ACCO,TRO,194,STAYED
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA (Eastern Division - Riverside)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 5:20-cv-00605-TJH-AFM

Pedro Bravo Castillo et al v. William Barr et al Assigned to: Judge Terry J. Hatter, Jr Referred to: Magistrate Judge Alexander F. MacKinnon Cause: 28:2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federal)

Date Filed: 03/25/2020 Jury Demand: None Nature of Suit: 463 Habeas Corpus Alien Detainee Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Defendant

Petitioner Pedro Bravo Castillo

represented by Mark D Rosenbaum Public Counsel 610 South Ardmore Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90005 213-385-2977 Fax: 213-385-9089 Email: mrosenbaum@publiccounsel.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Amanda Roman Mangaser Savage Public Counsel 610 South Ardmore Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90005 213-385-2977 Fax: 213-385-9089 Email: asavage@publiccounsel.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Dylan S Cowit Kaplan Hecker and Fink LLP 350 Fifth Avenue Suite 7110 New York, NY 10118 212-763-0883 Fax: 212-564-0883 Email: dcowit@kaplanhecker.com PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Elizabeth Hercules-Paez Public Counsel 610 South Ardmore Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90005 213-385-2977 Fax: 213-385-9089 Email: eherculespaez@publiccounsel.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jesselyn K Friley Public Counsel 610 South Ardmore Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90005 213-385-2977 Fax: 213-385-9089 Email: jfriley@publiccounsel.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Joshua A Matz Kaplan Hecker and Fink LLP 350 Fifth Avenue Suite 7110 New York, NY 10118 212-763-0883 Fax: 212-564-0883 Email: jmatz@kaplanhecker.com TERMINATED: 01/15/2021 PRO HAC VICE
Judy London Public Counsel 610 South Ardmore Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90005 213-385-2977 Fax: 213-385-9089 Email: jlondon@publiccounsel.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kyla P S Magun Kaplan Hecker and Fink LLP 350 Fifth Avenue Suite 7110 New York, NY 10118 212-763-0883 Fax: 212-564-0883 Email: kmagun@kaplanhecker.com PRO HAC VICE

Petitioner Luis Vasquez Rueda

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael Skocpol Kaplan Hecker and Fink LLP 350 Fifth Avenue Suite 7110 New York, NY 10118 212-763-0883 Fax: 212-564-0883 Email: mskocpol@kaplanhecker.com PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Talia R Inlender Public Counsel 610 South Ardmore Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90005 213-385-2977 Fax: 213-385-9089 Email: tinlender@publiccounsel.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Amanda Roman Mangaser Savage (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Dylan S Cowit (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Elizabeth Hercules-Paez (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jesselyn K Friley (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Joshua A Matz (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/15/2021 PRO HAC VICE
Judy London (See above for address)

Petitioner Jeffrey Hernandez Arevalo TERMINATED: 04/13/2020
V. Respondent William Barr United States Attorney General

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kyla P S Magun (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael Skocpol (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Talia R Inlender (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mark D Rosenbaum (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Mark D Rosenbaum (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Assistant 2241-194 US Attorney LA-CV AUSA - Office of US Attorney Criminal Division - US Courthouse 312 North Spring Street 12th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90012-4700 213-894-2434 Email: USACAC.Habeas@usdoj.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
OIL-DCS Trial Attorney Office of Immigration Litigation District Court Section PO Box 868 Ben Franklin Station Washington, DC 20044 202-353-8806 Email: oil-dcs.cacd@usdoj.gov

Respondent Chad Wolf Acting Secretary of U.S. Department of Homeland Security
Respondent U.S. Department of Homeland Security
Respondent

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mariam Kaloustian AUSA - Office of US Attorney 300 North Los Angeles Street Suite 7516 Los Angeles, CA 90012 213-894-3992 Fax: 213-894-7819 Email: mariam.kaloustian@usdoj.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Assistant 2241-194 US Attorney LA-CV (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
OIL-DCS Trial Attorney (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mariam Kaloustian (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Assistant 2241-194 US Attorney LA-CV (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
OIL-DCS Trial Attorney (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mariam Kaloustian (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)
Respondent Matthew T. Albence Deputy Director and Senior Official for ICE
Respondent David Marin Field Office Director for ICE ERO in Los Angeles

represented by Assistant 2241-194 US Attorney LA-CV (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
OIL-DCS Trial Attorney (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mariam Kaloustian (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Assistant 2241-194 US Attorney LA-CV (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
OIL-DCS Trial Attorney (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mariam Kaloustian (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Assistant 2241-194 US Attorney LA-CV (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
OIL-DCS Trial Attorney (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mariam Kaloustian (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Respondent
James Janecka Warden, Adelanto ICE Processing Center

represented by Assistant 2241-194 US Attorney LA-CV (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
OIL-DCS Trial Attorney (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mariam Kaloustian (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 03/26/2020
03/26/2020
03/26/2020
03/26/2020 03/26/2020 03/26/2020

# Docket Text
1 PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in Federal Custody (28 USC 2241), Receipt No. ACACDC-25862574 for $5 filing fee, filed by Plaintiff Luis Vasquez Rueda, Pedro Bravo Castillo. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration, # 2 Declaration, # 3 Declaration, # 4 Declaration, # 5 Declaration) (Attorney Mark D Rosenbaum added to party Pedro Bravo Castillo(pty:pla), Attorney Mark D Rosenbaum added to party Luis Vasquez Rueda(pty:pla))(Rosenbaum, Mark) (Entered: 03/26/2020)
2 First NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order as to Seeking Immediate Release of Petitioners filed by Plaintiff Pedro Bravo Castillo, Luis Vasquez Rueda. Motion set for hearing on 3/27/2020 at 09:00 AM before Judge Jesus G. Bernal. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) (Rosenbaum, Mark) (Entered: 03/26/2020)
3 First NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Exceed Page Limitation Petitioners' Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order filed by Plaintiff Pedro Bravo Castillo, Luis Vasquez Rueda. Motion set for hearing on 3/27/2020 at 09:30 AM before Judge Jesus G. Bernal. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) (Rosenbaum, Mark) (Entered: 03/26/2020)
4 CIVIL COVER SHEET filed by Plaintiffs Pedro Bravo Castillo, Luis Vasquez Rueda. (Rosenbaum, Mark) (Entered: 03/26/2020)
5 Notice of Interested Parties (Rosenbaum, Mark) (Entered: 03/26/2020)
6 NOTICE OF REFERENCE to a U.S. Magistrate Judge. This case has been assigned to the calendar of the Honorable District Judge Dale S. Fischer and referred to Magistrate Judge Alexander F. MacKinnon, who is authorized to consider preliminary matters and conduct all further hearings as may be appropriate or necessary. Pursuant to Local Rule 83-2.4, the

03/26/2020 03/26/2020 03/26/2020 03/26/2020

Court must be notified within five (5) days of any address change. See notice for additional details. (car) (Entered: 03/26/2020)
7 NOTICE OF PRO HAC VICE APPLICATION DUE for Non-Resident Attorney Joshua A. Matz for Petitioners. A document recently filed in this case lists you as an out-of-state attorney of record. However, the Court has not been able to locate any record that you are admitted to the Bar of this Court, and you have not filed an application to appear Pro Hac Vice in this case. Accordingly, within 5 business days of the date of this notice, you must either (1) have your local counsel file an application to appear Pro Hac Vice (Form G-64) and pay the applicable fee, or (2) complete the next section of this form and return it to the court at cacd_attyadm@cacd.uscourts.gov. You have been removed as counsel of record from the docket in this case, and you will not be added back to the docket until your Pro Hac Vice status has been resolved. (car) Modified on 3/26/2020 (car). (Entered: 03/26/2020)
8 NOTICE OF PRO HAC VICE APPLICATION DUE for Non-Resident Attorney Kyla Magun for Petitioners. A document recently filed in this case lists you as an out-of-state attorney of record. However, the Court has not been able to locate any record that you are admitted to the Bar of this Court, and you have not filed an application to appear Pro Hac Vice in this case. Accordingly, within 5 business days of the date of this notice, you must either (1) have your local counsel file an application to appear Pro Hac Vice (Form G-64) and pay the applicable fee, or (2) complete the next section of this form and return it to the court at cacd_attyadm@cacd.uscourts.gov. You have been removed as counsel of record from the docket in this case, and you will not be added back to the docket until your Pro Hac Vice status has been resolved. (car) (Entered: 03/26/2020)
9 NOTICE OF PRO HAC VICE APPLICATION DUE for Non-Resident Attorney Michael Skocpol for Petitioners. A document recently filed in this case lists you as an out-of-state attorney of record. However, the Court has not been able to locate any record that you are admitted to the Bar of this Court, and you have not filed an application to appear Pro Hac Vice in this case. Accordingly, within 5 business days of the date of this notice, you must either (1) have your local counsel file an application to appear Pro Hac Vice (Form G-64) and pay the applicable fee, or (2) complete the next section of this form and return it to the court at cacd_attyadm@cacd.uscourts.gov. You have been removed as counsel of record from the docket in this case, and you will not be added back to the docket until your Pro Hac Vice status has been resolved. (car) (Entered: 03/26/2020)
10 NOTICE OF PRO HAC VICE APPLICATION DUE for Non-Resident Attorney Dylan Cowit for Petitioners. A document recently filed in this case lists you as an out-of-state attorney of record. However, the Court has

03/26/2020 03/26/2020 03/26/2020 03/26/2020 03/26/2020
03/26/2020

not been able to locate any record that you are admitted to the Bar of this Court, and you have not filed an application to appear Pro Hac Vice in this case. Accordingly, within 5 business days of the date of this notice, you must either (1) have your local counsel file an application to appear Pro Hac Vice (Form G-64) and pay the applicable fee, or (2) complete the next section of this form and return it to the court at cacd_attyadm@cacd.uscourts.gov. You have been removed as counsel of record from the docket in this case, and you will not be added back to the docket until your Pro Hac Vice status has been resolved. (car) (Entered: 03/26/2020)
11 ORDER TRANSFERRING CIVIL ACTION pursuant General Order 1903. ORDER case transferred from Judge Dale S. Fischer to the calendar of Judge Terry J. Hatter, Jr for all further proceedings. The case number will now reflect the initials of the transferee Judge 5:20-cv-00605 TJH(AFM). Signed by Judge Dale S. Fischer and Judge Terry J. Hatter, Jr. (rn) (Entered: 03/26/2020)
12 NOTICE OF ERRATA filed by Petitioners Pedro Bravo Castillo, Luis Vasquez Rueda. correcting First NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Exceed Page Limitation Petitioners' Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order 3 (Rosenbaum, Mark) (Entered: 03/26/2020)
13 NOTICE OF LODGING filed Proposed Order re First NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Exceed Page Limitation Petitioners' Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order 3 (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Rosenbaum, Mark) (Entered: 03/26/2020)
14 ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO FILE A MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN EXCESS OF 25 PAGES 3 by Judge Terry J. Hatter, Jr: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioners Motion is GRANTED. Petitioners may file their memorandum of points and authorities in excess of 25 pages. (shb) (Entered: 03/26/2020)
15 MINUTE IN CHAMBERS-ORDER AND NOTICE TO ALL PARTIES by Judge Terry J. Hatter, Jr: re: First NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order as to Seeking Immediate Release of Petitioners, 2 . Counsel are hereby notified that pursuant to the Judge's directive, the Government is hereby ordered to file its opposition to the Temporary Restraining Order by no later than 6:00 a.m. on March 27, 2020. (shb) (Entered: 03/26/2020)
16 MINUTE O(IN CHAMBERS) -NEW CASE BEFORE JUDGE HATTER: This action has been assigned to the calendar of the HONORABLE TERRY J. HATTER, JR., United States District Judge. Please include the initials TJH in all documents pertaining to this case, as documents are routed using the judges initials, it is imperative that the correct initials TJH be used on all subsequent filings to prevent any delays in the processing of documents. Judge Hatter's Courtroom Deputy Clerk is Yolanda Skipper. She can be reached at (213) 894-5276. Counsel shall not attempt to contact

03/26/2020 03/26/2020 03/26/2020 03/26/2020 03/26/2020 03/26/2020 03/26/2020

the Court or its chambers staff by telephone or by any other ex parte means, although counsel may contact the Courtroom Deputy, Yolanda Skipper, at: yolanda_skipper@cacd.uscourts.gov, with appropriate inquiries. Judge Hatters courtroom is located on the 9th Floor, at 350 W. 1st Street, United States Courthouse, Courtroom No. 9B. Additional information about Judge Hatters procedures and schedules can be found on the courts website at www.cacd.uscourts.gov. See order for further details. (shb) (Entered: 03/26/2020)
17 Request for Clerk to Issue Summons on First NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order as to Seeking Immediate Release of Petitioners 2 , Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, 1 filed by Petitioner Pedro Bravo Castillo, Luis Vasquez Rueda. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix)(Rosenbaum, Mark) (Entered: 03/26/2020)
18 Request for Clerk to Issue Summons on First NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order as to Seeking Immediate Release of Petitioners 2 , Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, 1 filed by Petitioner Pedro Bravo Castillo, Luis Vasquez Rueda. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix)(Rosenbaum, Mark) (Entered: 03/26/2020)
19 Request for Clerk to Issue Summons on First NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order as to Seeking Immediate Release of Petitioners 2 , Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, 1 filed by Petitioner Pedro Bravo Castillo, Luis Vasquez Rueda. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix)(Rosenbaum, Mark) (Entered: 03/26/2020)
20 Request for Clerk to Issue Summons on First NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order as to Seeking Immediate Release of Petitioners 2 , Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, 1 filed by Petitioner Pedro Bravo Castillo, Luis Vasquez Rueda. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix)(Rosenbaum, Mark) (Entered: 03/26/2020)
21 Request for Clerk to Issue Summons on First NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order as to Seeking Immediate Release of Petitioners 2 , Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, 1 filed by Petitioner Pedro Bravo Castillo, Luis Vasquez Rueda. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix)(Rosenbaum, Mark) (Entered: 03/26/2020)
22 Request for Clerk to Issue Summons on First NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order as to Seeking Immediate Release of Petitioners 2 , Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, 1 filed by Petitioner Pedro Bravo Castillo, Luis Vasquez Rueda. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix)(Rosenbaum, Mark) (Entered: 03/26/2020)
23 Request for Clerk to Issue Summons on First NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order as to Seeking Immediate Release of Petitioners 2 , Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, 1 filed by Petitioner Pedro Bravo Castillo, Luis Vasquez Rueda. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix)(Rosenbaum, Mark) (Entered: 03/26/2020)

03/26/2020 03/27/2020
03/27/2020
03/27/2020 03/27/2020

24 NOTICE of Supplemental Authority in Support of TRO filed by Petitioners Pedro Bravo Castillo, Luis Vasquez Rueda. (Attachments: # 1 Supplemental Authority)(Rosenbaum, Mark) (Entered: 03/26/2020)
25 MEMORANDUM in Opposition to First NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order as to Seeking Immediate Release of Petitioners 2 Opposition filed by Respondents William Barr, James Janecka, David Marin, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Chad Wolf, Petitioners Pedro Bravo Castillo, Luis Vasquez Rueda. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration Declaration of Captain Jennifer Moon, # 2 Declaration Declaration of Mariam Kaloustian, # 3 Exhibit Exhibits to Kaloustian Declaration)(Attorney Mariam Kaloustian added to party William Barr(pty:res), Attorney Mariam Kaloustian added to party James Janecka(pty:res), Attorney Mariam Kaloustian added to party David Marin(pty:res), Attorney Mariam Kaloustian added to party U.S. Department of Homeland Security(pty:res), Attorney Mariam Kaloustian added to party U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement(pty:res), Attorney Mariam Kaloustian added to party Chad Wolf(pty:res))(Kaloustian, Mariam) (Entered: 03/27/2020)
26 EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS re First NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order as to Seeking Immediate Release of Petitioners 2 Evidentiary Objections filed by Respondents Matthew T. Albence, William Barr, James Janecka, David Marin, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Petitioners Pedro Bravo Castillo, Luis Vasquez Rueda. (Attachments: # 1 Supplement Evidentiary Objections to Declaration of Katherine McKenzie, # 2 Supplement Evidentiary Objections to Declaration of Pedro Bravo Castillo, # 3 Supplement Evidentiary Objections to Declaration of Dr. Ranit Mishori, # 4 Supplement Evidentiary Objections to Declaration of Debbie Allen)(Attorney Mariam Kaloustian added to party Matthew T. Albence (pty:res))(Kaloustian, Mariam) (Entered: 03/27/2020)
27 NOTICE OF DEFICIENCIES in Attorney Case Opening RE: Miscellaneous Document 5 . The following error(s) was found: Incorrect event was selected in the e-filing of the Notice of Interested Parties. The correct event is located under Civil Events Other Filings Notices and by selecting Certificate/Notice of Interested Parties. In the future please use the correct event. No further action is required unless directed by the Court. (car) (Entered: 03/27/2020)
28 REPLY in Support of First NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order as to Seeking Immediate Release of Petitioners 2 filed by Petitioners Pedro Bravo Castillo, Luis Vasquez Rueda. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A - Supplemental Declaration of Ranit Mishori)(Rosenbaum, Mark) (Entered: 03/27/2020)

03/27/2020 03/27/2020 03/27/2020 03/27/2020
03/30/2020
04/06/2020

29 DECLARATION of David Gomez re MEMORANDUM in Opposition to Motion,,,, 25 filed by Respondents Matthew T. Albence, William Barr, James Janecka, David Marin, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Chad Wolf. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 - 4)(Kaloustian, Mariam) (Entered: 03/27/2020)
30 [REFER TO DKT 31 - STANDING ORDER upon filing of the complaint by Judge Terry J. Hatter, Jr. READ THIS ORDER CAREFULLY. It controls this case and may differ in some respects from the Local Rules. (ys) Modified on 3/27/2020 (shb). (Entered: 03/27/2020)
31 MINUTE IN CHAMBERS-ORDER AND NOTICE TO ALL PARTIESby Judge Terry J. Hatter, Jr: Counsel are hereby notified that the Order issued on March 27, 2020, DKT NO. 30was issued in error and is hereby vacated. (shb) (Entered: 03/27/2020)
32 TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE by Judge Terry J. Hatter, Jr: It is Ordered that the motion for a temporary retraining order be, and hereby is, Granted. It is further Ordered that the Respondents shall, forthwith and without delay, release Petitioners Pedro Bravo Castillo and Luis Vasquez Rueda from custody pending further order of this Court. It is further Ordered the Respondents shall show cause, if they have any, as to why the Court should not issue a preliminary injunction in this case. The Respondents response, if any, to this order to show cause shall be filed by Noon on April 6, 2020. Petitioners reply, if any, to Respondents response shall be filed by Noon on April 9, 2020. The matter will then stand submitted. (shb) (Entered: 03/27/2020)
33 NOTICE TO FILER OF DEFICIENCIES in Electronically Filed Documents RE: Summons Request, 21 , Summons Request, 19 , Summons Request, 20 , Summons Request, 23 , Summons Request, 22 . The following error(s) was/were found: Please be advised that summonses are not issued on habeas cases. In response to this notice, the Court may: (1) order an amended or correct document to be filed; (2) order the document stricken; or (3) take other action as the Court deems appropriate. You need not take any action in response to this notice unless and until the Court directs you to do so. (yl) (Entered: 03/30/2020)
34 [STRICKEN PER ORDER, 39 - First AMENDED PETITION against Respondents Matthew T. Albence, William Barr, James Janecka, David Marin, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Chad Wolf amending Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, 1 , filed by Petitioner Luis Vasquez Rueda, Pedro Bravo Castillo, Jeffrey Hernandez Arevalo (Attachments: # 1 Declaration Declaration A, # 2 Declaration Declaration B, # 3 Declaration Declaration C, # 4 Declaration Declaration D, # 5 Declaration Declaration E, # 6 Declaration Declaration F, # 7 Declaration Declaration G, # 8 Declaration Declaration H)(Attorney Mark D Rosenbaum added to

04/06/2020 04/06/2020

party Jeffrey Hernandez Arevalo(pty:pet))(Rosenbaum, Mark) Modified on 4/7/2020 (shb). (Entered: 04/06/2020)
35 [STRICKEN PER ORDER, 39 - NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order as to Seeking Immediate Release of Petitioners Jeffrey Hernandez Arevalo filed by Petitioner Pedro Bravo Castillo, Jeffrey Hernandez Arevalo, Luis Vasquez Rueda. Motion set for hearing on 4/7/2020 at 09:00 AM before Judge Terry J. Hatter Jr. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) (Rosenbaum, Mark) Modified on 4/7/2020 (shb). (Entered: 04/06/2020)
36 RESPONSE filed by Respondents Matthew T. Albence, William Barr, James Janecka, David Marin, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Chad Wolfto Order on Motion for

04/06/2020 04/06/2020 04/06/2020
04/09/2020 04/09/2020

Temporary Restraining Order,,, 32 (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Gabriel Valdez)(Kaloustian, Mariam) (Entered: 04/06/2020)
37 [STRICKEN PER ORDER, 39 - MINUTE IN CHAMBERS-ORDER AND NOTICE TO ALL PARTIES by Judge Terry J. Hatter, Jr: Counsel are hereby notified that pursuant to the Judge's directive, the respondent's opposition to the Temporary Restraining Order 35 is to be filed by no later than 5pm, Tuesday, April 7, 2020. (shb) Modified on 4/7/2020 (shb). (Entered: 04/06/2020)
38 NOTICE of Interested Parties filed by Petitioner Pedro Bravo Castillo, Jeffrey Hernandez Arevalo, Luis Vasquez Rueda, identifying Jeffrey Hernandez Arevalo. (Rosenbaum, Mark) (Entered: 04/06/2020)
39 MINUTE IN CHAMBERS-ORDER AND NOTICE TO ALL PARTIES by Judge Terry J. Hatter, Jr: Counsel are hereby notified that pursuant to the Judge's directive, the amended petition [DKT NO. 34] and the Temporary Restraining Order [DKT NO. 35], are hereby stricken from the record. The minute order filed on April 6, 2020 [DKT NO. 37] is hereby vacated. Petitioner Jeffrey Hernandez Arevalo may file his petition as a new case. Unless an Adelanto habeas case is filed as a class action, each case shall be limited to a single petitioner. The original two petitioners may remain in this case. (shb) (Entered: 04/07/2020)
40 REPLY In Support of Preliminary Injunction and Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law filed by Petitioners Pedro Bravo Castillo, Luis Vasquez Rueda. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix Proposed Findings & Conclusions)(Rosenbaum, Mark) (Entered: 04/09/2020)
41 REPLY In Support of Preliminary Injunction and Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law filed by Petitioners Pedro Bravo Castillo, Luis Vasquez Rueda. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix Proposed Findings & Conclusions, # 2 Exhibit Declaration, # 3 Exhibit Declaration, # 4 Exhibit Declaration)(Rosenbaum, Mark) (Entered: 04/09/2020)

04/09/2020 04/10/2020 04/10/2020
04/10/2020 04/10/2020 04/10/2020
04/10/2020

42 REPLY In Support of Preliminary Injunction and Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law filed by Petitioners Pedro Bravo Castillo, Luis Vasquez Rueda. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix Proposed Findings & Conclusions, # 2 Exhibit Declaration, # 3 Exhibit Declaration, # 4 Exhibit Declaration, # 5 Exhibit Declaration, # 6 Exhibit Declaration)(Rosenbaum, Mark) (Entered: 04/09/2020)
43 NOTICE Notice of Supplemental Authority In Support Of Preliminary Injunction filed by Petitioner Pedro Bravo Castillo, Luis Vasquez Rueda. (Rosenbaum, Mark) (Entered: 04/10/2020)
44 MINUTE IN CHAMBERS-ORDER AND NOTICE TO ALL PARTIES by Judge Terry J. Hatter, Jr: Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b)(2), the TRO will expire on April 10, 2020, the fourteenth day after the date of issuance, unless, for good cause, the Court extends it. The parties have filed their respective briefs in response to the Courts Order to Show Cause: re: Preliminary Injunction. The Court finds that good cause exists under Rule 65(b)(2)to extend the TRO for an additional 14 days. The good cause is that the extension will allow the Court time to consider the significant constitutional issues raised in the parties briefs. The TRO will remain in effect until April 24, 2020. (shb) (Entered: 04/10/2020)
45 APPLICATION of Non-Resident Attorney Joshua A. Matz to Appear Pro Hac Vice on behalf of Petitioners Pedro Bravo Castillo, Luis Vasquez Rueda (Pro Hac Vice Fee - $400 Fee Paid, Receipt No. ACACDC26047547) filed by Petitioner Pedro Bravo Castillo, Luis Vasquez Rueda. Application set for hearing on 4/13/2020 at 10:00 AM before Judge Terry J. Hatter Jr. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit) (Rosenbaum, Mark) (Entered: 04/10/2020)
46 APPLICATION of Non-Resident Attorney Dylan S. Cowit to Appear Pro Hac Vice on behalf of Petitioners Pedro Bravo Castillo, Luis Vasquez Rueda (Pro Hac Vice Fee - $400 Fee Paid, Receipt No. ACACDC26048123) filed by Petitioner Pedro Bravo Castillo, Luis Vasquez Rueda. Application set for hearing on 4/13/2020 at 10:00 AM before Judge Terry J. Hatter Jr. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Exhibit) (Rosenbaum, Mark) (Entered: 04/10/2020)
47 NOTICE TO FILER OF DEFICIENCIES in Electronically Filed Documents RE: Summons Request, 21 , Summons Request, 19 , Summons Request, 20 , Summons Request, 18 , Summons Request, 23 , Summons Request, 22 , Summons Request, 17 . The following error(s) was/were found: A summons will not be issued. In response to this notice, the Court may: (1) order an amended or correct document to be filed; (2) order the document stricken; or (3) take other action as the Court deems appropriate. You need not take any action in response to this notice unless and until the Court directs you to do so. (shb) (Entered: 04/10/2020)
48 APPLICATION of Non-Resident Attorney Kyla P.S. Magun to Appear Pro Hac Vice on behalf of Petitioners Pedro Bravo Castillo, Luis Vasquez

04/10/2020 04/13/2020
04/24/2020 04/30/2020 05/05/2020 05/05/2020 05/05/2020

Rueda (Pro Hac Vice Fee - $400 Fee Paid, Receipt No. ACACDC26048345) filed by Petitioner Pedro Bravo Castillo, Luis Vasquez Rueda. Application set for hearing on 4/13/2020 at 10:00 AM before Judge Terry J. Hatter Jr. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit) (Rosenbaum, Mark) (Entered: 04/10/2020)
49 APPLICATION of Non-Resident Attorney Michael Skocpol to Appear Pro Hac Vice on behalf of Petitioners Pedro Bravo Castillo, Luis Vasquez Rueda (Pro Hac Vice Fee - $400 Fee Paid, Receipt No. ACACDC26048653) filed by Petitioner Pedro Bravo Castillo, Luis Vasquez Rueda. Application set for hearing on 4/13/2020 at 10:00 AM before Judge Terry J. Hatter Jr. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Exhibit) (Rosenbaum, Mark) (Entered: 04/10/2020)
50 MINUTE IN CHAMBERS ORDER AND NOTICE TOATAL PARTIES by Judge Terry J. Hatter, Jr: Counsel are hereby notified that pursuant to the Judge's directive, the Petitioner Luis Vasquez Rueda, is hereby severed from this case and the Clerk's Office will assign a new civil case number and copy all of the documents from the original case to the new case. The Court further orders that Petitioner Jeffrey Hernandez Arevalo is hereby dismissed from this case as he has a new case assigned to him already [ED CV 20-0712]. (shb) (Entered: 04/13/2020)
51 STAY ORDER by Judge Terry J. Hatter, Jr., that, pursuant to the Preliminary Injunction issued in Roman, Petitioner shall remain released pending a final resolution of Roman or further order of the Court. Further Ordered that pending a final resolution of Roman, this case be, and hereby is, Stayed. (See document for further details). (jp) (Entered: 04/24/2020)
52 APPLICATION of Non-Resident Attorney Joshua A. Matz to Appear Pro Hac Vice on behalf of Petitioners Pedro Bravo Castillo, Luis Vasquez Rueda (Pro Hac Vice Fee - $400.00 Previously Paid on 4/10/2020, Receipt No. 26047547) filed by Petitioner Pedro Bravo Castillo, Luis Vasquez Rueda. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Exhibit) (Rosenbaum, Mark) (Entered: 04/30/2020)
53 ORDER by Judge Terry J. Hatter, Jr: granting 45 52 Non-Resident Attorney Joshua A Matz APPLICATION to Appear Pro Hac Vice on behalf of Pedro Bravo Castillo and Luis Vasquez Rueda, designating Mark D Rosenbaum as local counsel. (lom) Modified on 5/5/2020 (lom). (Entered: 05/05/2020)
54 ORDER by Judge Terry J. Hatter, Jr: granting 46 Non-Resident Attorney Dylan S Cowit APPLICATION to Appear Pro Hac Vice on behalf of Pedro Bravo Castillo and Luis Vasquez Rueda, designating Mark D Rosenbaum as local counsel. (lom) (Entered: 05/05/2020)
55 ORDER by Judge Terry J. Hatter, Jr: granting 48 Non-Resident Attorney Kyla P S Magun APPLICATION to Appear Pro Hac Vice on behalf of

05/05/2020 06/01/2020
01/15/2021

Pedro Bravo Castillo and Luis Vasquez Rueda, designating Mark D Rosenbaum as local counsel. (lom) (Entered: 05/05/2020)
56 ORDER by Judge Terry J. Hatter, Jr: granting 49 Non-Resident Attorney Michael Skocpol APPLICATION to Appear Pro Hac Vice on behalf of Pedro Bravo Castillo and Luis Vasquez Rueda, designating Mark D Rosenbaum as local counsel. (lom) (Entered: 05/05/2020)
57 SCHEDULING ORDER by Judge Terry J. Hatter, Jr. The Court has considered the evidence and arguments presented in favor of and against Petitioners petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The Court will combine the evidentiary hearing on Petitioners petition for a writ of habeas corpus with a court trial on Petitioners claims for injunctive and declaratory relief. Each side will be allowed 8 hours to present their case. The time limit includes all aspects of the case, including opening statements, direct and cross examinations, arguments on objections, and closing arguments. In lieu of closing arguments, the parties may file closing briefs, of no more than 25 pages, no later than ten days afterthe conclusion of the evidentiary hearing and trial. The following dates are subject to change by the Court in response to the COVID-19 pandemic; at this time, it is unclear as to when the First Street Courthouse will re-open for evidentiary hearings and court trials for civil cases. Discovery cut-off 7/31/2020., Substantive Motion Filing Deadline by 8/10/2020., Motions in Limine Filing Deadline filed by 8/27/2020., Evidentiary Hearing and Court Trial set for 10/6/2020 at 10:00 a.m., Final Pretrial Conference set for 9/14/2020 at 10:00 a.m. While the Ninth Circuit has not yet reached the issue, it is clear to the Court that it has the inherent authority, at least in extraordinary cases, to release detainees on bail during the pendency of their habeas petitions. See order for further details. DOCKETED IN THIS CASE PER PAGE ATTACHMENT. (shb) (Entered: 06/01/2020)
58 Notice of Appearance or Withdrawal of Counsel: for attorney Mark D Rosenbaum counsel for Petitioner Pedro Bravo Castillo. Joshua A. Matz is no longer counsel of record for the aforementioned party in this case for the reason indicated in the G-123 Notice. Filed by Plaintiff Pedro Bravo Castillo et al. (Rosenbaum, Mark) (Entered: 01/15/2021)

PACER Service Center Transaction Receipt

02/25/2021 19:03:36

PACER Login:

CRClearinghouse

Client Code:

Gillan

Description: Docket Report

Search Criteria:

5:20-cv-00605-TJHAFM End date: 2/25/2021

Billable Pages:

13

Exempt flag: Not Exempt

Cost:
Exempt reason:

1.30 Not Exempt

 
 Case 5:20-cv-00605 Document 1 Filed 03/26/20 Page 1 of 41 Page ID #:1

1

2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

3

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA – WESTERN DIVISION

4 PEDRO BRAVO CASTILLO AND LUIS VASQUEZ RUEDA
5
Petitioners, 6

7 vs.

8 WILLIAM BARR, United States Attorney 9 General; CHAD WOLF, Acting Secretary Case No.: 5:20-cv-00605

10

of U.S. Department of Homeland Security; PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND CORPUS AND COMPLAINT FOR

11

SECURITY; U.S. IMMIGRATION AND

DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

12

CUSTOMS (ICE); MATTHEW T. ALBENCE, Deputy Director and Senior

13 Official for ICE; DAVID MARIN, Field

14

Office Director for ICE ERO in Los Angeles; JAMES JANECKA, Warden,

15 Adelanto ICE Processing Center

16

Respondents.

17

18

Mark Rosenbaum (Bar No. 59940) mrosenbaum@publiccounsel.org

19

Judy London (Bar No. 149431) jlondon@publiccounsel.org

20

Talia Inlender (Bar No. 253796) tinlender@publiccounsel.org

21

Jesselyn Friley (Bar No. 319198) jfriley@publiccounsel.org

22

Elizabeth Hercules-Paez (Bar No. 320944) eherculespaez@publiccounsel.org

23

Amanda Savage (Bar No. 325996) asavage@publiccounsel.org

24

PUBLIC COUNSEL 610 S. Ardmore Avenue

25

Los Angeles, CA 90005 Telephone: (213) 385-2977

26

Attorneys for Plaintiffs Pedro Bravo Castillo and Luis Vasquez Rueda

Joshua A. Matz (pro hac vice forthcoming) jmatz@kaplanhecker.com Kyla Magun (pro hac vice forthcoming) kmagun@kaplanhecker.com Michael Skocpol* (pro hac vice forthcoming) mskocpol@kaplanhecker.com Dylan Cowit (pro hac vice forthcoming) dcowit@kaplanhecker.com KAPLAN HECKER & FINK LLP 350 Fifth Avenue, Suite 7110 New York, NY 10118 Telephone: (212) 763-0883
*Admitted to practice in Massachusetts only; not admitted to practice in New York

27

PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AND COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORYAND INJUNCTIVE
28 RELIEF -1

Case 5:20-cv-00605 Document 1 Filed 03/26/20 Page 2 of 41 Page ID #:2

1

I. INTRODUCTION

2

This is a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus filed on behalf of Petitioners

3 Pedro Bravo Castillo and Luis Vasquez Rueda to remedy their unlawful detention.

4 Petitioners are long-time residents of Southern California who, like millions of

5 others, watched in fear as the novel coronavirus became a global pandemic. As a

6 state of emergency was declared in California and nationally, officers from

7 Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) came to Petitioners’ homes to

8 conduct immigration enforcement raids. As the Centers for Disease Control and

9 Prevention (CDC) pleaded for people to wash their hands, stay home, and avoid

10 close contact with others, Petitioners were forcibly removed from their homes,

11 handcuffed and restrained by ICE officers, and held in transport vans and small

12 rooms where close physical contact was unavoidable. Both of them were taken to

13 Adelanto ICE Processing Center (Adelanto Detention Center), where they have

14 been detained ever since. They live in dorms and sleep in bunk beds, sharing

15 commons spaces and medical facilities with over 1,600 other detainees. They are

16 in the constant presence of guards, officers, and staff who continually rotate in and

17 out of the facility, each time risking transmission of the virus to those inside and

18 outside the detention center. COVID-19 is highly contagious, with each person

19 infected transmitting the virus to an average of two to three other people. A single

20 case has the potential to overwhelm not only the Adelanto Detention Center, but

21 also in the communities that surround it.

