CASREF,CLOSED,DTE,HABEAS
U.S. District Court DISTRICT OF ARIZONA (Phoenix Division) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 2:20-cv-00654-SPL--JFM

Urdaneta et al v. Keeton et al Assigned to: Judge Steven P Logan Referred to: Magistrate Judge James F Metcalf (PS) Case in other court: Ninth Circuit, 20-16363 - Order
09/14/20 Cause: 28:2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Federal)

Date Filed: 04/01/2020 Date Terminated: 11/30/2020 Jury Demand: None Nature of Suit: 463 Prisoner: Alien Detainee - Habeas Corpus Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Defendant

Petitioner

Jhonnatan Brinez Urdaneta

represented by Aleyda Yvette Borja ACLU - Phoenix, AZ P.O. Box 17148 Phoenix, AZ 85011 602-650-1854 Email: yborja@acluaz.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Anand Balakrishnan ACLU - New York, NY 125 Broad St., 18th Fl. New York, NY 10004 212-549-2660 Fax: 212-549-2654 Email: abalakrishnan@aclu.org LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Christopher David Thomas Perkins Coie LLP - Phoenix, AZ 2901 N Central Ave., Ste. 2000 Phoenix, AZ 85012 602-351-8000 Fax: 602-648-7000 Email: cthomas@perkinscoie.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Clayton Barr Perkins Coie LLP - Phoenix, AZ 2901 N Central Ave., Ste. 2000 Phoenix, AZ 85012 602-351-8085 Fax: 602-648-7085 Email: DBarr@perkinscoie.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
David Cyrus Fathi ACLU - Washington DC 915 15th St. NW, 7th Fl. Washington, DC 20005 202-548-6609 Fax: 202-393-4931 Email: dfathi@aclu.org LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Eunice Cho ACLU - Washington DC 915 15th St. NW, 7th Fl. Washington, DC 20005 202-548-6616 Fax: 202-393-4931 Email: echo@aclu.org LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Howard Ross Cabot Perkins Coie LLP - Phoenix, AZ 2901 N Central Ave., Ste. 2000 Phoenix, AZ 85012 602-351-8000 Fax: 602-648-7135 Email: hcabot@perkinscoie.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Katharine Elizabeth Ruhl Florence Immigration & Refugee Rights Project - Tucson, AZ

738 N 5th Ave., Ste. 103 Tucson, AZ 85705 520-396-3695 Email: kruhl@firrp.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kristine Jolie Beaudoin Perkins Coie LLP - Phoenix, AZ 2901 N Central Ave., Ste. 2000 Phoenix, AZ 85012 602-351-8000 Email: kbeaudoin@perkinscoie.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Laura Belous Florence Immigration & Refugee Rights Project - Tucson, AZ 738 N 5th Ave., Ste. 103 Tucson, AZ 85705 520-269-7153 Fax: 520-829-4154 Email: lbelous@firrp.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Laura McClure StJohn Florence Immigration & Refugee Rights Project - Tucson, AZ P.O. Box 86299 Tucson, AZ 85754 520-207-2320 Fax: 520-829-4154 Email: lstjohn@firrp.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Margo Rose Casselman Perkins Coie LLP - Phoenix, AZ 2901 N Central Ave., Ste. 2000 Phoenix, AZ 85012 602-351-8159 Fax: 602-648-7161 Email: mcasselman@perkinscoie.com

Petitioner Claudia Avalos Inchicaque

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael King Thomas Tan ACLU - New York, NY 125 Broad St., 18th Fl. New York, NY 10004 212-549-2660 Fax: 212-549-2654 Email: mtan@aclu.org LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Omar C Jadwat ACLU - New York, NY 125 Broad St., 18th Fl. New York, NY 10004 212-549-2620 Fax: 212-549-2654 Email: ojadwat@aclu.org LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Aleyda Yvette Borja (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Anand Balakrishnan (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Christopher David Thomas (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Clayton Barr (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

David Cyrus Fathi (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Eunice Cho (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Howard Ross Cabot (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Katharine Elizabeth Ruhl (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kristine Jolie Beaudoin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Laura Belous (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Laura McClure StJohn (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Margo Rose Casselman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael King Thomas Tan (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Petitioner Miriam Gomez Cantillano

PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Omar C Jadwat (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Aleyda Yvette Borja (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Anand Balakrishnan (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Christopher David Thomas (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Clayton Barr (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
David Cyrus Fathi (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Eunice Cho (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Howard Ross Cabot (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Petitioner Noel Mejia Hernandez

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Katharine Elizabeth Ruhl (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kristine Jolie Beaudoin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Laura Belous (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Laura McClure StJohn (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Margo Rose Casselman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael King Thomas Tan (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Omar C Jadwat (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Aleyda Yvette Borja (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Anand Balakrishnan

(See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Christopher David Thomas (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Clayton Barr (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
David Cyrus Fathi (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Eunice Cho (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Howard Ross Cabot (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Katharine Elizabeth Ruhl (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kristine Jolie Beaudoin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Laura Belous (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Petitioner Jose Vargas Saucedo

Laura McClure StJohn (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Margo Rose Casselman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael King Thomas Tan (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Omar C Jadwat (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Aleyda Yvette Borja (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Anand Balakrishnan (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Christopher David Thomas (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Clayton Barr (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
David Cyrus Fathi

(See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Eunice Cho (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Howard Ross Cabot (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Katharine Elizabeth Ruhl (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kristine Jolie Beaudoin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Laura Belous (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Laura McClure StJohn (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Margo Rose Casselman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael King Thomas Tan (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Petitioner Bismer Rodriguez Alvarez

Omar C Jadwat (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Aleyda Yvette Borja (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Anand Balakrishnan (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Christopher David Thomas (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Clayton Barr (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
David Cyrus Fathi (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Eunice Cho (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Howard Ross Cabot (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Petitioner Landy Sanchez Ramos

Katharine Elizabeth Ruhl (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kristine Jolie Beaudoin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Laura Belous (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Laura McClure StJohn (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Margo Rose Casselman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael King Thomas Tan (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Omar C Jadwat (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Aleyda Yvette Borja (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Anand Balakrishnan (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Christopher David Thomas (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Clayton Barr (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
David Cyrus Fathi (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Eunice Cho (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Howard Ross Cabot (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Katharine Elizabeth Ruhl (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kristine Jolie Beaudoin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Laura Belous (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Laura McClure StJohn

Petitioner Geidys Calzadilla Borrero

(See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Margo Rose Casselman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael King Thomas Tan (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Omar C Jadwat (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Aleyda Yvette Borja (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Anand Balakrishnan (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Christopher David Thomas (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Clayton Barr (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
David Cyrus Fathi (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Eunice Cho (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Howard Ross Cabot (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Katharine Elizabeth Ruhl (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kristine Jolie Beaudoin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Laura Belous (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Laura McClure StJohn (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Margo Rose Casselman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael King Thomas Tan (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Omar C Jadwat

V. Respondent Chuck Keeton in his official capacity as Warden of the La Palma Correctional Center
Respondent Fred Figueroa in his official capacity as Warden of the Eloy Detention Center
Respondent Albert Carter in his official capacity as Acting Phoenix Field Office Director, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Respondent Cesar Topete in his official capacity as Assistant Phoenix Field Office Director, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Respondent Jason Ciliberti in his official capacity as Assistant Phoenix Field Office Director, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Respondent John Cantu in his official capacity as Assistant

(See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Lisa Marie Hemann US Attorneys Office - Phoenix, AZ 2 Renaissance Square 40 N Central Ave., Ste. 1800 Phoenix, AZ 85004-4408 602-514-7500 Email: lisa.hemann@usdoj.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Lisa Marie Hemann (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Lisa Marie Hemann (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Lisa Marie Hemann (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Lisa Marie Hemann (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Lisa Marie Hemann (See above for address)

Phoenix Field Office Director, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement
Respondent Chad Wolf Acting Secretary of the United States Department of Homeland Security
Amicus Joseph Bick Dr.

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Lisa Marie Hemann (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Darren W Johnson Paul Weiss Rifkind Wharton & Garrison LLP 1285 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10019 212-373-3000 Fax: 212-492-0710 Email: djohnson@paulweiss.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
David Kimball-Stanley Paul Weiss Rifkind Wharton & Garrison LLP 1285 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10019 212-373-3000 Fax: 212-492-0275 Email: dkimballstanley@paulweiss.com LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Joshua David R Bendor Osborn Maledon PA P.O. Box 36379 Phoenix, AZ 85067-6379 602-640-9000 Email: jbendor@omlaw.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Susanna M Buergel Paul Weiss Rifkind Wharton & Garrison LLP

Amicus Robert L Cohen Dr.
Amicus Joe Goldenson Dr.

1285 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10019 212-373-3000 Email: sbuergel@paulweiss.com LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Darren W Johnson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
David Kimball-Stanley (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Joshua David R Bendor (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Susanna M Buergel (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Darren W Johnson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
David Kimball-Stanley (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Joshua David R Bendor (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Amicus Kathryn Hampton MSt
Amicus Ranit Mishori Dr.

Susanna M Buergel (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Darren W Johnson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
David Kimball-Stanley (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Joshua David R Bendor (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Susanna M Buergel (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Darren W Johnson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
David Kimball-Stanley (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Joshua David R Bendor (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Susanna M Buergel (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 04/01/2020
04/01/2020
04/01/2020
04/01/2020 04/03/2020

# Docket Text
1 PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Fed/2241). Filing fee received: $5.00, receipt number 0970-18137120 filed by Landy Sanchez Ramos, Miriam Gomez Cantillano, Bismer Rodriguez Alvarez, Geidys Calzadilla Borrero, Jhonnatan Brinez Urdaneta, Noel Mejia Hernandez, Claudia Avalos Inchicaque, Jose Vargas Saucedo. (submitted by Howard Cabot) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Civil Cover Sheet)(REK) (Entered: 04/02/2020)
2 DECLARATION of Kristine J. Beaudoin re: 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Fed/2241) by Petitioners Bismer Rodriguez Alvarez, Geidys Calzadilla Borrero, Miriam Gomez Cantillano, Noel Mejia Hernandez, Claudia Avalos Inchicaque, Landy Sanchez Ramos, Jose Vargas Saucedo, Jhonnatan Brinez Urdaneta. (submitted by Howard Carter) (REK) (Entered: 04/02/2020)
3 SUMMONS Submitted by Bismer Rodriguez Alvarez, Geidys Calzadilla Borrero, Miriam Gomez Cantillano, Noel Mejia Hernandez, Claudia Avalos Inchicaque, Landy Sanchez Ramos, Jose Vargas Saucedo, Jhonnatan Brinez Urdaneta. (submitted by Howard Cabot) (Attachments: # 1 Summons, # 2 Summons, # 3 Summons, # 4 Summons, # 5 Summons, # 6 Summons) (REK) (Entered: 04/02/2020)
4 NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT (REK) (Entered: 04/02/2020)
5 ORDER: The Clerk of Court shall serve: a copy of the Summons, the 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 and Complaint for Injunctive and Declaratory Relief, and this Order upon the United States Attorney for the District of Arizona by certified mail addressed to the civil process clerk at the office of the United States Attorney pursuant to Rule 4(i) (1)(A) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Clerk of Court shall also send by certified mail a copy of the Summons, the Petition, and this Order to the United States Attorney General pursuant to Rule 4(i)(1)(B) and to Respondents Keeton, Figueroa, Carter, Topete, Ciliberti, Cantu, and Wolf pursuant to Rule 4(i)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Clerk of Court must send a copy of this order by separate email to the Immigration TRO Group. Petitioners must file a "Notice of Change in Status" with the Clerk of Court within 2 days of any material change in their custody status. Petitioners may not include a motion for other relief with the Notice. Signed by Senior Judge James A Teilborg on 4/3/20. (GMP) (Entered: 04/03/2020)

04/03/2020 04/03/2020 04/03/2020
04/05/2020 04/06/2020 04/06/2020
04/06/2020

6 * MOTION Transfer Case to Judge Steven P. Logan by Bismer Rodriguez Alvarez, Geidys Calzadilla Borrero, Miriam Gomez Cantillano, Noel Mejia Hernandez, Claudia Avalos Inchicaque, Landy Sanchez Ramos, Jose Vargas Saucedo, Jhonnatan Brinez Urdaneta. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Barr, Daniel) *Incorrect event used, attorney noticed to refile using correct LR 42 Motions event on 4/6/2020 (WLP). (Entered: 04/03/2020)
7 MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages for Temporary Restraining Order by Bismer Rodriguez Alvarez, Geidys Calzadilla Borrero, Miriam Gomez Cantillano, Noel Mejia Hernandez, Claudia Avalos Inchicaque, Landy Sanchez Ramos, Jose Vargas Saucedo, Jhonnatan Brinez Urdaneta. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Casselman, Margo) (Entered: 04/03/2020)
8 *(filed at doc. 19 ) - LODGED Proposed Application for Temporary Restraining Order and Order to Show Cause Regarding Preliminary Injunction, and Memorandum of Points & Authorities re: 7 MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages for Temporary Restraining Order . Document to be filed by Clerk if Motion or Stipulation for Leave to File or Amend is granted. Filed by Bismer Rodriguez Alvarez, Geidys Calzadilla Borrero, Miriam Gomez Cantillano, Noel Mejia Hernandez, Claudia Avalos Inchicaque, Landy Sanchez Ramos, Jose Vargas Saucedo, Jhonnatan Brinez Urdaneta. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Casselman, Margo) Modified on 4/9/2020 (GMP). (Entered: 04/03/2020)
9 NOTICE re: Change in Status by Claudia Avalos Inchicaque, Jhonnatan Brinez Urdaneta . (Beaudoin, Kristine) (Entered: 04/05/2020)
10 Summons Issued as to John Cantu, Albert Carter, Jason Ciliberti, Fred Figueroa, Chuck Keeton, Cesar Topete, Chad Wolf, US Attorney General, US Attorney for the District of Arizona. (GMP) (Entered: 04/06/2020)
12 NOTICE TO FILER OF DEFICIENCY re: 6 MOTION Transfer Case to Judge Steven P. Logan filed by Claudia Avalos Inchicaque, Jhonnatan Brinez Urdaneta, Bismer Rodriguez Alvarez, Landy Sanchez Ramos, Miriam Gomez Cantillano, Jose Vargas Saucedo, Noel Mejia Hernandez, Geidys Calzadilla Borrero. Incorrect event selected: Motion for Miscellaneous Relief found in the Motions category. Correct event: Motion to Transfer Related Case found in the LR 42 Motions category. FOLLOWUP ACTION REQUIRED: Please refile using the correct LR 42 Motion event. Deficiency must be corrected within one business day of this notice. This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry. (WLP) (Entered: 04/06/2020)
13 MOTION to Transfer Related Case (Motion to Transfer Case to Judge Steven P. Logan) by Bismer Rodriguez Alvarez, Geidys Calzadilla Borrero, Miriam Gomez Cantillano, Noel Mejia Hernandez, Claudia Avalos Inchicaque, Landy Sanchez Ramos, Jose Vargas Saucedo, Jhonnatan Brinez Urdaneta. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order) (Associated

04/06/2020
04/06/2020 04/07/2020
04/08/2020 04/08/2020 04/08/2020 04/08/2020 04/08/2020 04/08/2020 04/09/2020

Cases: CV-20-00654-PHX-JAT, CV-20-00514-PHX-SPL) (Barr, Daniel) (Entered: 04/06/2020)
14 ORDER - IT IS ORDERED that Respondents-Defendants may file a response to Petitioners-Plaintiffs' 13 Motion to Transfer no later than 12:00 p.m. on Wednesday, April 8, 2020. If Respondents-Defendants elect to file a response, Petitioners-Plaintiffs may file a reply no later than 12:00 p.m. on Thursday, April 9, 2020. See document for complete details. Signed by Senior Judge James A Teilborg on 4/6/2020. (MSA) (Entered: 04/06/2020)
15 NOTICE OF ATTORNEY APPEARANCE: Lisa M. Hemann appearing for John Cantu, Albert Carter, Jason Ciliberti, Cesar Topete, Chad Wolf. . (Hemann, Lisa) (Entered: 04/06/2020)
Remark: Pro hac vice motion(s) granted for Eunice Cho and David Cyrus Fathi on behalf of Petitioners Bismer Rodriguez Alvarez, Geidys Calzadilla Borrero, Miriam Gomez Cantillano, Noel Mejia Hernandez, Claudia Avalos Inchicaque, Landy Sanchez Ramos, Jose Vargas Saucedo, and Jhonnatan Brinez Urdaneta. This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry. (BAS) (Entered: 04/07/2020)
16 NOTICE re: Petitioners' Motion to Transfer by John Cantu, Albert Carter, Jason Ciliberti, Fred Figueroa, Chuck Keeton, Cesar Topete, Chad Wolf re: 14 Order, Set/Reset Motion and R&R Deadlines/Hearings . (Hemann, Lisa) (Entered: 04/08/2020)
17 NOTICE re: Change in Status by Jose Vargas Saucedo . (Beaudoin, Kristine) (Entered: 04/08/2020)
20 SERVICE EXECUTED: Certified Mail Receipt re: Summons/Petition/Order upon Albert Carter on 4/7/20. (SST) (Entered: 04/09/2020)
21 SERVICE EXECUTED: Certified Mail Receipt re: Summons/Petition/Order upon John Cantu on 4/7/20. (SST) (Entered: 04/09/2020)
22 SERVICE EXECUTED: Certified Mail Receipt re: Summons/Petition/Order upon Cesar Topete on 4/7/20. (SST) (Entered: 04/09/2020)
23 SERVICE EXECUTED: Certified Mail Receipt re: Summons/Petition/Order upon Jason Ciliberti on 4/7/20. (SST) (Entered: 04/09/2020)
18 ORDER: Petitioners-Plaintiffs' 7 Motion for Leave to Exceed is granted. The Clerk of Court shall file the lodged proposed 8 Application for Temporary Restraining Order and Order to Show Cause Regarding Preliminary Injunction. Respondents-Defendants shall have until 5:00 p.m. on Monday, April 13, 2020 to file an Answer to the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 and a Response to the Application for Temporary Restraining Order and Order to Show Cause Regarding

04/09/2020
04/09/2020 04/10/2020 04/10/2020 04/10/2020
04/10/2020 04/13/2020 04/13/2020

Preliminary Injunction. Respondents-Defendants shall not file a dispositive motion in place of an answer or response absent leave of Court. PetitionersPlaintiffs shall have until 5:00 p.m. on Friday, April 17, 2020 to file a Reply to Respondents-Defendants' Answer and Response. PetitionersPlaintiffs must file a "Notice of Change in Status" with the Clerk of Court within 2 days of any material change in their custody status. Petitioners may not include a motion for other relief with the Notice. Signed by Judge Steven P Logan on 4/8/20. (GMP) (Entered: 04/09/2020)
19 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order and Order to Show Cause Regarding Preliminary Injunction, and Memorandum of Points & Authorities by Bismer Rodriguez Alvarez, Geidys Calzadilla Borrero, Miriam Gomez Cantillano, Noel Mejia Hernandez, Claudia Avalos Inchicaque, Landy Sanchez Ramos, Jose Vargas Saucedo, Jhonnatan Brinez Urdaneta. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(GMP) (Entered: 04/09/2020)
25 SERVICE EXECUTED: Certified Mail Receipt re: Summons/Petition/Order upon the U.S. Attorney for the District of Arizona (attn: civil processing clerk) on 4/8/20. (SST) (Entered: 04/10/2020)
24 NOTICE re: Change in Status by Miriam Gomez Cantillano . (Beaudoin, Kristine) (Entered: 04/10/2020)
26 MOTION for Leave to File FOR LEAVE TO FILE BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE PUBLIC HEALTH AND HUMAN RIGHTS EXPERTS by Joseph Bick, Robert L. Cohen, Joe Goldenson, Kathryn Hampton, Ranit Mishori. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Bendor, Joshua) (Entered: 04/10/2020)
27 *Filed at Doc. 53 pursuant to Order 52 -- LODGED Proposed BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE PUBLIC HEALTH AND HUMAN RIGHTS EXPERTS re: 26 MOTION for Leave to File FOR LEAVE TO FILE BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE PUBLIC HEALTH AND HUMAN RIGHTS EXPERTS . Document to be filed by Clerk if Motion or Stipulation for Leave to File or Amend is granted. Filed by Joseph Bick, Robert L. Cohen, Joe Goldenson, Kathryn Hampton, Ranit Mishori. (Bendor, Joshua) *Modified on 5/11/2020 (WLP). (Entered: 04/10/2020)
28 SERVICE EXECUTED : Certified Mail Receipt re: summons/petition/order upon Fred Figueroa on 4/7/20. (GMP) (Entered: 04/13/2020)
29 SERVICE EXECUTED : Certified Mail Receipt re: Summons/Petition upon Chuck Keeton, Warden on 4/8/20 (signed by J Manning) (1 page). (SJF) (Entered: 04/13/2020)
30 RESPONSE to 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Fed/2241) by John Cantu, Albert Carter, Jason Ciliberti, Fred Figueroa, Chuck Keeton, Cesar Topete, Chad Wolf. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A-J)(Hemann, Lisa) (Entered: 04/13/2020)

04/13/2020 04/14/2020 04/15/2020 04/16/2020 04/17/2020
04/17/2020
04/17/2020 04/20/2020

31 RESPONSE in Opposition re: 19 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order filed by John Cantu, Albert Carter, Jason Ciliberti, Fred Figueroa, Chuck Keeton, Cesar Topete, Chad Wolf. (Hemann, Lisa) (Entered: 04/13/2020)
32 SERVICE EXECUTED : Certified Mail Receipt re: summons/petition/order upon US Attorney General on 4/10/20. (GMP) (Entered: 04/15/2020)
33 NOTICE re: Change in Status by Bismer Rodriguez Alvarez . (Beaudoin, Kristine) (Entered: 04/15/2020)
Remark: Pro hac vice motion(s) granted for Susanna M Buergel on behalf of Amicus Parties Joseph Bick, Robert L. Cohen, Joe Goldenson, Kathryn Hampton, and Ranit Mishori. This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry. (BAS) (Entered: 04/16/2020)
34 MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages for Reply in Support of Petition for Habeas Corpus and in Support of Application for Temporary Restraining Order and Order to Show Cause Regarding Preliminary Injunction by Bismer Rodriguez Alvarez, Geidys Calzadilla Borrero, Miriam Gomez Cantillano, Noel Mejia Hernandez, Claudia Avalos Inchicaque, Landy Sanchez Ramos, Jose Vargas Saucedo, Jhonnatan Brinez Urdaneta. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Beaudoin, Kristine) (Entered: 04/17/2020)
35 *Filed at Doc. 39 pursuant to 38 Order - LODGED Proposed Reply in Support of Petition for Habeas Corpus and in Support of Application for Temporary Restraining Order and Order to Show Cause Regarding Preliminary Injunction re: 34 MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages for Reply in Support of Petition for Habeas Corpus and in Support of Application for Temporary Restraining Order and Order to Show Cause Regarding Preliminary Injunction . Document to be filed by Clerk if Motion or Stipulation for Leave to File or Amend is granted. Filed by Bismer Rodriguez Alvarez, Geidys Calzadilla Borrero, Miriam Gomez Cantillano, Noel Mejia Hernandez, Claudia Avalos Inchicaque, Landy Sanchez Ramos, Jose Vargas Saucedo, Jhonnatan Brinez Urdaneta. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Index and Exhibits A-G)(Beaudoin, Kristine) Modified on 4/20/2020 (WLP). (Entered: 04/17/2020)
37 MOTION to Transfer Related Case by Perla Beatriz Gutierrez-Lopez. (Associated Cases: CV-20-654-PHX-SPL (FJM), CV-20-732-PHX-JAT (JFM)) (LAD) (redocketed by the clerk for administrative purposes, entitled Petitioner's Motion for Voluntary Transfer of Case) (Entered: 04/20/2020)
Remark: Pro hac vice motion(s) granted for Darren W Johnson and David Kimball-Stanley on behalf of Amicus Parties Joseph Bick, Robert L. Cohen, Joe Goldenson, Kathryn Hampton, and Ranit Mishori. This is a

04/20/2020 04/20/2020 04/20/2020
04/20/2020 04/20/2020
04/20/2020 04/22/2020
04/23/2020

TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry. (BAS) (Entered: 04/20/2020)
36 NOTICE re: Supplemental Authority in Support of Petition for Habeas Corpus and Application for TRO by Bismer Rodriguez Alvarez, Geidys Calzadilla Borrero, Miriam Gomez Cantillano, Noel Mejia Hernandez, Claudia Avalos Inchicaque, Landy Sanchez Ramos, Jose Vargas Saucedo, Jhonnatan Brinez Urdaneta . (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Beaudoin, Kristine) (Entered: 04/20/2020)
38 ORDER - IT IS ORDERED that Petitioners-Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to Exceed (Doc. 34 ) is granted. The Clerk of Court shall file the lodged proposed Reply (Doc. 35 ). Signed by Judge Steven P Logan on 4/20/2020. (WLP) (Entered: 04/20/2020)
39 REPLY in Support of 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Fed/2241), 19 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order and Order to Show Cause Regarding Preliminary Injunction, by Petitioners Bismer Rodriguez Alvarez, Geidys Calzadilla Borrero, Miriam Gomez Cantillano, Noel Mejia Hernandez, Claudia Avalos Inchicaque, Landy Sanchez Ramos, Jose Vargas Saucedo, Jhonnatan Brinez Urdaneta. (Attachments: # 1 Index and Exhibits A-G)(WLP) (Entered: 04/20/2020)
40 NOTICE re: Change in Status by Geidys Calzadilla Borrero . (Beaudoin, Kristine) (Entered: 04/20/2020)
Remark: Pro hac vice motion(s) granted for Anand Balakrishnan, Michael King Thomas Tan, and Omar C Jadwat on behalf of Petitioners Bismer Rodriguez Alvarez, Geidys Calzadilla Borrero, Miriam Gomez Cantillano, Noel Mejia Hernandez, Claudia Avalos Inchicaque, Landy Sanchez Ramos, Jose Vargas Saucedo, and Jhonnatan Brinez Urdaneta. This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry. (BAS) (Entered: 04/20/2020)
41 NOTICE re: Seven (7) Additional Confirmed COVID-19 Cases at La Palma Correctional Center by Bismer Rodriguez Alvarez, Geidys Calzadilla Borrero, Miriam Gomez Cantillano, Noel Mejia Hernandez, Claudia Avalos Inchicaque, Landy Sanchez Ramos, Jose Vargas Saucedo, Jhonnatan Brinez Urdaneta . (Beaudoin, Kristine) (Entered: 04/20/2020)
42 ORDER - IT IS ORDERED:(1) Petitioner's Motion to Transfer (Doc. 31 ) is granted. (2) The Clerk of Court shall transfer Gutierrez-Lopez v. Figueroa, CV-20-00732- PHX-JAT (JFM) to this Court. (3) All future pleadings and papers submitted for filing shall bear the following case number: CV-20-00732-PHX-SPL (JFM). Signed by Judge Steven P Logan on 4/21/2020. (Associated Cases: 2:20-cv-00514-SPL--MTM, 2:20-cv00654-SPL--JFM, 2:20-cv-00732-JAT--JFM) (WLP) (Entered: 04/22/2020)
Remark: Out of state attorney Victoria Lopez removed as counsel of record for noncompliance with admission procedures; party or parties represented

04/24/2020 04/24/2020
04/24/2020 04/27/2020 04/28/2020 04/28/2020 04/30/2020 05/01/2020
05/08/2020
05/11/2020

by other admitted counsel. This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry. (BAS) (Entered: 04/23/2020)
43 NOTICE re: Change in Status by Landy Sanchez Ramos . (Beaudoin, Kristine) (Entered: 04/24/2020)
44 NOTICE re: Five (5) Additional Confirmed Cases of COVID-19 at La Palma Correctional Center by Bismer Rodriguez Alvarez, Geidys Calzadilla Borrero, Miriam Gomez Cantillano, Noel Mejia Hernandez, Claudia Avalos Inchicaque, Landy Sanchez Ramos, Jose Vargas Saucedo, Jhonnatan Brinez Urdaneta . (Beaudoin, Kristine) (Entered: 04/24/2020)
45 REQUEST re: Emergency Status Conference by Petitioner Noel Mejia Hernandez. (Beaudoin, Kristine) (Entered: 04/24/2020)
46 ORDER: Respondents shall have until 12:00 p.m. on Tuesday, April 28, 2020 to file a response to Petitioner's Request 45 . See order for additional details. Signed by Judge Steven P Logan on 4/27/2020. (LMR) (Entered: 04/27/2020)
47 RESPONSE re: 45 Request for Emergency Status Conference by Respondents John Cantu, Albert Carter, Jason Ciliberti, Fred Figueroa, Chuck Keeton, Cesar Topete, Chad Wolf. (Hemann, Lisa) (Entered: 04/28/2020)
48 REPLY re: 45 Request for Emergency Status Conference by Petitioner Noel Mejia Hernandez. (Beaudoin, Kristine) (Entered: 04/28/2020)
49 STATUS REPORT by John Cantu, Albert Carter, Jason Ciliberti, Fred Figueroa, Chuck Keeton, Cesar Topete, Chad Wolf. (Hemann, Lisa) (Entered: 04/30/2020)
50 NOTICE re: Additional Confirmed Cases at La Palma and Supplemental Authority in Support of Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and Application for Temporary Restraining Order by Bismer Rodriguez Alvarez, Geidys Calzadilla Borrero, Miriam Gomez Cantillano, Noel Mejia Hernandez, Claudia Avalos Inchicaque, Landy Sanchez Ramos, Jose Vargas Saucedo, Jhonnatan Brinez Urdaneta . (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Index and Exhibits A-C)(Beaudoin, Kristine) (Entered: 05/01/2020)
51 NOTICE re: Petitioner-Plaintiffs' Notice of Twenty-Six (26) Additional Confirmed COVID-19 Cases at La Palma Correctional Center by Bismer Rodriguez Alvarez, Geidys Calzadilla Borrero, Miriam Gomez Cantillano, Noel Mejia Hernandez, Claudia Avalos Inchicaque, Landy Sanchez Ramos, Jose Vargas Saucedo, Jhonnatan Brinez Urdaneta . (Casselman, Margo) (Entered: 05/08/2020)
52 ORDER - IT IS ORDERED: (1) The parties shall have until May 13, 2020 to each submit a proposed form of order consistent with this decision. (2) The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 and Complaint for Injunctive and Declaratory Relief (Doc. 1 ) is denied in part as to claims brought on behalf Petitioners Urdaneta, Inchicaque, Cantillano,

05/11/2020 05/13/2020 05/13/2020 05/15/2020
05/18/2020 05/19/2020 05/22/2020

Saucedo, Alvarez, Ramos, and Borrero, without prejudice to these Petitioners renewing their requests for relief in this action should they be re- detained. The Petition is granted in part as to Petitioner Noel Mejia Hernandez (A# 203- 702-428), as set forth by separate order to be issued following the filing of the parties' proposed form of orders. (3) The unopposed Motion for Leave to File an Amicus Curiae Brief (Doc. 26 ) is granted. The Clerk of Court shall file the lodged proposed Brief (Doc. 27 ). (4) The Application for Temporary Restraining Order and Order to Show Cause Regarding Preliminary Injunction (Doc. 19 ) and Request for Status Conference (Doc. 45 ) are denied without prejudice as moot. See document for complete details. Signed by Judge Steven P Logan on 5/11/2020. (WLP) (Entered: 05/11/2020)
53 BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE PUBLIC HEALTH AND HUMAN RIGHTS EXPERTS by Amicus Parties Joseph Bick, Robert L. Cohen, Joe Goldenson, Kathryn Hampton, Ranit Mishori. (WLP) (Entered: 05/11/2020)
54 NOTICE re: Filing of Proposed Form of Order by Noel Mejia Hernandez . (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Casselman, Margo) (Entered: 05/13/2020)
55 NOTICE re: of Lodging of Proposed Order by John Cantu, Albert Carter, Jason Ciliberti, Fred Figueroa, Chuck Keeton, Cesar Topete, Chad Wolf . (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Hemann, Lisa) (Entered: 05/13/2020)
56 ORDER: The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and Complaint for Injunctive and Declaratory Relief 1 is granted in part as to Petitioner Noel Mejia Hernandez. Respondents must file a "Notice of Compliance" no later than May 18, 2020 at 12:00 p.m. The parties shall meet and confer and must file a joint status report no later than May 22, 2020. Thereafter, the parties shall meet and confer and must file a joint status report every 14 days, unless otherwise ordered by this Court. See order for additional details. Signed by Judge Steven P Logan on 5/15/2020. (LMR) (Entered: 05/15/2020)
57 NOTICE re: Compliance by John Cantu, Albert Carter, Jason Ciliberti, Fred Figueroa, Chuck Keeton, Cesar Topete, Chad Wolf re: 56 Order, Set Deadlines . (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A (Part 1 of 2), # 2 Exhibit A (Part 2 of 2), # 3 Exhibit B)(Hemann, Lisa) (Entered: 05/18/2020)
58 Additional Attachments to Main Document re: 57 Notice (Other) Exhibit B1, signed version of Exhibit B, Declaration of Dr. K. Ivens by Respondents John Cantu, Albert Carter, Jason Ciliberti, Fred Figueroa, Chuck Keeton, Cesar Topete, Chad Wolf. (Hemann, Lisa) (Entered: 05/19/2020)
59 STATUS REPORT [Joint Status Report] by Noel Mejia Hernandez. (Beaudoin, Kristine) (Entered: 05/22/2020)

06/05/2020 06/10/2020
06/12/2020
06/19/2020 06/23/2020 06/24/2020 07/02/2020 07/02/2020 07/10/2020 07/10/2020

60 STATUS REPORT (Joint) by John Cantu, Albert Carter, Jason Ciliberti, Fred Figueroa, Chuck Keeton, Cesar Topete, Chad Wolf. (Hemann, Lisa) (Entered: 06/05/2020)
61 MOTION to Transfer Related Case (Motion to Transfer Case to Judge Steven P. Logan) by Luis Jorge Alfonso, Ronni Barroso Barrios, Yudeine Gonzalez Borges, Ernesto Lara Carnero, Ernesto Rodriguez Cedeno, Yarjelis Madueno Davila, Wilson Calix Espinoza, Ivan Benitez Flores, Artem Pakhol, Rudis Naranjo Rosales, Joaquin Mantilla Silva, Nilsson Cano Villatoro, Zoila Mayancela Zamora. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order) (Associated Cases: 20-cv-01134-PHX-DWL, 20-cv00654-PHX-SPL) (Barr, Daniel) (Entered: 06/10/2020)
62 ORDER - IT IS ORDERED: (1) Petitioners' Motion to Transfer (Doc. 61 ) is granted. (2) The Clerk of Court shall transfer Espinoza v. Howard, CV20-001134-PHX-DWL (CDB) to this Court. (3) All future pleadings and papers submitted for filing shall bear the following case number: CV-20001134-PHX-SPL (CDB). See document for complete details. Signed by Judge Steven P Logan on 6/12/2020. (Associated Cases: 2:20-cv-00654SPL--JFM, 2:20-cv-01134-DWL--CDB) (WLP) (Entered: 06/12/2020)
63 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to File Joint Status Report (First Request) by John Cantu, Albert Carter, Jason Ciliberti, Fred Figueroa, Chuck Keeton, Cesar Topete, Chad Wolf. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Hemann, Lisa) (Entered: 06/19/2020)
64 ORDER granting the parties' joint request for extension of time 63 . Status Report due by 6/24/2020. Signed by Judge Steven P Logan on 6/22/2020. (LMR) (Entered: 06/23/2020)
65 STATUS REPORT (Joint) by John Cantu, Albert Carter, Jason Ciliberti, Fred Figueroa, Chuck Keeton, Cesar Topete, Chad Wolf. (Hemann, Lisa) (Entered: 06/24/2020)
66 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to File Joint Status Report (Second Request) by Noel Mejia Hernandez. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Beaudoin, Kristine) (Entered: 07/02/2020)
67 ORDER granting 66 Motion to Extend: The parties shall have until July 10, 2020 to file their Joint Status Report. Signed by Judge Steven P Logan on 7/2/2020. (LMR) (Entered: 07/02/2020)
68 *NOTICE OF INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL to 9th Circuit Court of Appeals re: 52 Order, Terminate Motions by John Cantu, Albert Carter, Jason Ciliberti, Fred Figueroa, Chuck Keeton, Cesar Topete, Chad Wolf . (Hemann, Lisa) *Modified to correct event on 7/13/2020 (GMP). (Entered: 07/10/2020)
69 STATUS REPORT (JOINT) by Noel Mejia Hernandez. (Casselman, Margo) (Entered: 07/10/2020)

07/15/2020 07/24/2020 08/07/2020 08/21/2020 09/04/2020 09/14/2020 09/18/2020
09/22/2020 09/22/2020 10/02/2020 10/16/2020 10/30/2020 11/04/2020 11/12/2020

70 USCA Case Number re: 68 Notice of Appeal. Case number 20-16363, Ninth Circuit. (GMP) (Entered: 07/15/2020)
71 STATUS REPORT (JOINT) by Noel Mejia Hernandez. (Beaudoin, Kristine) (Entered: 07/24/2020)
72 STATUS REPORT (JOINT) by Noel Mejia Hernandez. (Casselman, Margo) (Entered: 08/07/2020)
73 STATUS REPORT (JOINT) by Noel Mejia Hernandez. (Casselman, Margo) (Entered: 08/21/2020)
74 STATUS REPORT (JOINT) by Noel Mejia Hernandez. (Casselman, Margo) (Entered: 09/04/2020)
75 ORDER of USCA (20-16363): Dismissing the appeal re: 68 Notice of Appeal filed by Albert Carter, John Cantu, Chad Wolf, Fred Figueroa, Jason Ciliberti, Chuck Keeton, Cesar Topete. (GMP) (Entered: 09/14/2020)
76 Third MOTION for Extension of Time to File Joint Status Report (Joint) by John Cantu, Albert Carter, Jason Ciliberti, Fred Figueroa, Chuck Keeton, Cesar Topete, Chad Wolf. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Hemann, Lisa) (Entered: 09/18/2020)
77 ORDER: The Joint Motion to Extend 76 is granted. The parties shall have until September 22, 2020 to file their Joint Status Report. Signed by Judge Steven P. Logan on 9/21/2020. (LMR) (Entered: 09/22/2020)
78 STATUS REPORT (Joint) by Noel Mejia Hernandez. (Beaudoin, Kristine) (Entered: 09/22/2020)
79 STATUS REPORT (Joint) by John Cantu, Albert Carter, Jason Ciliberti, Fred Figueroa, Chuck Keeton, Cesar Topete, Chad Wolf. (Hemann, Lisa) (Entered: 10/02/2020)
80 STATUS REPORT (Joint) by John Cantu, Albert Carter, Jason Ciliberti, Fred Figueroa, Chuck Keeton, Cesar Topete, Chad Wolf. (Hemann, Lisa) (Entered: 10/16/2020)
81 STATUS REPORT (Joint) by John Cantu, Albert Carter, Jason Ciliberti, Fred Figueroa, Chuck Keeton, Cesar Topete, Chad Wolf. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Hemann, Lisa) (Entered: 10/30/2020)
82 NOTICE re: Change in Status by Noel Mejia Hernandez . (Casselman, Margo) (Entered: 11/04/2020)
83 ORDER: Petitioner shall have 14 days from the date this Order is filed to file a response to this Order and show cause why this action should not be dismissed as moot. If Petitioner fails to file a response to this Order within 14 days, the Clerk of Court must, without further notice, enter a judgment of dismissal of this action and deny any pending unrelated motions as moot. See order for additional details. Signed by Judge Steven P. Logan on 11/12/2020. (LMR) (Entered: 11/12/2020)

11/13/2020 11/25/2020 11/30/2020
11/30/2020 12/21/2020
12/23/2020 02/22/2021
02/25/2021

84 STATUS REPORT (JOINT) by Noel Mejia Hernandez. (Casselman, Margo) (Entered: 11/13/2020)
85 *MOTION to Dismiss Case Without Prejudice by Noel Mejia Hernandez. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Casselman, Margo) *Modified to reflect correct filer; attorney noticed on 11/30/2020 (SST). (Entered: 11/25/2020)
86 ORDER: The Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 85 ) is granted. PetitionersPlaintiffs' Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and Complaint for Injunctive and Declaratory Relief (Doc. 1 ) and this action are dismissed without prejudice in their entirety. The Clerk of Court shall enter judgment accordingly and terminate this case. Signed by Judge Steven P Logan on 11/30/20. (SST) (Entered: 12/01/2020)
87 CLERK'S JUDGMENT - IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that, pursuant to the Court's Order filed November 30, 2020, the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and Complaint for Injunctive and Declaratory Relief (Doc. 1 ) and this action are dismissed without prejudice. Judgment is hereby entered and this case is terminated. (SST) (Entered: 12/01/2020)
88 STIPULATION to Extend Time for Petitioners/Plaintiffs to File Application for Fees and Costs under EAJA by Bismer Rodriguez Alvarez, Geidys Calzadilla Borrero, Miriam Gomez Cantillano, Noel Mejia Hernandez, Claudia Avalos Inchicaque, Landy Sanchez Ramos, Jose Vargas Saucedo, Jhonnatan Brinez Urdaneta. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Beaudoin, Kristine) (Entered: 12/21/2020)
89 ORDER granting the parties' 88 Stipulation to Extend Time. PetitionersPlaintiffs shall have until March 1, 2021, to file an application for fees and costs pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), 28 U.S.C. § 2412. Signed by Judge Steven P Logan on 12/23/2020. (CLB) (Entered: 12/23/2020)
90 STIPULATION to Extend Time for Petitioners/Plaintiffs to File Application for Fees and Costs Under EAJA (Second Request) by Bismer Rodriguez Alvarez, Geidys Calzadilla Borrero, Miriam Gomez Cantillano, Noel Mejia Hernandez, Claudia Avalos Inchicaque, Landy Sanchez Ramos, Jose Vargas Saucedo, Jhonnatan Brinez Urdaneta. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Beaudoin, Kristine) (Entered: 02/22/2021)
91 ORDER: The parties' Stipulation to Extend Time 90 is granted. PetitionersPlaintiffs shall have until March 15, 2021, to file an application for fees and costs pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), 28 U.S.C. § 2412. Signed by Judge Steven P. Logan on 2/24/2021. (LMR) (Entered: 02/25/2021)

PACER Service Center

Transaction Receipt

PACER Login:

02/25/2021 20:38:03

CRClearinghouse:2563377:0

Client Code:

Description: Docket Report

Search Criteria:

Billable Pages:

24

Cost:

Gillan
2:20-cv00654-SPL-JFM
2.40

 
 Case 2:20-cv-01134-DWL--CDB Document 1 Filed 06/08/20 Page 1 of 55

1 Daniel C. Barr (Bar No. 010149)

Christopher D. Thomas (Bar No. 010482)

2 Katherine E. May (Bar No. 032335)

Kristine J. Beaudoin (Bar No. 034853)

3 Margo R. Casselman (Bar No. 034963)

PERKINS COIE LLP

4 2901 North Central Avenue, Suite 2000

Phoenix, Arizona 85012-2788

5 Telephone: 602.351.8000

Facsimile: 602.648.7000

6 Email: DBarr@perkinscoie.com

CThomas@perkinscoie.com

7

KMay@perkinscoie.com

KBeaudoin@perkinscoie.com

8

MCasselman@perkinscoie.com

DocketPHX@perkinscoie.com

9

Laura St. John (Bar No. 035160)

10 Katharine E. Ruhl (Bar No. 033581)

Laura Belous (Bar No. 028132)

11 FLORENCE IMMIGRANT & REFUGEE

RIGHTS PROJECT

12 P. O. Box 86299

Tucson, Arizona 85754

13 Email: lstjohn@firrp.org

kruhl@firrp.org

14

lbelous@firrp.org

15 ADDITIONAL COUNSEL LISTED ON SIGNATURE PAGE
16 Attorneys for Petitioners-Plaintiffs
17

18

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

19

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

20 Wilson Calix Espinoza; Yarjelis Madueno Davila; Artem Pakhol; Ernesto Rodriguez
21 Cedeno; Ernesto Lara Carnero; Ronni Barroso Barrios; Nilsson Cano Villatoro; Yudeine
22 Gonzalez Borges; Zoila Mayancela Zamora; Joaquin Mantilla Silva; Ivan Benitez Flores;
23 Rudis Naranjo Rosales; and Luis Jorge Alfonso,
24 Petitioners-Plaintiffs,
25 v.
26 Chris Howard, in his official capacity as
27 Warden of the La Palma Correctional Center; Fred Figueroa, in his official capacity as
28 Warden of the Eloy Detention Center; Albert

No.
PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS PURSUANT
TO 28 U.S.C. § 2241 AND COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF

Case 2:20-cv-01134-DWL--CDB Document 1 Filed 06/08/20 Page 2 of 55
1 Carter, in his official capacity as Acting Phoenix Field Office Director, U.S.
2 Immigration and Customs Enforcement; Cesar Topete, in his official capacity as Assistant
3 Phoenix Field Office Director, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement; Jason
4 Ciliberti, in his official capacity as Assistant Phoenix Field Office Director, U.S.
5 Immigration and Customs Enforcement; John Cantu, in his official capacity as Assistant
6 Phoenix Field Office Director, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement; and
7 Chad Wolf, Acting Secretary of the United States Department of Homeland Security,
8 Respondents-Defendants.
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Case 2:20-cv-01134-DWL--CDB Document 1 Filed 06/08/20 Page 3 of 55

1

INTRODUCTION

2

1. Petitioners-Plaintiffs (hereinafter “Petitioners”) are civil immigration

3 detainees at the La Palma Correctional Center (“La Palma”) and Eloy Detention Center

4 (“EDC”) who face imminent risk, including severe illness or death, if they contract COVID-

5 19 in the detention centers where they are currently held. In this action, they ask the Court

6 to do what numerous courts have already done: release them, so their civil detention does

7 not become a death sentence.

8

2. At least two judges in this district have already held that the continued

9 detention of medically vulnerable detainees in these facilities violates the detainees’

10 constitutional due process rights. See, e.g., Urdaneta v. Keeton, No. CV-20-00654-PHX-

11 SPL (JFM), 2020 WL 2319980, at *12 (D. Ariz. May 11, 2020) (Logan, J.) (finding a

12 violation of due process as to one detainee at La Palma); Gutierrez-Lopez v. Figueroa, No.

13 CV-20-00732-PHX-SPL (JFM), 2020 WL 2781722, at *10 (D. Ariz. May 27, 2020)

14 (Logan, J.) (same, as to one detainee at EDC); Order, Patel v. Barr, No. 2:20-CV-00709-

15 DLR-DMF, Dkt. 35 (D. Ariz. May 21, 2020) (Rayes, J.) (same, as to one detainee at EDC)

16 [attached hereto as Exhibit 1]; Order, Mendoza v. Barr, No. CV-20-00514-PHX-SPL

17 (MTM), Dkt. 37 (D. Ariz. May 19, 2020) (Logan, J.) (same, as to one detainee at EDC)

18 [attached hereto as Exhibit 2]. In recent weeks, however, it has become increasingly clear

19 that the remedy awarded in those cases—purportedly improved conditions for the individual

20 petitioners—is both inadequate and unreasonable under the circumstances presented here.

21 No matter how many “precautions” Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”)

22 purports to take at these facilities, detainees at La Palma and EDC nevertheless remain

23 unreasonably exposed to COVID-19. Any measures taken by the detention centers reacting

24 to these orders remain woefully inadequate to protect detainees with underlying medical

25 conditions. But even assuming the remedy in those cases was workable for four detainees

26 (and it is not), it is plainly not workable for an additional 13 medically vulnerable detainees.

27 The only adequate remedy for Petitioners, then, is release.

28

Case 2:20-cv-01134-DWL--CDB Document 1 Filed 06/08/20 Page 4 of 55

1

3. While the rest of the world is sheltering in place, wearing masks, frequently

2 sanitizing and washing their hands, and avoiding close contact with anyone beyond their

3 households, Petitioners remain trapped in what are essentially tinderboxes on the verge of

4 explosion, still without the ability to take the most basic measures to protect themselves as

5 the global pandemic spreads, even with the alleged implementation of increased sanitation

6 and protective measures at the facilities. As medical experts have warned would happen for

7 weeks, the virus is surging in ICE detention centers across the country—including in La

8 Palma, where, as of June 8, 2020, 78 cases of COVID-19 have been confirmed among

9 detainees, and EDC, where 13 cases among detainees have now been reported—creating a

10 recognized risk of harm to Petitioners that is both unconscionably high and entirely

11 preventable. Indeed, at least one Petitioner has already tested positive for COVID-19,

12 demonstrating the immediacy of the threat.

13

4. COVID-19 is highly contagious, with each person infected transmitting the

14 virus to an average of two to three other people in normal conditions, let alone in a confined

15 environment. A single case has the potential to overwhelm not only the detention centers

16 where Petitioners are located, but also the surrounding communities.

17

5. Medical experts agree that reducing detention center and other carceral

18 populations is a critical component of risk mitigation during the widespread COVID-19

19 outbreak. A failure to heed public health advice to reduce detention center numbers will not

20 just harm detainees—it will also have ripple effects across communities as rapid

21 transmission of the disease in carceral settings further taxes already overburdened regional

22 hospitals and healthcare systems.

