): Mark Andrew Prada, Anthony Richard Dominguez, Andrea MontavonMcKillip, Gregory P. Copeland, Sarah T. Gillman, Maia Fleischman, Lisa M Berlow-Lehner, Rebecca Ann Sharpless, Natalie Diaz, Dexter Lee, Alec Izzo, Paul Chavez, Leanna Casado, Veronica James, and Amanda Velazquez.(Digital 16:04:57) (fbn) (Entered: 04/17/2020)

04/18/2020 44 PAPERLESS ORDER concerning additional information.

By noon on Monday, April 20, 2020, Defendants shall file a notice listing the detainee census in each of the three detention centers. This notice probably needs to be no more than one sentence: e.g., As of April 20, 2020 at 8:00 a.m., there are _____ detainees at Krome, ______ detainees at Broward and ______ detainees at Glades. The Undersigned anticipates that this is a relatively easy task, as defense counsel advised during yesterday's hearing that he could find out, and he implicitly suggested that the information could be obtained quickly.

The Undersigned is asking for the information because of the significant disparity between the census estimates (guesstimates, actually) proffered by the parties during yesterday's hearing. Plaintiffs' counsel provided an estimate of 1,600 detainees at all three centers while defense counsel suggested only slightly more than a 1,000. That's quite a difference. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jonathan Goodman on 4/18/2020. (JG) (Entered: 04/18/2020)

04/18/2020 45 PAPERLESS ORDER re: another follow-up from yesterday afternoon's hearing.

By 5:00 p.m. on Monday, April 20, 2020, defense counsel shall communicate with their clients and advise whether ICE is willing to agree to not transfer any of the 34 named detainee class members pending either their release, resolution of the case or further court order. In addition, the notice should advise on ICE's willingness to not transfer to other immigration detention facilities any of the current detainees pending the same circumstances and whether it is willing to not accept in any new detainees to the three detention centers pending the same circumstances. Defense counsel offered to do this at yesterday's hearing. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jonathan Goodman on 4/18/2020. (JG) (Entered: 04/18/2020)

04/19/2020

46 List of Authorities to 42 Order by Field Office Director, Miami Field Office, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. (Diaz, Natalie) (Entered: 04/19/2020)

04/19/2020

47 Notice of Supplemental Authority Pursuant to 42 Order by Juan Carlos Alfaro Garcia, Javier Antonio Arias-Martinez, Naim Arrak, Dairon Barredo Sanchez, Maikel Betancourt, Sirvanildo Bibiano Soares, Jose Chavez, Hassan Mohamed Farah, Alejandro Ferreira Borges, Ruben Orlando Flores Ramos, Patrick Gayle, Franklin Ramon Gonzalez, Mohamed Hasan, Abdul Jalloh, Aparicio P. Jeronimo, Muhammad Alam Khan, Tolentino Martinez Rios, Irvin Medoza Silis, Cesar Ariel Mendez Escobar, Darwyn Yovanny Navarrette Sanchez, Lazaro Ocana Guzman, Roseline Ostine, Tahimi Perez, Wilder Perez Limones, Francisco Rivero Valeron, Ervin David Rodas Pedro, Rene Jonathan Rosas Cardenas, Gelber Sontay Funez, Adrian Sosa Fletes, Fermin Tepetate-Martinez, Maykel Valera Ramirez, Geraldo Vargas, Agane Warsame, Eliseo Antonio Zamora Mendoza (Fleischman, Maia) (Entered: 04/19/2020)

04/20/2020 48 Notice of Detainee Census to 44 Order,,,, by U.S. Attorney General. (Diaz, Natalie) (Entered: 04/20/2020)

04/20/2020

49 PAPERLESS ORDER directing the Clerk of Court to restrict access to ECF Nos. 1-4 and permit access to the public to the remainder of the case docket. Counsel for both sides agreed, during the April 17, 2020 hearing, that restrictive access should remain only for docket entries 1-4, and that the Clerk should remove the restricted access designation for all submissions after docket entry 4.

The parties may file motions to file under seal specific submissions filed after entry of this order. If they file such motions and if the Court permits under-seal filings, then the filer will need to make two filings: an unredacted submission, filed under seal, and a redacted version, filed publicly on CM/ECF. The redacted portions must contain confidential and/or private information. The mere fact that a party prefers to not file something publicly is insufficient to justify an under-seal filing. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jonathan Goodman on 4/20/2020. (jzn) (Entered: 04/20/2020)

04/20/2020 50 PAPERLESS ORDER denying as moot 3 Motion for Hearing.

The Undersigned held the emergency hearing on April 17, 2020. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jonathan Goodman on 4/20/2020. (JG) (Entered: 04/20/2020)

04/20/2020

51 NOTICE Regarding Transfers of Detainees by Field Office Director, Miami Field Office, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, U.S. Attorney General re 45 Order,,, (Diaz, Natalie) Modified text on 4/21/2020 (jas). (Entered: 04/20/2020)

04/20/2020

52 CLERK'S NOTICE of Compliance re 49 PAPERLESS ORDER directing the Clerk of Court to restrict access to ECF Nos. 1-4 and permit access to the public to the remainder of the case docket. (Clerk's Note: Modified the Nature of Suit (NOS) on the case to 890 (Other Statutory Actions) to solely permit access to the public to the remainder of the case docket. Docket Sheet/Case Information will now reflect the Nature of Suit: 890 Other Statutory Actions. Please see DE#1 for NOS upon case filing for future reference. (sk) (Entered: 04/20/2020)

04/20/2020

54 Clerks Notice to Filer re 51 Notice (Other). Docket Text Does Not Match Document; ERROR - The Filer failed to enter a title in the docket text that matches the title of the document. The correction was made by the Clerk. It is not necessary to refile the document. (jas) (Entered: 04/21/2020)

04/21/2020

53 NOTICE of Supplemental Declaration by Acting Officer in Charge Liana J. Castano by Field Office Director, Miami Field Office, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, U.S. Attorney General (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A) (Diaz, Natalie) Modified text on 4/21/2020 (jas). (Entered: 04/21/2020)

04/21/2020

55 Unopposed MOTION to Restrict Access to DE 7 and 8 re 7 Appendix, 8 Appendix, by Juan Carlos Alfaro Garcia, Javier Antonio Arias-Martinez, Naim Arrak, Dairon Barredo Sanchez, Maikel Betancourt, Sirvanildo Bibiano Soares, Jose Chavez, Hassan Mohamed Farah, Alejandro Ferreira Borges, Ruben Orlando Flores Ramos, Patrick Gayle, Franklin Ramon Gonzalez, Mohamed Hasan, Abdul Jalloh, Aparicio P. Jeronimo, Muhammad Alam Khan, Tolentino Martinez Rios, Irvin Medoza Silis, Cesar Ariel Mendez Escobar, Darwyn Yovanny Navarrette Sanchez, Lazaro Ocana Guzman, Roseline Ostine, Tahimi Perez, Wilder Perez Limones, Francisco Rivero Valeron, Ervin David Rodas Pedro, Rene Jonathan Rosas Cardenas, Gelber Sontay Funez, Adrian Sosa Fletes, Fermin Tepetate-Martinez, Maykel Valera Ramirez, Geraldo Vargas, Agane Warsame, Eliseo Antonio Zamora Mendoza. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Prada, Mark) (Entered: 04/21/2020)

04/21/2020

56 PAPERLESS ORDER granting 55 Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion to Restrict Access to Docket Entries 7 and 8. The Undersigned directs the Clerk of Court to restrict access to ECF Nos. 7 and 8 in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.2. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jonathan Goodman on 4/21/2020. (jzn) (Entered: 04/21/2020)

04/21/2020 57 CLERK'S NOTICE OF COMPLIANCE re 56 PAPERLESS ORDER DIRECTING the Clerk of Court to restrict access to ECF Nos. 7 and 8 in

accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.2.. (sk) (Entered: 04/21/2020)

04/22/2020

58 Unopposed MOTION to Seal Motion to Add Named PetitionersPlaintiffss per Local Rule 5.4 by Javier Antonio Arias-Martinez, Naim Arrak, Dairon Barredo Sanchez, Maikel Betancourt, Sirvanildo Bibiano Soares, Jose Chavez, Hassan Mohamed Farah, Alejandro Ferreira Borges, Ruben Orlando Flores Ramos, Patrick Gayle, Franklin Ramon Gonzalez, Mohamed Hasan, Abdul Jalloh, Aparicio P. Jeronimo, Muhammad Alam Khan, Tolentino Martinez Rios, Irvin Medoza Silis, Cesar Ariel Mendez Escobar, Darwyn Yovanny Navarrette Sanchez, Lazaro Ocana Guzman, Roseline Ostine, Tahimi Perez, Wilder Perez Limones, Francisco Rivero Valeron, Ervin David Rodas Pedro, Rene Jonathan Rosas Cardenas, Gelber Sontay Funez, Adrian Sosa Fletes, Fermin Tepetate-Martinez, Maykel Valera Ramirez, Geraldo Vargas, Agane Warsame, Eliseo Antonio Zamora Mendoza. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order) (Sharpless, Rebecca) (Entered: 04/22/2020)

04/22/2020 59 PAPERLESS ORDER granting in part and denying in part 58 Motion to Seal. Matters unsealed upon case closing {US0YT}.

The proposed additional Petitioners shall (if they wish to pursue their desire to join this lawsuit) file their motion publicly, on CM/ECF. This motion will list only their names and explain why they believe the Court should permit them to be added as Petitioners. The motion need not reveal any specific private and personal medical information. It may explain, in general, that they proposed new Petitioners have medical issues which place them in a high-risk category (assuming that to be true). But the specifics need not be provided. The motion, if filed, will explain that the specifics will be contained in a separately-filed submission, with exhibits.

To the extent that the proposed additional Petitioners submit exhibits which their counsel represents as containing "sensitive personal health information," those exhibits may be filed under seal -- but separately, as a new and different docket entry.

In this way, the public will know the names of the proposed new Petitioners and the facility where they are housed, but not the specifics of what is represented to be confidential and sensitive medical information. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jonathan Goodman on 4/22/2020. (JG) (Entered: 04/22/2020)

04/22/2020

60 Unopposed MOTION to Add Named Petitioners-Plaintiffs by Juan Carlos Alfaro Garcia, Javier Antonio Arias-Martinez, Naim Arrak, Dairon Barredo Sanchez, Maikel Betancourt, Sirvanildo Bibiano Soares, Jose Chavez, Hassan Mohamed Farah, Alejandro Ferreira Borges, Ruben

Orlando Flores Ramos, Patrick Gayle, Franklin Ramon Gonzalez, Mohamed Hasan, Abdul Jalloh, Aparicio P. Jeronimo, Muhammad Alam Khan, Tolentino Martinez Rios, Irvin Medoza Silis, Cesar Ariel Mendez Escobar, Darwyn Yovanny Navarrette Sanchez, Lazaro Ocana Guzman, Roseline Ostine, Tahimi Perez, Wilder Perez Limones, Francisco Rivero Valeron, Ervin David Rodas Pedro, Rene Jonathan Rosas Cardenas, Gelber Sontay Funez, Adrian Sosa Fletes, Fermin Tepetate-Martinez, Maykel Valera Ramirez, Geraldo Vargas, Agane Warsame, Eliseo Antonio Zamora Mendoza. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Sharpless, Rebecca) (Entered: 04/22/2020)

04/22/2020

SYSTEM ENTRY - Docket Entry 61 [misc] restricted/sealed until further notice. (788462) (Entered: 04/22/2020)

04/22/2020

62 PAPERLESS ORDER re 61 Sealed Document,,, filed by Patrick Gayle, Naim Arrak, Dairon Barredo Sanchez, Agane Warsame, Wilder Perez Limones, Ervin David Rodas Pedro, Adrian Sosa Fletes, Alejandro Ferreira Borges, Jose Chavez, Lazaro Ocana Guzman, Eliseo Antonio Zamora Mendoza, Geraldo Vargas, Gelber Sontay Funez, Muhammad Alam Khan, Cesar Ariel Mendez Escobar, Javier Antonio Arias-Martinez, Sirvanildo Bibiano Soares, Tolentino Martinez Rios, Hassan Mohamed Farah, Abdul Jalloh, Maikel Betancourt, Francisco Rivero Valeron, Tahimi Perez, Franklin Ramon Gonzalez, Fermin Tepetate-Martinez, Juan Carlos Alfaro Garcia, Ruben Orlando Flores Ramos, Irvin Medoza Silis, Darwyn Yovanny Navarrette Sanchez, Maykel Valera Ramirez, Mohamed Hasan, Aparicio P. Jeronimo, Rene Jonathan Rosas Cardenas, Roseline Ostine

This Order concerns the under-seal declarations which the proposed new Plaintiffs filed earlier today. I permitted counsel to file them under seal because they contain private personal medical information.

I have reviewed only the first two declarations, from Julio Edward and Eitan Yefet. They contain precious little confidential medical information.

Mr. Edward's declaration (pp. 2-4, out of 180 pages) contains fourteen (14) numbered paragraphs. Only paragraph 5, one sentence in paragraph 5(b) and paragraph 7 contain information which might be deemed so personal that it must be filed under seal. The remainder of the declaration is not personal or related to his medical condition at all. Instead, the remainder consists of observations he made about conditions at the detention center (e.g., amount of soap, whether the guards have masks or gloves, etc.)

Similarly, Mr. Yefet's declaration (pp, 8-10, out of 180 pages)) also contains fourteen (14) paragraphs. Only paragraph 5 contains information

which is so personal that it might justify under-seal status. The remainder of his declaration, just like the first declaration, contains the same types of non-confidential observations.

I have not yet reviewed any declaration other than the first two, but I assume they are all substantially similar.

Given this development, Petitioners' counsel will need to publicly refile, on CM/ECF, all of the declarations which were filed earlier today under seal -- but the few scraps of legitimately personal, medical information may be redacted.

The declarations do not need to be resigned. All that needs to happen is for someone (or more than one person) to mechanically cover up (or cross out or block out or otherwise render unreadable) the small amount of personal information. All remaining portions, which are not confidential and not worthy of being deemed a secret from the public, will be on the docket, available to be reviewed -- just like other submissions filed in our open, usually-not-secret court system.

This assignment should not take long to complete. The mechanical aspect of redacting should not take more than one minute per declaration.

The parties should by now know my strong preference for publicly-filed submissions and my general aversion to requests to secretly file things under seal. Therefore, future requests to obtain approval for under-seal filings, from either side, should take this approach into consideration. Thus, to provide an illustration, if Petitioners wanted to add five more detainees and support the request with declarations, the motion to seal would explain that only one or two sentences are confidential and would seek leave to make two filings (i.e., one public, but slightly redacted, and one under seal, but unredacted).

Everyone should now be on board.

Signed by Magistrate Judge Jonathan Goodman on 4/22/2020. (JG) (Entered: 04/22/2020)

04/22/2020

63 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS ON 4 EMERGENCY MOTION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF. Objections to R&R due by 4/24/2020. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jonathan Goodman on 4/22/2020. See attached document for full details. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A) (jzn) (Entered: 04/22/2020)

04/22/2020 64 NOTICE of Filing Declarations of Proposed New Petitioners-Plaintiffsby Juan Carlos Alfaro Garcia, Javier Antonio Arias-Martinez, Naim Arrak,

Dairon Barredo Sanchez, Maikel Betancourt, Sirvanildo Bibiano Soares, Jose Chavez, Hassan Mohamed Farah, Alejandro Ferreira Borges, Ruben Orlando Flores Ramos, Patrick Gayle, Franklin Ramon Gonzalez, Mohamed Hasan, Abdul Jalloh, Aparicio P. Jeronimo, Muhammad Alam Khan, Tolentino Martinez Rios, Irvin Medoza Silis, Cesar Ariel Mendez Escobar, Darwyn Yovanny Navarrette Sanchez, Lazaro Ocana Guzman, Roseline Ostine, Tahimi Perez, Wilder Perez Limones, Francisco Rivero Valeron, Ervin David Rodas Pedro, Rene Jonathan Rosas Cardenas, Gelber Sontay Funez, Adrian Sosa Fletes, Fermin Tepetate-Martinez, Maykel Valera Ramirez, Geraldo Vargas, Agane Warsame, Eliseo Antonio Zamora Mendoza re 60 Unopposed MOTION to Add Named Petitioners-Plaintiffs (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Declarations of Proposed New Petitioners-Plaintiffs) (Sharpless, Rebecca) (Entered: 04/22/2020)

04/23/2020

65 PAPERLESS ORDER granting 60 Motion to Add Named PetitionersPlaintiffs Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a) and (21). It is hereby ordered that the additional named Petitioners-Plaintiffs are added to this action. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jonathan Goodman on 4/23/2020. (jzn) (Entered: 04/23/2020)

04/23/2020

SYSTEM ENTRY - Docket Entry 66 [notice] restricted/sealed until further notice. (wc) (Entered: 04/23/2020)

04/24/2020 67 Bar Letter re: Admissions sent to attorney Paul C. Chavez, mailing date 04/24/2020, (cco) (Entered: 04/24/2020)

04/24/2020

68 NOTICE of Attorney Appearance by Michael A. Celone on behalf of Field Office Director, Miami Field Office, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, U.S. Attorney General. Attorney Michael A. Celone added to party Field Office Director, Miami Field Office, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement(pty:res), Attorney Michael A. Celone added to party U.S. Attorney General(pty:res). (Celone, Michael) (Entered: 04/24/2020)

04/24/2020

69 NOTICE of Attorney Appearance by Scott Michael Edson on behalf of Rolando Aguabella Martinez, Juan Carlos Alfaro Garcia, Mohamed Hassan Ali, Javier Antonio Arias-Martinez, Naim Arrak, Dairon Barredo Sanchez, Maikel Betancourt, Sirvanildo Bibiano Soares, Maikel Carrasco Polo, Abel Carrillo, Jose Chavez, Maxuel A De Souza, Julio Edwards, Hassan Mohamed Farah, Alejandro Ferreira Borges, Field Office Director, Miami Field Office, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Ruben Orlando Flores Ramos, Patrick Gayle, Fernando Goncalves, Franklin Ramon Gonzalez, Mohamed Hasan, Carlos Hedman Perdomo, Abdul Jalloh, Aparicio P. Jeronimo, Muhammad Alam Khan, Thomas Lenor, Manuel Lopez Perez, Omar Lopez-Jaramillo, Ariel Lucien, Yaniel Machado Aguila, Miguel Angel Marroquin Perez,

Tolentino Martinez Rios, Irvin Medoza Silis, Cesar Ariel Mendez Escobar, Jose Galdino Montalvo Rodriguez, Alejandro Vincenzo Mugaburu Tapia, Darwyn Yovanny Navarrette Sanchez, Farhan Nawabit, Lazaro Ocana Guzman, Evarado Orantes Acevedo, Roseline Ostine, Tahimi Perez, Wilder Perez Limones, Deivys Perez Valladares, Ricardo Perezo Alonzo, Francisco Rivero Valeron, Ervin David Rodas Pedro, Maria Eugenia Rodriguez Claras, Rene Jonathan Rosas Cardenas, Danny Ruiz Garcia, Crisley Sacrab-Bin, Gelber Sontay Funez, Adrian Sosa Fletes, Fermin Tepetate-Martinez, Maykel Valera Ramirez, Geraldo Vargas, Agane Warsame, Eitan Yefet, Eliseo Antonio Zamora Mendoza. Attorney Scott Michael Edson added to party Rolando Aguabella Martinez(pty:pet), Attorney Scott Michael Edson added to party Juan Carlos Alfaro Garcia(pty:pet), Attorney Scott Michael Edson added to party Mohamed Hassan Ali(pty:pet), Attorney Scott Michael Edson added to party Javier Antonio Arias-Martinez(pty:pet), Attorney Scott Michael Edson added to party Naim Arrak(pty:pet), Attorney Scott Michael Edson added to party Dairon Barredo Sanchez(pty:pet), Attorney Scott Michael Edson added to party Maikel Betancourt(pty:pet), Attorney Scott Michael Edson added to party Sirvanildo Bibiano Soares(pty:pet), Attorney Scott Michael Edson added to party Maikel Carrasco Polo(pty:pet), Attorney Scott Michael Edson added to party Abel Carrillo(pty:pet), Attorney Scott Michael Edson added to party Jose Chavez(pty:pet), Attorney Scott Michael Edson added to party Maxuel A De Souza(pty:pet), Attorney Scott Michael Edson added to party Julio Edwards(pty:pet), Attorney Scott Michael Edson added to party Hassan Mohamed Farah(pty:pet), Attorney Scott Michael Edson added to party Alejandro Ferreira Borges(pty:pet), Attorney Scott Michael Edson added to party Ruben Orlando Flores Ramos(pty:pet), Attorney Scott Michael Edson added to party Patrick Gayle(pty:pet), Attorney Scott Michael Edson added to party Fernando Goncalves(pty:pet), Attorney Scott Michael Edson added to party Franklin Ramon Gonzalez(pty:pet), Attorney Scott Michael Edson added to party Mohamed Hasan(pty:pet), Attorney Scott Michael Edson added to party Carlos Hedman Perdomo(pty:pet), Attorney Scott Michael Edson added to party Abdul Jalloh(pty:pet), Attorney Scott Michael Edson added to party Aparicio P. Jeronimo(pty:pet), Attorney Scott Michael Edson added to party Muhammad Alam Khan(pty:pet), Attorney Scott Michael Edson added to party Thomas Lenor(pty:pet), Attorney Scott Michael Edson added to party Manuel Lopez Perez(pty:pet), Attorney Scott Michael Edson added to party Omar Lopez-Jaramillo(pty:pet), Attorney Scott Michael Edson added to party Ariel Lucien(pty:pet), Attorney Scott Michael Edson added to party Yaniel Machado Aguila(pty:pet), Attorney Scott Michael Edson added to party Miguel Angel Marroquin Perez(pty:pet), Attorney Scott Michael Edson added to party Tolentino Martinez Rios(pty:pet), Attorney Scott Michael Edson added to party Irvin Medoza Silis(pty:pet), Attorney Scott Michael Edson added to party Cesar Ariel Mendez Escobar(pty:pet),

Attorney Scott Michael Edson added to party Jose Galdino Montalvo Rodriguez(pty:pet), Attorney Scott Michael Edson added to party Alejandro Vincenzo Mugaburu Tapia(pty:pet), Attorney Scott Michael Edson added to party Darwyn Yovanny Navarrette Sanchez(pty:pet), Attorney Scott Michael Edson added to party Farhan Nawabit(pty:pet), Attorney Scott Michael Edson added to party Lazaro Ocana Guzman(pty:pet), Attorney Scott Michael Edson added to party Evarado Orantes Acevedo(pty:pet), Attorney Scott Michael Edson added to party Roseline Ostine(pty:pet), Attorney Scott Michael Edson added to party Tahimi Perez(pty:pet), Attorney Scott Michael Edson added to party Wilder Perez Limones(pty:pet), Attorney Scott Michael Edson added to party Deivys Perez Valladares(pty:pet), Attorney Scott Michael Edson added to party Ricardo Perezo Alonzo(pty:pet), Attorney Scott Michael Edson added to party Francisco Rivero Valeron(pty:pet), Attorney Scott Michael Edson added to party Ervin David Rodas Pedro(pty:pet), Attorney Scott Michael Edson added to party Maria Eugenia Rodriguez Claras(pty:pet), Attorney Scott Michael Edson added to party Rene Jonathan Rosas Cardenas(pty:pet), Attorney Scott Michael Edson added to party Danny Ruiz Garcia(pty:pet), Attorney Scott Michael Edson added to party Crisley Sacrab-Bin(pty:pet), Attorney Scott Michael Edson added to party Gelber Sontay Funez(pty:pet), Attorney Scott Michael Edson added to party Adrian Sosa Fletes(pty:pet), Attorney Scott Michael Edson added to party Fermin Tepetate-Martinez(pty:pet), Attorney Scott Michael Edson added to party Maykel Valera Ramirez(pty:pet), Attorney Scott Michael Edson added to party Geraldo Vargas(pty:pet), Attorney Scott Michael Edson added to party Agane Warsame(pty:pet), Attorney Scott Michael Edson added to party Eitan Yefet(pty:pet), Attorney Scott Michael Edson added to party Eliseo Antonio Zamora Mendoza(pty:pet). (Edson, Scott) (Entered: 04/24/2020)

04/24/2020

70 OBJECTIONS to 63 Report and Recommendations by Rolando Aguabella Martinez, Juan Carlos Alfaro Garcia, Mohamed Hassan Ali, Javier Antonio Arias-Martinez, Naim Arrak, Dairon Barredo Sanchez, Maikel Betancourt, Sirvanildo Bibiano Soares, Maikel Carrasco Polo, Abel Carrillo, Jose Chavez, Maxuel A De Souza, Julio Edwards, Hassan Mohamed Farah, Alejandro Ferreira Borges, Ruben Orlando Flores Ramos, Patrick Gayle, Fernando Goncalves, Franklin Ramon Gonzalez, Mohamed Hasan, Carlos Hedman Perdomo, Abdul Jalloh, Aparicio P. Jeronimo, Muhammad Alam Khan, Thomas Lenor, Manuel Lopez Perez, Omar Lopez-Jaramillo, Ariel Lucien, Yaniel Machado Aguila, Miguel Angel Marroquin Perez, Tolentino Martinez Rios, Irvin Medoza Silis, Cesar Ariel Mendez Escobar, Jose Galdino Montalvo Rodriguez, Alejandro Vincenzo Mugaburu Tapia, Darwyn Yovanny Navarrette Sanchez, Farhan Nawabit, Lazaro Ocana Guzman, Evarado Orantes Acevedo, Roseline Ostine, Tahimi Perez, Wilder Perez Limones, Deivys Perez Valladares, Ricardo Perezo Alonzo, Francisco Rivero Valeron,

Ervin David Rodas Pedro, Maria Eugenia Rodriguez Claras, Rene Jonathan Rosas Cardenas, Danny Ruiz Garcia, Crisley Sacrab-Bin, Gelber Sontay Funez, Adrian Sosa Fletes, Fermin Tepetate-Martinez, Maykel Valera Ramirez, Geraldo Vargas, Agane Warsame, Eitan Yefet, Eliseo Antonio Zamora Mendoza. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Roman v. Wolf, EDCV 20-00768 TJH (PVC) (C.D. CA Apr. 23, 2020), # 2 Exhibit April 3, 2020 Memorandum of Hon. William P. Barr for the Director of Bureau of Prisons, # 3 Exhibit April 6, 2020 Memorandum of Hon. William P. Barr for the Director of Bureau of Prisons, # 4 Exhibit Basank v. Decker, No. 20 Civ. 2518 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 23, 2020), # 5 Exhibit Richard Tribou and Katie Rice, Corrine Brown Released From Central Florida Prison Amid COVID-19 Concerns, Orlando Sentinel (Apr. 22, 2020), # 6 Exhibit Interim Guidance on management of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) in Correctional and Detention Facilities)(Edson, Scott) (Entered: 04/24/2020)

04/24/2020

71 NOTICE by Field Office Director, Miami Field Office, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement re 63 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re 3 MOTION for Hearing filed by Patrick Gayle, Naim Arrak, Dairon Barredo Sanchez, Agane Warsame, Wilder Perez Limones, Ervin David Rodas Pedro, Adrian Sosa Fletes, Alejandro Ferreira Borges, Jose Chavez, Lazaro Objections (Celone, Michael) (Entered: 04/25/2020)

04/26/2020

72 RESPONSE TO OBJECTION to 63 Report and Recommendations by Field Office Director, Miami Field Office, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, U.S. Attorney General. (Lee, Dexter) (Entered: 04/26/2020)

04/26/2020

73 RESPONSE TO OBJECTION to 63 Report and Recommendations by Rolando Aguabella Martinez, Juan Carlos Alfaro Garcia, Mohamed Hassan Ali, Javier Antonio Arias-Martinez, Naim Arrak, Dairon Barredo Sanchez, Maikel Betancourt, Sirvanildo Bibiano Soares, Maikel Carrasco Polo, Abel Carrillo, Jose Chavez, Maxuel A De Souza, Julio Edwards, Hassan Mohamed Farah, Alejandro Ferreira Borges, Ruben Orlando Flores Ramos, Patrick Gayle, Fernando Goncalves, Franklin Ramon Gonzalez, Mohamed Hasan, Carlos Hedman Perdomo, Abdul Jalloh, Aparicio P. Jeronimo, Muhammad Alam Khan, Thomas Lenor, Manuel Lopez Perez, Omar Lopez-Jaramillo, Ariel Lucien, Yaniel Machado Aguila, Miguel Angel Marroquin Perez, Tolentino Martinez Rios, Irvin Medoza Silis, Cesar Ariel Mendez Escobar, Jose Galdino Montalvo Rodriguez, Alejandro Vincenzo Mugaburu Tapia, Darwyn Yovanny Navarrette Sanchez, Farhan Nawabit, Lazaro Ocana Guzman, Evarado Orantes Acevedo, Roseline Ostine, Tahimi Perez, Wilder Perez Limones, Deivys Perez Valladares, Ricardo Perezo Alonzo, Francisco Rivero Valeron, Ervin David Rodas Pedro, Maria Eugenia Rodriguez Claras, Rene Jonathan Rosas Cardenas, Danny Ruiz Garcia, Crisley Sacrab-Bin,

Gelber Sontay Funez, Adrian Sosa Fletes, Fermin Tepetate-Martinez, Maykel Valera Ramirez, Geraldo Vargas, Agane Warsame, Eitan Yefet, Eliseo Antonio Zamora Mendoza. (Edson, Scott) (Entered: 04/26/2020)

04/29/2020

74 Notice of Supplemental Authority re 4 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order MOTION for Preliminary Injunction by Rolando Aguabella Martinez, Juan Carlos Alfaro Garcia, Mohamed Hassan Ali, Javier Antonio Arias-Martinez, Naim Arrak, Dairon Barredo Sanchez, Maikel Betancourt, Sirvanildo Bibiano Soares, Maikel Carrasco Polo, Abel Carrillo, Jose Chavez, Maxuel A De Souza, Julio Edwards, Hassan Mohamed Farah, Alejandro Ferreira Borges, Ruben Orlando Flores Ramos, Patrick Gayle, Fernando Goncalves, Franklin Ramon Gonzalez, Mohamed Hasan, Carlos Hedman Perdomo, Abdul Jalloh, Aparicio P. Jeronimo, Muhammad Alam Khan, Thomas Lenor, Manuel Lopez Perez, Omar Lopez-Jaramillo, Ariel Lucien, Yaniel Machado Aguila, Miguel Angel Marroquin Perez, Tolentino Martinez Rios, Irvin Medoza Silis, Cesar Ariel Mendez Escobar, Jose Galdino Montalvo Rodriguez, Alejandro Vincenzo Mugaburu Tapia, Darwyn Yovanny Navarrette Sanchez, Farhan Nawabit, Lazaro Ocana Guzman, Evarado Orantes Acevedo, Roseline Ostine, Tahimi Perez, Wilder Perez Limones, Deivys Perez Valladares, Ricardo Perezo Alonzo, Francisco Rivero Valeron, Ervin David Rodas Pedro, Maria Eugenia Rodriguez Claras, Rene Jonathan Rosas Cardenas, Danny Ruiz Garcia, Crisley Sacrab-Bin, Gelber Sontay Funez, Adrian Sosa Fletes, Fermin Tepetate-Martinez, Maykel Valera Ramirez, Geraldo Vargas, Agane Warsame, Eitan Yefet, Eliseo Antonio Zamora Mendoza (Edson, Scott) (Entered: 04/29/2020)

04/29/2020

75 Notice of Supplemental Authority re 4 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order MOTION for Preliminary Injunction by Rolando Aguabella Martinez, Juan Carlos Alfaro Garcia, Mohamed Hassan Ali, Javier Antonio Arias-Martinez, Naim Arrak, Dairon Barredo Sanchez, Maikel Betancourt, Sirvanildo Bibiano Soares, Maikel Carrasco Polo, Abel Carrillo, Jose Chavez, Maxuel A De Souza, Julio Edwards, Hassan Mohamed Farah, Alejandro Ferreira Borges, Ruben Orlando Flores Ramos, Patrick Gayle, Fernando Goncalves, Franklin Ramon Gonzalez, Mohamed Hasan, Carlos Hedman Perdomo, Abdul Jalloh, Aparicio P. Jeronimo, Muhammad Alam Khan, Thomas Lenor, Manuel Lopez Perez, Omar Lopez-Jaramillo, Ariel Lucien, Yaniel Machado Aguila, Miguel Angel Marroquin Perez, Tolentino Martinez Rios, Irvin Medoza Silis, Cesar Ariel Mendez Escobar, Jose Galdino Montalvo Rodriguez, Alejandro Vincenzo Mugaburu Tapia, Darwyn Yovanny Navarrette Sanchez, Farhan Nawabit, Lazaro Ocana Guzman, Evarado Orantes Acevedo, Roseline Ostine, Tahimi Perez, Wilder Perez Limones, Deivys Perez Valladares, Ricardo Perezo Alonzo, Francisco Rivero Valeron, Ervin David Rodas Pedro, Maria Eugenia Rodriguez Claras, Rene Jonathan Rosas Cardenas, Danny Ruiz Garcia, Crisley Sacrab-Bin, Gelber

Sontay Funez, Adrian Sosa Fletes, Fermin Tepetate-Martinez, Maykel Valera Ramirez, Geraldo Vargas, Agane Warsame, Eitan Yefet, Eliseo Antonio Zamora Mendoza (Attachments: # 1 Supplement Spaulding v. Moore, No. 1:20-cv-21378-UU (S.D. Fla. Apr. 29, 2020) (Ungaro, J.)) (Edson, Scott) (Entered: 04/29/2020)

04/30/2020

76 ORDER adopting in part 63 Report and Recommendations on 4 Petitioners' Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction. Signed by Judge Marcia G. Cooke on 4/30/2020. See attached document for full details. (kou) (Entered: 04/30/2020)

05/01/2020

77 Plaintiff's MOTION for clarification 76 Order on Report and Recommendations, by Rolando Aguabella Martinez, Juan Carlos Alfaro Garcia, Mohamed Hassan Ali, Javier Antonio Arias-Martinez, Naim Arrak, Dairon Barredo Sanchez, Maikel Betancourt, Sirvanildo Bibiano Soares, Maikel Carrasco Polo, Abel Carrillo, Jose Chavez, Maxuel A De Souza, Julio Edwards, Hassan Mohamed Farah, Alejandro Ferreira Borges, Ruben Orlando Flores Ramos, Patrick Gayle, Fernando Goncalves, Franklin Ramon Gonzalez, Mohamed Hasan, Carlos Hedman Perdomo, Abdul Jalloh, Aparicio P. Jeronimo, Muhammad Alam Khan, Thomas Lenor, Manuel Lopez Perez, Omar Lopez-Jaramillo, Ariel Lucien, Yaniel Machado Aguila, Miguel Angel Marroquin Perez, Tolentino Martinez Rios, Irvin Medoza Silis, Cesar Ariel Mendez Escobar, Jose Galdino Montalvo Rodriguez, Alejandro Vincenzo Mugaburu Tapia, Darwyn Yovanny Navarrette Sanchez, Farhan Nawabit, Lazaro Ocana Guzman, Evarado Orantes Acevedo, Roseline Ostine, Tahimi Perez, Wilder Perez Limones, Deivys Perez Valladares, Ricardo Perezo Alonzo, Francisco Rivero Valeron, Ervin David Rodas Pedro, Maria Eugenia Rodriguez Claras, Rene Jonathan Rosas Cardenas, Danny Ruiz Garcia, Crisley Sacrab-Bin, Gelber Sontay Funez, Adrian Sosa Fletes, Fermin Tepetate-Martinez, Maykel Valera Ramirez, Geraldo Vargas, Agane Warsame, Eitan Yefet, Eliseo Antonio Zamora Mendoza. Responses due by 5/15/2020 (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Berlow-Lehner, Lisa) (Entered: 05/01/2020)

05/02/2020

78 ORDER granting in part and denying in part 77 Petitioners' Motion for Clarification. Signed by Judge Marcia G. Cooke on 5/2/2020. See attached document for full details. (kou) (Entered: 05/02/2020)

05/02/2020

79 Notice to 76 Order on Report and Recommendations, by Field Office Director, Miami Field Office, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, U.S. Attorney General. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit ADeclaration Castano, # 2 Exhibit B- Declaration Lopez Vega)(Diaz, Natalie) (Entered: 05/02/2020)

05/03/2020

80 Second Notice to 76 Order on Report and Recommendations, by Field Office Director, Miami Field Office, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, U.S. Attorney General. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit ADeclaration OIC Castano)(Diaz, Natalie) (Entered: 05/03/2020)

05/05/2020

81 Plaintiff's EXPEDITED MOTION For Class Certification , Request for Expedited Consideration by Rolando Aguabella Martinez, Juan Carlos Alfaro Garcia, Mohamed Hassan Ali, Javier Antonio Arias-Martinez, Naim Arrak, Dairon Barredo Sanchez, Maikel Betancourt, Sirvanildo Bibiano Soares, Maikel Carrasco Polo, Abel Carrillo, Jose Chavez, Maxuel A De Souza, Julio Edwards, Hassan Mohamed Farah, Alejandro Ferreira Borges, Ruben Orlando Flores Ramos, Patrick Gayle, Fernando Goncalves, Franklin Ramon Gonzalez, Mohamed Hasan, Carlos Hedman Perdomo, Abdul Jalloh, Aparicio P. Jeronimo, Muhammad Alam Khan, Thomas Lenor, Manuel Lopez Perez, Omar Lopez-Jaramillo, Ariel Lucien, Yaniel Machado Aguila, Miguel Angel Marroquin Perez, Tolentino Martinez Rios, Irvin Medoza Silis, Cesar Ariel Mendez Escobar, Jose Galdino Montalvo Rodriguez, Alejandro Vincenzo Mugaburu Tapia, Darwyn Yovanny Navarrette Sanchez, Farhan Nawabit, Lazaro Ocana Guzman, Evarado Orantes Acevedo, Roseline Ostine, Tahimi Perez, Wilder Perez Limones, Deivys Perez Valladares, Ricardo Perezo Alonzo, Francisco Rivero Valeron, Ervin David Rodas Pedro, Maria Eugenia Rodriguez Claras, Rene Jonathan Rosas Cardenas, Danny Ruiz Garcia, Crisley Sacrab-Bin, Gelber Sontay Funez, Adrian Sosa Fletes, Fermin Tepetate-Martinez, Maykel Valera Ramirez, Geraldo Vargas, Agane Warsame, Eitan Yefet, Eliseo Antonio Zamora Mendoza. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Order on Petitioners' Expedited Motion for Class Certification, # 2 Exhibit Sworn Declaration of Kathryn S. Lehman in Support of Class Certification, # 3 Exhibit Sworn Declaration of Rebecca Sharpless in Support of Class Certification, # 4 Exhibit Sworn Declaration of Gregory P. Copeland in Support of Class Certification, # 5 Exhibit Sworn Declaration of Mark Prada in Support of Class Certification, # 6 Exhibit Sworn Declaration of Paul R. Chavez in Support of Class Certification, # 7 Exhibit Sworn Declaration of Lisa Berlow-Lehner in Support of Class Certification, # 8 Exhibit Declaration of Andrea Montavon-McKillip)(Edson, Scott) (Entered: 05/05/2020)

05/05/2020

82 ENDORSED ORDER REFERRING 81 Plaintiff's Expedited Motion For Class Certification to Judge Jonathan Goodman. Signed by Judge Marcia G. Cooke on 5/5/2020. (kou) (Entered: 05/05/2020)

05/05/2020

83 PAPERLESS ORDER setting briefing schedule on 81 Plaintiffs' Expedited Motion For Class Certification. The Undersigned will honor Plaintiffs' request for expedited briefing. The response is due by Saturday

(yes, Saturday), May 9, 2020, at noon. The optional reply is due by Tuesday, May 12, 2020, at noon.
There will be a Zoom hearing on Thursday, May 14, 2020, at 3:00 p.m. in the Miami Division before Magistrate Judge Jonathan Goodman on 81 Plaintiffs' Expedited Motion for Class Certification. The Court will issue a separate order in a few days with the specific log-in information for the Zoom hearing.
The parties may, by May 13, 2020, at 6:00 p.m., file under seal an optional list of three (3) specific, succinct questions which they would like the Undersigned to ask opposing counsel at the hearing. The questions may be about the factual record, the law, exhibits, the arguments raised in the briefing or any other issue relevant to the Undersigned's analysis of the motion.
To the extent that the questions (which should be precise and pinpoint) concern exhibits, the parties may attach relevant exhibits to the under-seal list of questions. However, the parties should not indiscriminately file massive numbers of exhibits, nor should they file exhibits which run on for dozens of pages. It is highly unlikely that the Undersigned will be inclined to review more than an extremely modest number of pages of exhibits attached to the questions. By providing this alternative, the Undersigned is by no means suggesting that a party should attach exhibits to the questions. In fact, it might be better to simply refer to exhibits already filed (assuming the exhibits are not voluminous but, instead, are manageable and capable of being reviewed in the brief gap between the filing of the questions and the hearing).
Although the Undersigned will carefully review all questions submitted, the mere fact that a party submitted a question does not necessarily mean that the Undersigned will in fact ask that specific question (or any of the questions, for that matter). The Undersigned may ask a question, may modify a question, may combine the question with another or may decide to skip the question entirely.
To alleviate any conceivable concern that this procedure constitutes some type of ex parte procedure, the Undersigned will read out loud on the record every optional question submitted under seal by the parties, regardless of whether I will actually ask each question.
At the risk of stating the obvious (but I do so because other counsel in other cases have asked), the under-seal questions need not be served on opposing counsel and need not be publicly filed on CM/ECF. Signed by

Magistrate Judge Jonathan Goodman on 5/5/2020. (jzn) (Entered: 05/05/2020)

05/06/2020

84 NOTICE of Attorney Appearance by Kathryn Stewart Lehman on behalf of Rolando Aguabella Martinez, Juan Carlos Alfaro Garcia, Mohamed Hassan Ali, Javier Antonio Arias-Martinez, Naim Arrak, Dairon Barredo Sanchez, Maikel Betancourt, Sirvanildo Bibiano Soares, Maikel Carrasco Polo, Abel Carrillo, Jose Chavez, Maxuel A De Souza, Julio Edwards, Hassan Mohamed Farah, Alejandro Ferreira Borges, Ruben Orlando Flores Ramos, Patrick Gayle, Fernando Goncalves, Franklin Ramon Gonzalez, Mohamed Hasan, Carlos Hedman Perdomo, Abdul Jalloh, Aparicio P. Jeronimo, Muhammad Alam Khan, Thomas Lenor, Manuel Lopez Perez, Omar Lopez-Jaramillo, Ariel Lucien, Yaniel Machado Aguila, Miguel Angel Marroquin Perez, Tolentino Martinez Rios, Irvin Medoza Silis, Cesar Ariel Mendez Escobar, Jose Galdino Montalvo Rodriguez, Alejandro Vincenzo Mugaburu Tapia, Darwyn Yovanny Navarrette Sanchez, Farhan Nawabit, Lazaro Ocana Guzman, Evarado Orantes Acevedo, Roseline Ostine, Tahimi Perez, Wilder Perez Limones, Deivys Perez Valladares, Ricardo Perezo Alonzo, Francisco Rivero Valeron, Ervin David Rodas Pedro, Maria Eugenia Rodriguez Claras, Rene Jonathan Rosas Cardenas, Danny Ruiz Garcia, Crisley Sacrab-Bin, Gelber Sontay Funez, Adrian Sosa Fletes, Fermin Tepetate-Martinez, Maykel Valera Ramirez, Geraldo Vargas, Agane Warsame, Eitan Yefet, Eliseo Antonio Zamora Mendoza. Attorney Kathryn Stewart Lehman added to party Rolando Aguabella Martinez(pty:pet), Attorney Kathryn Stewart Lehman added to party Juan Carlos Alfaro Garcia(pty:pet), Attorney Kathryn Stewart Lehman added to party Mohamed Hassan Ali(pty:pet), Attorney Kathryn Stewart Lehman added to party Javier Antonio Arias-Martinez(pty:pet), Attorney Kathryn Stewart Lehman added to party Naim Arrak(pty:pet), Attorney Kathryn Stewart Lehman added to party Dairon Barredo Sanchez(pty:pet), Attorney Kathryn Stewart Lehman added to party Maikel Betancourt(pty:pet), Attorney Kathryn Stewart Lehman added to party Sirvanildo Bibiano Soares(pty:pet), Attorney Kathryn Stewart Lehman added to party Maikel Carrasco Polo(pty:pet), Attorney Kathryn Stewart Lehman added to party Abel Carrillo(pty:pet), Attorney Kathryn Stewart Lehman added to party Jose Chavez(pty:pet), Attorney Kathryn Stewart Lehman added to party Maxuel A De Souza(pty:pet), Attorney Kathryn Stewart Lehman added to party Julio Edwards(pty:pet), Attorney Kathryn Stewart Lehman added to party Hassan Mohamed Farah(pty:pet), Attorney Kathryn Stewart Lehman added to party Alejandro Ferreira Borges(pty:pet), Attorney Kathryn Stewart Lehman added to party Ruben Orlando Flores Ramos(pty:pet), Attorney Kathryn Stewart Lehman added to party Patrick Gayle(pty:pet), Attorney Kathryn Stewart Lehman added to party Fernando Goncalves(pty:pet), Attorney Kathryn Stewart Lehman added to party Franklin Ramon Gonzalez(pty:pet), Attorney Kathryn Stewart

Lehman added to party Mohamed Hasan(pty:pet), Attorney Kathryn Stewart Lehman added to party Carlos Hedman Perdomo(pty:pet), Attorney Kathryn Stewart Lehman added to party Abdul Jalloh(pty:pet), Attorney Kathryn Stewart Lehman added to party Aparicio P. Jeronimo(pty:pet), Attorney Kathryn Stewart Lehman added to party Muhammad Alam Khan(pty:pet), Attorney Kathryn Stewart Lehman added to party Thomas Lenor(pty:pet), Attorney Kathryn Stewart Lehman added to party Manuel Lopez Perez(pty:pet), Attorney Kathryn Stewart Lehman added to party Omar Lopez-Jaramillo(pty:pet), Attorney Kathryn Stewart Lehman added to party Ariel Lucien(pty:pet), Attorney Kathryn Stewart Lehman added to party Yaniel Machado Aguila(pty:pet), Attorney Kathryn Stewart Lehman added to party Miguel Angel Marroquin Perez(pty:pet), Attorney Kathryn Stewart Lehman added to party Tolentino Martinez Rios(pty:pet), Attorney Kathryn Stewart Lehman added to party Irvin Medoza Silis(pty:pet), Attorney Kathryn Stewart Lehman added to party Cesar Ariel Mendez Escobar(pty:pet), Attorney Kathryn Stewart Lehman added to party Jose Galdino Montalvo Rodriguez(pty:pet), Attorney Kathryn Stewart Lehman added to party Alejandro Vincenzo Mugaburu Tapia(pty:pet), Attorney Kathryn Stewart Lehman added to party Darwyn Yovanny Navarrette Sanchez(pty:pet), Attorney Kathryn Stewart Lehman added to party Farhan Nawabit(pty:pet), Attorney Kathryn Stewart Lehman added to party Lazaro Ocana Guzman(pty:pet), Attorney Kathryn Stewart Lehman added to party Evarado Orantes Acevedo(pty:pet), Attorney Kathryn Stewart Lehman added to party Roseline Ostine(pty:pet), Attorney Kathryn Stewart Lehman added to party Tahimi Perez(pty:pet), Attorney Kathryn Stewart Lehman added to party Wilder Perez Limones(pty:pet), Attorney Kathryn Stewart Lehman added to party Deivys Perez Valladares(pty:pet), Attorney Kathryn Stewart Lehman added to party Ricardo Perezo Alonzo(pty:pet), Attorney Kathryn Stewart Lehman added to party Francisco Rivero Valeron(pty:pet), Attorney Kathryn Stewart Lehman added to party Ervin David Rodas Pedro(pty:pet), Attorney Kathryn Stewart Lehman added to party Maria Eugenia Rodriguez Claras(pty:pet), Attorney Kathryn Stewart Lehman added to party Rene Jonathan Rosas Cardenas(pty:pet), Attorney Kathryn Stewart Lehman added to party Danny Ruiz Garcia(pty:pet), Attorney Kathryn Stewart Lehman added to party Crisley Sacrab-Bin(pty:pet), Attorney Kathryn Stewart Lehman added to party Gelber Sontay Funez(pty:pet), Attorney Kathryn Stewart Lehman added to party Adrian Sosa Fletes(pty:pet), Attorney Kathryn Stewart Lehman added to party Fermin Tepetate-Martinez(pty:pet), Attorney Kathryn Stewart Lehman added to party Maykel Valera Ramirez(pty:pet), Attorney Kathryn Stewart Lehman added to party Geraldo Vargas(pty:pet), Attorney Kathryn Stewart Lehman added to party Agane Warsame(pty:pet), Attorney Kathryn Stewart Lehman added to party Eitan Yefet(pty:pet), Attorney

Kathryn Stewart Lehman added to party Eliseo Antonio Zamora Mendoza(pty:pet). (Lehman, Kathryn) (Entered: 05/06/2020)

05/06/2020

85 NOTICE of Attorney Appearance by Chad Andrew Peterson on behalf of Rolando Aguabella Martinez, Juan Carlos Alfaro Garcia, Mohamed Hassan Ali, Javier Antonio Arias-Martinez, Naim Arrak, Dairon Barredo Sanchez, Maikel Betancourt, Sirvanildo Bibiano Soares, Maikel Carrasco Polo, Abel Carrillo, Jose Chavez, Maxuel A De Souza, Julio Edwards, Hassan Mohamed Farah, Alejandro Ferreira Borges, Ruben Orlando Flores Ramos, Patrick Gayle, Fernando Goncalves, Franklin Ramon Gonzalez, Mohamed Hasan, Carlos Hedman Perdomo, Abdul Jalloh, Aparicio P. Jeronimo, Muhammad Alam Khan, Thomas Lenor, Manuel Lopez Perez, Omar Lopez-Jaramillo, Ariel Lucien, Yaniel Machado Aguila, Miguel Angel Marroquin Perez, Tolentino Martinez Rios, Irvin Medoza Silis, Cesar Ariel Mendez Escobar, Jose Galdino Montalvo Rodriguez, Alejandro Vincenzo Mugaburu Tapia, Darwyn Yovanny Navarrette Sanchez, Farhan Nawabit, Lazaro Ocana Guzman, Evarado Orantes Acevedo, Roseline Ostine, Tahimi Perez, Wilder Perez Limones, Deivys Perez Valladares, Ricardo Perezo Alonzo, Francisco Rivero Valeron, Ervin David Rodas Pedro, Maria Eugenia Rodriguez Claras, Rene Jonathan Rosas Cardenas, Danny Ruiz Garcia, Crisley Sacrab-Bin, Gelber Sontay Funez, Adrian Sosa Fletes, Fermin Tepetate-Martinez, Maykel Valera Ramirez, Geraldo Vargas, Agane Warsame, Eitan Yefet, Eliseo Antonio Zamora Mendoza. Attorney Chad Andrew Peterson added to party Rolando Aguabella Martinez(pty:pet), Attorney Chad Andrew Peterson added to party Juan Carlos Alfaro Garcia(pty:pet), Attorney Chad Andrew Peterson added to party Mohamed Hassan Ali(pty:pet), Attorney Chad Andrew Peterson added to party Javier Antonio AriasMartinez(pty:pet), Attorney Chad Andrew Peterson added to party Naim Arrak(pty:pet), Attorney Chad Andrew Peterson added to party Dairon Barredo Sanchez(pty:pet), Attorney Chad Andrew Peterson added to party Maikel Betancourt(pty:pet), Attorney Chad Andrew Peterson added to party Sirvanildo Bibiano Soares(pty:pet), Attorney Chad Andrew Peterson added to party Maikel Carrasco Polo(pty:pet), Attorney Chad Andrew Peterson added to party Abel Carrillo(pty:pet), Attorney Chad Andrew Peterson added to party Jose Chavez(pty:pet), Attorney Chad Andrew Peterson added to party Maxuel A De Souza(pty:pet), Attorney Chad Andrew Peterson added to party Julio Edwards(pty:pet), Attorney Chad Andrew Peterson added to party Hassan Mohamed Farah(pty:pet), Attorney Chad Andrew Peterson added to party Alejandro Ferreira Borges(pty:pet), Attorney Chad Andrew Peterson added to party Ruben Orlando Flores Ramos(pty:pet), Attorney Chad Andrew Peterson added to party Patrick Gayle(pty:pet), Attorney Chad Andrew Peterson added to party Fernando Goncalves(pty:pet), Attorney Chad Andrew Peterson added to party Franklin Ramon Gonzalez(pty:pet), Attorney Chad Andrew Peterson added to party Mohamed Hasan(pty:pet), Attorney

Chad Andrew Peterson added to party Carlos Hedman Perdomo(pty:pet), Attorney Chad Andrew Peterson added to party Abdul Jalloh(pty:pet), Attorney Chad Andrew Peterson added to party Aparicio P. Jeronimo(pty:pet), Attorney Chad Andrew Peterson added to party Muhammad Alam Khan(pty:pet), Attorney Chad Andrew Peterson added to party Thomas Lenor(pty:pet), Attorney Chad Andrew Peterson added to party Manuel Lopez Perez(pty:pet), Attorney Chad Andrew Peterson added to party Omar Lopez-Jaramillo(pty:pet), Attorney Chad Andrew Peterson added to party Ariel Lucien(pty:pet), Attorney Chad Andrew Peterson added to party Yaniel Machado Aguila(pty:pet), Attorney Chad Andrew Peterson added to party Miguel Angel Marroquin Perez(pty:pet), Attorney Chad Andrew Peterson added to party Tolentino Martinez Rios(pty:pet), Attorney Chad Andrew Peterson added to party Irvin Medoza Silis(pty:pet), Attorney Chad Andrew Peterson added to party Cesar Ariel Mendez Escobar(pty:pet), Attorney Chad Andrew Peterson added to party Jose Galdino Montalvo Rodriguez(pty:pet), Attorney Chad Andrew Peterson added to party Alejandro Vincenzo Mugaburu Tapia(pty:pet), Attorney Chad Andrew Peterson added to party Darwyn Yovanny Navarrette Sanchez(pty:pet), Attorney Chad Andrew Peterson added to party Farhan Nawabit(pty:pet), Attorney Chad Andrew Peterson added to party Lazaro Ocana Guzman(pty:pet), Attorney Chad Andrew Peterson added to party Evarado Orantes Acevedo(pty:pet), Attorney Chad Andrew Peterson added to party Roseline Ostine(pty:pet), Attorney Chad Andrew Peterson added to party Tahimi Perez(pty:pet), Attorney Chad Andrew Peterson added to party Wilder Perez Limones(pty:pet), Attorney Chad Andrew Peterson added to party Deivys Perez Valladares(pty:pet), Attorney Chad Andrew Peterson added to party Ricardo Perezo Alonzo(pty:pet), Attorney Chad Andrew Peterson added to party Francisco Rivero Valeron(pty:pet), Attorney Chad Andrew Peterson added to party Ervin David Rodas Pedro(pty:pet), Attorney Chad Andrew Peterson added to party Maria Eugenia Rodriguez Claras(pty:pet), Attorney Chad Andrew Peterson added to party Rene Jonathan Rosas Cardenas(pty:pet), Attorney Chad Andrew Peterson added to party Danny Ruiz Garcia(pty:pet), Attorney Chad Andrew Peterson added to party Crisley Sacrab-Bin(pty:pet), Attorney Chad Andrew Peterson added to party Gelber Sontay Funez(pty:pet), Attorney Chad Andrew Peterson added to party Adrian Sosa Fletes(pty:pet), Attorney Chad Andrew Peterson added to party Fermin TepetateMartinez(pty:pet), Attorney Chad Andrew Peterson added to party Maykel Valera Ramirez(pty:pet), Attorney Chad Andrew Peterson added to party Geraldo Vargas(pty:pet), Attorney Chad Andrew Peterson added to party Agane Warsame(pty:pet), Attorney Chad Andrew Peterson added to party Eitan Yefet(pty:pet), Attorney Chad Andrew Peterson added to party Eliseo Antonio Zamora Mendoza(pty:pet). (Peterson, Chad) (Entered: 05/06/2020)

05/06/2020

86 PAPERLESS ORDER RE: Plaintiff's EXPEDITED MOTION for Class Certification 81 . A Zoom Hearing is set for 5/14/2020 at 3:00PM in the Miami Division before Magistrate Judge Jonathan Goodman. All parties will need to download the Zoom App for cell phone, tablet (iPad), and for those using a desktop or a laptop equipped with a webcam to click on the meeting link and install the plug-in when prompted. Then enter the Meeting ID and Password. Each participant needs to log in 10 minutes early, to make sure there are no glitches. The hearing will be conducted via ZOOM, as follows: Join ZoomGov Meetinghttps://www.zoomgov.com/j/1610966775.

Meeting ID: 161 096 6775. Password: 708840.

This Zoom hearing is the digital equivalent of an actual, in-court hearing, so counsel are expected to dress as though they are in an actual federal courtroom. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jonathan Goodman on 5/6/2020. (fbn) (Entered: 05/06/2020)

05/06/2020

87 SUPPLEMENTAL ORDER ON CLASS ACTION MOTION BRIEFING. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jonathan Goodman on 5/6/2020. See attached document for full details. (jzn) (Entered: 05/06/2020)

05/06/2020

88 AMENDED PAPERLESS ORDER RE: Plaintiff's EXPEDITED MOTION for Class Certification 81 . A Zoom Hearing is set for 5/14/2020 at 3:00PM in the Miami Division before Magistrate Judge Jonathan Goodman. All parties will need to download the Zoom App for cell phone, tablet (iPad), and for those using a desktop or a laptop equipped with a webcam to click on the meeting link and install the plugin when prompted. Then enter the Meeting ID and Password. Each participant needs to log in 10 minutes early, to make sure there are no glitches. The hearing will be conducted via ZOOM, as follows: Join ZoomGov Meeting- https://www.zoomgov.com/j/1610966775. Meeting ID: 161 096 6775. Password: 708840.This Zoom hearing is the digital equivalent of an actual, in-court hearing, so counsel are expected to dress as though they are in an actual federal courtroom.

Persons granted remote access to proceedings are reminded of the general prohibition against photographing, recording, and rebroadcasting of court proceedings. Violation of these prohibitions may result in sanctions, including removal of court issued media credentials, restricted entry to future hearings, denial of entry to future hearings, or any other sanctions deemed necessary by the court. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jonathan Goodman on 5/6/2020. (fbn) (Entered: 05/06/2020)

05/07/2020

89 Third Notice to 76 Order on Report and Recommendations, by Field Office Director, Miami Field Office, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, U.S. Attorney General. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit ADeclaration by OIC Castano)(Diaz, Natalie) (Entered: 05/07/2020)

05/08/2020

90 NOTICE of Declarations in Response to the Court's Order Adopting in Part Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendatons by Field Office Director, Miami Field Office, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, U.S. Attorney General re 76 Order on Report and Recommendations, of Filing (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit of Liana J. Castano (OIC)) (Diaz, Natalie) Modified text on 5/8/2020 (jas). (Entered: 05/08/2020)

05/08/2020

91 Clerks Notice to Filer re 90 Notice (Other),. Docket Text Does Not Match Document; ERROR - The Filer failed to enter a title in the docket text that matches the title of the document. The correction was made by the Clerk. It is not necessary to refile the document. (jas) (Entered: 05/08/2020)

05/09/2020

92 RESPONSE in Opposition re 81 Plaintiff's EXPEDITED MOTION For Class Certification , Request for Expedited Consideration filed by Field Office Director, Miami Field Office, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, U.S. Attorney General. Replies due by 5/18/2020. (Diaz, Natalie) (Entered: 05/09/2020)

05/11/2020

93 Notice to 76 Order on Report and Recommendations, by Field Office Director, Miami Field Office, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, U.S. Attorney General. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit ADeclaration OIC Castano)(Diaz, Natalie) (Entered: 05/11/2020)

05/12/2020

94 RESPONSE in Support re 81 Plaintiff's EXPEDITED MOTION For Class Certification , Request for Expedited Consideration filed by Rolando Aguabella Martinez, Juan Carlos Alfaro Garcia, Mohamed Hassan Ali, Javier Antonio Arias-Martinez, Naim Arrak, Dairon Barredo Sanchez, Maikel Betancourt, Sirvanildo Bibiano Soares, Maikel Carrasco Polo, Abel Carrillo, Jose Chavez, Maxuel A De Souza, Julio Edwards, Hassan Mohamed Farah, Alejandro Ferreira Borges, Ruben Orlando Flores Ramos, Patrick Gayle, Fernando Goncalves, Franklin Ramon Gonzalez, Mohamed Hasan, Carlos Hedman Perdomo, Abdul Jalloh, Aparicio P. Jeronimo, Muhammad Alam Khan, Thomas Lenor, Manuel Lopez Perez, Omar Lopez-Jaramillo, Ariel Lucien, Yaniel Machado Aguila, Miguel Angel Marroquin Perez, Tolentino Martinez Rios, Irvin Medoza Silis, Cesar Ariel Mendez Escobar, Jose Galdino Montalvo Rodriguez, Alejandro Vincenzo Mugaburu Tapia, Darwyn Yovanny Navarrette Sanchez, Farhan Nawabit, Lazaro Ocana Guzman, Evarado Orantes Acevedo, Roseline Ostine, Tahimi Perez, Wilder Perez Limones,

Deivys Perez Valladares, Ricardo Perezo Alonzo, Francisco Rivero Valeron, Ervin David Rodas Pedro, Maria Eugenia Rodriguez Claras, Rene Jonathan Rosas Cardenas, Danny Ruiz Garcia, Crisley Sacrab-Bin, Gelber Sontay Funez, Adrian Sosa Fletes, Fermin Tepetate-Martinez, Maykel Valera Ramirez, Geraldo Vargas, Agane Warsame, Eitan Yefet, Eliseo Antonio Zamora Mendoza. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Declarations of Class Members)(Edson, Scott) (Entered: 05/12/2020)

05/13/2020

SYSTEM ENTRY - Docket Entry 95 [misc] restricted/sealed until further notice. (1258220) (Entered: 05/13/2020)

05/13/2020

SYSTEM ENTRY - Docket Entry 96 [misc] restricted/sealed until further notice. (1125479) (Entered: 05/13/2020)

05/14/2020

97 NOTICE by Field Office Director, Miami Field Office, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, U.S. Attorney General re 76 Order on Report and Recommendations, of Filing Declaration of Liana J. Castano (OIC) in Response to Court's Order (DE 76) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit ADeclaration of Liana J. Castano (OIC)) (Diaz, Natalie) (Entered: 05/14/2020)

05/14/2020

98 PAPERLESS Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Jonathan Goodman: Telephonic Motion Hearing held on 5/14/2020. PostHearing Administrative Order to follow. Total time in court: 2 hour(s) : 40 minutes. Attorney Appearance(s): Gregory P. Copeland, Lisa M Berlow-Lehner, Rebecca Ann Sharpless, Paul R. Chavez, Scott Michael Edson, Kathryn Stewart Lehman, Dexter Lee, (Digital 15:00:25) (fbn) (Entered: 05/14/2020)

05/15/2020

99 POST-HEARING ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jonathan Goodman on 5/15/2020. See attached document for full details. (jzn) (Entered: 05/15/2020)

05/15/2020

100 NOTICE of Filing Declaration in Response to Court's Order (DE 76) by Field Office Director, Miami Field Office, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, U.S. Attorney General re 76 Order Adopting In Part Report and Recommendations, (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A-Declaration of Liana J. Castano (OIC)) (Diaz, Natalie) (Entered: 05/15/2020)

05/15/2020

101 ENDORSED ORDER. The COVID-19 pandemic continues to be a pressing problem for detention centers nationwide. Further, since the issuance of this Court's Order dated April 30, 2020, Petitioners have filed a 81 Motion for Class Certification, currently pending before Magistrate Judge Jonathan Goodman. Accordingly, I find good cause to extend the Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) issued in this matter.

It is hereby ORDERED and ADJUDGED as follows:

1.The TRO issued by this Court on April 30, 2020, remains in effect for an additional 14 days pending Judge Goodman's Report and Recommendations on 81 Petitioners' Motion for Class Certification and further hearing on this matter.

2.A Zoom Hearing on 4 Petitioners' Emergency Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Motion for Preliminary Injunction for Proposed Class is set for May 27, 2020, at 2:00 P.M. in the Miami Division before the Honorable Marcia G. Cooke. The details for the Zoom hearing, including the meeting ID and password, are forthcoming.

Signed by Judge Marcia G. Cooke on 5/15/2020. (kou) (Entered: 05/15/2020)

05/15/2020

102 PAPERLESS ORDER clarifying 99 Post-Hearing Administrative Order. If Petitioners choose to file a memorandum on Money v. Pritzker, No. 20CV-2093, 2020 WL 1820660 (N.D. Ill. Apr. 10, 2020), then Defendant may respond by Thursday, May 21, 2020. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jonathan Goodman on 5/15/2020. (jzn) (Entered: 05/15/2020)

05/18/2020

103 MEMORANDUM of Law re 99 Order by Rolando Aguabella Martinez, Juan Carlos Alfaro Garcia, Mohamed Hassan Ali, Javier Antonio AriasMartinez, Naim Arrak, Dairon Barredo Sanchez, Maikel Betancourt, Sirvanildo Bibiano Soares, Maikel Carrasco Polo, Abel Carrillo, Jose Chavez, Maxuel A De Souza, Julio Edwards, Hassan Mohamed Farah, Alejandro Ferreira Borges, Ruben Orlando Flores Ramos, Patrick Gayle, Fernando Goncalves, Franklin Ramon Gonzalez, Mohamed Hasan, Carlos Hedman Perdomo, Abdul Jalloh, Aparicio P. Jeronimo, Muhammad Alam Khan, Thomas Lenor, Manuel Lopez Perez, Omar Lopez-Jaramillo, Ariel Lucien, Yaniel Machado Aguila, Miguel Angel Marroquin Perez, Tolentino Martinez Rios, Irvin Medoza Silis, Cesar Ariel Mendez Escobar, Jose Galdino Montalvo Rodriguez, Alejandro Vincenzo Mugaburu Tapia, Darwyn Yovanny Navarrette Sanchez, Farhan Nawabit, Lazaro Ocana Guzman, Evarado Orantes Acevedo, Roseline Ostine, Tahimi Perez, Wilder Perez Limones, Deivys Perez Valladares, Ricardo Perezo Alonzo, Francisco Rivero Valeron, Ervin David Rodas Pedro, Maria Eugenia Rodriguez Claras, Rene Jonathan Rosas Cardenas, Danny Ruiz Garcia, Crisley Sacrab-Bin, Gelber Sontay Funez, Adrian Sosa Fletes, Fermin Tepetate-Martinez, Maykel Valera Ramirez, Geraldo Vargas, Agane Warsame, Eitan Yefet, Eliseo Antonio Zamora Mendoza. (Edson, Scott) (Entered: 05/18/2020)

05/18/2020

104 NOTICE of Declaration In Response 76 Order Adopting Report and Recommendations, by Field Office Director, Miami Field Office, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, U.S. Attorney General (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A-Declaration of Liana J. Castano (OIC)) (Diaz, Natalie) (Entered: 05/18/2020)

05/19/2020

ENDORSED ORDER SETTING HEARING. A Zoom Hearing on 4 Petitioners' Emergency Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Motion for Preliminary Injunction for Proposed Class is set for May 27, 2020, at 2:00 P.M. in the Miami Division before the Honorable Marcia G. Cooke. The hearing will be conducted via ZOOM, as follows: Join ZoomGov Meeting https://www.zoomgov.com/j/1614630571?pwd=am53bWtYT0l2Sk9nRT ZJNGxWeTJPZz09. Meeting ID: 161 463 0571. Password: 926941.

Persons granted remote access to proceedings are reminded of the general prohibition against photographing, recording, and rebroadcasting of court proceedings. Violation of these prohibitions may result in sanctions, including removal of court issued media credentials, restricted entry to future hearings, denial of entry to future hearings, or any other sanctions deemed necessary by the court.

Signed by Judge Marcia G. Cooke on 5/19/2020. (kou) (Entered: 05/19/2020)

05/20/2020

105 NOTICE by Field Office Director, Miami Field Office, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, U.S. Attorney General re 99 Order of Filing Form in Response to Court's Order (DE 99) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A) (Diaz, Natalie) (Entered: 05/20/2020)

05/20/2020

106 Plaintiff's MOTION to Compel Compliance With The Court's April 30, 2020 Temporary Restraining Order by Rolando Aguabella Martinez, Juan Carlos Alfaro Garcia, Mohamed Hassan Ali, Javier Antonio AriasMartinez, Naim Arrak, Dairon Barredo Sanchez, Maikel Betancourt, Sirvanildo Bibiano Soares, Maikel Carrasco Polo, Abel Carrillo, Jose Chavez, Maxuel A De Souza, Julio Edwards, Hassan Mohamed Farah, Alejandro Ferreira Borges, Ruben Orlando Flores Ramos, Patrick Gayle, Fernando Goncalves, Franklin Ramon Gonzalez, Mohamed Hasan, Carlos Hedman Perdomo, Abdul Jalloh, Aparicio P. Jeronimo, Muhammad Alam Khan, Thomas Lenor, Manuel Lopez Perez, Omar Lopez-Jaramillo, Ariel Lucien, Yaniel Machado Aguila, Miguel Angel Marroquin Perez, Tolentino Martinez Rios, Irvin Medoza Silis, Cesar Ariel Mendez Escobar, Jose Galdino Montalvo Rodriguez, Alejandro Vincenzo Mugaburu Tapia, Darwyn Yovanny Navarrette Sanchez, Farhan Nawabit, Lazaro Ocana Guzman, Evarado Orantes Acevedo, Roseline Ostine,

Tahimi Perez, Wilder Perez Limones, Deivys Perez Valladares, Ricardo Perezo Alonzo, Francisco Rivero Valeron, Ervin David Rodas Pedro, Maria Eugenia Rodriguez Claras, Rene Jonathan Rosas Cardenas, Danny Ruiz Garcia, Crisley Sacrab-Bin, Gelber Sontay Funez, Adrian Sosa Fletes, Fermin Tepetate-Martinez, Maykel Valera Ramirez, Geraldo Vargas, Agane Warsame, Eitan Yefet, Eliseo Antonio Zamora Mendoza. Responses due by 6/3/2020 (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order on Petitioners' Emergency Motion to Compel Compliance with the Court's April 30, 2020 Temporary Restraining Order, # 2 Exhibit Petitioner Declarations, # 3 Exhibit Order (1) GRANTING Plaintiffs Ex Parte Application (Dkt. No. 136); and (2) DENYING Defendants Ex Parte Applications to Strike at 6 (Dkt. Nos. 141, 148) (IN CHAMBERS), Fraihat v. ICE, No. 5:19- cv-01546-JGBSHK (C.D. Cal. May 15, 2020), # 4 Exhibit Order at 4 & n.4, Portuondo v. Field Officer Director Miami Field Office, No. 20-21543CIVWILLIAMS (S.D. Fla. May 7, 2020))(Edson, Scott) (Entered: 05/20/2020)

05/21/2020

107 ENDORSED ORDER SETTING BRIEFING SCHEDULE. Respondents shall file a Response to 106 Petitioners' Emergency Motion to Compel on or before Noon on May 25, 2020. The Response shall discuss how ICE utilizes transfers and whether such transfers have been known to result in an increase in COVID-19 cases at any of the detention centers at issue. Respondents shall also discuss whether ICE is in compliance with every aspect of this Court's 76 Order dated April 23, 2020. Petitioners shall file a Reply in this regard on or before Noon on May 26, 2020. The Parties should be prepared to discuss 106 Petitioners' Emergency Motion to Compel at the Hearing scheduled for May 27, 2020. Signed by Judge Marcia G. Cooke on 5/21/2020. (kou) (Entered: 05/21/2020)

05/21/2020

108 NOTICE of Filing Declaration in Response to Court's Order (DE 76) Adopting in Part Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendations by Field Office Director, Miami Field Office, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, U.S. Attorney General re 76 Order on Report and Recommendations, (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A-Declaration of Acting Officer in Charge Liana J. Castano) (Diaz, Natalie) (Entered: 05/21/2020)

05/21/2020

109 SUMMONS (Affidavit) Returned Executed by Gelber Sontay Funez, Maxuel A De Souza, Maikel Betancourt, Cesar Ariel Mendez Escobar, Javier Antonio Arias-Martinez, Irvin Medoza Silis, Hassan Mohamed Farah, Patrick Gayle, Fernando Goncalves, Ruben Orlando Flores Ramos, Adrian Sosa Fletes, Maria Eugenia Rodriguez Claras, Ricardo Perezo Alonzo, Agane Warsame, Jose Galdino Montalvo Rodriguez, Manuel Lopez Perez, Maikel Carrasco Polo, Geraldo Vargas, Francisco Rivero Valeron, Dairon Barredo Sanchez, Omar Lopez-Jaramillo, Crisley

Sacrab-Bin, Mohamed Hassan Ali, Eliseo Antonio Zamora Mendoza, Lazaro Ocana Guzman, Abel Carrillo, Alejandro Vincenzo Mugaburu Tapia, Franklin Ramon Gonzalez, Abdul Jalloh, Eitan Yefet, Alejandro Ferreira Borges, Maykel Valera Ramirez, Darwyn Yovanny Navarrette Sanchez, Ariel Lucien, Carlos Hedman Perdomo, Deivys Perez Valladares, Roseline Ostine, Evarado Orantes Acevedo, Tahimi Perez, Jose Chavez, Rene Jonathan Rosas Cardenas, Wilder Perez Limones, Thomas Lenor, Ervin David Rodas Pedro, Fermin Tepetate-Martinez, Julio Edwards, Muhammad Alam Khan, Naim Arrak, Miguel Angel Marroquin Perez, Juan Carlos Alfaro Garcia, Yaniel Machado Aguila, Danny Ruiz Garcia, Aparicio P. Jeronimo, Sirvanildo Bibiano Soares, Rolando Aguabella Martinez, Mohamed Hasan, Farhan Nawabit, Tolentino Martinez Rios. Field Office Director, Miami Field Office, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement served on 4/24/2020, answer due 6/23/2020; U.S. Attorney General served on 4/27/2020, answer due 6/26/2020. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A - Certified Mail Receipts and Return Signatures)(Dominguez, Anthony) (Entered: 05/21/2020)

05/21/2020

110 Defendant's RESPONSE to 103 Memorandum,,,,, on Money v. Pritzker by Field Office Director, Miami Field Office, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, U.S. Attorney General. (Lee, Dexter) (Entered: 05/21/2020)

05/21/2020

113 SUMMONS (Affidavit) Returned Executed by Gelber Sontay Funez, Maxuel A De Souza, Maikel Betancourt, Cesar Ariel Mendez Escobar, Javier Antonio Arias-Martinez, Irvin Medoza Silis, Hassan Mohamed Farah, Patrick Gayle, Fernando Goncalves, Ruben Orlando Flores Ramos, Adrian Sosa Fletes, Maria Eugenia Rodriguez Claras, Ricardo Perezo Alonzo, Agane Warsame, Jose Galdino Montalvo Rodriguez, Manuel Lopez Perez, Maikel Carrasco Polo, Geraldo Vargas, Francisco Rivero Valeron, Dairon Barredo Sanchez, Omar Lopez-Jaramillo, Crisley Sacrab-Bin, Mohamed Hassan Ali, Eliseo Antonio Zamora Mendoza, Lazaro Ocana Guzman, Abel Carrillo, Alejandro Vincenzo Mugaburu Tapia, Franklin Ramon Gonzalez, Abdul Jalloh, Eitan Yefet, Alejandro Ferreira Borges, Maykel Valera Ramirez, Darwyn Yovanny Navarrette Sanchez, Ariel Lucien, Carlos Hedman Perdomo, Deivys Perez Valladares, Roseline Ostine, Evarado Orantes Acevedo, Tahimi Perez, Jose Chavez, Rene Jonathan Rosas Cardenas, Wilder Perez Limones, Thomas Lenor, U.S. Attorney General, Ervin David Rodas Pedro, Fermin Tepetate-Martinez, Julio Edwards, Muhammad Alam Khan, Naim Arrak, Miguel Angel Marroquin Perez, Juan Carlos Alfaro Garcia, Yaniel Machado Aguila, Danny Ruiz Garcia, Aparicio P. Jeronimo, Sirvanildo Bibiano Soares, Rolando Aguabella Martinez, Mohamed Hasan, Farhan Nawabit, Tolentino Martinez Rios. US Attorney served on 4/22/2020, answer due 6/22/2020. (See DE# 109 for image). (jas) (Entered: 05/22/2020)

05/22/2020

111 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS ON 81 CLASS CERTIFICATION MOTION. Objections to R&R due by 6/5/2020. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jonathan Goodman on 5/22/2020. See attached document for full details. (jzn) (Entered: 05/22/2020)

05/22/2020

112 SUPPLEMENT to 106 Plaintiff's MOTION to Compel Compliance With The Court's April 30, 2020 Temporary Restraining Order by Rolando Aguabella Martinez, Juan Carlos Alfaro Garcia, Mohamed Hassan Ali, Javier Antonio Arias-Martinez, Naim Arrak, Dairon Barredo Sanchez, Maikel Betancourt, Sirvanildo Bibiano Soares, Maikel Carrasco Polo, Abel Carrillo, Jose Chavez, Maxuel A De Souza, Julio Edwards, Hassan Mohamed Farah, Alejandro Ferreira Borges, Ruben Orlando Flores Ramos, Patrick Gayle, Fernando Goncalves, Franklin Ramon Gonzalez, Mohamed Hasan, Carlos Hedman Perdomo, Abdul Jalloh, Aparicio P. Jeronimo, Muhammad Alam Khan, Thomas Lenor, Manuel Lopez Perez, Omar Lopez-Jaramillo, Ariel Lucien, Yaniel Machado Aguila, Miguel Angel Marroquin Perez, Tolentino Martinez Rios, Irvin Medoza Silis, Cesar Ariel Mendez Escobar, Jose Galdino Montalvo Rodriguez, Alejandro Vincenzo Mugaburu Tapia, Darwyn Yovanny Navarrette Sanchez, Farhan Nawabit, Lazaro Ocana Guzman, Evarado Orantes Acevedo, Roseline Ostine, Tahimi Perez, Wilder Perez Limones, Deivys Perez Valladares, Ricardo Perezo Alonzo, Francisco Rivero Valeron, Ervin David Rodas Pedro, Maria Eugenia Rodriguez Claras, Rene Jonathan Rosas Cardenas, Danny Ruiz Garcia, Crisley Sacrab-Bin, Gelber Sontay Funez, Adrian Sosa Fletes, Fermin Tepetate-Martinez, Maykel Valera Ramirez, Geraldo Vargas, Agane Warsame, Eitan Yefet, Eliseo Antonio Zamora Mendoza (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit ICE COVID-19 Checklist)(Edson, Scott) (Entered: 05/22/2020)

05/22/2020

114 Clerks Notice to Filer re 109 Summons Returned Executed as to USA. Two or More Document Events Filed as One; ERROR - Only one event was selected by the Filer but more than one event was applicable to the document filed. The docket entry was corrected by the Clerk. It is not necessary to refile this document but in the future, the Filer must select all applicable events. (jas) (Entered: 05/22/2020)

05/22/2020

115 NOTICE of Filing Declaration in response to Court's Order, re DE 76 ORDER adopting in part 63 Report and Recommendations, by Field Office Director, Miami Field Office, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, U.S. Attorney General re 76 Order on Report and Recommendations, (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A-Declaration of Acting Officer in Charge Liana J. Castano) (Diaz, Natalie) (Entered: 05/22/2020)

05/25/2020 116 RESPONSE in Opposition re 106 Plaintiff's EMERGENCY MOTION to Compel Compliance With The Court's April 30, 2020 Temporary Restraining Order filed by Field Office Director, Miami Field Office,

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, U.S. Attorney General. Replies due by 6/1/2020. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A- OIC Castano Declaration, # 2 Exhibit B- AFOD Lopez Vega Declaration)(Diaz, Natalie) (Entered: 05/25/2020)

05/25/2020

117 Notice to 76 Order on Report and Recommendations, by Field Office Director, Miami Field Office, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, U.S. Attorney General. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A- OIC Castano Declaration)(Diaz, Natalie) (Entered: 05/25/2020)

05/26/2020

118 REPLY to RESPONSE in Support re 106 Plaintiff's MOTION to Compel Compliance With The Court's April 30, 2020 Temporary Restraining Order filed by Rolando Aguabella Martinez, Juan Carlos Alfaro Garcia, Mohamed Hassan Ali, Javier Antonio Arias-Martinez, Naim Arrak, Dairon Barredo Sanchez, Maikel Betancourt, Sirvanildo Bibiano Soares, Maikel Carrasco Polo, Abel Carrillo, Jose Chavez, Maxuel A De Souza, Julio Edwards, Hassan Mohamed Farah, Alejandro Ferreira Borges, Ruben Orlando Flores Ramos, Patrick Gayle, Fernando Goncalves, Franklin Ramon Gonzalez, Mohamed Hasan, Carlos Hedman Perdomo, Abdul Jalloh, Aparicio P. Jeronimo, Muhammad Alam Khan, Thomas Lenor, Manuel Lopez Perez, Omar Lopez-Jaramillo, Ariel Lucien, Yaniel Machado Aguila, Miguel Angel Marroquin Perez, Tolentino Martinez Rios, Irvin Medoza Silis, Cesar Ariel Mendez Escobar, Jose Galdino Montalvo Rodriguez, Alejandro Vincenzo Mugaburu Tapia, Darwyn Yovanny Navarrette Sanchez, Farhan Nawabit, Lazaro Ocana Guzman, Evarado Orantes Acevedo, Roseline Ostine, Tahimi Perez, Wilder Perez Limones, Deivys Perez Valladares, Ricardo Perezo Alonzo, Francisco Rivero Valeron, Ervin David Rodas Pedro, Maria Eugenia Rodriguez Claras, Rene Jonathan Rosas Cardenas, Danny Ruiz Garcia, Crisley Sacrab-Bin, Gelber Sontay Funez, Adrian Sosa Fletes, Fermin Tepetate-Martinez, Maykel Valera Ramirez, Geraldo Vargas, Agane Warsame, Eitan Yefet, Eliseo Antonio Zamora Mendoza. (Edson, Scott) (Entered: 05/26/2020)

05/27/2020

120 PAPERLESS Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Marcia G. Cooke: Motion Hearing held on 5/27/2020 re 106 Plaintiff's MOTION to Compel Compliance With The Court's April 30, 2020 Temporary Restraining Order filed by Thomas Lenor, Patrick Gayle, Rolando Aguabella Martinez, Naim Arrak, Dairon Barredo Sanchez, Agane Warsame, Wilder Perez Limones, Ervin David Rodas Pedro, Adrian Sosa Fletes, Eitan Yefet, Alejandro Ferreira Borges, Jose Chavez, Lazaro Ocana Guzman, Danny Ruiz Garcia, Julio Edwards, Eliseo Antonio Zamora Mendoza, Geraldo Vargas, Gelber Sontay Funez, Fernando Goncalves, Muhammad Alam Khan, Maria Eugenia Rodriguez Claras, Miguel Angel Marroquin Perez, Cesar Ariel Mendez Escobar, Alejandro Vincenzo Mugaburu Tapia, Javier Antonio Arias-Martinez, Sirvanildo

Bibiano Soares, Maxuel A De Souza, Tolentino Martinez Rios, Abel Carrillo, Jose Galdino Montalvo Rodriguez, Hassan Mohamed Farah, Mohamed Hassan Ali, Evarado Orantes Acevedo, Deivys Perez Valladares, Maikel Carrasco Polo, Ariel Lucien, Omar Lopez-Jaramillo, Abdul Jalloh, Yaniel Machado Aguila, Maikel Betancourt, Francisco Rivero Valeron, Tahimi Perez, Franklin Ramon Gonzalez, Fermin Tepetate-Martinez, Farhan Nawabit, Juan Carlos Alfaro Garcia, Ruben Orlando Flores Ramos, Irvin Medoza Silis, Darwyn Yovanny Navarrette Sanchez, Maykel Valera Ramirez, Crisley Sacrab-Bin, Mohamed Hasan, Aparicio P. Jeronimo, Rene Jonathan Rosas Cardenas, Roseline Ostine, Manuel Lopez Perez, Ricardo Perezo Alonzo, Carlos Hedman Perdomo. Total time in court (via video teleconference): 1 hour: 30 minutes. Court Reporter: Jill Wells, 305-523-5158 / Jill_Wells@flsd.uscourts.gov. (im) (Entered: 05/28/2020)

05/28/2020

119 NOTICE of Respondents' Consent to Extension of Temporary Restraining Order by Field Office Director, Miami Field Office, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, U.S. Attorney General re 101 Order,Set/Reset Hearings, 76 Order on Report and Recommendations, of Respondents' Consent to Extension of Temporary Restraining Order (Diaz, Natalie) (Entered: 05/28/2020)

05/28/2020

121 ENDORSED ORDER Given the Respondents' 119 consent to extension of the Temporary Restraining Order ("TRO") entered in this matter on April 30, 2020, it is hereby ORDERED and ADJUDGED that the TRO is extended by seven (7) days. Signed by Judge Marcia G. Cooke on 5/28/2020. (kou) Modified on 5/29/2020 (sk). (Entered: 05/28/2020)

05/28/2020

122 NOTICE of Filing Declaration in Response to Court's Order (DE 76) by Field Office Director, Miami Field Office, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, U.S. Attorney General re 76 Order on Report and Recommendations, (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A-Declaration of Liana J. Castano (OIC)) (Diaz, Natalie) (Entered: 05/28/2020)

05/29/2020

123 AMENDED REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS ON CLASS CERTIFICATION MOTION. Objections to R&R due by 6/12/2020. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jonathan Goodman on 5/29/2020. See attached document for full details. (jzn) (Entered: 05/29/2020)

05/29/2020

124 NOTICE of Declaration of Filing Declaration in Response to Court's Order DE# 76 ORDER adopting in part 63 Report and Recommendations by Field Office Director, Miami Field Office, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, U.S. Attorney General re 76 Order on Report and Recommendations, (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A- Declaration of Liana J. Castano (OIC)) (Diaz, Natalie) (Entered: 05/29/2020)

05/29/2020

125 ENDORSED ORDER SETTING HEARING. A Zoom Hearing on 4 Petitioners' Emergency Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Motion for Preliminary Injunction for Proposed Class is set for June 2, 2020, at 10:00 A.M. in the Miami Division before the Honorable Marcia G. Cooke. The details for the Zoom hearing, including the meeting ID and password, are forthcoming. Signed by Judge Marcia G. Cooke on 5/29/2020. (kou) (Entered: 05/29/2020)

06/01/2020

126 ENDORSED ORDER. On May 22, 2020, Magistrate Judge Goodman issued 111 a Report and Recommendations (R&R) on Petitioners' Motion for Class Certification with filed Objections due on June 5, 2020. However, on May 29, 2020, Judge Goodman sua sponte issued 123 an Amended R&R on the Motion for Class Certification expanding his discussion on the issue of how transfer of detainees affects jurisdiction and updating the procedural history. Other than these revisions, "the Amended Report is substantively identical to the first version." (ECF No. 123 at 1, n.1.) The Amended R&R extended the time to file Objections by an additional 14 days to June 12, 2020. To promote judicial economy and preserve resources, the Court has determined that it is in the best interest of justice to address the merits of the Motions for Preliminary Injunction and Class Certification in one Order. Accordingly, on May 31, 2020, the Court requested that the parties consent to extend the TRO until June 15, 2020, to allow the parties the opportunity to submit any Objections to the Amended R&R before the Court issued an Order. On June 1, 2020, Respondents notified the Court that it did not agree to an additional extension. Pursuant to the Local Rules of this jurisdiction, "[a]ny party may appeal from a Magistrate Judges order determining a motion or matter... within fourteen (14) days after being served with the Magistrate Judges order, unless a different time is prescribed by the Magistrate Judge or District Judge." L.R.4(a) (emphasis added.) In light of Respondents decline of the Courts request and the Courts determination that the Motions for Preliminary Injunction and Class Certification should be addressed in one Order, it is hereby ORDERED and ADJUDGED that the parties shall file their Objections to 123 the Amended R&R on or before June 3, 2020. Signed by Judge Marcia G. Cooke on 6/1/2020. (kou) (Entered: 06/01/2020)

06/01/2020

127 ENDORSED ORDER SETTING HEARING. A Zoom Hearing on 4 Petitioners' Emergency Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Motion for Preliminary Injunction for Proposed Class is set for June 2, 2020, at 10:00 A.M. in the Miami Division before the Honorable Marcia G. Cooke. The hearing will be conducted via ZOOM, as follows: Join ZoomGov Meeting https://www.zoomgov.com/j/1614605548?pwd=M3g5K0FaQU40UkZVc TMwUS9PaFlVdz09. Meeting ID: 161 460 5548. Password: 926941.

Persons granted remote access to proceedings are reminded of the general prohibition against photographing, recording, and rebroadcasting of court proceedings. Violation of these prohibitions may result in sanctions, including removal of court issued media credentials, restricted entry to future hearings, denial of entry to future hearings, or any other sanctions deemed necessary by the court.

Signed by Judge Marcia G. Cooke on 6/1/2020. (kou) (Entered: 06/01/2020)

06/01/2020

128 Witness List and Request For Assistance Coordinating Witnesses' Attendance at Hearing by Rolando Aguabella Martinez, Juan Carlos Alfaro Garcia, Mohamed Hassan Ali, Javier Antonio Arias-Martinez, Naim Arrak, Dairon Barredo Sanchez, Maikel Betancourt, Sirvanildo Bibiano Soares, Maikel Carrasco Polo, Abel Carrillo, Jose Chavez, Maxuel A De Souza, Julio Edwards, Hassan Mohamed Farah, Alejandro Ferreira Borges, Ruben Orlando Flores Ramos, Patrick Gayle, Fernando Goncalves, Franklin Ramon Gonzalez, Mohamed Hasan, Carlos Hedman Perdomo, Abdul Jalloh, Aparicio P. Jeronimo, Muhammad Alam Khan, Thomas Lenor, Manuel Lopez Perez, Omar Lopez-Jaramillo, Ariel Lucien, Yaniel Machado Aguila, Miguel Angel Marroquin Perez, Tolentino Martinez Rios, Irvin Medoza Silis, Cesar Ariel Mendez Escobar, Jose Galdino Montalvo Rodriguez, Alejandro Vincenzo Mugaburu Tapia, Darwyn Yovanny Navarrette Sanchez, Farhan Nawabit, Lazaro Ocana Guzman, Evarado Orantes Acevedo, Roseline Ostine, Tahimi Perez, Wilder Perez Limones, Deivys Perez Valladares, Ricardo Perezo Alonzo, Francisco Rivero Valeron, Ervin David Rodas Pedro, Maria Eugenia Rodriguez Claras, Rene Jonathan Rosas Cardenas, Danny Ruiz Garcia, Crisley Sacrab-Bin, Gelber Sontay Funez, Adrian Sosa Fletes, Fermin Tepetate-Martinez, Maykel Valera Ramirez, Geraldo Vargas, Agane Warsame, Eitan Yefet, Eliseo Antonio Zamora Mendoza.. (Edson, Scott) (Entered: 06/01/2020)

06/01/2020

129 NOTICE of Filing Declaration in Response to DE# 76 ORDER adopting in part 63 Report and Recommendations by Field Office Director, Miami Field Office, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, U.S. Attorney General re 76 Order on Report and Recommendations, (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A- Declaration of Liana J. Castano (OIC)) (Diaz, Natalie) (Entered: 06/01/2020)

06/01/2020

130 NOTICE of Filing Declarations by Rolando Aguabella Martinez, Juan Carlos Alfaro Garcia, Mohamed Hassan Ali, Javier Antonio AriasMartinez, Naim Arrak, Dairon Barredo Sanchez, Maikel Betancourt, Sirvanildo Bibiano Soares, Maikel Carrasco Polo, Abel Carrillo, Jose Chavez, Maxuel A De Souza, Julio Edwards, Hassan Mohamed Farah,

Alejandro Ferreira Borges, Ruben Orlando Flores Ramos, Patrick Gayle, Fernando Goncalves, Franklin Ramon Gonzalez, Mohamed Hasan, Carlos Hedman Perdomo, Abdul Jalloh, Aparicio P. Jeronimo, Muhammad Alam Khan, Thomas Lenor, Manuel Lopez Perez, Omar Lopez-Jaramillo, Ariel Lucien, Yaniel Machado Aguila, Miguel Angel Marroquin Perez, Tolentino Martinez Rios, Irvin Medoza Silis, Cesar Ariel Mendez Escobar, Jose Galdino Montalvo Rodriguez, Alejandro Vincenzo Mugaburu Tapia, Darwyn Yovanny Navarrette Sanchez, Farhan Nawabit, Lazaro Ocana Guzman, Evarado Orantes Acevedo, Roseline Ostine, Tahimi Perez, Wilder Perez Limones, Deivys Perez Valladares, Ricardo Perezo Alonzo, Francisco Rivero Valeron, Ervin David Rodas Pedro, Maria Eugenia Rodriguez Claras, Rene Jonathan Rosas Cardenas, Danny Ruiz Garcia, Crisley Sacrab-Bin, Gelber Sontay Funez, Adrian Sosa Fletes, Fermin Tepetate-Martinez, Maykel Valera Ramirez, Geraldo Vargas, Agane Warsame, Eitan Yefet, Eliseo Antonio Zamora Mendoza (Edson, Scott)(jas). (Entered: 06/01/2020)

06/01/2020

131 NOTICE of Filing Supplemental Declarations in Response to Court's Order (DE 76) ORDER adopting in part 63 Report and Recommendations by Field Office Director, Miami Field Office, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, U.S. Attorney General re 76 Order on Report and Recommendations, (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1-Declaration of Liana J. Castano (OIC), # 2 Exhibit 2-Declaration of Juan A. Lopez Vega (AFOD)) (Diaz, Natalie) (Entered: 06/01/2020)

06/01/2020

132 MOTION/PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus ad Testificandum on Steve Cooper, A#063-984-093, at Glades County Detention Center , MOTION for Order to Show Cause by Rolando Aguabella Martinez, Juan Carlos Alfaro Garcia, Mohamed Hassan Ali, Javier Antonio AriasMartinez, Naim Arrak, Dairon Barredo Sanchez, Maikel Betancourt, Sirvanildo Bibiano Soares, Maikel Carrasco Polo, Abel Carrillo, Jose Chavez, Maxuel A De Souza, Julio Edwards, Hassan Mohamed Farah, Alejandro Ferreira Borges, Ruben Orlando Flores Ramos, Patrick Gayle, Fernando Goncalves, Franklin Ramon Gonzalez, Mohamed Hasan, Carlos Hedman Perdomo, Abdul Jalloh, Aparicio P. Jeronimo, Muhammad Alam Khan, Thomas Lenor, Manuel Lopez Perez, Omar Lopez-Jaramillo, Ariel Lucien, Yaniel Machado Aguila, Miguel Angel Marroquin Perez, Tolentino Martinez Rios, Irvin Medoza Silis, Cesar Ariel Mendez Escobar, Jose Galdino Montalvo Rodriguez, Alejandro Vincenzo Mugaburu Tapia, Darwyn Yovanny Navarrette Sanchez, Farhan Nawabit, Lazaro Ocana Guzman, Evarado Orantes Acevedo, Roseline Ostine, Tahimi Perez, Wilder Perez Limones, Deivys Perez Valladares, Ricardo Perezo Alonzo, Francisco Rivero Valeron, Ervin David Rodas Pedro, Maria Eugenia Rodriguez Claras, Rene Jonathan Rosas Cardenas, Danny Ruiz Garcia, Crisley Sacrab-Bin, Gelber Sontay Funez, Adrian Sosa Fletes, Fermin Tepetate-Martinez, Maykel Valera Ramirez, Geraldo

Vargas, Agane Warsame, Eitan Yefet, Eliseo Antonio Zamora Mendoza. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Prada, Mark) (Entered: 06/01/2020)

06/01/2020

133 MOTION/PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus ad Testificandum on Alejandro Ferrera Borges, A#203-590-507, at Broward Transitional Center by Rolando Aguabella Martinez, Juan Carlos Alfaro Garcia, Mohamed Hassan Ali, Javier Antonio Arias-Martinez, Naim Arrak, Dairon Barredo Sanchez, Maikel Betancourt, Sirvanildo Bibiano Soares, Maikel Carrasco Polo, Abel Carrillo, Jose Chavez, Maxuel A De Souza, Julio Edwards, Hassan Mohamed Farah, Alejandro Ferreira Borges, Ruben Orlando Flores Ramos, Patrick Gayle, Fernando Goncalves, Franklin Ramon Gonzalez, Mohamed Hasan, Carlos Hedman Perdomo, Abdul Jalloh, Aparicio P. Jeronimo, Muhammad Alam Khan, Thomas Lenor, Manuel Lopez Perez, Omar Lopez-Jaramillo, Ariel Lucien, Yaniel Machado Aguila, Miguel Angel Marroquin Perez, Tolentino Martinez Rios, Irvin Medoza Silis, Cesar Ariel Mendez Escobar, Jose Galdino Montalvo Rodriguez, Alejandro Vincenzo Mugaburu Tapia, Darwyn Yovanny Navarrette Sanchez, Farhan Nawabit, Lazaro Ocana Guzman, Evarado Orantes Acevedo, Roseline Ostine, Tahimi Perez, Wilder Perez Limones, Deivys Perez Valladares, Ricardo Perezo Alonzo, Francisco Rivero Valeron, Ervin David Rodas Pedro, Maria Eugenia Rodriguez Claras, Rene Jonathan Rosas Cardenas, Danny Ruiz Garcia, Crisley Sacrab-Bin, Gelber Sontay Funez, Adrian Sosa Fletes, Fermin TepetateMartinez, Maykel Valera Ramirez, Geraldo Vargas, Agane Warsame, Eitan Yefet, Eliseo Antonio Zamora Mendoza. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Prada, Mark) (Entered: 06/01/2020)

06/01/2020

134 MOTION/PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus ad Testificandum on Deivy Perez Valladares, A#203-652-532, at Krome Service Processing Center , MOTION for Order to Show Cause by Rolando Aguabella Martinez, Juan Carlos Alfaro Garcia, Mohamed Hassan Ali, Javier Antonio Arias-Martinez, Naim Arrak, Dairon Barredo Sanchez, Maikel Betancourt, Sirvanildo Bibiano Soares, Maikel Carrasco Polo, Abel Carrillo, Jose Chavez, Maxuel A De Souza, Julio Edwards, Hassan Mohamed Farah, Alejandro Ferreira Borges, Ruben Orlando Flores Ramos, Patrick Gayle, Fernando Goncalves, Franklin Ramon Gonzalez, Mohamed Hasan, Carlos Hedman Perdomo, Abdul Jalloh, Aparicio P. Jeronimo, Muhammad Alam Khan, Thomas Lenor, Manuel Lopez Perez, Omar Lopez-Jaramillo, Ariel Lucien, Yaniel Machado Aguila, Miguel Angel Marroquin Perez, Tolentino Martinez Rios, Irvin Medoza Silis, Cesar Ariel Mendez Escobar, Jose Galdino Montalvo Rodriguez, Alejandro Vincenzo Mugaburu Tapia, Darwyn Yovanny Navarrette Sanchez, Farhan Nawabit, Lazaro Ocana Guzman, Evarado Orantes Acevedo, Roseline Ostine, Tahimi Perez, Wilder Perez Limones, Deivys Perez Valladares, Ricardo Perezo Alonzo, Francisco Rivero Valeron,

Ervin David Rodas Pedro, Maria Eugenia Rodriguez Claras, Rene Jonathan Rosas Cardenas, Danny Ruiz Garcia, Crisley Sacrab-Bin, Gelber Sontay Funez, Adrian Sosa Fletes, Fermin Tepetate-Martinez, Maykel Valera Ramirez, Geraldo Vargas, Agane Warsame, Eitan Yefet, Eliseo Antonio Zamora Mendoza. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Prada, Mark) (Entered: 06/01/2020)

06/02/2020

135 PAPERLESS Minute Entry for proceedings held via video teleconference before Judge Marcia G. Cooke: Motion Hearing held on 6/2/2020 re 4 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order MOTION for Preliminary Injunction filed by Patrick Gayle, Naim Arrak, Dairon Barredo Sanchez, Agane Warsame, Wilder Perez Limones, Ervin David Rodas Pedro, Adrian Sosa Fletes, Alejandro Ferreira Borges, Jose Chavez, Lazaro Ocana Guzman, Eliseo Antonio Zamora Mendoza, Geraldo Vargas, Gelber Sontay Funez, Muhammad Alam Khan, Cesar Ariel Mendez Escobar, Javier Antonio Arias-Martinez, Sirvanildo Bibiano Soares, Tolentino Martinez Rios, Hassan Mohamed Farah, Abdul Jalloh, Maikel Betancourt, Francisco Rivero Valeron, Tahimi Perez, Franklin Ramon Gonzalez, Fermin Tepetate-Martinez, Juan Carlos Alfaro Garcia, Ruben Orlando Flores Ramos, Irvin Medoza Silis, Darwyn Yovanny Navarrette Sanchez, Maykel Valera Ramirez, Mohamed Hasan, Aparicio P. Jeronimo, Rene Jonathan Rosas Cardenas, Roseline Ostine. Hearing will continue tomorrow, June 3, 2020 at 11:30 AM. Total time in court: 1 hour: 30 minutes. Court Reporter: Jill Wells, 305-523-5158 / Jill_Wells@flsd.uscourts.gov. (im) (Entered: 06/02/2020)

06/02/2020 136 ENDORSED ORDER denying as moot 132 Motion for Writ and Motion for Order to Show Cause. Signed by Judge Marcia G. Cooke on 6/2/2020. (kou) (Entered: 06/02/2020)

06/02/2020 137 ENDORSED ORDER denying as moot 133 Motion for Writ. Signed by Judge Marcia G. Cooke on 6/2/2020. (kou) (Entered: 06/02/2020)

06/02/2020 138 ENDORSED ORDER denying as moot 134 Motion for Writ and Motion for Order to Show Cause. Signed by Judge Marcia G. Cooke on 6/2/2020. (kou) (Entered: 06/02/2020)

06/02/2020

139 ENDORSED ORDER SETTING HEARING. A Zoom Hearing on 4 Petitioners' Emergency Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Motion for Preliminary Injunction for Proposed Class is set for June 3, 2020, at 11:30 A.M. in the Miami Division before the Honorable Marcia G. Cooke. The details for the Zoom hearing, including the meeting ID and password, are forthcoming. Signed by Judge Marcia G. Cooke on 6/2/2020. (kou) (Entered: 06/02/2020)

06/03/2020 140 ENDORSED ORDER SETTING HEARING. A Zoom Hearing on 4 Petitioners' Emergency Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and

Motion for Preliminary Injunction for Proposed Class is set for June 3, 2020, at 11:30 A.M. in the Miami Division before the Honorable Marcia G. Cooke. The hearing will be conducted via ZOOM, as follows: Join ZoomGov Meeting https://www.zoomgov.com/j/1614891532?pwd=NGJrWkZ6SVJnVXl4d G1jVnBSTXFSUT09. Meeting ID: 161 489 1532. Password: 532991.

Persons granted remote access to proceedings are reminded of the general prohibition against photographing, recording, and rebroadcasting of court proceedings. Violation of these prohibitions may result in sanctions, including removal of court issued media credentials, restricted entry to future hearings, denial of entry to future hearings, or any other sanctions deemed necessary by the court.

Signed by Judge Marcia G. Cooke on 6/3/2020. (kou) (Entered: 06/03/2020)

06/03/2020

141 ENDORSED ORDER AMENDING HEARING. The Court has been informed that the parties intend to use Skype to present witnesses this morning. Accordingly, the 140 Endorsed Order Setting Hearing is Amended as follows:

A Hearing on 4 Petitioners' Emergency Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Motion for Preliminary Injunction for Proposed Class is set for June 3, 2020, at 11:30 A.M. in the Miami Division before the Honorable Marcia G. Cooke. The hearing will be conducted via Skype, as follows: Join by Skype for Businesshttps://www.zoomgov.com/skype/1614891532. Meeting ID: 161 489 1532. Password: 532991.

Persons granted remote access to proceedings are reminded of the general prohibition against photographing, recording, and rebroadcasting of court proceedings. Violation of these prohibitions may result in sanctions, including removal of court issued media credentials, restricted entry to future hearings, denial of entry to future hearings, or any other sanctions deemed necessary by the court.

Signed by Judge Marcia G. Cooke on 6/3/2020. (kou) (Entered: 06/03/2020)

06/03/2020

142 NOTICE by Rolando Aguabella Martinez, Juan Carlos Alfaro Garcia, Mohamed Hassan Ali, Javier Antonio Arias-Martinez, Naim Arrak, Dairon Barredo Sanchez, Maikel Betancourt, Sirvanildo Bibiano Soares, Maikel Carrasco Polo, Abel Carrillo, Jose Chavez, Maxuel A De Souza, Julio Edwards, Hassan Mohamed Farah, Alejandro Ferreira Borges, Ruben Orlando Flores Ramos, Patrick Gayle, Fernando Goncalves,

Franklin Ramon Gonzalez, Mohamed Hasan, Carlos Hedman Perdomo, Abdul Jalloh, Aparicio P. Jeronimo, Muhammad Alam Khan, Thomas Lenor, Manuel Lopez Perez, Omar Lopez-Jaramillo, Ariel Lucien, Yaniel Machado Aguila, Miguel Angel Marroquin Perez, Tolentino Martinez Rios, Irvin Medoza Silis, Cesar Ariel Mendez Escobar, Jose Galdino Montalvo Rodriguez, Alejandro Vincenzo Mugaburu Tapia, Darwyn Yovanny Navarrette Sanchez, Farhan Nawabit, Lazaro Ocana Guzman, Evarado Orantes Acevedo, Roseline Ostine, Tahimi Perez, Wilder Perez Limones, Deivys Perez Valladares, Ricardo Perezo Alonzo, Francisco Rivero Valeron, Ervin David Rodas Pedro, Maria Eugenia Rodriguez Claras, Rene Jonathan Rosas Cardenas, Danny Ruiz Garcia, Crisley Sacrab-Bin, Gelber Sontay Funez, Adrian Sosa Fletes, Fermin TepetateMartinez, Maykel Valera Ramirez, Geraldo Vargas, Agane Warsame, Eitan Yefet, Eliseo Antonio Zamora Mendoza of filing PowerPoint presentation used by Petitioners during the June 3, 2020 hearing (Edson, Scott) (Entered: 06/03/2020)

06/03/2020

143 OBJECTIONS to 123 Report and Recommendations by Field Office Director, Miami Field Office, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, U.S. Attorney General. (Diaz, Natalie) (Entered: 06/03/2020)

06/03/2020

144 OBJECTIONS to 123 Report and Recommendations Concerning Class Certification by Rolando Aguabella Martinez, Juan Carlos Alfaro Garcia, Mohamed Hassan Ali, Javier Antonio Arias-Martinez, Naim Arrak, Dairon Barredo Sanchez, Maikel Betancourt, Sirvanildo Bibiano Soares, Maikel Carrasco Polo, Abel Carrillo, Jose Chavez, Maxuel A De Souza, Julio Edwards, Hassan Mohamed Farah, Alejandro Ferreira Borges, Ruben Orlando Flores Ramos, Patrick Gayle, Fernando Goncalves, Franklin Ramon Gonzalez, Mohamed Hasan, Carlos Hedman Perdomo, Abdul Jalloh, Aparicio P. Jeronimo, Muhammad Alam Khan, Thomas Lenor, Manuel Lopez Perez, Omar Lopez-Jaramillo, Ariel Lucien, Yaniel Machado Aguila, Miguel Angel Marroquin Perez, Tolentino Martinez Rios, Irvin Medoza Silis, Cesar Ariel Mendez Escobar, Jose Galdino Montalvo Rodriguez, Alejandro Vincenzo Mugaburu Tapia, Darwyn Yovanny Navarrette Sanchez, Farhan Nawabit, Lazaro Ocana Guzman, Evarado Orantes Acevedo, Roseline Ostine, Tahimi Perez, Wilder Perez Limones, Deivys Perez Valladares, Ricardo Perezo Alonzo, Francisco Rivero Valeron, Ervin David Rodas Pedro, Maria Eugenia Rodriguez Claras, Rene Jonathan Rosas Cardenas, Danny Ruiz Garcia, Crisley Sacrab-Bin, Gelber Sontay Funez, Adrian Sosa Fletes, Fermin TepetateMartinez, Maykel Valera Ramirez, Geraldo Vargas, Agane Warsame, Eitan Yefet, Eliseo Antonio Zamora Mendoza. (Edson, Scott) (Entered: 06/03/2020)

06/03/2020

151 PAPERLESS Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Marcia G. Cooke: Motion Hearing held on 6/3/2020 re 4 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order MOTION for Preliminary Injunction filed by Patrick Gayle, Naim Arrak, Dairon Barredo Sanchez, Agane Warsame, Wilder Perez Limones, Ervin David Rodas Pedro, Adrian Sosa Fletes, Alejandro Ferreira Borges, Jose Chavez, Lazaro Ocana Guzman, Eliseo Antonio Zamora Mendoza, Geraldo Vargas, Gelber Sontay Funez, Muhammad Alam Khan, Cesar Ariel Mendez Escobar, Javier Antonio Arias-Martinez, Sirvanildo Bibiano Soares, Tolentino Martinez Rios, Hassan Mohamed Farah, Abdul Jalloh, Maikel Betancourt, Francisco Rivero Valeron, Tahimi Perez, Franklin Ramon Gonzalez, Fermin Tepetate-Martinez, Juan Carlos Alfaro Garcia, Ruben Orlando Flores Ramos, Irvin Medoza Silis, Darwyn Yovanny Navarrette Sanchez, Maykel Valera Ramirez, Mohamed Hasan, Aparicio P. Jeronimo, Rene Jonathan Rosas Cardenas, Roseline Ostine. Total time in court: 3 hours: 45 minutes. Court Reporter: Jill Wells, 305-523-5158 / Jill_Wells@flsd.uscourts.gov. (im) (Entered: 06/05/2020)

06/04/2020

145 NOTICE of Filing Supplemental Briefing Concerning Jurisdiction, Claims and Relief by Rolando Aguabella Martinez, Juan Carlos Alfaro Garcia, Mohamed Hassan Ali, Javier Antonio Arias-Martinez, Naim Arrak, Dairon Barredo Sanchez, Maikel Betancourt, Sirvanildo Bibiano Soares, Maikel Carrasco Polo, Abel Carrillo, Jose Chavez, Maxuel A De Souza, Julio Edwards, Hassan Mohamed Farah, Alejandro Ferreira Borges, Ruben Orlando Flores Ramos, Patrick Gayle, Fernando Goncalves, Franklin Ramon Gonzalez, Mohamed Hasan, Carlos Hedman Perdomo, Abdul Jalloh, Aparicio P. Jeronimo, Muhammad Alam Khan, Thomas Lenor, Manuel Lopez Perez, Omar Lopez-Jaramillo, Ariel Lucien, Yaniel Machado Aguila, Miguel Angel Marroquin Perez, Tolentino Martinez Rios, Irvin Medoza Silis, Cesar Ariel Mendez Escobar, Jose Galdino Montalvo Rodriguez, Alejandro Vincenzo Mugaburu Tapia, Darwyn Yovanny Navarrette Sanchez, Farhan Nawabit, Lazaro Ocana Guzman, Evarado Orantes Acevedo, Roseline Ostine, Tahimi Perez, Wilder Perez Limones, Deivys Perez Valladares, Ricardo Perezo Alonzo, Francisco Rivero Valeron, Ervin David Rodas Pedro, Maria Eugenia Rodriguez Claras, Rene Jonathan Rosas Cardenas, Danny Ruiz Garcia, Crisley Sacrab-Bin, Gelber Sontay Funez, Adrian Sosa Fletes, Fermin Tepetate-Martinez, Maykel Valera Ramirez, Geraldo Vargas, Agane Warsame, Eitan Yefet, Eliseo Antonio Zamora Mendoza. (Sharpless, Rebecca) (Entered: 06/04/2020)

06/04/2020

146 NOTICE of Filing Amended Supplemental Briefing Concerning Jurisdiction, Claims and Relief by Rolando Aguabella Martinez, Juan Carlos Alfaro Garcia, Mohamed Hassan Ali, Javier Antonio AriasMartinez, Naim Arrak, Dairon Barredo Sanchez, Maikel Betancourt, Sirvanildo Bibiano Soares, Maikel Carrasco Polo, Abel Carrillo, Jose

Chavez, Maxuel A De Souza, Julio Edwards, Hassan Mohamed Farah, Alejandro Ferreira Borges, Ruben Orlando Flores Ramos, Patrick Gayle, Fernando Goncalves, Franklin Ramon Gonzalez, Mohamed Hasan, Carlos Hedman Perdomo, Abdul Jalloh, Aparicio P. Jeronimo, Muhammad Alam Khan, Thomas Lenor, Manuel Lopez Perez, Omar Lopez-Jaramillo, Ariel Lucien, Yaniel Machado Aguila, Miguel Angel Marroquin Perez, Tolentino Martinez Rios, Irvin Medoza Silis, Cesar Ariel Mendez Escobar, Jose Galdino Montalvo Rodriguez, Alejandro Vincenzo Mugaburu Tapia, Darwyn Yovanny Navarrette Sanchez, Farhan Nawabit, Lazaro Ocana Guzman, Evarado Orantes Acevedo, Roseline Ostine, Tahimi Perez, Wilder Perez Limones, Deivys Perez Valladares, Ricardo Perezo Alonzo, Francisco Rivero Valeron, Ervin David Rodas Pedro, Maria Eugenia Rodriguez Claras, Rene Jonathan Rosas Cardenas, Danny Ruiz Garcia, Crisley Sacrab-Bin, Gelber Sontay Funez, Adrian Sosa Fletes, Fermin Tepetate-Martinez, Maykel Valera Ramirez, Geraldo Vargas, Agane Warsame, Eitan Yefet, Eliseo Antonio Zamora Mendoza (Sharpless, Rebecca) (Entered: 06/04/2020)

06/04/2020

147 NOTICE of Filing Supplemental Declaration by Field Office Director, Miami Field Office, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, U.S. Attorney General of Filing Supplemental Declaration (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A-Declaration of Liana J. Castano (OIC)) (Diaz, Natalie) (Entered: 06/04/2020)

06/04/2020

148 NOTICE of Filing Supplemental Declaration by Field Office Director, Miami Field Office, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, U.S. Attorney General (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A-Declaration of Juan A. Lopez Vega (AFOD)) (Diaz, Natalie) (Entered: 06/04/2020)

06/04/2020

149 NOTICE of Declaration in Response to the Court's Order Adopting in Part Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendations; re 76 Order on Report and Recommendations, by Field Office Director, Miami Field Office, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, U.S. Attorney General. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A-Declaration of Liana J. Castano (OIC)) (Diaz, Natalie) (Entered: 06/04/2020)

06/04/2020

150 RESPONSE TO OBJECTION to 123 Report and Recommendations on Class Certification by Rolando Aguabella Martinez, Juan Carlos Alfaro Garcia, Mohamed Hassan Ali, Javier Antonio Arias-Martinez, Naim Arrak, Dairon Barredo Sanchez, Maikel Betancourt, Sirvanildo Bibiano Soares, Maikel Carrasco Polo, Abel Carrillo, Jose Chavez, Maxuel A De Souza, Julio Edwards, Hassan Mohamed Farah, Alejandro Ferreira Borges, Ruben Orlando Flores Ramos, Patrick Gayle, Fernando Goncalves, Franklin Ramon Gonzalez, Mohamed Hasan, Carlos Hedman Perdomo, Abdul Jalloh, Aparicio P. Jeronimo, Muhammad Alam Khan, Thomas Lenor, Manuel Lopez Perez, Omar Lopez-Jaramillo, Ariel

Lucien, Yaniel Machado Aguila, Miguel Angel Marroquin Perez, Tolentino Martinez Rios, Irvin Medoza Silis, Cesar Ariel Mendez Escobar, Jose Galdino Montalvo Rodriguez, Alejandro Vincenzo Mugaburu Tapia, Darwyn Yovanny Navarrette Sanchez, Farhan Nawabit, Lazaro Ocana Guzman, Evarado Orantes Acevedo, Roseline Ostine, Tahimi Perez, Wilder Perez Limones, Deivys Perez Valladares, Ricardo Perezo Alonzo, Francisco Rivero Valeron, Ervin David Rodas Pedro, Maria Eugenia Rodriguez Claras, Rene Jonathan Rosas Cardenas, Danny Ruiz Garcia, Crisley Sacrab-Bin, Gelber Sontay Funez, Adrian Sosa Fletes, Fermin Tepetate-Martinez, Maykel Valera Ramirez, Geraldo Vargas, Agane Warsame, Eitan Yefet, Eliseo Antonio Zamora Mendoza. (Edson, Scott) (Entered: 06/04/2020)

06/05/2020

152 NOTICE of Attorney Appearance by Natalie Diaz on behalf of Field Office Director, Miami Field Office, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, U.S. Attorney General (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit ADeclaration of Liana J. Castano (OIC)) (Diaz, Natalie) (Entered: 06/05/2020)

06/05/2020

153 NOTICE of Striking 152 Notice of Attorney Appearance, filed by Field Office Director, Miami Field Office, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, U.S. Attorney General by Field Office Director, Miami Field Office, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, U.S. Attorney General (Diaz, Natalie) (Entered: 06/05/2020)

06/05/2020

154 NOTICE of Filing Declaration of Liana J. Castano, Acting Officer in Charge (OIC), in Response to 76 ORDER adopting in part 63 Report and Recommendations by Field Office Director, Miami Field Office, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, U.S. Attorney General re 76 Order on Report and Recommendations, (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A-Declaration of Liana J. Castano (OIC)) (Diaz, Natalie) (Entered: 06/05/2020)

06/05/2020 155 Notice of Supplemental Authority by Field Office Director, Miami Field Office, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, U.S. Attorney General (Diaz, Natalie) (Entered: 06/05/2020)

06/05/2020

156 NOTICE of Striking 155 Notice of Supplemental Authority filed by Field Office Director, Miami Field Office, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, U.S. Attorney General by Field Office Director, Miami Field Office, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, U.S. Attorney General (Diaz, Natalie) (Entered: 06/05/2020)

06/05/2020 157 Notice of Supplemental Authority by Field Office Director, Miami Field Office, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, U.S. Attorney General (Diaz, Natalie) (Entered: 06/05/2020)

06/06/2020

158 ORDER (OPINION) re 4 Petitioners' Motion for Temporary Restraining Order/ Preliminary Injunction; 106 Petitioners' Motion to Compel; and 123 Report and Recommendations on Petitioners' Motion for Class Certification. Signed by Judge Marcia G. Cooke on 6/5/2020. See attached document for full details. (kou) Modified text/status per Chambers on 6/8/2020 (sk). (Entered: 06/06/2020)

06/11/2020

159 MOTION for Extension of Time to file Joint Proposed Scheduling Report and Order re 11 Order Referring Case to Magistrate Judge, Set/Reset Deadlines, Notice of Court Practice/to Appear/Other by Patrick Gayle. Responses due by 6/25/2020 (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order)(Edson, Scott) (Entered: 06/11/2020)

06/11/2020

160 ENDORSED ORDER granting 159 Motion for Extension of Time. The time to file the Joint Proposed Scheduling Report and Order is extended until June 19, 2020. Signed by Judge Marcia G. Cooke on 6/11/2020. (kou) (Entered: 06/11/2020)

06/12/2020

161 Notice to 158 Order on Motion to Compel,, Order on Report and Recommendations,,,, Order on Motion for Temporary Restraining Order,, Order on Motion for Preliminary Injunction,, Order on Expedited Motion, by Field Office Director, Miami Field Office, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, U.S. Attorney General. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A- Declaration by OIC Castano)(Diaz, Natalie) (Entered: 06/12/2020)

06/15/2020

162 Notice to 158 Order on Motion to Compel,, Order on Report and Recommendations,,,, Order on Motion for Temporary Restraining Order,, Order on Motion for Preliminary Injunction,, Order on Expedited Motion, by Field Office Director, Miami Field Office, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, U.S. Attorney General. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A- Castano Declaration, # 2 Exhibit B- Castano Declaration Transfers, # 3 Exhibit C- Krome Pre-Transfer Evaluations, # 4 Exhibit DBTC Pre-Transfer Evaluations)(Diaz, Natalie) (Entered: 06/15/2020)

06/16/2020

163 Plaintiff's EMERGENCY MOTION with Certification of Emergency included to Compel Compliance with the Court's June 6, 2020 Preliminary Injunction by Rolando Aguabella Martinez, Juan Carlos Alfaro Garcia, Mohamed Hassan Ali, Javier Antonio Arias-Martinez, Naim Arrak, Dairon Barredo Sanchez, Maikel Betancourt, Sirvanildo Bibiano Soares, Maikel Carrasco Polo, Abel Carrillo, Jose Chavez, Maxuel A De Souza, Julio Edwards, Hassan Mohamed Farah, Alejandro Ferreira Borges, Ruben Orlando Flores Ramos, Patrick Gayle, Fernando Goncalves, Franklin Ramon Gonzalez, Mohamed Hasan, Carlos Hedman Perdomo, Abdul Jalloh, Aparicio P. Jeronimo, Muhammad Alam Khan, Thomas Lenor, Manuel Lopez Perez, Omar Lopez-Jaramillo, Ariel

Lucien, Yaniel Machado Aguila, Miguel Angel Marroquin Perez, Tolentino Martinez Rios, Irvin Medoza Silis, Cesar Ariel Mendez Escobar, Jose Galdino Montalvo Rodriguez, Alejandro Vincenzo Mugaburu Tapia, Darwyn Yovanny Navarrette Sanchez, Farhan Nawabit, Lazaro Ocana Guzman, Evarado Orantes Acevedo, Roseline Ostine, Tahimi Perez, Wilder Perez Limones, Deivys Perez Valladares, Ricardo Perezo Alonzo, Francisco Rivero Valeron, Ervin David Rodas Pedro, Maria Eugenia Rodriguez Claras, Rene Jonathan Rosas Cardenas, Danny Ruiz Garcia, Crisley Sacrab-Bin, Gelber Sontay Funez, Adrian Sosa Fletes, Fermin Tepetate-Martinez, Maykel Valera Ramirez, Geraldo Vargas, Agane Warsame, Eitan Yefet, Eliseo Antonio Zamora Mendoza. Responses due by 6/30/2020 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Declaration of Petitioner Steve Cooper, # 2 Exhibit June 9, 2020 email from Lee to Lehner, # 3 Exhibit Declaration of Petitioner Astley Thomas, # 4 Exhibit Declaration of Petitioner Jermaine Scott, # 5 Exhibit Declaration of Petitioner Roberto Leon, # 6 Exhibit Declaration of Petitioner Paul Hamilton, # 7 Exhibit Declaration of Petitioner Terrence Taylor, # 8 Exhibit Declaration of Potes on behalf of Petitioner Pedro Ortega, # 9 Exhibit Declaration of Petitioner Clayton Warner, # 10 Exhibit Declaration of Petitioner Windys Monge)(Edson, Scott) (Entered: 06/16/2020)

06/16/2020

164 ENDORSED ORDER SETTING AN EXPEDITED BRIEFING SCHEDULE on 163 Petitioners' Emergency Motion to Compel Compliance with the Court's June 6, 2020 Preliminary Injunction. Respondents shall file a Response no later than 12:00 p.m., Friday, June 19, 2020. The Response shall not exceed 5 pages. Petitioners shall file a Reply no later than 12:00 p.m., Tuesday, June 23, 2020. The Reply shall not exceed 3 pages.

In addition, a Zoom Hearing on 163 Petitioners' Emergency Motion to Compel Compliance is set for June 24, 2020, at 11:30 a.m. in the Miami Division before the Honorable Marcia G. Cooke. The details for the Zoom hearing, including the meeting ID and password, are forthcoming.

Should the parties choose to present live witnesses, any such witnesses must be presented at the June 24, 2020 Hearing. No exceptions will be made in this regard absent extenuating circumstances.

06/18/2020

Signed by Judge Marcia G. Cooke on 6/16/2020. (kou) (Entered: 06/16/2020)
ENDORSED ORDER SETTING HEARING. A Zoom Hearing on 163 Petitioners' Emergency Motion to Compel Compliance with the Court's June 6, 2020 Preliminary Injunction is set for June 24, 2020, at 11:30 A.M. in the Miami Division before the Honorable Marcia G.

Cooke. The hearing will be conducted via ZOOM, as follows: Join ZoomGov Meeting https://www.zoomgov.com/j/1601159431?pwd=a2tSMW9rMnhiZ0dRUi 81eHZ5R2xJQT09. Meeting ID: 160 115 9431. Password: 241807

Persons granted remote access to proceedings are reminded of the general prohibition against photographing, recording, and rebroadcasting of court proceedings. Violation of these prohibitions may result in sanctions, including removal of court issued media credentials, restricted entry to future hearings, denial of entry to future hearings, or any other sanctions deemed necessary by the court.

Signed by Judge Marcia G. Cooke on 6/18/2020. (kou) (Entered: 06/18/2020)

06/19/2020

165 NOTICE by Field Office Director, Miami Field Office, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, U.S. Attorney General re 164 Order,,,, Set/Reset Deadlines/Hearings,,, of Filing Order in Response to Court's Order (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A-Declaration of Liana A. Castano (OIC)) (Diaz, Natalie) (Entered: 06/19/2020)

06/19/2020

166 NOTICE of Filing Declaration in Response to Court's Order re 158 Order on Motion to Compel, Order on Report and Recommendations, Order on Motion for Temporary Restraining Order, Order on Motion for Preliminary Injunction, Order on Expedited Motion, by Field Office Director, Miami Field Office, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, U.S. Attorney General (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A-Declaration of Liana J. Castano (OIC)) (Diaz, Natalie) (Entered: 06/19/2020)

06/19/2020

167 RESPONSE to Motion re 163 Plaintiff's EMERGENCY MOTION with Certification of Emergency included to Compel Compliance with the Court's June 6, 2020 Preliminary Injunction filed by Field Office Director, Miami Field Office, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, U.S. Attorney General. Replies due by 6/26/2020. (See DE# 165 for image).(jas) (Entered: 06/19/2020)

06/19/2020

168 Clerks Notice to Filer re 165 Notice (Other),. Two or More Document Events Filed as One; ERROR - Only one event was selected by the Filer but more than one event was applicable to the document filed. The docket entry was corrected by the Clerk. It is not necessary to refile this document but in the future, the Filer must select all applicable events. (jas) (Entered: 06/19/2020)

06/19/2020 169 Joint SCHEDULING REPORT - Rule 16.1 by Rolando Aguabella Martinez, Juan Carlos Alfaro Garcia, Mohamed Hassan Ali, Javier

Antonio Arias-Martinez, Naim Arrak, Dairon Barredo Sanchez, Maikel Betancourt, Sirvanildo Bibiano Soares, Maikel Carrasco Polo, Abel Carrillo, Jose Chavez, Maxuel A De Souza, Julio Edwards, Hassan Mohamed Farah, Alejandro Ferreira Borges, Field Office Director, Miami Field Office, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Ruben Orlando Flores Ramos, Patrick Gayle, Fernando Goncalves, Franklin Ramon Gonzalez, Mohamed Hasan, Carlos Hedman Perdomo, Abdul Jalloh, Aparicio P. Jeronimo, Muhammad Alam Khan, Thomas Lenor, Manuel Lopez Perez, Omar Lopez-Jaramillo, Ariel Lucien, Yaniel Machado Aguila, Miguel Angel Marroquin Perez, Tolentino Martinez Rios, Irvin Medoza Silis, Cesar Ariel Mendez Escobar, Jose Galdino Montalvo Rodriguez, Alejandro Vincenzo Mugaburu Tapia, Darwyn Yovanny Navarrette Sanchez, Farhan Nawabit, Lazaro Ocana Guzman, Evarado Orantes Acevedo, Roseline Ostine, Tahimi Perez, Wilder Perez Limones, Deivys Perez Valladares, Ricardo Perezo Alonzo, Francisco Rivero Valeron, Ervin David Rodas Pedro, Maria Eugenia Rodriguez Claras, Rene Jonathan Rosas Cardenas, Danny Ruiz Garcia, Crisley Sacrab-Bin, Gelber Sontay Funez, Adrian Sosa Fletes, Fermin TepetateMartinez, U.S. Attorney General, Maykel Valera Ramirez, Geraldo Vargas, Agane Warsame, Eitan Yefet, Eliseo Antonio Zamora Mendoza (Edson, Scott) (Entered: 06/19/2020)

06/22/2020 170 Notice of Filing written correspondence received by Judge Jonathan Goodman's Chambers from ICE detainees. Sensitive and confidential personal information has been redacted. (jzn) (Entered: 06/22/2020)

06/22/2020

171 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply/Answer as to 1 Application/Petition (Complaint) for Writ of Habeas Corpus,, by Field Office Director, Miami Field Office, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, U.S. Attorney General. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Diaz, Natalie) (Entered: 06/22/2020)

06/22/2020

172 NOTICE by Field Office Director, Miami Field Office, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, U.S. Attorney General re 158 Order on Motion to Compel,, Order on Report and Recommendations,,,, Order on Motion for Temporary Restraining Order,, Order on Motion for Preliminary Injunction,, Order on Expedited Motion, of Filing Declaration in Response to Court's Order (DE158) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A- Declaration of Liana J. Castano (OIC)) (Diaz, Natalie) (Entered: 06/22/2020)

06/22/2020

173 ENDORSED ORDER RESETTING HEARING. The Zoom Hearing on 163 Petitioners' Emergency Motion to Compel Compliance with the Court's June 6, 2020 Preliminary Injunction is re-set for June 25, 2020, at 10:00 A.M. in the Miami Division before the Honorable Marcia G.

Cooke. The hearing will be conducted via ZOOM, as follows: Join ZoomGov Meeting https://www.zoomgov.com/j/1601159431?pwd=a2tSMW9rMnhiZ0dRUi 81eHZ5R2xJQT09. Meeting ID: 160 115 9431. Password: 241807

Persons granted remote access to proceedings are reminded of the general prohibition against photographing, recording, and rebroadcasting of court proceedings. Violation of these prohibitions may result in sanctions, including removal of court issued media credentials, restricted entry to future hearings, denial of entry to future hearings, or any other sanctions deemed necessary by the court.

Signed by Judge Marcia G. Cooke on 6/22/2020. (kou) (Entered: 06/22/2020)

06/22/2020

174 ENDORSED ORDER granting 171 Motion for Extension of Time to File Re: 1 Application/Petition (Complaint) for Writ of Habeas Corpus. Defendants shall have up to and including June 29, 2020, to file an answer or other response to the Complaint. Signed by Judge Marcia G. Cooke on 6/22/2020. (kou) (Entered: 06/22/2020)

06/23/2020

175 RESPONSE in Support re 163 Plaintiff's EMERGENCY MOTION with Certification of Emergency included to Compel Compliance with the Court's June 6, 2020 Preliminary Injunction filed by Rolando Aguabella Martinez, Juan Carlos Alfaro Garcia, Mohamed Hassan Ali, Javier Antonio Arias-Martinez, Naim Arrak, Dairon Barredo Sanchez, Maikel Betancourt, Sirvanildo Bibiano Soares, Maikel Carrasco Polo, Abel Carrillo, Jose Chavez, Maxuel A De Souza, Julio Edwards, Hassan Mohamed Farah, Alejandro Ferreira Borges, Ruben Orlando Flores Ramos, Patrick Gayle, Fernando Goncalves, Franklin Ramon Gonzalez, Mohamed Hasan, Carlos Hedman Perdomo, Abdul Jalloh, Aparicio P. Jeronimo, Muhammad Alam Khan, Thomas Lenor, Manuel Lopez Perez, Omar Lopez-Jaramillo, Ariel Lucien, Yaniel Machado Aguila, Miguel Angel Marroquin Perez, Tolentino Martinez Rios, Irvin Medoza Silis, Cesar Ariel Mendez Escobar, Jose Galdino Montalvo Rodriguez, Alejandro Vincenzo Mugaburu Tapia, Darwyn Yovanny Navarrette Sanchez, Farhan Nawabit, Lazaro Ocana Guzman, Evarado Orantes Acevedo, Roseline Ostine, Tahimi Perez, Wilder Perez Limones, Deivys Perez Valladares, Ricardo Perezo Alonzo, Francisco Rivero Valeron, Ervin David Rodas Pedro, Maria Eugenia Rodriguez Claras, Rene Jonathan Rosas Cardenas, Danny Ruiz Garcia, Crisley Sacrab-Bin, Gelber Sontay Funez, Adrian Sosa Fletes, Fermin Tepetate-Martinez, Maykel Valera Ramirez, Geraldo Vargas, Agane Warsame, Eitan Yefet, Eliseo Antonio Zamora Mendoza. (Edson, Scott) (Entered: 06/23/2020)

06/23/2020

176 NOTICE of Filing Declaration in Response to Court's Order by Field Office Director, Miami Field Office, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, U.S. Attorney General re 158 Order on Motion to Compel, Order on Report and Recommendations, Order on Motion for Temporary Restraining Order, Order on Motion for Preliminary Injunction, Order on Expedited Motion, (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A-Declaration of Liana J. Castano (OIC)) (Diaz, Natalie) (Entered: 06/23/2020)

06/23/2020

177 NOTICE of Filing Declarations by Rolando Aguabella Martinez, Juan Carlos Alfaro Garcia, Mohamed Hassan Ali, Javier Antonio AriasMartinez, Naim Arrak, Dairon Barredo Sanchez, Maikel Betancourt, Sirvanildo Bibiano Soares, Maikel Carrasco Polo, Abel Carrillo, Jose Chavez, Maxuel A De Souza, Julio Edwards, Hassan Mohamed Farah, Alejandro Ferreira Borges, Ruben Orlando Flores Ramos, Patrick Gayle, Fernando Goncalves, Franklin Ramon Gonzalez, Mohamed Hasan, Carlos Hedman Perdomo, Abdul Jalloh, Aparicio P. Jeronimo, Muhammad Alam Khan, Thomas Lenor, Manuel Lopez Perez, Omar Lopez-Jaramillo, Ariel Lucien, Yaniel Machado Aguila, Miguel Angel Marroquin Perez, Tolentino Martinez Rios, Irvin Medoza Silis, Cesar Ariel Mendez Escobar, Jose Galdino Montalvo Rodriguez, Alejandro Vincenzo Mugaburu Tapia, Darwyn Yovanny Navarrette Sanchez, Farhan Nawabit, Lazaro Ocana Guzman, Evarado Orantes Acevedo, Roseline Ostine, Tahimi Perez, Wilder Perez Limones, Deivys Perez Valladares, Ricardo Perezo Alonzo, Francisco Rivero Valeron, Ervin David Rodas Pedro, Maria Eugenia Rodriguez Claras, Rene Jonathan Rosas Cardenas, Danny Ruiz Garcia, Crisley Sacrab-Bin, Gelber Sontay Funez, Adrian Sosa Fletes, Fermin Tepetate-Martinez, Maykel Valera Ramirez, Geraldo Vargas, Agane Warsame, Eitan Yefet, Eliseo Antonio Zamora Mendoza. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Declaration of Lathario Glenwood Rolle, # 2 Exhibit Declaration of Deivys Perez Valladares) (Edson, Scott) (Entered: 06/23/2020)

06/24/2020

178 NOTICE of Filing Supplemental Exhibits in Support of Declaration in Response to Court's Order by Field Office Director, Miami Field Office, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, U.S. Attorney General re 176 Notice (Other), (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A-Krome Transfers, # 2 Exhibit B-Glades Transfers) (Diaz, Natalie). (Entered: 06/24/2020)

06/24/2020

179 NOTICE of Filing ERO COVID-19 Pandemic Response Requirements (Version 2.0, June 22, 2020)) by Rolando Aguabella Martinez, Juan Carlos Alfaro Garcia, Mohamed Hassan Ali, Javier Antonio AriasMartinez, Naim Arrak, Dairon Barredo Sanchez, Maikel Betancourt, Sirvanildo Bibiano Soares, Maikel Carrasco Polo, Abel Carrillo, Jose Chavez, Maxuel A De Souza, Julio Edwards, Hassan Mohamed Farah, Alejandro Ferreira Borges, Ruben Orlando Flores Ramos, Patrick Gayle, Fernando Goncalves, Franklin Ramon Gonzalez, Mohamed Hasan, Carlos

Hedman Perdomo, Abdul Jalloh, Aparicio P. Jeronimo, Muhammad Alam Khan, Thomas Lenor, Manuel Lopez Perez, Omar Lopez-Jaramillo, Ariel Lucien, Yaniel Machado Aguila, Miguel Angel Marroquin Perez, Tolentino Martinez Rios, Irvin Medoza Silis, Cesar Ariel Mendez Escobar, Jose Galdino Montalvo Rodriguez, Alejandro Vincenzo Mugaburu Tapia, Darwyn Yovanny Navarrette Sanchez, Farhan Nawabit, Lazaro Ocana Guzman, Evarado Orantes Acevedo, Roseline Ostine, Tahimi Perez, Wilder Perez Limones, Deivys Perez Valladares, Ricardo Perezo Alonzo, Francisco Rivero Valeron, Ervin David Rodas Pedro, Maria Eugenia Rodriguez Claras, Rene Jonathan Rosas Cardenas, Danny Ruiz Garcia, Crisley Sacrab-Bin, Gelber Sontay Funez, Adrian Sosa Fletes, Fermin Tepetate-Martinez, Maykel Valera Ramirez, Geraldo Vargas, Agane Warsame, Eitan Yefet, Eliseo Antonio Zamora Mendoza of Filing ERO COVID-19 Pandemic Response Requirements (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Enforcement and Removal Operations, ERO COVID-19 Pandemic Response Requirements (Version 2.0, June 22, 2020)) (Edson, Scott) (Entered: 06/24/2020)

06/25/2020

186 PAPERLESS Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Marcia G. Cooke: Miscellaneous Hearing held on 6/25/2020. All counsel present. Total time in court: 2 hours: 20 minutes. Court Reporter: Jill Wells, 305523-5158 / Jill_Wells@flsd.uscourts.gov. (im) (Entered: 07/01/2020)

06/26/2020

180 Unopposed MOTION to Seal Declaration in Response to DE 177 per Local Rule 5.4 by Field Office Director, Miami Field Office, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, U.S. Attorney General. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order) (Diaz, Natalie) (Entered: 06/26/2020)

06/26/2020

181 ENDORSED ORDER granting 180 Motion to Seal. Respondents shall file a Declaration pertaining to 177 Petitioners'Notice of Filing under seal. Signed by Judge Marcia G. Cooke on 6/26/2020. (kou) (Entered: 06/26/2020)

06/26/2020

SYSTEM ENTRY - Docket Entry 182 [misc] restricted/sealed until further notice. (1258220) (Entered: 06/26/2020)

06/26/2020

183 NOTICE of Filing Declaration in Response to Court's Order by Field Office Director, Miami Field Office, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, U.S. Attorney General re 158 Order on Motion to Compel, Order on Report and Recommendations, Order on Motion for Temporary Restraining Order, Order on Motion for Preliminary Injunction, Order on Expedited Motion, (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A-Declaration of Liana J. Castano (OIC)) (Diaz, Natalie) (Entered: 06/26/2020)

06/29/2020

184 NOTICE of Filing Declaration in Response to Court's Order by Field Office Director, Miami Field Office, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, U.S. Attorney General re 158 Order on Motion to Compel Order on Report and Recommendations, Order on Motion for Temporary Restraining Order, Order on Motion for Preliminary Injunction,, Order on Expedited Motion, (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A-Declaration of Liana J. Castano (OIC)) (Diaz, Natalie) (Entered: 06/29/2020)

06/29/2020

185 RESPONSE to Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus by Field Office Director, Miami Field Office, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, U.S. Attorney General. (Diaz, Natalie) (Entered: 06/29/2020)

07/01/2020

187 NOTICE of Filing Declaration in Response to Court's Order by Field Office Director, Miami Field Office, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, U.S. Attorney General re 158 Order on Motion to Compel, Order on Report and Recommendations, Order on Motion for Temporary Restraining Order, Order on Motion for Preliminary Injunction, Order on Expedited Motion, (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A-Declaration of Liana J. Castano (OIC)) (Diaz, Natalie) (Entered: 07/01/2020)

07/01/2020 188 ORDER SETTING CIVIL TRIAL DATE AND PRETRIAL DEADLINES. Signed by Judge Marcia G. Cooke on 7/1/2020. See attached document for full details. (kou)

Pattern Jury Instruction Builder - To access the latest, up to date changes to the 11th Circuit Pattern Jury Instructions go to https://pji.ca11.uscourts.gov or click here. (Entered: 07/01/2020)

07/02/2020

189 MOTION to Intervene by Alvaro Roa Calicchio. Attorney Gennaro Cariglio, Jr added to party Alvaro Roa Calicchio(pty:pet). (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A. Writ of Habeas Corpus, # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Cariglio, Gennaro) (Entered: 07/02/2020)

07/02/2020

190 NOTICE of Attorney Appearance by Gregory Vincent Alcaro on behalf of Alvaro Roa Calicchio. Attorney Gregory Vincent Alcaro added to party Alvaro Roa Calicchio(pty:pet). (Alcaro, Gregory) (Entered: 07/02/2020)

07/03/2020

191 Notice of Declaration in Response to 158 Order on Motion to Compel, Order on Report and Recommendations, Order on Motion for Temporary Restraining Order, Order on Motion for Preliminary Injunction, Order on Expedited Motion, by Field Office Director, Miami Field Office, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, U.S. Attorney General. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A- Declaration OIC Castano)(Diaz, Natalie) (Entered: 07/03/2020)

07/05/2020

192 VACATED per ECF No 193. ORDER Granting 163 Emergency Motion to Compel Compliance is reopened. Signed by Judge Marcia G. Cooke on 7/3/2020. (kou) Modified text/status per Chambers on 7/6/2020 (sk). (Entered: 07/05/2020)

07/06/2020

193 ENDORSED Order Vacating 192 Order on 163 Emergency Motion to Compel Compliance with the Court's June 6, 2020 Preliminary Injunction. Signed by Judge Marcia G. Cooke on 7/6/2020. (kou) (Entered: 07/06/2020)

07/06/2020

194 NOTICE of Declaration In Response re 158 Order on Motion to Compel, Order on Report and Recommendations, Order on Motion for Temporary Restraining Order, Order on Motion for Preliminary Injunction,Order on Expedited Motion, by Field Office Director, Miami Field Office, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, U.S. Attorney General (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A-Declaration of Liana J. Castano (OIC)) (Diaz, Natalie) (Entered: 07/06/2020)

07/06/2020

195 Defendant's MOTION for Reconsideration re 158 Order on Motion to Compel,, Order on Report and Recommendations,,,, Order on Motion for Temporary Restraining Order,, Order on Motion for Preliminary Injunction,, Order on Expedited Motion, by Field Office Director, Miami Field Office, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, U.S. Attorney General. (Celone, Michael) (Entered: 07/06/2020)

07/07/2020

196 NOTICE of Declaration in Response re 158 Order on Motion to Compel, Order on Report and Recommendations, Order on Motion for Temporary Restraining Order, Order on Motion for Preliminary Injunction, Order on Expedited Motion, by Field Office Director, Miami Field Office, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, U.S. Attorney General. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A-Declaration of Liana J. Castano (OIC)) (Diaz, Natalie) (Entered: 07/07/2020)

07/08/2020

197 Plaintiff's Expedited Motion to Shorten Defendants Time to Respond to Discovery and Supporting Memorandum by Rolando Aguabella Martinez, Juan Carlos Alfaro Garcia, Mohamed Hassan Ali, Javier Antonio Arias-Martinez, Naim Arrak, Dairon Barredo Sanchez, Maikel Betancourt, Sirvanildo Bibiano Soares, Alvaro Roa Calicchio, Maikel Carrasco Polo, Abel Carrillo, Jose Chavez, Maxuel A De Souza, Julio Edwards, Hassan Mohamed Farah, Alejandro Ferreira Borges, Ruben Orlando Flores Ramos, Patrick Gayle, Fernando Goncalves, Franklin Ramon Gonzalez, Mohamed Hasan, Carlos Hedman Perdomo, Abdul Jalloh, Aparicio P. Jeronimo, Muhammad Alam Khan, Thomas Lenor, Manuel Lopez Perez, Omar Lopez-Jaramillo, Ariel Lucien, Yaniel Machado Aguila, Miguel Angel Marroquin Perez, Tolentino Martinez Rios, Irvin Medoza Silis, Cesar Ariel Mendez Escobar, Jose Galdino

Montalvo Rodriguez, Alejandro Vincenzo Mugaburu Tapia, Darwyn Yovanny Navarrette Sanchez, Farhan Nawabit, Lazaro Ocana Guzman, Evarado Orantes Acevedo, Roseline Ostine, Tahimi Perez, Wilder Perez Limones, Deivys Perez Valladares, Ricardo Perezo Alonzo, Francisco Rivero Valeron, Ervin David Rodas Pedro, Maria Eugenia Rodriguez Claras, Rene Jonathan Rosas Cardenas, Danny Ruiz Garcia, Crisley Sacrab-Bin, Gelber Sontay Funez, Adrian Sosa Fletes, Fermin TepetateMartinez, Maykel Valera Ramirez, Geraldo Vargas, Agane Warsame, Eitan Yefet, Eliseo Antonio Zamora Mendoza. Attorney Scott Michael Edson added to party Alvaro Roa Calicchio(pty:pet). (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Proposed order on Plaintiffs' Expedited Motion to Shorten Time to Respond to Discovery, # 2 Petitioners' First Set of Requests For Admission to Respondent Michael W. Meade, Field Office Director, Miami Field Office, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, # 3 Petitioners' First Set of Requests For Production of Documents to Respondent Michael W. Meade, Field Office Director, Miami Field Office, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, # 4 Petitioners' First Set of Interrogatories to Respondent Michael W. Meade, Field Office Director, Miami Field Office, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement)(Edson, Scott) (Entered: 07/08/2020)

07/09/2020

198 PAPERLESS ORDER regarding 197 Plaintiff's Expedited Motion to Shorten Time to Respond to Discovery. Defendants are required to file a response of no more than three double-spaced pages by Monday, July 12, 2020. No reply is permitted absent further court order. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jonathan Goodman on 7/9/2020. (jzn) (Entered: 07/09/2020)

07/09/2020

199 PAPERLESS ORDER regarding Defendants' response to Plaintiffs' motion to expedite discovery. The response is due by Monday, July 13, 2020. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jonathan Goodman on 7/9/2020. (JG) (Entered: 07/09/2020)

07/09/2020

200 MOTION to Intervene by Miryam Elizabeth Lopez Herrera. Attorney Linda Marguerite Osberg-Braun added to party Miryam Elizabeth Lopez Herrera(pty:pet). (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Osberg-Braun, Linda) (Entered: 07/09/2020)

07/10/2020

201 NOTICE of Declaration in Response to the Court's Order by Field Office Director, Miami Field Office, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, U.S. Attorney General re 158 Order on Motion to Compel, Order on Report and Recommendations, Order on Motion for Temporary Restraining Order, Order on Motion for Preliminary Injunction, Order on Expedited Motion, of Filing Declaration in Response to Court's Order (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A-Declaration of Liana J. Castano (OIC)) (Diaz, Natalie) (Entered: 07/10/2020)

07/11/2020 202 Plaintiff's Expedited Motion For Release, Or in the Alternative, Hearing on Habeas Petition by Abdul Jalloh. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Declaration of Abdul Jalloh)(Edson, Scott) (Entered: 07/11/2020)

07/11/2020

203 MOTION for Release or in the Alternative, Motion for Hearing on Habeas Petition of Named Petitioner, by Danny Ruiz Garcia. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Declaration of Danny Ruiz Garcia)(BerlowLehner, Lisa). Added MOTION for Hearing on 7/13/2020 (jas). (Entered: 07/11/2020)

07/11/2020

204 MOTION for Release or in the Alternative, Motion for Hearing on Habeas Petition of Named Petitioner by Maykel Valera Ramirez. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Declaration of Maykel Valera Ramirez)(Berlow-Lehner, Lisa). Added MOTION for Hearing on 7/13/2020 (jas). (Entered: 07/11/2020)

07/11/2020

205 MOTION for Release or in the Alternative, Motion for Hearing on Habeas Petition of Named Petitioner Miguel Angel Marroquin by Miguel Angel Marroquin Perez. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Declaration of Miguel Marroquin Perez)(Berlow-Lehner, Lisa). Added MOTION for Hearing on 7/13/2020 (jas). (Entered: 07/11/2020)

07/11/2020

206 MOTION for Release or in the Alternative, Motion for Hearing on Habeas Petition of Named Petitioner Alejandro Ferrera Borges by Alejandro Ferreira Borges. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Declaration of Alejandro Ferrera Borges)(Berlow-Lehner, Lisa). Added MOTION for Hearing on 7/13/2020 (jas). (Entered: 07/11/2020)

07/11/2020

207 MOTION for Release or in the Alternative, Motion for Hearing on Habeas Petition of Named Petitioner by Maikel Betancourt. Attorney Allison Norris added to party Maikel Betancourt(pty:pet). (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit A - Declaration of Maikel Betancourt Remond)(Norris, Allison). Added MOTION for Hearing on 7/13/2020 (jas). (Entered: 07/11/2020)

07/13/2020

208 MOTION for Release or in the Alternative, Motion for Hearing on Habeas Petition of Named Petitioner Maikel Carrasco Polo by Maikel Carrasco Polo. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Declaration of Maikel Carrasco Polo)(Berlow-Lehner, Lisa). Added MOTION for Hearing on 7/13/2020 (jas). (Entered: 07/13/2020)

07/13/2020

209 Clerks Notice to Filer re 203 , 204 , 205 , 206 , 207 , 208 MOTION for Release or in the Alternative, Motion for Hearing on Habeas Petition of Named Petitioner. Motion with Multiple Reliefs Filed as One Relief; ERROR - The Filer selected only one relief event and failed to select the additional corresponding events for each relief requested in the motion. The docket entry was corrected by the Clerk. It is not necessary to refile

this document but future filings must comply with the instructions in the CM/ECF Attorney User's Manual. (jas) (Entered: 07/13/2020)

07/13/2020

210 RESPONSE in Opposition re 197 Plaintiff's Expedited Motion to Shorten Defendants Time to Respond to Discovery filed by Field Office Director, Miami Field Office, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, U.S. Attorney General. Replies due by 7/20/2020. (Diaz, Natalie) (Entered: 07/13/2020)

07/13/2020

211 NOTICE of Filing Declaration in Response to Court's Order by Field Office Director, Miami Field Office, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, U.S. Attorney General re 158 Order on Motion to Compel, Order on Report and Recommendations, Order on Motion for Temporary Restraining Order, Order on Motion for Preliminary Injunction, Order on Expedited Motion, of Filing Declaration in Response to Court's Order (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A-Declaration of Liana J. Castano (OIC)) (Diaz, Natalie) (Entered: 07/13/2020)

07/13/2020

212 ORDER ON 197 PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO EXPEDITE DISCOVERY. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jonathan Goodman on 7/13/2020. See attached document for full details. (jzn) (Entered: 07/13/2020)

07/16/2020

213 Unopposed MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney by Maia Fleischman for / by Rolando Aguabella Martinez, Juan Carlos Alfaro Garcia, Mohamed Hassan Ali, Javier Antonio Arias-Martinez, Naim Arrak, Dairon Barredo Sanchez, Maikel Betancourt, Sirvanildo Bibiano Soares, Alvaro Roa Calicchio, Maikel Carrasco Polo, Abel Carrillo, Jose Chavez, Maxuel A De Souza, Julio Edwards, Hassan Mohamed Farah, Alejandro Ferreira Borges, Ruben Orlando Flores Ramos, Patrick Gayle, Fernando Goncalves, Franklin Ramon Gonzalez, Mohamed Hasan, Carlos Hedman Perdomo, Abdul Jalloh, Aparicio P. Jeronimo, Muhammad Alam Khan, Thomas Lenor, Miryam Elizabeth Lopez Herrera, Manuel Lopez Perez, Omar Lopez-Jaramillo, Ariel Lucien, Yaniel Machado Aguila, Miguel Angel Marroquin Perez, Tolentino Martinez Rios, Irvin Medoza Silis, Cesar Ariel Mendez Escobar, Jose Galdino Montalvo Rodriguez, Alejandro Vincenzo Mugaburu Tapia, Darwyn Yovanny Navarrette Sanchez, Farhan Nawabit, Lazaro Ocana Guzman, Evarado Orantes Acevedo, Roseline Ostine, Tahimi Perez, Wilder Perez Limones, Deivys Perez Valladares, Ricardo Perezo Alonzo, Francisco Rivero Valeron, Ervin David Rodas Pedro, Maria Eugenia Rodriguez Claras, Rene Jonathan Rosas Cardenas, Danny Ruiz Garcia, Crisley Sacrab-Bin, Gelber Sontay Funez, Adrian Sosa Fletes, Fermin Tepetate-Martinez, Maykel Valera Ramirez, Geraldo Vargas, Agane Warsame, Eitan Yefet, Eliseo Antonio Zamora Mendoza. Attorney Maia Fleischman added to party Alvaro Roa Calicchio(pty:pet), Attorney Maia Fleischman added to party

Miryam Elizabeth Lopez Herrera(pty:pet). Responses due by 7/30/2020 (Attachments: # 1 [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL)(Fleischman, Maia) (Entered: 07/16/2020)

07/17/2020

214 MOTION REQUESTING THE COURT TO GRANT ORDER ON PETITIONERS MOTION TO INTERVENE re 189 MOTION to Intervene by Alvaro Roa Calicchio. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Order)(Alcaro, Gregory) (Entered: 07/17/2020)

07/17/2020

215 PAPERLESS ORDER granting 213 Unopposed Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. Attorney Maia Fleischman, 2 S. Biscayne Blvd., Ste. 3200, Miami, Florida 33101, shall be removed as counsel of record for Plaintiffs and is released of any further responsibility in the above-captioned case. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jonathan Goodman on 7/17/2020. (jzn) (Entered: 07/17/2020)

07/17/2020 216 Witness List -Fact Witness List by Field Office Director, Miami Field Office, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, U.S. Attorney General.. (Diaz, Natalie) (Entered: 07/17/2020)

07/17/2020

217 NOTICE of Filing Declaration in Response to Court's Order by Field Office Director, Miami Field Office, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, U.S. Attorney General re 158 Order on Motion to Compel, Order on Report and Recommendations, Order on Motion for Temporary Restraining Order,, Order on Motion for Preliminary Injunction, Order on Expedited Motion, (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A-Declaration of Liana J. Castano (OIC)) (Diaz, Natalie) (Entered: 07/17/2020)

07/17/2020

218 NOTICE of Filing Declaration in Response to Court's Order by Field Office Director, Miami Field Office, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, U.S. Attorney General re 158 Order on Motion to Compel,, Order on Report and Recommendations, Order on Motion for Temporary Restraining Order,, Order on Motion for Preliminary Injunction,, Order on Expedited Motion (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A-Part 1, # 2 Exhibit APart 2) (Diaz, Natalie) (Entered: 07/17/2020)

07/17/2020

219 Order Appointing Special Master. Signed by Judge Marcia G. Cooke on 7/17/2020. See attached document for full details. (kou) (Main Document 219 replaced on 7/20/2020) (mf). (Main Document 219 replaced on 7/20/2020) and made it an OPINION per chambers (mf). (Entered: 07/17/2020)

07/17/2020

220 Witness List by Rolando Aguabella Martinez, Juan Carlos Alfaro Garcia, Mohamed Hassan Ali, Javier Antonio Arias-Martinez, Naim Arrak, Dairon Barredo Sanchez, Maikel Betancourt, Sirvanildo Bibiano Soares, Alvaro Roa Calicchio, Maikel Carrasco Polo, Abel Carrillo, Jose Chavez, Maxuel A De Souza, Julio Edwards, Hassan Mohamed Farah, Alejandro

Ferreira Borges, Ruben Orlando Flores Ramos, Patrick Gayle, Fernando Goncalves, Franklin Ramon Gonzalez, Mohamed Hasan, Carlos Hedman Perdomo, Abdul Jalloh, Aparicio P. Jeronimo, Muhammad Alam Khan, Thomas Lenor, Miryam Elizabeth Lopez Herrera, Manuel Lopez Perez, Omar Lopez-Jaramillo, Ariel Lucien, Yaniel Machado Aguila, Miguel Angel Marroquin Perez, Tolentino Martinez Rios, Irvin Medoza Silis, Cesar Ariel Mendez Escobar, Jose Galdino Montalvo Rodriguez, Alejandro Vincenzo Mugaburu Tapia, Darwyn Yovanny Navarrette Sanchez, Farhan Nawabit, Lazaro Ocana Guzman, Evarado Orantes Acevedo, Roseline Ostine, Tahimi Perez, Wilder Perez Limones, Deivys Perez Valladares, Ricardo Perezo Alonzo, Francisco Rivero Valeron, Ervin David Rodas Pedro, Maria Eugenia Rodriguez Claras, Rene Jonathan Rosas Cardenas, Danny Ruiz Garcia, Crisley Sacrab-Bin, Gelber Sontay Funez, Adrian Sosa Fletes, Fermin Tepetate-Martinez, Maykel Valera Ramirez, Geraldo Vargas, Agane Warsame, Eitan Yefet, Eliseo Antonio Zamora Mendoza.. (Edson, Scott) (Entered: 07/17/2020)

07/20/2020

221 NOTICE of Attorney Appearance by Drew Thompson Bell on behalf of Rolando Aguabella Martinez, Juan Carlos Alfaro Garcia, Mohamed Hassan Ali, Javier Antonio Arias-Martinez, Naim Arrak, Dairon Barredo Sanchez, Maikel Betancourt, Sirvanildo Bibiano Soares, Alvaro Roa Calicchio, Maikel Carrasco Polo, Abel Carrillo, Jose Chavez, Maxuel A De Souza, Julio Edwards, Hassan Mohamed Farah, Alejandro Ferreira Borges, Ruben Orlando Flores Ramos, Patrick Gayle, Fernando Goncalves, Franklin Ramon Gonzalez, Mohamed Hasan, Carlos Hedman Perdomo, Abdul Jalloh, Aparicio P. Jeronimo, Muhammad Alam Khan, Thomas Lenor, Miryam Elizabeth Lopez Herrera, Manuel Lopez Perez, Omar Lopez-Jaramillo, Ariel Lucien, Yaniel Machado Aguila, Miguel Angel Marroquin Perez, Tolentino Martinez Rios, Irvin Medoza Silis, Cesar Ariel Mendez Escobar, Jose Galdino Montalvo Rodriguez, Alejandro Vincenzo Mugaburu Tapia, Darwyn Yovanny Navarrette Sanchez, Farhan Nawabit, Lazaro Ocana Guzman, Evarado Orantes Acevedo, Roseline Ostine, Tahimi Perez, Wilder Perez Limones, Deivys Perez Valladares, Ricardo Perezo Alonzo, Francisco Rivero Valeron, Ervin David Rodas Pedro, Maria Eugenia Rodriguez Claras, Rene Jonathan Rosas Cardenas, Danny Ruiz Garcia, Crisley Sacrab-Bin, Gelber Sontay Funez, Adrian Sosa Fletes, Fermin Tepetate-Martinez, Maykel Valera Ramirez, Geraldo Vargas, Agane Warsame, Eitan Yefet, Eliseo Antonio Zamora Mendoza. Attorney Drew Thompson Bell added to party Rolando Aguabella Martinez(pty:pet), Attorney Drew Thompson Bell added to party Juan Carlos Alfaro Garcia(pty:pet), Attorney Drew Thompson Bell added to party Mohamed Hassan Ali(pty:pet), Attorney Drew Thompson Bell added to party Javier Antonio AriasMartinez(pty:pet), Attorney Drew Thompson Bell added to party Naim Arrak(pty:pet), Attorney Drew Thompson Bell added to party Dairon Barredo Sanchez(pty:pet), Attorney Drew Thompson Bell added to party

Maikel Betancourt(pty:pet), Attorney Drew Thompson Bell added to party Sirvanildo Bibiano Soares(pty:pet), Attorney Drew Thompson Bell added to party Alvaro Roa Calicchio(pty:pet), Attorney Drew Thompson Bell added to party Maikel Carrasco Polo(pty:pet), Attorney Drew Thompson Bell added to party Abel Carrillo(pty:pet), Attorney Drew Thompson Bell added to party Jose Chavez(pty:pet), Attorney Drew Thompson Bell added to party Maxuel A De Souza(pty:pet), Attorney Drew Thompson Bell added to party Julio Edwards(pty:pet), Attorney Drew Thompson Bell added to party Hassan Mohamed Farah(pty:pet), Attorney Drew Thompson Bell added to party Alejandro Ferreira Borges(pty:pet), Attorney Drew Thompson Bell added to party Ruben Orlando Flores Ramos(pty:pet), Attorney Drew Thompson Bell added to party Patrick Gayle(pty:pet), Attorney Drew Thompson Bell added to party Fernando Goncalves(pty:pet), Attorney Drew Thompson Bell added to party Franklin Ramon Gonzalez(pty:pet), Attorney Drew Thompson Bell added to party Mohamed Hasan(pty:pet), Attorney Drew Thompson Bell added to party Carlos Hedman Perdomo(pty:pet), Attorney Drew Thompson Bell added to party Abdul Jalloh(pty:pet), Attorney Drew Thompson Bell added to party Aparicio P. Jeronimo(pty:pet), Attorney Drew Thompson Bell added to party Muhammad Alam Khan(pty:pet), Attorney Drew Thompson Bell added to party Thomas Lenor(pty:pet), Attorney Drew Thompson Bell added to party Miryam Elizabeth Lopez Herrera(pty:pet), Attorney Drew Thompson Bell added to party Manuel Lopez Perez(pty:pet), Attorney Drew Thompson Bell added to party Omar Lopez-Jaramillo(pty:pet), Attorney Drew Thompson Bell added to party Ariel Lucien(pty:pet), Attorney Drew Thompson Bell added to party Yaniel Machado Aguila(pty:pet), Attorney Drew Thompson Bell added to party Miguel Angel Marroquin Perez(pty:pet), Attorney Drew Thompson Bell added to party Tolentino Martinez Rios(pty:pet), Attorney Drew Thompson Bell added to party Irvin Medoza Silis(pty:pet), Attorney Drew Thompson Bell added to party Cesar Ariel Mendez Escobar(pty:pet), Attorney Drew Thompson Bell added to party Jose Galdino Montalvo Rodriguez(pty:pet), Attorney Drew Thompson Bell added to party Alejandro Vincenzo Mugaburu Tapia(pty:pet), Attorney Drew Thompson Bell added to party Darwyn Yovanny Navarrette Sanchez(pty:pet), Attorney Drew Thompson Bell added to party Farhan Nawabit(pty:pet), Attorney Drew Thompson Bell added to party Lazaro Ocana Guzman(pty:pet), Attorney Drew Thompson Bell added to party Evarado Orantes Acevedo(pty:pet), Attorney Drew Thompson Bell added to party Roseline Ostine(pty:pet), Attorney Drew Thompson Bell added to party Tahimi Perez(pty:pet), Attorney Drew Thompson Bell added to party Wilder Perez Limones(pty:pet), Attorney Drew Thompson Bell added to party Deivys Perez Valladares(pty:pet), Attorney Drew Thompson Bell added to party Ricardo Perezo Alonzo(pty:pet), Attorney Drew Thompson Bell added to party Francisco Rivero Valeron(pty:pet), Attorney Drew Thompson Bell added to party Ervin David Rodas

Pedro(pty:pet), Attorney Drew Thompson Bell added to party Maria Eugenia Rodriguez Claras(pty:pet), Attorney Drew Thompson Bell added to party Rene Jonathan Rosas Cardenas(pty:pet), Attorney Drew Thompson Bell added to party Danny Ruiz Garcia(pty:pet), Attorney Drew Thompson Bell added to party Crisley Sacrab-Bin(pty:pet), Attorney Drew Thompson Bell added to party Gelber Sontay Funez(pty:pet), Attorney Drew Thompson Bell added to party Adrian Sosa Fletes(pty:pet), Attorney Drew Thompson Bell added to party Fermin Tepetate-Martinez(pty:pet), Attorney Drew Thompson Bell added to party Maykel Valera Ramirez(pty:pet), Attorney Drew Thompson Bell added to party Geraldo Vargas(pty:pet), Attorney Drew Thompson Bell added to party Agane Warsame(pty:pet), Attorney Drew Thompson Bell added to party Eitan Yefet(pty:pet), Attorney Drew Thompson Bell added to party Eliseo Antonio Zamora Mendoza(pty:pet). (Bell, Drew) (Entered: 07/20/2020)

07/20/2020

222 NOTICE of Filing Declaration in Response to Court's Order by Field Office Director, Miami Field Office, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, U.S. Attorney General re 158 Order on Motion to Compel, Order on Report and Recommendations, Order on Motion for Temporary Restraining Order, Order on Motion for Preliminary Injunction, Order on Expedited Motion, of Filing Declaration in Response to Court's Order (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A-Declaration of Liana J. Castano) (Diaz, Natalie) (Entered: 07/20/2020)

07/20/2020

223 AFFIDAVIT of Matthew C. Dates for Appointment as Special Master signed by: Matthew C. Dates re 219 Order Referring Case to Special Master, by Matthew C Dates (Dates, Matthew) (Entered: 07/20/2020)

07/20/2020

224 RESPONSE in Opposition re 195 Defendant's MOTION for Reconsideration re 158 Order on Motion to Compel,, Order on Report and Recommendations,,,, Order on Motion for Temporary Restraining Order,, Order on Motion for Preliminary Injunction,, Order on Expedited Motion, < filed by Rolando Aguabella Martinez, Juan Carlos Alfaro Garcia, Mohamed Hassan Ali, Javier Antonio Arias-Martinez, Naim Arrak, Dairon Barredo Sanchez, Maikel Betancourt, Sirvanildo Bibiano Soares, Alvaro Roa Calicchio, Maikel Carrasco Polo, Abel Carrillo, Jose Chavez, Matthew C Dates, Maxuel A De Souza, Julio Edwards, Hassan Mohamed Farah, Alejandro Ferreira Borges, Ruben Orlando Flores Ramos, Patrick Gayle, Fernando Goncalves, Franklin Ramon Gonzalez, Mohamed Hasan, Carlos Hedman Perdomo, Abdul Jalloh, Aparicio P. Jeronimo, Muhammad Alam Khan, Thomas Lenor, Miryam Elizabeth Lopez Herrera, Manuel Lopez Perez, Omar Lopez-Jaramillo, Ariel Lucien, Yaniel Machado Aguila, Miguel Angel Marroquin Perez, Tolentino Martinez Rios, Irvin Medoza Silis, Cesar Ariel Mendez

Escobar, Jose Galdino Montalvo Rodriguez, Alejandro Vincenzo Mugaburu Tapia, Darwyn Yovanny Navarrette Sanchez, Farhan Nawabit, Lazaro Ocana Guzman, Evarado Orantes Acevedo, Roseline Ostine, Tahimi Perez, Wilder Perez Limones, Deivys Perez Valladares, Ricardo Perezo Alonzo, Francisco Rivero Valeron, Ervin David Rodas Pedro, Maria Eugenia Rodriguez Claras, Rene Jonathan Rosas Cardenas, Danny Ruiz Garcia, Crisley Sacrab-Bin, Gelber Sontay Funez, Adrian Sosa Fletes, Fermin Tepetate-Martinez, Maykel Valera Ramirez, Geraldo Vargas, Agane Warsame, Eitan Yefet, Eliseo Antonio Zamora Mendoza. Attorney Scott Michael Edson added to party Miryam Elizabeth Lopez Herrera(pty:pet). Replies due by 7/27/2020. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit ICE July 13, 2020 Press Release)(Edson, Scott) (Entered: 07/20/2020)

07/22/2020

225 NOTICE of Filing Declaration in Response to Court's Order by Field Office Director, Miami Field Office, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, U.S. Attorney General re 158 Order on Motion to Compel, Order on Report and Recommendations, Order on Motion for Temporary Restraining Order,, Order on Motion for Preliminary Injunction, Order on Expedited Motion, (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A-Declaration of Liana J. Castano (OIC)) (Diaz, Natalie) (Entered: 07/22/2020)

07/22/2020 226 PAPERLESS ORDER granting 189 , 214 Alvaro Roa Calicchio's Motion to Intervene and granting 200 Miryam Elizabeth Lopez Herrera's Motion to Intervene.

Alvaro Roa Calicchio and Miryam Elizabeth Lopez Herrera shall be permitted to intervene in this action as a Plaintiffs/Petitioners. The Clerk of Court is instructed to docket the Plaintiffs/Petitioners' respective Verified Petitions for Writs of Habeas Corpus and Complaints for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief, which are both attached as Exhibit A to their motions to intervene [ECF Nos. 189-1; 200-1]. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jonathan Goodman on 7/22/2020. (jzn) (Entered: 07/22/2020)

07/23/2020

227 APPLICATION/PETITION (Complaint) for Writ of Habeas Corpus and Complaint for Declatory and Injunctive Relief and Request for Hearing, filed by Alvaro Roa Calicchio. Per DE# 226 Paperless Order granting 189 , 214 Alvaro Roa Calicchio's Motion to Intervene and granting 200 Miryam Elizabeth Lopez Herrera's Motion to Intervene. (jas) (Entered: 07/23/2020)

07/23/2020

228 EMERGENCY APPLICATION/PETITION (Complaint) for Writ of Habeas Corpus and Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief, filed by Miryam Elizabeth Lopez Herrera. Per DE# 226 Paperless Order granting 189 , 214 Alvaro Roa Calicchio's Motion to Intervene and granting 200 Miryam Elizabeth Lopez Herrera's Motion to Intervene. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibits A-N)(jas) (Entered: 07/23/2020)

07/23/2020

229 CLERK'S NOTICE of Compliance re 226 Paperless Order granting 189 , 214 Alvaro Roa Calicchio's Motion to Intervene and granting 200 Miryam Elizabeth Lopez Herrera's Motion to Intervene. (jas) (Entered: 07/23/2020)

07/23/2020 230 Unopposed MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney by Allison Norris for / by Maikel Betancourt. Responses due by 8/6/2020 (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Norris, Allison) (Entered: 07/23/2020)

07/23/2020 231 MOTION For Release , MOTION for Hearing by Deivys Perez Valladares. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Declaration of Named Plaintiff Perez Valladares)(Berlow-Lehner, Lisa) (Entered: 07/23/2020)

07/23/2020

232 Stricken per DE# 233 , ENDORSED ORDER SETTING HEARING. A Zoom Hearing on 9 Defendants' Motion to Dismiss with Prejudice 1 Complaint is set for July 29, 2020, a 2:00 P.M. in the Miami Division before the Honorable Marcia G. Cooke. The details for the Zoom hearing, including the meeting ID and password, are forthcoming. Signed by Judge Marcia G. Cooke on 7/23/2020. (kou) Modified text on 7/24/2020 (jas). (Entered: 07/23/2020)

07/23/2020 233 ENDORSED ORDER STRIKING/CANCELING 232 ENDORSED ORDER SETTING HEARING. Signed by Judge Marcia G. Cooke on 7/23/2020. (kou) (Entered: 07/23/2020)

07/24/2020

234 NOTICE of Filing Declaration in Response to Court's Order by Field Office Director, Miami Field Office, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, U.S. Attorney General re 158 Order on Motion to Compel, Order on Report and Recommendations, Order on Motion for Temporary Restraining Order, Order on Motion for Preliminary Injunction,, Order on Expedited Motion, (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A-Declaration of Liana J. Castano (OIC)) (Diaz, Natalie) (Entered: 07/24/2020)

07/24/2020

235 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply/Answer as to 202 Plaintiff's EXPEDITED MOTION For Release, Or in the Alternative, Hearing on Habeas Petition , 206 MOTION for Release of Named Petitioner Alejandro Ferrera Borges MOTION for Hearing, 203 MOTION for Release of Named Petitioner MOTION for Hearing, 204 MOTION for Release of Named Petitioner MOTION for Hearing, 205 MOTION Release of Named Petitioner Miguel Angel Marroquin MOTION for Hearing, 207 MOTION Motion for Release of Named Petitioner MOTION for Hearing by Field Office Director, Miami Field Office, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, U.S. Attorney General. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Diaz, Natalie) (Entered: 07/24/2020)

07/24/2020

236 PAPERLESS ORDER granting 230 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. Allison Norris, 6355 NW 36th Street, Suite 2201, Miami, FL 33166, shall be removed as counsel of record for Plaintiff Maikel Betancourt and is released of any further responsibility in this case. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jonathan Goodman on 7/24/2020. (jzn) (Entered: 07/24/2020)

07/24/2020 237 ENDORSED ORDER granting in part and denying in part 235 Respondents' Motion for Extension of Time.

THIS MATTER is before the Court upon Respondents' Motion for Extension of Time to File Responses to Plaintiff's Motions for Release, or in the Alternative, Hearing on Habeas Petition 202 203 204 205 206 207 .

Having carefully considered the same, and finding good cause has been shown, it is ORDERED and ADJUDGED as follows:

Respondents shall have up to and including July 30, 2020, to file Responses to said Motions.

Signed by Judge Marcia G. Cooke on 7/24/2020. (kou) (Entered: 07/24/2020)

07/27/2020

238 MOTION to Intervene by Rodney Martin. Attorney Erica Perdomo added to party Rodney Martin(pty:pet). (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A - Verified Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and Complaint, # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Perdomo, Erica) (Entered: 07/27/2020)

07/27/2020

239 NOTICE of Filing Declaration in Response to Court's Order by Field Office Director, Miami Field Office, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, U.S. Attorney General re 158 Order on Motion to Compel, Order on Report and Recommendations, Order on Motion for Temporary Restraining Order, Order on Motion for Preliminary Injunction,, Order on Expedited Motion, (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A-Declaration of Liana J. Castano (OIC)) (Diaz, Natalie) (Entered: 07/27/2020)

07/27/2020

240 REPLY to Response to Motion re 195 Defendant's MOTION for Reconsideration re 158 Order on Motion to Compel,, Order on Report and Recommendations,,,, Order on Motion for Temporary Restraining Order,, Order on Motion for Preliminary Injunction,, Order on Expedited Motion, < filed by Field Office Director, Miami Field Office, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, U.S. Attorney General. (Celone, Michael) (Entered: 07/27/2020)

07/27/2020 241 RESPONSE in Opposition re 208 MOTION for Release or in the Alternative, Motion for Hearing on Habeas Petition, MOTION for Hearing filed by Field Office Director, Miami Field Office, U.S.

Immigration and Customs Enforcement, U.S. Attorney General. Replies due by 8/3/2020. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A- Declaration SDDO Viera)(Diaz, Natalie) (Entered: 07/27/2020)

07/28/2020

242 MOTION for Release, or in the Alternative, Motion for Hearing on Habeas Petition as to Mohamed Hassan Ali, by Mohamed Hassan Ali. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Declaration of Mohamed Hassan Ali)(Lerner, Romy). Added MOTION for Hearing on 7/28/2020 (jas). (Entered: 07/28/2020)

07/28/2020

PAPERLESS ORDER regarding 238 Rodney Martin's Motion to Intervene. Respondents shall have until August 6, 2020 to respond to the motion and Mr. Martin shall have until August 11, 2020 to file an optional reply. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jonathan Goodman on 7/28/2020. (jzn) (Entered: 07/28/2020)

07/28/2020

243 Unopposed MOTION for Leave to File by Field Office Director, Miami Field Office, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, U.S. Attorney General. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A-Proposed Protective Order, # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Diaz, Natalie) (Entered: 07/28/2020)

07/28/2020

244 Clerks Notice to Filer re 242 MOTION for Release of Named Petitioner Mohamed Hassan Ali MOTION for Hearing. Motion with Multiple Reliefs Filed as One Relief; ERROR - The Filer selected only one relief event and failed to select the additional corresponding events for each relief requested in the motion. The docket entry was corrected by the Clerk. It is not necessary to refile this document but future filings must comply with the instructions in the CM/ECF Attorney User's Manual. (jas) (Entered: 07/28/2020)

07/28/2020 245 NOTICE of Attorney Appearance by Ian M. Ross on behalf of Rodney Martin. Attorney Ian M. Ross added to party Rodney Martin(pty:pet). (Ross, Ian) (Entered: 07/28/2020)

07/29/2020

246 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time of Discovery Cutoff Deadline by Rolando Aguabella Martinez, Juan Carlos Alfaro Garcia, Mohamed Hassan Ali, Javier Antonio Arias-Martinez, Naim Arrak, Dairon Barredo Sanchez, Maikel Betancourt, Sirvanildo Bibiano Soares, Alvaro Roa Calicchio, Maikel Carrasco Polo, Abel Carrillo, Jose Chavez, Matthew C Dates, Maxuel A De Souza, Julio Edwards, Hassan Mohamed Farah, Alejandro Ferreira Borges, Field Office Director, Miami Field Office, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Ruben Orlando Flores Ramos, Patrick Gayle, Fernando Goncalves, Franklin Ramon Gonzalez, Mohamed Hasan, Carlos Hedman Perdomo, Abdul Jalloh, Aparicio P. Jeronimo, Muhammad Alam Khan, Thomas Lenor, Miryam Elizabeth Lopez Herrera, Manuel Lopez Perez, Omar Lopez-Jaramillo, Ariel Lucien, Yaniel Machado Aguila, Miguel Angel Marroquin Perez, Rodney

Martin, Tolentino Martinez Rios, Irvin Medoza Silis, Cesar Ariel Mendez Escobar, Jose Galdino Montalvo Rodriguez, Alejandro Vincenzo Mugaburu Tapia, Darwyn Yovanny Navarrette Sanchez, Farhan Nawabit, Lazaro Ocana Guzman, Evarado Orantes Acevedo, Roseline Ostine, Tahimi Perez, Wilder Perez Limones, Deivys Perez Valladares, Ricardo Perezo Alonzo, Francisco Rivero Valeron, Ervin David Rodas Pedro, Maria Eugenia Rodriguez Claras, Rene Jonathan Rosas Cardenas, Danny Ruiz Garcia, Crisley Sacrab-Bin, Gelber Sontay Funez, Adrian Sosa Fletes, Fermin Tepetate-Martinez, U.S. Attorney General, Maykel Valera Ramirez, Geraldo Vargas, Agane Warsame, Eitan Yefet, Eliseo Antonio Zamora Mendoza. Attorney Drew Thompson Bell added to party Rodney Martin(pty:pet). (Bell, Drew) (Entered: 07/29/2020)

07/29/2020 247 Order granting ECF No. 243 and entering Stipulated Protective Order. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jonathan Goodman on 7/29/2020. See attached document for full details. (jzn) (Entered: 07/29/2020)

07/30/2020 248 AMENDED ORDER SETTING CIVIL TRIAL DATE AND PRETRIAL DEADLINES. Signed by Judge Marcia G. Cooke on 7/30/2020. See attached document for full details. (kou) (Entered: 07/30/2020)

07/30/2020

249 RESPONSE to Motion re 206 MOTION for Release of Named Petitioner Alejandro Ferrera Borges MOTION for Hearing filed by Field Office Director, Miami Field Office, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, U.S. Attorney General. Replies due by 8/6/2020. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A-Declaration of Agudelo (OIC))(Diaz, Natalie) (Entered: 07/30/2020)

07/30/2020

250 RESPONSE to Motion re 207 MOTION Motion for Release of Named Petitioner MOTION for Hearing filed by Field Office Director, Miami Field Office, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, U.S. Attorney General. Replies due by 8/6/2020. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit ADeclaration of Agudelo (OIC))(Diaz, Natalie) (Entered: 07/30/2020)

07/30/2020

251 RESPONSE to Motion re 203 MOTION for Release of Named Petitioner MOTION for Hearing filed by Field Office Director, Miami Field Office, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, U.S. Attorney General. Replies due by 8/6/2020. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit ADeclaration of Agudelo (OIC))(Diaz, Natalie) (Entered: 07/30/2020)

07/30/2020

252 RESPONSE to Motion re 204 MOTION for Release of Named Petitioner MOTION for Hearing filed by Field Office Director, Miami Field Office, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, U.S. Attorney General. Replies due by 8/6/2020. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit ADeclaration of Agudelo (OIC))(Diaz, Natalie) (Entered: 07/30/2020)

07/30/2020 253 MOTION for Release of Alvaro Roa Calichio by Alvaro Roa Calicchio. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)(Alcaro, Gregory) (Entered: 07/30/2020)

07/30/2020

254 RESPONSE in Opposition re 202 Plaintiff's EXPEDITED MOTION For Release, Or in the Alternative, Hearing on Habeas Petition filed by Field Office Director, Miami Field Office, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, U.S. Attorney General. Replies due by 8/6/2020. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A- Declaration OIC Castano)(Diaz, Natalie) (Entered: 07/30/2020)

07/30/2020

255 RESPONSE in Opposition re 205 MOTION Release of Named Petitioner Miguel Angel Marroquin MOTION for Hearing filed by Field Office Director, Miami Field Office, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, U.S. Attorney General. Replies due by 8/6/2020. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A- Declaration OIC Agudelo)(Diaz, Natalie) (Entered: 07/30/2020)

07/31/2020

256 NOTICE by Field Office Director, Miami Field Office, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, U.S. Attorney General re 158 Order on Motion to Compel,, Order on Report and Recommendations,,,, Order on Motion for Temporary Restraining Order,, Order on Motion for Preliminary Injunction,, Order on Expedited Motion, of Filing Declaration in Response to Court's Order (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit ADeclaration of Agudelo (OIC)) (Diaz, Natalie) (Entered: 07/31/2020)

07/31/2020

257 NOTICE by Field Office Director, Miami Field Office, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, U.S. Attorney General re 158 Order on Motion to Compel,, Order on Report and Recommendations,,,, Order on Motion for Temporary Restraining Order,, Order on Motion for Preliminary Injunction,, Order on Expedited Motion, of Filing Declaration in Response to Court's Order (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit ADeclaration of Castano (OIC)) (Diaz, Natalie) (Entered: 07/31/2020)

08/03/2020

258 NOTICE by Field Office Director, Miami Field Office, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, U.S. Attorney General re 158 Order on Motion to Compel,, Order on Report and Recommendations,,,, Order on Motion for Temporary Restraining Order,, Order on Motion for Preliminary Injunction,, Order on Expedited Motion, of Filing Declaration in Response to Court's Order (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit ADeclaration of Agudelo) (Diaz, Natalie) (Entered: 08/03/2020)

08/03/2020 259 REPLY to Response to Motion re 208 MOTION for Release of Named Petitioner Maikel Carrasco Polo MOTION for Hearing filed by Maikel Carrasco Polo. (Berlow-Lehner, Lisa) (Entered: 08/03/2020)

08/04/2020

260 Plaintiff's EXPEDITED MOTION For Release, Or in the Alternative, Hearing on Habeas Petition by Jose Chavez. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Declaration of Jose Chavez)(Bell, Drew). Added MOTION for Hearing on 8/5/2020 (jas). (Entered: 08/04/2020)

08/04/2020

261 Plaintiff's EXPEDITED MOTION For Release, Or in the Alternative, Hearing on Habeas Petition by Roseline Ostine. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Declaration of Roseline Ostine)(Bell, Drew). Added MOTION for Hearing on 8/5/2020 (jas). (Entered: 08/04/2020)

08/04/2020

262 Plaintiff's EXPEDITED MOTION For Release, Or in the Alternative, Hearing on Habeas Petition by Sirvanildo Bibiano Soares. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Declaration of Sirvanildo Bibiano Soares)(Bell, Drew). Added MOTION for Hearing on 8/5/2020 (jas). (Entered: 08/04/2020)

08/05/2020

263 MOTION to Intervene by Hatem Chourabi. Attorney Patrick Farrell Trese added to party Hatem Chourabi(pty:pet). (Attachments: # 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Trese, Patrick) (Entered: 08/05/2020)

08/05/2020

264 Clerks Notice to Filer re 260 Plaintiff's EXPEDITED MOTION For Release, Or in the Alternative, Hearing on Habeas Petition, 261 Plaintiff's EXPEDITED MOTION For Release, Or in the Alternative, Hearing on Habeas Petition, 262 Plaintiff's EXPEDITED MOTION For Release, Or in the Alternative, Hearing on Habeas Petition. Motion with Multiple Reliefs Filed as One Relief; ERROR - The Filer selected only one relief event and failed to select the additional corresponding events for each relief requested in the motion. The docket entry was corrected by the Clerk. It is not necessary to refile this document but future filings must comply with the instructions in the CM/ECF Attorney User's Manual. (jas) (Entered: 08/05/2020)

08/05/2020

265 NOTICE of Attorney Appearance by Jennifer Rae Coberly on behalf of Rolando Aguabella Martinez, Juan Carlos Alfaro Garcia, Mohamed Hassan Ali, Javier Antonio Arias-Martinez, Naim Arrak, Dairon Barredo Sanchez, Maikel Betancourt, Sirvanildo Bibiano Soares, Alvaro Roa Calicchio, Maikel Carrasco Polo, Abel Carrillo, Jose Chavez, Hatem Chourabi, Matthew C Dates, Maxuel A De Souza, Julio Edwards, Hassan Mohamed Farah, Alejandro Ferreira Borges, Field Office Director, Miami Field Office, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Ruben Orlando Flores Ramos, Patrick Gayle, Fernando Goncalves, Franklin Ramon Gonzalez, Mohamed Hasan, Carlos Hedman Perdomo, Abdul Jalloh, Aparicio P. Jeronimo, Muhammad Alam Khan, Thomas Lenor, Miryam Elizabeth Lopez Herrera, Manuel Lopez Perez, Omar LopezJaramillo, Ariel Lucien, Yaniel Machado Aguila, Miguel Angel Marroquin Perez, Rodney Martin, Tolentino Martinez Rios, Irvin Medoza

Silis, Cesar Ariel Mendez Escobar, Jose Galdino Montalvo Rodriguez, Alejandro Vincenzo Mugaburu Tapia, Darwyn Yovanny Navarrette Sanchez, Farhan Nawabit, Lazaro Ocana Guzman, Evarado Orantes Acevedo, Roseline Ostine, Tahimi Perez, Wilder Perez Limones, Deivys Perez Valladares, Ricardo Perezo Alonzo, Francisco Rivero Valeron, Ervin David Rodas Pedro, Maria Eugenia Rodriguez Claras, Rene Jonathan Rosas Cardenas, Danny Ruiz Garcia, Crisley Sacrab-Bin, Gelber Sontay Funez, Adrian Sosa Fletes, Fermin Tepetate-Martinez, U.S. Attorney General, Maykel Valera Ramirez, Geraldo Vargas, Agane Warsame, Eitan Yefet, Eliseo Antonio Zamora Mendoza. Attorney Jennifer Rae Coberly added to party Rolando Aguabella Martinez(pty:pet), Attorney Jennifer Rae Coberly added to party Juan Carlos Alfaro Garcia(pty:pet), Attorney Jennifer Rae Coberly added to party Mohamed Hassan Ali(pty:pet), Attorney Jennifer Rae Coberly added to party Javier Antonio Arias-Martinez(pty:pet), Attorney Jennifer Rae Coberly added to party Naim Arrak(pty:pet), Attorney Jennifer Rae Coberly added to party Dairon Barredo Sanchez(pty:pet), Attorney Jennifer Rae Coberly added to party Maikel Betancourt(pty:pet), Attorney Jennifer Rae Coberly added to party Sirvanildo Bibiano Soares(pty:pet), Attorney Jennifer Rae Coberly added to party Alvaro Roa Calicchio(pty:pet), Attorney Jennifer Rae Coberly added to party Maikel Carrasco Polo(pty:pet), Attorney Jennifer Rae Coberly added to party Abel Carrillo(pty:pet), Attorney Jennifer Rae Coberly added to party Jose Chavez(pty:pet), Attorney Jennifer Rae Coberly added to party Hatem Chourabi(pty:pet), Attorney Jennifer Rae Coberly added to party Matthew C Dates(pty:sm), Attorney Jennifer Rae Coberly added to party Maxuel A De Souza(pty:pet), Attorney Jennifer Rae Coberly added to party Julio Edwards(pty:pet), Attorney Jennifer Rae Coberly added to party Hassan Mohamed Farah(pty:pet), Attorney Jennifer Rae Coberly added to party Alejandro Ferreira Borges(pty:pet), Attorney Jennifer Rae Coberly added to party Field Office Director, Miami Field Office, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement(pty:res), Attorney Jennifer Rae Coberly added to party Ruben Orlando Flores Ramos(pty:pet), Attorney Jennifer Rae Coberly added to party Patrick Gayle(pty:pet), Attorney Jennifer Rae Coberly added to party Fernando Goncalves(pty:pet), Attorney Jennifer Rae Coberly added to party Franklin Ramon Gonzalez(pty:pet), Attorney Jennifer Rae Coberly added to party Mohamed Hasan(pty:pet), Attorney Jennifer Rae Coberly added to party Carlos Hedman Perdomo(pty:pet), Attorney Jennifer Rae Coberly added to party Abdul Jalloh(pty:pet), Attorney Jennifer Rae Coberly added to party Aparicio P. Jeronimo(pty:pet), Attorney Jennifer Rae Coberly added to party Muhammad Alam Khan(pty:pet), Attorney Jennifer Rae Coberly added to party Thomas Lenor(pty:pet), Attorney Jennifer Rae Coberly added to party Miryam Elizabeth Lopez Herrera(pty:pet), Attorney Jennifer Rae Coberly added to party Manuel Lopez Perez(pty:pet), Attorney Jennifer Rae Coberly added to party Omar Lopez-Jaramillo(pty:pet), Attorney

Jennifer Rae Coberly added to party Ariel Lucien(pty:pet), Attorney Jennifer Rae Coberly added to party Yaniel Machado Aguila(pty:pet), Attorney Jennifer Rae Coberly added to party Miguel Angel Marroquin Perez(pty:pet), Attorney Jennifer Rae Coberly added to party Rodney Martin(pty:pet), Attorney Jennifer Rae Coberly added to party Tolentino Martinez Rios(pty:pet), Attorney Jennifer Rae Coberly added to party Irvin Medoza Silis(pty:pet), Attorney Jennifer Rae Coberly added to party Cesar Ariel Mendez Escobar(pty:pet), Attorney Jennifer Rae Coberly added to party Jose Galdino Montalvo Rodriguez(pty:pet), Attorney Jennifer Rae Coberly added to party Alejandro Vincenzo Mugaburu Tapia(pty:pet), Attorney Jennifer Rae Coberly added to party Darwyn Yovanny Navarrette Sanchez(pty:pet), Attorney Jennifer Rae Coberly added to party Farhan Nawabit(pty:pet), Attorney Jennifer Rae Coberly added to party Lazaro Ocana Guzman(pty:pet), Attorney Jennifer Rae Coberly added to party Evarado Orantes Acevedo(pty:pet), Attorney Jennifer Rae Coberly added to party Roseline Ostine(pty:pet), Attorney Jennifer Rae Coberly added to party Tahimi Perez(pty:pet), Attorney Jennifer Rae Coberly added to party Wilder Perez Limones(pty:pet), Attorney Jennifer Rae Coberly added to party Deivys Perez Valladares(pty:pet), Attorney Jennifer Rae Coberly added to party Ricardo Perezo Alonzo(pty:pet), Attorney Jennifer Rae Coberly added to party Francisco Rivero Valeron(pty:pet), Attorney Jennifer Rae Coberly added to party Ervin David Rodas Pedro(pty:pet), Attorney Jennifer Rae Coberly added to party Maria Eugenia Rodriguez Claras(pty:pet), Attorney Jennifer Rae Coberly added to party Rene Jonathan Rosas Cardenas(pty:pet), Attorney Jennifer Rae Coberly added to party Danny Ruiz Garcia(pty:pet), Attorney Jennifer Rae Coberly added to party Crisley Sacrab-Bin(pty:pet), Attorney Jennifer Rae Coberly added to party Gelber Sontay Funez(pty:pet), Attorney Jennifer Rae Coberly added to party Adrian Sosa Fletes(pty:pet), Attorney Jennifer Rae Coberly added to party Fermin Tepetate-Martinez(pty:pet), Attorney Jennifer Rae Coberly added to party U.S. Attorney General(pty:res), Attorney Jennifer Rae Coberly added to party Maykel Valera Ramirez(pty:pet), Attorney Jennifer Rae Coberly added to party Geraldo Vargas(pty:pet), Attorney Jennifer Rae Coberly added to party Agane Warsame(pty:pet), Attorney Jennifer Rae Coberly added to party Eitan Yefet(pty:pet), Attorney Jennifer Rae Coberly added to party Eliseo Antonio Zamora Mendoza(pty:pet). (Coberly, Jennifer) (Entered: 08/05/2020)
08/06/2020 266 REPLY to Response to Motion re 207 MOTION for Release of Named Petitioner MOTION for Hearing filed by Maikel Betancourt. (BerlowLehner, Lisa) (Entered: 08/06/2020)
08/06/2020 267 REPLY to Response to Motion re 205 MOTION Release of Named Petitioner Miguel Angel Marroquin MOTION for Hearing filed by

Miguel Angel Marroquin Perez. (Berlow-Lehner, Lisa) (Entered: 08/06/2020)

08/06/2020

268 REPLY to Response to Motion re 206 MOTION for Release of Named Petitioner Alejandro Ferrera Borges MOTION for Hearing filed by Alejandro Ferreira Borges. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit Ferrera Borges)(Coberly, Jennifer) (Entered: 08/06/2020)

08/06/2020

269 REPLY to Response to Motion re 204 MOTION for Release of Named Petitioner MOTION for Hearing filed by Maykel Valera Ramirez. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit Valera Ramirez)(Coberly, Jennifer) (Entered: 08/06/2020)

08/06/2020 270 REPLY to Response to Motion re 203 MOTION for Release of Named Petitioner MOTION for Hearing filed by Danny Ruiz Garcia. (Coberly, Jennifer) (Entered: 08/06/2020)

08/06/2020

271 RESPONSE in Opposition re 238 MOTION to Intervene filed by Field Office Director, Miami Field Office, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, U.S. Attorney General. Replies due by 8/13/2020. (Diaz, Natalie) (Entered: 08/06/2020)

08/06/2020

272 RESPONSE to Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus by Field Office Director, Miami Field Office, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, U.S. Attorney General. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A- Form I-213, # 2 Exhibit B- NTA, # 3 Exhibit C- OIC Castano Declaration, # 4 Exhibit D- IJ Bond Decision, # 5 Exhibit E- BIA Decision on Bond)(Diaz, Natalie) (Entered: 08/06/2020)

08/06/2020

273 RESPONSE to Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus by Field Office Director, Miami Field Office, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, U.S. Attorney General. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A - Form I-213, # 2 Exhibit B- Notice to Appear, # 3 Exhibit C- Removal Order, # 4 Exhibit D- BIA Decision, # 5 Exhibit E- Interim BIA Decision, # 6 Exhibit F- AFOD Lopez Vega Declaration)(Diaz, Natalie) (Entered: 08/06/2020)

08/07/2020

274 RESPONSE in Opposition re 231 MOTION For Release MOTION for Hearing filed by Field Office Director, Miami Field Office, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, U.S. Attorney General. Replies due by 8/14/2020. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A- Form I-213, # 2 Exhibit B- Notice to Appear, # 3 Exhibit C- IJ Bond Order August 2019, # 4 Exhibit D- IJ Bond Order September 2019, # 5 Exhibit E- Removal Order, # 6 Exhibit F- BIA Decision, # 7 Exhibit G- AFOD Smith Declaration)(Diaz, Natalie) (Entered: 08/07/2020)

08/07/2020

275 NOTICE of Filing Declaration in Response to the Court's Order by Field Office Director, Miami Field Office, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, U.S. Attorney General re 158 Order on Motion to Compel, Order on Report and Recommendations, Order on Motion for Temporary Restraining Order, Order on Motion for Preliminary Injunction, Order on Expedited Motion, (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A-Declaration of Agudelo (OIC)) (Diaz, Natalie) (Entered: 08/07/2020)

08/07/2020

276 NOTICE of Filing Declaration in Response to the Court's Order by Field Office Director, Miami Field Office, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, U.S. Attorney General re 158 Order on Motion to Compel, Order on Report and Recommendations, Order on Motion for Temporary Restraining Order, Order on Motion for Preliminary Injunction, Order on Expedited Motion, (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A-Declaration of Agudelo (OIC)) (Diaz, Natalie) (Entered: 08/07/2020)

08/10/2020

277 NOTICE of Filing Declaration in Response to Court's Order by Field Office Director, Miami Field Office, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, U.S. Attorney General re 158 Order on Motion to Compel, Order on Report and Recommendations, Order on Motion for Temporary Restraining Order,, Order on Motion for Preliminary Injunction, Order on Expedited Motion, (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A-Declaration of Agudelo (OIC)) (Diaz, Natalie) (Entered: 08/10/2020)

08/10/2020

278 NOTICE of Filing Revised Declaration in Response to Court's Order by Field Office Director, Miami Field Office, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, U.S. Attorney General re 276 Notice (Other), (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A-Revised Declaration of Agudelo) (Diaz, Natalie) (Entered: 08/10/2020)

08/11/2020

279 SUPPLEMENT to 224 Response in Opposition to Motion,,,,,,, by Rolando Aguabella Martinez, Juan Carlos Alfaro Garcia, Mohamed Hassan Ali, Javier Antonio Arias-Martinez, Naim Arrak, Dairon Barredo Sanchez, Maikel Betancourt, Sirvanildo Bibiano Soares, Alvaro Roa Calicchio, Maikel Carrasco Polo, Abel Carrillo, Jose Chavez, Hatem Chourabi, Matthew C Dates, Maxuel A De Souza, Julio Edwards, Hassan Mohamed Farah, Alejandro Ferreira Borges, Ruben Orlando Flores Ramos, Patrick Gayle, Fernando Goncalves, Franklin Ramon Gonzalez, Mohamed Hasan, Carlos Hedman Perdomo, Abdul Jalloh, Aparicio P. Jeronimo, Muhammad Alam Khan, Thomas Lenor, Miryam Elizabeth Lopez Herrera, Manuel Lopez Perez, Omar Lopez-Jaramillo, Ariel Lucien, Yaniel Machado Aguila, Miguel Angel Marroquin Perez, Rodney Martin, Tolentino Martinez Rios, Irvin Medoza Silis, Cesar Ariel Mendez Escobar, Jose Galdino Montalvo Rodriguez, Alejandro Vincenzo Mugaburu Tapia, Darwyn Yovanny Navarrette Sanchez, Farhan Nawabit, Lazaro Ocana Guzman, Evarado Orantes Acevedo, Roseline Ostine,

Tahimi Perez, Wilder Perez Limones, Deivys Perez Valladares, Ricardo Perezo Alonzo, Francisco Rivero Valeron, Ervin David Rodas Pedro, Maria Eugenia Rodriguez Claras, Rene Jonathan Rosas Cardenas, Danny Ruiz Garcia, Crisley Sacrab-Bin, Gelber Sontay Funez, Adrian Sosa Fletes, Fermin Tepetate-Martinez, Maykel Valera Ramirez, Geraldo Vargas, Agane Warsame, Eitan Yefet, Eliseo Antonio Zamora Mendoza (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit ICE Resp. to First Set of Admissions, # 2 Exhibit Excerpts of ICE Verified Resp. to Interrogs.)(Edson, Scott) (Entered: 08/11/2020)

08/11/2020 280 REPLY to Response to Motion re 238 MOTION to Intervene filed by Rodney Martin. (Perdomo, Erica) (Entered: 08/11/2020)

08/11/2020

281 RESPONSE in Opposition re 242 MOTION for Release, or in the Alternative, Motion for Hearing on Habeas Petition as to Mohamed Hassan Ali filed by Field Office Director, Miami Field Office, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, U.S. Attorney General. Replies due by 8/18/2020. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A- Form I-213, # 2 Exhibit B- Notice to Appear, # 3 Exhibit C- IJ Bond Order, # 4 Exhibit D- DO Siera Declaration, # 5 Exhibit E- BIA Decision, # 6 Exhibit F- First IJ Removal Order, # 7 Exhibit G- OSUP Revocation, # 8 Exhibit H- IJ Motion to Reopen, # 9 Exhibit I- BIA Motion to Reopen, # 10 Exhibit JSecond Removal Order)(Diaz, Natalie) (Entered: 08/11/2020)

08/12/2020 282 PAPERLESS ORDER granting 238 Motion to Intervene.

