Case3:08-cv-04220-RS Document135 Filed09/14/09 Page1 of 75

1 LATHAM & WATKINS LLP Alfred C. Pfeiffer, Jr. (State Bar No. 120965)
2 Melissa N. Chan (State Bar No. 240228) Mary Elizabeth Heard (State Bar No. 255793)
3 Jason L. Daniels (State Bar No. 258377) Casey R. O’Connor (State Bar No. 261755)
4 505 Montgomery Street, Suite 2000 San Francisco, California 94111
5 Telephone: (415) 391-0600 Facsimile: (415) 395-8095
6 Email: al.pfeiffer@lw.com Email: melissa.chan@lw.com
7 Email: maryelizabeth.heard@lw.com Email: jason.daniels@lw.com
8 Email: casey.oconnor@lw.com

9 Julia Harumi Mass (State Bar No. 189649)

Alan L. Schlosser (State Bar No. 49957)

10 Andre I. Segura (State Bar No. 247681)

AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION

11 FOUNDATION OF NORTHERN CALIFORNIA

39 Drumm Street

12 San Francisco, California 94111

Telephone: (415) 621-2493

13 Facsimile: (415) 255-8437

Email: jmass@aclunc.org

14 Email: aschlosser@aclunc.org

Email: asegura@aclunc.org

15

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

16

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

17

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

18

COMMITTEE FOR IMMIGRANT RIGHTS OF

CASE NO. 08-4220 PJH

19 SONOMA COUNTY, FRANCISCO SANCHEZ-

LOPEZ, CHRISTYAN SONATO-VEGA, and

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

20 SAMUEL MEDEL MOYADO,

FOR DECLARATORY AND

INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND

21

Plaintiffs,

DAMAGES

22

v.

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

23 COUNTY OF SONOMA; SHERIFF-CORONER BILL COGBILL and DEPUTY SHERIFF MORRIS
24 ERIC SALKIN, individually and in their official capacities; UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; U.S.
25 DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, BUREAU OF IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS
26 ENFORCEMENT; SPECIAL AGENT MARIO HUELGA and SPECIAL AGENT CHRIS
27 MERENDINO, individually and in their official capacities; DOES 1-50; and ROES 1-50, inclusive,
28 Defendants.

ATTORNEYS AT LAW SAN FRANCISCO

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT CASE NO. 08-4220-PJH

Case3:08-cv-04220-RS Document135 Filed09/14/09 Page2 of 75

1

INTRODUCTION

2

1. This is an action to challenge ongoing policies and practices of Immigration and

3 Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) agents and Sonoma County Sheriff’s Department personnel that

4 exceed both agencies’ lawful authority and violate the constitutional and statutory rights of

5 Latino residents in Sonoma County. The policies and practices challenged in this lawsuit

6 include:

7

• Sheriff’s deputies and ICE agents using race as a motivating factor for traffic stops and

8

other detentions, in violation of constitutional and statutory guarantees of equal

9

protection;

10

• Sheriff’s deputies and ICE agents stopping, interrogating, searching, and arresting

11

persons without adequate justification;

12

• Sheriff’s deputies arresting and holding individuals in the County jail without any

13

lawful basis for detention; and

14

• Denial of due process to people arrested on suspected immigration violations and

15

improperly held in the custody of the Sheriff.

16

2. This action is brought by the Committee for Immigrant Rights of Sonoma County,

17 which has waged a long-standing campaign to promote the rights of immigrants and to end local

18 immigration enforcement practices that undermine public safety and the willingness of Sonoma

19 County’s large immigrant community to report crime to local law enforcement agencies. This

20 action is also brought by individuals, including members of the Committee, who have been

21 subjected to the Defendants’ discriminatory practices and unreasonable searches and seizures.

22

3. Plaintiffs seek an end to Defendants’ unlawful and discriminatory policies and

23 practices. Secondarily, this action seeks monetary damages for the individual plaintiffs. The

24 specific relief sought by each Plaintiff against each Defendant is alleged herein.

25

JURISDICTION

26

4. This Court has jurisdiction over the claims alleged in this Complaint pursuant to

27 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question), 28 U.S.C. § 1343 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 2201

28 (declaratory relief), 42 U.S.C. § 1983, 28 U.S.C. § 1346, 28 U.S.C. § 1651, and 5 U.S.C. § 702

ATTORNEYS AT LAW SAN FRANCISCO

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT CASE NO. 08-4220-PJH

Case3:08-cv-04220-RS Document135 Filed09/14/09 Page3 of 75

1 (Administrative Procedure Act). Supplemental jurisdiction over the pendant state law claims is

2 proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

3

VENUE AND INTRA-DISTRICT ASSIGNMENT

4

5. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b) and (e) because

5 Defendant U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Bureau of Immigration and Customs

6 Enforcement resides in and can be found in this judicial district. This action arises in Sonoma

7 County and assignment in either the Oakland Division or San Francisco division is appropriate

8 pursuant to Local Rule 3-2.

9

PARTIES

10

6. Plaintiff Committee for Immigrant Rights of Sonoma County (“Committee”) is a

11 community-based, non-profit membership organization, comprised of Sonoma County residents

12 and organizations whose mission is to mobilize and educate the community around legal and

13 social issues related to the rights of immigrants in Sonoma County and to promote the rights of

14 immigrants and others who are affected by immigration enforcement practices. The

15 Committee’s membership includes persons who have been and/or are imminently susceptible to

16 being injured by Defendants’ unlawful practices, as well as family members of such persons.

17

7. Plaintiff Francisco Sanchez-Lopez is a 22-year old Latino male who resides in

18 Sonoma County, in the State of California. He resided in Sonoma County during the events

19 relevant to this Complaint and described herein.

20

8. Plaintiff Christyan Sonato-Vega is a 24-year old Latino male who resided in

21 Sonoma County, in the State of California, during the events relevant to this Complaint and

22 described herein. Sonato-Vega does not seek injunctive or declaratory relief against Defendants,

23 as discussed below.

24

9. Plaintiff Samuel Medel Moyado is a 23-year old Latino male who resided in

25 Sonoma County, in the State of California, during the events relevant to this Complaint and

26 described herein.

27

10. Defendant County of Sonoma (“Sonoma County” or “County”) is a political

28
ATTORNEYS AT LAW SAN FRANCISCO

subdivision of the State of California that can sue and be sued in its own name. Upon

2

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

CASE NO. 08-4220-PJH

Case3:08-cv-04220-RS Document135 Filed09/14/09 Page4 of 75

1 information and belief, Defendant Sonoma County includes, operates, governs, and is

2 responsible for the Sonoma County Sheriff’s Department (“Sheriff’s Department”) pursuant to

3 the laws of the State of California and Sonoma County.

4

11. Defendant Sheriff Bill Cogbill is Sheriff-Coroner of the Sonoma County Sheriff’s

5 Department and is responsible for the policies, practices and customs of the Sonoma County

6 Sheriff’s Department. Defendant Cogbill also directs the hiring, screening, training, retention,

7 supervision, discipline, counseling and control of the deputy sheriffs under his supervision and

8 command. Defendant Cogbill also directs the processing, care and management of individuals

9 held at the Main Adult Detention Facility (“MADF”) and the North County Detention Facility

10 (“NCDF”) (collectively, “the Sonoma County jail”). At all relevant times, Defendant Cogbill

11 was acting under color of law. He is sued in his individual and official capacities.

12

12. Defendant Deputy Sheriff Morris E. (Eric) Salkin is a deputy sheriff with the

13 Sonoma County Sheriff’s Department. At all relevant times, Defendant Salkin was acting under

14 color of law. He is sued in his individual and official capacities.

15

13. Defendant United States Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement

16 (“ICE”), a federal agency charged with the administration, investigation and enforcement of

17 federal immigration laws as adopted in the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1101 et

18 seq., is a division of the United States Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”). ICE was at

19 all times relevant herein a division of DHS, organized and existing under the laws of the United

20 States.

21

14. Defendant Special Agent Christopher Merendino is a senior special agent of ICE.

22 At all relevant times, Defendant Merendino was acting under color of law, as an agent, employee

23 and/or representative of the United States. He is sued in his individual and official capacities.

24

15. Defendant Special Agent Mario Huelga is a special agent of ICE. At all relevant

25 times, Defendant Huelga was acting under color of law, as an agent, employee and/or

26 representative of the United States. He is sued in his individual and official capacities.

27

16. At all relevant times, Defendants DOES 1 through 50 (also “DOE defendants”)

28
ATTORNEYS AT LAW SAN FRANCISCO

were agents, employees, or otherwise representatives of the Sheriff and/or County. At all

3

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

CASE NO. 08-4220-PJH

Case3:08-cv-04220-RS Document135 Filed09/14/09 Page5 of 75

1 relevant times, DOES 1 through 50 were acting under color of law. Upon information and

2 belief, Plaintiffs allege that many, if not all, of DOES 1 through 50 are residents of the Northern

3 District of California. Upon information and belief, Plaintiffs allege that DOES 1 through 50,

4 inclusive, are legally responsible for the wrongs committed against Plaintiffs, as alleged herein.

5 When Plaintiffs become aware of the true identities of one or more DOE defendants, Plaintiffs

6 will amend this complaint to add or substitute them as named Defendants.

7

17. At all relevant times, Defendants ROES 1 through 50 (also “ROE defendants”)

8 were agents, employees, or otherwise representatives of ICE. At all relevant times, ROES 1

9 through 50 were acting under color of law. Upon information and belief, Plaintiffs allege that

10 many, if not all, of ROES 1 through 50 are residents of the Northern District of California. Upon

11 information and belief, Plaintiffs allege that ROES 1 through 50, inclusive, are legally

12 responsible for the wrongs committed against Plaintiffs, as alleged herein. When Plaintiffs

13 become aware of the true identities of one or more ROE defendants, Plaintiffs will amend this

14 complaint to add or substitute them as named Defendants.

15

18. Defendant United States of America exists under the Constitution of the United

16 States of America and laws enacted by the United States Congress. ICE was at all times relevant

17 herein a division of DHS, organized and existing under the laws of the United States. Individual

18 defendants Merendino, Huelga and ROES 1-50 were at all relevant times acting as agents,

19 employees, and/or representatives of Defendant United States of America and in engaging in the

20 conduct herein alleged were acting within the scope of their agency and employment and with

21 the knowledge, consent, permission, authorization or ratification, either express or implied, of

22 Defendant United States of America.

23

19. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that each of the Defendants

24 caused, and is liable for, the unconstitutional and unlawful conduct and resulting injuries alleged

25 herein, by, among other things, personally participating in said conduct or acting jointly with

26 others who did so; by authorizing, acquiescing or setting in motion policies, plans or actions that

27 led to the unlawful conduct; by failing to take action to prevent the unlawful conduct; by failing

28
ATTORNEYS AT LAW SAN FRANCISCO

or refusing with deliberate indifference to maintain adequate training and supervision; and/or by

4

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

CASE NO. 08-4220-PJH

Case3:08-cv-04220-RS Document135 Filed09/14/09 Page6 of 75

1 ratifying the unlawful conduct taken by employees under his or her direction and control.

2 Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that Defendants’ actions were pursuant to

3 a policy, custom, or usage of the Sheriff’s Department or ICE or other related agencies.

4

CIVIL IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT – LEGAL BACKGROUND

5 Local Law Enforcement Agencies’ Lack of Authority to Enforce Immigration Law

6

20. State and federal law do not authorize local authorities such as Defendants

7 Sonoma County, including the Sonoma County Sheriff’s Department, and Sheriff Cogbill and

8 the employees under his supervision, including Deputy Sheriff Salkin, to arrest or detain

9 individuals based on suspected civil immigration violations.

10

21. Federal law preempts local law enforcement agencies from enforcing civil

11 immigration law except as specifically provided by statute. Local law enforcement agencies may

12 enforce criminal immigration law within the restrictions of state law.

13

22. In California, local law enforcement authorities may make warrantless arrests

14 only where they have probable cause to believe the arrestee has committed a crime in their

15 presence or a felony offense outside their presence. California Penal Code § 836.

16

23. Neither the County nor the Sonoma County Sheriff’s Department have entered

17 into a written agreement with ICE pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1357(g) to authorize County employees

18 to enforce civil immigration law.

19

24. Neither the County nor the Sonoma County Sheriff’s Department have entered

20 into a written agreement with ICE, known as an “Inter-Governmental Service Agreement,”

21 designating the Sonoma County Jail as a detention facility for individuals in federal immigration

22 custody.

23

25. According to Protocol 99-1 of the Sonoma County Law Enforcement Chiefs’

24 Association, “Sonoma County Law Enforcement personnel shall not arrest or detain any person

25 based solely on violation of Title 8, United States Code, Section 1325 (illegal entry)” and

26 “Sonoma County law enforcement personnel shall not undertake any interrogation of any person

27 for the sole purpose of ascertaining his/her immigrant status.” According to Section 428 of the

28
ATTORNEYS AT LAW SAN FRANCISCO

Sonoma County Sheriff’s Department policies, “The fact that an individual is suspected of being

5

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

CASE NO. 08-4220-PJH

Case3:08-cv-04220-RS Document135 Filed09/14/09 Page7 of 75

1 an undocumented alien alone shall not be the basis for contact, detention, or arrest.” Upon

2 information and belief, Defendants Sonoma County and Cogbill have officially abandoned,

3 ignored and contravened these written policies to the extent that they conflict with the other

4 policies, practices and conduct described in this Complaint.

5 Limits on ICE Agents’ Authority to Make Warrantless Arrests and Issue Immigration

6 Detainers

7

26. ICE agents are authorized to arrest individuals without a warrant only if they (a)

8 have reason to believe that the individuals are in the United States in violation of immigration

9 law, and (b) have reason to believe that the individuals are likely to escape before a warrant can

10 be obtained for their arrest. 8 U.S.C. § 1357.

11

27. ICE must provide certain procedural protections to individuals arrested for civil

12 immigration violations without a warrant. These protections include: the right to be examined by

13 a non-arresting officer without unnecessary delay; notice of the charges against them and their

14 right to a hearing with counsel at their own expense; lists of available pro bono counsel and free

15 legal services; and notice that statements made by the arrestee may be used against him in a

16 subsequent proceeding. 8 U.S.C. §§ 1226, 1229, 1357; 8 C.F.R. § 287.3. A bond determination

17 and a decision whether to issue a Notice to Appear must be made within 48 hours of arrest

18 except in the case of emergency or extraordinary circumstances. Id.

19

28. 8 C.F.R. § 287.7 allows ICE agents to issue immigration detainers requesting that

20 other law enforcement agencies maintain custody of a suspected noncitizen already within that

21 law enforcement agency’s custody on an independent civil or criminal charge, to permit ICE to

22 assume custody of the suspected noncitizen. 8 C.F.R. § 287.7 does not authorize ICE agents to

23 issue immigration detainers to instruct local law enforcement agencies to detain or arrest

24 individuals who are not already in the custody of those agencies.

25

DEFENDANTS’ UNLAWFUL POLICIES, CUSTOMS, AND PRACTICES

26

29. For at least the past four years, the Sonoma County Sheriff’s Department -- under

27 the direction of Sheriff Bill Cogbill -- has been working with ICE and its officers to enforce civil

28
ATTORNEYS AT LAW SAN FRANCISCO

immigration law against Latino persons in Sonoma County, in excess of local authority. This

6

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

CASE NO. 08-4220-PJH

Case3:08-cv-04220-RS Document135 Filed09/14/09 Page8 of 75

1 collaboration takes place in the field in two ways: (1) by Sheriff’s deputies participating in joint

2 patrols with ICE agents that specifically target Latino residents of Sonoma County, and (2) by

3 Sheriff’s deputies identifying and arresting persons suspected of being unauthorized noncitizens

4 outside the presence of ICE officers, but with the agency’s approval.

5 Joint Patrols Staffed By Local and Federal Officers

6

30. Defendant Sheriff Cogbill and his deputies, including Defendant Salkin,

7 participate in joint operations with ICE agents, including Defendants Merendino and Huelga, on

8 a regular basis as part of an ongoing enforcement initiative known as the Multi-Agency Gang

9 Enforcement Team (“MAGNET”) or the “Gang Task Force.” Several agencies, including the

10 Sonoma County Sheriff’s Department and ICE, participate in MAGNET operations. Defendants

11 Salkin, Huelga and Merendino are regular field participants or personnel in MAGNET

12 operations.

13

31. MAGNET’s purported primary goal is stop gang-related violence and associated

14 criminal activity. However, MAGNET’s participants, including Defendants Salkin, Merendino

15 and Huelga, do not limit their enforcement activities to such criminal activity. Specifically, in

16 furtherance of a stated goal to arrest “undocumented alien gang members,” MAGNET targets

17 Latinos in Sonoma County who are not engaged in criminal activity. Upon information and

18 belief, Defendant Sheriff’s deputies and ICE agents working together on MAGNET patrols enter

19 areas of Sonoma County that have high Latino populations and target young Latino males or

20 young males who appear to be Latino for traffic stops, often without any reasonable suspicion of

21 criminal activity or traffic infraction. After stopping such individuals, Defendants interrogate

22 and search them, even where there is no reasonable suspicion that such individuals are engaged

23 in criminal activity or present a threat to safety.

24

32. Defendants have adopted the policy, practice and custom of relying on the

25 impermissible factors of race, color and/or ethnicity to stop, detain, question and/or search

26 persons who are or appear to be Latino and to prolong their initial stops to probe into their

27 immigration status without reasonable suspicion that they have committed a crime or are

28
ATTORNEYS AT LAW SAN FRANCISCO

noncitizens without lawful immigration status. 7

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT CASE NO. 08-4220-PJH

Case3:08-cv-04220-RS Document135 Filed09/14/09 Page9 of 75

1

33. After such initial stops, prolonged detentions for immigration questioning, and

2 searches, Defendants have the policy and practice of arresting and placing individuals in the

3 Sonoma County jail without criminal charges or any actual or purported criminal basis, simply

4 because they are suspected of violating civil immigration laws. Defendant ICE and its agents

5 also engage in the policy and practice of arresting individuals or causing them to be arrested

6 without warrants and causing them to be held in the Sonoma County jail without reason to

7 believe that such individuals are present in the United States without authorization and without

8 reason to believe they are likely to escape before a warrant can be obtained.

9 Civil Immigration Enforcement By Sheriff’s Deputies Unaccompanied By ICE Agents

10

34. In addition to the joint operations described above, Defendants Cogbill and

11 County employees working under his supervision, including Defendant Salkin, have adopted the

12 policy, practice and custom of stopping, detaining, questioning and/or searching persons who are

13 or appear to be Latino and interrogating them about their immigration status outside the presence

14 of ICE agents.

15

35. These racially-motivated stops are frequently unsupported by reasonable

16 suspicion or probable cause that the person or persons stopped have violated any criminal law.

17

36. Even where such stops may be initially supported by reasonable suspicion of

18 criminal activity or traffic infraction, Defendants Cogbill and the County employees under his

19 supervision, including Defendant Salkin, have adopted the policy, practice and custom of

20 prolonging the initial stop to interrogate individuals about their immigration status and

21 conducting searches of their persons and vehicles despite having neither any criminal basis to

22 prolong the detention nor any investigatory or safety justification for the searches. Upon

23 information and belief, the individual’s actual or apparent Latino descent is a motivating factor

24 for Sheriff’s deputies’ prolonged detention, interrogation, and search of such individuals.

25

37. Defendants Cogbill and the County employees under his supervision, including

26 Defendant Salkin, have also adopted the policy, practice and custom of contacting ICE agents to

27 seek approval to execute warrantless arrests for civil immigration violations. Upon information

28
ATTORNEYS AT LAW SAN FRANCISCO

and belief, these calls to ICE agents are motivated by the individual’s actual or apparent Latino

8

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

CASE NO. 08-4220-PJH

Case3:08-cv-04220-RS Document135 Filed09/14/09 Page10 of 75

1 descent, Spanish surname, or Latin American country of origin, and Latino residents of Sonoma

2 County are disproportionately affected by this practice.

3 Individuals Arrested for Civil Immigration Violations During Joint Patrols or by Sheriff’s

4 Deputies Alone Held in the Sonoma County Jail

5

38. Federal Defendants ICE, Huelga, Merendino, and unknown ROES have adopted

6 the policy, practice and custom of requesting that Sonoma County Sheriff’s Department

7 personnel take physical custody of individuals suspected of civil immigration violations and hold

8 them in the Sonoma County jail without any criminal basis for arrest. This practice and custom

9 includes issuance of immigration detainers under the purported authority of 8 C.F.R. § 287.7 for

10 persons that are not already in County custody on an independent arrest pursuant to criminal law

11 or other state law.

12

39. County Defendants County of Sonoma, Cogbill, Salkin, and DOES 1-50 have

13 adopted the policy, practice and custom of transporting, booking, and holding individuals in the

14 Sonoma County jail without a warrant or probable cause of criminal activity, based only on

15 Federal Defendants’ request and issuance of an immigration detainer under the purported

16 authority of 8 C.F.R. 287.7.

17

40. Defendants ICE, Sonoma County, and Sheriff Cogbill do not provide adequate

18 training to the deputy sheriffs regarding the law and regulations governing ICE detainers, or any

19 federal immigration law.

20 Warrantless Civil Immigration Arrests Made Without Flight Risk Assessment

21

41. Whether encountered as a part of a joint MAGNET operation including ICE

22 agents or arrested by Sheriff’s deputies with ICE’s approval, Defendants have adopted the

23 policy, practice and custom of placing civil immigration arrestees in local custody without

24 meeting federal requirements for the warrantless arrest of noncitizens suspected of violating

25 federal immigration laws, i.e., probable cause and a determination that the person is likely to

26 escape before an arrest warrant can be obtained. 8 U.S.C. § 1357.

27

42. Upon information and belief, Defendants United States and ICE do not provide

28
ATTORNEYS AT LAW SAN FRANCISCO

adequate training to ICE agents regarding the types of evidence necessary to establish reasonable

9

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

CASE NO. 08-4220-PJH

Case3:08-cv-04220-RS Document135 Filed09/14/09 Page11 of 75

1 suspicion or probable cause that a person is a noncitizen in the United States without

2 authorization or that the person poses a flight risk as required for warrantless arrests based on

3 suspected civil immigration violations.

4

43. In addition to directing the illegal enforcement of civil immigration law by deputy

5 sheriffs, Defendants Sonoma County, Sheriff Cogbill, United States and ICE do not provide

6 training to deputy sheriffs working with ICE agents regarding the types of evidence necessary to

7 establish reasonable suspicion or probable cause that a person is a noncitizen in the United States

8 without authorization or that the person poses a flight risk as required for warrantless arrests

9 based on suspected civil immigration violations.

10 Invalid Use of Immigration Detainers

11

44. Defendants purport to justify holding individuals in the Sonoma County jail

12 without criminal charges -- whether arrested by joint patrols or by Sheriff’s deputies acting on

13 their own -- by the issuance of immigration detainers pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 287.7. However, by

14 the express terms of that regulation, local authorities may only use immigration detainers to

15 retain custody over individuals who are already in local custody pursuant to a valid criminal

16 arrest after they would otherwise be released from local custody. Moreover, 8 C.F.R. § 287.7

17 does not allow ICE to issue detainers to initiate custody for persons not already in the custody of

18 a law enforcement agency on independent criminal or other state law grounds.

19

45. A detainer is not an “arrest warrant,” a “criminal detainer,” see Pub. L. No. 91-

20 538, 84 Stat. 1397 (1970), or an “administrative warrant,” see 8 U.S.C. § 1226, 8 C.F.R. § 236.1.

21 ICE may only issue immigration detainers to request that another law enforcement agency

22 maintain custody of an individual already held by that agency on independent grounds. 8 C.F.R.

23 § 287.7. In violation of 8 C.F.R. §287.7, Defendants have adopted the policy, practice and

24 custom of using immigration detainers as “warrants,” in an effort to allow local law enforcement

25 officers to initiate County custody of individuals without meeting applicable constitutional,

26 statutory, and regulatory requirements.

27

28
ATTORNEYS AT LAW SAN FRANCISCO

10

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

CASE NO. 08-4220-PJH

Case3:08-cv-04220-RS Document135 Filed09/14/09 Page12 of 75

1

46. Upon information and belief, Defendant ICE does not generally interpret 8 C.F.R.

2 § 287.7 to authorize local law enforcement to initiate custody of individuals for civil immigration

3 violations.

4

47. Upon information and belief, Defendants’ use of immigration detainers to initiate

5 custody of individuals who are not already in the custody of local law enforcement

6 independently of the detainer as described in this Second Amended Complaint is not a common

7 practice elsewhere in the country.

8 Racially-Motivated Targeting of Criminal Arrestees for Immigration Detainers

9

48. Defendants also use immigration detainers for inmates of the Sonoma County jail

10 who are in custody after arrests for independent criminal or other state law grounds. Upon

11 information and belief, County Defendants have adopted the policy, practice and custom of

12 identifying individuals held in the Sonoma County jail based on their Latino race or appearance,

13 Spanish surname, and/or birth in a Latin American country for questioning regarding their

14 immigration status and referral to ICE for a determination of whether to issue a detainer.

15

49. Upon information and belief, for those individuals who are already in custody of

16 local law enforcement pursuant to a purported criminal arrest, Defendant ICE and its agents have

17 adopted the policy, practice, and custom of using Latino race or appearance, Spanish surnames,

18 and Latin American national origin as motivating factors for initiating interrogations or other

19 review of inmates as potential subjects of immigration detainers and for the issuance of

20 immigration detainers.

21 Denial of Procedural Protections

22

50. With respect to persons arrested and held in the Sonoma County jail for suspected

23 civil immigration violations -- whether by joint ICE/Sheriff’s Department teams or by Sheriff’s

24 deputies alone -- Defendants have adopted the policy, practice and custom of maintaining local

25 custody for approximately four days before transferring the arrestees to ICE for the initiation of

26 removal proceedings under federal immigration law.

27

51. Once booked into the Sonoma County jail, civil immigration arrestees are -- by

28
ATTORNEYS AT LAW SAN FRANCISCO

Defendants’ policy, practice and custom -- denied notice of any charges against them,

11

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

CASE NO. 08-4220-PJH

Case3:08-cv-04220-RS Document135 Filed09/14/09 Page13 of 75

1 examination by a neutral magistrate or non-arresting ICE officer, notice that statements they

2 make may be used against them in removal proceedings, a list of low or no-cost immigration

3 legal services, or notice that they have a right to a hearing or bond determination. Such

4 procedural protections are required for individuals arrested without a warrant on suspected

5 immigration violations pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1357 and 8 C.F.R. § 287.3 and would be provided

6 to arrestees taken immediately into ICE custody. Under the policy, practice, and custom adopted

7 by Defendants, the issuance of these procedural protections is, on information and belief, delayed

8 for approximately four days while civil immigration arrestees are held in the Sonoma County

9 jail.

10

52. With respect to persons originally held in the Sonoma County jail for criminal or

11 other state law violations, Defendants have adopted the policy, practice, and custom of

12 prolonging the detention of persons against whom immigration detainers have been issued for

13 four days after they otherwise would have been released from local custody. These four day

14 detentions are not justified by the original state law basis for the individuals’ initial arrests and

15 are not supported by a separate probable cause determination by a non-arresting ICE officer or a

16 neutral magistrate. These immigration detainees are not provided the procedural protections

17 required by 8 U.S.C. § 1357 and 8 C.F.R. § 287.3 for individuals arrested by ICE without a

18 warrant. Upon information and belief, standards used by ICE and its agents for the issuance of

19 immigration detainers for persons held on criminal or other state law grounds in the Sonoma

20 County jail are insufficient to establish probable cause for the prolonged detentions.

21

53. The procedural protections set forth in 8 C.F.R. § 287.3 are important to allow

22 civil immigration detainees to determine the reasons why they are being detained, to understand

23 their rights to remain silent, to seek out legal representation and advice on the effect of criminal

24 charges on the detainee’s immigration status, and their right to post bond such that they do not

25 have to remain in custody pending removal proceedings. These notices are necessary

26 underpinnings to each civil immigration arrestee’s right to a meaningful immigration hearing

27 before being deprived of liberty through removal from the United States.

28
ATTORNEYS AT LAW SAN FRANCISCO

12

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

CASE NO. 08-4220-PJH

Case3:08-cv-04220-RS Document135 Filed09/14/09 Page14 of 75

1

54. In addition, the United States and California Constitutions impose requirements

2 that are not being met under Defendants’ policies, practices, and customs regarding immigration

3 detainers. As a matter of federal and state constitutional law, persons who are detained on

4 immigration detainers—or whose detention is prolonged based on an immigration detainer—are

5 entitled to a probable cause determination within 48 hours of the beginning of the immigration

6 detainer-based detention, as well as notice of the charges against him or her and an opportunity

7 to respond.

8

55. Upon information and belief, after having been held without authorization in

9 Sonoma County jail for four days without notice of the charges against them, their right to a

10 hearing and counsel, their right to post bond, and other required notices before being transferred

11 into ICE custody, civil immigration arrestees are more easily coerced into waiving their

12 constitutional right to a hearing prior to removal than they would be if they were timely provided

13 the procedural protections which are due them as warrantless immigration arrestees.

14

56. Upon information and belief, after having their detentions prolonged for four days

15 pursuant to an immigration detainer without notice of the charges against them, their right to a

16 hearing and counsel, their right to post bond, and other required notices before being transferred

17 into ICE custody, individuals are more easily coerced into waiving their constitutional right to a

18 hearing prior to removal than they would be if they were timely provided the procedural

19 protections set forth in 8 C.F.R. § 287.3.

20

57. Upon information and belief, the financial and administrative costs of providing

21 the procedural protections under 8 U.S.C. § 1357 and 8 C.F.R. § 287.3 to persons who are held

22 in the Sonoma County jail pursuant to immigration detainers would be insubstantial relative to

23 the harm to their due process rights resulting from the denial or delay of these procedural

24 protections.

25

58. Defendants’ failure to provide procedural protections required by 8 U.S.C. § 1357

26 and 8 C.F.R. § 287.3 to civil immigration detainees arrested, or subjected to prolonged detention

27 on the basis of an immigration detainer, without a warrant violate those detainees’ due process

28
ATTORNEYS AT LAW SAN FRANCISCO

13

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

CASE NO. 08-4220-PJH

Case3:08-cv-04220-RS Document135 Filed09/14/09 Page15 of 75

1 rights, as guaranteed under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States

2 Constitution and Article I, section 7 of the California Constitution.

3 Defendants’ Racially-Motivated Classification of Immigration Detainees as Gang Members

4

59. Upon information and belief, Defendants have adopted the policy, practice, and

5 custom of using race, Spanish surname, and/or national origin as factors to inaccurately classify

6 Latinos who are arrested through MAGNET operations as gang members.

7

60. Upon information and belief, Defendants County, Cogbill, Salkin, and DOES 1-

8 50 have adopted the policy, practice, and custom of using race, Spanish surname, and/or national

9 origin as factors to inaccurately classify Latinos who are booked into the jail—on criminal or

10 other state law charges or on immigration detainers—as gang members.

11

61. In addition to being stigmatizing and causing other injuries, Defendants’ racially-

12 motivated and inaccurate classification of inmates as gang members has an impact on their

13 placement within the jail and, as a matter of state law, could impact their sentencing in any

14 subsequent criminal proceedings.

15 Sheriff’s Knowledge and Direction of Challenged Policies, Practices and Customs

16

62. Defendant Sheriff Cogbill directs the operations, staffing and investigations

17 conducted by MAGNET, and provides updates as to MAGNET and other immigration

18 enforcement activities at Sonoma County Law Enforcement Chiefs’ Association meetings.

19

63. On October 5, 2007, at a meeting with representatives of Plaintiff Committee for

20 Immigrant Rights of Sonoma County, Defendant Sheriff Cogbill and other members of the

21 Sonoma County Sheriff’s Department, with counsel, confirmed that Defendant Sheriff’s

22 Department had regularly engaged in joint patrols with ICE for the previous three years, had

23 arrested individuals based on suspected immigration violations without a criminal basis for arrest

24 outside the presence of ICE agents, and has adopted the policy and practice of holding

25 individuals in the Sonoma County jail based on suspected civil immigration violations, and

26 without any criminal basis for arrest, at the request of ICE agents.

27

28
ATTORNEYS AT LAW SAN FRANCISCO

14

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

CASE NO. 08-4220-PJH

Case3:08-cv-04220-RS Document135 Filed09/14/09 Page16 of 75

1

64. Defendant Sheriff Cogbill also has personally received memoranda from his

2 employees informing him of the practices of the Sheriff’s Department, including the detention of

3 individuals without a criminal basis for the arrest.

4

65. Defendant Sheriff Cogbill also directs the practices of deputy sheriffs in the

5 Sheriff’s Department’s Detention Division, which manages the processing, care and management

6 of arrestees held in the Sonoma County jail.

7

66. Defendants Sonoma County and Sheriff Cogbill failed to train deputy sheriffs of

8 the Sonoma County Sheriff’s Department including Defendant Salkin on the requirements

9 imposed on ICE agents for warrantless arrests of persons suspected of civil immigration

10 violations and the terms and limitations of 8 C.F.R. § 287.7.

11

67. Upon information and belief, Defendants Sonoma County and Sheriff Cogbill

12 failed to adequately train deputy sheriffs of the Sheriff’s Department on the due process and

13 equal protection rights of inmates held at the Sonoma County jail.

14

68. Plaintiffs allege that Sheriff Cogbill is liable in his personal capacity for the

15 actions of his subordinates and ICE agents acting in concert with Sheriff’s Department personnel

16 as alleged herein because he was intimately familiar with, approved of, and ratified the policies,

17 practices and customs described herein and failed to take any remedial action to stop ongoing

18 constitutional violations.

19

INDIVIDUAL PLAINTIFFS’ EXPERIENCES

20 Ongoing Injury to the Committee for Immigrant Rights and Its Members

21

69. Plaintiff Committee for Immigrant Rights of Sonoma County (“Committee”) was

22 founded in 2006 in response to federal immigration reform proposals that would have raised

23 penalties for illegal immigration and classified undocumented immigrants and those who assist

24 them as felons. The Committee’s mission has been to oppose anti-immigrant legislation and

25 policies at both federal and local levels. Since its inception, the Committee has worked to

26 educate the public, including immigrant communities in Sonoma County, about immigration law

27 and policies and to inform them about their rights.

28
ATTORNEYS AT LAW SAN FRANCISCO

15

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

CASE NO. 08-4220-PJH

Case3:08-cv-04220-RS Document135 Filed09/14/09 Page17 of 75

1

70. Through its Know Your Rights Campaign, the Committee has held a series of

2 house meetings and public forums to distribute information to the Latino community in Sonoma

3 County concerning individual rights, including the right to be free from unreasonable searches

4 and detentions, the right to remain silent when questioned by police or immigration agents, and

5 the right to be represented by a lawyer when accused or interrogated in custody.

6

71. The Committee launched a County of Refuge Campaign in 2007, calling for an

7 end to local law enforcement’s assistance in civil immigration enforcement through weekly

8 vigils and public forums. This campaign was the Committee’s response to the Sonoma County

9 Sheriff’s Department practice of arresting and detaining young Latino members of the

10 community based solely on their immigration status, which is the product of an active and open

11 collaboration between the Sheriff and ICE.

12

72. Members of the Committee have personally witnessed and been subjected to

13 Defendants’ unlawful practices, and the Committee’s membership includes a constituency of

14 persons, namely Latino residents of Sonoma County, who are especially likely to be subjected to

15 these practices. The Committee’s membership includes several Latino families who live in the

16 neighborhoods of Sonoma County where Defendants’ regularly patrol. In addition, the

17 Committee itself has been, and continues to be, harmed by Defendants’ practices because those

18 practices undermine the Committee’s organizational mission and divert the Committee’s

19 resources from the pursuit of other, related goals.

20

73. The Committee seeks only injunctive and declaratory relief from Defendants, as

21 discussed below.