23

6. Infectious disease specialists warn that while conditions may be improved, no

24 conditions of confinement in carceral settings can adequately manage the serious risk of

25 harm for medically vulnerable individuals during the COVID-19 pandemic. Even with

26 improved conditions, Petitioners live in pods, or “tanks,” and sleep in bunk beds, sharing

27 common spaces and medical facilities with hundreds of other detainees. Even in improved

28 conditions, Petitioners are forced to share necessities like showers, telephones, and sinks

-2-

Case 2:20-cv-01134-DWL--CDB Document 1 Filed 06/08/20 Page 5 of 55

1 with dozens of others. And even in improved conditions, Petitioners remain in the constant

2 presence of officers and staff who continually rotate in and out of the facility, each time

3 risking transmission of the virus to those inside and outside the detention center.

4

7. Deprived of personal protective equipment (“PPE”) and adequate medical

5 care and placed in conditions that make it impossible to practice social distancing,

6 Petitioners are helpless to take the only risk-mitigation steps known to limit transmission of

7 the virus. And if the Petitioners are infected, as at least one already has been, all face a

8 heightened risk of complications, pneumonia, sepsis, and even death within detention

9 centers that have a track record of failing to provide adequate medical care even outside

10 times of crisis.

11

8. Although no one is spared the risk of severe illness from COVID-19, certain

12 individuals are at a higher risk for severe illness from COVID-19 due to age or underlying

13 medical conditions. The United States Department of Health and Human Services Centers

14 for Disease Control and Prevention (“CDC”) has defined these “high-risk” populations to

15 include “[p]eople of all ages with underlying medical conditions, particularly if not well

16 controlled, including,” as relevant here, “chronic lung disease or moderate to severe

17 asthma,” “serious heart conditions,” “severe obesity (body mass index [BMI] of 40 or

18 higher),” and “diabetes.” CDC, Groups at Higher Risk for Severe Illness (“CDC Higher

19 Risk”), https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/need-extra-precautions/people-at-

20 higher-risk.html (last visited June 7, 2020). However, as the CDC website explicitly

21 recognizes, “COVID-19 is a new disease and there is limited information regarding risk

22 factors for severe disease.” Id. Against this medical backdrop, and with due consideration

23 for the heightened danger COVID-19 presents within detention facilities, numerous courts

24 across the country have ordered the release of civil immigration detainees with underlying

25 medical conditions, including mental illness, that do not fit squarely within the CDC-

26

27

28

-3-

Case 2:20-cv-01134-DWL--CDB Document 1 Filed 06/08/20 Page 6 of 55
1 recognized heightened risk categories, but that nonetheless place them at heightened risk of
2 contracting the virus and/or serious complications if they contract COVID-19.1
3 1 See, e.g., Jose B.R. v. Tsoukaris, No. CV 20-3347 (MCA), 2020 WL 2744586
4 (D.N.J. May 27, 2020) (schizophrenia-spectrum disorder); Juan E.M. v. Decker, No. CV 20-4594 (KM), 2020 WL 2214586 (D.N.J. May 7, 2020) (BMI of 31.2, history of smoking,
5 and low oxygen levels); Doe v. Barr (Barr II), No. 20-CV-02263-RMI, 2020 WL 1984266 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 27, 2020) (severe post-traumatic stress disorder (“PTSD”) and major
6 depressive disorder); Durel B. v. Decker, No. 2:20-cv-03430-KM, 2020 WL 1922140 (D.N.J. Apr. 21, 2020) (PTSD and schizophrenia-spectrum disorder); Fofana v. Albence,
7 No. 20-10869, 2020 WL 1873307 (E.D. Mich. Apr. 15, 2020) (52-year-old with high blood pressure); Doe v. Barr (Barr I), No. 20-CV-02141-LB, 2020 WL 1820667 (N.D. Cal. Apr.
8 12, 2020) (chronic PTSD, depression, and latent tuberculosis); Valenzuela Arias v. Decker, No. 20 CIV. 2802 (AT), 2020 WL 1847986 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 10, 2020) (unexplained mass
9 in chest that required surgery); Malam v. Adducci (Malam II), No. 20-10829, 2020 WL 1809675 (E.D. Mich. Apr. 9, 2020) (55-year-old with limited mobility, hypotension, hernia,
10 prostate issues, and risk of cancer); Avendano Hernandez v. Decker, No. 20-CV-1589 (JPO), 2020 WL 1547459 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 31, 2020) (right bundle branch block and
11 rhabdomyolysis); Castillo v. Barr, No. CV 20-00605 TJH (AFMx), 2020 WL 1502864 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 27, 2020) (58-year-old man with kidney stones, arthritis, and a hernia, and
12 23-year-old man who was recovering from a work-related facial fracture). See also Xochihua-Jaimes v. Barr, No. 18-71460, 2020 WL 1429877 (9th Cir. Mar. 23, 2020)
13 (ordering sua sponte the release of an immigration petitioner “[i]n light of the rapidly escalating public health crisis, which public health authorities predict will especially impact
14 immigration detention centers”); Sallaj v. ICE, 1:20-cv-00167-JJM-LDA, 2020 WL 1975819 (D.R.I. Apr. 24, 2020) (releasing 40-year-old detainee with no underlying medical
15 conditions, where COVID-19 was present in the facility where he was housed). For cases releasing civil immigration detainees with underlying medical conditions
16 that meet the CDC’s “Higher Risk” criteria, see, e.g., Ochoa v. Kolitwenzew, No. 20-CV2135, 2020 WL 2850706 (C.D. Ill. June 2, 2020); Robenson J. v. Decker, No. CV 20-5141
17 (KM), 2020 WL 2611544 (D.N.J. May 22, 2020); Geovani M.-O. v. Decker, No. CV 205053 (KM), 2020 WL 2511428 (D.N.J. May 15, 2020); Santiago P. v. Decker, No. CV 20-
18 5067 (KM), 2020 WL 2487648 (D.N.J. May 14, 2020); Ruderman v. Kolitwenzew, No. 20CV-2082, 2020 WL 2449758 (C.D. Ill. May 12, 2020); Perez-Perez v. Adducci, No. 20-
19 10833, 2020 WL 2305276 (E.D. Mich. May 9, 2020); Favi v. Kolitwenzew, No. 20-CV2087, 2020 WL 2114566 (C.D. Ill. May 4, 2020); Kevin M.A. v. Decker, No. CV 20-4593
20 (KM), 2020 WL 2092791 (D.N.J. May 1, 2020); Pimentel-Estrada v. Barr, No. 2:20-cv00495-RSM-BAT, 2020 WL 2092430 (W.D. Wash. Apr. 28, 2020); Ferreyra v. Decker,
21 No. 1:20-CV-03170-AT, 2020 WL 1989417 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 27, 2020); Chavez Garcia v. Acuff, No. 3:20-cv-00357-NJR, 2020 WL 1987311 (S.D. Ill. Apr. 27, 2020); Refunjol v.
22 Adducci, No. 2:20-cv-02099-SDM-CMV, 2020 WL 1983077 (S.D. Ohio Apr. 27, 2020); Essien v. Barr, No. 1:20-cv-01034-WJM, 2020 WL 1974761 (D. Colo. Apr. 24, 2020);
23 Medeiros v. Martin, No. 1:20-cv-00178-WES-PAS, 2020 WL 1969363 (D.R.I. Apr. 24, 2020); Singh v. Barr, No. 20-CV-02346-VKD, 2020 WL 1929366 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 20,
24 2020); Zaya v. Adducci, No. 20-10921, 2020 WL 1903172 (E.D. Mich. Apr. 18, 2020); Vazquez Barrera v. Wolf, No. 4:20-CV-1241, 2020 WL 1904497 (S.D. Tex. Apr. 17, 2020);
25 Jason Anthony W. v. Anderson, No. 2:20-CV-3704 (BRM), 2020 WL 2121118 (D.N.J. Apr. 17, 2020); Perez v. Wolf, No. 5:19-CV-05191-EJD, 2020 WL 1865303 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 14,
26 2020); Cristian A.R. v. Decker, No. CV 20-3600, 2020 WL 2092616 (D.N.J. Apr. 12, 2020); Bent v. Barr, No. 19-CV-06123-DMR, 2020 WL 1812850 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 9, 2020); Rafael
27 L.O. v. Tsoukaris, No. CV 20-3481 (JMV), 2020 WL 1808843 (D.N.J. Apr. 9, 2020); Malam v. Adducci (Malam I), No. 20-10829, 2020 WL 1672662 (E.D. Mich. Apr. 5, 2020);
28 Thakker v. Doll, No. 1:20-CV-480, 2020 WL 1671563 (M.D. Pa. Mar. 31, 2020); Coronel
-4-

Case 2:20-cv-01134-DWL--CDB Document 1 Filed 06/08/20 Page 7 of 55

1

9. As of June 8, over 1,709 detainees have tested positive for COVID-19 in ICE

2 facilities—including 78 detainees in La Palma, and 13 detainees in EDC—and at least two

3 ICE detainees and multiple detention center staff members have already died from

4 contracting the virus. Even against this backdrop of extreme crisis and court orders

5 requiring action, ICE has yet to affect a comprehensive release of those detainees most at

6 risk of contracting and suffering severe complications from COVID-19 and remains

7 willfully blind to the harsh reality that its failure to act is resulting in the serious illness and

8 death of those individuals within its care. If anything, the continually rising numbers at La

9 Palma and EDC demonstrate that any increased efforts these facilities have undertaken to

10 protect detainees pursuant to the orders in Urdaneta, Gutierrez-Lopez, Patel, and Mendoza

11 are ineffective and unworkable, and that release is the only adequate remedy.

12

10. Before filing suit, Petitioners notified ICE of their medical conditions and

13 individual circumstances and formally requested that they be released in light of the harms

14 they will experience if they contract COVID-19 while detained. Each Petitioner has a

15 sponsor in the United States who has agreed to provide housing and take responsibility for

16 supporting and supervising Petitioners if they are released. Yet ICE has failed to release

17 Petitioners despite the imminent harms they face.

18

11. Respondents-Defendants (hereinafter “Respondents”), through their roles as

19 Director of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”), directors of ICE, and

20 wardens of EDC and La Palma, are subjecting Petitioners to an increased risk of disease

21 and death by unnecessarily holding them in detention centers during a global pandemic.

22 Despite being ordered to implement improved precautionary measures in the facilities since

23 the pandemic began, Respondents are still failing to follow the basic public health protocols

24 that have been broadcasted all over the world as necessary to halt the spread of COVID-19.

25 Compounding the risk and possible harm to Petitioners, EDC and La Palma both have

26 documented track records of uncorrected health and safety violations.

27 v. Decker, No. 20-CV-2472 (AJN), 2020 WL 1487274 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 27, 2020); Basank
28 v. Decker, No. 20 CIV. 2518 (AT), 2020 WL 1481503 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 26, 2020).

-5-

Case 2:20-cv-01134-DWL--CDB Document 1 Filed 06/08/20 Page 8 of 55

1

12. As courts in this district have already recognized, the continued detention of

2 Petitioners—civil immigration detainees with pending claims for asylum and other relief—

3 under these conditions violates the guarantees of the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process

4 Clause. It also endangers Petitioners, the other people detained at these facilities, the staff

5 and officers who work there, and all of their families and other contacts.

6

13. Because release from custody is the only effective means to protect

7 Petitioners and remedy the constitutional violation, and because time is of the absolute

8 essence with respect to the spread of COVID-19, this suit seeks the immediate release of

9 Petitioners from civil immigration detention.

10

14. As another district court in the Ninth Circuit eloquently advised: “This is an

11 unprecedented time in our nation’s history, filled with uncertainty, fear, and anxiety. But in

12 the time of a crisis, our response to those at particularly high risk must be with compassion

13 and not apathy. The Government cannot act with a callous disregard for the safety of our

14 fellow human beings.” Castillo, 2020 WL 1502864, at *6.

15

JURISDICTION & VENUE

16

15. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28

17 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question); 28 U.S.C. § 1346 (original jurisdiction); 28 U.S.C. § 1361

18 (officer duties); 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (habeas corpus); 28 U.S.C. § 1651 (the All Writs Act);

19 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act); and the Habeas Corpus Suspension Clause of the U.S.

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

21 Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201 et seq.

22

16. Venue is proper in the District of Arizona because a substantial part of the

23 events and omissions giving rise to this action occurred in the District. 28 U.S.C.

24 § 1391(b)(2). Petitioners are currently being held at La Palma and EDC, both of which are

25 located in Eloy, Arizona.

26

PARTIES

27

17. Petitioner Wilson Calix Espinoza is a 32-year-old man who has been

28 detained at La Palma since March 5, 2020. Before La Palma, he was detained at the Florence

-6-

Case 2:20-cv-01134-DWL--CDB Document 1 Filed 06/08/20 Page 9 of 55

1 Detention Center since April 26, 2019. Mr. Calix Espinoza has an intellectual disability

2 secondary to a traumatic brain injury along with a history of adjustment disorder. He also

3 has mixed anxiety and depressed moods. Because his intellectual disability impairs his

4 ability to properly rationalize and communicate, Mr. Calix Espinoza risks going

5 undiagnosed and untreated if he contracts COVID-19, which could lead to respiratory

6 failure and death. Declaration of Dr. Patricia Lebensohn (“Lebensohn Decl.”) ¶ 4(b)

7 [attached hereto as Exhibit 3]; see also Declaration of Dr. Homer Venters (“Venters Decl.”)

8 ¶ 45 [attached hereto as Exhibit 4]. On February 4, 2020, an Immigration Judge found by a

9 preponderance of the evidence that Mr. Calix Espinoza is mentally incompetent to represent

10 himself in Immigration Court proceedings. Mr. Calix Espinoza has a pending asylum

11 application based on persecution that he suffered in Honduras.

12

18. Petitioner Joaquin Mantilla Silva is an 18-year-old man who has been

13 detained at La Palma since March 20, 2020. Mr. Mantilla Silva has tested positive for

14 COVID-19 and is currently isolated in the Zuni-Alpha pod. Mr. Mantilla Silva has bilateral

15 pneumonia, severe asthma, and severe allergies. Because of his history of lung disease and

16 asthma, he is at increased risk of severe complication of COVID-19 including

17 hospitalization, intensive care, and respiratory failure. Lebensohn Decl. ¶ 4(l); see also

18 Venters Decl. ¶ 45. Mr. Mantilla Silva is fleeing political persecution that he faced in his

19 home country of Venezuela, including a brutal physical beating that left him in the hospital

20 for days. Mr. Mantilla Silva requested asylum and recently passed his credible fear

21 interview, which is the initial step in applying for asylum.

22

19. Petitioner Yarjelis Madueno Davila is a 27-year-old woman who has been

23 detained at EDC since November 13, 2019. Recently, Ms. Madueno Davila’s pod, Charlie-

24 500, was placed in quarantine because of a possible COVID-19 positive case. Ms. Madueno

25 Davila has hyperthyroidism and obesity with a BMI of 29.1. She was also recently

26 diagnosed with microadenoma, which is a small brain tumor that causes frequent headaches

27 and visual changes. Ms. Madueno Davila needs to be evaluated by an endocrinologist and

28 a neurosurgeon to discuss treatment for her tumor, Lebensohn Decl. ¶ 4(c), but this

-7-

Case 2:20-cv-01134-DWL--CDB Document 1 Filed 06/08/20 Page 10 of 55

1 treatment will likely be delayed due to COVID-19. Ms. Madueno Davila’s obesity places

2 her at an increased risk of developing complications requiring hospitalization and intensive

3 care if she contracts COVID-19. Id. Ms. Madueno Davila has a pending asylum application

4 based on persecution at the hands of the Venezuelan government, who have already maimed

5 and murdered two family members.

6

20. Petitioner Artem Pakhol is a 41-year-old journalist from Ukraine who fled

7 the country after receiving threats related to his reporting and who has been detained at La

8 Palma since July 22, 2019. Mr. Pakhol has suffered a series of medical conditions while

9 detained, including hemorrhoids requiring a special diet, osteoarthritis of his hips, knees,

10 and ankles, trouble urinating, chest pain, and back pain from his neck to his pelvis. This

11 medical history, in addition to his severe anxiety and depression, places Mr. Pakhol at

12 heightened risk of exacerbated health problems if exposed to COVID-19. Lebensohn Decl.

13 ¶ 4(e).

14

21. Petitioner Ernesto Rodriguez Cedeno is a 32-year-old man who has been

15 detained at La Palma since September 5, 2019. Mr. Rodriguez Cedeno suffers from asthma,

16 which was first diagnosed when he was a child but has worsened since being detained in La

17 Palma. He is currently housed in the Apache Alpha pod, which is the isolated unit for people

18 with underlying medical conditions, because of his high vulnerability to COVID-19. As a

19 result of his asthma and compromised lung functioning, Mr. Rodriguez Cedeno is at

20 increased risk of contracting COVID-19, and he faces increased risk of severe illness or

21 death if he contracts COVID-19. Lebensohn Decl. ¶ 4(a); see also Venters Decl. ¶ 45. He

22 has a pending application for asylum based on persecution he suffered by the Venezuelan

23 and Cuban governments.

24

22. Petitioner Ernesto Lara Carnero is a 33-year-old man who has been

25 detained at La Palma since November 6, 2019. On April 27, 2020, Mr. Lara Carnero was

26 diagnosed with asthma by the La Palma medical staff. Declaration of Ernesto Lara Carnero

27

28

-8-

Case 2:20-cv-01134-DWL--CDB Document 1 Filed 06/08/20 Page 11 of 55

1 (“Lara Carnero Decl.”)2 ¶ 5 [attached hereto as Exhibit 8]. In addition, Mr. Lara Carnero

2 has allergies and a history of pneumothorax after one of his lungs collapsed. Lebensohn

3 Decl. ¶ 4(d). Mr. Lara Carnero is in need of further evaluation to determine if he has

4 decreased lung function. This information is vital to determine whether he is at higher risk

5 of contracting severe COVID-19. Id. At minimum, this medical uncertainty and his obesity,

6 with a BMI of 29.1, place him at risk of requiring hospitalization and/or intensive care if he

7 contracts COVID-19. Id. As of May 26, Mr. Lara Carnero was suffering from the following

8 symptoms: coughing, shortness of breath, chest pain, head pain, and a lack of a sense of

9 taste and smell. But Mr. Lara Carnero has not been isolated and, as far as he is aware, he

10 has not been tested for COVID-19. Lara Carnero Decl. ¶¶ 5, 36. Mr. Lara Carnero has a

11 pending asylum application based on the persecution he suffered in Mexico at the hands of

12 a cartel and Mexican authorities.

13

23. Petitioner Ronni Barroso Barrios is a 25-year-old man who has been

14 detained at EDC since August 23, 2019. He has moderate to severe asthma and a seizure

15 disorder. Mr. Barroso Barrios is at increased risk of severe illness and death if he contracts

16 COVID-19 because of his asthma. Lebensohn Decl. ¶ 4(k); see also Venters Decl. ¶ 45. He

17 was granted asylum on May 7, 2020, but remains in detention in case DHS decides to appeal

18 the grant of asylum. To date, DHS has not appealed, and Mr. Barroso Barrios remains in

19 detention.

20

24. Petitioner Nilsson Cano Villatoro is a 26-year-old man who has been

21 detained at La Palma since August 28, 2018. He was healthy prior to being in ICE custody,

22 but after improper evaluation and treatment of abdominal pain while in detention, he was

23 hospitalized and diagnosed with acute cholecystitis, which required emergency surgery.

24 Now, Mr. Cano Villatoro has recurrent abdominal pain and has developed depression from

25

26

2 The detainee declarations cited herein are formally signed by Florence Immigration

& Refugee Rights Project staff, who took the detainees’ statements via telephone due to the

27 unavailability of in-person visits as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. See Urdaneta,

2020 WL 2319980, at *5 n.1 (admitting detainee declarations obtained via telephone due to

28 the unavailability of in-person visits as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic).

-9-

Case 2:20-cv-01134-DWL--CDB Document 1 Filed 06/08/20 Page 12 of 55

1 prolonged detention and the stress of not receiving necessary medical care. COVID-19 will

2 exacerbate Mr. Cano Villatoro’s mental health problems. Lebensohn Decl. ¶ 4(f). His

3 application for asylum was denied, and he has a pending appeal with the Board of

4 Immigration Appeals.

5

25. Petitioner Zoila Mayancela Zamora is a 24-year-old woman who has been

6 detained at EDC since July 3, 2019. Ms. Mayancela Zamora has a seizure disorder that

7 requires medication, and heart disease including Tricuspid Insufficiency (leaky heart valve)

8 and hypertrophic cardiomyopathy with severe pulmonary hypertension and dilation of the

9 right cardiac cavities. She also suffers from shortness of breath with exertion. Because of

10 her underlying heart and lung conditions, she is at increased risk for severe complications,

11 including respiratory failure and death, if she is infected with COVID-19. Id. ¶ 4(j); see also

12 Venters Decl. ¶ 45. She has a pending asylum application based on the persecution that she

13 suffered in Ecuador.

14

26. Petitioner Yudeine Gonzalez Borges is a 41-year-old woman who has been

15 detained at EDC since December 21, 2019. Mrs. Gonzalez Borges has a uterine benign

16 tumor, BMI above 30, and one episode of elevated blood sugar without further evaluation

17 for Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus. Her potential risk of Type 2 Diabetes places her at increased

18 risk of severe complications if she contracts COVID-19. Lebensohn Decl. ¶ 4(h).

19 Mrs. Gonzalez Borges has a pending application for asylum based on the persecution that

20 she suffered in Cuba.

21

27. Petitioner Ivan Benitez Flores is a 26-year-old man who has been detained

22 at La Palma since June 28, 2019. Mr. Benitez Flores has a history of torture, including

23 suffocation and traumatic brain injury. As a result of the torture, he has lasting physical and

24 psychological effects, including memory difficulties, poor concentration, and difficulty

25 hearing that leads to confusion. He has also been diagnosed with PTSD and depression,

26 which further exacerbate his physical deficits and cause him to have avoidant behaviors and

27 a distractible disposition. Mr. Benitez Flores is at increased risk of contracting COVID-19

28 and developing complications because of his physical and psychological conditions and

-10-

Case 2:20-cv-01134-DWL--CDB Document 1 Filed 06/08/20 Page 13 of 55

1 symptoms. Declaration of Dr. Samantha Varner (“Varner Decl.”) ¶¶ 4-5, 7-8 [attached

2 hereto as Exhibit 5]. Mr. Benitez Flores’s symptoms, including easy confusion, poor

3 concentration, forgetfulness, and avoidance, put him at “tremendous” risk both of becoming

4 infected and suffering delays in treatment that could lead to complications. Id.; see also

5 Venters Decl. ¶ 45. He has a pending application from asylum based on the torture that he

6 suffered in Mexico.

7

28. Petitioner Rudis Naranjo Rosales is a 49-year-old man who has been

8 detained at La Palma since October 4, 2019. Mr. Naranjo Rosales has a history of head

9 trauma resulting in the removal of his spleen and placement of a VP shunt. He needs further

10 evaluation by a neurosurgeon because his medical records show symptoms of his VP

11 malfunctioning. Mr. Naranjo Rosales’s asplenia (no spleen) and BMI over 30 place him at

12 risk of severe COVID-19 and other infection. In addition, his records show hyperlipidemia

13 which could be a sign of heart disease, but he needs further evaluation. Lebensohn Decl.

14 ¶ 4(i); see also Venters Decl. ¶ 45. Mr. Naranjo Rosales’s asylum application was denied

15 and he has a pending appeal with the Board of Immigration Appeals.

16

29. Petitioner Luis Jorge Alfonso is a 31-year-old man who has been detained at

17 La Palma since November 3, 2019. Mr. Jorge Alfonso has a history of chronic respiratory

18 illnesses including allergies and asthma which requires treatment with a beta agonist

19 inhaler. Because of his respiratory illnesses, he is at increased risk for severe COVID-19

20 that could require intensive care with ventilation at a hospital. Lebensohn Decl. ¶ 4(g); see

21 also Venters Decl. ¶ 45. Mr. Jorge Alfonso has a pending asylum application.

22

30. Respondent Chris Howard is the warden of La Palma, where Petitioners

23 Calix Espinoza, Lara Carnero, Pakhol, Rodriguez Cedeno, Cano Villatoro, Mantilla Silva,

24 Benitez Flores, Naranjo Rosales, and Jorge Alfonso, are being held. He is the custodian of

25 these Petitioners and is named in his official capacity.

26

31. Respondent Fred Figueroa is the warden of EDC, where Petitioners

27 Madueno Davila, Gonzalez Borges, Barroso Barrios, and Mayancela Zamora are being

28 held. He is the custodian of these Petitioners and is named in his official capacity.

-11-

Case 2:20-cv-01134-DWL--CDB Document 1 Filed 06/08/20 Page 14 of 55

1

32. Respondent Albert Carter is the Acting Field Office Director responsible for

2 the Phoenix Field Office of ICE with administrative jurisdiction over Petitioners’ cases. He

3 is a legal custodian of Petitioners and is named in his official capacity.

4

33. Respondent Cesar Topete is an Assistant Field Office Director responsible

5 for the Phoenix Field Office of ICE with administrative jurisdiction over EDC and La

6 Palma. Along with Jason Ciliberti, Respondent Topete is a legal custodian of Petitioners

7 Pakhol, Rodriguez Cedeno, Lara Carnero, Cano Villatoro, Mantilla Silva, Benitez Flores,

8 Naranjo Rosales, Madueno Davila, Gonzalez Borges, Barroso Barrios, Mayancela Zamora,

9 and Jorge Alfonso, and is named in his official capacity.

10

34. Respondent Jason Ciliberti is an Assistant Field Office Director responsible

11 for the Phoenix Field Office of ICE with administrative jurisdiction over EDC and La

12 Palma. Along with Cesar Topete, Respondent Ciliberti is a legal custodian of Petitioners

13 Pakhol, Rodriguez Cedeno, Lara Carnero, Cano Villatoro, Mantilla Silva, Benitez Flores,

14 Naranjo Rosales, Madueno Davila, Gonzalez Borges, Barroso Barrios, Mayancela Zamora,

15 and Jorge Alfonso, and is named in his official capacity.

16

35. Respondent John Cantu is an Assistant Field Office Director responsible for

17 the Phoenix Field Office of ICE with administrative jurisdiction over cases being heard in

18 the Florence Immigration Court where individuals are being detained at La Palma.

19 Respondent Cantu is a legal custodian of Petitioner Calix Espinoza and is named in his

20 official capacity.

21

36. Respondent Chad Wolf is the Acting Secretary of DHS, an agency of the

22 United States. He is responsible for the administration of the immigration laws. 8 U.S.C.

23 § 1103(a). Acting Secretary Wolf is named in his official capacity.

24

STATEMENT OF FACTS

25

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

26

37. By now, the novel strain of coronavirus known as COVID-19 “is well-known

27 to all Americans.” Vazquez Barrera, 2020 WL 1904497, at *2. COVID-19 was declared a

28 global pandemic by the World Health Organization on March 11, 2020. Urdaneta, 2020

-12-

Case 2:20-cv-01134-DWL--CDB Document 1 Filed 06/08/20 Page 15 of 55

1 WL 2319980, at *1. On March 13, 2020, President Trump declared a national emergency

2 in response to the coronavirus pandemic. At the time, there were over 1,600 confirmed cases

3 in the United States and at least 46 deaths.

4

38. Today, only 87 days later, over 1.95 million individuals in the United States

5 have tested positive for COVID-19, with over 110,900 deaths reported nationwide. See

6 Coronavirus COVID-19 Global Cases by the Center for Systems Science and Engineering

7 (CSSE), JOHNS HOPKINS UNIV. & MED., https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/map.html (last updated

8 June 8, 2020). In Arizona, over 27,600 positive COVID-19 cases have been reported as of

9 June 8, 2020, with 1,047 reported deaths. See Data Dashboard, Ariz. Dep’t of Health

10 Servs., https://www.azdhs.gov/covid19, “Data Dashboard” Tab (last accessed June 8,

11 2020). Although over 7 million people live in Arizona, only 402,660 COVID-19 tests have

12 been administered in the State, and hundreds of new cases are being reported each day. See

13 id.

14

39. And as of the date of this filing, there have been 1,709 confirmed COVID-19

15 cases among individuals in ICE custody across the country, including 78 confirmed cases

16 at La Palma, 13 confirmed cases at EDC, and 18 confirmed cases at the nearby Florence

17 Detention Center in Florence, Arizona. See ICE Guidance on COVID-19, U.S.

18 IMMIGRATION & CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT, https://www.ice.gov/coronavirus, “Confirmed

19 Cases” Tab (last updated on June 8, 2020 at 10:10 a.m. PDT / 1:10 p.m. EDT). Notably,

20 only 5,096 detainees in ICE custody have been tested for COVID-19, meaning that there is

21 an over 33% positive rate among those tested. Id. There have also been 44 confirmed

22 COVID-19 cases among ICE employees assigned to detention facilities, including one at

23 EDC. Id.3 According to Dr. Homer Venters, a physician, internist and epidemiologist with

24 over a decade of experience in providing, improving, and leading health services for

25 incarcerated people, “[t]his is likely just the tip of the iceberg in terms of the number of ICE

26

27

3 These statistics do not include third-party contractors who work in ICE facilities

who have tested positive for COVID-19, as ICE has stated that this information “isn’t

28 something [they] have to provide.” Venters Decl. ¶ 12 (citation omitted).

-13-

Case 2:20-cv-01134-DWL--CDB Document 1 Filed 06/08/20 Page 16 of 55

1 staff and detainees who are already infected but unaware due to the lack of testing

2 nationwide, and the fact that people who are infected can be asymptomatic for several days.”

3 Venters Decl. ¶¶ 1, 13; see also Sallaj, 2020 WL 1975819, at *3 (“the full extent of the risk

4 is unknown because, as of today, only sixty-eight detainees have been tested out of the five

5 hundred eighty-one being held at [the detention center]”); Ochoa, 2020 WL 2850706, at

6 *12 (“Notably, the only way to determine if the virus is present in the facility is to do wide-

7 spread testing for the virus….”); Dada v. Witte, No. 1:20-CV-00458, 2020 WL 2614616, at

8 *2 (W.D. La. May 22, 2020) (“Without regular testing, there is simply no way to confirm

9 that a facility that once housed those with a highly infectious disease is now infection

10 free.”).

11

40. COVID-19 is a highly contagious disease with a mortality rate ten times

12 greater than influenza. Castillo, 2020 WL 1502864, at *2. The CDC reports that COVID-

13 19 “spreads easily and sustainably from person to person, and even asymptomatic infected

14 people can spread the virus.” Kaur v. DHS, No. 2:20-cv-03172-ODW (MRWx), 2020 WL

15 1939386, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 22, 2020); see also Venters Decl. ¶ 41(d) (“asymptomatic

16 transmission of COVID-19 has been identified by the CDC as an important means of

17 transmission”); Declaration of Jaimie Meyer (“Meyer Decl.”) ¶ 5 [attached hereto as

18 Exhibit 6].

19

41. Symptoms of COVID-19 range from mild to severe, with some carriers of the

20 virus experiencing no symptoms at all. Meyer Decl. ¶¶ 5-6; Urdaneta, 2020 WL 2319980,

21 at *1. Severe symptoms may result in acute respiratory distress, severe pneumonia, sepsis,

22 and death. Meyer Decl. ¶ 6; Urdaneta, 2020 WL 2319980, at *1. The CDC estimates that

23 severe illness or death occurs in 16% of COVID-19 cases. Meyer Decl. ¶ 6; Urdaneta, 2020

24 WL 2319980, at *1 (citation omitted).

25

42. The CDC and other courts have recognized that “COVID-19 presents a

26 substantial risk of harm to all persons, and not just to detainees with higher-risk conditions.”

27 Gomes v. DHS, No. 20-CV-453-LM, 2020 WL 2514541, at *16 (D.N.H. May 14, 2020);

28 see, e.g., Ochoa, 2020 WL 2850706, at *2 (“COVID-19 can cause death or serious illness

-14-

Case 2:20-cv-01134-DWL--CDB Document 1 Filed 06/08/20 Page 17 of 55

1 in anyone”); Zepeda Rivas v. Jennings, No. 20-CV-02731-VC, 2020 WL 2059848, at *2

2 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 29, 2020) (noting the “health risks posed by the virus—not just for people

3 in high-risk categories but for healthy people as well”); Sallaj, 2020 WL 1975819, at *1

4 (D.R.I. Apr. 24, 2020) (“And while older people with pre-existing conditions are the most

5 vulnerable, young people without preexisting conditions have become severely ill because

6 of Covid-19, which, in some cases, has led to death.”); Savino v. Souza (Savino I), No. CV

7 20-10617-WGY, 2020 WL 1703844, at *7 (D. Mass. Apr. 8, 2020) (observing that “even

8 perfectly healthy detainees are seriously threatened by COVID-19,” and that “it cannot be

9 denied that the virus is gravely dangerous to all of us”); Savino v. Souza (Savino II), No.

10 CV 20-10617-WGY, 2020 WL 2404923, at *8 (D. Mass. May 12, 2020) (“Though COVID-

11 19 surely poses a greater threat to those with CDC-recognized heightened risk factors, it

12 cannot be denied that the virus is gravely dangerous to all of us.” (citation omitted)).

13

43. Recent data support this conclusion. A study from the CDC showed that even

14 in patients between ages 19-64 with no underlying health conditions, the total

15 hospitalization rate was 8-8.7%. Savino I, 2020 WL 1703844, at *7. In a different CDC

16 study of hospitalized COVID-19 patients, 26% had no high-risk factors—of that

17 subpopulation, 23% received ICU care and 5% died. Savino I, 2020 WL 1703844, at *7.

18

44. Although even the young and otherwise healthy can succumb to COVID-19,

19 older patients and patients with chronic underlying conditions are at a particularly high risk

20 for severe cases and complications. Meyer Decl. ¶ 6; Venters Decl. ¶ 23. For example, the

21 CDC recognizes that “[p]eople of all ages with medical conditions, particularly if not well

22 controlled,” are at high-risk of suffering severe illness or death from COVID-19, including,

23 as relevant here, “chronic lung disease or moderate to severe asthma,” “serious heart

24 conditions,” “severe obesity (body mass index [BMI] of 40 or higher),” and “diabetes.”

25 CDC Higher Risk; Urdaneta, 2020 WL 2319980, at *1; see also Meyer Decl. ¶ 6; Venters

26 Decl. ¶ 23.

27

45. However, as the CDC explicitly recognizes, “COVID-19 is a new disease and

28 there is limited information regarding risk factors for severe disease.” CDC Higher Risk.

-15-

Case 2:20-cv-01134-DWL--CDB Document 1 Filed 06/08/20 Page 18 of 55

1 Against this medical backdrop, and with due consideration for the heightened danger

2 COVID-19 presents within detention facilities, numerous courts across the country have

3 ordered the release of civil immigration detainees without any CDC-recognized heightened

4 risk factors who have underlying medical conditions, including mental illness, that make

5 them more vulnerable to contracting the virus and/or serious complications if they contract

6 COVID-19. See supra note 1.

7

46. With respect to mental illness, courts have recognized that, “[f]or complex

8 reasons, individuals with serious mental illness are also particularly vulnerable to infectious

9 diseases, and the public health strategies for preventing and slowing the spread of COVID-

10 19, such as social distancing, may be less effective” for persons with mental illness. Jose

11 B.R., 2020 WL 2744586, at *4 (footnotes and citations omitted); see also Barr I, 2020 WL

12 1820667, at *4 (noting that “[g]rowing evidence demonstrates that PTSD, anxiety/stress,

13 and depression can lead to decreased immune response and increased risk of infections,”

14 and that the “weakened immunity due to mental-health disorders can put detainees at

15 increased risk of contracting and suffering from more severe forms of COVID-19” (citing

16 declaration of Dr. Mira Zein, M.D., M.P.H., a Clinical Assistant Professor at Stanford

17 University School of Medicine, Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences));

18 Ochoa, 2020 WL 2850706, at *11-12 (observing that the petitioner “has less ability to

19 protect himself to COVID-19 due to his mental illness and learning disabilities,” and that

20 the petitioner’s “mental illness and learning disabilities will likely prevent his compliance

21 with” policies mandating detainee use of masks at all times other than eating and showering,

22 “reduc[ing] the potential effectiveness of these policies as to Petitioner”).

23

47. In addition to greater susceptibility to infection, “treatment may be ‘more

24 challenging and potentially less effective’” for mentally ill individuals, and as a

25 consequence, once they contract a disease, they face “a 4- to 8-fold risk of death due to

26 infection compared to the general population.” Jose B.R., 2020 WL 2744586, at *4 (citing

27 Hao Yao et al., Patients with mental health disorders in the COVID-19 epidemic, 7 THE

28 LANCET e21, e21 (Apr. 2020), https://www.thelancet.com/pdfs/journals/lanpsy/

-16-

Case 2:20-cv-01134-DWL--CDB Document 1 Filed 06/08/20 Page 19 of 55

1 PIIS2215-0366(20)30090-0.pdf (“Yao, Mental Health”) [attached hereto as Exhibit 29]).

2 “For these reasons, mental- and public-health experts have already begun to sound the alarm

3 about the increased risk that COVID-19 poses to those with serious mental illness.” Id.

4

48. Moreover, “[p]eople with mental health conditions could be more

5 substantially influenced by the emotional responses brought on by the COVID-19 epidemic,

6 resulting in relapses or worsening of an already existing mental health condition because of

7 high susceptibility to stress compared with the general population.” Yao, Mental Health;

8 see also Ochoa, 2020 WL 2850706, at *11 (reasoning that the petitioner “faces increased

9 punitive measures and stress during the COVID-19 pandemic in light of his mental illness

10 and learning difficulties” and that “he has shown resistance and confusion to the COVID-

11 19 protocols, resulting in his punishment and, no doubt, exacerbation of his mental health

12 issues”); see also Lebensohn Decl. ¶ 4(c), (f).

13

49. In addition to mental illness, courts have recognized that individuals with a

14 BMI greater than or equal to 30, while not meeting the CDC higher-risk criterion, are

15 nonetheless at risk of developing severe COVID-19, at least when their obesity is combined

16 with other risk factors. See Essien, 2020 WL 1974761, at *7; United States v. Foreman, No.

17 3:19-CR-62 (VAB), 2020 WL 2315908, at *4 (D. Conn. May 11, 2020) (granting

18 compassionate release for inmate with hypertension and moderate obesity given her

19 increased risk of falling seriously ill from COVID-19, noting that defendant’s “weight—

20 even if ... not high enough to create the highest risk—along with her age of 58, magnifies

21 the risk”). And for sound reason—a New York City study found that a BMI greater than or

22 equal to 30 was a comorbidity in 41.7% of hospitalizations. Essien, 2020 WL 1974761, at

23 *7 (citing Safiya Richardson et al., Presenting Characteristics, Comorbidities, and

24 Outcomes Among 5700 Patients Hospitalized With COVID-19 in the New York City Area,

25 J. OF THE AM. MED. ASSOC. (Apr. 22, 2020) at E3, https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/

26 articlepdf/2765184/jama_richardson_2020_oi_200043.pdf).

27

50. Currently, there is no widely available treatment, cure, or vaccine for COVID-

28 19. Meyer Decl. ¶ 5; Venters Decl. ¶ 9; see also Castillo, 2020 WL 1502864, at *2. As a

-17-

Case 2:20-cv-01134-DWL--CDB Document 1 Filed 06/08/20 Page 20 of 55

1 result, “[t]he only way to protect our communities is to ‘socially distance’ ourselves—avoid

2 unnecessary human contact and maintain a safe distance of at least six feet from other

3 people—and practice diligent hygiene, by frequently washing our hands and disinfecting

4 commonly touched surfaces.” Vazquez Barrera, 2020 WL 1904497, at *2; see also Venters

5 Decl. ¶ 26 (stating that “because there is no cure for COVID-19, social distancing remains

6 an essential means of prevention,” and that “social distancing represents one of the few

7 tools that correctional facilities can implement to slow the spread of COVID-19”); Meyer

8 Decl. ¶ 8. This is especially true in congregate or carceral settings. See Meyer Decl. ¶¶ 9-

9 13; Pimentel-Estrada, 2020 WL 2092430, at *4 (“The only way to control the virus [in

10 these settings] is to use preventive strategies, including social distancing.” (citation

11 omitted)).

12

B. There Continues to Be a Heightened Risk of Severe Illness and Death

13

from COVID-19 in Detention Centers.

14

51. Many courts, including this one, have recognized that individuals in detention

15 centers “have a heightened risk of contracting and transmitting COVID-19.” Urdaneta,

16 2020 WL 2319980, at *9 (citing CDC, Clinical Care Guidance,

17 https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/clinical-guidance-management-

18 patients.html at 2); see also Meyer Decl. ¶¶ 9-10 (“The risk posed by infectious diseases in

19 detention centers, jails, and prisons is significantly higher than in the community, both in

20 terms of risk of transmission, exposure, and harm to individuals who become infected.”);

21 Basank, 2020 WL 1481503, at *3 (“The nature of detention facilities makes exposure and

22 spread of the virus particularly harmful.”); Bent, 2020 WL 1812850, at *4 (same); Sallaj,

23 2020 WL 1975819k, at *3 (“The risk of contracting COVID-19 in a detention center . . . is

24 dangerously high.”); Geovani M.-O., 2020 WL 2511428, at *1 (“The stark reality is that

25 ‘avoiding exposure to COVID-19 is impossible for most detainees and inmates.’”); Castillo,

26 2020 WL 1502864, at *2 (“Because of the highly contagious nature of the coronavirus and

27 the, relatively high, mortality rate of COVID-19, the disease can spread uncontrollably with

28

-18-

Case 2:20-cv-01134-DWL--CDB Document 1 Filed 06/08/20 Page 21 of 55

1 devastating results in a crowded, closed facility, such as an immigration detention center.”).

2 That is especially true where, as here, there is already a documented outbreak at the facility.

3

52. CDC guidance indicates that heightened risk in detention centers is due, in

4 part, to “the number of sources which can introduce them into a facility’s population,

5 including detention staff, visitors, contractors, vendors, legal representatives, court staff,

6 and new detainees; the congregate environment in which detainees ‘live, work, eat, study,

7 and recreate’; and limited medical isolation options, hygiene supplies, and dissemination of

8 accurate information among detainees.” Urdaneta, 2020 WL 2319980, at *2 (citing CDC,

9 Interim Guidance on Management of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) in

10 Correctional and Detention Facilities, https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-

11 ncov/downloads/guidance-correctional-detention.pdf (last accessed May 11, 2020)); see

12 also Flores v. Barr, No. CV 85-4544-DMG (AGRx), 2020 WL 2128663, at *4 (C.D. Cal.

13 Mar. 28, 2020) (“Medical experts fear the exceptionally rapid transmission of COVID-19

14 in detention facilities, where medical resources such as physicians, testing kits, and

15 protective equipment are constrained; people are unable to practice social distancing; shared

16 facilities are not frequently or properly sanitized; soap and hand sanitizer are not provided

17 or easily accessible to detainees; quarantine or isolation units are scarce; and there are

18 frequent opportunities for an infected person to enter or leave the facility.”). Additionally,

19 “there may be cultural or structural disincentives for detainees to take preventative

20 measures, report symptoms, or seek medical care.” Gomes, 2020 WL 2514541, at *4.

21

53. Even when social visitation is suspended, staff, contractors, and vendors

22 arrive at and leave the facility daily, and the possibility of asymptomatic transmission is

23 high. See Castillo, 2020 WL 1502864, at *5 (“[T]he Government cannot deny the fact that

24 the risk of infection in immigration detention facilities … is particularly high if an

25 asymptomatic guard, or other employee, enters a facility. While social visits have been

26 discontinued at [the detention center], the rotation of guards and other staff continues.”);

27 Pimentel-Estrada, 2020 WL 2092430, at *12 (“The biggest threat comes from

28 Respondents’ inability to identify asymptomatic carriers as staff, contractors, vendors,

-19-

Case 2:20-cv-01134-DWL--CDB Document 1 Filed 06/08/20 Page 22 of 55

1 attorneys, and visitors come and go between the detention center and the broader

2 community where COVID-19 has been spreading.”). It is impossible to seal entry and exit

3 to the facilities, and thus detainees housed within cannot be isolated from viruses circulating

4 in the broader community. See Venters Decl. ¶ 13; Meyer Decl. ¶ 10; Castillo, 2020 WL

5 1502864, at *5; Pimentel-Estrada, 2020 WL 2092430, at *12.

6

54. Preventative strategies utilized by the general public, like social distancing,

7 hand washing, sanitation of surfaces, proper ventilation and PPE are neither readily

8 available nor particularly effective in detention facilities. Meyer Decl. ¶¶ 8, 10-11, 25

9 (“Social distancing is key to infection prevention, but often challenging in detention

10 facilities that are inherently congregate.”); Venters Decl. ¶¶ 18-20 (describing challenges to

11 implementing social distancing and applying hospital-level infection control measures on

12 security staff in detention centers); see also Santiago, 2020 WL 2487648, at *9 (“Within

13 [congregate facilities], detainees ‘cannot practically adhere to social distancing guidelines

14 or the adequate level of personal hygiene, measures which have been ‘touted as the most

15 effective means to thwart the spread of the virus.’” (internal citation omitted)); Perez, 2020

16 WL 1865303, at *12 (“[T]he structure of detention facilities, which are designed to house

17 multiple people in close proximity, render any sanitation efforts somewhat meaningless as

18 detainees cannot social distance.”). As a result, once COVID-19 enters a facility, as it has

19 in La Palma and EDC, rapid transmission and widespread outbreak is virtually inevitable.

20 See Venters Decl. ¶ 17.

21

55. Respondents have not eliminated many of these risks. See infra Section C.

22 The conditions of confinement do not allow for social distancing within cells, detainees

23 interact in common spaces, employees move throughout the facility working on multiple

24 units, and detainees are not required to follow recommendations about masks and social

25 distancing in common spaces. Accordingly, as the COVID-19 global pandemic spreads,

26 Petitioners are trapped in “a ‘tinderbox scenario’ where rapid outbreak is extremely likely,

27 and extremely likely to lead to deadly results[.]” Malam I, 2020 WL 1672662, at *8; see

28 also Ruderman, 2020 WL 2449758, at *3 (“The rapid spread of COVID-19 through

-20-

Case 2:20-cv-01134-DWL--CDB Document 1 Filed 06/08/20 Page 23 of 55

1 detention center populations could lead to a ‘tinderbox scenario,’ where patient flow from

2 detention centers overwhelms local hospital systems, causing a devastating effect on public

3 health.”); Venters Decl. ¶ 17 (“Once COVID-19 is inside a facility, ICE will be unable to

4 stop the spread of the virus throughout the facility given long-existing inadequacies in ICE’s

5 medical care and also in light of how these facilities function.”).

6

56. As Judge Steven Logan has previously summarized: “No one disputes that

7 COVID-19 exists, that it is rapidly and pervasively spreading, that detention facilities face

8 an acute risk of disseminating infectious diseases, or that individuals in ICE custody have

9 contracted COVID-19.” Urdaneta, 2020 WL 2319980, at *7. This acute risk has not

10 subsided.

11

57. Medical experts agree that reducing the number of detainees is a necessary

12 component of risk mitigation in a pandemic as widespread and serious as the one currently

13 spreading across the United States. See Pimentel-Estrada, 2020 WL 2092430, at *4

14 (“[M]uch focus has been placed on reducing detained populations, and public health experts

15 have recommended that authorities release detained individuals who are at high risk of

16 serious illness or death from COVID-19. Additionally, experts have recommended the

17 release of detainees who present a low risk of harm to the community to reduce the total

18 number of detainees in a facility and allow for greater social distancing.” (citations

19 omitted)). This is true not only for the facility as a whole, but for the population of people

20 living within distinct combined spaces, such as tanks or pods. See Venters Decl. ¶ 41(f)

21 (“While the overall capacity of the facility may be lower than normal, the reliance on full

22 or nearly full housing areas subverts the original goals of having fewer people in a facility.

23 … Any meaningful effort to promote social distancing must include having fewer people in

24 individual ho[u]sing areas, resulting in more sparely populated housing areas throughout

25 the facility, not a small number of densely packed housing areas.”).

26

58. Reducing detention center populations does not just benefit detainees and

27 staff, it also benefits the community as a whole by reducing the burden on healthcare

28 resources that are already in high demand. See Arias v. Decker, No. 20-civ-2802 (AT), 2020

-21-

Case 2:20-cv-01134-DWL--CDB Document 1 Filed 06/08/20 Page 24 of 55

1 WL 2306565, at *11 (S.D.N.Y. May 8, 2020) (“[d]ecreasing the [ICE detention] population

2 will ... ‘mitigate the damage’ to both the [j]ail and the surrounding community and thereby

3 ‘reduce the death toll’” (alterations in original; internal citations omitted)). Recognizing

4 this, many large detention settings across the country have implemented release of high-

5 risk detainees as a measure to reduce the impact of COVID-19 on incarcerated people, staff

6 and local health systems. Venters Decl. ¶ 3.

7

59. “[A]s public health experts have predicted, there have been significant

8 outbreaks in detained populations where the virus spreads ‘like wildfire.’” Pimentel-

9 Estrada, 2020 WL 2092430, at *3; see also Venters Decl. ¶¶ 14-15 (providing data

10 illustrating the “extremely rapid rate of COVID-19 infection spread in correctional

11 settings”). For example, on April 7, 2020, ICE had confirmed 19 cases of COVID-19 in its

12 detention facilities. Pimentel-Estrada, 2020 WL 2092430, at *3. Within two weeks, that

13 number jumped to 253. Id. As of April 27, the number of confirmed cases was 317. Id.

14 Now, only six weeks later, that number has more than quadrupled, with ICE reporting 1,709

15 confirmed cases. See ICE Guidance on COVID-19, U.S. IMMIGRATION & CUSTOMS

16 ENFORCEMENT, https://www.ice.gov/coronavirus, “Confirmed Cases” Tab (last updated on

17 June 8, 2020 at 10:10 a.m. PDT / 1:10 p.m. EDT).

18

60. In the face of this humanitarian and constitutional crisis, courts across the

19 country, including those in the Ninth Circuit, have issued dozens of orders directing the

20 release of individuals detained by ICE, where doing so is in the public interest and protects

21 the individuals from the unnecessary risk they face in detention. See supra note 1.