The Undersigned has reviewed Mr. Martin's motion to intervene, the Respondents' opposition and Martin's reply, and the Undersigned grants the motion to intervene. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jonathan Goodman on 8/12/2020. (JG) (Entered: 08/12/2020)

08/13/2020

283 RESPONSE to 253 MOTION Motion for Release of Named Petitioner Alvaro Roa Calichio by Field Office Director, Miami Field Office, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, U.S. Attorney General. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A-I-213, # 2 Exhibit B-NTA, # 3 Exhibit C-Castano Declaration, # 4 Exhibit D-Bond Decision, # 5 Exhibit E-Bond Appeal Order)(Diaz, Natalie) (Entered: 08/13/2020)

08/14/2020 284 REPLY to 274 Response in Opposition to Motion,, by Deivys Perez Valladares. (Berlow-Lehner, Lisa) (Entered: 08/14/2020)

08/14/2020

285 Notice to 158 Order on Motion to Compel,, Order on Report and Recommendations,,,, Order on Motion for Temporary Restraining Order,, Order on Motion for Preliminary Injunction,, Order on Expedited Motion, by Field Office Director, Miami Field Office, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, U.S. Attorney General. (Attachments:

# 1 Exhibit A - Declaration OIC Agudelo)(Diaz, Natalie) (Entered: 08/14/2020)

08/14/2020 286 Plaintiff's REPLY To The Respondent's Response by Abdul Jalloh. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Oct. 24, 2018 Fairfax Cnty General District Court Case Details)(Bell, Drew) (Entered: 08/14/2020)

08/14/2020

287 Plaintiff's Expedited Motion For Release, or in the Alternative, Hearing on Habeas Petition by Farhan Nawabit. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Declaration of Farhan Nawabit)(Bell, Drew). Added MOTION for Hearing on 8/17/2020 (jas). (Entered: 08/14/2020)

08/14/2020

288 Notice of Declaration in Response to the Court's Omnibus Order to 158 Order on Motion to Compel, Order on Report and Recommendations, Order on Motion for Temporary Restraining Order, Order on Motion for Preliminary Injunction, Order on Expedited Motion, by Field Office Director, Miami Field Office, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, U.S. Attorney General. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A- Declaration OIC Agudelo and Pre-Transfer Custody Review Sheets)(Diaz, Natalie) (Entered: 08/14/2020)

08/17/2020

289 NOTICE of Declaration in Response to Court's Order by Field Office Director, Miami Field Office, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, U.S. Attorney General re 158 Order on Motion to Compel, Order on Report and Recommendations, Order on Motion for Temporary Restraining Order, Order on Motion for Preliminary Injunction Order on Expedited Motion, Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A-Agudelo Declaration) (Diaz, Natalie) (Entered: 08/17/2020)

08/17/2020

290 Clerks Notice to Filer re 287 Plaintiff's Expedited Motion For Release MOTION for Hearing . Motion with Multiple Reliefs Filed as One Relief; ERROR - The Filer selected only one relief event and failed to select the additional corresponding events for each relief requested in the motion. The docket entry was corrected by the Clerk. It is not necessary to refile this document but future filings must comply with the instructions in the CM/ECF Attorney User's Manual. (Entered: 08/17/2020)

08/18/2020 291 REPLY to Response to Motion re 242 MOTION for Release, or in the Alternative, Motion for Hearing on Habeas Petition (Lerner, Romy) (Entered: 08/18/2020)

08/18/2020 292 Letter from Valerie London as to Rodney London (mc) (Entered: 08/18/2020)

08/18/2020 293 RESPONSE to 262 Plaintiff's EXPEDITED MOTION For Release, Or in the Alternative, Hearing on Habeas Petition MOTION for Hearing by

Field Office Director, Miami Field Office, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, U.S. Attorney General. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A-I-213, # 2 Exhibit B-Arrest Records, # 3 Exhibit C-NTA, # 4 Exhibit DDeclaration, # 5 Exhibit E-Order, # 6 Exhibit F-Order)(Diaz, Natalie) (Entered: 08/18/2020)

08/18/2020

294 RESPONSE to 260 Plaintiff's EXPEDITED MOTION For Release, Or in the Alternative, Hearing on Habeas Petition MOTION for Hearing by Field Office Director, Miami Field Office, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, U.S. Attorney General. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A-I-213, # 2 Exhibit B-NTA, # 3 Exhibit C-Order, # 4 Exhibit D-BIA Decision, # 5 Exhibit E-Declaration)(Diaz, Natalie) (Entered: 08/18/2020)

08/18/2020

295 RESPONSE to 261 Plaintiff's EXPEDITED MOTION For Release, Or in the Alternative, Hearing on Habeas Petition MOTION for Hearing by Field Office Director, Miami Field Office, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, U.S. Attorney General. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A-I-213, # 2 Exhibit B-Criminal Records, # 3 Exhibit C-NTA, # 4 Exhibit DDeclaration, # 5 Exhibit E-Order, # 6 Exhibit F-BIA Decision, # 7 Exhibit G-Order)(Diaz, Natalie) (Entered: 08/18/2020)

08/19/2020

296 MOTION to Intervene by Reinier Guiba Avila. Attorney Sara Michele Klco added to party Reinier Guiba Avila(pty:intv). (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Klco, Sara) (Entered: 08/19/2020)

08/19/2020 297 REPLY to Response to Motion re 200 MOTION to Intervene filed by Miryam Elizabeth Lopez Herrera. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(OsbergBraun, Linda) (Entered: 08/19/2020)

08/20/2020 298 REPLY to Response to Motion re 253 MOTION for Release of Alvaro Roa Calichio. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Notice of Appeal - EXHIBIT A)(Alcaro, Gregory) (Entered: 08/20/2020)

08/21/2020

299 NOTICE of Filing Declaration in Response to Court's Order by Field Office Director, Miami Field Office, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, U.S. Attorney General re 158 Order on Motion to Compel, Order on Report and Recommendations, Order on Motion for Temporary Restraining Order, Order on Motion for Preliminary Injunction, Order on Expedited Motion, (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A-Declaration of Agudelo (OIC)) (Diaz, Natalie) (Entered: 08/21/2020)

08/21/2020

300 NOTICE of Filing Declaration in Response to Court's Order by Field Office Director, Miami Field Office, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, U.S. Attorney General re 158 Order on Motion to Compel, Order on Report and Recommendations, Order on Motion for Temporary Restraining Order, Order on Motion for Preliminary Injunction, Order on

Expedited Motion, (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A-Declaration of Liana J. Castano (OIC)) (Diaz, Natalie) (Entered: 08/21/2020)

08/24/2020

301 NOTICE of Filing Declaration in Response to Court's Order by Field Office Director, Miami Field Office, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, U.S. Attorney General re 158 Order on Motion to Compel, Order on Report and Recommendations, Order on Motion for Temporary Restraining Order, Order on Motion for Preliminary Injunction, Order on Expedited Motion, (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A-Declaration of Liana J. Castano (OIC)) (Diaz, Natalie) (Entered: 08/24/2020)

08/27/2020

302 EMERGENCY MOTION with Certification of Emergency included to Intervene by Luis Enrique Lopez-Pena. Responses due by 9/10/2020 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Emergency Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 2241)(Keller, Kayla) (Entered: 08/27/2020)

08/27/2020

303 Clerks Notice to Filer re 302 EMERGENCY MOTION with Certification of Emergency included to Intervene. Attorney Did Not Associate Themselves; ERROR - Filing attorney neglected to associate themselves to the case. The Clerk has added the attorney to the case. It is not necessary to refile this document future filings must comply with the CM/ECF Administrative Procedures and Local Rules by filing a Notice of Attorney Appearance and linking themselves to the case. (mc) (Entered: 08/27/2020)

08/27/2020 304 NOTICE of Change of Address by Kayla Nicole Keller (Keller, Kayla) (Entered: 08/27/2020)

08/27/2020

305 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time of Discovery Cutoff Deadline by Rolando Aguabella Martinez, Juan Carlos Alfaro Garcia, Mohamed Hassan Ali, Javier Antonio Arias-Martinez, Naim Arrak, Reinier Guiba Avila, Dairon Barredo Sanchez, Maikel Betancourt, Sirvanildo Bibiano Soares, Alvaro Roa Calicchio, Maikel Carrasco Polo, Abel Carrillo, Jose Chavez, Hatem Chourabi, Matthew C Dates, Maxuel A De Souza, Julio Edwards, Hassan Mohamed Farah, Alejandro Ferreira Borges, Ruben Orlando Flores Ramos, Patrick Gayle, Fernando Goncalves, Franklin Ramon Gonzalez, Mohamed Hasan, Carlos Hedman Perdomo, Abdul Jalloh, Aparicio P. Jeronimo, Muhammad Alam Khan, Thomas Lenor, Miryam Elizabeth Lopez Herrera, Manuel Lopez Perez, Omar Lopez-Jaramillo, Luis Enrique Lopez-Pena, Ariel Lucien, Yaniel Machado Aguila, Miguel Angel Marroquin Perez, Rodney Martin, Tolentino Martinez Rios, Irvin Medoza Silis, Cesar Ariel Mendez Escobar, Jose Galdino Montalvo Rodriguez, Alejandro Vincenzo Mugaburu Tapia, Darwyn Yovanny Navarrette Sanchez, Farhan Nawabit, Lazaro Ocana Guzman, Evarado Orantes Acevedo, Roseline Ostine, Tahimi Perez, Wilder Perez Limones, Deivys Perez Valladares, Ricardo

Perezo Alonzo, Francisco Rivero Valeron, Ervin David Rodas Pedro, Maria Eugenia Rodriguez Claras, Rene Jonathan Rosas Cardenas, Danny Ruiz Garcia, Crisley Sacrab-Bin, Gelber Sontay Funez, Adrian Sosa Fletes, Fermin Tepetate-Martinez, Maykel Valera Ramirez, Geraldo Vargas, Agane Warsame, Eitan Yefet, Eliseo Antonio Zamora Mendoza. Attorney Scott Michael Edson added to party Reinier Guiba Avila(pty:intv), Attorney Scott Michael Edson added to party Luis Enrique Lopez-Pena(pty:intv). (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order on Petitioners' Unopposed Motion For Extension of Discovery-Related Deadlines)(Edson, Scott) (Entered: 08/27/2020)

08/28/2020

306 ENDORSED ORDER denying 302 Emergency Motion with Certification of Emergency. The Emergency Motion is not properly certified as an emergency because it is missing critical language required by Local Rule 7.1(d)(1). More specifically, Local Rule 7.1(d)(1) requires that all emergency motions contain the following certification: [a]fter reviewing the facts and researching applicable legal principles, I certify that this motion in fact presents a true emergency (as opposed to a matter that may need only expedited treatment) and requires an immediate ruling because the Court would not be able to provide meaningful relief to a critical, nonroutine issue after the expiration of seven days. I understand that an unwarranted certification may lead to sanctions. S.D. Fla. L.R. 7.1(d)(1). The Emergency Motion at issue here, however, fails to include all of the above-required language. Additionally, the Emergency Motion fails to provide the date by which a ruling is necessary, and the reason the ruling is needed by the stated date both of which are required under Local Rule 7.1(d)(1). Moreover, Local Rule 7.1(d)(1) cautions that unless a motion will become moot if not ruled on within seven (7) days, the motion should not be filed as an emergency motion. Id. Here, there is no indication that the Emergency Motion will become moot unless it is ruled upon within seven days. Indeed, presently, there are two other motions to intervene which are currently pending before the Court that were filed within the past several weeks. Thus, there is no basis to conclude that Mr. Pena's request to intervene will become moot if not ruled upon within the next seven days. As a result, counsel for Mr. Pena is directed to re-file the Motion along with the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (as an exhibit) on a non-emergency basis. Meaning, the Motion should be re-filed as a regular motion not an emergency motion. Furthermore, counsel is cautioned that any future improper use of emergency certifications will result in sanctions. Signed by Judge Marcia G. Cooke on 8/28/2020. (btn) Modified text/status per Chambers on 8/28/2020 (sk). (Entered: 08/28/2020)

08/28/2020 307 Renewed MOTION to Intervene by Luis Enrique Lopez-Pena. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus)(Keller, Kayla) (Entered: 08/28/2020)

08/28/2020

308 MOTION to Intervene by Lazaro Jose Gutierrez Suarez. Attorney Kayla Nicole Keller added to party Lazaro Jose Gutierrez Suarez(pty:intv). (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 2241)(Keller, Kayla) (Entered: 08/28/2020)

08/28/2020

309 ENDORSED ORDER REFERRING 307 Renewed MOTION to Intervene filed by Luis Enrique Lopez-Pena. In accordance with the Court's April 13, 2020 Order of Referral and Order Regarding Court Practices and Procedures, Intervenor Luis Enrique Lopez Pena's Renewed Motion to Intervene 307 , like all other non-dispositive pre-trial matters, is referred to the Honorable Jonathan Goodman, United States Magistrate Judge for the Southern District of Florida, for appropriate resolution. Signed by Judge Marcia G. Cooke on 8/28/2020. (btn) (Entered: 08/28/2020)

08/28/2020

310 PAPERLESS ORDER The United States shall file a response to this motion to intervene by September 4, 2020. An optional reply may be filed by September 10, 2020. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jonathan Goodman on 8/28/2020. (JG) (Entered: 08/28/2020)

08/28/2020

311 PAPERLESS ORDER re 308 MOTION to Intervene filed by Lazaro Jose Gutierrez Suarez The United States shall file a response to GutierrezSuarez's motion to intervene by September 4, 2020. An optional reply may be filed by September 10, 2020. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jonathan Goodman on 8/28/2020. (JG) (Entered: 08/28/2020)

08/28/2020

312 PAPERLESS ORDER re 307 Renewed MOTION to Intervene filed by Luis Enrique Lopez-Pena The United States shall file a response to Pena's motion to intervene [ECF No. 307] by September 4, 2020. An optional reply may be filed by September 10, 2020. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jonathan Goodman on 8/28/2020. (JG) (Entered: 08/28/2020)

08/28/2020

313 PAPERLESS ORDER re 296 MOTION to Intervene filed by Reinier Guiba Avila The United States shall file a response to Avila's motion to intervene [ECF No. 296] by September 3, 2020. An optional reply may be filed by September 9, 2020. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jonathan Goodman on 8/28/2018. (JG) (Entered: 08/28/2020)

08/28/2020

314 PAPERLESS ORDER granting 263 Motion to Intervene. The Respondents have not responded to Hatem Chourabi's motion to intervene and the time in which they had to do so has expired. The Undersigned grants the motion but requires Movant/Proposed Intervenor Chourabi to separately refile, as a new docket entry on CM/ECF, the petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jonathan Goodman on 8/28/2020. (JG) (Entered: 08/28/2020)

08/28/2020

315 PAPERLESS ORDER re 238 MOTION to Intervene filed by Rodney Martin, 282 Order on Motion to Intervene, In an earlier order [ECF No. 282], the Undersigned granted Movant/Proposed Intervenor Rodney Martin's motion to intervene [ECF No. 238]. That Order omitted the procedural requirement that Movant separately file on CM/ECF his petition for habeas corpus. This Order corrects the inadvertent oversight. Therefore, if Mr. Martin wishes to pursue his petition, he shall file it separately on CM/ECF. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jonathan Goodman on 8/28/2020. (JG) (Entered: 08/28/2020)

08/28/2020 316 Amended MOTION to Intervene by Reinier Guiba Avila. Attorney Megan Nicole Kilissanly added to party Reinier Guiba Avila(pty:intv). (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(Kilissanly, Megan) (Entered: 08/28/2020)

08/28/2020

317 PAPERLESS ORDER denying as moot 296 Motion to Intervene. The Undersigned denies Movant Guiba's emergency motion to intervene because he has today filed an amended motion [ECF No. 316], thereby rendering his first motion moot. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jonathan Goodman on 8/28/2020. (JG) (Entered: 08/28/2020)

08/28/2020

318 PAPERLESS ORDER re 316 Amended MOTION to Intervene filed by Reinier Guiba Avila Respondents shall file a response to Movant Guiba's amended motion to intervene [ECF No. 316] by September 4, 2020. An optional reply may be filed by September 10, 2020. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jonathan Goodman on 8/28/2020. (JG) (Entered: 08/28/2020)

08/28/2020

319 NOTICE by Field Office Director, Miami Field Office, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, U.S. Attorney General re 158 Order on Motion to Compel,, Order on Report and Recommendations,,,, Order on Motion for Temporary Restraining Order,, Order on Motion for Preliminary Injunction,, Order on Expedited Motion, of Filing Declaration in Response to Court's Order (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit ADeclaration of Liana J. Castano) (Diaz, Natalie) (Entered: 08/28/2020)

08/28/2020

320 NOTICE by Field Office Director, Miami Field Office, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, U.S. Attorney General re 158 Order on Motion to Compel,, Order on Report and Recommendations,,,, Order on Motion for Temporary Restraining Order,, Order on Motion for Preliminary Injunction,, Order on Expedited Motion, of Filing Declaration in Response to Court's Order (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit APart 1, # 2 Exhibit A-Part 2, # 3 Exhibit A-Part 3, # 4 Exhibit A-Part 4) (Diaz, Natalie) (Entered: 08/28/2020)

08/28/2020

321 RESPONSE in Opposition re 287 Plaintiff's Expedited Motion For Release MOTION for Hearing filed by Field Office Director, Miami Field Office, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, U.S. Attorney General. Replies due by 9/4/2020. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A - Form I-

123, # 2 Exhibit B- NTA, # 3 Exhibit C- Declaration of SDDO Morales, # 4 Exhibit D- IJ Removal Order)(Diaz, Natalie) (Entered: 08/28/2020)

08/31/2020 322 Intervenor COMPLAINT / Verified Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and Complaint, filed by Rodney Martin. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 Declaration of Rodney Martin)(Perdomo, Erica) (Entered: 08/31/2020)

08/31/2020 323 Intervenor COMPLAINT Verified Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and Complaint, filed by Hatem Chourabi. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)(Trese, Patrick) (Entered: 08/31/2020)

08/31/2020

324 NOTICE of Declaration by Field Office Director, Miami Field Office, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, U.S. Attorney General re 158 Order on Motion to Compel,, Order on Report and Recommendations,,,, Order on Motion for Temporary Restraining Order,, Order on Motion for Preliminary Injunction,, Order on Expedited Motion, of Filing Declaration in Response to Court's Order (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A-Declaration of Liana J. Castano) (Diaz, Natalie) Modified text on 8/31/2020 (kpe). (Entered: 08/31/2020)

08/31/2020

325 Joint EMERGENCY MOTION with Certification of Emergency included for Immediate Ruling on the Pending Motion to Extend Discovery [ECF 305] by Rolando Aguabella Martinez, Juan Carlos Alfaro Garcia, Mohamed Hassan Ali, Javier Antonio Arias-Martinez, Naim Arrak, Reinier Guiba Avila, Dairon Barredo Sanchez, Maikel Betancourt, Sirvanildo Bibiano Soares, Alvaro Roa Calicchio, Maikel Carrasco Polo, Abel Carrillo, Jose Chavez, Hatem Chourabi, Matthew C Dates, Maxuel A De Souza, Julio Edwards, Hassan Mohamed Farah, Alejandro Ferreira Borges, Field Office Director, Miami Field Office, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Ruben Orlando Flores Ramos, Patrick Gayle, Fernando Goncalves, Franklin Ramon Gonzalez, Lazaro Jose Gutierrez Suarez, Mohamed Hasan, Carlos Hedman Perdomo, Abdul Jalloh, Aparicio P. Jeronimo, Muhammad Alam Khan, Thomas Lenor, Miryam Elizabeth Lopez Herrera, Manuel Lopez Perez, Omar Lopez-Jaramillo, Luis Enrique Lopez-Pena, Ariel Lucien, Yaniel Machado Aguila, Miguel Angel Marroquin Perez, Rodney Martin, Tolentino Martinez Rios, Irvin Medoza Silis, Cesar Ariel Mendez Escobar, Jose Galdino Montalvo Rodriguez, Alejandro Vincenzo Mugaburu Tapia, Darwyn Yovanny Navarrette Sanchez, Farhan Nawabit, Lazaro Ocana Guzman, Evarado Orantes Acevedo, Roseline Ostine, Tahimi Perez, Wilder Perez Limones, Deivys Perez Valladares, Ricardo Perezo Alonzo, Francisco Rivero Valeron, Ervin David Rodas Pedro, Maria Eugenia Rodriguez Claras, Rene Jonathan Rosas Cardenas, Danny Ruiz Garcia, Crisley Sacrab-Bin, Gelber Sontay Funez, Adrian Sosa Fletes, Fermin Tepetate-Martinez, U.S. Attorney General, Maykel Valera Ramirez, Geraldo Vargas, Agane Warsame, Eitan Yefet, Eliseo Antonio

Zamora Mendoza. Responses due by 9/14/2020 (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order on Petitioners' Unopposed Motion For Extension of Discovery-Related Deadlines)(Edson, Scott) (Entered: 08/31/2020)

08/31/2020

326 JOINT EMERGENCY MOTION with Certification of Emergency included for Immediate Ruling on the Pending Motion to Extend Discovery [ECF 305] by Rolando Aguabella Martinez, Juan Carlos Alfaro Garcia, Mohamed Hassan Ali, Javier Antonio Arias-Martinez, Naim Arrak, Reinier Guiba Avila, Dairon Barredo Sanchez, Maikel Betancourt, Sirvanildo Bibiano Soares, Alvaro Roa Calicchio, Maikel Carrasco Polo, Abel Carrillo, Jose Chavez, Hatem Chourabi, Matthew C Dates, Maxuel A De Souza, Julio Edwards, Hassan Mohamed Farah, Alejandro Ferreira Borges, Field Office Director, Miami Field Office, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Ruben Orlando Flores Ramos, Patrick Gayle, Fernando Goncalves, Franklin Ramon Gonzalez, Lazaro Jose Gutierrez Suarez, Mohamed Hasan, Carlos Hedman Perdomo, Abdul Jalloh, Aparicio P. Jeronimo, Muhammad Alam Khan, Thomas Lenor, Miryam Elizabeth Lopez Herrera, Manuel Lopez Perez, Omar Lopez-Jaramillo, Luis Enrique Lopez-Pena, Ariel Lucien, Yaniel Machado Aguila, Miguel Angel Marroquin Perez, Rodney Martin, Tolentino Martinez Rios, Irvin Medoza Silis, Cesar Ariel Mendez Escobar, Jose Galdino Montalvo Rodriguez, Alejandro Vincenzo Mugaburu Tapia, Darwyn Yovanny Navarrette Sanchez, Farhan Nawabit, Lazaro Ocana Guzman, Evarado Orantes Acevedo, Roseline Ostine, Tahimi Perez, Wilder Perez Limones, Deivys Perez Valladares, Ricardo Perezo Alonzo, Francisco Rivero Valeron, Ervin David Rodas Pedro, Maria Eugenia Rodriguez Claras, Rene Jonathan Rosas Cardenas, Danny Ruiz Garcia, Crisley Sacrab-Bin, Gelber Sontay Funez, Adrian Sosa Fletes, Fermin Tepetate-Martinez, U.S. Attorney General, Maykel Valera Ramirez, Geraldo Vargas, Agane Warsame, Eitan Yefet, Eliseo Antonio Zamora Mendoza. Responses due by 9/14/2020 (Attachments: # 1 Certification Certification of Emergency, # 2 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order on Petitioners' Unopposed Motion for)(Edson, Scott) (Entered: 08/31/2020)

08/31/2020

327 ENDORSED ORDER granting 325 Emergency Motion with Certification of Emergency and granting 326 Emergency Motion with Certification of Emergency. The Court will issue a separate order that will outline new scheduling deadlines in this matter. Signed by Judge Marcia G. Cooke on 8/31/2020. (btn) (Entered: 08/31/2020)

09/01/2020 328 NOTICE of Change of Address by Jennifer Rae Coberly (Coberly, Jennifer) (Entered: 09/01/2020)

09/03/2020 329 First MOTION to Withdraw Document ECF 205 by Miguel Angel Marroquin Perez. Responses due by 9/17/2020 (Coberly, Jennifer) (Entered: 09/03/2020)

09/03/2020

330 NOTICE of Filing Declaration in Response to Court's Order by Field Office Director, Miami Field Office, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, U.S. Attorney General re 158 Order on Motion to Compel, Order on Report and Recommendations, Order on Motion for Temporary Restraining Order, Order on Motion for Preliminary Injunction, Order on Expedited Motion, (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A-Castano Declaration Part 1, # 2 Exhibit A-Castano Declaration Part 2, # 3 Exhibit A-Castano Declaration Part 3, # 4 Exhibit A-Castano Declaration Part 4) (Diaz, Natalie) (Entered: 09/03/2020)

09/04/2020

331 NOTICE of Filing Declaration in Response to Court's Order by Field Office Director, Miami Field Office, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, U.S. Attorney General re 158 Order on Motion to Compel, Order on Report and Recommendations, Order on Motion for Temporary Restraining Order, Order on Motion for Preliminary Injunction, Order on Expedited Motion, (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A-Declaration of Castano) (Diaz, Natalie) (Entered: 09/04/2020)

09/04/2020

332 NOTICE of Filing Declaration in Response to Court's Order by Field Office Director, Miami Field Office, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, U.S. Attorney General re 158 Order on Motion to Compel, Order on Report and Recommendations, Order on Motion for Temporary Restraining Order, Order on Motion for Preliminary Injunction, Order on Expedited Motion, (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A-Castano Declaration) (Diaz, Natalie) (Entered: 09/04/2020)

09/04/2020

333 RESPONSE in Opposition re 307 Renewed MOTION to Intervene filed by Field Office Director, Miami Field Office, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, U.S. Attorney General. Replies due by 9/11/2020. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A- Form I-213, # 2 Exhibit B- Notice to Appear, # 3 Exhibit C- EARM I-213 dated Jan 26, 2020, # 4 Exhibit D- IJ Decision, # 5 Exhibit E- EARM I-213 dated Jan 29, 2020, # 6 Exhibit FEARM Detention History)(Diaz, Natalie) (Entered: 09/04/2020)

09/04/2020

334 RESPONSE in Opposition re 308 MOTION to Intervene filed by Field Office Director, Miami Field Office, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, U.S. Attorney General. Replies due by 9/11/2020. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A- Form I-213, # 2 Exhibit B- EARM Detention History, # 3 Exhibit C- Notice to Appear, # 4 Exhibit D- IJ Decision, # 5 Exhibit E- BIA Decision)(Diaz, Natalie) (Entered: 09/04/2020)

09/04/2020

335 RESPONSE in Opposition re 316 Amended MOTION to Intervene filed by Field Office Director, Miami Field Office, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, U.S. Attorney General. Replies due by 9/11/2020. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A- Form I-213, # 2 Exhibit B- EARM Detention History, # 3 Exhibit C- Notice to Appear, # 4 Exhibit D- IJ Order, # 5 Exhibit E- BIA Decision)(Diaz, Natalie) (Entered: 09/04/2020)

09/08/2020

336 Unopposed MOTION to Amend/Correct 220 Witness List,,,,, by Rolando Aguabella Martinez, Juan Carlos Alfaro Garcia, Mohamed Hassan Ali, Javier Antonio Arias-Martinez, Naim Arrak, Reinier Guiba Avila, Dairon Barredo Sanchez, Maikel Betancourt, Sirvanildo Bibiano Soares, Alvaro Roa Calicchio, Maikel Carrasco Polo, Abel Carrillo, Jose Chavez, Hatem Chourabi, Maxuel A De Souza, Julio Edwards, Hassan Mohamed Farah, Alejandro Ferreira Borges, Ruben Orlando Flores Ramos, Patrick Gayle, Fernando Goncalves, Franklin Ramon Gonzalez, Lazaro Jose Gutierrez Suarez, Mohamed Hasan, Carlos Hedman Perdomo, Abdul Jalloh, Aparicio P. Jeronimo, Muhammad Alam Khan, Thomas Lenor, Miryam Elizabeth Lopez Herrera, Manuel Lopez Perez, Omar Lopez-Jaramillo, Luis Enrique Lopez-Pena, Ariel Lucien, Yaniel Machado Aguila, Miguel Angel Marroquin Perez, Rodney Martin, Tolentino Martinez Rios, Irvin Medoza Silis, Cesar Ariel Mendez Escobar, Jose Galdino Montalvo Rodriguez, Alejandro Vincenzo Mugaburu Tapia, Darwyn Yovanny Navarrette Sanchez, Farhan Nawabit, Lazaro Ocana Guzman, Evarado Orantes Acevedo, Roseline Ostine, Tahimi Perez, Wilder Perez Limones, Deivys Perez Valladares, Ricardo Perezo Alonzo, Francisco Rivero Valeron, Ervin David Rodas Pedro, Maria Eugenia Rodriguez Claras, Rene Jonathan Rosas Cardenas, Danny Ruiz Garcia, Crisley Sacrab-Bin, Gelber Sontay Funez, Adrian Sosa Fletes, Fermin Tepetate-Martinez, Maykel Valera Ramirez, Geraldo Vargas, Agane Warsame, Eitan Yefet, Eliseo Antonio Zamora Mendoza. Responses due by 9/22/2020 (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order on Petitioners' Unopposed Motion to Amend Witness List)(Edson, Scott) (Entered: 09/08/2020)

09/09/2020

337 ENDORSED ORDER granting 336 Petitioners'/Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion to Amend Witness List. Petitioners/Plaintiffs are directed to separately file an amended Witness List within five days of the date of this Order. Signed by Judge Marcia G. Cooke on 9/9/2020. (btn) (Entered: 09/09/2020)

09/10/2020 338 RESPONSE in Support re 316 Amended MOTION to Intervene filed by Reinier Guiba Avila. (Kilissanly, Megan) (Entered: 09/10/2020)

09/10/2020 339 REPLY to Response to Motion re 308 MOTION to Intervene filed by Lazaro Jose Gutierrez Suarez. (Keller, Kayla) (Entered: 09/10/2020)

09/10/2020 340 REPLY to Response to Motion re 307 Renewed MOTION to Intervene filed by Luis Enrique Lopez-Pena. (Keller, Kayla) (Entered: 09/10/2020)

09/11/2020 341 NOTICE of Hearing by ATTORNEY: Discovery Hearing set for 9/16/2020 04:30 PM in Miami Division before Judge Marcia G. Cooke. (Edson, Scott) (Entered: 09/11/2020)

09/11/2020

342 NOTICE of Striking 341 Notice re Hearing by Attorney filed by Patrick Gayle, Lazaro Jose Gutierrez Suarez, Agane Warsame, Adrian Sosa Fletes, Eitan Yefet, Alejandro Ferreira Borges, Lazaro Ocana Guzman, Julio Edwards, Eliseo Antonio Zamora Mendoza, Geraldo Vargas, Maria Eugenia Rodriguez Claras, Javier Antonio Arias-Martinez, Sirvanildo Bibiano Soares, Hassan Mohamed Farah, Mohamed Hassan Ali, Hatem Chourabi, Evarado Orantes Acevedo, Deivys Perez Valladares, Maikel Carrasco Polo, Omar Lopez-Jaramillo, Yaniel Machado Aguila, Maikel Betancourt, Tahimi Perez, Franklin Ramon Gonzalez, Juan Carlos Alfaro Garcia, Ruben Orlando Flores Ramos, Irvin Medoza Silis, Darwyn Yovanny Navarrette Sanchez, Crisley Sacrab-Bin, Mohamed Hasan, Aparicio P. Jeronimo, Rene Jonathan Rosas Cardenas, Roseline Ostine, Manuel Lopez Perez, Carlos Hedman Perdomo, Thomas Lenor, Naim Arrak, Rolando Aguabella Martinez, Dairon Barredo Sanchez, Wilder Perez Limones, Ervin David Rodas Pedro, Miryam Elizabeth Lopez Herrera, Jose Chavez, Danny Ruiz Garcia, Reinier Guiba Avila, Alvaro Roa Calicchio, Gelber Sontay Funez, Fernando Goncalves, Muhammad Alam Khan, Miguel Angel Marroquin Perez, Cesar Ariel Mendez Escobar, Alejandro Vincenzo Mugaburu Tapia, Rodney Martin, Tolentino Martinez Rios, Maxuel A De Souza, Luis Enrique Lopez-Pena, Abel Carrillo, Jose Galdino Montalvo Rodriguez, Ariel Lucien, Abdul Jalloh, Francisco Rivero Valeron, Fermin Tepetate-Martinez, Farhan Nawabit, Maykel Valera Ramirez, Ricardo Perezo Alonzo by Rolando Aguabella Martinez, Juan Carlos Alfaro Garcia, Mohamed Hassan Ali, Javier Antonio Arias-Martinez, Naim Arrak, Reinier Guiba Avila, Dairon Barredo Sanchez, Maikel Betancourt, Sirvanildo Bibiano Soares, Alvaro Roa Calicchio, Maikel Carrasco Polo, Abel Carrillo, Jose Chavez, Hatem Chourabi, Maxuel A De Souza, Julio Edwards, Hassan Mohamed Farah, Alejandro Ferreira Borges, Ruben Orlando Flores Ramos, Patrick Gayle, Fernando Goncalves, Franklin Ramon Gonzalez, Lazaro Jose Gutierrez Suarez, Mohamed Hasan, Carlos Hedman Perdomo, Abdul Jalloh, Aparicio P. Jeronimo, Muhammad Alam Khan, Thomas Lenor, Miryam Elizabeth Lopez Herrera, Manuel Lopez Perez, Omar Lopez-Jaramillo, Luis Enrique Lopez-Pena, Ariel Lucien, Yaniel Machado Aguila, Miguel Angel Marroquin Perez, Rodney Martin, Tolentino Martinez Rios, Irvin Medoza Silis, Cesar Ariel Mendez Escobar, Jose Galdino Montalvo Rodriguez, Alejandro Vincenzo Mugaburu Tapia, Darwyn Yovanny Navarrette Sanchez, Farhan Nawabit, Lazaro Ocana Guzman, Evarado

Orantes Acevedo, Roseline Ostine, Tahimi Perez, Wilder Perez Limones, Deivys Perez Valladares, Ricardo Perezo Alonzo, Francisco Rivero Valeron, Ervin David Rodas Pedro, Maria Eugenia Rodriguez Claras, Rene Jonathan Rosas Cardenas, Danny Ruiz Garcia, Crisley Sacrab-Bin, Gelber Sontay Funez, Adrian Sosa Fletes, Fermin Tepetate-Martinez, Maykel Valera Ramirez, Geraldo Vargas, Agane Warsame, Eitan Yefet, Eliseo Antonio Zamora Mendoza (Edson, Scott) (Entered: 09/11/2020)

09/11/2020 343 NOTICE of Hearing by ATTORNEY: Discovery Hearing set for 9/16/2020 04:30 PM in Miami Division before Magistrate Judge Jonathan Goodman. (Edson, Scott) (Entered: 09/11/2020)

09/11/2020

344 NOTICE of Taking Deposition Duces Tecum of Christine Zapata by Rolando Aguabella Martinez, Juan Carlos Alfaro Garcia, Mohamed Hassan Ali, Javier Antonio Arias-Martinez, Naim Arrak, Reinier Guiba Avila, Dairon Barredo Sanchez, Maikel Betancourt, Sirvanildo Bibiano Soares, Alvaro Roa Calicchio, Maikel Carrasco Polo, Abel Carrillo, Jose Chavez, Hatem Chourabi, Maxuel A De Souza, Julio Edwards, Hassan Mohamed Farah, Alejandro Ferreira Borges, Ruben Orlando Flores Ramos, Patrick Gayle, Fernando Goncalves, Franklin Ramon Gonzalez, Lazaro Jose Gutierrez Suarez, Mohamed Hasan, Carlos Hedman Perdomo, Abdul Jalloh, Aparicio P. Jeronimo, Muhammad Alam Khan, Thomas Lenor, Miryam Elizabeth Lopez Herrera, Manuel Lopez Perez, Omar Lopez-Jaramillo, Luis Enrique Lopez-Pena, Ariel Lucien, Yaniel Machado Aguila, Miguel Angel Marroquin Perez, Rodney Martin, Tolentino Martinez Rios, Irvin Medoza Silis, Cesar Ariel Mendez Escobar, Jose Galdino Montalvo Rodriguez, Alejandro Vincenzo Mugaburu Tapia, Darwyn Yovanny Navarrette Sanchez, Farhan Nawabit, Lazaro Ocana Guzman, Evarado Orantes Acevedo, Roseline Ostine, Tahimi Perez, Wilder Perez Limones, Deivys Perez Valladares, Ricardo Perezo Alonzo, Francisco Rivero Valeron, Ervin David Rodas Pedro, Maria Eugenia Rodriguez Claras, Rene Jonathan Rosas Cardenas, Danny Ruiz Garcia, Crisley Sacrab-Bin, Gelber Sontay Funez, Adrian Sosa Fletes, Fermin Tepetate-Martinez, Maykel Valera Ramirez, Geraldo Vargas, Agane Warsame, Eitan Yefet, Eliseo Antonio Zamora Mendoza (Edson, Scott) (Entered: 09/11/2020)

09/11/2020

345 NOTICE of Taking Deposition Duces Tecum of Lee Workman by Rolando Aguabella Martinez, Juan Carlos Alfaro Garcia, Mohamed Hassan Ali, Javier Antonio Arias-Martinez, Naim Arrak, Reinier Guiba Avila, Dairon Barredo Sanchez, Maikel Betancourt, Sirvanildo Bibiano Soares, Alvaro Roa Calicchio, Maikel Carrasco Polo, Abel Carrillo, Jose Chavez, Hatem Chourabi, Maxuel A De Souza, Julio Edwards, Hassan Mohamed Farah, Alejandro Ferreira Borges, Ruben Orlando Flores Ramos, Patrick Gayle, Fernando Goncalves, Franklin Ramon Gonzalez, Lazaro Jose Gutierrez Suarez, Mohamed Hasan, Carlos Hedman

Perdomo, Abdul Jalloh, Aparicio P. Jeronimo, Muhammad Alam Khan, Thomas Lenor, Miryam Elizabeth Lopez Herrera, Manuel Lopez Perez, Omar Lopez-Jaramillo, Luis Enrique Lopez-Pena, Ariel Lucien, Yaniel Machado Aguila, Miguel Angel Marroquin Perez, Rodney Martin, Tolentino Martinez Rios, Irvin Medoza Silis, Cesar Ariel Mendez Escobar, Jose Galdino Montalvo Rodriguez, Alejandro Vincenzo Mugaburu Tapia, Darwyn Yovanny Navarrette Sanchez, Farhan Nawabit, Lazaro Ocana Guzman, Evarado Orantes Acevedo, Roseline Ostine, Tahimi Perez, Wilder Perez Limones, Deivys Perez Valladares, Ricardo Perezo Alonzo, Francisco Rivero Valeron, Ervin David Rodas Pedro, Maria Eugenia Rodriguez Claras, Rene Jonathan Rosas Cardenas, Danny Ruiz Garcia, Crisley Sacrab-Bin, Gelber Sontay Funez, Adrian Sosa Fletes, Fermin Tepetate-Martinez, Maykel Valera Ramirez, Geraldo Vargas, Agane Warsame, Eitan Yefet, Eliseo Antonio Zamora Mendoza (Edson, Scott) (Entered: 09/11/2020)

09/11/2020

346 NOTICE of Filing Declaration in Response to Court's Order by Field Office Director, Miami Field Office, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, U.S. Attorney General re 158 Order on Motion to Compel, Order on Report and Recommendations, Order on Motion for Temporary Restraining Order, Order on Motion for Preliminary Injunction, Order on Expedited Motion, (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A-Declaration of Liana J. Castano) (Diaz, Natalie) (Entered: 09/11/2020)

09/11/2020

347 NOTICE of Taking Deposition Duces Tecum of Matthew Majeski by Rolando Aguabella Martinez, Juan Carlos Alfaro Garcia, Mohamed Hassan Ali, Javier Antonio Arias-Martinez, Naim Arrak, Reinier Guiba Avila, Dairon Barredo Sanchez, Maikel Betancourt, Sirvanildo Bibiano Soares, Alvaro Roa Calicchio, Maikel Carrasco Polo, Abel Carrillo, Jose Chavez, Hatem Chourabi, Maxuel A De Souza, Julio Edwards, Hassan Mohamed Farah, Alejandro Ferreira Borges, Ruben Orlando Flores Ramos, Patrick Gayle, Fernando Goncalves, Franklin Ramon Gonzalez, Lazaro Jose Gutierrez Suarez, Mohamed Hasan, Carlos Hedman Perdomo, Abdul Jalloh, Aparicio P. Jeronimo, Muhammad Alam Khan, Thomas Lenor, Miryam Elizabeth Lopez Herrera, Manuel Lopez Perez, Omar Lopez-Jaramillo, Luis Enrique Lopez-Pena, Ariel Lucien, Yaniel Machado Aguila, Miguel Angel Marroquin Perez, Rodney Martin, Tolentino Martinez Rios, Irvin Medoza Silis, Cesar Ariel Mendez Escobar, Jose Galdino Montalvo Rodriguez, Alejandro Vincenzo Mugaburu Tapia, Darwyn Yovanny Navarrette Sanchez, Farhan Nawabit, Lazaro Ocana Guzman, Evarado Orantes Acevedo, Roseline Ostine, Tahimi Perez, Wilder Perez Limones, Deivys Perez Valladares, Ricardo Perezo Alonzo, Francisco Rivero Valeron, Ervin David Rodas Pedro, Maria Eugenia Rodriguez Claras, Rene Jonathan Rosas Cardenas, Danny Ruiz Garcia, Crisley Sacrab-Bin, Gelber Sontay Funez, Adrian Sosa Fletes, Fermin Tepetate-Martinez, Maykel Valera Ramirez, Geraldo

Vargas, Agane Warsame, Eitan Yefet, Eliseo Antonio Zamora Mendoza (Edson, Scott) (Entered: 09/11/2020)

09/11/2020

348 NOTICE of Taking Deposition Duces Tecum of Dr. Jean Saint Charles by Rolando Aguabella Martinez, Juan Carlos Alfaro Garcia, Mohamed Hassan Ali, Javier Antonio Arias-Martinez, Naim Arrak, Reinier Guiba Avila, Dairon Barredo Sanchez, Maikel Betancourt, Sirvanildo Bibiano Soares, Alvaro Roa Calicchio, Maikel Carrasco Polo, Abel Carrillo, Jose Chavez, Hatem Chourabi, Maxuel A De Souza, Julio Edwards, Hassan Mohamed Farah, Alejandro Ferreira Borges, Ruben Orlando Flores Ramos, Patrick Gayle, Fernando Goncalves, Franklin Ramon Gonzalez, Lazaro Jose Gutierrez Suarez, Mohamed Hasan, Carlos Hedman Perdomo, Abdul Jalloh, Aparicio P. Jeronimo, Muhammad Alam Khan, Thomas Lenor, Miryam Elizabeth Lopez Herrera, Manuel Lopez Perez, Omar Lopez-Jaramillo, Luis Enrique Lopez-Pena, Ariel Lucien, Yaniel Machado Aguila, Miguel Angel Marroquin Perez, Rodney Martin, Tolentino Martinez Rios, Irvin Medoza Silis, Cesar Ariel Mendez Escobar, Jose Galdino Montalvo Rodriguez, Alejandro Vincenzo Mugaburu Tapia, Darwyn Yovanny Navarrette Sanchez, Farhan Nawabit, Lazaro Ocana Guzman, Evarado Orantes Acevedo, Roseline Ostine, Tahimi Perez, Wilder Perez Limones, Deivys Perez Valladares, Ricardo Perezo Alonzo, Francisco Rivero Valeron, Ervin David Rodas Pedro, Maria Eugenia Rodriguez Claras, Rene Jonathan Rosas Cardenas, Danny Ruiz Garcia, Crisley Sacrab-Bin, Gelber Sontay Funez, Adrian Sosa Fletes, Fermin Tepetate-Martinez, Maykel Valera Ramirez, Geraldo Vargas, Agane Warsame, Eitan Yefet, Eliseo Antonio Zamora Mendoza (Edson, Scott) (Entered: 09/11/2020)

09/11/2020

349 NOTICE of Taking Deposition Duces Tecum of Bruce Plumley by Rolando Aguabella Martinez, Juan Carlos Alfaro Garcia, Mohamed Hassan Ali, Javier Antonio Arias-Martinez, Naim Arrak, Reinier Guiba Avila, Dairon Barredo Sanchez, Maikel Betancourt, Sirvanildo Bibiano Soares, Alvaro Roa Calicchio, Maikel Carrasco Polo, Abel Carrillo, Jose Chavez, Hatem Chourabi, Maxuel A De Souza, Julio Edwards, Hassan Mohamed Farah, Alejandro Ferreira Borges, Ruben Orlando Flores Ramos, Patrick Gayle, Fernando Goncalves, Franklin Ramon Gonzalez, Lazaro Jose Gutierrez Suarez, Mohamed Hasan, Carlos Hedman Perdomo, Abdul Jalloh, Aparicio P. Jeronimo, Muhammad Alam Khan, Thomas Lenor, Miryam Elizabeth Lopez Herrera, Manuel Lopez Perez, Omar Lopez-Jaramillo, Luis Enrique Lopez-Pena, Ariel Lucien, Yaniel Machado Aguila, Miguel Angel Marroquin Perez, Rodney Martin, Tolentino Martinez Rios, Irvin Medoza Silis, Cesar Ariel Mendez Escobar, Jose Galdino Montalvo Rodriguez, Alejandro Vincenzo Mugaburu Tapia, Darwyn Yovanny Navarrette Sanchez, Farhan Nawabit, Lazaro Ocana Guzman, Evarado Orantes Acevedo, Roseline Ostine, Tahimi Perez, Wilder Perez Limones, Deivys Perez Valladares, Ricardo

Perezo Alonzo, Francisco Rivero Valeron, Ervin David Rodas Pedro, Maria Eugenia Rodriguez Claras, Rene Jonathan Rosas Cardenas, Danny Ruiz Garcia, Crisley Sacrab-Bin, Gelber Sontay Funez, Adrian Sosa Fletes, Fermin Tepetate-Martinez, Maykel Valera Ramirez, Geraldo Vargas, Agane Warsame, Eitan Yefet, Eliseo Antonio Zamora Mendoza of Bruce Plumley (Edson, Scott) (Entered: 09/11/2020)

09/11/2020

350 NOTICE of Taking Deposition Duces Tecum of Cdr. Chad Schipansky by Rolando Aguabella Martinez, Juan Carlos Alfaro Garcia, Mohamed Hassan Ali, Javier Antonio Arias-Martinez, Naim Arrak, Reinier Guiba Avila, Dairon Barredo Sanchez, Maikel Betancourt, Sirvanildo Bibiano Soares, Alvaro Roa Calicchio, Maikel Carrasco Polo, Abel Carrillo, Jose Chavez, Hatem Chourabi, Maxuel A De Souza, Julio Edwards, Hassan Mohamed Farah, Alejandro Ferreira Borges, Ruben Orlando Flores Ramos, Patrick Gayle, Fernando Goncalves, Franklin Ramon Gonzalez, Lazaro Jose Gutierrez Suarez, Mohamed Hasan, Carlos Hedman Perdomo, Abdul Jalloh, Aparicio P. Jeronimo, Muhammad Alam Khan, Thomas Lenor, Miryam Elizabeth Lopez Herrera, Manuel Lopez Perez, Omar Lopez-Jaramillo, Luis Enrique Lopez-Pena, Ariel Lucien, Yaniel Machado Aguila, Miguel Angel Marroquin Perez, Rodney Martin, Tolentino Martinez Rios, Irvin Medoza Silis, Cesar Ariel Mendez Escobar, Jose Galdino Montalvo Rodriguez, Alejandro Vincenzo Mugaburu Tapia, Darwyn Yovanny Navarrette Sanchez, Farhan Nawabit, Lazaro Ocana Guzman, Evarado Orantes Acevedo, Roseline Ostine, Tahimi Perez, Wilder Perez Limones, Deivys Perez Valladares, Ricardo Perezo Alonzo, Francisco Rivero Valeron, Ervin David Rodas Pedro, Maria Eugenia Rodriguez Claras, Rene Jonathan Rosas Cardenas, Danny Ruiz Garcia, Crisley Sacrab-Bin, Gelber Sontay Funez, Adrian Sosa Fletes, Fermin Tepetate-Martinez, Maykel Valera Ramirez, Geraldo Vargas, Agane Warsame, Eitan Yefet, Eliseo Antonio Zamora Mendoza (Edson, Scott) (Entered: 09/11/2020)

09/11/2020 351 PAPERLESS ORDER granting 329 Motion to Withdraw. Re: 329 First MOTION to Withdraw Document ECF 205 filed by Miguel Angel Marroquin Perez.

This Order grants the motion to withdraw the habeas petition [ECF No. 205] because Petitioner is now back in El Salvador. The Undersigned will enter a separate order concerning the petition. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jonathan Goodman on 9/11/2020. (JG) (Entered: 09/11/2020)
09/11/2020 352 PAPERLESS ORDER denying as moot 205 Motion.

This Order denies without prejudice the motion for release. The motion is now moot; Petitioner/Movant filed a motion to withdraw the motion (because he is now in El Salvador), and the Undersigned has now already

granted that motion to withdraw. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jonathan Goodman on 9/11/2020. (JG) (Entered: 09/11/2020)

09/11/2020

353 NOTICE of Filing Declaration in Response to Court's Order by Field Office Director, Miami Field Office, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, U.S. Attorney General re 158 Order on Motion to Compel, Order on Report and Recommendations, Order on Motion for Temporary Restraining Order, Order on Motion for Preliminary Injunction, Order on Expedited Motion, (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A-Declaration of CastanoPart 1, # 2 Exhibit A-Part 2, # 3 Exhibit A-Part 3, # 4 Exhibit A-Part 4, # 5 Exhibit A-Part 5, # 6 Exhibit A-Part 6, # 7 Exhibit A-Part 7) (Diaz, Natalie) (Entered: 09/11/2020)

09/14/2020

354 NOTICE of Filing Declaration in Response to Court's Order by Field Office Director, Miami Field Office, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, U.S. Attorney General re 158 Order on Motion to Compel, Order on Report and Recommendations, Order on Motion for Temporary Restraining Order, Order on Motion for Preliminary Injunction, Order on Expedited Motion, (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A-Declaration of Castano) (Diaz, Natalie) (Entered: 09/14/2020)

09/14/2020

355 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply/Answer as to 323 Intervenor Complaint, 322 Intervenor Complaint by Field Office Director, Miami Field Office, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, U.S. Attorney General. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Diaz, Natalie) (Entered: 09/14/2020)

09/14/2020

356 OMNIBUS ORDER ON PENDING MOTIONS TO INTERVENE [ECF Nos. 307; 308; 316]. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jonathan Goodman on 9/14/2020. See attached document for full details. (jzn) (Entered: 09/14/2020)

09/15/2020 357 PAPERLESS Order**TIME CHANGE ONLY** The 343 Telephonic Discovery Hearing set for 9/16/2020 will take place at 3:30 PM in the Miami Division before Magistrate Judge Jonathan Goodman.

Attendance may be made by following the call-in procedures: (1) dial 1888-684-8852; (2) enter Access Code Number 8004594, followed by the # sign; and (3) enter Security Code Number 1213, followed by the # sign. If feasible, counsel who will be speaking at the hearing should dial in from a landline; cellphone attendees other than the primary participating attorneys (such as co-counsel, members of the public, etc.), after noting their appearances, must remain on mute. The Undersigned prefers that the primary advocate attorneys use a landline, but the Court understands that

attorneys may now be working remotely and lack landline access, so those attorneys may use cell phones without placing them on mute.

Persons granted remote access to proceedings are reminded of the general prohibition against photographing, recording, and rebroadcasting of court proceedings. Violation of these prohibitions may result in sanctions, including removal of court issued media credentials, restricted entry to future hearings, denial of entry to future hearings, or any other sanctions deemed necessary by the court. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jonathan Goodman on 9/15/2020. (jzn) (Entered: 09/15/2020)

09/15/2020

358 Intervenor COMPLAINT /Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to Rule 28 U.S.C. Section 2241, filed by Lazaro Jose Gutierrez Suarez. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Declaration of Dr. Homer Venter, # 2 Exhibit Declaration of Dr. Ranit Mishori, # 3 Exhibit Declaration of Francis L. Conlin)(Keller, Kayla) (Entered: 09/15/2020)

09/15/2020

359 Intervenor COMPLAINT /Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to Rule 28 U.S.C. Section 2241, filed by Luis Enrique Lopez-Pena. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Declaration of Dr. Homer Venter, # 2 Exhibit Declaration of Dr. Ranit Mishori, # 3 Exhibit Declaration of Francis L. Conlin)(Keller, Kayla) (Entered: 09/15/2020)

09/16/2020 360 NOTICE of Hearing by ATTORNEY: Discovery Hearing set for 9/16/2020 03:30 PM in Miami Division before Magistrate Judge Jonathan Goodman. (Edson, Scott) (Entered: 09/16/2020)

09/16/2020

361 Intervenor COMPLAINT Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to Rule 28 U.S.C. Section 2241, filed by Reinier Guiba Avila. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C)(Kilissanly, Megan) (Entered: 09/16/2020)

09/16/2020

362 PAPERLESS Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Jonathan Goodman: Telephonic Discovery Hearing held on 9/16/2020. Post-Hearing Administrative Order to follow. Total time in court: 1 hour(s) : 35 minutes. Attorney Appearance(s): Chad Andrew Peterson, Jennifer Rae Coberly, Mark Andrew Prada, Scott Michael Edson, Patrick Farrell Trese, Matthew Clarence Dates, Natalie Diaz, Linda Marguerite Osberg-Braun, Francisco Armada, Erica Perdomo, (Digital JG_03_09-162020) (fbn) (Entered: 09/16/2020)

09/16/2020 363 POST-DISCOVERY HEARING ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jonathan Goodman on 9/16/2020. See attached document for full details. (jzn) (Entered: 09/16/2020)

09/16/2020

364 SECOND AMENDED ORDER SETTING CIVIL TRIAL DATE AND PRETRIAL DEADLINES (Jury Trial set for 4/27/2021 09:30 AM in Miami Division before Judge Marcia G. Cooke., Calendar Call set for 4/22/2021 03:00 PM in Miami Division before Judge Marcia G. Cooke., Expert Discovery due by 12/18/2020., Fact Discovery due by 11/6/2020., Mediation Deadline 2/19/2021., In Limine Motions due by 12/28/2020., Dispositive Motions due by 1/4/2021., Motions due by 1/4/2021., Joint Pretrial Stipulation due by 3/12/2021.) Signed by Judge Marcia G. Cooke on 9/16/2020. See attached document for full details. (ebz)

Pattern Jury Instruction Builder - To access the latest, up to date changes to the 11th Circuit Pattern Jury Instructions go to https://pji.ca11.uscourts.gov or click here. (Entered: 09/17/2020)

09/17/2020

365 NOTICE of Filing Declaration in Response to Court's Order by Field Office Director, Miami Field Office, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, U.S. Attorney General re 158 Order on Motion to Compel, Order on Report and Recommendations, Order on Motion for Temporary Restraining Order, Order on Motion for Preliminary Injunction, Order on Expedited Motion, (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A-Castano Declaration-Part 1, # 2 Exhibit A-Part 2, # 3 Exhibit A-Part 3, # 4 Exhibit A-Part 4) (Diaz, Natalie) (Entered: 09/17/2020)

09/17/2020

366 NOTICE of Cancellation of Deposition Taking Duces Tecum by Rolando Aguabella Martinez, Juan Carlos Alfaro Garcia, Mohamed Hassan Ali, Javier Antonio Arias-Martinez, Naim Arrak, Reinier Guiba Avila, Dairon Barredo Sanchez, Maikel Betancourt, Sirvanildo Bibiano Soares, Alvaro Roa Calicchio, Maikel Carrasco Polo, Abel Carrillo, Jose Chavez, Hatem Chourabi, Maxuel A De Souza, Julio Edwards, Hassan Mohamed Farah, Alejandro Ferreira Borges, Ruben Orlando Flores Ramos, Patrick Gayle, Fernando Goncalves, Franklin Ramon Gonzalez, Lazaro Jose Gutierrez Suarez, Mohamed Hasan, Carlos Hedman Perdomo, Abdul Jalloh, Aparicio P. Jeronimo, Muhammad Alam Khan, Thomas Lenor, Miryam Elizabeth Lopez Herrera, Manuel Lopez Perez, Omar Lopez-Jaramillo, Luis Enrique Lopez-Pena, Ariel Lucien, Yaniel Machado Aguila, Miguel Angel Marroquin Perez, Rodney Martin, Tolentino Martinez Rios, Irvin Medoza Silis, Cesar Ariel Mendez Escobar, Jose Galdino Montalvo Rodriguez, Alejandro Vincenzo Mugaburu Tapia, Darwyn Yovanny Navarrette Sanchez, Farhan Nawabit, Lazaro Ocana Guzman, Evarado Orantes Acevedo, Roseline Ostine, Tahimi Perez, Wilder Perez Limones, Deivys Perez Valladares, Ricardo Perezo Alonzo, Francisco Rivero Valeron, Ervin David Rodas Pedro, Maria Eugenia Rodriguez Claras, Rene Jonathan Rosas Cardenas, Danny Ruiz Garcia, Crisley Sacrab-Bin, Gelber Sontay Funez, Adrian Sosa Fletes, Fermin Tepetate-Martinez, Maykel Valera Ramirez, Geraldo Vargas, Agane Warsame, Eitan Yefet,

Eliseo Antonio Zamora Mendoza re 349 Notice (Other), (Edson, Scott) (Entered: 09/17/2020)

09/17/2020

367 NOTICE of Cancellation of Taking Deposition Duces Tecum by Rolando Aguabella Martinez, Juan Carlos Alfaro Garcia, Mohamed Hassan Ali, Javier Antonio Arias-Martinez, Naim Arrak, Reinier Guiba Avila, Dairon Barredo Sanchez, Maikel Betancourt, Sirvanildo Bibiano Soares, Alvaro Roa Calicchio, Maikel Carrasco Polo, Abel Carrillo, Jose Chavez, Hatem Chourabi, Maxuel A De Souza, Julio Edwards, Hassan Mohamed Farah, Alejandro Ferreira Borges, Ruben Orlando Flores Ramos, Patrick Gayle, Fernando Goncalves, Franklin Ramon Gonzalez, Lazaro Jose Gutierrez Suarez, Mohamed Hasan, Carlos Hedman Perdomo, Abdul Jalloh, Aparicio P. Jeronimo, Muhammad Alam Khan, Thomas Lenor, Miryam Elizabeth Lopez Herrera, Manuel Lopez Perez, Omar Lopez-Jaramillo, Luis Enrique Lopez-Pena, Ariel Lucien, Yaniel Machado Aguila, Miguel Angel Marroquin Perez, Rodney Martin, Tolentino Martinez Rios, Irvin Medoza Silis, Cesar Ariel Mendez Escobar, Jose Galdino Montalvo Rodriguez, Alejandro Vincenzo Mugaburu Tapia, Darwyn Yovanny Navarrette Sanchez, Farhan Nawabit, Lazaro Ocana Guzman, Evarado Orantes Acevedo, Roseline Ostine, Tahimi Perez, Wilder Perez Limones, Deivys Perez Valladares, Ricardo Perezo Alonzo, Francisco Rivero Valeron, Ervin David Rodas Pedro, Maria Eugenia Rodriguez Claras, Rene Jonathan Rosas Cardenas, Danny Ruiz Garcia, Crisley Sacrab-Bin, Gelber Sontay Funez, Adrian Sosa Fletes, Fermin Tepetate-Martinez, Maykel Valera Ramirez, Geraldo Vargas, Agane Warsame, Eitan Yefet, Eliseo Antonio Zamora Mendoza re 350 Notice (Other), (Edson, Scott) Modified on 9/18/2020 (jas). (Entered: 09/17/2020)

09/17/2020

368 NOTICE of Filing Declaration in Response to Court's Order by Field Office Director, Miami Field Office, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, U.S. Attorney General re 158 Order on Motion to Compel, Order on Report and Recommendations, Order on Motion for Temporary Restraining Order, Order on Motion for Preliminary Injunction, Order on Expedited Motion, (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A-Castano Declaration) (Diaz, Natalie) (Entered: 09/17/2020)

09/17/2020

369 STATUS REPORT in Response to Court's Order DE 363 by Field Office Director, Miami Field Office, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, U.S. Attorney General (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Diaz, Natalie) (Entered: 09/17/2020)

09/18/2020 370 PAPERLESS ORDER re 369 Status Report filed by Field Office Director, Miami Field Office, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, U.S. Attorney General, 363 Order

The Undersigned has reviewed the Respondents' status report [ECF No. 369], filed in connection with the post-discovery hearing administrative order [ECF No. 363].

The Respondents need not produce the 37 documents designated as being subject to the law enforcement privilege. But they do need to produce, as quickly as practicable, the 286 documents which were inadvertently designated as being subject to the law enforcement privilege. Respondents will re-produce them in corrected form. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jonathan Goodman on 9/18/2020. (JG) (Entered: 09/18/2020)

09/21/2020

371 Unopposed MOTION for Leave to File Untimely Return to DE 322 by Field Office Director, Miami Field Office, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, U.S. Attorney General. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order, # 2 Exhibit A-Part 1, # 3 Exhibit A-Part 2, # 4 Exhibit A-Part 3, # 5 Exhibit A-Part 4, # 6 Exhibit A-Part 5, # 7 Exhibit A-Part 6, # 8 Exhibit A-Part 7, # 9 Exhibit A-Part 8, # 10 Exhibit A-Part 9)(Diaz, Natalie) (Entered: 09/21/2020)

09/21/2020

372 MOTION for Leave to File Untimely Return to DE 323 by Field Office Director, Miami Field Office, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, U.S. Attorney General. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order, # 2 Exhibit A-Part 1, # 3 Exhibit A-Part 2, # 4 Exhibit A-Part 3, # 5 Exhibit A-Part 4, # 6 Exhibit A-Part 5, # 7 Exhibit A-Part 6, # 8 Exhibit A-Part 7, # 9 Exhibit A-Part 8, # 10 Exhibit A-Part 9, # 11 Exhibit A-Part 10, # 12 Exhibit A-Part 11)(Diaz, Natalie) (Entered: 09/21/2020)

09/21/2020

373 Notice of Filing Declaration in Response to Court's Order by Field Office Director, Miami Field Office, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, U.S. Attorney General re 158 Order on Motion to Compel, Order on Report and Recommendations, Order on Motion for Temporary Restraining Order, Order on Motion for Preliminary Injunction, Order on Expedited Motion, (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A-Castano Declaration) (Diaz, Natalie) (Entered: 09/21/2020)

09/21/2020

374 Plaintiff's EMERGENCY MOTION with Certification of Emergency to Enlarge Custody to Home Confinement/Quarantine, MOTION to Transfer Immediately in Medically Safe Manner, EMERGENCY MOTION for Hearing by Miryam Elizabeth Lopez Herrera. Responses due by 10/5/2020 (Osberg-Braun, Linda). Added MOTION for Miscellanous Relief, MOTION for Hearing on 9/21/2020 (jas). (Entered: 09/21/2020)

09/21/2020

375 Clerks Notice to Filer re 374 EMERGENCY MOTION with Certification of Emergency to Enlarge Custody to Home Confinement/Quarantine MOTION for Hearing. Motion with Multiple Reliefs Filed as One Relief; ERROR - The Filer selected only one relief event and failed to select the additional corresponding events for each relief requested in the motion. The docket entry was corrected by the Clerk. It is not necessary to refile this document but future filings must comply with the instructions in the CM/ECF Attorney User's Manual. (jas) (Entered: 09/21/2020)

09/21/2020

376 ENDORSED ORDER granting 371 Motion for Leave to File Return. Respondents shall immediately upon the issuance of this Order file their Return. Signed by Judge Marcia G. Cooke on 9/21/2020. (btn) (Entered: 09/21/2020)

09/21/2020

377 ENDORSED ORDER granting 372 Motion for Leave to File Return. Respondents shall immediately upon the issuance of this Order file their Return. Signed by Judge Marcia G. Cooke on 9/21/2020. (btn) (Entered: 09/21/2020)

09/21/2020

378 RESPONSE to 322 Intervenor Complaint by Field Office Director, Miami Field Office, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, U.S. Attorney General. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A-I213, # 2 Exhibit B-NTA, # 3 Exhibit C-Declaration, # 4 Exhibit D-Order, # 5 Exhibit E-Order, # 6 Exhibit F-Order, # 7 Exhibit G-Order, # 8 Exhibit H-Order)(Diaz, Natalie) (Entered: 09/21/2020)

09/21/2020

379 RESPONSE to 323 Intervenor Complaint by Field Office Director, Miami Field Office, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, U.S. Attorney General. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A-I-213, # 2 Exhibit B-I485, # 3 Exhibit C-I-751, # 4 Exhibit D-NTA, # 5 Exhibit E-I-261, # 6 Exhibit F-Order, # 7 Exhibit G-EARM, # 8 Exhibit H-Order, # 9 Exhibit I-BIA, # 10 Exhibit J-213)(Diaz, Natalie) (Entered: 09/21/2020)

09/22/2020

380 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to Produce Documents per Court Order re 363 Order by Field Office Director, Miami Field Office, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, U.S. Attorney General. Responses due by 10/6/2020 (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Diaz, Natalie) (Entered: 09/22/2020)

09/22/2020

381 ORDER denying 374 Emergency Motion with Certification of Emergency; denying 374 Motion ; denying 374 Motion for Hearing. Signed by Judge Marcia G. Cooke on 9/22/2020. See attached document for full details. (lk) (Entered: 09/22/2020)

09/22/2020 382 ORDER denying 253 Motion for release or in the alternative, Hearing on Habeas Petition. Signed by Judge Marcia G. Cooke on 9/22/2020. See attached document for full details. (lk) (Entered: 09/22/2020)

09/22/2020

383 PAPERLESS ORDER granting 380 Respondents' Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to Produce Documents per 363 Order. Respondents shall have up to noon on Wednesday, September 23, 2020, to produce documents where the Respondents had previously invoked the deliberative process privilege. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jonathan Goodman on 9/22/2020. (jzn) (Entered: 09/22/2020)

09/25/2020

384 NOTICE of Filing Declaration in Response to Court's Order by Field Office Director, Miami Field Office, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, U.S. Attorney General re 158 Order on Motion to Compel, Order on Report and Recommendations, Order on Motion for Temporary Restraining Order, Order on Motion for Preliminary Injunction, Order on Expedited Motion, (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A-Part 1, # 2 Exhibit A-Part 2, # 3 Exhibit A-Part 3, # 4 Exhibit A-Part 4) (Diaz, Natalie) (Entered: 09/25/2020)

09/25/2020

385 NOTICE of Filing Declaration in Response to Court's Order by Field Office Director, Miami Field Office, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, U.S. Attorney General re 158 Order on Motion to Compel, Order on Report and Recommendations, Order on Motion for Temporary Restraining Order, Order on Motion for Preliminary Injunction, Order on Expedited Motion, (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A-Castano Declaration) (Diaz, Natalie) (Entered: 09/25/2020)

09/28/2020

386 NOTICE of Filing Declaration in Response to Court's Order by Field Office Director, Miami Field Office, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, U.S. Attorney General re 158 Order on Motion to Compel,, Order on Report and Recommendations, Order on Motion for Temporary Restraining Order,, Order on Motion for Preliminary Injunction,, Order on Expedited Motion, (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A-Agudelo Declaration) (Diaz, Natalie) (Entered: 09/28/2020)

09/29/2020

387 RESPONSE to 359 Intervenor Complaint, by Field Office Director, Miami Field Office, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, U.S. Attorney General. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A-I-213, # 2 Exhibit BNTA, # 3 Exhibit C-EARM, # 4 Exhibit D-Decision, # 5 Exhibit EEARM, # 6 Exhibit F-EARM, # 7 Exhibit G-Declaration)(Diaz, Natalie) (Entered: 09/29/2020)

09/29/2020 388 RESPONSE to 358 Intervenor Complaint, by Field Office Director, Miami Field Office, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, U.S. Attorney General. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A-I-213, # 2 Exhibit B-

EARM, # 3 Exhibit C-NTA, # 4 Exhibit D-Order, # 5 Exhibit E-BIA, # 6 Exhibit F-Declaration)(Diaz, Natalie) (Entered: 09/29/2020)

09/30/2020

389 RESPONSE to 361 Intervenor Complaint by Field Office Director, Miami Field Office, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, U.S. Attorney General. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A-I-213, # 2 Exhibit BEARM, # 3 Exhibit C-NTA, # 4 Exhibit D-Order, # 5 Exhibit E-BIA, # 6 Exhibit F-Declaration)(Diaz, Natalie) (Entered: 09/30/2020)

10/02/2020

390 NOTICE of Attorney Appearance by Natalie Diaz on behalf of Field Office Director, Miami Field Office, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, U.S. Attorney General (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A-Part 1, # 2 Exhibit A-Part 2, # 3 Exhibit A-Part 3, # 4 Exhibit A-Part 4, # 5 Exhibit A-Part 5, # 6 Exhibit A-Part 6, # 7 Exhibit A-Part 7, # 8 Exhibit A-Part 8) (Diaz, Natalie) (Entered: 10/02/2020)

10/02/2020

391 NOTICE of Striking 390 Notice of Attorney Appearance, filed by Field Office Director, Miami Field Office, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, U.S. Attorney General by Field Office Director, Miami Field Office, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, U.S. Attorney General (Diaz, Natalie) (Entered: 10/02/2020)

10/02/2020

392 NOTICE of Filing Declaration in Response to Court's Order by Field Office Director, Miami Field Office, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, U.S. Attorney General re 158 Order on Motion to Compel,,] Order on Report and Recommendations, Order on Motion for Temporary Restraining Order,,] Order on Motion for Preliminary Injunction,,] Order on Expedited Motion, of Filing Declaration in Response to Court's Order (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A-Part 1, # 2 Exhibit A-Part 2, # 3 Exhibit A-Part 3, # 4 Exhibit A-Part 4, # 5 Exhibit A-Part 5, # 6 Exhibit A-Part 6, # 7 Exhibit A-Part 7, # 8 Exhibit A-Part 8) (Diaz, Natalie) ] (Entered: 10/02/2020)

10/02/2020

393 Unopposed Expedited Motion For Prompt Access To Special Master's Report by Rolando Aguabella Martinez, Juan Carlos Alfaro Garcia, Mohamed Hassan Ali, Javier Antonio Arias-Martinez, Naim Arrak, Reinier Guiba Avila, Dairon Barredo Sanchez, Maikel Betancourt, Sirvanildo Bibiano Soares, Alvaro Roa Calicchio, Maikel Carrasco Polo, Abel Carrillo, Jose Chavez, Hatem Chourabi, Maxuel A De Souza, Julio Edwards, Hassan Mohamed Farah, Alejandro Ferreira Borges, Ruben Orlando Flores Ramos, Patrick Gayle, Fernando Goncalves, Franklin Ramon Gonzalez, Lazaro Jose Gutierrez Suarez, Mohamed Hasan, Carlos Hedman Perdomo, Abdul Jalloh, Aparicio P. Jeronimo, Muhammad Alam Khan, Thomas Lenor, Miryam Elizabeth Lopez Herrera, Manuel Lopez Perez, Omar Lopez-Jaramillo, Luis Enrique Lopez-Pena, Ariel Lucien, Yaniel Machado Aguila, Miguel Angel Marroquin Perez, Rodney Martin,

Tolentino Martinez Rios, Irvin Medoza Silis, Cesar Ariel Mendez Escobar, Jose Galdino Montalvo Rodriguez, Alejandro Vincenzo Mugaburu Tapia, Darwyn Yovanny Navarrette Sanchez, Farhan Nawabit, Lazaro Ocana Guzman, Evarado Orantes Acevedo, Roseline Ostine, Tahimi Perez, Wilder Perez Limones, Deivys Perez Valladares, Ricardo Perezo Alonzo, Francisco Rivero Valeron, Ervin David Rodas Pedro, Maria Eugenia Rodriguez Claras, Rene Jonathan Rosas Cardenas, Danny Ruiz Garcia, Crisley Sacrab-Bin, Gelber Sontay Funez, Adrian Sosa Fletes, Fermin Tepetate-Martinez, Maykel Valera Ramirez, Geraldo Vargas, Agane Warsame, Eitan Yefet, Eliseo Antonio Zamora Mendoza. (Edson, Scott) (Entered: 10/02/2020)

10/02/2020

394 NOTICE of Attorney Appearance by Mitchell Wayne Berger on behalf of Sharon Kegerreis, Lathario G Rolle. Attorney Mitchell Wayne Berger added to party Lathario G Rolle(pty:intvp). (Berger, Mitchell) (Entered: 10/02/2020)

10/02/2020

395 MOTION to Intervene by Lathario G Rolle. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and Complaint, # 2 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order on Motion to Intervene)(Berger, Mitchell) (Entered: 10/02/2020)

10/02/2020

396 Clerks Notice to Filer re 394 Notice of Attorney Appearance, [395 MOTION to Intervene. Document Not Filed Correctly; CORRECTIVE ACTION REQUIRED - The name of attorney e-filing this document via their CM/ECF login does not match the name of attorney on the signature block of the document. The name used for login must match the typed name on signature block of the document. This filing is a violation of Section 3J(1) of CM/ECF Admin Procedures and Local Rule 5.1(b). Filer must File a Notice of Striking, then refile document pursuant to CM/ECF Admin Procedures and Local Rules. (jas) (Entered: 10/02/2020)

10/05/2020

397 NOTICE of Filing Declaration in Response to Court's Order by Field Office Director, Miami Field Office, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, U.S. Attorney General re 158 Order on Motion to Compel, Order on Report and Recommendations, Order on Motion for Temporary Restraining Order, Order on Motion for Preliminary Injunction, Order on Expedited Motion, (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A-Castano Declaration)(Diaz, Natalie) (Entered: 10/05/2020)

10/09/2020

398 NOTICE Of Taking Deposition of Liana Castano. by Rolando Aguabella Martinez, Juan Carlos Alfaro Garcia, Mohamed Hassan Ali, Javier Antonio Arias-Martinez, Naim Arrak, Reinier Guiba Avila, Dairon Barredo Sanchez, Maikel Betancourt, Sirvanildo Bibiano Soares, Alvaro Roa Calicchio, Maikel Carrasco Polo, Abel Carrillo, Jose Chavez, Hatem Chourabi, Maxuel A De Souza, Julio Edwards, Hassan Mohamed Farah,

Alejandro Ferreira Borges, Ruben Orlando Flores Ramos, Patrick Gayle, Fernando Goncalves, Franklin Ramon Gonzalez, Lazaro Jose Gutierrez Suarez, Mohamed Hasan, Carlos Hedman Perdomo, Abdul Jalloh, Aparicio P. Jeronimo, Sharon Kegerreis, Muhammad Alam Khan, Thomas Lenor, Miryam Elizabeth Lopez Herrera, Manuel Lopez Perez, Omar Lopez-Jaramillo, Luis Enrique Lopez-Pena, Ariel Lucien, Yaniel Machado Aguila, Miguel Angel Marroquin Perez, Rodney Martin, Tolentino Martinez Rios, Irvin Medoza Silis, Cesar Ariel Mendez Escobar, Jose Galdino Montalvo Rodriguez, Alejandro Vincenzo Mugaburu Tapia, Darwyn Yovanny Navarrette Sanchez, Farhan Nawabit, Lazaro Ocana Guzman, Evarado Orantes Acevedo, Roseline Ostine, Tahimi Perez, Wilder Perez Limones, Deivys Perez Valladares, Ricardo Perezo Alonzo, Francisco Rivero Valeron, Ervin David Rodas Pedro, Maria Eugenia Rodriguez Claras, Lathario G Rolle, Rene Jonathan Rosas Cardenas, Danny Ruiz Garcia, Crisley Sacrab-Bin, Gelber Sontay Funez, Adrian Sosa Fletes, Fermin Tepetate-Martinez, Maykel Valera Ramirez, Geraldo Vargas, Agane Warsame, Eitan Yefet, Eliseo Antonio Zamora Mendoz. Attorney Scott Michael Edson added to party Sharon Kegerreis(pty:intvp), Attorney Scott Michael Edson added to party Lathario G Rolle(pty:intvp). (Edson, Scott) (Entered: 10/09/2020)

10/09/2020

399 NOTICE Of Taking Deposition of Cdr. Elvira Hardy by Rolando Aguabella Martinez, Juan Carlos Alfaro Garcia, Mohamed Hassan Ali, Javier Antonio Arias-Martinez, Naim Arrak, Reinier Guiba Avila, Dairon Barredo Sanchez, Maikel Betancourt, Sirvanildo Bibiano Soares, Alvaro Roa Calicchio, Maikel Carrasco Polo, Abel Carrillo, Jose Chavez, Hatem Chourabi, Maxuel A De Souza, Julio Edwards, Hassan Mohamed Farah, Alejandro Ferreira Borges, Ruben Orlando Flores Ramos, Patrick Gayle, Fernando Goncalves, Franklin Ramon Gonzalez, Lazaro Jose Gutierrez Suarez, Mohamed Hasan, Carlos Hedman Perdomo, Abdul Jalloh, Aparicio P. Jeronimo, Sharon Kegerreis, Muhammad Alam Khan, Thomas Lenor, Miryam Elizabeth Lopez Herrera, Manuel Lopez Perez, Omar Lopez-Jaramillo, Luis Enrique Lopez-Pena, Ariel Lucien, Yaniel Machado Aguila, Miguel Angel Marroquin Perez, Rodney Martin, Tolentino Martinez Rios, Irvin Medoza Silis, Cesar Ariel Mendez Escobar, Jose Galdino Montalvo Rodriguez, Alejandro Vincenzo Mugaburu Tapia, Darwyn Yovanny Navarrette Sanchez, Farhan Nawabit, Lazaro Ocana Guzman, Evarado Orantes Acevedo, Roseline Ostine, Tahimi Perez, Wilder Perez Limones, Deivys Perez Valladares, Ricardo Perezo Alonzo, Francisco Rivero Valeron, Ervin David Rodas Pedro, Maria Eugenia Rodriguez Claras, Lathario G Rolle, Rene Jonathan Rosas Cardenas, Danny Ruiz Garcia, Crisley Sacrab-Bin, Gelber Sontay Funez, Adrian Sosa Fletes, Fermin Tepetate-Martinez, Maykel Valera Ramirez, Geraldo Vargas, Agane Warsame, Eitan Yefet, Eliseo Antonio Zamora Mendoza (Edson, Scott) (Entered: 10/09/2020)

10/09/2020

400 NOTICE Of Taking Deposition of Juan Lopez-Vega by Rolando Aguabella Martinez, Juan Carlos Alfaro Garcia, Mohamed Hassan Ali, Javier Antonio Arias-Martinez, Naim Arrak, Reinier Guiba Avila, Dairon Barredo Sanchez, Maikel Betancourt, Sirvanildo Bibiano Soares, Alvaro Roa Calicchio, Maikel Carrasco Polo, Abel Carrillo, Jose Chavez, Hatem Chourabi, Maxuel A De Souza, Julio Edwards, Hassan Mohamed Farah, Alejandro Ferreira Borges, Ruben Orlando Flores Ramos, Patrick Gayle, Fernando Goncalves, Franklin Ramon Gonzalez, Lazaro Jose Gutierrez Suarez, Mohamed Hasan, Carlos Hedman Perdomo, Abdul Jalloh, Aparicio P. Jeronimo, Sharon Kegerreis, Muhammad Alam Khan, Thomas Lenor, Miryam Elizabeth Lopez Herrera, Manuel Lopez Perez, Omar Lopez-Jaramillo, Luis Enrique Lopez-Pena, Ariel Lucien, Yaniel Machado Aguila, Miguel Angel Marroquin Perez, Rodney Martin, Tolentino Martinez Rios, Irvin Medoza Silis, Cesar Ariel Mendez Escobar, Jose Galdino Montalvo Rodriguez, Alejandro Vincenzo Mugaburu Tapia, Darwyn Yovanny Navarrette Sanchez, Farhan Nawabit, Lazaro Ocana Guzman, Evarado Orantes Acevedo, Roseline Ostine, Tahimi Perez, Wilder Perez Limones, Deivys Perez Valladares, Ricardo Perezo Alonzo, Francisco Rivero Valeron, Ervin David Rodas Pedro, Maria Eugenia Rodriguez Claras, Lathario G Rolle, Rene Jonathan Rosas Cardenas, Danny Ruiz Garcia, Crisley Sacrab-Bin, Gelber Sontay Funez, Adrian Sosa Fletes, Fermin Tepetate-Martinez, Maykel Valera Ramirez, Geraldo Vargas, Agane Warsame, Eitan Yefet, Eliseo Antonio Zamora Mendoza (Edson, Scott) (Entered: 10/09/2020)

10/09/2020

401 NOTICE Of Taking Deposition of Luis Ortega, M.D. by Rolando Aguabella Martinez, Juan Carlos Alfaro Garcia, Mohamed Hassan Ali, Javier Antonio Arias-Martinez, Naim Arrak, Reinier Guiba Avila, Dairon Barredo Sanchez, Maikel Betancourt, Sirvanildo Bibiano Soares, Alvaro Roa Calicchio, Maikel Carrasco Polo, Abel Carrillo, Jose Chavez, Hatem Chourabi, Maxuel A De Souza, Julio Edwards, Hassan Mohamed Farah, Alejandro Ferreira Borges, Ruben Orlando Flores Ramos, Patrick Gayle, Fernando Goncalves, Franklin Ramon Gonzalez, Lazaro Jose Gutierrez Suarez, Mohamed Hasan, Carlos Hedman Perdomo, Abdul Jalloh, Aparicio P. Jeronimo, Sharon Kegerreis, Muhammad Alam Khan, Thomas Lenor, Miryam Elizabeth Lopez Herrera, Manuel Lopez Perez, Omar Lopez-Jaramillo, Luis Enrique Lopez-Pena, Ariel Lucien, Yaniel Machado Aguila, Miguel Angel Marroquin Perez, Rodney Martin, Tolentino Martinez Rios, Irvin Medoza Silis, Cesar Ariel Mendez Escobar, Jose Galdino Montalvo Rodriguez, Alejandro Vincenzo Mugaburu Tapia, Darwyn Yovanny Navarrette Sanchez, Farhan Nawabit, Lazaro Ocana Guzman, Evarado Orantes Acevedo, Roseline Ostine, Tahimi Perez, Wilder Perez Limones, Deivys Perez Valladares, Ricardo Perezo Alonzo, Francisco Rivero Valeron, Ervin David Rodas Pedro, Maria Eugenia Rodriguez Claras, Lathario G Rolle, Rene Jonathan Rosas Cardenas, Danny Ruiz Garcia, Crisley Sacrab-Bin, Gelber Sontay Funez,

Adrian Sosa Fletes, Fermin Tepetate-Martinez, Maykel Valera Ramirez, Geraldo Vargas, Agane Warsame, Eitan Yefet, Eliseo Antonio Zamora Mendoza. (Edson, Scott) (Entered: 10/09/2020)

10/09/2020

402 NOTICE Of Taking Deposition of Bruce Plumley by Rolando Aguabella Martinez, Juan Carlos Alfaro Garcia, Mohamed Hassan Ali, Javier Antonio Arias-Martinez, Naim Arrak, Reinier Guiba Avila, Dairon Barredo Sanchez, Maikel Betancourt, Sirvanildo Bibiano Soares, Alvaro Roa Calicchio, Maikel Carrasco Polo, Abel Carrillo, Jose Chavez, Hatem Chourabi, Maxuel A De Souza, Julio Edwards, Hassan Mohamed Farah, Alejandro Ferreira Borges, Ruben Orlando Flores Ramos, Patrick Gayle, Fernando Goncalves, Franklin Ramon Gonzalez, Lazaro Jose Gutierrez Suarez, Mohamed Hasan, Carlos Hedman Perdomo, Abdul Jalloh, Aparicio P. Jeronimo, Sharon Kegerreis, Muhammad Alam Khan, Thomas Lenor, Miryam Elizabeth Lopez Herrera, Manuel Lopez Perez, Omar Lopez-Jaramillo, Luis Enrique Lopez-Pena, Ariel Lucien, Yaniel Machado Aguila, Miguel Angel Marroquin Perez, Rodney Martin, Tolentino Martinez Rios, Irvin Medoza Silis, Cesar Ariel Mendez Escobar, Jose Galdino Montalvo Rodriguez, Alejandro Vincenzo Mugaburu Tapia, Darwyn Yovanny Navarrette Sanchez, Farhan Nawabit, Lazaro Ocana Guzman, Evarado Orantes Acevedo, Roseline Ostine, Tahimi Perez, Wilder Perez Limones, Deivys Perez Valladares, Ricardo Perezo Alonzo, Francisco Rivero Valeron, Ervin David Rodas Pedro, Maria Eugenia Rodriguez Claras, Lathario G Rolle, Rene Jonathan Rosas Cardenas, Danny Ruiz Garcia, Crisley Sacrab-Bin, Gelber Sontay Funez, Adrian Sosa Fletes, Fermin Tepetate-Martinez, Maykel Valera Ramirez, Geraldo Vargas, Agane Warsame, Eitan Yefet, Eliseo Antonio Zamora Mendoza. (Edson, Scott) (Entered: 10/09/2020)

10/09/2020

403 NOTICE of Taking Deposition of Cdr. Chad Schipansky by Rolando Aguabella Martinez, Juan Carlos Alfaro Garcia, Mohamed Hassan Ali, Javier Antonio Arias-Martinez, Naim Arrak, Reinier Guiba Avila, Dairon Barredo Sanchez, Maikel Betancourt, Sirvanildo Bibiano Soares, Alvaro Roa Calicchio, Maikel Carrasco Polo, Abel Carrillo, Jose Chavez, Hatem Chourabi, Maxuel A De Souza, Julio Edwards, Hassan Mohamed Farah, Alejandro Ferreira Borges, Ruben Orlando Flores Ramos, Patrick Gayle, Fernando Goncalves, Franklin Ramon Gonzalez, Lazaro Jose Gutierrez Suarez, Mohamed Hasan, Carlos Hedman Perdomo, Abdul Jalloh, Aparicio P. Jeronimo, Sharon Kegerreis, Muhammad Alam Khan, Thomas Lenor, Miryam Elizabeth Lopez Herrera, Manuel Lopez Perez, Omar Lopez-Jaramillo, Luis Enrique Lopez-Pena, Ariel Lucien, Yaniel Machado Aguila, Miguel Angel Marroquin Perez, Rodney Martin, Tolentino Martinez Rios, Irvin Medoza Silis, Cesar Ariel Mendez Escobar, Jose Galdino Montalvo Rodriguez, Alejandro Vincenzo Mugaburu Tapia, Darwyn Yovanny Navarrette Sanchez, Farhan Nawabit, Lazaro Ocana Guzman, Evarado Orantes Acevedo, Roseline Ostine,

Tahimi Perez, Wilder Perez Limones, Deivys Perez Valladares, Ricardo Perezo Alonzo, Francisco Rivero Valeron, Ervin David Rodas Pedro, Maria Eugenia Rodriguez Claras, Lathario G Rolle, Rene Jonathan Rosas Cardenas, Danny Ruiz Garcia, Crisley Sacrab-Bin, Gelber Sontay Funez, Adrian Sosa Fletes, Fermin Tepetate-Martinez, Maykel Valera Ramirez, Geraldo Vargas, Agane Warsame, Eitan Yefet, Eliseo Antonio Zamora Mendoza. (Edson, Scott) (Entered: 10/09/2020)

10/09/2020 404 NOTICE of Attorney Appearance by Sharon L. Kegerreis on behalf of Lathario G Rolle. Attorney Sharon L. Kegerreis added to party Lathario G Rolle(pty:intvp). (Kegerreis, Sharon) (Entered: 10/09/2020)

10/09/2020

405 NOTICE of Filing Declaration in Response to Court's Order by Field Office Director, Miami Field Office, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, U.S. Attorney General re 158 Order on Motion to Compel, Order on Report and Recommendations, Order on Motion for Temporary Restraining Order, Order on Motion for Preliminary Injunction, Order on Expedited Motion, (Attachments: #(1) Exhibit A-Castano Declaration)(Diaz, Natalie) (Entered: 10/09/2020)

10/09/2020

406 NOTICE by Field Office Director, Miami Field Office, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, U.S. Attorney General re 158 Order on Motion to Compel,, Order on Report and Recommendations,,,, Order on Motion for Temporary Restraining Order,, Order on Motion for Preliminary Injunction,, Order on Expedited Motion, of Filing Declaration in Response to Court's Order (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit ACastano Declaration) (Diaz, Natalie) (Entered: 10/09/2020)

10/09/2020

407 NOTICE of Filing Declaration in Response to Court's Order by Field Office Director, Miami Field Office, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, U.S. Attorney General re 158 Order on Motion to Compel, Order on Report and Recommendations, Order on Motion for Temporary Restraining Order, Order on Motion for Preliminary Injunction, Order on Expedited Motion, (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A-Part 1-Castano Declaration, # 2 Exhibit A-Part 2, # 3 Exhibit A-Part 3, # 4 Exhibit A-Part 4, # 5 Exhibit A-Part 5, # 6 Exhibit A-Part 6, # 7 Exhibit A-Part 7, # 8 Exhibit A-Part 8) (Diaz, Natalie) (Entered: 10/09/2020)

10/16/2020

408 NOTICE by Field Office Director, Miami Field Office, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, U.S. Attorney General re 158 Order on Motion to Compel,, Order on Report and Recommendations,,,, Order on Motion for Temporary Restraining Order,, Order on Motion for Preliminary Injunction,, Order on Expedited Motion, of Filing Declaration in Response to Court's Order (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit ACastano Declaration) (Diaz, Natalie) (Entered: 10/16/2020)

10/16/2020

409 NOTICE of Filing Declaration in Response to Court's Order by Field Office Director, Miami Field Office, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, U.S. Attorney General re 158 Order on Motion to Compel, Order on Report and Recommendations, Order on Motion for Temporary Restraining Order, Order on Motion for Preliminary Injunction, Order on Expedited Motion, (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A-Part 1-Castano Declaration, # 2 Exhibit A-Part 2, # 3 Exhibit A-Part 3, # 4 Exhibit A-Part 4) (Diaz, Natalie) (Entered: 10/16/2020)

10/19/2020

410 NOTICE by Field Office Director, Miami Field Office, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, U.S. Attorney General re 158 Order on Motion to Compel,, Order on Report and Recommendations,,,, Order on Motion for Temporary Restraining Order,, Order on Motion for Preliminary Injunction,, Order on Expedited Motion, of Filing Declaration in Response to Court's Order (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit ACastano Declaration) (Diaz, Natalie) (Entered: 10/19/2020)

10/21/2020

411 MOTION to Intervene by Iran Antonio Pichardo Perez-Borroto. Attorney Megan Nicole Kilissanly added to party Iran Antonio Pichardo PerezBorroto(pty:intv). (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(Kilissanly, Megan) (Entered: 10/21/2020)

10/23/2020

412 NOTICE of Filing Declaration in Response to Court's Order by Field Office Director, Miami Field Office, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, U.S. Attorney General re 158 Order on Motion to Compel, Order on Report and Recommendations, Order on Motion for Temporary Restraining Order, Order on Motion for Preliminary Injunction, Order on Expedited Motion, (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A-Part 1, # 2 Exhibit A-Part 2, # 3 Exhibit A-Part 3, # 4 Exhibit A-Part 4) (Diaz, Natalie) (Entered: 10/23/2020)

10/23/2020

413 NOTICE of Filing Declaration in Response to Court's Order by Field Office Director, Miami Field Office, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, U.S. Attorney General re 158 Order on Motion to Compel, Order on Report and Recommendations, Order on Motion for Temporary Restraining Order, Order on Motion for Preliminary Injunction, Order on Expedited Motion, (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A-Castano Declaration) (Diaz, Natalie) (Entered: 10/23/2020)

10/25/2020

414 NOTICE of Deposition of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(B)(6) by Rolando Aguabella Martinez, Juan Carlos Alfaro Garcia, Mohamed Hassan Ali, Javier Antonio AriasMartinez, Naim Arrak, Reinier Guiba Avila, Dairon Barredo Sanchez, Maikel Betancourt, Sirvanildo Bibiano Soares, Alvaro Roa Calicchio, Maikel Carrasco Polo, Abel Carrillo, Jose Chavez, Hatem Chourabi, Maxuel A De Souza, Julio Edwards, Hassan Mohamed Farah, Alejandro

Ferreira Borges, Ruben Orlando Flores Ramos, Patrick Gayle, Fernando Goncalves, Franklin Ramon Gonzalez, Lazaro Jose Gutierrez Suarez, Mohamed Hasan, Carlos Hedman Perdomo, Abdul Jalloh, Aparicio P. Jeronimo, Sharon Kegerreis, Muhammad Alam Khan, Thomas Lenor, Miryam Elizabeth Lopez Herrera, Manuel Lopez Perez, Omar LopezJaramillo, Luis Enrique Lopez-Pena, Ariel Lucien, Yaniel Machado Aguila, Miguel Angel Marroquin Perez, Rodney Martin, Tolentino Martinez Rios, Irvin Medoza Silis, Cesar Ariel Mendez Escobar, Jose Galdino Montalvo Rodriguez, Alejandro Vincenzo Mugaburu Tapia, Darwyn Yovanny Navarrette Sanchez, Farhan Nawabit, Lazaro Ocana Guzman, Evarado Orantes Acevedo, Roseline Ostine, Tahimi Perez, Wilder Perez Limones, Deivys Perez Valladares, Ricardo Perezo Alonzo, Iran Antonio Pichardo Perez-Borroto, Francisco Rivero Valeron, Ervin David Rodas Pedro, Maria Eugenia Rodriguez Claras, Lathario G Rolle, Rene Jonathan Rosas Cardenas, Danny Ruiz Garcia, Crisley Sacrab-Bin, Gelber Sontay Funez, Adrian Sosa Fletes, Fermin Tepetate-Martinez, Maykel Valera Ramirez, Geraldo Vargas, Agane Warsame, Eitan Yefet, Eliseo Antonio Zamora Mendoza re 398 Notice (Other), 400 Notice (Other), Attorney Scott Michael Edson added to party Iran Antonio Pichardo Perez-Borroto(pty:intv). (Edson, Scott) (Entered: 10/25/2020)

10/26/2020

415 MOTION for Release and Reply to Respondent's Return to Guiba-Avila's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus re 389 Response/Reply (Other), by Reinier Guiba Avila. Attorney Kayla Nicole Keller added to party Reinier Guiba Avila(pty:intv). (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Declaration of Assistant Filed Office Director Juan A. Lopez Vega)(Keller, Kayla) (Entered: 10/26/2020)

10/26/2020 416 PAPERLESS ORDER granting 395 Motion to Intervene.

Movant Lathario Glenwood Rolle filed his motion to intervene on October 2, 2020. Respondents have not responded and the time to do so has expired. Likewise, Respondents did not file a motion for enlargement of time, nor did they seek any other type of relief concerning the motion.

Petitioner Rolle, who is detained at Krome and who is already a member of the class which the Court previously certified, submitted his proposed petition as an exhibit to his motion to intervene.

The Undersigned finds that his motion to intervene is appropriate under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1) and therefore grants the motion. See generally Omnibus Order on Motions to Intervene. [ECF No. 356].

Movant must, however, separately refile, as a uniquely-filed document, the draft petition (which will now be an actual petition) for a writ of

habeas corpus that he attached as an exhibit to his motion to intervene. Mr. Rolle shall do this by Friday, October 30, 2020. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jonathan Goodman on 10/26/2020. (JG) (Entered: 10/26/2020)

10/26/2020

417 NOTICE of Filing Declaration in Response to Court's Order by Field Office Director, Miami Field Office, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, U.S. Attorney General re 158 Order on Motion to Compel, Order on Report and Recommendations, Order on Motion for Temporary Restraining Order, Order on Motion for Preliminary Injunction, Order on Expedited Motion, (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A-Agudelo Declaration) (Diaz, Natalie) (Entered: 10/26/2020)

10/28/2020

418 MOTION for Release and Reply to Respondent's Return to Gutierrez Suarez's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus re 389 Response/Reply (Other), by Lazaro Jose Gutierrez Suarez. Attorney Francisco Armada added to party Lazaro Jose Gutierrez Suarez(pty:intv). (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Declaration of Assistant Filed Office Director Juan A. Lopez Vega)(Armada, Francisco) (Entered: 10/28/2020)

10/28/2020

419 MOTION for Release and Reply to Respondent's Return to Lopez Pena's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus re 387 Response/Reply (Other), by Luis Enrique Lopez-Pena. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Declaration of Assistant Filed Office Director Juan A. Lopez Vega)(Armada, Francisco) (Entered: 10/28/2020)

10/28/2020 420 REPLY to 389 Response to 389 Intervenor Complaint, by Lazaro Jose Gutierrez Suarez. (See DE# 418 for image). (jas) (Entered: 10/28/2020)

10/28/2020

421 Clerks Notice to Filer re 418 MOTION for Release and Reply to Respondent's Return to Gutierrez Suarez's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus re 389 Response/Reply (Other), . Two or More Document Events Filed as One; ERROR - Only one event was selected by the Filer but more than one event was applicable to the document filed. The docket entry was corrected by the Clerk. It is not necessary to refile this document but in the future, the Filer must select all applicable events. (jas) (Entered: 10/28/2020)

10/28/2020 422 REPLY to 387 Response to 359 Intervenor Complaint, by Luis Enrique Lopez-Pena. (See DE# [419 for image). (jas) (Entered: 10/28/2020)

10/28/2020

423 Clerks Notice to Filer re 419 MOTION for Release and Reply to Respondent's Return to Lopez Pena's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus re 387 Response/Reply (Other), . Two or More Document Events Filed as One; ERROR - Only one event was selected by the Filer but more than one event was applicable to the document filed. The docket entry was corrected by the Clerk. It is not necessary to refile this document but in

the future, the Filer must select all applicable events. (jas) (Entered: 10/28/2020)

10/29/2020 424 NOTICE of Mootness by Lathario G Rolle re 395 MOTION to Intervene (Kegerreis, Sharon) (Entered: 10/29/2020)

10/30/2020

425 NOTICE of Filing Declaration in Response to Court's Order by Field Office Director, Miami Field Office, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, U.S. Attorney General re 158 Order on Motion to Compel, Order on Report and Recommendations, Order on Motion for Temporary Restraining Order, Order on Motion for Preliminary Injunction, Order on Expedited Motion, (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A-Part 1, # 2 Exhibit A-Part 2, # 3 Exhibit A-Part 3, # 4 Exhibit A-Part 4) (Diaz, Natalie) (Entered: 10/30/2020)

10/30/2020

426 NOTICE of Filing Declaration in Response to Court's Order by Field Office Director, Miami Field Office, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, U.S. Attorney General re 158 Order on Motion to Compel, Order on Report and Recommendations, Order on Motion for Temporary Restraining Order, Order on Motion for Preliminary Injunction, Order on Expedited Motion, of Filing Declaration in Response to Court's Order (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A-Castano Declaration) (Diaz, Natalie) (Entered: 10/30/2020)

11/02/2020

427 NOTICE of Filing Declaration in Response to Court's Order by Field Office Director, Miami Field Office, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, U.S. Attorney General re 158 Order on Motion to Compel, Order on Report and Recommendations, Order on Motion for Temporary Restraining Order, Order on Motion for Preliminary Injunction, Order on Expedited Motion, (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A-Castano Declaration) (Diaz, Natalie) (Entered: 11/02/2020)

11/04/2020

428 RESPONSE in Opposition re 411 MOTION to Intervene filed by Field Office Director, Miami Field Office, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, U.S. Attorney General. Replies due by 11/12/2020. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A-I213, # 2 Exhibit B-EARM, # 3 Exhibit CNTA, # 4 Exhibit D-Bond Order, # 5 Exhibit E-IJ Order)(Diaz, Natalie) (Entered: 11/04/2020)

11/05/2020

429 Amended MOTION for Release and Reply to Respondent's Return to Gutierrez Suarez's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus re 389 Response/Reply (Other), by Lazaro Jose Gutierrez Suarez. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit A Declaration of Assistant Filed Office Director Juan A. Lopez Vega)(Armada, Francisco) (Entered: 11/05/2020)

11/05/2020 430 Amended MOTION for Release and Reply to Respondent's Return to Gutierrez Suarez's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

re 387 Response/Reply (Other), by Luis Enrique Lopez-Pena. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit A Declaration of Assistant Filed Office Director Juan A. Lopez Vega)(Armada, Francisco) (Entered: 11/05/2020)

11/05/2020 431 Amended MOTION for Release and Reply to Respondent's Return to Guiba-Avila's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus by Reinier Guiba Avila. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(Kilissanly, Megan) (Entered: 11/05/2020)

11/06/2020

432 NOTICE of Filing Declaration in Response to Court's Order by Field Office Director, Miami Field Office, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement re 158 Order on Motion to Compel, Order on Report and Recommendations, Order on Motion for Temporary Restraining Order, Order on Motion for Preliminary Injunction, Order on Expedited Motion, (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A-Castano Declaration-Part 1, # 2 Exhibit APart 2, # 3 Exhibit A-Part 3, # 4 Exhibit A-Part 4, # 5 Exhibit A-Part 5) (Diaz, Natalie) (Entered: 11/06/2020)

11/06/2020

433 NOTICE of Filing Declaration in Response to Court's Order by Field Office Director, Miami Field Office, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, U.S. Attorney General re 158 Order on Motion to Compel, Order on Report and Recommendations, Order on Motion for Temporary Restraining Order, Order on Motion for Preliminary Injunction, Order on Expedited Motion, (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A-Castano Declaration) (Diaz, Natalie) (Entered: 11/06/2020)

11/06/2020 434 ORDER granting 411 Motion to Intervene. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jonathan Goodman on 11/6/2020. See attached document for full details. (jzn) (Entered: 11/06/2020)

11/09/2020

435 Intervenor COMPLAINT Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to Rule 28 U.S.C. Section 2241, filed by Iran Antonio Pichardo PerezBorroto. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C)(Kilissanly, Megan) (Entered: 11/09/2020)

11/10/2020

436 NOTICE by Field Office Director, Miami Field Office, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, U.S. Attorney General re 158 Order on Motion to Compel,, Order on Report and Recommendations,,,, Order on Motion for Temporary Restraining Order,, Order on Motion for Preliminary Injunction,, Order on Expedited Motion, of Filing Declaration in Response to Court's Order (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit ACastano Declaration) (Diaz, Natalie) (Entered: 11/10/2020)

11/13/2020

437 NOTICE of Filing Declaration in Response to Court's Order by Field Office Director, Miami Field Office, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, U.S. Attorney General re 158 Order on Motion to Compel, Order on Report and Recommendations, Order on Motion for Temporary Restraining Order, Order on Motion for Preliminary Injunction,, Order on

Expedited Motion, (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A-Part 1, # 2 Exhibit A-Part 2, # 3 Exhibit A-Part 3, # 4 Exhibit A-Part 4) (Diaz, Natalie) (Entered: 11/13/2020)

11/13/2020

438 NOTICE of Filing Declaration in Response to Court's Order by Field Office Director, Miami Field Office, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, U.S. Attorney General re 158 Order on Motion to Compel, Order on Report and Recommendations, Order on Motion for Temporary Restraining Order,, Order on Motion for Preliminary Injunction, Order on Expedited Motion,(Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A-Castano Declaration) (Diaz, Natalie) (Entered: 11/13/2020)

11/16/2020

439 NOTICE of Taking Deposition Duces Tecum of Dr. Luis Ortega by Rolando Aguabella Martinez, Juan Carlos Alfaro Garcia, Mohamed Hassan Ali, Javier Antonio Arias-Martinez, Naim Arrak, Reinier Guiba Avila, Dairon Barredo Sanchez, Maikel Betancourt, Sirvanildo Bibiano Soares, Alvaro Roa Calicchio, Maikel Carrasco Polo, Abel Carrillo, Jose Chavez, Hatem Chourabi, Maxuel A De Souza, Julio Edwards, Hassan Mohamed Farah, Alejandro Ferreira Borges, Ruben Orlando Flores Ramos, Patrick Gayle, Fernando Goncalves, Franklin Ramon Gonzalez, Lazaro Jose Gutierrez Suarez, Mohamed Hasan, Carlos Hedman Perdomo, Abdul Jalloh, Aparicio P. Jeronimo, Sharon Kegerreis, Muhammad Alam Khan, Thomas Lenor, Miryam Elizabeth Lopez Herrera, Manuel Lopez Perez, Omar Lopez-Jaramillo, Luis Enrique Lopez-Pena, Ariel Lucien, Yaniel Machado Aguila, Miguel Angel Marroquin Perez, Rodney Martin, Tolentino Martinez Rios, Irvin Medoza Silis, Cesar Ariel Mendez Escobar, Jose Galdino Montalvo Rodriguez, Alejandro Vincenzo Mugaburu Tapia, Darwyn Yovanny Navarrette Sanchez, Farhan Nawabit, Lazaro Ocana Guzman, Evarado Orantes Acevedo, Roseline Ostine, Tahimi Perez, Wilder Perez Limones, Deivys Perez Valladares, Ricardo Perezo Alonzo, Iran Antonio Pichardo PerezBorroto, Francisco Rivero Valeron, Ervin David Rodas Pedro, Maria Eugenia Rodriguez Claras, Lathario G Rolle, Rene Jonathan Rosas Cardenas, Danny Ruiz Garcia, Crisley Sacrab-Bin, Gelber Sontay Funez, Adrian Sosa Fletes, Fermin Tepetate-Martinez, Maykel Valera Ramirez, Geraldo Vargas, Agane Warsame, Eitan Yefet, Eliseo Antonio Zamora Mendoza (Edson, Scott) Modified on 11/17/2020 (jas). (Entered: 11/16/2020)

11/16/2020

440 Unopposed UNSTIPULATED MOTION for Substitution of Counsel. Substituting Mark Andrew Prada for Patrick Trese under Local Rule 11.1(d)(4), (5) by Hatem Chourabi. Attorney Mark Andrew Prada added to party Hatem Chourabi(pty:intvp). Responses due by 11/30/2020 (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Prada, Mark) (Entered: 11/16/2020)

11/16/2020

441 NOTICE of Filing Declaration in Response to Court's Order by Field Office Director, Miami Field Office, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, U.S. Attorney General re 158 Order on Motion to Compel, Order on Report and Recommendations, Order on Motion for Temporary Restraining Order, Order on Motion for Preliminary Injunction, Order on Expedited Motion, (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A-Agudelo Declaration) (Diaz, Natalie) (Entered: 11/16/2020)

11/17/2020

442 NOTICE of Filing Declaration in Response to Court's Order by Field Office Director, Miami Field Office, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, U.S. Attorney General re 158 Order on Motion to Compel, Order on Report and Recommendations, Order on Motion for Temporary Restraining Order, Order on Motion for Preliminary Injunction, Order on Expedited Motion, (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A-Part 1, # 2 Exhibit A-Part 2, # 3 Exhibit A-Part 3, # 4 Exhibit A-Part 4) (Diaz, Natalie) (Entered: 11/17/2020)

11/17/2020

443 PAPERLESS ORDER granting 440 Motion for Substitution of Counsel. Attorney Mark Andrew Prada is substituted as counsel for PlaintiffIntervenor, Hatem Chourabi. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jonathan Goodman on 11/17/2020. (jzn) (Entered: 11/17/2020)

11/18/2020

444 MOTION to Withdraw Document 208 MOTION for Release of Named Petitioner Maikel Carrasco Polo MOTION for Hearing, 206 MOTION for Release of Named Petitioner Alejandro Ferrera Borges MOTION for Hearing, 231 MOTION For Release MOTION for Hearing , 207 MOTION for Release of Named Petitioner MOTION for Hearing by Maikel Betancourt, Maikel Carrasco Polo, Alejandro Ferreira Borges, Deivys Perez Valladares. Responses due by 12/2/2020 (Coberly, Jennifer) (Entered: 11/18/2020)

11/19/2020

445 MOTION to Dismiss 200 MOTION to Intervene and Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and Complaint for Injunction and Declaratory Relief by Miryam Elizabeth Lopez Herrera. Responses due by 12/3/2020 (OsbergBraun, Linda) (Entered: 11/19/2020)

11/20/2020

446 NOTICE of Filing Declaration in Response to Court's Order by Field Office Director, Miami Field Office, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, U.S. Attorney General re 158 Order on Motion to Compel, Order on Report and Recommendations, Order on Motion for Temporary Restraining Order, Order on Motion for Preliminary Injunction, Order on Expedited Motion, (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A-Agudelo Declaration) (Diaz, Natalie) (Entered: 11/20/2020)

11/23/2020 447 NOTICE of Voluntary Dismissal by Iran Antonio Pichardo PerezBorroto. Attorney Kayla Nicole Keller added to party Iran Antonio Pichardo Perez-Borroto(pty:intv). (Keller, Kayla) (Entered: 11/23/2020)

11/23/2020

448 NOTICE of Filing Declaration in Response to Court's Order by Field Office Director, Miami Field Office, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, U.S. Attorney General re 158 Order on Motion to Compel, Order on Report and Recommendations, Order on Motion for Temporary Restraining Order, Order on Motion for Preliminary Injunction, Order on Expedited Motion, (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A-Agudelo Declaration) (Diaz, Natalie) (Entered: 11/23/2020)

11/24/2020

449 NOTICE by Field Office Director, Miami Field Office, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, U.S. Attorney General re 158 Order on Motion to Compel,, Order on Report and Recommendations,,,, Order on Motion for Temporary Restraining Order,, Order on Motion for Preliminary Injunction,, Order on Expedited Motion, of Filing Declaration in Response to Court's Order (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit APart 1, # 2 Exhibit A-Part 2, # 3 Exhibit A-Part 3, # 4 Exhibit A-Part 4, # 5 Exhibit A-Part 5) (Diaz, Natalie) (Entered: 11/24/2020)

11/24/2020 450 STIPULATION of Dismissal by Reinier Guiba Avila (Armada, Francisco) (Entered: 11/24/2020)

11/25/2020

451 Notice of Fling Declaration in Response to 158 Order on Motion to Compel, Order on Report and Recommendations, Order on Motion for Temporary Restraining Order, Order on Motion for Preliminary Injunction, Order on Expedited Motion, by Field Office Director, Miami Field Office, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, U.S. Attorney General. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A- OIC Castano Declaration)(Diaz, Natalie) (Entered: 11/25/2020)

11/30/2020

452 NOTICE of Filing Declaration in Response to Court's Order by Field Office Director, Miami Field Office, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, U.S. Attorney General re 158 Order on Motion to Compel,, Order on Report and Recommendations, Order on Motion for Temporary Restraining Order, Order on Motion for Preliminary Injunction,, Order on Expedited Motion, (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A-Castano Declaration) (Diaz, Natalie) (Entered: 11/30/2020)

11/30/2020

453 Plaintiff's MOTION for Extension of Time of Discovery Cutoff Deadline by Lazaro Jose Gutierrez Suarez, Luis Enrique Lopez-Pena. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Request for Production)(Keller, Kayla) (Entered: 11/30/2020)

12/01/2020

454 ENDORSED ORDER granting 444 Motion to Withdraw: 208 MOTION for Release of Named Petitioner Maikel Carrasco Polo MOTION for Hearing filed by Maikel Carrasco Polo; 206 MOTION for Release of Named Petitioner Alejandro Ferrera Borges MOTION for Hearing filed by Alejandro Ferreira Borges; 231 MOTION For Release MOTION for Hearing filed by Deivys Perez Valladares; and 207 MOTION for Release

of Named Petitioner MOTION for Hearing filed by Maikel Betancourt. Signed by Judge Marcia G. Cooke on 12/1/2020. (btn) (Entered: 12/01/2020)

12/03/2020 455 STIPULATION of Dismissal by Luis Enrique Lopez-Pena (Armada, Francisco) (Entered: 12/03/2020)

12/03/2020

456 ENDORSED ORDER granting 445 Petitioner Miryam Elizabeth Lopez's Voluntary Motion to Dismiss. Miryam Elizabeth Lopez's Petition for Writ of Mandamus and Complaint for Injunction and Declaratory Relief Against Respondents is hereby DISMISSED. Signed by Judge Marcia G. Cooke on 12/3/2020. (btn) (Entered: 12/03/2020)

12/03/2020

457 ENDORSED ORDER re 429 Amended MOTION for Release and Reply to Respondent's Return to Gutierrez Suarez's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus re 389 Response/Reply (Other), filed by Lazaro Jose Gutierrez Suarez. Respondents are directed to file a notice, within seven days of the date of this Order, indicating whether it opposes Petitioner Lazaro Jose Gutierrez Suarez's Amended Motion for Release and Request for Hearing. Signed by Judge Marcia G. Cooke on 12/3/2020. (btn) (Entered: 12/03/2020)

12/04/2020

458 NOTICE of Filing Declaration in Response to Court's Order by Field Office Director, Miami Field Office, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, U.S. Attorney General re 158 Order on Motion to Compel, Order on Report and Recommendations, Order on Motion for Temporary Restraining Order, Order on Motion for Preliminary Injunction, Order on Expedited Motion, (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A-Part 1, # 2 Exhibit A-Part 2, # 3 Exhibit A-Part 3, # 4 Exhibit A-Part 4) (Diaz, Natalie) (Entered: 12/04/2020)

12/04/2020

459 NOTICE of Filing Declaration in Resposne to Court's Order by Field Office Director, Miami Field Office, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, U.S. Attorney General re 158 Order on Motion to Compel, Order on Report and Recommendations, Order on Motion for Temporary Restraining Order, Order on Motion for Preliminary Injunction, Order on Expedited Motion, (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A-Castano Declaration) (Diaz, Natalie) (Entered: 12/04/2020)

12/07/2020

460 NOTICE of Filing Declaration in Response to Court's Order by Field Office Director, Miami Field Office, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, U.S. Attorney General re 158 Order on Motion to Compel, Order on Report and Recommendations, Order on Motion for Temporary Restraining Order, Order on Motion for Preliminary Injunction, Order on Expedited Motion, (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A-Castano Declaration) (Diaz, Natalie) (Entered: 12/07/2020)

12/07/2020

461 RESPONSE in Opposition re 453 Plaintiff's MOTION for Extension of Time of Discovery Cutoff Deadline filed by Field Office Director, Miami Field Office, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, U.S. Attorney General. Replies due by 12/14/2020. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A- BIA Decision, # 2 Exhibit B- EARM Detention History, # 3 Exhibit CDeclaration AFOD Ladwig, # 4 Exhibit D- Post Order Custody Review (12/7/20))(Diaz, Natalie) (Entered: 12/07/2020)

12/08/2020

462 NOTICE of Taking Deposition Duces Tecum by Rolando Aguabella Martinez, Juan Carlos Alfaro Garcia, Mohamed Hassan Ali, Javier Antonio Arias-Martinez, Naim Arrak, Reinier Guiba Avila, Dairon Barredo Sanchez, Maikel Betancourt, Sirvanildo Bibiano Soares, Alvaro Roa Calicchio, Maikel Carrasco Polo, Abel Carrillo, Jose Chavez, Hatem Chourabi, Maxuel A De Souza, Julio Edwards, Hassan Mohamed Farah, Alejandro Ferreira Borges, Ruben Orlando Flores Ramos, Patrick Gayle, Fernando Goncalves, Franklin Ramon Gonzalez, Lazaro Jose Gutierrez Suarez, Mohamed Hasan, Carlos Hedman Perdomo, Abdul Jalloh, Aparicio P. Jeronimo, Sharon Kegerreis, Muhammad Alam Khan, Thomas Lenor, Miryam Elizabeth Lopez Herrera, Manuel Lopez Perez, Omar Lopez-Jaramillo, Luis Enrique Lopez-Pena, Ariel Lucien, Yaniel Machado Aguila, Miguel Angel Marroquin Perez, Rodney Martin, Tolentino Martinez Rios, Irvin Medoza Silis, Cesar Ariel Mendez Escobar, Jose Galdino Montalvo Rodriguez, Alejandro Vincenzo Mugaburu Tapia, Darwyn Yovanny Navarrette Sanchez, Farhan Nawabit, Lazaro Ocana Guzman, Evarado Orantes Acevedo, Roseline Ostine, Tahimi Perez, Wilder Perez Limones, Deivys Perez Valladares, Ricardo Perezo Alonzo, Iran Antonio Pichardo Perez-Borroto, Francisco Rivero Valeron, Ervin David Rodas Pedro, Maria Eugenia Rodriguez Claras, Lathario G Rolle, Rene Jonathan Rosas Cardenas, Danny Ruiz Garcia, Crisley Sacrab-Bin, Gelber Sontay Funez, Adrian Sosa Fletes, Fermin Tepetate-Martinez, Maykel Valera Ramirez, Geraldo Vargas, Agane Warsame, Eitan Yefet, Eliseo Antonio Zamora Mendoza of Taking Deposition Duces Tecum of Dr. Owen J. Murray (Edson, Scott) Modified text on 12/9/2020 (ebz). (Entered: 12/08/2020)

12/09/2020 463 JOINT STIPULATION of Dismissal without prejudice by Hatem Chourabi (Prada, Mark) Modified text on 12/10/2020 (ebz). (Entered: 12/09/2020)

12/10/2020

464 RESPONSE in Support re 453 Plaintiff's MOTION for Extension of Time of Discovery Cutoff Deadline and Propound Discovery and Request for Release filed by Lazaro Jose Gutierrez Suarez. (Armada, Francisco) Modified on 12/10/2020 (ebz). (Entered: 12/10/2020)

12/10/2020 465 Surreply to 429 Amended MOTION for Release and Reply to Respondent's Return to Gutierrez Suarez's Petition for Writ of Habeas

Corpus re 389 Response/Reply (Other), by Field Office Director, Miami Field Office, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, U.S. Attorney General. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A- AFOD Ladwig Declaration)(Diaz, Natalie) (Entered: 12/10/2020)

12/11/2020

466 NOTICE of Filing Declaration in Response to Court's Order by Field Office Director, Miami Field Office, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, U.S. Attorney General re 158 Order on Motion to Compel, Order on Report and Recommendations, Order on Motion for Temporary Restraining Order, Order on Motion for Preliminary Injunction, Order on Expedited Motion, (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A-Part 1, # 2 Exhibit A-Part 2, # 3 Exhibit A-Part 3, # 4 Exhibit A-Part 4) (Diaz, Natalie) (Entered: 12/11/2020)

12/11/2020

467 NOTICE of Filing Declaration in Response to Court's Order by Field Office Director, Miami Field Office, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, U.S. Attorney General re 158 Order on Motion to Compel, Order on Report and Recommendations, Order on Motion for Temporary Restraining Order, Order on Motion for Preliminary Injunction, Order on Expedited Motion, (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A-Castano Declaration) (Diaz, Natalie) (Entered: 12/11/2020)

12/14/2020

468 NOTICE by Field Office Director, Miami Field Office, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, U.S. Attorney General re 158 Order on Motion to Compel,, Order on Report and Recommendations,,,, Order on Motion for Temporary Restraining Order,, Order on Motion for Preliminary Injunction,, Order on Expedited Motion, of Filing Declaration in Response to Court's Order (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit ACastano Declaration) (Diaz, Natalie) (Entered: 12/14/2020)

12/14/2020

469 REPLY IN SUPPORT OF AMENDED Motion re 429 Amended MOTION for Release and Reply to Respondent's Return to Gutierrez Suarez's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus re 389 Response/Reply (Other), and Request for Hearing filed by Lazaro Jose Gutierrez Suarez. (Armada, Francisco) Modified text on 12/15/2020 (ebz). (Entered: 12/14/2020)

12/18/2020

470 NOTICE of Filing Declaration in Response to Court's Order by Field Office Director, Miami Field Office, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, U.S. Attorney General re 158 Order on Motion to Compel, Order on Report and Recommendations, Order on Motion for Temporary Restraining Order, Order on Motion for Preliminary Injunction, Order on Expedited Motion, (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A-Castano Declaration) (Diaz, Natalie) (Entered: 12/18/2020)

12/18/2020 471 NOTICE of Filing Declaration in Response to Court's Order by Field Office Director, Miami Field Office, U.S. Immigration and Customs

Enforcement, U.S. Attorney General re 158 Order on Motion to Compel, Order on Report and Recommendations, Order on Motion for Temporary Restraining Order, Order on Motion for Preliminary Injunction Order on Expedited Motion, (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A-Part 1, # 2 Exhibit A-Part 2, # 3 Exhibit A-Part 3, # 4 Exhibit A-Part 4) (Diaz, Natalie) (Entered: 12/18/2020)

12/19/2020

472 ENDORSED ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE. The Government shall show cause, by December 24, 2020 at 11:59 pm, why Petitioner Lazaro Jose Gutierrez Suarez's Petition for Habeas Corpus and his 429 Amended Motion for Release and Hearing should not be granted. The Court notes that prior to this Order it has NOT issued an order to show cause with respect to this Petition. Petitioner shall file a reply to the Government's response by December 28, 2020 at 11:59 pm. The Court will then set this matter for hearing. The Parties are advised not to call Chambers to demand hearing dates. The Court is more than capable of setting its own hearings. Signed by Judge Marcia G. Cooke on 12/19/2020. (btn) (Entered: 12/19/2020)

12/21/2020

473 NOTICE OF DECLARATION IN RESPONSE TO THE COURTS ORDER by Field Office Director, Miami Field Office, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, U.S. Attorney General re DE# 158 Order (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Declaration of Liana J. Castano, Officer in Charge (OIC)) (Diaz, Natalie) Modified text on 12/22/2020 (ebz). (Entered: 12/21/2020)

12/22/2020

474 NOTICE by U.S. Attorney General Notice of Filing (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit Declaration of Liana J. Castano (OIC), # 2 Exhibit BTC Evidence, # 3 Exhibit KDC Pretransfer & COVID 19 Checklist) (Diaz, Natalie) (Entered: 12/22/2020)

12/23/2020

475 NOTICE by Field Office Director, Miami Field Office, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, U.S. Attorney General Notice of Filing (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit DECLARATION OF LIANA J. CASTANO OFFICER IN CHARGE) (Diaz, Natalie) (Entered: 12/23/2020)

12/24/2020

476 RESPONSE in Opposition re 429 Amended MOTION for Release and Reply to Respondent's Return to Gutierrez Suarez's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus re 389 Response/Reply (Other), filed by Field Office Director, Miami Field Office, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, U.S. Attorney General. Replies due by 12/31/2020. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A- Form I-213, Record of Deportable/Inadmissible Alien, # 2 Exhibit B- EARM Detention History, # 3 Exhibit C- Notice to Appear, # 4 Exhibit D- Removal Order,

# 5 Exhibit E- BIA Decision, # 6 Exhibit F- AFOD Ladwig Declaration)(Diaz, Natalie) (Entered: 12/24/2020)

12/28/2020

477 REPLY to Response to Motion re 476 RESPONSE in Opposition 429 Amended MOTION for Release and Reply to Respondent's Return to Gutierrez Suarez's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus re 389 Response/Reply (Other), filed by Lazaro Jose Gutierrez Suarez. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit A - Declaration of Juan A. Lopez Vega)(Keller, Kayla) Modified to add document link on 12/29/2020 (ebz). (Entered: 12/28/2020)

12/28/2020

478 Notice to 158 Order on Motion to Compel,, Order on Report and Recommendations,,,, Order on Motion for Temporary Restraining Order,, Order on Motion for Preliminary Injunction,, Order on Expedited Motion, by Field Office Director, Miami Field Office, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, U.S. Attorney General. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A- Declaration of Officer in Charge Castano)(Diaz, Natalie) (Entered: 12/28/2020)

12/28/2020

479 Clerks Notice to Filer re 477 Reply to Response to Motion,. Incorrect Document Link; ERROR - The filed document was not correctly linked to the related docket entry. The correction was made by the Clerk. It is not necessary to refile this document but future filings must comply with the instructions in the CM/ECF Attorney User's Manual. (ebz) (Entered: 12/29/2020)

12/30/2020

480 Notice to 158 Order on Motion to Compel,, Order on Report and Recommendations,,,, Order on Motion for Temporary Restraining Order,, Order on Motion for Preliminary Injunction,, Order on Expedited Motion, by Field Office Director, Miami Field Office, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, U.S. Attorney General. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A- OIC Castano Declaration, # 2 Exhibit B- Krome Transfer Forms, # 3 Exhibit C- BTC Transfer Forms, # 4 Exhibit D- Glades Transfer Forms)(Diaz, Natalie) (Entered: 12/30/2020)

12/31/2020

481 ORDER SETTING EVIDENTIARY HEARING. SCHEDULING ORDER: re 429 Amended MOTION for Release and Reply to Respondent's Return to Gutierrez Suarez's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus re 389 Response/Reply (Other), filed by Lazaro Jose Gutierrez Suarez. Evidentiary Hearing set for 1/20/2021 10:30 AM before Judge Marcia G. Cooke. Signed by Judge Marcia G. Cooke on 12/31/2020. See attached document for full details. (amb)

Pattern Jury Instruction Builder - To access the latest, up to date changes to the 11th Circuit Pattern Jury Instructions go to https://pji.ca11.uscourts.gov or click here. (Entered: 12/31/2020)

12/31/2020

482 Notice to 158 Order on Motion to Compel,, Order on Report and Recommendations,,,, Order on Motion for Temporary Restraining Order,, Order on Motion for Preliminary Injunction,, Order on Expedited Motion, by Field Office Director, Miami Field Office, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, U.S. Attorney General. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A- Declaration OIC Castano)(Diaz, Natalie) (Entered: 12/31/2020)

01/04/2021

483 NOTICE by Field Office Director, Miami Field Office, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, U.S. Attorney General re 158 Order on Motion to Compel,, Order on Report and Recommendations,,,, Order on Motion for Temporary Restraining Order,, Order on Motion for Preliminary Injunction,, Order on Expedited Motion, of Filing Declaration in Response to Court's Order (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit ACastano Declaration) (Diaz, Natalie) (Entered: 01/04/2021)

01/04/2021

484 Defendant's MOTION for Summary Judgment by Field Office Director, Miami Field Office, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, U.S. Attorney General. Responses due by 1/19/2021 (Lee, Dexter) (Entered: 01/04/2021)

01/04/2021

485 Statement of: Statement of Material, Uncontroverted Facts, in support of Motion for Summary Judgment by Field Office Director, Miami Field Office, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, U.S. Attorney General re 484 Defendant's MOTION for Summary Judgment (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1-Castano Declaration, # 2 Exhibit 1Castano Declaration (Ex. F), # 3 Exhibit 1-Castano Declaration (Ex. G Part 1), # 4 Exhibit 1-Castano Declaration (Ex. G Part 2), # 5 Exhibit 1Castano Declaration (Ex. G Part 3), # 6 Exhibit 1-Castano Declaration (Ex. G Part 4), # 7 Exhibit 1-Castano Declaration (Ex. G Part 5), # 8 Exhibit 1-Castano Declaration (Ex. G Part 6), # 9 Exhibit 1-Castano Declaration (Ex. G Part 7), # 10 Exhibit 1-Castano Declaration (Ex. H Part 1), # 11 Exhibit 1-Castano Declaration (Ex. H Part 2), # 12 Exhibit 1Castano Declaration (Ex. H Part 3), # 13 Exhibit 1-Castano Declaration (Ex. H Part 4), # 14 Exhibit 1-Castano Declaration (Ex. H Part 5), # 15 Exhibit 1-Castano Declaration (Ex. H Part 6), # 16 Exhibit 1Castano Declaration (Ex. H Part 7), # 17 Exhibit 1-Castano Declaration (Ex. H Part 8), # 18 Exhibit 1-Castano Declaration (Ex. H Part 9), # 19 Exhibit 1-Castano Declaration (Ex. I Part 1), # 20 Exhibit 1-Castano Declaration (Ex. IPart 1), # 21 Exhibit 1-Castano Declaration (Ex. J), # 22 Exhibit 1-Castano Declaration (Ex. K Part 1), # 23 Exhibit 1Castano Declaration (Ex. K Part 2), # 24 Exhibit 1-Castano Declaration (Ex. L Part 1), # 25 Exhibit 1-Castano Declaration (Ex. L Part 2), # 26 Exhibit 1-Castano Declaration (Ex. L Part 3), # 27 Exhibit 1-Castano Declaration (Ex. L Part 4), # 28 Exhibit 1-Castano Declaration (Ex. L Part 5), # 29 Exhibit 1-Castano Declaration (Ex. M), # 30 Exhibit 1-Castano

Declaration (Ex. N), # 31 Exhibit 1-Castano Declaration (Ex. O), # 32 Exhibit 2-Lopez Vega Declaration, # 33 Exhibit 1-Lopez Vega Declaration (Ex. F Part 1), # 34 Exhibit 1-Lopez Vega Declaration (Ex. F Part 2), # 35 Exhibit 1-Lopez Vega Declaration (Ex. F Part 3), # 36 Exhibit 1-Lopez Vega Declaration (Ex. F Part 4), # 37 Exhibit 1Lopez Vega Declaration (Ex. F Part 5), # 38 Exhibit 1-Lopez Vega Declaration (Ex. F Part 6), # 39 Exhibit 1-Lopez Vega Declaration (Ex. F Part 7), # 40 Exhibit 1-Lopez Vega Declaration (Ex. F Part 8), # 41 Exhibit 1-Lopez Vega Declaration (Ex. F Part 9), # 42 Exhibit 1Lopez Vega Declaration (Ex. F Part 10), # 43 Exhibit 1-Lopez Vega Declaration (Ex. F Part 11), # 44 Exhibit 1-Lopez Vega Declaration (Ex. F Part 12), # 45 Exhibit 1-Lopez Vega Declaration (Ex. F Part 13), # 46 Exhibit 1-Lopez Vega Declaration (Ex. F Part 14), # 47 Exhibit 1Lopez Vega Declaration (Ex. F Part 15), # 48 Exhibit 1-Lopez Vega Declaration (Ex. F Part 16), # 49 Exhibit 1-Lopez Vega Declaration (Ex. F Part 17), # 50 Exhibit 1-Lopez Vega Declaration (Ex. F Part 18), # 51 Exhibit 1-Lopez Vega Declaration (Ex. G), # 52 Exhibit 3-Guadian Declaration)(Lee, Dexter) (Entered: 01/04/2021)

01/07/2021

486 EMERGENCY MOTION to Intervene with Certification of Emergency included by Hilcias Ricardo Hujber, Hilcias Batz. Responses due by 1/21/2021 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Proposed Verified Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus And Complaint for Declaratory And Injuctive Relief And Request for Hearing)(Hujber, Richard) (Entered: 01/07/2021)

01/08/2021

487 ENDORSED ORDER denying as moot 305 Motion for Extension of Time of Discovery Cutoff Deadline due to the Court's issuance of its 364 Second Amended Scheduling Order on September 16, 2020. Signed by Judge Marcia G. Cooke on 1/8/2021. (btn) (Entered: 01/08/2021)

01/08/2021

488 NOTICE of Filing Declaration in Response to Court's Order by Field Office Director, Miami Field Office, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, U.S. Attorney General re 158 Order on Motion to Compel, Order on Report and Recommendations, Order on Motion for Temporary Restraining Order, Order on Motion for Preliminary Injunction, Order on Expedited Motion, (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A-Castano Declaration-Part 1, # 2 Exhibit A-Part 2, # 3 Exhibit A-Part 3, # 4 Exhibit A-Part 4) (Diaz, Natalie) (Entered: 01/08/2021)

01/08/2021

489 NOTICE of Filing Declaration in Response to Court's Order by Field Office Director, Miami Field Office, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, U.S. Attorney General re 158 Order on Motion to Compel, Order on Report and Recommendations, Order on Motion for Temporary Restraining Order, Order on Motion for Preliminary Injunction, Order on

Expedited Motion, (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A-Castano Declaration) (Diaz, Natalie) (Entered: 01/08/2021)

01/08/2021

490 TRANSCRIPT of Motion Hearing held on 5/27/2020 before Judge Marcia G. Cooke, 1-50 pages, Court Reporter: Jill Wells, 305-523-5158 / Jill_Wells@flsd.uscourts.gov. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased by contacting the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Redaction Request due 1/29/2021. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 2/8/2021. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 4/8/2021. (Wells, Jill) (Entered: 01/08/2021)

01/08/2021

491 TRANSCRIPT of Motion Hearing held on 6/2/2020 before Judge Marcia G. Cooke, 1-59 pages, Court Reporter: Jill Wells, 305-523-5158 / Jill_Wells@flsd.uscourts.gov. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased by contacting the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Redaction Request due 1/29/2021. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 2/8/2021. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 4/8/2021. (Wells, Jill) (Entered: 01/08/2021)

01/08/2021

492 TRANSCRIPT of Motion Hearing held on 6/3/2020 before Judge Marcia G. Cooke, 1-129 pages, Court Reporter: Jill Wells, 305-523-5158 / Jill_Wells@flsd.uscourts.gov. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased by contacting the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Redaction Request due 1/29/2021. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 2/8/2021. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 4/8/2021. (Wells, Jill) (Entered: 01/08/2021)

01/08/2021

493 TRANSCRIPT of Motion Hearing held on 6/25/2020 before Judge Marcia G. Cooke, 1-92 pages, Court Reporter: Jill Wells, 305-523-5158 / Jill_Wells@flsd.uscourts.gov. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased by contacting the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Redaction Request due 1/29/2021. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 2/8/2021. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 4/8/2021. (Wells, Jill) (Entered: 01/08/2021)

01/10/2021 494 MOTION to Intervene by Miguel A Zetina. Attorney Mark Andrew Prada added to party Miguel A Zetina(pty:intv). (Attachments: # 1 Proposed

Habeas Petition, # 2 Memorandum in Support of Petition, # 3 Appendix)(Prada, Mark) (Entered: 01/10/2021)

01/11/2021

495 NOTICE OF DECLARATION IN RESPONSE TO THE COURTS ORDER by Field Office Director, Miami Field Office, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, U.S. Attorney General re 158 Order on Motion to Compel,, Order on Report and Recommendations,,,, Order on Motion for Temporary Restraining Order,, Order on Motion for Preliminary Injunction,, Order on Expedited Motion, (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A-Castano Declaration) (Diaz, Natalie) Modified text on 1/12/2021 (ebz). (Entered: 01/11/2021)

01/12/2021

496 NOTICE UPDATING CONFERRAL CERTIFICATE by Miguel A Zetina re 494 MOTION to Intervene updating conferral certificate (Prada, Mark) Modified text on 1/14/2021 (ebz). (Entered: 01/12/2021)

01/13/2021

497 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply/Answer as to 485 Statement,,,,,,,,,,,, 484 Defendant's MOTION for Summary Judgment by Rolando Aguabella Martinez, Juan Carlos Alfaro Garcia, Mohamed Hassan Ali, Javier Antonio AriasMartinez, Naim Arrak, Reinier Guiba Avila, Dairon Barredo Sanchez, Hilcias Batz, Maikel Betancourt, Sirvanildo Bibiano Soares, Alvaro Roa Calicchio, Maikel Carrasco Polo, Abel Carrillo, Jose Chavez, Hatem Chourabi, Maxuel A De Souza, Julio Edwards, Hassan Mohamed Farah, Alejandro Ferreira Borges, Ruben Orlando Flores Ramos, Patrick Gayle, Fernando Goncalves, Franklin Ramon Gonzalez, Lazaro Jose Gutierrez Suarez, Mohamed Hasan, Carlos Hedman Perdomo, Hilcias Ricardo Hujber, Abdul Jalloh, Aparicio P. Jeronimo, Sharon Kegerreis, Muhammad Alam Khan, Thomas Lenor, Miryam Elizabeth Lopez Herrera, Manuel Lopez Perez, Omar Lopez-Jaramillo, Luis Enrique Lopez-Pena, Ariel Lucien, Yaniel Machado Aguila, Miguel Angel Marroquin Perez, Rodney Martin, Tolentino Martinez Rios, Irvin Medoza Silis, Cesar Ariel Mendez Escobar, Jose Galdino Montalvo Rodriguez, Alejandro Vincenzo Mugaburu Tapia, Darwyn Yovanny Navarrette Sanchez, Farhan Nawabit, Lazaro Ocana Guzman, Evarado Orantes Acevedo, Roseline Ostine, Tahimi Perez, Wilder Perez Limones, Deivys Perez Valladares, Ricardo Perezo Alonzo, Iran Antonio Pichardo PerezBorroto, Francisco Rivero Valeron, Ervin David Rodas Pedro, Maria Eugenia Rodriguez Claras, Lathario G Rolle, Rene Jonathan Rosas Cardenas, Danny Ruiz Garcia, Crisley Sacrab-Bin, Gelber Sontay Funez, Adrian Sosa Fletes, Fermin Tepetate-Martinez, Maykel Valera Ramirez, Geraldo Vargas, Agane Warsame, Eitan Yefet, Eliseo Antonio Zamora Mendoza, Miguel A Zetina. Attorney Scott Michael Edson added to party Hilcias Batz(pty:pet), Attorney Scott Michael Edson added to party Hilcias Batz(pty:pet), Attorney Scott Michael Edson added to party

Hilcias Ricardo Hujber(pty:pet), Attorney Scott Michael Edson added to party Miguel A Zetina(pty:intv). (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order Granting Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Extension of Deadline to Respond to Motion for Summary Judgment)(Edson, Scott) (Entered: 01/13/2021)

01/13/2021 498 Exhibit and Witness List by Lazaro Jose Gutierrez Suarez.. (Armada, Francisco) (Entered: 01/13/2021)

01/14/2021

499 ENDORSED ORDER granting 497 Plainiffs' Motion for Extension of Time to File Response to 484 Defendants' Motion forSummary Judgment and 485 Defendants Statement ofMaterial, Uncontroverted Facts. Plaintiffs shall file their response on or before February 2, 2021. Signed by Judge Marcia G. Cooke on 1/14/2021. (btn) (Entered: 01/14/2021)

01/14/2021

500 ORDER RESCHEDULING EVIDENTIARY HEARING Evidentiary Hearing reset for 2/10/2021 10:30 AM before Judge Marcia G. Cooke as to Petitioner Lazaro Jose Gutierrez Suarezs Amended Motion for Release and Hearing DE# 429 . Signed by Judge Marcia G. Cooke on 1/14/2021. See attached document for full details. (ebz) Modified text on 1/15/2021 (ebz). (Entered: 01/15/2021)

01/15/2021

501 Order SETTING EVIDENTIARY HEARING Evidentiary Hearing set for 2/23/2021 01:15 PM before Judge Marcia G. Cooke as to Petitioner Danny Ruiz Garcias Motion for Release and Hearing DE# 202 . Signed by Judge Marcia G. Cooke on 1/15/2021. See attached document for full details. (ebz) Modified text on 1/15/2021 (ebz). (Entered: 01/15/2021)

01/15/2021

502 NOTICE OF DECLARATION IN RESPONSE TO THE COURTS ORDER by Field Office Director, Miami Field Office, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, U.S. Attorney General re 158 Order on Motion to Compel,, Order on Report and Recommendations,,,, Order on Motion for Temporary Restraining Order,, Order on Motion for Preliminary Injunction,, Order on Expedited Motion, (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A-Castano Declaration) (Diaz, Natalie) Modified text on 1/19/2021 (ebz). (Entered: 01/15/2021)

01/15/2021

503 ORDER SETTING EVIDENTIARY HEARING as to Petitioner Farhan Nawabits Expedited Motion for Release and Hearing DE# 287 Evidentiary Hearing set for 3/23/2021 10:30 AM before Judge Marcia G. Cooke. Signed by Judge Marcia G. Cooke on 1/15/2021. See attached document for full details. (ebz) (Entered: 01/15/2021)

01/15/2021 504 ORDER SETTING EVIDENTIARY HEARING as to Petitioner Abdul Jallohs Expedited Motion for Release and Hearing DE# 202 Evidentiary Hearing set for 2/16/2021 10:30 AM before Judge Marcia G. Cooke.

Signed by Judge Marcia G. Cooke on 1/15/2021. See attached document for full details. (ebz) (Entered: 01/15/2021)

01/15/2021

505 ORDER SETTING EVIDENTIARY HEARING as to Petitioner Jose Chavezs Expedited Motion for Release and Hearing DE# 260 Evidentiary Hearing set for 3/15/2021 10:30 AM before Judge Marcia G. Cooke. Signed by Judge Marcia G. Cooke on 1/15/2021. See attached document for full details. (ebz) (Entered: 01/15/2021)

01/15/2021

506 NOTICE OF DECLARATION IN RESPONSE TO THE COURTS ORDER by Field Office Director, Miami Field Office, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, U.S. Attorney General re 158 Order on Motion to Compel,, Order on Report and Recommendations,,,, Order on Motion for Temporary Restraining Order,, Order on Motion for Preliminary Injunction,, Order on Expedited Motion, (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A-Castano Declaration) (Diaz, Natalie) Modified text on 1/19/2021 (ebz). (Entered: 01/15/2021)

01/15/2021

507 ORDER SETTING EVIDENTIARY HEARING as to Petitioner Maykel Valera Ramirezs Motion for Release and Hearing DE# 204 Evidentiary Hearing set for 3/2/2021 10:30 AM before Judge Marcia G. Cooke. Signed by Judge Marcia G. Cooke on 1/15/2021. See attached document for full details. (ebz) (Entered: 01/15/2021)

01/15/2021

508 ORDER SETTING EVIDENTIARY HEARING as to Petitioner Mohamed Hassan Alis Motionfor Release and Hearing DE# 242 . Evidentiary Hearing set for 3/8/2021 10:30 AM before Judge Marcia G. Cooke. Signed by Judge Marcia G. Cooke on 1/15/2021. See attached document for full details. (ebz) (Entered: 01/15/2021)

01/15/2021

509 ORDER SETTING EVIDENTIARY HEARING as to Petitioner Roseline Ostines ExpeditedMotion for Release and Hearing DE# 261 . Evidentiary Hearing set for 3/9/2021 10:30 AM before Judge Marcia G. Cooke. Signed by Judge Marcia G. Cooke on 1/15/2021. See attached document for full details. (ebz) (Entered: 01/15/2021)

01/15/2021

510 NOTICE OF DECLARATION IN RESPONSE TO THE COURTS ORDER by Field Office Director, Miami Field Office, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, U.S. Attorney General re 158 Order on Motion to Compel,, Order on Report and Recommendations,,,, Order on Motion for Temporary Restraining Order,, Order on Motion for Preliminary Injunction,, Order on Expedited Motion, (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A-Part 1, # 2 Exhibit A-Part 2, # 3 Exhibit A-Part 3, # 4 Exhibit A-Part 4, # 5 Exhibit A-Part 5) (Diaz, Natalie) Modified text on 1/19/2021 (ebz). (Entered: 01/15/2021)

01/15/2021

511 ORDER SETTING EVIDENTIARY HEARING as to Petitioner Sirvanildo Bibiano SoaressExpedited Motion for Release and Hearing DE# 262 . Evidentiary Hearing set for 3/22/2021 10:30 AM before Judge Marcia G. Cooke. Signed by Judge Marcia G. Cooke on 1/15/2021. See attached document for full details. (ebz) (Entered: 01/15/2021)

01/15/2021 512 NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION by Danny Ruiz Garcia re 203 MOTION for Release of Named Petitioner MOTION for Hearing filed by Danny Ruiz Garcia (Berlow-Lehner, Lisa) (Entered: 01/15/2021)

01/15/2021

513 NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION by Maykel Valera Ramirez re 204 MOTION for Release of Named Petitioner MOTION for Hearing filed by Maykel Valera Ramirez (Berlow-Lehner, Lisa) (Entered: 01/15/2021)

01/21/2021

514 RESPONSE in Opposition re 486 EMERGENCY MOTION to Intervene with Certification of Emergency included filed by Field Office Director, Miami Field Office, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, U.S. Attorney General. Replies due by 1/28/2021. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A-Executed Warrant of Removal)(Diaz, Natalie) (Entered: 01/21/2021)

01/21/2021 515 ORDER ON 486 EMERGENCY MOTION TO INTERVENE. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jonathan Goodman on 1/21/2021. See attached document for full details. (jzn) (Entered: 01/21/2021)

01/22/2021

516 NOTICE OF DECLARATION IN RESPONSE TO THE COURTS ORDER by Field Office Director, Miami Field Office, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, U.S. Attorney General re 158 Order on Motion to Compel,, Order on Report and Recommendations,,,, Order on Motion for Temporary Restraining Order,, Order on Motion for Preliminary Injunction,, Order on Expedited Motion, (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A-Part 1, # 2 Exhibit A-Part 2, # 3 Exhibit A-Part 3, # 4 Exhibit A-Part 4) (Diaz, Natalie) Modified text on 1/25/2021 (ebz). (Entered: 01/22/2021)

01/22/2021

517 NOTICE OF DECLARATION IN RESPONSE TO THE COURTS ORDER by Field Office Director, Miami Field Office, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, U.S. Attorney General re 158 Order on Motion to Compel,, Order on Report and Recommendations,,,, Order on Motion for Temporary Restraining Order,, Order on Motion for Preliminary Injunction,, Order on Expedited Motion, (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A-Castano Declaration) (Diaz, Natalie) Modified text on 1/25/2021 (ebz). (Entered: 01/22/2021)

01/22/2021 518 PAPERLESS ORDER. Plaintiffs' counsel shall by January 26, 2021, file a brief status report on whether a ruling is still necessary on 393 the Unopposed Expedited Motion for Prompt Access to Special Master's

Report. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jonathan Goodman on 1/22/2021. (jzn) (Entered: 01/22/2021)

01/25/2021

519 NOTICE by Field Office Director, Miami Field Office, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, U.S. Attorney General re 158 Order on Motion to Compel,, Order on Report and Recommendations,,,, Order on Motion for Temporary Restraining Order,, Order on Motion for Preliminary Injunction,, Order on Expedited Motion, of Filing Declaration in Response to Court's Order (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit ACastano Declaration) (Diaz, Natalie) (Entered: 01/25/2021)

01/25/2021

520 RESPONSE in Opposition re 494 MOTION to Intervene filed by Field Office Director, Miami Field Office, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, U.S. Attorney General. Replies due by 2/1/2021. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A-EARM Detention History)(Diaz, Natalie) (Entered: 01/25/2021)

01/25/2021 521 REPLY to Response to Motion re 520 RESPONSE in Opposition re 494 MOTION to Intervene filed by Miguel A Zetina. (Prada, Mark) Modified document link on 1/26/2021 (ebz). (Entered: 01/25/2021)

01/25/2021

522 Clerks Notice to Filer re 521 Reply to Response to Motion. Incorrect Document Link; ERROR - The filed document was not correctly linked to the related docket entry. The correction was made by the Clerk. It is not necessary to refile this document but future filings must comply with the instructions in the CM/ECF Attorney User's Manual. (ebz) (Entered: 01/26/2021)

01/26/2021

523 Plaintiff's RESPONSE to 518 Order, Concerning Special Master's Report by Rolando Aguabella Martinez, Juan Carlos Alfaro Garcia, Mohamed Hassan Ali, Javier Antonio Arias-Martinez, Naim Arrak, Reinier Guiba Avila, Dairon Barredo Sanchez, Hilcias Batz, Maikel Betancourt, Sirvanildo Bibiano Soares, Alvaro Roa Calicchio, Maikel Carrasco Polo, Abel Carrillo, Jose Chavez, Hatem Chourabi, Maxuel A De Souza, Julio Edwards, Hassan Mohamed Farah, Alejandro Ferreira Borges, Ruben Orlando Flores Ramos, Patrick Gayle, Fernando Goncalves, Franklin Ramon Gonzalez, Lazaro Jose Gutierrez Suarez, Mohamed Hasan, Carlos Hedman Perdomo, Hilcias Ricardo Hujber, Abdul Jalloh, Aparicio P. Jeronimo, Sharon Kegerreis, Muhammad Alam Khan, Thomas Lenor, Miryam Elizabeth Lopez Herrera, Manuel Lopez Perez, Omar Lopez-Jaramillo, Luis Enrique Lopez-Pena, Ariel Lucien, Yaniel Machado Aguila, Miguel Angel Marroquin Perez, Rodney Martin, Tolentino Martinez Rios, Irvin Medoza Silis, Cesar Ariel Mendez Escobar, Jose Galdino Montalvo Rodriguez, Alejandro Vincenzo Mugaburu Tapia, Darwyn Yovanny Navarrette Sanchez, Farhan Nawabit, Lazaro Ocana Guzman, Evarado Orantes Acevedo, Roseline Ostine,

Tahimi Perez, Wilder Perez Limones, Deivys Perez Valladares, Ricardo Perezo Alonzo, Iran Antonio Pichardo Perez-Borroto, Francisco Rivero Valeron, Ervin David Rodas Pedro, Maria Eugenia Rodriguez Claras, Lathario G Rolle, Rene Jonathan Rosas Cardenas, Danny Ruiz Garcia, Crisley Sacrab-Bin, Gelber Sontay Funez, Adrian Sosa Fletes, Fermin Tepetate-Martinez, Maykel Valera Ramirez, Geraldo Vargas, Agane Warsame, Eitan Yefet, Eliseo Antonio Zamora Mendoza, Miguel A Zetina. (Edson, Scott) (Entered: 01/26/2021)

01/26/2021

524 PAPERLESS ORDER re ECF Nos. 518 and 523 . By February 2, 2021, the Special Master shall file a notice advising the Undersigned and the parties about his position on whether his Report can be filed publicly on CM/ECF and, if not, why not. The reasons should be provided with specificity, rather than vague generalities. For example, a response saying "some of the information in the report may be privileged" is not the type of report I am looking for here. The notice should also explain his position on whether Plaintiffs' counsel should be provided with a copy of the entire report. If the notice contends that Plaintiffs' counsel should not receive a copy, then the reasons should be explained in detail. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jonathan Goodman on 1/26/2021. (jzn) (Entered: 01/26/2021)

01/29/2021

525 NOTICE by Field Office Director, Miami Field Office, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, U.S. Attorney General re 158 Order on Motion to Compel,, Order on Report and Recommendations,,,, Order on Motion for Temporary Restraining Order,, Order on Motion for Preliminary Injunction,, Order on Expedited Motion, of Filing Declaration in Response to Court's Order (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit ACastano Declaration) (Diaz, Natalie) (Entered: 01/29/2021)

01/29/2021

526 NOTICE by Field Office Director, Miami Field Office, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, U.S. Attorney General re 158 Order on Motion to Compel,, Order on Report and Recommendations,,,, Order on Motion for Temporary Restraining Order,, Order on Motion for Preliminary Injunction,, Order on Expedited Motion, of Filing Declaration in Response to Court's Order (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit APart 1, # 2 Exhibit A-Part 2, # 3 Exhibit A-Part 3, # 4 Exhibit A-Part 4, # 5 Exhibit A-Part 5, # 6 Exhibit A-Part 6) (Diaz, Natalie) (Entered: 01/29/2021)

02/01/2021

527 NOTICE OF DECLARATION IN RESPONSE TO THE COURTS ORDER by Field Office Director, Miami Field Office, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, U.S. Attorney General re 158 Order on Motion to Compel,, Order on Report and Recommendations,,,, Order on Motion for Temporary Restraining Order,, Order on Motion for Preliminary Injunction,, Order on Expedited Motion, (Attachments:

# 1 Exhibit A-Castano Declaration) (Diaz, Natalie) Modified text on 2/2/2021 (ebz). (Entered: 02/01/2021)

02/01/2021

528 UNOPPOSED MOTION TO WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL, Gregory Copeland by Rolando Aguabella Martinez, Juan Carlos Alfaro Garcia, Mohamed Hassan Ali, Javier Antonio Arias-Martinez, Naim Arrak, Dairon Barredo Sanchez, Hilcias Batz, Maikel Betancourt, Sirvanildo Bibiano Soares, Alvaro Roa Calicchio, Maikel Carrasco Polo, Abel Carrillo, Jose Chavez, Maxuel A De Souza, Julio Edwards, Hassan Mohamed Farah, Alejandro Ferreira Borges, Ruben Orlando Flores Ramos, Patrick Gayle, Fernando Goncalves, Franklin Ramon Gonzalez, Mohamed Hasan, Carlos Hedman Perdomo, Hilcias Ricardo Hujber, Abdul Jalloh, Aparicio P. Jeronimo, Muhammad Alam Khan, Thomas Lenor, Miryam Elizabeth Lopez Herrera, Manuel Lopez Perez, Omar Lopez-Jaramillo, Ariel Lucien, Yaniel Machado Aguila, Miguel Angel Marroquin Perez, Tolentino Martinez Rios, Irvin Medoza Silis, Cesar Ariel Mendez Escobar, Jose Galdino Montalvo Rodriguez, Alejandro Vincenzo Mugaburu Tapia, Darwyn Yovanny Navarrette Sanchez, Farhan Nawabit, Lazaro Ocana Guzman, Evarado Orantes Acevedo, Roseline Ostine, Tahimi Perez, Wilder Perez Limones, Deivys Perez Valladares, Ricardo Perezo Alonzo, Francisco Rivero Valeron, Ervin David Rodas Pedro, Maria Eugenia Rodriguez Claras, Rene Jonathan Rosas Cardenas, Danny Ruiz Garcia, Crisley Sacrab-Bin, Gelber Sontay Funez, Adrian Sosa Fletes, Fermin Tepetate-Martinez, Maykel Valera Ramirez, Geraldo Vargas, Agane Warsame, Eitan Yefet, Eliseo Antonio Zamora Mendoza. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Prada, Mark) Modified relief/text on 2/2/2021 (ebz). (Entered: 02/01/2021)

02/01/2021

530 Clerks Notice to Filer re 528 Unopposed MOTION to withdraw pro hac vice counsel, Gregory Copeland . Wrong Motion Relief(s) Selected; ERROR - The Filer selected the wrong motion relief(s) when docketing the motion. The correction was made by the Clerk. It is not necessary to refile this document but future motions filed must include applicable reliefs. (ebz) (Entered: 02/02/2021)

02/02/2021 529 STIPULATION of Dismissal by Lazaro Jose Gutierrez Suarez (Armada, Francisco) (Entered: 02/02/2021)

02/02/2021

531 PAPERLESS ORDER granting 528 Motion to Withdraw as Counsel. Gregory P. Copeland, appearing pro hac vice for Rapid Defense Network, 11 Broadway, Suite 615, New York, NY 10004, is hereby withdrawn as counsel of record for Petitioners and is released of any further responsibility in this matter. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jonathan Goodman on 2/2/2021. (jzn) (Entered: 02/02/2021)

02/02/2021

532 RESPONSE in Opposition re 484 Defendant's MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Rolando Aguabella Martinez, Juan Carlos Alfaro Garcia, Mohamed Hassan Ali, Javier Antonio Arias-Martinez, Naim Arrak, Reinier Guiba Avila, Dairon Barredo Sanchez, Hilcias Batz, Maikel Betancourt, Sirvanildo Bibiano Soares, Alvaro Roa Calicchio, Maikel Carrasco Polo, Abel Carrillo, Jose Chavez, Hatem Chourabi, Maxuel A De Souza, Julio Edwards, Hassan Mohamed Farah, Alejandro Ferreira Borges, Ruben Orlando Flores Ramos, Patrick Gayle, Fernando Goncalves, Franklin Ramon Gonzalez, Lazaro Jose Gutierrez Suarez, Mohamed Hasan, Carlos Hedman Perdomo, Hilcias Ricardo Hujber, Abdul Jalloh, Aparicio P. Jeronimo, Sharon Kegerreis, Muhammad Alam Khan, Thomas Lenor, Miryam Elizabeth Lopez Herrera, Manuel Lopez Perez, Omar Lopez-Jaramillo, Luis Enrique Lopez-Pena, Ariel Lucien, Yaniel Machado Aguila, Miguel Angel Marroquin Perez, Rodney Martin, Tolentino Martinez Rios, Irvin Medoza Silis, Cesar Ariel Mendez Escobar, Jose Galdino Montalvo Rodriguez, Alejandro Vincenzo Mugaburu Tapia, Darwyn Yovanny Navarrette Sanchez, Farhan Nawabit, Lazaro Ocana Guzman, Evarado Orantes Acevedo, Roseline Ostine, Tahimi Perez, Wilder Perez Limones, Deivys Perez Valladares, Ricardo Perezo Alonzo, Iran Antonio Pichardo Perez-Borroto, Francisco Rivero Valeron, Ervin David Rodas Pedro, Maria Eugenia Rodriguez Claras, Lathario G Rolle, Rene Jonathan Rosas Cardenas, Danny Ruiz Garcia, Crisley Sacrab-Bin, Gelber Sontay Funez, Adrian Sosa Fletes, Fermin Tepetate-Martinez, Maykel Valera Ramirez, Geraldo Vargas, Agane Warsame, Eitan Yefet, Eliseo Antonio Zamora Mendoza, Miguel A Zetina. Replies due by 2/9/2021. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Respondents' Responses to Petitioners 1st Set of RFAs, # 2 Exhibit June 3, 2020 Hearing Tr., # 3 Exhibit June 4, 2020 Declaration of Castano, # 4 Exhibit June 2, 2020 Hearing Tr., # 5 Exhibit Castano Depo. Tr. Excerpts, # 6 Exhibit Composite of Petitioner Declarations, # 7 Exhibit June 25, 2020 Hearing Tr., # 8 Exhibit Lopez-Vega Depo Tr. Excerpts, # 9 Exhibit FDA Webpage re Moderna COVID-19 Vaccine, # 10 Exhibit FDA Webpage re Pfizer COVID-19 Vaccine, # 11 Exhibit COVID-19 Vaccine Guidance, Fed. Bureau of Prisons, Clinical Guidance)(Edson, Scott) (Entered: 02/02/2021)

02/02/2021

533 Plaintiff's RESPONSE to 485 Statement,,,,,,,,,,,, and Statement of Material Facts that Preclude Entry of Summary Judgment for Defendants by Rolando Aguabella Martinez, Juan Carlos Alfaro Garcia, Mohamed Hassan Ali, Javier Antonio Arias-Martinez, Naim Arrak, Reinier Guiba Avila, Dairon Barredo Sanchez, Hilcias Batz, Maikel Betancourt, Sirvanildo Bibiano Soares, Alvaro Roa Calicchio, Maikel Carrasco Polo, Abel Carrillo, Jose Chavez, Hatem Chourabi, Maxuel A De Souza, Julio Edwards, Hassan Mohamed Farah, Alejandro Ferreira Borges, Ruben Orlando Flores Ramos, Patrick Gayle, Fernando Goncalves, Franklin Ramon Gonzalez, Lazaro Jose Gutierrez Suarez,

Mohamed Hasan, Carlos Hedman Perdomo, Hilcias Ricardo Hujber, Abdul Jalloh, Aparicio P. Jeronimo, Sharon Kegerreis, Muhammad Alam Khan, Thomas Lenor, Miryam Elizabeth Lopez Herrera, Manuel Lopez Perez, Omar Lopez-Jaramillo, Luis Enrique Lopez-Pena, Ariel Lucien, Yaniel Machado Aguila, Miguel Angel Marroquin Perez, Rodney Martin, Tolentino Martinez Rios, Irvin Medoza Silis, Cesar Ariel Mendez Escobar, Jose Galdino Montalvo Rodriguez, Alejandro Vincenzo Mugaburu Tapia, Darwyn Yovanny Navarrette Sanchez, Farhan Nawabit, Lazaro Ocana Guzman, Evarado Orantes Acevedo, Roseline Ostine, Tahimi Perez, Wilder Perez Limones, Deivys Perez Valladares, Ricardo Perezo Alonzo, Iran Antonio Pichardo Perez-Borroto, Francisco Rivero Valeron, Ervin David Rodas Pedro, Maria Eugenia Rodriguez Claras, Lathario G Rolle, Rene Jonathan Rosas Cardenas, Danny Ruiz Garcia, Crisley Sacrab-Bin, Gelber Sontay Funez, Adrian Sosa Fletes, Fermin Tepetate-Martinez, Maykel Valera Ramirez, Geraldo Vargas, Agane Warsame, Eitan Yefet, Eliseo Antonio Zamora Mendoza, Miguel A Zetina. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Composite of Petitioner Declarations, # 2 Exhibit June 3, 2020 Hearing Tr., # 3 Exhibit ICE Detainee Spreadsheet, # 4 Exhibit COVID-19 ICE Detainee Statistics by Facility, # 5 Exhibit Castano Depo. Tr. Excerpts, # 6 Exhibit Lopez-Vega Depo. Tr. Excerpts, # 7 Exhibit Respondent's Responses to Petitioners' 1st Set of RFAs, # 8 Exhibit June 2, 2020 Hearing Tr., # 9 Exhibit CDC COVID Data Tracker, # 10 Exhibit CDC Symptoms of Coronavirus, # 11 Exhibit CDC Interim Guidance on the Management of Coronavirus Diseases 2019 in Correctional and Detention Facilities, # 12 Exhibit June 25, 2020 Hearing Tr., # 13 Exhibit FDA Webpage re Moderna COVID-19 Vaccine, # 14 Exhibit FDA Webpage re Pfizer COVID-19 Vaccine, # 15 Exhibit COVID-19 Vaccine Guidance, Federal Bureau of Prisons, Clinical Guidance)(Edson, Scott) (Entered: 02/02/2021)

02/05/2021

534 NOTICE OF DECLARATION IN RESPONSE TO THE COURTS ORDER by Field Office Director, Miami Field Office, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, U.S. Attorney General re 158 Order on Motion to Compel,, Order on Report and Recommendations,,,, Order on Motion for Temporary Restraining Order,, Order on Motion for Preliminary Injunction,, Order on Expedited Motion, (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A-Part 1, # 2 Exhibit A-Part 2, # 3 Exhibit A-Part 3, # 4 Exhibit A-Part 4, # 5 Exhibit A-Part 5) (Diaz, Natalie) Modified text on 2/8/2021 (ebz). (Entered: 02/05/2021)

02/05/2021

535 NOTICE OF DECLARATION IN RESPONSE TO THE COURTS ORDER by Field Office Director, Miami Field Office, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, U.S. Attorney General re 158 Order on Motion to Compel,, Order on Report and Recommendations,,,, Order on Motion for Temporary Restraining Order,, Order on Motion for Preliminary Injunction,, Order on Expedited Motion, (Attachments:

# 1 Exhibit A-Castano Declaration) (Diaz, Natalie) Modified text on 2/8/2021 (ebz). (Entered: 02/05/2021)

02/05/2021

536 Plaintiff's EXPEDITED MOTION For Release of Mr. Arrak or in the alternative, Hearing on Habeas Petition by Naim Arrak. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Declaration of Naim Arrak)(Bell, Drew) (Entered: 02/05/2021)

02/05/2021

537 NOTICE by Rolando Aguabella Martinez, Juan Carlos Alfaro Garcia, Mohamed Hassan Ali, Javier Antonio Arias-Martinez, Naim Arrak, Reinier Guiba Avila, Dairon Barredo Sanchez, Hilcias Batz, Maikel Betancourt, Sirvanildo Bibiano Soares, Alvaro Roa Calicchio, Maikel Carrasco Polo, Abel Carrillo, Jose Chavez, Hatem Chourabi, Maxuel A De Souza, Julio Edwards, Hassan Mohamed Farah, Alejandro Ferreira Borges, Field Office Director, Miami Field Office, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Ruben Orlando Flores Ramos, Patrick Gayle, Fernando Goncalves, Franklin Ramon Gonzalez, Lazaro Jose Gutierrez Suarez, Mohamed Hasan, Carlos Hedman Perdomo, Hilcias Ricardo Hujber, Abdul Jalloh, Aparicio P. Jeronimo, Sharon Kegerreis, Muhammad Alam Khan, Thomas Lenor, Miryam Elizabeth Lopez Herrera, Manuel Lopez Perez, Omar Lopez-Jaramillo, Luis Enrique Lopez-Pena, Ariel Lucien, Yaniel Machado Aguila, Miguel Angel Marroquin Perez, Rodney Martin, Tolentino Martinez Rios, Irvin Medoza Silis, Cesar Ariel Mendez Escobar, Jose Galdino Montalvo Rodriguez, Alejandro Vincenzo Mugaburu Tapia, Darwyn Yovanny Navarrette Sanchez, Farhan Nawabit, Lazaro Ocana Guzman, Evarado Orantes Acevedo, Roseline Ostine, Tahimi Perez, Wilder Perez Limones, Deivys Perez Valladares, Ricardo Perezo Alonzo, Iran Antonio Pichardo PerezBorroto, Francisco Rivero Valeron, Ervin David Rodas Pedro, Maria Eugenia Rodriguez Claras, Lathario G Rolle, Rene Jonathan Rosas Cardenas, Danny Ruiz Garcia, Crisley Sacrab-Bin, Gelber Sontay Funez, Adrian Sosa Fletes, Fermin Tepetate-Martinez, U.S. Attorney General, Maykel Valera Ramirez, Geraldo Vargas, Agane Warsame, Eitan Yefet, Eliseo Antonio Zamora Mendoza, Miguel A Zetina of Selection of Mediator. Attorney Drew Thompson Bell added to party Reinier Guiba Avila(pty:intv), Attorney Drew Thompson Bell added to party Hilcias Batz(pty:pet), Attorney Drew Thompson Bell added to party Hilcias Batz(pty:pet), Attorney Drew Thompson Bell added to party Hatem Chourabi(pty:intvp), Attorney Drew Thompson Bell added to party Lazaro Jose Gutierrez Suarez(pty:intv), Attorney Drew Thompson Bell added to party Hilcias Ricardo Hujber(pty:pet), Attorney Drew Thompson Bell added to party Sharon Kegerreis(pty:intvp), Attorney Drew Thompson Bell added to party Luis Enrique Lopez-Pena(pty:intv), Attorney Drew Thompson Bell added to party Iran Antonio Pichardo Perez-Borroto(pty:intv), Attorney Drew Thompson Bell added to party

Lathario G Rolle(pty:intvp), Attorney Drew Thompson Bell added to party Miguel A Zetina(pty:intv). (Bell, Drew) (Entered: 02/05/2021)

02/05/2021

541 Clerks Notice to Filer re 537 Notice (Other),,,,,,,,,,. Parties/Mediator Not Added; ERROR - The Filer failed to add all parties from the complaint/petition/removal, etc. or the mediator. Filer is instructed to file a Notice of Entry of Parties Listed into CM/ECF and add the additional parties/mediator. (ebz) (Entered: 02/08/2021)

02/08/2021 538 PAPERLESS ORDER granting 393 Expedited Motion.

Plaintiffs' counsel has now, in response to a question from the Undersigned, advised that the immediate exigency giving rise to the request for expedited treatment has passed. Nevertheless, counsel also advised that he would still like access to the entire Special Master's Report.

In response to that notice [ECF No. 523], the Undersigned (on January 26, 2021) ordered [ECF No. 524]the Special Master to file a notice on his position about the requested relief by February 2, 2021].

February 2, 2021 has come and gone but the Special Master has not complied with the Order and has not filed a motion for additional time or otherwise submitted anything concerning the failure to comply with the Order.

Given this procedural history, the Undersigned grants the motion by default.

The Special Master shall give Plaintiffs' counsel full access to his Report by February 14, 2021.

In order to make sure that this Order is also not ignored, counsel for both sides shall forward a copy of this Order to the Special Master's email address and shall also contact him by telephone, advising him of these developments.

If the February 14, 2021 deadline for providing complete access is unworkable or logistically cumbersome, then the Special Master and the Special Master may agree on a different deadline. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jonathan Goodman on 2/8/2021. (JG) (Entered: 02/08/2021)
02/08/2021 539 PAPERLESS ORDER terminating 528 Motion to Withdraw as Counsel. Attorney Gregory P. Copeland is withdrawn as counsel of record for Petitioners and is released of any further responsibility in this matter. See

ECF No. 531. (jzn) Rvised text per chambers on 2/8/2021 and created DE 539 (mf). (Entered: 02/08/2021)

02/08/2021

540 NOTICE OF DECLARATION IN RESPONSE TO THE COURTS ORDER by Field Office Director, Miami Field Office, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, U.S. Attorney General re 158 Order on Motion to Compel,, Order on Report and Recommendations,,,, Order on Motion for Temporary Restraining Order,, Order on Motion for Preliminary Injunction,, Order on Expedited Motion, (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A-Castano Declaration) (Diaz, Natalie) Modified text on 2/9/2021 (ebz). (Entered: 02/08/2021)

02/08/2021

542 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply/Answer as to 532 Response in Opposition to Motion,,,,,,,,, by Field Office Director, Miami Field Office, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, U.S. Attorney General. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Diaz, Natalie) (Entered: 02/08/2021)

02/09/2021

543 NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION by Abdul Jalloh re 202 Plaintiff's EXPEDITED MOTION For Release, Or in the Alternative, Hearing on Habeas Petition filed by Abdul Jalloh (Bell, Drew) (Entered: 02/09/2021)

02/09/2021

544 Notice of Entry of Parties Listed on 541 Clerks Notice of Docket Correction and Instruction to Filer - Attorney, into CM/ECF. NOTE: New Filer(s) will appear twice, since they are also a new party in the case. New Filer(s)/Party(s): Jacqueline Hogan Scola and Jacqueline Hogan Scola. (Bell, Drew) (Entered: 02/09/2021)

02/11/2021

545 SPECIAL MASTERS NOTICE MADE PURSUANT TO THE COURTS ORDER REGARDING THE SPECIAL MASTERS REPORT by Matthew C Dates re 524 Order,,,, Set/Reset Deadlines,,, (Dates, Matthew) Modified text on 2/12/2021 (ebz). (Entered: 02/11/2021)

02/12/2021

546 NOTICE of Filing Declaration in Response to Court's Order by Field Office Director, Miami Field Office, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, U.S. Attorney General re 158 Order on Motion to Compel, Order on Report and Recommendations, Order on Motion for Temporary Restraining Order, Order on Motion for Preliminary Injunction,, Order on Expedited Motion, (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A-Declaration of Liana J. Castano) (Diaz, Natalie) (Entered: 02/12/2021)

02/12/2021

547 NOTICE of Filing Declaration in Response to Court's Order by Field Office Director, Miami Field Office, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, U.S. Attorney General re 158 Order on Motion to Compel, Order on Report and Recommendations, Order on Motion for Temporary

Restraining Order, Order on Motion for Preliminary Injunction, Order on Expedited Motion, (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A-Declaration of Liana J. Castano) (Diaz, Natalie) (Entered: 02/12/2021)

02/12/2021

548 NOTICE of Filing Declaration in Response to Court's Order by Field Office Director, Miami Field Office, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, U.S. Attorney General re 158 Order on Motion to Compel, Order on Report and Recommendations, Order on Motion for Temporary Restraining Order, Order on Motion for Preliminary Injunction,, Order on Expedited Motion, (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A-Part 1, # 2 Exhibit A-Part 2, # 3 Exhibit A-Part 3, # 4 Exhibit A-Part 4) (Diaz, Natalie) (Entered: 02/12/2021)

02/13/2021

549 ENDORSED ORDER granting 542 Motion for Extension of Time to File Reply Brief in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment. Respondents shall file their reply brief on or before February 16, 2021. Signed by Judge Marcia G. Cooke on 2/13/2021. (btn) (Entered: 02/13/2021)

02/15/2021 550 Plaintiff's EXPEDITED MOTION For Release of Mr. Machado Aguila by Yaniel Machado Aguila. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Declaration of Yaniel Machado Aguila)(Bell, Drew) (Entered: 02/15/2021)

02/16/2021

551 ORDER FOLLOWING 545 SPECIAL MASTER'S NOTICE AND RECOMMENDATION. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jonathan Goodman on 2/16/2021. See attached document for full details. (jzn) (Entered: 02/16/2021)

02/16/2021

552 Defendant's RESPONSE to 533 Response/Reply (Other),,,,,,,,,, Plaintiffs' Statement of Material Facts That Preclude Entry of Summary Judgment for Defendants by Field Office Director, Miami Field Office, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, U.S. Attorney General. (Lee, Dexter) (Entered: 02/16/2021)

02/16/2021

553 REPLY to Response to Motion re 484 Defendant's MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Field Office Director, Miami Field Office, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, U.S. Attorney General. (Lee, Dexter) (Entered: 02/16/2021)

02/17/2021

554 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to Mediate by Field Office Director, Miami Field Office, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, U.S. Attorney General. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Diaz, Natalie) (Entered: 02/17/2021)

02/18/2021 555 MOTION for Leave to File Exhibits Conventionally by Matthew C Dates. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Exhibit A)(Dates, Matthew) (Entered: 02/18/2021)

02/18/2021

556 ENDORSED ORDER granting 555 Motion for Leave to File Exhibits Conventionally. The Special Master is hereby authorized to file the exhibits in question conventionally. Signed by Judge Marcia G. Cooke on 2/18/2021. (btn) (Entered: 02/18/2021)

02/18/2021

557 ENDORSED ORDER granting 554 Joint Motion for Extension of Time to Mediate. The Parties shall have up to and including Monday, March 1, 2021, to complete mediation. Signed by Judge Marcia G. Cooke on 2/18/2021. (btn) (Entered: 02/18/2021)

02/19/2021

558 Unopposed MOTION For Relief From Personal Attendance at Mediation by Rolando Aguabella Martinez, Juan Carlos Alfaro Garcia, Mohamed Hassan Ali, Javier Antonio Arias-Martinez, Naim Arrak, Reinier Guiba Avila, Dairon Barredo Sanchez, Hilcias Batz, Maikel Betancourt, Sirvanildo Bibiano Soares, Alvaro Roa Calicchio, Maikel Carrasco Polo, Abel Carrillo, Jose Chavez, Hatem Chourabi, Maxuel A De Souza, Julio Edwards, Hassan Mohamed Farah, Alejandro Ferreira Borges, Ruben Orlando Flores Ramos, Patrick Gayle, Fernando Goncalves, Franklin Ramon Gonzalez, Lazaro Jose Gutierrez Suarez, Mohamed Hasan, Carlos Hedman Perdomo, Hilcias Ricardo Hujber, Abdul Jalloh, Aparicio P. Jeronimo, Sharon Kegerreis, Muhammad Alam Khan, Thomas Lenor, Miryam Elizabeth Lopez Herrera, Manuel Lopez Perez, Omar Lopez-Jaramillo, Luis Enrique Lopez-Pena, Ariel Lucien, Yaniel Machado Aguila, Miguel Angel Marroquin Perez, Rodney Martin, Tolentino Martinez Rios, Irvin Medoza Silis, Cesar Ariel Mendez Escobar, Jose Galdino Montalvo Rodriguez, Alejandro Vincenzo Mugaburu Tapia, Darwyn Yovanny Navarrette Sanchez, Farhan Nawabit, Lazaro Ocana Guzman, Evarado Orantes Acevedo, Roseline Ostine, Tahimi Perez, Wilder Perez Limones, Deivys Perez Valladares, Ricardo Perezo Alonzo, Iran Antonio Pichardo Perez-Borroto, Francisco Rivero Valeron, Ervin David Rodas Pedro, Maria Eugenia Rodriguez Claras, Lathario G Rolle, Rene Jonathan Rosas Cardenas, Danny Ruiz Garcia, Crisley Sacrab-Bin, Gelber Sontay Funez, Adrian Sosa Fletes, Fermin Tepetate-Martinez, Maykel Valera Ramirez, Geraldo Vargas, Agane Warsame, Eitan Yefet, Eliseo Antonio Zamora Mendoza, Miguel A Zetina. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order Granting Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Relief from Personal Attendance at Mediation)(Edson, Scott) (Entered: 02/19/2021)

02/19/2021

559 NOTICE by Field Office Director, Miami Field Office, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, U.S. Attorney General re 158 Order on Motion to Compel,, Order on Report and Recommendations,,,, Order on Motion for Temporary Restraining Order,, Order on Motion for Preliminary Injunction,, Order on Expedited Motion, of Filing Declaration in Response to Court's Order (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit ADeclaration of Lopez Vega) (Diaz, Natalie) (Entered: 02/19/2021)

02/19/2021 560 REPORT REGARDING Special Master Report and Recommendation by Matthew C Dates (Dates, Matthew) (Entered: 02/19/2021)

02/19/2021

561 NOTICE by Field Office Director, Miami Field Office, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, U.S. Attorney General re 158 Order on Motion to Compel,, Order on Report and Recommendations,,,, Order on Motion for Temporary Restraining Order,, Order on Motion for Preliminary Injunction,, Order on Expedited Motion, of Filing Declaration in Response to Court's Order (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit APart 1, # 2 Exhibit A-Part 2, # 3 Exhibit A-Part 3) (Diaz, Natalie) (Entered: 02/19/2021)

02/19/2021

562 RESPONSE in Opposition re 536 Plaintiff's EXPEDITED MOTION For Release of Mr. Arrak or in the alternative, Hearing on Habeas Petition filed by Field Office Director, Miami Field Office, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, U.S. Attorney General. Replies due by 2/26/2021. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A- Record of Deportable/Inadmissible Alien (Form I-213), # 2 Exhibit B- Notice to Appear, # 3 Exhibit C- IJ Bond Decision, # 4 Exhibit D- IJ Removal Order, # 5 Exhibit E- Declaration SSDO Cherpeski)(Diaz, Natalie) (Entered: 02/19/2021)

02/19/2021 564 NOTICE OF CONVENTIONAL FILING of a USB Drive per 556 Order on Motion for Leave to File by Matthew C Dates (ebz) (Entered: 02/22/2021)

02/22/2021

563 NOTICE by Field Office Director, Miami Field Office, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, U.S. Attorney General re 158 Order on Motion to Compel,, Order on Report and Recommendations,,,, Order on Motion for Temporary Restraining Order,, Order on Motion for Preliminary Injunction,, Order on Expedited Motion, of Filing Declaration in Response to Court's Order (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit ALopez Vega Declaration) (Diaz, Natalie) (Entered: 02/22/2021)

PACER Service Center Transaction Receipt

02/25/2021 09:00:45

PACER Login:

CRClearinghouse Client Code:

Description:

Docket Report

Search Criteria:

Billable Pages: 30

Cost:

McEvoy
1:20-cv-21553MGC 3.00

 
 Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 4 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/13/2020 Page 1 of 76
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
MIAMI DIVISION Case No.:
PATRICK GAYLE, et al., Petitioners-Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and those similarly situated
v. MICHAEL W. MEADE, et al.,
Respondents-Defendants.
__________________________________________/
PETITIONERS EMERGENCY MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION FOR PROPOSED CLASS AND INCORPORATED MEMORANDUM OF LAW

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 4 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/13/2020 Page 2 of 76
INTRODUCTION Petitioners-Plaintiffs are women and men detained by Respondents-Defendants in civil immigration detention at three Florida detention centers within the jurisdiction of the Miami Field Office of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”). All Petitioners are at imminent risk of contracting coronavirus disease 2019 (“COVID-19”) as a result of their inability to follow Center for Disease Control (“CDC”) guidelines and state and local directives due to their continued detention. This action challenges the refusal of Respondents to release Petitioners, and others in the class they represent, so that they can shelter in place, follow CDC guidelines, and reduce their likelihood of infection and illness. COVID-19 threatens every woman and man detained at Krome Service Processing Center (“Krome”), Glades County Detention Center (“Glades”), and Broward Transitional Center (“BTC”). A chart of the reported COVID-19 cases of people in ICE detention depicts an alarming steep curve. See Chart (Appx. I, Exh. 1); Declaration of Dr. Joseph Shin, MD, MSc dated April 13, 2020 (“Shin Dec.”) ¶¶ 39-41(Exh. 2); Declaration of Dr. Pedro J. Greer, Jr. (“Greer Dec.”) (Exh. 3). The spread of COVID-19 in ICE detention in Florida has been marked by secrecy and cover-up. As early as March 27, 2020, local attorneys have reported to their voluntary bar association that their “clients have indicated there are sick individuals in detention locally, quarantined individuals, and detainees wearing protective gear.” (Appx I, Exh. J, at 357-59, 357 ¶ 1.). ICE, however, would not confirm any positive testing. Id. On April 6, 2020, the Miami Herald broke the news that ICE did indeed have COVID-19 cases in Florida. ICE told the Herald that two officers working at Krome Service Processing Center in Miami had tested positive for COVID-19, and many others were awaiting results from
2

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 4 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/13/2020 Page 3 of 76
their tests. (Appx I, Exh. C, at 33-38.) On that same day, ICE told the Herald that no detained individuals in Florida had tested positive. (Appx I, Exh. D, at 39-46, 40-41) (“For weeks—and as recently as Monday—US Immigration and Customs Enforcement has repeatedly told the Herald that no detainees in their custody in Florida have tested positive for the virus.”). ICE’s statement was false. On April 7, the Herald ran a second story explaining that a detained individual at Krome had tested positive. A federal official with first-hand knowledge told the Herald: “While that is true that no detainee currently at the detention center tested positive for COVID-19, it’s also not completely accurate as testing is not conducted on site and detainees are sent to an offsite hospital to be tested.” (Appx I, Exh. D, at 41.)
ICE had also decided not to disclose whether third-party contractors test positive for COVID-19, providing them a “loophole” to reporting the actual number of COVID-19 cases among its employees in detention centers. Third-party contractors comprise a large portion of employees in detention centers. See Monique O. Madan, Two Workers at ICE Detention Center in Miami-Dade Test Positive for Coronavirus, Miami Herald (April 6, 2020).1
Each of the three detention centers either has confirmed cases of the virus or has groups of individuals herded together in “cohort quarantine” because they have been exposed. Rather than mitigate the risk of transmission, these cohort quarantines drastically increase the possibility of transmission, infection, and facility-wide outbreak by grouping together people who have already been exposed to the virus. See Shin Dec. ¶ 40 (Exh. 2) (“The analysis that I provide above regarding screening, ‘cohorting’ and social distancing is not theoretical. In fact, there are a growing number of facilities throughout the country where the rate of infection is growing exponentially amongst both people detained as well as staff. In these settings, hundreds, and
1 Available at: https://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/immigration/article241791511.html.
3

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 4 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/13/2020 Page 4 of 76
potentially thousands of people will become infected, and many will die.”); Greer Dec. ¶ 30 (Exh. 3).
Under CDC Guidelines, which detention centers are required to follow, people exposed to COVID-19 should be put in individual, not group, quarantine: “Facilities should make every possible effort to quarantine close contacts of COVID-19 cases individually.” CDC Interim Guidance (Appx I, Exh. F, at 66) (emphasis added). Cohort quarantine “should only be practiced if there are no other available options.” (Id.) (emphasis added). As the CDC explains, “[c]ohorting multiple quarantined close contacts of a COVID-19 case could transmit COVID-19 from those who are infected to those who are uninfected.” (Id.)
“Facilities without onsite healthcare capacity, or without sufficient space to implement effective quarantine, should coordinate with local public health officials to ensure that close contacts of COVID-19 cases will be effectively quarantined and medically monitored.” (Appx I, Exh. F, at 66) (emphasis added). Additionally, “[f]acilities with limited onsite medical isolation, quarantine, and/or healthcare services should coordinate closely with state, local, tribal, and/or territorial health departments when they encounter a confirmed or suspected case, in order to ensure effective medical isolation or quarantine, necessary medical evaluation and care, and medical transfer if needed.” (Appx I, Exh. F, at 62)
Respondents are defying CDC Guidelines by refusing to do the one thing they could to do comply with those guidelines – releasing individuals during the pandemic. Instead respondents are affirmatively putting detained people at risk by confining them in close sleeping, eating, and living quarters at Krome, Glades, and BTC. Because Respondents could release Petitioners and those similarly situated, “cohort quarantine” is not the only “available option.” As Dr. Shin warns “[t]here is no way for immigration detention facilities to comply with CDC
4

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 4 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/13/2020 Page 5 of 76
guidelines on social distancing and quarantining unless Respondents release detained men and women on a large scale. When release from a detained setting is an option and there is lack of testing ability and an inability to employ social distancing, it is my professional opinion that failure to release during the COVID-19 pandemic is a violation of the CDC guidelines and will result in continued and wide-spread infection.” Shin Dec., ¶ 39 (Exh. 2).
Detainee reports from all three facilities document that social distancing is impossible, people exhibiting flu-like symptoms are housed in the general population, and maintaining personal hygiene is constrained by the crowded facilities and lack of cleaning supplies. At BTC and Glades, men and women must ration soap weekly—two smalls bottles at BTC per person, and one 4-ounce bottle at Glades. (Appx I, Exh. J, at 126-30) (Declaration of Francis L. Conlin, Friends of Miami-Dade Detainees).
Despite warnings from medical and public health professionals that releasing detained immigrants is the only viable option to comply with social distancing, individual quarantine, and other CDC requirements and local and state orders, the agency has generally refused to release in any meaningful way, in the absence of court intervention. It is impossible for Petitioners to protect themselves from infection through social distancing and vigilant hygiene—the only known mitigation measures.
Federal judges across the country have ordered the urgent release of numerous immigrants, explaining the pressing health risks created by detaining groups of people at this time.3
On April 8, 2020, U.S. District Court Judge William G. Young ordered ICE to release detained individuals because of the COVID-19 threat: “The situation is urgent and unprecedented, and . . . a reduction in the number of people who are held in custody is
5

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 4 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/13/2020 Page 6 of 76
necessary.” Memorandum and Order at 28, Savino v. Souza, Case No. 1:20-cv-10617-WGY (D. Mass. Apr. 8, 2020) (DE 64) (copy at Appx. I, Exh. A, 1-29).
STANDARD FOR A TEMORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
The purpose of a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction is to “protect against irreparable injury and preserve the status a quo until the district court renders a meaningful decision on the merits.” Schiavo ex rel. Schindler v. Schiavo, 403 F. 3d 1223, 1231 (CA11 2005) (citing Canal Auth. of State of Fla. v. Callaway, 489 F. 2d 567, 572 (CA5 1974)). Temporary restraining orders have historically been available to prevent violations of due process in immigration proceedings. See, e.g., Louis v. Meissner, 530 F. Supp. 924 (S.D. Fla. 1981) (ordering class-wide TRO on behalf of hundreds of Haitian refugees where legacy-I.N.S. sought to remove Haitians en masse by employing tactics to deny access to counsel, and failed to provide proper notice through inadequate translations).
In the case of stays of removal, “the ‘traditional’ standard for a stay applies.” Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 425 (2009). These factors are:
(1) whether the stay applicant has made a strong showing that he is likely to succeed on the merits; (2) whether the applicant will be irreparably injured absent a stay; (3) whether issuance of the stay will substantially injure the other parties interested in the proceeding; and (4) where the public interest lies. Id., at 434 (citation omitted). “The first two factors of the traditional standard are the most critical.” Id. However, “the movant may also have his motion granted upon a lesser showing of a substantial case on the merits when “the balance of the equities identified in factors 2, 3, and 4 weighs heavily in favor of granting the stay.” Garcia-Mir v. Meese, 781 F. 2d 1450, 1453 (11th Cir. 1986) (citing Ruiz v. Estelle, 650 F.2d 555, 565 (5th Cir. 1981 (per curiam), cer denied, 460
6

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 4 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/13/2020 Page 7 of 76
U.S. 1042 103 S.Ct. 1438, 75 L.Ed.2d 795 (1983) (punctuation omitted)).
STATEMENT OF FACTS A. All experts agree that COVID-19 will likely ravage jails, prisons, and
detention centers. Imprisoned populations, including those in ICE detention facilities, are at higher risk for infectious disease, as compared to the general population. Factors that heighten their risk include poor sanitation, high population density, and “a higher prevalence of infectious and chronic diseases and . . . poorer health than the general population, even at younger ages.” CDC Interim Guidance (Appx I, Exh. F, at 48-74). Dr. Shin explains that in detention settings “hundreds, and potentially thousands of people will become infected, and many will die. This is a direct result of a failure to implement the recommended measures at an early enough to stage to prevent illness and save lives. Already, some ICE facilities the numbers of detected COVID-19 infections are growing at an exponential rate. By the time facilities recognize this kind of exponential growth in detected cases, it will already be too late. Therefore, individuals should be released from detention.” Shin Dec., ¶ 40. (Exh. 2). See also, Greer Dec. ¶ 30 (Exh. 3). (There is no way for immigration detention facilities to comply with CDC guidelines on social distancing and quarantining unless Respondents release detained men and women on a large scale.) The conclusions of Drs. Shin and Greer are consistent with the conclusions reached by Drs. Scott Allen and Josiah Rich—experts in the fields of detention health, infectious disease, and public health who advise DHS’s Office of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties—who urged Congress on March 19, 2020 to take immediate actions to slow the spread of COVID-19 in ICE
7

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 4 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/13/2020 Page 8 of 76
detention centers, including releasing immigrants to facilitate maximum social distancing—an “oxymoron” in congregate settings. (Appx I, Exh. L, at 235-41.)
In March 2020, over 3,000 medical professionals across the United States urged ICE to release individuals and families from detention “to prevent the spread of COVID-19 and mitigate the harm of an outbreak” to detained individuals, as well as to facility staff.2 They warned that social distancing measures recommended by the CDC are impossible in immigration detention and that the capacity for individual isolation and quarantine recommended by the CDC is extremely limited. When individual isolation is possible, the medical providers expressed concern that “isolation may be misused and place individuals at higher risk of neglect and death.”
Like these and other experts,3 Drs. Allen and Rich also warned of the dire consequences that a COVID-19 outbreak within an ICE detention facility would have on the community outside the facility. They describe a “tinderbox” scenario where a rapid outbreak inside a facility would result in the hospitalization of multiple detained people in a short period of time, which would spread the virus to the surrounding community and create a demand for ventilators far exceeding the supply. (Appx I, Exh. L, at 238)
Once a disease is introduced into a jail, prison, or detention facility, it spreads faster than under most other circumstances due to overcrowding, poor sanitation and hygiene, and lack of
2 Janus Rose, Thousands of Doctors Demand ICE Release Detainees to Stop a COVID-19 Disaster, Vice.com (Mar. 18, 2020), https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/4agp4w/thousands-ofdoctors-demand-ice-release-detainees-to-stop-a-covid-19-disaster
3 See, e.g., Rich Schapiro, Coronavirus could ‘wreak havoc’ on U.S. jails, experts warn, NBC News (Mar. 12, 2020), https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/coronavirus-could-wreakhavoc-u-s-jails-experts-warn-n1156586 (“An outbreak of the deadly virus inside the walls of a U.S. prison or jail is now a question of when, not if, according to health experts.”).
8

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 4 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/13/2020 Page 9 of 76
access to adequate medical services. For these same reasons, the outbreak is harder to control.4
The severe outbreaks of COVID-19 in congregate environments, such as cruise ships and nursing
homes, illustrate how rapidly and widely COVID-19 would rip through an ICE detention facility.
On the Diamond Princess cruise ship, for example, approximately 700 passengers and crew on
board were infected over the course of three weeks despite the initiation of quarantine protocols.5
COVID-19 has indeed already started to spread inside U.S. prisons and jails across the
United States, including other carceral systems in Florida,6 Chicago,7 and New York City.8
Correctional staff is an especially dangerous vector for a COVID-19 outbreak within a detention
center since they regularly travel back and forth between the outside world and the detention
facilities where they work.
ICE’s past handling of infectious disease outbreaks in detention centers has been inept—
foreshadowing the impact COVID-19 will have if Petitioners are not released. In 2019, a mumps
outbreak across 57 immigration detention facilities throughout the country led to almost 900
cases of mumps overwhelmingly contracted inside the facilities9 before the outbreak spread to
4 Christina Potter, Outbreaks in Migrant Detention Facilities, Outbreak Observatory (Jul. 11, 2019), https://www.outbreakobservatory.org/outbreakthursday-1/7/11/2019/outbreaks-inmigrant-detention-facilities 5 Failures on the Diamond Princess Shadow Another Cruise Ship Outbreak, The New York Times (Mar. 8, 2020), www.nytimes.com/2020/03/08/world/asia/coronavirus-cruise-ship.html. 6 Florida Department of Corrections, COVID-19 Information, http://www.dc.state.fl.us/comm/covid-19.html. 7 Timothy Williams and Danielle Ivory, Chicago’s Jail Is Top Hot Spot as Virus Spreads Behind Bars, The New York Times (Apr. 8, 2020), www.nytimes.com/2020/04/08/us/coronavirus-cookcounty-jail-chicago.html. 8 Emma Grey Ellis, Covid-19 Poses a Heightened Threat in jails and Prisons, wired.com (Mar. 24, 2020), https://www.wired.com/story/coronavirus-covid-19-jails-prisons/
9 Leung J, Elson D, Sanders K, et al. Notes from the Field: Mumps in Detention Facilities that House Detained Migrants—United States, September 2018–August 2019, MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly, 749–50 (Aug. 30, 2019), https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/68/wr/pdfs/mm6834a4-H.pdf.
9

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 4 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/13/2020 Page 10 of 76
surrounding communities.10 ICE and CBP facilities have been sites of other outbreaks in just the
past couple years,11 in addition to outbreaks in other prisons and jails.12
Nationally and internationally, governments and jail and prison staff have already
recognized the threat posed by COVID-19 and released detained individuals. Iran,13 Ethiopia,14
and Texas15 and have all begun to release people to mitigate the harm that the impending spread
of COVID-19 will cause.
One of the largest police forces in the nation, the Miami-Dade Police Department, has
ordered its officers to issue citations for all misdemeanor offenses to reduce arrests and jail
10 See Terrence McDonald, Bergen County Won’t Say if Mumps Outbreak Affects Only Immigrant Detainees, Northjersey.com (Jun. 13, 2019), https://www.northjersey.com/story/news/bergen/2019/06/13/bergen-county-nj-wont-say-if-jailmumps-outbreak-hit-only-ice-inmates/1448708001. In addition, in 2019, thousands of individuals in 39 immigration detention centers across the country were exposed to chickenpox. Emma Ockerman, Migrant Detention Centers Are Getting Slammed with Mumps and Chickenpox, Vice News (Jun. 14, 2020), https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/mb8k5q/migrantdetention-centers-are-getting-slammed-with-mumps-and-chicken-pox.
11 Christina Potter, Outbreak Observatory (describing outbreaks of acute respiratory illnesses like influenza, and other diseases like scabies and chickenpox). Both Krome and BTC have had mumps outbreaks, and other illnesses that required quarantine.
12 J. O’Grady, et al., Tuberculosis in prisons: anatomy of global neglect, European Respiratory Journal (2011), https://erj.ersjournals.com/content/38/4/752.short (stating that tuberculosis prevalence among prisoners worldwide can be up to 50 times higher than national averages).
13 Babk Dehghanpisheh and Stephanie Nebehay, Iran Temporarily Releases 70,000 Prisoners as Coronavirus Cases Surge, Reuters (Mar. 9, 2020), https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-iran/iran-temporarily-releases-70000prisoners-as-coronavirus-cases-surge-idUSKBN20W1E5.
14 Bukola Adebayo, Ethiopia pardons more than 4,000 prisoners to help prevent coronavirus spread, CNN (Mar. 26, 2020), https://www.cnn.com/2020/03/26/africa/ethiopia-pardons-4000prisoners-over-coronavirus/index.html.
15 Dillon Collier, Bexar County jail population down more than 500 inmates after release of nonviolent offenders, KSAT.com (last updated Mar. 25, 2020), https://www.ksat.com/news/local/2020/03/25/bexar-county-jail-population-down-more-than500-inmates-after-release-of-nonviolent-offenders/.
10

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 4 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/13/2020 Page 11 of 76
population during the pandemic.16 The Broward Sheriff’s Office has done the same, estimating a reduction in arrests and bookings of 60%.17
On April 7, 2020, a temporary restraining order was issued from this Court requiring
Miami-Dade Corrections to implement health safety protocols in the Metro West Detention
Center. Order, Swain v. Junior, 20-cv-21457-KMW (S.D. Fla. Apr. 7, 2020) (copy at Appx I,
Exh. M, at 242-47).
The Federal Bureau of Prisons has instructed prison directors to prioritize releasing
federal inmates to home confinement, taking into consideration factors including “[t]he age and vulnerability of the inmate to COVID-19, in accordance with the [CDC] guidelines.”18
B. The Center for Disease Control and the detention standards inform ICE’s duties to people at Krome, Glades, and BTC.
Krome and BTC are subject to ICE’s Performance-Based National Detention Standards
2011 (“PBNDS”). (Appx. I, Exh. K, at 152, 156). Section 4.3(II)(10) requires that “Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) guidelines for the prevention and control of infectious and communicable diseases shall be followed.” ICE PBNDS (Appx I, Exh. N, at 248-97, 253).19
Glades is subject to ICE’s National Detention Standards (NDS). (Appx. I, Exh. K, at
165.) The current governing version of the NDS is the 2019 National Detention Standards for
16 https://theappeal.org/miami-covid-19-arrests/ 17 Two Broward Inmates Test Positive For Coronavirus, As Calls For Release Grow, WLRN (Apr. 2, 2020), www.wlrn.org/post/two-broward-inmates-test-positive-coronavirus-calls-releasegrow#stream/0; Opinion: Broward County Jail: A COVID-19 time bomb, Sun Sentinel (Apr. 3, 2020), www.sun-sentinel.com/opinion/commentary/fl-op-com-finkelstein-broward-county-jailthreat-coronavirus-covid-20200403-kb7g5zwoinf2pfluw4dsxlda7y-story.html.
18 Office of the Attorney General, Washington, DC, Memorandum for Director of Bureau Prisons, Prioritization of Home Confinement As Appropriate in Response to COVID-19 Pandemic (Mar. 26, 2020), https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000171-1826-d4a1-ad77fda671420000. 19 Full copy available at: https://www.ice.gov/doclib/detentionstandards/2011/pbnds2011r2016.pdf.
11

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 4 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/13/2020 Page 12 of 76
Non-Dedicated Facilities.20 Under section 1.1(I) of the NDS, covered “facilit[ies] will operate in accordance with all applicable regulations and codes, such as those of . . . the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).” ICE NDS (Appx I, Exh. O, at 304).21
The CDC has issued an Interim Guidance on Management of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) in Correctional and Detention Facilities. (Appx. I, Exh. F, at 48-73). This guidance stresses the vital importance of ensuring social distancing, proper hygiene, access to testing, individual isolation of people who have the virus, and quarantine of people exposed to the virus. The guidance specifically states that it is intended for ICE, as a law enforcement agency with custodial authority of detained populations.
The CDC Guidance requires that “detained persons who are close contacts of a confirmed or suspected COVID-19 case (whether the case is another incarcerated/detained person, staff member, or visitor) should be placed under quarantine for 14 days.” (Appx. I, Exh. F, at 66.)
An individual is considered a close contact if they have been within approximately 6 feet of a COVID-19 case for a prolonged period of time, or have had direct contact with infectious secretion from such a person, such as coughing. (Appx. I, Exh. F, at 50.) “Close contact can occur while caring for, living with, visiting, or sharing a common space with a COVID-19 case.” (Appx. I, Exh. F, at 50, 66). “A confirmed case has received a positive result from a COVID-19 laboratory test, with or without symptoms,” and “[a] suspected case shows symptoms.” (Appx. I, Exh. F, at 51.) Symptoms “include fever, cough, and shortness of breath.” (Id.)
Quarantine is “the practice of confining individuals who had close contact with a COVID-19 case to determine whether they develop symptoms,” and it “should last a period of 14 days.” (Appx. I, Exh. F, at 51.) “Ideally, each quarantined individual would be quarantined in a
20 Supersession noted at: www.ice.gov/detention-standards/2000. 21 Full copy available at: www.ice.gov/doclib/detention-standards/2019/nds2019.pdf.
12

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 4 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/13/2020 Page 13 of 76
single cell with solid walls and a solid door that closes.” (Id.) “If symptoms develop during the 14-day period, the individual should be placed under medical isolation and evaluated for COVID-19.” (Id.) “Medical isolation refers to confining a confirmed or suspected COVID-19 case (ideally to a single cell with solid walls and a solid door that closes), to prevent contact with others and to reduce the risk of transmission.” (Appx. I, Exh. F, at 51.) “Medical isolation end when the individual meets pre-established clinical and/or testing criteria for release from isolation, in consultation with clinic providers and public health officials” as detailed in the CDC’s Guidance. (Id.)
“Cohorting refers to the practice of isolating multiple laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 cases together as a group, or quarantining close contacts of a particular case together as a group.” (Appx. I, Exh. F, at 50.) “Ideally, cases should be isolated individually, and close contacts should be quarantined individually.” (Id.)
The CDC Guidance states that detention centers should put people exposed to close contact with confirmed or symptomatic COVID-19 cases in individual, not group, quarantine: “Facilities should make every possible effort to quarantine close contacts of COVID-19 cases individually.” (Appx. I, Exh. F, at 66) (emphasis added). Cohort quarantine “should only be practiced if there are no other available options.” (Id.) (emphasis added). As the CDC explains, “[c]ohorting multiple quarantined close contacts of a COVID-19 case could transmit COVID-19 from those who are infected to those who are uninfected.” (Id.)
According to the CDC Guidance’s order of preference, the last option before a “safe[] transfer to another facility with capacity to quarantine” is cohorting in a detainee’s “regularly assigned housing but with no movement outside of the unit (if an entire housing unit has been exposed),” but only if it is possible to employ social distancing strategies “to maintain at least 6
13

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 4 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/13/2020 Page 14 of 76
feet of space between individuals.” (Appx. I, Exh. F, at 67) (emphasis added). “If cohorted, quarantined individuals should wear face masks at all times (to prevent transmission from infected to uninfected individuals).” (Id.) (emphasis added). The last option of transfer “should be avoided due to the potential to introduce infection to another facility.” (Id.)
But, “[f]acilities without onsite healthcare capacity, or without sufficient space to implement effective quarantine, should coordinate with local public health officials to ensure that close contacts of COVID-19 cases will be effectively quarantined and medically monitored.” (Appx. I, Exh. F, at 66) (emphasis added).
Even stricter quarantining and isolation protocols apply in confirmed or suspected cases of COVID-19 infection. (Appx. I, Exh. F, at 62-66). However, the need to “[r]estrict quarantined individuals from leaving the facility (including transfers to other facilities)” is subject to an exception for detained individuals “released from custody.” (Appx. I, Exh. F, at 68)
Release to individualized quarantining and isolation outside of a detention facility serves public health because, as the CDC explains, “[i]ncarcerated/detained persons live, work, eat, study, and recreate within congregate environments, heightening the potential for COVID-19 to spread once introduced,” and “[o]ptions for medical isolation of COVID-19 cases are limited and vary depending on the type and size of facility, as well as the current level of available capacity, which is partly based on medical isolation needs for other conditions.” (Appx. I, Exh. F, at 49)
Additionally, “[t]here are many opportunities for COVID-19 to be introduced into a correctional or detention facility, including daily staff ingress and egress; transfer of incarcerated/detained persons between facilities and systems, to court appearances, and to outside medical visits; and visits from family, legal representatives, and other community members.” (Appx. I, Exh. F, at 49). “Some settings, particularly jails and detention centers, have
14

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 4 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/13/2020 Page 15 of 76
high turnover, admitting new entrants daily who may have been exposed to COVID-19 in the surrounding community or other regions.” (Appx. I, Exh. F, at 49). Further, “[p]ersons incarcerated/detained in a particular facility often come from a variety of locations, increasing the potential to introduce COVID-19 from different geographic areas.” (Appx. I, Exh. F, at 49)
As for new entrants, the CDC also recommends routine intake quarantining, which means “quarantining all new intakes for 14 days before they enter the facility’s general population (SEPARATELY from other individuals who are quarantined due to contact with a COVID-19 case).” (Appx. I, Exh. F, at 61.) (emphasis in original). The CDC further specifies that detention centers should conduct “pre-intake screening and temperature checks for all new entrants” and to put new intakes with symptoms (fever, cough, shortness of breath) in medical isolation. (Appx. I, Exh. F, at 57)
Further, ICE’s governing detention standards require reporting of the spread of communicable diseases within their detained populations. ICE PBNDS, § 4.3(V)(C)(1) (“Facilities shall comply with current and future plans implemented by federal, state or local authorities addressing specific public health issues including communicable disease reporting requirements.”) (copy at Appx I, Exh. N, at 256-57); id., at § 4.3(V)(C)(1)(h) (“Each facility shall have written plans that . . . shall include: . . . (h) management of infectious diseases and reporting them to local and/or state health departments in accordance with established guidelines and applicable laws.”); see also ICE NDS, § 4.3(II)(D)(2) (“The facility will have written plans that address the management of infectious and communicable diseases, including, but not limited to, testing, isolation, prevention, and education. This also includes reporting and collaboration with local or state health departments in accordance with state and local laws and recommendations.”) (copy at Appx I, Exh. O, at 314)
15

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 4 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/13/2020 Page 16 of 76
C. Continued detention in the unique circumstances of the current pandemic poses a dire and imminent threat to Petitioners and others at Krome, Glades, and BTC.
ICE’s knowing and affirmative conduct in failing to address the clear foreseeability of
severe outbreaks at Krome, BTC, and Glades, and to take the action of releasing Petitioners,
demonstrates a disregard for the rights, well-being, and the humanity of detained immigrants.
The continued detention of Petitioners and other detained individuals at Krome, Glades, and
BTC is reckless.
Despite the global pandemic and shelter-in-place orders across the country and knowing
the risks, ICE affirmatively continues to bring new people into detention centers and to transfer previously detained people between facilities.22 ICE continues to issue detainer requests to
counties instructing jail officials to hold people for them past the point of criminal custody
coming to an end. ICE then transports these men and women from the local jail to immigration
detention at Krome, Glades, and BTC.
With respect to people like Petitioners who are already in custody, ICE is violating the
CDC guidelines and detention standards in multiple ways.
22 U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, ICE Guidance on COVID-19 (last reviewed/updated Apr. 2, 2020), https://www.ice.gov/covid19 (“ . . . our law enforcement officers and agents continue daily enforcement operations to make criminal and civil arrests.”); see also Richard Hall, Coronavirus: ICE Crackdown Stokes Fears for Safety of Undocumented Immigrants During Pandemic, Independent (Mar. 15, 2020), https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/coronavirus-us-immigrants-ice-raidstrump-bernie-sanders-undocumented-healthcare-a9398816.html (noting that “[i]n New York, immigration advocates have noted a marked increase in ICE activity in recent months, which has not slowed as the coronavirus outbreak has worsened.”). On March 18, 2020, ICE announced it would “temporarily adjust” its enforcement practices during the COVID-19 outbreak, but declined to say it would stop arresting people altogether. Rebecca Klar, ICE Pausing Most Enforcement During Coronavirus Crisis, The Hill (Mar. 18, 2020), https://thehill.com/latino/488362-ice-pausing-most-immigration-enforcement-duringcoronavirus-crisis.
16

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 4 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/13/2020 Page 17 of 76
Rather than use individual quarantining of people who have been exposed to COVID-19, ICE routinely uses en masse “cohort quarantining.” ICE commends itself for having placed large groups of people who have been exposed to COVID-19 together in the same living space, despite the CDC’s statements that this measure will facilitate the spread of the virus among those quarantined and throughout the facility and outside community. (Appx. I, Exh. I, at 123 ¶10)
On top of the fact that cohorting is supposed to be last option when “there are no other available options” (Appx. I, Exh. F, at 6), it is only an option when it is possible to employ social distancing strategies “to maintain at least 6 feet of space between individuals” (Appx. I, Exh. F, at 67), because “[c]ohorting multiple quarantined close contacts of a COVID-19 case could transmit COVID-19 from those who are infected to those who are uninfected” (Appx. I, Exh. F, at 66).
Even in the general case, when a facility is not dealing with a positive or suspected COVID-19 case, or a case of a close contact to a positive or suspected COVID-19 case, detention facilities are instructed by the CDC Guidelines to “[i]mplement social distancing strategies to increase the physical space between incarcerated/detained persons (ideally 6 feet between all individuals, regardless of the presence of symptoms).” (Appx. I, Exh. F, at 58).
ICE’s cohorting practice contravenes the CDC guidelines. Cohorting is not the same as quarantine or medical isolation. The CDC guidance makes it clear that cohorting is to be used only as a last resort. ICE, however, is using cohorting as the planned—and primary—response to a known COVID-19 exposure, not a practice of last resort. (Appx. I, Exh. I, at 123 ¶10).
Moreover, cohorted groups are confined in spaces that prevent them from practicing social distancing. Cohorted groups are not provided with masks to prevent the transmission of COVID-19, as required by the CDC protocols. (Appx. I, Exh. F, at 67).
17

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 4 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/13/2020 Page 18 of 76
ICE has no plans to place suspected COVID-19 cases in individual medical isolation in which “[e]ach isolated individual should be assigned their own housing space and bathroom,” as the CDC instructs. (Appx. I, Exh. F, at 62) Moreover, people who exhibit flu-like symptoms are not always removed from the general population but instead are sleeping and eating within feet of others.
Further, many of ICE’s claims of having implemented COVID-19 precautions are either contradicted by reports from detained people, or the procedures they have implemented are ineffective.
Social distancing is impossible. People sleep in crowded rooms in bunk beds close together and must eat and bathe in close quarters. People are not provided sufficient soap to be able to comply with CDC hygiene inventory and hand-washing procedures. (Appx. I, Exh. F, at 54-57) The bathrooms in these facilities are often unsanitary and in poor condition. Bathrooms have been identified as a particularly potent vehicle for the spread of COVID-19.23
Other measures ICE claims to have taken, including temporarily suspending social visitation in detention and screening new detained immigrants for certain symptoms of COVID19, are insufficient to curb the risk of infection within the detention centers. Detained individuals report that ICE has not implemented the CDC’s recommendation that newly detained individuals be in individual quarantine for 14 days before joining the rest of the population.
23 Why You Should Flush With The Lid Down: Experts Warn Of Fecal-Oral Transmission Of COVID-19, Forbes (Apr. 2, 2020), www.forbes.com/sites/alexandrasternlicht/2020/04/02/whyyou-should-flush-with-the-lid-down-virologist-warns-of-fecal-oral-transmission-of-covid19/#6d581edd6eb8. CDC guidelines require detention centers to, ”[s]everal times per day, clean and disinfect surfaces and objects that are frequently touched, especially in common areas. Such surfaces may include objects/surfaces not ordinarily cleaned daily (e.g., doorknobs, light switches, sink handles, countertops, toilets, toilet handles, recreation equipment, kiosks, and telephones).” www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/community/correction-detention/guidancecorrectional-detention.html.
18

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 4 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/13/2020 Page 19 of 76
Not all COVID-19 patients present with fever or respiratory symptoms. Many may be asymptomatic but still contagious, or have mild or less common symptoms. As symptoms of COVID-19 can present anywhere from 2 to 14 days after exposure, individuals who pass ICE’s screenings can expose other detained individuals, as well as detention center staff, if the CDC’s new intake quarantining protocols are not followed.
Release from custody is both the only effective public health measure to curb increased transmission of COVID-19 and the most practical strategy to protect people like Petitioners from harm. Krome Service Processing Center
Krome is a detention center located at the edge of Miami-Dade County. ICE’s contract with Akima Global Services (“AGS”), a third-party contractor, requires a mandatory minimum of 450 occupied beds. (Appx I, Exh. K, 149.) The population typically oscillates between 550 and 875 persons—far exceeding the contractual mandatory minimum. (Appx I, Exh. K, 149.)
ICE employs both ICE employees and AGS contract workers at the detention center. (Appx I, Exh. K, 149.) These workers typically live in Miami Dade County or other communities in South Florida.
Krome is divided into different housing units. However, all housing units share common spaces which include the recreation area, medical area, and the cafeteria. Each general population housing unit (referred to as “pods”) is an open bay—meaning that there are at least 65 bunk bed cots per unit. (Appx I, Exh. K, 149.) The bunk beds are positioned within six feet of each other. The open bay also has a communal space with a table and seating areas, showers, toilets, and sinks. The general population units do not have individual cells.
19

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 4 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/13/2020 Page 20 of 76
Detained individuals prepare the communal food. Up until very recently, several housing pods ate together in the cafeteria. The cafeteria is now closed due to COVID-19, and housing units are eating together in the communal area of their pod.
Krome’s failure to provide adequate medical care has been an ongoing concern. (Appx I, Exh. K, at 141-43, 150). Critical medical care is routinely delayed—sometimes for months—or denied outright. Id. An inspection conducted in February 2019 concluded that Krome’s medical care was deficient. Lead Compliance Inspector.24 Instead of addressing sick calls twice a day, as the detention standards require, it takes two to eight days to triage a sick call. (Appx I, Exh. K, 150.) When medical issues are addressed, individuals report not being properly treated or not treated at all. (Appx I, Exh. K, 150.) Proving ibuprofen is commonly used as a blanket solution to any and all medical issues. (Appx I, Exh. K, 150.)
Because Krome fails to meet detained individual’s medical needs under normal circumstances, the medical staff are ill-prepared to provide adequate medical treatment amidst the COVID-19 pandemic.
Krome has a large population and is often overcrowded. (Appx I, Exh. F, at 149-50) (overcrowding at Krome). ICE can tightly detain up to 1,000 individuals in the facility. (Appx I, Exh. K, 230 (endnote 118).) When the population reaches that number, it becomes dangerously overcrowded with 100 or more people in a pod with 65 beds. To house these numbers, Krome supplies stackable beds placed between bunkbeds, in front of the showers and bathrooms, next to the phones, and in the common television area. (Appx I, Exh. K, 149.) At least one pod, with 120 detainees, is currently in such a crowded state.
24 Annual Detention Inspection of the Krome Service Processing Center, The Nakamoto Group, Inc. (Feb. 14, 2019) available at: https://www.ice.gov/doclib/facilityInspections/kromeSPC_CL_02-14-2019.pdf.
20

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 4 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/13/2020 Page 21 of 76
Overcrowding at Krome has led to many sanitation and health issues. (Appx I, Exh. K, 150.) It becomes impossible to avoid human contact and the unit is harder to keep clean. (Appx I, Exh. K, 150). During the summer of 2019, there was a mumps outbreak at Krome in which housing units were group quarantined.25 Ten years before that, there was an outbreak of the H1N1 virus at Krome.26
Detained men at Krome live in pods that house approximately 50 to 120 individuals. See Portuondo Dec. at ¶ 11 (Appx II, Exh. A, at 1-9); Gayle Dec. at ¶ 6 (Appx II, Exh. B, at 10-14). The large number of detained individuals in each pod make it infeasible to stay six feet apart and practice social distancing. See Arias-Martinez Dec. at ¶ 9 (Appx II, Exh. C, at 15-21); Jalloh Dec. ¶ 9(Appx II, Exh. D, at 22-29); Darwyn Dec. ¶ 5(c) (Appx II, Exh. E, at 30-34); PerezJeronimo Dec. ¶ 6 (Appx II, Exh. F, at 35-39); Chavez Dec. at ¶ 11 (Appx II, Exh. G, at 40-46); Jalloh Dec. ¶ 20 (Appx II, Exh. D, at 22-29); Mendez-Escobar Dec. ¶ 14 (Appx II, Exh. H, at 4751); Zamora-Mendoza Dec. ¶ 10 (Appx II, Exh. I, at 52-54); Ocana-Guzman Dec. ¶ 8 (Appx II, Exh. J, at 55-60).
The pods have bunk beds for the detained individuals to sleep, which are not 6 feet apart. See Arias-Martinez Dec. at ¶ 9 (Appx II, Exh. C, at 15-21); Alfaro-Garcia Dec. at ¶ 7 (Appx II, Exh. K, at 61-67); Khan Dec. at ¶ 8a (Appx II, Exh. L, at 68-74); Jalloh Dec. ¶ 12 (Appx II, Exh. D, at 22-29); Perez-Jeronimo Dec. ¶ 6 (Appx II, Exh. F, at 35-39); Chavez Dec. at ¶ 11 (Appx II,
25 Letter to ICE and Wardens from AI Justice, SPLC, AAAJ, and project South (Mar. 13, 2020), https://www.splcenter.org/sites/default/files/ltr_to_ice_and_wardens_re_covid-19_-_2020.03__final.pdf 26 After a Krome employee’s toddler contracted H1N1, ICE was criticized for not providing employees with proper protection, training, and information to deal with the virus. Kyle Munzenreider, Infact Child of ICE Employee Has Swine Flu, Miami New Times (June 23, 2009), https://www.miaminewtimes.com/news/infant-child-of-ice-employee-has-swine-flu-6565669.
21

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 4 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/13/2020 Page 22 of 76
Exh. G, at 40-46); Zamora-Mendoza Dec. ¶ 10 (Appx II, Exh. I, at 52-54); Ocana-Guzman Dec. ¶ 6 (Appx II, Exh. J, at 55-60).
There are at least three housing units of approximately 48, 59, and 120 people, one of which includes a detained person with prostate cancer, that are under cohort quarantine. See Portuondo Dec. at ¶ 11 (Appx II, Exh. A, at 1-9); Perez Limones Dec. at ¶ 7 (Appx II, Exh. M, at 75-78); Gayle Dec. at ¶ 12 (Appx II, Exh. B, at 10-14); Cardenas Dec. at ¶ 7 (Appx II, Exh. N, at 79-83). Petitioner Gayle is housed in a quarantined pod with 120 detained individuals, which has a sign on the wall that says the maximum capacity is 80. See Gayle Dec. at ¶¶ 6, 12 (Appx II, Exh. B, at 10-14). Detained individuals in these units share toilets and showers that are less than six feet apart. See Portuondo Dec. at ¶ 11 (Appx II, Exh. A, at 1-9). The room of 48 men has only three urinals and one toilet. Cardenas Dec. at ¶ 11 (Appx II, Exh. N, at 79-83). At least one of the rooms under cohort quarantine still leaves their room once a day to interact with hundreds of other detained individuals in the recreation area, where the men are crowded into a small space. Cardenas Dec. at ¶ 7 (Appx II, Exh. N, at 79-83). During communal meals, individuals are forced to eat in close contact with each other. See Mendez-Escobar Dec. ¶ 14 (Appx II, Exh. H, at 47-51).
A recent photograph, from a Miami Herald Article, of one of the general population units at Krome shows men crowded into the common space. (Appx I, Exh. P, at 327-335, 334). None of the men in the photograph are wearing masks or gloves. Men are crowded around small tables. The bunk beds are located within a few feet of each other and of the tables. Social distancing is impossible in this setting.
Despite the COVID-19 threat, Respondents continue to detain new people at Krome. See Arrak Dec. ¶ 27 (Appx II, Exh. O, at 84-90)
22

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 4 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/13/2020 Page 23 of 76
Some detained individuals who require additional mental health and behavioral care are housed in the Krome Behavioral Health Unit (“BHU”), which is split into two sections. One unit can house 22 people, while the other can house eight people. Hasan Dec. ¶ 6 (Appx II, Exh. R, at 106-12). Individuals in the BHU typically share a room with another person, and sleep less than six feet apart. See Warsane Dec. ¶ 9 (Appx II, Exh. Q, at 98-105); Farah Dec. ¶ 6 (Appx II, Exh. P, at 91-97). Two detained individuals in the BHU do not currently share a room while sleeping, but are in close contact with others in the unit when in communal areas. See Hasan Dec. ¶ 7-8 (Appx II, Exh. R, at 106-12); Arrak Dec. ¶ 6-7 (Appx II, Exh. O, at 84-90); Farah Dec. ¶ 10 (Appx II, Exh. P, at 91-97).
Detained individuals in BHU are required to go to the recreation yard twice a day for an hour, despite complaints that the area is too small to allow social distancing. See Hasan Dec. ¶ 30 (Appx II, Exh. R, at 106-12); Arrak Dec. ¶ 12 (Appx II, Exh. O, at 84-90); Farah Dec. ¶ 21 (Appx II, Exh. P, at 91-97). The guards threaten them with being sent to the “hole,” or Segregated Housing Unit, unless they go to recreation. Arrak Dec. ¶ 12 (Appx II, Exh. O, at 8490). Some detained individuals feel they need to go into disciplinary housing or remain isolated in their rooms to prevent the risk of infection, but are concerned their mental health conditions, including post-traumatic stress disorder and major depressive disorder, will worsen. Arrak Dec. ¶ 7 (Appx II, Exh. O, at 84-90); Hasan Dec. ¶ 9 (Appx II, Exh. R, at 106-12).
Meals in the BHU are served in the dayroom to all detained individuals at the same time, but there are only two tables and few chairs, and some have to sit on the floor to eat. Warsane Dec. ¶ 12 (Appx II, Exh. Q, at 98-105); Hasan Dec. ¶ 7 (Appx II, Exh. R, at 106-12); Farah Dec. ¶ 10 (Appx II, Exh. P, at 91-97). The tables and two phones in the dayroom that all detained individuals in BHU use are not being cleaned. Warsane Dec. ¶ 12 (Appx II, Exh. Q, at 98-105);
23

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 4 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/13/2020 Page 24 of 76
Hasan Dec. ¶ 31 (Appx II, Exh. R, at 106-12); Arrak Dec. ¶ 10 (Appx II, Exh. O, at 84-90). They only have toilet paper available to clean the tables in the common area, and one man reports using toilet paper to clean his room. See Warsane Dec. ¶ 23 (Appx II, Exh. Q, at 98-105); Farah Dec. ¶ 18 (Appx II, Exh. P, at 91-97). Krome staff bring food in a cart to the unit for all meals, but do not wear masks or gloves despite requests from the detained population to do so. Warsane Dec. ¶ 21 (Appx II, Exh. Q, at 98-105). The guards laugh at these requests. Warsane Dec. ¶ 22 (Appx II, Exh. Q, at 98-105).
Detained individuals are requesting face masks, but staff have not provided them and have said they are not necessary for detainees or are only for officers. See Warsane Dec. ¶ 25 (Appx II, Exh. Q, at 98-105); Hasan Dec. ¶ 19-20 (Appx II, Exh. R, at 106-12); Arrak Dec. ¶ 15, 21 (Appx II, Exh. O, at 84-90); Farah Dec. ¶ 11 (Appx II, Exh. P, at 91-97).
Soap has not been readily available, and some individuals have not been able to shower unless they had funds to purchase soap from commissary. Warsane Dec. ¶ 17 (Appx II, Exh. Q, at 98-105); Hasan Dec. ¶ 11, 13 (Appx II, Exh. R, at 106-12); Arrak Dec. ¶ 8, 23 (Appx II, Exh. O, at 84-90); Farah Dec. ¶ 20 (Appx II, Exh. P, at 91-97). Even when purchased, detained individuals are not being given these items for several days and are running out of essentials like soap and shampoo. Warsane Dec. ¶ 18 (Appx II, Exh. Q, at 98-105); Hasan Dec. ¶ 11 (Appx II, Exh. R, at 106-12); Farah Dec. ¶ 20 (Appx II, Exh. P, at 91-97). Hand sanitizer appears to be only available to nurses, who sometimes spray sanitizer on detained individuals’ hands when they are receiving medication. See Hasan Dec. ¶ 14 (Appx II, Exh. R, at 106-12); Arrak Dec. ¶ 25 (Appx II, Exh. O, at 84-90); Farah Dec. ¶ 9 (Appx II, Exh. P, at 91-97).
Individuals taking prescription medication see nurses twice a day, in the morning and evening. Warsane Dec. ¶ 20 (Appx II, Exh. Q, at 98-105). Nurses are not consistently wearing
24

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 4 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/13/2020 Page 25 of 76
gloves or masks when dispensing medication or checking if the person has swallowed the medication. Warsane Dec. ¶ 20 (Appx II, Exh. Q, at 98-105). Guards pat down detained individuals several times a day and do shakedowns of bedrooms three times per day, but do not always wear gloves or masks. Warsane Dec. ¶ 29 (Appx II, Exh. Q, at 98-105); Hasan Dec. ¶ 23, 24 (Appx II, Exh. R, at 106-12); Arrak Dec. ¶ 18 (Appx II, Exh. O, at 84-90); Farah Dec. ¶ 12-14 (Appx II, Exh. P, at 91-97). Around April 8, five guards were sent home while others are working overtime. Warsane Dec. ¶ 33 (Appx II, Exh. Q, at 98-105); Hasan Dec. ¶ 21, 28 (Appx II, Exh. R, at 106-12); Farah Dec. ¶ 16 (Appx II, Exh. P, at 91-97).
The number of people in all of the general population units is high, and new detained individuals have continued to come in over the past few weeks. See Darwyn Dec. ¶ 6(j) (Appx II, Exh. E, at 30-34); Tolentino Dec. ¶ 6, 11 (Appx II, Exh. S, at 113-17); Tepetate-Martinez Dec. at ¶ 15 (Appx II, Exh. T, at 118-23); Gayle Dec. at ¶ 11 (Appx II, Exh. B, at 10-14 ); AriasMartinez Dec. at ¶ 10 (Appx II, Exh. C, at 15-21); Khan Dec. at ¶ 8(k) (Appx II, Exh. L, at 6874). Petitioner Aparicio has seen about 15 new detained individuals in his unit in the last two weeks. See Aparicio Dec. ¶ 7 (Appx II, Exh. F, at 35-39).
As recently as April 4, 2020, new detained individuals have been transferred to Krome and were not being tested to determine whether they have COVID-19. See Jalloh Dec. ¶ 13 (Appx II, Exh. D, at 22-29); Portuondo Dec. at ¶ 13 (Appx II, Exh. A, 1-9).
At least two of the detained individuals recently transferred to Krome had fevers, one of whom was visibly shaking in the dining room. Both were eventually taken out of the general population. See Arias-Martinez Dec. at ¶ 10 (Appx II, Exh. C, at 15-21). One detained person who contracted a severe fever was removed from his room in the middle of the night by ICE agents, who were accompanied by police officers carrying guns with rubber bullets. See
25

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 4 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/13/2020 Page 26 of 76
Cardenas Dec. at ¶ 8 (Appx II, Exh. N, 79-83). The officers would not explain to the other men in the room what was happening, and the next night a new man was brought to fill the bed of the sick man. Id. Since then, at least four other men in that sick man’s room have developed COVID-19 symptoms, and have not been able to see a doctor. Cardenas Dec. at ¶ ¶ 6, 8 (Appx II, Exh. N, 79-83). One of these men has asthma, putting him at severe risk of dying from COVID-19. See Cardenas Dec. at ¶ 5 (Appx II, Exh. N, 79-83).
One detainee tested positive for COVID-19, and the two officers who were watching him also tested positive. See Portuondo Dec. at ¶ 14 (Appx II, Exh. A, 1-9); Chavez Dec. at ¶ 13 (Appx II, Exh. G, at 40-46).
Approximately 60 Krome employees have been placed under quarantine, after a total of four staff tested positive for COVID-19. See Cardenas Dec. at ¶ 9 (Appx II, Exh. N, 79-83). The facility is so understaffed that some employees are now working 12-hour shifts. Id. at ¶ 9 (Appx II, Exh. N, 79-83).
Detained individuals have been transported in and out of Krome to hospital and medical visits since the outbreak, potentially having contact with infected individuals. See Portuondo Dec. at ¶ 6 (Appx II, Exh. A, 1-9).
The detained individuals are close together when they eat because the tables and chairs where they eat cannot be moved. See Portuondo Dec. at ¶ 16 (Appx II, Exh. A, 1-9); Abdul Jalloh Dec. ¶ 15 (Appx II, Exh. D, at 22-29); Tolentino Dec. ¶ 8 (Appx II, Exh. S, at 113-17); Alfaro Garcia Dec. ¶ 16 (Appx II, Exh. K, at 61-67); Tepetate-Martinez Dec. ¶ 7 (Appx II, Exh. T, at 118-23); Tolentino Dec. ¶ 5b (Appx II, Exh. S, at 113-17); Perez Limones Dec. ¶ 13 (Appx II, Exh. M, at 75-78); Chavez Dec. ¶ 14 (Appx II, Exh. G, at 40-46).
26

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 4 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/13/2020 Page 27 of 76
Detained individuals are not being provided with masks or gloves, even when they are in cohort quarantine. See Portuondo Dec. ¶ 25 (Appx II, Exh. A, 1-9); Khan Dec. ¶ 8(c) (Appx II, Exh. L, at 68-74); Escobar Dec. ¶ 8 (Appx II, Exh. H, at 47-51); Zamora Mendoza Dec. ¶ 11 (Appx II, Exh. I, at 52-54). Portuondo reported that there is one soap dispenser at the entrance to the toilet area in his pod, which was only installed 7 or 8 days ago. See Portuondo Dec. at ¶ 21 (Appx II, Exh. A, 1-9). They have a weekly allowance of soap and some use less than needed to make sure not to run out. See Abdul Jalloh Dec. ¶ 21 (Appx II, Exh. D, at 22-29). Because Krome does not provide enough personal hygiene products, detained individuals must buy them in the commissary. See Tolentino Dec. ¶ 10 (Appx II, Exh. S, at 113-17). But the commissary is now closed and people now have to submit a request to order items, which can take anywhere from two days to over a week to arrive. See Farah Dec. ¶ 20 (Appx II, Exh. P, at 91-97).
There are no masks, gloves, or hand sanitizer available for purchase. See Portuondo Dec. ¶ 22 (Appx II, Exh. A, 1-9); Gayle Dec. ¶ 9 (Appx II, Exh. B, at 10-14); Arias-Martinez Dec. ¶ 13 (Appx II, Exh. C, at 15-21); Jalloh Dec. ¶ 22 (Appx II, Exh. D, at 22-29); Chavez Dec. ¶ 18 (Appx II, Exh. G, at 40-46).
When detained individuals try to make their own masks, they are told they are not allowed to cover their faces. See Aparicio Dec. ¶ 7 (Appx II, Exh. F, at 35-39); Escobar Dec. ¶ 8 (Appx II, Exh. H, at 47-51).
There is no hand sanitizer available in the common area. See Portuondo Dec. at ¶ 20 (Appx II, Exh. A, 1-9); Alfaro Garcia Dec. at ¶ 11 (Appx II, Exh. K, at 61-67); TepetateMartinez Dec. at ¶ 8 (Appx II, Exh. T, at 118-23); Darwyn Dec. ¶ 5(d) (Appx II, Exh. E, at 3034); Chavez Dec. at ¶ 16 (Appx II, Exh. G, at 40-46). Detained individuals have reported seeing
27

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 4 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/13/2020 Page 28 of 76
the guards with hand sanitizer but detained individuals are not allowed to use it. See Portuondo Dec. at ¶ 20 (Appx II, Exh. A, 1-9); Chavez Dec. at ¶ 16 (Appx II, Exh. G, at 40-46).
There is hand sanitizer in the nurse’s area where detained men receive medication. See Abdul Jalloh Dec. ¶ 21 (Appx II, Exh. D, at 22-29). However, detained individuals are only allowed one squirt when receiving medication. See Farah Dec. ¶ 9 (Appx II, Exh. P, at 91-97).
Until recently, Krome staff were not wearing masks or gloves. See Portuondo Dec. at ¶ 25 (Appx II, Exh. A, 1-9); Abdul Jalloh Dec. ¶ 25 (Appx II, Exh. D, at 22-29 ); Perez Limones Dec. at ¶ 11 (Appx II, Exh. M, at 75-78); Chavez Dec. at ¶ 21 (Appx II, Exh. G, at 40-46). Some officers still fail to wear gloves or masks. See Warsane Dec. ¶ 21, 29 (Appx II, Exh. Q, at 98105); Hasan Dec. ¶ 23, 24 (Appx II, Exh. R, at 106-12); Arrak Dec. ¶ 18; Farah Dec. ¶ 12-14 (Appx II, Exh. P, at 91-97); Portuondo Dec. at ¶ 26 (Appx II, Exh. A, 1-9); Chavez Dec. at ¶ 22 (Appx II, Exh. G, at 40-46). Guards are seen touching their faces and then things in the pods, such as people, food trays and other items in the living area, and they are not observed washing their hands often. See Abdul Jalloh Dec. ¶ 26-28 (Appx II, Exh. D, at 22-29); Alfaro Garcia Dec. at ¶¶ 10-11, 14 (Appx II, Exh. K, at 61-67); Tepetate-Martinez Dec. at ¶¶ 13-14 (Appx II, Exh. T, at 118-23); Darwyn Dec. ¶ 6(h)-(i) (Appx II, Exh. E, at 30-34); Portuondo Dec. at ¶ 27 (Appx II, Exh. A, 1-9); Chavez Dec. at ¶ 23 (Appx II, Exh. G, at 40-46).
Detained individuals have not seen efforts to clean or disinfect areas more frequently. Escobar Dec. ¶ 10 (Appx II, Exh. H, at 47-51). Detained individuals serve the food and clean the facility, but are not provided with masks when working these jobs. See Abdul Jalloh Dec. ¶ 1618 (Appx II, Exh. D, at 22-29); Aparicio Dec. ¶ 7 (Appx II, Exh. F, at 35-39); Tepetate-Martinez Dec. at ¶ 10 (Appx II, Exh. T, at 118-23); Perez Limones Dec. at ¶ 14 (Appx II, Exh. M, at 7578). Detained individuals prepare and touch the food, distribute the clothing, and they do not use
28

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 4 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/13/2020 Page 29 of 76
gloves or masks or use other hygiene measures to help ensure that the virus does not spread. See Darwyn Dec. ¶ 6(a)-(d) (Appx II, Exh. E, at 30-34).
Detained individuals report that a nurse said masks were being reused because of supply shortages. See Portuondo Dec. at ¶ 25 (Appx II, Exh. A, 1-9); Chavez Dec. at ¶ 21 (Appx II, Exh. G, at 40-46).
Detained individuals have not been trained on how to limit the spread of COVID-19. See Portuondo Dec. at ¶ 23 (Appx II, Exh. A, 1-9). See Abdul Jalloh Dec. ¶¶ 19, 23 (Appx II, Exh. D, at 22-29); Alfaro Garcia Dec. at ¶ 18 (Appx II, Exh. K, at 61-67); Arias-Martinez Dec. at ¶ 14 (Appx II, Exh. C, at 15-21); See Darwyn Dec. ¶ 8 (Appx II, Exh. E, at 30-34). They are only getting information from Krome staff when they or their families ask, but all they are told is that there are thousands of COVID-19 cases in the country. See Aparicio Dec. ¶ 9 (Appx II, Exh. F, at 35-39).
As of April 7, 2020, detained individuals have had their TVs, phones, and tablets confiscated. See Portuondo Dec. at ¶ 19 (Appx II, Exh. A, 1-9). No unit within Krome is allowed to watch TV. See Portuondo Dec. at ¶ 19 (Appx II, Exh. A, 1-9); Alfaro Garcia Dec. at ¶ 7 (Appx II, Exh. K, at 61-67); See Darwyn Dec. ¶ 8 (Appx II, Exh. E, at 30-34).
A recent emergency that was announced over the speakers at Krome was due to COVID19. See Abdul Jalloh Dec. ¶ 29 (Appx II, Exh. D, at 22-29).
On April 7, some detained individuals raised concerns about conditions and fears of COVID-19 and guards began beating them. Flores Ramos Dec. ¶ 20 (Appx II, Exh. U, at 12430). One person was kicked in the ribs although he was not among those making complaints. Flores Ramos Dec. ¶ 20 (Appx II, Exh. U, at 124-30). The guards are not allowing detained
29

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 4 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/13/2020 Page 30 of 76
people to contact their attorneys, which that man believes is retaliation in response to these complaints. Flores Ramos Dec. ¶ 21 (Appx II, Exh. U, at 124-30).
Since the COVID-19 outbreak at Krome, there has been a decrease in medical staff. See Abdul Jalloh Dec. ¶ 35 (Appx II, Exh. D, at 22-29). There has been no increase in screenings. See Darwyn Dec. ¶ 10 (Appx II, Exh. E, at 30-34). Detained individuals who request evaluation and to see a doctor have had their requests denied. See Darwyn Dec. ¶ 7, 11 (Appx II, Exh. E, at 30-34).
When someone is sick with cold symptoms, they must wait five to eight days before they can see a doctor. See Aparicio Dec. ¶ 8 (Appx II, Exh. F, at 35-39); Gayle Dec. at ¶ 8 (Appx II, Exh. B, at 10-14); Perez Limones Dec. at ¶ 8 (Appx II, Exh. M, at 75-78). When other detained individuals are taken out of the pods for coughing or issues with breathing, the other detained individuals are not told whether they have been exposed to COVID-19. See Gayle Dec. at ¶ 10 (Appx II, Exh. B, at 10-14).
A detained man was sick with a cough and requested to see a doctor, but was told that he was not a priority. See Abdul Jalloh Dec. ¶ 14 (Appx II, Exh. D, at 22-29). He was not isolated from the rest of the pod. Id (Appx II, Exh. D, at 22-29). Detained individuals have symptoms, including fever, goosebumps, and cough, but the rest of the detained population is not being told what is wrong with them. See Alfaro Garcia Dec. at ¶ 12 (Appx II, Exh. K, at 61-67).
If detained individuals have severe symptoms, they are taken to another area and provided with medication for headaches, but then returned to the pod. See Aparicio Dec. ¶ 8 (Appx II, Exh. F, at 35-39). When one detainee developed a cough, a staff member took his temperature and gave him two pills, without explaining to him what was wrong with him. See Gayle Dec. at ¶ 8 (Appx II, Exh. B, at 10-14).
30

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 4 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/13/2020 Page 31 of 76
Detained individuals are not getting tested when they are sick, unless they are having difficulty breathing. See Aparicio Dec. ¶ 11 (Appx II, Exh. F, at 35-39).
The medically vulnerable, due to chronic illnesses, are not being separated from the rest of the population. See Abdul Jalloh Dec. ¶ 32 (Appx II, Exh. D, at 22-29); Arias-Martinez Dec. at ¶ 9 (Appx II, Exh. C, at 15-21); Khan Dec. at ¶¶ 7-8 (Appx II, Exh. L, at 68-74).
On Sunday, April 5, 2020, the Miami Herald reported that the Monroe County Jail ended its 23-year contract with the ICE Miami Field Office, and returned 48 detained individuals to the Krome “in the middle of the night Friday.” “Sources told the Herald that the frequent trips to the crowded facility in Miami had the sheriff ’s office uneasy over the possibility that the coronavirus could easily be transmitted.” (Appx I, Exh. Q, 336-41.)
On April 8, 2020, the Assistant Field Officer Liana J. Castano stated in a declaration to this court that Krome had 3 cases of laboratory confirmed positives for COVID-19 amongst staff and a detained individual, and that at least 238 detained individuals were exposed to a confirmed case of COVID-19. (Appx I, Exh. I, at 123-224 ¶ 12.) These 238 individuals who have been exposed to a person confirmed to have COVID-19 are being placed in “cohorts with restricted movement.” (Appx I, Exh. I, at 123 ¶ 10.)
The day before, investigating from the Miami Herald was released which suggests that the number of people with the virus is underreported and “ ‘not completely accurate as testing is not conducted on site and detained individuals are sent to an off-site hospital to be tested,’ ” according to a federal official interviewed by the Herald. (Appx I, Exh. D, at 41.)
The Miami Herald’s April 7, 2020, report also explained that “[f]or weeks — and as recently as Monday — U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement has repeatedly told the Herald that no detainees in their custody in Florida have tested positive for the virus. However,
31

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 4 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/13/2020 Page 32 of 76
the agency got around having to disclose that any detainee was sick with COVID-19 because the detainee was technically no longer on the premises — but rather at a hospital, federal sources say.” (Appx I, Exh. D, at 40-41.)
Also, on April 7, 2020, four members of Congress directed a letter to ICE’s Deputy Director Matthew T. Albence, “urg[ing] [him] to significantly limit the number of immigrants held in detention and immediately expand [his] agency’s use of alternatives to detention (ATD) for qualified individuals” so that “[a] mass tragedy at Krome and other ICE facilities in Florida, including Broward Transitional Center and Glades County Detention Center, can be avoided.” (Appx I, Exh. R, at 342-43.) These members of Congress expressed that they were “deeply disturbed by ICE’s continued activity to transfer and detain large groups of immigrants in the midst of a global pandemic, especially at a facility where detainees and employees have tested positive.” (Appx I, Exh. R, at 342.)
These four members of Congress also stated that “[i]t is undisputed that jails, prisons, and detention centers are highly vulnerable to COVID-19" due to the fact that “[e]ffective social distancing is almost impossible and necessary disinfectant is rarely available to detainees,” and especially so given that the situation in “Krome is particularly alarming in this respect” in light of reported “overcrowded conditions even prior to the impact of COVID-19.” (Appx I, Exh. R, at 342.) They also added that “it appears that Krome is not at all prepared to mitigate exposure to COVID-19, or to adequately respond should an outbreak at the facility occur. These issues are only compounded by the fact that COVID-19 has now reached Krome.” (Appx I, Exh. R, at 34243.)
32

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 4 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/13/2020 Page 33 of 76
Staff at Krome arrive and leave on a shift basis, and there is limited ability to adequately screen incoming staff for new, asymptomatic infection. Staff generally live in the communities near these facilities—areas where there are confirmed cases of COVID-19.
The outbreak at Krome has affected the immigration court housed at the facility and run by the Executive Office for Immigration Review (“EOIR”). Krome Immigration Court is accessed through the same lobby as the detention center. Judges, court staff, and both government and defense attorneys have expressed concern about their safety and health.
On March 22, 2020, the National Association of Immigration Judges (“NAIJ”), the ICE Professionals Union (“ICE Union”), and the American Immigration Lawyers Association (“AILA”), wrote a joint statement demanding that EOIR close all of the immigration courts nationwide, and stating, among other things, that:
The DOJ’s current response to the COVID-19 pandemic and its spread is disconnected from the needs and advice of community leaders and scientific experts. The Immigration Courts are especially vulnerable to the spread of the Coronavirus. Every link in the chain that brings individuals to the court, from the use of public transportation, to security lines, crowded elevators, hallways, the cramped cubicle spaces of court staff, inadequate waiting room facilities in the courthouses, and scant sanitizing resources at the courts, all place lives at risk. Individuals who in many instances have waited years for a hearing may also feel pressured to appear – even if they feel sick, for fear of being ordered deported. (Appx I, Exh. S, at 345-47, 346) On March 26, 2020, the NAIJ, the ICE Union, AILA, and a multitude of other organizations wrote a letter directly to Attorney General Barr demanding the closure of all immigration courts nationwide, and stating that “detained courts must also be closed to in-person hearings in order to minimize the spread of the virus, slow the rate of new infections, and to avoid overwhelming local resources.” (Appx I, Exh. T, at 348-51.)
33

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 4 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/13/2020 Page 34 of 76
On March 30, 2020, the NAIJ issued an additional statement. The statement begins by quoting a “current immigration judge who is a U.S. military veteran” stating:
I don't say this lightly, but EOIR has demonstrated that they need to be gutted and rebuilt from the ashes. I've never witnessed an utter lack of concern for people like I have here. In my former life, we treated captured Taliban and ISIS with more humanity. Moreover, I've never seen worse leadership. A crisis usually brings good and bad to the light. We have nothing but darkness. (Appx I, Exh. U, at 352-56, 352) That same day, Monday, March 30, 2020, at 7:50 a.m., without explanation, EOIR suddenly announced that the Krome Immigration Court was closed for hearings for two days. (Appx I, Exh. V, at 357) To date, there is yet to be a public explanation for why the Krome hearings were cancelled so abruptly. There are reports that the judges and court staff at Krome feared exposure to the virus and that the abrupt closure occurred to permit cleaning of the court facilities. The Krome Immigration Court remains closed at this time. Glades County Detention Center Glades is a county jail in Moorehaven, Florida. It can house roughly 500 ICE detained men and women at a time. (Appx I, Exh. K, at 162.) Detained individuals in ICE custody are split amongst six housing units, or “pods,” four designated for the men and two for the women. (Appx I, Exh. K, at 162.) Depending on the facility’s capacity, pods may contain a mix of individuals in ICE custody, custody of the U.S. Marshals, or under Glades County custody. (Appx I, Exh. K, at 140.) The cells where the detained individuals sleep are small, and there are six detained individuals in each cell, with three bunk beds that are placed close together. See Dairon Barredo Sanchez Dec. ¶ 8 (Appx II, Exh. V, at 131-38); Tahimi Perez ¶ 10 (Appx II, Exh. W, at 139-44);
34

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 4 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/13/2020 Page 35 of 76
Franklin Ramon Gonzalez ¶ 7 (Appx II, Exh. X, at 145-50). The detained individuals are only able to maintain about one-meter separation in their cells when they sleep. See Gerardo Vargas Dec. ¶ 7 (Appx II, Exh. Y, at 151-56); Francisco Rivero Valeron Dec. ¶ 7 (Appx II, Exh. Z, at 157-62).
Many detained individuals have experienced significant turnover of cellmates, having up to six or seven new cellmates since their detention in Glades. See Dairon Barredo Sanchez Dec. ¶ 6 (Appx II, Exh. V, at 131-38); Gerardo Vargas Dec. ¶ 6 (Appx II, Exh. Y, at 151-56); Tahimi Perez ¶ 9 (Appx II, Exh. W, at 139-44); Franklin Ramon Gonzalez ¶ 6 (Appx II, Exh. X, at 14550).
There are approximately 95 detained individuals in a pod at a time. See Dairon Barredo Sanchez Dec. ¶ 17 (Appx II, Exh. V, at 131-38); Francisco Rivero Valeron Dec. ¶ 7 (Appx II, Exh. Z, at 157-62). The pods are so crowded, that social distancing at a safe six feet distance is impossible, especially with the constant influx of detained individuals. See Dairon Barredo Sanchez Dec. ¶ 12 (Appx II, Exh. V, at 131-38); Gerardo Vargas Dec. ¶ 6, 8 (Appx II, Exh. Y, at 151-56); Irvin Mendoza Silis Dec. ¶ 6 (Appx II, Exh. AA, at 163-67); Francisco Rivero Valeron Dec. ¶ 7 (Appx II, Exh. Z, at 157-62); Tahimi Perez ¶ 13 (Appx II, Exh. W, at 139-44); Franklin Ramon Gonzalez ¶ 11 (Appx II, Exh. X, at 145-50).
All detained individuals in a pod also share communal bathrooms and showers, which do not have six feet of distance between them, making it impossible to maintain a safe social distance even while using the restroom or bathing. See Dairon Barredo Sanchez Dec. ¶ 13 (Appx II, Exh. V, at 131-38); Gerardo Vargas Dec. ¶ 6 (Appx II, Exh. Y, at 151-56); Franklin Ramon Gonzalez ¶ 6 (Appx II, Exh. X, at 145-50).
35