22

Respondents, who ordered and carried out the raids that brought Petitioners

23 to Adelanto, knew better than to subject Petitioners to the risk of disease and death

24 inherent in arrest and detention during a global pandemic. They failed to follow

25 the basic public health protocols that have been broadcast all over the world as

26 necessary to halt the spread of COVID-19. And Adelanto Detention Center has a

27
PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AND COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORYAND INJUNCTIVE
28 RELIEF -2

Case 5:20-cv-00605 Document 1 Filed 03/26/20 Page 3 of 41 Page ID #:3

1 documented track record of uncorrected health and safety violations. Since the

2 pandemic began, jails, prisons, detention centers and the courts have taken the

3 reasonable step of releasing detained individuals in order to reduce the risk of

4 spreading COVID-19 in these confined, unhygienic spaces. The Los Angeles

5 County Sheriff has released hundreds of inmates from custody. And witnesses

6 from inside Adelanto report that the detention center began releasing some seniors

7 on March 20, 2020, followed by other detainees in the days that followed. On

8 March 23, 2020, the Ninth Circuit ordered sua sponte the release of an immigration

9 petitioner “[i]n light of the rapidly escalating public health crisis, which public

10 health authorities predict will especially impact immigration detention centers.”

11 Xochihua-Jaimes v. Barr, 2020 WL 1429877, No. 18-71460 (9th Cir. Mar. 23,

12 2020). This impact extends beyond detention centers to the families and contacts

13 of those who work at and visit these facilities.

14

Petitioners’ arrests and continued detention under these conditions violates

15 the guarantees of the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. It also endangers

16 Petitioners, the other people detained at Adelanto, the staff and officers who work

17 there, and all of their families and other contacts. Accordingly, Petitioners seek

18 immediate release and conveyance back to their homes under safe conditions.

19

II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE

20

1. This Court has jurisdiction over this action under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331,

21 1361, 2241, 2243, and the Habeas Corpus Suspension Clause of the U.S.

22 Constitution (U.S. Const. art. 1, § 9, cl. 2). This Court also has remedial authority

23 under the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201 et seq.

24

2. Venue is proper in the Central District of California because a

25 substantial part of the events and omissions giving rise to this action occurred in

26 the District. 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2). Petitioners were arrested, transported and

27
PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AND COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORYAND INJUNCTIVE
28 RELIEF -3

Case 5:20-cv-00605 Document 1 Filed 03/26/20 Page 4 of 41 Page ID #:4

1 detained in Los Angeles County, California. They are currently being held at

2 Adelanto ICE Processing Center in San Bernardino County, California.

3

3. Petitioners have not previously filed any complaint or petition for

4 habeas corpus related to their detention in any court. No proceeding has been

5 held in this matter in immigration court, nor has there been any proceeding

6 related to removal, which is not the subject of this petition and complaint.

7

III. PARTIES

8

4. Pedro Bravo Castillo is a 58-year-old resident of Los Angeles County.

9 On March 16, 2020, ICE officers arrested him in front of his home and held him

10 in several enclosed spaces—a car, a van, small rooms—with other arrestees and

11 officers en route to Adelanto Detention Center. His arrest and transport required

12 officers to make and maintain physical contact with him, and in doing so, they

13 took few, if any, precautions to avoid spreading the virus. Pedro has lived in the

14 United States for nearly three decades and has worked in the trucking, poultry,

15 and recycling industries. He supports his partner and two U.S.-citizen

16 stepchildren. He also has had kidney stones, a hernia, and other chronic health

17 issues.

18

5. Luis Vasquez Rueda is a 23-year-old resident of Los Angeles County.

19 On March 17, 2020, ICE officers arrested him at his apartment, handcuffed him,

20 and transported him to the Los Angeles ICE Field Office and then to Adelanto

21 Detention Center, where he has remained ever since. During his arrest and

22 transport, officers touched him and breathed on him without using masks and

23 confined him in a crowded van with seven other arrestees for an hour and a half.

24 When he arrived at Adelanto, he was assigned to a dormitory that was already

25 under quarantine. Luis arrived in the United States when he was five years old

26 and attended college under the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA)

27
PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AND COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORYAND INJUNCTIVE
28 RELIEF -4

Case 5:20-cv-00605 Document 1 Filed 03/26/20 Page 5 of 41 Page ID #:5

1 program through 2017. He was recently injured in a work accident that left him

2 with bruises and bleeding in his eye, which may require surgery. He has had no

3 opportunity to seek medical care for these injuries at Adelanto.

4

6. Respondent William Barr is Attorney General of the United States and

5 the chief law enforcement officer of the federal government. He is sued in his

6 official capacity.

7

7. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is a cabinet department

8 of the United States federal government that is responsible for administering and

9 enforcing the nation’s immigration laws.

10

8. Respondent Chad Wolf is the Acting Secretary of DHS. He is sued in

11 his official capacity.

12

9. United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) is an

13 agency within DHS with the primary responsibility for enforcing immigration and

14 customs laws, including by conducting operations to remove individuals from the

15 United States.

16

10. Matthew T. Albence is ICE’s Deputy Director and Senior Official

17 Performing the Duties of the Director. He is sued in his official capacity.

18

11. David Marin is the Los Angeles Field Director for ICE’s Enforcement

19 and Removal Operations branch. He is sued in his official capacity.

20

12. James Janecka is Warden of Adelanto ICE Processing Center. He is

21 sued in his official capacity.

22

IV. EXHAUSTION

23

13. Exhaustion is inappropriate where, as here, Petitioners are asserting

24 violations of their Fifth Amendment substantive due process rights. Because

25 Petitioners assert constitutional substantive due process claims that are beyond

26 the jurisdiction of the immigration court and Board of Immigration Appeals

27
PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AND COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORYAND INJUNCTIVE
28 RELIEF -5

Case 5:20-cv-00605 Document 1 Filed 03/26/20 Page 6 of 41 Page ID #:6

1 (BIA), exhaustion is not required. Garcia-Ramirez v. Gonzales, 423 F.3d 935,

2 938 (9th Cir. 2005) (“Because the BIA does not have jurisdiction to resolve

3 constitutional challenges, . . . due process claims—other than those alleging only

4 ‘procedural errors’ within the BIA’s power to redress—are exempt” from

5 exhaustion.).

6

14. Even if exhaustion were an option here, on habeas review pursuant to

7 § 2241, exhaustion is merely prudential, rather than jurisdictional. Arango

8 Marquez v. I.N.S., 346 F.3d 892, 897 (9th Cir. 2003). Courts retain discretion

9 over whether to require prudential exhaustion, and may exercise discretion to

10 waive a prudential exhaustion requirement where “irreparable injury will result.”

11 Hernandez v. Sessions, 872 F.3d 976, 988 (9th Cir. 2017) (quoting Laing v.

12 Ashcroft, 370 F.3d 994, 1000 (9th Cir. 2004)). Requiring Petitioners to exhaust

13 administrative remedies will result in irreparable injury by subjecting them to

14 continued violation of their constitutional rights and exposing them to a

15 heightened danger of contracting COVID-19 due to Respondents’ inadequate

16 preventative measures.

17

15. Moreover, because a bond hearing is not a forum where Petitioners’

18 constitutional due process claims can be resolved and because Respondents

19 arrested and detained Petitioners under exceptional circumstances, all three

20 factors that courts consider in determining whether to waive prudential

21 exhaustion weigh in favor of waiver. See Hernandez, 872 F.3d at 988 (Court may

22 require prudential exhaustion when “(1) agency expertise makes agency

23 consideration necessary to generate a proper record and reach a proper decision;

24 (2) relaxation of the requirement would encourage the deliberate bypass of the

25 administrative scheme; and (3) administrative review is likely to allow the agency

26

27
PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AND COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORYAND INJUNCTIVE
28 RELIEF -6

Case 5:20-cv-00605 Document 1 Filed 03/26/20 Page 7 of 41 Page ID #:7

1 to correct its own mistakes and to preclude the need for judicial review.” (quoting

2 Puga v. Chertoff, 488 F.3d 812, 815 (9th Cir. 2007))).

3

V. STATEMENT OF FACTS

4

A. COVID-19 is an Unprecedented Risk to Public Health

5

16. The disease known as COVID-19, caused by a novel coronavirus

6 never before seen in humans, has become a global pandemic. The World Health

7 Organization (WHO) first characterized the outbreak as a pandemic on March 11, 8 2020.1 President Trump formally declared a national emergency in response to 9 the virus on March 13, 2020.2

10

17. Epidemiologists and public health experts expect cases of COVID-19

11 to grow exponentially around the globe, absent effective evidence-based public

12 health interventions. Current estimates suggest that over 200 million people in

13 the United States could be infected over the course of the pandemic, with

14 potential deaths numbering in the millions. See Ex. A, Declaration of Ranit

15 Mishori (Mishori Decl.) ¶ 7; see also Ex. B, Declaration of Katherine McKenzie

16 (adopting the Mishori declaration).

17

18. COVID-19 is an extremely contagious disease that is easily spread by

18 close person-to-person contact, and well as by respiratory droplets that can

19 survive on surfaces for a period of time. Early indications show that COVID-19

20 has an R0 (the number of people who can get infected from a single infected

21 person) of 2 to 3, twice the number of a typical flu. Id. ¶ 8.

22

23 1 Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, WHO Director-General's opening remarks at the media briefing on COVID-19 -
11 March 2020 (March 11, 2020), available at https://www.who.int/dg/speeches/detail/who-director-general-s-
24 opening-remarks-at-the-media-briefing-on-covid-19---11-march-2020
2 Donald J. Trump, Proclamation on Declaring a National Emergency Concerning the Novel Coronavirus Disease
25 (COVID-19) Outbreak (March 13, 2020), available at https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-
actions/proclamation-declaring-national-emergency-concerning-novel-coronavirus-disease-covid-19-outbreak/.
26

27
PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AND COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORYAND INJUNCTIVE
28 RELIEF -7

Case 5:20-cv-00605 Document 1 Filed 03/26/20 Page 8 of 41 Page ID #:8

1

19. COVID-19 is also a more dangerous and serious disease than a typical

2 seasonal flu. The disease can lead to respiratory failure, kidney failure, and death.

3 Id. ¶ 9. Older patients and patients with chronic underlying conditions are at a

4 particularly high risk for severe cases and complications. Id. ¶ 9. The likelihood

5 of death is much higher from COVID-19 than from influenza. Id. ¶ 9. According

6 to the most recent studies, the fatality rate of people infected with COVID-19 is

7 about ten times higher than a severe seasonal influenza, and even countries with

8 highly effective health care systems have had hospital capacity overrun by

9 outbreaks of COVID-19. Id. ¶ 9. Where shortages occur, lifesaving interventions 10 such as ventilators must be rationed, leading to additional deaths.3 Even the 11 young and otherwise healthy can succumb to the disease unpredictably.4

12

COVID-19 is Spreading Throughout the Greater Los Angeles Area

13

20. The Los Angeles region and California as a whole have been hit hard

14 by COVID-19, which has led Mayor Eric Garcetti, the Los Angeles County

15 Board of Supervisors, and California Governor Gavin Newsom to take some of

16 the most stringent preventative measures anywhere in the country to contain the

17 spread of the disease.

18

21. As of March 25, 2020, California had approximately 2,853 confirmed

19 cases of COVID-19, a total that has increased exponentially over the past several

20

21

22 3 Suzy Khimm, Who gets a ventilator? Hospitals facing coronavirus surge are preparing for life-or-death decisions,
NBC News (March 18, 2020), https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-care/who-gets-ventilator-hospitals-facing-
23 coronavirus-surge-are-preparing-life-n1162721.
4 County of Los Angeles Public Health, Los Angeles County Announces Three new Deaths Related to 2019 Novel
24 Coronavirus (COVID-19)—128 New Cases of Confirmed COVID-19 in Los Angeles County (March 24, 2020),
available at http://publichealth.lacounty.gov/phcommon/public/media/mediapubhpdetail.cfm?prid=2280 (noting the
25 confirmed death of “a youth under the age of 18”); Pam Belluck, Younger Adults Make Up Big Portion of
Coronavirus Hospitalizations in U.S., N.Y. Times (March 18, 2020), available at
26 https://www nytimes.com/2020/03/18/health/coronavirus-young-people.html.

27
PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AND COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORYAND INJUNCTIVE
28 RELIEF -8

Case 5:20-cv-00605 Document 1 Filed 03/26/20 Page 9 of 41 Page ID #:9

1 weeks. Los Angeles County had the highest number of cases of any county in the 2 state, with 814 confirmed cases.5

3

22. A growing number of these cases can be attributed to community

4 spread of the disease and are not traceable to an identifiable source of exposure.6

5 According to experts, community spread is an indicator of a significant number of 6 unknown cases throughout the community.7 California was believed to be home

7 to the first known case of community transmission of COVID-19 in the United 8 States.8

9

23. Since at least early March, California and Los Angeles County

10 officials have been urging citizens to practice social distancing to minimize

11 contact with others to limit potential exposure to COVID-19. Governor Newsom 12 declared a State of Emergency on March 4, 2020.9

13

24. Recognizing the rapidly escalating serious threat posed to the Los

14 Angeles area by COVID-19, on Sunday, March 15, 2020, Mayor Eric Garcetti

15 issued an emergency order closing all Los Angeles bars, nightclubs, restaurants 16 (with the exception of takeout and delivery), entertainment venues, and gyms.10

17

18

19 5 Los Angeles Times Staff, Tracking the coronavirus in California, Los Angeles Times (Updated March 25, 2020),

20

available at https://www.latimes.com/projects/california-coronavirus-cases-tracking-outbreak/. 6 Ibid.

21

7 Julia Wick, Newsletter: What ‘community spread’ means for the coronavirus Los Angeles Times (Feb. 27, 2020), available at https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-02-27/coronavirus-california-newsletter.

8 Soumya Karlamangla and Jaclyn Cosgrove, California coronavirus case could be first spread within U.C.
22 community, CDC says, Los Angeles Times (Feb. 27, 2020), available at

https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-02-26/california-coronavirus-case-could-be-first-spread-in-u-s-
23 community-cdc-says.
9 Office of Governor Gavin Newsom, Governor Newsome Declares State of Emergency to Help State Prepare for
24 Broader Spread of COVID-19 (March 4, 2020), available at https://www.gov.ca.gov/2020/03/04/governor-newsom-

declares-state-of-emergency-to-help-state-prepare-for-broader-spread-of-covid-19/.
25 10 Alex Wigglesworth, et. al., L.A. limits restaurants to takeout and delivery, closes gyms, entertainment sites over

coronavirus, Los Angeles Times (March 15, 2020), available at https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-03-

26 15/la-me-coronavirus-california-news.

27
PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AND COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORYAND INJUNCTIVE
28 RELIEF -9

Case 5:20-cv-00605 Document 1 Filed 03/26/20 Page 10 of 41 Page ID #:10

1

25. Over the weekend of March 14 and 15, 2020, the Los Angeles County

2 Sheriff released over 600 inmates from jail in order to prevent the spread of the 3 outbreak.11 Over 1,700 more have been released since.12 Other jails, prisons, and 4 detention facilities in Southern California have followed suit.13

5

26. In the subsequent days, additional measures have rapidly been

6 implemented across Los Angeles and the entire State of California, underscoring

7 the severity of the COVID-19 crisis in the region.

8

27. On March 16, 2020, the Los Angeles County Department of Public

9 Health banned all gatherings of 50 or more people.14 On March 19, 2020, the

10 City and County of Los Angeles issued new orders regarding community

11 measures to limit the spread of COVID-19. With some exceptions, the City

12 ordered all residents to remain in their homes, required all businesses to cease 13 operations, and banned all gatherings outside a home.15

14

15

16

17

18 11 Alene Tchekmedyian, Paige St. John, and Matt Hamilton, L.A. County releasing some inmates from jail to combat
coronavirus, Los Angeles Times (March 16, 2020) available at https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-03-

19

16/la-jail-population-arrests-down-amid-coronavirus. 12 Marissa Wenzke, 1,700 jail inmates in L.A. County released over coronavirus concerns, sheriff says, KTLA 5

20

(March 24, 2020), available at https://ktla.com/news/local-news/1700-jail-inmates-in-l-a-county-released-overcoronavirus-concerns-sheriff-says.

21

13Teri Figueroa and Karen Kucher, Jails to release some inmates, adjust booking criteria amid coronavirus concerns (March 16, 2020), available at https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/public-safety/story/2020-03-16/jails-to-

release-some-inmates-adjust-booking-criteria-amid-coronavirus-concerns; Tony Saavedra and Scott Schwebke,
22 Early release and other precautions taken at Southern California jails wary of coronavirus (March 19, 2020),

available at https://www.ocregister.com/2020/03/19/early-release-and-other-precautions-taken-at-southern-
23 california-jails-wary-of-coronavirus/.
14 County of Los Angeles Department of Public Health, Health Officer Order for the Control of Covid-19 (March
24 16, 2020), available at https://ca-times.brightspotcdn.com/4a/61/4577b422477f8d912563ff0a8725/2020-03-16-los-

angeles-county-coronavirus-order.pdf.
25 15 Rong-Gng Lin II, Here is what you can and can’t do under L.A.’s new coronavirus Safe at Home order, Los

Angeles Times (March 20, 2020), available at https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-03-19/coronavirus-

26 garcetti-how-safer-at-home-order-works.

27
PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AND COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORYAND INJUNCTIVE
28 RELIEF -10

Case 5:20-cv-00605 Document 1 Filed 03/26/20 Page 11 of 41 Page ID #:11

1

28. Shortly after the announcements from the Los Angeles region,

2 California Governor Gavin Newsom followed suit and ordered all Californians to 3 stay in their homes as much as possible.16

4

29. In the face of this rapidly unfolding public health crisis, ICE agents

5 spent March 16 and March 17 conducting “business as usual” around the Los 6 Angeles area, with a reporter in tow.17 During this same week, and in the wake of

7 the extraordinary social distancing orders and emergency declarations, ICE

8 officers conducted enforcement raids that put them in extremely close contact

9 with Petitioners. The end result of these raids was the introduction of at least a

10 dozen new people from a community actively fighting a COVID-19 outbreak into

11 one of the most crowded immigration detention facilities in the country.

12

30. ICE decided to curtail to some extent immigration enforcement on

13 March 18, 2020.18 Whether ICE keeps this promise remains to be seen.

14 Regardless, it is too late to keep Petitioners out of harm’s way.

15

Immigration Enforcement Raids, Processing, and Detention Can Easily

16

Spread COVID-19

17

31. According to infectious disease specialist Dr. Ranit Mishori, an expert

18 on issues of public health among migrants and those in carceral systems,

19 conducting immigration raids in the midst of this pandemic is an activity that

20 severely endangers public health. Mishori Decl. ¶ 36.

21
16 Tom Arango and Jill Cowan, Gov. Gavin Newsom of California Orders Californians to Stay Home, New York
22 Times (March 19, 2020), available at https://www nytimes.com/2020/03/19/us/California-stay-at-home-order-
virus.html.
23 17 Brittny Mejia, California coronavirus lockdown: ICE agents make arrests, L.A. Times (Mar. 17, 2020),
https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-03-17/for-ice-agents-its-business-as-unusual-day-after-sweeping-
24 coronavirus-order.
18 Brittny Mejia, Facing criticism, ICE will reduce enforcement actions amid coronavirus pandemic, Los Angeles
25 Times (March 18, 2020), available at https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-03-18/ice-will-reduce-
enforcement-actions-coronavirus?
26

27
PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AND COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORYAND INJUNCTIVE
28 RELIEF -11

Case 5:20-cv-00605 Document 1 Filed 03/26/20 Page 12 of 41 Page ID #:12

1

32. Immigration enforcement raids, arrests and processing of incoming

2 detainees require extremely close contact among numerous people. According to

3 Dr. Mishori, when officers do not wear gloves or masks and physically touch or

4 approach people in close contact, they are blatantly ignoring current CDC

5 guidelines to minimize close exposure to people at this critical moment in the

6 pandemic. Id. ¶ 40.

7

33. The result of raids is to bring new individuals into ICE vehicles,

8 holding facilities, processing centers, and detention centers. Any one of these

9 individuals could have been infected by asymptomatic community transmission

10 of COVID-19 prior to their arrest. Id. ¶ 39. Any one of them could be incubating 11 the disease without showing symptoms.19

12

34. ICE raids in the middle of this pandemic greatly increase the risk of

13 spreading COVID-19. Raids expose healthy individuals who are detained to a far

14 more dangerous situation than they would experience while observing the shelter-

15 in-place conditions currently imposed in their home communities. Id. ¶ 43.

16 There is “a revolving door of exposure whenever raids are conducted.” Id. ¶ 38.

17

35. The risk of transmission caused by the raids extends far beyond the

18 individuals involved in raids. ICE officers who have had close contact with

19 recent arrestees, detainees and detention center staff return to their communities

20 and families following the raids. Their close contact as a result of the raids is

21 potentially exposing other members of their community to COVID-19, even as

22 the wider community follows California’s shelter in place orders. Id. ¶ 41.

23

People in Immigration Detention Face Severe Risks of Infection, Illness,

24

and Death

25
19 World Health Organization, Q&A on coronaviruses (COVID-19), Mar. 9, 2020, https://www.who.int/news-
26 room/q-a-detail/q-a-coronaviruses.

27
PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AND COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORYAND INJUNCTIVE
28 RELIEF -12

Case 5:20-cv-00605 Document 1 Filed 03/26/20 Page 13 of 41 Page ID #:13

1

36. “[P]risons are bacteria factories,” according to Rick Raemisch, former

2 executive director of the Colorado Department of Corrections.20 When COVID-

3 19 “inevitabl[y]” arrives in prisons, “[y]ou’re going to see devastation that’s 4 unbelievable.”21 Dr. Mishori agrees that the risk posed by COVID-19 in

5 immigration detention centers “is significantly higher than in the community,

6 both in terms of risk of exposure and transmission and harm to individuals who

7 become infected.” Id. ¶ 17.

8

37. Detention centers often lack the resources necessary to identify

9 infectious diseases like COVID-19, such as sufficient testing equipment and

10 laboratories. Id. ¶ 19. California currently faces a statewide shortage in test kits,

11 increasing the likelihood that these resources would be unavailable when needed

12 in detention facilities.

13

38. People cannot practice social distancing as they would in the

14 community when they are imprisoned in a detention center. People in detention

15 centers are housed in tight dormitory conditions with shared sleeping, eating, and

16 bathroom spaces, which allow for the rapid spread of infectious diseases. This is

17 especially true for a disease like COVID-19, which is easily transmitted person to

18 person by droplets through coughing and sneezing. Id. ¶ 21.

19

39. The opportunities for transmission are far greater in close crowded

20 conditions like those in detention centers. Bathroom facilities are shared,

21 typically without disinfection between uses. Detention centers often have poorly

22 ventilated indoor spaces, which create a greater risk of rapid disease spread.

23

24
20 David Montgomery, “‘Prisons Are Bacteria Factories’; Elderly Most at Risk,” PEW Trusts Stateline (Mar. 25,
25 2020), https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/blogs/stateline/2020/03/25/prisons-are-bacteria-
factories-elderly-most-at-risk.
26 21 Ibid.

27
PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AND COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORYAND INJUNCTIVE
28 RELIEF -13

Case 5:20-cv-00605 Document 1 Filed 03/26/20 Page 14 of 41 Page ID #:14

1 Living in these conditions drastically reduces a person’s ability to take protective

2 measures to avoid exposure to infectious diseases such as COVID-19. Id. ¶ 21.

3

40. The close quarters exacerbate the risk that the introduction of a single

4 case of COVID-19 into a detention center could rapidly infect individuals

5 throughout the facility. Id. ¶ 27.

6

41. Detention centers also typically cannot provide access to appropriate

7 disease mitigation efforts, like the practices that have been mandated by state,

8 local, and federal authorities. There is limited access to resources like hand

9 sanitizer and wipes. High-touch areas of facilities are rarely cleaned with the

10 regularity that would be needed to prevent the spread of disease. Id. ¶ 22.

11

42. Moreover, detention centers rarely have medical facilities or staff that

12 are appropriately equipped to deal with an outbreak of infectious disease,

13 especially one as dangerous and contagious as COVID-19. Id. ¶ 24.

14

43. It is “inevitable” that detention centers in the United States will

15 experience an outbreak of COVID-19 in the near future. Id. ¶ 33. Cases of 16 COVID-19 are beginning to appear in detention centers across the country.22

17

44. Recognizing the risk that immigration enforcement poses during a

18 global pandemic, ICE changed its policy on March 18, 2020, to limit raids to 19 high-risk individuals.23

20

The Health Risks to Detainees, Including Petitioners, are Particularly

21

Acute at Adelanto

22

45. Concerns about the spread of COVID-19 are particularly acute in the

23 facility where Plaintiffs are currently held, the Adelanto Detention Center. This

24
22 Justine Coleman, First immigrant in ICE detention center tests positive for coronavirus, The Hill (March 24,
25 2020), available at https://thehill.com/policy/national-security/department-of-homeland-security/489312-first-
immigrant-in-ice-detention.
26 23 Brittny Mejia, supra n.18..

27
PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AND COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORYAND INJUNCTIVE
28 RELIEF -14

Case 5:20-cv-00605 Document 1 Filed 03/26/20 Page 15 of 41 Page ID #:15

1 is due both to the general conditions and risks of a detention setting as well as

2 longstanding health and safety concerns specific to the Adelanto facility, which 3 holds over 1,600 people in detention.24

4

46. Adelanto Detention Center is run by a private, for-profit corrections

5 company called Geo Group, Inc. The company has an extremely poor track

6 record for the health and safety of detainees. This is highly disconcerting in light

7 of the rapid response necessary to contain the spread of COVID-19.

8

47. A 2017 Report from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security

9 (DHS), Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties (CRCL) delivered a scathing 10 assessment of the health and safety of detainees at the facility.25 The report states

11 that “[o]verall, the medical care at the Adelanto facility is inadequate and does

12 not meet the 2011 Performance Based National Detention Standards (PBNDS) 13 standards.”26 The center has been subject to numerous substantiated complaints

14 or grievances regarding delays or denial of care. “The wait times to see a

15 provider for both acute illness/injury and chronic care needs are often excessively

16 long, and this appears to be due in part to the inadequate staffing of providers 17 (both physician and nurse practitioner).”27

18

48. By 2017, two years after CRCL “clearly warned Adelanto that clinical

19 leadership was not competent and that negligent medical care was occurring as a 20 result,” the facility had not yet corrected “this critical failure.”28

21

22
24 U.S. Imm. and Customs Enforc., “Dedicated and Non-Dedicated Facility List,” available at
23 https://www.ice.gov/facility-inspections (as of Mar. 2, 2020).
25 CRCL Report On Adelanto ICE Processing Center, available at
24 https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6278922-HQ-Part2-Copy html (as of Mar. 22, 2020).
26 CRCL Report On Adelanto ICE Processing Center, On-site Investigation Report at 1, available at
25 https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6278922-HQ-Part2-Copy html (as of Mar. 22, 2020).
27 Id. at 4.
26 28 Id. at 5.

27
PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AND COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORYAND INJUNCTIVE
28 RELIEF -15

Case 5:20-cv-00605 Document 1 Filed 03/26/20 Page 16 of 41 Page ID #:16

1

49. A separate 2018 report from the DHS Office of the Inspector General

2 found “significant health and safety risks at the facility,” including “Untimely and 3 Inadequate Detainee Medical Care,”29 indicating that the issues have persisted

4 despite the findings and recommendations of prior investigations.

5

50. It is the professional opinion of experts that the history of health and

6 safety concerns at the Adelanto facility exacerbate the risks of COVID-19

7 exposure—risks that are already profound at any detention center. Mishori Decl.

8 ¶ 47. According to Dr. Mishori, “an outbreak in the facility has the potential to

9 become a devastating public health event.” Id. ¶ 47.

10

B. Respondents Knowingly Subjected Petitioners to a High Risk of

11

Exposure to COVID-19 During Arrest and Detention

12

51. While the rest of the Los Angeles region was shutting down to prevent

13 the spread of COVID-19, ICE stepped up its enforcement efforts against low-risk

14 immigrants in the community. Respondents subjected these individuals,

15 including Petitioners, to risks of exposure to COVID-19 that exceed reasonability

16 and shock the conscience. These raids took place on March 16 and 17, 2020, at a

17 time when the federal government, State of California, and City of Los Angeles 18 had all declared public health emergences.30 By then, the risk was clear, and ICE

19 knew it.

20

21

22 29 Office of the Inspector General, Management Alert – Issues Requiring Action at the Adelanto ICE Processing
Center in Adelanto, California (Sept. 27, 2018), available at https://www.oig.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/assets/2018-
23 10/OIG-18-86-Sep18.pdf
30 Proclamation No. 9994, 85 F.R. 15,337 (Mar. 18, 2020) (proclamation issued March 13, 2020); Governor Gavin
24 Newsom, Proclamation of a State of Emergency (Mar. 4, 2020), available at https://www.gov.ca.gov/wp-
content/uploads/2020/03/3.4.20-Coronavirus-SOE-Proclamation.pdf; Office of Mayor Eric Garcetti, Mayor Garcetti
25 Strengthens Readiness Against Coronavirus by Declaring Local Emergency (Mar. 4, 2020),
https://www.lacity.org/highlights.
26 mayor-garcetti-strengthens-readiness-against-coronavirus-declaring-local-emergency.

27
PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AND COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORYAND INJUNCTIVE
28 RELIEF -16

Case 5:20-cv-00605 Document 1 Filed 03/26/20 Page 17 of 41 Page ID #:17

1

52. Despite the clear and well-publicized guidance from the CDC and

2 other sources to wash hands, disinfect surfaces, and keep at least six feet away

3 from others, ICE conducted the raids without taking precautions that could have

4 helped protect Petitioners from exposure to COVID-19. Photos of the raid that

5 resulted in Mr. Bravo’s detention show ICE officers in close proximity to one 6 another and to arrestees.31 Neither the ICE officers nor the individuals under their

7 control are wearing masks or gloves.

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

Figure 1: ICE officers arrest an individual on March 16, 2020, without

21 taking precautionary measures against COVID-19.32 (Al Seib/L.A. Times)

22

23

24
31 Brittny Mejia, With masks at the ready, ICE agents make arrests on first day of California coronavirus lockdown,
25 Los Angeles Times (March. 17, 2020), available at https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-03-17/for-ice-
agents-its-business-as-unusual-day-after-sweeping-coronavirus-order
26 32 Id.

27
PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AND COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORYAND INJUNCTIVE
28 RELIEF -17

Case 5:20-cv-00605 Document 1 Filed 03/26/20 Page 18 of 41 Page ID #:18

1

53. Pedro Bravo Castillo is a 58-year-old man who has lived in the

2 United States for approximately 28 years. Mr. Bravo has a partner of more than

3 two decades, with whom he has raised two stepchildren since they were very

4 young. See Ex. C, Declaration of Pedro Bravo Castillo ¶ 3, ¶ 6. (“Bravo Decl.”)

5

54. Mr. Bravo is the primary provider of income for his family, and they

6 rely on him to pay rent and afford other living essentials. Id. ¶ 5.

7

55. On Monday, March 16, 2020, at approximately 6 a.m., Mr. Bravo left

8 his home to get into his truck to sell recycled scrap metal when he was

9 approached by a group of ICE officers. Four of the officers approached Mr.

10 Bravo, asking him about his truck and his immigration status. After identifying

11 themselves as immigration agents, the officers arrested Mr. Bravo. Id. ¶¶ 7-8.

12

56. During the arrest, the officers had close physical contact with Mr.

13 Bravo. Officers grabbed him, handcuffed him, and placed him in a car. The

14 officers touched him on his shoulders, arm, and wrists. No officers were wearing

15 masks during his arrest and were in such close proximity that Mr. Bravo could

16 feel one officer’s breath on his neck as they handcuffed him. Id. ¶¶ 8-9. Despite

17 known community transition of COVID-19 occurring in the area where Mr.

18 Bravo was arrested, he was not offered any protective equipment, nor did any of

19 the officers take his temperature of ask questions about his health. Id. ¶ 9.

20

57. Following their initial contact, ICE officers continued to subject Mr.

21 Bravo to additional potential sources of exposure throughout his arrest. The

22 officers brought Mr. Bravo with them to the scene of a second arrest, where he

23 observed them arrest another person without taking necessary health precautions

24 given the ongoing infectious disease pandemic. Id. ¶ 10.

25

58. The officers placed the second arrested individual in the backseat of

26 the car alongside Mr. Bravo. Neither Mr. Bravo nor the other individual were

27
PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AND COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORYAND INJUNCTIVE
28 RELIEF -18

Case 5:20-cv-00605 Document 1 Filed 03/26/20 Page 19 of 41 Page ID #:19

1 provided gloves, masks, or a way to sanitize their hands. Mr. Bravo and the other

2 man were separated by only approximately five inches in the backseat of the car.

3 Both men were handcuffed, and when the car moved or turned their arms would

4 touch. They traveled with two officers in the front seat for approximately an hour

5 together to a facility in downtown Los Angeles. Id. ¶ 11.

6

59. At the downtown Los Angeles facility, ICE officers held Mr. Bravo

7 by the arm as they removed him from the car. For the next nine hours, Mr. Bravo

8 was confined in a room with three other individuals, including the man whose

9 arrest he had watched. Nobody was provided gloves, masks, or hand sanitizer.