22

C. The Risks to Petitioners’ Health and Safety Remain Particularly Acute

23

in the Detention Centers Where ICE Is Detaining Them.

24

61. Courts in this district have recognized that the detention centers where the

25 Petitioners are detained—La Palma and EDC—are especially vulnerable to rapid

26 transmission of COVID-19. Urdaneta, 2020 WL 2319980, at *10; Gutierrez-Lopez, 2020

27 WL 2781722, at *9; Patel, No. 2:20-CV-00709-DLR-DMF, Dkt. 35 at 3-4; Mendoza, No.

28 CV-20-00514-PHX-SPL (MTM), Dkt. 37 at 4 (adopting Urdaneta findings and reasoning).

-22-

Case 2:20-cv-01134-DWL--CDB Document 1 Filed 06/08/20 Page 25 of 55

1 This is due to, among other things, the ongoing, sanctioned visitors to the detention centers;

2 the unsanitary and crowded conditions within the facilities; the lack of widespread COVID-

3 19 testing at the facilities; the failure to consistently implement risk-mitigation protocols;

4 and the facilities’ history of providing poor medical treatment. See Meyer Decl. ¶¶ 10-13,

5 16-30; Venters Decl. ¶¶ 39-42; Declaration of Monika Sud-Devaraj (“Sud-Devaraj Decl.”)

6 ¶ 8 [attached hereto as Exhibit 7]; Lara Carnero Decl. ¶¶ 7, 9, 11-14, 25-26, 28, 31, 34, 36-

7 37; Declaration of Ernesto Rodriguez Cedeno (“Rodriguez Cedeno Decl.”) ¶¶ 8-11, 13-17

8 [attached hereto as Exhibit 9]; Declaration of Yarjelis Madueno Davila (“Madueno Davila

9 Decl.”) ¶¶ 5-10, 12, 14-16 [attached hereto as Exhibit 10]; Declaration of Artem Pakhol

10 (“Pakhol Decl.”) ¶¶ 5-6, 8-16 [attached hereto as Exhibit 11]; Declaration of Marco

11 Fernandez Sancho (“Fernandez Sancho Decl.”) ¶¶ 5-10, 17 [attached hereto as Exhibit 12];

12 Declaration of Edwin Murcia Solis (“Murcia Solis Decl.”) ¶¶ 11, 13, 15 [attached hereto as

13 Exhibit 13]; Declaration of Frank David Coca Peña (“Coca Peña Decl.”) ¶¶ 10-16 [attached

14 hereto as Exhibit 14]; Declaration of Luis Alberto Ravelo Serret (“Ravelo Serret Decl.”)

15 ¶¶ 6, 8, 12-15, 17 [attached hereto as Exhibit 15]; Declaration of Jorge Ibarra-Perez

16 (“Ibarra-Perez Decl.”) ¶¶ 7-13, 15-19 [attached hereto as Exhibit 16]; Declaration of

17 Roberto Reina Rojas (“Reina Rojas Decl.”) ¶¶ 6, 11-14 [attached hereto as Exhibit 17];

18 Declaration of Francisco Ramon Corral (“Ramon Corral Decl.”) ¶¶ 14, 16-19 [attached

19 hereto as Exhibit 18]; Declaration of Benjamin Sauceda-Rodriguez (“Sauceda-Rodriguez

20 Decl.”) ¶¶ 4-7, 9 [attached hereto as Exhibit 19].

21

1. Conditions in La Palma and EDC Remain Unsanitary and

22

Hazardous

23

62. Thousands of immigration detainees are housed in EDC and La Palma at any

24 given time. EDC has a capacity for approximately 1,500 people, and La Palma can hold

25 about 3,000 people. Sud-Devaraj Decl. ¶ 3; see Urdaneta, 2020 WL 2319980, at *3.

26 Although Respondents have made some effort to improve conditions at these facilities

27 pursuant to the orders in Urdaneta, Gutierrez-Lopez, Patel, and Mendoza, they have not

28 done so in a way that alleviates the risk to Petitioners. Under current conditions, which

-23-

Case 2:20-cv-01134-DWL--CDB Document 1 Filed 06/08/20 Page 26 of 55

1 purport to comply with those previous orders, Petitioners’ due process rights are still being

2 violated.

3

63. ICE detainees at both facilities have reported that the facilities are taking ad

4 hoc, insufficient measures to contain the likelihood of transmission. Venters Decl. ¶¶ 39-

5 41; Lara Carnero Decl. ¶¶ 7, 9, 11-14, 25-26, 28, 31, 34, 36-37; Rodriguez Cedeno Decl.

6 ¶¶ 8-11, 13-17; Madueno Davila Decl. ¶¶ 5-10, 12, 14-16; Pakhol Decl. ¶¶ 5-6, 8-16;

7 Fernandez Sancho Decl. ¶¶ 5-10; Murcia Solis Decl. ¶¶ 11, 13, 15; Coca Peña Decl. ¶¶ 10-

8 16; Ravelo Serret Decl. ¶¶ 6, 8, 12-15, 17; Ibarra-Perez Decl. ¶¶ 7-13, 15-19; Reina Rojas

9 Decl. ¶¶ 6, 11-14; Ramon Corral Decl. ¶¶ 14, 16-18, 22; Sauceda-Rodriguez Decl. ¶¶ 4-7.

10

64. At both EDC and La Palma, adequate social distancing is “impossible.”

11 Pakhol Decl. ¶ 6; Rodriguez Cedeno Decl. ¶ 8; Ramon Corral Decl. ¶ 14; Ibarra-Perez Decl.

12 ¶ 8; Madueno Davila Decl. ¶ 5. “Detainees in each facility live in units, commonly referred

13 to as tanks or pods. The units are comprised of individual cells which house an average of

14 two detainees each, and have, at a minimum, a bunk bed, a sink, and a toilet.” Urdaneta,

15 2020 WL 2319980, at *3. Two people typically share a small cell, even when the tank is

16 below capacity. Pakhol Decl. ¶ 5; Fernandez Sancho Decl. ¶ 5; Ibarra-Perez Decl. ¶¶ 6-7;

17 Sauceda-Rodriguez Decl. ¶¶ 4-5; Madueno Davila Decl. ¶ 5; see Lara Carnero Decl. ¶ 6.

18 Cells in La Palma are about 12’ by 7’, meaning “even if cellmates are encouraged to sleep

19 head to toe…, it will be all but impossible to maintain 6’ of distance within the confines of

20 that space.” Meyer Decl. ¶ 26; accord Pakhol Decl. ¶ 6; Ibarra-Perez Decl. ¶ 7. It is likewise

21 impossible for detainees with cellmates to be 6 feet apart during count, which occurs five

22 times per day in La Palma and at least twice a day in EDC, each lasting about 1.5 hours.

23 Ibarra-Perez Decl. ¶ 7; Madueno Davila Decl. ¶ 5.

24

65. Detainees at both facilities report an inability to socially distance themselves

25 from other detainees and staff throughout the day, and the facilities’ failure to enforce it or

26 impose additional precautions to limit the flow of detainees in common areas. Fernandez

27 Sancho Decl. ¶ 6; Lara Carnero Decl. ¶ 7; Pakhol Decl. ¶¶ 9-10, 12; Rodriguez Cedeno

28 Decl. ¶¶ 8-9; Sauceda-Rodriguez Decl. ¶¶ 5-6; Coca Peña Decl. ¶¶ 10-13; Ibarra-Perez

-24-

Case 2:20-cv-01134-DWL--CDB Document 1 Filed 06/08/20 Page 27 of 55

1 Decl. ¶¶ 9-10; Ravelo Serret Decl. ¶¶ 8, 13; Madueno Davila Decl. ¶ 16; see also Venters

2 Decl. ¶ 26 (“Any guidance that treats [social distancing] as merely recommended, rather

3 than required at all times, remains inadequate to mitigate the spread of COVID-19.”); Meyer

4 Decl. ¶ 28 (noting that “social distancing policies are meaningless if not enforced and

5 completely deployed”). For example, in the dining area in Mohave Bravo in La Palma, there

6 are approximately 12 tables with four seats attached and two long tables with eight seats

7 attached. The seats are attached to each other like benches. Each table is only two to three

8 feet apart, and the small tables are only around five feet long by five feet wide. Lara Carnero

9 Decl. ¶ 7. Detainees generally eat “face to face,” four men at a table, close enough to “touch

10 someone without reaching.” Pakhol Decl. ¶ 10; see also Ibarra-Perez Decl. ¶ 10. Even if

11 detainees choose to eat in their cells, they must come into close contact with others while

12 waiting in line or in a group to get their food. Coca Peña Decl. ¶¶ 11-12; Ravelo Serret ¶ 13.

13

66. In addition to the living quarters and dining area, detainees are frequently

14 confronted with sharing limited equipment in small common areas with dozens of other

15 individuals, including phones, computers, and other equipment. Lara Carnero Decl. ¶ 7;

16 Fernandez Sancho Decl. ¶ 6; Ibarra-Perez Decl. ¶ 9; Sauceda-Rodriguez Decl. ¶ 6;

17 Rodriguez Cedeno Decl. ¶ 8; Pakhol Decl. ¶ 9; Coca Peña Decl. ¶¶ 10, 13; Ravelo Serret

18 Decl. ¶ 8. The telephones are so close to each other that “if [you] reached out [your] arm,

19 [you] could touch the person sitting next to [you] on the phone.” Ravelo Serret Decl. ¶ 8;

20 see also Lara Carnero Decl. ¶ 7 (“The telephones are only one foot apart”); Coca Peña Decl.

21 ¶ 13; Madueno Davila Decl. ¶ 16. Compounding the problem, the cleaning solution and

22 paper towels to wipe down the phones after each use are usually empty. Coca Peña Decl.

23 ¶ 13; Lara Carnero Decl. ¶ 37; Sauceda-Rodriguez Decl. ¶ 6; Ramon Corral Decl. ¶ 17.

24

67. Detainees in each unit also share shower facilities. Ramon Corral Decl. ¶ 17;

25 Pakhol Decl. ¶ 11. In the Hopi-Charlie unit at La Palma, for example, there are four

26 individual showers for 80 detainees to share. Pakhol Decl. ¶ 11. Porters spray the showers,

27 but they are not clean. Id. The toilets in the cells in both EDC and La Palma do not have

28 lids and sometimes malfunction, Sauceda-Rodriguez Decl. ¶ 5; Madueno Davila Decl. ¶¶ 5,

-25-

Case 2:20-cv-01134-DWL--CDB Document 1 Filed 06/08/20 Page 28 of 55

1 11; Pakhol Decl. ¶¶ 6-7, resulting in exposure to fecal material and risk of fecal-oral

2 infection of COVID-19. Venters Decl. ¶¶ 22, 39(h).

3

68. Detainee access to PPE in both facilities is scarce. See Venters Decl. ¶ 39(f).

4 For example, only detainees who work in cleaning are given gloves. Lara Carnero Decl.

5 ¶ 8; Ibarra-Perez Decl. ¶ 17. And although detainees were eventually given at least one

6 disposable mask—long after the CDC recommended their use, see Venters Decl. ¶ 39(f)—

7 detainees report having difficulty obtaining additional or replacement masks. Ramon Corral

8 Decl. ¶ 16; Rodriguez Cedeno ¶ 16. Moreover, detainees were not given instructions on

9 how to properly wear the masks, nor are they consistently required, encouraged, or educated

10 on the importance of wearing them in the common areas inside the housing units. Fernandez

11 Sancho Decl. ¶¶ 8-9; Lara Carnero Decl. ¶ 9; Rodriguez Cedeno Decl. ¶ 8; Ibarra-Perez

12 Decl. ¶ 11; see Venters Decl. ¶ 41(b). As a result, the “vast majority” of detainees reportedly

13 do not wear their masks. Fernandez Sancho Decl. ¶ 8-9; see also Ibarra-Perez Decl. ¶ 11;

14 Reina Rojas Decl. ¶ 14; Ravelo Serret Decl. ¶ 17.

15

69. Similarly, the use of PPE for staff at both facilities has been inconsistent and

16 ineffective. Venters Decl. ¶ 39(e). Indeed, facility staff at La Palma have not been

17 consistently using PPE around vulnerable detainees, let alone general population detainees.

18 Mr. Murcia Solis, a detainee at La Palma who is detained in Apache Alpha, the isolated

19 tank with people with underlying medical conditions who are at higher risk for

20 complications with COVID-19, explained that even in a unit occupied by people with

21 underlying medical conditions, officers do not regularly wear masks. Murcia Solis Decl.

22 ¶¶ 4-5, 11. Even when they do wear them, multiple detainees in Apache Alpha report that

23 the officers take them off to cough, eat, and while they are in the office. Id. ¶ 11; Rodriguez

24 Cedeno Decl. ¶ 17; Reina Rojas Decl. ¶ 13. Detainees in other units in La Palma and EDC

25 likewise report that staff “almost never” enter the units with gloves, and do not always wear

26 masks or plastic coverings. Lara Carnero Decl. ¶¶ 11-12, 31; see also Sauceda-Rodriguez

27 Decl. ¶ 7; Lara Carnero Decl. ¶ 26; Ibarra-Perez Decl. ¶ 17; Madueno Davila Decl. ¶ 14. In

28 addition, several detainees at La Palma report that staff do not always change their PPE

-26-

Case 2:20-cv-01134-DWL--CDB Document 1 Filed 06/08/20 Page 29 of 55

1 when moving between units, Lara Carnero Decl. ¶¶ 13-14, 26; Ibarra-Perez Decl. ¶¶ 17-19;

2 Coca Peña Decl. ¶ 16, “subverting the purpose of limiting the transfer of COVID-19.”

3 Venters Decl. ¶ 41(a).

4

70. As with PPE, access to hygiene and sanitation products is scarce in both EDC

5 and La Palma. See Venters Decl. ¶ 39(b). For example, while detainees are given shampoo,

6 they have limited, if any, access to soap, and no access to hand sanitizer. See Pakhol Decl.

7 ¶ 14; Sauceda-Rodriguez Decl. ¶ 6 (“some days we don’t even have soap to wash our hands

8 with. Today it has been about four days that we haven’t had soap”); Lara Carnero Decl.

9 ¶ 37; Ibarra-Perez Decl. ¶¶ 15-16; Ramon Corral Decl. ¶ 18; Rodriguez Cedeno Decl. ¶ 10;

10 Madueno Davila Decl. ¶ 10 (“[W]e get three little containers of shampoo about 1.5 ounces

11 each (50 mL) per week. We do not get soap.”). Moreover, soap or shampoo is generally

12 made available—if at all—via a communal dispenser, Sauceda-Rodriguez Decl. ¶ 6; Lara

13 Carnero Decl. ¶ 37, Ramon Corral Decl. ¶ 18, which is “neither practical nor desirable

14 f[ro]m an infection control standpoint,” Venters Decl. ¶ 39(b). See also id. ¶ 39(b) (“This

15 approach would actually require cleaning of the soap jugs in some manner and would likely

16 lead to considerable spillage. Soap dispensers should be located at hand washing stations

17 and should [be] filled by a small number of trained individuals, so as to limit spillage and

18 the spread of COVID-19.”). In the Charlie-500 unit in EDC, detainees are no longer given

19 trash bags for the trash bins and are given only a limited supply of toilet paper, which they

20 use to clean. Madueno Davila Decl. ¶ 13.

21

71. Neither facility is professionally cleaned or disinfected; rather, detainees in

22 both facilities are responsible for cleaning the facilities through the Voluntary Work

23 Program. Reina Rojas Decl. ¶ 12; Madueno Davila Decl. ¶ 12; see also Venters Decl.

24 ¶ 39(g). And at least on May 27, 2020, the Charlie-500 unit in EDC did not have any

25 detainees in the Voluntary Work Program, and therefore did not have anyone cleaning the

26 pod. Madueno Davila Decl. ¶ 12. Common areas are cleaned mainly at night, Rodriguez

27 Cedeno Decl. ¶ 11, and the cleaning solution detainees are provided is diluted. Reina Rojas

28 Decl. ¶ 12; Rodriguez Cedeno Decl. ¶ 10; Ibarra-Perez Decl. ¶¶ 15-16; Ramon Corral Decl.

-27-

Case 2:20-cv-01134-DWL--CDB Document 1 Filed 06/08/20 Page 30 of 55

1 ¶ 18; Madueno Davila Decl. ¶ 12. Sometimes cleaning supplies run out, and the officers

2 never have a plan to keep detainees constantly equipped with what they need. Murcia Solis

3 Decl. ¶ 15; see also Lara Carnero Decl. ¶ 37 (as of May 26, 2020, it had been “almost 8

4 days since they brought us chlorine” to clean cells); Pakhol Decl. ¶ 14 (ran out of gloves to

5 clean the tank). For example, over Memorial Day weekend, detainees at the Apache Alpha

6 unit in La Palma, the medically vulnerable unit, ran out of disinfectant, shampoo,

7 toothpaste, and trash bags, which were not restocked until Tuesday, May 26. Ravelo Serret

8 Decl. ¶ 15; Coca Peña Decl. ¶ 14; Reina Rojas Decl. ¶ 12.

9

72. Detainees also consistently report that they are not provided verbal

10 information on COVID-19 or instructions on basic preventative measures from ICE or

11 facility staff. See Venters Decl. ¶ 40; Fernandez Sancho Decl. ¶ 7; Ibarra-Perez Decl. ¶ 14;

12 Ramon Corral Decl. ¶ 22 (“ICE has never explained anything about COVID-19 to us….

13 We have received no official information.”); Rodriguez Cedeno Decl. ¶ 9.

14

73. Lack of timely access to health care is also an issue at both facilities, with

15 multiple detainees reporting that sick call requests go unaddressed for hours, days, or even

16 weeks. Venters Decl. ¶ 39(a); see Reina Rojas Decl. ¶ 6; Rodriguez Cedeno Decl. ¶¶ 13-

17 14; Murcia Solis Decl. ¶ 13; Ravelo Serret Decl. ¶ 6; Ramon Corral Decl. ¶ 19; see also

18 Madueno Davila Decl. ¶¶ 7-9. As Dr. Venters explains in his expert declaration, the

19 reported delays in receiving medical attention indicate there is no effective process to

20 effectively and timely segregate those with symptoms of COVID-19. Venters Decl. ¶ 39(a).

21 Indeed, Petitioner Lara Carnero, a detainee who is currently housed in the Mohave Bravo

22 unit in La Palma, states in his declaration that someone in his unit exhibiting possible

23 COVID-19 symptoms and coughing was not seen for more than 24 hours after staff was

24 notified. Lara Carnero Decl. ¶ 25. In some cases, detainees wait a week to see a doctor after

25 complaining of cough, chest pain, and shortness of breath. Id. ¶ 34. According to

26 Dr. Venters, “[b]ecause sick call represents the primary means by which people can report

27 symptoms of COVID-19, this type of deficiency increases the likelihood that people will

28

-28-

Case 2:20-cv-01134-DWL--CDB Document 1 Filed 06/08/20 Page 31 of 55

1 deteriorate while awaiting care, and also spread their infection to other detainees and staff.”

2 Venters Decl. ¶ 39(a).

3

74. The opportunities for transmission in environments like those described in La

4 Palma and EDC—where people live in close, crowded quarters and “must share dining

5 halls, bathrooms, showers, and other common areas”—are significant. Meyer Decl. ¶ 11;

6 see also Venters Decl. ¶ 18.

7

75. Now that it has entered both facilities, it is all but inevitable that COVID-19

8 will spread rapidly and uncontrollably in these detention centers, where individuals are held

9 in close confinement and given limited access to hygiene and sanitation supplies,

10 information, and medical care. See Meyer Decl. ¶¶ 11-20; Venters Decl. ¶¶ 17-22, 39-42.

11 Moreover, without widespread testing that includes asymptomatic individuals,

12 Respondents’ efforts to address the virus suffer “significant shortcomings,” even with

13 increased cleaning and social distancing measures. Jose B.R., 2020 WL 2744586, at *10-

14 11 (crediting increased cleaning and social distancing efforts but nevertheless ordering

15 release of detainee after noting that dormitory-style pods make social distancing impossible,

16 there was no evidence that social distancing had been enforced in the facility’s common

17 areas, and the facility had not conducted widespread testing of asymptomatic detainees).

18

76. Indeed, the situation in La Palma is so dire that five members of Congress

19 wrote a letter to ICE officials on May 29 highlighting the “alarming accounts” of

20 “appalling” living conditions reported by detainees and stressing the need for action as “the

21 situation at La Palma is escalating.” See Letter from Ann Kirkpatrick, Raul Grijalva, Bennie

22 G. Thompson, Ruben Gallego, and Greg Stanton, Members of Congress, to Matthew T.

23 Albence, Deputy Director, ICE, and Henry Lucero, Executive Associate Director, ICE

24 (May 29, 2020) [attached hereto as Exhibit 20]. And the outbreak at La Palma has now been

25 labeled “one of the largest in the nation.” See Daniel Gonzalez, COVID-19 outbreak at ICE

26 detention center in Eloy has ballooned into one of the largest in the nation,

27 AZCENTRAL.COM (May 31, 2020) [attached hereto as Exhibit 21].

28

-29-

Case 2:20-cv-01134-DWL--CDB Document 1 Filed 06/08/20 Page 32 of 55

1

77. The situation at EDC is no less dire, as demonstrated by reports of similar

2 conditions from EDC detainees and the same inconsistent and inadequate policies at both

3 facilities. See Venters Decl. ¶¶ 39, 42. If anything, the outbreak at La Palma is a blueprint

4 for what is beginning to happen at EDC, where confirmed cases jumped from zero to four

5 in two days last week, and from four to 13 over the weekend.

6

2. The Facilities Remain Open to Outside Contamination

7

78. The Eloy Immigration Court has remained open during the pandemic, but

8 with unpredictable and sporadic closures and court practices. Declaration of Jessica Anleu

9 (“Anleu Decl.”) ¶¶ 4, 13 [attached hereto as Exhibit 30]. When the court is open, and

10 assuming a detainee’s pod is not under quarantine, detainees and their attorneys are still

11 often appearing in person at immigration hearings. Sud-Devaraj Decl. ¶¶ 3-4, 6, 8; Anleu

12 Decl. ¶ 13.

13

79. The courtroom setup at the Eloy Immigration Court does not allow for

14 detainees or other individuals to practice social distancing or otherwise avoid exposure to

15 the virus, and ICE does not appear to be taking sufficient, if any, measures to rearrange

16 courtrooms to accommodate social distancing or ensure that tables or other equipment are

17 sanitized between hearings. Sud-Devaraj Decl. ¶ 6. First, to get to the Eloy Immigration

18 Court, attorneys must be escorted down a hallway into a smaller hallway outside the

19 courtrooms. Inside the courtrooms, which are about 30 feet long by 30 feet wide, there are

20 long rows of benches in the back that frequently fill with 10-20 detainees at master calendar

21 hearings. Id. Although immigration judges, government counsel, and some court staff have

22 begun appearing by video or phone in some instances, guards, detainees and their attorneys,

23 and interpreters are generally still present in the courtrooms. Maintaining the recommended

24 six feet of space between people is “nearly impossible.” Id.

25

80. Although the Executive Office for Immigration Review (“EOIR”) has issued

26 standing orders allowing (but not requiring) attorneys to appear telephonically for all

27 hearings, legal staff still frequently enter the detention centers to prepare their clients, gather

28 signatures, and assess their cases. Id. ¶ 8. Because there is no other effective, consistently

-30-

Case 2:20-cv-01134-DWL--CDB Document 1 Filed 06/08/20 Page 33 of 55

1 functional, and confidential manner to communicate with clients, contact visits are the only

2 realistic options attorneys have for conducting the in-depth private conversations required

3 for representation in bond or other matters. Thus, despite EOIR’s standing order permitting

4 telephonic appearances, attorneys and other individuals are still frequently entering and

5 leaving the detention centers. Id.

6

81. Although ICE now requires attorneys to wear PPE before entering the

7 detention centers, ICE only started providing PPE (including masks, gloves, or goggles)

8 months after COVID-19 was declared a pandemic and state and local governments

9 implemented lockdowns. See id. ¶ 10. Moreover, the inconsistent and ineffective use of

10 masks, gloves, and other protective equipment by detention center staff, see Venters Decl.

11 ¶ 39(e), makes this a wholly ineffective measure to prevent COVID-19 from entering via

12 people who regularly go back and forth between the detention centers and the larger

13 community. See id. ¶ 13 (“Staff are more likely to bring COVID-19 into a facility, based

14 solely on their movement in and out every day.”); Pimentel-Estrada, 2020 WL 2092430, at

15 *12 (“The biggest threat comes from Respondents’ inability to identify asymptomatic

16 carriers as staff, contractors, vendors, attorneys, and visitors come and go between the

17 detention center and the broader community where COVID-19 has been spreading.”).

18

82. On March 30, 2020, the National Association of Immigration Judges publicly

19 called attention to EOIR’s woefully inadequate response to the COVID-19 crisis in

20 immigration courts, noting that the government’s policies have “ranged from unacceptable

21 to unconscionable” and have “put us all at risk.” The National Association of Immigration

22 Judges Urgently Calls for Immediate Implementation of Required Health and Safety

23 Measures for the Immigration Courts During the Coronavirus Pandemic, NAT’L ASS’N

24 IMMIGRATION JUDGES (Mar. 30, 2020) [attached hereto as Exhibit 22]. As Immigration

25 Judges themselves put it, “EOIR’s failure to take prompt, appropriate and sufficient action

26 on court closures has created a dangerous environment placing at risk the health and lives

27 of . . . judges, court staff, practitioners, detained respondents, and all individuals who

28 interface with the court process as well as the broader community.”

-31-

Case 2:20-cv-01134-DWL--CDB Document 1 Filed 06/08/20 Page 34 of 55

1

83. Although ICE has taken steps to limit some visitors to the detention centers,

2 in addition to attorneys and legal staff, ICE staff, officers, medical staff, and court staff also

3 enter and exit the detention centers on a daily basis. Sud-Devaraj Decl. ¶ 8; see also Meyer

4 Decl. ¶ 10; Venters Decl. ¶ 13. These sanctioned visitors and employees to the detention

5 centers make it impossible to shield detainees from potential exposure to the virus, the only

6 way medical professionals know to slow the spread of the virus in the absence of a vaccine

7 or treatment. Meyer Decl. ¶¶ 10-11; see also Castillo, 2020 WL 1502864, at *5 (“[T]he

8 Government cannot deny the fact that the risk of infection in immigration detention facilities

9 … is particularly high if an asymptomatic guard, or other employee, enters a facility. While

10 social visits have been discontinued at [the detention center], the rotation of guards and

11 other staff continues.”).

12

3. EDC and La Palma Have Documented Histories of Poor Medical

13

Treatment

14

84. Further contributing to the elevated risk of harm to Petitioners are EDC and

15 La Palma’s track records of failure to provide adequate and prompt medical care even before

16 the current pandemic. Examples of inadequate care at these specific facilities include failing

17 to treat serious mental illness resulting in serious injury to detainees, failing to respond with

18 urgency to medical emergencies, sometimes even leading to the death of the detainee,

19 failure to provide adequate or effective medication, and deprivation of basic dietary and

20 hygiene needs, including drinkable water. See Memorandum re: ICE Health Services Corp

21 (IHSC) Medical/Mental Health Care and Oversight, U.S. DEP’T OF HOMELAND SEC. (Mar.

22 20, 2019) [attached hereto as Exhibit 23]; PUENTE MOVEMENT & ADVANCEMENT PROJECT,

23 THE CARCERAL STATE OF ARIZONA 25-43 (Oct. 2019) [attached hereto as Exhibit 24]. EDC

24 is ranked as one of the deadliest ICE facilities in the country. See Jason Barry, Human rights

25 groups release scathing report on ICE detention facility in Eloy, AZFAMILY.COM (Nov. 25,

26 2019) [attached hereto as Exhibit 25].

27

85. Indeed, in 2019, a mumps outbreak at La Palma resulted in the quarantine of

28 dozens of immigration detainees for several weeks. See Matthew Casey, ICE: Roughly 400

-32-

Case 2:20-cv-01134-DWL--CDB Document 1 Filed 06/08/20 Page 35 of 55

1 Immigration Detainees Quarantined in Arizona, ARIZ. PUB. MEDIA (Mar. 14, 2019) (noting

2 that about 15% of the approximately 2,200 detainees being quarantined nationally were in

3 Arizona, primarily at La Palma) [attached hereto as Exhibit 26].

4

86. This was not the first time a contagious disease required quarantine at one of

5 these facilities. In 2016, a measles outbreak at EDC resulted in 31 cases of measles,

6 including 9 staff members, in part because ICE’s personnel policies did not require staff

7 members to be vaccinated. See Heather Venkat et al., Notes from the Field: Measles

8 Outbreak at a United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement Facility — Arizona,

9 May-June 2016, CTRS. FOR DISEASE CONTROL & PREVENTION (May 26, 2017) [attached

10 hereto as Exhibit 27]. The CDC’s report on the measles outbreak notes that—despite its

11 immediate recommendations to take certain preventative measures—ICE’s “slow

12 compliance with vaccination recommendations and incomplete implementation of

13 exclusion recommendations, and restrictions on enforcing them, might have prolonged this

14 outbreak.” Id.

15

87. These past outbreaks of contagious diseases in La Palma and EDC strongly

16 suggest that these facilities are poorly equipped and ill-prepared to handle COVID19. In

17 fact, ICE’s response to COVID-19 has similarly been slow, inconsistent, and insufficient,

18 despite its efforts to manage the situation and comply with the orders in Urdaneta,

19 Gutierrez-Lopez, Patel, and Mendoza. See Meyer Decl. ¶¶ 13-14; Venters Decl. ¶¶ 39-42.

20

88. In light of their failure to provide consistent access to basic hygiene and

21 adequate health care even under normal circumstances, it appears unlikely that EDC and La

22 Palma will be able to competently and safely respond to the COVID-19 pandemic. Recent

23 guidance from ICE regarding the agency’s COVID-19 response is not reassuring. See

24 Venters Decl. ¶¶ 24-34 (describing how ICE’s guidelines contradict or omit several

25 important CDC guidelines). Despite any measures Respondents are purportedly taking, the

26 scientific reality is that “ICE has not been able to stop the entry of COVID-19 into its

27 facilities,” and once COVID-19 is inside a facility, “ICE will be unable to stop the spread

28

-33-

Case 2:20-cv-01134-DWL--CDB Document 1 Filed 06/08/20 Page 36 of 55

1 of the virus throughout the facility given long-existing inadequacies in ICE’s medical care

2 and also in light of how these facilities function.” Id. ¶¶ 12, 17.

3

89. As explained in Dr. Venters’ expert declaration, Respondents’ protocols “are

4 deficient and at odds with CDC recommendations regarding detention settings in a manner

5 that threatens the health and survival of ICE detainees, including the Plaintiffs in this

6 action.” Venters Decl. ¶ 25. For example, the protocols:

7

 fail to state any specific way that Respondents provide for enhanced social

8

distancing, an essential means of preventing an outbreak (id. ¶¶ 26, 30(a));

9

 identify a list of factors that place people at higher risk but omit recognized

10

risk factors identified by the CDC (id. ¶ 27);

11

 fail to identify any particular measures for protecting these higher risk

12

individuals (id. ¶ 28);

13

 omit “vital elements” of CDC guidance on preventing the spread of COVID-

14

19 inside detention facilities, including guidance on the importance of staff

15

communication about risk reduction, and “critical aspects” of cleaning and

16

disinfection outlined by the CDC (id. ¶ 30);

17

 outline an isolation plan that ignores important facility limitations (id. ¶ 32);

18

and

19

 fail to address the lack of comprehensive COVID-19 testing in ICE facilities

20

(id. ¶ 33).

21

90. Moreover, the ICE COVID-19 protocols and guidance specify that “isolation

22 rooms” will be used to monitor people who are at risk or symptomatic with COVID-19.

23 Venters Decl. ¶ 32. But as Dr. Venters explains:

24

When patients are placed into locked cells, the level of

monitoring is dramatically reduced. Many of the cells

25

contemplated or utilized for medical isolation in detention

settings are the same cells or cell design used for punishment in

26

the form of solitary confinement. These housing areas often

lack basic elements required for medical evaluation, including

27

a clinical examination room, and they also lack direct

observation of people inside these cells. As a result, the very

28

patients who are identified as being at high risk or even

-34-

Case 2:20-cv-01134-DWL--CDB Document 1 Filed 06/08/20 Page 37 of 55

1

identified as having COIVD-19 symptoms may be transferred

into settings where their deterioration is less likely to be

2

detected or addressed.

3 Id. This is consistent with the declaration of Mr. Fernandez Sancho, who describes stark

4 conditions in medical isolation, including 23 hours and 45 minutes a day locked in a cell,

5 with no recreation or entertainment, poor nutrition, and inadequate medical checks. See

6 Fernandez Sancho Decl. ¶¶ 14-20. As reflected in several detainee declarations, “these

7 punitive conditions are dissuading detainees from reporting COVID-19 related symptoms,

8 undermining any efforts to identify and segregate those who may be COVID-19 positive.”

9 Venters Decl. ¶ 41(c); see Fernandez Sancho Decl. ¶ 22; Ibarra-Perez Decl. ¶ 13 (attesting

10 that he knows of about seven men who have had COVID-19 symptoms and did not report

11 it because they did not want to go to medical isolation and that two with symptoms of

12 COVID-19 were in his pod at the time of the declaration).

13

91. Indeed, “[t]he practice of relying on punitive isolation as a primary response

14 to COVID-19 not only discourages the reporting of symptoms, it decreases the likelihood

15 that health staff will conduct meaningful medical assessments of sick patients, leading to

16 increased risk of decompensation inside a locked cell.” Venters Decl. ¶ 41(c); see also

17 Meyer Decl. ¶ 12 (“isolation of people who are ill in solitary confinement results in

18 decreased medical attention and increased risk of death”).

19

92. “In addition, this practice of relying primarily on isolation as COVID-19

20 response causes new health problems in the form of risk for suicide and self-harm.” Venters

21 Decl. ¶ 32(c); see also Meyer Decl. ¶ 12 (noting the “known detrimental mental health

22 effects of solitary confinement”); Varner Decl. ¶ 7 (“From a medical standpoint [Petitioner

23 Benitez Flores] absolutely should not be held in solitary condiment and if he is, the risk of

24 psychological decompensation and its sequelae including possible self harm is high.”).

25 Thus, all individuals at EDC and La Palma—even if they do not have an underlying medical

26 condition—are at greater risk of severe harm and death if they contract COVID-19 in these

27 facilities. It is also not clear that this harmful medical isolation is even effective at mitigating

28 the spread of COVID-19, unless the isolation room is a “specialized negative pressure

-35-

Case 2:20-cv-01134-DWL--CDB Document 1 Filed 06/08/20 Page 38 of 55

1 room.” Meyer Decl. ¶ 12; see also Venters Decl. ¶ 32(c) (noting that “isolation units often

2 drive increased physical interaction between staff and patients, in the form of increased

3 handcuffing, escorting individuals to and from showers and other out of cell encounters,

4 and increased uses of force due to the psychological stress these units cause”).

5

93. Most importantly, it does not appear that ICE is actually and consistently

6 implementing the measures it claims to be taking. See Venters Decl. ¶¶ 39-42. As noted

7 above, detainees continue to report significant delays in receiving medical attention,

8 inadequate cleaning and access to cleaning and hygiene supplies, an inability to socially

9 distance, and a lack of verbal instructions on basic preventative measures, such as how to

10 properly wear masks and other PPE. Id. ¶ 40. As Dr. Meyer explains, “[e]ven the most

11 comprehensive protocols and policies that are informed by science are totally meaningless

12 if not implemented, enforced, and continuously monitored.” Meyer Decl. ¶ 30 (emphasis

13 added).

14

94. Petitioners, all of whom have underlying medical conditions that put them at

15 “increased risk of severe COVID 19,” Lebensohn Decl. ¶ 4; see also Varner Decl. ¶¶ 4-5,

16 7-8, are in “significantly higher” danger in these facilities than they would be if they were

17 released to the outside community, Meyer Decl. ¶ 9; see also Ruderman, 2020 WL

18 2449758, at *13 (“Petitioner’s risk is obviously substantially reduced when Petitioner is in

19 control of social distancing and other preventative measures, rather than relying on the

20 voluntary actions of dozens of fellow detainees and detention staff to take preventative

21 measures.”). Because of the “lack of access to even the most basic infection control, and

22 other COVID-19 measures included in CDC guidelines,” the irreparable harm Petitioners

23 will suffer if they remain in the La Palma and EDC facilities is imminent. See Venters Decl.

24 ¶¶ 44-48.

25

26

27

28

-36-

Case 2:20-cv-01134-DWL--CDB Document 1 Filed 06/08/20 Page 39 of 55

1

D. Petitioners Face a Heightened Risk of Severe Harm if They Contract

2

COVID-19 While Detained.

3

95. The 13 Petitioners in this case—all in civil immigration custody at La Palma

4 or EDC—face unprecedented, unnecessary, and imminent harm now that COVID-19 has

5 begun to spread in the detention centers where ICE is holding them.

6

96. The following Petitioners have CDC-recognized heightened risk factors: Mr.

7 Mantilla Silva, Mr. Rodriguez Cedeno, Mr. Lara Carnero, Mr. Barroso Barrios, Mr. Jorge

8 Alfonso, and Ms. Mayancela Zamora.

9

97. Petitioner Mantilla Silva has bilateral pneumonia, severe asthma, severe

10 allergies, and recently tested positive for COVID-19. Because of Mr. Mantilla Silva’s

11 history of lung disease and asthma, he is at increased risk of severe complication of COVID-

12 19 including hospitalization, intensive care, and respiratory failure. Lebensohn Decl. ¶ 4(l);

13 see also Venters Decl. ¶ 45; CDC Higher Risk (identifying “[p]eople with chronic lung

14 disease or moderate to severe asthma” as at higher risk for severe illness from COVID-19);

15 Ferreyra, 2020 WL 2612199, at *6.

16

98. Petitioner Rodriguez Cedeno suffers from asthma, which has worsened since

17 being detained in La Palma. As a result of his asthma and compromised lung functioning,

18 Mr. Rodriguez Cedeno is at increased risk of contracting COVID-19, and he faces increased

19 risk of severe illness or death if he contracts COVID-19. Lebensohn Decl. ¶ 4(a); see also

20 Venters Decl. ¶ 45; CDC Higher Risk (identifying “[p]eople with chronic lung disease or

21 moderate to severe asthma” as persons at higher risk for severe illness from COVID-19);

22 Ferreyra, 2020 WL 2612199, at *6 (finding that petitioner’s asthma placed him at

23 “particular risk for suffering grave illness or death from COVID-19”; rejecting argument

24 that petitioner’s asthma did not place him in high-risk category because it was not

25 “moderate-to-severe” asthma, noting that “CDC guidelines provide that people with

26 asthma, or other respiratory problems are at a heightened risk of severe illness or death from

27 contracting COVID-19,” and that “a recent CDC report shows that asthma was one of the

28

-37-

Case 2:20-cv-01134-DWL--CDB Document 1 Filed 06/08/20 Page 40 of 55

1 most common underlying conditions for younger people (18–49 years old) hospitalized

2 with COVID-19 in the United States”).

3

99. Petitioner Lara Carnero has asthma, allergies, a history of pneumothorax after

4 one of his lungs collapsed, and obesity, with a BMI of 29.1. Lara Carnero Decl. ¶ 5;

5 Lebensohn Decl. ¶ 4(d). As of May 26, Mr. Lara Carnero was exhibiting COVID-19

6 symptoms, including coughing, shortness of breath, chest pain, head pain, and a lack of

7 taste and smell. Lara Carnero Decl. ¶¶ 5, 36. But he has not been isolated and, as far as he

8 is aware, has not been tested for COVID-19. Id. ¶ 36. According to Dr. Lebensohn, the

9 medical uncertainty surrounding whether Mr. Lara Carnero has decreased lung function and

10 his obesity place him at risk of requiring hospitalization and/or intensive care if he contracts

11 COVID-19. Lebensohn Decl. ¶ 4(d). In addition, the CDC and courts have recognized that

12 people with asthma, which Mr. Lara Carnero was recently diagnosed with, Lara Carnero

13 Decl. ¶ 5, are at increased risk for grave illness or death from COVID-19. Ferreyra, 2020

14 WL 2612199, at *6 (finding that petitioner’s asthma placed him at “particular risk for

15 suffering grave illness or death from COVID-19”; rejecting argument that petitioner’s

16 asthma did not place him in high-risk category because it was not “moderate-to-severe”

17 asthma, noting that “CDC guidelines provide that people with asthma, or other respiratory

18 problems are at a heightened risk of severe illness or death from contracting COVID-19,”

19 and that “a recent CDC report shows that asthma was one of the most common underlying

20 conditions for younger people (18–49 years old) hospitalized with COVID-19 in the United

21 States”); CDC Higher Risk (identifying people with “moderate to severe asthma” as at

22 higher risk for severe illness from COVID-19).

23

100. Petitioner Barroso Barrios has moderate to severe asthma and a seizure

24 disorder. Mr. Barroso Barrios is at increased risk of severe illness and death if he contracts

25 COVID-19 because of his asthma. Lebensohn Decl. ¶ 4(k); see also Venters Decl. ¶ 45;

26 CDC Higher Risk (identifying people with “moderate to severe asthma” as at higher risk

27 for severe illness from COVID-19); Ferreyra, 2020 WL 2612199, at *6.

28

-38-

Case 2:20-cv-01134-DWL--CDB Document 1 Filed 06/08/20 Page 41 of 55

1

101. Petitioner Jorge Alfonso has a history of chronic respiratory illnesses

2 including allergies and asthma which requires treatment with a beta agonist inhaler. Because

3 of his respiratory illnesses, he is at increased risk for severe COVID-19 that could require

4 intensive care with ventilation at a hospital. Lebensohn Decl. ¶ 4(g); see also Venters Decl.

5 ¶ 45; CDC Higher Risk (identifying people with “moderate to severe asthma” as at higher

6 risk for severe illness from COVID-19); Ferreyra, 2020 WL 2612199, at *6 (finding that

7 petitioner’s asthma placed him at “particular risk for suffering grave illness or death from

8 COVID-19”; rejecting argument that petitioner’s asthma did not place him in high-risk

9 category because it was not “moderate-to-severe” asthma, noting that “CDC guidelines

10 provide that people with asthma, or other respiratory problems are at a heightened risk of

11 severe illness or death from contracting COVID-19,” and that “a recent CDC report shows

12 that asthma was one of the most common underlying conditions for younger people (18–49

13 years old) hospitalized with COVID-19 in the United States”).

14

102. Petitioner Mayancela Zamora has a seizure disorder that requires medication,

15 and heart disease including Tricuspid Insufficiency (leaky heart valve) and hypertrophic

16 cardiomyopathy with severe pulmonary hypertension and dilation of the right cardiac

17 cavities. She also suffers from shortness of breath with exertion. Because of her underlying

18 heart and lung conditions, she is at increased risk for severe complications, including

19 respiratory failure and death, if she is infected with COVID-19. Lebensohn Decl. ¶ 4(j); see

20 also Venters Decl. ¶ 45; CDC Higher Risk (noting that “[s]erious heart conditions,

21 including . . . cardiomyopathies, and pulmonary hypertension, may put people at higher risk

22 for severe illness from COVID-19”); Kevin M.A., 2020 WL 2092791, at *3 (recognizing

23 that hypertension is an objectively serious medical condition that places individuals at a

24 “high probability of developing severe disease from COVID-19”); Perez-Perez, 2020 WL

25 2305276, at *5 (noting that pulmonary hypertension is a CDC risk factor and citing a study

26 of COVID-19 data from Wuhan, China, which “revealed that individuals with hypertension

27 face about a 6% rate of death, a rate that is about 3.5% higher than otherwise healthy

28 individuals and comparable with death rates of people suffering from diabetes (7.3%) and

-39-

Case 2:20-cv-01134-DWL--CDB Document 1 Filed 06/08/20 Page 42 of 55

1 respiratory disease (6.3%)”); Fofana, 2020 WL 1873307, at *9 (rejecting argument that

2 high blood pressure does not significantly increase an individual’s susceptibility to severe

3 COVID-19-related complications, and emphasizing that a “CDC study of hospitalization

4 rates reported on April 8, 2020 revealed that 74% of hospitalized patients were aged 50

5 years old or older, 54.4% were male and 49.7% had hypertension”).

6

103. Petitioner Calix Espinoza has an intellectual disability, history of adjustment

7 disorder, and mixed anxiety and depressed moods. According to Dr. Lebensohn, because

8 Mr. Calix Espinoza’s intellectual disability impairs his ability to properly rationalize and

9 communicate, he risks going undiagnosed and untreated if he contracts COVID-19, which

10 could lead to respiratory failure and death. Lebensohn Decl. ¶ 4(b); see also Venters Decl.

11 ¶ 45; Jose B.R., 2020 WL 2744586, at *4 (“individuals with serious mental illness are also

12 particularly vulnerable to infectious diseases, and the public health strategies for preventing

13 and slowing the spread of COVID-19, such as social distancing, may be less effective”);

14 Ochoa, 2020 WL 2850706, at *11-12 (observing that the petitioner “has less ability to

15 protect himself to COVID-19 due to his mental illness and learning disabilities,” and that

16 the petitioner’s “mental illness and learning disabilities will likely prevent his compliance

17 with” policies mandating detainee use of masks at all times other than eating and showering,

18 “reduc[ing] the potential effectiveness of these policies as to Petitioner”); Yao, Mental

19 Health (observing that, “[w]hen epidemics arise, people with mental health disorders are

20 generally more susceptible to infections,” and that “[p]ossible explanations include

21 cognitive impairment, little awareness of risk, and diminished efforts regarding personal

22 protection in patients”).

23

104. Petitioner Pakhol has suffered a series of medical conditions while detained,

24 including hemorrhoids requiring a special diet, osteoarthritis of his hips, knees, and ankles,

25 trouble urinating, chest pain, and back pain from his neck to his pelvis. According to Dr.

26 Lebensohn, this medical history, in addition to his severe anxiety and depression, places

27 him at heightened risk of exacerbated health problems if exposed to COVID-19. Lebensohn

28 Decl. ¶ 4(e); see also Barr I, 2020 WL 1820667, at *4 (noting that “[g]rowing evidence

-40-

Case 2:20-cv-01134-DWL--CDB Document 1 Filed 06/08/20 Page 43 of 55

1 demonstrates that PTSD, anxiety/stress, and depression can lead to decreased immune

2 response and increased risk of infections,” and that the “weakened immunity due to mental-

3 health disorders can put detainees at increased risk of contracting and suffering from more

4 severe forms of COVID-19”); Ochoa, 2020 WL 2850706, at *11 (noting that petitioner with

5 mental health issues “has shown resistance and confusion to the COVID-19 protocols,

6 resulting in his punishment and, no doubt, exacerbation of his mental health issues”); Yao,

7 Mental Health (“[p]eople with mental health conditions could be more substantially

8 influenced by the emotional responses brought on by the COVID-19 epidemic, resulting in

9 relapses or worsening of an already existing mental health condition because of high

10 susceptibility to stress compared with the general population”).

11

105. Petitioner Cano Villatoro has developed depression from prolonged detention

12 and the stress of not receiving necessary medical care. According to Dr. Lebensohn,

13 COVID-19 will exacerbate Mr. Cano Villatoro’s mental health problems. Lebensohn Decl.

14 ¶ 4(k); see also Yao, Mental Health; Ochoa, 2020 WL 2850706, at *11.

15

106. Petitioner Benitez Flores has a history of traumatic brain injury, PTSD, and

16 depression. According to Dr. Varner, Mr. Benitez Flores is at increased risk of developing

17 complications with COVID-19 because of his decreased ability to communicate stemming

18 from his memory deficits, poor concentration, and avoidant behaviors, which can delay

19 detection and treatment of COVID-19. Varner Decl. ¶¶ 3-5, 7-8; see also Venters Decl.

20 ¶ 45; Barr I, 2020 WL 1820667, at *4; Ochoa, 2020 WL 2850706, at *11-12 (observing

21 that the petitioner “has less ability to protect himself to COVID-19 due to his mental illness

22 and learning disabilities”); Yao, Mental Health (observing that, “[w]hen epidemics arise,

23 people with mental health disorders are generally more susceptible to infections,” and that

24 “[p]ossible explanations include cognitive impairment, little awareness of risk, and

25 diminished efforts regarding personal protection in patients”).

26

107. Petitioner Madueno Davila has hyperthyroidism, obesity with a BMI of 29.1,

27 and microadenoma, which is a small brain tumor that causes frequent headaches and visual

28 changes. According to Dr. Lebensohn, Ms. Madueno Davila’s obesity places her at an

-41-

Case 2:20-cv-01134-DWL--CDB Document 1 Filed 06/08/20 Page 44 of 55

1 increased risk of developing complications requiring hospitalization and intensive care if

2 she contracts COVID-19. Lebensohn Decl. ¶ 4(c); see also Essien, 2020 WL 1974761, at

3 *7 (citing a New York City study finding that a BMI greater than or equal to 30 was a

4 comorbidity in 41.7% of hospitalizations).

5

108. Petitioner Gonzalez Borges has a uterine benign tumor, BMI above 30, and

6 one episode of elevated blood sugar without further evaluation for Type 2 Diabetes

7 Mellitus. According to Dr. Lebensohn, because of her obesity and potential risk of Type 2

8 Diabetes, Ms. Gonzalez Borges has an increased risk of severe complications if she

9 contracts COVID-19. Lebensohn Decl. ¶ 4(h); see also Essien, 2020 WL 1974761, at *7.