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 4 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/13/2020 Page 36 of 76
Unlike BTC or Krome, there is no cafeteria. Detained individuals eat in the communal seating area in their pod, known as “satellite feeding.” (Appx I, Exh. K, at 162.) The tables used for eating and daily living usually seat four people, but due to overcrowding, they are now seating five to six people at a time. See Gerardo Vargas Dec. ¶ 7 (Appx II, Exh. Y, at 151-56). As a result, there is only about 40 to 50 centimeters of separation between detained individuals when they are eating at the tables. See Francisco Rivero Valeron Dec. ¶ 7 (Appx II, Exh. Z, at 157-62).
New detained individuals arrive at Glades every day, some already exhibiting flu like symptoms like coughing. See Roseline Ostine Dec. ¶ 9 (Appx II, Exh. BB, at 168-72). There is no indication that new detained individuals are tested for COVID-19 or routinely quarantined before being placed in the pod with the rest of the detained individuals. Id (Appx II, Exh. BB, at 168-72); Dairon Barredo Sanchez Dec. ¶ 9 (Appx II, Exh. V, at 131-38); Francisco Rivero Valeron Dec. ¶ 11 (Appx II, Exh. Z, at 157-62); Tahimi Perez Dec. ¶ 10 (Appx II, Exh. W, at 139-44).
In all six pods, individuals share many common spaces and touch the same surfaces. All six units and the segregation unit share a common law library. In each pod, there are only four phones available per pod that everyone must share, and people must also share tablets. Similarly, all detained individuals in the segregation unit share the same two phones.
There are no sanitizing wipes or cleaning supplies available to wipe down the phones in between calls, therefore the detained individuals are forced to use just a wet paper towel in an attempt to clean the phones before and after use. See Francisco Rivero Valeron Dec. ¶ 9 (Appx II, Exh. Z, at 157-62).
36

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 4 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/13/2020 Page 37 of 76
Contractors and detained individuals have continuously reported unsanitary physical conditions, lack of medical care, and physical mistreatment. (Appx I, Exh. K, at 162.) Glades has failed to substantively remedy these poor conditions.
Unsanitary bathrooms are a persistent problem. The jail forbids the use of bleach for cleaning the bathrooms. (Appx I, Exh. K, at 162.) Shampoo is typically used as a substitute for soap. (Appx I, Exh. K, at 162.) There is mold in the bathrooms. (Appx I, Exh. K, at 162.); (Appx I, Exh. W, at 367-68) (DHS Office of Inspector Gen. Report OIG-18-32, noting lack of cleanliness, limited hygienic supplies, and potentially unsafe food handling).
There have been reports of inedible food provided to detained individuals. (Appx I, Exh. K, at 163.) The “drinking water has a yellowish hue and an odd taste.” (Appx, Exh. K, at 163).
The spread of cough, flu, and other respiratory conditions in the dorms have been attributed to the unsanitary conditions. (Appx I, Exh. K, at 162.) Even before the COVID-19 pandemic, Glades failed to provide adequate medical care to detained women and men. (Appx I, Exh. E, at 58-60; 80-81.)27
Glades only has one doctor in the facility, who is only available four times a week. (Appx I, Exh. K, at 163.) Critical medical care is routinely delayed—sometimes for months—or denied outright. (Appx I, Exh. K, at 141-42; 163-64). When medical requests are finally addressed, individuals report not being properly treated or not treated at all. (Appx I, Exh. K, at 163.) Providing ibuprofen or Tylenol is commonly used as a blanket solution to any and all medical issues. (Appx I, Exh. K, at 163.) For individuals with chronic medical conditions, it can take
27 See also Legal Aid Service of Broward County, Complaint and Request for Investigation Glades Detention Center in Moore Haven, Florida Physical Abuse, Inappropriate Use of Segregation, Denial of Medical and Mental Health Care and Lack of Attorney Access (January 8, 2018), https://media.law.miami.edu/clinics/pdf/2018/OIG-complaint-against-glades.pdf].
37

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 4 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/13/2020 Page 38 of 76
months of grievances and sick calls to receive diagnostic testing or to see a specialist off-site. (Appx I, Exh. K, at 142)
Because Glades fails to meet detained individual’s medical needs under normal circumstances, the jail is ill-suited to provide adequate medical treatment amidst the COVID-19 pandemic. This failure is so severe that it cannot be remedied quickly to respond to COVID-19, especially in a time when healthcare resources are in high demand.
For years, detained women and men have reported “that officers routinely misuse pepper spray, use excessive force and racial slurs, and overuse isolation in a retaliatory manner.” (Appx I, Exh. K, at 164-65). One detained individual with respiratory problems reported being pepper sprayed in an isolation cell, which triggered an asthma attack. (Appx I, Exh. K, at 165.) The lack of ventilation and the unsanitary conditions further aggravated his respiratory difficulties. (Id.)
Detention center staff have failed to train detained individuals about hygiene measures designed to limit the spread of COVID-19. See Dairon Barredo Sanchez Dec. ¶ 30 (Appx II, Exh. V, at 131-38); Gerardo Vargas Dec. ¶ 12 (Appx II, Exh. Y, at 151-56); Francisco Rivero Valeron Dec. ¶ 13 (Appx II, Exh. Z, at 157-62); Franklin Ramon Gonzalez ¶ 15 (Appx II, Exh. X, at 14550). The only information detained individuals receive about COVID-19 is from the television or posters on the wall. See Dairon Barredo Sanchez Dec. ¶ 30, 33 (Appx II, Exh. V, at 131-38).
Detained individuals are now being provided with half the amount of soap they are normally provided with, equaling one 4-ounce bottle per week, when they were previously provided with two bottles per week. See Roseline Ostine Dec. ¶ 9 (Appx II, Exh. BB, at 168-72); Francisco Rivero Valeron Dec. ¶ 8 (Appx II, Exh. Z, at 157-62); Conlin Dec. (Appx I, Exh. J, at 126-30.) Detained individuals are forced to ration this small portion of soap, one bottle, to cover
38

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 4 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/13/2020 Page 39 of 76
showering and hand washing for an entire week. Id; Franklin Ramon Gonzalez ¶ 13 (Appx II, Exh. X, at 145-50).
The facility is not providing hand sanitizer, and there is none available for purchase in commissary. See Roseline Ostine Dec. ¶ 9 (Appx II, Exh. BB, at 168-72); Francisco Rivero Valeron Dec. ¶ 7-9 (Appx II, Exh. Z, at 157-62); Tahimi Perez Dec. ¶ 14-15 (Appx II, Exh. W, at 139-44); Franklin Ramon Gonzalez Dec. ¶ 13 (Appx II, Exh. X, at 145-50).
Detained individuals are not provided with masks or gloves. See Roseline Ostine Dec. ¶ 11 (Appx II, Exh. BB, at 168-72); Tahimi Perez Dec. ¶¶ 8, 14 (Appx II, Exh. W, at 139-44); Conlin Dec. ¶ 17 (Appx I, Exh. J, at 126-30). Even when detained individuals attempt to make their own masks out of their personal belongings, such as t-shirts, the guards tell them that they are not allowed to cover their faces with anything. See Dairon Barredo Sanchez Dec. ¶ 19 (Appx II, Exh. V, at 131-38); Franklin Ramon Gonzalez Dec. ¶ 14 (Appx II, Exh. X, at 145-50).
There are no gloves or masks available for purchase in commissary. See Dairon Barredo Sanchez Dec. ¶ 29 (Appx II, Exh. V, at 131-38); Gerardo Vargas Dec. ¶ 11 (Appx II, Exh. Y, at 151-56); Francisco Rivero Valeron Dec. ¶ 7, 9 (Appx II, Exh. Z, at 157-62); Franklin Ramon Gonzalez Dec. ¶ 14 (Appx II, Exh. X, at 145-50).
Although some Glades staff have recently started wearing masks, the majority of the Glades staff do not use masks or gloves. See Roseline Ostine Dec. ¶ 9 (Appx II, Exh. BB, at 16872); Dairon Barredo Sanchez Dec. ¶ 25 (Appx II, Exh. V, at 131-38); Gerardo Vargas Dec. ¶ 14 (Appx II, Exh. Y, at 151-56); Francisco Rivero Valeron Dec. ¶ 10 (Appx II, Exh. Z, at 157-62).
Although the staff are not using the proper protective gear, they still enter the living units, touch the detained individuals, their personal belongings, and the food trays. See Dairon Barredo Sanchez Dec. ¶ 25, 34 (Appx II, Exh. V, at 131-38); Gerardo Vargas Dec. ¶ 15 (Appx II, Exh. Y,
39

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 4 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/13/2020 Page 40 of 76
at 151-56); Francisco Rivero Valeron Dec. ¶ 10 (Appx II, Exh. Z, at 157-62). The detained individuals have not witnessed staff washing their hands. See Dairon Barredo Sanchez Dec. ¶ 31 (Appx II, Exh. V, at 131-38); Francisco Rivero Valeron Dec. ¶ 10 (Appx II, Exh. Z, at 157-62).
Many staff at Glades live in the surrounding communities where there are confirmed cases of COVID-19. Staff’s failure to use proper protective gear makes it all the more likely that COVID-19 will be spread from the staff to detained individuals.
Detained individuals prepare meals for the entire detained population despite the lack of masks and gloves, and many of the detained individuals preparing the food have been exhibiting signs of sickness, such as coughing. See Dairon Barredo Sanchez Dec. ¶ 22 (Appx II, Exh. V, at 131-38); Francisco Rivero Valeron Dec. ¶ 9 (Appx II, Exh. Z, at 157-62). The detained individuals also clean the facility, and they do not wear gloves or masks while they clean. See Dairon Barredo Sanchez Dec. ¶ 23 (Appx II, Exh. V, at 131-38); Francisco Rivero Valeron Dec. ¶ 9 (Appx II, Exh. Z, at 157-62). The walls of the facility are full of mold, so it is not clear how often or well they are being cleaned. See Irvin Mendoza Silis Dec. ¶ 6 (Appx II, Exh. AA, at 163-67).
Many detained individuals in the pods are exhibiting flu-like symptoms, including coughing and sneezing. See Dairon Barredo Sanchez Dec. ¶ 10 (Appx II, Exh. V, at 131-38); Francisco Rivero Valeron Dec. ¶ 13 (Appx II, Exh. Z, at 157-62); Tahimi Perez Dec. ¶ 11 (Appx II, Exh. W, at 139-44); Franklin Ramon Gonzalez Dec. ¶ 9 (Appx II, Exh. X, at 145-50). Some detained individuals are coughing up blood. See Dairon Barredo Sanchez Dec. ¶ 10 (Appx II, Exh. V, at 131-38).
Despite these flu-like symptoms, there have been no known COVID-19 tests done in the Glades facility. See Gerardo Vargas Dec. ¶¶ 16, 17 (Appx II, Exh. Y, at 151-56); Irvin Mendoza
40

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 4 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/13/2020 Page 41 of 76
Silis Dec. ¶ 8 (Appx II, Exh. AA, at 163-67); Franklin Ramon Gonzalez Dec. ¶ 17 (Appx II, Exh. X, at 145-50).
This remains true even among the population of detained individuals with medical vulnerabilities, including those with hypertension, diastolic heart failure, COPD, obesity, asthma, diabetes, and HIV. See Gerardo Vargas Dec. ¶ 17 (Appx II, Exh. Y, at 151-56); Irvin Mendoza Silis Dec. ¶ 8 (Appx II, Exh. AA, at 163-67); See Francisco Rivero Valeron Dec. ¶ 13 (Appx II, Exh. Z, at 157-62); Tahimi Perez Dec. ¶ 17 (Appx II, Exh. W, at 139-44); Franklin Ramon Gonzalez Dec. ¶ 5 (Appx II, Exh. X, at 145-50).
The medically vulnerable are not being protected by being moved away from the general population or from those who are exhibiting flu-like symptoms. See Gerardo Vargas Dec. ¶ 10 (Appx II, Exh. Y, at 151-56); Tahimi Perez Dec. ¶ 18 (Appx II, Exh. W, at 139-44).
As of a couple days ago, 12 detained individuals were put into a “quarantine pod.” Franklin Ramon Gonzalez Dec. ¶ 12 (Appx II, Exh. X, at 145-50).
Detained individuals are not able to see the medical staff in a timely manner, and when they are able to see the medical staff, their temperature is not being taken. See Dairon Barredo Sanchez Dec. ¶ 11 (Appx II, Exh. V, at 131-38).
One detained individual was advised by a nurse that he had the flu, but another nurse informed him that he did not. See Dairon Barredo Sanchez Dec. ¶ 28 (Appx II, Exh. V, at 13138).
Broward Transitional Center BTC is an immigration detention center in Pompano Beach, Florida for “non-criminal and low security” detained individuals operated by a private contractor, the for-profit prison corporation The GEO Group, Inc. (“GEO”). (Appx I, Exh. K at 153.) GEO has its headquarters
41

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 4 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/13/2020 Page 42 of 76
in Boca Raton, Florida and is ICE’s largest contractor, holding more than $400 million in contracts with ICE.28
Since it opened in 2002, “Broward has steadily grown in population capacity from 150 detained women to 700 detained women and men.” (Appx I, Exh. K at 153.). There are 595 beds for men, and 105 for women. GEO’s contract with ICE includes a 500-bed quota, meaning that ICE is contractually obligated to pay for 500 beds regardless if they are being used.29 (Appx I, Exh. K at 153.)
Each room in BTC has three sets of bunkbeds—housing up to six individuals per room that generally measures 10’ x 12’. All individuals in the room share a toilet, a shower and a sink. Moreover, all 700 individuals share common areas, such as the recreation area, phones, the law library, seating areas, and the cafeteria. The cafeteria holds 300 people per shift for three meals.
GEO’s operation of BTC has been dogged by complaints including denial of medical and mental health care, using detained individuals for unpaid or cheap labor, expired and rotten food, and abusive staff.30 The DHS Office of Inspector General has repeatedly concluded that ICE fails to hold detention facility contractors accountable for meeting performance standards required to ensure humane conditions. DHS Office of Inspector Gen. Report OIG-19-18 (Appx I, Exh. X, at 377-412); DHS Office of Inspector Gen. Report OIG-18-67 (Appx I, Exh. Y, at 413-46).
Even before the COVID-19 pandemic, critical medical care at BTC has been routinely delayed—sometimes for months—or denied outright. (Appx I, Exh. K at 141-43, 153.)
28 https://www.miaminewtimes.com/news/boca-ratons-geo-group-is-ices-top-contractor10504265. 29 Banking on Detention: Local Lockup Quota & the Immigrant Dragnet, Detention Watch Network & Center for Constitutional Rights (2015), https://www.detentionwatchnetwork.org/sites/default/files/reports/DWN%20CCR%20Banking% 20on%20Detention%20Report.pdf. 30 Prison By any Other Name – SPLC 2019 report; BTC A ’Model‘ for Civil Detention – AIJ 2013 Report.
42

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 4 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/13/2020 Page 43 of 76
Contractors and detained individuals have continuously reported inadequate medical and mental health care. In March 2012, an inspection documented its failure to transfer detained individuals to medical and mental health providers in a timely manner.31 Eight years later, BTC has failed to remedy this issue. Detained individuals report having to submit multiple medical requests before being medical—typically, only to be set back to their dorm with aspirin. (Appx I, Exh. K at 153.)
At BTC, individuals with chronic medical conditions reported tremendous difficulties receiving necessary accommodations for their health problems, such as dietary accommodations. (Appx I, Exh. K at 143.) One individual remembered a man with diabetes losing a finger as a result of the inadequate medical care at BTC. (Appx I, Exh. K at 143.)
During the summer of 2019, there was a mumps outbreak at BTC in which detained individuals were quarantined.32 A couple months after, an outbreak of an unknown stomach illness affected 16% of the facility’s population.33
Now, with the COVID-19 outbreak, BTC has placed some detained individuals in what it is calling quarantine. These detained individuals are not in an actual quarantine because they are grouped together. See Bibiano Soares Dec. at ¶ 13 (Appx II, Exh. CC, at 173-79); Betancourt Dec. at ¶ 9 (Appx II, Exh. DD, at 18-85); Rosas Cardenas Dec. at ¶ 9 (Appx II, Exh. EE, at 18690); Sonay Funez Dec. at ¶ 17 (Appx II, Exh. FF, at 191-97).
31 Office of Detention oversight Compliance Inspection Broward Transitional Center, U.S. Department of Homeland Securty (2012), https://www.ice.gov/doclib/foia/odo-complianceinspections/2012browardtransitioncenter-pompanobeach-fl-feb28-mar1-2012.pdf. 32 Letter to ICE and Wardens from AI Justice, SPLC, AAAJ, and project South (Mar. 13, 2020), https://www.splcenter.org/sites/default/files/ltr_to_ice_and_wardens_re_covid-19_-_2020.03__final.pdf 33 Austen Erblat, Stomach bug hits 115 detainees at immigration center, South Florida Sun Sentinel (Nov. 5, 2019), https://www.sun-sentinel.com/local/broward/pompano-beach/fl-nepompano-beach-flu-outbreak-immigration-detention-center-20191105xopjvimk4fgebbzcts7ausbdwu-story.html.
43

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 4 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/13/2020 Page 44 of 76
This “quarantined” group nonetheless uses the general population’s communal space at BTC when the general population is not using this space. As a result, the quarantine group touches the telephones, tables, tablets, and chairs. See Bibiano Soares Dec. at ¶ 13 (Appx II, Exh. CC, at 173-79); Betancourt Dec. at ¶ 9 (Appx II, Exh. DD, at 18-85).
Detained men at BTC are sleeping in cells with five to six individuals in bunkbeds, which are not six feet apart. See Valera Ramirez Dec. at ¶ 6 (Appx II, Exh. GG, at 198-203); Sosa Fletes Dec. at ¶ 5 (Appx II, Exh. HH, at 204-08); Sontay Funez Dec. at ¶ 9 (Appx II, Exh. FF, at 191-97); Rosas Cardenas Dec. at ¶ 6 (Appx II, Exh. EE, at 186-90); Betancourt Dec. at ¶ 5 (Appx II, Exh. DD, at 18-85); Ferreira Borges Dec. at ¶ 6 (Appx II, Exh. II, 209-14). This sleeping arrangement makes it impossible to remain six feet apart and practice social distancing. See Sosa Fletes Dec. at ¶ 5 (Appx II, Exh. HH, at 204-08); Bibiano Soares Dec. at ¶ 7 (Appx II, Exh. CC, at 173-79); Rosas Cardenas Dec. at ¶ 6 (Appx II, Exh. EE, at 186-90); Betancourt Dec. at ¶ 5 (Appx II, Exh. DD, at 18-85); Ferreira Borges Dec. at ¶ 6 (Appx II, Exh. II, 209-14).
The detained individuals are close to each together when they eat because the chairs are attached to the floor, they have to sit across from each other on the table, and there is not enough room to remain six feet apart. See Valera Ramirez Dec. at ¶ 6 (Appx II, Exh. GG, at 198-203); Sosa Fletes Dec. at ¶ 13 (Appx II, Exh. HH, at 204-08); Ferreira Borges Dec. at ¶ 7 (Appx II, Exh. II, 209-14); Rosas Cardenas Dec. at ¶ 6 (Appx II, Exh. EE, at 186-90); Rodas Pedro Dec. at ¶ 13 (Appx II, Exh. JJ, at 215-19). Detained individuals wait in line very close to each other while waiting to enter the dining hall. See Valera Ramirez Dec. at ¶ 6 (Appx II, Exh. GG, at 198203); Betancourt Dec. at ¶ 5 (Appx II, Exh. DD, at 18-85).
Some detained individuals are experiencing flu like symptoms, including coughing, congestion and difficulty breathing. See Bibiano Soares Dec. at ¶ 5 (Appx II, Exh. CC, at 173-
44

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 4 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/13/2020 Page 45 of 76
79); Sontay Funez Dec. at ¶ 15 (Appx II, Exh. FF, at 191-97); Valera Ramirez Dec. at ¶ 10 (Appx II, Exh. GG, at 198-203).
Despite having symptoms, detained individuals have difficulty being able to see the medical staff in a timely manner. See Valera Ramirez Dec. at ¶ 10 (Appx II, Exh. GG, at 198203). One detainee with an unbearable cough submitted a written request, went twice to the medical office, and then complained to a guard, before he was allowed to see a doctor. See Valera Ramirez Dec. at ¶ 11 (Appx II, Exh. GG, at 198-203).
There has been no known test of COVID-19 done in the BTC facilities. See Sosa Fletes Dec. at ¶ 11 (Appx II, Exh. HH, at 204-08); Sonay Funez Dec. at ¶ 10 (Appx II, Exh. FF, at 19197).
A recently transferred detained person reported having entered BTC with a bad cold and cough, but was never tested for COVID-19 or isolated from the general population. See Valera Ramirez Dec. at ¶ 10 (Appx II, Exh. GG, at 198-203); Soares Fletes Dec. at ¶ 9 (Appx II, Exh. HH, at 204-08); Ferreira Borges Dec. at ¶ 14 (Appx II, Exh. II, 209-14).
Detained individuals have trouble accessing medical attention, including for serious chronic conditions such as asthma. See Borges Dec. at ¶ 5 (Appx II, Exh. II, 209-14); Rodas Pedro Dec. at ¶ 5 (Appx II, Exh. JJ, at 215-19). Medical staff have become so overwhelmed with the number of sick men detained in the facility that one doctor gave an individual his entire bottle of blood pressure medicine to take on his own, since she no longer had time to dispense his pill regularly. See Valera Ramirez Dec. at ¶ 14 (Appx II, Exh. GG, at 198-203).
At least 40 men have been brought into BTC in the past few weeks. See Borges Dec. at ¶ 14 (Appx II, Exh. II, 209-14). New detained people have been placed immediately into shared rooms without being isolated first. See Borges Dec. at ¶14 (Appx II, Exh. II, 209-14); Rosas
45

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 4 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/13/2020 Page 46 of 76
Cardenas Dec. at ¶12 (Appx II, Exh. EE, at 186-90). One group of new arrivals came about one week ago from Krome, which already had confirmed COVID-19 cases, and they were placed with the general population of BTC. See Betancourt Dec. at ¶13 (Appx II, Exh. DD, at 18-85). Individuals detained at BTC were told the infected person at Krome was sent home. See Rodas Pedro Dec. at ¶ 7 (Appx II, Exh. JJ, at 215-19).
There are no precautions taken to protect those who are medically vulnerable to COVID19. See Bibiano Soares Dec. at ¶ 18 (Appx II, Exh. CC, at 173-79); Betancourt Dec. at ¶ 11 (Appx II, Exh. DD, at 18-85); Valera Ramirez Dec. at ¶ 15 (Appx II, Exh. GG, at 198-203).
Detained individuals prepare the food and clean at BTC. One detained person who previously prepared the food at BTC reported having flu like symptoms. See Bibiano Soares Dec. at ¶ 5 (Appx II, Exh. CC, at 173-79). Detained individuals who work in the kitchen do not always wear masks when preparing the food and are not taught COVID-19 hygiene measures. Id at ¶ 9 (Appx II, Exh. CC, at 173-79); Rodas Pedro Dec. at ¶ 14 (Appx II, Exh. JJ, at 215-19).
Detained individuals have not observed greater efforts to clean in response to COVID-19. Rodas Pedro Dec. at ¶ 15 (Appx II, Exh. JJ, at 215-19). Most detained individuals are not provided with masks or gloves when they clean common areas. See Valera Ramirez Dec. at ¶ 8 (Appx II, Exh. GG, at 198-203); Sosa Fletes Dec. at ¶ 7 (Appx II, Exh. HH, at 204-08). When asked to clean their cells, only one pair of gloves is provided. See Sonay Funez Dec. at ¶ 10 (Appx II, Exh. FF, at 191-97). When masks and gloves are available, they are only for cleaning, otherwise there is no access to gloves and masks. See Betancourt Dec. at ¶ 6 (Appx II, Exh. DD, at 18-85).
BTC staff not using protective gear enter living facilities and use their bare hands to touch detained individuals and their personal belongings. See Bibiano Soares Dec. at ¶ 15 (Appx
46

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 4 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/13/2020 Page 47 of 76
II, Exh. CC, at 173-79); Betancourt Dec. at ¶ 6 (Appx II, Exh. DD, at 18-85); Ferreira Borges Dec. at ¶ 13 (Appx II, Exh. II, 209-14), Valera Ramirez Dec. at ¶ 9 (Appx II, Exh. GG, at 198203); Sosa Fletez Dec. at ¶ 8 (Appx II, Exh. HH, at 204-08); Sonay Funez Dec. at ¶ 17 (Appx II, Exh. FF, at 191-97). Borges Dec. at ¶13 (Appx II, Exh. II, 209-14). Recently staff have used their bare hands to conduct pat downs, to give men high fives, and to touch their phones, tables, and exercise equipment. See Valera Ramirez Dec. at ¶9 (Appx II, Exh. GG, at 198-203); Borges Dec. at ¶13 (Appx II, Exh. II, 209-14). The detained individuals have not seen staff washing their hands. See Bibiano Soares Dec. at ¶ 15 (Appx II, Exh. CC, at 173-79); Sosa Fletes Dec. at ¶ 8 (Appx II, Exh. HH, at 204-08).
Only some of the BTC staff have begun to use mask and gloves recently. See Bibiano Soares Dec. at ¶ 12 (Appx II, Exh. CC, at 173-79); Betancourt Dec. at ¶ 6 (Appx II, Exh. DD, at 18-85); Ferreira Borges Dec. at ¶ 13 (Appx II, Exh. II, 209-14), Valera Ramirez Dec. at ¶ 9 (Appx II, Exh. GG, at 198-203); Rosas Cardinas Dec. at ¶ 7 (Appx II, Exh. EE, at 186-90), Sonay Funez Dec. at ¶ 17 (Appx II, Exh. FF, at 191-97). Guards wear gloves when searching detainees, but do not always use them otherwise. See Rodas Pedro Dec. at ¶ 9 (Appx II, Exh. JJ, at 215-19).
Detained individuals receive only a small allocation of soap each week, which often runs out. See Sosa Fletes Dec. at ¶ 6 (Appx II, Exh. HH, at 204-08); Sonay Funez Dec. at ¶ 11 (Appx II, Exh. FF, at 191-97); Valera Ramirez Dec. at ¶ 7 (Appx II, Exh. GG, at 198-203); Betancourt Dec. at ¶ 5 (Appx II, Exh. DD, at 18-85); Bibiano Soares Dec. at ¶ 10 (Appx II, Exh. CC, at 17379). This small amount is supposed to last them for showers and hand washing, however detained individuals reported it is not enough. See Bibiano Soares Dec. at ¶ 10 (Appx II, Exh. CC, at 173-79); Betancourt Dec. at ¶ 5 (Appx II, Exh. DD, at 18-85); Ferreira Borges Dec. at ¶ 9
47

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 4 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/13/2020 Page 48 of 76
(Appx II, Exh. II, 209-14); Sosa Fletes Dec. at ¶ 6 (Appx II, Exh. HH, at 204-08). They have not been given hand sanitizer. See Rodas Pedro Dec. at ¶ 8 (Appx II, Exh. JJ, at 215-19).
Detained individuals have not been given any formal education about hygiene measures to prevent the spread of COVID-19. See Bibiano Soares Dec. at ¶ 19 (Appx II, Exh. CC, at 17379); Betancourt Dec. at ¶ 8 (Appx II, Exh. DD, at 18-85); Ferreira Borges Dec. at ¶ 16 (Appx II, Exh. II, 209-14), Valera Ramirez Dec. at ¶ 12 (Appx II, Exh. GG, at 198-203); Rosas Cardenas Dec. at ¶ 8 (Appx II, Exh. EE, at 186-90); Sosa Fletes Dec. at ¶ 8 (Appx II, Exh. HH, at 204-08); Sonay Funez Dec. at ¶ 17 (Appx II, Exh. FF, at 191-97); Rodas Pedro Dec. at ¶ 10 (Appx II, Exh. JJ, at 215-19). The only information they have received is from watching TV and posters on the wall. See Valera Ramirez Dec. at ¶ 12 (Appx II, Exh. GG, at 198-203); Rosas Cardenas Dec. at ¶ 8 (Appx II, Exh. EE, at 186-90).
Detained individuals have no access to masks or gloves, even from the commissary. Borges Dec. at ¶ 12 (Appx II, Exh. II, 209-14); Betancourt Dec. at ¶10 (Appx II, Exh. DD, at 1885).
BTC staff rotate in and out of BTC on a regular basis. Staff generally live in the communities near BTC—areas where there many confirmed cases of COVID-19. BTC has a history of outbreaks of contagious illnesses. In November of 2019, there was a stomach flu outbreak at BTC during which 115 detained persons became ill.34 On March 17, 2020, detained persons at BTC were subjected to a 5-hour water stoppage, during which they had no access to water to wash their hands, bathe, or use the toilet.35
34 https://www.sun-sentinel.com/local/broward/pompano-beach/fl-ne-pompano-beach-fluoutbreak-immigration-detention-center-20191105-xopjvimk4fgebbzcts7ausbdwu-story.html 35 https://www.wlrn.org/post/coronavirus-live-updates-two-broward-election-poll-workers-testpostive-covid-19#stream/0
48

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 4 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/13/2020 Page 49 of 76
ICE’s Alternatives to Detention Program
For over 15 years, DHS/ICE has sought and obtained congressional funding for its
Alternatives to Detention (“ATD”) program, which uses supervised release, case management,
and monitoring of individuals instead of detention.36 ICE has repeatedly told Congress that the
ATD program increases ICE’s operational effectiveness and individual compliance with release
conditions.
The DHS FY2021 Congressional Budget Justification for ICE states that it costs $125.06
per day to jail an adult immigration in ICE custody. The average cost per ATD participant is
$4.43 per day. The DHS FY2021 funding request seeks to support 120,000 daily participants in
ATD.37
A 2014 GAO Report found that 95% of those on full-service ATD (those that include
case management) appear for their final hearings.38 According to 2017 contract data, supervision
36 ICE’s current ATD program is called Intensive Supervision Appearance Program III (ISAP III). The program features different levels of case management including in-person or telephonic meetings, unannounced home visits, scheduled office visits, and court and meeting alerts. Some are also enrolled in technology-based monitoring including telephonic monitoring, GPS monitoring via ankle bracelet, and smart phone application monitoring called SmartLink that uses facial recognition and location monitoring via GPS. The private contractor that operates the program for ICE is BI, Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of The GEO Group, Inc. See CRS Report R45804, Immigration: Alternatives to Detention (ATD) Programs, (Jul. 8, 2019). On March 23, 2020, DHS awarded BI, Inc. a 5-year $2.2 billion contract for continued ISAP support. https://beta.sam.gov/opp/2479131ff88f405999e126b52ff105f5/view 37 DHS/ICE FY2021 Congressional Budget Justification, at Operations & Support 132, 171, 173, https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/u.s._immigration_and_customs_enforcement .pdf. Due to court backlogs and delays for those who are non-detained, ATD participants are enrolled for a longer period of time than the period of time that individuals remain in detention. However, even considering the average length of stay in detention and the average length of time in ATD, taxpayers are paying an average of $4,000 more per individual detained than those released on ATD. 38 GAO-15-26, Alternatives to Detention, at 30 (Nov. 2014), available at https://www.gao.gov/assets/670/666911.pdf.
49

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 4 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/13/2020 Page 50 of 76
coupled with some case management results in a more than 99% appearance rate for all immigration court hearings, and a more than 91% appearance rate for final hearings.39
As of April 4, 2020, ICE has 89,851 individuals enrolled in ATD, including 5,057 in the Miami area.40
PETITIONERS AND THE PROPOSED CLASS A district court may enter class-wide injunctive relief prior to certification of the proposed class. Sanchez v. McAleenan, No. 8:19-cv-01728-GJH, *11 (D. Md. Feb. 7, 2020) (Memorandum Opinion); J.O.P. v. United States of Dep’t of Homeland Security., No. GJH-1191944, 2019 WL 3536786, at *4 (D. Md. Aug. 2, 2019); see also Gooch v. Life Inv’rs Ins. Co. of Am., 672 F.3d 402, 433 (6th Cir. 2012) (“Simply put, there is nothing improper about a preliminary injunction preceding a ruling on class certification.”); see also Newberg on Class Actions § 4:30 (5th Ed. 2013) (“[A] court may issue a preliminary injunction in class suits preceding a ruling on the merits.”) Petitioner-Plaintiffs bring this motion on behalf of a highly vulnerable putative class: all individuals in civil immigration detention at three Florida detention centers, Krome Service Processing Center, Broward Transitional Center, and Glades County Detention Center. Each individual is at imminent risk of contracting COVID-19 because of the life-threatening conditions under which they are confined—conditions that violate CDC guidelines and State and County orders as they pertain to COVID-19.
39 The Real Alternatives to Detention (June 2019), available at https://www.womensrefugeecommission.org/images/zdocs/The-Real-Alternatives-to-DetentionJune-2019-FINAL-v-2.pdf. 40 ICE website, Detention Management, https://www.ice.gov/detention-management#tab2.
50

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 4 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/13/2020 Page 51 of 76
Named Petitioner-Plaintiffs bring this action as representatives of the following proposed class:
All civil immigration detained individuals who are held, or who will be held, by Respondents at the Krome Service Processing Center (“Krome”), the Broward Transitional Center (“BTC”), and at Glades County Detention Facility (“Glades”) as of the time of the filing of this action who are:
Sub-class A: detained individuals with a stable location and/or place of residency in which they can self-quarantine and practice social distancing and hygiene pursuant to the CDC guidelines and Exec. Order No. 20-91 upon release.
Sub-class B: all other detained individuals without access to a stable location and/or place of residency in which they can self-quarantine and practice social distancing and hygiene pursuant to CDC guidelines and Exec. Order No. 20-91 upon release.
Sub-class C: all other detained individuals who opt-out of Sub-class A & B. The proposed class meets the requirements of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and (b). The class is sufficiently numerous. Krome detains an average of 600 immigrant detained individuals at any time, with a population fluctuating between 550 and 875 people since 2006. Southern Poverty Law Center, Prison by any Other Name: A Report on South Florida Detention Centers (Appx I, Exh. K, at 131-234, 152). BTC detains on average 700 immigrant detained individuals at a time, with a mandatory minimum of 500 beds for immigrant detained individuals (Appx I, Exh. K, at 156.) Glades detains an average of 407 immigrant detained individuals at a time. (Appx I, Exh. K, at 165.) All immigrant detained individuals at Krome, BTC, and Glades are detained under the legal authority of Respondent Field Office Director, Miami Field Office, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. See Masingene v. Martin, __ F. Supp. 3d __, 2020 WL 465587 (S.D. Fla. Jan. 27, 2020).
51

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 4 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/13/2020 Page 52 of 76
All members of the class are bound together by common questions of law and fact – most prominently, whether in the face of the lethal COVID-19 pandemic, the continued detention of the class members at Krome, BTC, and Glades defies CDC guidelines and places the detained individuals’ safety and health at grave risk in a manner that amounts to unconstitutional punishment. The named Petitioners are proper class representatives because their claims are typical of the absent class members and because they and their counsel will adequately and vigorously represent the class. Rule 23(b)(2) is also satisfied here because the RespondentsDefendants have “acted or refused to act on grounds that apply generally to the class” through creating and maintaining conditions that put the class at imminent risk of contracting COVID-19, the deadly virus that is currently sweeping the globe.
LEGAL FRAMEWORK A. Reasonable Safety The Due Process Clause provides that no person shall “be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” U.S. Const. amend. V. Its protections extend to every person within the nation’s borders regardless of immigration status. Mathews v. Diaz, 426 U.S. 67, 77, (1976) (“Even one whose presence in this country is unlawful, involuntary, or transitory is entitled to that constitutional protection.”). When the government takes a person into custody and detains him against the person’s will, the Constitution imposes upon the Government a duty to assume responsibility for that detainee’s safety and general well being. See Helling v. McKinney, 509 U.S. 25, 32 (1993). Under the Eighth Amendment, the Government must provide criminal detainees with basic human needs, including reasonable safety. Helling, 509 U.S. at 32. The government violates the Eighth Amendment if it confines a criminal detainee in unsafe conditions. See Helling, 509 U.S. at 33. When the government detains a person for the
52

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 4 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/13/2020 Page 53 of 76
violation of an immigration law, the person is a civil detainee, even if he has a prior criminal conviction. See Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 690 (2001). As civil detainees, Petitioners are entitled to more considerate treatment than criminal detainees, whose conditions of confinement are designed to punish. See Marsh v. Fla. Dep’t of Corrections, 330 F. App’x 179 (11th Cir. 2009) (quoting Youngberg v. Romeo, 457 U.S. 307, 322 (1982)).
The Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause prohibits punishment of people in civil custody. Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 535 n.16 (1979); Magluta v. Samples, 375 F.3d 1269, 1273 (11th Cir. 2004); Hamm v. Dekalb County, 774 F.2d 1567, 1572 (11th Cir. 1985) (citing Ingraham v. Wright, 430 U.S. 651, 671 n. 40 (1977)). (1989).
To establish that a particular condition or restriction of detention constitutes impermissible punishment, a petitioner must show either (1) an expressed intent to punish; or (2) lack of a reasonable relationship to a legitimate governmental purpose, from which an intent to punish may be inferred. See Wolfish, 441 U.S. at 538. Absent an explicit intention to punish, a court must apply a two-part test: “First, a court must ask whether any ‘legitimate goal’ was served by the prison conditions. Second, it must ask whether the conditions are ‘reasonably related’ to that goal.” Jacoby v. Baldwin County, 835 F.3d 1338, 1345 (11th Cir. 2016). “[I]f conditions are so extreme that less harsh alternatives are easily available, those conditions constitute ‘punishment.’” Telfair v. Gilberg, 868 F. Supp. 1396, 1412 (S.D. Ga. 1994) (citing Wolfish, 441 U.S. at 538-39 n.20).
“[W]hen the State takes a person into its custody and holds him there against his will, the Constitution imposes upon it a corresponding duty to assume some responsibility for his safety and general well-being.” DeShaney v. Winnebago Cty. Dep’t. of Soc. Servs., 489 U.S. 189, 199200 (1989). The government must provide detained individuals with basic necessities, such as
53

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 4 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/13/2020 Page 54 of 76
adequate medical care, food, clothing, and shelter; the failure to provide these necessities violates due process. Hamm, 774 F.2d at 1573; Cook ex rel. Estate of Tessier v. Sheriff of Monroe Cty., 402 F.3d 1092, 1115 (11th Cir. 2005).
At a minimum, the Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause prohibits Respondents’ deliberate indifference to a substantial risk of serious harm that would rise to the level of an Eighth Amendment violation in the post-conviction criminal context. Revere v. Mass. Gen. Hosp., 463 U.S. 239, 244, (1983) (“[T]he due process rights of a [detainee] are at least as great as the Eighth Amendment protections available to a convicted prisoner.”); see also Hale v. Tallapoosa County, 50 F. 3d 1579, 1582 n.4 (11th Cir. 1995).
In order to show that Respondents are acting with deliberate indifference, Petitioners must show exposure to a substantial risk of serious harm of which Respondents are aware and have disregarded. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834, 837-38 (1994); Marbury v. Warden, 936 F.3d 1227, 1233 (11th Cir. 2019); Hale v. Tallapoosa Cty., 50 F.3d 1579, 1582 (11th Cir. 1995).
The government may violate the Eighth Amendment when it “ignore[s] a condition of confinement that is sure or very likely to cause serious illness and needless suffering the next week or month or year,” including “exposure of inmates to a serious, communicable disease,” even when “the complaining inmate shows no serious current symptoms.” Helling, 509 U.S. at 33; see also id. at 34 (citing with approval Gates v. Collier, 501 F.2d 1291, 1300 (5th Cir. 1974), which held that prisoners were entitled to relief under the Eighth Amendment when they showed, inter alia, the mingling of “inmates with serious contagious diseases” with other prison inmates).
Thus, the harm that Petitioners fear—i.e., that their confinement will result in a COVID19 infection that will seriously injure and possibly kill them—need not become a reality to
54

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 4 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/13/2020 Page 55 of 76
establish a violation of their constitutional rights. Courts do not require a plaintiff to “await a tragic event” before seeking relief from a condition of confinement that unconstitutionally endangers them. See Helling, 509 U.S. at 33 (holding prisoner’s Eight Amendment claim could be based upon possible future harm to health, as well as present harm). “Nor does it matter that some inmates may not be affected by the condition, and that the harm is thus, in a sense, only potential harm. The Court has found an Eighth Amendment violation ‘even though it was not alleged that the likely harm would occur immediately and even though the possible infection might not affect all of those exposed.’” Tittle v. Jefferson Cty. Comm’n, 10 F.3d 1535, 1543 (11th Cir. 1994) (quoting Helling, 509 U.S. at 33).
B. Accardi Doctrine When the government has promulgated “[r]egulations with the force and effect of law,”
those regulations “supplement the bare bones” of federal statutes. United States ex rel. Accardi v. Shaughnessy, 347 U.S. 260, 266, 268 (1954) (reversing in immigration case after review of warrant for deportation). Agencies must follow their own “existing valid regulations,” even where government officers have broad discretion, such as in the area of immigration. Id.; see also Morton v. Ruiz, 415 U.S. 199, 235 (1974) (“[I]t is incumbent upon agencies to follow their own procedures . . . even where [they] are possibly more rigorous than otherwise would be required.”); Battle v. FAA, 393 F.3d 1330, 1336 (D.C. Cir. 2005) (“Accardi has come to stand for the proposition that agencies may not violate their own rules and regulations to the prejudice of others.”). Breaches of Accardi’s rule constitute violations of both the Administrative Procedures Act (“APA”) and the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause.
While violations of “internal agency procedures” do not always require a remedy, Accardi’s rule applies with full force when “the rights or interests of the objecting party” are
55

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 4 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/13/2020 Page 56 of 76
“affected.” Monitlla v. INS, 926 F.2d 162, 167 (2d. Cir. 1991) (citing cases) (“Accardi doctrine is premised on fundamental notions of fair play underlying the concept of due process”); see also Wilson v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 378 F.3d 541, 545, 546 (6th Cir. 2004) (noting that an Accardi violation may be a due process violation, and the government’s action may be set aside pursuant to the APA); Sameena, Inc. v. U.S. Air Force, 147 F.3d 1148, 1153 (9th Cir. 1998) (“An agency’s failure to follow its own regulations . . . may result in a violation of an individual’s constitutional right to due process.”).
C. State Created Danger The Due Process Clause imposes a duty on state actors to protect or care for citizens in
when the state affirmatively places a particular individual in a position of danger the individual would not otherwise have faced." Gregory v. City of Rogers, 974 F.2d 1006, 1010 (8th Cir. 1992) (en banc). The government violates an individual’s right to due process when it (1) “affirmatively place[s] [the] individual in danger,” (2) by “acting with ‘deliberate indifference to [a] known or obvious danger.’” Kennedy v. City of Ridgefield, 439 F.3d 1055, 1062 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Munger v. City of Glasgow, 227 F.3d 1082, 1086 (9th Cir. 2000); L.W. v. Grubbs, 92 F.3d 894, 900 (9th Cir. 1996)).
A duty of protection arises where the state has a custodial relationship with the individual, arising from such circumstances as incarceration in prison or involuntary commitment in a mental institution.” Davis v. Carter, 555 F.3d 979, 982 n.2 (11th Cir. 2009).
56

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 4 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/13/2020 Page 57 of 76
ARGUMENT I. Petitioners and members of the proposed class are likely to succeed on the merits
of their claims A. Count One – Accardi Doctrine (Fifth Amendment/APA) – Violation of detention
Standards Under the Accardi doctrine, due process and the basic principle of administrative law dictate that rules promulgated by a federal agency regulating the rights and interests of others are controlling upon the agency. That doctrine is premised on the fundamental notion of fair play underlying the concept of due process. The Accardi doctrine applies with particular force when “the rights of individuals are affected.” Morton, 415 U.S. at 235. Krome, BTC and Glades are all subject to National Detention Standards that are issued by ICE, which set forth the medical care that must be provided to individuals in immigration detention. Both Krome and BTC are subject to ICE’s 2011 Performance-Based National Detention Standards (“PBNDS”). See (Appx I, Exh. N, at 253.)41 Glades is subject to ICE’s National Detention Standards (”NDS”). (Appx. I, Exh. K, at 152, 156.) The current governing version of the NDS is the 2019 National Detention Standards for Non-Dedicated Facilities.42 Section 4.3(II)(10) of the PBNDS requires that “Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) guidelines for the prevention and control of infectious and communicable diseases shall be followed.” (Appx, Exh. N, at 253.) The PBNDS also provides that “[f]acilities shall comply with current and future plans implemented by federal, state or local authorities addressing specific public health issues including communicable disease reporting
41 Full copy available at: https://www.ice.gov/doclib/detentionstandards/2011/pbnds2011r2016.pdf]. 42 Supersession noted at: https://www.ice.gov/detention-standards/2000.
57

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 4 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/13/2020 Page 58 of 76
requirements.” (Appx, Exh. N, at 256-57.) Similarly, section 1.1(I) of the NDS, covered “facilit[ies] will operate in accordance with all applicable regulations and codes, such as those of . . . the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).” (Appx I, Exh. O, at 304).43
Respondents have failed to follow their duty to comply with the PBNDS and NDS, which in turn require compliance with CDC guidelines and federal, state and local laws. Respondents have neither reduced the population of Krome, Glades, and BTC. Nor have they done anything to ensure social distancing and proper hygiene.
Respondents have failed to comply with the CDC guidelines. Respondents have not “[e]nsure[d] that sufficient stocks of hygiene supplies, cleaning supplies, PPE, and medical supplies . . . are on hand.” Compare CDC Guidance at 7 (Appx I, Exh. F, at 54); with Declarations of Individuals Detained at all three facilities: Krome (Warsane Dec., Hasan Dec., Farah Dec., Arrak Dec.); Glades (Dairon Barredo Sanchez Dec., Tahimi Perez Dec., Franklin Ramon Gonzalez Dec., Gerardo Vargas Dec., and Francisco Rivero Valeron Dec.); and BTC (Valera Ramirez Dec., Sosa Fletes Dec., Sontay Funez Dec., Rosas Cardenas Dec., Betancourt Dec. Ferreira Borges Dec., and Bibiano Soares Dec) (Appx II).
Respondents have not implemented the recommended cleaning and disinfecting practices. Compare CDC Guidance at 9 (Appx I, Exh. F, at 56); with Declarations of Individuals Detained at all three facilities: Krome (Warsane Dec., Hasan Dec., Farah Dec., Arrak Dec.); Glades (Dairon Barredo Sanchez Dec., Tahimi Perez Dec., Franklin Ramon Gonzalez Dec., Gerardo Vargas Dec., and Francisco Rivero Valeron Dec.); and BTC (Valera Ramirez Dec., Sosa Fletes Dec., Sontay Funez Dec., Rosas Cardenas Dec., Betancourt Dec. Ferreira Borges Dec., and Bibiano Soares Dec) (Appx II).
43 Full copy available at: https://www.ice.gov/doclib/detention-standards/2019/nds2019.pdf.
58

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 4 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/13/2020 Page 59 of 76
Respondents have not implemented the recommended hygiene practices. Compare CDC Guidance at 10 (Appx I, Exh. F, at 57); with Declarations of Individuals Detained at all three facilities: Krome (Warsane Dec., Hasan Dec., Farah Dec., Arrak Dec.); Glades (Dairon Barredo Sanchez Dec., Tahimi Perez Dec., Franklin Ramon Gonzalez Dec., Gerardo Vargas Dec., and Francisco Rivero Valeron Dec.); and BTC (Valera Ramirez Dec., Sosa Fletes Dec., Sontay Funez Dec., Rosas Cardenas Dec., Betancourt Dec. Ferreira Borges Dec., and Bibiano Soares Dec) (Appx II).
Respondents have not implemented adequate social distancing practices. Compare CDC Guidance at 11 (Appx I, Exh. F, at 58); with Declarations of Individuals Detained at all three facilities: Krome (Warsane Dec., Hasan Dec., Farah Dec., Arrak Dec.); Glades (Dairon Barredo Sanchez Dec., Tahimi Perez Dec., Franklin Ramon Gonzalez Dec., Gerardo Vargas Dec., and Francisco Rivero Valeron Dec.); and BTC (Valera Ramirez Dec., Sosa Fletes Dec., Sontay Funez Dec., Rosas Cardenas Dec., Betancourt Dec. Ferreira Borges Dec., and Bibiano Soares Dec) (Appx II).
Respondents have not communicated clearly and frequently with Petitioners regarding COVID-19 and how they can contribute to risk reduction. Compare CDC Guidance at 12 (Appx I, Exh. F, at 59); with Declarations of Individuals Detained at all three facilities: Krome (Warsane Dec., Hasan Dec., Farah Dec., Arrak Dec.); Glades (Dairon Barredo Sanchez Dec., Tahimi Perez Dec., Franklin Ramon Gonzalez Dec., Gerardo Vargas Dec., and Francisco Rivero Valeron Dec.); and BTC (Valera Ramirez Dec., Sosa Fletes Dec., Sontay Funez Dec., Rosas Cardenas Dec., Betancourt Dec. Ferreira Borges Dec., and Bibiano Soares Dec) (Appx II).
Respondents’ cohorting practices violate CDC guidance and increase the threat posed to Petitioners. The CDC’s Interim Guidance on Management of Coronavirus Disease 2019
59

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 4 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/13/2020 Page 60 of 76
(COVID-19) states that cohort quarantine “should only be practiced if there are no other available options” and that “[c]ohorting multiple quarantined close contacts of a COVID-19 case could transmit COVID-19 from those who are infected to those who are uninfected.” Respondents violate the CDC Guidelines by refusing to release people and instead keeping them confined in close sleeping, eating, and living quarters at Krome, Glades, and BTC. Further, because Respondents can and should release Petitioners and those similarly situated, “cohort quarantine” is not the only “available option.”
Cohorting is not the same as quarantine or medical isolation and the CDC makes it clear that cohorting is to be used only as a last resort in those “correctional facilities and detention centers do not have enough individual cells” for quarantine or medical isolation. Interim Guidance, at 3, 15 (Appx, Exh. F, at 50, 62). The CDC and other medical expert opinions confirm that cohorting individuals who have not been confirmed to be infected with COVID-19 “puts everyone at very high risk of contracting and spreading COVID-19.” Shin Dec., ¶ 33 (Exh. 2).
On March 31, 2020, the President updated the guidance, renaming it “30 Days to Slow the Spread,” and along with the White House Coronavirus Task Force urged Americans to continue to adhere to the CDC guidelines and expand community mitigation efforts.” On April 1, 2020, Governor DeSantis issued a shelter-in-place order for the state of Florida, effective April 3, 2020. Exec. Order No. 20-91.
As Dr. Shin explains “[t]he only effective strategies to limit wide-spread impact of COVID-19 are public health strategies. These include containment efforts like early identification, contact tracing, isolation and quarantine measures, and intensive use of personal protective equipment. Unfortunately, due to limited testing capacity and public health resources
60

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 4 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/13/2020 Page 61 of 76
combined with wide-spread community spread, mitigation efforts like social distancing and scrupulous hand and personal hygiene are critical to limit the spread of COVID-19.” Shin Dec., ¶ 12 (Exh. 2). Dr. Shin also explains that “[t]here is no way for immigration detention facilities to comply with CDC guidelines on social distancing and quarantining unless Respondents release detained men and women on a large scale.” Id. at ¶¶ 39-40. Dr. Shin concluded that it is “my professional opinion that failure to release during the COVID-19 pandemic is a violation of the CDC guidelines and will result in continued and wide-spread infection.” Id.
Dr. Shin’s conclusions are consistent with every other public health expert issued early warnings about the spread of COVID-19 and the need for the federal, state and local governments to employ social distancing mitigation efforts. Id. ¶ 6. The consequences of the failure of federal, state and local government to adhere to the early warning by public health officials have been borne out in the United States. Id. at ¶ 40. As of the date of this Petition, there are 525,704 number of confirmed cases in the United States and 20,486 people have died.44
As is detailed supra, Respondents have failed to follow their duty to comply with the PBNDS and NDS, which in turn require compliance with CDC guidelines and federal, state and local laws. Respondents have neither reduced the population of Krome, Glades, and BTC. Nor have they done anything to ensure social distancing and proper hygiene.
Respondents have an obligation under the PBNDS and the NDS to protect the Petitioners. The PBNDS and the NDS require Respondents protect Petitioners by following the CDC guidelines, complying with federal, state or local plans, and reports requirements.
44https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/cases-updates/cases-in-us.html 61

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 4 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/13/2020 Page 62 of 76
Petitioners have not been protected, and the Respondents’ violate the Accardi doctrine by failing to comply with its own obligations in violation of the APA and Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause.
B. Count Two – Fifth Amendment – Violation of Right to Reasonable Safety The Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees individuals in immigration
detention the right to be free from punishment. The government violates this guarantee when conditions of confinement lack a reasonable relationship to any legitimate governmental purpose, i.e. when a custodian’s actions are excessive in relation to their purpose.
Respondents’ continued detention of Petitioners during the COVID-19 pandemic is excessive in relation to any legitimate governmental purpose. Less harsh measures are available to satisfy any government interest in continuing to detain Plaintiffs, including release with conditions. Under these circumstances, Respondents’ detention of Petitioners amount to impermissible punishment.
Conditions of confinement for individuals in immigration detention also violate the Fifth Amendment when the government fails, with deliberate indifference, to safeguard the health and safety of those in custody. The government acts with deliberate indifference when it knowingly exposes an individual in its custody to a substantial risk of serious harm.
Respondents have subjected Petitioners to conditions of confinement that create a substantial risk of contracting a serious case of COVID-19, for which there is no known vaccine, treatment, or cure. Respondents know or should be aware of the fact that Petitioners’ underlying conditions render them especially vulnerable to severe illness or even death if they contract COVID-19. Respondents are therefore knowingly subjecting Petitioners to an unreasonable risk of serious harm, in violation of constitutional due process.
62

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 4 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/13/2020 Page 63 of 76
Respondents’ continued detention of Petitioners fails to adequately protect Petitioners from the risks of contracting COVID-19. Petitioners’ ongoing confinement lacks a reasonable relationship to any legitimate governmental purpose and is excessive in relation to their purpose.
Respondents have exposed Petitioners to a substantial risk of serious harm. Respondents have known of or disregarded the substantial risk of harm to Petitioners’ health and safety. Respondents have acted with deliberate indifference to Petitioners’ health and safety. Respondents’ continued detention of Petitioners violates the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment as detention has become punitive and is not reasonably safe.
C. Count Three – Fifth Amendment – State-Created Danger The government acts with deliberate indifference to a known or obvious danger when it
recognizes an unreasonable risk and actually intends to expose petitioners to such risks without regard to the consequences to petitioners. An unreasonable risk includes future harm caused by conditions of confinement. See Helling v. McKinney, 509 U.S. 25, 33 (1993). Respondents have not complied its obligations to follow the CDC guidelines, and affirmatively place Petitioners at greater risk of contracting COVID-19 by implemented practices that transfer people into and out of facilities, and employs cohort quarantining approach – that drastically increases the danger of the virus spreading. Respondents have acted with deliberate indifference to the clear elevated levels of threat caused to Petitioners.
Respondents have affirmatively placed Petitioners in danger by forcing them into a position more dangerous than it found them, exposing them to elevated dangerous by failing to following CDC guidelines including by transferring people among facilities and improperly using cohort quarantines in a manner that places Petitioners in a more dangerous situation that it found them. Respondents made the affirmative decision to not release Petitioners or use ATDs,
63

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 4 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/13/2020 Page 64 of 76
and instead implemented cohort quarantines in a manner that drastically increase the possibility of transmission, infection, and facility-wide outbreak by grouping together people who have already been exposed to the virus. See Shin Dec. ¶ 40 (Exh. 2); Greer Dec., ¶¶ 34-35 (Exh. 3).
Respondents continue to detain Petitioners without taking necessary precautions to reduce the risk of COVID-19 transmission. Respondents have thus exposed Petitioners to a greater risk of contracting COVID-19 than they would have otherwise faced.
Respondents continued to actively disregard the threat of the pandemic. Petitioners are detained in conditions that expose them to a heightened risk of contracting COVID-19. Respondents are confining Petitioners in close proximity to other detainees and ICE officers, rendering Petitioners entirely unable to practice necessary social distancing.
ICE officers are failing to take necessary precautions, to avoid transmitting COVID-19 to Petitioners, detainees, and other officers. Respondents’ ongoing detention of Petitioners thus continues to expose them to a greater risk of contracting COVID-19 than they would face if they were not in detention and were able to take necessary precautions to protect themselves.
Respondents have acted, and continue to act, with deliberate indifference to the known and obvious risk of COVID-19 transmission.
Respondents implemented a cohort quarantine approach that does not comply with CDC guidelines and drastically increases the risk of COVID-19 exposure and contraction, at the time when the federal government and State of Florida had both declared public health emergencies. Despite being well-aware of both the risks of community transmission of COVID-19 and the preventive measures necessary to slow that transmission, Respondents acted without regard to the consequences to Petitioners by failing to implement a plan calculated to meaningfully comply with CDC guidelines, instead exposing the Petitioners to drastically increased risk of
64

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 4 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/13/2020 Page 65 of 76
exposure by defying CDC guidelines in the use of cohort quarantining and actively transferring detainees among facilities with confirmed cases detainees and facility employees having contracted COVID-19. See Shin Dec. ¶40 (Exh. 2).
For these reasons, Petitioners’ detention violates the Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause because Respondents affirmatively subjected Petitioners to an unreasonable risk of danger, greater danger than before Respondents acted, with deliberate indifference to employing policies that drastically increase the risk of Petitioners’ contracting COVID-19.
II. Petitioners and members of the proposed class will suffer irreparable harm without injunctive relief.
Petitioners, members of the proposed class, and their families will suffer irreparable injury without injunctive relief. On March 31, 2020, the President updated the guidance, renaming it “30 Days to Slow the Spread,” and along with the White House Coronavirus Task Force urged Americans to continue to adhere to the CDC guidelines and expand community mitigation efforts.” On April 1, 2020, Governor DeSantis issued a shelter-in-place order for the state of Florida, effective April 3, 2020. Exec. Order No. 20-91.
As Dr. Shin explains “[t]he only effective strategies to limit wide-spread impact of COVID-19 are public health strategies. These include containment efforts like early identification, contact tracing, isolation and quarantine measures, and intensive use of personal protective equipment. Unfortunately, due to limited testing capacity and public health resources combined with wide-spread community spread, mitigation efforts like social distancing and scrupulous hand and personal hygiene are critical to limit the spread of COVID-19.” Shin Dec., ¶ 12 (Exh. 2).
65

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 4 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/13/2020 Page 66 of 76
Dr. Shin also explains that “[t]here is no way for immigration detention facilities to comply with CDC guidelines on social distancing and quarantining unless Respondents release detained men and women on a large scale.” Id. at ¶¶ 39-40. Dr. Shin concluded that it is “my professional opinion that failure to release during the COVID-19 pandemic is a violation of the CDC guidelines and will result in continued and wide-spread infection.” Id.
Dr. Shin’s conclusions are consistent with every other public health expert issued early warnings about the spread of COVID-19 and the need for the federal, state and local governments to employ social distancing mitigation efforts. Drs. Scott Allen and Josiah Rich— experts in the fields of detention health, infectious disease, and public health who advise DHS’s Office of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties—who urged Congress on March 19, 2020 to take immediate actions to slow the spread of COVID-19 in ICE detention centers, including releasing immigrants to facilitate maximum social distancing—an “oxymoron” in congregate settings. (Appx I, Exh. L, at 235-41.) Drs. Allen and Rich also warned of the dire consequences that a COVID-19 outbreak within an ICE detention facility would have on the community outside the facility. They describe a “tinderbox” scenario where a rapid outbreak inside a facility would result in the hospitalization of multiple detained people in a short period of time, which would spread the virus to the surrounding community and create a demand for ventilators far exceeding the supply. Id.
Once a disease is introduced into a jail, prison, or detention facility, it spreads faster than under most other circumstances due to overcrowding, poor sanitation and hygiene, and lack of access to adequate medical services. For these same reasons, the outbreak is harder to
66

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 4 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/13/2020 Page 67 of 76
control.45 The severe outbreaks of COVID-19 in congregate environments, such as cruise ships and nursing homes, illustrate how rapidly and widely COVID-19 would rip through an ICE detention facility. On the Diamond Princess cruise ship, for example, approximately 700 passengers and crew on board were infected over the course of three weeks despite the initiation of quarantine protocols.46
The consequences of the failure of federal, state and local government to adhere to the early warning by public health officials have been borne out in the United States. Id. at ¶ 40. As of the date of this Petition, there are 525,704 number of confirmed cases in the United States and 20,486 people have died.47
Each of the three detention centers either has confirmed cases of the virus or has groups of individuals herded together in “cohort quarantine” because they have been exposed. Rather than mitigate the risk of transmission, these cohort quarantines drastically increase the possibility of transmission, infection, and facility-wide outbreak by grouping together people who have already been exposed to the virus.
Dr. Shin explains that “[t] he analysis that I provide above regarding screening, ‘cohorting’ and social distancing is not theoretical. In fact, there are a growing number of facilities throughout the country where the rate of infection is growing exponentially amongst both people detained as well as staff. In these settings, hundreds, and potentially thousands of people will become infected, and many will die.” Greer Dec., ¶ 34 (Exh. 3). Finally, Dr. Shin
45 Christina Potter, Outbreaks in Migrant Detention Facilities, Outbreak Observatory (Jul. 11, 2019), https://www.outbreakobservatory.org/outbreakthursday-1/7/11/2019/outbreaks-inmigrant-detention-facilities 46 Failures on the Diamond Princess Shadow Another Cruise Ship Outbreak, The New York Times (Mar. 8, 2020), www.nytimes.com/2020/03/08/world/asia/coronavirus-cruise-ship.html. 47 Available at: https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/cases-updates/cases-in-us.html
67

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 4 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/13/2020 Page 68 of 76
explains that “it should also be understood that all individuals are susceptible to infection and serious life-threatening complications that can result in death…. have been actively involved in our hospital’s response and in directly treating patients. I have personally treated patients-many of these individuals are young and did not have any pre-existing medical conditions.” Shin Dec., ¶ 41 (Exh. 2).
COVID-19 threatens every woman and man detained at Krome, Glades, and BTC. A chart of the reported COVID-19 cases of people in ICE detention depicts an alarming steep curve. (Appx I, Exh. E, at 47); see also Shin Dec. at ¶¶39-41(Exh. 2).
III. The government will suffer no specific injury if injunctive relief is granted, and a grant of injunctive relief is in the public interest.
“Once an applicant satisfies the first two factors, the traditional stay inquiry calls for assessing the harm to the opposing party and weighing the public interest.” Nken, 556 U.S., at 435. “These factors merge when the Government is the opposing party.” Id. Here, the government will suffer no specific injury if injunctive relief is granted. The government may utilize its Alternatives to Detention (“ATD”) program, which uses supervised release, case managements, and monitoring of individuals instead of detention. Furthermore, the government will benefit from slowing the spread of COVID-19, a benefit that merges with the public interest in this case.
On March 11, 2020, the World Health Organization (“WHO”) declared the outbreak a global pandemic,48 and COVID-19 has now touched nearly every country on the planet.49
48 Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, WHO Director-General’s opening remarks at the media briefing on COVID-19 – 11 March 2020 (Mar. 11, 2020), https://www.who.int/dg/speeches/detail/who-director-general-s-opening-remarks-at-the-mediabriefing-on-covid-19---11-march-2020.
49 Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) Situation Report – 73, World Health Organization (Apr. 2, 2020), https://www.who.int/docs/default-source/coronaviruse/situation-
68

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 4 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/13/2020 Page 69 of 76
The WHO has exhorted both immigration and criminal justice decision makers to use
“non-custodial measures” to protect incarcerated men, women, and children and to stem the
escalating transmission rate. (Appx I, Exh. H, at 92)
As of April 12, 2020, the number of confirmed cases worldwide has surpassed one and a
half million, including over 560,000 people in the United States. Over 114,000 people have died as a result of COVID-19 worldwide, including at least 22,000 in the United States.50
Nationally, projections by the CDC indicate that over 200 million people in the United
States could be infected with COVID-19 over the course of the pandemic without effective public health intervention, with as many as 1.7 million deaths in the most severe projections.51
On March 23, 2020, the WHO warned that the United States could become the next epicenter of the pandemic.52 Indeed, on March 26, 2020, the United States surpassed every other country in the world in number of confirmed COVID-19 cases.53 On April 11, 2020, the United States surpassed every other country in the world in the number of confirmed COVID-19 deaths.54
In the state of Florida, transmission of COVID-19 has been rampant. As of April 13,
reports/20200402-sitrep-73-covid-19.pdf?sfvrsn=5ae25bc7_4https://www.who.int/docs/defaultsource/coronaviruse/situation-reports/20200330-sitrep-70-covid-19.pdf?sfvrsn=7e0fe3f8_2.
50 Worldometer: Coronavirus, https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/#countries (last accessed Apr. 12, 2020).
51 Sheri Fink, Worst-Case Estimates for U.S. Coronavirus Deaths, The New York Times (last updated Mar. 18, 2020), https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/13/us/coronavirus-deathsestimate.html.
52 Sarah Boseley, US may become next centre of coronavirus pandemic, says WHO, The Guardian (Mar. 24, 2020), https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/mar/24/us-may-becomecentre-of-coronavirus-pandemic-who-says.
53 U.S. Now Leads the World in Confirmed Cases, The New York Times (last updated Apr. 1, 2020), https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/26/world/coronavirusnews.htmlhttps://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/26/world/coronavirus-news.html. 54 U.S. Surpasses Italy in Total Number of Confirmed Deaths, The New York Times (last updated Apr. 12, 2020), www.nytimes.com/2020/04/11/us/coronavirus-live-updates.html.
69

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 4 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/13/2020 Page 70 of 76
2020, the number of reported cases in Florida is at 19,895, with the number of reported deaths from COVID-19 at 461, making Florida the state with the 11th highest number of COVID-19related deaths in the United States.55 The counties of Miami-Dade and Broward in South Florida account for half of all Florida cases of COVID-19.56
Due to the lack of widespread testing available in most countries, including the United States, the number of confirmed cases is likely but a fraction of the true number of COVID-19 cases worldwide. As of April 12, 2020, just over 2.8 million tests have been administered in the entire United States; in Florida, only 184,926.57 Because of the shortage of tests in the United States—admitted to be a “failing” by top infectious disease expert Dr. Anthony Fauci58—the CDC currently recommends prioritizing testing for symptomatic healthcare providers and hospitalized patients59—which means that the number of diagnosed COVID-19 cases may be only the tip of a very large iceberg.60 The public interest lies in stopping the spread of COVID19.
55 Listing of United States Total Coronavirus Cases (last updated Apr. 9, 2020), https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/us/. 56 Florida’s COVID-19 Data and Surveillance Dashboard (last accessed Apr. 13, 2020), https://experience.arcgis.com/experience/96dd742462124fa0b38ddedb9b25e429.
57 The COVID Tracking Project, Our most up-to date data and annotations (last updated Apr. 12, 2020, 11:22 PM), https://covidtracking.com/data/.
58 Elizabeth Chuck, ‘It is a failing. Let’s admit,’ Fauci says of coronavirus testing capacity NBC News (Mar. 12, 2020), https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/it-failing-let-s-admitit-fauci-says-coronavirus-testing-n1157036.
59 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19), Evaluating and Testing Persons for Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) (last updated Mar. 24, 2020), https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-nCoV/hcp/clinical-criteria.html.
60 George Citroner, How Many People in the United States Actually Have COVID-19?, Healthline (Mar. 18, 2020), https://www.healthline.com/health-news/how-many-coronaviruscases-are-there.
70

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 4 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/13/2020 Page 71 of 76
The World Health Organization, recognizing the threat to detained people, has urged that “[e]nhanced consideration should be given to resorting to non-custodial measures at all stages of the administration of criminal justice, including at the pre-trial, trial and sentencing as well as post-sentencing stages.” (Appx I, Exh. H, at 82-121, 92) (WHO Interim Guidance) (emphasis added). This guideline applies to “immigration detention settings” as well. (Id., at 95 §5.)
Respondents cannot control the spread of COVID-19 without widespread testing. See Shin Dec. at ¶¶ 28, 33 and 39 (Exh. 2). (“The lack of wide-spread testing, transparency and data in communities in the US and all across the world allowed undetected spread in the community as well as within facilities and institutions that fueled the current pandemic.”). However, as ICE has admitted through Officer in Charge at Krome, they are not testing at the facilities. (Appx I, Exh. I, at 122-25, 123 ¶ 8-9) (noting medical screening that does not include testing or testing upon presentation of symptoms). Tests typically only occur if a person is brought to the hospital. Periodic testing of already symptomatic people does little to prevent further infections. As Dr. Shin explains, "three studies that support the likelihood that asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic individuals can spread the infection. These studies took place in China, Japan and one study included passengers from the Diamond Princess. These studies found that in COVID infected persons, 59%, 31% and 18%; respectively, were asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic.” See Shin Dec. at ¶24 (Exh. 2).
Detainee reports from all three facilities document that social distancing is impossible, people exhibiting flu-like symptoms are housed in the general population, and maintaining personal hygiene is constrained by the crowded facilities and lack of cleaning supplies. At BTC and Glades, men and women must ration soap weekly—two smalls bottles at BTC per person,
71

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 4 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/13/2020 Page 72 of 76
and one 4-ounce bottle at Glades. (Appx I, Exh. J, at 126-30) (Declaration of Francis L. Conlin, Friends of Miami-Dade Detainees).
Detained individuals have not been trained on how to use hygiene and social distancing to try and reduce the spread of COVID-19. Detained individuals have no access to personal protective equipment (“PPE”), not even through commissary. Only some facility staff use PPE. COVID-19 infections at Krome, Glades, and BTC affect the larger community, as many people travel in and out of these facilities, including staff and vendors. As of April 12, 2020, there were 10,007 confirmed cases of COVID-19 between Miami-Dade County, Broward County, and Glades County.61 These numbers amount to over half of the total number of positive cases in the entire state of Florida, and are growing exponentially each passing day.62
Throughout the world, the COVID-19 pandemic is infecting and killing women, men, and children. The United States has now surpassed the rest of the world in both the number of confirmed cases and the highest number of deaths. There is no vaccine against COVID-19 and no known cure. Currently, the only recognized strategies to reduce the risk of exposure to COVID-19 are social distancing, widespread testing, and improved hygiene, which have led to unprecedented public health measures around the world.
Unfortunately, ICE is preventing people at Krome, Glades, and BTC from complying with sheltering in place protocols and CDC guidelines. Despite warnings from medical and public health professionals that releasing detained immigrants is the only viable option to comply with social distancing, individual quarantine, and other CDC requirements and local and state orders, the agency has generally refused to release in any meaningful way, in the absence of court intervention. As Dr. Greer explains “[c]ontinued and wide-spread infection will not only
61 https://floridahealthcovid19.gov/ 62 As of April 12, 2020, there were 19, 895 positive cases of COVID-19 in the state of Florida. Id
72

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 4 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/13/2020 Page 73 of 76
occur in the detention facilities but also in the community. Health in detention facilities is community health. Protecting the health of individuals who are detained in and work in these facilities is vital to protecting the health of the wider community.” Greer Dec., ¶ 34 (Exh. 3).
REQUESTED RELIEF Based upon the foregoing, the Petitioners respectfully request that the Court issue an Emergency Temporary Restraining Order, immediately enjoining the Respondents from: (1) Transferring all Petitioners and proposed class members out of their respective detention facilities and centers to any other detention facility or center; (2) Transferring any new immigrant detainees into Krome, BTC, or Glades from any other detention facility or center; (3) Schedule an emergency hearing over this matter; After a hearing can be had on this matter, the Petitioners respectfully request that the Court issue an Emergency Preliminary Injunction granting the following relief: (1) Order the release of petitioners-plaintiffs and all similarly situated members of the proposed class in Krome, BTC, and Glades on their own recognizance with appropriate precautionary public health measures, or, in the alternative, release plaintiffs and all similar situated detainees in Krome, BTC, and Glades into community-based alternatives to detention, such as conditional release, supervision or electronic monitoring, with appropriate precautionary public health measures; (2) Order the implementation of CDC public health guidance and protocols designed to prevent the transmission of COVID-19 in Krome, BTC, and Glades.
73

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 4 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/13/2020 Page 74 of 76
CERTIFICATION OF EMERGENCY
Undersigned counsel certifies that this is an emergency motion pursuant to Local Rule
7.1(d)(1).
Petitioners, and the class they represent, are at imminent risk of transfer outside of
Florida.
After reviewing the facts and researching applicable legal principles, I certify that this
motion in fact presents a true emergency (as opposed to a matter that may need only expedited
treatment) and requires an immediate ruling because the Court would not be able to provide
meaningful relief to a critical, non-routine issue after the expiration of seven days. I understand
that an unwarranted certification may lead to sanctions.
Dated: April 13, 2020
Respectfully submitted,
By: /s/ Rebecca Sharpless REBECCA SHARPLESS Florida Bar No. 0131024 ROMY LERNER Florida Bar No. 116713 KATARINA M. GOMEZ, Law Student MEREDITH HOFFMAN, Law Student MARIA A. LLORENS, Law Student JACOB S. MORSE, Law Student OLIVIA G. PARISE, Law Student MARIA A. PISELLI, Law Student UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI SCHOOL OF LAW IMMIGRATION CLINIC 1311 Miller Drive Suite, E-273 Coral Gables, Florida 33146 Tel: (305) 284-3576 Fax: (305) 284-6092 rsharpless@law.miami.edu
74

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 4 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/13/2020 Page 75 of 76
RAPID DEFENSE NETWORK Gregory P. Copeland* Sarah T. Gillman* 11 Broadway, Suite 615 New York, NY 10004 Tel.: (212) 843-0910 Fax: (212) 257-7033 gregory@defensenetwork.org sarah@defensenetwork.og
*Pro Hac Vice Admission Pending
MARK ANDREW PRADA Fla. Bar No. 91997 ANTHONY RICHARD DOMINGUEZ Fla. Bar No. 1002234 Prada Urizar, PLLC 3191 Coral Way, Suite 500 Miami, FL 33145 Ofc.: (786) 703-2061 Fax: (786) 708-9508 mprada@pradaurizar.com adominguez@pradaurizar.com
PAUL R. CHAVEZ FL Bar No. 1021395 MAIA FLEISCHMAN FL Bar No. 1010709 SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER 2 S. Biscayne Blvd., Ste. 3200 Miami, FL 33101 Tel: (305) 537-0577 paul.chavez@splcenter.org maia.fleischman@splcenter.org
ANDREA MONTAVON-MCKILLIP Florida Bar No. 56401 LEGAL AID SERVICE OF BROWARD COUNTY, INC. 491 North State Road 7 Plantation, Florida 33317 Tel. (954) 736-2493 Fax (954) 736-2484 amontavon@legalaid.org
75

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 4 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/13/2020 Page 76 of 76
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY, that on April 13, 2020, I filed the foregoing document with the Clerk of the Court for the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida via the CM/ECF electronic filing system. I also certify that the foregoing document is being served this day on all counsel of record or pro se parties, either via transmission of Notices of Electronic Filing generated by CM/ECF or in some other authorized manner for those counsel or parties who are not authorized to receive electronically Notices of Electronic Filing.
By: /s/ Rebecca Sharpless Rebecca Sharpless Florida Bar No. 0131024 Immigration Clinic University of Miami School of Law 1311 Miller Drive Suite E-273 Coral Gables, Florida 33146 Tel: (305) 284-3576, direct Tel: (305) 284-6092, clinic rsharpless@law.miami.edu
76

 
 Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 63 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/22/2020 Page 1 of 69
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
MIAMI DIVISION CASE NO. 20-21553-COOKE/GOODMAN PATRICK GAYLE, et al., Plaintiffs, v. MICHAEL W. MEADE, et al., Defendants. __________________________/ REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS ON EMERGENCY MOTION
FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF I. Introduction and Summary of Recommendations
In an ideal world, all federal, state and local governments would operate prisons, jails and detention facilities in a way which could immediately and comprehensively address and resolve all potential health risks associated with the COVID-19 pandemic.
Focusing on the three South Florida federal immigration detention facilities at issue in this lawsuit, an ideal world would be one where (1) all beds, tables, chairs, toilets, and showers were more than six feet apart; (2) all detainees, guards, and other staffers would be issued surgical masks and gloves, replaced daily; (3) sinks used by detainees would not have any limits on the amount of water which passes through a faucet; (4) all detainees, guards, and detention center employees would be tested for COVID-19; (5) the

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 63 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/22/2020 Page 2 of 69
results of those tests would be provided the very same day they were taken; (6) high-risk detainees would be easily identified; and (7) those detainees who were exposed to someone with COVID-19 would each be quarantined in a separate and isolated room (as opposed to being placed in “cohorts” with similarly-situated detainees).
We do not, of course, live in an ideal world. Far from it. Which brings us to this lawsuit. Petitioners are 34 immigration detainees housed in three federal immigration detention centers in Florida: the Krome Detention Center in Miami (a/k/a Krome Service Processing Center), the Broward Transitional Center in Pompano Beach, and the Glades County Detention Center in Moore Haven. The Petition (for a writ of habeas corpus) is 106 pages, with a 446-page Appendix and two single-spaced doctor declarations (totaling 16 pages). [ECF No. 1]. Petitioners bring the action as a purported class action, on behalf of themselves and all other detainees in the three detention centers. Nineteen of the Petitioners are at Krome, eight are in Broward, and seven are in Glades. As of April 20, 2020, when Defendants filed a Court-ordered census [ECF No. 48], there were 1,440 detainees in the three centers. The proposed class also includes all immigration detainees “who will be held” at the three facilities. At bottom, Petitioners claim that they are at imminent risk of contracting the
2

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 63 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/22/2020 Page 3 of 69
Coronavirus 2019 (“COVID-19”) because their detention renders them unable to follow the Center for Disease Control and Prevention’s (“CDC”) guidelines. They allege that there is “currently no way” for the three centers to comply with the CDC’s guidelines on social distancing and quarantining. [ECF No. 1, p. 9].
They say that (1) each facility “holds individuals in close proximity”; (2) people are less than six feet away from each other when they sleep, eat, and use common areas; (3) “it is impossible for Petitioners to protect themselves from infection through social distancing and vigilant hygiene – the only known mitigation measures”; (4) groups of individuals are “herded together in ‘cohort quarantine’ because they have been exposed” to others who might have COVID-19 symptoms; and (5) “cohort quarantines drastically increase the possibility of transmission, infection, and facility-wide outbreak by grouping together people who have already been exposed to the virus.” [ECF No. 1, pp. 9-10].
Along with their Petition, Petitioners also filed a 74-page emergency motion for both a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction (the “TRO motion”). [ECF No. 4].
The TRO motion seeks an order against Respondents (Michael W. Meade, the Field Director for the Miami Field Office of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”), and U.S. Attorney General William P. Barr). Specifically, it seeks to enjoin them from transferring any of the 34 named class members and all other proposed class member to any other detention facility and from transferring any new immigration detainees from
3

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 63 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/22/2020 Page 4 of 69

any other center into the three South Florida detention centers.1 The preliminary injunction motion seeks the immediate release of all 1,400
detainees in the three centers, to be released on their own recognizance so that they can shelter in place. Alternatively, it seeks the immediate release of all detainees into community-based alternatives, such as conditional release or supervision through electronic monitoring. The release which Petitioners demand includes the release of detainees subject to “mandatory detention,” which would include detainees convicted of aggravated felonies, such as narcotics trafficking.
According to defense counsel’s comments at a recent hearing, “most” of the Glades detainees are subject to mandatory detention. [ECF No. 43]. He said he was not sure of the percentage of mandatory detainees at the other two facilities, however.
To be sure, the preliminary injunction motion also seeks an order requiring ICE to implement the CDC public health guidance. Nevertheless, Petitioners’ counsel unequivocally advised, during a two-and-a-half-hour Zoom hearing on April 17, 2020, that immediate release of all detainees is the overarching, primary focus of their emergency applications for injunctive relief. [ECF No. 43]. The motion contends that

1

In an April 20, 2020 Court-required [ECF No. 45] filing [ECF No. 51], Respondents

advised that (1) they agree to not transfer any of 34 named petitioners during the

pendency of the case as long as the agreement does not include executing a removal

order, include transferring a petitioner to a hospital, or include transferring a petitioner’s

custody to another law enforcement agency upon request of the law enforcement agency;

(2) they could not agree to not transfer any other detainee at any of the three facilities;

and (3) they could not agree to not accept any new detainee at any of the three facilities.

4

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 63 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/22/2020 Page 5 of 69
releasing detained immigrants is “the only viable option to comply with social distancing, individual quarantine and other CDC requirements” and that ICE has “generally refused to release in any meaningful way, in the absence of court intervention.” [ECF No. 4, p. 72].
Although Mr. Meade and Attorney General Barr are technically the Respondents, Petitioners’ arguments focus on what ICE has (and has not) done about the COVID-19 risks at the three immigration detention centers. Therefore, this Report will often refer to Respondents simply as ICE.
ICE disputes the Petitioners’ assertions and contends that they have implemented reasonable measures to minimize the risk that COVID-19 will be transmitted. [ECF No. 40]. The Petition was filed on April 13, 2020, but virtually all of Petitioners’ declarations were signed between April 7 and April 10, which was before ICE implemented its April 10, 2020 “Enforcement and Removal Operations Covid-19 Pandemic Response Requirements.” [ECF Nos. 7; 8; 30-1, p. 3].
ICE’s opposition memorandum, filed on April 17, 2020, also raised legal arguments about the legal viability of Petitioners’ claims. [ECF No. 40]. On April 16, 2020, ICE also submitted declarations which gave information about the number of COVID-19infected detainees and staffers at the facilities and the specific measures being taken to prevent further transmission of the virus. [ECF No. 30].
United States District Judge Marcia G. Cooke referred Petitioners’ motion for an
5

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 63 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/22/2020 Page 6 of 69
emergency hearing and motion for a TRO/preliminary injunction to the Undersigned on April 14, 2020. [ECF No. 14].
For the reasons outlined in greater detail below, the Undersigned respectfully recommends that Judge Cooke grant in part and deny in part (but without prejudice) the motion for a TRO/preliminary injunction. Specifically, the Undersigned recommends the following rulings and measures:
1. The Court not immediately order the release of all (or even some) detainees, estimated to be approximately 1,400. Although the law is different in some circuits, the law in the Eleventh Circuit (which comprises federal courts in Florida, Georgia, and Alabama) does not permit a detained person to pursue a habeas corpus remedy of being released from custody even if cruel and unusual punishment were to be established. Instead, in our circuit, the remedy is to discontinue the practice or correct the condition causing the unconstitutional punishment.
2. Require ICE to accelerate its review of its “Alternatives to Detention” program (or other protocols resulting in detainee release) with the goal of substantially increasing the rate and volume of detainees being released from the three facilities -- so that the medically-accepted objective of social distancing becomes feasible (by, for example, spacing out sleeping arrangements so that detainees are not sleeping right over, or immediately next to, other detainees).
3. Require ICE to make all efforts to comply with its suggested, published
6

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 63 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/22/2020 Page 7 of 69
guideline to reduce the population to 75% of capacity at each of the three detention centers within two weeks of an Order approving this Report and Recommendations.
4. Require ICE to immediately take all reasonable steps to reduce the number of detainees at the three centers to a percentage sufficient to permit social distancing. Because applicable law does not permit a detained person to obtain a release-fromcustody Order as a remedy for an unconstitutional incarceration due to jail conditions, the requirement will not order the release of any specific detainee or group of detainees, nor will it mandate the release of any particular number or percentage of detainees at the three centers. Instead, the Order would require ICE to review in good faith (and on an expedited basis) all detainees and see who is eligible for release -- and to then promptly release those eligible if ICE exercises its discretion to do so.
Note: To eliminate any confusion, this Report and Recommendations (“R & R”), if adopted by Judge Cooke, does not technically require ICE to actually release anyone, as the law in our circuit does not permit that in these circumstances. It requires ICE to only conduct its own, internal review in a good faith effort to cause the release of a substantial number of detainees. Thus, ICE would not be violating an Order adopting this R & R if it refused or otherwise failed to release detainees at the three centers. That hypothetical result would be horribly disappointing and extremely distressing, and it would undermine the spirit of this R & R. But it would not cause ICE (or the two named Respondents) to be held in contempt of court.
7

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 63 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/22/2020 Page 8 of 69
5. In an effort to prod ICE into releasing far more detainees, require ICE to file with the Court twice-weekly reports (I suggest Tuesday mornings and Friday afternoons) on the number of detainees who were released, with detail about the facility from which they were released and the nature of the detainee released (e.g., in a high-risk category because of age, in a high-risk category because of specific, documented medical condition, etc.).
6. In a further effort to compel ICE into releasing additional detainees, require ICE to, within 10 days of a Judge Cooke Order adopting this R & R, to file a report disclosing the number of detainees, and at which of the three facilities they are located, who are considered high-risk for serious illness, according to ICE’s COVID-19 April 10, 2020 Pandemic Response Requirements (“PRR”).2 Although that PRR list of higher-risk detainees does not include pregnant detainees, this R & R adds that category to the list for the three detention centers at issue.
7. To encourage ICE to be reasonable and to help the Court evaluate whether ICE is acting in good faith in response to an Order confirming and adopting this R & R, ICE should be required to also submit twice-weekly reports on how many of its detainees, and at which of the three centers they are housed, have no prior criminal convictions and no pending criminal charges.

2

The medically higher-risk detainees are listed on pages 5 and 6 of the PRR, and

they include people 65 years old and older and those with underlying medical conditions.

8

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 63 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/22/2020 Page 9 of 69
8. Likewise, ICE should be required to provide similar reports on the numbers of detainees who are deemed “mandatory detainees.”
9. Direct the parties to agree on a neutral, Court-appointed expert to inspect the three facilities and file a report with opinions on (1) the number of detainees who would need to be released from each facility in order to achieve the most amount of social distancing possible, and (2) whether the protocols required and/or recommended in ICE’s PRR are being met. Judge Cooke would determine when the report would be filed and when the inspections would occur.
10. In the meantime, before the expert report is filed, require ICE to immediately comply, to the extent feasible, with the CDC and ICE guidelines on providing adequate amounts of soap and water and cleaning materials to detainees.
11. Require ICE to, within two days of a Judge Cooke Order adopting this R & R, provide masks to all detainees exhibiting COVID-19 symptoms and to all detainees being “cohorted,” and to replace those masks at least once per week.
12. Require ICE to provide education and training about measures to reduce the health risks associated with COVID-19 to all staff members and detainees and to make sure that the training and education is provided to any new detainees or employees.
13. Require ICE to advise the Court, in a filing on CM/ECF, whether it has any plans, even preliminary ones, to modify any of the detention centers, to construct new immigration detention facilities in South Florida or to erect provisional housing, such as
9

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 63 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/22/2020 Page 10 of 69
“tent cities,” at either existing or new South Florida locations. The reason for this recommended requirement is a response which ICE’s attorney made at the hearing when discussing the Eleventh Circuit law prohibiting the habeas corpus remedy of release in connection with a conditions of confinement claim (because the relief would be an order terminating or correcting the practice). Specifically, he proffered that the United States might have to build a new detention facility, including a temporary one like a tent city, to correct an unconstitutional medical/health condition at one or more of the detention centers. II. Factual and Procedural Background
A. Keeping Things in Perspective: These Are Detention Facilities The Undersigned has a great amount of concern for all the detainees at the three immigration detention centers and the fear they are undoubtedly facing every single day in the midst of this horrific and scary pandemic. Their legitimate worry about contracting COVID-19 is real and serious and bone-chilling and should not be minimized in any way. On the other hand, there are real-world realities about prisons and detention centers which cannot be ignored. The Undersigned also has concern for the staff operating and working at the facilities. They, too, are undoubtedly scared -- for themselves and also for their families, who they see at home when their work shifts are over. The Undersigned finds persuasive and logical the overview of detention
10

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 63 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/22/2020 Page 11 of 69

management provided in Mays v. Dart, No. 20 C 2134, 2020 WL 1812381 (N.D. Ill. Apr. 9,

2020). Although that case involved the Cook County Jail in Chicago, the same basic

realities of managing prisoners there apply to the oversight of immigration detainees at

the three South Florida immigration detention centers. Therefore, the Undersigned will

highlight some of the salient points from Mays:

•

Operating and administering a very large physical prison or detention

facility “is an extraordinarily difficult task.” Id. at *1.

•

Operating a jail or immigration detention facility, “even under normal

circumstances, is a very challenging task,” and “these are not normal circumstances.” Id.

•

Fashioning a public policy and public health response to the COVID-19

pandemic “has challenged government officials across our country and throughout the

world, who are facing a crisis unlike any we have faced for decades, and perhaps

generations. The task is not less difficult, and no less familiar, for administrators of jails.”

Id.

•

The pandemic does not mean that “constitutional protections fall by the

wayside” because detention facility administrators “are bound by constitutional

requirements even when they are dealing with difficult and unfamiliar challenges to

public health and safety.” Id. at *2.

•

“Reducing the spread of the virus is, however, especially challenging in jails

and prisons” (and immigration detention facilities). Id.

11

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 63 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/22/2020 Page 12 of 69

•

“[E]stablishing appropriate policies does not fully discharge a detention

[facility’s manager’s] obligations; a policy is only as good as its execution.” Id. at *9.

•

There is “deference owed” to the operator of a jail, prison or detention

facility in his “development of internal procedures to maintain safety, order, and security

and to respond to this severe crisis.” Id. at *14.

•

“Though the existing situation likely increases the risk to detainees, the

CDC’s guidance expressly recognizes that complete social distancing may not be possible

in the sleeping areas of a jail. Space constraints at the Jail [or immigration detention

facility] do not allow for the more preferable degree of social distancing that exists in the

community at large.” Id. at *10.

•

The CDC’s guidance “recognizes that some facilities may not have enough

individual cells for individual isolation and may need to quarantine together groups of

detainees exposed to others who have tested positive.” Id. at *12.

Other courts tasked with the responsibility of evaluating petitions for the large-

scale release of prisoners or detainees have also sometimes recognized the potential

common-sense consequences of a mass release of prisoners. For example, in Money v.

Pritzker, Nos. 20-cv-2093 and 2094, 2020 WL 1820660, at *1 (N.D. Ill. Apr. 10, 2020), the

Court noted that “the release of inmates requires a process that gives close attention to

detail, for the safety of each inmate, his or her family, and the community at large,” and

that this “demands a sensible and individualized release plan – especially during a

12

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 63 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/22/2020 Page 13 of 69
pandemic.” See also Coleman v. Newsom, Nos. 01-cv-01351 and 2:90-cv-0520, 2020 WL 1675775, at *5 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 4, 2020, special three-judge court) (emphasis in original) (“Creating physical distancing is uniquely difficult in a congregate environment like a prison. But crucially, this is a problem shared by all prisons,3 not just those with foundering health care delivery systems.”).
Moreover, the Supreme Court itself has flagged the importance of recognizing the

3

“The American criminal justice system holds almost 2.3 million people in 1,833

state prisons, 110 federal prisons, 1,772 juvenile correctional facilities, 3,134 local jails, 218

immigration detention facilities, and 80 Indian Country jails as well as in military prisons,

civil commitment centers, state psychiatric hospitals, and prisons in the U.S. territories.”

Wendy Sawyer and Peter Wagner, Mass Incarceration: The Whole Pie 2020 (March 24, 2020),

https://www.prisonpolicy.org/reports/pie2020.html. “The number of state facilities is

from Census of State and Federal Correctional Facilities, 2012, the number of federal

facilities is from the list of prison locations on the Bureau of Prisons website (as of

February 24, 2020), the number of youth facilities is from the Juvenile Residential Facility

Census Databook (2016), the number of jails from Mortality in Local Jails, 2000-2016, the

number of immigration detention facilities from Immigration and Customs

Enforcement’s Dedicated and Non Dedicated Facility List (as of February 2020), and the

number of Indian Country jails from Jails in Indian Country, 2016. We aren’t currently

aware of a good source of data on the number of the facilities of the other types.” Id. at

n.1.

“Turning to the people who are locked up criminally and civilly for immigrationrelated reasons, we find that 11,100 people are in federal prisons for criminal convictions of immigration offenses, and 13,600 more are held pretrial by the U.S. Marshals.” Id.

“Slightly under 1.5 million people were in prison at the end of 2017, a slight decrease from 2016 but still a population that, if gathered in one place, would be one of the largest cities in the country. County and city jails held around 750,000 inmates in mid2017.” Campbell Robertson, Crime Is Down, Yet U.S. Incarceration Rates Are Still Among the Highest in the World, April 25, 2019, https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/25/us/us-massincarceration-rate.html.
13

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 63 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/22/2020 Page 14 of 69
realities of prison and detention facilities when evaluating the reasonableness of prison officials’ conduct. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 845 (1994) (internal citation omitted) (finding a prison official’s duty under the Eighth Amendment is to ensure reasonable safety, a standard that “incorporates due regard for prison officials’ unenviable task of keeping dangerous men in safe custody under humane conditions”); Helling v. McKinney, 509 U.S. 25, 37 (1993) (stating that when evaluating whether prison officials were deliberately indifferent to health issues the Court should consider “arguments regarding the realities of prison administration”).
B. The Fraihat Case and its Possible Impact Here On April 20, 2020, a federal district judge in the Central District of California entered an Order providing provisional certification of two subclasses of ICE detainees - on a national basis. The Court in Fraihat v. ICE, No. EDCV 19-1546 JGB (C.D. Cal. Apr. 20, 2020), ECF No. 132, certified a subclass of all ICE detainees who have one of the risk factors placing them at heightened risk of severe illness and death upon contracting the COVID-19 virus. The Court (United States District Judge Jesus G. Bernal) also certified a subclass of all ICE detainees whose disabilities place them at heightened risk of severe illness and death upon contracting the COVID-19 virus. In the Order, Judge Bernal explained that ICE “cited no authority for, and the Court rejects, the implication that it lacks authority to enter [nationwide] class-wide relief to require a constitutionally adequate response to COVID-19 from ICE.” Id. at p. 28, n. 25.
14

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 63 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/22/2020 Page 15 of 69
By its terms, the Order would almost certainly encompass many of the detainees in the three South Florida federal immigration detention centers and would also likely impact some of the 34 named plaintiffs. The Judge explained that “the evidence suggests systemwide inaction” -- which means he is addressing all ICE action (or lack of action) across the country, not merely in California. Id. at p. 32 (emphasis added). Thus, the Order seems to encompass an assessment of what ICE has done (or not done) at the three South Florida detention centers.
Fraihat was filed in August 2019 as a putative class action complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief. Because the lawsuit was filed last year, it, unlike the instant case, initially had nothing to do with the COVID-19 pandemic. The April 20, 2020 Order discusses ICE’s response to the pandemic on a national scale and it provides national statistics.
The Order explains that the number of individuals in ICE custody has slightly decreased since a national emergency was declared. As of March 13, 2020, the Order notes ICE had 35,980 single adults in custody. Id. at p. 9. More than half of ICE’s average daily population at that time had not been convicted of a criminal offense and had no pending criminal charge. Id. A month later, the Order goes on to explain, ICE advised that 31,709 individuals were in custody as of April 13, 2020. Id. at p. 10. That reflects a reduction of approximately 12%. Of those 31,709, approximately 14,000 had no prior criminal conviction and no pending criminal charges. Id.
15

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 63 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/22/2020 Page 16 of 69
The Order does not, however, break down how many ICE detainees in the three South Florida detention facilities had a similar criminal status (or, to be more accurate, no criminal status).
Significantly, the Order explains that ICE could reduce the detained population “by about half,” simply by releasing detainees with no prior convictions and no pending charges.” Id. at p. 33, n. 31.
C. Petitioners’ Allegations Petitioners submitted their own declarations and the declarations of three doctors in support of the emergency motion for injunctive relief. The first doctor declaration is from Dr. Joseph Shin, an assistant professor of medicine at Weill Cornell Medicine. [ECF No. 1-2]. His declaration says nothing about personally inspecting any of the three facilities and it also does not mention the declarations of Petitioners themselves. Instead, it discusses the COVID-19 pandemic and discusses, in general, the risks of transmission in detention facilities, jails and prisons. It also discusses an April 8, 2020 declaration (in another case)4 from Liana J. Castano, Acting Officer in Charge at the Krome facility who also has oversight responsibility at Glades. That declaration was provided before ICE issued its April 10,

4

Campbell v. Wolf, Case No. 1:20-cv-20768-KMW (S.D. Fla.). The district judge

dismissed the case on April 8, 2020, the day the Castano declaration was submitted,

because ICE had released Petitioner. Id. at ECF No. 30.

16

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 63 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/22/2020 Page 17 of 69

2020 COVID-19 PRR. Ms. Castano later provided an updated, more-comprehensive declaration in the instant case (and then, even later, provided a third declaration). [ECF Nos. 33-1; 35-1]. Dr. Shin opines that the first declaration presents a plan “claiming to implement what are clearly inadequate measures” which violated CDC guidance and “knowingly expose anyone interacting with the faculty [sic] to an even more elevated deadly risk or contracting COVID.” [ECF No. 1-2].
Dr. Shin’s declaration focuses only on the Krome facility; it does not address the Broward and Glades detention centers. He opines that the screening measures are insufficient because they may not obtain full and accurate information from asymptomatic persons. Id. He also criticizes the use of cohorting5 at Krome because he is not convinced that the practice is being used only as a last resort. Id. Dr. Shin says that ICE should place suspected COVID-19 cases “in individual medical isolation” in which each person is assigned “their own housing space and bathroom,” as recommended by CDC. Id.
Finally, Dr. Shin opines that the social distancing measures detailed in the original April 8, 2020 Castano declaration6 are insufficient to address the pandemic. Id. He notes

5

Cohorting is “the practice of isolating multiple laboratory-confirmed COVID-19

cases together as a group, or quarantining close contacts of a particular case together as a

group.” The CDC’s Interim Guidance on Management of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-

19) in Correctional and Detention Facilities (March 23, 2020).

6

The declaration she submitted in this case is dated April 16, 2020. [ECF No. 33-1].

A more-updated declaration [ECF No. 53-1] was filed on April 21, 2020.

17

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 63 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/22/2020 Page 18 of 69
that “shared dining halls, bathrooms, showers, common areas, sleeping quarters, and shared equipment such as telephones, all present opportunities for greater transmission.” Id.
The second doctor declaration is from Dr. Pedro J. Greer, Jr., a professor of medicine at Florida International University’s medical school. [ECF No. 1-3]. Dr. Greer’s declaration discusses the heightened risk of epidemics in prisons, jails and detention centers and profiles COVID-19 as an infectious disease. Id. His declaration does not suggest that he visited any of the three facilities in connection with the pandemic. But it does say that he reviewed the detainees’ declarations and the first April 8, 2020 Castano Declaration. Id. at pp. 6-7.
In his opinion, based on his review of the declarations, he concludes that the three immigration detention facilities are “under-equipped and ill-prepared to prevent and manage a COVID-19 outbreak, which would result in severe harm to detained individuals, detention center staff, and the broader community.” Id. at p. 6. He says that the layout and crowded environment make it “impossible to provide an environment where social distancing can take place, depriving individuals of being able to use one of the most important CDC-recommended measures to protect themselves.” Id.
Similar to Dr. Shin, Dr. Greer also criticizes cohorting at Krome. Id. at p. 7. He notes that the Castano Declaration mentions that 238 detainees are (or were, at the time of the declaration) being cohorted. Id. Significantly, he says, “there is no indication that a
18

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 63 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/22/2020 Page 19 of 69
cohorted group will be permitted to practice social distancing as recommended by CDC or that a cohorted group will be provided with masks to prevent the transmission of COVID-19.”7 Id. The final paragraph of his declaration opines that “there is no way for immigration detention facilities to comply with CDC Guidelines on social distancing and quarantining unless Respondents release detained men and women on a large scale.” Id. at pp. 7-8.
Petitioners obtained leave of Court to file a supplemental submission for the emergency hearing [ECF No. 41] and submitted the declarations of Dr. Homer Venters from Fraihat, the Central District of California, Eastern Division case discussed above. [ECF No. 39-1]. His declaration focuses on ICE’s April 10, 2020 COVID-19 PRR. It does not discuss any of the three South Florida detention centers, the declarations from Petitioners, the Castano Declarations or the declarations from Drs. Greer and Shin. Instead, it aims to criticize the April 10, 2020 PRR as being inconsistent with CDC Guidelines. He predicts that “ICE is unlikely to ensure compliance with the policies laid out in this document due to longstanding lack of information systems, quality assurance and oversight mechanisms that are standard in other carceral or detention settings.” [ECF No. 39-1, p. 3].

7

The April 16, 2020 Castano Declaration provides updated information, explaining

that “housing units under cohort status are monitored daily and issued surgical masks.”

[ECF No. 33-1, p. 4].

19

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 63 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/22/2020 Page 20 of 69

Dr. Venters takes issue with the ICE Enforcement and Removal Operations’ (“ERO”) omission of CDC Guidelines for self-monitoring and quarantine for staff and detainees who have had contact with a suspected or known case of COVID-19. Id. He also finds fault with a purported lack of adequate guidance of “key aspects” of social distancing. Id. And he says the ERO document does not include guidance on the importance of communicating with detainees about changes to their daily routine and how they can help reduce risk.8 Id. at p. 9.
The detainees’ declarations are, by and large, substantially similar. [ECF No. 8]. Although the declarations are not identical, the declarations collectively raise one or more of the following allegations: (1) the petitioner is in a cohort quarantine; (2) the petitioner cannot social distance; (3) the petitioner has developed a cough but has not been tested for COVID-19; (4) the petitioner sleeps in bunkbeds less than a meter away from each other; (4) the petitioner does not have adequate amounts of soap throughout the day; (5) the petitioner has difficulty washing his hands for 20 seconds because the water turns off too quickly; (6) the petitioner is worried that the crowded conditions will result in him (or her) contracting COVID-19; (7) most officers do not wear masks when near the detainees; (8) the petitioner typically eats less than six feet away from another detainee;

8

The second Castano Declaration outlines in detail the education for COVID-19

which is now being provided at Krome. It also mentions the education being provided at

Glades. In addition, the declaration of Juan A. Lopez Vega [ECF No. 30-1], the Acting

Officer in Charge of Broward, details the education measures occurring at the facility he

oversees.

20

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 63 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/22/2020 Page 21 of 69
(9) dozens of detainees in a pod must share one toilet or the toilets are too close together for social distancing to occur; (9) the detainees do not have access to masks, gloves, or hand sanitizer; and (10) the detainees who prepare the food do not wear masks and sometimes do not wear gloves. Id.
D. ICE’s Response ICE filed an opposition memorandum [ECF No. 40] and submitted declarations from ICE officials in charge of the three detention facilities [ECF Nos. 30; 33; 53]. The Undersigned required the declarations in order to obtain information about the existence and scope of the COVID-19 virus at the facilities and to obtain specific information about whether the physical layout hindered complete social distancing, the sanitation and hygiene protocols which are being used and the education being provided to detainees about the virus and how to avoid contracting it. [ECF Nos. 18-20]. Juan A. Lopez Vega’s declaration concerned the Broward facility and the Castano declarations discussed Krome and Glades. [ECF Nos. 30-1; 33; 53]. Vega’s Broward-based declaration [ECF No. 30-1] explains the situation there, and the Undersigned quotes the relevant portions of the declaration here verbatim:
21

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 63 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/22/2020 Page 22 of 69 22

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 63 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/22/2020 Page 23 of 69 23

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 63 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/22/2020 Page 24 of 69 24

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 63 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/22/2020 Page 25 of 69 25

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 63 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/22/2020 Page 26 of 69 26

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 63 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/22/2020 Page 27 of 69
[ECF No. 30-1]. The Castano Declaration [ECF No. 33-1] discusses both the Krome and Glades
centers, and the Undersigned quotes verbatim the relevant sections:9

9

Paragraphs 5-10 of the two declarations are identical or nearly identical, so the

Undersigned will not repeat them here.

27

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 63 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/22/2020 Page 28 of 69 28

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 63 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/22/2020 Page 29 of 69 29

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 63 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/22/2020 Page 30 of 69 30

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 63 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/22/2020 Page 31 of 69 31

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 63 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/22/2020 Page 32 of 69 32

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 63 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/22/2020 Page 33 of 69 33

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 63 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/22/2020 Page 34 of 69
E. Some Significant Take-aways From the Declarations There are many significant points arising from the recently-submitted declarations about conditions and procedures at the three detention centers. One of the mostimportant points is that the conditions vary, sometimes significantly, among the three centers. The other critical point is that conditions, at least at Krome, appear to be getting worse in recent days. A supplemental declaration filed late on April 21, 2020 reveals that more detainees are being held in cohort quarantine. [ECF No. 53]. The Undersigned will highlight some of the other, more-significant points here. As an initial point, it is clear that ICE can, if it makes a conscious and substantial effort, significantly reduce the number of detainees at a center. At Broward, for example, all detainees over 60 years of age have been released and the overall detention population has decreased by 35%. [ECF No. 30-1, p. 7]. According to the Lopez Vega Declaration, this census reduction was done “to facilitate social distancing and to mitigate the spread of COVID-19.” Id. So, it is clear that ICE fully understands the benefit of reducing the detainee population and the benefit a reduction has to eliminating the risk of transmitting COVID to detainees, staff members, the families of employees and independent contractors and vendors/others who visit the facilities.
i. Broward There are no confirmed cases of COVID-19 at Broward and no detainees being
34

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 63 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/22/2020 Page 35 of 69
cohorted at Broward for exhibiting symptoms of COVID-19. [ECF No. 30-1, p. 4]. There are two Broward detainees cohorted as a precautionary measure, and they are housed by themselves with no other detainees in the room. Id. There are no detainees, GEO Group10 staff members, or ICE staff members who have tested positive for COVID-19 at Broward. Id. One Broward detainee was tested for the virus, but the result was negative. Id. at p. 5. Broward has test kits on site, readily available for use. Id.
Antibacterial soap is provided to all Broward detainees and every room has a 7.5ounce of antibacterial soap which is “filled up as needed seven days per week.” Id.
Broward provides hand sanitizer to all staff upon entering the facility and detainees are provided with sanitizer when they enter the dining hall and medical unit. Id.
All Broward staff members are required to wear personal protective equipment. Id. Masks are provided weekly, permanent eye protection was issued, and face shields (in addition to masks and eye protection) are issued to intake staff, front lobby staff, transport staff and medical staff. Id.
Broward provides COVID-19 education to staff and detainees and specifically instructs them on the importance of sleeping in a head-to-toe position. Id. at p. 6.
Bunk beds in Broward are two feet apart for male rooms and 6.5 feet apart in the
10 GEO Group, Inc. is a private company which owns and operates Broward, a contract detention facility. [ECF No. 30-1, p.1].
35

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 63 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/22/2020 Page 36 of 69
female rooms. Id. Bunks in Broward’s male ADA-compliant rooms are three feet apart and are 6.5
feet apart in the female ADA-compliant rooms. Id. There is only one bathroom in each room, and it includes one shower and one
toilet. Detainees do not use the bathroom at the same time. Id. The distance between chairs in the dining hall is four feet. Id. Broward staggers its
meal lines, has reduced the number of persons in the dining room, and has installed markers every six feet to designate the social distancing gap. Id.
ii. Krome As of April 16, 2020, there were two detainees with a laboratory-confirmed case of COVID-19 housed at Krome and who have been medically isolated. [ECF No. 33-1, p. 4]. As of the same date, 20 detainees have been tested. Id. Three staff members have a laboratory-confirmed case of COVID-19 and have been removed from the work schedule and are following CDC quarantine guidelines. Id. As of 2:00 p.m. on April 20, 2020, however, 8 staff members had a laboratory-confirmed case of COVID-19. [ECF No. 53-1]. They were removed from the schedule and are following CDC quarantine guidelines. Id. As of April 16, 2020, there are three groups of detainees subject to cohorting: one group contains 104 detainees (with an April 18, 2020 deadline to end the cohort), one with 62 detainees (with an April 20, 2020 deadline to end the cohort) and one with 15 detainees
36

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 63 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/22/2020 Page 37 of 69
(with an April 20, 2020 deadline). [ECF No. 33-1, p. 5]. All cohorting was caused by exposure or potential exposure to a staff member who tested positive for COVID-19. Id.
Housing units in cohort status are issued surgical face masks. Id. All ICE staff have been issued personal protective equipment, including gloves and N-95 respirator masks. Id. at p. 6. Security contract staff assigned to the main gate were issued a face shield, an N-95 respirator, and gloves. Id. All janitorial and maintenance staff have received gloves and N-95 respirator masks. Id. The declaration does not indicate whether security contract staff at other locations (e.g., in the housing units) were issued gloves and/or N-95 masks or other types of masks. As of April 16, 2020, all detainees subject to cohorting are asymptomatic for COVID-19. Id. at p. 5. The Krome medical facility has only a “limited number” of COVID-19 test kits. Id. Space constraints require the use of a group cohort, as opposed to individualized isolation. Id. All housing units receive disinfectant wipes, anti-bacterial soap, hot water and paper towels. Id. at p. 6. The declaration does not disclose how much soap is being provided or how frequently, however. CDC information posters have been posted in all housing units and common areas and the medical staff provides COVID-19 education to staff and detainees. Id. at p. 7. Head-to-toe sleeping arrangements have been implemented to help promote
37

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 63 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/22/2020 Page 38 of 69
social distancing. Id. at p. 8. Meals are being served in the housing units, rather than the dining hall/cafeteria,
to avoid comingling and to promote social distancing. Id. Krome houses its detainees in a “dormitory style” setting, which means there are
no single cells in the general population area. Id. at p. 7. The distance between beds varies, from 38 inches to 57.07 inches. Id. at pp. 7-8. In
other words, no bed complies with the six-foot social distancing protocol. The housing units have different numbers of toilets, and the distances between
them range from 19.5 inches to 25.67 inches. Id. at p. 8. As noted, meals are served in the dormitories, in the dayroom, and the distance
between the dayroom tables varies, from 38 inches to 108 inches. Id. The declaration does not disclose the distance between seats or chairs at each table, however.
Housing units have running water and soap available “24 hours a day, 7 days a week.” Id. The declaration does not explain whether the sinks have an automatic cutoff feature, which turns the water off in less than the 20 seconds recommended for hand washing.
ICE reviews its “at risk” population to determine if detention “remains appropriate.” Id. at p. 9. Unlike the declaration concerning Broward, the Castano Declaration about Krome does not mention whether any detainees have been released, or what percentage have been released or whether certain populations (e.g., detainees 60
38

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 63 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/22/2020 Page 39 of 69
years old and older) have been released. iii. Glades
As of April 16, 2020, at noon, there were no confirmed cases of COVID-19 at Glades and no detainee is subject to cohorting. [ECF No. 33-1, p. 4]. Likewise, no Glades staff member has tested positive for the virus. Id.
COVID-19 tests are available at the detention center. Id. at p. 5. The detainee population at Glades is within its approved capacity and is “not overcrowded.” Id. at p. 6. Glades (which is administered by the Sheriff of Glades County) issues male detainees 4 ounces of soap, twice a week, which is replenished as needed. Female detainees receive a 7.5-ounce bottle, at the same frequency. Id. at p. 6. The housing units have available running water and soap 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Id. at p. 8. All staff received masks and “nitrile gloves.” Id. at p. 7. The declaration does not specify what types of masks were provided. The medical staff provides oral instruction on the proper procedure to wash hands and maintain safe hygiene. Id. The declaration does not say who -- i.e., non-medical staff and/or the detainees themselves -- receives these oral instructions. The CDC handwashing flyer was posted in every housing pod, the medical unit, the law library and the intake area. Id. The detainees are housed in a dormitory-style setting. The bunks are
39

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 63 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/22/2020 Page 40 of 69
approximately 12 inches apart from the head of one bed to the foot of the next bunk and about seven feet apart, side to side. Id. at p. 9. The distance between the upper bunk and lower bunk is 34 inches, and the distance between beds is 7 feet, 2 inches. Id.
The chairs or benches where detainees eat are 3 feet apart. Id. Both the showers and toilets are separated by a wall 6 inches wide and four feet tall. Id. The declaration does not say how far apart the showers are from each other, nor does it mention the width of each shower stall area. No information was provided about the number of released ICE immigration detainees, the percentage of census reduction (assuming one occurred) or if certain categories of detainees have been released. F. ICE’s Alternatives to Detention Program According to recent published reports,11 ICE has in recent weeks released hundreds of immigration detainees across the country in response to the COVID-19 crisis. ICE has, in fact, released at least one detainee from Krome under this program. During the April 17, 2020 hearing, Petitioners’ counsel acknowledged familiarity with the program but took the position that ICE is not releasing anywhere near enough
11 See, e.g., “ICE Releases Hundreds of Immigrants as Coronavirus Spreads in Detention Centers,” explaining in an April 16, 2020 article that ICE “says it has released nearly 700 detainees after evaluating their ‘immigration history, criminal record, potential threat to public safety, flight risk, and national security concerns.’” https://www.npr.org/sections/coronavirus-live-updatges/2020/04/16 (attached to this Report and Recommendations as Exhibit A).
40

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 63 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/22/2020 Page 41 of 69
detainees and suggested that part of the holdup might be due to the fact that “ICE is a bureaucracy.” [ECF No. 43].
At the hearing, Petitioners’ counsel also advised that a 50% reduction in the detainee census through ICE-initiated release would be “insufficient.” Id. In other words, releasing 700 detainees from the three federal immigration detention centers would not, from Petitioner’s perspective, moot the emergency injunctive relief request. As noted, Petitioners want every single detainee released and they want them released immediately. The Alternatives to Detention Program, they say, will never yield acceptable results. At bottom, Petitioners say, the only way to get ICE to release even a sufficient number of detainees for health purposes is to file a lawsuit (which they did) and obtain a Court Order compelling release of detainees.
In the past few weeks, attorneys for individual detainees have filed lawsuits in this district, seeking an immediate release order. Some of those cases have been dismissed as moot when ICE agrees to release a specific detainee under the program. See, e.g., Campos v. Diaz, No. 20-cv-21550-KMW (S.D. Fla.), ECF No. 6 (dismissing case on April 16, 2020, three days after lawsuit was filed, because ICE released Petitioner under the Alternatives to Detention program).12
12 The attorney who represented Petitioners here, the director of the Immigration Clinic at the University of Miami School of Law, also represented Campos in the lawsuit which was just dismissed following her client’s release. Similar to the instant lawsuit, the short-lived Campos lawsuit was a habeas corpus action seeking release from Krome because Petitioner, who represented himself as high-risk because he suffers from asthma
41

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 63 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/22/2020 Page 42 of 69
But this lawsuit is the first (and likely only, as best as the Undersigned can tell)
lawsuit filed in this district seeking an Order requiring ICE to release all detainees at all
three detention centers.
G. The Narrow, Incomplete and Inconsistent Factual Record
The factual record has not been extensively developed. None of the three doctors
who submitted declarations visited any of the three detention centers. No expert has
inspected any of the three centers for the purpose of providing the Court with an
independent assessment.
Given the emergency nature of the motions, the Court has not held an evidentiary
hearing, and no one has requested one. But even if the Undersigned were inclined to
and seizures, had confronted a grave risk of contracting COVID-19. Counsel verified the Petitions in both this case and in Campos. The verification in the instant case is based on discussions she had with members of the legal team and on her information and belief.
Counsel’s verification said that the statements in the Petition are “true and correct to the best of my knowledge.” [ECF No. 1, p. 111 (emphasis added)]. Presumably, the verification was submitted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746, which is the federal statutory substitute for the more-traditional affidavit. The statute provides that an unsworn declaration has the same “force and effect” of an affidavit if it is in substantially the following form: “I declare (or certify, verify or state) under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.” 28 U.S.C. § 1746. Significantly, it does not include a “to the best of my knowledge” phrase, which might be deemed to suggest an equivocation or an attempt to provide “wiggle room” if the statements turn out to be materially incorrect or incomplete. See id.
The United States did not move to dismiss the Petition because of a defective verification. On the other hand, the Castano and Lopez Vega declarations also contained the “to the best of my knowledge” qualifier in the verification block. [ECF Nos. 30; 33; 53].
42

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 63 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/22/2020 Page 43 of 69
have an evidentiary hearing, it would be logistically difficult to arrange for an effective one, given the COVID-19 pandemic and the reality that district courts in our district are having telephone or video-conference hearings, rather than in-person hearings. Moreover, it would be difficult for counsel to adequately prepare their witnesses and even more difficult for the attorneys to conduct cross-examination during a telephone or virtual hearing. Reviewing exhibits would be problematic, and the effectiveness of crossexamination would be undermined if counsel had to submit exhibits to the other side’s witnesses before those witnesses were cross-examined.
Similarly, it would be logistically cumbersome to arrange for a hearing in which the detainees who submitted declarations were questioned and it would place a substantial burden on an already-challenged staff at the detention centers to arrange for detainees to be questioned.
In addition, Petitioners’ counsel have urged this Court to proceed at an expedited pace. In fact, they bypassed an opportunity to submit a reply memorandum before the emergency hearing because they did not want to postpone, even for three days, that hearing.
So, the Undersigned’s Report and Recommendations is based on a less-thanoptimum record. Therefore, the Undersigned is recommending that the primary relief requested -- immediate release of all 1,400 detainees -- be denied without prejudice.
As even a cursory comparison of the detainees’ declarations and the more-recent
43

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 63 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/22/2020 Page 44 of 69
declarations of ICE managers reveals, there are significant factual differences between the scenarios portrayed by each side. For example, Petitioners complain that they are not provided enough soap and ICE says that soap is available around the clock and is always replenished when needed. It may well be that the disputes are more illusory than real and were caused by a simple timing issue: maybe the detainees’ declarations were correct when signed (e.g., on April 8, 2020) but the ICE managers’ declarations were also correct when signed (on April 16, 2020) because ICE had adjusted its procedures, perhaps because of the April 10, 2020 PRR.
The Undersigned cannot resolve these possible factual disputes based on the limited record, but it’s worthwhile to at least note them. III. Applicable Legal Standards and Analysis
In a two-sentence footnote in its opposition response, ICE mentions that the Glades facility is in the Middle District of Florida and says that this Court therefore lacks jurisdiction over any claim concerning the conditions there. The Undersigned rejects this comment for two reasons.
First, ICE has waived the argument by mentioning it only in a footnote. It did not seek to dismiss the Petition, or even part of it, for this purported jurisdictional theory, nor did it discuss it in the text of its opposition brief.
“A party may abandon a claim by failing to ‘plainly and prominently raise it, for instance by devoting a discrete section of his argument to’ that claim.” Dash 224 LLC v.
44

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 63 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/22/2020 Page 45 of 69
Aerovias de Integracion Reg'l Aires SA, 605 F. App’x 868, 870 (11th Cir. 2015) (citing Sapuppo v. Allstate Floridian Ins. Co., 739 F.3d 678, 681 (11th Cir. 2014)).
Therefore, “burying a substantive argument in a footnote (only) is impermissible and waives the argument.” Zuma Seguros, CA v. World Jet of Delaware, Inc., No. 15-22626CIV, 2017 WL 4237874, at *9 (S.D. Fla. Sept. 25, 2017); see also Mock v. Bell Helicopter Textron, Inc., 373 F. App’x 989, 992 (11th Cir. 2010) (emphasis added) (“First, because Bell mentions its Rule 60(b)(5) argument in passing in a footnote only and does not elaborate on it in any further detail in either one of its briefs, we deem this argument waived.”).
Second, even if the argument had not been waived, the Undersigned substantively rejects it. See Masingene v. Martin, No. 19-CV-24693, 2020 WL 465587, at *1 (S.D. Fla. Jan. 27, 2020) (rejecting government argument that the Southern District of Florida court lacked jurisdiction over petition filed by detainee in the Baker County Detention Center in the Middle District of Florida because the warden of the contract county facility is a non-federal actor, and the federal official most directly responsible for overseeing the contract facility -- the field office director for ICE’s Miami field office -- is the appropriate respondent).
The Masingene Court, after noting that the Eleventh Circuit has not weighed in on the issue of the appropriate respondent in an immigrant detention case, held that it had jurisdiction over the habeas corpus petition filed by the Middle District detainee because the appropriate respondent, the Miami-based ICE Miami field office director, could be
45

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 63 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/22/2020 Page 46 of 69
reached by service of process. See also Khodr v. Adduci, 697 F. Supp. 2d 774, 776 (E.D. Mich. 2010) (finding proper respondent was the ICE District Director, not the warden of county jail); Abner v. Sec'y of Dep't of Homeland Security, No. 06CV308(JBA), 2006 WL 1699607, at *3-4 (D. Conn. June 19, 2006) (finding ICE field office director, not warden of county facility, was the correct respondent); Zabadi v. Chertoff, No. C 05-01796 WHA, 2005 WL 1514122, at *3 (N.D. Cal. June 17, 2005) (finding ICE district director, also known as the field office director, who could direct the county warden to release the petitioner was the proper respondent).
Although the Petition itself portrays itself as a class action, no motion for class certification was filed. Neither party has briefed the class action issue, and the issue was not discussed at all during the recent two-and-a-half-hour emergency hearing. [ECF No. 43]. In addition, Petitioners have not moved for conditional class certification either. For these reasons, the Undersigned deems it premature to rule on the class action theory.
The standard for obtaining a TRO is identical to that for obtaining a preliminary injunction. Windsor v. United States, 379 F. App’x 912, 916-17 (11th Cir. 2010). To obtain injunctive relief, Petitioners must make the following four showings:
(1) They have a substantial likelihood of success on the merits; (2) irreparable injury will be suffered unless the injunctive relief issues; (3) the threatened injury to the movants outweighs whatever damage the proposed injunctive relief may cause the opposing party; and (4) if issued, the injunction would not be adverse to the public
46

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 63 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/22/2020 Page 47 of 69
interest. Wreal, LLC v. Amazon.com, Inc., 840 F.3d 1244, 1247 (11th Cir. 2016) (citing Siegel v. LePore, 234 F.3d 1163, 1176 (11th Cir. 2000)); accord Levi Strauss & Co. v. Sunrise Int'l Trading Inc., 51 F.3d 982, 985 (11th Cir. 1995).
As explained in Wreal, a preliminary injunction is an “extraordinary and drastic remedy,” and a party seeking the relief bears the “burden of persuasion” to clearly establish all four of these prerequisites. Id.; see also Siegel, 234 F.3d at 1176 (citing McDonald’s Corp. v. Robertson, 147 F.3d 1301, 1306 (11th Cir. 1998)).
Obtaining injunctive relief is, therefore, always a challenge. But the hurdles are higher than usual here for two reasons: Petitioners are, in effect, seeking a mandatory injunction and are seeking an injunction against government officials. That generates two additional hurdles.
A preliminary injunction is typically prohibitive in nature if it seeks to maintain the status quo by prohibiting a party from taking certain action pending resolution of the case. Haddad v. Arnold, 784 F. Supp. 2d 1284, 1295-96 (M.D. Fla. 2010). But when the injunction would force a party to act, and not simply maintain the status quo, it becomes mandatory. Id.
The Eleventh Circuit standard for a mandatory injunction is a “heightened standard” where the party seeking the relief must make a “clear” showing on each of the four elements of the injunction (instead of proceeding under a preponderance of the evidence standard). See, e.g., FHR TB, LLC v. TB Isle Resort, LP., 865 F. Supp. 2d 1172, 1192
47

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 63 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/22/2020 Page 48 of 69
(S.D. Fla. 2011) (“When the moving party is seeking a mandatory injunction, it faces ‘a particularly heavy burden of persuasion’ . . . Moreover, if the requested injunction is mandatory, then [the movant’s] burden is elevated to making a ‘clear’ showing on each of the four elements (instead of proceeding under a preponderance of the evidence standard).”).
Florida district courts often adopt this heightened burden concerning mandatory injunctions. See, e.g., OM Group, Inc. v. Mooney, No. 2:05CV546FTM33SPC, 2006 WL 68791, at *8 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 11, 2006) (citing Miami Beach Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n v. Callander, 256 F.2d 410, 415 (5th Cir. 1958); Fla. Gun Shows, Inc. v. City of Fort Lauderdale, No. 18-62345FAM, 2019 WL 2026496, at *6, n.1 (S.D. Fla. Feb. 19, 2019) (internal citation omitted) (“A movant seeking a mandatory injunction, i.e., an injunction which goes beyond the status quo and forces a party to act, must meet a stricter test; such injunctions are only to be granted in rare circumstances in which the facts and law are clearly in favor of the moving party.”). Plaintiff’s request for a preliminary injunction arguably seeks a mandatory injunction and should be measured against that exacting standard. See Haddad, 784 F. Supp. 2d at 1295-96 (internal citation omitted) (“When a preliminary injunction is sought to force another party to act, rather than simply to maintain the status quo, it becomes a mandatory or affirmative injunction and the burden on the moving party increases . . . Accordingly, a plaintiff seeking such relief bears a heightened burden of demonstrating entitlement to preliminary injunctive relief.”); Verizon Wireless Pers. Commc'n LP v. City of
48

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 63 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/22/2020 Page 49 of 69
Jacksonville, Fla., 670 F. Supp. 2d 1330, 1346 (M.D. Fla. 2009) (internal citation omitted) (“Where a mandatory injunction is sought, courts apply a heightened standard of review; plaintiff must make a clear showing of entitlement to the relief sought or demonstrate that extreme or serious damage would result absent the relief.”).
Given this perspective, courts generally disfavor mandatory injunctions. Oscar Ins. Co. of Fla. v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Fla., Inc., 360 F. Supp. 3d 1278, 1284 (M.D. Fla. 2019) (citing Powers v. Sec'y, Fla. Dep't of Corrs., 691 F. App’x 581, 583 (11th Cir. 2017) (“Mandatory preliminary relief, which goes beyond simply maintaining the status quo[,] is particularly disfavored, and should not be issued unless the facts and law clearly favor the moving party.”)).
The primary injunctive relief sought here against ICE is, for all practical purposes, a mandatory injunction: it asks that ICE be required to release all the detainees. It is not merely asking that the status quo be maintained. The status quo is that the 34 Petitioners (and all the other potential class members) are currently detained. So, an order requiring ICE to release them is a mandatory injunction, which requires Petitioners to carry the heightened burden.
Because the Respondents are government officials, Petitioners face an additional burden. As succinctly explained in Gwinnett Cnty. NAACP v. Gwinnett Cnty. Bd. Of Registration and Elections, No. 20-cv-00912-SDG, 2020 WL 1031897, at *5 (N.D. Ga. Mar. 3, 2020) (denying motion for TRO and preliminary injunction against county board of
49

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 63 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/22/2020 Page 50 of 69
registration and elections and board members):
[W]hen a party seeks to affirmatively enjoin a state governmental agency, requiring it to perform a certain action, the “case must contend with the well-established rule that the Government has traditionally been granted the widest latitude in the dispatch of its own affairs.” Martin v. Metro. Atlanta Rapid Transit Auth., 225 F. Supp. 2d 1362, 1372 (N.D. Ga. 2002) (citing Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362, 378-79 (1976)). The court must also exercise greater caution when, as here, “the injunction will require detailed and continuous supervision over the conduct of that [government] subdivision.” Id. (emphasis added).
Another district court in our circuit adopted a similar approach in Martin v. Metro.
Atlanta Rapid Transit Auth., 225 F. Supp. 2d 1362, 1372–73 (N.D. Ga. 2002), and held that:
This “well-established” rule [granting the government the widest latitude] bars federal courts from interfering with non-federal government operations in the absence of facts showing an immediate threat of substantial injury. Midgett v. Tri–County Metropolitan District of Oregon, 74 F. Supp. 2d 1008, 1012 (D.Or.1999), aff’d 254 F.3d 846 (9th Cir. 2001). See also Brown v. Board of Trustees of LaGrange Ind. Sch. Dist., 187 F. 2d 20 (5th Cir. 1951). Therefore, any injunction against a state agency must be narrowly tailored to “fit the nature and extent” of the established constitutional or statutory violation. See Gibson v. Firestone, 741 F.2d 1268, 1273 (11th Cir.1984). Greater caution or care should be exercised where a government subdivision is involved, particularly where the injunction will require “detailed and continuous supervision” over the conduct of that subdivision. Brown, 187 F.2d at 24. Thus, Plaintiffs must show an even stronger likelihood of success when they request mandatory injunctive relief rather than prohibitory injunctive relief against a government entity. See Harris v. Wilters, 596 F.2d 678, 680 (5th Cir.1979) (emphasis added).
A. Petitioner’s Legal Theories
Petitioners assert three counts in their habeas corpus petition.
Count I is based on the so-called Accardi doctrine and asserts a claim under the
Fifth Amendment and the Administrative Procedures Act for violation of applicable
50

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 63 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/22/2020 Page 51 of 69
detention standards. The Accardi doctrine arises from United States ex. rel Accardi v. Shaughnessy, 347 U.S. 260, 266, 268 (1954), and Plaintiffs say the rule arising from that case is that agencies must follow their own rules and regulations. Plaintiffs allege that an agency which violates its own rules and regulations violates the Administrative Procedures Act (“APA”) and the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause.
Count II asserts a Fifth Amendment claim for violating the detainees’ right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment by being deliberately indifferent to the medical risks at the detention centers.
Count III is a Fifth Amendment claim under the so-called state-created danger doctrine.
But regardless of which of the counts they rely on, Petitioners are seeking release from custody -- but that remedy is unavailable in the Eleventh Circuit under these circumstances.
B. The 11th Circuit’s Gomez Rule In Gomez v. United States, 899 F.2d 1124 (11th Cir. 1990), the district court granted bail to a convicted criminal, who was an AIDS victim, pending consideration of his petition for habeas corpus. Convicted of a controlled substance violation, Gomez was given a 10-year sentence of imprisonment. His claim was that the medical treatment he was receiving for AIDS was inadequate, and therefore unconstitutional. Given his medical condition, Gomez argued that the ten-year sentence “amounts to a life sentence.”
51

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 63 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/22/2020 Page 52 of 69
Id. at 1125. Our appellate court reversed the bail and release order, noting that “the district
court apparently overlooked the fact that even if Gomez prevailed on his habeas corpus petition, he would not be entitled to be released from prison.” Id. (emphasis added).
The Gomez Court noted that a habeas corpus petition is the sole remedy for prisoners “challenging the fact or duration of their imprisonment” and emphasized that the Supreme Court had not addressed whether it could be used as a vehicle for relief from prison conditions. Id. Noting a split in the circuits, Gomez held that a prisoner is not entitled to release even if he proves an allegation of mistreatment in prison that amounts to cruel and unusual punishment. Id. at 1126.
Instead, Gomez held, the “appropriate Eleventh Circuit relief from prison conditions that violate the Eight Amendment during legal incarceration is to require the discontinuance of any improper practices, or to require correction of any condition causing cruel and unusual punishment.” Id.
Therefore, the Gomez Court held, the “most relief” he could obtain if he proved cruel and unusual medical treatment of his AIDS would be an injunction against practices which violate the Eighth Amendment or a mandatory injunction “to bring his treatment up to constitutional standards.” Id. at 1127.
There is no doubt that Petitioners in this lawsuit are challenging the conditions of their confinement at the three immigration detention centers, not the fact or duration of
52

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 63 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/22/2020 Page 53 of 69
their confinement.
To be sure, Gomez is a 30-year-old opinion. But it remains the law in our circuit
and our courts are still bound by it: “[T]he law of the Eleventh Circuit is clear that the
appropriate relief from unconstitutional prison conditions is not release by writ of habeas
corpus. Instead, it is a discontinuance of the improper practice or correction of the
conditions.” McLendon v. Vasquez, No. CIV A CV206-280, 2007 WL 1116592, at *1-2 (S.D.
Ga. Apr. 11, 2007) (citing Gomez v. United States, 899 F.2d 1124, 1127 (11th Cir. 1990)).
Because our circuit does not permit release from prison as a remedy for an
unconstitutional condition of confinement, courts note that prisoners have the ability to
bring a civil rights claim for the violation, which provides a remedy other than release:
The proper vehicle for a prisoner to challenge his conditions of confinement is a civil rights action, rather than a habeas corpus action. . . . Since Moses is challenging the conditions of his confinement, the Court recharacterizes this proceeding as one arising under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971), which authorized constitutional tort suits against federal officials. See Castro v. United States, 540 U.S. 375, 381, 124 S.Ct. 786, 157 L.Ed.2d 778 (2003) (substance must govern over nomenclature, so a proceeding’s label that a litigant chooses is irrelevant).
Moses v. Kramer, No. CV412-024, 2012 WL 1448114, at *1 (S.D. Ga. Feb. 2, 2012).
The Gomez rule appears to be a minority view,13 and some parties undoubtedly
view it as rigid or outdated. Nevertheless, it remains vital and the passage of time has not
13 Dawson v. Asher, No. C20-0409JLR-MAT, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 47891, at *26 (W.D. Wash. Mar. 19, 2020) (“[T]he majority of federal circuit courts allow detainees to challenge their conditions of confinement via a habeas petition.”). In denying a second motion for
53

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 63 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/22/2020 Page 54 of 69
eroded it. See generally McLendon v. Vasquez, No. CIV A CV206-280, 2007 WL 1116592, at *1-2 (S.D. Ga. Apr. 11, 2007) (citing Gomez, 899 F.2d at 1126-27); see also Hampton v. Fed. Corr. Inst., No. CIV A 1:09CV00854RWS, 2009 WL 1703221, at *2 (N.D. Ga. June 18, 2009) (“In general, however, the proper vehicle for a prisoner to challenge his conditions of confinement is a civil rights, rather than a habeas corpus, action.”).
Not only is the rule still very much alive, but a panel of the Eleventh Circuit (albeit in an unpublished opinion) confirmed its application a few years ago with the following unequivocal language: “We have held that release from custody is not an available remedy, even if a prisoner establishes an Eighth Amendment violation.” Vaz v. Skinner, 634 F. App’x 778, 781 (11th Cir. 2015). “Instead, ‘[t]he appropriate Eleventh Circuit relief from prison conditions that violate the Eighth Amendment during legal incarceration is to require the discontinuance of any improper practices, or to require correction of any condition causing cruel and unusual punishment.’” Id. (citing Gomez, 899 F.2d at 1126).
a TRO brought by five detainees who ICE is holding in civil detention, the Court noted that ICE had already released four other Petitioners and explained that “no one can entirely guarantee safety in the midst of a global pandemic.” Id.
Not all circuits reject the Gomez rule. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, for example, follows the Eleventh Circuit approach. See Sacal-Micha v. Longoria, No. 1:20-CV37, 2020 WL 1815691 (S.D. Tex. Apr. 9, 2020) (denying habeas petition filed by immigration detainee who alleged a risk of COVID-19 because he is elderly and has serious medical conditions and emphasizing that the Fifth circuit has not recognized a claim for habeas corpus release based on unconstitutional prison conditions).
54

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 63 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/22/2020 Page 55 of 69
There are even more-recent cases which continue to use the Gomez rule. See e.g., Helbig v. United States, No. 4:18-CV-449-WS/MJF, 2019 WL 3976571, at *2 (N.D. Fla. July 31, 2019), report and recommendation adopted, No. 4:18-CV-449-WS/MJF, 2019 WL 3976314 (N.D. Fla. Aug. 22, 2019).
Therefore, even if Petitioners could establish their claims and even if they demonstrated a right to some type of injunctive relief, that relief would not include an order requiring this Court to release all the detainees (or even specific detainees). The Eleventh Circuit law does not permit that remedy.
However, the Undersigned concludes that the Gomez rule is based on the implicit assumption that a “correction” or discontinuance” of the unconstitutional practice is actually available. If no correction is feasible, then the remedy which the Eleventh Circuit relied upon would become illusory. If that were the case, then the Undersigned would reconsider the conclusion that there is no habeas corpus release remedy for the detainees at the three South Florida detention centers. See A.S.M. v. Donahue, No. 7:20-CV-62, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 65226, at *5 (M.D. Ga. April 10, 2020) (denying emergency motion for preliminary injunctive relief filed by ICE detainees held at two local detention centers who alleged risk of COVID-19 virus infection but noting that the Court might reconsider habeas relief as persuasive if the conditions “cannot be modified to reasonably eliminate those risks”).
55

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 63 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/22/2020 Page 56 of 69
C. The State-Created Danger Doctrine The Undersigned concludes that Petitioners have not demonstrated a substantial likelihood of success on their state-created danger theory. They might be able to ultimately prevail on the theory, but I cannot now conclude that they have met the substantial-likelihood-of-success standard. As explained below, it appears as though Petitioners’ theory is akin to trying to jam a square peg into a round hole. In Perez-Guerrero v. U.S. Atty General, 717 F.3d 1224 (11th Cir. 2013), the Eleventh Circuit explained that “only custodial relationships automatically give rise to a governmental duty, under substantive due process, to protect persons from harm by third parties.” Id. at 1233 (citing Doe v. Braddy, 673 F.3d 1313, 1318 (11th Cir. 2012)). There is no dispute that Petitioners are in a custodial relationship, but ICE argues that COVID19 is not a third party. [ECF No. 40, p. 9]. It says the cases in which individuals invoked the state-created danger doctrine involved harm caused by individuals, not a communicable disease. White v. Lemacks, 183 F.3d 1253 (11th Cir. 1999) (involving a nurse working in prison infirmary assaulted by inmate); Perez-Guerrero, 717 F.3d at 1124 (involving an alien claiming that his life would be threatened if deported to Mexico due to reprisals by persons he testified against in United States); Doe v. Braddy (involving a five-year old child sexually assaulted by teenaged minor placed by state social workers in adoptive home). Therefore, ICE argues, “inasmuch as the coronavirus is not a third party,
56

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 63 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/22/2020 Page 57 of 69
petitioners cannot claim a substantive due process right to protection from it.” [ECF No. 40, p. 10 (emphasis supplied)].
But this argument overlooks the possibility that other detainees with COVID-19 are (or could be, under a creative legal theory) the third parties from whom ICE should be providing protection. But this appears to be a stretch, because a detainee with the virus, especially a detainee who has no symptoms or who has been quarantined or put in a cohort group, is significantly different than a criminal.
At bottom, the state-created danger doctrine typically deals with the government’s failure to protect a victim from the criminal actions of third parties.
Petitioners have not provided any legal authority holding that detainees (or ICE staffers or others at the detention centers) with COVID-19 constitute third parties who are causing criminal harm to the Petitioners. See, e.g., TM v. Polk Cnty. Sch. Bd., No. 8:06CV-1370-T-MSS, 2006 WL 8440282, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Nov. 1, 2006) (emphasis added) (“Three exceptions, however, have emerged over the years to the general rule that a state is not constitutionally obligated to protect individuals against criminal acts of private third parties. Courts refer to these exceptions as (1) the special-relationship exception, (2) the state-created danger exception, and (3) the shocks the conscience exception.”) (citing Niziol v. Dist. Sch. Bd. of Pasco County, 240 F. Supp. 2d 1194, 1204 (M.D. Fla. 2002)); Brown v. Grabowski, 922 F.2d 1097, 1100-01 (3d Cir. 1990) (finding “that a state’s failure to take affirmative action to protect a victim from the actions of a third party will not, in the
57

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 63 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/22/2020 Page 58 of 69
absence of a custodial relationship . . . support a civil rights claim”); Morse v. Lower Merion Sch. Dist., 132 F.3d 902 (3d Cir. 1997) (“As matter of law, third party’s murder of daycare teacher, in classroom which daycare operator leased from school district, was not foreseeable and fairly direct result of operator’s and district’s act of allowing construction workers to use unlocked back entrance for access to school building in which classroom was located, for purpose of establishing liability of operator and district under statecreated danger theory, despite defendants’ alleged knowledge of previous security breaches.”).
Under the state-created danger exception, the government “has a duty to protect an individual from third parties when the state’s actions place an individual in ‘special danger.’” Polk Cnty. Sch. Bd., 2006 WL 8440282, at *3; Mitchell v. Duval Cnty. Sch. Bd., 107 F.3d 837, 839 (11th Cir. 1997) (“In order for a plaintiff to hold the state liable under the “special danger” analysis, he must show that the state affirmatively placed him in a position of danger which was distinguishable from that of the general public.”).
Thus, ICE’s actions would need to involve affirmative conduct on the part of its detention center managers and staff, placing Petitioners in danger. See Graham v. Ind. Sch. Dist. No. I-89, 22 F.3d 991, 994 (10th Cir. 1994). Significantly, the state actor’s inaction in the face of a known danger is not enough to trigger a constitutional duty to protect. See id. at 995.
58

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 63 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/22/2020 Page 59 of 69
The state-created danger theory has been applied in cases based on “discrete, grossly reckless acts committed by the state or state actors using their peculiar positions as state actors, leaving a discrete plaintiff vulnerable to foreseeable injury.” Kneipp v. Tedder, 95 F.3d 1199, 1208 (3rd Cir. 1996) (emphasis added). Petitioners are not discrete plaintiffs. To the contrary, they and the putative class members appear to be the precise opposite of a discrete plaintiff. Indeed, if all 1,400 detainees are part of the proposed class, then everyone is theoretically vulnerable, and that is not a specific and discrete plaintiff.
In describing the necessary factors finding liability under the state-created danger theory, the Fifth Circuit has emphasized that “the acts of the state must facilitate the crime’s commission: [T]he environment created by the state actors must be dangerous; they must know it is dangerous; and to be liable, they must have used their authority to create an opportunity that would not otherwise have existed for the third party’s crime to occur.” Polk Cnty. Sch. Bd., 2006 WL 8440282, at *4 (emphasis added) (citing Mitchell, 107 F.3d at 839).
“The essential elements of a meritorious ‘state-created danger’ claim” are: (1) the harm ultimately caused was foreseeable and fairly direct; (2) a state actor acted with a degree of culpability that shocks the conscience; (3) a relationship between the state and the plaintiff existed such that the plaintiff was a foreseeable victim of the defendant’s acts, or a member of a discrete class of persons subjected to the potential harm brought about by the state’s actions, as opposed to a member of the public in general; and (4) a state actor affirmatively used his or her authority in a way that created a danger to the citizen or that rendered the citizen more vulnerable to danger than had the state not acted at all. U.S.C.A. Const. Amend 14.
59

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 63 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/22/2020 Page 60 of 69
Bright v. Westmoreland Cnty., 443 F.3d 276 (3d Cir. 2006). “The Eleventh Circuit has recognized that the Supreme Court has superseded the
latter ‘state-created danger’ category. Now, the government’s affirmative acts ‘rise to the level of a substantive due process violation [when] the act can be characterized as arbitrary or conscience shocking in a constitutional sense.’” L.L. ex rel. Linda L. v. Tuscaloosa City Bd. of Educ., No. 7:08-CV-2051-LSC, 2013 WL 169612, at *8 (N.D. Ala. Jan. 15, 2013) (citing Waddell v. Hendry Cnty. Sheriff's Office, 329 F.3d 1300, 1305 (11th Cir. 2003)).
By way of summary, the Undersigned is not convinced that Petitioners have established a likelihood of prevailing on this theory.14
D. The Accardi Theory The Eleventh Circuit has recognized the viability of an Accardi claim that an agency has violated its own guidelines and policies. Kurapati v. U.S. Bureau of Citizenship & Immigration Servs., 775 F.3d 1255, 1262 (11th Cir. 2014) (finding that district court had subject matter jurisdiction over the claims raised in complaint because government agency failed to follow its own regulations); see also Gonzalez v. Reno, 212 F.3d 1338, 1349 (11th Cir. 2000) (“Agencies must respect their own procedural rules and regulations.”);
14 Had Petitioners opted to file a reply memorandum rather than urge the Undersigned to keep a hearing date scheduled only a few days after the emergency motions were filed, the Undersigned may have benefitted from additional legal argument and been persuaded.
60

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 63 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/22/2020 Page 61 of 69
Romano-Murphy v. Comm’r, 816 F.3d 707, 718 (11th Cir. 2016). Petitioners allege that ICE has failed to follow the National Detention Center
Guidelines, which they say require ICE to also follow CDC Guidelines. The Undersigned finds that Petitioners have not established a substantial likelihood of prevailing on the merits because the applicable CDC Guidelines contain a substantial amount of flexibility and courts confronted with emergency motions to release state and federal prisoners and detainees because of COVID-19 have relied on this adaptability when denying applications for release of inmates or detainees.
Specifically, the CDC’s Interim Guidance on Management of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) in Correctional and Detention Facilities emphasizes, in bold font on the very first page, that “the guidance may need to be adapted based on individual facilities’ physical space, staffing, population, operations, and other resources and conditions.”
In addition, the guidelines for social distancing strategies explains that “strategies will need to be tailored to the individual space in the facility and the need of the population and staff. Not all strategies will be feasible in all facilities.” (emphasis added).
Concerning cohorting, which is a primary issue on which Petitioners focus, the guidelines explain that “cohorting should only be practiced if there are no other available options.” According to an ICE-filed supplemental Castano Declaration submitted on
61

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 63 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/22/2020 Page 62 of 69
April 21, 2020, there are 350 detainees in cohort status. [ECF No. 53-1]. Krome does not have anywhere near 350 separate rooms or cells in which to house these cohorts. So, cohorting is indeed a last resort.
Petitioners contend that cohorting is not a last resort measure because release of all cohorted detainees (350, as of now) is an alternative. The CDC Guidelines do not say this. And Petitioners have not called the Court’s attention to a case which unequivocally holds that cohorting is not permitted. Theoretically, release is always an option, so, under Petitioners’ theory, cohorting would never be an acceptable method because there would be another alternative (i.e., cohorting could never be the “last resort”).
The CDC’s decision to include a flexible, center-by-center approach was recently mentioned by a federal district court confronted with a challenge to the conditions at Chicago’s Cook County Jail, which it described as being the “size of a small (but not all that small) town.” Mays, 2020 WL 1812381, at *1.
The Court there acknowledged that “current housing arrangements make social distancing impossible or virtually so,” and then noted that “the CDC’s guidance is not as definitive as plaintiffs suggest; it acknowledges that space limitations may require a departure from better social-distancing practices.” Id. at *10. Therefore, recognizing that “the CDC’s guidance expressly recognizes that complete social distancing may not be possible in the sleeping areas of the jail” and that “space constraints at the Jail do not allow for the more preferable degree of social distancing that exists in the community at
62

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 63 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/22/2020 Page 63 of 69
large,” the Court held that Plaintiffs had not established that the Sheriff is acting in an objectively unreasonable manner.” Id.; see also Plata v. Newsome, No. 01-cv-01351 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 17, 2020), ECF No. 3266, p. 9 (noting “most significantly” that the CDC Guidelines recognize that strategies will “need to be tailored”).
E. Depending on the Facts, Petitioners May Have Demonstrated a Substantial Likelihood of Prevailing on Their Deliberate Indifference Theory
To prevail on their request for injunctive relief under Count II, Petitioners must show a substantial likelihood of establishing that ICE has been deliberatively indifferent to their serious medical needs. Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976); cf. Hamm v. DeKalb County, 774 F.2d 1567 (11th Cir. 1985); see also Jordan v. Doe, 38 F.3d 1559, 1564 (11th Cir. 1994).
The Undersigned is confronted with a muddy and uncertain factual record. Petitioners represent that certain conditions exist and that certain measures have or have not been taken, while ICE often makes different representations. I cannot determine from a review of the competing declarations which scenarios are true, which are partially true, which are false, which are misleading, and which are incomplete by omission.
For example, ICE represents that it issues sufficient soap to all detainees and that it is replenished. Some of the detainees say otherwise.
This type of factual dispute exists for several aspects of the Petitioners’ claims, though some are surely not contested. For example, there is little doubt that social distancing is currently impossible at Krome because the sleeping arrangements and some
63

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 63 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/22/2020 Page 64 of 69
of the toilet and shower arrangements are too tight to permit it. Thus, to the extent that ICE is not providing sufficient amounts of soap and
cleaning material and masks (to detainees who have exhibited symptoms and those who are quarantined in cohorts), they are required to do so because the detainees have established irreparable harm (if this is, in fact, what is happening at the centers) and because the equities and public interest support such a preliminary injunction. Failure to do so, in the midst of a pandemic, constitutes deliberate indifference. See Swain v. Junior, No. 1:20-cv-21457-KMW (S.D. Fla. Apr. 7, 2020) ECF No. 25 (granting motion for TRO concerning Miami-Dade County’s Metro West Detention Facility and noting that Plaintiffs’ met the preliminary injunction standards, including a likelihood of success of prevailing on the merits of a deliberate indifference claim concerning the treatment of 1,800 prisoners raising allegations similar to the ones at issue here).
There can be little doubt that the Petitioners will suffer irreparable harm of the increased likelihood of severe illness and death if a preliminary injunction is not entered. In fact, ICE does not even address the irreparable harm issue in its opposition brief. As noted in Fraihat, No. EDCV 19-1546 JGB, ECF No. 132, p. 36, “the Constitution protects those in detention against a condition of confinement that is sure or very likely to cause serious illness and needless suffering the next week or month or year.” (citing Helling, 509 U.S. at 33 (“It would be odd to deny an injunction to inmates who plainly proved an unsafe, life-threatening condition in their prison on the ground that nothing yet had
64

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 63 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/22/2020 Page 65 of 69
happened to them.”)). The limited preliminary injunctive relief recommended here is in the public
interest. When the government is the opposing party, the balancing of the harm and the public interest merge. Niken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 435 (2009).
In its opposition brief, ICE argues that injunctive relief would not favor the public interest, but it seems clear that this argument is limited to the primary relief requested -the immediate release of 1,400 detainees. The opposition memorandum does not explain how or why an Order requiring the steps outlined in the earlier section of this Report and Recommendations would undermine the public interest.
In fact, it is likely that the limited preliminary injunction recommended here could substantially help ICE because it could lead to the slowing of the spread of COVID-19 at the three centers. Not only would that be of critical importance to the detainees, but it would also be extremely helpful to ICE staff and employees and vendors, whose risk of contracting COVID-19 would also be decreased if certain health measures were undoubtedly used and if the census were to be substantially increased.
There are, of course, certain aspects of detention at the three facilities which undermine efforts to minimize the health risk -- but those conditions are, at least for now, an unavoidable reality.15 But the Report and Recommendations, if adopted, could lead to
15 The Undersigned is not prepared to recommend that ICE not transfer to another ICE detention facility any of the current detainees. It is not clear to me that this is necessary or even advisable. In fact, in other recent lawsuits challenging prison or
65

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 63 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/22/2020 Page 66 of 69
a situation where those problematic conditions are either removed or reduced. For example, it is impossible for the detainees to engage in adequate social
distancing when their beds are so close together. But if the number of detainees were to substantially decrease through ICE-selected release on a substantial scale, then it might be possible for the detainees to skip beds and arrange for more than six feet between beds used by detainees. That would promote and perhaps allow adequate social distancing. For now, though, the Undersigned deems these conditions to be part of the harsh realities of operating a detention facility.
In other words, the situation at the three centers is not ideal and, short of closing down the centers or building new ones overnight or releasing all detainees, there is unfortunately not much can be done to change some prison realities under current Eleventh Circuit law. IV. Conclusion
The Undersigned respectfully recommends that Judge Cooke adopt and affirm this Report and Recommendations and implement the 13 specific measures described in the introduction and summary section.
The Undersigned assumes that ICE officials, managers, employees, and staffers technically working for third-party contractors are all overworked, underpaid, stressed,
detention center conditions due to COVID-19, the petitioners have requested transfers. In Mays v. Dart, for example, certain petitioners asked to be transferred out of the Cook County Jail “to a safe facility.” 2020 WL 1812381, at *15.
66

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 63 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/22/2020 Page 67 of 69
and under great pressure. They are likely also nervous. Some may be shaken by the pandemic and the intense responsibility which has been placed on them. ICE has not expressly said any of this in its opposition memorandum or during the emergency hearing. But it would be naïve to think otherwise.
This R & R does not demand the impossible. Reviewing protocols and striving to release a substantial number of detainees is workable. Following through and actually releasing detainees, especially those with medically high-risk conditions, is surely possible. ICE has already demonstrated its ability to achieve this by releasing detainees at Broward. The Undersigned does not expect ICE to release all detainees at the three centers, even though that is what Petitioners demand. But in the words of Petitioner’s counsel during the emergency hearing, “don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good.”
So, ICE can do this. If it does not, then several things can happen. None of them will be good. Dozens and dozens of individual detainees could file separate federal court lawsuits, burdening this Court and the attorneys representing ICE. And, as noted, if the Court were to conclude that a correction to the unacceptable conditions of confinement is not possible through internal, good faith review of the census, then the Gomez rule might have to bend under these extraordinary circumstances. So, ICE has the chance to do the right thing. This R & R, if adopted, gives ICE an opportunity to demonstrate its recognition of an unprecedented health crisis and its
67

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 63 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/22/2020 Page 68 of 69
ability to correctly (albeit belatedly) take steps to avoid a disaster. V. Objections
The parties will have only two calendar days from the date of being served with a copy of this Report and Recommendations within which to file written objections, if any, with the District Judge. Each party may file a response to the other party’s objection within two calendar days of the objection.16 Failure to timely file objections shall bar the parties from a de novo determination by the District Judge of an issue covered in the Report and shall bar the parties from attacking on appeal unobjected-to factual and legal conclusions contained in this Report except upon grounds of plain error if necessary in the interest of justice. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985); Henley v. Johnson, 885 F.2d 790, 794 (11th Cir. 1989); 11th Cir. R. 3-1 (2016).
RESPECTFULLY RECOMMENDED in Chambers, in Miami, Florida, on April 22, 2020.
16 The Undersigned is significantly shortening the time for objections and responses because this Report addresses a bona fide emergency concerning critical health and safety issues. Thus, objections must be filed by one second before midnight on Friday, April 24, 2020, and the responses must be filed by one second before midnight on Sunday, April 26, 2020.
68

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 63 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/22/2020 Page 69 of 69 Copies furnished to: The Honorable Marcia G. Cooke All counsel of record
69

 
 Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 76 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/30/2020 Page 1 of 12
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Case No. 20-21553-Civ-COOKE/GOODMAN
PATRICK GAYLE, et al.,
Petitioners,
vs.
MICHAEL W. MEADE, et. al.,
Respondents. _____________________________________/
ORDER ADOPTING IN PART MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
THIS MATTER is before me upon the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of the Honorable Jonathan Goodman, U.S. Magistrate Judge (ECF No. 63), regarding Petitioners’ Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (ECF No. 1), and Emergency Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Motion for Preliminary Injunction for Proposed Class (ECF No. 4). On April 24, 2020, both Petitioners and Respondents filed Objections to the R&R (ECF Nos. 70; 71).
The Court may “accept, reject, modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). If no specific objections to findings of facts are filed, the district court is not required to conduct a de novo review of those findings. See Garvey v. Vaughn, 993 F.2d 776, 779 n.9 (11th Cir. 1993); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). However, the Court must review legal conclusions de novo. See CooperHouston v. Southern Ry. Co., 37 F.3d 603, 604 (11th Cir. 1994); United States v. Rice, No. 2:07mc-8-FtM-29SPC, 2007 WL 1428615 at *1 (M.D. Fla. May 14, 2007). I have reviewed the matter de novo. Having done so, I find the Magistrate Judge’s R&R should be adopted in part for reasons explained herein.
BACKGROUND In a matter of a mere three months, Coronavirus (“COVID-19”) has thrust humankind into an unprecedented global public health crisis. COVID-19 is a highly communicable respiratory disease that spreads among people who are in close contact—less

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 76 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/30/2020 Page 2 of 12
than six feet apart. The virus can be fatal for all age groups and works by attacking the human lungs and other vital organs. COVID-19 has spread rapidly throughout the world— there are at least 2 million globally confirmed cases and 250,000 deaths. In the United States, there are over 1 million confirmed cases and over 57,000 have died. These numbers are the highest in the world. The virus affects individuals very differently, and while it is impossible to predict exactly who will fall victim to the illness, health experts indicate that older people and those with underlying medical problems like cardiovascular disease, diabetes, chronic respiratory disease, and cancer are more likely to develop serious illness and possibly die.1 The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (“CDC”) estimates approximately 16 days between the onset of symptoms and death with an incubation period between 2 and 14 days.2 There is no approved treatment, vaccine, or cure for COVID-19.
COVID-19 is a novel virus, and experts are learning more about it every day. Nevertheless, health and medical experts have gathered enough information about the virus to inform the public about how to mitigate the contagion. To that end, the CDC has promulgated a set of guidelines on the best practices and methods to prevent and to mitigate the contagion. One of the main tenets of the CDC’s recommendations and guidelines is that everyone practice social distancing, maintaining a distance of no less than six feet between people so as to limit the spread of the virus. The CDC also recommends that people wash their hands frequently and wear masks when in public or in close proximity with others.
COVID-19 has ravaged every corner of American society, including jails, prisons, and immigration detention facilities. Currently, there are at least 9,000 confirmed COVID19 cases within the United States prison system.3 In an attempt to slow down the spread of the virus inside the prison system, Attorney General William P. Barr initially issued a directive to the Bureau of Prisons urging the bureau to identify and release all inmates who, inter alia, were eligible for home confinement, no longer posed a threat to the public, and
1 https://www.who.int/health-topics/coronavirus#tab=tab_1(Accessed April 26, 2020). 2 Stephen A. Lauer, MS, PhD, The Incubation Period of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) From Publicly Reported Confirmed Cases: Estimation and Application, Mar. 10, 2020, https://annals.org/aim/fullarticle/2762808/incubation-period-coronavirusdisease-2019-covid-19-from-publicly-reported. 3 themarshallproject.org/2020/04/24/tracking-the-spread-of-coronavirus-in-prisons (Accessed April 26, 2020).
2

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 76 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/30/2020 Page 3 of 12
were particularly vulnerable to the Coronavirus.4 Mr. Barr issued a second directive expanding the group of federal inmates eligible for early release.5 Mr. Barr directed the bureau to immediately maximize the number of appropriate transfers to home confinement.6
The U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) has also issued a set of pandemic response guidelines titled ICE’s COVID-19 April 10, 2020 Pandemic Response Requirements (“PRR”). ICE reportedly developed the guidelines in consultation with the CDC and calls for compliance with the CDC’s guidelines in correctional and detention facilities.7 ICE’s guidelines also require the identification of any detainee who meets the CDC’s guidelines for populations at higher-risk for serious illness from COVID-19.8
DISCUSSION The Petitioners in this case are 34 immigrant detainees. Petitioners claim that they are housed at one of three immigration detention centers in Florida: the Krome Detention Center in Miami (“Krome”), the Broward Transitional Center in Pompano Beach (“BTC”), and the Glades County Detention Center in Moore Haven (“Glades”)9. Petitioners maintain that they are particularly vulnerable to COVID-19 for different underlying chronic ailments and are at imminent risk of contracting the virus because the overflow of detainees within
4 Office of the Attorney General, Washington, DC, Memorandum for Director of Bureau Prisons, Prioritization of Home Confinement as Appropriate in Response to COVID-19 Pandemic (Mar. 26, 2020), https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000171-1826-d4a1-ad77fda671420000. 5 April 3, 2020 Memorandum of Hon. W. Barr to the Director of Bureau of Prisons, at 1. “[W]e are experiencing significant levels of infection at several of our facilities. . . .We have to move with dispatch in using home confinement, where appropriate, to move vulnerable inmates out of these institutions.” Id. 6 Although Mr. Barr’s Memorandums are directed to the Federal Bureau of Prisons, ICE’s guidelines contain specific standards that mirror Mr. Barr’s directives with respect to which detainees should be immediately released. 7 ICE’s Enforcement and Removal Operations, April 10, 2020, at 3, https://www.ice.gov/doclib/coronavirus/eroCOVID19responseReqsCleanFacilities.pdf. 8 Id. at 5-6. 9 Although Glades is located in the Middle District, this Court finds that it has jurisdiction to review claims related to conditions of confinement there. See Masingene v. Martin, 424 F. Supp. 3d 1298, 1303 (S.D. Fla. 2020) (“[A] district court acts within its respective jurisdiction. . .as long as the custodian can be reached by service of process.”) (internal citations omitted).
3

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 76 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/30/2020 Page 4 of 12
the constricted detention centers makes it impossible to comply with the CDC’s guidelines. Petitioners, inter alia, seek immediate release from the detention centers.
Both the Petitioners and ICE have filed objections to the Magistrate Judge’s R&R. ICE maintains that injunctive relief is not warranted because the Magistrate Judge did not find any legal violations that warrant injunctive relief. ICE also maintains that even if the R&R identified a legal violation, any violation is based on a narrow, incomplete and inconsistent record. Petitioners, on the other hand, argue that the Magistrate Judge incorrectly concluded that release of the Petitioners was an inappropriate remedy. The Court considers each argument in turn.
To obtain either a temporary injunction or a preliminary injunction, a party must demonstrate that: “(1) it has a substantial likelihood of success on the merits; (2) irreparable injury will be suffered unless the injunction issues; (3) the threatened injury to the movant outweighs whatever damage the proposed injunction may cause the opposing party; and (4) if issued, the injunction would not be adverse to the public interest.” Wreal, LLC v. Amazon.com, Inc., 840 F.3d 1244, 1247 (11th Cir. 2016). Based on the Court’s review of the record, and relevant case law, Petitioners have met that standard.
A. Fifth and Eighth Amendment Violations10 It is important to note that the Petitioners in the instant case are merely civil
detainees, not convicted criminal prisoners.11 Troville v. Venz, 303 F.3d 1256, 1260 (11th Cir. 2002) (“[O]nly individuals who, at the time they seek to file their civil actions are detained as a result of being accused of, convicted of, or sentenced for criminal offenses are prisoners within the definition of. . .28 U.S.C. § 1915.”) (internal citations omitted). Immigration detainees are subject to the same rights as civil detainees. Mehmood v. Guerra, 783 F. App’x 938, 941 (11th Cir. 2019) (holding that the district court improperly classified immigration
10 The Court recognizes that the limitations imposed by the Eighth Amendment and the Due Process Clause arise in different contexts. However, with respect to the provision of medical care and supervision to individuals in the state’s custody, the two provisions necessarily yield the same result. Hamm., 774 F.2d at 1574 (holding that the standard to measure the state’s duty under the Due Process Clause for pretrial detainees for medical care can equally and fairly be measured by the same standard as the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment). 11 This distinction is important because convicted prisoners may seek early release through “compassionate release,” but civil detainees cannot.
4

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 76 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/30/2020 Page 5 of 12
detainee as a prisoner rather than as a civil detainee). And civil detainees are afforded “more constitutional protection, more considerate treatment, and conditions of confinement than criminals whose conditions of confinement are designed to punish.” Youngberg v. Romeo, 457 U.S. 307, 321-22 (1982). The Government may not impose on civil detainees conditions that would violate a convicted prisoner’s Eighth Amendment rights. See Hamm v. DeKalb Cty., 774 F.2d 1567, 1573-74 (11th Cir. 1985) (citing City of Revere v. Mass. Gen. Hosp., 463 U.S. 239, 244 (1983) (“[T]he due process rights of a [pretrial detainee] are at least as great as the Eighth Amendment protections available to a convicted prisoner.”).
The Eighth Amendment prohibits the infliction of cruel and unusual punishment. Robinson v. California, 370 U.S. 660 (1962). Under that provision, the Government may not impose punishments that shock the conscience, involve unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain, offend evolving notions of decency, or are grossly disproportionate to the offense for which they are imposed. See Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 102-03 (1976); Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153, 173 (1976); Trop v. Dulles, 356 U.S. 86, 101 (1958). Various conditions, “alone or in combination, may deprive inmates of the minimal civilized measure of life’s necessities. Such conditions could be cruel and unusual under the contemporary standard of decency.” Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337, 347 (1981). On that basis, courts have held that states violate the Eighth Amendment when they are deliberately indifferent to a prisoner’s serious medical needs. See, e.g. Estelle, 429 U.S. at 106.
The minimum standard of care to be provided to civil detainees under the Due Process Clause is the same as that allowed by the Eighth Amendment for convicted persons. Hamm, 774 F.2d at 1574; see also Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 535 n. 16 (1979) (holding that the Due Process Clause rights of a civil detainee are at least as great as the Eighth Amendment protections available to a convicted prisoner).
When the Government takes people into custody and detains them against their will, the Constitution confers upon the Government a duty to assume responsibility for those detainees’ safety and general well-being. See Helling v. McKinney, 509 U.S. 25, 32 (1993).
The Due Process Clause similarly “imposes a duty on state actors to protect or care for citizens when the state affirmatively places a particular individual in a position of danger the individual would not otherwise have faced.” Gregory v. City of Rogers, Ark, 974 F.2d 1006, 1010 (8th Cir. 1992) (en banc). The Government violates an individual’s right to due process
5

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 76 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/30/2020 Page 6 of 12
when it (1) “affirmatively place[s] [the] individual in danger,” or (2) by “acting with ‘deliberate indifference to [a] known or obvious danger.’” Jones v. Phyfer, 761 F.2d 642 (11th Cir. 1985) (a constitutional right to protection by the state exists when there is a showing that the victim faces a special danger distinguishable from that of the public at large).
There is record evidence demonstrating that ICE has failed in its duty to protect the safety and general well-being of the Petitioners. For example, the Magistrate Judge found that social distancing at Krome is not only practically impossible, the conditions are becoming worse every day. (ECF No. 63 at 63) (“[T]here is little doubt that social distancing is currently impossible at Krome because the sleeping arrangements and some of the toilet and shower arrangements are too tight to permit it.”). At Glades the bunk beds are a paltry 12 inches apart, the distance between the upper bunk and the lower bunk is 34 inches, and the chairs and benches where detainees eat at Glades are only three feet apart, contrary to CDC guidelines. (Id. at 40.) Further, ICE has failed to provide detainees in some detention centers with masks, soap and other cleaning supplies, and failed to ensure that all detainees housed at the three detention centers can practice social distancing. (Id. at 34-42.)
These failures have placed Petitioners at a heightened risk of not only contracting COVID-19, but also succumbing to the fatal effects of the virus as some of the Petitioners have serious underlying medical illness. See, e.g. Pauluk v. Savage, 836 F.3d 1117, 1119 (9th Cir. 2016) (recognizing that environmental conditions can be the basis for the state-created danger doctrine.) Such failures amount to cruel and unusual punishment because they are exemplary of deliberate indifference. Estelle, 429 U.S. at 104 (“[D]eliberate indifference to serious medical needs of prisoners [is] proscribed by the Eighth Amendment.); Helling, 509 U.S. at 32. (noting that the Government acts with deliberate indifference when it “ignore[s] a condition of confinement that is sure or very likely to cause serious illness.”).
ICE can make a conscious effort to address detention conditions in light of COVID19. For example, at BTC, all detainees over the age of 60 have been released and the overall detention population has decreased by 35%. (ECF No. 63 at 34). So, it is clear that ICE fully understands the benefit of reducing the detainee population. Thus, to the extent that ICE fails to commit to addressing the conditions complained of, ICE has demonstrated deliberate indifference.
Accordingly, there is sufficient evidence in this record to determine that the present
6

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 76 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/30/2020 Page 7 of 12
conditions at the three detention centers constitute a violation of the Petitioners Fifth and Eighth Amendment rights.
B. Application of the Accardi Doctrine Petitioners assert that Government agencies are required to follow their own rules
and regulations and that an agency which violates its own rules and regulations violates the Administrative Procedures Act and the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. Petitioners further allege that ICE has failed to follow the National Detention Center Guidelines, which Petitioners argue require ICE to also follow CDC Guidelines. In the R&R, the Magistrate Judge found that Petitioners had not established a substantial likelihood of prevailing on the merits because “the applicable CDC Guidelines contain a substantial amount of flexibility and courts confronted with emergency motions to release state and federal prisoners and detainees because of COVID-19 have relied on this adaptability when denying applications for release of inmates or detainees.” (ECF No. 63 at 61.) The Court respectfully disagrees.
When the Government has promulgated “[r]egulations with the force and effect of law,” those regulations “supplement the bare bones” of federal statutes. United States ex rel. Accardi v. Shaughnessy, 347 U.S. 260, 266, 268 (1954). Agencies must follow their own “existing valid regulations,” even where Government officers have broad discretion, such as in the area of immigration. Id. at 268; see also Gonzalez v. Reno, 212 F.3d 1338, 1349 (11th Cir. 2000) (“Agencies must respect their own procedural rules and regulations.”); Morton v. Ruiz, 415 U.S. 199, 235 (1974) (“[I]t is incumbent upon agencies to follow their own procedures . . . even where [they] are possibly more rigorous than otherwise would be required.”).
A violation of the Accardi doctrine may constitute a violation of the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. United States v. Teers, 591 F. App’x 824, 840 (11th Cir. 2014) (recognizing that an Accardi violation may be a due process violation,); Jean v. Nelson, 727 F.2d 957, 976 (11th Cir. 1984) (“Agency deviation from its own regulations and procedures may justify judicial relief in a case otherwise properly before the court.”).
ICE is an agency that operates its detention system under a set of National Detention Standards (“NDS”), which set forth the medical care that must be provided to individuals in immigration detention. Both Krome and BTC are subject to ICE’s 2011 Performance-Based National Detention Standards (“PBNDS”). (See Compl., Appx. I, Ex. K, at 152, 156.) Glades is subject to ICE’s NDS. (Id., Appx. I, Ex. K, at 152, 156.) Section
7

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 76 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/30/2020 Page 8 of 12
4.3(II)(10) of the PBNDS requires that “Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) guidelines for the prevention and control of infectious and communicable diseases shall be followed.” (Id. at Appx I, Ex. N, at 248-97, 253.) The PBNDS also provides that “[f]acilities shall comply with current and future plans implemented by federal, state or local authorities addressing specific public health issues including communicable disease reporting requirements.” (Id., Appx, Ex. N, at 256-57.) Similarly, section 1.1(I) of the NDS states, “facilit[ies] will operate in accordance with all applicable regulations and codes, such as those of . . . the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).” (Id. Appx I, Ex. O, at 304.)
It is abundantly clear that ICE is required to comply with CDC’s guidelines pursuant to its own regulations and policy statements. Yet, ICE has flouted its own guidelines by, inter alia, failing to ensure that each detainee practices social distancing. Indeed, ICE admits that its actions fall short, stating that “declarations [submitted] establish that defendants are in substantial compliance with the National Detention Standards.” (ECF 40 at 9.) (emphasis added). ICE’s purported “substantial compliance” does not pass muster under the Accardi doctrine. At BTC, beds in male rooms are only two feet apart, when they should be six feet apart under the CDC’s guidelines. (ECF No. 63 at 36.) At Krome, there are at least five laboratory-confirmed cases of COVID-19 (two of which are detainees). (Id. at 36). Yet, ICE has distributed personal protective equipment only to Krome staff members but none to detainees
Further, ICE’s argument that the Accardi doctrine is inapplicable fails because although the CDC’s guidelines contain some flexibility, there are certain aspects of the guidelines that are mandatory. For example, pursuant to the CDCs guidelines, ICE is required to restrict transfers, quarantine new detained individuals, allow appropriate social distancing, perform pre-intake screening, supply detainees with sufficient hygiene and cleaning supplies.12 Thus, while the CDC guidelines allow flexibility, that does not absolve ICE of its responsibility with respect to the mandatory provisions of the guidelines designed to protect the health of detainees. ICE is still expected to follow its own regulations. See Rowe v. U.S. Atty. Gen., 545 F. App’x 888, 890 (11th Cir. 2013) (recognizing that the Board of
12 https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/community/correctiondetention/guidance-correctional-detention.html (Accessed April 28, 2020).
8

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 76 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/30/2020 Page 9 of 12
Immigration Appeals is required to follow its own regulations even when exercising discretion). Moreover, the Due Process Clause is implicated here because Petitioners are relying on ICE and the CDC’s regulations promulgated for their guidance or benefit during this pandemic. It is easily conceivable that in failing to comply with its own guidelines, ICE caused Petitioners to suffer substantially because of their violations.
Accordingly, the Court finds that ICE has violated Petitioners’ Due Process Clause protections pursuant to the Accardi doctrine.
C. Habeas Corpus Release Under Gomez In their Objection, Petitioners assert that the Magistrate Judge misunderstood their
request and erred in his interpretation of Gomez v. United States, 899 F.2d 1124 (11th Cir. 1990). Petitioners argue that Gomez allows this Court to provide the Petitioners relief because it recognizes court’s inherent authority to grant release on a writ of habeas corpus under the “extraordinary circumstances” standard. Petitioners cite to no Eleventh Circuit cases; however, they urge the Court to consider whether this habeas petition raises substantial claims and makes release necessary.
In Gomez v. United States, 899 F.2d 1124 (11th Cir. 1990), petitioner, who was serving a 10-year sentence of imprisonment for a controlled substance violation, was suffering from Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome. Id. at 1125. Petitioner filed a habeus corpus petition, alleging that the medical treatment he was receiving in prison was inadequate, and therefore unconstitutional. Id. The district court granted bail, but the Eleventh Circuit reversed the bail and release order stating, “the district court apparently overlooked the fact that even if Gomez prevailed on his habeas corpus petition, he would not be entitled to be released from prison.” Id. Noting a split in the circuits, the Eleventh Circuit held that a prisoner is not entitled to release even if he proves an allegation of mistreatment in prison that amounts to cruel and unusual punishment. Id. at 1126.
Petitioners’ interpretation of Gomez is misplaced. First, the facts in Gomez are not analogous to the instant matter as Gomez dealt with a convicted criminal, not civil detainees. Next, the Court interprets Gomez to stand for the proposition that the appropriate relief from prison conditions that violate the Eighth Amendment is to require the discontinuance of any improper practices, or to require correction of any condition causing cruel and unusual punishment. Id. Requirement of a discontinued practice does not amount to releasing
9

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 76 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/30/2020 Page 10 of 12
detainees who complain of prison conditions. Accordingly, Gomez does not support the kind of relief requested here.
CONCLUSION In sum, there is sufficient evidence in the record to determine that the present conditions at the three detention centers constitute a violation of the detainees Fifth and Eighth Amendment rights. Accordingly, the Court finds that injunctive relief is appropriate. However, the record is not clear as to whether each individual Petitioner is eligible for release under ICE’s PPR. For example, it is unclear who among the Petitioners would be considered “mandatory detainees.” It is hereby ORDERED and ADJUDGED that Judge Goodman’s R&R (ECF No. 63) is ADOPTED in part as follows: 1. Petitioners’ Emergency Motion For Temporary Restraining Order And Motion For Preliminary Injunction For Proposed Class And Incorporated Memorandum Of Law (ECF No. 4) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. 2. Within seven (7) days of this Order, ICE shall evaluate each of the 34 detainees named in the instant action consistent with ICE’s PRR13 and inform the Court who among them can be released promptly in light of COVID-19. ICE must take into consideration the detainees’ current health status, eligibility for bond, immigration status, immigration court history and orders, and prior criminal history. 3. Within three (3) days of this Order, ICE shall submit a report the Court informing the Court as to how it intends to accelerate its review of its “Alternatives to Detention” program (or other protocols resulting in detainee release) with the goal of reducing the population to 75% of capacity at each of the three detention centers within two weeks of this Order. 4. ICE shall perform an internal review pursuant to ICE’s PRR and file with the Court weekly reports (every Friday by 4:00 P.M.) on the following:
a. The number of detainees who have been released;
13 The medically higher-risk detainees are listed on pages 5 and 6 of the PRR, and they include people 65 years old and older and those with underlying medical conditions. Although ICE’s PRR list of higher-risk detainees does not include pregnant detainees, this Order adds that category to the list for the three detention centers at issue.
10

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 76 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/30/2020 Page 11 of 12
b. Which facility they were released from; and c. The nature of the detainee released (e.g., in a high-risk category because of
age or a specific, documented medical condition, etc.). 5. Within ten (10) days of this Order, ICE shall submit twice-weekly (every Monday and Thursday by 4:00 P.M.) reports on the following:
a. How many detainees it is housing on the date of reporting; b. At which of the three centers the detainees are being housed; c. Which of the detainees are considered “mandatory detainees”; and d. Which of the detainees have no prior criminal convictions and no pending
criminal charges. 6. ICE shall immediately comply with the CDC and ICE guidelines on providing adequate amounts of soap and water and cleaning materials to detainees at each of the three detention centers at issue. Further, within two (2) days of this Order, ICE shall provide masks to all detainees and shall replace those masks at least once per week. 7. ICE shall provide education and training about measures to reduce the health risks associated with COVID-19 to all staff members and detainees and to any new detainees or employees. ICE shall provide such education and training without any costs to the detainees. 8. This Temporary Order is valid for a limited period of 14 days or until further order of this Court, or until ICE demonstrates that it has substantially complied with this Order. The Court’s ruling is subject to change based on a more fully developed record. 9. The Court recognizes that complying with this Order poses several procedural and logistical hurdles for ICE, however, at the time of this writing there are at least 30,000 confirmed COVID-19 cases and over 1,000 related deaths in Florida alone. Time is of the essence. Accordingly, the Court fully expects ICE to work with a sense of urgency to meet the deadlines set forth and refrain from requests for extensions of time absent extenuating circumstances.
11

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 76 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/30/2020 Page 12 of 12 DONE and ORDERED in chambers, at Miami, Florida, this 30th day of April 2020.
Copies furnished to: Jonathan Goodman, U.S. Magistrate Judge Counsel of record
12

 
 Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 78 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/02/2020 Page 1 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case No. 20-21553-Civ-COOKE/GOODMAN
PATRICK GAYLE, et al., Petitioners,
vs. MICHAEL W. MEADE, et al.,
Respondents. ______________________________/
ORDER ON PETITIONERS’ MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION THIS MATTER is before the Court on the Petitioners’ Motion for Clarification (the “Motion”). (ECF No. 77). The Court, having reviewed the Motion and being fully advised in the premises, hereby ORDERS and ADJUDGES as follows:
Petitioners’ Motion for Clarification (ECF No. 77) is hereby GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. The Court’s Order dated April 30, 2020, (ECF No. 76), is clarified to include all fifty-eight (58) named Petitioners in the instant action. (See ECF No. 65 (granting Petitioners’ Motion to Add Named Petitioners)).
The Court further clarifies its April 30, 2020, Order to permit Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) to transfer detainees from the three facilities at issue. However, ICE may only transfer detainees after first evaluating each detainee and making a determination as to the detainees’ eligibility for release pursuant to ICE’s COVID-19 April 10, 2020 Pandemic Response Requirements.
1

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 78 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/02/2020 Page 2 of 2 DONE and ORDERED in chambers, at Miami, Florida, this 2nd day of May 2020.
Copies furnished to: Jonathan Goodman, U.S. Magistrate Judge Counsel of record
2

 
 Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 81 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/05/2020 Page 1 of 22
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case No. 20-21553-Civ-COOKE/GOODMAN PATRICK GAYLE, et al., Petitioners-Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and those similarly situated, v. MICHAEL W. MEADE, et al., Respondents-Defendants. ______________________________________/
PETITIONERS-PLAINTIFFS’ EXPEDITED MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION, REQUEST FOR EXPEDITED
CONSIDERATION, AND MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 81 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/05/2020 Page 2 of 22
TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................ 1 II. STATEMENT OF FACTS ............................................................................................... 2 A. Proposed Class Members ........................................................................................................2 B. Proposed Class Counsel ..........................................................................................................4 C. Procedural Background ..........................................................................................................7 III. THE PROPOSED CLASS SATISFIES THE REQUIREMENTS FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION UNDER RULE 23...................................................................................... 7 A. The Class Meets the Four Requirements of Rule 23(a). .............................................................8
1. The Class Is So Numerous that Joinder Is Impracticable....................................... 8 2. The Low Threshold for Commonality Requirement of Rule 23(a)(2) Is Satisfied
Because the Challenged Policies Present Common Questions of Fact and Law. .... 9 3. The Claims of the Class Representatives Are Typical of the Claims of the Class. . 12 4. Class Representatives and Class Counsel Will Adequately Protect the Interests of
the Class. .......................................................................................................... 13 B. Certification Is Appropriate Under Rule 23(b)(2)....................................................................14 IV. GIVEN THE EXIGENCIES, THE COURT SHOULD ACCELERATE THE BRIEFING AND ITS CONSIDERATION. ........................................................................... 15 CONCLUSION .......................................................................................................................... 16
i

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 81 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/05/2020 Page 3 of 22

Cases

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Andrews v. Bechtel Power Corp., 780 F.3d 124 (1st Cir. 1985) ...................................................13

Armstrong v. Davis, 275 F.3d 849 (9th Cir. 2001) ................................................................12

Baby Neal v. Casey, 43 F.3d 48, 59 (3d Cir. 1994) ..............................................................14

Braggs v. Dunn, 321 F.R.D. 653, 664 (M.D. Ala. 2017) ............................................... 10, 13

Butler v. Suffolk Cty., 289 F.R.D. 80, 98 (E.D.N.Y. 2013) ..................................................10

Cheney v. Cyberguard Corp., 213 F.R.D. 484 (S.D. Fla. 2003) .......................................... 7, 13

Cooper v. S. Co., 390 F.3d 695, 714 (11th Cir. 2004), overruled on other grounds by Ash v. Tyson Foods, Inc. 546 U.S. 454, 126 S.Ct. 1195 (2006).............................................. 8

Gordon v. Johnson, 300 F.R.D. 28 (D. Mass. 2014) .......................................................................7

Ibrahim v. Acosta, 326 F.R.D. 696 (S.D. Fla. 2018) ................................................ 11, 12, 14

Helling v. McKinney, 509 U.S. 25, 32 (1993) ....................................................................... 9

Hernandez v. City of Monterey, 305 F.R.D. 132, 139 (N.D. Cal. 2015) ..............................9-10

Holmes v. Continental Can Co., 706 F.2d 1144, 1155 (11th Cir. 1983) ..................................14

In re Checking Account Overdraft Litig., 286 F.R.D. 645 (S.D. Fla. 2012)...............................11

In re Credit Suisse-AOL Sec. Litig., 253 F.R.D. 17 (D. Mass. 2008) .......................................12

In re Terazosin Hydrochloride Antitrust Litig., 220 F.R.D. 672 (S.D. Fla. 2004) ......................12

Kirkpatrick v. J.C. Bradford & Co., 827 F.2d 718, 726 (11th Cir. 1987) .................................13

Masingene v. Martin, __ F. Supp. 3d __, 2020 WL 465587 (S.D. Fla. Jan. 27, 2020) ............. 4

Reid v. Donelan, 297 F.R.D. 185 (D. Mass. 2014), reversed on other grounds, 819 F.3d 486 (1st Cir. 2016) ....................................... passim
R.F.M. v. Nielsen, 365 F. Supp. 3d 350 (S.D.N.Y. 2019) ..................................................... 8

Rosas v. Baca, No. CV 12-00428 DDP (SHx), 2012 WL 2061694, at *2 (C.D. Cal. June 7, 2012) ............................................................................................................... 8, 10

ii

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 81 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/05/2020 Page 4 of 22 Tyson Foods, Inc. v. Bouaphakeo, 577 U.S. ___, 136 S. Ct. 1036 (2016).................................11 Vega v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., 564 F.3d 1256, 1268 (11th Cir. 2009) ................................. 10-11 Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338 (2011) ..........................................................6, 9 Williams v. Mohawk Indus., Inc., 568 F.3d 1350, 1355 (11th Cir. 2009) ...............................10 Rules Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 ..................................................................................................... passim Other Sources 7A Wright & Miller, Federal Practice & Procedure § 1775 (3d ed. 2018) ............................ 7
iii

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 81 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/05/2020 Page 5 of 22
I. INTRODUCTION This action is filed on behalf of a highly vulnerable putative class: approximately 1400
individuals in civil immigration detention at three Florida detention centers, Krome Service Processing Center, Broward Transitional Center, and Glades County Detention Center. Every individual is at imminent risk of contracting COVID-19 because of the atrocious conditions of their confinement—conditions that, as this Court recognized in its April 30 Order Adopting in Part Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation [ECF 76], violate the Centers for Disease Control & Prevention’s (“CDC’s”) Guidelines, as well as State and County orders pertaining to COVID-19. Common questions of both fact and law pervade this matter. Petitioners-Plaintiffs are subject to the same confinement under the same conditions which imposes the same risk of developing COVID-19. Class certification is appropriate.
Petitioners-Plaintiffs seek class certification pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and (b)(2). Specifically, Petitioners-Plaintiffs seek certification of the following class:
All civil immigration detained individuals held by Respondents at the Krome Service Processing Center (“Krome”), the Broward Transitional Center (“BTC”), or at Glades County Detention Facility (“Glades”) when this action was filed, since this action was filed, or in the future.
The proposed class easily meets the requirements of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and (b). All approximately 1400 members of the class (a number of class members that makes joinder impracticable) are bound together by common questions of law and fact—most prominently, whether in the face of the lethal COVID-19 pandemic, the continued detention of class members at Krome, BTC, and Glades by ICE in a way that violates CDC Guidelines and places the detained individuals’ safety and health at grave risk amounts to a violation of their rights. These are the very questions of law and fact this Court addressed in its April 30 Order. All class members face the common risk of COVID-19 infection by virtue of confinement in one of the three ICE facilities at issue here under the same unsanitary and unconstitutional conditions—conditions created by the same deliberate indifference.
The Named Petitioners-Plaintiffs are proper class representatives because their claims are typical of the absent class members and because they and their counsel will adequately
1

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 81 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/05/2020 Page 6 of 22
and vigorously represent the class. Finally, Rule 23(b)(2) is satisfied here because the Respondents have “acted or refused to act on grounds that apply generally to the class” through creating and maintaining conditions that put the class at imminent risk of contracting COVID-19, the deadly virus that is currently sweeping the globe.
II. STATEMENT OF FACTS A. Proposed Class Members
ICE is uniformly failing to follow the CDC Guidelines in each of the detention facilities at issue in this case. This Court has repeatedly ordered the Respondents to provide information about the conditions in these facilities via declarations. None of the declarations claimed that ICE was protecting the class members by properly implementing CDC Guidelines. Instead, the declarations illustrate a consistent pattern of unhygienically cramped conditions, inadequate personal protective equipment, and grossly inadequate practices by ICE, such as late screening and use of massive cohort quarantining. The class members are uniformly not provided basic necessities to fight against COVID-19, such as space, face masks, soap, and hand sanitizer. Each class member is therefore not only subject to similar conditions, but similarly subject to the same devastating risk of contracting COVID-19.
Krome detains an average of 600 people in ICE custody at any time, with a population fluctuating between 550 and 875 people since 2006. See Southern Poverty Law Center, Prison by any Other Name: A Report on South Florida Detention Centers (Appx I, Exh. K, at 131-234, 152). “[T]here is little doubt that social distancing is currently impossible at Krome because the sleeping arrangements and some of the toilet and shower arrangements are too tight to permit it.” ECF 76 at 6. Social distancing at six feet (72 inches) or greater is not possible at Krome given its current population:
 Sleeping—Dormitories have a paltry ~4 feet between beds. Id. at 31-32.  Eating—Meals are now served in day rooms, meaning that many areas have
only ~3 feet between detained people. Id. at 32.  Screening—Medical screenings are conducted on all newly detained
individuals within 12 hours. Castano Declaration [ECF 33-1] at 3.  Medical—Staff provides daily access to sick calls. Report & Recommendation
(“R&R”) [ECF 63] at 28.
2

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 81 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/05/2020 Page 7 of 22
ICE reports on its website that as of May 3, 2020, there are 10 detained people at Krome who have tested positive for COVID-19.1 The following Named Petitioners-Plaintiffs are held or were held during the pendency of this action under the same unsanitary and unconstitutional conditions at Krome: Patrick Gayle, Aparicio P. Jeronimo, Tolentino Martinez-Rios, Wilder Perez Limones, Javier Antonio Arias-Martinez, Juan Carlos Alfaro Garcia, Fermin TepetateMartinez, Abdul Jalloh, Darwyn Yovanny Navarrete Sanchez, Muhammad Alam Khan, Jose Chavez, Lazaro Ocana Guzman, Naim Arrak, Agane Warsame, Hassan Mohamed Farah, Ruben Orlando Flores Ramos, Mohamed Hasan, Eliseo Antonio Zamora Mendoza, Cesar Ariel Mendez Escobar, Julio Edwards, Eitan Yefet, Fernando Goncalves, Manuel Lopez Perez, Ricardo Perezo Alonzo, Thomas Lenor, Alejandro Vincenzo Mugaburu Tapia, Ariel Lucien, Mohamed Hassan Ali, Carlos Hedman Perdomo, Evarado Orantes Acevedo, and Jose Galdino Montalvo Rodriguez.2
Glades detains an average of 407 people in ICE custody at a time. (Appx I, Exh. K, at 165.) As with Krome, social distancing at six feet or greater is not possible and CDC Guidelines are not followed at Glades.
 Sleeping—As this Court recognized, “the bunk beds are a paltry 12 inches apart, the distance between the upper bunk and the lower bunk is 34 inches apart. Id.at 6.
 Eating—“[T]he chairs and benches where detainees eat are only three feet apart, contrary to CDC guidelines.” Id. at 6.
 Screening—Medical screenings are conducted on all newly detained individuals within 12 hours. Castano Declaration [ECF 33-1] at 3.
 Medical—Staff provides daily access to sick calls. R&R at 28.

1

See https://www.ice.gov/coronavirus (visited May 4, 2020).

2

Petitioners-Plaintiffs have listed the locations where the Named Petitioners-Plaintiffs

were located at the time this action was filed or at the time they joined this action as party

Petitioners-Plaintiffs. However, since the filing of this action, ICE has transferred some

detained individuals at these facilities. To prevent these transfers from frustrating the Court’s

jurisdiction and its ability to fashion meaningful relief, the Class Petitioners-Plaintiffs propose

include all who have passed through the three facilities at issue here during this action’s

pendency.

3

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 81 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/05/2020 Page 8 of 22
As of May 4, ICE’s website does not currently report that any individuals detained at Glades have tested positive for COVID-19. The following Named Petitioners-Plaintiffs are held or were held during the pendency of this action under the same unsanitary and unconstitutional conditions at Glades: Roseline Ostine, Tahimi Perez, Franklin Ramon Gonzalez, Francisco Rivero Valeron, Irvin Mendoza Silis, Gerardo Vargas, Dairon Barredo Sanchez, Rolando Aguabella Martinez, Yaniel Machado Aguila, Omar Lopez-Jaramillo, Farhan Nawabit, and Maxual a de Souza.
BTC detains on average 700 people in ICE custody at a time, with a mandatory minimum of 500 beds for people in immigrant detention. (Appx I, Exh. K, at 156.) As is the case at both Krome and Glades, social distancing at six feet or greater is not possible and CDC Guidelines are not followed at BTC.
 Sleeping—Bunk beds for males detained at BTC are 2 feet apart. Id. at 26.  Eating—After ICE removed chairs “so detainees are not seated next to each
other or directly across from each other,” they still eat only 4 feet apart. Id.  Screening—Medical screenings are conducted on all newly detained
individuals within 12 hours. R&R at 22.  Medical—Staff provides daily access to sick calls. Id. at 23. As of May 4, ICE’s website does not currently report that any individuals detained at BTC have tested positive for COVID-19. The following Named Petitioners-Plaintiffs are held or were held during the pendency of this action under the same unsanitary and unconstitutional conditions at BTC: Rene Jonathan Rosas Cardens, Adrian Sosa Fletes, Alejandro Ferreira Borges, Maikel Betancourt, Gelber Sontay Funez, Sirvanildo Bibiano Soares, Maykel Valera Ramirez, Ervin David Rodas Pedro, Abel Carrillo, Maikel Carrasco Polo, Miguel Angel Marroquin Perez, Maria Eugenia Rodriguez Claras, Crisley Sacrab-Bin, Danny Ruiz Garcia, and Deivys Perez Valladares. Everyone ICE has detained at Krome, BTC, and Glades is detained under the same authority: Respondent Field Office Director, Miami Field Office, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. [See ECF 76 at 3 & n.9 (citing Masingene v. Martin, __ F. Supp. 3d __, 2020 WL 465587 (S.D. Fla. Jan. 27, 2020)].
B. Proposed Class Counsel Proposed Class Counsel have significant experience with complex immigration, class
4

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 81 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/05/2020 Page 9 of 22
action litigation, including regarding conditions in detention facilities, and will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the Class.
 King & Spalding LLP, an international law firm which routinely represents clients around the world in complex litigation, will serve as lead class counsel. King & Spalding regularly litigates civil rights pro bono matters in federal court across the country, including cases representing individuals in prison and civil detention raising issues regarding the conditions of their detainment. Additional facts establishing the adequacy of Proposed Class Counsel are set forth fully in the concurrently filed declaration of Kathryn S. Lehman. (Ex. A).
 The Immigration Clinic of the University of Miami School of Law is a nonprofit organization with expertise in both immigration law and complex litigation. The Clinic has litigated numerous immigration cases in the Southern District of Florida, the Eleventh Circuit, and other federal courts across the country. The Clinic has served as lead counsel in class action involving immigration matters. Additional facts establishing the adequacy of Proposed Class Counsel are set forth in the concurrently filed declaration of Rebecca Sharpless, Director of the Immigration Clinic. (Ex. B).
 Rapid Defense Network is a New York State nonprofit legal services organization specializing in federal habeas corpus litigation for non-citizens detained by immigration authorities facing removal from the United States. RDN has extensive experience litigating detention issues in impact litigation and habeas corpus litigation across the county. Additional facts establishing the adequacy of Proposed Class Counsel are set forth fully in the concurrently filed declaration of Gregory P. Copeland. (Ex. C).
 Prada Urizar, PLLC is a private immigration law firm located in Miami, Florida specializing in solving complex immigration cases before both immigration agencies and federal courts. Attorneys Mark Prada and Anthony Dominguez of Prada Urizar regularly litigate immigration cases, including habeas corpus and APA litigation, against U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services in the Southern District of Florida and before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh
5

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 81 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/05/2020 Page 10 of 22
Circuit. Additional facts establishing the adequacy of Proposed Class Counsel are set forth fully in the concurrently filed declaration of Mark Prada and Anthony Dominguez. (Ex. D).  The Southern Poverty Law Center (“SPLC”), based in Montgomery, Alabama, is a non-profit civil rights organization dedicated to seeking justice for the most vulnerable members of society. The SPLC focuses on impact litigation in various practice areas, which include immigrant justice and criminal justice reform issues. The SPLC has served as class counsel in more than 30 cases, many of which include challenges to conditions of confinement. Additional facts establishing the adequacy of Proposed Class Counsel are set forth fully in the concurrently filed declaration of Paul R. Chavez. (Ex. E).  Americans for Immigrant Justice (“AI Justice”) is a non-profit law firm dedicated to promoting and protecting the basic rights of immigrants. AI Justice provides direct legal services to immigrants who are detained and facing removal proceedings in all three of South Florida detention facilities. AI Justice serves as a watchdog on immigration detention practices and policies and its Detention and Advocacy staff have authored numerous reports concerning conditions at ICE detention facilities in Florida. AI Justice has represented immigrants in federal civil rights cases in the Southern and Middle Districts of Florida. Additional facts establishing the adequacy of Proposed Class Counsel are set forth fully in the concurrently filed declaration of Lisa Berlow-Lehner (Ex. F).  Legal Aid Service of Broward County (“LASBC”) is a non-profit legal services organization location in Plantation, Florida. LASBC was founded in 1973 to provide high quality, free civil legal advice, representation and education to low-income residents of Broward County. LASBC has been involved in many federal and state class action lawsuits on behalf of Broward County residents, and has dedicated resources to becoming familiar with the relevant laws and procedures. Additional facts establishing the adequacy of Proposed Class Counsel are set forth fully in the concurrently filed declaration of Andrea Montavon-McKillip (Ex G).
6

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 81 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/05/2020 Page 11 of 22
C. Procedural Background As COVID-19 ravaged every corner of American society, including ICE detention facilities, potential class members initiated this lawsuit on April 13, 2020. They filed an Emergency Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Motion for Preliminary Injunction for Proposed Class and Incorporated Memorandum of Law on the same date. Judge Goodman held a nearly three-hour hearing on April 17, 2020 and subsequently issued his Report and Recommendation on April 22, 2020. Based on the exigent circumstances, Judge Goodman required an expedited briefing schedule for any objections. This Court then entered an Order Adopting in Part Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation on April 30, 2020 [ECF 76].
III. THE PROPOSED CLASS SATISFIES THE REQUIREMENTS FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION UNDER RULE 23.
Class certification is governed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. Class certification is proper where the party seeking certification demonstrates that (1) each of the prerequisites of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) have been met; and (2) the proposed class satisfies at least one of the requirements listed in Rule 23(b). Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338, 345 (2011). Both elements are met here.
As explained below, the proposed Class satisfies each of the Rule 23(a) requirements, which are as follows:
(1) the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable; (2) there are questions of law or fact common to the class; (3) the claims or defenses of the representative parties are typical of the claims or defenses of the class; and (4) the representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a). The proposed Class easily satisfies the requirements listed in Rule 23(b)(2). Certification is appropriate under Rule 23(b)(2) because Respondents have acted or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the Class, making injunctive relief appropriate with respect to the Class as a whole.
Notably, civil rights actions are particularly amenable to class treatment as Rule 23 was enacted to “facilitate the bringing of class actions in the civil-rights area.” 7A Wright & Miller, Federal Practice & Procedure § 1775 (3d ed. 2018). The arguments in favor of class
7

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 81 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/05/2020 Page 12 of 22
certification are especially strong in this context, where individual Class members are unlikely to be able to pursue their claims individually. Even in normal times, people in civil immigration detention are hard-pressed to bring their own civil rights claims, since they are all detained, largely lack counsel, and many do not speak English. See Reid v. Donelan, 297 F.R.D. 185, 189 (D. Mass. 2014), reversed on other grounds, 819 F.3d 486 (1st Cir. 2016) (certifying class of people in immigration detention because, among other things, “many do not speak English, a majority do not have counsel, and most are unlikely even to know that they are members of the proposed class”); Gordon v. Johnson, 300 F.R.D. 28, 29 (D. Mass. 2014). But, of course, these are not normal times. The difficulties Class members would face in pursing their own claims are compounded by a world that is essentially on lock-down. Furthermore, the exigencies of the present COVID-19 crisis that the Court so aptly summarized in its recent ruling (ECF 76) do not allow the time needed for the Class members to each bring separate actions to vindicate their rights: COVID-19 has no interest in waiting while each Class member is afforded a day in court.
A. The Class Meets the Four Requirements of Rule 23(a). 1. The Class Is So Numerous that Joinder Is Impracticable.
The proposed class satisfies the requirement that the class be “so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(1). While there is no fixed rule, generally a class size less than twenty-one is typically considered inadequate, while a class size of more than forty is generally adequate. Cheney v. Cyberguard Corp., 213 F.R.D. 484, 48990 (S.D. Fla. 2003) (citing Cox v. Am. Cast Iron Pipe Co., 784 F.2d 1546, 1553 (11th Cir. 1986).
This requirement is easily met here because there are hundreds of people (indeed, approximately 1400) in civil immigration detention who are being held by the same Respondent across Krome, BTC, and Glades, and each of them is affected by the policies and practices challenged in this lawsuit.
Additionally, the Class includes not only individuals detained when this suit was filed and those currently detained, but also all future detained individuals at these three centers since both men and women detained now and in the future are or will be subject to Respondents’ policies and practices related to the conditions of detainment. ICE has refused to stop transferring individuals into these three facilities, so the current number of detained men and women represents “merely the floor for this numerosity inquiry.” Reid, 297 F.R.D.
8

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 81 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/05/2020 Page 13 of 22
at 189; see also R.F.M. v. Nielsen, 365 F. Supp. 3d 350, 368 (S.D.N.Y. 2019) (finding joinder impracticable for certain immigrants applying for legal status certain in part because “[n]ew members regularly and continuously join the proposed class as their SIJ status petitions are adjudicated.”).
Other courts presented with similar proposed classes of current and future people in custody have agreed that the numerosity requirement is readily met on circumstances such as those here. See, e.g., Rosas v. Baca, No. CV 12-00428 DDP (SHx), 2012 WL 2061694, at *2 (C.D. Cal. June 7, 2012) (“The Jails currently house thousands of inmates, and are certain to house many more in the future. The court therefore agrees with Plaintiffs’ undisputed assertion that the numerosity requirement has been satisfied.”). The size of the proposed Class and the fact that the Class includes future members seeking injunctive or declaratory relief make joinder impracticable. The proposed Class thus satisfies the numerosity requirement of Rule 23(a)(1).
2. The Low Threshold for Commonality Requirement of Rule 23(a)(2) Is Satisfied Because the Challenged Policies Present Common Questions of Fact and Law.
As distinct from the requirement that common questions of law or fact “predominate” in Rule 23(b)(3) (which Petitioners-Plaintiffs do not invoke here), the commonality requirement in Rule 23(a)(2) is exceedingly slight—it simply requires that there are some common questions of law or fact. Thus, Rule 23(a)(2) commonality can be met where, notwithstanding some factual differences between the class members claims, controlling questions of law and fact are common to the entire class. See Cooper v. S. Co., 390 F.3d 695, 714 (11th Cir. 2004), overruled on other grounds by Ash v. Tyson Foods, Inc. 546 U.S. 454, 457 (2006) (stating that “factual differences among the claims of the putative class members do no defeat certification.”).
“Commonality requires the plaintiff to demonstrate that the class members have suffered the same injury.” Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338, 350 (2011). The common contention of injury “must be of such a nature that it is capable of class wide resolution—which means that determination of its truth or falsity will resolve an issue that is central to the validity of each one of the claims in one stroke.” Id. “What matters to class certification . . . is . . . the capacity of a class wide proceeding to general common answers apt
9

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 81 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/05/2020 Page 14 of 22
to drive the resolution of the litigation.” Id. (citation omitted). The Class satisfies the commonality requirement because they share at least one
question of law and fact—several, in fact. A critical question of law for the Class is whether Respondents have been deliberately indifferent to the risk that people detained at Krome, BTC, and Glades will contract COVID-19 due to the unhygienic conditions and an inability to protect themselves through social distancing. See Helling v. McKinney, 509 U.S. 25, 32 (1993) (the Constitution confers upon the Government a duty to assume responsibility for safety and general well-being of people detained). As this Court has recognized, “to the extent that ICE fails to commit to addressing the conditions complained of, ICE has demonstrated deliberate indifference.” [ECF 76 at 6.] And given how viruses spread, that deliberate indifference applies uniformly to all people in ICE custody at the three facilities at issue here.
Common questions also circle on the (in)adequacy of Respondents’ policies and practices governing the conditions of confinement, including ICE’s failure to follow CDC Guidelines. These issues, which are at the core of the claims asserted by Petitioners-Plaintiffs and the Class constitute the type of common questions that courts have found sufficient to meet the commonality requirement. For example, in Hernandez v. City of Monterey, the court certified “a class of inmates challenging jail safety and health care policies and practices, and a subclass of inmates challenging jail disability policies and practices.” 305 F.R.D. 132, 139 (N.D. Cal. 2015). The Hernandez court found that the commonality requirement was met for both the proposed class and subclass because “all members of the putative class and subclass have in common their alleged exposure to a substantial risk of serious future harm to which Defendants are allegedly deliberately indifferent, as a result of policies and practices that govern the overall conditions of health care services and confinement.” Id. at 157. The court further concluded that “[w]hile results of exposure may vary, ranging from no harm to death, each inmate suffers the same constitutional or statutory injury when exposed to a policy or practice that creates a substantial risk of serious harm.” Id. (emphasis added); see also Rosas, 2012 WL 2061694, at *5 (certifying prisoner class where the issue of whether officials were deliberately indifferent to a pattern or practice of violence was a common question likely to yield a common answer); Butler v. Suffolk Cty., 289 F.R.D. 80, 98 (E.D.N.Y. 2013) (“Whether the County was aware of and deliberately indifferent to the conditions at the [prison] is a common question subject to class-wide resolution.”).
10

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 81 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/05/2020 Page 15 of 22
The nature of this suit and the relief requested also support a finding of commonality. In a civil rights lawsuit such as this, “commonality requires only that there be at least one issue whose resolution will affect all or a significant number of the putative class members.” Braggs v. Dunn, 321 F.R.D. 653, 664 (M.D. Ala. 2017) (quoting Williams v. Mohawk Indus., Inc., 568 F.3d 1350, 1355 (11th Cir. 2009) (internal brackets omitted). This “relatively light burden” does not require that all questions of law and fact be common to the putative class members. See Vega v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., 564 F.3d 1256, 1268 (11th Cir. 2009).
Here, ICE’s uniformly unsanitary practices and its consistent refusal to follow CDC Guidelines at Krome, BTC, and Glades expose each class member to the same “substantial risk of serious harm.” See Hernandez, 305 F.R.D. at 157. Specifically, in the face of the lethal COVID-19 pandemic, the continued detention of the class members at Krome, BTC, and Glades in a manner that defies CDC Guidelines places the detained individuals’ safety and health at grave risk in a manner that amounts to unconstitutional punishment. [ECF 76 at 6– 9.] All of the class members either have been, or will be, subjected to these common conditions and common policies and practices, and a determination that Respondents’ conduct is unconstitutional and violated CDC guidelines will therefore “resolve an issue that is central to the validity” of each and every class member’s detention. Dukes, 564 U.S. at 350 (2011). Respondents are holding all members of the Class in the same horrific conditions, and the Court should find the necessary facts and rule on the constitutionality of those common conditions “in one stroke.” See id.
The fact that certain details relating to their conditions of confinement will vary between class members does not defeat commonality. Reid, 297 F.R.D. at 191 (class certification granted despite individual differences among class members, where common issues pervade). Those inevitable differences—which at most might entail some tailoring in the ultimate remedy the Court might fashion—do not change the fact that conditions experienced in all three South Florida detention centers at issue here are uniformly unsanitary and unconstitutional, or that Respondents have uniformly shown deliberate indifference towards the risk of COVID-19 infection to all people they are detaining at those facilities. Indeed, Respondents’ briefing in this Court shows that they believe they are categorically under no judicially administrable, constitutional obligation to actually protect the people who they are confining from COVID-19. [See, e.g., ECF 72 at 10 (contending that state-created-
11

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 81 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/05/2020 Page 16 of 22
danger doctrine categorically does not apply to the dangers that arise from “a communicable disease” because the virus “is not a third party”).] Because that question can be answered in one fell swoop, the commonality requirement of Rule 23(a)(2) is met.
As courts have repeatedly recognized, even under the more stringent requirement that common questions predominate that applies to damages class actions under Rule 23(b)(3), class action treatment can still be appropriate despite the existence of minor variations among class members. Tyson Foods, Inc. v. Bouaphakeo, --- U.S. ---, 136 S. Ct. 1036, 1045 (2016) (“When one or more of the central issues in the action are common to the class and can be said to predominate, the action may be considered proper under Rule 23(b)(3) even though other important matters will have to be tried separately, such as damages or some affirmative defenses peculiar to some individual class members.” (internal quotation marks and citations omitted)). Where, as here, the commonalities are readily apparent, Rule 23(a)(2) is readily satisfied.
3. The Claims of the Class Representatives Are Typical of the Claims of the Class.
The typicality requirement centers on the relationship between the proposed class representatives and the other members of the class. Ibrahim v. Acosta, 326 F.R.D. 696, 700 (S.D. Fla. 2018) (citing Vega v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., 564 F.3d 1256, 1275 (11th Cir. 2009)). This analysis turns on “whether other members have the same or similar injury, whether the action is based on conduct which is not unique to the named class plaintiffs, and whether other class members have been injured by the same course of conduct.” In re checking Account Overdraft Litig., 286 F.R.D. 645, 653 (S.D. Fla. 2012). “A sufficient nexus is established if the claims or defenses of the class and the class representative arise from the same event or pattern or practice and are based on the same legal theory.’” In re Terazosin Hydrochloride Antitrust Litig., 220 F.R.D. 672, 686 (S.D. Fla. 2004).
Commonality and typicality tend to overlap, as each looks to the nature of the claims presented in the case, and whether the class members and the named plaintiffs are similarly situated as to those claims. Dukes, 564 U.S. at 349 n.5 (“Both [commonality and typicality] serve as guideposts for determining whether under the particular circumstances maintenance of a class action is economical and whether the named plaintiff’s claim and the class claims are so interrelated that the interests of the class members will be fairly and adequately
12

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 81 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/05/2020 Page 17 of 22
protected in their absence.”). Thus, in Ibrahim, having already discussed the questions of law and fact common to the class, the court had no trouble concluding that the typicality requirement was met for the same reasons—with virtually no additional discussion. See 326 F.R.D. at 700 (citing Dukes).
Here, the proposed class representatives (themselves members of the Class) have suffered the same injury because they are subject to the same confinement under the same unconstitutional conditions caused by the same deliberate indifference by the same Respondents which is exposing them to the same risk of developing COVID-19. [See ECF 76 at 6–10.] See also Armstrong v. Davis, 275 F.3d 849, 869 (9th Cir. 2001) (typicality requirement is satisfied when “the cause of the injury is the same—here, the Board’s discriminatory policy and practice”). All Class members are forced to live in dangerously close quarters with others in civil detention—when they sleep, eat, shower, and use the toilet. Furthermore, all Class members are exposed to an appalling lack of screening, personal protective equipment and medical oversight.
There is, moreover, no risk that issues involving the Named Petitioners-Plaintiffs’ individual claims will impede their litigation on behalf of the class. The Named PetitionersPlaintiffs are challenging the same practices and the same pattern of deliberate indifference to the same serious threat all people confined at these facilities face. They “can fairly and adequately pursue the interests of the absent class members without being sidetracked by [their] own particular concerns.” In re Credit Suisse-AOL Sec. Litig., 253 F.R.D. 17, 23 (D. Mass. 2008). Indeed, given the nature of the claims at issue here, swapping out any of the Named Petitioners-Plaintiffs for any of the Class members would do nothing to change the quality of the litigation here—which is the very definition of having claims that are typical to those of the other class members. The Court should find this requirement met.
4. Class Representatives and Class Counsel Will Adequately Protect the Interests of the Class.
Rule 23(a)(4) requires that “the representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(4). Adequacy depends on the resolution of two questions: “(1) whether plaintiffs’ counsel are qualified, experienced, and generally able to conduct the proposed litigation and . . . (2) whether plaintiffs have interests antagonistic to those of the rest of the class.” See Cheney, 213 F.R.D. at 496 (quoting Kirkpatrick v. J.C.
13

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 81 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/05/2020 Page 18 of 22

Bradford & Co., 827 F.2d 718, 726 (11th Cir. 1987)). Here, “the interests of the representative party will not conflict with the interests of any
of the class members,” Andrews v. Bechtel Power Corp., 780 F.3d 124, 130 (1st Cir. 1985), because—as already explained—those interests are aligned. The Named Petitioners-Plaintiffs have alleged the same injuries, arising from the same conduct, and they seek the same injunctive and declaratory relief, which will apply equally to the benefit of all class members.
In addition, “counsel chosen by the representative party is qualified, experienced and able to vigorously conduct the proposed litigation.” Id. The Named Petitioners-Plaintiffs are represented by King & Spalding LLP; the Immigration Clinic of the University of Miami School of Law; Rapid Defense Network; The Southern Poverty Law Center (“SPLC”); Prada Urizar, PLLC; Americans for Immigrant Justice; and Legal Aid Service of Broward County. Collectively, counsel has significant experience in the areas of immigration law, constitutional law, class action and complex civil litigation, and habeas corpus actions. The collective experience of Petitioners’ counsel is vast, and Petitioners-Plaintiffs’ counsel have the resources needed to prosecute this matter to the fullest.

B.

Certification Is Appropriate Under Rule 23(b)(2).

Class certification is warranted under Rule 23(b)(2) if “the party opposing the class has

acted or refused to act on grounds that apply generally to the class, so that final injunctive

relief or corresponding declaratory relief is appropriate respecting the class as a whole.” Fed.

R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2). “Rule 23(b)(2) has been liberally applied in the area of civil rights,

including suits challenging conditions and practices at various detention facilities.” Braggs,

317 F.R.D. at 667 (internal quotation marks omitted). Indeed, “some courts have gone so far

as to say that the rule’s requirements are almost automatically satisfied in actions primarily

seeking injunctive relief.” Id. (quoting Baby Neal v. Casey, 43 F.3d 48, 59 (3d Cir. 1994)

(internal quotation marks omitted). “The critical inquiry is whether the class members have

suffered a common injury that may properly be addressed by class-wide injunctive or

equitable relief.” Ibrahim, 326 F.R.D. at 701 (citing Holmes v. Continental Can Co., 706 F.2d

1144, 1155 (11th Cir. 1983)); see also Dukes, 564 U.S. at 360 (“The key to the (b)(2) class is ‘the

indivisible nature of the injunctive or declaratory remedy warranted—the notion that the

conduct is such that it can be enjoined or declared unlawful only as to all of the class members

or as to none of them.’”).

14

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 81 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/05/2020 Page 19 of 22
This action falls squarely within the category of cases contemplated by Rule 23(b)(2). Sadly, the constitutional violations and deliberate indifference this Court outlined in its April 30 order fall uniformly on all members of the Class. [See ECF 76 at 6–9.] Each Class member is endangered by the same noncompliance by the same Respondents with the same CDC Guidelines, which is exposing them to the same virus. They are being denied the same opportunity to socially distance, the same soap and cleaning items, and the same personal protective equipment.
Indeed, although class treatment is appropriate under Rule 23(b)(2), it is notable that the concerns that animated Rule 23(b)(1) are present here. If the approximately 1400 Class members brought separate actions for declaratory and injunctive relief, those actions could very well lead to overlapping and contradictory injunctions that required ICE to take inconsistent steps in response to the COVID-19 crisis. Class treatment here allows this Court to address these issues together in one stroke, and (as it has already done on a preliminary basis, [see ECF 76 at 10–11]) to develop a comprehensive plan that addresses all people being detained by Respondents at the three facilities at issue here. Respondents’ common deliberate indifference can only be remedied with a common solution, and the practical way to accomplish that is with a common action.
IV. GIVEN THE EXIGENCIES, THE COURT SHOULD ACCELERATE THE BRIEFING AND ITS CONSIDERATION.
As the Court is well aware, time is of the essence given the exigencies of the COVID19 crisis. In order to reflect this reality, Petitioners-Plaintiffs ask the Court to expedite the consideration of this motion, including the briefing schedule.
15

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 81 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/05/2020 Page 20 of 22

CONCLUSION

Petitioners-Plaintiffs are subject to the same confinement under the same conditions

which impose the same risk of developing COVID-19. Petitioners-Plaintiffs respectfully ask

the Court to:

(1)

Expedite the briefing and consideration of this motion;

(2)

Certify a class consisting of all civil immigration detained individuals who

are held as of the time of the filing of this action, who have been held since

the filing of this action, or who will be held, by Respondents at the Krome

Service Processing Center, the Broward Transitional Center, or at Glades

County Detention Facility;

(3)

Appoint named the Named Petitioners-Plaintiffs as Class representatives;

and

(4)

Appoint the undersigned as class counsel.

Date: May 5, 2020
Gregory P. Copeland* Sarah T. Gillman* RAPID DEFENSE NETWORK 11 Broadway, Suite 615 New York, NY 10004 Tel.: (212) 843-0910 Fax: (212) 257-7033 gregory@defensenetwork.org sarah@defensenetwork.org *Appearing Pro Hac Vice

Respectfully Submitted,
/s/ Scott M. Edson Scott M. Edson, Esq. Florida Bar No. 17258
Scott M. Edson, Esq. Florida Bar No. 17258 KING & SPALDING LLP 1700 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, STE 200 Washington, DC 20006-4707 Telephone: (202) 737-0500 Facsimile: (202) 626-3737 sedson@kslaw.com

16

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 81 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/05/2020 Page 21 of 22

Rebecca Sharpless Florida Bar No. 0131024 Romy Lerner Florida Bar No. 116713
UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI SCHOOL OF
LAW - IMMIGRATION CLINIC 1311 Miller Drive Suite, E-273 Coral Gables, Florida 33146 Tel: (305) 284-3576 Fax: (305) 284-6092 rsharpless@law.miami.edu

Kathryn S. Lehman Florida Bar No.: 95642 Chad A. Peterson Florida Bar No.: 91585
KING & SPALDING LLP 1180 Peachtree Street, N.E. Atlanta, GA 30309 Telephone: (404) 572-4600 Facsimile: (404) 572-5100 klehman@kslaw.com cpeterson@kslaw.com

Paul R. Chavez FL Bar No. 1021395 Maia Fleischman FL Bar No. 1010709
SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER 2 S. Biscayne Blvd., Ste. 3200 Miami, FL 33101 Tel: (305) 537-0577 paul.chavez@splcenter.org maia.fleischman@splcenter.org

Mark Andrew Prada Fla. Bar No. 91997 Anthony Richard Dominguez Fla. Bar No. 1002234
PRADA URIZAR, PLLC 3191 Coral Way, Suite 500 Miami, FL 33145 Tel.: (786) 703-2061 Fax: (786) 708-9508 mprada@pradaurizar.com adominguez@pradaurizar.com

Lisa Lehner Florida Bar No. 382191
AMERICANS FOR IMMIGRANT
JUSTICE 5355 NW 36 Street, Suite 2201 Miami, FL 33166 Tel: (305) 573-1106 Ext. 1020 Fax: (305) 576-6273 Llehner@aijustice.org

Andrea Montavon McKillip Florida Bar No. 56401
LEGAL AID SERVICE OF BROWARD
COUNTY, INC. 491 North State Road 7 Plantation, Florida 33317 Tel. (954) 736-2493 Fax (954) 736-2484 amontavon@legalaid.org

Counsel for Petitioners-Plaintiffs

17

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 81 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/05/2020 Page 22 of 22 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on the 5th day of May, 2020, I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system, which will then send a notification of such filing (NEF) to all counsel of record.
/s/ Scott M. Edson___________ Scott M. Edson, Esq. Florida Bar No. 17258 KING & SPALDING LLP 1700 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, STE 200 Washington, DC 20006-4707 Telephone: (202) 737-0500 Facsimile: (202) 626-3737 sedson@kslaw.com Attorney for Petitioners-Plaintiffs
18

 
 Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 92 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/09/2020 Page 1 of 16
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO: 20-21553-CIV-COOKE/GOODMAN
PATRICK GAYLE, et al., Petitioners,
v. MICHAEL W. MEADE, et al.,
Respondents. ________________________________________/
RESPONDENTS’ OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION Respondents, by and through their undersigned counsel, file their Response and Opposition to Petitioners’ Motion for Class Certification (DE:81), and state: I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY The 58 named petitioners are detainees1 in the custody of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, at three separate locations: (1) Krome Detention Center, Miami, Florida (“Krome”); (2) Broward Transitional Center, Pompano Beach, Florida (“BTC”); and (3) Glades County Detention Center, Moore Haven, Florida (“Glades”). Petitioners allege that class certification is proper because respondents have “acted or refused to act on grounds that apply generally to the class through creating and maintaining conditions that put the class at imminent risk of contracting COVID-19.” (DE:81:6). In the District Court’s Order Adopting in Part the Magistrate’s Judge’s Report and Recommendations, the Court found that respondents failed in their duty to protect the safety and
1 Respondents have released 6 of the named petitioners: Tahimi Perez, Francisco Rivero Valeron, Eitan Yefet, Fernando Goncalves, Maxuel De Souza, and Maria Rodriguez Claras. Respondents have also released an additional two petitioners on alternatives to detention, Eliseo Zamora-Mendoza and Alejandro Mugaburu Tapia. (DE:89:1,2).