22 The Unlawful Stop and Detention of Francisco Sanchez-Lopez

23

74. On September 28, 2006, Plaintiff Francisco Sanchez-Lopez (“Sanchez-Lopez”)

24 was riding as a passenger in a car in Santa Rosa. A group of officers working together as part of 25 a MAGNET team stopped the car near West 9th Avenue in Santa Rosa. The group included ICE

26 agents, including Defendants Huelga and Merendino; Sheriff’s deputies, including Defendant

27 Salkin; and at least one California Highway Patrol (“CHP”) officer.

28
ATTORNEYS AT LAW SAN FRANCISCO

16

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

CASE NO. 08-4220-PJH

Case3:08-cv-04220-RS Document135 Filed09/14/09 Page18 of 75

1

75. Upon information and belief, the MAGNET team, including Defendants

2 Merendino, Huelga, and Salkin, stopped the car in part due to the race and/or ethnicity of its

3 occupants, including Sanchez-Lopez.

4

76. After stopping the car, a CHP officer approached the driver. The CHP officer told

5 the driver that he was not permitted to have a “For Sale” sign in the car’s rear window, and

6 proceeded to interrogate the driver about whether he had gang affiliations. The driver did not

7 receive a ticket for the “For Sale” sign.

8

77. An officer, who upon information and belief was Defendant Huelga, approached

9 Sanchez-Lopez on the passenger side of the vehicle. Though Sanchez-Lopez had committed no

10 crime and posed no threat, Defendant Huelga asked Sanchez-Lopez for his name and then asked

11 him if he was on probation. Sanchez-Lopez provided his name and admitted that he was on

12 probation. Huelga did not ask the reasons behind Sanchez-Lopez’s probation, nor seek to verify

13 Sanchez-Lopez’s name or probation terms by radio or with other officers. The terms of Sanchez-

14 Lopez’s probation did not require him to submit to searches by law enforcement.

15

78. Without probable cause or reasonable suspicion of any civil or criminal violation,

16 without any reason to believe Sanchez-Lopez was in the United States without documentation,

17 and without any reason to believe that Sanchez-Lopez was armed or dangerous, Huelga ordered

18 Sanchez-Lopez out of the car. Huelga asked Sanchez-Lopez if he was in a gang and if he had

19 any tattoos, and instructed him to show them the tattoos. Sanchez-Lopez said he was not in a

20 gang, and showed Huelga his tattoos. Without reasonable suspicion that Sanchez-Lopez posed a

21 threat to the officers’ safety, probable cause of criminal activity, or Sanchez-Lopez’s consent,

22 Huelga subjected Sanchez-Lopez to a pat-down search and confiscated his wallet. Huelga

23 searched Sanchez-Lopez’s wallet and removed an ID card.

24

79. Huelga instructed Sanchez-Lopez to go over to Defendant Merendino.

25 Merendino interrogated Sanchez-Lopez about his immigration status and family background.

26

80. Upon information and belief, Defendants Huelga and Merendino subjected

27 Sanchez-Lopez to prolonged detention, search, and interrogation based in part on his Latino

28 appearance and Spanish surname.

ATTORNEYS AT LAW SAN FRANCISCO

17

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT CASE NO. 08-4220-PJH

Case3:08-cv-04220-RS Document135 Filed09/14/09 Page19 of 75

1

81. Following the interrogation and search of Sanchez-Lopez’s wallet, Merendino and

2 Huelga directed Defendant Salkin to arrest Sanchez-Lopez and book him into custody at the

3 Sonoma County jail based solely on his suspected immigration status. There was no actual or

4 even purported criminal basis for Sanchez-Lopez’s arrest, and neither Merendino nor Huelga

5 made a determination that Sanchez-Lopez presented a flight risk within the meaning of 8 U.S.C.

6 § 1357. At the time of Sanchez-Lopez’s arrest, ICE had not issued a Notice to Appear or an

7 arrest warrant for Sanchez-Lopez.

8

82. Defendant Salkin put Sanchez-Lopez in handcuffs and walked him over to a

9 Sonoma County Sheriff’s patrol car. No one told Sanchez-Lopez that he was under arrest or why

10 he was under arrest and no one gave Sanchez-Lopez notice of his Miranda rights. As Salkin was

11 walking Sanchez-Lopez to the patrol car, a passenger in the car, Sanchez-Lopez’s then-

12 girlfriend, asked why Sanchez-Lopez was being taken. In response, several officers ridiculed

13 and laughed at Sanchez-Lopez, including Defendant Salkin, who responded “He knows why,” in

14 a laughing manner.

15

83. Defendant Salkin took physical custody of Sanchez-Lopez and drove him to the

16 Sonoma County jail. Merendino accompanied Salkin and Sanchez-Lopez in Salkin’s vehicle.

17 Sanchez-Lopez arrived at the jail at about 6:00 p.m. on September 28, 2006.

18

84. Despite the lack of indicia of gang membership and Sanchez-Lopez’s repeated

19 denial of any gang affiliations, Defendants Salkin and Merendino characterized Sanchez-Lopez

20 as a gang member based on his Latino appearance and descent. He was housed with Sureño

21 inmates in the Sonoma County jail.

22

85. Around the time of the arrest, Defendant Merendino issued and signed an

23 immigration detainer, Form I-247, for Sanchez-Lopez which indicates September 28, 2006 as the

24 date the detainer was filed. Sonoma County jail records of Sanchez-Lopez’s arrest list

25 Merendino as the arresting officer.

26

86. Sanchez-Lopez spent four nights in the custody of Defendants County and

27 Cogbill at the Sonoma County jail before being transferred to ICE custody on October 2, 2006.

28
ATTORNEYS AT LAW SAN FRANCISCO

During this time Sanchez-Lopez did not receive notice of any charges against him, examination

18

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

CASE NO. 08-4220-PJH

Case3:08-cv-04220-RS Document135 Filed09/14/09 Page20 of 75

1 by a neutral magistrate or non-arresting ICE officer, notice that statements he made could be

2 used against them in removal proceedings, a list of low or no-cost immigration legal services, or

3 notice that he had a right to a hearing or a bond determination.

4

87. Being in jail for four nights without any information about what was happening to

5 him, or what would be coming next, and knowing he had not violated any criminal laws,

6 Sanchez-Lopez was extremely frightened and anxious. No one told Sanchez-Lopez how long he

7 could expect to stay in jail or whether he would have an opportunity to clear his name. He feared

8 losing his job and falling behind in school. He did not know that he had any rights as a person

9 who might be put into immigration proceedings, and he was very anxious about what would

10 happen in the future. He had trouble sleeping while he was in jail, and he ate very little because

11 he felt so nervous. The first day he was in County custody, he did not have access to medication

12 for a chronic kidney condition, which also caused him worry and distress.

13

88. Once in ICE custody, Sanchez-Lopez remained in custody for approximately one

14 week, posted bond, and was issued a Notice to Appear.

15

89. In his immigration proceedings, Sanchez-Lopez sought to suppress evidence

16 regarding his immigration status that was gained during the above-described searches, seizures,

17 and interrogations on the basis that the evidence was gained through egregious violations of the

18 Fourth Amendment. On or about March 17, 2008, the immigration judge presiding over

19 Sanchez-Lopez’s removal proceedings granted Sanchez-Lopez’s motion to suppress and ordered

20 his removal proceedings terminated. On or about May 7, 2009, the Board of Immigration

21 appeals denied ICE’s appeal of the immigration judge’s decision. The deadline for the

22 government to petition for review of the BIA’s decision to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals

23 lapsed on or about June 6, 2009.

24

90. Sanchez-Lopez and members of his family have been settled residents of Sonoma

25 County and members of the Committee for approximately two years. During the relevant events

26 alleged in paragraphs 74-89 above, Sanchez-Lopez was employed in Sonoma County, lived in

27 Sonoma County, had friends in the community, and made no attempt to flee. Based on these

28
ATTORNEYS AT LAW SAN FRANCISCO

factors, Sanchez-Lopez was not a flight risk. Sanchez-Lopez’s only previous law enforcement

19

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

CASE NO. 08-4220-PJH

Case3:08-cv-04220-RS Document135 Filed09/14/09 Page21 of 75

1 record was in connection to violations for driving without a license. Sanchez-Lopez is not, and

2 has never been, a gang member.

3

91. Sanchez-Lopez is and appears to be of Latino descent and a person of color.

4 The Unlawful Stop and Detention of Christyan Sonato-Vega

5

92. In or about July, 2007 Christyan Sonato-Vega (“Sonato-Vega”) was a passenger

6 in a car driven by his fiancée. She parked the car and they got out at a bakery in Santa Rosa,

7 intending to purchase a cake. They were ordered to stop by two MAGNET officers, Defendant

8 Salkin and an unknown DOE Defendant, who, upon information and belief, stopped Sonato-

9 Vega because he appeared to be of Latino descent.

10

93. Without reasonable suspicion to believe Sonato-Vega was engaged in criminal

11 activity or posed a threat of danger, Salkin immediately ordered Sonato-Vega to “stop.” Sonato-

12 Vega continued walking, and Salkin repeated, “Stop and put your hands on your head.” Sonato-

13 Vega, feeling he had no choice, complied with the order and stopped walking. Defendant Salkin

14 walked over to Sonato-Vega, held Sonato-Vega’s hands on top of his head, and walked him to

15 the car. Salkin asked him if he had any weapons. Sonato-Vega said, “No,” and Salkin ordered

16 Sonata-Vega to empty his pockets. Sonato-Vega emptied his pockets and placed his hands back

17 on his head. Salkin searched through the contents of Sonata-Vega’s pockets and did a pat-down

18 search of his body. Salkin asked Sonato-Vega to spread his legs for the pat-down search and

19 Sonato-Vega complied, but Salkin kicked Sonato-Vega’s legs apart further and pulled Sonato-

20 Vega’s hands back, causing Sonato-Vega pain.

21

94. Salkin questioned Sonato-Vega about his immigration status, his tattoos, and

22 whether he was a gang member. Sonato-Vega told Salkin that he was not a gang member and

23 exercised his legal right not to answer Salkin’s questions about his immigration status. Salkin

24 threatened that if Sonato-Vega did not cooperate, they would arrest his fiancée.

25

95. Following this search and interrogation, Salkin left Sonato-Vega and his fiancée

26 in the care of the other deputy sheriff and searched the car without their consent. Salkin also

27 questioned Sonato-Vega about the contents of the car. The entire detention lasted between 10

28
ATTORNEYS AT LAW SAN FRANCISCO

and 20 minutes and then Salkin told Sonato-Vega he and his fiancée were free to go.

20

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

CASE NO. 08-4220-PJH

Case3:08-cv-04220-RS Document135 Filed09/14/09 Page22 of 75

1

96. The deputy sheriffs did not issue any citation to Sonato-Vega or his fiancée

2 during this encounter.

3

97. On or about Thursday, August 2, 2007, Defendants Salkin and Huelga approached

4 Sonato-Vega at his place of employment, a gas station in Rohnert Park, California. Without

5 reasonable suspicion that Sonato-Vega was engaged in criminal activity or was a non-citizen

6 without authorization to be in the United States, Defendants Salkin and Huelga detained Sonato-

7 Vega and interrogated him about his immigration status and his family.

8

98. When Salkin and Huelga arrived at the gas station, they ordered Sonato-Vega to

9 “stop” and told him he was under arrest. They made him empty his pockets and handcuffed him.

10 Salkin subjected Sonato-Vega to a pat-down search, searched his wallet, and asked him about his

11 immigration status and the status of his parents. During the course of this interrogation, Sonato-

12 Vega refused to answer questions concerning his immigration status.

13

99. Defendant Huelga also subjected Sonato-Vega to a pat-down search before

14 putting him in the patrol car. During the encounter, Huelga ridiculed Sonato-Vega, saying, “Oh

15 look, he’s shaking. He ain’t that tough.” When Sonato-Vega asked why he was being arrested,

16 Huelga responded, with profanity, that Sonato-Vega is “illegal” and “is not allowed to be here.”

17

100. Defendants Salkin and Huelga arrested Sonato-Vega and booked him into the

18 Sonoma County jail based on suspected civil immigration violations alone and without any

19 actual or even purported criminal basis for arrest. Upon information and belief, Salkin and

20 Huelga made this warrantless arrest without probable cause to believe that Sonato-Vega was a

21 noncitizen without authorization to be in the United States and without making a determination

22 that he was likely to escape before an arrest warrant could be obtained. Upon information and

23 belief, Huelga and Salkin subjected Sonato-Vega to the stop, interrogation, search, and arrest

24 because of his Latino appearance and Spanish surname.

25

101. Around the time of the arrest, Huelga issued and signed an immigration detainer,

26 Form I-247, for Sonato-Vega which indicates August 2, 2007 as the date the detainer was filed.

27 Sonoma County jail records of Sonato-Vega’s arrest list Huelga as the arresting officer.

28
ATTORNEYS AT LAW SAN FRANCISCO

21

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

CASE NO. 08-4220-PJH

Case3:08-cv-04220-RS Document135 Filed09/14/09 Page23 of 75

1

102. Despite the lack of reliable indicia of gang membership and Sonato-Vega’s denial

2 of any gang affiliations, DOE Defendants and Salkin and Huelga characterized Sonato-Vega as a

3 gang member based on his Latino appearance and descent.

4

103. In response to a DOE Defendant’s questions at booking about what Latino gang

5 members Sonato-Vega would prefer to be housed with, Sonato-Vega responded that he was not a

6 gang member, that he knew people that were both Norteños and Sureños, and that he would

7 prefer to be housed with non-gang-affiliated inmates. Contrary to Sonato-Vega’s request,

8 Defendants County, Cogbill, and DOE Defendants housed him with Sureño inmates who were in

9 criminal custody. Some of the criminal detainees told Sonato-Vega that he would end up in

10 prison.

11

104. While he was in custody at the Sonoma County jail, Sonato-Vega asked County

12 jail employees what the charges were against him. However, while in County custody, Sonato-

13 Vega did not receive notice of the charges against him, an examination by a neutral magistrate or

14 non-arresting ICE officer, a list of low or no-cost immigration legal services, or notice that he

15 had a right to a hearing or a bond determination.

16

105. Being in jail for four days without a clear sense of the charges against him,

17 knowing he had not hurt anyone or violated any criminal laws to cause his arrest, Sonato-Vega

18 felt angry and agitated, as well as extremely nervous and anxious. No one told Sonato-Vega how

19 long he could expect to stay in jail and he did not know he had any rights as a person being held

20 for civil immigration violations. He had trouble sleeping while he was in the Sonoma County

21 jail and ate very little due to his emotional distress and worry.

22

106. Defendants held Sonato-Vega in Defendant Cogbill’s custody at the Sonoma

23 County jail until on or about Monday, August 6, 2007, when they transferred him to San

24 Francisco’s ICE facility.

25

107. While in ICE detention, Sonato-Vega was threatened by unknown ICE agents

26 ROES with further and prolonged detention and relocation to a facility far away from his home if

27 he did not agree to sign a form. Defendants ROES told Sonato-Vega that he could not challenge

28
ATTORNEYS AT LAW SAN FRANCISCO

his inevitable removal, and that if he signed the form, he would be released from jail sooner.

22

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

CASE NO. 08-4220-PJH

Case3:08-cv-04220-RS Document135 Filed09/14/09 Page24 of 75

1 Upon information and belief, these ICE agents made these threats to coerce Sonato-Vega into

2 waiving his rights to a hearing and stipulating to removal. After an extended period of detention,

3 and out of desperation to achieve freedom from confinement, Sonato-Vega stipulated to removal

4 without knowing, voluntary or informed consent. Sonato-Vega’s experience of having spent

5 four days in the Sonoma County Jail without notice of the charges against him or his rights as a

6 warrantless civil immigration detainee contributed to his desperation and susceptibility to

7 coercion when he was transferred to ICE custody.

8

108. Because Sonato-Vega was denied notice of the charges against him, an

9 examination by a neutral magistrate or non-arresting ICE officer, a list of low or no-cost

10 immigration legal services, or notice that he had a right to a hearing or a bond determination,

11 Sonato-Vega, through counsel, later sought to reopen his removal proceedings. Sonato-Vega

12 ultimately negotiated a change in his removal designation from “stipulated removal” to

13 “voluntary departure.”

14

109. During the relevant events alleged in paragraphs 92-108 above, Sonato-Vega and

15 members of his family were settled residents of Sonoma County, and Sonato-Vega was

16 employed in Sonoma County. Sonato-Vega also was engaged to a U.S. citizen. Sonato-Vega

17 therefore was not a flight risk.

18

110. Prior to August 2007, Sonato-Vega had no prior police record other than for

19 driving without a license. Sonato-Vega is not, and never has been, a gang member.

20

111. Sonato-Vega is and appears to be of Latino descent and a person of color.

21 The Unlawful Detention of Samuel Medel Moyado

22

112. On the evening of August 8, 2007, Plaintiff Samuel Medel Moyado (“Medel”)

23 was arrested on a minor non-drug charge, pursuant to California Penal Code § 647(f).

24

113. Despite a lack of indicia of gang membership and Medel’s denial of any gang

25 affiliations, unknown ROE and DOE Defendants, upon information and belief, characterized

26 Medel as a gang member based on his Latino appearance and descent. Despite the fact that

27 Medel was wearing a red t-shirt when he was arrested and that red is the color known to be

28
ATTORNEYS AT LAW SAN FRANCISCO

23

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

CASE NO. 08-4220-PJH

Case3:08-cv-04220-RS Document135 Filed09/14/09 Page25 of 75

1 associated with Norteño gang members, Defendants County, Cogbill and DOES placed Medel in

2 detention with members of the Sureño gang (whose favored color is widely known to be blue).

3

114. Upon information and belief, an unknown DOE Defendant, motivated by Medel’s

4 race, national origin, and/or Spanish surname, questioned Medel about his immigration status

5 and referred him to ICE for investigation and consideration for issuance of an immigration

6 detainer.

7

115. Upon information and belief, Defendants ICE and a ROE Defendant interrogated

8 Medel about his immigration status while he was in the Sonoma County Jail and issued an

9 immigration detainer for Medel based in part on his Latino appearance and Spanish surname and

10 without a determination that he presented any flight risk.

11

116. At Medel’s court hearing on the morning of August 10, 2007 the judge told Medel

12 he was free to leave because no charges had been filed against him. However, relying on an

13 immigration detainer that had been issued pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 287.7(d), Sheriff’s Department

14 personnel continued to detain Medel in Defendant Cogbill’s custody, transferred him to another

15 Sheriff’s facility and kept him in custody until August 14, when they transferred him to ICE’s

16 custody.

17

117. While he was in custody at the Sonoma County jail, Medel did not receive notice

18 of the immigration charges against him, notice that statements he made could be used against

19 him in removal proceedings, a list of low or no-cost immigration legal services, or notice that he

20 had a right to a bond determination.

21

118. Defendants did not bring Medel before a neutral magistrate or non-arresting ICE

22 officer for a probable cause determination or provide him notice of the charges against him and

23 an opportunity to respond within 48 hours of the initiation of his prolonged local custody

24 pursuant to immigration detainer.

25

119. Being in detention for days without a clear sense of the charges against him or

26 what would happen to him, Medel felt nervous and agitated and suffered emotional distress from

27 the uncertainty.

28
ATTORNEYS AT LAW SAN FRANCISCO

24

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

CASE NO. 08-4220-PJH

Case3:08-cv-04220-RS Document135 Filed09/14/09 Page26 of 75

1

120. Although Medel attempted to post bond while he was in detention in San

2 Francisco on or about August 14, Defendants ICE and unidentified ROE Defendants did not give

3 Medel the opportunity until after they transferred him to ICE’s Eloy Detention Center in

4 Arizona, over a week after his arrest. Defendants did not release Medel until the evening of

5 Thursday, August 16, 2007, in Arizona, after he posted bond.

6

121. As a result of Defendants’ actions, Medel was deprived of his right to post bond

7 until he had already been transferred to Arizona, was unnecessarily deprived of his liberty before

8 he was given opportunity to post bond, and was forced to incur travel expenses in returning from

9 Arizona to his home in Santa Rosa.

10

122. Medel is a member of the Committee. During the events alleged in paragraphs

11 112-121 above, Medel had also been a long-time resident of Sonoma County, with ties to the

12 community and in a serious relationship with a U.S. citizen. Medel, therefore, was not a flight

13 risk.

14

123. Prior to August 8, 2007, Medel had no police record as an adult. Medel is not,

15 and never has been, a gang member.

16

124. Medel is and appears to be of Latino descent and a person of color.

17

REQUISITES FOR RELIEF

18

125. As a result of the general and specific conduct of Defendants described above,

19 Plaintiffs have been denied their constitutional and civil rights. Defendants’ conduct is the result

20 of ongoing policies, practices, conduct and acts that have resulted and will continue to result in

21 irreparable injury to Plaintiffs, including but not limited to further threats to and violations of

22 their constitutional and civil rights. Plaintiffs have no plain, speedy, or adequate remedy at law

23 to redress the violations alleged herein, and therefore seek injunctive relief restraining

24 Defendants from continuing to engage in the unlawful and unconstitutional policies, practices,

25 conduct and acts described in this Second Amended Complaint.

26

126. An actual and substantial controversy exists between Plaintiffs and Defendants as

27 to their respective legal rights and duties. Plaintiffs contend that Defendants’ policies, practices,

28
ATTORNEYS AT LAW SAN FRANCISCO

conduct and acts alleged herein violate Plaintiffs’ constitutional and civil rights. Defendants

25

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

CASE NO. 08-4220-PJH

Case3:08-cv-04220-RS Document135 Filed09/14/09 Page27 of 75

1 contend the opposite and have indicated their intent to continue engaging in the challenged

2 conduct.

3

127. On or about January 29, 2008, Medel filed an administrative claim with

4 Defendant Sonoma County pursuant to California Government Code § 910 et seq. Sonoma

5 County rejected Medel’s claim on or about March 5, 2008.

6

128. On or about January 29, 2008, Sonato-Vega filed an administrative claim with

7 Defendant Sonoma County pursuant to California Government Code § 910 et seq. Sonoma

8 County rejected Sonato-Vega’s claim on or about April 2, 2008.

9

129. On or about October 23, 2008, Medel filed an administrative claim with the

10 Department of Homeland Security pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2675. The failure of the Department

11 of Homeland Security to make final disposition of Medel’s claim within six months after it was

12 filed is deemed a final denial of the claim. 28 U.S.C. § 2675(a).

13

130. On or about October 23, 2008, Sanchez-Lopez filed an administrative claim with

14 the Department of Homeland Security pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2675. The failure of the

15 Department of Homeland Security to make final disposition of Sanchez-Lopez’s claim within six

16 months after it was filed is deemed a final denial of the claim. 28 U.S.C. § 2675(a).

17

131. On or about October 23, 2008, Sonato-Vega filed an administrative claim with the

18 Department of Homeland Security pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2675. The failure of the Department

19 of Homeland Security to make final disposition of Sonato-Vega’s claim within six months after

20 it was filed is deemed a final denial of the claim. 28 U.S.C. § 2675(a).

21

132. The acts of Defendants were willful, wanton, malicious and oppressive and done

22 with conscious disregard and deliberate indifference for Plaintiffs and their rights.

23

133. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ knowing and intentional conduct

24 with deliberate or reckless indifference to Plaintiffs’ civil and constitutional rights, Plaintiffs the

25 Committee, Sanchez-Lopez, Sonato-Vega and Medel have been injured and will continue to be

26 injured, and therefore seek injunctive relief as described below. Also as a direct and proximate

27 result of Defendants’ conduct, Plaintiffs Sanchez-Lopez, Sonato-Vega and Medel have suffered

28
ATTORNEYS AT LAW SAN FRANCISCO

26

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

CASE NO. 08-4220-PJH

Case3:08-cv-04220-RS Document135 Filed09/14/09 Page28 of 75

1 damages in an amount according to proof, and seek damages against Defendants as described

2 below.

3

FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF

4

Fourth Amendment (42 U.S.C. § 1983)

5

(Unreasonable Search and Seizure)

6

All Plaintiffs Against Defendants Sonoma County, Cogbill, Salkin, and DOES 1-50

7

134. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations in the paragraphs above as

8 though fully set forth here.

9

135. Plaintiffs Committee, Sanchez-Lopez and Medel seek injunctive and declaratory

10 relief against the County and against Defendants Cogbill, Salkin, and DOES 1-50 in their official

11 capacities, enjoining them from continuing to engage in the above-described policies, practices

12 and conduct violating the rights of Plaintiffs and Sonoma County residents to be free from

13 unreasonable searches and seizures under the Fourth Amendment of the United States

14 Constitution, including but not limited to:

15

a. Stopping persons and vehicles without reasonable suspicion of criminal

16

activity or traffic infraction [¶¶ 25, 30-32, 34-35, 62-64];1

17

b. Unreasonably prolonging traffic and other stops beyond the time they

18

would otherwise take in order to question individuals about matters

19

unrelated to the purported purpose of the stop or other criminal activity,

20

specifically their citizenship and immigration status [¶¶ 30-32, 34, 62-64];

21

c. Conducting personal and vehicle searches without probable cause to

22

believe that that the areas searched contain evidence of criminal activity or

23

without a reasonable belief that the person searched or car’s occupants are

24

dangerous and may gain access to a weapon in the area searched [¶¶ 30-

25

32, 34-36, 62-64];

26

1 For convenience and increased clarity, Plaintiffs have tried to refer the Court to the most

27

relevant factual allegations, but such reference is not exhaustive. Other allegations may be

relevant to the claims and defenses and as such all allegations are expressly incorporated by

28

reference.

ATTORNEYS AT LAW SAN FRANCISCO

27

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

CASE NO. 08-4220-PJH

Case3:08-cv-04220-RS Document135 Filed09/14/09 Page29 of 75

1

d. Unreasonably arresting individuals without probable cause of criminal

2

activity and without authority to arrest for civil immigration violations [¶¶

3

20-23, 25, 33, 37, 39, 43, 62-64, 66];

4

e. Holding persons in the County jail without a criminal basis for custody

5

and based only on suspected civil immigration violations [¶¶ 24-25, 33,

6

39, 62-64, 66];

7

f. Arresting and holding persons in the County jail on immigration detainers

8

for more than 48 hours without independent probable cause

9

determinations by a non-arresting ICE officer or neutral magistrate [¶¶ 27,

10

50-54, 62-66]; and

11

g. Prolonging the local custody of individuals for more than 48 hours beyond

12

when they would otherwise be released, based on immigration detainers,

13

and without bringing them before a neutral magistrate for a probable cause

14

determination [¶¶ 27, 50-54, 62-66].

15

136. Plaintiff Sanchez-Lopez seeks compensatory damages against Defendant Sonoma

16 County and compensatory and punitive damages against Defendants Cogbill, Salkin, and

17 unknown DOES in their personal capacities for violations of his right to be free from

18 unreasonable searches and seizures according to proof, including but not limited to:

19

a. Detaining him without reasonable suspicion of criminal activity [¶¶ 75-78];

20

b. Agreeing to, participating in, and/or acquiescing to a pat-down search of his

21

person and search of his wallet without lawful justification [¶¶ 78, 89];

22

c. Unreasonably agreeing to, participating in, and/or acquiescing to his

23

prolonged detention beyond the time they would otherwise take to question

24

him about matters unrelated to the purported purpose of the stop, specifically

25

his citizenship and immigration status [¶¶ 77-80];

26

d. Unreasonably arresting him without probable cause of criminal activity and

27

without authority to arrest for civil immigration violations [¶¶ 81-83];

28
ATTORNEYS AT LAW SAN FRANCISCO

28

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

CASE NO. 08-4220-PJH

Case3:08-cv-04220-RS Document135 Filed09/14/09 Page30 of 75

1

e. Holding him in custody for approximately four days without authority under

2

state or federal law [¶¶ 81, 86]; and

3

f. Holding him in custody for more than 48 hours without an independent

4

probable cause determination by a non-arresting ICE officer or neutral

5

magistrate [¶¶ 27, 51, 54, 86].

6

137. Plaintiff Sonato-Vega seeks compensatory damages against Defendant Sonoma

7 County, and compensatory and punitive damages against Defendants Cogbill, Salkin and

8 unknown DOES in their personal capacities for violations of his right to be free from

9 unreasonable searches and seizures according to proof, including but not limited to:

10

a. Detaining him without reasonable suspicion of criminal activity [¶¶ 92-93, 96,

11

97-98];

12

b. Subjecting him to multiple pat-down searches of his person and his wallet

13

without lawful justification [¶¶ 93, 98-99];

14

c. Unreasonably prolonging his detention beyond the time they would otherwise

15

take to question him about matters unrelated to any lawful purpose,

16

specifically, his citizenship and immigration status [¶¶ 93-96];

17

d. Unreasonably arresting him without probable cause of criminal activity and

18

without authority to arrest for civil immigration violations [¶¶ 97-100];

19

e. Holding him in custody for approximately four days without authority under

20

state or federal law [¶¶ 101, 106]; and

21

f. Holding him in custody for more than 48 hours without an independent

22

probable cause determination by a non-arresting ICE officer or neutral

23

magistrate [¶¶ 27, 51, 54, 104].

24

138. Plaintiff Medel seeks compensatory damages against Defendant Sonoma County,

25 and compensatory and punitive damages against Defendants Cogbill and unknown DOES in

26 their personal capacities for violating his right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures

27 according to proof by holding him in custody for more than 48 hours after he would have been

28
ATTORNEYS AT LAW SAN FRANCISCO

released from custody on his criminal arrest based on an immigration detainer and without an

29

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

CASE NO. 08-4220-PJH

Case3:08-cv-04220-RS Document135 Filed09/14/09 Page31 of 75

1 independent probable cause determination by a non-arresting ICE officer or neutral magistrate

2 [¶¶ 27, 51, 54, 115-118].

3

SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF

4

14th Amendment (42 U.S.C. § 1983)

5

(Equal Protection)

6

All Plaintiffs Against Defendants Sonoma County, Cogbill, Salkin, and DOES 1-50

7

139. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations in the paragraphs above as

8 though fully set forth here.

9

140. As Latinos, the individual Plaintiffs and many members of the Committee are

10 members of a protected class.

11

141. Plaintiffs Committee, Sanchez-Lopez and Medel seek injunctive and declaratory

12 relief against the County and against Defendants Cogbill, Salkin, and DOES 1-50 in their official

13 capacities, enjoining them from continuing to engage in the above-described policies, practices

14 and conduct violating the rights of Plaintiffs and Sonoma County residents to be free from

15 discrimination on the basis of race, ethnicity, or national origin including but not limited to:

16

a. Using race as a motivating factor to stop, detain, interrogate and/or search

17

persons who appear to be Latino [¶¶ 30-32, 34-35, 62-64, 68, 75, 77-80, 92-

18

94, 97-98];

19

b. Using race as a motivating factor to unreasonably prolong detentions in order

20

to question persons regarding their citizenship and immigration status [¶¶ 30-

21

32, 34-36, 62-64, 68, 77-80, 92-95, 97-98, 100];

22

c. Using race as a motivating factor in deciding to contact ICE agents to seek

23

immigration detainers for individuals County Defendants encounter in the

24

field and for whom they lack probable cause to arrest for criminal activity [¶¶

25

37, 62-64, 68, 81];

26

d. Using race, Spanish surname, or national origin as motivating factors in

27

classifying arrestees as gang members and for making decisions regarding

28
ATTORNEYS AT LAW SAN FRANCISCO

placement in the jail [¶¶ 48-49, 59-65, 67-68, 84, 102-103, 113];

30

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

CASE NO. 08-4220-PJH

Case3:08-cv-04220-RS Document135 Filed09/14/09 Page32 of 75

1

e. Using race, Spanish surname or national origin as motivating factors to

2

interrogate inmates regarding their immigration status and recommend to ICE

3

that certain inmates in the jail be considered as subjects of immigration

4

detainers [¶¶ 48-49, 62-65, 67-68, 114-115].

5

142. Plaintiff Sanchez-Lopez seeks compensatory damages against Defendant Sonoma

6 County, and compensatory and punitive damages against Defendants Cogbill, Salkin, and

7 unknown DOES in their personal capacities for violations of his right to be free from

8 discrimination on the basis of race, ethnicity, or national origin according to proof, including but

9 not limited to:

10

a. Stopping the car in which he was a passenger based on the race of its

11

occupants, including Sanchez-Lopez’s [¶ 75];

12

b. Agreeing to, participating in, and/or acquiescing to the use of Sanchez-

13

Lopez’s race as a motivating factor for his prolonged detention, search and

14

interrogation [¶¶ 77-80];

15

c. Using his race as a motivating factor for his arrest, inaccurate designation as a

16

gang member, and placement with other persons perceived to be Sureños in

17

the County jail [¶¶ 81-84].

18

143. Plaintiff Sonato-Vega seeks compensatory damages against Defendant Sonoma

19 County, and compensatory and punitive damages against Defendants Cogbill, Salkin and

20 unknown DOES in their personal capacities for violations of his right to be free from

21 discrimination on the basis of race, ethnicity, or national origin race according to proof,

22 including but not limited to:

23

a. Using his race as a motivating factor to detain him [¶¶ 92-94, 97-98, 100];

24

b. Using his race as a motivating factor for his prolonged detention, search and

25

interrogation [¶¶ 92-95, 97-98, 100]; and

26

c. Using his race, Spanish surname, and/or perceived national origin as

27

motivating factors for his arrest, inaccurate designation as a gang member,

28
ATTORNEYS AT LAW SAN FRANCISCO

31

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

CASE NO. 08-4220-PJH

Case3:08-cv-04220-RS Document135 Filed09/14/09 Page33 of 75

1

and placement with other persons perceived to be Sureños in the County jail

2

[¶¶ 102-103].

3

144. Plaintiff Medel seeks compensatory damages against Defendant Sonoma County,

4 and compensatory and punitive damages against unknown DOES in their personal capacities for

5 violations of his right to be free from discrimination on the basis of race, ethnicity, or national

6 origin according to proof, including but not limited to:

7

a. Using his race as a motivating factor for his inaccurate designation as a gang

8

member and placement with other persons perceived to be Sureños in the

9

County jail [¶ 113]; and

10

b. Using his race, Spanish surname, and/or perceived national origin as

11

motivating factors in deciding to interrogate Medel about him immigration

12

status and refer him to ICE for consideration as the subject of an immigration

13

detainer [¶¶ 114-115].

14

THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF

15

14th Amendment (42 U.S.C. § 1983)

16

(Due Process)

17

All Plaintiffs Against Defendants Sonoma County, Cogbill, Salkin, and DOES 1-50

18

145. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations in the paragraphs above as

19 though fully set forth here.

20

146. Arresting and detaining individuals without lawful authority is a violation of the

21 substantive due process rights of those arrested and detained.

22

147. Plaintiffs Committee, Sanchez-Lopez, and Medel seek injunctive and declaratory

23 relief against the County and against Defendants Cogbill, Salkin, and DOES 1-50 in their official

24 capacities, enjoining them from continuing to engage the above-described policies, practices and

25 conduct of County Defendants violating the rights of Plaintiffs and Sonoma County residents to

26 due process of law under the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution including but

27 not limited to:

28
ATTORNEYS AT LAW SAN FRANCISCO

32

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

CASE NO. 08-4220-PJH

Case3:08-cv-04220-RS Document135 Filed09/14/09 Page34 of 75

1

a. Arresting and detaining individuals without probable cause of criminal

2

activity and for civil immigration violations without any lawful authority, in

3

violation of the arrestees’ rights to substantive due process [¶¶ 20-23, 25, 33,

4

35, 39, 43, 62-64, 66];

5

b. Aiding and abetting ICE and its agents in denying procedural protections due

6

civil immigration arrestees who are arrested without a warrant [¶¶ 38-39, 41-

7

43, 66];

8

c. Denying procedural protections under 8 U.S.C. § 1357 and 8 C.F.R. § 287.3

9

due to persons who were arrested on criminal or other state law charges and

10

whose County custody is prolonged as a result of an immigration detainer [¶¶

11

50-58, 67] and;

12

d. Detaining or prolonging the detention of individuals in custody of the County

13

pursuant to immigration violations without notice of the charges against them

14

and an opportunity to respond within a reasonable time after the initiation of

15

the immigration detainer-based detention [¶¶ 27, 50-58, 67].