10

109. Petitioner Naranjo Rosales has a history of head trauma resulting in the

11 removal of his spleen and placement of a VP shunt, obesity with a BMI over 30, and

12 hyperlipidemia, which could be a sign of heart disease. Lebensohn Decl. ¶ 4(i). According

13 to Dr. Lebensohn, his asplenia (no spleen) and BMI over 30 place him at risk of severe

14 COVID-19 and other infection. Id.; see also Essien, 2020 WL 1974761, at *7.

15

110. Because of Petitioners’ serious underlying medical conditions, the prevalence

16 of risk factors in their medical histories, the fact that COVID-19 is deadly and

17 unpredictable, and the fact that contracting COVID-19 in EDC or La Palma inevitably leads

18 to isolation in terribly detrimental and dangerous conditions, all 13 Petitioners are at

19 imminent risk of serious and irreversible harm, including severe illness and death, if they

20 contract COVID-19 in EDC or La Palma.

21

E. No Other Forum, Including ICE and Immigration Courts, Can Provide

22

Meaningful Relief to Abate the Harm to Petitioners.

23

111. ICE has the authority to release individuals like the Petitioners, whose

24 detention is governed by the discretionary detention statute, 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a). Despite the

25 exigent circumstances, ICE continues to improperly delay release and/or responding to

26 Petitioners’ humanitarian parole requests, whose equities and lack of significant criminal

27 histories demonstrate that they are neither dangers nor risks of flight.

28

-42-

Case 2:20-cv-01134-DWL--CDB Document 1 Filed 06/08/20 Page 45 of 55

1

112. Through counsel, all Petitioners submitted detailed humanitarian parole

2 release requests to ICE, which described the medical conditions and other circumstances

3 that render them highly vulnerable to adverse outcomes from COVID-19.4 As of this filing,

4 the government has not acted to release any of the Petitioners in this case.

5

CAUSES OF ACTION

6

COUNT I

7

Violation of Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause – Special Relationship

8

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

9 the United States, including persons whose presence here is unlawful, temporary, or

10 permanent. See Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 693 (2001).

11

114. When the government takes custody of a person, the government creates a

12 “special relationship” that entails assuming responsibility for the person’s safety and well-

13 being. See, e.g., Henry A. v. Willden, 678 F.3d 991, 998 (9th Cir. 2012). The government

14 violates the Due Process Clause when it takes custody of a person “and at the same time

15 fails to provide for his basic human needs – e.g., food, clothing, shelter, medical care, and

16 reasonable safety.” DeShaney v. Winnebago Cty. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 489 U.S. 189, 200

17 (1989) (emphasis added). Due process “mandates that civil immigration detainees are

18 entitled to more than minimal human necessities.” Castillo, 2020 WL 1502864, at *3

19 (emphasis added) (citing Jones v. Blanas, 393 F.3d 918, 931 (9th Cir. 2004)); Unknown

20 Parties v. Nielsen, No. CV-15-00250-TUC-DCB, 2020 WL 813774, at *2 (D. Ariz. Feb.

21 19, 2020).

22

115. To state a claim under the special relationship doctrine, a plaintiff must show:

23 “(i) the defendant made an intentional decision with respect to the conditions under which

24

25

4 Petitioner Calix Espinoza has a bond that he is unable to pay because of his

indigency. Petitioner Mantilla Silva’s pro bono counsel has been unable to file a request for

26 a bond hearing due to changes in the time of COVID-19. See Anleu Decl. ¶¶ 4, 13.

Petitioners Mayancela Zamora and Benitez Flores were denied bond after they presented

27 their requests pro se. Finally, because the rest of the Petitioners presented to U.S.

immigration authorities at the border seeking asylum, they were classified as arriving aliens,

28 making them ineligible for bond. See 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(1)(B)(ii).

-43-

Case 2:20-cv-01134-DWL--CDB Document 1 Filed 06/08/20 Page 46 of 55

1 the plaintiff was confined; (ii) those conditions put the plaintiff at substantial risk of

2 suffering serious harm; (iii) the defendant did not take reasonable available measures to

3 abate the risk, even though a reasonable official in the circumstances would have

4 appreciated the high degree of involved . . . ; and (iv) by not taking such measures, the

5 defendant caused the plaintiff’s injuries.” Gordon v. Cty. of Orange, 888 F.3d 1118, 1124-

6 25 (9th Cir. 2018); see also Unknown Parties, 2020 WL 813774, at *3 (applying Gordon

7 to claims about inhumane and punitive treatment in civil immigration detention); Martinez

8 v. Geo Grp., Inc., No. EDCV 18-1125-R, 2019 WL 3758026, at *2-3 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 30,

9 2019) (applying Gordon to claims about detention center’s failure to attend to a detainee’s

10 medical needs); J.P. v. Sessions, No. Civ. 18-06081 JAK (SKx), 2019 WL 6723686, at *31-

11 33 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 5, 2019) (applying Gordon to claims about conditions of confinement

12 in civil immigration detention).

13

116. Inadequate health and safety measures at a detention center cause cognizable

14 harm to every detained person. See Parsons v. Ryan, 754 F.3d 657, 679 (9th Cir. 2014);

15 Castillo, 2020 WL 1502864, at *3. As the Supreme Court observed in the context of the

16 California prison system, “all prisoners [] are at risk so long as the State continues to provide

17 inadequate care.” Brown v. Plata, 563 U.S. 493, 532 (2011). Those who are not yet sick are

18 not “remote bystanders”—they are the “next potential victims.” Id.; see also Helling v.

19 McKinney, 509 U.S. 25, 33 (1993) (holding that the government cannot “be deliberately

20 indifferent to the exposure of inmates to a serious, communicable disease on the ground

21 that the complaining inmate shows no serious current symptoms”). This is particularly true

22 here because, in the case of COVID-19, even those who do not appear to be sick may

23 already be infected. Meyer Dec. ¶ 20; Venters Decl. ¶ 41(d) (“asymptomatic transmission

24 of COVID-19 has been identified by the CDC as an important means of transmission”);

25 Castillo, 2020 WL 1502864, at *5 (“The science is well established – infected,

26 asymptomatic carriers of the coronavirus are highly contagious.”).

27

117. When Respondents detained Petitioners, they created a special relationship

28 that required them to provide Petitioners with medical care and reasonable safety. Instead

-44-

Case 2:20-cv-01134-DWL--CDB Document 1 Filed 06/08/20 Page 47 of 55

1 of fulfilling that requirement, Respondents have placed Petitioners at continued risk of

2 suffering serious harm during a deadly pandemic with local community spread. See

3 Pimentel-Estrada, 2020 WL 2092430, at *13 (“Given the evidence that Respondents are

4 unlikely to prevent the introduction of COVID-19 to the NWIPC and the evidence that the

5 virus is likely to spread quickly throughout the facility, the Court concludes Petitioner has

6 made a clear showing that he faces a substantial risk of serious harm due to conditions of

7 his present confinement and the fact that he is at a higher risk for serious illness or death

8 from COVID-19.”); Parsons, 754 F.3d at 679 (recognizing that inadequate health and safety

9 measures at a detention center cause cognizable harm to every detainee). Despite

10 Respondents’ purported efforts to comply with the orders in Urdaneta, Patel, Mendoza, and

11 Gutierrez-Lopez, Petitioners are still subjected to close physical contact with ICE officers,

12 detention center staff, and other detainees without adequate PPE, cleaning or hygiene

13 supplies, and are unable to effectively practice social distancing or other measures mandated

14 by experts, government officials, and the CDC to protect people from infection.

15

118. According to experts, these conditions put Petitioners at significant risk of

16 exposure to COVID-19, which in turn subjects them to risk of serious illness and death. See

17 Venters Decl. ¶¶ 44-48; Meyer Decl. ¶¶ 9-30; Lebensohn Decl. ¶ 4; Varner Decl. ¶¶ 4-5, 8.

18

119. Although Respondents have taken some additional measures to curtail the

19 spread of COVID-19 in response to the orders in Urdaneta, Patel, Mendoza, and Gutierrez-

20 Lopez, these are insufficient and unworkable when applied to a broader swathe of detainees.

21 Even with these additional measures, Petitioners are unable to adequately protect

22 themselves from the virus when they share cells and common spaces with other detainees

23 who are not social distancing, wearing masks, or using the (inadequate and inconsistent)

24 sanitation and hygiene supplies provided by Respondents. This continued failure is

25 objectively unreasonable in light of the local, state, and federal guidance on the pandemic

26 that has been widely publicized since the COVID-19 pandemic was declared. See Flores,

27 2020 WL 2128663, at *1 (noting that COVID-19 “has reached pandemic status”;

28 governments and public agencies “have taken extraordinary measures to attempt to curtail

-45-

Case 2:20-cv-01134-DWL--CDB Document 1 Filed 06/08/20 Page 48 of 55

1 exponential rates of infection of this highly contagious disease”; and medical experts,

2 including the CDC, urge social distancing, frequent handwashing, and use of hand

3 sanitizer); Helling, 509 U.S. at 33 (noting that the Eighth Amendment required a remedy

4 where “inmates in punitive isolation were crowded into cells and . . . some of them had

5 infectious maladies[,] . . . even though it was not alleged that the likely harm would occur

6 immediately and even though the possible infection might not affect all of those exposed”);

7 Rafael L.O. 2020 WL 1808843, at *8 (“With the conditions as currently described, at-risk

8 detainees – including Petitioners – cannot practically adhere to social distancing guidelines

9 or the adequate level of personal hygiene, that have been touted as the most effective means

10 to thwart the spread of the virus. Against this backdrop, Petitioners have demonstrated

11 irreparable harm should they remain in confinement.”); Jose B.R., 2020 WL 2744586, at

12 *13-14 (ordering detainee’s release where detainee could not “practically adhere to social

13 distancing guidelines or the adequate level of personal hygiene to stop the spread of the

14 virus”).

15

120. By failing to take the necessary measures to adequately protect Petitioners

16 and curtail the spread of the virus, Respondents have subjected and continue to subject

17 Petitioners to a substantial risk of contracting COVID-19. See Parsons, 754 at 679

18 (discussing the harms inherent in inadequate public health and medical care provisions in

19 detention); Xochihua-Jaimes, 2020 WL 1429877, at *1 (ordering sua sponte release of a

20 detainee in light of the current “rapidly escalating public health crisis, which public health

21 authorities predict will especially impact immigration detention centers”). The risk is

22 augmented by the La Palma and EDC facilities’ well-documented history of health and

23 safety failures, and by the reported presence of individuals with confirmed and potential

24 COVID-19 symptoms in detention at the facilities.

25

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

26 Process Clause.

27

28

-46-

Case 2:20-cv-01134-DWL--CDB Document 1 Filed 06/08/20 Page 49 of 55

1

COUNT II

2

Violation of Fifth Amendment Protection Against Punitive Detention

3

122. When the federal government detains an immigrant, the immigrant is

4 considered a civil detainee, even if they have a prior criminal conviction. See Zadvydas,

5 533 U.S. at 690. As civil detainees, immigrants are afforded greater protection by the Fifth

6 Amendment’s Due Process Clause than convicted prisoners or even pretrial criminal

7 detainees. Unlike a convicted prisoner, who may be punished as long as the punishment is

8 not “cruel and unusual,” Pierce v. Cty. of Orange, 526 F.3d 1190, 1205 (9th Cir. 2008), a

9 civil detainee may not be punished at all. Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 535 (1970); Jones,

10 393 F.3d at 932. And civil immigration detainees “must be afforded ‘more considerate

11 treatment’” than criminal pretrial detainees. See Unknown Parties, 2020 WL 813774, at *12

12 (citing Youngberg v. Romeo, 457 U.S. 307, 321-22 (1982)).

13

123. “Numerous courts across the country have considered whether, in light of the

14 COVID-19 pandemic, the continued confinement of ICE detainees or conditions of

15 confinement at federal detention facilities amounts to punishment in violation of the Fifth

16 Amendment’s substantive due process clause. In the Ninth Circuit, the majority of district

17 courts that have considered the issue have concluded there is a likelihood plaintiffs will

18 prevail on those claims.” Rodriguez Alcantara v. Archambeault, No. 20-CV-0756 DMS

19 (AHG), 2020 WL 2315777, at *8 (S.D. Cal. May 1, 2020) (citations omitted). These

20 decisions now include at least four from this district, where this Court found that four

21 similarly situated Petitioners succeeded on the merits of their Due Process claims. See

22 Urdaneta, 2020 WL 2319980, at *12 (finding a violation of due process as to one detainee

23 at La Palma); Gutierrez-Lopez, 2020 WL 2781722, at *10 (same, as to one detainee at

24 EDC); Patel, No. 2:20-CV-00709-DLR-DMF, Dkt. 35 (same, as to one detainee at EDC);

25 Mendoza, No. CV-20-00514-PHX-SPL (MTM), Dkt. 37 (same, as to one detainee at EDC).

26

124. To establish a violation of the Due Process Clause, Petitioners need not show

27 that Respondents intended to subject them to punishment, see Pierce, 526 F.3d at 1205, or

28 that they acted with deliberate indifference, Jones, 393 F.3d at 933. A restriction is

-47-

Case 2:20-cv-01134-DWL--CDB Document 1 Filed 06/08/20 Page 50 of 55

1 “punitive” if it is “excessive in relation to [its non-punitive purpose]’ or is ‘employed to

2 achieve objectives that could be accomplished in so many alternative and less harsh

3 methods.’” Jones, 393 F.3d at 933-34 (alteration in original) (quoting Demery v. Arpaio,

4 378 F.3d 1020, 1028 (9th Cir. 2004)); Hallstrom v. City of Garden City, 991 F.2d 1473,

5 1484 (1993)). A presumption of punishment arises when a civil detainee is held in similar

6 or more restrictive conditions than his criminal counterparts. See Jones, 393 F.3d at 932;

7 see also Torres v. DHS, 411 F. Supp. 3d 1036, 1065 (C.D. Cal. 2019) (finding a presumption

8 of punitiveness where plaintiffs “allege[d] conditions at [ICE detention center] and policies

9 by ICE that are not ‘more considerate’ than at criminal facilities”). To rebut this

10 presumption, the government must show that its actions are not excessive in relation to a

11 legitimate, nonpunitive purpose. King v. Cty. of Los Angeles, 885 F.3d 548, 558 (9th Cir.

12 2018).

13

125. Here, a presumption of punishment arises because Petitioners, civil

14 immigration detainees, are subjected to worse conditions than many convicted prisoners.

15 Government agencies across the country, including the Federal Bureau of Prisons, have

16 taken prompt action to systematically and “aggressively” screen at-risk criminal detainees

17 for potential home confinement and have systematically released large numbers of criminal

18 detainees to prevent them and surrounding communities from suffering bodily harm or

19 death from COVID-19. See, e.g., Update on COVID-19 and Home Confinement, FEDERAL

20 BUREAU OF PRISONS, https://www.bop.gov/resources/news/20200405_covid19_home_

21 confinement.jsp (last updated Apr. 5, 2020); Timothy Williams et al., ‘Jails Are Petri

22 Dishes’: Inmates Freed as the Virus Spreads Behind Bars, N.Y. TIMES (Mar. 30, 2020)

23 [attached hereto as Exhibit 28]; United States v. Garlock, No. 18-CR-00418-VC-1, 2020

24 WL 1439980, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 25, 2020) (sua sponte extending the defendant’s

25 surrender date for his criminal sentence, and explaining: “To avoid adding to the chaos and

26 creating unnecessary health risks, offenders who are on release and scheduled to surrender

27 to the Bureau of Prisons in the coming months should, absent truly extraordinary

28 circumstances, have their surrender dates extended until this public health crisis has

-48-

Case 2:20-cv-01134-DWL--CDB Document 1 Filed 06/08/20 Page 51 of 55

1 passed.”); United States v. Stephens, No. 15-CR-95 (AJN), 2020 WL 1295155 (S.D.N.Y.

2 Mar. 19, 2020); Matter of Extradition of Toledo Manrique, No. 19-MJ-71055-MAG-1

3 (TSH), 2020 WL 1307109, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 19, 2020) (“The risk that this vulnerable

4 person will contract COVID-19 while in jail is a special circumstance that warrants bail.”).

5 To rebut the presumption of punitiveness, a “bare assertion of the requirement of keeping

6 [ ] detainees . . . will not suffice.” Torres, 411 F. Supp. 3d at 1065 (alteration in original)

7 (quoting Jones, 393 F.3d at 934) (rejecting defendants’ proposed justification that they were

8 “required by statute to maintain a secure facility for certain immigrants, pending the

9 outcome of their proceedings”). Moreover, even assuming Respondents have a legitimate,

10 nonpunitive interest in continuing to detain Petitioners, endangering the lives and wellbeing

11 of Petitioners and surrounding communities is “excessive in relation to Respondents’

12 objectives.” Kaur, 2020 WL 1939386, at *4; see also Urdaneta, 2020 WL 2319980, at *12

13 (“While Respondents may have legitimate objectives for detaining Petitioner, they have

14 identified no single legitimate purpose served by detaining Petitioner under conditions that

15 pose an objectively unreasonable risk of harm to him. That is because these conditions serve

16 no legitimate government objective.”); Rodriguez Alcantara, 2020 WL 2315777, at *8

17 (“Although ‘under normal circumstances’ the confinement of ICE detainees ‘pending

18 removal proceedings is rationally related to the legitimate governmental interest of ensuring

19 their appearance for their deportation proceedings and preventing danger to the

20 community[,]’ the current circumstances, and in particular, the circumstances at Otay Mesa,

21 are anything but normal.”) (internal citation omitted); Thakker, 2020 WL 1671563, at *8

22 (considering substantially similar conditions at Pennsylvania ICE detention centers and

23 holding that there was “no rational relationship between a legitimate government objective

24 and keeping Petitioners detained in unsanitary, tightly-packed environments—doing so

25 would constitute a punishment to Petitioners”).

26

126. Detention itself exposes Petitioners to an unacceptable risk of contracting

27 COVID-19 and suffering bodily harm or death as a result. Respondents have confined

28 Petitioners in close quarters with many other individuals, any of whom could already be

-49-

Case 2:20-cv-01134-DWL--CDB Document 1 Filed 06/08/20 Page 52 of 55

1 infected even if asymptomatic. The virus spreads rapidly in close quarters, often severely

2 infecting not only older individuals or those with preexisting conditions but also younger,

3 previously healthy people. Moreover, now that COVID-19 is spreading in La Palma and

4 EDC, there is no indication that the facilities have adequate equipment, staff, or resources

5 to treat large numbers of severely ill detainees.

6

127. Despite Respondents’ adoption of some measures to attempt to mitigate the

7 spread of COVID-19 and comply with the orders in Urdaneta, Patel, Mendoza, and

8 Gutierrez-Lopez, the substantial, unjustified threat of serious harm to Petitioners remains

9 due to conditions inherent in detention settings as well as Respondents’ continued failures

10 to provide adequate sanitation and hygiene supplies. Indeed, whether Respondents “ha[ve]

11 taken reasonable steps overall to combat the spread of COVID-19 is not the question the

12 Court is confronted with here. Rather, this Court asks whether this Petitioner’s continued

13 confinement during this global pandemic is justified by the Government’s legitimate

14 interest in Petitioner’s detention.” Ochoa, 2020 WL 2850706, at *12.

15

128. “Respondents contend the precautions they’ve implemented . . . in recent

16 weeks facilitate social distancing and increased sanitization, but nothing prevents

17 asymptomatic staff from transmitting the disease to detainees and detainees necessarily

18 remain housed in cohorts and share cramped living, dining, and restroom quarters.” Kaur,

19 2020 WL 1939386, at *4.

20

129. Since the rise of COVID-19, ICE has modified its ordinary immigration

21 enforcement procedures by curtailing its raids and interior enforcement in order to stop the

22 spread of COVID-19. There is no legitimate reason to continue to detain Petitioners under

23 these circumstances—circumstances that, in ICE’s view, outweigh the usual imperatives of

24 immigration enforcement. And no risk to the community justifies the detention of these

25 particular individuals under these conditions, particularly where Petitioners have minimal

26 or no criminal histories. See Thakker, 2020 WL 1671563, at *8 (“We note that ICE has a

27 plethora of means other than physical detention at their disposal by which they may monitor

28 civil detainees and ensure that they are present at removal proceedings, including remote

-50-

Case 2:20-cv-01134-DWL--CDB Document 1 Filed 06/08/20 Page 53 of 55

1 monitoring and routine check-ins. Physical detention itself will place a burden on

2 community healthcare systems and will needlessly endanger Petitioners, prison employees,

3 and the greater community. We cannot see the rational basis of such a risk.”); Castillo, 2020

4 WL 1502864, at *6 (finding that the “balance of the equities tip[ped] sharply in favor of the

5 Petitioners,” and there was “no harm to the Government” in ordering Petitioners’ release

6 and “very low” flight risk “given the current global pandemic” even though both Petitioners

7 had committed prior criminal offenses).

8

130. As Judge John Jones III recently concluded: “Respondents’ Facilities are

9 plainly not equipped to protect Petitioners from a potentially fatal exposure to COVID-19.

10 While this deficiency is neither intentional nor malicious, should we fail to afford relief to

11 Petitioners we will be a party to an unconscionable and possibly barbaric result. Our

12 Constitution and laws apply equally to the most vulnerable among us, particularly when

13 matters of public health are at issue. This is true even for those who have lost a measure of

14 their freedom. If we are to remain the civilized society we hold ourselves out to be, it would

15 be heartless and inhumane not to recognize Petitioners’ plight. And so we will act.”

16 Thakker, 2020 WL 1671563, at *9.

17

131. Particularly where, as here, Respondents have adequate “alternate means of

18 ensuring Petitioner[s’] appearance at removal proceedings,” Kaur, 2020 WL 1939386, at

19 *4, Respondents’ continued detention of Petitioners violates the Fifth Amendment’s

20 protection against punitive detention.

21

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

22

WHEREFORE, Petitioners pray that this Court grant the following relief:

23

(1) Assume jurisdiction over this matter;

24

(2) Issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus on the ground that Petitioners’ continued

25

detention violates the Due Process Clause and order Petitioners’ immediate

26

release;

27

28

-51-

Case 2:20-cv-01134-DWL--CDB Document 1 Filed 06/08/20 Page 54 of 55

1

(3) In the alternative, issue injunctive relief ordering Respondents to immediately

2

release Petitioners on the ground that their continued detention violates the

3

Due Process Clause;

4

(4) Issue a declaration that Respondents’ continued detention in civil immigration

5

custody of Petitioners violates the Due Process Clause;

6

(5) Award Petitioners their costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees in this action

7

under the Equal Access to Justice Act, as amended, 5 U.S.C. § 504 and 28

8

U.S.C. § 2412, and on any other basis justified under law; and

9

(6) Grant any other and further relief that this Court deems just and proper.

10 Dated: June 8, 2020

PERKINS COIE LLP

11

By: s/ Katherine E. May

12

Daniel C. Barr (Bar No. 010149)

Christopher D. Thomas (Bar No. 010482)

13

Katherine E. May (Bar No. 032335)

Kristine J. Beaudoin (Bar No. 034853)

14

Margo R. Casselman (Bar No. 034963)

2901 North Central Avenue, Suite 2000

15

Phoenix, Arizona 85012-2788

Email: DBarr@perkinscoie.com

16

CThomas@perkinscoie.com

KMay@perkinscoie.com

17

KBeaudoin@perkinscoie.com

MCasselman@perkinscoie.com

18

Laura St. John (Bar No. 035160)

19

Katharine E. Ruhl (Bar No. 033581)

Laura Belous (Bar No. 028132)

20

FLORENCE IMMIGRANT &

REFUGEE RIGHTS PROJECT

21

P. O. Box 86299

Tucson, Arizona 85754

22

Email: lstjohn@firrp.org

kruhl@firrp.org

23

lbelous@firrp.org

24

25

26

27

28

-52-

Case 2:20-cv-01134-DWL--CDB Document 1 Filed 06/08/20 Page 55 of 55

1

David C. Fathi (Wash. 24893)*

Eunice Hyunhye Cho (Wash. 53711)*

2

ACLU NATIONAL PRISON

PROJECT

3

915 15th Street N.W., 7th Floor

Washington, D.C. 20005

4

Telephone: (202) 548-6603

Email: dfathi@aclu.org

5

echo@aclu.org

6

*Applications for pro hac vice forthcoming.

Not admitted in DC; practice limited to federal

7

courts.

8

Yvette Borja (Bar No. 035470)

ACLU FOUNDATION OF ARIZONA

9

3707 N. 7th Street, Suite 235

Phoenix Arizona 85014

10

(602) 650-1854

Email: yborja@acluaz.org

11

12

Anand Balakrishnan (Conn. Bar No. 430329*

Michael K.T. Tan (NY Bar No. 4654208)**

13

Omar C. Jadwat (NY Bar No. 4118170)**

AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES

14

UNION IMMIGRANTS’ RIGHTS PROJECT

125 Broad St., 18th floor

15

New York, New York 10004

Email: abalakrishnan@aclu.org

16

mtan@aclu.org

ojadwat@aclu.org

17

*Application for pro hac vice forthcoming.

18

Not admitted in NY; practice limited to federal

courts.

19

** Applications for pro hac vice forthcoming.

20

Attorneys for Petitioners-Plaintiffs

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

-53-

 
 Case 2:20-cv-00654-SPL--JFM Document 52 Filed 05/11/20 Page 1 of 23

1

MW

2 WO

3

4

5

6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8 9 Jhonnatan Brinez Urdaneta, et al.,

No. CV-20-00654-PHX-SPL (JFM)

10 v.
11

Petitioners-Plaintiffs,

ORDER

12 Chuck Keeton, et al.,

13

Respondents-Defendants.

14

15

Petitioners-Plaintiffs have filed, through counsel, a Petition for Writ of Habeas

16 Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 and Complaint for Injunctive and Declaratory Relief

17 (Doc. 1) and an Application for Temporary Restraining Order and Order to Show Cause

18 Regarding Preliminary Injunction (Doc. 19), seeking their immediate release from custody

19 due to the health risks associated with the spread of COVID-19 in CoreCivic’s La Palma

20 Correctional Center and Eloy Detention Center. This matter has been fully briefed, and as

21 follows, the Petition will be granted in part.1

22 I. Background

23

A. Coronavirus Disease 2019 (“COVID-19”)

24

COVID-19, a disease caused by a novel strain of coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2), was

25 declared by the World Health Organization as a global pandemic on March 11, 2020. As

26 of the date of this Order, in the United States, 1,334,951 individuals have been confirmed

27

28

1 Neither party has requested oral argument, and the Court finds this matter suitable

for decision as submitted on the briefs without a hearing. See LRCiv 16.1(e).

Case 2:20-cv-00654-SPL--JFM Document 52 Filed 05/11/20 Page 2 of 23

1 as positive for COVID-19, of which 11,383 have been confirmed positive in Arizona.2

2

The United States Department of Health and Human Services Centers for Disease

3 Control and Prevention (“CDC”) reports that individuals who contract and transmit

4 COVID-19 experience symptoms that range from negligible, with some individuals

5 remaining entirely asymptomatic, to mild, such as fever, coughing, and difficulty

6 breathing, to severe, including acute respiratory distress, severe pneumonia, septic shock,

7 and multi-organ failure, or even death.3 The CDC estimates that serious illness or death

8 occurs in 16% of all cases.4 Those at high-risk of suffering severe illness or death from

9 COVID-19 include individuals who are 65 years and older, or individuals of any age with

10 underlying medical conditions including chronic lung disease, moderate to severe asthma,

11 a serious heart condition, a weakened immune system, severe obesity, diabetes, chronic

12 kidney disease, or liver disease.5

13

The virus that causes COVID-19 “is thought to spread mainly through close contact

14 from person-to-person in respiratory droplets from someone who is infected.”6 The

15 incubation period for COVID-19 extends 14 days on average, with a median time of 4-5

16 days from exposure to symptoms onset.7 The CDC recommends that to avoid exposure

17 and transmission, the public should maintain a physical distance of at least six feet from

18 others, wear cloth face covers, frequently wash hands or use hand sanitizer, and disinfect

19 frequently touched surfaces.8 High-risk individuals should take additional “special

20

2 Coronavirus Resource Center: COVID-19 Dashboard, Johns Hopkins Univ. &

21 Med., https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/map.html (last accessed May 11, 2020). 3 CDC Interim Clinical Guidance for Management of Patients with Confirmed

22 Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19), https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/clini

cal-guidance-management-patients.html (last accessed May 11, 2020).

23

4 CDC Situation Summary, https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/summary.

24 html (last accessed May 11, 2020). 5 CDC People Who Are at Higher Risk for Severe Illness, https://www.cdc.gov/cor

25 onavirus/2019-ncov/need-extra-precautions/people-at-higher-risk.html (last accessed May

11, 2020).

26

6 CDC How COVID-19 Spreads, https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/pre

27 vent-getting-sick/how-covid-spreads.html (last accessed May 11, 2020).

7 See n.3, supra.

28

8 CDC How to Protect Yourself & Others, https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-

ncov/prevent-getting-sick/prevention.html (last accessed May 11, 2020).

- 2 -

Case 2:20-cv-00654-SPL--JFM Document 52 Filed 05/11/20 Page 3 of 23

1 precautions,” such as continue active treatment of their underlying medical conditions,

2 obtain vaccinations against other diseases like influenza and pneumococcal illness, stay

3 home, and remain away from others “as much as possible.”9

4

B. Detention Facility COVID-19 Guidance

5

On March 23, 2020, the CDC issued an “Interim Guidance on Management of

6 Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) in Correctional and Detention Facilities” (“CDC

7 Guidance”)10 which “provides interim guidance specific for correctional facilities and

8 detention centers during the outbreak of COVID-19, to ensure continuation of essential

9 public services and protection of the health and safety of incarcerated and detained persons,

10 staff, and visitors.” (CDC Guidance at 2.) The guidance reports there is a heightened risk

11 of transmission of COVID-19 to and among individuals within detention facilities due to,

12 among other things, the number of sources which can introduce them into a facility’s

13 population, including detention staff, visitors, contractors, vendors, legal representatives,

14 court staff, and new detainees; the congregate environment in which detainees “live, work,

15 eat, study, and recreate”; and limited medical isolation options, hygiene supplies, and

16 dissemination of accurate information among detainees. (CDC Guidance at 2.)11 For those

17 reasons, the guidance recommends that detention facilities implement specific measures to

18 prepare for potential transmission of COVID-19, to prevent the spread of COVID-19, and

19 to manage confirmed and suspected COVID-19 cases to prevent further transmission and

20 provide treatment.

21

The guidance states that “[a]lthough social distancing is challenging to practice in

22 correctional and detention environments, it is a cornerstone of reducing transmission of

23

24

9 CDC Groups at Higher Risk for Severe Illness, https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus /2019-ncov/need-extra-precautions/groups-at-higher-risk.html (last accessed May 11,

25 2020).

10 CDC Interim Guidance on Management of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-

26 19) in Correctional and Detention Facilities, https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-nco

v/downloads/guidance-correctional-detention.pdf (last accessed May 11, 2020).

27

11 “People in correctional and detention facilities are at greater risk for some

28

illnesses, such as COVID-19.” CDC FAQs for Correctional and Detention Facilities, http s://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/community/correction-detention/faq.html#Peopl

e (last accessed May 11, 2020).

- 3 -

Case 2:20-cv-00654-SPL--JFM Document 52 Filed 05/11/20 Page 4 of 23

1 respiratory diseases such as COVID-19.” (CDC Guidance at 4.) It recommends

2 implementing social distancing strategies to increase the physical space between detained

3 persons “(ideally 6 feet between all individuals, regardless of the presence of symptoms),”

4 such as increasing space between individuals in cells, increasing space between individuals

5 in lines and waiting areas; choosing recreation spaces where individuals can spread out and

6 staggering time in those spaces; staggering meals and rearrange seating in the dining hall

7 so that there is more space between individuals; providing meals inside housing units or

8 cells; limiting the size of group activities and increasing space between individuals during

9 group activities. (Id. at 4, 11.) It further recommends that facilities should house

10 quarantined individuals who have had close contact with a COVID-19 case, or individuals

11 in medical isolation who are suspected or confirmed positive with COVID-19, in order of

12 preference, separately in single cells or as a cohort, although “[c]ohorting should only be

13 practiced if there are no other available options.” (Id. at 15-20.)12 “If cohorting is

14 unavoidable, [facilities should] make all possible accommodations to reduce exposure risk

15 for the higher-risk individuals.” (Id. at 19.)

16

CDC Guidance also recommends that facilities implement intensified cleaning and

17 disinfecting procedures and provide education on, and reinforcement of, hygiene practices.

18 (CDC Guidance at 9-10.) Facilities should, among other things, provide adequate supplies

19 to support intensified cleaning and disinfection practices, and “continually restock hygiene

20 supplies throughout the facility.” Facilities should provide detainees and staff no-cost

21 access to soap, running water, hand drying machines or disposable paper towels, tissues,

22 no-touch trash receptacles, and alcohol-based hand sanitizer with at least 60% alcohol

23 where security restrictions allow. (Id.) The guidance underscores that because the virus

24 can be transmitted from contagious, yet asymptomatic individuals who are present within

25 the facilities, “[b]oth good hygiene practices and social distancing are critical in preventing

26 further transmission.” (Id. at 8.)

27

28

12 “Cohorting refers to the practice of isolating multiple laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 cases together as a group, or quarantining close contacts of a particular case

together as a group.” (CDC Guidance at 3.)

- 4 -

Case 2:20-cv-00654-SPL--JFM Document 52 Filed 05/11/20 Page 5 of 23

1

On April 10, 2020, the United States Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”),

2 Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”), Enforcement and Removal Operations

3 (“ERO”), developed “COVID-19 Pandemic Response Requirements” (“ICE PRR”) (Doc.

4 30-2),13 which “builds upon previously issued guidance14 and sets forth specific mandatory

5 requirements expected to be adopted by all detention facilities housing ICE detainees, as

6 well as best practices for such facilities, to ensure that detainees are appropriately housed

7 and that available mitigation measures are implemented during this unprecedented public

8 health crisis.” (ICE PRR at 3.) It states that facilities “must . . . [c]omply with the CDC’s

9 Interim Guidance.” (Id. at 5-6, requiring compliance for both dedicated and non-dedicated

10 facilities.) ICE has also issued “ICE Guidance on COVID-19” along with COVID-19

11 testing statistics, which it updates daily on its website. (Doc. 1-2 at 86-91.)15

12

C. ICE Detention Facilities in Eloy, Arizona

13

CoreCivic Eloy Detention Center (“EDC”) and CoreCivic La Palma Correctional

14 Center (“LPCC”), both located in Eloy, Arizona, are privately run detention facilities

15 contracted by ICE through Inter-Governmental Service Agreements. (Ciliberti Decl. ¶ 3;

16 Berger Decl. ¶ 2.)16 EDC houses both male and female detainees and has a capacity to

17 house approximately 1,500 individuals. (Devaraj Decl. ¶ 3; Berger Decl. ¶ 11.)17 LPCC

18

19

13 COVID-19 Pandemic Response Requirements, https://www.ice.gov/doclib/coro

navirus/eroCOVID19responseReqsCleanFacilities.pdf (last accessed May 11, 2020).

20

14 ICE PRR incorporates by reference and provides hyperlink attachments to

21

preceding ICE guidance specific to detention and COVID-19, as well as CDC guidance, including: ERO Updated Guidance, COVID-19 Detained Docket Review (Apr. 4, 2020);

22

ERO Memorandum on Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Action Plan (Mar. 27, 2020); Updated ICE statement on COVID-19 (Mar. 18, 2020); ICE National Detention

23

Standards, Medical Care Standard 4.3 (2019), ICE Performance-Based National Detention Standards, Standard 4.3 (2011); ICE Performance-Based National Detention Standards,

24

Medical Care Standard 4-22 (2008); and CDC Guidance, Public Health Recommendations for Community-Related Exposure, Strategies to Optimize the Supply of PPE and

25 Equipment, and Cleaning and Disinfection for Community Facilities. (ICE PRR at 17-18.)

15 ICE Guidance on COVID-19, https://www.ice.gov/coronavirus (last accessed

26 May 11, 2020).

27

16 Declaration of Jason Ciliberti (Apr. 13, 2020) (“Ciliberti Decl.”) (Doc. 30-1 at 34-37); Declaration of Captain Luzviminda Peredo-Berger, M.D. (Apr. 13, 2020) (“Berger

28

Decl.”) (Doc. 30-1 at 39-42). 17 Declaration of Monika Sud-Devaraj, Esq. (Mar. 27, 2020) (“Devaraj Decl.”)

(Doc. 1-1 at 125-126).

- 5 -

Case 2:20-cv-00654-SPL--JFM Document 52 Filed 05/11/20 Page 6 of 23

1 is an all-male facility with a capacity to house approximately 3,000 detainees. (Devaraj

2 Decl. ¶ 3; Ciliberti Decl. ¶ 13.) Detainees in each facility live in units, commonly referred

3 to as tanks or pods. The units are comprised of individual cells which house an average of

4 two detainees each, and have, at a minimum, a bunk bed, a sink, and a toilet. (Acosta Decl.

5 ¶¶ 3, 18; Mahmoud ¶¶ 3-4, 9-10; Ferguson Decl. ¶ 9.)18

6

To date, 1,593 ICE detainees nationally have been tested for COVID-19 and 788

7 have been confirmed positive. In LPCC, 52 detainees have been confirmed positive. In

8 EDC, zero detainees and one staff member has been confirmed positive.19

9

D. ICE Protocols in Eloy Detention Facilities

10

“Since the onset of reports of . . . COVID-19, ICE epidemiologists have been

11 tracking the outbreak, regularly updating infection prevention and control protocols, and

12 issuing guidance to field staff on screening and management of potential exposure among

13 detainees.” (Ciliberti Decl. ¶ 7; Berger Decl. ¶ 5.) Pursuant to that guidance, “[f]or both

14 EDC and LPCC, medical staff are screening all detainee intakes when they enter the

15 facilities including travel histories, medical histories and checking body temperatures and

16 have procedures to continue monitoring the populations’ health. Detainees are assessed

17 for fever and respiratory illness, are asked to confirm if they have had close contact with a

18 person with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 in the past 14 days, and whether they have

19 traveled from or through area(s) with sustained community transmission in the past two

20 weeks. All new arrival detainees are then placed in isolation from the general population

21 and closely observed for 14 days, regardless of their travel or health history.” (Ciliberti

22 Decl. ¶ 10; Berger Decl. ¶ 8.) “Each detainee is screened for disabilities upon admission

23 by a Registered Nurse. Identified disabilities are further evaluated and reasonable

24 accommodations are provided as medically appropriate.” (Ciliberti Decl. ¶ 9; Berger Decl.

25 ¶ 7.)

26 18 Declaration of Rocío Castañeda Acosta (Mar. 26, 2020) (“Acosta Decl.”) (Doc.
27 1-1 at 128-131); Declaration of Mohamed Mahmoud (Mar. 30, 2020) (“Mahmoud Decl.”) (Doc. 1-1 at 133-135); Declaration of Yesenia Ramales (Mar. 30, 2020) (“Ferguson Decl.”)
28 (Doc. 1-1 at 137-138). 19 See n.15, supra.

- 6 -

Case 2:20-cv-00654-SPL--JFM Document 52 Filed 05/11/20 Page 7 of 23

1

“For both EDC and LPCC, those detainees who present symptoms compatible with

2 COVID-19 will be placed in isolation, where they will be tested. If testing is positive, they

3 will remain isolated and treated. In case of any clinical deterioration, they will be referred

4 to a local hospital.” (Ciliberti Decl. ¶ 11; Berger Decl. ¶ 9.) “In testing for COVID-19,”

5 staff follow CDC’s guidance “to safeguard those in its custody and care.” (Ciliberti Decl.

6 ¶ 8; Berger Decl. ¶ 6.) EDC and LPCC “staff have identified housing units for the

7 quarantine of patients who are suspected of or test positive for COVID-19 infection.”

8 (Ciliberti Decl. ¶ 21; Berger Decl. ¶ 19.)

9

“In cases of known exposure to a person with confirmed COVID-19, asymptomatic

10 detainees are placed in cohorts with restricted movement for the duration of the most recent

11 incubation period (14 days after most recent exposure to an ill detainee) and are monitored

12 daily for fever and symptoms of respiratory illness. . . . Those that show onset of fever

13 and/or respiratory illness are referred to a medical provider for evaluation. Cohorting is

14 discontinued when the 14-day incubation period completes with no new cases. Per ICE

15 policy, detainees diagnosed with any communicable disease who require isolation are

16 place[d] in an appropriate setting in accordance with CDC or state and local health

17 department guidelines.” (Ciliberti Decl. ¶ 12; Berger Decl. ¶ 10.) “The entire LPCC

18 facility is cohorted . . . All detainees are cohorted in their respective housing units with

19 meals being provided in the housing units and no inter-housing unit contact between

20 detainees.” (Ciliberti Decl. ¶ 14.)

21

EDC and LPCC have clinic staff that “provide[] daily access to sick calls in a

22 clinical setting, as well as mental health services and [has] the ability to admit patients at

23 the local hospital for medical and mental health care.” (Ciliberti Decl. ¶ 13; Berger Decl.

24 ¶ 11.) EDC and LPCC “staff provide education on COVID-19 to staff and detainees to

25 include the importance of hand washing and hand hygiene, covering coughs with the elbow

26 instead of with hands, and requesting to seek medical care if they feel ill.” (Ciliberti Decl.

27 ¶ 20; Berger Decl. ¶ 18.)

28

EDC and LPCC have “increased sanitation frequency and provide[] sanitation

- 7 -

Case 2:20-cv-00654-SPL--JFM Document 52 Filed 05/11/20 Page 8 of 23

1 supplies as follows:” (1) EDC provides disinfectant spray, hand sanitizer, soap, hot water,

2 and gloves in every housing unit, and LPCC provides disinfectant spray, soap, and hot

3 water in every housing unit; (2) in EDC and LPCC, “[t]he administration is encouraging

4 both staff and the detention center general population to use [sanitation] tools often and

5 liberally”; (3) EDC and LPCC provide “disinfectants to staff and cleaning crews and CDC

6 recommended cleaning and disinfection above and beyond normal activity have been

7 implemented”; and (4) EDC “provides hand sanitizer to detainees and staff and cleans and

8 disinfects each housing unit between shifts and entire cell blocks on a rotational schedule,”

9 while “LPCC cleans and disinfects each housing unit between shifts and entire cell blocks

10 on a rotational schedule.” (Ciliberti Decl. ¶ 16; Berger Decl. ¶ 14.)

11

“The Department of Homeland Security has limited professional visits to

12 noncontact visits and suspended in person social visitation and facility tours. The

13 Department has required that all visitors wear personal protective equipment (PPE) to

14 include mask, gloves and eye protection. No visitors are permitted to enter without the

15 PPE.” (Ciliberti Decl. ¶ 17.) EDC “staff are screening all facility staff and vendors when

16 they enter the facilities including body temperatures” (Berger Decl. ¶ 16), and “LPCC is

17 utilizing security staff medically trained to conduct temperature screening and health

18 history questionnaires of all staff and vendors when they enter the facilities including body

19 temperatures” (Ciliberti Decl. ¶ 18).

20

On April 28, 2020, pursuant to the order of preliminary injunction in Fraihat v. ICE,

21 No. 5:19-cv-01546-JGB-SHK, 2020 WL 1932570 (C.D. Cal. April 20, 2020), ICE

22 completed their review of all LPCC detainees “to identify and track detainees with Risk

23 Factors for COVID-19. Further, for any detainees determined to be members of a defined

24 class, ICE then conducted a new, individualized determination of their custody.” (Doc. 49;

25 see also Ciliberti Decl. ¶ 22 (“ICE has reviewed its detained ‘at risk population’ as

26 identified by the CDC guidelines to determine if detention remains appropriate,

27 considering the detainee’s health, public safety and mandatory detention requirements, and

28 adjusted custody conditions, when appropriate, to protect health, safety and well-being of

- 8 -

Case 2:20-cv-00654-SPL--JFM Document 52 Filed 05/11/20 Page 9 of 23

1 its detainees.”).)

2 II. Proceedings

3

Petitioners-Plaintiffs (“Petitioners”) Jhonnatan Brinez Urdaneta, Claudia Avalos

4 Inchicaque, Miriam Gomez Cantillano, Noel Mejia Hernandez, Jose Vargas Saucedo,

5 Bismer Rodriguez Alvarez, Landy Sanchez Ramos, and Geidys Calzadilla Borrero are

6 current or former LPCC and EDC detainees who are currently awaiting a merits hearing,

7 decision, or appeal on claims for asylum, withholding of removal, and/or protection under

8 Article III of the United Nations Convention Against Torture. (Docs. 1 ¶¶ 18-25; 30 at 4-

9 6; 30-1 at 4-32.) They each have one or more underlying medical conditions that place

10 them at a high risk of severe illness and death were they to contract COVID-19: Urdaneta

11 has a compromised immune system resulting from HIV and anemia secondary to bleeding

12 hemorrhoids; Inchicaque suffers from asthma; Cantillano has type-2 diabetes,

13 hypertension, and hyperlipidemia; Hernandez has a history of scoliosis and limited

14 pulmonary functioning; Saucedo suffers from hypertension, hyperthyroidism, tachycardia,

15 heart palpitations, obesity, a history of cardiovascular disease, and anxiety; Alvarez suffers

16 from hypertension, asthma, and obesity; Ramos has diabetes with an episodic history of

17 symptomatic hypoglycemia; and Borrero has a history of intermittent tachycardia, heart

18 palpitations, and asthma. (Lebensohn Decl. ¶ 4.)20

19

In their Petition, Petitioners name as Respondents-Defendants (“Respondents”):

20 LPCC Warden Chuck Keeton; EDC Warden Fred Figueroa; Acting ICE Phoenix Field

21 Office Director Albert Carter; ICE Assistant Field Office Directors Cesar Topete, Jason

22 Ciliberti, and John Cantu; and Acting DHS Secretary Chad Wolf.

23

Petitioners claim that, in spite of the heightened risk of transmission of COVID-19

24 in detention facilities, Respondents have failed to put reasonable recommended policies

25 and practices in place at LPCC and EDC to abate that risk, and instead, have created

26 conditions that place Petitioners at a greater risk of exposure and inhibit their ability to

27

28

20 Declaration of Patricia Lebensohn, M.D. (Apr. 1, 2020) (“Lebensohn Decl.”)

(Doc. 1-1 at 59-64.)

- 9 -

Case 2:20-cv-00654-SPL--JFM Document 52 Filed 05/11/20 Page 10 of 23

1 protect themselves. Petitioners claim, and submit supporting declarations which show21

2 that at the time of the filing of their Petition and Application, potential sources of

3 transmission in LPCC and EDC had not been limited; legal representatives, government

4 staff, detention officers, medical staff, and court staff were still permitted to enter and exit

5 the facilities, come into close contact with detainees, and were either not required to wear,

6 or not provided with, masks and other PPE to wear around detainees. (Devaraj Decl. ¶ 7-

7 8; Acosta Decl. ¶¶ 7, 21.) Petitioners were unable to socially distance themselves from

8 other detainees in LPCC and EDC; there were no limitations on the flow of detainees in

9 either living quarters or common areas, and detainees were unable to maintain a 6-foot

10 distance from others in their cells, bathrooms, dining halls, in lines, in medical settings, or

11 during bus transfers. (Acosta Decl. ¶¶ 6, 20, 22-23; Mahmoud Decl. ¶¶ 3-5, 7-11; Ferguson

12 Decl. ¶¶ 7-9.) Petitioners were also unable to practice safe hygiene in LPCC and EDC;

13 detainees were provided only with limited shampoo or soap to shower, there was no hand

14 sanitizer in the pods, and they were not provided with PPE to clean common areas or

15 disinfectant to clean their cells. (Acosta Decl. ¶¶ 4-5, 12, 15, 19; Mahmoud Decl. ¶ 14;

16 Ferguson Decl. ¶¶ 7, 10.) Further, detainees who exhibited symptoms of COVID-19 were

17 not being screened, tested, or isolated, nor were they provided with medical attention and

18 treatment. (Acosta Decl. ¶ 8; Ferguson Decl. ¶ 5-6.)

19

Petitioners claim that their continued detention violates the Due Process Clause of

20 the Fifth Amendment on three grounds: (1) Respondents have affirmatively placed

21 Petitioners in danger by detaining them in conditions that risk their exposure to COVID-19,

22 and have acted with deliberate indifference to that known and obvious danger;

23 (2) Respondents, who have a “special relationship” with Petitioners that requires

24 Respondents to provide them with reasonable medical care and safety, have detained

25

26

21 Respondents do not substantively address or dispute the detainee accounts submitted by Petitioners but nonetheless appear to object to them because they are “hearsay

27

declarations from telephone interviews with individuals who are or were detained at one of the facilities.” (Doc. 30 at 16, n. 4.) Petitioners respond that the “detainee statements

28

[were] taken via telephone due to the unavailability of in-person visits to detainees as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic.” (Doc. 35 at 2, n. 2.) To the extent Respondents seek

to exclude this evidence, their objection is overruled. See Fed. R. Evid. 807.

- 10 -

Case 2:20-cv-00654-SPL--JFM Document 52 Filed 05/11/20 Page 11 of 23

1 Petitioners in conditions that put them at substantial risk of exposure to COVID-19 and of

2 suffering serious harm; and (3) the conditions under which Petitioners are detained amount

3 to punishment.