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 92 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/09/2020 Page 2 of 16
well-being of petitioners because social distancing was not possible due to the arrangements of the bed and showers, and some were not provided with masks, soap, and other cleaning supplies. (DE:76:6). Further, the Court found that respondents’ inadequate measures amounted to deliberate indifference and cruel and unusual punishment. Id. Thereafter, petitioners filed a motion for class certification (DE:81)
II. PETITIONERS’ MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION SHOULD BE DENIED
“The class action is ‘an exception to the usual rule that litigation is conducted by and on behalf of the individual named parties only.’” Comcast Corp. v. Behrend, 569 U.S. 27, 33 (2013) (quoting Califano v. Yamasaki, 442 U.S. 682, 700-01 (1979)). To fall within the exception, Plaintiffs “must affirmatively demonstrate [their] compliance” with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338, 350 (2011).
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) sets out four requirements for class certification. Those requirements are: (1) the class is so numerous that joinder is impractical (“numerosity”); (2) there are questions of law or fact common to the class (“commonality”); (3) the claims or defenses of the named plaintiffs are typical of claims or defenses of the class (“typicality”); and (4) the named plaintiffs will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class (“adequacy of representation”). Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a).
The Supreme Court has held that “actual, not presumed, conformance with Rule 23(a) [is] indispensable.” Gen. Tel. Co. of the Sw. v. Falcon, 457 U.S. 147, 160 (1982). The party seeking class certification bears the burden of demonstrating it has satisfied all four Rule 23(a) prerequisites and that the class lawsuit falls within one of the three types of actions permitted under Rule 23(b). Amchem Prods. Inc. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591, 614 (1997). In this case,
2

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 92 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/09/2020 Page 3 of 16
petitioners seek certification under subsection (b)(2) of Rule 23, which permits class certification “because Respondents have acted or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the Class, making injunctive relief appropriate with respect to the Class as a whole.” (DE:81:7). “The key to the (b)(2) class is ‘the indivisible nature of the injunctive or declaratory remedy warranted— the notion that the conduct is such that it can be enjoined or declared unlawful only as to all of the class members or as to none of them.’” Dukes, 564 U.S. at 360.
Consequently, the Court must conduct a rigorous analysis to determine whether the requirements of Rule 23 have been met; if the court is not fully satisfied, the class cannot be certified. Falcon, 457 U.S. at 161. The party seeking class certification has the burden of proof such that “[a]ll else being equal, the presumption is against class certification because class actions are an exception to our constitutional tradition of individual litigation.” Brown v. Electrolux Home Prod., Inc., 817 F.3d 1225, 1233 (11th Cir. 2016).
Moreover, the rigorous analysis “will frequently entail ‘overlap with the merits of the plaintiff’s underlying claim. That cannot be helped.” Dukes, 564 U.S. at 351. Further, “the class determination generally involves considerations that are enmeshed in the factual and legal issues comprising the plaintiff’s cause of action.” Id., citing Falcon, 457 U.S. at 160.
Petitioners allege three claims for relief: (1) violation of detention standards under the Accardi doctrine (D.E. 1 at 98-104); (2) Fifth Amendment violation of right to reasonable safety (D.E. 1 at 104-105); and (3) violation of Fifth Amendment under state created danger (D.E. 1 at 105-107).
A. The Proposed Class is Not Adequately Defined As an initial matter, petitioners have failed to establish the “essential prerequisite” of an
3

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 92 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/09/2020 Page 4 of 16
adequately-defined class. Little v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., 691 F.3d 1302, 1304 (11th Cir. 2012). An adequate class definition must not be “defined so broadly as to include a great number of members who for some reason could not have been harmed by the defendant’s allegedly unlawful conduct.” Messner v. Northshore Univ. HealthSystem, 669 F.3d 802, 824-25 (7th Cir. 2012); Oshana v. Coca-Cola Co., 472 F.3d 506, 514 (7th Cir. 2006) (affirming denial of certification of class defined so broadly that it included millions of individuals who were not deceived).
Petitioners’ propose one class: All civil immigration detained individuals held by Respondents at the Krome Service Processing Center (“Krome”), the Broward Transitional Center (“BTC”), or at Glades County Detention Facility (“Glades”) when this action was filed, since this action was filed, or in the future. (DE:81:5) Petitioners also maintain that, because ICE has transferred some detained individuals from these facilities since the filing of their action, “[t]o prevent these transfers from frustrating the Court’s jurisdiction and its ability to fashion meaningful relief, the Class PetitionersPlaintiffs propose include all who have passed through the three facilities at issue here during this action’s pendency.” D.E. 81 at 7 n.2 Petitioners’ proposed class is overbroad because it would include detainees who are not detained at the Krome Detention Center, Broward Transitional Center, or Glades County Detention Facility, so long as the alien transited through one of those facilities. As the Court clarified in its order on Petitioners’ Motion for Clarification, respondents are allowed to transfer detainees to other facilities with the condition that the detainee has been evaluated for release pursuant to ICE’s COVID-19 April 19, 2020 Pandemic Response Requirement. (DE:78). In 8 U.S.C. § 1231(g)(1), Congress provided that, “[t]he Attorney General shall arrange for
4

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 92 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/09/2020 Page 5 of 16
appropriate places of detention for aliens detained pending removal or a decision on removal.” One appellate court has observed that, “as a part of DHS, ICE ‘necessarily has the authority to determine the location of detention of an alien in deportation proceedings … and therefore, to transfer aliens from one detention center to another.’” Calla-Collado v. Atty General, 663 F.3d 680, 685 (3rd Cir. 2011), citing Gandarillas-Zambrana v. Bd. of Immigration Appeals, 44 F.3d 1251, 1256 (4th Cir. 1995).
Inasmuch as the members of the putative class are complaining about allegedly unlawful conditions of confinement, in that those conditions unreasonably expose them to infection from the COVID-19 virus at Krome, BTC, and Glades, a detainee who is now detained at none of those facilities can hardly complain of conditions where he or she no longer resides. Indeed, the Eleventh Circuit has held that, “[t]he general rule is that a prisoner’s transfer or release from a jail moots his individual claim for declaratory and injunctive relief.” McKinnon v. Talladega Cty., Alabama, 745 F.2d 1360, 1363 (11th Cir. 1984)(citation omitted). Consequently, inclusion of detainees who no longer are detained at Krome, BTC, or Glades renders the class overbroad.
Accordingly, the proposed class is not adequately defined because it is overbroad as it includes putative class members that might not be harmed by Respondent’s allegedly unlawful conduct; that is, the facilities’ alleged failure to comply with ICE’s COVID-19 Pandemic Response Requirements.
B. Petitioners Have Not Satisfied the Commonality Requirement The “commonality” requirement mandates that there be “questions of law or fact common to the class.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(2). More specifically, the putative class’ “claims
5

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 92 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/09/2020 Page 6 of 16
must depend upon a common contention” and “[t]hat common contention . . . must be of such a nature that it is capable of class wide resolution—which means that determination of its truth or falsity will resolve an issue that is central to the validity of each one of the claims in one stroke.” Dukes, 564 U.S. at 349. Although for purposes of Rule 23(a)(2) even a single common question will do, “[w]hat matters to class certification . . . is not the raising of common questions — even in droves — but, rather the capacity of a class wide proceeding to generate common answers apt to drive the resolution of the litigation.” Id. “Dissimilarities within the proposed class are what have the potential to impede the generation of common answers.” Id. at 350 (citation omitted). “If proof of the essential elements of the cause of action requires individual treatment, then class certification is unsuitable.” In re Hydrogen Peroxide Antitrust Litig., 552 F.3d 305, 311 (3d Cir. 2009).
The putative class members are detained at one of three separate facilities. Each facility has a different physical plant, configuration, as well as capacity for detaining individuals. This is why the Court required respondents to provide declarations as to each separate location. Acting Officer in Charge Castano provided a declaration pertaining to the physical dimensions and conditions at Krome and Glades. D.E. 33-1. Assistant Field Office Director Lopez Vega provided a declaration regarding the physical plant and conditions at BTC. D.E. 30-1.
Petitioners make specific claims regarding the alleged failure of ICE to comply with CDC Guidelines, and the alleged deliberate indifference of respondents to their serious medical needs. They focus on sleeping arrangements, and the amount of space between beds. D.E. 81 at 6. Also included are allegations regarding the locations where detainees eat; the medical screenings for new detainees; and the medical care provided to detainees. D.E, 81 at 6-8.
6

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 92 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/09/2020 Page 7 of 16
Rule 23(a)(2)’s commonality requirement “is easy to misread.” Naylor Farms, Inc. v. Chaparral Energy, LLC, 923 F.3d 779, 789 (10th Cir. 2019), citing Dukes, 564 U.S. at 349. It is not sufficient for petitioners to allege that there are questions of law or fact common to the class because they all claim they are being harmed because of respondents’ failure to comply with CDC Guidelines, or respondents’ deliberate indifference to their serious medical needs. Instead, “Rule 23(a)(2) requires that all of the class member’s claims depend on a common issue of law or fact whose resolution ‘will resolve an issue that is central to the validity of each one of the [class member’s] claims in one stroke.’” Stukenberg v. Perry, 675 F.3d 832, 840 (5th Cir. 2012), citing Dukes, 564 U.S. at 350 (emphasis and brackets in original).
Petitioners cannot satisfy the commonality requirement because the putative class members are detained at three different locations, each with its own set of unique conditions.2 As of May 7, 2020, Krome’s population was at 71% of its capacity. Castano Decl., D.E. 89-1 at 1, ¶ 3. The detainee population at Glades is at 74% of its capacity, while the detainee population at BTC is at 65% capacity. Id. With the decrease in detainee population at each location, the facility administrators have the flexibility to place detainees in housing units which allow for more social distancing space, as well as more spacing for beds and consumption of meals. Whether a particular detainee’s living arrangement meets CDC Guidelines, or demonstrates a lack of deliberate indifference, will depend upon an individualized determination. This is not a resolution of a claim central to each class member’s claim “in one stroke.”
Moreover, there are not only dissimilarities between the named petitioners themselves,
2 Even within a detention facility, there are variations in the amount of living space available. At the Krome Detention Center, detainees can be housed in six different PODS, as well as Buildings 11, 14, a medical unit, and a Behavioral Health Unit. D.E. 33-1 at 7-8.
7

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 92 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/09/2020 Page 8 of 16
but amongst the named petitioners and putative class members. The detainees at the three facilities differ in age, gender, state of their general health, status of their removal proceedings, and amenability to release from detention under the Immigration and Nationality Act. In the description of the parties, petitioners describe each named petitioner and include references to particular medical conditions, where applicable. Some of the petitioners with medial conditions include Alejandro Ferreira Borges at D.E. 1 at 16, ¶ 38, Franklin Ramon Id. at 17, ¶ 40, and Irvin Mendoza Silis at Id. at 19, ¶ 46. Plainly, each named petitioner, as well as the putative class members, have individual characteristics that would have to be considered in determining whether a violation of law has occurred. Presumably, petitioners would not disagree that a detainee with significant health issues would have to be dealt with differently than a detainee who is 22 years old, with no health issues.
From the examples above, it is clear that an analysis of how each detention center is complying with the COVID-19 Pandemic Response Requirements necessitates not just an individualized inquiry of each facility, but an inquiry that considers the conditions of confinement at that time period because the conditions of confinement can vary.
Indeed, the Supreme Court recently recognized in Jennings v. Rodriguez, 138 S. Ct. 830, 852 (2018), that a class action may not be the proper vehicle to resolve Due Process claims because of the flexibility inherent in a Due Process analysis. Id. (remanding to the Court of Appeals to consider this question). Because due process is a flexible concept, these dissimilarities would require this Court to delve into the specific facts of each detainee and detention facility’s case; thereby, rendering it impossible to dispose of the class wide claims in an efficient manner. Id. Accordingly, petitioners’ proposed class does not meet the commonality
8

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 92 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/09/2020 Page 9 of 16
requirement under Rule 23(a)(2). C. Petitioners Do Not Satisfy the Typicality Requirement The Petitioners also fail to demonstrate that “the claims or defenses of the representative
parties are typical of the claims or defenses of the class.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(3). The typicality requirement of Rule 23(a)(3) “derives its independent legal significance from its ability to screen out class actions in which the legal or factual position of the representatives is markedly different from that of other members of the class even though common issues of law or fact are present.” Marcus v. BMW of N. Am., LLC, 687 F.3d 583, 598 (3rd Cir. 2012). Thus, “a class representative must be part of the class and possess the same interest and suffer the same injury as the class member.” Falcon, 457 U.S. at 156. The proposed class lacks typicality because an individualized analysis of the petitioners’ claims is required—the claims may vary depending on what detention facility is at issue and also differ from other future putative class members because the conditions of confinement may vary over time.
D. The Named Petitioners Are Not Adequate Class Representatives The proposed class cannot satisfy the adequacy requirement of Rule 23(a)(4). An adequate representative is one who will “fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(4). Due process requires that absent class members have an adequate representative. See Hansberry v. Lee, 311 U.S. 32, 43 (1940). The adequacy “inquiry under Rule 23(a)(4) serves to uncover conflicts of interest between named parties and the class they seek to represent.” Amchem Prods., Inc. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591, 625 (1997). The named petitioners are not adequate class members for the same reason the proposed class lacks typicality—the claims may vary depending on what detention facility is at issue and also differ from other future
9

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 92 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/09/2020 Page 10 of 16
putative class members because the conditions of confinement may vary over time. Thus, the named petitioners cannot adequately represent the interests of all the putative current and future class members.
III. PETITIONERS FAIL TO MEET THE REQUIREMENT OF FED.R.CIV.P. 23(B)(2)
Petitioners seek certification of their proposed class under Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(b)(2), which provides that a class action can be maintained if, “the party opposing the class has acted or refused to act on grounds that apply generally to the class, so that final injunctive relief or corresponding declaratory relief is appropriate respecting the class as a whole …”
“The touchstone of a 23(b)(2) class is that the class claims must be cohesive.” Harris v. Union Pacific R.R. Co., 953 F.3d 1030, 1033 (8th Cir. 2020). Rule 23(b)(2) applies only when a single injunction or declaratory judgment would provide relief to each member of the class. Dukes, 564 U.S. at 360. More importantly, a “Rule 23(b)(2) class action is appropriate only ‘when a single injunction or declaratory judgment would provide relief to each member of the class,’ not ‘when each individual class member would be entitled to a different injunction or declaratory judgment against the defendant.” Id.
In this case, petitioners assert claims under the CDC Guidelines that their rights have been violated. “At BTC, beds in male rooms are only two feet apart, when they should be six feet apart under the CDC’s guidelines.” April 30, 2020 Order, D.E. 76 at 6. “At Glades the bunk beds are a paltry 12 inches apart, the distance between the upper bunk and the lower bunk is 34 inches, and the chairs and benches where detainees eat at Glades are only three feet apart, contrary to CDC guidelines.” D.E. 76 at 6. Thus, it may make a difference if a putative class member is detained at Glades, as opposed to BTC or Krome, insofar as the viability of the
10

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 92 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/09/2020 Page 11 of 16
Accardi claim. In Hohider v. United Parcel Service, Inc., 574 F.3d 169 (3rd Cir. 2009), a nationwide class of plaintiffs, employees of United Parcel Service, were alleging unlawful discrimination by UPS under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The district court certified a nationwide class. On appeal, the Third Circuit reversed the district court, noting that, “establishing the unlawful discrimination alleged by plaintiffs would require determining whether class members are ‘qualified’ under the ADA, an assessment that encompasses inquiries acknowledged by the District Court to be too individualized and divergent with respect to this class to warrant certification under Rule 23(a) and (b)(2).” Id. at 186.
The resolution of petitioners’ claims would also require individualized and divergent inquires since three separate detention facilities are at issue, with different physical plants, detainee capacities, and current detainee population. Moreover, each putative class member’s own set of circumstances would have to be reviewed by the district court, such as vulnerabilities to COVID-19 infection, as well as amenability to release under the Immigration and Nationality Act. In Lakeland Regional Medical Ctr. Inc. v. Astellas US, LLC, 763 F.3d 1280 (11th Cir. 2014), the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s refusal to certify a class under Rule 23(b)(2). The appellate court observed that, “[t]he key to the (b)(2) class is the indivisible nature of the injunctive or declaratory remedy warranted.” Id. at 1291, citing Dukes, 564 U.S. at 360. Further, “Rule 23(b)(2) applies only when a single injunction or declaratory judgment would provide relief to each member of the class.” Id.
In this case, petitioners allege three claims for relief. The Court would have to consider both the Accardi claim, the deliberate indifference claim under the Fifth Amendment due process clause, and the Fifth Amendment state created danger due process claim. If deliberate
11

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 92 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/09/2020 Page 12 of 16
indifference by respondents could not be established, petitioners would doubtless argue they might be entitled to injunctive or declaratory relief under the Accardi claim, because ICE failed to comply with CDC guidelines. This is not the “indivisible nature of the injunctive or declaratory remedy” which Rule 23(b)(2) requires. Consequently, petitioners fail to establish they have a viable class under Rule 23(b)(2).
IV. OTHER COVID-19 CLASS ACTIONS IN THE UNITED STATES A. Swain v. Junior, Case No. 20-11622 (11th Cir. 2020) There is a similar action in the Southern District of Florida, Swain v. Junior, where detainees at the Metro West Detention Center, operated by Miami-Dade County, raised claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 challenging the conditions of their confinement. The district court granted a preliminary injunction requiring Miami-Dade County to employ numerous safety measures to prevent the spread of COVID-19, as well as imposing extensive reporting requirements. Miami-Dade County appealed to the Eleventh Circuit, and sought a stay of the injunction pending appeal. On May 5, 2020, the Eleventh Circuit, in a 2-1 decision, granted a stay of the injunction. Swain v. Junior, -- F.3d --, 2020 WL 2161317 (11th Cir. May 5, 2020). The appellate court found that Miami-Dade County was substantially likely to succeed on the merits of their appeal “because the district court likely committed errors of law in granting the preliminary injunction.” 2020 WL 2161317 at *4. First, in conducting its deliberate indifference inquiry, the district court incorrectly collapsed the subjective and objective components. Id. The district court treated the increase in COVID-19 infections as proof that the defendants deliberately disregarded an intolerable risk, the Eleventh Circuit found, and in doing so, “it likely violated the admonition
12

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 92 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/09/2020 Page 13 of 16
that resultant harm does not establish a liable state of mind.” Id., citing Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 844, 114 S.Ct. 1970 (1994).
In this case, petitioners did not establish any resultant harm. As of April 16, 2020, at 12:00 noon, there were two detainees at Krome with laboratory confirmed cases of COVID-19. D.E. 33-1 at 4, ¶ 15(a). As of 2:00 pm on April 2020, there were eight staff members at Krome with laboratory confirmed cases of COVID-19. D.E. 53-1 at 2, ¶ 3.
Also, the Eleventh Circuit found the district court likely erred by treating Metro-West’s inability to achieve meaningful social distancing as evincing a reckless state of mind when the district court found that social distancing was impossible and could not be achieved absent an additional reduction in Metro-West’s population. 2020 WL 2161317 at *4. This was incorrect since “the inability to take a positive action likely does not constitute ‘a state of mind more blameworthy than negligence.’” Id. In this case, the Report and Recommendation found that, “[T]here is little doubt that social distancing is currently impossible at Krome because the sleeping arrangements and some of the toilet and shower arrangements are too tight to permit it.” D.E. 63 at 63.
Last, the Eleventh Circuit in Swain found the district court “cited no evidence to establish that the defendants subjectively believed the measures they were taking were inadequate.” 2020 WL 2161317 at *4. In the instant case, ICE began taking measures, prior to the filing of the lawsuit, to address the threat posed by COVID-19. These measures including curtailing social visits, requiring attorneys visiting clients to wear personal protective equipment, implementation of screening procedures for new detainees, and isolation of detainees who may have been exposed to COVID-19. D.E. 33-1. Respondents respectfully submit this conduct by ICE does
13

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 92 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/09/2020 Page 14 of 16
not evince deliberate indifference to detainees’ serious medical needs. Petitioners’ Accardi and deliberate indifference claims require different analyses by the
Court. In order to determine if injunctive and/or declaratory relief is appropriate on the deliberate indifference claim, the Court must make findings as to the subjective beliefs of respondents. In contrast, the Accardi claims requires inquiry into specific details such as the space between beds, the distance between detainees when they are eating meals, and whether social distancing space is available. These two different types of inquiries require individualized analyses, which is contrary to the indivisible nature of the injunctive or declaratory remedy warranted in a Rule 23(b)(2) class action.
B. Faour Abdallah Fraihat, et al. v. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, et al. No. EDCV 19-1546 JGB (SHKx) (C.D. Cal April 20, 2020).
In Fraihat, Plaintiffs filed a class action lawsuit against ICE alleging that ICE had failed to ensure minimum lawful conditions of confinement at immigration detention facilities across the country in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment and 29 U.S.C. § 794. Id. at *7.
The District Court certified the following two subclasses (“Subclasses”): Subclass One: All people who are detained in ICE custody who have one of the Risk Factors placing them at heightened risk of severe illness and death upon contracting the COVID-19 virus. Subclass Two: All people who are detained in ICE custody whose disabilities place them at heightened risk of severe illness and death upon contacting the COVID-19 virus. Id. at *50-51.
14

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 92 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/09/2020 Page 15 of 16

The District Court granted Plaintiffs’ request for a preliminary injunction and granted

various forms of injunctive relief; including, track all detainees with risk factors identified in the

subclass, make custody determinations, and provide training to the staff. Id. at *86-*87.

Respondents maintain that the procedures implemented in Krome, BTC, and Glades in

response to COVID-19, and the Court’s TRO comply with the Fraihat decision as respondents

are evaluating all of its current population to determine if any detainee is eligible for the

Alternative to Detention program or other form of release in order to reduce its population to

75% capacity, as required by the District Court’s Order Adopting in Part the Magistrate’s

Judge’s Report and Recommendations (DE:76).

CONCLUSION

Petitioners’ motion for class certification should be denied.

DATED: May 9, 2020

Respectfully submitted,

ARIANA FAJARDO ORSHAN UNITED STATES ATTORNEY

By: __s/ Dexter A. Lee______________ DEXTER A. LEE ASSISTANT U.S. ATTORNEY Florida Bar No. 0936693 E-mail: dexter.lee@usdoj.gov 99 N.E. 4th Street, Suite 300 Miami, Florida 33132 Telephone: (305) 961-9320

By: __s/ Natalie Diaz_______________ NATALIE DIAZ ASSISTANT U.S. ATTORNEY Florida Bar No. 85834 E-mail: Natalie.Diaz@usdoj.gov 99 N.E. 4th Street, Suite 300 Miami, Florida 33132
15

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 92 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/09/2020 Page 16 of 16 Telephone: (305) 961-9306 Counsel for Respondents
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that on May 9, 2020, I electronically filed the foregoing document with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF.
__s/ Dexter A. Lee______________________ DEXTER A. LEE Assistant U.S. Attorney
16

 
 Case 1:20-cv-21553-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/13/2020 Page 1 of 111

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
MIAMI DIVISION

PATRICK GAYLE, APARICIO P. JERONIMO, TOLENTINO MARTINEZ-RIOS, WILDER PEREZ LIMONES, JAVIER ANTONIO ARIAS-MARTINEZ, JUAN CARLOS ALFARO GARCIA, FERMIN TEPETATE-MARTINEZ, ABDUL JALLOH, DARWYN YOVANNY NAVARRETE SANCHEZ, MUHAMMAD ALAM KHAN, JOSE CHAVEZ, LAZARO OCANA GUZMAN, NAIM ARRAK, AGANE WARSAME, HASSAN MOHAMED FARAH, RUBEN ORLANDO FLORES RAMOS, MOHAMED HASAN, ELISEO ANTONIO ZAMORA MENDOZA, CESAR ARIEL MENDEZ ESCOBAR,

HEARING REQUESTED
Case No.: ________________
VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AND COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF CLASS ACTION

KROME SERVICE PROCESSING CENTER

and

ROSELINE OSTINE, TAHIMI PEREZ, FRANKLIN RAMOS GONZALEZ, FRANCISCO RIVERO VALERON, IRVIN MEDOZA SILIS, GERARDO VARGAS, DAIRON BARREDO SANCHEZ

GLADES COUNTY DETENTION CENTER

and

RENE JONATHAN ROSAS CARDENAS, ADRIAN SOSA FLETES, ALEJANDRO FERREIRA BORGES,

Case 1:20-cv-21553-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/13/2020 Page 2 of 111
MAIKEL BETANCOURT, GELBER SONTAY FUNEZ, SIRVANILDO BIBIANO SOARES, MAYKEL VALERA RAMIREZ, ERVIN DAVID RODAS PEDRO BROWARD TRANSITIONAL CENTER
Petitioners-Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and those similarly situated. v. MICHAEL W. MEADE, Field Office Director, Miami Field Office, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and WILLIAM P. BARR, United States Attorney General, Respondents-Defendants.
VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AND COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 1:20-cv-21553-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/13/2020 Page 3 of 111
TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 1 PARTIES ........................................................................................................................................ 9 PROPOSED CLASS..................................................................................................................... 22 JURISDICTION AND VENUE ................................................................................................... 24 EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES .............................................................. 28
A. COVID-19 is a global pandemic that poses a significant risk of death or serious illness to Petitioners. ..........................................................................................................29 i. COVID-19 poses a grave risk to Petitioners because it is so easily transmitted. ...... 33 ii. In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, all levels of government have directed people to shelter in place, and practice social distancing and vigilant hygiene................ 37
B. All experts agree that COVID-19 will likely ravage jails, prisons, and detention centers. ...............................................................................................................................40
C. The Center for Disease Control and the detention standards inform ICE’s duties to people at Krome, Glades, and BTC. ..................................................................................45
D. Continued detention in the unique circumstances of the current pandemic poses a dire and imminent threat to Petitioners and others at Krome, Glades, and BTC...............51 Krome Service Processing Center …………………………………..…………………54 Glades County Detention Center …………………………………..…………………..71 Broward Transitional Center ………………………………….….…………………….79 ICE's Alternatives to Detention Program ………………………..……………………..87
LEGAL FRAMEWORK .............................................................................................................. 89 A. Due Process Right to Reasonably Safe Non-Punitive Civil Detention..............................89 B. The Accardi Doctrine .........................................................................................................92
CAUSES OF ACTION ................................................................................................................. 94 COUNT ONE - ACCARDI DOCTRINE (FIFTH AMENDMENT/APA) – VIOLATION OF DETENTION STANDARDS ....................................................................................................... 94 COUNT TWO - FIFTH AMENDMENT – VIOLATION OF RIGHT TO................................ 100
i

Case 1:20-cv-21553-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/13/2020 Page 4 of 111 REASONABLE SAFETY .......................................................................................................... 100 COUNT THREE - FIFTH AMENDMENT – STATE-CREATED DANGER.......................... 101 PRAYER FOR RELIEF ............................................................................................................. 104 PETITIONER-PLAINTIFFS’ VERIFICATION........................................................................ 107
ii

Case 1:20-cv-21553-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/13/2020 Page 5 of 111
INTRODUCTION
1. Petitioners-Plaintiffs (hereafter “Petitioners”) are women and men detained by Respondents-Defendants in civil immigration detention at three Florida detention centers within the jurisdiction of the Miami Field Office of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”). All Petitioners are at imminent risk of contracting coronavirus disease 2019 (“COVID-19”) as a result of their inability to follow Center for Disease Control (“CDC”) guidelines and state and local directives due to their continued detention. This action challenges the refusal of Respondents to release Petitioners, and others in the class they represent, so that they can shelter in place, follow CDC guidelines, and reduce their likelihood of infection and illness.
2. Federal judges across the country have ordered the urgent release of noncitizens, explaining the pressing health risks created by detaining groups of people at this time.1
3. On April 8, 2020, U.S. District Court Judge William G. Young ordered ICE to release detained individuals because of the COVID-19 threat: “The situation is urgent and unprece-
1 See, e.g., Xochihua-Jaimes v. Barr, 2020 WL 1429877 (9th Cir. Mar. 24, 2020); Martin Munoz v. Wolf, Case No. 20-cv-00625-TJH-SHK (C.D. Cal. Apr. 2, 2020), ECF No. 14; Robles Rodriguez v. Wolf, 20-cv-00627-TJH-GJS (C.D. Cal. Apr. 2, 2020), ECF No. 37; Hernandez v. Wolf, CV 20-60017-TJH (KSx)(C.D. Cal. Apr. 1, 2020), ECF No. 17; Arana v. Barr, 2020 WL 1502039 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 27, 2020); Xuyue Zhang v. Barr, 2020 WL 1502607 (C.D. Cal. March 27, 2020); Basank v. Decker, 2020 WL 1481503 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 26, 2020); Castillo v. Barr, 2020 WL 1502864 (C.D. Cal. March 27, 2020); Thakker v. Doll, No. 1:20-cv-00480-JEJ (M.D. Pa. Mar. 31, 2020), ECF No. 47; Coronel v. Decker, 2020 WL 1487274 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 27, 2020); Fraihat v. Wolf, No. ED CV 20-00590 TJH (KSx) (C.D. Cal. Mar. 30, 2020); Calderon Jimenez v. Wolf, No. 18 Civ. 10225 (D. Mass. Mar. 26, 2020), ECF No. 507; United States v. Stephens, 2020 WL 1295155, at *2 (S.D. N.Y. Mar. 19, 2020); Matter of Extradition of Toledo Manrique, 2020 WL 1307109, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 19, 2020).
1

Case 1:20-cv-21553-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/13/2020 Page 6 of 111
dented, and . . . a reduction in the number of people who are held in custody is necessary.” Memorandum and Order at 28, Savino v. Souza, Case No. 1:20-cv-10617-WGY (D. Mass. Apr. 8, 2020) (DE 64) (copy at Appx. I, Exh. A, 1-29).
4. The spread of COVID-19 in ICE detention in Florida has been marked by secrecy and cover-up.
5. As early as March 27, 2020, local attorneys reported to their voluntary bar association that their “clients have indicated there are sick individuals in detention locally, quarantined individuals, and detainees wearing protective gear.” (Appx I, Exh. J, at 30-32, 30 ¶1.). After a bar association liaison member asked ICE if there were detained individuals who had tested positive, she reported back to membership that “there has been NO CONFIRMATION by ICE of detainees at BTC or Krome who have tested positive for COVID-19" and referred members to ICE’s website where it reports confirmed positive cases. (Id.) (emphasis in original).
6. On Monday, April 6, 2020, the Miami Herald reported that two officers working at Krome Service Processing Center in Miami had tested positive for COVID-19, and many others were awaiting results from their tests. (Appx I, Exh. C, at 33-38.)
7. On that same day, ICE told the Herald that no detained individuals in Florida had tested positive. (Appx I, Exh. D, at 39-46, 40-41) (“For weeks—and as recently as Monday—US Immigration and Customs Enforcement has repeatedly told the Herald that no detainees in their custody in Florida have tested positive for the virus.”).
8. ICE’s statement was false. On April 7, the Herald ran a second story explaining that a detained individual from Krome had tested positive. A federal official with first-hand knowledge had told the Herald: “While that is true that no detainee currently at the detention
2

Case 1:20-cv-21553-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/13/2020 Page 7 of 111
center tested positive for COVID-19, it’s also not completely accurate as testing is not conducted on site and detainees are sent to an off-site hospital to be tested.” (Appx I, Exh. D, at 41.)
9. ICE now admits that there are least two detained individuals in Miami who have tested positive for COVID-19, one currently at Krome, and a second at a local hospital in Miami.2
10. ICE refuses to disclose whether third-party contractors test positive for COVID19, providing them a “loophole” to reporting the actual number of COVID-19 cases among its employees in detention centers. Third-party contractors comprise a majority of employees in detention centers. (Appx I, Exh. D, at 35-36.)
11. COVID-19 threatens every woman and man detained at Krome Service Processing Center (“Krome”), Glades County Detention Center (“Glades”), and Broward Transitional Center (“BTC”). A chart of the reported COVID-19 cases of people in ICE detention depicts an alarming steep curve. (Appx I, Exh. E, at 47); see also Declaration of Dr. Joseph Shin, MD, MSc dated April 13, 2020 (“Shin Decl.”) ¶¶39-41(Exh. 2).
12. Although Krome, Glades, and BTC are run by private prison groups, independent contractors, and a county, these groups have no authority to release a person. Only the federal government Respondents can provide the remedy requested by this action.
13. Each of the three detention centers either has confirmed cases of the virus or has groups of individuals herded together in “cohort quarantine” because they have been exposed. Rather than mitigate the risk of transmission, these cohort quarantines drastically increase the
2 ICE Guidance on COVID-19, (last updated Apr. 10, 2020, 5:35 PM), available at: https://www.ice.gov/coronavirus. 3

Case 1:20-cv-21553-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/13/2020 Page 8 of 111
possibility of transmission, infection, and facility-wide outbreak by grouping together people who have already been exposed to the virus. See Shin Decl. ¶40 (Exh. 2) (“The analysis that I provide above regarding screening, ‘cohorting’ and social distancing is not theoretical. In fact, there are a growing number of facilities throughout the country where the rate of infection is growing exponentially amongst both people detained as well as staff. In these settings, hundreds, and potentially thousands of people will become infected, and many will die.”); Greer Decl., ¶30 (Exh. 3).
14. Under CDC Guidelines, which detention centers are required to follow, people exposed to COVID-19 should be put in individual, not group, quarantine: “Facilities should make every possible effort to quarantine close contacts of COVID-19 cases individually.” CDC Interim Guidance (Appx I, Exh. F, at 66) (emphasis added). Cohort quarantine “should only be practiced if there are no other available options.” (Id.) (emphasis added). As the CDC explains, “[c]ohorting multiple quarantined close contacts of a COVID-19 case could transmit COVID-19 from those who are infected to those who are uninfected.” (Id.)
15. “Facilities without onsite healthcare capacity, or without sufficient space to implement effective quarantine, should coordinate with local public health officials to ensure that close contacts of COVID-19 cases will be effectively quarantined and medically monitored.” (Appx I, Exh. F, at 66) (emphasis added). Additionally, “[f]acilities with limited onsite medical isolation, quarantine, and/or healthcare services should coordinate closely with state, local, tribal, and/or territorial health departments when they encounter a confirmed or suspected case, in order to ensure effective medical isolation or quarantine, necessary medical evaluation and care, and medical transfer if needed.” (Appx I, Exh. F, at 62.)
4

Case 1:20-cv-21553-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/13/2020 Page 9 of 111
16. Respondents are defying CDC Guidelines by refusing to do the one thing they could to do comply with those guidelines – releasing individuals during the pandemic. Instead respondents are affirmatively putting detained people at risk by confining them in close sleeping, eating, and living quarters at Krome, Glades, and BTC. Because Respondents could release Petitioners and those similarly situated, “cohort quarantine” is not the only “available option.” As Dr. Shin warns “[t]here is no way for immigration detention facilities to comply with CDC guidelines on social distancing and quarantining unless Respondents release detained men and women on a large scale. When release from a detained setting is an option and there is lack of testing ability and an inability to employ social distancing, it is my professional opinion that failure to release during the COVID-19 pandemic is a violation of the CDC guidelines and will result in continued and wide-spread infection.” Shin Decl., ¶39 (Exh. 2).
17. There is currently no way for Krome, Glades, and BTC to comply with CDC guidelines on social distancing and quarantining. Each facility holds individuals in close proximity. People are less than six feet away from each other when they sleep, eat, and use common areas. It is impossible for Petitioners to protect themselves from infection through social distancing and vigilant hygiene—the only known mitigation measures.
18. ICE continues to arrest people and send them to Krome, Glades, and BTC. 19. ICE continues to issue detainers to local jails, directing them to hold people whose criminal custody has come to an end. ICE then transports these people to Krome, Glades, and BTC, increasing their already large populations.
5

Case 1:20-cv-21553-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/13/2020 Page 10 of 111
20. Under these circumstances, COVID-19 will “spread like wildfire,” according to a former high-level ICE official. (Appx I, Exh. G, at 74-81, 75-76 ¶6) (declaration of John Sandweg, Former Acting Director of ICE).3 The World Health Organization, recognizing the threat to detained people, has urged that “[e]nhanced consideration should be given to resorting to noncustodial measures at all stages of the administration of criminal justice, including at the pretrial, trial and sentencing as well as post-sentencing stages.” (Appx I, Exh. H, at 82-121, 92) (WHO Interim Guidance) (emphasis added). This guideline applies to “immigration detention settings” as well. (Id., at 95 §5.)
21. Respondents cannot control the spread of COVID-19 without widespread testing. See Shin Decl., ¶¶ 28, 33 and 39 (Exh. 2). (“The lack of wide-spread testing, transparency and data in communities in the US and all across the world allowed undetected spread in the community as well as within facilities and institutions that fueled the current pandemic.”). However, as ICE has admitted through Officer in Charge at Krome, they are not testing at the facilities. (Appx I, Exh. I, at 122-25, 123 ¶ 8-9) (noting medical screening that does not include testing or testing upon presentation of symptoms). Tests typically only occur if a person is brought to the hospital. Periodic testing of already symptomatic people does little to prevent further infections. As Dr. Shin explains, "three studies that support the likelihood that asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic individuals can spread the infection. These studies took place in China, Japan and one
3 See also Camilo Montoya-Galvez, CBS News, “Powder kegs”: Calls grow for ICE to release immigrants to avoid coronavirus outbreak (last updated Mar. 19, 2020), https://www.cbsnews.com/news/coronavirus-ice-release-immigrants-detention-outbreak/.
6

Case 1:20-cv-21553-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/13/2020 Page 11 of 111
study included passengers from the Diamond Princess. These studies found that in COVID infected persons, 59%, 31% and 18%; respectively, were asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic.” See Shin Decl., ¶24 (Exh. 2).
22. Detainee reports from all three facilities document that social distancing is impossible, people exhibiting flu-like symptoms are housed in the general population, and maintaining personal hygiene is constrained by the crowded facilities and lack of cleaning supplies. At BTC and Glades, men and women must ration soap weekly—two smalls bottles at BTC per person, and one 4-ounce bottle at Glades. (Appx I, Exh. J, at 126-30) (Declaration of Francis L. Conlin, Friends of Miami-Dade Detainees).
23. Detained individuals have not been trained on how to use hygiene and social distancing to try and reduce the spread of COVID-19. Detained individuals have no access to personal protective equipment (“PPE”), not even through commissary. Only some facility staff use PPE.
24. COVID-19 infections at Krome, Glades, and BTC affect the larger community, as many people travel in and out of these facilities, including staff and vendors. As of April 12, 2020, there were 10,007 confirmed cases of COVID-19 between Miami-Dade County, Broward County, and Glades County.4 These numbers amount to over half of the total number of positive cases in the entire state of Florida, and are growing exponentially each passing day. 5
4 What you need to know now about COVID-19 in Florida, Florida Health (last updated Apr. 12, 2020, 6:44 PM), https://floridahealthcovid19.gov/.
5 As of April 12, 2020, there were 19, 895 positive cases of COVID-19 in the state of Florida. Id.
7

Case 1:20-cv-21553-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/13/2020 Page 12 of 111
25. Throughout the world, the COVID-19 pandemic is infecting and killing women, men, and children. The United States has now surpassed the rest of the world in both the number of confirmed cases and the highest number of deaths. Over 22, 000 Americans have died.6 Experts estimated that, after the pandemic runs its course, the coronavirus will have infected between 160 and 214 million people and taken the lives of up to 1.7 million people in the United States alone.7
26. There is no vaccine against COVID-19 and no known cure. Currently, the only recognized strategies to reduce the risk of exposure to COVID-19 are social distancing, widespread testing, and improved hygiene, which have led to unprecedented public health measures around the world.
27. Given this reality, the President has declared a national emergency. Every state in the Union and the District of Columbia have declared states of emergency.8 Numerous states and localities—including Florida and many of its cities and counties—have issued “shelter-in-place” orders requiring residents to stay in their homes. School mandated closures are in effect in all fifty states. These measures all seek to reduce the spread of the virus and, ultimately, save lives.
6 Elena Renken and Daniel Wood, Map: Tracking The Spread of The Coronavirus In The U.S., NPR (Apr. 12, 2020, 8:15 PM), https://www.npr.org/sections/healthshots/2020/03/16/816707182/map-tracking-the-spread-of-the-coronavirus-in-the-u-s.
7Sheri Fink, Worst-Case Estimates for U.S. Coronavirus Deaths, The New York Times (last updated Marc. 18, 2020), https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/13/us/coronavirus-deaths-estimate.html
8 State Data and Policy Actions to Address Coronavirus, KFF (Apr. 10, 2020), https://www.kff.org/health-costs/issue-brief/state-data-and-policy-actions-to-address-coronavirus.
8

Case 1:20-cv-21553-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/13/2020 Page 13 of 111
28. Unfortunately, ICE is preventing people at Krome, Glades, and BTC from complying with sheltering in place protocols and CDC guidelines. Despite warnings from medical and public health professionals that releasing detained immigrants is the only viable option to comply with social distancing, individual quarantine, and other CDC requirements and local and state orders, the agency has generally refused to release in any meaningful way, in the absence of court intervention.
29. Petitioners bring this action to remedy ICE’s violation of their constitutional rights and protect themselves—as well as others in immigration detention at Krome, BTC, and Glades—from the imminent harm that will result from their continued detention.
PARTIES 30. Petitioner PATRICK GAYLE is a citizen of Jamaica and lawful permanent resident of the United States who is detained at Krome. He has been in ICE custody since March 12, 2020. He was exposed to a person in the facility who was coughing and sick. Krome staff have put him in a cohort quarantine with 120 other detained individuals who have been exposed to the virus. It is impossible for him to engage in social distancing, and he is afraid of contracting COVID-19. Within the last week, he also developed a cough, but has not been tested for COVID-19. If released, he has two places to stay that will minimize the possibility of contracting the virus. He plans to stay with his father in Garden City, Georgia or with his girlfriend in Daytona, Florida. At both places, he will be able to follow CDC, state, and local guidelines by sheltering in place, practicing social distancing, and maintaining good hygiene.
9

Case 1:20-cv-21553-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/13/2020 Page 14 of 111
31. Petitioner APARICIO P. JERONIMO is a citizen of Guatemala who is detained at Krome. He has been in ICE custody since March 2020. He is exhibiting symptoms consistent with COVID-19 and is housed in a room with around 70 other detained individuals, many of whom are exhibiting flu like symptoms as well. He is concerned that tests for COVID-19 are not being provided to sick individuals in detention. If released, he will stay with a friend where he can practice safe distancing and take care of himself.
32. Petitioner RENE JONATHAN ROSAS CARDENAS is a citizen of Cuba who is detained at the BTC and eligible for adjustment under the Cuban Adjustment Act. He has been in ICE custody since January 9, 2019. He is worried that the crowded conditions of having to sleep in bunkbeds less than a meter away from each other, and the lack of soap to wash his throughout the day will result in him contracting COVID-19. If released, he will stay with his lifelong friend in Miami, Florida, where he will have space to stay isolated and practice social distancing.
33. Petitioner ROSELINE OSTINE is a citizen of Haiti who is detained at Glades. She suffers from human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) and epilepsy. She is extremely worried about the high risk of death if exposed to COVID-19 because of her medical condition, and stress exacerbates her epileptic symptoms. She is already experiencing cold like symptoms. Roseline is also worried because most officers still do not wear masks when around detained individuals and they are not provided with sufficient sanitary products to help them stop the spread of disease. If released, she will live with her son in Miami, Florida, where she will be able to self-quarantine and practice social distancing.
10

Case 1:20-cv-21553-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/13/2020 Page 15 of 111
34. Petitioner TOLENTINO MARTINEZ-RIOS is a citizen of Mexico who is detained at Krome Service Processing Center. He has been in ICE custody since March 5, 2020. He is concerned about contracting COVID-19 because he is aware that at least one detained person at Krome has tested positive. Because Mr. Martinez-Rios is forced in live with a large group of people in close sleeping, eating and living quarters, it is impossible for him to practice social distancing. If released, he can return to where he lived before detention with Meyling Osorio. His room is separated from the rest of the members of the household, so he could self-isolate and practice safe social distancing.
35. Petitioner ADRIAN SOSA FLETES is a citizen of Cuba who is detained at Broward Transitional Center. He has been in ICE custody since March 9, 2019 and is eligible for adjustment under the Cuban Adjustment Act. He suffers from chronic pain and discomfort on his throat due to being a smoker. He is worried because detained individuals are not given masks or gloves, are not able to social distance, and are not given much soap. He is concerned that he will contract COVID-19 because he has heard of detained people being infected by it and new detained people have been transferred to BTC. If he is released, he will live with his cousin in Orlando, Florida.
36. Petitioner WILDER PEREZ LIMONES is a citizen of Mexico who is detained at Krome Service Processing Center. He has been in ICE custody since March 2020. He is suffering from flu-like symptoms and chest pain, and has been put into a quarantine with 59 men in one unit. He is worried that he has been exposed to COVID-19, because a staff person told him that someone had tested positive before he was placed into a quarantine, and a lot of the men in
11

Case 1:20-cv-21553-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/13/2020 Page 16 of 111
his unit are very sick. If released, he has two places to stay in Lake Worth, with his partner and children and with his brother, where he can practice social distancing and self-quarantine.
37. Petitioner JAVIER ANTONIO ARIAS-MARTINEZ is a citizen of the Dominican Republic and lawful permanent resident of the United States who is detained by ICE at Krome Service Processing Center. He has been in ICE custody since on or around January 6, 2020. He is HIV positive and has a history of respiratory issues. He is in a pod of about 70 men, and more men are being brought into the pod regularly, so he is worried about the impossibility of social distancing. Many men in the pod are sick, and there is a lack of sanitation supplies. He is worried about the complications his HIV would have if he were to contract COVID-19, especially being in such close proximity to sick men. If released, he can live with his son and the mother of his son in Orlando, Florida where he would be able to practice safe social distancing and self-isolate.
38. Petitioner ALEJANDRO FERREIRA BORGES is a citizen of Cuba who is detained at Broward Transitional Center. He will be eligible for a green card this month under The Cuban Adjustment Act. He has been in ICE custody since April 26, 2019. He suffers from high blood pressure and asthma, that requires him to use his inhaler four to five times a day. He is afraid of what will happen if he contracts COVID-19 and falls severely ill because he has seen that detained individuals usually do not receive medical attention until it is an emergency and he has seen several people coughing, who have not been placed in quarantine. If he is released, he will live with his friend in Palm Beach, Florida, where he was living prior to being detained.
39. Petitioner TAHIMI PEREZ is a lawful permanent resident of the United States who is detained at Glades County Detention Center since January 2020. Tahimi suffers from
12

Case 1:20-cv-21553-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/13/2020 Page 17 of 111
asthma and has a history of upper respiratory issues that require hospitalization. She is worried about contracting COVID-19, which would be fatal due to her poor health. The cells and pods are so small Tahimi cannot practice social distancing, and many of the people in her pod are sick. If released from detention, she would live with her partner in Hialeah, Florida where she would be able to self-quarantine and practice social distancing.
40. Petitioner FRANKLIN RAMON GONZALEZ is a national of the Dominican Republic who has been detained at Glades County Detention Center since February 24, 2020. He had open heart surgery on December 23, 2019. He suffers from coronary artery disease, diastolic heart failure, COPD, diabetes, asthma, obesity, and other serious health conditions. Due to these existing health issues, in particular those related to his recent heart surgery, he is at a high risk for fatal complications if he were to contract COVID-19. His cellmates are very sick, and there is no way to socially distance in his Pod or cell because there is not enough room. If released, he will live with his brother in Kissimmee, Florida where he will be able to practice social distancing.
41. Petitioner MAIKEL BETANCOURT is a citizen of Cuba who is detained at Broward Transitional Center and eligible for adjustment under the Cuban Adjustment Act. He has been in ICE custody since March 26, 2020. He suffers from hypertension, high blood pressure, high cholesterol, a thyroid problem and a depressed immune system. His weakened immune system will make him more vulnerable to severe illness or death if he contracts COVID19. He is worried because most of the time it is impossible for him to social distance. If released, he with his aunt in New Jersey, where she has a separate room for him to self-isolate.
13

Case 1:20-cv-21553-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/13/2020 Page 18 of 111
42. Petitioner FRANCISCO RIVERO VALERON is a lawful permanent resident of the United States who is detained by ICE at Glades County Detention Center. He has been in ICE custody since January 26, 2020. He suffers from hypertension, mixed hyperlipidemia, tremors, gastro-esophageal reflux with esophagitis, anxiety, and depression. He is prescribed Losartan and Prilosec for his medical conditions. As a consequence of his health conditions, he is at high risk for severe illness or death if he contracts COVID-19. There are 96 detainees in his pod, and all 96 men have to share one toilet. If released, he will live with his wife in Naples, Florida where he will follow all recommendations from the CDC.
43. Petitioner GELBER SONTAY FUNEZ Is a citizen of Guatemala who is detained by ICE at Broward Transitional Center. He has been in ICE custody since approximately October 28, 2019. He suffers from anxiety and depression and has difficulty breathing and sleeping. There have been groups of men transferred into BTC, and he is unsure if they have been tested for COVID-19. He is concerned because he has been feeling sick, but he has not been tested for COVID-19 or had his temperature taken. If he is released, he will live with his wife or his sponsor in Lehigh Acres, Florida.
44. Petitioner JUAN CARLOS ALFARO GARCIA is a citizen of Mexico and asylum seeker who is detained by ICE at Krome Service Processing Center. He has been in ICE custody since on or around March 6, 2020. He suffers from asthma, which puts him at high risk for severe illness or death if he contracts COVID-19. He is worried because many men in his cell have fevers and coughs. When they are in their unit, it is impossible to maintain social distance. If released, he would be able to stay with his wife in Florida where he would be able to practice social distancing.
14

Case 1:20-cv-21553-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/13/2020 Page 19 of 111
45. Petitioner FERMIN TEPETATE-MARTINEZ is a citizen of Mexico who is detained by ICE at Krome Service Processing Center. He has been in ICE custody since on or around March 21, 2020. He is afraid that being unable to stay six feet apart from people and the lack of soap and hand sanitizer to wash his hands throughout the day, will put him at risk of contracting of COVID-19. If released, he would be able to stay with his fiancé and her family in Clearwater, Florida, where there is a room available for him to self-quarantine and isolate, per the CDC guidelines.
46. Petitioner IRVIN MENDOZA SILIS is a citizen of Mexico who is detained by ICE at Glades County Detention Center. He has been in ICE custody since March 6, 2020. He suffers from asthma, including monthly asthma bronchospasm episodes. As a consequence of his health conditions, he is at high risk for severe illness or death if he contracts COVID-19. There are not sufficient hygiene products, and it is impossible to maintain a safe social distance because there are six men in each cell. If released, Irvin would live with his mother and wife in Largo, Florida.
47. Petitioner GERARDO VARGAS is a 57-year-old legal permanent resident of the United States who is detained by ICE at Glades County Detention Center. He has been in ICE custody since on or around December 10, 2019. He suffers from diabetes, an underlying condition that makes him susceptible to fatal complications if he were to become sick with COVID19. The unit is crowded with 96 men, and a lot of new detained individuals are being brought in. It is impossible to maintain six feet of distance, and there is no access to masks, gloves, or hand sanitizer. If released, Gerardo will live with his family in Wachula, Florida where he will be able to follow social distancing guidelines.
15

Case 1:20-cv-21553-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/13/2020 Page 20 of 111
48. Petitioner SIRVANILDO BIBIANO SOARES is a citizen of Brazil who is detained by ICE at Broward Transitional Center. He has been in ICE custody since March 6, 2020. He suffers from gastroesophageal reflux, a pancreatic condition, and recently suffered from pneumonia. He is concerned that he is at high risk of severe illness or death if he is exposed to COVID-19. He is concerned because he has been experiencing flu like symptoms, including congestion and coughing, and he has seen a high number of detained people transferred to the hospital.
49. Petitioner ABDUL JALLOH is a citizen of Sierra Leone and legal permanent resident of the United States who is detained by ICE at Krome Service Processing Center. He has been in ICE custody since November 28, 2018. He suffers from Major Depression Disorder, hallucinations, Paranoia and Delusion Disorder, traumatic brain injury, alcohol abuse and withdrawal, borderline personality disorder, schizophrenia and respiratory issues. As a consequence of his weakened lungs, he is at high risk for severe illness or death if he contracts COVID-19. He is concerned because men in his unit are coughing, and there are not proper precautions being taken to protect the medically vulnerable. If released, he would be able to live with his uncle in Virginia, who is a nurse and who would be able to provide him with the proper medical attention and education.
50. Petitioner DARWYN YOVANNY NAVARRETE SANCHEZ is a citizen of Honduras who is detained at Krome Service Processing Center. He has been in ICE custody since March 19, 2020. He is a long-time smoker and suffers from recurring headaches. He is worried because smokers are at risk for lung damage, leading to fatal complications with COVID-19. His concerns are exacerbated by the lack of ability to social distance, and the lack of
16

Case 1:20-cv-21553-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/13/2020 Page 21 of 111
personal protective equipment or sanitary supplies in the facility. If released, he would be able to stay with his girlfriend in Miami, Florida where he would be able to self-isolate and self-quarantine.
51. Petitioner MUHAMMAD ALAM KHAN is a citizen of Pakistan who is detained at Krome Service Processing Center. He has been in ICE custody since December 10, 2019. He suffers from diabetes, high blood pressure and has a history of treatment for hypertension, hypercholesterolemia, obesity, back and spinal pain, and high cholesterol. As a consequence of his health conditions, he is at high risk for severe illness or death if he contracts COVID-19. He is worried because there are approximately 45 other detained individuals housed with him, and it impossible for them to remain six feet apart. If released, he would go back home and live with his wife and children in Tamarac, Florida.
52. Petitioner JOSE CHAVEZ is a citizen of Honduras who is detained at Krome Service Processing Center. He has been in ICE custody since July 19, 2019. He suffers from asthma and nephrolithiasis. He has a history of being hospitalized for chest pains due to his poor health. As a consequence of his weak immune system and lungs, he is at high risk for severe illness or death if he contracts COVID-19. Jose is in a unit with 41 men, and they are not able to socially distance due to the close quarters in which they are kept. If released he would be able to live with his spouse and children in Davie, Florida where he would be able to practice social distancing and self-quarantine.
53. Petitioner DAIRON BARREDO SANCHEZ is a citizen of Cuba who is detained at Glades County Detention Center and eligible for adjustment under the Cuban Adjustment Act. He has been in ICE custody since February 13, 2020. Darion suffers from asthma and
17

Case 1:20-cv-21553-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/13/2020 Page 22 of 111
is worried about fatal COVID-19 exposure in detention where other detained individuals are sick and social distancing is impossible. He and his cellmates are very sick with coughs, some so bad they are coughing up blood. When he went to see the doctor, his temperature was not taken despite his bad symptoms. There are over 90 men in the living unit, and it is impossible to maintain six feet of distance away from other detained individuals. If released, he will live with his partner and child in Orlando, Florida where he would be able to practice safe social distancing and selfquarantine.
54. Petitioner MAYKEL VALERA RAMIREZ is a citizen of Cuba who is detained at Broward Transitional Center. He has been in ICE custody since December 2019. He suffers from hypertension and is prescribed blood pressure medication for his condition. A few weeks ago, he was sick with a bad cough, but he was never placed in isolation or tested for COVID-19. He is worried about contracting COVID-19 because other detained individuals prepare the food and clean the facility, and they do not wear masks, and sometimes gloves, while cleaning. He is concerned that his health conditions, coupled with the fact that he cannot social distance while detained, puts him at a higher risk of contracting COVID-19. If he is released from detention, he will live with his cousin in Pasco, Washington.
55. Petitioner LAZARO OCANA GUZMAN is a citizen of Mexico who is detained at Krome Service Processing Center. He has been in ICE custody since March 20, 2020. He suffers from tonsillitis, which is exacerbated to the point of being unable to speak when sick. He was in a cohort quarantine with 60 men until recently, but even in the cohort he was not able to maintain a safe social distance from the rest of the men. He is concerned about contracting
18

Case 1:20-cv-21553-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/13/2020 Page 23 of 111
COVID-19 at Krome, particularly in view of his chronic illness. If released, he would be able to live with his brother in Largo, Florida where he could self-quarantine.
56. Petitioner NAIM ARRAK is a citizen of Tunisia who is detained at Krome Service Processing Center. He has been in ICE custody since July 2, 2019. He suffers from major depressive disorder and is housed in the Behavioral Housing Unit. He is very concerned because he was told three officers tested positive, and he thinks one of those officers has still been working in the facility. Also, staff are not using the appropriate personal protective equipment and are still doing three shake downs of their bunks a day, touching all of the men's personal belongings. If released, he can stay with his adoptive citizen parents in Virginia where he will have his own room to isolate and social distance.
57. Petitioner AGANE WARSAME is a citizen of Somalia who is detained at Krome Service Processing Center. He has been in ICE custody since August 1, 2017. He suffers from anxiety and depression and was a chronic smoker before placed in ICE custody. He is housed in the Behavioral Housing Unit. He is terrified that he will contract COVID-19 because the detained individuals within the Behavioral Housing Unit are not being isolated, and a detainee who used to be housed in the unit is now isolated at a hospital. He is within six feet of another person at all times within the BHU. If released from detention, he will return to live with his wife in Hutchinson, Minnesota.
58. Petitioner HASSAN MOHAMED FARAH is a citizen of Somalia who is detained at Krome Service Processing Center. He has been in ICE custody since October 16, 2017. He suffers from PTSD, diabetes, kidney stones, a hernia, high cholesterol and high blood pressure. He is housed in the Behavioral Housing Unit. Some of the men in his unit are exhibiting flu
19

Case 1:20-cv-21553-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/13/2020 Page 24 of 111
like symptoms, and he is worried because he was told that they ran out of hand sanitizer and there is no more soap. Commissary is now closed. He is also concerned because many guards only wear personal protective equipment when they are being watched by supervisors, otherwise they do not use the equipment because they say do not like using it. When he got blood taken, he was put in a cell with multiple sick men and the doctor was coughing and sneezing. If released, he will live with his wife and children in Minnesota where he will follow the Minnesota stay at home order and stay in isolation.
59. Petitioner RUBEN ORLANDO FLORES RAMOS is a 40-year old citizen of Honduras who is detained at Krome Service Processing Center. He has been in ICE custody since March 9, 2020. He suffers from hypertension and high blood pressure, and since his time in Krome his blood pressure has been extremely high, necessitating increased medication. He has also been having difficulty breathing. He is in a quarantine cohort unit and is unable to safely distance himself from the rest of the men. Due to a lack of showers, the men are not able to shower regularly. Men started complaining about conditions, and the officers started beating them. Ruben thinks his ribs are broken, and there was a lot of blood on the floors for days. Some men aren’t allowed to use the phone to contact their attorneys because they have reported the guards conduct. If released, he would live with his family in New Orleans, Louisiana where he could take care of himself and separate himself from others.
60. Petitioner MOHAMED HASAN is a citizen of Somalia who is detained at Krome Service Processing Center. He has been in ICE custody since August 2017. He suffers from post-traumatic stress disorder and major depressive disorder and is housed in the Behavioral Housing Unit. The Krome staff and nurses are telling him that there are people in Krome
20

Case 1:20-cv-21553-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/13/2020 Page 25 of 111
who are very sick. They are forced to go to recreation where it is even more impossible to social distance. He is afraid of contracting COVID-19 because social distancing is impossible in the unit, which houses detained individuals in a small space. If he is released from detention, he can stay with his Untied States Citizen sister in Ohio, a U.S. citizen, where he will be able to practice social distancing.
61. Petitioner ELISEO ANTONIO ZAMORA MENDOZA is a 53-year old citizen of Nicaragua who is detained at Krome Service Processing Center. He has been in ICE custody since March 15, 2020. He has suffered from pneumonia in the past and was a smoker prior to being in ICE custody. He is afraid of the high risk of severe illness or death if he is exposed to COVID-19 because of his health conditions and age. There are currently about 61 men in his living unit, where beds are about three feet apart. If released, he will return home to live with his wife in Hialeah, Florida.
62. Petitioner CESAR ARIEL MENDEZ ESCOBAR is a citizen of Guatemala who has been detained as Krome Service Processing Center since mid-March 2020. He suffers from high cholesterol and high triglycerides, which affect heart health. He is worried that his precarious health condition will make him more vulnerable to severe illness or death if he contracts COVID-19. It is impossible for him to practice social distancing because there are too many detained individuals in too small of a space. He is worried because there haven’t been increases in cleaning measures, detained people aren’t allowed to wear masks, and they aren’t given gloves. If released, he can stay with his partner and children in Fort Piere, Florida.
63. Petitioner ERVIN DAVID RODAS PEDRO is a citizen of Guatemala who has been detained at Broward Transitional Center since early March 2020. He suffers from asthma
21

Case 1:20-cv-21553-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/13/2020 Page 26 of 111
and uses an inhaler to assist with breathing difficulties. Because of his underlying medical condition, he is at risk for fatal complications if he were to contract COVID-19. He is concerned because he is unable to social distance, especially during meals where everyone is only about three feet apart. If released, he will return home and live with his wife and follow CDC recommendations.
64. Respondent MICHAEL W. MEADE is the Field Office Director for the ICE Miami Field Office. The ICE Miami Field Office has complete control over the admission and release of noncitizens detained at Krome, BTC, and Glades. Respondent Meade is the immediate and legal custodian of Petitioners. He is sued in his official capacity.
65. Respondent WILLIAM P. BARR is the United States Attorney General. In this capacity, he has supervisory authority over all operation of the Executive Office of Immigration Review (EOIR) which includes all the immigration courts and the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA). 8 U.S.C. §1103(g); 8 CFR §1003.0. He is also charged with the administration and the enforcement of the immigration laws under 8 U.S.C. §1103(a). Respondent Barr is a legal custodian of Petitioners. He is sued in his official capacity.
PROPOSED CLASS 66. Petitioners file this action on behalf of a highly vulnerable putative class: all individuals in civil immigration detention, as of the date of the filing of this action, at three Florida detention centers, Krome Service Processing Center, Broward Transitional Center, and Glades County Detention Center. Each individual is at imminent risk of contracting COVID-19 because
22

Case 1:20-cv-21553-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/13/2020 Page 27 of 111
of the life-threatening conditions under which they are confined—conditions that violate CDC guidelines and State and County orders as they pertain to COVID-19.
67. Named Petitioners bring this action as representatives of the following proposed class:
All civil immigration detained individuals who are held, or who will be held, by Respondents at the Krome Service Processing Center (“Krome”), the Broward Transitional Center (“BTC”), and at Glades County Detention Facility (“Glades”) as of the time of the filing of this action who are:
Sub-class A: detained individuals with a stable location and/or place of residency in which they can self-quarantine and practice social distancing and hygiene pursuant to the CDC guidelines and Exec. Order No. 20-91 upon release.
Sub-class B: all other detained individuals without access to a stable location and/or place of residency in which they can self-quarantine and practice social distancing and hygiene pursuant to CDC guidelines and Exec. Order No. 20-91 upon release.
Sub-class C: all other detained individuals who opt-out of Sub-class A & B. 68. The proposed class meets the requirements of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and (b). 69. The class is sufficiently numerous. 70. Krome detains an average of 600 immigrant detained individuals at any time, with a population fluctuating between 550 and 875 people since 2006. Southern Poverty Law Center, Prison by any Other Name: A Report on South Florida Detention Centers (Appx I, Exh. K, at 131-234, 152). 71. BTC detains on average 700 immigrant detained individuals at a time, with a mandatory minimum of 500 beds for immigrant detained individuals. (Appx I, Exh. K, at 156.)
23

Case 1:20-cv-21553-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/13/2020 Page 28 of 111
72. Glades detains an average of 407 immigrant detained individuals at a time. (Appx I, Exh. K, at 165.)
73. All immigrant detained individuals at Krome, BTC, and Glades are detained under the legal authority of Respondent Field Office Director, Miami Field Office, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. See Masingene v. Martin, __ F. Supp. 3d __, 2020 WL 465587 (S.D. Fla. Jan. 27, 2020).
74. All members of the class are bound together by common questions of law and fact – most prominently, whether in the face of the lethal COVID-19 pandemic, the continued civil detention of the class members at Krome, BTC, and Glades in violation of the CDC guidelines placing the class members’ health and safety at grave risk violates their constitutional rights.
75. The named Petitioners are proper class representatives because their claims are typical of the absent class members and because they and their counsel will adequately and vigorously represent the class.
76. Rule 23(b)(2) is also satisfied here because the Respondents-Defendants have “acted or refused to act on grounds that apply generally to the class” through creating and maintaining conditions that put the class at imminent risk of contracting COVID-19, the deadly virus that is currently sweeping the globe.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE 77. This Court has habeas corpus jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2241 et seq., as protected under Art. I § 9, cl. 2 of the United States Constitution (“Suspension Clause”), federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and jurisdiction based on the United States as
24

Case 1:20-cv-21553-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/13/2020 Page 29 of 111
respondent under 28 U.S.C. § 1346(a)(2). This case arises under the United States Constitution; the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”), 8 U.S.C. §§ 1101 et seq.; the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”), 5 U.S.C §§ 701 et seq.; and the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. This Court also has remedial authority under to its inherent authority, the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 et seq., and the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651.
78. While only the federal courts of appeal have jurisdiction to review removal orders directly through petitions for review, see 8 U.S.C. §§ 1252(a)(1), (b), federal district courts have jurisdiction to hear habeas claims by noncitizens challenging the lawfulness or constitutionality of ICE conduct. Demore v. Kim, 538 U.S. 510, 516–17 (2003); Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 687 (2001).
79. A petition for a writ of habeas corpus may be brought by anyone “in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3). “[T]he writ . . . shall be directed to the person having custody of the persons detained.” 28 U.S.C. § 2243. Accordingly, the proper respondent to a habeas petition is the person who has custody over the petitioner. “[T]he writ of habeas corpus does not act upon the prisoner who seeks relief, but upon the person who holds him in what is alleged to be unlawful custody.” Rasul v. Bush, 542 U.S. 466, 478–79 (2004) (quoting Braden v. 30th Judicial Circuit, 410 U.S. 484, 495 (1973). District courts are limited to granting habeas relief “within their respective jurisdictions.” 28 USC § 2241(a).
80. Petitioners’ current detention and custody as enforced by Respondents constitutes a “severe restraint [] on [Petitioners’] individual liberty,” such that Petitioners are “in custody in
25

Case 1:20-cv-21553-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/13/2020 Page 30 of 111
violation of the . . . laws . . . of the United States.” See Hensley v. Municipal Court, 411 U.S. 345, 351 (1973); 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3).
81. Federal district courts have jurisdiction to hear habeas claims by noncitizens challenging the lawfulness or constitutionality of their detention by DHS. See, e.g., Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 687 (2001); Jennings v. Rodriguez, 138 S. Ct. 830 (2018).
82. Federal district courts have jurisdiction to hear habeas claims by noncitizens seeking to protect their due process rights. See Ibrahim v. Acosta, No. 17-CV-24574, 2018 WL 582520, at *4 (S.D. Fla. Jan. 26, 2018).
83. Pursuant to its jurisdiction, this Court may grant various forms of relief pursuant to its inherent authority, the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 et seq., and the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651, and has the ability to enjoin federal officials pursuant to Ex Parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (1908); See also Philadelphia Co. v. Stimson, 223 U.S. 605, 619-21 (1912) (applying Ex Parte Young to federal official); Goltra v. Weeks, 271 U.S. 536, 545 (1926) (same).
84. Each Respondent qualifies as a person with custody over Petitioners. Congress intended for supervisory officials—like Respondents here, who can do all things necessary to adjudicate the action—to qualify as custodians under 8 U.S.C. § 2243. Section 2243’s custodian requirement applies to government officials who can carry out any court order that may be entered in connection with a proceeding, like ordering Petitioners’ release so that they can shelter in place and comply with CDC guidelines.
85. Whether this Court has both venue and jurisdiction over Petitioners’ habeas petition is contingent on two interrelated issues: who is the proper respondent to the petition; and
26

Case 1:20-cv-21553-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/13/2020 Page 31 of 111
whether this Court has jurisdiction over the proper respondent. Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 434 (2004).
86. The proper custodian for purposes of this statute is the “immediate custodian”— that is, the party “with the power to produce the body” of the petitioner before the court or judge. Padilla, 542 U.S. at 435 (quoting Wales v. Whitney, 114 U.S. 564, 574 (1885)). Respondent Meade is the immediate custodian of Petitioners detained within the Southern District of Florida and those detained under his direction pursuant to contract. See Masingene v. Martin, No. 19-cv24693-WILLIAMS, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17134, at *9 (S.D. Fla. Jan. 24, 2020) (when the warden of the detention facility has no power to produce the petitioner the proper respondent is the director of the ICE field office responsible for overseeing the contract facility where the petitioner is detained); see also Sanchez v. Decker, No. 18-cv-8798(AJN), 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 138363, at *10 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 15, 2019) (same); Madera v. Decker, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 169546, at *10 (S.D.N.Y. Sep. 28, 2018) (same); Vasquez v. Wolf, No. 20-55142, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 5869, at *1 (9th Cir. Feb. 26, 2020) (finding jurisdiction to grant habeas claim for petitioner in custody of field office director in California while detained in Texas).
87. Respondent Meade’s office is located in Plantation, Florida, within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. Because he is the proper respondent and is subject to this Court’s jurisdiction, Petitioner’s habeas petition is properly before this Court. See Masingene, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17134 at *9; Villavicencio Calderon v. Sessions, 330 F. Supp. 3d 944, 954 (S.D.N.Y. 2018) (finding the New York City Field Office Director subject to jurisdiction in the Southern District of New York because his office is located in New York); Saravia v. Sessions, 280 F.
27

Case 1:20-cv-21553-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/13/2020 Page 32 of 111
Supp. 3d 1168, 1187 (N.D. Cal. 2017) (finding the local ORR official subject to jurisdiction in the Northern District of California because she was based in San Francisco).
EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES 88. There is no statutory requirement of exhaustion of administrative remedies where a noncitizen challenges the conditions of detention. See Haitian Refugee Ctr., Inc. v. Nelson, 872 F.2d 1555, 1561 (11th Cir. 1989). 89. Exhaustion of administrative remedies is also not required where it would be futile, where administrative remedies are inadequate, and where irreparable harm would result from requiring exhaustion. See Nierenberg v. Heart Ctr. of Sw. Fla., P.A., 835 F. Supp. 1404, 1407 (M.D. Fla. 1993). 90. There is no exhaustion requirement where a petitioner asserts constitutional claims that the agency cannot address. See Tefel v. Reno, 972 F. Supp. 608, 616 (S.D. Fla. 1997) (citing Haitian Refugee Ctr., 872 F.2d at 1560); see also Crayton v. Callahan, 120 F.3d 1217, 1222 (11th Cir. 1997) (“Exhaustion may be excused when the only contested issue is constitutional, collateral to the consideration of [the] claim [before the agency], and its resolution therefore falls outside the agency’s authority.”); Warsame v. U.S. Attorney Gen., 796 Fed. Appx. 993, 1006 (11th Cir. 2020) (“Because the BIA does not have the power to decide constitutional claims—like the validity of a federal statute—[certain constitutional claims] need not be administratively exhausted.”). 91. In this case, the Petitioners challenge their detention based on their Fifth Amendment due process rights, and the administrative immigration agencies are without the authority to address and adequately remedy the violation of Petitioners’ constitutional rights. Matter of C-, 20
28

Case 1:20-cv-21553-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/13/2020 Page 33 of 111
I&N Dec. 529, 532 (BIA 1992) (noting that “it is settled” that the immigration judge and the BIA cannot decide constitutional questions). Thus, exhaustion should not be required as to Petitioners’ constitutional claims, because it would be futile as no agency process exists to raise the constitutional claims this Court.
92. Exhaustion of administrative remedies is also not required where it would be futile, where administrative remedies are inadequate, and where irreparable harm would result from requiring exhaustion. See Nierenberg , 835 F. Supp. at 1407. Here, requiring exhaustion would cause irreparable injury under the exigent circumstances.
STATEMENT OF FACTS A. COVID-19 is a global pandemic that poses a significant risk of death or serious ill-
ness to Petitioners.
93. COVID-19 is a highly contagious respiratory disease caused by a newly discovered coronavirus.
94. In some people, COVID-19 causes only mild symptoms or no symptoms at all.9 But for others, COVID-19 can result in more serious injury, including respiratory failure, kidney failure, and death.10
9 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19): Symptoms (last updated Mar. 20, 2020), https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/symptoms-testing/symptoms.html.
10 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19): Clinical Care, (last updated April 3, 2020), https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/clinicalguidance-management-patients.html.
29

Case 1:20-cv-21553-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/13/2020 Page 34 of 111
95. Infected individuals can face prolonged treatment and recovery periods, requiring highly attentive hospital care and ventilators that are in increasingly short supply. Those who do not die can face serious damage to the lungs, heart, liver, or other organs.11
96. Complications from COVID-19 can manifest at an alarming pace. Patients can go from being medically stable with no need for supplemental oxygen to requiring intubation and ventilator-assisted breathing within 24 hours. Studies estimate that the average length of time from onset of symptoms to hospitalization or the development of severe symptoms is only 7-9 days.
97. Older individuals and those with certain medical conditions are at particularly high risk for serious illness or death from COVID-19.12
98. Since the first case was reported in December 2019, the transmission of COVID19 has been growing exponentially. Worldwide, the number of reported cases climbed from 1 to 100,000 in 67 days; from 100,000 to 200,000 in only 11 days; and from 200,000 to 300,000 in just 4 days.13
11 Lisa Maragakis, M.D., M.P.H., I’ve been diagnosed with the new coronavirus disease, COVID-19. What should I expect? Johns Hopkins Medicine (last updated Apr. 11, 2020), https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/health/conditions-and-diseases/coronavirus/diagnosed-withcovid-19-what-to-expect.
12 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, COVID-19: People Who Are at Higher Risk For Serious Illness (last updated April 2, 2020), https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019ncov/need-extra-precautions/people-at-higher-risk.html; World Health Organization, Q&A on smoking and COVID-19 (24 March 2020), www.who.int/news-room/q-a-detail/q-a-on-smokingand-covid-19.
13 Berkeley Lovelace Jr., et al., CNBC, Coronavirus pandemic is accelerating as cases eclipse 350,000, WHO says (last updated Mar. 23, 2020),
30

Case 1:20-cv-21553-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/13/2020 Page 35 of 111
99. On March 11, 2020, the World Health Organization (“WHO”) declared the outbreak a global pandemic,14 and COVID-19 has now touched nearly every country on the planet.15
100. The WHO has exhorted both immigration and criminal justice decision makers to use “non-custodial measures” to protect incarcerated men, women, and children and to stem the escalating transmission rate. (Appx I, Exh. H, at 92)
101. As of April 12, 2020, the number of confirmed cases worldwide has surpassed one and a half million, including over 560,000 people in the United States. Over 114,000 people have died as a result of COVID-19 worldwide, including at least 22,000 in the United States.16
102. Nationally, projections by the CDC indicate that over 200 million people in the United States could be infected with COVID-19 over the course of the pandemic without effec-
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/03/23/coronavirus-pandemic-is-accelerating-as-cases-eclipse350000-who-says.html.
14 Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, WHO Director-General’s opening remarks at the media briefing on COVID-19 – 11 March 2020 (Mar. 11, 2020), https://www.who.int/dg/speeches/detail/who-director-general-s-opening-remarks-at-the-media-briefing-on-covid-19---11-march2020.
15 Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) Situation Report – 73, World Health Organization (Apr. 2, 2020), https://www.who.int/docs/default-source/coronaviruse/situation-reports/20200402-sitrep-73-covid-19.pdf?sfvrsn=5ae25bc7_4https://www.who.int/docs/defaultsource/coronaviruse/situation-reports/20200330-sitrep-70-covid-19.pdf?sfvrsn=7e0fe3f8_2.
16 Worldometer: Coronavirus, https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/#countries (last accessed Apr. 12, 2020).
31

Case 1:20-cv-21553-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/13/2020 Page 36 of 111
tive public health intervention, with as many as 1.7 million deaths in the most severe projections.17 On March 23, 2020, the WHO warned that the United States could become the next epicenter of the pandemic.18 Indeed, on March 26, 2020, the United States surpassed every other country in the world in number of confirmed COVID-19 cases.19 On April 11, 2020, the United States surpassed every other country in the world in the number of confirmed COVID-19 deaths.20
103. In the state of Florida, transmission of COVID-19 has been rampant. As of April 13, 2020, the number of reported cases in Florida is at 19,895, with the number of reported deaths from COVID-19 at 461, making Florida the state with the 11th highest number of COVID-19-related deaths in the United States.21 The counties of Miami-Dade and Broward in South Florida account for half of all Florida cases of COVID-19.22
104. Due to the lack of widespread testing available in most countries, including the
17 Sheri Fink, Worst-Case Estimates for U.S. Coronavirus Deaths, The New York Times (last updated Mar. 18, 2020), https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/13/us/coronavirus-deaths-estimate.html.
18 Sarah Boseley, US may become next centre of coronavirus pandemic, says WHO, The Guardian (Mar. 24, 2020), https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/mar/24/us-may-becomecentre-of-coronavirus-pandemic-who-says.
19 U.S. Now Leads the World in Confirmed Cases, The New York Times (last updated Apr. 1, 2020), https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/26/world/coronavirus-news.htmlhttps://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/26/world/coronavirus-news.html. 20 U.S. Surpasses Italy in Total Number of Confirmed Deaths, The New York Times (last updated Apr. 12, 2020), www.nytimes.com/2020/04/11/us/coronavirus-live-updates.html.
21 Listing of United States Total Coronavirus Cases (last updated Apr. 9, 2020), https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/us/. 22 Florida’s COVID-19 Data and Surveillance Dashboard (last accessed Apr. 13, 2020), https://experience.arcgis.com/experience/96dd742462124fa0b38ddedb9b25e429.
32

Case 1:20-cv-21553-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/13/2020 Page 37 of 111
United States, the number of confirmed cases is likely but a fraction of the true number of COVID-19 cases worldwide. As of April 12, 2020, just over 2.8 million tests have been administered in the entire United States; in Florida, only 184,926.23 Because of the shortage of tests in the United States—admitted to be a “failing” by top infectious disease expert Dr. Anthony Fauci24—the CDC currently recommends prioritizing testing for symptomatic healthcare providers and hospitalized patients25—which means that the number of diagnosed COVID-19 cases may be only the tip of a very large iceberg.26
i. COVID-19 poses a grave risk to Petitioners because it is so easily transmitted.
105. COVID-19 easily spreads through respiratory droplets that an infected person expels when they cough, sneeze, speak, or breathe.27 Transmission can occur if those virus-carrying droplets land directly on a nearby person’s nose or mouth, or when a person inhales these
23 The COVID Tracking Project, Our most up-to date data and annotations (last updated Apr. 12, 2020, 11:22 PM), https://covidtracking.com/data/.
24 Elizabeth Chuck, ‘It is a failing. Let’s admit,’ Fauci says of coronavirus testing capacity NBC News (Mar. 12, 2020), https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/it-failing-let-s-admitit-fauci-says-coronavirus-testing-n1157036.
25 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19), Evaluating and Testing Persons for Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) (last updated Mar. 24, 2020), https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-nCoV/hcp/clinical-criteria.html.
26 George Citroner, How Many People in the United States Actually Have COVID-19?, Healthline (Mar. 18, 2020), https://www.healthline.com/health-news/how-many-coronaviruscases-are-there.
27 Harvard Medical School, COVID-19 Basics, Harvard Health Publishing (last updated Apr. 6, 2020), https://www.health.harvard.edu/diseases-and-conditions/covid-19-basics.
33

Case 1:20-cv-21553-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/13/2020 Page 38 of 111
droplets or touches a contaminated surfaced and then touches their mouth, nose, or eyes.28 The coronavirus can survive up to three hours in the air, four hours on copper, 24 hours on cardboard, and two to three days on plastic and stainless steel.29
106. Many people who carry COVID-19 remain completely asymptomatic and may never even realize that they are infected, yet they can still spread the disease.30 Some research suggests that asymptomatic “silent carriers” constitute up to 40% of all those infected.31 Likewise, infected people who may eventually develop symptoms are contagious even when they are in the pre-symptomatic phase and may account for 10-13% of transmissions.32 Even interventions that individually isolate or quarantine only symptomatic individuals, therefore, cannot effectively contain transmission.
107. There is currently no vaccine against COVID-19. Nor are there any known
28 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19), How Coronavirus Spreads (last reviewed Mar. 4, 2020), https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019ncov/prevent-getting-sick/how-covid-spreads.html.
29 Harvard Health Publishing, As coronavirus spreads, many questions and some answers Harvard Medical School, Coronavirus Resource Center (last updated Apr. 1, 2020), https://www.health.harvard.edu/diseases-and-conditions/coronavirus-resource-center.
30 Apoorva Mandavilli, Infected but Feeling Fine: The Unwitting Coronavirus Spreaders, The New York Times (Apr. 1, 2020), https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/31/health/coronavirusasymptomatic-transmission.html; accord Maddie Capron, How Many Coronavirus Cases are Asymptomatic? CDC and Other Data Range as High as 50%, Miami Herald (April 1, 2020), https://www.miamiherald.com/news/coronavirus/article241703806.html.
31 Id. 32 The University of Texas at Austin, "Coronavirus spreads quickly and sometimes before people have symptoms, study finds," ScienceDaily (Mar. 16, 2020), https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/03/200316143313.htm.
34

Case 1:20-cv-21553-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/13/2020 Page 39 of 111
prophylactic medications that will prevent or reduce the risk of a COVID-19 infection. Widespread testing would make it easier to identify and isolate carriers, but testing availability is severely limited in the United States. Therefore, the only effective way to protect people against the risk of serious illness or death from COVID-19 is to limit their exposure to the virus through social distancing—i.e., physical separation of at least six feet from other people, especially individuals who are or may be infected, vigilant hygiene, including frequent and thorough handwashing with soap and water, and the wearing of masks.33
108. The high incidence of asymptomatic transmission, alongside the nationwide dearth of diagnostic tests to identify and isolate infected individuals, necessitate strict social distancing measures to interrupt transmission.
109. Social distancing reduces the average number of contacts between people, which lowers every individual’s risk both for acquiring COVID-19 and transmitting it to another person.
110. Strict social distancing measures have shown effectiveness in reducing the transmission of COVID-19. On January 23, 2020, the Chinese government instituted a complete lockdown of Wuhan, China, where the COVID-19 outbreak began, to attempt to fight the spread of the virus. They shut down all schools, offices, and factories and banned private vehicles from city streets. This lockdown expanded to other cities in Hubei province in the next several days,
33 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19), How to Protect Yourself (last reviewed Apr. 1, 2020), https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019ncov/prevent-getting-sick/prevention.html.
35

Case 1:20-cv-21553-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/13/2020 Page 40 of 111
extending to 60 million people in China.34 Following the lockdown, Wuhan saw a sustained decrease in transmission of COVID-19, and two months later, the daily number of reported cases dropped to zero.
111. Throughout the world, other countries have also implemented drastic social distancing measures in an effort to control the COVID-19 pandemic and protect people’s health and lives. France, for example, imposed a strict nationwide lockdown, prohibiting gatherings of any size and ordering all residents to stay at home.35 Overall, countries encompassing an estimated one third of the world’s population have enacted similar restrictions.36 Across the United States, cities and states are imposing increasingly stringent measures to effectuate social distancing. As of April 7, 2020, at least 42 states, three counties, and nine cities had ordered their residents to “shelter in place” or stay at home.37
34 Amy Gunia, China’s Draconian Lockdown Is Getting Credit for Slowing Coronavirus. Would It Work Anywhere Else?, Time Magazine (Mar. 13, 2020), https://time.com/5796425/china-coronavirus-lockdown/.
35 Bryan Pietsch, ‘We are at war’: France’s president just announced a 15-day lockdown, banning public gatherings and walks outdoors, Business Insider (Mar. 16, 2020), https://www.businessinsider.com/coronavirus-france-president-macron-announces-15-day-lockdown-2020-3.
36 Andrea Salcedo & Gina Cherelus, Coronavirus Travel Restrictions, Across the Globe, The New York Times (Apr. 1, 2020) https://www.nytimes.com/article/coronavirus-travel-restrictions.html.
37 Sarah Mervosh, et al., Which States and Cities Have Told Residents to Stay at Home, New York Times (last updated Apr. 7, 2020), https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/us/coronavirus-stay-at-home-order.html.
36

Case 1:20-cv-21553-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/13/2020 Page 41 of 111
ii. In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, all levels of government have directed people to shelter in place, and practice social distancing and vigilant hygiene.
112. On March 1, 2020, Governor DeSantis issued Executive Order 20-51 directing the Florida Department of Health to issue a Public Health Emergency.
113. On the same day, the State Surgeon General and State Health Office declared that a Public Health Emergency exists in the State of Florida as a result of COVID-19.
114. On March 9, 2020, Governor DeSantis declared a state of emergency for the entire state of Florida, describing the spread of COVID-19 as “a risk to the entire state of Florida.” Exec. Order No. 20-52.38
115. On March 13, 2020, President Donald J. Trump declared a national emergency, and on March 16, 2020, the President and the CDC issued guidance titled “15 Days to Slow the Spread,” advising individuals to avoid social gatherings in groups of more than 10 people and advising older persons and persons with serious underlying health conditions to stay home and away from others.
116. On March 19, 2020, Mayor Gimenez issued Miami-Dade Emergency Order 0720, adopting CDC guidelines encouraging social distancing and maintaining a 6-foot separation between residents to slow the spread of infection and that events with more than ten attendees either be cancelled or held virtually.39
38 Available at: https://www.flgov.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/EO-20-52.pdf. 39 Available at: https://www.miamidade.gov/information/library/coronavirus-emergency-order-07-20-businesses.pdf
37

Case 1:20-cv-21553-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/13/2020 Page 42 of 111
117. On March 20, 2020, Governor DeSantis issued Executive Order 20-70 to “harmonize” Broward and Palm Beach County with Miami-Dade, ordering the closure of all restaurants, bars, any other alcohol/food service business establishment with seating for more than 10 people, in addition to all movie theaters, concert halls, auditoriums, playhouses, bowling alleys, gymnasiums, fitness centers and beaches.40
118. On March 23, 2020, Governor DeSantis issued Executive Order 20-80, requiring all individuals who fly into Florida from states with substantial community spread to self-isolate in Florida for 14 days or the duration of their trip, whichever is shorter.
119. On March 24, 2020, Governor DeSantis issued Executive Order 20-83, directing the State Surgeon General and State Health Officer to issue a public health advisory urging the public to avoid all social or recreational gatherings of 10 people of more. Exec. Order No. 2083.41
120. On a March 27, 2020, Governor DeSantis issued Executive Order 20-86, requiring all individuals that drive into Florida from states with substantial community spread to selfisolate in Florida for fourteen days or the duration of their trip, whichever is shorter.
121. On March 30, 2020, Governor DeSantis issued Executive Order No. 20-89, ordering Miami-Dade County, Broward County, Palm Beach County and Monroe County to restrict
40 Available at: https://www.flgov.com/wp-content/uploads/orders/2020/EO_20-70.pdf 41 Available at: https://www.flgov.com/wp-content/uploads/orders/2020/EO_20-83.pdf
38

Case 1:20-cv-21553-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/13/2020 Page 43 of 111
public access to businesses and facilities deemed non-essential pursuant to the guidelines established by Miami-Dade County pursuant to its March 19, 2020 Emergency Order 07-20. Exec. Order No. 20-89.42
122. This order mandates that essential service establishments not subject to closure shall continue to determine, adopt and maintain reasonable measures to ensure sanitation and cleanliness of premises and items that may come into contact with employees and the public, and such establishments shall take reasonable action to ensure that people adhere to the CDC's social distancing guidelines.
123. On March 31, 2020, the President updated the previously issued CDC guidance, renaming it “30 Days to Slow the Spread,” and along with the White House Coronavirus Task Force urged Americans to continue to adhere to the CDC guidelines and expand community mitigation efforts.43
124. On April 1, 2020, Governor DeSantis issued a shelter-in-place order for the state of Florida, effective April 3, 2020, Exec. Order No. 20-91.44
42 Available at: https://www.flgov.com/wp-content/uploads/orders/2020/EO_20-89.pdf 43 Available at: https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/03.16.20_coronavirus-guidance_8.5x11_315PM.pdf 44 Available at: https://www.flgov.com/wp-content/uploads/orders/2020/EO_20-91.pdf.
39

Case 1:20-cv-21553-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/13/2020 Page 44 of 111
125. On April 4, 2020, Miami Dade Mayor Carlos Gimenez issued Emergency Order 19-20, ordering that all person outside their homes are encouraged to wear a cloth facial covering consistent with current CDC guidelines. Emer. Order. No. 19-20.45
126. On April 8, 2020, Mayor Gimenez extended the state of emergency for MiamiDade County. Exec. Order Extending Declaration of Local State of Emergency.46
B. All experts agree that COVID-19 will likely ravage jails, prisons, and detention centers. 127. Imprisoned populations, including those in ICE detention facilities, are at higher
risk for infectious disease, as compared to the general population. Factors that heighten their risk include poor sanitation, high population density, and “a higher prevalence of infectious and chronic diseases and . . . poorer health than the general population, even at younger ages.” CDC Interim Guidance (Appx I, Exh. F, at 48-74 ).
128. Dr. Shin explains that in detention settings “hundreds, and potentially thousands of people will become infected, and many will die. This is a direct result of a failure to implement the recommended measures at an early enough to stage to prevent illness and save lives. Already, some ICE facilities the numbers of detected COVID-19 infections are growing at an exponential rate. By the time facilities recognize this kind of exponential growth in detected cases, it will already be too late. Therefore, individuals should be released from detention.” Shin Decl.,
45 Available at: https://www.miamidade.gov/information/library/coronavirus-emergency-order-19-20-facial-coverings.pdf. 46 Available at: https://www.miamidade.gov/information/library/2020-04-08-state-of-emergency-extension-4.pdf
40

Case 1:20-cv-21553-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/13/2020 Page 45 of 111
¶40. (Exh. 2). See also, Greer Decl. ¶30 (Exh. 3) (“There is no way for immigration detention facilities to comply with CDC guidelines on social distancing and quarantining unless Respondents release detained men and women on a large scale.”).
129. The conclusions of Drs. Shin and Greer are consistent with the conclusions reached by Drs. Scott Allen and Josiah Rich—experts in the fields of detention health, infectious disease, and public health who advise DHS’s Office of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties—who urged Congress on March 19, 2020 to take immediate actions to slow the spread of COVID-19 in ICE detention centers, including releasing immigrants to facilitate maximum social distancing— an “oxymoron” in congregate settings. (Appx I, Exh. L, at 235-41.)
130. In March 2020, over 3,000 medical professionals across the United States urged ICE to release individuals and families from detention “to prevent the spread of COVID-19 and mitigate the harm of an outbreak” to detained individuals, as well as to facility staff.47 They warned that social distancing measures recommended by the CDC are impossible in immigration detention and that the capacity for individual isolation and quarantine recommended by the CDC is extremely limited. When individual isolation is possible, the medical providers expressed concern that “isolation may be misused and place individuals at higher risk of neglect and death.”
131. Like these and other experts,48 Drs. Allen and Rich also warned of the dire conse-
47 Janus Rose, Thousands of Doctors Demand ICE Release Detainees to Stop a COVID-19 Disaster, Vice.com (Mar. 18, 2020), https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/4agp4w/thousands-ofdoctors-demand-ice-release-detainees-to-stop-a-covid-19-disaster
48 See, e.g., Rich Schapiro, Coronavirus could ‘wreak havoc’ on U.S. jails, experts warn, NBC News (Mar. 12, 2020), https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/coronavirus-could-wreak-
41

Case 1:20-cv-21553-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/13/2020 Page 46 of 111
quences that a COVID-19 outbreak within an ICE detention facility would have on the community outside the facility. They describe a “tinderbox” scenario where a rapid outbreak inside a facility would result in the hospitalization of multiple detained people in a short period of time, which would spread the virus to the surrounding community and create a demand for ventilators far exceeding the supply. (Appx I, Exh. L, at 238.)
132. Once a disease is introduced into a jail, prison, or detention facility, it spreads faster than under most other circumstances due to overcrowding, poor sanitation and hygiene, and lack of access to adequate medical services. For these same reasons, the outbreak is harder to control.49 The severe outbreaks of COVID-19 in congregate environments, such as cruise ships and nursing homes, illustrate how rapidly and widely COVID-19 would rip through an ICE detention facility. On the Diamond Princess cruise ship, for example, approximately 700 passengers and crew on board were infected over the course of three weeks despite the initiation of quarantine protocols.50
havoc-u-s-jails-experts-warn-n1156586 (“An outbreak of the deadly virus inside the walls of a U.S. prison or jail is now a question of when, not if, according to health experts.”).
49 Christina Potter, Outbreaks in Migrant Detention Facilities, Outbreak Observatory (Jul. 11, 2019), https://www.outbreakobservatory.org/outbreakthursday-1/7/11/2019/outbreaks-in-migrant-detention-facilities
50 Failures on the Diamond Princess Shadow Another Cruise Ship Outbreak, The New York Times (Mar. 8, 2020), www.nytimes.com/2020/03/08/world/asia/coronavirus-cruise-ship.html.
42

Case 1:20-cv-21553-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/13/2020 Page 47 of 111
133. COVID-19 has indeed already started to spread inside U.S. prisons and jails across the United States, including other carceral systems in Florida,51 Chicago,52 and New York City.53
134. Correctional staff is also an especially dangerous vector for a COVID-19 outbreak within a detention center since they regularly travel back and forth between the outside world and the detention facilities where they work.
135. ICE’s past handling of infectious disease outbreaks in detention centers has been inept—foreshadowing the impact COVID-19 will have if Petitioners are not released. In 2019, a mumps outbreak across 57 immigration detention facilities throughout the country led to almost 900 cases of mumps overwhelmingly contracted inside the facilities54 before the outbreak spread to surrounding communities.55 ICE and CBP facilities have been sites of other outbreaks in just
51 Florida Department of Corrections, COVID-19 Information, http://www.dc.state.fl.us/comm/covid-19.html.
52 Timothy Williams and Danielle Ivory, Chicago’s Jail Is Top Hot Spot as Virus Spreads Behind Bars, The New York Times (Apr. 8, 2020), www.nytimes.com/2020/04/08/us/coronavirus-cook-county-jail-chicago.html.
53 Emma Grey Ellis, Covid-19 Poses a Heightened Threat in jails and Prisons, wired.com (Mar. 24, 2020), https://www.wired.com/story/coronavirus-covid-19-jails-prisons/
54 Leung J, Elson D, Sanders K, et al. Notes from the Field: Mumps in Detention Facilities that House Detained Migrants—United States, September 2018–August 2019, MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly, 749–50 (Aug. 30, 2019), https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/68/wr/pdfs/mm6834a4-H.pdf.
55 See Terrence McDonald, Bergen County Won’t Say if Mumps Outbreak Affects Only Immigrant Detainees, Northjersey.com (Jun. 13, 2019), https://www.northjersey.com/story/news/bergen/2019/06/13/bergen-county-nj-wont-say-if-jail-mumps-outbreak-hitonly-ice-inmates/1448708001. In addition, in 2019, thousands of individuals in 39 immigration detention centers across the country were exposed to chickenpox. Emma Ockerman, Migrant Detention Centers Are Getting Slammed with Mumps and Chickenpox, Vice News (Jun. 14,
43

Case 1:20-cv-21553-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/13/2020 Page 48 of 111
the past couple years,56 in addition to outbreaks in other prisons and jails.57 136. Nationally and internationally, governments and jail and prison staff have already
recognized the threat posed by COVID-19 and released detained individuals. Iran,58 Ethiopia,59 and Texas60 and have all begun to release people to mitigate the harm that the impending spread of COVID-19 will cause.
137. One of the largest police forces in the nation, the Miami-Dade Police Department, has ordered its officers to issue citations for all misdemeanor offenses to reduce arrests and jail population during the pandemic.61 The Broward Sheriff’s Office has done the same, estimating a
2020), https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/mb8k5q/migrant-detention-centers-are-gettingslammed-with-mumps-and-chicken-pox.
56 Christina Potter, Outbreak Observatory supra n. 49, (describing outbreaks of acute respiratory illnesses like influenza, and other diseases like scabies and chickenpox). Both Krome and BTC have had mumps outbreaks, and other illnesses that required quarantine.
57 J. O’Grady, et al., Tuberculosis in prisons: anatomy of global neglect, European Respiratory Journal (2011), https://erj.ersjournals.com/content/38/4/752.short (stating that tuberculosis prevalence among prisoners worldwide can be up to 50 times higher than national averages).
58 Babk Dehghanpisheh and Stephanie Nebehay, Iran Temporarily Releases 70,000 Prisoners as Coronavirus Cases Surge, Reuters (Mar. 9, 2020), https://www.reuters.com/article/ushealth-coronavirus-iran/iran-temporarily-releases-70000-prisoners-as-coronavirus-cases-surgeidUSKBN20W1E5.
59 Bukola Adebayo, Ethiopia pardons more than 4,000 prisoners to help prevent coronavirus spread, CNN (Mar. 26, 2020), https://www.cnn.com/2020/03/26/africa/ethiopia-pardons-4000prisoners-over-coronavirus/index.html.
60 Dillon Collier, Bexar County jail population down more than 500 inmates after release of nonviolent offenders, KSAT.com (last updated Mar. 25, 2020), https://www.ksat.com/news/local/2020/03/25/bexar-county-jail-population-down-more-than-500-inmates-after-release-of-nonviolent-offenders/.
61 https://theappeal.org/miami-covid-19-arrests/
44

Case 1:20-cv-21553-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/13/2020 Page 49 of 111
reduction in arrests and bookings of 60%.62 138. On April 7, 2020, a temporary restraining order was issued from this Court requir-
ing Miami-Dade Corrections to implement health safety protocols in the Metro West Detention Center. Order, Swain v. Junior, 20-cv-21457-KMW (S.D. Fla. Apr. 7, 2020) (copy at Appx I, Exh. M, at 242-47).
139. The Federal Bureau of Prisons has instructed prison directors to prioritize releasing federal inmates to home confinement, taking into consideration factors including “[t]he age and vulnerability of the inmate to COVID-19, in accordance with the [CDC] guidelines.”63
C. The Center for Disease Control and the detention standards inform ICE’s duties to people at Krome, Glades, and BTC. 140. Krome and BTC are subject to ICE’s Performance-Based National Detention
Standards 2011 (“PBNDS”). (Appx. I, Exh. K, at 152, 156). 141. Section 4.3(II)(10) requires that “Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
(CDC) guidelines for the prevention and control of infectious and communicable diseases shall be followed.” ICE PBNDS (Appx I, Exh. N, at 248-97, 253).64
62 Two Broward Inmates Test Positive For Coronavirus, As Calls For Release Grow, WLRN (Apr. 2, 2020), www.wlrn.org/post/two-broward-inmates-test-positive-coronavirus-calls-releasegrow#stream/0; Opinion: Broward County Jail: A COVID-19 time bomb, Sun Sentinel (Apr. 3, 2020), www.sun-sentinel.com/opinion/commentary/fl-op-com-finkelstein-broward-county-jailthreat-coronavirus-covid-20200403-kb7g5zwoinf2pfluw4dsxlda7y-story.html.
63 Office of the Attorney General, Washington, DC, Memorandum for Director of Bureau Prisons, Prioritization of Home Confinement As Appropriate in Response to COVID-19 Pandemic (Mar. 26, 2020), https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000171-1826-d4a1-ad77fda671420000.
64 Full copy available at: https://www.ice.gov/doclib/detention-standards/2011/pbnds2011r2016.pdf.
45

Case 1:20-cv-21553-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/13/2020 Page 50 of 111
142. Glades is subject to ICE’s National Detention Standards (NDS). (Appx. I, Exh. K, at 165.) The current governing version of the NDS is the 2019 National Detention Standards for Non-Dedicated Facilities.65
143. Under section 1.1(I) of the NDS, covered “facilit[ies] will operate in accordance with all applicable regulations and codes, such as those of . . . the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).” ICE NDS (Appx I, Exh. O, at 304).66
144. The CDC has issued an Interim Guidance on Management of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) in Correctional and Detention Facilities. (Appx. I, Exh. F, at 48-73). This guidance stresses the vital importance of ensuring social distancing, proper hygiene, access to testing, individual isolation of people who have the virus, and quarantine of people exposed to the virus. The guidance specifically states that it is intended for ICE, as a law enforcement agency with custodial authority of detained populations.
145. The CDC Guidance requires that “detained persons who are close contacts of a confirmed or suspected COVID-19 case (whether the case is another incarcerated/detained person, staff member, or visitor) should be placed under quarantine for 14 days.” (Appx. I, Exh. F, at 66.)
146. An individual is considered a close contact if they have been within approximately 6 feet of a COVID-19 case for a prolonged period of time, or have had direct contact with
65 Supersession noted at: www.ice.gov/detention-standards/2000. 66 Full copy available at: www.ice.gov/doclib/detention-standards/2019/nds2019.pdf.
46

Case 1:20-cv-21553-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/13/2020 Page 51 of 111
infectious secretion from such a person, such as coughing. (Appx. I, Exh. F, at 50.) “Close contact can occur while caring for, living with, visiting, or sharing a common space with a COVID19 case.” (Appx. I, Exh. F, at 50, 66)
147. “A confirmed case has received a positive result from a COVID-19 laboratory test, with or without symptoms,” and “[a] suspected case shows symptoms.” (Appx. I, Exh. F, at 51.) Symptoms “include fever, cough, and shortness of breath.” (Id.)
148. Quarantine is “the practice of confining individuals who had close contact with a COVID-19 case to determine whether they develop symptoms,” and it “should last a period of 14 days.” (Appx. I, Exh. F, at 51.) “Ideally, each quarantined individual would be quarantined in a single cell with solid walls and a solid door that closes.” (Id.) “If symptoms develop during the 14-day period, the individual should be placed under medical isolation and evaluated for COVID-19.” (Id.)
149. “Medical isolation refers to confining a confirmed or suspected COVID-19 case (ideally to a single cell with solid walls and a solid door that closes), to prevent contact with others and to reduce the risk of transmission.” (Appx. I, Exh. F, at 51.) “Medical isolation end when the individual meets pre-established clinical and/or testing criteria for release from isolation, in consultation with clinic providers and public health officials” as detailed in the CDC’s Guidance. (Id.)
150. “Cohorting refers to the practice of isolating multiple laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 cases together as a group, or quarantining close contacts of a particular case together as a group.” (Appx. I, Exh. F, at 50.) “Ideally, cases should be isolated individually, and close contacts should be quarantined individually.” (Id.)
47

Case 1:20-cv-21553-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/13/2020 Page 52 of 111
151. The CDC Guidance states that detention centers should put people exposed to close contact with confirmed or symptomatic COVID-19 cases in individual, not group, quarantine: “Facilities should make every possible effort to quarantine close contacts of COVID-19 cases individually.” (Appx. I, Exh. F, at 66) (emphasis added). Cohort quarantine “should only be practiced if there are no other available options.” (Id.) (emphasis added). As the CDC explains, “[c]ohorting multiple quarantined close contacts of a COVID-19 case could transmit COVID-19 from those who are infected to those who are uninfected.” (Id.)
152. According to the CDC Guidance’s order of preference, the last option before a “safe[] transfer to another facility with capacity to quarantine” is cohorting in a detainee’s “regularly assigned housing but with no movement outside of the unit (if an entire housing unit has been exposed),” but only if it is possible to employ social distancing strategies “to maintain at least 6 feet of space between individuals.” (Appx. I, Exh. F, at 67) (emphasis added). “If cohorted, quarantined individuals should wear face masks at all times (to prevent transmission from infected to uninfected individuals).” (Id.) (emphasis added). The last option of transfer “should be avoided due to the potential to introduce infection to another facility.” (Id.)
153. But, “[f]acilities without onsite healthcare capacity, or without sufficient space to implement effective quarantine, should coordinate with local public health officials to ensure that close contacts of COVID-19 cases will be effectively quarantined and medically monitored.” (Appx. I, Exh. F, at 66) (emphasis added).
154. Even stricter quarantining and isolation protocols apply in confirmed or suspected cases of COVID-19 infection. (Appx. I, Exh. F, at 62-66)
48

Case 1:20-cv-21553-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/13/2020 Page 53 of 111
155. However, the need to “[r]estrict quarantined individuals from leaving the facility (including transfers to other facilities)” is subject to an exception for detained individuals “released from custody.” (Appx. I, Exh. F, at 68)
156. Release to individualized quarantining and isolation outside of a detention facility serves public health because, as the CDC explains, “[i]ncarcerated/detained persons live, work, eat, study, and recreate within congregate environments, heightening the potential for COVID-19 to spread once introduced,” and “[o]ptions for medical isolation of COVID-19 cases are limited and vary depending on the type and size of facility, as well as the current level of available capacity, which is partly based on medical isolation needs for other conditions.” (Appx. I, Exh. F, at 49)
157. Additionally, “[t]here are many opportunities for COVID-19 to be introduced into a correctional or detention facility, including daily staff ingress and egress; transfer of incarcerated/detained persons between facilities and systems, to court appearances, and to outside medical visits; and visits from family, legal representatives, and other community members.” (Appx. I, Exh. F, at 49)
158. “Some settings, particularly jails and detention centers, have high turnover, admitting new entrants daily who may have been exposed to COVID-19 in the surrounding community or other regions.” (Appx. I, Exh. F, at 49)
159. Further, “[p]ersons incarcerated/detained in a particular facility often come from a variety of locations, increasing the potential to introduce COVID-19 from different geographic areas.” (Appx. I, Exh. F, at 49)
49

Case 1:20-cv-21553-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/13/2020 Page 54 of 111
160. As for new entrants, the CDC also recommends routine intake quarantining, which means “quarantining all new intakes for 14 days before they enter the facility’s general population (SEPARATELY from other individuals who are quarantined due to contact with a COVID-19 case).” (Appx. I, Exh. F, at 61.) (emphasis in original). The CDC further specifies that detention centers should conduct “pre-intake screening and temperature checks for all new entrants” and to put new intakes with symptoms (fever, cough, shortness of breath) in medical isolation. (Appx. I, Exh. F, at 57)
161. Further, ICE’s governing detention standards require reporting of the spread of communicable diseases within their detained populations. ICE PBNDS, § 4.3(V)(C)(1) (“Facilities shall comply with current and future plans implemented by federal, state or local authorities addressing specific public health issues including communicable disease reporting requirements.”) (copy at Appx I, Exh. N, at 256-57); id., at § 4.3(V)(C)(1)(h) (“Each facility shall have written plans that . . . shall include: . . . (h) management of infectious diseases and reporting them to local and/or state health departments in accordance with established guidelines and applicable laws.”); see also ICE NDS, § 4.3(II)(D)(2) (“The facility will have written plans that address the management of infectious and communicable diseases, including, but not limited to, testing, isolation, prevention, and education. This also includes reporting and collaboration with local or state health departments in accordance with state and local laws and recommendations.”) (copy at Appx I, Exh. O, at 314).
50

Case 1:20-cv-21553-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/13/2020 Page 55 of 111
D. Continued detention in the unique circumstances of the current pandemic poses a dire and imminent threat to Petitioners and others at Krome, Glades, and BTC.
162. ICE’s knowing and affirmative conduct in failing to address the clear foreseeability of severe outbreaks at Krome, BTC, and Glades, and to take the action of releasing Petitioners, demonstrates a disregard for the rights, well-being, and the humanity of detained immigrants. The continued detention of Petitioners and other detained individuals at Krome, Glades, and BTC is reckless.
163. Despite the global pandemic and shelter-in-place orders across the country and knowing the risks, ICE affirmatively continues to bring new people into detention centers and to transfer previously detained people between facilities.67 ICE continues to issue detainer requests to counties instructing jail officials to hold people for them past the point of criminal custody coming to an end. ICE then transports these men and women from the local jail to immigration detention at Krome, Glades, and BTC.
67 U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, ICE Guidance on COVID-19 (last reviewed/updated Apr. 2, 2020), https://www.ice.gov/covid19 (“ . . . our law enforcement officers and agents continue daily enforcement operations to make criminal and civil arrests.”); see also Richard Hall, Coronavirus: ICE Crackdown Stokes Fears for Safety of Undocumented Immigrants During Pandemic, Independent (Mar. 15, 2020), https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/coronavirus-us-immigrants-ice-raidstrump-bernie-sanders-undocumented-healthcare-a9398816.html (noting that “[i]n New York, immigration advocates have noted a marked increase in ICE activity in recent months, which has not slowed as the coronavirus outbreak has worsened.”). On March 18, 2020, ICE announced it would “temporarily adjust” its enforcement practices during the COVID-19 outbreak, but declined to say it would stop arresting people altogether. Rebecca Klar, ICE Pausing Most Enforcement During Coronavirus Crisis, The Hill (Mar. 18, 2020), https://thehill.com/latino/488362-icepausing-most-immigration-enforcement-during-coronavirus-crisis.
51

Case 1:20-cv-21553-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/13/2020 Page 56 of 111
164. With respect to people like Petitioners who are already in custody, ICE is violating the CDC guidelines and detention standards in multiple ways.
165. Rather than use individual quarantining of people who have been exposed to COVID-19, ICE routinely uses en masse “cohort quarantining.” ICE commends itself for having placed large groups of people who have been exposed to COVID-19 together in the same living space, despite the CDC’s statements that this measure will facilitate the spread of the virus among those quarantined and throughout the facility and outside community. (Appx. I, Exh. I, at 123 ¶10)
166. On top of the fact that cohorting is supposed to be last option when “there are no other available options” (Appx. I, Exh. F, at 6), it is only an option when it is possible to employ social distancing strategies “to maintain at least 6 feet of space between individuals” (Appx. I, Exh. F, at 67), because “[c]ohorting multiple quarantined close contacts of a COVID-19 case could transmit COVID-19 from those who are infected to those who are uninfected” (Appx. I, Exh. F, at 66).
167. Even in the general case, when a facility is not dealing with a positive or suspected COVID-19 case, or a case of a close contact to a positive or suspected COVID-19 case, detention facilities are instructed by the CDC Guidelines to “[i]mplement social distancing strategies to increase the physical space between incarcerated/detained persons (ideally 6 feet between all individuals, regardless of the presence of symptoms).” (Appx. I, Exh. F, at 58).
168. ICE’s cohorting practice contravenes the CDC guidelines. Cohorting is not the same as quarantine or medical isolation. The CDC guidance makes it clear that cohorting is to be
52

Case 1:20-cv-21553-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/13/2020 Page 57 of 111
used only as a last resort. ICE, however, is using cohorting as the planned—and primary—response to a known COVID-19 exposure, not a practice of last resort. (Appx. I, Exh. I, at 123 ¶10).
169. Moreover, cohorted groups are confined in spaces that prevent them from practicing social distancing. Cohorted groups are not provided with masks to prevent the transmission of COVID-19, as required by the CDC protocols. (Appx. I, Exh. F, at 67).
170. ICE has no plans to place suspected COVID-19 cases in individual medical isolation in which “[e]ach isolated individual should be assigned their own housing space and bathroom,” as the CDC instructs. (Appx. I, Exh. F, at 62) Moreover, people who exhibit flu-like symptoms are not always removed from the general population but instead are sleeping and eating within feet of others.
171. Further, many of ICE’s claims of having implemented COVID-19 precautions are either contradicted by reports from detained people, or the procedures they have implemented are ineffective.
172. Social distancing is impossible. People sleep in crowded rooms in bunk beds close together and must eat and bathe in close quarters. People are not provided sufficient soap to be able to comply with CDC hygiene inventory and hand-washing procedures. (Appx. I, Exh. F, at 54-57) The bathrooms in these facilities are often unsanitary and in poor condition. Bathrooms have been identified as a particularly potent vehicle for the spread of COVID-19.68
68 Why You Should Flush With The Lid Down: Experts Warn Of Fecal-Oral Transmission Of COVID-19, Forbes (Apr. 2, 2020), www.forbes.com/sites/alexandrasternlicht/2020/04/02/whyyou-should-flush-with-the-lid-down-virologist-warns-of-fecal-oral-transmission-of-covid19/#6d581edd6eb8. CDC guidelines require detention centers to, ”[s]everal times per day, clean
53

Case 1:20-cv-21553-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/13/2020 Page 58 of 111
173. Other measures ICE claims to have taken, including temporarily suspending social visitation in detention and screening new detained immigrants for certain symptoms of COVID-19, are insufficient to curb the risk of infection within the detention centers. Detained individuals report that ICE has not implemented the CDC’s recommendation that newly detained individuals be in individual quarantine for 14 days before joining the rest of the population.
174. Not all COVID-19 patients present with fever or respiratory symptoms. Many may be asymptomatic but still contagious, or have mild or less common symptoms. As symptoms of COVID-19 can present anywhere from 2 to 14 days after exposure, individuals who pass ICE’s screenings can expose other detained individuals, as well as detention center staff, if the CDC’s new intake quarantining protocols are not followed.
175. Release from custody is both the only effective public health measure to curb increased transmission of COVID-19 and the most practical strategy to protect people like Petitioners from harm. Krome Service Processing Center
176. Krome is a detention center located at the edge of Miami-Dade County. ICE’s contract with Akima Global Services (“AGS”), a third-party contractor, requires a mandatory
and disinfect surfaces and objects that are frequently touched, especially in common areas. Such surfaces may include objects/surfaces not ordinarily cleaned daily (e.g., doorknobs, light switches, sink handles, countertops, toilets, toilet handles, recreation equipment, kiosks, and telephones).” www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/community/correction-detention/guidance-correctional-detention.html.
54

Case 1:20-cv-21553-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/13/2020 Page 59 of 111
minimum of 450 occupied beds. (Appx I, Exh. K, 149.) The population typically oscillates between 550 and 875 persons—far exceeding the contractual mandatory minimum. (Appx I, Exh. K, 149)
177. ICE employs both ICE employees and AGS contract workers at the detention center. (Appx I, Exh. K, 149.) These workers typically live in Miami Dade County or other communities in South Florida.
178. Krome is divided into different housing units, however, all housing units share common spaces which include the recreation area, medical area, and the cafeteria.
179. Each general population housing unit (referred to as “pods”) is an open bay— meaning that there are at least 65 bunk bed cots per unit. (Appx I, Exh. K, 149.) The bunk beds are positioned within six feet of each other. The open bay also has a communal space with a table and seating areas, showers, toilets, and sinks. The general population units do not have individual cells.
180. Detained individuals prepare the communal food. Up until very recently, several housing pods ate together in the cafeteria. The cafeteria is now closed due to COVID-19, and housing units are eating together in the communal area of their pod.
181. Krome’s failure to provide adequate medical care has been an ongoing concern. (Appx I, Exh. K, at 141-43, 150). Critical medical care is routinely delayed—sometimes for months—or denied outright. Id. An inspection conducted in February 2019 concluded that Krome’s medical care was deficient. Lead Compliance Inspector.69 Instead of addressing sick
69 Annual Detention Inspection of the Krome Service Processing Center, The Nakamoto Group, Inc. (Feb. 14, 2019) available at: https://www.ice.gov/doclib/facilityInspections/kromeSPC_CL_02-14-2019.pdf.
55

Case 1:20-cv-21553-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/13/2020 Page 60 of 111
calls twice a day, as the detention standards require, it takes two to eight days to triage a sick call. (Appx I, Exh. K, 150.) When medical issues are addressed, individuals report not being properly treated or not treated at all. (Appx I, Exh. K, 150.) Proving ibuprofen is commonly used as a blanket solution to any and all medical issues. (Appx I, Exh. K, 150.)
182. Because Krome fails to meet detained individual’s medical needs under normal circumstances, the medical staff are ill-prepared to provide adequate medical treatment amidst the COVID-19 pandemic.
183. Krome has a large population and is often overcrowded. (Appx I, Exh. F, at 14950) (overcrowding at Krome). ICE can tightly detain up to 1,000 individuals in the facility. (Appx I, Exh. K, 230 (endnote 118).) When the population reaches that number, it becomes dangerously overcrowded with 100 or more people in a pod with 65 beds. To house these numbers, Krome supplies stackable beds placed between bunkbeds, in front of the showers and bathrooms, next to the phones, and in the common television area. (Appx I, Exh. K, 149.) At least one pod, with 120 detainees, is currently in such a crowded state.
184. Overcrowding at Krome has led to many sanitation and health issues. (Appx I, Exh. K, 150.) It becomes impossible to avoid human contact and the unit is harder to keep clean. (Appx I, Exh. K, 150)
56

Case 1:20-cv-21553-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/13/2020 Page 61 of 111
185. During the summer of 2019, there was a mumps outbreak at Krome in which housing units were group quarantined.70 Ten years before that, there was an outbreak of the H1N1 virus at Krome.71
186. Detained men at Krome live in pods that house approximately 50 to 120 individuals. See Portuondo Dec. at ¶ 11 (Appx II, Exh. A, at 1-9); Gayle Dec. at ¶ 6 (Appx II, Exh. B, at 10-14).
187. The large number of detained individuals in each pod make it infeasible to stay six feet apart and practice social distancing. See Arias-Martinez Dec. at ¶ 9 (Appx II, Exh. C, at 15-21); Jalloh Dec. ¶ 9(Appx II, Exh. D, at 22-29); Darwyn Dec. ¶ 5(c) (Appx II, Exh. E, at 3034); Perez-Jeronimo Dec. ¶ 6 (Appx II, Exh. F, at 35-39); Chavez Dec. at ¶ 11 (Appx II, Exh. G, at 40-46); Jalloh Dec. ¶ 20 (Appx II, Exh. D, at 22-29); Mendez-Escobar Dec. ¶ 14 (Appx II, Exh. H, at 47-51); Zamora-Mendoza Dec. ¶ 10 (Appx II, Exh. I, at 52-54); Ocana-Guzman Dec. ¶ 8 (Appx II, Exh. J, at 55-60).
188. The pods have bunk beds for the detained individuals to sleep, which are not 6 feet apart. See Arias-Martinez Dec. at ¶ 9 (Appx II, Exh. C, at 15-21); Alfaro-Garcia Dec. at ¶ 7 (Appx II, Exh. K, at 61-67); Khan Dec. at ¶ 8a (Appx II, Exh. L, at 68-74); Jalloh Dec. ¶ 12 (Appx II, Exh. D, at 22-29); Perez-Jeronimo Dec. ¶ 6 (Appx II, Exh. F, at 35-39); Chavez Dec. at
70 Letter to ICE and Wardens from AI Justice, SPLC, AAAJ, and project South (Mar. 13, 2020), https://www.splcenter.org/sites/default/files/ltr_to_ice_and_wardens_re_covid-19__2020.03_-_final.pdf
71 After a Krome employee’s toddler contracted H1N1, ICE was criticized for not providing employees with proper protection, training, and information to deal with the virus. Kyle Munzenreider, Infact Child of ICE Employee Has Swine Flu, Miami New Times (June 23, 2009), https://www.miaminewtimes.com/news/infant-child-of-ice-employee-has-swine-flu-6565669.
57

Case 1:20-cv-21553-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/13/2020 Page 62 of 111
¶ 11 (Appx II, Exh. G, at 40-46); Zamora-Mendoza Dec. ¶ 10 (Appx II, Exh. I, at 52-54); OcanaGuzman Dec. ¶ 6 (Appx II, Exh. J, at 55-60).
189. There are at least three housing units of approximately 48, 59, and 120 people, one of which includes a detained person with prostate cancer, that are under cohort quarantine. See Portuondo Dec. at ¶ 11 (Appx II, Exh. A, at 1-9); Perez Limones Dec. at ¶ 7 (Appx II, Exh. M, at 75-78); Gayle Dec. at ¶ 12 (Appx II, Exh. B, at 10-14); Cardenas Dec. at ¶ 7 (Appx II, Exh. N, at 79-83). Petitioner Gayle is housed in a quarantined pod with 120 detained individuals, which has a sign on the wall that says the maximum capacity is 80. See Gayle Dec. at ¶¶ 6, 12 (Appx II, Exh. B, at 10-14). Detained individuals in these units share toilets and showers that are less than six feet apart. See Portuondo Dec. at ¶ 11 (Appx II, Exh. A, at 1-9). The room of 48 men has only three urinals and one toilet. Cardenas Dec. at ¶ 11 (Appx II, Exh. N, at 79-83). At least one of the rooms under cohort quarantine still leaves their room once a day to interact with hundreds of other detained individuals in the recreation area, where the men are crowded into a small space. Cardenas Dec. at ¶ 7 (Appx II, Exh. N, at 79-83). During communal meals, individuals are forced to eat in close contact with each other. See Mendez-Escobar Dec. ¶ 14 (Appx II, Exh. H, at 47-51).
190. A recent photograph, from a Miami Herald Article, of one of the general population units at Krome shows men crowded into the common space. (Appx I, Exh. P, at 327-335, 334). None of the men in the photograph are wearing masks or gloves. Men are crowded around small tables. The bunk beds are located within a few feet of each other and of the tables. Social distancing is impossible in this setting.
58

Case 1:20-cv-21553-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/13/2020 Page 63 of 111
191. Despite the COVID-19 threat, Respondents continue to detain new people at Krome. See Arrak Dec. ¶ 27 (Appx II, Exh. O, at 84-90)
192. Some detained individuals who require additional mental health and behavioral care are housed in the Krome Behavioral Health Unit (“BHU”), which is split into two sections. One unit can house 22 people, while the other can house eight people. Hasan Dec. ¶ 6 (Appx II, Exh. R, at 106-12). Individuals in the BHU typically share a room with another person, and sleep less than six feet apart. See Warsane Dec. ¶ 9 (Appx II, Exh. Q, at 98-105); Farah Dec. ¶ 6 (Appx II, Exh. P, at 91-97). Two detained individuals in the BHU do not currently share a room while sleeping, but are in close contact with others in the unit when in communal areas. See Hasan Dec. ¶ 7-8 (Appx II, Exh. R, at 106-12); Arrak Dec. ¶ 6-7 (Appx II, Exh. O, at 84-90); Farah Dec. ¶ 10 (Appx II, Exh. P, at 91-97).
193. Detained individuals in BHU are required to go to the recreation yard twice a day for an hour, despite complaints that the area is too small to allow social distancing. See Hasan Dec. ¶ 30 (Appx II, Exh. R, at 106-12); Arrak Dec. ¶ 12 (Appx II, Exh. O, at 84-90); Farah Dec. ¶ 21 (Appx II, Exh. P, at 91-97). The guards threaten them with being sent to the “hole,” or Segregated Housing Unit, unless they go to recreation. Arrak Dec. ¶ 12 (Appx II, Exh. O, at 84-90). Some detained individuals feel they need to go into disciplinary housing or remain isolated in their rooms to prevent the risk of infection, but are concerned their mental health conditions, including post-traumatic stress disorder and major depressive disorder, will worsen. Arrak Dec. ¶ 7 (Appx II, Exh. O, at 84-90); Hasan Dec. ¶ 9 (Appx II, Exh. R, at 106-12).
194. Meals in the BHU are served in the dayroom to all detained individuals at the same time, but there are only two tables and few chairs, and some have to sit on the floor to eat.
59

Case 1:20-cv-21553-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/13/2020 Page 64 of 111
Warsane Dec. ¶ 12 (Appx II, Exh. Q, at 98-105); Hasan Dec. ¶ 7 (Appx II, Exh. R, at 106-12); Farah Dec. ¶ 10 (Appx II, Exh. P, at 91-97). The tables and two phones in the dayroom that all detained individuals in BHU use are not being cleaned. Warsane Dec. ¶ 12 (Appx II, Exh. Q, at 98-105); Hasan Dec. ¶ 31 (Appx II, Exh. R, at 106-12); Arrak Dec. ¶ 10 (Appx II, Exh. O, at 8490). They only have toilet paper available to clean the tables in the common area, and one man reports using toilet paper to clean his room. See Warsane Dec. ¶ 23 (Appx II, Exh. Q, at 98-105); Farah Dec. ¶ 18 (Appx II, Exh. P, at 91-97). Krome staff bring food in a cart to the unit for all meals, but do not wear masks or gloves despite requests from the detained population to do so. Warsane Dec. ¶ 21 (Appx II, Exh. Q, at 98-105). The guards laugh at these requests. Warsane Dec. ¶ 22 (Appx II, Exh. Q, at 98-105).
195. Detained individuals are requesting face masks, but staff have not provided them and have said they are not necessary for detainees or are only for officers. See Warsane Dec. ¶ 25 (Appx II, Exh. Q, at 98-105); Hasan Dec. ¶ 19-20 (Appx II, Exh. R, at 106-12); Arrak Dec. ¶ 15, 21 (Appx II, Exh. O, at 84-90); Farah Dec. ¶ 11 (Appx II, Exh. P, at 91-97).
196. Soap has not been readily available, and some individuals have not been able to shower unless they had funds to purchase soap from commissary. Warsane Dec. ¶ 17 (Appx II, Exh. Q, at 98-105); Hasan Dec. ¶ 11, 13 (Appx II, Exh. R, at 106-12); Arrak Dec. ¶ 8, 23 (Appx II, Exh. O, at 84-90); Farah Dec. ¶ 20 (Appx II, Exh. P, at 91-97). Even when purchased, detained individuals are not being given these items for several days and are running out of essentials like soap and shampoo. Warsane Dec. ¶ 18 (Appx II, Exh. Q, at 98-105); Hasan Dec. ¶ 11 (Appx II, Exh. R, at 106-12); Farah Dec. ¶ 20 (Appx II, Exh. P, at 91-97). Hand sanitizer appears to be only available to nurses, who sometimes spray sanitizer on detained individuals’ hands
60

Case 1:20-cv-21553-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/13/2020 Page 65 of 111
when they are receiving medication. See Hasan Dec. ¶ 14 (Appx II, Exh. R, at 106-12); Arrak Dec. ¶ 25 (Appx II, Exh. O, at 84-90); Farah Dec. ¶ 9 (Appx II, Exh. P, at 91-97).
197. Individuals taking prescription medication see nurses twice a day, in the morning and evening. Warsane Dec. ¶ 20 (Appx II, Exh. Q, at 98-105). Nurses are not consistently wearing gloves or masks when dispensing medication or checking if the person has swallowed the medication. Warsane Dec. ¶ 20 (Appx II, Exh. Q, at 98-105). Guards pat down detained individuals several times a day and do shakedowns of bedrooms three times per day, but do not always wear gloves or masks. Warsane Dec. ¶ 29 (Appx II, Exh. Q, at 98-105); Hasan Dec. ¶ 23, 24 (Appx II, Exh. R, at 106-12); Arrak Dec. ¶ 18 (Appx II, Exh. O, at 84-90); Farah Dec. ¶ 12-14 (Appx II, Exh. P, at 91-97). Around April 8, five guards were sent home while others are working overtime. Warsane Dec. ¶ 33 (Appx II, Exh. Q, at 98-105); Hasan Dec. ¶ 21, 28 (Appx II, Exh. R, at 106-12); Farah Dec. ¶ 16 (Appx II, Exh. P, at 91-97).
198. The number of people in all of the general population units is high, and new detained individuals have continued to come in over the past few weeks. See Darwyn Dec. ¶ 6(j) (Appx II, Exh. E, at 30-34); Tolentino Dec. ¶ 6, 11 (Appx II, Exh. S, at 113-17); Tepetate-Martinez Dec. at ¶ 15 (Appx II, Exh. T, at 118-23); Gayle Dec. at ¶ 11 (Appx II, Exh. B, at 10-14 ); Arias-Martinez Dec. at ¶ 10 (Appx II, Exh. C, at 15-21); Khan Dec. at ¶ 8(k) (Appx II, Exh. L, at 68-74). Petitioner Aparicio has seen about 15 new detained individuals in his unit in the last two weeks. See Aparicio Dec. ¶ 7 (Appx II, Exh. F, at 35-39).
199. As recently as April 4, 2020, new detained individuals have been transferred to Krome and were not being tested to determine whether they have COVID-19. See Jalloh Dec. ¶ 13 (Appx II, Exh. D, at 22-29); Portuondo Dec. at ¶ 13 (Appx II, Exh. A, 1-9).
61

Case 1:20-cv-21553-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/13/2020 Page 66 of 111
200. At least two of the detained individuals recently transferred to Krome had fevers, one of whom was visibly shaking in the dining room. Both were eventually taken out of the general population. See Arias-Martinez Dec. at ¶ 10 (Appx II, Exh. C, at 15-21). One detained person who contracted a severe fever was removed from his room in the middle of the night by ICE agents, who were accompanied by police officers carrying guns with rubber bullets. See Cardenas Dec. at ¶ 8 (Appx II, Exh. N, 79-83). The officers would not explain to the other men in the room what was happening, and the next night a new man was brought to fill the bed of the sick man. Id. Since then, at least four other men in that sick man’s room have developed COVID-19 symptoms, and have not been able to see a doctor. Cardenas Dec. at ¶ ¶ 6, 8 (Appx II, Exh. N, 79-83). One of these men has asthma, putting him at severe risk of dying from COVID-19. See Cardenas Dec. at ¶ 5 (Appx II, Exh. N, 79-83).
201. One detainee tested positive for COVID-19, and the two officers who were watching him also tested positive. See Portuondo Dec. at ¶ 14 (Appx II, Exh. A, 1-9); Chavez Dec. at ¶ 13 (Appx II, Exh. G, at 40-46).
202. Approximately 60 Krome employees have been placed under quarantine, after a total of four staff tested positive for COVID-19. See Cardenas Dec. at ¶ 9 (Appx II, Exh. N, 7983). The facility is so understaffed that some employees are now working 12-hour shifts. Id. at ¶ 9 (Appx II, Exh. N, 79-83).
203. Detained individuals have been transported in and out of Krome to hospital and medical visits since the outbreak, potentially having contact with infected individuals. See Portuondo Dec. at ¶ 6 (Appx II, Exh. A, 1-9).
62

Case 1:20-cv-21553-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/13/2020 Page 67 of 111
204. The detained individuals are close together when they eat because the tables and chairs where they eat cannot be moved. See Portuondo Dec. at ¶ 16 (Appx II, Exh. A, 1-9); Abdul Jalloh Dec. ¶ 15 (Appx II, Exh. D, at 22-29); Tolentino Dec. ¶ 8 (Appx II, Exh. S, at 113-17); Alfaro Garcia Dec. ¶ 16 (Appx II, Exh. K, at 61-67); Tepetate-Martinez Dec. ¶ 7 (Appx II, Exh. T, at 118-23); Tolentino Dec. ¶ 5b (Appx II, Exh. S, at 113-17); Perez Limones Dec. ¶ 13 (Appx II, Exh. M, at 75-78); Chavez Dec. ¶ 14 (Appx II, Exh. G, at 40-46).
205. Detained individuals are not being provided with masks or gloves, even when they are in cohort quarantine. See Portuondo Dec. ¶ 25 (Appx II, Exh. A, 1-9); Khan Dec. ¶ 8(c) (Appx II, Exh. L, at 68-74); Escobar Dec. ¶ 8 (Appx II, Exh. H, at 47-51); Zamora Mendoza Dec. ¶ 11 (Appx II, Exh. I, at 52-54). Portuondo reported that there is one soap dispenser at the entrance to the toilet area in his pod, which was only installed 7 or 8 days ago. See Portuondo Dec. at ¶ 21 (Appx II, Exh. A, 1-9). They have a weekly allowance of soap and some use less than needed to make sure not to run out. See Abdul Jalloh Dec. ¶ 21 (Appx II, Exh. D, at 22-29). Because Krome does not provide enough personal hygiene products, detained individuals must buy them in the commissary. See Tolentino Dec. ¶ 10 (Appx II, Exh. S, at 113-17). But the commissary is now closed and people now have to submit a request to order items, which can take anywhere from two days to over a week to arrive. See Farah Dec. ¶ 20 (Appx II, Exh. P, at 9197).
206. There are no masks, gloves, or hand sanitizer available for purchase. See Portuondo Dec. ¶ 22 (Appx II, Exh. A, 1-9); Gayle Dec. ¶ 9 (Appx II, Exh. B, at 10-14); Arias-Martinez Dec. ¶ 13 (Appx II, Exh. C, at 15-21); Jalloh Dec. ¶ 22 (Appx II, Exh. D, at 22-29); Chavez Dec. ¶ 18 (Appx II, Exh. G, at 40-46).
63

Case 1:20-cv-21553-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/13/2020 Page 68 of 111
207. When detained individuals try to make their own masks, they are told they are not allowed to cover their faces. See Aparicio Dec. ¶ 7 (Appx II, Exh. F, at 35-39); Escobar Dec. ¶ 8 (Appx II, Exh. H, at 47-51).
208. There is no hand sanitizer available in the common area. See Portuondo Dec. at ¶ 20 (Appx II, Exh. A, 1-9); Alfaro Garcia Dec. at ¶ 11 (Appx II, Exh. K, at 61-67); Tepetate-Martinez Dec. at ¶ 8 (Appx II, Exh. T, at 118-23); Darwyn Dec. ¶ 5(d) (Appx II, Exh. E, at 30-34); Chavez Dec. at ¶ 16 (Appx II, Exh. G, at 40-46). Detained individuals have reported seeing the guards with hand sanitizer but detained individuals are not allowed to use it. See Portuondo Dec. at ¶ 20 (Appx II, Exh. A, 1-9); Chavez Dec. at ¶ 16 (Appx II, Exh. G, at 40-46).
209. There is hand sanitizer in the nurse’s area where detained men receive medication. See Abdul Jalloh Dec. ¶ 21 (Appx II, Exh. D, at 22-29). However, detained individuals are only allowed one squirt when receiving medication. See Farah Dec. ¶ 9 (Appx II, Exh. P, at 9197).
210. Until recently, Krome staff were not wearing masks or gloves. See Portuondo Dec. at ¶ 25 (Appx II, Exh. A, 1-9); Abdul Jalloh Dec. ¶ 25 (Appx II, Exh. D, at 22-29 ); Perez Limones Dec. at ¶ 11 (Appx II, Exh. M, at 75-78); Chavez Dec. at ¶ 21 (Appx II, Exh. G, at 4046). Some officers still fail to wear gloves or masks. See Warsane Dec. ¶ 21, 29 (Appx II, Exh. Q, at 98-105); Hasan Dec. ¶ 23, 24 (Appx II, Exh. R, at 106-12); Arrak Dec. ¶ 18; Farah Dec. ¶ 12-14 (Appx II, Exh. P, at 91-97); Portuondo Dec. at ¶ 26 (Appx II, Exh. A, 1-9); Chavez Dec. at ¶ 22 (Appx II, Exh. G, at 40-46). Guards are seen touching their faces and then things in the pods, such as people, food trays and other items in the living area, and they are not observed washing their hands often. See Abdul Jalloh Dec. ¶ 26-28 (Appx II, Exh. D, at 22-29); Alfaro
64

Case 1:20-cv-21553-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/13/2020 Page 69 of 111
Garcia Dec. at ¶¶ 10-11, 14 (Appx II, Exh. K, at 61-67); Tepetate-Martinez Dec. at ¶¶ 13-14 (Appx II, Exh. T, at 118-23); Darwyn Dec. ¶ 6(h)-(i) (Appx II, Exh. E, at 30-34); Portuondo Dec. at ¶ 27 (Appx II, Exh. A, 1-9); Chavez Dec. at ¶ 23 (Appx II, Exh. G, at 40-46).
211. Detained individuals have not seen efforts to clean or disinfect areas more frequently. Escobar Dec. ¶ 10 (Appx II, Exh. H, at 47-51). Detained individuals serve the food and clean the facility, but are not provided with masks when working these jobs. See Abdul Jalloh Dec. ¶ 16-18 (Appx II, Exh. D, at 22-29); Aparicio Dec. ¶ 7 (Appx II, Exh. F, at 35-39); Tepetate-Martinez Dec. at ¶ 10 (Appx II, Exh. T, at 118-23); Perez Limones Dec. at ¶ 14 (Appx II, Exh. M, at 75-78). Detained individuals prepare and touch the food, distribute the clothing, and they do not use gloves or masks or use other hygiene measures to help ensure that the virus does not spread. See Darwyn Dec. ¶ 6(a)-(d) (Appx II, Exh. E, at 30-34).
212. Detained individuals report that a nurse said masks were being reused because of supply shortages. See Portuondo Dec. at ¶ 25 (Appx II, Exh. A, 1-9); Chavez Dec. at ¶ 21 (Appx II, Exh. G, at 40-46).
213. Detained individuals have not been trained on how to limit the spread of COVID19. See Portuondo Dec. at ¶ 23 (Appx II, Exh. A, 1-9). See Abdul Jalloh Dec. ¶¶ 19, 23 (Appx II, Exh. D, at 22-29); Alfaro Garcia Dec. at ¶ 18 (Appx II, Exh. K, at 61-67); Arias-Martinez Dec. at ¶ 14 (Appx II, Exh. C, at 15-21); See Darwyn Dec. ¶ 8 (Appx II, Exh. E, at 30-34). They are only getting information from Krome staff when they or their families ask, but all they are told is that there are thousands of COVID-19 cases in the country. See Aparicio Dec. ¶ 9 (Appx II, Exh. F, at 35-39).
65

Case 1:20-cv-21553-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/13/2020 Page 70 of 111
214. As of April 7, 2020, detained individuals have had their TVs, phones, and tablets confiscated. See Portuondo Dec. at ¶ 19 (Appx II, Exh. A, 1-9). No unit within Krome is allowed to watch TV. See Portuondo Dec. at ¶ 19 (Appx II, Exh. A, 1-9); Alfaro Garcia Dec. at ¶ 7 (Appx II, Exh. K, at 61-67); See Darwyn Dec. ¶ 8 (Appx II, Exh. E, at 30-34).
215. A recent emergency that was announced over the speakers at Krome was due to COVID-19. See Abdul Jalloh Dec. ¶ 29 (Appx II, Exh. D, at 22-29).
216. On April 7, some detained individuals raised concerns about conditions and fears of COVID-19 and guards began beating them. Flores Ramos Dec. ¶ 20 (Appx II, Exh. U, at 12430). One person was kicked in the ribs although he was not among those making complaints. Flores Ramos Dec. ¶ 20 (Appx II, Exh. U, at 124-30). The guards are not allowing detained people to contact their attorneys, which that man believes is retaliation in response to these complaints. Flores Ramos Dec. ¶ 21 (Appx II, Exh. U, at 124-30).
217. Since the COVID-19 outbreak at Krome, there has been a decrease in medical staff. See Abdul Jalloh Dec. ¶ 35 (Appx II, Exh. D, at 22-29). There has been no increase in screenings. See Darwyn Dec. ¶ 10 (Appx II, Exh. E, at 30-34). Detained individuals who request evaluation and to see a doctor have had their requests denied. See Darwyn Dec. ¶ 7, 11 (Appx II, Exh. E, at 30-34).
218. When someone is sick with cold symptoms, they must wait five to eight days before they can see a doctor. See Aparicio Dec. ¶ 8 (Appx II, Exh. F, at 35-39); Gayle Dec. at ¶ 8 (Appx II, Exh. B, at 10-14); Perez Limones Dec. at ¶ 8 (Appx II, Exh. M, at 75-78). When other
66

Case 1:20-cv-21553-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/13/2020 Page 71 of 111
detained individuals are taken out of the pods for coughing or issues with breathing, the other detained individuals are not told whether they have been exposed to COVID-19. See Gayle Dec. at ¶ 10 (Appx II, Exh. B, at 10-14).
219. A detained man was sick with a cough and requested to see a doctor, but was told that he was not a priority. See Abdul Jalloh Dec. ¶ 14 (Appx II, Exh. D, at 22-29). He was not isolated from the rest of the pod. Id (Appx II, Exh. D, at 22-29). Detained individuals have symptoms, including fever, goosebumps, and cough, but the rest of the detained population is not being told what is wrong with them. See Alfaro Garcia Dec. at ¶ 12 (Appx II, Exh. K, at 61-67).
220. If detained individuals have severe symptoms, they are taken to another area and provided with medication for headaches, but then returned to the pod. See Aparicio Dec. ¶ 8 (Appx II, Exh. F, at 35-39). When one detainee developed a cough, a staff member took his temperature and gave him two pills, without explaining to him what was wrong with him. See Gayle Dec. at ¶ 8 (Appx II, Exh. B, at 10-14).
221. Detained individuals are not getting tested when they are sick, unless they are having difficulty breathing. See Aparicio Dec. ¶ 11 (Appx II, Exh. F, at 35-39).
222. The medically vulnerable, due to chronic illnesses, are not being separated from the rest of the population. See Abdul Jalloh Dec. ¶ 32 (Appx II, Exh. D, at 22-29); Arias-Martinez Dec. at ¶ 9 (Appx II, Exh. C, at 15-21); Khan Dec. at ¶¶ 7-8 (Appx II, Exh. L, at 68-74).
223. On Sunday, April 5, 2020, the Miami Herald reported that the Monroe County Jail ended its 23-year contract with the ICE Miami Field Office, and returned 48 detained individuals to the Krome “in the middle of the night Friday.” “Sources told the Herald that the frequent trips
67

Case 1:20-cv-21553-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/13/2020 Page 72 of 111
to the crowded facility in Miami had the sheriff ’s office uneasy over the possibility that the coronavirus could easily be transmitted.” (Appx I, Exh. Q, 336-41.)
224. On April 8, 2020, the Assistant Field Officer Liana J. Castano stated in a declaration to this court that Krome had 3 cases of laboratory confirmed positives for COVID-19 amongst staff and a detained individual, and that at least 238 detained individuals were exposed to a confirmed case of COVID-19. (Appx I, Exh. I, at 123-224 ¶ 12.) These 238 individuals who have been exposed to a person confirmed to have COVID-19 are being placed in “cohorts with restricted movement.” (Appx I, Exh. I, at 123 ¶ 10.)
225. The day before, investigating from the Miami Herald was released which suggests that the number of people with the virus is underreported and “ ‘not completely accurate as testing is not conducted on site and detained individuals are sent to an off-site hospital to be tested,’ ” according to a federal official interviewed by the Herald. (Appx I, Exh. D, at 41.)
226. The Miami Herald’s April 7, 2020, report also explained that “[f]or weeks — and as recently as Monday — U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement has repeatedly told the Herald that no detainees in their custody in Florida have tested positive for the virus. However, the agency got around having to disclose that any detainee was sick with COVID-19 because the detainee was technically no longer on the premises — but rather at a hospital, federal sources say.” (Appx I, Exh. D, at 40-41)
227. Also, on April 7, 2020, four members of Congress directed a letter to ICE’s Deputy Director Matthew T. Albence, “urg[ing] [him] to significantly limit the number of immigrants held in detention and immediately expand [his] agency’s use of alternatives to detention (ATD) for qualified individuals” so that “[a] mass tragedy at Krome and other ICE facilities in
68

Case 1:20-cv-21553-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/13/2020 Page 73 of 111
Florida, including Broward Transitional Center and Glades County Detention Center, can be avoided.” (Appx I, Exh. R, at 342-43.) These members of Congress expressed that they were “deeply disturbed by ICE’s continued activity to transfer and detain large groups of immigrants in the midst of a global pandemic, especially at a facility where detainees and employees have tested positive.” (Appx I, Exh. R, at 342)
228. These four members of Congress also stated that “[i]t is undisputed that jails, prisons, and detention centers are highly vulnerable to COVID-19" due to the fact that “[e]ffective social distancing is almost impossible and necessary disinfectant is rarely available to detainees,” and especially so given that the situation in “Krome is particularly alarming in this respect” in light of reported “overcrowded conditions even prior to the impact of COVID-19.” (Appx I, Exh. R, at 342.) They also added that “it appears that Krome is not at all prepared to mitigate exposure to COVID-19, or to adequately respond should an outbreak at the facility occur. These issues are only compounded by the fact that COVID-19 has now reached Krome.” (Appx I, Exh. R, at 342-43)
229. Staff at Krome arrive and leave on a shift basis, and there is limited ability to adequately screen incoming staff for new, asymptomatic infection. Staff generally live in the communities near these facilities—areas where there are confirmed cases of COVID-19.
230. The outbreak at Krome has affected the immigration court housed at the facility and run by the Executive Office for Immigration Review (“EOIR”). Krome Immigration Court is accessed through the same lobby as the detention center. Judges, court staff, and both government and defense attorneys have expressed concern about their safety and health.
69

Case 1:20-cv-21553-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/13/2020 Page 74 of 111
231. On March 22, 2020, the National Association of Immigration Judges (“NAIJ”), the ICE Professionals Union (“ICE Union”), and the American Immigration Lawyers Association (“AILA”), wrote a joint statement demanding that EOIR close all of the immigration courts nationwide, and stating, among other things, that:
The DOJ’s current response to the COVID-19 pandemic and its spread is disconnected from the needs and advice of community leaders and scientific experts. The Immigration Courts are especially vulnerable to the spread of the Coronavirus. Every link in the chain that brings individuals to the court, from the use of public transportation, to security lines, crowded elevators, hallways, the cramped cubicle spaces of court staff, inadequate waiting room facilities in the courthouses, and scant sanitizing resources at the courts, all place lives at risk. Individuals who in many instances have waited years for a hearing may also feel pressured to appear – even if they feel sick, for fear of being ordered deported. (Appx I, Exh. S, at 345-47, 346) 232. On March 26, 2020, the NAIJ, the ICE Union, AILA, and a multitude of other organizations wrote a letter directly to Attorney General Barr demanding the closure of all immigration courts nationwide, and stating that “detained courts must also be closed to in-person hearings in order to minimize the spread of the virus, slow the rate of new infections, and to avoid overwhelming local resources.” (Appx I, Exh. T, at 348-51) 233. On March 30, 2020, the NAIJ issued an additional statement. The statement begins by quoting a “current immigration judge who is a U.S. military veteran” stating: I don't say this lightly, but EOIR has demonstrated that they need to be gutted and rebuilt from the ashes. I've never witnessed an utter lack of concern for people like I have here. In my former life, we treated captured Taliban and ISIS with more humanity. Moreover, I've never seen worse leadership. A crisis usually brings good and bad to the light. We have nothing but darkness. (Appx I, Exh. U, at 352-56, 352)
70

Case 1:20-cv-21553-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/13/2020 Page 75 of 111
234. That same day, Monday, March 30, 2020, at 7:50 a.m., without explanation, EOIR suddenly announced that the Krome Immigration Court was closed for hearings for two days. (Appx I, Exh. V, at 357.)
235. To date, there is yet to be a public explanation for why the Krome hearings were cancelled so abruptly. There are reports that the judges and court staff at Krome feared exposure to the virus and that the abrupt closure occurred to permit cleaning of the court facilities.
236. The Krome Immigration Court remains closed at this time. Glades County Detention Center
237. Glades is a county jail in Moorehaven, Florida. It can house roughly 500 ICE detained men and women at a time. (Appx I, Exh. K, at 162.) Detained individuals in ICE custody are split amongst six housing units, or “pods,” four designated for the men and two for the women. (Appx I, Exh. K, at 162.) Depending on the facility’s capacity, pods may contain a mix of individuals in ICE custody, custody of the U.S. Marshals, or under Glades County custody. (Appx I, Exh. K, at 140.)
238. The cells where the detained individuals sleep are small, and there are six detained individuals in each cell, with three bunk beds that are placed close together. See Dairon Barredo Sanchez Dec. ¶ 8 (Appx II, Exh. V, at 131-38); Tahimi Perez ¶ 10 (Appx II, Exh. W, at 139-44); Franklin Ramon Gonzalez ¶ 7 (Appx II, Exh. X, at 145-50). The detained individuals are only able to maintain about one-meter separation in their cells when they sleep. See Gerardo Vargas Dec. ¶ 7 (Appx II, Exh. Y, at 151-56); Francisco Rivero Valeron Dec. ¶ 7 (Appx II, Exh. Z, at 157-62).
71

Case 1:20-cv-21553-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/13/2020 Page 76 of 111
239. Many detained individuals have experienced significant turnover of cellmates, having up to six or seven new cellmates since their detention in Glades. See Dairon Barredo Sanchez Dec. ¶ 6 (Appx II, Exh. V, at 131-38); Gerardo Vargas Dec. ¶ 6 (Appx II, Exh. Y, at 151-56); Tahimi Perez ¶ 9 (Appx II, Exh. W, at 139-44); Franklin Ramon Gonzalez ¶ 6 (Appx II, Exh. X, at 145-50).
240. There are approximately 95 detained individuals in a pod at a time. See Dairon Barredo Sanchez Dec. ¶ 17 (Appx II, Exh. V, at 131-38); Francisco Rivero Valeron Dec. ¶ 7 (Appx II, Exh. Z, at 157-62). The pods are so crowded, that social distancing at a safe six feet distance is impossible, especially with the constant influx of detained individuals. See Dairon Barredo Sanchez Dec. ¶ 12 (Appx II, Exh. V, at 131-38); Gerardo Vargas Dec. ¶ 6, 8 (Appx II, Exh. Y, at 151-56); Irvin Mendoza Silis Dec. ¶ 6 (Appx II, Exh. AA, at 163-67); Francisco Rivero Valeron Dec. ¶ 7 (Appx II, Exh. Z, at 157-62); Tahimi Perez ¶ 13 (Appx II, Exh. W, at 139-44); Franklin Ramon Gonzalez ¶ 11 (Appx II, Exh. X, at 145-50).
241. All detained individuals in a pod also share communal bathrooms and showers, which do not have six feet of distance between them, making it impossible to maintain a safe social distance even while using the restroom or bathing. See Dairon Barredo Sanchez Dec. ¶ 13 (Appx II, Exh. V, at 131-38); Gerardo Vargas Dec. ¶ 6 (Appx II, Exh. Y, at 151-56); Franklin Ramon Gonzalez ¶ 6 (Appx II, Exh. X, at 145-50).
242. Unlike BTC or Krome, there is no cafeteria. Detained individuals eat in the communal seating area in their pod, known as “satellite feeding.” (Appx I, Exh. K, at 162.) The tables used for eating and daily living usually seat four people, but due to overcrowding, they are now seating five to six people at a time. See Gerardo Vargas Dec. ¶ 7 (Appx II, Exh. Y, at 151-
72

Case 1:20-cv-21553-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/13/2020 Page 77 of 111
56). As a result, there is only about 40 to 50 centimeters of separation between detained individuals when they are eating at the tables. See Francisco Rivero Valeron Dec. ¶ 7 (Appx II, Exh. Z, at 157-62).
243. New detained individuals arrive at Glades every day, some already exhibiting flu like symptoms like coughing. See Roseline Ostine Dec. ¶ 9 (Appx II, Exh. BB, at 168-72). There is no indication that new detained individuals are tested for COVID-19 or routinely quarantined before being placed in the pod with the rest of the detained individuals. Id (Appx II, Exh. BB, at 168-72); Dairon Barredo Sanchez Dec. ¶ 9 (Appx II, Exh. V, at 131-38); Francisco Rivero Valeron Dec. ¶ 11 (Appx II, Exh. Z, at 157-62); Tahimi Perez Dec. ¶ 10 (Appx II, Exh. W, at 13944).
244. In all six pods, individuals share many common spaces and touch the same surfaces. All six units and the segregation unit share a common law library. In each pod, there are only four phones available per pod that everyone must share, and people must also share tablets. Similarly, all detained individuals in the segregation unit share the same two phones.
245. There are no sanitizing wipes or cleaning supplies available to wipe down the phones in between calls, therefore the detained individuals are forced to use just a wet paper towel in an attempt to clean the phones before and after use. See Francisco Rivero Valeron Dec. ¶ 9 (Appx II, Exh. Z, at 157-62).
246. Contractors and detained individuals have continuously reported unsanitary physical conditions, lack of medical care, and physical mistreatment. (Appx I, Exh. K, at 162.) Glades has failed to substantively remedy these poor conditions.
73

Case 1:20-cv-21553-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/13/2020 Page 78 of 111
247. Unsanitary bathrooms are a persistent problem. The jail forbids the use of bleach for cleaning the bathrooms. (Appx I, Exh. K, at 162.) Shampoo is typically used as a substitute for soap. (Appx I, Exh. K, at 162.) There is mold in the bathrooms. (Appx I, Exh. K, at 162.); (Appx I, Exh. W, at 367-68) (DHS Office of Inspector Gen. Report OIG-18-32, noting lack of cleanliness, limited hygienic supplies, and potentially unsafe food handling).
248. There have been reports of inedible food provided to detained individuals. (Appx I, Exh. K, at 163.) The “drinking water has a yellowish hue and an odd taste.” (Appx, Exh. K, at 163).
249. The spread of cough, flu, and other respiratory conditions in the dorms have been attributed to the unsanitary conditions. (Appx I, Exh. K, at 162.) Even before the COVID-19 pandemic, Glades failed to provide adequate medical care to detained women and men. (Appx I, Exh. E, at 58-60; 80-81.)72
250. Glades only has one doctor in the facility, who is only available four times a week. (Appx I, Exh. K, at 163.) Critical medical care is routinely delayed—sometimes for months—or denied outright. (Appx I, Exh. K, at 141-42; 163-64). When medical requests are finally addressed, individuals report not being properly treated or not treated at all. (Appx I, Exh. K, at 163.) Providing ibuprofen or Tylenol is commonly used as a blanket solution to any and all medical issues. (Appx I, Exh. K, at 163.) For individuals with chronic medical conditions, it can
72 See also Legal Aid Service of Broward County, Complaint and Request for Investigation Glades Detention Center in Moore Haven, Florida Physical Abuse, Inappropriate Use of Segregation, Denial of Medical and Mental Health Care and Lack of Attorney Access (January 8, 2018), https://media.law.miami.edu/clinics/pdf/2018/OIG-complaint-against-glades.pdf.
74

Case 1:20-cv-21553-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/13/2020 Page 79 of 111
take months of grievances and sick calls to receive diagnostic testing or to see a specialist offsite. (Appx I, Exh. K, at 142.)
251. Because Glades fails to meet detained individual’s medical needs under normal circumstances, the jail is ill-suited to provide adequate medical treatment amidst the COVID-19 pandemic. This failure is so severe that it cannot be remedied quickly to respond to COVID-19, especially in a time when healthcare resources are in high demand.
252. For years, detained women and men have reported “that officers routinely misuse pepper spray, use excessive force and racial slurs, and overuse isolation in a retaliatory manner.” (Appx I, Exh. K, at 164-65). One detained individual with respiratory problems reported being pepper sprayed in an isolation cell, which triggered an asthma attack. (Appx I, Exh. K, at 165.) The lack of ventilation and the unsanitary conditions further aggravated his respiratory difficulties. (Id.)
253. Detention center staff have failed to train detained individuals about hygiene measures designed to limit the spread of COVID-19. See Dairon Barredo Sanchez Dec. ¶ 30 (Appx II, Exh. V, at 131-38); Gerardo Vargas Dec. ¶ 12 (Appx II, Exh. Y, at 151-56); Francisco Rivero Valeron Dec. ¶ 13 (Appx II, Exh. Z, at 157-62); Franklin Ramon Gonzalez ¶ 15 (Appx II, Exh. X, at 145-50). The only information detained individuals receive about COVID-19 is from the television or posters on the wall. See Dairon Barredo Sanchez Dec. ¶ 30, 33 (Appx II, Exh. V, at 131-38).
254. Detained individuals are now being provided with half the amount of soap they are normally provided with, equaling one 4-ounce bottle per week, when they were previously provided with two bottles per week. See Roseline Ostine Dec. ¶ 9 (Appx II, Exh. BB, at 168-72);
75

Case 1:20-cv-21553-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/13/2020 Page 80 of 111
Francisco Rivero Valeron Dec. ¶ 8 (Appx II, Exh. Z, at 157-62); Conlin Dec. (Appx I, Exh. J, at 126-30) Detained individuals are forced to ration this small portion of soap, one bottle, to cover showering and hand washing for an entire week. Id; Franklin Ramon Gonzalez ¶ 13 (Appx II, Exh. X, at 145-50).
255. The facility is not providing hand sanitizer, and there is none available for purchase in commissary. See Roseline Ostine Dec. ¶ 9 (Appx II, Exh. BB, at 168-72); Francisco Rivero Valeron Dec. ¶ 7-9 (Appx II, Exh. Z, at 157-62); Tahimi Perez Dec. ¶ 14-15 (Appx II, Exh. W, at 139-44); Franklin Ramon Gonzalez Dec. ¶ 13 (Appx II, Exh. X, at 145-50).
256. Detained individuals are not provided with masks or gloves. See Roseline Ostine Dec. ¶ 11 (Appx II, Exh. BB, at 168-72); Tahimi Perez Dec. ¶¶ 8, 14 (Appx II, Exh. W, at 13944); Conlin Dec. ¶ 17 (Appx I, Exh. J, at 126-30). Even when detained individuals attempt to make their own masks out of their personal belongings, such as t-shirts, the guards tell them that they are not allowed to cover their faces with anything. See Dairon Barredo Sanchez Dec. ¶ 19 (Appx II, Exh. V, at 131-38); Franklin Ramon Gonzalez Dec. ¶ 14 (Appx II, Exh. X, at 145-50).
257. There are no gloves or masks available for purchase in commissary. See Dairon Barredo Sanchez Dec. ¶ 29 (Appx II, Exh. V, at 131-38); Gerardo Vargas Dec. ¶ 11 (Appx II, Exh. Y, at 151-56); Francisco Rivero Valeron Dec. ¶ 7, 9 (Appx II, Exh. Z, at 157-62); Franklin Ramon Gonzalez Dec. ¶ 14 (Appx II, Exh. X, at 145-50).
258. Although some Glades staff have recently started wearing masks, the majority of the Glades staff do not use masks or gloves. See Roseline Ostine Dec. ¶ 9 (Appx II, Exh. BB, at 168-72); Dairon Barredo Sanchez Dec. ¶ 25 (Appx II, Exh. V, at 131-38); Gerardo Vargas Dec. ¶
76

Case 1:20-cv-21553-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/13/2020 Page 81 of 111
14 (Appx II, Exh. Y, at 151-56); Francisco Rivero Valeron Dec. ¶ 10 (Appx II, Exh. Z, at 15762).
259. Although the staff are not using the proper protective gear, they still enter the living units, touch the detained individuals, their personal belongings, and the food trays. See Dairon Barredo Sanchez Dec. ¶ 25, 34 (Appx II, Exh. V, at 131-38); Gerardo Vargas Dec. ¶ 15 (Appx II, Exh. Y, at 151-56); Francisco Rivero Valeron Dec. ¶ 10 (Appx II, Exh. Z, at 157-62). The detained individuals have not witnessed staff washing their hands. See Dairon Barredo Sanchez Dec. ¶ 31 (Appx II, Exh. V, at 131-38); Francisco Rivero Valeron Dec. ¶ 10 (Appx II, Exh. Z, at 157-62).
260. Many staff at Glades live in the surrounding communities where there are confirmed cases of COVID-19. Staff’s failure to use proper protective gear makes it all the more likely that COVID-19 will be spread from the staff to detained individuals.
261. Detained individuals prepare meals for the entire detained population despite the lack of masks and gloves, and many of the detained individuals preparing the food have been exhibiting signs of sickness, such as coughing. See Dairon Barredo Sanchez Dec. ¶ 22 (Appx II, Exh. V, at 131-38); Francisco Rivero Valeron Dec. ¶ 9 (Appx II, Exh. Z, at 157-62). The detained individuals also clean the facility, and they do not wear gloves or masks while they clean. See Dairon Barredo Sanchez Dec. ¶ 23 (Appx II, Exh. V, at 131-38); Francisco Rivero Valeron Dec. ¶ 9 (Appx II, Exh. Z, at 157-62). The walls of the facility are full of mold, so it is not clear how often or well they are being cleaned. See Irvin Mendoza Silis Dec. ¶ 6 (Appx II, Exh. AA, at 163-67).
77

Case 1:20-cv-21553-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/13/2020 Page 82 of 111
262. Many detained individuals in the pods are exhibiting flu-like symptoms, including coughing and sneezing. See Dairon Barredo Sanchez Dec. ¶ 10 (Appx II, Exh. V, at 131-38); Francisco Rivero Valeron Dec. ¶ 13 (Appx II, Exh. Z, at 157-62); Tahimi Perez Dec. ¶ 11 (Appx II, Exh. W, at 139-44); Franklin Ramon Gonzalez Dec. ¶ 9 (Appx II, Exh. X, at 145-50). Some detained individuals are coughing up blood. See Dairon Barredo Sanchez Dec. ¶ 10 (Appx II, Exh. V, at 131-38).
263. Despite these flu-like symptoms, there have been no known COVID-19 tests done in the Glades facility. See Gerardo Vargas Dec. ¶¶ 16, 17 (Appx II, Exh. Y, at 151-56); Irvin Mendoza Silis Dec. ¶ 8 (Appx II, Exh. AA, at 163-67); Franklin Ramon Gonzalez Dec. ¶ 17 (Appx II, Exh. X, at 145-50).
264. This remains true even among the population of detained individuals with medical vulnerabilities, including those with hypertension, diastolic heart failure, COPD, obesity, asthma, diabetes, and HIV. See Gerardo Vargas Dec. ¶ 17 (Appx II, Exh. Y, at 151-56); Irvin Mendoza Silis Dec. ¶ 8 (Appx II, Exh. AA, at 163-67); See Francisco Rivero Valeron Dec. ¶ 13 (Appx II, Exh. Z, at 157-62); Tahimi Perez Dec. ¶ 17 (Appx II, Exh. W, at 139-44); Franklin Ramon Gonzalez Dec. ¶ 5 (Appx II, Exh. X, at 145-50).
265. The medically vulnerable are not being protected by being moved away from the general population or from those who are exhibiting flu-like symptoms. See Gerardo Vargas Dec. ¶ 10 (Appx II, Exh. Y, at 151-56); Tahimi Perez Dec. ¶ 18 (Appx II, Exh. W, at 139-44).
266. As of a couple days ago, 12 detained individuals were put into a “quarantine pod.” Franklin Ramon Gonzalez Dec. ¶ 12 (Appx II, Exh. X, at 145-50).
78

Case 1:20-cv-21553-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/13/2020 Page 83 of 111
267. Detained individuals are not able to see the medical staff in a timely manner, and when they are able to see the medical staff, their temperature is not being taken. See Dairon Barredo Sanchez Dec. ¶ 11 (Appx II, Exh. V, at 131-38).
268. One detained individual was advised by a nurse that he had the flu, but another nurse informed him that he did not. See Dairon Barredo Sanchez Dec. ¶ 28 (Appx II, Exh. V, at 131-38). Broward Transitional Center
269. BTC is an immigration detention center in Pompano Beach, Florida for “noncriminal and low security” detained individuals operated by a private contractor, the for-profit prison corporation The GEO Group, Inc. (“GEO”). (Appx I, Exh. K at 153.) GEO has its headquarters in Boca Raton, Florida and is ICE’s largest contractor, holding more than $400 million in contracts with ICE.73
270. Since it opened in 2002, “Broward has steadily grown in population capacity from 150 detained women to 700 detained women and men.” (Appx I, Exh. K at 153.). There are 595 beds for men, and 105 for women. GEO’s contract with ICE includes a 500-bed quota, meaning that ICE is contractually obligated to pay for 500 beds regardless if they are being used.74 (Appx I, Exh. K at 153.)
73 https://www.miaminewtimes.com/news/boca-ratons-geo-group-is-ices-top-contractor10504265.
74 Banking on Detention: Local Lockup Quota & the Immigrant Dragnet, Detention Watch Network & Center for Constitutional Rights (2015), https://www.detentionwatchnetwork.org/sites/default/files/reports/DWN%20CCR%20Banking%20on%20Detention%20Report.pdf.
79

Case 1:20-cv-21553-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/13/2020 Page 84 of 111
271. Each room in BTC has three sets of bunkbeds—housing up to six individuals per room that generally measures 10’ x 12’. All individuals in the room share a toilet, a shower and a sink. Moreover, all 700 individuals share common areas, such as the recreation area, phones, the law library, seating areas, and the cafeteria. The cafeteria holds 300 people per shift for three meals.
272. GEO’s operation of BTC has been dogged by complaints including denial of medical and mental health care, using detained individuals for unpaid or cheap labor, expired and rotten food, and abusive staff. The DHS Office of Inspector General has repeatedly concluded that ICE fails to hold detention facility contractors accountable for meeting performance standards required to ensure humane conditions. DHS Office of Inspector Gen. Report OIG-19-18 (Appx I, Exh. X, at 377-412); DHS Office of Inspector Gen. Report OIG-18-67 (Appx I, Exh. Y, at 41346).
273. Even before the COVID-19 pandemic, critical medical care at BTC has been routinely delayed—sometimes for months—or denied outright. (Appx I, Exh. K at 141-43, 153.) Contractors and detained individuals have continuously reported inadequate medical and mental health care. In March 2012, an inspection documented its failure to transfer detained individuals to medical and mental health providers in a timely manner.75 Eight years later, BTC has failed to remedy this issue. Detained individuals report having to submit multiple medical requests before being medical—typically, only to be set back to their dorm with aspirin. (Appx I, Exh. K at 153.)
75 Office of Detention Oversight Compliance Inspection Broward Transitional Center, U.S. Department of Homeland Securty (2012), https://www.ice.gov/doclib/foia/odo-compliance-inspections/2012browardtransitioncenter-pompanobeach-fl-feb28-mar1-2012.pdf.
80

Case 1:20-cv-21553-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/13/2020 Page 85 of 111
274. At BTC, individuals with chronic medical conditions reported tremendous difficulties receiving necessary accommodations for their health problems, such as dietary accommodations. (Appx I, Exh. K at 143.) One individual remembered a man with diabetes losing a finger as a result of the inadequate medical care at BTC. (Appx I, Exh. K at 143.)
275. During the summer of 2019, there was a mumps outbreak at BTC in which detained individuals were quarantined.76 A couple months after, an outbreak of an unknown stomach illness affected 16% of the facility’s population.77
276. Now, with the COVID-19 outbreak, BTC has placed some detained individuals in what it is calling quarantine. These detained individuals are not in an actual quarantine because they are grouped together. See Bibiano Soares Dec. at ¶ 13 (Appx II, Exh. CC, at 173-79); Betancourt Dec. at ¶ 9 (Appx II, Exh. DD, at 18-85); Rosas Cardenas Dec. at ¶ 9 (Appx II, Exh. EE, at 186-90); Sonay Funez Dec. at ¶ 17 (Appx II, Exh. FF, at 191-97).
277. This “quarantined” group nonetheless uses the general population’s communal space at BTC when the general population is not using this space. As a result, the quarantine group touches the telephones, tables, tablets, and chairs. See Bibiano Soares Dec. at ¶ 13 (Appx II, Exh. CC, at 173-79); Betancourt Dec. at ¶ 9 (Appx II, Exh. DD, at 18-85).
76 Letter to ICE and Wardens from AI Justice, SPLC, AAAJ, and project South (Mar. 13, 2020), https://www.splcenter.org/sites/default/files/ltr_to_ice_and_wardens_re_covid-19__2020.03_-_final.pdf
77 Austen Erblat, Stomach bug hits 115 detainees at immigration center, South Florida Sun Sentinel (Nov. 5, 2019), https://www.sun-sentinel.com/local/broward/pompano-beach/fl-nepompano-beach-flu-outbreak-immigration-detention-center-20191105xopjvimk4fgebbzcts7ausbdwu-story.html.
81

Case 1:20-cv-21553-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/13/2020 Page 86 of 111
278. Detained men at BTC are sleeping in cells with five to six individuals in bunkbeds, which are not six feet apart. See Valera Ramirez Dec. at ¶ 6 (Appx II, Exh. GG, at 198203); Sosa Fletes Dec. at ¶ 5 (Appx II, Exh. HH, at 204-08); Sontay Funez Dec. at ¶ 9 (Appx II, Exh. FF, at 191-97); Rosas Cardenas Dec. at ¶ 6 (Appx II, Exh. EE, at 186-90); Betancourt Dec. at ¶ 5 (Appx II, Exh. DD, at 18-85); Ferreira Borges Dec. at ¶ 6 (Appx II, Exh. II, 209-14). This sleeping arrangement makes it impossible to remain six feet apart and practice social distancing. See Sosa Fletes Dec. at ¶ 5 (Appx II, Exh. HH, at 204-08); Bibiano Soares Dec. at ¶ 7 (Appx II, Exh. CC, at 173-79); Rosas Cardenas Dec. at ¶ 6 (Appx II, Exh. EE, at 186-90); Betancourt Dec. at ¶ 5 (Appx II, Exh. DD, at 18-85); Ferreira Borges Dec. at ¶ 6 (Appx II, Exh. II, 209-14).
279. The detained individuals are close to each together when they eat because the chairs are attached to the floor, they have to sit across from each other on the table, and there is not enough room to remain six feet apart. See Valera Ramirez Dec. at ¶ 6 (Appx II, Exh. GG, at 198-203); Sosa Fletes Dec. at ¶ 13 (Appx II, Exh. HH, at 204-08); Ferreira Borges Dec. at ¶ 7 (Appx II, Exh. II, 209-14); Rosas Cardenas Dec. at ¶ 6 (Appx II, Exh. EE, at 186-90); Rodas Pedro Dec. at ¶ 13 (Appx II, Exh. JJ, at 215-19). Detained individuals wait in line very close to each other while waiting to enter the dining hall. See Valera Ramirez Dec. at ¶ 6 (Appx II, Exh. GG, at 198-203); Betancourt Dec. at ¶ 5 (Appx II, Exh. DD, at 18-85).
280. Some detained individuals are experiencing flu like symptoms, including coughing, congestion and difficulty breathing. See Bibiano Soares Dec. at ¶ 5 (Appx II, Exh. CC, at 173-79); Sontay Funez Dec. at ¶ 15 (Appx II, Exh. FF, at 191-97); Valera Ramirez Dec. at ¶ 10 (Appx II, Exh. GG, at 198-203).
82

Case 1:20-cv-21553-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/13/2020 Page 87 of 111
281. Despite having symptoms, detained individuals have difficulty being able to see the medical staff in a timely manner. See Valera Ramirez Dec. at ¶ 10 (Appx II, Exh. GG, at 198203). One detainee with an unbearable cough submitted a written request, went twice to the medical office, and then complained to a guard, before he was allowed to see a doctor. See Valera Ramirez Dec. at ¶ 11 (Appx II, Exh. GG, at 198-203).
282. There has been no known test of COVID-19 done in the BTC facilities. See Sosa Fletes Dec. at ¶ 11 (Appx II, Exh. HH, at 204-08); Sonay Funez Dec. at ¶ 10 (Appx II, Exh. FF, at 191-97).
283. A recently transferred detained person reported having entered BTC with a bad cold and cough, but was never tested for COVID-19 or isolated from the general population. See Valera Ramirez Dec. at ¶ 10 (Appx II, Exh. GG, at 198-203); Soares Fletes Dec. at ¶ 9 (Appx II, Exh. HH, at 204-08); Ferreira Borges Dec. at ¶ 14 (Appx II, Exh. II, 209-14).
284. Detained individuals have trouble accessing medical attention, including for serious chronic conditions such as asthma. See Borges Dec. at ¶ 5 (Appx II, Exh. II, 209-14); Rodas Pedro Dec. at ¶ 5 (Appx II, Exh. JJ, at 215-19). Medical staff have become so overwhelmed with the number of sick men detained in the facility that one doctor gave an individual his entire bottle of blood pressure medicine to take on his own, since she no longer had time to dispense his pill regularly. See Valera Ramirez Dec. at ¶ 14 (Appx II, Exh. GG, at 198-203).
285. At least 40 men have been brought into BTC in the past few weeks. See Borges Dec. at ¶ 14 (Appx II, Exh. II, 209-14). New detained people have been placed immediately into shared rooms without being isolated first. See Borges Dec. at ¶14 (Appx II, Exh. II, 209-14); Rosas Cardenas Dec. at ¶12 (Appx II, Exh. EE, at 186-90). One group of new arrivals came
83

Case 1:20-cv-21553-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/13/2020 Page 88 of 111
about one week ago from Krome, which already had confirmed COVID-19 cases, and they were placed with the general population of BTC. See Betancourt Dec. at ¶13 (Appx II, Exh. DD, at 1885). Individuals detained at BTC were told the infected person at Krome was sent home. See Rodas Pedro Dec. at ¶ 7 (Appx II, Exh. JJ, at 215-19).
286. There are no precautions taken to protect those who are medically vulnerable to COVID-19. See Bibiano Soares Dec. at ¶ 18 (Appx II, Exh. CC, at 173-79); Betancourt Dec. at ¶ 11 (Appx II, Exh. DD, at 18-85); Valera Ramirez Dec. at ¶ 15 (Appx II, Exh. GG, at 198-203).
287. Detained individuals prepare the food and clean at BTC. One detained person who previously prepared the food at BTC reported having flu like symptoms. See Bibiano Soares Dec. at ¶ 5 (Appx II, Exh. CC, at 173-79). Detained individuals who work in the kitchen do not always wear masks when preparing the food and are not taught COVID-19 hygiene measures. Id at ¶ 9 (Appx II, Exh. CC, at 173-79); Rodas Pedro Dec. at ¶ 14 (Appx II, Exh. JJ, at 215-19).
288. Detained individuals have not observed greater efforts to clean in response to COVID-19. Rodas Pedro Dec. at ¶ 15 (Appx II, Exh. JJ, at 215-19). Most detained individuals are not provided with masks or gloves when they clean common areas. See Valera Ramirez Dec. at ¶ 8 (Appx II, Exh. GG, at 198-203); Sosa Fletes Dec. at ¶ 7 (Appx II, Exh. HH, at 204-08). When asked to clean their cells, only one pair of gloves is provided. See Sonay Funez Dec. at ¶ 10 (Appx II, Exh. FF, at 191-97). When masks and gloves are available, they are only for cleaning, otherwise there is no access to gloves and masks. See Betancourt Dec. at ¶ 6 (Appx II, Exh. DD, at 18-85).
289. BTC staff not using protective gear enter living facilities and use their bare hands to touch detained individuals and their personal belongings. See Bibiano Soares Dec. at ¶ 15
84

Case 1:20-cv-21553-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/13/2020 Page 89 of 111
(Appx II, Exh. CC, at 173-79); Betancourt Dec. at ¶ 6 (Appx II, Exh. DD, at 18-85); Ferreira Borges Dec. at ¶ 13 (Appx II, Exh. II, 209-14), Valera Ramirez Dec. at ¶ 9 (Appx II, Exh. GG, at 198-203); Sosa Fletez Dec. at ¶ 8 (Appx II, Exh. HH, at 204-08); Sonay Funez Dec. at ¶ 17 (Appx II, Exh. FF, at 191-97). Borges Dec. at ¶13 (Appx II, Exh. II, 209-14). Recently staff have used their bare hands to conduct pat downs, to give men high fives, and to touch their phones, tables, and exercise equipment. See Valera Ramirez Dec. at ¶9 (Appx II, Exh. GG, at 198-203); Borges Dec. at ¶13 (Appx II, Exh. II, 209-14). The detained individuals have not seen staff washing their hands. See Bibiano Soares Dec. at ¶ 15 (Appx II, Exh. CC, at 173-79); Sosa Fletes Dec. at ¶ 8 (Appx II, Exh. HH, at 204-08).
290. Only some of the BTC staff have begun to use mask and gloves recently. See Bibiano Soares Dec. at ¶ 12 (Appx II, Exh. CC, at 173-79); Betancourt Dec. at ¶ 6 (Appx II, Exh. DD, at 18-85); Ferreira Borges Dec. at ¶ 13 (Appx II, Exh. II, 209-14), Valera Ramirez Dec. at ¶ 9 (Appx II, Exh. GG, at 198-203); Rosas Cardinas Dec. at ¶ 7 (Appx II, Exh. EE, at 186-90), Sonay Funez Dec. at ¶ 17 (Appx II, Exh. FF, at 191-97). Guards wear gloves when searching detainees, but do not always use them otherwise. See Rodas Pedro Dec. at ¶ 9 (Appx II, Exh. JJ, at 215-19).
291. Detained individuals receive only a small allocation of soap each week, which often runs out. See Sosa Fletes Dec. at ¶ 6 (Appx II, Exh. HH, at 204-08); Sonay Funez Dec. at ¶ 11 (Appx II, Exh. FF, at 191-97); Valera Ramirez Dec. at ¶ 7 (Appx II, Exh. GG, at 198-203); Betancourt Dec. at ¶ 5 (Appx II, Exh. DD, at 18-85); Bibiano Soares Dec. at ¶ 10 (Appx II, Exh. CC, at 173-79). This small amount is supposed to last them for showers and hand washing, however detained individuals reported it is not enough. See Bibiano Soares Dec. at ¶ 10 (Appx II,
85

Case 1:20-cv-21553-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/13/2020 Page 90 of 111
Exh. CC, at 173-79); Betancourt Dec. at ¶ 5 (Appx II, Exh. DD, at 18-85); Ferreira Borges Dec. at ¶ 9 (Appx II, Exh. II, 209-14); Sosa Fletes Dec. at ¶ 6 (Appx II, Exh. HH, at 204-08). They have not been given hand sanitizer. See Rodas Pedro Dec. at ¶ 8 (Appx II, Exh. JJ, at 215-19).
292. Detained individuals have not been given any formal education about hygiene measures to prevent the spread of COVID-19. See Bibiano Soares Dec. at ¶ 19 (Appx II, Exh. CC, at 173-79); Betancourt Dec. at ¶ 8 (Appx II, Exh. DD, at 18-85); Ferreira Borges Dec. at ¶ 16 (Appx II, Exh. II, 209-14), Valera Ramirez Dec. at ¶ 12 (Appx II, Exh. GG, at 198-203); Rosas Cardenas Dec. at ¶ 8 (Appx II, Exh. EE, at 186-90); Sosa Fletes Dec. at ¶ 8 (Appx II, Exh. HH, at 204-08); Sonay Funez Dec. at ¶ 17 (Appx II, Exh. FF, at 191-97); Rodas Pedro Dec. at ¶ 10 (Appx II, Exh. JJ, at 215-19). The only information they have received is from watching TV and posters on the wall. See Valera Ramirez Dec. at ¶ 12 (Appx II, Exh. GG, at 198-203); Rosas Cardenas Dec. at ¶ 8 (Appx II, Exh. EE, at 186-90).
293. Detained individuals have no access to masks or gloves, even from the commissary. Borges Dec. at ¶ 12 (Appx II, Exh. II, 209-14); Betancourt Dec. at ¶10 (Appx II, Exh. DD, at 18-85).
294. BTC staff rotate in and out of BTC on a regular basis. Staff generally live in the communities near BTC—areas where there many confirmed cases of COVID-19.
295. BTC has a history of outbreaks of contagious illnesses. In November of 2019, there was a stomach flu outbreak at BTC during which 115 detained persons became ill.78
78 https://www.sun-sentinel.com/local/broward/pompano-beach/fl-ne-pompano-beach-fluoutbreak-immigration-detention-center-20191105-xopjvimk4fgebbzcts7ausbdwu-story.html
86

Case 1:20-cv-21553-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/13/2020 Page 91 of 111
296. On March 17, 2020, detained persons at BTC were subjected to a 5-hour water stoppage, during which they had no access to water to wash their hands, bathe, or use the toilet.79 ICE’s Alternatives to Detention Program
297. For over 15 years, DHS/ICE has sought and obtained congressional funding for its Alternatives to Detention (“ATD”) program, which uses supervised release, case management, and monitoring of individuals instead of detention.80 ICE has repeatedly told Congress that the ATD program increases ICE’s operational effectiveness and individual compliance with release conditions.
79 https://www.wlrn.org/post/coronavirus-live-updates-two-broward-election-poll-workerstest-postive-covid-19#stream/0
80 ICE’s current ATD program is called Intensive Supervision Appearance Program III (ISAP III). The program features different levels of case management including in-person or telephonic meetings, unannounced home visits, scheduled office visits, and court and meeting alerts. Some are also enrolled in technology-based monitoring including telephonic monitoring, GPS monitoring via ankle bracelet, and smart phone application monitoring called SmartLink that uses facial recognition and location monitoring via GPS. The private contractor that operates the program for ICE is BI, Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of The GEO Group, Inc. See CRS Report R45804, Immigration: Alternatives to Detention (ATD) Programs, (Jul. 8, 2019). On March 23, 2020, DHS awarded BI, Inc. a 5-year $2.2 billion contract for continued ISAP support. https://beta.sam.gov/opp/2479131ff88f405999e126b52ff105f5/view
87

Case 1:20-cv-21553-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/13/2020 Page 92 of 111
298. The DHS FY2021 Congressional Budget Justification for ICE states that it costs $125.06 per day to jail an adult immigration in ICE custody. The average cost per ATD participant is $4.43 per day. The DHS FY2021 funding request seeks to support 120,000 daily participants in ATD.81
299. A 2014 GAO Report found that 95% of those on full-service ATD (those that include case management) appear for their final hearings.82 According to 2017 contract data, supervision coupled with some case management results in a more than 99% appearance rate for all immigration court hearings, and a more than 91% appearance rate for final hearings.83
300. As of April 4, 2020, ICE has 89,851 individuals enrolled in ATD, including 5,057 in the Miami area.84
81 DHS/ICE FY2021 Congressional Budget Justification, at Operations & Support 132, 171, 173, https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/u.s._immigration_and_customs_enforcement.pdf. Due to court backlogs and delays for those who are non-detained, ATD participants are enrolled for a longer period of time than the period of time that individuals remain in detention. However, even considering the average length of stay in detention and the average length of time in ATD, taxpayers are paying an average of $4,000 more per individual detained than those released on ATD.
82 GAO-15-26, Alternatives to Detention, at 30 (Nov. 2014), available at https://www.gao.gov/assets/670/666911.pdf.
83 The Real Alternatives to Detention (June 2019), available at https://www.womensrefugeecommission.org/images/zdocs/The-Real-Alternatives-to-Detention-June-2019-FINAL-v-2.pdf.
84 ICE website, Detention Management, https://www.ice.gov/detention-management#tab2.
88

Case 1:20-cv-21553-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/13/2020 Page 93 of 111
LEGAL FRAMEWORK
301. The Due Process Clause provides that no person shall “be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” U.S. Const. amend. V. Its protections extend to every person within the nation’s borders regardless of immigration status. Mathews v. Diaz, 426 U.S. 67, 77, (1976) (“Even one whose presence in this country is unlawful, involuntary, or transitory is entitled to that constitutional protection.”).
A. Due Process Right to Reasonably Safe Non-Punitive Civil Detention 302. When the government takes a person into custody and detains him against the
person’s will, the Constitution imposes upon the government a duty to assume responsibility for that detainee’s safety and general wellbeing. See Helling v. McKinney, 509 U.S. 25, 32 (1993). Under the Eighth Amendment, the Government must provide criminal detainees with basic human needs, including reasonable safety. Id.
303. The government violates the Eighth Amendment if it confines a criminal detainee in unsafe conditions. Id. at 33.
304. When the government detains a person for the violation of an immigration law, the person is a civil detainee, even if he has a prior criminal conviction. See Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 690 (2001).
305. As civil detainees, Petitioners are entitled to more considerate treatment than criminal detainees, whose conditions of confinement are designed to punish. See Marsh v. Fla. Dep’t of Corr., 330 F. App’x 179, 182 (11th Cir. 2009) (quoting Youngberg v. Romeo, 457 U.S. 307, 322 (1982)).
89

Case 1:20-cv-21553-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/13/2020 Page 94 of 111
306. The Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause prohibits punishment of people in civil custody. Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 535 n.16 (1979); Magluta v. Samples, 375 F.3d 1269, 1273 (11th Cir. 2004); Hamm v. Dekalb Cty., 774 F.2d 1567, 1572 (11th Cir. 1985) (citing Ingraham v. Wright, 430 U.S. 651, 671 n. 40 (1977)).
307. To establish that a particular condition or restriction of detention constitutes impermissible punishment, a petitioner must show either (1) an expressed intent to punish; or (2) lack of a reasonable relationship to a legitimate governmental purpose, from which an intent to punish may be inferred. See Wolfish, 441 U.S. at 538. Absent an explicit intention to punish, a court must apply a two-part test: “First, a court must ask whether any ‘legitimate goal’ was served by the prison conditions. Second, it must ask whether the conditions are ‘reasonably related’ to that goal.” Jacoby v. Baldwin Cty., 835 F.3d 1338, 1345 (11th Cir. 2016). “[I]f conditions are so extreme that less harsh alternatives are easily available, those conditions constitute ‘punishment.’” Telfair v. Gilberg, 868 F.Supp. 1396, 1412 (S.D. Ga. 1994) (citing Wolfish, 441 U.S. at 538-39 n.20).
308. “[W]hen the State takes a person into its custody and holds him there against his will, the Constitution imposes upon it a corresponding duty to assume some responsibility for his safety and general well-being.” DeShaney v. Winnebago Cty. Dep’t. of Soc. Servs., 489 U.S. 189, 199-200 (1989). The government must provide detained individuals with basic necessities, such as adequate medical care, food, clothing, and shelter; the failure to provide these necessities violates due process. Hamm, 774 F.2d at 1573; Cook ex rel. Estate of Tessier v. Sheriff of Monroe Cty., 402 F.3d 1092, 1115 (11th Cir. 2005).
90

Case 1:20-cv-21553-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/13/2020 Page 95 of 111
309. At a minimum, the Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause prohibits Respondents’ deliberate indifference to a substantial risk of serious harm that would rise to the level of an Eighth Amendment violation in the post-conviction criminal context. Revere v. Mass. Gen. Hosp., 463 U.S. 239, 244 (1983) (“[T]he due process rights of a [detainee] are at least as great as the Eighth Amendment protections available to a convicted prisoner.”); see also Hale v. Tallapoosa Cty., 50 F. 3d 1579, 1582 n.4 (11th Cir. 1995).
310. To demonstrate that Respondents are acting with deliberate indifference, Petitioners must show exposure to a substantial risk of serious harm of which Respondents are aware and have disregarded. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834, 837-38 (1994); Marbury v. Warden, 936 F.3d 1227, 1233 (11th Cir. 2019); Hale, 50 F.3d at 1582.
311. The government violates the Eighth Amendment when it “ignore[s] a condition of confinement that is sure or very likely to cause serious illness and needless suffering the next week or month or year,” including “exposure of inmates to a serious, communicable disease,” even when “the complaining inmate shows no serious current symptoms.” Helling, 509 U.S. at 33; see also id. at 34 (citing with approval Gates v. Collier, 501 F.2d 1291, 1300 (5th Cir. 1974), which held that prisoners were entitled to relief under the Eighth Amendment when they showed, inter alia, the mingling of “inmates with serious contagious diseases” with other prison inmates).
312. Thus, the harm that Petitioners fear—i.e., that their confinement will result in a COVID-19 infection that will seriously injure and possibly kill them—need not become a reality to establish a violation of their constitutional rights. Courts do not require a plaintiff to “await a
91

Case 1:20-cv-21553-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/13/2020 Page 96 of 111
tragic event” before seeking relief from a condition of confinement that unconstitutionally endangers them. See Helling, 509 U.S. at 33 (holding prisoner’s Eight Amendment claim could be based upon possible future harm to health, as well as present harm).
313. “Nor does it matter that some inmates may not be affected by the condition, and that the harm is thus, in a sense, only potential harm. The Court has found an Eighth Amendment violation ‘even though it was not alleged that the likely harm would occur immediately and even though the possible infection might not affect all of those exposed.’” Tittle v. Jefferson Cty. Comm’n, 10 F.3d 1535, 1543 (11th Cir. 1994) (quoting Helling, 509 U.S. at 33).
B. The Accardi Doctrine 314. When the government has promulgated “[r]egulations with the force and effect of
law,” those regulations “supplement the bare bones” of federal statutes. United States ex rel. Accardi v. Shaughnessy, 347 U.S. 260, 266, 268 (1954) (reversing in immigration case after review of warrant for deportation). Agencies must follow their own “existing valid regulations,” even where government officers have broad discretion, such as in the area of immigration. Id. at 268; see also Morton v. Ruiz, 415 U.S. 199, 235 (1974) (“[I]t is incumbent upon agencies to follow their own procedures . . . even where [they] are possibly more rigorous than otherwise would be required.”); Battle v. FAA, 393 F.3d 1330, 1336 (D.C. Cir. 2005) (“Accardi has come to stand for the proposition that agencies may not violate their own rules and regulations to the prejudice of others.”). Breaches of Accardi’s rule constitute violations of both the Administrative Procedures Act (“APA”) and the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause.
92

Case 1:20-cv-21553-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/13/2020 Page 97 of 111
315. While violations of “internal agency procedures” do not always require a remedy, Accardi’s rule applies with full force when “the rights or interests of the objecting party” are “affected.” Monitlla v. INS, 926 F.2d 162, 167 (2d. Cir. 1991) (citing cases) (“Accardi doctrine is premised on fundamental notions of fair play underlying the concept of due process”); see also Wilson v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 378 F.3d 541, 545-46 (6th Cir. 2004) (noting that an Accardi violation may be a due process violation, and the government’s action may be set aside pursuant to the APA); Sameena, Inc. v. U.S. Air Force, 147 F.3d 1148, 1153 (9th Cir. 1998) (“An agency’s failure to follow its own regulations . . . may result in a violation of an individual’s constitutional right to due process.”).
C. State Created Danger 316. The Due Process Clause “imposes a duty on state actors to protect or care for citi-
zens in when the state affirmatively places a particular individual in a position of danger the individual would not otherwise have faced.” Gregory v. City of Rogers, Ark, 974 F.2d 1006, 1010 (8th Cir. 1992) (en banc).
317. The government violates an individual’s right to due process when it (1) “affirmatively place[s] [the] individual in danger,” (2) by “acting with ‘deliberate indifference to [a] known or obvious danger.’” Kennedy v. City of Ridgefield, 439 F.3d 1055, 1062 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Munger v. City of Glasgow, 227 F.3d 1082, 1086 (9th Cir. 2000); L.W. v. Grubbs, 92 F.3d 894, 900 (9th Cir. 1996)); Jones v. Phyfer, 761 F.2d 642 (11th Cir. 1985), reh'g denied, 768 F.2d 1353 (11th Cir. 1985) (a constitutional right to protection by the state exists when there is a showing that the victim faces a special danger distinguishable from that of the public at large).
93

Case 1:20-cv-21553-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/13/2020 Page 98 of 111
318. “A duty of protection arises where the state has a custodial relationship with the individual, arising from such circumstances as incarceration in prison or involuntary commitment in a mental institution.” Davis v. Carter, 555 F.3d 979, 982 n.2 (11th Cir. 2009). The only relationships that automatically give rise to a governmental duty to protect individuals from harm under the substantive due process clause are custodial relationships through which the government deprives individuals of their liberty and thus of their ability to take care of themselves. See White v. Lemacks, 183 F.3d 1253, 1257 (11th Cir. 1999).
319. The government acts with deliberate indifference to a known or obvious danger when it recognizes an unreasonable risk and actually knowingly exposes the petitioner. An unreasonable risk includes future harm caused by conditions of confinement. See Helling v. McKinney, 509 U.S. 25, 33 (1993).
CAUSES OF ACTION
COUNT ONE - ACCARDI DOCTRINE (FIFTH AMENDMENT/APA) – VIOLATION OF DETENTION STANDARDS
320. Petitioners repeat and incorporate by reference each and every allegation contained in the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.
321. Under the Accardi doctrine, due process and the basic principle of administrative law dictate that rules promulgated by a federal agency regulating the rights and interests of others are controlling upon the agency. That doctrine is premised on the fundamental notion of fair play underlying the concept of due process.
322. The Accardi doctrine applies with particular force when “the rights of individuals are affected.” Morton, 415 U.S. at 235.
94

Case 1:20-cv-21553-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/13/2020 Page 99 of 111
323. Krome, BTC and Glades are all subject to National Detention Standards that are issued by ICE, which set forth the medical care that must be provided to individuals in immigration detention. Both Krome and BTC are subject to ICE’s 2011 Performance-Based National Detention Standards (“PBNDS”). See (Appx I, Exh. N, at 253.)85 Glades is subject to ICE’s National Detention Standards (”NDS”). (Appx. I, Exh. K, at 152, 156.) The current governing version of the NDS is the 2019 National Detention Standards for Non-Dedicated Facilities.86
324. Section 4.3(II)(10) of the PBNDS requires that “Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) guidelines for the prevention and control of infectious and communicable diseases shall be followed.” (Appx, Exh. N, at 253.) The PBNDS also provides that “[f]acilities shall comply with current and future plans implemented by federal, state or local authorities addressing specific public health issues including communicable disease reporting requirements.” (Appx, Exh. N, at 256-57.) Similarly, section 1.1(I) of the NDS, covered “facilit[ies] will operate in accordance with all applicable regulations and codes, such as those of . . . the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).” (Appx I, Exh. O, at 304).87
325. Respondents have failed to follow their duty to comply with the PBNDS and NDS, which in turn require compliance with CDC guidelines and federal, state and local laws. Respondents have neither reduced the population of Krome, Glades, and BTC. Nor have they done anything to ensure social distancing and proper hygiene.
85 Full copy available at: https://www.ice.gov/doclib/detention-standards/2011/pbnds2011r2016.pdf].
86 Supersession noted at: https://www.ice.gov/detention-standards/2000. 87 Full copy available at: https://www.ice.gov/doclib/detention-standards/2019/nds2019.pdf.
95

Case 1:20-cv-21553-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/13/2020 Page 100 of 111
326. Respondents have failed to comply with the CDC guidelines. Respondents have not “[e]nsure[d] that sufficient stocks of hygiene supplies, cleaning supplies, PPE, and medical supplies . . . are on hand.” Compare CDC Guidance at 7 (Appx I, Exh. F, at 54); with Declarations of Individuals Detained at all three facilities: Krome (Warsane Dec., Hasan Dec., Farah Dec., Arrak Dec.); Glades (Dairon Barredo Sanchez Dec., Tahimi Perez Dec., Franklin Ramon Gonzalez Dec., Gerardo Vargas Dec., and Francisco Rivero Valeron Dec.); and BTC (Valera Ramirez Dec., Sosa Fletes Dec., Sontay Funez Dec., Rosas Cardenas Dec., Betancourt Dec. Ferreira Borges Dec., and Bibiano Soares Dec) (Appx II).
327. Respondents have not implemented the recommended cleaning and disinfecting practices. Compare CDC Guidance at 9 (Appx I, Exh. F, at 56); with Declarations of Individuals Detained at all three facilities: Krome (Warsane Dec., Hasan Dec., Farah Dec., Arrak Dec.); Glades (Dairon Barredo Sanchez Dec., Tahimi Perez Dec., Franklin Ramon Gonzalez Dec., Gerardo Vargas Dec., and Francisco Rivero Valeron Dec.); and BTC (Valera Ramirez Dec., Sosa Fletes Dec., Sontay Funez Dec., Rosas Cardenas Dec., Betancourt Dec. Ferreira Borges Dec., and Bibiano Soares Dec) (Appx II).
328. Respondents have not implemented the recommended hygiene practices. Compare CDC Guidance at 10 (Appx I, Exh. F, at 57); with Declarations of Individuals Detained at all three facilities: Krome (Warsane Dec., Hasan Dec., Farah Dec., Arrak Dec.); Glades (Dairon Barredo Sanchez Dec., Tahimi Perez Dec., Franklin Ramon Gonzalez Dec., Gerardo Vargas Dec., and Francisco Rivero Valeron Dec.); and BTC (Valera Ramirez Dec., Sosa Fletes Dec., Sontay Funez Dec., Rosas Cardenas Dec., Betancourt Dec. Ferreira Borges Dec., and Bibiano Soares Dec) (Appx II).
96

Case 1:20-cv-21553-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/13/2020 Page 101 of 111
329. Respondents have not implemented adequate social distancing practices. Compare CDC Guidance at 11 (Appx I, Exh. F, at 58); with Declarations of Individuals Detained at all three facilities: Krome (Warsane Dec., Hasan Dec., Farah Dec., Arrak Dec.); Glades (Dairon Barredo Sanchez Dec., Tahimi Perez Dec., Franklin Ramon Gonzalez Dec., Gerardo Vargas Dec., and Francisco Rivero Valeron Dec.); and BTC (Valera Ramirez Dec., Sosa Fletes Dec., Sontay Funez Dec., Rosas Cardenas Dec., Betancourt Dec. Ferreira Borges Dec., and Bibiano Soares Dec) (Appx II).
330. Respondents have not communicated clearly and frequently with Petitioners regarding COVID-19 and how they can contribute to risk reduction. Compare CDC Guidance at 12 (Appx I, Exh. F, at 59); with Declarations of Individuals Detained at all three facilities: Krome (Warsane Dec., Hasan Dec., Farah Dec., Arrak Dec.); Glades (Dairon Barredo Sanchez Dec., Tahimi Perez Dec., Franklin Ramon Gonzalez Dec., Gerardo Vargas Dec., and Francisco Rivero Valeron Dec.); and BTC (Valera Ramirez Dec., Sosa Fletes Dec., Sontay Funez Dec., Rosas Cardenas Dec., Betancourt Dec. Ferreira Borges Dec., and Bibiano Soares Dec) (Appx II).
331. Respondents’ cohorting practices violate CDC guidance and increase the threat posed to Petitioners. The CDC’s Interim Guidance on Management of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) states that cohort quarantine “should only be practiced if there are no other available options” and that “[c]ohorting multiple quarantined close contacts of a COVID-19 case could transmit COVID-19 from those who are infected to those who are uninfected.” Respondents violate the CDC Guidelines by refusing to release people and instead keeping them confined
97

Case 1:20-cv-21553-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/13/2020 Page 102 of 111
in close sleeping, eating, and living quarters at Krome, Glades, and BTC. Further, because Respondents can and should release Petitioners and those similarly situated, “cohort quarantine” is not the only “available option.”
332. Cohorting is not the same as quarantine or medical isolation and the CDC makes it clear that cohorting is to be used only as a last resort in those “correctional facilities and detention centers do not have enough individual cells” for quarantine or medical isolation. Interim Guidance, at 3, 15 (Appx, Exh. F, at 50, 62). The CDC and other medical expert opinions confirm that cohorting individuals who have not been confirmed to be infected with COVID-19 “puts everyone at very high risk of contracting and spreading COVID-19.” Shin Decl., ¶ 33 (Exh. 2).
333. On March 31, 2020, the President updated the guidance, renaming it “30 Days to Slow the Spread,” and along with the White House Coronavirus Task Force urged Americans to continue to adhere to the CDC guidelines and expand community mitigation efforts.” On April 1, 2020, Governor DeSantis issued a shelter-in-place order for the state of Florida, effective April 3, 2020. Exec. Order No. 20-91.
334. As Dr. Shin explains “[t]he only effective strategies to limit wide-spread impact of COVID-19 are public health strategies. These include containment efforts like early identification, contact tracing, isolation and quarantine measures, and intensive use of personal protective equipment. Unfortunately, due to limited testing capacity and public health resources combined with wide-spread community spread, mitigation efforts like social distancing and scrupulous hand and personal hygiene are critical to limit the spread of COVID-19.” Shin Dec., ¶ 12 (Exh. 2). Dr. Shin also explains that “[t]here is no way for immigration detention facilities to
98

Case 1:20-cv-21553-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/13/2020 Page 103 of 111
comply with CDC guidelines on social distancing and quarantining unless Respondents release detained men and women on a large scale.” Id. at ¶¶ 39-40. Dr. Shin concluded that it is “my professional opinion that failure to release during the COVID-19 pandemic is a violation of the CDC guidelines and will result in continued and wide-spread infection.” Id.
335. Dr. Shin’s conclusions are consistent with every other public health expert issued early warnings about the spread of COVID-19 and the need for the federal, state and local governments to employ social distancing mitigation efforts. See Exh. , Shin Decl., ¶ 6 (Exh. 2). The consequences of the failure of federal, state and local government to adhere to the early warning by public health officials have been borne out in the United States. Id. at ¶ 40. As of the date of this Petition, there are 525,704 number of confirmed cases in the United States and 20,486 people have died.88
336. As is detailed supra, Respondents have failed to follow their duty to comply with the PBNDS and NDS, which in turn require compliance with CDC guidelines and federal, state and local laws. Respondents have neither reduced the population of Krome, Glades, and BTC. Nor have they done anything to ensure social distancing and proper hygiene.
337. Respondents have an obligation under the PBNDS and the NDS to protect the Petitioners. The PBNDS and the NDS require Respondents protect Petitioners by following the CDC guidelines, complying with federal, state or local plans, and reports requirements.
88 https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/cases-updates/cases-in-us.html
99

Case 1:20-cv-21553-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/13/2020 Page 104 of 111
338. Petitioners have not been protected, and the Respondents’ violate the Accardi doctrine by failing to comply with its own obligations in violation of the APA and Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause.
COUNT TWO - FIFTH AMENDMENT – VIOLATION OF RIGHT TO REASONABLE SAFETY
339. Petitioners repeat and incorporate by reference each and every allegation contained in the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.
340. The Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees individuals in immigration detention the right to be free from punishment. The government violates this guarantee when conditions of confinement lack a reasonable relationship to any legitimate governmental purpose, i.e. when a custodian’s actions are excessive in relation to their purpose.
341. Respondents’ continued detention of Petitioners during the COVID-19 pandemic is excessive in relation to any legitimate governmental purpose. Less harsh measures are available to satisfy any government interest in continuing to detain Plaintiffs, including release with conditions. Under these circumstances, Respondents’ detention of Petitioners amount to impermissible punishment.
342. Conditions of confinement for individuals in immigration detention also violate the Fifth Amendment when the government fails, with deliberate indifference, to safeguard the health and safety of those in custody. The government acts with deliberate indifference when it knowingly exposes an individual in its custody to a substantial risk of serious harm.
343. Respondents have subjected Petitioners to conditions of confinement that create a substantial risk of contracting a serious case of COVID-19, for which there is no known vaccine, treatment, or cure. Respondents know or should be aware of the fact that Petitioners’ underlying
100

Case 1:20-cv-21553-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/13/2020 Page 105 of 111
conditions render them especially vulnerable to severe illness or even death if they contract COVID-19. Respondents are therefore knowingly subjecting Petitioners to an unreasonable risk of serious harm, in violation of constitutional due process.
344. Respondents’ continued detention of Petitioners fails to adequately protect Petitioners from the risks of contracting COVID-19.
345. Petitioners’ ongoing confinement lacks a reasonable relationship to any legitimate governmental purpose and is excessive in relation to their purpose.
346. Respondents have exposed Petitioners to a substantial risk of serious harm. 347. Respondents have known of or disregarded the substantial risk of harm to Petitioners’ health and safety. 348. Respondents have acted with deliberate indifference to Petitioners’ health and safety. 349. Respondents’ continued detention of Petitioners violates the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment as detention has become punitive and is not reasonably safe. COUNT THREE - FIFTH AMENDMENT – STATE-CREATED DANGER
350. Petitioners repeat and incorporate by reference each and every allegation contained in the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.
351. The government acts with deliberate indifference to a known or obvious danger when it recognizes an unreasonable risk and actually intends to expose petitioners to such risks without regard to the consequences to petitioners. An unreasonable risk includes future harm caused by conditions of confinement. See Helling v. McKinney, 509 U.S. 25, 33 (1993). Respondents have not complied its obligations to follow the CDC guidelines, and affirmatively
101

Case 1:20-cv-21553-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/13/2020 Page 106 of 111
place Petitioners at greater risk of contracting COVID-19 by implemented practices that transfer people into and out of facilities, and employs cohort quarantining approach – that drastically increases the danger of the virus spreading. Respondents have acted with deliberate indifference to the clear elevated levels of threat caused to Petitioners.
352. Respondents have affirmatively placed Petitioners in danger by forcing them into a position more dangerous than it found them, exposing them to elevated dangerous by failing to following CDC guidelines including by transferring people among facilities and improperly using cohort quarantines in a manner that places Petitioners in a more dangerous situation that it found them. Respondents made the affirmative decision to not release Petitioners or use ATDs, and instead implemented cohort quarantines in a manner that drastically increase the possibility of transmission, infection, and facility-wide outbreak by grouping together people who have already been exposed to the virus. See Shin Decl. ¶40 (Exh. 2); Greer Decl., ¶¶34-35 (Exh. 3).
353. Respondents continue to detain Petitioners without taking necessary precautions to reduce the risk of COVID-19 transmission. Respondents have thus exposed Petitioners to a greater risk of contracting COVID-19 than they would have otherwise faced.
354. Respondents continued to actively disregard the threat of the pandemic. Petitioners are detained in conditions that expose them to a heightened risk of contracting COVID-19. Respondents are confining Petitioners in close proximity to other detainees and ICE officers, rendering Petitioners entirely unable to practice necessary social distancing.
355. ICE officers are failing to take necessary precautions, to avoid transmitting COVID-19 to Petitioners, detainees, and other officers. Respondents’ ongoing detention of Petitioners thus continues to expose them to a greater risk of contracting COVID-19 than they would
102

Case 1:20-cv-21553-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/13/2020 Page 107 of 111
face if they were not in detention and were able to take necessary precautions to protect themselves.
356. Respondents have acted, and continue to act, with deliberate indifference to the known and obvious risk of COVID-19 transmission.
357. Respondents implemented a cohort quarantine approach that does not comply with CDC guidelines and drastically increases the risk of COVID-19 exposure and contraction, at the time when the federal government and State of Florida had both declared public health emergencies. Despite being well-aware of both the risks of community transmission of COVID19 and the preventive measures necessary to slow that transmission, Respondents acted without regard to the consequences to Petitioners by failing to implement a plan calculated to meaningfully comply with CDC guidelines, instead exposing the Petitioners to drastically increased risk of exposure by defying CDC guidelines in the use of cohort quarantining and actively transferring detainees among facilities with confirmed cases detainees and facility employees having contracted COVID-19. See Shin Decl. ¶40 (Exh. 2).
358. For these reasons, Petitioners’ detention violates the Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause because Respondents affirmatively subjected Petitioners to an unreasonable risk of danger, greater danger than before Respondents acted, with deliberate indifference to employing policies that drastically increase the risk of Petitioners’ contracting COVID-19.
103

Case 1:20-cv-21553-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/13/2020 Page 108 of 111
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE Petitioners request that the Court grant the following relief: a. Assume jurisdiction over this matter; b. Enjoin Respondents from transferring Petitioners, and the class they represent,
from Krome, Glades, or BTC, until the Court has decided this action; c. Issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus on the ground that Respondents’ continued deten-
tion of Petitioners, and the class they represent, violates the Due Process Clause and order the immediate release of Petitioners and the class they represent, with appropriate precautionary public health measures;
d. Issue injunctive relief ordering Respondents to immediately release Petitioners and all similarly situated detainees in Krome Service Processing Center, Glades County Detention Center, and Broward Transitional Center with appropriate precautionary public health measures, on the grounds that continued detention violates the constitutional Due Process rights of Petitioners and the class they represent;
e. Issue a declaration that Respondents’ continued detention of Petitioners and all class members creates an undue increased risk of severe illness or death, and thus violates the Due Process Clause;
f. Issue an order prohibiting Respondents from placing new detainees in the Krome Service Processing Center, Glades County Detention Center, and Broward Transitional Center until COVID-19 no longer poses a threat in Florida.
g. Award Petitioners their costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees in this action under the Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”), as amended, 5 U.S.C. § 504 and 28 U.S.C. § 2412,
104

Case 1:20-cv-21553-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/13/2020 Page 109 of 111

and on any other basis justified under law; and h. Grant any other and further relief that this Court may deem fit and proper.

Dated: April 13, 2020

Respectfully submitted,
By: /s/ Rebecca Sharpless
REBECCA SHARPLESS Florida Bar No. 0131024 ROMY LERNER Florida Bar No. 116713 KATARINA M. GOMEZ, Law Student MEREDITH HOFFMAN, Law Student MARIA A. LLORENS, Law Student JACOB S. MORSE, Law Student OLIVIA G. PARISE, Law Student MARIA A. PISELLI, Law Student UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI SCHOOL OF LAW IMMIGRATION CLINIC 1311 Miller Drive Suite, E-273 Coral Gables, Florida 33146 Tel: (305) 284-3576 Fax: (305) 284-6092 rsharpless@law.miami.edu
RAPID DEFENSE NETWORK GREGORY P. COPELAND* SARAH T. GILLMAN* 11 Broadway, Suite 615 New York, NY 10004 Tel.: (212) 843-0910 Fax: (212) 257-7033 gregory@defensenetwork.org sarah@defensenetwork.org
*Pro Hac Vice Admission Pending

105

Case 1:20-cv-21553-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/13/2020 Page 110 of 111
MARK ANDREW PRADA Fla. Bar No. 91997 ANTHONY RICHARD DOMINGUEZ Fla. Bar No. 1002234 PRADA URIZAR, PLLC 3191 Coral Way, Suite 500 Miami, FL 33145 Tel.: (786) 703-2061 Fax: (786) 708-9508 mprada@pradaurizar.com adominguez@pradaurizar.com
PAUL R. CHAVEZ FL Bar No. 1021395 MAIA FLEISCHMAN FL Bar No. 1010709 SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER 2 S. Biscayne Blvd., Ste. 3200 Miami, FL 33101 Tel: (305) 537-0577 paul.chavez@splcenter.org maia.fleischman@splcenter.org
ANDREA MONTAVON-MCKILLIP Florida Bar No. 56401 LEGAL AID SERVICE OF BROWARD COUNTY, INC. 491 North State Road 7 Plantation, Florida 33317 Tel. (954) 736-2493 Fax (954) 736-2484 amontavon@legalaid.org
Counsel for Petitioners-Plaintiffs
106

Case 1:20-cv-21553-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/13/2020 Page 111 of 111
PETITIONER-PLAINTIFFS’ VERIFICATION I am submitting this verification on behalf of the Petitioner-Plaintiffs because I am one of the Petitioner-Plaintiffs’ attorneys. I have discussed with the Petitioners-Plaintiffs’ legal team the events described in this Petition. On the basis of those discussions, on information and belief, I hereby verify that the factual statements made in the attached Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus are true and correct to the best of my knowledge.
By: /s/ Rebecca Sharpless Rebecca Sharpless Florida Bar No. 0131024 Immigration Clinic University of Miami School of Law 1311 Miller Drive Suite E-273 Coral Gables, Florida 33146 Tel: (305) 284-3576, direct Tel: (305) 284-6092, clinic rsharpless@law.miami.edu
107

Case 1:20-cv-21553-XXXX Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/13/2020 Page 1 of 8

Case 1:20-cv-21553-XXXX Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/13/2020 Page 2 of 8

Case 1:20-cv-21553-XXXX Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/13/2020 Page 3 of 8

Case 1:20-cv-21553-XXXX Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/13/2020 Page 4 of 8

Case 1:20-cv-21553-XXXX Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/13/2020 Page 5 of 8

Case 1:20-cv-21553-XXXX Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/13/2020 Page 6 of 8

Case 1:20-cv-21553-XXXX Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/13/2020 Page 7 of 8

Case 1:20-cv-21553-XXXX Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/13/2020 Page 8 of 8

Case 1:20-cv-21553-XXXX Document 1-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/13/2020 Page 1 of 28
Declaration of Dr. Pedro J. Greer, Jr.
I, Dr. Pedro J. Greer, Jr., make the following declaration based on my personal knowledge and declare under the penalty of perjury pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1746 that the following is true and correct:
I. Background and Qualifications
1. My name is Pedro J. Greer, Professor of Medicine, Founding Chair of Humanities, Health, and Society and Associate Dean for Community Engagement at Florida International University Herbert Wertheim College of Medicine (FIU HWCOM) in Miami, Florida. Throughout my career, I have been an advocate for health equity by engaging communities to create effective health and social policies and accessible health care systems.
2. I have worked for the past 36 years as a physician, from Resident to Internist, Gastroenterologist and Hepatologist, Department Chair and Associate Dean.
3. My bio, attached as Exhibit A, includes a brief description of my education and relevant experience.
4. My C.V. includes a full list of my honors, experience, and publications, and it is attached as Exhibit B.
5. I am donating my time reviewing materials and preparing this report. Any live testimony I provide will also be provided pro bono.
6. I have testified as an expert at trial or by deposition in the past four years, in a federal case involving homeless sex offenders.
7. It is my understanding that immigration detainees in South Florida are currently held at three facilities, Glades County Detention Center (Glades), Krome Service Processing Center (Krome), and Broward Transitional Center (BTC). Glades is a county jail, which houses immigration detainees pursuant to an inter-governmental service agreement with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). Krome is owned by ICE, although daily operations are contracted out to a private company, Akima Global Services. BTC is a private facility operated by the GEO group pursuant to an ICE contract. These facilities are generally indistinguishable from other jails and prisons.
1

Case 1:20-cv-21553-XXXX Document 1-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/13/2020 Page 2 of 28
II. Heightened Risk of Epidemics in Detention Centers, Jails and Prisons
8. As I will discuss below, the risk posed by infectious diseases in immigration detention centers, jails and prisons (together “detention facilities”) is significantly higher than in the community, both in terms of multiple risks of transmission and exposure to individuals who become infected.
9. Globally, outbreaks of contagious diseases are all too common in closed detention settings and are more common than in the community at large. Detention centers facilities are not isolated from communities. Staff, visitors, contractors, and vendors pass between communities and facilities and can bring infectious diseases into facilities. Moreover, turnover of jail and detention center populations means that people often cycle between facilities and communities. People often need to be transported to and from facilities to attend court and move between facilities. Prison health is public health.
10. Congregate settings such as detention facilities allow for rapid spread of infectious diseases that are transmitted person to person, especially those passed by droplets through coughing and sneezing. When people must share dining halls, bathrooms, showers, and other common areas, the opportunities for transmission are greater. When infectious diseases are transmitted from person to person by droplets, the best initial strategy is to practice social distancing. When detained, people have much less of an opportunity to protect themselves by social distancing than they would in the community. Spaces within detention facilities are often also poorly ventilated, which promotes highly efficient spread of diseases through droplets. Placing someone in such a setting therefore dramatically reduces their ability to protect themselves from being exposed to and acquiring infectious diseases.
11. During an infectious disease outbreak, people can protect themselves by washing hands. Detention facilities do not provide adequate opportunities to exercise necessary hygiene measures, such as frequent handwashing or use of alcohol-based sanitizers when handwashing is unavailable. Detention facilities are often underresourced and ill-equipped with sufficient hand soap and alcohol-based sanitizers for people detained in and working in these settings. High-touch surfaces (doorknobs, light switches, etc.) should also be cleaned and disinfected regularly with bleach to prevent virus spread, but this is often not done in jails and prisons because of a lack of cleaning supplies and lack of people available to perform necessary cleaning procedures.
12. Detention facilities are often poorly equipped to diagnose and manage infectious disease outbreaks. Some lack onsite medical facilities or 24-hour medical care. The medical facilities at jails and detention centers are almost never sufficiently equipped to handle large outbreaks of infectious diseases. To prevent transmission of dropletborne infectious diseases, people who are infected and ill need to be isolated in
2

Case 1:20-cv-21553-XXXX Document 1-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/13/2020 Page 3 of 28
specialized airborne negative pressure rooms. Most detention facilities have few negative pressure rooms if any, and these may be already in use by people with other conditions (including tuberculosis or influenza). Resources will become exhausted rapidly and any beds available will soon be at capacity. This makes both containing the illness and caring for those who have become infected much more difficult.
13. Detention facilities lack access to vital community resources to diagnose and manage infectious diseases. Detention facilities do not have access to community health resources that can be crucial in identifying and managing widespread outbreaks of infectious diseases. This includes access to testing equipment, laboratories, and medications.
14. Detention facilities often need to rely on outside facilities (hospitals, emergency departments) to provide intensive medical care given that the level of care they can provide in the facility itself is typically relatively limited. During an epidemic, this will not be possible, as those outside facilities will likely be at or over capacity themselves.
15. As an outbreak spreads detention facilities and communities, medical personnel become sick and do not show up to work. Absenteeism means that facilities can become dangerously understaffed with healthcare providers. This increases a number of risks and can dramatically reduce the level of care provided. As health systems inside facilities are taxed, people with chronic underlying physical and mental health conditions and serious medical needs may not be able to receive the care they need for these conditions. As supply chains become disrupted during a global pandemic, the availability of medicines and food may be limited.
16. These risks have all been borne out during past epidemics in detention facilities. In 2019, a mumps outbreak across 57 U.S. immigration detention facilities resulted in almost 900 infections inside the facilities1 before spreading to surrounding communities.2 Immigration facilities have been sites of other outbreaks in just the past couple years.3
1 Leung J, Elson D, Sanders K, et al. Notes from the Field: Mumps in Detention Facilities that House Detained
Migrants—United States, September 2018–August 2019, MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly, 749–50 (Aug. 30, 2019), https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/68/wr/pdfs/mm6834a4-H.pdf.
2 See Terrence McDonald, Bergen County Won’t Say if Mumps Outbreak Affects Only Immigrant Detainees, Northjersey.com (Jun. 13, 2019), https://www.northjersey.com/story/news/bergen/2019/06/13/bergen-county-njwont-say-if-jail-mumps-outbreak-hit-only-ice-inmates/1448708001. In addition, in 2019, thousands of individuals in 39 immigration detention centers across the country were exposed to chickenpox. See Emma Ockerman, Migrant Detention Centers Are Getting Slammed with Mumps and Chickenpox, Vice News (Jun. 14, 2020), https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/mb8k5q/migrant-detention-centers-are-getting-slammed-with-mumps-andchicken-pox. 3 Christina Potter, Outbreak Observatory supra n. 34, (describing outbreaks of acute respiratory illnesses like influenza, and other diseases like scabies and chickenpox).
3

Case 1:20-cv-21553-XXXX Document 1-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/13/2020 Page 4 of 28
17. In 2012, the CDC reported an outbreak of influenza in two correctional facilities in Maine, resulting in two inmate deaths.4 Subsequent CDC investigation of 995 inmates and 235 staff members across the 2 facilities discovered insufficient supplies of influenza vaccine and antiviral drugs for treatment of people who were ill and prophylaxis for people who were exposed. During the H1N1-strain flu outbreak in 2009 (known as the “swine flu”), jails and prisons experienced a disproportionately high number of cases.5 Even facilities on “quarantine” continued to accept new intakes, rendering the quarantine incomplete. These scenarios occurred in the “best case” of influenza, a viral infection for which there was an effective and available vaccine and antiviral medications, unlike COVID-19, for which there is currently neither.
III. Profile of COVID-19 as an Infectious Disease6
18. The novel coronavirus, officially known as SARS-CoV-2, causes a disease known as COVID-19. The virus is thought to pass from person to person primarily through respiratory droplets (by coughing or sneezing) but may also survive on inanimate surfaces. People seem to be most able to transmit the virus to others when they are sickest but recent data from China has demonstrated that almost 13% of transmission occurs from asymptomatic individuals before they start to show symptoms, and it is possible that transmission can occur for weeks after their symptoms resolve.7 In China, where COVID-19 originated, the average infected person passed the virus on to 2-3 other people; transmission occurred at a distance of 3-6 feet. Not only is the virus very efficient at being transmitted through droplets, everyone is at risk of infection because our immune systems have never been exposed to or developed protective responses against this virus. A vaccine is currently in development but will likely not be able for over a year to the general public. Antiviral medications are currently in testing but not yet FDA-approved. People in detention facilities will likely have even less access to these novel health strategies as they become available.
19. Most people (80%) who become infected with COVID-19 will develop a mild upper respiratory infection but emerging data from China suggests serious illness occurs in
4 Influenza Outbreaks at Two Correctional Facilities—Maine, March 2011, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2012), https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6113a3.htm. 5 David. M. Reutter, Swine Flu Widespread in Prisons and Jails, but Deaths are Few, Prison Legal News (Feb. 15, 2010), https://www.prisonlegalnews.org/news/2010/feb/15/swine-flu-widespread-in-prisons-and-jails-but-deathsare-few/. 6 This whole section draws from Broks J. Global Epidemiology and Prevention of COVID19, COVID-10 Symposium, Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections (CROI), virual (March 10, 2020); Coronavirus (COVID-19), Centers for Disease Control, https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/index.html; Brent Gibson, COVID-19 (Coronavirus): What You Need to Know in Corrections, National Commission on Correctional Health Care (February 28, 2020), https://www.ncchc.org/blog/covid-19-coronavirus-what-you-need-toknow-in-corrections. 7 Du Z, Xu X, Wu Y, Wang L, Cowling BJ, Ancel Meyers L. Serial interval of COVID-19 among publicly reported confirmed cases. Emerg Infect Dis. 2020 Jun [date cited]. https://doi.org/10.3201/eid2606.200357
4

Case 1:20-cv-21553-XXXX Document 1-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/13/2020 Page 5 of 28
up to 16% of cases, including death.8 Serious illness and death is most common among people with underlying chronic health conditions, like heart disease, lung disease, liver disease, and diabetes, and older age.9 Among those individuals, the risk of poor outcomes, included the need for mechanical intervention is over 20%. Death in COVID-19 infection is usually due to pneumonia, and sepsis, and would occur between approximately 1-4% of the population. The emergence of COVID-19 during influenza season means that people are also at risk from serious illness and death due to influenza, especially when they have not received the influenza vaccine or the pneumonia vaccine.
20. The care of people who are infected with COVID-19 depends on how seriously they are ill.10 People with mild symptoms may not require hospitalization but may continue to be closely monitored at home. People with moderate symptoms may require hospitalization for supportive care, including intravenous fluids and supplemental oxygen. People with severe symptoms may require ventilation and intravenous antibiotics. Public health officials anticipate that hospital settings will likely be overwhelmed and beyond capacity to provide this type of intensive care as COVID-19 becomes more widespread in communities.
21. In order to prevent over whelming the local health systems, aggressive containment and COVID-19 prevention is of utmost importance. To this end, most states, including Florida, have mandated COVID-19 prevention strategies, such as “shelter in place” or “stay at home” orders, which have gone beyond containment and mitigation. Detention facilities already have difficulty with containment because it requires intensive hand washing practices, decontamination and aggressive cleaning of surfaces, and identifying and isolating people who are ill or who have had contact with people who are ill, including the use of personal protective equipment. However, even with these efforts, it is impossible for detention facilities to provide the atmosphere of “shelter in place” or “stay at home” social distancing, given the number of individuals that work in and are housed in these facilities in the current system. The time to act is now. Data from other settings demonstrate what happens when detention facilities are unprepared for COVID-19. News outlets reported that Iran temporarily released 70,000 prisoners when COVID-19 started to sweep its facilities.11
8 Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19): Situation Summary, Centers for Disease and Prevention (March 14, 2020), https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/casesupdates/summary.html?CDC_AA_refVal=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cdc.gov%2Fcoronavirus%2F2019ncov%2Fsummary.html. 9 Clinical course and risk factors for mortality of adult inpatients with COVID-19 in Wuhan, China: a retrospective cohort study, The Lancel (published online March 11, 2020), https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)30566-3/fulltext. 10 Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19): Interim Clinical Guidance for Management of Patients with Confirmed Coronavirus Disease, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (March 7, 2002), https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/clinical-guidance-management-patients.html. 11 Iran temporarily releases 70,000 prisoners as coronavirus cases surge, Reuters (March 9, 2020), https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-iran/iran-temporarily-releases-70000-prisoners-ascoronavirus-cases-surge-idUSKBN20W1E5.
5

Case 1:20-cv-21553-XXXX Document 1-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/13/2020 Page 6 of 28
IV. Risk of COVID-19 at Glades, Krome, and BTC
22. In preparing this report I have reviewed declarations of individuals detained at Glades, Krome and BTC.
23. Based on my review of the relevant literature, and my review of the declarations of individuals detained at Glades, Krome and BTC, it is my professional judgment that South Florida’s immigration detention centers are under-equipped and ill-prepared to prevent and manage a COVID-19 outbreak, which would result in severe harm to detained individuals, detention center staff, and the broader community. The reasons for this conclusion are detailed as follows.
24. Detainees at all three facilities are held in dormitory-style cells or rooms. Plaintiffs at Glades and Krome report that there are at least 65 individuals sharing a living unit and in many cases far more than that number. Detainees sleep on bunk beds with just a few feet of distance between them. At BTC, a handful of detainees share small rooms. Further, plaintiffs report that they are forced to either sit close to one another while they take meals since tables and chairs are fixed to the floor or forced to wait in line together for meals. Given this layout and crowded environment in which individuals are held, it is impossible to provide an environment where social distancing can take place, depriving individuals of being able to use one of the most important CDC-recommended measures to protect themselves.
25. Even before the COVID-19 crisis, detainees at all three facilities reported having to wait several days to have access to a medical doctor for serious medical concerns.12 Glades, for example, has only one doctor who comes in only four days a week.13 Now, with the threat of the virus’ spread through the jail population, it is unlikely whether the medical units at any of the three facilities is equipped to address both underlying chronic conditions of individuals and a potential outbreak of COVID-19 in the jail.
26. For individuals in these facilities, the experience of an epidemic and the lack of care while effectively trapped can itself be traumatizing, compounding the trauma of detention.
27. The neglect of individuals with acute pain and serious health needs under ordinary circumstances is also strongly indicative that the facilities will be ill-equipped to identify, monitor, and treat a COVID-19 epidemic. Detainees have attested to neglect of their serious medical conditions even under typical circumstances.14 It is unlikely that when the medical units are strained both due to potential understaffing or
12 Southern Poverty Law Center & Americans for Immigrant Justice, Prison by Any Other Name: A Report on South Florida Detention Facilities (December 9, 2019), https://www.splcenter.org/sites/default/files/cjr_fla_detention_report-final_1.pdf 13 Id. 14 Id.
6

Case 1:20-cv-21553-XXXX Document 1-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/13/2020 Page 7 of 28

additional burden from potential COVID-19 patients that they will be able to provide the care necessary for those with medical needs caused by conditions other than COVID-19.

V. The Practice of Cohorting

28. In preparation of this Declaration, I have been provided with the Declaration of Liana J. Castano, dated April 8, 2020 (“Castano Declaration”).

29. The Castano Declaration discusses the use of cohorting at Krome. See Castano Declaration, ¶10, 12.c..

30. Cohorting is “the practice of isolating multiple laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 cases together as a group, or quarantining close contacts of a particular case together as a group.” The CDC’s Interim Guidance on Management of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) in Correctional and Detention Facilities (the “Interim Guidance”)15 at 3. It is not the same as quarantine or medical isolation, and is to be used only as a last resort in those “correctional facilities and detention centers do not have enough individual cells” for quarantine or medical isolation. The practice of cohorting is dangerous in that it risks “transmit[ting] COVID-19 from those who are infected to those who are uninfected.” Id. at 19.

31. The Castano Declaration that discusses the use of cohorting directly contradicts CDC guidance in several ways including, most critically, that ICE officials describe cohorting as the planned response to a known COVID-19 exposure, not a practice of last resort. Notably, ICE has no plans to place suspected COVID-19 cases in individual medical isolation in which “[e]ach isolated individual should be assigned their own housing space and bathroom” as recommended by CDC. See Interim Guidance at 15.

32. The Castano Declaration states that “238 detainees” are currently cohorted. there is no indication that a cohorted group will be permitted to practice social distancing as recommended by CDC (Id. at 16), or that a cohorted group will be provided with masks to prevent transmission of COVID-19 (Id. at 20).

33. Finally, cohorting in a selective manner without the implementation of wide-spread testing put everyone at very high risk of contracting and spreading COVID-19.

VI.