16

148. Plaintiffs Sanchez-Lopez and Sonato-Vega seek compensatory damages against

17 Defendant Sonoma County, and compensatory and punitive damages against Defendants

18 Cogbill, Salkin, and unknown DOES in their personal capacities for violations of their rights to

19 due process under the 14th Amendment to United States Constitution according to proof

20 including, but not limited to:

21

a. Arresting and holding them in custody for four days without lawful authority

22

[¶¶ 81, 86 (Sanchez-Lopez), ¶¶ 101, 106 (Sonato-Vega)];

23

b. Aiding and abetting ICE and its agents in denying procedural protections due

24

to them as civil immigration arrestees who were arrested without a warrant [¶

25

86 (Sanchez-Lopez); ¶ 104 (Sonato-Vega)]; and

26

c. Detaining them for four days without notice of the charges against them or an

27

opportunity to respond [¶ 86 (Sanchez-Lopez); ¶ 104 (Sonata-Vega)].

28
ATTORNEYS AT LAW SAN FRANCISCO

33

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

CASE NO. 08-4220-PJH

Case3:08-cv-04220-RS Document135 Filed09/14/09 Page35 of 75

1

149. Plaintiff Medel seeks compensatory damages against Defendant Sonoma County,

2 and compensatory and punitive damages against Defendants Cogbill and unknown DOES in

3 their personal capacities for violations of his right to due process under the 14th Amendment to

4 United States Constitution according to proof including, but not limited to:

5

a. Denying him procedural protections under 8 U.S.C. § 1357 and 8 C.F.R. §

6

287.3 [¶¶ 115, 117, 118]; and

7

b. Prolonging his detention for four days based on an immigration detainer

8

without notice of the charges underlying the prolonged detention or an

9

opportunity to respond [¶¶ 115, 117, 118].

10

FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

11

Fourth Amendment and 8 U.S.C. § 1357 (Bivens and 5 U.S.C. § 702)

12

(Unreasonable Search and Seizure)

13

All Plaintiffs Against Defendants ICE, Huelga, Merendino, and ROES 1-50

14

150. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations in the paragraphs above as

15 though fully set forth here.

16

151. Plaintiffs Committee, Sanchez-Lopez, and Medel seek injunctive and declaratory

17 relief against the above-described policies, practices and conduct of Defendant ICE and

18 Defendants Huelga, Merendino, and ROES 1-50 in their official capacities, enjoining them from

19 continuing to engage in the above-described policies, practices and conduct violating the rights

20 of Plaintiffs and Sonoma County residents to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures

21 under the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution, including but not limited to:

22

a. Stopping persons and vehicles without reasonable suspicion of criminal

23

activity or of their being noncitizens present in the United States without

24

authorization [¶¶ 26, 30-32, 42];

25

b. Conducting personal and vehicle searches without probable cause to believe

26

that that the areas searched contain evidence of criminal activity or a

27

reasonable belief that the person searched or car’s occupants are dangerous

28
ATTORNEYS AT LAW SAN FRANCISCO

and may gain access to a weapon in the area searched [¶¶ 30-32];

34

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

CASE NO. 08-4220-PJH

Case3:08-cv-04220-RS Document135 Filed09/14/09 Page36 of 75

1

c. Unreasonably arresting individuals without warrants and without probable

2

cause to believe they are noncitizens present in violation of civil immigration

3

laws [¶¶ 33, 42];

4

d. Unreasonably arresting individuals for suspected civil immigration violations

5

without warrants and without reason to believe they are likely to escape before

6

a warrant can be obtained [¶¶ 26, 41-42];

7

e. Causing individuals to be held in the Sonoma County jail without a criminal

8

basis for custody and based only on suspected civil immigration violations [¶¶

9

28, 38];

10

f. Causing individuals to be held in custody on immigration detainers for more

11

than 48 hours without a bond determination and before a decision is made

12

whether to issue a Notice to Appear and absent any emergency or other

13

extraordinary circumstance [¶¶ 27, 51-52];

14

g. Failing to bring individuals who were arrested without a warrant for a civil

15

immigration violation before a non-arresting ICE agent or neutral magistrate

16

without unreasonable delay or within 48 hours [¶¶ 27, 51-54]; and

17

h. Ordering prolonged local custody of individuals beyond when they would

18

otherwise be released through issuance of immigration detainers without an

19

adequate probable cause determination for the immigration detention within

20

48 hours of the initiation of the immigration detainer-based prolonged

21

detention [¶¶ 27, 51-54].

22

152. Plaintiff Sanchez-Lopez seeks compensatory and punitive damages against

23 Defendants Huelga and Merendino and unknown ROES in their personal capacities for

24 violations of his right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures according to proof,

25 including but not limited to:

26

a. Detaining him without reasonable suspicion of criminal activity or that he or

27

other occupants of the car in which he was a passenger were noncitizens

28
ATTORNEYS AT LAW SAN FRANCISCO

present in the United States without authorization [¶¶ 75-78];

35

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

CASE NO. 08-4220-PJH

Case3:08-cv-04220-RS Document135 Filed09/14/09 Page37 of 75

1

b. Subjecting him to a pat-down search of his person and search of his wallet

2

without lawful justification [¶¶ 78, 89];

3

c. Unreasonably arresting him or causing him to be arrested for suspected civil

4

immigration violations without a warrant and without reason to believe that he

5

was likely to escape before a warrant could be obtained for his arrest [¶¶ 81-

6

83, 85];

7

d. Causing him to be held in custody of the County for approximately four days

8

without a criminal basis for custody and based only on suspected civil

9

immigration violations without authority under state or federal law [¶¶ 81,

10

86];

11

e. Arresting him or causing him to be arrested and held in custody for more than

12

48 hours without a probable cause determination [¶¶ 27, 50-54, 86];

13

f. Arresting him or causing him to be arrested without a warrant and held in

14

custody without an examination by a non-arresting ICE officer without

15

unreasonable delay [¶¶ 50-54, 86]; and

16

g. Causing him to be held in custody for more than 48 hours without a bond

17

determination and before a decision was made whether to issue a Notice to

18

Appear and absent any emergency or other extraordinary circumstance [¶¶ 27,

19

50-54, 86].

20

153. Plaintiff Sonato-Vega seeks compensatory and punitive damages against

21 Defendant Huelga and unknown ROES in their personal capacity for Sonato-Vega’s violations of

22 his right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures according to proof, including but not

23 limited to:

24

a. Detaining him without reasonable suspicion of criminal activity or that he was

25

a noncitizen present in the United States without authorization [¶¶ 97-98];

26

b. Subjecting him to a pat-down search of his person and search of his wallet

27

without lawful justification [¶¶ 98-99];

28
ATTORNEYS AT LAW SAN FRANCISCO

36

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

CASE NO. 08-4220-PJH

Case3:08-cv-04220-RS Document135 Filed09/14/09 Page38 of 75

1

c. Unreasonably arresting him or causing him to be arrested for suspected civil

2

immigration violations without a warrant and without reason to believe that he

3

was likely to escape before a warrant could be obtained for his arrest [¶¶ 97-

4

101];

5

d. Causing him to be held in custody of the County for approximately four days

6

without a criminal basis for custody and based only on suspected civil

7

immigration violations without authority under state or federal law [¶¶ 101,

8

106];

9

e. Arresting him or causing him to be arrested and held in custody for more than

10

48 hours without a probable cause determination [¶¶ 27, 50-54, 104];

11

f. Arresting him or causing him to be arrested without a warrant and held in

12

custody without an examination by a non-arresting ICE officer without

13

unreasonable delay [¶¶ 50-54, 104]; and

14

g. Causing him to be held in custody for more than 48 hours without a bond

15

determination and before a decision was made whether to issue a Notice to

16

Appear and absent any emergency or other extraordinary circumstance [¶¶ 27,

17

50-54, 104].

18

154. Plaintiff Medel seeks compensatory and punitive damages against Defendants

19 ROES in their personal capacities for violations of his right to be free from unreasonable

20 searches and seizures according to proof, including but not limited to:

21

a. Causing his prolonged detention in the Sonoma County jail for approximately

22

four days after he otherwise would have been released through the issuance of

23

an immigration detainer without a probable cause determination within 48

24

hours of the initiation of the prolonged immigration detainer-based detention

25

[¶¶ 27, 50-54, 115-119].

26

155. Plaintiffs do not seek damages from Defendant ICE under this claim for relief.

27

28
ATTORNEYS AT LAW SAN FRANCISCO

37

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

CASE NO. 08-4220-PJH

Case3:08-cv-04220-RS Document135 Filed09/14/09 Page39 of 75

1

FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

2

Fifth Amendment (Bivens and 5 U.S.C. § 702)

3

(Equal Protection)

4

All Plaintiffs Against Defendants ICE, Huelga, Merendino, and ROES 1-50

5

156. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations in the paragraphs above as

6 though fully set forth here.

7

157. Plaintiff Committee, Sanchez-Lopez, and Medel seek declaratory and injunctive

8 relief against Defendant ICE and Defendants Huelga, Merendino, and ROES 1-50 in their

9 official capacities, enjoining them from continuing to engage in the above-described policies,

10 practices and conduct violating the rights of Plaintiffs and Sonoma County residents to be free

11 from discrimination on the basis of race, ethnicity, or national origin under the Fifth Amendment

12 of the United States Constitution, including but not limited to:

13

a. Using race as a motivating factor to stop, detain, interrogate, search and/or

14

arrest persons who appear to be Latino [¶¶ 30-32, 75, 77-80, 92-94, 97-98];

15

b. Using race as a motivating factor to inaccurately designate individuals and

16

gang members [¶¶ 48-49, 59-61, 84, 102-103, 113]; and

17

c. Using race, Spanish surname or national origin as motivating factors in

18

determining whether to question and issue immigration detainers for persons

19

in the custody of Sonoma County [¶¶ 48-49].

20

158. Plaintiff Sanchez-Lopez seeks compensatory and punitive damages against

21 Defendants Huelga and Merendino and unknown ROES in their personal capacities for

22 violations of his right to be free from discrimination on the basis of race, ethnicity, or national

23 origin according to proof, including but not limited to:

24

a. Stopping the car in which he was a passenger based on the race of its

25

occupants, including Sanchez-Lopez’s [¶ 75];

26

b. Using his race as a motivating factor for his prolonged detention, search and

27

interrogation [¶¶ 77-80];

28
ATTORNEYS AT LAW SAN FRANCISCO

38

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

CASE NO. 08-4220-PJH

Case3:08-cv-04220-RS Document135 Filed09/14/09 Page40 of 75

1

c. Using his race as a motivating factor for his arrest and inaccurate designation

2

as a gang member [¶¶ 81-84].

3

159. Plaintiff Sonato-Vega seeks compensatory and punitive damages against

4 Defendant Huelga and unknown ROES in their personal capacities for violations of his right to

5 be free from discrimination on the basis of race, ethnicity, or national origin according to proof,

6 including but not limited to:

7

a. Using his race as a motivating factor to detain him [¶¶ 97-98];

8

b. Using his race as a motivating factor for his prolonged detention, search and

9

interrogation [¶¶ 97-98, 100]; and

10

c. Using his race, Spanish surname, and/or perceived national origin as

11

motivating factors for his arrest and inaccurate designation as a gang member

12

[¶¶ 102-103].

13

160. Plaintiff Medel seeks compensatory and punitive damages against unknown

14 Defendants ROES in their personal capacities for violations of his right to be free from

15 discrimination on the basis of race, ethnicity, or national origin according to proof, including but

16 not limited to:

17

a. Using his race as a motivating factor for his inaccurate designation as a gang

18

member [¶ 113]; and

19

b. Using his race, Spanish surname, and/or perceived national origin as

20

motivating factors in their decisions to subject him to interrogation and to

21

issue an immigration detainer ordering his prolonged detention in the Sonoma

22

County Jail [¶ 114-115].

23

161. Plaintiffs do not seek damages from ICE under this claim for relief.

24 ///

25

26

27

28
ATTORNEYS AT LAW SAN FRANCISCO

39

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

CASE NO. 08-4220-PJH

Case3:08-cv-04220-RS Document135 Filed09/14/09 Page41 of 75

1

SIXTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

2

Fifth Amendment, 8 U.S.C. § 1357, 8 C.F.R. § 287.3, 8 C.F.R. § 287.7

3

(Bivens and 5 U.S.C. § 702)

4

(Due Process)

5

All Plaintiffs Against Defendants ICE, Huelga, Merendino, and ROES 1-50

6

162. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations in the paragraphs above as

7 though fully set forth here.

8

163. A federal agency’s failure to follow its own governing statutes and regulations

9 violates due process of law guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment of the United States

10 Constitution.

11

164. Plaintiffs Committee, Sanchez-Lopez, and Medel seek injunctive and declaratory

12 relief against Defendant ICE and Defendants Huelga, Merendino, and ROES 1-50 in their

13 official capacities, enjoining them from continuing to engage in the above-described policies,

14 practices and conduct violating the rights of Plaintiffs and Sonoma County residents to due

15 process under the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution, including but not limited

16 to:

17

a. Violating 8 U.S.C. § 1357 by making warrantless arrests without reason to

18

believe that the person arrested is likely to escape before a warrant can be

19

obtained [¶¶ 26, 41-43];

20

b. Violating the terms of 8 C.F.R. § 287.7 by issuing immigration detainers to

21

Defendants County and Cogbill for persons not already in County custody

22

pursuant to an independent criminal or other state law arrest [¶¶ 28, 33, 38,

23

40, 44-47];

24

c. Violating the terms of 8 U.S.C. § 1357 and 8 C.F.R. § 287.3 and its

25

authorizing statutes by failing to provide procedural protections required for

26

persons arrested without a warrant for civil immigration violations [¶¶ 26-27,

27

50-58];

28
ATTORNEYS AT LAW SAN FRANCISCO

40

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

CASE NO. 08-4220-PJH

Case3:08-cv-04220-RS Document135 Filed09/14/09 Page42 of 75

1

d. Denying procedural protections under 8 U.S.C. § 1357 and 8 C.F.R. § 287.3

2

due to persons who were arrested on criminal or other state law charges and

3

whose County custody is prolonged as a result of an immigration detainer [¶¶

4

27, 50-58]; and

5

e. Causing persons to be detained in County custody, or causing their detention

6

to be prolonged, based on immigration detainers for four days without notice

7

of the charges against them and an opportunity to respond [¶¶ 27, 50-58].

8

165. Plaintiff Sanchez-Lopez seeks compensatory and punitive damages against

9 Defendant Merendino in his personal capacity and Plaintiffs Sanchez-Lopez and Sonato-Vega

10 seek compensatory and punitive damages against Defendants Huelga and unknown ROES in

11 their personal capacities for violations of their rights to due process under the Fifth Amendment

12 of the United States Constitution including, but not limited to:

13

a. Arresting them or causing their arrest for civil immigration violations without

14

a warrant and without reason to believe they are likely to escape before a

15

warrant can be obtained [¶¶ 81-83 (Sanchez-Lopez); ¶¶ 97-100 (Sonato-

16

Vega)];

17

b. Ordering them to be held in the custody of Defendants County and Cogbill

18

through issuance of immigration detainers that violate 8 C.F.R. § 287.7 and 8

19

U.S.C. § 1357 [¶¶ 81-85 (Sanchez-Lopez); ¶¶ 100-01 (Sonato-Vega)];

20

c. Denying procedural protections due to them as civil immigration arrestees

21

who were arrested without a warrant in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1357 and 8

22

C.F.R. § 287.3 [¶ 86 (Sanchez-Lopez); ¶ 104 (Sonato-Vega)]; and

23

d. Causing them to be held for four days in the Sonoma County jail without

24

notice of the charges against them or an opportunity to respond [¶ 86

25

(Sanchez-Lopez); ¶ 104 (Sonata-Vega)].

26

166. Plaintiff Medel seeks damages against unknown ROES in their personal

27 capacities for violations of their rights to due process under the Fifth Amendment of the United

28
ATTORNEYS AT LAW SAN FRANCISCO

States Constitution including, but not limited to: 41

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT CASE NO. 08-4220-PJH

Case3:08-cv-04220-RS Document135 Filed09/14/09 Page43 of 75

1

a. Failing to provide procedural protections under 8 U.S.C. § 1357 and 8 C.F.R.

2

§ 287.3 [¶¶ 117-118] and;

3

b. Causing his detention in the Sonoma County jail to be prolonged for four days

4

without notice of the charges against him or an opportunity to respond [¶¶

5

117-118].

6

167. Plaintiffs do not seek damages from ICE under this claim for relief.

7

SEVENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

8

Violation of 42 U.S.C. § 2000d et seq. (Title VI)

9

All Plaintiffs Against Defendants Sonoma County, Cogbill, Salkin, and DOES 1-50

10

168. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations in the paragraphs above as

11 though fully set forth here.

12

169. Upon information and belief, Sonoma County and the Sonoma County Sheriff’s

13 Department and their programs or activities, including MAGNET, receive financial assistance

14 and funding from the United States government. As a recipient of federal financial assistance,

15 Sonoma County, the Sonoma County Sheriff’s Department, and their programs or activities are

16 required to conduct their activities in a racially non-discriminatory manner pursuant to Title VI

17 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

18

170. Plaintiffs Committee, Sanchez-Lopez and Medel seek injunctive and declaratory

19 relief against the County and against Defendants Cogbill, Salkin, and DOES 1-50 in their official

20 capacities, enjoining them from continuing to engage in the above-described policies, practices

21 and conduct violating the rights of Plaintiffs and Sonoma County residents to be free from

22 discrimination on the basis of race, ethnicity, or national origin including but not limited to:

23

a. Using race as a motivating factor to stop, detain, interrogate and/or search

24

persons who appear to be Latino [¶¶ 30-32, 34-35, 62-64, 68, 75, 77-80, 92-

25

94, 97-98];

26

b. Using race as a motivating factor to unreasonably prolong detentions in order

27

to question persons regarding their citizenship and immigration status [¶¶ 30-

28
ATTORNEYS AT LAW SAN FRANCISCO

32, 34-36, 62-64, 68, 77-80, 92-95, 97-98, 100]; 42

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT CASE NO. 08-4220-PJH

Case3:08-cv-04220-RS Document135 Filed09/14/09 Page44 of 75

1

c. Using race as a motivating factor in deciding to contact ICE agents to seek

2

immigration detainers for individuals County Defendants encounter in the

3

field and for whom they lack probable cause to arrest for criminal activity [¶¶

4

37, 62-64, 68, 81];

5

d. Using race, Spanish surname, or national origin as motivating factors in

6

classifying arrestees as gang members and for making decisions regarding

7

placement in the jail [¶¶ 48-49, 59-65, 67-68, 84, 102-103, 113];

8

e. Using race, Spanish surname or national origin as motivating factors in

9

interrogating inmates about their immigration status and recommending to

10

ICE that certain inmates in the jail be considered as subjects of immigration

11

detainers [¶¶ 48-49, 62-65, 67-68, 114-115].

12

171. Plaintiff Sanchez-Lopez seeks compensatory damages against Defendant Sonoma

13 County for violations of his right to be free from discrimination on the basis of race, ethnicity, or

14 national origin according to proof, including but not limited to:

15

a. Stopping the car in which he was a passenger based on the race of its

16

occupants, including Sanchez-Lopez’s [¶ 75];

17

b. Agreeing to, participating in, and/or acquiescing to the use of Francisco’s race

18

as a motivating factor for his prolonged detention, search and interrogation [¶¶

19

77-80];

20

c. Using his race as a motivating factor for his arrest, inaccurate designation as a

21

gang member, and placement with other persons perceived to be Sureños in

22

the County jail [¶¶ 81-84].

23

172. Plaintiff Sonato-Vega seeks compensatory damages against Defendant Sonoma

24 County for violations of his right to be free from discrimination on the basis of race, ethnicity, or

25 national origin according to proof, including but not limited to:

26

a. Using his race as a motivating factor to detain him [¶¶ 92-94, 97-98 100];

27

b. Using his race as a motivating factor for his prolonged detention, search and

28
ATTORNEYS AT LAW SAN FRANCISCO

interrogation [¶¶ 92-94, 97-98, 100]; and 43

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT CASE NO. 08-4220-PJH

Case3:08-cv-04220-RS Document135 Filed09/14/09 Page45 of 75

1

c. Using his race, Spanish surname, and/or perceived national origin as

2

motivating factors for his arrest, inaccurate designation as a gang member,

3

and placement with other persons perceived to be Sureños in the County jail

4

[¶¶ 102-103].

5

173. Plaintiff Medel seeks compensatory damages against Defendant Sonoma County

6 for violations of his right to be free from discrimination on the basis of race, ethnicity, or

7 national origin according to proof, including but not limited to:

8

a. Using his race as a motivating factor for his inaccurate designation as a gang

9

member and placement with other persons perceived to be Sureños in the

10

County jail [¶ 113]; and

11

b. Using his race, Spanish surname, and/or perceived national origin as

12

motivating factors in interrogating him about his immigration status and

13

deciding to refer him to ICE for consideration as the subject of an immigration

14

detainer [¶¶ 114-115].

15

174. Plaintiffs do not seek damages against individual defendants in their personal

16 capacities under this claim.

17

EIGHTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

18

5 U.S.C. § 706

19

Plaintiffs Sanchez-Lopez, Medel and Committee

20

Against Defendants ICE, Huelga, Merendino, and ROES 1-50

21

175. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations in the paragraphs above as

22 though fully set forth here.

23

176. A federal agency’s failure to follow its own regulations can be enjoined under the

24 Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 706 (“APA”).

25

177. Defendants ICE, Huelga, Merendino, and ROES 1-50 have, through the above-

26 described policies, practices and customs engaged in “agency actions” or “failures to act” that

27 should be enjoined under the APA.

28
ATTORNEYS AT LAW SAN FRANCISCO

44

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

CASE NO. 08-4220-PJH

Case3:08-cv-04220-RS Document135 Filed09/14/09 Page46 of 75

1

178. Issuance of immigration detainers for persons not already in custody of a local

2 law enforcement agency exceeds the authority provided in 8 U.S.C. § 1357 and 8 C.F.R. § 287.7

3 and violates the terms of 8 C.F.R. § 287.7 and is therefore agency action that is “arbitrary and

4 capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law;” “contrary to

5 constitutional right, power, privilege, or immunity;” “in excess of statutory jurisdiction,

6 authority, or limitations, or short of statutory right;” and “without observance of procedure

7 required by law.” 5 U.S.C. § 706(2).

8

179. Arresting individuals for civil immigration violations without a warrant and

9 without making a flight risk determination as required by 8 U.S.C. § 1357 is agency action that is

10 “arbitrary and capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law;”

11 “contrary to constitutional right, power, privilege, or immunity;” “in excess of statutory

12 jurisdiction, authority, or limitations, or short of statutory right;” and “without observance of

13 procedure required by law.” 5 U.S.C. § 706(2).

14

180. Failure to provide procedural protections required by 8 U.S.C. § 1357 and 8

15 C.F.R. § 287.3 and its authorizing statutes for persons held in the Sonoma County jail on

16 immigration detainers after being arrested without a warrant is agency action that is “arbitrary

17 and capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law;” “contrary to

18 constitutional right, power, privilege, or immunity;” “in excess of statutory jurisdiction,

19 authority, or limitations, or short of statutory right;” and “without observance of procedure

20 required by law.” 5 U.S.C. § 706(2).

21

181. Under the above-described polices, practices, and customs, the procedural

22 protections required by 8 U.S.C. § 1357 and 8 C.F.R. § 287.3 and its authorizing statutes due

23 persons held in the Sonoma County jail on immigration detainers after being arrested without a

24 warrant or whose prolonged detention for immigration violations is not supported by their

25 original arrests, are “agency actions” “unlawfully withheld or unreasonably delayed.” 5 U.S.C. §

26 706(1).

27

182. Plaintiffs Committee, Sanchez-Lopez, and Medel seek injunctive and declaratory

28
ATTORNEYS AT LAW SAN FRANCISCO

relief against Defendant ICE and Defendants Huelga, Merendino, and ROES 1-50 in their

45

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

CASE NO. 08-4220-PJH

Case3:08-cv-04220-RS Document135 Filed09/14/09 Page47 of 75

1 official capacities, enjoining them from continuing to engage in the above-described policies,

2 practices and conduct that systematically violate statutory and regulatory requirements upon ICE

3 and its agents including but not limited to:

4

a. Making warrantless arrests without reason to believe that the person arrested

5

is likely to escape before a warrant can be obtained [¶¶ 26, 41-42];

6

b. Issuing immigration detainers to Defendants County and Cogbill for persons

7

not already in County custody pursuant to an independent criminal or other

8

state law arrest [¶¶ 28, 33, 38, 40, 44-47];

9

c. Failing to provide procedural protections required for persons arrested without

10

a warrant for civil immigration violations including but not limited to

11

examination by non-arresting ICE officer, notice of the reasons for the arrest,

12

the right to be represented by counsel at a hearing, a list of free available legal

13

services, notice that statements made can be used against them at a subsequent

14

hearing, and a bond determination within 48 hours of arrest [¶¶ 27, 50-58];

15

and

16

d. Denying procedural protections under 8 U.S.C. § 1357 and 8 C.F.R. § 287.3

17

due to persons who were arrested on criminal or other state law charges and

18

whose County custody is prolonged as a result of an immigration detainer [¶¶

19

27, 50-58].

20

183. Plaintiffs do not seek damages under this claim.

21

NINTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

22

42 U.S.C. § 1983, 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3) (Conspiracy)

23

All Plaintiffs Against All Defendants

24

184. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations in the paragraphs above as

25 though fully set forth here.

26

185. Defendants County, Cogbill, Salkin, and DOES 1-50 conspired with Defendants

27 ICE, Huelga, Merendino, and ROES 1-50 by entering into a mutual understanding and

28
ATTORNEYS AT LAW SAN FRANCISCO

agreement and committing overt acts in furtherance of their agreement to violate Plaintiffs’

46

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

CASE NO. 08-4220-PJH

Case3:08-cv-04220-RS Document135 Filed09/14/09 Page48 of 75

1 constitutional and statutory rights, including their right to equal protection under law, in violation

2 of 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3), according to proof, including and not limited to the following:

3

a. The establishment of a joint operation by Defendants County, Cogbill, DOES

4

1-50, ICE, and ROES 1-50 to target Latino immigrant gang members through

5

the policy and practice of using race, ethnicity, or national origin as a

6

motivating factor to initiate contact with and determine subsequent actions

7

against individuals [¶¶ 30-33], subjecting individuals to unlawful searches and

8

seizures [¶ 32, see Claims for Relief 1 and 4], and denying individuals

9

substantive and procedural due process [see Claims for Relief 3 and 6].

10

b. The joint participation of Defendants Salkin, DOES 1-50, Huelga, Merendino,

11

and ROES 1-50 on multiple occasions during which these individual

12

Defendants engaged in the unlawful use of race, ethnicity, or national origin

13

as a motivating factor to initiate contact with and determine subsequent

14

actions against individuals [¶¶ 75, 97-100, 114-115], subjected individuals to

15

unlawful searches and seizures [¶¶ 77-80, 98], and denied individuals

16

substantive and procedural due process [see Claims for Relief 3 and 6].

17

c. The knowledge or witness of and the failure to prevent or stop the ongoing

18

unlawful use of race, ethnicity, or national origin as a motivating factor to

19

initiate contact with and determine subsequent actions against individuals [¶¶

20

62-68, 75, 97-100, 114-115], unlawful searches and seizures [¶¶ 62-68, 77-80,

21

98], and the denial of substantive and procedural due process [see Claims for

22

Relief 2-3, 5-6] by Defendants County, Cogbill, Salkin, DOES 1-50, ICE,

23

Huelga, Merendino, and ROES 1-50.

24

186. As a direct and proximate result of the aforementioned conspiracy between

25 Defendants through individual actions and policies and practices, Plaintiffs Sanchez-Lopez,

26 Sonato-Vega, and Medel have been deprived of their rights to be free from unreasonable and

27 unlawful searches and seizures, to equal protection under the laws, and to substantive and

28
ATTORNEYS AT LAW SAN FRANCISCO

47

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

CASE NO. 08-4220-PJH

Case3:08-cv-04220-RS Document135 Filed09/14/09 Page49 of 75

1 procedural due process rights, as secured by the Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments to

2 the United States Constitution.

3

187. Plaintiffs Committee, Sanchez-Lopez and Medel seek injunctive and declaratory

4 relief against Defendants County and ICE and against Defendants Cogbill, Salkin, DOES 1-50,

5 Huelga, Merendino, and ROES 1-50 in their official capacities, enjoining them from continuing

6 to engage in the above-described conspiracy to violate the constitutional and statutory rights of

7 Plaintiffs and Sonoma County residents.

8

188. Plaintiff Sanchez-Lopez seeks compensatory damages against Defendant Sonoma

9 County and compensatory and punitive damages against Defendants Cogbill, Salkin, DOES 1-

10 50, Huelga, Merendino, and ROES 1-50 for conspiring to violate his constitutional and statutory

11 rights according to proof, including but not limited to:

12

a. Agreeing to and intentionally subjecting Sanchez-Lopez to discriminatory

13

treatment on the basis of his race, ethnicity, or national origin [¶¶ 74-75, 80];

14

b. Agreeing to and intentionally subjecting Sanchez-Lopez to unreasonable

15

searches and seizures [¶¶ 77-81];

16

c. Agreeing to and intentionally denying Sanchez-Lopez substantive and

17

procedural due process [see Claims for Relief 2-3, 5-6].

18

189. Plaintiff Sonata-Vega seeks compensatory damages against Defendant Sonoma

19 County and compensatory and punitive damages against Defendants Cogbill, Salkin, DOES 1-

20 50, Huelga, and ROES 1-50 for conspiring to violate his constitutional and statutory rights

21 according to proof, including but not limited to:

22

a. Agreeing to and intentionally subjecting Sonato-Vega to discriminatory

23

treatment on the basis of his race, ethnicity, or national origin [¶¶ 92, 100-

24

102];

25

b. Agreeing to and intentionally subjecting Sonato-Vega to unreasonable

26

searches and seizures [¶¶ 97-98, 100];

27

c. Agreeing to and intentionally denying Sonato-Vega substantive and

28
ATTORNEYS AT LAW SAN FRANCISCO

procedural due process [see Claims for Relief 2-3, 5-6].

48

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

CASE NO. 08-4220-PJH

Case3:08-cv-04220-RS Document135 Filed09/14/09 Page50 of 75

1

190. Plaintiff Medel seeks compensatory damages against Defendant Sonoma County

2 and compensatory and punitive damages against Defendants Cogbill, DOES 1-50, and ROES 1-

3 50 for conspiring to violate his constitutional and statutory rights according to proof, including

4 but not limited to:

5

a. Agreeing to and intentionally subjecting Medel to discriminatory treatment on

6

the basis of his race, ethnicity, or national origin [¶¶ 113-115];

7

b. Agreeing to and intentionally subjecting Medel to unreasonable searches and

8

seizures [¶¶ 116-120];

9

c. Agreeing to and intentionally denying Medel substantive and procedural due

10

process [see Claims for Relief 2-3, 5-6].

11

TENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

12

California Constitution, Art. I, § 13

13

(Unreasonable Search and Seizure)

14

All Plaintiffs Against Defendants Sonoma County, Cogbill, Salkin, and DOES 1-50

15

191. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations in the paragraphs above as

16 though fully set forth here.

17

192. Plaintiffs Committee, Sanchez-Lopez and Medel seek injunctive and declaratory

18 relief against the County and against Defendants Cogbill, Salkin, and DOES 1-50 in their official

19 capacities, enjoining them from continuing to engage in the above-described policies, practices

20 and conduct violating the rights of Plaintiffs and Sonoma County residents to be free from

21 unreasonable searches and seizures under Article 1, § 13 of the California Constitution:

22

a. Stopping persons and vehicles without reasonable suspicion of criminal

23

activity or traffic infraction [¶¶ 25, 30-32, 34-35, 62-64];

24

b. Making pretextual stops for traffic or other infractions for the purpose of

25

detaining and questioning individuals regarding their immigration status [¶¶

26

25, 30-32, 34-35, 62-64];

27

c. Unreasonably prolonging traffic and other stops beyond the time they would

28
ATTORNEYS AT LAW SAN FRANCISCO

otherwise take in order to question individuals about matters unrelated to the

49

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

CASE NO. 08-4220-PJH

Case3:08-cv-04220-RS Document135 Filed09/14/09 Page51 of 75

1

purported purpose of the stop or other criminal activity, specifically their

2

citizenship and immigration status [¶¶ 30-32, 36, 62-64];

3

d. Conducting personal and vehicle searches without probable cause to believe

4

that that the areas searched contain evidence of criminal activity or without a

5

reasonable belief that the person searched or car’s occupants are dangerous

6

and may gain access to a weapon in the area searched [¶¶ 30-32, 34-36, 62-

7

64];

8

e. Unreasonably arresting individuals without probable cause of criminal activity

9

and without authority to arrest for civil immigration violations [¶¶ 20-23, 25,

10

33, 37, 39, 43, 62-64, 66];

11

f. Holding persons in the County jail without a criminal basis for custody and

12

based only on suspected civil immigration violations [¶¶ 24-25, 33, 39, 62-64,

13

66];

14

g. Holding persons in custody for more than 48 hours without an independent

15

probable cause determination by a non-arresting ICE officer or neutral

16

magistrate [¶¶ 27, 50-54, 62-66, 68]; and

17

h. Prolonging the local custody of individuals for more than 48 hours beyond

18

when they would otherwise be released, based on immigration detainers, and

19

without bringing them before a neutral magistrate for a probable cause

20

determination [¶¶ 27, 50-54, 62-68].

21

193. Plaintiff Sonato-Vega seeks compensatory damages against Defendant Sonoma

22 County, and compensatory and punitive damages against Defendants Cogbill, Salkin and

23 unknown DOES in their personal capacities for violations of his right to be free from

24 unreasonable searches and seizures according to proof, including but not limited to:

25

a. Detaining him without reasonable suspicion of criminal activity [¶¶ 97-98];

26

b. Subjecting him to a pat-down searches of his person and his wallet without

27

lawful justification [¶¶ 98-99];

28
ATTORNEYS AT LAW SAN FRANCISCO

50

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

CASE NO. 08-4220-PJH

Case3:08-cv-04220-RS Document135 Filed09/14/09 Page52 of 75

1

c. Unreasonably arresting him without probable cause of criminal activity and

2

without authority to arrest for civil immigration violations [¶¶ 97-100];

3

d. Holding him in custody for approximately four days without authority under

4

state or federal law [¶¶ 101, 106]; and

5

e. Holding him in custody for more than 48 hours without an independent

6

probable cause determination by a non-arresting ICE officer or neutral

7

magistrate [¶¶ 27, 50-54, 104].

8

194. Plaintiff Medel seeks compensatory damages against Defendant Sonoma County,

9 and compensatory and punitive damages against Defendants Cogbill and unknown DOES in

10 their personal capacities for violating his right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures

11 according to proof by holding him in custody for more than 48 hours after he would have been

12 released from custody on his criminal arrest based on an immigration detainer and without an

13 independent probable cause determination by a non-arresting ICE officer or neutral magistrate

14 [¶¶ 27, 50-54, 112-19].

15

195. Plaintiff Sanchez-Lopez does not seek damages under this claim.

16

ELEVENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

17

California Constitution, Art. I, § 7(a)

18

(Equal Protection)

19

All Plaintiffs Against Defendants Sonoma County, Cogbill, Salkin, and DOES 1-50

20

196. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations in the paragraphs above as

21 though fully set forth here.