4

Petitioners ask the Court to: (1) issue a writ of habeas corpus ordering their

5 immediate release from detention or, in the alternative, issue an injunction immediately

6 enjoining Respondents from detaining them; (2) declare that “Respondents’ continued

7 detention in civil immigration custody of individuals at increased risk for severe illness,

8 including persons with underlying medical conditions that may increase the risk of serious

9 COVID-19,” violates the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment; (3) award

10 reasonable costs and attorneys’ fees pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act; and

11 (4) grant any other and further relief that the Court deems just and proper. They assert that

12 this Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1346, 1361,

13 2241, 1651, and 2201, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and the Suspension Clause of the United States

14 Constitution.

15

In response, Respondents argue that (1) Petitioners’ claims are not cognizable

16 because they challenge the conditions of their confinement, which cannot be remedied

17 through a writ of habeas corpus; (2) Petitioners lack Article III standing; and (3)

18 Petitioners’ claims fail on the merits because, since the filing of their Petition and

19 Application, Respondents have put reasonable recommended policies and practices in

20 place at LPCC and EDC to avoid the risk of widespread transmission of COVID-19.

21 (Docs. 30-31.)

22 III. Discussion

23

A. Cognizability

24

A federal district court is authorized to grant a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C.

25 § 2241 where a petitioner is “in custody under or by color of the authority of the United

26 States . . . in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28

27 U.S.C. §§ 2241(c)(1), (3). “The writ of habeas corpus historically provides a remedy to

28 non-citizens challenging executive detention.” Trinidad y Garcia v. Thomas, 683 F.3d

- 11 -

Case 2:20-cv-00654-SPL--JFM Document 52 Filed 05/11/20 Page 12 of 23

1 952, 956 (9th Cir. 2012). See also Munaf v. Geren, 553 U.S. 674, 693 (2008); Allen v.

2 McCurry, 449 U.S. 90, 98 n.12 (1980). Generally, “[c]hallenges to the validity of any

3 confinement or to particulars affecting its duration are the province of habeas corpus,”

4 whereas a civil rights action is the proper channel for “requests for relief turning on

5 circumstances of confinement.” Muhammad v. Close, 540 U.S. 749, 750 (2004); see Hill

6 v. McDonough, 547 U.S. 573, 579 (2006); Nelson v. Campbell, 541 U.S. 637, 643 (2004).

7

While general practice has counseled against it, the Supreme Court has not explicitly

8 foreclosed the use of habeas corpus for conditions-of-confinement claims. See Ziglar v.

9 Abbasi, 582 U.S. ___, 137 S. Ct. 1843, 1862 (2017) (leaving open the question of whether

10 alien detainees challenging “large-scale policy decisions concerning the conditions of

11 confinement imposed . . . might be able to challenge their confinement conditions via a

12 petition for a writ of habeas corpus”); Boumediene v. Bush, 553 U.S. 723, 792 (2008)

13 (declining to determine “the reach of the writ with respect to claims of unlawful conditions

14 of treatment or confinement”); Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 526, n. 6, (1979) (leaving for

15 “another day the question of the propriety of using a writ of habeas corpus to obtain review

16 of the conditions of confinement”). Because Petitioners claim that their continued

17 detention under the present conditions is unconstitutional and that their immediate release

18 is the only effective remedy (see e.g., Doc. 1 ¶ 14), Petitioners’ claims can be viewed as

19 challenging the fact, not simply the conditions, of their confinement. See Preiser v.

20 Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 500 (1973) (where an individual is “challenging the very fact or

21 duration of his physical imprisonment, and the relief he seeks is a determination that he is

22 entitled to immediate release,” the proper remedy is a writ of habeas corpus). The fact that

23 Petitioners’ claims require consideration of detention conditions does not necessarily

24 preclude habeas corpus review. Therefore, in the absence of clear or binding authority to

25 the contrary, these claims are cognizable under § 2241.

26

Even if the Court were to lack jurisdiction to review Petitioners’ claims under

27 § 2241, Petitioners have alternatively pleaded a cause of action under the Fifth Amendment

28 for injunctive and declaratory relief, over which the Court would have jurisdiction under

- 12 -

Case 2:20-cv-00654-SPL--JFM Document 52 Filed 05/11/20 Page 13 of 23

1 28 U.S.C. § 1331, as an equitable cause of action under the Constitution. See Ziglar, 137

2 S. Ct. at 1865 (observing that alien detainees challenging their conditions of confinement

3 could seek “an injunction requiring the warden to bring his prison into compliance with the

4 regulations discussed above [] or some other form of equitable relief”); Swann v. Charlotte-

5 Mecklenburg Bd. of Educ., 402 U.S. 1, 15-16 (1971) (“Once a right and a violation have

6 been shown, the scope of a district court’s equitable powers to remedy past wrongs is broad,

7 for breadth and flexibility are inherent in equitable remedies.”); Sierra Club v. Trump, 929

8 F.3d 670, 694 (9th Cir. 2019) (federal courts have equitable authority to grant injunctive

9 relief “against federal officials violating federal law”); Stone v. City & Cnty. of San

10 Francisco, 968 F.2d 850, 861 (9th Cir. 1992) (“Federal courts possess whatever powers

11 are necessary to remedy constitutional violations because they are charged with protecting

12 these rights.”).

13

B. Justiciability

14

“Article III of the Constitution limits the judicial power of the United States to the

15 resolution of ‘Cases’ and ‘Controversies,’ and ‘Article III standing . . . enforces the

16 Constitution’s case-or-controversy requirement.’” Hein v. Freedom from Religion Found,

17 Inc., 551 U.S. 587, 597-98 (2007) (quoting DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Cuno, 547 U.S. 332,

18 342 589 (2006)). Article III standing is comprised of three elements. Lujan v. Defenders

19 of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560 (1992). First, the petitioner “must have suffered an injury

20 in fact-an invasion of a legally protected interest.” Lujan, 504 U.S. 560. “An injury

21 sufficient to satisfy Article III must be ‘concrete and particularized’ and ‘actual or

22 imminent,’ not ‘conjectural’ or ‘hypothetical.’” Susan B. Anthony List v. Driehaus, 573

23 U.S. 149, 157-58 (2014) (quoting Lujan, 504 U.S. at 560). Second, “there must be a causal

24 connection between the injury and the conduct complained of—the injury has to be fairly

25 . . . traceable to the challenged action of the defendant, and not . . . the result of the

26 independent action of some third party not before the court.” Lujan, 504 U.S. at 560. And

27 third, “it must be likely, as opposed to merely speculative, that the injury will be redressed

28 by a favorable decision.” Id. at 561.

- 13 -

Case 2:20-cv-00654-SPL--JFM Document 52 Filed 05/11/20 Page 14 of 23

1

Respondents argue that Petitioners lack standing because their asserted injury is

2 neither actual nor concrete. Respondents maintain that the threat of exposure itself is purely

3 speculative because they have “taken significant precautionary steps at [LPCC] and EDC

4 to prevent an outbreak of COVID-19,” which they claim is made evident by the lack of

5 current positive confirmed cases in either LPCC or EDC.22 This argument lacks merit. No

6 one disputes that COVID-19 exists, that it is rapidly and pervasively spreading, that

7 detention facilities face an acute risk of disseminating infectious diseases, or that

8 individuals in ICE custody have contracted COVID-19. The threat of exposure in LPCC

9 and EDC is not theoretical. To that end, without providing the current populations or the

10 number of tests performed in LPCC and EDC, the number or absence of confirmed positive

11 cases offers no insight into the degree to which the disease has or may spread throughout

12 the facilities, much less whether Respondents’ practices have served to prevent or contain

13 further transmission.

14

Petitioners need not have sustained a serious illness, contracted the disease, much

15 less await the escalation of COVID-19 in their detention facilities to demonstrate standing.

16 They need only demonstrate that “the threatened injury is ‘certainly impending,’ or there

17 is a “substantial risk that the harm will occur.” Driehaus, 573 U.S. at 158; see also Helling

18 v. McKinney, 509 U.S. 25, 33 (1993) (“a remedy for unsafe conditions need not await a

19 tragic event”). As discussed below, Petitioners have done so.

20

Respondents also argue that Petitioners’ alleged injury is not redressable because

21 “no court order can prevent [them] from being exposed to the risk of infection within

22 whatever Arizona community [they] might enter.” (Doc. 30 at 15.) This too fails.

23 Petitioners do not ask the Court to enjoin their exposure to COVID-19. They ask that they

24 not be involuntarily detained under conditions which unreasonably increase the likelihood

25 that they will be exposed. That is redressable by this Court.

26

However, insofar as Petitioners Urdaneta, Inchicaque, Cantillano, Saucedo,

27

28

22 At the time of their Response, no individual at EDC had been confirmed positive, and only two individuals had been confirmed positive at LPCC, both of which had fully

recovered. (See Doc 30 at 19; Ciliberti Decl. ¶ 14(b).)

- 14 -

Case 2:20-cv-00654-SPL--JFM Document 52 Filed 05/11/20 Page 15 of 23

1 Alvarez, Ramos, and Borrero have since been released from custody (see Docs. 9, 17, 24,

2 33, 40, 43), their claims are now moot because they have obtained the relief sought in this

3 case. These Petitioners therefore no longer have standing, and the Petition will be denied

4 in part without prejudice as to their claims. Accordingly, the Court turns to the merits of

5 the claims as they relate to the remaining Petitioner in this case, Hernandez, who remains

6 detained in LPCC.23

7

C. Merits

8

The Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause prohibits the federal government from

9 depriving “any ‘person . . . of . . . liberty . . . without due process of law,’” and its protections

10 extend “to all ‘persons’ within the United States, including aliens.” Zadvydas v. Davis,

11 533 U.S. 678, 690, 693 (2001). Freedom from physical restraint falls at the core of the

12 liberty interest protected from arbitrary governmental action by the Due Process Clause.

13 Youngberg v. Romeo, 102 457 U.S. 307, 316 (1982). And where pretrial detention is

14 incident to legitimate government objectives, a detainee has a protected liberty interest in

15 freedom from punishment absent an adjudication of guilt. Bell, 441 U.S. at 534.24 The

16 government deprives a detainee of this substantive liberty interest without due process

17 when it detains them under conditions that “amount to punishment.” Bell, 441 U.S. at 535.

18 Conditions resulting in harm or “disability” amount to punishment if (1) they are expressly

19 imposed for the purpose of punishment, (2) they are not “rationally related to a legitimate

20

21

23 “ICE determined that [Petitioner] Hernandez was a class member under Fraihat”

and, on or around April 28, 2020, “conducted a new, individualized custody determination,

22 which was based on guidance previously promulgated on April 4, 2020, and included in

the Fraihat order. As a result of a new custody determination, ICE concluded that

23 [Petitioner] Hernandez’s custody conditions will not change.” (Doc. 49.)

24

24 Petitioners do not challenge Respondents’ purpose for detaining them in the first instance, specifically, to ensure their presence for removal proceedings or to execute a final

25

order of removal. See Jennings v. Rodriguez, 583 U.S. ___, 138 S. Ct. 830, 836 (2018); Demore v. Kim, 538 U.S. 510, 520-22 (2003); Zadvydas, 533 U.S. at 690-91. Therefore,

26

in light of Kingsley, infra, and subsequent Ninth Circuit precedent, Petitioners’ three due process claims are best understood as arising from the liberty interest in being free from

27

punishment. See Bell, 441 U.S. at 534 (“what is at issue when an aspect of pretrial detention that is not alleged to violate any express guarantee of the Constitution is

28

challenged, is the detainee’s right to be free from punishment”); Schall v. Martin, 467 U.S. 253, 269 (1984); Youngberg, 457 U.S. at 316 (it is “unconstitutional to confine the [civilly]

committed—who may not be punished at all—in unsafe conditions”).

- 15 -

Case 2:20-cv-00654-SPL--JFM Document 52 Filed 05/11/20 Page 16 of 23

1 nonpunitive governmental purpose,” or (3) they “appear excessive in relation to” a

2 legitimate governmental purpose. Bell, 441 U.S. at 538-39, 561; see also Kingsley v.

3 Hendrickson, 576 U.S. 389, 135 S. Ct. 2466, 2473 (2015) (government action amounts to

4 punishment if it is “objectively unreasonable”).

5

The government has legitimate interests stemming from its need to manage a

6 detention facility that may justify imposed conditions, such as preserving internal order

7 and maintaining institutional security. Kingsley, 135 S. Ct. at 2473 (citing Bell, 441 U.S.

8 at 540). The government also has a responsibility, and thereby, a legitimate interest in

9 providing for the basic human needs of the detainees held within its custody, such as food,

10 clothing, shelter, medical care, and reasonable safety. DeShaney v. Winnebago County

11 Dept. of Social Services, 489 U.S. 189, 200 (1989). Therefore, conditions which pose an

12 objectively unreasonable and substantial risk of serious harm to detainee health or safety

13 are not rationally related to a legitimate nonpunitive government purpose. See Castro v.

14 County of Los Angeles, 833 F.3d 1060, 1085 (9th Cir. 2016) (IKUTA, J., dissenting)

15 (“objectively unreasonable action has no legitimate nonpunitive governmental purpose”)

16 (citing Kingsley, 135 S. Ct. at 2473)); Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 833 (1994)

17 (“gratuitously” allowing violence among prisoners “serves no legitimate penological

18 objective” (internal bracket and citation omitted)); Whitley v. Albers, 475 U.S. 312, 320

19 (1986) (the government’s “responsibility to attend to the medical needs of prisoners does

20 not ordinarily clash with other equally important governmental responsibilities”); Estelle

21 v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 103 (1976) (the denial of medical care which results in pain and

22 suffering does not “serve any penological purpose”).25

23

In the Ninth Circuit, to prevail on a claim of unconstitutionally punitive conditions

24

25 Although Farmer, Whitley, and Estelle centrally concern Eighth Amendment

25

prison condition claims, which involve constitutional standards and considerations that differ from those at issue here, they are relevant insofar as they identify action which serves

26

legitimate institutional objectives, and inaction which clearly does not. See Ziglar, 137 S. Ct. at 1877 (BREYER, J., dissenting) (“the Eighth Amendment’s Cruel and Unusual

27

Punishment Clause . . . applies to convicted criminals while the [the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause] applies to pretrial and immigration detainees”); see also Youngberg,

28

457 U.S. at 322 (persons in civil custody “are entitled to more considerate treatment and conditions of confinement than criminals whose conditions of confinement are designed to

punish”).

- 16 -

Case 2:20-cv-00654-SPL--JFM Document 52 Filed 05/11/20 Page 17 of 23

1 of confinement under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment,26 a detainee must

2 show:

3

(i) the defendant made an intentional decision with respect to the conditions

4

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

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

5

reasonable available measures to abate that risk, even though a reasonable

6

official in the circumstances would have appreciated the high degree of risk

involved—making the consequences of the defendant’s conduct obvious;

7

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

8

injuries.

9 Castro, 833 F.3d at 1069, 1070-71 (applying the objective standard in Kingsley to failure-

10 to-protect claims); see also Smith v. Washington, 781 Fed. App’x 595, 597 (9th Cir. 2019)

11 (applying Castro standards to conditions of confinement claims); Gordon v. County of

12 Orange, 888 F.3d 1118, 1124-25 (9th Cir. 2018) (“extending the objective deliberat[]e

13 indifference standard articulated in Castro to medical care claims”); Wilson v. Seiter, 501

14 U.S. 294, 303 (1991) (finding no significant distinction between claims alleging inadequate

15 medical care, failure-to-protect, or denial of other conditions of basic necessity). “With

16 respect to the third element, the defendant’s conduct must be objectively unreasonable, a

17 test that will necessarily ‘turn[ ] on the facts and circumstances of each particular case.’”

18 Castro, 833 F.3d at 1070 (quoting Kingsley, 135 S. Ct. at 2473).

19

1. Substantial Risk of Serious Harm

20

The record shows, and the parties do not dispute, that individuals within detention

21 facilities have a heightened risk of contracting and transmitting COVID-19, and individuals

22 with certain underlying medical conditions face a high risk of severe illness or death if they

23 contract COVID-19. (See, e.g., CDC Guidance at 2; ICE PRR at 3.) It is also undisputed

24 that because of those risks, detention facilities must implement measures to avoid and limit

25 the spread of COVID-19. (See ICE PRR at 4 (“Given the seriousness and pervasiveness

26 of COVID-19, ICE is taking necessary and prompt measures in response” and “is providing

27

28

26 Due process claims brought under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments are

analyzed under the same standard. See Paul v. Davis, 424 U.S. 693, 702 n.3 (1976).

- 17 -

Case 2:20-cv-00654-SPL--JFM Document 52 Filed 05/11/20 Page 18 of 23

1 guidance on the minimum measures required for facilities housing ICE detainees to

2 implement to ensure consistent practices throughout its detention operations and the

3 provision of medical care across the full spectrum of detention facilities to mitigate the

4 spread of COVID-19.”), 15 (“the facility must be especially mindful of cases that are at

5 higher risk of severe illness from COVID-19” and “make all possible accommodations . . .

6 to prevent transmission of other infectious diseases to the higher-risk individual”).

7

Absent specific measures which safeguard high-risk detainees, or other measures

8 which reasonably prevent and manage detainee exposure to COVID-19, the unmitigated

9 risk of transmission in detention facilities yields a substantial risk of severe illness or death

10 to high-risk detainees. Because reasonable measures have not been implemented in LPCC

11 to limit the risk of Petitioner’s exposure, see infra, and the parties do not dispute that

12 Petitioner has a medical condition which places him at high-risk of severe illness or death,27

13 the conditions under which Petitioner is detained poses a substantial risk of serious harm

14 to his health and safety.

15

2. Intentional Decision

16

Respondents have made an intentional decision with respect to the conditions under

17 which Petitioner is detained by failing to implement responsive measures specific to high-

18 risk detainees in LPCC, despite knowledge of the acute risks posed to them. See Castro,

19 833 F.3d at 1070 (a failure to act with respect to a known condition may constitute an

20 intentional decision). While Respondents have been “regularly updating infection

21 prevention and control protocols” since the “onset of reports” of COVID-19, and have

22 reviewed the detained “at risk population” to determine if detention remains appropriate,

23 they have not promulgated or implemented any explicit measures in LPCC concerning the

24 care of high-risk detainees who they have determined should remain detained.28

25

27 Petitioner Hernandez has “severe scoliosis of the back . . . that is so prominent 26 that it mechanically interferes with his breathing ability . . . On physical exam . . . he had

fine crackles in his left upper lung field and no audible lung sounds at the left posterior 27 middle or lower lung fields.” [] Hernandez is at increased risk of severe pulmonary

infection should he contract COVID-19.” (Lebensohn Decl. ¶ 4(b).)

28

28 Indeed, Fraihat, supra, the district court ordered ICE to “promptly issue a

- 18 -

Case 2:20-cv-00654-SPL--JFM Document 52 Filed 05/11/20 Page 19 of 23

1

3. Objective Unreasonableness

2

While Respondents have taken some action in LPCC to prevent and mitigate the

3 spread of COVID-19 (see Ciliberti Decl., supra), these actions have not included

4 reasonable, necessary, and available measures to abate the risk of harm to Petitioner and

5 other high-risk detainees.

6

First, while both CDC and ICE guidance observe that social distancing is essential

7 to preventing and reducing transmission of COVID-19, Respondents have pointed to no

8 specific measure that has been taken in LPCC to facilitate social distancing among

9 detainees. (Cf. ICE PRR at 13 (“Although strict social distancing may not be possible in

10 congregate settings such as detention facilities, all facilities housing ICE detainees should

11 implement [listed social distancing] measures”).)29 For example, Respondents do not

12 identify any measures they have taken to reduce the overall population in LPCC to provide

13 greater spacing among high-risk detainees. (See ICE PRR at 13 (facilities “should

14 implement . . . measures to the extent practicable . . . to reduce the population to

15 approximately 75% of capacity”).)30 Respondents merely state that LPCC is “not

16 overpopulated” without any discussion of whether the current population makes social

17 distancing feasible.

18

Respondents have not identified any measure taken in LPCC that would allow high-

19 risk detainees to maintain six feet of distance from other detainees in their cells, in dining

20 areas, in lines, in medical clinics, or in any other detained space. Respondents state only

21 that all detainees in LPCC are cohorted and have their meals delivered to their units.

22

23

performance standard or a supplement to their Pandemic Response Requirements . . . defining the minimum acceptable detention conditions for detainees with the Risk Factors,

24

regardless of the statutory authority for their detention, to reduce their risk of COVID-19 infection pending individualized determinations or the end of the pandemic.”

25

29 Notably, Respondents attach a copy of the ICE PRR to their response, but do not

discuss what, if any, specific measures have been implemented in LPCC in accordance

26 with that guidance.

27

30 See n.15, supra (ICE has “decided to reduce the population of all detention facilities to 70 percent or less to increase social distancing. Detention facilities may also

28

increase social distancing by having staggered meals and recreation times in order to limit the number of detainees gathered together. All community service projects are suspended

until further notice.”).

- 19 -

Case 2:20-cv-00654-SPL--JFM Document 52 Filed 05/11/20 Page 20 of 23

1 Cohorting, however, is not a social distancing measure. And, in the absence of uniform

2 testing of all detainees, cohorting is not a reasonable substitute for social distancing

3 measures. (See ICE PRR at 11 (“Because many individuals infected with COVID-19 do

4 not display symptoms, the virus could be present in facilities before cases are identified . .

5 . social distancing [is] critical in preventing further transmission”); id. at 14 (“Cohorting

6 should only be practiced if there are no other available options.”); CDC Guidance at 16, 20

7 (“If cohorting is unavoidable, [facilities should] make all possible accommodations to

8 reduce exposure risk for the higher-risk individuals . . . For example, [facilities should]

9 allocate more space for a higher-risk individual within a shared medical isolation space”

10 or “intensify social distancing strategies for higher-risk individuals.”).) Further, because

11 Respondents have not identified specific practiced measures for identifying, screening, and

12 testing existing symptomatic detainees in LPCC, it is not evident that cohorting has any

13 preventative or remedial value. For example, Respondents state that LPCC detainees “who

14 present symptoms compatible with COVID-19 will be placed in isolation” and tested, but

15 do not identify which symptoms prompt screening, whether non-quarantined detainees are

16 monitored for those symptoms, or what, if any, system is in place for reporting those

17 specific symptoms.

18

Second, while both CDC and ICE guidance state that good hygiene practices are

19 critical to preventing and limiting transmission, Respondents have not identified measures

20 they have taken in LPCC to adequately facilitate safe hygiene among high-risk detainees.

21 Respondents state that LPCC provides “sanitation” supplies to housing units, but do not

22 identify the frequency or quantity of supplies that are provided to detainees, much less

23 high-risk detainees. (See ICE PRR at 7, 9 (“all detention facilities housing ICE detainees

24 must . . . [p]rovide detainees and staff no-cost, unlimited access to supplies for hand

25 cleansing, including liquid soap, running water, hand drying machines or disposable paper

26 towels” and “provide and restock hygiene supplies throughout the facility”) (emphasis in

27 original).) “[E]ncouraging both staff and the detention center population to use [sanitation]

28 tools often and liberally” (Ciliberti Decl. ¶ 16) is not a reasonable preventative measure

- 20 -

Case 2:20-cv-00654-SPL--JFM Document 52 Filed 05/11/20 Page 21 of 23

1 unless Respondents provide LPCC staff and detainees with frequent and liberal access to

2 sanitation supplies. In the absence of any statement or evidence controverting the detainee

3 accounts provided by Petitioners, see supra, the record supports the inference that

4 Respondents have not done so.31

5

Third, Respondents have not identified any measures they have taken in LPCC

6 involving PPE or cloth face coverings to protect high-risk detainees from contagious

7 detainees and staff. Respondents only require that “visitors” in LPCC, who are limited to

8 noncontact visits, must wear PPE. (Ciliberti Decl. ¶ 17.) Indeed, Respondents do not point

9 to any requirement that masks of any kind be provided to detainees or staff or that masks

10 be worn by staff when interacting with high-risk detainees. (Cf. ICE PRR at 8-9 (“Cloth

11 face coverings should be worn by detainees and staff (when PPE supply is limited) to help

12 slow the spread of COVID-19”).)

13

4. Causation

14

Despite knowledge of the serious risks posed to vulnerable detainees by COVID-

15 19, and knowledge of Petitioner’s high-risk medical conditions, Respondents have not

16 implemented recommended or required measures through which Petitioner could maintain

17 a safe distance from other detainees who may or may not be contagious; measures that

18 would provide Petitioner with the ability to adequately clean and disinfect himself and his

19 immediate surroundings if exposed; measures that would provide Petitioner with the means

20 to protect himself from exposure during his interactions with staff; or measures that would

21 allow Petitioner to seek medical care without risking further exposure, or that would ensure

22 that he receive prompt and adequate medical attention. Respondents do not claim that

23

24

31 Petitioners have also attached to their Reply additional recent declarations which report that LPCC detainees do not have unlimited access to hygiene supplies and have only

25

limited access to disinfectants. See Declaration of Yesenia Ramales Ferguson on behalf of Noel Francisco Mejia Hernandez (Apr. 16, 2020) ¶ 11 (Doc. 35-1 at 42-43) (in LPCC Hopi

26

Alpha unit, detainees do not have access to hand soap or hand sanitizer, and have limited access to disinfectant); Declaration of Jhonnatan Brinez Urdaneta (Apr. 16, 2020) ¶ 11 (id.

27

at 45-50) (in LPCC Apache Delta unit, detainees were provided with shampoo to shower, but are not provided with free soap or hand sanitizer, which must be purchased at

28

commissary); Declaration of Bismer D. Rodriguez Alvarez (Apr. 15, 2020) ¶ 10 (id. at 5258) (in LPCC Apache Delta unit, detainees were provided only with shampoo for

showering).

- 21 -

Case 2:20-cv-00654-SPL--JFM Document 52 Filed 05/11/20 Page 22 of 23

1 measures facilitating social distancing, hygiene, self-protection, and medical care are

2 unreasonable or unnecessary for preventing and managing transmission of COVID-19, nor

3 do they claim that these measures are not feasible or that they are incompatible with LPCC

4 operations.

5

By failing to take these recommended, reasonable, and available measures,

6 Respondents have fostered conditions that pose an objectively unreasonable risk of

7 transmission of COVID-19 and a resulting substantial risk of serious harm to Petitioner’s

8 health and ultimate safety. While Respondents may have legitimate objectives for

9 detaining Petitioner, they have identified no single legitimate purpose served by detaining

10 Petitioner under conditions that pose an objectively unreasonable risk of harm to him. That

11 is because these conditions serve no legitimate government objective. The conditions

12 under which Petitioner is detained therefore amount to punishment and violate the Due

13 Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.

14

D. Relief

15

At this stage, the Court is unable to conclude that there is no set of conditions short

16 of release that would be sufficient to protect Petitioner’s constitutional rights. Instead, the

17 Court concludes, at this time, that the appropriate remedy is to require Respondents to

18 immediately place Petitioner under constitutionally adequate conditions. See Ziglar, 137

19 S. Ct. at 1863 (“A successful habeas petition would have required officials to place

20 respondents in less-restrictive conditions immediately”); Preiser, 411 U.S. at 499 (“it is

21 arguable that habeas corpus will lie to remove the restraints making custody illegal”).

22

The Court will require each party to submit a proposed form of order setting forth

23 measures to be implemented with respect to Petitioner that are consistent with CDC and

24 ICE guidelines, relevant to the care of high-risk detainees, and reasonable to the

25 circumstances presented. For example, proposed measures might include placing

26 Petitioner in a single-occupancy cell; having Petitioner’s meals delivered to his cell;

27 providing Petitioner with accommodations to bathe and shower in isolation; providing

28 Petitioner without charge, PPE, unlimited hygiene supplies and disinfectant supplies for

- 22 -

Case 2:20-cv-00654-SPL--JFM Document 52 Filed 05/11/20 Page 23 of 23

1 his cell; requiring that all staff and officers wear masks when interacting with Petitioner;

2 and requiring that Petitioner receive scheduled medical examinations, testing, and/or

3 treatment. The proposed form of orders shall not be treated as a waiver of any claim or

4 defense raised in this action, and they may not include any legal argument or request for

5 the Court.

6

IT IS ORDERED:

7

(1) The parties shall have until May 13, 2020 to each submit a proposed form of

8 order consistent with this decision.

9

(2) The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 and Complaint

10 for Injunctive and Declaratory Relief (Doc. 1) is denied in part as to claims brought on

11 behalf Petitioners Urdaneta, Inchicaque, Cantillano, Saucedo, Alvarez, Ramos, and

12 Borrero, without prejudice to these Petitioners renewing their requests for relief in this

13 action should they be re-detained. The Petition is granted in part as to Petitioner Noel

14 Mejia Hernandez (A# 203-702-428), as set forth by separate order to be issued following

15 the filing of the parties’ proposed form of orders.

16

(3) The unopposed Motion for Leave to File an Amicus Curiae Brief (Doc. 26) is

17 granted. The Clerk of Court shall file the lodged proposed Brief (Doc. 27).

18

(4) The Application for Temporary Restraining Order and Order to Show Cause

19 Regarding Preliminary Injunction (Doc. 19) and Request for Status Conference (Doc. 45)

20 are denied without prejudice as moot.

21

Dated this 11th day of May, 2020.

22

23

24

Honorable Steven P. Logan United States District Judge

25

26

27

28

- 23 -

 
 CASREF,CLOSED,DTE,HABEAS
U.S. District Court DISTRICT OF ARIZONA (Phoenix Division) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 2:20-cv-01134-SPL--CDB

Espinoza et al v. Howard et al Assigned to: Judge Steven P Logan Referred to: Magistrate Judge Camille D Bibles (PS) Cause: 28:2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Federal)

Date Filed: 06/08/2020 Date Terminated: 12/10/2020 Jury Demand: None Nature of Suit: 463 Prisoner: Alien Detainee - Habeas Corpus Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Defendant

Petitioner Wilson Calix Espinoza

represented by Aleyda Yvette Borja ACLU - Phoenix, AZ P.O. Box 17148 Phoenix, AZ 85011 602-650-1854 Email: yborja@acluaz.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Christopher David Thomas Perkins Coie LLP - Phoenix, AZ 2901 N Central Ave., Ste. 2000 Phoenix, AZ 85012 602-351-8000 Fax: 602-648-7000 Email: cthomas@perkinscoie.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Clayton Barr Perkins Coie LLP - Phoenix, AZ 2901 N Central Ave., Ste. 2000 Phoenix, AZ 85012 602-351-8085 Fax: 602-648-7085 Email: DBarr@perkinscoie.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

David Cyrus Fathi ACLU - Washington DC 915 15th St. NW, 7th Fl. Washington, DC 20005 202-548-6609 Fax: 202-393-4931 Email: dfathi@aclu.org LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Eunice Cho ACLU - Washington DC 915 15th St. NW, 7th Fl. Washington, DC 20005 202-548-6616 Fax: 202-393-4931 Email: echo@aclu.org LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Katharine Elizabeth Ruhl Florence Immigration & Refugee Rights Project - Tucson, AZ P.O. Box 86299 Tucson, AZ 85754 520-396-3695 Email: kruhl@firrp.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Katherine Elizabeth May Perkins Coie LLP - Phoenix, AZ 2901 N Central Ave., Ste. 2000 Phoenix, AZ 85012 602-351-8000 Fax: 602-648-7045 Email: kmay@perkinscoie.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kristine Jolie Beaudoin Perkins Coie LLP - Phoenix, AZ 2901 N Central Ave., Ste. 2000 Phoenix, AZ 85012

Petitioner Yarjelis Madueno Davila

602-351-8000 Email: kbeaudoin@perkinscoie.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Laura Belous Florence Immigration & Refugee Rights Project - Tucson, AZ P.O. Box 86299 Tucson, AZ 85754 520-269-7153 Fax: 520-829-4154 Email: lbelous@firrp.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Laura McClure StJohn Florence Immigration & Refugee Rights Project - Tucson, AZ P.O. Box 86299 Tucson, AZ 85754 520-207-2320 Fax: 520-829-4154 Email: lstjohn@firrp.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Margo Rose Casselman Perkins Coie LLP - Phoenix, AZ 2901 N Central Ave., Ste. 2000 Phoenix, AZ 85012 602-351-8159 Fax: 602-648-7161 Email: mcasselman@perkinscoie.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Aleyda Yvette Borja (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Christopher David Thomas (See above for address)

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Clayton Barr (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
David Cyrus Fathi (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Eunice Cho (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Katharine Elizabeth Ruhl (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Katherine Elizabeth May (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kristine Jolie Beaudoin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Laura Belous (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Laura McClure StJohn (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Margo Rose Casselman

Petitioner Artem Pakhol

(See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Aleyda Yvette Borja (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Christopher David Thomas (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Clayton Barr (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
David Cyrus Fathi (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Eunice Cho (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Katharine Elizabeth Ruhl (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Katherine Elizabeth May (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kristine Jolie Beaudoin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Petitioner Ernesto Rodriguez Cedeno

Laura Belous (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Laura McClure StJohn (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Margo Rose Casselman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Aleyda Yvette Borja (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Christopher David Thomas (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Clayton Barr (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
David Cyrus Fathi (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Eunice Cho (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Katharine Elizabeth Ruhl (See above for address)

Petitioner Ernesto Lara Carnero

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Katherine Elizabeth May (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kristine Jolie Beaudoin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Laura Belous (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Laura McClure StJohn (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Margo Rose Casselman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Aleyda Yvette Borja (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Christopher David Thomas (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Clayton Barr (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
David Cyrus Fathi (See above for address)

Petitioner Ronni Barroso Barrios

LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Eunice Cho (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Katharine Elizabeth Ruhl (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Katherine Elizabeth May (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kristine Jolie Beaudoin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Laura Belous (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Laura McClure StJohn (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Margo Rose Casselman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Aleyda Yvette Borja (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Christopher David Thomas (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Clayton Barr (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
David Cyrus Fathi (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Eunice Cho (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Katharine Elizabeth Ruhl (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Katherine Elizabeth May (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kristine Jolie Beaudoin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Laura Belous (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Laura McClure StJohn (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Petitioner Nilsson Cano Villatoro

Margo Rose Casselman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Aleyda Yvette Borja (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Christopher David Thomas (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Clayton Barr (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
David Cyrus Fathi (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Eunice Cho (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Katharine Elizabeth Ruhl (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Katherine Elizabeth May (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kristine Jolie Beaudoin (See above for address)

Petitioner Yudeine Gonzalez Borges

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Laura Belous (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Laura McClure StJohn (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Margo Rose Casselman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Aleyda Yvette Borja (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Christopher David Thomas (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Clayton Barr (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
David Cyrus Fathi (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Eunice Cho (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Petitioner Zoila Mayancela Zamora

Katharine Elizabeth Ruhl (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Katherine Elizabeth May (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kristine Jolie Beaudoin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Laura Belous (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Laura McClure StJohn (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Margo Rose Casselman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Aleyda Yvette Borja (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Christopher David Thomas (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Clayton Barr (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Petitioner Joaquin Mantilla Silva

David Cyrus Fathi (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Eunice Cho (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Katharine Elizabeth Ruhl (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Katherine Elizabeth May (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kristine Jolie Beaudoin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Laura Belous (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Laura McClure StJohn (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Margo Rose Casselman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Aleyda Yvette Borja (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Christopher David Thomas (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Clayton Barr (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
David Cyrus Fathi (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Eunice Cho (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Katharine Elizabeth Ruhl (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Katherine Elizabeth May (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kristine Jolie Beaudoin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Laura Belous (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Laura McClure StJohn (See above for address)

Petitioner Ivan Benitez Flores

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Margo Rose Casselman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Aleyda Yvette Borja (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Christopher David Thomas (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Clayton Barr (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
David Cyrus Fathi (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Eunice Cho (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Katharine Elizabeth Ruhl (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Katherine Elizabeth May (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Petitioner Rudis Naranjo Rosales

Kristine Jolie Beaudoin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Laura Belous (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Laura McClure StJohn (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Margo Rose Casselman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Aleyda Yvette Borja (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Christopher David Thomas (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Clayton Barr (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
David Cyrus Fathi (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Eunice Cho (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE

Petitioner Luis Jorge Alfonso

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Katharine Elizabeth Ruhl (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Katherine Elizabeth May (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kristine Jolie Beaudoin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Laura Belous (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Laura McClure StJohn (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Margo Rose Casselman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Aleyda Yvette Borja (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Christopher David Thomas (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Clayton Barr (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
David Cyrus Fathi (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Eunice Cho (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Katharine Elizabeth Ruhl (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Katherine Elizabeth May (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kristine Jolie Beaudoin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Laura Belous (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Laura McClure StJohn (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Margo Rose Casselman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
V.

Respondent
Chris Howard in his official capacity as Warden of the La Palma Correctional Center

represented by Daniel Patrick Struck Struck Love Bojanowski & Acedo PLC 3100 W Ray Rd., Ste. 300 Chandler, AZ 85226 480-420-1600 Email: dstruck@strucklove.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jacob Brady Lee Struck Love Bojanowski & Acedo PLC 3100 W Ray Rd., Ste. 300 Chandler, AZ 85226 480-420-1641 Fax: 480-420-1696 Email: JLee@strucklove.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kristina Louise Morrison US Attorneys Office - Phoenix, AZ 2 Renaissance Square 40 N Central Ave., Ste. 1800 Phoenix, AZ 85004-4408 602-514-7500 Fax: 602-514-7760 Email: Kristina.Morrison@usdoj.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Nicholas Daniel Acedo Struck Love Bojanowski & Acedo PLC 3100 W Ray Rd., Ste. 300 Chandler, AZ 85226 480-420-1600 Email: NAcedo@strucklove.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Rachel Love Struck Love Bojanowski & Acedo PLC

Respondent Fred Figueroa in his official capacity as Warden of the Eloy Detention Center
Respondent Albert Carter in his official capacity as Acting Phoenix Field Office Director, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Respondent Cesar Topete in his official capacity as Assistant Phoenix Field Office Director, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement

3100 W Ray Rd., Ste. 300 Chandler, AZ 85226 480-420-1600 Fax: 480-420-1696 Email: RLove@strucklove.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Daniel Patrick Struck (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jacob Brady Lee (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kristina Louise Morrison (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Nicholas Daniel Acedo (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Rachel Love (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Kristina Louise Morrison (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Kristina Louise Morrison (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Respondent
Jason Ciliberti in his official capacity as Assistant Phoenix Field Office Director, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement
Respondent
John Cantu in his official capacity as Assistant Phoenix Field Office Director, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement
Respondent
Chad Wolf Acting Secretary of the United States Department of Homeland Security

represented by Kristina Louise Morrison (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Kristina Louise Morrison (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Kristina Louise Morrison (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 06/08/2020
06/08/2020
06/08/2020

# Docket Text
1 *PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Fed/2241). Filing fee received: $5.00, receipt number 0970-18359684 filed by Wilson Calix Espinoza, Yarjelis Madueno Davila, Artem Pakhol, Ernesto Rodriguez Cedeno, Ernesto Lara Carnero, Ronni Barroso Barrios, Nilsson Cano Villatoro, Yudeine Gonzalez Borges, Zoila Mayancela Zamora, Joaquin Mantilla Silva, Ivan Benitez Flores, Rudis Naranjo Rosales, Luis Jorge Alfonso. (Beaudoin, Kristine) (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet, # 2 Exhibit Index and Exhibits 1-20, # 3 Exhibits 21-30)(BAC) *Modified to add text; NEF regenerated on 6/9/2020 (BAC)(CEI). (Entered: 06/09/2020)
2 DECLARATION of Kristine J. Beaudoin in Support re: 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Fed/2241) by Petitioners Luis Jorge Alfonso, Ronni Barroso Barrios, Yudeine Gonzalez Borges, Ernesto Lara Carnero, Ernesto Rodriguez Cedeno, Yarjelis Madueno Davila, Wilson Calix Espinoza, Ivan Benitez Flores, Artem Pakhol, Rudis Naranjo Rosales, Joaquin Mantilla Silva, Nilsson Cano Villatoro, Zoila Mayancela Zamora. (BAC) (Entered: 06/09/2020)
3 SUMMONS Submitted by Luis Jorge Alfonso, Ronni Barroso Barrios, Yudeine Gonzalez Borges, Ernesto Lara Carnero, Ernesto Rodriguez Cedeno, Yarjelis Madueno Davila, Wilson Calix Espinoza, Ivan Benitez Flores, Artem Pakhol, Rudis Naranjo Rosales, Joaquin Mantilla Silva, Nilsson Cano Villatoro, Zoila Mayancela Zamora. (Attachments: # 1 Summons, # 2 Summons, # 3 Summons, # 4 Summons, # 5 Summons, # 6 Summons)(BAC) (Entered: 06/09/2020)

06/08/2020 06/10/2020
06/11/2020 06/11/2020 06/12/2020
06/16/2020
06/16/2020

4 NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT (BAC) (Entered: 06/09/2020)
5 MOTION to Transfer Related Case (Motion to Transfer Case to Judge Steven P. Logan) by Luis Jorge Alfonso, Ronni Barroso Barrios, Yudeine Gonzalez Borges, Ernesto Lara Carnero, Ernesto Rodriguez Cedeno, Yarjelis Madueno Davila, Wilson Calix Espinoza, Ivan Benitez Flores, Artem Pakhol, Rudis Naranjo Rosales, Joaquin Mantilla Silva, Nilsson Cano Villatoro, Zoila Mayancela Zamora. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order) (Associated Cases: 20-cv-01134-PHX-DWL, 20-cv00654-PHX-SPL) (Barr, Daniel) (Entered: 06/10/2020)
6 NOTICE of Appearance by Kristina Louise Morrison on behalf of John Cantu, Albert Carter, Jason Ciliberti, Fred Figueroa, Chris Howard, Cesar Topete, Chad Wolf. (Morrison, Kristina) (Entered: 06/11/2020)
7 NOTICE of Appearance by Daniel Patrick Struck on behalf of Fred Figueroa, Chris Howard. (Struck, Daniel) (Entered: 06/11/2020)
8 ORDER - IT IS ORDERED: (1) Petitioners' Motion to Transfer (Doc. 61 ) is granted. (2) The Clerk of Court shall transfer Espinoza v. Howard, CV20-001134-PHX-DWL (CDB) to this Court. (3) All future pleadings and papers submitted for filing shall bear the following case number: CV-20001134-PHX-SPL (CDB). See document for complete details. Signed by Judge Steven P Logan on 6/12/2020. (Associated Cases: 2:20-cv-00654SPL--JFM, 2:20-cv-01134-DWL--CDB) (WLP) (Entered: 06/12/2020)
9 MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages for Application for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction, and Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support by Luis Jorge Alfonso, Ronni Barroso Barrios, Yudeine Gonzalez Borges, Ernesto Lara Carnero, Ernesto Rodriguez Cedeno, Yarjelis Madueno Davila, Wilson Calix Espinoza, Ivan Benitez Flores, Artem Pakhol, Rudis Naranjo Rosales, Joaquin Mantilla Silva, Nilsson Cano Villatoro, Zoila Mayancela Zamora. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Casselman, Margo) (Entered: 06/16/2020)
10 *(Filed at doc. 12 - LODGED Proposed Application for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction, and Memorandum of Points & Authorities in Support re: 9 MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages for Application for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction, and Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support . Document to be filed by Clerk if Motion or Stipulation for Leave to File or Amend is granted. Filed by Luis Jorge Alfonso, Ronni Barroso Barrios, Yudeine Gonzalez Borges, Ernesto Lara Carnero, Ernesto Rodriguez Cedeno, Yarjelis Madueno Davila, Wilson Calix Espinoza, Ivan Benitez Flores, Artem Pakhol, Rudis Naranjo Rosales, Joaquin Mantilla Silva, Nilsson Cano Villatoro, Zoila Mayancela Zamora. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Casselman, Margo) Modified on 6/19/2020 (GMP). (Entered: 06/16/2020)

06/17/2020 06/19/2020
06/19/2020 06/22/2020 06/22/2020

Remark: Pro hac vice motion(s) granted for David Cyrus Fathi and Eunice Cho on behalf of Petitioners Luis Jorge Alfonso, Ronni Barroso Barrios, Yudeine Gonzalez Borges, Ernesto Lara Carnero, Ernesto Rodriguez Cedeno, Yarjelis Madueno Davila, Wilson Calix Espinoza, Ivan Benitez Flores, Artem Pakhol, Rudis Naranjo Rosales, Joaquin Mantilla Silva, Nilsson Cano Villatoro, Zoila Mayancela Zamora. This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry. (BAS) (Entered: 06/17/2020)
11 ORDER: Petitioners-Plaintiffs' 9 Motion for Leave to Exceed is granted. The Clerk of Court shall file the lodged proposed Application for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction (Doc. 10). The Clerk of Court shall serve: a copy of the Summons, the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 and Complaint for Injunctive and Declaratory Relief, the Application for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction, and this Order upon the United States Attorney for the District of Arizona by certified mail addressed to the civil process clerk at the office of the United States Attorney pursuant to Rule 4(i)(1)(A) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Clerk of Court shall also send by certified mail a copy of the Summons, the Petition, the Application, and this Order to the United States Attorney General pursuant to Rule 4(i)(1)(B) and to Respondents Howard, Figueroa, Carter, Topete, Ciliberti, Cantu, and Wolf pursuant to Rule 4(i)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Respondents shall not file a dispositive motion in place of an answer or response absent leave of Court. Petitioners must immediately file a "Notice of Change in Status" if there is any material change in Petitioners custody status. Any request for relief must be made by separate motion and may not be included in the Notice. Signed by Judge Steven P Logan on 6/19/20. (GMP) (Entered: 06/19/2020)
12 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction, and Memorandum of Points & Authorities in Support by Luis Jorge Alfonso, Ronni Barroso Barrios, Yudeine Gonzalez Borges, Ernesto Lara Carnero, Ernesto Rodriguez Cedeno, Yarjelis Madueno Davila, Wilson Calix Espinoza, Ivan Benitez Flores, Artem Pakhol, Rudis Naranjo Rosales, Joaquin Mantilla Silva, Nilsson Cano Villatoro, Zoila Mayancela Zamora. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(GMP) (Entered: 06/19/2020)
13 Summons Issued as to John Cantu, Albert Carter, Jason Ciliberti, Fred Figueroa, Chris Howard, Cesar Topete, Chad Wolf, US Attorney General, and US Attorney for the District of Arizona. (GMP) (Entered: 06/22/2020)
15 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 11 Order on Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages Re: Respondents Joint Motion to Extend Deadline to Respond to Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and Application for Temporary Restraining Order by Fred Figueroa, Chris Howard. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Struck, Daniel) (Entered: 06/22/2020)

06/23/2020 06/23/2020
06/24/2020
06/24/2020 06/25/2020 06/25/2020 06/25/2020 06/25/2020 06/26/2020 06/29/2020 06/29/2020

16 NOTICE re: Change in Status by Wilson Calix Espinoza . (Beaudoin, Kristine) (Entered: 06/23/2020)
17 RESPONSE in Opposition re: 15 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 11 Order on Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages Re: Respondents Joint Motion to Extend Deadline to Respond to Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and Application for Temporary Re filed by Luis Jorge Alfonso, Ronni Barroso Barrios, Yudeine Gonzalez Borges, Ernesto Lara Carnero, Ernesto Rodriguez Cedeno, Yarjelis Madueno Davila, Wilson Calix Espinoza, Ivan Benitez Flores, Artem Pakhol, Rudis Naranjo Rosales, Joaquin Mantilla Silva, Nilsson Cano Villatoro, Zoila Mayancela Zamora. (Beaudoin, Kristine) (Entered: 06/23/2020)
18 ORDER: Respondents' Motion to Extend Deadline 15 is granted. Respondents shall have until July 2, 2020 to file an answer to the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and a response to the Application for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction. Petitioners shall have until July 9, 2020 to file a Reply in support of their Petition and Application. Signed by Judge Steven P Logan on 6/24/2020. (LMR) (Entered: 06/24/2020)
19 SERVICE EXECUTED : Certified Mail Receipt re: Petition/Summons/Order/Motion upon Jason Ciliberti on 6/23/20. (SJF) (Entered: 06/25/2020)
20 NOTICE re: Change in Status by Ernesto Lara Carnero . (Beaudoin, Kristine) (Entered: 06/25/2020)
21 SERVICE EXECUTED : Certified Mail Receipt re: Petition/Summons/Order/Motion upon Albert Carter on 6/23/2020. (WLP) (Entered: 06/26/2020)
22 SERVICE EXECUTED : Certified Mail Receipt re: Petition/Summons/Order/Motion upon Cesar Topete on 6/23/2020. (WLP) (Entered: 06/26/2020)
23 SERVICE EXECUTED : Certified Mail Receipt re: Petition/Summons/Order/Motion upon Fred Figueroa on 6/23/2020 (per the USPS tracking, no date on card). (WLP) (Entered: 06/26/2020)
24 SERVICE EXECUTED : Certified Mail Receipt re: Petition/Summons/Order/Motion upon John Cantu on 6/24/2020 (per USPS tracking, no date on card). (WLP) (Entered: 06/26/2020)
25 SERVICE EXECUTED : Certified Mail Receipt re: Summons, Petition, Order and Motion upon US Attorney, District of Arizona on 6/25/20. (SJF) (Entered: 06/30/2020)
26 SERVICE EXECUTED : Certified Mail Receipt re: Petition, Summons, Order and Motion upon Chris Howard, Warden La Palma on 6/24/20. (SJF) (Entered: 06/30/2020)

07/01/2020 07/02/2020 07/02/2020 07/02/2020
07/06/2020

27 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 18 Order on Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply, 11 Order on Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages (Second Request) by Fred Figueroa, Chris Howard. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Acedo, Nicholas) (Entered: 07/01/2020)
28 RESPONSE in Opposition re: 27 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 18 Order on Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply, 11 Order on Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages (Second Request) filed by Luis Jorge Alfonso, Ronni Barroso Barrios, Yudeine Gonzalez Borges, Ernesto Lara Carnero, Ernesto Rodriguez Cedeno, Yarjelis Madueno Davila, Wilson Calix Espinoza, Ivan Benitez Flores, Artem Pakhol, Rudis Naranjo Rosales, Joaquin Mantilla Silva, Nilsson Cano Villatoro, Zoila Mayancela Zamora. (Beaudoin, Kristine) (Entered: 07/02/2020)
29 ORDER: Respondents' Second Motion to Extend Deadline 27 is denied in part and granted in part. Respondents shall have until July 3, 2020 to file an answer to the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and a response to the Application for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction. Petitioners shall have until July 9, 2020 to file a Reply in support of their Petition and Application. Respondents shall have until July 13, 2020 to file any motion for leave to file a sur-reply and a lodged proposed sur-reply. Signed by Judge Steven P Logan on 7/2/2020. (LMR) (Entered: 07/02/2020)
30 *RESPONSE in Opposition to 12 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order, MOTION for Preliminary Injunction, and ANSWER to Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 filed by Fred Figueroa, Chris Howard. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A - Declaration of Dr. Peredo-Berger, # 2 Exhibit B - Declaration of Warden C. Howard, # 3 Attachments 01-12 to Declaration of Warden C. Howard, # 4 Attachments 13-25 to Declaration of Warden C. Howard, # 5 Exhibit C - Declaration of Warden F. Figueroa, # 6 Attachments 01-20 to Declaration of Warden F. Figueroa, # 7 Attachments 21-22 to Declaration of Warden F. Figueroa, # 8 Attachments 23-35 to Declaration of Warden F. Figueroa, # 9 Attachments 36-39 to Declaration of Warden F. Figueroa, # 10 Attachments 40-45 to Declaration of Warden F. Figueroa, # 11 Exhibit D - Report of Dr. Owen J. Murray, # 12 Exhibit E - Declaration of K. Ivens, MD, FACCP (w/ Attachments 01-04))(Lee, Jacob) *Modified text on 7/6/2020 (WLP). (Entered: 07/02/2020)
Remark: Out of state attorneys Anand Balakrishnan, Omar Jadwat, and Michael Tan removed as counsel of record for noncompliance with admission procedures; party or parties represented by other admitted counsel of record. This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry. (BAS) (Entered: 07/06/2020)

07/08/2020 07/08/2020 07/10/2020 07/10/2020
07/11/2020

31 First MOTION for Extension of Time re 1-Day Extension of Reply and Sur-Reply Deadlines (UNOPPOSED) by Luis Jorge Alfonso, Ronni Barroso Barrios, Yudeine Gonzalez Borges, Ernesto Lara Carnero, Ernesto Rodriguez Cedeno, Yarjelis Madueno Davila, Ivan Benitez Flores, Artem Pakhol, Rudis Naranjo Rosales, Joaquin Mantilla Silva, Nilsson Cano Villatoro, Zoila Mayancela Zamora. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Beaudoin, Kristine) (Entered: 07/08/2020)
32 ORDER: Petitioners' Motion for Extension 31 is granted as follows: Petitioners shall have until July 10, 2020 to file a Reply in support of their Petition and Application. Respondents shall have until July 14, 2020 to file any motion for leave to file a sur-reply and a lodged proposed sur-reply. Signed by Judge Steven P. Logan on 7/8/2020. (LMR) (Entered: 07/08/2020)
33 MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages for Reply in Support of Petition for Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2241 and Complaint for Injunctive and Declaratory Relief by Luis Jorge Alfonso, Ronni Barroso Barrios, Yudeine Gonzalez Borges, Ernesto Lara Carnero, Ernesto Rodriguez Cedeno, Yarjelis Madueno Davila, Wilson Calix Espinoza, Ivan Benitez Flores, Artem Pakhol, Rudis Naranjo Rosales, Joaquin Mantilla Silva, Nilsson Cano Villatoro, Zoila Mayancela Zamora. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Beaudoin, Kristine) (Entered: 07/10/2020)
34 *Filed at 39 pursuant to 38 LODGED Proposed Reply in Support of Petition for Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2241 and Complaint for Injunctive and Declaratory Relief re: 33 MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages for Reply in Support of Petition for Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2241 and Complaint for Injunctive and Declaratory Relief . Document to be filed by Clerk if Motion or Stipulation for Leave to File or Amend is granted. Filed by Luis Jorge Alfonso, Ronni Barroso Barrios, Yudeine Gonzalez Borges, Ernesto Lara Carnero, Ernesto Rodriguez Cedeno, Yarjelis Madueno Davila, Wilson Calix Espinoza, Ivan Benitez Flores, Artem Pakhol, Rudis Naranjo Rosales, Joaquin Mantilla Silva, Nilsson Cano Villatoro, Zoila Mayancela Zamora. (Beaudoin, Kristine) *Modified on 7/14/2020 (WLP). (Entered: 07/11/2020)
35 *Filed at 40 pursuant to 38 LODGED Proposed Declaration of Margo R. Casselman in Support of Reply to Petition for Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 USC 2241 and Complaint for Injunctive and Declaratory Relief re: 33 MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages for Reply in Support of Petition for Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2241 and Complaint for Injunctive and Declaratory Relief . Document to be filed by Clerk if Motion or Stipulation for Leave to File or Amend is granted. Filed by Luis Jorge Alfonso, Ronni Barroso Barrios, Yudeine Gonzalez Borges, Ernesto Lara Carnero, Ernesto Rodriguez Cedeno, Yarjelis Madueno Davila, Wilson Calix Espinoza, Ivan Benitez Flores, Artem Pakhol, Rudis Naranjo Rosales, Joaquin Mantilla Silva, Nilsson Cano Villatoro, Zoila Mayancela Zamora.