Conclusion

34. In conclusion, the CDC guidelines require that “cohorting” should only be used as a last resort. There is no way for immigration detention facilities to comply with CDC

15 Centers for Disease Control, Interim Guidance on Management of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) in Correctional and Detention Facilities (Mar. 23, 2020), https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019ncov/downloads/guidance-correctional-detention.pdf.
7

Case 1:20-cv-21553-XXXX Document 1-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/13/2020 Page 8 of 28
guidelines on social distancing and quarantining unless Respondents release detained men and women on a large scale. When release from a detained setting is an option and there is lack of testing ability and an inability to employ social distancing, it is my professional opinion that failure to release during the COVID-19 pandemic is a violation of the CDC guidelines and will result in continued and wide-spread infection. Continued and wide-spread infection will not only occur in the detention facilities but also in the community. Health in detention facilities is community health. Protecting the health of individuals who are detained in and work in these facilities is vital to protecting the health of the wider community.
I, Dr. Pedro J. Greer, Jr., make the following declaration based on my personal knowledge and declare under the penalty of perjury pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1746 that the following is true and correct:

__

___

Pedro Greer Jr., MD, FACP, FACG

Professor of Medicine Associate Dean for Community Engagement Chair of the Department of Humanities, Health & Society Florida International University Herbert Wertheim College of Medicine 11200 SW 8th Street, HLSII 685 Miami, Florida 33199 T: 305-348-4554 | D: 305-348-0619 greerp@fiu.edu

Dated: April 14, 2020

8

Case 1:20-cv-21553-XXXX Document 1-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/13/2020 Page 9 of 28

Name: Position:
Address:

CURRICULUM VITAE
Pedro Jose Greer, Jr., M.D. FACP, FACG
Professor and Founding Chair, Department of Humanities, Health, and Society Associate Dean for Community Engagement Florida International University (FIU) Herbert Wertheim College of Medicine (HWCOM)
11200 SW 8th St., AHC2 596 Miami, FL 33199
Tel: (305) 348-0619 Email: greerp@fiu.edu

EDUCATION
1990-1991 Jackson Memorial Hospital University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Miami, FL
1989-1991 Jackson Memorial Hospital University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Miami, FL
1988-1989 University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Miami, FL 1987-1988 University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Veterans
Administration Medical Center, Miami, FL 1985-1987 University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Miami, FL 1984-1985 University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Miami, FL 1978-1984 Pontifica Universidad Católica Madre Y Maestra, Santiago de los
Caballeros, Dominican Republic 1974-1978 University of Florida, Gainesville, FL

Chief Fellow
Fellow
Fellow Chief Medical Resident Resident Intern M.D.

Gastroenterology
Gastroenterology
Hepatology Internal Medicine
Internal Medicine Internal Medicine Medicine

LICENSES, CERTIFICATIONS

1993

American Board of Internal Medicine, Subspecialty in Gastroenterology (#116332)

1989

American Board of Internal Medicine (#116332)

1986

Medical licensure (#ME 0047468), Florida; Renewed every 2 years; Jan 2018

1986

National Board of Medical Examiners (# ME 0047468); FLEX

PRINCIPAL POSITIONS HELD
2014-2015 Herbert Wertheim College of Medicine, Miami, FL

2014-Pres. Herbert Wertheim College of Medicine, Miami, FL 2009-Pres. Herbert Wertheim College of Medicine, Miami, FL

2007-Pres. Herbert Wertheim College of Medicine, Miami, FL

1998-2006 1994-2006 1992-Pres. 1992-Pres.

Mercy Hospital Mercy Hospital University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Miami, FL University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Miami, FL

1991-2005
1991-Pres. 1990-2007

St. John Bosco Clinic – SSJ Health Foundation (free clinic for undocumented immigrants) Gastro Health, P. L. University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Miami, FL

Interim Chair, Department of Medicine*
*In AY2014-2015, I led the merger between the Department of Medicine and the Department of Humanities, Health, and Society (July 2015).
Associate Dean for Community Engagement Founding Chair, Department of Humanities, Health, and Society Professor of Medicine & Curricular Strand Leader for Medicine and Society Chief of Gastroenterology Department Director of Mercy Mission Services Adjunct Associate Clinical Professor of Medicine Adjunct Associate Professor of Epidemiology and Public Health Medical Director
Private Practice, Gastroenterology Assistant Dean for Homeless Education

Greer PJ. 1

Case 1:20-cv-21553-XXXX Document 1-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/13/2020 Page 10 of 28

HONORS AND AWARDS

Honorary Degrees and Titles

2012

Wayne State University

2005

Salem State College

2004

Stonehill College

1997

University of Florida

1995

Barry University

1994

New York Medical College

1992

St. Thomas University

1992

University of Miami School of Medicine

Doctor of Law Doctor of Humane Letters Doctor of Humanities Distinguished Alumni Doctor of Law Doctor of Science Doctor of Humane Letters Honorary Alumnus

Honoris Causa Honoris Causa Honoris Causa
Honoris Causa Honoris Causa Honoris Causa

Honors and Awards

2019

Florida Trend 2019, Florida 500 Most Influential Business Leaders, Life Sciences

2019 2018

Pride in the Profession Award, Excellence in Medicine Awards, Chicago, IL AMA Foundation 35th Hispanics in Philanthropy (HIP) Anniversary Conference, San Francisco, CA, HIPGiver Award

2017

University of Florida Bob Graham Center, Gainesville, FL, 2017 Citizen of the Year Award

2016

Council for Latino Workplace Equity, North Miami, FL, Top Latino Leader Award

2014

Health Choice Network, Miami, FL, Jessie Trice Hero Award

2014

Jefferson Awards Foundation, Washington, DC, Outstanding Public Service Benefitting the Disadvantaged

2011

Miami Dolphins, Miami, FL, Humanitarian Award

2011

Florida International University, Miami, FL, Cal Kovens Distinguished Community Service Award

2010

AARP The Magazine, Washington, DC, Inspire Award

2010

Temple Beth David, Miami, FL, Public Citizen Award

2009

President Barack Obama, at the White House, Washington, DC, Presidential Award: Medal of Freedom

2008

Latino Leaders Magazine, Dallas, TX, 101 Top Leaders of the Latino Community in the USA

2007

Vista Magazine, Health Award

2007

Orange Bowl Foundation, Miami Lakes, FL, El Espíritu de La Comunidad Award

2007

Barry University, Miami Shores, Faith and Freedom Award

2005

Prospanica (Formerly, National Society of Hispanic MBAs), Dallas, TX, Board Leadership Award

2005

El Consejo de la Hispanidad de Los Estados Unidos de América (The Hispanic Heritage Council of the United States

of America), Don Quixote Award

2005

The Pan American Health Organization, Washington, DC, Public Health Hero of the Americas

2004

Hispanic Unity of Florida, Hollywood, FL, Amigos Award

2004

The Pan American Cuban Medical Convention, Miami, FL, Gold Medal of Honor

2004

Florida Department of Health, Board of Medicine, Tallahassee, FL, Board Chair Recognition Award

2002

Hispanic Magazine, Virginia Gardens, FL, Hispanic of the Year

2002

St. Luke’s Society of South Florida, Ft. Lauderdale, FL, Hispanic of the Year

2002

Kiwanis of Key Biscayne, Key Biscayne, FL, Citizen of the Year

2002

The Latin Chamber of Commerce of the United States, Miami, FL, Professional of the Year

2002

Big Brothers Big Sisters of Miami, Women’s Committee, Miami, FL, Miracle Makers Award

2002

Dade County Medical Association, Miami, FL, Physician Recognition Award

2002

Asociación Interamericana de Hombres de Empresa, Miami, FL, Leslie Pantin Award

2001

The Caring Institute, Washington, DC, Caring Award

2001

Catholic Charities of the Archdiocese of Miami, Miami, FL, Spirit of Charity Award

2001

Fundación Brugal, Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic, Brugal Cree en su Gente Award

2001

Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation (JDRF), Oakland Park, FL, Tribute to the Family Award

2001

Ellis Island Foundation, New York, NY, Ellis Island Medal of Honor

2000

Greater Miami Chamber of Commerce, Miami, FL, Health Care Heroes Award

2000

Boy Scouts of America South Florida Council, Miami Lakes, FL, Hispanic Heritage Community Leader Award

1999

Broward County Hispanic Women’s Coalition, Broward, FL, Award

1999

Family Counseling Services of Greater Miami, Miami, FL, Family of the Year

1999

United Way of Miami, Miami, FL, Starfish Award

1997

Macy’s, Cincinnati, OH, Follow-A-Leader Mentor Program Award

1997

International Catholic Stewardship Council, Dearborn Heights, MI, Christian Stewardship Award

1997

Exito Magazine, Surprise, AZ, One of 50 Most Fascinating People of Miami

Greer PJ. 2

Case 1:20-cv-21553-XXXX Document 1-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/13/2020 Page 11 of 28

1997 1997
1997 1996 1996 1996
1995 1995 1995 1995 1995 1995 1995 1994 1994 1994 1994 1993 1993 1993 1993 1993 1993 1993 1993 1993 1993 1993 1993 1993 1993 1992 1992 1992 1992
1992 1992 1992 1992 1992 1992 1992 1991 1991 1991
1991 1991 1991 1991 1990 1990 1990
1990 1990

New Times Magazine, Best of Miami, “Best Local Boy Done Good” President Bill Clinton, Ex-President George Bush and General Colin Powell, at Presidential Summit, Philadelphia, PA, Presidential Service Award Hippocrates: Health & Medicine for Physicians Journal, Doctor of the Year – Teaching Community Action Agency, Metropolitan Dade County, FL, Sgt. Shriver Award Miami Dade Community College, Homestead Campus, Homestead, FL, Drum Major Award for Humanitarian Effort Turner Broadcasting Systems, Miami, FL, Saluting African-American Achievement, Annual Trumpet Award, Special Honoree for Service to African American Community Florida Hospital Association, Tallahassee, FL, Florida Health Care Communicator of the Year Little Flower Catholic Church, First Annual Humanitarian Award NBC and Hispanic Magazine, Hispanic Achievement, Washington, DC, VIDA Award - Medicine and Sciences American Red Cross, South Florida Chapter, Humanitarian of the Year Visiting Nurse Association of Miami, Miami, FL, Person of the Year CBS, New York City, NY, The Newsweek American Achievement Award Rotary Club of Miami, Miami, FL, Citizen of the Year Time Magazine (Dec. 5, 1994), New York City, NY, 50 Future Leaders of America Under the Age of 40 Facts About Cuban Exiles (F.A.C.E.), Pro Bono Award Sigma Chi Fraternity (National), Annual Meeting, ON, Canada, Significant Sig Medal American College of Physicians, Philadelphia, PA, Special Recognition of Community Service Florida Gastroenterology Society, Opa-Locka, FL, Distinguished Service Award La Liga Contra El Cancer, Miami, FL, Special Recognition The Northern Trust Company, Miami, FL, Community Leadership Award Zeta Phi Beta Sorority, Beta Tau Zeta Chapter, Outstanding Community Service Greater Miami Jewish Federation, Miami, FL, Outstanding Community Leadership Award Veterans Caucus, affiliate of the American Academy of Physician Assistants, Dover, DE, Special Community Award South Florida Magazine, Miami, FL, Health Care Heroes Award Telemundo, Hialeah, FL, Persona de la Semana (July 5, 1993) MacArthur Foundation, Chicago, IL, MacArthur Fellow (June 15, 1993 – 1998) Jessie Ball DuPont Fund, Jacksonville, FL, Jessie Ball DuPont Award Dade County Bar Association, Miami, FL, Doctor of the Decade The Knights of Malta, Knighted The Order of Saint Gregory the Great, Knighted Catholic Church, Pro Eclesia et Pontifice, Papal Medal Maxwell House, Nashville, TN, 100 Real Heroes CNN en Español, Univisión, Personalidad de la Semana (Dec. 4, 1992) ABC World News, Peter Jennings, New York, NY, Person of the Week (Nov. 20, 1992) American College of Physicians, Florida Chapter, Jacksonville, FL, Charles K. Donegan, M.D. Memorial Award for Distinguished Community Service American Heart Association of Dade County, Hollywood, FL, Man of the Year Advertising Federation of Greater Miami, Miami, FL, Community Service Award Florida Humanist Association, Englewood, FL, Outstanding Humanitarian Social Workers of Dade County, Dad County, FL, Special Community Service Honor Dade County Medical Association Auxiliary, Miami, FL, Doctor of the Year The City of Miami, Miami, FL, Commendation National Association of Social Workers, Florida Chapter, Miami Dade Unit, Public Citizen of the Year Zeta Phi Beta Sorority, Washington, DC, Outstanding Community Service Zeta Phi Beta Sorority (Sigma Zeta Chapter), Leadership Role Model Award Hispanic Medical Student Organization, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Miami, FL, Hispanic Medical Achievement Award Office of the Mayor, Dade County, FL, Dade County Red Ribbon Annual Community Leadership Award Service Employees International Union, Washington, DC, Hispanic Leadership Award South Florida Business and Wealth, Ft. Lauderdale, FL, Up and Comers Winner – Medical Category Christopher Columbus High School, Miami, FL, Hall of Fame (induction: Jan 1991) Medical Business Magazine, Medical Humanitarian of the Year Hispanic Business Magazine, Top 100 Most Influential Hispanics in the United States (Nov 1990) Representative Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (FL, 27th Dist.). “A Tribute to Dr. Pedro Jose Greer, Jr.” Congressional Record 136:95 (July 23, 1990). Florida Medical Association, Tallahassee, FL, The Herald Strasser, MD Good Samaritan Award Hispanic Heritage Award Foundation (Subsequently: Hispanic Heritage Foundation), Washington, DC, Hispanic Heritage Award for Excellence in Leadership
Greer PJ. 3

Case 1:20-cv-21553-XXXX Document 1-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/13/2020 Page 12 of 28

1990 1989 1989 1989 1989 1989 1989 1989 1989 1989 1989 1988
1987

Cedars of Lebanon Hospital Foundation, Beverly Hills, CA, Concern Award Miami Young Republicans (formerly, Biscayne Bay Young Republicans), Miami, FL, Award for Excellence Cuban Medical Association, Miami Beach, FL, Special Award Honoring Excellence The Miami Herald, Miami, FL, Spirit of Excellence Award Dade County Metropolitan Government, Dade County, FL, Commendation University of Miami Medical School Students, Class of 1989, Miami, FL, House Officer of the Year Directors of Volunteers in Agencies, Miami, FL, National Volunteer Week Award – Volunteer of the Year The City of Miami, Miami, FL, Certificate of Appreciation University of Miami Medical School Overseers Committee, Miami, FL, Helping Hands Special Recognition Award Public Health Trust Medical Social Workers, Miami, FL, Distinguished Community Service Award Saint Martin de Porres Society, Miami, FL Peace and Unity Award American Medical Association, Chicago, IL, AMA-Burroughs Wellcome Award in Leadership and Community Service American Medical Association, Chicago, IL, Outstanding Young Men of America

PROFESSIONAL ORGANIZATIONS
Memberships American College of Gastroenterology, Fellow (1993) American College of Physicians, Fellow (1991) American Gastroenterology Association American Association for the Study of Liver Disease Florida Gastroenterology Association American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy American College of Medicine Dade County Medical Association Florida Medical Association
Service to Professional Organizations 1991-1992 Ad Hoc Committee on Physician Volunteerism, American College of Physicians 1989-1994 Health and Public Policy Committee, American College of Physicians 1989-1990 Ad Hoc Fellows Committee, American College of Physicians 1989-1990 American College of Physicians, Medicine, Resident Physician section (RPS) 1986-1992 Indigent Care Committee, American College of Physicians

Member Member Co-Chair Florida Delegate Member

BOARDS, COMMITTEES, AND COMMUNITY SERVICE

National 2016-Pres. 2016-Pres. 2015-2016
2014-2019
2010-Pres. 2010-Pres. 2010-Pres. 2006-Pres.
2006-2007 2001-Pres. 2001-2011 1999-2010

American Funds/ Capital Group, Board of Directors; Los Angeles, California Geisinger Commonwealth School of Medicine, Board of Directors; Scranton, PA Association of Academic Health Centers, Short-Term Social Determinant of Health (SDOH) Advisory Group; Washington, DC Dartmouth Geisel School of Medicine, Center for Health Equity, Board of Advisors; Hanover, NH RAND Pardee Graduate School, Board of Governors; Santa Monica, CA RAND Corporation, Executive Committee; Santa Monica, CA RAND Corporation, Board of Trustees; Santa Monica, CA Multicultural Education Training and Advocacy (META) Project, Board of Directors; Somerville, MA Smithsonian Latino Center, Board of Directors; Washington, DC RAND Health, Advisory Board; Santa Monica, CA Hispanic Heritage Foundation, Board of Directors; Washington, DC BNY/Mellon-United Bank, Board of Directors; New York, NY

Member Member Member
Member
Chair Member Member Member
Member Member Chair Member
Greer PJ. 4

Case 1:20-cv-21553-XXXX Document 1-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/13/2020 Page 13 of 28

1999
1999
1998-Pres. 1996-2007 1996-1998 1995-1999 1994-1999 1994-1995 1993-Pres 1993 1993 1992-1998 1992-1995 1991-Pres. 1990-2003 1989-1995 1988 1987-2000

W. K. Kellogg Foundation, Fellowship in Health Policy Research Selective Committee; New York, NY Department of Health and Human Services, Agency for Health Care Policy & Research, Minority Health Services; Rockville, MD RAND Pardee Graduate School, Board of Governors; Santa Monica, CA RAND Corporation, Board of Trustees; Santa Monica, CA Physicians for Human Rights Board; Boston, MA National Hispanic Scholarship Board; Novato, CA Drug Strategies National Board, Washington, DC Dr. Pepper/7 Up Companies, Inc., Board of Directors; Dallas, Texas Comedy Relief USA, Inc., Board of Directors; New York, NY Presidential Health Professional Review Group, President Clinton; Washington, DC Governor Clinton’s Transition Team for Health Care; Washington, DC National Council of La RAZA; Washington, DC Drug Policy Research Center, Advisory Board; Santa Monica, CA Hispanic Heritage Foundation, Board of Directors; Washington, DC Drug Policy Research Center, Advisory Board; Santa Monica, CA Cuban American National Council, Executive Committee; Miami, FL Health Care for the Homeless, National Advisory Council; Washington, DC Cuban American National Council, Board; Miami, FL

Participant
Participant
Charter Member Member Member Member Member Member Member Member Member Member Chair Member Member Member Member Member

State/Local 2004-Pres. Orange Bowl Committee; Miami Lakes, FL 2002-2005 State of Florida, Department of Elderly Affairs Advisory Council; Tallahassee, FL

2002-2003 Miami-Dade County Mayor’s Health Care Task Force; Miami-Dade County, FL

2002

Destination Florida Committee; Miami, FL

Hon. Member Chair, Gov. Appointee Member Member, Gov. Appointee

1999-2001 1998-Pres. 1997 1995-Pres. 1994-2001 1994-1998 1992-2002 1992-1998 1992-1994 1992-1994 1992-1993 1992 1992
1991-1992 1990 1989-2001 1989-1993 1989-1991 1988-2001 1988 1988 1986-1987

Camillus House, Board of Directors; Miami, FL Junior League of Miami, Community Advisory Board; Miami, FL State of Florida, Department of Elderly Affairs, Committee; Tallahassee, FL University of Florida Foundation, Board of Directors; Gainesville, FL Miami-Dade County Homeless Trust Board; Miami-Dade County, FL Catholic Health Services, Board of Directors; Lauderdale Lakes, FL Miami Coalition for a Drug Free Community, Board of Directors; Miami, FL United Way of Dade County, Board of Directors Governor’s Commission of the Homeless, Ad-Hoc; Tallahassee, FL We Will Rebuild, Board of Directors; Miami, FL Miami Coalition for the Homeless, Board of Directors; Miami, FL Dade County, Public Health Trust, Citizens Advisory Board Migrant Camps, Hurricane Andrew Relief: University of Miami School of Medicine, United Way, & Camillus Health Concern Indigent Health Care Task Force for Dade County; Miami, FL Dade County, Committee for Health Reform, ad-hoc; Dade County, FL Camillus House, Board of Directors; Miami, FL Catholic Community Services, Board of Directors; Miami, FL Safe Space – Shelter for Battered Women, Advisory Board Camillus Health Concern, Board of Directors Homeless, Missing, and Exploited Children of Dade County, Board; Miami, FL Greater Miami Chamber of Commerce, Task Force for the Homeless; Miami, FL Miami Coalition for the Homeless, Board of Directors; Miami, FL

Chair Member Chair Member Member Member Member Member Member Member Member Member Coordinator
Chair Member Member Member Member Member Member Member Member

Greer PJ. 5

Case 1:20-cv-21553-XXXX Document 1-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/13/2020 Page 14 of 28 INVITED PRESENTATIONS

International Topics Year Type 2017 Panelist
2017 Panelist
2017 Presenter

Occasion/Event
25th Anniversary International Conference of the Netter Center for Community Partnerships, University of Pennsylvania
25th Anniversary International Conference of the Netter Center for Community Partnerships, University of Pennsylvania
AMEE Symposium, AMEE (International Association for Medical Education)

Topic Community Health
Community Health
ASPIRE in Social Accountability

Location Philadelphia, PA
Philadelphia, PA
Helsinki, Finland

2013 Speaker 2012 Keynote 2012 Speaker 2010 Keynote 2006 Speaker
2004 Keynote
2003 Speaker 2000 Keynote
2000 Panelist
1999 Presentation
1997 Convocation Lecture
1997 Speaker 1989 Presentation

TEDx at Florida International University
American University of the Caribbean School of Medicine, St. Maarten, Graduating Class of 2012 TEDx at Coconut Grove, FL
American University of the Caribbean School of Medicine, St. Maarten, Graduating Class of 2010 Princeton University, Princeton-Harvard Cuba Conference
Caring Institute, 22nd National Association for Homecare & Hospice, 3rd World Congress on Homecare and Hospice International Symposium A Practical Approach to Infectious Diseases – 2003 5th Annual International Conference, International Institute of Human Understanding, Human Understanding Panelist, LASA Conference
XVIII Seminario Medicino Latino Americano, Mercy Hospital

Social Determinants of Health and Medical Curriculum Reform Social Justice

Coconut Grove, FL St. Maarten

Moving Upstream: Social Determinants of Health
Social Justice

Coconut Grove, FL St. Maarten

“Juventud Despierta”, “Capacity of the Cuban Diaspora”
Social Responsibility in Health Care

Newark, NY Orlando, FL

New Horizons in Hepatitis C Infections
The Art of Being

Miami, FL Coconut Grove, FL

Cuban Miami’s Multiple Identities, Memories, Myths and Realities
Hepatitis C: Current Therapy

Miami, FL Miami, FL

Alpha Omega Alpha (A.O.A.) Convocation Lecture, Ponce School of Medicine
Medical Grand rounds, Damas Hospital, Ponce School of Medicine
5th International AIDS Conference

Social Justice
Viral Hepatitis A-E
HIV Zero-Positivity in a Homeless Clinic

Ponce, PR Ponce, PR Montreal, Canada

Greer PJ. 6

Case 1:20-cv-21553-XXXX Document 1-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/13/2020 Page 15 of 28

National Topics Year Type 2019 Keynote 2019 Keynote
2018 Lecturer
2018 Panelist

Occasion/Event Future of Medicine Symposium
4th Quarterly Faculty Development Meeting, CDU College of Medicine
Developing a Curriculum for Health Professionals Guided by Social Determinants of Health and Community Engagement Seminar, University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine and School of Nursing Health Journalism 2018

2017 Moderator

Aetna Hispanic Heritage Month Signature Event

2017 Keynote

GI Roundtable Conference: Patient and Community Engagement

2017 Lecture 2017 Keynote

Golden Apple Distinguished Lecture, East University Heart Institute
Patient and Community Engagement - My Perspective, GI Roundtable Conference

2017 2017

Speaker
Commencement Speaker

The U.S. News Healthcare of Tomorrow Conference
University of Illinois College of Medicine

2016 Speaker

10th Annual Future of Medicine Summit

2016 Moderator

10th Annual SFHHA Healthcare Summit

2016 Moderator

2016 AAHC Global Issues Forum

2016 Speaker 2016 Keynote 2016 Speaker
2016 Speaker

2016 AMSA Convention
2016 CIR (Committee of Interns and Residents) National Convention SEIU Healthcare AAMC 2016 Lean Serve Lead
Beyond Flexner 2016

2016 Speaker 2016 Keynote

Gold Humanism Conference, Thomas Jefferson University
Internal Medicine/Medical Humanities Grand Rounds, SIU School of Medicine

Topic
Roseman University Summerlin Campus Innovation in Clinical Education across the Medical Education continuum Social Accountability Where It Matters

Location Las Vegas, NV Los Angeles, CA
Philadelphia, PA

Transforming Medical Education: How are Medical Schools Adjusting?
A Conversation with Dr. Joe Greer
Patient and Community Engagement – My perspective
Why Physicians Need to Save the World
Social Determinants of Health and the Future of Health Education Addressing the Social Determinants of Health
Social Responsibility of Physicians and Health Professions The Quest for Healthy Aging- Mind, Body and Spirit How Health Systems Can Support Population Health Management Leadership in Social Determinants of Health Education
Bringing the Social Mission to Your School
The Role We Play in the Future of Health in America
Excellence in Medical Education: Standards for Best Practice Maintaining, Starting and Expanding the Social Mission of Medical Schools
Why We Need to Save the World, the Physicians Role
How Medical Schools and their Curricula Can make America Better

Phoenix, AZ
Hartford, CT Fort Worth, TX
Greenville, NC Forth Worth, TX Washington, DC Chicago, IL West Palm Beach, FL Davie, FL Washington, DC
Washington, DC Philadelphia, PA Seattle, WA Miami, FL
Philadelphia, PA Springfield, IL

Greer PJ. 7

Case 1:20-cv-21553-XXXX Document 1-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/13/2020 Page 16 of 28

2016 Speaker 2016 Speaker 2016 Keynote 2016 Speaker
2015 Plenary 2015 Speaker

JSU RCMI Distinguished Seminar Series, Jackson State University Medicine Grand Rounds, New York Medical College at Westchester Medical Center RWJF Clinical Scholars 2016 Annual Meeting
The George Washington University, Internal Medicine Ground Rounds
11th Annual AAMC Health Workforce Research Conference 9th Annual Future of Medicine Summit: Innovations in Healthcare Delivery

Changing Medical Education
Changing Medical Education
Changing Medical Education
How Medical Schools Curricula Can Make America Better
Innovations in Caring for Underserved Communities
Innovations in Healthcare Delivery Systems

Jackson, MS Valhalla, NY Atlanta, GA Washington, DC
Alexandria, VA West Palm Beach, FL

2015 Moderator for Plenary
2015 Presentation
2015 Keynote
2015 Keynote 2014 Lunch conv.
with students 2014 Keynote 2014 Keynote 2014 Speaker
2014 Keynote
2013 Keynote 2013 Keynote 2013 Keynote
2013 Speaker 2013 Keynote

Beyond Flexner

Education and Social Mission

Albuquerque, NM

Institute of Medicine, The National Academies of Sciences Engineering Medicine
RAND Faculty Workshop: Conversations with Dr. Pedro Greer Jr. MD
The Dartmouth Symposium on Health Care Delivery Science Baylor College of Medicine
Catholic Health Partners Governance Annual Retreat Meeting Gold Humanism Honor Society Induction Ceremony, University of Washington Howard Dorsey Still (HDS) Lecture. Harvard Medical School
San Jose Clinic Speaker Series Luncheon
2013 Together on Diabetes Grantee Summit, Bristol-Myers Squibb Foundation American Diabetes Association, 6th Annual Disparities Partnership Forum Meharry Medical College
National Association of Free & Charitable Clinics Annual Summit UMDJNJ- New Jersey Medical School Humanism Day

Educating Health Professionals to Address the Social Determinants of Health A Consensus Study Diversifying the Medical Profession through Community Engagement and Outreach
Diffuse, Maintain, Sustain: Making Change Stick
Tomorrow’s Medicine: How DO We Make the World Healthier
Social Justice

Washington, DC Santa Monica, CA
Hanover, NH Houston, TX Miami, FL

Physicians Responsibility to the Most Vulnerable
Social Justice and Healthcare, Why We Need to Save the World?

Seattle, WA Boston, MA

Healthcare Crossroads: Influencing Policy and Social Responsibility

Houston, TX

Social Determinants and Social Justice

Atlanta, GA

Model for Transforming a High Risk Community
Immigrant Population and Social and Financial Implications That They Place On The Healthcare System Waking up America: Why we should Save the World
Humanism, Medicine, and Social Accountability

Arlington, VA Nashville, TN
Baltimore, MD Newark, NJ

Greer PJ. 8

Case 1:20-cv-21553-XXXX Document 1-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/13/2020 Page 17 of 28

2013 Keynote

University of Colorado Denver School of Medicine Social Justice and - 2013 Gold Humanism Honor Society Inaugural Humanism Event Denver

Colorado

2013 Guest 2013 Speaker

University of St. Louis, Sharing Responsibility, Improving Community Health
University of Texas School of Dentistry of Houston. Ethics Forum, Escaping your Ethics Jail: Inter-Professional Ethics Education

Sharing Responsibility, Improving Community Health What is ethics competency? Dispatches from the front line of a new integrated curriculum

St. Louis, MO Houston, TX

2013 Keynote

West Virginia University, Diabetes Symposium & The Value of Cultural

Workshop: Bridging the Gap in Education

Diversity

Morgantown, WV

2012 Keynote 2012 Keynote

Harvard Medical School, 2012 Latino Medical Student Association University of Michigan Health Systems, Leadership Day

2012 2011 2011 2011 2011 2010

Commencement Speaker Keynote
Keynote
Speaker
Commencement Speaker Keynote

Wayne State University, 2012 Graduation Commencement Academy of Managed Care Pharmacy, AMCP’S 2011 Educational Conference General Session Christus Health: Disparity in Healthcare in America The Colorado Health Symposium 2011, Colorado State of Mind UTMB School of Medicine Commencement
AMSA (American Medical Student Association) 60th Anniversary Annual Conference

Social Justice

Boston, MA

Social Justice, the Social Determinants of Health, and the Responsibilities of Healthcare Providers Social Justice

Detroit, MI Detroit, MI

Impact of Social Determinants
Disparity in Healthcare in America
Social Determinants of Health and Social Justice
Why The Worlds Is Yours To Save
Social Justice and Social Determinants of Health

Atlanta, GA Santa Fe, NM Denver, CO Galveston, TX Anaheim, CA

2010 Keynote 2010 Keynote
2009 Panelist 2009 Keynote

The University of Toledo College of Medicine
University of Chicago College of Medicine
Chicago Contributes, Health Care Panel, University of Chicago Harvard University

Issues in Migrant Worker Health Has American Medical Education Kept Up With The Needs of America Chicago Contributes
Latinos in Health Care

Toledo, Ohio Chicago, IL
Chicago, IL Boston, MA

2009 Panelist Annual Session Using Healthcare Reform to Create

CDC

Community Centric Efforts

2009 Keynote

Sisters of Charity of Leavenworth Health Systems

2009 Lecture

Williams College

Social Determinants of Health and Healthcare Reform Maintaining Mission In Today’s Society
Health, Humanities, and Society

Washington, DC Phoenix, AZ Williamstown, MA

2008 Keynote 2007 Keynote

St James Mercy Hospital
Seventeenth Annual Regional Conference, NNLAMS Midwest Region, University of Michigan Medical School

Social Justice and Healthcare in America
Salud Sin Barreras: Healthcare For All

Hornell, NY Detroit, MI

Greer PJ. 9

Case 1:20-cv-21553-XXXX Document 1-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/13/2020 Page 18 of 28

2006 Keynote

91st Annual Catholic Health Assembly, Catholic Health Association

The Next Generation of Community Benefit From Random Acts of Kindness to Strategic Thinking

Orlando, FL

2006 Keynote 2006 Keynote

Community Benefit Conference
University of Florida, 16th Annual HIV Conference

How to Inspire and Be Inspired by Physicians in Healthcare
Keeping with the Pace: An HIV Update, Dealing with Recalcitrant Patients: Tips From The Trenches

Phoenix, AZ Gainesville, FL

2005 Speaker 2005 Keynote

Medical Grand Rounds, Department of Medicine, University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey, UMDNJ
SACE (Southern Association of College Employees), Annual Meeting

Medical Consequences of Inappropriate Social and Public Policies
Social Justice

Newark, NJ Miami, FL

2005 2005 2005 2004
2004

Commencement Speaker Guest Lecturer Keynote Keynote
Keynote

Salem State College, 151st Commencement
Stone Hill College, Martin Institute, Craig Higgins' "Class Healthcare Foundations & Evolutions." Stone Hill College, Martin Institute: Department of Public Health: The Peter Mareb Memorial Lectures Duke University
Orientation of first year Medical Students, University of Illinois

Social Justice
Lack of Social Justice in our Healthcare System Social Justice
Importance of Social Justice in Medicine and The Ability to use one’s Medical Profession to Better One’s Community Book Talk

Salem, MA Easton, MA Easton, MA Raleigh Durham, NC
Chicago, IL

2004 Commencement Stone Hill College, Stonehill

Speaker

53rd Commencement

Social Justice

Easton, MA

2003 Disting. Lecture Brown Medical School 2002-2003 Charles O. Cooke, M.D. Distinguished Visiting Lecture

2003 Keynote 2003 Keynote

Exxon-Mobil Headquarters Hispanic Heritage HISPANIC Magazines Achievement Awards

Sun, Fun, Politics and Suffering: What Happens to Patients When Doctors don’t Speak Up
Minorities in Engineering, Math, and Science Social Justice

Providence, RI
Mclean, VA San Francisco, CA

2003 Keynote 2003 Keynote 2003 Keynote 2002 Keynote 2002 Keynote 2001 Lecture

Iowa Hospital Association 74th Annual Meeting and Trade Show
People en Español Magazine Senior Staff Retreat
University of the Pacific, Latino Leadership Conference (El Concilio)
Society of Gastroenterology Nurses and Associates (SGNA), Annual Meeting
ULAMS Regional Conference, UT Southwestern Medical School
Begando Lecture Series Humanities in Medicine, University of Illinois, Chicago, Medical School

Social Justice Corporate Responsibility Social Justice Social Justice Social Justice Humanities in Medicine

Des Moines, Iowa Phoenix, AZ Stockton, CA Phoenix, AZ Dallas, TX Chicago, IL

Greer PJ. 10

Case 1:20-cv-21553-XXXX Document 1-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/13/2020 Page 19 of 28

2000 Keynote
2000 Keynote 2000 Speaker 2000 Keynote 2000 Presenter 2000 Keynote 2000 Keynote

10th Annual National Abandoned Infants Assistance Grantees Conference, University of California at Berkeley 14th Annual Conference HIV/AIDS Jekyll Island
2000 National Healthcare for the Homeless Conference, Screening, Diagnosis, Treatment. Columbia University, Alumni Club of Miami
Health Affairs, Presenter, Narrative Matters
Hispanic Heritage Festival
Northwest Regional Primary Care Association

A1A, A Decade of Helping Families Achieve Healthy Futures
HIV, Hepatitis C, and Social Factors
Hepatitis C Among Homeless People
Social Justice and a Physicians’ Responsibility
Personal Stories and the Making of Health Policies
The Responsibility of Our Roles for Improving the World Social Justice

Washington, DC
Jekyll Island, GA Denver, CO Miami, FL Arlie House, VA Brunswick, NJ Denver, CO

2000 Keynote 2000 Keynote 2000 Keynote 1999 Keynote
1999 Lectures 1999 Keynote 1999 Lectures 1999 Keynote 1998 Plenary 1998 Speaker 1998 Lecture 1998 Keynote 1997 Speaker

United Way National De Tocqueville Meeting
United Way, Alexis De Tocqueville Society of Denver University of Alabama at Birmingham, VA Medical Center, Recognition Ceremony for Graduating Residents 13th Annual Minority Health Conference, University of Michigan
First Year Medical students and High School students regarding, Dearborn Fordson High School
Health Occupations Partner in Education (HOPE), Ypsilanti High School Seminars in Medicine, Third Year Medical Class, University of Michigan Medical School, Office of Multi-Ethnic Student Affairs Student National Medical Association (SNMA), 34th Annual National Medical Educational Conference 11th Annual Texas HIV/STD Conference at the Texas Department of Health Harvard Medical School Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Minority Scientist’s and Engineer’s Roles in the Future of America New England Biomedical Science Careers Program, sponsored by Commonwealth Fund and Harvard Medical School American Medical Student Association Annual Meeting, Homelessness and Student Responsibility

Social Responsibility translating into Social Justice Book Talk
Book Talk and Social Responsibility
Facing the Public Health Challenges of Tomorrow: Fresh Perspectives for the New Millennium Outreach to the Arabic Community of Greater Detroit Future Opportunities for All Students Various Topics
Diversity in Medicine: The Lifeline to Culturally Sensitive Healthcare Poverty and Disease
Physicians and Poverty The Role of Minority Scientists in the U.S. and the World Healthcare and the Homeless
Issues of Physicians and Responsibility

Coral Gables, FL Denver, CO Birmingham, AL Ann Arbor, MI
Detroit, MI Detroit, MI Ann Arbor, MI Miami, FL Austin, TX Boston, MA Cambridge, MA Boston, MA Orlando, FL

1997 Keynote

National Hispanic Medical Association First Annual Meeting

Social Justice

Washington, DC

Greer PJ. 11

Case 1:20-cv-21553-XXXX Document 1-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/13/2020 Page 20 of 28

1997 Speaker

Physicians for Human Rights, 10th Annual Meeting

1996
1996 1996

Speaking Series
Keynote Speaker

Grand Rounds-The Dean Series, University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey, School of Osteopathic Medicine
Masters in Pediatrics Annual Conference
National Association of Commission on Women

Health and Human Rights Issues in American Medicine Our Responsibility as Physicians
Social Justice Poverty and Women

Boston, MA
Stratford, NJ
Miami, FL Miami, FL

1995 1995 1995

Commencement Speaker Keynote
Keynote

East Tennessee State University, Medical Honors Graduation
Indianapolis Statewide Conference on the Homeless
State of Louisiana, 5th Annual Homeless Conference

1994 1994 1993

Lecture
Commencement Speaker Chair Briefing

A.O.A. Lecture and Medical Grand Rounds, Emory University School of Medicine
New York Medical College, Carnegie Hall, 135th Graduating Class, New York
Briefing to 103rd Congress on Drug Policy

Physicians and Social Responsibility Homelessness and our Collective Responsibility Physician Responsibility
Physicians and Social Responsibility Physicians and Social Responsibility Briefing on Drug Policy

Johnson City, TN Indianapolis, IN Baton Rouge, LA Atlanta, GA New York Washington, DC

1993 Keynote 1993 Speaker 1993 Speaker 1992 Keynote 1992 Speaker 1991 Keynote
1990 Speaker 1989 Presentation
1988 Speaker

CSAP, Resource link II Annual Meeting, Washington Hilton National Council of Jewish Women, Annual Luncheon The Forum, Institute of Politics at the John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University Food Link, Annual Dinner
Medical Grand Rounds, Department of Medicine, St. Mary’s Hospital, University of Rochester
Critical Care Registered Nurse (CCRN), Annual Luncheon
AAMS National Convention
Southern Medical Association Annual Meeting
NACHC Regional Meeting

From Under the Bridges to the Executive Offices
Social Responsibility

Washington, DC Miami, FL

Current Policies with Homelessness

Cambridge, MA

Physicians and Social Responsibility
Medical Consequences of Healthcare and the Poor, a Physicians Responsibility
Healthcare Professionals' Responsibility for the Indigent
Homeless Healthcare and a Multicenter Clinic
Traumatic Neuromas as a cause of PostCholecystectomy Syndrome
Health, Homelessness and Coalition Building

Rochester, New York Rochester, New York Miami, FL
Washington, DC Washington, DC
New Orleans, LA

Local and Regional Topics

Year Type

Occasion/Event

2019 Speaker

2019 Future of Healthcare Conference and

2019 Keynote

Annual Meeting 8th Annual Senator Philip D. Lewis Luncheon

Topic The Joy of Medicine
Homeless Coalition Keynote Address

Location Jacksonville, FL West Palm Beach, FL

Greer PJ. 12

Case 1:20-cv-21553-XXXX Document 1-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/13/2020 Page 21 of 28

2017 Speaker 2017 Speaker 2016 Keynote 2015 Lecture
2015 Keynote 2014 Keynote 2014 Speaker 2014 Keynote 2014 Speaker
2012 Speaker 2011 Keynote 2010 Keynote 2009 Keynote 2008 Keynote 2008 Keynote 2004 Keynote 2004 Keynote
2004 Keynote
2004 Keynote 2003 Keynote 2003 Keynote
2003 Speaker 2003 Keynote 2003 Keynote

Bob Graham Center Public Program, University of Florida Our Lady of Lourdes Academy St. Anthony’s Healthcare Foundation
Diversity Day, University of Florida
Greater Kendall Business Association Luncheon Florida Association of Free and Charitable Clinics 2014 Annual Conference Florida State University College of Medicine. Humanism Grand Rounds Integrate HIMSS Fall Event 2014 MDCC North Campus
Bob Graham Center for Public Service, University of Florida 2011 NBCSK & NHCSL Promoting Healthy Lifestyles Conference University of Miami Primary Care Week
FIAC Community Forum: Immigrant Access to Healthcare Avera Health, Marriot City Center
Brevard County Barry University
Grant Makers in Health Conference
Miami-Dade Community College Honors Programs Students Orientation, Miami, Florida Wolfson Campus United Way of America, Alexis de Tocqueville Society 31st Annual Dinner Benefiting the Central Florida Health Care Clinics Central Florida Health Care Coalition
Invited by Governor Jeb Bush, talk to Governors Senior staff, Leadership Forum Kosher Food Bank, Grand Opening Ceremony
The Golden Rule Awards Benefit

What is a Citizens Responsibility to the Most Vulnerable
The Plunge Experience
Physicians and Social Justice
Innovation in Healthcare Education and Delivery: Why It Needs to Change FIU Unique Approach to Improve Health in the Community Social Determinants of Health and its Influence on Health Outcomes Physicians Roles and Responsibilities in Today’s Society Social Responsibility
Faces of the Homeless in an International City: Through the Eyes of the Artists
Social Responsibility and Social Justice Social Responsibility
Physician Responsibilities in Society FIAC Community Forum: Immigrant Access To Healthcare Social Justice and Healthcare in America Health Issues Social Work Practice In These Troubled Times Physicians and Healthcare System’s Responsibility to the Poor Social Responsibility
Our Responsibility to the Most Vulnerable Social Responsibility in Health Care Social Determinants and Social Responsibility of Health Care Professionals Social Responsibility
Social Justice and Social Responsibility Healthcare and the Homeless

Gainesville, FL
Miami, FL St. Petersburg, FL Gainesville, FL
Miami, FL Orlando, FL Tallahassee, FL Davie, FL Miami, FL
Gainesville, FL Miami, FL Miami, FL Miami, FL Minneapolis, MN Melbourne, FL Miami, FL Ft. Lauderdale, FL Miami, FL
Sarasota, FL Lake Wales, FL Orlando, FL
Tallahassee, FL Miami, FL Immokalee, FL

2003 Commencement University of Florida Medical School

Speaker

2002 Keynote

Hope Program Indigent Care

2002 Keynote

Minority Premedical Student Forum, University of Florida

Physician Responsibility and Social Justice Social Responsibility and Social Justice Diversity, Responsibility, and Social Justice

Gainesville, FL Melbourne, FL Gainesville, FL
Greer PJ. 13

Case 1:20-cv-21553-XXXX Document 1-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/13/2020 Page 22 of 28

2002 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000

Keynote Address Keynote Address Keynote
Book Lecture
Keynote
Lecture
Keynote
Speaker
Commencement Address Keynote
Keynote
Keynote

NACOPRW (National Conference of Puerto Rican Women), Miami Chapter
Annual Junior National Honor Society Induction, George W. Carver Middle School
Belen Jesuit Preparatory School, Annual Book Fair
American Association of University Women, Miami Chapter
Florida International University, Annual Honors Awards Ceremony
University of Florida Medical Students Annual Conference
University of West Florida, John C. Pace Speaker Series
Byblos Literary Feast 2000, Meeting of the Minds Novel Day for Students
Commencement Address for Graduating Class of 2000, Palmer Trinity School
Coral Gables Senior High School, National Honor Society
Coral Reef Senior High School, International Baccalaureate Pinning Ceremony
Florida AIDS Summit 2000 (AHEC)

Social Justice Social Responsibility Starts Now Waking up in America Book Lecture Social Justice Physicians and Poverty Social Responsibility Waking Up In America The Future and How You Can Make It Better Social Responsibility Social Responsibility AIDS Education Training

2000 Keynote 2000 Keynote 2000 Keynote 2000 Keynote 2000 Keynote 2000 Lecture 2000 Keynote
2000 Keynote 2000 Keynote 2000 Keynote 2000 Keynote 1999 Speaker

Florida Governor’s Health Care Summit, Solutions for the Uninsured Luncheon, University of Tampa, Honors Program, State of Florida Junior Colleges Media Appreciation Luncheon, Archdiocese of Miami Mercy Hospital
Our Lady of Lourdes Academy, Annual Assembly, Book Talk Pediatric Grand Round, University of Miami Department of Podiatry Public Education Foundation of Marion County, Leadership Ocala Class Frazier Graduation Selby Foundation, First Annual Scholar Symposium University of Florida, Hispanic Student Association University of Miami, Primary Care Week
Workshop, Hispanic Student Forum, University of Florida Festival of Readings

Solutions for the Uninsured
Book Talk
Social Justice
Liver Cancer Prevention in Hepatitis C Waking up in America
Physicians -The Poor and Our Responsibility Our Collective Social Responsibility
Book Talk
Book Talk
Innovative Approaches to Health Care Responsibility and Compassion
Waking Up In America

1999 Keynote 1999 Speaker

Florida Alcohol & Drug Abuse Administration (FADAA) 15th Annual Multicultural Symposium Miami International Book Fair

Just the Facts Alcohol & Drug Abuse in Hispanics
Waking Up In America

Miami, FL Coconut Grove, FL Miami, FL Miami, FL Miami, FL
Gainesville, FL Pensacola, FL
Fort Lauderdale, FL Miami, FL Miami, FL
Miami, FL Jacksonville, FL Miami, FL Tampa, FL
Miami, FL Miami, FL Miami, FL Miami, FL
Ocala, FL
Sarasota, FL
Gainesville, FL Miami, FL Gainesville, FL St. Petersburg, FL Hollywood, FL
Miami, FL

Greer PJ. 14

Case 1:20-cv-21553-XXXX Document 1-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/13/2020 Page 23 of 28

1999
1999 1998
1998
1998
1998 1998 1996 1996 1995
1995 1993 1993 1993 1993
1992 1992 1992 1992 1992
1991
1991 1991 1991

Speaker
Speaker Keynote
Collaborative Presentation
Keynote
Keynote Keynote Commencement Speaker Speaker Convocation Speaker Commencement Speaker Keynote Commencement Speaker Speaker Keynote
Commencement Speaker Speaker Keynote Keynote Speaker
Keynote
Speaker Keynote Speaker

Nursing Management of HIV Disease Workshops Jackson Memorial Medical Center, Florida AIDS Education and Training Center, Association of Nurses in AIDS Care, Metro Miami Chapter Sarasota Reading Festival 2nd Annual Conference of the Melissa Institute for Violence Prevention and Treatment at the Victor E. Clarke Educational Center, South Miami Hospital
Community Epidemiology Work Group Meeting
Florida Department of Health, Bureau of HIV/AIDS Conference
Health Care Heroes Award, Greater Miami Chamber of Commerce Walden University, Policy and the Advocates
Mast Academy
University of Florida School of Medicine
A.O.A. Convocation Speaker and Medical Grand Rounds, University of Florida School of Medicine Palmer-Trinity School
Florida Homeless Conference Ransom Everglades High School
Sarasota General Hospital University of Miami School of Medicine, Student Council Convention, Health Reform In Our Future Barry University School of Nursing
Barry University School of Podiatric Medicine, Senior Students FADA (Florida Alcohol and Drug Association) Annual Meeting Leadership Florida Medical Grand Rounds, Department of Medicine University of Florida, College of Medicine Alpha Epsilon Delta (Premed Honor Society) Annual Dinner and Induction, University of Miami, Marriot Hotel Barry University School of Podiatric Medicine, Senior Students Health Issues Conference, University of Florida College of Medicine The Homeless, University of Miami School of Law

HIV & the Homeless
Waking Up In America Physicians and Social Responsibility
HIV Surveillance of Drug Abuse and Sexual Risk Behaviors among homeless persons in Miami-Dade County, Florida The Future of HIV Counseling and Testing, Advanced Concepts and Techniques Social Responsibility and Professional Responsibility Policy and Advocacy How You Can Make the World Better How to Make a Living and a Difference Physicians and Responsibility
How You Can Make the World Better Healthcare for the Homeless How You Can Make the World Better Health and the Homeless Health Reform in Our Future
Social Responsibility
Indigent Care
Societal Factors, Drugs, and Behavioral Health Social Responsibility Physicians Responsibility, Not Just To Patients, But to Society
Social Responsibility
Indigent Care
Indigent Care
Law and Poverty

Miami, FL
Sarasota, FL Miami, FL
Miami, FL
Orlando, FL
Miami, FL Miami, FL Miami, FL Gainesville, FL Gainesville, FL
Miami, FL Tallahassee, FL Miami, FL Sarasota, FL Miami, FL
Miami Shores, FL Miami, FL Ft. Lauderdale, FL Miami, FL Gainesville, FL
Miami, FL
Miami, FL Gainesville, FL Miami, FL
Greer PJ. 15

Case 1:20-cv-21553-XXXX Document 1-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/13/2020 Page 24 of 28

1991 1990 1990 1990 1990 1990 1990 1990 1989 1989

Commencement Speaker Keynote Speaker Speaker Keynote
Speaker Keynote Keynote Speaker Speaker

University of Miami School of Business
Best of the Class, (Graduating Seniors, Tricounty Area) WBFS TV, Atlantis Water Park Catholic Community Services Annual Conference, Social and Economic Justice Children in Crisis Conference, University of Miami Holy Cross Hospital (Luz del Mundo Clinic)
Omicron Delta Epsilon Leadership Conference, University of Miami Public Interest Seminar University of Miami School of Law University of Miami School of Law Homelessness and the Law Conference on Homeless, Mental Illness and Health, University of South Florida Homeless Symposium, Barry University

Inappropriate Social Policy
Social Responsibility
Health Care and the Homeless: A Local Approach Homelessness in the United States
Responsibility as Healthcare Providers to the Most Vulnerable Ethics In America
AIDS and the Homeless
Medical Consequences of the Law and Homelessness Health Aspects of the Homeless
Health and Homelessness

1989 Speaker

University of Miami School of Law

Volunteers and the Homeless

1988 Speaker

Barry University, School of Nursing

Health Care and the Homeless

1988 Keynote 1987 Speaker 1987 Lecture Series

Career Day, Cuban American National Council & Dade County School Board
Medical Grand Rounds University of Miami School of Medicine/Department of Medicine Emergency Lecture Series to University of Miami/Jackson Memorial Hospital Interns

Your Future and Your Responsibility
The Plight of the Homeless in an Affluent Society Approach to the Homeless Emergency Room Patient

Coral Gables, FL Paradise Island, Bahamas Miami, FL
Miami, FL
Ft. Lauderdale, FL Coral Gables, FL Coral Gables, FL Coral Gables, FL Tampa, FL
Miami Shores, FL Coral Gables, FL Miami Shores, FL Miami, FL
Miami, FL
Miami, FL

SERVICE TO PROFESSIONAL PUBLICATIONS
Reviewer, American Journal of Public Health Reviewer, Health Policy Journal Reviewer, The Journal of Family Practice Editorial Board Member, Medico Interamericano

RESEARCH AND CREATIVE OPPORTUNITIES
PEER-REVIEWED PUBLICATIONS
11. Greer PJ, Brown DR, Brewster LG, Lage OG, Esposito KF, Whisenant EB, Anderson FG, Castellanos NK, Stefano TA, Rock JA. Socially Accountable Medical Education: An Innovative Approach at Florida International University Herbert Wertheim College of Medicine. Acad. Med. 2018;93(1):60-65. doi: 10.1097/ACM.0000000000001811.
10. Campa A, Martinez SS, Sherman KE, Greer PJ, Li Y, Garcia S, Stewart T, Ibrahimou B, Williams OD, Baum MK. Cocaine Use and Liver Disease are Associated with All-Cause Mortality in the Mia mi Adult Studies in HIV (MASH) Cohort. J Drug Abuse. 2016;2(4):1-21. doi: 10.21767/2471-853X.100036.

Greer PJ. 16

Case 1:20-cv-21553-XXXX Document 1-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/13/2020 Page 25 of 28
9. Rock JA, Acuña JM, Lozano JM, Martinez IL, Greer PJ, Brown DR, Brewster L, Simpson JL. Health impact of an academic community partnership for medical education: Evaluation of a novel student-based home visitation program. South Med J. 2014 Apr; 107(4):203-11. doi: 10.1097/SMJ.0000000000000080.
8. Parsons M, Campa A, Lai S, Li Y, Martinez JD, Murillo J, Greer PJ, Martinez SS, Baum MK. Effect of GSTM1Polymorphism on Disease Progression and Oxidative Stress in HIV Infection: Modulation by HIV/HCV CoInfection and Alcohol Consumption. J AIDS Clin Res. 2013 Aug 31;4(9):10002337. doi: 10.4172/21556113.1000237.
7. Fogel R, Rams H, Greer PJ, Jacobs M, Plasencia G, Gomez E, De Fogel JF. Investigating the Safety of Weight Reduction Via Endoluminal Vertical Gastroplasty – A U.S. Pilot Study with 6 Months Follow-Up. Gastrointestinal Endosc. 2008 Apr;67(5): S1478. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2008.03.293.
6. Schultz JM, Greer PJ, LaLota M, Garcia LM, Valverde E, Collazo R, Waters M, McCoy CB. HIV seroprevalence and risk behaviors among clients attending a clinic for the homeless in Miami/Dade County, Florida, 1990-1996. Popul Res Policy Rev. 1999;18:357-372. doi: 10.1023/A:1006232827339.
5. Fournier AM, Tyler R, Iwasko N, LaLota M, Shultz J, Greer PJ. Human Immunodeficiency virus among the homeless in Miami: A new direction for the HIV Epidemic. Am J Med. 1996 May;100(5):582-584. doi: 10.1016/S00029343(95)000194.
4. Fournier AM, Perez-Stable A, Greer PJ. Lesson From a Clinic for the Homeless: The Camillus Health Concern. JAMA 1993;270(22):2721-2724. doi: 10.1001/jama.1993.03510220077038
3. Greer PJ, Lacayo L, Reiner DK, Smoak WM, Barkin JS. The rim sign: the ghostly portender of acute cholecystitis. Am J Gastroenterol. 1992 May;87(5):627-9.
2. Schultz J, Greer PJ, et al. Characteristic and Risk Behavior in Homeless Black Male Seeking Service from the Community Homeless Assistance Plan – Dade County, Florida, August 1991. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 1991 Dec 20;40(50): 865-868.
1. Hasan FA, Jeffers LJ, Dickinson G, Otrakji CL, Greer PJ, Reddy KR, Schiff ER. Hepatobiliary Cryptosporidiosis and Cytomegalovirus Infection Mimicking Metastatic Cancer to the Liver. Gastroenterology 1991;100:1743-1748.

INVITED EDITORIALS, SOLICITED PERSPECTIVES, COMMENTARIES & LETTERS

7. Greer PJ. Who is Accountable for Society’s Health? Implications for Future Directions. Journal on Anchor Institutions and Communities 2016;1:52-55. Available at: https://www.margainc.com/wpcontent/uploads/2017/05/AITF_Journal_2016_Vol_1.pdf

6. Greer PJ. Perspective: Medical Education – A Focus on Social Accountability. Minnesota Health Care News 2016 May;14(5):8. Available at: https://issuu.com/mppub/docs/mn_healthcare_news_may_2016.

5. Greer PJ. Editorial: Is Health Reform Dead? USA Today 1994 Jun 2.

4. Greer PJ. La Salud Como David Y Goliat. El Nuevo Herald 1993 Dec 1.

3. Greer PJ. Op/Ed: Homelessness. Miami Herald 1993 Sept 26.

2. Greer PJ. A Letter from Homestead, Florida. The Courtland Forum 1992 Nov:138-144.

1. Greer PJ. Editorial: Homelessness and Children. International Pediatric Journal 1991;6(30):249.

Greer PJ. 17

Case 1:20-cv-21553-XXXX Document 1-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/13/2020 Page 26 of 28
BOOKS
2. Greer PJ, with Balmaseda L. Waking up in America: How One Doctor Brings Hope To Those Who Need It Most. Paperback. New York, NY: Touchstone; 2001.
1. Greer PJ, with Balmaseda L. Waking up in America: How One Doctor Brings Hope To Those Who Need It Most. Hardcover. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster Publishing; 1999.
BOOK CHAPTERS
3. Greer PJ, O’Connell JK. Hepatitis C Virus. In: O’Connell JK, Swain SE, Daniels CL, Allen JS, eds. The Health Care of Homeless Persons: A Manual of Communicable Diseases & Common Problems in Shelters & on the Streets. Boston, MA: The Boston Health Care for the Homeless Program, Guthrie Nixon Smith Printers; 2004:41-46.
2. Moreno MD, Jose N, Greer PJ. Co-infection with Hepatitis B & C. In: Steinhart CR, Orrick JJ, Simpson K, eds. HIV/AIDS Primary Care Guide. Gainesville, FL: Florida AIDS Education and Training Center; 2002.
1. Greer PJ, Munhall PL. The Culture of Poverty and Backyard Efforts. In: Munhall PL, Fitzsimons V, eds. The Emergence of Women in the 21st Century. Sudbury, MA: Jones & Bartlett; 1995: 75-83.
ABSTRACTS AND POSTERS
25. Lage OG, Esposito K, Bonnin R, Raventos V, Naranjo M, Li Y, Whisenant E, Brown D, Greer PJ. Utilizing Service Learning to Assess Students Perceptions of Interprofessional Teams (Follow-Up). Poster presentation at the: AMA Accelerating Change in Medical Education Consortium , Spring Conference; April 2018; Providence, RI.
24. Lage OG, Esposito K, Bonnin R, Raventos V, Naranjo M, Li Y, Whisenant E, Brown D, Greer PJ. Utilizing Service Learning to Assess Students Perceptions of Interprofessional Teams. Poster presentation at the: AMA Accelerating Change in Medical Education Consortium , Spring Conference; April 2017; Providence, RI.
23. Lage OG, Raventos V, Naranjo M, Bonnin R, Esposito K, Whisenant E, Brown D, Greer PJ. Longitudinal Interprofessional Assessment Tools for NeighborhoodHELP®. Poster presentation at the: AMA Accelerating Change in Medical Education Consortium, Spring Conference; March 2017; Scottsdale, AZ.
22. Whisenant E, Lage OG, Brown D, Greer PJ. Teaching Household Centered Care, Interprofessional Teamwork and Social Accountability through a Longitudinal Service Learning Curriculum. Innovation Oral Presentation at: Learn, Serve Lead: The 2016 AAMC Annual Meeting; November 2016; Seattle, Washington.
21. Brewster L, Greer PJ, Brown DR, Fluney E, Ryan GW, Lacroix S, Stewart A, Bendaña H. Social Determinants of Health Specialists: The role of community-based organizations in the household-centered care approach. The Beyond Flexner Conference; September 16, 2016; Miami, FL.
20. Lage OG, Whisenant E, Chonin A, Farnsworth B, Brown DR, Greer PJ. Florida International University Herbert Wertheim College of Medicine: Teaching social determinants of health through community immersion, reflection, and diverse interprofessional student teams. AMEE 2016 (abstract); August 16, 2016.
Greer PJ. 18

Case 1:20-cv-21553-XXXX Document 1-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/13/2020 Page 27 of 28
19. Garba NA, Lage OG, Whisenant E, Wells A, Brown DR, Anderson F, Brewster L, Pedoussaut M, Greer PJ. NeighborhoodHELP® Linking Communities and Primary Care with a Focus on the Social Determinants of Health, Household-Centered Care, and Community Partnerships. Bringing Public Health & Primary Care Together: The Practical Playbook National Meeting; May 22-24, 2016.
18. Lage OG, Esposito K, Brown D, Whisenant E, Greer PJ, Rock J. Innovation in Education and Healthcare Delivery: Herbert Wertheim College of Medicine. Poster presentation at: AMA Accelerating Change in Medical Education Consortium, Spring Conference; March 2016; Hershey, PA.
17. Brown D, Brewster L, Towe V, Chen P, Valdez L Ta A, Metula A, Camps Romero E, Rockowitz E, Ryan G, and Greer PJ. Evaluation framework for a new model of integrated sociomedical outreach at Florida International University. Poster Presented at 45th Annual Urban Affairs Association Conference. Miami, FL, April 10, 2015
16. Stewart T, Campa A, Fleetwood C, Li Y, Martinez SS, Ramamoorthy V, Ibrahimou B, Greer PJ, Murillo J, Sherman KE, Baum MK. Bacterial translocation, oxidative stress, the fibrogenic cytokine TGF-β1 and liver fibrosis in a subset of the Miami Adult Studies on HIV (MASH) cohort. Poster presented at: HIV & Liver Meeting; Sept 18-20, 2014; Jackson Hole, WY.
15. Martinez SS, Campa A, Sherman K, Li T, Li Y, Murillo J, Greer PJ, Stewart T, Ramamoorthy V, Dizon K, Fleetwood C, Baum MK. Low plasma zinc is associated with higher mitochondrial DNA 8-hydoroxyguanosine (8-oxo-dG) and faster liver fibrosis in the Miami adult studies in HIV (MASH) Cohort. Poster presented at: HIV & Liver Meeting; Sept 18-20, 2014; Jackson Hole, WY.
14. Baum MK, Martinez S, Sherman K, Williams O, Li Y, Greer PJ, Murillo J, Stewart T, Fleetwood C, Ramamoorthy V, Dizon K, Alvarado G, Sneji A, Seminario L, Charlesworth A, Campa A. Association of hepatocyte apoptosis and cocaine use in the Miami adult studies in HIV (MASH) cohort. Poster exhibition at: 20th International AIDS Conference; July 2025, 2014; Melbourne, Australia.
13. Campa A, Martinez SS, Sherman K, Li Y, Greer PJ, Murillo J, Stewart T, Fleetwood C, Ramamoorthy V, Alvarado G, Sneji A, Seminario L, Charlesworth A, Baum MK. Heavy Alcohol Use is Associated with Hepatocyte Apoptosis in the Adult Studies in HIV (MASH) Cohort. Poster exhibition at: 20th International AIDS Conference; July 20-25, 2014; Melbourne, Australia.
12. Baum MK, Sherman KE, Martinez SS, Greer PJ, Stewart T, Jacobs C, Luisi S, Dizon K, Campa A. Microbial Translocation, Immune Activation, Apoptosis and Liver Fibrosis in the MASH Cohort. Poster presented at: International Antiviral Society—USA, 2014 Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections, Session P-Q6; March 5, 2014; Boston, MA.
11. Nowakowski L, Perez-Stable A, Anderson F, Brown D, Greer PJ, Rock JA. The Green Family Foundation NeighborhoodHELP® Mobile Health Center: Training Future Health Care Professionals and Caring for Communities. Poster for Annual Mobile Health Clinics Forum/ Mobile Health Clinics Association. September 14-17, 2013 in Palm Springs, CA.
10. Martinez, IL, Brewster L, Brown DR, Greer PJ. Medicine & Society: Bringing Back Social Medicine to Change medical Education for the Better. Poster presented at the 109th Annual Meeting of the American Anthropological Association, New Orleans, LA, November 20, 2010.
9. Brown D, Greer PJ, Brewster L, Martinez I, Acuña J, Perez-Stable A, Harvin V, Simpson JL, and Rock JA. A New Model of Interdisciplinary Medical Education. Poster presented at: The American Board of Internal Medicine Foundation 2010 Forum; August 2010.
Greer PJ. 19

Case 1:20-cv-21553-XXXX Document 1-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/13/2020 Page 28 of 28 8. Brown DR, Brewster L, Martinez I, Greer PJ, Perez-Stable A, Harvin V, Acuña J, Martin P, Mora C, Holder C, Botelho R, and Rock JA. A new model of community engaged medical and interdisciplinary education. Poster presented at the 36th annual STFM Predoctoral Education Conference; January 2010; Jacksonville, FL. 7. Greer PJ, Calmet FH, Edelstein M, Dickinson G, Klimas N, Soroka S, Baltodano L, Garrett B, De Medina M, Hill M, LaRue S, Schiff ER. Abstract: Prevalence of Hepatitis and Retrovirus among the Homeless of the City of Miami, Florida. Hepatology 1992;16(4 suppl; no. 2, pt. 2):203A(#635). 6. Greer PJ, Lacayo L, Reiner D, Barkin J. Abstract: Significance of a RIM sign in Patients with Cholecystitis. Am J Gastroenterol. May 1990. 5. Greer PJ, Erhinger G. Homelessness Health Care in a Multi-Service Clinic. Abstract & poster presented at: AAMS Annual Convention; April 1990; Washington, DC. 4. Greer PJ, Dickinson G, Holmes R, et al. HIV Seropositivity in a Homeless Clinic. Abstract & oral presentation at: 5th International AIDS Conference; June 5, 1989; Montreal, Canada. 3. Jeffers L, Hassan F, Greer PJ. Intrahepatic Stones in Primary Sclerosing Cholangitis. Abstract presentation at: International Liver Conference; June 1989; Geneva, Switzerland. 2. Greer PJ, O'Connell M, Perez-Stable A. Teaching Ambulatory Medicine at a Homeless Clinic. Poster & abstract presented at: AAMS Southeastern Regional Meeting; February 1988; Miami, FL. 1. Greer PJ, Gelbard M. Metastatic Carcinoid presenting as Chylous Ascites and masquerading as Retractile Mesenteritis. J FL Medical Association 1986;73(12).
OTHER PUBLICATIONS 5. Greer PJ. Healing The Homeless. The Peoples Journal: The Official Publication of Sociology-Anthropology of Florida International University 1992 Spr;5:76. 4. Greer, PJ. Medical Problems of the Homeless: Consequences of Lack of Social Policy-A Local Approach. U. Miami L. Rev. 1991;45(2):407-416. Available at: http://repository.law.miami.edu/umlr/vol45/iss2/7 3. Greer PJ. Indigent Care. Miami Medicine 1990 Aug:21(8):9. 2. Greer PJ. America’s New Homeless. Miami Medicine 1989 Feb;20(2):19-22. 1. Greer PJ, Castellanos D, Llanso R, Alvarez M. Prevalence of Positive Titers to Toxoplasmosis gondii in Pregnant Women. Doctoral Thesis. Santiago de los Caballeros, Dominican Republic; Jose Maria Cabral and Baez Hospital; 1984.
Greer PJ. 20

 
 Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 94 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/12/2020 Page 1 of 16
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case No. 20-21553-Civ-COOKE/GOODMAN PATRICK GAYLE, et al., Petitioners-Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and those similarly situated, v. MICHAEL W. MEADE, et al., Respondents-Defendants. ______________________________________/ REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 94 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/12/2020 Page 2 of 16

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

I. Other Cases Support Certification Here. ................................................................. 1 A. Fraihat ........................................................................................................ 1 B. Savino ......................................................................................................... 2 C. Zepeda ......................................................................................................... 3 D. Gomes ......................................................................................................... 3 E. Swain .......................................................................................................... 3
II. Class Certification Is Proper Here, and ICE’s Arguments Only Confirm This. ......... 5 A. There Is a Readily Identifiable Class ............................................................ 5 B. Rule 23(a) Is Satisfied.................................................................................. 8 C. Rule 23(b)(2) Is Satisfied. ............................................................................ 9
CONCLUSION ..............................................................................................................10

i

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 94 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/12/2020 Page 3 of 16
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Page(s)
Cases Amgen Inc. v. Connecticut Ret. Plans & Tr. Funds,
568 U.S. 455 (2013)..................................................................................................... 4
Bd. of Curators of Univ. of Missouri v. Horowitz, 435 U.S. 78 (1978) ...................................................................................................... 5
City of Mesquite v. Aladdin's Castle, Inc., 455 U.S. 283 (1982)..................................................................................................... 7
In re Deepwater Horizon, 739 F.3d 790 (5th Cir. 2014) ........................................................................................ 9
Eisen v. Carlisle & Jacquelin, 417 U.S. 156 (1974)..................................................................................................... 4
Fraihat v. ICE, No. EDCV 19-1546..............................................................................................passim
Gomes v. Acting Sec’y, U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., No. 20-cv-453-LM, 2020 WL 21136442 (D.N.H. May 4, 2020) ........................... 3, 8, 10
Hernandez v. County of Monterey, 305 F.R.D. 132 (N.D. Cal. 2015)................................................................................10
Ibrahim v. Acosta, 326 F.R.D. 696 (S.D. Fla. 2018) .................................................................................. 8
LaMarca v. Turner, 662 F. Supp. 647 (S.D. Fla. 1987) ................................................................................ 7
McKinnon v. Talladega Cty., 745 F. 2d 1360 (11th Cir. 1984) ................................................................................... 5
Parsons v. Ryan, 754 F.3d 657 (9th Cir. 2014) .......................................................................................10
In re Rodriguez, 695 F.3d 360 (5th Cir. 2012) ........................................................................................ 9
Savino v. Souza, No. :20-cv-10617-WGY, 2020 WL 1703844 (D. Mass. Apr. 8, 2020) ..................... passim
ii

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 94 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/12/2020 Page 4 of 16
M.D. ex rel. Stukenberg v. Perry, 675 F.3d 832 (5th Cir. 2012) ........................................................................................ 9
SunAmerica Corp. v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Canada, 77 F.3d 1325 (11th Cir. 1996) ...................................................................................... 6
Swain v. Junior, No. 20-11622-C, 2020 WL 2161317 (11th Cir. May 5, 2020) ............................. 1, 3, 4, 5
Valley Drug Co. v. Geneva Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 350 F.3d 1181 (11th Cir. 2003) .................................................................................... 4
Vega v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., 564 F.3d 1256 (11th Cir. 2009) .................................................................................... 8
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338 (2011)..................................................................................................... 9
Williams v. Mohawk Indus., Inc., 568 F.3d 1350 (11th Cir. 2009) .................................................................................... 8
Yates v. Collier, 868 F.3d 354 (5th Cir. 2017) .......................................................................................10
Zepeda v. Jennings, No. 20-cv-02731-VC, 2020 WL 2059848 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 29, 2020) ..................... 3, 8, 10
Rules Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23.............................................................................passim Other Authorities 2 Newberg on Class Actions § 4:28 (5th ed. Dec. 2019).....................................................10
iii

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 94 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/12/2020 Page 5 of 16
I. Other Cases Support Certification Here. The Supplemental Order [ECF 87] directed the parties to address other relevant class
certification orders in litigation raising issues under COVID-19, as well as Swain v. Junior, No. 20-11622-C, 2020 WL 2161317 (11th Cir. May 5, 2020). As set forth below, the relevant class certification orders confirm that class certification is proper here. Indeed, if this Court were not to certify a class, it would be a marked outlier. Moreover, the analysis in Swain confirms that this type of case involves the sort of common questions amenable to class treatment.
A. Fraihat ICE acknowledges one class certification order, Fraihat v. ICE, No. EDCV 19-1546 JGB (SHKx), 2020 WL 1932570 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 20, 2020). But ICE does not address the Fraihat court’s certification analysis. Instead, ICE asserts that its procedures “comply with the Fraihat decision as respondents are evaluating all of its current population to determine if any detainee is eligible for the Alternative to Detention program or other form of release.” [ECF 92 at 15.] That does not help the Court decide whether the proposed Class should be certified. In fact, Fraihat confirms that class treatment is appropriate here. The plaintiffs in Fraihat are “immigration detainees with a range of serious health conditions” claiming that ICE has failed to “ensure minimum lawful conditions of confinement at immigration detention facilities across the country” due to the risk that they would contract COVID-19. Fraihat, 2020 WL 1932570, at *1. As in this case, the plaintiffs sought class certification under Rule 23. Id. at *15. The Fraihat plaintiffs sought certification of two subclasses. See id. at *16. The court certified the proposed subclasses, finding Rule 23 met. First, the class was sufficiently numerous and defined. Id. at *17. In finding this requirement met, the court rejected ICE’s objection to class on the grounds that some detained individuals had been released, explaining this was irrelevant to Rule 23 and, “[i]f anything it tends to show the turmoil, expense, and difficulty caused by a piecemeal approach.” Id. Second, the common factual and legal questions were “more than adequate to support a finding of commonality” as required by Rule 23. “[T]he common question driving this case is whether Defendants’ system-wide response—or the lack of one—to COVID-19 violates Plaintiffs’ rights.” Id. at *18 (emphasis added). Third, the class representatives’ claims satisfied the typicality requirement “because they ha[d] the same claims and face[d] the same or similar harms arising from the same course of conduct.” Id. at *19. Fourth, the proposed
1

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 94 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/12/2020 Page 6 of 16
class representatives could adequately represent the class. Id. Finally, the requirements of Rule 23(b) were met because ICE’s “actions and inactions apply to the class generally” as”[t]he putative class seeks declaratory and injunctive relief based on the asserted inadequacies of Defendants’’ COVID-19 protocols and response.” Id. at *20.
Accordingly, the Fraihat court certified a nationwide class under Rule 23. Fraihat not only confirms that the issues raised here are common and amenable to class treatment, but also shows that the Class Petitioners-Plaintiffs seek to certify here (which focuses on three facilities in South Florida) is exceedingly modest by comparison.
B. Savino Similarly confirming that class treatment is appropriate is an April 8 Order provisionally certifying a “general class” of people in ICE detention at the Bristol County House of Corrections. See Mem. & Order, Savino v. Souza, No. :20-cv-10617-WGY, 2020 WL 1703844, at*4 (D. Mass. Apr. 8, 2020). The Savino court had initially declined to certify a general class, but “[u]pon reflection,” the court “determine[d] that the admittedly significant variation among the Detainees [would] not defeat commonality or typicality.” Id. at *7. The court explained that, “[a]t bottom, a common question of law and fact in this case is whether the government must modify the conditions of confinement—or, failing that, release a critical mass of Detainees—such that social distancing will be possible and all those held in the facility will not face a constitutionally violative ‘substantial risk of serious harm.’” Id. The court emphasized that differences in the class members’ health statuses did not defeat certification. Rather, what was “[c]rucial” was “the troubling fact that even perfectly healthy detainees are seriously threatened by COVID-19.” Id. And “[t]he case law supports a finding of commonality for class claims against dangerous detention conditions, even when some detainees are more at risk than others.” Id. at *8. Savino’s cogent analysis applies here. While ICE struggles to find differences among the class members such as “age, gender, state of their general health,” [ECF 92 at 8], the Savino court explained that these distinctions are immaterial, 2020 WL 1703844, at*7. While health factors can be used to predict which Class Members are more likely to suffer more severely if infected with COVID-19, the Class here (as in Savino) is tied together by a common injury stemming from the risk of infection based on their detention in unsanitary conditions. See id. at *7-*8. In this way, the Savino decision answer’s ICE’s assertion that Petitioners-
2

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 94 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/12/2020 Page 7 of 16
Plaintiffs have not “establish[ed] any ... harm” as a result of ICE’s deliberate indifference. [See ECF 92 at 13.] As in Savino, the common exposure to the risk of COVID-19 infection works a common injury that ties the Class together. Thus, like Fraihat, Savino (which ICE neglects to mention) further confirms that certification is warranted here.
C. Zepeda Yet another court, granted a motion to provisionally certify a class of all detained individuals at an ICE detention facility and a county jail. See Order Granting Mot. for Provisional Class Certification, Granting Mot. for a Temporary Restraining Order, And Denying Mot. for a Stay, Zepeda v. Jennings, No. 20-cv-02731-VC, 2020 WL 2059848 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 29, 2020). As in Fraihat and Savino, the court rejected ICE’s arguments regarding commonality, typicality, adequacy, and Rule 23(b). See id. at *1. The court thus ordered emergency injunctive relief, including provisional certification of the class. D. Gomes Just last week, a further district court provisionally certified yet another class of individuals detained by ICE asserting claims related to their risk of contracting COVID-19. See Gomes v. Acting Sec’y, U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., No. 20-cv-453-LM, 2020 WL 21136442 (D.N.H. May 4, 2020). In Gomes, the plaintiffs sought certification for the purpose of holding expedited bail hearings for the class members. Id. at *1. But the court’s analysis under Rule 23 is relevant here: citing Fraihat, the court held that the proposed class satisfied the commonality requirement because the allegation of deliberate indifference involved “at least two common questions: whether each respondent had actual knowledge of the impending harm or risk posed to the putative class by COVID-19; and whether each respondent failed to take steps that would have easily prevented the harm to detainees.” Id. at *3. Likewise, the class satisfied the typicality requirement because their claims arose “from the same course of conduct: respondents’ facility-wide actions or inactions that have allegedly failed to make living conditions at SCDOC safe during the COVID-19 pandemic.” Id. E. Swain Because the pending motion is for class certification, Petitioner-Plaintiffs address Swain’s impact on that question first and then briefly turn to the merits. Class Certification. The Swain panel’s analysis further shows that class treatment is proper here. Although (as explained below) the merits hurdles the Swain court identified are
3

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 94 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/12/2020 Page 8 of 16
not present here, the Swain panel’s focus on common circumstances in addressing the merits of the claims there shows that the types of claims raised here are subject to class adjudication.
When reviewing a motion for class certification, “the trial court can and should consider the merits of the case to the degree necessary to determine whether the requirements of Rule 23 will be satisfied.” Valley Drug Co. v. Geneva Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 350 F.3d 1181, 1188 n.15 (11th Cir. 2003) (citing Gen. Tel. Co. v. Falcon, 457 U.S. 147, 160 (1982)) (emphasis added). The Supreme Court long ago emphasized that “[t]here is nothing in either the language or history of Rule 23 that gives a court any authority to conduct a preliminary inquiry into the merits of a suit in order to determine whether it may be maintained as a class action.” Eisen v. Carlisle & Jacquelin, 417 U.S. 156, 177, 185 (1974). Rather, the point of looking to the merits at this stage is only to gain a practical understanding of the fulcrums of the litigation to determine whether they are common or individualized. See Amgen Inc. v. Connecticut Ret. Plans & Tr. Funds, 568 U.S. 455, 466 (2013) (“Rule 23 grants courts no license to engage in free-ranging merits inquiries at the certification stage. Merits questions may be considered ... but only to the extent ... that they are relevant to determining whether the Rule 23 prerequisites for class certification are satisfied.”).
Swain’s common methodology of approaching the merits confirms that the claims here are appropriate for class treatment. The Swain panel did not discuss any circumstances specific to any of the plaintiffs in that case. Rather, the only facts the panel discussed are the type amenable to common adjudication: (1) the general conditions at the Metro West Detention Center, and (2) the defendants’ mental state with regard to those general conditions. See 2020 WL 2161317, at *1. And the panel had no trouble reaching core merits questions based solely on those common facts. See id. at *4-*5. Swain thus confirms that the major points of dispute in a case like this are common—which is precisely why class treatment is appropriate.
Merits. On the other hand, Swain’s merits discussion does not impact the merits here. Swain was brought by people in state custody who argued that the conditions at Metro West were so unsafe they violated the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 2020 WL 2161317 at *1-2. Although the Swain panel stayed a preliminary injunction pending appeal based on its view of the merits, see id. at *11-12, the Petitioners-Plaintiffs here are substantially better situated than the Swain plaintiffs. First, the Swain panel granted the stay in part because the district court in that case failed to address whether plaintiffs had
4

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 94 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/12/2020 Page 9 of 16
established municipal liability or the Prison Litigation Reform Act’s (“PLRA’s”) exhaustion requirement. Id. at *15-16. But the PLRA does not apply here, and ICE is not a municipality. Second, and related, Petitioners-Plaintiffs here have raised an Accardi claim related to ICE’s failure to follow CDC Guidelines that was not raised in Swain and that is not available in a suit against state actors like Swain. [See ECF 76 at 7.] See also Bd. of Curators of Univ. of Missouri v. Horowitz, 435 U.S. 78, 92 n.8 (1978).
Third, the Eleventh Circuit determined that the Swain defendants’ appeal would likely succeed because the district court improperly “collapsed the subjective and objective components” of the Eighth Amendment’s deliberate indifference inquiry. Swain, 2020 WL 2161317, at *10. The district court’s critical mistake was to “treat[] the increase in COVID19 infections as proof that the defendants deliberately disregarded an intolerable risk,” which “likely violated the admonition that resultant harm does not establish a liable state of mind.” Id. But here, the Court’s Order entering a preliminary injunction did not make that error. It focused on the “record evidence” of severely unsanitary conditions and the lack of any attempt by ICE to implement social distancing opportunities and ruled that the evidence showed ICE’s objective and subjective deliberate indifference. [ECF 76, at 6.] II. Class Certification Is Proper Here, and ICE’s Arguments Only Confirm This.
A. There Is a Readily Identifiable Class. ICE first raises a strained argument that there is no adequately defined class, which centers on ICE’s objection to defining the Class to include Class Members after ICE transfers them. The force of ICE’s argument seems to be the troubling proposition that ICE has the unilateral power to exclude people from the Class by transferring Class Members to other facilities. [ECF 92 at 5.] That argument fails as a matter of both law and logic. Indeed, this is one of the more identifiable classes imaginable: ICE has records (including the information compiled for the Court-ordered reports in this case) of precisely who has been detained at the relevant facilities and can easily identify every Class Member. Nor is ICE correct that transferring a Class Member away from these facilities moots that Class Member’s claims. ICE cites a single case for that principle, McKinnon v. Talladega Cty., 745 F. 2d 1360, 1363 (11th Cir. 1984). But McKinnon is nothing like this case. The plaintiff in McKinnon complained of various conditions, such as overcrowding and plumbing,
5

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 94 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/12/2020 Page 10 of 16
at the specific facility where he was imprisoned. Thus, once the plaintiff was no longer at that specific facility, he was no longer subject to the complained-of conditions.
But the risk of COVID-19 infection is not peculiar to the three facilities at issue here; the virus has threatened our entire society. And the Class is held together by ICE’s uniform failure to take adequate measures to protect the Class Members from COVID-19 infection. The risk the Class Members face as a result of ICE’s inadequate response will not vanish simply because ICE chooses to exercise its “authority to determine the location of detention” and therefore “to transfer aliens from one detention center to another.” [ECF 92 at 4-5 (quotation marks omitted).] Rather than resolving the Class’s claims, ICE deciding to transfer Class Members from the facilities at issue here raises important questions such as whether the transfers actually protected the Class Members from the risk of COVID-19, or whether ICE is merely attempting to make the conditions at Krome, Glades, and BTC appear better on paper by sending Class Members to live in squalor elsewhere.
The Eleventh Circuit’s decision in Smith v. Allen is instructive. See 502 F.3d 1255 (11th Cir. 2007), abrogated on other grounds by Sossamon v. Texas, 563 U.S. 277 (2011). In Smith, the plaintiff-prisoner was released and then re-incarcerated. The court held that claims for equitable relief seeking religious accommodation were not moot because the plaintiff faced the risk of deprivation and the court had “the ability to effectuate a remedy.” Id. at 1268.1
ICE’s mootness argument here is even weaker. As long as Class Members remain under ICE’s control, they risk ICE exposing them to COVID-19. When ICE decides to transfer a Class Member, the Court retains authority to ensure that (1) ICE conducts the previously ordered pre-transfer evaluation for release, (2) ICE is not simply achieving population reduction at the three facilities here by transferring the plaintiffs to other facilities with as-bad or worse conditions, (3) ICE is following CDC Guidelines as it moves Class Members around the country, and (4) ICE is not needlessly exposing them to COVID-19 at their new confines.

1

Accord SunAmerica Corp. v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Canada, 77 F.3d 1325, 1333 (11th

Cir. 1996) (“The ability of the appellate court to effectuate a partial remedy is sufficient to

prevent mootness … .” (quotations and citations omitted)).

6

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 94 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/12/2020 Page 11 of 16
Indeed, what ICE is demanding is the right to prevent any Court from overseeing the Class Members’ claims. Under ICE’s view, it could shuttle Class Members around the country to unsanitary conditions. Those Class Members would have to file new suits each time. Then, as soon as ICE obtained an adverse ruling, it could halt that lawsuit with more discretionary transfers. The law does not give ICE the right to use its control over the Class Members’ bodies to engage in this macabre brand of forum shopping.
Rather, once the Court acquires jurisdiction over a Class Member’s claims, ICE would bear a heavy burden in seeking to show that its unilateral decision to transfer that person renders the claims moot. Even if ICE temporarily released Class Members or put them in perfect conditions, ICE’s voluntary cessation of the challenged practice would not moot the case. See City of Mesquite v. Aladdin's Castle, Inc., 455 U.S. 283, 289 (1982). Ameliorative actions would not deprive the Court of jurisdiction unless ICE could show (1) there was no reasonable expectation that the alleged violations will recur, and (2) interim events had “completely and irrevocably eradicated the effects of the alleged violation.” LaMarca v. Turner, 662 F. Supp. 647, 715 (S.D. Fla. 1987) (emphasis added). And unless ICE established both prongs, the Court would retain jurisdiction over a transferred Class Member’s claims—which is why the Class definition should include them.
And the concern that ICE will transfer Class Members from the three facilities at issue here—only to languish in similarly unsanitary conditions elsewhere—is far from hypothetical. ICE appears to have begun feverously transferring Class Members out of the three facilities at issue here, sending them to facilities as far away as New Mexico. And early reports leave substantial reason to be skeptical of ICE’s view that the transfers are some sort of panacea. The attached declarations (collected in Ex. A) from Class Members show that before, during and after the transfers, ICE is continuing to place these people in conditions that violate CDC Guidelines (ECF 1-4 at 70):
 “There is no hygiene here.” Guiber Avila Decl. Individuals are not provided consistent and adequate supply of soap or hand sanitizer. Maharaj Decl. at 2; Marroquin Perez Decl.; Ruiz Garcia Decl.; Guiber Avila Decl.; Perez-Borroto Decl. at 2.
 Individuals exhibiting cough and other symptoms of COVID-19 are kept in the same space as others rather than being appropriately quarantined. Maharaj Decl. at 2.
 ICE packs approximately 20 detained men into a single holding cell at a time. Maharaj Decl. at 1. In one reported incident, the men were so overcrowded that at least five
7

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 94 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/12/2020 Page 12 of 16
people were forced to sleep on the floor. Id.
 Social distancing is not possible during basic activities like eating and seeking medical care. Perez Valladares Decl. at 2; Ruiz Garcia Decl. at 2; Dino Dean Declaration at 3; Kyle Maharaj Decl. at 2-3. “When we are eating, it’s impossible to socially distance with each other since the chairs are close together, with tables of four chairs, one on each side. It is also impossible to socially distance when we go to medical.” Id. at 2. “[S]ocial distancing does not exist here. It is impossible.” Guiber Avila Decl. at 1.
 For detained individuals sleeping in actual bunk beds—as opposed to plastic bins or pallets on the floor—the beds remain less than 6 feet apart. In fact, the beds have not been moved and are in fact nailed into place. Dino Dean Decl. at 1-2.
 Masks are not consistently provided. Perez Valladares Decl. at 2.
 Staff are not consistently wearing masks. Perez Valladares Decl. at 2; Marroquin Perez Decl. at 1.
ICE may dispute these accounts. But that dispute should occur in this Court. Having touted to this Court “the decrease in detainee population at” these facilities, [ECF 92 at 7], ICE can hardly object to the Court exercising jurisdiction to ensure that ICE is not simply moving Class Members away from this Court, only to deposit them elsewhere in the same sort of filthy conditions that the Court outlined in its April 30 Order. [ECF 76.]
B. Rule 23(a) Is Satisfied. ICE has not shown (and cannot show) that the proposed Class fails to meet Rule 23(a)’s four requirements for class certification. ICE’s argues that Rule 23(a) is not met because purported differences among the Class Members such as age, health, gender, and place of confinement are so material that they defeat even the low threshold for commonality in Rule 23(a)(2). As in Fraihat, Savino, Zepeda, and Gomes, ICE’s argument lacks merit. ICE incorrectly asserts that Rule 23(a) demands perfect uniformity. But “[c]ommonality is met where, notwithstanding some factual differences in the putative class members’ claims, the controlling questions of law and fact are common to the entire class.” Ibrahim v. Acosta, 326 F.R.D. 696, 700 (S.D. Fla. 2018); see also Vega v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., 564 F.3d 1256, 1268 (11th Cir. 2009) (describing commonality as a “relatively light burden” in comparison to Rule 23(b)(3)’s predominance requirement). And “[t]he typicality requirement may be satisfied despite substantial factual differences ... when there is a strong similarity of legal theories.” Williams v. Mohawk Indus., Inc., 568 F.3d 1350, 1357 (11th Cir. 2009).
8

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 94 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/12/2020 Page 13 of 16

ICE acknowledges “for purposes of Rule 23(a)(2) even a single common question [of fact or law] will do,” [ECF 92 at 6 (emphasis added) (citing Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338, 359 (2011)], but asserts that this is not satisfied here simply because the Class includes individuals with diverse backgrounds who are or will be detained at three separate facilities. But these distinctions are immaterial.
First, several common questions persist, including (1) the (in)sufficiency of ICE’s policies and practices governing their conditions; and (2) whether ICE has been deliberately indifferent to the risk that Class Members will contract COVID-19. Second, that class members may suffer varying degrees of injury, does not defeat commonality.2
At most, ICE has identified circumstances that might justify tailoring the ultimate remedy. But the Class Members face a common risk of infection, and a ruling that ICE’s conduct is unconstitutional and illegal will “resolve an issue that is central to the validity” of each Class Member’s claim. Dukes, 564 U.S. at 350. Typicality and adequacy of representation are satisfied for the same reasons.
C. Rule 23(b)(2) Is Satisfied. Likewise, Rule 23(b)(2) is readily met. ICE is uniformly failing to follow the CDC Guidelines in each detention facility at issue here, and class treatment allows this Court to order injunctive relief that addresses everyone ICE has detained at these facilities. See Savino, 2020 WL 1703844, at *8 (“a uniform remedy would be possible in this case, whether in the form of declaratory relief or [] an injunction ordering the government to reduce crowding of Detainees”). ICE seeks to manufacture diversity among the Class by highlighting the various ways it is failing to protect those in its custody. [See, e.g., ECF 92 at 10.] But this argument misunderstands both the analysis the Court must perform and the nature of the claims. ICE may have found various ways to violate the CDC Guidelines and to needlessly expose the Class Members to COVID-19, but the Guidelines are common, and the Court can order ICE to uniformly comply with them.

2

See, e.g., In re Deepwater Horizon, 739 F.3d 790, 810-11 (5th Cir. 2014) (“[T]he legal

requirement that class members have all ‘suffered the same injury’ can be satisfied by an

instance of the defendant’s injurious conduct, even when the resulting injurious effects—the

damages—are diverse.”).

9

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 94 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/12/2020 Page 14 of 16
By its terms, Rule 23(b)(2) looks to whether the defendant’s conduct applies “generally to the class.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2). Rule 23(b)(2) does not require “common issues,” but rather “requires common behavior by the defendant towards the class,” In re Rodriguez, 695 F.3d 360, 365 (5th Cir. 2012), such that “class members ... have been harmed in essentially the same way,” M.D. ex rel. Stukenberg v. Perry, 675 F.3d 832, 845 (5th Cir. 2012). “These requirements are unquestionably satisfied when members of a putative class seek uniform injunctive or declaratory relief from policies or practices that are generally applicable to the class as a whole.” Parsons v. Ryan, 754 F.3d 657, 688 (9th Cir. 2014). “In sum, Rule 23(b)(2)’s act requirement properly focuses on the single question of whether the defendant maintains a policy that affects a group of persons similar to those proposed to constitute the class in the present case.” 2 Newberg on Class Actions § 4:28 (5th ed. Dec. 2019).
Indeed, “[f]ollowing Rule 23(b)(2)’s text and purpose, courts have repeatedly invoked it to certify classes of inmates seeking declaratory and injunctive relief for alleged widespread constitutional and statutory violations in prison systems.” Hernandez v. County of Monterey, 305 F.R.D. 132, 163 (N.D. Cal. 2015); see also Yates v. Collier, 868 F.3d 354, 367–68 (5th Cir. 2017) (Rule 23(b)(2) class of incarcerated people proper where “[a]ll inmates, regardless of age or health, are subject to the same policy on climate control …” and were “harmed in essentially the same way—i.e., by … exposure to excessive heat.”).
As in Fraihat, Savino, Zepeda, and Gomes, certification is appropriate here. All Class Members have suffered the common injury of being exposed to the common risk of COVID19 infection by virtue of ICE’s common conduct in failing to adequately protect them or follow the CDC Guidelines at the three facilities at issue. Because ICE has “acted or refused to act on grounds that apply generally to the class,” certification under Rule 23(b)(2) is appropriate.
CONCLUSION The Court should certify Petitioners-Plaintiffs’ proposed class. Date: May 12, 2020
Respectfully Submitted,
/s/ Scott M. Edson Scott M. Edson, Esq. Florida Bar No. 17258
10

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 94 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/12/2020 Page 15 of 16

Gregory P. Copeland* Sarah T. Gillman*
RAPID DEFENSE NETWORK 11 Broadway, Suite 615 New York, NY 10004 Tel.: (212) 843-0910 Fax: (212) 257-7033 gregory@defensenetwork.org sarah@defensenetwork.org *Appearing Pro Hac Vice

Scott M. Edson, Esq. Florida Bar No. 17258
KING & SPALDING LLP 1700 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, STE 200 Washington, DC 20006-4707 Telephone: (202) 737-0500 Facsimile: (202) 626-3737 sedson@kslaw.com

Rebecca Sharpless Florida Bar No. 0131024 Romy Lerner Florida Bar No. 116713
UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI SCHOOL OF
LAW - IMMIGRATION CLINIC 1311 Miller Drive Suite, E-273 Coral Gables, Florida 33146 Tel: (305) 284-3576 Fax: (305) 284-6092 rsharpless@law.miami.edu

Kathryn S. Lehman Florida Bar No.: 95642 Chad A. Peterson Florida Bar No.: 91585
KING & SPALDING LLP 1180 Peachtree Street, N.E. Atlanta, GA 30309 Telephone: (404) 572-4600 Facsimile: (404) 572-5100 klehman@kslaw.com cpeterson@kslaw.com

Paul R. Chavez FL Bar No. 1021395 Maia Fleischman FL Bar No. 1010709
SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER 2 S. Biscayne Blvd., Ste. 3200 Miami, FL 33101 Tel: (305) 537-0577 paul.chavez@splcenter.org maia.fleischman@splcenter.org

Mark Andrew Prada Fla. Bar No. 91997 Anthony Richard Dominguez Fla. Bar No. 1002234
PRADA URIZAR, PLLC 3191 Coral Way, Suite 500 Miami, FL 33145 Tel.: (786) 703-2061 Fax: (786) 708-9508 mprada@pradaurizar.com adominguez@pradaurizar.com

Lisa Lehner Florida Bar No. 382191
AMERICANS FOR IMMIGRANT
JUSTICE 5355 NW 36 Street, Suite 2201 Miami, FL 33166 Tel: (305) 573-1106 Ext. 1020 Fax: (305) 576-6273 Llehner@aijustice.org

Andrea Montavon McKillip Florida Bar No. 56401
LEGAL AID SERVICE OF BROWARD
COUNTY, INC. 491 North State Road 7 Plantation, Florida 33317 Tel. (954) 736-2493 Fax (954) 736-2484 amontavon@legalaid.org

Counsel for Petitioners-Plaintiffs

11

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 94 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/12/2020 Page 16 of 16
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on the 12th day of May, 2020, I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system, which will then send a notification of such filing (NEF) to all counsel of record.
/s/ Scott M. Edson___________ Scott M. Edson, Esq. Florida Bar No. 17258 KING & SPALDING LLP 1700 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, STE 200 Washington, DC 20006-4707 Telephone: (202) 737-0500 Facsimile: (202) 626-3737 sedson@kslaw.com
Attorney for Petitioners-Plaintiffs

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 94-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/12/2020 Page 1 of 36
Ex. A

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 94-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/12/2020 Page 2 of 36
DECLARATION OF D’ANGELO DINO DEAN I, D’Angelo Dino Dean, hereby declare under the penalty of perjury pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746:
1. I make this declaration based on my personal knowledge except where I have indicated otherwise. If called as a witness, I could and would testify competently and truthfully to these matters.
2. I am detained at Krome Service Processing Center (“Krome”). I am in Pod 2. 3. I entered ICE custody on April 3, 2020. 4. I am thirty years old. I am a citizen of the Bahamas. 5. In 2015 I was in a serious car accident. From that accident, my left elbow was broken. I now have steel in that elbow. I also hit my head and bruised my kidney. Since my accident, I suffer from chronic seizures. Sometimes, I have them as often as three times a month. I require medication two times a day for my seizures. 6. I also have high blood pressure, which requires daily medication. I have been taking blood pressure medication since 2015. 7. Since I have been at Krome, I have not been receiving my seizure medication in a consistent manner. When I first arrived, I went about three to four days without my seizure medication. 8. About two weeks after my arrival at Krome, I had a seizure. It took the medical staff about thirty minutes to get me from the pod. When they finally transferred me to the medical unit, I told them I did not feel safe inside the medical unit room by myself. I asked to be transferred back to my pod because I was scared if something were to happen to me, no one would find me in time. 9. At this moment, there are almost sixty people in my pod. 10.There are about thirty bunk beds in my pod. I am in a bottom bunk. There are still people sleeping in the beds next to me and above me. There is about four to four

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 94-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/12/2020 Page 3 of 36
and a half feet of distance between each bunk bed. There is no specific way that we have to sleep.
11.The beds have not moved around since I have been at Krome. The beds cannot be moved, they are steel beds that are drilled into the floor.
12.In the pod, there are twelve tables that seat four people each. There are not enough tables for the amount of people the unit holds. During mealtimes, the tables are full and the area where the tables are gets very crowded.
13.On Monday, May 4, 2020, about thirty people were taken out of my pod. 14.Between Tuesday, May 5, 2020, and Friday, May 8, 2020, there have been new people brought into my pod. There are at least forty new people now. I heard some came from finishing their time in jail. 15.From my pod, we can see Pod 1 through a window. Yesterday, May 7, 2020, I saw that all of Pod 1 was emptied out. Today, May 8, 2020, it looks almost full again with new arrivals. I know they are new arrivals because I heard a guard comment about how frustrated he was that ICE continues to move people around and bring people into the facility. The guard said the transfers are just a “band aid on a wound.” 16.In the month of April, my pod was on two quarantines, fourteen days each, back to back. I missed about three court dates because of the quarantines. We just came off of a quarantine about three to four days ago. A guard told us it was because at least one person in the pod, who is no longer in the pod, tested positive for coronavirus. 17.I have authorized Sawyeh Esmaili to sign on my behalf given the difficulty of arranging visitation and travel in light of the current COVID-19 pandemic. If required to do so, I will provide a signature when I am able to do so.

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 94-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/12/2020 Page 4 of 36
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed on May 8, 2020 at Miami, Florida.
_____________________________________ Sawyeh Esmaili, on behalf of D’Angelo Dino Dean
ATTORNEY DECLARATION I, Sawyeh Esmaili, declare the following under penalty of perjury pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746:
1. My name is Sawyeh Esmaili. I am a licensed attorney in good standing in the state of Florida.
2. Out of necessity in light of the COVID-19 pandemic, I signed D’Angelo Dino Dean’s declaration on his behalf and with his express consent.
3. ICE is now requiring legal visitors to provide and wear personal protective equipment, including disposably vinyl gloves, surgical masks, and eye protection while visiting any detention facility. These supplies are not easily accessible, given the increase in demand. Any available supplies are prioritized for hospitals and other medical facilities that are experiencing dangerous shortages.
4. There are documented cases of COVID-19 in all fifty U.S. states and most inhabited U.S. territories. The Centers for Disease Control and Protection

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 94-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/12/2020 Page 5 of 36
(CDC) has issued statements warning that individuals are at a higher risk of infection when traveling. In addition, I am a resident of Miami Dade County, Florida and unable to travel to visit the Krome Service Processing Center under a state ‘Stay at home’ order issued by the Governor of Florida Ron DeSantis on April 1st, 2020.
5. In light of the above, to protect public health, I am not able to travel to the Krome Service Processing Center.
6. I spoke with D’Angelo Dino Dean on the phone, read the declaration to him, and confirmed the accuracy of the information therein. D’Angelo Dino Dean has confirmed the accuracy of the information therein.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct. 
Executed on May 8, 2020 at Miami, Florida.
______________________________________________ Sawyeh Esmaili, on behalf of D’Angelo Dino Dean

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 94-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/12/2020 Page 6 of 36
DECLARATION OF REINIER GUIBER AVILA I, Reinier Guiber Avila, hereby declare under the penalty of perjury pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746:
1. I make this declaration based on my personal knowledge except where I have indicated otherwise. If called as a witness, I could and would testify competently and truthfully to these matters.
2. I have been in ICE custody since April 12, 2019. 3. On September 5, 2019, an immigration judge ordered me removed to Cuba. 4. I have been detained at Krome since April 17, 2020. I was previously detained in Broward Transitional Center for about two months before my transfer to Krome. 5. At Krome, I am in Pod 14A. 6. There is no hygiene here. We are charged with cleaning are own pod. However, there are not enough cleaning supplies. We are just given a small amount of water for a very large space. We are only given two rags to clean the entire pod. I am not sure what exact cleaning products we are provided. 7. We do not have disinfecting wipes to use regularly. I was only given one on the day I arrived to clean my bed but have not been provided any additional wipes since my first day. 8. I try to keep my distance from others, but social distancing does not exist here. It is impossible. 9. I have authorized Sawyeh Esmaili to sign on my behalf given the difficulty of arranging visitation and travel in light of the current COVID-19 pandemic. If required to do so, I will provide a signature when I am able to do so.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the things described above are true and
correct.

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 94-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/12/2020 Page 7 of 36
Executed on May 6, 2020. ______________________________________ Sawyeh Esmaili, on behalf Reinier Guiber Avila
CERTIFICATION I, Sawyeh Esmaili, declare that I am proficient in the English and Spanish languages. On May 6, 2020, I read the foregoing declaration to Reinier Guiber Avila and orally translated it faithfully and accurately into Spanish in the presence of the declarant. After I completed translating the declaration, the declarant verified that the contents of the foregoing declaration are true and accurate. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed on May 6, 2020.
Sawyeh Esmaili
ATTORNEY DECLARATION I, Sawyeh Esmaili, declare the following under penalty of perjury pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746:
1. My name is Sawyeh Esmaili. I am a licensed attorney in good standing in the state of Florida.

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 94-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/12/2020 Page 8 of 36
2. Out of necessity in light of the COVID-19 pandemic, I signed Reinier Guiber Avila’s declaration on his behalf and with his express consent.
3. ICE is now requiring legal visitors to provide and wear personal protective equipment, including disposably vinyl gloves, surgical masks, and eye protection while visiting any detention facility. These supplies are not easily accessible, given the increase in demand. Any available supplies are prioritized for hospitals and other medical facilities that are experiencing dangerous shortages.
4. There are documented cases of COVID-19 in all fifty U.S. states and most inhabited U.S. territories. The Centers for Disease Control and Protection (CDC) has issued statements warning that individuals are at a higher risk of infection when traveling. In addition, I am a resident of Miami Dade County, Florida and unable to travel to visit Reinier Guiber Avila under a state ‘Stay at home’ order issued by the Governor of Florida Ron DeSantis on April 1st, 2020.
5. In light of the above, to protect public health, I am not able to travel to the Krome Service Processing Center to obtain Mr. Avila’s signature.
6. I spoke with Reinier Guiber Avila on the phone, read the declaration to him, and confirmed the accuracy of the information therein. Reinier Guiber Avila has confirmed the accuracy of the information therein.

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 94-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/12/2020 Page 9 of 36
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed on May 6, 2020 at Miami, Florida.
______________________________________________ Sawyeh Esmaili, on behalf of Reinier Guiber Avila

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 94-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/12/2020 Page 10 of 36
DECLARATION OF KYLE MAHARAJ I, Kyle Maharaj, hereby declare under the penalty of perjury pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746:
1. I make this declaration based on my personal knowledge except where I have indicated otherwise. If called as a witness, I could and would testify competently and truthfully to these matters.
2. I am 21 years old and am a citizen of Trinidad and Tobago. 3. I am currently detained at Torrance County Detention Facility in Estancia, New Mexico. I was previously detained at Glades County Detention Center in Moore Haven, Florida. On May 4, I was transferred from Glades to Krome. On May, 5, 2020, I was transferred from Krome to Torrance. 4. I put in a request for humanitarian release about two weeks ago but have not received a response. I was never told that they made a determination about whether to release me because of the virus. 5. I should have been considered for release because I have had asthma all my life, and I use an inhaler regularly. I did not have access to the inhaler when I was on the plane from Miami to New Mexico, and I had a very hard time breathing because of my anxiety. There were other people transferred with me who were asthmatic, and other people who traveled with me who were diabetic, and I am not sure if they received their insulin. 6. During the entire trip, I was put very close to different groups of people. I was unable to practice social distancing. 7. I was taken from Glades to Krome, along with nearly 40 other people from Glades. From Glades to Krome, I was in a van with three rows of seats. I was on the second row seated between two other people. When we were in the van from Glades to Krome, we sat right next to each other, so our arms, shoulders, and legs were touching each other. 8. At Krome, I stayed in a holding cell for about 12 hours. The cell was cold and we were not given any food. I slept on the floor. There were about 20 people packed into the cell together. We were within less than an arm length from each other. 9. There were two toilets on the holding cell and people were sitting on the toilet and leaning on the sink to sleep. There were at least 5 people sleeping on the floor because of the lack of space, and some people couldn’t even sleep because it was so cold. 10. I was then transferred via bus with about 30 other people to an airplane, and
1

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 94-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/12/2020 Page 11 of 36
four vans of about 9 people were also transferred to the plane. I was one of about 70 people (everyone who had come from Glades, plus 30 more) transferred from Krome to the New Mexico facility in an airplane. We didn’t eat from about 4 p.m. until the next day at 9 am when we were on the plane. From the moment we left Krome to the booking in New Mexico, we were in shackles, in total about 5 ½ or 6 hours in shackles.
11. When we were in the plane, we were also all right next to each other. The plane was in very bad condition so people were nervous. At one point a flight attendant tried to look for her seatbelt and when she pulled on it part of the seat came off. The lights were flashing the whole time in the plane.
12. There were some people during the transfer who were coughing, and it is unclear whether they had COVID-19. ICE took our temperatures before we left Glades, but then we did not receive masks until we were leaving Krome, after we had all slept close together in the holding cell. ICE then made us wear masks, and they were all wearing masks. They were not often wearing gloves. The only time we received hand sanitizer was right before we boarded the entrance of the plane.
13. None of us were told why we were being transferred. No one knew we were getting transferred until I went up to talk an officer about my commissary account, because they had not cashed me out for my whole commissary account, and they had mixed up my account with that of another detainee.
14. During the transfer, I saw one contractor worker for ICE who was yelling at detainees, pushing at them, and yelling at one that he would take him outside and “f” him up. They also put extra restraints on one detainee when they had him on the bus
15. At Torrance, I share my sleeping room, which is less than ten steps wide and twenty-five steps long, with one bunkmate who sleeps below me. It is impossible for us to remain 6 feet apart because the room is so small. The toilet and sink are inside of the cell so when he uses the bathroom I have to be on the other side of the cell. When we are eating, it is impossible to socially distance with each other since the chairs are close together, with tables of four chairs, one on each side. It is also impossible to socially distance when we go to medical. The guards are using masks but not gloves.
16. Twenty-five of us share the common area, which is 60-80 steps long and about the same wide. When we are all in the common area together it is impossible to
2

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 94-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/12/2020 Page 12 of 36
socially distance. We also eat our meals in that room. 17. Because I am asthmatic, the nurse who did my initial screening said I needed
to see a doctor since I am asthmatic, but I have still not been able to see a doctor. 18. I have not had any contact with the deportation officer at the new facility. I
have been trying to contact my deportation officer for over a week now but have received no response.
19. I have authorized Meredith Hoffman, a law student, to sign on my behalf given the difficulty of arranging visitation and travel in light of the current COVID-19 pandemic. If required to do so, I will provide a signature when I am able to do so. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed on May 9, 2020 at Miami, Florida. ______________________ Meredith Hoffman on behalf of Kyle Maharaj
3

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 94-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/12/2020 Page 13 of 36
LAW STUDENT DECLARATION I, Meredith Hoffman, declare the following under penalty of perjury pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746:
1. My name is Meredith Hoffman. I am a law student at the University of Miami School of Law, working as a Research Assistant for my Professor Rebecca Sharpless, Director of the Immigration Clinic.
2. Out of necessity in light of the COVID-19 pandemic, I signed Mr. Maharaj’s declaration on his behalf and with his express consent.
3. On May 4-5, ICE transferred Mr. Maharaj to Krome Detention Center in Miami, Florida, and then Torrance County Detention Center in New Mexico.
4. ICE now requires legal visitors to provide and wear personal protective equipment, including disposable latex gloves, surgical masks, and eye protection while visiting any detention facility. These supplies are not easily accessible, given the increase in demand. Any available supplies are prioritized for hospitals and other medical facilities that are experiencing dangerous shortages.
5. There are documented cases of COVID-19 in all fifty U.S. states and most inhabited U.S. territories. The Centers for Disease Control and Protection (CDC) has issued statements warning that individuals are at a higher risk of infection when traveling. In addition, I am a resident of Miami-Dade County and unable to travel to visit my client under a state “Stay at Home” order issued by the Governor of Florida Ron DeSantis on April 1, 2020.
6. In light of the above, to protect public health, I am not able to travel to the Torrence County Detention Center in New Mexico to obtain Mr. Maharaj’s signature.
7. I spoke with Mr. Maharaj via phone call, read the declaration to him and confirmed the accuracy of the information therein. Mr. Maharaj has confirmed the accuracy of the information therein.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct. 
4

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 94-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/12/2020 Page 14 of 36 Executed on May 8, 2020 at Miami, Florida. ______________________ Meredith Hoffman
5

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 94-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/12/2020 Page 15 of 36
DECLARATION OF MIGUEL ANGEL MARROQUIN PEREZ I, Miguel Angel Marroquin Perez, hereby declare under the penalty of perjury pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746:
1. I make this declaration based on my personal knowledge except where I have indicated otherwise. If called as a witness, I could and would testify competently and truthfully to these matters.
2. I am currently detained at Broward Transitional Center (BTC) in Pompano Beach, FL I have been detained here since August 12, 2019. I am appealing Immigration Judge Barry Chait’s denial of my asylum application.
3. At BTC, we are given a mask every three days. It is not mandatory to use them. Guards don’t tell us anything when the masks are handed out. The masks are usually thrown on our beds or on top of the table, so most people do not want to wear them because they are contaminated. I would say maybe eight (8) or (9) detainees wear their masks.
4. Most employees at BTC do not wear masks. It is not mandatory for them and two (2) or (3) employees wear their masks.
5. I saw one person leaving BTC in an ambulance last week. 6. As of this week, I know there are at least 90 people in cohort because I saw
the cart with their food trays being taken to their rooms with a piece of paper that said “90” on top of it.

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 94-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/12/2020 Page 16 of 36
7. I can see the cohorted people from my room when they go out to the yard. Although they wear masks, they touch the phones in the yard space and the yard equipment. The phones are yard equipment is often not wiped down after the cohorted people leave the yard.
8. Sometimes there is hand sanitizer available outside the cafeteria, but sometimes there is not. I have not seen any hand sanitizer next to the phones.
9. There are over sixty people eating at once in the cafeteria. We all stand in line together. It is impossible to practice social distancing when we eat together with only one empty space between us and all of us standing in line together.
10.All men go out to the yard at the same time, and there are hundreds of us. It is impossible to be more than six feet away from each other.
11. I work cleaning the common areas at BTC, typically polishing the floors. There is a man who tested positive for COVID-19 at BTC and I saw him in the yard this morning on May 8, 2020 while I was working. I know it was this man because he had written a sign saying he tested positive. He was using the phone in the yard space. He was wearing a mask and gloves and had a BTC guard near him. Those of us who were working tried going around him so we would not get too close.

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 94-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/12/2020 Page 17 of 36
12.I have not received any education regarding hygiene and preventing the infection of COVID-19. I have not seen any posters in the Spanish language about COVID-19 in BTC.
13.When people create too much of a fuss about the detention conditions to the BTC guards, they are transferred to Krome.
14. This detention center was not built to keep us safe. We are six people in a room very close together. People cough and no one wears a mask because guards have not said it’s mandatory. I am not safe here.
15.I have authorized my attorney to sign on my behalf given the difficulty of arranging visitation and travel in light of the current COVID-19 pandemic. If required to do so, I will provide a signature when I am able to do so.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the things described above are true and correct.
Executed on May 8, 2020. ______________________________________ Maya Weissman Fabra, on behalf Miguel Angel Marroquin Perez
CERTIFICATION I, Maya Weissman Fabra, declare that I am proficient in the English and Spanish languages.

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 94-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/12/2020 Page 18 of 36
On May 8, 2020, I read the foregoing declaration to Miguel Angel Marroquin Perez and orally translated it faithfully and accurately into Spanish in the presence of the declarant. After I completed translating the declaration, the declarant verified that the contents of the foregoing declaration are true and accurate.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed on May 8, 2020.
Maya Weissman Fabra

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 94-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/12/2020 Page 19 of 36
ATTORNEY DECLARATION I, Maya Weissman Fabra, declare the following under penalty of perjury pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746:
1. My name is Maya Weissman Fabra. I am a licensed attorney in good standing in the District of Columbia.
2. I represent the declarant, Miguel Angel Marroquin Perez, in his immigration case in Krome/BTC immigration court in Miami, Florida. Out of necessity in light of the COVID-19 pandemic, I signed Miguel Angel Marroquin Perez’s declaration on his behalf and with his express consent.
3. ICE is now requiring legal visitors to provide and wear personal protective equipment, including disposably vinyl gloves, surgical masks, and eye protection while visiting any detention facility. These supplies are not easily accessible, given the increase in demand. Any available supplies are prioritized for hospitals and other medical facilities that are experiencing dangerous shortages.
4. There are documented cases of COVID-19 in all fifty U.S. states and most inhabited U.S. territories. The Centers for Disease Control and Protection (CDC) has issued statements warning that individuals are at a higher risk of infection when traveling. In addition, I am a resident of Miami Dade County,

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 94-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/12/2020 Page 20 of 36
Florida and unable to travel to visit my client under a state ‘Stay at home’ order issued by the Governor of Florida Ron DeSantis on April 1st, 2020. 5. In light of the above, to protect public health, I am not able to travel to the Broward Transitional Center Detention Center in Pompano Beach, Florida, to obtain my client’s signature. 6. I spoke with Miguel Angel Marroquin Perez via Skype video call, read the declaration to him, and confirmed the accuracy of the information therein. Miguel Angel Marroquin Perez has confirmed the accuracy of the information therein. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed on May 8, 2020 at Miami, Florida.
______________________________________________ Maya Weissman Fabra, on behalf of Miguel Angel Marroquin Perez

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 94-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/12/2020 Page 21 of 36
DECLARATION OF IRAN PICHARDO PEREZ-BORROTO I, Iran Pichardo Perez-Borroto, hereby declare under the penalty of perjury pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746:
1. I make this declaration based on my personal knowledge except where I have indicated otherwise. If called as a witness, I could and would testify competently and truthfully to these matters.
2. I am currently detained at Krome Service Processing Center (“Krome”) in Miami, Florida. I have been detained here since April 16, 2020. I have been in ICE custody since about August 7, 2019. I was transferred to Krome from El Paso Processing Center.
3. I am fifty-five years old. I have asthma. ICE is in charge of my well-being and my life. I beg that they help or release me.
4. On December 18, 2019, I was ordered removed by an immigration judge in El Paso. I am now awaiting my deportation to Cuba.
5. I spoke with a Deportation Officer the week before last week. He did not have information on my pending deportation. The Deportation Officer said that at this moment, there are no flights going out to Cuba. He merely told me that I am in a process and I have to wait, but he did not tell me how long the wait would be.
6. At Krome, I am in Pod 14A.

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 94-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/12/2020 Page 22 of 36
7. We are currently under quarantine. We were told that the quarantine will be lifted tomorrow, May 12, 2020. The pod has been under quarantine on and off for about two months.
8. We, in Pod 14A, are only receiving soap and shampoo once or twice a week. The amount we are receiving is not sufficient for what we need. If we need more shampoo or soap, we request it, but we do not always receive it. It is up to the guards whether we actually receive the additional soap or shampoo.
9. In the pod, there are currently about fifty detained people. 10.The beds are still positioned next to each other. I am in the lower bunk
because of my age. I have someone sleeping on each side of me. They both sleep in the same direction I do, not head to feet. Social distancing requirements are not met. 11.The man who slept on the bunk above me was taken out of the pod the week before last because he was exhibiting symptoms consistent with COVID-19. 12.We are in charge of cleaning our own pod. No one else helps us with cleaning the pod. To clean, we are given gloves, some rags, and a spray to wipe counters. We are not told what the spray is. We are not given any disinfecting wipes. Sometimes, to clean the tables, we also use toilet paper. We use toilet paper because there are no paper towels in the bathroom.

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 94-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/12/2020 Page 23 of 36
13.When we request medical attention, we are often not called back. For example, on May 5, 2020, I submitted a medical request because I was feeling short of breath. Two days after, a nurse came to speak with me. I told her I was feeling short of breath and headaches. She said that she would let the doctor and the doctor would follow up with me. I still have not heard from the doctor.
14.I am asthmatic. I have been given an inhaler, but still feel difficulty breathing. Despite having an inhaler, I still feel like I am not receiving adequate treatment for my asthma.
15.I have authorized Sawyeh Esmaili to sign on my behalf given the difficulty of arranging visitation and travel in light of the current COVID-19 pandemic. If required to do so, I will provide a signature when I am able to do so.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the things described above are true and correct.
Executed on May 11, 2020. ______________________________________ Sawyeh Esmaili, on behalf Iran Pichardo Perez-Borroto

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 94-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/12/2020 Page 24 of 36
CERTIFICATION I, Sawyeh Esmaili, declare that I am proficient in the English and Spanish languages. On May 11, 2020, I read the foregoing declaration to Iran Pichardo PerezBorroto and orally translated it faithfully and accurately into Spanish in the presence of the declarant. After I completed translating the declaration, the declarant verified that the contents of the foregoing declaration are true and accurate. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed on May 11, 2020.
Sawyeh Esmaili
ATTORNEY DECLARATION I, Sawyeh Esmaili, declare the following under penalty of perjury pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746:
1. My name is Sawyeh Esmaili. I am a licensed attorney in good standing in the state of Florida.
2. Out of necessity in light of the COVID-19 pandemic, I signed Iran Pichardo Perez-Borroto’s declaration on his behalf and with his express consent.
3. ICE is now requiring legal visitors to provide and wear personal protective equipment, including disposably vinyl gloves, surgical masks, and eye

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 94-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/12/2020 Page 25 of 36
protection while visiting any detention facility. These supplies are not easily accessible, given the increase in demand. Any available supplies are prioritized for hospitals and other medical facilities that are experiencing dangerous shortages. 4. There are documented cases of COVID-19 in all fifty U.S. states and most inhabited U.S. territories. The Centers for Disease Control and Protection (CDC) has issued statements warning that individuals are at a higher risk of infection when traveling. In addition, I am a resident of Miami Dade County, Florida and unable to travel to visit Mr. Pichardo under a state ‘Stay at home’ order issued by the Governor of Florida Ron DeSantis on April 1st, 2020. 5. In light of the above, to protect public health, I am not able to travel to the Krome Service Processing Center to obtain Mr. Pichardo’s signature. 6. I spoke with Iran Pichardo Perez-Borroto on the phone, read the declaration to him, and confirmed the accuracy of the information therein. Iran Pichardo Perez-Borroto has confirmed the accuracy of the information therein. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on May 11, 2020 at Miami, Florida.
______________________________________________ Sawyeh Esmaili, on behalf of Iran Pichardo Perez-Borroto

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 94-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/12/2020 Page 26 of 36
DECLARATION OF DEIVYS PEREZ VALLADARES I, Deivys Perez Valladares, hereby declare under the penalty of perjury pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746:
1. I make this declaration based on my personal knowledge except where I have indicated otherwise. If called as a witness, I could and would testify competently and truthfully to these matters.
2. I am 34 years old and I am a citizen of Cuba. 3. I am currently detained at Krome Service Processing Center (“Krome”) in Miami, Florida. I was previously detained at Broward Transitional Center (“BTC”) in Pompano Beach, Florida from March 20, 2020 to May 6, 2020. On May 6th, I was transferred from BTC to Krome. 4. I should have been considered for release because I have type-1 diabetes and hypertension. I am medically dependent on insulin to manage my diabetes. My diabetes has worsened since being detained. My sugar levels are very high. I typically required 15 units of insulin, and right now I am requiring 28 units of insulin. While I was detained in Georgia, I suffered from a heart condition that required me to be hospitalized for four days. I am now taking heart medication daily, but I was never told what my heart condition is. I have also developed cholesterol since being detained and I am now taking a pill every day to control my cholesterol. 5. My diabetes type-1 requires daily insulin to manage. I have informed the staff at Krome about my need but have not received my medication as of May 7, 2020. I fear for my life. 6. At BTC, I shared a room with five other people. No one in my room, including myself, had symptoms of the coronavirus (COVID-19). On May 6, 2020 at approximately 9:00 pm an official at BTC asked me and three other detained persons in the same room if we feared contracting COVID-19 given the confirmed case at the facility. The four of us affirmed we were afraid, and the official told us we were going to be transferred. I never received a decision or explanation of why I was transferred instead of released. Guards were verbally aggressive when I asked about the reason for transfer. They rejected giving us any information about our place of relocation. Staff at BTC did not complete a medical examination or confirmed we were in good state of health before transferring us.
1

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 94-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/12/2020 Page 27 of 36
We had shackles restraining our hands and feet during transfer. We were not given any masks or gloves. Guards were not wearing masks or gloves when interacting with us. They did not make accommodations for us to sit separately from each other during transfer. We waited for approximately an hour and a half in the dark inside a van before we left BTC. There were two surveillance cameras inside the van.
7. We arrived at Krome at approximately 1:00 am on May 7, 2020. Guards threw away the snacks and drinks I brought from BTC without explanation. Staff took our temperature and weight when we arrived at Krome. They did not do a complete medical examination on us or provide information about COVID-19. No masks or gloves were provided when we arrived. Only guards are using masks at Krome.
8. I was placed in general population with approximately 60 other people. The beds are very close to each other which makes it impossible to create social distancing in the pod. There is a man staying in the lower part of my bunk who has been showing symptoms. The toilets, showers, and beds are filthy. The bathroom has five toilets next to each other without division or privacy.
9. I have not had any contact with the deportation officer at Krome as of May 7, 2020.
10. I have authorized Andrea Ruiz-Sorrentini, a paralegal, to sign on my behalf given the difficulty of arranging visitation and travel in light of the current COVID-19 pandemic. If required to do so, I will provide a signature when I am able to do so. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed on May 7, 2020 at Miami, Florida.
_________________________________________________ Andrea C. Ruiz-Sorrentini, on behalf of Deivys Perez Valladares

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 94-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/12/2020 Page 28 of 36
CERTIFICATION OF TRANSLATION I, Andrea C. Ruiz-Sorrentini, declare that I am proficient in the English and Spanish languages. On May 7, 2020, I read the foregoing declaration to Deivys Perez Valladares and orally translated it faithfully and accurately into Spanish in the presence of the declarant. After I completed translating the declaration, the declarant verified that the contents of the foregoing declaration are true and accurate. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct. 
Executed on May 7, 2020 at Miami, Florida.
Andrea C. Ruiz-Sorrentini

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 94-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/12/2020 Page 29 of 36
PARALEGAL DECLARATION I, Andrea Cristina Ruiz-Sorrentini, declare the following under penalty of perjury pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746:
1. My name is Andrea Cristina Ruiz-Sorrentini. I am an outreach paralegal working with Southern Poverty Law Center at Miami, Florida.
2. I am a paralegal working with the legal team that represents the declarant in Gayle v Meade et al. Out of necessity in light of the COVID-19 pandemic, I signed Deivys Perez Valladares’ declaration on his behalf and with his express consent.
3. On May 6, 2020 ICE transferred my client to Krome in a van at approximately 9:00 pm.
4. ICE now requires legal visitors to provide and wear personal protective equipment, including disposable latex gloves, surgical masks, and eye protection while visiting any detention facility. These supplies are not easily accessible, given the increase in demand. Any available supplies are prioritized for hospitals and other medical facilities that are experiencing dangerous shortages.
5. There are documented cases of COVID-19 in all fifty U.S. states and most inhabited U.S. territories. The Centers for Disease Control and Protection (CDC) has issued statements warning that individuals are at a higher risk of infection when traveling. In addition, I am a resident of Miami-Dade County, Florida and unable to travel to visit my client under a state “Stay at Home” order issued by the Governor of Florida Ron DeSantis on April 1, 2020.
6. In light of the above, to protect public health, I am not able to travel to the Krome Service Processing Center in Miami, Florida, to obtain my client’s signature.
7. I spoke with Deivys Perez Valladares via phone call, read the declaration to him and confirmed the accuracy of the information therein. Deivys Perez Valladares has confirmed the accuracy of the information therein.

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 94-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/12/2020 Page 30 of 36
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct. 
Executed on May 7, 2020 at Miami, Florida.
____________________________ Andrea Cristina Ruiz-Sorrentini andrea.ruiz-sorrentini@splcenter.org 786-582-0386

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 94-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/12/2020 Page 31 of 36
DECLARATION OF DANNY RUIZ GARCIA
I, Danny Ruiz Garcia, hereby declare under the penalty of perjury pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746:
1. I make this declaration based on my personal knowledge except where I have indicated otherwise. If called as a witness, I could and would testify competently and truthfully to these matters.
2. I am currently detained at Broward Transitional Center (BTC). I have been detained here since March 26, 2020. I was previously detained in Pine Prairie ICE Processing Center in Louisiana.
3. I suffer from permanent lung damage on my right lung from pneumonia and a surgery when I was a child.
4. At BTC we get masks every three days, but virtually no one wears them. Most BTC staff members also do not wear masks.
5. There is a hand sanitizer pump by the court, cafeteria, and medical area. There is no hand sanitizer pump near the phones. The hand sanitizer in the cafeteria is often empty. When it is empty, we are only given hand sanitizer by a guard during lunch time.
6. Whether you get additional shower gel depends on which BTC staff member you ask. We are all given shower gel once a week. On May 5, 2020 at around 8:30 p.m., I asked a BTC staff member for additional shower gel and was denied. My roommate asked another BTC staff member and was given additional shower gel.
7. I have not received any education regarding hygiene or how to prevent the spread of COVID-19 at BTC. There are no posters in the facility with any information. What I know about COVID-19 is all from watching the news.

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 94-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/12/2020 Page 32 of 36
8. The general areas of the detention center are cleaned maybe twice a day, but not every four hours. On May 5, 2020 I did not observe the common areas being cleaned twice.
9. There are over 13 rooms in cohort. I believe most of those cohorted are transfers from Baker County Detention Center.
10. There are 90 people cohorted in one section of the detention center. Those rooms are for people that were transferred in. There are seven additional rooms cohorted for people we know are sick. Those rooms with sick people have three to four people per room. Room 125 is one of the rooms where there is someone sick. I know he is cohorted there alone.
11. I know there are seven rooms with people who are sick because we line up to receive cleaning supplies and other things right next to those seven rooms.
12. On the night of May 5, 2020, I observed a nurse give medication to the man in room 125 from a distance while she was in full protective gear. Typically, the medical staff at BTC go into the cohorted rooms to give medicine or take someone’s temperature, but the nurse behaved differently when she approached room 125. The nurse did not even open the door of the room, just slipped in the medicine.
13. During yard recreational time, those cohorted because they were transferred and those cohorted because they are sick can mix together since they go out at the same time.
14. We are five people sleeping in my room. There are three bunk beds. It is impossible to stay six feet away from my roommates.
15. When we eat in the cafeteria at BTC, we are more than fifty people eating at once. We all stand in line together. When we sit down to eat, there is an

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 94-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/12/2020 Page 33 of 36
empty stool between each one of us, but we are still not six feet apart from each other as we eat.
16. When we go to the yard, there are hundreds of us at once. All men who are not cohorted go to the yard at the same time. It is impossible to practice social distancing at any point throughout the day.
17. I have authorized my attorney to sign on my behalf given the difficulty of arranging visitation and travel in light of the current COVID-19 pandemic. If required to do so, I will provide a signature when I am able to do so.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the things described above are true and correct.
Executed on May 8, 2020.
______________________________________ Maya Weissman Fabra, on behalf of Danny Ruiz Garcia
CERTIFICATION I, Maya Weissman Fabra, declare that I am proficient in the English and Spanish languages.
On May 8, 2020, I read the foregoing declaration to Danny Ruiz Garcia and orally translated it faithfully and accurately into Spanish in the presence of the

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 94-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/12/2020 Page 34 of 36
declarant. After I completed translating the declaration, the declarant verified that the contents of the foregoing declaration are true and accurate.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on May 8, 2020.
Maya Weissman Fabra

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 94-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/12/2020 Page 35 of 36
ATTORNEY DECLARATION I, Maya Weissman Fabra, declare the following under penalty of perjury pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746:
1. My name is Maya Weissman Fabra. I am a licensed attorney in good standing in the District of Columbia
2. Out of necessity in light of the COVID-19 pandemic, I signed Danny Ruiz Garcia’s declaration on his behalf and with his express consent.
3. ICE is now requiring legal visitors to provide and wear personal protective equipment, including disposably vinyl gloves, surgical masks, and eye protection while visiting any detention facility. These supplies are not easily accessible, given the increase in demand. Any available supplies are prioritized for hospitals and other medical facilities that are experiencing dangerous shortages.
4. There are documented cases of COVID-19 in all fifty U.S. states and most inhabited U.S. territories. The Centers for Disease Control and Protection (CDC) has issued statements warning that individuals are at a higher risk of infection when traveling. In addition, I am a resident of Miami Dade County, Florida and unable to travel to visit my client under a state ‘Stay at home’ order issued by the Governor of Florida Ron DeSantis on April 1st, 2020.

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 94-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/12/2020 Page 36 of 36
5. In light of the above, to protect public health, I am not able to travel to the Broward Transitional Center in Pompano Beach, Florida, to obtain Danny Ruiz Garcia’s signature.
6. I spoke with Danny Ruiz Garcia via Skype video call, read the declaration to him, and confirmed the accuracy of the information therein. Danny Ruiz Garcia has confirmed the accuracy of the information therein.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed on May 8, 2020 at Miami, Florida.
______________________________________________ Maya Weissman Fabra, on behalf of Danny Ruiz Garcia

 
 Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 103 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/18/2020 Page 1 of 6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case No. 20-21553-Civ-COOKE/GOODMAN PATRICK GAYLE, et al., Petitioners-Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and those similarly situated,
v. MICHAEL W. MEADE, et al.,
Respondents-Defendants. ______________________________________/
PETITIONERS-PLAINTIFFS’ MEMORANDUM REGARDING MONEY V. PRITZKER IN RESPONSE TO
POST-HEARING ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER Per the Court’s invitation, this memorandum briefly addresses whether Money v. Pritzker, et al., No. 20-cv-2093, 2020 WL 1820660 (N.D. Ill. Apr. 10, 2020), impacts this Court’s class certification analysis. [See ECF 99]. As explained below, it does not. The district court in Money ruled that class certification was improper because the sole relief the plaintiffs sought was release from confinement. And the district court ruled that with that framing, the case was not amenable to class certification “because the possibility of release is an inherently inmate-specific inquiry.” 2020 WL 1820660, at *2. But here, PetitionersPlaintiffs challenge ICE’s general failure to protect them from the risk of COVID-19 infection. And the Court can—and already has—ordered relief that inures to the benefit of the Named Petitioners-Plaintiffs and the Class Members alike. [ECF 76.]1

1

At the May 14 class certification hearing, there was discussion of whether ECF 76

granted a preliminary injunction in addition to a temporary restraining order. On May 15,

the Court entered an Endorsed Order [ECF 101] making clear that ECF 76 is a “TRO” and

1

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 103 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/18/2020 Page 2 of 6
The Money plaintiffs are serving criminal sentences in state custody and brought a
habeas corpus action against the Illinois Department of Corrections and other state
defendants. Id. at *2. In framing their claims, the district court was careful to note that the
plaintiffs did “not ask to improve the cleanliness of the prisons, or increase the amount of
space between inmates at each facility, and so on.” Id. at 1. Instead, the plaintiffs asked the
court “to force the state executive branch to start a process for the potential release of
thousands of inmates, through medical furlough or home detention under state law, and do
so within one week.” Id. The district court denied certification because that plaintiffs did not
satisfy Rule 23(a)’s commonality requirement. Id. at *14-15.
Crucial to this determination was the specific relief the plaintiffs’ sought: release. As
the court explained, this would necessarily require the court to analyze a host of factors and
interests as to each class member:
[T]he public interest—which must be taken into account when considering a TRO or preliminary injunction—mandates individualized consideration of any inmate’s suitability for release and on what conditions, for the safety of the inmate, the inmate's family, and the public at large. From the inmate’s perspective, his or her own health status at the relevant time is paramount. Any inmate who is exhibiting symptoms of infection may be more suitable for quarantine or even transfer to a hospital. From the family perspective, an inmate who has been exposed to someone (inmate or IDOC personnel) who has tested positive may not be suitable for furlough, particularly if the inmate’s proposed destination is a residence already occupied by someone equally or more vulnerable. And from the public’s perspective, it is important to bear in mind that some portion of the incarcerated population has been convicted of the most serious crimes—murder, rape, domestic battery, and so on. Seven of the ten named Plaintiffs in fact are serving time for murder. As Plaintiffs rightly acknowledge, some release orders would be appropriate only with conditions, such as home detention or lesser forms of supervision. And those conditions can only be imposed with resources (e.g., electronic monitors) and personnel,
that the motion for preliminary injunction is still pending. The undersigned counsel therefore stands corrected.
2

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 103 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/18/2020 Page 3 of 6
who are both limited in supply and also subject to the same social distancing imperatives as everyone else. Id. at *14. The court thus ruled that this “imperative of individualized determinations” defeated commonality and, thus, class certification. Id. at *15. But this case is quite different. While Petitioners-Plaintiffs seek release, lacking that they also seek equitable relief forcing ICE to comply with its obligations under the Fifth and Eighth Amendments and under the CDC Guidelines and other binding guidelines under the Accardi doctrine. [ECF 81 at 8.] Petitioners-Plaintiffs argue that ICE is denying proposed class members “the same opportunity to socially distance, the same soap and cleaning items, and the same personal protective equipment.” [Id. at 19.] Petitioners-Plaintiffs have asked this Court to provide “a comprehensive plan that addresses all people being detained by Respondents at the three facilities.” [Id. (emphasis added).] Not only that, the Court has already granted Petitioners-Plaintiffs common relief on this basis. The Court’s April 30 Temporary Restraining Order [ECF 76] mentions not one fact specific to the Named Petitioners-Plaintiffs. And yet, the Court had no trouble finding that the all of Named Petitioners-Plaintiffs have shown a likelihood of success on the merits. [Id. at 6-7 (constitutional claims), 9 (Accardi claim).] The Court then awarded relief that will benefit everyone detained at Krome, Glades, and BTC. It mandated that ICE “comply with the CDC and ICE guidelines on providing adequate amounts of soap and water and cleaning materials to detainees at each of the three detention centers at issue.” [Id. at 11 (emphasis added).] It required ICE to provide “masks to all detainees” to be replaced “at least once per week.” [Id. (emphasis added).] It further ordered ICE to “provide education and training about measures to reduce the health risks associated with COVID-19 to all staff members
3

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 103 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/18/2020 Page 4 of 6

and detainees and to any new detainees or employees . . . without any costs to the detainees.”

[Id. (emphasis added).]

Given the virulent, highly communicable nature of the airborne, novel coronavirus,

the measures the Court has ordered benefit every person held at those three facilities. And

yet, the Court has provided this common relief without delving into the particulars of a single

Petitioners-Plaintiff. The Court’s ability to order common relief based solely on common

issues stands in stark contrast to the individualized release evaluations that drove the Money

court’s conclusions. Petitioners-Plaintiffs therefore submit that Money is not analogous

precedent; rather, the analogous precedents are the decisions outlined in our reply that

certified class actions.

Date: May 18, 2020

Respectfully Submitted,

/s/ Scott M. Edson Scott M. Edson, Esq.
Florida Bar No. 17258

Gregory P. Copeland* Sarah T. Gillman*
RAPID DEFENSE NETWORK 11 Broadway, Suite 615 New York, NY 10004 Tel.: (212) 843-0910 Fax: (212) 257-7033 gregory@defensenetwork.org sarah@defensenetwork.org *Appearing Pro Hac Vice

Scott M. Edson, Esq. Florida Bar No. 17258
KING & SPALDING LLP 1700 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, STE 200 Washington, DC 20006-4707 Telephone: (202) 737-0500 Facsimile: (202) 626-3737 sedson@kslaw.com

4

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 103 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/18/2020 Page 5 of 6

Rebecca Sharpless Florida Bar No. 0131024 Romy Lerner Florida Bar No. 116713
UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI SCHOOL OF
LAW - IMMIGRATION CLINIC 1311 Miller Drive Suite, E-273 Coral Gables, Florida 33146 Tel: (305) 284-3576 Fax: (305) 284-6092 rsharpless@law.miami.edu

Kathryn S. Lehman Florida Bar No.: 95642 Chad A. Peterson Florida Bar No.: 91585
KING & SPALDING LLP 1180 Peachtree Street, N.E. Atlanta, GA 30309 Telephone: (404) 572-4600 Facsimile: (404) 572-5100 klehman@kslaw.com cpeterson@kslaw.com

Paul R. Chavez FL Bar No. 1021395 Maia Fleischman FL Bar No. 1010709
SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER 2 S. Biscayne Blvd., Ste. 3200 Miami, FL 33101 Tel: (305) 537-0577 paul.chavez@splcenter.org maia.fleischman@splcenter.org

Mark Andrew Prada Fla. Bar No. 91997 Anthony Richard Dominguez Fla. Bar No. 1002234
PRADA URIZAR, PLLC 3191 Coral Way, Suite 500 Miami, FL 33145 Tel.: (786) 703-2061 Fax: (786) 708-9508 mprada@pradaurizar.com adominguez@pradaurizar.com

Lisa Lehner Florida Bar No. 382191
AMERICANS FOR IMMIGRANT
JUSTICE 5355 NW 36 Street, Suite 2201 Miami, FL 33166 Tel: (305) 573-1106 Ext. 1020 Fax: (305) 576-6273 Llehner@aijustice.org

Andrea Montavon McKillip Florida Bar No. 56401
LEGAL AID SERVICE OF BROWARD
COUNTY, INC. 491 North State Road 7 Plantation, Florida 33317 Tel. (954) 736-2493 Fax (954) 736-2484 amontavon@legalaid.org

Counsel for Petitioners-Plaintiffs

5

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 103 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/18/2020 Page 6 of 6 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on the 18th day of May, 2020, I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system, which will then send a notification of such filing (NEF) to all counsel of record.
/s/ Scott M. Edson___________ Scott M. Edson, Esq. Florida Bar No. 17258 KING & SPALDING LLP 1700 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, STE 200 Washington, DC 20006-4707 Telephone: (202) 737-0500 Facsimile: (202) 626-3737 sedson@kslaw.com Attorney for Petitioners-Plaintiffs
6

 
 Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 106 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/20/2020 Page 1 of 21
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Case No. 20-21553-Civ-COOKE/GOODMAN
PATRICK GAYLE, et al.,
Petitioners-Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and those similarly situated,
v.
MICHAEL W. MEADE, et al.,
Respondents-Defendants. ____________________________________/
PETITIONERS’ EMERGENCY MOTION TO COMPEL COMPLIANCE WITH THE COURT’S APRIL 30, 2020 TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER
In its April 30, 2020 Order, the Court found that “[t]here is record evidence demonstrating that ICE has failed in its duty to protect the safety and general well-being of the Petitioners.” ECF 76 at 6. For example, at one detention center, the detained individuals’ beds are “a paltry 12 inches apart,” and ICE has failed to “ensure that all detainees housed at the three detention centers can practice social distancing.” Id. As a result, the Court found that the conditions at Glades, Krome, and Broward Transitional Center (“BTC”) violated Petitioners’ constitutional rights. Id. at 10.
To ameliorate the situation ICE created, the Court ordered ICE to 1. Evaluate each of the named Petitioners consistent with its
regulations and inform the Court which of the Petitioners can be released by May 7, 2020.
2. Submit a report to the Court by May 3, 2020 describing how it intends to accelerate its review of its protocols resulting in release of detained individuals with the goal of reducing the population to 75% of capacity by May 14, 2020.
3. File weekly reports every Friday with information on the detained individuals ICE is releasing.
4. File twice-weekly reports containing information on the detained individuals remaining in custody.
1

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 106 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/20/2020 Page 2 of 21
5. Comply “immediately” with the CDC and ICE guidelines on providing adequate amounts of soap, water, and cleaning materials. ICE must have provided masks by May 2, 2020.
6. Provide appropriate training to its staff and detained individuals on the risks of COVID-19.
Id. at 10-11. The Order was valid for 14 days “or until further order of this Court, or until ICE demonstrates that it has substantially complied with this Order.” Id. at 11. The Court extended the order on May 15. ECF 101.
On May 2, 2020, the Court clarified its Order, allowing ICE to transfer detained individuals but only after “evaluating each detainee and making a determination as to the detainees’ eligibility for release pursuant to ICE’s COVID-19 April 10, 2020 Pandemic Response Requirements.” ECF 78.
Unfortunately, ICE has not fully complied with the Court’s orders and instead continues to fail to protect the safety and well-being of Petitioners and others in its custody at Krome, Glades, and BTC. Moreover, ICE has provided no evidence that it has conducted the evaluations to determine eligibility for release before transferring detained individuals to other facilities, in direct contravention of the Court’s May 2 Order. The Court correctly recognized that time is of the essence in dealing with COVID-19 at these detention facilities. That is why the Court ordered ICE to “work with a sense of urgency” in meeting the requirements in its April 30 Order. [ECF 76 at 11.]
And yet, ICE’s conduct to date smacks of an agency focused not on protecting the people in its care but on moving the Named Petitioners and putative Class Members away from this Court where, in ICE’s incorrect view, this Court would lack continuing jurisdiction to protect them. In declarations submitted pursuant to this Court’s April 30 Order, ICE touts population reductions at the three facilities at issue here. But the attached declarations show an agency that is merely shuffling people around the country to make the population statistics at Krome, Glades, and BTC look better on paper.
ICE conducts the transfers in highly unsanitary conditions—the attached declarations tell of cross-state and cross-country trips conducted without proper social distancing or protective equipment. People are then deposited into conditions at least as bad or worse than the conditions this Court outlined on April 30. And ICE has done this in the apparent (and
2

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 106 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/20/2020 Page 3 of 21
erroneous) belief that the Court loses jurisdiction over these individuals at the gates of the three facilities at issue here—ICE told Judge Goodman as much during the recent class certification hearing. This naked (and legally erroneous) attempt to shirk this Court’s oversight crosses over from the deliberate indifference this Court previously found and moves into the realm of outright disregard for this Court’s authority—to say nothing of ICE’s constitutional and other obligations to protect the Named Petitioners and putative Class Members from the risk of COVID-19 infection.
And this is especially true because—despite its aggressive use of transfers—ICE has also not improved the conditions at Krome, Glades, and BTC. Social distancing is still not possible at these facilities. Access to soap, hand sanitizer, masks, gloves, and cleaning supplies is still not reliable or consistent. And this is to say nothing of ICE’s woefully inadequate attempts to comply with its obligations under the April 30 Order to make individualized determinations of whether to release people and to include information in its mandatory reports to the Court that explain the individual reasons for ICE’s determinations.
It is critical that ICE fulfill all of its obligations immediately, and Petitioners respectfully request the Court to order ICE to do so. Accordingly, Petitioners hereby move the Court to compel immediate compliance with its April 30 Order, as clarified on May 2, and order ICE to immediately provide documentation of the required evaluations this Court ordered on April 30 and May 2, and to further provide Petitioners’ counsel with documentation of its determination for each detained individual before transferring them to a different facility. Due to the urgencies in responding to COVID-19 that the Court has already recognized, Petitioners request this relief on an emergency basis.
LOCAL RULE 7.1 CERTIFICATION Undersigned counsel for Petitioners, Scott Edson and Kathryn Lehman, reached out to all counsel of record for Respondents by email on May 11 and May 14 in a good faith attempt to resolve these issues without judicial involvement. By email dated May 15, Senior Litigation Counsel Dexter Lee stated that Respondents opposed the relief requested in this motion.
3

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 106 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/20/2020 Page 4 of 21
ARGUMENT
I. ICE IS STILL NOT COMPLYING WITH CDC GUIDELINES AT KROME,
GLADES, AND BTC. Despite the Court’s Orders, ICE’s treatment of Petitioners continues to violate CDC Guidelines at the three instant facilities. Although ICE has filed declarations asserting that the populations at Krome, Glades, and BTC are below 75 percent of capacity, the attached declarations (collected in Exhibit A) show that the conditions at these facilities remain woefully inadequate and dangerous, and in direct violation of CDC Guidelines. For example, in a May 14 declaration, Dushane Spaulding reports that he was transferred from Krome to Glades on April 22. He shares his “cell with five other men, and [they] sleep in a room of six bunk beds, so it is impossible to social distance.” Spaulding Decl. ¶ 7. Although ICE has said that population at Glades is at 74 percent capacity, [ECF 89-1 ¶ 4], Mr. Spaulding’s pod has “81 or 82” and a capacity of “around 95 people”—meaning that the pod where Mr. Spaulding is being held is about 85 percent full, see Spaulding Decl. ¶ 7. He also reports that “we all share the common area, where we also eat our meals” and that when they eat, they have to “sit very close together, with four people at a table, less than 6 feet apart.” Id. He reports that when having recreation “we are also close together, and we share the same soccer ball and drink from the same cooler.” Id. ¶ 8. The individuals held at Glades “often run out of soap, because the guards give us soap only once every two weeks.” Id. When Mr. Spaulding “asked for a refill” of soap, he was accused of “wasting the soap” and told he had to “wait for soap day.” Id. So, he sometimes tries to wash his hands, but he has no soap. Id. He is unable to wear his mask because it is “dirty and broken,” but the guards have told him he has “to wait to receive another one.” Id. In a May 15 declaration, James Saintyl reports a similar failure of ICE to comply with CDC guidelines at the Glades facility. While this Court’s April 30 Order singled out ICE’s practice at Glades of having beds “a paltry 12 inches apart,” [ECF 76 at 6], Mr. Saintyl (who has asthma) reports that he is sharing a ten-by-thirteen-foot cell with four other men, with bunkbeds configured 4 feet apart, and that he sleeps “less than one foot away” from the person in the upper bunk, Saintyl Decl. ¶ 5. He likewise relates that meals are eaten with four people to a table, and that the only way to socially distance is to go into solitary confinement. Id. ¶ 6. When Mr. Saintyl went to seek medical treatment on May 15—two full weeks after this
4

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 106 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/20/2020 Page 5 of 21
Court’s April 30 Order—“only one or two of the fifteen people in the waiting room were wearing a mask.” Id. ¶ 7. He does not have access to disinfecting materials but instead must rely on other people in detention to clean his cell—a task they sometimes forget to perform. Id. ¶ 8. There is no hand sanitizer, and soap dispensers are only refilled weekly, even though they are empty after about a day. Id. ¶ 9.
The May 5 declaration of Danny Ruiz Garcia reports that he is being held at BTC, where he sleeps in a room with five people sleeping in three bunkbeds, making proper social distancing impossible. Ruiz Garcia Decl. ¶ 14. When he goes to lunch, there are more than fifty people in line at once all standing in line together. Id. ¶ 15. They eat with one stool between each person but they are still not six feet apart. Id. When the detained people go to exercise, “hundreds” go out at once and it is impossible to socially distance “throughout the day.” Id. ¶ 16. Most staff members do not wear masks, and access to hand sanitizer and shower gel is unreliable. Id. ¶ 4-7, 12, 14; see also Miguel Angel Marroquin Perez Decl. (describing similar conditions).
In his May 11 declaration, Iran Pichardo Perez-Borroto reports that, although his Krome pod has been under quarantine “on and off for about two months,” “[t]he [bunk]beds are still positioned next to each other” and that the people sleeping on either side of him “sleep in the same direction I do, not head to feet.” Perez-Borroto Decl. ¶¶ 7, 10. “Social distancing requirements are not met.” Id. ¶ 11.
In fact, the general conditions at these facilities continue to stand in violation of the CDC Guidelines:
 “There is no hygiene here.” Guiber Avila Decl. at 1 (at Krome). Individuals are not provided consistent and adequate supply of soap or hand sanitizer. Maharaj Decl. at 2 (at Glades); Marroquin Perez Decl. at 2 (at BTC); Ruiz Garcia Decl. at 1 (at BTC); Perez-Borroto Decl. at 2 (at Krome); Spaulding Decl. at 2 (at Glades); Dorival Decl. at 1-2 (at Krome and Glades); Corona Matos Decl. at 3 (at BTC); Rodriguez Del Rio Decl. at 2 (at BTC); Arrak Decl. at 3 (at Krome); Hasan Decl. at 4 (at Krome); Auguste Decl. at 2 (at Krome and Glades).
 Individuals exhibiting cough and other symptoms of COVID-19 are kept in the same space as others rather than being appropriately quarantined. Maharaj Decl. at 2 (at Glades); Diaz Decl. at 3 (at Krome); Hasan Decl. at 3 (at Krome).
5

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 106 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/20/2020 Page 6 of 21
 ICE packs approximately 20 detained men into a single holding cell at a time. Maharaj Decl. at 1 (at Glades). In one incident, the men were so overcrowded that at least five people were forced to sleep on the floor. Id.
 Social distancing is not possible during basic activities like eating and seeking medical care. Perez Valladares Decl. at 2 (at BTC and Krome); Ruiz Garcia Decl. at 2 (at BTC); Dino Dean Declaration at 3 (at Krome); Maharaj Decl. at 2-3 (at Glades); Dorival Decl. at 1-2 (at Krome and Glades); Hasan Decl. at 1-2 (at Krome); Saintyl Decl. at 2 (at Krome and Glades); Corona Matos Decl. at 2 (at BTC); Rodriguez Del Rio Decl. at 2 (at BTC); Djadju Decl. at 2 (at BTC). “When we are eating, it’s impossible to socially distance with each other since the chairs are close together, with tables of four chairs, one on each side. It is also impossible to socially distance when we go to medical.” Id. at 2. “When we eat our meals, we sit very close together, with four people at a table, less than 6 feet apart.” Spaulding Decl. at 1-2 (at Glades). “[S]ocial distancing does not exist here. It is impossible.” Guiber Avila Decl. at 1 (at Krome). “The bottom beds are just a few inches apart. While in my bed, I can kick or touch the person next to mine.” Cooper Decl. at 2 (at Glades).
 “At Glades . . . Staff did not make any accommodations to allow social distancing.” Garay Decl. at 1. And “the conditions at Krome were not conducive to being able to follow the social distancing guidelines provided by the CDC—there were just too many people.” Melissa Dominguez Decl. at 2. “I continue to think about going into confinement or disciplinary housing in order to isolate myself and avoid getting the virus. In confinement, I would be able to social distance properly.” Hasan Decl. at 5 (at Krome); see also Auguste Decl. at 2 (at Krome and Glades).
 Masks are not consistently provided. Perez Valladares Decl. at 2 (at Krome); Hasan Decl. at 3-4 (at Krome); Arrak Decl. at 2 (at Krome); Cooper Decl. at 3 (at Glades). Even when they are provided, masks are not consistently worn. Spaulding Decl. at 2 (at Glades); Djadju Decl. at 3 (at BTC); Saintyl Decl. at 3 (at Glades).
 Gloves are not consistently provided. Spaulding Decl. at 2 (at Glades).
 Staff are not consistently wearing masks. Perez Valladares Decl. at 2 (at Krome); Marroquin Perez Decl. at 1 (at BTC); Maggie Arias Decl. at 4 (at Glades); Spaulding Decl. at 2 (at Glades); Dorival Decl. at 2 (at Glades).
 Other than putting up posters saying that detained individuals should wash their hands, ICE has not provided training on how to prevent
6

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 106 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/20/2020 Page 7 of 21

COVID-19. Spaulding Decl. at 2 (at Glades); Dorival Decl. at 2 (at Glades); Arrak Decl. at 2 (at Krome); Cooper Decl. at 2 (at Glades).
 ICE does not provide detained individuals with access to cleaning supplies, and ICE does not regularly clean the facilities. Hasan Decl. at 2-3 (at Krome); Cooper Decl. at 2-3 (at Glades); Arrak Decl. at 2-3 (at Krome); Djadju Decl. at 3 (at BTC).
In fact, in recent days, Petitioners’ counsel has leaned of a disturbing story of ICE’s officers being willfully blind to the plight of COVID-19-positive patients in their midst. A client of one of Petitioners’ counsel who was being held at Krome was experiencing symptoms of COVID-19 but was not given a test. Rather, staff told him it was probably a cold and he was left to solider through. He was then transferred along with 32 other detained individuals to BTC—none of whom were tested before the transfer. But after being transferred, they were tested and approximately 16 of them (including this individual) tested positive for COVID19.1 It is unclear why they were transferred and why they were not tested until after they were introduced into a different facility.2
In short, even within the three facilities at issue here, despite the reductions in population reflected in ICE’s declarations, the precise sort of dangerous conditions the Court’s April 30 Order was meant to mitigate persist. The Court should compel ICE to comply immediately with the provisions in its April 30 Order, as clarified by the Court on May 2. And it should further make clear to ICE that population reduction cannot be achieved at the cost of safety and implementation of CDC Guidelines. Rather, in addition to population reduction, ICE must also improve the conditions to come into full compliance with the April 30 Order. [See ECF 76 at 8 (“ICE’s purported ‘substantial compliance’ does

1

This information was also related by an unnamed “senior employee” of the GEO

Group, which operates BTC for ICE, in a recent Miami Herald article. See Monique O.

Madded, Coronavirus cases skyrocket at ICE detention center in Broward after transfer from Miami,

Miami Herald (May 19, 2020) (“The spike in cases came after 33 detainees were transferred

from Krome to BTC late last week, federal sources, detainees and their families told the

Miami Herald. After the detainees arrived at the facility on Thursday, they were separated

into groups of six and then tested for the coronavirus. Results were given on Friday.”).

2

Counsel’s attempts to follow-up with the client to obtain a declaration have proved

elusive, possibly because the client is now in quarantine without access to a phone to contact

counsel. Counsel is reluctant to identify this individual without his express consent out of

fear of exposing him to a risk of retaliation from ICE officials.

7

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 106 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/20/2020 Page 8 of 21
not pass muster under the Accardi doctrine.”).]
II. ICE’S TRANSFERS HAVE FAILED TO COMPLY WITH THE COURT’S
ORDERS AND INSTEAD HAVE EXPOSED PEOPLE TO FURTHER RISKS OF COVID-19 INFECTION. The record shows that ICE has accomplished reductions at Krome, Glades, and BTC almost entirely through transfers rather than releases. ICE has, in fact, leaned so heavily on transferring people to reduce the population at these three facilities that its recent declarations have taken to characterizing transfers as releases. See ECF 100-1 (lumping together people who were “transferred or released” and then counting transfers and release together as “releases” in setting out facility-specific information). According to its own declarations, ICE claims to have “released” 230 people at the three facilities. See ECF 90, 100. However, 111 of the people ICE claims to have released were actually transferred to other ICE facilities. See id. As a result, since May 1, ICE has actually released only 119 people. And of those, ICE states it has released only 6 people (approximately 0.4% of the population) due specifically to COVID-19 in the 20 days since the Court’s Order. [See ECF 90, 100.] While ICE may claim that these transfers serve the purpose of improving conditions at the three facilities, early reports suggest that ICE has been conducting these transfers without fulfilling its obligations under this Court’s May 2 Order, and that it is transferring people in unsanitary conditions and then depositing them into conditions that are as bad or worse than the those the Court outlined on April 30. In short, the record shows not a good faith attempt to accomplish the goals set out in this Court’s April 30 Order, but instead that ICE is using dangerous transfers to manufacture reduction statistics without improving conditions for the Named Petitioners and putative Class Members. The Court should rebuke this shell game.
A. ICE Has Failed to Show that it Performed the Required Evaluations of
Detained Individuals Before Transferring them. The Court’s April 30 Order requires ICE to evaluate the individuals in its custody at the three facilities to determine whether they can be released, and its May 2 Order requires that this evaluation occur before any detained individual is transferred to a different detention center. Yet, to date, ICE has transferred many detainees from the three facilities to various far-flung detention centers but offered no evidence that it seriously evaluated each person to
8

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 106 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/20/2020 Page 9 of 21
assess their suitability for release before transferring them. This is a direct violation of the Court’s May 2 Order.
The declarations attached as Exhibit A show that since the Court’s May 2 Order, several detained individuals have been transferred to facilities in Texas and New Mexico without ICE providing any explanation for its individual decisions to transfer these people rather than releasing them. Garay Decl. at 2; Stefanie Crespo Aff. at 3-4; Ana Maria Candela Decl. at 1; Maggie Arias Decl. at 3-4; Marlene Markowitz Decl. at 1-2; Dominguez Decl. at 2; Claudia Del Castillo Decl. at 2-3; Sandy Pineda Decl. at 1. Indeed, Petitioners understand that some of the transferred individuals have underlying health conditions that put them at heightened risk if they develop COVID-19, but there is no evidence that ICE ever considered these conditions before transferring them. See Arias Decl. at 6 (“My client suffers from asthma and is high risk if he were to contract the COVID-19 virus.”); Melissa Dominguez Decl. at 1 (stating that her client “is immune-compromised due to his underlying condition of Asthma” and has suffered severe asthma attacks while in custody); Del Castillo Decl. at 3 (client suffers from sinusitis); Spaulding Decl. at 1 (“I fear that my history of seizures and smoking makes me particularly vulnerable if I contract COVID-19.”). At least one of these individuals specifically requested his release due to his severe underlying asthma, but instead of responding to that request, ICE simply transferred him from Krome to Glades. Dominguez Decl. at 2.
Indeed, rather than conducting and tracking its own testing, ICE appears to be engaging in the sham of demanding that people who have been transferred certify to ICE— in English, which they may not read or understand—that ICE tested them for COVID-19 before transferring them, quite without regard to whether ICE actually tested them. Named Petitioner Alejandro Ferrara Borges was transferred from BTC to Stewart Detention Center in Georgia on May 14, 2020. See Fabra Decl. at 1. Before the transfer, ICE told Mr. Borges to sign a document in English, which he does not speak. Id. He was not given a form in Spanish. Id. Later, Mr. Borges learned that the form he signed stated that ICE had tested Mr. Borges for COVID-19 before his transfer and that he was negative. Id. But Mr. Borges was not tested before the transfer and has never been tested. Id. The only evaluation Mr. Borges underwent before the transfer was to have his temperature taken. Id. Of course, if
9

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 106 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/20/2020 Page 10 of 21
ICE had actually tested Mr. Borges, it would not need him to certify whether he was tested; it would have a record of his test and the result.
This kind of ruse stands in stark contrast to the measures this Court ordered on April 30 and May 2. The Court’s May 2 Order could not have been clearer: “ICE may only transfer detainees after first evaluating each detainee and making a determination as to the detainees’ eligibility for release pursuant to ICE’s COVID-19 April 10, 2020 Pandemic Response Requirements.” [ECF 78 at 1 (emphasis added).] But as yet, ICE has failed to provide any evidence that it is conducting this required pre-transfer analysis. These individuals’ families and attorneys are often notified after they have been transferred that they are now being held in a different facility, sometimes thousands of miles away, with no justification given for the transfer.3
Furthermore, the Court specifically required ICE to evaluate the named Petitioners and “inform the Court who among them can be released promptly in light of COVID-19.” ECF 76 at 10. “ICE must take into consideration the detainees’ current health status, eligibility for bond, immigration court history and orders, and prior criminal history.” Id. But the declarations ICE has filed have generally grouped together ICE’s decision making by category, making it impossible to discern (let alone challenge) ICE’s reason for not releasing a given person. This is yet another direct violation of the Court’s Orders.
To ensure that ICE actually complies with this Court’s Orders this time, Petitioners ask the Court to order Respondents to provide evidence of the evaluation they have performed in accordance with the Court’s May 2 Order before transferring any additional detained individuals from one of the three facilities at issue here, including transfers between the three facilities. Given that ICE is required to perform this evaluation, and given its refusal to date to comply with its obligations under this Court’s Orders, ICE cannot credibly claim that the slight burden of this requirement would be undue.

3

The only information ICE has provided about the factors it has considered is a blank

spreadsheet showing columns labeled age, health status, bond eligibility, and whether they

have criminal convictions or pending charges. Petitioners do not have any further

information, and the spreadsheet does not include a field to identify why the individual was

not released or who made the decision.

10

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 106 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/20/2020 Page 11 of 21
B. The Conditions During the Transfers Do Not Comply with the Letter or
Spirit of the Court’s Orders. The attached Declarations show that ICE simply has not received the message this Court sent on April 30 that ICE must take seriously its obligations to Petitioners and the putative Class Members, particularly while they are in transit. For example, Jordy Humberto Molina Garay and seven other persons were transferred from Glades to a facility in New Mexico on May 4, 2020. Garay Decl. at 2. Staff at Glades made no effort to determine whether any of these individuals were infected with COVID-19 before transferring them. Id. at 2. Mr. Garay was not given a mask or gloves during the transfer, and the guards did not wear masks or gloves when interacting with him and the other detained individuals. Id. Mr. Garay was placed on a bus and taken to Krome with around 40 other people, but ICE staff did not make any accommodations for the detained individuals to sit apart from each other. Id. Indeed, Mr. Garay saw the guards block the cameras monitoring them during the transfer. Id. Once at Krome, Mr. Garay was placed in the “Hielera,” also known as “the fridge,” a cold holding cell, with around 20 other people less than an arm’s length from one another for hours. Id. He was then transferred to Miami International Airport. During the flight from Miami to New Mexico, employees from the company ICE hired to perform the transfer openly threatened to retaliate against Mr. Garay if he reported the conditions of the transfer to his lawyers or his family: they warned he would “suffer more inside detention.” Id. at 3. Nonetheless, Mr. Garay bravely reported those conditions in a Declaration, but he now fears retaliation from ICE for doing so. Id. ICE did not perform a medical evaluation on Mr. Garay when he arrived in New Mexico. However, on May 12, 2020, Mr. Garay learned that someone in his transfer group tested positive for COVID-19. Id. Mr. Garay asked ICE if he could be tested for the virus, given the proximity the detained individuals during their lengthy transfer. Id. He was told they would not be tested unless they “showed symptoms.” Id. Now, Mr. Garay believes “we are all in danger. I fear for my life.” Id. Mr. Garay’s experience is not unique. Indeed, other detained individuals have reported the unsanitary conditions faced during their transfers:
11

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 106 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/20/2020 Page 12 of 21
 No social distancing was permitted in the buses or vans transferring detained individuals between facilities. Arias Decl. at 5; Rodney Martin Decl. at 2; Del Castillo Decl. at 4; Spaulding Decl. at 1.
 ICE did not offer detained individuals gloves or hand sanitizer on the bus transferring individuals to Krome. Arias Decl. at 5; Martin Decl. at 2; Del Castillo Decl. at 4.
 ICE did not provide face masks to detained individuals on buses. Martin Decl. at 2.
 Officers did not allow at least one detained individual on a transfer flight to New Mexico to wash his hands or use hand sanitizer. Arias Decl. at 6.
 ICE has not consistently tested or screened detained individuals after arriving at their new facilities. Martin Decl. at 3-4.
In fact, ICE’s general treatment of the transferred individuals has been unacceptable. Rodney Martin, who had injured his foot so severely in ICE custody at Krome that he could not walk, was put on a bus that was not wheelchair-accessible and transferred to Baker County Detention Facility. Martin Decl. at 2-3. After being transferred, non-medical ICE staff told Mr. Martin that, in fact, he did not need a wheelchair and stopped providing him with one for several days. Id. at 4. Mr. Martin reports that he has not had access to a shower since May 5. Id. at 5. Additionally, Mr. Martin, a diabetic, is no longer receiving his diabetesspecific diet at the new facility, and he now “barely eats.” Id. Another detained individual, Mr. Chavez, was placed in “the burrito,” a straitjacket-like device, for his entire flight from Miami to New Mexico, ostensibly as retaliation for not consenting to the transfer. Arias Decl. at 6. The other detained individuals were told that if they objected to their transfers, the same thing would happen to them. Del Castillo Decl. at 4.
In another recent incident, ICE transferred three Named Petitioners from BTC to Lumpkin, Georgia—just to turn around and ship them directly back to BTC. See Fabra Decl. at 2. It is entirely unclear what ICE hoped to accomplish with this. But it, of course, did nothing to reduce the population or improve conditions at BTC. Instead, the only practical effect was to subject these individuals to a grueling 20-hour round-trip bus ride, in conditions that exposed them to the risk of contracting COVID-19, and then to return them to BTC
12

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 106 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/20/2020 Page 13 of 21

where, if they became infected along the way, they could then expose other people. See id. And these individuals’ status as Named Petitioners here may well chill others from cooperating with this lawsuit—which, perhaps, was the point. But whatever motivation ICE could have had, its decision to ping-pong these individuals to Georgia and back is not the work of an agency that understands the risks inherent in transferring individuals or that is deciding to use transfers as a last resort.
Petitioners request the Court order ICE to put a stop to these practices immediately. If ICE truly believes that transfer rather than release is necessary for an individual, it should only do those in limited, extreme circumstances that could justify transfer given the increased risk of COVID-19 infection and then execute that transfer under conditions that conform to the Court’s April 30 Order and CDC Guidelines.
C. The Conditions at the Facilities to Which Detained Individuals Have Been
Sent Are as Bad, if Not Worse, than the Conditions at Krome, Glades and BTC. The attached declarations further show that ICE has been accomplishing reductions in the populations at Krome, Glades, and BTC by transferring the very detained individuals this Court’s April 30 Order seeks to protect to conditions that are at least as bad as those the Court outlined in that Order.4 For instance, several people have been transferred to the Torrance Detention Facility in New Mexico. Mr. Garay now shares a bunk bed and reports that he is very dehydrated. Garay Decl. at 3. He shares a single sink with 20 other detained individuals. Id. He is not alone. Kyle Maharaj, who was transferred from Krome to Torrance, shares a sleeping room less than ten steps wide with another person. Maharaj Decl. at 2. They share a toilet and sink, which are both inside the cell. Id. It is “impossible” to practice proper social distancing at Torrance during meals, when detained individuals are seated four to a table. Id. It is likewise impossible for people at Torrance to socially distance on the occasions when they do

4

ICE has not provided the Court or Petitioners with any information on the places to

which the putative class members have been transferred, including whether the living spaces

are at 75 percent capacity, whether social distancing under CDC guidelines is available, or

whether adequate soap, hand sanitizer, and other hygienic necessities are provided at those

facilities. As explained below, it is doubtful that the facilities to which the putative class

members have been sent comply with these conditions.

13

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 106 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/20/2020 Page 14 of 21
receive medical attention. Id. Similarly, the people at Torrance cannot practice social distancing in the common area, which 25 people share. Id. at 2-3. Worse, Mr. Maharaj, who has asthma, was told by a nurse at Torrance on May 5 that he needed to see a doctor. Id. at 1, 3. To date, ICE has not taken him to see a doctor, which would be bad enough under normal circumstances but is downright alarming in light of the threat of COVID-19. Id. at 3.
Other ICE detention centers are scarcely any better. Several detained people have been transferred to Baker County Detention Facility, where conditions are very poor. Baker does not provide sufficient soap, guards do not consistently wear gloves or masks, and detained individuals have not been provided with masks or other protective equipment. Bilbao Decl. at 1. Many detained individuals exhibiting symptoms of COVID-19 remain in the general population, and there is no clear or consistent policy for quarantining them. Id. As if that were not enough, there are reports that individuals detained at Baker have had to eat rotten food. Id. And Baker does not have enough beds for everyone at the facility, so people are forced to sleep in makeshift cots. Id.; see also Amaral Decl. at 3.
Anderson Amaral was transferred from Glades to Baker on May 1. Amaral Decl. at 1. When he arrived with a group of about 25 people, the floor in the unit where he was held was wet and littered with open food packages. Id. at 2. ICE made Mr. Amaral and the other transferees clean the unit themselves. Id. The only hygiene products Mr. Amaral received at Baker was a thin bar of soap and a small tube of toothpaste. Id. at 3. Although the soap only lasted two days, ICE told Mr. Amaral he could not receive more soap until the next week’s distribution. Id. Most of the guards and medical staff do not wear masks at Baker. Id. Several people, including Mr. Amaral, had to sleep on the floor. Id. at 3-4. While in ICE custody at Baker, Mr. Amaral, who has a metal plate in his shoulder, suffered a shoulder injury from sleeping on the floor. Id. at 4. Despite his injury, ICE guards ordered him to lug his own mattress to a different room. Id. When Mr. Amaral explained that he could not, ICE guards physically and verbally abused him. Id. He now believes that “the metal plate in my shoulder shifted . . . you can see it through the skin, whereas before, you could not tell. Id. at 5. Certainly, Mr. Amaral’s transfer to Baker did not protect him from COVID-19 and did nothing but worsen the conditions of his confinement.
It does Petitioners and the putative Class Members no good to be transferred to a facility which presents the same or greater risk of infection. Accordingly, Petitioners ask the
14

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 106 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/20/2020 Page 15 of 21
Court to order that ICE transfer detained individuals only to facilities that are in documented compliance with its April 30 Order.
III. THE RECORD SHOWS THAT ICE HAS NOT TAKEN ITS OBLIGATIONS
SERIOUSLY. Underlying all of ICE’s failures seems to be a steadfast determination to proceed as if all is normal. Even after this Court’s April 30 Order, ICE is not acting with the urgency and good faith that the crisis demands. ICE’s lackluster response is, unfortunately, not unique to this case. Rather, on May 15, the Central District of California expressed frustration that ICE’s “cavalier approach to [a] Preliminary Injunction” and emphasized that ICE’s “stance on compliance” with its obligations “ignores the acute threat posed by COVID-19.” See Order (1) GRANTING Plaintiffs’ Ex Parte Application (Dkt. No. 136); and (2) DENYING Defendants’ Ex Parte Applications to Strike at 6 (Dkt. Nos. 141, 148) (IN CHAMBERS), Fraihat v. ICE, No. 5:19cv-01546-JGB-SHK (C.D. Cal. May 15, 2020) (Ex. B). The Fraihat court reported that ICE’s “response to date” to that court’s preliminary injunction “has been lackadaisical and likely objectively deliberately indifferent.” Id.; see also Fraihat v. ICE, --- F. Supp. 3d ----, No. 5:19cv-01546-JGB-SHK, 2020 WL 1932570, at *24 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 20, 2020) (“The evidence suggests systemwide inaction that goes beyond a mere difference of medical opinion or negligence.”). This Court’s April 30 and May 2 Orders ordered ICE to give serious consideration to actually releasing people in its custody at Krome, Glades, and BTC. And yet, it has largely refused to do so—and has even taken the position that this Court’s order does not require it to individually consider whether release is appropriate for each putative Class Member. See Order at 4 & n.4, Portuondo v. Field Officer Director Miami Field Office, No. 20-21543-CIVWILLIAMS (S.D. Fla. May 7, 2020) (relating ICE’s refusal to consider releasing person in detention with prostate cancer and granting habeas corpus relief) (Ex. C). As the District of Massachusetts recently explained, ICE’s “near-blanket opposition to the release of detainees throughout the bail process” itself shows ICE’s deliberate indifference to its obligations. Savino v. Souza, CV 20-10617-WGY, 2020 WL 2404923, at *1 (D. Mass. May 12, 2020). This Court showed incredible restraint in its April 30 and May 2 Orders in allowing ICE flexibility to find the best way to protect the putative Class Members from the risk of COVID-19
15

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 106 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/20/2020 Page 16 of 21
infection—leaving ICE discretion even to continue transferring people in the midst of the pandemic if ICE felt that was the best way to protect against COVID-19 infection under the circumstances. And yet, “[w]here elasticity is vital, they are rigid; where life hangs upon a carefully drawn line, they opt for near-blanket incarceration.” Id. at *9.
Indeed, ICE’s legal positions in this case bespeak its general nonchalance. Although this Court’s April 30 and May 2 Order clearly ordered ICE to accelerate efforts to release putative Class Members, ICE refuses to do so. Instead, brazenly flouting this Court’s direction that ICE consider releasing putative Class Members before transferring them, ICE has now taken to redefining “transfers” to mean “releases.” [ECF 100-1.] That is contrary to the plain text of this Court’s May 2 Order, which expressly distinguished “transfer” from “release.” [ECF 78 at 1.]
Moreover, ICE has stated on the record that it will flatly refuse to consider releasing anyone who it deems subject to “mandatory detention.” See, e.g., Portuondo Order at 4 & n.4 (reflecting ICE’s position that this Court’s April 30 and May 2 orders did not require it to consider releasing people in “mandatory detention”). This rigidity confirms ICE’s deliberate indifference not only to its obligations to protect people in its detention from the COVID-19 crisis, but also to its mandatory obligations under Orders by this Court. Petitioners submit that this case therefore cries out for the Court to take further corrective action necessary to compel ICE to do what this Court has already required.
Notably, ICE well knows that the mere fact that ICE has labeled a person’s detention as “mandatory” does not prevent their release. Indeed, in the May 7 Portuondo Order, Judge Williams rejected this very position and laid out a series of rulings confirming that ICE’s position on this point is untenable. In that case, ICE refused to release a Cuban man detained at Krome suffering from prostate cancer who was indisputably at high risk of contracting a severe case of COVID-19. At a hearing on May 4, 2020 (after this Court’s May 2 Order), the AUSA informed Judge Williams of ICE's categorical position that it could not release the petitioner because he was in “mandatory detention.” See id. at 2 & 4 n.4. Nevertheless, the court ordered him released. Id. at 11. As Judge Williams explained, ICE has lost this position again and again and again in district courts. See id. at 6-11. And, in fact, the decisions
16

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 106 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/20/2020 Page 17 of 21

rejecting ICE’s position are legion.5 That ICE would nonetheless read this Court’s April 30 and May 2 Orders as to not require ICE to even consider releasing people ICE deems subject to “mandatory detention” (beyond merely reaching the conclusion that the “mandatory” label applies) shows a lack of seriousness and good faith in complying with the structures of this Court’s Orders.
Along the same lines, ICE’s flurry of recent transfers—and the conditions of those transfers—cannot be divorced from its position (taken in the class certification papers and at the hearing on that issue) that a putative Class Member somehow loses standing (and therefore, this Court loses jurisdiction over his or her conditions of confinement) the moment that person leaves the gates of one of the facilities at issue here. ICE apparently thinks it has

5

See, e.g., Vazquez Barrera v. Wolf, No. 4:20-CV-1241, 2020 WL 1904497, at *5 (S.D.

Tex. Apr. 17, 2020) (“[T]he Supreme Court has consistently allowed for habeas challenges to

detention statutorily mandated by the Immigration and Nationality Act.”); Moore v. Nielsen,

No. 418CV01722LSCHNJ, 2019 WL 2152582, at *9 (N.D. Ala. May 3, 2019) (“[A]n

appreciable number of district courts since Jennings have ruled that immigrants facing §§

1225(b) and 1226(c) removal proceedings, regardless of their immigration status, enjoy due

process rights against prolonged detention.”); Valenzuela Arias v. Decker, No. 20 CIV. 2802

(AT), 2020 WL 1847986 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 10, 2020) (concluding that the respondents “failed

to justify [p]etitoners’ continued detention in unsafe conditions” and “courts have the

authority to order those detained in violation of their due process rights released,

notwithstanding § 1226(c)”); Basank v. Decker, No. 20 CIV. 2518 (AT), 2020 WL 1481503, at

*6 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 26, 2020) (“[C]ourts have the authority to order those detained in violation

of their due process rights released, notwithstanding § 1226(c)”); Bent v. Barr, No. 19-CV-

06123-DMR, 2020 WL 1812850, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 9, 2020) (“To the extent that

Respondents claim Bent is absolutely prohibited from seeking release because he is

mandatorily detained under 18 U.S.C. § 1226(c), the court has already rejected that

argument.”); Ferreyra v. Decker, No. 20 CIV. 3170 (AT), 2020 WL 1989417, at *11 (S.D.N.Y.

Apr. 27, 2020) (“[C]ourts have the authority to order those held in violation of their due

process rights released, notwithstanding § 1226(c)”); Hernandez v. Wolf, et al., No. 20-cv-00617-

TJH, (C.D. Ca. April 1, 2020) (“Hernandez’s habeas petition and the relief it seeks from this

Court are not barred by the fact that he might be subject to mandatory detention pursuant to

INA § 236(c). See Singh v. Holder, 638 F.3d 1196, 1202 (9th Cir. 2011). While the INA does

restrict jurisdiction in federal courts for certain claims, it does not restrict habeas jurisdiction

for petitions that raise constitutional claims.”); Dada v. White et al., No. 20-cv-00458, at *13

(W.D. La. April 30, 2020) (“But mandatory detention statutes must, and often do, give way

to the dictates of the Constitution, including Petitioners’ rights under the Fifth

Amendment.”); Malam v. Adducci et al., No. 20-cv-10829, at *13 (E.D. Mich. April 5, 2020),

as amended (Apr. 6, 2020) (“Petitioner's continued detention is in violation of the United

States Constitution, to which 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c) must give way.”).

17

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 106 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/20/2020 Page 18 of 21
found a creative way to circumvent this Court’s authority: since this Court declined to bar further transfer, ICE can simply ship Named Petitioners and putative Class Members far and wide, simultaneously lowering the populations at Krome, Glades and BTC and also (in ICE’s position) taking those people beyond this Court’s power to do anything about their conditions in transit or after they arrive at their new detention facilities.
ICE’s position is not just legally untenable; it contradicts decades of precedent: The Court acquired jurisdiction due to the Named Petitioners’ and putative Class Members’ standing when this suit was filed, and ICE’s unilateral decision to disperse them across the Nation does not deprive the Court of jurisdiction.6 Indeed, even if ICE temporarily released Class Members or put them in perfect conditions, ICE’s voluntary cessation of the challenged practice would not moot their claims. See City of Mesquite v. Aladdin's Castle, Inc., 455 U.S. 283, 289 (1982). For ameliorative actions (and, as explained above, these transfers are anything but ameliorative) to render an individual’s claims moot, ICE would first have to establish (1) there was no reasonable expectation that the alleged violations would recur as to that individual, and (2) interim events had “completely and irrevocably eradicated the effects of the alleged violation.” LaMarca v. Turner, 662 F. Supp. 647, 715 (S.D. Fla. 1987).
That ICE would press such a legally untenable position while rapidly transferring people away from this Court—under unsanitary conditions—shows that ICE is not focused on good-faith compliance with this Court’s April 30 and May 2 Orders or on protecting the people before the Court who are in ICE’s care. Instead, ICE has devoted itself to inventing loopholes around this Court’s authority—no matter what pain in causes in the process.
The Court should put an end to this. It should compel ICE to take seriously its obligation to consider releasing the Named Petitioners and putative Class Members and to immediately comply with the terms of this Court’s April 30 and May 2 Orders.

6

See, e.g., Ex parte Mitsuye Endo, 323 U.S. 283, 306 (1944) (“We only hold that the

District Court acquired jurisdiction in this case and that the removal of Mitsuye Endo did not

cause it to lose jurisdiction where a person in whose custody she is remains within the

district.”); see also, e.g., Ahrens v. Clark, 335 U.S. 188, 193 (1948) (distinguishing Endo in case

where district court did not have jurisdiction at time of habeas action was filed).

18

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 106 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/20/2020 Page 19 of 21

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, Petitioners respectfully request the Court to (1) order ICE to comply immediately with the requirements in its April 30 and May 2 Orders; (2) order ICE to provide documentation of its evaluations for release before any transfer is executed; (3) and prohibit the transfer of any detained individual to a facility that does not comply with the requirements in the Court’s April 30 Order. The Court should further admonish ICE that acts of retaliation against detained individuals for assisting with this lawsuit will not be tolerated and require ICE to ensure that all people acting under its authority are appropriately directed not to retaliate against the Named Petitioners or putative Class Members for consulting with counsel or assisting in this lawsuit.

Date: May 20, 2020

Respectfully Submitted,

/s/ Scott M. Edson Scott M. Edson, Esq.
Florida Bar No. 17258

Gregory P. Copeland* Sarah T. Gillman*
RAPID DEFENSE NETWORK 11 Broadway, Suite 615 New York, NY 10004 Tel.: (212) 843-0910 Fax: (212) 257-7033 gregory@defensenetwork.org sarah@defensenetwork.org *Appearing Pro Hac Vice

Scott M. Edson, Esq. Florida Bar No. 17258
KING & SPALDING LLP 1700 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, STE 200 Washington, DC 20006-4707 Telephone: (202) 737-0500 Facsimile: (202) 626-3737 sedson@kslaw.com

19

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 106 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/20/2020 Page 20 of 21

Rebecca Sharpless Florida Bar No. 0131024 Romy Lerner Florida Bar No. 116713
UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI SCHOOL OF
LAW - IMMIGRATION CLINIC 1311 Miller Drive Suite, E-273 Coral Gables, Florida 33146 Tel: (305) 284-3576 Fax: (305) 284-6092 rsharpless@law.miami.edu

Kathryn S. Lehman Florida Bar No.: 95642 Chad A. Peterson Florida Bar No.: 91585
KING & SPALDING LLP 1180 Peachtree Street, N.E. Atlanta, GA 30309 Telephone: (404) 572-4600 Facsimile: (404) 572-5100 klehman@kslaw.com cpeterson@kslaw.com

Paul R. Chavez FL Bar No. 1021395 Maia Fleischman FL Bar No. 1010709
SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER 2 S. Biscayne Blvd., Ste. 3200 Miami, FL 33101 Tel: (305) 537-0577 paul.chavez@splcenter.org maia.fleischman@splcenter.org

Mark Andrew Prada Fla. Bar No. 91997 Anthony Richard Dominguez Fla. Bar No. 1002234
PRADA URIZAR, PLLC 3191 Coral Way, Suite 500 Miami, FL 33145 Tel.: (786) 703-2061 Fax: (786) 708-9508 mprada@pradaurizar.com adominguez@pradaurizar.com

Lisa Lehner Florida Bar No. 382191
AMERICANS FOR IMMIGRANT
JUSTICE 5355 NW 36 Street, Suite 2201 Miami, FL 33166 Tel: (305) 573-1106 Ext. 1020 Fax: (305) 576-6273 Llehner@aijustice.org

Andrea Montavon McKillip Florida Bar No. 56401
LEGAL AID SERVICE OF BROWARD
COUNTY, INC. 491 North State Road 7 Plantation, Florida 33317 Tel. (954) 736-2493 Fax (954) 736-2484 amontavon@legalaid.org

Counsel for Petitioners-Plaintiffs

20

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 106 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/20/2020 Page 21 of 21
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on the 20th day of May, 2020, I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system, which will then send a notification of such filing (NEF) to all counsel of record.
/s/ Scott M. Edson___________ Scott M. Edson, Esq.
Florida Bar No. 17258 KING & SPALDING LLP 1700 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, STE 200 Washington, DC 20006-4707 Telephone: (202) 737-0500 Facsimile: (202) 626-3737 sedson@kslaw.com
Attorney for Petitioners-Plaintiffs

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 106-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/20/2020 Page 1 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Case No. 20-21553-Civ-COOKE/GOODMAN
PATRICK GAYLE, et al.,
Petitioners-Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and those similarly situated,
v.
MICHAEL W. MEADE, et al.,
Respondents-Defendants. ____________________________________/
PROPOSED ORDER ON PETITIONERS’ EMERGENCY MOTION TO COMPEL COMPLIANCE WITH THE COURT’S APRIL 30, 2020 TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER THIS CAUSE, having come before the Court on Defendants’ Emergency Motion to
Compel Compliance With The Court’s April 30, 2020 Temporary Restraining Order, and the Court having reviewed the Motion, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that:
Defendants’ Motion Compel Compliance With The Court’s April 30, 2020 Temporary Restraining Order is GRANTED. It is hereby ordered that
(1) Respondents must comply immediately with the requirements in its April 30 and May 2 Orders;
(2) Respondents must provide documentation of its evaluations for release before any transfer is executed;
(3) Respondents may not transfer of any detained individual to a facility that does not comply with the requirements in the Court’s April 30 Order;
(4) Respondents must refrain from acts of retaliation against any Named Petitioners, putative Class Members, or other people in their custody for participating in this case or cooperating with Petitioners and their counsel in prosecuting this action; and

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 106-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/20/2020 Page 2 of 2
(5) ICE must educate and monitor all persons acting under its authority with respect to the people outlined in Paragraph (4) to ensure that no prohibited acts of retaliation occur.
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers this ____ day of May, 2020.
THE HONORABLE MARCIA G. COOKE DISTRICT JUDGE cc: All Counsel on the Attached Service List

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 106-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/20/2020 Page 1 of 152
Ex. A

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 106-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/20/2020 Page 2 of 152
DECLARATION OF ANDERSON JESUS AMARAL I, Anderson Jesus Amaral, hereby declare under the penalty of perjury pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746:
1. I make this declaration based on my personal knowledge except where I have indicated otherwise. If called as a witness, I could and would testify competently and truthfully to these matters.
2. I am thirty-five years old. I am a citizen of Brazil. 3. I was ordered removed by an immigration judge on July 21, 2014. 4. I have been in ICE custody since February 21, 2020. 5. I am currently detained at Baker County Jail (“Baker”) in Macclenny, Florida. When I entered ICE custody, I was initially detained at Glades County Detention Center (“Glades”) in Moore Haven, Florida. On May 1, 2020, I was transferred from Glades to Baker. 6. About eight years ago, as a result of an accident, I had surgery on my shoulder, where doctors inserted metal plates. 7. On April 30, 2020, while still at Glades, I noted that my phone account had been shut off, so I knew I would be moved out of the facility. I was not provided any documents or notice regarding a transfer. 8. On May 1, 2020, I was transferred out of Glades with about thirty-five people on a bus. We were not told where we would be going. No one knew what was going on. On the bus, everyone was seated side by side, except for one person who was at the front of the bus because he is disabled. 9. The bus was dirty. There was garbage on the floor. It was obvious that the bus was not adequately prepared to transfer people. The metal floor was very dirty as well. It was very hot on the bus. We asked the guards to turn up the air conditioning several times.

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 106-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/20/2020 Page 3 of 152
10.We were not given any masks or gloves during the transfer. The guards did not wear any masks or gloves either.
11.There was a bathroom on the back of the bus, but it had no door. It was very inhumane. The bathroom was very dirty. We were only allowed to use the restroom to urinate.
12.There was no hand sanitizer or disinfecting wipes on the bus. There was not even water in the bathroom to wash our hands after using it.
13.The transfer took about six hours. 14.There were about three vans behind the bus. There were some detained people with masks in the vans. I estimate about twelve to fifteen people were in the vans, but it was hard to see the vans from the bus. 15.During the transfer, we stopped in Orlando. During that stop, about fifteen more people were brought on the bus. None of the new arrivals were wearing masks or gloves. The driver and accompanying officer switched with a new driver and officer during the stop. The new driver and officer were not wearing masks or gloves either. 16.On May 1, 2020, when we arrived at Baker around 8:30 to 9:00 P.M., a group of about twenty-five people, including myself, were taken out of the bus. We were taken into Unit B1 before being processed into the facility. The unit was really dirty. The floor was wet, there were open food packages from commissary all over. We asked the guards whether we were going to stay in the unit. A guard said no. The guard later left, and then came back and told us yes and that we had to clean the unit. I, along with a few others, told the guard we did not understand why we had to clean the unit if the facility knew we were coming. Eventually, we started cleaning the unit because we noticed there was no way out of the situation and we thought we were going to stay in the unit.

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 106-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/20/2020 Page 4 of 152
17.After we started cleaning, we asked for a cooler with drinking water. The guards told us that they do not give out water coolers and that we had to drink out of the sinks instead. The only sinks in the unit are the sinks in the bathroom. I went to my cell and to get water out of the sink, but the faucet was not working.
18.After about two and a half hours, we were taken out of the unit to be processed into the facility.
19.After processing, which took several hours, we were provided a jumper, underwear, hygiene products, and one roll of toilet paper. A small bar of soap, which was very thin and just a little bit bigger than a matchbox, and small toothpaste were the only hygiene products we received. The soap only lasted me two days. When I ran out, I requested it from the guards, I was told I could not get more soap until the weekly distribution.
20.After booking, we went to the medical unit as a part of our intake process. I noticed that the medical staff were not wearing masks.
21.I am currently in Unit B7. There are fifteen cells that sleep two people each. My unit is currently under quarantine. We have been under quarantine for about five days. We were told the quarantine would last fourteen days total.
22.Most of the time when the nurses and guards come into the unit, they do not wear masks. This is true even as we are under quarantine.
23.The first two nights I spent in Unit B7, I slept on the floor in a boat bed because the all of the cells were full. The boat bed brand is “EZBunk.” There were two other men who also slept on the floor in boat beds both of those nights. Both of the men have been transferred out.
24.Before the unit went on quarantine, there were about three or four people sleeping on boat beds on the floor. When we began the quarantine, the guards moved the men sleeping in the boat beds out of the unit, but I do not know where they went.

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 106-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/20/2020 Page 5 of 152
25.On May 3, 2020, I went to medical because my right shoulder was really hurting from sleeping on the floor. In the medical unit, a nurse examined me and called a local hospital. I was transferred to a local hospital, where I had an x-ray. I was told everything looked normal, but the doctor warned me that the metal plate may require a small surgery.
26.When I returned to Baker from the hospital, I was put on medical observation for 24 hours in the medical unit. I was put in a cell with padded walls. I questioned why I was put in that cell and I was told that there was no space anywhere else.
27.The next day, on May 4, 2020, I went back to my unit. My arm was in a sling. Before entering the unit, a guard told me to get my mattress and pillow because I would be moving to another room. I told the guard I was not able to grab my mattress and pillow because of my shoulder injury. I even showed the guard the bracelet I still had from the hospital. The guard insisted that I grab the mattress and pillow. I asked if I could get assistance from one of my pod-mates. The guard said, “you’re going to get it.” Another guard grabbed my right bicep, forcing me against the wall and pulled my arms behind my back, which caused me immense pain. Because the sling was made of cloth, the sling gyrated with my arm behind my back as well. Another guard came to my left side and kicked my left leg four times. I lost my balance, but a guard held me up by my uniform and yelled at me to get up. As the guard kicked my legs, my knees would hit the wall. I started to cry from the pain, but the guard yelled “shut up bitch.” A sergeant came in at that time and asked me why I did not want to pick up my mattress and pillow. I stayed silent, and she started yelling at me. That is when I told her I couldn’t do it because I was in pain. At that moment, a nurse also arrived, and I was taken to the medical unit.
28.After the incident, I was put back in the medical observation cell that I was in previously. About twenty minutes later, I was taken to a standard cell in the medical

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 106-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/20/2020 Page 6 of 152
unit. I was in that cell for about five hours when a nurse told me I would return to my unit in general population.
29.Since the incident, the metal plate in my shoulder shifted. As a result, it is now clear that there is metal in my shoulder as you can see it through the skin, whereas before, you could not tell.
30.I have authorized Sawyeh Esmaili to sign on my behalf given the difficulty of arranging visitation and travel in light of the current COVID-19 pandemic. If required to do so, I will provide a signature when I am able to do so.
Executed on May 11, 2020. ______________________________________ Sawyeh Esmaili, on behalf Anderson Jesus Amaral

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 106-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/20/2020 Page 7 of 152
CERTIFICATION I, Sawyeh Esmaili, declare that on May 11, 2020, I read the foregoing declaration to Anderson Jesus Amaral. I communicated to Mr. Amaral with the help of two interpreters, Iris (Interpreter ID # 211505) and Marcela (Interpreter ID # 206278), both employed by Language Line Solutions, who translated the foregoing declaration from English to Brazilian Portuguese in the presence of the declarant. The declarant subsequently verified that the contents of the foregoing declaration are true and accurate. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed on May 11, 2020.
__________________________________________ Sawyeh Esmaili
ATTORNEY DECLARATION I, Sawyeh Esmaili, declare the following under penalty of perjury pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746:
1. My name is Sawyeh Esmaili. I am a licensed attorney in good standing in the state of Florida.
2. Out of necessity in light of the COVID-19 pandemic, I signed Anderson Jesus Amaral’s declaration on his behalf and with his expressed consent.
3. On May 1, 2020, ICE transferred Mr. Amaral to Baker County Jail, which is located in Macclenny, Florida.
4. Further, ICE is now requiring legal visitors to provide and wear personal protective equipment, including disposable latex gloves, surgical masks, and

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 106-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/20/2020 Page 8 of 152
eye protection while visiting any detention facility. These supplies are not easily accessible, given the increase in demand. Any available supplies are prioritized for hospitals and other medical facilities that are experiencing dangerous shortages. 5. There are documented cases of COVID-19 in all fifty U.S. states and most inhabited U.S. territories. The Center for Disease Control and Prevention (“CDC”) issued statements warning that individuals are at a higher risk of infection while traveling. In addition, I am a resident of Miami-Dade County, Florida and unable to travel to visit my client under a state “Stay at Home” order issued by the Governor of Florida Ron DeSantis on April 1, 2020. 6. In light of the above, to protect public health, I am not able to travel to the Baker County Jail to obtain Mr. Amaral’s signature. 7. I spoke with Anderson Jesus Amaral via phone call, read the declaration to him, and confirmed the accuracy of the information therein. Anderson Jesus Amaral confirmed the accuracy of the information therein. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed on May 11, 2020 at Miami, Florida.
_______________________________________________ Sawyeh Esmaili, on behalf of Anderson Jesus Amaral

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 106-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/20/2020 Page 9 of 152
DECLARATION OF MAGGIE ARIAS I, Maggie Arias, declare the following under penalty of perjury pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746:
1. I make this declaration based on my personal knowledge except where I have indicated otherwise. If called as a witness, I could and would testify competently and truthfully to these matters.
2. My name is Maggie Arias. I am a licensed attorney in good standing in the state of Florida. I am a partner at the law firm of Arias and Pereira, PLLC.
3. I represent Jose Diaz, Alien Number 216-645-311. 4. Mr. Diaz is married to Mrs. Jessica Diaz, who is a U.S. citizen. Together they reside in
Brandon, Florida with their two U.S. citizen children. 5. On February 11, 2020, Immigration Customs Enforcement (ICE) apprehended Mr. Diaz
at his probation appointment in Plant City, Florida, detained him, transferred him to Tampa, Florida, and eventually transferred him to the Krome Service Processing Center (“Krome”) in Miami, Florida where ICE initiated removal proceedings before the Immigration Court. 6. On February 19, 2020, Mr. Diaz appeared pro se at his first Master Calendar (MC) Hearing before Immigration Judge Martyak while his family was still interviewing attorneys for representation. 7. On March 2, 2020, Mr. and Mrs. Diaz retained my law firm to provide Mr. Diaz with direct representation before the Immigration Court in Miami, Florida. The same day we entered our appearance as attorneys representing Mr. Diaz in his removal proceedings at the Krome Immigration Court.

Declaration of Maggie Arias

1

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 106-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/20/2020 Page 10 of 152
8. I have represented Mr. Diaz at a total of four (4) MC Hearings before the Immigration Judge in Miami, Florida, on March 3, 2020, March 26, 2020, April 21, 2020, and May 5, 2020.
9. At some time in April 2020, ICE transferred Mr. Diaz from the Krome Service Processing Center (“Krome”) to the Glades County Detention Center (“Glades”) located in Moore Haven, Florida, for reasons that remain unknown today. Prior to the transfer, Mr. Diaz was given a document indicating that the transfer destination was to the Glades County Detention Center.
10. Prior to my client’s departure from Krome, during the transit to Glades, and upon arrival at Glades, I never received any communication from ICE regarding why he was transferred instead of released.
11. On March 24, 2020, I communicated with ICE Deportation Officer (“DO”) Carlos Sanchez and with Supervising Detention and Deportation Officer (“SDDO”) James Gamboa to request that my client’s Alien File be transferred to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) to expedite the client’s pending Form I-130 application.
12. On April 9, 2020, I renewed my pending request from March 24, 2020 with ICE DO Carlos Sanchez and SDDO James Gamboa. I received a nonresponsive email from DO Carlos Sanchez regarding Mr. Diaz’s case, stating “Any request made by USCIS to ERO [Enforcement Removal Operations] will be reviewed and adjudicated at the best of our abilities.” Promptly, I replied to the email to clarify the purpose and procedure for the request to expedite the Alien File transfer to the USCIS and to confirm that ICE would contact USCIS immediately per the established policy between agencies.

Declaration of Maggie Arias

2

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 106-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/20/2020 Page 11 of 152
13. On May 5, 2020, at my client’s fifth MC hearing, Immigration Judge Martyak informed me that ICE transferred my client to El Paso, Texas. This was the first time I received any notice that ICE transferred my client out of the State of Florida.
14. On May 5th, I communicated once again with DO Carlos Sanchez, SDDO James Gamboa, and attorneys with the Office of the Chief Counsel (OCC) regarding the sudden transfer of my client to another jurisdiction across the country and, separately, to facilitate the transfer of my client’s Alien File so that the USCIS could proceed with processing Form I-130. I did not receive a response to this email.
15. On May 7, 2020, I contacted the Krome Immigration Court Clerk of Court who confirmed that on the afternoon of May 5, 2020, Immigration Judge Maryak signed an Order granting the OCC’s Motion to Change Venue to the immigration court in El Paso, Texas. On May 6, 2020, my client’s wife informed my associate attorney (Alexandra De Leon) that my client was now located in a detention facility in New Mexico.
16. After ICE transferred my client to New Mexico, my firm did not hear from him until Friday, May 8, 2020.
17. On May 8, 2020, I attempted to communicate with DO Carlos Sanchez and SDDO James Gamboa by emailing them and asking once more why Mr. Diaz was transferred by ICE to New Mexico (in the Torrance Detention Facility) with the Immigration court hearings now set in El Paso, Texas.
18. I did not receive a reply until May 11, 2020 when DO Carlos Sanchez stated generally that “The agency transfers detainees all the time, and the transfers are based on the need of the agency. A[lien] files are sent along the alien to the new EOIR where the court proceedings will take place. Than[k] you for your understanding.” Again, I did not

Declaration of Maggie Arias

3

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 106-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/20/2020 Page 12 of 152
receive communication from ICE regarding why ICE chose to transfer Mr. Diaz out of state rather than release him from custody. 19. On May 12th, I was finally able to conduct a legal call with my client. I describe what he recounted to me over the phone as follows. On May 4, 2020, after count was completed at Glades, at around 4:00 pm, Glades officers told Mr. Diaz and other detainees to pack their belongings. He and the group, along with others from a different pod, were taken to the booking area at Glades. There, they sat in a cell and changed out of their uniforms into their property clothes in a small room nearby. Mr. Diaz then boarded a bus with others and the group was transferred from Glades to Krome. Mr. Diaz was never told why he would be transferred to Krome nor was he ever considered for release. His only indication on May 4, 2020 that he may be moved was when his phone account at Glades was closed. 20. According to my client, during the transfer from Glades to Krome, he and the other detainees wore masks that they were given by correctional officers for the very first time, a couple of days earlier on the weekend before May 4th. The mask was soft, blue and white, and had a metal strip to adjust over the nose. He learned how to use the mask by reading a bulletin ICE posted inside his pod at Glades. There was no personal instruction on proper mask usage. Mr. Diaz was not given gloves at any point in time. 21. My client informed me that he observed correctional officers at Glades wearing masks for the first time, consistently, during the week of April 27, 2020; however, only some officers wore them. He recalls that one officer in particular, Sierra, did not ever wear a mask.

Declaration of Maggie Arias

4

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 106-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/20/2020 Page 13 of 152
22. Prior to the transfer on May 4, 2020, Mr. Diaz asked officer Sierra why he was being moved, to which officer Sierra replied jokingly that the group would be going to China.
23. According to my client, around 40 detainees from Glades were placed on a coach bus, similar to Greyhound buses. There was no distancing between passengers as people sat next to each other. My client himself sat directly next to someone. Everyone wore masks. No one wore gloves. There was no hand sanitizer available nor was any sanitizer offered.
24. Upon arrival at Krome, ICE officers checked the temperature of each detainee’s forehead prior to entry. Detainees were taken to the processing area. In the bathroom area, there was no soap readily available, only a sign that read that soap could be provided upon request. Here, too, detainees continued to wear masks. No one wore gloves. There was no hand sanitizer available nor was any sanitizer offered.
25. During the processing, my client asked where he was being taken but the officers would not respond. The officers presented Mr. Diaz with a document indicating that a transfer destination was New Mexico. The officers instructed my client to sign the transfer document, but Mr. Diaz refused.
26. On May 5th, Mr. Diaz and others were separated into three (3) vans and (1) bus and taken to the Miami International Airport for an 8am flight to Albuquerque, New Mexico. Mr. Diaz was in one of the vans where there was no distancing between about nine (9) occupants.
27. Mr. Diaz recalls hearing that there were around 90 people onboard the flight. He recalls seeing detainees from Glades and Krome.
28. According to Mr. Diaz, at the Miami International Airport, he was asked for his name. Mr. Diaz refused to provide it because he did not consent to this transfer. The officers

Declaration of Maggie Arias

5

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 106-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/20/2020 Page 14 of 152
walked him down and told him that they would see how tough he was and told him he needed to be wrapped in “the burrito.” Mr. Diaz said the burrito is a jacket that restrains the arms. Four (4) officers aggressively placed the jacket on Mr. Diaz and fitted a spitguard over his facemask. Mr. Diaz described that the jacket and mouth guard looked similar to what Anthony Hopkins wore in the film Silence of the Lambs. Mr. Diaz was forced onto the plane in this physical restraint jacket and spit guard. He was the only detainee placed into this physical restraint jacket and spit guard. He remained like this for the duration of the four (4) hour flight. 29. During the flight, Mr. Diaz was told that if he needed to go to the bathroom, he was out of luck. He was hungry and thirsty but was not able to eat the bag of food provided or drink water. Though Mr. Diaz needed to urinate and defecate, he did not complain and struggled to hold in his necessities during the entire flight. 30. Fifteen (15) to twenty (20) minutes after landing in Albuquerque, New Mexico, Mr. Diaz’s physical restraint jacket and spit guard were removed by an officer. Mr. Diaz then removed his mask while onboard the plane, ate his food and drank water. There were around four (4) officers and 10 detainees remaining aboard the plane. Mr. Diaz was finally able to go to the bathroom, though under an officer’s watch. The officer did not allow Mr. Diaz to wash his hands and did not provide him with hand sanitizer. The officer pulled Mr. Diaz from the bathroom immediately after Mr. Diaz finished using the toilet. 31. After exiting the plane, while still on the tarmac, officers again placed restraints on Mr. Diaz (a jacket and spit-guard). The detainees, including my client, were sorted into two buses. Mr. Diaz said that about 40 people were put on a bus to El Paso, Texas, and

Declaration of Maggie Arias

6

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 106-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/20/2020 Page 15 of 152
another 40 were boarded on a bus to Estancia, New Mexico. The bus ride to the Torrance Detention Center lasted about 1.5 hours according to Mr. Diaz. He was wearing the physical restraints the entire time. 32. Upon arriving at the Torrance Detention Center, Mr. Diaz was provided with a cloth mask and his mask from Glades was discarded. He was taken into isolation by four (4) officers for about an hour because of his early refusal to accept his transfer. However, the assistant warden at Torrance allowed him to be moved to the general population. 33. After arriving at Torrance, my client was finally able to wash his hands. 34. My client describes that since his arrival to the Torrance Detention Center, he and others he traveled with, have been housed separately from other detainees, as if under quarantine. 35. My client suffers from asthma and is high risk if he were to contract the COVID-19 virus. He has informed medical personnel at Krome, Glades, and Torrance that he suffers from asthma. At Glades, he was provided with an inhaler, which was released to him at Torrance sometime last week. 36. At no point has my client been told that he would be tested for the novel coronavirus. 37. My client, Mr. Diaz, remains in active removal proceedings and he will be affected if proceedings have to continue in this new jurisdiction in El Paso, Texas because my law firm, Arias & Pereira PLLC, has limited resources and staff, and is unable to represent Mr. Diaz before the El Paso Immigration Court or to assist with the cost of traveling to and from El Paso, Texas and Miami, Florida.

Declaration of Maggie Arias

7

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 106-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/20/2020 Page 16 of 152

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 106-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/20/2020 Page 17 of 152
DECLARATION OF NAIM ARRAK I, Naim Arrak, hereby declare under the penalty of perjury pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746:
1. I make this declaration based on my personal knowledge except where I have indicated otherwise. If called as a witness, I could and would testify competently and truthfully to these matters.
2. My name is Naim Arrak and I am a Plaintiff in Gayle v. Meade et al. I am currently detained at the Krome Service Processing Center (“Krome”) in the Krome Behavioral Health Unit (“KBHU”). I have been detained here since September 12, 2019 after I was transferred to Krome due to mental health concerns. I have major depressive disorder.
3. I am housed on the B side of KBHU where there are currently 11 people total. The A side of KBHU currently has six individuals. I have my own room in the KBHU, but I share a common area with everyone else. I interact with them when I receive medication in pill line, during meals, when I watch television, and when I attend group therapy and other classes.
4. The KBHU was supposed to be taken off quarantine on May 11, 2020. However, on May 10, 2020, an officer confirmed that Officer Seal, who recently worked in the KBHU, tested positive for COVID-19. Officer Seal would work at the desk in the KBHU on the B side. He would hand out tablets, conduct shakedowns, and do pat downs before we went to pill line.
5. Today, May 11, 2020, the KBHU staff told us we would start classes again. However, I asked the doctor why KBHU would be taken off quarantine given Officer Seal’s recent positive COVID-19 test. The KBHU staff decided to end the class as a result of me asking about Officer Seal, and we are currently on “standby,” waiting for the officers to determine if the KBHU will continue its quarantine or not. The Krome staff have not tested the detainees in

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 106-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/20/2020 Page 18 of 152
KBHU for COVID-19 as part of the process to determine whether or not quarantine will continue or at any point in time when we have been quarantined in the past.
6. The last time I received a mask was Wednesday, May 6, 2020. Since then, the mask I was given ripped, and I cannot use it. The officers have not replaced my ripped mask. When the officers hand out masks each week, they take our old masks, put them in a trash bag, and then give each individual a new masks all while wearing the same pair of gloves. Any germs on our old masks will be passed to the new masks because the officers do not change their gloves during this process. The officers have not provided us with any education on when we should wear the masks or where in the unit we need to be wearing them.
7. It is impossible to adequately social distance in the KBHU. For example, in the dayroom, we have two small tables that each have four seats. The seats are no more than two feet apart. While we eat our meals or sit in the dayroom of the KBHU, we cannot stay more than six feet apart from each other.
8. We are required to go to recreation. All 17 people in KBHU go to rec together, and if we refuse, we will be sent to confinement or general population. The rec yard has a small basketball court and three tables all next to each other. The rec yard is not large enough for each of us to remain six feet apart at all times.
9. On May 11, 2020 in the morning, I asked the officer on duty for wipes to clean the door handles in the KBHU. The officer refused my request. The officers have wipes that they use to clean their station, but they will not share their supply.
10. The tables in the KBHU on the B side are dirty. There are ants crawling around on the floor and on the tables. I have been told that the cleaning crew is supposed to clean these tables twice a day, but I have not seen that happen.

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 106-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/20/2020 Page 19 of 152
11. The KBHU has two phones for 11 people to share. The phones are cleaned by another detainee once a day. The phones are not cleaned between every use. Normally, I put a sock around the phone when I use it in order to try and stop the spread of germs from the phone to my hand.
12. As of May 11, 2020, there are two soap dispensers in the bathroom, but one is empty and the other one only has a little bit of soap left in it. The commissary has been intermittently closed and open. Right now, commissary is closed. There have been backlogs on fulfilling orders as well. Currently, we are unable to purchase additional shampoo and hygiene supplies. Many people in KBHU have run out of soap. They are using hand soap to wash their bodies or not showering at all.
13. There is one hand sanitizer dispenser on B side of KBHU and it is located near the nurses’ station. It dispenses a foamy substance. I am not even sure this is hand sanitizer. The nurses told us that it is hand sanitizer, but they also told us it does not have an alcohol-based solution.
14. Many of the officers in KBHU don’t wear masks or gloves. Officer Goldberg previously tested positive for COVID-19. He stopped working at Krome for a period of time. I had interacted with Goldberg before I knew he tested positive for COVID-19. He had patted me down and served me food. Goldberg has since returned to work at Krome and is assigned to the KBHU. Approximately two days ago, Officer Goldberg was not wearing a mask in the B side of the KBHU when he handed me a tablet without any gloves on.
15. The officers have told me that they continue to work in the compound in other housing units of Krome while their COVID-19 test results are pending. My fear is that I will contract COVID-19 from one of these officers.

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 106-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/20/2020 Page 20 of 152
16. If I am released from detention, I will comply with any applicable conditions of release including attending check-ins and immigration court hearings. My parents are United States Citizens. They have a home in Virginia. I will live with them if I am released. I will practice social distancing and appropriate isolating behavior if I am released from ICE custody.
17. I have authorized Lily Hartmann to sign on my behalf given the difficulty of arranging visitation and travel in light of the current COVID-19 pandemic. If required to do so, I will provide a signature when I am able to do so.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed on May 11, 2020
_________________________________________ Lily Hartmann, on behalf of Naim Arrak

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 106-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/20/2020 Page 21 of 152
LEGAL ASSISTANT DECLARATION I, Lily Hartmann, declare the following under penalty of perjury pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746:
1. My name is Lily Hartmann. I am a legal assistant at Americans for Immigrant Justice, a legal services organization located in Miami, Florida.
2. I am a legal assistant working with the legal team in Gayle v. Meade et al. Out of necessity in light of the COVID-19 pandemic, I signed Naim Arrak’s declaration on his behalf and with his expressed consent.
3. Further, ICE is now requiring legal visitors to provide and wear personal protective equipment, including disposable latex gloves, surgical masks, and eye protection while visiting any detention facility. These supplies are not easily accessible, given the increase in demand. Any available supplies are prioritized for hospitals and other medical facilities that are experiencing dangerous shortages.
4. There are documented cases of COVID-19 in all fifty U.S. states and most inhabited U.S. territories. The Center for Disease Control and Prevention (“CDC”) issued statements warning that individuals are at a higher risk of infection while traveling. In addition, I am a resident of Miami-Dade County, Florida and unable to travel to visit Naim Arrak under a state “Stay at Home” order issued by the Governor of Florida Ron DeSantis on April 1, 2020.
5. In light of the above, to protect public health, I am not able to travel to the Krome Service Processing Center to obtain Naim Arrak’s signature.
6. I spoke with Naim Arrak via phone call, read the declaration to him, and confirmed the accuracy of the information therein. Naim Arrak confirmed the accuracy of the information therein.

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 106-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/20/2020 Page 22 of 152
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed on May 11, 2020 at Miami, Florida.
_______________________________________________ Lily Hartmann

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 106-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/20/2020 Page 23 of 152
DECLARATION OF JEAN AUGUSTE I, Jean Auguste, hereby declare under the penalty of perjury pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746: 
1. I make this declaration based on my personal knowledge except where I have indicated otherwise. If called as a witness, I could and would testify competently and truthfully to these matters. 
2. I am 31 years old and was born in Haiti. 3. I am currently detained at Glades County Detention Center (“Glades”) in Moore Haven, Florida. 4. I have been in ICE custody since July 18, 2017. I was initially detained by ICE outside of the state of Florida. I was transferred to Krome Service Processing Center (“Krome”) from Essex County Correctional Facility in Newark, New Jersey on October 1, 2019. On November 20, 2019, I was transferred from Krome to Monroe County Jail (“Monroe”) in Key West, Florida. On April 3, 2020, I was transferred from Monroe back to Krome. On April 23, 2020, I was transferred from Krome to Glades. 5. I have asthma. I was diagnosed when I was about eleven years old. I need to have multiple inhalers on my person at all times. 6. On November 13, 2013, I broke my nose. As a result, I had to get a closed reduction procedure. Since that procedure, I have been unable to breathe fully out of my left nostril. This on top of my asthma makes it much harder to breathe. 7. When I was at Krome in October of 2019, I had to be treated with a breathing machine because I got very sick. The dirty conditions interfered with my asthma. I was sick for about two weeks, and I received treatment on the breathing machine for about five days, three times a day. I was coughing up blood, had a runny nose, experienced difficulty breathing, and had an abnormal cough. During this time,

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 106-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/20/2020 Page 24 of 152
I was still housed in general population, but had to go to the medical unit three times a day to receive the treatment through the breathing machine.
8. On or about May 12, 2020, I asked a guard if I could go into protective custody. I would like to go into protective custody because the conditions at Glades are horrible. I am trying to get away from people and the dirty unit. I am just trying to isolate myself. The guard told me that I need to give a name of someone that I am scared of in order for me to go to into protective custody. I told him I don’t have a name, but I just would feel safer and better off alone. I am trying to stay clean and healthy. The guard told me protective custody was not made for my comfort.
9. I am very scared. I do not want to get sick like I was at Krome again. 10. At Glades, the guards want us to be clean, but they won’t allow us to have enough hygiene products. When I was transferred from Krome to Glades, the guards at Glades did not let me keep any of my hygiene products from Krome. 11. We only get soap once a week. It is liquid and comes in a small 4 ounce bottle. It is a three-in-one product—it is supposed to be used as shampoo, shave gel, and body wash. We have to use this one small bottle for three different things. Because of this, I run out of soap before the week is over. I will not be provided additional soap until the restock day. 12. I am currently in confinement for refusing an order to go back into general population. I was last in my pod on May 5, 2020. As of that date, there were about 69 people in my pod. The capacity of the pod is about 94. 13. The pod is divided into cubicles. Each cubicle sleeps six people. There are two bunk beds and two single beds. On April 23, 2020, when I arrived at Glades, I was put in a cubicle with five others. Either on May 2 or 3, 2020, I moved to a cubicle with two others. The single bed is about six inches away from the bunk bed on one side. The space between the top bunk and the bottom bunk is about two and half feet.

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 106-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/20/2020 Page 25 of 152
14. When I was in the cubicle with the two other people, I slept in a single bed. There was someone else sleeping in the other single bed about a foot away. The third person was in the bottom bunk next to the other single bed, about six inches away. It is not possible to practice social distancing under these conditions, even with just three people in the cubicle.
15. I have authorized Sawyeh Esmaili to sign on my behalf given the difficulty of arranging visitation and travel in light of the current COVID-19 pandemic. If required to do so, I will provide a signature when I am able to do so. 
I declare under penalty of perjury that the things described above are true and correct.
Executed on May 14, 2020. ______________________________________ Sawyeh Esmaili, on behalf Jean Auguste
ATTORNEY DECLARATION I, Sawyeh Esmaili, declare the following under penalty of perjury pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746:
1. My name is Sawyeh Esmaili. I am a licensed attorney in good standing in the state of Florida.

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 106-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/20/2020 Page 26 of 152
2. Out of necessity in light of the COVID-19 pandemic, I signed Jean Auguste’s declaration on his behalf and with his express consent.
3. ICE is now requiring legal visitors to provide and wear personal protective equipment, including disposably vinyl gloves, surgical masks, and eye protection while visiting any detention facility. These supplies are not easily accessible, given the increase in demand. Any available supplies are prioritized for hospitals and other medical facilities that are experiencing dangerous shortages.
4. There are documented cases of COVID-19 in all fifty U.S. states and most inhabited U.S. territories. The Centers for Disease Control and Protection (CDC) has issued statements warning that individuals are at a higher risk of infection when traveling. In addition, I am a resident of Miami Dade County, Florida and unable to travel to visit Jean Auguste under a state ‘Stay at home’ order issued by the Governor of Florida Ron DeSantis on April 1st, 2020.
5. In light of the above, to protect public health, I am not able to travel to the Glades County Detention Center to obtain Mr. Auguste’s signature.
6. I spoke with Jean Auguste on the phone, read the declaration to him, and confirmed the accuracy of the information therein. Jean Auguste has confirmed the accuracy of the information therein.

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 106-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/20/2020 Page 27 of 152
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed on May 14, 2020 at Miami, Florida.
______________________________________________ Sawyeh Esmaili, on behalf of Jean Auguste

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 106-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/20/2020 Page 28 of 152
DECLARATION OF REINIER GUIBER AVILA I, Reinier Guiber Avila, hereby declare under the penalty of perjury pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746:
1. I make this declaration based on my personal knowledge except where I have indicated otherwise. If called as a witness, I could and would testify competently and truthfully to these matters.
2. I have been in ICE custody since April 12, 2019. 3. On September 5, 2019, an immigration judge ordered me removed to Cuba. 4. I have been detained at Krome since April 17, 2020. I was previously detained in Broward Transitional Center for about two months before my transfer to Krome. 5. At Krome, I am in Pod 14A. 6. There is no hygiene here. We are charged with cleaning are own pod. However, there are not enough cleaning supplies. We are just given a small amount of water for a very large space. We are only given two rags to clean the entire pod. I am not sure what exact cleaning products we are provided. 7. We do not have disinfecting wipes to use regularly. I was only given one on the day I arrived to clean my bed but have not been provided any additional wipes since my first day. 8. I try to keep my distance from others, but social distancing does not exist here. It is impossible. 9. I have authorized Sawyeh Esmaili to sign on my behalf given the difficulty of arranging visitation and travel in light of the current COVID-19 pandemic. If required to do so, I will provide a signature when I am able to do so.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the things described above are true and
correct.

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 106-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/20/2020 Page 29 of 152
Executed on May 6, 2020. ______________________________________ Sawyeh Esmaili, on behalf Reinier Guiber Avila
CERTIFICATION I, Sawyeh Esmaili, declare that I am proficient in the English and Spanish languages. On May 6, 2020, I read the foregoing declaration to Reinier Guiber Avila and orally translated it faithfully and accurately into Spanish in the presence of the declarant. After I completed translating the declaration, the declarant verified that the contents of the foregoing declaration are true and accurate. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed on May 6, 2020.
Sawyeh Esmaili
ATTORNEY DECLARATION I, Sawyeh Esmaili, declare the following under penalty of perjury pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746:
1. My name is Sawyeh Esmaili. I am a licensed attorney in good standing in the state of Florida.

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 106-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/20/2020 Page 30 of 152
2. Out of necessity in light of the COVID-19 pandemic, I signed Reinier Guiber Avila’s declaration on his behalf and with his express consent.
3. ICE is now requiring legal visitors to provide and wear personal protective equipment, including disposably vinyl gloves, surgical masks, and eye protection while visiting any detention facility. These supplies are not easily accessible, given the increase in demand. Any available supplies are prioritized for hospitals and other medical facilities that are experiencing dangerous shortages.
4. There are documented cases of COVID-19 in all fifty U.S. states and most inhabited U.S. territories. The Centers for Disease Control and Protection (CDC) has issued statements warning that individuals are at a higher risk of infection when traveling. In addition, I am a resident of Miami Dade County, Florida and unable to travel to visit Reinier Guiber Avila under a state ‘Stay at home’ order issued by the Governor of Florida Ron DeSantis on April 1st, 2020.
5. In light of the above, to protect public health, I am not able to travel to the Krome Service Processing Center to obtain Mr. Avila’s signature.
6. I spoke with Reinier Guiber Avila on the phone, read the declaration to him, and confirmed the accuracy of the information therein. Reinier Guiber Avila has confirmed the accuracy of the information therein.

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 106-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/20/2020 Page 31 of 152
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed on May 6, 2020 at Miami, Florida.
______________________________________________ Sawyeh Esmaili, on behalf of Reinier Guiber Avila

CasCea1s:e202-:c2v0--2c1v5-05033-M49G-TCPBD-NocPuMmenDto1c0u6m-2entE1n-t6ereFdileodn 0F5L/S1D2/2D0ockPeatg0e51/2o0f/220P20agePIDag1e0342 of 152
DECLARATION OF VILERKA S. BILBAO
I, Vilerka S. Bilbao, make the following declaration based on my own personal knowledge and if called to testify, I could and would do so competently as follows:
1) My name is Vilerka S. Bilbao. I am an attorney licensed to practice in Florida and focus mainly on immigration law.
2) I currently represent six individuals who have been detained at Baker County Detention Facility (‘Baker’) within the past two months.
3) I have visited Baker as part of my work with my clients and am aware of the general conditions of the facility. During the COVID-19 pandemic, I have visited Baker at least four different times.
4) From my conversations with detainees, clients, and my visits, I compiled a list of general conditions inside Baker which include: a) There is insufficient soap. Detainees are provided a small bar of soap during intake and can get a refill once a week. The size of the soap has been described as “smaller than the soaps at motels.” b) There is no running water in some bathroom sinks. c) Some toiles do not work. Toilets in various rooms do not work or flood the rooms when flushed. d) Food is rotten. Some of my clients have had food poisoning immediately after eating rotten food. e) Guards do not wear gloves. This includes guards who are giving daily medication to detainees with known medical conditions. f) Guards are not wearing masks or protective equipment. g) Detainees have not been provided with masks or protective equipment. Several detainees that were transferred into Baker from other facilities have been allowed to keep their masks. h) A large number of detainees are participating in hunger strikes. Detainees report that every day in the past week anywhere between 50-150 plates are returned to the kitchen uneaten. i) Sometimes there are not enough beds or rooms. Detainees report having to sleep in makeshift cots. j) There is no testing for COVID-19 available. k) There are no clear or consistent quarantine procedures in place. Many who are sick or exhibiting symptoms of COVID-19 remain in general population.

CasCea1s:e202-:c2v0--2c1v5-05033-M49G-TCPBD-NocPuMmenDto1c0u6m-2entE1n-t6ereFdileodn 0F5L/S1D2/2D0ockPeatg0e52/2o0f/220P20agePIDag1e0353 of 152
5) There is only one hospital and only 25 beds available in Baker County to treat COVID-19 patients.
6) In the last two weeks amidst the COVID-19 pandemic, five of my clients were transferred from Baker to Broward Transitional Center (BTC). One of my clients was transferred to BTC the same morning as his Master Calendar Hearing, preventing my client from attending and prompting his case to be transferred to another court.
7) During my last visit to Baker on May 7, 2020, I observed that: a) Guards were not wearing masks or protective equipment; b) Guards were not wearing gloves; c) Detainees had not been provided with masks or protective equipment; and d) Three front office staff members were not wearing masks nor gloves.
8) It is of great concern that detainees continue to report transfers into and out of Baker, despite the repeated warnings about COVID-19 exposure.
I declare under penalty of perjury and under the laws of the United States that the foregoing is true and correct to the best of my knowledge, memory, and belief.
Executed this 8th day of May, in the year 2020, in the State of Florida.
_____________________ Vilerka S. Bilbao FL Bar No. 1012139 Bilbao Law LLC 1029 Lasalle Street Jacksonville, FL 32207 T: 904-300-0825 Vilerka@BilbaoLaw.com

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 106-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/20/2020 Page 34 of 152

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 106-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/20/2020 Page 35 of 152

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 106-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/20/2020 Page 36 of 152
DECLARATION OF STEVE COOPER I, Steve Cooper, hereby declare under the penalty of perjury pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746:
1. I make this declaration based on my personal knowledge except where I have indicated otherwise. If called as a witness, I could and would testify competently and truthfully to these matters.
2. My name is Steve Cooper and I am 39 years old and a citizen of Jamaica. I am currently detained at the Glades County Detention Center (“GCDC”) in Moore Haven, Florida. I have been in the custody of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) since May 2, 2019. I have been detained at GCDC the whole time.
3. I have asthma but I do not receive treatment for it at GCDC. Previously, in Jamaica, I used an inhaler to manage my asthma, but I have not used an inhaler since 2015. Occasionally, when I do physical activity during recreation, like play soccer, I get short of breath.
4. I also sustained an injury to my wrist after I fell out of my bunk at GCDC on approximately June 22, 2019. At the time, I was receiving medication for an infection related to a tooth extraction that was done by the dentist at GCDC. The medical staff at GCDC gave me the incorrect medication, and I fainted and fell off the bed. A specialist found that I had torn ligaments in my wrist, and on approximately February 13, 2020, I had an operation to put in screws and restructure my wrist. Since the operation took place, medical staff said that I was supposed to receive weekly physical therapy. However, I have been waiting three months to go to therapy. I still have pain in my wrist, and it has not healed.