22

197. As Latinos, the individual Plaintiffs and many members of the Committee are

23 members of a protected class.

24

198. Plaintiffs Committee, Sanchez-Lopez and Medel seek injunctive and declaratory

25 relief against the County and against Defendants Cogbill, Salkin, and DOES 1-50 in their official

26 capacities, enjoining them from continuing to engage in the above-described policies, practices

27 and conduct violating the rights of Plaintiffs and Sonoma County residents to equal protection

28
ATTORNEYS AT LAW SAN FRANCISCO

under Article I, § 7(a) of the California Constitution, including but not limited to:

51

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

CASE NO. 08-4220-PJH

Case3:08-cv-04220-RS Document135 Filed09/14/09 Page53 of 75

1

a. Using race as a motivating factor to stop, detain, interrogate and/or search

2

persons who appear to be Latino [¶¶ 30-32, 34-35, 62-64, 68, 75, 77-80, 92-

3

94, 97-98];

4

b. Using race as a motivating factor to unreasonably prolong detentions in order

5

to question persons regarding their citizenship and immigration status [¶¶ 30-

6

32, 34-36, 62-64, 68, 77-80, 92-95, 97-98, 100];

7

c. Using race as a motivating factor in deciding to contact ICE agents to seek

8

immigration detainers for individuals County Defendants encounter in the

9

field and for whom they lack probable cause to arrest for criminal activity [¶¶

10

37, 62-64, 68, 81];

11

d. Using race, Spanish surname, or national origin as motivating factors in

12

classifying arrestees as gang members and for making decisions regarding

13

placement in the jail [¶¶ 48-49, 59-65, 67-68, 84, 102-103, 113];

14

e. Using race, Spanish surname or national origin as motivating factors in

15

questioning inmates about their immigration status and recommending to ICE

16

that certain inmates in the jail be considered as subjects of immigration

17

detainers [¶¶ 48-49, 62-65, 67-68, 114-115].

18

199. Plaintiff Sonato-Vega seeks compensatory damages against Defendant Sonoma

19 County, and compensatory and punitive damages against Defendants Cogbill, Salkin and

20 unknown DOES in their personal capacities for violations of his right to be free from

21 discrimination on the basis of race, ethnicity, or national origin race according to proof,

22 including but not limited to:

23

a. Using his race as a motivating factor to detain him [¶¶ 97-98, 100];

24

b. Using his race as a motivating factor for his prolonged detention, search and

25

interrogation [¶¶ 97-98, 100]; and

26

c. Using his race, Spanish surname, and/or perceived national origin as

27

motivating factors for his arrest, inaccurate designation as a gang member,

28
ATTORNEYS AT LAW SAN FRANCISCO

52

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

CASE NO. 08-4220-PJH

Case3:08-cv-04220-RS Document135 Filed09/14/09 Page54 of 75

1

and placement with other persons perceived to be Sureños in the County jail

2

[¶¶ 102-103].

3

200. Plaintiff Medel seeks compensatory damages against Defendant Sonoma County,

4 and compensatory and punitive damages against unknown DOES in their personal capacities for

5 violations of his right to be free from discrimination on the basis of race, ethnicity, or national

6 origin race according to proof, including but not limited to:

7

a. Using his race as a motivating factor for his inaccurate designation as a gang

8

member and placement with other persons perceived to be Sureños in the

9

County jail [¶ 113]; and

10

b. Using his race, Spanish surname, and/or perceived national origin as

11

motivating factors in deciding to question Medel about his immigration status

12

and refer Medel to ICE for consideration as the subject of an immigration

13

detainer [¶¶ 114-115].

14

201. Plaintiff Sanchez-Lopez does not seek damages under this claim.

15

TWELFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

16

California Constitution Art. I, § 7(a)

17

(Due Process)

18

All Plaintiffs Against Defendants Sonoma County, Cogbill, Salkin, and DOES 1-50

19

202. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations in the paragraphs above as

20 though fully set forth here.

21

203. Plaintiffs Committee, Sanchez-Lopez, and Medel seek injunctive and declaratory

22 relief against the County and against Defendants Cogbill, Salkin, and DOES 1-50 in their official

23 capacities, enjoining them from continuing to engage the above-described policies, practices and

24 conduct of County Defendants violating the rights of Plaintiffs and Sonoma County residents to

25 due process under Article I, § 7(a) of the California, including but not limited to:

26

a. Arresting and detaining individuals without probable cause of criminal

27

activity and for civil immigration violations without any lawful authority, in

28
ATTORNEYS AT LAW SAN FRANCISCO

53

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

CASE NO. 08-4220-PJH

Case3:08-cv-04220-RS Document135 Filed09/14/09 Page55 of 75

1

violation of the arrestees’ rights to substantive due process [¶¶ 20-23, 25, 33,

2

37, 39, 43, 62-64, 66];

3

b. Aiding and abetting ICE and its agents in denying procedural protections due

4

civil immigration arrestees who are arrested without a warrant [¶¶ 38-39, 41-

5

43, 66];

6

c. Denying procedural protections under 8 U.S.C. § 1357 and 8 C.F.R. § 287.3

7

due to persons who were arrested on criminal or other state law charges and

8

whose County custody is prolonged as a result of an immigration detainer [¶¶

9

50-58, 67]; and

10

d. Failing to provide persons held in the Sonoma County jail on suspected civil

11

immigration violations notice of the charges against them, information

12

regarding the possible consequences of their arrests, and an opportunity to be

13

heard within a reasonable period after their arrests or the initiation of

14

immigration detainer-based detentions [¶¶ 27, 50-58, 65, 67].

15

204. Plaintiff Sonato-Vega seeks compensatory damages against Defendant Sonoma

16 County, and compensatory and punitive damages against Defendants Cogbill, Salkin, and

17 unknown DOES in their personal capacities for violations of his right to due process under the

18 California Constitution including, but not limited to:

19

a. Arresting and holding him in custody for four days without lawful authority

20

[¶¶ 101, 106];

21

b. Aiding and abetting ICE and its agents in denying procedural protections due

22

to him as a civil immigration arrestee who was arrested without a warrant [¶

23

104]; and

24

c. Failing to provide him with notice of the charges against him, information

25

regarding the possible consequences of his arrest, or an opportunity to be

26

heard within a reasonable time after his arrest [¶ 104].

27

205. Plaintiff Medel seeks compensatory damages against Defendant Sonoma County,

28
ATTORNEYS AT LAW SAN FRANCISCO

and compensatory and punitive damages against Defendants Cogbill and unknown DOES in

54

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

CASE NO. 08-4220-PJH

Case3:08-cv-04220-RS Document135 Filed09/14/09 Page56 of 75

1 their personal capacities for violations of his right to due process under the California

2 Constitution including, but not limited to:

3

a. Aiding and abetting ICE and its agents in denying procedural protections

4

under 8 U.S.C. § 1357 and 8 C.F.R. § 287.3 due to him [¶¶ 117-118]; and

5

b. Failing to provide him with notice of the charges against him, information

6

regarding the possible consequences of his immigration detainer, or an

7

opportunity to be heard within a reasonable time after the beginning of his

8

prolonged detention pursuant to immigration detainer [¶¶ 117-118].

9

206. Plaintiff Sanchez-Lopez does not seek damages under this claim.

10

THIRTEENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

11

Violation of Bane Act, California Civil Code § 52.1

12

All Plaintiffs Against Defendants Sonoma County, Cogbill, Salkin, and DOES 1-50

13

207. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations in the paragraphs above as

14 though fully set forth here.

15

208. Plaintiffs Committee, Sanchez-Lopez, and Medel seek injunctive and declaratory

16 relief pursuant to California Civil Code § 52.1 against the County and against Defendants

17 Cogbill, Salkin, and DOES 1-50 in their official capacities, enjoining them from continuing to

18 engage the above-described policies, practices and conduct interfering with the exercise and

19 enjoyment of the rights of Plaintiffs and other Sonoma County residents under the U.S. and

20 California Constitutions, according to proof and including but not limited to:

21

a. Subjecting individuals to stops, detention, interrogation, and arrest for

22

suspected civil immigration violations without reasonable suspicion or

23

probable cause of criminal activity and without lawful authority [¶¶ 20-23, 25,

24

30-37, 39, 43, 62-64, 66]; and

25

b. Prolonging the local custody of individuals for more than 48 hours beyond

26

when they would otherwise be released, based on immigration detainers, and

27

without a probable cause determination or notice of the charges against them

28
ATTORNEYS AT LAW SAN FRANCISCO

and an opportunity to respond [¶¶ 27, 50-58]. 55

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT CASE NO. 08-4220-PJH

Case3:08-cv-04220-RS Document135 Filed09/14/09 Page57 of 75

1

209. Plaintiff Sonato-Vega seeks compensatory damages against Defendant Sonoma

2 County and compensatory, statutory, and treble damages against Defendants Cogbill, Salkin, and

3 unknown DOES in their personal capacities for violations of the Bane Act, according to proof

4 and including but not limited to:

5

a. Subjecting him to unreasonable searches and seizures without reasonable

6

suspicion of criminal activity or that he posed a threat of safety [¶¶ 97-100];

7

b. Arresting and holding him in custody for four days without lawful authority

8

[¶¶ 101, 106];

9

c. Failing to bring him before a magistrate or non-arresting ICE officer within 48

10

hours of his arrest for a probable cause determination [¶¶ 104-106]; and

11

d. Failing to provide him with notice of the charges against him, information

12

about what consequences would follow from his arrest, or an opportunity to

13

be heard within a reasonable time after his arrest [¶¶ 104-106].

14

210. Plaintiff Medel seeks compensatory damages against Defendant Sonoma County,

15 and compensatory, statutory, and treble damages against Defendants Cogbill and unknown

16 DOES in their personal capacities for violations of the Bane Act, according to proof and

17 including but not limited to:

18

a. Failing to bring him before a magistrate or non-arresting ICE officer within 48

19

hours of the beginning of his prolonged detention based on an immigration

20

detainer [¶¶ 115-118]; and

21

b. Failing to provide him with notice of the charges against him, information

22

about what consequences would follow from his immigration detainer, or an

23

opportunity to be heard within a reasonable time after the beginning of his

24

prolonged detention pursuant to immigration detainer [¶¶ 115-118].

25

211. Plaintiff Sanchez-Lopez does not seek damages under this claim.

26 ///

27

28
ATTORNEYS AT LAW SAN FRANCISCO

56

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

CASE NO. 08-4220-PJH

Case3:08-cv-04220-RS Document135 Filed09/14/09 Page58 of 75

1

FOURTEENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

2

California Government Code § 11135 and Its Implementing Regulations

3

All Plaintiffs Against Defendant Sonoma County

4

212. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations in the paragraphs above as

5 though fully set forth here.

6

213. California Government Code § 11135 provides, in relevant part: “No person in

7 the State of California shall, on the basis of race, national origin, ethnic group identification,

8 religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, color, or disability, be unlawfully denied full and equal

9 access to the benefits of, or be unlawfully subjected to discrimination under, any program or

10 activity that is conducted, operated, or administered by the state or by any state agency, is funded

11 directly by the state, or receives any financial assistance from the state.”

12

214. California Code of Regulations §§ 98101(i)(1) and (2) prohibit recipients of state

13 funding from utilizing criteria or methods of administration which have the effect of

14 discriminating against protected groups.

15

215. Upon information and belief, Defendant Sonoma County and the Sonoma County

16 Sheriff’s Department receive financial assistance from the State of California, thus subjecting it

17 to the prohibitions of Cal. Gov’t Code § 11135 and its implementing regulations.

18

216. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that the policies, practices,

19 and customs Defendants County and Cogbill have adopted in furtherance of their collaboration

20 with ICE to target immigrant gang members, including but not limited to their use of

21 immigration detainers to initiate and prolong custody in the County jail, have a disparate impact

22 on Latinos in Sonoma County.

23

217. Plaintiffs Committee, Sanchez-Lopez and Medel seek injunctive and declaratory

24 relief against the County and against Defendants Cogbill, Salkin, and DOES 1-50 in their official

25 capacities, enjoining them from continuing to engage in the above-described policies, practices

26 and conduct in violation of Cal. Gov’t Code § 11135 and its implementing regulations, including

27 but not limited to:

28
ATTORNEYS AT LAW SAN FRANCISCO

57

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

CASE NO. 08-4220-PJH

Case3:08-cv-04220-RS Document135 Filed09/14/09 Page59 of 75

1

a. Using race as a motivating factor to stop, detain, interrogate and/or search

2

persons who appear to be Latino [¶¶ 30-32, 34-35, 62-64, 68, 75, 77-80, 92-

3

94, 97-98];

4

b. Using race as a motivating factor to unreasonably prolong detentions in order

5

to question persons regarding their citizenship and immigration status [¶¶30-

6

32, 34-36, 62-64, 68, 77-80, 92-95, 97-98, 100];

7

c. Using race as a motivating factor in deciding to contact ICE agents to seek

8

immigration detainers for individuals County Defendants encounter in the

9

field and for whom they lack probable cause to arrest for criminal activity [¶¶

10

37, 62-64, 68, 81];

11

d. Using race, Spanish surname, or national origin as motivating factors in

12

classifying arrestees as gang members and for making decisions regarding

13

placement in the jail [¶¶ 48-49, 59-65, 67-68, 84, 102-103, 113];

14

e. Using race, Spanish surname or national origin as motivating factors in

15

questioning inmates about their immigration status and recommending to ICE

16

that certain inmates in the jail be considered as subjects of immigration

17

detainers [¶¶ 48-49, 62-65, 67-68, 114-115]; and

18

f. Adopting and implementing policies, practices, and customs that have a

19

disparate impact on Latino residents of Sonoma County on account of their

20

race, ethnicity, or national origin [¶¶ 30-31, 62, 72].

21

218. Plaintiff Sonato-Vega seeks compensatory damages against Defendant Sonoma

22 County, and compensatory and punitive damages against Defendants Cogbill, Salkin and

23 unknown DOES in their personal capacities for violations of his rights under Cal. Gov’t Code §

24 11135 and its implementing regulations according to proof, including but not limited to:

25

a. Using his race as a motivating factor to detain him [¶¶ 97-98 100];

26

b. Using his race as a motivating factor for his prolonged detention, search and

27

interrogation [¶¶ 97-98 100]; and

28
ATTORNEYS AT LAW SAN FRANCISCO

58

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

CASE NO. 08-4220-PJH

Case3:08-cv-04220-RS Document135 Filed09/14/09 Page60 of 75

1

c. Using his race, Spanish surname, and/or perceived national origin as

2

motivating factors for his arrest, inaccurate designation as a gang member,

3

and placement with other persons perceived to be Sureños in the County jail

4

[¶¶ 102-103]; and

5

d. Application of policies, practices, and customs that had a disparate impact on

6

him on account of his race, ethnicity, or national origin.

7

219. Plaintiff Medel seeks compensatory damages against Defendant Sonoma County,

8 and compensatory and punitive damages against unknown DOES in their personal capacities for

9 violations of his right to be free from discrimination on the basis of race, ethnicity, or national

10 origin race according to proof, including but not limited to:

11

a. Using his race as a motivating factor for his inaccurate designation as a gang

12

member and placement with other persons perceived to be Sureños in the

13

County jail [¶ 113]; and

14

b. Using his race, Spanish surname, and/or perceived national origin as

15

motivating factors in deciding to question Medel about his immigration status

16

and refer him to ICE for consideration as the subject of an immigration

17

detainer [¶¶ 114-115]; and

18

c. Application of policies, practices, and customs that had a disparate impact on

19

him on account of his race, ethnicity, or national origin.

20

220. Plaintiff Sanchez-Lopez does not seek damages under this claim.

21

FIFTEENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

22

False Imprisonment (Cal Gov’t Code § 815.2)

23

Plaintiffs Sonato-Vega and Medel Against

24

Defendants Sonoma County, Cogbill, Salkin, and DOES 1-50

25

221. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations in the paragraphs above as

26 though fully set forth here.

27

222. Pursuant to California Government Code § 815.2, a public entity is liable for

28
ATTORNEYS AT LAW SAN FRANCISCO

injury proximately caused by an act or omission of an employee of the public entity within the

59

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

CASE NO. 08-4220-PJH

Case3:08-cv-04220-RS Document135 Filed09/14/09 Page61 of 75

1 scope of his employment. All of the conduct alleged in this Second Amended Complaint by

2 employees of Sonoma County, including Defendants Cogbill, Salkin, and DOES 1-50, was

3 undertaken in the course and scope of their employment.

4

223. Plaintiff Sonato-Vega seeks compensatory damages against Defendant County

5 and compensatory and punitive damages against Defendants Cogbill, Salkin and unknown DOES

6 in their personal capacities for inflicting personal injury on him by subjecting him to false arrest

7 and imprisonment according to proof by acts including but not limited to:

8

a. Detaining him without reasonable suspicion of criminal activity [¶¶ 92-96];

9

b. Unreasonably arresting him without probable cause of criminal activity and

10

without authority to arrest for civil immigration violations [¶¶ 97-100]; and

11

c. Holding him in custody for approximately four days without authority under

12

state or federal law [¶¶ 100, 105];

13

d. Holding him in custody for more than 48 hours without an independent

14

probable cause determination by a non-arresting ICE officer or neutral

15

magistrate [¶¶ 100, 104, 105].

16

224. Plaintiff Medel seeks compensatory damages against Defendant County and

17 compensatory and punitive damages against Defendants Cogbill and unknown DOES in their

18 personal capacities for subjecting him to false imprisonment according to proof by holding him

19 in custody for more than 48 hours after he would have been released from custody on his

20 criminal arrest based on an immigration detainer and without an independent probable cause

21 determination by a non-arresting ICE officer or neutral magistrate [¶¶ 116-119].

22

SIXTEENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

23

Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (Cal Gov’t Code § 815.2)

24

Plaintiffs Sonato-Vega and Medel Against

25

Defendants Sonoma County, Cogbill, Salkin, and Does 1-50

26

225. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations in the paragraphs above, as

27 though fully set forth here.

28
ATTORNEYS AT LAW SAN FRANCISCO

60

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

CASE NO. 08-4220-PJH

Case3:08-cv-04220-RS Document135 Filed09/14/09 Page62 of 75

1

226. Plaintiff Sonato-Vega seeks compensatory damages against Defendant County

2 and compensatory and punitive damages against Defendants Cogbill, Salkin and unknown DOES

3 in their personal capacities for actually causing and/or proximately causing Sonato-Vega to

4 suffer severe emotional distress by subjecting him to extreme and outrageous conduct with the

5 intent to cause, or alternatively a reckless disregard of the probability of causing, emotional

6 distress according to proof by acts, including but not limited to:

7

a. Using his race and/or perceived national origin as a motivating factor to

8

detain, question, search, and arrest him and in inaccurately designating him as

9

a criminal gang member [¶¶ 92-96, 97-100, 102-103];

10

b. Unreasonable searches and seizures [¶¶ 93-95, 98-99];

11

c. Deprivations of substantive and procedural due process protections, such as

12

holding him in custody for approximately four days without lawful authority

13

and without notice of the charges against him, the possible consequences of

14

his detention, and an opportunity to respond [¶¶ 100, 104-105]; and

15

d. Humiliating and abusive treatment [¶¶ 99, 105, 107];

16

227. Plaintiff Medel seeks compensatory damages against Defendant County and

17 compensatory and punitive damages against Defendants Cogbill, Salkin and unknown DOES in

18 their personal capacities for actually causing and/or proximately causing Medel to suffer severe

19 emotional distress by subjecting him to extreme and outrageous conduct with the intent to cause,

20 or alternatively a reckless disregard of the probability of causing, emotional distress according to

21 proof by acts, including, but not limited to:

22

a. Subjecting him to discriminatory treatment, such as the use of his race,

23

Spanish surname, and/or perceived national origin to inaccurately designate

24

him as a gang member and detain him with other inmates perceived to be

25

Sureños [¶¶ 113-115]; and

26

b. Prolonging his detention for four days based on an immigration detainer

27

without a probable cause determination and without notice of the charges

28
ATTORNEYS AT LAW SAN FRANCISCO

61

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

CASE NO. 08-4220-PJH

Case3:08-cv-04220-RS Document135 Filed09/14/09 Page63 of 75

1

against him, information regarding the possible consequences of his prolonged

2

detention, and an opportunity to respond [¶¶ 116-119].

3

SEVENTEENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

4

Negligence (Cal Gov’t Code § 815.2)

5

Plaintiffs Sonato-Vega and Medel Against

6

Defendants Sonoma County, Cogbill, Salkin, and Does 1-50

7

228. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations in the paragraphs above, as

8 though fully set forth here.

9

229. Defendants Cogbill, Salkin and DOES 1-50 have a duty to act with reasonable

10 care and not subject persons to personal injury in the course of their law enforcement duties and

11 the legal duties not to subject them to discriminatory treatment on the basis of his race, ethnicity,

12 or perceived national origin; unreasonable searches and seizures; deprivations of liberty without

13 due process; to adequately train and supervise employees; and to adopt and enforce policies so as

14 to prevent the occurrence of constitutional violations and tortious actions.

15

230. Plaintiff Sonato-Vega seeks compensatory and punitive damages against

16 Defendants Cogbill, Salkin and unknown DOES in their personal capacities for severe emotional

17 distress he suffered as a result of their breaches of their above-described duties to him according

18 to proof including but not limited to:

19

a. Using his race and/or perceived national origin as a motivating factor

20

to detain, question, search, and arrest him and in inaccurately

21

designating him as a criminal gang member [¶¶ 92-96, 97-100, 102-

22

103];

23

b. Unreasonable searches and seizures [¶¶ 94-95, 98];

24

c. Deprivations of substantive and procedural due process protections,

25

such as holding him in custody for approximately four days without

26

lawful authority and without notice of the charges against him, the

27

possible consequences of his detention, and an opportunity to respond

28
ATTORNEYS AT LAW SAN FRANCISCO

[¶¶ 10, 104-105]; and 62

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT CASE NO. 08-4220-PJH

Case3:08-cv-04220-RS Document135 Filed09/14/09 Page64 of 75

1

d. Humiliating and abusive treatment [¶¶ 99, 105, 107].

2

231. Plaintiff Medel seeks compensatory and punitive damages against Defendants

3 Cogbill and unknown DOES in their personal capacities for severe emotional distress he suffered

4 as a result of their breaches of their above-described duties to him according to proof including

5 but not limited to:

6

a. Subjecting him to discriminatory treatment, such as the use of his race,

7

Spanish surname, and/or perceived national origin to inaccurately

8

designate him as a gang member and detain him with other inmates

9

perceived to be Sureños [¶¶ 113-115]; and

10

b. Prolonging his detention for four days based on an immigration

11

detainer without a probable cause determination and without notice of

12

the charges against him, information regarding the possible

13

consequences of his prolonged detention, and an opportunity to

14

respond [¶¶ 116-119].

15

EIGHTEENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

16

False Imprisonment (Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1346)

17

Plaintiffs Sanchez-Lopez, Sonato-Vega and Medel

18

Against Defendant United States of America

19

232. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations in the paragraphs above as

20 though fully set forth here.

21

233. The United States is liable for torts committed by federal employees acting within

22 the course and scope of employment. 28 U.S.C. § 1346(b).

23

234. Plaintiff Sanchez-Lopez seeks compensatory damages against the United States

24 for the actions of its agents, Defendants Huelga and Merendino and unknown ROES, that

25 inflicted personal injury on him by subjecting him to false arrest and imprisonment according to

26 proof by acts taken in the course and scope of employment including but not limited to:

27

28
ATTORNEYS AT LAW SAN FRANCISCO

63

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

CASE NO. 08-4220-PJH

Case3:08-cv-04220-RS Document135 Filed09/14/09 Page65 of 75

1

a. Detaining him without reasonable suspicion of criminal activity or that he or

2

other occupants of the car in which he was a passenger were noncitizens

3

present in the United States without authorization [¶¶ 74-80];

4

b. Unreasonably arresting him or causing him to be arrested for suspected civil

5

immigration violations without a warrant and without reason to believe that he

6

was likely to escape before a warrant could be obtained for his arrest [¶¶ 81-

7

83];

8

c. Causing him to be held in custody of the County for approximately four days

9

without a criminal basis for custody and based only on suspected civil

10

immigration violations without authority under state or federal law [¶¶ 86-87];

11

d. Arresting him or causing him to be arrested and held in custody for more than

12

48 hours without a probable cause determination [¶¶ 81, 82, 86];

13

e. Arresting him or causing him to be arrested without a warrant and held in

14

custody without an examination by a non-arresting ICE officer without

15

unreasonable delay [¶¶ 81, 82, 86]; and

16

f. Causing him to be held in custody for more than 48 hours without a bond

17

determination and before a decision was made whether to issue a Notice to

18

Appear and absent any emergency or other extraordinary circumstance [¶¶

19

86].

20

235. Sonato-Vega seeks compensatory damages against the United States for the

21 actions of its agents, Defendants Huelga and unknown ROES, that inflicted personal injury on

22 him by subjecting him to false arrest and imprisonment according to proof by acts taken in the

23 course and scope of employment including but not limited to:

24

a. Detaining him without reasonable suspicion of criminal activity or that he was

25

a noncitizen present in the United States without authorization [¶¶ 92-96];

26

b. Unreasonably arresting him or causing him to be arrested for suspected civil

27

immigration violations without a warrant and without reason to believe that he

28
ATTORNEYS AT LAW SAN FRANCISCO

64

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

CASE NO. 08-4220-PJH

Case3:08-cv-04220-RS Document135 Filed09/14/09 Page66 of 75

1

was likely to escape before a warrant could be obtained for his arrest [¶¶ 97-

2

100];

3

c. Causing him to be held in custody of the County for approximately four days

4

without a criminal basis for custody and based only on suspected civil

5

immigration violations without authority under state or federal law [¶¶ 100,

6

104-105];

7

d. Arresting him or causing him to be arrested and held in custody for more than

8

48 hours without a probable cause determination [¶¶ 100, 101, 105];

9

e. Arresting him or causing him to be arrested without a warrant and held in

10

custody without an examination by a non-arresting ICE officer without

11

unreasonable delay [¶¶ 100, 101, 104, 105, 106]; and

12

f. Causing him to be held in custody for more than 48 hours without a bond

13

determination and before a decision was made whether to issue a Notice to

14

Appear and absent any emergency or other extraordinary circumstance [¶¶

15

104, 108].

16

236. Plaintiff Medel seeks compensatory damages against the United States for the

17 actions of its agents, unknown ROE Defendants, taken in the course and scope of employment

18 that inflicted personal injury on him by subjecting him to false arrest and imprisonment

19 according to proof by acts including but not limited to holding him in custody for more than 48

20 hours after he would have been released from custody on his criminal arrest based on an

21 immigration detainer and without an independent probable cause determination by a non-

22 arresting ICE officer or neutral magistrate [¶¶ 116-119].

23

NINETEENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

24 Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1346)

25

Plaintiffs Sanchez-Lopez and Sonato-Vega

26

Against Defendant United States of America

27

237. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations in the paragraphs above as

28 though fully set forth here.

ATTORNEYS AT LAW SAN FRANCISCO

65

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT CASE NO. 08-4220-PJH

Case3:08-cv-04220-RS Document135 Filed09/14/09 Page67 of 75

1

238. Plaintiff Sanchez-Lopez seeks compensatory damages against the United States

2 for the actions of its agents, Defendants Huelga, Merendino, and unknown ROES, for actually

3 causing and/or proximately causing Sanchez-Lopez to suffer severe emotional distress by

4 subjecting him to extreme and outrageous conduct with the intent to cause, or alternatively a

5 reckless disregard of the probability of causing, emotional distress according to proof by acts

6 taken in the course and scope of employment, including but not limited to:

7

a. Using his race and/or perceived national origin as a motivating factor to

8

detain, question, search, and arrest him and in inaccurately designating him as

9

a criminal gang member [¶¶ 75, 77, 78, 80-82, 84];

10

b. Unreasonable searches and seizures [¶¶ 77, 78. 81];

11

c. Deprivations of substantive and procedural due process protections, such as

12

causing him to be held in custody for approximately four days without lawful

13

authority and without notice of the charges against him, the possible

14

consequences of his detention, and an opportunity to respond [¶¶ 86]; and

15

d. Humiliating and abusive treatment [¶¶ 77, 82, 84, 87];

16

239. Sonato-Vega seeks compensatory damages against the United States for the

17 actions of its agents, Defendants Huelga and unknown ROES, for actually causing and/or

18 proximately causing Sonato-Vega to suffer severe emotional distress by subjecting him to

19 extreme and outrageous conduct with the intent to cause, or alternatively a reckless disregard of

20 the probability of causing, emotional distress according to proof by acts taken in the course and

21 scope of employment, including but not limited to:

22

a. Using his race and/or perceived national origin as a motivating factor to

23

detain, question, search, and arrest him and in inaccurately designating him as

24

a criminal gang member [¶¶ 97-100, 102-103];

25

b. Unreasonable searches and seizures [¶¶ 98-99];

26

c. Deprivations of substantive and procedural due process protections, such as

27

holding him in custody for approximately four days without lawful authority

28
ATTORNEYS AT LAW SAN FRANCISCO

and without notice of the charges against him, the possible consequences of

66

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

CASE NO. 08-4220-PJH

Case3:08-cv-04220-RS Document135 Filed09/14/09 Page68 of 75

1

his detention, and an opportunity to respond [¶¶ 100, 104-105]; and

2

d. Humiliating and abusive treatment [¶¶ 99, 105, 107];

3

TWENTIETH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

4

Negligence (Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1346)

5

Plaintiffs Sanchez-Lopez, Sonato-Vega and Medel

6

Against Defendant United States of America

7

240. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations in the paragraphs above as

8 though fully set forth here.

9

241. ICE agents have a duty to act with reasonable care and not subject persons to

10 personal injury in the course of their law enforcement duties. ICE agents have legal duties not to

11 subject people to discriminatory treatment on the basis of race, ethnicity, or perceived national

12 origin; unreasonable searches and seizures; deprivations of liberty without due process; to

13 adequately train and supervise employees; and to prevent the occurrence of constitutional

14 violations and tortious actions.

15

242. Plaintiff Sanchez-Lopez seeks compensatory damages against the United States

16 for severe emotional distress he suffered as a result of the breaches of ICE agents’ above-

17 described duties to him in the course and scope of employment according to proof including but

18 not limited to:

19

a. Using his race and/or perceived national origin as a motivating factor to

20

detain, question, search, and arrest him and in inaccurately designating him as

21

a criminal gang member [¶¶ 75, 77, 78, 80-82, 84];

22

b. Unreasonable searches and seizures [¶¶ 77, 78, 81];

23

c. Deprivations of substantive and procedural due process protections, such as

24

causing him to be held in custody for approximately four days without lawful

25

authority and without notice of the charges against him, the possible

26

consequences of his detention, and an opportunity to respond [¶¶ 86]; and

27

d. Humiliating and abusive treatment [¶¶ 77, 82, 84, 87];

28
ATTORNEYS AT LAW SAN FRANCISCO

67

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

CASE NO. 08-4220-PJH

Case3:08-cv-04220-RS Document135 Filed09/14/09 Page69 of 75

1

243. Plaintiff Sonato-Vega seeks compensatory damages against the United States for

2 severe emotional distress he suffered as a result of the breaches of ICE agents’ above-described

3 duties to him in the course and scope of employment according to proof including but not limited

4 to:

5

a. Using his race and/or perceived national origin as a motivating factor to

6

detain, question, search, and arrest him and in inaccurately designating him as

7

a criminal gang member [¶¶ 97-100, 102, 103];

8

b. Unreasonable searches and seizures [¶¶ 98, 99];

9

c. Deprivations of substantive and procedural due process protections, such as

10

holding him in custody for approximately four days without lawful authority

11

and without notice of the charges against him, the possible consequences of

12

his detention, and an opportunity to respond [¶¶ 100, 104, 105]; and

13

d. Humiliating and abusive treatment [¶¶ 99, 105, 107].

14

244. Plaintiff Medel seeks compensatory damages against the United States for severe

15 emotional distress he suffered as a result of the breaches of ICE agents’ above-described duties

16 to him in the course and scope of employment according to proof including but not limited to:

17

a. Knowingly participating in a system of collaboration with Sonoma

18

County Sheriff employees through which race, Spanish surname

19

and/or perceived national origin were motivating factors for

20

questioning by such County employees regarding immigration status

21

and/or decisions to refer persons to ICE for consideration as the

22

subjects of immigration detainers;

23

b. Causing his detention to be prolonged for four days by issuing a

24

immigration detainer without a probable cause determination and

25

without notice of the charges against him, information regarding the

26

possible consequences of his prolonged detention, and an opportunity

27

to respond [¶¶ 116-119].

28
ATTORNEYS AT LAW SAN FRANCISCO

68

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

CASE NO. 08-4220-PJH

Case3:08-cv-04220-RS Document135 Filed09/14/09 Page70 of 75

1

TWENTY-FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF

2

Deprivation of Civil Rights Through Intimidation, Threats and Coercion

3

(Federal Tort Claims Act; Cal. Civ. Code § 52.1)

4

Plaintiffs Sanchez-Lopez, Sonato-Vega and Medel

5

Against Defendant United States of America

6

245. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations in the paragraphs above as

7 though fully set forth here.

8

246. The United States is liable for acts committed by its agents in the scope and

9 course of their employment for which private persons would be liable for damages under state

10 law. California Civil Code § 52.1 creates a private right of action against private individuals for

11 interfering with the exercise and enjoyment of rights under both the U.S. and California

12 Constitutions.

13

247. Plaintiff Sanchez-Lopez seeks compensatory damages against the United States

14 for violations of the Bane Act committed by Defendants Huelga and Merendino and unknown

15 ROES in the scope and course of their employment, according to proof including but not limited

16 to:

17

a. Subjecting him to unreasonable searches and seizures without reasonable

18

suspicion of criminal activity or that he posed a threat of safety [¶¶ 77-80];

19

b. Arresting and holding him in custody for four days without lawful authority

20

[¶¶ 82-86];

21

c. Failing to bring him before a magistrate or non-arresting ICE officer within 48

22

hours of his arrest for a probable cause determination [¶¶ 86-87]; and

23

d. Failing to provide him with notice of the charges against him, information

24

about what consequences would follow from his arrest, or an opportunity to

25

be heard within a reasonable time after his arrest [¶¶ 86-87].

26

248. Plaintiff Sonato-Vega seeks compensatory damages against the United States for

27 violations of the Bane Act committed by Defendant Huelga and unknown ROES in the course

28
ATTORNEYS AT LAW SAN FRANCISCO

and scope of their employment, according to proof including but not limited to:

69

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

CASE NO. 08-4220-PJH

Case3:08-cv-04220-RS Document135 Filed09/14/09 Page71 of 75

1

a. Subjecting him to unreasonable searches and seizures without reasonable

2

suspicion of criminal activity or that he posed a threat of safety [¶¶ 97-100];

3

b. Arresting and holding him in custody for four days without lawful authority

4

[¶¶ 101, 106];

5

c. Failing to bring him before a magistrate or non-arresting ICE officer within 48

6

hours of his arrest for a probable cause determination [¶¶ 104-106]; and

7

d. Failing to provide him with notice of the charges against him, information

8

about what consequences would follow from his arrest, or an opportunity to

9

be heard within a reasonable time after his arrest [¶¶ 104-106].

10

249. Plaintiff Medel seeks compensatory damages against the United States for

11 violations of the Bane Act committed by unknown ROES in the course and scope of their

12 employment, according to proof including but not limited to:

13

a. Causing his custody in the Sonoma County jail to be prolonged for four days

14

without a probable cause determination on the basis for his prolonged

15

detention within 48 hours after the beginning of his prolonged detention

16

pursuant to immigration detainer; [¶¶ 115-118]; and

17

b. Causing his custody in the Sonoma County jail to be prolonged for four days

18

without notice of the charges against him, information about what

19

consequences would follow from his immigration detainer, or an opportunity

20

to be heard within a reasonable time after the beginning of his prolonged

21

detention pursuant to immigration detainer [¶¶ 115-118].