07/11/2020
07/13/2020 07/14/2020 07/14/2020 07/14/2020 07/14/2020

(Beaudoin, Kristine) *Modified on 7/14/2020 (WLP). (Entered: 07/11/2020)
36 *Filed at 41 pursuant to 38 LODGED Proposed Index of Exhibits and Exhibits to Reply in Support of Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2241 and Complaint for Injunctive and Declaratory Relief re: 33 MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages for Reply in Support of Petition for Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2241 and Complaint for Injunctive and Declaratory Relief . Document to be filed by Clerk if Motion or Stipulation for Leave to File or Amend is granted. Filed by Luis Jorge Alfonso, Ronni Barroso Barrios, Yudeine Gonzalez Borges, Ernesto Lara Carnero, Ernesto Rodriguez Cedeno, Yarjelis Madueno Davila, Wilson Calix Espinoza, Ivan Benitez Flores, Artem Pakhol, Rudis Naranjo Rosales, Joaquin Mantilla Silva, Nilsson Cano Villatoro, Zoila Mayancela Zamora. (Beaudoin, Kristine) *Modified on 7/14/2020 (WLP). (Entered: 07/11/2020)
37 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to File Motion for Leave to File SurReply by John Cantu, Albert Carter, Jason Ciliberti, Fred Figueroa, Chris Howard, Cesar Topete, Chad Wolf. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Morrison, Kristina) (Entered: 07/13/2020)
38 ORDER - IT IS ORDERED that Petitioners' Motion for Leave to Exceed (Doc. 33 ) is granted. The Clerk of Court shall file the lodged Reply in support of Petitioners' Petition for Habeas Corpus (Doc. 34 ) and the lodged attachments (Docs. 35 - 36 ). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioners shall refile their Index and Exhibits (lodged at Doc. 36 ) and shall attach each exhibit to the index in a separate segment. Example: Doc. 36 (Index), Doc. 36-1 (Exhibit 1), Doc. 36-2 (Exhibit 2), and so forth. Signed by Judge Steven P Logan on 7/13/2020. (WLP) (Entered: 07/14/2020)
39 REPLY in Support of 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Fed/2241) and Complaint for Injunctive Relief by Petitioners Luis Jorge Alfonso, Ronni Barroso Barrios, Yudeine Gonzalez Borges, Ernesto Lara Carnero, Ernesto Rodriguez Cedeno, Yarjelis Madueno Davila, Wilson Calix Espinoza, Ivan Benitez Flores, Artem Pakhol, Rudis Naranjo Rosales, Joaquin Mantilla Silva, Nilsson Cano Villatoro, Zoila Mayancela Zamora. (WLP) (Entered: 07/14/2020)
40 DECLARATION of Margo R. Casselman re: 39 Reply by Petitioners Luis Jorge Alfonso, Ronni Barroso Barrios, Yudeine Gonzalez Borges, Ernesto Lara Carnero, Ernesto Rodriguez Cedeno, Yarjelis Madueno Davila, Wilson Calix Espinoza, Ivan Benitez Flores, Artem Pakhol, Rudis Naranjo Rosales, Joaquin Mantilla Silva, Nilsson Cano Villatoro, Zoila Mayancela Zamora. (WLP) (Entered: 07/14/2020)
41 Index of Exhibits and Exhibits to 39 Reply in Support of Petition by Luis Jorge Alfonso, Ronni Barroso Barrios, Yudeine Gonzalez Borges, Ernesto Lara Carnero, Ernesto Rodriguez Cedeno, Yarjelis Madueno Davila, Wilson Calix Espinoza, Ivan Benitez Flores, Artem Pakhol, Rudis Naranjo

07/14/2020 07/14/2020
07/14/2020 07/17/2020 07/17/2020
07/21/2020

Rosales, Joaquin Mantilla Silva, Nilsson Cano Villatoro, Zoila Mayancela Zamora. (WLP) (Entered: 07/14/2020)
42 ORDER granting 37 Motion for Extension of Time: Respondents shall have until July 17, 2020 to file any motion for leave to file a sur-reply and a lodged proposed sur-reply. Signed by Judge Steven P. Logan on 7/14/2020. (LMR) (Entered: 07/14/2020)
43 NOTICE re: Exhibit Index and Exhibit 1-29 by Luis Jorge Alfonso, Ronni Barroso Barrios, Yudeine Gonzalez Borges, Ernesto Lara Carnero, Ernesto Rodriguez Cedeno, Yarjelis Madueno Davila, Wilson Calix Espinoza, Ivan Benitez Flores, Artem Pakhol, Rudis Naranjo Rosales, Joaquin Mantilla Silva, Nilsson Cano Villatoro, Zoila Mayancela Zamora re: 39 Reply, 38 Order on Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages . (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit 5, # 6 Exhibit 6, # 7 Exhibit 7, # 8 Exhibit 8, # 9 Exhibit 9, # 10 Exhibit 10, # 11 Exhibit 11, # 12 Exhibit 12, # 13 Exhibit 13, # 14 Exhibit 14, # 15 Exhibit 15, # 16 Exhibit 16, # 17 Exhibit 17, # 18 Exhibit 18, # 19 Exhibit 19, # 20 Exhibit 20, # 21 Exhibit 21, # 22 Exhibit 22, # 23 Exhibit 23, # 24 Exhibit 24, # 25 Exhibit 25, # 26 Exhibit 26, # 27 Exhibit 27, # 28 Exhibit 28, # 29 Exhibit 29)(Beaudoin, Kristine) (Entered: 07/14/2020)
44 SERVICE EXECUTED: Certified Mail Receipt re: petition, summons, order, motion upon US Attorney General on 7/7/20. (SLQ) (Entered: 07/14/2020)
45 Joint MOTION for Leave to File Sur-Reply by Fred Figueroa, Chris Howard. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Lee, Jacob) (Entered: 07/17/2020)
46 LODGED Proposed Joint Sur-Reply to Reply in Support of Petition for Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 and Complaint for Injunctive Relief re: 45 Joint MOTION for Leave to File Sur-Reply . Document to be filed by Clerk if Motion or Stipulation for Leave to File or Amend is granted. Filed by Fred Figueroa, Chris Howard. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 - Supplemental Declaration of Warden C. Howard (w/ Attachments 1-2, # 2 Exhibit 2 - Supplemental Declaration of Warden F. Figueroa (w/ Attachments 1-4), # 3 Exhibit 3 - Supplemental Declaration of K. Ivens, M.D. (w/ Attachment 1), # 4 Exhibit 4 - Supplemental Declaration of Dr. Owen Murray, # 5 Exhibit 5 - Supplemental Declaration of Cpt. PeredoBerger)(Lee, Jacob) (Entered: 07/17/2020)
47 RESPONSE in Opposition re: 45 Joint MOTION for Leave to File SurReply filed by Luis Jorge Alfonso, Ronni Barroso Barrios, Yudeine Gonzalez Borges, Ernesto Lara Carnero, Ernesto Rodriguez Cedeno, Yarjelis Madueno Davila, Wilson Calix Espinoza, Ivan Benitez Flores, Artem Pakhol, Rudis Naranjo Rosales, Joaquin Mantilla Silva, Nilsson Cano Villatoro, Zoila Mayancela Zamora. (Casselman, Margo) (Entered: 07/21/2020)

07/22/2020 07/24/2020
07/28/2020 07/30/2020 08/28/2020
08/28/2020
09/01/2020 10/20/2020 11/05/2020 11/09/2020 11/10/2020 11/16/2020 12/01/2020 12/03/2020

48 NOTICE re: Change in Status by Yarjelis Madueno Davila . (Beaudoin, Kristine) (Entered: 07/22/2020)
49 NOTICE re: Respondents' Joint Notice Regarding Current COVID-19 Statistics at LPCC and EDC by Fred Figueroa, Chris Howard . (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 - Declaration of Warden C. Howard, # 2 Exhibit 2 - Declaration of Warden F. Figueroa)(Lee, Jacob) (Entered: 07/24/2020)
50 REPLY to Response to Motion re: 45 Joint MOTION for Leave to File Sur-Reply filed by Fred Figueroa, Chris Howard. (Lee, Jacob) (Entered: 07/28/2020)
51 NOTICE re: Change in Status by Joaquin Mantilla Silva . (Beaudoin, Kristine) (Entered: 07/30/2020)
52 NOTICE re: Respondents' Joint Notice Regarding Current COVID-19 Statistics at LPCC by Fred Figueroa, Chris Howard . (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 - Declaration of Warden C. Howard)(Lee, Jacob) (Entered: 08/28/2020)
53 NOTICE re: Current COVID-19 Statistics at La Palma and Petitioner Artem Pakhol's Recent Diagnoses by Luis Jorge Alfonso, Ronni Barroso Barrios, Yudeine Gonzalez Borges, Ernesto Lara Carnero, Ernesto Rodriguez Cedeno, Yarjelis Madueno Davila, Wilson Calix Espinoza, Ivan Benitez Flores, Artem Pakhol, Rudis Naranjo Rosales, Joaquin Mantilla Silva, Nilsson Cano Villatoro, Zoila Mayancela Zamora . (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4)(Beaudoin, Kristine) (Entered: 08/28/2020)
54 NOTICE re: Respondents' Joint Notice of Supplemental Authority by Fred Figueroa, Chris Howard . (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(Lee, Jacob) (Entered: 09/01/2020)
55 NOTICE re: Change in Status by Zoila Mayancela Zamora . (Beaudoin, Kristine) (Entered: 10/20/2020)
56 NOTICE re: Change in Status by Ivan Benitez Flores . (Casselman, Margo) (Entered: 11/05/2020)
57 NOTICE re: Change in Status by Rudis Naranjo Rosales, Nilsson Cano Villatoro . (Casselman, Margo) (Entered: 11/09/2020)
58 NOTICE re: Change in Status by Luis Jorge Alfonso, Ernesto Rodriguez Cedeno . (Beaudoin, Kristine) (Entered: 11/10/2020)
59 NOTICE re: Change in Status by Yudeine Gonzalez Borges . (Beaudoin, Kristine) (Entered: 11/16/2020)
60 NOTICE re: Change in Status by Artem Pakhol . (Beaudoin, Kristine) (Entered: 12/01/2020)
61 ORDER: Petitioners shall have 14 days from the date this Order is filed to file a response to this Order and show cause why this action should not be

12/08/2020 12/10/2020
12/10/2020

dismissed as moot. If Petitioners fail to file a response to this Order within 14 days, the Clerk of Court must, without further notice, enter a judgment of dismissal of this action and deny any pending unrelated motions as moot. See order for additional details. Signed by Judge Steven P. Logan on 12/2/2020. (LMR) (Entered: 12/03/2020)
62 MOTION to Dismiss Case Without Prejudice (Stipulated) by Artem Pakhol. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Casselman, Margo) (Entered: 12/08/2020)
63 ORDER: The parties' Stipulated Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 62 ) is granted. Petitioners' Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 and Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief (Doc. 1 ) and this action are dismissed without prejudice in their entirety. Petitioners' Application for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction (Doc. 12 ) and Respondents' Motion for Leave to File Sur-Reply (Doc. 45 ) are denied as moot. The Clerk of Court shall enter judgment accordingly and terminate this case. Signed by Judge Steven P Logan on 12/9/20. (SST) (Entered: 12/10/2020)
64 CLERK'S JUDGMENT - IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that, pursuant to the Court's Order filed December 10, 2020, Petitioner's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U. S. C. § 2241 and Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief (Doc. 1 ) and this action are dismissed without prejudice in their entirety. (SST) (Entered: 12/10/2020)

PACER Service Center Transaction Receipt

PACER Login:

02/27/2021 14:36:38

CRClearinghouse:2563377:0

Client Code:

Description: Docket Report

Search Criteria:

Billable Pages:

25

Cost:

Gillan
2:20-cv01134-SPL-CDB
2.50

 
 Case 2:20-cv-01134-DWL--CDB Document 1 Filed 06/08/20 Page 1 of 55

1 Daniel C. Barr (Bar No. 010149)

Christopher D. Thomas (Bar No. 010482)

2 Katherine E. May (Bar No. 032335)

Kristine J. Beaudoin (Bar No. 034853)

3 Margo R. Casselman (Bar No. 034963)

PERKINS COIE LLP

4 2901 North Central Avenue, Suite 2000

Phoenix, Arizona 85012-2788

5 Telephone: 602.351.8000

Facsimile: 602.648.7000

6 Email: DBarr@perkinscoie.com

CThomas@perkinscoie.com

7

KMay@perkinscoie.com

KBeaudoin@perkinscoie.com

8

MCasselman@perkinscoie.com

DocketPHX@perkinscoie.com

9

Laura St. John (Bar No. 035160)

10 Katharine E. Ruhl (Bar No. 033581)

Laura Belous (Bar No. 028132)

11 FLORENCE IMMIGRANT & REFUGEE

RIGHTS PROJECT

12 P. O. Box 86299

Tucson, Arizona 85754

13 Email: lstjohn@firrp.org

kruhl@firrp.org

14

lbelous@firrp.org

15 ADDITIONAL COUNSEL LISTED ON SIGNATURE PAGE
16 Attorneys for Petitioners-Plaintiffs
17

18

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

19

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

20 Wilson Calix Espinoza; Yarjelis Madueno Davila; Artem Pakhol; Ernesto Rodriguez
21 Cedeno; Ernesto Lara Carnero; Ronni Barroso Barrios; Nilsson Cano Villatoro; Yudeine
22 Gonzalez Borges; Zoila Mayancela Zamora; Joaquin Mantilla Silva; Ivan Benitez Flores;
23 Rudis Naranjo Rosales; and Luis Jorge Alfonso,
24 Petitioners-Plaintiffs,
25 v.
26 Chris Howard, in his official capacity as
27 Warden of the La Palma Correctional Center; Fred Figueroa, in his official capacity as
28 Warden of the Eloy Detention Center; Albert

No.
PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS PURSUANT
TO 28 U.S.C. § 2241 AND COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF

Case 2:20-cv-01134-DWL--CDB Document 1 Filed 06/08/20 Page 2 of 55
1 Carter, in his official capacity as Acting Phoenix Field Office Director, U.S.
2 Immigration and Customs Enforcement; Cesar Topete, in his official capacity as Assistant
3 Phoenix Field Office Director, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement; Jason
4 Ciliberti, in his official capacity as Assistant Phoenix Field Office Director, U.S.
5 Immigration and Customs Enforcement; John Cantu, in his official capacity as Assistant
6 Phoenix Field Office Director, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement; and
7 Chad Wolf, Acting Secretary of the United States Department of Homeland Security,
8 Respondents-Defendants.
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Case 2:20-cv-01134-DWL--CDB Document 1 Filed 06/08/20 Page 3 of 55

1

INTRODUCTION

2

1. Petitioners-Plaintiffs (hereinafter “Petitioners”) are civil immigration

3 detainees at the La Palma Correctional Center (“La Palma”) and Eloy Detention Center

4 (“EDC”) who face imminent risk, including severe illness or death, if they contract COVID-

5 19 in the detention centers where they are currently held. In this action, they ask the Court

6 to do what numerous courts have already done: release them, so their civil detention does

7 not become a death sentence.

8

2. At least two judges in this district have already held that the continued

9 detention of medically vulnerable detainees in these facilities violates the detainees’

10 constitutional due process rights. See, e.g., Urdaneta v. Keeton, No. CV-20-00654-PHX-

11 SPL (JFM), 2020 WL 2319980, at *12 (D. Ariz. May 11, 2020) (Logan, J.) (finding a

12 violation of due process as to one detainee at La Palma); Gutierrez-Lopez v. Figueroa, No.

13 CV-20-00732-PHX-SPL (JFM), 2020 WL 2781722, at *10 (D. Ariz. May 27, 2020)

14 (Logan, J.) (same, as to one detainee at EDC); Order, Patel v. Barr, No. 2:20-CV-00709-

15 DLR-DMF, Dkt. 35 (D. Ariz. May 21, 2020) (Rayes, J.) (same, as to one detainee at EDC)

16 [attached hereto as Exhibit 1]; Order, Mendoza v. Barr, No. CV-20-00514-PHX-SPL

17 (MTM), Dkt. 37 (D. Ariz. May 19, 2020) (Logan, J.) (same, as to one detainee at EDC)

18 [attached hereto as Exhibit 2]. In recent weeks, however, it has become increasingly clear

19 that the remedy awarded in those cases—purportedly improved conditions for the individual

20 petitioners—is both inadequate and unreasonable under the circumstances presented here.

21 No matter how many “precautions” Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”)

22 purports to take at these facilities, detainees at La Palma and EDC nevertheless remain

23 unreasonably exposed to COVID-19. Any measures taken by the detention centers reacting

24 to these orders remain woefully inadequate to protect detainees with underlying medical

25 conditions. But even assuming the remedy in those cases was workable for four detainees

26 (and it is not), it is plainly not workable for an additional 13 medically vulnerable detainees.

27 The only adequate remedy for Petitioners, then, is release.

28

Case 2:20-cv-01134-DWL--CDB Document 1 Filed 06/08/20 Page 4 of 55

1

3. While the rest of the world is sheltering in place, wearing masks, frequently

2 sanitizing and washing their hands, and avoiding close contact with anyone beyond their

3 households, Petitioners remain trapped in what are essentially tinderboxes on the verge of

4 explosion, still without the ability to take the most basic measures to protect themselves as

5 the global pandemic spreads, even with the alleged implementation of increased sanitation

6 and protective measures at the facilities. As medical experts have warned would happen for

7 weeks, the virus is surging in ICE detention centers across the country—including in La

8 Palma, where, as of June 8, 2020, 78 cases of COVID-19 have been confirmed among

9 detainees, and EDC, where 13 cases among detainees have now been reported—creating a

10 recognized risk of harm to Petitioners that is both unconscionably high and entirely

11 preventable. Indeed, at least one Petitioner has already tested positive for COVID-19,

12 demonstrating the immediacy of the threat.

13

4. COVID-19 is highly contagious, with each person infected transmitting the

14 virus to an average of two to three other people in normal conditions, let alone in a confined

15 environment. A single case has the potential to overwhelm not only the detention centers

16 where Petitioners are located, but also the surrounding communities.

17

5. Medical experts agree that reducing detention center and other carceral

18 populations is a critical component of risk mitigation during the widespread COVID-19

19 outbreak. A failure to heed public health advice to reduce detention center numbers will not

20 just harm detainees—it will also have ripple effects across communities as rapid

21 transmission of the disease in carceral settings further taxes already overburdened regional

22 hospitals and healthcare systems.

23

6. Infectious disease specialists warn that while conditions may be improved, no

24 conditions of confinement in carceral settings can adequately manage the serious risk of

25 harm for medically vulnerable individuals during the COVID-19 pandemic. Even with

26 improved conditions, Petitioners live in pods, or “tanks,” and sleep in bunk beds, sharing

27 common spaces and medical facilities with hundreds of other detainees. Even in improved

28 conditions, Petitioners are forced to share necessities like showers, telephones, and sinks

-2-

Case 2:20-cv-01134-DWL--CDB Document 1 Filed 06/08/20 Page 5 of 55

1 with dozens of others. And even in improved conditions, Petitioners remain in the constant

2 presence of officers and staff who continually rotate in and out of the facility, each time

3 risking transmission of the virus to those inside and outside the detention center.

4

7. Deprived of personal protective equipment (“PPE”) and adequate medical

5 care and placed in conditions that make it impossible to practice social distancing,

6 Petitioners are helpless to take the only risk-mitigation steps known to limit transmission of

7 the virus. And if the Petitioners are infected, as at least one already has been, all face a

8 heightened risk of complications, pneumonia, sepsis, and even death within detention

9 centers that have a track record of failing to provide adequate medical care even outside

10 times of crisis.

11

8. Although no one is spared the risk of severe illness from COVID-19, certain

12 individuals are at a higher risk for severe illness from COVID-19 due to age or underlying

13 medical conditions. The United States Department of Health and Human Services Centers

14 for Disease Control and Prevention (“CDC”) has defined these “high-risk” populations to

15 include “[p]eople of all ages with underlying medical conditions, particularly if not well

16 controlled, including,” as relevant here, “chronic lung disease or moderate to severe

17 asthma,” “serious heart conditions,” “severe obesity (body mass index [BMI] of 40 or

18 higher),” and “diabetes.” CDC, Groups at Higher Risk for Severe Illness (“CDC Higher

19 Risk”), https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/need-extra-precautions/people-at-

20 higher-risk.html (last visited June 7, 2020). However, as the CDC website explicitly

21 recognizes, “COVID-19 is a new disease and there is limited information regarding risk

22 factors for severe disease.” Id. Against this medical backdrop, and with due consideration

23 for the heightened danger COVID-19 presents within detention facilities, numerous courts

24 across the country have ordered the release of civil immigration detainees with underlying

25 medical conditions, including mental illness, that do not fit squarely within the CDC-

26

27

28

-3-

Case 2:20-cv-01134-DWL--CDB Document 1 Filed 06/08/20 Page 6 of 55
1 recognized heightened risk categories, but that nonetheless place them at heightened risk of
2 contracting the virus and/or serious complications if they contract COVID-19.1
3 1 See, e.g., Jose B.R. v. Tsoukaris, No. CV 20-3347 (MCA), 2020 WL 2744586
4 (D.N.J. May 27, 2020) (schizophrenia-spectrum disorder); Juan E.M. v. Decker, No. CV 20-4594 (KM), 2020 WL 2214586 (D.N.J. May 7, 2020) (BMI of 31.2, history of smoking,
5 and low oxygen levels); Doe v. Barr (Barr II), No. 20-CV-02263-RMI, 2020 WL 1984266 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 27, 2020) (severe post-traumatic stress disorder (“PTSD”) and major
6 depressive disorder); Durel B. v. Decker, No. 2:20-cv-03430-KM, 2020 WL 1922140 (D.N.J. Apr. 21, 2020) (PTSD and schizophrenia-spectrum disorder); Fofana v. Albence,
7 No. 20-10869, 2020 WL 1873307 (E.D. Mich. Apr. 15, 2020) (52-year-old with high blood pressure); Doe v. Barr (Barr I), No. 20-CV-02141-LB, 2020 WL 1820667 (N.D. Cal. Apr.
8 12, 2020) (chronic PTSD, depression, and latent tuberculosis); Valenzuela Arias v. Decker, No. 20 CIV. 2802 (AT), 2020 WL 1847986 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 10, 2020) (unexplained mass
9 in chest that required surgery); Malam v. Adducci (Malam II), No. 20-10829, 2020 WL 1809675 (E.D. Mich. Apr. 9, 2020) (55-year-old with limited mobility, hypotension, hernia,
10 prostate issues, and risk of cancer); Avendano Hernandez v. Decker, No. 20-CV-1589 (JPO), 2020 WL 1547459 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 31, 2020) (right bundle branch block and
11 rhabdomyolysis); Castillo v. Barr, No. CV 20-00605 TJH (AFMx), 2020 WL 1502864 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 27, 2020) (58-year-old man with kidney stones, arthritis, and a hernia, and
12 23-year-old man who was recovering from a work-related facial fracture). See also Xochihua-Jaimes v. Barr, No. 18-71460, 2020 WL 1429877 (9th Cir. Mar. 23, 2020)
13 (ordering sua sponte the release of an immigration petitioner “[i]n light of the rapidly escalating public health crisis, which public health authorities predict will especially impact
14 immigration detention centers”); Sallaj v. ICE, 1:20-cv-00167-JJM-LDA, 2020 WL 1975819 (D.R.I. Apr. 24, 2020) (releasing 40-year-old detainee with no underlying medical
15 conditions, where COVID-19 was present in the facility where he was housed). For cases releasing civil immigration detainees with underlying medical conditions
16 that meet the CDC’s “Higher Risk” criteria, see, e.g., Ochoa v. Kolitwenzew, No. 20-CV2135, 2020 WL 2850706 (C.D. Ill. June 2, 2020); Robenson J. v. Decker, No. CV 20-5141
17 (KM), 2020 WL 2611544 (D.N.J. May 22, 2020); Geovani M.-O. v. Decker, No. CV 205053 (KM), 2020 WL 2511428 (D.N.J. May 15, 2020); Santiago P. v. Decker, No. CV 20-
18 5067 (KM), 2020 WL 2487648 (D.N.J. May 14, 2020); Ruderman v. Kolitwenzew, No. 20CV-2082, 2020 WL 2449758 (C.D. Ill. May 12, 2020); Perez-Perez v. Adducci, No. 20-
19 10833, 2020 WL 2305276 (E.D. Mich. May 9, 2020); Favi v. Kolitwenzew, No. 20-CV2087, 2020 WL 2114566 (C.D. Ill. May 4, 2020); Kevin M.A. v. Decker, No. CV 20-4593
20 (KM), 2020 WL 2092791 (D.N.J. May 1, 2020); Pimentel-Estrada v. Barr, No. 2:20-cv00495-RSM-BAT, 2020 WL 2092430 (W.D. Wash. Apr. 28, 2020); Ferreyra v. Decker,
21 No. 1:20-CV-03170-AT, 2020 WL 1989417 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 27, 2020); Chavez Garcia v. Acuff, No. 3:20-cv-00357-NJR, 2020 WL 1987311 (S.D. Ill. Apr. 27, 2020); Refunjol v.
22 Adducci, No. 2:20-cv-02099-SDM-CMV, 2020 WL 1983077 (S.D. Ohio Apr. 27, 2020); Essien v. Barr, No. 1:20-cv-01034-WJM, 2020 WL 1974761 (D. Colo. Apr. 24, 2020);
23 Medeiros v. Martin, No. 1:20-cv-00178-WES-PAS, 2020 WL 1969363 (D.R.I. Apr. 24, 2020); Singh v. Barr, No. 20-CV-02346-VKD, 2020 WL 1929366 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 20,
24 2020); Zaya v. Adducci, No. 20-10921, 2020 WL 1903172 (E.D. Mich. Apr. 18, 2020); Vazquez Barrera v. Wolf, No. 4:20-CV-1241, 2020 WL 1904497 (S.D. Tex. Apr. 17, 2020);
25 Jason Anthony W. v. Anderson, No. 2:20-CV-3704 (BRM), 2020 WL 2121118 (D.N.J. Apr. 17, 2020); Perez v. Wolf, No. 5:19-CV-05191-EJD, 2020 WL 1865303 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 14,
26 2020); Cristian A.R. v. Decker, No. CV 20-3600, 2020 WL 2092616 (D.N.J. Apr. 12, 2020); Bent v. Barr, No. 19-CV-06123-DMR, 2020 WL 1812850 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 9, 2020); Rafael
27 L.O. v. Tsoukaris, No. CV 20-3481 (JMV), 2020 WL 1808843 (D.N.J. Apr. 9, 2020); Malam v. Adducci (Malam I), No. 20-10829, 2020 WL 1672662 (E.D. Mich. Apr. 5, 2020);
28 Thakker v. Doll, No. 1:20-CV-480, 2020 WL 1671563 (M.D. Pa. Mar. 31, 2020); Coronel
-4-

Case 2:20-cv-01134-DWL--CDB Document 1 Filed 06/08/20 Page 7 of 55

1

9. As of June 8, over 1,709 detainees have tested positive for COVID-19 in ICE

2 facilities—including 78 detainees in La Palma, and 13 detainees in EDC—and at least two

3 ICE detainees and multiple detention center staff members have already died from

4 contracting the virus. Even against this backdrop of extreme crisis and court orders

5 requiring action, ICE has yet to affect a comprehensive release of those detainees most at

6 risk of contracting and suffering severe complications from COVID-19 and remains

7 willfully blind to the harsh reality that its failure to act is resulting in the serious illness and

8 death of those individuals within its care. If anything, the continually rising numbers at La

9 Palma and EDC demonstrate that any increased efforts these facilities have undertaken to

10 protect detainees pursuant to the orders in Urdaneta, Gutierrez-Lopez, Patel, and Mendoza

11 are ineffective and unworkable, and that release is the only adequate remedy.

12

10. Before filing suit, Petitioners notified ICE of their medical conditions and

13 individual circumstances and formally requested that they be released in light of the harms

14 they will experience if they contract COVID-19 while detained. Each Petitioner has a

15 sponsor in the United States who has agreed to provide housing and take responsibility for

16 supporting and supervising Petitioners if they are released. Yet ICE has failed to release

17 Petitioners despite the imminent harms they face.

18

11. Respondents-Defendants (hereinafter “Respondents”), through their roles as

19 Director of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”), directors of ICE, and

20 wardens of EDC and La Palma, are subjecting Petitioners to an increased risk of disease

21 and death by unnecessarily holding them in detention centers during a global pandemic.

22 Despite being ordered to implement improved precautionary measures in the facilities since

23 the pandemic began, Respondents are still failing to follow the basic public health protocols

24 that have been broadcasted all over the world as necessary to halt the spread of COVID-19.

25 Compounding the risk and possible harm to Petitioners, EDC and La Palma both have

26 documented track records of uncorrected health and safety violations.

27 v. Decker, No. 20-CV-2472 (AJN), 2020 WL 1487274 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 27, 2020); Basank
28 v. Decker, No. 20 CIV. 2518 (AT), 2020 WL 1481503 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 26, 2020).

-5-

Case 2:20-cv-01134-DWL--CDB Document 1 Filed 06/08/20 Page 8 of 55

1

12. As courts in this district have already recognized, the continued detention of

2 Petitioners—civil immigration detainees with pending claims for asylum and other relief—

3 under these conditions violates the guarantees of the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process

4 Clause. It also endangers Petitioners, the other people detained at these facilities, the staff

5 and officers who work there, and all of their families and other contacts.

6

13. Because release from custody is the only effective means to protect

7 Petitioners and remedy the constitutional violation, and because time is of the absolute

8 essence with respect to the spread of COVID-19, this suit seeks the immediate release of

9 Petitioners from civil immigration detention.

10

14. As another district court in the Ninth Circuit eloquently advised: “This is an

11 unprecedented time in our nation’s history, filled with uncertainty, fear, and anxiety. But in

12 the time of a crisis, our response to those at particularly high risk must be with compassion

13 and not apathy. The Government cannot act with a callous disregard for the safety of our

14 fellow human beings.” Castillo, 2020 WL 1502864, at *6.

15

JURISDICTION & VENUE

16

15. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28

17 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question); 28 U.S.C. § 1346 (original jurisdiction); 28 U.S.C. § 1361

18 (officer duties); 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (habeas corpus); 28 U.S.C. § 1651 (the All Writs Act);

19 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act); and the Habeas Corpus Suspension Clause of the U.S.

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

21 Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201 et seq.

22

16. Venue is proper in the District of Arizona because a substantial part of the

23 events and omissions giving rise to this action occurred in the District. 28 U.S.C.

24 § 1391(b)(2). Petitioners are currently being held at La Palma and EDC, both of which are

25 located in Eloy, Arizona.

26

PARTIES

27

17. Petitioner Wilson Calix Espinoza is a 32-year-old man who has been

28 detained at La Palma since March 5, 2020. Before La Palma, he was detained at the Florence

-6-

Case 2:20-cv-01134-DWL--CDB Document 1 Filed 06/08/20 Page 9 of 55

1 Detention Center since April 26, 2019. Mr. Calix Espinoza has an intellectual disability

2 secondary to a traumatic brain injury along with a history of adjustment disorder. He also

3 has mixed anxiety and depressed moods. Because his intellectual disability impairs his

4 ability to properly rationalize and communicate, Mr. Calix Espinoza risks going

5 undiagnosed and untreated if he contracts COVID-19, which could lead to respiratory

6 failure and death. Declaration of Dr. Patricia Lebensohn (“Lebensohn Decl.”) ¶ 4(b)

7 [attached hereto as Exhibit 3]; see also Declaration of Dr. Homer Venters (“Venters Decl.”)

8 ¶ 45 [attached hereto as Exhibit 4]. On February 4, 2020, an Immigration Judge found by a

9 preponderance of the evidence that Mr. Calix Espinoza is mentally incompetent to represent

10 himself in Immigration Court proceedings. Mr. Calix Espinoza has a pending asylum

11 application based on persecution that he suffered in Honduras.

12

18. Petitioner Joaquin Mantilla Silva is an 18-year-old man who has been

13 detained at La Palma since March 20, 2020. Mr. Mantilla Silva has tested positive for

14 COVID-19 and is currently isolated in the Zuni-Alpha pod. Mr. Mantilla Silva has bilateral

15 pneumonia, severe asthma, and severe allergies. Because of his history of lung disease and

16 asthma, he is at increased risk of severe complication of COVID-19 including

17 hospitalization, intensive care, and respiratory failure. Lebensohn Decl. ¶ 4(l); see also

18 Venters Decl. ¶ 45. Mr. Mantilla Silva is fleeing political persecution that he faced in his

19 home country of Venezuela, including a brutal physical beating that left him in the hospital

20 for days. Mr. Mantilla Silva requested asylum and recently passed his credible fear

21 interview, which is the initial step in applying for asylum.

22

19. Petitioner Yarjelis Madueno Davila is a 27-year-old woman who has been

23 detained at EDC since November 13, 2019. Recently, Ms. Madueno Davila’s pod, Charlie-

24 500, was placed in quarantine because of a possible COVID-19 positive case. Ms. Madueno

25 Davila has hyperthyroidism and obesity with a BMI of 29.1. She was also recently

26 diagnosed with microadenoma, which is a small brain tumor that causes frequent headaches

27 and visual changes. Ms. Madueno Davila needs to be evaluated by an endocrinologist and

28 a neurosurgeon to discuss treatment for her tumor, Lebensohn Decl. ¶ 4(c), but this

-7-

Case 2:20-cv-01134-DWL--CDB Document 1 Filed 06/08/20 Page 10 of 55

1 treatment will likely be delayed due to COVID-19. Ms. Madueno Davila’s obesity places

2 her at an increased risk of developing complications requiring hospitalization and intensive

3 care if she contracts COVID-19. Id. Ms. Madueno Davila has a pending asylum application

4 based on persecution at the hands of the Venezuelan government, who have already maimed

5 and murdered two family members.

6

20. Petitioner Artem Pakhol is a 41-year-old journalist from Ukraine who fled

7 the country after receiving threats related to his reporting and who has been detained at La

8 Palma since July 22, 2019. Mr. Pakhol has suffered a series of medical conditions while

9 detained, including hemorrhoids requiring a special diet, osteoarthritis of his hips, knees,

10 and ankles, trouble urinating, chest pain, and back pain from his neck to his pelvis. This

11 medical history, in addition to his severe anxiety and depression, places Mr. Pakhol at

12 heightened risk of exacerbated health problems if exposed to COVID-19. Lebensohn Decl.

13 ¶ 4(e).

14

21. Petitioner Ernesto Rodriguez Cedeno is a 32-year-old man who has been

15 detained at La Palma since September 5, 2019. Mr. Rodriguez Cedeno suffers from asthma,

16 which was first diagnosed when he was a child but has worsened since being detained in La

17 Palma. He is currently housed in the Apache Alpha pod, which is the isolated unit for people

18 with underlying medical conditions, because of his high vulnerability to COVID-19. As a

19 result of his asthma and compromised lung functioning, Mr. Rodriguez Cedeno is at

20 increased risk of contracting COVID-19, and he faces increased risk of severe illness or

21 death if he contracts COVID-19. Lebensohn Decl. ¶ 4(a); see also Venters Decl. ¶ 45. He

22 has a pending application for asylum based on persecution he suffered by the Venezuelan

23 and Cuban governments.

24

22. Petitioner Ernesto Lara Carnero is a 33-year-old man who has been

25 detained at La Palma since November 6, 2019. On April 27, 2020, Mr. Lara Carnero was

26 diagnosed with asthma by the La Palma medical staff. Declaration of Ernesto Lara Carnero

27

28

-8-

Case 2:20-cv-01134-DWL--CDB Document 1 Filed 06/08/20 Page 11 of 55

1 (“Lara Carnero Decl.”)2 ¶ 5 [attached hereto as Exhibit 8]. In addition, Mr. Lara Carnero

2 has allergies and a history of pneumothorax after one of his lungs collapsed. Lebensohn

3 Decl. ¶ 4(d). Mr. Lara Carnero is in need of further evaluation to determine if he has

4 decreased lung function. This information is vital to determine whether he is at higher risk

5 of contracting severe COVID-19. Id. At minimum, this medical uncertainty and his obesity,

6 with a BMI of 29.1, place him at risk of requiring hospitalization and/or intensive care if he

7 contracts COVID-19. Id. As of May 26, Mr. Lara Carnero was suffering from the following

8 symptoms: coughing, shortness of breath, chest pain, head pain, and a lack of a sense of

9 taste and smell. But Mr. Lara Carnero has not been isolated and, as far as he is aware, he

10 has not been tested for COVID-19. Lara Carnero Decl. ¶¶ 5, 36. Mr. Lara Carnero has a

11 pending asylum application based on the persecution he suffered in Mexico at the hands of

12 a cartel and Mexican authorities.

13

23. Petitioner Ronni Barroso Barrios is a 25-year-old man who has been

14 detained at EDC since August 23, 2019. He has moderate to severe asthma and a seizure

15 disorder. Mr. Barroso Barrios is at increased risk of severe illness and death if he contracts

16 COVID-19 because of his asthma. Lebensohn Decl. ¶ 4(k); see also Venters Decl. ¶ 45. He

17 was granted asylum on May 7, 2020, but remains in detention in case DHS decides to appeal

18 the grant of asylum. To date, DHS has not appealed, and Mr. Barroso Barrios remains in

19 detention.

20

24. Petitioner Nilsson Cano Villatoro is a 26-year-old man who has been

21 detained at La Palma since August 28, 2018. He was healthy prior to being in ICE custody,

22 but after improper evaluation and treatment of abdominal pain while in detention, he was

23 hospitalized and diagnosed with acute cholecystitis, which required emergency surgery.

24 Now, Mr. Cano Villatoro has recurrent abdominal pain and has developed depression from

25

26

2 The detainee declarations cited herein are formally signed by Florence Immigration

& Refugee Rights Project staff, who took the detainees’ statements via telephone due to the

27 unavailability of in-person visits as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. See Urdaneta,

2020 WL 2319980, at *5 n.1 (admitting detainee declarations obtained via telephone due to

28 the unavailability of in-person visits as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic).

-9-

Case 2:20-cv-01134-DWL--CDB Document 1 Filed 06/08/20 Page 12 of 55

1 prolonged detention and the stress of not receiving necessary medical care. COVID-19 will

2 exacerbate Mr. Cano Villatoro’s mental health problems. Lebensohn Decl. ¶ 4(f). His

3 application for asylum was denied, and he has a pending appeal with the Board of

4 Immigration Appeals.

5

25. Petitioner Zoila Mayancela Zamora is a 24-year-old woman who has been

6 detained at EDC since July 3, 2019. Ms. Mayancela Zamora has a seizure disorder that

7 requires medication, and heart disease including Tricuspid Insufficiency (leaky heart valve)

8 and hypertrophic cardiomyopathy with severe pulmonary hypertension and dilation of the

9 right cardiac cavities. She also suffers from shortness of breath with exertion. Because of

10 her underlying heart and lung conditions, she is at increased risk for severe complications,

11 including respiratory failure and death, if she is infected with COVID-19. Id. ¶ 4(j); see also

12 Venters Decl. ¶ 45. She has a pending asylum application based on the persecution that she

13 suffered in Ecuador.

14

26. Petitioner Yudeine Gonzalez Borges is a 41-year-old woman who has been

15 detained at EDC since December 21, 2019. Mrs. Gonzalez Borges has a uterine benign

16 tumor, BMI above 30, and one episode of elevated blood sugar without further evaluation

17 for Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus. Her potential risk of Type 2 Diabetes places her at increased

18 risk of severe complications if she contracts COVID-19. Lebensohn Decl. ¶ 4(h).

19 Mrs. Gonzalez Borges has a pending application for asylum based on the persecution that

20 she suffered in Cuba.

21

27. Petitioner Ivan Benitez Flores is a 26-year-old man who has been detained

22 at La Palma since June 28, 2019. Mr. Benitez Flores has a history of torture, including

23 suffocation and traumatic brain injury. As a result of the torture, he has lasting physical and

24 psychological effects, including memory difficulties, poor concentration, and difficulty

25 hearing that leads to confusion. He has also been diagnosed with PTSD and depression,

26 which further exacerbate his physical deficits and cause him to have avoidant behaviors and

27 a distractible disposition. Mr. Benitez Flores is at increased risk of contracting COVID-19

28 and developing complications because of his physical and psychological conditions and

-10-

Case 2:20-cv-01134-DWL--CDB Document 1 Filed 06/08/20 Page 13 of 55

1 symptoms. Declaration of Dr. Samantha Varner (“Varner Decl.”) ¶¶ 4-5, 7-8 [attached

2 hereto as Exhibit 5]. Mr. Benitez Flores’s symptoms, including easy confusion, poor

3 concentration, forgetfulness, and avoidance, put him at “tremendous” risk both of becoming

4 infected and suffering delays in treatment that could lead to complications. Id.; see also

5 Venters Decl. ¶ 45. He has a pending application from asylum based on the torture that he

6 suffered in Mexico.

7

28. Petitioner Rudis Naranjo Rosales is a 49-year-old man who has been

8 detained at La Palma since October 4, 2019. Mr. Naranjo Rosales has a history of head

9 trauma resulting in the removal of his spleen and placement of a VP shunt. He needs further

10 evaluation by a neurosurgeon because his medical records show symptoms of his VP

11 malfunctioning. Mr. Naranjo Rosales’s asplenia (no spleen) and BMI over 30 place him at

12 risk of severe COVID-19 and other infection. In addition, his records show hyperlipidemia

13 which could be a sign of heart disease, but he needs further evaluation. Lebensohn Decl.

14 ¶ 4(i); see also Venters Decl. ¶ 45. Mr. Naranjo Rosales’s asylum application was denied

15 and he has a pending appeal with the Board of Immigration Appeals.

16

29. Petitioner Luis Jorge Alfonso is a 31-year-old man who has been detained at

17 La Palma since November 3, 2019. Mr. Jorge Alfonso has a history of chronic respiratory

18 illnesses including allergies and asthma which requires treatment with a beta agonist

19 inhaler. Because of his respiratory illnesses, he is at increased risk for severe COVID-19

20 that could require intensive care with ventilation at a hospital. Lebensohn Decl. ¶ 4(g); see

21 also Venters Decl. ¶ 45. Mr. Jorge Alfonso has a pending asylum application.

22

30. Respondent Chris Howard is the warden of La Palma, where Petitioners

23 Calix Espinoza, Lara Carnero, Pakhol, Rodriguez Cedeno, Cano Villatoro, Mantilla Silva,

24 Benitez Flores, Naranjo Rosales, and Jorge Alfonso, are being held. He is the custodian of

25 these Petitioners and is named in his official capacity.

26

31. Respondent Fred Figueroa is the warden of EDC, where Petitioners

27 Madueno Davila, Gonzalez Borges, Barroso Barrios, and Mayancela Zamora are being

28 held. He is the custodian of these Petitioners and is named in his official capacity.

-11-

Case 2:20-cv-01134-DWL--CDB Document 1 Filed 06/08/20 Page 14 of 55

1

32. Respondent Albert Carter is the Acting Field Office Director responsible for

2 the Phoenix Field Office of ICE with administrative jurisdiction over Petitioners’ cases. He

3 is a legal custodian of Petitioners and is named in his official capacity.

4

33. Respondent Cesar Topete is an Assistant Field Office Director responsible

5 for the Phoenix Field Office of ICE with administrative jurisdiction over EDC and La

6 Palma. Along with Jason Ciliberti, Respondent Topete is a legal custodian of Petitioners

7 Pakhol, Rodriguez Cedeno, Lara Carnero, Cano Villatoro, Mantilla Silva, Benitez Flores,

8 Naranjo Rosales, Madueno Davila, Gonzalez Borges, Barroso Barrios, Mayancela Zamora,

9 and Jorge Alfonso, and is named in his official capacity.