10 Nobody took Mr. Bravo’s temperature or asked about his health. Id. ¶ 12.

11

60. In the late afternoon, all four individuals including Mr. Bravo were

12 taken into a van with two new officers who drove for approximately an hour and

13 half to the Adelanto Detention Center. One of the officers grabbed Mr. Bravo by

14 the arm while he was entering the van. The person in the seat next to Mr. Bravo

15 was about one foot away for the duration of the ride. Again, no precautions, such

16 as masks, gloves, or temperature checks were taken to protect the four individuals

17 from exposure to COVID-19. Mr. Bravo did not observe anyone clean the van,

18 and it did not smell like it had recently been cleaned. Id. ¶ 13.

19

61. The raid that resulted in Mr. Bravo’s arrest took place the day after

20 Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti ordered all dine-in restaurants, bars, and

21 entertainment venues in the city closed to avoid close person-to-person contact in

22 enclosed spaces. In carrying out this raid, ICE placed Mr. Bravo and at least

23 three other individuals in the exact type of close-contact environment that

24 officials had explicitly and repeatedly pleaded with the public to avoid. And they

25

26

27
PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AND COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORYAND INJUNCTIVE
28 RELIEF -19

Case 5:20-cv-00605 Document 1 Filed 03/26/20 Page 20 of 41 Page ID #:20

1 did so brazenly, bringing a journalist and emphasizing that they were conducting 2 “business as usual.”33

3

62. Later in the day on March 16, 2020, the Los Angeles County

4 Department of Public Health issued further health precautions to contain the

5 spread of COVID-19.

6

63. Unfazed, ICE conducted further raids on March 17, 2020, which

7 resulted in the unsafe arrest and detention of at least eight individuals.

8

64. Luis Vasquez Rueda is a 23-year-old man who has lived in Southern

9 California since he was five years old. Mr. Vasquez was a Deferred Action for

10 Childhood Arrivals (DACA) recipient who graduated from Bell Gardens High

11 School and attended Cerritos College. Ex. D, Declaration of Luis Vasquez Rueda

12 ¶¶ 3-4. (“Vasquez Decl.”)

13

65. For the past several years, Mr. Vasquez has worked at an Amazon

14 warehouse to support himself. Id. ¶ 5. On February 10, 2020, Mr. Vasquez had a

15 serious work related injury at the warehouse. He fell approximately twenty feet

16 from a forklift cage to the warehouse floor. As a result of the fall, he fractured

17 multiple bones in his face, including the bone at the bottom of his eye, causing

18 bleeding in the eye. He also received an open wound on his left leg that required

19 seven stitches. Id. ¶ 6.

20

66. Mr. Vasquez has been attending physical therapy for his injuries;

21 however, doctors expect his recovery to take several months. His face is still

22 bruised from the broken bones. He was supposed to see a specialist on March 24,

23 2020, to determine whether he needs surgery to heal his left eye. Id. ¶ 7.

24

25

26 33 Id.

27
PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AND COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORYAND INJUNCTIVE
28 RELIEF -20

Case 5:20-cv-00605 Document 1 Filed 03/26/20 Page 21 of 41 Page ID #:21

1

67. Mr. Vasquez had no opportunity to continue to care for his medical

2 needs and see his doctors because he was arrested by immigration officials and

3 brought into immigration detention in the midst of the global COVID-19

4 pandemic.

5

68. ICE officers entered Mr. Vasquez’s home on Tuesday, March 17,

6 2020 at approximately 6:40 a.m., after being let in by his roommate. They

7 proceeded to wake Mr. Vasquez up by yelling and knocking loudly on his

8 bedroom door. Two officers subsequently grabbed Mr. Vasquez by the arm and

9 shoulder and pushed him out of his home. Id. ¶ 12.

10

69. The officers who removed Mr. Vasquez from his home were not

11 wearing masks. They were in such close contact with Mr. Vasquez as they

12 pushed him from his home and handcuffed him that Mr. Vasquez could feel the

13 officers’ breath on him. Id. ¶ 13.

14

70. As the officers handcuffed Mr. Vasquez outside his home, one of

15 them asked him if he had COVID-19. Mr. Vasquez responded “no,” but no

16 officers ever checked his temperature, or gave him protective equipment such as a

17 mask, gloves, or hand sanitizer at any point during his arrest. Id. ¶ 13, ¶ 15.

18 After he was handcuffed, Mr. Vasquez was placed in a car with an additional

19 officer as well as the two who originally handcuffed him. Id. ¶ 15.

20

71. After leaving Mr. Vasquez’s home, the officers drove to a shopping

21 mall where they stopped to adjust Mr. Vasquez’s handcuffs. At that time, the

22 same officer who originally handcuffed Mr. Vasquez touched him on his hands

23 and wrists to move his arms from behind his back to the front of his body. The

24 officer then tied chains around Mr. Vasquez’s ankles. As when Mr. Vasquez was

25 first handcuffed, the officer was not wearing a mask and was in close physical

26

27
PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AND COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORYAND INJUNCTIVE
28 RELIEF -21

Case 5:20-cv-00605 Document 1 Filed 03/26/20 Page 22 of 41 Page ID #:22

1 proximity to Mr. Vasquez. At times, Mr. Vasquez could feel the officer’s breath

2 on his face. Id. ¶ 16.

3

72. The officers subsequently brought Mr. Vasquez to a building in

4 downtown Los Angeles, where he was held for approximately nine hours, from 8

5 a.m. to 3 p.m. Mr. Vasquez was held in a room with eight other people, where

6 there was not enough physical space for them to be six feet away from one

7 another at all times pursuant to the suggested social distancing protocols

8 advocated around the world. Nobody in the room was offered masks, gloves, or

9 hand sanitizer. Id. ¶ 17. While he was detained in this facility, Mr. Vasquez

10 heard some of the people sharing his room coughing at various points throughout

11 the nine hours he was held there. Id. ¶ 18.

12

73. A new officer from the facility brought Mr. Vasquez and the other

13 seven people in the room breakfast and lunch. The officer was not wearing a

14 mask. Mr. Vasquez washed his hands before lunch but is not sure if the other

15 people he shared the room with washed their hands. Id. ¶ 18.

16

74. At approximately 3 p.m., new officers arrived and again handcuffed

17 and shackled Mr. Vasquez, touching him on the hands, wrists, and ankles. Once

18 again, the officer who touched Mr. Vasquez was not wearing a mask and was in

19 close physical proximity, at some points directly face to face. Id. ¶ 19. The new

20 officers directed Mr. Vasquez and the seven other people he was detained with to

21 a van with three rows of seats. The eight of them sat in the three van rows

22 together, with Mr. Vasquez and one other person in the front row, and three

23 people in each of the back two rows. Mr. Vasquez and the other person in his

24 row were seated approximately 1 or 2 feet apart. The six people sharing the back

25 seats had no option but to sit with their bodies touching side-to-side for the entire

26 ride. Nobody provided Mr. Vasquez and the other detainees masks or gloves.

27
PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AND COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORYAND INJUNCTIVE
28 RELIEF -22

Case 5:20-cv-00605 Document 1 Filed 03/26/20 Page 23 of 41 Page ID #:23

1 Mr. Vasquez did not see anyone disinfect the van, nor did it smell of disinfectant

2 or cleaning supplies. Id. ¶ 20.

3

75. Two new officers arrived to drive the van, and they drove for

4 approximately two hours from downtown Los Angeles to the Adelanto Detention

5 Center, at which point the officers again touched Mr. Vasquez while not wearing

6 a mask to remove him from the vehicle and bring him into the detention facility.

7 Id. ¶ 21.

8

76. At every step of the ICE raid that brought Mr. Vasquez into custody

9 and his subsequent transportation and processing, government officials needlessly

10 and recklessly exposed Mr. Vasquez to risk of exposure to COVID-19. Experts

11 have established that there was known community transmission of COVID-19

12 occurring in Los Angeles prior to the day of Mr. Vasquez’s arrest. One of the

13 officers even asked Mr. Vasquez about COVID-19 outside his home. Despite

14 this, at every stage of the day, Mr. Vasquez found himself in close contact with

15 officers and other detainees. When Mr. Vasquez asked for more information

16 about the quarantine in order to protect himself, he got nothing. ICE placed Mr.

17 Vasquez, and their own officers, in the type of close-contact situation public

18 health officials have explicitly and repeatedly pleaded with the public to avoid.

19

C. Respondents Are Subjecting Petitioners to Severe Risk of

20

Contracting COVID-19 at Adelanto

21

77. Petitioners’ continued detention subjects them to a severe risk of

22 contracting COVID-19 from other individuals, including staff and officers, at

23 Adelanto Detention Center.

24

78. Mr. Bravo’s experiences since arriving at the Adelanto Detention

25 Center confirm the elevated risk of exposure to diseases such as COVID-19 that

26 experts have established exist in these facilities.

27
PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AND COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORYAND INJUNCTIVE
28 RELIEF -23

Case 5:20-cv-00605 Document 1 Filed 03/26/20 Page 24 of 41 Page ID #:24

1

79. Officers again had physical contact with Mr. Bravo while removing

2 him from the van upon his arrival at Adelanto. He was not provided with gloves

3 or a mask, and was held with fellow detainees in a small medical screening room

4 for approximately half an hour. Bravo Decl. ¶ 14. While Mr. Bravo was waiting

5 in this screening room, he had his temperature taken for the first time since he

6 was brought into custody nearly twelve hours earlier. He did not have a

7 temperature, but informed the person taking it that he had felt unwell since he was

8 detained earlier that morning. Id. ¶ 15.

9

80. During the screening process, one of the detainees (the man arrested

10 after Mr. Bravo in the morning) was moved to a different room. Later in the day,

11 that individual informed Mr. Bravo that he had been separated from the group

12 during medical screening because he had recently been sick with the flu. Id. ¶ 16.

13

81. Mr. Bravo had spent the day confined with this individual in different

14 vehicles and small spaces: handcuffed next to each other in the back seat of a

15 vehicle while they were brought to downtown Los Angeles, in a holding cell at

16 the Los Angeles facility, handcuffed near each other again in a van for the hour

17 and a half long ride to Adelanto, until he was isolated following a screening

18 nearly 12 hours after first having contact with Mr. Bravo and ICE officers.

19

82. On a day when much of Los Angeles took pains to remove themselves

20 from any unnecessary social contact following the Mayor’s and County’s new

21 orders and ongoing guidance on social distancing from the President, Governor,

22 and others, Mr. Bravo was unnecessarily and recklessly exposed to someone who

23 had recently been sick with flu-like symptoms.

24

83. Mr. Bravo is unsure what happened to the man who had been sick

25 with the flu because he was assigned to a different dormitory from Mr. Bravo. Id.

26 ¶ 16.

27
PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AND COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORYAND INJUNCTIVE
28 RELIEF -24

Case 5:20-cv-00605 Document 1 Filed 03/26/20 Page 25 of 41 Page ID #:25

1

84. Mr. Bravo’s conditions of detention put him at an unacceptably high

2 risk of contracting the disease. He is housed in a dormitory with a large common

3 space surrounded by 22 small rooms, each of which houses four people. Id. ¶ 17.

4 He spends his days in close proximity to upwards of 90 people, including

5 detainees and staff. Some gloves are available, but there is no requirement to use

6 them, and most people do not. Id. ¶ 19.

7

85. Mr. Bravo’s sleeping arrangements consist of four people sharing

8 bunk beds in a small room. There is not space to leave six feet between people,

9 and they bump into each other when getting on or off the bunks or moving around

10 the room. Mr. Bravo has seen and heard his bunkmates cough and sneeze in the

11 room. His 88-person dormitory has one shower space with only six open stalls.

12 He shares an open bathroom with the four people in his bunk room. Id. ¶¶ 18-19.

13

86. Food is served in a common cafeteria area, where Mr. Bravo sits in

14 close proximity to other people as they eat. Mr. Bravo and the other detainees

15 walk in a tight line to and from the cafeteria in close proximity to one another.

16 Two officers are on duty at all times, and they never wear masks. Id. ¶¶ 20-21.

17

87. Mr. Bravo finds himself in far closer contact with a far greater number

18 of people today in Adelanto than he would at home with his wife and

19 stepchildren.

20

88. Mr. Bravo is 58 years old and has had several health issues, including

21 kidney stones, arthritis, and a hernia. Id. ¶ 6. His age makes him more susceptible

22 to serious complication from the coronavirus and COVID-19, such as respiratory

23 failure, kidney failure, and death. Mishori Decl. ¶ 9. The ICE raid that brought

24 him into custody has exposed an older man to immense risk that should and could

25 have been easily foreseen by government officials.

26

27
PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AND COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORYAND INJUNCTIVE
28 RELIEF -25

Case 5:20-cv-00605 Document 1 Filed 03/26/20 Page 26 of 41 Page ID #:26

1

89. Mr. Vasquez’s current confinement in the Adelanto Detention Center

2 likewise leaves him in much greater danger of exposure to COVID-19 than he

3 would have experienced at home. Mr. Vasquez’s experiences since arriving at

4 Adelanto serve to further confirm the elevated risk of exposure to diseases such as

5 COVID-19 that experts have stated exist in these facilities.

6

90. Upon entering the Adelanto Detention Center, Mr. Vasquez was

7 brought to a nurse’s station immediately on the other side of the door through

8 which he entered into the building. The nurse asked if he was sick, and he

9 explained his serious work-related injuries. The nurse then took his temperature,

10 the first time it had been taken since he came into contact with ICE officers at

11 approximately 6:40 a.m. The nurse was wearing both gloves and a mask, but did

12 not provide a mask, gloves, hand sanitizer, or directions to wash hands to Mr.

13 Vasquez or any of the other detainees. Vasquez Decl. ¶ 22.

14

91. Following the medical check, Mr. Vasquez and the other seven

15 individuals were brought into a new room for processing. Another new officer

16 was present in the room, again not wearing a mask. The processing room did not

17 allow for six feet of space between the occupants. They were in the room for

18 approximately an hour. Id. ¶ 23.

19

92. After processing, Mr. Vasquez was brought to his dormitory area,

20 called Holding Area 10, which he soon learned was under quarantine. He was

21 informed of this quarantine by other detainees in the facility. Mr. Vasquez asked

22 the supervisor why the area was under quarantine, but did not receive an answer

23 other than that the area was “on lockdown.” Id. ¶ 24. During the quarantine, Mr.

24 Vasquez and other occupants of his dormitory were not allowed in the cafeteria or

25 the yard and had to spend the whole day in their holding area. Officers wearing

26 gloves and masks would bring food in to-go containers with plastic-wrapped

27
PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AND COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORYAND INJUNCTIVE
28 RELIEF -26

Case 5:20-cv-00605 Document 1 Filed 03/26/20 Page 27 of 41 Page ID #:27

1 utensils directly to their holding area and each dorm room would get food one at a

2 time. Id. ¶ 25. These quarantine procedures were in place upon Mr. Vasquez’s

3 arrival at the facility, and they remained in effect through Friday, March 20, 2020.

4 During that time, all the staff members who came in and out of his holding area

5 wore masks and gloves. Id. ¶ 26. Although the masks were deemed necessary

6 for officers to enter the area, no masks were provided to the people who were

7 living in the area.

8

93. On Saturday, March 21, 2020, the quarantine was lifted. The staff

9 stopped wearing masks in Mr. Vasquez’s holding area. No one informed Mr.

10 Vasquez why the quarantine was initially in effect or why it was removed. Mr.

11 Vasquez and his fellow detainees were not even formerly informed that the

12 quarantine was lifted, but they assume this is the case since everyone is now

13 allowed to use the cafeteria and the yard area. Id. ¶ 26.

14

94. Mr. Vasquez’s holding area houses approximately 60-70 people.

15 Within the larger area, people sleep in smaller dorm rooms with four to eight

16 people each. Id. ¶ 24. He shares a dorm room with six other people. The seven

17 people total in his room sleep in four bunk beds. The room is not large enough to

18 maintain six feet distance between occupants, and Mr. Vasquez must be in close

19 proximity to his dorm mates just to move around his bed. The seven people in his

20 dorm also share a toilet and sink that they must clean themselves. They use a

21 spray that is shared with everyone in the holding area. When the spray runs out,

22 they need to wait for guards to bring more in order to clean their bathroom area.

23 Id. ¶ 27. There is a common area in the holding area with tables and seats that is

24 shared by all detainees. Id. ¶ 28.

25

95. Now that the quarantine is over, all 60 to 70 people from Mr.

26 Vasquez’s holding area eat in the cafeteria at the same time. They line up in close

27
PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AND COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORYAND INJUNCTIVE
28 RELIEF -27

Case 5:20-cv-00605 Document 1 Filed 03/26/20 Page 28 of 41 Page ID #:28

1 proximity to one another, with only a few inches of space between one another in

2 line. Cafeteria workers do not wear masks as they serve meals. Id. ¶ 31.

3

96. Nobody has provided Mr. Vasquez or his fellow detainees with hand

4 sanitizer or masks. Gloves are available, but there are no requirements to use

5 them and most people do not. Id. ¶ 28. At least one guard is supervising the

6 holding area, and multiple guards rotate through the area over the course of the

7 day, switching four or five times each day. The guards wore masks during the

8 quarantine period, but they do not presently wear masks. Id. ¶ 29.

9

97. Mr. Vasquez is extremely concerned about his health and well being

10 in this detention facility during the midst of the global COVID-19 pandemic. In

11 light of his ongoing work-related injuries, Mr. Vasquez is particularly concerned

12 about the lack of medical care he is receiving while in detention. Id. ¶¶ 32-35.

13

98. Due to Respondents’ actions, Mr. Vasquez was recklessly and

14 unnecessarily taken from him home, where he had plans to visit his doctor and

15 receive recommendations for medical treatment of his serious injuries, and

16 subsequently placed in a detention setting that exposes him to great risk of

17 infection of COVID-19. The close proximity he experiences every day with those

18 in his dorm and holding area are dangerous conditions at this moment of the

19 COVID-19 outbreak.

20

99. The risks of introducing a new person into a detention setting, both for

21 that person, for fellow detainees, and for ICE officers and guards was widely

22 known by experts and could and should have been easily avoided if government

23 officials had not carried out the irresponsible raids that brought Mr. Vasquez into

24 custody.

25

100. At all times during Petitioners’ arrests and detention, neither

26 Respondents nor Petitioners could know whether they had been infected with the

27
PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AND COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORYAND INJUNCTIVE
28 RELIEF -28

Case 5:20-cv-00605 Document 1 Filed 03/26/20 Page 29 of 41 Page ID #:29

1 virus that causes COVID-19. The incubation period—the time between catching

2 the virus and beginning to have symptoms of the disease—ranges from 1 to 14 3 days and is most commonly around five days.34 In the absence of testing, which

4 Respondents have not made available to Petitioners, there is no way to know

5 whether they have COVID-19.

6

101. On Wednesday, March 18, 2020, ICE announced that it would curtail,

7 to some extent, its enforcement raids in light of the COVID-19 outbreak.35

8

102. On March 20, 2020, officials at Adelanto Detention Center began

9 releasing elderly detainees from custody. Ex. E, Declaration of Debbie Allen

10 Decl. ¶ 4. By March 22, 2020, younger individuals detained in the facility were

11 also being released. Id. ¶ 5.

12

103. Petitioners have not been released from Adelanto Detention Center.

13

14

V. CAUSES OF ACTION

15

COUNT ONE

16

FIFTH AMENDMENT– STATE-CREATED DANGER

17

104. Petitioners repeat and incorporate by reference each and every

18 allegation contained in the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.

19

105. The Due Process Clause provides that no person shall “be deprived of

20 life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” U.S. Const. amend. V. Its

21 protections extend to “every person within the nation’s borders,” regardless of

22 immigration status. Lopez-Valenzuela v. Arpaio, 770 F.3d 772, 781 (9th Cir.

23 2014); id. (“Even one whose presence in this country is unlawful, involuntary, or

24
34 World Health Organization, Q&A on coronaviruses (COVID-19), Mar. 9, 2020, https://www.who.int/news-
25 room/q-a-detail/q-a-coronaviruses.

26 35 Brittny Mejia, Ibid.

27
PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AND COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORYAND INJUNCTIVE
28 RELIEF -29

Case 5:20-cv-00605 Document 1 Filed 03/26/20 Page 30 of 41 Page ID #:30

1 transitory is entitled to that constitutional protection.” (quoting Mathews v. Diaz,

2 426 U.S. 67, 77 (1976)).

3

106. The government violates an individual’s right to due process when it

4 (1) “affirmatively place[s] [the] individual in danger,” (2) by “acting with

5 ‘deliberate indifference to [a] known or obvious danger.’” Kennedy v. City of

6 Ridgefield, 439 F.3d 1055, 1062 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Munger v. City of

7 Glasgow, 227 F.3d 1082, 1086 (9th Cir. 2000) and L.W. v. Grubbs, 92 F.3d 894,

8 900 (9th Cir. 1996)).

9

107. When the government’s actions leave an individual “in a situation that

10 [is] more dangerous than the one in which [it] found him,” the government has

11 affirmatively placed that individual in danger. Hernandez v. City of San Jose, 897

12 F.3d 1125, 1133 (9th Cir. 2018) (quoting Munger, F.3d at 1086). The critical

13 inquiry is thus whether the government’s actions “create[d] or expose[d] an

14 individual to a danger which he or she would not have otherwise faced,”

15 Kennedy, 439 F.3d at 1061. Cf. J.P. v. Sessions, No. Civ. 18-06081, 2019 WL

16 6723686, at *36 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 5, 2019) (federal government “‘acted with

17 deliberate indifference to a known or obvious danger’ by implementing the

18 [family separation] policy with awareness of the potential harm it would cause

19 and intending to use that as a basis to deter future attempts by those similarly

20 situated to enter the United States” (internal brackets omitted) (quoting

21 Hernandez, 897 F.3d at 1137, and Kennedy, 439 F.3d at 1062)).

22

108. The government acts with deliberate indifference to a known or

23 obvious danger when it “recognize[s] an unreasonable risk and actually intend[s]

24 to expose [the plaintiff] to such risks without regard to the consequences to [the

25 plaintiff].” Hernandez, 897 F.3d at 1135 (internal brackets omitted) (quoting

26 Patel v. Kent Sch. Dist., 648 F.3d 965, 974 (9th Cir. 2011)). An unreasonable risk

27
PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AND COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORYAND INJUNCTIVE
28 RELIEF -30

Case 5:20-cv-00605 Document 1 Filed 03/26/20 Page 31 of 41 Page ID #:31

1 includes future harm caused by conditions of confinement. See Helling v.

2 McKinney, 509 U.S. 25, 33 (1993).

3

109. First, Respondents have affirmatively placed Petitioners in danger by

4 forcing them into a position more dangerous than it found them. Mishori Decl. ¶

5 37; see also Coleman v. Schwarzenegger, 922 F. Supp. 2d 882, 888 (E.D. Cal.

6 2009) (recognizing that crowding in prisons makes “vulnerable outbreaks of

7 communicable disease”). Respondents made the affirmative decision to conduct

8 immigration raids, which were intended to lead to the arrest and detention of

9 individuals such as Petitioners, amidst government-mandated restrictions aimed at

10 reducing community transmission of COVID-19 through social distancing. From

11 the moment officers arrived at Petitioners’ doors, Petitioners were actively

12 deprived of the ability to take these basic self-protective measures. Respondents

13 conducted those raids and arrested, transported, and detained Petitioners without

14 taking necessary precautions to reduce the risk of COVID-19 transmission

15 between Respondents, Petitioners, and other detainees. Respondents have thus

16 exposed Petitioners to a greater risk of contracting COVID-19 than they would

17 have otherwise faced.

18

110. Respondents continued to actively disregard the threat of the

19 pandemic while they processed Petitioners through the system using effectively

20 the same procedures they would have on a normal day. Petitioners are detained in

21 conditions that expose them to a heightened risk of contracting COVID-19.

22 Respondents are confining Petitioners in close proximity to other detainees and

23 ICE officers, rendering Petitioners entirely unable to practice necessary social

24 distancing. Respondents are not providing masks or hand sanitizer to Petitioners

25 and other detainees. ICE officers are failing to take necessary precautions, such as

26 wearing masks, to avoid transmitting COVID-19 to Petitioners, detainees, and

27
PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AND COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORYAND INJUNCTIVE
28 RELIEF -31

Case 5:20-cv-00605 Document 1 Filed 03/26/20 Page 32 of 41 Page ID #:32

1 other officers. Respondents’ ongoing detention of Petitioners thus continues to

2 expose them to a greater risk of contracting COVID-19 than they would face if

3 they were not in detention and were able to take necessary precautions to protect

4 themselves.

5

111. As the virus continues its potentially exponential spread, it is all but

6 certain to find its way into Adelanto, if it has not already. There it will find a

7 tinderbox of involuntary crowding and underpreparedness. See Hernandez v. Cty.

8 of Monterey, 110 F. Supp. 3d 929, 942–43 (N.D. Cal. 2015) (finding fact that

9 jail’s practices regarding tuberculosis did not confirm to the standards of the CDC

10 and others to “strongly indicate[] deliberate indifference” and granting TRO).

11

112. If the spark ignites, the consequences will be dire for everyone at the

12 facility. Detention facilities in general are not appropriately equipped to deal with

13 an outbreak of a disease as dangerous and contagious as COVID-19. Mishori

14 Decl. ¶ 23. Adelanto in particular has been cited for the inadequacy of its medical

15 facilities. See CRCL Report On Adelanto ICE Processing Center, On-site

16 Investigation Report at 1, 4-5, available at

17 https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6278922-HQ-Part2-Copy.html (as of

18 Mar. 22, 2020). Petitioners could at any moment exhibit symptoms of COVID-19,

19 and it is extremely likely they will if left in Adelanto until the virus is already

20 running rampant. And if they do contract the disease, they will have no way of

21 knowing or controlling whether it will progress to life-threatening respiratory

22 symptoms, as it can in people of all ages.

23

113. Second, Respondents have acted, and continue to act, with deliberate

24 indifference to the known and obvious risk of COVID-19 transmission.

25 Respondents conducted the raids and arrested, transported, and detained

26 Petitioners at a time when the federal government, State of California, and City of

27
PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AND COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORYAND INJUNCTIVE
28 RELIEF -32

Case 5:20-cv-00605 Document 1 Filed 03/26/20 Page 33 of 41 Page ID #:33

1 Los Angeles had all declared public health emergencies, supra ¶ 27. Despite

2 being well-aware of both the risks of community transmission of COVID-19 and

3 the preventive measures necessary to slow that transmission, Respondents acted

4 without regard to the consequences to Petitioners by engaging in these

5 enforcement activities without taking precautions necessary to protect them.

6 Mishori Decl. ¶ 36 (“[C]onducting these raids was a reckless decision by the

7 government that unnecessarily put countless people at risk of exposure to the

8 coronavirus.”); id. ¶ 40 (ICE’s actions “blatantly ignore[d] current CDC

9 guidelines to minimize any exposure at this critical moment in the pandemic”).

10 Recognizing the unreasonable risks to Petitioners, Respondents affirmatively

11 chose to prioritize an immigration enforcement campaign designed to punish

12 sanctuary cities and terrorize the immigrant communities therein over Petitioners’

13 safety. See ‘Flood the Streets’: ICE Targets Sanctuary Cities With Increased

14 Surveillance

N.Y.

Times

(Mar.

5,

2020),

15 https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/05/us/ICE-BORTAC-sanctuary-cities.html; cf.

16 J.P. v. Sessions, No. LA CV18-06081 JAK, 2019 WL 6723686, at *36 (C.D. Cal.

17 Nov. 5, 2019) (federal government “‘acted with deliberate indifference to a

18 known or obvious danger’ by implementing the [family separation] policy with

19 awareness of the potential harm it would cause and intending to use that as a basis

20 to deter future attempts by those similarly situated to enter the United States”

21 (internal brackets omitted) (quoting Hernandez, 897 F.3d at 1137, and Kennedy,

22 439 F.3d at 1062)).

23

114. Even as Respondents have acknowledged the need to curb their

24 enforcement activities “[t]o ensure the welfare and safety of the general public,”36

25

26 36 Mejia, supra n.18.

27
PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AND COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORYAND INJUNCTIVE
28 RELIEF -33

Case 5:20-cv-00605 Document 1 Filed 03/26/20 Page 34 of 41 Page ID #:34

1 Respondents continue to detain Petitioners in conditions that expose them to a

2 heightened risk of contracting COVID-19 without regard to the consequences to

3 Petitioners, supra ¶¶ 77-103; Mishori Decl. ¶¶ 44-52.

4

115. For these reasons, Petitioners’ detention violates the Fifth Amendment

5 Due Process Clause.

6

COUNT TWO

7

FIFTH AMENDMENT – SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP

8

116. Petitioners repeat and incorporate by reference each and every

9 allegation contained in the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.

10

117. The Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause applies to all “persons”

11 within the United States, including persons whose presence here is unlawful,

12 temporary, or permanent. See Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 693 (2001).

13

118. When the government takes custody of a person, the government

14 creates a “special relationship” that entails assuming responsibility for the

15 person’s safety and well-being. See, e.g., Henry A. v. Willden, 678 F.3d 991, 998

16 (9th Cir. 2011). The government violates the Due Process Clause when it takes

17 custody of a person “and at the same time fails to provide for his basic human

18 needs – e.g., food, clothing, shelter, medical care, and reasonable safety.”

19 DeShaney v. Winnebago Cty. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 489 U.S. 189, 200 (1989)

20 (emphasis added). Due process for civil detainees, like those held in immigration

21 facilities, “requires more than minimal necessities.” Jones v. Blanas, 393 F.3d

22 918, 931 (9th Cir. 2004); Unknown Parties v. Nielsen, No. CV-15-00250-TUC-

23 DCB, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27890, at *8 (D. Ariz. Feb. 19, 2020).

24

119. To state a claim under the special relationship doctrine, a plaintiff

25 must show: “(i) the defendant made an intentional decision with respect to the

26 conditions under which the plaintiff was confined; (ii) those conditions put the

27
PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AND COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORYAND INJUNCTIVE
28 RELIEF -34

Case 5:20-cv-00605 Document 1 Filed 03/26/20 Page 35 of 41 Page ID #:35

1 plaintiff at substantial risk of suffering serious harm; (iii) the defendant did not

2 take reasonable available measures to abate the risk, even though a reasonable

3 official in the circumstances would have appreciated the high degree of involved .

4 . . ; and (iv) by not taking such measures, the defendant caused the plaintiff’s

5 injuries.” Gordon v. Cty. of Orange, 888 F.3d 1118, 1124-25 (9th Cir. 2018); see

6 also Martinez v. Geo Grp., Inc., No. EDCV 18-1125-R, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS

7 143217, at *7-9 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 30, 2019) (applying Gordon to claims about

8 Adelanto Detention Center’s failure to attend to a detainee’s medical needs); J.P.

9 v. Sessions, No. LA CV18-06081 JAK (SKx), 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 217560, at

10 *88-89 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 5, 2019) (applying Gordon to claims about conditions of

11 confinement in civil immigration detention).

12

120. The government’s failure to take reasonable available measures to

13 abate risk must be “objectively unreasonable” in order to violate due process—“a

14 test that will necessarily turn on the facts and circumstances of each particular

15 case.” Castro v. Cty. of Los Angeles, 833 F.3d 1060, 1071 (9th Cir. 2016)

16 (quoting Kingsley v. Hendrickson, 135 S. Ct. 2466, 2473-74 (2015).

17

121. Inadequate health and safety measures at a detention center cause

18 cognizable harm to every inmate. See Parsons v. Ryan, 754 F.3d 657, 679 (9th

19 Cir. 2014). As the Supreme Court observed in the context of the California

20 prison system, “all prisoners [] are at risk so long as the State continues to provide

21 inadequate care.” Brown v. Plata, 563 U.S. 493, 532 (2011). Those who are not

22 yet sick are not “remote bystanders”—they are the “next potential victims.” Id.

23 In the case of COVID-19, even those who do not appear to be sick may already

24 be infected. Mishori Dec. ¶ 8.

25

122. When Respondents arrested and detained Petitioners, they created a

26 special relationship that required them to provide Petitioners with medical care

27
PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AND COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORYAND INJUNCTIVE
28 RELIEF -35

Case 5:20-cv-00605 Document 1 Filed 03/26/20 Page 36 of 41 Page ID #:36

1 and reasonable safety. Respondents made the intentional decisions to conduct

2 immigration enforcement raids against Petitioners during a deadly pandemic with

3 local community spread, placing Petitioners at continued risk of suffering serious

4 harm. See Parsons v. Ryan, 754 F.3d 657, 679 (9th Cir. 2014) (recognizing that

5 inadequate health and safety measures at a detention center cause cognizable

6 harm to every inmate). Petitioners were subjected to close physical contact with

7 ICE officers, Adelanto staff, and other detainees without providing them with

8 masks, gloves, hand sanitizer, distance, or other measures mandated by experts,

9 government officials, and the CDC to protect people from infection; and continue

10 to hold Petitioners in detention while releasing others back to their communities.

11

123. According to experts, as well as government officials and the CDC,

12 these conditions put Petitioners at significant risk of exposure to COVID-19,

13 which in turn subjects them to risk of serious illness and death.

14

124. Respondents did not take reasonable available measures to abate the

15 risk of exposure to COVID-19, such as delaying immigration enforcement raids

16 until after the outbreak, taking precautionary measures recommended by experts

17 during arrests and detention, and providing the necessary supplies and space for

18 Petitioners to avoid exposure while detained. The failure to take these measures

19 was objectively unreasonable in light of the local, state, and federal guidance on

20 the pandemic that was widely publicized at the time of the raids and throughout

21 Petitioners’ detention.

22

125. By failing to take these measures, Respondents subjected and continue

23 to subject Petitioners to a substantial risk of contracting COVID-19. See Parsons,

24 754 at 679 (discussing the harms inherent in inadequate public health and medical

25 care provisions in detention); Xochihua-Jaimes v. Barr, 2020 WL 1429877, No.

26 18-71460 (9th Cir. Mar. 23, 2020) (sua sponte ordering release of a detainee in

27
PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AND COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORYAND INJUNCTIVE
28 RELIEF -36

Case 5:20-cv-00605 Document 1 Filed 03/26/20 Page 37 of 41 Page ID #:37

1 light of the current “rapidly escalating public health crisis, which public health

2 authorities predict will especially impact immigration detention centers”). The

3 risk is augmented by Adelanto Detention Center’s well-documented health and

4 safety failures at the best of times, and by the reported presence of several cases

5 of the virus at the facility.