22

TWENTY-SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF

23

Assault and Battery (Federal Tort Claims Act)

24

Plaintiffs Sanchez-Lopez and Sonato-Vega

25

Against Defendant United States of America

26

250. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations in the paragraphs above as

27 though fully set forth here.

28
ATTORNEYS AT LAW SAN FRANCISCO

70

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

CASE NO. 08-4220-PJH

Case3:08-cv-04220-RS Document135 Filed09/14/09 Page72 of 75

1

251. Plaintiff Sanchez-Lopez seeks compensatory damages against the United States

2 for the actions of its agents, Defendants Huelga and Merendino, who intended to and did cause

3 offensive and unlawful physical contact with Sanchez-Lopez in the course and scope of

4 employment [¶¶ 78, 80, 81].

5

252. Plaintiff Sonato-Vega seeks compensatory damages against the United States for

6 the actions of its agent, Defendant Huelga, who intended to and did cause offensive and unlawful

7 physical contact with Sonato-Vega in the course and scope of employment [¶¶ 98, 99].

8

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

9

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray that the Court:

10

1. Issue preliminary and permanent injunctions against the County Defendants and

11

any of their officers, agents, successors, employees, representatives and any and

12

all persons acting in concert with them, prohibiting them from:

13

a. Detaining persons or vehicles without reasonable suspicion of criminal

14

activity; prolonging traffic or other stops for the purpose of questioning

15

individuals about their immigration status; conducting personal or vehicle

16

searches without probable cause to believe that the areas searched contain

17

evidence of criminal activity or a reasonable belief that the car’s occupants

18

are dangerous or may gain access to a weapon in the area searched;

19

arresting or taking custody of individuals based on suspected civil

20

immigration violations or based on an immigration detainer issued by ICE

21

or its agents; or prolonging the custody of individuals in the County jail

22

for more than 48 hours based on an immigration detainer without a

23

probable cause determination;

24

b. Using a person’s Latino race or appearance, Spanish surname, or national

25

origin as a factor to initiate a traffic or other stop, prolong a detention,

26

question about matters not related to the purpose of the detention such as

27

immigration status, engage in a search of a person or person’s property or

28
ATTORNEYS AT LAW SAN FRANCISCO

car, designate or classify someone as a gang member or make decisions

71

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

CASE NO. 08-4220-PJH

Case3:08-cv-04220-RS Document135 Filed09/14/09 Page73 of 75

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
ATTORNEYS AT LAW SAN FRANCISCO

about his placement in the County jail, or refer a person or inmate to ICE

for consideration as a subject of an immigration detainer; and

c. Denying procedural protections under 8 U.S.C. § 1357 and 8 C.F.R. §

287.3 due to persons who were arrested on criminal or other state law

charges and whose County custody is prolonged as a result of an

immigration detainer and; detaining or prolonging the detention of

individuals in custody of the County pursuant to immigration violations

without notice of the charges against them and an opportunity to respond

within a reasonable time after the initiation of the immigration detainer-

based detention.

2. Issue preliminary and permanent injunctions against Defendants Huelga,

Merendino, and ROES 1-50 in their official capacities, ICE and any of their

officers, agents, successors, employees, representatives and any and all persons

acting in concert with them, prohibiting them from:

a. Directing local law enforcement agencies to make arrests for civil

immigration violations without a warrant;

b. Issuing immigration detainers ordering local law enforcement agencies to

arrest or take custody of persons who are not already in local custody on

independent criminal or other state law grounds;

c. Making warrantless arrests without reason to believe that the person

arrested is a noncitizen in the United States without authorization

d. Making warrantless arrests without reason to believe that the person is

likely to escape before a warrant can be obtained;

e. Failing to provide procedural protections required by 8 U.S.C. § 1357 and

8 C.F.R. § 287.3 to persons in local custody pursuant to an immigration

detainer;

f. Stopping and searching persons and vehicles without reasonable suspicion

of criminal activity or of their being noncitizens present in the United

72

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

CASE NO. 08-4220-PJH

Case3:08-cv-04220-RS Document135 Filed09/14/09 Page74 of 75

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
ATTORNEYS AT LAW SAN FRANCISCO

States without authorization, or without probable cause to believe that that

the areas searched contain evidence of criminal activity or a reasonable

belief that the person searched or car’s occupants are dangerous and may

gain access to a weapon in the area searched; and

g. Using a person’s Latino race or appearance, Spanish surname, or national

origin as a factor to initiate contact for purposes of immigration

enforcement or in considering whether to issue an immigration detainer.

3. Issue a judicial declaration that Defendants’ actions as alleged in this Complaint

violate the Fourth, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution; 42

U.S.C. § 1983; 42 U.S.C. § 2000d; 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3), Article I, Sections 7, 13,

and 15 of the California Constitution; California Civil Code § 52.1; and California

Government Code § 11135 and its implementing regulations.

4. Declare that Defendant ICE’s use of 8 C.F.R. § 287.7 to initiate County custody

of individuals violates 8 U.S.C. §1357 and 8 C.F.R. § 287.7 and therefore also

violates due process under the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

5. Declare that Defendants Sonoma County and Cogbill are not authorized to arrest

or take custody of individuals based on alleged civil immigration violations and

that doing so violates the arrestees’ rights to substantive due process.

6. Award Plaintiffs nominal, compensatory, special, statutory, and punitive damages

under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, 42 U.S.C. § 2000d, California Civil Code § 52.1,

California Government Code § 11135, 28 U.S.C. § 1346(b) and the California

torts of false imprisonment, intentional infliction of emotional distress and

negligence, except that no damages are sought against ICE and no punitive

damages are sought against the County.

7. Award pre-judgment and post-judgment interest to the extent permitted by law.

8. Award Plaintiffs their costs and expenses, including reasonable attorneys’ fees

under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 and the Equal Access to Justice Act, 5 U.S.C. § 504, 28

U.S.C. § 2412. 73

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT CASE NO. 08-4220-PJH

Case3:08-cv-04220-RS Document135 Filed09/14/09 Page75 of 75

1

9. Award such further and additional relief as is just and proper.

2

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

3

In accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 38(b), and Northern District Local Rule 3-6(a),

4 plaintiffs hereby demand a jury trial on all issues triable by a jury.

5 Dated: September 14, 2009 6 7 8 9 10

By /s/ Alfred C. Pfeiffer Alfred C. Pfeiffer, Jr.
LATHAM & WATKINS LLP Alfred C. Pfeiffer Melissa N. Chan Mary Elizabeth Heard Jason L. Daniels Casey R. O’Connor

11

By /s/ Julia Harumi Mass

Julia Harumi Mass 12

Julia Harumi Mass

13

Alan L. Schlosser

Andre I. Segura

14

AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES

UNION FOUNDATION OF

15

NORTHERN CALIFORNIA

16

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28
ATTORNEYS AT LAW SAN FRANCISCO

74

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

CASE NO. 08-4220-PJH

 
 Case3:08-cv-04220-PJH Document121 Filed07/31/09 Page1 of 43

1

2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

3

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

4

5

6

7 COMMITTEE FOR IMMIGRANT
8 RIGHTS OF SONOMA COUNTY, et al.,

9

Plaintiffs,

10

v.

11 COUNTY OF SONOMA, et al.,

12

Defendants.

13 ___________________________________/

No. C 08-4220 PJH ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS TO DISMISS; GRANTING COUNTY DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR A MORE DEFINITE STATEMENT; GRANTING COUNTY DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER; DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL; AND VACATING PRETRIAL ORDER

14

Before the court are a motion to dismiss filed by Federal Defendants and a motion to

15 dismiss or, in the alternative, motion for a more definite statement, filed by County

16 Defendants. Also before the court are a motion for protective order filed by County

17 Defendants and a motion to compel filed by plaintiffs. The motions to dismiss came on for

18 hearing before this court on April 22, 2009. Federal Defendants appeared through their

19 counsel, Colin Kisor and Ellen Fitzgerald. County Defendants appeared through their

20 counsel, Ann Keck and Richard Osman. Plaintiffs appeared through their counsel, Julia

21 Mass and Melissa Chan. Because the court finds that County Defendants’ motion for

22 protective order and plaintiffs’ motion to compel are suitable for resolution without oral

23 argument, the hearing dates of July 29, 2009 and August 12, 2009 are VACATED pursuant

24 to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b). Having carefully read the parties’ papers and considered the

25 relevant legal authority, the court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part defendants’ motions

26 to dismiss, GRANTS County Defendants’ motion for a more definite statement, GRANTS

27 County Defendants’ motion for protective order, and DENIES plaintiffs’ motion to compel,

28 for the reasons stated below.

Case3:08-cv-04220-PJH Document121 Filed07/31/09 Page2 of 43

1

BACKGROUND

2 A. General Allegations

3

On September 5, 2008, plaintiffs, Committee for Immigrant Rights of Sonoma

4 County (“Committee”), Francisco Sanchez-Lopez (“Sanchez-Lopez”), Christyan

5 Sonato-Vega (“Sonato-Vega”) and Samuel Medel Moyado (“Medel Moyado”) (collectively

6 “plaintiffs”), brought this action against the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”),

7 Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”), Special Agent-In-Charge Mark

8 Wollman (“Wollman”), Special Agent Mario Huelga (“Huelga”), Special Agent Chris

9 Merendino (“Merendino”) (collectively “Federal Defendants”), the County of Sonoma

10 (“County”), Sheriff-Coroner Bill Cogbill (“Cogbill”) and Deputy Sheriff Morris Eric Salkin

11 (“Salkin”) (collectively “County Defendants”). The complaint asserts seventeen causes of

12 action including, civil rights violations under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (e.g., unreasonable search

13 and seizure, equal protection, due process), Bivens1 claims (e.g., unreasonable search and

14 seizure, equal protection, due process) and various state law claims. See Compl.

15

Plaintiffs allege that ICE and the Sonoma County Sheriff’s Department have been

16 working together over the past three years to enforce civil immigration laws against Latino

17 residents of Sonoma County in violation of their constitutional and statutory rights. Compl.

18 ¶¶ 1, 20. According to plaintiffs, the collaboration takes place in two ways: (1) Sheriff’s

19 Deputies participate in joint patrols with ICE agents that specifically target Latino residents

20 of Sonoma County, and (2) Sheriff’s Deputies identify and arrest persons suspected of

21 being unauthorized non-citizens outside the presence of ICE officers, but with ICE’s

22 approval. Id. ¶ 20.

23

Through this action, plaintiffs challenge the following policies: (1) Sheriff’s Deputies

24 and ICE agents using race as a motivating factor for traffic stops and other detentions; (2)

25 Sheriff’s Deputies and ICE agents stopping, interrogating, searching, and arresting

26 individuals without warrants or adequate justification; (3) Sheriff’s Deputies arresting and

27 holding individuals in the County jail without any lawful basis for detention; and (4) denial of

28 due process of individuals arrested on suspected immigration violations and improperly

1 Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Fed. Narcotics Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). 2

Case3:08-cv-04220-PJH Document121 Filed07/31/09 Page3 of 43

1 held in the custody of the Sheriff. Compl. ¶ 1. Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive

2 relief as well as monetary.

3 B. Joint Patrol Allegations

4

Plaintiffs allege that Sheriff’s Deputies participate in joint operations with ICE agents

5 on a regular basis, and that defendants have adopted an unlawful policy, practice and

6 custom of relying on race, color and/or ethnicity to stop, detain, question and/or search

7 persons who are or appear to be Latino and to probe their immigration status without

8 reasonable suspicion or probable cause to suspect that they have committed a crime or are

9 non-citizens without lawful immigration status. Compl. ¶¶ 21-22. In addition, plaintiffs

10 allege that defendants have a policy and practice of arresting and placing persons in the

11 County jail, without criminal charges or any actual or purported criminal basis, simply

12 because they are suspected of violating immigration laws. Id. ¶ 23. Plaintiffs assert that

13 the detention of these individuals is frequently based solely on an immigration detainer

14 issued by ICE after an arrest has been effectuated. Id. Plaintiffs maintain that such

15 conduct constitutes a policy, practice and custom of placing persons in local custody

16 without meeting the requirements for the warrantless arrest of non-citizens suspected of

17 violating immigration law under 8 U.S.C. § 1357; namely, probable cause that a person is a

18 non-citizen and a determination that he or she is likely to escape before an arrest warrant

19 can be obtained. Id. ¶ 24.

20 C. Immigration Enforcement by Sheriff’s Deputies Allegations

21

Plaintiffs allege that, in addition to joint operations with ICE agents, Cogbill and

22 County employees working under his supervision have adopted an unlawful, race-based

23 policy, practice and custom of stopping, detaining, questioning and/or searching persons

24 who are or appear to be Latinos to interrogate them about their immigration status, outside

25 the presence of ICE agents, but with the approval of ICE. Compl. ¶ 25. Plaintiffs assert

26 that these racially-motivated stops are frequently unsupported by reasonable suspicion or

27 probable cause that the detainee had violated any criminal law. Id. ¶ 26.

28

Plaintiffs further allege that, even when the initial stops are supported by reasonable

3

Case3:08-cv-04220-PJH Document121 Filed07/31/09 Page4 of 43

1 suspicion, Cogbill and the County employees working under his supervision, have adopted

2 a policy, practice and custom of prolonging the initial stop to interrogate these persons

3 about their immigration status, telephoning ICE agents to seek approval to execute

4 warrantless arrests for civil immigration violations and conducting searches of their persons

5 and vehicles despite having neither any criminal basis to prolong the detention nor any

6 investigatory or safety justification for the searches. Compl. ¶ 27. Plaintiffs assert, on

7 information and belief, that an individual’s actual or apparent race, ethnicity or color is a

8 motivating factor for the prolonged detention, interrogation and search of these persons.

9 Id.

10

In addition, plaintiffs allege that Cogbill, and the County employees working under

11 his supervision, have adopted a policy, practice and custom of arresting Latinos based on

12 suspected civil immigration violations, frequently on the sole purported authority of an ICE

13 immigration detainer, and holding these persons in County jail for several days before

14 transferring them to ICE’s custody without any criminal charges or a criminal basis for the

15 initial arrest. Compl. ¶ 28. According to plaintiffs, Sheriff’s Deputies that patrol with ICE

16 agents are not trained on how to assess the immigration status of persons, including the

17 type of evidence necessary to determine whether reasonable suspicion or probable cause

18 exists that a person is a non-citizen and whether a person suspected of immigration

19 violations poses a flight risk, to justify a warrantless arrest. Id. ¶ 29.

20

Plaintiffs assert that neither state nor federal law authorizes local authorities such as

21 Cogbill, and the County employees working under his supervision, to arrest or detain

22 persons based on suspected civil immigration violations. Compl. ¶ 30. Nor have the

23 County of Sonoma or the Sonoma County Sheriff’s Department entered into a written

24 agreement with ICE pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1357(g), authorizing County employees to

25 enforce civil immigration law. Id. ¶ 31. Plaintiffs further assert that written policies

26 governing Sonoma County Sheriff’s Deputies prohibit Cogbill and other County employees

27 from arresting or detaining persons based solely on a violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1325 (illegal

28 entry), or interrogating any person for the sole purpose of ascertaining his or her

immigration status, or contacting, detaining or arresting a person based on the suspicion

that he or she is an undocumented alien. Id. ¶ 32. 4

Case3:08-cv-04220-PJH Document121 Filed07/31/09 Page5 of 43

1 D. Immigration Detainer Allegations

2

Plaintiffs allege that defendants, whether persons are arrested by joint patrols or by

3 Sheriff’s Deputies acting alone, unlawfully hold arrestees in the County jail without criminal

4 charges by the issuance of immigration detainers pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 287.7. Compl. ¶

5 33. Plaintiffs assert that under the express terms of § 287.7, local authorities are only

6 permitted to issue immigration detainers to retain custody over persons already in local

7 custody pursuant to a valid arrest after the person would otherwise be released from local

8 custody. Id. Plaintiffs further assert that to the extent § 287.7 authorizes the use of

9 immigration detainers to detain non-citizens in local custody who have been arrested for an

10 offense other than a controlled substance violation, it exceeds the authority granted by

11 Congress under 8 U.S.C. § 1357(d). Id.

12 E. Procedural Protections Allegations

13

With respect to persons arrested for immigration violations, plaintiffs allege that

14 defendants have adopted the policy, practice and custom of maintaining local custody for

15 three to five days before transferring these persons to ICE for initiation of removal

16 proceedings. Compl. ¶ 34. Plaintiffs further allege that once these individuals are booked

17 into County jail, they are, by policy, practice and custom, denied notice of any charges

18 against them, examination by a neutral magistrate or non-arresting ICE officer, notice that

19 statements they make may be used against them in removal proceedings, a list of no-cost

20 immigration legal services, or notice that they have a right to a hearing or bond

21 determination, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1357 and 8 C.F.R. § 287.3. Id. Plaintiffs assert,

22 upon information and belief, that after being denied their procedural rights for several days

23 prior to being transferred to ICE custody, individuals are more easily coerced into waiving

24 their constitutional right to a hearing than they would be if the procedural protections they

25 are entitled to were provided. Id. ¶ 35.

26 F. Individual Plaintiffs Allegations

27

1. Sanchez-Lopez

28

Plaintiffs allege that on September 26, 2006, Sanchez-Lopez was a passenger in a

5

Case3:08-cv-04220-PJH Document121 Filed07/31/09 Page6 of 43

1 car that was stopped by several officers, including ICE agents, Sheriff’s Deputies and at

2 least one California Highway Patrol officer. Compl. ¶ 41. Sanchez-Lopez and the driver

3 were approached by only two of the officers. Id. The officer that approached the driver told

4 him that he was not permitted to have a “For Sale” sign in the car’s rear window, and then

5 proceeded to interrogate him about whether he had any gang affiliations. Id. Meanwhile,

6 the other officer asked Sanchez-Lopez for his name, identification, and whether he was on

7 probation. Id. After Sanchez-Lopez informed the officer of his name and that he was on

8 probation, the officer, without verifying his name or probation terms, ordered Sanchez-

9 Lopez out of the car, interrogated him about whether he had any gang affiliations or tattoos,

10 and then subjected him to a pat-down search, confiscating his wallet without reasonable

11 suspicion or consent. Id. The officer, then, without looking at the contents of the wallet,

12 ordered Sanchez-Lopez to talk to an ICE agent who had accompanied the officer. Id.

13

Following the ICE agent’s interrogation and search of his wallet, Sanchez-Lopez was

14 arrested by Sheriff’s Department personnel and booked into custody at the Sonoma County

15 jail based solely on his suspected immigration status. Compl. ¶ 43. During his four-days in

16 County jail before being transferred to ICE’s custody, Sanchez-Lopez did not receive notice

17 of any charges against him, examination by a neutral magistrate or non-arresting ICE

18 agent, notice that statements he made could be used against him in removal proceedings,

19 a list of low or no-cost immigration legal services, or notice that he had a right to a hearing

20 or a bond determination. Id. ¶ 44.

21

2. Sonato-Vega

22

Plaintiffs allege that in or about July 2007, Sonato-Vega and his fiancee were

23 approached by two deputy sheriffs in a parking lot, including Salkin, who stated that their

24 car had a crack in its windshield. Compl. ¶ 46. The deputies then questioned Sonato-

25 Vega about his immigration status, his tattoos, and whether he was a gang member. Id.

26 The deputies also searched Sonato-Vega, including his wallet, without reasonable

27 suspicion or consent. Id. Sonato-Vega, apparently, was not arrested.

28 6

Case3:08-cv-04220-PJH Document121 Filed07/31/09 Page7 of 43

1

On or about August 2, 2007, Salkin and Huelga arrested Sonato-Vega at his work

2 place and booked him into Sonoma County jail based on suspected immigration status

3 alone. Compl. ¶ 47. Plaintiffs assert, on information and belief, that Salkin and Huelga

4 arrested Sonato-Vega without probable cause to believe that he was a non-citizen, much

5 less a determination that he was likely to escape before an arrest warrant could be

6 obtained. Id.

7

Sonato-Vega was held in custody in Sonoma County jail until on or about August 6,

8 2007. Compl. ¶ 48. During his four-days in County jail before being transferred to ICE’s

9 custody, Sonato-Vega did not receive notice of any charges against him, examination by a

10 neutral magistrate or non-arresting ICE agent, a list of low or no-cost immigration legal

11 services, or notice that he had a right to a hearing or a bond determination. Id.

12

3. Medel Moyado

13

Plaintiffs allege that on August 8, 2007, Medel Moyado was arrested for violating

14 California Penal Code § 647(f), disorderly conduct.2 Compl. ¶ 50. Plaintiffs further allege

15 that although Medel Moyado was told that he was free to leave by a judge on August 10,

16 2007, based on the fact that no charges had been filed against him, Sheriff’s Department

17 personnel continued to detain Medel Moyado based on his suspected immigration status

18 pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 287.7(d). Id. Medel Moyado was subsequently transferred to

19 another Sheriff’s facility before being transferred to ICE’s custody on August 14, 2007. Id.

20 Prior to his transfer to ICE’s custody, Medel Moyado did not receive notice of the

21 immigration charges against him, notice that the statements he made could be used

22

2 Section 647(f) provides: 23

Who is found in any public place under the influence of intoxicating liquor, any

24

drug, controlled substance, toluene, or any combination of any intoxicating

liquor, drug, controlled substance, or toluene, in a condition that he or she is

25

unable to exercise care for his or her own safety or the safety of others, or by

reason of his or her being under the influence of intoxicating liquor, any drug,

26

controlled substance, toluene, or any combination of any intoxicating liquor,

drug, or toluene, interferes with or obstructs or prevents the free use of any

27

street, sidewalk, or other public way.

28 Cal. Penal Code § 647(f). 7

Case3:08-cv-04220-PJH Document121 Filed07/31/09 Page8 of 43

1 against him in removal proceedings, a list of low or no-cost immigration legal services, or

2 notice that he had a right to a hearing or a bond determination. Id. ¶ 51. Finally, plaintiffs

3 allege that defendants did not give Medel Moyado an opportunity to post bond until over a

4 week after he was arrested, and did not release him until August 16, 2007, after he posted

5 bond. Id. ¶ 52.

6

DISCUSSION

7

On January 28, 2009, a motion to dismiss was filed by Federal Defendants, and a

8 motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, a motion for a more definite statement was filed by

9 County Defendants The court will address these motions in turn below.

10 A. Standards

11

1. Rule 12(b)(1)

12

A complaint must be dismissed if there is a “lack of jurisdiction over the subject

13 matter.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1). “A motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction

14 may either attack the allegations of the complaint or may be made as a ‘speaking motion’

15 attacking the existence of subject matter jurisdiction in fact.” Thornhill Publ’g Co. v.

16 General Tel. & Elecs., 594 F.2d 730, 733 (9th Cir. 1979).

17

In a facial attack, the moving party asserts that the allegations contained in the

18 complaint are insufficient on their face to invoke federal jurisdiction. Safe Air for Everyone

19 v. Meyer, 373 F.3d 1035, 1039 (9th Cir. 2004). In evaluating a facial attack to jurisdiction,

20 the court must accept the factual allegations in plaintiff’s complaint as true. Whisnant v.

21 United States, 400 F.3d 1177, 1179 (9th Cir. 2005). In a factual attack, the moving party

22 disputes the truth of the allegations in the complaint, which otherwise would be sufficient to

23 invoke federal jurisdiction. Safe Air, 373 F.3d at 1039. In evaluating a factual attack, the

24 court need not presume the truthfulness of the allegations set forth in the complaint and

25 may consider evidence beyond the face of the complaint without converting the motion to

26 dismiss into a motion for summary judgment. Id.

27

The plaintiff bears the burden of demonstrating that subject matter jurisdiction exists

28 8

Case3:08-cv-04220-PJH Document121 Filed07/31/09 Page9 of 43

1 over the complaint when challenged under Rule 12(b)(1). See, e.g., Tosco Corp. v.

2 Communities for a Better Env’t, 236 F.3d 495, 499 (9th Cir. 2001). “A plaintiff suing in a

3 federal court must show in his pleading, affirmatively and distinctly, the existence of

4 whatever is essential to federal jurisdiction, and, if he does not do so, the court, on having

5 the defect called to its attention or on discovering the same, must dismiss the case, unless

6 the defect [can] be corrected by amendment.” Id.

7

2. Rule 12(b)(6)

8

To survive a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, a complaint generally must

9 satisfy only the minimal notice pleading requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8.

10 Rule 8 requires only that the complaint include a “short and plain statement of the claim

11 showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed.R.Civ.P 8(a)(2). Specific facts are

12 unnecessary – the statement need only give the defendant “fair notice of the claim and the

13 grounds upon which it rests.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). In

14 order to survive a motion to dismiss, a plaintiff must allege facts that are enough to raise his

15 right to relief “above the speculative level.” Id. While the complaint “does not need detailed

16 factual allegations,” it is nonetheless “a plaintiff’s obligation to provide the ‘grounds’ of his

17 ‘entitlement to relief’ [which] requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic

18 recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.” Id. Nor does a complaint suffice

19 if it tenders “naked assertion[s]” devoid of “further factual enhancement.” Id. at 557. In

20 short, a plaintiff must allege “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its

21 face,” not just conceivable. Id. at 570.

22

“A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the

23 court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct

24 alleged.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009) (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556).

25 “The plausibility standard is not akin to a probability requirement, but it asks for more than a

26 sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully.” Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. at 1949 (citing

27 Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556) (quotation marks omitted). “Where a complaint pleads facts

28 that are merely consistent with a defendant’s liability, it stops short of the line between 9

Case3:08-cv-04220-PJH Document121 Filed07/31/09 Page10 of 43

1 possibility and plausibility of ‘entitlement to relief.” Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. at 1949 (citing Twombly,

2 550 U.S. at 557) (quotation marks omitted).

3

Two working principles underlie Twombly: (1) the tenet that a court must accept a

4 complaint’s allegations as true is inapplicable to legal conclusions, threadbare recitals of a

5 cause of action’s elements, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice; and

6 (2) only a complaint that states a plausible claim for relief survives a motion to dismiss.

7 Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. at 1949-50 (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555-56 ). In considering a motion

8 to dismiss, a court may begin by identifying allegations that, because they are mere

9 conclusions, are not entitled to the assumption of truth. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. at 1950. Legal

10 conclusions can provide the complaint’s framework, but they must be supported by factual

11 allegations. Id. When a complaint contains well-pleaded factual allegations, a court should

12 assume their veracity and then determine whether they plausibly give rise to an entitlement

13 to relief. Id.

14

3. Rule 12(e)

15

Under Rule12(e), “[a] party may move for a more definite statement of a pleading to

16 which a responsive pleading is allowed but which is so vague or ambiguous that the party

17 cannot reasonably prepare a response.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(e). The motion requesting a

18 more definite statement must identify defects and specify the details desired. Id.

19

A Rule 12(e) motion for a more definite statement must be considered in light of the

20 liberal pleading standards set forth in Rule 8(a)(2). See, e.g., Bureerong v. Uvawas, 922

21 F.Supp. 1450, 1461 (C.D. Cal. 1996) (citing Sagan v. Apple Computer, Inc., 874 F.Supp.

22 1072, 1077 (C.D. Cal. 1994) (“Motions for a more definite statement are viewed with

23 disfavor and are rarely granted because of the minimal pleading requirements of the

24 Federal Rules.”)). A motion for a more definite statement is proper only where the

25 complaint is “so vague or ambiguous that the opposing party cannot respond, even with a

26 simple denial, in good faith or without prejudice to himself.” Cellars v. Pacific Coast

27 Packaging, Inc., 189 F.R.D. 575, 578 (N.D. Cal. 1999) (internal quotations and citation

28 omitted); Famolare, Inc. v. Edison Bros. Stores, Inc., 525 F.Supp. 940, 949 (E.D. Cal. 10

Case3:08-cv-04220-PJH Document121 Filed07/31/09 Page11 of 43

1 1981) (a motion for a more definite statement is proper if defendant cannot frame a

2 responsive pleading).

3

A Rule 12(e) motion is not a substitute for discovery; such a motion attacks

4 unintelligibility in a pleading, not mere lack of detail. Wood v. Apodaca, 375 F.Supp.2d

5 942, 949 (N.D. Cal. 2005). If the detail sought by a motion for more definite statement is

6 obtainable through discovery, the motion should be denied. Beery v. Hitatchi Home Elecs.

7 (America), Inc., 157 F.R.D. 477, 480 (C.D. Cal. 1993).

8 B. Federal Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss

9

1. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(g)

10

Federal Defendants argue that the court lacks jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(g)

11 to adjudicate plaintiffs’ Bivens claims because these claims arise from ICE’s decision to

12 initiate removal proceedings against them.

13

Section 1252(g) provides:

14

Except as provided in this section and notwithstanding any other provision of law (statutory or nonstatutory), including section 2241 of title 28, United

15

States Code, or any other habeas corpus provision, and sections 1361 and 1651 of such title, no court shall have jurisdiction to hear any cause or claim

16

by or on behalf of any alien arising from the decision or action by the Attorney General to commence proceedings, adjudicate cases, or execute removal

17

orders against any alien under this chapter.

18 8 U.S.C. § 1252(g).

19

Section 1252(g) applies only to three discrete actions that the Attorney General may

20 take: his decision or action to commence proceedings, adjudicate cases, or execute

21 removal orders. See Kwai Fun Wong v. United States, 373 F.3d 952, 963-65 (9th Cir.

22 2004). The Ninth Circuit has narrowly construed § 1252(g). Id. at 964. Section 1252(g)

23 does not bar review of the actions that occurred prior to any decision to “commence

24 proceedings.” Id. at 965; see also Wong v. U.S. Immigration & Naturalization Serv., 373

25 F.3d 952, 965 (9th Cir. 2004). (“§ 1252(g) does not bar review of the actions that occurred

26 prior to any decision to ‘commence proceedings,’ if any, against her or to execute the

27 removal order”).

28

Because Federal Defendants failed to cite controlling authority in support of the

11

Case3:08-cv-04220-PJH Document121 Filed07/31/09 Page12 of 43

1 proposition that the issuance of an immigration detainer, or any of the other conduct

2 alleged in the complaint, constitutes a decision by the Attorney General to commence

3 proceedings, adjudicate a case, or execute a removal order under § 1252(g), their motion

4 to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction pursuant to § 1252(g) must be denied. Plaintiffs assert

5 that they do not seek review of, or relief from, their respective immigration proceedings, nor

6 do they challenge the basis for the decision to commence proceedings. Rather, plaintiffs

7 assert that their claims against Federal Defendants arise from the discriminatory animus

8 that motivated the stops, searches, detentions and denials of due process that occurred

9 prior to their transfer to ICE’s custody. See Wong, 373 F.3d at 964 (finding jurisdiction in a

10 civil case where plaintiff disclaimed any challenge to the execution of the removal itself, but

11 rather asserted that her claims alleging discrimination implicated only actions other than

12 removal, or the commencement of proceedings, if any, leading to that removal); see also

13 Madu v. United States AG, 470 F.3d 1362, 1367-68 (11th Cir. 2006) (finding that section

14 1252(g) did not apply to an alien’s challenge to his detention pending removal); Humphries

15 V. Various Federal USINS Employees, 164 F.3d 936, 945 (5th Cir. 1999) (finding that §

16 1252(g) did not apply to an alien’s Bivens claims for involuntary servitude and mistreatment

17 during detention, but did preclude a Bivens claim for retaliatory exclusion).

18

Accordingly, Federal Defendants motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction pursuant to

19 § 1252(g) is denied.

20

2. Jurisdiction Over Bivens Claims

21

Federal Defendants argue that the court lacks jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ claims

22 against ICE for Bivens violations because the United States has neither waived its

23 immunity nor consented to suit for damages. In addition, Federal Defendants argue that

24 plaintiffs’ Bivens claims against the federal officers in their official capacities must be

25 dismissed because suits against federal officers in their official capacities are essentially

26 suits against the United States. Finally, Federal Defendants argue that, even assuming

27 that ICE has waived its sovereign immunity, plaintiffs’ claims against ICE for Bivens

28 violations should be dismissed because plaintiffs do not have a Bivens-type implied 12

Case3:08-cv-04220-PJH Document121 Filed07/31/09 Page13 of 43

1 remedy for damages against ICE.

2

It is well-established that the United States is entitled to sovereign immunity from

3 any claim for damages unless immunity has been explicitly waived by Congress. See Dunn

4 & Black, P.S. v. United States, 492 F.3d 1084, 1088 (9th Cir. 2007) (“Unless [the plaintiff]

5 satisfies the burden of establishing that its action [against the United States] falls

6 within an unequivocally expressed waiver of sovereign immunity by Congress, it must be

7 dismissed.”). This immunity extends to federal agencies. See Hodge v. Dalton, 107 F.3d

8 705, 707 (9th Cir. 1997) (“The doctrine of sovereign immunity applies to federal agencies

9 and to federal employees acting within their official capacities.”); Gilbert v. Da Grossa, 756

10 F.2d 1455, 1460 n. 6 (9th Cir. 1985) (“A claim for damages against a federal agency is

11 barred by sovereign immunity unless Congress has consented to suit.”). Bivens does not

12 authorize a suit against the government or its agencies for monetary relief. See

13 FDIC, 510 U.S. at 486; Thomas-Lazear v. FBI, 851 F.2d 1202, 1207 (9th Cir. 1988);

14 Daly-Murphy, 837 F.2d at 355.

15

Congress has not explicitly waived the immunity of the United States and its

16 agencies with respect to Bivens claims, see FDIC v. Meyer, 510 U.S. 471, 486 (1994)

17 (holding that federal agencies, such as the FDIC, were immune from Bivens actions

18 alleging a violation of constitutional rights). However, under Bivens, the Supreme Court

19 has held that an action for money damages may be brought against individual federal

20 agents acting under color of their authority for injuries caused by their unconstitutional

21 conduct. Bivens, 403 U.S. at 397; see also Vacarro v. Dobre, 81 F.3d 854, 856 (9th Cir.

22 1996). The purpose of Bivens is to “deter the officer,” not the agency. FDIC, 510 U.S. 471

23 at 485. To state a private cause of action under Bivens, plaintiff must allege: (1) that a right

24 secured by the Constitution of the United States was violated, and (2) that the violation was

25 committed by a federal actor. See Daly-Murphy v. Winston, 837 F.2d 348, 355 (9th Cir.

26 1988).

27

Bivens provides that “federal courts have the inherent authority to award damages

28 against federal officials to compensate plaintiffs for violations of their constitutional rights.” 13

Case3:08-cv-04220-PJH Document121 Filed07/31/09 Page14 of 43

1 Western Center for Journalism v. Cederquist, 235 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2000); Bivens,

2 403 U .S. at 394. However, a Bivens action may only be brought against the responsible

3 federal official in his or her individual capacity. Daly-Murphy, 837 F.2d at 355.

4

Therefore, the motion to dismiss the Bivens claims is granted in part and denied in

5 part. To the extent that the complaint attempts to assert Bivens claims for monetary

6 damages against ICE and the DHS – federal agencies – these claims are not cognizable,

7 and are therefore dismissed with prejudice.3 Similarly, to the extent that plaintiffs attempt to

8 assert Bivens claims for damages against federal officers in their official capacities, these

9 claims are not cognizable, and are also dismissed with prejudice. However, to the extent

10 that plaintiffs attempt to assert Bivens claims for damages against the individual defendants

11 in their individual capacities, such claims are cognizable. And to the extent that plaintiffs

12 seek only injunctive and declaratory relief against ICE and the DHS, the Bivens claims are

13 not subject to dismissal on the basis of sovereign immunity. Under the APA, federal

14 sovereign immunity is waived for suits against the federal government in which the plaintiff

15 is “seeking relief other than money damages.” 5 U.S.C. § 702 (emphasis added). Federal

16 Defendants offered neither persuasive argument nor citation to controlling authority

17 establishing that plaintiffs cannot maintain an action for injunctive and declaratory relief

18 against a federal agency predicated on constitutional violations of federal agents.