10

34. Respondent Jason Ciliberti is an Assistant Field Office Director responsible

11 for the Phoenix Field Office of ICE with administrative jurisdiction over EDC and La

12 Palma. Along with Cesar Topete, Respondent Ciliberti is a legal custodian of Petitioners

13 Pakhol, Rodriguez Cedeno, Lara Carnero, Cano Villatoro, Mantilla Silva, Benitez Flores,

14 Naranjo Rosales, Madueno Davila, Gonzalez Borges, Barroso Barrios, Mayancela Zamora,

15 and Jorge Alfonso, and is named in his official capacity.

16

35. Respondent John Cantu is an Assistant Field Office Director responsible for

17 the Phoenix Field Office of ICE with administrative jurisdiction over cases being heard in

18 the Florence Immigration Court where individuals are being detained at La Palma.

19 Respondent Cantu is a legal custodian of Petitioner Calix Espinoza and is named in his

20 official capacity.

21

36. Respondent Chad Wolf is the Acting Secretary of DHS, an agency of the

22 United States. He is responsible for the administration of the immigration laws. 8 U.S.C.

23 § 1103(a). Acting Secretary Wolf is named in his official capacity.

24

STATEMENT OF FACTS

25

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

26

37. By now, the novel strain of coronavirus known as COVID-19 “is well-known

27 to all Americans.” Vazquez Barrera, 2020 WL 1904497, at *2. COVID-19 was declared a

28 global pandemic by the World Health Organization on March 11, 2020. Urdaneta, 2020

-12-

Case 2:20-cv-01134-DWL--CDB Document 1 Filed 06/08/20 Page 15 of 55

1 WL 2319980, at *1. On March 13, 2020, President Trump declared a national emergency

2 in response to the coronavirus pandemic. At the time, there were over 1,600 confirmed cases

3 in the United States and at least 46 deaths.

4

38. Today, only 87 days later, over 1.95 million individuals in the United States

5 have tested positive for COVID-19, with over 110,900 deaths reported nationwide. See

6 Coronavirus COVID-19 Global Cases by the Center for Systems Science and Engineering

7 (CSSE), JOHNS HOPKINS UNIV. & MED., https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/map.html (last updated

8 June 8, 2020). In Arizona, over 27,600 positive COVID-19 cases have been reported as of

9 June 8, 2020, with 1,047 reported deaths. See Data Dashboard, Ariz. Dep’t of Health

10 Servs., https://www.azdhs.gov/covid19, “Data Dashboard” Tab (last accessed June 8,

11 2020). Although over 7 million people live in Arizona, only 402,660 COVID-19 tests have

12 been administered in the State, and hundreds of new cases are being reported each day. See

13 id.

14

39. And as of the date of this filing, there have been 1,709 confirmed COVID-19

15 cases among individuals in ICE custody across the country, including 78 confirmed cases

16 at La Palma, 13 confirmed cases at EDC, and 18 confirmed cases at the nearby Florence

17 Detention Center in Florence, Arizona. See ICE Guidance on COVID-19, U.S.

18 IMMIGRATION & CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT, https://www.ice.gov/coronavirus, “Confirmed

19 Cases” Tab (last updated on June 8, 2020 at 10:10 a.m. PDT / 1:10 p.m. EDT). Notably,

20 only 5,096 detainees in ICE custody have been tested for COVID-19, meaning that there is

21 an over 33% positive rate among those tested. Id. There have also been 44 confirmed

22 COVID-19 cases among ICE employees assigned to detention facilities, including one at

23 EDC. Id.3 According to Dr. Homer Venters, a physician, internist and epidemiologist with

24 over a decade of experience in providing, improving, and leading health services for

25 incarcerated people, “[t]his is likely just the tip of the iceberg in terms of the number of ICE

26

27

3 These statistics do not include third-party contractors who work in ICE facilities

who have tested positive for COVID-19, as ICE has stated that this information “isn’t

28 something [they] have to provide.” Venters Decl. ¶ 12 (citation omitted).

-13-

Case 2:20-cv-01134-DWL--CDB Document 1 Filed 06/08/20 Page 16 of 55

1 staff and detainees who are already infected but unaware due to the lack of testing

2 nationwide, and the fact that people who are infected can be asymptomatic for several days.”

3 Venters Decl. ¶¶ 1, 13; see also Sallaj, 2020 WL 1975819, at *3 (“the full extent of the risk

4 is unknown because, as of today, only sixty-eight detainees have been tested out of the five

5 hundred eighty-one being held at [the detention center]”); Ochoa, 2020 WL 2850706, at

6 *12 (“Notably, the only way to determine if the virus is present in the facility is to do wide-

7 spread testing for the virus….”); Dada v. Witte, No. 1:20-CV-00458, 2020 WL 2614616, at

8 *2 (W.D. La. May 22, 2020) (“Without regular testing, there is simply no way to confirm

9 that a facility that once housed those with a highly infectious disease is now infection

10 free.”).

11

40. COVID-19 is a highly contagious disease with a mortality rate ten times

12 greater than influenza. Castillo, 2020 WL 1502864, at *2. The CDC reports that COVID-

13 19 “spreads easily and sustainably from person to person, and even asymptomatic infected

14 people can spread the virus.” Kaur v. DHS, No. 2:20-cv-03172-ODW (MRWx), 2020 WL

15 1939386, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 22, 2020); see also Venters Decl. ¶ 41(d) (“asymptomatic

16 transmission of COVID-19 has been identified by the CDC as an important means of

17 transmission”); Declaration of Jaimie Meyer (“Meyer Decl.”) ¶ 5 [attached hereto as

18 Exhibit 6].

19

41. Symptoms of COVID-19 range from mild to severe, with some carriers of the

20 virus experiencing no symptoms at all. Meyer Decl. ¶¶ 5-6; Urdaneta, 2020 WL 2319980,

21 at *1. Severe symptoms may result in acute respiratory distress, severe pneumonia, sepsis,

22 and death. Meyer Decl. ¶ 6; Urdaneta, 2020 WL 2319980, at *1. The CDC estimates that

23 severe illness or death occurs in 16% of COVID-19 cases. Meyer Decl. ¶ 6; Urdaneta, 2020

24 WL 2319980, at *1 (citation omitted).

25

42. The CDC and other courts have recognized that “COVID-19 presents a

26 substantial risk of harm to all persons, and not just to detainees with higher-risk conditions.”

27 Gomes v. DHS, No. 20-CV-453-LM, 2020 WL 2514541, at *16 (D.N.H. May 14, 2020);

28 see, e.g., Ochoa, 2020 WL 2850706, at *2 (“COVID-19 can cause death or serious illness

-14-

Case 2:20-cv-01134-DWL--CDB Document 1 Filed 06/08/20 Page 17 of 55

1 in anyone”); Zepeda Rivas v. Jennings, No. 20-CV-02731-VC, 2020 WL 2059848, at *2

2 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 29, 2020) (noting the “health risks posed by the virus—not just for people

3 in high-risk categories but for healthy people as well”); Sallaj, 2020 WL 1975819, at *1

4 (D.R.I. Apr. 24, 2020) (“And while older people with pre-existing conditions are the most

5 vulnerable, young people without preexisting conditions have become severely ill because

6 of Covid-19, which, in some cases, has led to death.”); Savino v. Souza (Savino I), No. CV

7 20-10617-WGY, 2020 WL 1703844, at *7 (D. Mass. Apr. 8, 2020) (observing that “even

8 perfectly healthy detainees are seriously threatened by COVID-19,” and that “it cannot be

9 denied that the virus is gravely dangerous to all of us”); Savino v. Souza (Savino II), No.

10 CV 20-10617-WGY, 2020 WL 2404923, at *8 (D. Mass. May 12, 2020) (“Though COVID-

11 19 surely poses a greater threat to those with CDC-recognized heightened risk factors, it

12 cannot be denied that the virus is gravely dangerous to all of us.” (citation omitted)).

13

43. Recent data support this conclusion. A study from the CDC showed that even

14 in patients between ages 19-64 with no underlying health conditions, the total

15 hospitalization rate was 8-8.7%. Savino I, 2020 WL 1703844, at *7. In a different CDC

16 study of hospitalized COVID-19 patients, 26% had no high-risk factors—of that

17 subpopulation, 23% received ICU care and 5% died. Savino I, 2020 WL 1703844, at *7.

18

44. Although even the young and otherwise healthy can succumb to COVID-19,

19 older patients and patients with chronic underlying conditions are at a particularly high risk

20 for severe cases and complications. Meyer Decl. ¶ 6; Venters Decl. ¶ 23. For example, the

21 CDC recognizes that “[p]eople of all ages with medical conditions, particularly if not well

22 controlled,” are at high-risk of suffering severe illness or death from COVID-19, including,

23 as relevant here, “chronic lung disease or moderate to severe asthma,” “serious heart

24 conditions,” “severe obesity (body mass index [BMI] of 40 or higher),” and “diabetes.”

25 CDC Higher Risk; Urdaneta, 2020 WL 2319980, at *1; see also Meyer Decl. ¶ 6; Venters

26 Decl. ¶ 23.

27

45. However, as the CDC explicitly recognizes, “COVID-19 is a new disease and

28 there is limited information regarding risk factors for severe disease.” CDC Higher Risk.

-15-

Case 2:20-cv-01134-DWL--CDB Document 1 Filed 06/08/20 Page 18 of 55

1 Against this medical backdrop, and with due consideration for the heightened danger

2 COVID-19 presents within detention facilities, numerous courts across the country have

3 ordered the release of civil immigration detainees without any CDC-recognized heightened

4 risk factors who have underlying medical conditions, including mental illness, that make

5 them more vulnerable to contracting the virus and/or serious complications if they contract

6 COVID-19. See supra note 1.

7

46. With respect to mental illness, courts have recognized that, “[f]or complex

8 reasons, individuals with serious mental illness are also particularly vulnerable to infectious

9 diseases, and the public health strategies for preventing and slowing the spread of COVID-

10 19, such as social distancing, may be less effective” for persons with mental illness. Jose

11 B.R., 2020 WL 2744586, at *4 (footnotes and citations omitted); see also Barr I, 2020 WL

12 1820667, at *4 (noting that “[g]rowing evidence demonstrates that PTSD, anxiety/stress,

13 and depression can lead to decreased immune response and increased risk of infections,”

14 and that the “weakened immunity due to mental-health disorders can put detainees at

15 increased risk of contracting and suffering from more severe forms of COVID-19” (citing

16 declaration of Dr. Mira Zein, M.D., M.P.H., a Clinical Assistant Professor at Stanford

17 University School of Medicine, Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences));

18 Ochoa, 2020 WL 2850706, at *11-12 (observing that the petitioner “has less ability to

19 protect himself to COVID-19 due to his mental illness and learning disabilities,” and that

20 the petitioner’s “mental illness and learning disabilities will likely prevent his compliance

21 with” policies mandating detainee use of masks at all times other than eating and showering,

22 “reduc[ing] the potential effectiveness of these policies as to Petitioner”).

23

47. In addition to greater susceptibility to infection, “treatment may be ‘more

24 challenging and potentially less effective’” for mentally ill individuals, and as a

25 consequence, once they contract a disease, they face “a 4- to 8-fold risk of death due to

26 infection compared to the general population.” Jose B.R., 2020 WL 2744586, at *4 (citing

27 Hao Yao et al., Patients with mental health disorders in the COVID-19 epidemic, 7 THE

28 LANCET e21, e21 (Apr. 2020), https://www.thelancet.com/pdfs/journals/lanpsy/

-16-

Case 2:20-cv-01134-DWL--CDB Document 1 Filed 06/08/20 Page 19 of 55

1 PIIS2215-0366(20)30090-0.pdf (“Yao, Mental Health”) [attached hereto as Exhibit 29]).

2 “For these reasons, mental- and public-health experts have already begun to sound the alarm

3 about the increased risk that COVID-19 poses to those with serious mental illness.” Id.

4

48. Moreover, “[p]eople with mental health conditions could be more

5 substantially influenced by the emotional responses brought on by the COVID-19 epidemic,

6 resulting in relapses or worsening of an already existing mental health condition because of

7 high susceptibility to stress compared with the general population.” Yao, Mental Health;

8 see also Ochoa, 2020 WL 2850706, at *11 (reasoning that the petitioner “faces increased

9 punitive measures and stress during the COVID-19 pandemic in light of his mental illness

10 and learning difficulties” and that “he has shown resistance and confusion to the COVID-

11 19 protocols, resulting in his punishment and, no doubt, exacerbation of his mental health

12 issues”); see also Lebensohn Decl. ¶ 4(c), (f).

13

49. In addition to mental illness, courts have recognized that individuals with a

14 BMI greater than or equal to 30, while not meeting the CDC higher-risk criterion, are

15 nonetheless at risk of developing severe COVID-19, at least when their obesity is combined

16 with other risk factors. See Essien, 2020 WL 1974761, at *7; United States v. Foreman, No.

17 3:19-CR-62 (VAB), 2020 WL 2315908, at *4 (D. Conn. May 11, 2020) (granting

18 compassionate release for inmate with hypertension and moderate obesity given her

19 increased risk of falling seriously ill from COVID-19, noting that defendant’s “weight—

20 even if ... not high enough to create the highest risk—along with her age of 58, magnifies

21 the risk”). And for sound reason—a New York City study found that a BMI greater than or

22 equal to 30 was a comorbidity in 41.7% of hospitalizations. Essien, 2020 WL 1974761, at

23 *7 (citing Safiya Richardson et al., Presenting Characteristics, Comorbidities, and

24 Outcomes Among 5700 Patients Hospitalized With COVID-19 in the New York City Area,

25 J. OF THE AM. MED. ASSOC. (Apr. 22, 2020) at E3, https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/

26 articlepdf/2765184/jama_richardson_2020_oi_200043.pdf).

27

50. Currently, there is no widely available treatment, cure, or vaccine for COVID-

28 19. Meyer Decl. ¶ 5; Venters Decl. ¶ 9; see also Castillo, 2020 WL 1502864, at *2. As a

-17-

Case 2:20-cv-01134-DWL--CDB Document 1 Filed 06/08/20 Page 20 of 55

1 result, “[t]he only way to protect our communities is to ‘socially distance’ ourselves—avoid

2 unnecessary human contact and maintain a safe distance of at least six feet from other

3 people—and practice diligent hygiene, by frequently washing our hands and disinfecting

4 commonly touched surfaces.” Vazquez Barrera, 2020 WL 1904497, at *2; see also Venters

5 Decl. ¶ 26 (stating that “because there is no cure for COVID-19, social distancing remains

6 an essential means of prevention,” and that “social distancing represents one of the few

7 tools that correctional facilities can implement to slow the spread of COVID-19”); Meyer

8 Decl. ¶ 8. This is especially true in congregate or carceral settings. See Meyer Decl. ¶¶ 9-

9 13; Pimentel-Estrada, 2020 WL 2092430, at *4 (“The only way to control the virus [in

10 these settings] is to use preventive strategies, including social distancing.” (citation

11 omitted)).

12

B. There Continues to Be a Heightened Risk of Severe Illness and Death

13

from COVID-19 in Detention Centers.

14

51. Many courts, including this one, have recognized that individuals in detention

15 centers “have a heightened risk of contracting and transmitting COVID-19.” Urdaneta,

16 2020 WL 2319980, at *9 (citing CDC, Clinical Care Guidance,

17 https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/clinical-guidance-management-

18 patients.html at 2); see also Meyer Decl. ¶¶ 9-10 (“The risk posed by infectious diseases in

19 detention centers, jails, and prisons is significantly higher than in the community, both in

20 terms of risk of transmission, exposure, and harm to individuals who become infected.”);

21 Basank, 2020 WL 1481503, at *3 (“The nature of detention facilities makes exposure and

22 spread of the virus particularly harmful.”); Bent, 2020 WL 1812850, at *4 (same); Sallaj,

23 2020 WL 1975819k, at *3 (“The risk of contracting COVID-19 in a detention center . . . is

24 dangerously high.”); Geovani M.-O., 2020 WL 2511428, at *1 (“The stark reality is that

25 ‘avoiding exposure to COVID-19 is impossible for most detainees and inmates.’”); Castillo,

26 2020 WL 1502864, at *2 (“Because of the highly contagious nature of the coronavirus and

27 the, relatively high, mortality rate of COVID-19, the disease can spread uncontrollably with

28

-18-

Case 2:20-cv-01134-DWL--CDB Document 1 Filed 06/08/20 Page 21 of 55

1 devastating results in a crowded, closed facility, such as an immigration detention center.”).

2 That is especially true where, as here, there is already a documented outbreak at the facility.

3

52. CDC guidance indicates that heightened risk in detention centers is due, in

4 part, to “the number of sources which can introduce them into a facility’s population,

5 including detention staff, visitors, contractors, vendors, legal representatives, court staff,

6 and new detainees; the congregate environment in which detainees ‘live, work, eat, study,

7 and recreate’; and limited medical isolation options, hygiene supplies, and dissemination of

8 accurate information among detainees.” Urdaneta, 2020 WL 2319980, at *2 (citing CDC,

9 Interim Guidance on Management of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) in

10 Correctional and Detention Facilities, https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-

11 ncov/downloads/guidance-correctional-detention.pdf (last accessed May 11, 2020)); see

12 also Flores v. Barr, No. CV 85-4544-DMG (AGRx), 2020 WL 2128663, at *4 (C.D. Cal.

13 Mar. 28, 2020) (“Medical experts fear the exceptionally rapid transmission of COVID-19

14 in detention facilities, where medical resources such as physicians, testing kits, and

15 protective equipment are constrained; people are unable to practice social distancing; shared

16 facilities are not frequently or properly sanitized; soap and hand sanitizer are not provided

17 or easily accessible to detainees; quarantine or isolation units are scarce; and there are

18 frequent opportunities for an infected person to enter or leave the facility.”). Additionally,

19 “there may be cultural or structural disincentives for detainees to take preventative

20 measures, report symptoms, or seek medical care.” Gomes, 2020 WL 2514541, at *4.

21

53. Even when social visitation is suspended, staff, contractors, and vendors

22 arrive at and leave the facility daily, and the possibility of asymptomatic transmission is

23 high. See Castillo, 2020 WL 1502864, at *5 (“[T]he Government cannot deny the fact that

24 the risk of infection in immigration detention facilities … is particularly high if an

25 asymptomatic guard, or other employee, enters a facility. While social visits have been

26 discontinued at [the detention center], the rotation of guards and other staff continues.”);

27 Pimentel-Estrada, 2020 WL 2092430, at *12 (“The biggest threat comes from

28 Respondents’ inability to identify asymptomatic carriers as staff, contractors, vendors,

-19-

Case 2:20-cv-01134-DWL--CDB Document 1 Filed 06/08/20 Page 22 of 55

1 attorneys, and visitors come and go between the detention center and the broader

2 community where COVID-19 has been spreading.”). It is impossible to seal entry and exit

3 to the facilities, and thus detainees housed within cannot be isolated from viruses circulating

4 in the broader community. See Venters Decl. ¶ 13; Meyer Decl. ¶ 10; Castillo, 2020 WL

5 1502864, at *5; Pimentel-Estrada, 2020 WL 2092430, at *12.

6

54. Preventative strategies utilized by the general public, like social distancing,

7 hand washing, sanitation of surfaces, proper ventilation and PPE are neither readily

8 available nor particularly effective in detention facilities. Meyer Decl. ¶¶ 8, 10-11, 25

9 (“Social distancing is key to infection prevention, but often challenging in detention

10 facilities that are inherently congregate.”); Venters Decl. ¶¶ 18-20 (describing challenges to

11 implementing social distancing and applying hospital-level infection control measures on

12 security staff in detention centers); see also Santiago, 2020 WL 2487648, at *9 (“Within

13 [congregate facilities], detainees ‘cannot practically adhere to social distancing guidelines

14 or the adequate level of personal hygiene, measures which have been ‘touted as the most

15 effective means to thwart the spread of the virus.’” (internal citation omitted)); Perez, 2020

16 WL 1865303, at *12 (“[T]he structure of detention facilities, which are designed to house

17 multiple people in close proximity, render any sanitation efforts somewhat meaningless as

18 detainees cannot social distance.”). As a result, once COVID-19 enters a facility, as it has

19 in La Palma and EDC, rapid transmission and widespread outbreak is virtually inevitable.

20 See Venters Decl. ¶ 17.

21

55. Respondents have not eliminated many of these risks. See infra Section C.

22 The conditions of confinement do not allow for social distancing within cells, detainees

23 interact in common spaces, employees move throughout the facility working on multiple

24 units, and detainees are not required to follow recommendations about masks and social

25 distancing in common spaces. Accordingly, as the COVID-19 global pandemic spreads,

26 Petitioners are trapped in “a ‘tinderbox scenario’ where rapid outbreak is extremely likely,

27 and extremely likely to lead to deadly results[.]” Malam I, 2020 WL 1672662, at *8; see

28 also Ruderman, 2020 WL 2449758, at *3 (“The rapid spread of COVID-19 through

-20-

Case 2:20-cv-01134-DWL--CDB Document 1 Filed 06/08/20 Page 23 of 55

1 detention center populations could lead to a ‘tinderbox scenario,’ where patient flow from

2 detention centers overwhelms local hospital systems, causing a devastating effect on public

3 health.”); Venters Decl. ¶ 17 (“Once COVID-19 is inside a facility, ICE will be unable to

4 stop the spread of the virus throughout the facility given long-existing inadequacies in ICE’s

5 medical care and also in light of how these facilities function.”).

6

56. As Judge Steven Logan has previously summarized: “No one disputes that

7 COVID-19 exists, that it is rapidly and pervasively spreading, that detention facilities face

8 an acute risk of disseminating infectious diseases, or that individuals in ICE custody have

9 contracted COVID-19.” Urdaneta, 2020 WL 2319980, at *7. This acute risk has not

10 subsided.

11

57. Medical experts agree that reducing the number of detainees is a necessary

12 component of risk mitigation in a pandemic as widespread and serious as the one currently

13 spreading across the United States. See Pimentel-Estrada, 2020 WL 2092430, at *4

14 (“[M]uch focus has been placed on reducing detained populations, and public health experts

15 have recommended that authorities release detained individuals who are at high risk of

16 serious illness or death from COVID-19. Additionally, experts have recommended the

17 release of detainees who present a low risk of harm to the community to reduce the total

18 number of detainees in a facility and allow for greater social distancing.” (citations

19 omitted)). This is true not only for the facility as a whole, but for the population of people

20 living within distinct combined spaces, such as tanks or pods. See Venters Decl. ¶ 41(f)

21 (“While the overall capacity of the facility may be lower than normal, the reliance on full

22 or nearly full housing areas subverts the original goals of having fewer people in a facility.

23 … Any meaningful effort to promote social distancing must include having fewer people in

24 individual ho[u]sing areas, resulting in more sparely populated housing areas throughout

25 the facility, not a small number of densely packed housing areas.”).

26

58. Reducing detention center populations does not just benefit detainees and

27 staff, it also benefits the community as a whole by reducing the burden on healthcare

28 resources that are already in high demand. See Arias v. Decker, No. 20-civ-2802 (AT), 2020

-21-

Case 2:20-cv-01134-DWL--CDB Document 1 Filed 06/08/20 Page 24 of 55

1 WL 2306565, at *11 (S.D.N.Y. May 8, 2020) (“[d]ecreasing the [ICE detention] population

2 will ... ‘mitigate the damage’ to both the [j]ail and the surrounding community and thereby

3 ‘reduce the death toll’” (alterations in original; internal citations omitted)). Recognizing

4 this, many large detention settings across the country have implemented release of high-

5 risk detainees as a measure to reduce the impact of COVID-19 on incarcerated people, staff

6 and local health systems. Venters Decl. ¶ 3.

7

59. “[A]s public health experts have predicted, there have been significant

8 outbreaks in detained populations where the virus spreads ‘like wildfire.’” Pimentel-

9 Estrada, 2020 WL 2092430, at *3; see also Venters Decl. ¶¶ 14-15 (providing data

10 illustrating the “extremely rapid rate of COVID-19 infection spread in correctional

11 settings”). For example, on April 7, 2020, ICE had confirmed 19 cases of COVID-19 in its

12 detention facilities. Pimentel-Estrada, 2020 WL 2092430, at *3. Within two weeks, that

13 number jumped to 253. Id. As of April 27, the number of confirmed cases was 317. Id.

14 Now, only six weeks later, that number has more than quadrupled, with ICE reporting 1,709

15 confirmed cases. See ICE Guidance on COVID-19, U.S. IMMIGRATION & CUSTOMS

16 ENFORCEMENT, https://www.ice.gov/coronavirus, “Confirmed Cases” Tab (last updated on

17 June 8, 2020 at 10:10 a.m. PDT / 1:10 p.m. EDT).

18

60. In the face of this humanitarian and constitutional crisis, courts across the

19 country, including those in the Ninth Circuit, have issued dozens of orders directing the

20 release of individuals detained by ICE, where doing so is in the public interest and protects

21 the individuals from the unnecessary risk they face in detention. See supra note 1.

22

C. The Risks to Petitioners’ Health and Safety Remain Particularly Acute

23

in the Detention Centers Where ICE Is Detaining Them.

24

61. Courts in this district have recognized that the detention centers where the

25 Petitioners are detained—La Palma and EDC—are especially vulnerable to rapid

26 transmission of COVID-19. Urdaneta, 2020 WL 2319980, at *10; Gutierrez-Lopez, 2020

27 WL 2781722, at *9; Patel, No. 2:20-CV-00709-DLR-DMF, Dkt. 35 at 3-4; Mendoza, No.

28 CV-20-00514-PHX-SPL (MTM), Dkt. 37 at 4 (adopting Urdaneta findings and reasoning).

-22-

Case 2:20-cv-01134-DWL--CDB Document 1 Filed 06/08/20 Page 25 of 55

1 This is due to, among other things, the ongoing, sanctioned visitors to the detention centers;

2 the unsanitary and crowded conditions within the facilities; the lack of widespread COVID-

3 19 testing at the facilities; the failure to consistently implement risk-mitigation protocols;

4 and the facilities’ history of providing poor medical treatment. See Meyer Decl. ¶¶ 10-13,

5 16-30; Venters Decl. ¶¶ 39-42; Declaration of Monika Sud-Devaraj (“Sud-Devaraj Decl.”)

6 ¶ 8 [attached hereto as Exhibit 7]; Lara Carnero Decl. ¶¶ 7, 9, 11-14, 25-26, 28, 31, 34, 36-

7 37; Declaration of Ernesto Rodriguez Cedeno (“Rodriguez Cedeno Decl.”) ¶¶ 8-11, 13-17

8 [attached hereto as Exhibit 9]; Declaration of Yarjelis Madueno Davila (“Madueno Davila

9 Decl.”) ¶¶ 5-10, 12, 14-16 [attached hereto as Exhibit 10]; Declaration of Artem Pakhol

10 (“Pakhol Decl.”) ¶¶ 5-6, 8-16 [attached hereto as Exhibit 11]; Declaration of Marco

11 Fernandez Sancho (“Fernandez Sancho Decl.”) ¶¶ 5-10, 17 [attached hereto as Exhibit 12];

12 Declaration of Edwin Murcia Solis (“Murcia Solis Decl.”) ¶¶ 11, 13, 15 [attached hereto as

13 Exhibit 13]; Declaration of Frank David Coca Peña (“Coca Peña Decl.”) ¶¶ 10-16 [attached

14 hereto as Exhibit 14]; Declaration of Luis Alberto Ravelo Serret (“Ravelo Serret Decl.”)

15 ¶¶ 6, 8, 12-15, 17 [attached hereto as Exhibit 15]; Declaration of Jorge Ibarra-Perez

16 (“Ibarra-Perez Decl.”) ¶¶ 7-13, 15-19 [attached hereto as Exhibit 16]; Declaration of

17 Roberto Reina Rojas (“Reina Rojas Decl.”) ¶¶ 6, 11-14 [attached hereto as Exhibit 17];

18 Declaration of Francisco Ramon Corral (“Ramon Corral Decl.”) ¶¶ 14, 16-19 [attached

19 hereto as Exhibit 18]; Declaration of Benjamin Sauceda-Rodriguez (“Sauceda-Rodriguez

20 Decl.”) ¶¶ 4-7, 9 [attached hereto as Exhibit 19].

21

1. Conditions in La Palma and EDC Remain Unsanitary and

22

Hazardous

23

62. Thousands of immigration detainees are housed in EDC and La Palma at any

24 given time. EDC has a capacity for approximately 1,500 people, and La Palma can hold

25 about 3,000 people. Sud-Devaraj Decl. ¶ 3; see Urdaneta, 2020 WL 2319980, at *3.

26 Although Respondents have made some effort to improve conditions at these facilities

27 pursuant to the orders in Urdaneta, Gutierrez-Lopez, Patel, and Mendoza, they have not

28 done so in a way that alleviates the risk to Petitioners. Under current conditions, which

-23-

Case 2:20-cv-01134-DWL--CDB Document 1 Filed 06/08/20 Page 26 of 55

1 purport to comply with those previous orders, Petitioners’ due process rights are still being

2 violated.

3

63. ICE detainees at both facilities have reported that the facilities are taking ad

4 hoc, insufficient measures to contain the likelihood of transmission. Venters Decl. ¶¶ 39-

5 41; Lara Carnero Decl. ¶¶ 7, 9, 11-14, 25-26, 28, 31, 34, 36-37; Rodriguez Cedeno Decl.

6 ¶¶ 8-11, 13-17; Madueno Davila Decl. ¶¶ 5-10, 12, 14-16; Pakhol Decl. ¶¶ 5-6, 8-16;

7 Fernandez Sancho Decl. ¶¶ 5-10; Murcia Solis Decl. ¶¶ 11, 13, 15; Coca Peña Decl. ¶¶ 10-

8 16; Ravelo Serret Decl. ¶¶ 6, 8, 12-15, 17; Ibarra-Perez Decl. ¶¶ 7-13, 15-19; Reina Rojas

9 Decl. ¶¶ 6, 11-14; Ramon Corral Decl. ¶¶ 14, 16-18, 22; Sauceda-Rodriguez Decl. ¶¶ 4-7.

10

64. At both EDC and La Palma, adequate social distancing is “impossible.”

11 Pakhol Decl. ¶ 6; Rodriguez Cedeno Decl. ¶ 8; Ramon Corral Decl. ¶ 14; Ibarra-Perez Decl.

12 ¶ 8; Madueno Davila Decl. ¶ 5. “Detainees in each facility live in units, commonly referred

13 to as tanks or pods. The units are comprised of individual cells which house an average of

14 two detainees each, and have, at a minimum, a bunk bed, a sink, and a toilet.” Urdaneta,

15 2020 WL 2319980, at *3. Two people typically share a small cell, even when the tank is

16 below capacity. Pakhol Decl. ¶ 5; Fernandez Sancho Decl. ¶ 5; Ibarra-Perez Decl. ¶¶ 6-7;

17 Sauceda-Rodriguez Decl. ¶¶ 4-5; Madueno Davila Decl. ¶ 5; see Lara Carnero Decl. ¶ 6.

18 Cells in La Palma are about 12’ by 7’, meaning “even if cellmates are encouraged to sleep

19 head to toe…, it will be all but impossible to maintain 6’ of distance within the confines of

20 that space.” Meyer Decl. ¶ 26; accord Pakhol Decl. ¶ 6; Ibarra-Perez Decl. ¶ 7. It is likewise

21 impossible for detainees with cellmates to be 6 feet apart during count, which occurs five

22 times per day in La Palma and at least twice a day in EDC, each lasting about 1.5 hours.

23 Ibarra-Perez Decl. ¶ 7; Madueno Davila Decl. ¶ 5.

24

65. Detainees at both facilities report an inability to socially distance themselves

25 from other detainees and staff throughout the day, and the facilities’ failure to enforce it or

26 impose additional precautions to limit the flow of detainees in common areas. Fernandez

27 Sancho Decl. ¶ 6; Lara Carnero Decl. ¶ 7; Pakhol Decl. ¶¶ 9-10, 12; Rodriguez Cedeno

28 Decl. ¶¶ 8-9; Sauceda-Rodriguez Decl. ¶¶ 5-6; Coca Peña Decl. ¶¶ 10-13; Ibarra-Perez

-24-

Case 2:20-cv-01134-DWL--CDB Document 1 Filed 06/08/20 Page 27 of 55

1 Decl. ¶¶ 9-10; Ravelo Serret Decl. ¶¶ 8, 13; Madueno Davila Decl. ¶ 16; see also Venters

2 Decl. ¶ 26 (“Any guidance that treats [social distancing] as merely recommended, rather

3 than required at all times, remains inadequate to mitigate the spread of COVID-19.”); Meyer

4 Decl. ¶ 28 (noting that “social distancing policies are meaningless if not enforced and

5 completely deployed”). For example, in the dining area in Mohave Bravo in La Palma, there

6 are approximately 12 tables with four seats attached and two long tables with eight seats

7 attached. The seats are attached to each other like benches. Each table is only two to three

8 feet apart, and the small tables are only around five feet long by five feet wide. Lara Carnero

9 Decl. ¶ 7. Detainees generally eat “face to face,” four men at a table, close enough to “touch

10 someone without reaching.” Pakhol Decl. ¶ 10; see also Ibarra-Perez Decl. ¶ 10. Even if

11 detainees choose to eat in their cells, they must come into close contact with others while

12 waiting in line or in a group to get their food. Coca Peña Decl. ¶¶ 11-12; Ravelo Serret ¶ 13.

13

66. In addition to the living quarters and dining area, detainees are frequently

14 confronted with sharing limited equipment in small common areas with dozens of other

15 individuals, including phones, computers, and other equipment. Lara Carnero Decl. ¶ 7;

16 Fernandez Sancho Decl. ¶ 6; Ibarra-Perez Decl. ¶ 9; Sauceda-Rodriguez Decl. ¶ 6;

17 Rodriguez Cedeno Decl. ¶ 8; Pakhol Decl. ¶ 9; Coca Peña Decl. ¶¶ 10, 13; Ravelo Serret

18 Decl. ¶ 8. The telephones are so close to each other that “if [you] reached out [your] arm,

19 [you] could touch the person sitting next to [you] on the phone.” Ravelo Serret Decl. ¶ 8;

20 see also Lara Carnero Decl. ¶ 7 (“The telephones are only one foot apart”); Coca Peña Decl.

21 ¶ 13; Madueno Davila Decl. ¶ 16. Compounding the problem, the cleaning solution and

22 paper towels to wipe down the phones after each use are usually empty. Coca Peña Decl.

23 ¶ 13; Lara Carnero Decl. ¶ 37; Sauceda-Rodriguez Decl. ¶ 6; Ramon Corral Decl. ¶ 17.

24

67. Detainees in each unit also share shower facilities. Ramon Corral Decl. ¶ 17;

25 Pakhol Decl. ¶ 11. In the Hopi-Charlie unit at La Palma, for example, there are four

26 individual showers for 80 detainees to share. Pakhol Decl. ¶ 11. Porters spray the showers,

27 but they are not clean. Id. The toilets in the cells in both EDC and La Palma do not have

28 lids and sometimes malfunction, Sauceda-Rodriguez Decl. ¶ 5; Madueno Davila Decl. ¶¶ 5,

-25-

Case 2:20-cv-01134-DWL--CDB Document 1 Filed 06/08/20 Page 28 of 55

1 11; Pakhol Decl. ¶¶ 6-7, resulting in exposure to fecal material and risk of fecal-oral

2 infection of COVID-19. Venters Decl. ¶¶ 22, 39(h).

3

68. Detainee access to PPE in both facilities is scarce. See Venters Decl. ¶ 39(f).

4 For example, only detainees who work in cleaning are given gloves. Lara Carnero Decl.

5 ¶ 8; Ibarra-Perez Decl. ¶ 17. And although detainees were eventually given at least one

6 disposable mask—long after the CDC recommended their use, see Venters Decl. ¶ 39(f)—

7 detainees report having difficulty obtaining additional or replacement masks. Ramon Corral

8 Decl. ¶ 16; Rodriguez Cedeno ¶ 16. Moreover, detainees were not given instructions on

9 how to properly wear the masks, nor are they consistently required, encouraged, or educated

10 on the importance of wearing them in the common areas inside the housing units. Fernandez

11 Sancho Decl. ¶¶ 8-9; Lara Carnero Decl. ¶ 9; Rodriguez Cedeno Decl. ¶ 8; Ibarra-Perez

12 Decl. ¶ 11; see Venters Decl. ¶ 41(b). As a result, the “vast majority” of detainees reportedly

13 do not wear their masks. Fernandez Sancho Decl. ¶ 8-9; see also Ibarra-Perez Decl. ¶ 11;

14 Reina Rojas Decl. ¶ 14; Ravelo Serret Decl. ¶ 17.

15

69. Similarly, the use of PPE for staff at both facilities has been inconsistent and

16 ineffective. Venters Decl. ¶ 39(e). Indeed, facility staff at La Palma have not been

17 consistently using PPE around vulnerable detainees, let alone general population detainees.

18 Mr. Murcia Solis, a detainee at La Palma who is detained in Apache Alpha, the isolated

19 tank with people with underlying medical conditions who are at higher risk for

20 complications with COVID-19, explained that even in a unit occupied by people with

21 underlying medical conditions, officers do not regularly wear masks. Murcia Solis Decl.

22 ¶¶ 4-5, 11. Even when they do wear them, multiple detainees in Apache Alpha report that

23 the officers take them off to cough, eat, and while they are in the office. Id. ¶ 11; Rodriguez

24 Cedeno Decl. ¶ 17; Reina Rojas Decl. ¶ 13. Detainees in other units in La Palma and EDC

25 likewise report that staff “almost never” enter the units with gloves, and do not always wear

26 masks or plastic coverings. Lara Carnero Decl. ¶¶ 11-12, 31; see also Sauceda-Rodriguez

27 Decl. ¶ 7; Lara Carnero Decl. ¶ 26; Ibarra-Perez Decl. ¶ 17; Madueno Davila Decl. ¶ 14. In

28 addition, several detainees at La Palma report that staff do not always change their PPE

-26-

Case 2:20-cv-01134-DWL--CDB Document 1 Filed 06/08/20 Page 29 of 55

1 when moving between units, Lara Carnero Decl. ¶¶ 13-14, 26; Ibarra-Perez Decl. ¶¶ 17-19;

2 Coca Peña Decl. ¶ 16, “subverting the purpose of limiting the transfer of COVID-19.”

3 Venters Decl. ¶ 41(a).

4

70. As with PPE, access to hygiene and sanitation products is scarce in both EDC

5 and La Palma. See Venters Decl. ¶ 39(b). For example, while detainees are given shampoo,

6 they have limited, if any, access to soap, and no access to hand sanitizer. See Pakhol Decl.

7 ¶ 14; Sauceda-Rodriguez Decl. ¶ 6 (“some days we don’t even have soap to wash our hands

8 with. Today it has been about four days that we haven’t had soap”); Lara Carnero Decl.

9 ¶ 37; Ibarra-Perez Decl. ¶¶ 15-16; Ramon Corral Decl. ¶ 18; Rodriguez Cedeno Decl. ¶ 10;

10 Madueno Davila Decl. ¶ 10 (“[W]e get three little containers of shampoo about 1.5 ounces

11 each (50 mL) per week. We do not get soap.”). Moreover, soap or shampoo is generally

12 made available—if at all—via a communal dispenser, Sauceda-Rodriguez Decl. ¶ 6; Lara

13 Carnero Decl. ¶ 37, Ramon Corral Decl. ¶ 18, which is “neither practical nor desirable

14 f[ro]m an infection control standpoint,” Venters Decl. ¶ 39(b). See also id. ¶ 39(b) (“This

15 approach would actually require cleaning of the soap jugs in some manner and would likely

16 lead to considerable spillage. Soap dispensers should be located at hand washing stations

17 and should [be] filled by a small number of trained individuals, so as to limit spillage and

18 the spread of COVID-19.”). In the Charlie-500 unit in EDC, detainees are no longer given

19 trash bags for the trash bins and are given only a limited supply of toilet paper, which they

20 use to clean. Madueno Davila Decl. ¶ 13.

21

71. Neither facility is professionally cleaned or disinfected; rather, detainees in

22 both facilities are responsible for cleaning the facilities through the Voluntary Work

23 Program. Reina Rojas Decl. ¶ 12; Madueno Davila Decl. ¶ 12; see also Venters Decl.

24 ¶ 39(g). And at least on May 27, 2020, the Charlie-500 unit in EDC did not have any

25 detainees in the Voluntary Work Program, and therefore did not have anyone cleaning the

26 pod. Madueno Davila Decl. ¶ 12. Common areas are cleaned mainly at night, Rodriguez

27 Cedeno Decl. ¶ 11, and the cleaning solution detainees are provided is diluted. Reina Rojas

28 Decl. ¶ 12; Rodriguez Cedeno Decl. ¶ 10; Ibarra-Perez Decl. ¶¶ 15-16; Ramon Corral Decl.

-27-

Case 2:20-cv-01134-DWL--CDB Document 1 Filed 06/08/20 Page 30 of 55

1 ¶ 18; Madueno Davila Decl. ¶ 12. Sometimes cleaning supplies run out, and the officers

2 never have a plan to keep detainees constantly equipped with what they need. Murcia Solis

3 Decl. ¶ 15; see also Lara Carnero Decl. ¶ 37 (as of May 26, 2020, it had been “almost 8

4 days since they brought us chlorine” to clean cells); Pakhol Decl. ¶ 14 (ran out of gloves to

5 clean the tank). For example, over Memorial Day weekend, detainees at the Apache Alpha

6 unit in La Palma, the medically vulnerable unit, ran out of disinfectant, shampoo,

7 toothpaste, and trash bags, which were not restocked until Tuesday, May 26. Ravelo Serret

8 Decl. ¶ 15; Coca Peña Decl. ¶ 14; Reina Rojas Decl. ¶ 12.

9

72. Detainees also consistently report that they are not provided verbal

10 information on COVID-19 or instructions on basic preventative measures from ICE or

11 facility staff. See Venters Decl. ¶ 40; Fernandez Sancho Decl. ¶ 7; Ibarra-Perez Decl. ¶ 14;

12 Ramon Corral Decl. ¶ 22 (“ICE has never explained anything about COVID-19 to us….

13 We have received no official information.”); Rodriguez Cedeno Decl. ¶ 9.

14

73. Lack of timely access to health care is also an issue at both facilities, with

15 multiple detainees reporting that sick call requests go unaddressed for hours, days, or even

16 weeks. Venters Decl. ¶ 39(a); see Reina Rojas Decl. ¶ 6; Rodriguez Cedeno Decl. ¶¶ 13-

17 14; Murcia Solis Decl. ¶ 13; Ravelo Serret Decl. ¶ 6; Ramon Corral Decl. ¶ 19; see also

18 Madueno Davila Decl. ¶¶ 7-9. As Dr. Venters explains in his expert declaration, the

19 reported delays in receiving medical attention indicate there is no effective process to

20 effectively and timely segregate those with symptoms of COVID-19. Venters Decl. ¶ 39(a).

21 Indeed, Petitioner Lara Carnero, a detainee who is currently housed in the Mohave Bravo

22 unit in La Palma, states in his declaration that someone in his unit exhibiting possible

23 COVID-19 symptoms and coughing was not seen for more than 24 hours after staff was

24 notified. Lara Carnero Decl. ¶ 25. In some cases, detainees wait a week to see a doctor after

25 complaining of cough, chest pain, and shortness of breath. Id. ¶ 34. According to

26 Dr. Venters, “[b]ecause sick call represents the primary means by which people can report

27 symptoms of COVID-19, this type of deficiency increases the likelihood that people will

28

-28-

Case 2:20-cv-01134-DWL--CDB Document 1 Filed 06/08/20 Page 31 of 55

1 deteriorate while awaiting care, and also spread their infection to other detainees and staff.”

2 Venters Decl. ¶ 39(a).

3

74. The opportunities for transmission in environments like those described in La

4 Palma and EDC—where people live in close, crowded quarters and “must share dining

5 halls, bathrooms, showers, and other common areas”—are significant. Meyer Decl. ¶ 11;

6 see also Venters Decl. ¶ 18.

7

75. Now that it has entered both facilities, it is all but inevitable that COVID-19

8 will spread rapidly and uncontrollably in these detention centers, where individuals are held

9 in close confinement and given limited access to hygiene and sanitation supplies,

10 information, and medical care. See Meyer Decl. ¶¶ 11-20; Venters Decl. ¶¶ 17-22, 39-42.

11 Moreover, without widespread testing that includes asymptomatic individuals,

12 Respondents’ efforts to address the virus suffer “significant shortcomings,” even with

13 increased cleaning and social distancing measures. Jose B.R., 2020 WL 2744586, at *10-

14 11 (crediting increased cleaning and social distancing efforts but nevertheless ordering

15 release of detainee after noting that dormitory-style pods make social distancing impossible,

16 there was no evidence that social distancing had been enforced in the facility’s common

17 areas, and the facility had not conducted widespread testing of asymptomatic detainees).

18

76. Indeed, the situation in La Palma is so dire that five members of Congress

19 wrote a letter to ICE officials on May 29 highlighting the “alarming accounts” of

20 “appalling” living conditions reported by detainees and stressing the need for action as “the

21 situation at La Palma is escalating.” See Letter from Ann Kirkpatrick, Raul Grijalva, Bennie

22 G. Thompson, Ruben Gallego, and Greg Stanton, Members of Congress, to Matthew T.

23 Albence, Deputy Director, ICE, and Henry Lucero, Executive Associate Director, ICE

24 (May 29, 2020) [attached hereto as Exhibit 20]. And the outbreak at La Palma has now been

25 labeled “one of the largest in the nation.” See Daniel Gonzalez, COVID-19 outbreak at ICE

26 detention center in Eloy has ballooned into one of the largest in the nation,

27 AZCENTRAL.COM (May 31, 2020) [attached hereto as Exhibit 21].

28

-29-

Case 2:20-cv-01134-DWL--CDB Document 1 Filed 06/08/20 Page 32 of 55

1

77. The situation at EDC is no less dire, as demonstrated by reports of similar

2 conditions from EDC detainees and the same inconsistent and inadequate policies at both

3 facilities. See Venters Decl. ¶¶ 39, 42. If anything, the outbreak at La Palma is a blueprint

4 for what is beginning to happen at EDC, where confirmed cases jumped from zero to four

5 in two days last week, and from four to 13 over the weekend.

6

2. The Facilities Remain Open to Outside Contamination

7

78. The Eloy Immigration Court has remained open during the pandemic, but

8 with unpredictable and sporadic closures and court practices. Declaration of Jessica Anleu

9 (“Anleu Decl.”) ¶¶ 4, 13 [attached hereto as Exhibit 30]. When the court is open, and

10 assuming a detainee’s pod is not under quarantine, detainees and their attorneys are still

11 often appearing in person at immigration hearings. Sud-Devaraj Decl. ¶¶ 3-4, 6, 8; Anleu

12 Decl. ¶ 13.

13

79. The courtroom setup at the Eloy Immigration Court does not allow for

14 detainees or other individuals to practice social distancing or otherwise avoid exposure to

15 the virus, and ICE does not appear to be taking sufficient, if any, measures to rearrange

16 courtrooms to accommodate social distancing or ensure that tables or other equipment are

17 sanitized between hearings. Sud-Devaraj Decl. ¶ 6. First, to get to the Eloy Immigration

18 Court, attorneys must be escorted down a hallway into a smaller hallway outside the

19 courtrooms. Inside the courtrooms, which are about 30 feet long by 30 feet wide, there are

20 long rows of benches in the back that frequently fill with 10-20 detainees at master calendar

21 hearings. Id. Although immigration judges, government counsel, and some court staff have

22 begun appearing by video or phone in some instances, guards, detainees and their attorneys,

23 and interpreters are generally still present in the courtrooms. Maintaining the recommended

24 six feet of space between people is “nearly impossible.” Id.

25

80. Although the Executive Office for Immigration Review (“EOIR”) has issued

26 standing orders allowing (but not requiring) attorneys to appear telephonically for all

27 hearings, legal staff still frequently enter the detention centers to prepare their clients, gather

28 signatures, and assess their cases. Id. ¶ 8. Because there is no other effective, consistently

-30-

Case 2:20-cv-01134-DWL--CDB Document 1 Filed 06/08/20 Page 33 of 55

1 functional, and confidential manner to communicate with clients, contact visits are the only

2 realistic options attorneys have for conducting the in-depth private conversations required

3 for representation in bond or other matters. Thus, despite EOIR’s standing order permitting

4 telephonic appearances, attorneys and other individuals are still frequently entering and

5 leaving the detention centers. Id.

6

81. Although ICE now requires attorneys to wear PPE before entering the

7 detention centers, ICE only started providing PPE (including masks, gloves, or goggles)

8 months after COVID-19 was declared a pandemic and state and local governments

9 implemented lockdowns. See id. ¶ 10. Moreover, the inconsistent and ineffective use of

10 masks, gloves, and other protective equipment by detention center staff, see Venters Decl.

11 ¶ 39(e), makes this a wholly ineffective measure to prevent COVID-19 from entering via

12 people who regularly go back and forth between the detention centers and the larger

13 community. See id. ¶ 13 (“Staff are more likely to bring COVID-19 into a facility, based

14 solely on their movement in and out every day.”); Pimentel-Estrada, 2020 WL 2092430, at

15 *12 (“The biggest threat comes from Respondents’ inability to identify asymptomatic

16 carriers as staff, contractors, vendors, attorneys, and visitors come and go between the

17 detention center and the broader community where COVID-19 has been spreading.”).