6

126. For these reasons, Petitioners’ detention violates the Fifth Amendment

7 Due Process Clause.

8

COUNT THREE

9

FIFTH AMENDMENT – PUNITIVE DETENTION

10

127. Petitioners repeat and incorporate by reference each and every

11 allegation contained in the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.

12

128. When the federal government detains an immigrant, the immigrant is

13 considered a civil detainee, even if they have a prior criminal conviction. See

14 Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 690 (2001). As civil detainees, immigrants are

15 afforded greater protection by the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause than

16 convicted prisoners or even pretrial criminal detainees. Unlike a convicted

17 prisoner, who may be punished as long as the punishment is not “cruel and

18 unusual,” Pierce v. Cty. of Orange, 526 F.3d 1190, 1205 (9th Cir. 2008), a civil

19 detainee may not be punished at all prior to an adjudication of guilt. Bell v.

20 Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 535 (1970); Jones v. Blanas, 393 F.3d 918, 932 (9th Cir.

21 2004). And civil immigration detainees “must be afforded more considerate

22 treatment” than criminal pretrial detainees. See Unknown Parties, No. CV-15-

23 00250-TUC-DCB at *12 (citing Youngberg v. Romeo, 457 U.S. 307, 321-22

24 (1982)).

25

129. To establish a violation of the Due Process Clause, Petitioners need

26 not show that Respondents intended to subject them to punishment. See Pierce,

27
PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AND COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORYAND INJUNCTIVE
28 RELIEF -37

Case 5:20-cv-00605 Document 1 Filed 03/26/20 Page 38 of 41 Page ID #:38

1 526 F.3d at 1205. A restriction is “punitive” if it is “excessive in relation to [its

2 non-punitive purpose]’ or is ‘employed to achieve objectives that could be

3 accomplished in so many alternative and less harsh methods.’” Jones, 393 F.3d at

4 933-34 (alteration in original) (quoting Demery v. Arpaio, 378 F.3d 1020, 1028

5 (9th Cir. 2004); Hallstrom v. City of Garden City, 991 F.2d 1473, 1484 (1993)).

6 A presumption of punishment arises when a civil detainee is held in similar or

7 more restrictive conditions than his criminal counterparts. See Jones, 393 F.3d at

8 932; see also Torres v. U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 411 F. Supp. 3d 1036, 1065

9 (C.D. Cal. 2019) (finding a presumption of punitiveness where plaintiffs

10 “allege[d] conditions at Adelanto and policies by ICE that are not ‘more

11 considerate’ than at criminal facilities”). To rebut this presumption, the

12 government must show that its actions are not excessive in relation to a

13 legitimate, nonpunitive purpose. King v. Cty. of Los Angeles, 885 F.3d 548, 558

14 (9th Cir. 2018).

15

130. Even assuming Respondents have a legitimate, nonpunitive interest in

16 continuing to enforce the immigration laws, the arrest and detainment of

17 Petitioners is excessive in relation to that interest. A presumption of punishment

18 arises because Petitioners are subjected to worse conditions than many convicted

19 prisoners. Across the country—including in the Central District of California—

20 decisionmakers are releasing convicted prisoners to prevent them and surrounding

21 communities from suffering bodily harm or death from COVID-19. See US Jails

22 Begin Releasing Prisoners to Stem Covid-19 Infections, BBC News (Mar. 19,

23 2020), https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-51947802; Shelly Insheiwat,

24 L.A. County Releases 1,700 Inmates to Lessen Jail Population Due to COVID-19

25 Crisis, Fox 11 L.A. (Mar. 24, 2020), https://www.foxla.com/news/l-a-county-

26 releases-1700-inmates-to-lessen-jail-population-due-to-covid-19-crisis.

27
PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AND COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORYAND INJUNCTIVE
28 RELIEF -38

Case 5:20-cv-00605 Document 1 Filed 03/26/20 Page 39 of 41 Page ID #:39

1

131. To rebut the presumption of punitiveness, a “bare assertion of the

2 requirement of keeping [ ] detainees . . . will not suffice.” Torres, 411 F. Supp. 3d

3 at 1065 (alteration in original) (quoting Jones, 393 F.3d at 934) (rejecting

4 defendants’ proposed justification that they were “required by statute to maintain

5 a secure facility for certain immigrants, pending the outcome of their

6 proceedings”). But even if Respondents could articulate a legitimate, nonpunitive

7 interest, endangering the lives and wellbeing of Petitioners and surrounding

8 communities is excessive in relation to that interest. Detention itself exposes

9 Petitioners to an unacceptable risk of contracting COVID-19 and suffering bodily

10 harm or death as a result. Respondents have confined Petitioners in close quarters

11 with many other individuals, any of whom could already be infected even if

12 asymptomatic. The virus spreads rapidly in close quarters, often severely

13 infecting not only older individuals or those with preexisting conditions but also

14 younger, previously healthy people. Moreover, if COVID-19 begins to spread in

15 Adelanto, there is no indication that the facility has adequate equipment, staff, or

16 resources to treat large numbers of severely ill detainees.

17

132. Since arresting Petitioners, ICE has subverted its ordinary

18 immigration enforcement procedures by curtailing its raids and releasing

19 detainees in order to stop the spread of COVID-19. There is no legitimate reason

20 to arrest and detain Petitioners under these circumstances—circumstances that, in

21 ICE’s view, outweigh the usual imperatives of immigration enforcement. And no

22 risk to the community justified the arrest and detention of these particular

23 individuals under these conditions. Mr. Bravo and Mr. Vasquez have been in the

24 United States for approximately 28 and 18 years, respectively, and each has only

25 one minor, years-old criminal incident to his name.

26

27
PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AND COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORYAND INJUNCTIVE
28 RELIEF -39

Case 5:20-cv-00605 Document 1 Filed 03/26/20 Page 40 of 41 Page ID #:40

1

133. Respondents’ arrest and continued detention of Petitioners violates the

2 Fifth Amendment’s protection against punitive detention.

3

4

VI. PRAYER FOR RELIEF

5

6 WHEREFORE, Petitioners pray that this Court grant the following relief:

7

(1) Issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus requiring Respondents to release Pedro

8 Bravo Castillo and Luis Vasquez Rueda;

9

(2) Enter a judgment declaring that Respondents’ detention of Pedro Bravo

10 Castillo and Luis Vasquez Rueda is unauthorized by statute and contrary to law;

11

(3) Provide Petitioners with testing for COVID-19 and any materials and

12 supplies necessary to help them maintain self-isolation for at least 14 days.

13

(4) Alternatively, issue an order to Respondents to show cause as to why this

14 Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus should not be granted.

15

(5) Award Petitioners reasonable costs and attorneys’ fees; and

16

(6) Grant any other and further relief that this Court deems fit and proper.

17

18

19

20

Dated: March 25, 2020

PUBLIC COUNSEL

21

By: __________________________

22

Mark Rosenbaum

Judy London

23

Talia Inlender

24

Jesselyn Friley

Elizabeth Hercules-Paez

25

Amanda Savage

26

27
PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AND COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORYAND INJUNCTIVE
28 RELIEF -40

Case 5:20-cv-00605 Document 1 Filed 03/26/20 Page 41 of 41 Page ID #:41

1

Dated: March 25, 2020

KAPLAN HECKER & FINK LLP

2

By: __________________________

3

Joshua A. Matz

Kyla Magun

4

Michael Skocpol

5

Dylan Cowit

6 Attorneys for Pedro Bravo Castillo

7

and Luis Vasquez Rueda

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27
PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AND COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORYAND INJUNCTIVE
28 RELIEF -41

Case 5:20-cv-00605 Document 1-1 Filed 03/26/20 Page 1 of 13 Page ID #:42
Declaration of Dr. Ranit Mishori (MD, MHS, FAAFP)
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746, I hereby declare as follows:
I. Background
1. I am Dr. Ranit Mishori. I am a senior medical advisor at Physicians for Human Rights (PHR), and Professor of Family Medicine at the Georgetown University School of Medicine, where I am the director of the department’s Global Health Initiatives, Health Policy fellowship and our practice-based research network. A fellow of the American Academy of Family Physicians and Diplomate of the American Board of Family Medicine, I did my residency training at the Georgetown University/Providence Hospital Family Medicine Residency program. I received my medical degree from Georgetown University School of Medicine and a master’s degree in International Health from the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, in the Disease Control and Prevention Track (focusing on the science of how to halt the spread of infectious disease).
2. I am the faculty leader for Georgetown University School of Medicine’s Correctional Health Interest group, where I supervise medical students placed at various area jails, prisons and detention centers. In addition, I am the director of Georgetown University’s Asylum program which focuses on the care and medico-legal issues of asylum seekers, including immigration detention. I have written extensively and given talks and lectures about such issues nationally and internationally. In my role as senior medical advisor at PHR (and prior to that, as a consultant for PHR), I have reviewed and analyzed dozens of cases related to health outcomes of individuals in correctional facilities, and advised the organization and other partners (civil society, legal aid organizations and the media) about issues related to incarceration, including hunger strikes, medical care quality, communicable disease management, violence, and care of pregnant women in such settings.1
3. As an attending physician at the Georgetown University/Washington Hospital Center Family Medicine Residency Program, I work with urban underserved populations, including the homeless, formerly incarcerated individuals, immigrants and refugees.
1 See, e.g., Ranit Mishori, Risk Behind Bars: Coronavirus and Immigration Detention, The Hill (Mar. 17, 2020), https://thehill.com/opinion/immigration/487986-risk-behind-bars-coronavirus-and-immigration-detention; Amanda Holpuch, Coronavirus Inevitable in Prison-Like US Immigration Centers, Doctors Say, The Guardian (Mar. 11, 2020), https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/mar/11/coronavirus-outbreak-us-immigration-centers; Abigail Hauslohner, et al., Coronavirus Could Pose Serious Concern in ICE Jails, Immigration Courts, The Washington Post (Mar. 12, 2020), https://www.washingtonpost.com/immigration/coronavirus-immigration jails/2020/03/12/44b5e56a-646a-11ea-845d-e35b0234b136_story.html; Silvia Foster-Frau, Coronavirus Cases in Migrant Detention Facilities Called ‘Inevitable’, Express News (Mar. 15, 2020) https://www.expressnews.com/news/us-world/border-mexico/article/Whether-in-detention-or-in-Mexico-U-S15129447.php.
1

Case 5:20-cv-00605 Document 1-1 Filed 03/26/20 Page 2 of 13 Page ID #:43
I routinely come in contact with victims of abuse, trauma and poverty where I regularly assess their medical as well as psycho-social needs in the context of their social-determinants of health (such as housing and incarceration).
4. For four years I was an elected member of the American Academy of Family Physicians’ Commission on the Health of the Public and Science, where I chaired the Public Health Issues sub-committee. During that time, I was a one of the lead authors of the Academy’s comprehensive position paper on Incarceration and Health.
5. My CV is attached as Exhibit A.
II. COVID-19
6. The novel coronavirus, officially known as SARS-CoV-2, causes a disease known as COVID-19. COVID-19 has now reached pandemic status. As of March 25, 2020, according to the World Health Organization (WHO), more than 416,686 people have been diagnosed with COVID-19 around the world and 18,589 have died.2 In the United States, about 51,914 people have been diagnosed and 673 people have died as of the same date.3 The numbers of infection and death in the United States are likely underestimated due to the lack of test kits available.
7. The transmission of SARS-CoV-2 is expected to grow exponentially. Nationally, projections by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) indicate that over 200 million people in the United States could be infected with SARS-CoV-2 over the course of the pandemic without effective public health intervention, with as many as 1.5 million deaths in certain projections.
8. The novel coronavirus is thought to pass from person to person primarily through respiratory droplets (by coughing or sneezing) but also survives on surfaces for some period of time. It is possible that people can transmit the virus before they start to show symptoms or for weeks after their symptoms resolve. In China, where SARSCoV-2 originated, the average infected person passed the virus on to 2-3 other people; transmission occurred at a distance of 3-6 feet. The “contagiousness” of this novel coronavirus—its R0 (the number of people who can get infected from a single infected person)—is twice that of the flu. Not only is the virus very efficient at being transmitted through droplets, everyone is at risk of infection because our immune
2 See Novel Coronavirus (COVID-19) Situation, World Health Organization, https://experience.arcgis.com/experience/685d0ace521648f8a5beeeee1b9125cd, accessed Mar. 18, 2020 (at noon EDT). 3 See Mitch Smith, et al., U.S. Coronavirus Map: Cases Now Reported in All 50 States, The New York Times, https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/us/coronavirus-us-cases.html?searchResultPosition=1, accessed Mar. 18, 2020 (at noon EDT).
2

Case 5:20-cv-00605 Document 1-1 Filed 03/26/20 Page 3 of 13 Page ID #:44
systems have never been exposed to or developed protective responses against this virus.
9. COVID-19 is a serious disease, which can lead to respiratory failure, kidney failure, and death. Older patients and patients with chronic underlying conditions are at a particularly high risk for severe cases and complications.4 The need for care, including intensive care, and the likelihood of death, is much higher from COVID-19 than from influenza. According to recent estimates, the fatality rate of people infected with COVID-19 is about ten times higher than a severe seasonal influenza, even in advanced countries with highly effective health care systems. According to preliminary data from China, serious illness, sometimes resulting in death, occurs in up to 16% of cases, with a higher rate among those older and high-risk individuals. 5
10. The CDC previously identified underlying medical conditions that may increase the risk of serious COVID-19 for individuals of any age, including: blood disorders, chronic kidney or liver disease, immunosuppression, endocrine disorders (including diabetes), metabolic disorders, heart and lung disease, neurological and neurologic and neurodevelopmental conditions, and current or recent pregnancy.
11. Those in high-risk categories who do not die may have prolonged serious illness, for the most part requiring expensive hospital care, including ventilators that are likely to soon be in very short supply, and an entire team of care providers, including 1:1 or 1:2 nurse to patient ratios, respiratory therapists, and intensive care physicians. 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. Patients who do not die from serious cases of COVID19 may also face prolonged recovery periods, including extensive rehabilitation from neurological damage and loss of respiratory capacity.
12. Complications from COVID-19, including severe damage to lung, heart, liver, or other organs, can manifest at an alarming pace. Patients can show the first symptoms of infection in as little as two days after exposure, and their condition can seriously deteriorate in as little as five days or sooner.
13. COVID-19 shares many symptoms with seasonal influenza, including fever, body ache, cough, chills, and headache. Without testing, it is difficult for healthcare
4 Fei Zhou, et al., Clinical Course and Risk Factors for Mortality of Adult Inpatients with COVID-19 in Wuhan, China, The Lancet (published online Mar. 11, 2020), https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS01406736(20)30566-3/fulltext. 5 Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19): Situation Summary, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, accessed Mar. 14, 2020, https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/summary.html.
3

Case 5:20-cv-00605 Document 1-1 Filed 03/26/20 Page 4 of 13 Page ID #:45
providers to ascertain whether an individual with these symptoms is suffering from COVID-19 or seasonal influenza.
14. There is no vaccine to prevent COVID-19. There is no known cure or antiviral treatment for COVID-19 at this time.
15. COVID-19 prevention strategies include containment and mitigation. Containment requires identifying and isolating people who are ill or who have had contact with people who are ill, including the use of personal protective equipment. Unfortunately, due to the lack of testing availability, most public health experts agree that it is too late to effectively implement a containment strategy in the United States at-large.
16. As the infectious disease spreads in a community, public health demands mitigation strategies, which include scrupulous hand hygiene and social distancing. For that reason, public health officials have recommended extraordinary measures to combat the rapid spread of coronavirus. Schools, courts, collegiate and professional sports, theater and other congregate settings have been closed as part of this risk mitigation strategy. On March 19, 2020, California Governor Gavin Newsom issued an order for all residents of the state to stay at home except as needed to maintain critical infrastructure.6
III. Spread of Infectious Disease in Detention Centers
17. The risk posed by infectious diseases in immigration detention facilities, jails and prisons is significantly higher than in the community, both in terms of risk of exposure and transmission and harm to individuals who become infected. There are several reasons this is the case, as delineated further below.
18. Globally, outbreaks of contagious diseases are all too common in confined detention settings and are more common than in the community at large. Though they contain a captive population, these settings are not isolated from exposure. ICE has temporarily suspended social visitation in all detention facilities.7 However, staff arrive and leave on a shift basis; there is no ability to adequately screen staff for new, asymptomatic infection. Contractors and vendors also pass between communities and facilities and can bring infectious diseases into facilities. People are often transported to, from, and between facilities. As discussed in Section IV below, ICE has further increased the risk of exposure by continuing to carry out raids that introduce new people into detention centers during this pandemic.
6 Executive Order No. N-33-20, State of Cal., Mar. 19, 2020, https://www.gov.ca.gov/wpcontent/uploads/2020/03/3.19.20-attested-EO-N-33-20-COVID-19-HEALTH-ORDER.pdf 7 ICE Guidance on Covid-19, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, accessed Mar. 18, 2020 (at 1:00 p.m. EDT), https://www.ice.gov/covid19.
4

Case 5:20-cv-00605 Document 1-1 Filed 03/26/20 Page 5 of 13 Page ID #:46
19. Jails, prisons and detention centers often do not have access to vital community health resources that can be crucial in identifying infectious diseases, including sufficient testing equipment and laboratories. This is especially true when, as now, there is a shortage in available test kits.
20. During an infectious disease outbreak, a containment strategy requires people who are ill to be isolated and that caregivers have adequate personal protective equipment (PPE). Detention centers are often under-resourced and ill-equipped to provide sufficient PPE for people who are incarcerated and caregiving staff, increasing the risk for everyone in the facility of a widespread outbreak. This is especially true when, as now, facemasks are already in short supply.
21. When jailed or imprisoned, people have much less of an opportunity to protect themselves by social distancing than they would in the community. Congregate settings such as detention centers allow for rapid spread of infectious diseases that are transmitted person to person, especially those passed by droplets through coughing and sneezing. When people live in close, crowded quarters and must share dining halls, bathrooms, showers, and other common areas, the opportunities for transmission are greater. Toilets, sinks, and showers are shared, without disinfection between use. Spaces within detention centers are often also poorly ventilated, which promotes highly efficient spread of diseases through droplets. Detainees often have a small number of telephones that they share, and which form their only contact with the outside world—including their family and lawyers. Placing someone in such a setting therefore dramatically reduces their ability to protect themselves from being exposed to and acquiring infectious diseases.
22. Additionally, detention centers are often unable to adequately provide the mitigation recommendations described above. During an infectious disease outbreak, people can protect themselves by washing hands. Detention centers do not provide adequate opportunities to exercise necessary hygiene measures, such as frequent handwashing or use of alcohol-based sanitizers when handwashing is unavailable. Jails and prisons are often under-resourced and ill-equipped with sufficient hand soap and alcoholbased sanitizers for people detained 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.
23. People incarcerated in detention centers are more susceptible to acquiring and experiencing complications from infectious diseases than the population in the community.8 This is because people in detention centers, jails, and prisons, for a variety of reasons, have higher rates of chronic underlying health conditions, including diabetes, heart disease, chronic lung disease, chronic liver disease, and
8 Active Case Finding For Communicable Diseases in Prisons, 391 The Lancet 2186 (2018), https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(18)31251-0/fulltext.
5

Case 5:20-cv-00605 Document 1-1 Filed 03/26/20 Page 6 of 13 Page ID #:47
suppressed immune systems from HIV or other conditions, than people in the community.
24. Detention centers are often poorly equipped to manage infectious disease outbreaks. Some detention centers lack onsite medical facilities or 24-hour medical care. The medical facilities are almost never sufficiently equipped to handle large outbreaks of infectious diseases. To prevent transmission of droplet-borne infectious diseases, people who are infected and ill need to be isolated in specialized negative pressure rooms. Most detention centers have few negative pressure rooms if any, and these may be already in use by people with other conditions (including tuberculosis or influenza). ICE has admitted that not all of the detention centers it oversees have even one negative pressure room.9 In the course of an infectious disease outbreak, resources will become exhausted rapidly and any beds available will soon be at capacity.
25. Even assuming adequate space, solitary confinement is not an effective disease containment strategy. Isolation of people who are ill using solitary confinement is an ineffective way to prevent transmission of the virus through droplets to others because, except in specialized negative pressure rooms, air continues to flow outward from rooms to the rest of the facility. Risk of exposure is thus increased to other people in the detention center and staff. This makes both containing the illness and caring for those who have become infected much more difficult.
26. Infectious disease outbreaks, such as COVID-19, may exacerbate existing mental health conditions and contribute to the development of new mental health conditions.10 Mental health conditions may be exacerbated by the stress of incarceration during the COVID-19 pandemic, including isolation and lack of visitation. Moreover, failure to provide adequate mental health care, as may happen when health systems in detention centers are taxed by an infectious disease outbreak such as COVID-19, may result in poor health outcomes and even death. The scientific evidence points to a bi-directional relationship between mental health conditions and infectious diseases. Not only are individuals with mental health conditions more at risk for communicable diseases, they are also harder to treat, once infected, due to the
9 Brittny Mejia, ICE Says No Confirmed Coronavirus Among Detainees After 4 Test Negative, Los Angeles Times, accessed Mar. 18, 2020, https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-03-10/ice-says-no-detainees-havecoronavirus-four-being-tested 10 Brian Honermann, An “Epidemic Within an Outbreak:” The Mental Health Consequences of Infectious Disease Epidemics, O’Neill Institute for National and Global Health Law (Feb. 26, 2015), accessed Mar. 19, 2020, https://oneill.law.georgetown.edu/epidemic-within-outbreak-mental-health-consequences-infectious-diseaseepidemics/; Müller N, Infectious Diseases and Mental Health, Comorbidity of Mental and Physical Disorders; Shultz JM, Mental Health Consequences of Infectious Disease Outbreaks, accessed Mar. 19, 2020, https://www.urmc.rochester.edu/MediaLibraries/URMCMedia/flrtc/documents/Slides-MH-CONSEQUENCES-OFID-OUTBREAKSV2.pdf.
6

Case 5:20-cv-00605 Document 1-1 Filed 03/26/20 Page 7 of 13 Page ID #:48
nature of their underlying mental health disorder. For individuals in these facilities, especially those with chronic mental health conditions, the experience of an epidemic and the lack of care while confined to small, crowded quarters can itself be traumatizing, compounding the trauma of incarceration.
27. A coronavirus brought into a detention facility can quickly spread among the dense detainee cohort. Soon enough many are sick—including high-risk groups such as those with chronic conditions—quickly overwhelming the already strained health infrastructure within the facility. This can also lead to a strain on the surrounding hospitals to which these individuals may be transferred.
28. These risks have all been borne out during past epidemics of influenza in jails and prisons. For example, in 2012, the CDC reported an outbreak of influenza in 2 facilities in Maine, resulting in two inmate deaths.11 Subsequent CDC investigation of 995 inmates and 235 staff members across the two 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.12 H1N1 is far less contagious than this strain of the coronavirus . 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.
29. In recent years in immigration detention facilities, overcrowding, poor hygiene measures, medical negligence, and poor access to resources and medical care have led to outbreaks of other infectious diseases as well, including mumps and chickenpox.
30. Additionally, 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.
31. We have ample basis to conclude that detention settings are equally unprepared for the rapid spread of SARS-CoV-2. Not surprisingly, Chinese prison officials report that over 500 COVID-19 cases in the current outbreak stemmed from the Hubei province prisons. In Israel, an entire prison was quarantined.
11 Influenza Outbreaks at Two Correctional Facilities — Maine, March 2011, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Apr. 6, 2020, https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6113a3.htm. 12 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/.
7

Case 5:20-cv-00605 Document 1-1 Filed 03/26/20 Page 8 of 13 Page ID #:49
32. Many detention centers in the United States have a high risk of exposing detainees to SARS-CoV-2. At least ten facilities currently used as ICE jails hold on average over 1,000 detainees, including 1,600 in the Adelanto ICE Processing Center.13 In addition, ICE has in recent years begun detaining an increasing number of people in detention centers whose remote locations make the provision of adequate medical care challenging even under normal circumstances.
33. In my professional opinion, it is inevitable that SARS-CoV-2 the virus that causes COVID-19 will infect prisons, jails, and/or other immigration detention centers in the United States. This is consistent with the prediction of other experts that all prisons and jails should anticipate that the coronavirus will enter their facility.
IV. Los Angeles Area ICE Raids
34. In the Los Angeles area, hit hard by the coronavirus and COVID-19, 814 people had tested positive as of March 25, 2020. That number is also growing exponentially.
35. Based on reporting and the testimony of Plaintiffs in their declarations, ICE continues to carry out immigration enforcement raids in the Los Angeles area. According to the LA Times, on Monday, March 16, 2020, well after known community transmission of COVID-19 had begun in the Los Angeles area, ICE officers conducted morning raids in an attempt to arrest four individuals.14 According to the testimony of Plaintiff Luis Vasquez Rueda, ICE transported eight individuals to Adelanto Detention Center in a single van alone on March 17, 2020, after conducted morning raids that same day.
36. Based on my review of declarations in which Plaintiffs describe the actions taken by ICE officers during those raids and my training in public health, conducting these raids was a reckless decision by the government that unnecessarily put countless people at risk of exposure to the coronavirus.
37. Conducting immigration raids in the midst of a pandemic simultaneously increased the risk of introducing the coronavirus into the Adelanto Detention Center and has now placed the newly detained individuals at a higher risk of infection than they would have experienced while following California’s shelter in place orders at home.
13 U.S. Imm. and Customs Enforc., “Dedicated and Non-Dedicated Facility List,” available at https://www.ice.gov/facility-inspections (as of Mar. 2, 2020).
14 Brittny Mejia, With masks at the ready, ICE agents make arrests on first day of California coronavirus lockdown, Los Angeles Times (March. 17, 2020), https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-03-17/for-ice-agents-itsbusiness-as-unusual-day-after-sweeping-coronavirus-order
8

Case 5:20-cv-00605 Document 1-1 Filed 03/26/20 Page 9 of 13 Page ID #:50
38. Based on my decades of professional experience in public health, the risks of conducting ICE raids in the midst of an infectious disease pandemic are clear. There
is a captive population in immigration detention and a revolving door of exposure whenever raids are conducted, and when staff members and ICE officers cycle in and out of facilities for their shifts. Anyone, including ICE officers and detained persons, can carry infection with them, in either direction.
39. The recent Los Angeles area raids introduced new people, including Plaintiffs, into the Adelanto detention facility. Any of these people could have been affected by asymptomatic community transmission of the novel coronavirus prior to their detention, which experts know was occurring in the Los Angeles region at the time of the raids.
40. The raids also led ICE officers to interact with individuals in close quarters, which according to Plaintiffs included prolonged physical contact and close proximity without masks during the arrests. This blatantly ignores current CDC guidelines to minimize any exposure at this critical moment in the pandemic, by practicing social distancing (6ft), disinfecting hard surfaces (police car seats, handcuffs, etc.), or by hand sanitizing.
41. The officers likely also had contact with additional staff at Adelanto during the processing of plaintiffs and other detainees. Those officers will return to their communities having experienced close contact with various people, potentially exposing other members of their community who are otherwise following California’s shelter in place orders.
42. Raids such as these endanger detainees, but also all who come in contact with migrants, from immigration enforcement staff to workers at detention facilities. All those people come in contact with the detainees and go home to their families at night.
43. By conducting any raids in the midst of this pandemic, ICE greatly increases the risk of spreading the coronavirus within their facilities, with potentially devastating consequences. ICE also risks exposing currently healthy individuals to a far more dangerous situation than the shelter-in-place conditions currently being observed by the rest of Californians. The raids simultaneously raise the likelihood of wider community exposure across communities where officers and their families live.
V. Adelanto Detention Center
44. Based on my review of the plaintiffs’ declarations, my experience working with detainees in local jails and immigration centers, my experience working with the formerly incarcerated, my training in public health, and my review of the relevant literature, it is my professional judgment that the Adelanto Detention Center, where
9

Case 5:20-cv-00605 Document 1-1 Filed 03/26/20 Page 10 of 13 Page ID #:51
Plaintiffs are currently held, is dangerously under-equipped and ill-prepared to prevent and manage a coronavirus outbreak, which would result in severe harm to detained individuals, jail and prison staff, and the broader community. The reasons for this conclusion are detailed as follows.
45. The Adelanto Detention Center holds over 1,600 people in detention.15 The facility has an extremely poor track record for the health and safety of detainees, underscoring and potentially exacerbating the already significant risks of a coronavirus outbreak in detention facilities I describe above.
46. A 2017 Report from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties delivered a scathing assessment of the health and safety of detainees at Adelanto.16 A separate 2018 report from the DHS Office of the Inspector General found “significant health and safety risks at the facility,” including “Untimely and Inadequate Detainee Medical Care.”17
47. Given the grave concerns expressed by the federal government regarding the health and safety of detainees at Adelanto, as well as the descriptions from Plaintiffs regarding steps the facility is currently taking in response to COVID-19, it is my professional opinion that detainees in the facility are at high risk of exposure to the coronavirus, and an outbreak in the facility has the potential to become a devastating public health event.
48. It is my professional opinion that the facilities are particularly susceptible to rapid spread of the virus and are not equipped to handle a coronavirus outbreak.
49. The living conditions are not amenable to the necessary social distancing and hygiene measures that would be necessary to contain or minimize spread of the virus. In particular, the fact that persons detained in those facilities share dorms, cells, living spaces, and bathroom space that is not disinfected between each use, and regularly interact with each other in narrow hallways and other areas where maintaining distance is not possible, makes it all but inevitable that the virus would spread rapidly within the facility.
15 U.S. Imm. and Customs Enforc., “Dedicated and Non-Dedicated Facility List,” available at https://www.ice.gov/facility-inspections (as of Mar. 2, 2020). 16 CRCL Report On Adelanto ICE Processing Center, available at https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6278922-HQ-Part2-Copy.html (as of Mar. 22, 2020). 17 Office of the Inspector General, Management Alert – Issues Requiring Action at the Adelanto ICE Processing Center in Adelanto, California (Sept. 27, 2018), available at https://www.oig.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/assets/201810/OIG-18-86-Sep18.pdf
10

Case 5:20-cv-00605 Document 1-1 Filed 03/26/20 Page 11 of 13 Page ID #:52
50. Because routine testing is not being undertaken at the facility, it is impossible to tell how many asymptomatic carriers of the disease may already be at the facility or to screen for new instances of the virus before an individual with the coronavirus becomes symptomatic. Since testing is not widely available, it is highly unlikely that the facility would even be able to keep up with the need to test individuals exhibiting symptoms for the virus. Rapid spread of the virus within the facility is therefore extremely likely.
51. Medical units that share spaces exacerbates this problem, as there is no way to isolate individuals infected with the virus when this becomes necessary. The fact that there is only a small amount of space available in the medical unit makes it highly unlikely that the facility could accommodate expanded need for services as a result of a coronavirus outbreak.
52. Moreover, the minimal and part-time nature of medical staffing, and the fact that detainees appear to have had difficulties accessing routine medical care in the past render it highly unlikely that the facility would be able to provide appropriate screening or treatment should that become necessary.
VI. Conclusion and Recommendations
53. For the reasons above, it is my professional judgment that the plaintiffs in ICE’s Los Angeles-area detention centers, including the Plaintiffs currently detained in Adelanto, are at a significantly higher risk of infection with SARS-CoV-2 as compared to the population in the community, and that they are at a significantly higher risk of complications and poor outcomes if they do become infected. These outcomes include severe illness (including respiratory, cardiac and kidney failure) and even death.
54. It is also my professional judgment that the decision to conduct ICE raids during this pandemic simultaneously increased the risk of introducing coronavirus into the Adelanto Detention Center and has exposed the individuals newly brought into ICE custody to a higher risk of infection than they would have experienced sheltering in place at home. The public health of both ICE detainees and the wider community as a whole necessitates an immediate end to ICE raids during this pandemic.
55. Given that the only viable public health strategy available in the United States currently is risk mitigation, reducing the size of the population in immigration detention centers is crucially important to reducing the level of risk both for those within those facilities and for the community at large. Not doing so is not only inadvisable but also reckless given the public health realities we now face in the United States.
11

Case 5:20-cv-00605 Document 1-1 Filed 03/26/20 Page 12 of 13 Page ID #:53
56. Even with the best-laid plans to address the spread of coronavirus in detention facilities, the release of high-risk individuals is a key part of a risk mitigation strategy. In my professional opinion, the only viable public health recommendation is to release high-risk people from detention, given the heightened risks to their health and safety, especially given the lack of an effective vaccine for prevention or effective treatment for the disease at this stage. My professional opinion is consistent with the view of the medical profession as a whole that there are no conditions of confinement in carceral settings that can adequately manage the serious risk of harm for high-risk individuals during the COVID-19 pandemic.
57. Releasing people from incarceration and ceasing enforcement actions that bring new people into detention are the best and safest ways to prevent the spread of disease and reduce the threat to the most vulnerable incarcerated people. These steps will reduce the burden on these facilities’ limited healthcare infrastructure, as they will lessen the likelihood that an overwhelming number of people will become seriously ill from COVID-19 at the same time. They will also reduce the burden on regional hospitals and health centers, which will otherwise bear the brunt of having to treat these individuals when infected, thus reducing the number of hospital beds and equipment available for the general population. It is my professional opinion that these steps are both necessary and urgent. The window of opportunity is rapidly narrowing for mitigation of COVID-19 in these facilities. It is a matter of days, not weeks. Once a case of coronavirus is identified in a facility, it will likely be too late to prevent a widespread outbreak.
58. It is also my professional opinion that ICE must take significant precautions against the spread of disease among any detainees, staff, and officers remaining in its facilities or involved in arrests. These precautions include: making available and mandating the use of hand sanitizer, use of gloves when handling detainees (inside the detention center or during raids), disinfecting hard surfaces frequently inside the detention centers, disinfecting equipment and tools such as handcuffs, disinfecting ICE vehicles (including seats, armrests, and door handles), facilitating social distancing among detainees, eliminating direct physical contact and close proximity of unmasked individuals including during arrests, halting the use of transport vehicles that do not allow for at least six feet of space between passengers, and other measures consistent with the CDC guidelines and California’s shelter in place order.
VII. Expert Disclosures
59. I have not testified as an expert at trial or by deposition in the past four years.
60. I am willing and able to discuss my opinions with the Court via teleconference at a mutually convenient time.
12