19

3. Committee’s Standing

20

Federal Defendants argue that the Committee lacks both representational and

21 organizational standing to raise the claims asserted in the complaint.

22

In essence, the question of standing is whether the litigant is entitled to have the

23 court decide the merits of the dispute or of particular issues. Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490,

24 498 (1975). Federal Defendants challenge the Committee’s standing to bring this suit on

25 behalf of its members, (representational or associational standing), or on its own behalf,

26 (organizational standing). See Smith v. Pac. Props. & Dev. Corp., 358 F.3d 1097, 1101

27 3 The court notes that plaintiffs, in footnote 20 of their opposition, concede that they do
28 not assert Bivens claims for monetary damages against ICE. 14

Case3:08-cv-04220-PJH Document121 Filed07/31/09 Page15 of 43

1 (9th Cir. 2004). The Committee’s representational standing is contingent upon the standing

2 of its members to bring suit, while the Committee’s organizational standing turns on

3 whether the organization itself has suffered an injury-in-fact. Id.

4

a. Representational Standing

5

A litigant demonstrates standing by showing that he or she has suffered an injury in

6 fact that is fairly traceable to the challenged action and is redressable by a favorable

7 judicial decision. Steel Company v. Citizens for a Better Environment, 523 U.S. 83, 118

8 (1998). To demonstrate constitutional standing, a plaintiff must prove (1) that he or she

9 suffered an injury in fact; (2) the existence of a causal connection specifically traceable to

10 the unconstitutional conduct of defendants; and (3) the likelihood that a favorable outcome

11 will redress the injury. Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560 (1992).

12

For purposes of representational standing analysis it is sufficient if the organizational

13 plaintiff meets the requirements of the Hunt test, i.e., that: (a) its members would otherwise

14 have standing to sue in their own right; (b) the interests it seeks to vindicate are germane to

15 the organization’s purposes; and (c) neither the claim asserted nor the relief requested

16 requires the participation of individual members in the lawsuit. Hunt v. Washington Apple

17 Advertising Comm’n, 432 U.S. 333, 343 (1977). Representational standing is particularly

18 appropriate where “the association is seeking to represent the interests which are central to

19 the purpose of the organization” and “where the relief sought is some form of prospective

20 remedy, such as declaratory judgment, which will inure to the benefit of the organization’s

21 membership.” Peick v. Pension Benefit Guar. Corp., 724 F.2d 1247, 1259 (7th Cir. 1983).

22

Federal Defendants do not contend that the Committee has not satisfied the first or

23 second requirements. That is, they do not dispute that Committee members would

24 otherwise have standing to sue in their own right or that the interests sought to be protected

25 by the Committee in this litigation are relevant to the Committee’s purpose, which includes

26 opposing anti-immigrant policies, educating the public about immigration law and policies,

27 and informing the public about their rights. See Compl. ¶ 37. Rather, Federal Defendants

28 15

Case3:08-cv-04220-PJH Document121 Filed07/31/09 Page16 of 43

1 contend that the Committee has not satisfied the third requirement because individualized

2 proof is required to determine whether the challenged conduct caused any harm.

3

However, because, in addition to damages, the complaint seeks declaratory and

4 injunctive relief, which would not require the participation of individual members, the court

5 finds that the Committee has standing as a representative of its members to pursue claims

6 seeking declaratory and injunctive relief. Associated General Contractors of America v.

7 Associated General Contractors of America v. Metropolitan Water Dist. of Southern

8 California,159 F.3d 1178, 1181 (9th Cir. 1998) (individualized proof from the members is

9 not needed where declaratory and injunctive relief is sought rather than monetary

10 damages); see Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 515 (1975) (holding that an association

11 lacked standing where it sought damages rather than a declaration, injunction, or some

12 other form of prospective relief). The prayer for relief includes injunctive and declaratory

13 relief as well as nominal, compensatory, special, statutory and punitive damages. Although

14 the complaint does not specify which plaintiff is seeking which type of relief from which

15 defendant, plaintiffs maintain in their opposition brief that the Committee only seeks

16 declaratory and injunctive relief on its own behalf.

17

Thus, the motion to dismiss the Committee for lack of representational standing is

18 granted in part and denied in part. The court finds that the Committee has asserted

19 sufficient facts to establish representational standing for its claims for declaratory and

20 prospective relief. However, the court also finds that the Committee does not have

21 standing to pursue any claim for damages.

22

b. Organizational Standing

23

“[O]rganizations are entitled to sue on their own behalf for injuries they have

24 sustained.” Havens Realty Corp. v. Coleman, 455 U.S. 363, 379 n. 19 (1982). “[A]n

25 organization may satisfy the Article III requirement of injury in fact if it can demonstrate: (1)

26 frustration of its organizational mission; and (2) diversion of its resources to combat the

27 particular [problem] in question.” Smith, 358 F.3d at 1105.

28 16

Case3:08-cv-04220-PJH Document121 Filed07/31/09 Page17 of 43

1

Plaintiffs allege that the Committee’s mission as a non-profit organization is to

2 educate and mobilize the community around legal and social issues related to the rights of

3 immigrants in Sonoma County and to oppose anti-immigrant legislation and policies at both

4 the federal and state levels. Plaintiffs further allege that the Committee has had to expend

5 time and resources engaging in a campaign to end the challenged practices at issue in this

6 action, including diverting resources from the pursuit of other related goals. Compl. ¶¶ 2,

7 6, 37-40.

8

The court finds these allegations sufficient to establish organizational standing

9 because plaintiffs allege that the Committee’s mission of opposing anti-immigrant policies is

10 frustrated as a result of defendants’ actions, and that the Committee has diverted

11 resources to combat defendants’ policies. Accordingly, Federal Defendants’ motion to

12 dismiss the Committee for lack of organizational standing is also denied.

13

4. Standing: Plaintiffs’ Right to Assert Claims for Injunctive Relief

14

Federal Defendants argue that plaintiffs do not have standing to assert claims for

15 injunctive relief because they have only identified past injuries, and have not identified any

16 realistic future threat or facts that show a likelihood that they will be stopped again or

17 subjected to immigration detainers. Federal Defendants maintain that plaintiffs have no

18 standing to sue for injunctive relief because plaintiffs’ allegations of future harm are too

19 speculative and remote.

20

In support of their argument for dismissal Federal Defendants rely on City of Los

21 Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 105 (1983). However, Lyons is distinguishable from the

22 present case in several critical respects. First, the decision in Lyons was based on a full

23 evidentiary record, not the untested allegations of the complaint. Second, in Lyons, unlike

24 here, the plaintiffs did not allege a pattern and practice of unlawful racial profiling, among

25 other things. See LaDuke v. Nelson, 762 F.2d 1318, 1324 (9th Cir. 1985) (distinguishing

26 Lyons, and affirming the grant of an injunction on the basis that the plaintiff in LaDuke had

27 shown an officially sanctioned pattern of behavior that was distinctly lacking in Lyons); see

28 also Thomas v. County of Los Angeles, 978 F.2d 504, 508 (9th Cir. 1992) (“A state law 17

Case3:08-cv-04220-PJH Document121 Filed07/31/09 Page18 of 43

1 enforcement agency may be enjoined from committing constitutional violations where there

2 is proof that officers within the agency have engaged in a persistent pattern of

3 misconduct.”).

4

The court finds that plaintiffs have alleged sufficient facts to withstand Federal

5 Defendants’ motion to dismiss. The complaint alleges that Federal Defendants have

6 engaged in a pattern or practice of constitutional violations or policies promoting

7 constitutional violations, including racial profiling. Plaintiffs have alleged that Committee

8 members are likely to have encounters with defendants in the future, including Federal

9 Defendants, insofar as the Committee’s membership includes several Latino families that

10 live in the neighborhood where defendants regularly patrol. After discovery is complete,

11 Federal Defendants may attack plaintiffs’ entitlement to injunctive relief by a motion for

12 summary judgment. See Rodriguez v. California Highway Patrol, 89 F.Supp.2d 1131, 1142

13 (N.D. Cal. 2000) (Plaintiffs alleged enough to overcome defendant’s motion to dismiss

14 where they alleged a pattern and practice of illegal law enforcement activity – racial

15 profiling; noting that plaintiffs were entitled to proceed with discovery to attempt to establish

16 an evidentiary basis for their claims for injunctive relief, and that after discovery, defendants

17 may attack plaintiffs’ entitlement to injunctive relief by a motion for summary judgment.).

18

Accordingly, Federal Defendants’ motion to dismiss on the ground that plaintiffs do

19 not have standing to assert claims for injunctive relief is denied.

20

5. Validity of 8 C.F.R. § 287.7

21

Plaintiffs’ eighth cause of action alleges that 8 C.F.R. § 287.7 is inconsistent with 8

22 U.S.C. § 1357, and therefore ultra vires in excess of the statutory authority granted by

23 Congress. Plaintiffs seek an order from this court: (1) declaring that § 287.7 is invalid and

24 ultra vires to the governing statute, § 1357; (2) entering a permanent injunction to prohibit

25 defendants from implementing or relying on § 287.7; and (3) declaring that § 287.7 is

26 arbitrary, capricious and an abuse of discretion, in excess of statutory jurisdiction, authority

27

28 18

Case3:08-cv-04220-PJH Document121 Filed07/31/09 Page19 of 43

1 or limitations, or without observance of procedure required by law and therefore unlawful

2 and invalid under the Administrative Procedures Act, 5 U.S.C. § 706 (“APA”). 4

3

Under the APA, a court is authorized to “set aside agency action, findings, and

4 conclusions found to be . . . arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in

5 accordance with the law.” 5 U.S.C. § 706. In determining whether § 287.7 is valid, the

6 court will apply the two-part test for judicial review of an administrative agency’s

7 construction of a statute it administers as set forth in Chevron, U.S.A. v. Natural Res.

8 Defense Council, 467 U.S. 837 (1984). First, the court must consider whether Congress

9 “has directly spoken to the precise question at issue.” If the intent of Congress is clear,

10 “that is the end of the matter; for the court, as well as the agency, must give effect to the

11 unambiguously expressed intent of Congress.” Id. at 842-43. In making that assessment,

12 courts not only look at the precise statutory section in question, but also analyze the

13 provision in the context of the governing statute as a whole, presuming congressional intent

14 to create a “symmetrical and coherent regulatory scheme.” Food and Drug Admin. v.

15 Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. 529 U.S. 120, 133 (2000).

16

Second, if the statute is silent or ambiguous on the issue, courts must defer to the

17 agency’s reasonable interpretation of the statute so long as the interpretation is consistent

18 with the purposes of the statute. Chevron, 467 U.S. at 843-45 (“ ‘The power of an

19 administrative agency to administer a congressionally created . . . program necessarily

20 requires the formulation of policy and the making of rules to fill any gap left, implicitly or

21 explicitly, by Congress.’ ”); Nat’l Cable & Telecomms. Ass’n v. Brand X Internet Servs., 545

22 U.S. 967, 980 (2005) (“ambiguities in statutes within an agency’s jurisdiction to administer

23 are delegations of authority to the agency to fill the statutory gap in reasonable fashion”).

24 “Chevron’s premise is that it is for agencies, not courts, to fill statutory gaps.” Id. at 982.

25

26

4 In footnote five of their brief, plaintiffs state their intentto withdraw paragraph 79 of the

complaint, which alleges that ICE’s predecessor agency, the Immigration and Naturalization

27 Service (“INS”) promulgated § 287.7 without notice and an opportunity to comment by the

public and in violation of the rule-making pr ocess specified by the APA. Paragraph 79 is

28 therefore STRICKEN from the complaint.

19

Case3:08-cv-04220-PJH Document121 Filed07/31/09 Page20 of 43

1

In other words, if the agency’s interpretation is reasonable and not contrary to the

2 discernable intent of Congress, it should be approved even though it is not the only

3 reasonable interpretation or the one the reviewing court would make if deciding the issue in

4 the first instance. See Unemployment Compensation Comm’n v. Aragon, 329 U.S. 143,

5 153-54 (1946); see also Chevron, 467 U.S. at 842-43. Rather, “Congress, when it left

6 ambiguity in a statute meant for implementation by an agency, understood that the

7 ambiguity would be resolved, first and foremost, by the agency, and desired the agency

8 (rather than the courts) to possess whatever degree of discretion the ambiguity allows.”

9 Nat’l Cable & Telecomms. Ass’n, 545 U.S. at 982.

10

The construction of a statute by those charged with its administration is entitled to

11 substantial deference. See United States v. Rutherford, 442 U.S. 544, 553 (1979); McKart

12 v. United States, 395 U.S. 185, 193-94 (1969) (an agency is created for purpose of

13 applying a statute in the first instance); Chevron, 467 U.S. at 844 (It is well-settled that

14 “considerable weight should be accorded to an executive department’s construction of a

15 statutory scheme it is entrusted to administer, and the principle of deference to

16 administrative interpretations.”) (footnote omitted). However, an agency’s interpretation of

17 a statute is not entitled to deference when it goes beyond the meaning that the statute can

18 bear. MCI Telecomms. Corp. v. AT&T Co., 512 U.S. 218, 229 (1994).

19

8 C.F.R. § 287.7, titled “Detainer provisions under section 287(d)(3) of the Act,”

20 provides:

21

Detainers in general. Detainers are issued pursuant to sections 236 and 287 of the Act and this chapter 1. Any authorized immigration officer may at any

22

time issue a Form I-247, Immigration Detainer-Notice of Action, to any other Federal, State, or local law enforcement agency. A detainer serves to advise another law

23

enforcement agency that the Department seeks custody of an alien presently in the custody of that agency, for the purpose of arresting and

24

removing the alien. The detainer is a request that such agency advise the Department, prior to release of the alien, in order for the Department to

25

arrange to assume custody, in situations when gaining immediate physical custody is either impracticable or impossible.

26 8 C.F.R. § 287.7(a). Section 287.7 cites as authority, 8 U.S.C. §§ 1103 and 1357, among

27 other provisions.

28

20

Case3:08-cv-04220-PJH Document121 Filed07/31/09 Page21 of 43

1

8 U.S.C. § 1103 provides:

2

The Secretary of Homeland Security shall be charged with the administration and enforcement of this chapter and all other laws relating to the immigration

3

and naturalization of aliens, except insofar as this chapter or such laws relate to the powers, functions, and duties conferred upon the President, Attorney

4

General, the Secretary of State, the officers of the Department of State, or diplomatic or consular officers: Provided, however, That determination and

5

ruling by the AttorneyGeneral with respect to all questions of law shall be controlling.

6 8 U.S.C. §§ 1103(a)(1). Section 1103 further provides that the Secretary of Homeland

7 Security shall establish such regulations . . . and perform such other acts as [s]he deems

8 necessary for carrying out h[er] authority under the provisions of this chapter. 8 U.S.C. §

9 1103(a)(3).

10

8 U.S.C. § 1357, titled “Powers of immigration officers and employees,” provides, in

11 relevant part:

12

(d) Detainer of aliens for violation of controlled substances laws

13

In the case of an alien who is arrested by a Federal, State, or local law

14

enforcement official for a violation of any law relating to controlled substances, if the official (or another official)--

15

(1) has reason to believe that the alien may not have been lawfully

16

admitted to the United States or otherwise is not lawfully present in the United States,

17

(2) expeditiously informs an appropriate officer or employee of the Service

18

authorized and designated by the Attorney General of the arrest and of facts concerning the status of the alien, and

19

(3) requests the Service to determine promptly whether or not to issue a

20

detainer to detain the alien,

21

the officer or employee of the Service shall promptly determine whether or not to issue such a detainer. If such a detainer is issued and the alien is

22

not otherwise detained by Federal, State, or local officials, the Attorney General shall effectively and expeditiously take custody of the alien.

23 8 U.S.C. § 1357(d).

24

Plaintiffs maintain that § 287.7 is facially invalid because its authorizing statute, §

25 1357, limits ICE’s authority to issue detainers for aliens in custody for violating laws relating

26 to controlled substances. The court is not persuaded by this argument. The fact that §

27 1357 does not expressly authorize ICE to issue detainers for violations of laws other than

28

21

Case3:08-cv-04220-PJH Document121 Filed07/31/09 Page22 of 43

1 laws relating to controlled substances hardly amounts to the kind of unambiguous

2 expression of congressional intent that would remove the agency’s discretion at Chevron

3 step one. Rather, the court finds that because Congress left a statutory gap for the

4 agency to fill, Chevron step two requires the court to defer to the agency’s reasonable

5 interpretation of the statute so long as the interpretation is consistent with the purposes of

6 the statute.

7

Having reviewed § 1357, as well as the statutory scheme of the governing statute,

8 Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1101 et seq., (“INA”), the court finds that the

9 agency’s interpretation of § 1357 is consistent with the purpose of the statute and is not

10 contrary to the discernable intent of Congress. Given the broad authority vested in the

11 Secretary of Homeland Security to establish such regulations as she deems necessary for

12 carrying out her authority to administer and enforce laws relating to the immigration and

13 naturalization of aliens, and in the absence of clear Congressional intent compelling a

14 contrary result, the court concludes that § 287.7 is a permissible construction of the statute,

15 particularly when read in light of § 1103. Plaintiffs have not pointed to anything in the text

16 of § 1357 or the statutory scheme expressing an unequivocal congressional intent that

17 ICE’s authority to issue detainers is limited to violations of laws relating to controlled

18 substances. As such, plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate that the agency’s interpretation

19 of § 1357 went beyond the meaning that the statute can bear. Accordingly, § 287.7 is

20 entitled to Chevron deference and, therefore, is not ultra vires to § 1357 or any other

21 provision of the INA.

22

To the extent that plaintiffs urge the court to interpret § 1357 as unambiguously

23 limiting the issuance of immigration detainers to individuals detained by local law

24 enforcement for controlled substance violations, the court declines to do so. There is

25 nothing in the statute that purports to limit the issuance of immigration detainers to cases

26 where an alien is arrested by a Federal, State, or local law enforcement official for a

27 violation of any law relating to controlled substances. Contrary to plaintiffs contention, the

28 court does not read § 1357 as permitting the issuance of immigration detainers for 22

Case3:08-cv-04220-PJH Document121 Filed07/31/09 Page23 of 43

1 substance abuse offenses but not for other offenses, including violent offenses such as

2 murder, rape and robbery. Instead, the court reads the language of § 1357 as simply

3 placing special requirements on officials issuing detainers for a violation of any law relating

4 to controlled substances, not as expressly limiting the issuance of immigration detainers

5 solely to individuals violating laws relating to controlled substances.

6

In addition, to the extent that plaintiffs’ eighth cause of action alleges that Federal

7 Defendants’ denial of plaintiffs’ procedural rights under § 1357 and § 287.3 constitute

8 “agency actions unlawfully withheld or unreasonably delayed” and “agency actions without

9 observance of procedure required by law pursuant to 5 U.S. C. § 706,” the court finds that

10 such pleading fails to state a cognizable claim under the APA. Even assuming that Federal

11 Defendants violated § 1357 and § 287.3, these violations do not give rise to a cognizable

12 claim under the APA.

13

The APA authorizes judicial review of final agency actions “for which there is no

14 other adequate remedy in a court.” 5 U.S.C. § 704. Final agency actions are defined as

15 actions which “mark the consummation of the agency’s decision making process,” defined

16 as not “merely tentative or interlocutory [in] nature,” and which determine “rights or

17 obligations” or from which “legal consequences will flow.” Bennett v. Spear, 520 U.S. 154,

18 177-78 (1997) (internal quotations and citations omitted). The APA authorizes a “person

19 suffering legal wrong because of agency action, or adversely affected or aggrieved by

20 agency action,” to bring suit seeking judicial review of that agency action. 5 U.S.C. § 702.

21 Agency action is statutorily defined to “include[ ] the whole or part of an agency rule, order,

22 license, sanction, relief or the equivalent or denial thereof, or failure to act.” 5 U.S.C. §§

23 551(13), 701(b)(2).

24

The court finds plaintiffs’ pleading insufficient to state a cognizable claim under the

25 APA insofar as the allegations in the complaint do not challenge an agency action within

26 the meaning of the APA. First, § 1357 is a statute enacted by Congress, and therefore is

27 not an “agency action” for which the APA authorizes a person to bring suit. Second,

28 plaintiffs are not alleging that they have suffered a legal wrong or have been adversely 23

Case3:08-cv-04220-PJH Document121 Filed07/31/09 Page24 of 43

1 affected or aggrieved by the promulgation of § 287.3. Rather, they allege that Federal

2 Defendants’ have violated § 287.3. As such, plaintiffs are not seeking judicial review of an

3 agency action under the APA.

4

Accordingly, plaintiffs’ eighth cause of action is dismissed for failure to state a claim

5 upon which relief may be granted. Because it is clear that amendment would be futile, this

6 claim is dismissed with prejudice.

7

6. Qualified Immunity

8

Federal Defendants argue that the federal officer defendants are entitled to qualified

9 immunity from liability for civil damages with respect to plaintiffs’ Bivens claims because

10 plaintiffs have failed to allege sufficient facts to make a threshold showing that the federal

11 officers violated any constitutional right. In addition, Federal Defendants argue that the

12 federal officers are entitled to qualified immunity because it was reasonable for the federal

13 officers to believe that their conduct in issuing detainers pursuant to § 287.7 was lawful.

14

“[Q]ualified immunity operates ‘to ensure that before they are subjected to suit,

15 officers are on notice their conduct is unlawful.’ ” Hope v. Pelzer, 536 U.S. 730, 739 (2002)

16 (citing Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194, 206 (2001)). The defense of qualified immunity

17 protects “government officials . . . from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct

18 does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable

19 person would have known.” Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982); Squaw Valley

20 Dev. Co. v. Goldberg, 375 F.3d 936, 943 (9th Cir. 2004).

21

The threshold question in a qualified immunity analysis is whether the plaintiff's

22 allegations, if true, establish a constitutional or statutory violation. Saucier, 533 U.S. at

23 201. “If no constitutional right would have been violated were the allegations established,

24 there is no necessity for further inquiries concerning qualified immunity.” Id. The second

25 prong of Saucier asks “whether the right was clearly established.” Id. A right is “clearly

26 established” when its contours are “sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would

27 understand that what he is doing violates that right.” Id. at 202. This does not mean “that

28 an official action is protected by qualified immunity unless the very action in question has 24

Case3:08-cv-04220-PJH Document121 Filed07/31/09 Page25 of 43

1 previously been held unlawful,” but rather, that “in the light of pre-existing law the

2 unlawfulness must be apparent.” Hope, 536 U.S. at 739. The salient question is whether

3 the state of the law at the time gave officials “fair warning” that their conduct was

4 unconstitutional. Id. at 740. The issue of qualified immunity is “a pure question of law.”

5 Elder v. Holloway, 510 U.S. 510, 514 (1994).

6

As to Federal Defendants argument that the complaint does not contain sufficient

7 facts showing that the individual federal officers personally violated any constitutional right,

8 the court agrees. With respect to Wollman, the complaint does not allege any facts

9 showing how Wollman participated in the alleged constitutional violations. Rather, the

10 complaint simply alleges that Special Agent-in-Charge Wollman is responsible for the

11 administration and management of all ICE enforcement activities within Northern California.

12 Compl. ¶ 14. Aside from the fact that Wollman headed the San Francisco Office of

13 Investigations, plaintiffs have pled no substantial connection between Wollman and the

14 alleged constitutional violations. This bare allegation is insufficient to withstand a motion to

15 dismiss as it provides absolutely no factual predicate as to how Wollman violated any of the

16 plaintiffs’ constitutional rights. See Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. at 1949; Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555.

17 The Bivens claims asserted against Wollman are therefore dismissed for failure to state a

18 claim upon which relief may be granted.

19

With respect to Merendino, the court finds that the complaint does not allege any

20 facts showing how Merendino participated in the alleged constitutional violations. Plaintiffs,

21 for their part, do not dispute that the complaint is devoid of factual allegations connecting

22 Merendino to the constitutional violations alleged; rather, they simply assert that it is their

23 understanding that Merendino participated in the arrest of Sanchez-Lopez. Needless to

24 say, such pleading does not satisfy Rule 8. See Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. at 1949; Twombly, 550

25 U.S. at 555. The Bivens claims asserted against Merendino are therefore dismissed for

26 failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.

27

With respect to Huelga, the court finds that the complaint does not allege sufficient

28 facts showing that he violated any of the plaintiffs’ constitutional rights. The complaint 25

Case3:08-cv-04220-PJH Document121 Filed07/31/09 Page26 of 43

1 alleges, on information and belief, that Huelga and Salkin approached Sonato-Vega at his

2 place of employment and arrested him and booked him into County jail without a warrant

3 and without probable cause to believe he was a non-citizen without authorization to be in

4 the United States, much less a determination that he was likely to escape before arrest.

5 Compl. ¶ 47. The complaint further alleges that, during his four-days in County jail before

6 his transfer to ICE’s custody, Sonato-Vega did not receive notice of any charges against

7 him, examination by a neutral magistrate or non-arresting ICE agent, a list of low or no-cost

8 immigration legal services, or notice that he had a right to a hearing or a bond

9 determination. Id. ¶ 48.

10

Based on these allegations, the complaint purports to asserts three Bivens claims

11 against Huelga, predicated on Hulega’s alleged violation of plaintiffs’ Fourth and Fifth

12 Amendment rights. Specifically, plaintiffs’ fourth cause of action titled, “Bivens, Fourth

13 Amendment, 8 U.S.C. § 1357 (Unreasonable Search and Seizures),” incorporates by

14 reference the preceding allegations of the complaint and alleges: “The above described

15 policies, practices and conduct of . . . Federal Defendants . . . have violated and will violate

16 Plaintiffs’ right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures under the Fourth

17 Amendment . . . and their statutory rights under 8 U.S.C. § 1357.” Plaintiffs’ fifth cause of

18 action titled, “Bivens, Fifth Amendment (Equal Protection),” incorporates by reference the

19 preceding allegations of the complaint and alleges: “Federal Defendants’ above described

20 policies, practices and conduct intentionally targeted Plaintiffs based on their race, color

21 and/or ethnicity and discriminatorily impacted and continues to impact Latinos in Sonoma

22 County in violation of Plaintiffs’ rights under the equal protection clause of the Fifth

23 Amendment to the United States Constitution.” Plaintiffs’ sixth cause of action titled,

24 “Bivens, Fifth Amendment (Due Process),” incorporates by reference the preceding

25 allegations of the complaint and alleges: “Federal Defendants’ above described policies,

26 practices and conduct have violated and will violate Plaintiffs’ right to due process of law

27 under the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution.”

28 26

Case3:08-cv-04220-PJH Document121 Filed07/31/09 Page27 of 43

1

The court finds such vague and conclusory pleading insufficient to withstand a

2 motion to dismiss. Under Rule 8, while a pleading does not require detailed factual

3 allegations, it demands more than naked assertions devoid of further factual enhancement.

4 Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. at 1949; Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555, 557. Moreover, while a court must

5 accept a complaint’s allegations as true, this tenet is inapplicable to legal conclusions

6 unsupported by factual allegations. See Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. at 1949-50. (Although

7 well-pleaded factual content is accepted as true for purposes of determining whether the

8 complaint states a plausible claim for relief, this assumption of truth does not apply to legal

9 conclusions couched as factual allegations or to “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a

10 cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements.”) (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at

11 555).

12

Disregarding plaintiffs’ conclusory allegations, the complaint does not contain

13 sufficient factual matter to render it plausible that Huelga personally violated any of the

14 plaintiffs’ constitutional rights. For example, as to Sanchez-Lopez and Medel Moyado, the

15 complaint contains no factual allegations whatsoever showing that Huelga personally

16 violated either of their Fourth or Fifth Amendment rights. As to Sonato-Vega, while

17 plaintiffs allege that Huelga violated Sonato-Vega’s Fourth Amendment rights by failing to

18 comply with § 1357, plaintiffs neither recite the relevant provision that Huelga allegedly

19 violated nor set forth facts explaining how Huelga violated this provision. Such pleading

20 does not state a Fourth Amendment claim that is plausible on its face. See Iqbal, 129 S.Ct.

21 at 1949 (in order to state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face, the complaint must

22 plead factual allegations that allow the court to draw the reasonable inference that

23 defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged). Similarly, while plaintiffs allege that Huelga

24 violated Sonato-Vega’s Fifth Amendment rights (e.g., equal protection, due process), these

25 claims are not supported by well-pleaded factual allegations that plausibly give rise to an

26 entitlement to relief. The complaint, for instance, does not allege any facts showing that

27 Huelga personally participated in the alleged denial of Sonato-Vega’s due process rights

28 while he was in custody at the County jail. Instead, plaintiffs’ Fifth Amendment claims are 27

Case3:08-cv-04220-PJH Document121 Filed07/31/09 Page28 of 43

1 supported by mere conclusory statements, which do not suffice to withstand a motion to

2 dismiss.

3

In short, plaintiffs’ Bivens claims against Hulega are subject to dismissal because

4 the factual allegations in the complaint do not allow the court to draw the reasonable

5 inference that Huelga is liable for the misconduct alleged. The complaint provides no

6 factual context or reasons to support plaintiffs unexplained legal conclusions that Huelga

7 violated the constitutional rights of “plaintiffs.” The Bivens claims asserted against Huelga

8 are therefore dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.

9

In sum, the court finds that plaintiffs’ vague and conclusory assertions of wrongdoing

10 scattered throughout the complaint are insufficient to establish the requisite factual

11 predicate to demonstrate that the federal officer defendants personally violated any of the

12 plaintiffs’ constitutional rights. Because plaintiffs failed to plead facts that, if true, establish

13 constitutional violations, there is no need to examine whether such rights were clearly

14 established. The allegations, viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs, do not

15 demonstrate that the federal officer defendants violated any of plaintiffs’ constitutional

16 rights. Saucier, 533 U.S. at 201 (“If no constitutional right would have been violated were

17 the allegations established, there is no necessity for further inquiries concerning qualified

18 immunity.”).

19

Accordingly, plaintiffs’ fourth through sixth causes of action are dismissed for failure

20 to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. In the absence of allegations to subject

21 federal officer defendants to liability under Bivens, qualified immunity is a viable defense.

22 While the court is mindful of “the importance of resolving immunity questions at the earliest

23 possible stage in litigation,” Hunter v. Bryant, 502 U.S. 224, 227 (1991), the court

24 nonetheless grants plaintiffs leave to file an amended complaint to delete the federal

25 officers as defendants in this action or to attempt to allege sufficient facts to state

26 cognizable Bivens claims against each of them. Plaintiffs may amend their complaint if

27 they can allege specific facts demonstrating that Wollman participated in or directed

28 constitutional violations, or knew of constitutional violations of subordinates and failed to act 28

Case3:08-cv-04220-PJH Document121 Filed07/31/09 Page29 of 43

1 to prevent them. See Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. at 1948 (“Because vicarious liability is inapplicable to

2 Bivens and § 1983 suits, a plaintiff must plead that each Government-official defendant,

3 through the official’s own individual actions, has violated the Constitution.”); Taylor v. List,

4 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989) ( “A supervisor is only liable for constitutional violations

5 of his subordinates if the supervisor participated in or directed the violations, or knew of the

6 violations and failed to act to prevent them.”).5 Plaintiffs may also amend their complaint if

7 they can allege specific facts demonstrating that Merendino and Huelga participated in

8 constitutional violations. See Pellegrino v. United States, 73 F.3d 934, 936 (9th Cir. 1996)

9 (Liability under Bivens must be based on the personal involvement of the defendant.).

10

The court does not reach at this time the question whether the issuance of detainers

11 in reliance on § 287.7 shields the federal officer defendants form liability for any of the

12 constitutional violations alleged by plaintiffs. The court anticipates, however, that

13 defendants will raise this issue again, if necessary, after the complaint has been amended.

14

7. 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985(3)

15

Federal Defendants argue that plaintiffs’ ninth cause of action for conspiracy fails

16 because the federal officer defendants were not acting under color of state law with respect

17 to the constitutional violations alleged. In addition, Federal Defendants argue that this

18 cause of action fails because plaintiffs have not pled sufficient facts to state a conspiracy

19 claim.

20

Section 1983 requires that the actionable conduct be under color of state law.

21 Gibson v. United States, 781 F.2d 1334, 1338, 1343 (9th Cir. 1986); see Morse v. North

22 Coast Opportunities, Inc., 118 F.3d 1338, 1343 (9th Cir. 1997) (“Lest there be any

23 continuing confusion, we take this opportunity to remind the Bar that by its very terms, §

24 1983 precludes liability in federal government actors.”). Federal officers acting under

25

26

27

5 Although Taylor was an action under § 1983, actions under Bivens are identical to

those brought under § 1983 “save for the replac ement of a state actor under § 1983 by a

28 federal actor under Bivens.” Van Strum v. Lawn, 940 F.2d 406, 409 (9th Cir. 1991).

29

Case3:08-cv-04220-PJH Document121 Filed07/31/09 Page30 of 43

1 federal authority are immune from suit under § 1983 unless the state or its agents

2 significantly participated in the challenged activity. Gibson, 781 F.2d at 1343.

3

To state a claim under § 1985(3), a plaintiff must allege: (1) a conspiracy; (2) for the

4 purpose of depriving, either directly or indirectly, any person or class of persons of the

5 equal protection of the laws, or of equal privileges and immunities under the laws; and (3)

6 an act in furtherance of this conspiracy; (4) whereby a person is either injured in his person

7 or property or deprived of any right or privilege of a citizen of the United States. Sever v.

8 Alaska Pulp Corp., 978 F.2d 1529, 1536 (9th Cir. 1992). To establish the second element

9 of a Section 1985(3) claim, a plaintiff must allege and prove that the deprivation of the right

10 in question was “motivated by ‘some racial, or perhaps otherwise class-based, invidiously

11 discriminatory animus behind the conspirators’ action.’ ” Id. To state a claim for conspiracy

12 to violate constitutional rights, “the plaintiff must state specific facts to support the existence

13 of the claimed conspiracy.” Burns v. County of King, 883 F.2d 819, 821 (9th Cir. 1989);

14 Olsen v. Idaho State Bd. of Medicine, 363 F.3d 916, 929 (9th Cir. 2004); see also Sanchez

15 v. City of Santa Ana, 936 F.2d 1027, 1039 (9th Cir. 1991) (“A mere allegation of conspiracy

16 without factual specificity is insufficient to support a claim.”).

17

A conspiracy claim brought under § 1983 requires proof of “ ‘an agreement or

18 meeting of the minds to violate constitutional rights,’ ” Franklin v. Fox, 312 F.3d 423, 441

19 (9th Cir. 2001), and an actual deprivation of constitutional rights. Hart v. Parks, 450 F.3d

20 1059, 1071 (9th Cir. 2006). “ ‘To be liable, each participant in the conspiracy need not

21 know the exact details of the plan, but each participant must at least share the common

22 objective of the conspiracy.’ ” Franklin, 312 F.3d at 441

23

Plaintiffs’ ninth cause of action alleges that “Defendants and their agents conspired

24 to violate Plaintiffs’ constitutional and statutory rights, including their right to equal

25 protection under the law, in violation of § 1985(3).” Plaintiffs further allege that “[e]ach of

26 the Defendants, individually and through their agents, has performed at least one overt act

27 in furtherance of said conspiracy.”