18

82. On March 30, 2020, the National Association of Immigration Judges publicly

19 called attention to EOIR’s woefully inadequate response to the COVID-19 crisis in

20 immigration courts, noting that the government’s policies have “ranged from unacceptable

21 to unconscionable” and have “put us all at risk.” The National Association of Immigration

22 Judges Urgently Calls for Immediate Implementation of Required Health and Safety

23 Measures for the Immigration Courts During the Coronavirus Pandemic, NAT’L ASS’N

24 IMMIGRATION JUDGES (Mar. 30, 2020) [attached hereto as Exhibit 22]. As Immigration

25 Judges themselves put it, “EOIR’s failure to take prompt, appropriate and sufficient action

26 on court closures has created a dangerous environment placing at risk the health and lives

27 of . . . judges, court staff, practitioners, detained respondents, and all individuals who

28 interface with the court process as well as the broader community.”

-31-

Case 2:20-cv-01134-DWL--CDB Document 1 Filed 06/08/20 Page 34 of 55

1

83. Although ICE has taken steps to limit some visitors to the detention centers,

2 in addition to attorneys and legal staff, ICE staff, officers, medical staff, and court staff also

3 enter and exit the detention centers on a daily basis. Sud-Devaraj Decl. ¶ 8; see also Meyer

4 Decl. ¶ 10; Venters Decl. ¶ 13. These sanctioned visitors and employees to the detention

5 centers make it impossible to shield detainees from potential exposure to the virus, the only

6 way medical professionals know to slow the spread of the virus in the absence of a vaccine

7 or treatment. Meyer Decl. ¶¶ 10-11; see also Castillo, 2020 WL 1502864, at *5 (“[T]he

8 Government cannot deny the fact that the risk of infection in immigration detention facilities

9 … is particularly high if an asymptomatic guard, or other employee, enters a facility. While

10 social visits have been discontinued at [the detention center], the rotation of guards and

11 other staff continues.”).

12

3. EDC and La Palma Have Documented Histories of Poor Medical

13

Treatment

14

84. Further contributing to the elevated risk of harm to Petitioners are EDC and

15 La Palma’s track records of failure to provide adequate and prompt medical care even before

16 the current pandemic. Examples of inadequate care at these specific facilities include failing

17 to treat serious mental illness resulting in serious injury to detainees, failing to respond with

18 urgency to medical emergencies, sometimes even leading to the death of the detainee,

19 failure to provide adequate or effective medication, and deprivation of basic dietary and

20 hygiene needs, including drinkable water. See Memorandum re: ICE Health Services Corp

21 (IHSC) Medical/Mental Health Care and Oversight, U.S. DEP’T OF HOMELAND SEC. (Mar.

22 20, 2019) [attached hereto as Exhibit 23]; PUENTE MOVEMENT & ADVANCEMENT PROJECT,

23 THE CARCERAL STATE OF ARIZONA 25-43 (Oct. 2019) [attached hereto as Exhibit 24]. EDC

24 is ranked as one of the deadliest ICE facilities in the country. See Jason Barry, Human rights

25 groups release scathing report on ICE detention facility in Eloy, AZFAMILY.COM (Nov. 25,

26 2019) [attached hereto as Exhibit 25].

27

85. Indeed, in 2019, a mumps outbreak at La Palma resulted in the quarantine of

28 dozens of immigration detainees for several weeks. See Matthew Casey, ICE: Roughly 400

-32-

Case 2:20-cv-01134-DWL--CDB Document 1 Filed 06/08/20 Page 35 of 55

1 Immigration Detainees Quarantined in Arizona, ARIZ. PUB. MEDIA (Mar. 14, 2019) (noting

2 that about 15% of the approximately 2,200 detainees being quarantined nationally were in

3 Arizona, primarily at La Palma) [attached hereto as Exhibit 26].

4

86. This was not the first time a contagious disease required quarantine at one of

5 these facilities. In 2016, a measles outbreak at EDC resulted in 31 cases of measles,

6 including 9 staff members, in part because ICE’s personnel policies did not require staff

7 members to be vaccinated. See Heather Venkat et al., Notes from the Field: Measles

8 Outbreak at a United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement Facility — Arizona,

9 May-June 2016, CTRS. FOR DISEASE CONTROL & PREVENTION (May 26, 2017) [attached

10 hereto as Exhibit 27]. The CDC’s report on the measles outbreak notes that—despite its

11 immediate recommendations to take certain preventative measures—ICE’s “slow

12 compliance with vaccination recommendations and incomplete implementation of

13 exclusion recommendations, and restrictions on enforcing them, might have prolonged this

14 outbreak.” Id.

15

87. These past outbreaks of contagious diseases in La Palma and EDC strongly

16 suggest that these facilities are poorly equipped and ill-prepared to handle COVID19. In

17 fact, ICE’s response to COVID-19 has similarly been slow, inconsistent, and insufficient,

18 despite its efforts to manage the situation and comply with the orders in Urdaneta,

19 Gutierrez-Lopez, Patel, and Mendoza. See Meyer Decl. ¶¶ 13-14; Venters Decl. ¶¶ 39-42.

20

88. In light of their failure to provide consistent access to basic hygiene and

21 adequate health care even under normal circumstances, it appears unlikely that EDC and La

22 Palma will be able to competently and safely respond to the COVID-19 pandemic. Recent

23 guidance from ICE regarding the agency’s COVID-19 response is not reassuring. See

24 Venters Decl. ¶¶ 24-34 (describing how ICE’s guidelines contradict or omit several

25 important CDC guidelines). Despite any measures Respondents are purportedly taking, the

26 scientific reality is that “ICE has not been able to stop the entry of COVID-19 into its

27 facilities,” and once COVID-19 is inside a facility, “ICE will be unable to stop the spread

28

-33-

Case 2:20-cv-01134-DWL--CDB Document 1 Filed 06/08/20 Page 36 of 55

1 of the virus throughout the facility given long-existing inadequacies in ICE’s medical care

2 and also in light of how these facilities function.” Id. ¶¶ 12, 17.

3

89. As explained in Dr. Venters’ expert declaration, Respondents’ protocols “are

4 deficient and at odds with CDC recommendations regarding detention settings in a manner

5 that threatens the health and survival of ICE detainees, including the Plaintiffs in this

6 action.” Venters Decl. ¶ 25. For example, the protocols:

7

 fail to state any specific way that Respondents provide for enhanced social

8

distancing, an essential means of preventing an outbreak (id. ¶¶ 26, 30(a));

9

 identify a list of factors that place people at higher risk but omit recognized

10

risk factors identified by the CDC (id. ¶ 27);

11

 fail to identify any particular measures for protecting these higher risk

12

individuals (id. ¶ 28);

13

 omit “vital elements” of CDC guidance on preventing the spread of COVID-

14

19 inside detention facilities, including guidance on the importance of staff

15

communication about risk reduction, and “critical aspects” of cleaning and

16

disinfection outlined by the CDC (id. ¶ 30);

17

 outline an isolation plan that ignores important facility limitations (id. ¶ 32);

18

and

19

 fail to address the lack of comprehensive COVID-19 testing in ICE facilities

20

(id. ¶ 33).

21

90. Moreover, the ICE COVID-19 protocols and guidance specify that “isolation

22 rooms” will be used to monitor people who are at risk or symptomatic with COVID-19.

23 Venters Decl. ¶ 32. But as Dr. Venters explains:

24

When patients are placed into locked cells, the level of

monitoring is dramatically reduced. Many of the cells

25

contemplated or utilized for medical isolation in detention

settings are the same cells or cell design used for punishment in

26

the form of solitary confinement. These housing areas often

lack basic elements required for medical evaluation, including

27

a clinical examination room, and they also lack direct

observation of people inside these cells. As a result, the very

28

patients who are identified as being at high risk or even

-34-

Case 2:20-cv-01134-DWL--CDB Document 1 Filed 06/08/20 Page 37 of 55

1

identified as having COIVD-19 symptoms may be transferred

into settings where their deterioration is less likely to be

2

detected or addressed.

3 Id. This is consistent with the declaration of Mr. Fernandez Sancho, who describes stark

4 conditions in medical isolation, including 23 hours and 45 minutes a day locked in a cell,

5 with no recreation or entertainment, poor nutrition, and inadequate medical checks. See

6 Fernandez Sancho Decl. ¶¶ 14-20. As reflected in several detainee declarations, “these

7 punitive conditions are dissuading detainees from reporting COVID-19 related symptoms,

8 undermining any efforts to identify and segregate those who may be COVID-19 positive.”

9 Venters Decl. ¶ 41(c); see Fernandez Sancho Decl. ¶ 22; Ibarra-Perez Decl. ¶ 13 (attesting

10 that he knows of about seven men who have had COVID-19 symptoms and did not report

11 it because they did not want to go to medical isolation and that two with symptoms of

12 COVID-19 were in his pod at the time of the declaration).

13

91. Indeed, “[t]he practice of relying on punitive isolation as a primary response

14 to COVID-19 not only discourages the reporting of symptoms, it decreases the likelihood

15 that health staff will conduct meaningful medical assessments of sick patients, leading to

16 increased risk of decompensation inside a locked cell.” Venters Decl. ¶ 41(c); see also

17 Meyer Decl. ¶ 12 (“isolation of people who are ill in solitary confinement results in

18 decreased medical attention and increased risk of death”).

19

92. “In addition, this practice of relying primarily on isolation as COVID-19

20 response causes new health problems in the form of risk for suicide and self-harm.” Venters

21 Decl. ¶ 32(c); see also Meyer Decl. ¶ 12 (noting the “known detrimental mental health

22 effects of solitary confinement”); Varner Decl. ¶ 7 (“From a medical standpoint [Petitioner

23 Benitez Flores] absolutely should not be held in solitary condiment and if he is, the risk of

24 psychological decompensation and its sequelae including possible self harm is high.”).

25 Thus, all individuals at EDC and La Palma—even if they do not have an underlying medical

26 condition—are at greater risk of severe harm and death if they contract COVID-19 in these

27 facilities. It is also not clear that this harmful medical isolation is even effective at mitigating

28 the spread of COVID-19, unless the isolation room is a “specialized negative pressure

-35-

Case 2:20-cv-01134-DWL--CDB Document 1 Filed 06/08/20 Page 38 of 55

1 room.” Meyer Decl. ¶ 12; see also Venters Decl. ¶ 32(c) (noting that “isolation units often

2 drive increased physical interaction between staff and patients, in the form of increased

3 handcuffing, escorting individuals to and from showers and other out of cell encounters,

4 and increased uses of force due to the psychological stress these units cause”).

5

93. Most importantly, it does not appear that ICE is actually and consistently

6 implementing the measures it claims to be taking. See Venters Decl. ¶¶ 39-42. As noted

7 above, detainees continue to report significant delays in receiving medical attention,

8 inadequate cleaning and access to cleaning and hygiene supplies, an inability to socially

9 distance, and a lack of verbal instructions on basic preventative measures, such as how to

10 properly wear masks and other PPE. Id. ¶ 40. As Dr. Meyer explains, “[e]ven the most

11 comprehensive protocols and policies that are informed by science are totally meaningless

12 if not implemented, enforced, and continuously monitored.” Meyer Decl. ¶ 30 (emphasis

13 added).

14

94. Petitioners, all of whom have underlying medical conditions that put them at

15 “increased risk of severe COVID 19,” Lebensohn Decl. ¶ 4; see also Varner Decl. ¶¶ 4-5,

16 7-8, are in “significantly higher” danger in these facilities than they would be if they were

17 released to the outside community, Meyer Decl. ¶ 9; see also Ruderman, 2020 WL

18 2449758, at *13 (“Petitioner’s risk is obviously substantially reduced when Petitioner is in

19 control of social distancing and other preventative measures, rather than relying on the

20 voluntary actions of dozens of fellow detainees and detention staff to take preventative

21 measures.”). Because of the “lack of access to even the most basic infection control, and

22 other COVID-19 measures included in CDC guidelines,” the irreparable harm Petitioners

23 will suffer if they remain in the La Palma and EDC facilities is imminent. See Venters Decl.

24 ¶¶ 44-48.

25

26

27

28

-36-

Case 2:20-cv-01134-DWL--CDB Document 1 Filed 06/08/20 Page 39 of 55

1

D. Petitioners Face a Heightened Risk of Severe Harm if They Contract

2

COVID-19 While Detained.

3

95. The 13 Petitioners in this case—all in civil immigration custody at La Palma

4 or EDC—face unprecedented, unnecessary, and imminent harm now that COVID-19 has

5 begun to spread in the detention centers where ICE is holding them.

6

96. The following Petitioners have CDC-recognized heightened risk factors: Mr.

7 Mantilla Silva, Mr. Rodriguez Cedeno, Mr. Lara Carnero, Mr. Barroso Barrios, Mr. Jorge

8 Alfonso, and Ms. Mayancela Zamora.

9

97. Petitioner Mantilla Silva has bilateral pneumonia, severe asthma, severe

10 allergies, and recently tested positive for COVID-19. Because of Mr. Mantilla Silva’s

11 history of lung disease and asthma, he is at increased risk of severe complication of COVID-

12 19 including hospitalization, intensive care, and respiratory failure. Lebensohn Decl. ¶ 4(l);

13 see also Venters Decl. ¶ 45; CDC Higher Risk (identifying “[p]eople with chronic lung

14 disease or moderate to severe asthma” as at higher risk for severe illness from COVID-19);

15 Ferreyra, 2020 WL 2612199, at *6.

16

98. Petitioner Rodriguez Cedeno suffers from asthma, which has worsened since

17 being detained in La Palma. As a result of his asthma and compromised lung functioning,

18 Mr. Rodriguez Cedeno is at increased risk of contracting COVID-19, and he faces increased

19 risk of severe illness or death if he contracts COVID-19. Lebensohn Decl. ¶ 4(a); see also

20 Venters Decl. ¶ 45; CDC Higher Risk (identifying “[p]eople with chronic lung disease or

21 moderate to severe asthma” as persons at higher risk for severe illness from COVID-19);

22 Ferreyra, 2020 WL 2612199, at *6 (finding that petitioner’s asthma placed him at

23 “particular risk for suffering grave illness or death from COVID-19”; rejecting argument

24 that petitioner’s asthma did not place him in high-risk category because it was not

25 “moderate-to-severe” asthma, noting that “CDC guidelines provide that people with

26 asthma, or other respiratory problems are at a heightened risk of severe illness or death from

27 contracting COVID-19,” and that “a recent CDC report shows that asthma was one of the

28

-37-

Case 2:20-cv-01134-DWL--CDB Document 1 Filed 06/08/20 Page 40 of 55

1 most common underlying conditions for younger people (18–49 years old) hospitalized

2 with COVID-19 in the United States”).

3

99. Petitioner Lara Carnero has asthma, allergies, a history of pneumothorax after

4 one of his lungs collapsed, and obesity, with a BMI of 29.1. Lara Carnero Decl. ¶ 5;

5 Lebensohn Decl. ¶ 4(d). As of May 26, Mr. Lara Carnero was exhibiting COVID-19

6 symptoms, including coughing, shortness of breath, chest pain, head pain, and a lack of

7 taste and smell. Lara Carnero Decl. ¶¶ 5, 36. But he has not been isolated and, as far as he

8 is aware, has not been tested for COVID-19. Id. ¶ 36. According to Dr. Lebensohn, the

9 medical uncertainty surrounding whether Mr. Lara Carnero has decreased lung function and

10 his obesity place him at risk of requiring hospitalization and/or intensive care if he contracts

11 COVID-19. Lebensohn Decl. ¶ 4(d). In addition, the CDC and courts have recognized that

12 people with asthma, which Mr. Lara Carnero was recently diagnosed with, Lara Carnero

13 Decl. ¶ 5, are at increased risk for grave illness or death from COVID-19. Ferreyra, 2020

14 WL 2612199, at *6 (finding that petitioner’s asthma placed him at “particular risk for

15 suffering grave illness or death from COVID-19”; rejecting argument that petitioner’s

16 asthma did not place him in high-risk category because it was not “moderate-to-severe”

17 asthma, noting that “CDC guidelines provide that people with asthma, or other respiratory

18 problems are at a heightened risk of severe illness or death from contracting COVID-19,”

19 and that “a recent CDC report shows that asthma was one of the most common underlying

20 conditions for younger people (18–49 years old) hospitalized with COVID-19 in the United

21 States”); CDC Higher Risk (identifying people with “moderate to severe asthma” as at

22 higher risk for severe illness from COVID-19).

23

100. Petitioner Barroso Barrios has moderate to severe asthma and a seizure

24 disorder. Mr. Barroso Barrios is at increased risk of severe illness and death if he contracts

25 COVID-19 because of his asthma. Lebensohn Decl. ¶ 4(k); see also Venters Decl. ¶ 45;

26 CDC Higher Risk (identifying people with “moderate to severe asthma” as at higher risk

27 for severe illness from COVID-19); Ferreyra, 2020 WL 2612199, at *6.

28

-38-

Case 2:20-cv-01134-DWL--CDB Document 1 Filed 06/08/20 Page 41 of 55

1

101. Petitioner Jorge Alfonso has a history of chronic respiratory illnesses

2 including allergies and asthma which requires treatment with a beta agonist inhaler. Because

3 of his respiratory illnesses, he is at increased risk for severe COVID-19 that could require

4 intensive care with ventilation at a hospital. Lebensohn Decl. ¶ 4(g); see also Venters Decl.

5 ¶ 45; CDC Higher Risk (identifying people with “moderate to severe asthma” as at higher

6 risk for severe illness from COVID-19); Ferreyra, 2020 WL 2612199, at *6 (finding that

7 petitioner’s asthma placed him at “particular risk for suffering grave illness or death from

8 COVID-19”; rejecting argument that petitioner’s asthma did not place him in high-risk

9 category because it was not “moderate-to-severe” asthma, noting that “CDC guidelines

10 provide that people with asthma, or other respiratory problems are at a heightened risk of

11 severe illness or death from contracting COVID-19,” and that “a recent CDC report shows

12 that asthma was one of the most common underlying conditions for younger people (18–49

13 years old) hospitalized with COVID-19 in the United States”).

14

102. Petitioner Mayancela Zamora has a seizure disorder that requires medication,

15 and heart disease including Tricuspid Insufficiency (leaky heart valve) and hypertrophic

16 cardiomyopathy with severe pulmonary hypertension and dilation of the right cardiac

17 cavities. She also suffers from shortness of breath with exertion. Because of her underlying

18 heart and lung conditions, she is at increased risk for severe complications, including

19 respiratory failure and death, if she is infected with COVID-19. Lebensohn Decl. ¶ 4(j); see

20 also Venters Decl. ¶ 45; CDC Higher Risk (noting that “[s]erious heart conditions,

21 including . . . cardiomyopathies, and pulmonary hypertension, may put people at higher risk

22 for severe illness from COVID-19”); Kevin M.A., 2020 WL 2092791, at *3 (recognizing

23 that hypertension is an objectively serious medical condition that places individuals at a

24 “high probability of developing severe disease from COVID-19”); Perez-Perez, 2020 WL

25 2305276, at *5 (noting that pulmonary hypertension is a CDC risk factor and citing a study

26 of COVID-19 data from Wuhan, China, which “revealed that individuals with hypertension

27 face about a 6% rate of death, a rate that is about 3.5% higher than otherwise healthy

28 individuals and comparable with death rates of people suffering from diabetes (7.3%) and

-39-

Case 2:20-cv-01134-DWL--CDB Document 1 Filed 06/08/20 Page 42 of 55

1 respiratory disease (6.3%)”); Fofana, 2020 WL 1873307, at *9 (rejecting argument that

2 high blood pressure does not significantly increase an individual’s susceptibility to severe

3 COVID-19-related complications, and emphasizing that a “CDC study of hospitalization

4 rates reported on April 8, 2020 revealed that 74% of hospitalized patients were aged 50

5 years old or older, 54.4% were male and 49.7% had hypertension”).

6

103. Petitioner Calix Espinoza has an intellectual disability, history of adjustment

7 disorder, and mixed anxiety and depressed moods. According to Dr. Lebensohn, because

8 Mr. Calix Espinoza’s intellectual disability impairs his ability to properly rationalize and

9 communicate, he risks going undiagnosed and untreated if he contracts COVID-19, which

10 could lead to respiratory failure and death. Lebensohn Decl. ¶ 4(b); see also Venters Decl.

11 ¶ 45; Jose B.R., 2020 WL 2744586, at *4 (“individuals with serious mental illness are also

12 particularly vulnerable to infectious diseases, and the public health strategies for preventing

13 and slowing the spread of COVID-19, such as social distancing, may be less effective”);

14 Ochoa, 2020 WL 2850706, at *11-12 (observing that the petitioner “has less ability to

15 protect himself to COVID-19 due to his mental illness and learning disabilities,” and that

16 the petitioner’s “mental illness and learning disabilities will likely prevent his compliance

17 with” policies mandating detainee use of masks at all times other than eating and showering,

18 “reduc[ing] the potential effectiveness of these policies as to Petitioner”); Yao, Mental

19 Health (observing that, “[w]hen epidemics arise, people with mental health disorders are

20 generally more susceptible to infections,” and that “[p]ossible explanations include

21 cognitive impairment, little awareness of risk, and diminished efforts regarding personal

22 protection in patients”).

23

104. Petitioner Pakhol has suffered a series of medical conditions while detained,

24 including hemorrhoids requiring a special diet, osteoarthritis of his hips, knees, and ankles,

25 trouble urinating, chest pain, and back pain from his neck to his pelvis. According to Dr.

26 Lebensohn, this medical history, in addition to his severe anxiety and depression, places

27 him at heightened risk of exacerbated health problems if exposed to COVID-19. Lebensohn

28 Decl. ¶ 4(e); see also Barr I, 2020 WL 1820667, at *4 (noting that “[g]rowing evidence

-40-

Case 2:20-cv-01134-DWL--CDB Document 1 Filed 06/08/20 Page 43 of 55

1 demonstrates that PTSD, anxiety/stress, and depression can lead to decreased immune

2 response and increased risk of infections,” and that the “weakened immunity due to mental-

3 health disorders can put detainees at increased risk of contracting and suffering from more

4 severe forms of COVID-19”); Ochoa, 2020 WL 2850706, at *11 (noting that petitioner with

5 mental health issues “has shown resistance and confusion to the COVID-19 protocols,

6 resulting in his punishment and, no doubt, exacerbation of his mental health issues”); Yao,

7 Mental Health (“[p]eople with mental health conditions could be more substantially

8 influenced by the emotional responses brought on by the COVID-19 epidemic, resulting in

9 relapses or worsening of an already existing mental health condition because of high

10 susceptibility to stress compared with the general population”).

11

105. Petitioner Cano Villatoro has developed depression from prolonged detention

12 and the stress of not receiving necessary medical care. According to Dr. Lebensohn,

13 COVID-19 will exacerbate Mr. Cano Villatoro’s mental health problems. Lebensohn Decl.

14 ¶ 4(k); see also Yao, Mental Health; Ochoa, 2020 WL 2850706, at *11.

15

106. Petitioner Benitez Flores has a history of traumatic brain injury, PTSD, and

16 depression. According to Dr. Varner, Mr. Benitez Flores is at increased risk of developing

17 complications with COVID-19 because of his decreased ability to communicate stemming

18 from his memory deficits, poor concentration, and avoidant behaviors, which can delay

19 detection and treatment of COVID-19. Varner Decl. ¶¶ 3-5, 7-8; see also Venters Decl.

20 ¶ 45; Barr I, 2020 WL 1820667, at *4; Ochoa, 2020 WL 2850706, at *11-12 (observing

21 that the petitioner “has less ability to protect himself to COVID-19 due to his mental illness

22 and learning disabilities”); Yao, Mental Health (observing that, “[w]hen epidemics arise,

23 people with mental health disorders are generally more susceptible to infections,” and that

24 “[p]ossible explanations include cognitive impairment, little awareness of risk, and

25 diminished efforts regarding personal protection in patients”).

26

107. Petitioner Madueno Davila has hyperthyroidism, obesity with a BMI of 29.1,

27 and microadenoma, which is a small brain tumor that causes frequent headaches and visual

28 changes. According to Dr. Lebensohn, Ms. Madueno Davila’s obesity places her at an

-41-

Case 2:20-cv-01134-DWL--CDB Document 1 Filed 06/08/20 Page 44 of 55

1 increased risk of developing complications requiring hospitalization and intensive care if

2 she contracts COVID-19. Lebensohn Decl. ¶ 4(c); see also Essien, 2020 WL 1974761, at

3 *7 (citing a New York City study finding that a BMI greater than or equal to 30 was a

4 comorbidity in 41.7% of hospitalizations).

5

108. Petitioner Gonzalez Borges has a uterine benign tumor, BMI above 30, and

6 one episode of elevated blood sugar without further evaluation for Type 2 Diabetes

7 Mellitus. According to Dr. Lebensohn, because of her obesity and potential risk of Type 2

8 Diabetes, Ms. Gonzalez Borges has an increased risk of severe complications if she

9 contracts COVID-19. Lebensohn Decl. ¶ 4(h); see also Essien, 2020 WL 1974761, at *7.

10

109. Petitioner Naranjo Rosales has a history of head trauma resulting in the

11 removal of his spleen and placement of a VP shunt, obesity with a BMI over 30, and

12 hyperlipidemia, which could be a sign of heart disease. Lebensohn Decl. ¶ 4(i). According

13 to Dr. Lebensohn, his asplenia (no spleen) and BMI over 30 place him at risk of severe

14 COVID-19 and other infection. Id.; see also Essien, 2020 WL 1974761, at *7.

15

110. Because of Petitioners’ serious underlying medical conditions, the prevalence

16 of risk factors in their medical histories, the fact that COVID-19 is deadly and

17 unpredictable, and the fact that contracting COVID-19 in EDC or La Palma inevitably leads

18 to isolation in terribly detrimental and dangerous conditions, all 13 Petitioners are at

19 imminent risk of serious and irreversible harm, including severe illness and death, if they

20 contract COVID-19 in EDC or La Palma.

21

E. No Other Forum, Including ICE and Immigration Courts, Can Provide

22

Meaningful Relief to Abate the Harm to Petitioners.

23

111. ICE has the authority to release individuals like the Petitioners, whose

24 detention is governed by the discretionary detention statute, 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a). Despite the

25 exigent circumstances, ICE continues to improperly delay release and/or responding to

26 Petitioners’ humanitarian parole requests, whose equities and lack of significant criminal

27 histories demonstrate that they are neither dangers nor risks of flight.

28

-42-

Case 2:20-cv-01134-DWL--CDB Document 1 Filed 06/08/20 Page 45 of 55

1

112. Through counsel, all Petitioners submitted detailed humanitarian parole

2 release requests to ICE, which described the medical conditions and other circumstances

3 that render them highly vulnerable to adverse outcomes from COVID-19.4 As of this filing,

4 the government has not acted to release any of the Petitioners in this case.

5

CAUSES OF ACTION

6

COUNT I

7

Violation of Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause – Special Relationship

8

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

9 the United States, including persons whose presence here is unlawful, temporary, or

10 permanent. See Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 693 (2001).

11

114. When the government takes custody of a person, the government creates a

12 “special relationship” that entails assuming responsibility for the person’s safety and well-

13 being. See, e.g., Henry A. v. Willden, 678 F.3d 991, 998 (9th Cir. 2012). The government

14 violates the Due Process Clause when it takes custody of a person “and at the same time

15 fails to provide for his basic human needs – e.g., food, clothing, shelter, medical care, and

16 reasonable safety.” DeShaney v. Winnebago Cty. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 489 U.S. 189, 200

17 (1989) (emphasis added). Due process “mandates that civil immigration detainees are

18 entitled to more than minimal human necessities.” Castillo, 2020 WL 1502864, at *3

19 (emphasis added) (citing Jones v. Blanas, 393 F.3d 918, 931 (9th Cir. 2004)); Unknown

20 Parties v. Nielsen, No. CV-15-00250-TUC-DCB, 2020 WL 813774, at *2 (D. Ariz. Feb.

21 19, 2020).

22

115. To state a claim under the special relationship doctrine, a plaintiff must show:

23 “(i) the defendant made an intentional decision with respect to the conditions under which

24

25

4 Petitioner Calix Espinoza has a bond that he is unable to pay because of his

indigency. Petitioner Mantilla Silva’s pro bono counsel has been unable to file a request for

26 a bond hearing due to changes in the time of COVID-19. See Anleu Decl. ¶¶ 4, 13.

Petitioners Mayancela Zamora and Benitez Flores were denied bond after they presented

27 their requests pro se. Finally, because the rest of the Petitioners presented to U.S.

immigration authorities at the border seeking asylum, they were classified as arriving aliens,

28 making them ineligible for bond. See 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(1)(B)(ii).

-43-

Case 2:20-cv-01134-DWL--CDB Document 1 Filed 06/08/20 Page 46 of 55

1 the plaintiff was confined; (ii) those conditions put the plaintiff at substantial risk of

2 suffering serious harm; (iii) the defendant did not take reasonable available measures to

3 abate the risk, even though a reasonable official in the circumstances would have

4 appreciated the high degree of involved . . . ; and (iv) by not taking such measures, the

5 defendant caused the plaintiff’s injuries.” Gordon v. Cty. of Orange, 888 F.3d 1118, 1124-

6 25 (9th Cir. 2018); see also Unknown Parties, 2020 WL 813774, at *3 (applying Gordon

7 to claims about inhumane and punitive treatment in civil immigration detention); Martinez

8 v. Geo Grp., Inc., No. EDCV 18-1125-R, 2019 WL 3758026, at *2-3 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 30,

9 2019) (applying Gordon to claims about detention center’s failure to attend to a detainee’s

10 medical needs); J.P. v. Sessions, No. Civ. 18-06081 JAK (SKx), 2019 WL 6723686, at *31-

11 33 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 5, 2019) (applying Gordon to claims about conditions of confinement

12 in civil immigration detention).

13

116. Inadequate health and safety measures at a detention center cause cognizable

14 harm to every detained person. See Parsons v. Ryan, 754 F.3d 657, 679 (9th Cir. 2014);

15 Castillo, 2020 WL 1502864, at *3. As the Supreme Court observed in the context of the

16 California prison system, “all prisoners [] are at risk so long as the State continues to provide

17 inadequate care.” Brown v. Plata, 563 U.S. 493, 532 (2011). Those who are not yet sick are

18 not “remote bystanders”—they are the “next potential victims.” Id.; see also Helling v.

19 McKinney, 509 U.S. 25, 33 (1993) (holding that the government cannot “be deliberately

20 indifferent to the exposure of inmates to a serious, communicable disease on the ground

21 that the complaining inmate shows no serious current symptoms”). This is particularly true

22 here because, in the case of COVID-19, even those who do not appear to be sick may

23 already be infected. Meyer Dec. ¶ 20; Venters Decl. ¶ 41(d) (“asymptomatic transmission

24 of COVID-19 has been identified by the CDC as an important means of transmission”);

25 Castillo, 2020 WL 1502864, at *5 (“The science is well established – infected,

26 asymptomatic carriers of the coronavirus are highly contagious.”).

27

117. When Respondents detained Petitioners, they created a special relationship

28 that required them to provide Petitioners with medical care and reasonable safety. Instead

-44-

Case 2:20-cv-01134-DWL--CDB Document 1 Filed 06/08/20 Page 47 of 55

1 of fulfilling that requirement, Respondents have placed Petitioners at continued risk of

2 suffering serious harm during a deadly pandemic with local community spread. See

3 Pimentel-Estrada, 2020 WL 2092430, at *13 (“Given the evidence that Respondents are

4 unlikely to prevent the introduction of COVID-19 to the NWIPC and the evidence that the

5 virus is likely to spread quickly throughout the facility, the Court concludes Petitioner has

6 made a clear showing that he faces a substantial risk of serious harm due to conditions of

7 his present confinement and the fact that he is at a higher risk for serious illness or death

8 from COVID-19.”); Parsons, 754 F.3d at 679 (recognizing that inadequate health and safety

9 measures at a detention center cause cognizable harm to every detainee). Despite

10 Respondents’ purported efforts to comply with the orders in Urdaneta, Patel, Mendoza, and

11 Gutierrez-Lopez, Petitioners are still subjected to close physical contact with ICE officers,

12 detention center staff, and other detainees without adequate PPE, cleaning or hygiene

13 supplies, and are unable to effectively practice social distancing or other measures mandated

14 by experts, government officials, and the CDC to protect people from infection.

15

118. According to experts, these conditions put Petitioners at significant risk of

16 exposure to COVID-19, which in turn subjects them to risk of serious illness and death. See

17 Venters Decl. ¶¶ 44-48; Meyer Decl. ¶¶ 9-30; Lebensohn Decl. ¶ 4; Varner Decl. ¶¶ 4-5, 8.

18

119. Although Respondents have taken some additional measures to curtail the

19 spread of COVID-19 in response to the orders in Urdaneta, Patel, Mendoza, and Gutierrez-

20 Lopez, these are insufficient and unworkable when applied to a broader swathe of detainees.

21 Even with these additional measures, Petitioners are unable to adequately protect

22 themselves from the virus when they share cells and common spaces with other detainees

23 who are not social distancing, wearing masks, or using the (inadequate and inconsistent)

24 sanitation and hygiene supplies provided by Respondents. This continued failure is

25 objectively unreasonable in light of the local, state, and federal guidance on the pandemic

26 that has been widely publicized since the COVID-19 pandemic was declared. See Flores,

27 2020 WL 2128663, at *1 (noting that COVID-19 “has reached pandemic status”;

28 governments and public agencies “have taken extraordinary measures to attempt to curtail

-45-

Case 2:20-cv-01134-DWL--CDB Document 1 Filed 06/08/20 Page 48 of 55

1 exponential rates of infection of this highly contagious disease”; and medical experts,

2 including the CDC, urge social distancing, frequent handwashing, and use of hand

3 sanitizer); Helling, 509 U.S. at 33 (noting that the Eighth Amendment required a remedy

4 where “inmates in punitive isolation were crowded into cells and . . . some of them had

5 infectious maladies[,] . . . even though it was not alleged that the likely harm would occur

6 immediately and even though the possible infection might not affect all of those exposed”);

7 Rafael L.O. 2020 WL 1808843, at *8 (“With the conditions as currently described, at-risk

8 detainees – including Petitioners – cannot practically adhere to social distancing guidelines

9 or the adequate level of personal hygiene, that have been touted as the most effective means

10 to thwart the spread of the virus. Against this backdrop, Petitioners have demonstrated

11 irreparable harm should they remain in confinement.”); Jose B.R., 2020 WL 2744586, at

12 *13-14 (ordering detainee’s release where detainee could not “practically adhere to social

13 distancing guidelines or the adequate level of personal hygiene to stop the spread of the

14 virus”).

15

120. By failing to take the necessary measures to adequately protect Petitioners

16 and curtail the spread of the virus, Respondents have subjected and continue to subject

17 Petitioners to a substantial risk of contracting COVID-19. See Parsons, 754 at 679

18 (discussing the harms inherent in inadequate public health and medical care provisions in

19 detention); Xochihua-Jaimes, 2020 WL 1429877, at *1 (ordering sua sponte release of a

20 detainee in light of the current “rapidly escalating public health crisis, which public health

21 authorities predict will especially impact immigration detention centers”). The risk is

22 augmented by the La Palma and EDC facilities’ well-documented history of health and

23 safety failures, and by the reported presence of individuals with confirmed and potential

24 COVID-19 symptoms in detention at the facilities.

25

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

26 Process Clause.

27

28

-46-

Case 2:20-cv-01134-DWL--CDB Document 1 Filed 06/08/20 Page 49 of 55

1

COUNT II

2

Violation of Fifth Amendment Protection Against Punitive Detention

3

122. When the federal government detains an immigrant, the immigrant is

4 considered a civil detainee, even if they have a prior criminal conviction. See Zadvydas,

5 533 U.S. at 690. As civil detainees, immigrants are afforded greater protection by the Fifth

6 Amendment’s Due Process Clause than convicted prisoners or even pretrial criminal

7 detainees. Unlike a convicted prisoner, who may be punished as long as the punishment is

8 not “cruel and unusual,” Pierce v. Cty. of Orange, 526 F.3d 1190, 1205 (9th Cir. 2008), a

9 civil detainee may not be punished at all. Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 535 (1970); Jones,

10 393 F.3d at 932. And civil immigration detainees “must be afforded ‘more considerate

11 treatment’” than criminal pretrial detainees. See Unknown Parties, 2020 WL 813774, at *12

12 (citing Youngberg v. Romeo, 457 U.S. 307, 321-22 (1982)).

13

123. “Numerous courts across the country have considered whether, in light of the

14 COVID-19 pandemic, the continued confinement of ICE detainees or conditions of

15 confinement at federal detention facilities amounts to punishment in violation of the Fifth

16 Amendment’s substantive due process clause. In the Ninth Circuit, the majority of district

17 courts that have considered the issue have concluded there is a likelihood plaintiffs will

18 prevail on those claims.” Rodriguez Alcantara v. Archambeault, No. 20-CV-0756 DMS

19 (AHG), 2020 WL 2315777, at *8 (S.D. Cal. May 1, 2020) (citations omitted). These

20 decisions now include at least four from this district, where this Court found that four

21 similarly situated Petitioners succeeded on the merits of their Due Process claims. See

22 Urdaneta, 2020 WL 2319980, at *12 (finding a violation of due process as to one detainee

23 at La Palma); Gutierrez-Lopez, 2020 WL 2781722, at *10 (same, as to one detainee at

24 EDC); Patel, No. 2:20-CV-00709-DLR-DMF, Dkt. 35 (same, as to one detainee at EDC);

25 Mendoza, No. CV-20-00514-PHX-SPL (MTM), Dkt. 37 (same, as to one detainee at EDC).

26

124. To establish a violation of the Due Process Clause, Petitioners need not show

27 that Respondents intended to subject them to punishment, see Pierce, 526 F.3d at 1205, or

28 that they acted with deliberate indifference, Jones, 393 F.3d at 933. A restriction is

-47-

Case 2:20-cv-01134-DWL--CDB Document 1 Filed 06/08/20 Page 50 of 55

1 “punitive” if it is “excessive in relation to [its non-punitive purpose]’ or is ‘employed to

2 achieve objectives that could be accomplished in so many alternative and less harsh

3 methods.’” Jones, 393 F.3d at 933-34 (alteration in original) (quoting Demery v. Arpaio,

4 378 F.3d 1020, 1028 (9th Cir. 2004)); Hallstrom v. City of Garden City, 991 F.2d 1473,

5 1484 (1993)). A presumption of punishment arises when a civil detainee is held in similar

6 or more restrictive conditions than his criminal counterparts. See Jones, 393 F.3d at 932;

7 see also Torres v. DHS, 411 F. Supp. 3d 1036, 1065 (C.D. Cal. 2019) (finding a presumption

8 of punitiveness where plaintiffs “allege[d] conditions at [ICE detention center] and policies

9 by ICE that are not ‘more considerate’ than at criminal facilities”). To rebut this

10 presumption, the government must show that its actions are not excessive in relation to a

11 legitimate, nonpunitive purpose. King v. Cty. of Los Angeles, 885 F.3d 548, 558 (9th Cir.

12 2018).

13

125. Here, a presumption of punishment arises because Petitioners, civil

14 immigration detainees, are subjected to worse conditions than many convicted prisoners.

15 Government agencies across the country, including the Federal Bureau of Prisons, have

16 taken prompt action to systematically and “aggressively” screen at-risk criminal detainees

17 for potential home confinement and have systematically released large numbers of criminal

18 detainees to prevent them and surrounding communities from suffering bodily harm or

19 death from COVID-19. See, e.g., Update on COVID-19 and Home Confinement, FEDERAL

20 BUREAU OF PRISONS, https://www.bop.gov/resources/news/20200405_covid19_home_

21 confinement.jsp (last updated Apr. 5, 2020); Timothy Williams et al., ‘Jails Are Petri

22 Dishes’: Inmates Freed as the Virus Spreads Behind Bars, N.Y. TIMES (Mar. 30, 2020)

23 [attached hereto as Exhibit 28]; United States v. Garlock, No. 18-CR-00418-VC-1, 2020

24 WL 1439980, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 25, 2020) (sua sponte extending the defendant’s

25 surrender date for his criminal sentence, and explaining: “To avoid adding to the chaos and

26 creating unnecessary health risks, offenders who are on release and scheduled to surrender

27 to the Bureau of Prisons in the coming months should, absent truly extraordinary

28 circumstances, have their surrender dates extended until this public health crisis has

-48-

Case 2:20-cv-01134-DWL--CDB Document 1 Filed 06/08/20 Page 51 of 55

1 passed.”); United States v. Stephens, No. 15-CR-95 (AJN), 2020 WL 1295155 (S.D.N.Y.

2 Mar. 19, 2020); Matter of Extradition of Toledo Manrique, No. 19-MJ-71055-MAG-1

3 (TSH), 2020 WL 1307109, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 19, 2020) (“The risk that this vulnerable

4 person will contract COVID-19 while in jail is a special circumstance that warrants bail.”).

5 To rebut the presumption of punitiveness, a “bare assertion of the requirement of keeping

6 [ ] detainees . . . will not suffice.” Torres, 411 F. Supp. 3d at 1065 (alteration in original)

7 (quoting Jones, 393 F.3d at 934) (rejecting defendants’ proposed justification that they were

8 “required by statute to maintain a secure facility for certain immigrants, pending the

9 outcome of their proceedings”). Moreover, even assuming Respondents have a legitimate,

10 nonpunitive interest in continuing to detain Petitioners, endangering the lives and wellbeing

11 of Petitioners and surrounding communities is “excessive in relation to Respondents’

12 objectives.” Kaur, 2020 WL 1939386, at *4; see also Urdaneta, 2020 WL 2319980, at *12

13 (“While Respondents may have legitimate objectives for detaining Petitioner, they have

14 identified no single legitimate purpose served by detaining Petitioner under conditions that

15 pose an objectively unreasonable risk of harm to him. That is because these conditions serve

16 no legitimate government objective.”); Rodriguez Alcantara, 2020 WL 2315777, at *8

17 (“Although ‘under normal circumstances’ the confinement of ICE detainees ‘pending

18 removal proceedings is rationally related to the legitimate governmental interest of ensuring

19 their appearance for their deportation proceedings and preventing danger to the

20 community[,]’ the current circumstances, and in particular, the circumstances at Otay Mesa,

21 are anything but normal.”) (internal citation omitted); Thakker, 2020 WL 1671563, at *8

22 (considering substantially similar conditions at Pennsylvania ICE detention centers and

23 holding that there was “no rational relationship between a legitimate government objective

24 and keeping Petitioners detained in unsanitary, tightly-packed environments—doing so

25 would constitute a punishment to Petitioners”).

26

126. Detention itself exposes Petitioners to an unacceptable risk of contracting

27 COVID-19 and suffering bodily harm or death as a result. Respondents have confined

28 Petitioners in close quarters with many other individuals, any of whom could already be

-49-

Case 2:20-cv-01134-DWL--CDB Document 1 Filed 06/08/20 Page 52 of 55

1 infected even if asymptomatic. The virus spreads rapidly in close quarters, often severely

2 infecting not only older individuals or those with preexisting conditions but also younger,

3 previously healthy people. Moreover, now that COVID-19 is spreading in La Palma and

4 EDC, there is no indication that the facilities have adequate equipment, staff, or resources

5 to treat large numbers of severely ill detainees.

6

127. Despite Respondents’ adoption of some measures to attempt to mitigate the

7 spread of COVID-19 and comply with the orders in Urdaneta, Patel, Mendoza, and

8 Gutierrez-Lopez, the substantial, unjustified threat of serious harm to Petitioners remains

9 due to conditions inherent in detention settings as well as Respondents’ continued failures

10 to provide adequate sanitation and hygiene supplies. Indeed, whether Respondents “ha[ve]

11 taken reasonable steps overall to combat the spread of COVID-19 is not the question the

12 Court is confronted with here. Rather, this Court asks whether this Petitioner’s continued

13 confinement during this global pandemic is justified by the Government’s legitimate

14 interest in Petitioner’s detention.” Ochoa, 2020 WL 2850706, at *12.

15

128. “Respondents contend the precautions they’ve implemented . . . in recent

16 weeks facilitate social distancing and increased sanitization, but nothing prevents

17 asymptomatic staff from transmitting the disease to detainees and detainees necessarily

18 remain housed in cohorts and share cramped living, dining, and restroom quarters.” Kaur,

19 2020 WL 1939386, at *4.

20

129. Since the rise of COVID-19, ICE has modified its ordinary immigration

21 enforcement procedures by curtailing its raids and interior enforcement in order to stop the

22 spread of COVID-19. There is no legitimate reason to continue to detain Petitioners under

23 these circumstances—circumstances that, in ICE’s view, outweigh the usual imperatives of

24 immigration enforcement. And no risk to the community justifies the detention of these

25 particular individuals under these conditions, particularly where Petitioners have minimal

26 or no criminal histories. See Thakker, 2020 WL 1671563, at *8 (“We note that ICE has a

27 plethora of means other than physical detention at their disposal by which they may monitor

28 civil detainees and ensure that they are present at removal proceedings, including remote

-50-

Case 2:20-cv-01134-DWL--CDB Document 1 Filed 06/08/20 Page 53 of 55

1 monitoring and routine check-ins. Physical detention itself will place a burden on

2 community healthcare systems and will needlessly endanger Petitioners, prison employees,

3 and the greater community. We cannot see the rational basis of such a risk.”); Castillo, 2020

4 WL 1502864, at *6 (finding that the “balance of the equities tip[ped] sharply in favor of the

5 Petitioners,” and there was “no harm to the Government” in ordering Petitioners’ release

6 and “very low” flight risk “given the current global pandemic” even though both Petitioners

7 had committed prior criminal offenses).

8

130. As Judge John Jones III recently concluded: “Respondents’ Facilities are

9 plainly not equipped to protect Petitioners from a potentially fatal exposure to COVID-19.

10 While this deficiency is neither intentional nor malicious, should we fail to afford relief to

11 Petitioners we will be a party to an unconscionable and possibly barbaric result. Our

12 Constitution and laws apply equally to the most vulnerable among us, particularly when

13 matters of public health are at issue. This is true even for those who have lost a measure of

14 their freedom. If we are to remain the civilized society we hold ourselves out to be, it would

15 be heartless and inhumane not to recognize Petitioners’ plight. And so we will act.”

16 Thakker, 2020 WL 1671563, at *9.

17

131. Particularly where, as here, Respondents have adequate “alternate means of

18 ensuring Petitioner[s’] appearance at removal proceedings,” Kaur, 2020 WL 1939386, at

19 *4, Respondents’ continued detention of Petitioners violates the Fifth Amendment’s

20 protection against punitive detention.

21

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

22

WHEREFORE, Petitioners pray that this Court grant the following relief:

23

(1) Assume jurisdiction over this matter;

24

(2) Issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus on the ground that Petitioners’ continued

25

detention violates the Due Process Clause and order Petitioners’ immediate

26

release;

27

28

-51-

Case 2:20-cv-01134-DWL--CDB Document 1 Filed 06/08/20 Page 54 of 55

1

(3) In the alternative, issue injunctive relief ordering Respondents to immediately

2

release Petitioners on the ground that their continued detention violates the

3

Due Process Clause;

4

(4) Issue a declaration that Respondents’ continued detention in civil immigration

5

custody of Petitioners violates the Due Process Clause;

6

(5) Award Petitioners their costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees in this action

7

under the Equal Access to Justice Act, as amended, 5 U.S.C. § 504 and 28

8

U.S.C. § 2412, and on any other basis justified under law; and

9

(6) Grant any other and further relief that this Court deems just and proper.

10 Dated: June 8, 2020

PERKINS COIE LLP

11

By: s/ Katherine E. May

12

Daniel C. Barr (Bar No. 010149)

Christopher D. Thomas (Bar No. 010482)

13

Katherine E. May (Bar No. 032335)

Kristine J. Beaudoin (Bar No. 034853)

14

Margo R. Casselman (Bar No. 034963)

2901 North Central Avenue, Suite 2000

15

Phoenix, Arizona 85012-2788

Email: DBarr@perkinscoie.com

16

CThomas@perkinscoie.com

KMay@perkinscoie.com

17

KBeaudoin@perkinscoie.com

MCasselman@perkinscoie.com

18

Laura St. John (Bar No. 035160)

19

Katharine E. Ruhl (Bar No. 033581)

Laura Belous (Bar No. 028132)

20

FLORENCE IMMIGRANT &

REFUGEE RIGHTS PROJECT

21

P. O. Box 86299

Tucson, Arizona 85754

22

Email: lstjohn@firrp.org

kruhl@firrp.org

23

lbelous@firrp.org

24

25

26

27

28

-52-

Case 2:20-cv-01134-DWL--CDB Document 1 Filed 06/08/20 Page 55 of 55

1

David C. Fathi (Wash. 24893)*

Eunice Hyunhye Cho (Wash. 53711)*

2

ACLU NATIONAL PRISON

PROJECT

3

915 15th Street N.W., 7th Floor

Washington, D.C. 20005

4

Telephone: (202) 548-6603

Email: dfathi@aclu.org

5

echo@aclu.org

6

*Applications for pro hac vice forthcoming.

Not admitted in DC; practice limited to federal

7

courts.

8

Yvette Borja (Bar No. 035470)

ACLU FOUNDATION OF ARIZONA

9

3707 N. 7th Street, Suite 235

Phoenix Arizona 85014

10

(602) 650-1854

Email: yborja@acluaz.org

11

12

Anand Balakrishnan (Conn. Bar No. 430329*

Michael K.T. Tan (NY Bar No. 4654208)**

13

Omar C. Jadwat (NY Bar No. 4118170)**

AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES

14

UNION IMMIGRANTS’ RIGHTS PROJECT

125 Broad St., 18th floor

15

New York, New York 10004

Email: abalakrishnan@aclu.org

16

mtan@aclu.org

ojadwat@aclu.org

17

*Application for pro hac vice forthcoming.

18

Not admitted in NY; practice limited to federal

courts.

19

** Applications for pro hac vice forthcoming.

20

Attorneys for Petitioners-Plaintiffs

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

-53-