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 106-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/20/2020 Page 37 of 152
5. Currently, I am housed in Pod A1 where there are approximately 75 to 80 other people. The pod is full. There is one man in the unit who is approximately 72 years old and a few others who are in their 60s.
6. In each section of Pod A1, there are a total of six beds. The section where I am assigned to sleep is currently full; there are five other people sleeping the section in addition to myself. I sleep on a bottom bed. The bottom beds are just a few inches apart. While in my bed, I can kick or touch the person in the bed next to mine.
7. I am only permitted to go to the recreation yard three times per week for an hour at a time. Most days, I am unable to leave the pod at all.
8. The news says that social distancing requires you to stay six feet part from others to help prevent the spread of the coronavirus. But in Pod A1, we are all clustered up together. We are unable to social distance in the pod. We eat all three meals in the pod at tables that are positioned close together. There are approximately six seats at every table, and each seat is no more than two feet apart. There have been no changes in our seating arrangements or how GCDC serves our food in order to allow for adequate social distancing.
9. There are four phones in Pod A1 that are spaced less than six feet apart. The phones are only cleaned one time each day. They are not cleaned between every use. I make sure to try and wash my hands after I make a phone call because many people touch the phone before I do.
10. Cleaning in Pod A1 is sporadic and does not happen on a regular schedule. Other detainees clean our pod with a watery cleaning solution. They do not use bleach. Normally, they sanitize the pod about once a day. I do not have access to any cleaning supplies or disinfecting wipes in order to clean on my own.

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 106-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/20/2020 Page 38 of 152
11. There is a bathroom on each floor of the unit. Each bathroom has one toilet, two urinals, and three showers. The walls and floors in the bathroom are dirty. The bathrooms are usually cleaned by other detainees once a day or not at all.
12. In the bathroom, there is a soap dispenser that the GCDC staff refill every Monday. With approximately 75 to 80 people living in this pod, the soap in the dispenser runs out very quickly. It does not last more than a couple days, but the staff only refill the dispenser once a week.
13. On Tuesday and Fridays, we are provided with a small bottle of white soap. The bottle is labeled “Shampoo gel.” The bottle is so small that the gel only lasts for one or two showers. When I request additional soap from the GCDC staff, they often refuse to give it to us.
14. We are also provided each week with toilet paper and toothpaste, but the toothpaste is always expired. When you use the toothpaste, it makes your gums bleed.
15. Over a week ago, on a Tuesday, I was given a mask. I have only been provided with one mask. I do not know when the officers will provide me with a new one. We did not receive any education about how often we should be wearing the masks. Only a few of the GCDC guards wear masks.
16. I have learned that a staff person who manages with the kitchen tested positive for COVID-19. Approximately five people who lived in my pod and worked in the kitchen became sick and never returned to the pod. Two people from Pod A1 who worked in the barbershop got sick and never came back. We are told that people who are exhibiting symptoms of the coronavirus are held in holding cells in the booking unit of GCDC or in cells in solitary confinement.

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 106-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/20/2020 Page 39 of 152
17. The GCDC officers are not providing us with information on who has been tested for coronavirus at GCDC and how many of those tests were positive. The medical staff have not tested me or others in Pod A1 for coronavirus up to this date.
18. There has been a lot of movement in and out of GCDC recently. Last week, a group of individuals detained at GCDC were transferred to New Mexico. Prior to that, a large group of people was transferred to the Baker County Detention Center. Yesterday, four people were taken out of Pod A1 and they never returned. Today, three people were removed from the pod.
19. People have been transferred from Krome to GCDC in the last couple weeks. I am concerned about this because we have been told that there are many cases of COVID-19 at Krome. I am worried that those people who are transferred from Krome to GCDC will bring the virus to this facility.
20. About three weeks ago, I wrote to my deportation officer to request to be released from detention. Since I made that request, my deportation officer has not called or spoken to me. I have not received an answer to my request for release.
21. If I were to be released from detention, I would live with my father who is a United States citizen and lives in Florida.
22. I have authorized Lily Hartmann to sign on my behalf given the difficulty of arranging visitation and travel in light of the current COVID-19 pandemic. If required to do so, I will provide a signature when I am able to do so.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct.

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 106-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/20/2020 Page 40 of 152
Executed on May 14, 2020
_________________________________________ Lily Hartmann, on behalf of Steve Cooper

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 106-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/20/2020 Page 41 of 152
LEGAL ASSISTANT DECLARATION I, Lily Hartmann, declare the following under penalty of perjury pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746:
1. My name is Lily Hartmann. I am a legal assistant at Americans for Immigrant Justice, a legal services organization located in Miami, Florida.
2. I am a legal assistant working with the legal team in Gayle v. Meade et al. Out of necessity in light of the COVID-19 pandemic, I signed Steve Cooper’s declaration on his behalf and with his expressed consent.
3. Further, ICE is now requiring legal visitors to provide and wear personal protective equipment, including disposable latex gloves, surgical masks, and eye protection while visiting any detention facility. These supplies are not easily accessible, given the increase in demand. Any available supplies are prioritized for hospitals and other medical facilities that are experiencing dangerous shortages.
4. There are documented cases of COVID-19 in all fifty U.S. states and most inhabited U.S. territories. The Center for Disease Control and Prevention (“CDC”) issued statements warning that individuals are at a higher risk of infection while traveling. In addition, I am a resident of Miami-Dade County, Florida and unable to travel to visit Steve Cooper under a state “Stay at Home” order issued by the Governor of Florida Ron DeSantis on April 1, 2020. Furthermore, the State of Florida has a State of Emergency in place that the Governor renewed for sixty (60) additional days on Monday, May 11, 2020.
5. In light of the above, to protect public health, I am not able to travel to the Glades County Detention Center to obtain Steve Cooper’s signature.

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 106-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/20/2020 Page 42 of 152
6. I spoke with Steve Cooper via phone call, read the declaration to him, and confirmed the accuracy of the information therein. Steve Cooper confirmed the accuracy of the information therein.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed on May 14, 2020 at Miami, Florida.
_______________________________________________ Lily Hartmann

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 106-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/20/2020 Page 43 of 152
DECLARATION OF BRYAN ALEXANDER CORONA MATOS I, BRYAN ALEXANDER CORONA MATOS, hereby declare under the penalty of perjury pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746:
1. I make this declaration based on my personal knowledge except where I have indicated otherwise. If called as a witness, I could and would testify competently and truthfully to these matters.
2. I am 20 years old and currently detained at Broward Transitional Center (“BTC”), in Pompano Beach, FL. I have been detained here since March 20, 2020. I was previously detained in Stewart Detention Center in Georgia.
3. I have had asthma since birth. To manage my asthma, I use an inhaler. I often experience flare ups in my asthma due to changes in temperature and dust in the air. I have had to use his inhaler frequently at BTC due to the changes in temperature when I was transported by ICE from Georgia to South Florida – typically about three times per day.
4. Even though I am at higher risk of complications from COVID-19 due to my asthma, I have not received any additional testing for COVID-19 or medical attention to discuss my risk factors. The only time I am seen by the medical staff is when I need to refill the medicine in my inhaler.
5. On approximately May 11, 2020, a guard told me that there were three confirmed cases of COVID-19 at BTC. The first man who was diagnosed was transferred to the facility recently with a group of people, but he is now housed on his own in a separate room. An officer said he is concerned that others in quarantine may have the virus too.

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 106-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/20/2020 Page 44 of 152
6. As far as I am aware, there are approximately 200 people in quarantine at BTC. About 100 of these people were recently transferred to BTC from other ICE detention facilities and are now in quarantine.
7. Those in quarantine are housed in regular rooms, not in the medical unit. 8. People in quarantine are permitted to go out to the recreational area when the rest of the
population at BTC is locked in their rooms. People in quarantine use the same phones as the rest of the population. I have been told that people in quarantine are required to clean the recreational equipment, tables, and phones before returning to their rooms, but I cannot be sure the equipment and tables are cleaned every time they leave the recreational area. 9. Today, May 13, 2020, about 30 new detainees were brought to BTC from another detention center. 10. I currently live in a room with five other individuals. Our beds are not spaced more than six feet apart. When we are locked in our rooms, it is crowded, and we are unable to be more than six feet apart at any given time. 11. Social distancing is not respected at all. Groups of more than ten people walk through the small hallways together. Groups of approximately thirteen men gather to play cards together each day. During recreational time, approximately 120 men are outside in the recreational area together. We are forced to stand in line close together to make purchases from the commissary. Large groups of people wait in line to use the phones in the recreational area to make calls. 12. At BTC, we receive a new mask twice per week. The BTC staff did not inform us how often we should be wearing these masks or where we should be wearing the masks. The majority of detainees do not use them. Most BTC staff members also do not wear masks.

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 106-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/20/2020 Page 45 of 152
13. At BTC, one soap for hand and body washing is given out to each person once a week. I have been assigned to receive any hygiene products, including soap, on Thursdays. Normally, the amount of soap provided is not enough to last the entire week. I can ask officers for more if I run out. However, depending on the officer who is working or if there is not enough supply, extra soap is not always provided.
14. I have authorized Lily Hartmann, a legal assistant, to sign on my behalf given the difficulty of arranging visitation and travel in light of the current COVID-19 pandemic. If required to do so, I will provide a signature when I am able to do so.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the things described above are true and correct. Executed on May 13, 2020.
______________________________________ Lily Hartmann, on behalf of Bryan Alexander Corona Matos CERTIFICATION I, Lily Hartmann, declare that I am proficient in the English and Spanish languages. On May 8, 2020, I read the foregoing declaration to Bryan Alexander Corona Matos and orally translated it faithfully and accurately into Spanish in the presence of the declarant. After I completed translating the declaration, the declarant verified that the contents of the foregoing declaration are true and accurate. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on May 13, 2020.
___________________________ Lily Hartmann

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 106-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/20/2020 Page 46 of 152
LEGAL ASSISTANT DECLARATION I, Lily Hartmann, declare the following under penalty of perjury pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746:
1. My name is Lily Hartmann. I am a legal assistant in the litigation program at Americans for Immigrant Justice in Miami, Florida.
2. Out of necessity in light of the COVID-19 pandemic, I signed Bryan Alexander Corona Matos’s declaration on his behalf and with his express consent.
3. ICE is now requiring legal visitors to provide and wear personal protective equipment, including disposably vinyl gloves, surgical masks, and eye protection while visiting any detention facility. These supplies are not easily accessible, given the increase in demand. Any available supplies are prioritized for hospitals and other medical facilities that are experiencing dangerous shortages.
4. There are documented cases of COVID-19 in all fifty U.S. states and most inhabited U.S. territories. The Centers for Disease Control and Protection (CDC) has issued statements warning that individuals are at a higher risk of infection when traveling. In addition, I am a resident of Miami Dade County, Florida and unable to travel to visit Bryan Alexander Corona Matos under a state ‘Stay at home’ order issued by the Governor of Florida Ron DeSantis on April 1st, 2020.
5. In light of the above, to protect public health, I am not able to travel to the Broward Transitional Detention Center in Pompano, Florida, to obtain Bryan Alexander Corona Matos’s signature.
6. I spoke with Bryan Alexander Corona Matos via Skype video call, read the declaration to him, and confirmed the accuracy of the information therein. Bryan Alexander Corona Matos has confirmed the accuracy of the information therein.

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 106-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/20/2020 Page 47 of 152
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on May 13, 2020 at Miami, Florida.
_____________________________________ Lily Hartmann, on behalf of Bryan Alexander Corona Matos

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 106-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/20/2020 Page 48 of 152

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 106-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/20/2020 Page 49 of 152

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 106-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/20/2020 Page 50 of 152

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 106-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/20/2020 Page 51 of 152

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 106-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/20/2020 Page 52 of 152
DECLARATION OF D’ANGELO DINO DEAN I, D’Angelo Dino Dean, hereby declare under the penalty of perjury pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746:
1. I make this declaration based on my personal knowledge except where I have indicated otherwise. If called as a witness, I could and would testify competently and truthfully to these matters.
2. I am detained at Krome Service Processing Center (“Krome”). I am in Pod 2. 3. I entered ICE custody on April 3, 2020. 4. I am thirty years old. I am a citizen of the Bahamas. 5. In 2015 I was in a serious car accident. From that accident, my left elbow was broken. I now have steel in that elbow. I also hit my head and bruised my kidney. Since my accident, I suffer from chronic seizures. Sometimes, I have them as often as three times a month. I require medication two times a day for my seizures. 6. I also have high blood pressure, which requires daily medication. I have been taking blood pressure medication since 2015. 7. Since I have been at Krome, I have not been receiving my seizure medication in a consistent manner. When I first arrived, I went about three to four days without my seizure medication. 8. About two weeks after my arrival at Krome, I had a seizure. It took the medical staff about thirty minutes to get me from the pod. When they finally transferred me to the medical unit, I told them I did not feel safe inside the medical unit room by myself. I asked to be transferred back to my pod because I was scared if something were to happen to me, no one would find me in time. 9. At this moment, there are almost sixty people in my pod. 10.There are about thirty bunk beds in my pod. I am in a bottom bunk. There are still people sleeping in the beds next to me and above me. There is about four to four

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 106-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/20/2020 Page 53 of 152
and a half feet of distance between each bunk bed. There is no specific way that we have to sleep.
11.The beds have not moved around since I have been at Krome. The beds cannot be moved, they are steel beds that are drilled into the floor.
12.In the pod, there are twelve tables that seat four people each. There are not enough tables for the amount of people the unit holds. During mealtimes, the tables are full and the area where the tables are gets very crowded.
13.On Monday, May 4, 2020, about thirty people were taken out of my pod. 14.Between Tuesday, May 5, 2020, and Friday, May 8, 2020, there have been new people brought into my pod. There are at least forty new people now. I heard some came from finishing their time in jail. 15.From my pod, we can see Pod 1 through a window. Yesterday, May 7, 2020, I saw that all of Pod 1 was emptied out. Today, May 8, 2020, it looks almost full again with new arrivals. I know they are new arrivals because I heard a guard comment about how frustrated he was that ICE continues to move people around and bring people into the facility. The guard said the transfers are just a “band aid on a wound.” 16.In the month of April, my pod was on two quarantines, fourteen days each, back to back. I missed about three court dates because of the quarantines. We just came off of a quarantine about three to four days ago. A guard told us it was because at least one person in the pod, who is no longer in the pod, tested positive for coronavirus. 17.I have authorized Sawyeh Esmaili to sign on my behalf given the difficulty of arranging visitation and travel in light of the current COVID-19 pandemic. If required to do so, I will provide a signature when I am able to do so.

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 106-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/20/2020 Page 54 of 152
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed on May 8, 2020 at Miami, Florida.
_____________________________________ Sawyeh Esmaili, on behalf of D’Angelo Dino Dean
ATTORNEY DECLARATION
I, Sawyeh Esmaili, declare the following under penalty of perjury pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746:
1. My name is Sawyeh Esmaili. I am a licensed attorney in good standing in the state of Florida.
2. Out of necessity in light of the COVID-19 pandemic, I signed D’Angelo Dino Dean’s declaration on his behalf and with his express consent.
3. ICE is now requiring legal visitors to provide and wear personal protective equipment, including disposably vinyl gloves, surgical masks, and eye protection while visiting any detention facility. These supplies are not easily accessible, given the increase in demand. Any available supplies are prioritized for hospitals and other medical facilities that are experiencing dangerous shortages.
4. There are documented cases of COVID-19 in all fifty U.S. states and most inhabited U.S. territories. The Centers for Disease Control and Protection

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 106-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/20/2020 Page 55 of 152
(CDC) has issued statements warning that individuals are at a higher risk of infection when traveling. In addition, I am a resident of Miami Dade County, Florida and unable to travel to visit the Krome Service Processing Center under a state ‘Stay at home’ order issued by the Governor of Florida Ron DeSantis on April 1st, 2020.
5. In light of the above, to protect public health, I am not able to travel to the Krome Service Processing Center.
6. I spoke with D’Angelo Dino Dean on the phone, read the declaration to him, and confirmed the accuracy of the information therein. D’Angelo Dino Dean has confirmed the accuracy of the information therein.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct. 
Executed on May 8, 2020 at Miami, Florida.
______________________________________________ Sawyeh Esmaili, on behalf of D’Angelo Dino Dean

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 106-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/20/2020 Page 56 of 152
DECLARATION OF CLAUDIA DEL CASTILLO, ESQ. I, Claudia Del Castillo, declare the following under penalty of perjury pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746:
1. I make this declaration based on my personal knowledge except where I have indicated otherwise. If called as a witness, I could and would testify competently and truthfully to these matters.
2. My name is Claudia Del Castillo. I am a licensed attorney in good standing in the state of Florida.
3. I represent Mr. Josue Ernesto Munoz, A# 209-299-888, who has a Petition for Review pending in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, Case No. 20-10084DD.
4. Mr. Munoz-Garcia is a national and citizen of El Salvador, who entered without inspection with his young daughter on August 2016. Both were put in removal proceedings.
5. I have represented Mr. Munoz-Garcia and his daughter through removal proceedings. He has always complied and appeared for his court hearings.
6. Mr. Munoz-Garcia always complied with appearing at ICE Miramar as well while his proceedings are pending.
7. Mr. Munoz-Garcia filed an I-589 Asylum, Withholding of Removal and relief under Convention Against Torture.
8. His applications for relief were denied and we filed a timely appeal with the Board of Immigration Appeals “BIA”.
1

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 106-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/20/2020 Page 57 of 152
9. While his BIA Appeal was pending he was detained last year 2019 by ICE when he presented himself to his appointment at ICE Miramar office.
10. He was detained at Krome Processing Center at the time. 11. The Immigration Judge at Krome at that time determined he was not a flight risk nor a
danger to the community and he was released on bond. 12. His BIA Appeal was later denied and we filed a timely Petition for Review with the Court
of Appeals of the Eleventh Circuit. 13. However, a few months ago, on March 17, 2020 while his Petition for Review is still
pending, ICE officers went to detain him at 6.30am. 14. His long term partner contacted me letting me know what happened. 15. Please be advised that Mr. Munoz Garcia lived with his long term partner and their U.S.
citizen 8 month old baby and had a close relationship with his young daughter who was in proceedings with him as well. 16. Mr. Munoz Garcia has been detained at Krome Processing Center since then. 17. I submitted several Requests for Release with ICE at Krome Processing Center via email which had been denied via email as well without specifying reasons. 18. As soon as the Gayle Order came out, I contacted the ICE officer in charge of his case at Krome Processing Center again and submitted a new Request for his Release via email last Friday May 1st, 2020. The Officer said he will now need a hard copy to even consider the Request. So I sent the Request for Release via Fedex to make sure it will get to him by Monday morning. 19. However, over the weekend, on May 2nd, 2020 ICE transferred Mr. Munoz-Garcia to Glades County Detention Center, in Moore Haven, Florida.
2

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 106-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/20/2020 Page 58 of 152
20. ICE a few days later transferred Mr. Munoz Garcia from Glades County Detention Center to Torrance Detention Center located in Estancia, New Mexico, where he is currently detained.
21. ICE did not inform me as to my client’s transfer. 22. I have contacted the ICE Officer in Krome as I never received a response to my Request
for Release, but I have not received an answer. 23. I never received any communication from ICE regarding why he was transferred instead
of released. 24. Mr. Munoz-Garcia has been suffering of Sinusitis since he was young and he has been
having the following symptoms and medical conditions: • difficulty breathing • nasal bleeding • nasal congestion • fatigue • difficulty sleeping
25. Mr. Munoz-Garcia was taking medication at Krome for his symptoms but when I spoke with him he had requested for something stronger as his symptoms had not improved.
26. I had included these medical issues in my Request. 27. As you can see as he within the group with risk factors for COVID 19 . 28. Also, Mr. Munoz- Garcia's partner and mother of his baby is suffering a lot of hardship
being quarantined by herself with their 8 month old baby. 29. During the transfer, my client advised me that the transfer included restraints for many. 30. As of the day I am writing this statement, I still have not heard back from ICE Officer at
Krome Processing Center.
3

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 106-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/20/2020 Page 59 of 152
31. In addition, Mr. Munoz- Garcia has advised me of the following conditions during his transfer to New Mexico: a. That on Saturday, May 2nd when he was being transferred from Krome Processing Center to Glades County Detention center the buses were completely full. In addition, they only had masks and there was no social distancing at all. b. Once they arrived to Glades County Detention Center they didn’t have any protection, the guards only wore gloves to check them and they had chains in their hands, waists, and feet, to the point that Mr. Munoz-Garcia’s ankle is inflamed and that he went several days to complain about the inflammation but they would only give him Tylenol. c. On Monday May 4th, he was transferred from Glades to Krome they left him all night in the processing jail and the next day when they took him to the airport he went in a bus and there were 4 microbuses completely full as well. There they mixed them up with people coming from other detention centers again without any regard for social distancing. d. On Tuesday May 5th, when he was transferred from Krome to New Mexico, him and another detainee didn’t want to sign a document for the transfer and the officer came and said that if they did not sign the document they were going to be arrested and were going to be pressing charges against them. e. And once they arrived to the airport one of the detainees didn’t want to go into the airplane so the guards put him in a straitjacket and they forced him into the plane. And they told the rest of them that if any of them did not want to go into the plane the same was going to happen to them.
4

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 106-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/20/2020 Page 60 of 152
32. Furthermore, Mr. Munoz-Garcia has been advised by medical personnel in Torrance that as of today there is a detainee with COVID-19 in the inmate population. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the
foregoing is true and correct.  Executed on May 13, 2020 at Boca Raton, Florida. ______________________ Claudia Del Castillo, Esq.
5

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 106-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/20/2020 Page 61 of 152
DECLARATION OF YAIKEL LARA DIAZ I, Yaikel Lara Diaz, hereby declare under the penalty of perjury pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746: 1. I make this declaration based on my personal knowledge except where I have indicated otherwise. If called as a witness, I could and would testify competently and truthfully to these matters. 2. I am a 27-year-old Cuban national. 3. I suffer from chronic asthma. I require an inhaler and constant access to an oxygen tank. 4. I have been in ICE custody since approximately February 3, 2020. 5. On February 21, 2020 I received an order of removal. I am currently awaiting my deportation to Cuba. 6. I am now detained at Krome Service Processing Center (“Krome”) in Miami, Florida. I have been detained at Krome since March 12, 2020. 7. I have had about six asthma attacks since I have been detained at Krome. 8. On or about March 15, 2020, I started to feel symptoms consistent with COVID-19. I experienced headaches, fever, bone aches, and I lost my senses of smell and taste. 9. After I started to feel these symptoms, I sent medical requests almost daily, but I was never called to the medical unit. 10.During that time, when a nurse would come to the pod to distribute medication, I reported my symptoms to the nurse. I was told that what I was feeling was just a small cold. 11.On or about March 25, 2020, I was told that I was suspected of having contracted the coronavirus. The nurse told me that they could not be sure because I could not be tested. She did not give me a reason why I could not be tested in that moment. At that time, I was still in my pod in general population.

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 106-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/20/2020 Page 62 of 152
12.I would shower to try to lower my fever, which helped at first. I thought I was better, but after a few days, my symptoms came back even stronger. I could not bear it. I had a fever, horrible headache, experienced shortness of breath, and lost my sense of taste and smell again. I even had an asthma attack so bad that it caused me to faint and have a seizure. I was unconscious for about ten minutes. The only ones who helped me in that moment were my pod-mates.
13.Medical staff took a very long time help me. It wasn’t until about three hours after I fainted and had a seizure that I was taken to the medical unit in Krome, where I stayed for about two days. At first, medical staff insisted that this issue was psychological. When I saw the psychologist, he noted that I was fine and sent me back to my pod.
14.On or about April 25, 2020, I was transferred to Larkin Community Hospital (“Larkin”). During my intake in Larkin I saw that my fever was 108 degrees.
15.On the same day I was taken to Larkin, I tested positive for coronavirus. 16.When I was told I tested positive, I felt very bad and defeated. I became very depressive. I thought I would never see my three-year-old son, who is back in Cuba and is autistic, again. 17.I remained hospitalized in Larkin for about three or four days. 18.When I was discharged from Larkin, I was still feeling some symptoms, but the doctors told me I was doing better. 19.On or about April 29, 2020, I returned to Krome. I was put in medical isolation in the medical unit. I was in a room with three other people who also tested positive for the coronavirus. The only treatment I received was a vitamin C tablet once a day. 20.On or about May 8, 2020, I requested ICE release me. I was told that people who had contracted the virus were not permitted to leave the facility. I continued to insist for my release because I was so scared. I thought about my son and I was

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 106-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/20/2020 Page 63 of 152
scared I would die in the facility as a person with chronic asthma who contracted the coronavirus. I also insisted on my release because I knew social distancing in the facility was impossible and there was a risk that I could get sick again. I am scared because if I get sick again, I do not know if I will survive it again. My lungs are too weak. ICE told me that there was nothing they could do and told me to get a lawyer. I then tried to hire a lawyer but could not afford her services.
21.I maintain that I should be considered for release because of my medical condition and lack of criminal record.
22.On May 13, 2020, I was discharged from the medical unit and sent back to my pod in general population. Before my discharge, I was not tested for coronavirus. I was just told that because I was not exhibiting anymore symptoms, I would go back to general population.
23.Days before I was discharged from the medical unit back to my pod, a guard told me and the other three with whom I was in isolation with that there were about eighteen guards who tested positive for coronavirus and one guard had passed away from the virus.
24.In all reality, I do not know if I actually still have the coronavirus because no test was ever done. I am very upset about that because if I still have the virus, I do not want to spread it. If I am deported, I do not want to spread the virus to my son.
25.Because I was so sick, it is difficult for me to remember the exact dates that these occurrences happened. The dates mentioned in this declaration are estimates made to the best of my abilities.
26.I have authorized Sawyeh Esmaili to sign on my behalf given the difficulty of arranging visitation and travel in light of the current COVID-19 pandemic. If required to do so, I will provide a signature when I am able to do so.

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 106-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/20/2020 Page 64 of 152
Executed on May 15, 2020. ______________________________________ Sawyeh Esmaili, on behalf of Yaikel Lara Diaz
CERTIFICATION I, Sawyeh Esmaili, declare that I am proficient in the English and Spanish languages. On May 15, 2020, I read the foregoing declaration to Yaikel Lara Diaz and orally translated it faithfully and accurately into Spanish in the presence of the declarant. After I completed translating the declaration, the declarant verified that the contents of the foregoing declaration are true and accurate. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed on May 15, 2020.
______________________________________ Sawyeh Esmaili
ATTORNEY DECLARATION I, Sawyeh Esmaili, declare the following under penalty of perjury pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746:
1. My name is Sawyeh Esmaili. I am a licensed attorney in good standing in the state of Florida.

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 106-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/20/2020 Page 65 of 152
2. Out of necessity in light of the COVID-19 pandemic, I signed Yaikel Lara Diaz’s declaration on his behalf and with his express consent. 3. ICE is now requiring legal visitors to provide and wear personal protective equipment, including disposably vinyl gloves, surgical masks, and eye protection while visiting any detention facility. These supplies are not easily accessible, given the increase in demand. Any available supplies are prioritized for hospitals and other medical facilities that are experiencing dangerous shortages. 4. There are documented cases of COVID-19 in all fifty U.S. states and most inhabited U.S. territories. The Centers for Disease Control and Protection (CDC) has issued statements warning that individuals are at a higher risk of infection when traveling. In addition, I am a resident of Miami Dade County, Florida and unable to travel to visit Mr. Diaz under a state ‘Stay at home’ order issued by the Governor of Florida Ron DeSantis on April 1st, 2020. 5. In light of the above, to protect public health, I am not able to travel to the Krome Service Processing Center to obtain Mr. Diaz’s signature. 6. I spoke with Yaikel Lara Diaz on the phone, read the declaration to him, and confirmed the accuracy of the information therein. Yaikel Lara Diaz has confirmed the accuracy of the information therein. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct. 
Executed on May 15, 2020 at Miami, Florida.
______________________________________________ Sawyeh Esmaili, on behalf of Yaikel Lara Diaz

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 106-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/20/2020 Page 66 of 152
DECLARATION OF GOGA DJADJU I, Goga Djadju, hereby declare under the penalty of perjury pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746:
1. I make this declaration based on my personal knowledge except where I have indicated otherwise. If called as a witness, I could and would testify competently and truthfully to these matters.
2. I am currently detained at Broward Transitional Center (“BTC”), in Pompano Beach, FL. I have been detained here since July 3, 2018.
3. At BTC currently, there are approximately 143 detainees in “cohort quarantine.” I think this makes up about 50% of the detainees. All of the detainee rooms on the first floor are now cohort rooms, and the staff is preparing some of the rooms on the second floor to house cohorted detainees. In order to achieve this, non-cohorted detainees have been moved around to different rooms multiple times this week to accommodate these cohorted rooms.
4. We were told on May 7, 2020 that a Brazilian detainee in room 125 tested positive for Coronavirus. He was previously in cohort quarantine for 14 days, then he was put back in general population. He was then taken out of BTC; a guard told me that he was taken to another state for deportation. A few days ago, he was brought back to BTC and he was put in quarantine alone. He has his own recreation time alone. After the case of Coronavirus was confirmed, they “recohorted” everyone who was already cohorted, meaning, that the clock started over on their 14 days of quarantine.
5. There is now a second confirmed positive case of COVID-19, a Guatemalan man who was previously taken to Krome and then brought back to BTC.

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 106-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/20/2020 Page 67 of 152
6. Yesterday, on May 12, 2020, a guard told me that there are seven positive cases of COVID19 at BTC.
7. On Tuesday May 5, 2020, Emergency Medical Technicians came at around 11:20-30am and took one of the detainees from room 117 away from BTC because he had a high fever. The guards took all of the people out of the room and they disinfected it and threw away all of the sheets, shoes, and trash.
8. Today, May 13, 2020, I saw approximately 35 people who had just been transferred from Krome packed into the tiny intake room.
9. The only two rooms at BTC where anyone respects social distancing are the library and the chapel. In the line to get in the cafeteria, detainees stand right next to each other. There are tape marks on the floor, but they are not enforced.
10. There is no social distancing in the line to change uniforms, get razors, to receive soap, or for the commissary. There is no social distancing in the recreation yard – detainees sit 6 to a table close to each other.
11. Sometimes groups have church out in the recreation yard, and I would estimate that there are typically 20 to 50 people who participate and do not distance six feet from each other.
12. Cohorted detainees are still playing contact sports like soccer with no social distancing. 13. In the medical department, cohorted individuals use the same bathroom as the non-cohorted
individuals and I have not seen anyone clean the bathroom in between users. 14. The BTC guards are frequently short staffed lately. I have seen GEO Transport staff
members filling in for the regular BTC guards in every shift. I never saw GEO Transport staff serving as guards before the pandemic.

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 106-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/20/2020 Page 68 of 152
15. The guards do not consistently use masks and gloves when dealing with the general population of BTC. I usually see them using masks and gloves only with cohorted detainees.
16. However, on May 8, 2020 I saw a guard escorting a cohorted detainee and the guard was wearing only a mask and no gloves. On May 12, 2020, I saw a guard delivering food to the cohorted detainees; she was handling their trays and distributing their food without gloves on.
17. Guards who work with cohorted detainees wear only surgical masks, not N-95 masks. This week, I overheard on the of the guards say that he sent a grievance to his supervisor asking not to be put on the cohort post because they did not have the proper protective equipment. I do not know if he was taken off that post.
18. I have seen detainees who have been recently sick with respiratory symptoms but were not isolated from the general population because they did not have a fever. Fever seems to be the only symptom that causes a detainee to be put in quarantine.
19. The staff started giving detainees masks on about April 24, 2020. We receive new masks about every two to three days. The majority of people do not use them – I would say that about 25% of the detainees wear masks.
20. I have not seen the doors, windows, recreation yard, or phones being sanitized every four hours. Cleaning happens about 1-2 times a day.
21. I have authorized my attorney to sign on my behalf given the difficulty of arranging visitation and travel in light of the current COVID-19 pandemic. If required to do so, I will provide a signature when I am able to do so.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the things described above are true and correct.

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 106-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/20/2020 Page 69 of 152

Executed on May 13, 2020.

______________________________________ Allison Norris, Esq., on behalf of Goga Djadju

ATTORNEY DECLARATION

I, Allison Norris, Esq., declare the following under penalty of perjury pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746:
1. My name is Allison Norris, Esq. I am a licensed attorney in good standing with the Florida Bar.
2. Out of necessity in light of the COVID-19 pandemic, I signed Goga Djadju’s declaration on his behalf and with his express consent.
3. ICE is now requiring legal visitors to provide and wear personal protective equipment, including disposably vinyl gloves, surgical masks, and eye protection while visiting any detention facility. These supplies are not easily accessible, given the increase in demand. Any available supplies are prioritized for hospitals and other medical facilities that are experiencing dangerous shortages.
4. There are documented cases of COVID-19 in all fifty U.S. states and most inhabited U.S. territories. The Centers for Disease Control and Protection (“CDC”) has issued statements warning that individuals are at a higher risk of infection when traveling. In addition, I am a resident of Miami Dade County, Florida and unable to travel to visit my Goga Djadju under a state ‘Stay at home’ order issued by the Governor of Florida Ron DeSantis on April 1st, 2020.
5. In light of the above, to protect public health, I am not able to travel to the Broward Transitional Detention Center in Pompano, Florida, to obtain my Goga Djadju’s signature.

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 106-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/20/2020 Page 70 of 152
6. I spoke with Goga Djadju via Skype video call, read the declaration to him, and confirmed the accuracy of the information therein. Goga Djadju has confirmed the accuracy of the information therein.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on May 13, 2020 at Miami, Florida.
_____________________________________ Allison Norris, Esq., on behalf of Goga Djadju

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 106-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/20/2020 Page 71 of 152
DECLARATION OF MELISSA DOMINGUEZ I, Melissa Dominguez , hereby declare under the penalty of perjury pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746:
1. I am at least 18 years of age and am competent to sign this declaration. I make this declaration based on my personal knowledge except where I have indicated otherwise. If called as a witness, I could and would testify competently and truthfully to these matters.
2. I represent detainee SD A# ending in 756. My client SD is 64 years old and a citizen of Cuba. He has resided in the United States for nearly 17 years and is currently a Legal Permanent Resident of the United States. He has a wife and two children who are United States Citizens.
3. My client is currently detained at Glades Detention Center in Moore Haven, FL after being suddenly transferred from Krome Detention Center in Miami, FL. He has been in ICE custody since January 16, 2020, when he was placed in removal proceedings based on a conviction for Lewd and Lascivious conduct in 2018 for which he received 3 years probation. He was in full compliance of the sentence imposed on him at the time he was taken to ICE Custody.
4. SD is immuno-compromised due to his medical condition of Asthma. 5. My client’s condition was often difficult to manage while in ICE custody prior

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 106-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/20/2020 Page 72 of 152
to the COVID 19 pandemic. 6. However, since the COVID 19 pandemic the situation only got worse. My
client had severe asthma attacks while at Krome Detention Center and his condition became more difficult to manage as the pandemic progressed. 7. To the best of my knowledge based on the information provided by my client, the conditions at Krome were not conducive to being able to follow the social distancing guidelines given by the CDC- there were just too many people. 8. My client also informed me that his pod was under quarantine from April 20th until May 2nd due to cases of COVID 19 at Krome and was under even more difficult conditions for nearly two weeks. 9. My client has an Individual Hearing on June 9, 2020. He is eligible for a 212(h) waiver and all pertinent applications and evidence have been submitted to the Court. He has significant equities in the United States including his wife and children. 10.For these reasons I have submitted several requests for my client’s release which have been promptly denied. This is despite the many equities my client has in the United States, clearly stating he would accept any conditions mandated with his release and his being at severe risk with COVID 19 given both his age and health condition. 11.The last request I submitted was on May 1, 2020 to which I have yet to receive

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 106-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/20/2020 Page 73 of 152
a response. 12. Instead, on May 4, 2020 my client was suddenly transferred
from Krome Detention Center to Glades Detention Center. 13.Tothebestofmyknowledgethetransferofmyclientwassuddenand without
warning. He was on the phone with his daughter on the evening of May 3, 2020 when an officer called his name and told him he was being taken somewhere else. The next morning he was transferred. Further, my client was transferred with out a determination having been made on my most recent request for his release on May 1, 2020. 14. To this day, I have not received any communication from ICE to advise me of why my client was transferred rather than released. Despite the fact I am on record as his attorney. I became aware of his transfer when his family called me to tell me what he had said on the phone and I learned where he was through the online detainee locator. 15. To the best of my knowledge ICE has not done any individualized medical evaluation to determine whether any special measures are needed to treat my client’s asthma or to reduce his risk of exposure to COVID 19. My client and his family, as well as myself are worried for his life. 16. Based on information provided by my client, they are being told at Glades Detention Center that detainees will be transferred to detention centers in other states including Texas. This has served only to worry him even more given the high risk he has for COVID 19. 17. If my client were released from detention, he will comply with any applicable

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 106-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/20/2020 Page 74 of 152
conditions of release, including attending check-ins and immigration court hearings. This has been made clear to ICE previously. 18.Upon release, my client will go to his home (which he owns) at 2612 25th St W, Lehigh Acres, FL 33971 and rejoin his U.S. Citizen wife. He will selfquarantine in accordance with the government’s recommendations and will be able to be there for his wife who has mental and medical health conditions of her own- evidence of which has been provided to ICE. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct. Signed on May 13, 2020. at Miami, FL.
______________________ Melissa Dominguez, Esq.

CasCeas1e:220:-2c0v-c2v1-505033-4M9G-TCPBD-NoPcuMmeDnot c1u0m6-e2nt E1-n1te0reFdiloendF0L5S/1D2/D20ockPeat g0e5/120o/f2402P0agPeIaDge11735 of 152
Declaration of Wilkens Dorival
1. My name is Wilkens Dorival. I am from Haiti and am 24 years old. I arrived in the United States in 2000 as a lawful permanent resident. I was four years old.
2. My mother and older brother live in Orlando and are all lawful permanent residents. I have a little brother and sister, both U.S. citizens. My grandfather and grandmother are U.S. citizens. And I have a five-year-old son, who is also a U.S citizen.
3. I have significant health issues that I understand put me at high risk of serious complications if I catch COVID-19, including obesity and high blood pressure.
4. I take Amlodipine 10 mg twice a day for my high blood pressure, along with hydrochlorothiazide 25 mg every night.
5. I suffer from anxiety, major depressive disorder, schizophrenia, and other disorders. I take Divalproex sodium, Zoloft, and Mirtazapine to treat my mental health issues.
6. Also, I have a metal plate in my arm that was put in before I was detained. I need a follow up appointment, but I have not been able to get one since I have been detained.
7. I have been detained by ICE for more than ten months in three different detention centers. I have applied for asylum and for relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). My next hearing was scheduled for March 30, 2020 but it was cancelled and then rescheduled for June 5, 2020. Unfortunately, my family cannot afford an immigration lawyer.
8. First, they held me at the Krome detention center, before they transferred me to Glades detention center on March 19, 2020. Then I was transferred to Baker on April 28, 2020.
9. When I arrived at Glades, they checked my temperature, and that’s it. After that transfer, I had cold symptoms.
10. While at Glades, I had problems with my medical care. Whenever I happened to be asleep or indisposed when the guards passed out medications in the morning, they just skipped me and forced me to wait until the next day.
11. I was also mistreated by non-medical staff at Glades. I was in solitary confinement for weeks in April 2020, I think because guards were retaliating against me for reporting what goes on in the facility to people outside.
12. The facility itself had problems with regularly running out of supplies like toilet paper, soap, and even food. It was also impossible for me to keep a safe distance of six feet from the people that I was housed with.
13. There are four dorms in Glades. Before I was moved to Baker at the end of April, there were more than 90 people in my dorm, which has two floors. Each floor of the dorm has 8 cubicles. Six people lived in my cubicle, and the next bed was only one foot away from mine. I shared

CasCeas1e:220:-2c0v-c2v1-505033-4M9G-TCPBD-NoPcuMmeDnot c1u0m6-e2nt E1-n1te0reFdiloendF0L5S/1D2/D20ockPeat g0e5/20o/f2402P0agPeIaDge11746 of 152
the cubicle with five new people over a matter of weeks. And our recreation yard was very small.
14. It was hard to maintain good hygiene there. I didn’t have access to disinfectant wipes or anything to clean my cubicle with, even when new people moved in. In the dorm I shared with more than 90 other people, there were only six sinks, toilets, and showers. Detainees were designated to clean the showers, toilets, and sinks (three on each floor in my dorm) three times a day, but they didn’t do it consistently or carefully. The bathrooms were almost always dirty. In the bathrooms and in other areas in our dorm, we had to share common spaces and touch common objects that had not been cleaned. But we got just one small bottle of soap twice a week, and no hand sanitizer.
15. At Glades, I saw some guards wearing masks, but not all of them. And I saw some who coughed and sneezed without covering their mouths.
16. The staff didn’t talk to us about COVID-19, but there was a piece of paper on the wall with what I was told was COVID-19-related information (the one I saw was in Spanish, which I don’t speak). I never heard of anyone getting tested at the facility. This was especially scary because I saw at least 20 people coughing or sick there.
17. On April 28, 2020, I was placed in a group of 20 people and told we were being transferred to the Baker County Detention Center. We were all put in the same room and ordered to stand very close together, almost shoulder to shoulder, without masks.
18. At that time, when we learned we were being taken to Baker unexpectedly, some detainees asked to speak with an ICE officer. In response, we were pepper sprayed. I became disoriented and told the guards I could not breathe. Instead of helping, two or three of them tackled me to the floor, choked me, punched me in the head, and pepper sprayed me directly me in the face. Another guard helped me to the medical unit, but some of the first guards came back later, took me to the showers, pushed me forcefully against the wall, twisted my injured arm, and threatened that they would be beat me up and pepper spray me again if I asked more questions.
19. I was transferred to the Baker facility the same day and have been here ever since. My temperature was not checked before I left the Glades facility. And, on the bus to Baker, we had no choice but to sit very close to each other again, without masks. I had someone sitting right next to me.
20. As of Tuesday, May 5, 2020, there were 33 people in my dorm here at the Baker facility, which has 32 beds. We receive transfers from the Krome Service Processing Center and the Glades facility multiple times each week, so the number changes regularly. I am lucky to be in a two-bed cell right now, but I know others in the facility are in four-beds cell, and I cannot maintain social distancing in common areas in my dorm. In the dining area, there are just three long tables, where we sit within inches of each other, sometimes touching each other.
21. It is hard to maintain good hygiene at the Baker facility. Detainees themselves are responsible for cleaning the common areas and cells. Other than the mop and bucket of water we are given once a day to all share, we receive no gloves, no disinfectants and no other cleaning supplies. I

CasCeas1e:220:-2c0v-c2v1-505033-4M9G-TCPBD-NoPcuMmeDnot c1u0m6-e2nt E1-n1te0reFdiloendF0L5S/1D2/D20ockPeat g0e5/320o/f2402P0agPeIaDge11757 of 152
have seen the common areas be cleaned only once since arriving at this facility. The phones, and the kiosks we use for commissary, requests, and grievances, never get cleaned.
22. We get just one toilet paper roll and a small hotel-style bar of soap once or twice per week. We are supposed to get resupplied every Friday and Monday. But, since at least May 4, 2020, they have run out of soap. The toilet paper is not enough; I have had to borrow some from other detainees. We receive no hand sanitizer.
23. There are no signs about COVID-19 in my dorm. We are not given any information about the virus.
24. We have received no masks, and I have seen no guards wearing masks, even though I’ve seen them coughing. Even when they put us in handcuffs to go the medical area and other areas outside the dorm, they wear no masks and often no gloves.
25. Even in the medical area, which has just four patient rooms, the nurses and other staff do not wear masks consistently.
26. If I’m released, I will be able to stay with my mom in her two-bedroom apartment, or with my big brother who is willing to support me now that he has a good job, and to include me in his medical benefit plan.
27. I have made mistakes. Most recently, in 2019 I was convicted of battery on a law enforcement officer. Several officers approached me while I was walking down the street, chased me, and tackled me; I was scared, and I swung. They tazed me and arrested me. For this, I was sentenced to 15 months in prison, with credit for 1 year of 38 days of time served. My expected release date was July 1, 2019, but ICE came and picked me up two days prior.
28. I had had similar bad experiences and made similarly bad choices three times before—once in 2011, when I was 16, and twice in 2012, when I was 17. As a result of those experiences, I pled guilty to resisting an officer, once with violence and twice without. In 2011, when I was 16, I also had arrests and was later convicted for robbery (after a street altercation where no weapon was involved) as well as burglary and theft (after I made a stupid bet with my friends that we could get inside someone’s house). I also received a conviction for delivery of cannabis in 2013, in addition to three smaller possession of cannabis and paraphernalia offenses. In 2015, I received a global sentence of 55 months in prison, with 848 days of time served, for all of these offenses. I was released on November 18, 2018.
29. I am sorry for being hard-headed. I know I messed up, I take responsibility for my actions, and, as a man, I apologize. Everyday I wake up angry at myself because I’ve let a lot of people down. I regret every bad thing I did. I am struggling mentally and physically. I know there is no way to go back to the time before I made mistakes, but I have been praying to God to help me make better choices. These recent experiences in prison and detention have been a wakeup call. Lately I have worked to reevaluate my life by getting certificates in educational programs like parenting and coaching, and taking anger management class. But I have grown up a lot in the last few years, and I have committed myself to self-improvement. I don’t want to get sick and see all that progress go away.

CasCeas1e:220:-2c0v-c2v1-505033-4M9G-TCPBD-NoPcuMmeDnot c1u0m6-e2nt E1-n1te0reFdiloendF0L5S/1D2/D20ockPeat g0e5/420o/f2402P0agPeIaDge11768 of 152
I, Amien Kacou, certify that I reviewed the statements in this declaration with Mr. Dorival by telephone on April 17 and 18 and May 4 and 6, 2020 and that he certified under penalty of perjury that the statements were true and correct to the best of his knowledge.
____/s/ Amien Kacou___________ Amien Kacou (FL bar 44302) American Civil Liberties Union of Florida 4343 W Flagler St #400 Miami, FL 33134 (786) 363-2700 akacou@aclufl.org

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 106-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/20/2020 Page 79 of 152
DECLARATION OF MAYA WEISSMAN FABRA I, Maya Weissman Fabra, declare the following under penalty of perjury pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746:
1. I make this declaration based on my personal knowledge except where I have indicated otherwise. If called as a witness, I could and would testify competently and truthfully to these matters.
2. My name is Maya Weissman Fabra. I am a licensed attorney in good standing in the District of Columbia.
3. I represent Alejandro Ferrera Borges, in his present immigration matters. 4. My client has the following medical issues: asthma and high blood pressure. Mr. Ferrera
Borges requires use of his inhaler 3 to 4 times per day. 5. On May 14, 2020, ICE transferred my client to from Broward Transitional Center (BTC)
to Stewart Detention Center in Georgia. 6. My client told me that prior to the transfer, he was told to sign a document in
English, a language he does not speak. He informed me there was no translator present to interpret for him, and he was not given the same form in his native language, Spanish. 7. From speaking with others, Mr. Ferrera Borges learned that the form he signed said that he had been tested for COVID-19 prior to the transfer. My client told me that he was not tested for COVID-19 prior to his transfer and in fact has never been tested. Only his temperature was taken prior to transfer. It is unclear to him why he was asked to sign a form indicating that he had been tested when he had never been tested. 8. Mr. Ferrera Borges told me he was not given an explanation regarding his transfer. He was also not given a determination regarding his release prior to his transfer.

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 106-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/20/2020 Page 80 of 152
9. My client told me he was transferred in a group of eighteen men in total along with Daivys Perez Valladares and Adrian Sosa Fletes.
10. Daivys Perez Valladares had been previously transferred from BTC to Krome, and Adrian Sosa Fletes was in BTC.
11. All three men are named plaintiffs. 12. During the transfer, my client told me he was exposed to guards who were not wearing
masks. 13. My client told me that medical staff did not arrange for him to have access to his inhaler
during the entirety of the transfer, including a ten-hour bus ride. This is particularly concerning to me as my client uses his inhaler multiple times per day to mitigate his asthma. 14. During the transfer, my client told me he was shackled for ten hours on a bus with seventeen other men. During the ten-hour bus ride, they were only given a sandwich, bag of chips, cookies, and an apple. Although the detained people were given masks, guards did not wear masks. 15. My client told me two hours after arriving to Stewart Detention Center, Alejandro Ferrera Borges, Daivys Perez Valladares, and Adrian Sosa Fletes were put on a bus and driven back to BTC. They arrived back at BTC on May 15, 2020. Mr. Ferrara Borges was confused as to why they had all been transferred to Stewart and potentially exposed to COVID-19 only to be brought back to BTC. 16. My client is now cohorted in BTC and exposed to the other confirmed COVID-19 cases at BTC when he shares the yard time with them. 17. I learned my client was transferred on May 18, 2020 when my client called me from BTC.

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 106-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/20/2020 Page 81 of 152
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct. 
Executed on May 19, 2020 at Miami, FL
______________________ Maya Weissman Fabra, Esq.

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 106-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/20/2020 Page 82 of 152
DECLARATION JORDY HUMBERTO MOLINA GARAY I, Jordy Humberto Molina Garay, hereby declare under the penalty of perjury pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746:
1. I make this declaration based on my personal knowledge except where I have indicated otherwise. If called as a witness, I could and would testify competently and truthfully to these matters.
2. I am 38 years old and I am a citizen of Nicaragua. 3. I am currently detained at Torrance County Detention Facility (Torrance) in Estancia, New Mexico. I was previously detained at Glades County Detention Center (Glades) in Moore Haven, Florida from March 5, 2020 to May 4, 2020. On May 4th, I was transferred from Glades to Krome Service Processing Center (Krome). On May 5, 2020, I was transfer on an airplane from Miami to New Mexico, where I got relocated at Torrance. 4. Due to coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic, the Miami immigration court canceled the hearing I had scheduled for my immigration case on April 5, 2020. My immigration case hearing was rescheduled for May 7, 2020. On May 6th, I told my deportation officer at Torrance I was afraid of missing my hearing due to the transfer and he said I was going to have it through Video Teleconferencing. I did not have my immigration case hearing on May 7th and as of May 14, 2020, I have not received any rescheduling notice. 5. I should have been considered for release because I have severe depression. I have also developed severe gastritis since being detained and I am required to take a pill every day to manage my stomach pain. I have informed the staff at Torrance about my need but have not received my medication as of May 14, 2020. When I made a medical request to get my medication, they told me I needed to wait fourteen days to be seen by a healthcare worker. 6. At Glades, I shared a pod with approximately 89 other people. I slept in a bed clustered next to five other bunk beds, which made it impossible to create social distancing. I did not experience symptoms of COVID-19 but I am aware of people who were showing symptoms in my pod. Staff did not make any accommodations to allow social distancing.
1

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 106-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/20/2020 Page 83 of 152
7. During the entire transfer from Glades to Torrance, I was put very close to different groups. I was unable to practice social distancing. On May 4, 2020 at approximately 4:00 pm, an immigration officer at Glades told me and seven other persons in the same pod we needed to pack our belongings because we were going to be transferred. I never received a decision or explanation of why I was transferred instead of release. Guards were verbally aggressive when I asked about the reason for transfer. They rejected giving us any information about our place of relocation. Staff at Glades did not complete a medical examination or confirmed we were in good state of health before transferring us. We had shackles restraining our hands, feet, and waist during transfer. We were not given any masks or gloves. Guards were not wearing masks or gloves when interacting with us. I was transferred from Glades to Krome in a bus with approximately 40 other people and two guards. Guards did not make accommodations for us to sit separately from each other during transfer. There were four surveillance cameras inside the bus. One of the guards blocked the cameras that were pointing to him and the other guard with a piece of plastic.
8. Staff at Krome took our temperature when we arrived at approximately 9:00 pm. They gave us a meal when we arrived. They did not do a complete medical examination on us or provide information about COVID-19. Guards were only using masks at Krome. They provided us a mask when we arrived. I was placed in “the fridge”, a very cold holding cell, where I stayed until 6:00 am on May 5th with approximately 20 other people. We were within less than an arm of length from each other. Guards neglected us when we asked for blankets or sweaters to cover up because we were laying down in the cold concrete. There were two toilets next to each other in the holding cell without division or privacy.
9. There were four vans and one bus used to transfer approximately 70 people from Krome to the Miami airport. I was transferred in one of the four vans with five other people. During our transportation to the airport, I was wearing the mask provided at Krome. Staff did not provide us with additional masks or protective equipment for the airplane transfer. At the airplane, I received two small sandwiches and a bottle of water. We were in shackles for about five hours until we arrived at New Mexico. Personnel from the company who was supporting our airplane transfer started being verbally offensive to us, saying that we deserved our detention because of coming from another country. They kept

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 106-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/20/2020 Page 84 of 152
saying that if we told our lawyers or family members about the transfer we were going to suffer more inside detention. I am afraid of the retaliatory measures ICE could take against me. When we arrived at the airport, we were transferred to Torrance in two buses. We waited for about one hour until all detained people used the bathrooms inside the buses.
10. Once we arrived at Torrance, staff took our temperature and gave us two cloth masks. They also provided me with a 4oz. bottle of shampoo. As of May 14, 2020, they have not provided a thorough medical evaluation.
11. I was placed in a unit with approximately 20 other people. I share a dorm with one detained person who sleeps in the lower part of my bunk bed. I am very dehydrated. There is one sink with low water pressure for all of us in the unit and the water tastes like lead.
12. On May 12, 2020, staff at Torrance told me and the other detained people in my unit that there was a person who got transferred in our original group from Glades on May 4th that was confirmed positive for COVID-19. When I asked if we could get tested for the virus, given that it is a high possibility we were all in close contact with the person or staff who interacted with him, they said we were not going to be tested unless we showed symptoms. I believe we are all in danger. I fear for my life.
13. On May 14, 2020 at approximately 9:30 am, guards at Torrance locked up all of us detained people in my unit until 2:30 pm. We were given a meal at 6:00 am on that day and then left without food until we were released from locked down. We were all starving as we have normally received lunch at 11:00 am. They did not give us any reason why we were locked up for five hours.
14. I have authorized Andrea Ruiz-Sorrentini, a paralegal, to sign on my behalf given the difficulty of arranging visitation and travel in light of the current COVID-19 pandemic. If required to do so, I will provide a signature when I am able to do so. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct.

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 106-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/20/2020 Page 85 of 152
Executed on May 14, 2020 at Miami, Florida.
_____________________________________________________________ Andrea C. Ruiz-Sorrentini, on behalf of Jordy Humberto Molina Garay

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 106-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/20/2020 Page 86 of 152
CERTIFICATION OF TRANSLATION I, Andrea C. Ruiz-Sorrentini, declare that I am proficient in the English and Spanish languages. On May 11, 2020, I read the foregoing declaration to Jordy Humberto Molina Garay and orally translated it faithfully and accurately into Spanish in the presence of the declarant. After I completed translating the declaration, the declarant verified that the contents of the foregoing declaration are true and accurate. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct. 
Executed on May 14, 2020 at Miami, Florida.
Andrea C. Ruiz-Sorrentini

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 106-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/20/2020 Page 87 of 152
PARALEGAL DECLARATION I, Andrea Cristina Ruiz-Sorrentini, declare the following under penalty of perjury pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746:
1. My name is Andrea Cristina Ruiz-Sorrentini. I am an outreach paralegal working with Southern Poverty Law Center at Miami, Florida.
2. Out of necessity in light of the COVID-19 pandemic, I signed Jordy Humberto Molina Garay’s declaration on his behalf and with his express consent.
3. On May 4, 2020 ICE transferred Mr. Molina Garay to Krome Service Processing Center in Miami, Florida, and then Torrance County Detention Facility in New Mexico.
4. ICE now requires legal visitors to provide and wear personal protective equipment, including disposable latex gloves, surgical masks, and eye protection while visiting any detention facility. These supplies are not easily accessible, given the increase in demand. Any available supplies are prioritized for hospitals and other medical facilities that are experiencing dangerous shortages.
5. There are documented cases of COVID-19 in all fifty U.S. states and most inhabited U.S. territories. The Centers for Disease Control and Protection (CDC) has issued statements warning that individuals are at a higher risk of infection when traveling. In addition, I am a resident of Miami-Dade County, Florida and unable to travel to visit my client under a state “Stay at Home” order issued by the Governor of Florida Ron DeSantis on April 1, 2020.
6. In light of the above, to protect public health, I am not able to travel to the Torrance County Detention Facility in New Mexico to obtain Mr. Molina Garay’s signature.
7. I spoke with Jordy Humberto Molina Garay via phone call, read the declaration to him and confirmed the accuracy of the information therein. Mr. Molina Garay has confirmed the accuracy of the information therein.

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 106-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/20/2020 Page 88 of 152
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct. 
Executed on May 14, 2020 at Miami, Florida.
____________________________ Andrea Cristina Ruiz-Sorrentini andrea.ruiz-sorrentini@splcenter.org 786-582-0386

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 106-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/20/2020 Page 89 of 152
DECLARATION OF MOHAMED HASAN I, Mohamed Hasan, hereby declare under the penalty of perjury pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746:
1. I make this declaration based on my personal knowledge except where I have indicated otherwise. If called as a witness, I could and would testify competently and truthfully to these matters.
2. My name is Mohamed Hasan and I am a Plaintiff in Gayle v. Meade et al. I am currently detained at the Krome Service Processing Center (“Krome”) in the Krome Behavioral Health Unit (“KBHU”). I have been in the custody of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) since August of 2017. I have post-traumatic stress disorder and major depressive disorder. I also have abnormal liver functions and abnormal thyroid function. My cholesterol is high; I think this is because of how long I have been in ICE custody because I did not have these issues before.
3. I am housed on the A side of KBHU where there are currently 5 people total. The A side of KBHU only holds eight people. I do not have a roommate, but I share a common area with everyone else. I interact with them when I receive medication in pill line, during meals, when I watch television, and when I attend group therapy and other classes. I sit right next to people during all three meals. The day room where we eat our meals is very small. There are two tables a few inches away from each other; there is no other place for me to eat.
4. We are required to go to recreation in the yard next to KBHU twice a day for one hour. The recreation yard is a small fenced area that includes two tables each with four chairs. Previously, participation in one hour of recreation was mandatory while the second hour was optional. Now, if we refuse to go to recreation, the officers will take us out of the KBHU program and put us in confinement or disciplinary housing. I do not understand why recreation is

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 106-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/20/2020 Page 90 of 152
now required if we are trying to social distance because it is impossible for us to remain six feet apart from one another when we are in the yard.
5. Every morning, the entire KBHU population meets for about an hour. During these meetings, we sit close together in chairs. The meeting involves not only all the detained people on A side, but also nurses and other KBHU staff, normally about 14 people. It does not make sense to me why we are continuing these gatherings when we are supposed to be practicing social distancing.
6. As far as I am aware, social distancing is supposed to be practiced by everyone in order to prevent the spread of the virus, but we are forced in KBHU to take part in many mandatory activities throughout the day. If I refuse to take part in order to properly social distance, I risk facing disciplinary action like confinement or solitary disciplinary housing. For example, this morning, I was not feeling well, and I did not want to attend community meeting. In the end, I went because I did not want to risk being removed from KBHU at this time. I feel like I am in a situation where I cannot win.
7. In the course of a normal day in the KBHU, I am patted down by an officer about 21 times. As I pass through various doors in the KBHU or go outside to the recreation yard, a guard will pat me down upon leaving KBHU and prior to entering the yard. Because of this, I am in close contact with many officers throughout the day. The officers do not change their gloves between pat downs. They will touch multiple people before they get to me. I am fearful that these pat downs will cause the virus to spread quickly in the KBHU.
8. The KBHU has been on and off quarantine for approximately two months. Officers who work in the KBHU have tested positive for the coronavirus. For example, I learned on May 11, 2020 that Officer Seal, who recently worked in the KBHU, tested positive for

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 106-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/20/2020 Page 91 of 152
COVID-19. Officer Seal would work at the desk in the KBHU and would often conduct pat downs with people in A side including myself.
9. The Krome staff have not tested the detained individuals in KBHU at any point in time when we have been quarantined.
10. About a week ago, I started experiencing frequent, strong headaches, shortness of breath, and a dry cough. Despite being housed in a unit where there are nurses always present, I have not received any medical attention for these symptoms. On May 13, 2020, I woke up with a bad headache and felt short of breath. I am concerned that I may have a mild case of COVID-19, so I asked Commander Sharrieff, who is in charge of the KBHU, during our regular morning community meeting if I could be tested for COVID-19. I explained to him my symptoms and that I feared I may have the virus. The Commander denied my request stating that currently Krome only has a total of eight test kits for the entire facility. He said that the facility is having difficulties accessing enough test kits for the number of guards who need them. It appears that only people who are seriously ill will have access to COVID-19 testing.
11. On approximately May 12, 2020, a Spanish-speaking man named Mr. Montalvo returned to the KBHU. He previously tested positive for COVID-19 and was at a hospital. Mr. Montalvo was then in the medical unit at Krome for a period of time. I am unable to communicate with Mr. Montalvo because we do not speak the same language, so I am not sure if he has since tested negative for COVID-19 or why he was transferred back into the KBHU. I am fearful that he could pass the virus to me.
12. The last time I received a mask was about a week and a half ago. I do not know when I will receive a new one. I have been told by officers that masks are in short supply and that is why we don’t receive masks more frequently.

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 106-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/20/2020 Page 92 of 152
13. Many of the officers who work in the KBHU do not wear masks. I do not feel safe around them because they go out into the community and can bring the virus into the facility. I would like them to wear protective equipment, including masks, but if I ask them to do so, I risk facing disciplinary action.
14. The only soap we are provided is a small bar of hard soap. After two or three uses, the soap is gone. There is no additional soap in the bathroom, and the guards often refuse to provide extra soap. If we want any additional hygiene supplies, we must order if from the commissary which is very expensive. I currently do not have the funds in order to purchase additional soap and hygiene products.
15. The A side of KBHU does not have a hand sanitizer dispenser. In order to access the hand sanitizer dispenser near the nurses’ station in KBHU, I must pass through a series of doors and therefore, pat downs. Because I want to avoid contact with the guards and other detained people as much as possible, I avoid leaving A side to get hand sanitizer.
16. There is a woman who comes and cleans A side of KBHU twice a day. However, she does not use bleach. The woman cleans the tables in the unit twice a day. Because we eat three times a day, I think it would make sense to clean the tables to be cleaned three times a day but that does not happen.
17. I do not have any cleaning supplies to clean the bathrooms or other shared spaces throughout the day. I have asked for wipes to clean the bathrooms and other surfaces. The last time I asked was May 12, 2020, and I was denied. The officers have told me that the wipes are in short supply and they are only for the staff. Every time I ask for cleaning supplies, the guards say to me, “Unless it is important, you can’t have it.”

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 106-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/20/2020 Page 93 of 152
18. The A side of KBHU has one phone that we share. The phone is cleaned once a day in the morning by the woman who comes and cleans the unit. We do not have supplies to clean the phone between every use. Sometimes, I try to wipe off the phone with my shirt before I pick it up to make a call.
19. The chaos at Krome related to the coronavirus is taking a toll on my mental health. I do not feel safe in the KBHU. I continue to think about going into confinement or disciplinary housing in order to isolate myself and avoid getting the virus. In confinement, I would be able to social distance properly. However, I am worried about how my mental illness would get worse if I go into confinement, so I do not know if it is a good thing to do right now.
20. If I am released from detention, I will comply with any applicable conditions of release including attending check-ins and immigration court hearings. I will live with my sister in Ohio. She is a United States citizen. I will practice social distancing if I am released.
21. I have authorized Lily Hartmann to sign on my behalf given the difficulty of arranging visitation and travel in light of the current COVID-19 pandemic. If required to do so, I will provide a signature when I am able to do so.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed on May 14, 2020
_________________________________________ Lily Hartmann, on behalf of Mohamed Hasan

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 106-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/20/2020 Page 94 of 152
LEGAL ASSISTANT DECLARATION I, Lily Hartmann, declare the following under penalty of perjury pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746:
1. My name is Lily Hartmann. I am a legal assistant at Americans for Immigrant Justice, a legal services organization located in Miami, Florida.
2. I am a legal assistant working with the legal team in Gayle v. Meade et al. Out of necessity in light of the COVID-19 pandemic, I signed Mohamed Hasan’s declaration on his behalf and with his expressed consent.
3. Further, ICE is now requiring legal visitors to provide and wear personal protective equipment, including disposable latex gloves, surgical masks, and eye protection while visiting any detention facility. These supplies are not easily accessible, given the increase in demand. Any available supplies are prioritized for hospitals and other medical facilities that are experiencing dangerous shortages.
4. There are documented cases of COVID-19 in all fifty U.S. states and most inhabited U.S. territories. The Center for Disease Control and Prevention (“CDC”) issued statements warning that individuals are at a higher risk of infection while traveling. In addition, I am a resident of Miami-Dade County, Florida and unable to travel to visit Mohamed Hasan under a state “Stay at Home” order issued by the Governor of Florida Ron DeSantis on April 1, 2020. Furthermore, the State of Florida has a State of Emergency in place that the Governor renewed for sixty (60) additional days on Monday, May 11, 2020.
5. In light of the above, to protect public health, I am not able to travel to the Krome Service Processing Center to obtain Mohamed Hasan’s signature.

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 106-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/20/2020 Page 95 of 152
6. I spoke with Mohamed Hasan via phone call, read the declaration to him, and confirmed the accuracy of the information therein. Mohamed Hasan confirmed the accuracy of the information therein.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed on May 14, 2020 at Miami, Florida.
_______________________________________________ Lily Hartmann

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 106-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/20/2020 Page 96 of 152
DECLARATION OF KYLE MAHARAJ I, Kyle Maharaj, hereby declare under the penalty of perjury pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746:
1. I make this declaration based on my personal knowledge except where I have indicated otherwise. If called as a witness, I could and would testify competently and truthfully to these matters.
2. I am 21 years old and am a citizen of Trinidad and Tobago. 3. I am currently detained at Torrance County Detention Facility in Estancia, New Mexico. I was previously detained at Glades County Detention Center in Moore Haven, Florida. On May 4, I was transferred from Glades to Krome. On May, 5, 2020, I was transferred from Krome to Torrance. 4. I put in a request for humanitarian release about two weeks ago but have not received a response. I was never told that they made a determination about whether to release me because of the virus. 5. I should have been considered for release because I have had asthma all my life, and I use an inhaler regularly. I did not have access to the inhaler when I was on the plane from Miami to New Mexico, and I had a very hard time breathing because of my anxiety. There were other people transferred with me who were asthmatic, and other people who traveled with me who were diabetic, and I am not sure if they received their insulin. 6. During the entire trip, I was put very close to different groups of people. I was unable to practice social distancing. 7. I was taken from Glades to Krome, along with nearly 40 other people from Glades. From Glades to Krome, I was in a van with three rows of seats. I was on the second row seated between two other people. When we were in the van from Glades to Krome, we sat right next to each other, so our arms, shoulders, and legs were touching each other. 8. At Krome, I stayed in a holding cell for about 12 hours. The cell was cold and we were not given any food. I slept on the floor. There were about 20 people packed into the cell together. We were within less than an arm length from each other. 9. There were two toilets on the holding cell and people were sitting on the toilet and leaning on the sink to sleep. There were at least 5 people sleeping on the floor because of the lack of space, and some people couldn’t even sleep because it was so cold. 10. I was then transferred via bus with about 30 other people to an airplane, and
1

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 106-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/20/2020 Page 97 of 152
four vans of about 9 people were also transferred to the plane. I was one of about 70 people (everyone who had come from Glades, plus 30 more) transferred from Krome to the New Mexico facility in an airplane. We didn’t eat from about 4 p.m. until the next day at 9 am when we were on the plane. From the moment we left Krome to the booking in New Mexico, we were in shackles, in total about 5 ½ or 6 hours in shackles.
11. When we were in the plane, we were also all right next to each other. The plane was in very bad condition so people were nervous. At one point a flight attendant tried to look for her seatbelt and when she pulled on it part of the seat came off. The lights were flashing the whole time in the plane.
12. There were some people during the transfer who were coughing, and it is unclear whether they had COVID-19. ICE took our temperatures before we left Glades, but then we did not receive masks until we were leaving Krome, after we had all slept close together in the holding cell. ICE then made us wear masks, and they were all wearing masks. They were not often wearing gloves. The only time we received hand sanitizer was right before we boarded the entrance of the plane.
13. None of us were told why we were being transferred. No one knew we were getting transferred until I went up to talk an officer about my commissary account, because they had not cashed me out for my whole commissary account, and they had mixed up my account with that of another detainee.
14. During the transfer, I saw one contractor worker for ICE who was yelling at detainees, pushing at them, and yelling at one that he would take him outside and “f” him up. They also put extra restraints on one detainee when they had him on the bus
15. At Torrance, I share my sleeping room, which is less than ten steps wide and twenty-five steps long, with one bunkmate who sleeps below me. It is impossible for us to remain 6 feet apart because the room is so small. The toilet and sink are inside of the cell so when he uses the bathroom I have to be on the other side of the cell. When we are eating, it is impossible to socially distance with each other since the chairs are close together, with tables of four chairs, one on each side. It is also impossible to socially distance when we go to medical. The guards are using masks but not gloves.
16. Twenty-five of us share the common area, which is 60-80 steps long and about the same wide. When we are all in the common area together it is impossible to
2

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 106-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/20/2020 Page 98 of 152
socially distance. We also eat our meals in that room. 17. Because I am asthmatic, the nurse who did my initial screening said I needed
to see a doctor since I am asthmatic, but I have still not been able to see a doctor. 18. I have not had any contact with the deportation officer at the new facility. I
have been trying to contact my deportation officer for over a week now but have received no response.
19. I have authorized Meredith Hoffman, a law student, to sign on my behalf given the difficulty of arranging visitation and travel in light of the current COVID-19 pandemic. If required to do so, I will provide a signature when I am able to do so. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed on May 9, 2020 at Miami, Florida. ______________________ Meredith Hoffman on behalf of Kyle Maharaj
3

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 106-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/20/2020 Page 99 of 152
LAW STUDENT DECLARATION I, Meredith Hoffman, declare the following under penalty of perjury pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746:
1. My name is Meredith Hoffman. I am a law student at the University of Miami School of Law, working as a Research Assistant for my Professor Rebecca Sharpless, Director of the Immigration Clinic.
2. Out of necessity in light of the COVID-19 pandemic, I signed Mr. Maharaj’s declaration on his behalf and with his express consent.
3. On May 4-5, ICE transferred Mr. Maharaj to Krome Detention Center in Miami, Florida, and then Torrance County Detention Center in New Mexico.
4. ICE now requires legal visitors to provide and wear personal protective equipment, including disposable latex gloves, surgical masks, and eye protection while visiting any detention facility. These supplies are not easily accessible, given the increase in demand. Any available supplies are prioritized for hospitals and other medical facilities that are experiencing dangerous shortages.
5. There are documented cases of COVID-19 in all fifty U.S. states and most inhabited U.S. territories. The Centers for Disease Control and Protection (CDC) has issued statements warning that individuals are at a higher risk of infection when traveling. In addition, I am a resident of Miami-Dade County and unable to travel to visit my client under a state “Stay at Home” order issued by the Governor of Florida Ron DeSantis on April 1, 2020.
6. In light of the above, to protect public health, I am not able to travel to the Torrence County Detention Center in New Mexico to obtain Mr. Maharaj’s signature.
7. I spoke with Mr. Maharaj via phone call, read the declaration to him and confirmed the accuracy of the information therein. Mr. Maharaj has confirmed the accuracy of the information therein.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct. 
4

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 106-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/20/2020 Page 100 of 152
Executed on May 8, 2020 at Miami, Florida. ______________________ Meredith Hoffman
5

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 106-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/20/2020 Page 101 of 152

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 106-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/20/2020 Page 102 of 152

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 106-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/20/2020 Page 103 of 152
DECLARATION OF MIGUEL ANGEL MARROQUIN PEREZ I, Miguel Angel Marroquin Perez, hereby declare under the penalty of perjury pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746:
1. I make this declaration based on my personal knowledge except where I have indicated otherwise. If called as a witness, I could and would testify competently and truthfully to these matters.
2. I am currently detained at Broward Transitional Center (BTC) in Pompano Beach, FL I have been detained here since August 12, 2019. I am appealing Immigration Judge Barry Chait’s denial of my asylum application.
3. At BTC, we are given a mask every three days. It is not mandatory to use them. Guards don’t tell us anything when the masks are handed out. The masks are usually thrown on our beds or on top of the table, so most people do not want to wear them because they are contaminated. I would say maybe eight (8) or (9) detainees wear their masks.
4. Most employees at BTC do not wear masks. It is not mandatory for them and two (2) or (3) employees wear their masks.
5. I saw one person leaving BTC in an ambulance last week. 6. As of this week, I know there are at least 90 people in cohort because I saw
the cart with their food trays being taken to their rooms with a piece of paper that said “90” on top of it.

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 106-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/20/2020 Page 104 of 152
7. I can see the cohorted people from my room when they go out to the yard. Although they wear masks, they touch the phones in the yard space and the yard equipment. The phones are yard equipment is often not wiped down after the cohorted people leave the yard.
8. Sometimes there is hand sanitizer available outside the cafeteria, but sometimes there is not. I have not seen any hand sanitizer next to the phones.
9. There are over sixty people eating at once in the cafeteria. We all stand in line together. It is impossible to practice social distancing when we eat together with only one empty space between us and all of us standing in line together.
10.All men go out to the yard at the same time, and there are hundreds of us. It is impossible to be more than six feet away from each other.
11. I work cleaning the common areas at BTC, typically polishing the floors. There is a man who tested positive for COVID-19 at BTC and I saw him in the yard this morning on May 8, 2020 while I was working. I know it was this man because he had written a sign saying he tested positive. He was using the phone in the yard space. He was wearing a mask and gloves and had a BTC guard near him. Those of us who were working tried going around him so we would not get too close.

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 106-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/20/2020 Page 105 of 152
12.I have not received any education regarding hygiene and preventing the infection of COVID-19. I have not seen any posters in the Spanish language about COVID-19 in BTC.
13.When people create too much of a fuss about the detention conditions to the BTC guards, they are transferred to Krome.
14. This detention center was not built to keep us safe. We are six people in a room very close together. People cough and no one wears a mask because guards have not said it’s mandatory. I am not safe here.
15.I have authorized my attorney to sign on my behalf given the difficulty of arranging visitation and travel in light of the current COVID-19 pandemic. If required to do so, I will provide a signature when I am able to do so.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the things described above are true and correct.
Executed on May 8, 2020. ______________________________________ Maya Weissman Fabra, on behalf Miguel Angel Marroquin Perez
CERTIFICATION I, Maya Weissman Fabra, declare that I am proficient in the English and Spanish languages.

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 106-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/20/2020 Page 106 of 152
On May 8, 2020, I read the foregoing declaration to Miguel Angel Marroquin Perez and orally translated it faithfully and accurately into Spanish in the presence of the declarant. After I completed translating the declaration, the declarant verified that the contents of the foregoing declaration are true and accurate.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed on May 8, 2020.
Maya Weissman Fabra

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 106-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/20/2020 Page 107 of 152
ATTORNEY DECLARATION I, Maya Weissman Fabra, declare the following under penalty of perjury pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746:
1. My name is Maya Weissman Fabra. I am a licensed attorney in good standing in the District of Columbia.
2. I represent the declarant, Miguel Angel Marroquin Perez, in his immigration case in Krome/BTC immigration court in Miami, Florida. Out of necessity in light of the COVID-19 pandemic, I signed Miguel Angel Marroquin Perez’s declaration on his behalf and with his express consent.
3. ICE is now requiring legal visitors to provide and wear personal protective equipment, including disposably vinyl gloves, surgical masks, and eye protection while visiting any detention facility. These supplies are not easily accessible, given the increase in demand. Any available supplies are prioritized for hospitals and other medical facilities that are experiencing dangerous shortages.
4. There are documented cases of COVID-19 in all fifty U.S. states and most inhabited U.S. territories. The Centers for Disease Control and Protection (CDC) has issued statements warning that individuals are at a higher risk of infection when traveling. In addition, I am a resident of Miami Dade County,

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 106-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/20/2020 Page 108 of 152
Florida and unable to travel to visit my client under a state ‘Stay at home’ order issued by the Governor of Florida Ron DeSantis on April 1st, 2020. 5. In light of the above, to protect public health, I am not able to travel to the Broward Transitional Center Detention Center in Pompano Beach, Florida, to obtain my client’s signature. 6. I spoke with Miguel Angel Marroquin Perez via Skype video call, read the declaration to him, and confirmed the accuracy of the information therein. Miguel Angel Marroquin Perez has confirmed the accuracy of the information therein. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed on May 8, 2020 at Miami, Florida.
______________________________________________ Maya Weissman Fabra, on behalf of Miguel Angel Marroquin Perez

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 106-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/20/2020 Page 109 of 152
DECLARATION OF RODNEY MARTIN I, Rodney Martin, hereby declare under the penalty of perjury pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746:
1. I make this declaration based on my personal knowledge except where I have indicated otherwise. If called as a witness, I could and would testify competently and truthfully to these matters.
2. I am a 48-year-old man from Jamaica, and I have been detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) since August 6, 2018. I am currently detained at the Baker County Detention Center (“Baker”) located in MacClenny, Florida.
3. I previously filed for relief before the Immigration Court, but the Immigration Judge denied my case on September 25, 2019. I filed an appeal with the Board of Immigration Appeals. The Board of Immigration Appeals denied my appeal on March 12, 2020, and I now have a final order of removal.
4. I have the following medical issues: type two diabetes, high blood pressure, ulcers, and shattered bone fragments in my right foot due to an injury I sustained while detained at Krome Processing Center (“Krome”).
5. At Krome, I took four medications each day, including insulin to manage my diabetes. I would take medication for high blood pressure, a water pill, and Metformin.
6. In ICE custody, I injured my foot playing soccer. Initially after I injured my foot, the doctor only provided me with ibuprofen. However, my foot became swollen, and the medical department decided to conduct an x-ray. The x-ray found bone fragments in my foot. I was taken to Larkin Hospital and told I need a surgical operation on my foot. This operation has not yet taken place. My foot remains swollen and it hurts. I am unable to walk on my right foot.

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 106-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/20/2020 Page 110 of 152
7. As a result, I have used a wheelchair since approximately December 2019. At Krome, I would use the handicap shower so that I could hold myself up.
8. On May 2, 2020, the Krome staff came to Pod 1 and told me that I would be transferred out of the facility. I began to cry because I was afraid of where they would take me. I refused to leave the housing unit and asked to speak to an ICE officer. The Krome staff decided to not transfer me that day and moved me to Pod 3.
9. On May 5, 2020, the Krome staff came to get me at about 2:00 a.m. to transfer me out of the facility. I was taken out to the bus in my wheelchair. The bus was not handicap accessible and did not have a ramp. Four guards had to lift me and carry me onto the bus. As they dragged me up the stairs, my back rubbed against the stairs and floor of the bus, cutting into my butt and lower back and leaving me with abrasions and wounds. I asked the guards to take a report to document these injuries, but they refused.
10. The guards placed me in one of the front rows of the bus. I was handcuffed with my hands restrained to a chain around my waist. My right foot was too swollen for the officers to place me in leg irons.
11. In the bus, all the detained people who were being transferred sat next to each other. The bus was full. Many of the men on the bus had been taken from Pod 2 at Krome which was still on quarantine the day we left Krome. We were not provided face masks or gloves. There were two guards in the bus during the transfer, and they did not always wear their masks.
12. During the bus ride, I could not use the bathroom the entire ride because I was unable to move around the bus due to my mobility issues. During the transfer, we received food twice which included bread with cheese and some water.

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 106-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/20/2020 Page 111 of 152

13. The bus stopped at another location before we reached Baker so that we could

switch drivers. When we stopped, I made a complaint to an officer about the way I was dragged

onto the bus at Krome and that my butt and lower back were in pain. They asked me who lifted

me on the bus, causing the scrapes, and I explained it was the AGS staff at Krome. Two nurses

came onto the bus and looked at the abrasions and wounds on my lower back. The nurses said,

“It’s just a scratch,” and wiped it and put antibacterial. One officer at the place we stopped

suggested taking a picture of my wounds, but they never did. The bus then continued on to

Baker.

14. When the bus arrived at Baker in the late afternoon on May 5, 2020, the Baker

staff said, “Get out and walk.” I told them I cannot walk as my foot is injured and I am waiting

for an operation. Baker officers lifted me out of the bus and put me on the cement ground. The

did not have a wheelchair for me to use. They claimed that Krome never told them that I needed

a wheelchair. Later, an officer came out with a grey chair that had belts connected to it to restrain

people. The Baker staff placed me in the chair and brought me into the booking area of the

facility. 15.

From May 5, 2020 when I arrived at Baker until Friday, May 8, 2020 in the

evening, the staff left me in the cell in the booking area. The cell has a toilet and two mattresses

each about four inches thick on the ground. There is no bed, and I am forced to sleep on the floor

with just the thin mattress and a blanket.

16. When I arrived at Baker, the staff did not take my temperature. I have not been

screened or tested for the coronavirus since I arrived at Baker. The nurses or doctors at this

facility have yet to conduct a full medical evaluation. The medical department does not have my

complete medical records from Krome that document my injury and the medical care I was

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 106-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/20/2020 Page 112 of 152
previously receiving. A nurse said they received a note from Krome stating that I walked on the bus at Krome and that I do not need a wheelchair, which is not true. Other men who were on the bus with me witnessed how I was dragged by the officers onto the bus.
17. At Baker, I filed a sick call request to receive medical attention for my wounds from the transfer. The nurse first came to see me, she looked at my back and refused to put bandages. She said it was better if my wounds were left open to heal on their own. On approximately Sunday May 10, 2020, I started receiving ibuprofen for my back pain, and the nurses bandaged the wounds on my butt and lower back. My butt and back are still in pain from the way I was taken on and off the bus.
18. At Krome, I received a special diet for diabetics. At Baker, I have not received any food that meets my specific medical needs. For example, in the morning, I receive two brown cakes, grits, and a boxed drink. For lunch, on May 8, 2020, I received two slices of white bread with peanut butter, a cookie, and juice. At night, I barely eat and often only drink the juice that is handed out. My blood sugar levels are difficult to control without a proper diet.
19. On May 7, 2020, I was not able to have two legal calls because the Baker staff refused to help me go over to where the phone is, and I did not have a wheelchair.
20. On May 8, 2020, while speaking with a legal assistant at Americans for Immigrant Justice, I was finally provided a wheelchair by the Baker staff. That same day in the evening, the Baker staff transferred me into a room in the medical unit. The cell had padded walls, a bed in the middle, and a toilet in the back of the cell.
21. On Saturday, May 9, 2020, the medical staff took an x-ray of my right foot. The medical staff have not provided me with a report on the results of the x-ray. The medical staff

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 106-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/20/2020 Page 113 of 152
have wrapped my right foot but have not provided me with any other information on how they plan to treat my injured foot.
22. On May 13, 2020 in the early morning, the Baker staff moved me out of the medical unit and back into a cell in the booking area. The cell I am now housed in has just a bed and a toilet. I remain isolated from the rest of the population at Baker. The cell does not have windows, and it is hard for me to keep track of what day it is.
23. I have not had access to a shower since I arrived at Baker on May 5, 2020. I asked to take a shower, but the staff denied my request stating that the wheelchair cannot be taken into the shower. The staff did not offer to help me take a shower. In my current cell in the booking area, I do not have access to a shower.
24. The officers at Baker are aggressive. They scream at me and call me names. The other day in the medical unit, an officer came into my cell when I tried to ask a question and yelled at me, “Shut up! Shut up!” The officer kicked my wheelchair in order to intimidate me, while I sat on my bed. The staff here do not want to help, and I am fearful that they will continue to threaten me or even harm me.
25. Officers at Baker have mentioned that they may move myself and others to Wakulla County Jail soon. I am scared of being transferred again after the wounds I have from the last transfer.
26. On March 27, 2020, I filed a release request with ICE based on my numerous medical issues. On April 23, 2020, I filed for a custody redetermination because I am a subclass member in Fraihat v. Immigration and Customs Enforcement due to my serious medical conditions and multiple risk factors.

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 106-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/20/2020 Page 114 of 152
27. Up to this date, ICE has not provided me with a decision on my request for release. When I was leaving Krome, I never received any decision on my release request or information on my case and was just transferred.
28. I have multiple family members living in the United States, including my sixyear-old daughter and my uncle who could serve as my sponsor if I were released.
29. I have authorized Lily Hartmann to sign on my behalf given the difficulty of arranging visitation and travel in light of the current COVID-19 pandemic. If required to do so, I will provide a signature when I am able to do so.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed on May 13, 2020
_________________________________________ Lily Hartmann, on behalf of Rodney Martin

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 106-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/20/2020 Page 115 of 152
LEGAL ASSISTANT DECLARATION I, Lily Hartmann, declare the following under penalty of perjury pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746:
1. My name is Lily Hartmann. I am a legal assistant at Americans for Immigrant Justice, a legal services organization located in Miami, Florida.
2. I am a legal assistant working with the legal team in Gayle v. Meade et al. Out of necessity in light of the COVID-19 pandemic, I signed Rodney Martin’s declaration on his behalf and with his expressed consent.
3. On May 5, 2020, ICE transferred Rodney Martin to Baker County Jail, which is located in MacClenny, Florida.
4. Further, ICE is now requiring legal visitors to provide and wear personal protective equipment, including disposable latex gloves, surgical masks, and eye protection while visiting any detention facility. These supplies are not easily accessible, given the increase in demand. Any available supplies are prioritized for hospitals and other medical facilities that are experiencing dangerous shortages.
5. There are documented cases of COVID-19 in all fifty U.S. states and most inhabited U.S. territories. The Center for Disease Control and Prevention (“CDC”) issued statements warning that individuals are at a higher risk of infection while traveling. In addition, I am a resident of Miami-Dade County, Florida and unable to travel to visit Rodney Martin under a state “Stay at Home” order issued by the Governor of Florida Ron DeSantis on April 1, 2020.
6. In light of the above, to protect public health, I am not able to travel to the Baker County Jail to obtain Rodney Martin’s signature.

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 106-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/20/2020 Page 116 of 152
7. I spoke with Rodney Martin via phone call, read the declaration to him, and confirmed the accuracy of the information therein. Rodney Martin confirmed the accuracy of the information therein.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed on May 13, 2020 at Miami, Florida.
_______________________________________________ Lily Hartmann

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 106-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/20/2020 Page 117 of 152
DECLARATION OF IRAN PICHARDO PEREZ-BORROTO I, Iran Pichardo Perez-Borroto, hereby declare under the penalty of perjury pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746:
1. I make this declaration based on my personal knowledge except where I have indicated otherwise. If called as a witness, I could and would testify competently and truthfully to these matters.
2. I am currently detained at Krome Service Processing Center (“Krome”) in Miami, Florida. I have been detained here since April 16, 2020. I have been in ICE custody since about August 7, 2019. I was transferred to Krome from El Paso Processing Center.
3. I am fifty-five years old. I have asthma. ICE is in charge of my well-being and my life. I beg that they help or release me.
4. On December 18, 2019, I was ordered removed by an immigration judge in El Paso. I am now awaiting my deportation to Cuba.
5. I spoke with a Deportation Officer the week before last week. He did not have information on my pending deportation. The Deportation Officer said that at this moment, there are no flights going out to Cuba. He merely told me that I am in a process and I have to wait, but he did not tell me how long the wait would be.
6. At Krome, I am in Pod 14A.

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 106-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/20/2020 Page 118 of 152
7. We are currently under quarantine. We were told that the quarantine will be lifted tomorrow, May 12, 2020. The pod has been under quarantine on and off for about two months.
8. We, in Pod 14A, are only receiving soap and shampoo once or twice a week. The amount we are receiving is not sufficient for what we need. If we need more shampoo or soap, we request it, but we do not always receive it. It is up to the guards whether we actually receive the additional soap or shampoo.
9. In the pod, there are currently about fifty detained people. 10.The beds are still positioned next to each other. I am in the lower bunk
because of my age. I have someone sleeping on each side of me. They both sleep in the same direction I do, not head to feet. Social distancing requirements are not met. 11.The man who slept on the bunk above me was taken out of the pod the week before last because he was exhibiting symptoms consistent with COVID-19. 12.We are in charge of cleaning our own pod. No one else helps us with cleaning the pod. To clean, we are given gloves, some rags, and a spray to wipe counters. We are not told what the spray is. We are not given any disinfecting wipes. Sometimes, to clean the tables, we also use toilet paper. We use toilet paper because there are no paper towels in the bathroom.

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 106-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/20/2020 Page 119 of 152
13.When we request medical attention, we are often not called back. For example, on May 5, 2020, I submitted a medical request because I was feeling short of breath. Two days after, a nurse came to speak with me. I told her I was feeling short of breath and headaches. She said that she would let the doctor and the doctor would follow up with me. I still have not heard from the doctor.
14.I am asthmatic. I have been given an inhaler, but still feel difficulty breathing. Despite having an inhaler, I still feel like I am not receiving adequate treatment for my asthma.
15.I have authorized Sawyeh Esmaili to sign on my behalf given the difficulty of arranging visitation and travel in light of the current COVID-19 pandemic. If required to do so, I will provide a signature when I am able to do so.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the things described above are true and correct.
Executed on May 11, 2020. ______________________________________ Sawyeh Esmaili, on behalf Iran Pichardo Perez-Borroto

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 106-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/20/2020 Page 120 of 152
CERTIFICATION I, Sawyeh Esmaili, declare that I am proficient in the English and Spanish languages. On May 11, 2020, I read the foregoing declaration to Iran Pichardo PerezBorroto and orally translated it faithfully and accurately into Spanish in the presence of the declarant. After I completed translating the declaration, the declarant verified that the contents of the foregoing declaration are true and accurate. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed on May 11, 2020.
Sawyeh Esmaili
ATTORNEY DECLARATION I, Sawyeh Esmaili, declare the following under penalty of perjury pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746:
1. My name is Sawyeh Esmaili. I am a licensed attorney in good standing in the state of Florida.
2. Out of necessity in light of the COVID-19 pandemic, I signed Iran Pichardo Perez-Borroto’s declaration on his behalf and with his express consent.
3. ICE is now requiring legal visitors to provide and wear personal protective equipment, including disposably vinyl gloves, surgical masks, and eye

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 106-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/20/2020 Page 121 of 152
protection while visiting any detention facility. These supplies are not easily accessible, given the increase in demand. Any available supplies are prioritized for hospitals and other medical facilities that are experiencing dangerous shortages. 4. There are documented cases of COVID-19 in all fifty U.S. states and most inhabited U.S. territories. The Centers for Disease Control and Protection (CDC) has issued statements warning that individuals are at a higher risk of infection when traveling. In addition, I am a resident of Miami Dade County, Florida and unable to travel to visit Mr. Pichardo under a state ‘Stay at home’ order issued by the Governor of Florida Ron DeSantis on April 1st, 2020. 5. In light of the above, to protect public health, I am not able to travel to the Krome Service Processing Center to obtain Mr. Pichardo’s signature. 6. I spoke with Iran Pichardo Perez-Borroto on the phone, read the declaration to him, and confirmed the accuracy of the information therein. Iran Pichardo Perez-Borroto has confirmed the accuracy of the information therein. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on May 11, 2020 at Miami, Florida.
______________________________________________ Sawyeh Esmaili, on behalf of Iran Pichardo Perez-Borroto

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 106-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/20/2020 Page 122 of 152
DECLARATION OF DEIVYS PEREZ VALLADARES I, Deivys Perez Valladares, hereby declare under the penalty of perjury pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746:
1. I make this declaration based on my personal knowledge except where I have indicated otherwise. If called as a witness, I could and would testify competently and truthfully to these matters.
2. I am 34 years old and I am a citizen of Cuba. 3. I am currently detained at Krome Service Processing Center (“Krome”) in Miami, Florida. I was previously detained at Broward Transitional Center (“BTC”) in Pompano Beach, Florida from March 20, 2020 to May 6, 2020. On May 6th, I was transferred from BTC to Krome. 4. I should have been considered for release because I have type-1 diabetes and hypertension. I am medically dependent on insulin to manage my diabetes. My diabetes has worsened since being detained. My sugar levels are very high. I typically required 15 units of insulin, and right now I am requiring 28 units of insulin. While I was detained in Georgia, I suffered from a heart condition that required me to be hospitalized for four days. I am now taking heart medication daily, but I was never told what my heart condition is. I have also developed cholesterol since being detained and I am now taking a pill every day to control my cholesterol. 5. My diabetes type-1 requires daily insulin to manage. I have informed the staff at Krome about my need but have not received my medication as of May 7, 2020. I fear for my life. 6. At BTC, I shared a room with five other people. No one in my room, including myself, had symptoms of the coronavirus (COVID-19). On May 6, 2020 at approximately 9:00 pm an official at BTC asked me and three other detained persons in the same room if we feared contracting COVID-19 given the confirmed case at the facility. The four of us affirmed we were afraid, and the official told us we were going to be transferred. I never received a decision or explanation of why I was transferred instead of released. Guards were verbally aggressive when I asked about the reason for transfer. They rejected giving us any information about our place of relocation. Staff at BTC did not complete a medical examination or confirmed we were in good state of health before transferring us.
1

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 106-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/20/2020 Page 123 of 152
We had shackles restraining our hands and feet during transfer. We were not given any masks or gloves. Guards were not wearing masks or gloves when interacting with us. They did not make accommodations for us to sit separately from each other during transfer. We waited for approximately an hour and a half in the dark inside a van before we left BTC. There were two surveillance cameras inside the van.
7. We arrived at Krome at approximately 1:00 am on May 7, 2020. Guards threw away the snacks and drinks I brought from BTC without explanation. Staff took our temperature and weight when we arrived at Krome. They did not do a complete medical examination on us or provide information about COVID-19. No masks or gloves were provided when we arrived. Only guards are using masks at Krome.
8. I was placed in general population with approximately 60 other people. The beds are very close to each other which makes it impossible to create social distancing in the pod. There is a man staying in the lower part of my bunk who has been showing symptoms. The toilets, showers, and beds are filthy. The bathroom has five toilets next to each other without division or privacy.
9. I have not had any contact with the deportation officer at Krome as of May 7, 2020.
10. I have authorized Andrea Ruiz-Sorrentini, a paralegal, to sign on my behalf given the difficulty of arranging visitation and travel in light of the current COVID-19 pandemic. If required to do so, I will provide a signature when I am able to do so. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed on May 7, 2020 at Miami, Florida.
_________________________________________________ Andrea C. Ruiz-Sorrentini, on behalf of Deivys Perez Valladares

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 106-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/20/2020 Page 124 of 152
CERTIFICATION OF TRANSLATION I, Andrea C. Ruiz-Sorrentini, declare that I am proficient in the English and Spanish languages. On May 7, 2020, I read the foregoing declaration to Deivys Perez Valladares and orally translated it faithfully and accurately into Spanish in the presence of the declarant. After I completed translating the declaration, the declarant verified that the contents of the foregoing declaration are true and accurate. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct. 
Executed on May 7, 2020 at Miami, Florida.
Andrea C. Ruiz-Sorrentini

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 106-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/20/2020 Page 125 of 152
PARALEGAL DECLARATION I, Andrea Cristina Ruiz-Sorrentini, declare the following under penalty of perjury pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746:
1. My name is Andrea Cristina Ruiz-Sorrentini. I am an outreach paralegal working with Southern Poverty Law Center at Miami, Florida.
2. I am a paralegal working with the legal team that represents the declarant in Gayle v Meade et al. Out of necessity in light of the COVID-19 pandemic, I signed Deivys Perez Valladares’ declaration on his behalf and with his express consent.
3. On May 6, 2020 ICE transferred my client to Krome in a van at approximately 9:00 pm.
4. ICE now requires legal visitors to provide and wear personal protective equipment, including disposable latex gloves, surgical masks, and eye protection while visiting any detention facility. These supplies are not easily accessible, given the increase in demand. Any available supplies are prioritized for hospitals and other medical facilities that are experiencing dangerous shortages.
5. There are documented cases of COVID-19 in all fifty U.S. states and most inhabited U.S. territories. The Centers for Disease Control and Protection (CDC) has issued statements warning that individuals are at a higher risk of infection when traveling. In addition, I am a resident of Miami-Dade County, Florida and unable to travel to visit my client under a state “Stay at Home” order issued by the Governor of Florida Ron DeSantis on April 1, 2020.
6. In light of the above, to protect public health, I am not able to travel to the Krome Service Processing Center in Miami, Florida, to obtain my client’s signature.
7. I spoke with Deivys Perez Valladares via phone call, read the declaration to him and confirmed the accuracy of the information therein. Deivys Perez Valladares has confirmed the accuracy of the information therein.

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 106-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/20/2020 Page 126 of 152
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct. 
Executed on May 7, 2020 at Miami, Florida.
____________________________ Andrea Cristina Ruiz-Sorrentini andrea.ruiz-sorrentini@splcenter.org 786-582-0386

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 106-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/20/2020 Page 127 of 152

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 106-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/20/2020 Page 128 of 152

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 106-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/20/2020 Page 129 of 152

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 106-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/20/2020 Page 130 of 152
DECLARATION OF FREDDY RODRIGUEZ DEL RIO I, Freddy Rodriguez Del Rio, hereby declare under the penalty of perjury pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746:
1. I make this declaration based on my personal knowledge except where I have indicated otherwise. If called as a witness, I could and would testify competently and truthfully to these matters.
2. I am currently detained at Broward Transitional Center (“BTC”), in Pompano Beach, FL. I have been detained here since late March 26, 2020. I was previously detained at El Paso Service Processing Center, Torrence County Detention Facility, Alexandria Staging Facility, and Pine Prairie ICE Processing Center.
3. I suffer from several medical conditions, including asthma and high blood pressure. 4. A doctor came around to all of the detainee rooms on approximately May 6, 2020 and told
us that there are 2 positive cases of COVID-19 at BTC. 5. The detainees who are positive for COVID-19 are housed in rooms by themselves, but they
leave to use the same recreation yard, water fountain, and phone that we use. I have not seen officials disinfecting the things that he touches before we use them. 6. I think there are about 150 people in quarantine right now. They are in regular rooms with 6 people to each room. 7. All of the detainee rooms on the first floor are now quarantine rooms. In order to achieve this, non-quarantined detainees have been moved around to different rooms multiple times this week to accommodate these quarantine rooms. I was moved rooms 2 times this week. 8. Those in quarantine have their clothes washed together with those of us who are not quarantined.

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 106-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/20/2020 Page 131 of 152
9. Today, May 13, 2020, approximately 33 detainees arrived at BTC from another detention center.
10. In the line for the cafeteria, detainees have to stand very close together. Every other seat in the cafeteria is blocked off, but we are still sitting very close together. When I am sitting in the cafeteria, I can reach my hand out and touch another detainee very easily. There are not 6 feet of distance between anyone on any side. Also, there is a line to get a uniform change and another line to purchase items in the commissary. In both of these lines, everyone is standing very close together.
11. When detainees watch television, they all sit next to each other. There is also a religious group that meets regularly, and the room is full of people and no one is practicing social distancing.
12. I have not seen the doors, windows, recreation yard, or phones being sanitized every four hours. The cleaning crew only cleans once per day. In addition, the cleaning crews only work on weekdays. If a high touch surface is infected on a Friday, it will not be cleaned until Monday.
13. At BTC we started to receive masks about two weeks ago and they typically give us new masks three times per week. The majority of detainees do not use them; they are not required to wear them.
14. At BTC, soap is given out to each person once a week. You are either assigned Tuesdays or Thursdays to receive soap. I have been assigned Thursdays. The staff give detainees a small amount of soap that has to last a week and it never does. Especially now, because we also have to use this soap to wash our hands. I have asked for more soap before and they have told me that I have to wait until the next Thursday.

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 106-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/20/2020 Page 132 of 152
15. I have authorized my attorney to sign on my behalf given the difficulty of arranging visitation and travel in light of the current COVID-19 pandemic. If required to do so, I will provide a signature when I am able.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on May 13, 2020.
______________________________________ Allison Norris, Esq., on behalf of Freddy Rodriguez Del Rio
CERTIFICATION I, Allison Norris Esq., declare that I am proficient in the English and Spanish languages. On May 8, 2020, I read the foregoing declaration to Freddy Rodriguez Del Rio’s and orally translated it faithfully and accurately into Spanish in the presence of the declarant. After I completed translating the declaration, the declarant verified that the contents of the foregoing declaration are true and accurate. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on May 8, 2020.
___________________________ Allison Norris, Esq.

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 106-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/20/2020 Page 133 of 152
ATTORNEY DECLARATION I, Allison Norris Esq., declare the following under penalty of perjury pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746:
1. My name is Allison Norris, Esq. I am a licensed attorney in good standing with the Florida Bar.
2. Out of necessity in light of the COVID-19 pandemic, I signed Freddy Rodriguez Del Rio’s declaration on his behalf and with his express consent.
3. ICE is now requiring legal visitors to provide and wear personal protective equipment, including disposably vinyl gloves, surgical masks, and eye protection while visiting any detention facility. These supplies are not easily accessible, given the increase in demand. Any available supplies are prioritized for hospitals and other medical facilities that are experiencing dangerous shortages.
4. There are documented cases of COVID-19 in all fifty U.S. states and most inhabited U.S. territories. The Centers for Disease Control and Protection (CDC) has issued statements warning that individuals are at a higher risk of infection when traveling. In addition, I am a resident of Miami Dade County, Florida and unable to travel to visit my client under a state ‘Stay at home’ order issued by the Governor of Florida Ron DeSantis on April 1st, 2020.
5. In light of the above, to protect public health, I am not able to travel to the Broward Transitional Detention Center in Pompano, Florida, to obtain my client’s signature.
6. I spoke with Freddy Rodriguez Del Rio via Skype video call, read the declaration to him, and confirmed the accuracy of the information therein. Freddy Rodriguez Del Rio has confirmed the accuracy of the information therein.

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 106-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/20/2020 Page 134 of 152
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on May 3, 2020 at Miami, Florida.
_____________________________________ Allison Norris, Esq., on behalf of Freddy Rodriguez Del Rio

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 106-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/20/2020 Page 135 of 152
DECLARATION OF DANNY RUIZ GARCIA
I, Danny Ruiz Garcia, hereby declare under the penalty of perjury pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746:
1. I make this declaration based on my personal knowledge except where I have indicated otherwise. If called as a witness, I could and would testify competently and truthfully to these matters.
2. I am currently detained at Broward Transitional Center (BTC). I have been detained here since March 26, 2020. I was previously detained in Pine Prairie ICE Processing Center in Louisiana.
3. I suffer from permanent lung damage on my right lung from pneumonia and a surgery when I was a child.
4. At BTC we get masks every three days, but virtually no one wears them. Most BTC staff members also do not wear masks.
5. There is a hand sanitizer pump by the court, cafeteria, and medical area. There is no hand sanitizer pump near the phones. The hand sanitizer in the cafeteria is often empty. When it is empty, we are only given hand sanitizer by a guard during lunch time.
6. Whether you get additional shower gel depends on which BTC staff member you ask. We are all given shower gel once a week. On May 5, 2020 at around 8:30 p.m., I asked a BTC staff member for additional shower gel and was denied. My roommate asked another BTC staff member and was given additional shower gel.
7. I have not received any education regarding hygiene or how to prevent the spread of COVID-19 at BTC. There are no posters in the facility with any information. What I know about COVID-19 is all from watching the news.

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 106-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/20/2020 Page 136 of 152
8. The general areas of the detention center are cleaned maybe twice a day, but not every four hours. On May 5, 2020 I did not observe the common areas being cleaned twice.
9. There are over 13 rooms in cohort. I believe most of those cohorted are transfers from Baker County Detention Center.
10. There are 90 people cohorted in one section of the detention center. Those rooms are for people that were transferred in. There are seven additional rooms cohorted for people we know are sick. Those rooms with sick people have three to four people per room. Room 125 is one of the rooms where there is someone sick. I know he is cohorted there alone.
11. I know there are seven rooms with people who are sick because we line up to receive cleaning supplies and other things right next to those seven rooms.
12. On the night of May 5, 2020, I observed a nurse give medication to the man in room 125 from a distance while she was in full protective gear. Typically, the medical staff at BTC go into the cohorted rooms to give medicine or take someone’s temperature, but the nurse behaved differently when she approached room 125. The nurse did not even open the door of the room, just slipped in the medicine.
13. During yard recreational time, those cohorted because they were transferred and those cohorted because they are sick can mix together since they go out at the same time.
14. We are five people sleeping in my room. There are three bunk beds. It is impossible to stay six feet away from my roommates.
15. When we eat in the cafeteria at BTC, we are more than fifty people eating at once. We all stand in line together. When we sit down to eat, there is an

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 106-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/20/2020 Page 137 of 152
empty stool between each one of us, but we are still not six feet apart from each other as we eat.
16. When we go to the yard, there are hundreds of us at once. All men who are not cohorted go to the yard at the same time. It is impossible to practice social distancing at any point throughout the day.
17. I have authorized my attorney to sign on my behalf given the difficulty of arranging visitation and travel in light of the current COVID-19 pandemic. If required to do so, I will provide a signature when I am able to do so.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the things described above are true and correct.
Executed on May 8, 2020.
______________________________________ Maya Weissman Fabra, on behalf of Danny Ruiz Garcia
CERTIFICATION I, Maya Weissman Fabra, declare that I am proficient in the English and Spanish languages.
On May 8, 2020, I read the foregoing declaration to Danny Ruiz Garcia and orally translated it faithfully and accurately into Spanish in the presence of the

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 106-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/20/2020 Page 138 of 152
declarant. After I completed translating the declaration, the declarant verified that the contents of the foregoing declaration are true and accurate.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed on May 8, 2020.
Maya Weissman Fabra

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 106-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/20/2020 Page 139 of 152
ATTORNEY DECLARATION I, Maya Weissman Fabra, declare the following under penalty of perjury pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746:
1. My name is Maya Weissman Fabra. I am a licensed attorney in good standing in the District of Columbia
2. Out of necessity in light of the COVID-19 pandemic, I signed Danny Ruiz Garcia’s declaration on his behalf and with his express consent.
3. ICE is now requiring legal visitors to provide and wear personal protective equipment, including disposably vinyl gloves, surgical masks, and eye protection while visiting any detention facility. These supplies are not easily accessible, given the increase in demand. Any available supplies are prioritized for hospitals and other medical facilities that are experiencing dangerous shortages.
4. There are documented cases of COVID-19 in all fifty U.S. states and most inhabited U.S. territories. The Centers for Disease Control and Protection (CDC) has issued statements warning that individuals are at a higher risk of infection when traveling. In addition, I am a resident of Miami Dade County, Florida and unable to travel to visit my client under a state ‘Stay at home’ order issued by the Governor of Florida Ron DeSantis on April 1st, 2020.

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 106-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/20/2020 Page 140 of 152
5. In light of the above, to protect public health, I am not able to travel to the Broward Transitional Center in Pompano Beach, Florida, to obtain Danny Ruiz Garcia’s signature.
6. I spoke with Danny Ruiz Garcia via Skype video call, read the declaration to him, and confirmed the accuracy of the information therein. Danny Ruiz Garcia has confirmed the accuracy of the information therein.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed on May 8, 2020 at Miami, Florida.
______________________________________________ Maya Weissman Fabra, on behalf of Danny Ruiz Garcia

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 106-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/20/2020 Page 141 of 152
DECLARATION OF JAMES SAINTYL I, James Saintyl, hereby declare under the penalty of perjury pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746:
1. I make this declaration based on my personal knowledge except where I have indicated otherwise. If called as a witness, I could and would testify competently and truthfully to these matters.
2. My name is James Saintyl and I am 23 years old and a citizen of Haiti. I am also a Legal Permanent Resident (“LPR”) in the United States and I arrived in the United States as an LPR when I was just five years old. All of my family lives in the United States, and my sister is in the military.
3. I am currently detained at the Glades County Detention Center (“GCDC”) in Moore Haven, Florida. I have been in the custody of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) since October 15, 2019. I was first detained at the Monroe County Jail until April 3, 2020 when I was transferred to the Krome Service Processing Center (“Krome”). On or about April 15, 2020, I was transferred from Krome to GCDC. I am currently in active removal proceedings, and my individual hearing is scheduled for May 26, 2020 at the Krome Immigration Court.
4. I have had asthma since I was a child and I keep an inhaler on my person in order to manage my asthma. I also have swollen airways that lead to labored breathing. I take Nasonex to try and manage this. In addition to my respiratory issues, I am slightly overweight. I fear I face a higher risk of complications from COVID-19 if I were to contract the virus due to my health issues.
5. I am currently detained in Pod D1 at GCDC. I am assigned to an open bay cell in this housing unit, which means the cell does not have a door and is open to the rest of the

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 106-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/20/2020 Page 142 of 152
housing unit. The cell is approximately ten feet by thirteen feet. The cell has six beds total; I am assigned to a bottom bunk. Currently, there are a total of five people assigned to this cell. The bunk beds are about four feet apart, but the person to my head is less than one foot away. The cell is very crowded.
6. At GCDC, I am stuck in the pod all day. We eat all three meals in the pod at tables in the common area. There are about four chairs around each table, and we sit close together as we eat. Given that my cell is currently full, and the housing unit continues to receive transfers from outside of GCDC, the only way I can social distance is by going to solitary confinement, but I am fearful of the conditions of solitary confinement at this facility.
7. When you go to medical, the GCDC staff or the nurses do not require that we wear a mask. The transporting officer will escort about twenty people at a time to reduce trips back and forth to the pods, so we all walk together to medical and wait in close quarters in the medical department waiting room. When I went to medical on May 14, 2020, only one or two of the fifteen people in the waiting room were wearing a mask.
8. Other detainees sanitize the pod only once a day. However, they often forget and do not clean. For example, on May 13, 2020, my pod was not cleaned. I do not have access to disinfecting wipes to clean on my own.
9. In my pod, we do not have access to hand sanitizer. A soap dispenser was installed in each of the bathrooms, but the soap is only refilled once a week. Given the large number of people in the pod, the soap runs out in about a day.
10. On Tuesdays and Fridays, the GCDC staff provide a small bottle of a solution called “shampoo gel.” The bottle is very small and so it does not last more than a couple uses.

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 106-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/20/2020 Page 143 of 152
11. About two weeks ago, on May 1, 2020, we started receiving a mask each Friday. Up to this point, I have received two masks from GCDC staff. The first mask looked like a proper, blue medical mask. However, the second mask appears to have been stitched together by hand. It was made out of a hair net and a coffee filter. I do not believe that this makeshift mask will block germs or air carrying the virus. Many of the officers have masks but they wear them around their necks and do not use the masks to cover their mouths.
12. There has been a lot of movement in and out of the pod where I am at GCDC. The pod was nearly emptied about a week ago when people were transferred and then filled back up with new arrivals within a matter of hours. As far as I am aware, there is no routine intake quarantine at GCDC. When people are transferred to GCDC, they are brought directly to the pods. On May 15, 2020, I spoke to one man in my pod who was transferred from Krome to GCDC on May 15, 2020 with 30 other people on a bus. He was immediately placed in the pod at GCDC and was not placed in quarantine first.
13. When I first arrived at GCDC, a woman who works in the kitchen was reported to have the virus. A few who worked in the kitchen got quarantined because she had the virus.
14. At Krome Service Processing Center, I fell off the bunk and was taken to Larkin Hospital. At Larkin Hospital, I was tested for COVID-19. I never received the results of my COVID-19 test and was transferred back to Krome Service Processing Center. Since I have been detained at GCDC, I have not been tested for COVID-19.
15. ICE officers have not visited my pod at GCDC for the last month while I have been detained at GCDC. I am not able to speak directly to ICE and make complaints about the conditions at the facility or ask questions about my case.

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 106-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/20/2020 Page 144 of 152
16. On Monday, May 12, 2020, I filed a release request with ICE asking that I be released from detention pending my removal proceedings given my multiple health issues and increased risk of complications if I were to contract COVID-19 in detention. Since I made that request, the deportation officer has not provided a response to my release request. If I were to be released from detention, I would comply with proper social distancing rules.
17. I have authorized Lily Hartmann to sign on my behalf given the difficulty of arranging visitation and travel in light of the current COVID-19 pandemic. If required to do so, I will provide a signature when I am able to do so.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed on May 15, 2020
_________________________________________ Lily Hartmann, on behalf of James Saintyl

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 106-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/20/2020 Page 145 of 152
LEGAL ASSISTANT DECLARATION I, Lily Hartmann, declare the following under penalty of perjury pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746:
1. My name is Lily Hartmann. I am a legal assistant at Americans for Immigrant Justice, a legal services organization located in Miami, Florida.
2. I am a legal assistant working with the legal team in Gayle v. Meade et al. Out of necessity in light of the COVID-19 pandemic, I signed James Saintyl’s declaration on his behalf and with his expressed consent.
3. Further, ICE is now requiring legal visitors to provide and wear personal protective equipment, including disposable latex gloves, surgical masks, and eye protection while visiting any detention facility. These supplies are not easily accessible, given the increase in demand. Any available supplies are prioritized for hospitals and other medical facilities that are experiencing dangerous shortages.
4. There are documented cases of COVID-19 in all fifty U.S. states and most inhabited U.S. territories. The Center for Disease Control and Prevention (“CDC”) issued statements warning that individuals are at a higher risk of infection while traveling. In addition, I am a resident of Miami-Dade County, Florida and unable to travel to visit James Saintyl under a state “Stay at Home” order issued by the Governor of Florida Ron DeSantis on April 1, 2020. Furthermore, the State of Florida has a State of Emergency in place that the Governor renewed for sixty (60) additional days on Monday, May 11, 2020.
5. In light of the above, to protect public health, I am not able to travel to the Glades County Detention Center to obtain James Saintyl’s signature.

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 106-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/20/2020 Page 146 of 152
6. I spoke with James Saintyl via phone call, read the declaration to him, and confirmed the accuracy of the information therein. James Saintyl confirmed the accuracy of the information therein.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed on May 15, 2020 at Miami, Florida.
_______________________________________________ Lily Hartmann

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 106-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/20/2020 Page 147 of 152
DECLARATION OF DUSHANE SPAULDING
I, Dushane Spaulding, hereby declare under the penalty of perjury pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746:
1. I make this declaration based on my personal knowledge except where I have indicated otherwise. If called as a witness, I could and would testify competently and truthfully to these matters.
2. I am 33 years old, from Jamaica. 3. I am currently detained at Glades County Detention Center in Moore Haven, Florida. I have been detained here since April 22, 2020. I was previously detained at Krome. I have been in immigration detention since July 2019. 4. I have a U.S. Citizen wife and two U.S. Citizen children, including a developmentally disabled baby. I am a lawful permanent resident facing removal because of my criminal history, and I am seeking a U-visa because I was the victim of attempted murder while in jail serving my criminal sentence. 5. I suffer repeated seizures and chronic migraine headaches, along with ongoing pain in my face and jaw. I fear that my history of seizures and smoking makes me particularly vulnerable if I contract COVID-19. 6. I was transferred from Krome on April 22, 2020. I was in a full Jitney bus of about 20 people with a bathroom in the back, and I was seated immediately next to another detainee. We were seated so close that we were touching each other. We weren’t given masks, hand sanitizer, or gloves during the transfer. 7. At Glades, I share my cell with five other men, and we sleep in a room of six bunk beds, so it is impossible to social distance. There are currently about 81 or 82 people in my pod, and we all share the common area, where we also eat our meals. The pod is nearly full, and its capacity is around 95 people. When we eat our meals, we sit very close together, with four people at a table, less than 6

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 106-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/20/2020 Page 148 of 152
feet apart. When we go to medical it is also impossible to stay 6 feet apart from each other, because we all wait next to each other. When we go to recreation, we are also close together, and we share the same soccer ball and drink from the same cooler. Sometimes the men from the next pod also are in the recreation space while we are. We often run out of soap, because the guards give us soap only once every two weeks, and when I asked for a refill they told me I was wasting the soap and that I had to wait for soap day. Sometimes when I try to wash my hands in the sink, there is none.
8. Detainees prepare the food and do the cleaning. When detainees are preparing the food they sometimes wear gloves and a hair net, along with the mask that they already have been given by the facility, but sometimes they do not wear the mask or gloves. When we clean, we often do not receive gloves. Last night I cleaned the space where we all sleep and I did not receive gloves. I have been at Glades for three weeks, and I have received a disposable mask two different times. My mask is dirty and has broken so I can’t use it and the guards told me I have to wait to receive another one. We have not been trained on hygiene measures in order to limit the spread of infectious diseases while completing these tasks. A couple of days ago the guards put up some posters that said to wash your hands, but otherwise we have not received training.
9. I have to purchase soap from the commissary since there is not enough soap made available for us. I sometimes do not have enough money to buy soap in my commissary account. Most guards are wearing masks, but sometimes they take down their masks to talk to detainees. They sometimes are not wearing gloves. The sergeant, a head guard called Sergeant Sierra, usually does not wear gloves or a mask. I’ve noticed the guards are touching things in the living space, medical, and other parts of the facility and they do not change their gloves all day, so we have to ask them to change their gloves, but when we ask them to they

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 106-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/20/2020 Page 149 of 152
sometimes get offended. 10. I was brought to Glades just a few weeks ago, and I was not put into
isolation before I was placed in a large pod and shared bedroom with five other men in bunk beds. Since I was brought in, I have been moved to a different pod, so I have shared a pod with a total of nearly 200 men since I arrived here. I have seen new men brought into my pod from different detention facilities and from outside of detention, and they have not been placed into quarantine when they have first arrived.
11. I have had trouble accessing medical help while in ICE detention. Because of my ongoing pain from the attack I suffered, I have repeatedly asked to see a doctor but have often been denied an appointment. I got an MRI when I was detained in Monroe Detention Center, before I was transferred to Glades, because of my pain. Despite my repeated requests at Krome, I was not advised of the results of my MRI. I have been in Glades three weeks and have requested to see the results of the MRI and to get further treatment for my pain, but I still have not gotten a copy of the MRI and the doctor just gave me some pain killers and told me I have to deal with the rest of the pain. He said I need to see an oral surgeon but that I cannot see one until I leave detention.
12. The guards put all the detainees who worked in the kitchen into quarantine, and I heard this was because someone tested positive in the kitchen. We have all requested tests, but none of the detainees have been able to get a test. Recently the detainees who work in the kitchen were taken off quarantine, but the guards never explained why there was the quarantine. The other men in my pod and I requested to the sergeant three weeks ago to speak with ICE to try to understand what is going on with COVID-19, but they still have not responded to our request.
13. I have seen people in my pod coughing, but we do not know if anyone

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 106-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/20/2020 Page 150 of 152
has COVID because we have not received tests. We heard that one guard tested positive for COVID. I am not aware of any increases of medical staffing or medical screenings.
14. My temperature was taken once before I entered the facility, but otherwise I have received no screening. Despite my vulnerabilities to COVID-19, no member of the medical staff has evaluated my conditions or well-being to determine whether any additional precautionary measures are necessary to protect me from the illness. I am afraid for my life.
15. If I am released from detention, I will comply with any applicable conditions of release including attending check-ins and immigration court hearings.
16. If released, I would live with my U.S. Citizen wife Syboney DeGrasse in Palm Bay, Florida, where I would be able to socially distance.
17. I have authorized a law student, Meredith Hoffman, to sign on my behalf given the difficulty of arranging visitation and travel in light of the current COVID-19 pandemic. If required to do so, I will provide a signature when I am able to do so.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the things described above are true and correct.
Executed on May 14, 2020.
______________________________________ Meredith Hoffman, On Behalf of Dushane Spaulding

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 106-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/20/2020 Page 151 of 152
LAW STUDENT DECLARATION I, Meredith Hoffman, declare the following under penalty of perjury pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746:
1. My name is Meredith Hoffman. I am a law student in the University of Miami School of Law, supervised by Attorney Rebecca Sharpless.
2. Out of necessity in light of the COVID-19 pandemic, I signed Dushane Spaulding’s declaration on his behalf and with his express consent.
3. ICE is now requiring legal visitors to provide and wear personal protective equipment, including disposably vinyl gloves, surgical masks, and eye protection while visiting any detention facility. These supplies are not easily accessible, given the increase in demand. Any available supplies are prioritized for hospitals and other medical facilities that are experiencing dangerous shortages.
4. There are documented cases of COVID-19 in all fifty U.S. states and most inhabited U.S. territories. The Centers for Disease Control and Protection (CDC) has issued statements warning that individuals are at a higher risk of infection when traveling. In addition, I am a resident of Miami Dade County, Florida and unable to travel to visit my client under a state ‘Stay at home’ order issued by the Governor of Florida Ron DeSantis on April 1st, 2020.
5. In light of the above, to protect public health, I am not able to travel to the Glades County Detention Center in Moore Haven, Florida, to obtain Dushane Spaulding’s signature.
6. I spoke with Dushane Spaulding via phone call, read the declaration to him, and confirmed the accuracy of the information therein. Dushane Spaulding has confirmed the accuracy of the information therein.

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 106-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/20/2020 Page 152 of 152
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed on May 14, 2020 at Miami, Florida. ______________________________________________ Meredith Hoffman, On Behalf of Dushane Spaulding

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 106-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/20/2020 Page 1 of 12
Ex. B

CCasaese1:52:01-9c-vc-v2-1051534-6M-JGGCB-SDHoKcumDeonctu1m0e6n-3t 15E0nteFrieleddo0n5F/1L5S/2D0DoPcakgeet 015o/2f 01/1202P0agePaIDge#:228o8f 12

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL

Case No. EDCV 19-1546 JGB (SHKx)

Date May 15, 2020

Title Faour Abdallah Fraihat, et al. v. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, et al.

Present: The Honorable JESUS G. BERNAL, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

MAYNOR GALVEZ Deputy Clerk

Not Reported Court Reporter

Attorney(s) Present for Plaintiff(s): None Present

Attorney(s) Present for Defendant(s): None Present

Proceedings: Order (1) GRANTING Plaintiffs’ Ex Parte Application (Dkt. No. 136); and (2) DENYING Defendants’ Ex Parte Applications to Strike (Dkt. Nos. 141, 148) (IN CHAMBERS)

Before the Court are: (1) Plaintiffs’ ex parte application for issuance of notice to class members of the preliminary injunction order and to obtain information and documents from Defendants necessary to monitor compliance with that order, (“Application,” Dkt. No. 136); and (2) Defendants’ ex parte applications to strike (“Defendants’ Ex Parte Applications,” Dkt. Nos 141, 148). The Court held a telephonic hearing on the Application on Tuesday May 5, 2020. After considering the papers filed in support of and in opposition to the matters, and the oral argument of the parties, the Court GRANTS the Application, as set forth below, and DENIES the Defendants’ Ex Parte Applications.
I. 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, (“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.) They named as Defendants U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”), U.S. Department

Page 1 of 11

CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL

Initials of Deputy Clerk iv

CCasaese1:52:01-9c-vc-v2-1051534-6M-JGGCB-SDHoKcumDeonctu1m0e6n-3t 15E0nteFrieleddo0n5F/1L5S/2D0DoPcakgeet 025o/2f 01/1202P0agePaIDge#:328o8f 212
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.)
On April 15, 2020, the Court denied Defendants’ motion to sever and dismiss. (“MTD Order,” Dkt. No. 126.) On April 20, 2020, the Court granted Plaintiffs’ emergency motion for provisional class certification and motion for preliminary injunction. (“PI Order,” Dkt. No. 132 (providing further background on Plaintiffs, Defendants, and the history of this action); “Class Certification Order,” Dkt. No. 133). The Court certified the following two subclasses under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2):
1. Subclass One: All people who are detained in ICE custody who have one or more of the Risk Factors placing them at heightened risk of severe illness and death upon contracting the COVID-19 virus. The Risk Factors are defined as being over the age of 55; being pregnant; or having chronic health conditions, including: cardiovascular disease (congestive heart failure, history of myocardial infarction, history of cardiac surgery); high blood pressure; chronic respiratory disease (asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease including chronic bronchitis or emphysema, or other pulmonary diseases); diabetes; cancer; liver disease; kidney disease; autoimmune diseases (psoriasis, rheumatoid arthritis, systemic lupus erythematosus); severe psychiatric illness; history of transplantation; and HIV/AIDS.
2. Subclass Two: All people who are detained in ICE custody whose disabilities place them at heightened risk of severe illness and death upon contacting the COVID-19 virus. Covered disabilities include: cardiovascular disease (congestive heart failure, history of myocardial infarction, history of cardiac surgery); high blood pressure; chronic respiratory disease (asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease including chronic bronchitis or emphysema, or other pulmonary diseases); diabetes; cancer; liver disease; kidney disease; autoimmune diseases (psoriasis, rheumatoid arthritis, systemic lupus erythematosus); severe psychiatric illness; history of transplantation; and HIV/AIDS.
(collectively, “Subclasses”) (Class Certification Order.) The Court also issued a preliminary injunction (“Preliminary Injunction”), ordering as follows:
 Defendants shall provide ICE Field Office Directors with the Risk Factors identified in the Subclass definition;

Page 2 of 11

CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL

Initials of Deputy Clerk iv

CCasaese1:52:01-9c-vc-v2-1051534-6M-JGGCB-SDHoKcumDeonctu1m0e6n-3t 15E0nteFrieleddo0n5F/1L5S/2D0DoPcakgeet 035o/2f 01/1202P0agePaIDge#:428o8f 312

 Defendants shall identify and track all ICE detainees with Risk Factors. Most should be identified within ten days of this Order or within five days of their detention, whichever is later;
 Defendants shall make timely custody determinations for detainees with Risk Factors, per the latest Docket Review Guidance. In making their determinations, Defendants should consider the willingness of detainees with Risk Factors to be released, and offer information on post-release planning, which Plaintiffs may assist in providing;
 Defendants shall provide necessary training to any staff tasked with identifying detainees with Risk Factors, or delegate that task to trained medical personnel;

 The above relief shall extend to detainees with Risk Factors regardless of whether they have submitted requests for bond or parole, have petitioned for habeas relief, have requested other relief, or have had such requests denied;

 Defendants shall promptly issue a performance standard or a supplement to their Pandemic Response Requirements (“Performance Standard”) defining the minimum acceptable detention conditions for detainees with the Risk Factors, regardless of the statutory authority for their detention, to reduce their risk of COVID-19 infection pending individualized determinations or the end of the pandemic;
 Defendants shall monitor and enforce facility-wide compliance with the Pandemic Response Requirements and the Performance Standard.
(PI Order at 38-39.)
Plaintiffs filed the Application on April 24, 2020, four days after the PI and Class Certification Orders. (App.) In support of the Application, Plaintiffs attach a proposed notice to the Subclasses (“Proposed Notice,” App., Ex. A.), a list of categories of information and documents they seek from Defendants, (“Document Request,” App., Ex. B), and the declaration of Timothy Fox, (“Fox Declaration,” Dkt. No. 136-1 (attaching email correspondence as exhibits).).
Defendants opposed the Application on April 28, 2020. (“Opposition,” Dkt. No. 139). Defendants did not attach any exhibits or declarations. Plaintiffs replied on April 29, 2020, (“Reply,” Dkt. No. 140), and included in support of the Reply a declaration and exhibits. (“Fleischman Declaration,” Dkt. No. 140-1 (attaching Exhibits A through C).) On April 30, 2020 Defendants filed an ex parte application to strike Plaintiffs’ new evidence submitted in their Reply, (Dkt. No. 141). The Court DENIES this Ex Parte Application.
A few hours before the May 5, 2020 hearing, Defendants submitted a supplemental declaration. (“Hott Declaration,” Dkt. No. 144.) At the hearing, the Court granted Plaintiffs leave to respond to the Hott Declaration and ordered the parties to meet and confer and to

Page 3 of 11

CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL

Initials of Deputy Clerk iv

CCasaese1:52:01-9c-vc-v2-1051534-6M-JGGCB-SDHoKcumDeonctu1m0e6n-3t 15E0nteFrieleddo0n5F/1L5S/2D0DoPcakgeet 045o/2f 01/1202P0agePaIDge#:528o8f 412

submit a joint filing as to any unresolved issues. (Dkt. No. 145.) On May 8, 2020, Plaintiffs filed a response, (“Plaintiffs’ Response,” Dkt. No. 146), and included several declarations in support of the Response, (“Fleischman Declaration II,” Dkt. No. 146-1; “Alderman Declaration,” Dkt. No. 146-2; “Venters Declaration,” Dkt. No. 146-3). The parties filed their joint statement the same day. (“Joint Statement,” Dkt. No. 147 (attaching “Hott Declaration II” as Exhibit 1).) Two days later, Defendants filed an ex parte application to strike Plaintiffs’ declarations attached in support of their Response to the first Hott Declaration. (Dkt. No. 148.) The next day, Plaintiffs opposed Defendants’ second ex parte application. (Dkt. No. 149.) The Court also DENIES Defendants’ second Ex Parte Application.
The Court ADMONISHES all Counsel to refrain from submitting ex parte applications and from submitting unsolicited or tardy supplemental declarations without adequate notice to opposing counsel. For example, Defendants have twice ambushed Plaintiffs—and the Court— just hours before a hearing with new policy documents or declarations. In the future, Counsel is ORDERED to submit any supplements at least 24 hours before a scheduled hearing, and to provide opposing counsel with another 24 hours’ oral and electronic notice of the supplement. The Court emphasizes that any document or argument not filed pursuant to Court order or regular notice procedures, for example a supplement or ex parte application, must include the L.R. 7-19.1 declaration under oath and be supported by good cause. Failure to comply with these requirements will result in sanctions.
II. LEGAL STANDARD
A Rule 23(b)(2) class is considered “mandatory,” as “[t]he Rule provides no opportunity for . . . (b)(2) class members to opt out, and does not even oblige the District Court to afford them notice of the action.” Wal–Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 131 S. Ct. 2541, 2558 (2011). Nevertheless, notice may be appropriate depending on the circumstances. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(2)(A) (“For any class certified under Rule [23(b)(2)], the court may direct appropriate notice to the class.”); Lilly v. Jamba Juice Co., 2015 WL 1248027, at *8 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 18, 2015) (“Courts typically require less notice in Rule 23(b)(2) actions, as their outcomes do not truly bind class members”).
Courts have inherent authority to monitor and enforce their prior orders. See Shillitani v. United States, 384 U.S. 364, 370 (1966). That authority extends to allowing post judgment discovery to aid the court in determining whether a party has complied with the order. See Richmark Corp. v. Timber Falling Consultants, Inc., 937 F.2d 1444, 1449 (9th Cir. 1991). A district court “should give careful attention to a request for discovery to establish noncompliance with one of its judgments.” California Dep’t of Soc. Servs. v. Leavitt, 523 F.3d 1025, 1033 (9th Cir. 2008); Hallett v. Morgan, 296 F.3d 732, 740 (9th Cir. 2002) (concluding failure to allow discovery regarding noncompliance was not an abuse of discretion, after a two-week evidentiary hearing on compliance, because the material subject to the request was minimally relevant).
// //

Page 4 of 11

CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL

Initials of Deputy Clerk iv

CCasaese1:52:01-9c-vc-v2-1051534-6M-JGGCB-SDHoKcumDeonctu1m0e6n-3t 15E0nteFrieleddo0n5F/1L5S/2D0DoPcakgeet 055o/2f 01/1202P0agePaIDge#:628o8f 512

III. DISCUSSION
Plaintiffs request issuance of the Class Notice to the class members informing them of the PI Order requirements, and they seek information and documents from Defendants necessary to monitor compliance with the PI Order. (App. at 2-3; Class Notice; Document Request.) In light of the exigent circumstances of the COVID-19 pandemic and the interest of class members in being informed of the action, the Court GRANTS the Application.
A. Class Notice
While rigorous class notice is certainly not required for the Rule 23(b)(2) subclasses, it is equally clear that the Court has broad discretion to order an “appropriate” level of notice for members of the Subclasses. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(2)(A). Although “notice seems to be favored” under Rule 23(c)(2)(A), a court should “decide against requiring notice if the court determines that the benefits of notice are outweighed by the risk that notice costs may deter the pursuit of class relief.” 5 Moore’s Federal Practice - Civil § 23.100 (2020). Here, the costs of notice will not deter the pursuit of class relief, and the burdens and costs involved are negligible. The Subclass Members are a captive population with whom Defendants may readily communicate, for example by posting notice in designated common areas of detention facilities. Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. v. Sanders, 437 U.S. 340, 358–359 (1978) (holding cost of notice may incur to defendant, if it is insubstantial); Barahona-Gomez v. Reno, 167 F.3d 1228, 1236–1237 (9th Cir. 1999) (holding the district court did not err in ordering the defendant INS to provide notice to class, because INS was uniquely positioned to ascertain class membership and could easily attach notice to other distributions). As a result, the Court finds it is appropriate to require Defendants to provide Subclass Members with notice of the action, as detailed in the Conclusion below.
B. Document Request
Limited but regular document production is needed in this case to ensure that Defendants comply with the requirements of the Preliminary Injunction. When the Court issued the Preliminary Injunction on April 20, 2020, ICE reported 124 confirmed detainees cases of COVID-19 across twenty-five facilities. (PI Order at 6.) Today, ICE reports 986 detainee cases across more than forty facilities.1 In its PI Order, the Court detailed Defendants’ lethargic response to the COVID-19 pandemic. In light of the exploding number of detainees testing positive, the Court is concerned that Defendants continue to slow walk their systemwide pandemic response. The documents requested by Plaintiffs are necessary to ascertain Defendants’ level of compliance.
The Court is underwhelmed with the amount of information regarding compliance— which is to say, virtually no information beyond conclusory assurances—provided by Defendants in the Opposition. Opp’n at 2 (“ICE is implementing procedures pursuant to the PI Order that

1 ICE Guidance on COVID-19, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, https://www.ice.gov/coronavirus

Page 5 of 11

CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL

Initials of Deputy Clerk iv

CCasaese1:52:01-9c-vc-v2-1051534-6M-JGGCB-SDHoKcumDeonctu1m0e6n-3t 15E0nteFrieleddo0n5F/1L5S/2D0DoPcakgeet 065o/2f 01/1202P0agePaIDge#:728o8f 612

benefit all class members.”) Defendants’ cavalier approach to the Preliminary Injunction is disturbing. So is their argument the Court did not order “immediate” action or compliance, so no proof of compliance is or can be required at this time. (Opp’n at 3.) Defendants’ stance on compliance ignores the acute threat posed by COVID-19 to the Subclasses and that their response to date has been lackadaisical and likely objectively deliberately indifferent. (PI Order at 31-32.) The Court imposed a strict timeline of ten days for ICE to identify and begin tracking nearly all Subclass Members, required “timely” custody determinations, and commanded “prompt” issuance of a Performance Standard or Pandemic Response Requirements (“PRR”) supplement. Certain aspects of the Preliminary Injunction specified no timeline and so were intended to have immediate or near-immediate effect, for example, that Defendants expand the categories of individuals eligible for custody determinations under the Docket Review Guidance. (Id. at 38-39.)
Even after Defendants’ supplemental filings, the Court has little difficulty finding Defendants are not complying with multiple aspects of the Preliminary Injunction. For example, Defendants have completely ignored the Court’s order to develop a Performance Standard or supplement to the PRR with more detailed minimum requirements for the detention of individuals with Risk Factors.2 (See Joint Response at 21-22.) Similarly, Defendants state that the Court “did not order Defendants to track anything” concerning monitoring and enforcement of detention standards or the PRR. (Id. at 23.) That is not correct. The Preliminary Injunction orders Defendants to “monitor and enforce facility-wide compliance with the [PRR].” (PI Order at 38-39.) Defendants’ nonsensical position appears to be that they can monitor and enforce the PRR by utilizing pre-pandemic annual compliance mechanisms not updated to reflect the PRR, (Hott Decl. II), or that they can monitor and enforce the PRR without also “tracking” their efforts to do the same. These responses provide ample basis for the Court to require proof of compliance beyond the conclusory Hott Declarations.

2 The PRR leave excessive wiggle room for facilities when it comes to Subclass Members. Although the PRR purport to mandate the CDC “Interim Guidance,” it is not clear what facilities are to understand by this now mandatory “guidance,” which itself provides only vague protections to Subclass Members. Three examples come to mind. First, the CDC Interim Guidance provides only that higher risk individuals “ideally . . . should not” be cohorted with other infected individuals and that if this is “unavoidable, then all possible accommodations,” should be provided. (See PI Order at 7.) A facility might read this and conclude that Subclass members who are not sick can be cohorted in an infected unit, with unspecified accommodations. Second, the Interim Guidance suggests changing the work duties of detention facility staff with Risk Factors, but does not suggest the same for at risk detainees who work within the facility. Finally, the Interim Guidance takes as a given but does not appear to explicitly require immediate identification and protection of detainees with Risk Factors. Risk Factor screening is only mentioned after a detainee has become symptomatic. (Interim Guidance at 23.) To restate what should by now be obvious, these gaps are very likely to result in unconstitutional conditions of confinement for Subclass Members who remain detained. For this reason, the Court ordered Defendants to provide a more concrete standard to protect Subclass Members.

Page 6 of 11

CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL

Initials of Deputy Clerk iv

CCasaese1:52:01-9c-vc-v2-1051534-6M-JGGCB-SDHoKcumDeonctu1m0e6n-3t 15E0nteFrieleddo0n5F/1L5S/2D0DoPcakgeet 075o/2f 01/1202P0agePaIDge#:828o8f 712

Defendants repeatedly argue that Plaintiffs fail to establish discovery concerning compliance is warranted, because they fail to raise a “significant question” regarding compliance. (Opp’n at 3 (citing Leavitt, 523 F.3d at 1034).) Yet, as the Court has observed, Defendants’ own statements raise significant questions. Moreover, as Leavitt makes clear, the standard for allowing discovery is permissive:
When considering whether to permit discovery prior to resolution of [a motion to enforce a judgment], the kind and amount of evidence of noncompliance required to justify discovery is, necessarily, considerably less than that needed to show actual noncompliance.
Leavitt, 523 F.3d 1025, 1034 (9th Cir. 2008). Plaintiffs’ declarations satisfy this standard. (See Fleischman Decl., Fleischman Decl. II.)
The Court also rejects Defendants’ contention that there is not “good cause” to allow discovery prior to the Rule 26(f) conference. (Opp’n at 4 (citing Am. LegalNet, Inc. v. Davis, 673 F. Supp. 2d 1063, 1067 (C.D. Cal. 2009).) Although a preliminary injunction has been issued, the Court noted it will endure as long as COVID-19 poses a substantial threat of harm to the Subclasses and that the parties could apply to modify the order. (PI Order at 39.) The need for rapid information exchange is illustrated by Defendants’ slow response to date and the vicissitudes of the pandemic. Finally, the request is not unreasonably far in advance of the Rule 26(f) conference, as the Court recently ruled on Defendants’ motion to dismiss and ordinary discovery may begin shortly.
Defendants did not initially object to the scope of the information requested or quarrel with the content of the Document Request, which includes a list of eight categories of information and a production schedule. (App. at 3; Document Request.) The Court has reviewed the Joint Statement and Defendants’ objections to each category of information. The Court finds the document production ordered below is proportional to the needs of this case and will not impose any undue burden on Defendants.
// // // // // // // // // // // // //

Page 7 of 11

CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL

Initials of Deputy Clerk iv

CCasaese1:52:01-9c-vc-v2-1051534-6M-JGGCB-SDHoKcumDeonctu1m0e6n-3t 15E0nteFrieleddo0n5F/1L5S/2D0DoPcakgeet 085o/2f 01/1202P0agePaIDge#:928o8f 812

IV. CONCLUSION
The Court DENIES Defendants’ ex parte applications to strike. (Dkt. Nos. 141, 148). The Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ application for class notice and to obtain information to monitor compliance.
The Court ORDERS Defendants to provide Subclass Members with Notice as follows:
1. Regarding the form and method of Notice:
o Defendants shall translate the Notice into Spanish, and Plaintiffs will provide translations in eight languages, which Defendants may verify and which Defendants shall post within four days of receipt;
o Defendants shall post the Notice in common areas of each dormitory and in law libraries for the duration of the Preliminary Injunction. Copies of the Preliminary Injunction and Class Certification Orders shall be available in law libraries;
o Defendants shall provide written notice in the appropriate language to detainees who are unable to access common areas for at least four hours a day, whether due to segregation, quarantine, or medical isolation. Such notice shall also be provided to the newly detained, and shall be refreshed in the event of transfer. Defendants shall accommodate individuals who are blind and low vision, or who otherwise have difficulty reading the notice;
o Defendants shall add two phone numbers provided by Plaintiffs to a pro bono platform at all detention facilities which will permit free, confidential access, with passive acceptance only. For individuals who are hard of hearing or who are deaf, Defendants shall provide Video Relay Service and/or Teletypewriters.
2. Regarding content:
o The Notice is approved as written, but shall be modified to include information regarding the free call platform and shall advise detainees3 of how to inform ICE, facility medical staff, and/or Class Counsel that they have risk factors, which are not always reflected in ICE’s medical records.

3 The parties agree that Class Counsel may provide the names of individuals to ICE, to the extent they learn of detained individuals with risk factors who have not yet been identified by the facilities or by ICE.

Page 8 of 11

CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL

Initials of Deputy Clerk iv

CCaassee 15::2109--ccvv--2011555436--MJGGBC-SHDKocuDmoecnutm1e0n6t-3150EntFeirled 0o5n/1F5L/S2D0 DPoacgket90o5f/2101/20P2a0gePIDag#e:21808o9f 12
The Court ORDERS Defendants to provide the following records to Plaintiffs’ Counsel:
1. A spreadsheet listing all ICE facilities, the number of individuals held at each facility, the number of beds available to ICE at that facility, and the field office responsible for that facility;
2. Documents showing whether and when Defendants informed all field office directors (“FODs”) of all of the steps required by the Preliminary Injunction order, and the substance and date of those communications.
o This includes documents advising FODs what the Risk Factors are, any guidance as to these or other factors weighed in custody determinations, the procedures for custody determinations, the titles or positions of individuals who make the determinations, and any future updates or supplements regarding custody determinations or compliance with the Preliminary Injunction;
3. On a biweekly basis, the following information about “current detainees”—those in custody for at least five days as of April 30, 2020—determined to have a Risk Factor:
o A spreadsheet with the following fields: name, alien number, detention facility, custody status (detained/released in the United States), alleged basis for detention, and the Risk Factor identified,4 for each Subclass Member;
o If the individual has been hospitalized or deported, this information should also be reflected in the spreadsheet;

4 The Court finds it would not be burdensome to include these last two fields. Defendants argue that they cannot provide a field with the name or type of Risk Factor for each Subclass Member identified because “this would require manual review of the medical records for thousands of detainees.” (Joint Response at 14.) But that is exactly the review process they already purport to be conducting to comply with this Court’s Preliminary Injunction and pursuant to their own Docket Review Guidance. If compiling information for the Risk Factor field would delay the production of the first spreadsheet, Defendants may wait until the second biweekly production to include that field in the spreadsheets. Defendants provide no reason they cannot readily compile the alleged statutory basis for each Subclass Member’s detention. (Id.) Accordingly, the alleged basis for detention field shall be included in all spreadsheets. The field must reveal whether Defendants allege the Subclass Member is detained pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c).

Page 9 of 11

CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL

Initials of Deputy Clerk iv

CasCea1s:e205-:c1v9--2c1v5-05135-M46G-JCGBD-SocHuKmeDnot 1cu0m6-e3nt E1n5t0ereFdileodn 0F5L/S1D5/2D0ockPeatg0e51/200o/2f01210 PPaaggeeID11 of #:218290
4. The same information on a biweekly basis as in item three (3), but for “future detainees”—those who have been in ICE custody for less than five days as of April 30, 2020, or who were not in custody as of that date;
5. A document disclosing which Subclass Members have been released in the United States pursuant to custody determinations for each two-week period, and the conditions of their release;
6. A list of the titles and level of medical training of personnel making risk factor determinations for each facility;
7. Records showing the extent of compliance with the order to issue a new Performance Standard or supplement for individuals with Risk Factors;
8. Records regarding monitoring and enforcement of facility-wide compliance with the PRR and subsequent Performance Standard, including:
o Positions and titles of individuals, including contractors, tasked with monitoring and ensuring compliance with the PRR;
o Documents illustrating whether, since March 11, 2020, any facility has been or will be subject to noticed or un-noticed in-person inspections,5 what forms or documents have been or will be used in connection with this, and the consequences if a facility is determined not to be in compliance with the PRR and the Performance Standard;
o On a biweekly basis, updates to the above documents, as well as reports generated from inspections;
9. Miscellaneous records referenced in the Joint Statement:
o The ICE-generated list of individuals 55 years and older6;
o A document clarifying how many of the 4,409 noncitizens with risk factors, (see Hott Declaration), were identified after the Court’s April 20, 2020 Preliminary Injunction;

5 (See Hott Decl. II ¶ 10.)
6 (Joint Statement at 13 (“Defendants have stated that they have prepared a report identifying all detained individuals who are 55 years old or older.”).)

Page 10 of 11

CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL

Initials of Deputy Clerk iv

CasCea1s:e205-:c1v9--2c1v5-05135-M46G-JCGBD-SocHuKmeDnot 1cu0m6-e3nt E1n5t0ereFdileodn 0F5L/S1D5/2D0ockPeatg0e51/210o/2f01210 PPaaggeeID12 of #:218291
o The messages referenced in paragraph 13 of the Hott Declaration7;
The Court DIRECTS the parties to meet and confer and to provide a protective order for the Court’s approval by May 25, 2020. The Court ORDERS Defendants to provide the referenced non-electronic8 records to Plaintiffs’ Counsel immediately. Other records shall be produced one week after entry of the protective order, and every two weeks after that, until the Court directs otherwise.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

7 (Joint Statement at 9 (“ICE will produce the broadcast message that ICE ERO sent to all FODs and Deputy Field Office Directors (“DFOD”) on April 26, 2020, entitled, Detained Docket Review Pursuant to the Nationwide Preliminary Injunction in Fraihat v. ICE, --- F. Supp. 3d ---, 2020 WL 1932570 (Apr. 20, 2020), directing them to identify and track subclass members by April 29, 2020.”).)
8 (Joint Statement at 23 (mentioning “communications concerning the PI Order sent on April 26 and 28”).)

Page 11 of 11

CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL

Initials of Deputy Clerk iv

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 106-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/20/2020 Page 1 of 12
Ex. C

CCasaese1:12:02-0c-vc-v2-12515534-3M-KGMCWDoDcoucmumenetn1t0264-4 EnEtnetreerdedononFLFSLDSDDDocokcekte0t 50/50/72/02/0220020 PaPgaege1 2ofo1f 112
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case No. 20-21543-CIV-WILLIAMS
ANGEL PORTUONDO, Petitioner,
vs. FIELD OFFICE DIRECTOR MIAMI FIELD OFFICE, et al.,
Respondents. __________________________/
ORDER THIS MATTER is before the Court on Petitioner Angel Portuondo’s petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (DE 1). Respondents filed a response in opposition (DE 10) and Mr. Portuondo filed a reply (DE 17). The Court also held a telephonic conference on May 4, 2020, during which the Parties presented arguments on their positions. I. BACKGROUND Mr. Portuondo, a 51-year-old Cuban native, has lived in the United States since 1994. (DE 1). In 1995, his status was adjusted to that of a lawful permanent resident. (DE 10). Because of prior convictions, Mr. Portuondo is now in removal proceedings under Section 237(a)(2)(A)(iii) of the Immigration and Nationality Act.1 Id. Specifically, in 2016, Mr. Portuondo was convicted for use of unauthorized access device in violation of 18
1 Mr. Portuondo is separately seeking asylum, withholding of removal, protection under the Convention Against Torture, and readjustment of status under the Cuban Adjustment Act. (DE 1).

CCasaese1:12:02-0c-vc-v2-12515534-3M-KGMCWDoDcoucmumenetn1t0264-4 EnEtnetreerdedononFLFSLDSDDDocokcekte0t 50/50/72/02/0220020 PaPgaege2 3ofo1f 112
U.S.C. §1029(a)(2) and aggravated identity theft in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1028(a)(1).2 Id. He was sentenced to a 42 month term of imprisonment followed by a 3 year term of supervised release. Id. On July 5, 2019, upon being released from federal custody, Mr. Portuondo was detained by ICE and transferred to the Krome Service Processing Center (“Krome”). Id. As of the date of this Order, Mr. Portuondo remains detained at Krome and has still not been given the opportunity for a bond hearing, nor has his case been heard (or scheduled) on the merits. (DE 1). According to Respondents, an immigration judge denied Mr. Portuondo’s request for bond on the basis that he is subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c). (DE 10).
Mr. Portuondo filed this Petition not only in light of his prolonged detention without a bond hearing or any hearing on the merits, but also because he suffers from a recurrence of prostate cancer—“Mr. Portuondo has a medical history of prostate cancer and partial prostatectomy with recent positive prostate biopsy results”—and is therefore more vulnerable to severe illness or death if infected by COVID-19. (DE 1; DE 12-1; DE 18-1). In February 2020, Mr. Portuondo was transported to Larkin Community Hospital where an oncologist made various recommendations for treatment.3 Id. According to Mr. Portuondo’s petition, “his cancer has progressed, including possible metastasis, and he is experiencing major neurological and musculoskeletal conditions including major
2 The Court notes that in 2010, based on previous convictions, Mr. Portuondo was placed in removal proceedings. However, on January 31, 2014, Immigration Judge John Opaciuch granted Mr. Portuondo relief from removal in the form of cancellation of removal under Section 240A(a) for lawful permanent residents. (DE 10-7). 3 Specifically, “(1) a PSA to assess the progression of biochemical recurrence; (2) CT of the abdomen/pelvis and NM Bonescan to assess for metastatic disease; (3) CBC and CMP; (4) treatment with an androgen-receptor antagonist, either Lupron or Enzalutamide; and potentially radiation therapy.” (DE 1).
2

CCasaese1:12:02-0c-vc-v2-12515534-3M-KGMCWDoDcoucmumenetn1t0264-4 EnEtnetreerdedononFLFSLDSDDDocokcekte0t 50/50/72/02/0220020 PaPgaege3 4ofo1f 112
headaches, dizziness, loss of sensation in the perineal region, and bilateral chronic pain.” (DE 1; DE 1-3).
Michelle El-Hajjaoui, D.O. from the Cancer Center at Larkin (“Larkin”), provided an affidavit further confirming that Mr. Portuondo “has high grade prostate cancer with biochemical recurrence” and has been under Larkin’s care since February 13, 2020. (DE 18-1). Dr. El-Hajjaoui states that it is Larkin’s recommendation that Mr. Portuondo strictly adhere to the required therapy “to improve his overall survival and prevent progression of disease that can increase morbidity/mortality with organ crisis and bone lesions.” Id. Despite Dr. El-Hajjaoui’s recommendation, during the May 4, 2020 telephonic conference, Mr. Portuondo’s counsel advised the Court that, although Mr. Portuondo had a medical appointment scheduled on May 2, 2020, he was not taken to the appointment or advised whether it will be rescheduled. Respondents did not dispute counsel’s statement or provide any indication as to when Mr. Portuondo would be transported to Larkin for required treatment and/or examination.
Respondents do not contest the serious health risks Mr. Portuondo faces in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic. Indeed, the affidavit Respondents submitted by Dr. Luis A. Ortega, the Clinical Director of the Krome Medical Referral Center, confirms that Mr. Portuondo is in a “high-risk category.” (DE 12-1). Dr. Ortega explains that “CDC guidelines stipulate that immunocompromised patients, to include those patients who are undergoing cancer treatment, are in high risk category for severe disease if infected by COVID 19.” Id. Dr. Ortega goes on to state that “Mr. Portuondo meets said criteria and is therefore in a high-risk category.” Id.
3

CCasaese1:12:02-0c-vc-v2-12515534-3M-KGMCWDoDcoucmumenetn1t0264-4 EnEtnetreerdedononFLFSLDSDDDocokcekte0t 50/50/72/02/0220020 PaPgaege4 5ofo1f 112
Finally, Mr. Portuondo states that he “has been identified by Krome staff as someone who was exposed to COVID-19.” (DE 1). Notwithstanding his particular health conditions and Dr. Ortega’s finding that he is in a high-risk category, at the time of filing his Petition, Mr. Portuondo had been placed “in a unit of many other people who have been exposed. He sleeps on a bunk bed in close proximity to other people, is forced to eat near many others, and must use a communal bathroom.” Id. Mr. Portuondo’s counsel indicated during the May 4, 2020 telephonic conference that she visited Mr. Portuondo on May 3, 2020 and observed significant deterioration in his health; for example, she stated that Mr. Portuondo had difficulty breathing while speaking. Respondents did not dispute that Mr. Portuondo’s health has worsened. II. ANALYSIS
Mr. Portuondo challenges his continued detention on two grounds. First, in violation of his Fifth Amendment rights on the basis that he “is imminent danger of contracting [COVID-19]” and, second, in violation of his procedural due process rights under the Fifth Amendment and in violation of the Eighth Amendment for being detained since July 2019 without the opportunity for a bond hearing. (DE 1).
Mr. Portuondo has been detained since July 2019 without the opportunity for a bond hearing. Respondents emphasize that because of his criminal history, he is subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c)(2) and is not eligible for release.4 As discussed during the May 4 telephonic hearing, numerous courts have reviewed petitions
4 During the telephonic hearing, the Court inquired as to the Respondents’ position in light of the decisions in Gayle v. Meade, No. 20-21453-CIV-MGC (S.D. Fla. Apr. 30, 2020) and Fraihat v. U.S. Immigration & Customs Enf’t, No. EDCV191546JGBSHKX, 2020 WL 1932570 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 20, 2020). Respondents did not challenge the deterioration of Mr. Portuondo’s health or the high risks he faces as a cancer patient, but represented that because of his mandatory detention status, he is not on track for consideration of release.
4

CCasaese1:12:02-0c-vc-v2-12515534-3M-KGMCWDoDcoucmumenetn1t0264-4 EnEtnetreerdedononFLFSLDSDDDocokcekte0t 50/50/72/02/0220020 PaPgaege5 6ofo1f 112
by those who are allegedly detained in violation of their due process rights, notwithstanding mandatory detention under Section 1226(c). Indeed, “the Supreme Court has consistently allowed for habeas challenges to detention statutorily mandated by the Immigration and Nationality Act.” Vazquez Barrera v. Wolf, No. 4:20-CV-1241, 2020 WL 1904497, at *5 (S.D. Tex. Apr. 17, 2020) (citing Jennings, 138 S. Ct. at 837-38, 838-39); see also Moore v. Nielsen, No. 418CV01722LSCHNJ, 2019 WL 2152582, at *9 (N.D. Ala. May 3, 2019) (“[A]n appreciable number of district courts since Jennings have ruled that immigrants facing §§ 1225(b) and 1226(c) removal proceedings, regardless of their immigration status, enjoy due process rights against prolonged detention.”).
For example, in Vazquez Barrera v. Wolf, the defendants argued that the court was “barred from granting habeas relief because [p]laintiffs [were] mandatorily detained under 8 U.S.C. §§1226(c) and 1231(a)(a).” Id. Finding that “mandatory detention statutes do not bar [the court’s] power to issue relief through a writ of habeas corpus”, the court turned to the merits of plaintiffs’ claims—that the defendants were violating the plaintiffs’ rights “under the Fifth Amendment to substantive due process by continuing to detain them during the ongoing pandemic.” Id.; see also Valenzuela Arias v. Decker, No. 20 CIV. 2802 (AT), 2020 WL 1847986 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 10, 2020) (concluding that the respondents “failed to justify [p]etitoners’ continued detention in unsafe conditions” and “courts have the authority to order those detained in violation of their due process rights released, notwithstanding § 1226(c)”); Basank v. Decker, No. 20 CIV. 2518 (AT), 2020 WL 1481503, at *6 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 26, 2020) (“[C]ourts have the authority to order those detained in violation of their due process rights released, notwithstanding § 1226(c)”); Bent v. Barr, No. 19-CV-06123-DMR, 2020 WL 1812850, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 9, 2020)
5

CCasaese1:12:02-0c-vc-v2-12515534-3M-KGMCWDoDcoucmumenetn1t0264-4 EnEtnetreerdedononFLFSLDSDDDocokcekte0t 50/50/72/02/0220020 PaPgaege6 7ofo1f 112
(“To the extent that Respondents claim Bent is absolutely prohibited from seeking release because he is mandatorily detained under 18 U.S.C. § 1226(c), the court has already rejected that argument.”); Ferreyra v. Decker, No. 20 CIV. 3170 (AT), 2020 WL 1989417, at *11 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 27, 2020) (“[C]ourts have the authority to order those held in violation of their due process rights released, notwithstanding § 1226(c)”).
Respondents acknowledge that “courts have generally held that prolonged detention under Section 1226(c) that is unreasonable and arbitrary is subject to challenge under the Due Process Clause” but argue that Mr. Portuondo’s continued detention remains reasonable and lawful. (DE 10). According to Respondents, “the touchstone for this analysis is whether mandatory detention without a bond hearing under the circumstances of the case is so ‘unreasonable or unjustified’ that it amounts to an arbitrary deprivation of liberty.” Id. (quoting Misquitta v. Warden Pine Prairie ICE Processing Ctr., 353 F. Supp. 3d 518, 525 (W.D. La. 2018)); see also Sopo v. U.S. Attorney Gen., 825 F.3d 1199, 1217 (11th Cir. 2016), vacated on other grounds, 890 F.3d 952 (11th Cir. 2018) (“As instructed by Zadvydas and Demore, we begin with the core principle that ‘the reasonableness of any given detention pursuant to § 1226(c) is a function of whether it is necessary to fulfill the purpose of the statute.’”).
In Misquitta, the court explained that following the Supreme Court’s ruling in Jennings v. Rodriguez, 138 S. Ct. 830 (2018), courts adopt a “case-by-case approach that . . . examine[s] a number of case specific-factors to determine whether a given period of detention is unreasonable or arbitrary.” Misquitta, 353 F. Supp. 3d at 524. Respondents claim that “courts, including the district courts in the Eleventh Circuit, have relied primarily on the following factors to make their determination: (1) length of the detention without a
6

CCasaese1:12:02-0c-vc-v2-12515534-3M-KGMCWDoDcoucmumenetn1t0264-4 EnEtnetreerdedononFLFSLDSDDDocokcekte0t 50/50/72/02/0220020 PaPgaege7 8ofo1f 112
bond hearing, (2) the cause of any delays (including the party responsible for the delay), (3) whether any impediments exist to final removal if ordered, (4) the length of the petitioner’s criminal sentences as compared to the length of mandatory detention and (5) whether the facility for civil immigration detention is meaningfully different from a penal institution for criminal detention.” (DE 10). Respondents acknowledge that “[t]hese factors must be tied back to the ultimate question for the court: has prolonged detention become unreasonable, unjustified, or arbitrary in light of the purpose of Section 1226(c).” Id. As Misquitta recognizes, courts may examine an array of factors5 but ultimately, the determination of whether “detention [has] become so unreasonable and arbitrary that it violates a petitioner's right to due process” hinges on an individualized assessment “of whether section 1226(c) violates due process as applied to the petitioner before the court.” Misquitta, 353 F. Supp. 3d at 525–26. Based on the specific facts here, the Court finds that Mr. Portuondo’s continued detention has become unreasonable such that it violates his right to due process.
As stated above, Mr. Portuondo has been detained for nearly 10 months without a bond hearing or a scheduled hearing on his removal. “Given that Congress and the Supreme Court believed that most removal proceedings would be completed within five months, and the Supreme Court provided for a six-month rule in Zadvydas, the constitutional case for continued detention without inquiry into its necessity becomes more and more suspect as detention continues past those thresholds.” Sopo v. U.S.
5 Mr. Portuondo relies on the following three: (1)“whether the noncitizen has raised a ‘good faith’ challenge to removal—that is, the challenge is ‘legitimately raised’ and presents ‘real issues.’”; (2) “reasonableness is a ‘function of the length of the detention,’ with detention presumptively unreasonable if it lasts six months to a year”; and (3) “the likelihood that detention will continue pending future proceedings.” (DE 1)
7

CCasaese1:12:02-0c-vc-v2-12515534-3M-KGMCWDoDcoucmumenetn1t0264-4 EnEtnetreerdedononFLFSLDSDDDocokcekte0t 50/50/72/02/0220020 PaPgaege8 9ofo1f 112
Attorney Gen., 825 F.3d 1199, 1217 (11th Cir. 2016) (internal quotations omitted), vacated on other grounds, 890 F.3d 952 (11th Cir. 2018). Notwithstanding the length of time Mr. Portuondo has been detained, Respondents claim that there has been no unreasonable delay by the Government in pursuing and completing immigration proceedings and, further, there are no impediments to Mr. Portuondo’s removal at the conclusion of the proceedings (whenever they might occur). Although Respondents represent that Mr. Portuondo has a hearing scheduled for May 7, 2020 on his application for relief from removal, Mr. Portuondo’s counsel advised the Court during the telephonic conference that the upcoming hearing is only a calendar call where a future date to adjudicate Mr. Portuondo’s application for relief will be scheduled. Respondents did not dispute this clarification. Accordingly, as of the date of this Order, Mr. Portuondo’s case remains pending indefinitely in a period where matters are being delayed due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
Respondents also rely on data from an ICE Enforcement and Removal Operations report to establish that there is no impediment to deporting Cuban nationals like Mr. Portuondo. (DE 10). However, the report cited provides data from Fiscal Year 2019— when removals were not delayed or cancelled due to COVID-19. Courts, including a judge in this district, have found that the current pandemic poses an impediment to the removal of detainees. See, e.g., Ferrer v. Barr, No. 19-25265-CIV-CMA (S.D. Fla. Apr. 14, 2020) (“Petitioner shows the COVID-19 pandemic is likely to affect future flights to Venezuela. Respondents fail to rebut this point.”); see also Ali v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., No. 4:20CV-0140, 2020 WL 1666074 (S.D. Tex. Apr. 2, 2020) (“[D]ue to grave circumstances beyond the control of either party, the Government can no longer remove [p]etitioner to
8

CCaassee11::2200--ccvv--2211555433--MKGMCW DDooccuummeenntt12046-4EnEtenrteedreodnoFnLFSLDSDoDckoectke0t50/057/2/200/2020PaPgaeg9eo1f01o1f 12
Pakistan in the foreseeable future. The COVID-19 pandemic has now reached at least 171 countries and disrupted international travel and the regular course of business both in the United States and around the world.”).
In Ferrer, the court found that the COVID-19 pandemic is likely to affect the reasonable foreseeability of removal from the United States. Ferrer, No. 19-25265-CIVCMA (S.D. Fla. Apr. 14, 2020). The petitioner in Ferrer was convicted of cocaine trafficking and sentenced to seven years of imprisonment. After completing his sentence in June 2019, he was taken into ICE custody and detained at Krome. Like Mr. Portuondo, he “remained in custody for well over six months.” Id. And although the parties disputed whether U.S.-Venezuela relations would permit removal to Venezuela, the respondents in Ferrer did not address COVID-19’s impact on international travel. Respondents had twice failed to remove the petitioner—a flight scheduled to Venezuela in January 2020 was canceled, and one in March 2020 was canceled. The respondents did not explain why the first flight was cancelled, but “to rebut [the] [p]etitioner’s contention that poor U.S.Venezuela relations make it unlikely he will be removed”, the respondents pointed to the fact that the petitioner’s second flight was cancelled due to COVID-19. Id. Despite the respondents’ advising the court that the petitioner is now rescheduled to be removed the week of July 6, the court still found their assertion insufficient in light of the ongoing health crisis and the uncertainty of his actual removal in July. Granting the petition for habeas corpus, the court found that “[a]s [r]espondents have already detained [p]etitioner for several months past the presumptively reasonable period and continue to delay removal, keeping [p]etitioner in custody for at least another three months would be unreasonable.” Id.
9

Case 1:20-cv-215453-KMMGWC Document 12046-4EntEenretedreodn oFnLSFDLSDDocDkoectk0e5t/057/20/220020PagPeag1e0 1o1f 1o1f 12
The petitioner in Ferrer was transferred to Krome in June 2019 and ordered released on April 14, 2020. Here, Mr. Portuondo was transferred to Krome on July 5, 2019; he has been detained for nearly the same amount of time as the petitioner in Ferrer. And, considering the length of the criminal sentences in relationship to the length of the mandatory detention, it should be noted that Mr. Portuondo received half the sentence the petitioner in Ferrer received. Moreover, although the petitioner in Ferrer had specific medical needs “due to a birth defect called arthrogryposis”, he did not appear to be as medically vulnerable to serious illness or death if infected with COVID-19 as Mr. Portuondo currently is.
It is undisputed that Mr. Portuondo is suffering from prostate cancer and needs medical treatment, that his health is deteriorating, and that while all persons are at risk of being infected by COVID-19, he faces a particularly higher risk because of his medical conditions. Accordingly, Mr. Portuondo’s nearly 10 month detention, combined with the ongoing threat of COVID-19, makes his continued detention unreasonable in light of his uniquely precarious health situation. Moreover, to assure Respondents that he will not fail to appear for removal hearings, the purpose underlying Section 1226(c), Mr. Portuondo has submitted a detailed release plan as well as a sworn declaration by his local sponsor6, Corey Fields, stating that he is willing to act as a surety and that he “understand[s] that if Angel Portuondo fails to appear the Court may impose a monetary fine against [him] up to $25,000.” (DE 23-1). Finally, as Respondents aver, the Court must ultimately consider whether “prolonged detention become[s] unreasonable, unjustified, or arbitrary in light of
6 Mr. Portuondo has been married to a U.S. citizen for almost 4 years, but his partner lives in North Carolina. (DE 1). Accordingly, Mr. Portuondo’s release plan provides that he will reside in an efficiency at the house of his longtime friend and sponsor, Corey Fields in Miami, Florida. (DE 17; DE 23).
10

Case 1:20-cv-215453-KMMGWC Document 12046-4EntEenretedreodn oFnLSFDLSDDocDkoectk0e5t/057/20/220020PagPeag1e1 1o2f 1o1f 12
the purpose of Section 1226(c).” (DE 10). Given Mr. Portuondo’s rapidly deteriorating health in the midst of the extraordinary threat posed by this pandemic, the Court finds that after 10 months, his continued detention in light of his medical situation is unreasonable.
Accordingly, based on the individualized assessment of Mr. Portuondo’s worsening health and prolonged detention with the ongoing threat of COVID-19, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that:
1. The Petition (DE 1) is GRANTED. 2. Petitioner Angel Portuondo shall be released from custody under appropriate
conditions of supervised release, including any electronic monitoring required by the Respondents and home confinement at 5730 SW 62nd Terrace, Miami, Florida 33143. 3. Mr. Portuondo shall only be permitted to leave home confinement to attend necessary medical appointments and court proceedings. 4. Mr. Portuondo shall check in with his attorney twice weekly, and his counsel shall file a weekly status report confirming that he remains in home confinement. Counsel shall also file a bi-monthly status report outlining Mr. Portuondo’s medical condition. 5. Should Mr. Portuondo’s medical condition improve, the Court will revisit this Order on the Respondents’ request. DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers in Miami, Florida, this 7th day of May, 2020.
11

 
 Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 111 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/22/2020 Page 1 of 53
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
MIAMI DIVISION CASE NO. 20-21553-COOKE/GOODMAN PATRICK GAYLE, et al., Plaintiffs, v. MICHAEL W. MEADE, et al., Defendants. __________________________/ REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS ON CLASS CERTIFICATION MOTION I. Introduction and Summary of Recommendations Petitioners/Plaintiffs are 58 persons who Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) are detaining at three South Florida detention centers. They have filed a lawsuit against ICE, challenging the conditions at the three centers as violating guidelines promulgated by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (“CDC”). They contend that their health and lives are in jeopardy at the centers because the novel Coronavirus (“COVID-19”) unreasonably exposes them all to the potentially-deadly virus. Plaintiffs have filed an Expedited Motion for Class Certification. [ECF No. 81]. They want the Court to certify as a class all individuals currently detained at the three centers when the lawsuit was filed (on April 13, 2020, [ECF No. 1]), since the action was filed, and in the future. They have not identified any proposed sub-classes. Based on

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 111 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/22/2020 Page 2 of 53
numbers ICE provided during a May 14, 2020 hearing on this class certification motion [ECF No. 98], there were 1,124 detainees as of May 13, 2020.
During the hearing and in their written submissions, Plaintiffs advocated for the immediate release of all the detainees. But during the hearing, they acknowledged that any release procedure would inevitably involve a prioritization of which persons would be released first. Similarly, in a recently-filed “Emergency1 Motion to Compel Compliance With the Court’s April 30, 2020 Temporary Restraining Order” [ECF No. 106], Plaintiffs stated that decisions about whether to transfer a detainee involve “individualized determinations of whether to release people.” Id. at p. 3. And they agreed during the hearing that factors such as health risks, danger to the community, and risk of flight, should be used in the release decisions.
Evaluating these types of factors necessarily involves both an individualized determination of a detainee’s suitability for release (and/or transfer) and a detainee-bydetainee assessment of what conditions, if any, should be imposed with a release decision.

1

Plaintiffs’ Emergency Motion did not contain or attach a “certification of

emergency,” as required by Southern District of Florida Local Rule 7.1(d)(1). But

Plaintiffs’ earlier-filed Emergency Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and

Preliminary Injunction [ECF No. 4] did contain the required certification. Despite this rule

violation, United States District Judge Marcia G. Cooke promptly issued a briefing

schedule order [ECF No. 107] and required the parties to be prepared to discuss the

emergency motion at an already-scheduled May 27, 2020 hearing on the preliminary

injunction motion.

2

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 111 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/22/2020 Page 3 of 53
For example, ICE2 would evaluate for possible release a wheelchair-bound diabetic detainee with high blood pressure, liver disease, no criminal convictions, no pending criminal charges, and relatives with an unoccupied bedroom in their home in rural Florida much differently than a healthy, 22-year-old soccer-playing detainee with drug trafficking and aggravated battery convictions, pending criminal charges for armed robbery and no family members living in the United States.
Given the inevitable detainee-specific factors which must be considered in any release decision, Petitioners’ habeas corpus claim for immediate release is inappropriate for class certification.
The habeas corpus claim for immediate release of all detainees does not meet the commonality requirement of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a)(2). In addition, it does not meet Rule 23(b)(2)’s requirement that “the party opposing the class has acted or refused to act on grounds that apply generally to the class, so that final injunctive relief . . . is appropriate respecting the class as a whole.” That rule does not warrant class treatment here because the requested injunction would generate highly individualized determinations, not release assessments about the entire class as a whole.

2

Although Michael W. Meade (the Miami Field Office Director for ICE) and

Attorney General William P. Barr are technically the Respondents, Petitioners’ arguments

focus on what ICE has (and has not) done about the COVID-19 risks at the three

immigration detention centers. Therefore, this Report will often refer to Respondents

simply as ICE.

3

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 111 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/22/2020 Page 4 of 53
So, the Undersigned respectfully recommends that United States District Judge Marcia G. Cooke, who referred [ECF No. 82] the class action motion to me, deny the class certification motion concerning the habeas corpus demand for release.
On the other hand, the remaining claims and requests for relief (other than a request to prevent ICE from transferring detainees to other facilities and the request to include future detainees) are appropriate for class action treatment. Specifically, the claims for injunctive relief (to require appropriate precautionary health measures) and for declaratory relief (i.e., finding that the continued detention of all class members creates an undue increased risk of severe illness or death, thus violating the U.S. Constitution’s Due Process Clause) justify class treatment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) and (b)(2).
The affidavits/declarations Plaintiffs submitted with their Emergency Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction [ECF Nos. 4; 7; 8], their Notice Regarding New Named Petitioners-Plaintiffs [ECF No. 61-1], and in support of their class certification motion [ECF No. 94-1] portray a stressful scenario where the detainees are legitimately concerned over the COVID-19 risk in facilities which (as currently configured) do not permit adequate social distancing, and which purportedly do not provide sufficient cleaning and sanitizing supplies. In addition, the picture painted in the more-recent emergency motion to compel compliance is one where Plaintiffs allege (with supporting declarations) that “ICE has not fully complied” and “instead continues to fail
4

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 111 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/22/2020 Page 5 of 53
to protect the safety and well-being” of the detainees. [ECF No. 106, p. 2]. Thus, because all detainees in all three facilities confront, in general, the same
conditions vis-à-vis COVID-19, a class action should be approved. Therefore, the Undersigned respectfully recommends that Judge Cooke grant the
motion, in part, and certify a class of all current detainees at the three South Florida facilities for the conditions-of-confinement claims (as opposed to the claim for release).
However, the mere fact that a class might be certified (or is in fact certified) does not necessarily mean that the class will ultimately prevail. If a class for the conditions-ofconfinement claims were to be certified, then the class claims would rise or fall together on the merits. Based on a recent decision from the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals and other recent appellate decisions, the chances that the 58 named Plaintiffs or the class will succeed in obtaining a preliminary injunction or declaratory relief in their favor have arguably decreased since the Court initially entered a Temporary Restraining Order last month. This potential significant change in the Plaintiffs’ ability to ultimately prevail on the merits does not mean that a class of some type should not be certified. Instead, it simply means that the certified class might not succeed on the merits.
By pointing out this procedural reality, the Undersigned is not predicting, suggesting, or implying in any way that Judge Cooke will not issue a preliminary injunction or that our Appellate Court would reverse one if entered. Rather, I am simply noting that appellate courts appear to not treat the COVID-19 crisis as affecting prisoner-
5

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 111 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/22/2020 Page 6 of 53
filed or detainee-filed lawsuits and the requirement that those plaintiffs prove deliberate ignorance (as opposed to mere negligence) by government officials or their agents in order to succeed. II. Factual Background
Petitioners/Plaintiffs are 58 immigration detainees housed in three federal immigration detention centers in Florida: the Krome Detention Center in Miami (a/k/a Krome Service Processing Center), the Broward Transitional Center in Pompano Beach, and the Glades County Detention Center in Moore Haven. There were 34 Plaintiffs who filed the original lawsuit, but the Undersigned granted [ECF No 65] a motion [ECF No. 60] to add named Petitioners/Plaintiffs.
At bottom, Petitioners claim that they are at imminent risk of contracting COVID19 because their detention renders them unable to follow the Center for Disease Control and Prevention’s (“CDC”) guidelines. They allege that there is “currently no way” for the three centers to comply with the CDC’s guidelines on social distancing and quarantining. [ECF No. 1, p. 9].
They say that (1) each facility “holds individuals in close proximity”; (2) people are less than six feet away from each other when they sleep, eat, and use common areas; (3) “it is impossible for Petitioners to protect themselves from infection through social distancing and vigilant hygiene – the only known mitigation measures”; (4) groups of individuals are “herded together in ‘cohort quarantine’ because they have been exposed”
6

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 111 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/22/2020 Page 7 of 53
to others who might have COVID-19 symptoms; and (5) “cohort quarantines drastically increase the possibility of transmission, infection, and facility-wide outbreak by grouping together people who have already been exposed to the virus.” [ECF No. 1, pp. 9-10].
The Undersigned assumes that all parties and their counsel are familiar with COVID-19 and the global health crisis it has generated. Consequently, the Undersigned does not deem it necessary to discuss here in detail the background of the virus and the CDC’s recommendation that everyone practice social distancing, which involves the maintenance of not less than six feet between people in order to limit the virus’ spread. For present purposes, however, the Undersigned will simply provide a recent statistic: As of May 20, 2020, the CDC website reported 1,551,095 confirmed COVID-19 cases and 93,061 COVID-19 related deaths in the United States; the World Health Organization reported 4,789,205 cases and 318,789 deaths globally.
According to the CDC, the following persons have a heightened vulnerability to severe illness or death if they contract the coronavirus: those who are 65 years of age or older, people who live in a nursing home or long-term care facility, persons who are immunocompromised, and those with other pre-existing health conditions, such as serious heart conditions, diabetes, chronic lung disease, chronic kidney disease, liver disease, asthma, hemoglobin disorders, and severe obesity.3

3

The Court’s Temporary Restraining Order added pregnant detainees to the

Pandemic Response Requirements’ list of higher-risk detainees. [ECF No. 76, p. 10, n. 13].

7

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 111 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/22/2020 Page 8 of 53
The CDC’s Interim Guidance on Management of Coronavirus Disease 2019
(COVID-19) in Correctional and Detention Facilities summarizes some of the harsh
realities of the increased COVID-19 risks at detention centers like Krome, Broward and
Glades:
• Incarcerated/detained persons live, work, eat, study, and recreate within congregate environments, heightening the potential for COVID-19 to spread once introduced.
• In most cases, incarcerated/detained persons are not permitted to leave the facility.
• There are many opportunities for COVID-19 to be introduced into a correctional or detention facility, including daily staff ingress and egress; transfer of incarcerated/detained persons between facilities and systems, to court appearances, and to outside medical visits; and visits from family, legal representatives, and other community members. Some settings, particularly jails and detention centers, have high turnover, admitting new entrants daily who may have been exposed to COVID-19 in the surrounding community or other regions.
• Persons incarcerated/detained in a particular facility often come from a variety of locations, increasing the potential to introduce COVID-19 from different geographic areas.
• Options for medical isolation of COVID-19 cases are limited and vary depending on the type and size of facility, as well as the current level of available capacity, which is partly based on medical isolation needs for other conditions.
• Adequate levels of custody and healthcare staffing must be maintained to ensure safe operation of the facility, and options to practice social distancing through work alternatives such as working from home or reduced/alternate schedules are limited for many staff roles.
• Correctional and detention facilities can be complex, multi-employer settings that include government and private employers. Each is organizationally distinct and responsible for its own operational, personnel, and occupational health protocols and may be prohibited from issuing guidance or providing services to other employers or their staff within the same setting. Similarly, correctional and
8

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 111 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/22/2020 Page 9 of 53

detention facilities may house individuals from multiple law enforcement agencies or jurisdictions subject to different policies and procedures.
• Incarcerated/detained persons and staff may have medical conditions that increase their risk of severe disease from COVID-19.
• Because limited outside information is available to many incarcerated/detained persons, unease and misinformation regarding the potential for COVID-19 spread may be high, potentially creating security and morale challenges.
• The ability of incarcerated/detained persons to exercise disease prevention measures (e.g., frequent handwashing) may be limited and is determined by the supplies provided in the facility and by security considerations. Many facilities restrict access to soap and paper towels and prohibit alcohol-based hand sanitizer and many disinfectants.
• Incarcerated persons may hesitate to report symptoms of COVID-19 or seek medical care due to co-pay requirements and fear of isolation.
III. Procedural Background
Following a Report and Recommendations [ECF No. 63], Objections (by both
sides) [ECF Nos. 70-71], Responses (by both sides) to the Objections [ECF Nos. 72-73], two
Petitioners-filed Notices of Supplemental Authority [ECF Nos. 74-75], Judge Cooke
issued a 14-day Temporary Restraining Order [ECF No. 76], which she later extended for
another 14 days on May 15, 2020 [ECF No. 101]. The Order extending the TRO also
scheduled a hearing on the Emergency Motion for Preliminary Injunction for May 27,
2020. Id.
Noting that the Petitioners are merely civil detainees,4 not convicted criminal

4

Although the Petitioners are civil detainees who are not serving a federal prison

sentence, that does not mean that they all lack criminal records. In a post-TRO Report, for

9

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 111 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/22/2020 Page 10 of 53

prisoners (serving a prison sentence at the facilities), the TRO held that ICE’s failures to protect the safety and well-being of Petitioners “amount to cruel and unusual punishment because they are exemplary of deliberate indifference.” [ECF No. 76, p. 6]. The Court also noted that ICE had made a conscious effort to address detention conditions at one center by releasing all detainees over age 60 and decreasing the overall detainee population by 35%. Id. Therefore, the TRO explained, “to the extent that ICE fails to commit to addressing the conditions complained of, ICE has demonstrated deliberate indifference.” Id.
Although the Court found that injunctive relief is appropriate because of the Fifth and Eighth Amendment violations, it also noted that “the record is not clear as to whether each individual Petitioner is eligible for release under ICE’s PRR.”5 Id. at p. 10 (emphasis added). For example, Judge Cooke noted, “it is unclear who among the Petitioners would be considered “mandatory detainees.” Id. (emphasis added).
The Court granted in part and denied in part Petitioners’ Emergency Motion for a

example, ICE explained that 35 of the 58 Petitioners are subject to mandatory detention and that 11 have criminal convictions “or pending criminal charges which [in ICE’s stated opinion] make them a threat to public safety.” [ECF No. 89-1]. And in a later Report filed on May 11, 2020, ICE advised [ECF No. 93-1] that 241 of the 419 Krome detainees have criminal convictions, 253 of the 348 Glades detainees have criminal convictions and 87 of the 419 Broward detainees have criminal convictions. In addition, 153 of the 443 Krome detainees are facing pending criminal charges, 96 of the 419 Broward detainees are facing pending criminal charges, and 95 of the 348 Glades detainees are facing pending criminal charges.

5

PRR refers to ICE’s COVID-19 April 10, 2020 Pandemic Response Requirements.

10

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 111 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/22/2020 Page 11 of 53

Temporary Restraining Order and imposed several requirements on ICE. Some requirements concerned specific steps which ICE must take to accomplish the goal of reducing the population to 75% of capacity at each of the three centers, some imposed reporting requirements, and some required specific health-related protocols.
Although both sides filed Objections to the Undersigned’s Report and Recommendations, neither side appealed the TRO, which largely adopted the specific measures suggested in the R & R.6
28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1) gives federal appellate courts jurisdiction over interlocutory orders of district courts “granting, continuing, modifying, refusing or dissolving injunctions, or refusing to dissolve or modify injunctions, except where a direct review may be had in the Supreme Court.” (emphasis added). Although a TRO provides a type of injunctive relief, it is not a preliminary injunction. This distinction is critical, as “preliminary injunctions are appealable but temporary restraining orders are not.” Mitsubishi Intern. Corp. v. Cardinal Textile Sales, Inc., 14 F.3d 1507, 1515 (11th Cir. 1994).7
The TRO did not order ICE to release any specific detainee, nor did it require ICE to release any specific categories of detainee. Similarly, it did not specifically instruct ICE

6

The TRO did not adopt the Report and Recommendations’ suggestion that the

Court appoint an independent expert to evaluate the three facilities.

7

Where a temporary restraining order has the effect of a preliminary injunction,

however, then the appellate court has jurisdiction to review the order and is not bound

by the district court’s designation of the order. Mitsubishi Intern. Corp., 14 F. 3d at 1515,

n.14.

11

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 111 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/22/2020 Page 12 of 53
as to how to prioritize any release decisions. The TRO did not mandate that ICE in fact reduce the census at each facility to 75% of capacity. Rather, it required ICE to (1) evaluate the named detainees and inform the Court who among them could be released; (2) consider health status, bond eligibility, immigration status, immigration court history and prior criminal history when making the evaluations; and (3) submit a report about how it intends to accelerate its review of detainee release protocols “with the goal of reducing the population to 75% of capacity at each of the three detention centers within two weeks” of the TRO. [ECF No. 76, p. 10 (emphasis added)]. The TRO did not direct ICE to consider one or more factors as more or less important than other factors, nor did it impose any specific barriers to ICE’s ability to lower the detainee population through transfers.
After Judge Cooke entered the TRO, she granted in part [ECF No. 78] a motion for clarification [ECF No. 77] to permit ICE to “transfer detainees from the three facilities at issue,” but only after “first evaluating each detainee and making a determination” of the detainee’s release eligibility under the PRR. [ECF No. 78, p. 1 (emphasis added)]. Neither the TRO nor this clarification Order required ICE to provide copies of completed forms used to evaluate detainees for possible release to the Court or to Plaintiffs’ counsel.
A. ICE’s TRO-Required Reports In its first post-TRO Report, filed on May 2, 2020, ICE provided information on a center-by-center basis. [ECF No. 79].
12

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 111 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/22/2020 Page 13 of 53
Concerning Krome, ICE advised that it issued every detainee a surgical mask on April 29, 2020 and agreed to exchange the masks every Wednesday. [ECF No. 79-1, p. 1]. It also said it would continue to provide, at no cost to the detainees, “adequate” amounts of soap, water and cleaning materials to the detainees. Id. It further advised that disinfecting wipes are provided to detainees for cleaning of mattresses and bunks (though it did not reveal how often). Id. at p. 2.
In addition, ICE advised that the dormitories are equipped with antibacterial soap dispensers, running water and paper towels. Id. Similarly, it advised that hand sanitizer dispensers have been installed in all housing units and that staffers visit each unit daily and replenish supplies daily. Id.
At Glades, ICE said in its first report, the staff issued every ICE detainee a surgical mask, and they also provided instructions in multiple languages. Id. The masks are to be replaced every Friday. Id. The report also explained that “adequate” amounts of soap, water and cleaning materials are provided to ICE detainees, at no cost to them. Id. In addition, all dormitories are equipped with antibacterial soap dispensers, running water and paper towels. Id. The report advised that dormitories are sanitized twice daily. Id. The report later explained that four ounces of antibacterial soap are provided for individual use and is “replenished as needed.” Id.
At Broward, all detainees were issued masks on April 17, 2020 and are exchanged once per week. [ECF No. 79-2, p. 1]. The staff gives detainees two four-ounce bottles of
13

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 111 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/22/2020 Page 14 of 53
soap, which is replenished as needed, at no cost to the detainee. Id. at p. 2. In addition,
detainees are also issued a 7.5-ounce pump bottle of antibacterial soap for each room,
which is refilled as needed seven days per week. Id. The report also advises that cleaning
supplies are issued daily and that a facility sanitation team conducts a deep cleaning of
each detainee bathroom twice per week. Id. The sanitation team uses two pump sprayers
to spray the turf twice per day. Id. The cleaning crew, which includes detainee volunteers,
uses masks and gloves while cleaning. Id.
ICE’s second post-TRO report [ECF No. 80], filed on March 3, 2020, focused on
release, and it outlined the decision-making process and the numbers of detainees
released. Relevant portions of this report are provided here verbatim:
3. ICE’s goal is to reduce the population to 75%, which has been met at Broward Transitional Center. ICE has and will continue to review cases and exercise its discretion to pursue alternatives to detention within the confines of the law.
4. Alternatives to detention can include a release on GPS ankle monitor, release on parole, release on an order of recognizance (OREC) with or without a bond pending removal proceedings, and release on an order of supervision (OSUP) with reporting requirements. Whether a detainee is eligible for release pursuant to any of the mechanisms above depends upon his or her manner of entry, and the applicability of the mandatory detention statutes under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA).
5. When evaluating custody, ICE considers immigration history, criminal record, potential threat to public safety, flight risk, and national security concerns, as well as current health status and COVID-19 vulnerability in accordance to the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) guidelines.
6. ICE is reducing its detainee population at Krome and Glades to reach the target capacity through a continuous review of all cases, where detainees
14

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 111 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/22/2020 Page 15 of 53
have been identified by ICE Health Service Corps as having a medical condition that makes them “at risk” for COVID-19, according to the CDC guidelines and the factors enumerated in U.S. District Court for the Central District of California preliminary injunction order in Fraihat v. ICE, ---F. Supp. 3d ---, 2020 WL 1932570 (Apr. 20, 2020), to determine if their detention remains appropriate.
7. To that end, ICE also identifies within five days of coming to ICE custody all detainees with risk factors and considers them in making custody determinations.
8. ICE further intends to continue reducing its detained population at Krome and Glades by identifying eligible arriving alien cases for parole consideration.
9. Arriving aliens who establish a credible fear of persecution or torture are to be detained for further consideration of the application for asylum. INA § 235(b)(l)(B)(ii), 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(1)(B)(ii). Such aliens, however, may be paroled on a case-by-case basis for "urgent humanitarian reasons" or "significant public benefit," provided the aliens present neither a security risk nor a risk of absconding. 8 C.F.R. § 212.5(b).
10. ICE will continue to provide eligible detainees with a Parole Advisal and Scheduling Notification Form, which inform the detainee that he/she will be interviewed for potential parole and provides the detainee instructions on how to submit any supporting documentation.
11. ICE will continue to review all previously-granted bonds to determine whether reduction of the bond amount or release on an order of recognizance, with a GPS ankle monitor to mitigate risk of flight, is appropriate.
12. ICE intends to continue reduction of the population at Krome and Glades by accelerating the review and release on Orders of Supervision for all final order detainees, where ICE has determined that there is no significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future.
13. ICE detained population at Krome and Glades will be further reduced through release of detainees granted relief or bond by an Immigration
15

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 111 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/22/2020 Page 16 of 53
Judge, or through the enforcement of removal orders where logistically feasible.
14. During February, March and April 2020, ICE officials at Krome and Glades released 289 individuals on an Order of Recognizance, Order of Supervision, Parole or Bond.
15. During February, March and April 2020, officials at BTC released 218 individuals on an Order of Recognizance, Order of Supervision, Parole or Bond.
[ECF No. 80-1, pp. 1-3].
ICE’s third Report [ECF No. 89] addressed the population of the three centers (i.e.,
whether they were below capacity) and information about the release status of the 58
Petitioners, including information about the factors used to assess eligibility for release
(e.g., whether a detainee is subject to mandatory detention, has criminal convictions or
pending charges, or has health conditions which would increase their vulnerability to
COVID-19). Relevant portions of this report are provided here verbatim:
3. As of May 7, 2020, Krome’s population is presently at 71% capacity. The detainee population at Glades is presently at 74% capacity. BTC’s detainee population is presently at 65% capacity.
4. ICE has reviewed each of the 58 petitioners’ detention pursuant to the district court’s order. Of the 58 petitioners, six of the petitioners have been released from ICE custody, to include Tahimi Perez, Francisco Rivero Valeron, Eitan Yefet, Fernando Goncalves, Maxuel De Souza, and Maria Rodriguez Claras.
5. ICE determined that of the 52 remaining petitioners, 35 are subject to mandatory detention.
6. ICE found that of the 52 petitioners, 17 are not subject to mandatory detention.
16

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 111 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/22/2020 Page 17 of 53
7. ICE determined that 11 of the petitioners who are not subject to mandatory detention have criminal convictions or pending criminal charges which make them a threat to public safety.
8. An immigration judge denied a bond to one of the non-mandatory detention plaintiffs based upon flight risk. The plaintiff did not appeal the bond denial. The immigration judge ordered removal and the plaintiff did appeal the removal order. The appeal remains pending.
9. ICE released an additional two petitioners on alternatives to detention, Eliseo Zamora-Mendoza and Alejandro Mugaburu Tapia.
10. The remaining three petitioners who are not subject to mandatory detention, do not have a criminal history, and do not have any known chronic health conditions that would increase their vulnerability to COVID 19 per the Center for Disease Control (CDC) guidelines.
11. ICE found that of the 52 petitioners, one is over the age of 60. That petitioner has criminal convictions for carrying a concealed weapon, possession of narcotic equipment, possession of marijuana, larceny and arson and is subject to mandatory detention. He is scheduled for a hearing on his request for relief [] with an immigration judge on May 21, 2020.
12. ICE found that of the 52 petitioners, 25 had no known chronic health conditions that would increase their vulnerability to COVID 19 per the Center for Disease Control (CDC) guidelines.
13. ICE found that of the 52 petitioners, 27 did have known chronic health conditions that would increase their vulnerability to COVID 19 per the Center for Disease Control (CDC) guidelines.
14. ICE found that of those 27 petitioners that had a known chronic health condition, 22 are subject to mandatory detention under the Immigration and Nationality Act and are not statutorily eligible for release pursuant to an order of recognizance, parole, or other alternative to detention.
15. ICE found that of the 27 petitioners that had a known chronic health condition, 5 are eligible for some form of release under the Immigration and Nationality Act. After reviewing all factors to include health status, bond
17

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 111 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/22/2020 Page 18 of 53
eligibility, immigration history, immigration status and criminal history, ICE has approved 2 petitioners for release.
16. However, ICE found that the remaining three petitioners have criminal convictions for [i]ntimidation, probation violation, fraud, illegal use of credit cards and traffic offenses.
17. Additionally, some of the three plaintiffs are also pending criminal charges for [p]roperty damage, possession of stolen property, sale of stolen property, drug possession, larceny, weapons offense, firing a weapon, and aggravated assault with a weapon and failure to appear.
[ECF No. 89-1, pp. 1-3].
ICE’s fourth report [ECF No. 93], filed on May 11, 2020, focuses on the criminal
histories of all the current detainees, not merely the 58 named Petitioners. Relevant
portions are provided here verbatim:
3. As of 6:00 a.m. on May 11, 2020, ICE detained 1210 detainees at Krome, BTC, and Glades.
4. ICE is housing 419 detainees at BTC; 443 detainees at Krome; and 348 at Glades.
5. Of the 1210 detainees, 787 detainees are considered to be subject to mandatory detention.
6. Of the 419 detainees housed at BTC, 87 have criminal convictions and 332 do not have criminal convictions. However, 96 of them are pending criminal charges.
7. Of the 443 detainees housed at Krome, 241 have criminal convictions and 202 do not have criminal convictions. However, 153 of them are pending criminal charges.
8. Of the 348 detainees housed at Glades, 253 have criminal convictions and 95 do not have criminal convictions. However, 95 of them are pending criminal charges.
18

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 111 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/22/2020 Page 19 of 53
[ECF No. 93-1, pp. 1-2].
ICE’s fifth report, submitted May 14, 2020 [ECF No. 97], provides an update on the
criminal histories and pending charges for the detainees. Relevant portions are listed here
verbatim:
3. As of 6:00 a.m. on May 14, 2020, ICE detained 1194 detainees at Krome, BTC, and Glades.
4. ICE is housing 462 detainees at BTC; 403 detainees at Krome; and 329 at Glades. 5. Of the 1194 detainees, 860 detainees are considered to be subject to mandatory detention.
6. Of the 462 detainees housed at BTC, 108 have criminal convictions and 354 do not have criminal convictions. However, 94 of the 354 detainees with no criminal convictions are pending criminal charges.
7. Of the 403 detainees housed at Krome, 229 have criminal convictions and 174 do not have criminal convictions. However, l16 of the 174 detainees with no criminal convictions are pending criminal charges.
8. Of the 329 detainees housed at Glades, 246 have criminal convictions and 83 do not have criminal convictions. However, 83 of the detainees with no criminal convictions are pending criminal charges.
[ECF No. 97-1, pp. 1-2].
ICE’s sixth report, filed on May 15, 2020 [ECF No. 100], revealed specifics about
the methods used to release 170 detainees from the three centers between May 8 and May
15, 2020. Specifically, 111 of the 170 detainees who were removed or released from the
three centers were transferred to other facilities. Relevant portions of this report are
provided here verbatim: 19

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 111 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/22/2020 Page 20 of 53
3. Between May 8, 2020 and May 15, 2020 at 9:00 a.m., ICE released or removed a total of 170 detainees. Those detainees were released or removed from the following facilities: 119 detainees from Krome, 17 detainees from Glades and 34 detainees from BTC.
4. The nature of the 119 releases from Krome are as follows: a. 9 detainees were released on bond. b. 1 detainee was removed from the United States. c. 1 detainee was released because an immigration judge granted relief from removal. d. 1 detainee was released on an order of supervision based on a COVID-19 high risk category. e. 2 detainees were released on an order of supervision subsequent to a procedural ERO custody review. f. 3 detainees were turned over to local law enforcement on a warrant. g. 2 detainees departed voluntarily. h. 100 detainees were transferred out of Krome.
5. The nature of the 17 releases from Glades are as follows: a. 3 detainees were released on bond. b. 4 detainees were released because an immigration judge granted relief from removal. c. 4 detainees were released on an order of supervision subsequent to a procedural ERO custody review. d. 6 detainees were transferred out of Glades.
6. The nature of the 34 releases from BTC are as follows: a. 1 detainee was released on bond. b. 13 detainees were removed from the United States. c. 1 detainee was released because an immigration judge granted relief from removal. d. 1 detainee was released on Parole subsequent to a procedural ERO custody review. e. 10 detainees were released on an order of supervision subsequent to a procedural ERO custody review. f. 3 detainees were released on an order of supervision based on a COVID-19 high risk category. g. 5 detainees were transferred out of BTC.
20

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 111 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/22/2020 Page 21 of 53
[ECF No. 100-1, pp. 1-2].
ICE’s seventh report, filed on May 18, 2020 [ECF No. 104], provides an update on
the number of detainees on a facility-by-facility basis and the categories in which they
have been described. Relevant portions are provided here verbatim:
3. As of 6:00 a.m. on May 18, 2020, ICE detained 11918 detainees at Krome, BTC, and Glades. 4. ICE is housing 456 detainees at BTC; 397 detainees at Krome; and 338 at Glades.
5. Of the 1191 detainees, 846 detainees are considered to be subject to mandatory detention.
6. Of the 456 detainees housed at BTC, 112 have criminal convictions and 344 do not have criminal convictions. However, 93 of the 344 detainees with no criminal convictions are pending criminal charges.
7. Of the 397 detainees housed at Krome, 223 have criminal convictions and 174 do not have criminal convictions. However, 119 of the 174 detainees with no criminal convictions are pending criminal charges.
8. Of the 338 detainees housed at Glades, 248 have criminal convictions and 90 do not have criminal convictions. However, 62 of the 90 detainees with no criminal convictions are pending criminal charges.
[ECF No. 104-1, pp. 1-2].
B. Petitioners’ New Declarations
Petitioners filed their expedited motion for class certification on May 5, 2020. [ECF
No. 81]. Petitioners filed a reply in further support of their motion on May 12, 2020 [ECF

8

The total census was slightly reduced, from 1,194, to 1,191, in a four-day period.

21

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 111 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/22/2020 Page 22 of 53
No. 94] and attached new declarations which they say shows that ICE is “continuing to place these people in conditions that violate CDC Guidelines.” [ECF No. 94, p. 7].
Some of these declarations, which were signed after the TRO was entered and after ICE issued its first report, contend that the conditions at the three centers continue to permit unacceptable conditions to exist, though Petitioners’ counsel acknowledge that “ICE may dispute these accounts.” [ECF No. 94, p. 8].
If the declarations are factually accurate and complete, then there is a significant factual discrepancy between what ICE represents in its submissions (through declarations made under penalty of perjury) and what the Petitioner declarants describe. Other significant points are not necessarily factual disputes -- they merely document certain realities which ICE does not address in its reports and declarations (e.g., adequate social distancing at all times is impossible).
The following excerpts from the new Petitioner declarations illustrate factual discrepancies, as opposed to undisputed descriptions which simply reflect certain realities of the conditions at the three detention centers:
In a declaration signed on May 6, 2020, Reinier Guiber Avila says that “there is no hygiene here.” [ECF No. 94-1, p. 6]. He says, “there are not enough cleaning supplies” and he and his fellow podmates are given only two rags to clean the entire pod. Id. He also claims that “we do not have disinfecting wipes to use regularly.” Id. He states that he was given one wipe when he arrived at Krome (on April 17, 2020) but has not been
22

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 111 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/22/2020 Page 23 of 53
provided any additional wipes since his first day (i.e., a period of 15 days). Id. Miguel Angel Marroquin Perez is detained at Broward and signed a declaration
on May 8, 2020. [ECF No. 94-1, pp. 15-17]. Although he says that masks are provided every three days, he says that mask use is not required, that the masks are usually thrown on the beds or on tabletops and “most people do not want to wear them because they are contaminated.” Id. at p. 15. He also advises that hand sanitizer is “sometimes” available outside the cafeteria and that he has not seen any hand sanitizer next to the telephones. Id. at p. 16. He also says that he has not received any education about hygiene and preventing the spread of COVID-19. Id. at p. 17. Moreover, he says he has not seen any Spanish-language posters about COVID-19 at Broward. Id.
Iran Pichardo Perez-Borroto has been detained at Krome since April 16, 2020. [ECF No. 94-1, pp. 21-23]. He says he receives soap and shampoo “once or twice a week,” that the amount of soap is insufficient and that he and his other podmates do not always receive additional soap or shampoo when they request it. Id. at p. 22. He further contends that disinfecting wipes are not provided and that detainees sometimes use toilet wiper to clean the tables. Id.
Deivys Perez Valladares has been at Krome since May 6, 2020 and was previously at Broward. [ECF No. 94-1, p. 26]. According to his declaration, Broward guards were not wearing masks or gloves when interacting with the detainees. Id. at p. 27. Staff at Krome did not provide information about COVID-19 when they arrived. Id. In addition, the
23

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 111 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/22/2020 Page 24 of 53
Perez-Valladares declaration says that no masks or gloves were given to detainees when they arrived at Krome from Broward and that only guards are using masks at Krome. Id.
Danny Ruiz Garcia is detained at Broward, where he has been housed since March 26, 2020. [ECF No. 94-1, p. 31]. According to his declaration, there is no hand sanitizer near the telephones, the hand sanitizer in the cafeteria is often empty and guards are given hand sanitizer only during lunch. Id. Mr. Ruiz also says that a Broward staffer denied his request for additional shower gel on May 5, 2020. Id. He also says that he has not received any education about hygiene or how to prevent the spread of COVID-19 at Broward. Id. IV. Applicable Legal Standards & Analysis
Petitioners’ class action certification motion is the precise legal issue currently before the Court.
Nevertheless, the Undersigned will first discuss Swain v. Junior, No. 20-11622-C, 2020 WL 2161317 (11th Cir. May 5, 2020) because it is a very recent and binding published Eleventh Circuit opinion concerning a challenge to conditions of confinement raised in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic.9 Moreover, Swain is helpful to a discussion of

9

There have been several district court and appellate court opinions in the past

three months concerning COVID-19 prompted lawsuits filed by prisoners and detainees

in federal, state and local prisons, jail and detention facilities. Those opinions are all non-

binding. Swain is the only binding appellate decision which the Undersigned knows of

which addresses the conditions of confinement and a demand for release as a result of

the COVID-19 pandemic.