28 30

Case3:08-cv-04220-PJH Document121 Filed07/31/09 Page31 of 43

1

Even assuming, without deciding, that the federal officers can be considered to be

2 acting under color of state law for purposes of § 1983, plaintiffs failed to allege sufficient

3 facts to state a cognizable conspiracy claim under § 1985(3).6 Plaintiffs’ allegations related

4 to conspiracy are largely conclusory. The complaint, for instance, does not allege specific

5 acts showing an agreement or meeting of the minds to deprive plaintiffs of their

6 constitutional rights under § 1983. Rather, the complaint generally alleges that Sheriff’s

7 Deputies and ICE agents participate in joint operations that target Latinos who are criminal

8 gang members, and that defendants have adopted the unlawful policy, practice and custom

9 of relying on race to stop, detain and question persons who appear to be Latino to probe

10 their immigration status without reasonable suspicion or probable cause to suspect they

11 have committed a crime or are non-citizens without lawful immigration status. Compl. ¶¶

12 21-22.

13

Moreover, even assuming for the sake of argument that the allegations in the

14 complaint sufficiently allege an agreement or meeting of the minds to violate constitutional

15 rights, this claim fails because, as stated above, plaintiffs have not pled sufficient facts to

16 establish that the federal officer defendants violated any of plaintiffs’ constitutional rights.

17

Accordingly, plaintiffs’ ninth cause of action is dismissed for failure to state a claim

18 upon which relief may be granted. Because amendment does not appear futile, plaintiffs

19 may amend this claim to allege specific facts to support the existence of the claimed

20 conspiracy and the required state claim.

21 C. County Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss

22

1. Standing Re Committee

23

County Defendants argue that the Committee lacks representational and

24 organizational standing. However, for the reasons stated above, the court finds that the

25

26

6To the extent that Federal Defendants argue that they are immune from suit under §

1983, the court cannot determine at this juncture if immunity attaches given the lack of clarity

27 in the complaint as to what each person did. Gibson, 781 F.2d at 1343 (Federal officers acting

under federal authority are imm une from suit under § 1983 unle ss the stat e or its agents

28 significantly participated in the challenged activity.).

31

Case3:08-cv-04220-PJH Document121 Filed07/31/09 Page32 of 43

1 complaint alleges sufficient facts to establish that the Committee has both representational

2 and organizational standing. To the extent that County Defendants advance a different

3 argument than the Federal Defendants in this regard; namely, that the Committee lacks

4 representational standing to assert claims on behalf of its members because its members

5 do not have standing to sue in their own right, and the interests at stake in this litigation are

6 not germane to the Committee’s purpose, the court is not persuaded by this argument.

7

The complaint alleges that Sanchez-Lopez and Medel Moyado are members of the

8 Committee, that they have suffered constitutional violations based on the allegedly race-

9 based policies and practices of defendants in arresting and detaining Latino members of

10 the community based solely on their immigration status, and that the Committee’s mission

11 is to educate and mobilize the community around legal and social issues related to the

12 rights of immigrants in Sonoma County and to oppose anti-immigrant legislation and

13 policies at both the federal and state levels. The court finds that the allegations in the

14 complaint are sufficient to demonstrate representational standing. In addition, to the extent

15 that County Defendants argue that the plaintiffs do not have standing to request injunctive

16 relief, the court does not find this argument persuasive, for the reasons stated above.

17

2. California Tort Claims Act

18

County Defendants argue that the state law claims alleged by Sanchez-Lopez and

19 the Committee are barred for failure to comply with the claims presentation requirements of

20 California’s Tort Claims Act.

21

Under California’s Tort Claims Act, failure to timely present a claim for money or

22 damages to a public entity bars a plaintiff from filing a lawsuit against that entity. See Cal.

23 Gov’t.Code §§ 910, 911.2, 915, 945.4; see also State v. Superior Court (Bodde), 32

24 Cal.4th 1234, 1239 (2004). In enacting the Tort Claims Act, the California Legislature

25 intended to confine potential governmental liability to rigidly delineated circumstances so

26 that governmental immunity is waived only if the various requirements of the act are

27 satisfied. Bodde, 32 Cal.4th at 1243. Failure to allege facts in a complaint demonstrating

28 or excusing compliance with prelitigation governmental claims presentation requirements of 32

Case3:08-cv-04220-PJH Document121 Filed07/31/09 Page33 of 43

1 the Tort Claims Act subjects the complaint to a motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause

2 of action. Id. at 1239, 1243.

3

Because the complaint fails to allege facts demonstrating that Sanchez-Lopez or the

4 Committee complied or are excused from complying with the claims presentation

5 requirements of the Tort Claims Act, the state law tort claims asserted by Sanchez-Lopez

6 and the Committee are dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be

7 granted. Since amendment does not appear futile, these claims are dismissed without

8 prejudice. Plaintiffs may amend their complaint if they can allege facts demonstrating that

9 Sanchez-Lopez and/or the Committee complied or are excused from complying with the

10 claims presentation requirements of the Tort Claims Act.

11

3. Timeliness of Sonato-Vega’s State Law Claims

12

County Defendants argue that Sonato-Vega’s delay in filing his claim with Sonoma

13 County under the Tort Claims Act bars him from recovering damages for incidents that

14 arose more than six months prior to the filing of his claim.

15

A claim for a personal injury must be presented within six months of accrual. Cal.

16 Gov’t.Code § 911.2(a); Bodde, 32 Cal.4th at 1239. Until a claimant has properly presented

17 a claim to a public entity, and the public entity has acted on it or it is deemed rejected in

18 accordance with the Act, the claimant may not file suit against that entity. Gov’t.Code §

19 945.4; Bodde, 32 Cal.4th at 1239. The failure to timely present a claim bars a person from

20 filing a lawsuit against that entity. Bodde, 32 Cal.4th at 1239.

21

Because the complaint alleges that Sonato-Vega filed an administrative claim with

22 Sonoma County on January 29, 2008, any claim against the County Defendants predicated

23 on conduct occurring prior to July 29, 2007 is time-barred. Thus, while it appears that

24 plaintiffs’ allegation that, in or about July 2007, Sonato-Vega was questioned and searched

25 without reasonable suspicion or consent by Salkin and another Sheriff’s Deputy, may be

26 time-barred, the court will not dismiss this allegation at this time as it is not apparent from

27 the face of the complaint that this allegation is in fact time-barred.

28 33

Case3:08-cv-04220-PJH Document121 Filed07/31/09 Page34 of 43

1

4. Validity of 8 C.F.R. § 287.7

2

County Defendants argue that ICE has the authority to issue immigration detainers

3 that require County Defendants to take and hold persons in local custody, even in the

4 absence of an arrest for a controlled substance violation, and that the plaintiffs’ claims for

5 relief based on plaintiffs’ challenges to § 287.7 must fail. While the court agrees, as found

6 above, County Defendants have not identified any claim asserted against them that is

7 subject to dismissal on this basis. Likewise, to the extent that County Defendants argue

8 that “plaintiffs’ challenges to the Sheriff’s Department cooperation with ICE officials in

9 taking or retaining persons suspected of immigration violations into custody pursuant to

10 immigration detainers has no basis in law or fact, and should be dismissed,” County

11 Defendants have not identified any claim asserted against them that is subject to dismissal

12 on this basis.

13

5. 42 U.S.C. § 2000d, et seq. (Title VI)

14

County Defendants argue that plaintiffs Title VI claim is subject to dismissal because

15 plaintiffs have failed to allege facts showing that they were subject to discrimination under a

16 particular program that receives federal financial assistance, as any such assistance could

17 be wholly unrelated to the discrimination allegedly suffered.

18

Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 provides as follows: “No person in the United

19 States shall, on the ground of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation

20 in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity

21 receiving Federal financial assistance.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000d. “To state a claim for damages

22 under 42 U.S.C. § 2000d, et seq., a plaintiff must allege that (1) the entity

23 involved is engaging in racial discrimination; and (2) the entity involved is receiving federal

24 financial assistance. Although the plaintiff must prove intent at trial, it need not be pled in

25 the complaint.” Fobbs v. Holy Cross Health Sys. Corp., 29 F.3d 1439, 1447 (9th Cir. 1994)

26 (citations omitted), overruled on other grounds by, Daviton v. Columbia/HCA Healthcare

27 Corp., 241 F.3d 1131 (9th Cir. 2001).

28 34

Case3:08-cv-04220-PJH Document121 Filed07/31/09 Page35 of 43

1

Plaintiffs’ Title VI claim alleges that Sonoma County and the Sonoma County

2 Sheriff’s Department and their programs or activities receive financial assistance and

3 funding from the United States government, and that as a recipient of federal financial

4 assistance, Sonoma County is required to conduct its activities in a racially non-

5 discriminatory manner pursuant to Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VI”).

6 Plaintiffs further allege that County Defendants’ above-described policies, practices and

7 conduct have denied and will deny plaintiffs their right to be free from discriminatory

8 treatment under 42 U.S.C. § 2000d. Specifically, plaintiffs allege that Sheriff’s Deputies,

9 have “adopted the unlawful, racially-biased policy, practice and custom of relying on the

10 impermissible factors such as race, color and/or ethnicity to stop, detain, question and/or

11 search persons who are or appear to be Latino and to probe into their immigration status

12 without reasonable suspicion or probable cause to suspect that they have committed a

13 crime or are noncitizens without lawful immigration status.”

14

The court reads defendants’ motion as insisting that plaintiffs must identify in their

15 complaint a particular program rather than simply naming the “County” or the “County

16 Sheriffs Department.” But defendants cite no authority for this position. Defendants also

17 argue that plaintiffs provide no “facts” to support their assertion that the county receives

18 federal financial assistance and funding. Although the allegations with respect to this claim

19 are largely conclusory, the court nonetheless finds that plaintiffs have alleged sufficient

20 facts to withstand County Defendants’ motion to dismiss. While ultimately plaintiffs will

21 have to prove that they were discriminated against by a program or activity that receives

22 federal financial assistance or funding, the allegations at this juncture are sufficient to

23 provide the County “fair notice of the claim and the grounds upon which it rests.”

24 Accordingly, County Defendants motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ seventh cause of action is

25 denied.

26

6. California Gov’t.Code § 11135

27

County Defendants similarly argue that dismissal of plaintiffs’ § 11135 claim is

28 appropriate because plaintiffs failed to allege facts showing that they were subject to 35

Case3:08-cv-04220-PJH Document121 Filed07/31/09 Page36 of 43

1 discrimination under a particular program that receives financial assistance from the State

2 of California.

3

California Government Code § 11135 provides: “No person in the State of California

4 shall, on the basis of race, national origin, ethnic group identification, religion, age, sex,

5 sexual orientation, color, or disability, be unlawfully denied full and equal access to the

6 benefits of, or be unlawfully subjected to discrimination under, any program or activity that

7 is conducted, operated, or administered by the state or by any state agency, is funded

8 directly by the state, or receives any financial assistance from the state.” See also 22

9 Cal.Code Regs. § 98101 (It is a discriminatory practice for a recipient, in carrying out any

10 program or activity directly, or through contractual, licensing or other arrangements, on the

11 basis of ethnic group identification or color). “Program or activity” includes “any project,

12 action or procedure undertaken directly by recipients of state support . . .” 22 Cal.Code

13 Regs. § 98010; see Darensburg v. Metropolitan Transp. Com’n, 2008 WL 3915349, *14

14 (N.D. Cal. 2008) (concluding that a recipient of state support may not discriminate in any of

15 its activities).

16

Plaintiffs’ § 11135 claim alleges that Sonoma County receives financial assistance

17 from the state of California and that Sonoma County’s above-described policies, practices

18 and conduct have subjected plaintiffs to discrimination on the basis of race in violation of

19 Cal. Gov’t.Code § 11135 and its implementing regulations. Because the complaint alleges

20 that Sonoma County receives state funding, and that Sonoma County Sheriff’s deputies

21 have engaged in a racially-biased policy, practice and custom of relying on the

22 impermissible factors such as race, color and/or ethnicity to stop, detain, question and/or

23 search persons who are or appear to be Latino, the court finds that plaintiffs have alleged

24 sufficient facts to withstand County Defendants’ motion to dismiss. Like the allegations with

25 respect to federal funding, these allegations are sufficient to provide the County “fair notice

26 of the claim and the grounds upon which it rests.” Accordingly, County Defendants motion

27 to dismiss plaintiffs’ fourteenth cause of action is denied.

28 36

Case3:08-cv-04220-PJH Document121 Filed07/31/09 Page37 of 43

1

7. False Arrest and Imprisonment, Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress and Negligence

2

County Defendants argue that plaintiffs’ claims for false arrest and/or imprisonment,

3 intentional infliction of emotional distress (“IIED”) and negligence against the County are

4 subject to dismissal because plaintiffs failed to allege a statutory basis for these claims.

5 Plaintiffs did not oppose this argument.

6

Tort liability of public entities in California is governed by the Tort Claims Act, Cal.

7 Gov’t.Code § 810 et seq. Forbes v. County of San Bernardino, 101 Cal.App.4th 48, 53

8 (2002). California Government Code § 815 provides: “Except as otherwise provided by

9 statute . . . [a] public entity is not liable for an injury, whether such injury arises out of an act

10 or omission of the public entity or a public employee or any other person.” Cal. Gov’t.Code

11 § 815(a). Accordingly, public entities may be held liable only if a statute is found declaring

12 them to be liable. Forbes, 101 Cal.App.4th at 53; see also Munoz v. City of Union City, 120

13 Cal.App.4th 1077, 1112 (2004) (Direct tort liability of public entities under state law must be

14 based on a specific statute declaring them to be liable, or at least creating some specific

15 duty of care.).

16

The court finds that the complaint fails to allege sufficient facts to withstand County

17 Defendants’ motion to dismiss. Plaintiffs have not pled a statutory basis showing that the

18 County may be held liable for their claims for false arrest or imprisonment, IIED and

19 negligence. Accordingly, plaintiffs’ fifteenth, sixteenth and seventeenth causes of action

20 are dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Because

21 amendment does not appear futile, these claims are dismissed without prejudice. Plaintiffs

22 may amend their complaint to allege facts sufficient to establish the existence of statutory

23 liability with respect to these claims.

24

8. Punitive Damages

25

County Defendants argue that punitive damages cannot be recovered against a

26 public entity. The court agrees. California Government Code § 818 bars the award of

27 punitive damages against a public entity. People of California v. Kinder Morgan Energy

28

37

Case3:08-cv-04220-PJH Document121 Filed07/31/09 Page38 of 43

1 People of California v. Kinder Morgan Energy Partners, L.P., 569 F.Supp.2d 1073, 1092

2 (S.D. Cal. 2008). The Supreme Court has also held that, with respect to federal claims

3 brought under § 1983, municipalities are immune from punitive damages. See City of

4 Newport v. Fact Concerts, Inc., 453 U.S. 247, 271 (1981).

5

As previously noted, the complaint is not clear as to which damages are sought from

6 which defendant. To the extent plaintiffs’ prayer for relief seeks punitive damages against

7 the County, County Defendants’ motion to dismiss is granted. Any amended complaint

8 may not include a request for punitive damages that is directed at the County.

9 D. County Defendants’ Motion for More Definite Statement

10

County Defendants argue that plaintiffs should be required to file a more definite

11 statement because the complaint is so vague, ambiguous and/or uncertain that defendants

12 cannot reasonably prepare a response. Although the motions to dismiss have been in

13 large part denied, the court finds nonetheless that a more definite statement is warranted.

14 As pled, the complaint does not properly notify defendants of the claims they are defending

15 against. Nor does it provide the court with the clarity needed to resolve significant issues

16 including qualified immunity. It is unclear at best.

17

The complaint is brought by three individual plaintiffs and an entity plaintiff, alleges

18 seventeen causes of action against eight defendants, including entity defendants as well as

19 individual state and federal officer defendants, but does not clearly match the specific

20 factual allegations contained in the 9-page factual recitation with specific legal claims

21 against specific defendants. It also does not explain which defendants are liable for which

22 legal claims or how they are liable. For example, with respect to the constitutional

23 violations alleged (e.g., first through sixth and tenth through twelfth causes of action), the

24 complaint incorporates the 9-page factual recitation by reference into each claim and then

25 generally states that “Federal Defendants’ ” or “Local Defendants’ ” “above-described

26 policies, practices and conduct” violated “plaintiffs’ ” constitutional rights without identifying

27 the specific factual allegations that support each plaintiff’s claim against each defendant.

28 38

Case3:08-cv-04220-PJH Document121 Filed07/31/09 Page39 of 43

1

Specifically, while Sanchez-Lopez and Medel Moyado purport to assert Fourth

2 Amendment claims against county officers Cogbill and Salkin (first and tenth causes of

3 action), and federal officers Wollman, Huelga and Merendino (fourth cause of action), the

4 complaint does not contain specific factual allegations showing that any of these officers

5 participated in violating Sanchez-Lopez’s and Medel Moyado’s Fourth Amendment rights.

6 In addition, while Sanchez-Lopez and Medel Moyado purport to assert Fifth Amendment

7 equal protection claims against county officers Cogbill and Salkin (second and eleventh

8 causes of action), and federal officers Wollman, Huelga and Merendino (fifth cause of

9 action), the complaint does not contain specific factual allegations showing that any of

10 these officers personally participated in the denial of their due process rights. Finally, while

11 Sanchez-Lopez, Sonato-Vega and Medel Moyado purport to allege Fifth Amendment due

12 process claims against county officers Cogbill and Salkin (third and twelfth causes of

13 action), and federal officers Wollman, Huelga and Merendino (fifth cause of action), the

14 complaint does not contain specific factual allegations showing that any of these officers

15 participated in violating plaintiffs’ due process rights.

16

This is just an example. The complaint is vague and difficult to reasonably decipher,

17 let alone meaningfully answer. See McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172 (9th Cir. 1996). As

18 such, an amended complaint setting forth a more definite statement is necessary, so that

19 defendants are given a fair opportunity to frame a responsive pleading. Plaintiffs are

20 ordered to amend their complaint to include simple, concise and direct averments

21 explaining what actions each defendant took and why those actions are unlawful. The

22 amended complaint shall clearly specify which plaintiff is suing which defendant(s) under

23 which specific legal theory and include specific allegations of fact stating how each

24 defendant is alleged to have violated plaintiffs’ legal rights. Plaintiffs are also ordered to

25 clarify the type of relief, e.g., monetary, declaratory, injunctive, that each plaintiff seeks

26 against each defendant. The court expects that the additional clarity and specificity will go

27 a long way towards minimizing motion practice concerning the pleadings. On the other

28 hand, an amended complaint that closely resembles the current complaint will undoubtedly 39

Case3:08-cv-04220-PJH Document121 Filed07/31/09 Page40 of 43

1 produce more motions to dismiss. And of course the court recalls that all defendants have

2 indicated that there are grounds that could not be asserted in these motions because the

3 complaint is so unclear.

4 E. County Defendants’ Motion for Protective Order and Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel

5

On June 19, 2009, County Defendants filed a motion for a protective order seeking

6 to stay plaintiffs’ Amended Notice of Deposition of defendant County pursuant to Rule

7 30(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure until such time as plaintiffs have satisfied

8 their pleading obligations under Rule 8, arguing that plaintiffs are not entitled to any

9 discovery at this time based on Iqbal. County Defendants argue that without a complaint

10 that is certain, specific and unambiguous, they are unable to effectively prepare a defense,

11 determine the applicability of governmental privileges, or determine what information is

12 relevant to this case for discovery purposes. County Defendants maintain that allowing

13 plaintiffs to proceed with discovery at this stage of the litigation on matters that may be

14 irrelevant would be oppressive and unduly burdensome and will result in the unnecessary

15 expenditure of scant public resources. Although County defendants initially appeared to

16 move only for a stay of the Rule 30(b)(6) depositions, both sides argue in support of and in

17 opposition to a stay of all discovery. On July 8, 2009, plaintiffs filed a motion to compel

18 production of documents in response to plaintiffs’ Request for Production (Set One) and to

19 compel the Rule 30(b)(6) deposition of the County which was the initial focus of County

20 Defendants’ motion. Both motions raise essentially the same issues.

21

Under Rule 26(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a party “may obtain

22 discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, which is relevant to the subject matter

23 involved in the pending action.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(1). However, for “good cause shown,”

24 a court may issue a protective order “to protect a party or person from annoyance,

25 embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense,” including: (1) prohibiting

26 disclosure or discovery; (2) conditioning disclosure or discovery on specified terms; (3)

27 preventing inquiry into certain matters; or (4) limiting the scope of disclosure or discovery

28 to certain matters. Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(c)(1) 40

Case3:08-cv-04220-PJH Document121 Filed07/31/09 Page41 of 43

1

To obtain a protective order, the party resisting discovery or seeking limitations must

2 show “good cause” for its issuance by demonstrating harm or prejudice that will result from

3 the discovery. Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(c); Phillips ex rel. Estates of Byrd v. General Motors Corp.,

4 307 F.3d 1206, 1210-1211 (9th Cir. 2002) (“Phillips”). If a court finds particularized harm

5 will result from disclosure of information to the public, then it balances the public and

6 private interests to decide whether a protective order is necessary. See Phillips, 307 F.3d

7 at 1211. Whether or not a protective order is entered in any case is subject to the

8 discretion of the court. See Seattle Times Co. v. Rhinehart, 467 U.S. 20, 36 (1984)

9 (holding that Rule 26(c) confers “broad discretion on the trial court to decide when a

10 protective order is appropriate and what degree of protection is required”).

11

Although the motion to dismiss was not granted in its entirety, the motion for a more

12 definite statement was, for the reasons stated above. And for those reasons the court finds

13 that the complaint is deficient and further that some protection is therefore warranted. The

14 parties argue at length about the applicability of Iqbal to this case in general and to

15 discovery in particular. As should be apparent from the court’s citation to Iqbal throughout

16 this order, the court finds that notwithstanding the factual distinctions, the Supreme Court’s

17 latest pronouncement on pleading standards applies to this case, just as does Twombly. A

18 quick Westlaw search reflects that Iqbal has been cited nearly 1000 times by district and

19 appellate courts in the few months since its issuance, so the court’s conclusion is no

20 stretch. There is little case law, however, in the wake of Iqbal elucidating the relationship

21 between the adequacy of the pleadings and the plaintiff’s right to engage in discovery and

22 the court has not yet determined exactly how it will apply the reasoning of that case to this

23 and the hundreds of other pending cases on the court’s docket. For now the court relies

24 on Rule 26(c) under which County Defendants have brought their motion for a protective

25 order, while looking to Iqbal for guidance.

26

In attempting to reach an appropriate balance the court has considered several

27 factors. Like Iqbal, this case raises significant issues of qualified immunity. Given that the

28 purpose of a qualified immunity defense is not only to permit the accused government 41

Case3:08-cv-04220-PJH Document121 Filed07/31/09 Page42 of 43

1 official to avoid liability, but also to free that official from the disruptions, inconvenience and

2 expense of discovery, a goal that would be defeated if discovery were permitted. The court

3 has already found that qualified immunity is a viable defense for the individual federal

4 defendants and County defendants have indicated an intent to raise the defense after the

5 claims are clarified in an amended complaint. On the other hand, this case, unlike Iqbal

6 involves, in addition to government officials, government agencies which are not subject to

7 qualified immunity. Given the sheer scope of the claims and the rulings in favor of plaintiffs

8 that the court has made in this order, it is unlikely that this case will be entirely disposed of

9 on any number of motions to dismiss. Thus, discovery is inevitable.

10

On balance, the court finds that good cause exists to impose a limited stay of

11 discovery. Thus, County Defendants’ motion for a protective order is granted and plaintiffs’

12 motion to compel is denied. County defendants need not respond to the outstanding

13 discovery and no new discovery may be propounded pending plaintiffs’ filing of the first

14 amended complaint and County Defendants’ response. Following the court’s review it will

15 be determined whether discovery should proceed against either the government agencies

16 or the individual defendants or both.

17 F. Stipulation to Vacate Case Management and Pretrial Order

18

The court grants the request of the parties to vacate the December 19, 2008 case

19 management and pretrial order. The court declines, however, to vacate the referral to

20 Magistrate Judge Chen for a settlement conference. A further case management

21 conference will be scheduled, not 45 days after the date of this order, but after the

22 amended complaint and a response are filed. If another motion to dismiss is filed, the

23 conference will be held in conjunction with any hearing that might be held. The parties are

24 free, however, to meet and confer and to submit a stipulation as to any agreed upon

25 discovery deadlines and a dispositive motions date.

26

CONCLUSION

27

For the reasons stated above, the court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part

28 defendants’ motions to dismiss, GRANTS County Defendants’ motion for a more definite 42

Case3:08-cv-04220-PJH Document121 Filed07/31/09 Page43 of 43

1 statement, GRANTS County Defendants’ motion for protective order, DENIES plaintiffs’

2 motion to compel and VACATES the case management and pretrial order. Plaintiffs have

3 thirty days (30) to amend their complaint in accordance with this order.

4

IT IS SO ORDERED.

5 Dated: July 31, 2009

6

_____________________________ PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

7

United States District Judge

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 43

 
 Case3:08-cv-04220-RS Document164 Filed03/10/10 Page1 of 12

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
6 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
7

8

9

10

11

12 COMMITTEE FOR IMMIGRANT RIGHTS OF SONOMA COUNTY, et al.,
13 Plaintiffs,
14 v.
15 SONOMA COUNTY, et al.,
16 Defendants.
17 _______________________________/

No. C 08-4220 PJH ORDER RE MOTIONS TO DISMISS

18

Defendants’ motions to dismiss the second amended complaint came on for hearing

19 before this court on March 3, 2010. Plaintiffs appeared by their counsel Julia Mass and

20 Melissa N. Chan; the Federal defendants appeared by their counsel Colin Kisor, Ila Deiss,

21 Lana Vahab, and Erik Gantzel; and the County defendants appeared by their counsel Anne

22 Keck and Richard Osman. Having read the parties’ papers and carefully considered their

23 arguments and the relevant legal authority, the court hereby GRANTS the Federal

24 defendants’ motion in part and DENIES it in part, and GRANTS the County’s motion in part

25 and DENIES it in part.

26

BACKGROUND

27

This is a case alleging constitutional violations and other federal and state law

28 claims, filed by plaintiffs Committee for Immigrant Rights of Sonoma County; and two

Case3:08-cv-04220-RS Document164 Filed03/10/10 Page2 of 12

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1 individuals – Francisco Sanchez-Lopez (“Sanchez-Lopez”), and Christyan Sonato-Vega

2 (“Sonato-Vega”)1 – against defendants United States of America; U.S. Department of

3 Homeland Security (“DHS” or “the Agency”); Bureau of Immigration and Customs

4 Enforcement (“ICE”); and ICE Special Agents Mario Huelga (“Huelga”) and Chris

5 Merendino (“Merendino”) (collectively, the “Federal defendants”); and against the County of

6 Sonoma; Sonoma County Sheriff Bill Cogbill, and Deputy Sheriff Morris Salkin (collectively,

7 the “County defendants”).

8

The factual background is summarized in the court’s July 31, 2009 order granting in

9 part and denying in part defendants’ motions to dismiss the original complaint. Briefly,

10 Sanchez-Lopez and Sonato-Vega were arrested by members of an anti-gang task force

11 known as the Multi-Agency Gang Enforcement Team (“MAGNET”), which was/is composed

12 of ICE agents and Sonoma County Sheriff’s deputies. Sanchez-Lopez was arrested in

13 September 2006, and Sonato-Vega in August 2007. ICE issued immigration detainers for

14 Sanchez-Lopez and Sonato-Vega under 8 C.F.R. § 287.7. They were detained in the

15 Sonoma County Jail, and then transferred to ICE custody.2

16

Plaintiffs challenge what they claim are ongoing policies and practices of ICE and

17 the Sonoma County Sheriff’s Department that allegedly violate the constitutional and

18 statutory rights of Latino residents of Sonoma County. Plaintiffs assert that ICE and

19 Sheriff’s deputies use race as a “motivating factor” for traffic stops and other detentions;

20 stop, interrogate, search, and arrest persons without adequate justification; hold individuals

21 in the County jail without any lawful basis for detention; and deny due process to people

22 arrested on suspected immigration violations and improperly held in the custody of the

23 Sheriff.

24

The broad question raised by plaintiffs in this case is whether the Immigration and

25

26

1 Former individual plaintiff Samuel Medel Moyado sought, and obtained, an order of dismissal without prejudice on December 22, 2009.

27

2 An im migration judge terminated Sanchez-Lopez’s removal proceedings, but he

28

currently has no legal statusin the United States. Sonato-Vega accepted voluntary departure in lieu of removal, and returned to Mexico on April 11, 2008.

2

Case3:08-cv-04220-RS Document164 Filed03/10/10 Page3 of 12

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1 Nationality Act (“INA”), 8 U.S.C. § 1101, et seq., and its implementing regulations (8 C.F.R.

2 § 101, et seq.) authorize the Secretary of DHS to issue detainers for illegal aliens who are

3 not in custody and place them in the temporary custody of state or local law enforcement

4 agencies before they are moved to an immigration detention facility.

5

The narrower issue is whether the federal and county defendants violated Sanchez-

6 Lopez’s and Sonato-Vega’s constitutional and civil rights when they arrested and detained

7 them. Principally, plaintiffs claim that the ICE agents and Sheriff’s deputies had no lawful

8 reason to detain them, and that the agents were motivated solely by considerations of

9 plaintiffs’ race.

10

The original complaint was filed on September 5, 2008, and asserted 17 causes of

11 action. The complaint was dismissed, with leave to amend, on July 31, 2009. Plaintiffs

12 filed a first amended complaint (“FAC”) on August 31, 2009. On September 3, 2009, the

13 court granted plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration, to the extent of withdrawing a portion of

14 the discussion in the July 31, 2009 order relating to the eighth cause of action. Plaintiffs

15 filed a 74-page second amended complaint (“SAC”) on September 14, 2009.

16

Plaintiffs allege 22 causes of action in the SAC:

17

(1) a Fourth Amendment claim of unlawful search and seizure, under 42 U.S.C. §

18 1983, by all plaintiffs against Sonoma County, Sheriff Cogbill, and Deputy Salkin;

19

(2) a Fourteenth Amendment claim of denial of equal protection rights, under

20 § 1983, by all plaintiffs against Sonoma County, Sheriff Cogbill, and Deputy Salkin;

21

(3) a Fourteenth Amendment claim of violation of due process rights, under

22 § 1983, by all plaintiffs against Sonoma County, Sheriff Cogbill, and Deputy Salkin;

23

(4) a Fourth Amendment and 8 U.S.C. § 1357 claim of unlawful search and

24 seizure, under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403

25 U.S. 388 (1971), and the Administrative Procedures Act (“APA”), 5 U.S.C. § 702, by all

26 plaintiffs against ICE, Huelga, and Merendino;

27

(5) a Fifth Amendment claim of denial of equal protection rights, under Bivens

28 and the APA, 5 U.S.C. § 702, by all plaintiffs against ICE, Huelga, and Merendino;

3

Case3:08-cv-04220-RS Document164 Filed03/10/10 Page4 of 12

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1

(6) a Fifth Amendment, 8 U.S.C. § 1357, and 8 C.F.R. §§ 287.3 and 287.7 claim

2 of violation of due process rights, under Bivens and the APA, 5 U.S.C. § 702, by all

3 plaintiffs against ICE, Huelga, and Merendino;

4

(7) a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 2000d, et seq. (Title VI), by all plaintiffs against

5 Sonoma County, Sheriff Cogbill, and Deputy Salkin;

6

(8) a claim under the APA, 5 U.S.C. § 706, by plaintiffs Committee and Sanchez-

7 Lopez against ICE, Huelga, and Merendino;

8

(9) a claim of conspiracy, under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985(3), by all plaintiffs

9 against all defendants;

10

(10) a claim of unreasonable search and seizure, under Art. I, § 13 of the

11 California Constitution, by all plaintiffs against Sonoma County, Sheriff Cogbill, and Deputy

12 Salkin;

13

(11) a claim of violation of equal protection rights, under Art. I, § 7(a) of the

14 California Constitution, by all plaintiffs against Sonoma County, Sheriff Cogbill, and Deputy

15 Salkin;

16

(12) a claim of violation of due process rights, under Art. 1, § 7(a) of the California

17 Constitution, by all plaintiffs against Sonoma County, Sheriff Cogbill, and Deputy Salkin;

18

(13) a claim under the Bane Act, California Civil Code § 52.1, by all plaintiffs

19 against Sonoma County, Sheriff Cogbill, and Deputy Salkin;

20

(14) a claim under California Government Code § 11135 and its implementing

21 regulations, by all plaintiffs against Sonoma County;

22

(15) a claim of false imprisonment, under California Government Code

23 § 815.2, by Sonato-Vega against Sonoma County, Sheriff Cogbill, and Deputy Salkin;

24

(16) a claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress, under California

25 Government Code § 815.2, by Sonato-Vega against Sonoma County, Sheriff Cogbill, and

26 Deputy Salkin;

27

(17) a claim of negligence, under California Government Code § 815.2, by Sonato-

28 Vega against Sonoma County, Sheriff Cogbill, and Deputy Salkin;

4

Case3:08-cv-04220-RS Document164 Filed03/10/10 Page5 of 12

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1

(18) a claim of false imprisonment under the Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”), by

2 Sanchez-Lopez and Sonato-Vega, against the United States;

3

(19) a claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress under the FTCA, by

4 Sanchez-Lopez and Sonato-Vega, against the United States;

5

(20) a claim of negligence under the FTCA, by Sanchez-Lopez and Sonato-Vega,

6 against the United States;

7

(21) a claim of deprivation of civil rights through intimidation, threats, and coercion

8 under the FTCA and California Civil Code § 52.1, by Sanchez-Lopez and Sonato-Vega,

9 against the United States; and

10

(22) a claim of assault and battery under the FTCA, by Sanchez-Lopez and

11 Sonato-Vega, against the United States.

12

Plaintiffs seek injunctive and declaratory relief, and also seek compensatory and

13 punitive damages.

14

The county defendants and the federal defendants each now seek an order

15 dismissing the claims asserted against them in the SAC.

16

DISCUSSION

17 A. Legal Standard

18

A motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) tests for the legal sufficiency of the claims

19 alleged in the complaint. Ileto v. Glock, Inc., 349 F.3d 1191, 1199-1200 (9th Cir. 2003).

20 Review is limited to the contents of the complaint. Allarcom Pay Television, Ltd. v. Gen.

21 Instrument Corp., 69 F.3d 381, 385 (9th Cir. 1995). To survive a motion to dismiss for

22 failure to state a claim, a complaint generally must satisfy only the minimal notice pleading

23 requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8. Rule 8(a)(2) requires only that the

24 complaint include a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is

25 entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2).

26

Specific facts are unnecessary – the statement need only give the defendant “fair

27 notice of the claim and the grounds upon which it rests.” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89,

28 93 (2007) (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). All allegations

5

Case3:08-cv-04220-RS Document164 Filed03/10/10 Page6 of 12

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1 of material fact are taken as true. Id. at 94. However, a plaintiff’s obligation to provide the

2 grounds of his entitlement to relief “requires more than labels and conclusions, and a

3 formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.” Bell Atlantic, 550 U.S.

4 at 555 (citations and quotations omitted). Rather, the allegations in the complaint “must be

5 enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Id.

6

A motion to dismiss should be granted if the complaint does not proffer enough facts

7 to state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face. See id. at 558-59. “[W]here the well-

8 pleaded facts do not permit the court to infer more than the mere possibility of misconduct,

9 the complaint has alleged – but it has not ‘show[n]’ – ‘that the pleader is entitled to relief.’”

10 Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1950 (2009).

11 B. Defendants’ Motions

12

Notwithstanding the court’s detailed analysis and guidance in the July 31, 2009

13 order dismissing the original complaint, the SAC is lengthy and complex to a degree that

14 makes it impossible to determine the contours of all the claims. Possibly as a consequence

15 of this impenetrable thicket of allegations and legal claims presented by the plaintiffs,

16 defendants have not addressed the individual claims in a manner that would enable the

17 court to analyze those claims under the Rule 12(b)(6) standard. Rather, they have opted

18 for broad, largely policy-based attacks on, for example, the myriad requests for injunctive

19 relief included in the allegations for 14 of the 22 causes of action and in the prayer for

20 injunctive relief; and have also relied on fact-driven arguments that would be better suited

21 to a motion for summary judgment.