Case 5:20-cv-00605 Document 1-1 Filed 03/26/20 Page 13 of 13 Page ID #:54 I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed this 25th day of March, 2020 in Washington, D.C. Ranit Mishori, M.D, MHS, FAAFP .
13

DECLARATION OF PEDRO BRAVO CASTILLO
1. I, Pedro Bravo Castillo, make this declaration based on my own personal knowledge, and if called as a witness, I could and would testify to the facts described here.
2. I am the main breadwinner for my family. I am currently in immigration custody after being arrested by ICE agents on Monday March 16, 2020, in the middle of the coronavirus pandemic. I am seeking immediate release.
3. I have lived in the United States for approximately 28 years. Since arriving to the United States, I have worked as a butcher and recycling scrap metal. I have done all of this to provide for my partner of more than two decades and my two stepchildren. My stepdaughter is a college student studying biology and my stepson has been working since graduating from high school in 2015. However, he is without work during the current pandemic. I have raised my children since they were very young and I have continuously supported them for the past twenty years.
4. I have one criminal conviction for a DUI accident in 2015. I served five days in jail, paid all of the fines associated with the conviction and finished all the required classes and community service. I never had any problems before then, I haven’t had more issues since then, and now I no longer drink. This is my sole conviction, and I am proud that I have learned from my mistake.
5. I am the primary income provider for my family and they rely on me in order to pay for rent and other essentials. In light of the current situation with coronavirus and my own detainment, I worry every moment about my family’s ability to have their basic needs met and to stay healthy.
6. I am 58 years old and have had several health issues, including kidney stones, arthritis, and a hernia. Given my age, I know that if I contracted the virus, I am more susceptible to more severe health complications. The increased contact that I have been having with others in the detention center does not help.
7. On Monday, March 16, 2020, at approximately 6 a.m., I was in front of our home in Bell Gardens getting into my truck to go sell scrap metal. About ten officers appeared, and four approached me to say that they had a report on the truck. I told them that I had just bought the truck and that there were no issues with it. They didn’t ask any further

questions about the truck. Instead, they asked if I had papers or if I was illegal. Only after I responded did they identify themselves as immigration agents. 8. The officers, who had guns in their belts, then approached me. I did not feel that I could or should resist or move away from their contact. They physically grabbed me, first from my shoulders and then from my hands. The officer that grabbed me was so close to me that I could feel his uniform touch against my body. I could also feel his breath on my neck as he handcuffed me. Two other officers also stood very close, so close that I could have reached them with my hand. The same officer that handcuffed me, held on to my hands and the upper part of my arm, took me toward a white car and put me in the back of the car. 9. During the arrest, the officers did not wear masks. I believe that they were wearing gloves, but they did not offer me any gloves or anything to protect me. They did not take my temperature at that time, or ask any other questions about my health. 10. I was placed in the back seat of the car and two officers sat in front. One of the officers drove the car to another location in Bell Gardens where they arrested another individual. The officer that was driving was in such a hurry to get to the next location that he almost crashed with a car in front of us. I got scared because I thought we were going to crash, but the officers just laughed about it. Before the officers got out of the car to detain the second individual, I asked one of the officers if I could use the restroom. The officer told me to hold it until we got to their office, without telling me how long that would be. I had to hold it for over an hour. I did not see whether they changed gloves before making this second arrest. They were not wearing masks. I did not see them take this person’s temperature. 11. They sat the other person they arrested in the small back seat of the car next to me. The distance between us was around five inches. We were both handcuffed, without gloves, masks, or the ability to wash our hands while in the car. When the car moved a lot, our arms would touch against each other. We traveled that way, with four people in the car two officers in the front seats and two of us in the shared backseat – for approximately an hour. 12. We arrived at a building in downtown Los Angeles at about 7 a.m. The two officers who took us out of the car did not have masks on. While the officers wore gloves, we were not

given either gloves or masks. The officers held on to our upper arms around the bicep muscle again as they took us out of the car. We were taken to a room. There were four of us being held in the room. There were no gloves, masks, or hand sanitizer in the room. There was a small washing station with soap. Nobody took our temperature there, asked about our health, or suggested that we wash my hands. The four of us were held in this room for over nine hours, until about 4:30 pm, with no ability to leave. During that time, a new officer came in to give us milk, bread, and apple juice. I believe the officer wore gloves, but not a mask. They did not offer us either of the two. 13. In the late afternoon, two new officers came to transport the four of us to the Adelanto Detention Facility. The officers had gloves, but no masks. No one gave us gloves or masks. They did not take our temperatures or ask about our health. We were handcuffed and chained at our waists and feet. They put us in a white van. One of the officers grabbed me by the upper arm again to help me get into the van. I did not see the officers clean out the van in any special way, and it did not smell like it had been recently cleaned with disinfectant. The two officers sat in the front of the van. I was placed in the far back row of the van, sharing a seat with another person sitting next to me, just the same way as in the car that morning. In the van, the other person was sitting maybe a foot away from me. All six of us were in that van together for about an hour and a half. 14. Once we arrived at the detention center at around 6 p.m., the officers took us out of the van. They had to physically touch us to help us get out of the van because we were handcuffed. The officer that helped me again grabbed me by the upper arm to get me out of the van. The officers had gloves, but no masks. We were not given gloves or masks. The officers took the four of us who had been arrested to a room to receive a medical screening. The room was very small and we were held together for about 30 minutes. 15. In that small room was the first time somebody took my temperature and asked about my health. I think the person that took my temperature was a nurse, but they never actually identified themselves as a nurse. I had already been in immigration custody approximately twelve hours by then. The nurse wore gloves but no mask. I did not have a temperature, but I told the nurse that I had not been feeling well since being detained that morning.

16. During the time that we were in that room, I noticed that the officers took one of the other people they detained that morning somewhere else. In fact, it was the person they detained in Bell Gardens after me. We saw that man again when the officers were taking us to the dormitories. The man told us that they had separated him because he told the officers that he had been sick with the flu recently. Another one of the people detained and I became worried because, although they separated him at that moment, we had been together the whole day. He was the person they sat right next to me in the car ride to the building in downtown Los Angeles. We were together the whole time, but they never gave him or us a mask to keep us safe. I don’t know what happened after that with the man who had been sick because they assigned us to different dormitories.
17. After we finished our screening in this small room, I was taken to the dormitory where I am now housed. The dormitory is called West-3. It has a common space in the middle surrounded by about twenty-two small rooms that house four people each.
18. I sleep in one of these small rooms, which I think is about three meters by three meters, with three other people. There isn’t enough room to keep a six-foot distance from each other. We sleep in two sets of bunk beds. There is a small space that divides our bunk beds that is approximately half a meter wide. When we get off the bunks or move around the small room, we bump into each other. I can see and hear when my bunkmates cough and sneeze. When that happens, I get a little worried because I don’t have a way of knowing if my bunkmate is sick. The four of us share an open bathroom with a sink and a toilet bowl that is also located in the room. We have to clean the bathroom ourselves with disinfectant that the guards give us. They give us gloves to clean, but not masks.
19. My dormitory houses about eighty-eight people. The common space in the middle of the dorm has shared tables, where we spend the majority of the day. There is a box of gloves in the dormitory that people can use, but there is no requirement to use them, and many people do not. We also all share a shower space, which has six open stalls. We are not free to leave the dormitory.
20. There are two officers in the dorm at all times. They switch off shifts every six hours. The officers who work in the dorms wear gloves, but they do not wear masks.
21. For meals, all of the people in the dormitory are moved to another common space to eat. They escort us to the cafeteria walking in a line and there is not much space between each

person. The line is tight, with our bodies nearly touching each other. The food is served through a small window. The people who serve the food have gloves on, but I cannot see their faces, so I do not know if they are wearing masks. We all eat together quickly in this space at shared tables where we sit next to one another. We are not given a lot of time for meals. We are then escorted back by officers to our dormitory with everyone again walking in a tight line. 22. Sometimes the officers that work in the dormitories take people to a clinic inside the detention center. They have only taken me there once. I didn’t request it. They don’t tell us what type of medical staff will see us, but the person that I saw when I was there was not dressed like a doctor. 23. I am afraid for what will happen to my family and me during this pandemic if I stay detained. In the shared space in the dorm, we can watch the news. I watch the news on the coronavirus. I saw when the Governor of California gave the order for everyone to stay at home. My wife has also told me over the phone that the schools around our home are closed. It looks scary, what the news are reporting is going on right now. I have heard that there are other dormitories at Adelanto that are in quarantine. I do not know if that will happen to us too. I am afraid for my health. I worry that if we were to get sick in here, they still would not let us out and we would have to stay in here alone and sick. 24. I am also very worried about my family. Imagine how I feel not being able to see my children because the facility is closed to visitors due to the coronavirus. It feels very, very bad. It is hard to put into words. I am stuck inside without a way to get out to help them if they get sick or to see my daughter graduate from college. 25. There is nothing more important to me than being reunited with my family so that I can care for them during these difficult times.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States that the foregoing is true and correct.
Because of the coronavirus, and my confinement in the Adelanto Detention Center, I was not able to sign this declaration in person. The declaration was read to me, over the phone, in

Spanish by Aida Palma Carpio on March 23, 2020. I understood and verified its contents in full, and authorized Ms. Palma to sign the declaration on my behalf.
Executed on March 24, 2020 in Los Angeles, California.
________________________ Aida Palma Carpio, on behalf of Pedro Bravo Castillo

DECLARATION OF LUIS VASQUEZ RUEDA
1. I, Luis Vasquez Rueda, make this declaration based on my own personal knowledge, and if called as a witness, I could and would testify to the facts described here.
2. I am currently in immigration custody after being arrested by ICE agents on Tuesday March 17, 2020, in the middle of the coronavirus pandemic. I am seeking immediate release.
3. I am 23 years old and I have lived in Southern California since I was five years old. I came to the United States with my mom and my older sister. I lived with my mom, mostly in Bell Gardens in Los Angeles County until 2015, when I graduated from Bell Gardens High School at the age of eighteen. After my high school graduation, my mom left and I have had to support myself ever since. My sister and I both continue to live in the Los Angeles area. We don’t live together, but we are very close.
4. After high school, I attended Cerritos College. I was able to attend college in the United States because of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, which I benefited from as a young person who has always called the United States home. I wanted to go to college to study business. When I was younger, I really admired small business owners in my community and I always aspired to have my own businesses to help support myself. Unfortunately, after attending college for two semesters to complete my general requirements, I had to drop out because I could not afford the tuition fees. It was really unfortunate to have to drop out of college solely because I couldn’t afford it.
5. After I dropped out of college, I started working at a grocery store. I had that job for about three years. Since then, I’ve worked in construction and I’ve done a lot of warehouse work. For the past year and a half, and up until I was detained by immigration officials, I worked at an Amazon warehouse that specializes in home goods. The warehouse is in Pico Rivera. I processed online orders, prepared them, made sure they got out for delivery, and kept inventory.
6. On February 10, 2020, I was injured at work. I was processing an order and I had to use a forklift with a cage attachment to grab the items from a tall shelf in the warehouse. I got into the cage, and the forklift operator raised the cage so that I could grab the items. I put the items in the cage, and the forklift operator started to drive away from the shelf. There

was a TV stand sticking out from one of the shelves on the warehouse floor. The manager is supposed to be responsible for ensuring that the warehouse floor is safe, but for some reason they didn’t notice that this object was blocking the aisle. The forklift operator backed up into the TV stand. When he hit it, the elevated cage attached to the forklift shook and I fell out. I fell about twenty feet to the ground. I fractured multiple bones in my face, including the bone at the bottom of my eye, causing bleeding in my eye. I also got an open cut on my left leg, and I had to get seven stitches to close the wound. 7. I have been going to physical therapy, but the doctors expect my recovery to take a few months. My face is still bruised. I was supposed to see a specialist on March 24, 2020, to determine whether or not I need surgery to heal my left eye. Now that I have been detained, I won’t be able to keep that appointment. 8. In November 2017, I made a mistake that has had a significant impact on my life: I drove under the influence of alcohol. Following the incident, I received three years of probation and completed a six-month first-offender program. I took AA classes as well as a drug program, but I couldn’t finish them before the court-ordered deadline because I needed to balance the classes with my full-time work schedule. I’m currently waiting to get an extension on my classes. 9. I also have several tickets for driving on a suspended license because I support myself and needed to continue driving in order to get to work. There is not a lot of public transportation near my home, and the buses that do run by my house do not provide access to my job. I know I wasn’t supposed to be driving with a suspended license, but I really needed to keep my job and continue to take care of myself. 10. I have learned and grown from my mistake. I took this incident as a very serious wake-up call. Since then, I haven’t driven under the influence of alcohol again. The AA program also had a positive influence on me, and because of the program, I have significantly reduced how much I drink. 11. The biggest impact of my mistake was that I was advised not to renew my DACA application because of my DUI. I felt embarrassed for having made this mistake, but mostly I felt scared, because I didn’t know if I was going to lose my job and my source of income that I rely on to support myself.

12. On Tuesday, March 17, 2020, at approximately 6:40 a.m., my roommate heard a loud knock on the front door of my apartment and someone yelling, “police.” I believe that my roommate opened the door and was frightened. Four officers approached my bedroom door and started knocking, yelling that they were police. I was sleeping before they entered my apartment, so the loud voices and knocking shook me awake. I felt terrified when I heard the knocking at my door. The noises were really shocking, the door was pounding, and the officers were yelling in very loud voices. I got nervous. I didn’t know if they were armed police, or if they were going to barge into my room, so I was worried about my safety.
13. I opened the door and asked the officers if they had a warrant. They said yes, but they did not show me any papers. Instead, two of them grabbed my hands and pushed me toward the front door. One officer put one of my hands behind my back; he held on to my wrist. Another officer grabbed me from the shoulder. They started to push me out of the house. While they pushed me out of the house, they asked if my name was Luis Vasquez and I responded “yes.” The officers that grabbed me were wearing gloves, but not masks. I could feel both of their bodies pressing up against me. They were so close that I could feel them breathing on me. The same two officers that were holding me handcuffed me once we were outside my house. While they were handcuffing me, one of the officers asked if I had COVID-19. I said “no” with my hands behind my back. The officers didn’t ask about any other medical or health issues.
14. The officers led me out of the apartment and outside, where there were four SUVs lined up on the street. One of the officers that had been holding me grabbed my shoulder to push me into one of the vehicles and then he closed the door behind me. While they were putting me in the vehicle, I noticed that their shirts said, “Homeland Security.” I asked if they were ICE and they said “yes.”
15. It took approximately ten minutes from my initial encounter with the officers in my room for them to remove me from the house and put me in the car. They did not take my temperature. Throughout the arrest, the officers did not wear masks. They were wearing gloves, but they didn’t offer me a mask, gloves, hand sanitizer, or anything else to protect myself. A different officer than the two that pulled me out of my room got in the driver’s seat of the car, and we drove away.

16. The officer drove me to a building in downtown Los Angeles, but first we stopped at a shopping mall along the way to put chains on my handcuffs and around my ankles. My hands had been handcuffed behind my back. When we stopped, the same officer that originally handcuffed me touched my hands and my wrists to move my hands forward, and then he handcuffed me in front of my body. Then he tied chains on my ankles. He was close to me for several minutes. The officer was wearing gloves, but no mask. His body was very close to mine. At some point we were face to face, so I could feel him breathing on my face.
17. I was at the building in downtown Los Angeles for about nine hours, from around 8 a.m. to 3 p.m. I had no ability to leave. I was in a room with seven other people. There was not enough space for us to be six feet apart from each other at all times. They didn’t give us hand sanitizer, masks, or gloves. There was a sink with soap, but none of the officers suggested that I wash my hands.
18. When they brought us food, I washed my hands, but I don’t remember if the other people washed their hands. A new officer from the facility brought us food around 9 a.m. for breakfast and then brought us lunch in the afternoon. I don’t remember if the same or a different officer brought each meal. They gave us apples, bread, milk, apple juice, and cereal. The officer that brought us the food was wearing gloves, but no mask. While we were in the room, I heard some people coughing from time to time.
19. A little after 3 p.m., officers I hadn’t seen before came into the room to transport us to Adelanto. One officer touched me on the hands, the wrists, ankles, feet and waist to handcuff me and put the chains around my ankles again. The officer was wearing gloves, but no mask. Again, the officer’s body was very close to mine, and at some points we were face to face.
20. The officers directed all eight of us to walk out of the building to a van outside and told us to get in the van. The van had three rows of seats, and since there were eight of us, we were sitting side by side with each other. I was in the front row sitting next to one other person, approximately 1 or 2 feet apart, on opposite windows. The six people in the back two rows had their bodies touching side to side for the whole ride. We were all bunched together in the van and there was very little space. They did not give us masks or gloves

to wear inside the van. I didn’t see anyone disinfecting the van before we got in it. To me, the van didn’t smell like disinfectant. 21. There were two officers in the front of the van, one in the driver’s seat and one in the passenger’s seat. They were different officers from the ones that brought us to the van from the room where we had been held. We drove for about two hours and arrived at Adelanto a little before 6 p.m. The two officers that rode with us from Los Angeles took us out of the van and into a small room for processing. The officers wore gloves, but no masks. One officer grabbed me from the shoulders to help me get out of the van. 22. On our way into Adelanto, a nurse took our temperature. The nurse had a table station on the other side of an electric door as we walked into the Adelanto facility. Each of us detainees stopped by the nurse’s station as we walked into the building. This was the first time that my temperature had been taken all day. The nurse asked if we were sick, I told her “no,” but I did inform her of my work-related injuries. The nurse was wearing both gloves and a mask. The nurse did not give us hand sanitizer, gloves, or a mask, and she didn’t have us wash our hands. 23. After we passed the nurse’s station, the officers that had been in the van with us continued to guide the eight of us towards a room for processing. While we were waiting in the room, they gave us uniforms. A new officer was coming in and out of the room during the whole process. This officer wore gloves, but no mask. The room was not big enough for us to be six feet apart from each other at all times. We were together in the processing room for about an hour. 24. After they finished processing us, I was taken to a dormitory area that was under quarantine. The officers call our dorm area Holding Area 10. I found out Holding Area 10 was in quarantine from the other detainees here. I would estimate that there are about sixty or seventy of us in this holding area. Inside the holding area there are smaller dorm rooms that each have four to eight people assigned to sleep. On my first day there, I asked one of the officers supervising our area why the quarantine was in place, but he didn’t give me a reason, he simply told me that our area was on lockdown. 25. During the quarantine, guards would bring food into our holding area instead of taking all of us out to the cafeteria. They brought our food in to-go containers with plastic-wrapped utensils. One officer would bring the food, and the officer supervising our area would

help distribute it. Each time they brought food, both officers wore gloves and masks. They would call one dorm room at a time and the people in each room would go up to the officers to grab food. During the quarantine, the sixty or seventy of us housed in Holding Area 10 spent the whole day in our holding area because we were not allowed to go to the cafeteria or the yard. 26. When I first arrived, the staff members that came in and out of my holding area wore masks and gloves, and they continued to wear them through Friday, March 20, 2020. The quarantine ended on Saturday, March 21, 2020, and that’s when the staff also stopped wearing masks. I don't know why. No one has told me why the quarantine was imposed in the first place, or why it was lifted. The officers did not even formally tell us the quarantine had been lifted, but now everyone in our holding area is allowed to go out to the cafeteria and the yard every day. 27. I share my assigned dorm room with six other people, so including myself there are seven people in my dorm room. We sleep in bunk beds. There are four bunks in my room. I am in a top bunk. The room is not big enough to be six feet apart from each other and we have to get really close to each other to move around our beds. Inside our dorm room there is also a toilet and sink with soap for us to share. We have to keep it clean ourselves. We use a spray that smells like disinfectant. We share the cleaning supplies with everyone else that is in our holding area. Sometimes the spray runs out and we have to wait until the guards bring more. 28. There are other small dorm rooms next to my room and the holding area has a common space in the middle with tables and seats. The common area is cleaned a few times a day with disinfectant. Nobody has provided us hand sanitizer or masks. We do have gloves, but people don’t usually wear the gloves, and the guards don’t require it. 29. Our holding area also shares a room with showers. The showers are inside our holding area, so people in other areas don’t come in to use them. There are six stalls for us to shower in, with three stalls on each side of the room facing each other. There are walls dividing the three stalls on each side, but no doors or curtains in the front of the stalls. We can use the showers whenever we want. I’m not sure how often the showers are cleaned.

30. There is always one guard supervising our holding area, and multiple guards switch turns during the day. They switch turns four or five times each day. The guards wear gloves. They wore masks during the quarantine when I first arrived, but not anymore.
31. Now that the quarantine is over, the sixty to seventy people in my holding area go to the cafeteria and line up to get our food. When we line up, we’re very close to each other in line, approximately a few inches apart. The cafeteria workers wear gloves when they serve us, but no masks.
32. Since I have been here, the nurse came once to our holding area to take everyone’s temperature, in the middle of the week. The nurse wore gloves and a mask, but she did not give us either one while she was taking our temperatures. I haven’t been taken to the medical wing despite expressing concern over my workplace injuries.
33. I am very nervous about being exposed to COVID-19 at this detention center, especially since my dormitory was under active quarantine when I arrived. I have heard from other people who are detained in my holding area that there is a person who has tested positive for COVID-19 living with us. I don’t know who this person is, and I haven’t seen them. The staff members at the facility have not told us anything about what is going on. I have not seen any precautions taken to protect the other people in our holding area from contracting the virus. I have not been offered hand sanitizer or a mask since I arrived.
34. I am in extremely close contact with the six other people in my dorm room where I sleep. I’m regularly in close contact with about fifteen to twenty people while I’m around the common spaces in the middle of our holding area.
35. I fear that my health is under great threat for as long as I am in this facility. I know that COVID-19 is highly contagious. On top of that threat, I have serious work-related injuries and my eye is still in bad shape with some bleeding and swelling. The facility isn’t doing anything to address these serious health issues, and I can’t imagine how they would deal with a rapid, life-threatening illness. I feel like they don’t care. I still cannot sleep on the left side of my body, because my left eye and face still hurt. Although the swelling has gone down. I’m worried that I’m missing my appointment with the eye specialist on March 24. It bothers me that something very serious might be wrong with my eye, and I am not getting the necessary specialized help for it. I am terrified to be trapped here.

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States that the foregoing is true and correct. Because of COVID-19, and my confinement in the Adelanto Detention Center, I was not able to sign this declaration in person. The declaration was read to me over the phone by Aida Palma Carpio on March 24, 2020 in English, a language I speak fluently. I understood and verified its contents in full, and authorized Ms. Palma to sign the declaration on my behalf.
Executed on March 24, 2020 in Los Angeles, California.
________________________ Aida Palma Carpio, on behalf of Luis Vasquez Rueda

Case 5:20-cv-00605-TJH-AFM Document 28-1 Filed 03/27/20 Page 1 of 3 Page ID #:260
Supplemental Declaration of Dr. Ranit Mishori (MD, MHS, FAAFP)
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746, I hereby declare as follows:
1. This supplementation declaration incorporates each and every statement from my previously-filed declaration in this case. Dkt. 1-1.
2. I have reviewed the procedures described in the Declaration of Captain Jennifer Moon. Dkt. 25-1. Based on my training and decades of professional experience in public health, as well as my experience working in carceral settings, the procedures described therein are entirely inadequate to prevent or mitigate the rapid transmission of COVID-19 in the Adelanto Detention Center. I am unaware of any epidemiologist or any public health expert who would consider these procedures to be sufficient preventive measures.
3. The conditions in which ICE is holding Petitioners at Adelanto violate the most critical and fundamental guidance issued by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, government officials, and public health experts to prevent transmission of COVID-19: avoid congregative environments and practice scrupulous social distancing (i.e., maintaining a distance of six feet from other persons).
4. As described in my previous declaration, COVID-19 is an extremely infectious disease, with an R0 (the number of people who typically get infected from a single infected person) of two to three. The extremely contagious nature of COVID-19 is such that just one infected person—who may or may not be exhibiting symptoms of the virus—can easily trigger its exponential transmission throughout a community. This risk is significantly heightened in confined detention settings such as Adelanto, which are by definition congregative environments and where maintaining necessary distance between persons is impossible.
5. The skyrocketing number of cases in New York City jails demonstrates the explosiveness of the novel coronavirus: on Friday, March 20, New York City jails had confirmed just one case at their facilities. The next day, they confirmed 19. Two days later, there were 38.1 By March 25, 2020, Rikers Island alone had 52 confirmed cases. In response, Rikers officials are releasing inmates by the hundreds—but even that is not enough.2 ICE detention facilities in New Jersey are similarly experiencing rapidly escalating transmission.3
6. Because epidemiologists and public health experts like myself unanimously agree that avoiding congregative environments and practicing scrupulous social distancing is
1 A.P., Coronavirus: 38 test positive in New York City jails, including Rikers Island, The Guardian (Mar. 22, 2020), https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/mar/22/coronavirus-outbreak-new-york-city-jails-rikers-island. 2 Julia Craven, Rikers Island Has 52 Confirmed COVID-19 Cases, Slate (Mar. 25, 2020), https://slate.com/newsand-politics/2020/03/coronavirus-is-spreading-on-rikers-island html. 3 Scott Neuman, Judge Orders 10 ICE Detainees Released From N.J. Jails Over COVID-19 Concerns, NPR (Mar. 27, 2020), https://www npr.org/sections/coronavirus-live-updates/2020/03/27/822348039/federal-judge-orders-10ice-detainees-released-from-n-j-jails-over-covid-19-conc.

Case 5:20-cv-00605-TJH-AFM Document 28-1 Filed 03/27/20 Page 2 of 3 Page ID #:261
essential to preventing community transmission of COVID-19, government officials have instituted unprecedented, sweeping bans on gatherings of as few as ten people, have ordered individuals to shelter-in-place, and have mandated the closure of all but essential buildings—all to obviate the risk of COVID-19 transmission in congregative settings.
7. Unlike ICE here, other government officials and public health experts have appropriately and necessarily taken these drastic measures without requiring a confirmed case of COVID-19, recognizing that given the rapidity of transmission, to wait for a confirmed case is to wait far too long—placing countless lives in danger.
8. For the same reason, officials overseeing carceral settings across the nation and globe have ordered the release of inmates and detainees as a preventive measure. Correctly apprehending the extreme degree of risk posed by COVID-19, Los Angeles County has ordered the release of over 1,700 inmates as of March 24, 2020.4 New Jersey officials have released over 1,000 inmates in response to the crisis.5 Cleveland and Tulsa have appropriately followed suit.6 Even Iran has released more than 70,000 inmates from its prisons.7
9. The living conditions at Adelanto prevent Petitioners from maintaining a distance of at least six feet from others, which, as discussed supra, may be the most essential preventive measure against contracting or transmitting COVID-19. The fact that Petitioners are forced to share bunkrooms, dormitories, bathroom facilities, and a cafeteria with large numbers of other detainees renders it impossible to practice the social distancing measures necessary to contain the virus, such that it is all but inevitable that COVID-19 will spread rapidly within the facility.
10. For this reason, Petitioners are at a significantly greater risk of contracting COVID-19 while in detention at Adelanto than if they were able to practice self-isolation and social distancing in their own homes.
11. That Petitioners may not yet have experienced symptoms of COVID-19 is of no moment. Petitioners have been detained for fewer than 14 days—the currently understood incubation period for COVID-19. Moreover, many carriers of COVID-19 are asymptomatic, and some may never display symptoms of the disease. Even if an infected person displays no symptoms, that person can transmit the virus to anyone with whom he or she comes into
4 Marissa Wenzke, 1,700 jail inmates in L.A. County released over coronavirus concerns, sheriff says, KTLA5 (Mar. 24, 2020), https://ktla.com/news/local-news/1700-jail-inmates-in-l-a-county-released-over-coronavirusconcerns-sheriff-says/. 5 Tracy Tully, 1,000 Inmates Will Be Released From N.J. Jails to Curb Coronavirus Risk, N.Y. Times (Mar. 23, 2020), https://www nytimes.com/2020/03/23/nyregion/coronavirus-nj-inmates-release html. 6 Id. 7 Adela Suliman, Andy Eckardt, & Gabe Joselow, Coronavirus prompts prisoner releases around the world, NBC News (Mar. 26, 2020), https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/coronavirus-prompts-prisoner-releases-around-worldn1169426.

Case 5:20-cv-00605-TJH-AFM Document 28-1 Filed 03/27/20 Page 3 of 3 Page ID #:262
close contact, and those persons can suffer the full panoply of harms associated with the disease, including respiratory failure, kidney failure, and death.
12. COVID-19 is a disease caused by a novel coronavirus, such that the medical community is still identifying additional symptoms of the disease. For example, clinicians have reported that some carriers exhibit only subtle symptoms, such as mild gastrointestinal distress or loss of taste or smell, rather than more commonly known symptoms such as fever, body ache, and cough.
13. Given the nationwide shortage of testing equipment and laboratories, ICE’s screening inquiry regarding whether a detainee has had close contact with a person with laboratoryconfirmed COVID-19 in the past 14 days is inadequate to properly assess the detainee’s potential exposure to the virus. This inquiry is particularly egregious given known wealth disparities in access to testing.
14. ICE’s screening is also inadequate because it fails to account for the fact that community transmission of COVID-19 is already rampant and sustained across the Los Angeles region, and thus ignores the ever-increasing likelihood that people from the region have already been exposed to COVID-19.
15. For the reasons above, it is my firm professional judgment that Petitioners were significantly safer in their residences, where they were able to practice critical social distancing and take other preventive measures, than they are in detention at Adelanto. The conditions at Adelanto place both Petitioners at a significantly heightened and medically unacceptable risk of not only of contracting COVID-19, but also of suffering severe complications and serious outcomes if they do become infected.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed this 27th day of March, 2020 in Washington, D.C.
Ranit Mishori, M.D, MHS, FAAFP

 
 Case 5:20-cv-00605 Document 2 Filed 03/26/20 Page 1 of 42 Page ID #:71

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA – WESTERN DIVISION

3

PEDRO BRAVO CASTILLO AND LUIS VASQUEZ RUEDA

4

Petitioners,

5

6 vs.

7 8

WILLIAM BARR, United States Attorney General; CHAD WOLF, Acting Secretary

Case No.: 5:20-CV-00605

9 10 11 12

of U.S. Department of Homeland Security; NOTICE OF EMERGENCY

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY; U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS (ICE); MATTHEW T.

MOTION AND MOTION FOR A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN

ALBENCE, Deputy Director and Senior Official for ICE; DAVID MARIN, Field

SUPPORT OF TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER

13

Office Director for ICE ERO in Los Angeles; JAMES JANECKA, Warden,

14 Adelanto ICE Processing Center

15

Respondents.

16

17

Mark Rosenbaum (Bar No. 59940) mrosenbaum@publiccounsel.org

18

Judy London (Bar No. 149431) jlondon@publiccounsel.org

19

Talia Inlender (Bar No. 253796) tinlender@publiccounsel.org

20

Jesselyn Friley (Bar No. 319198) jfriley@publiccounsel.org

21

Elizabeth Hercules-Paez (Bar No. 320944) eherculespaez@publiccounsel.org

22

Amanda Savage (Bar No. 325996) asavage@publiccounsel.org

23

PUBLIC COUNSEL 610 S. Ardmore Avenue

24

Los Angeles, CA 90005 Telephone: (213) 385-2977

25

Attorneys for Plaintiffs Pedro Bravo Castillo and Luis Vasquez Rueda

26

Joshua A. Matz (pro hac vice forthcoming) jmatz@kaplanhecker.com Kyla Magun (pro hac vice forthcoming) kmagun@kaplanhecker.com Michael Skocpol* (pro hac vice forthcoming) mskocpol@kaplanhecker.com Dylan Cowit (pro hac vice forthcoming) dcowit@kaplanhecker.com KAPLAN HECKER & FINK LLP 350 Fifth Avenue, Suite 7110 New York, NY 10118 Telephone: (212) 763-0883 *Admitted to practice in Massachusetts only; not admitted to practice in New York

27 NOTICE OF EMERGENCY MOTION AND MOTION FOR A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER;

28

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER -1

Case 5:20-cv-00605 Document 2 Filed 03/26/20 Page 2 of 42 Page ID #:72

1

TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:

2

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on March 25, 2020, at 8:30 a.m., or as soon

3 thereafter as may be heard in the above-entitled court, located at 3470 Twelfth

4 Street, Riverside, CA 92501-3801, Petitioners Pedro Bravo Castillo and Luis

5 Vasquez Rueda will and hereby do move this Court for entry of a temporary

6 restraining order requiring Respondents to:

7

 immediately release Petitioners from the custody of Warden James

8

Janecka, Adelanto ICE Processing Center (Adelanto Detention

9

Center) due to their risk of exposure to COVID-19 at the facility and

10

convey them safely to their homes in a manner that does not risk

11

infection;

12

 in the alternative, order Respondents to show cause as to why

13

Petitioners should remain in detention at Adelanto Detention Center;

14

 award such other relief as permitted by law.

15

This motion is made pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65 on the

16 grounds that 1) Petitioners are likely to prevail on their due process claim under the

17 Fifth Amendment and obtain an order directing Respondents to release them from

18 detention; 2) Petitioners will likely suffer irreparable harm absent the entry of a

19 temporary restraining order; 3) the balance of equities favors the entry of a

20 temporary restraining order; and 4) a temporary restraining order is in the public

21 interest.

22

This motion is based on this Notice of Motion; the supporting Memorandum

23 of Points and Authorities; the supporting declarations; all documents and pleadings

24 on file in this action, including the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and

25 Complaint for Injunctive Relief and accompanying declarations; and on such other

26 oral and documentary evidence as may be presented at any hearing on the motion.