24

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 111 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/22/2020 Page 25 of 53
whether the merits of the prisoners’ claims there, which are similar to the ones here, affect the analysis of Petitioners’ class action motion.
A. Swain v. Junior In a 2-1 published opinion with a written dissent, our Appellate Court in Swain granted a motion to stay the District Court’s preliminary injunction pending an appeal by the Defendants (i.e., Miami-Dade County and the Director of its Corrections and Rehabilitations Department). The preliminary injunction, which was stayed, required the Defendants in that similar case to use myriad safety measures to prevent the spread of COVID-19 at the Metro West jail. The Swain Court considered the Plaintiffs’ § 1983 claim that Defendants violated the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments through their purportedly deliberate indifference to the COVID-19 risks affecting the jail detainees. The Court noted that an Eighth Amendment challenge has two components: an objective one and a subjective one. To prevail on the objective component, a plaintiff must show “an objectively intolerable risk of harm.” Swain, 2020 WL 2161317, at *4. To satisfy the subjective component, a plaintiff must show that the prison official “acted with deliberate indifference.” Id. The Swain Court noted that the deliberate indifference element requires a prison official to have a subjective “state of mind more blameworthy than negligence.” Id.
25

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 111 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/22/2020 Page 26 of 53
The Eleventh Circuit held that the District Court “incorrectly collapsed” the subjective and objective components. Id. Moreover, it held that the Defendants are likely to prevail on appeal. Id.
More specifically, the Eleventh Circuit held that the trial court “treated the increase in COVID-19 infections as proof that the Defendants deliberately disregarded an intolerable risk,” an approach which “likely violated the admonition that resultant harm does not establish a liable state of mind.” Id. It also held that the Defendants are likely to prevail for the additional reason that Plaintiffs “offered ‘little evidence’ to suggest that the Defendants were deliberately indifferent.” Id. Instead, the Appellate Court held, the evidence supports the conclusion that the Defendants “are taking the risk of COVID-19 seriously.” Id.
The Swain Court also held that the trial court “likely erred” by treating Metro West’s inability to achieve meaningful social distancing as “evincing a reckless state of mind.” Id.
Although the specific conditions at the three federal detention centers and the County’s Metro West facility have not been established to be identical, some of the problematic conditions at the Metro West jail (e.g., the impossibility of achieving “social distancing”) seem to be also present at Krome, Broward, and Glades. But Swain held that the provisions of the preliminary injunction (e.g., specifying specific measures which county jail officials must take, such as requiring that soap and mask be provided) are
26

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 111 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/22/2020 Page 27 of 53
illustrations of a scenario where the District Court designated itself as a de facto “superwarden” and incorrectly required those officials to, in effect, obtain a “permission slip” from the Court before taking action at the jail. Id. at *5.
Some of the measures in the preliminary injunction stayed in Swain are similar to, and at times identical to, the measures included in the temporary restraining order issued by the District Court in this case. Unlike the Defendants in Swain, however, the Defendants here (ICE, for all practical purposes) have not filed a notice of appeal of the TRO (because, presumably, the statute does not permit interlocutory appeal of a TRO, as opposed to a preliminary injunction). Instead, they have filed reports which provide information on what steps they have taken in response to the TRO.
Given the similarities between Swain and the instant case,10 there could theoretically be a question about Petitioners’ chances of succeeding on the merits of their efforts to convert the TRO in the instant case into a preliminary injunction. To be sure, each case turns on its facts. The Swain facts are not identical to the facts here, so the appellate court’s ruling about the preliminary injunction in Swain and whether the evidence established deliberate indifference there does not necessarily mean it would reach a similar conclusion here about the deliberate indifference standard at the three
10 Swain was issued on May 5, 2020, which means that the Undersigned (who issued the Report and Recommendations on April 22, 2020) and Judge Cooke (who issued the TRO on April 30, 2020) did not have the benefit of Swain, which is now binding precedent, when we analyzed the issues.
27

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 111 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/22/2020 Page 28 of 53
immigration detention centers. In addition, the legal theories asserted by the parties in the two cases are not identical, either.
Therefore, the mere fact that our Appellate Court stayed the preliminary injunction concerning Metro West does not mean that it would issue an identical ruling in this case, which, of course, has different facts. The health risks confronting the immigration detainees could be significantly greater than those affecting defendants housed at Metro West. Likewise, an evaluation of the mental states of ICE officials operating the three federal immigration facilities could show greater culpability than county officials operating Metro West. In other words, the Swain Plaintiffs may not have submitted sufficient evidence of deliberate indifference, while the Plaintiffs here may have provided more-substantial evidence of deliberate indifference.
But it is not necessary to determine whether Petitioners will ultimately succeed in obtaining a preliminary injunction or declaratory relief here in order to decide the class certification issue. As the Advisory Committee Notes to the 2003 Amendment of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(c)(1)(A) explains: “an evaluation of the probable outcome of the merits is not properly part of the certification decision.” Cf. Amgen Inc. v. Conn. Ret. Plans & Tr. Funds, 568 U.S. 455, 459 (2013) (emphasis added) (“Rule 23(b)(3) requires a showing that questions common to the class predominate, not that those questions will be answered, on the merits, in favor of the class.”).
The purpose of a class-certification ruling “is not to adjudicate the case,” but “to
28

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 111 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/22/2020 Page 29 of 53
select the method best suited to adjudication of the controversy.” Id. at 460 (internal citation omitted). Adjudicating the merits to determine certification “put[s] the cart before the horse.” Id.; see generally Cooper v. Southern Co., 205 F.R.D. 596, 608-90 (N.D. Ga. 2001) (“The Court’s responsibility is to make sure that the common bond between the class representatives’ claims and those of the class is strong enough so that it is fair for the fortunes of the class members to rise or fall with the fortunes of the class representatives.”); see also In re Chiquita Brands Int’l Inc. Alien Tort Statute and Shareholders Derivative Litigation, 331 F.R.D. 675, 682 (S.D. Fla. 2019) (finding that at the class certification motion stage, “the Court should not pass on the merits of the claims”); cf. Amgen, 568 U.S. at 465-66 (“Rule 23 grants courts no license to engage in free-ranging merits inquiries at the certification stage” and merits questions “may be considered to the extent – but only to the extent – they are relevant to determining whether the Rule 23 prerequisites for class certification are satisfied”).11
11 The Swain Court pointed out that an expert report found that “Metro West appears to have implemented many measures to curb the spread of the virus.” 2020 WL 2161317, at *4. It also emphasized that the Defendants “adopted extensive safety measures such as increasing screening, providing protective equipment, adopting social distancing when possible, quarantining symptomatic inmates, and enhancing cleaning procedures.” Id. at *5. These circumstances, the appellate court pointed out, are inconsistent with a finding of deliberate indifference.
In its memorandum opposing the class action motion [ECF No. 92, pp. 13-14], ICE advised that it “began taking measures, prior to the filing of the lawsuit, to address the threat posed by COVID-19.” Id. at p. 13. The measures included some of the ones mentioned in Swain. ICE contends that its conduct, as evidenced by the pre-lawsuit
29

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 111 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/22/2020 Page 30 of 53
So an order certifying a class does not by itself indicate whether the claims certified
will succeed. However, the Undersigned deems it prudent to point out that other
appellate courts12 have recently issued opinions staying preliminary injunctions on
rationales similar to the one articulated in Swain. See generally Valentine v. Collier, 956 F.3d
797, 801, 803 (5th Cir. 2020) (staying preliminary injunction entered against the executive
director of the Texas prison system and the warden of one of its prisons for the elderly
and infirm, noting that the preliminary injunction created an “administrative nightmare,”
and explaining that “the incidence of diseases or infections, standing alone, do not imply
unconstitutional confinement conditions, since any densely populated residence may be
subject to outbreaks”); Marlowe v. Leblanc, No. 20-30276, 2020 WL 2043425, at *2-4 (5th Cir.
2020) (staying district court’s preliminary injunction entered against Louisiana’s prison
system officials in a lawsuit filed by a diabetic who is “particularly vulnerable to the
measures, “does not evince deliberate indifference to detainees’ serious medical needs.” [sic]. Id. at pp. 13-14.
The appellate courts which have stayed COVID-19 preliminary injunctions against officials operating state and federal prison and detention facilities seem to have all relied on that view to stay the trial court’s preliminary injunction. See, e.g., Marlowe, 2020 WL 2043425, at *2 (stating the question is whether the state prison officials are required “to do more than [they] have already done to mitigate the risk of harm” and noting that the evidence did not show deliberate indifference because the officials were taking “a plethora of measures” to “abate the risks posed by COVID-19”).
12 On the other hand, some trial-level district courts have issued orders granting injunctive relief and certifying classes or sub-classes in COVID-19 prisoner/detainee litigation. See, e.g., Fraihat v. U.S. Immigration & Customs Enforcement, No. EDCV-19-1546 JGB, 2020 WL 1932570 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 20, 2020).
30

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 111 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/22/2020 Page 31 of 53
virus’s effects”; noting that the virus has spread within the prison but emphasizing that, given the many prevention measures taken by the prison, “an increase in infection rate alone is insufficient to prove deliberate indifference”; and holding that the harm to the state’s interest in administering its prison system is “particularly acute” because the preliminary injunction “interferes with the rapidly-changing approach” that the state has “used to respond to the pandemic so far”); cf. Roman v. Wolf, No. 20-55436, 2020 WL 2188048, at *1 (9th Cir. May 5, 2020) (staying preliminary injunction except for paragraph requiring substantial compliance with CDC Guidelines at ICE immigration detention facility in Adelanto, California).
B. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 It is well established that trial courts have “broad discretion” in determining whether to certify a class and to subsequently amend a class. See, e.g., Coon v. Georgia Pac. Corp., 829 F.2d 1563, 1566 (11th Cir. 1987); Kilgo v. Bowman Transp., Inc., 789 F.2d 859, 877 (11th Cir. 1986). As a result, the appellate court will review a District Court’s decision about whether to certify a class for an abuse of discretion. See Babineau v. Fed. Express Corp., 576 F.3d 1183, 1189 (11th Cir. 2009). The Eleventh Circuit will find an abuse of discretion in a class certification ruling only if the District Court applies the wrong legal standard, follows improper procedures in making its determination, bases its decision on clearly erroneous findings of fact, or applies the law in an unreasonable or incorrect
31

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 111 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/22/2020 Page 32 of 53
manner. See Klay v. Humana, Inc., 382 F.3d 1241, 1251 (11th Cir. 2004), abrogated in part on other grounds by Bridge v. Phoenix Bond & Indem. Co., 553 U.S. 639 (2008).
“The class action is ‘an exception to the usual rule that litigation is conducted by and on behalf of the individual named parties only.’” Comcast Corp. v. Behrend, 569 U.S. 27, 33 (2013) (quoting Califano v. Yamasaki, 442 U.S. 682, 700-01 (1979)). To fall within the exception, Plaintiffs “must affirmatively demonstrate [their] compliance” with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338, 350 (2011).
“A district court must conduct a rigorous analysis of the Rule 23 prerequisites before certifying a class.” Vega v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., 564 F.3d 1256, 1266 (11th Cir. 2009) (citation omitted). “A party seeking class certification must affirmatively demonstrate his compliance with [Rule 23]—that is, he must be prepared to prove that there are in fact sufficiently numerous parties, common questions of law or fact, etc.” Dukes, 564 U.S. at 350. “In other words, ‘the party seeking class certification has a burden of proof, not a burden of pleading.’” Reyes v. BCA Fin. Servs., No. 16-cv-24077, 2018 WL 3145807, at *7 (S.D. Fla. June 26, 2018) (quoting Brown v. Electrolux Home Prods., Inc., 817 F.3d 1225, 1234 (11th Cir. 2016)).
Plaintiffs seek class certification pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and (b)(2). Specifically, Plaintiffs seek certification of the following class:
All civil immigration detained individuals held by Respondents at the Krome Service Processing Center (“Krome”), the Broward Transitional Center (“BTC”), or at Glades County Detention Facility (“Glades”) when this action was filed, since this action was filed, or in the future.
32

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 111 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/22/2020 Page 33 of 53
[ECF No. 81, p. 5]. According to Petitioners, ICE has not even attempted to show this Court that it is
fully implementing CDC Guidelines. Instead, as phrased by Plaintiffs, the ICE-submitted declarations “illustrate a consistent pattern of unhygienically cramped conditions, inadequate personal protective equipment, and grossly inadequate practices by ICE, such as late screening and use of massive cohort quarantining.” Id. at p. 2. Plaintiffs contend that putative class members are “uniformly not provided basic necessities to fight against COVID-19, such as space, face masks, soap, and hand sanitizer.”13 Id. at p. 6. “Each class member is therefore not only subject to similar conditions, but similarly subject to the same devastating risk of contracting COVID-19.” Id.
Class certification is governed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. Class certification is proper where the party seeking certification demonstrates that (1) each of the prerequisites of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) have been met; and (2) the proposed class satisfies at least one of the requirements listed in Rule 23(b). Dukes, 564 U.S. at 345 (2011).
13 ICE disputes this description, as illustrated by the representations made in its postTRO reports. The Undersigned acknowledges a significant factual dispute but will not resolve it here. If a class of some type is certified for claims concerning this alleged lack of hygiene, then all class members will have their claims succeed or fail based on an evidence-based determination of which set of facts is the correct one. Of course, this Court could always determine that the facts are not the ones portrayed by Plaintiffs or those described by ICE – and that the actual scenario is somewhere between the two competing versions.
33

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 111 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/22/2020 Page 34 of 53
The Rule 23(a) requirements are as follows: (1) the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable; (2) there are questions of law or fact common to the class; (3) the claims or defenses of the representative parties are typical of the claims or defenses of the class; and (4) the representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a).
i. Analysis of the Rule 23(a) Factors The Supreme Court has held that “actual, not presumed, conformance with Rule 23(a) [is] indispensable.” Gen. Tel. Co. of the Sw. v. Falcon, 457 U.S. 147, 160 (1982). The party seeking class certification bears the burden of demonstrating it has satisfied all four Rule 23(a) prerequisites and that the class lawsuit falls within one of the three types of actions permitted under Rule 23(b). Amchem Prods. Inc. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591, 614 (1997).
1. Numerosity The proposed class satisfies the requirement that the class be “so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(1). While there is no fixed rule, generally a class size less than twenty-one is typically considered inadequate, while a class size of more than forty is generally adequate. Cheney v. Cyberguard Corp., 213 F.R.D. 484, 489-90 (S.D. Fla. 2003). This requirement is easily met here because there are many hundreds of people (indeed, approximately 1,124) in civil immigration detention who are being held by the same Respondent across Krome, BTC, and Glades, and each of them is affected by the
34

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 111 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/22/2020 Page 35 of 53
policies and practices challenged in this lawsuit. See, e.g., Rosas v. Baca, No. CV 12-00428 DDP (SHx), 2012 WL 2061694, at *2 (C.D. Cal. June 7, 2012) (“The Jails currently house thousands of inmates, and are certain to house many more in the future. The court therefore agrees with Plaintiffs’ undisputed assertion that the numerosity requirement has been satisfied.”).
The size of the proposed Class seeking injunctive or declaratory relief make joinder impracticable. The proposed Class thus easily satisfies the numerosity requirement of Rule 23(a)(1).
2. Commonality Determining whether Petitioners/Plaintiffs meet the commonality requirement depends on the nature of the claims. The claims seeking release on bond or on conditions require a much-different analysis than the claims concerning the conditions (e.g., more soap and disinfecting products, reconfiguring sleeping arrangements to more easily facilitate social distancing). Commonality “requires at least one question common to all of the class members, the answer to which is “apt to drive the resolution of the litigation.” Money v, Pritzker, Nos. 20-cv-2093, 20-cv-2094, 2020 WL 1820660, at *14 (N.D. Ill. Apr. 10, 2020) (internal citation omitted). The Undersigned will first evaluate the conditions-related claims seeking a declaratory judgment and injunctive relief concerning improved hygiene and health
35

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 111 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/22/2020 Page 36 of 53
measures. In other words, the non-release claims. “Commonality requires the plaintiff to demonstrate that the class members have
suffered the same injury.” Dukes, 564 U.S. at 350. The common contention of injury “must be of such a nature that it is capable of class wide resolution—which means that determination of its truth or falsity will resolve an issue that is central to the validity of each one of the claims in one stroke.” Id.
A critical question for the class is whether ICE has been deliberately indifferent to the risk that people detained at Krome, Broward, and Glades will contract COVID-19 due to the allegedly unhygienic conditions and an inability to protect themselves through social distancing. See Helling v. McKinney, 509 U.S. 25, 32 (1993) (stating the Constitution confers upon the Government a duty to assume responsibility for safety and general wellbeing of people detained).
Common questions also circle on the (in)adequacy of ICE’s policies and practices governing the conditions of confinement, including ICE’s failure to follow CDC Guidelines. These issues, which are at the core of the claims asserted by Plaintiffs and the class constitute the type of common questions that courts have found sufficient to meet the commonality requirement. For example, in Hernandez v. City of Monterey, the court certified “a class of inmates challenging jail safety and health care policies and practices, and a subclass of inmates challenging jail disability policies and practices.” 305 F.R.D. 132, 139 (N.D. Cal. 2015).
36

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 111 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/22/2020 Page 37 of 53
Moreover, the very nature of this suit and the relief requested (other than release of detainees) also support a finding of commonality.
Specifically, in a civil rights lawsuit such as this, “commonality requires only that there be at least one issue whose resolution will affect all or a significant number of the putative class members.” Braggs v. Dunn, 321 F.R.D. 653, 664 (M.D. Ala. 2017) (quoting Williams v. Mohawk Indus., Inc., 568 F.3d 1350, 1355 (11th Cir. 2009)) (internal brackets omitted). This “relatively light burden” does not require that all questions of law and fact be common to the putative class members. See Vega, 564 F.3d at 1268.
Here, ICE’s uniform safety and hygiene practices and its alleged consistent refusal to follow CDC Guidelines at Krome, Broward, and Glades expose each class member to the same “substantial risk of serious harm.” See Hernandez, 305 F.R.D. at 157.
All of the current detainees have been, or will be, subjected to these common conditions and common policies and practices, and a determination that ICE’s conduct is unconstitutional and violated CDC guidelines will therefore “resolve an issue that is central to the validity” of each and every class member’s detention. Dukes, 564 U.S. at 350.
Plaintiffs say that ICE is holding all members of the class in the same horrific conditions, and the Court should find the necessary facts and rule on the constitutionality of those common conditions “in one stroke.” See id.
The fact that certain details relating to their conditions of confinement may or will vary between class members does not defeat commonality. Reid v. Donelan, 297 F.R.D.
37

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 111 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/22/2020 Page 38 of 53
185, 191 (D. Mass. 2014), rev’d on other grounds, 819 F.3d 486 (1st Cir. 2016) (granting class certification despite individual differences among class members, where common issues pervade).
Those inevitable differences -- which at most might entail some tailoring in the ultimate non-release remedy the Court might fashion -- do not change the fact that conditions experienced in all three South Florida detention centers at issue here are purportedly all uniformly unsanitary and unconstitutional or that ICE has supposedly shown deliberate indifference towards the risk of COVID-19 infection to all people they are detaining at those three facilities.
In other words, that class members may suffer varying degrees of injury does not defeat commonality. See, e.g., In re Deepwater Horizon, 739 F.3d 790, 810-11 (5th Cir. 2014) (“[T]he legal requirement class members have all ‘suffered the same injury’ can be satisfied by an instance of the defendant’s injurious conduct, even when the resulting injurious effects—the damages—are diverse.”).
The class members face a common risk of infection, and a ruling that ICE’s conduct is unconstitutional and illegal will “resolve an issue that is central to the validity” of each class member’s claim. Dukes, 564 U.S. at 350.14
14 ICE contends that the detainees all have “unique characteristics, including their age, gender, general state of health, and specific medical conditions which might render them more vulnerable to COVID-19 infection.” [ECF No. 110, p. 2]. This, it says, demonstrates that a challenge to conditions cannot be handled on a class basis. Moreover, ICE notes, Plaintiffs included affidavits detailing their specific medical situations
38

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 111 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/22/2020 Page 39 of 53
Plaintiffs have met Rule 23(a)’s commonality requirement for the claims seeking
relief other than release. Thus, a class action seeking a declaration that the conditions at
the three South Florida immigration detention centers constitute cruel and unusual
punishment or an injunction requiring that cleaning and hygiene products be provided
on a regular basis and that beds be reconfigured to promote social distancing meets the
commonality requirement.
The demand for release, however, presents a far-different picture.
At bottom, the release demand does not meet the commonality requirement. The
release demand arises from Petitioners’ habeas corpus claim under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The
Undersigned finds Money v. Pritzker insightful and persuasive and relies upon it to
support the conclusion that the purported class seeking release does not meet Rule 23(a)’s
“because they believed those are relevant facts insofar as whether ICE is obligated to take into account their unique medical conditions because such conditions create a risk of serious harm to them, and the disregard of that risk, by conduct more than mere negligence, would constitute deliberate indifference to their serious medical need.” Id. at p. 3.
The Undersigned is not convinced that these different medical conditions render class treatment unavailable for claims demanding compliance with CDC Guidelines, however. The purported failure to issue sufficient soap or cleaning products or masks is a scenario applicable to all three facilities, in general. Determining whether ICE officials are deliberately indifferent because they failed to provide these items would typically not depend on whether one detainee is 35 years old or 55 years old, or if one detainee has a cholesterol level of 241 while another has a level of 144. Similarly, the failure to place beds more than six feet apart to facilitate social distancing affects all detainees, and the health status of each detainee would usually not be distinct enough to cause a different conclusion about whether close bed placement constitutes deliberate indifference to a virus-created health risk.
39

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 111 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/22/2020 Page 40 of 53
commonality requirement. 2020 WL 1820660, at *14-15. Because I find Money persuasive, I will provide a detailed discussion of its more-important features.
The Money Plaintiffs asked the Court to force the State of Illinois executive branch to start a process for the potential release of thousands of inmates, through medical furlough or home detention. In particular, the Plaintiffs are ten individuals serving prison sentences in various Illinois facilities. They brought two purported class action lawsuits seeking release of prisoners from state corrections facilities in light of the COVID-19 pandemic.
The Court noted that Plaintiffs are “correct in asserting that the issue of inmate health and safety is deserving of the highest degree of attention.” Id. at *1.
The foundation of those two lawsuits is, for all essential purposes, the same as the one here: the Plaintiffs contend that (1) the prison setting makes them (and other purported class members) especially vulnerable to COVID-19; (2) the government’s responses to the danger are insufficient; and (3) the only way to solve the problem is moving prisoners out of prisons.
Similar to the Plaintiffs here, the Money Plaintiffs also filed a motion for a TRO and a preliminary injunction.
Similar to the instant case, Money’s ultimate aim is “unmistakably [to] seek to reduce the prison population,” which is “the whole point” of the lawsuits, which seek to “remove inmates from prison because they are vulnerable in those facilities.” Id. at *13.
40

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 111 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/22/2020 Page 41 of 53
The Court noted that the impetus for Plaintiffs’ claims is the living conditions inherent in a congregate setting during the COVID-19 epidemic. It further pointed to the reality that “all prison facilities, by definition have living conditions that prevent inmates from practicing the social distancing required by current guidance from the CDC” and the Illinois state government. Id. The Court also flagged a truism applicable to the instant case: “If prisons could be reconfigured to permit social distancing and observance of CDC’s hygiene recommendations, Plaintiffs would have no claim.” Id.
Shifting its analysis to the commonality requirement, the Court noted that the public interest, which must be considered when evaluating a request for a TRO or preliminary injunction,15 “mandates individualized consideration of any inmate’s suitability for release and on what conditions, for the safety of the inmate, the inmate’s family, and the public at large.” Id. at *14 (emphasis added).
The Money Court expressed myriad points which apply to the instant lawsuit against ICE:
1. “Each putative class member comes with a unique situation – different crimes,16 sentences, outdates, disciplinary histories, age, medical history, places of
15 The public interest factor is one of four requirements for injunctive relief in the Eleventh Circuit. Wreal, LLC v. Amazon.com, Inc., 840 F.3d 1244, 1247 (11th Cir. 2016). 16 Although the detainees here are civil, ICE officials would, and should, consider a detainee’s criminal history when assessing him or her for release, as it could easily impact the danger-to-the-community factor used when evaluating appropriateness of release in a given case.
41

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 111 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/22/2020 Page 42 of 53
incarceration, proximity to infected inmates, availability of a home landing spot, likelihood of transmitting the virus to someone at home detention, likelihood of violation or recidivism, and danger to the community.” Id. at *15.
2. Although commonality does not require perfect uniformity, it “does require more uniformity that these Plaintiffs would have on the only matter ‘apt to drive the resolution of this litigation’ (Wal-Mart, 564 U.S. at 350) -- namely, which class members should actually be given a furlough?” Id.
3. “Assessment of the safety risk must be based on an individualized analysis.” Id.
4. “[T]here is no way to decide which inmates should stay, and which inmates should go, without diving into an inmate-specific inquiry.” Id.
5. The “permutations here are endless, as rarely, if ever, will any two plaintiffs be alike on the factors that matter at the point of decision.” Id.
6. The differences among the factors for all inmates (or detainees, to use the term from the instant case) “are so vast and fundamental that class treatment . . . is completely unworkable.” Id.
Thus, as outlined by the Money Court, the claims for release are inappropriate for class treatment because they do not meet the commonality element.17
17 In a supplemental memorandum of law [ECF No. 103], Plaintiffs attempt to distinguish Money by emphasizing that Plaintiffs’ sole claim for relief there was release from confinement (while the claims here include requests for relief to protect them from
42

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 111 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/22/2020 Page 43 of 53
3. Typicality The typicality requirement centers on the relationship between the proposed class representatives and the other members of the class. Ibrahim v. Acosta, 326 F.R.D. 696, 700 (S.D. Fla. 2018) (citing Vega, 564 F.3d at 1275). This analysis turns on “whether other members have the same or similar injury, whether the action is based on conduct which is not unique to the named class plaintiffs, and whether other class members have been injured by the same course of conduct.” In re checking Account Overdraft Litig., 286 F.R.D. 645, 653 (S.D. Fla. 2012). “A sufficient nexus is established if the claims or defenses of the class and the class representative arise from the same event or pattern or practice and are based on the same legal theory.” In re Terazosin Hydrochloride Antitrust Litig., 220 F.R.D. 672, 686 (S.D. Fla. 2004) (internal citation omitted). Commonality and typicality tend to overlap, as each looks to the nature of the claims presented in the case, and whether the class members and the named plaintiffs are similarly situated as to those claims. See Dukes, 564 U.S. at 349, n.5 Here, the proposed class members have suffered the same injury because they are subject to the same confinement under the same allegedly unconstitutional conditions caused by the same purported deliberate indifference by the same entity (i.e., ICE) which
the risk of COVID-19 infection. They note that the TRO-imposed measures benefit every person at all three facilities. The Undersigned appreciates this important distinction. And that is why I’m recommending that a class be certified for the non-release claims, e.g., for claims designed to require health-focused measures at the facilities).
43

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 111 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/22/2020 Page 44 of 53
is exposing them to the same risk of developing COVID-19. [See ECF No. 76, pp. 6-10]; see also Armstrong v. Davis, 275 F.3d 849, 869 (9th Cir. 2001) (finding typicality requirement is satisfied when “the cause of the injury is the same—here, the Board’s discriminatory policy and practice”). All class members are forced to live in close quarters with others in civil detention -- when they sleep, eat, shower, and use the toilet. Furthermore, all class members are exposed to a similar lack of hygiene and health products and an alleged lack of screening, personal protective equipment and medical oversight.
Therefore, to the extent that the named representatives and putative class members are seeking relief other than release, then they have met the typicality requirement. But to the extent that they all seek release, then the typicality requirement, which is similar to the commonality requirement, is not met for the same reasons outlined in Money. 2020 WL 1820660, at *14.
4. Adequacy Rule 23(a)(4) requires that “the representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(4). Adequacy depends on the resolution of two questions: “(1) whether plaintiffs’ counsel are qualified, experienced, and generally able to conduct the proposed litigation and . . . (2) whether plaintiffs have interests antagonistic to those of the rest of the class.” See Cheney, 213 F.R.D. at 496 (quoting Kirkpatrick v. J.C. Bradford & Co., 827 F.2d 718, 726 (11th Cir. 1987)).
44

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 111 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/22/2020 Page 45 of 53
The Undersigned rejects ICE’s argument that typicality is not met because the claims may vary depending on which of the three detention facilities are at issue.
ICE also argues that adequacy is not met because future putative class members may confront different conditions, which “may vary over time.” [ECF No. 92, p. 9]. But this concern is easily addressed by limiting the class to detainees currently housed at the three facilities and excluding those who will be housed there in the future. Savino v. Souza, No. 20-10617, 2020 WL 1703844, at *8 (D. Mass. Apr. 8, 2020) (excluding future ICE detainees from class because “the situation is rapidly evolving and future detainees may well be subject to different confinement conditions than those now obtaining,” which means that the named representatives might not be able to “fairly and adequately protect the interests of those future detainees”).
ICE has not challenged the adequacy of Plaintiffs’ counsel, and the Undersigned has little difficulty concluding that they are experienced and will fairly and adequately represent the interests of the class.18
Plaintiffs have met the adequacy requirement, but the class for the non-release claims will not include future detainees and it will not include those detainees who have already been transferred. Judge Cooke has already entered an Order authorizing ICE to
18 The proposed class counsel are King & Spalding LLP, the Immigration Clinic at the University of Miami School of Law, the Rapid Defense Network (a New York State nonprofit legal services organization), Prada Urizar, LLC, the Southern Poverty Law Center, Americans for Immigrant Justice, and the Legal Aid Service of Broward County.
45

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 111 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/22/2020 Page 46 of 53
transfer detainees at the three South Florida facilities to other immigration detention facilities. This was done in order to provide a method to quickly reduce the census populations. In addition, the option of using a transfer to reduce the number of detainees is one which some prisoners actually request in the COVID-19 lawsuits. See e.g., Mays v. Dart, No. C 2134, 2020 WL 1987007, at *1 (N.D. Ill. Apr. 27, 2020).
ii. Analysis of the Rule 23(b) Factor Plaintiffs say they are proceeding under Rule 23(b), which authorizes a class action if “the party opposing the class has acted or refused to act on grounds that apply generally to the class, so that final injunctive relief or corresponding declaratory relief is appropriate respecting the class as a whole.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2). When assessing a Rule 23(b) theory, “the critical inquiry is whether the class members have suffered a common injury that may properly be addressed by class-wide injunctive or equitable relief.” Ibrahim, 326 F.R.D. at 701 (citing Holmes v. Continental Can Co., 706 F.2d 1144, 1155 (11th Cir. 1983)); see also Dukes, 564 U.S. at 360 (internal citation omitted) (“The key to the (b)(2) class is the indivisible nature of the injunctive or declaratory remedy warranted—the notion that the conduct is such that it can be enjoined or declared unlawful only as to all of the class members or as to none of them.”). “The touchstone of a 23(b)(2) class is that the class claims must be cohesive.” Harris v. Union Pacific R.R. Co., 953 F.3d 1030, 1033 (8th Cir. 2020). Rule 23(b)(2) applies only when a single injunction or declaratory judgment would provide relief to each member
46

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 111 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/22/2020 Page 47 of 53
of the class. Dukes, 564 U.S. at 360. More importantly, a Rule 23(b)(2) class action is appropriate “only when a single injunction or declaratory judgment would provide relief to each member of the class,” not “when each individual class member would be entitled to a different injunction or declaratory judgment against the defendant.” Id.
Plaintiffs’ argument in favor of Rule 23(b)(2) certification focuses on their challenges to conditions (as opposed to a demand for release from detention). For example, they say they all “are being denied the same opportunity to socially distance, the same soap and cleaning items, and the same personal protective equipment.” [ECF No. 81, p. 15].
The Undersigned agrees that injunctive relief concerning these types of remedial measures can be provided on a class-wide basis. A decision to issue masks twice a week, for example, inures to the benefit of all detainees.
But Rule 23(b)(2) is “the sticking point for the habeas corpus plaintiffs’ attempts to bring a representative action . . .” Mays, 2020 WL 1987007, at *18 (emphasis added). The Undersigned finds Mays v. Dart persuasive and will therefore provide a comprehensive review of its legal analysis.
Two Cook County Jail (in Chicago, Illinois) detainees filed a lawsuit against the county sheriff, who operates the jail, on behalf of themselves and a purported class of similarly situate persons. They alleged that the sheriff violated the constitutional rights of jail detainees by failing to provide them with reasonably safe living conditions in the
47

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 111 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/22/2020 Page 48 of 53
face of the current coronavirus pandemic. They asserted claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and for writs of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241.19
The Mays v. Dart Court evaluated the case on a claim-by-claim basis and therefore needed to address the propriety of a representative action for the habeas corpus claim. After noting that Rule 23’s class action provisions do not apply to habeas corpus proceedings in the Seventh Circuit, the Court noted that representative actions, which “are analogous to class actions,” can on rare occasion be brought in habeas corpus proceedings. Id. at 16. Moreover, the Court held that Rule 23 “is instructive in analyzing whether plaintiffs can bring a representative action.” Id.
Significantly, the plaintiffs there also relied on, or analogized to, Rule 23(b)(2). But the Court held that the Plaintiffs did not meet its requirements. Specifically, the Court explained that “in actions where plaintiffs seek an injunction that would ‘merely initiate a process through which highly individualized determinations of liability and remedy are made,’ Rule 23(b)(2) is not satisfied.” Id. at *19 (citing Jamie S v. Milwaukee Public Schools, 668 F.3d 481, 499 (7th Cir. 2012)).
The Court noted the reality that issuing writs of habeas corpus “would entail individualized proceedings,” a result which made Rule 23(b)(2) unavailable. Id. at *19.
19 Unlike Plaintiffs in the instant case, who urge an injunction preventing ICE from transferring any detainees to other facilities, the plaintiffs in Mays v. Dart affirmatively requested a transfer from the Cook County Jail to other jail locations within the sheriff’s control.
48

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 111 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/22/2020 Page 49 of 53
Moreover, it noted that the Court would “need to consider the circumstances of the detained persons and any threat they pose to public safety, which plainly would vary from one person to another.” Id. at *20.20 This, the Court explained, “is a process that would render the claim unsuitable for certification under Rule 23(b)(2) or its analogy for representative actions.” Id.
The same scenario applies here (as to the habeas corpus claims for release). Because release orders must be made individually, there cannot be a class-wide injunction for all detainees (i.e., there would not be one injunction requiring a mass release of all 1,214 detainees). Thus, Rule 23(b)(2) is inapplicable. V. Conclusion
The Undersigned respectfully recommends that Judge Cooke grant the class certification motion for the claims concerning the conditions of confinement and for declaratory relief but deny it for the habeas corpus claims for release. Moreover, the class for the habeas corpus claims for release would not include those challenging their recent
20 The Court noted that the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (“PLRA”) mandates that a court “give substantial weight to any adverse impact on public safety” before issuing preliminary injunctive or prospective relief” that would apply to the habeas corpus claim. Id. at *19. Neither side has argued that the PLRA applies here, and Plaintiffs’ counsel took the position in a recent hearing that it did not apply. Nevertheless, Plaintiffs are demanding release or release on conditions, and they have not suggested that a danger-to-the-community analysis is somehow unavailable or improper in an assessment of eligibility for release. These assessments would have to be made on an individualized basis, which is contrary to the class-wide requirement of Rule 23(b)(2) relief.
49

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 111 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/22/2020 Page 50 of 53
transfers out of the three facilities (because those decisions are made on an individualized basis) or those who will be transferred into the facilities in the future.
But the detainees who have been transferred would still be in the class for the nonrelease claims challenging the conditions, as this Court does not lose jurisdiction over the claims of a detainee who was transferred.
Plaintiffs allege in their new emergency motion (which has not been referred to me) that ICE is playing a shell game. Specifically, they allege that ICE’s transfers are a “naked (and legally erroneous) attempt to shirk this Court’s oversight” and that the hygiene conditions associated with the transfers are horrific. [ECF No. 106, p. 3]. But ICE has not yet had the chance to respond to these allegations, so the Undersigned cannot conclude or even speculate about whether ICE is legitimately using transfers to minimize the census for appropriate, health-focused reasons, or whether it is doing what Plaintiffs accuse it of doing: “cross[ing] over from the deliberate indifference this Court previously found and mov[ing] into the realm of outright disregard for this Court’s authority.” Id.
Any detainee transferred into the three facilities would reap the benefit of injunctive or declaratory relief concerning conditions provided to the named Petitioners and other class members, regardless of whether they were in a certified class or sub-class. See generally Dixon v. Ivey, No. 2:20-cv-248-WHA, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 81183, at *4 (M.D. Ala. May 6, 2020) (recommending denial of inmate’s motion for class certification in COVID-19-related lawsuit over allegedly unsafe and hazardous conditions and citing a
50

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 111 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/22/2020 Page 51 of 53
Tennessee federal case denying a class certification motion involving county jail inmates because “any declaratory relief granted . . . would likely inure to the benefit of other similarly-situated individuals,” even if not technically in a class).
One final point: The 58 named detainees and those in the prospective class are all in an unenviable position. Many of them are likely scared. In fact, most of them may be scared of the COVID-19 health risks they confront while being housed at the detention centers. To succeed on their legal claims, however, they must trudge through the legal headwinds created by Swain, a case admittedly based on different facts but one maintaining the deliberate indifference hurdle which prisoners and detainees still must clear to prove cruel and unusual punishment, even in the midst of a once-in-a-century pandemic which has killed more than 93,000 persons in the United States and more than 318,000 persons globally. The current inability to achieve social distancing is, to be sure, a significant medical issue at the three facilities, but Swain held that this is likely not a scenario “evincing a reckless state of mind.” 2020 WL 2161317, at *14. The Undersigned outlined the realities of detention centers and the difficulties inherent in operating them in the Report and Recommendations [ECF No. 63] issued on the TRO motion, and there is no need to repeat them here. For present purposes, it is sufficient to simply note that a post-Swain Plaintiff class will need to address and overcome these realities when attempting to obtain a
51

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 111 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/22/2020 Page 52 of 53
preliminary injunction or other relief requiring deliberate indifference. In addition, they will need to grapple with Swain’s perspective that officials operating jails have experience and expertise which a Court should respect before deciding to classify their conduct as deliberately indifferent.
At bottom, class certification on some claims is certainly a step forward for Plaintiffs. But it is only one step on a multi-step journey likely to be filled with precedentbased potholes and Swain-influenced legal road hazards. But “a journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step,”21 and Plaintiffs have already taken a few substantial steps (e.g., a TRO, the extension of the TRO and this Report and Recommendations recommending class certification of some claims). VI. Objections
The parties will have only fourteen (14) calendar days from the date of being served with a copy of this Report and Recommendations within which to file written objections, if any, with the District Judge. Each party may file a response to the other party’s objection within fourteen (14) calendar days of the objection.22 Failure to timely
21 Well-known ancient Chinese proverb, probably first written between the 4th and 6th Centuries. Meaning of “A Journey of a Thousand Miles Begins with a Single Step,” Literary Devices: Definition and Examples of Literary Terms, https://literarydevices.net/ajourney-of-a-thousand-miles-begins-with-a-single-step/ (last visited May 22, 2020). 22 The Undersigned is aware that Judge Cooke has scheduled [ECF No. 101 and May 19, 2020 Order] a Zoom hearing on the motion for a preliminary injunction for May 27, 2020. The motion for injunctive relief is designated as an emergency. But the Undersigned does not view the later-filed, relatively-recent class certification motion as an emergency,
52

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 111 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/22/2020 Page 53 of 53
file objections shall bar the parties from a de novo determination by the District Judge of an issue covered in the Report and shall bar the parties from attacking on appeal unobjected-to factual and legal conclusions contained in this Report except upon grounds of plain error if necessary in the interest of justice. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985); Henley v. Johnson, 885 F.2d 790, 794 (11th Cir. 1989); 11th Cir. R. 3-1 (2016).
RESPECTFULLY RECOMMENDED in Chambers, in Miami, Florida, on May 22, 2020.
Copies furnished to: The Honorable Marcia G. Cooke All counsel of record
and Plaintiffs (who asked for “expedited” treatment) have not designated it as one either. Therefore, the Undersigned is using the 14-day presumptive deadline established by Local Rule 4.
53

 
 Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 116 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/25/2020 Page 1 of 13

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO: 20-21553-CIV-COOKE/GOODMAN
PATRICK GAYLE, et al., Petitioners,
v. MICHAEL W. MEADE, et al.,
Respondents. ________________________________________/
RESPONDENTS’ RESPONSE TO PETITIONERS’ EMERGENCY MOTION TO COMPEL COMPLIANCE WITH THE COURT’S APRIL 30, 2020 ORDER
Respondents, by and through their undersigned counsel, file their Response to Petitioners’ Emergency Motion to Compel Compliance with the Court’s April 30, 2020 Order, and state:1
I. RESPONDENTS HAVE COMPLIED WITH THE COURT’S APRIL 30, 2020 TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER, AS CLARIFIED BY ITS MAY 2, 2020 ORDER ON MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION
On April 30, 2020, the district court entered its Order Adopting in Part Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation. D.E. 76. The Order directed respondents, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, to complete various tasks, to include “providing adequate amounts of soap and water and cleaning materials to detainees at each of the three detention centers at issue. Further, within two (2) days of this Order, ICE shall provide masks to all detainees and shall replace those masks at least once per week.” D.E. 76 at 11, item 6 (emphasis in original). ICE complied with this portion of the Order. D.E. 79.
The Court also ordered that, within three (3) days of its Order, ICE should submit a report

1

Respondents respectfully apologize for filing the attached response beyond the Court’s deadline of noon.

Respondents encountered logistical issues and attempted in good faith to file the response before the Court’s deadline.

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 116 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/25/2020 Page 2 of 13
to the Court informing the Court as to how it intended to accelerate its review of its “Alternatives to Detention” program (or other protocols resulting in detainee release) with the goal of reducing the population to 75% of capacity at each of the three detention centers within two weeks of the Order. D.E. 76 at 10, item 3.
The Court directed that, within seven (7) days of its Order, ICE should evaluate each of the 34 detainees named in the complaint, consistent with the ICE’s Pandemic Response Requirement, and inform the Court who among them could be released promptly in light of COVID-19. The Court further directed that, “ICE must take into consideration the detainees’ current health status, eligibility for bond, immigration status, immigration court history and orders, and prior criminal history.” D.E. 76 at 10, item 2.
On Saturday, May 2, 2020, the Court issued its Order on Petitioners’ Motion for Clarification. D.E. 78. The Court clarified its April 30, 2020 Order to include all fifty-eight (58) named petitioners in the case. Also, the Court clarified its April 30, 2020 Order
to permit Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) to transfer detainees from the three facilities at issue. However, ICE may only transfer detainees after first evaluating each detainee and making a determination as to the detainees’ eligibility for release pursuant to ICE’s COVID-19 April 10, 2020 Pandemic Response Requirements. D.E. 78. The April 30, 2020 Order also imposed various reporting requirements, including a report to be filed by Friday, at 4:00 p.m., to show the number of detainees released; which facilities they were release from; and the nature of the detainee released (e.g. in a high-risk category because of age or a specific documented medical condition, etc.). D.E. 76 at 10-11, item 4. Also, ICE was directed to file a twice-weekly (Monday and Thursday at 4:00 p.m.) report on the following: (a) how many detainees it is housing on the date of reporting; (b) at which of
2

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 116 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/25/2020 Page 3 of 13
the three centers the detainees are being housed; (c) which of the detainees are considered “mandatory detainees,” and (d) which of the detainees have no prior criminal convictions and no pending criminal charges. D.E. 76 at 11, item 5.
In its Order, the Court recognized “that complying with this Order poses several procedural and logistical hurdles for ICE,” but also noted that “time is of the essence,” and the Court “fully expects ICE to work with a sense of urgency to meet the deadlines set forth and refrain from requests for extension of time absent extenuating circumstances.” D.E. 76 at 11, item 9.
ICE has complied with the reporting requirements and did not seek a single extension of time. Petitioners filed an expedited motion for class certification, and the Court directed a response be filed to petitioners’ motion on Saturday, May 9, 2020, at 12:00 noon. Respondents’ opposition to the motion for class certification was timely filed.
II. ICE HAS PROPERLY EXERCISED ITS DISCRETIONARY AUTHORITY IN 8 U.S.C. § 1231(g)(1) TO TRANSFER DETAINEES TO OTHER LOCATIONS
Petitioners assail ICE for transferring detainees from Krome, BTC, and Glades, to other detention centers, claiming that such a practice is “not a good faith attempt to accomplish the goals set out in this Court’s April 30, Order ….” D.E. 106 at 8. Further, petitioners argue that ICE has failed to show that it performed the required evaluations of detained individuals before transferring them. D.E. 106 at 8-10.
Long before there was a global coronavirus pandemic, Congress granted the Attorney General of the United States, in the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, broad authority to determine places of confinement for aliens in proceedings under the INA. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(c) provided, in pertinent part, that “the Attorney General is authorized and directed to arrange for appropriate places of detention for those aliens whom he shall take into custody and detain under
3

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 116 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/25/2020 Page 4 of 13
this section.” This section conferred broad authority on the Attorney General to determine appropriate places of detention for aliens. Sasso v. Milhollan, 735 F.Supp. 1045 (S.D.Fla. 1990).
In 1996, Congress amended the INA extensively, and the successor to § 1252(c) is codified at 8 U.S.C. § 1232(g)(1), which provides that, “[t]he Attorney General shall arrange for appropriate places of detention for aliens detained pending removal or a decision on removal.” In CallaCollado v. Atty. General, 663 F.3d 680 (3rd Cir. 2011), the Third Circuit observed that “as a part of DHS, ICE ‘necessarily has the authority to determine the location of detention of an alien in deportation proceedings … and therefore, to transfer aliens from one detention center to another.’” Id. At 685, citing Gandarillas-Zambrana v. Bd. Of Immigration Appeals, 44 F.3d 1251, 1256 (4th Cir. 1995).
The clear direction provided by the Court in its April 30, 2020 Order was for ICE to reduce its detainee populations at Krome, BTC, and Glades. In item 3, the Court directed ICE, within 3 days of the Order, to submit “a report [to] the Court informing the Court as to how it intends to accelerate its review of its “Alternative to Detention” program (or other protocols resulting in detainee release) with the goal of reducing the population to 75% of capacity at each of the three detention centers within two weeks of this Order.” D.E. 76 at 10.
ICE chose to reduce its detainee population by releasing some detainees, and transferring others, based upon its broad statutory authority in 8 U.S.C. § 1231(g)(1). This was an appropriate exercise of authority by a prison facility administrator to manage the population of a detention center, to facilitate the distancing requirements presented by the COVID-19 pandemic.
Petitioners claimed initially that the crowded conditions at Krome, BTC, and Glades unreasonably exposed them to contracting the COVID-19 virus, and they sought release from detention. Now that ICE has effected reductions of the detainee populations at the three facilities
4

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 116 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/25/2020 Page 5 of 13
through transfers of detainees, petitioners now assail the manner in which they have been transferred to other detention facilities, and the conditions at their new detention locations. D.E. 106 at 8-15.
The Court’s May 2, 2020 order clarifying its earlier order expressly permits ICE to transfer detainees, but only after ICE first evaluated each detainee and made a determination as to the detainees’ eligibility for release pursuant to ICE’s COVID-19 April 10, 2020 Pandemic Response Requirements. D.E. 78. For detainee transfers occurring after the May 2, 2020 order, ICE has evaluated each detainee’s eligibility for release under the Pandemic Response Requirements in conjunction with other relevant factors such as detainee’ criminal history and eligibility for bond; the Court required the same method of review for the named Petitioners. D.E.76 at 10. If the evaluation resulted in a finding that release was not warranted, the detainee was transferred.
Petitioners contend that, “ICE has transferred many detainees from the three facilities to various far-flung detention centers but offered no evidence that it seriously evaluated each person to assess their suitability for release before transferring them. This is a direct violation of the Court’s May 2 Order.” D.E. 106 at 8-9. Nothing in the Court’s May 2, 2020 order required ICE to obtain the concurrence or consent of petitioners’ counsel prior to effecting a transfer. ICE exercised its broad authority to manage its detention facilities by transferring detainees to other locations to reduce the detainee population at the three facilities.
Moreover, ICE complied with the Court’s May 2, 2020 order by not only evaluating each transfer’s release under the Pandemic Response Requirements, but every detainee in the three facilities at issue. This is evidenced by ICE’s reports in DE: 90-1, 100-1, and 115-1 in compliance with item 4 of the Court’s order, which required ICE to evaluate each detainee for release and explain the nature of release, such as COVID-19 high risk category. Exhibit A, Declaration of
5

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 116 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/25/2020 Page 6 of 13
Acting Officer in Charge Liana Castano, ¶ 8; Exhibit B, Declaration of Assistant Field Director Juan Lopez Vega, ¶ 9. These reports were created after ICE reviewed its detainee population for release under the Pandemic Response Requirement and the other relevant factors such as criminal history and bond eligibility.
ICE also reviewed its detainee population, including detainees that were eventually transferred, according to the nationwide order in Fraihat v. ICE, 19-cv-01546 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 20, 2020). Exhibit A, Declaration of Acting Officer in Charge Liana Castano, ¶ 20. Exhibit B, Declaration of Assistant Field Director Juan Lopez Vega, ¶ 18. That case required nationwide review of detainees falling with one of two subclasses for release— including those who have been identified by ICE Health Service Corps as having a medical condition that makes them “at risk” for COVID-19, pursuant to the CDC guidelines and the factors enumerated in U.S. District Court for the Central District of California preliminary injunction order in Fraihat v. ICE, ---F. Supp. 3d ---, 2020 WL 1932570 (Apr. 20, 2020). Id.
Additionally, ICE performs custody determinations of all detainees with risk factors within five days of entering custody. Exhibit A, Declaration of Acting Officer in Charge Liana Castano, ¶ 7. Exhibit B, Declaration of Assistant Field Director Juan Lopez Vega, ¶ 18. Specifically, ICE receives a chronic care list generated by ICE Health Services Corps relating to all new intakes who have been identified as having a chronic care condition and input the COVID-19 risk factors into ICE records to ensure the appropriate risk factors are entered. Exhibit A, Declaration of Acting Officer in Charge Liana Castano, ¶ 7.
III. ICE HAS COMPLIED WITH ITS TRANSFER POLICY Petitioners complain that ICE conducts transfers in highly unsanitary conditions and imply that ICE willfully transfers sick detainees to other detention centers. D.E. 106 at 2, 7. However,
6

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 116 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/25/2020 Page 7 of 13
ICE has implemented policies that dictate the steps needed to determine a detainee’s health suitability for transfer and the conditions for conducting such transfer.
Prior to any transfer, ICE reviews the detainee’s medical history and obtains a medical clearance. Exhibit A, Declaration of Acting Officer in Charge Liana Castano, ¶ 24; Exhibit B, Declaration of Assistant Field Director Juan Lopez Vega, ¶ 26.
Additionally, as of May 5, 2020, a new Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) checklist was created to mitigate the effects of COVID-19 when transferring, removing, or releasing an alien from custody. Exhibit A, Declaration of Acting Officer in Charge Liana Castano, ¶ 21; Exhibit B, Declaration of Assistant Field Director Juan Lopez Vega, ¶ 19. These guidelines are in addition to all other transfer, removal, and release requirements, per the detention standards. Id. The checklist requires completion by ICE staff prior to a detainee being booked out of the detention facility and is served on the detainee. Id. A completed copy of the checklist is maintained in the detainee’s detention file. Id.
Detainees that are in isolation, are symptomatic, have pending test results or that are cohorted due to exposure to a person with confirmed or suspected COVID-19 are not transferred or transported unless medically necessary. Exhibit A, Declaration of Acting Officer in Charge Liana Castano, ¶ 22; Exhibit B, Declaration of Assistant Field Director Juan Lopez Vega, ¶ 20.
Recently, detainees that were transferred from Krome to BTC were reported to have tested positive for COVID-19. Exhibit A, Declaration of Acting Officer in Charge Liana Castano, ¶ 33; Exhibit B, Declaration of Assistant Field Director Juan Lopez Vega, ¶ 31. Those detainees were cleared medically prior to their transfer to the receiving facility, and COVID-19 checklists were also completed. Id. ICE has taken appropriate measures, in accordance with the CDC’s interim guidance, by implementing procedures for isolation of new transfers for a period of 14-day
7

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 116 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/25/2020 Page 8 of 13
monitoring. Id. In light of the cohorting procedures in place for new transfers for a period of 14 days, ICE does not believe that the transfer has resulted in an increase in COVID-19 cases at BTC. Id. At this time, the 14 day period required for isolation is still in effect. Id.
Further, in compliance with the Performance Based National Detention Standard 7.4 and National Detention Standard 7.2, ICE detention and transportation staff provide each detainee with a mask prior to a land transfer and monitor detainees during the transportation process. Exhibit A, Declaration of Acting Officer in Charge Liana Castano, ¶ 26; Exhibit B, Declaration of Assistant Field Director Juan Lopez Vega, ¶ 24.
As to transfers that occur via airplane, ICE Air conducts temperature checks at the flight line prior to departure. Exhibit A, Declaration of Acting Officer in Charge Liana Castano, ¶ 27; Exhibit B, Declaration of Assistant Field Director Juan Lopez Vega, ¶ 25. Aliens arriving at the flight line without the requisite forms to include a medical transfer summary and COVID-19 checklist are denied boarding. Id. In addition, any detainee transferred by air is required to wear a mask on the flight and while transferring to the receiving detention facility. Id.
IV. ICE HAS GRIEVANCE PROCEDURES IN PLACE Petitioners allege a variety of ways that ICE is not complying with the Court’s Temporary Restraining Order including insufficient soap, cleaning supplies, and inability to socially distance from other detainees. D.E. 106 at 3. They also allege that ICE is retaliating against detainees for not consenting to be transferred or complaining of the conditions of the transfer. Id. at 7, 12. As explained in its reporting requirement, ICE has been providing hygiene products and replenishing as needed. Exhibit A, Declaration of Acting Officer in Charge Liana Castano, ¶11; Exhibit B, Declaration of Assistant Field Director Juan Lopez Vega, ¶ 16. ICE views the requests for additional soap and hygiene products as a matter requiring resolution as soon as possible, since
8

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 116 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/25/2020 Page 9 of 13
the request affects the health and safety of the detainee. Exhibit A, Declaration of Acting Officer in Charge Liana Castano, ¶19; Exhibit B, Declaration of Assistant Field Director Juan Lopez Vega, ¶ 16.
Detainees can file a grievance if the facility is not timely received a replenishment of hygiene products. Exhibit A, Declaration of Acting Officer in Charge Liana Castano, ¶ 13; Exhibit B, Declaration of Assistant Field Director Juan Lopez Vega, ¶ 12. Additionally, retaliation against an employee that filed a grievance is prohibited. Exhibit A, Declaration of Acting Officer in Charge Liana Castano, ¶ 16; Exhibit B, Declaration of Assistant Field Director Juan Lopez Vega, ¶15.
Each facility is required to have a written policy and procedure for detainee grievances. Detainees are informed of the grievance procedure upon admittance to a facility. Exhibit A, Declaration of Acting Officer in Charge Liana Castano, ¶ 12; Exhibit B, Declaration of Assistant Field Director Juan Lopez Vega, ¶14. Further, detainees are provided with the ERO National Detainee Handbook, which includes instructions on how to file complaints and grievances, how to appeal the decision, and how to report staff misconduct. Id. The handbook is available in English, Spanish, Creole. Id.
In addition to explaining the grievance procedure, the handbook provides information on other ways to submit a complaint or report staff misconduct to entities outside the facility, such as the DHS Office of the Inspector General, DHS Joint Intake and the ICE Detention Reporting and Information Line. Id. Page 48 states, “No harassment, punishment of disciplinary action will result simply for contacting the Inspector General. You have every right to present a complaint.” Id.
Each facility is required to maintain records of detainee grievances. Exhibit A, Declaration of Acting Officer in Charge Liana Castano, ¶ 17; Exhibit B, Declaration of Assistant Field Director
9

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 116 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/25/2020 Page 10 of 13
Juan Lopez Vega, ¶15. A grievance log must be maintained and is subject to regular inspection by the Field Office Director and ICE headquarters staff. Id. Our logs reflect no allegations of retaliation based upon this case or any other. Id.
V. THE COURT SHOULD DEFER TO THE JUDGMENT OF ICE IN ITS EFFORTS TO MANAGE ITS FACILITIES DURING THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC
The United States Supreme Court has observed that running a prison “is an inordinately difficult undertaking that requires expertise, planning, and the commitment of resources, all of which are peculiarly within the province of the legislative and executive branches of government.” Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 85 (1987). The high Court also noted that the formidable task of running a prison “falls to those other two branches,” and “separation of powers concerns counsel a policy of judicial restraint” and “deference to the appropriate prison authorities.” 482 U.S. at 85.
In the midst of the Coronavirus Global Pandemic, which has challenged the prison administration system in ways unforeseen, substantial deference should be given to ICE detention facility administrators as they cope with the issues of creating sufficient space within its facilities, sanitizing its facilities, providing health care to detainees, and ensuring the health and welfare of detainees and staff. These efforts require significant expenditures of time and attention to detail. In Swain v. Junior, -- F.3d --, 2020 WL 2161317 (May 5, 2020), the Court of Appeals granted a stay pending appeal to the Miami-Dade Corrections and Rehabilitation Department (MDCR), which was appealing a preliminary injunction entered by a district court. In its analysis of irreparable injury to MDCR, the Eleventh Circuit observed that, “[a]bsent a stay, the defendants will lose the discretion vested in them under state law to allocate scarce resources among different country operations necessary to fight the pandemic.”
ICE is responsible for operating detention centers and managing conditions within those
10

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 116 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/25/2020 Page 11 of 13
facilities to ensure the safety and security of those locations. ICE did evaluate each detainee’s eligibility for release, but it was not obligated to create a detailed analysis to support its decision not to release a particular detainee, nor was it obligated to provide an explanation to a detained individual as to why he or she was being transferred, as petitioners claim. D.E. 106 at 9 (“several detained individuals have been transferred to facilities in Texas and New Mexico without ICE providing any explanation for its individual decisions to transfer these people rather than releasing them.”).
VI. THIS COURT LACKS JURISDICTION TO REVIEW CONDITIONS OF CONFINEMENT AT THE LOCATIONS TO WHICH DETAINEES HAVE BEEN TRANSFERRED
Petitioners argue that the ICE’s transfers of detained aliens do not divest the Court of jurisdiction. D.E. 106 at 17-18. This issue first arose in petitioners’ motion for class certification, when the class definition included aliens who had been detained at some point at Krome, BTC, or Glades, but were no longer in detention at those locations. D.E. 81 at 7 n.2. Respondents argued that, insofar as petitioners’ claims regarding unlawful conditions of confinement, a detainee no longer detained at any of those locations could not complain about such conditions. D.E.92 at 5. Respondents relied upon McKinnon v. Talladega Cty. Alabama, 745 F.2d 1360, 1363 (11th Cir. 1984)(“[t]he general rule is that a prisoner’s transfer or release from a jail moots his individual claim for declaratory and injunctive relief.”)(citation omitted).
During the hearing on May 14, 2020 on petitioners’ motion for class certification, the issue arose of whether a detainee no longer detained at Krome, BTC, or Glades, had standing to complain about allegedly unlawful conditions of confinement at those locations. Petitioners maintained that such a detainee had standing.
In City of Miami Gardens v. Wells Fargo & Co., 931 F.3d 1274 (11th Cir. 2019), the
11

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 116 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/25/2020 Page 12 of 13

Eleventh Circuit observed that, “to have a case or controversy, a litigant must establish that he has

standing, which must exist ‘throughout all stages of litigation.’” Id. At 1282, citing United States v. Amodeo, 916 F.3d 967, 971 (11th Cir. 2019). A detainee who was once housed at Krome,

BTC, or Glades, but has been transferred to another detention facility, no longer has standing to

complain of conditions at those facilities, even though standing may have existed at the inception

of the lawsuit.

Petitioners complain that the conditions at the new detention centers are as bad, or worse

than those at Krome, BTC, or Glades. If those transferred detainees believe the conditions of

confinement at their current detention location violates their rights, then the appropriate course

would be to file an action in that jurisdiction.

CONCLUSION

Petitioners’ Emergency Motion to Compel Compliance with the Court’s April 30, 2020

Order should be denied because Respondents have complied with this Court’s order.

DATED: May 25, 2020

Respectfully submitted,

ARIANA FAJARDO ORSHAN UNITED STATES ATTORNEY

By: __s/ Dexter A. Lee______________ DEXTER A. LEE ASSISTANT U.S. ATTORNEY Florida Bar No. 0936693 E-mail: dexter.lee@usdoj.gov 99 N.E. 4th Street, Suite 300 Miami, Florida 33132 Telephone: (305) 961-9320

By: __s/ Natalie Diaz_______________ NATALIE DIAZ ASSISTANT U.S. ATTORNEY Florida Bar No. 85834 E-mail: Natalie.Diaz@usdoj.gov
12

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 116 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/25/2020 Page 13 of 13 99 N.E. 4th Street, Suite 300 Miami, Florida 33132 Telephone: (305) 961-9306 Counsel for Respondents
13

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 116-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/25/2020 Page 1 of 8
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PATRICK GAYLE, et al. Petitioners,

Case No. 20cv21553

v.
MICHAEL W. MEADE, Field Office Director, Miami Field Office, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement et al.,
Respondents.
______________________________________________
DECLARATION OF ACTING OFFICER IN CHARGE LIANA J. CASTANO
I, Liana J. Castano, Acting Officer in Charge (OIC), make the following statements under oath and subject to the penalty of perjury:
1. I am employed by U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), and currently serve as the Acting OIC of the Krome Service Processing Center (Krome). I am also an Assistant Field Office Director (AFOD) at Krome. I have held this position since September 2, 2018.
2. I provide this declaration based on my personal knowledge, belief, reasonable inquiry, and information obtained from various records, systems, databases, other DHS employees, employees of DHS contract facilities, and information portals maintained and relied upon by DHS in the regular course of business. This declaration responds to the court’s order of May 21, 2020, relating to ICE’s compliance with the court’s temporary restraining order.
3. I am familiar with the court’s orders requiring ICE to (1) evaluate the named Petitioners in this case and inform the court who could be released; (2) consider health status, bond eligibility, immigration status, immigration court history and prior criminal history when making the evaluations; and (3) submit a report about how it intends to accelerate its review of detainee release protocols “with the goal of reducing the population to 75% of capacity at each of the three detention centers within two weeks” of the TRO; and (4) permitting ICE to “transfer detainees from the three facilities at issue,” but only after “first evaluating each detainee and making a determination” of the detainee’s release eligibility under the PRR.

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 116-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/25/2020 Page 2 of 8
4. To ensure compliance with Item 2 of the court’s order requiring a custody review of each of the named Petitioner’s in this litigation, and as an organizational tool and for purposes of this case, ICE created a spreadsheet containing each of the named 58 Petitioners in this case, which included their names, dates of births, date of entry into each of the three detention centers named in this case, their health status, whether they were eligible for bond, their immigration status to include the removal charges, the status of their removal proceedings before the immigration court, prior criminal convictions, and any pending criminal charges.
5. The spreadsheet was populated with the information pertaining to each of the 58 Plaintiff’s. ICE requested from the facilities’ medical provider a list of detainees with chronic health conditions. ICE used that list to populate the “current health status” column. Each case was reviewed using information available from various DHS records, systems, and databases.
6. As of May 7, 2020, and as set forth in my declaration of May 7, 2020, ICE reviewed the custody status and other factors as requested by the court, for each of the named Petitioners, to determine who could be released. In addition to the factors listed by the court, ICE’s decisions were also informed by the EPP, which incorporated by reference the CDC’s Interim Guidance on Management of Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19) in Correctional and Detention Facilities; U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Updated ICE statement on COVID-19 (Mar. 18, 2020), https://www.ice.gov/news/releases/updated-ice-statement-covid-19 (Attachment A); ICE National Detention Standards 2019, Standard 4.3, Medical Care, https://www.ice.gov/doclib/detention-standards/2019/4_3.pdf (Attachment B); 2011 ICE Performance-Based National Detention Standards, Revised 2016, Standard 4.3, https://www.ice.gov/doclib/detention-standards/2011/4-3.pdf (Attachment C); 2008 ICE Performance-Based National Detention Standards, Standard 4-22, Medical Care, https://www.ice.gov/doclib/dro/detention-standards/pdf/medical_care.pdf (Attachment D); Centers of Disease Control and Prevention, Interim Guidance on Management of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) in Correctional and Detention Facilities (Mar. 23, 2020), https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/downloads/guidance-correctionaldetention.pdf (Attachment E); Memorandum from Executive Associate Director Enrique Lucero, Enforcement and Removal Operations, Memorandum on Coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) Action Plan, Revision 1 (Mar. 27. 2020) (Attachment F); Centers of Disease Control and Prevention, Public Health Recommendations for CommunityRelated Exposure, https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/php/public-healthrecommendations.html (last visited Apr. 9, 2020) (Attachment G); Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Strategies to Optimize the Supply of PPE and Equipment, https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/ppe-strategy/ (last visited Apr. 9, 2020) (Attachment H); Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Cleaning and Disinfection for Community Facilities,

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 116-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/25/2020 Page 3 of 8
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019ncov/community/organizations/cleaning-disinfection.html (last visited Apr. 9, 2020) (Attachment I); U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, List N: Disinfectants for Use Against SARS-CoV-2, https://www.epa.gov/pesticide-registration/list-n-disinfectantsuse-against-sars-cov-2 (last visited Apr. 9, 2020) (Attachment J); and Assistant Director Peter Berg, Enforcement and Removal Operations, Updated Guidance: COVID-19 Detained Docket Review (Apr. 4, 2020) (Exhibit K).
7. ICE provided information related to custody reviews in conformance with the court’s order, and in compliance with ICE’s PRR, in declarations dated April 16, 2020, May 3, 2020, and May 6, 2020. In those prior declarations, ICE advised that it identifies within five days of coming to ICE custody all detainees with risk factors and considers them in making custody determinations. Specifically, ERO receives a chronic care list generated by ICE Health Services Corps relating to all new intakes who have been identified as having a chronic care condition. That list is forwarded to me. I review each case to ensure that all custody indicators have been entered into DHS records to ensure that the appropriate risk factor alerts are entered. The alerts reflect the detainee’s COVID-19 risk factors.
8. Item 4 of the court’s order required a report every Friday of (a) the number of detainees who have been released; (b) which facility they were released from; and (c) the nature of the detainee released (e.g., in a high-risk category because of age or a specific, documented medical condition, etc.). ICE has complied with this provision of the court’s order, as set forth in its declarations of May 8, 2020, May 15, 2020 and May 22, 2020.
9. Item 5 of the court’s order requested twice weekly reports from ICE relating to (a) how many detainees it is housing on the date of reporting (b) at which of the three centers the detainees are being housed; (c) which of the detainees are considered “mandatory detainees”; and (d) which of the detainees have no prior criminal convictions and no pending criminal charges. ICE provided this information to the court in its declarations of May 11, 2020, May 14, 2020, May 18, 2020, and May 21, 2020.
10. Item 6 of the court’s order require that “ICE shall immediately comply with the CDC and ICE guidelines on providing adequate amounts of soap and water and cleaning materials to detainees at each of the three detention centers at issue. Further, within two (2) days of this Order, ICE shall provide masks to all detainees and shall replace those masks at least once per week. ICE maintains that it is in compliance with the court’s order regarding provision of soap and water, cleaning materials and masks to detainees at Krome and Glades.
11. As noted in our declaration dated May 2, 2020, detainees at Krome and Glades are provided soap and water, as well as cleaning materials and masks to every detainee at the facility. ICE routinely replenishes requests for soap and hygiene products, as needed, upon request of the detainee. At Krome, hand sanitizing stations are also replenished on an as-needed basis. Masks are exchanged once per week at Krome and

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 116-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/25/2020 Page 4 of 8
Glades pursuant to the court’s order. Masks are also exchanged upon request if excessively soiled or broken. I am responsible for ensuring the good order and security of the detention facility and for ensuring compliance with the detention standards and ICE procedures.
12. I am responsible for ensuring the good order and security of the detention facility and for ensuring compliance with the detention standards and ICE procedures. Each facility is required to have a written policy and procedure for detainee grievances. Detainees are informed of the grievance procedure upon admittance to a facility. Further, detainees are provided with a handbook, the ERO National Detainee Handbook, which includes instructions on how to file complaints and grievances, how to appeal the decision, and how to report staff misconduct. The handbook is available in English, Spanish, Creole, Chinese, Hindi, Portuguese, Arabic and Russian. The handbook explains the difference between a request and a grievance. It explains how to make a request to staff verbally or in writing. It explains how to submit a grievance. In addition to explaining the grievance procedure, the handbook provides information on other ways to submit a complaint or report staff misconduct to entities outside the facility, such as the DHS Office of the Inspector General, DHS Joint Intake and the ICE Detention Reporting and Information Line. Page 48 states, “No harassment, punishment of disciplinary action will result simply for contacting the Inspector General. You have every right to present a complaint.” Krome also provides a local facility supplement which is available in English, Spanish, and Creole.
13. PBNDS Standard 6.2 sets forth the grievance procedures at a detention facility, to include Krome. The Performance Based National Detention Standards 2011(rev. Dec. 2016) apply to ICE and ICE-contracted facilities. The Grievance System standard (Part 6.2) establishes a grievance procedure system for use within a facility. The standard provides for informal grievances, emergency grievances, formal written grievances and medical grievances. It includes the right to appeal a grievance to a higher level, and to be free from retaliation for filing any complaint. The Informal Grievance process affords the detainee a chance to quickly resolve a grievance before resorting to a written, formal procedure. The staff at the facility must strive to resolve a grievance at the lowest level possible, in an orderly and expeditious manner. The Emergency Grievance process provides written procedures to identify and address time-sensitive grievances that involve an immediate threat to health, safety or welfare. Such grievances may include urgent access to legal counsel and the law library. All staff must be trained to respond to emergency grievances in an appropriate and expeditious manner. The Formal Written Grievance process includes three levels of formal review. It may be filed at any time, even in lieu of an informal grievance. The detainee must be provided a written or oral response within five days of the grievance. The Medical Grievance process follows the formal written grievance process. The grievance is submitted directly to medical personnel at the facility and it may be sealed or marked “medically sensitive.” Medical staff must act on the grievance within five working days of receipt and must provide the detainee with a written decision, including the rationale for the decision.

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 116-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/25/2020 Page 5 of 8
14. To the extent a detainee complains that he is not timely receiving replenishment of soap and other hygiene items, the detention standards set forth grievance procedures to ensure that a detainee’s needs are met in a timely manner. These requests are considered emergency requests under the PBNDS, since they affect the health and safety of detainees in the detention facility.
15. The grievance system at Glades is governed by the National Detention Standards 2019, which apply to ICE’s Intergovernmental Service Agreement facilities. NDS 6.2 explains the grievance system. The Grievance Process standard requires facilities to implement a grievance system to receive and process detainee grievances. Like Krome, Glades has procedures for informal or oral grievances, making every effort to resolve a grievance at the lowest level possible. A detainee is not required to make an informal or oral grievance in order to utilize the formal grievance process. The facility must ensure meaningful access to the grievance process, through the use of interpretation and translation services. Formal or written grievance can be made after an informal grievance or in lieu of one. Such grievances must be addressed within five business days. A detainee may obtain assistance in preparing the grievance. Medical grievances are be addressed by the medical department. The detention standard prohibits a person who is the subject of a grievance shall not be responsible for adjudicating it.
16. An emergency grievance procedure shall be implemented to address a grievance that involves an immediate threat to a detainee’s health, safety, or welfare. The detainee may appeal the grievance decision and an appeal process must be implemented. The facility must also allow a detainee who is unsatisfied with the facility’s response to the grievance to communicate directly with ICE/ERO.
17. All forms of retaliation against a detainee who files a grievance are prohibited. Each facility is required to maintain records of detainee grievances. A grievance log must be maintained and is subject to regular inspection by the Field Office Director and ICE headquarters staff. Our logs reflect no allegations of retaliation based upon this case or any other.
18. Detention staff receive yearly training regarding reporting allegations of misconduct and are counseled that retaliation will not be tolerated.
19. Item 7 of the court’s order requires that ICE provide education and training about measures to reduce the health risks associated with COVID-19 to all staff members and detainees and to any new detainees or employees, without cost to the detainees. As set forth in Respondents’ declaration of April 16, 2020 and May 15, 2020, education relating to cough etiquette, hand washing, and other mitigation efforts are accomplished through various means, to include prominent display of CDC posters in housing units as well as common areas of the detention facility as well as instruction through ICE Health Service Corps, conducted during medical rounds at the detention facility. In addition, and as set forth in ERO’s declaration of May 15, 2020, both staff and detainees have received instructions relating to the proper use of masks and the importance of hand washing. To encourage social distancing, AGS trained their detention officers

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 116-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/25/2020 Page 6 of 8
during electronic shift briefings, using pass on books and has posted CDC educational posters in staff break rooms. To encourage social distancing, Glades trains their staff via email communication including educational pamphlets and has posted CDC educational posters in staff break rooms.. At both Krome and Glades, medical staff is available to answer any questions regarding proper usage of PPE.
20. As of the date of the court’s May 2, 2020 order, ERO had reviewed not only the Petitioners’ custody and health conditions pursuant to its PRR, but was also required to review its cases pursuant to the court’s nationwide order in Fraihat v. ICE, 19-cv01546 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 20, 2020). That case required nationwide review of detainees falling with one of two subclasses, who have been identified by ICE Health Service Corps as having a medical condition that makes them “at risk” for COVID-19, according to the CDC guidelines and the factors enumerated in U.S. District Court for the Central District of California preliminary injunction order in Fraihat v. ICE, ---F. Supp. 3d ---, 2020 WL 1932570 (Apr. 20, 2020), to determine if their detention remains appropriate. Declaration of March 3, 2020. Further, ICE advised the court that it also identifies within five days of coming to ICE custody all detainees with risk factors and considers them in making custody determinations.
21. On May 5, 2020, ERO introduced a new Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) checklist intended to provide ERO and contracted staff with steps to take prior to transferring, removing, or releasing an alien from ERO custody to further mitigate the spread of COVID-19. These guidelines are in addition to all other transfer, removal, and release requirements, per the detention standards. The checklist requires completion by an ERO officer or contracted staff prior to a detainee being booked out of the detention facility and is served on the detainee. A completed copy of the checklist is maintained in the detainee’s detention file.
22. Detainees that are in isolation, are symptomatic, have pending test results or that are cohorted due to exposure to a person with confirmed or suspected COVID-19 are not transferred or transported unless medically necessary or ordered released from custody.
23. The COVID-19 checklist requires verification of a detainee’s current health status and exposure history prior to transfer.
24. ERO reviewed the custody status of each detainee prior to transfer and obtained a medical clearance for each detainee transferred in accordance with the detention standards and ERO’s PRR.
25. Detainee transfers are based upon bed-space considerations and custody classification. ERO does not transfer detainees who have been identified as release candidates.
26. Transportation of detainees at Krome is governed by Performance Based National Detention Standard 7.4 and National Detention Standard 7.2 at Glades. With respect to transportation by land from one facility to another, detention and transportation staff

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 116-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/25/2020 Page 7 of 8
provide each detainee with a mask prior to transfer, and monitor detainees during the transportation process. Staff monitors detainees during transport and encourages proper usage of masks.
27. With respect to transfers or removals by air, the COVID-19 checklist is in addition to and does not take the place of the medical transfer summary advising the alien is medically cleared for travel and utilized for ICE Air charters. In addition to required temperature screening prior to leaving the facility, ICE Air conducts temperature checks at the flight line prior to departure. Aliens arriving at the flight line without the requisite forms to include a medical transfer summary and COVID-19 checklist are denied boarding. In addition, any detainee transferred by air is required to wear a mask on the flight and while transferring to the receiving detention facility. An alien without a mask will be denied boarding by ICE Air operations.
28. Prior to any transfer, ICE Health Service Corps at Krome, or the medical staff at Glades, must review the detainee’s medical history and medically-clear the detainee in advance of a transfer to another detention facility. The medical staff, whether ICE Health Service Corps, or the contract medical staff at Glades, provides the medical clearance form in advance of the detainee’s transfer for his detention file. Medical summaries are then provided to the receiving detention facility.
29. I am aware of allegations in the Petitioners’ motion to compel that transfers have been ordered as either retaliation for the filing of this lawsuit or to otherwise circumvent the court’s jurisdiction in this case. The allegations are untrue.
30. On May 24, 2020, I reviewed the detention location of the 58 Plaintiffs. I found that of the initial 34 Plaintiffs, 7 have been released from ICE custody. The remaining 27 are currently detained at the detention location where they were housed when this lawsuit was filed, and they remain under the court’s jurisdiction.
31. I found that of the additional 24 Plaintiffs who joined the lawsuit, 6 have been released from ICE custody and 15 are currently detained at the detention location where they were housed when this lawsuit was filed, and they remain under the court’s jurisdiction. ICE has transferred 3 of these Plaintiffs.
a. On May 2, 2020, ICE transferred Plaintiff Lenor to a local hospital for mental health evaluation and treatment. Plaintiff Lenor was not transferred as retaliation for filing this lawsuit or to circumvent the court’s jurisdiction. Plaintiff Lenor remains under the court’s jurisdiction.
b. On May 18, 2020 ICE transferred Plaintiff Perez Valladares from BTC to Krome due to security reasons. Plaintiff Perez-Valladares was found to have been part of a small group of detainees attempting to organize and incite a facility disturbance. Plaintiff Perez Valladares was not transferred as retaliation for filing this lawsuit or to circumvent the court’s jurisdiction. Plaintiff PerezValladares remains under the court’s jurisdiction.

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 116-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/25/2020 Page 8 of 8

c. On May 21, 2020, Plaintiff Lucien was transferred to the Alexandria Staging Facility in preparation for his upcoming removal flight. This type of transfer is part of the standard operating procedure for removal flights to Haiti. Plaintiff Lucien was not transferred as retaliation for filing this lawsuit or to circumvent the court’s jurisdiction. Plaintiff Lucien was transferred in order to enforce the removal order issued by an immigration judge.
32. Additionally, I am aware of allegations that ICE is not compliant with the CDC’s guidance relating to social distancing. ERO continues to encourage social distancing between detainees at detention facilities by encouraging detainees to sleep head to toe, staggering of recreation and meals, and suspension of social visitation. Notably, the Interim Guidance promulgated by the CDC for detention centers notes that “[t]he guidance may need to be adapted based on individual facilities’physical space, staffing, population, operations, and other resources and conditions.” For example, while Krome has made an accommodation for detainee use of hand sanitizer, not all detention facilities have determined that the benefit of using hand sanitizer is outweighed by the security risk inherent in its use. Detention officials may determine that, based upon security concerns, that use of soap and water for hand hygiene is more appropriate based upon the detainees’ risk classification at the detention facility. Similarly, rearranging of furniture to allow for six feet of social distancing may not be feasible at detention facilities, where much of the furniture to include bunkbeds and benches is bolted to the floor. Such is the case of the bunkbeds and benches at Krome and Glades.
33. I am aware that detainees transferred from Krome to BTC were reported to have tested positive for COVID-19. Those detainees were cleared medically prior to their transfer to the receiving facility, and COVID-19 checklists were also completed. Upon their arrival to BTC, they were placed on cohort as is the standard practice for new intakes at BTC. ICE believes that it has taken appropriate measures to mitigate the risk of spread of COVID-19 from detention facilities and believes that the procedures for isolation of new transfers for a period of 14-day monitoring, in accordance with the CDC’s interim guidance, appropriately mitigates the risk of spread of disease. In light of the cohorting procedures in place for new transfers for a period of 14 days, the detainees transferred from Krome to BTC did not come into contact or interact with any detainee already at BTC. I do not believe that the transfer has resulted in an increase in COVID-19 cases at the receiving detention facility. At this time, the 14 day period required for isolation is still in effect.

DATED: May 25, 2020

_____________________________________ Liana J. Castano Assistant Field Office Director Enforcement and Removal Operations U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 116-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/25/2020 Page 1 of 8

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 116-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/25/2020 Page 2 of 8

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 116-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/25/2020 Page 3 of 8

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 116-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/25/2020 Page 4 of 8

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 116-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/25/2020 Page 5 of 8

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 116-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/25/2020 Page 6 of 8

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 116-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/25/2020 Page 7 of 8

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 116-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/25/2020 Page 8 of 8

 
 Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 118 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/26/2020 Page 1 of 11

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Case No. 20-21553-Civ-COOKE/GOODMAN
PATRICK GAYLE, et al.,
Petitioners-Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and those similarly situated,
v.
MICHAEL W. MEADE, et al.,
Respondents-Defendants. ____________________________________/
REPLY IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONERS’ EMERGENCY MOTION TO COMPEL COMPLIANCE WITH THE COURT’S
APRIL 30, 2020 TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER ARGUMENT
I. ICE DOES NOT DISPUTE PETITIONERS’ MATERIAL FACTUAL
SUBMISSIONS. ICE’s Response1 to Petitioners’ Emergency Motion to Compel Compliance with the Court’s April 30, 2020 Order [ECF 116] accepts the factual premise of Petitioners’ Motion. And for good reason: Petitioners presented sworn declarations [ECF 106-1] showing that ICE is not making a good-faith effort to uphold the spirit or the letter of this Court’s April 30 and May 2 Orders [ECF 76 & ECF 78, respectively]. ICE makes no attempt to dispute these sworn statements. In fact, ICE has confirmed sub silentio its erroneous position that if it deems someone subject to “mandatory detention,” it will do no more to evaluate whether to release them even though “mandatory” detainees are eligible for release. [ECF 106 at 16.] Instead, it is now clear that ICE’s nearly singular focus following this Court’s Orders is on transferring people away from Krome, BTC, and Glades. These transfers form the backbone of ICE’s assertion that it has reduced the populations at these facilities, see [ECF 116 at 3], and its mistaken

1

For simplicity, Petitioners refer to Respondents collectively as “ICE.”

1

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 118 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/26/2020 Page 2 of 11

argument that, in doing so, it has successfully moved these vulnerable people beyond this Court’s jurisdiction, [see id. at 11-12].
Indeed, the unrebutted declarations Petitioners filed with their Emergency Motion show that conditions both at these facilities and for the people ICE has chosen to transfer continue to violate not only CDC Guidelines, but also this Court’s April 30 and May 2 Orders. ICE does not dispute that, despite its mass transfers, social distancing is still not possible at Krome, Glades, and BTC. [ECF 106 at 4-6.] Soap, hand sanitizer, and cleaning materials are tightly rationed and requests to replenish the inadequate supplies are often dismissed with directions to wait for the next day those materials are dispensed. [See id.] Soiled and broken masks are not replaced, and education about the need for proper precautions is scant. [Id.] As a result, the basic protocols needed to quell the spread of COVID-19 are not followed. [See id.]
Moreover, the unrebutted evidence shows that, rather than ameliorating the situation, ICE’s hasty transfers away from these facilities serve to subject the people transferred to additional risks of contracting COVID-19. The sworn declarations Petitioners submitted show that ICE’s transfer protocols do not adequately screen for detainees already infected with COVID-19. The procedures are so lax or ineffective that 16 people out of 33 who cleared ICE transfer protocols tested positive shortly after being transferred. [ECF 106 at 7.]2 The unrebutted evidence shows that ICE personnel have not only failed to require masks, gloves, and social distancing during transfers, but that ICE personnel have actually blocked cameras to shield their noncompliance from oversight. [Id. at 11-12.] ICE does not dispute that it placed about 20 people being transferred in the “Hielera” (“the fridge”) less than an arm’s length from one another for hours while awaiting a trip to the airport. [Id. at 11.] It does not assert that social distancing is occurring during the cross-country flights—even though putative Class Members were put on close-quarters flights. ICE does not even dispute that it sent three Named Petitioners from BTC to Lumpkin, Georgia—only to return to BTC shortly

2

It is unclear how ICE’s declarants can swear under oath that they “do not believe that

this transfer has resulted in an increase in COVID-19 cases” at BTC when it objectively

increased the number of such cases at BTC by 16. [See ECF 116-1 ¶ 33; ECF 116-2 ¶ 31.]

They also do not say that they evaluated whether any of these people became affected as a

result of ICE’s decision to transfer them.

2

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 118 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/26/2020 Page 3 of 11

after they arrived. [Id. at 12.]3 Nor does ICE attempt to reconcile this episode with its assertion that it has “properly exercised its discretionary authority in 8 U.S.C. § 1231(g)(1) to transfer detainees to other locations.” [See ECF 116 at 3 (boldface and all caps omitted).]
ICE likewise does not dispute the specific, sworn accounts showing ICE employees retaliating or threatening to retaliate against putative Class Members for their participation in or assistance with this lawsuit. [ECF 106 at 11-12.] ICE’s only response on this point is to assert that it has not found any grievances filed through its formal grievance process (ignoring why people threatened with retaliation might not feel comfortable using it). But the record contains sworn statements identifying specific acts of retaliation, and ICE cannot ignore them simply because they were not submitted through its internal grievance process. ICE has provided no evidence that it has attempted to drill down on the specific instances. Nor does it present any declarations to dispute the accounts in the declarations Petitioners filed.
Thus, while ICE seeks to cling to its assertions that it has proper policies in place, the only material evidence showing what is happening is the unrebutted evidence Petitioners submitted. And as explained below, the unrebutted evidence confirms that ICE is not complying with its obligations—and that it will not do so unless the Court forces it to do so.
II. THE UNDISPUTED FACTS SHOW THAT ICE HAS VIOLATED THIS
COURT’S ORDERS. It is difficult to see how ICE could think these egregious, undisputed facts show it is complying with its obligations under this Court’s Orders, the CDC Guidelines, or the Fifth and Eighth Amendments. Indeed, ICE argues only that it has policies—but it does not argue it has consistently followed those policies. And ICE cannot escape the unrebutted evidence of the conditions the putative Class Members face. This Court’s April 30 Order found it “abundantly clear that ICE is required to comply with CDC’s guidelines” but that “ICE has flouted its own guidelines by, inter alia, failing to

3

Petitioners have now learned that a 34-year old man in immigration detention at the

Lumpkin facility has died from COVID-19-related complications. See Hamed Aleaziz, An

Immigrant Man In ICE Custody Died After Contracting The Coronavirus, Buzz Feed News

(updated

May

25,

2020),

available

at

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/hamedaleaziz/immigrant-ice-coronavirus-

death?fbclid=IwAR2NlPapdLeKDh8ks9wGWx1CEQaTVAoqksxNvfkdhT6UimzTcKiTV

5UdWCI.

3

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 118 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/26/2020 Page 4 of 11
ensure that each detainee practices social distancing.” [ECF 76 at 8]. The Court ruled that “ICE’s purported ‘substantial compliance’ does not pass muster under the Accardi doctrine.” [Id.] It therefore ordered that “ICE shall immediately comply with the CDC and ICE guidelines on providing adequate amounts of soap and water and cleaning materials to detainees at each of the three detention centers at issue.” [Id. at 11 (¶ 6).] It further mandated the provision of masks at least weekly, and that it “provide education and training about measures to reduce the health risks associated with COVID-19 to all staff members and detainees and to any new detainees or employees.” [Id. (¶¶ 6-7).]
The undisputed evidence shows that ICE has not complied with these provisions. In this respect, Petitioners agree with ICE that “requests for additional soap and hygiene products” are “a matter requiring resolution as soon as possible, since the request affects the health and safety of the detainee.” [See ECF 116 at 8-9.] But ICE seems to believe that this is accomplished because its official policy, on paper, is that its personnel should provide sufficient amounts of soap, cleaning materials, and masks. [See id.] But the evidence before the Court shows that this is not actually happening. [ECF 106 4-6 (collecting declaration testimony).] Indeed, as the Court recognized, the gravamen on Petitioners’ Accardi claim is that ICE actually has written policies to address the risk of COVID-19 outbreaks, but that ICE is not following through in implementing them (and it is certainly not doing so with the diligence required by this historic moment calls). [ECF 76 at 8.] By again pointing to its black-letter policies while leaving undisputed sworn declarations showing that it is not consistently implementing those policies, ICE has only confirmed its failure to actually and fully comply with this Court’s Orders and the CDC Guidelines.
ICE has similarly failed with its obligations under the May 2 Orders to evaluate each putative Class Member for release before transferring him or her. [See ECF 76 at 10 (¶ 2); ECF 78 at 1.] Although ICE claims to have done this, it bristles at the suggestion that it should have documented its decision making in any way. [See ECF 116 at 5.] This makes no sense. Indeed if, in fact, ICE is neither tracking nor documenting the specific pre-transfer release decisions the Court mandated on May 2, then it cannot certify to the Court in good faith that it has scrupulously complied with this obligation as to each of the more than 100 people it has transferred. That sort of undocumented delegation creates the perfect conditions for arbitrary and capricious decisions.
4

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 118 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/26/2020 Page 5 of 11
Moreover, ICE’s apparent refusal to even document (let alone provide the documentation) that it is performing this required evaluation leaves Petitioners (and ultimately the Court) unable to evaluate ICE’s bare claims that it has complied with its obligations under the May 2 Order.4 By allowing ICE to conduct transfers, the Court invested a substantial amount of trust in ICE to evaluate, in good faith, whether to release or transfer each person. ICE’s reading of this Court’s forbearance as carte blanche—right after the Court found that “ICE has flouted its own guidelines” [ECF 76 at 5]—is not credible. The Court should find that ICE violated this provision and require ICE to immediately remedy it by providing the basis for its decision not to release each person it transferred, or if it cannot, to release those individuals.5
ICE’s failure to document its decisions on whether to release or transfer people is all the more troubling because ICE appears to be taking the legally untenable position that its unilateral determination that someone is subject to “mandatory detention” justifies ICE’s decision to keep that person in confinement—without any further evaluation. [See ECF 106 at 16-17 & n.5.] ICE ignores this point entirely, as well as the robust authority Petitioners submitted showing ICE’s position is legally unfounded. [See id.] This silence only confirms that, in fact, ICE’s evaluation of whether to release a putative Class Member stops when ICE

4

ICE misses the mark in asserting that, “[n]othing in the Court’s May 2, 2020 order

required ICE to obtain the concurrence or consent of petitioners’ counsel prior to effecting a

transfer.” [ECF 116 at 5.] Petitioners do not claim that the May 2 Order gives them a veto

over ICE’s transfer decisions; they simply demand that ICE show its work so that Petitioners

can evaluate and (if necessary) challenge ICE’s methodology.

5

On May 25, ICE produced a spreadsheet, which purports to document its decisions

not to release the Named Petitioners. [See ECF 99 (ordering ICE to produce that spreadsheet

unless it objected by May 18).] While the spreadsheet contains some information about the

Named Petitioners, it does not provide any field for the basis for the decision not to release a

given Petitioner or the identity of the officer responsible for that decision. Moreover, although

the spreadsheet is limited to information about the Named Petitioners and the production was

directly to Petitioners’ counsel, ICE “redacted information including alien numbers, medical

histories, and relating to asylum or credible fear.” In addition, the spreadsheet was rendered

in a PDF form and some of the fields were not fully legible. Thus, Petitioners’ counsel are

unable to fully grasp the reasons that the vast majority of Named Petitioners have not been

released. Petitioners’ counsel have asked ICE to produce the unredacted version but, as of

the time of this filing, ICE has not responded to this request.

5

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 118 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/26/2020 Page 6 of 11

determines that the putative Class Member is subject to mandatory detention—and that ICE has no legal justification for this conclusion.6
In short, with this Court’s April 30 Temporary Restraining Order (as clarified and extended) is set to expire, ICE has failed to fulfil its most basic obligations under that Order.
III. ICE’S STANDING POSITION IS MERITLESS.
Finally, the Court should reject ICE’s position that its unilateral decision to transfer a putative Class Member away from the facilities at issue here somehow ousts this Court’s jurisdiction. As Petitioners explained, bedrock jurisprudence provides that transferring a habeas petitioner outside of the jurisdiction does not divest the original court of jurisdiction so long as (a) the petitioner was detained within the district court’s territory at the time the lawsuit was filed and (b) the detainee remains within the custody of a person over whom the district court retains authority. [See ECF 106 at 18 & n.6 (citing Ahrnes v. Clark, 335 U.S. 188, 193 (1948), and Ex parte Mitsuye Endo, 323 U.S. 283, 306 (1944))]. And this rule applies even if the transfer “is not colored by any purpose to effectuate a removal in evasion of the habeas corpus proceedings.” Ex parte Mitsuye Endo, 323 U.S. at 304-05. Moreover, under the voluntary cessation doctrine, if ICE wants to take the position that its transfer of a putative Class Member moots that person’s claim, the ICE bears a heavy burden of proving that. [See ECF 106 at 18 (citing City of Mesquite v. Aladdin’s Castle, Inc., 455 U.S. 283, 289 (1982), and LaMarca v. Turner, 662 F. Supp. 647, 715 (S.D. Fla. 1987)].
ICE apparently has no response to this longstanding jurisprudence because it offers none. Instead, as it did in its class certification papers, it relies principally on McKinnon v. Talladega County, Alabama, 745 F.2d 1360, 1363 (11th Cir. 1984). [See ECF 116 at 11.] But as Petitioners have explained repeatedly, McKinnon does not apply here. [See ECF 94 at 5-6.] The habeas petitioner in McKinnon challenged the “overcrowding, inadequate internal security, poor lighting and ventilation, inadequate plumbing, unacceptable food, and

6

This confusion is compounded by ICE’s refusal to comply with the Court’s

requirement that it report, each Monday and Thursday, “[w]hich of the detainees are

considered ‘mandatory detainees’” and “[w]hich of the detainees have no prior criminal

convictions and no pending criminal charges.” [ECF 76 at 11 (¶¶ 5(c) & (d)) (emphasis

added).] Despite this clear language, ICE has been simply reporting aggregate statistics,

making it impossible to figure out which category any one putative Class Member falls into—

a pattern ICE has continued right through its May 25 report. [See ECF 117-1.]

6

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 118 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/26/2020 Page 7 of 11

unsanitary conditions” at “a single jail.” 745 F.2d at 1361-63. Thus, once he was transferred from that “single jail,” his “prospective” claims for declaratory and injunctive relief concerning the conditions at that “single jail” became moot. Id. at 1362.
But here, the risk that ICE’s deliberate indifference will expose the putative Class Members to COVID-19 does not stop at the gates of Krome, Glades, and BTC. Rather, as ICE transfers putative Class Members around the country in unhygienic conditions, the risk of COVID-19 infection (the injury that gives rise to standing) travels with them. And therefore, so does this Court’s jurisdiction.
In this respect, ICE continues to misconstrue Petitioners’ claims. Petitioners do not challenge the conditions at Krome, Glades, and BTC; they challenge ICE’s persistent refusal to take the steps necessary to protect them from contracting COVID-19. The claims before the Court may be held together because each putative Class Members has been held at one of those three facilities by the same detaining authority, but it does not follow that, having properly invoked this Court’s jurisdiction, a Petitioner somehow loses constitutional standing merely because ICE unilaterally decides to deposit him or her elsewhere.7 Rather, because the Court properly acquired jurisdiction at the time of the filing, and because the transfer does not automatically alleviate the injury, the Court’s jurisdiction continues. See Ex parte Mitsuye Endo, 323 U.S. at 304-05; see also Lemon v. Green, 514 F.3d 1312, 1315-16 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (government’s transfer of disputed property did not moot the underlying controversy because a “case becomes moot when ‘intervening events make it impossible to grant the prevailing party effective relief,’” but court had authority to unwind transaction if necessary (emphasis added)). This Court’s jurisdiction is large enough to provide meaningful relief to the putative Class Members—even if ICE choses to transfer them away.
CONCLUSION
Petitioners respectfully request the Court to (1) order ICE to comply immediately with the requirements in its April 30 and May 2 Orders; (2) order ICE to provide documentation

7

Given the undisputed evidence that ICE has continued not following CDC Guidelines

and endangering putative Class Members during and after transfer, its assertion that “standing

. . . must exist throughout all stages of litigation” is especially curious. [See ECF 116 at 11-

12.] The undisputed evidence certainly shows that the injuries continue through—and are

even exacerbated by—the transfers.

7

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 118 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/26/2020 Page 8 of 11

of its evaluations for release before any transfer is executed; (3) and prohibit the transfer of any detained individual to a facility that does not comply with the requirements in the Court’s April 30 Order. The Court should further admonish ICE that acts of retaliation against detained individuals for assisting with this lawsuit will not be tolerated and require ICE to ensure that all people acting under its authority are appropriately directed not to retaliate against the Named Petitioners or putative Class Members for consulting with counsel or assisting in this lawsuit.

Date: May 26, 2020

Respectfully Submitted,

/s/ Scott M. Edson Scott M. Edson, Esq. Florida Bar No. 17258

Gregory P. Copeland* Sarah T. Gillman*
RAPID DEFENSE NETWORK 11 Broadway, Suite 615 New York, NY 10004 Tel.: (212) 843-0910 Fax: (212) 257-7033 gregory@defensenetwork.org sarah@defensenetwork.org *Appearing Pro Hac Vice

Scott M. Edson, Esq. Florida Bar No. 17258
KING & SPALDING LLP 1700 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, STE 200 Washington, DC 20006-4707 Telephone: (202) 737-0500 Facsimile: (202) 626-3737 sedson@kslaw.com

Rebecca Sharpless Florida Bar No. 0131024 Romy Lerner Florida Bar No. 116713
UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI SCHOOL OF
LAW - IMMIGRATION CLINIC 1311 Miller Drive Suite, E-273 Coral Gables, Florida 33146 Tel: (305) 284-3576 Fax: (305) 284-6092 rsharpless@law.miami.edu

Kathryn S. Lehman Florida Bar No.: 95642 Chad A. Peterson Florida Bar No.: 91585
KING & SPALDING LLP 1180 Peachtree Street, N.E. Atlanta, GA 30309 Telephone: (404) 572-4600 Facsimile: (404) 572-5100 klehman@kslaw.com cpeterson@kslaw.com

8

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 118 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/26/2020 Page 9 of 11

Paul R. Chavez FL Bar No. 1021395 Maia Fleischman FL Bar No. 1010709
SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER 2 S. Biscayne Blvd., Ste. 3200 Miami, FL 33101 Tel: (305) 537-0577 paul.chavez@splcenter.org maia.fleischman@splcenter.org

Mark Andrew Prada Fla. Bar No. 91997 Anthony Richard Dominguez Fla. Bar No. 1002234
PRADA URIZAR, PLLC 3191 Coral Way, Suite 500 Miami, FL 33145 Tel.: (786) 703-2061 Fax: (786) 708-9508 mprada@pradaurizar.com adominguez@pradaurizar.com

Lisa Lehner Florida Bar No. 382191
AMERICANS FOR IMMIGRANT
JUSTICE 5355 NW 36 Street, Suite 2201 Miami, FL 33166 Tel: (305) 573-1106 Ext. 1020 Fax: (305) 576-6273 Llehner@aijustice.org

Andrea Montavon McKillip Florida Bar No. 56401
LEGAL AID SERVICE OF BROWARD
COUNTY, INC. 491 North State Road 7 Plantation, Florida 33317 Tel. (954) 736-2493 Fax (954) 736-2484 amontavon@legalaid.org

Counsel for Petitioners-Plaintiffs

9

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 118 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/26/2020 Page 10 of 11
CERTIFICATION OF EMERGENCY Undersigned counsel certifies that this is an emergency motion pursuant to Local Rule 7.1(d)(1). Petitioners, and the class they represent, are at imminent risk harm due to the continuing COVID-19 crisis and Respondents’ grossly inadequate steps to protect them from contracting the virus. After reviewing the facts and researching applicable legal principles, I certify that this motion in fact presents a true emergency (as opposed to a matter that may need only expedited treatment) and requires an immediate ruling because the Court would not be able to provide meaningful relief to a critical, non-routine issue after the expiration of seven days due to the forthcoming expiration of the April 30 Temporary Restraining Order [ECF 76] (even as extended by the Court on May 15 [ECF 101]. I understand that an unwarranted certification may lead to sanctions.8
/s/ Scott M. Edson___________ Scott M. Edson, Esq. Florida Bar No. 17258 KING & SPALDING LLP 1700 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, STE 200 Washington, DC 20006-4707 Telephone: (202) 737-0500 Facsimile: (202) 626-3737 sedson@kslaw.com Attorney for Petitioners-Plaintiffs

8

Petitioners’ counsel believed that the Local Rule 7.1(d)(1) certification contained in

the underlying Emergency Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Motion for

Preliminary Injunction for Proposed Class [ECF 4] satisfied the requirements under that

provision for seeking emergency treatment, and they appreciate that the Court is considering

this Motion on an emergency basis. However, to avoid any confusion, Petitioners’ counsel

provides the requisite certification in this reply.

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 118 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/26/2020 Page 11 of 11
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on the 26th day of May, 2020, I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system, which will then send a notification of such filing (NEF) to all counsel of record.
/s/ Scott M. Edson___________ Scott M. Edson, Esq. Florida Bar No. 17258 KING & SPALDING LLP 1700 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, STE 200 Washington, DC 20006-4707 Telephone: (202) 737-0500 Facsimile: (202) 626-3737 sedson@kslaw.com
Attorney for Petitioners-Plaintiffs

 
 Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 123 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/29/2020 Page 1 of 59

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
MIAMI DIVISION CASE NO. 20-21553-COOKE/GOODMAN PATRICK GAYLE, et al., Plaintiffs, v. MICHAEL W. MEADE, et al., Defendants. __________________________/ AMENDED1 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS ON CLASS CERTIFICATION MOTION I. Introduction and Summary of Recommendations Petitioners/Plaintiffs are 58 persons who Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) are detaining at three South Florida detention centers. They have filed a lawsuit against ICE, challenging the conditions at the three centers as violating guidelines promulgated by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (“CDC”). They contend that their health and lives are in jeopardy at the centers because the novel Coronavirus (“COVID-19”) unreasonably exposes them all to the potentially-deadly virus.

1

The Amendment provides greater detail and case law citations concerning the

issue of whether (and, if so, how) the transfer of detainees affects jurisdiction, beginning

on page 51. In addition, it provides an updated procedural history on page 10 and

explains, in footnote 25, the deadline for filing Objections and Responses. Other than

these revisions, the Amended Report is substantively identical to the first version.

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 123 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/29/2020 Page 2 of 59
Plaintiffs have filed an Expedited Motion for Class Certification. [ECF No. 81]. They want the Court to certify as a class all individuals currently detained at the three centers when the lawsuit was filed (on April 13, 2020, [ECF No. 1]), since the action was filed, and in the future. They have not identified any proposed sub-classes. Based on numbers ICE provided during a May 14, 2020 hearing on this class certification motion [ECF No. 98], there were 1,124 detainees as of May 13, 2020.
During the hearing and in their written submissions, Plaintiffs advocated for the immediate release of all the detainees. But during the hearing, they acknowledged that any release procedure would inevitably involve a prioritization of which persons would be released first. Similarly, in a recently-filed “Emergency2 Motion to Compel Compliance With the Court’s April 30, 2020 Temporary Restraining Order” [ECF No. 106], Plaintiffs stated that decisions about whether to transfer a detainee involve “individualized determinations of whether to release people.” Id. at p. 3. And they agreed during the hearing that factors such as health risks, danger to the community, and risk of flight, should be used in the release decisions.

2

Plaintiffs’ Emergency Motion did not contain or attach a “certification of

emergency,” as required by Southern District of Florida Local Rule 7.1(d)(1). But

Plaintiffs’ earlier-filed Emergency Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and

Preliminary Injunction [ECF No. 4] did contain the required certification. Despite this rule

violation, United States District Judge Marcia G. Cooke promptly issued a briefing

schedule order [ECF No. 107] and required the parties to be prepared to discuss the

emergency motion at an already-scheduled May 27, 2020 hearing on the preliminary

injunction motion.

2

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 123 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/29/2020 Page 3 of 59
Evaluating these types of factors necessarily involves both an individualized determination of a detainee’s suitability for release (and/or transfer) and a detainee-bydetainee assessment of what conditions, if any, should be imposed with a release decision.
For example, ICE3 would evaluate for possible release a wheelchair-bound diabetic detainee with high blood pressure, liver disease, no criminal convictions, no pending criminal charges, and relatives with an unoccupied bedroom in their home in rural Florida much differently than a healthy, 22-year-old soccer-playing detainee with drug trafficking and aggravated battery convictions, pending criminal charges for armed robbery and no family members living in the United States.
Given the inevitable detainee-specific factors which must be considered in any release decision, Petitioners’ habeas corpus claim for immediate release is inappropriate for class certification.
The habeas corpus claim for immediate release of all detainees does not meet the commonality requirement of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a)(2). In addition, it does not meet Rule 23(b)(2)’s requirement that “the party opposing the class has acted or

3

Although Michael W. Meade (the Miami Field Office Director for ICE) and

Attorney General William P. Barr are technically the Respondents, Petitioners’ arguments

focus on what ICE has (and has not) done about the COVID-19 risks at the three

immigration detention centers. Therefore, this Report will often refer to Respondents

simply as ICE.

3

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 123 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/29/2020 Page 4 of 59
refused to act on grounds that apply generally to the class, so that final injunctive relief . . . is appropriate respecting the class as a whole.” That rule does not warrant class treatment here because the requested injunction would generate highly individualized determinations, not release assessments about the entire class as a whole.
So, the Undersigned respectfully recommends that United States District Judge Marcia G. Cooke, who referred [ECF No. 82] the class action motion to me, deny the class certification motion concerning the habeas corpus demand for release.
On the other hand, the remaining claims and requests for relief (other than a request to prevent ICE from transferring detainees to other facilities and the request to include future detainees) are appropriate for class action treatment. Specifically, the claims for injunctive relief (to require appropriate precautionary health measures) and for declaratory relief (i.e., finding that the continued detention of all class members creates an undue increased risk of severe illness or death, thus violating the U.S. Constitution’s Due Process Clause) justify class treatment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) and (b)(2).
The affidavits/declarations Plaintiffs submitted with their Emergency Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction [ECF Nos. 4; 7; 8], their Notice Regarding New Named Petitioners-Plaintiffs [ECF No. 61-1], and in support of their class certification motion [ECF No. 94-1] portray a stressful scenario where the detainees are legitimately concerned over the COVID-19 risk in facilities which (as currently
4

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 123 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/29/2020 Page 5 of 59
configured) do not permit adequate social distancing, and which purportedly do not provide sufficient cleaning and sanitizing supplies. In addition, the picture painted in the more-recent emergency motion to compel compliance is one where Plaintiffs allege (with supporting declarations) that “ICE has not fully complied” and “instead continues to fail to protect the safety and well-being” of the detainees. [ECF No. 106, p. 2].
Thus, because all detainees in all three facilities confront, in general, the same conditions vis-à-vis COVID-19, a class action should be approved.
Therefore, the Undersigned respectfully recommends that Judge Cooke grant the motion, in part, and certify a class of all current detainees at the three South Florida facilities for the conditions-of-confinement claims (as opposed to the claim for release).
However, the mere fact that a class might be certified (or is in fact certified) does not necessarily mean that the class will ultimately prevail. If a class for the conditions-ofconfinement claims were to be certified, then the class claims would rise or fall together on the merits. Based on a recent decision from the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals and other recent appellate decisions, the chances that the 58 named Plaintiffs or the class will succeed in obtaining a preliminary injunction or declaratory relief in their favor have arguably decreased since the Court initially entered a Temporary Restraining Order last month. This potential significant change in the Plaintiffs’ ability to ultimately prevail on the merits does not mean that a class of some type should not be certified. Instead, it simply means that the certified class might not succeed on the merits.
5

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 123 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/29/2020 Page 6 of 59
By pointing out this procedural reality, the Undersigned is not predicting, suggesting, or implying in any way that Judge Cooke will not issue a preliminary injunction or that our Appellate Court would reverse one if entered. Rather, I am simply noting that appellate courts appear to not treat the COVID-19 crisis as affecting prisonerfiled or detainee-filed lawsuits and the requirement that those plaintiffs prove deliberate ignorance (as opposed to mere negligence) by government officials or their agents in order to succeed. II. Factual Background
Petitioners/Plaintiffs are 58 immigration detainees housed in three federal immigration detention centers in Florida: the Krome Detention Center in Miami (a/k/a Krome Service Processing Center), the Broward Transitional Center in Pompano Beach, and the Glades County Detention Center in Moore Haven. There were 34 Plaintiffs who filed the original lawsuit, but the Undersigned granted [ECF No 65] a motion [ECF No. 60] to add named Petitioners/Plaintiffs.
At bottom, Petitioners claim that they are at imminent risk of contracting COVID19 because their detention renders them unable to follow the Center for Disease Control and Prevention’s (“CDC”) guidelines. They allege that there is “currently no way” for the three centers to comply with the CDC’s guidelines on social distancing and quarantining. [ECF No. 1, p. 9].
They say that (1) each facility “holds individuals in close proximity”; (2) people
6

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 123 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/29/2020 Page 7 of 59
are less than six feet away from each other when they sleep, eat, and use common areas; (3) “it is impossible for Petitioners to protect themselves from infection through social distancing and vigilant hygiene – the only known mitigation measures”; (4) groups of individuals are “herded together in ‘cohort quarantine’ because they have been exposed” to others who might have COVID-19 symptoms; and (5) “cohort quarantines drastically increase the possibility of transmission, infection, and facility-wide outbreak by grouping together people who have already been exposed to the virus.” [ECF No. 1, pp. 9-10].
The Undersigned assumes that all parties and their counsel are familiar with COVID-19 and the global health crisis it has generated. Consequently, the Undersigned does not deem it necessary to discuss here in detail the background of the virus and the CDC’s recommendation that everyone practice social distancing, which involves the maintenance of not less than six feet between people in order to limit the virus’ spread. For present purposes, however, the Undersigned will simply provide a recent statistic: As of May 20, 2020, the CDC website reported 1,551,095 confirmed COVID-19 cases and 93,061 COVID-19 related deaths in the United States; the World Health Organization reported 4,789,205 cases and 318,789 deaths globally.
According to the CDC, the following persons have a heightened vulnerability to severe illness or death if they contract the coronavirus: those who are 65 years of age or older, people who live in a nursing home or long-term care facility, persons who are immunocompromised, and those with other pre-existing health conditions, such as
7

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 123 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/29/2020 Page 8 of 59

serious heart conditions, diabetes, chronic lung disease, chronic kidney disease, liver

disease, asthma, hemoglobin disorders, and severe obesity.4

The CDC’s Interim Guidance on Management of Coronavirus Disease 2019

(COVID-19) in Correctional and Detention Facilities summarizes some of the harsh

realities of the increased COVID-19 risks at detention centers like Krome, Broward and

Glades:

• Incarcerated/detained persons live, work, eat, study, and recreate within congregate environments, heightening the potential for COVID-19 to spread once introduced.

• In most cases, incarcerated/detained persons are not permitted to leave the facility.

• There are many opportunities for COVID-19 to be introduced into a correctional or detention facility, including daily staff ingress and egress; transfer of incarcerated/detained persons between facilities and systems, to court appearances, and to outside medical visits; and visits from family, legal representatives, and other community members. Some settings, particularly jails and detention centers, have high turnover, admitting new entrants daily who may have been exposed to COVID-19 in the surrounding community or other regions.

• Persons incarcerated/detained in a particular facility often come from a variety of locations, increasing the potential to introduce COVID-19 from different geographic areas.

• Options for medical isolation of COVID-19 cases are limited and vary depending on the type and size of facility, as well as the current level of available capacity, which is partly based on medical isolation needs for other conditions.

• Adequate levels of custody and healthcare staffing must be maintained to ensure safe operation of the facility, and options to practice social distancing through work alternatives such as working from home or reduced/alternate schedules are

4

The Court’s Temporary Restraining Order added pregnant detainees to the

Pandemic Response Requirements’ list of higher-risk detainees. [ECF No. 76, p. 10, n. 13].

8

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 123 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/29/2020 Page 9 of 59
limited for many staff roles.
• Correctional and detention facilities can be complex, multi-employer settings that include government and private employers. Each is organizationally distinct and responsible for its own operational, personnel, and occupational health protocols and may be prohibited from issuing guidance or providing services to other employers or their staff within the same setting. Similarly, correctional and detention facilities may house individuals from multiple law enforcement agencies or jurisdictions subject to different policies and procedures.
• Incarcerated/detained persons and staff may have medical conditions that increase their risk of severe disease from COVID-19.
• Because limited outside information is available to many incarcerated/detained persons, unease and misinformation regarding the potential for COVID-19 spread may be high, potentially creating security and morale challenges.
• The ability of incarcerated/detained persons to exercise disease prevention measures (e.g., frequent handwashing) may be limited and is determined by the supplies provided in the facility and by security considerations. Many facilities restrict access to soap and paper towels and prohibit alcohol-based hand sanitizer and many disinfectants.
• Incarcerated persons may hesitate to report symptoms of COVID-19 or seek medical care due to co-pay requirements and fear of isolation.
III. Procedural Background
Following a Report and Recommendations [ECF No. 63], Objections (by both
sides) [ECF Nos. 70-71], Responses (by both sides) to the Objections [ECF Nos. 72-73], two
Petitioners-filed Notices of Supplemental Authority [ECF Nos. 74-75], Judge Cooke
issued a 14-day Temporary Restraining Order [ECF No. 76], which she later extended for
another 14 days on May 15, 2020 [ECF No. 101]. The Order extending the TRO also
scheduled a hearing on the Emergency Motion for Preliminary Injunction for May 27,
9

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 123 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/29/2020 Page 10 of 59
2020. Id. The Court held that hearing (which lasted an hour and a half) on May 27, 2020.
[ECF No. 120]. The next day, ICE consented [ECF No. 119] to an extension of the TRO to June 5, 2020, and Judge Cooke then issued an Order extending the TRO for seven days. [ECF No. 121].
Noting that the Petitioners are merely civil detainees,5 not convicted criminal prisoners (serving a prison sentence at the facilities), the TRO held that ICE’s failures to protect the safety and well-being of Petitioners “amount to cruel and unusual punishment because they are exemplary of deliberate indifference.” [ECF No. 76, p. 6]. The Court also noted that ICE had made a conscious effort to address detention conditions at one center by releasing all detainees over age 60 and decreasing the overall detainee population by 35%. Id. Therefore, the TRO explained, “to the extent that ICE fails to commit to addressing the conditions complained of, ICE has demonstrated deliberate

5

Although the Petitioners are civil detainees who are not serving a federal prison

sentence, that does not mean that they all lack criminal records. In a post-TRO Report, for

example, ICE explained that 35 of the 58 Petitioners are subject to mandatory detention

and that 11 have criminal convictions “or pending criminal charges which [in ICE’s stated

opinion] make them a threat to public safety.” [ECF No. 89-1]. And in a later Report filed

on May 11, 2020, ICE advised [ECF No. 93-1] that 241 of the 419 Krome detainees have

criminal convictions, 253 of the 348 Glades detainees have criminal convictions and 87 of

the 419 Broward detainees have criminal convictions. In addition, 153 of the 443 Krome

detainees are facing pending criminal charges, 96 of the 419 Broward detainees are facing

pending criminal charges, and 95 of the 348 Glades detainees are facing pending criminal

charges.

10

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 123 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/29/2020 Page 11 of 59
indifference.” Id. Although the Court found that injunctive relief is appropriate because of the Fifth
and Eighth Amendment violations, it also noted that “the record is not clear as to whether each individual Petitioner is eligible for release under ICE’s PRR.”6 Id. at p. 10 (emphasis added). For example, Judge Cooke noted, “it is unclear who among the Petitioners would be considered “mandatory detainees.” Id. (emphasis added).
The Court granted in part and denied in part Petitioners’ Emergency Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order and imposed several requirements on ICE. Some requirements concerned specific steps which ICE must take to accomplish the goal of reducing the population to 75% of capacity at each of the three centers, some imposed reporting requirements, and some required specific health-related protocols.
Although both sides filed Objections to the Undersigned’s Report and Recommendations, neither side appealed the TRO, which largely adopted the specific measures suggested in the R & R.7
28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1) gives federal appellate courts jurisdiction over interlocutory orders of district courts “granting, continuing, modifying, refusing or dissolving injunctions, or refusing to dissolve or modify injunctions, except where a direct review

6

PRR refers to ICE’s COVID-19 April 10, 2020 Pandemic Response Requirements.

7

The TRO did not adopt the Report and Recommendations’ suggestion that the

Court appoint an independent expert to evaluate the three facilities.

11

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 123 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/29/2020 Page 12 of 59
may be had in the Supreme Court.” (emphasis added). Although a TRO provides a type of injunctive relief, it is not a preliminary injunction. This distinction is critical, as “preliminary injunctions are appealable but temporary restraining orders are not.” Mitsubishi Intern. Corp. v. Cardinal Textile Sales, Inc., 14 F.3d 1507, 1515 (11th Cir. 1994).8
The TRO did not order ICE to release any specific detainee, nor did it require ICE to release any specific categories of detainee. Similarly, it did not specifically instruct ICE as to how to prioritize any release decisions. The TRO did not mandate that ICE in fact reduce the census at each facility to 75% of capacity. Rather, it required ICE to (1) evaluate the named detainees and inform the Court who among them could be released; (2) consider health status, bond eligibility, immigration status, immigration court history and prior criminal history when making the evaluations; and (3) submit a report about how it intends to accelerate its review of detainee release protocols “with the goal of reducing the population to 75% of capacity at each of the three detention centers within two weeks” of the TRO. [ECF No. 76, p. 10 (emphasis added)]. The TRO did not direct ICE to consider one or more factors as more or less important than other factors, nor did it impose any specific barriers to ICE’s ability to lower the detainee population through transfers.

8

Where a temporary restraining order has the effect of a preliminary injunction,

however, then the appellate court has jurisdiction to review the order and is not bound

by the district court’s designation of the order. Mitsubishi Intern. Corp., 14 F. 3d at 1515,

n.14.

12

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 123 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/29/2020 Page 13 of 59
After Judge Cooke entered the TRO, she granted in part [ECF No. 78] a motion for clarification [ECF No. 77] to permit ICE to “transfer detainees from the three facilities at issue,” but only after “first evaluating each detainee and making a determination” of the detainee’s release eligibility under the PRR. [ECF No. 78, p. 1 (emphasis added)]. Neither the TRO nor this clarification Order required ICE to provide copies of completed forms used to evaluate detainees for possible release to the Court or to Plaintiffs’ counsel.
A. ICE’s TRO-Required Reports In its first post-TRO Report, filed on May 2, 2020, ICE provided information on a center-by-center basis. [ECF No. 79]. Concerning Krome, ICE advised that it issued every detainee a surgical mask on April 29, 2020 and agreed to exchange the masks every Wednesday. [ECF No. 79-1, p. 1]. It also said it would continue to provide, at no cost to the detainees, “adequate” amounts of soap, water and cleaning materials to the detainees. Id. It further advised that disinfecting wipes are provided to detainees for cleaning of mattresses and bunks (though it did not reveal how often). Id. at p. 2. In addition, ICE advised that the dormitories are equipped with antibacterial soap dispensers, running water and paper towels. Id. Similarly, it advised that hand sanitizer dispensers have been installed in all housing units and that staffers visit each unit daily and replenish supplies daily. Id. At Glades, ICE said in its first report, the staff issued every ICE detainee a surgical
13

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 123 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/29/2020 Page 14 of 59
mask, and they also provided instructions in multiple languages. Id. The masks are to be replaced every Friday. Id. The report also explained that “adequate” amounts of soap, water and cleaning materials are provided to ICE detainees, at no cost to them. Id. In addition, all dormitories are equipped with antibacterial soap dispensers, running water and paper towels. Id. The report advised that dormitories are sanitized twice daily. Id. The report later explained that four ounces of antibacterial soap are provided for individual use and is “replenished as needed.” Id.
At Broward, all detainees were issued masks on April 17, 2020 and are exchanged once per week. [ECF No. 79-2, p. 1]. The staff gives detainees two four-ounce bottles of soap, which is replenished as needed, at no cost to the detainee. Id. at p. 2. In addition, detainees are also issued a 7.5-ounce pump bottle of antibacterial soap for each room, which is refilled as needed seven days per week. Id. The report also advises that cleaning supplies are issued daily and that a facility sanitation team conducts a deep cleaning of each detainee bathroom twice per week. Id. The sanitation team uses two pump sprayers to spray the turf twice per day. Id. The cleaning crew, which includes detainee volunteers, uses masks and gloves while cleaning. Id.
ICE’s second post-TRO report [ECF No. 80], filed on March 3, 2020, focused on release, and it outlined the decision-making process and the numbers of detainees released. Relevant portions of this report are provided here verbatim:
3. ICE’s goal is to reduce the population to 75%, which has been met at Broward Transitional Center. ICE has and will continue to review cases and
14

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 123 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/29/2020 Page 15 of 59
exercise its discretion to pursue alternatives to detention within the confines of the law.
4. Alternatives to detention can include a release on GPS ankle monitor, release on parole, release on an order of recognizance (OREC) with or without a bond pending removal proceedings, and release on an order of supervision (OSUP) with reporting requirements. Whether a detainee is eligible for release pursuant to any of the mechanisms above depends upon his or her manner of entry, and the applicability of the mandatory detention statutes under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA).
5. When evaluating custody, ICE considers immigration history, criminal record, potential threat to public safety, flight risk, and national security concerns, as well as current health status and COVID-19 vulnerability in accordance to the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) guidelines.
6. ICE is reducing its detainee population at Krome and Glades to reach the target capacity through a continuous review of all cases, where detainees have been identified by ICE Health Service Corps as having a medical condition that makes them “at risk” for COVID-19, according to the CDC guidelines and the factors enumerated in U.S. District Court for the Central District of California preliminary injunction order in Fraihat v. ICE, ---F. Supp. 3d ---, 2020 WL 1932570 (Apr. 20, 2020), to determine if their detention remains appropriate.
7. To that end, ICE also identifies within five days of coming to ICE custody all detainees with risk factors and considers them in making custody determinations.
8. ICE further intends to continue reducing its detained population at Krome and Glades by identifying eligible arriving alien cases for parole consideration.
9. Arriving aliens who establish a credible fear of persecution or torture are to be detained for further consideration of the application for asylum. INA § 235(b)(l)(B)(ii), 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(1)(B)(ii). Such aliens, however, may be paroled on a case-by-case basis for "urgent humanitarian reasons" or "significant public benefit," provided the aliens present neither a security risk nor a risk of absconding. 8 C.F.R. § 212.5(b).
15

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 123 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/29/2020 Page 16 of 59
10. ICE will continue to provide eligible detainees with a Parole Advisal and Scheduling Notification Form, which inform the detainee that he/she will be interviewed for potential parole and provides the detainee instructions on how to submit any supporting documentation.
11. ICE will continue to review all previously-granted bonds to determine whether reduction of the bond amount or release on an order of recognizance, with a GPS ankle monitor to mitigate risk of flight, is appropriate.
12. ICE intends to continue reduction of the population at Krome and Glades by accelerating the review and release on Orders of Supervision for all final order detainees, where ICE has determined that there is no significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future.
13. ICE detained population at Krome and Glades will be further reduced through release of detainees granted relief or bond by an Immigration Judge, or through the enforcement of removal orders where logistically feasible.
14. During February, March and April 2020, ICE officials at Krome and Glades released 289 individuals on an Order of Recognizance, Order of Supervision, Parole or Bond.
15. During February, March and April 2020, officials at BTC released 218 individuals on an Order of Recognizance, Order of Supervision, Parole or Bond.
[ECF No. 80-1, pp. 1-3].
ICE’s third Report [ECF No. 89] addressed the population of the three centers (i.e.,
whether they were below capacity) and information about the release status of the 58
Petitioners, including information about the factors used to assess eligibility for release
(e.g., whether a detainee is subject to mandatory detention, has criminal convictions or
pending charges, or has health conditions which would increase their vulnerability to
16

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 123 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/29/2020 Page 17 of 59
COVID-19). Relevant portions of this report are provided here verbatim:
3. As of May 7, 2020, Krome’s population is presently at 71% capacity. The detainee population at Glades is presently at 74% capacity. BTC’s detainee population is presently at 65% capacity.
4. ICE has reviewed each of the 58 petitioners’ detention pursuant to the district court’s order. Of the 58 petitioners, six of the petitioners have been released from ICE custody, to include Tahimi Perez, Francisco Rivero Valeron, Eitan Yefet, Fernando Goncalves, Maxuel De Souza, and Maria Rodriguez Claras.
5. ICE determined that of the 52 remaining petitioners, 35 are subject to mandatory detention.
6. ICE found that of the 52 petitioners, 17 are not subject to mandatory detention.
7. ICE determined that 11 of the petitioners who are not subject to mandatory detention have criminal convictions or pending criminal charges which make them a threat to public safety.
8. An immigration judge denied a bond to one of the non-mandatory detention plaintiffs based upon flight risk. The plaintiff did not appeal the bond denial. The immigration judge ordered removal and the plaintiff did appeal the removal order. The appeal remains pending.
9. ICE released an additional two petitioners on alternatives to detention, Eliseo Zamora-Mendoza and Alejandro Mugaburu Tapia.
10. The remaining three petitioners who are not subject to mandatory detention, do not have a criminal history, and do not have any known chronic health conditions that would increase their vulnerability to COVID 19 per the Center for Disease Control (CDC) guidelines.
11. ICE found that of the 52 petitioners, one is over the age of 60. That petitioner has criminal convictions for carrying a concealed weapon, possession of narcotic equipment, possession of marijuana, larceny and arson and is subject to mandatory detention. He is scheduled for a hearing on his request for relief [] with an immigration judge on May 21, 2020.
17

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 123 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/29/2020 Page 18 of 59
12. ICE found that of the 52 petitioners, 25 had no known chronic health conditions that would increase their vulnerability to COVID 19 per the Center for Disease Control (CDC) guidelines.
13. ICE found that of the 52 petitioners, 27 did have known chronic health conditions that would increase their vulnerability to COVID 19 per the Center for Disease Control (CDC) guidelines.
14. ICE found that of those 27 petitioners that had a known chronic health condition, 22 are subject to mandatory detention under the Immigration and Nationality Act and are not statutorily eligible for release pursuant to an order of recognizance, parole, or other alternative to detention.
15. ICE found that of the 27 petitioners that had a known chronic health condition, 5 are eligible for some form of release under the Immigration and Nationality Act. After reviewing all factors to include health status, bond eligibility, immigration history, immigration status and criminal history, ICE has approved 2 petitioners for release.
16. However, ICE found that the remaining three petitioners have criminal convictions for [i]ntimidation, probation violation, fraud, illegal use of credit cards and traffic offenses.
17. Additionally, some of the three plaintiffs are also pending criminal charges for [p]roperty damage, possession of stolen property, sale of stolen property, drug possession, larceny, weapons offense, firing a weapon, and aggravated assault with a weapon and failure to appear.
[ECF No. 89-1, pp. 1-3].
ICE’s fourth report [ECF No. 93], filed on May 11, 2020, focuses on the criminal
histories of all the current detainees, not merely the 58 named Petitioners. Relevant
portions are provided here verbatim:
3. As of 6:00 a.m. on May 11, 2020, ICE detained 1210 detainees at Krome, BTC, and Glades.
18

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 123 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/29/2020 Page 19 of 59
4. ICE is housing 419 detainees at BTC; 443 detainees at Krome; and 348 at Glades.
5. Of the 1210 detainees, 787 detainees are considered to be subject to mandatory detention.
6. Of the 419 detainees housed at BTC, 87 have criminal convictions and 332 do not have criminal convictions. However, 96 of them are pending criminal charges.
7. Of the 443 detainees housed at Krome, 241 have criminal convictions and 202 do not have criminal convictions. However, 153 of them are pending criminal charges.
8. Of the 348 detainees housed at Glades, 253 have criminal convictions and 95 do not have criminal convictions. However, 95 of them are pending criminal charges.
[ECF No. 93-1, pp. 1-2].
ICE’s fifth report, submitted May 14, 2020 [ECF No. 97], provides an update on the
criminal histories and pending charges for the detainees. Relevant portions are listed here
verbatim:
3. As of 6:00 a.m. on May 14, 2020, ICE detained 1194 detainees at Krome, BTC, and Glades.
4. ICE is housing 462 detainees at BTC; 403 detainees at Krome; and 329 at Glades. 5. Of the 1194 detainees, 860 detainees are considered to be subject to mandatory detention.
6. Of the 462 detainees housed at BTC, 108 have criminal convictions and 354 do not have criminal convictions. However, 94 of the 354 detainees with no criminal convictions are pending criminal charges.
7. Of the 403 detainees housed at Krome, 229 have criminal convictions and 174 do not have criminal convictions. However, l16 of the 174 detainees
19

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 123 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/29/2020 Page 20 of 59
with no criminal convictions are pending criminal charges.
8. Of the 329 detainees housed at Glades, 246 have criminal convictions and 83 do not have criminal convictions. However, 83 of the detainees with no criminal convictions are pending criminal charges.
[ECF No. 97-1, pp. 1-2].
ICE’s sixth report, filed on May 15, 2020 [ECF No. 100], revealed specifics about
the methods used to release 170 detainees from the three centers between May 8 and May
15, 2020. Specifically, 111 of the 170 detainees who were removed or released from the
three centers were transferred to other facilities. Relevant portions of this report are
provided here verbatim:
3. Between May 8, 2020 and May 15, 2020 at 9:00 a.m., ICE released or removed a total of 170 detainees. Those detainees were released or removed from the following facilities: 119 detainees from Krome, 17 detainees from Glades and 34 detainees from BTC.
4. The nature of the 119 releases from Krome are as follows: a. 9 detainees were released on bond. b. 1 detainee was removed from the United States. c. 1 detainee was released because an immigration judge granted relief from removal. d. 1 detainee was released on an order of supervision based on a COVID-19 high risk category. e. 2 detainees were released on an order of supervision subsequent to a procedural ERO custody review. f. 3 detainees were turned over to local law enforcement on a warrant. g. 2 detainees departed voluntarily. h. 100 detainees were transferred out of Krome.
5. The nature of the 17 releases from Glades are as follows: a. 3 detainees were released on bond. b. 4 detainees were released because an immigration judge granted
20

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 123 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/29/2020 Page 21 of 59

relief from removal. c. 4 detainees were released on an order of supervision subsequent to a procedural ERO custody review. d. 6 detainees were transferred out of Glades.
6. The nature of the 34 releases from BTC are as follows: a. 1 detainee was released on bond. b. 13 detainees were removed from the United States. c. 1 detainee was released because an immigration judge granted relief from removal. d. 1 detainee was released on Parole subsequent to a procedural ERO custody review. e. 10 detainees were released on an order of supervision subsequent to a procedural ERO custody review. f. 3 detainees were released on an order of supervision based on a COVID-19 high risk category. g. 5 detainees were transferred out of BTC.
[ECF No. 100-1, pp. 1-2].
ICE’s seventh report, filed on May 18, 2020 [ECF No. 104], provides an update on
the number of detainees on a facility-by-facility basis and the categories in which they
have been described. Relevant portions are provided here verbatim:
3. As of 6:00 a.m. on May 18, 2020, ICE detained 11919 detainees at Krome, BTC, and Glades. 4. ICE is housing 456 detainees at BTC; 397 detainees at Krome; and 338 at Glades.
5. Of the 1191 detainees, 846 detainees are considered to be subject to mandatory detention.
6. Of the 456 detainees housed at BTC, 112 have criminal convictions and 344 do not have criminal convictions. However, 93 of the 344 detainees with no criminal convictions are pending criminal charges.

9

The total census was slightly reduced, from 1,194, to 1,191, in a four-day period.

21

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 123 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/29/2020 Page 22 of 59
7. Of the 397 detainees housed at Krome, 223 have criminal convictions and 174 do not have criminal convictions. However, 119 of the 174 detainees with no criminal convictions are pending criminal charges. 8. Of the 338 detainees housed at Glades, 248 have criminal convictions and 90 do not have criminal convictions. However, 62 of the 90 detainees with no criminal convictions are pending criminal charges. [ECF No. 104-1, pp. 1-2]. B. Petitioners’ New Declarations Petitioners filed their expedited motion for class certification on May 5, 2020. [ECF No. 81]. Petitioners filed a reply in further support of their motion on May 12, 2020 [ECF No. 94] and attached new declarations which they say shows that ICE is “continuing to place these people in conditions that violate CDC Guidelines.” [ECF No. 94, p. 7]. Some of these declarations, which were signed after the TRO was entered and after ICE issued its first report, contend that the conditions at the three centers continue to permit unacceptable conditions to exist, though Petitioners’ counsel acknowledge that “ICE may dispute these accounts.” [ECF No. 94, p. 8]. If the declarations are factually accurate and complete, then there is a significant factual discrepancy between what ICE represents in its submissions (through declarations made under penalty of perjury) and what the Petitioner declarants describe. Other significant points are not necessarily factual disputes -- they merely document certain realities which ICE does not address in its reports and declarations (e.g., adequate
22

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 123 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/29/2020 Page 23 of 59
social distancing at all times is impossible). The following excerpts from the new Petitioner declarations illustrate factual
discrepancies, as opposed to undisputed descriptions which simply reflect certain realities of the conditions at the three detention centers:
In a declaration signed on May 6, 2020, Reinier Guiber Avila says that “there is no hygiene here.” [ECF No. 94-1, p. 6]. He says, “there are not enough cleaning supplies” and he and his fellow podmates are given only two rags to clean the entire pod. Id. He also claims that “we do not have disinfecting wipes to use regularly.” Id. He states that he was given one wipe when he arrived at Krome (on April 17, 2020) but has not been provided any additional wipes since his first day (i.e., a period of 15 days). Id.
Miguel Angel Marroquin Perez is detained at Broward and signed a declaration on May 8, 2020. [ECF No. 94-1, pp. 15-17]. Although he says that masks are provided every three days, he says that mask use is not required, that the masks are usually thrown on the beds or on tabletops and “most people do not want to wear them because they are contaminated.” Id. at p. 15. He also advises that hand sanitizer is “sometimes” available outside the cafeteria and that he has not seen any hand sanitizer next to the telephones. Id. at p. 16. He also says that he has not received any education about hygiene and preventing the spread of COVID-19. Id. at p. 17. Moreover, he says he has not seen any Spanish-language posters about COVID-19 at Broward. Id.
Iran Pichardo Perez-Borroto has been detained at Krome since April 16, 2020. [ECF
23

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 123 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/29/2020 Page 24 of 59
No. 94-1, pp. 21-23]. He says he receives soap and shampoo “once or twice a week,” that the amount of soap is insufficient and that he and his other podmates do not always receive additional soap or shampoo when they request it. Id. at p. 22. He further contends that disinfecting wipes are not provided and that detainees sometimes use toilet wiper to clean the tables. Id.
Deivys Perez Valladares has been at Krome since May 6, 2020 and was previously at Broward. [ECF No. 94-1, p. 26]. According to his declaration, Broward guards were not wearing masks or gloves when interacting with the detainees. Id. at p. 27. Staff at Krome did not provide information about COVID-19 when they arrived. Id. In addition, the Perez-Valladares declaration says that no masks or gloves were given to detainees when they arrived at Krome from Broward and that only guards are using masks at Krome. Id.
Danny Ruiz Garcia is detained at Broward, where he has been housed since March 26, 2020. [ECF No. 94-1, p. 31]. According to his declaration, there is no hand sanitizer near the telephones, the hand sanitizer in the cafeteria is often empty and guards are given hand sanitizer only during lunch. Id. Mr. Ruiz also says that a Broward staffer denied his request for additional shower gel on May 5, 2020. Id. He also says that he has not received any education about hygiene or how to prevent the spread of COVID-19 at Broward. Id. IV. Applicable Legal Standards & Analysis
Petitioners’ class action certification motion is the precise legal issue currently
24

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 123 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/29/2020 Page 25 of 59
before the Court. Nevertheless, the Undersigned will first discuss Swain v. Junior, No. 20-11622-C,
2020 WL 2161317 (11th Cir. May 5, 2020) because it is a very recent and binding published Eleventh Circuit opinion concerning a challenge to conditions of confinement raised in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic.10 Moreover, Swain is helpful to a discussion of whether the merits of the prisoners’ claims there, which are similar to the ones here, affect the analysis of Petitioners’ class action motion.
A. Swain v. Junior In a 2-1 published opinion with a written dissent, our Appellate Court in Swain granted a motion to stay the District Court’s preliminary injunction pending an appeal by the Defendants (i.e., Miami-Dade County and the Director of its Corrections and Rehabilitations Department). The preliminary injunction, which was stayed, required the Defendants in that similar case to use myriad safety measures to prevent the spread of COVID-19 at the Metro West jail. The Swain Court considered the Plaintiffs’ § 1983 claim that Defendants violated the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments through their purportedly deliberate
10 There have been several district court and appellate court opinions in the past three months concerning COVID-19 prompted lawsuits filed by prisoners and detainees in federal, state and local prisons, jail and detention facilities. Those opinions are all nonbinding. Swain is the only binding appellate decision which the Undersigned knows of which addresses the conditions of confinement and a demand for release as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic.
25

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 123 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/29/2020 Page 26 of 59
indifference to the COVID-19 risks affecting the jail detainees. The Court noted that an Eighth Amendment challenge has two components: an objective one and a subjective one.
To prevail on the objective component, a plaintiff must show “an objectively intolerable risk of harm.” Swain, 2020 WL 2161317, at *4.
To satisfy the subjective component, a plaintiff must show that the prison official “acted with deliberate indifference.” Id. The Swain Court noted that the deliberate indifference element requires a prison official to have a subjective “state of mind more blameworthy than negligence.” Id.
The Eleventh Circuit held that the District Court “incorrectly collapsed” the subjective and objective components. Id. Moreover, it held that the Defendants are likely to prevail on appeal. Id.
More specifically, the Eleventh Circuit held that the trial court “treated the increase in COVID-19 infections as proof that the Defendants deliberately disregarded an intolerable risk,” an approach which “likely violated the admonition that resultant harm does not establish a liable state of mind.” Id. It also held that the Defendants are likely to prevail for the additional reason that Plaintiffs “offered ‘little evidence’ to suggest that the Defendants were deliberately indifferent.” Id. Instead, the Appellate Court held, the evidence supports the conclusion that the Defendants “are taking the risk of COVID-19 seriously.” Id.
The Swain Court also held that the trial court “likely erred” by treating Metro
26

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 123 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/29/2020 Page 27 of 59
West’s inability to achieve meaningful social distancing as “evincing a reckless state of mind.” Id.
Although the specific conditions at the three federal detention centers and the County’s Metro West facility have not been established to be identical, some of the problematic conditions at the Metro West jail (e.g., the impossibility of achieving “social distancing”) seem to be also present at Krome, Broward, and Glades. But Swain held that the provisions of the preliminary injunction (e.g., specifying specific measures which county jail officials must take, such as requiring that soap and mask be provided) are illustrations of a scenario where the District Court designated itself as a de facto “superwarden” and incorrectly required those officials to, in effect, obtain a “permission slip” from the Court before taking action at the jail. Id. at *5.
Some of the measures in the preliminary injunction stayed in Swain are similar to, and at times identical to, the measures included in the temporary restraining order issued by the District Court in this case. Unlike the Defendants in Swain, however, the Defendants here (ICE, for all practical purposes) have not filed a notice of appeal of the TRO (because, presumably, the statute does not permit interlocutory appeal of a TRO, as opposed to a preliminary injunction). Instead, they have filed reports which provide information on what steps they have taken in response to the TRO.
27

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 123 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/29/2020 Page 28 of 59
Given the similarities between Swain and the instant case,11 there could theoretically be a question about Petitioners’ chances of succeeding on the merits of their efforts to convert the TRO in the instant case into a preliminary injunction. To be sure, each case turns on its facts. The Swain facts are not identical to the facts here, so the appellate court’s ruling about the preliminary injunction in Swain and whether the evidence established deliberate indifference there does not necessarily mean it would reach a similar conclusion here about the deliberate indifference standard at the three immigration detention centers. In addition, the legal theories asserted by the parties in the two cases are not identical, either.
Therefore, the mere fact that our Appellate Court stayed the preliminary injunction concerning Metro West does not mean that it would issue an identical ruling in this case, which, of course, has different facts. The health risks confronting the immigration detainees could be significantly greater than those affecting defendants housed at Metro West. Likewise, an evaluation of the mental states of ICE officials operating the three federal immigration facilities could show greater culpability than county officials operating Metro West. In other words, the Swain Plaintiffs may not have submitted sufficient evidence of deliberate indifference, while the Plaintiffs here may
11 Swain was issued on May 5, 2020, which means that the Undersigned (who issued the Report and Recommendations on April 22, 2020) and Judge Cooke (who issued the TRO on April 30, 2020) did not have the benefit of Swain, which is now binding precedent, when we analyzed the issues.
28

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 123 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/29/2020 Page 29 of 59
have provided more-substantial evidence of deliberate indifference. But it is not necessary to determine whether Petitioners will ultimately succeed in
obtaining a preliminary injunction or declaratory relief here in order to decide the class certification issue. As the Advisory Committee Notes to the 2003 Amendment of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(c)(1)(A) explains: “an evaluation of the probable outcome of the merits is not properly part of the certification decision.” Cf. Amgen Inc. v. Conn. Ret. Plans & Tr. Funds, 568 U.S. 455, 459 (2013) (emphasis added) (“Rule 23(b)(3) requires a showing that questions common to the class predominate, not that those questions will be answered, on the merits, in favor of the class.”).
The purpose of a class-certification ruling “is not to adjudicate the case,” but “to select the method best suited to adjudication of the controversy.” Id. at 460 (internal citation omitted). Adjudicating the merits to determine certification “put[s] the cart before the horse.” Id.; see generally Cooper v. Southern Co., 205 F.R.D. 596, 608-90 (N.D. Ga. 2001) (“The Court’s responsibility is to make sure that the common bond between the class representatives’ claims and those of the class is strong enough so that it is fair for the fortunes of the class members to rise or fall with the fortunes of the class representatives.”); see also In re Chiquita Brands Int’l Inc. Alien Tort Statute and Shareholders Derivative Litigation, 331 F.R.D. 675, 682 (S.D. Fla. 2019) (finding that at the class certification motion stage, “the Court should not pass on the merits of the claims”); cf. Amgen, 568 U.S. at 465-66 (“Rule 23 grants courts no license to engage in free-ranging
29

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 123 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/29/2020 Page 30 of 59
merits inquiries at the certification stage” and merits questions “may be considered to the
extent – but only to the extent – they are relevant to determining whether the Rule 23
prerequisites for class certification are satisfied”).12
So an order certifying a class does not by itself indicate whether the claims certified
will succeed. However, the Undersigned deems it prudent to point out that other
appellate courts13 have recently issued opinions staying preliminary injunctions on
12 The Swain Court pointed out that an expert report found that “Metro West appears to have implemented many measures to curb the spread of the virus.” 2020 WL 2161317, at *4. It also emphasized that the Defendants “adopted extensive safety measures such as increasing screening, providing protective equipment, adopting social distancing when possible, quarantining symptomatic inmates, and enhancing cleaning procedures.” Id. at *5. These circumstances, the appellate court pointed out, are inconsistent with a finding of deliberate indifference.
In its memorandum opposing the class action motion [ECF No. 92, pp. 13-14], ICE advised that it “began taking measures, prior to the filing of the lawsuit, to address the threat posed by COVID-19.” Id. at p. 13. The measures included some of the ones mentioned in Swain. ICE contends that its conduct, as evidenced by the pre-lawsuit measures, “does not evince deliberate indifference to detainees’ serious medical needs.” [sic]. Id. at pp. 13-14.
The appellate courts which have stayed COVID-19 preliminary injunctions against officials operating state and federal prison and detention facilities seem to have all relied on that view to stay the trial court’s preliminary injunction. See, e.g., Marlowe, 2020 WL 2043425, at *2 (stating the question is whether the state prison officials are required “to do more than [they] have already done to mitigate the risk of harm” and noting that the evidence did not show deliberate indifference because the officials were taking “a plethora of measures” to “abate the risks posed by COVID-19”).
13 On the other hand, some trial-level district courts have issued orders granting injunctive relief and certifying classes or sub-classes in COVID-19 prisoner/detainee litigation. See, e.g., Fraihat v. U.S. Immigration & Customs Enforcement, No. EDCV-19-1546 JGB, 2020 WL 1932570 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 20, 2020).
30

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 123 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/29/2020 Page 31 of 59
rationales similar to the one articulated in Swain. See generally Valentine v. Collier, 956 F.3d 797, 801, 803 (5th Cir. 2020) (staying preliminary injunction entered against the executive director of the Texas prison system and the warden of one of its prisons for the elderly and infirm, noting that the preliminary injunction created an “administrative nightmare,” and explaining that “the incidence of diseases or infections, standing alone, do not imply unconstitutional confinement conditions, since any densely populated residence may be subject to outbreaks”); Marlowe v. Leblanc, No. 20-30276, 2020 WL 2043425, at *2-4 (5th Cir. 2020) (staying district court’s preliminary injunction entered against Louisiana’s prison system officials in a lawsuit filed by a diabetic who is “particularly vulnerable to the virus’s effects”; noting that the virus has spread within the prison but emphasizing that, given the many prevention measures taken by the prison, “an increase in infection rate alone is insufficient to prove deliberate indifference”; and holding that the harm to the state’s interest in administering its prison system is “particularly acute” because the preliminary injunction “interferes with the rapidly-changing approach” that the state has “used to respond to the pandemic so far”); cf. Roman v. Wolf, No. 20-55436, 2020 WL 2188048, at *1 (9th Cir. May 5, 2020) (staying preliminary injunction except for paragraph requiring substantial compliance with CDC Guidelines at ICE immigration detention facility in Adelanto, California).
31

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 123 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/29/2020 Page 32 of 59
B. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 It is well established that trial courts have “broad discretion” in determining whether to certify a class and to subsequently amend a class. See, e.g., Coon v. Georgia Pac. Corp., 829 F.2d 1563, 1566 (11th Cir. 1987); Kilgo v. Bowman Transp., Inc., 789 F.2d 859, 877 (11th Cir. 1986). As a result, the appellate court will review a District Court’s decision about whether to certify a class for an abuse of discretion. See Babineau v. Fed. Express Corp., 576 F.3d 1183, 1189 (11th Cir. 2009). The Eleventh Circuit will find an abuse of discretion in a class certification ruling only if the District Court applies the wrong legal standard, follows improper procedures in making its determination, bases its decision on clearly erroneous findings of fact, or applies the law in an unreasonable or incorrect manner. See Klay v. Humana, Inc., 382 F.3d 1241, 1251 (11th Cir. 2004), abrogated in part on other grounds by Bridge v. Phoenix Bond & Indem. Co., 553 U.S. 639 (2008). “The class action is ‘an exception to the usual rule that litigation is conducted by and on behalf of the individual named parties only.’” Comcast Corp. v. Behrend, 569 U.S. 27, 33 (2013) (quoting Califano v. Yamasaki, 442 U.S. 682, 700-01 (1979)). To fall within the exception, Plaintiffs “must affirmatively demonstrate [their] compliance” with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338, 350 (2011). “A district court must conduct a rigorous analysis of the Rule 23 prerequisites before certifying a class.” Vega v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., 564 F.3d 1256, 1266 (11th Cir. 2009) (citation omitted). “A party seeking class certification must affirmatively demonstrate his
32

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 123 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/29/2020 Page 33 of 59
compliance with [Rule 23]—that is, he must be prepared to prove that there are in fact sufficiently numerous parties, common questions of law or fact, etc.” Dukes, 564 U.S. at 350. “In other words, ‘the party seeking class certification has a burden of proof, not a burden of pleading.’” Reyes v. BCA Fin. Servs., No. 16-cv-24077, 2018 WL 3145807, at *7 (S.D. Fla. June 26, 2018) (quoting Brown v. Electrolux Home Prods., Inc., 817 F.3d 1225, 1234 (11th Cir. 2016)).
Plaintiffs seek class certification pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and (b)(2). Specifically, Plaintiffs seek certification of the following class:
All civil immigration detained individuals held by Respondents at the Krome Service Processing Center (“Krome”), the Broward Transitional Center (“BTC”), or at Glades County Detention Facility (“Glades”) when this action was filed, since this action was filed, or in the future. [ECF No. 81, p. 5]. According to Petitioners, ICE has not even attempted to show this Court that it is fully implementing CDC Guidelines. Instead, as phrased by Plaintiffs, the ICE-submitted declarations “illustrate a consistent pattern of unhygienically cramped conditions, inadequate personal protective equipment, and grossly inadequate practices by ICE, such as late screening and use of massive cohort quarantining.” Id. at p. 2. Plaintiffs contend that putative class members are “uniformly not provided basic necessities to fight against COVID-19, such as space, face masks, soap, and hand sanitizer.”14 Id. at p. 6. “Each class
14 ICE disputes this description, as illustrated by the representations made in its postTRO reports. The Undersigned acknowledges a significant factual dispute but will not
33

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 123 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/29/2020 Page 34 of 59
member is therefore not only subject to similar conditions, but similarly subject to the same devastating risk of contracting COVID-19.” Id.
Class certification is governed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. Class certification is proper where the party seeking certification demonstrates that (1) each of the prerequisites of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) have been met; and (2) the proposed class satisfies at least one of the requirements listed in Rule 23(b). Dukes, 564 U.S. at 345 (2011).
The Rule 23(a) requirements are as follows: (1) the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable; (2) there are questions of law or fact common to the class; (3) the claims or defenses of the representative parties are typical of the claims or defenses of the class; and (4) the representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a).
i. Analysis of the Rule 23(a) Factors The Supreme Court has held that “actual, not presumed, conformance with Rule 23(a) [is] indispensable.” Gen. Tel. Co. of the Sw. v. Falcon, 457 U.S. 147, 160 (1982). The party seeking class certification bears the burden of demonstrating it has satisfied all four
resolve it here. If a class of some type is certified for claims concerning this alleged lack of hygiene, then all class members will have their claims succeed or fail based on an evidence-based determination of which set of facts is the correct one. Of course, this Court could always determine that the facts are not the ones portrayed by Plaintiffs or those described by ICE – and that the actual scenario is somewhere between the two competing versions.
34

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 123 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/29/2020 Page 35 of 59
Rule 23(a) prerequisites and that the class lawsuit falls within one of the three types of actions permitted under Rule 23(b). Amchem Prods. Inc. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591, 614 (1997).
1. Numerosity The proposed class satisfies the requirement that the class be “so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(1). While there is no fixed rule, generally a class size less than twenty-one is typically considered inadequate, while a class size of more than forty is generally adequate. Cheney v. Cyberguard Corp., 213 F.R.D. 484, 489-90 (S.D. Fla. 2003). This requirement is easily met here because there are many hundreds of people (indeed, approximately 1,124) in civil immigration detention who are being held by the same Respondent across Krome, BTC, and Glades, and each of them is affected by the policies and practices challenged in this lawsuit. See, e.g., Rosas v. Baca, No. CV 12-00428 DDP (SHx), 2012 WL 2061694, at *2 (C.D. Cal. June 7, 2012) (“The Jails currently house thousands of inmates, and are certain to house many more in the future. The court therefore agrees with Plaintiffs’ undisputed assertion that the numerosity requirement has been satisfied.”). The size of the proposed Class seeking injunctive or declaratory relief make joinder impracticable. The proposed Class thus easily satisfies the numerosity requirement of Rule 23(a)(1).
35

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 123 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/29/2020 Page 36 of 59
2. Commonality Determining whether Petitioners/Plaintiffs meet the commonality requirement depends on the nature of the claims. The claims seeking release on bond or on conditions require a much-different analysis than the claims concerning the conditions (e.g., more soap and disinfecting products, reconfiguring sleeping arrangements to more easily facilitate social distancing). Commonality “requires at least one question common to all of the class members, the answer to which is “apt to drive the resolution of the litigation.” Money v, Pritzker, Nos. 20-cv-2093, 20-cv-2094, 2020 WL 1820660, at *14 (N.D. Ill. Apr. 10, 2020) (internal citation omitted). The Undersigned will first evaluate the conditions-related claims seeking a declaratory judgment and injunctive relief concerning improved hygiene and health measures. In other words, the non-release claims. “Commonality requires the plaintiff to demonstrate that the class members have suffered the same injury.” Dukes, 564 U.S. at 350. The common contention of injury “must be of such a nature that it is capable of class wide resolution—which means that determination of its truth or falsity will resolve an issue that is central to the validity of each one of the claims in one stroke.” Id. A critical question for the class is whether ICE has been deliberately indifferent to the risk that people detained at Krome, Broward, and Glades will contract COVID-19 due
36

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 123 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/29/2020 Page 37 of 59
to the allegedly unhygienic conditions and an inability to protect themselves through social distancing. See Helling v. McKinney, 509 U.S. 25, 32 (1993) (stating the Constitution confers upon the Government a duty to assume responsibility for safety and general wellbeing of people detained).
Common questions also circle on the (in)adequacy of ICE’s policies and practices governing the conditions of confinement, including ICE’s failure to follow CDC Guidelines. These issues, which are at the core of the claims asserted by Plaintiffs and the class constitute the type of common questions that courts have found sufficient to meet the commonality requirement. For example, in Hernandez v. City of Monterey, the court certified “a class of inmates challenging jail safety and health care policies and practices, and a subclass of inmates challenging jail disability policies and practices.” 305 F.R.D. 132, 139 (N.D. Cal. 2015).
Moreover, the very nature of this suit and the relief requested (other than release of detainees) also support a finding of commonality.
Specifically, in a civil rights lawsuit such as this, “commonality requires only that there be at least one issue whose resolution will affect all or a significant number of the putative class members.” Braggs v. Dunn, 321 F.R.D. 653, 664 (M.D. Ala. 2017) (quoting Williams v. Mohawk Indus., Inc., 568 F.3d 1350, 1355 (11th Cir. 2009)) (internal brackets omitted). This “relatively light burden” does not require that all questions of law and fact be common to the putative class members. See Vega, 564 F.3d at 1268.
37

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 123 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/29/2020 Page 38 of 59
Here, ICE’s uniform safety and hygiene practices and its alleged consistent refusal to follow CDC Guidelines at Krome, Broward, and Glades expose each class member to the same “substantial risk of serious harm.” See Hernandez, 305 F.R.D. at 157.
All of the current detainees have been, or will be, subjected to these common conditions and common policies and practices, and a determination that ICE’s conduct is unconstitutional and violated CDC guidelines will therefore “resolve an issue that is central to the validity” of each and every class member’s detention. Dukes, 564 U.S. at 350.
Plaintiffs say that ICE is holding all members of the class in the same horrific conditions, and the Court should find the necessary facts and rule on the constitutionality of those common conditions “in one stroke.” See id.
The fact that certain details relating to their conditions of confinement may or will vary between class members does not defeat commonality. Reid v. Donelan, 297 F.R.D. 185, 191 (D. Mass. 2014), rev’d on other grounds, 819 F.3d 486 (1st Cir. 2016) (granting class certification despite individual differences among class members, where common issues pervade).
Those inevitable differences -- which at most might entail some tailoring in the ultimate non-release remedy the Court might fashion -- do not change the fact that conditions experienced in all three South Florida detention centers at issue here are purportedly all uniformly unsanitary and unconstitutional or that ICE has supposedly
38

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 123 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/29/2020 Page 39 of 59
shown deliberate indifference towards the risk of COVID-19 infection to all people they
are detaining at those three facilities.
In other words, that class members may suffer varying degrees of injury does not
defeat commonality. See, e.g., In re Deepwater Horizon, 739 F.3d 790, 810-11 (5th Cir. 2014)
(“[T]he legal requirement class members have all ‘suffered the same injury’ can be
satisfied by an instance of the defendant’s injurious conduct, even when the resulting
injurious effects—the damages—are diverse.”).
The class members face a common risk of infection, and a ruling that ICE’s conduct
is unconstitutional and illegal will “resolve an issue that is central to the validity” of each
class member’s claim. Dukes, 564 U.S. at 350.15
15 ICE contends that the detainees all have “unique characteristics, including their age, gender, general state of health, and specific medical conditions which might render them more vulnerable to COVID-19 infection.” [ECF No. 110, p. 2]. This, it says, demonstrates that a challenge to conditions cannot be handled on a class basis. Moreover, ICE notes, Plaintiffs included affidavits detailing their specific medical situations “because they believed those are relevant facts insofar as whether ICE is obligated to take into account their unique medical conditions because such conditions create a risk of serious harm to them, and the disregard of that risk, by conduct more than mere negligence, would constitute deliberate indifference to their serious medical need.” Id. at p. 3.
The Undersigned is not convinced that these different medical conditions render class treatment unavailable for claims demanding compliance with CDC Guidelines, however. The purported failure to issue sufficient soap or cleaning products or masks is a scenario applicable to all three facilities, in general. Determining whether ICE officials are deliberately indifferent because they failed to provide these items would typically not depend on whether one detainee is 35 years old or 55 years old, or if one detainee has a cholesterol level of 241 while another has a level of 144. Similarly, the failure to place beds more than six feet apart to facilitate social distancing affects all detainees, and the health
39

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 123 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/29/2020 Page 40 of 59
Plaintiffs have met Rule 23(a)’s commonality requirement for the claims seeking relief other than release. Thus, a class action seeking a declaration that the conditions at the three South Florida immigration detention centers constitute cruel and unusual punishment or an injunction requiring that cleaning and hygiene products be provided on a regular basis and that beds be reconfigured to promote social distancing meets the commonality requirement.
The demand for release, however, presents a far-different picture. At bottom, the release demand does not meet the commonality requirement. The release demand arises from Petitioners’ habeas corpus claim under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The Undersigned finds Money v. Pritzker insightful and persuasive and relies upon it to support the conclusion that the purported class seeking release does not meet Rule 23(a)’s commonality requirement. 2020 WL 1820660, at *14-15. Because I find Money persuasive, I will provide a detailed discussion of its more-important features. The Money Plaintiffs asked the Court to force the State of Illinois executive branch to start a process for the potential release of thousands of inmates, through medical furlough or home detention. In particular, the Plaintiffs are ten individuals serving prison sentences in various Illinois facilities. They brought two purported class action lawsuits
status of each detainee would usually not be distinct enough to cause a different conclusion about whether close bed placement constitutes deliberate indifference to a virus-created health risk.
40

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 123 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/29/2020 Page 41 of 59
seeking release of prisoners from state corrections facilities in light of the COVID-19 pandemic.
The Court noted that Plaintiffs are “correct in asserting that the issue of inmate health and safety is deserving of the highest degree of attention.” Id. at *1.
The foundation of those two lawsuits is, for all essential purposes, the same as the one here: the Plaintiffs contend that (1) the prison setting makes them (and other purported class members) especially vulnerable to COVID-19; (2) the government’s responses to the danger are insufficient; and (3) the only way to solve the problem is moving prisoners out of prisons.
Similar to the Plaintiffs here, the Money Plaintiffs also filed a motion for a TRO and a preliminary injunction.
Similar to the instant case, Money’s ultimate aim is “unmistakably [to] seek to reduce the prison population,” which is “the whole point” of the lawsuits, which seek to “remove inmates from prison because they are vulnerable in those facilities.” Id. at *13.
The Court noted that the impetus for Plaintiffs’ claims is the living conditions inherent in a congregate setting during the COVID-19 epidemic. It further pointed to the reality that “all prison facilities, by definition have living conditions that prevent inmates from practicing the social distancing required by current guidance from the CDC” and the Illinois state government. Id. The Court also flagged a truism applicable to the instant case: “If prisons could be reconfigured to permit social distancing and observance of
41

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 123 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/29/2020 Page 42 of 59
CDC’s hygiene recommendations, Plaintiffs would have no claim.” Id. Shifting its analysis to the commonality requirement, the Court noted that the
public interest, which must be considered when evaluating a request for a TRO or preliminary injunction,16 “mandates individualized consideration of any inmate’s suitability for release and on what conditions, for the safety of the inmate, the inmate’s family, and the public at large.” Id. at *14 (emphasis added).
The Money Court expressed myriad points which apply to the instant lawsuit against ICE:
1. “Each putative class member comes with a unique situation – different crimes,17 sentences, outdates, disciplinary histories, age, medical history, places of incarceration, proximity to infected inmates, availability of a home landing spot, likelihood of transmitting the virus to someone at home detention, likelihood of violation or recidivism, and danger to the community.” Id. at *15.
2. Although commonality does not require perfect uniformity, it “does require more uniformity that these Plaintiffs would have on the only matter ‘apt to drive the resolution of this litigation’ (Wal-Mart, 564 U.S. at 350) -- namely, which class members
16 The public interest factor is one of four requirements for injunctive relief in the Eleventh Circuit. Wreal, LLC v. Amazon.com, Inc., 840 F.3d 1244, 1247 (11th Cir. 2016). 17 Although the detainees here are civil, ICE officials would, and should, consider a detainee’s criminal history when assessing him or her for release, as it could easily impact the danger-to-the-community factor used when evaluating appropriateness of release in a given case.
42

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 123 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/29/2020 Page 43 of 59
should actually be given a furlough?” Id. 3. “Assessment of the safety risk must be based on an individualized
analysis.” Id. 4. “[T]here is no way to decide which inmates should stay, and which inmates
should go, without diving into an inmate-specific inquiry.” Id. 5. The “permutations here are endless, as rarely, if ever, will any two plaintiffs
be alike on the factors that matter at the point of decision.” Id. 6. The differences among the factors for all inmates (or detainees, to use the
term from the instant case) “are so vast and fundamental that class treatment . . . is completely unworkable.” Id.
Thus, as outlined by the Money Court, the claims for release are inappropriate for class treatment because they do not meet the commonality element.18
3. Typicality The typicality requirement centers on the relationship between the proposed class representatives and the other members of the class. Ibrahim v. Acosta, 326 F.R.D. 696, 700
18 In a supplemental memorandum of law [ECF No. 103], Plaintiffs attempt to distinguish Money by emphasizing that Plaintiffs’ sole claim for relief there was release from confinement (while the claims here include requests for relief to protect them from the risk of COVID-19 infection. They note that the TRO-imposed measures benefit every person at all three facilities. The Undersigned appreciates this important distinction. And that is why I’m recommending that a class be certified for the non-release claims, e.g., for claims designed to require health-focused measures at the facilities).
43

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 123 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/29/2020 Page 44 of 59
(S.D. Fla. 2018) (citing Vega, 564 F.3d at 1275). This analysis turns on “whether other members have the same or similar injury, whether the action is based on conduct which is not unique to the named class plaintiffs, and whether other class members have been injured by the same course of conduct.” In re checking Account Overdraft Litig., 286 F.R.D. 645, 653 (S.D. Fla. 2012). “A sufficient nexus is established if the claims or defenses of the class and the class representative arise from the same event or pattern or practice and are based on the same legal theory.” In re Terazosin Hydrochloride Antitrust Litig., 220 F.R.D. 672, 686 (S.D. Fla. 2004) (internal citation omitted).
Commonality and typicality tend to overlap, as each looks to the nature of the claims presented in the case, and whether the class members and the named plaintiffs are similarly situated as to those claims. See Dukes, 564 U.S. at 349, n.5
Here, the proposed class members have suffered the same injury because they are subject to the same confinement under the same allegedly unconstitutional conditions caused by the same purported deliberate indifference by the same entity (i.e., ICE) which is exposing them to the same risk of developing COVID-19. [See ECF No. 76, pp. 6-10]; see also Armstrong v. Davis, 275 F.3d 849, 869 (9th Cir. 2001) (finding typicality requirement is satisfied when “the cause of the injury is the same—here, the Board’s discriminatory policy and practice”). All class members are forced to live in close quarters with others in civil detention -- when they sleep, eat, shower, and use the toilet. Furthermore, all class
44

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 123 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/29/2020 Page 45 of 59
members are exposed to a similar lack of hygiene and health products and an alleged lack of screening, personal protective equipment and medical oversight.
Therefore, to the extent that the named representatives and putative class members are seeking relief other than release, then they have met the typicality requirement. But to the extent that they all seek release, then the typicality requirement, which is similar to the commonality requirement, is not met for the same reasons outlined in Money. 2020 WL 1820660, at *14.
4. Adequacy Rule 23(a)(4) requires that “the representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(4). Adequacy depends on the resolution of two questions: “(1) whether plaintiffs’ counsel are qualified, experienced, and generally able to conduct the proposed litigation and . . . (2) whether plaintiffs have interests antagonistic to those of the rest of the class.” See Cheney, 213 F.R.D. at 496 (quoting Kirkpatrick v. J.C. Bradford & Co., 827 F.2d 718, 726 (11th Cir. 1987)). The Undersigned rejects ICE’s argument that typicality is not met because the claims may vary depending on which of the three detention facilities are at issue. ICE also argues that adequacy is not met because future putative class members may confront different conditions, which “may vary over time.” [ECF No. 92, p. 9]. But this concern is easily addressed by limiting the class to detainees currently housed at the three facilities and excluding those who will be housed there in the future. Savino v. Souza,
45

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 123 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/29/2020 Page 46 of 59
No. 20-10617, 2020 WL 1703844, at *8 (D. Mass. Apr. 8, 2020) (excluding future ICE detainees from class because “the situation is rapidly evolving and future detainees may well be subject to different confinement conditions than those now obtaining,” which means that the named representatives might not be able to “fairly and adequately protect the interests of those future detainees”).
ICE has not challenged the adequacy of Plaintiffs’ counsel, and the Undersigned has little difficulty concluding that they are experienced and will fairly and adequately represent the interests of the class.19
Plaintiffs have met the adequacy requirement, but the class for the non-release claims will not include future detainees and it will not include those detainees who have already been transferred. Judge Cooke has already entered an Order authorizing ICE to transfer detainees at the three South Florida facilities to other immigration detention facilities. This was done in order to provide a method to quickly reduce the census populations. In addition, the option of using a transfer to reduce the number of detainees is one which some prisoners actually request in the COVID-19 lawsuits. See e.g., Mays v. Dart, No. C 2134, 2020 WL 1987007, at *1 (N.D. Ill. Apr. 27, 2020).
19 The proposed class counsel are King & Spalding LLP, the Immigration Clinic at the University of Miami School of Law, the Rapid Defense Network (a New York State nonprofit legal services organization), Prada Urizar, LLC, the Southern Poverty Law Center, Americans for Immigrant Justice, and the Legal Aid Service of Broward County.
46

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 123 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/29/2020 Page 47 of 59
ii. Analysis of the Rule 23(b) Factor Plaintiffs say they are proceeding under Rule 23(b), which authorizes a class action if “the party opposing the class has acted or refused to act on grounds that apply generally to the class, so that final injunctive relief or corresponding declaratory relief is appropriate respecting the class as a whole.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2). When assessing a Rule 23(b) theory, “the critical inquiry is whether the class members have suffered a common injury that may properly be addressed by class-wide injunctive or equitable relief.” Ibrahim, 326 F.R.D. at 701 (citing Holmes v. Continental Can Co., 706 F.2d 1144, 1155 (11th Cir. 1983)); see also Dukes, 564 U.S. at 360 (internal citation omitted) (“The key to the (b)(2) class is the indivisible nature of the injunctive or declaratory remedy warranted—the notion that the conduct is such that it can be enjoined or declared unlawful only as to all of the class members or as to none of them.”). “The touchstone of a 23(b)(2) class is that the class claims must be cohesive.” Harris v. Union Pacific R.R. Co., 953 F.3d 1030, 1033 (8th Cir. 2020). Rule 23(b)(2) applies only when a single injunction or declaratory judgment would provide relief to each member of the class. Dukes, 564 U.S. at 360. More importantly, a Rule 23(b)(2) class action is appropriate “only when a single injunction or declaratory judgment would provide relief to each member of the class,” not “when each individual class member would be entitled to a different injunction or declaratory judgment against the defendant.” Id.
47

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 123 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/29/2020 Page 48 of 59
Plaintiffs’ argument in favor of Rule 23(b)(2) certification focuses on their challenges to conditions (as opposed to a demand for release from detention). For example, they say they all “are being denied the same opportunity to socially distance, the same soap and cleaning items, and the same personal protective equipment.” [ECF No. 81, p. 15].
The Undersigned agrees that injunctive relief concerning these types of remedial measures can be provided on a class-wide basis. A decision to issue masks twice a week, for example, inures to the benefit of all detainees.
But Rule 23(b)(2) is “the sticking point for the habeas corpus plaintiffs’ attempts to bring a representative action . . .” Mays, 2020 WL 1987007, at *18 (emphasis added). The Undersigned finds Mays v. Dart persuasive and will therefore provide a comprehensive review of its legal analysis.
Two Cook County Jail (in Chicago, Illinois) detainees filed a lawsuit against the county sheriff, who operates the jail, on behalf of themselves and a purported class of similarly situate persons. They alleged that the sheriff violated the constitutional rights of jail detainees by failing to provide them with reasonably safe living conditions in the face of the current coronavirus pandemic. They asserted claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and for writs of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241.20
20 Unlike Plaintiffs in the instant case, who urge an injunction preventing ICE from transferring any detainees to other facilities, the plaintiffs in Mays v. Dart affirmatively
48

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 123 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/29/2020 Page 49 of 59
The Mays v. Dart Court evaluated the case on a claim-by-claim basis and therefore needed to address the propriety of a representative action for the habeas corpus claim. After noting that Rule 23’s class action provisions do not apply to habeas corpus proceedings in the Seventh Circuit, the Court noted that representative actions, which “are analogous to class actions,” can on rare occasion be brought in habeas corpus proceedings. Id. at 16. Moreover, the Court held that Rule 23 “is instructive in analyzing whether plaintiffs can bring a representative action.” Id.
Significantly, the plaintiffs there also relied on, or analogized to, Rule 23(b)(2). But the Court held that the Plaintiffs did not meet its requirements. Specifically, the Court explained that “in actions where plaintiffs seek an injunction that would ‘merely initiate a process through which highly individualized determinations of liability and remedy are made,’ Rule 23(b)(2) is not satisfied.” Id. at *19 (citing Jamie S v. Milwaukee Public Schools, 668 F.3d 481, 499 (7th Cir. 2012)).
The Court noted the reality that issuing writs of habeas corpus “would entail individualized proceedings,” a result which made Rule 23(b)(2) unavailable. Id. at *19. Moreover, it noted that the Court would “need to consider the circumstances of the detained persons and any threat they pose to public safety, which plainly would vary
requested a transfer from the Cook County Jail to other jail locations within the sheriff’s control.
49

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 123 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/29/2020 Page 50 of 59
from one person to another.” Id. at *20.21 This, the Court explained, “is a process that would render the claim unsuitable for certification under Rule 23(b)(2) or its analogy for representative actions.” Id.
The same scenario applies here (as to the habeas corpus claims for release). Because release orders must be made individually, there cannot be a class-wide injunction for all detainees (i.e., there would not be one injunction requiring a mass release of all 1,214 detainees). Thus, Rule 23(b)(2) is inapplicable. V. Conclusion
The Undersigned respectfully recommends that Judge Cooke grant the class certification motion for the claims concerning the conditions of confinement and for declaratory and injunctive relief but deny it for the habeas corpus claims for release. Moreover, the class for the non-release claims challenging the conditions at the three centers would not include those who will be transferred into the facilities in the future.
21 The Court noted that the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (“PLRA”) mandates that a court “give substantial weight to any adverse impact on public safety” before issuing preliminary injunctive or prospective relief” that would apply to the habeas corpus claim. Id. at *19. Neither side has argued that the PLRA applies here, and Plaintiffs’ counsel took the position in a recent hearing that it did not apply. Nevertheless, Plaintiffs are demanding release or release on conditions, and they have not suggested that a danger-to-the-community analysis is somehow unavailable or improper in an assessment of eligibility for release. These assessments would have to be made on an individualized basis, which is contrary to the class-wide requirement of Rule 23(b)(2) relief.
50

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 123 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/29/2020 Page 51 of 59
Plaintiffs allege in their new emergency motion (which has not been referred to me) that ICE is playing a shell game. Specifically, they allege that ICE’s transfers are a “naked (and legally erroneous) attempt to shirk this Court’s oversight” and that the hygiene conditions associated with the transfers are horrific. [ECF No. 106, p. 3]. But ICE has not yet had the chance to respond to these allegations, so the Undersigned cannot conclude or even speculate about whether ICE is legitimately using transfers to minimize the census for appropriate, health-focused reasons, or whether it is doing what Plaintiffs accuse it of doing: “cross[ing] over from the deliberate indifference this Court previously found and mov[ing] into the realm of outright disregard for this Court’s authority.” Id.
Although this Report recommends that new, incoming detainees not be part of the class, any detainee transferred into the three facilities would reap the benefit of injunctive or declaratory relief concerning conditions provided to the named Petitioners and other class members, regardless of whether they were in a certified class or sub-class. See generally Dixon v. Ivey, No. 2:20-cv-248-WHA, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 81183, at *4 (M.D. Ala. May 6, 2020) (recommending denial of inmate’s motion for class certification in COVID19-related lawsuit over allegedly unsafe and hazardous conditions and citing a Tennessee federal case denying a class certification motion involving county jail inmates because “any declaratory relief granted . . . would likely inure to the benefit of other similarlysituated individuals,” even if not technically in a class).
51

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 123 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/29/2020 Page 52 of 59
The parties take diametrically opposite positions on whether this Court would still have jurisdiction over claims for those detainees who have been transferred to other facilities. The answer is not simple. Like the answer to many legal questions, the answer here is that it depends. Specifically, it depends on whether the analysis concerns the habeas claims for release (as opposed to the challenge to conditions), whether they were transferred to one of the three immigration detention facilities at issue here (or another one, such as one in Texas), and whether Petitioners/Plaintiffs can establish that ICE transferred them to deprive this Court of jurisdiction.
For the named 58 detainees transferred after they already joined this lawsuit, their habeas claims would, in the absence of other circumstances, remain with the Court if they were transferred among the three centers (but not if they were transferred elsewhere). Ex parte Mitsuye Endo, 323 U.S. 283, 306 (1944) (“[T]he district court acquired jurisdiction in this case and [] the removal of Mitsuye Endo did not cause it to lose jurisdiction where a person in whose custody she is remains within this district.”).
Endo was decided more than seventy-five years ago, but its core ruling still remains vital today, as more-recently confirmed by the United States Supreme Court in Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 441 (2004) (emphasis added) (“Endo stands for the important but limited proposition that when the Government moves a habeas petitioner after she properly files a petition naming her immediate custodian, the District Court
52

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 123 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/29/2020 Page 53 of 59
retains jurisdiction and may direct the writ to any respondent within its jurisdiction who
has legal authority to effectuate the prisoner’s release.”).
For purposes of detainees transferred, for example, from Krome to Broward after
they joined the lawsuit, the Endo rule would apply. A detainee transferred, for example,
to Texas would not, without more, be able to benefit from the Endo rule.22 But Endo would
assist a detainee transferred from Krome to Glades after he joined the lawsuit because
ICE’s field officer (whose jurisdiction encompasses Glades, even though Glades is in the
Middle District of Florida, not the Southern District of Florida) could produce a Glades
detainee for the habeas claim. See e.g., Masingene v. Martin, 424 F. Supp. 3d 1298 (S.D. Fla.
2020).
Therefore, the general and presumptive rule would be as outlined above.
However, there is the possibility that an exception could alter this result. In Padilla, the
Supreme Court noted that “there is no indication that there was any attempt to
22 Some courts seem to overlook the Padilla rule that a court retains jurisdiction if there is a “respondent within its jurisdiction who has legal authority to effectuate the prisoner’s release” and permit the habeas claim to go forward even if the official who can produce the release is located outside of the district or lacks authority over the facility where the prisoner or detainee is located. See e.g., Parks v. Williamson, No. 08-403 (E.D. Ky. Feb. 6, 2009) (relying on Endo and Padilla for a holding that the Pennsylvania federal court still had jurisdiction over a habeas corpus petition filed by a federal prisoner after he was transferred to a Kentucky federal prison). The Undersigned is not persuaded by those cases. Rather, I find the analysis outlined in Parker v. Hazelwood, No. 17-cv-484, 2019 WL 4261832 (D.N.H. Sept. 9, 2019) (collecting cases) to be more persuasive, as it directly addresses the language used in Padilla. That language restricts the Endo rule to situations where the respondent who can produce the body is within its jurisdiction.
53

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 123 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/29/2020 Page 54 of 59
manipulate behind Padilla’s transfer.” 542 U.S. at 441 (emphasis added). Therefore, the Supreme Court noted, his “detention is not unique in any way that would provide [an] arguable basis for a departure from the immediate custodian rule.” Id. at 441-42.
In the instant case, though, Petitioners are highly suspicious of ICE’s motives and strongly suggest the possibility that the ICE-facilitated transfers may be part of a “shell game” designed to strip the Court of jurisdiction. [ECF No. 106, p. 3]. Therefore, if Petitioners could satisfactorily prove their hunch, then the Court “might entertain jurisdiction over [their] claim[s] if there were evidence of efforts on the part of the defendants to evade the jurisdiction of the Court.” Cf. McKinnon v. Talladega County, Ala., 745 F.2d 1360, 1363 (11th Cir. 1984); see also Padilla, 542 U.S. at 441-42; cf. Murr v. Orient Corr’tl Inst., 837 F.2d 476 (Table) (6th Cir. 1988) (emphasis added) (citing McKinnon and noting that “nowhere does Plaintiff specifically claim that defendants transferred him in order to render these claims moot”).23
To the extent that the already-named Petitioners seek to avoid a situation where this Court lost (or were to lose, in the future) jurisdiction over their habeas claims after
23 See generally Vasquez v. Reno, 233 F.3d 688, 696 (1st Cir. 2000) (emphasis added) (holding that an alien who seeks a writ of habeas corpus contesting the legality of his detention by federal immigration officials “normally” must name his custodian and cannot name the Attorney General as the Respondent but noting that it could “envision . . . extraordinary circumstances” justifying a different result, such as where the immigration officials “spirited an alien from one site to another in an attempt to manipulate jurisdiction.”). In that case, the appellate court noted that petitioner “has neither marshaled facts suggesting furtiveness nor made a showing of the elements necessary to demonstrate bad faith.” Id.
54

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 123 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/29/2020 Page 55 of 59
they were transferred to facilities beyond the jurisdiction of ICE’s Miami-based Field Officer, they would need to submit evidence (rather than a mere mistrustful mindset) of ICE’s bad faith. ICE says the transfers were done to reduce the number of detainees in response to this lawsuit, and Judge Cooke entered an Order permitting transfers after an evaluation of the detainees’ eligibility for release pursuant to ICE’s COVID-19 April 10, 2020 Pandemic Response Requirements. Given these circumstances, it might be challenging for Petitioners to establish a bad faith motive for the transfers.
The Undersigned appreciates that proving bad faith might be a daunting and potentially frustrating task, as outlined in Eubanks v. Wilson, No. 15-2677, 2017 WL 2303506, at *5 (D. Minn. April 30, 2017) (emphasis added):
As a practical matter, if jurisdiction over an inmate’s habeas petition could be defeated by mere transfer of the inmate to a facility outside the territorial limits of the court, the interests of justice would be potentially frustrated. A petitioner so transferred could find himself engaged in an endless game of whac-a-mole chasing the government across the country in an effort to have his action decided at the precise moment when jurisdiction permitted. While it has been suggested that such abuse could be prevented where the petitioner could demonstrate bad faith in the transfer decision, that would put an undue burden on litigants who lack the ability and wherewithal to establish such abuse. On the other hand, if Petitioners demonstrate that ICE facilitated transfers without following Judge Cooke’s Order that it could do so only by evaluating transfer eligibility pursuant to the PRR, then the balance would be impacted in a way which would favor an attempt to demonstrate bad faith jurisdictional gamesmanship.
55

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 123 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/29/2020 Page 56 of 59
Concerning the non-release claims asserted here, claims for money damages are not mooted by a transfer to another facility. McKinnon v. Talladega Cty., 745 F. 2d 1360, 1363 (11th Cir. 1984). But Petitioners are not seeking money damages.
But transfers to other facilities do moot claims for declaratory and injunctive relief. Id. Given the nature of this case (i.e., 58 named Plaintiffs housed at three detention centers challenging the conditions at all three facilities), transfers from one of the three facilities to another one of the three facilities would not moot the claim because the conditions are alleged to be generally similar and because the same Field Officer is in charge of all of them. But a Plaintiff transferred from one of the three South Florida immigration detention facilities to, for example, an immigration facility in Texas would, in the absence of other circumstances (such as proof of bad faith) not be able to continue to pursue his claim here because jurisdiction would no longer be present.
As highlighted above, though, this transfer-causes-loss-of-jurisdiction result might not apply if Plaintiffs provided sufficient evidence of an ICE plan to use the transfers to “evade the jurisdiction of the Court.” Id. ICE has already taken the position that its transfers were Court-authorized and done to accomplish the legitimate purpose of reducing the census, so Plaintiffs would confront the same hurdles they would need to clear in order to avoid the Padilla rule for transfers of prisoners or detainees pursuing habeas claims.
56

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 123 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/29/2020 Page 57 of 59
One final point: The 58 named detainees and those in the prospective class are all in an unenviable position. Many of them are likely scared. In fact, most of them may be scared of the COVID-19 health risks they confront while being housed at the detention centers. To succeed on their legal claims, however, they must trudge through the legal headwinds created by Swain, a case admittedly based on different facts but one maintaining the deliberate indifference hurdle which prisoners and detainees still must clear to prove cruel and unusual punishment, even in the midst of a once-in-a-century pandemic which has killed more than 93,000 persons in the United States and more than 318,000 persons globally. The current inability to achieve social distancing is, to be sure, a significant medical issue at the three facilities, but Swain held that this is likely not a scenario “evincing a reckless state of mind.” 2020 WL 2161317, at *14. The Undersigned outlined the realities of detention centers and the difficulties inherent in operating them in the Report and Recommendations [ECF No. 63] issued on the TRO motion, and there is no need to repeat them here. For present purposes, it is sufficient to simply note that a post-Swain Plaintiff class will need to address and overcome these realities when attempting to obtain a preliminary injunction or other relief requiring deliberate indifference. In addition, they will need to grapple with Swain’s perspective that officials operating jails have experience
57

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 123 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/29/2020 Page 58 of 59
and expertise which a Court should respect before deciding to classify their conduct as deliberately indifferent.
At bottom, class certification on some claims is certainly a step forward for Plaintiffs. But it is only one step on a multi-step journey likely to be filled with precedentbased potholes and Swain-influenced legal road hazards. But “a journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step,”24 and Plaintiffs have already taken a few substantial steps (e.g., a TRO, the extension of the TRO and this Report and Recommendations recommending class certification of some claims). VI. Objections
The parties will have only fourteen (14) calendar days from the date of being served with a copy of this Report and Recommendations within which to file written objections, if any, with the District Judge. Each party may file a response to the other party’s objection within fourteen (14) calendar days of the objection.25 Failure to timely file objections shall bar the parties from a de novo determination by the District Judge of
24 Well-known ancient Chinese proverb, probably first written between the 4th and 6th Centuries. Meaning of “A Journey of a Thousand Miles Begins with a Single Step,” Literary Devices: Definition and Examples of Literary Terms, https://literarydevices.net/ajourney-of-a-thousand-miles-begins-with-a-single-step/ (last visited May 22, 2020). 25 The Undersigned does not view the class certification motion as an emergency, and Plaintiffs (who asked for “expedited” treatment) have not designated it as one either. Therefore, the Undersigned is using the 14-day presumptive deadline established by Local Rule 4. Because this amended version of the Report and Recommendation contains a more-detailed discussion of the transfer issue and jurisdiction, the 14 days runs from today, not from the May 22, 2020 date of the initial Report and Recommendations.
58

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 123 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/29/2020 Page 59 of 59 an issue covered in the Report and shall bar the parties from attacking on appeal unobjected-to factual and legal conclusions contained in this Report except upon grounds of plain error if necessary in the interest of justice. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985); Henley v. Johnson, 885 F.2d 790, 794 (11th Cir. 1989); 11th Cir. R. 3-1 (2016). RESPECTFULLY RECOMMENDED in Chambers, in Miami, Florida, on May 29, 2020.
Copies furnished to: The Honorable Marcia G. Cooke All counsel of record
59

 
 Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 143 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/03/2020 Page 1 of 6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO: 20-21553-CIV-COOKE/GOODMAN PATRICK GAYLE, et al., Plaintiffs, v. MICHAEL W. MEADE, et al., Defendants. ________________________________________/ RESPONDENTS’ OBJECTIONS TO THE AMENDED REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS ON CLASS CERTIFICATION Defendants, by and through their undersigned counsel, file their Objections to the Amended Report and Recommendations on Class Certification (“R&R”) DE:123 and state: I. STANDARD OF REVIEW Upon objection by any party to a report and recommendation of a magistrate judge, the district judge must conduct a “de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); see also United States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 681-82 (1980) (“Congress has provided that the magistrate’s proposed findings and recommendations shall be subjected to a de novo determination by the judge who . . . then exercises the ultimate authority to issue an appropriate order.” (internal quotation marks omitted)). The district court may “accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); see also Matthews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 275 (1976) (a district court’s reference to a magistrate judge “will result in a recommendation that carries only such weight as its merit commands and the sound discretion of the judge warrants”).

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 143 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/03/2020 Page 2 of 6
II. ARGUMENT On May 29, 2020, the Honorable Jonathan Goodman, United States Magistrate Judge,
issued his Amended Report and Recommendations on Class Certification Motion (R&R). D.E. 123. In the Report, the Magistrate Judge recommended the class action certification as to habeas corpus demand for release be denied. D.E. 123 at 4. The Magistrate Judge recommended the class action certification be granted as to claims relating to injunctive and declaratory relief for all current detainees at Krome Service Processing Center, Glades County Detention Center, and Broward Transitional Center. Id. at 4, 5.
Defendants respectfully object to Magistrate Judge Goodman’s recommendation that class action certification be granted as to the claims relating to declaratory and injunctive relief. As to the commonality element, the R&R found that “a class action seeking a declaration that the conditions at the three South Florida immigration detention centers constitute cruel and unusual punishment or an injunction requiring that cleaning and hygiene products be provided on a regular basis and that beds be reconfigured to promote social distancing meets the commonality requirement.” Id. at 40. Moreover, R&R states commonality is met because Plaintiffs allege that all three facilities are subject to the same common conditions, policies, and practices. D.E. 123 at 38.
The “commonality” requirement mandates that there be “questions of law or fact common to the class.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(2). More specifically, the putative class’ “claims must depend upon a common contention” and “[t]hat common contention . . . must be of such a nature that it is capable of class wide resolution—which means that determination of its truth or falsity will resolve an issue that is central to the validity of each one of the claims in one stroke.” Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338, 349 (2011).
2

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 143 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/03/2020 Page 3 of 6
To determine whether a violation occurred under United States ex rel. Accardi v. Shaughnessy, 347 U.S. 260, 266, 268 (1954), there must be analysis determining whether the measures undertaken by each facility is sufficient under the CDC’s Interim Guidance on Management of Coronavirus Disease 2019 in Correctional and Detention Facilities (CDC Guidelines). An individualized analysis of each facility is required because each facility has different employees, which is crucial when determining if specific employees allegedly refused to properly supply disinfecting agents and masks, and different configurations, which is crucial when determining whether the social distancing procedures are adequate.1 For example, Plaintiffs filed declarations on June 1, 2020, in anticipation of the preliminary injunction hearing. D.E. 130. Danny Ruiz Garcia states that, “at BTC we get masks every three days, but virtually no one wears them.” D.E. 130 at 5, ¶ 5. Maikel Carrasco Polo states, “[n]ew masks are handed out every three days, but only to those who have their old masks at the time the new masks are available.” D.E. 130 at 13, ¶ 5. Thus, Plaintiffs’ declarations fairly establish that masks are being distributed every three days at BTC.
Even assuming the allegation that one facility violated Accardi by not implementing proper social distancing measures is accurate, it has no bearing on the other facilities’ alleged failure to comply with the CDC Guidelines because they are different facilities. This conclusion leads to the determination that the truth or falsity of an issue in one facility will not drive the classwide resolution in “one stroke,” as required by Dukes.
Likewise, a finding of cruel and unusual punishment under the Fifth Amendment, as in the Eighth Amendment, requires an individualized analysis preventing classwide resolution in one
1 Even within a detention facility, there are variations in the amount of living space available. At the Krome Detention Center, detainees can be housed in six different PODS, as well as Buildings 11, 14, a medical unit, and a Behavioral Health Unit. D.E. 33-1 at 7-8.
3

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 143 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/03/2020 Page 4 of 6
stroke. As explained in Swain v. Junior, Case No. 20-11622,*10 (11th Cir. 2020)(citing Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 846, 114 S. Ct. 1970, 128 L. Ed. 2d 811 (1994), a challenge to the conditions of confinement has two components: objective and subjective.
To satisfy the objective component, the plaintiff must show that the challenged conditions were extreme and presented an unreasonable risk of serious damage to his or her future health or safety. Id. To satisfy the subjective component, the plaintiff must show that the official acted with deliberate indifference by disregarding an excessive risk to detainee health or safety. Id. at *10*11. This standard requires the official to have a subjective state of mind closer to criminal recklessness.” Id. at 11.
Both the objective component and subjective component require a fact specific inquiry. The objective component inquiry requires an individualized assessment of the conditions at each facility and relevant incidents because, as explained above, the facilities have different configurations, different employees, and different Assistant Field Office Directors. Importantly, satisfaction of the subjective component requires an even more individualized analysis because it requires a finding that the official(s) in the facility at issue were subjectively aware of the excessive risk to detainee health or safety. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 829, 114 S. Ct. 1970, 1974 (1994)(emphasis added). Thus, it is not sufficient to solely identify the agency, in general, as the culprit, as described in the R&R,2 because an agency does not have a subjective state of mind, only individual officers do. D.E.:123 at 44. As such, the commonality element is not met because the truth or falsity of the alleged cruel conditions in one facility and the subjective awareness of specific officer(s) will not drive the classwide resolution in “one stroke,” as required by Dukes.
2 “Here, the proposed class members have suffered the same injury…caused by the same purported deliberate indifference by the same entity (i.e., ICE).” D.E:123 at 44.
4

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 143 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/03/2020 Page 5 of 6
As to the adequacy and typicality elements, the R&R disagreed with Defendants’ arguments that those elements were not met because the named Plaintiffs’ claims varied depending on each detention facility. D.E. 123 at 44, 45. The R&R states “the proposed class members have suffered the same injury because they are subject to the same confinement under the same allegedly unconstitutional conditions caused by the same purported deliberate indifference by the same entity (i.e., ICE) which is exposing them to the same risk of developing COVID-19.” Id. at 44. However, Plaintiffs are not under the same conditions of confinement as every other putative class member because they are detained in different detention centers. A named plaintiff detained at one facility, such as Krome, cannot adequately represent a class which includes detainees at the other detention facilities, such as BTC or Glades, because that named plaintiff has no standing to contest the conditions of confinement at detention centers where he/she is not detained.3 Further, the allegations are all fact specific to each detention center, and even room or building specific, although similar in nature. As an example, an allegation of insufficient social distancing at one facility due to the facility’s configuration of beds is not typical of all three facilities when the facilities have different sleeping arrangements; consequently, an independent assessment of each area is required. See D.E. 131-1 at 3-5, 131-2 at 2.
For all these reasons, Defendants respectfully request that the Court reject the Report and Recommendation’s conclusion that class certification be granted for the injunctive and declaratory relief claims.
3 Standing requires, among other things, that an injury will be redressed by a favorable decision. Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560-561, 112 S. Ct. 2130, 2136, 119 L. Ed. 2d 351 (1992)).
5

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 143 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/03/2020 Page 6 of 6

DATED: June 3, 2020

Respectfully submitted,
ARIANA FAJARDO ORSHAN UNITED STATES ATTORNEY
By: __s/ Dexter A. Lee______________ DEXTER A. LEE ASSISTANT U.S. ATTORNEY Florida Bar No. 0936693 E-mail: dexter.lee@usdoj.gov 99 N.E. 4th Street, Suite 300 Miami, Florida 33132 Telephone: (305) 961-9320
By: __s/ Natalie Diaz_______________ NATALIE DIAZ ASSISTANT U.S. ATTORNEY Florida Bar No. 85834 E-mail: Natalie.Diaz@usdoj.gov 99 N.E. 4th Street, Suite 300 Miami, Florida 33132 Telephone: (305) 961-9306
Counsel for Respondents

6

 
 Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 144 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/03/2020 Page 1 of 12

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Case No. 20-21553-Civ-COOKE/GOODMAN
PATRICK GAYLE, et al.,
Petitioners-Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and those similarly situated,
v.
MICHAEL W. MEADE, et al.,
Respondents-Defendants. ______________________________________/
PETITIONERS’ OBJECTION TO AMENDED REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION CONCERNING CLASS CERTIFICATION [ECF 123]
Petitioners1 largely agree with the Magistrate’s recommendations, specifically that class certification is proper to address ICE’s inadequate and unconstitutional responses to the COVID-19 crisis. But the Amended R&R proposes two important limitations on the class that we contend are legally unjustified and if accepted, will gut the Court’s ability to provide meaningful relief. Petitioners therefore object to the Amended R&R’s proposals to exclude (1) habeas corpus claims seeking release and (2) the claims of transferred Class Members challenging ICE’s insufficient measures to contain the risk of COVID-19 infection.
I. The Court Should Include the Habeas Claims in the Class. A. The Court Can Adjudicate Common Issues Related to the Habeas Claims.
The Amended R&R erroneously concludes that the Court cannot adjudicate common issues concerning Petitioners’ habeas claims. [See ECF 123 at 40.] In doing so, the Amended R&R focused on a single Illinois district court decision, Money v. Pritzker, concluding that class certification is not appropriate for Petitioners’ habeas claims here. Relying on Money, the Amended R&R concludes that the decision of whether to release Petitioners is too individualized to satisfy the commonality element for class certification. Id. at 42-43.

1

For ease of reference, we refer to the Petitioners-Plaintiffs as “Petitioners” and the

Respondents-Defendants collectively as “ICE.”

1

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 144 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/03/2020 Page 2 of 12
With respect, this reliance on Money is misplaced. In Money, people in criminal incarceration in Illinois sought class certification for their release based on violations of the Eighth Amendment. Money v. Pritzker, --- F.Supp.3d ----, 2020 WL 1820660, at *6 (N.D. Ill. Apr. 10, 2020). In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the Illinois Department of Corrections enacted a host of measures to protect the inmates and prison employees, including, among other things, increased hygiene and sanitation, separating prisoners through administrative quarantine, suspending admissions of new prisoners from county jails, activating the National Guard to provide additional medical support, granting petitions for commutations, expedited procedures for releasing inmates early for good behavior, and granting additional medical furloughs. Id. at *4. Most importantly, the department had reduced its prison population by more than 1,000 prisoners. Id. It did so by conducting individualized reviews of inmates to determine whether they were eligible for early release. Id.
The Plaintiffs sorted themselves into six subclasses, each of which had a different characteristic relevant to their release. See id. at *13. This proved to be a problem for the district judge because while “[t]here are many questions common to the putative class members that bear on the subject of this litigation. . . . none of those questions is likely to drive the resolution of the case.” Id. at *14. That is because the government in Money agreed and, by the plaintiffs’ admission, were already taking many of the actions the plaintiffs requested. Id. “Plaintiffs simply want the Court to prod the defendants to act more quickly.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). To do so, the Court held, would require too much of an individualized analysis. Id. at *14-15
Unlike the petitioners in Money v. Pritzker, Petitioners here all address a common threshold issue: that ICE has failed to consider them for release under the proper standard. Unlike the Money respondents, ICE has steadfastly refused to recognize how COVID-19 has unsettled the constitutional moorings for civil detention—and therefore that substantially greater justifications for the continued detention of Petitioners are needed to satisfy due process. Thus, here, threshold questions of what due process demands for civil detention under these circumstances and whether ICE is violating those demands by woodenly applying pre-Pandemic criteria for release are common to all putative Class Members because they are all in ICE custody due to ICE’s unconstitutional standard. See Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S.
2

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 144 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/03/2020 Page 3 of 12
678, 690 (2001) (noting Government’s reduced justifications for civil immigration detention as compared to criminal incarceration). Petitioners’ habeas claims therefore satisfy the commonality requirement of Rule 12(a)(2) because the claims present common questions, including what the constitutional standard for release is during the COVID-19 pandemic and whether ICE is applying it. These common questions satisfy Rule 23(b)(2) because ICE has acted commonly towards the class in failing to fundamentally alter its standard for release in light of COVID-19.
Notably, as the Amended R&R notes on page 42, commonality need not be perfect, and the mere fact that the Court may need to make some individual inquiries to resolve the remedial issues does not defeat class certification. See generally In re Disposable Contact Lens Antitrust, 329 F.R.D. 336, 420 (M.D. Fla. 2018) (quoting Leyva v. Medline Indus., Inc., 716 F.3d 510, 514 (9th Cir. 2013)). Instead, even in a Rule 23(b)(3) damages class action (which, in contrast to Rule 23(b)(2), entails the tall burden of showing predominance of common issues), certification can be proper if “damages are capable of measurement on a classwide basis . . . and questions of individual damage calculations cannot overwhelm questions common to the class.” In re Disposable Contact Lens Antitrust, 329 F.R.D. at 421 (quoting Comcast Corp. v. Behrend, 569 U.S. 27, 34 (2013)). Nearly all class actions require courts to make some sort of individualized tailoring to determine remedy issues, but that does not defeat certification so long as liability can be established through classwide adjudication.
Here, Petitioners’ habeas claims focus on ICE’s overall policy and practice of not releasing people despite the increased dictates of due process in light of the COVID-19 pandemic. To be sure, once the Court decides where the constitutional line falls in light of COVID-19 and whether ICE has been applying that line appropriately, additional work may be needed at the remedy phase to conclude which side of the line a given Class Member falls on. But this type of claims process is typical of certified classes and in no way shows that these claims fail to satisfy the low threshold that applies to a Rule 23(b)(2) class in a civil rights case.
Because common questions exist and because ICE has acted, and continues to act, commonly towards the Class, Petitioners’ habeas claims are amenable to class treatment.
3

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 144 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/03/2020 Page 4 of 12
B. Padilla Does Not Presumptively Deprive this Court of Jurisdiction Over the Habeas Claims of Putative Class Members Transferred Outside this District.
Petitioners respectfully submit that the Amended R&R errs in reading Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426 (2004), to preclude jurisdiction over the habeas claims of putative Class Members who were transferred after this suit was filed. [ECF 123 at 52-54.] According to the Amended R&R, Padilla qualified the Supreme Court’s earlier case in Ex parte Mitsuye Endo, 323 U.S. 283, 306 (1944), and in the wake of Padilla, the transfer of a habeas petitioner outside of the District deprives the Court of jurisdiction unless the petitioner shows that the transfer was an attempt to “manipulate” the district courts’ respective jurisdiction. [Id. at 53-54 (emphasis omitted).] But this overlooks the key factual component of Padilla: the Padilla petitioner transferred out of the district where he filed his petition “before his lawyer filed a habeas petition on his behalf.” 542 U.S. at 441 (emphasis added). Petitioners here seek only to include in the Class people who have been in custody at one of the relevant facilities since the suit was filed. Padilla therefore does not apply.
The seminal case in this area is Ex parte Mitsuye Endo, 323 U.S. 283 (1944). In Endo, an American citizen of Japanese dissent was interned in California by the War Relocation Authority (WRA) and filed a habeas petition in the Northern District of California, naming an official of the WRA as the respondent. 323 U.S. at 285. After she filed her petition, the government transferred her to Utah. Id. at 285. The Supreme Court held that the Northern District of California retained jurisdiction over the habeas petition, even though the petitioner and her immediate custodian were now in Utah. See Endo, 323 U.S. at 306. As the Court explained, “the District Court acquired jurisdiction in this case and . . . the removal of Mitsuye Endo did not cause it to lose jurisdiction where a person in whose custody she is remains within the district.” Id.
In Padilla, the Court acknowledged its prior holding in Endo that “the District Court could effectively grant habeas relief despite the Government-procured absence of petitioner from the Northern District.” Padilla, 542 U.S. at 441. But the Padilla petitioner could not avail himself of Endo because “Padilla was moved from New York to South Carolina before his lawyer filed a habeas petition on his behalf.” Id. (emphasis added). And, “[u]nlike the District Court in Endo, . . . the Southern District [of New York] never acquired jurisdiction over Padilla’s petition.” Id. (emphases added).
4

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 144 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/03/2020 Page 5 of 12
Accordingly, the order of operations is key. If the transfer occurs before the habeas action is filed, then Padilla applies, and the petition must be filed in the district where the petitioner resides at the time of filing. But, if the petition is filed before the transfer, then Endo applies and the subsequent transfer by the government does not oust the Court of jurisdiction.2
Multiple courts have recognized this distinction. For example, in Stokes v. U.S. Parole Comm’n, 374 F.3d 1235, 1236 (D.C. Cir. 2004), the petitioner (who was then incarcerated in an Ohio prison and subsequently moved to a facility in South Carolina) filed his habeas petition in the District of Columbia. In determining that Endo did not help the petitioner’s cause, given that he filed his petition in the District of Columbia (and not in Ohio where he was first incarcerated), the D.C. Circuit explained that Endo did not relax the immediate custodian rule, “but rather recognized the continuing jurisdiction of the court in which that rule is first satisfied.” Stokes, 374 F.3d at 1238 (emphasis added). Specifically, the D.C. Circuit reasoned that “if Stokes had filed his petition in the. . . Northern District of Ohio, naming the Ohio warden as the respondent, then under Endo that court would have retained jurisdiction over his petition notwithstanding Stokes’s later transfer to the federal penitentiary in South Carolina where he is now incarcerated.” Id. at 1239. However, because Stokes instead filed his petition in the District Court for the District of Columbia, like in Padilla, the District for the District of Columbia “never acquired jurisdiction over his petition.” Id. (emphasis added); see Rolin v. Parole Comm'n, No. CIV.A. 10-00540-CG-N, 2011 WL 836682, at *3 (S.D. Ala. Feb. 8, 2011), report and recommendation adopted, No. CIV.A. 10-00540-CGN, 2011 WL 855353 (S.D. Ala. Mar. 9, 2011) (recognizing that under Padilla, petitioner’s subsequent transfer to the Oklahoma FTC did not divest the Alabama district court of jurisdiction over his previously filed § 2241 habeas petition seeking immediate release); GuanHua Qiang v. Dist. Dir. for Immigration Customs Enf’t, No. CIV.A. 3:06-1508, 2006 WL 3762029, at *2 (M.D. Pa. Dec. 20, 2006) (under Padilla, “when a prisoner is transferred out of a judicial district after he has filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus . . . the district court in which the

2

The Amended R&R does not discuss this sentence where Padilla distinguished Endo,

making clear the dividing line that exists between a transfer that occurs before and a transfer

that occurs after the petition is filed.

5

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 144 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/03/2020 Page 6 of 12
petition was filed retains jurisdiction over the case despite the fact that the prisoner, and his immediate custodian, lie in another federal district.” (emphasis added)).
Here, like in Endo—and unlike in Padilla and Stokes—Petitioners only seek to represent a class of people who were being detained under the Miami Field Office’s authority when the petition was filed. The fact that ICE later decided to transfer some of them does not divest the Court of jurisdiction.
Nor were the putative Class Members required to file separate actions or to join this one to preserve their rights. The Supreme Court has long recognized that “[a] federal class action is no longer ‘an invitation to joinder’ but a truly representative suit designed to avoid, rather than encourage, unnecessary filing of repetitious papers and motions.” Am. Pipe & Const. Co. v. Utah, 414 U.S. 538, 550–51 (1974) (providing that “claimed members of the class stood as parties to the suit until and unless they received notice thereof and chose not to continue.”); Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Shutts, 472 U.S. 797, 810 (1985) (“Unlike a defendant in a normal civil suit, an absent class-action plaintiff is not required to do anything. He may sit back and allow the litigation to run its course, content in knowing that there are safeguards provided for his protection.” (emphasis added)). Because Petitioners are only asking to include in the class those who were held at Krome, Glades, or BTC after this action was filed, Endo—and not Padilla—is the controlling authority. The Amended R&R’s contrary conclusion is incorrect as a matter of law, and the Court should reject it.
II. The Court Should Exercise Continuing Jurisdiction over the Claims of Transferred Putative Class Members Challenging their Conditions of Confinement.
The Amended R&R also concludes that “transfers to other facilities do moot claims for declaratory and injunctive relief” aimed at improving Petitioners-Plaintiffs’ conditions of confinement. [ECF 123 at 56.] And on that basis, it recommends excluding the post-transfer conditions claims by putative Class Members who were transferred from this jurisdiction after this action was filed. [Id.] In doing so, the Magistrate relied on McKinnon v. Talladega County, Alabama, 745 F.2d 1360, 1363.
Respectfully, this is an error because it misconstrues Petitioners’ claims as being specific to the three named facilities. To be sure, the class is held together on the ground that all putative Class Members were held by the same detaining authority in one of those three
6

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 144 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/03/2020 Page 7 of 12

facilities. But Petitioners are not challenging the conditions in those facilities as such; they are challenging the constitutionality of their conditions of confinement in ICE detention. And their claims do not focus on brick, mortar, or plumbing; they focus on policies, practices, and a virus—all of which will follow the putative Class Members wherever they go in ICE detention. Thus, when ICE transfers a putative Class Member, the Court’s continuing jurisdiction follows.
Especially illustrative on this point is Spears v. Thigpen, 846 F.2d 1327, 1328 (11th Cir. 1988) (per curiam). In that case, the petitioner brought two sorts of claims. First, he alleged that the conditions of his administrative segregation at a specific facility “compared unfavorably to such segregation at other Alabama facilities.” Spears, 846 F.3d at 1328. The Eleventh Circuit held that this facility-specific claim was mooted when he was transferred “to one of the facilities which he had alleged was better equipped and more adequate.” Id. Second, he “asserted that the extended use of administrative segregation violate[d] the requirements of due process.” Id. Because, following the transfer, the petitioner “remained in administrative segregation at the facility” to which he was transferred, his “due process claim continue[d] to present a live controversy” and was not moot, notwithstanding the transfer. Id.; see also Smith v. Allen, 502 F.3d 1255 (11th Cir. 2007), abrogated on other grounds by Sossamon v. Texas, 563 U.S. 277 (2011).3
So too, here: Petitioners challenge their conditions of confinement in ICE detention under the Fifth and Eighth Amendments and the Accardi doctrine on the grounds that ICE is violating the law and the Constitution and therefore exposing them to the risk of COVID-19 infection. Transferring putative Class Members to another facility does not magically cure that violation—quite the contrary, the record shows that ICE has been conducting the transfers in ways that increase the risk of infection. Thus, transferring putative Class Members to points distant does not moot these claims.
Nor can ICE rightly object that including in the Class the people who it unilaterally chose to transfer somehow expands the geographic scope of the case. Each of these people met the class definition before the transfer. Petitioners unsuccessfully moved the Court to preclude ICE from making additional transfers. And it was ICE who then unilaterally

3

Smith’s application here is discussed at page 10 of ECF 94.

7

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 144 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/03/2020 Page 8 of 12
decided to transfer them. Thus, if anything has expanded the geographic reach of the case, it is ICE. ICE’s unilateral transfer decisions—made over Petitioners’ objections—cannot now deprive the transferred putative Class Members of their day in court, and Petitioners do not understand that the Court intended this result in leaving ICE the power to continue transfers.
III. Excluding Habeas Claims and Transferred Individuals from the Class Would Severely Impair the Court’s Ability to Provide Meaningful Relief.
It bears noting that the Amended R&R’s proposed limits on the class definition are not just legally unjustified; they would also severely hamper the Court’s ability to provide meaningful relief to the Petitioners and the putative Class as a whole. This, in turn, would erode the lawful purposes of this action under Rule 23.
The gravamen of the complaint is ICE’s various violations of the law and the Constitution have put all people incarcerated at these three facilities at a legally intolerable, increased risk of contracting a highly contagious, potentially fatal virus. But as ICE’s own arguments have emphasized, there is a hydraulic interrelationship between the various claims here. If ICE does not substantially reduce the populations at these facilities, then adequate social distancing and other measures will not be feasible. Likewise, if ICE reduces the populations at these facilities only by transferring the putative Class Members under unsanitary conditions to facilities that lack the ability to social distance, then the net result is only to shift (and indeed, worsen) the problem. Thus, taking releases and transfers off the table would hamstring the Court’s ability to ameliorate the situation.
Indeed, this appears to be ICE’s strategy: to insist that the Court has no authority to question either its detention-release decisions or its transfer detentions, and then, having taken the two biggest drivers of the risk off the table, to insist that it is doing its best under the circumstances that it created. The Amended R&R’s proposed limits would only reward that strategy.
In this respect, it is notable that the Amended R&R [ECF 123 at 51] seeks to reassure that relief on behalf of the named Petitioners would benefit unnamed putative Class Members, citing Dixon v. Ivey, 2:20-CV-248-WHA, 2020 WL 2831065, at *1 (M.D. Ala. May 6, 2020), report and recommendation adopted, 2:20-CV-248-WHA, 2020 WL 2830983 (M.D. Ala. May 29, 2020). But Dixon has no bearing here. In that case, the court merely refused to certify a class because “a pro se inmate unschooled in the law” sought to represent the interests of all
8

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 144 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/03/2020 Page 9 of 12
inmates at his facility, and the court found that, given his lack of sophistication, he could not adequately represent the class as required by Rule 23(b)(4) and due process. Id. But, of course, neither ICE nor the Amended R&R suggested that Petitioners and their counsel lack the sophistication to prosecute this case.
More to the point, it is simply not the case that certifying a class with the Amended R&R’s proposed limits would materially vindicate the unnamed putative Class Members’ rights. Even if ICE released the named Petitioners still in its custody, that would do virtually nothing to help the remaining putative Class Members, as it would only reduce the population at the three facilities here by a collective total of 4.3 percent. It would not materially increase the opportunities for the social distancing that the record shows are the key to limiting COVID-19 spread. It would not prevent ICE from transferring the remaining putative Class Members in unsanitary circumstances to facilities where they could face similar or greater risks of infection. And it would not change ICE’s refusal to get serious about releasing people given how the risk of COVID-19 infection fundamentally upsets the justifications for civil immigration detention. While mandating adequate soap, PPE, cleaning materials, and other protocols would help the unnamed putative Class Members, as the record shows, social distancing is the key. In short, imposing the Amended R&R’s limits on the class here would fundamentally undermine the Court’s ability to provide meaningful relief.
If the putative class members all filed separate suits in this Court, it is almost certain the claims would be consolidated together before one judge for common adjudication. While that would effectively recreate the class action, it would do so only at substantial administrative cost and the loss of invaluable time.
CONCLUSION Petitioners have satisfied the requirements of Rule 23(a) and (b)(2). The Court should therefore certify the proposed class, without putting the Magistrate’s proposed limits on the definition. Petitioners therefore request that the Court certify the following class: All civil immigration detained individuals held by Respondents at the Krome Service Processing Center (“Krome”), the Broward Transitional Center (“BTC”), or at Glades County Detention Facility (“Glades”) when this action was filed, since this action was filed, or in the future.
9

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 144 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/03/2020 Page 10 of 12

Date: June 3, 2020

.
Respectfully Submitted,

/s/ Scott M. Edson Scott M. Edson, Esq.
Florida Bar No. 17258

Gregory P. Copeland* Sarah T. Gillman*
RAPID DEFENSE NETWORK 11 Broadway, Suite 615 New York, NY 10004 Tel.: (212) 843-0910 Fax: (212) 257-7033 gregory@defensenetwork.org sarah@defensenetwork.org *Appearing Pro Hac Vice

Scott M. Edson, Esq. Florida Bar No. 17258
KING & SPALDING LLP 1700 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, STE 200 Washington, DC 20006-4707 Telephone: (202) 737-0500 Facsimile: (202) 626-3737 sedson@kslaw.com

Rebecca Sharpless Florida Bar No. 0131024 Romy Lerner Florida Bar No. 116713
UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI SCHOOL OF
LAW - IMMIGRATION CLINIC 1311 Miller Drive Suite, E-273 Coral Gables, Florida 33146 Tel: (305) 284-3576 Fax: (305) 284-6092 rsharpless@law.miami.edu

Kathryn S. Lehman Florida Bar No.: 95642 Chad A. Peterson Florida Bar No.: 91585
KING & SPALDING LLP 1180 Peachtree Street, N.E. Atlanta, GA 30309 Telephone: (404) 572-4600 Facsimile: (404) 572-5100 klehman@kslaw.com cpeterson@kslaw.com

Paul R. Chavez FL Bar No. 1021395 Maia Fleischman FL Bar No. 1010709
SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER 2 S. Biscayne Blvd., Ste. 3200 Miami, FL 33101 Tel: (305) 537-0577 paul.chavez@splcenter.org maia.fleischman@splcenter.org

Mark Andrew Prada Fla. Bar No. 91997 Anthony Richard Dominguez Fla. Bar No. 1002234
PRADA URIZAR, PLLC 3191 Coral Way, Suite 500 Miami, FL 33145 Tel.: (786) 703-2061 Fax: (786) 708-9508 mprada@pradaurizar.com adominguez@pradaurizar.com

10

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 144 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/03/2020 Page 11 of 12

Lisa Lehner Florida Bar No. 382191
AMERICANS FOR IMMIGRANT
JUSTICE 5355 NW 36 Street, Suite 2201 Miami, FL 33166 Tel: (305) 573-1106 Ext. 1020 Fax: (305) 576-6273 Llehner@aijustice.org

Andrea Montavon McKillip Florida Bar No. 56401
LEGAL AID SERVICE OF BROWARD
COUNTY, INC. 491 North State Road 7 Plantation, Florida 33317 Tel. (954) 736-2493 Fax (954) 736-2484 amontavon@legalaid.org

Counsel for Petitioners-Plaintiffs

11

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 144 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/03/2020 Page 12 of 12 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on the 3rd day of June, 2020, I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system, which will then send a notification of such filing (NEF) to all counsel of record.
/s/ Scott M. Edson___________ Scott M. Edson, Esq. Florida Bar No. 17258 KING & SPALDING LLP 1700 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, STE 200 Washington, DC 20006-4707 Telephone: (202) 737-0500 Facsimile: (202) 626-3737 sedson@kslaw.com Attorney for Petitioners-Plaintiffs
12

 
 Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 158 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/06/2020 Page 1 of 40
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case No. 20-21553-Civ-COOKE/GOODMAN
PATRICK GAYLE, et al., Petitioners,
vs.
MICHAEL W. MEADE, et al.,
Respondents. ______________________________/
OMNIBUS ORDER THIS MATTER is before the Court on Petitioners’ Emergency Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Motion for Preliminary Injunction for Proposed Class, ECF No. 4, Petitioners’ Expedited Motion for Class Certification, ECF No. 81, and Petitioners’ Motion to Compel Compliance with the Court’s April 30, 2020, Temporary Restraining Order, ECF 106. Petitioners are immigration detainees being held at three detention centers in South Florida. Petitioners assert that Respondents failure to protect them from infection with the coronavirus disease (“COVID-19”) while detained violates their constitutional rights. Petitioners also assert that they are at imminent risk of contracting COVID-19 because their detention renders them unable to comply with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (“CDC”) guidelines. Accordingly, Petitioners request, inter alia, emergency injunctive relief in the form of release from government custody, protective health measures that help prevent transmission of COVID-19, and to enjoin the transfer of the detainees to any other detention facility.
1

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 158 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/06/2020 Page 2 of 40
In addition, Petitioners are filing on behalf of a putative class of approximately 1,400 individuals in civil immigration detention at three Florida detention centers pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and (b)(2).
After considering the Motions and evidence submitted by the parties, arguments presented at the hearings held May 27, 2020 and June 2, 2020, and all relevant law, the Court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part Petitioners’ Application, ECF No. 4, as a preliminary injunction, GRANTS in part and DENIES in part Petitioners’ Expedited Motion for Class Certification, ECF No. 81, and GRANTS Petitioners’ Motion to Compel Compliance with the Court’s April 30, 2020 Temporary Restraining Order, ECF 106.
I. BACKGROUND
On April 13, 2020, 341 civil immigration detainees (hereinafter “Petitioners”) filed the instant action alleging that they are being held by the Miami Field Office of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (hereinafter “ICE”) and housed at three detention centers—the Krome Detention Center in Miami (“Krome”), the Broward Transitional Center in Pompano Beach (“BTC”), and the Glades County Detention Center in Moore Haven (“Glades”)2.
Petitioners all claim to be at imminent risk of contracting COVID-19 as a result of their inability to abide by the CDC’s Guidelines and state and local directives during their continued detention. Each Petitioner further asserts that they are uniquely vulnerable to COVID-19 due to a range of serious chronic ailments including, inter alia, cancer, human immunodeficiency virus, and various respiratory issues. ECF Nos. 7; 8.
1 The named Petitioners are 58 individuals detained by the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) on civil immigration charges. At the onset, 34 petitioners filed the instant action. Petitioners subsequently filed an Unopposed Motion, ECF No. 60, to add named petitioners. The Magistrate Judge granted the Motion, amending this action to include 24 additional petitioners. ECF No. 65. 2 As previously discussed in the Court’s Order dated April 30, 2020, (ECF No. 76 at 3, n.9), this Court has jurisdiction to review claims related to conditions of confinement at Glades. See Masingene v. Martin, 424 F. Supp. 3d 1298, 1303 (S.D. Fla. 2020) (“[A] district court acts within its respective jurisdiction. . .as long as the custodian can be reached by service of process.”)(internal citations omitted).
2

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 158 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/06/2020 Page 3 of 40
A. Procedural History
On April 13, 2020, Petitioners filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, ECF No. 1, and an Emergency Motion for Temporary Restraining Order (“TRO”) and Motion for Preliminary Injunction for Proposed Class (“Motion for TRO/Preliminary Injunction”), ECF No. 4, alleging that Respondents are not taking proper measures to prevent the transmission of COVID-19. Petitioners assert three claims: (1) violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment (violation of detention standards), (2) violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment (violation of right to reasonable safety), and (3) violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment (state-created danger). In support of the Motion for TRO/Preliminary Injunction, Petitioners submitted the following declarations3:
1. Declaration of Dr. Joseph Shin, MD, MSc (“Shin Declaration,” ECF No.1-2); and 2. Declaration of Dr. Pedro J. Greer, Jr., MD, FACP, FACG (“Greer Declaration,” ECF
No. 1-3).
In response to Magistrate Judge Jonathan Goodman’s post-hearing administrative Orders, ECF Nos. 18; 19; 20, ICE submitted the following declarations:
1. Declaration of Juan A. Lopez Vega, Assistant Field Office Director (“Vega Declaration,” ECF No. 30-1).4
2. Declaration of Liana J. Castano, Acting Officer in Charge of the Krome Service Processing Center. (“Castano Declaration,” ECF No. 33-1).5
On April 14, 2020, the Court referred the Motion for TRO/Preliminary Injunction to Magistrate Judge. ECF No. 14. On April 17, 2020, the Magistrate Judge held a hearing6 and subsequently issued a 69-page report and recommendation (“R&R”) on the TRO concluding
3 Admittedly, neither Doctor has personally examined any of the detention centers at issue in this matter. (ECF No. 63 at 42.) Both Doctors relied in part on declarations submitted by Liana J. Castano. 4 The Vega Declaration discussed BTC. 5 The Castano Declaration discussed Krome and Glades. 6 All hearings in this matter have been conducted via remote video conference in light of the danger posed by COVID-19.
3

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 158 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/06/2020 Page 4 of 40
that the remedy of release is unavailable to the Detainees. (ECF No. 63 at 51-55). This Court issued a 14-day TRO instructing ICE to adhere to its own guidelines and the CDC’s guidelines in assessing and evaluating whether any of the Petitioners should be released. (ECF No. 76.) On May 2, 2020, the Court issued an Order clarifying, inter alia, that ICE is permitted to transfer detainees from the three facilities at issue only after first evaluating and assessing each detainee’s eligibility for release pursuant to ICE guidelines on the pandemic response. (ECF No. 78.)
On May 5, 2020, Petitioners filed a Motion for Class Certification. (ECF No. 81.) That same day, the Court referred the Motion for Class Certification to the Magistrate Judge. (ECF No. 82.) On May 14, 2020, the Magistrate Judge held a hearing on the Motion for Class Certification. (ECF No. 98.)
On May 15, 2020, the Court extended the TRO by 14 days pending the Magistrate Judge’s R&R on the Motion for Class Certification and other hearings in the matter. (ECF No. 101.) On May 22, 2020, the Magistrate Judge issued an R&R recommending that the Court deny the Motion for Class Certification with respect to Petitioners’ demand for habeas corpus release but grant Petitioners’ Motion with respect to their conditions-of-confinement claims. (ECF No. 111 at 4-5.)7
On May 15, 2020, the Court set a Motion Hearing for May 27, 2020, regarding the Petitioners’ Emergency Motion for TRO and Motion for Preliminary Injunction. (ECF No. 101.) On May 20, 2020, Petitioners filed an Emergency Motion to Compel Compliance with the Court’s April 30, 2020, Order alleging that Respondents had not fully complied with the Court’s April 30, 2020, Order. (ECF No. 106.) The Court set an expedited briefing schedule
7 The Magistrate Judge did not view Petitioner’s Motion for Class Certification as an “emergency” and designated the 14-day presumptive deadline for written objections established by Local Rule 4. However, on May 29, 2020, the Magistrate Judge sua sponte issued an Amended R&R on the Motion for Class Certification, which is “substantively identical to the first version.” (ECF No. 123 at 1, n.1.). In so doing, the Magistrate Judge extended the parties time to file objections by an additional 14 days. To promote judicial economy and preserve resources, the Court requested that the parties consent to extend the TRO until June 15, 2020, to allow the parties the opportunity to submit any Objections to the Amended R&R before the Court issued an Order. Respondents did not consent to an additional extension. On June 1, 2020, the Court issued an Order instructing the parties to file all Objections to the R&R on June 3, 2020 pursuant to Local Rule 4(a).
4

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 158 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/06/2020 Page 5 of 40
on the Motion to Compel and instructed the parties to be prepared to discuss the Motion to Compel at the May 27, 2020, Motion Hearing. (ECF No. 107.)
On May 27, 2020, the Court held a hearing on Petitioners’ Motion for TRO/Preliminary Injunction and Motion to Compel. (ECF No. 120.) On May 28, 2020, Respondents consented to an extension of the TRO for an additional seven days. (ECF No. 119.) On June 2, 2020, the Court held a second hearing on the Petitioners’ Motion for TRO/Preliminary Injunction, during which Petitioners presented testimony from Dr. Joseph Shin. On June 3, 2020, the Court held a third hearing on the Petitioners’ Motion for TRO/Preliminary Injunction, during which Petitioners presented testimony from three detainees—Steve Cooper, a 39-year-old Jamaican native currently detained at Glades, Alejandro Ferrera Borges, a 29-year-old Cuban native currently detained at BTC, and Deivys Perez Valladares, a 35-year old Cuban native currently detained at Krome.8
B. Facts i. COVID-19 Transmission in Immigration Detention Facilities
Since the filing of this action, the coronavirus pandemic has continued to spread. To date, over 100,0009 people have died from COVID-19 in America.10 And at least two individuals have died in ICE custody due to COVID-19.11 Some experts estimate that up to 400,000 Americans may die from COVID-19 in approximately one year.12
COVID-19 is a highly infectious deadly disease believed to transmit among people through respiratory droplets released by coughing or sneezing, as well as through contact with infected individuals. (Shin Decl. ¶7.) The medical and science community believe COVID-19
8 Each witness also submitted a declaration regarding the conditions of confinement at each of the detention centers at issue. This Order is issued two days after the June 3, 2020, hearing. In light of the expeditious turnaround, the Court relied on a rough draft of the transcript the court reporter submitted to the Court. 9Johns Hopkins University Coronavirus Resource Center, https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/map.html (last updated June 5, 2020, 12:00 p.m. EST). 10 There are over 6 million confirmed COVID-19 cases globally and over 380,000 deaths. At the commencement of this lawsuit in April 2020, there were over 1 million confirmed COVID-19 cases globally and over 380,000 deaths. (See, e.g. Shin Decl. ¶4.) 11 https://www.ice.gov/coronavirus. 12https://abcnews.go.com/amp/Health/coronavirus-updates-us-100-million-doses-vaccineend/story?id=71038663.
5

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 158 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/06/2020 Page 6 of 40
is an airborne virus spread by individuals who are pre-symptomatic (individuals who have contracted the disease but do not yet display symptoms of the disease), asymptomatic13 (individuals displaying no symptoms despite having contracted the virus), and symptomatic (individuals that have contracted the virus and exhibit symptoms of the disease) spread the disease. (Shin Dec. ¶22.) Indeed, estimates suggest that as many as 15-57% of infected individuals display no symptoms at the time of testing. (Shin Decl. ¶ 7.)
Experts’ collective knowledge about COVID-19 has continued to evolve exponentially over a short period of time. The virus’ effect in individuals ranges from mild to severe, resulting in death in approximately 1-4% of confirmed cases. (Shin Decl. ¶9; Greer Decl. ¶19.) COVID-19, which was originally thought to primarily affect the elderly, has proven that no age demographic is spared from the virus. (Greer Decl. ¶18.) There have been reports of children as young as five years14 dying after contracting the virus. There have also been reports of adults in the 20-40 age bracket being severely affected by the virus.15 (Shin Decl. ¶10.) Most people who contract the disease will develop mild respiratory infection. (Greer Decl. ¶19.) However, serious illness occurs in at least 16% of cases and death is most common among people with underlying chronic health conditions, such as heart disease, lung disease, liver disease, and diabetes. (Id.) People with severe symptoms may require ventilation and intravenous antibiotics. (Id.at ¶20.) Further, COVID-19, originally believed to attack human lungs, demonstrably also affects various other organs, including the brain, heart, and kidneys.16 Studies show that even where people recover from COVID-19, they may face serious permanent complications, including lung scarring.17
Detention centers are not isolated communities. Staff, visitors, contractors, and vendors can bring infectious diseases into facilities. (Greer Decl. ¶9.) COVID-19 has already started to spread inside prisons and detention centers across the United States. To date, there
13Recent data suggests that has almost 13% of transmission occurs from asymptomatic individuals before they start to show symptoms. (Greer Decl. ¶9.) 14 https://www.cnn.com/2020/04/21/us/detroit-girl-dies-coronavirus/index.html 15https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/health/conditions-anddiseases/coronavirus/coronavirus-and-covid-19-younger-adults-are-at-risk-too. 16https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2020/05/10/coronavirus-attacks-body symptoms/?arc404=true. 17https://www.sciencenews.org/article/coronavirus-covid-19-some-patients-may-sufferlasting-lung-damage.
6

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 158 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/06/2020 Page 7 of 40

are over 1,600 confirmed COVID-19 cases among those detained in ICE custody nationwide.18 Moreover, congregate settings such as detention facilities where people share common dining areas, bathrooms, and other common areas allow for rapid spread of infectious diseases. (Greer Decl. ¶¶9-10; Castano Decl. ¶15.) Detention facilities are often over-crowded, under-resourced, and ill-equipped in the event of a contagion. (Shin Decl. ¶14; Greer Decl. ¶11.)
Detainees often have to wait several days to see a medical doctor for serious medical concerns. (Greer Decl. ¶25.) Further, detention facilities often lack onsite medical facilities or 24-hour medical care, which can be crucial in identifying and managing infectious disease. (Greer Decl. ¶¶12-13.) During a contagion, staff may fall ill and fail to attend work, which in turn increases the risk of spread because of the reduced level of care provided. (Greer Decl. ¶15.) Thus, the risk of wide-spread transmission of COVID-19 in detention centers is “significantly higher than in the community.” (Shin Decl. ¶13.)

ii. CDC’s and ICE’s Pandemic Response Guidelines

There is no vaccine or cure for COVID-19. (Shin Decl. ¶11.) Public health strategies are the only effective methods to mitigate the spread and impact of the virus. (Shin Decl. ¶12; Greer Decl. ¶21.) Accordingly, both the CDC and ICE promulgated a set of guidelines and recommendations intended to protect detainees and staff from contracting the disease.

a.

The CDC’s Pandemic Response Guidelines

On March 23, 2020, the CDC issued an Interim Guidance on Management of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) in Correctional and Detention Facilities (the “CDC’s Guidelines”),19 which applies to “incarcerated/detained persons, staff, volunteers, and visitors who enter correctional and detention facilities, as well as incarcerated/detained persons who are transferred to another facility or released from custody.” The CDC’s Interim Guidance on Management of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID19) in Correctional and Detention Facilities (March 23, 2020) at 26.

18 ICE Guidance on COVID-19 https://www.ice.gov/coronavirus 19Available at https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/community/correctiondetention/guidance-correctional-detention.html
7

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 158 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/06/2020 Page 8 of 40
Due to the highly contagious nature of COVID-19 and its rapid spread, the CDC recommends, inter alia, frequent hand washing, use of hand sanitizers, and social distancing— maintaining a minimum of six feet between and among persons to mitigate transmission and minimize disease.20
On the subject of cohorting,21 the CDC’s Guidelines advise that people exposed to COVID-19 should be put in individual, not group, quarantine: “Facilities should make every possible effort to quarantine close contacts of COVID-19 cases individually.” Id. at 15; 19. Further, “[o]nly individuals who are laboratory confirmed COVID-19 cases should be placed under medical isolation as a cohort. Do not cohort confirmed cases with suspected cases or case contacts.” Id. at 16. Cohort quarantine “should only be practiced if there are no other available options,” because “[c]ohorting multiple quarantined close contacts of a COVID-19 case could transmit COVID-19 from those who are infected to those who are uninfected.” Id. at 15; 19. If cohorting of ill detainees is unavoidable, the CDC’s Guidelines recommend “mak[ing] all possible accommodations until transfer occurs to prevent transmission of other infectious diseases to the higher-risk individual (For example, allocate more space for a higher-risk individual within a shared isolation room).” Id. at 17.
As for transfers, the CDC’s Guidelines recognize that, “[t]here are many opportunities for COVID-19 to be introduced to a correctional or detention facility, including daily staff ingress and egress; transfer of incarcerated/detained persons between facilities and systems, to court appearances, and to outside medical visits; and visits from family, legal representatives, and other community members.” Id. at 2. Thus, the CDC’s Guidelines contemplate that transfers should be utilized as a last resort. The CDC’s guidelines state that transfers should be restricted to and from other “jurisdictions and facilities unless necessary for medical evaluation, medical isolation/quarantine, clinical care, extenuating security concerns, or to prevent overcrowding.” Id. at 9. The CDC’s Guidelines specifically state,
20 Centers for Disease Control, Interim Guidance on Management of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) in Correctional and Detention Facilities (Mar. 23, 2020), Available at https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/community/correction-detention/guidancecorrectional-detention.html 21 Cohorting is “the practice of isolating multiple laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 cases together as a group or quarantining close contacts of a particular case together as a group.” Id. at 3.
8

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 158 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/06/2020 Page 9 of 40
“[t]ransfer should be avoided due to the potential to introduce infection to another facility; proceed only if no other options are available.” Id. at 16; 20. The CDC’s Guidelines further state that confirmed cases should be restricted from leaving the facility while under medical isolation precautions, “unless released from custody or if a transfer is necessary for medical care, infection control, lack of medical isolation space, or extenuating security concerns.” Id. at 17. To the extent that a transfer is “absolutely necessary,” the CDC Guidelines call for ICE to “perform verbal screening and a temperature check as outlined in the [CDC Guidelines] before the individual leaves the facility.” Id. at 9. If an individual does not clear the screening process, ICE is expected to “delay the transfer and follow the protocol for a suspected COVID-19 case— including putting a face mask on the individual, immediately placing them under medical isolation22, and evaluating them for possible COVID-19 testing.” (Id.) And “[i]f the transfer must still occur,” ICE requires “ensur[ing] that the receiving facility has capacity to properly isolate the individual upon arrival.” Id.
As for new entrants, the CDC also recommends “quarantining all new intakes for 14 days before they enter the facility’s general population (SEPARATELY from other individuals who are quarantined due to contact with a COVID-19 case).” Id. at 14. (emphasis in original). The CDC further specifies that detention centers should conduct “pre-intake screening and temperature checks for all new entrants” and to put new intakes with symptoms (fever, cough, shortness of breath) in medical isolation. Id. at 10.
22 Medical isolation is not the equivalent of quarantining. Rather, medical isolation “refers to confining a confirmed or suspected COVID-19 case (ideally to a single cell with solid walls and a solid door that closes), to prevent contact with others and to reduce the risk of transmission.” Id. at 3.
9

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 158 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/06/2020 Page 10 of 40

b.

ICE’s Pandemic Response Guidelines

Some ICE detention centers are subject to ICE’s Performance-Based National Detention Standards 2011 (“PBNDS”),23 while other detention centers are subject to ICE’s National Detention Standards (“NDS”).24 Section 4.3(II)(10) of ICE’s PBNDS requires that “Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) guidelines for the prevention and control of infectious and communicable diseases shall be followed.” (PBNDS at 258.) Similarly, section 1.1(I) of the NDS, mandates “facilit[ies] will operate in accordance with all applicable regulations and codes, such as those of . . . the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). . . .” (NDS at 1.) Accordingly, ICE issued its own set of directives and guidelines regarding the coronavirus pandemic that largely comports with the CDC’s described guidelines.
On April 10, 2020, ICE released its COVID-19 Pandemic Response Requirements,25 which include “specific mandatory requirements” and best practices for all facilities housing ICE detainees. ICE’s COVID-19 April 10, 2020 Pandemic Response Requirements (“PRR”) at 3, 4.) Like the CDC’s Guidelines, ICE’s PRR emphasizes that social distancing should be promoted within detention centers. Specifically, ICE’s PRR states, “all staff and detainees should maintain a distance of six feet from one another.” Id. at 12. Staff and detainees are also instructed to “avoid congregating in groups of 10 or more, employing social distancing strategies at all times.” Id. at 13. The PRR goes on to state, “[i]f practicable, beds in housing units should be rearranged to allow for sufficient separation during sleeping hours.” Id.
Similar to the CDC’s Guidelines, the PRR cautions, “[o]nly individuals who are laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 cases should be isolated as a cohort. Do not cohort confirmed cases with suspected cases or case contacts.” Id. at 14. “Cohorting should only be practiced if there are no other available options.” Id. However, if cohorting of ill detainees is unavoidable, ICE is instructed to “make all possible accommodations until transfer occurs to

23ICE’s COVID-19 April 10, 2020 Pandemic Response Requirements. Available at: https://www.ice.gov/doclib/detentionstandards/2011/pbnds2011r2016.pdf. 24Available at: www.ice.gov/doclib/detention-standards/2019/nds2019.pdf 25Available at: https://www.ice.gov/sites/default /files/documents /Document /2020 /eroCOYID19responseReqsCleanFacilities.pdf
10

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 158 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/06/2020 Page 11 of 40
prevent transmission of other infectious diseases to the higher-risk individual (For example, allocate more space for a higher-risk individual within a shared isolation room).” Id. at 15.
As to transfers, ICE’s PRR also states, “[w]here possible, restrict transfers of detained non-ICE populations to and from other jurisdictions and facilities unless necessary for medical evaluation, isolation/quarantine, clinical care, or extenuating security concerns.” Id. at 13. Notably, ICE’s PRR make no mention of utilizing transfers as a means to control population size during the pandemic.26
The PRR calls for detainees to be quarantined for 14 days prior to entering the general population. Id. at 14. New entrants are to be assessed for fever and respiratory illnesses prior to entering the facility. (Castano Decl. ¶9.) Pursuant to the PRR, ICE should “consider cohorting daily intakes; two days of new intakes, or multiple days on new intakes, in designated areas prior to placement into the general population.” Id.
ICE’s PRR also states all facilities housing ICE detainees must:
• Ensure that all staff and detainees wear cloth face coverings (when protective equipment supply is limited) to help slow the spread of COVID-19;
• Instruct staff and detainees to wear cloth face coverings when protective equipment supply is limited;
• Provide staff and detainees with no cost unlimited access to supplies for hand cleansing, including liquid soap, water, paper towels or dryers, and no-touch receptacles;
• Instruct personnel that “[A]ll staff and detainees should maintain a distance of six feet from one another;” and
• Make efforts to reduce the population to approximately 75% of capacity, to promote social distancing.
(PRR at 7-14.)
26 Beginning in 2004, Congress has appropriated funding to ICE for an Alternatives to Detention program created to provide supervised release and enhanced monitoring for a subset of foreign nationals subject to removal whom ICE has released into the United States. Detainees may be released on parole, bond, home detention, etc., through the Alternatives to Detention program. In fact, ICE has reportedly utilized its alternative detention program to release hundreds of immigrants in detention as coronavirus spreads in detention centers. (ECF No. 63 at 40, n.11.)
11

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 158 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/06/2020 Page 12 of 40

iii. Reported Facilities Conditions Declarations submitted in this matter contain substantially similar allegations. Common to each detention facility at issue is that: (1) Petitioners are held in a cohort quarantine; (2) Petitioners cannot social distance; (3) Petitioners have developed a cough but has not been tested for COVID-19; (4) Petitioners sleep in bunkbeds less than a meter away from each other; (4) Petitioners do not have adequate amounts of soap throughout the day; (5) Petitioners have difficulty washing their hands for 20 seconds because the water turns off too quickly; (6) Petitioners are concerned that the crowded conditions will result icontracting COVID-19; (7) most officers do not wear masks when near the detainees; (8) petitioners typically eat less than six feet away from other detainees; (9) dozens of detainees in a pod must share one toilet or the toilets are too close together for social distancing to occur; (9) Petitioners do not have access to masks, gloves, or hand sanitizer; and (10) Petitioners who prepare the food do not wear masks and sometimes do not wear gloves.” (ECF No. 63 at 2021.)

a.

Krome27

ICE owns the Krome detention center, but daily operations are contracted out to a

private company, Akima Global Services. (Greer Decl. ¶7.)

At Krome, upon entering the facility, medical screenings are conducted on all

detainees within a 12-hour time frame and detainees are screened for fevers and respiratory

illnesses. (Castano Decl. ¶9.) During intake, detainees are asked to confirm if they have

had close contact with a person with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 in the past 14 days.

(Id.)

Detainees at Krome are subject to group cohorting. In cases of known exposure to a

person with confirmed COVID-19, asymptomatic detainees are placed in cohorts for 14

days after most the recent exposure to an ill detainee and are monitored daily. (Id. at ¶11.)

Housing units in cohort status are issued surgical face masks. (Id.)

Detainees share a living unit with at least 65 bunk beds. (Greer Decl. ¶24.) The distance

between beds varies from 3 feet 2 inches to 4 feet 9 inches. (ECF No. 63 at 38.) Detainees are

27 Krome is subject to ICE’s PBNDS. 12

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 158 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/06/2020 Page 13 of 40

forced to either sit close to one another while they eat meals since tables and chairs are fixed to the floor or forced to wait in line together for meals. (Greer Decl. ¶24.)
The Krome medical facility has only a “limited number” of COVID-19 test kits. (ECF No. 63 at 37.)
At the onset of this action there were no confirmed cases of COVID-19 at Krome and no detainees being cohorted at Krome for exhibiting symptoms of COVID-19. (ECF No. 63 at 35.) Now, 20 Krome detainees have tested positive for COVID-19.28

b.

Glades29

Glades is a county jail, which houses immigration detainees pursuant to an intergovernmental service agreement with ICE. (Greer Decl. ¶7.)
Detainees at Glades share a clinic staff which manages male and female detainees and provides daily access to sick calls in a clinical setting, as well as mental health services and the ability to admit patients at the local hospital for medical and mental health care. (Castano Decl.at ¶13.) COVID-19 tests are available at the detention center. (Id. at ¶15.) However, Dr. Greer suspects that detainees often wait several days to have to see a medical doctor for serious medical concerns. (Greer Decl. ¶25.)
The detainee population at Glades is within its approved capacity and is “not overcrowded.” (Castano Decl. ¶15.) Detainees share a living unit with at least 65 individuals. (Greer Decl. ¶24.) Glades issues male detainees four ounces of soap, twice a week, which is replenished as needed. (Castano Decl. ¶18.) Female detainees receive a 7.5-ounce bottle, at the same frequency. (Id.) The housing units have available running water and soap 24 hours a day, seven days a week. (Id. at ¶30.)
The detainees are housed in a dormitory-style setting. The bunks are approximately 12 inches apart from the head of one bed to the foot of the next bunk and about seven feet apart, side to side. (Castano Decl. ¶30.) The distance between the upper bunk and lower bunk is 34 inches, and the distance between beds is 7 feet, 2 inches. (Castano Decl. ¶30.)

28 https://www.ice.gov/coronavirus. 29 Glades is subject to ICE’s NDS.
13

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 158 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/06/2020 Page 14 of 40

At present, ICE is cohorting 320 detainees “as a precautionary measure, per the established protocol.”30
At the onset of this action there were no confirmed cases of COVID-19 at Glades County Detention Center, and no detainee was subject to cohorting. (Castano Decl. ¶14.) To date, 60 Glades detainees have tested positive for COVID-19.31

c.

BTC32

BTC is a private facility. The GEO Group operates the facility pursuant to an ICE contract. (Greer Decl. ¶7.)
At the BTC,upon entering the facility, medical screenings are conducted on all detainees within a 12-hour time frame and detainees are screened for fevers and respiratory illnesses. (Vega Decl. ¶9.) During intake, Detainees are asked to confirm if they have had close contact with a person with laboratory- confirmed COVID-19 in the past 14 days, and whether they have traveled from or through area(s) with sustained community transmission in the past two weeks (Id.)
Detainees are housed in rooms and separated by gender, with a maximum of six detainees per room. (Id. at ¶22.) Bunk beds in the male rooms are two feet apart. (Id.) Bunk beds in the female rooms are 6.5 feet apart. (Id.) Bunk beds in the male rooms are two feet apart. (Id.) Bunk beds in the female rooms are 6.5 feet apart. (Id.) The distance between chairs in the dining hall is four feet. (Id.) The facility is also practicing social distancing by staggering meal lines with reduced numbers of individuals in the dining room and markers have been added every six feet to visually facilitate social distancing. (Id.)