27 NOTICE OF EMERGENCY MOTION AND MOTION FOR A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER;

28

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER -2

Case 5:20-cv-00605 Document 2 Filed 03/26/20 Page 3 of 42 Page ID #:73

1

TABLE OF CONTENTS

2 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .....................................................................................4

3 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES..........................................7

4 Introduction ............................................................................................................7

5 Factual Background……………………………………………………………...8

6 Legal Standard………………………………………………………………….23

7 Argument……………………………………………………………………….24

8 Conclusion……………………………………………………………………...41

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27 NOTICE OF EMERGENCY MOTION AND MOTION FOR A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER;

28

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER -3

Case 5:20-cv-00605 Document 2 Filed 03/26/20 Page 4 of 42 Page ID #:74

1

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

United States Supreme Court Cases

2

3 Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520 (1970) .......................................................................36

4 Brown v. Plata, 563 U.S. 493 (2011).......................................................................34
5

6 DeShaney v. Winnebago Cty. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 489 U.S. 189 (1989) ...............33 7

8 Helling v. McKinney, 509 U.S. 25 (1993). ..............................................................25 9

10 Kingsley v. Hendrickson, 135 S. Ct. 2466 (2015). ..................................................33

11

12 Mathews v. Diaz, 426 U.S. 67 (1976) ......................................................................24

13 14 Youngberg v. Romeo, 457 U.S. 307 (1982) .............................................................36

15 16 Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001) .................................................................35

17 United States Circuit Court Cases 18 19 All. for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127 (9th Cir. 2011).......................24

20 Ariz. Dream Act Coal. v. Brewer, 757 F.3d 1053 (9th Cir. 2014)...........................40 21

22 Castro v. Cty. of Los Angeles, 833 F.3d 1060 (9th Cir. 2016) ................................33 23

24 Demery v. Arpaio, 378 F.3d 1020 (9th Cir. 2004)...................................................36

25

26 Garcia v. Google, Inc., 786 F.3d 733 (9th Cir. 2015) .............................................24

27 NOTICE OF EMERGENCY MOTION AND MOTION FOR A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER;

28

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER -4

Case 5:20-cv-00605 Document 2 Filed 03/26/20 Page 5 of 42 Page ID #:75

1

2 Gordon v. Cty. of Orange, 888 F.3d 1118 (9th Cir. 2018) ......................................33

3 4 Hallstrom v. City of Garden City, 991 F.2d 1473 (9th Cir. 1993) ..........................36

5 6 Henry A. v. Willden, 678 F.3d 991 (9th Cir. 2011)..................................................32

7 Hernandez v. City of San Jose, 897 F.3d 1125 (9th Cir. 2018) ............ 25, 30, 31, 32 8

9 Hernandez v. Sessions, 872 F.3d 976 (9th Cir. 2017) ...................................... 38, 29 10

11 Jones v. Blanas, 393 F.3d 918 (9th Cir. 2004) ................................................. 33, 36

12

13 Kennedy v. City of Ridgefield, 439 F.3d 1055 (9th Cir. 2006) ................... 25, 30, 32

14 15 King v. Cty. of Los Angeles, 885 F.3d 548 (9th Cir. 2018)......................................34

16 17 L.W. v. Grubbs, 92 F.3d 894 (9th Cir. 1996) .................................................... 25, 30

18 Lopez-Valenzuela v. Arpaio, 770 F.3d 772 (9th Cir. 2014).....................................24
19

20 Melendres v. Arpaio, 695 F.3d 990 (9th Cir. 2012) ......................................... 38, 40 21

22 Munger v. City of Glasgow, 227 F.3d 1082 (9th Cir. 2000)............................. 25, 28 23

24 Parsons v. Ryan, 754 F.3d 657 (9th Cir. 2014.........................................................34

25 26 Patel v. Kent Sch. Dist., 648 F.3d 965 (9th Cir. 2011) ..................................... 25, 30

27 NOTICE OF EMERGENCY MOTION AND MOTION FOR A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER;

28

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER -5

Case 5:20-cv-00605 Document 2 Filed 03/26/20 Page 6 of 42 Page ID #:76

1 Pierce v. Cty. of Orange, 526 F.3d 1190 (9th Cir. 2008) ........................................36

2 3 Pimentel v. Dreyfus, 670 F.3d 1096 (9th Cir. 2012)................................................24

4 Rodriguez v. Robbins, 715 F.3d 1127 (9th Cir. 2013).............................................40 5

6 Sammartano v. First Judicial Dist. Court, 303 F.3d 959 (9th Cir. 2002) ...............40 7

8 Sierra Forest Legacy v. Rey, 577 F.3d 1015 (9th Cir. 2009) ..................................24

9

10 Xochihua-Jaimes v. Barr, No. 18-71460 (9th Cir. Mar. 23, 2020) .............. 8, 35, 38

11

12 United States District Court Cases

13 Coleman v. Schwarzenegger, 922 F. Supp. 2d 882 (E.D. Cal. 2009)......................30 14

15 Hernandez v. Cty. of Monterey, 110 F. Supp. 3d 929 (N.D. Cal. 2015) .................31

16 17 J.P. v. Sessions, No. LA CV18-06081 JAK, 2019 WL 6723686 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 5, 18 2019) ............................................................................................................. 32, 33

19 Martinez v. Geo Grp., Inc., No. EDCV 18-1125-R, 2019 WL 3758026 (C.D. Cal. 20 Apr. 30, 2019) ......................................................................................................33

21 Torres v. U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 411 F. Supp. 3d 1036 (C.D. Cal. 2019) ..36, 22 37

23

24

Unknown Parties v. Nielsen, No. CV-15-00250-TUC-DCB, 2020 WL 813774 (D. Ariz. Feb. 19, 2020) ...................................................................................... 33, 36

25

26

27 NOTICE OF EMERGENCY MOTION AND MOTION FOR A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER;

28

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER -6

Case 5:20-cv-00605 Document 2 Filed 03/26/20 Page 7 of 42 Page ID #:77

1

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

2

I. INTRODUCTION

3

As virtually every official in the Nation has recognized, this is not the time for

4 business as usual. The world confronts a deadly threat in the form of COVID-19,

5 which is highly contagious and which can spread rapidly before symptoms appear.

6 The United States, the State of California, and the City of Los Angeles have all

7 declared emergencies. Time and again, the public has been urged—in the strongest

8 possible terms—to engage in social distancing, to maintain good hygiene, and to

9 avoid burdening a healthcare system bracing for terrible challenges. Consistent with

10 those vital policies, and to protect human life, officials in many jurisdictions

11 (including Los Angeles) have moved swiftly to release detainees and limit arrests.

12

Ignoring all that, officers from Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)

13 decided last week to undertake business-as-usual raids. These raids did not serve any

14 especially compelling or notable purpose. These was no great risk to public safety;

15 no report of imminent wrongdoing. The raids were entirely routine. ICE officers

16 seized their targets, handcuffed them, transported them in small vans with several

17 others, and ultimately deposited them at Adelanto ICE Processing Center—a facility

18 notorious for crowded dorms, poor hygiene, and inadequate medical care.

19

Petitioners Pedro Bravo Castillo and Luis Vasquez Rueda were targeted for

20 such arrests on March 16 and 17. They are now detained at Adelanto. During the

21 course of their arrest and detention, and on an ongoing basis since then, ICE officials

22 have violated every principle that the United States government has articulated as

23 essential to prohibiting transmission of COVID-19. As a result, ICE officials have

24 coercively and continuously subjected Petitioners to a far greater risk of catching

25 COVID-19 than they would otherwise experience. In light of conditions at Adelanto,

26

27 NOTICE OF EMERGENCY MOTION AND MOTION FOR A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER;

28

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER -7

Case 5:20-cv-00605 Document 2 Filed 03/26/20 Page 8 of 42 Page ID #:78

1 as well as ICE officials’ careless practices in arresting and detaining individuals, that

2 risk is unquestionably substantial. And it is rendered all the more terrifying by

3 Adelanto’s well-known inability to provide adequate medical care.

4

Simply put, by virtue of its conduct in arresting and detaining Petitioners, ICE

5 has violated their rights. It did so knowingly: when ICE officials arrested and

6 detained Petitioners, the dangers of COVID-19 and the perils of ICE’s arrest and

7 detention practices were well known and widely reported. Moreover, it did so

8 unjustifiably: the Government’s interest in routine immigration enforcement cannot

9 conceivably justify the persistent risk of harm to which it has exposed Petitioners by

10 arresting and detaining them under these extraordinary circumstances.

11

As the Ninth Circuit recently stated in ordering the release of an individual in

12 immigration detention, this is a “rapidly escalating public health crisis, which public

13 health authorities predict will especially impact immigration detention centers.”

14 Xochihua-Jaimes v. Barr, No. 18-71460, at *1 (9th Cir. Mar. 23, 2020). Petitioners’

15 detention under these conditions offends the Due Process Clause.

16

Petitioners are thus entitled to immediate release from Adelanto Detention

17 Center under Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 65, for the reasons set forth in this motion.

18

II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

19

A. Petitioners

20

Petitioners are long-time residents of Los Angeles County who were arrested

21 and detained by ICE after a nationwide emergency was declared due to the global

22 pandemic. Pedro Bravo Castillo is 58 years old, and has been in the United States

23 since 1995. He supports his partner and two U.S.-citizen stepchildren by working

24 in the trucking and recycling industries. He also has kidney stones, a hernia, and

25 other chronic health issues. Luis Vasquez Rueda is a 23-year-old who arrived in

26 the United States when he was five and attended college under the Deferred Action

27 NOTICE OF EMERGENCY MOTION AND MOTION FOR A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER;

28

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER -8

Case 5:20-cv-00605 Document 2 Filed 03/26/20 Page 9 of 42 Page ID #:79

1 for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program through 2017. He was recently injured in

2 a work accident that left his eyes bleeding.

3

B. COVID-19 is an Unprecedented Risk to Public Health

4

COVID-19 poses a virtually unprecedented threat to public health. It is an

5 extremely contagious disease that is easily spread by close person-to-person contact,

6 and well as by respiratory droplets that can survive on surfaces for a period of time.

7 Early indications show that COVID-19 has an R0 (the number of people who can

8 get infected from a single infected person) of 2 to 3. This is a recipe for explosive,

9 exponential growth in any community that does not enact effective evidence-based

10 public health interventions. See Pet. Ex. A, Declaration of Ranit Mishori (Mishori

11 Decl.) ¶ 7; see also Pet. Ex. B, Declaration of Katherine McKenzie ¶¶ 1-2.

12

COVID-19 is also a prolific and often unpredictable killer. Severe cases of

13 COVID-19 can lead to respiratory failure, kidney failure, and death. Id. ¶ 9. Older

14 patients and patients with chronic underlying conditions are at a particularly high

15 risk for severe cases and complications. Id. But even the young and otherwise

16 healthy can succumb to the disease unpredictably.1 According to the most recent

17 studies, the fatality rate of people infected with COVID-19 is about ten times higher

18 than a severe seasonal influenza, and even highly effective health care systems have

19 quickly had hospital capacity overrun by outbreaks of COVID-19. Id. Where such

20 shortages occur, lifesaving interventions such as ventilators must be rationed,

21 leading to additional deaths.2

22 1 County of Los Angeles Public Health, Los Angeles County Announces Three New Deaths Related to 2019 Novel

23

Coronavirus (COVID-19)—128 New Cases of Confirmed COVID-19 in Los Angeles County (Mar. 24, 2020), available at http://publichealth.lacounty.gov/phcommon/public/media/mediapubhpdetail.cfm?prid=2280 (noting the

24

confirmed death of “a youth under the age of 18”); Pam Belluck, Younger Adults Make Up Big Portion of Coronavirus Hospitalizations in U.S., N.Y. Times (Mar. 18, 2020), available at

25

https://www nytimes.com/2020/03/18/health/coronavirus-young-people.html. 2 Suzy Khimm, Who gets a ventilator? Hospitals facing coronavirus surge are preparing for life-or-death decisions,

26

NBC News (Mar. 18, 2020), https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-care/who-gets-ventilator-hospitals-facingcoronavirus-surge-are-preparing-life-n1162721.

27 NOTICE OF EMERGENCY MOTION AND MOTION FOR A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER;

28

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER -9

Case 5:20-cv-00605 Document 2 Filed 03/26/20 Page 10 of 42 Page ID #:80

1

The Los Angeles region and California as a whole have been hit hard by

2 COVID-19, which has led Mayor Eric Garcetti, the Los Angeles County Board of

3 Supervisors, and California Governor Gavin Newsom to take some of the most

4 stringent preventative measures anywhere in the country to contain the spread of the

5 disease. As of March 25, 2020, Los Angeles County had the highest number of cases

6 of any county in the state, with 814 confirmed cases.3 A growing number of these

7 cases can be attributed to community spread of the disease and are not traceable to

8 an identifiable source of exposure.4 Community spread is an indicator of a

9 significant number of unknown cases throughout the community.5

10

Authorities repeatedly sounded the alarm about this looming crisis. The

11 World Health Organization (WHO) first characterized the outbreak of COVID-19

12 as a pandemic on March 11, 2020.6 President Trump formally declared a national

13 emergency in response to the virus on March 13, 2020.7 Since at least early March,

14 California and Los Angeles County officials have been urging citizens to practice

15 social distancing to minimize contact with others to limit potential exposure to

16 COVID-19. Governor Newsom declared a State of Emergency on March 4, 2020.8

17 On March 15, 2020, Mayor Eric Garcetti issued an emergency order closing all Los

18

19 3 Los Angeles Times Staff, Tracking the coronavirus in California, L.A. Times (updated Mar. 23, 2020), available

20

at https://www.latimes.com/projects/california-coronavirus-cases-tracking-outbreak/. 4 Id.

21

5 Julia Wick, Newsletter: What ‘community spread’ means for the coronavirus, L.A. Times (Feb. 27, 2020), available at https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-02-27/coronavirus-california-newsletter.

22

6 Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, WHO Director-General's opening remarks at the media briefing on COVID-19 11 March 2020 (Mar. 11, 2020), available at https://www.who.int/dg/speeches/detail/who-director-general-s-

23

opening-remarks-at-the-media-briefing-on-covid-19---11-march-2020. 7 Donald J. Trump, Proclamation on Declaring a National Emergency Concerning the Novel Coronavirus Disease

(COVID-19) Outbreak (Mar. 13, 2020), available at https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/proclamation-
24 declaring-national-emergency-concerning-novel-coronavirus-disease-covid-19-outbreak/.

8 Office of Governor Gavin Newsom, Governor Newsom Declares State of Emergency to Help State Prepare for
25 Broader Spread of COVID-19 (Mar. 4, 2020), available at https://www.gov.ca.gov/2020/03/04/governor-newsom-

declares-state-of-emergency-to-help-state-prepare-for-broader-spread-of-covid-19/.

26

27 NOTICE OF EMERGENCY MOTION AND MOTION FOR A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER;

28

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER -10

Case 5:20-cv-00605 Document 2 Filed 03/26/20 Page 11 of 42 Page ID #:81

1 Angeles bars, nightclubs, restaurants (with the exception of takeout and delivery),

2 entertainment venues, and gyms.9 On March 16, 2020, the Los Angeles County

3 Department of Public Health banned gatherings of 50 or more people.10 Since last

4 week, all Californians have been under orders from California Governor Gavin

5 Newsom to stay in their homes as much as possible.11

6

Detention facilities, recognizing this threat, have taken similarly dramatic

7 measures. Over the weekend of March 14 and 15, 2020, the Los Angeles County

8 Sheriff released over 600 inmates from jail in order to prevent the spread of the

9 outbreak.12 Over 1,700 more have been released since.13 Other jails, prisons, and

10 detention facilities in California have followed suit—demonstrating a widespread

11 judgment by law enforcement officials that ordinary government justifications for

12 detention are decisively outweighed by the threat to human life and public health

13 posed by continued detention of many individuals under these circumstances.14

14

C. Meanwhile, ICE continued routine raids, ensnaring Petitioners

15

16
9 Alex Wigglesworth et. al., L.A. limits restaurants to takeout and delivery, closes gyms, entertainment sites over

17

coronavirus, L.A. Times (Mar. 15, 2020), available at https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-03-15/la-mecoronavirus-california-news.

18

10 County of Los Angeles Department of Public Health, Health Officer Order for the Control of Covid-19 (Mar. 16, 2020), available at https://ca-times.brightspotcdn.com/4a/61/4577b422477f8d912563ff0a8725/2020-03-16-los-

19

angeles-county-coronavirus-order.pdf. 11 Tom Arango & Jill Cowan, Gov. Gavin Newsom of California Orders Californians to Stay Home, N.Y. Times

20

(Mar. 19, 2020), available at https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/19/us/California-stay-at-home-order-virus html. 12 Alene Tchekmedyian, Paige St. John, & Matt Hamilton, L.A. County releasing some inmates from jail to combat

21

coronavirus, L.A. Times (Mar. 16, 2020), available at https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-03-16/la-jailpopulation-arrests-down-amid-coronavirus.

22

13 Marissa Wenzke, 1,700 jail inmates in L.A. County released over coronavirus concerns, sheriff says, KTLA 5 (Mar. 24, 2020), available at https://ktla.com/news/local-news/1700-jail-inmates-in-l-a-county-released-over-

23

coronavirus-concerns-sheriff-says. 14 Teri Figueroa & Karen Kucher, Jails to release some inmates, adjust booking criteria amid coronavirus concerns

(Mar. 16, 2020), available at https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/public-safety/story/2020-03-16/jails-to-
24 release-some-inmates-adjust-booking-criteria-amid-coronavirus-concerns; Tony Saavedra & Scott Schwebke, Early

release and other precautions taken at Southern California jails wary of coronavirus (Mar. 19, 2020), available at
25 https://www.ocregister.com/2020/03/19/early-release-and-other-precautions-taken-at-southern-california-jails-wary-

of-coronavirus/.

26

27 NOTICE OF EMERGENCY MOTION AND MOTION FOR A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER;

28

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER -11

Case 5:20-cv-00605 Document 2 Filed 03/26/20 Page 12 of 42 Page ID #:82

1

In the face of this rapidly unfolding public health crisis, ICE agents spent

2 March 16 and March 17 conducting “business as usual” raids around the Los

3 Angeles area, with a reporter in tow.15 Their raids brought teams of ICE agents to

4 Petitioners’ doorsteps, even as government officials at all levels were issuing

5 increasingly dire guidance about the importance of socially distancing themselves.

6

On March 16, 2020, ICE officers arrested Mr. Bravo in front of his home,

7 repeatedly made physical contact with him, and held him in enclosed spaces—a car,

8 a van, small rooms—with other arrestees and officers en route to Adelanto Detention

9 Center. Officers took no precautions to avoid spreading the virus.

10

On March 17, 2020, ICE officers arrested Mr. Vazquez at his apartment,

11 handcuffed him, and transported him to the Los Angeles ICE Field Office and then

12 to Adelanto Detention Center. During his arrest and transport, officers repeatedly

13 touched him and confined him in a van with seven other arrestees for an hour and a

14 half. They and at least a dozen other new people from a community actively fighting

15 a COVID-19 outbreak were deposited into one of the most overcrowded

16 immigration detention facilities in the country.

17

These raids took place well after city, county, and state officials began

18 ordering residents of the Los Angeles area to stay at home. By then, the risk was

19 clear—and ICE knew it. ICE finally acknowledged the obvious on March 18, 2020,

20 announcing that it would scale back immigration enforcement at least to some

21 degree. 16 But this change came too late to keep Petitioners out of harm’s way.

22

23 15 Brittny Mejia, California coronavirus lockdown: ICE agents make arrests, L.A. Times (Mar. 17, 2020),

24

https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-03-17/for-ice-agents-its-business-as-unusual-day-after-sweepingcoronavirus-order.

25

16 Brittny Mejia, Facing criticism, ICE will reduce enforcement actions amid coronavirus pandemic, L.A. Times (Mar. 18, 2020), available at https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-03-18/ice-will-reduce-enforcement-

26 actions-coronavirus?.

27 NOTICE OF EMERGENCY MOTION AND MOTION FOR A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER;

28

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER -12

Case 5:20-cv-00605 Document 2 Filed 03/26/20 Page 13 of 42 Page ID #:83

1

D. Respondents Subjected Petitioners to a High Risk of Exposure to

2

COVID-19 During Arrest and Detention

3

When ICE agents arrested Petitioners in the midst of this rapidly unfolding

4 crisis, they made an affirmative choice to subject Petitioners to an unconscionable

5 risk of contracting the virus.

6

Conducting immigration raids in the midst of this pandemic severely

7 endangers the health of detainees and the general public. Mishori Decl. ¶¶ 36-43.

8 According to infectious disease specialist Dr. Ranit Mishori, an expert on issues of

9 public health among migrants and those in carceral systems, ICE officers who

10 physically touch people in close contact without masks or gloves are ignoring current

11 CDC guidelines. Id. ¶ 40. And the result of raids is to bring numerous unrelated

12 individuals into ICE vehicles, holding facilities, processing centers, and detention

13 centers. Any one of these individuals could have been infected by asymptomatic

14 community transmission of COVID-19 prior to their arrest, and thus could be

15 spreading the disease to many others. Id. ¶ 39. Raids expose healthy individuals

16 who are detained to a far more dangerous situation than they would experience if

17 they were left free to follow the shelter-in-place advisories currently in place in their

18 home communities. Id. ¶ 43.

19

Nevertheless, ICE conducted the raids without taking precautions that could

20 have helped protect Petitioners from exposure to COVID-19. On Monday, March

21 16, 2020, at approximately 6 a.m., Mr. Bravo left his home to get into his truck to

22 sell recycled scrap metal when he was approached by a group of ICE officers and

23 arrested. See Pet. Ex. B, Declaration of Pedro Bravo Castillo ¶¶ 3, 6. (“Bravo

24 Decl.”). During the arrest, the officers had close physical contact with Mr. Bravo.

25 Officers grabbed him, handcuffed him, and placed him in a car. Mr. Bravo could

26 feel one officer’s breath on his neck as they handcuffed him. Bravo Decl. ¶¶ 8-9.

27 NOTICE OF EMERGENCY MOTION AND MOTION FOR A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER;

28

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER -13

Case 5:20-cv-00605 Document 2 Filed 03/26/20 Page 14 of 42 Page ID #:84

1

ICE officers continued to subject Mr. Bravo to additional potential sources of

2 exposure throughout his arrest. The officers placed a second arrested individual in

3 the backseat of the car approximately five inches away from Mr. Bravo, and left

4 them that way for approximately an hour. Id. ¶ 11. At the downtown Los Angeles

5 facility, ICE officers confined Mr. Bravo to a small room with the same man and

6 two other individuals. Id. ¶ 12. All four individuals were then placed into a van and

7 driven approximately an hour and half to the Adelanto Detention Center. Id. ¶ 13.

8 The person in the seat next to Mr. Bravo was approximately one foot away for the

9 duration of the ride. Id. Mr. Bravo did not observe anyone clean the van, and it did

10 not smell like it had recently been cleaned. Id.

11

Throughout all of this, no protective steps—such as masks, hand sanitizer, or

12 temperature checks—were employed to protect any of the detainees from exposure

13 to COVID-19. Id. ¶¶ 8-13.

14

ICE conducted further raids on March 17, 2020, which resulted in the unsafe

15 arrest and detention of at least eight individuals, including Luis Vasquez Rueda. Pet.

16 Ex. C, Declaration of Luis Vasquez Rueda ¶ 2. (“Vasquez Decl.”). Two ICE officers

17 entered Mr. Vasquez’s home on Tuesday, March 17, 2020 at approximately 6:40

18 a.m. and arrested him, grabbing Mr. Vasquez by the arm and shoulder in the process.

19 Vasquez Decl. ¶¶ 12-13. The officers were not wearing masks. They were in such

20 close contact with Mr. Vasquez that he could feel the officers’ breath on him. Id. ¶

21 13. As the officers handcuffed Mr. Vasquez outside his home, one of them asked

22 him if he had COVID-19. Id. Mr. Vasquez responded “no,” but no officers ever

23 checked his temperature, or gave him protective equipment such as a mask, gloves,

24 or hand sanitizer at any point during his arrest. Id. ¶¶ 13, 15. After he was

25 handcuffed, Mr. Vasquez was placed in a car with an another officer. Id. ¶¶ 14-15.

26

27 NOTICE OF EMERGENCY MOTION AND MOTION FOR A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER;

28

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER -14

Case 5:20-cv-00605 Document 2 Filed 03/26/20 Page 15 of 42 Page ID #:85

1

On the way to a holding facility in downtown Los Angeles, the officer stopped

2 to adjust Mr. Vasquez’s handcuffs, touching him on his hands and wrists to move

3 his arms from behind his back to the front of his body. Id. ¶ 16. As when Mr.

4 Vasquez was first handcuffed, the officer was not wearing a mask and was in close

5 physical proximity to Mr. Vasquez. Id. At times, Mr. Vasquez could feel the

6 officer’s breath on his face. Id. At the facility, Mr. Vasquez was held in a room

7 with seven other people, where there was not enough physical space for all eight to

8 be six feet away from one another at all times. Id. ¶ 17. Nobody in the room was

9 offered masks, gloves, or hand sanitizer. Id. Mr. Vasquez heard some of the people

10 sharing his room coughing at various points throughout the nine hours he was held

11 there. Id. ¶ 18.

12

A new officer from the facility brought Mr. Vasquez and the other seven

13 people in the room breakfast and lunch, without wearing a mask. Id. At

14 approximately 3 p.m., new officers arrived and again handcuffed and shackled Mr.

15 Vasquez, touching him on the hands, wrists, and ankles. Id. ¶ 19. Once again, the

16 officer who touched Mr. Vasquez was not wearing a mask and was in close physical

17 proximity, at some points directly face to face. Id. The new officers directed Mr.

18 Vasquez and the seven other people he was detained with to a van with three rows

19 of seats. Id. ¶ 20. Nobody provided Mr. Vasquez and the other detainees masks or

20 gloves. Id. Mr. Vasquez did not see anyone disinfect the van, nor did it smell of

21 disinfectant or cleaning supplies. Id. Two new officers drove for approximately two

22 hours from downtown Los Angeles to the Adelanto Detention Center, at which point

23 the officers again touched Mr. Vasquez while not wearing a mask to remove him

24 from the vehicle and bring him into the detention facility. Id. ¶ 21.

25

26

27 NOTICE OF EMERGENCY MOTION AND MOTION FOR A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER;

28

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER -15

Case 5:20-cv-00605 Document 2 Filed 03/26/20 Page 16 of 42 Page ID #:86

1

In carrying out these raids, ICE placed Mr. Bravo, Mr. Vasquez and at least

2 10 other individuals in the exact type of close-contact environment that officials had

3 explicitly and repeatedly pleaded with the public to avoid.

4

E. Respondents Are Subjecting Petitioners to Severe Risk of Contracting

5

COVID-19 at Adelanto

6

Petitioners’ arrests were only the beginning of their peril. They are now

7 forcibly detained at Adelanto, a crowded immigration detention facility that has been

8 cited for its inability to give adequate medical care even in the best of times.

9 Respondents have repeatedly ensured that every precaution the rest of us have been

10 advised to take is effectively unavailable to Petitioners and their fellow detainees.

11

1. Experts are deeply concerned about detention facilities generally and

12 Adelanto specifically. According Dr. Mishori, the risk posed by COVID-19 in

13 immigration detention centers “is significantly higher than in the community, both

14 in terms of risk of exposure and transmission and harm to individuals who become

15 infected.” Mishori Decl. ¶ 17. This is because Petitioners have been involuntarily

16 disarmed of basic steps they could otherwise take to protect themselves and those

17 around them.

18

First, it is not possible to practice the social distancing that officials have said

19 is essential when imprisoned in a detention center. Detention center detainees are

20 housed in tight dormitory conditions with shared sleeping, eating, and bathroom

21 spaces, which allows for the rapid spread of infectious diseases. Bathroom facilities

22 are shared, typically without disinfection between uses. Detention centers often have

23 poorly ventilated indoor spaces, which create a greater risk of rapid disease spread.

24 Living in these conditions drastically reduces a person’s ability to take protective

25 measures to avoid exposure to infectious diseases such as COVID-19. Id. ¶ 21. This

26 is especially true for diseases such as COVID-19, which is easily transmitted person

27 NOTICE OF EMERGENCY MOTION AND MOTION FOR A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER;

28

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER -16

Case 5:20-cv-00605 Document 2 Filed 03/26/20 Page 17 of 42 Page ID #:87

1 to person by droplets through coughing and sneezing. Id. The close quarters

2 exacerbate the risk that the introduction of COVID-19 into a detention center via a

3 single person could rapidly cause it to spread. Id. ¶ 27.

4

Second, detention centers also typically cannot provide access to appropriate

5 disease mitigation efforts, like the practices that have been mandated by state, local,

6 and federal authorities. Frequent handwashing is rarely feasible in detention, and

7 there is limited access to resources like hand sanitizer and wipes. High touch areas

8 of facilities are rarely cleaned with the regularity that would be needed to prevent

9 the spread of disease. Id. ¶ 22. Moreover, detention centers rarely have medical

10 facilities or staff that are appropriately equipped to deal with an outbreak of

11 infectious disease, especially one as dangerous and contagious as COVID-19. Id. ¶

12 24. It is “inevitable” that detention centers in the United States will experience an

13 outbreak of COVID-19 in the near future. Id. ¶ 33. Cases of COVID-19 are

14 beginning to appear in detention centers across the country.17

15

Third, detention centers often lack the resources necessary to identify

16 infectious diseases like COVID-19, such as sufficient testing equipment and

17 laboratories. Id. ¶ 19. At a time when both California and the nation currently face

18 shortages in test kits, such resources are especially likely to be unavailable in

19 detention facilities. Officials there are flying blind.

20

These grave concerns are particularly acute at Adelanto, which holds over

21 1,600 people in detention and is run by a private, for-profit corrections company

22 called Geo Group, Inc.18 The company has a poor track record for the health and

23
17 Justine Coleman, First immigrant in ICE detention center tests positive for coronavirus, The Hill (Mar. 24, 2020),
24 available at https://thehill.com/policy/national-security/department-of-homeland-security/489312-first-immigrant-in-
ice-detention.
25 18 U.S. Imm. and Customs Enforcement, “Dedicated and Non-Dedicated Facility List,” available at
https://www.ice.gov/facility-inspections (as of Mar. 2, 2020).
26

27 NOTICE OF EMERGENCY MOTION AND MOTION FOR A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER;

28

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER -17

Case 5:20-cv-00605 Document 2 Filed 03/26/20 Page 18 of 42 Page ID #:88

1 safety of detainees. A 2017 Report from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security

2 (DHS), Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties (CRCL) delivered a scathing

3 assessment of the health and safety of detainees at the facility.19 The report states

4 that “[o]verall, the medical care at the Adelanto facility is inadequate and does not

5 meet the 2011 Performance Based National Detention Standards (PBNDS)

6 standards.”20 The center has been subject to numerous substantiated complaints or

7 grievances regarding delays or denial of care. “The wait time to see a provider for

8 both acute illness/injury and chronic care needs [is] often excessively long, and this

9 appears to be due in part to the inadequate staffing of providers (both physician and

10 nurse practitioner).”21 By 2017, two years after CRCL “clearly warned Adelanto that

11 clinical leadership was not competent and that negligent medical care was occurring

12 as a result,” the facility had not yet corrected “this critical failure.”22 A separate

13 2018 report from the DHS Office of the Inspector General found “significant health

14 and safety risks at the facility,” including “Untimely and Inadequate Detainee

15 Medical Care,”23 indicating that the issues have persisted despite the findings and

16 recommendations of prior investigations.

17

According to Dr. Mishori, “an outbreak in the facility has the potential to

18 become a devastating public health event.” Mishori Decl. ¶ 47.

19

20

21

22

19 CRCL Report On Adelanto ICE Processing Center, available at https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6278922-HQ-Part2-Copy html (as of Mar. 22, 2020).

23

20 CRCL Report On Adelanto ICE Processing Center, On-site Investigation Report at 1, available at https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6278922-HQ-Part2-Copy html (as of Mar. 22, 2020).

24

21 Id. at 4. 22 Id. at 5.

25

23 Office of the Inspector General, Management Alert – Issues Requiring Action at the Adelanto ICE Processing Center in Adelanto, California (Sept. 27, 2018), available at https://www.oig.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/assets/2018-

26 10/OIG-18-86-Sep18.pdf.

27 NOTICE OF EMERGENCY MOTION AND MOTION FOR A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER;

28

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER -18

Case 5:20-cv-00605 Document 2 Filed 03/26/20 Page 19 of 42 Page ID #:89

1

2. Petitioners have been placed at grave and obvious risk in Adelanto.

2 Petitioners’ experiences while at Adelanto confirm the experts’ fears, and make clear

3 that they face grave danger if not immediately released.

4

Petitioners’ continued detention subjects them to a severe risk of contracting

5 COVID-19 from other individuals, including staff and officers, at Adelanto

6 Detention Center. Officers again had physical contact with Mr. Bravo while

7 removing him from the van upon his arrival at Adelanto. Bravo Decl. ¶ 14. He was

8 not provided with gloves or a mask, and was held with fellow detainees in a small

9 medical screening room for approximately half an hour. Id. While Mr. Bravo was

10 waiting in this screening room, he had his temperature taken for the first time since

11 he was brought into custody nearly twelve hours earlier. Id. ¶ 15. He did not have

12 a temperature, but informed the person taking it that he had felt unwell since he was

13 detained earlier that morning. Id.

14

During this screening process, one of the detainees (the man arrested after Mr.

15 Bravo in the morning) was moved to a different room. Later in the day, that

16 individual informed Mr. Bravo that he had been separated from the group during

17 medical screening because he had recently been sick with the flu. Id. ¶ 16. Mr.

18 Bravo had spent the whole day confined with this individual in different vehicles

19 and small spaces: handcuffed next to each other in the backseat of a vehicle while

20 they were brought to downtown Los Angeles, in a holding cell at the Los Angeles

21 facility, and handcuffed near each other again in a van for the hour and a half long

22 ride to Adelanto, until he was finally isolated following a screening nearly 12 hours

23 after first having contact with Mr. Bravo and ICE officers.

24

Mr. Bravo’s conditions of detention put him at an unacceptably high and

25 continuing risk of contracting the disease. He is housed in a dormitory with a large

26 common space surrounded by 22 small rooms, each of which houses four people. Id.

27 NOTICE OF EMERGENCY MOTION AND MOTION FOR A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER;

28

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER -19

Case 5:20-cv-00605 Document 2 Filed 03/26/20 Page 20 of 42 Page ID #:90

1 ¶ 17. He spends his days in close proximity to upwards of 90 people, including

2 detainees and staff. See id. ¶¶ 19-21. Some gloves are available, but there is no

3 requirement to use them, and most people do not. Id. ¶ 19. Mr. Bravo’s sleeping

4 arrangements consist of four people sharing bunk beds in a small room. Id. ¶ 18.

5 There is not space to leave six feet between people, and people bump into each other

6 when they get on and off the bunks or move around the room. Mr. Bravo has seen

7 and heard his bunkmates cough and sneeze in the room. Id. His 88-person dormitory

8 shares a shower space with only six open stalls. Id. ¶ 19. He shares an open

9 bathroom with the four people in his bunkroom. Id. ¶ 18. Food is served in a

10 common cafeteria area, where Mr. Bravo sits in close proximity to other people as

11 they eat. Id. ¶ 21. Mr. Bravo and the other detainees walk in a tight line to and from

12 the cafeteria in close proximity to one another. Id. Two officers are on duty at all

13 times, and they never wear masks. Id. ¶ 20. Mr. Bravo finds himself in far closer

14 contact with a far greater number of people today in Adelanto than he would at home

15 with his wife and stepchildren. Even more disturbing, new individuals are constantly

16 arriving.

17

Mr. Vasquez’s detention likewise leaves him in much greater danger of

18 exposure to COVID-19 than he would have experienced at home. Upon entering the

19 Adelanto Detention Center, Mr. Vasquez was brought to nurse’s station immediately

20 on the other side of the door through which he entered. Vasquez Decl. ¶ 22. The

21 nurse asked if he was sick, and he explained his serious work-related injuries. Id.

22 The nurse then took his temperature, the first time it had been taken since he came

23 into contact with ICE officers at approximately 6:40 a.m. Id. ¶¶ 12, 22. The nurse

24 was wearing both gloves and a mask, but did not provide a mask, gloves, hand

25 sanitizer, or directions to wash hands to Mr. Vasquez or any of the other detainees.

26 Id. ¶ 22.

27 NOTICE OF EMERGENCY MOTION AND MOTION FOR A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER;

28

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER -20

Case 5:20-cv-00605 Document 2 Filed 03/26/20 Page 21 of 42 Page ID #:91

1

Mr. Vasquez and the other seven individuals were brought into a new room

2 for processing. Id. ¶ 23. Another officer was present in the room, again not wearing

3 a mask. Id. The processing room did not allow for six feet of space between the

4 occupants. Id. They were in the room for approximately an hour. Id.

5

After processing, Mr. Vasquez was brought to his dormitory area, which was

6 under quarantine. Id. ¶ 24. During the quarantine, Mr. Vasquez and other occupants

7 of his dormitory were not allowed in the cafeteria or the yard and had to spend the

8 whole day in their holding area. Id. ¶ 25. Officers wearing gloves and masks would

9 bring food in to-go containers with plastic-wrapped utensils directly to their holding

10 area and each dorm room would get food one at a time. Id. These quarantine

11 procedures were in place upon Mr. Vasquez’s arrival at the facility, and they

12 remained in effect through Friday, March 20, 2020. Id. ¶ 26. During that time, all

13 the staff members who came in and out of his holding area wore masks and gloves.

14 Id. On Saturday, March 21, 2020, the quarantine was lifted and the staff stopped

15 wearing masks in Mr. Vasquez’s holding area. Id. No one informed Mr. Vasquez

16 why the quarantine was initially in effect or why it was removed. Id. Mr. Vasquez

17 and his fellow detainees were not even formerly informed that the quarantine was

18 lifted, but they assume this is the case since everyone is now allowed to use the

19 cafeteria and the yard area. Id.

20

Mr. Vasquez’s holding area houses approximately 60-70 people. Id. ¶ 24.

21 Within the larger area, people sleep in smaller dorm rooms with four to eight people

22 each. Id. Mr. Vasquez shares a dorm room with six other people. Id. ¶ 27. The

23 seven people total in his room sleep in four bunk beds. Id. The room is not large

24 enough to maintain six feet distance between occupants, and Mr. Vasquez must be

25 in close proximity to his dorm mates just to move around his bed. Id. The seven

26 people in his dorm also share a toilet and sink that they must clean themselves. Id.

27 NOTICE OF EMERGENCY MOTION AND MOTION FOR A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER;

28

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER -21

Case 5:20-cv-00605 Document 2 Filed 03/26/20 Page 22 of 42 Page ID #:92

1 They use a spray that is shared with everyone in the holding area. Id. When the

2 spray runs out, they need to wait for guards to bring more in order to clean their

3 bathroom area. Id. There is a common area in the holding area with tables and seats

4 that is shared by all detainees. Id. ¶ 28.

5

Now that the quarantine is over, all 60 to 70 people from Mr. Vasquez’s

6 holding area eat in the cafeteria at the same time. Id. ¶ 31. They line up in close

7 proximity to one another, with only a few inches of space between one another in

8 line. Id. Cafeteria workers do not wear masks as they serve meals. Id.

9

Nobody has provided Mr. Vasquez or his fellow detainees with hand sanitizer

10 or masks. Id. ¶ 33. Gloves are available, but there are no requirements to use them

11 and most people do not. Id. ¶ 28. At least one guard is supervising the holding area,

12 and multiple guards rotate through the area over the course of the day, switching

13 four or five times each day. Id. ¶ 30. The guards wore masks during the quarantine

14 period, but they do not presently wear masks. Id.

15

Mr. Vasquez is extremely concerned about his health and well-being in this

16 detention facility during the midst of the global COVID-19 pandemic. In light of

17 his ongoing work-related injuries, Mr. Vasquez is particularly concerned about the

18 lack of adequate medical care he is receiving while in detention. Id. ¶¶ 32-35.

19

Due to ICE’s actions, Mr. Vasquez was recklessly and unnecessarily taken

20 from his home, where he had plans to visit his doctor and receive recommendations

21 for medical treatment of his serious injuries, id. ¶ 7, and subsequently placed in a

22 detention setting that exposes him to great risk of infection of COVID-19. The close

23 proximity he experiences every day with those in his dorm and holding area are

24 dangerous conditions at this moment of the COVID-19 outbreak. The risks of

25 introducing a new person into a detention setting, both for that person, for fellow

26 detainees, and for ICE officers and guards was widely known by experts and could

27 NOTICE OF EMERGENCY MOTION AND MOTION FOR A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER;

28

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER -22

Case 5:20-cv-00605 Document 2 Filed 03/26/20 Page 23 of 42 Page ID #:93

1 and should have been easily avoided if government officials had not carried out the

2 irresponsible raids that brought Mr. Vasquez into custody.

3

F. Respondents Know the Dangers

4

Respondents’ actions show they are aware of the unprecedented threat

5 COVID-19 poses, but they have refused to extend the same protections to Mr. Bravo

6 and Mr. Vazquez that they are now extending to others. As noted, ICE relented from

7 its business-as-usual policy of continuing enforcement actions during a global

8 pandemic on March 18, 2020, just days after petitioners were detained.24 And just

9 days later, on March 20, 2020, officials at Adelanto Detention Center began

10 releasing elderly detainees from custody. Pet. Ex. D., Declaration of Debbie Allen

11 (“Allen Decl.”) ¶ 4. By March 22, 2020, younger individuals detained in the facility

12 were also being released. Id. ¶ 5. Yet Petitioners remain in Adelanto Detention

13 Center, without justification, deprived of the ability to self-isolate, denied basic

14 protective equipment, and cut off from potentially life-saving treatment if they fall

15 ill.

16

* * *

17

Petitioners filed a writ of habeas corpus and complaint for declaratory and

18 injunctive relief under the Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause on March 25, 2020.

19 Petitioners allege that they are entitled to immediate release from detention under

20 the special relationship doctrine and the state created danger doctrine, and because

21 the conditions of their detention amount to unconstitutional punishment.

22

III. LEGAL STANDARD

23

Petitioners are entitled to a temporary restraining order if they show: (1)

24 likely success on the merits; (2) likely irreparable harm absent preliminary relief;

25

26 24 Mejia, supra note 16.

27 NOTICE OF EMERGENCY MOTION AND MOTION FOR A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER;

28

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER -23

Case 5:20-cv-00605 Document 2 Filed 03/26/20 Page 24 of 42 Page ID #:94

1 (3) the balance of equities tips in their favor; and (4) an injunction is in the public’s

2 interest. Pimentel v. Dreyfus, 670 F.3d 1096, 1105–06 (9th Cir. 2012); Sierra

3 Forest Legacy v. Rey, 577 F.3d 1015, 1021-23 (9th Cir. 2009). Plaintiffs seeking a

4 mandatory injunction must show that the law and facts clearly favor their position.

5 See Garcia v. Google, Inc., 786 F.3d 733, 740 (9th Cir. 2015) (en banc). Under the

6 Ninth Circuit’s “sliding scale” approach, a stronger showing of one element may

7 offset a weaker showing of another, as long as plaintiffs “establish that irreparable

8 harm is likely.” All. for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127, 1131 (9th Cir.

9 2011).

10

IV. ARGUMENT

11

A. Petitioners are likely to succeed on the merits

12

The Due Process Clause provides that no person shall “be deprived of life,

13 liberty, or property, without due process of law.” U.S. Const. amend. V. Its

14 protections extend to “every person within the nation’s borders,” regardless of

15 immigration status. Lopez-Valenzuela v. Arpaio, 770 F.3d 772, 781 (9th Cir.

16 2014); id. (“Even one whose presence in this country is unlawful, involuntary, or

17 transitory is entitled to that constitutional protection.” (quoting Mathews v. Diaz,

18 426 U.S. 67, 77 (1976)).

19

Petitioners’ due process claim arises under the special relationship doctrine,

20 the state-created danger doctrine, and the settled prohibition on punitive

21 confinement. Petitioners are likely to succeed on the merits of these claims.

22

1. Petitioners’ state-created danger claim is likely to succeed on

23

the merits

24

Under the state-created danger doctrine, the government violates an

25 individual’s right to due process when it (1) “affirmatively place[s] [the] individual

26 in danger,” (2) by “acting with ‘deliberate indifference to [a] known or obvious

27 NOTICE OF EMERGENCY MOTION AND MOTION FOR A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER;

28

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER -24

Case 5:20-cv-00605 Document 2 Filed 03/26/20 Page 25 of 42 Page ID #:95

1 danger.’” Kennedy v. City of Ridgefield, 439 F.3d 1055, 1062 (9th Cir. 2006)

2 (quoting Munger v. City of Glasgow, 227 F.3d 1082, 1086 (9th Cir. 2000) and L.W.

3 v. Grubbs, 92 F.3d 894, 900 (9th Cir. 1996)). The government affirmatively places

4 an individual in danger when it leaves “the person in a situation that [is] more

5 dangerous than the one in which [it] found him.” Hernandez v. City of San Jose,

6 897 F.3d 1125, 1133 (9th Cir. 2018) (quoting Munger, F.3d at 1086). The relevant

7 inquiry is thus whether the government’s actions “create[d] or expose[d] an

8 individual to a danger which he or she would not have otherwise faced.” Kennedy,

9 439 F.3d at 1061. The government acts with deliberate indifference to a known or

10 obvious danger when it “recognize[s] an unreasonable risk and actually intend[s] to

11 expose [the plaintiff] to such risks without regard to the consequences to [the

12 plaintiff].” Hernandez, 897 F.3d at 1135 (internal brackets omitted) (quoting Patel

13 v. Kent Sch. Dist., 648 F.3d 965, 974 (9th Cir. 2011)). An unreasonable risk

14 includes future harm caused by conditions of confinement. See Helling v.

15 McKinney, 509 U.S. 25, 33 (1993). Here, during a public health emergency and

16 with awareness of the risks of community transmission of COVID-19, ICE

17 deliberately conducted raids and arrested, transported, and detained Petitioners—

18 all without taking necessary precautions to protect Petitioners from transmission of

19 the virus. ICE thus acted with deliberate indifference in affirmatively exposing

20 Petitioners to a heightened risk of contracting COVID-19.

21

a. ICE has affirmatively placed Petitioners in danger.

22

At every stage of Petitioners’ arrest and detention, ICE officials and officers

23 have taken affirmative actions that have exposed Petitioners to a greater risk of

24 contracting COVID-19 than they would have otherwise faced.

25

First, ICE officials made an affirmative enforcement decision to conduct the

26 raids, which were intended to lead to the arrest and detention of individuals such as

27 NOTICE OF EMERGENCY MOTION AND MOTION FOR A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER;

28

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER -25

Case 5:20-cv-00605 Document 2 Filed 03/26/20 Page 26 of 42 Page ID #:96

1 Petitioners, amidst government-mandated restrictions aimed at reducing

2 community transmission of COVID-19 through social distancing. From the

3 moment officers arrived at Petitioners’ doors, Petitioners were actively deprived of

4 the ability to take these basic self-protective measures.

5

Second, ICE continued to actively disregard the threat of the pandemic while

6 it processed Petitioners through the system using effectively the same procedures it

7 would have on a normal day. ICE officers conducted Petitioners’ arrests,

8 transported Petitioners to a federal building, and held Petitioners there for extended

9 periods without taking necessary and basic precautions to protect Petitioners from

10 COVID-19 transmission. Preventive measures such as social distancing (i.e.,

11 maintaining physical separation from other persons of at least six feet), washing

12 hands or using hand sanitizer, wearing protective apparel (such as masks and

13 gloves), and disinfecting hard surfaces (such as police car seats and handcuffs) are

14 necessary to reduce the risk of COVID-19 transmission. Mishori Decl. ¶ 40.

15 During both arrests, ICE officers who were not wearing masks physically grabbed

16 Petitioners, placed them in handcuffs and/or ankle chains, and put them into

17 vehicles. Bravo Decl. ¶¶ 8, 10; Vasquez Decl. ¶¶ 13-14, 16. The officers did not

18 offer Petitioners masks, gloves, or hand sanitizer, nor did they take Petitioners’

19 temperatures or ask any detailed questions about their health. Bravo Decl. ¶ 9;

20 Vasquez Decl. ¶ 15. Following Mr. Bravo’s arrest, ICE officers arrested another

21 individual, whom they handcuffed and placed in the car next to Mr. Bravo, and

22 whom Mr. Bravo subsequently learned had recently experienced flu-like

23 symptoms, which are consistent with COVID-19 symptoms. Mishori Decl. ¶ 13.

24 While transporting Petitioners to a federal building in downtown Los Angeles,

25 Petitioners sat in close proximity to ICE officers, and Mr. Bravo sat next to the

26 recently-ill individual. Bravo Decl. ¶ 11; Vasquez Decl. ¶ 15. When Mr. Bravo

27 NOTICE OF EMERGENCY MOTION AND MOTION FOR A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER;

28

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER -26

Case 5:20-cv-00605 Document 2 Filed 03/26/20 Page 27 of 42 Page ID #:97

1 arrived at the federal building, ICE officers who were not wearing masks took him

2 and the other individual out of the car, holding onto their arms. Bravo Decl. ¶ 12.

3 The officers brought Mr. Bravo and the other individual to a room, where they

4 were held with two other individuals for over nine hours. Id. Mr. Bravo was thus

5 confined for an extended period with an individual who had recently experienced

6 symptoms of COVID-19. Similarly, ICE officers confined Mr. Vasquez in a room

7 with seven other people—some of whom were coughing—for nine hours.

8 Vasquez Decl. ¶¶ 17-18. The room was too small for Mr. Vasquez and the other

9 detainees to remain six feet apart from one another. Id. ¶ 17.

10

ICE continued to endanger Petitioners by ignoring necessary precautions

11 when it transported them to the Adelanto Detention Facility. To transport

12 Petitioners to the detention center, ICE officers who were not wearing masks

13 handcuffed and chained Petitioners at their waists and feet, and brought them to a

14 van. Bravo Decl. ¶ 13; Vasquez Decl. ¶ 19. The officers did not provide masks or

15 gloves to Petitioners or the individuals with whom they had been confined. Bravo

16 Decl. ¶ 13; Vasquez Decl. ¶ 20. During the transports, Mr. Bravo sat in close

17 proximity to three other detainees and two ICE officers, and Mr. Vasquez sat in

18 close proximity to seven other detainees and two ICE officers. Bravo Decl. ¶ 13;

19 Vasquez Decl. ¶¶ 20-21. Upon arrival at the detention center, ICE officers

20 physically removed Petitioners from the vehicles. Bravo Decl. ¶ 14; Vasquez

21 Decl. ¶ 21. The officers placed Petitioners, together with the other detainees, into a

22 small room for medical screening. Bravo Decl. ¶ 14; Vasquez Decl. ¶ 21. The

23 ICE employee who conducted Mr. Bravo’s medical screening did not wear a mask.

24 Bravo Decl. ¶ 15.

25

The ICE officers’ actions in the course of arresting Petitioners, transporting

26 them to the federal building, holding them there, and then transporting them to

27 NOTICE OF EMERGENCY MOTION AND MOTION FOR A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER;

28

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER -27

Case 5:20-cv-00605 Document 2 Filed 03/26/20 Page 28 of 42 Page ID #:98

1 Adelanto affirmatively placed Petitioners in danger by exposing them to a greater

2 risk of contracting COVID-19 than they would have faced had they not been

3 arrested and detained. Mishori Decl. ¶ 37. The ICE officers not only failed to take

4 many necessary precautions themselves, but they also prevented Petitioners and the

5 individuals with whom they were detained—at least one of whom had recently

6 experienced symptoms consistent with COVID-19—from taking such precautions.

7 Id. ¶ 40 (ICE’s actions “blatantly ignore[d] current CDC guidelines to minimize

8 any exposure at this critical moment in the pandemic”); see also Munger, 227 F.3d

9 at 1086 (“In examining whether an officer affirmatively places an individual in

10 danger, we do not look solely to the agency of the individual, nor do we rest our

11 opinion on what options may or may not have been available to the individual.

12 Instead, we examine whether the officers left the person in a situation that was

13 more dangerous than the one in which they found him.”).

14

Finally, ICE is presently detaining Petitioners in conditions that expose them

15 to unacceptable risks from COVID-19, far greater than they would face if left in

16 their homes. Mishori Decl. ¶¶ 44-52. As the virus continues its potentially

17 exponential spread, it is all but certain to find its way into Adelanto, if it has not

18 already. There it will find a tinderbox of involuntary crowding and

19 underpreparedness.

20

ICE has placed Mr. Bravo in a dormitory of about 88 people, and Mr.

21 Vasquez in a dormitory of about 60 to 70 people, where all of the people share a

22 common space and shower space. Bravo Decl. ¶ 19; Vasquez Decl. ¶¶ 24, 28. ICE

23 does not provide masks or hand sanitizer to detainees, and although gloves are

24 available, many people do not wear them. Bravo Decl. ¶ 19; Vasquez Decl. ¶ 28.

25 Mr. Bravo’s dormitory is staffed by two ICE officers at all times; these officers do

26 not wear masks. Bravo Decl. ¶ 20. Similarly, although the ICE officers in Mr.

27 NOTICE OF EMERGENCY MOTION AND MOTION FOR A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER;

28

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER -28

Case 5:20-cv-00605 Document 2 Filed 03/26/20 Page 29 of 42 Page ID #:99

1 Vasquez’s dormitory wore masks while the dormitory was under quarantine, they

2 no longer do so. Vasquez Decl. ¶ 29. At mealtimes, Petitioners are forced into

3 close proximity with other detainees when they line up to receive their meals (from

4 ICE employees who do not wear masks) and eat at communal tables. Bravo Decl.

5 ¶ 21; Vasquez Decl. ¶ 30. At night, Mr. Bravo shares a small room with three

6 other people, and Mr. Vasquez shares a room with six other people, sleeping in

7 bunkbeds less than six feet apart. Bravo Decl. ¶ 18; Vasquez Decl. ¶ 27. Each

8 Petitioner shares an open bathroom with the other detainees in his room. Bravo

9 Decl. ¶ 18; Vasquez Decl. ¶ 27.

10

ICE’s affirmative detention of Petitioners in these conditions places them at

11 heightened risk of contracting COVID-19. Mishori Decl. ¶ 49 (“The living

12 conditions are not amenable to the necessary social distancing and hygiene

13 measures that would be necessary to contain or minimize spread of the virus[.]”);

14 see also Coleman v. Schwarzenegger, 922 F. Supp. 2d 882, 888 (E.D. Cal. 2009)

15 (recognizing that crowding in prisons makes them “vulnerable to outbreaks of

16 communicable disease”). ICE’s confinement of Petitioners in close proximity with

17 other detainees and ICE officers renders Petitioners entirely unable to practice

18 social distancing, the primary measure recommended to avoid transmission of the

19 virus. Moreover, ICE’s actions have prevented Petitioners from taking other

20 preventive measures to reduce their risk of infection, such as wearing masks or

21 using hand sanitizer. Nor have ICE officers at the detention center taken necessary

22 precautions to avoid transmitting the virus to detainees. ICE’s detention of

23 Petitioners thus continues to expose them to a greater risk of contracting COVID-

24 19 than they would face if they were able to remain in their homes and take

25 precautions to protect themselves.

26

27 NOTICE OF EMERGENCY MOTION AND MOTION FOR A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER;

28

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER -29

Case 5:20-cv-00605 Document 2 Filed 03/26/20 Page 30 of 42 Page ID #:100

1

If that comes to pass, or if anyone else at Adelanto contracts COVID-19, the

2 consequences will be dire for everyone at the facility (including Petitioners).

3 Detention facilities in general are not appropriately equipped to deal with an

4 outbreak of a disease as dangerous and contagious as COVID-19. Mishori Decl. ¶

5 24. Adelanto in particular has been cited for the inadequacy of its medical

6 facilities. See CRCL Report On Adelanto ICE Processing Center, On-site

7 Investigation Report at 1, 4-5. As a result, the risks of contracting COVID-19 are

8 all the more severe (and potentially fatal) for those in Petitioners’ position.

9

b. ICE acted with deliberate indifference to a known or

10

obvious danger.

11

The second prong of the state-created danger doctrine requires that the

12 government act with “deliberate indifference to a known or obvious danger,” i.e.,

13 that it “recognize[] an unreasonable risk and actually intend[] to expose [the

14 plaintiff] to such risks without regard to the consequences to [the plaintiff].”

15 Kennedy, 439 F.3d at 1062 (internal brackets omitted) (quoting Grubbs, 92 F.3d at

16 900); Hernandez, 897 F.3d at 1135 (internal brackets omitted) (quoting Patel, 648

17 F.3d at 974).

18

Here, community transmission of COVID-19 was a “known or obvious

19 danger” at the time ICE officials decided to undertake the raids in which ICE

20 officers arrested Petitioners. Mishori Decl. ¶¶ 35, 39. As of March 16, 2020—the

21 day of the raids—the federal government had declared a national emergency due to

22 the COVID-19 outbreak, California and Los Angeles had been in a state of

23 emergency for almost two weeks, the Los Angeles Unified School District had

24 ordered the closure of all of its campuses, and the mayor of Los Angeles had

25 placed significant restrictions on business establishments in order to slow

26

27 NOTICE OF EMERGENCY MOTION AND MOTION FOR A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER;

28

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER -30

Case 5:20-cv-00605 Document 2 Filed 03/26/20 Page 31 of 42 Page ID #:101

1 community transmission of the virus.25 A Los Angeles Times article describing

2 the raids made plain that ICE officials and officers were well-aware of the

3 unreasonable and immediate risk of community transmission of COVID-19.

4 Brittny Mejia, California coronavirus lockdown: ICE agents make arrests, L.A.

5 Times (Mar. 17, 2020), https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-03-17/for-

6 ice-agents-its-business-as-unusual-day-after-sweeping-coronavirus-order

7 (describing COVID-19’s “effects across the agency,” including ICE officials’

8 concerns about “limiting contact with the public” and cancellations of events that

9 ICE officers were to attend); see also Hernandez, 897 F.3d at 1137 (officers’

10 actions with knowledge of “immediate danger” of risk constitute deliberate

11 indifference).

12

With full awareness of the significant risks that close contact and increased

13 exposure to others posed to Petitioners, ICE officials deliberately chose to proceed

14 with the raids and the detention of Petitioners. By placing Petitioners in close

15 contact with others during the raids and housing them in a crowded facility with a

16 history of insufficient medical care, ICE officials clearly acted with deliberate

17 indifference to the risk of COVID-19 transmission. See Hernandez v. Cty. of

18 Monterey, 110 F. Supp. 3d 929, 942–43 (N.D. Cal. 2015) (finding fact that jail’s

19 practices regarding tuberculosis did not conform to the standards of the CDC and

20

21

22

25 Proclamation No. 9994, 85 F.R. 15,337 (Mar. 18, 2020) (proclamation issued Mar. 13, 2020); Governor Gavin Newsom, Proclamation of a State of Emergency (Mar. 4, 2020), available at https://www.gov.ca.gov/wp-

23

content/uploads/2020/03/3.4.20-Coronavirus-SOE-Proclamation.pdf; Office of Mayor Eric Garcetti, Mayor Garcetti Strengthens Readiness Against Coronavirus by Declaring Local Emergency (Mar. 4, 2020), https://

24

www.lacity.org/highlights/mayor-garcetti-strengthens-readiness-against-coronavirus-declaring-local-emergency; Howard Blume et al., Los Angeles Unified district to close all schools (Mar. 13, 2020), https://www.latimes.com/

25

california/story/2020-03-13/los-angeles-schools-closure-possible-cornavirus; Mayor Eric Garcetti, Public Order Under City of Los Angeles Emergency Authority (Mar. 15, 2020), available at http://lamayor.org/sites/g/files/

26 wph446/f/article/files/Mayor%20Garcetti%20Emergency%20Order%20-%20March%2015%202020.pdf.

27 NOTICE OF EMERGENCY MOTION AND MOTION FOR A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER;

28

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER -31

Case 5:20-cv-00605 Document 2 Filed 03/26/20 Page 32 of 42 Page ID #:102

1 others to “strongly indicate[] deliberate indifference” and granting preliminary

2 injunction).

3

These raids were carried out as part of the federal government’s systematic

4 intensification of immigration enforcement in sanctuary cities such as Los Angeles.

5 Caitlin Dickerson et al., ‘Flood the Streets’: ICE Targets Sanctuary Cities With

6 Increased Surveillance N.Y. Times (Mar. 5, 2020), https://www.nytimes.com/

7 2020/03/05/us/ICE-BORTAC-sanctuary-cities.html. By undertaking the raids and

8 detaining Petitioners amidst the COVID-19 pandemic, ICE and its officers have

9 acted without regard for the consequences to Petitioners and with the intent to

10 instill fear in immigrant communities during a time of already heightened public

11 anxiety. Mishori Decl. ¶ 36 (“[C]onducting these raids was a reckless decision by

12 the government that unnecessarily put countless people at risk of exposure to the

13 coronavirus.”). ICE’s actions thus satisfy the second prong of the state-created

14 danger doctrine. Cf. J.P. v. Sessions, No. LA CV18-06081 JAK, 2019 WL

15 6723686, at *36 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 5, 2019) (federal government “‘acted with

16 deliberate indifference to a known or obvious danger’ by implementing the [family

17 separation] policy with awareness of the potential harm it would cause and

18 intending to use that as a basis to deter future attempts by those similarly situated

19 to enter the United States” (internal brackets omitted) (quoting Hernandez, 897

20 F.3d at 1137, and Kennedy, 439 F.3d at 1062)).

21

2. Petitioners’ special relationship claim is likely to succeed

22

on the merits

23

When the government takes custody of a person, the government creates a

24 “special relationship” that entails assuming responsibility for the person’s safety and

25 well-being. See, e.g., Henry A. v. Willden, 678 F.3d 991, 998 (9th Cir. 2011). The

26 government violates the Due Process Clause when it takes custody of a person “and

27 NOTICE OF EMERGENCY MOTION AND MOTION FOR A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER;

28

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER -32

Case 5:20-cv-00605 Document 2 Filed 03/26/20 Page 33 of 42 Page ID #:103

1 at the same time fails to provide for his basic human needs – e.g., food, clothing,

2 shelter, medical care, and reasonable safety.” DeShaney v. Winnebago Cty. Dep’t

3 of Soc. Servs., 489 U.S. 189, 200 (1989) (emphasis added). Due process for civil

4 detainees, like those held in immigration facilities, “requires more than minimal

5 necessities.” Jones v. Blanas, 393 F.3d 918, 931 (9th Cir. 2004); Unknown Parties

6 v. Nielsen, No. CV-15-00250-TUC-DCB, 2020 WL 813774, at *3 (D. Ariz. Feb. 19,

7 2020).

8

To state a claim under the special relationship doctrine, a plaintiff must show:

9 “(i) the defendant made an intentional decision with respect to the conditions under

10 which the plaintiff was confined; (ii) those conditions put the plaintiff at substantial

11 risk of suffering serious harm; (iii) the defendant did not take reasonable available

12 measures to abate the risk, even though a reasonable official in the circumstances

13 would have appreciated the high degree of involved . . . ; and (iv) by not taking such

14 measures, the defendant caused the plaintiff’s injuries.” Gordon v. Cty. of Orange,

15 888 F.3d 1118, 1124-25 (9th Cir. 2018); see also Martinez v. Geo Grp., Inc., No.

16 EDCV 18-1125-R, 2019 WL 3758026, at *3 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 30, 2019) (applying

17 Gordon to claims about Adelanto Detention Center’s failure to attend to a detainee’s

18 medical needs); J.P., 2019 WL 6723686, at *32-33 (applying Gordon to claims

19 about conditions of confinement in civil immigration detention). The government’s

20 conduct with respect to reasonable available measures must be “objectively

21 unreasonable, a test that will necessarily turn on the facts and circumstances of each

22 particular case.” Castro v. Cty. of Los Angeles, 833 F.3d 1060, 1071 (9th Cir. 2016)

23 (quoting Kingsley v. Hendrickson, 135 S. Ct. 2466, 2473-74 (2015).

24

When Respondents arrested and detained Petitioners, they created a special

25 relationship that required them to provide Petitioners with medical care and

26 reasonable safety. Respondents made the intentional decisions to conduct

27 NOTICE OF EMERGENCY MOTION AND MOTION FOR A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER;

28

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER -33

Case 5:20-cv-00605 Document 2 Filed 03/26/20 Page 34 of 42 Page ID #:104

1 immigration enforcement raids against Petitioners during a pandemic with local

2 community spread, placing Petitioners at continued risk of suffering serious harm.

3 See Parsons v. Ryan, 754 F.3d 657, 679 (9th Cir. 2014) (recognizing that inadequate

4 health and safety measures at a detention center cause cognizable harm to every

5 inmate). Petitioners were subjected to close physical contact with ICE officers,

6 Adelanto staff, and other detainees without access to precautionary measures

7 mandated by experts, government officials, and the CDC to protect people from

8 infection. Respondents now continue to hold Petitioners in close-proximity in

9 detention facilities while releasing others back to their communities. According to

10 experts, as well as government officials and the CDC, these conditions put

11 Petitioners at far greater risk of exposure to COVID-19, which subjects them to a

12 risk of serious illness and death—a risk that is in turn further exacerbated by being

13 detained in a facility with a history of poor and inadequate medical care. See Brown

14 v. Plata, 563 U.S. 493, 532 (2011) (observing that “all prisoners [] are at risk so long

15 as the State continues to provide inadequate care,” and those who are not yet sick

16 are not “remote bystanders”—they are the “next potential victims”). Even under the

17 Eighth Amendment analysis applicable to prisoners who have been convicted of a

18 crime, leaving detainees without the assurance that their health and safety will be

19 adequately attended to causes each and every one of them a cognizable harm.

20 Parsons, 754 F.3d at 679. That must be even more true for civil detainees like

21 Petitioners.

22

Respondents did not take reasonable available measures to abate the risk of

23 exposure to COVID-19. Given the extensive guidance from federal, state, and local

24 officials, the most reasonable and effective measure to abate the risk for Petitioners

25 would have been to delay these non-urgent enforcement raids until after

26 management of the pandemic. At minimum, precautionary measures recommended

27 NOTICE OF EMERGENCY MOTION AND MOTION FOR A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER;

28

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER -34

Case 5:20-cv-00605 Document 2 Filed 03/26/20 Page 35 of 42 Page ID #:105

1 by experts during arrests and detention could have been taken, and Respondents

2 could have provided necessary supplies and space for Petitioners to avoid exposure

3 while detained. The failure to take these measures was objectively unreasonable in

4 light of the local, state, and federal guidance on the pandemic that was publicized at

5 the time of the raids and throughout Petitioners’ detention.

6

By failing to take these measures, Respondents subjected and continue to

7 subject Petitioners to a substantial and increased risk of contracting COVID-19, and

8 becoming seriously ill as a result. See Xochihua-Jaimes, No. 18-71460, at *1.

9 (sua sponte ordering release of a detainee in light of the current “rapidly escalating

10 public health crisis, which public health authorities predict will especially impact

11 immigration detention centers”).

12

3. Petitioners’ punitive detention claim is likely to succeed on

13

the merits

14

Petitioners’ due process claim is also likely to succeed under a punitive

15 detention theory. At the same time as the federal government is imploring all

16 Americans to take drastic measures to protect themselves and their loved ones from

17 the life-threatening effects of COVID-19, Respondents have prevented Petitioners

18 from taking even basic self-protective steps, placing them at a severely increased

19 risk of contracting the virus. The endangering of Petitioners’ lives and well-being—

20 as well as that of surrounding communities—is excessive in relation to any

21 legitimate governmental objective here and thus violates the Constitution.

22

When the federal government detains an immigrant, the immigrant is

23 considered a civil detainee, even if they have a prior criminal conviction. See

24 Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 690 (2001). As civil detainees, immigrants are

25 afforded greater protection by the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause than

26 convicted prisoners or even pretrial criminal detainees. Unlike a convicted prisoner,

27 NOTICE OF EMERGENCY MOTION AND MOTION FOR A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER;

28

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER -35

Case 5:20-cv-00605 Document 2 Filed 03/26/20 Page 36 of 42 Page ID #:106

1 who may be punished as long as the punishment is not “cruel and unusual,” Pierce

2 v. Cty. of Orange, 526 F.3d 1190, 1205 (9th Cir. 2008), a civil detainee may not be

3 punished at all prior to an adjudication of guilt. Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 535

4 (1970); Jones, 393 F.3d at 932. And civil immigration detainees “must be afforded

5 more considerate treatment” than criminal pretrial detainees. See Unknown Parties,

6 2020 WL 813774, at *12 (citing Youngberg v. Romeo, 457 U.S. 307, 321-22 (1982)).

7

To establish a violation of the Due Process Clause, Petitioners need not show

8 that Respondents intended to subject them to punishment. See Pierce, 526 F.3d at

9 1205. Under the standard that governs here, a restriction is “punitive” if it is

10 “excessive in relation to [its non-punitive purpose]’ or is ‘employed to achieve

11 objectives that could be accomplished in so many alternative and less harsh

12 methods.’” Jones, 393 F.3d at 933-34 (alteration in original) (quoting Demery v.