30 To date, ICE houses 320 detainees at Glades. (ECF No. 131-1 ¶8.) ICE submission can be interpreted to mean that the entire detainee population at Glades is being cohorted together. ICE declares that the cohort is scheduled to end on June 3, 2020. 31 At the June 3, 2020 Hearing, ICE admitted that it had discovered 58 COVID-19 cases at Glades. For that reason, it had determined to cease all transfers for a period of time. The Court notes that ICE’s submissions to the Court differs from the statistics on its regularly updated website, which states that there are 60 confirmed COVID-19 cases at Glades to date. https://www.ice.gov/coronavirus (last updated June 5, 2020). 32 BTC is subject to ICE’s PBNDS.
14

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 158 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/06/2020 Page 15 of 40
In cases of known exposure to a person with confirmed COVID-19, asymptomatic detainees are placed in cohorts for 14 days after most recent exposure to an ill detainee and are monitored twice daily for fever and symptoms of respiratory illness. (Id. at ¶11.)
ICE states that BTC detainees are granted daily access to medical treatment at an onsite medical observation room, pharmacy, tele-psychiatry, and access to 24/7 specialty services and hospital care within the community. (Id. at ¶13.) However, Dr. Greer that detainees often wait several days to have access to a medical doctor for serious medical concerns. (Greer Decl. ¶25.)
At BTC, all detainees over 60 years of age have been released and the overall detention population has been reduced by 35 percent in accordance with ICE’s Guidelines. (Vega Decl. ¶23.)
At the onset of this action there were no confirmed cases of COVID-19 at BTC and no detainees being cohorted for exhibiting symptoms of COVID-19. (ECF No. 63 at 35.) Now, 20 BTC detainees have tested positive for COVID-19.33
iv. Aftermath of Temporary Restraining Order
On April 30, 2020, the Court issued a TRO in which it instructed the parties as follows:
1. Evaluate each of the detainees in the instant action consistent with ICE’s PRR and inform the Court who among them can be released promptly in light of COVID-19.
2. Submit a report the Court informing the Court as to how it intends to accelerate its review of its “Alternatives to Detention” program (or other protocols resulting in detainee release) with the goal of reducing the population to 75% of capacity at each of the three detention centers within two weeks of this Order.
3. Perform an internal review pursuant to ICE’s PRR and file with the Court weekly reports on the following a. The number of detainees who have been released; b. Which facility they were released from; and c. The nature of the detainee released (e.g., in a high-risk category because of age or a specific, documented medical condition, etc.)
4. Submit reports on the following: a. How many detainees it is housing on the date of reporting; b. At which of the three centers the detainees are being housed; c. Which of the detainees are considered “mandatory detainees”; and d. Which of the detainees have no prior criminal convictions and no pending criminal charges.
33 https://www.ice.gov/coronavirus
15

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 158 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/06/2020 Page 16 of 40
5. Immediately comply with the CDC and ICE guidelines on providing adequate amounts of soap and water and cleaning materials to detainees at each of the three detention centers at issue. ICE was also required to provide masks to all detainees and shall replace those masks at least once per week.
6. Provide education and training about measures to reduce the health risks associated with COVID-19 to all staff members and detainees and to any new detainees or employees. ICE was also required to provide such education and training without any costs to the detainees. Since the filing of this suit, ICE has filed several reports assuring the Court that it is
complying with the TRO. A mere seven days after the filing of the TRO, ICE submitted a Report stating it had successfully reduced the populations at each detention center below 75% capacity. (ECF No. 89-1 ¶3.) By May 7, 2020, ICE had reviewed each of the 58 petitioners and determined that only six34 of the Petitioners were eligible for release. (Id. at ¶3.) In approximately that same time period, ICE released or removed a total of 60 detainees. (ECF No. 90-1 ¶3.) ICE had determined that the remaining petitioners were either subject to mandatory detention or facing pending criminal charges. (Id.) As to each detention center, ICE submitted Reports stating the following:
Krome. Upon intake, ICE detainees are given an opportunity to shower and are issued clean clothing, bedding, towels and personal items. (ECF No. 79-1 ¶4.) ICE staff at Krome issued every detainee a surgical mask. (Id. at ¶3.) Krome posted instructions in English, Spanish and Creole regarding the proper use of the masks and noting that masks will be replaced every Wednesday. (Id. at ¶4.)
Glades. Staff has issued every ICE detainee a surgical mask. (Id. at ¶8.) Staff also posted instructions in English, Spanish and Creole informing detainees about the proper use of the masks and noting that the masks will be replaced every Friday. (Id. at ¶8.) ICE detainees are provided adequate amounts of soap, water and cleaning materials. (Id. at ¶9.)
BTC. All detainees have been issued masks and encouraged to wear them in the presence of other detainees. (ECF No. 79-2 ¶4.) The masks are exchanged once a week. (Id. at ¶4.) Staff continues to provide detainees with adequate soap, hand sanitizers and other cleaning supplies. (Id. at ¶¶5-6.)
34 To date, ICE has still released only six of the 58 Petitioners before the Court. (ECF No. 116-2 ¶29.) The Court’s TRO and subsequent orders, if any, are moot as to the released Petitioners.
16

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 158 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/06/2020 Page 17 of 40
As to transfers between and among detention facilities, ICE explains that on May 5, 2020, after the TRO issued, ICE’s Enforcement and Removal Operations division (“ERO”) introduced a new COVID-19 checklist intended to provide ERO and contracted staff with steps to take prior to transferring, removing, or releasing an alien from ERO custody to further mitigate the spread of COVID-19. (ECF No. 116-2 ¶19.) The checklist requires verification of a detainee’s current health status and exposure history prior to transfer. (Id. at ¶21.) According to ICE, Detainees scheduled for transfer must be cleared medically prior to the transfer. (Id. at ¶20.) Further, unless medically necessary, ICE does not transfer detainees that are in isolation, are symptomatic, have pending test results or that are cohorted due to exposure to a person with confirmed or suspected COVID-19. (Id.) ICE states that ERO reviews the custody status of each detainee prior to transfer and obtained a medical clearance for each detainee transferred in accordance with the detention standards and ERO’s PRR. (Id. at ¶22.) Once detainees are cleared for transfer, detention and transportation staff provide each detainee with a mask prior to transfer and counsel them on proper mask use. (Id. at ¶¶24-25.) ICE submits that “[d]etainee transfers are based upon bed-space considerations and custody classification.” (Id. at ¶24.)
In evaluating the 58 Petitioners in the instant action, ICE populated a spreadsheet with information related to each Petitioner’s chronic health conditions. (ECF No. 116-2 ¶¶56.) ICE then reviewed the custody status and other factors articulated by the court to determine who could be released. (Id. at ¶7.)
ICE does not deny that social distancing is not possible at the detention centers. Instead, ICE notes that the CDC Guidelines states that its guidance may need to be adapted to each facility. (ECF 116-1 ¶32.) ICE states that it “encourages” social distancing between detainees by “encouraging detainees to sleep head to toe, staggering of recreation and meals, and suspension of social visitation.” (Id.) ICE goes on to submit that social distancing is not feasible because some of the furniture is fixed to the floor, making it impossible to rearrange furniture to allow for six feet of social distancing. (Id. at ¶30.)
ICE’s Reports stand in stark contrast to the Petitioners’ allegation. The Petitioners contend that ICE is not complying with the TRO and continues to fail to protect the safety
17

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 158 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/06/2020 Page 18 of 40
and well-being of Petitioners and others in its custody at Krome, Glades, and BTC.35 On May 20, 2020, Petitioners filed a Motion to Compel alleging that although ICE touts population reductions at the three facilities, ICE actually utilizes transfers to “[shuffle] people around the country to make the population statistics at Krome, Glades, and BTC look better on paper.” (ECF No. 106 at 2.)
Petitioners further allege that despite the aggressive utilization of transfers, ICE has not improved the conditions at any of the three detention centers. Most notably, social distancing is still not possible at these facilities. (ECF No. 106 at 2.) Further, access to soap, hand sanitizer, masks, gloves, and cleaning supplies is still not reliable or consistent. (ECF No. 106 at 2.) Petitioners request that this Court compel ICE to provide documentation of its determination for each detained individual before transferring them to a different facility.
The Petitioners’ submitted declarations support these allegations. The submitted declarations allege that they were either given ripped masks during detention or they were given masks for the very first time during transfer. (ECF No. 106-2 at 4, 18.) Most disturbing, some detainees are being transferred to different facilities within Florida without being first evaluated for COVID-19. (ECF No. 106-2.) Some detainees allege that they are transferred to processing centers where their temperatures are checked upon arrival, however soap is not readily available at the processing centers. (ECF No. 106-2 at 5.) In sum, the declarations assert that social distancing is not possible at the detention centers at issue, hygiene products are still in limited supply, and the use and distribution of masks among staff and detainees is inconsistent. (ECF No. 106.)
By contrast, ICE asserts that it properly exercised its broad discretionary authority pursuant to 8 U.S.C. §1231(g)(1) to transfer detainees to other locations. (ECF No. 116 at 36.) ICE maintains that prior to transfer, ICE reviews the detainees’ medical history and
35 On June 3, 2020, Petitioners presented live witnesses currently held at each of the three detention centers and each testified that ICE had not educated the detainees on mask use or the importance of mask use. To the extent that ICE erected posters about COVID-19 and mask use, the posters were typically presented only in English. The witnesses also testified that during the transfer process there were not tested for COVID-19 and they were either not provided with masks or expected to use the same mask they’d been provided sometime during their detention. The witnesses also stated that mask use is inconsistent among staff and detainees. Each detainee testified that social distancing is still not possible at any of the detention centers.
18

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 158 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/06/2020 Page 19 of 40

obtains a medical clearance. (Id. at 7.) ICE also states that it created a new COVID-19 checklist to mitigate the effects of COVID-19 when transferring, removing, or releasing an alien from custody. (Id. at 7.) The checklist requires completion by ICE staff prior to a detainee being transferred out of the detention facility and is served on the detainee. (Id. at 7.) ICE admits that some detainees that were transferred from Krome to BTC have tested positive for COVID-19. However, ICE “does not believe that the transfer has resulted in an increase in COVID-19 cases at BTC.” (Id. at 8.) ICE insists that the Court should defer to ICE’s judgment on the management of detention facilities during the COVID-19 pandemic. (Id. at 10-11.) Last, ICE asserts that this Court lacks jurisdiction over detainees which ICE has transferred to locations outside of Florida. (Id.at 11-12.)

A. Class Certification

II. LEGAL STANDARD

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 governs class certification. Class certification is proper where the party seeking certification demonstrates that: (1) each of the prerequisites of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) have been met; and (2) the proposed class satisfies at least one of the requirements listed in Rule 23(b). Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338, 345 (2011). Rule 23(a) requires a showing that: (1) the proposed class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable; (2) there are questions of law or fact common to the class; (3) the claims or defenses of the representative parties are typical of the claims or defenses of the class; and (4) the representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a).
In addition to meeting the four prerequisites in subdivision (a), a party must also demonstrate one of the following: (1) a risk that separate actions would create incompatible standards of conduct for the defendant or prejudice individual class members not parties to the action; (2) the defendant has treated the members of the class as a class, making appropriate injunctive or declaratory relief with respect to the class as a whole; or (3) common questions of law or fact predominate over questions affecting individual members and that a class action is a superior method for fairly and efficiently adjudicating the action. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(1)-(3). Once the requirements of Rule 23(a) and 23(b) are met, a Court must certify the lawsuit in question as a class action. Walco Investments, Inc. v. Thenen, 168

19

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 158 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/06/2020 Page 20 of 40

F.R.D. 315, 323 (S.D. Fla. 1996). Generally, Rule 23 is liberally construed in order to further its objectives. Id.
Most importantly, in determining whether to certify a class, the Court is not to examine the underlying merits of the claims. See Eisen v. Carlisle & Jacquelin, 417 U.S. 156, 177-78 (1974); See also Cox v. American Cast Iron Pipe Co., 784 F.2d 1546, 1557 (11th Cir.1986), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 883 (1986).

B. Preliminary Injunction

A preliminary injunction is appropriate if the movant demonstrates: (1) a substantial likelihood of success on the merits; (2) that the preliminary injunction is necessary to prevent irreparable injury; (3) that the threatened injury outweighs the harm the preliminary injunction would cause the other litigant; and (4) that the preliminary injunction would not be averse to the public interest. Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 434 (2009).
“The first two factors of the traditional standard are the most critical.” Id. However, “the movant may also have his motion granted upon a lesser showing of a ‘substantial case on the merits’ when ‘the balance of the equities identified in factors 2, 3, and 4 weighs heavily in favor of granting the stay.’” Garcia-Mir v. Meese, 781 F. 2d 1450, 1453 (11th Cir. 1986) (quoting Ruiz v. Estelle, 650 F.2d 555, 565 (5th Cir.1981) (per curiam), cert. denied, 460 U.S. 1042 (1983)).

A. Class Certification

III. DISCUSSION

Petitioners seek certification of the following class:

All civil immigration detained individuals held by Respondents at the Krome Service Processing Center (“Krome”), the Broward Transitional Center (“BTC”), or at Glades County Detention Facility (“Glades”) when this action was filed, since this action was filed, or in the future.
(ECF No. 81 at 5.) Petitioners assert that they have met all the requirements of Rule 23. ICE
contends however, that Petitioners’ Motion for Class Certification should be denied because
(1) it is overbroad, (2) the proposed class is not adequately defined, and (3) the proposed class
would include detainees not detained at any of the three detention centers, such as those
20

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 158 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/06/2020 Page 21 of 40

transferred to other detention centers. ICE also argues that this Court lacks jurisdiction over detainees transferred or released from ICE detention. The Magistrate Judge issued an Amended R&R recommending that the Court deny the class certification motion concerning the habeas corpus demand for release but grant the motion, in part, and certify a class of all current detainees at the three South Florida facilities for the conditions-of-confinement claims (as opposed to the claim for release). (ECF No. 123 at 4-5.)

i. Article III Standing

The Court must first address the threshold issue of standing as it applies to the proposed class. To satisfy constitutional standing in federal court, a habeas petitioner (like other litigants) “must have suffered, or be threatened with, an actual injury traceable to the defendant and likely to be redressed by a favorable judicial decision.” Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 7 (1998) (quoting Lewis v. Continental Bank Corp., 494 U.S. 472, 477 (1990)).
Here, Petitioners are threatened with a heightened risk of severe illness and death upon contracting COVID-19, and said threat is easily traceable to their confinement in ICE custody. Accordingly, the Court rules that the Petitioners easily meet Article III’s standing requirements.

ii. Rule 23(a) Requirements

a.

Numerosity

Rule 23(a)(1) requires that the class be so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable. The question of whether Rule 23(a)(1) has been satisfied depends on the facts of each case. Walco Investments, 168 F.R.D. at 324.
Although a plaintiff need not show the precise number and identity of class members, mere speculation as to the number of parties involved and general allegations of numerosity are insufficient to satisfy Rule 23(a)(1). See Evans v. U.S. Pipe & Foundry Co., 696 F.2d 925 (11th Cir.1983). To satisfy this prerequisite, a plaintiff must ordinarily demonstrate some evidence or reasonable estimate of the number of purported class members. See Zeidman v. J. Ray McDermott & Co., Inc., 651 F.2d at 1038; See also Kreuzfeld A.G. v. Carnehammar, 138 F.R.D. 594, 599 (S.D.Fla.1991) (there exists no definite standard as to the size a given class must attain in order to satisfy Rule 23(a)(1)). While there is no fixed rule, a class

21

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 158 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/06/2020 Page 22 of 40

size less than twenty-one is typically considered inadequate, while a class size of more than forty is generally adequate. Cheney v. Cyberguard Corp., 213 F.R.D. 484, 489-90 (S.D. Fla. 2003) (citing Cox v. Am. Cast Iron Pipe Co., 784 F.2d 1546, 1553 (11th Cir. 1986)).
The number of class members, however, is not the determinative factor for establishing numerosity. Since the focus under Rule 23(a)(1) is on whether joinder of all members is practicable in view of the numerosity of the class, courts must consider a number of relevant factors, such as the geographic diversity of the class members, the nature of the action, the size of each plaintiff's claim, judicial economy and the inconvenience of trying individual lawsuits, and the ability of the individual class members to institute individual lawsuits. See Zeidman v. J. Ray McDermott & Co., Inc., 651 F.2d at 1038; See also Kreuzfeld A.G. v. Carnehammar, 138 F.R.D. at 599.
Petitioners are filing on behalf of a putative class of approximately 1400 individuals. nIn addition to the large number of members here, the class is also geographically dispersed across different counties in South Florida—detainees are being held in three ICE detention centers. The size and geographical diversity of the class renders joinder of all members impracticable. Gentry v. C & D Oil Co., 102 F.R.D. 490 (W.D.Ark. 1984) (joinder was impracticable where potential class members were located throughout a number of counties). For these reasons, the Court finds that the numerosity requirement of Rule 23(a)(1) has been met.

b.

Commonality

The second prerequisite of Rule 23(a) requires that there be questions of law or fact common to the class. This prerequisite does not require that all of the questions of law or fact raised by the case be common to all the plaintiffs. See Cox v. American Cast Iron Pipe Co., 784 F.2d 1546, 1557 (11th Cir.1986), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 883 (1986); See also Haitian Refugee Center, Inc. v. Nelson, 694 F.Supp. 864, 877 (S.D.Fla.1988), affirmed, 872 F.2d 1555 (11th Cir.1989). However, commonality “requires at least one question common to all of the class members, the answer to which is “apt to drive the resolution of the litigation.” Money v, Pritzker, Nos. 20-cv-2093, 20-cv-2094, 2020 WL 1820660, at *14 (N.D. Ill. Apr. 10, 2020) (internal citation omitted). “Commonality [also] requires the plaintiff to demonstrate that the class members have suffered the same injury.” Dukes, 564 U.S. at 350. The common

22

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 158 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/06/2020 Page 23 of 40
contention of injury “must be of such a nature that it is capable of class wide resolution— which means that determination of its truth or falsity will resolve an issue that is central to the validity of each one of the claims in one stroke.” Id.
Petitioners admit that there are “some factual differences between the class members claims.” (ECF No. 81 at 9). Nevertheless, Petitioners assert that the commonality requirement is a low threshold, which is satisfied here because controlling questions of law and fact are common to the entire class-- whether ICE has been deliberately indifferent to the risk that people detained at Krome, BTC, and Glades will contract COVID-19 due to the unhygienic conditions and an inability to protect themselves through social distancing and ICE’s failure to implement its Alternatives to Detention Program. (Id. at 9-12.) Petitioners further argue that given how viruses spread, that deliberate indifference applies uniformly to all people in ICE custody at the three facilities at issue here. (Id.) Petitioners also assert that ICE’s uniformly unsanitary practices and its consistent refusal to follow CDC Guidelines at Krome, BTC, and Glades expose each class member to the same “substantial risk of serious harm.” (Id.)
ICE asserts that the Motion should be denied because Petitioners have not satisfied the commonality requirement due to the “dissimilarities within the proposed class.” (ECF No. 92 at 6.) ICE points to the fact that each of the three facilities has a different physical plant, configuration, as well as capacity for detaining individuals. (Id.) ICE also argues that the Court cannot resolve claims central to each class member because whether a particular detainee’s living arrangement meets CDC Guidelines, or demonstrates a lack of deliberate indifference, will depend upon an individualized determination. Thus, ICE contends that this is not a resolution of a claim central to each class member’s claim “in one stroke.” (Id.)
Petitioners claim entitlement to a comprehensive response to the pandemic. However, the Court observes that the relief sought by Petitioners is particularized and necessarily requires an individualized assessment of each detainees’ vulnerabilities to COVID-19, as well as an individualized assessment as to each detainee’s eligibility for release. It is feasible that at least some petitioners will be denied release. But, Petitioners also allege a course of common conduct, which includes failure to implement adequate precautionary measures and protocols, lack of access to hygiene products, health products, education, testing, and personal protective equipment, and most important, social distancing has not been achieved. (ECF No.
23

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 158 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/06/2020 Page 24 of 40

123 at 44.) The Petitioners share two main legal questions—whether ICE’s conduct at the three detention centers amount to deliberate indifference and expose detainees to substantial risk of harm, and whether such conduct results in conditions of confinement that violate Petitioners constitutional rights. See Wal-Mart, 564 U.S. at 350 (commonality does not require perfect uniformity.) The existence, scope, and adequacy of those measures are central to all Petitioners’ claims.
The Court finds that Petitioners have met the commonality requirement of 23(a)(2) only with respect to their conditions of confinement claim.

c.

Typicality

Under this third requirement of Rule 23(a), the named plaintiffs must present claims that are typical of the claims of the class. The typicality requirement centers on the relationship between the proposed class representatives and the other members of the class. Ibrahim v. Acosta, 326 F.R.D. 696, 700 (S.D. Fla. 2018). The named plaintiffs’ claims are typical if they stem from the same event, practice, or course of conduct that forms the basis of the class claims and are based upon the same legal or remedial theory. Walco Investments, 168 F.R.D. at 326 (internal citations omitted).
To meet the typicality requirement, the named plaintiffs must demonstrate that the members of the class have the same or similar grievances as themselves. Id. In other words, the named representatives must be able to establish the bulk of the elements of each class members’ claims when they prove their own claims. See General Telephone Company of Southwest v. Falcon, 457 U.S. 147 (1982).
In the instant case, Petitioners allege that they’ve suffered the same injury because they’re subject to the same confinement under the same unconstitutional conditions caused by the same entity, which is exposing them all to an unreasonable heightened risk of serious illness. (ECF No. 123 at 44.) These failures result in punitive conditions of confinement.
The Court finds that Petitioners have met the typicality requirement of 23(a)(3) only with respect to their conditions of confinement.

24

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 158 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/06/2020 Page 25 of 40

d.

Fair and Adequate Representation

The final prerequisite of Rule 23(a) requires a showing that the representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(4); Walco Investments, 168 F.R.D.at 327. Adequacy of the representation is a question of fact that depends on the assessment of two factors: “(1) whether plaintiffs’ counsel are qualified, experienced, and generally able to conduct the proposed litigation and . . . (2) whether plaintiffs have interests antagonistic to those of the rest of the class.” See Cheney v. Cyberguard Corp., 213 F.R.D. 484, 496 (S.D. Fla. 2003) (quoting Kirkpatrick v. J.C. Bradford & Co., 827 F.2d 718, 726 (11th Cir. 1987)).
In determining whether a proposed class representative will adequately protect the interests of the class, the Court asks whether the proposed class representatives and their counsel have any conflicts of interest with any class members and whether the proposed class representatives and their counsel will prosecute the action vigorously on behalf of the class. Hanlon v. Chrysler Corp., 150 F.3d 1011, 1020 (9th Cir. 1998).
ICE has not challenged the adequacy of Petitioners’ counsel. The Court notes that Petitioners’ counsel have extensive experience in representing clients in class action suits throughout the United States.36 There is no indication of a disqualifying conflict of interest. Accordingly, the Court is satisfied that Petitioners’ counsel and the proposed class representatives will fairly and adequately represent the interest of the class as to conditions of confinement.

iii. Rule 23(b)

Having determined that the Petitioners have met the four prerequisites of 23(a), the Court must consider whether the class also satisfies one of the three provisions of Rule 23(b). In this action, Petitioners seek certification under Rule 23(b). Rule 23(b) sets out two requirements for the maintenance of a class action: (i) questions of law or fact common to the members of the class must predominate over any questions affecting only individual

36 The proposed class counsel are King & Spalding LLP, the Immigration Clinic at the University of Miami School of Law, the Rapid Defense Network (a New York State nonprofit legal services organization), Prada Urizar, LLC, the Southern Poverty Law Center, Americans for Immigrant Justice, and the Legal Aid Service of Broward County.
25

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 158 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/06/2020 Page 26 of 40
members; and (ii) a class action must be superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of the controversy at hand. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3).
To certify a class under Rule23(b)(2), the Court must first find that common issues of law or fact predominate over individual issues. The critical inquiry is “whether class members seek uniform relief from a practice applicable to all of them.” Rodriguez I, 591 F.3d at 1125-26 (9th Cir. 2010) (internal citation and quotation marks omitted) (finding certification under Rule 23(b)(2) proper where “proposed members of the class each challenge Respondents’ practice of prolonged detention of detainees without providing a bond hearing and seek as relief a bond hearing with the burden placed on the government”).
Because ICE’s actions and inactions apply to the class generally, the Court determines that Rule 23(b)(2)’s requirements are satisfied. Parsons v. Ryan, 754 F.3d 657, 689 (9th Cir. 2014) (finding Rule 23(b)(2) satisfied where the state department of corrections established policies and practices that placed “every inmate in custody in peril” and all class members sought essentially the same injunctive relief). In addition, it would be extremely inconvenient and a waste of valuable judicial resources to try several hundred individual lawsuits.
The Court finds that class certification is appropriate.
B. Preliminary Injunction
The Court now considers whether a preliminary injunction is appropriate here. A preliminary injunction is an “extraordinary and drastic remedy,” and a party seeking the relief bears the “burden of persuasion” to clearly establish all four prerequisites. Wreal, LLC v. Amazon.com, Inc., 840 F.3d 1244, 1247 (11th Cir. 2016) (citing Siegel v. LePore, 234 F.3d 1163, 1176 (11th Cir. 2000)); accord Levi Strauss & Co. v. Sunrise Int’l Trading Inc., 51 F.3d 982, 985 (11th Cir. 1995). However, districts courts are empowered with broad equitable power— particularly in these uncertain times-- to grant a remedy that may present the only adequate remedy. See Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Bd. Of Educ., 402 U.S. 1, 15-16 (1971) (“Once a right and a violation have been shown, the scope of a district court’s equitable powers to remedy past wrongs is broad, for breadth and flexibility are inherent in equitable remedies.”).
Prison health is public health. In the face of a pandemic that has claimed over 100,000 lives in America, the Court finds that Petitioners are likely to succeed on the merits of one or more of their claims, will suffer irreparable harm as a result of the deprivation of their rights,
26

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 158 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/06/2020 Page 27 of 40
and that the balance of equities and public interest heavily weigh in favor of granting preliminary relief.37
i. Success on the Merits
Petitioners assert three claims: (1) Fifth Amendment violation (violation of detention standards), (2) Fifth Amendment and Eighth Amendment violations (violation of right to reasonable safety), and (3) Fifth Amendment violation (state-created danger).
Immigration detainees, like the Petitioners here, are subject to the same rights as civil detainees. Mehmood v. Guerra, 783 F. App’x 938, 941 (11th Cir. 2019) (holding that the district court improperly classified immigration detainee as a prisoner rather than as a civil detainee). And civil detainees are afforded “more constitutional protection, more considerate treatment, and conditions of confinement than criminals whose conditions of confinement are designed to punish.” Youngberg v. Romeo, 457 U.S. 307, 321-22 (1982). The Government may not impose on civil detainees conditions that would violate a convicted prisoner’s Eighth Amendment rights. See Hamm v. DeKalb Cty., 774 F.2d 1567, 1573-74 (11th Cir. 1985) (citing City of Revere v. Mass. Gen. Hosp., 463 U.S. 239, 244 (1983) (“[T]he due process rights of a [pretrial detainee] are at least as great as the Eighth Amendment protections available to a convicted prisoner.”).
37 Several district courts across the country have ordered the release of § 2241 alien detaineepetitioners, explaining that pressing health risks of COVID-19 combined with ICE detention necessitate release. See , e.g. Castillo v. Barr, No. 20-cv-00605, 2020 WL 1502864 (C.D. Cal. March 27, 2020) (releasing petitioners and granting petitioners’ application for a TRO because “[u]nder the Due Process Clause, a civil detainee cannot be subject to the current conditions of confinement at Adelanto” even though there had been no confirmed cases reported at the facility); Roman v. Wolf, No. 20-cv-00768, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 72080 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 23, 2020)(granting immigration detainees’ § 2241 petition for preliminary injunction and releasing them); Essien v. Barr, No. 20-cv-1034-WJM, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 72422 (D.Co. Apr. 24, 2020)(granting immigration detainee’s § 2241 petition for preliminary injunction and releasing 55-year old petitioner who suffered from hypertension even though there were no confirmed COVID-19 cases at the immigration detention center); Malam v. Adducci, No. 20cv-10829, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 59407 (E.D. Mich. Apr. 5, 2020)(granting TRO and releasing habeas petitioner because she was “likely to succeed on the merits of her claim that her continued confinement during the COVID-19 pandemic violates her Fifth Amendment rights.”)
27

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 158 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/06/2020 Page 28 of 40

The minimum standard of care to be provided to civil detainees under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment is the same as that allowed by the Eighth Amendment for convicted persons. Hamm, 774 F.2d at 1574; see also Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 535 n. 16 (1979) (holding that the Due Process rights of a civil detainee are at least as great as the Eighth Amendment protections available to a convicted prisoner). The Due Process Clause similarly “imposes a duty on state actors to protect or care for citizens when the state affirmatively places a particular individual in a position of danger the individual would not otherwise have faced.” Gregory v. City of Rogers, Ark, 974 F.2d 1006, 1010 (8th Cir. 1992) (en banc).
The Eighth Amendment prohibits the infliction of cruel and unusual punishment. Robinson v. California, 370 U.S. 660 (1962). Under that provision, the Government may not impose punishments that shock the conscience, involve unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain, offend evolving notions of decency, or are grossly disproportionate to the offense for which they are imposed. See Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 102-03 (1976); Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153, 173 (1976); Trop v. Dulles, 356 U.S. 86, 101 (1958). Various conditions, “alone or in combination, may deprive inmates of the minimal civilized measure of life’s necessities. Such conditions could be cruel and unusual under the contemporary standard of decency.” Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337, 347 (1981). On that basis, courts have held that government actors violate the Eighth Amendment when they are deliberately indifferent to a detainee’s serious medical needs. See, e.g. Estelle, 429 U.S. at 106.

a.

Deliberate Indifference to Medical Needs

Deliberate indifference to serious medical needs of prisoners “constitutes unnecessary and wanton” infliction of pain proscribed by the Eighth Amendment. Estelle, 429 U.S. at 104. To state a cognizable claim, a detainee must allege acts or omissions sufficiently harmful to evidence deliberate indifference to serious medical needs. It is only such indifference that can offend “evolving standards of decency” in violation of the Eighth Amendment. Estelle, 429 U.S. at 106.
To prove deliberate indifference in violation of Eighth Amendment, a detainee must satisfy three burdens. First, the detainee must satisfy the objective component by showing that she had a serious medical need. Bozeman v. Orum, 422 F.3d 1265, 1272 (11th Cir.2005) (per curiam). Second, the detainee must satisfy the subjective component by showing that ICE

28

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 158 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/06/2020 Page 29 of 40
officials acted with deliberate indifference to the serious medical need. Id. Third, the detainee must show that the injury was caused by ICE’s wrongful conduct. See Goebert v. Lee Cty., 510 F.3d 1312, 1326 (11th Cir. 2007) (citing Hale v. Tallapoosa County, 50 F.3d 1579, 1582 (11th Cir.1995).
Determining whether one had a serious medical need is an objective inquiry. A medical need satisfies the objective component when it “is one that has been diagnosed by a physician as mandating treatment or one that is so obvious that even a lay person would easily recognize the necessity for a doctor’s attention.” Id. While most cases are mild, COVID-19 has proven itself to be lethal in the most severe cases, with some portion of the infected expected to require either a ventilator or other intravenous treatment. (Greer Decl. ¶20.) Further, although experts agree that the most vulnerable demographics are the elderly or those with underlying medical conditions, COVID-19 attacks all age groups indiscriminately and it is impossible to determine who will succumb to the illness. It is possible that if Petitioners contract the disease, at least some of them will require a doctor’s attention. Helling v. McKinney, 509 U.S. 25, 33 (1993) (“It would be odd to deny an injunction to inmates who plainly proved an unsafe, life-threatening condition in their prison on the ground that nothing yet had happened to them.”) Petitioners have satisfied the objective component of the deliberate indifference test.
A medical need satisfies the subjective component when a plaintiff shows (1) subjective knowledge of a risk of serious harm; (2) disregard of that risk; (3) by conduct that is more than negligence.” Goebert, 510 F.3d at 1327. Here, it’s hard to imagine that ICE is unaware of the risk of serious harm involved in contracting COVID-19. Indeed, ICE’s conduct—creating a set of guidelines and recommendations specifically addressing the pandemic—at least impliedly acknowledges a risk of serious harm.
As previously noted, the CDC’s Guidelines are clear that that transfers should be avoided or restricted and utilized as a last resort “unless necessary for medical evaluation, medical isolation/quarantine, clinical care, extenuating security concerns, or to prevent overcrowding.” (CDC’s Guideline at 9.) The CDC’s Guidelines further state that individuals with confirmed cases should be restricted from leaving detention facilities “unless released from custody or if a transfer is necessary for medical care, infection control, lack of medical isolation space, or extenuating security concerns.” (Id. at 17.) The CDC Guidelines also state
29

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 158 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/06/2020 Page 30 of 40
that to the extent that a transfer is “absolutely necessary,” ICE is to “perform verbal screening and a temperature check as outlined in the [CDC Guidelines] before the individual leaves the facility.” (Id. at 9.) If an individual does not clear the screening process, ICE is expected to “delay the transfer and follow the protocol for a suspected COVID-19 case— including putting a face mask on the individual, immediately placing them under medical isolation38, and evaluating them for possible COVID-19 testing.” (Id.) And “[i]f the transfer must still occur, ensure that the receiving facility has capacity to properly isolate the individual upon arrival.” (Id.)
ICE’s PRR similarly states, “[w]here possible, restrict transfers of detained non-ICE populations to and from other jurisdictions and facilities unless necessary for medical evaluation, isolation/quarantine, clinical care, or extenuating security concerns.” (PRR at 13.) ICE has submitted to the Court that it has created checklists utilized to evaluate each detainee.
Yet, the Court has been presented with declarations and live testimony claiming that ICE continues to flout this Court’s Order by (1) failing to consistently evaluate detainees for COVID-19 before transferring them to other detention centers,39 (2) failing to provide protective masks during the transfer process; and (3) failing to provide meaningful access to hygiene products soap, hand sanitizers, masks, gloves and cleaning supplies. (ECF Nos.106; 106-2.).
38 Medical isolation is not the equivalent of quarantining. Rather, medical isolation “refers to confining a confirmed or suspected COVID-19 case (ideally to a single cell with solid walls and a solid door that closes), to prevent contact with others and to reduce the risk of transmission.” (CDC Guidelines at 3.) 39 ICE openly admits that testing at some of the detention centers are limited. (ECF No. 33-1 ¶15.) The Court is well aware that testing capabilities is limited nationwide. However, since the introduction of COVID-19, experts have developed antibody tests which effectively demonstrate whether an individual ever contracted the disease in the past. To the Court’s knowledge, such antibody tests are more readily available and accessible than COVID-19 tests. Accordingly, the Court speculates that ICE may utilize such antibody tests in making a thorough assessment about a detainee’s COVID-19 status, which may in turn inform whether a detainee should be transferred. While unproven, experts believe that people who have contracted the disease retain at least some immunity to the virus for a period of time. https://www.livescience.com/covid-19-immunity.html. Presumably, detainees who test positive for COVID-19 antibodies may have acquired immunity which would make them a candidate for transfer.
30

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 158 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/06/2020 Page 31 of 40
At the June 3, 2020, Hearing Mr. Borges provided testimony about his lived experience with ICE’s transfer process. Mr. Borges testified that he was not tested for COVID-19 before he was transferred from BTC to Stewart Detention Center (“Stewart”) in Georgia. He also testified that he was not processed at Stewart upon arrival. Rather, he was almost immediately transferred back to BTC. He was not tested before he was transferred from Stewart back to BTC. Mr. Borges also testified that he was not provided a mask during the transfer process, so he used the same mask, soiled from two days of wear, before his transfer from BTC to Stewart. Mr. Borges wore the same mask when he was transferred back to BTC. Disturbingly, guards did not wear masks during Mr. Borges’ transfer process. Indeed, the ICE guard that escorted Mr. Borges to the Hearing was not donning a mask, despite being seated a mere two feet away from Mr. Borges. Such behavior not only violates the spirit and the letter of TRO, it also amounts to deliberate indifference because it demonstrates a blameworthy disregard of the risks posed by COVID-19 by exponentially increasing the risk of spreading the virus to other detention centers40—conduct that far exceeds mere negligence and evidences a reckless state of mind. ICE does not test all detainees before transferring them because it doesn’t have enough tests to do so. (ECF No. 63 at 37.) Instead, ICE only tests people who display symptoms (Id.)—which may have resulted in the transfer of some detainees who are asymptomatic but still carry the virus. In fact, media reports state that an increase in COVID19 cases across all three detention centers largely correlates with the increase in ICE transfers during the pandemic.41
Congress conferred broad discretionary authority to the Attorney General of the United States, to determine the places of detention for aliens detained pending removal or a decision on removal. 8 U.S.C. § 1232(g)(1). The same authority is conferred to ICE by extension. CallaCollado v. Atty. General, 663 F.3d 680 (3rd Cir. 2011). However, ICE’s authority is not absolute. District Courts are granted authority to review agency action and hold unlawful and set aide agency action found to be “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion or otherwise not in accordance with the law.” 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(a). Transferring
40 Such conduct could also have some ramifications for the public at large because staff or visitors may unwittingly carry the virus back into their communities. 41 https://www.sun-sentinel.com/coronavirus/fl-ne-coronavirus-numbers-spike-at-browardice-facility-20200520-v62esjzwxrhn7pfjekta3ldegi-story.html
31

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 158 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/06/2020 Page 32 of 40
detainees without first screening them for COVID-19 or providing any protective equipment is not only a violation on ICE’s authority, it is a violation of Petitioners’ constitutional rights.
Further, the CDC’s Guidelines state that the practice of cohorting should be utilized “only if there are no available options.” (CDC’s Guideline at 15.) Both the CDC’s Guidelines and ICE’s PRR state, “[o]nly individuals who are laboratory confirmed COVID-19 cases should be placed under medical isolation as a cohort. Do not cohort confirmed cases with suspected cases or case contacts.” (Id. at 16; PRR at 14.) Despite the fact that its own Guidelines call for detention facilities to avoid group cohorting, ICE flagrantly flouts its own rules on the subject and groups asymptomatic42 detainees together. ICE admits that it is currently cohorting 320 detainees at Glades—the entire detainee population—“as a precautionary measure, per the established protocol.” On June 3, 2020, Mr. Borges testified that upon transferring back to BTC, he was quarantined for 14 days. During his quarantine he was taken to recreation at the same time as individuals known to be sick with COVID-19. Such practices substantially increase a detainee’s exposure to COVID-19. And ICE’s failure to comply with its own Guidelines, which explicitly acknowledges the risks involved in cohorting in the manner described herein is further evidence of deliberate indifference.
ICE’s submissions to the Court establish that ICE considers a sizeable portion of its population to be mandatory detainees. However, 25.9% of the detainee’s ICE classifies as mandatory detainees have no conviction or pending charges. (ECF No. 142 at p.60.) Notably, ICE does not claim mandatory detention for 23.3% of the populations across all three detention centers. (Id. at p.58.) But ICE has not released such individuals and has not provided any explanation as to why. Moreover, ICE’s conduct flies in the face of directives from Attorney Gen. William Barr to the Federal Bureau of Prisons urging the prioritization of home confinement, noting “[w]e have to move with dispatch . . . to move vulnerable inmates out of these institutions.”43 Under such directives,44 ICE would be expected to make
42 It is unclear to the Court how ICE manages to determine which detainees are asymptomatic considering that COVID-19 tests are limited and ICE has stated that it only tests detainees for COVID-19 if they display symptoms. (ECF No. 63 at 37.) 43 April 3, 2020 Memorandum of Hon. W. Barr to the Director of Bureau of Prisons, at 1. 44 Although Mr. Barr’s Memorandums are directed to the Federal Bureau of Prisons, ICE’s guidelines contain specific standards that mirror Mr. Barr’s directives with respect to which detainees should be immediately released.
32

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 158 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/06/2020 Page 33 of 40
meaningful utilize its “Alternatives to Detention Program” by determining who among the 23.3% can be released to alternative confinement. Petitioners have satisfied the subjective component of the deliberate indifference test.
Pursuant to the PRR, ICE is tasked with maintaining social distancing among detainees, (PRR at 14), providing each detainee with hygiene products, (PRR at 8), and providing each detainee with masks, (PRR at 9)45. Credible testimony and sworn declarations filed in this matter after the issuances of the TRO suggest that ICE has only partially complied with its own directives or CDC Guidelines despites its submissions to the Court and paint a grim picture of an agency steeped in deliberate indifference. “During a pandemic, such as this, it is likely punitive for a civil detention administrator to fail to mandate compliance with widely accepted hygiene, protective equipment, and distancing measures until the peak of the pandemic.” Fraihat v. U.S. Immigration & Customs Enf’t, No. EDCV 19-1546 JGB (C.D. Cal. Apr. 20, 2020), ECF No. 132, at 34.
Petitioners are likely to succeed on their Fifth Amendment and Eighth Amendment claims.
ii. Likelihood of Irreparable Harm
The Court now turns to whether the Petitioners have established irreparable harm. A plaintiff must demonstrate she is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of a preliminary injunction. Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008). The showing of irreparable harm is “[p]erhaps the single most important prerequisite for the issuance of a preliminary injunction. . .that if. . .not granted the applicant is likely to suffer irreparable harm before a decision on the merits can be rendered.” Great Am. Ins. Co. v. Fountain Eng’g, Inc., No. 15-CIV-10068-JLK, 2015 WL 6395283, at *3 (S.D. Fla. Oct. 22, 2015). In addition, the asserted irreparable harm must be “neither remote nor speculative, but actual and imminent.” Siegel v. LePore, 234 F.3d 1163, 1176 (11th Cir. 2000).
45 The Court recognizes that the PRR does not explicitly mandate that ICE provide detainees with masks. However, the Court interprets the PRR’s directive that “cloth face coverings should be worn by detainees and staff (when PPE supply is limited) to help slow the spread of COVID-19,” (PRR at 9), implies such mandate because detainees are not in a position to freely procure masks for themselves given their detention.
33

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 158 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/06/2020 Page 34 of 40
To demonstrate irreparable harm, a movant must show “that the injury cannot be undone through monetary remedies.” Winmark Corp. v. Brenoby Sports, Inc., 32 F.Supp.3d 1206, 1223 (S.D.Fla.2014). “It is well established that the deprivation of constitutional rights ‘unquestionably constitutes irreparable injury.’” Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S. 347, 373 (1976)).
Petitioners establish irreparable harm by alleging a deprivation of constitutional rights. The “alleged violation of a constitutional right ... triggers a finding of irreparable harm,” Jolly v. Coughlin, 76 F.3d 468, 482 (2d Cir. 1996). Here, Petitioners allege that their substantive and procedural due process rights have been violated. Accordingly, “no further showing of irreparable injury is necessary.” Mitchell v. Cuomo, 748 F.2d 804, 806 (2d Cir. 1984) (“When an alleged deprivation of a constitutional right is involved, most courts hold that no further showing of irreparable injury is necessary.”).
Petitioners have established they will suffer the irreparable harm of increased likelihood of severe illness and death if a preliminary injunction is not entered. The Constitution protects those in detention against “a condition of confinement that is sure or very likely to cause serious illness and needless suffering the next week or month or year.” Helling v. McKinney, 509 U.S. 25, 33 (1993) (“It would be odd to deny an injunction to inmates who plainly proved an unsafe, life-threatening condition in their prison on the ground that nothing yet had happened to them.”); see also W. Alabama Women’s Ctr. v. Miller, 217 F. Supp. 3d 1313, 1334 (M.D. Ala. 2016) (recognizing that increased risk of medical complications constitutes irreparable harm.); Unknown Parties v. Johnson, 2016 WL 8188563, at *15 (D. Ariz. No. 18, 2016), aff’d sub nom Doe v. Kelly, 878 F.3d 710 (9th Cir. 2017) (finding evidence of “medical risks associated with . . . being exposed to communicable diseases” adequate to establish irreparable harm).
Even in the early days of the pandemic, and with few exceptions, courts did not hesitate to find irreparable harm as a result of potential COVID-19 exposure in prison and detention, including in facilities where there had not been a confirmed case.46 At this stage of
46 See ,e.g. Basank v. Decker, _ F. Supp. 3d_, No. 20-cv-2518, 2020 WL 1481503 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 26, 2020) (granting TRO and releasing alien detainee § 2241 petitioners on their own recognizance who suffered from serious chronic medical conditions and were detained in connection with their removal proceedings in county jails where cases of COVID-19 had been identified); Coronel v. Decker, _ F. Supp. 3d_, No. 20-cv-2472, 2020 WL 1487274 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 27, 2020) (granting TRO and releasing alien detainee § 2241 petitioners who
34

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 158 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/06/2020 Page 35 of 40
the pandemic, the threat is even clearer. As previously noted, the number of COVID-19 cases within each detention center at issue has risen, especially with the aggressive utilization of transfers—evidence that there truly is a heightened risk of contracting the disease within the detention centers. ICE does not argue that COVID-19 poses serious risk to detainees. Rather, ICE asserts that the Court should respect its unfettered authority to manage and maintain the detention centers.47 The Court reminds ICE that it has not made any efforts to usurp its role in the administration of detention centers. Rather, the Court has ordered that ICE follow its own guidelines in its management of the pandemic within detention centers. ICE reports that it has complied with the TRO in this regard. Still, there are credible reports from the Petitioners stating otherwise. (ECF No. 106-2.)
iii. Balance of the Equities and Public Interest
Where the government is the opposing party, balancing of the harm and the public interest merge. See Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 435 (2009). Thus, the Court asks whether any significant “public consequences” would result from issuing the preliminary injunction. Winter, 555 U.S. at 24.
The balance of the equities weighs in favor of granting an injunction. The Petitioners face irreparable harm to their constitutional rights and health. Indeed, there is no harm to the Government from engaging in unlawful practices. Fraihat, 2020 WL 1932570, at *28 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 20, 2020) (“The balance of equities sharply incline in Plaintiffs’ favor. ‘It is always in the public interest to prevent the violation of a party’s constitutional rights.’”) (citation omitted); Hernandez Roman v. Wolf, 2020 WL 1952656, at *12 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 23, 2020) (“The balance of equities, here, tip sharply in favor of the class members; the class members
demonstrated a likelihood of success on claim government’s actions constituted deliberate indifference to their medical needs which predisposed them to higher risk of COVID-19; Kaur v. United States Dep’t of Homeland Sec., No. 2:20-cv-03172-ODW, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 71228 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 22, 2020) (granting TRO and releasing alien detainee § 2241 petitioners who demonstrated a likelihood of success on their due process claim); Durel B. v. Decker, No. 20cv-3430, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 69220 (D.N.J. Apr. 21, 2020) (granting TRO and releasing 2241 immigration detainee petitioner); Leandro R. P. v. Decker, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 67607 (D.N.J. Apr. 17, 2020) (same); Jason Anthony W. v. Anderson, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 69562 (D.N.J. Apr. 17, 2020) (same). 47 It is true that ICE is granted broad authority to act, however, ICE may not use its powers to act in an arbitrary and capricious manner.
35

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 158 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/06/2020 Page 36 of 40
face irreparable harm to their constitutional rights and health. The Government is not harmed when a court prevents the Government from engaging in unlawful practices.”).
C. Motion to Compel
Petitioners maintain ICE is merely “shuffling people around the country to make the population statistics at Krome, Glades, and BTC look better on paper.” Rather than releasing detainees under its Alternatives to Detention Program. (ECF No. 106 at 2.) Petitioners assert that ICE conducts the transfers in highly unsanitary conditions and that detainees are then deposited into conditions that are at least as bad or worse than the conditions this Court outlined on April 30. (Id.) Petitioners allege that ICE’s conduct is an effort to destroy this Court’s jurisdiction over the detainees they have transferred. (Id. at 3.)
Conversely, ICE takes the position that it has complied with this Court’s TRO by (1) providing adequate soap, water, and masks to all detainees, and (2) meeting all the reporting requirements pursuant to the Court’s Order. (ECF No. 116 at 2-3.)
ICE further maintains that in an effort comply with the Court’s TRO, ICE reduced its population size at the three detention centers by properly exercising its discretion in transferring detainees to other locations pursuant to 8 U.S.C. §1252. (Id. at 3-5.) ICE cites to CallaCollado v. Atty. General, 663 F.3d 680 (3rd Cir. 2011), stating, “the Third Circuit observed that as a part of DHS, ICE ‘necessarily has the authority to determine the location of detention of an alien in deportation proceedings … and therefore, to transfer aliens from one detention center to another.’” (Id. at 4.) ICE alleges that it not only evaluates each detainee before transferring them, it has also evaluated every detainee at each detention facility. (Id. at 5-6) ICE also states that it uses a checklist prior to any transfer “ICE reviews the detainee’s medical history and obtains a medical clearance.” (Id. at 7.) ICE admits that detainees transferred from Krome to BTC tested positive for COVID-19. (Id.) However, ICE does not believe any of its practices led to the increase in cases because ICE isolates new transfers for a 14-day period and because detainees are given masks during the transportation process. (Id.) Further, while ICE stands by its reporting that it evaluated each detainee’s eligibility for release, ICE argues it is not obligated to create a detailed analysis to support its decision not to release a particular detainee, nor is it required to provide a detailed explanation as to why a particular detainee is transferred. (Id. at 10-11.) ICE notes that it has grievance procedures
36

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 158 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/06/2020 Page 37 of 40
in place that detainees may utilize and that the Court should defer to ICE’s judgment in its efforts to manage its facilities during the pandemic.48
ICE emphasizes that this Court lacks jurisdiction to review conditions of confinement at the locations to which detainees have been transferred. The Court disagrees. The Court maintains jurisdiction over all detainees in this action, even those who have been transferred outside of the state of Florida. Ahrnes v. Clark, 335 U.S. 188, 193 (1948) (stating, “jurisdiction of the District Court [is] not defeated [by transferring a habeas corpus petitioner to a different district and court], no matter how proper the motive behind the removal. . . in that situation the court can act as long as it can reach a person who has custody of the petitioner.”); see also Ex parte Mitsuye Endo, 323 U.S. 283, 306 (1944); Spears v. Thigpen, 846 F.2d 1327, 1328 (11th Cir. 1988) (finding that claims specific to facility were mooted by transfer but challenge to systemic use of segregation remained live where plaintiff remained in segregation after transfer).
In sum, in this moment of worldwide peril from a highly contagious pathogen, the Court is not satisfied that ICE’s commitment to detention has meaningfully shifted since the start of the pandemic. Even with the TRO in place, Detainees report that (1) social distancing is still impossible, (2) education on the use and importance of masks is inconsistent, (3) transfers are conducted haphazardly, and (4) cohorting is conducted in a manner that substantially increases the risk of spread of the contagion.
The Court is not persuaded by ICE’s argument that each detainee must individually file grievance reports regarding their conditions of confinement. (ECF No. 116 at 8.) The CDC estimates approximately 16 days between the onset of symptoms and death with an incubation period between 2 and 14 days.49 Thus, it is unreasonable to expect detainees to
48 ICE raises this argument for the first time in its Response to the Motion to Compel. (ECF No. 116.) 49 Stephen A. Lauer, MS, PhD, The Incubation Period of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) From Publicly Reported Confirmed Cases: Estimation and Application, Mar. 10, 2020, https://annals.org/aim/fullarticle/2762808/incubation-periodcoronavirusdisease-2019-covid-19-from-publicly-reported.
37

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 158 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/06/2020 Page 38 of 40
first engage ICE’s protracted grievance mechanisms. Accordingly, the Motion to Compel is GRANTED.50
IV. CONCLUSION
It is hereby ORDERED and ADJUDGED as follows:
1. The Amended R&R on Petitioners’ Motion for Class Certification, ECF No. 123, is AFFIRMED and ADOPTED as the Order of this Court. It is hereby ORDERED and ADJUDGED that the Court now certifies the following class: All current civil immigration detainees who are now held by ICE at Krome, BTC, and Glades when this action was filed, since this action was filed, or in the future.
2. Petitioners’ Emergency Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Motion for Preliminary Injunction for Proposed Class and Incorporated, ECF No. 4, is GRANTED as a preliminary injunction as follows: a. ICE shall immediately comply with the CDC and ICE guidelines by providing Petitioners and the class members with unrestricted access to hand soap, hand sanitizer, and disposable hand towels to facilitate handwashing. b. Provide cleaning supplies for each housing area and CDC-recommended disinfectants in sufficient quantities to facilitate frequent cleaning, including in quantities sufficient for each inmate to clean and disinfect the floor and all surfaces of his own housing cubicle, and provide new gloves and masks for each inmate during each time they are cleaning or performing janitorial services. c. Provide all inmates and staff members with masks and educate them on the importance and proper use of masks. d. Increase regular cleaning and disinfecting of all common areas and surfaces, including common-use items such as television controls, books, and gym and sports equipment. e. Limit transportation of detainees to only instances regarding immediately necessary medical appointments and release from custody.
50The Court understands that the TRO expires on June 5, 2020. However, because the TRO has been converted to a Preliminary Injunction, ICE is expected to also comply with the Preliminary Injunction.
38

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 158 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/06/2020 Page 39 of 40
f. For transportation necessary for prisoners to receive medical treatment or be released, CDC-recommended social distancing requirements should be strictly enforced in buses, vans, and planes.
g. Post signage and information in common areas that provides: (i) general updates and information about the COVID-19 pandemic; (ii) information on how inmates can protect themselves from contracting COVID-19; and (iii) instructions on how to properly wash hands. Among other locations, all signage must be posted in every housing area and above every sink.
h. Educate inmates on the COVID-19 pandemic by providing information about the COVID-19 pandemic, COVID-19 symptoms, COVID-19 transmission, and how to protect oneself from COVID-19. A staff person at each detention center must give an oral presentation or show an educational video with the above-listed information to all detainees and give all detainees an opportunity to ask questions.
i. ICE shall perform an internal review pursuant to ICE’s PRR and file with the Court weekly reports (every Friday by 4:00 P.M.) on the following: i. The number of detainees who have been released; ii. Which facility they were released from; and iii. The nature of the detainee released (e.g., in a high-risk category because of age or a specific, documented medical condition, etc.).
j. Within ten (10) days of this Order, ICE shall submit weekly (every Monday by 4:00 P.M.) reports on the following: i. How many detainees it is housing on the date of reporting; ii. At which of the three centers the detainees are being housed; iii. Which of the detainees are considered “mandatory detainees”; and iv. Which of the detainees have no prior criminal convictions and no pending criminal charges.
3. The Preliminary Injunction is in effect until a full trial in the matter and/or further order of the Court.
4. Petitioners’ Motion to Compel Compliance with the Court’s April 30, 2020 Temporary Restraining Order, ECF 106, is GRANTED as follows:
39

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 158 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/06/2020 Page 40 of 40
a. ICE is permitted to transfer detainees but only after performing a verbal screening and a temperature check as outlined in the CDC Guidelines before the individual leaves the facility.
b. Within ten (10) days of this Order, ICE shall submit weekly Court documentation of its evaluations for release before any transfer is executed. The documentation must include an evaluation of each prospective transfer candidate for COVID-19.
c. ICE must provide a new mask to each transferee before the transfer process begins.
5. The Court shall retain jurisdiction over all class members who are transferred to other facilities regardless of where those facilities are located.
6. ICE shall not engage in the practice of cohorting unless ICE confirms through testing or other means that a prospective cohort candidate is a confirmed COVID-19 case. DONE and ORDERED in chambers, at Miami, Florida, this 5th day of June 2020.
Copies furnished to: Jonathan Goodman, U.S. Magistrate Judge Counsel of record
40

 
 Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 163 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/16/2020 Page 1 of 8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case No. 20-21553-Civ-COOKE/GOODMAN
PATRICK GAYLE, et al., Petitioners-Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and those similarly situated,
v. MICHAEL W. MEADE, et al.,
Respondents-Defendants. ____________________________________/
PLAINTIFFS’ EMERGENCY MOTION TO COMPEL COMPLIANCE WITH THE COURT’S JUNE 6, 2020 PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
In its June 6, 2020 Omnibus Order, the Court stated that “in this moment of worldwide peril from a highly contagious pathogen, the Court is not satisfied that ICE’s commitment to detention has meaningfully shifted since the start of the pandemic. Even with the TRO in place, people detained by ICE at the three facilities report that (1) social distancing is still impossible, (2) education on the use and importance of masks is inconsistent, (3) transfers are conducted haphazardly, and (4) cohorting is conducted in a manner that substantially increases the risk of spread of the contagion.” [ECF 158 at p. 37.]
Unfortunately, ICE still has not received the message about its obligations to protect the people in its custody from COVID-19. Despite the Court’s Order granting the preliminary injunction, and despite the history of this litigation itself, ICE refuses to comply with the Court’s instructions. Conditions at these facilities have predictably deteriorated. Petitioners therefore ask the Court to take further steps to enforce its injunction.
Improper Cohorting Practices The Court’s June 6 Order states that “ICE shall not engage in the practice of cohorting unless ICE confirms through testing or other means that a prospective cohort candidate is a confirmed COVID-19 case.” [ECF 158 at p. 40] However, the attached declarations show that this Court’s directive has not altered ICE’s practice, and in fact, people with confirmed
1

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 163 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/16/2020 Page 2 of 8
cases of COVID-19 are frequently placed in a cohort with people who have not been confirmed to have COVID-19, all but ensuring the unchecked spread of COVID-19 throughout the detention facilities.
 Petitioner Steve Cooper (who testified at the June 3 Hearing) is in a pod with about 25 people who have tested positive for COVID-19 who are housed with people who have not been tested. Cooper Decl. at ¶ 12 (Ex. A). As of June 9, 2020, counsel for Respondents had advised the Mr. Cooper had not tested positive for COVID-19. See June 9, 2020 email from Lee to Lehner (Ex. B).
 Petitioner Astley Thomas tested positive for COVID-19 on June 4, 2020 and is in a pod with approximately 61 people, many who do not have a confirmed case of COVID-19. Thomas Decl. at ¶ 8 (Ex. C).
 Petitioner Jermaine Scott has been told he tested positive for COVID-19 and is in a pod with asymptomatic people. Scott Decl. at ¶ 24 (Ex. D).
 Petitioner Roberto Leon tested positive for COVID-19. In the “pod where [he] is assigned, there are both people who have tested positive for COVID-19 and people who have not been tested.” Leon Decl. at ¶ 15 (Ex. E). There are 40 people in Mr. Leon’s pod who have not been tested. Id.
 Petitioner Paul Hamilton is housed with someone who has tested positive for COVID-19. Hamilton Decl. at ¶ 17 (Ex. F). His pod “is a mix of people who have tested positive for COVID-19, those who are waiting for their test results, and individuals like myself who have not been tested.” Id. at ¶ 27.
 Petitioner Terrance Taylor is in a pod with people who have tested positive for COVID-19 and people are not “given the chance to [] live separately from those who are COVID-19 positive.” Taylor Decl. at ¶ 32 (Ex. G).
 Petitioner Pedro Ortega tested positive for COVID-19 at Krome. He was taken out of medical isolation on June 11, 2020 and put back in his unit and remained there until “people in his unit found out he tested positive for the virus they became furious and started yelling that he needed to leave.” Potes Decl. at ¶ 7 (Ex. H).
Failing to Provide Cleaning Supplies The Court’s Order requires ICE to “[p]rovide cleaning supplies for each housing area and CDC-recommended disinfectants in sufficient quantities to facilitate frequent cleaning, including in quantities sufficient for each inmate to clean and disinfect the floor and all surfaces of his own housing cubicle, and provide new gloves and masks for each inmate during each time they are cleaning or performing janitorial services.” [ECF 158 at p. 38.]
2

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 163 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/16/2020 Page 3 of 8
That is still not being done consistently. At Glades, the detained men are not given enough cleaning supplies to clean the bathrooms and common areas. Warner Decl. at ¶ 13 (Ex. I); Monge Decl. at ¶ 13 (Ex. J).
Inadequate Mask Supply and Inconsistent Usage The Order requires that ICE “[p]rovide all inmates and staff members with masks and educate them on the importance and proper use of masks.” [ECF 158 at p. 38.] Yet, this is not being done. See Scott Decl. at ¶ 15 (“We are given masks, but they are often dirty and broken. The masks are replaced inconsistently.”); Warner Decl. at ¶ 14 (“We are given masks approximately once per week, but they break very easily so we are not always able to use them.”); Monge Decl. at ¶ 18 (“Not all the guards use their masks all the time. Sometimes, the guards have no masks. Other times, guards will have a mask but not have it on, it would be hanging around their neck.”). Lack of Social Distancing As this Court’s order recognized, ICE’s Pandemic Response Requirements “emphasizes that social distancing should be promoted within detention centers.” [ECF 158 at p. 10.] But this is still not happening. At Glades (which has seen a spike in COVID-positive cases since the last declarations were submitted), detained individuals continue to sleep in close quarters (less than 6 feet from each other) and are forced to line up “one right behind the other” to wait for meal service. Leon Declaration at ¶ 7 ; see also Scott Decl. at ¶ 17 (beds are close enough to reach out and touch others); Hamilton Decl. at ¶ 7 (“There is no social distancing in the pod.”); Taylor Decl. at ¶ 30 (detainees sleeping less than 12 inches apart); Cooper Decl. at ¶ 7 (bunks are just a “few inches apart”). Impeded Access to Soap and Sanitizer This Court’s Preliminary Injunction requires that “ICE shall immediately comply with the CDC and ICE guidelines by providing Petitioners and the class members with unrestricted access to hand soap, hand sanitizer, and disposable hand towels to facilitate handwashing.” [ECF 158 at p. 38.] These conditions are not being met. At Glades, hand soap runs out and is not refilled frequently, sometimes it is not refilled for three or four days. Taylor Decl. at ¶ 26; Leon Decl. at ¶ 9; Scott Decl. at ¶ 14; Monge Decl. at ¶ 17; Thomas Decl. at ¶ 11; Cooper Decl. at ¶ 8. Additionally, there is no hand sanitizer. Leon Decl. at ¶ 10; Hamilton Decl. at ¶ 8; Cooper Decl. at ¶ 8.
3

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 163 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/16/2020 Page 4 of 8
Lack of Education about COVID-19 The Court’s Preliminary Injunction required ICE to “[e]ducate inmates on the COVID-19 pandemic by providing information about the COVID-19 pandemic, COVID-19 symptoms, COVID-19 transmission, and how to protect oneself from COVID-19. A staff person at each detention center must give an oral presentation or show an educational video with the above-listed information to all detainees and give all detainees an opportunity to ask questions.” [ECF 158 at p. 38.] This is not happening. At Glades, staff have only provided posters to educate about COVID-19 and have not given any live or video presentations. Leon Decl. at ¶ 12; Hamilton Decl. at ¶ 15; Taylor Decl. at ¶ 31; Thomas Decl. at 10.
* * * Despite being on notice of the CDC Guidelines for months and despite the Court’s prior Temporary Restraining Order, ICE continues to imperil the men and women in its custody. Detained men with COVID-19 are being housed with others who are not known to have COVID-19. Social distancing is still not possible. Access to soap, hand sanitizer, masks, gloves, and cleaning supplies is still not reliable or consistent. Detainees are not being provided the ordered education about COVID-19 prevention. It is critical that ICE fulfill all of its obligations immediately, and Petitioners respectfully request the Court to order ICE to do so. Due to the urgencies in responding to COVID-19 that the Court has already recognized, Petitioners request this relief on an emergency basis.
LOCAL RULE 7.1 CERTIFICATION Plaintiffs’ counsel Kathryn Lehman and Lisa Lehner have repeatedly reached out to counsel of record for Respondents in a good faith effort to resolve concerns about the ongoing conditions at the ICE facilities and the health of men and women detained at the facilities. Counsel for Respondents have either not responded or stated that there was no problem. The parties have not been able to reach a mutually agreeable resolution as to the ongoing conditions at the facilities.
4

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 163 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/16/2020 Page 5 of 8

Date: June 16, 2020

Respectfully Submitted,
/s/ Scott M. Edson Scott M. Edson, Esq. Florida Bar No. 17258

Gregory P. Copeland* Sarah T. Gillman*
RAPID DEFENSE NETWORK 11 Broadway, Suite 615 New York, NY 10004 Tel.: (212) 843-0910 Fax: (212) 257-7033 gregory@defensenetwork.org sarah@defensenetwork.org *Appearing Pro Hac Vice

Scott M. Edson, Esq. Florida Bar No. 17258
KING & SPALDING LLP 1700 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, STE 200 Washington, DC 20006-4707 Telephone: (202) 737-0500 Facsimile: (202) 626-3737 sedson@kslaw.com

Rebecca Sharpless Florida Bar No. 0131024 Romy Lerner Florida Bar No. 116713
UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI SCHOOL OF
LAW - IMMIGRATION CLINIC 1311 Miller Drive Suite, E-273 Coral Gables, Florida 33146 Tel: (305) 284-3576 Fax: (305) 284-6092 rsharpless@law.miami.edu

Kathryn S. Lehman Florida Bar No.: 95642 Chad A. Peterson Florida Bar No.: 91585
KING & SPALDING LLP 1180 Peachtree Street, N.E. Atlanta, GA 30309 Telephone: (404) 572-4600 Facsimile: (404) 572-5100 klehman@kslaw.com cpeterson@kslaw.com

Paul R. Chavez FL Bar No. 1021395 Maia Fleischman FL Bar No. 1010709
SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER 2 S. Biscayne Blvd., Ste. 3200 Miami, FL 33101 Tel: (305) 537-0577 paul.chavez@splcenter.org maia.fleischman@splcenter.org

Mark Andrew Prada Fla. Bar No. 91997 Anthony Richard Dominguez Fla. Bar No. 1002234
PRADA URIZAR, PLLC 3191 Coral Way, Suite 500 Miami, FL 33145 Tel.: (786) 703-2061 Fax: (786) 708-9508 mprada@pradaurizar.com adominguez@pradaurizar.com

5

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 163 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/16/2020 Page 6 of 8

Lisa Lehner Florida Bar No. 382191
AMERICANS FOR IMMIGRANT
JUSTICE 5355 NW 36 Street, Suite 2201 Miami, FL 33166 Tel: (305) 573-1106 Ext. 1020 Fax: (305) 576-6273 Llehner@aijustice.org

Andrea Montavon McKillip Florida Bar No. 56401
LEGAL AID SERVICE OF BROWARD
COUNTY, INC. 491 North State Road 7 Plantation, Florida 33317 Tel. (954) 736-2493 Fax (954) 736-2484 amontavon@legalaid.org

Counsel for Petitioners-Plaintiffs

6

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 163 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/16/2020 Page 7 of 8
CERTIFICATION OF EMERGENCY Undersigned counsel certifies that this is an emergency motion pursuant to Local Rule 7.1(d)(1). Petitioners, and the class they represent, are at imminent risk harm due to the continuing COVID-19 crisis and Respondents’ grossly inadequate steps to protect them from contracting the virus. After reviewing the facts and researching applicable legal principles, I certify that this motion in fact presents a true emergency (as opposed to a matter that may need only expedited treatment) and requires an immediate ruling because the Court would not be able to provide meaningful relief to members of the class if they contract COVID-19 as a result of Respondents not following the Court’s Preliminary Injunction.
/s/ Scott M. Edson___________ Scott M. Edson, Esq. Florida Bar No. 17258 KING & SPALDING LLP 1700 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, STE 200 Washington, DC 20006-4707 Telephone: (202) 737-0500 Facsimile: (202) 626-3737 sedson@kslaw.com Attorney for Petitioners-Plaintiffs

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 163 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/16/2020 Page 8 of 8
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on the 16th day of June, 2020, I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system, which will then send a notification of such filing (NEF) to all counsel of record.
/s/ Scott M. Edson___________ Scott M. Edson, Esq.
Florida Bar No. 17258 KING & SPALDING LLP 1700 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, STE 200 Washington, DC 20006-4707 Telephone: (202) 737-0500 Facsimile: (202) 626-3737 sedson@kslaw.com
Attorney for Petitioners-Plaintiffs

 
 Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 192 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/05/2020 Page 1 of 8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Case No. 20-21553-Civ-COOKE/GOODMAN PATRICK GAYLE, et al.,
Petitioners-Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and those similarly situated, vs.
MICHAEL W. MEADE, et al., Respondents-Defendants.
_________________________________________________/
ORDER GRANTING PETITIONERS’ EMERGENCY MOTION TO COMPEL COMPLIANCE WITH THE COURT'S JUNE 6, 2020 PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
THIS MATTER is before the Court on Petitioners’ Emergency Motion to Compel Compliance with the Court’s June 6, 2020 Preliminary Injunction. ECF No. 163.
On May 20, 2020, Petitioners filed a Motion to Compel alleging that the Miami Field Office of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (hereinafter “ICE”) was in violation of the Court’s April 30, 2020 Temporary Restraining Order because ICE conducts transfers under unsanitary and unsafe conditions, social distancing was still not feasible at the detention facilities at issue1 and detainees had limited or inadequate access to soap, hand sanitizer, masks, and cleaning supplies. (ECF No. 106 at p.3.)
On June 6, 2020, this Court entered a Preliminary Injunction, which addressed Petitioners’ Motion to Compel, instructing ICE to, inter alia, (1) cease the practice of comingling unconfirmed COVID-19 cases with confirmed COVID-19 cases; (2) provide detainees with sufficient quantities of CDC-recommended cleaning supplies and disinfectants; (3) provide all detainees and staff members with masks and educate them on the importance of its use; (4) provide detainees with unrestricted access to hand soap, hand
1 The three detention facilities at issue are the Krome Detention Center in Miami (“Krome”), the Broward Transitional Center in Pompano Beach (“BTC”), and the Glades County Detention Center in Moore Haven (“Glades”).
1

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 192 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/05/2020 Page 2 of 8
sanitizer, and hand towels; and (5) educate detainees on the COVID-19 pandemic. (See ECF
No. 158 at pp.38-40.) The Preliminary Injunction permitted ICE to conduct transfers, but
only after first performing a verbal screening and a temperature check as outlined in the CDC
Guidelines before the individual leaves the facility. (Id.)
Yet, for the second time since the commencement of this Action, Petitioners have filed
another Motion to Compel, this time alleging that ICE is not in compliance with the Court’s
June 6, 2020 Preliminary Injunction Order. (ECF No. 163 at p.1.) Similarly, Petitioners allege
that despite the Court’s Preliminary Injunction Order, conditions at the detention centers
have further deteriorated and ICE continues to (1) cohort detainees confirmed with COVID-
19 with individuals who have not been confirmed with the disease2; (2) fail to provide cleaning
supplies and masks to detainees; and (3) fail to educate detainees about COVID-19. (Id. at
pp.2-4.) Moreover, social distancing is not promoted or enforced within the detention centers.
Petitioners’ voluminous sworn declarations3 and credible live testimony,4 support these
2 Petitioner Steve Cooper, detained at Glades, submitted a declaration asserting that he is housed in a pod with about 25 people, some of whom have tested positive for COVID-19 and some of whom have not been tested for the virus. (ECF No.163-1 at ¶12.) Petitioner Astley Thomas, detained at Glades, tested positive for COVID-19 on June 4, 2020 and is in a pod with approximately 61 people, many of whom have not been confirmed with COVID-19. (ECF No. 163-3 at ¶¶7-8.) Petitioner Jermaine Scott, detained at Glades, has been told he may have tested positive for COVID-19 and is in a pod with asymptomatic people. (ECF No. 163-4 at ¶¶23-24.) Petitioner Roberto Leon, detained at Glades, tested positive for COVID19 and has been assigned to a pod in which people who have been tested for COVID-19 are mixed with people who haven’t been tested. (ECF No. 163-5 at ¶15.) Petitioner Paul Hamilton, detained at Glades, asserts that his pod “is a mix of people who have tested positive for COVID-19, those who are waiting for their test results, and individuals like myself who have not been tested.” (ECF No. 163-6 at ¶27.) Petitioner Terrance Taylor, detained at Glades, is in a pod with people who have tested positive for COVID-19 and people are not “given the chance to [] live separately from those who are COVID-19 positive.” (ECF No. 163-7 at ¶32.) 3 The Court is in receipt of hundreds of notes and letters from several detainees currently confined at the three detention centers at issue. (See, e.g., ECF No. 170.) These letters not only corroborate Petitioners’ alleged facts, they also expand on the grim conditions of their confinement as related to the coronavirus pandemic. 4 On June 25, 2020, the Court held a Hearing on Petitioner’s Emergency Motion to Compel during which Petitioners presented two live witnesses—Astley Thomas and Jermaine Scott— each detained at Glades. Mr. Thomas testified that he has tested positive for COVID-19 and he is cohorted with individuals who have not been tested for the virus. Mr. Scott testified that he believes has also contracted COVID-19, which he attributes to living in close quarters with other individuals with the virus. Despite having taken a COVID-19 test, Mr. Scott was never
2

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 192 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/05/2020 Page 3 of 8
allegations, which also assert that, ICE continues to transfer detainees without first confirming their COVID-19 status or providing new masks before commencing transfer. (Id. at p.4.)
ICE refutes Petitioners’ claims and maintains that it is in compliance with the Court’s Preliminary Injunction Order in that it provides and replenishes adequate supplies of personal protective equipment, soap, hand sanitizer, water, and cleaning materials. (ECF No. 165-1 at ¶¶4-7; 9-10.) ICE further maintains that it has educated detainees. (Id. at ¶12.) ICE admits that it cohorted the entire population at Glades at one point, but it denies that it currently comingles confirmed COVID-19 with asymptomatic individuals.5 (Id. at ¶¶14; 16; 18-19.) ICE makes no response to Petitioners’ allegations concerning the lack of social distancing within the detention centers themselves, except to state that it has developed seating charts for its vans and buses “to maximize social distancing while transporting ICE detainees.” (Id. at ¶8.)
The Eighth Amendment “‘does not mandate comfortable prisons,’ but neither does it permit inhumane ones.” Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 832 (1994) (quoting Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337, 349 (1981)). Various conditions, “alone or in combination, may deprive inmates of the minimal civilized measure of life’s necessities. Such conditions could be cruel and unusual under the contemporary standard of decency.” Rhodes, 452 U.S. at 347.
provided with his results. Each witness testified that social distancing is not enforced at Glades. 5At the June 25, 2020 Hearing, ICE admitted that during the pendency of this Action, it discovered 58 COVID-19 cases at Glades. Rather than identifying and isolating individuals who had contracted the virus, ICE opted to cohort the entire 320-person population at Glades for 14 days. ICE argues that such cohorting is permitted under the CDC’s Guidelines, which states in pertinent part, “[i]f an entire housing unit is under quarantine due to contact with a case from the same housing unit, the entire housing unit may need to be treated as a cohort and quarantine in place.” The CDC’s Interim Guidance on Management of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) in Correctional and Detention Facilities (March 23, 2020) at p.19. As the Court has previously noted, the CDC’s Guidelines on the issue of cohorting is clear—cohorting should be avoided and utilized only as a last resort, not as a primary preemptive measure. The CDC’s Guidelines specifically caution that “[c]ohorting multiple quarantined close contacts of a COVID-19 case could transmit COVID-19 from those who are infected to those who are uninfected. Cohorting should only be practiced if there are no other available options.” Id. In the Court’s view, had ICE adhered to the CDC’s Guidelines cautioning against arbitrary transfers and comingling symptomatic individuals with nonconfirmed COVID-19 cases, the enormous Cohort created at Glades may have been avoided.
3

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 192 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/05/2020 Page 4 of 8
A continued failure to provide detainees with bare minimum necessities and supplies to survive the pandemic is evidence of deliberate indifference to medical needs, tantamount to the infliction of cruel and unusual punishment because it increases the risk of exposure to a lethal and highly-contagious disease.6 Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104 (1976)(“[D]eliberate indifference to serious medical needs of prisoners [is] proscribed by the Eighth Amendment.); Helling v. McKinney, 509 U.S. 25, 32 (1993) (noting that the Government acts with deliberate indifference when it “ignore[s] a condition of confinement that is sure or very likely to cause serious illness.”). And courts may enjoin the knowing detention of people in unsafe conditions even when state law compels that detention. Id. at 35.
Generally, special masters have been appointed when resolution of a case or a dispute requires resources or time in excess of what the court can reasonably provide. See Reynolds v. McInnes, 338 F.3d 1201, 1219 (11th Cir. 2003) (suggesting that “the district court...consider increased use of special masters where appropriate...if the judicial time and effort required to bring [the] litigation to a proper end in a reasonably prompt manner exceeds that which the district court judge with [her] full regular docket can devote to the case.”) Further, the question of whether a special master should be appointed is left to the discretion of the trial court. La Buy v. Howes Leather Co., 352 U.S. 249, 262 n.3 (1957) (“[Rule 53] as presently framed vests discretion in the District Courts.”) In balancing Petitioners’ allegations with ICE’s submissions, each of Petitioners’ allegations, if true, would be in direct contravention of the Preliminary Injunction Order. However, ICE’s submissions to the Court, although conflicting with Petitioners’ claims, appear to comply with the Preliminary Injunction Order. Accordingly, the Court finds it appropriate to appoint a Special Master pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure, Rule 53 to assess whether ICE is committing an ongoing violation of the detainees’ constitutional rights.7
6 There is a subjective and objective standard that a detainee must meet in order to prove deliberate indifference to a medical need in violation of the Eighth Amendment. The analysis is discussed in full in the Preliminary Injunction Order entered on June 6, 2020. (See ECF No. 158 at pp.28-33.) 7 The Court observes that the Magistrate Judge initially recommended that the Court appoint a neutral expert who would assess (1) the number of detainees who could be released to achieve the most social distancing possible and (2) whether the protocols established by ICE’s Pandemic Response Plan were being met. (See ECF 63 at ¶9.)
4

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 192 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/05/2020 Page 5 of 8
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED and ADJUDGED that Petitioners’ Emergency Motion to Compel Compliance with the Court's June 6, 2020 Preliminary Injunction is hereby GRANTED as follows:
I. Appointment of the Special Master 1. The Honorable Michael B. Chavies, of Akerman LLP in Miami, Florida is hereby appointed to serve as Special Master in this Action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 53(a). 2. The Special Master’s appointment will become effective upon his filing an affidavit disclosing that there is no ground for disqualification under 28 U.S.C. § 455 pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 53(a)(2) and (b)(3) and shall continue until August 1, 2020, (the “Termination Date”). If there are no grounds for disqualification or if all grounds for disqualification have been waived pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 53(a)(2), the Special Master is directed to proceed with all reasonable diligence to complete the duties assigned by this Order. 3. During the course of this matter, the Special Master and the Parties shall notify this Court immediately if they become aware of any potential grounds that would require disqualification.
II. Accountability of the Special Master 4. The Special Master is accountable only to the Court. The Special Master is independent. The parties shall not supervise the Special Master. However, in the course of his work, the Special Master may consult with the Respondents, their agents, counsel, or employees, and any other person the Special Master deems necessary to perform the scope of his duties.
III. Limited Scope and Duties of the Special Master 5. The purpose and authority of the Special Master is limited; pursuant Fed. R. Civ. P. 53(c) the Special Master may: • Request a party to produce documents to the extent the Special Master deems it necessary to perform the scope of his duties. The parties reserve the right to object to the production of documents and/or electronically stored information (“ESI”) on privilege or other grounds articulated under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 and 34. The Special Master shall consider and rule on any objections. Any order on
5

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 192 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/05/2020 Page 6 of 8
discovery is appealable to the Court in accord with Fed. R. Civ. P. 53(f)(2). Any documents produced shall be produced only to the Special Master. • Communicate ex parte with the Court or any party at any time pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 53(b)(2)(B). Generally, the Special Master shall not communicate ex parte with any party without first providing notice to the other parties. 6. Any Party wishing to respond to or object to any Special Master report, statement and/or recommendation must file such response or objection with the Court within seven (7) days from the day the Special Master files the report, statement and/or recommendation. Any opposition shall be filed within four (4) days after the objection on the motion is filed. 7. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 53(f)(1), in acting on a report or recommendation of the Special Master, the Court shall afford the parties an opportunity to present their positions and may adopt or affirm; modify; wholly or partly reject; resubmit to the Special Master with instructions; or make any order it deems appropriate. The standards of review contained in Fed. R. Civ. P. 53(f)(3)-(5) shall apply. 8. To the extent the Special Master determines that he requires the services of clerical staff, consultants, and experts to assist him in his work, the Special Master shall inform the parties of the following:
a. The identity of the person who will provide such services; b. The nature of the services; and c. The anticipated costs.
a. Any party shall have three (3) business days to object to the retention of any such services. If neither side objects, the Special Master may retain the services in question.
b. If a party objects and the objection cannot be resolved by the Special Master, the objecting Party may present its objection to the Court no later than three (3) days after the Special Master has made a final decision on the retention of services.
9. The Special Master shall inspect the three detention centers at issue prior to or on July 15, 2020. The Special Master shall provide a report to the parties and the Court by
6

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 192 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/05/2020 Page 7 of 8
August 1, 2020 at 4:00 P.M. The report shall be filed under seal until a redacted version that does not include photographs or video depicting the detention centers can be publicly filed. The report shall include factual information, photographs and/or video, documenting whether and to what extent the steps outlined in the Preliminary Injunction Order (ECF No. 158) have been taken. 10. The inspection at each facility shall be completed in a three-hour time frame and shall include the following areas:
• All housing units where the Petitioners are housed; • Housing units where quarantined detainees are being held; • The ingress/egress staff screenings; • Medical facilities; • Dining facilities; • Laundry facilities; • Shower/bathroom facilities; and • Sleeping units/pods. 11. The Special Master’s report shall include, among other information he deems necessary, any information he is able to ascertain regarding the following: • Cleanliness of the housing units; • Social distancing measures; • Availability and stock of cleaning supplies and personal protective equipment;
and • Availability and stock of hygienic and disinfecting supplies. 12. No attorney for either party shall attend the inspection. Each detention facility shall assign one or more individuals to accompany the inspectors and shall take photographs or videos at the direction of the inspectors. 13. All attorneys shall keep confidential any videos or photographs of any of the detention centers and shall not be used for any purpose other than this litigation and shall not be provided to any third-party or inmate absent leave of the Court. All videos or photographs acquired at the three detention centers shall be filed under seal.
7

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 192 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/05/2020 Page 8 of 8
14. Privileged information presented to the Special Master shall remain privileged and confidential, and shall be disclosed to the Court only upon consent of counsel.
IV. Term of Service 15. The Special Master’s term of service will end at the earlier of (a) the Termination Date or (b) when the Court terminates the appointment.
V. Compensation 16. The Court has considered the fairness of imposing the likely expenses on the parties and will take the necessary steps to protect against unreasonable expenses or delay. The Special Master shall be compensated at the rate of $650/hour, the expense of which shall be shared equally by the parties and paid monthly.8 The Special Master shall maintain and provide summary fee statements to all Counsel.
VI. Personal Protective Equipment 17. Respondents shall provide the Special Master with personal protective equipment before the commencement of an inspection at any of the detention facilities at issue. The Special Master shall be provided with glasses/goggles, gloves, n95 masks, gowns, shoe coverings, and any other protective equipment necessary to maintain the health and safety of the Special Master.
VII. Amendments 18. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 53(b)(4), this Order may be amended at any time after notice to the Parties and an opportunity to be heard. DONE and ORDERED in chambers, at Miami, Florida, this 5th day of July 2020.
Copies furnished to: Jonathan Goodman, U.S. Magistrate Judge Counsel of record
8 The Special Master shall charge for travel time. 8

 
 Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 219 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/17/2020 Page 1 of 9
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Case No. 20-21553-Civ-COOKE/GOODMAN PATRICK GAYLE, et al.,
Petitioners-Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and those similarly situated, vs.
MICHAEL W. MEADE, et al., Respondents-Defendants.
_________________________________________________/
ORDER APPOINTING SPECIAL MASTER
THIS MATTER is before the Court on Petitioners’ Emergency Motion to Compel Compliance with the Court’s June 6, 2020 Preliminary Injunction. ECF No. 163.
On May 20, 2020, Petitioners filed a Motion to Compel alleging that the Miami Field Office of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (hereinafter “ICE”) was in violation of the Court’s April 30, 2020 Temporary Restraining Order because ICE was conducting transfers under unsanitary and unsafe conditions; social distancing was still not feasible at the detention facilities at issue;1 and detainees had limited or inadequate access to soap, hand sanitizer, masks, and cleaning supplies. ECF No. 106 at p.3.
On June 6, 2020, this Court entered a Preliminary Injunction, which addressed Petitioners’ Motion to Compel, instructing ICE to, inter alia, (1) cease the practice of comingling unconfirmed COVID-19 cases with confirmed COVID-19 cases; (2) provide detainees with sufficient quantities of CDC-recommended cleaning supplies and disinfectants; (3) provide all detainees and staff members with masks and educate them on the importance of its use; (4) provide detainees with unrestricted access to hand soap, hand sanitizer, and hand towels; and (5) educate detainees on the COVID-19 pandemic. ECF No.
1 The three detention facilities at issue are the Krome Detention Center in Miami (“Krome”), the Broward Transitional Center in Pompano Beach (“BTC”), and the Glades County Detention Center in Moore Haven (“Glades”).
1

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 219 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/17/2020 Page 2 of 9
158 at pp.38-40. The Preliminary Injunction permitted ICE to conduct transfers, but only after
first performing a verbal screening and a temperature check as outlined in the CDC
Guidelines before the individual leaves the facility. Id.
Yet, for the second time since the commencement of this Action, Petitioners have filed
another Motion to Compel, this time alleging that ICE is not in compliance with the Court’s
June 6, 2020 Preliminary Injunction Order. ECF No. 163 at p.1. Similarly, Petitioners allege
that despite the Court’s Preliminary Injunction Order, conditions at the detention centers
have further deteriorated and ICE continues to (1) cohort detainees confirmed with COVID-
19 with individuals who have not been confirmed with the disease2; (2) fail to provide cleaning
supplies and masks to detainees; and (3) fail to educate detainees about COVID-19. Id. at
pp.2-4. Moreover, social distancing is not promoted or enforced within the detention centers.
Petitioners’ voluminous sworn declarations3 and credible live testimony,4 support these
2 Petitioner Steve Cooper, detained at Glades, submitted a declaration asserting that he is housed in a pod with about 25 people, some of whom have tested positive for COVID-19 and some of whom have not been tested for the virus. ECF No.163-1 at ¶12. Petitioner Astley Thomas, detained at Glades, tested positive for COVID-19 on June 4, 2020, and is in a pod with approximately 61 people, many of whom have not been confirmed with COVID-19. ECF No. 163-3 at ¶¶7-8. Petitioner Jermaine Scott, detained at Glades, has been told he may have tested positive for COVID-19 and is in a pod with asymptomatic people. ECF No. 1634 at ¶¶23-24. Petitioner Roberto Leon, detained at Glades, tested positive for COVID-19 and has been assigned to a pod in which people who have been tested for COVID-19 are mixed with people who haven’t been tested. ECF No. 163-5 at ¶15. Petitioner Paul Hamilton, detained at Glades, asserts that his pod “is a mix of people who have tested positive for COVID-19, those who are waiting for their test results, and individuals like myself who have not been tested.” ECF No. 163-6 at ¶27. Petitioner Terrance Taylor, detained at Glades, is in a pod with people who have tested positive for COVID-19 and people are not “given the chance to [] live separately from those who are COVID-19 positive.” ECF No. 163-7 at ¶32. 3 The Court is in receipt of hundreds of notes and letters from several detainees currently confined at the three detention centers at issue. See, e.g., ECF No. 170. These letters not only corroborate Petitioners’ alleged facts, they also expand on the grim conditions of their confinement as related to the coronavirus pandemic. 4 On June 25, 2020, the Court held a Hearing on Petitioner’s Emergency Motion to Compel during which Petitioners presented two live witnesses—Astley Thomas and Jermaine Scott— each detained at Glades. Mr. Thomas testified that he has tested positive for COVID-19 and he is cohorted with individuals who have not been tested for the virus. Mr. Scott testified that he believes he has also contracted COVID-19, which he attributes to living in close quarters with other individuals with the virus. Despite having taken a COVID-19 test, Mr. Scott was never provided with his results. Each witness testified that social distancing is not enforced at Glades.
2

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 219 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/17/2020 Page 3 of 9
allegations, which also assert that, ICE continues to transfer detainees without first confirming their COVID-19 status or providing new masks before commencing transfer. Id. at p.4.
ICE refutes Petitioners’ claims and maintains that it is in compliance with the Court’s Preliminary Injunction Order in that it provides and replenishes adequate supplies of personal protective equipment, soap, hand sanitizer, water, and cleaning materials. ECF No. 165-1 at ¶¶4-7; 9-10. ICE further maintains that it has educated detainees. Id. at ¶12. ICE admits that it cohorted the entire population at Glades at one point, but it denies that it currently comingles confirmed COVID-19 cases with asymptomatic individuals.5 Id. at ¶¶14; 16; 18-19. ICE makes no response to Petitioners’ allegations concerning the lack of social distancing within the detention centers themselves, except to state that it has developed seating charts for its vans and buses “to maximize social distancing while transporting ICE detainees.” Id. at ¶8.
The Eighth Amendment “‘does not mandate comfortable prisons,’ but neither does it permit inhumane ones.” Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 832 (1994) (quoting Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337, 349 (1981)). Various conditions, “alone or in combination, may deprive inmates of the minimal civilized measure of life’s necessities. Such conditions could be cruel and unusual under the contemporary standard of decency.” Rhodes, 452 U.S. at 347. A continued failure to provide detainees with bare minimum necessities and supplies to
5At the June 25, 2020 Hearing, ICE admitted that during the pendency of this Action, it discovered 58 COVID-19 cases at Glades. Rather than identifying and isolating individuals who had contracted the virus, ICE opted to cohort the entire 320-person population at Glades for 14 days. ICE argues that such cohorting is permitted under the CDC’s Guidelines, which states in pertinent part, “[i]f an entire housing unit is under quarantine due to contact with a case from the same housing unit, the entire housing unit may need to be treated as a cohort and quarantine in place.” The CDC’s Interim Guidance on Management of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) in Correctional and Detention Facilities (March 23, 2020) at p.19. As the Court has previously noted, the CDC’s Guidelines on the issue of cohorting is clear—cohorting should be avoided and utilized only as a last resort, not as a primary preemptive measure. The CDC’s Guidelines specifically caution that “[c]ohorting multiple quarantined close contacts of a COVID-19 case could transmit COVID-19 from those who are infected to those who are uninfected. Cohorting should only be practiced if there are no other available options.” Id. In the Court’s view, had ICE adhered to the CDC’s Guidelines cautioning against arbitrary transfers and comingling symptomatic individuals with nonconfirmed COVID-19 cases, the enormous Cohort created at Glades may have been avoided.
3

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 219 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/17/2020 Page 4 of 9
survive the pandemic may be evidence of deliberate indifference to medical needs, tantamount to the infliction of cruel and unusual punishment because it increases the risk of exposure to a lethal and highly-contagious disease.6 Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104 (1976)(“[D]eliberate indifference to serious medical needs of prisoners [is] proscribed by the Eighth Amendment.); Helling v. McKinney, 509 U.S. 25, 32 (1993) (noting that the Government acts with deliberate indifference when it “ignore[s] a condition of confinement that is sure or very likely to cause serious illness.”). And courts may enjoin the knowing detention of people in unsafe conditions even when state law compels that detention. Id. at 35.
Generally, special masters have been appointed when resolution of a case or a dispute requires resources or time in excess of what the court can reasonably provide. See Reynolds v. McInnes, 338 F.3d 1201, 1219 (11th Cir. 2003) (suggesting that “the district court. . .consider increased use of special masters where appropriate...if the judicial time and effort required to bring [the] litigation to a proper end in a reasonably prompt manner exceeds that which the district court judge with [her] full regular docket can devote to the case.”) Further, the question of whether a special master should be appointed is left to the discretion of the trial court. La Buy v. Howes Leather Co., 352 U.S. 249, 262 n.3 (1957) (“[Rule 53] as presently framed vests discretion in the District Courts.”) In balancing Petitioners’ allegations with ICE’s submissions, each of Petitioners’ allegations, if true, would be in direct contravention of the Preliminary Injunction Order. However, ICE’s submissions to the Court, although conflicting with Petitioners’ claims, appear to comply with the Preliminary Injunction Order. Accordingly, the Court finds it appropriate to appoint a Special Master pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure, Rule 53 to assess whether ICE is committing an ongoing violation of the detainees’ constitutional rights.7
6 There is a subjective and objective standard that a detainee must meet in order to prove deliberate indifference to a medical need in violation of the Eighth Amendment. The analysis is discussed in full in the Preliminary Injunction Order entered on June 6, 2020. See ECF No. 158 at pp.28-33. 7 The Court observes that the Magistrate Judge initially recommended that the Court appoint a neutral expert who would assess (1) the number of detainees who could be released to achieve the most social distancing possible and (2) whether the protocols established by ICE’s Pandemic Response Plan were being met. See ECF No. 63 at ¶9.
4

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 219 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/17/2020 Page 5 of 9
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED and ADJUDGED that the Court appoints a special master in this matter as follows:
I. Appointment of the Special Master 1. The Matthew C. Dates, of Stearns Weaver Miller Weissler Alhadeff & Sitterson P.A. in Miami, Florida is hereby appointed to serve as Special Master in this matter pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 53(a). 2. The Special Master’s appointment will become effective upon his filing an affidavit disclosing that there is no ground for disqualification under 28 U.S.C. § 455 pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 53(a)(2) and (b)(3) and shall continue until September 1, 2020, (the “Termination Date”). If there are no grounds for disqualification or if all grounds for disqualification have been waived pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 53(a)(2), the Special Master is directed to proceed with all reasonable diligence to complete the duties assigned by this Order. 3. During the course of this matter, the Special Master and the Parties shall notify this Court immediately if they become aware of any potential grounds that would require disqualification.
II. Accountability of the Special Master 4. The Special Master is independent and is accountable only to the Court. The parties shall not supervise the Special Master. However, in the course of his work, the Special Master may consult with the Respondents, their agents, counsel, or employees, and any other person the Special Master deems necessary to perform the scope of his duties.
III. Limited Scope and Duties of the Special Master 5. The purpose and authority of the Special Master is limited; pursuant Fed. R. Civ. P. 53(c) the Special Master may: • Request a party to produce documents to the extent the Special Master deems it necessary to perform the scope of his duties. The parties reserve the right to object to the production of documents and/or electronically stored information (“ESI”) on privilege or other grounds articulated under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 and 34. The Special Master shall consider and rule on any objections. Any order on
5

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 219 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/17/2020 Page 6 of 9
discovery is appealable to the Court in accord with Fed. R. Civ. P. 53(f)(2). Any documents produced shall be produced only to the Special Master. • Communicate ex parte with the Court or any party at any time pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 53(b)(2)(B). Generally, the Special Master shall not communicate ex parte with any party without first providing notice to the other parties. 6. Any Party wishing to respond to or object to any Special Master report, statement and/or recommendation must file such response or objection with the Court within seven (7) days from the day the Special Master files the report, statement and/or recommendation. Any opposition shall be filed within four (4) days after the objection is filed. 7. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 53(f)(1), in acting on a report or recommendation of the Special Master, the Court shall afford the parties an opportunity to present their positions and may adopt or affirm; modify; wholly or partly reject; resubmit to the Special Master with instructions; or make any order it deems appropriate. The standards of review contained in Fed. R. Civ. P. 53(f)(3)-(5) shall apply. 8. To the extent the Special Master determines that he requires the services of clerical staff, consultants, and experts to assist him in his work, the Special Master shall inform the parties of the following:
a. The identity of the person who will provide such services; b. The nature of the services; and c. The anticipated costs.
a. Any party shall have three (3) business days to object to the retention of any such services. If neither side objects, the Special Master may retain the services in question.
b. If a party objects and the objection cannot be resolved by the Special Master, the objecting Party may present its objection to the Court no later than three (3) days after the Special Master has made a final decision on the retention of services.
9. The Special Master shall inspect the three detention centers at issue prior to or on August 15, 2020. The Special Master shall provide a report to the parties and the Court
6

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 219 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/17/2020 Page 7 of 9
by September 1, 2020 at 4:00 P.M. The report shall be filed under seal until a redacted version that does not include photographs or video depicting the detention centers can be publicly filed. The report shall include factual information, photographs and/or video, documenting whether and to what extent the steps outlined in the Preliminary Injunction Order, ECF No. 158, have been taken. 10. The inspection at each facility shall be completed in a three-hour time frame and shall include the following areas:
• All housing units where the Petitioners are housed; • Housing units where quarantined detainees are being held; • The ingress/egress staff screenings; • Medical facilities; • Dining facilities; • Laundry facilities; • Shower/bathroom facilities; and • Sleeping units/pods. 11. The Special Master’s report shall include, among other information he deems necessary, any information he is able to ascertain regarding the following: • Cleanliness of the housing units; • Social distancing measures; • Availability and stock of cleaning supplies and personal protective equipment;
and • Availability and stock of hygienic and disinfecting supplies. 12. No attorney for either party shall attend the inspection. Each detention facility shall assign one or more individuals to accompany the Special Master and shall take photographs or videos at the direction of the Special Master. 13. All attorneys shall keep confidential any videos or photographs of any of the detention centers and shall not be used for any purpose other than this litigation and shall not be provided to any third-party or inmate absent leave of the Court. All videos or photographs acquired at the three detention centers shall be filed under seal.
7

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 219 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/17/2020 Page 8 of 9
14. Privileged information presented to the Special Master shall remain privileged and confidential, and shall be disclosed to the Court only upon consent of counsel.
IV. Term of Service 15. The Special Master’s term of service will end at the earlier of (a) the Termination Date or (b) when the Court terminates the appointment.
V. Compensation 16. The Court has considered the fairness of imposing the likely expenses on the parties and will take the necessary steps to protect against unreasonable expenses or delay. The Special Master shall be compensated at the rate of $650/hour, the expense of which shall be shared equally by the parties and paid monthly.8 The Special Master shall maintain and provide summary fee statements to all Counsel.
VI. Personal Protective Equipment 17. Respondents shall reimburse the Special Master for the cost of personal protective equipment used during the inspection of any of the detention facilities at issue.
VII. Amendments 18. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 53(b)(4), this Order may be amended at any time after notice to the Parties and an opportunity to be heard. It is further ORDERED and ADJUDGED that the Court DEFERS ruling on
Petitioners’ Emergency Motion to Compel Compliance with the Court’s June 6, 2020 Preliminary Injunction, ECF No. 163, pending the results of the Special Master’s report.
8 The Special Master shall charge for travel time. 8

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 219 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/17/2020 Page 9 of 9 DONE and ORDERED in chambers, at Miami, Florida, this 17th day of July 2020. Copies furnished to: Jonathan Goodman, U.S. Magistrate Judge Counsel of record
9

 
 Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 484 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/04/2021 Page 1 of 19
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
CASE NO. 20-21553-CIV-COOKE PATRICK GAYLE, et al.,
Petitioners/Plaintiffs, vs. MICHAEL W. MEADE, Field Office Director, Miami Field Office, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, et al.,
Respondents/Defendants. ______________________________________/
DEFENDANTS’MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Defendants, by and through their undersigned counsel, file their Motion for Summary Judgment, and state: I. INTRODUCTION On April 13, 2020, plaintiffs filed their Verified Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief. D.E. 1. They alleged three (3) causes of action: Count One, a violation of detention standards under the Fifth Amendment (D.E. 1 at 98104; Count Two, a violation of right to reasonable safety while in detention under the Fifth Amendment (conditions of confinement) (D.E. 1 at 104-105); and Count Three, state created danger under the Fifth Amendment (D.E. 1 at 106-107). On April 30, 2020, this Court entered a temporary restraining order against defendants. D.E. 76. On June 6, 2020, this Court entered a preliminary injunction against defendants. D.E. 158. Trial is scheduled for the two-week term commencing April 27, 2020, where plaintiffs seek a permanent injunction against defendants.

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 484 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/04/2021 Page 2 of 19
The undisputed material facts establish that plaintiffs are not entitled to a permanent injunction on any of the three claims asserted.
II. DEFENDANTS ARE ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON PLAINITFFS’ REQUEST FOR A PERMANENT INJUNCTION
Permanent injunctive relief requires plaintiffs to establish three elements: (1) success on the merits; (2) continuing irreparable injury; and (3) no adequate remedy at law. Keener v. Convergys Corp., 342 F.3d 1264, 1269 (11th Cir. 2003), citing Newman v. Alabama, 683 F.2d 1312, 1319 (11th Cir. 1984).
In Count One, plaintiffs claim defendants have not followed the National Detention Standards in a variety of ways, relying upon declarations signed by plaintiffs. D.E. 1 at 98-104. In Count Two, plaintiffs allege a violation of the Fifth Amendment, which is a deliberate indifference claim. D.E. 1 at 104-105. In Count Three, plaintiffs allege a separate claim under the Fifth Amendment under the state created danger doctrine. D.E. 1 at 105-107.
A. Deliberate Indifference Claim In Hamm v. DeKalb County, 774 F.2d 1567 (11th Cir. 1985), the Eleventh Circuit held that “in regard to providing pretrial detainees with such basic necessities as food, living space, and medical care the minimum standard allowed by the due process clause is the same as that allowed by the eighth amendment for convicted persons.” Id. at 1574. Applying the Eighth Amendment standard to a claim of inadequate medical care, the appellate court observed that, “[t]o recover on his claim of inadequate medical care, Hamm had to prove that jail officials engaged in ‘acts or omissions sufficiently harmful to evidence deliberate indifference to [his] serious medical needs.’” Id. at 1574-75, citing Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976). In the specific context of COVID-19, the Eleventh Circuit has observed that while a pretrial
2

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 484 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/04/2021 Page 3 of 19
detainees’ claim technically arises under the Fourteenth Amendment, the claim “is evaluated
under the same standard as a prisoner’s claim of inadequate care under the Eighth Amendment.”
Swain v. Junior, 961 F.3d 1276, 1285 (11th Cir. 2020)(citation omitted).
In Estelle, the Supreme Court found that deliberate indifference to serious medical needs
of prisoners constitutes the “unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain.” 97 S.Ct. at 291. In the
medical context, the Court found that an inadvertent failure to provide adequate medical care
cannot be said to constitute “an unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain” or to be “repugnant to
the conscience of mankind.”
Thus, a complaint that a physician has been negligent in diagnosing or treating a medical condition does not state a valid claim of medical mistreatment under the Eighth Amendment. Medical malpractice does not become a constitutional violation merely because the victim is a prisoner. In order to state a cognizable claim, a prisoner must allege acts or omissions sufficiently harmful to evidence deliberate indifference to serious medical needs. It is only such indifference that can offend “evolving standards of decency” in violation of the Eighth Amendment. Id. (footnote omitted).
In Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 114 S.Ct. 1970 (1994), the Supreme Court defined
“deliberate indifference” as requiring that the prison official be subjectively aware of the risk in
order to violate the Eighth Amendment:
We hold instead that a prison official cannot be found liable under the Eighth Amendment for denying an inmate humane conditions of confinement unless the official knows of and disregards an excessive risk to inmate health or safety; the official must both be aware of facts from which the inference could be drawn that a substantial risk of serious harm exists, and he must also draw the inference.
114 S.Ct. at 1979.
In Farmer v. Brennan, the plaintiff prisoner sought injunctive relief to prevent a
3

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 484 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/04/2021 Page 4 of 19
substantial risk of serious injury from ripening into actual harm. Plaintiff Farmer was a transsexual, who alleged he had been sexually assaulted when placed in the general population. 511 U.S. at 830. He claimed that placement in the general population showed a deliberate indifference to his personal safety because his feminine appearance made him more likely to be assaulted. He sought an injunction barring future confinement in any penitentiary, including USP-Terre Haute, where he was currently detained. Id. at 831.
Like Farmer, plaintiffs also seek an injunction to prevent a substantial risk of serious injury, but from the coronavirus, rather than other detainees. In Farmer, the Supreme Court observed that, insofar as Farmer’s suit “seeks injunctive relief to prevent a substantial risk of serious harm, ‘the subjective factor, deliberate indifference, should be determined in light of the prison authorities’ current attitudes and conduct … their attitudes and conduct at the time suit is brought and thereafter.’” Id. at 845-46, citing Helling v. McKinney, 509 U.S. 25, 36 (1993). Further, in order to survive summary judgment, the plaintiff
must come forward with evidence from which it can be inferred that the defendant officials were at the time suit was filed, and are at the time of summary judgment, knowingly and unreasonably disregarding an objectively intolerable risk of harm, and that they will continue to do so; and finally to establish eligibility for an injunction, the inmate must demonstrate the continuance of that disregard during the remainder of the litigation and into the future. In so doing, the inmate may rely, in the district court’s discretion, on developments that postdate the pleadings and pretrial motions, as the defendants may rely on such developments to establish that the inmate is not entitled to an injunction. 511 U.S. at 846 (citation omitted). The fundamental question in any deliberate indifference case is whether the defendants exhibited “a sufficiently culpable state of mind.” Farmer, 511 U.S. at 834 (quotation omitted). In evaluating that question, a court “must focus not on isolated failures – or impossibilities, as the case may be – but rather on the defendants’ entire course of conduct.” Swain, 961 F.3d at
4

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 484 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/04/2021 Page 5 of 19
1287-1288. As far as how defendants’ entire course of conduct is to be evaluated, the Eleventh
Circuit has stated that, “deliberate indifference is not a constitutionalized version of common-law negligence.” Swain v. Junior, 961 F.3d at 1287-88. Indeed, on the issue of prisoners’ medical care, the appellate court has held that the Eighth Amendment doesn’t require it to be “perfect, the best obtainable, or even very good.” Harris v. Thigpen, 941 F.2d 1495, 1510 (11th Cir. 1991)(quotation omitted). Instead, the Eleventh Circuit has emphasized, “[m]edical treatment violates the [E]ighth [A]mendment only when it is so grossly incompetent, inadequate, or excessive as to shock the conscience or to be intolerable to fundamental fairness.” Id. at 1505 (quotation omitted).
In Hoffer v. Secretary, Fla. Dept. of Corrections, 973 F.3d 1263 (11th Cir. 2020), the Court of Appeals dealt with the appeal of a permanent injunction compelling the Florida Department of Corrections to provide all inmates with Hepatitis C (HCV) with direct acting antiviral (DAA) drugs. The DOC determined that inmates with no liver fibrosis (F0), or mild fibrosis (F1), would not get DAA drugs, while those with moderate fibrosis (F2); severe fibrosis (F3), or cirrhosis (F4), would be prescribed DAA drugs. Id. at 1267-68. The district court found the failure to prescribe F0 and F1 inmates with DAA drugs was deliberate indifference and a violation of the Eighth Amendment. Id. at 1269. After reviewing the deliberate indifference standard under the Eighth Amendment, the Eleventh Circuit stated:
The question here, therefore, isn’t whether, in the best of all possible worlds, F0and F1-level HCV-positive inmates should receive treatment with DAAs. Nor is it whether, if we were doctors, we would prescribe DAAs to all F0 and F1 patients. Nor, for that matter, is it even whether, if we were sitting as a commonlaw court, we might conclude that ordinary prudence requires across-the-board DAA treatment. Rather, because the plaintiffs here have invoked the Eighth Amendment, the sole question before us is whether the Secretary’s approach to
5

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 484 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/04/2021 Page 6 of 19
the treatment of F0- and F1-level inmates is so reckless – so conscience-shocking – that it violated the Constitution. As explained below, it is not. Id. at 1271-72. When this case began on April 13, 2020, plaintiffs sought release from detention, claiming their due process rights were being violated due to a dire and imminent threat to themselves, causing them to fear “that their confinement will result in a COVID-19 infection that will seriously injure and possibly kill them …” D.E. 1 at 95, ¶ 311. Implicit in plaintiffs’ argument was the notion that their chances of avoiding COVID-19 infection were better if they were released, since they could employ measures like social distancing, which they claimed they were prevented from doing due to crowded conditions in detention. This argument is fallacious because, “[a] prison is not required by the Eighth Amendment to give a prisoner medical care that is as good as he would receive if he were a free person, let alone an affluent free person.” Maggert v. Hanks, 131 F.3d 670, 671 (7th Cir. 1997)(citations omitted). By analogy, the Eighth Amendment does not require a prison to provide conditions that are as good as they would be in the general public, insofar as the opportunity to avoid infection by COVID-19. From the beginnings of the coronavirus pandemic, defendants have diligently and conscientiously implemented measures to contain the spread of COVID-19 within its three facilities, and to provide medical care to detainees who were infected. On March 23, 2020, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) issued its Interim Guidance on Management of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) in Correctional and Detention Facilities (Mar. 23, 2020)(CDC Guidance). On April 2, 2020, prior to the filing of the instant lawsuit, the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) issued its Pandemic Response Requirements, applicable to detention facilities in which ICE houses detainees. Since before the filing of the lawsuit, ICE in Miami began to reduce the detainee population at all three facilities involved in
6

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 484 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/04/2021 Page 7 of 19
this lawsuit: Krome Detention Center; Broward Transitional Center; and Glades County Detention Center. Exhibit 1, Declaration of Liana J. Castano, ¶¶ 50-51; Exhibit 2, Declaration of Juan Lopez Vega, ¶ 39. Krome has been below 75% capacity every day since May 5, 2020, while Glades has been below 75% capacity every month, since May 6, 2020 . Castano Decl., ¶¶ 50-51. Additionally, ICE took further measures to mitigate the spread of COVID-19, including curtailing social visitation; restricting visitation only to visits required by law, such as attorney visitation, and requiring attorney visitors to wear personal protective equipment during the visit. Castano Decl., ¶ 17; Lopez Vega Decl., ¶ 14.
Masks were distributed at all three facilities to detainees and staff members. As of April 6, 2020, all staff at Krome were required to wear masks. Castano Decl., ¶ 23. On April 29, 2020, surgical masks were issued to every detainee. Id. At Glades, all staff were required to wear masks by April 18, 2020. Id., ¶ 24. On May 1, 2020, surgical masks were issued to every detainee. Detainees were educated on the importance of wearing masks to curb infection, as well as personal hygiene practices to include frequent hand washing, and recognition of COVID-19 symptoms. Castano Decl., ¶ 18; Lopez Vega Decl., ¶¶ 16-17. The training came from detention and medical staff, as well as CDC signage posted in numerous locations, and videos placed on tablets issued to detainees.
Measures were implemented, where possible, to provide for adequate social distancing. At Krome and Glades, detainees were provided their meals in their dormitories, instead of eating at the dining hall. Castano Decl., ¶ 20 This allowed for adequate social distancing while eating meals. At BTC, the dining hall was reconfigured by removing tables, and designating seats which were not to be occupied, to ensure a detainee would not be seated across from, or next to, another detainee while eating. Lopez Vega Decl., ¶ 18. A fifty percent reduction of the total
7

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 484 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/04/2021 Page 8 of 19
occupancy rate, in the dining hall and wait line, was implemented. Id. Sleeping arrangements were also reconfigured, where possible, to implement adequate
social distancing. At Krome, bunks were skipped where possible, to allow for social distancing. Castano Decl., ¶ 30. Head-to-toe sleeping arrangements were also implemented. At Glades, the distance between bunk beds is 7 feet, 2 inches. Id., ¶ 31. Bed assignments were rearranged, where possible, to accommodate head to toe sleeping to maximize social distancing. At BTC, head to toe sleeping arrangements are encouraged to maximize social distancing between detainees. Lopez Vega Decl., ¶ 28.
One of the greatest challenges to mitigation of the spread of the COVID-19 virus is the dynamic nature of the detainee population at the three facilities. Each day, new detainees are admitted, and others depart the facility. In April through June, when testing supplies were not available in sufficient quantity, detention and medical staff monitored ICE detainees for symptoms of COVID-19 infection. Castano Decl., ¶ 37. On June 4, 2020, ICE directed that all new detainees to its Immigration Health Services Corps staffed detention centers should be tested during intake for COVID-19. Id., ¶ 44. Beginning June 8, 2020, all new intakes at Krome are tested for COVID-19. As of July 10, 2020, all new intakes at Glades are tested for COVID19. At BTC, testing of all new intakes for COVID-19 began during the week of June 24, 2020. Lopez Vega Decl., ¶ 33.
Detainees who test positive are removed and medically isolated. Castano Decl., ¶ 45. Close contacts of positive cases are quarantined. These close contacts are tested for COVID-19, and have temperature checks and symptoms assessments completed at least twice daily. Lopez Vega Decl., ¶ 35. Detainees who test negative are placed in the general population.
The numbers of detainees who have tested positive at each facility, from March through 8

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 484 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/04/2021 Page 9 of 19
December 23, 2020, are provided. For Krome, with an average monthly population of 393 detainees, the range of positives were from a low of zero, to a high of 99. Castano Decl., ¶ 47. At Glades, with an average monthly population of 329, the range of positives were from a low of zero, to a high of 52. Castano Decl., ¶ 48. At BTC, with an average monthly population of 389 detainees, the range of positives were from a low of zero, to a high of 75. Lopez Vega Decl., ¶ 37.
ICE continues to follow the PRR and CDC Guidance so long as necessary to mitigate the spread of COVID-19. Castano Decl., ¶ 52; Lopez Vega Decl., ¶¶ 40-41. ICE will continue to follow all applicable CDC guidance regarding COVID-19 prevention and mitigation in its detention facilities until the CDC discontinues those recommendations, and adapt the follow the ICE PRR accordingly to prevent and mitigate the spread of COVID-19. Guadian Decl., ¶ 17.
The efforts expended by defendants to combat and mitigate the spread of the COVID-19 virus, to include reducing the detainee population at all three facilities to 75% of capacity and maintaining such reduced levels; testing all incoming detainees; increased sanitation of the detention facilities; wearing of masks by all detention staff; distribution of masks to all detainees; education and training to all detainees on COVID-19 symptoms, proper hand hygiene and social distancing; implementation of satellite feeding at Krome and BTC; reconfiguring the dining hall at BTC and reducing its capacity at meal times by 50%; limiting the capacity of transportation vehicles when transfer of detainees is necessary; reconfiguring bunk beds and sleeping arrangements to increase social distancing, where feasible; and curtailment of social visitation, all demonstrate that ICE has been diligent and conscientious in its efforts to curb the spread of the COVID-19 virus in all three facilities, and to protect the health and well-being of detainees and staff at those facilities.
9

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 484 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/04/2021 Page 10 of 19
Nothing that defendants have done, or failed to do, demonstrates conduct that is “so reckless – so conscience shocking – that it violates the Constitution.” Hoffer, 973 F.3d at 1272. To the contrary, defendants have acted reasonably in implementing, where feasible, CDC Guidance and ICE PRR requirements. “Whether one puts it in terms of duty or deliberate indifference, prison officials who act reasonably cannot be found liable under the Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause.” Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. at 485. Defendants are entitled to summary judgment.
III. PLAINTIFFS’ VIOLATION OF DETENTION STANDARDS CLAIM, UNDER THE FIFTH AMENDMENT, FAILS TO STATE A CLAIM
In Count One, plaintiffs allege a violation of due process under United States ex rel. Accardi v. Shaughnessy, 347 U.S. 260 (1954), because defendants have failed to abide by the 2011 Performance-Based National Detention Standards (PBNDS) at Krome and BTC, and the National Detention Standards (NDS) applicable to Glades. D.E. 1 at 98-99. Specifically, petitioners contend ICE has failed to follow the PBNDS and NDS, which in turn require compliance with CDC guidelines, and federal, state, and local laws, since it has “neither reduced the population of Krome, Glades, and BTC … nor have they done anything to ensure social distancing and proper hygiene.” D.E. 1 at 99, ¶ 325. Further, plaintiffs alleged that defendants have failed to comply with CDC Guidelines. Id., ¶¶ 326-331.
In Accardi, petitioner Joseph Accardi, a citizen of Italy, was placed in deportation proceedings because he entered the United States without inspection in 1932, from Canada. 347 U.S. at 501. Deportation proceedings commenced in 1947. In 1948, Accardi applied for suspension of deportation pursuant to section 19(c) of the Immigration Act of 1917. Hearings on the deportation charge and Accardi’s application for suspension of deportation were held before
10

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 484 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/04/2021 Page 11 of 19
Immigration and Naturalization Service officers from 1948 to 1952. Id. A hearing officer found Accardi deportable and recommended a denial of discretionary relief. On July 7, 1952, the Acting Commissioner of Immigration adopted the hearing officer’s findings and recommendation. On April 3, 1953, the Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed the decision of the hearing officer.
Accardi filed a habeas petition, arguing that on October 2, 1952, while his case was pending decision before the Board of Immigration Appeals, the Attorney General announced at a press conference that he planned to deport certain “unsavory characters,” and that he had prepared a confidential list of one hundred individuals, including Accardi, whose deportation he wished. Id. at 502. Accardi claimed that the issuance of the list and related publicity amounted to public prejudgment by the Attorney General so that fair consideration of Accardi’s case by the BIA was made impossible. The district court denied the habeas, and the Second Circuit affirmed.
The Supreme Court granted certiorari. The Court observed that, “[t]he crucial question is whether the alleged conduct of the Attorney General deprived petitioner of any of the rights guaranteed him by the statute or by the regulations issued pursuant thereto.” 347 U.S. at 265. Also, the Court noted that, “[r]egulations with the force and effect of law supplement the bare bones of section 19(c).” Id. (footnotes omitted). The Court cited 8 C.F.R. § 90.3(c)(1949) and 8 C.F.R. § 6.1(d)(1)(Rev. 1952), observing that the Board “is appointed by the Attorney General, serves at his pleasure, and operates under regulations providing that: ‘in considering and determining * * * appeals, the Board of Immigration Appeals shall exercise such discretion and power conferred upon the Attorney General by law as is appropriate and necessary for the disposition of the case. The decision of the Board * * * shall be final except in those cases
11

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 484 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/04/2021 Page 12 of 19
reviewed by the Attorney General.’” Continuing the Court found that, “[t]he regulations just quoted pinpoint the decisive fact
in this case: the Board was required, as it still is, to exercise its own judgment when considering appeals.” Id. at 266. As to Accardi’s allegations, the Court found that the habeas petition “charges the Attorney General with precisely what the regulations forbid him to do: dictating the Board’s decision.” Id. at 267. The Supreme Court remanded the habeas, and stated that if Accardi could prove his allegation, he should receive a new hearing before the Board without the burden of previous proscription on the list. Id. at 268. In closing, the Court observed:
Of course, he may be unable to prove his allegation before the District Court, but he is entitled to the opportunity to try. If successful, he may still fail to convince the Board or the Attorney General, in the exercise of their discretion, that he is entitled to suspension, but at least he will have been afforded that due process required by the regulations in such proceedings. Id. The issue in Accardi was whether the Attorney General “deprived petitioner of any of the rights guaranteed him by the statute or by the regulations issued pursuant thereto.” Id. at 265. While plaintiffs contend their claim is based upon Accardi, the Fifth Amendment, and the APA, they cite to no statute or regulation as the basis for a due process claim. Instead, they rely upon the PBNDS, NDS, and CDC Guidelines, which are not regulations. This distinction was critical in Accardi as the Supreme Court noted that, “[r]egulations with the force and effect of law supplement the bare bones of section 19(c) [of the Immigration Act of 1917]. 347 U.S. at 265. For a regulation to have the force and effect of law, and thus to be the source of an affirmative legal obligation, it must be a “substantive rule,” as opposed to an interpretive rule, general statement of policy, or rules of agency, organization, procedure, or practice. Smith v. Russellville Production Credit Assoc., 777 F.2d 1544, 1547-48 (11th Cir. 1985), citing Chrysler
12

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 484 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/04/2021 Page 13 of 19
Corp. v. Brown, 441 U.S. 281, 301 (1979), and United States v. Harvey, 659 F.2d 62 (5th Cir. Unit B 1981).
The CDC Guidelines, PBNDS, and NDS, are not regulations at all, but general statements of policy and procedure in the operation of detention centers where ICE detainees are housed. These guidelines and internal standards do not have the force and effect of law, nor do they confer any substantive rights. Schweiker v. Hansen, 450 U.S. 785, 789 (1981)(Social Security Claims Manual is not a regulation, has no legal force, and did not bind Social Security Administration); Pasquini v. Morris, 700 F.2d 658, 662 (11th Cir. 1983)(INS Operating Instructions conferred no substantive rights); Dong Sik Kwon v. INS, 646 F.2d 909, 918-19 (5th Cir. 1981)(en banc)(same); and United States v. Craveiro, 907 F.2d 260, 263-64 (1st Cir. 1990)(internal guidelines of a federal agency, that are not mandated by statute or the Constitution, do not confer substantive rights on any party).
Accardi does not transform any internal agency policy, guideline, or manual, into a source of substantive enforceable rights. To the contrary, Accardi found that the Attorney General’s actions may have deprived Accardi of “due process required by the regulations.” The source of the procedural due process right was the regulations, which have the force and effect of law, not a set of agency internal performance standards or guidelines.
The text of the CDC Guidelines is written to provide ample flexibility to facility administrators, in recognition of the unique challenges posed by housing many people in a single physical setting. CDC Guidelines at 2-3. In recognition of the many differing conditions existing at correctional and detention facilities, the CDC states:
The guidance may need to be adapted based on individual facilities’ physical space, staffing, population, operations, and other resources and conditions.
13

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 484 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/04/2021 Page 14 of 19
CDC Guidelines at 1 (emphasis in original). The CDC clearly recognized that detention center administrators and health care professionals would need to exercise their judgment in applying the Guidelines to their facility. Instead of supplying a rigid set of standards, the CDC Guidelines was
intended to provide guiding principles for healthcare and non-healthcare administrators of correction and detention facilities (including but not limited to federal and state prisons, local jails, and detention centers), law enforcement agencies that have custodial authority for detained populations (i.e., US Immigration and Customs Enforcement and US Marshals Service), and their respective health departments, to assist in preparing for potential introduction, spread, and mitigation of COVID-19 in their facilities. CDC Guidelines at 1. The Eleventh Circuit recognized this flexibility in the CDC Guidelines, when it noted that, “the CDC’s guidance -- on which the district court relied heavily – presupposes that some modifications of its social distancing recommendations will be necessary in institutional settings.” Swain, 961 F.3d at 1288. Moreover, Swain noted that the CDC Guidelines provided that, while there should “ideally” be six feet between inmates, “[s]trategies will need to be tailored to the individual space in the facility and the needs of the population and staff,” and that “[n]ot all strategies will be feasible in all facilities.” Id. There are few things “ideal” when it comes to the coronavirus pandemic. If Krome, BTC, or Glades was unable to maintain the ideal six feet of social distancing recommended by the CDC Guidelines, the same Guidelines allowed facility administrators to tailor the individual space to the needs of the population and staff. CDC Guidelines at 11. That is what defendants did. When the detainee population was reduced, ICE was able to stagger the occupancy of the bunkbeds to allow for social distancing, or in the case of BTC, to reduce the number of occupants in each room.
14

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 484 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/04/2021 Page 15 of 19
The CDC Guidelines do not have the force and effect of law, and create no substantive enforceable rights. Therefore, plaintiffs fail to state a claim.
III. PLAINTIFFS’ FAIL TO STATE A CLAIM OF A SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS VIOLATION IN THEIR STATE CREATED DANGER CLAIM
Plaintiffs also claim they are entitled to release under the state-created danger doctrine. D.E. 1 at 105. In Perez-Guerrero v. U.S. Atty General, 717 F.3d 1224 (11th Cir. 2013), the Eleventh Circuit explained that “only custodial relationships automatically give rise to a governmental duty, under substantive due process, to protect persons from harm by third parties.” Id. at 1233, citing Doe v. Braddy, 673 F.3d 1313, 1318 (11th Cir. 2012). Defendants agree that plaintiffs are in a custodial relationship, but the COVID-19 virus is not a third party. The cases in which individuals invoked the state created danger doctrine involved harm caused by individuals, not a communicable disease. White v. Lemacks, 183 F.3d 1253 (11th Cir. 1999)(nurse working in prison infirmary assaulted by inmate); Perez-Guerrero (alien claimed life would be threatened if deported to Mexico due to reprisals by persons he testified against in United States); and Doe v. Braddy (five-year old child sexually assaulted by teenaged minor placed by state social workers in adoptive home). Inasmuch as the coronavirus is not a third party, plaintiffs cannot claim a substantive due process right to protection from it.
As persons detained by the government, the Eighth Amendment affords protection to plaintiffs from deliberately indifferent conduct which poses a substantial risk of serious harm to their medical needs. There is no reason to construe another constitutional right, under the guise of substantive due process, that already exists under the Eighth Amendment.
In Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989), the Supreme Court faced the issue of how claims of excessive force by law enforcement officers should be analyzed under the Constitution.
15

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 484 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/04/2021 Page 16 of 19
Many appellate courts framed the issue under substantive due process, finding the use of undue force to be a deprivation of liberty without due process of law. Id. at 392, citing Johnson v. Glick, 481 F.2d 1028 (1973). The Supreme Court observed that, in the years following Johnson v. Glick, “the vast majority of lower federal courts have applied its four-part ‘substantive due process’ test indiscriminately to all excessive force claims lodged against law enforcement and prison officials under § 1983, without considering whether the particular application of force might implicate a more specific constitutional right governed by a different standard.” 490 U.S. at 393 (footnoted omitted). Further, the high Court noted that Johnson v. Glick “applied neither the Fourth Amendment nor the Eighth, the two most textually obvious sources of constitutional protection against physically abusive governmental conduct.” Id. at 392 (footnote omitted).
The Supreme Court found that in addressing an excessive force claim, the analysis begins by identifying the specific constitutional right allegedly infringed by the challenged application of force. In most instances, that would be under the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition against unreasonable seizures of the person, or the Eighth Amendment’s ban on cruel and unusual punishments. Id. at 394. Rather than apply some generalized “excessive force” standard, the validity of the claim must be judged by reference to the specific constitutional standard which governs that right. The Court found that, because the claim of excessive force arose out of an investigatory stop by Charlotte, North Carolina, police officers, the claim should be analyzed under the Fourth Amendment. Id. at 394. “Because the Fourth Amendment provides an explicit textual source of constitutional protection against this sort of physically intrusive governmental conduct, that amendment, not the more generalized notion of ‘substantive due process,’ must be the guide for analyzing these claims.” Id. at 395.
Graham’s logic applies with equal force to plaintiffs’ claim that a separate substantive 16

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 484 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/04/2021 Page 17 of 19
due process right exists which protects them from state created danger. The Eighth Amendment provides an explicit textual source of constitutional protection to detained persons against governmental conduct that poses a serious risk to their medical needs, due to deliberately indifferent conduct. Instead of applying some generalized notion of substantive due process which underlies the state created danger doctrine, the Eighth Amendment provides a clear standard for analyzing claims of inadequate medical care. Consequently, plaintiffs cannot claim a separate right against allegedly inadequate medical care under the Due Process clause.
Even if a separate substantive due process right exists for detained individuals, protecting them from state created danger, defendants are entitled to summary judgment on such a claim. In White v. Lemacks, supra, the Eleventh Circuit observed that, after the Supreme Court’s decision in Collins v. City of Harker Heights, 503 U.S. 115 (1992), “it appears the only relationships that automatically give rise to a governmental duty to protect individuals from harm by third parties under the substantive due process clause are custodial relationships, such as those which arise from the incarceration of prisoners or other forms of involuntary confinement through which the government deprives individuals of their liberty and thus the ability to take care of themselves.” 183 F.3d at 1257.
In the Eleventh Circuit, when the government has a custodial relationship with an individual, the individual suffering harm must establish two elements: (1) the failure to act must have been a substantial factor leading to the violation of a constitutionally protected liberty or property interest; and (2) the official having the responsibility to act must display deliberate indifference. Taylor v. Ledbetter, 818 F.2d 791, 794 (11th Cir. 1987)(en banc). The appellate court expressly referenced Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 (1976), in deciding that the deliberate indifference to a prisoner’s serious illness or injury standard should also apply to claims by foster
17

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 484 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/04/2021 Page 18 of 19

children who are injured while in the custody of their foster parents. 818 F.2d at 795-96. In

H.A.L, J.H.L. and S.L.L. v. Foltz, 551 F.3d 1227 (11th Cir. 2008), the Eleventh Circuit affirmed

the lower court’s denial of summary judgment based on qualified immunity, finding that the

relevant issue was whether defendants “actually knew, and were deliberately indifferent to, a

substantial risk of Plaintiffs being sexually abused in the Shick home.” Id. at 1232.

Since a state created danger claim, based upon substantive due process, would apply the

same deliberate indifference standard because of the custodial relationship, defendants are

entitled to summary judgment for the same reasons as the Eighth Amendment deliberate

indifference claim.

CONCLUSION

Defendants are entitled to summary judgment on plaintiffs’ deliberate indifference claim

because the material, uncontroverted facts establish that defendants have acted reasonably in

implementing measures to contain the spread of the COVID-19 virus at Krome, BTC, and

Glades. Plaintiffs’ due process claim under Accardi should be dismissed for failure to state a

claim since the CDC Guidelines are not regulations with the force and effect of law. Similarly,

plaintiffs’ state created danger claim also fails to state a claim since the Eighth Amendment

directly addresses the issue of obligations under the Constitution, insofar as serious medical

needs, owed by custodians to individuals in their custody.

DATED: January 4, 2021

Respectfully submitted,

ARIANA FAJARDO ORSHAN UNITED STATES ATTORNEY

By: s/ Dexter A. Lee DEXTER A. LEE Assistant U.S. Attorney
18

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 484 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/04/2021 Page 19 of 19
Fla. Bar No. 0936693 99 N.E. 4th Street, Suite 300 Miami, Florida 33132 (305) 961-9320 Fax: (305) 530-7139 E-mail: dexter.lee@usdoj.gov
s/Natalie Diaz NATALIE DIAZ ASSISTANT U.S. ATTORNEY Florida Bar No. 85834 E-mail: Natalie.Diaz@usdoj.gov 99 N.E. 4th Street, Suite 300 Miami, Florida 33132 Telephone: (305) 961-9306
ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that on January 4, 2021, I electronically filed the foregoing document with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF.
__s/ Dexter A. Lee______________________ DEXTER A. LEE Assistant U.S. Attorney
19

 
 Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 515 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/21/2021 Page 1 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
MIAMI DIVISION CASE NO. 20-21553-COOKE/GOODMAN PATRICK GAYLE, et al., Plaintiffs, v. MICHAEL W. MEADE, et al., Defendants. __________________________/ ORDER ON EMERGENCY MOTION TO INTERVENE This Order concerns the Emergency Motion to Intervene filed by Hilcias Ricardo Batz. [ECF No. 486]. Respondents filed an opposition to Mr. Batz’s Emergency Motion to Intervene. [ECF No. 514]. In the Court’s June 2, 2020 Order, United States District Judge Marcia G. Cooke certified as class members “all current civil immigration detainees who are held by ICE at Krome, BTC and Glades when this action was filed, or in the future.” [ECF No. 158, p. 38]. In addition, in the same Order, Judge Cooke also ruled that the Court “shall retain jurisdiction over all class members who are transferred to other facilities regardless of where those facilities are located.” Id. Mr. Batz was detained at the Broward Transitional Center; however, on January 15, 2021, Mr. Batz was removed to his native country of Guatemala. [ECF No. 514-1, p. 2].

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 515 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/21/2021 Page 2 of 2
While the Court retains jurisdiction over class members transferred to other facilities, the Court does not retain jurisdiction over class members that have been deported out of the United States. See, e.g., Salmeron-Salmeron v. Spivey, 926 F.3d 1283, 1290 (11th Cir. 2019) (determining that a habeas corpus petition challenging detention became moot when the petitioner was removed); Soliman v. United States, 296 F.3d 1237, 123 (11th Cir. 2002) (finding habeas corpus petition challenging detention was moot when the petitioner was removed because “no order from this Court requiring INS to release him into the community awaiting his final removal could have any effect”).
Because Mr. Batz has been removed to Guatemala, the Undersigned denies as moot Mr. Batz’s Emergency Motion to Intervene.
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers, in Miami, Florida, on January 21, 2021.
Copies furnished to: The Honorable Marcia G. Cooke All counsel of record
2

 
 Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 532 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/02/2021 Page 1 of 13
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case No. 20-21553-Civ-COOKE/GOODMAN
PATRICK GAYLE, et al., Petitioners-Plaintiffs, on behalf of
themselves and those similarly situated,
v. MICHAEL W. MEADE, et al.,
Respondents-Defendants. ______________________________________/
PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Defendants’ Motion violates the most basic rule of summary judgment practice (which their Motion notably does not discuss): the Court must “view[] all evidence and draw[] all reasonable factual inferences in favor of the nonmoving party,” that is, Plaintiffs. See Strickland v. Norfolk S. Ry. Co., 692 F.3d 1151, 1154 (11th Cir. 2012). Even in an injunctive action where the district court will ultimately be the finder of fact, the court addressing a motion for summary judgment must draw all inferences in favor of the nonmoving party. See Heron Develop. Corp. v. Vacation Tours, Inc., 814 Fed. App’x. 468, 472 (11th Cir. 2020).
Defendants nonetheless ignore all of the record evidence that does not support their theory of the case. In this case, Plaintiffs have submitted into the record dozens of affidavits. They have presented multiple witnesses at evidentiary hearings. They have taken several depositions. And the Court itself has made factual findings—including factual findings that Defendants have violated their own regulations and displayed deliberate indifference: “Credible testimony and sworn declarations filed in this matter after the issuances of the TRO suggest that ICE has only partially complied with its own directives or CDC Guidelines despites its submissions to the Court and paint a grim picture of an agency steeped in deliberate indifference.” [See ECF 158 at 33.]
1

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 532 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/02/2021 Page 2 of 13
Ignoring all of this evidence, Defendants confine themselves to declarations from their own witnesses, designed to place events in the light most favorable to them. By scrupulously avoiding the entire body of evidence that contradicts their version of events, Defendants have confirmed that they do not have a valid case for summary judgment. The Court should deny their Motion.
ARGUMENT A. Record Evidence Shows Defendants Have Violated their Own Regulations
Concerning Protecting the Class From COVID-19.
Plaintiffs’ first claim, under the Accardi doctrine, is based on Defendants’ failure to follow their own policies and regulations designed to protect Plaintiffs and other people in their custody from COVID-19 infection. Specifically, Plaintiffs claim that Defendants have violated (1) the CDC Guidelines, (2) the 2011 Performance-Based National Detention Standards (“PBNDS”) applicable Krome and BTC, and (3) the National Detention Standards (“NDS”) applicable to Glades.
Defendants do not bother to deny that they have violated the CDC Guidelines, PBNDS, or NDS. Instead, they contend that these standards are not binding on them, and that they are free to disregard them with complete abandon. [See ECF 484 at 13 (“These guidelines and internal standards do not have the force and effect of law, nor do they confer any substantive rights.”).] But the Court has already rejected this legal position, finding that the CDC Guidelines are binding on ICE through the PBNDS and NDS:
Some ICE detention centers are subject to ICE’s Performance-Based National Detention Standards 2011 (“PBNDS”), while other detention centers are subject to ICE’s National Detention Standards (“NDS”).24 Section 4.3(II)(10) of ICE’s PBNDS requires that “Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) guidelines for the prevention and control of infectious and communicable diseases shall be followed.” (PBNDS at 258.) Similarly, section 1.1(I) of the NDS, mandates “facilit[ies] will operate in accordance with all applicable regulations and codes, such as those of . . . the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). . . .” (NDS at 1.) Accordingly, ICE issued its own set of directives and guidelines regarding the coronavirus pandemic that largely comports with the CDC’s described guidelines.
[ECF 158 at 10 (alterations in original; footnotes omitted).] Defendants neither address this legal holding by the Court, nor explain why they believe the Court’s conclusion is flawed.
2

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 532 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/02/2021 Page 3 of 13
Nor could they: Defendants have conclusively admitted that the CDC Guidelines are binding on them in responses to Plaintiffs’ requests for admission:
1. ICE is required to implement CDC Guidelines.
Response: Admit as to the Three Detention Facilities.
2. ICE is required to follow CDC Guidelines.
Response: Admit as to the Three Detention Facilities, to the extent that the CDC Guidelines do not conflict with the court orders in this case
3. ICE is required to comply with ICE’s ERO COVID-19 Pandemic Response Requirements.
Response: Admit as to the Three Detention Facilities.
[See Respondents’ Responses to Pet’r’s 1st Set of Requests for Admissions, Responses to Requests 1–3 (Ex. A); see also id. Responses to Requests 4 (admitting PBNDS apply to BTC & Krome), 6 (admitting NDS apply to Glades).] These admissions are binding on Defendants. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(b) (“A matter admitted under this rule is conclusively established unless the court, on motion, permits the admission to be withdrawn or amended.”). Thus, Defendants are correct that there is no genuine dispute over whether they are bound by these standards but for the wrong reason: there can be no genuine dispute that Defendants are legally bound to follow these standards.
Not only are Defendants legally bound by CDC Guidelines, but the Court has already received evidence—and found—that Defendants have repeatedly violated the binding CDC Guidelines. As the Court explained, the CDC Guidelines in place throughout the pendency of this action carefully limit the circumstances in which individuals in detention may be transferred and the steps needed to ensure the safety of the people being transferred and to prevent transfers from becoming vectors for spreading COVID-19:
As previously noted, the CDC’s Guidelines are clear that that transfers should be avoided or restricted and utilized as a last resort “unless necessary for medical evaluation, medical isolation/quarantine, clinical care, extenuating security concerns, or to prevent overcrowding.” (CDC’s Guideline at 9.) The CDC’s Guidelines further state that individuals with confirmed cases should be restricted from leaving detention facilities “unless released from custody or if a transfer is necessary for medical care, infection control, lack of medical isolation space, or extenuating security concerns.” (Id. at 17.) The CDC Guidelines also state that to the extent that a transfer is “absolutely necessary,”
3

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 532 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/02/2021 Page 4 of 13
ICE is to “perform verbal screening and a temperature check as outlined in the [CDC Guidelines] before the individual leaves the facility.” (Id. at 9.) If an individual does not clear the screening process, ICE is expected to “delay the transfer and follow the protocol for a suspected COVID-19 case—including putting a face mask on the individual, immediately placing them under medical isolation, and evaluating them for possible COVID-19 testing.” (Id.) And “[i]f the transfer must still occur, ensure that the receiving facility has capacity to properly isolate the individual upon arrival.” (Id.)
[ECF 158 at 29–30 (footnote omitted).] The Court further noted that ICE’s April 2020 Pandemic Response Requirements (“PRR”) required Defendants, where possible, to “‘restrict transfers of detained non-ICE populations to and from other jurisdictions and facilities unless necessary for medical evaluation, isolation/quarantine, clinical care, or extenuating security concerns.’” [Id. at 30 (quoting PRR at 13) (emphasis in original).]
Despite these clear CDC Guidelines, the Court received declarations and live testimony claiming that ICE continues to flout this Court’s [Temporary Restraining] Order by (1) failing to consistently evaluate detainees for COVID-19 before transferring them to other detention centers, (2) failing to provide protective masks during the transfer process; and (3) failing to provide meaningful access to hygiene products soap, hand sanitizers, masks, gloves and cleaning supplies.
[Id. (footnote omitted) (citing ECF Nos.106; 106-2); see also .] As the Court explained, it received testimony on June 3, 2020 from Alejandro Ferrera Borges, who’s “lived experience” concerning transfers showed that ICE was not following its obligations, and that it had in fact transferred Mr. Borges and others from South Florida to north Georgia and back in two days for no apparent reason:
Mr. Borges testified that he was not tested for COVID-19 before he was transferred from BTC to Stewart Detention Center (“Stewart”) in Georgia. He also testified that he was not processed at Stewart upon arrival. Rather, he was almost immediately transferred back to BTC. He was not tested before he was transferred from Stewart back to BTC. Mr. Borges also testified that he was not provided a mask during the transfer process, so he used the same mask, soiled from two days of wear, before his transfer from BTC to Stewart. Mr. Borges wore the same mask when he was transferred back to BTC. Disturbingly, guards did not wear masks during Mr. Borges’ transfer process.
[ECF 158 at 31; see also June 3, 2020 Hr’g Tr. at 22–25 (Borges testimony) (Ex. B); id. at 38– 40 (Valladares testimony concerning same trip).]
4

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 532 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/02/2021 Page 5 of 13
The Court likewise found that Defendants had violated the CDC Guidelines concerning “the practice of cohorting.” As the court explained,
the CDC’s Guidelines state that the practice of cohorting should be utilized “only if there are no available options.” (CDC’s Guideline at 15.) Both the CDC’s Guidelines and ICE’s PRR state, “[o]nly individuals who are laboratory confirmed COVID-19 cases should be placed under medical isolation as a cohort. Do not cohort confirmed cases with suspected cases or case contacts.” (Id. at 16; PRR at 14.) [ECF 158 at 32.] But as the Court noted, “[d]espite the fact that its own Guidelines call for detention facilities to avoid group cohorting, ICE flagrantly flouts its own rules on the subject and groups asymptomatic detainees together.” [Id. (footnote omitted).] In fact, as of the date this Court entered its Omnibus Order, “ICE admit[ted] that it [wa]s . . . cohorting 320 detainees at Glades—the entire detainee population—‘as a precautionary measure, per the established protocol.’” [Id.; see also ECF 147-1 (June 4, 2020 Decl. of Liana J. Castano) (“There are 320 ICE detainees who are cohorted as a precautionary measure, per the established protocol.”) (Ex. C); Respondents’ Responses to Pet’r’s 1st Set of Requests for Admissions, Responses to Request 22 (Ex. A).] And once again, individual testimony illustrated this larger issue: “Mr. Borges testified that upon transferring back to BTC, he was quarantined for 14 days” but that during that quarantine period “he was taken to recreation at the same time as individuals known to be sick with COVID-19.” [Id.; see also June 3, 2020 Hr’g Tr. at 25–26 (Ex. B).] As the Court explained, these practices in violation of the CDC Guidelines “substantially increase a detainee’s exposure to COVID-19.” [ECF 158 at 32; see also June 2, 2020 Hr’g Tr. at 7–24 (testimony of Dr. Joseph Shin) (Ex. D).] Given this, and the additional facts discussed in Plaintiffs’ separate statement, it is little wonder Defendants spend no time denying that they have violated the CDC Guidelines and other binding guidance. It has already been conclusively established (and admitted) that these guidelines are binding. And there is more than ample evidence Defendants have repeatedly violated these binding guidelines. Defendants’ attempt to dismiss the Accardi claim on summary judgment therefore fails.
5

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 532 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/02/2021 Page 6 of 13
B. Record Evidence Shows Defendants Have Been Deliberately Indifferent to Class Members’ Rights. 1. Defendants’ Repeated, Documented Violations of Controlling Protocols Show their Deliberate Indifference.
Defendants’ deliberate indifference argument falls alongside their Accardi argument. As this Court noted in its Omnibus Order, the repeated violations of CDC Guidelines, this Court’s TRO, and other requirements themselves show deliberate indifference. [See ECF 158 at 29-33.] Although this claim includes both an objective and a subjective component, Defendants do not dispute that the objective standard is met—that is, they do not dispute that COVID-19 creates a severe risk to the men and women who are in their custody. [See Castano Dep. at 14–15, 20–22, 69–72, 121–23 (Ex. E).] Instead, they contend that “From the beginnings of the coronavirus pandemic, defendants have diligently and conscientiously implemented measures to contain the spread of COVID-19 within its three facilities, and to provide medical care to detainees who were infected.” [See ECF 485 at 6.]
Defendants’ attempt to manufacture a rosy picture of conditions inside the three facilities at issue here violates the basic rules of summary judgment, as it ignores the voluminous evidence that contradicts their position. But as this Court explained previously, the record evidence collected in this case “far exceeds mere negligence and evidences a reckless state of mind. ICE does not test all detainees before transferring them because it doesn’t have enough tests to do so.” [ECF 158 at 31.]
In congratulating themselves, Defendants ignore at least the following evidence: • Testimony at the June 3, 2020 Hearing that guards at Krome routinely failed to wear
masks and, in fact, the guard who took one of Plaintiffs’ witnesses to testify was not wearing a mask [June 3, 2020 Hr’g Tr. at 43–44 (Ex. B); see also ECF 94-1, Decl. of Miguel Angel Marroquin Perez ¶ 4; ECF 94-1, Decl of Deivys Perez Valladares ¶ 6; ECF 94-1, Decl. of Danny Ruiz Garcia ¶ 4; ECF 106-2, Decl. of Anderson Jesus Amaral ¶¶ 10; 15, 20, 22; 106-1, Decl. of Naim Arrak ¶ 14; ECF 106-2, Decl. of Bryan Alexander Corona Matos ¶ 12; ECF 106-2, Decl. of Gogo Djadju ¶ 15; ECF 106-2,
6

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 532 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/02/2021 Page 7 of 13
Decl. of Jordy Humberto Molina Garay ¶ 7; ECF 106-2, Decl. of Mohamed Hasan ¶ 13 (Ex. F)];1 • Testimony that Defendants have repeatedly failed to supply sufficient no-cost hand soap to the class members to allow for frequent hand washing [ECF 94-1, Decl. of Iran Pichardo Perez-Borroto ¶ 8; ECF 106-1, Decl. of Naim Arrak ¶ 12; ECF 106-2, Decl. of Mohamed Hasan ¶ 14’ ECF 106-2, Decl. of Bryan Alexander Corona Matos ¶ 13; ECF 106-2, Decl. of Freddy Rodriguez Del Rio ¶ 14; ECF 130, Decl. of Maykel Valera Ramirez ¶ 5; ECF 203-1, Decl. of Danny Ruiz Garcia ¶ 12; ECF 204-1, Decl. of Maykel Valera Ramirez ¶ 11; ECF 205-1, Decl. of Miguel Angel Marroquin Perez ¶ 14; ECF 206-1, Decl. of Alejandro Ferrera Borges ¶ 13; ECF 208-1, Decl. of Maikel Carrasco Polo ¶ 12; ECF 106-2, Decl. of Anderson Jesus Amaral ¶ 19; ECF 106-2, Decl. of Jean Auguste ¶ 11; ECF 106-2, Decl. of Steve Cooper ¶ 12; ECF 163-1, Decl. of Steve Cooper ¶ 8; ECF 177-2, Decl. of Deivys Perez Valladares ¶ 18; ECF 106-2, Decl. of James Saintyl ¶ 9; ECF 106-2, Decl. of Dushane Spaulding ¶ 7, 9; ECF 1771, Decl. of Lathario Glenwood Rolle ¶ 18; ECF 130, Decl. of Astley Thomas ¶ 17]; • Testimony about ICE’s decision to have class members transferred from south Florida to north Georgia and back in two days in the middle of the COVID-19 pandemic for no apparent reason [ECF 158 at 31; see also June 3, 2020 Hr’g Tr. at 22–25 (Borges testimony) (Ex. B); id. at 38–40 (Valladares testimony)]; • Testimony that a symptomatic class member was transferred in anticipation of a potential deportation flight without being tested, that he was then transferred in a van with four other detained people, that the group was then placed in a holding cell where they could not socially distance, that they were then tested for COVID-19, that although no medical professional ever told them the results of the test, ICE guards said that three of the group had tested positive, and that when the group returned to Glades, two of the officers were “laughing,” and “joking, mocking” the group due to the positive tests [June 25, 2020 Hr’g Tr. at 23–31 (Ex. G); accord ECF 163-4, Decl. of Jermaine Scott ¶ 22];

1

All Petitioner declarations cited in this motion are in Composite Exhibit F.

7

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 532 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/02/2021 Page 8 of 13
• Declarations outlining multiple violations of this Court’s TRO, including social distancing requirements, mask-wearing requirements, and requirements to provide sufficient soap and hygiene products [see ECF 106 at 5–8 (summarizing declarations); ECF 106-2 (supporting declarations)];
• Evidence that Defendants have routinely transferred class members in circumstances that do not allow proper social distancing and in many instances failed to provide masks to people it was transferring [see ECF 106 at 11–13 (summarizing declarations); ECF 106-2 (supporting declarations)]; and
• Testimony that no ICE staff member at any of the three facilities has been disciplined for violating COVID-19 protocols beyond reminders to follow the rules [Castano Dep. at 247–56 (Krome and Glades) (Ex. E); Lopez-Vega Dep. at 235–36 (BTC) (Ex. H).]. Defendants’ repeated violations of the governing standards—not to mention the
mockery of individuals who have tested positive for COVID-19—show Defendants’ deliberate indifference. This evidence certainly precludes summary judgment for Defendants on this claim as well.
2. Defendants’ Failure to Develop a COVID-19 Vaccination Protocol for the Class and Others in their Custody Shows their Deliberate Indifference.
And as things now sit, the most glaring evidence of Defendants’ deliberate indifference may be their failure to even develop a plan for vaccinating the class members and the other people who they are holding. [Castano Dep. at 36–37 (Krome and Glades) (Ex. E); LopezVega Dep. at 71 (BTC) (Ex. H)]. Although no COVID-19 vaccination existed much the time this litigation has been pending, two vaccines have been granted emergency authorization by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, and others are in the works. [See FDA Webpage Concerning Moderna COVID-19 Vaccine (Ex. I); FDA Webpage Concerning Pfizer COVID19 Vaccine (Ex. J).] And while Defendants could obviously not predict precisely which vaccines might be approved or precisely when, it has been obvious for months that the path to protecting lives and ending the COVID-19 crisis—both inside Defendants’ detention facilities and in the wider world—runs through a successful vaccination program. Yet due to Defendants’ failure to even develop a plan for vaccine distribution, there is still no vaccine for the class members in Defendants’ care—and no prospect of having access to a vaccine.
8

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 532 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/02/2021 Page 9 of 13
Notably, the Federal Bureau of Prisons—under the direction of the Defendant Attorney General—issued a 31-page guidance document concerning the implementation of COVID-19 vaccinations in federal prison facilities in early January 2021. [See COVID-19 Vaccine Guidance Federal Bureau of Prisons Clinical Guidance (Jan. 4, 2021) (Ex. K).] So, Defendants have lacked neither the opportunity nor the wherewithal to develop a plan to address the need for vaccinations for the class members. And yet, Defendants still have no plan for how to vaccinate the class members or the other people who come in contact with the class members at Krome, Glades, and BTC. This further confirms their deliberate indifference as to the class members’ medical care.
C. State Created Danger Doctrine Defendants have also moved for summary judgment on Plaintiffs’ state created danger claim, arguing that Plaintiffs have failed to “state of claim of a substantive due process violation.” [ECF 484 at 15.] Defendants’ arguments are without merit. First, Defendants argue that the state created danger doctrine only applies to “protect persons from harm by third parties” and “the COVID-19 virus is not a third party.” [ECF 484 at 15.] This argument is cut and pasted from Defendants’ Opposition to Motion for Temporary Restraining Order. [ECF 40 at 9.] As this Court noted in its Order Adopting in Part Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, environmental conditions can be the basis for the state created danger doctrine. [ECF 76 at 6 (citing Pauluk v. Savaage, 836 F.3d 1117, 1119 (9th Cir. 2016); see also Munger v. City of Glasgow Police Dept., 227 F.3d 1082, 1087 (9th Cir. 2000) (finding that police officers could be held liable for a death caused by hypothermia where they ejected an intoxicated person from a bar late at night when they knew that the person was “wearing only a t-shirt and jeans [and] was intoxicated”); Kneipp v. Tedder, 95 F.3d 1199, 1203 (3d Cir. 1996) (finding liability under the state-created danger doctrine where police officers left a visibility intoxicated pedestrian alone to walk home on a dangerously cold night); Reed v. Gardner, 986 F.2d 1122, 1127 (7th Cir. 1993) (police officer who removed a sober driver and left behind a passenger whom he knew to be drunk with the keys to the car was subject to liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983).] Given that this Court has already considered and rejected this argument, it provides no basis for summary judgment. Second, Defendants argue that the court should analyze Plaintiff’s state-created danger allegations under the Eighth Amendment “instead of applying some generalized notion of
9

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 532 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/02/2021 Page 10 of 13
substantive due process” under the Fifth Amendment. [ECF 484 at 17.] But Plaintiffs are not in criminal confinement; they are in civil detention—thus direct application of the Eighth Amendment is inappropriate. See C.G.B. v. Wolf, 464 F. Supp. 3d 174, 210 (D.D.C. 2020) (“While civil immigration detainees are protected by the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause, these Eighth Amendment protections nevertheless apply to them ‘because a [civil] detainee’s rights are ‘at least as great as the Eighth Amendment protections available to a convicted prisoner.’”); Adekoya v. Holder, 751 F. Supp. 2d 688, 695 n.4 (S.D.N.Y. 2010) (“Because Adekoya was in civil immigration detention rather than criminal detention, his deliberate indifference claims should be analyzed under the Fifth Amendment's Due Process clause rather than the Eighth Amendment’s ‘cruel and unusual punishment’ clause.”); see also ECF 158 at 28 (“The minimum standard of care to be provided to civil detainees under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment is the same as that allowed by the Eighth Amendment for convicted persons.”). Thus, this argument goes nowhere.
Finally, Defendants argue that even under a substantive due process analysis, they are entitled to summary judgment for the same reasons they give in defense of Plaintiffs’ deliberate indifference claim. [ECF 484 at 18.] Defendants, however, are not entitled to summary judgment on Plaintiffs’ deliberate indifference claim for all of the reasons already discussed. See supra Section B.
D. In the Face of these Violations, Injunctive Relief Is Appropriate. Given the substantial evidence supporting Plaintiff’s causes of action, there is more than an ample basis for a permanent injunction. Indeed, this Court has already recognized that, given the risks that COVID-19 poses to the class members, and given Defendants’ repeated violations of basic protocols designed to prevent the spread of this deadly disease among people in custody, the evidence that supports injunctive relief. [See generally ECF 158.] That is no less true today than it was before. Indeed, the record now includes Defendants’ glaring failure to develop a vaccine protocol for the class members and the other people in ICE custody.
10

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 532 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/02/2021 Page 11 of 13
In this respect, it is notable that Defendants do not acknowledge their past transgressions and profess that they have cleaned up their act.2 Instead, Defendants’ position is that the evidence indisputably shows they have never fallen down on the job—and never violated the CDC Guidelines or similar binding rules, or never displayed deliberate indifference to the class member’ medical needs. [See ECF 484 at 18 (contending that “material, uncontroverted facts establish that defendants have acted reasonably in implementing measures to contain the spread of the COVID-19 virus at Krome, BTC, and Glades”).] But this Court has already considered the evidence in the record and found otherwise. [See ECF 158 at 26–38.] In the least, this means that there is a basis in the evidence to find in Plaintiffs’ favor on these issues, and that summary judgment is improper.
CONCLUSION The Court should deny Defendant’s Motion.
Respectfully Submitted,
Date: February 2, 2021
/s/ Scott M. Edson Scott M. Edson, Esq. Florida Bar No. 17258 KING & SPALDING LLP 1700 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, STE 200 Washington, DC 20006-4707 Telephone: (202) 737-0500 Facsimile: (202) 626-3737 sedson@kslaw.com Counsel for Petitioners-Plaintiffs

2

Of course, the argument that conditions had improved to the point that no continuing

injunctive relief was necessary would necessarily raise issues of fact—including whether any

improvements in conditions were attributable to this Court’s prior injunctive relief, and

whether Defendants could be trusted to take appropriate steps in the absence of injunctive

relief.

11

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 532 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/02/2021 Page 12 of 13

Sarah T. Gillman*
RAPID DEFENSE NETWORK 11 Broadway, Suite 615 New York, NY 10004 Tel.: (212) 843-0910 Fax: (212) 257-7033 sarah@defensenetwork.org *Appearing Pro Hac Vice

Drew T. Bell Florida Bar No. 120435
KING & SPALDING LLP 500 West Second Street, STE 1800 Austin, TX 78701 Telephone: (512) 457-2000 Facsimile: (512) 457-2100 dbell@kslaw.com

Rebecca Sharpless Florida Bar No. 0131024 Romy Lerner Florida Bar No. 116713
UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI SCHOOL OF
LAW - IMMIGRATION CLINIC 1311 Miller Drive Suite, E-273 Coral Gables, Florida 33146 Tel: (305) 284-3576 Fax: (305) 284-6092 rsharpless@law.miami.edu

Kathryn S. Lehman Florida Bar No.: 95642 Chad A. Peterson Florida Bar No.: 91585
KING & SPALDING LLP 1180 Peachtree Street, N.E. Atlanta, GA 30309 Telephone: (404) 572-4600 Facsimile: (404) 572-5100 klehman@kslaw.com cpeterson@kslaw.com

Paul R. Chavez FL Bar No. 1021395 Maia Fleischman FL Bar No. 1010709
SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER 2 S. Biscayne Blvd., Ste. 3200 Miami, FL 33101 Tel: (305) 537-0577 paul.chavez@splcenter.org maia.fleischman@splcenter.org

Mark Andrew Prada Fla. Bar No. 91997 Anthony Richard Dominguez Fla. Bar No. 1002234
PRADA URIZAR, PLLC 3191 Coral Way, Suite 500 Miami, FL 33145 Tel.: (786) 703-2061 Fax: (786) 708-9508 mprada@pradaurizar.com adominguez@pradaurizar.com

Lisa Lehner Florida Bar No. 382191
AMERICANS FOR IMMIGRANT
JUSTICE 5355 NW 36 Street, Suite 2201 Miami, FL 33166 Tel: (305) 573-1106 Ext. 1020 Fax: (305) 576-6273 Llehner@aijustice.org

Andrea Montavon McKillip Florida Bar No. 56401
LEGAL AID SERVICE OF BROWARD
COUNTY, INC. 491 North State Road 7 Plantation, Florida 33317 Tel. (954) 736-2493 Fax (954) 736-2484 amontavon@legalaid.org

Counsel for Petitioners-Plaintiffs

12

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 532 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/02/2021 Page 13 of 13 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on the 2nd day of February 2021, I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system, which will then send a notification of such filing (NEF) to all counsel of record.
/s/ Scott M. Edson___________ Scott M. Edson, Esq. Florida Bar No. 17258 KING & SPALDING LLP 1700 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, STE 200 Washington, DC 20006-4707 Telephone: (202) 737-0500 Facsimile: (202) 626-3737 sedson@kslaw.com Counsel for Petitioners-Plaintiffs
13

 
 Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 551 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/16/2021 Page 1 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
MIAMI DIVISION CASE NO. 20-21553-COOKE/GOODMAN PATRICK GAYLE, et al., Plaintiffs, v. MICHAEL W. MEADE, et al., Defendants. __________________________/ ORDER FOLLOWING SPECIAL MASTER’S NOTICE AND RECOMMENDATION This Order concerns Special Master Matthew Dates’ Notice Made Pursuant to the Court’s Order Regarding the Special Master’s Report. [ECF No. 545]. By February 19, 2021, the Special Master’s full, unredacted Report and Recommendations may be provided to a core group of no more than five of Plaintiffs’ attorneys but must be provided under an “attorney’s eyes only” protocol. By the same February 19, 2021 deadline, a redacted version of the Special Master’s Report and Recommendations (in accordance with the Special Master’s recommendation in his Notice [ECF No. 545]) shall be publicly filed on CM/EMF. DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers, in Miami, Florida, on February 16, 2021.

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 551 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/16/2021 Page 2 of 2 Copies furnished to: The Honorable Marcia G. Cooke All counsel of record
2

 
 Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 560 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/19/2021 Page 1 of 23
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case No. 20-21553-Civ-Cooke/Goodman
PATRICK GAYLE, et al., Petitioners-Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and those similarly situated,
vs.
MICHAEL W. MEADE, et al., Respondents-Defendants.
___________________________________________/ SPECIAL MASTER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Currently before the Court is the Petitioner-Plaintiffs (“Petitioners”) second Motion to Compel Compliance with the Court’s June 6, 2020 Preliminary Injunction. Based upon observations made personally by the undersigned during the facility inspections at the Krome Detention Center in Miami (“Krome”), the Broward Transitional Center in Pompano Beach (“BTC”) and the Glades County Detention Center in Moore Haven (“Glades”), the Special Master recommends that the Court grant in part and deny in part the pending second motion to compel filed by the Petitioners.
Consistent with the Court’s Order Appointing the Special Master (“Appointment Order”), the undersigned inspected each facility to include the following areas: all housing units where the Petitioners are housed, housing units where quarantined detainees are being held, the ingress/egress screenings, medical facilities, dining facilities, laundry facilities, shower/bathroom facilities, sleeping units/pods. Appointment Order at 7. In addition, the undersigned inspected the warehousing section of each facility. On July 31, 2020, the undersigned conducted the inspection

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 560 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/19/2021 Page 2 of 23
of Glades, including all of the facilities listed in the Appointment Order. On August 3, 2020, the undersigned conducted the inspection of BTC including all of the facilities listed in the Appointment Order. On August 5, 2020, the undersigned conducted the inspection of Krome, including all of the facilities listed in the Appointment Order.
At each facility, the undersigned was able to make certain observations regarding the cleanliness of the housing units, social distancing measures, availability and stock of cleaning supplies and personal protective equipment, and the availability and stock of hygienic and disinfecting supplies. Id. In addition, the undersigned requested follow up information from the facilities to assist in the preparation of this report. The factual findings regarding the categories contained in the Appointment Order are detailed below. I. Background
On April 13, 2020, the Petitioners who are a group comprised of civil immigration detainees filed an action alleging inter alia that they are at imminent risk of contracting COVID19 while being held by the Miami Field Office of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”). The Petitioners each allege a condition or combination of conditions that makes them particularly susceptible to the worst effects of the virus. On May 20, 2020, Petitioners filed a Motion to Compel alleging that ICE was not complying with the Court’s April 30, 2020 Temporary Restraining Order. On June 6, 2020, the Court issued a Preliminary Injunction ruling on the Petitioner’s initial Motion to Compel. The Court’s Preliminary Injunction Order detailed the measures that ICE must take or face being in violation of the Court’s order. On June 16, 2020, the Petitioners filed a motion to compel. In answering the Petitioners claims made in connection with the Second Motion to Compel Compliance, including those made during a June 25, 2020 hearing on the motion to compel featuring live testimony, ICE states that it has complied with the Court’s Preliminary Injunction Order.
2

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 560 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/19/2021 Page 3 of 23
The allegations contained in the petition, the declarations attached to the petition, the motions to compel and, the declarations attached to both the first and second motions to compel vary, but share some consistent themes including: (1) comingling detainees with confirmed cases of COVID-19 with those are with those who have not been confirmed to have the virus (2) a failure to provide cleaning supplies and masks to detainees and (3) a failure to educate detainees about COVID-19. In addition, there are allegations surrounding a general lack of social distancing while the detainees are being housed in the facilities. The declarations also contain allegations concerning a lack of testing and a failure to provide masks prior to transferring detainees.1 The fluid nature of the evolving science regarding transmission of COVID-19 combined with the contagious profile of the virus has made slowing its spread an extraordinary challenge throughout the world and across industries. The challenge is amplified in a setting such as a detention facility that does not lend itself to the best current prevention tools available – consistent mask usage and social distancing used in conjunction with cleaning and disinfecting. II. Glades
In order to achieve social distancing consistent with the Court’s Preliminary Injunction Order and CDC Guidelines ICE would need space sufficient to achieve the required recommended distance of at least six feet between detainees. During the inspection of Glades and in follow-up inquiries, the undersigned requested the architectural drawings of the floorplans of the facility to better assist the Court in making its credibility determinations and factual inferences.2 The
1 The allegations contained in the declarations and the response of the United States to each of the allegations are reflected in the attached Excel spreadsheet found at Composite Exhibit 1. 2 The United States objects to any publication of this report or its exhibits that reveals anything constituting mapping including square footage amounts of the facilities for security reasons. The Petitioners requested a map of the sites in discovery. The United States objected based upon a law enforcement and trade secrets privilege. The undersigned has submitted this report that relies on the mapping in camera for the Court’s determination regarding these issues. Consistent with the Court’s Appointment Order any publication of this report should redact the portions of this report and its exhibits reflecting mapping as well as any other references to security related concerns
3

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 560 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/19/2021 Page 4 of 23
architectural floorplans would enable the undersigned’s expert Mr. Christopher Smith to calculate the space available within Glades in order to make inferences regarding a number of issues relevant to social distancing.3 Attached at Exhibit 3 is a scan of the blueprints made from the architectural floorplans received from ICE that reflects the square footage and measurements of the facility. Glades current reduction in capacity is based upon bed space with a maximum capacity of 378 male beds, and 85 female beds. At the time of the inspection the percentage capacity was 72 % of male beds or 272 individuals. At the time of the inspection the percentage capacity was 53 % of female beds or 42 individuals. Attached, as Exhibit 4 is the Glades Fast Facts summary provided during the inspection. CDC Guidelines require a distance of six feet for social distancing purposes. Bed capacity is not the most relevant measurement of the capacity of the facility for social distancing purposes. Measurement for percentage population reduction should be based upon available square footage divided by the required six-foot distance not bed space. Mr. Smith’s calculations provide that analysis. A map created by Mr. Smith and his calculations for capacity at Glades is attached at Composite Exhibit 2.
During the inspection the undersigned conducted a walk-through of the arrival procedure encountered by the detainees from the point of entry through the initial screening process into the medical unit and back to the housing/sleep areas. The walk through culminated in the outdoor areas to include the warehouse storage facilities that house the supplies relevant to the Court’s orders. Prior to entry into the facility, on the buses the detainees are separated by empty seats
after consultation with ICE. The undersigned received architectural floorplans for BTC, other plans for Glades and square footage totals for Krome. 3 Stearns Weaver Miller, Geographical Information Systems expert Christopher Smith’s curriculum vitae is attached as Composite Exhibit 2. A geographic information system (GIS) is a computer-based tool for mapping that provides endless opportunities to relate any type of data to geographic locations Consistent with the Court’s observation contained in footnote 7 of the Appointment Order predicated upon Magistrate Judge Goodman’s recommendation, Mr. Smith ran an analysis to calculate the space available at each institution to establish a maximum capacity within the CDC recommended distance of six feet.
4

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 560 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/19/2021 Page 5 of 23
marked off to attempt social distancing. Composite Exhibit 5 depicts the sally port and entry into the facility. As depicted in composite Exhibit 5 the entry to Glades after the sally port includes the usual processing procedures such as fingerprinting in addition to signage regarding COVID19 and a medical check. Included in Composite Exhibit 5 are two videos MAH00065 and MAH00076 representing the processing portion at Glades.
One category of disputed allegations concerning the Glades facility consist of the cleanliness of the housing units. Appointment Order at 7; Exhibit 1. During the inspection at Glades, the undersigned witnessed generally clean housing units. Of particular note was the fact that cleaning was taking place while the inspection was underway. Attached as Composite Exhibit 5 is a composite exhibit of photographs and video taken during the inspection at Glades inside the housing units, screening area, medical facilities, dining facilities, laundry facilities, shower/bathroom facilities, and sleeping units. Appointment Order at 7.
In addition, throughout the facility there were hand sanitizer stations as reflected in Composite Exhibit 6. Those stations were located from the point of entering the facility, in the hallways and into the housing areas. As reflected in Composite Exhibit 6, there was signage specifically regarding COVID-19 throughout Glades. Inside the restroom facilities there was additional signage regarding hand washing procedures. In addition to the posted signage, the restroom facilities were generally clean. Overall, the living space was clean appearing like a space for the occupancy of multiple people that is in use.
Once inside the facility, ICE’s attempts at social distancing through the use of alternating rooms and/or eliminating seating areas within each room are apparent. Composite Exhibit 7 reflects the rooms inside the facility upon entry. These rooms depict the waiting areas, medical check rooms, and fingerprinting area all within the entry of the facility. There are hand sanitizers
5

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 560 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/19/2021 Page 6 of 23
visible on the walls throughout the entry part of the facility. During the intake process, the detainees view a video that includes COVID-19 education. A copy of the video is attached at Exhibit 8.
After exiting the intake portion of the facility, the walk-through proceeded down the corridors used by the detainees to gain access to the housing portion of the facility. The hallways in the corridors had additional signage regarding COVID-19 and hand sanitizers installed. Composite Exhibit 9 reflects the hallways leading to the housing units that include both signs and hand sanitizer stations.
Once inside the housing units there are signs and telephone banks. The signs provide additional information regarding COVID-19. Alternating telephone bays have been blocked off in an attempt to achieve social distancing. There are communal bunks bolted to the floor and tables where the detainees have their meals in light of the current conditions. Composite Exhibit 9 contains photographs and videos of the inside of the housing units to include the sleeping areas. Included in Composite Exhibit 10 are video clips MAH00130, MAH00132 and MAH00144 reflecting the inside of the housing units. There seems to be little dispute that social distancing is not possible in the housing units given the number of individuals housed and the configuration of the facilities.
Within the housing units are the bathroom/shower facilities that were again generally clean and reflected a highly trafficked communal living space. Composite Exhibit 12 contains photographs of the bathroom/shower areas observed during the inspection. The soap dispensers contained soap. Glades maintains a log of when the soap and/or hand sanitizer is re-filled. There exists a dispute noted among the parties regarding the availability of soap. The logs contain notations regarding the refilling of these dispensers. The undersigned requested additional logs to
6

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 560 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/19/2021 Page 7 of 23
check for the refilling of the soap and hand sanitizer. The log reflects dates and times of the refill of the soap at various locations within the facility. Composite Exhibit 12 is a sampling of the soap dispenser and hand sanitizer log for Glades. Specifically photograph DSC 181 is a picture of the hand sanitizer log viewed upon the day of inspection.
The undersigned requested additional logs after the inspection and are included in Composite Exhibit 12. In addition, there exists a general cleaning log that the undersigned requested and included as part of Composite Exhibit 12. The general cleaning log reflects the schedule of the dates and times the facility was cleaned. The dorm, the date and time, the officer’s name are reflected on the cleaning logs. The logs reflect that cleaning supplies were issued and returned by ICE staff. For instance, on page 41 of the log there is a heading “disinfectant spray” dated July 1, 2020 with an entry time and the dorm listed.
There is a log entitled, “Hand Soap Dispenser Log” that is a part of Composite Exhibit 11. The records for the months of June and July have a box for “checked by”, “filled by”, the POD that is being checked, and a section to be initialed. The log indicates dates and times for the addition of soap to the dispensers during the relevant time period. Soap is issued according to ICE declarations on Tuesdays and Fridays and additional soap is available to be replenished for free or purchased. In addition there exists a similar, “Hand Sanitizer Dispenser Log” which contains the same fields. The log for June and July has fields that are dated has a box for “checked by”, “filled by”, the POD that is being checked, and a section to be initialed
In light of the inspection of the soap dispensers, existence of the soap logs that were contemporaneously noted when refills were done, the existence of the hand sanitizer stations also with a refill log information in addition to the testimony of ICE regarding the availability of soap,
7

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 560 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/19/2021 Page 8 of 23
the logical inference is that ICE made soap and hand sanitizer, although perhaps at times imperfectly, available.
As to hand towels, according to ICE each detainee is issued a towel upon intake and there were rags being used for cleaning during the inspection. ICE maintains that there are security reasons, i.e. to prevent the clogging of toilets for not issuing disposable hand towels although paper towels were visible at the point of entry for use. No disposable or paper towels were visible during the inspection in the housing unit for cleaning. It makes sense that given the volume of paper towels required at the facility, shortness of supply on the market and security issues that the practice may have changed since the filing of the various declarations.
An additional category of disputed allegations consist of the availability of stock cleaning supplies and personal protective equipment. Appointment Order at 7. During the walk-through the undersigned observed stock cleaning supplies located in close proximity to the housing units. In addition, the undersigned requested and received access to the warehouse where the additional cleaning supplies are located. Composite Exhibit 13 contains photographs of the stock cleaning supplies in the hallway area and the warehouse. There is a log of the supplies located in the warehouse. One example of the dial soap log is included in the composite. Composite Exhibit 13 contains pictures of warehouse supplies including soap, body wash, gloves, and masks. In addition, the undersigned requested and received invoices of purchases for cleaning supplies, masks, and gloves. Included in Composite Exhibit 13 is a video MAH00197 of the warehouse unit. During the relevant time period, there is a marked uptick in the purchase history for the purchase of these various pieces of equipment consistent with what one would expect in responding to the crisis of COVID-19. Attached as part of Composite Exhibit 13 is a chart entitled
8

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 560 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/19/2021 Page 9 of 23
“GCDC COVID-19 Purchases” list reflecting a number of different items from soap dispensers to face masks that have been purchased by the facility during the relevant time period.
Another category of disputed allegations is the availability and stock of hygiene and disinfecting supplies. Appointment Order at 7. During the walk-through, the undersigned observed buckets for cleaning as well as cleaning products. At Glades the officers mix a cleaning solution that is provided to the detainees. Composite Exhibit 14 contains pictures of the cleaning and disinfecting supplies and a videotape MAH00195 of the guard explaining the process of mixing the cleaning solution. Buckets, mops, solution, and wiping down of surfaces was occurring during the inspection. The showers and bathrooms were also being cleaned in some areas.
There exist other miscellaneous allegations capable of recommended resolution at this point based upon observations made during the inspection. For instance, the allegations surrounding water temperature and availability were tested during the inspection. The water in the restroom in the housing facility was warm to the touch when tested during the inspection. In addition, when the undersigned measured with an infrared gauge the water registered as warm. The water stayed on for under twenty seconds when time out but can easily be restarted. A video is contained as part of Composite Exhibit 15 that reflects the test run on the water at Glades. Therefore, during the inspection the undersigned observed nothing giving any credence to the allegations regarding lack of warm water or the duration of water running for hand washing.4
In sum, the Glades facility appears to have sufficient cleanliness of housing units, supply of cleaning supplies and personal protective equipment, and stock of hygienic and disinfecting supplies, though the facility is not perfect in any of these areas. It appears, however, that Glades is
4 The undersigned included the dining facility that is currently out of use at Glades in response to the pandemic. The Detainees are taking their meals inside the housing units using the tables depicted in the composite exhibits or on their beds.
9

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 560 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/19/2021 Page 10 of 23
not meeting the CDC’s social distancing guidelines. Glades appears to have an insufficient structural footprint to house detainees at the level witnessed during the inspection. III. BTC
The undersigned requested GIS expert Mr. Smith to run an analysis based upon square footage using the architectural floorplans for BTC. At BTC, ICE would need space sufficient to achieve the required recommended distance of at least six feet to comply with social distancing consistent with the Court’s Order and CDC Guidelines. During the inspection of BTC and followup inquiries, the undersigned requested and received the architectural floorplans of the facility to better assist the Court in making its credibility determinations and factual inferences.5
Using the information received, the undersigned’s expert Mr. Smith calculated the space available within BTC to draw conclusions regarding social distancing. Attached at Exhibit 16 is a map created by Mr. Smith based upon a scan of the architectural floorplans received from ICE that reflects the square footage and measurements of the facility. BTC’s current reduction in capacity is based upon bed space with a maximum capacity of 595 male beds and 105 female beds. Attached as Exhibit 17 is the BTC Fast Facts summary provided during the inspection. BTC current reduction in capacity is based upon bed space with a maximum capacity of 595 male beds, and 105 female beds. At the time of the inspection, the percentage capacity was 53 % of male beds or 315 individuals. At the time of the inspection, the percentage capacity was 53 % of female beds or 56 individuals. CDC Guidelines require a distance of six feet for social distancing purposes. Bed capacity is not the most useful measurement available to calculate the proper capacity of the facility to achieve six feet of social distancing. Measurement for percentage
5 The United States objects to any publication of this report or its exhibits that reveals anything constituting mapping of the facilities for security reasons. Consistent with the Court’s Appointment Order any publication of this currently sealed report should redact the exhibits reflecting mapping as well as any other references to security related concerns after consultation with ICE.
10

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 560 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/19/2021 Page 11 of 23
population reduction should be based upon available square footage and the required six-foot distance not bed space. Mr. Smith’s calculations provide that analysis.
During the walk through at BTC, the undersigned followed the same procedure previously described above in section II relating to Glades by tracing the route used the detainees upon arrival at the facility. Attached in Composite Exhibit 18 is a sample of the photographs taken upon entering the facility. Included in Composite Exhibit 18 is video DSCF0083 and DSCF0085 that shows the processing area. Prior to entering the facility, the detainees are on the buses where the undersigned observed signage and attempts at social distancing by creating space. The undersigned noted signs inside the buses themselves and certain areas blocked off.
Once inside the facility, there were signage regarding COVID-19 in addition to marking for social distancing purposes. The initial screening room where the detainees are first brought has signs posted regarding six feet for social distancing and general COVID-19 information. Composite Exhibit 19 is a collection of photographs inside the entry of the facility reflecting signage and distancing measures. Composite Exhibit 20 also includes photographs of items issued to the detainees upon arrival including soap and other hygiene products. For instance, DCS00101 is a photograph of the items next to a brown bag issued to the detainees.
BTC differs from Glades in terms of its layout in some significant respects. BTC is a structure with dorm-like rooms built around two quad athletic fields. The facility is more outdoor in its design than Glades with less people housed together. Inside each of the dorm-like rooms there is a separate restroom facility for those occupants. Composite Exhibit 20 consists of a number of photographs inside the housing unit rooms. As part of Composite Exhibit 20 there are DSCF0155 showing the detainees lining up for lunch. DSCF0091 shows the detainees congregating in the quad. The rooms, which are the housing units, were clean. In addition, certain of the beds located
11

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 560 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/19/2021 Page 12 of 23
inside the rooms were not in use in an attempt at social distancing. There seems to be no dispute that social distancing at BTC is not possible given the numbers and configuration of the facilities.
Inside each of the rooms are televisions that have a sign posted for educational information regarding COVID-19 in Spanish and English. The signs posted inside the facility make note of the social distancing procedure for bed placement. DSC115 notes that the beds are spaced three feet apart. Composite Exhibit 21 contains various photographs of signs including in the restroom facilities regarding hand washing. There were posted signs regarding the availability for soap refills posted. An example of the posted sign is contained in Composite Exhibit 22. Further there is a sign posted by the Commissary indicated when refills of soap are available. The sign is dated April 30, 2020, states that re-fills of soap can be requested as needed, and that the soap is issued twice per week. The photograph is contained in Composite Exhibit 22 as DSC 000168. Composite Exhibit 22 also includes video DSCF00340 showing the markers on the floor for social distancing purposes.
The housing units were clean and the undersigned noted posted rules for cleaning procedure within the facility. Composite Exhibit 23 contains an array of photographs including one with the rules for cleaning that is posted in the facility. See DSCF 0295. In addition, there is a posted sign regarding the laundry schedule and a number of photographs of supplies including gloves, a phone bank alternating the phones in use with a cleaner. Included in Composite Exhibit 24 are photographs of the stock cleaning supplies available at the warehouse portion of the facility.
Some of the common areas throughout the facility have been modified to reflect the response to COVID-19. Every other phone in the phone bank has been taken out of use to encourage social distancing. Cleaning products were visible sitting on the phone banks during the inspection. Composite Exhibit 25 contains some photographs of phone banks. The “Day Room”
12

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 560 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/19/2021 Page 13 of 23
contains signage regarding the maximum occupancy and use of masks. See DCS 00130 and DSC 00131 in Composite Exhibit 26. There was a sign visible regarding ICE’s mask issuing policy. DSF0174 is a photograph taken and included as part of Composite Exhibit 26. According to the sign posted on or about April 17, 2020, masks are issued every Monday, Wednesday and Friday. In addition, there are guidelines regarding the use of the masks.
During some larger gathering times like meals, the detainees line up in order to enter the dining hall. The undersigned noted a sign regarding social distancing measures, which is DSC 00145, contained in Composite Exhibit 27. A sign announced limits on recreation in an effort to attain social distancing. Composite Exhibit 27 contains photographs of the detainees lining up during lunchtime. The undersigned noted that the floors have marks for social distancing as reflected in DSC 000134. The detainees generally were using their masks while in line. Once inside the dining areas ICE has removed every other seat to make attempts at social distancing. Composite Exhibit 26 contains DSCF00338 showing the detainees lining up for meal time.
On the floor leading into the dining area are makers indicating six feet of separation. The undersigned observed detainees during lunchtime and noted the use of masks and following the procedures outlined regarding social distancing. Attached on the walls outside of the dining area are hand sanitizer stations. Each of these measures is depicted in Composite Exhibit 28. Although there is an apparent attempt to increase spacing in there, it is clearly under the six feet recommended by CDC Guidelines. Inside the food preparation area, those preparing and serving the meals worked in stalls separated by large plastic walls as depicted in DSCF 0219, 0220, 0221, and 0222 in Composite Exhibit 29. Those preparing the food all were using masks and hair coverings.
13

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 560 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/19/2021 Page 14 of 23
There was personal protective equipment in the form of masks visible throughout the facility during the inspection. Those nurses working inside the medical unit had more equipment in the form of gloves, gowns and scrubs. There was soap visible inside the housing rooms and cleaning supplies visible on the phone banks. There were hand sanitizer stations visible and signage regarding cleaning schedules posted inside the facility. See Composite Exhibit 30. In addition, there inside the warehouse stock hygiene products and cleaning supplies were visible. See Composite Exhibit 31.
The educational signage posted in the law library dated May 11, 2020, requests the use of masks and indicates the maximum capacity of room occupants. See DSCF 0179 included in Composite Exhibit 25. Composite Exhibit 32 contains photographs of various pieces of educational signage throughout the common areas at BTC. The laundry facility had signage regarding COVID-19 posted outside. In addition, the detainees wore masks while working inside the laundry room. Further, there was a procedure regarding not comingling the used laundry from the various groups within the facility. See Composite Exhibit 33.
In sum, the BTC facility appears to have sufficient cleanliness of housing units, supply of cleaning supplies and personal protective equipment, and stock of hygienic and disinfecting supplies, though the facility is not perfect in any of these areas. It appears, however, that BTC is not meeting the CDC’s social distancing guidelines, except in the initial screening area. BTC has an insufficient structural footprint to house detainees at the level witnessed during the inspection. IV. Krome
The undersigned requested GIS expert Mr. Smith to run an analysis based upon square footage for Krome. At Krome, ICE would need space sufficient to achieve the required recommended distance of at least six feet to comply with social distancing consistent with the Court’s Order and CDC Guidelines. During the inspection of Krome and follow-up inquiries, the
14

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 560 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/19/2021 Page 15 of 23
undersigned requested architectural floorplans of the facility to better assist the Court in making its credibility determinations and factual inferences.6 ICE provided less accurate square footage totals for the facility which Mr. Smith used for his analysis. Using the data the undersigned’s expert, Mr. Smith, calculated the space available within Krome to draw conclusions regarding social distancing. Attached as Exhibit 34 is a map created by Mr. Smith and his calculations for capacity at Krome. Krome’s current reduction in capacity is based upon bed space with a maximum capacity of 682 male beds. Krome has no female occupants.
Attached as Exhibit 35 is the Krome Fast Facts summary provided during the inspection. Krome current reduction in capacity is based upon bed space with a maximum capacity of 682 male beds. At the time of the inspection, the percentage capacity was 65 % of male beds or 444 individuals. Bed capacity is not the most accurate measure available to the Court in making its factual determination. As noted above, the appropriate measurement for percentage reduction of population should be based upon available square footage divided by the required six-foot distance, not bed space. Mr. Smith’s calculations for Krome are the more accurate measure given the CDC’s Guidelines. ICE provided only total square footage in response to the request for documents not floorplans. As a result, the calculation for Krome were estimated using the information provided.
During the inspection at Krome, the undersigned followed the same procedure previously described above in section II relating to Glades by tracing the route used the detainees upon arrival. Prior to entering the facility, the detainees are transported in buses with seats locked off to attempt
6 The United States objects to any publication of this report or its exhibits that reveals anything constituting mapping of the facilities for security reasons. Consistent with the Court’s Appointment Order and the in camera submission of the report any publication of this currently sealed report should redact the exhibits reflecting mapping as well as any other references to security related concerns after consultation with ICE.
15

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 560 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/19/2021 Page 16 of 23
social distancing. Included in Composite Exhibit 36 is MAH0255 a video of the entry into the facility. MAH0283 is a video of the medical unit.
Attached in Composite Exhibit 37 are photographs reflecting the entry into the facility and the processing component of Krome. As reflected in the photographs there is signage regarding COVID-19 and social distancing procedures. In addition, the undersigned noted hand sanitizer stations throughout the facility. The signs indicate the mask policy upon entering the facility. The processing rooms have been reduced in their capacity in order to achieve a distance closer to compliance for social distancing guidelines. Attached photographs DSC 0256 and 0257 reflect the altered capacity signs while inside the processing rooms at Krome. In addition, DSC0264 is a photograph of the hygiene products issued to the detainees upon arrival at Krome. Composite Exhibit 37 reflects the entry/processing area. Included in Composite Exhibit 37 are photographs inside the buses that reflect these efforts.
Unlike Glades and BTC which lend themselves to more a communal environment given the structure of the buildings, Krome is set up by the separate nature of the physical structures to enhance distancing therefore promoting containment of the virus. Prior to entering the housing unit there are signs regarding the use of masks displayed on the door of the housing/sleeping units.
Inside the housing units, the detainees generally were using their masks. Composite Exhibit 38 contains photographs of detainees inside the housing unit. There are signs regarding hand washing and COVID-19 visible inside the units. The inside of the housing unit was generally clean. MAH00368, MAH00395 and MAH00477 are videos depicting the inside of the housing unit contained within Composite Exhibit 38.
There were clearly visible signs regarding COVID-19, social distancing and the use of masks throughout the facility. Composite Exhibit 39 contains photographs reflecting the
16

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 560 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/19/2021 Page 17 of 23
educational signage. The housing facility was clean with indications of recent cleaning as well as products were visible. Composite Exhibit 40 contains photographs inside the housing units and products for cleaning. Inside the hand sanitizer station the package of when it was last refilled was dated. The photograph that is contained in Composite Exhibit 40 as DSC 0460 depicts the date.
Krome has a separate building for those positive COVID-19 positive detainees which the undersigned inspected. Composite Exhibit 41 contains photographs of the housing unit for COVID-19. The separation methodology employed at Krome makes the most logical sense in an effort to contain the virus. Contained within Composite Exhibit 41 are two videotapes MAH00522 and MAH00546 depicting the inside the COVID-19 building.
The undersigned inspected the warehouse for Krome to assess the availability of stock cleaning supplies, personal protective equipment, stock hygienic and disinfecting supplies. Composite Exhibit 42 contains photographs of the warehouse to include those of the cleaning products and personal protective equipment. Included in Composite Exhibit 42 are two videos MAH00582 and MAH00584 that depict the inside of the warehouse at the facility.
In sum, the Krome facility appears to have sufficient cleanliness of housing units, supply of cleaning supplies and personal protective equipment, and stock of hygienic and disinfecting supplies, though the facility is not perfect in any of these areas. While Krome has a better footprint and layout for achieving social distancing, and appears to have made positive strides towards achieving social distancing, it too appears not to be meeting the CDC’s social distancing guidelines. V. Conclusion
As to the vast majority of the factual disputes raised by the detainees in their declarations and the responses by ICE, the testimony of the ICE declarants appears credible based upon the observations made during the inspections. Any discrepancies have a logical explanation regarding
17

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 560 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/19/2021 Page 18 of 23
timing or are likely an aberration. As Magistrate Judge Goodman pointed out in his Report and Recommendation, it is possible that both versions contained in the declarations for each side could be true at the time there were written. While imperfect in its execution, ICE like the rest of the world was making adjustments to an ever changing landscape in the midst of an unprecedented global pandemic.
As the Court noted, the science has been evolving on almost a weekly basis throughout the crisis. The housing units were generally clean, ICE makes attempts at social distancing, ICE had stock cleaning supplies and personal protective equipment visible during the inspection, ICE had stock hygienic and disinfecting supplies visible during the inspection. Without question there is nothing the undersigned observed during the course of the inspections that would give rise to any inference that ICE has not been truthful, accurate and complete to the best of its ability given the difficulties involved in responding to this crisis.
However, ICE’s position as to the ultimate issue in the case leaves much to be desired. The Petitioners request immediate release in light of the threat the pandemic presents. ICE contends that it has done all that it could to mitigate the risk based upon the available information and tools to combat the virus. However the best tools for determining the percentage reduction of the overall number of individuals inside each facility is the empirical data regarding social distancing based upon math that does not require an inference.
The empirical data is in ICE’s sole possession and ICE objects to the Petitioners reviewing it. ICE’s position as best as it could be determined from the limited record is that it objects to the Petitioners having the square footage information, i.e. the architectural floorplans requested by the undersigned for security reasons. Without the information contained in the floor plans regarding square footage Petitioners cannot make the most accurate argument available based upon the only
18

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 560 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/19/2021 Page 19 of 23
relevant empirical data.7 At the same time, ICE argues it has done all it could to deal with the Petitioners allegations given the available tools to combat the virus citing the Eleventh Circuit precedent in Gomez v. United States, 899 F.2d 1124 (11th Cir. 1999). ICE’s articulates in its Response to the Objections to the Magistrate’s Report and Recommendation the position of both parties regarding the challenge to the conditions of confinement. [D.E. 72 at 5-6]. While whether ICE has done all it can, in fact, may or may not be true, the dire situation seems to demand more of ICE. In light of the most recent scientific information regarding the virulent airborne respiratory nature of the virus especially in enclosed indoor spaces with recirculated air, ICE’s response regarding social distancing is insufficient.
First, the undersigned addresses ICE’s arguments regarding Gomez which is the backbone of the position of the United States. There is no dispute that Gomez is the controlling law in the Eleventh Circuit on the issues of the conditions of confinement for individuals in federal custody. Gomez sets the standard for whether the conditions of confinement for individuals who are incarcerated violate the 8th Amendment to the United States Constitution for being deliberately indifferent to a person’s serious medical need. The changes in conditions of confinement are not effective in addressing the serious medical need in this case. The Petitioners have exhaustively raised the concerns of the detainees. The United States claims it has addressed these needs by implementing measures. However, the ongoing threat of contracting COVID-19 in confined quarters that remains high given the virus’ highly transmissible airborne respiratory nature. COVID-19 remains resistant to the risk mitigation strategy so far imposed. While Gomez is
7 ICE provided the last of the non-objectionable documents on August 21, 2020. The Parties have not yet met to confer regarding the objections to the remaining requested information. Therefore, the Court has yet to have this issue before it.
19

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 560 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/19/2021 Page 20 of 23
instructive, the facts in the time of COVID-19 appear beyond the conditions of confinement under the control of the United States.
Ultimately, it appears that ICE’s position is a process issue, which is even more dangerous in light of the potentially fatal consequences of this particular virus. ICE holds no one in permanent detention. It is worth saying twice, none of these individuals will be in permanent detention or serving a sentence. The detainees being held in civil detention at some point are either being deported to their country of origin or released within the United States. In light of that eventual outcome, the detainees should not face an increased risk of coming into contact with the COVID19 virus for any longer than necessary.
ICE’s discretion to administer the Agency’s regulations under the immigration statutes is not unfettered. If the policies and procedures it sets in place to house individuals in its custody during its process result in a Constitutional violation by posing deliberate indifference to a serious medical need then the detainees have a recourse.
Second, it is undisputed that the best available tools that appear to be effective in combating the virus are: hand washing, disinfecting, masking and social distancing. If ICE can do no more as to hand washing, disinfecting, and masking then all that remains is social distancing. Social distancing is not possible using the structures in place at or near their pre-pandemic levels.
Finally, in light of the ongoing discovery process, the parties have not submitted the issue of an asserted privilege surrounding square footage or mapping in camera to the Court. The Court would be able to make its own determination regarding the extent of any law enforcement or trade secret privilege that exists. Regardless of whether the privilege applies, the Court is free to examine the relevant documents for their probative value as to the issue of social distancing. Instead of using bed space, the government has a more accurate measure in its possession.
20

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 560 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/19/2021 Page 21 of 23
In any event, this report has been provided to the Court in camera with the architectural floorplans for BTC containing the most accurate measurements attached in camera for its review to preserve the objection of the United States.8 The undersigned obtained the architectural floorplans or square footage information from the United States. The Court can make a determination as to the issue of privilege, what can be provided to the Petitioners and the probative value of the floorplans. Having reviewed the plans in consultation with an expert in GIS, the undersigned believes the floorplans have great probative value as to the issue of social distancing that along with the wearing of masks are the best available tools to combatting the virus. As noted above the floorplans were utilized to provide a more accurate level of capacity in each facility with a six-foot distance. ICE can make its percentage reduction in facility population using the available space instead of the measurement currently being used.
Consistent with the Eleventh Circuit’s holding in Gomez and limited to the unique, unprecedented factual circumstances of this global pandemic that presents a serious medical need to the class members the undersigned recommends that the Court deny the motion to compel as to the issues surrounding the conditions of confinement except for those regarding social distancing. The Court may be able to provide ICE the proper incentive to speed up the process of deportation or release that seems to present the increased risk for the detainees and lower the numbers to achieve social distancing closer to CDC Guidelines. To the extent that the Court finds it within its authority to provide ICE an incentive to increase the speed of its process regarding deportation or release to limit the potential exposure to the detainees to the circumstances that increase the risk of contracting the virus it makes sense to do so in light of the current risk of exposure.
8 For Glades and Krome other information was used to create the experts exhibits because the architectural floorplans were not available.
21

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 560 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/19/2021 Page 22 of 23

Dated: September 1, 2020

Respectfully submitted,
By: /s/ Matthew C. Dates MATTHEW C. DATES Florida Bar No. 90994 Email: mdates@stearnsweaver.com Secondary: cveguilla@stearnsweaver.com STEARNS WEAVER MILLER WEISSLER ALHADEFF & SITTERSON, P.A. Museum Tower, Suite 2200 150 West Flagler Street Miami, Florida 33130 Telephone: (305) 789-3200 Facsimile: (305) 789-3395 Court Appointed Special Master

22

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 560 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/19/2021 Page 23 of 23 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on the 1st day of September 2020, the foregoing document was provided via email to the Hon. Marcia G. Cooke, in camera, for her review.
/s/ Matthew C. Dates
23
#8787365 v1

 
 Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 611 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/25/2021 Page 1 of 7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Case No. 20-21553-Civ-COOKE/GOODMAN
PATRICK GAYLE, et al.,
Petitioners,
vs.
MICHAEL W. MEADE, et. al.,
Respondents. _____________________________________/
ORDER DENYING IN PART AND GRANTING IN PART PETITIONERS’ EMERGENCY MOTION TO COMPEL COMPLIANCE WITH THE COURT’S JUNE 6, 2020 PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION THIS MATTER is before the Court upon Petitioners’ Emergency Motion to Compel Compliance with the Court’s June 6, 2020 Preliminary Injunction1 (the “Motion”) (ECF No. 163), filed June 16, 2020. The Court set an expedited briefing schedule for the Motion, and Respondents filed their response in opposition to the Motion on June 19, 2020. ECF No. 167. Petitioners filed their reply in support of the Motion on June 23, 2020. ECF No. 175.
Background On May 20, 2020, Petitioners filed a Motion to Compel Compliance with the Court’s April 30, 2020 Temporary Restraining Order (the “First Motion to Compel”) in which they alleged that the Miami Field Office of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (hereinafter “ICE”) was in violation of the Court’s April 30, 2020 Temporary Restraining Order because ICE was conducting transfers under unsanitary and unsafe conditions; social distancing was still not feasible at the detention facilities at issue; and detainees had limited or inadequate access to soap, hand sanitizer, masks, and cleaning supplies. ECF No. 106 at p. 3. On June 6, 2020, this Court entered a Preliminary Injunction, which addressed Petitioners’ First Motion to Compel, and instructed ICE to: (1) cease the practice of comingling unconfirmed COVID-19 cases with confirmed COVID-19 cases; (2) provide
1 The Court mistakenly issued an Order, on July 5, 2020, which granted Petitioners’ Motion. ECF No. 192. That order was vacated the next day, July 6, 2020, and the Motion was reopened for adjudication. ECF No. 193.
Page 1 of 7

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 611 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/25/2021 Page 2 of 7
detainees with sufficient quantities of CDC-recommended cleaning supplies and disinfectants; (3) provide all detainees and staff members with masks and educate them on the importance of its use; (4) provide detainees with unrestricted access to hand soap, hand sanitizer, and hand towels; and (5) educate detainees on the COVID-19 pandemic. ECF No. 158 at pp. 38-40. The Preliminary Injunction permits ICE to conduct transfers, but only after first performing a verbal screening and a temperature check, as outlined in the CDC Guidelines, before the individual leaves the facility. Id.
As previously discussed, Petitioners filed the present Emergency Motion to Compel Compliance with the Court’s June 6, 2020 Preliminary Injunction on June 16, 2020 – just ten days after the Court’s issuance of its Preliminary Injunction Order. In the present Motion, Petitioners allege that, despite the Court’s Preliminary Injunction Order, conditions at the detention centers have further deteriorated and ICE continues to: (1) cohort detainees confirmed to have COVID-19 with individuals who have not been confirmed to have the disease; (2) fail to provide cleaning supplies and masks to detainees; and (3) fail to educate detainees about COVID-19. ECF No. 163 at pp. 2-4. Moreover, according to Petitioners, social distancing is not promoted or enforced within the detention centers. Id. at p. 3.
ICE refutes Petitioners’ claims and maintains that it is in compliance with the Court’s Preliminary Injunction Order in that it provides and replenishes adequate supplies of personal protective equipment, soap, hand sanitizer, water, and cleaning materials. ECF No. 165-1 at ¶¶ at 4-7, 9-10. ICE further maintains that it has educated detainees. Id. at ¶ 12. ICE admits that it cohorted the entire population at Glades at one point, but it denies that it currently comingles confirmed COVID-19 cases with asymptomatic individuals. Id. at ¶¶ 14, 16, 1819. ICE makes no response to Petitioners’ allegations concerning the lack of social distancing within the detention centers themselves, except to state that it has developed seating charts for its vans and buses “to maximize social distancing while transporting ICE detainees.” Id. at ¶8.
Due to the fact intensive and complex nature of the issues raised in the Motion, the Court appointed Matthew C. Dates to serve as a Special Master in this matter to assess whether ICE is committing an ongoing violation of the detainees’ constitutional rights. Mr. Dates’ appointment became effective on July 20, 2020 when he filed an affidavit confirming the he does not have any relationship to the parties, attorneys, action, or Court and knows of
Page 2 of 7

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 611 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/25/2021 Page 3 of 7
no reasons or grounds for disqualification under 28 U.S.C. Section 455. ECF No. 223. As part of his appointment, the Court directed Mr. Dates to inspect the Krome Detention Center in Miami (“Krome”), the Broward Transitional Center in Pompano Beach (“BTC”) and the Glades County Detention Center in Moore Haven (“Glades”). ECF No. 219 at p. 6. Specifically, the Court directed Mr. Dates to conduct inspections of:
• All housing units where the Petitioners are housed; • Housing units where quarantined detainees are being held; • The ingress/egress staff screenings; • Medical facilities; • Dining facilities; • Laundry facilities; • Shower/bathroom facilities; and • Sleeping units/pods. Id. at p. 7. The Court further directed Mr. Dates to provide a report, by September 1, 2020 at 4:00 pm, that documented whether and to what extent the steps outlined in the Preliminary Injunction Order, ECF No. 158, have been taken. Id. More specifically, the Court advised Mr. Dates that the report should include, among other information that he deems necessary, any information he is able to ascertain regarding the cleanliness of the housing units, social distancing measures, availability and stock of cleaning supplies and personal protective equipment, and the availability and stock of hygienic and disinfecting supplies. Id. The Court’s Order Appointing the Special Master also provided the Parties with a seven-day period to file objections to the Special Master’s Report. Id. at p. 6.
Legal Standard “Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 53(f)(3) and (4) provide that a court must ‘decide de novo’ all objections to findings of fact and conclusions of law made or recommended by a master, unless the parties, with the court's approval, stipulate otherwise.” Procaps S.A. v. Patheon Inc., 12-24356-CIV, 2014 WL 11498061, at *2 (S.D. Fla. Dec. 30, 2014) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 53(f)(3) and (4)). “Subsection (5) [of Rule 53(f)] provides that the court may set aside a master’s ruling on a procedural matter only for an abuse of discretion, unless the appointing order establishes a different standard of review.” Id. “A party objecting to a special master’s rulings or recommendations must ‘state the
Page 3 of 7

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 611 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/25/2021 Page 4 of 7
specific objections to the Special Master’s ruling or provide any factual or legal support for such objections.’” Id. (quoting Bray & Gillepsie Mgmt. LLC v. Lexington Ins. Co., No. 6:07–cv– 222–Orl–35KRS, 2008 WL 5110541 (M.D. Fla. Dec. 1, 2008)). “When a party fails to follow this standard, then courts do not use the more–exacting standard of de novo review –– but, instead, use the clear error standard of review. Therefore, a party seeking de novo review of a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation or a special master’s ruling or report and recommendation must ‘specifically identify those findings objected to.’” Id. (quoting Leatherwood v. Anna's Linen Co., 384 F. App’x. 853, 857 (11th Cir. 2010). “Phrased differently, a court will not use a de novo review standard for ‘frivolous, conclusive or general objections.’” Id.
Analysis In compliance with his Order of Appointment, Mr. Dates provided his Report to the Court for an in camera review on September 1, 2020. ECF No. 545 at p. 1. Then, on February 19, 2021, Mr. Dates filed his Report publicly through CM/ECF. ECF No. 560. In doing so, Mr. Dates was careful not to publicly file any privileged or otherwise sensitive documents and/or photos such as data and blueprints related to the correctional facilities. Instead, Mr. Dates provided those documents to the Court through a conventional means so as to ensure that they maintained their privileged and confidential status. See ECF Nos. 555, 556, and 564. In his Report, Mr. Dates made the following findings:
• As to the vast majority of the factual disputes raised by the detainees in their declarations and the responses by ICE, the testimony of the ICE declarants appears credible based upon the observations made during the inspections. Any discrepancies have a logical explanation regarding timing or are likely an aberration. ECF No. 560 at pp. 16-17.
• The housing units were generally clean. ICE makes attempts at social distancing. ICE had stock cleaning supplies and personal protective equipment visible during the inspection. ICE also had stock hygienic and disinfecting supplies visible during the inspection. Without question there is nothing the Special Master observed during the course of the inspections that would give rise to any inference that ICE has not been truthful, accurate and complete to the best of its ability given the difficulties involved in responding to this crisis. Id. at p. 18.
• ICE objects to the Petitioners having the square footage information for the detention facilities for security reasons. Without the information contained in
Page 4 of 7

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 611 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/25/2021 Page 5 of 7
the floor plans regarding square footage, Petitioners cannot make the most accurate argument available, concerning social distancing, based upon the only relevant empirical data.2 At the same time, ICE argues it has done all it could to deal with the Petitioners’ allegations given the available tools to combat the virus citing the Eleventh Circuit precedent in Gomez v. United States, 899 F.2d 1124 (11th Cir. 1999). ICE articulates in its Response to the Objections to the Magistrate’s Report and Recommendation the position of both parties regarding the challenge to the conditions of confinement. [D.E. 72 at 5-6]. While whether ICE has done all it can, in fact, may or may not be true, the dire situation seems to demand more of ICE. In light of the most recent scientific information regarding the virulent airborne respiratory nature of the virus especially in enclosed indoor spaces with recirculated air, ICE’s response regarding social distancing is insufficient. Id. at p. 19.
• This report has been provided to the Court in camera with the architectural floorplans for BTC containing the most accurate measurements attached in camera for its review to preserve the objection of the United States. The Court can make a determination as to the issue of privilege, what can be provided to the Petitioners and the probative value of the floorplans. Having reviewed the plans in consultation with an expert in GIS, the Special Master believes the floorplans have great probative value as to the issue of social distancing because that along with the wearing of masks are the best available tools for combatting the virus. The floorplans were utilized to provide a more accurate level of capacity in each facility with a six-foot distance. Thus, ICE can make its percentage reduction in facility population using the available space instead of the measurement currently being used. Id. at p. 21.
Based upon the above findings and his inspections of the detention facilities, as outlined in
his Report, Mr. Dates recommends that the Court deny Petitioners’ Motion as to the issues
surrounding the conditions of confinement except for those regarding social distancing. Id.
Mr. Dates also advised that:
[t]he Court may be able to provide ICE the proper incentive to speed up the process of deportation or release that seems to present the increased risk for the detainees and lower the numbers to achieve social distancing closer to CDC Guidelines. To the extent that the Court finds it within its authority to provide ICE an incentive to increase the speed of its process regarding deportation or release to limit the potential exposure to the detainees to the circumstances that increase the risk of contracting the virus it makes sense to do so in light of the current risk of exposure.
Id.
2 “ICE provided the last of the non-objectionable documents on August 21, 2020. The Parties have not yet met to confer regarding the objections to the remaining requested information. Therefore, the Court has yet to have this issue before it.” Id. at p. 19 n.7.
Page 5 of 7

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 611 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/25/2021 Page 6 of 7
In Response to the Special Master’s Report, Petitioners filed their Partial Objection on February 25, 2021. ECF No. 565. In their Partial Objection, Petitioners state:
Plaintiffs accept that the Special Master’s findings were an accurate picture of what he observed when he visited the facilities—both where his findings support Plaintiffs’ arguments and where they do not. Plaintiffs therefore do not challenge his Report and Recommendation on the issues it addresses concerning Plaintiffs’ June 16, 2020 Emergency Motion to Compel Compliance with the Court’s June 6, 2020 Preliminary Injunction [ECF 163]. But Plaintiffs note that the Report and Recommendation does not address one issue that Plaintiffs identified in their Motion to Compel: cohorting practices that violated this Court’s Preliminary Injunction [ECF 158]. Plaintiffs specifically complained that Defendants violated the Preliminary Injunction by cohorting people with confirmed COVID-19-positive tests alongside people who had not tested positive for COVID-19. [See ECF 163 at 1–2.]. ECF No. 565 at p. 2. Respondents filed their Objections to the Special Master’s Report on February 26, 2021. ECF No. 574. Respondents assert the following objections: 1) The Krome Detention Center (Krome), Broward Transitional Center (BTC), and Glades County Detention Center (Glades) were in compliance with the PRR’s population requirement because the detainee population was below 75 percent of capacity when Special Master Dates visited the facilities; 2) The percentage of capacity and population numbers of each facility are currently lower than they were in July and August during Special Master Dates’ visits; 3) the text of the CD Guidelines is written to provide ample flexibility to facility administrators, in recognition of the unique challenges posed by housing many people in a single physical setting; and 4) most bunk beds at BTC and Krome are more than six feet apart because most center bunk buds are not used at BTC and any bunk beds that were less than six feet apart, at Krome, were marked as off limits and the mattresses were removed. Id. at pp. 2-5. The Court has reviewed Petitioners’ and Respondents’ Objections and has made a de novo review of the record. Upon doing so, the Court finds the Special Master’s Report to be thorough, insightful, clear, and cogent. Accordingly, it is ORDERED and ADJUDGED as follows: 1. The Special Master’s Report (ECF No. 560) is AFFIRMED and ADOPTED. 2. Petitioners’ Emergency Motion to Compel Compliance with the Court’s June 6, 2020 Preliminary Injunction (ECF No. 163) is DENIED IN PART AND GRANTED IN PART.
Page 6 of 7

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 611 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/25/2021 Page 7 of 7
3. The Parties are directed to confer regarding Respondents’ objections concerning the sharing of floor plan data and information related to the detention facilities, within seven days of the date of this Order. Should such conferral fail to resolve the dispute, then the Parties shall advise the Court of the same.
4. Within seven days of the date of this Order, Respondents shall file a brief outlining the number of bunk beds within each of the three detention facilities, the number of center bunk beds being used within each of the three detention facilities, and the number of bunk beds that are less than six feet apart at each of the three detention facilities.
5. Within seven days of the date of this Order, Respondents shall file a declaration, under penalty of perjury, advising the Court as to whether Respondents are currently cohorting people with confirmed COVID-19-positive tests alongside people who had not tested positive for COVID-19 at any of the three detention facilities. Additionally, said declaration shall advise the Court as to whether Respondents ever grouped people with confirmed COVID-19-positive tests alongside people who had not tested positive for COVID-19 – after the Court’s issuance of its June 6, 2020 Preliminary Injunction Order.
6. The Court will set an evidentiary hearing on Petitioners’ social distancing argument after it receives and reviews the above requested information. Additionally, prior to such hearing, the Court will require further briefing on this issue to ensure that it has full contemporaneous information at the time of the hearing.
DONE and ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida this 25th day of March 2021.
Copies furnished to: Jonathan Goodman, U.S. Magistrate Judge All Counsel of record
Page 7 of 7

 
 Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 697-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/28/2021 Page 1 of 10
GOVERNMENT EXHIBIT A

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 697-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/28/2021 Page 2 of 10
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Case No. 20-21553-Civ-COOKE/GOODMAN PATRICK GAYLE, et al.,
Petitioners-Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and those similarly situated,
v. MICHAEL W. MEADE, et al.,
Respondents-Defendants. ______________________________________/
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT Petitioners-Plaintiffs and Respondents-Defendants agree to resolve the class-wide claims raised in Petitioners-Plaintiffs’ Verified Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief (D.E. 1), according to the following: 1. The following terms would resolve all class-wide claims.1 The Court would retain jurisdiction and the terms would be enforceable as an injunction. A Final Order embodying the terms of the order will be entered and posted in English, Spanish, Haitian Creole, and French in every living unit, law library and the medical facilities of the Detention Facilities.2 The Final Order must remain posted for as long as it is in force. Members of the class retain the right to pursue individual habeas petitions and motions for release. No pending motion for release or to
1 Class members are defined as all civil immigration detained individuals held by Respondents at the Krome Service Processing Center, the Broward Transitional Center, or at Glades County Detention Facility when this action was filed, since this action was filed, or in the future. 2 As used throughout the terms of the Settlement Agreement, the “Detention Facilities” refers to (1) Glades County Detention Center in Moore Haven, FL, (2) Broward Transitional Center in Broward County, FL, and (3) Krome Processing Center in Miami-Dade County, FL.
1

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 697-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/28/2021 Page 3 of 10
intervene is rendered moot by the Final Order. This paragraph does not preclude or constitute a
waiver of Defendants’ ability to raise defenses of collateral estoppel, res judicata, or any other
applicable defense or argument in any habeas petition or motion raising conditions of
confinement claims.
a. The Detention Facilities shall comply with all applicable detention guidelines, ICE Pandemic Response Requirements (PRR) and Center for Disease Control (CDC) Guidelines. As the applicable guidelines may change over time, the applicable standards will be based upon the time the Government’s action takes place. The Government’s actions may need to change over time to reflect changes in the applicable standards.
b. The COVID-19 Vaccination Guidelines and Protocol provided to Plaintiffs’ counsel on 3/9/2021 (or a subsequently amended version of that plan) shall be fully implemented at all three Detention Facilities. Once available, The Detention Facilities shall make COVID-19 vaccinations that are authorized for emergency use available free of charge to the population detained at all three Detention Facilities upon request, subject to availability and priorities as set forth in ICE’s COVID-19 Vaccination Guidelines and Protocol.
c. Detained persons who are released after only one dose of a two-dose vaccination protocol shall be provided with a CDC vaccine card (as printed by the CDC) and written information (in their primary language) about when they should obtain their second dose, and how to access the CDC Vaccine Finder tool for their second dose.
d. The Detention Facilities shall provide detainees with educational materials, including pamphlets printed in English, Spanish, Haitian Creole, and French, and an in-person presentation done by medical staff where detainee questions can be answered, about the benefits of vaccination as related to the ongoing COVID-19 threat.
e. The Detention Facilities shall make seasonal influenza vaccinations available at no cost to the detained population.
f. The detention facilities shall maintain the population density in each living area at each facility and in each facility in total as governed by the most current PRR and CDC guidelines (currently, 75% of capacity or lower). Unforeseen operational needs may arise which require a detention facility or a housing unit within a detention facility to exceed 75% capacity for a short period of time. If a detention facility or a housing unit within a detention facility exceeds 75% capacity for more than 48 continuous hours, they shall make a report to the Court about the reason for exceeding 75% capacity before 5 pm ET on Friday. ICE calculates permitted capacity in a housing unit by multiplying the number of beds available by 0.75. As an example, if a pod has 50 beds available for use, 50 x .75 equals 37.5. In this example, a population of 37 or less would comply with the 75% capacity maximum. Factors used in housing decisions include, but are not limited to
2

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 697-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/28/2021 Page 4 of 10
security level, safety, security and to accommodate detained individuals’ health problems as the facility allows. ICE will maximize social distancing as operationally feasible based on considerations of security, level, safety, security and detained individuals’ health problems. ICE will minimize movements of detained individuals between housing units except as necessary to facilitate greater social distancing.
g. Signs shall be posted and updated daily in every housing unit in the Detention Facilities in a location that is visible to all staff and detainees living in the housing unit that provides the following information: 1) whether each pod, building, housing unit, etc. is cohorted or quarantined, and 2) the date each cohort or quarantine began and the date on which it will end.
h. All detained people who exhibit symptoms3 consistent with COVID-19 shall be tested, consistent with the PRR. This will occur within 24 hours. Notice of the result, either orally or in writing, shall be provided to the detained person by the medical staff within 12 hours of the results becoming available.
i. All detained persons who have had close contact as defined by the CDC (within 6 feet for 15 minutes or more) to someone who tests positive for COVID-19 shall be tested for COVID-19 within 24 hours. Notice of the result, either orally or in writing, shall be provided to the detained person by the medical staff within 12 hours of the results becoming available.
j. Detained persons shall be tested using a medically approved COVID-19 test. Subject to availability, the Detention Facilities shall obtain and maintain adequate supplies to test detained persons as needed.
k. Consistent with the PRR, The Detention Facilities shall ensure that detainees who have tested positive for COVID-19 shall see medical staff within 24 hours of receiving their test results and as needed based on clinical course following their positive test.
l. The Detention Facilities shall isolate all detainees who test positive for COVID-19 until 10 days after they stop having symptoms. Consistent with the PRR, they can be housed with other detainees only if the other detainees have also tested positive for COVID-19 and have active symptoms.
m. Consistent with the PRR, all detainees who have been exposed to someone who has tested positive for COVID-19, but who themselves test negative, will be medically isolated for 14 days following exposure. They can be housed with other detainees only if the other detainees have also been exposed to COVID-19 but currently test negative for COVID-19. Detainees in medical isolation who have not tested positive for COVID-19 may not be held with those who are currently COVID-19 positive.
3 As used throughout the terms of the Settlement Agreement, “symptoms” include the following: fever or chills, cough, shortness of breath or difficulty breathing, fatigue, muscle or body aches, headache, loss of taste, loss of smell, sore throat, congestion or runny nose, nausea or vomiting, diarrhea.
3

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 697-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/28/2021 Page 5 of 10
n. All detainees who have been tested for COVID-19 but are awaiting results shall be medically isolated from the rest of the population. They shall not be maintained in common housing units, also known as general population. Detainees in medical isolation who have not tested positive for COVID-19 shall not be held with those who are currently COVID-19 positive.
o. The Detention Facilities will provide unlimited soap and hand sanitizer to detainees at no cost. Dispensers for soap and/or hand sanitizer will be placed in (1) all bathrooms, (2) outside all cafeterias and other eating areas, (3) all medical units, (4) all locations where medication is dispensed, (5) kitchen, (6) computer lab, (7) commissary, (8) phone/tablet bank, and (9) law library. Staff members will ensure that all dispensers are refilled as needed. A staff member must log every time a dispenser is refilled.
p. The Detention Facilities shall provide new masks that conform to CDC guidelines at no cost to the detainees. If the detention facilities provide disposable masks, detainees shall receive new masks three times per week. If the detention facilities provide cloth masks and the masks are returned from the laundry in a way that is dirty, wet, sour smelling or otherwise unusable, then the detention facility shall immediately provide a replacement upon request.
q. Upon request, detainees shall be immediately provided a replacement if their mask is lost, breaks, or becomes soiled, at no cost to the detainee.
r. As required by CDC guidelines, staff and guards at the Detention Facilities will wear face masks covering both their nose and mouth.
s. The Detention Facilities shall provide a new mask to each transferee before all transfers.
t. The Detention Facilities shall maintain all existing limitations on transfers, as required by the ICE PRR and the preliminary injunction, other than paragraph (b) in the preliminary injunction which requires ICE to submit documentation of pre-transfer release evaluations.
u. The Detention Facilities shall perform a rapid test within 24 hours before transferring a detainee. Only those who test negative may be transferred. Defendants shall maintain documentation of all such test results until at least the Final Order is dissolved.
v. Consistent with the PRR, medical staff shall conduct a verbal screening and temperature check as outlined in the CDC Guidelines before a detainee is transferred away from any of the Detention Facilities.
w. During transportation by ERO and its contractors, whenever possible detainees shall be seated so that they are at least 6 feet apart.
x. All vehicles used to transport detainees shall be sanitized before and after each transport using a disinfectant that is EPA-approved for use against the virus that causes COVID-
4

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 697-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/28/2021 Page 6 of 10
19. Product manufacturer and other guidelines concerning the use of proper ventilation during application and any waiting periods to allow harsh chemicals to dissipate will be followed.
y. Whenever possible, detainees will be held in conditions which allow for social distancing space of six feet. If holding cells are used during the detainee transfer process, there will be sufficient space in the holding cells to permit adequate social distancing of 6 feet or more for the detainees being held.
z. The Detention Facilities shall place (and replace immediately after they are used) disinfecting wipes or spray beside tablets, telephones, computers, printers, remote controls for electronics, shared recreation equipment, law library, meal service lines, and water coolers used by detainees. Staff members4 will ensure that all dispensers are refilled as needed. A staff member must log every time a dispenser is refilled.
aa. The Detention facilities shall either (1) use single-use disposable food trays, or (2) sanitize each tray after each use using hot water or a dishwasher, consistent with ICE PRR. Hand sanitizer shall be made available during all meal service lines.
bb. The Detention Facilities shall provide single-use disposable utensils to detainees at each meal. These utensils will be delivered to each detainee so that they are free of contamination when provided to the detainees.
cc. Detention Facilities that are feeding detainees in a cafeteria shall stagger groups of detainees in the eating area or cafeteria as necessary to allow for increased social distancing.
dd. Whenever possible, the Detention Facilities will provide enough areas for eating so that each detainee is able to sit at least 6 feet away from other detainees.
ee. Whenever possible, the Detention Facilities will ensure that when detainees are lined up so that social distancing of at least six feet between each detainee is maintained. This will be followed at all times, to include lines made for: transit, meals, medication, medical care, recreation, supplies, equipment, and to purchase commissary.
ff. After considering the safety, security and orderly operation of the facility, the detention facilities shall ensure that no detainees are sleeping within 6 feet of each other. Factors used in housing decisions include, but are not limited to classification level, safety, security and to accommodate detained individuals’ health problems as the facility allows. All available housing units will be used in each facility so that detained individuals are spread out across all housing units and will only sleep in the same set of bunk beds once it is necessary. (A set of bunk beds means a single piece of furniture that is a stack of two beds that are connected to each other.)
4 As used throughout the terms of the Settlement Agreement, staff includes all employees working at the Detention Facilities, whether employed directly by ICE, employed by an entity that has a contract with ICE, or otherwise.
5

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 697-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/28/2021 Page 7 of 10

gg. The Detention Facilities will require that all areas of the bathroom areas (including showers, sinks and toilets) shall be maintained in proper working order in order to allow maximum social distancing. If a shower, sink, toilet or other part of the bathroom malfunctions or breaks, it will be repaired and returned to working order as soon as possible.

hh. When a bed is assigned to a different detainee, the mattress will be disinfected using a disinfectant that is EPA-approved for use against the virus that causes COVID-19.

ii. The Detention Facilities leadership shall ensure adequate cleaning of each bathroom, dayroom, common space, and dormitory once per day. The Detention Facilities will ensure that all cleaning staff strictly follow instructions on any cleaning materials used, ensuring that detained individuals are not physically exposed to harsh chemicals which could have a negative impact on their health. The Detention Facilities shall maintain a cleaning log reflecting the date and time of cleaning.

jj. The Detention Facilities shall ensure that all areas where medical care is provided (“medical areas”) shall be cleaned after each patient using a disinfectant that is EPA approved for use against the virus that causes COVID-19. Additionally, the Detention Facilities leadership shall ensure that medical areas will be cleaned once daily. The Detention Facilities shall maintain a log showing the date, time and cleaning.

kk. ICE shall require all staff (both medical and correctional) to wear PPE when encountering or interacting with any ICE detainee at a distance of less than six feet. Required PPE should always be worn by staff.

ll. Whenever possible, social distancing of six feet shall be maintained in the waiting areas and hallways leading to all medical areas at all times.

mm.

Detainees shall be provided with instructions in their primary language about how

they can request and receive their own medical records. Detainees shall receive a copy of

all of their medical records maintained by the Detention Facilities or ICE free of cost

within a reasonable time after request (not more than 14 days).

nn. The Detention Facilities shall maintain educational posters on the walls in all common areas, living areas, indoor recreation areas, sleeping areas and bathrooms. The posters will advise about the importance of social distancing, hand washing, and mask wearing. These posters will be provided in English, Spanish, Haitian Creole, and French, and shall be in a manner that is discernable to someone who does not read one of those languages. The Detention Facilities shall also provide an interpreter for any Detainee who does not read one of those languages who requests to have the information read to them, and shall inform such detainees that interpretation services are available for that purpose.

oo. As-long-as social visitation is not allowed, all detainees shall have access to telephones and/or other electronic devices for standard (audio) and/or video calling.

6

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 697-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/28/2021 Page 8 of 10
pp. The Detention Facilities shall make a presentation to the detained population about COVID-19 and precautions that slow the spread of COVID-19 every two weeks.
qq. Defendants shall continue making their weekly certification regarding the detention population, specifically: a. The number of detained people Defendants are housing at each of the Detention Facilities on the date of reporting and the current percentage of capacity for each housing unit; b. If a Detention Facility has exceeded the 75% population in any housing unit, the facility shall so state, and the specific reasons for this exception. c. The number of people who have tested positive in each housing unit at each detention center and how many close contacts for each positive person have been identified and quarantined or isolated. d. Defendants shall also provide a report for each facility in the form of the Detention Oversight Unit COVID-19 Facility Checklist (Bates No. ICE-0070044 et seq.) monthly.
2. The terms outlined in paragraph 1, subparts (a) – (qq) shall apply for six months following the entry of the Final Order, or until each detainee who is remaining in one of The Detention Facilities at the time the Final Order is entered, has been given an opportunity to be vaccinated (meaning 1 shot for the Johnson & Johnson vaccination protocol or 2 shots for the Pfizer or Moderna vaccination protocols), whichever is later. The parties and the Court recognize that the COVID-19 pandemic is a constantly evolving situation. As such, Defendants may petition the Court to dissolve the injunction sooner than specified in this Agreement if they believe the circumstances of the pandemic warrant dissolution. Similarly, Plaintiffs may petition the Court to extend the injunction if the circumstances of the pandemic warrant extension. Nothing in this agreement shall be understood to require ICE to continue to maintain custody of a detainee for purposes of administering any part of a vaccine, or facilitate the administration of a vaccine after release or removal.
7

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 697-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/28/2021 Page 9 of 10

3. Defendants may file a motion with the Court to be excused from the terms outlined in paragraph 1, subparts (a) – (qq), when the conditions of item 2 have been satisfied. Defendants shall meet and confer with Plaintiffs’ counsel over its position before filing such a motion.

4. When feasible and consistent with the interests of the members of the Class, Plaintiffs will endeavor to meet and confer with Defendants over their position before filing a claim of noncompliance with the Final Order. Defendants must respond promptly and in good faith to any such request. This is without prejudice to Plaintiffs’ right to seek relief on an emergency or expedited basis, or to confer contemporaneously with seeking judicial relief when time is of the essence.

5. Defendants shall promptly investigate all reports of noncompliance with the terms of the Final Order that Plaintiffs bring to their attention and will take immediate steps to correct noncompliance and promptly report such steps to Plaintiffs’ counsel.

6. Plaintiffs reserve all rights to pursue discovery related to Defendants’ ongoing compliance with this agreement (as governed by all applicable rules, including the Rules of Civil Procedure).

7. The parties shall bear their own costs, fees, and expenses, in maintaining this action. EXECUTED this _2_8t_h__ day of June, 2021.

JUAN ANTONIO GONZALEZ ACTING UNITED STATES ATTORNEY

________________________________ Scott M. Edson, Esq. Florida Bar No. 17258 KING & SPALDING, LLP 1700 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.

By: _________________________________ DEXTER A. LEE Assistant U.S. Attorney

8

Case 1:20-cv-21553-MGC Document 697-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/28/2021 Page 10 of 10

Suite 200 Washington, DC 20006-4707 (202) 737-0500 Fax: (202) 626-3737 sedson@kslaw.com
t ' ~ S '. b
thrv_,;q;:-Lehman Florida Bar No. 95642 KING & SPALDING LLP 1180 Peachtree Street, N.E. Atlanta, Georgia 30309 (404) 572-4600 Fax: (404) 572-5100 klehman@ kslaw.com
COUNSEL FOR PETITIONERSPLAINTIFFS

Fla. Bar No. 0936693 99 N.E. 4th Street, Suite 300 Miami, Florida 33132 (305) 961-9320 Fax: (305) 530-7139 E-mail: dexter.lee@usdoj.gov
Assistarµ'U.S. Attorney Fla. Ba{ No. 85834 99 N.E. 4th Street, Suite 300 Miami, Florida 33132 (305) 961-9306 Fax: (305) 530-7139 E-mail: Natalie.diaz@usdoj.gov
COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENTSDEFENDANTS

9