13 Arpaio, 378 F.3d 1020, 1028 (9th Cir. 2004); Hallstrom v. City of Garden City, 991

14 F.2d 1473, 1484 (9th Cir. 1993)). A presumption of punishment arises when a civil

15 detainee is held in similar or more restrictive conditions than his criminal

16 counterparts. See Jones, 393 F.3d at 932; see also Torres v. U.S. Dep’t of Homeland

17 Sec., 411 F. Supp. 3d 1036, 1065 (C.D. Cal. 2019) (finding a presumption of

18 punitiveness where plaintiffs “allege[d] conditions at Adelanto and policies by ICE

19 that are not ‘more considerate’ than at criminal facilities”). To rebut this

20 presumption, the government must show that its actions are not excessive in relation

21 to a legitimate, nonpunitive purpose. King v. Cty. of Los Angeles, 885 F.3d 548, 558

22 (9th Cir. 2018).

23

Even assuming Respondents have a legitimate, nonpunitive interest in

24 continuing to enforce the immigration laws, the arrest and detainment of Petitioners

25 is excessive in relation to that interest. A presumption of punishment arises because

26 Petitioners are subjected to worse conditions than many convicted prisoners. Across

27 NOTICE OF EMERGENCY MOTION AND MOTION FOR A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER;

28

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER -36

Case 5:20-cv-00605 Document 2 Filed 03/26/20 Page 37 of 42 Page ID #:107

1 the country—including in the Central District of California—decisionmakers are

2 releasing convicted prisoners to prevent them and surrounding communities from

3 suffering bodily harm or death from COVID-19. See US Jails Begin Releasing

4 Prisoners to Stem Covid-19 Infections, BBC News (Mar. 19, 2020),

5 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-51947802; Shelly Insheiwat, L.A.

6 County Releases 1,700 Inmates to Lessen Jail Population Due to COVID-19 Crisis,

7 Fox 11 L.A. (Mar. 24, 2020), https://www.foxla.com/news/l-a-county-releases-

8 1700-inmates-to-lessen-jail-population-due-to-covid-19-crisis.

9

To rebut the presumption of punitiveness, a “bare assertion of the requirement

10 of keeping [] detainees . . . will not suffice.” Torres, 411 F. Supp. 3d at 1065

11 (alteration in original) (quoting Jones, 393 F.3d at 934) (rejecting defendants’

12 proposed justification that they were “required by statute to maintain a secure facility

13 for certain immigrants, pending the outcome of their proceedings”). But even if

14 Respondents could articulate a legitimate, nonpunitive interest, endangering the

15 lives and wellbeing of Petitioners and surrounding communities is excessive in

16 relation to that interest. Detention itself exposes Petitioners to an unacceptable risk

17 of contracting COVID-19 and suffering bodily harm or death as a result.

18 Respondents have confined Petitioners in close quarters with many other

19 individuals, any of whom could already be infected even if asymptomatic. The virus

20 spreads rapidly in close quarters, often severely infecting not only older individuals

21 or those with preexisting conditions but also younger, previously healthy people.

22 Moreover, if COVID-19 begins to spread in Adelanto, there is no indication that the

23 facility has adequate equipment, staff, or resources to treat large numbers of severely

24 ill detainees.

25

Since arresting Petitioners, ICE has subverted its ordinary immigration

26 enforcement procedures by curtailing its raids and releasing detainees in order to

27 NOTICE OF EMERGENCY MOTION AND MOTION FOR A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER;

28

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER -37

Case 5:20-cv-00605 Document 2 Filed 03/26/20 Page 38 of 42 Page ID #:108

1 stop the spread of COVID-19. In ICE’s own view, the deadly effects of COVID-19

2 outweigh the usual imperatives of immigration enforcement. And no risk to the

3 community justified the arrest and detention of these particular individuals under

4 these conditions. Mr. Bravo and Mr. Vasquez have been in the United States for

5 approximately 28 and 18 years, respectively, and each has only one minor, years-old

6 criminal incident to his name.

7

For these reasons, Petitioners are likely to succeed on the merits of their claim

8 that their arrests and detention violate the Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause.

9

B. Petitioners have suffered, and will continue to suffer, irreparable harm

10

Petitioners have experienced, and continue to experience, irreparable harm as

11 the COVID-19 pandemic continues to surge. “It is well established that the

12 deprivation of constitutional rights ‘unquestionably constitutes irreparable injury.’”

13 Hernandez v. Sessions, 872 F.3d 976, 994 (9th Cir. 2017) (quoting Melendres v.

14 Arpaio, 695 F.3d 990, 1002 (9th Cir. 2012)). Petitioners have demonstrated that

15 ICE’s actions in conducting the raids and arresting, transporting, and detaining

16 Petitioners have violated Petitioners’ Fifth Amendment due process rights. It thus

17 “follows inexorably from [the] conclusion that the government’s current policies are

18 likely unconstitutional . . . that Plaintiffs have also carried their burden as to

19 irreparable harm.” Id. at 995.

20

But the injury here goes beyond the harm that generally flows from a

21 constitutional violation. The Ninth Circuit has deemed the spread of COVID-19 a

22 “rapidly escalating public health crisis” that “public health authorities predict will

23 especially impact immigration detention centers”—and, as Petitioners’ evidence

24 demonstrates, has already impacted the Adelanto Detention Facility. Xochihua-

25 Jaimes, No. 18-71460, at *1; Allen Decl. ¶¶ 4-5. Even without the extraordinary

26 strain on medical resources caused by the spreading pandemic, the Ninth Circuit has

27 NOTICE OF EMERGENCY MOTION AND MOTION FOR A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER;

28

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER -38

Case 5:20-cv-00605 Document 2 Filed 03/26/20 Page 39 of 42 Page ID #:109

1 recognized that persons in immigration detention suffer irreparable injury due to “the

2 subpar medical and psychiatric care in ICE detention facilities.” Hernandez, 872

3 F.3d at 994. This already “subpar” care has been pushed beyond its limits by the

4 COVID-19 outbreak.

5

“COVID-19 is a serious disease,” with a “fatality rate . . . about ten times

6 higher than a severe seasonal influenza, even in advanced countries with highly

7 effective health care systems.” Mishori Decl. ¶ 9. Preliminary data from China

8 demonstrate that “serious illness, sometimes resulting in death, occurs in up to 16%

9 of cases.” Id. By their actions in arresting Petitioners, detaining them at the Los

10 Angeles federal building, and transporting them to the federal building and

11 subsequently to the Adelanto Detention Facility—all without taking necessary

12 precautions—Defendants have already increased Petitioners’ risk of contracting

13 COVID-19. This heightened danger is exacerbated by Petitioners’ continued

14 detention at the Adelanto Detention Facility, where Defendants’ failure to take

15 necessary preventative measures and to provide adequate medical care greatly

16 increases Petitioners’ risk of infection.

17

C. The balance of the equities and the public interest weigh decidedly in

18

Petitioners’ favor.

19

Both of the remaining factors weigh overwhelmingly in favor of Petitioners.

20 By deliberately conducting immigration enforcement raids during a public health

21 crisis, the government needlessly endangered Petitioners for the sole purpose of

22 terrorizing their communities. As discussed supra, the government continues to

23 endanger Petitioners in their confinement, subjecting them to an unreasonably

24 heightened risk of serious illness, severe bodily harm, or death from COVID-19.

25 Whereas relief for Petitioners is literally a matter of life or death, such relief would

26 cause no harm to the government, because the government has no interest in

27 NOTICE OF EMERGENCY MOTION AND MOTION FOR A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER;

28

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER -39

Case 5:20-cv-00605 Document 2 Filed 03/26/20 Page 40 of 42 Page ID #:110

1 engaging in the unconstitutional immigration enforcement and detention practices to

2 which it has subjected—and continues to subject—Petitioners. See Rodriguez v.

3 Robbins, 715 F.3d 1127, 1145 (9th Cir. 2013) (“[Government] cannot suffer harm

4 from an injunction that merely ends an unlawful practice.”). Moreover, the

5 government’s ongoing violation of Petitioners’ constitutional rights per se militates

6 in favor of granting a temporary restraining order. Ariz. Dream Act Coal. v. Brewer,

7 757 F.3d 1053 (9th Cir. 2014) (“[B]y establishing a likelihood that Defendants’

8 policy violates the U.S. Constitution, Plaintiffs have also established that both the

9 public interest and the balance of the equities favor a preliminary injunction.”);

10 Melendres, 695 F.3d at 1002 (“[I]t is always in the public interest to prevent the

11 violation of a party’s constitutional rights.” (quoting Sammartano v. First Judicial

12 Dist. Court, 303 F.3d 959, 974 (9th Cir. 2002)).

13

Releasing Petitioners to a medical facility where they can be tested and

14 quarantined until results are known is also in the public interest. COVID-19 is a

15 highly contagious virus to which no person is immune. Mishori Decl. ¶ 8

16 (“[E]veryone is at risk of infection because our immune systems have never been

17 exposed to or developed protective responses against this virus.”). On average, each

18 person infected transmits the virus to two or three more people, such that a single

19 infected individual may trigger the virus’s exponential transmission. Id. Nor is

20 transmission limited to detainees—ICE officers, contractors, and vendors who

21 become infected with COVID-19 within the detention facility are likely to spread

22 the virus to their families and communities, resulting in widespread exposure in the

23 communities where these individuals live. Id. ¶¶ 18, 41-43.

24

ICE conducted the raids in which its officers arrested Petitioners during a

25 period of known community transmission of COVID-19 in the Los Angeles region.

26 Id. ¶¶ 35, 39. During the raids, ICE officers repeatedly violated Centers for Disease

27 NOTICE OF EMERGENCY MOTION AND MOTION FOR A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER;

28

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER -40

Case 5:20-cv-00605 Document 2 Filed 03/26/20 Page 41 of 42 Page ID #:111

1 Control guidelines by engaging in prolonged physical contact with Petitioners and

2 repeatedly putting Petitioners in close proximity to both the officers and other

3 detainees. Bravo Decl. ¶¶ 8-11; Vasquez Decl. ¶¶ 13-16; Mishori Decl. ¶ 40. Any

4 of these individuals—the ICE officers, the other detainees, or Petitioners—could

5 have been affected by asymptomatic community transmission of COVID-19,

6 Mishori Decl. ¶ 39, and Petitioners have not been tested for the virus. Releasing

7 Petitioners to a medical facility where they can be tested and quarantined if necessary

8 will not only reduce Petitioners’ risk of infection, but will also reduce the risk of an

9 outbreak of COVID-19 at the Adelanto Detention Facility. Such an outbreak would

10 not only “overwhelm[] the already strained health infrastructure within the facility,”

11 but would likely sweep rapidly into the surrounding communities, overburdening

12 hospitals and healthcare facilities with an influx not only of detainees, but also of

13 ICE officers, contractors, vendors, and members of the communities in which they

14 live. Id. ¶ 22.

15

Finally, releasing Petitioners will likely deter ICE from engaging in further

16 raids that violate the constitutional rights of immigrants like Petitioners. Such raids

17 have a chilling effect on immigrant communities, deterring community members

18 from accessing necessary healthcare services. Cessation of unconstitutional ICE

19 raids during the COVID-19 pandemic will make it more likely that community

20 members in need of healthcare will feel sufficiently secure to seek it out. The public

21 interest thus also favors provisional relief.

22

V. CONCLUSION

23

For the foregoing reasons, Petitioners’ request for a temporary restraining

24 order that secures their immediate release should be granted.

25

26

27 NOTICE OF EMERGENCY MOTION AND MOTION FOR A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER;

28

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER -41

Case 5:20-cv-00605 Document 2 Filed 03/26/20 Page 42 of 42 Page ID #:112

1

2

Dated: March 25, 2020

PUBLIC COUNSEL

3

4

By:___________________________ Mark Rosenbaum

5

Judy London

6

Talia Inlender Jesselyn Friley

7

Elizabeth Hercules-Paez

8

Amanda Savage

9

Dated: March 25, 2020

KAPLAN HECKER & FINK LLP

10

11

By:___________________________

12

Joshua A. Matz

13

Kyla Magun Michael Skocpol

14

Dylan Cowit

15

Attorneys for Petitioners, Pedro Bravo

16

Castillo and Luis Vasquez Rueda

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27 NOTICE OF EMERGENCY MOTION AND MOTION FOR A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER;

28

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER -42

 
 Case 5:20-cv-00605-TJH-AFM Document 32 Filed 03/27/20 Page 1 of 11 Page ID #:292

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

United States District Court

9

Central District of California

10

Western Division

11

12 PEDRO BRAVO CASTILLO and 13 LUIS VASQUEZ RUEDA.,

14

Petitioners,

15

v.

16 WILLIAM BARR, et al.,

17

Respondents.

CV 20-00605 TJH (AFMx)
Temporary Restraining Order and
Order to Show Cause

18

19

The Court has considered the application for a temporary restraining order filed

20 by Petitioners Pedro Bravo Castillo and Luis Vasquez Rueda, together with the moving

21 and opposing papers.

22

Castillo is a 58-year-old man who has, or had, suffered from kidney stones,

23 arthritis and a hernia. Vasquez is a 23-year-old man who is recovering from a work-

24 related facial fracture. Castillo and Vasquez are, currently, being detained at the

25 Adelanto Detention Center [“Adelanto”], in San Bernardino County. San Bernardino

26 County is within the Central District of California.

27

Castillo and Vasquez filed this case as a petition for a writ of habeas corpus and

28 complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief. Castillo and Vasquez are civil

Order – Page 1 of 11

Case 5:20-cv-00605-TJH-AFM Document 32 Filed 03/27/20 Page 2 of 11 Page ID #:293

1 detainees, having been arrested by officers from the United States Department of

2 Homeland Security’s [“DHS”] Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement

3 [“BICE”] on March 16, 2020, and March 17, 2020, respectively, and then placed into

4 removal proceedings, with the service of a Notice to Appear at the time of their arrest.

5 Castillo’s removal proceedings are pursuant to the Immigration and Nationality Act

6 [“INA”] § 212(a)(6)(A)(i)(I), for being an alien present in the United States without

7 being admitted or paroled, while Vasquez’s removal proceedings are pursuant to INA

8 § 237(a)(1)(B), for being an alien who after admission as a nonimmigrant under INA

9 § 101(a)(15) remained in the United States for a time longer than permitted.

10

Adelanto is a private, for-profit immigration detention facility operated by Geo

11 Group, Inc. Adelanto has the capacity to hold, under normal situations, well over

12 1,000 detainees through a contract with BICE. Over the years, and as recently as 2018,

13 DHS’s Office of the Inspector General had, repeatedly, found that significant and

14 various health and safety risks existed at Adelanto.

15

On March 4, 2020, the State of California declared a state of emergency in

16 response to the coronavirus and the resulting COVID-19 disease. On March 10, 2020,

17 San Bernardino County followed suit and declared a state of emergency. On March 11,

18 2020, the World Health Organization [“WHO”] declared COVID-19 to be a global

19 pandemic. On March 13, 2020, President Donald J. Trump, formally acknowledged

20 and declared a national emergency in response to WHO’s pandemic declaration.

21

On March 18, 2020, BICE announced that "[t]o ensure the welfare and safety of

22 the general public as well as officers and agents in light of the ongoing COVID-19

23 pandemic response, [it] will temporarily adjust its enforcement posture beginning today

24 ... [and that its] highest priorities are to promote life-saving and public safety

25 activities." Further, BICE stated that it would focus enforcement "on public safety risks

26 and individuals subject to mandatory detention based on criminal grounds [, and for

27 those people who do not fall into those categories, agents] will exercise discretion to

28 delay enforcement actions until after the crisis or utilize alternatives to detention, as

Order – Page 2 of 11

Case 5:20-cv-00605-TJH-AFM Document 32 Filed 03/27/20 Page 3 of 11 Page ID #:294

1 appropriate."

2

According to the United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the

3 coronavirus is spread mainly through person-to-person contact. More specifically, the

4 coronavirus is spread between people who are in close contact – within about 6 feet –

5 with one another through respiratory droplets produced when an infected person coughs

6 or sneezes. The droplets can land in the mouths or noses, or can be inhaled into the

7 lungs, of people who are within about 6 feet of the infected person. Moreover, studies

8 have established that the coronavirus can survive up to three days on various surfaces.

9

COVID-19 is highly contagious and has a mortality rate ten times greater than

10 influenza. Most troublesome is the fact that people infected with the coronavirus can

11 be asymptomatic during the two to fourteen day COVID-19 incubation period. During

12 that asymptomatic incubation period, infected people are, unknowingly, capable of

13 spreading the coronavirus. Despite early reports, no age group is safe from COVID-

14 19. While older people with pre-existing conditions are the most vulnerable to COVID-

15 19-related mortality, young people without preexisting conditions have, also,

16 succumbed to COVID-19. There is no specific treatment, vaccine or cure for COVID-

17 19.

18

Because of the highly contagious nature of the coronavirus and the, relatively

19 high, mortality rate of COVID-19, the disease can spread uncontrollably with

20 devastating results in a crowded, closed facility, such as an immigration detention

21 center. At Adelanto, a holding area can contain 60 to 70 detainees, with a large

22 common area and dormitory-type sleeping rooms housing four or six detainees with

23 shared sinks, toilets and showers. Guards regularly rotate through the various holding

24 areas several times a day. At meal times – three times a day – the 60 to 70 detainees

25 in each holding area line up together, sometimes only inches apart, in the cafeteria.

26 The guards, detainees and cafeteria workers do not regularly wear gloves or masks to

27 prevent the spread of the coronavirus. While detainees have access to gloves, there is

28 no requirement that they wear them. Detainees do not have access to masks or hand

Order – Page 3 of 11

Case 5:20-cv-00605-TJH-AFM Document 32 Filed 03/27/20 Page 4 of 11 Page ID #:295

1 sanitizer – though thorough hand washing could be more effective than hand sanitizers

2 at preventing the spread of the coronvirus.

3

Just days ago, the first BICE detainee was confirmed to have been infected with

4 COVID-19 in New Jersey at the Bergin County Jail, a BICE detention facility.

5 Moreover, last week, a correctional officer at the Bergin County Jail was, also,

6 confirmed to have been infected.

7

Yesterday, Judge Analisa Torres of the United States District Court for the

8 Southern District of New York issued an order releasing certain immigration detainees,

9 stating the following:

10

The nature of detention facilities makes exposure and spread of the

11

virus particularly harmful. Jaimie Meyer M.D., M.S., who has worked

12

extensively on infectious diseases treatment and prevention in the context

13

of jails and prisons, recently submitted a declaration in this district noting

14

that the risk of COVID-19 to people held in New York-area detention

15

centers, including the Hudson, Bergen County, and Essex County jails, “is

16

significantly higher than in the community, both in terms of risk of

17

transmission, exposure, and harm to individuals who become infected.”

18

Meyer Decl. ¶ 7, Velesaca v. Wolf, 20 Civ. 1803 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 28,

19

2020), ECF No. 42.

20

Moreover, medical doctors, including two medical experts for the

21

Department of Homeland Security, have warned of a “tinderbox scenario”

22

as COVID-19 spreads to immigration detention centers and the resulting

23

“imminent risk to the health and safety of immigrant detainees” and the

24

public. Catherine E. Shoichet, Doctors Warn of “Tinderbox scenario” if

25

Coronavirus Spreads in ICE Detention, CNN (Mar. 20, 2020),

26

https://www.cnn.com/2020/03/20/health/doctors-ice-detention-

27

coronavirus/index.html. “It will be nearly impossible to prevent

28

widespread infections inside the Hudson, Bergen, and Essex County jails

Order – Page 4 of 11

Case 5:20-cv-00605-TJH-AFM Document 32 Filed 03/27/20 Page 5 of 11 Page ID #:296

1

now that the virus is in the facilities because detainees live, sleep, and use

2

the bathroom in close proximity with others, and because ‘[b]ehind bars,

3

some of the most basic disease prevention measures are against the rules

4

or simply impossible.’” Petition ¶ 47 (internal quotation marks and citation

5

omitted).

6 Basank, et al., v. Decker, et al., 20 Civ. 2518 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 28, 2020), ECF No.

7 11.

8

On March 23, 2020, the Ninth Circuit ordered, sua sponte and without further

9 explanation, the release of an immigration petitioner “[i]n light of the rapidly escalating

10 public health crisis, which public health authorities predict will especially impact

11 immigration detention centers.” Xochihua-Jaimes v. Barr, 2020 WL 1429877, No. 18-

12 71460 (9th Cir. Mar. 23, 2020).

13

Here, Petitioners base their petition on three claims: (1) Violation of the Fifth

14 Amendment for a state-created danger; (2) Violation of the Fifth Amendment based on

15 the special relationship between the Government and the persons in its custody; and (3)

16 Violation of the Fifth Amendment based on punitive detention.

17

The theme underlying the Petitioners’ various Fifth Amendment claims is that

18 they are civil, not criminal, detainees. When the Government detains a person for the

19 violation of an immigration law, the person is a civil detainee, even if he has a prior

20 criminal conviction. See Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 690 (2001). As civil

21 detainees, Petitioners are entitled to more considerate treatment than criminal detainees,

22 whose conditions of confinement are designed to punish. See Youngberg v. Romeo, 457

23 U.S. 307, 321-22 (1982). Moreover, under the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process

24 Clause, a civil detainee cannot be subjected to conditions that amount to punishment.

25 See King v. Cty. of L.A., 885 F.3d 548, 556-557 (9th Cir. 2018).

26

When the Government takes a person into custody and detains him against the

27 person’s will, the Constitution imposes upon the Government a duty to assume

28 responsibility for that detainee’s safety and general well being. See Helling v.

Order – Page 5 of 11

Case 5:20-cv-00605-TJH-AFM Document 32 Filed 03/27/20 Page 6 of 11 Page ID #:297

1 McKinney, 509 U.S. 25, 32 (1993). Under the Eighth Amendment, the Government

2 must provide criminal detainees with basic human needs, including reasonable safety.

3 Helling, 509 U.S. at 32. The Government violates the Eighth Amendment if it confines

4 a criminal detainee in unsafe conditions. See Helling, 509 U.S. at 33. Moreover, the

5 Government may not “ignore a condition of confinement that is sure or very likely to

6 cause serious illness.” See Helling, 509 U.S. at 32.

7

The law is clear – the Government cannot put a civil detainee into a dangerous

8 situation, especially where that dangerous situation was created by the Government.

9 See Hernandez v. City of San Jose, 897 F.3d 1125, 1133 (9th Cir. 2018). The Due

10 Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment prohibits the Government from exposing an

11 individual to a danger which he would not have otherwise faced. See Kennedy v. City

12 of Ridgefield, 439 F.3d 1055, 1061 (9th Cir. 2006) citing DeShaney v. Winnebago

13 County Dep't of Soc. Serv., 489 U.S. 189, 197, 201 (1989). A civil detainee’s

14 constitutional rights are violated if a condition of his confinement places him at

15 substantial risk of suffering serious harm, such as the harm caused by a pandemic. See

16 Smith v, Wash., 781 F. App’x. 595, 588 (9th Cir. 2019).

17

Here, Petitioners argued that the conditions at Adelanto expose them to a

18 substantial risk of suffering serious harm – increasing their exposure to or contracting

19 COVID-19. When the Government detains a person, thereby taking custody of that

20 person, it creates a special relationship wherein the Government assumes responsibility

21 for that detainee’s safety and well-being. See, e.g., Henry A. v. Willden, 678 F.3d 991,

22 998 (9th Cir. 2012). If the Government fails to provide for a detainee’s basic human

23 needs, including medical care and reasonable safety, the Due Process Clause is violated.

24 DeShaney v. Winnebago Cty. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 489 U.S. 189, 200 (1989). Indeed,

25 the Due Process Clause mandates that civil immigration detainees are entitled to more

26 than minimal human necessities. See Jones v. Blanas, 393 F.3d 918, 931 (9th Cir.

27 2004). At a minimum, here, the Government owes a duty to Petitioners, as civil

28 immigration detainees, to reasonably abate known risks. See Castro v. Cty. of Los

Order – Page 6 of 11

Case 5:20-cv-00605-TJH-AFM Document 32 Filed 03/27/20 Page 7 of 11 Page ID #:298

1 Angeles, 833 F.3d 1060, 1071 (9th Cir. 2016). Inadequate health and safety measures

2 at a detention center cause cognizable harm to every detainee at that center. See

3 Parsons v. Ryan, 754 F.3d 657, 679 (9th Cir. 2014).

4

Petitioners are entitled to a temporary restraining order if they show: (1) A

5 likelihood of success on the merits; (2) That they are likely to suffer irreparable harm

6 in the absence of relief; (3) The balance of equities tip in their favor; and (4) An

7 injunction is in the public’s interest. See Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555

8 U.S. 7, 20 (2008). Under the Ninth Circuit’s sliding scale approach, a stronger

9 showing of one element may offset a weaker showing of another. See Pimentel v.

10 Dreyfus, 670 F.3d 1096, 1105 (9th Cir. 2012). Accordingly, Petitioners are entitled

11 to a temporary restraining order if “serious questions going to the merits [are] raised

12 and the balance of hardships tips sharply in [their] favor.” All. for the Wild Rockies v.

13 Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127, 1131 (9th Cir. 2011).

14

In its opposition brief, the Government sets forth the United States Attorney

15 General’s discretionary right to detain an alien in removal proceedings prior to a final

16 order of removal. See 8 U.S.C. § 1226. Indeed, the Attorney General has the

17 discretion to either: (1) Detain the person without bond or (2) Release the person on a

18 bond of at least $1,500.00 or on conditional parole. 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a). In making

19 the initial bond determination, a BICE officer must assesses whether the person has

20 “demonstrate[d]” that “release would not pose a danger to property or persons, and that

21 the alien is likely to appear for any future proceeding.” 8 C.F.R. § 236.1(c)(8). If the

22 BICE officer determines that release, with or without bond, is not appropriate, then the

23 person may appeal to an Immigration Judge. 8 C.F.R. §§ 236.1(d)(1), 1003.19,

24 1236.1(d)(1). The Immigration Judge’s decision, then, would be appealable to the

25 Board of Immigration Appeals. 8 C.F.R. §§ 1003.1(b)(7), 1003.19(f), 1003.38.

26

However, because the Petitioners, here, have asserted claims for violations of

27 their Fifth Amendment substantive due process rights, and those claims exceed the

28 jurisdictional limits of the Immigration Court and the Board of Immigration Appeals,

Order – Page 7 of 11

Case 5:20-cv-00605-TJH-AFM Document 32 Filed 03/27/20 Page 8 of 11 Page ID #:299

1 Petitioners need not first exhaust their administrative remedies. Garcia-Ramirez v.

2 Gonzales, 423 F.3d 935, 938 (9th Cir. 2005).

3

The Government argued that Petitioners lack standing because they cannot

4 establish that they would suffer a concrete, non-hypothetical injury absent a temporary

5 restraining order in that their likelihood of contracting COVID-19 is speculative. See

6 Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560-561 (1992).

7

However, it is clear that “[a] remedy for unsafe conditions need not await a tragic

8 event.” Helling, 509 U.S. at 33. The Government cannot be “deliberately indifferent

9 to the exposure of [prisoners] to a serious, communicable disease on the ground that the

10 complaining [prisoner] shows no serious current symptoms.” Helling, 509 U.S. at 33.

11 “That the Eighth Amendment protects against future harm to inmates is not a novel

12 proposition.” Helling, 509 U.S. at 33. The Supreme Court clearly stated that “... the

13 Eighth Amendment protects [prisoners] against sufficiently imminent dangers as well

14 as current unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain and suffering... .” Helling, 509

15 U.S. at 33. Indeed, the Court concluded that where prisoners in punitive isolation were

16 crowded into cells and some of them had infectious maladies, “... the Eighth

17 Amendment required a remedy, even though it was not alleged that the likely harm

18 would occur immediately and even though the possible infection might not affect all of

19 those exposed.” Helling, 509 U.S. at 33. Civil detainees are entitled to greater liberty

20 protections than individuals detained under criminal processes. See Jones, 393 F.3d at

21 932.

22

In its amicus brief filed in Helling, the Government stated that it “... recognizes

23 that there may be situations in which exposure to toxic or similar substances would

24 present a risk of sufficient likelihood or magnitude – and in which there is a sufficiently

25 broad consensus that exposure of anyone to the substance should therefore be prevented

26 – that the [Eighth] [A]mendment’s protection would be available even though the effects

27 of exposure might not be manifested for some time.” Helling, 509 U.S. at 34. The

28 Government, here, cannot say, with any degree of certainty, that no one – staff or

Order – Page 8 of 11

Case 5:20-cv-00605-TJH-AFM Document 32 Filed 03/27/20 Page 9 of 11 Page ID #:300

1 detainee – at Adelanto has not been, or will not be, infected with the coronavirus. The

2 science is well established – infected, asymptomatic carriers of the coronavirus are

3 highly contagious. Moreover, the Petitioners presently before the Court are suffering

4 from a condition of confinement that takes away, inter alia, their ability to socially

5 distance. The Government cannot be deliberately indifferent to the Petitioners’ potential

6 exposure to a serious, communicable disease on the ground that they are not, now,

7 infected or showing current symptoms. See Helling, 509 U.S. at 32.

8

It is “cruel and unusual punishment to hold convicted criminals in unsafe

9 conditions.” Helling, 509 U.S. at 33. The Eighth Amendment is violated when a

10 condition of a criminal detainee’s confinement puts him at substantial risk of suffering

11 serious harm and that the condition causes suffering inconsistent with contemporary

12 standards of human decency. See Smith v. Wash., 781 F. App’x. 595, 597-598 (9th

13 Cir. 2019). However, a civil detainee seeking to establish that the conditions of his

14 confinement are unconstitutional need only show that his conditions of confinement

15 “put [him] at substantial risk of suffering serious harm.” See Smith, 781 F. App’x.

16 597-598. Here, BICE cannot be deliberately indifferent to the potential exposure of

17 civil detainees to a serious, communicable disease on the ground that the complaining

18 detainee shows no serious current symptoms, or ignore a condition of confinement that

19 is more than very likely to cause a serious illness. See Helling, 509 U.S. at 32.

20

Under the Due Process Clause, a civil detainee cannot be subject to the current

21 conditions of confinement at Adelanto. The Supreme Court has acknowledged that it

22 has “... great difficulty agreeing that prison authorities may not be deliberately

23 indifferent to an inmate’s current health problems but may ignore a condition of

24 confinement that is sure or very likely to cause serious illness and needless suffering the

25 next week or month or year.” Helling, 509 U.S. at 33

26

As the Court writes this order, the number of confirmed COVID-19 cases in the

27 United States has already exceeded the number of confirmed cases in every other

28 country on this planet. Indeed, all of the experts and political leaders agree that the

Order – Page 9 of 11

Case 5:20-cv-00605-TJH-AFM Document 32 Filed 03/27/20 Page 10 of 11 Page ID #:301

1 number of confirmed cases in the United States will only increase in the days and weeks

2 ahead. The number of cases in the United States has yet to peak. In San Bernardino

3 County, the number of confirmed cases, there, has tripled over the past five days.

4

The risk that Petitioners, here, will flee, given the current global pandemic, is

5 very low, and reasonable conditions can be fashioned to ensure their future appearance

6 at deportation proceedings. While both Petitioners have committed prior criminal

7 offenses in this country related to driving under the influence, both Castillo and

8 Vasquez have completed their sentences of five days and three days incarceration,

9 respectively. Petitioners are not criminal detainees, they are civil detainees entitled to

10 more considerate treatment than criminal detainees. See Youngberg.

11

Civil detainees must be protected by the Government. Petitioners have not been

12 protected. They are not kept at least 6 feet apart from others at all times. They have

13 been put into a situation where they are forced to touch surfaces touched by other

14 detainees, such as with common sinks, toilets and showers. Moreover, the Government

15 cannot deny the fact that the risk of infection in immigration detention facilities – and

16 jails – is particularly high if an asymptomatic guard, or other employee, enters a

17 facility. While social visits have been discontinued at Adelanto, the rotation of guards

18 and other staff continues.

19

The Petitioners have established that there is more than a mere likelihood of their

20 success on the merits. See Winter, 555 U.S. at 20.

21

The Petitioners have established that they are likely to suffer irreparable harm in

22 the absence of relief. See Winter, 555 U.S. at 20. It is well established that the

23 deprivation of constitutional rights unquestionably constitutes irreparable injury. See

24 Hernanez v. Session, 872 F.3d 976, 994 (9th Cir. 2017).

25

The balance of the equities tip sharply in favor of the Petitioners. The Petitioners

26 faces irreparable harm to their constitutional rights and health. Indeed, there is no harm

27 to the Government when a court prevents the Government from engaging in unlawful

28 practices. See Rodriguez v. Robbins, 715 F.3d 1127, 1145 (9th Cir. 2013).

Order – Page 10 of 11

Case 5:20-cv-00605-TJH-AFM Document 32 Filed 03/27/20 Page 11 of 11 Page ID #:302

1

Finally, the emergency injunctive relief sought, here, is absolutely in the public’s

2 best interest. The public has a critical interest in preventing the further spread of the

3 coronavirus. An outbreak at Adelanto would, further, endanger all of us – Adelanto

4 detainees, Adelanto employees, residents of San Bernardino County, residents of the

5 State of California, and our nation as a whole.

6

This is an unprecedented time in our nation’s history, filled with uncertainty,

7 fear, and anxiety. But in the time of a crisis, our response to those at particularly high

8 risk must be with compassion and not apathy. The Government cannot act with a

9 callous disregard for the safety of our fellow human beings.

10

Accordingly,

11

It is Ordered that the motion for a temporary retraining order be, and hereby

12 is, Granted.

13

It is further Ordered that the Respondents shall, forthwith and without delay,

14 release Petitioners Pedro Bravo Castillo and Luis Vasquez Rueda from custody pending

15 further order of this Court.

16

It is further Ordered the Respondents shall show cause, if they have any, as

17 to why the Court should not issue a preliminary injunction in this case. The

18 Respondents’ response, if any, to this order to show cause shall be filed by Noon on

19 April 6, 2020. Petitioners’ reply, if any, to Respondents’ response shall be filed by

20 Noon on April 9, 2020. The matter will then stand submitted.

21

22 Date: March 27, 2020

23

__________________________________

24

Terry J. Hatter, Jr.

25

Senior United States District Judge

26

27

28

Order – Page 11 of 11