22

The Federal defendants make four main arguments in support of their motion – that

23 the court should dismiss the request for injunctive relief because the request is predicated

24 on plaintiffs’ misunderstanding of the regulations at issue, particularly, 8 C.F.R. § 287.7;

25 that the court should dismiss the § 1983 and § 1985(3) claims against the Federal

26 defendants, because the SAC does not allege any actions taken under color of state law

27 and does not plead facts showing a conspiracy that was motivated by racial animus; that

28 the Bivens claims do not meet the pleading requirements set forth in Iqbal, or, in the

6

Case3:08-cv-04220-RS Document164 Filed03/10/10 Page7 of 12

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1 alternative, that Huelga and Merendino are entitled to qualified immunity; and that the

2 FTCA claims fail to state a claim for relief.

3

The County defendants also make four main arguments – that the court lacks

4 jurisdiction over the injunctive relief claims because plaintiffs have not alleged a case or

5 controversy for injunctive relief, and because the claims for injunctive relief are not

6 justiciable; that the SAC fails to allege plausible claims under § 1983 because plaintiffs

7 plead no facts showing that defendants were acting under color of state law, and because

8 plaintiffs fail to state a claim for any constitutional violations against either the County or

9 against Sheriff Cogbill and Deputy Salkin; that the SAC fails to allege actionable claims

10 under the California Constitution; and that the statutory claims are without merit because

11 plaintiffs fail to allege a viable claim of conspiracy under § 1985(3), and because the

12 County defendants are immune from suit under various provisions of the California

13 Government Code.

14

The leitmotif of this action is the interpretation and application of the federal

15 regulations to be found at 8 C.F.R. §§ 287.3, 287.7, and 287.12. Section 287.3 sets forth

16 certain procedures relevant to the “disposition of cases of aliens arrested without a

17 warrant.” 8 C.F.R. § 287.3

18

Section 287.12 provides that “[w]ith regard to [8 C.F.R. Part 287], these regulations

19 provide internal guidance on specific areas of law enforcement authority” and “do not, are

20 not intended to, shall not be construed to, and may not be relied upon to create any rights,

21 substantive or procedural, enforceable at law by any party in any matter, civil or criminal.”

22 The Secretary has “exclusive authority to enforce these regulations through such

23 administrative and other means as he may deem appropriate.” 8 C.F.R. § 287.12.

24

Section 287.7 provides, in relevant part,

25

(a) Detainers in general. Detainers are issued pursuant to sections 236 and

287 of the Act and this chapter 1. Any authorized immigration officer may at

26

any time issue a Form I-247, Immigration Detainer-Notice of Action, to any

other Federal, State, or local law enforcement agency. A detainer serves to

27

advise another law enforcement agency that the Department seeks custody

of an alien presently in the custody of that agency, for the purpose of

28

arresting and removing the alien. The detainer is a request that such agency

7

Case3:08-cv-04220-RS Document164 Filed03/10/10 Page8 of 12

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1

advise the Department, prior to release of the alien, in order for the

Department to arrange to assume custody, in situations when gaining

2

immediate physical custody is either impracticable or impossible.

3

. . . .

4

(d) Temporary detention at Department request. Upon a determination by

the Department to issue a detainer for an alien not otherwise detained by a

5

criminal justice agency, such agency shall maintain custody of the alien for a

period not to exceed 48 hours, excluding Saturdays, Sundays, and holidays in

6

order to permit assumption of custody by the Department.

7 8 C.F.R. § 287.7.

8

Although the parties do not clearly make this distinction, the claim regarding

9 § 287.7 appears to challenge the regulation in two separate ways. First, plaintiffs allege in

10 the SAC that an immigration detainer may be issued only for an individual who is already in

11 custody pursuant to an independent criminal or other state law arrest. See, e.g., SAC

12 ¶ 164(b) (also citing SAC ¶¶ 28, 33, 38, 40, 44-47); SAC ¶ 165(b) (also citing SAC ¶¶ 81-

13 85, 100-101); SAC ¶ 178.

14

Plaintiffs assert that the issuance of a detainer for any individual not already in

15 custody pursuant to an independent arrest violates that individual’s constitutional and

16 statutory rights; and also constitutes agency action that is “arbitrary and capricious, an

17 abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with the law;” “contrary to constitutional

18 right, power, privilege, or immunity;” “in excess of statutory jurisdiction, authority, or

19 limitations, or short of statutory right;” or “without observance of procedure required by law,”

20 in violation of the APA.

21

Defendants reject this interpretation, arguing that § 287.7 broadly allows ICE agents

22 to issue immigration detainers for illegal aliens who are “not otherwise detained,” and to

23 issue detainers “at any time,” and that it does not preclude the issuance of a detainer at the

24 time that the individual is being taken into custody.

25

In the second part of their challenge, plaintiffs allege that defendants’

26 implementation of § 287.7 was unlawful in that it violated plaintiffs’ statutory and

27 constitutional rights. In particular, plaintiffs assert that in the course of arresting and

28 holding them pursuant to the detainers issued by ICE, defendants acted without probable

8

Case3:08-cv-04220-RS Document164 Filed03/10/10 Page9 of 12

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1 cause, targeted them because of their race, and denied them due process protections.

2

In their motions, defendants contend that the SAC does not allege facts sufficient to

3 state a claim under any of the constitutional or statutory causes of action, suggesting that

4 any claim regarding the implementation of § 287.7 must be dismissed.

5

It is not the task of the court to “decide which among several competing

6 interpretations best serves the regulatory purpose.” Thomas Jefferson Univ. v. Shalala,

7 512 U.S. 504, 512 (1994). The court must give an agency's interpretation of its own

8 regulations “controlling weight” unless that interpretation is “plainly erroneous or

9 inconsistent with the regulation.” Bowles v. Seminole Rock & Sand Co., 325 U.S. 410, 414

10 (1945); Miller v. California Speedway Corp., 536 F.3d 1020, 1028 (9th Cir. 2008).

11

That is, the court must defer to the agency's interpretation unless an alternative

12 reading is compelled by the regulation's plain language or by other indications of the

13 agency's intent at the time of the regulation's promulgation. Miller, 536 F.3d at 1028 (citing

14 Thomas Jefferson Univ., 512 U.S. at 512). “When the meaning of regulatory language is

15 ambiguous, the agency's interpretation controls ‘so long as it is “reasonable,” that is, so

16 long as the interpretation sensibly conforms to the purpose and wording of the regulations.’”

17 Oregon Paralyzed Veterans of Am. v. Regal Cinemas, Inc., 339 F.3d 1126, 1131 (9th Cir.

18 2003) (quoting Martin v. Occupational Safety & Health Review Comm'n, 499 U.S. 144,

19 150-51 (1991)).

20

Here, the court finds that the plain language of § 287.7 authorizes, and does not

21 preclude, the issuance of immigration detainers for individuals who are not already in

22 custody pursuant to an independent arrest. Under § 287.7, an authorized immigration

23 officer “may at any time issue a Form I-247 Immigration Detainer - Notice of Action, to any

24 other Federal, State, or local law enforcement agency,” 8 C.F.R. § 287.7(a); and an

25 immigration detainer may be issued “for an alien not otherwise detained by a criminal

26 justice agency,” id. § 287.7(d).

27

The court finds that the Agency’s interpretation of § 287.7 is not unreasonable, and

28 that the provisions authorizing the issuance of immigration detainers “at any time” for

9

Case3:08-cv-04220-RS Document164 Filed03/10/10 Page10 of 12

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1 persons who are “not otherwise detained by a criminal justice agency” permits the issuance

2 of immigration detainers for individuals not already in custody. There is no suggestion in

3 the regulation that the category of aliens “not otherwise detained by a criminal justice

4 agency” refers only to those aliens who were previously detained by a criminal justice

5 agency, but are in the process of being released from custody.

6

Nor is the court persuaded by plaintiffs’ argument that their interpretation is in accord

7 with the Agency’s interpretation at the time the regulation was promulgated, as plaintiffs

8 have not pointed to any earlier interpretation of the language in § 287.7 that conflicts with

9 the current interpretation of the same language.

10

Accordingly, to the extent that defendants seek an order dismissing any claim in the

11 SAC in which plaintiffs assert that 8 C.F.R. § 287.7 does not permit ICE to issue

12 immigration detainers for individuals who are not already in custody pursuant to an

13 independent criminal or state law arrest, the motion is GRANTED. Put another way,

14 plaintiffs may not proceed with any direct challenge to defendants’ interpretation of 8 C.F.R.

15 § 287.7, as permitting the issuance of an immigration detainer for an individual not already

16 in custody (prior to the issuance of the detainer) pursuant to an independent arrest.

17

As for the claims that derive from the allegations that defendants’ implementation of

18 § 287.7 (or § 287.3) violated plaintiffs’ constitutional and statutory rights, the court finds, as

19 an initial matter, that the provisions of § 287.12 bar any claim directly premised on an

20 alleged violation of § 287.7 (or § 287.3) – though not constitutional or statutory claims that

21 are otherwise independently actionable. With regard to the latter, the court finds that the

22 question whether defendants’ implementation of § 287.7 (or 287.3) violated plaintiffs’

23 constitutional or statutory rights is not appropriate for decision in a Rule 12(b)(6) motion.

24

Because the regulations cannot trump the U.S. Constitution or the provisions of the

25 INA under which the regulations were implemented, the court is persuaded that defendants’

26 reasonable interpretation of § 287.7 does not dispose of each and every constitutional and

27 statutory claim raised by plaintiffs. Accordingly, the court GRANTS the motions to the

28 extent that defendants seek a ruling that plaintiffs may not bring a claim alleging violation of

10

Case3:08-cv-04220-RS Document164 Filed03/10/10 Page11 of 12

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1 § 287.7 (or § 287.3). The court DENIES the motions to the extent that defendants assert

2 that plaintiffs may not bring a claim alleging that defendants’ implementation of the

3 regulations violated their constitutional or statutory rights.3

4

Similarly, the motions to dismiss the various constitutional and statutory claims are

5 DENIED, as the court finds, to the extent that claims are comprehensible, that the issues

6 raised by defendants in their motions are not amenable to resolution through a Rule

7 12(b)(6) motion.4 At this stage of the litigation, it is impossible to determine whether any of

8 the constitutional claims asserted against the individual defendants are barred by qualified

9 immunity, which actions were or were not taken under color of state law, or whether the

10 County defendants are immune from suit based on any of the Government Code

11 provisions.

12

The court is unwilling to pore through the SAC in an attempt to identify every claim

13 and every legal theory asserted, in order to determine which acts alleged to be

14 unconstitutional would necessarily fall within the reasonable interpretation of the regulations

15 (particularly since the moving parties were unwilling to do so in the first instance), but finds

16 in general that plaintiffs have stated a claim sufficient to withstand dismissal under Rule

17 12(b)(6).

18

Finally, because the court finds that the validity of the claims for injunctive relief

19 cannot be determined until the questions regarding the alleged constitutional and statutory

20

21

3 For example, plaint iffs seek damages fo r violations of their due process rights by arresting them without warrantsand ordering them to be held inthe custody of Sonoma County

22

and Sheriff Cogbill through issuance of immigration detainers that violate 8 C.F.R. §§ 287.3 and 287.7 and 8 U.S.C. § 1357;and by denying them procedural protections. SeeSAC ¶ 165.

23

4 For example, plaintiffs seek injunctive and declaratory relief, as well as damages, in

24

connection with their claims that def endants have implemented a policy and practice of stopping persons and vehicles without r easonable suspicion of criminal activity or traffic

25

infraction; unreasonably prolonging traffic and other stops beyond the time they would otherwise take in order to question individuals about matters unrelated to the pu rported

26

purpose of the stop or other cimr inal activity; conducting personal and vehicle searches without probable cause to believe that the areas searc hed contain evidence of criminal activity or

27

without a reasonable belief that ht e person searched or the cars’ occupants are dangerous and may gain access to a weapon in the area seacrhed; unreasonably arresting individuals without

28

probable cause; and holding persons in the Counyt jail on immigration detainers for more than 48 hours without a probable cause determination. See SAC ¶¶ 135-137.

11

Case3:08-cv-04220-RS Document164 Filed03/10/10 Page12 of 12

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1 violations have been resolved, the court DENIES the motion to dismiss for lack of subject

2 matter jurisdiction without prejudice.

3

CONCLUSION

4

In accordance with the foregoing, the court GRANTS defendants’ motions in part

5 and DENIES them in part.

6

All parties may now proceed with discovery.

7

8 IT IS SO ORDERED.

9 Dated: March 10, 2010 10 11

______________________________ PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON United States District Judge

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

12

 
 Case3:08-cv-04220-RS Document195 Filed06/11/10 Page1 of 9

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1

**E-filed 06/11/2010**

2

3

4

5

6

7

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

10 COMMITTEE FOR IMMIGRANT RIGHTS
11 OF SONOMA COUNTY, et al.,

No. C 08-4220 RS

12

13

v.

Plaintiffs,

ORDER RE MOTIONS FOR RECONSIDERATION

14 COUNTY OF SONOMA, et al.,
15 Defendants.
16 ____________________________________/

17

18

I. INTRODUCTION

19

Prior to reassignment of this action to the undersigned, the prior presiding judge issued an

20 order on March 10, 2010 granting in part and denying in part motions to dismiss that had been

21 brought by two groups of defendants (the “March 10th Order). Contending that order failed to reach

22 certain issues, defendants sought and obtained leave to file reconsideration motions. While full

23 consideration of the arguments defendants advance in their reconsideration motions is appropriate,

24 with limited exception, dismissal of additional claims or defendants is not warranted.

25

26

II. BACKGROUND

27

This action arises from cooperation between the County of Sonoma’s sheriff’s department

28 and officers of the federal Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) in detaining

Case3:08-cv-04220-RS Document195 Filed06/11/10 Page2 of 9

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1 and arresting individuals for immigration violations. Plaintiffs are two individuals1 who were

2 arrested in such cooperative efforts, as well as an advocacy group that focuses on immigrants’ rights

3 (“the Committee”). Plaintiffs originally challenged ICE’s practice of issuing immigration detainers

4 for individuals who are not already in custody for some other reason. The prior presiding judge,

5 however, found that federal regulations 8 C.F.R. §§ 287.3, 287.7, and 287.12 authorize that practice,

6 and accordingly dismissed all claims based on an assertion “that 8 C.F.R. § 287.7 does not permit

7 ICE to issue immigration detainers for individuals who are not already in custody pursuant to an

8 independent criminal or state law arrest.” March 10th Order at 10:11-13. Although plaintiffs intend

9 to challenge that ruling on appeal, it is not a subject of these reconsideration motions.

10

The previously assigned judge went on to find that plaintiffs may pursue their claims that the

11 arrests carried out in the cooperation between ICE and Sonoma sheriffs were wrongful to the extent

12 they rely on grounds independent of their arguments regarding the use of immigration detainers.

13 Defendants contend that in so finding, the Court failed to address adequately various other defenses

14 they had raised.

15

The March 10th Order defendants challenge issued in response to two motions to dismiss,

16 one brought by Defendants Sonoma County, Sheriff-Coroner William Cogbill, and Deputy Sheriff

17 Morris Eric Salkin, (collectively “the County”) and one brought by the United States of America;

18 U.S. Department of Homeland Security; ICE; and ICE Special Agents Mario Huelga and Chris

19 Merendino (collectively, the “Federal defendants”). At issue is the second amended complaint,

20 defendants having obtained dismissal of a prior complaint through an earlier set of motions to

21 dismiss.

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 1 A third individual plaintiff has withdrawn from the case.

2

Case3:08-cv-04220-RS Document195 Filed06/11/10 Page3 of 9

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1

III. DISCUSSION

2 A. Propriety of reconsideration

3

This Court’s order granting leave to file these motions reserved the question of whether the

4 prerequisites for reconsideration exist. Reconsideration generally lies only where (1) it is supported

5 by newly discovered evidence, (2) the court committed clear error or the initial decision was

6 manifestly unjust, or (3) there is an intervening change in controlling law. Sch. Dist. No. 1J v.

7 AC&S, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993); see also N.D. Cal. L.R. 7-9(b). Here, despite

8 defendants’ strenuous arguments that the presiding judge simply failed to decide various issues, it

9 appears that to a large degree she did consider and decide those matters, just not in a manner that

10 defendants find appropriate. Thus, it likely would not be an abuse of discretion to deny these

11 motions in whole or in part simply on the basis that defendants have no entitlement to what is at

12 least to a significant degree, a second bite at the apple. That said, a newly assigned judge “must

13 conscientiously carry out his judicial function in a case over which he is presiding,” and it is

14 therefore not an abuse of discretion to reconsider a prior ruling upon becoming “firmly convinced

15 that an error of law has been committed.” Castner v. First National Bank of Anchorage, 278 F.2d

16 376 (1960). As will become evident below, this court largely agrees with and confirms the results

17 reached in the March 10th Order. To ensure a clear record, however, it is appropriate under the

18 circumstances of this case to reach the merits of defendants’ arguments in support of

19 reconsideration.

20

21 B. The County

22

The County presents five issues it asserts the March 10th Order failed to address.

23

1. Injunctive relief

24

The County argues there is no subject matter jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ claims for

25 injunctive relief because they have not alleged facts sufficient to show a justiciable “case or

26 controversy.” Specifically, the County contends plaintiffs have not shown a likelihood of future

27 injury or any injury which could be “redressable by a favorable decision.”

28

3

Case3:08-cv-04220-RS Document195 Filed06/11/10 Page4 of 9

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1

The former presiding judge rejected these basic arguments when proffered by the federal

2 defendants in the initial round of motions to dismiss, as part of a challenge to plaintiffs’ standing. In

3 the second round of motions to dismiss, the County expressly acknowledged the Court’s prior

4 rejection of those arguments, but advocated that a different result was warranted in light of Ashcroft

5 v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937 (2009), and in light of “clarifications” in the second amended complaint 6 that purportedly show there is no case or controversy.2

7

The County’s argument is three-fold. First, the County contends plaintiffs have alleged only

8 two past instances of joint sheriff-ICE patrols, and therefore cannot show any ongoing wrongful

9 conduct or a likelihood of injury to support a right to injunctive relief. This argument overlooks

10 paragraph 62 of the second amended complaint, which alleges:

11

12

On October 5, 2007, at a meeting with representatives of Plaintiff Committee for Immigrant Rights of Sonoma County, Defendant Sheriff Cogbill and other members

13

of the Sonoma County Sheriff’s Department, with counsel, confirmed that Defendant

Sheriff’s Department had regularly engaged in joint patrols with ICE for the previous

14

three years, had arrested individuals based on suspected immigration violations

15

without a criminal basis for arrest outside the presence of ICE agents, and has adopted the policy and practice of holding individuals in the Sonoma County jail

16

based on suspected civil immigration violations, and without any criminal basis for

arrest, at the request of ICE agents.

17

18

While some of the matter alleged in this paragraph relates to the dismissed claims that it is

19 improper per se for defendants to use immigration holds in the absence of an independent basis to

20 arrest, the basic allegation is that the County has admitted to ongoing and regular participation in the

21 joint patrols with ICE that give rise to the arrests plaintiffs contend are unlawful for other reasons as

22 well.

23

Second, the County contends that the injunctive relief requested is either overbroad in that it

24 would prohibit lawful police conduct, or that it merely restates existing law as to what the police

25 cannot do. While the precise contours of any injunctive relief would have to be tailored to avoid

26 2 Iqbal issued after the prior motions were argued and submitted, but before the order on the first
27 motions to dismiss. The County, however, submitted a copy of the Iqbal decision to the Court more

28

than two months before her decision was filed, and the order discussed Iqbal at some length. It is therefore not clear why the County considered Iqbal an “intervening event” that warranted

reexamination of the standing question, even assuming Iqbal represented a change in the law.

4

Case3:08-cv-04220-RS Document195 Filed06/11/10 Page5 of 9

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1 overbreadth, and would need to require something more than general fidelity to existing law,

2 plaintiffs have adequately pleaded wrongful conduct that is occurring as a result of policy and

3 regular practices, such that there potentially is a basis for injunctive relief.

4

Finally, the County argues that plaintiffs’ true agenda is to stop the Sonoma Sheriff’s

5 department from cooperating with ICE, which it contends presents a non-justiciable political issue.

6 The County may very well have correctly identified plaintiffs’ actual goal, but the civil rights claims

7 plaintiffs have pleaded do not present issues of executive (or legislative) policy beyond the purview

8 of the courts.

9

10

2. Eleventh Amendment

11

The County contends that the first three claims for relief of the second amended complaint,

12 (unreasonable search and seizure, equal protection, and due process), all brought under 42 U.S.C.

13 §1983, are barred by the Eleventh Amendment. Although prior Ninth Circuit precedent did not treat

14 sheriffs as state officers for purposes of that constitutional provision, the California Supreme Court

15 has since concluded that sheriffs are state officers in circumstances like these. Venegas v. County of

16 Los Angeles, 32 Cal.4th 820 (2004). While some district courts have continued to follow prior

17 circuit law, the more persuasive analysis is that even though the Court need not “blindly accept” the

18 Venegas decision, it represents the correct statement of the function of California sheriffs. See

19 Walker v. County of Santa Clara, 2005 WL 2437037, *4 (N.D.Cal. 2005).

20

Apart from relying on pre-Venegas authority that sheriffs are not state officers, plaintiffs

21 argue that the Eleventh Amendment does not bar claims for injunctive relief or claims against the

22 individuals in their personal capacities. The County concedes that claims against the individuals in

23 their personal capacities may go forward, but argues that the rule of Ex Parte Young, 209 U.S. 123

24 (1908) permitting claims for injunctive relief is inapplicable here, supposedly because plaintiffs “do

25 not seek to enjoin the enforcement of a constitutionally deficient state law.” The Ex Parte Young

26 exception, however, applies where a “state official [is] acting inconsistently with federal law,”

27 Papasan v. Allain, 478 U.S. 265, 277 (1986), which is what plaintiffs are alleging here.

28 Accordingly, the first three claims for relief will be dismissed to the extent they seek damages from

5

Case3:08-cv-04220-RS Document195 Filed06/11/10 Page6 of 9

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1 the County defendants in their official capacities, but will be permitted to go forward against the

2 County defendants in their personal capacities and with respect to the claims for injunctive relief.

3

4

3. Qualified Immunity

5

The County’s original argument in support of qualified immunity was primarily based on the

6 contention that it was not “clearly established” law that the sheriff could not honor an ICE

7 immigration detainer without an independent basis to make an arrest. Because the prior presiding

8 judge has found that not to be a constitutional violation, that portion of the qualified immunity

9 argument is moot.

10

The County also contends that a finding of immunity is warranted because the complaint

11 lacks sufficient facts to show wrongdoing by the individual defendants. For example, the County

12 suggests that “racial profiling” has only been alleged in conclusory terms, with insufficient facts to

13 make the claim “plausible” under Iqbal and Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007).

14

While couched in terms of entitlement to qualified immunity, this portion of the County’s

15 argument focuses on the threshold premise that no constitutional violation has been sufficiently

16 alleged in the first instance. Regardless of whether the issue is placed in the context of immunity or

17 of the sufficiency of the allegations of wrongdoing, the second amended complaint alleges sufficient

18 facts to allow the claims against the County defendants to go forward. Even under Iqbal and

19 Twombly a plaintiff need not plead evidentiary matters or be able to prove a case at the pleading

20 stage. Here, while plaintiffs may be relying on certain inferences to support their conclusions of

21 constitutionally impermissible detentions and arrests, that does not render the complaint subject to

22 dismissal.

23

24

4. Sufficiency of facts

25

In a separately numbered section of its motion for reconsideration, the County further

26 develops its argument that insufficient facts have been pleaded to show any constitutional violation.

27 The County proffers two basic points. First, the County contends the allegations show the sheriffs

28 were not acting under color of state law, but rather under color of federal law. In the underlying

6

Case3:08-cv-04220-RS Document195 Filed06/11/10 Page7 of 9

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1 motion to dismiss the County relied on Billings v. United States, 57 F.3d 797 (9th Cir. 1995) to

2 support this argument. In Billings, however, the question was whether federal defendants could be

3 liable under section 1983 where they directed state officers to arrest the plaintiff. The Billings court

4 rejected the argument that the federal officers acted under the color of state law simply because they

5 requested state officers to carry out the arrest. 57 F.3d at 801. Billings did not consider or address

6 whether the state officers in that case could have been held to be acting under color of state law.

7

When a Santa Rosa sheriff’s deputy stops, detains, arrests, or jails an individual he or she is

8 cloaked with the authority of state law, regardless of whether an ICE agent requested the action.

9 The officer’s uniform, badge, gun, vehicle, are all provided by the state or county, not federal

10 authorities. The power to engage in law enforcement activities comes from the state. Although the

11 Santa Rosa sheriffs may have been working with ICE agents to enforce federal law, they necessarily

12 acted under color of state law.

13

The second prong of the County’s argument is merely a repetition of the contention

14 discussed in the proceeding section that insufficient facts are alleged to establish any wrongdoing.

15 As stated above, plaintiffs have adequately alleged a factual basis for their claims, even under the

16 standard of Iqbal and Twombly.

17

18

5. State immunities3

19

The County contends it is has statutory immunity as to the claims brought under state law.

20 Relying on Cal. Government Code § 820.2, the County contends it is immune with respect to “any

21 claims resulting from the Sheriff’s policy decisions to cooperate with ICE.” That may be, but the

22 second amended complaint does not assert liability based on the policy decision to cooperate with

23 ICE but instead on constitutional violations committed in the course of carrying out that

24 cooperation. The County cites Cal. Government Code § 820.4, which expressly does not apply to

25 claims for false arrest or imprisonment, to argue it is immune as to claims arising from “compliance

26 with ICE directions, orders, or immigration detainers issued under § 287.7.” Again, that may be so,

27

28

3 Although not memorialized in the March 10th Order, the parties are in agreement that plaintiffs may not seek damages under their state constitutional claims.

7

Case3:08-cv-04220-RS Document195 Filed06/11/10 Page8 of 9

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1 but at least the claims remaining in the second amended complaint after the March 10th Order are

2 not based on the sheriff’s mere compliance with immigration detainers.

3

The County further relies on Government Code § 820.6, but that section expressly requires

4 the government employees to have acted in good faith, a subjective inquiry not subject to resolution

5 at the pleading stage. Finally, while the County points to Government Code § 821.6, that section

6 does not provide immunity for claims arising from wrongful arrest and imprisonment. Asgari v. 7 City of Los Angeles, 15 Cal.4th 744, 846-47 (1997).4 Accordingly, there is no basis to dismiss the

8 state law claims at this juncture.

9

10 B. Federal defendants

11

The Federal defendants join in the County’s motion and specifically assert further that the

12 qualified immunity arguments of the individual federal defendants must be addressed. The Federal

13 defendants lay heavy emphasis on the prior presiding judge’s characterization of the complaint as an

14 “impenetrable thicket,” to argue that their immunity claims were not properly considered. As with

15 the County, however, the Federal defendants’ qualified immunity arguments were largely premised

16 on the notion that no clearly established law precluded the use of immigration holds in the manner

17 being employed. It would, however, violate clearly established law to engage in racial profiling and

18 to stop, interrogate, search, or arrest persons without the requisite level of justification.

19 Accordingly, qualified immunity is not a basis for dismissal, at least at this stage of the proceedings.

20

21

IV. CONCLUSION

22

Reconsideration has been granted in the sense that the Court has considered all of

23 defendants’ arguments on the merits. The Eleventh Amendment applies to plaintiffs’ claims

24 against the County defendants, but does not bar claims for injunctive relief, or damages claims

25

26 4 The County contends that California law recognizes acting under a facially valid warrant to be a

defense to wrongful arrest and suggests that sheriffs acting pursuant to facially valid immigration 27 holds likewise should face no liability. Even if that is correct, it would not provide a defense to the

28

claims that persons were stopped without probable cause and based on racial profiling before immigration holds were issued.

8

Case3:08-cv-04220-RS Document195 Filed06/11/10 Page9 of 9

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1 against the individual defendants in their personal capacities. Plaintiffs are precluded from seeking

2 damages under their state constitutional claims. In all other respects, the Court reaffirms the results

3 reached in the March 10th Order. The discovery stay previously imposed is hereby lifted.

4 Defendants shall file answers to the second amended complaint within twenty days of the date of

5 this order.

6

7 IT IS SO ORDERED.

8

9 Dated: 06/11/2010 10 11

RICHARD SEEBORG
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

9

 
 Case: 3:08-cv-04220-RS As of: 05/24/2012 06:22 AM PDT 1 of 33
ADRMOP,CASREF,CLOSED,E−Filing,PROTO,ProSe,REFDIS,REFSET−JSC
U.S. District Court California Northern District (San Francisco) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 3:08−cv−04220−RS

Committee for Immigrant Rights of Sonoma County et al v. County of Sonoma et al Assigned to: Hon. Richard Seeborg Referred to: Magistrate Judge Nathanael M. Cousins
Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley (Settlement)
Case in other court: 10−16071
Cause: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act
Plaintiff

Date Filed: 09/05/2008 Date Terminated: 12/12/2011 Jury Demand: Plaintiff Nature of Suit: 890 Other Statutory Actions Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Defendant

Committee for Immigrant Rights of Sonoma County

represented by Alan Lawrence Schlosser ACLU Foundation of Northern California, Inc. 39 Drumm Street San Francisco, CA 94111 415−621−2493 Fax: 415−255−8437 Email: aschlosser@aclunc.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Alfred Carroll Pfeiffer , Jr. Latham &Watkins LLP 505 Montgomery Street Suite 2000 San Francisco, CA 94111−4067 415−391−0600 Fax: 415−395−8095 Email: Al.Pfeiffer@lw.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Julia Harumi Mass , Esq. American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California, Inc. 39 Drumm Street San Francisco, CA 94111 415−621−2493 Fax: 415−255−8437 Email: jmass@aclunc.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Mary Elizabeth Heard Latham and Watkins 505 Montgomery Suite 2000 San Francisco, CA 94111 415−391−0600 Fax: Email: maryelizabeth.heard@lw.com TERMINATED: 07/13/2011 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Melissa N Chan Quinn Emanuel Urquhart &Sullivan LLP 555 Twin Dolphin Drive

Case: 3:08-cv-04220-RS As of: 05/24/2012 06:22 AM PDT 2 of 33
5th Floor Redwood Shores, CA 94065 650−801−5000 Fax: 650−801−5100 TERMINATED: 07/12/2010 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert Paul Lynch American Civil Liberties Union Foundation of Northern CA 39 Drumm Street San Francisco, CA 94111 415−646−7831 Email: rlynch@aclunc.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Amalia Louise Greenberg Delgado ACLU of Northern California 39 Drumm Street San Francisco, CA 94111 415−293−2493 Email: agreenberg@aclunc.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Andre Ivan Segura ACLU Foundation of Northern California, Inc. 39 Drumm Street San Francisco, CA 94117 415−621−2493 Fax: 415−255−8437 Email: asegura@aclunc.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Casey Richard O'Connor Latham and Watkins LLP 505 Montgomery St., Ste 2000 San Francisco, CA 94111 415−391−0600 Fax: 415−395−8095 Email: casey.oconnor@lw.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Hyun Jee Son Latham &Watkins LLP 505 Montgomery Street, Suite 2000 San Francisco, CA 94111−6538 415−391−0600 Email: HyunJee.Son@lw.com TERMINATED: 02/04/2011 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jason L. Daniels Latham and Watkins 505 Montgomery Street Suite 2000 San Francisco, CA 94111 415−391−0600 Fax: 415−395−9095 Email: jason.daniels@lw.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Megan Susanna Bouchier

Case: 3:08-cv-04220-RS As of: 05/24/2012 06:22 AM PDT 3 of 33

Latham and Watkins LLP 505 Montgomery St Suite 2000 San Francisco, ca 94111 415−646−7819 Fax: 415−395−8095 Email: megan.bouchier@lw.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Robert William Studley Latham and Watkins LLP 505 Montgomery Street Suite 2000 San Francisco, CA 94111 415−646−7874 Fax: 415−395−8095 Email: robert.studley@lw.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stephanie Amy Song Latham and Watkins 505 Montgomery St Suite 2000 San Francisco, CA 94111 415−391−0600 Email: stephanie.song@lw.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Tienlon Ho Latham &Watkins LLP 505 Montgomery St. Suite 2000 San Francisco, CA 94115 415−391−0600 Fax: 415−395−8095 Email: tienlon.ho@lw.com TERMINATED: 10/12/2010 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Francisco Sanchez Lopez TERMINATED: 04/07/2011

represented by Alan Lawrence Schlosser (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Alfred Carroll Pfeiffer , Jr. (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Julia Harumi Mass , Esq. (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Mary Elizabeth Heard (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/13/2011 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Melissa N Chan (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/12/2010

Case: 3:08-cv-04220-RS As of: 05/24/2012 06:22 AM PDT 4 of 33

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Robert Paul Lynch (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Amalia Louise Greenberg Delgado (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Andre Ivan Segura (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Casey Richard O'Connor (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Hyun Jee Son (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/04/2011 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Megan Susanna Bouchier (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Robert William Studley (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stephanie Amy Song (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Tienlon Ho (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/12/2010 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Christyan Sonato Vega TERMINATED: 04/07/2011

represented by Alan Lawrence Schlosser (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Alfred Carroll Pfeiffer , Jr. (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Julia Harumi Mass , Esq. (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Mary Elizabeth Heard (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/13/2011 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 3:08-cv-04220-RS As of: 05/24/2012 06:22 AM PDT 5 of 33

Melissa N Chan (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/12/2010 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Robert Paul Lynch (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Amalia Louise Greenberg Delgado (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Andre Ivan Segura (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Casey Richard O'Connor (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Hyun Jee Son (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/04/2011 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Megan Susanna Bouchier (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Robert William Studley (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stephanie Amy Song (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Tienlon Ho (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/12/2010 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Samuel Medel Moyado TERMINATED: 12/22/2009

represented by Samuel Medel Moyado PRO SE

Alan Lawrence Schlosser (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/22/2009 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Alfred Carroll Pfeiffer , Jr. (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/22/2009 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Julia Harumi Mass , Esq. (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/22/2009

Case: 3:08-cv-04220-RS As of: 05/24/2012 06:22 AM PDT 6 of 33
LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mary Elizabeth Heard Latham and Watkins 505 Montgomery Suite 2000 San Francisco, CA 94111 415−391−0600 Email: maryelizabeth.heard@lw.com TERMINATED: 12/22/2009 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Melissa N Chan (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/22/2009 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert Paul Lynch (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/22/2009 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Andre Ivan Segura (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/22/2009 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Casey Richard O'Connor (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/22/2009 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert William Studley (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Tienlon Ho (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/22/2009 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V.
Defendant
County of Sonoma TERMINATED: 07/22/2011

represented by Anne L. Keck County Counsel's Office 575 Administration Drive, Room 105A Santa Rosa, CA 95403−2815 707−565−2421 Fax: 707−565−2624 Email: akeck@sonoma−county.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Richard William Osman Bertrand, Fox &Elliot 2749 Hyde Street San Francisco, CA 94109 415−353−0999x104 Fax: 415−353−0990

Case: 3:08-cv-04220-RS As of: 05/24/2012 06:22 AM PDT 7 of 33

Email: rosman@bfesf.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ila Casy Deiss United States Attorney's Office Northern District of California 450 Golden Gate Avenue P. O. Box 36055 San Francisco, CA 94102 415−436−7124 Fax: 415−436−7169 Email: ila.deiss@usdoj.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Bill Cogbill Sheriff Coroner TERMINATED: 07/22/2011

represented by Anne L. Keck (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Richard William Osman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ila Casy Deiss (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Morris Eric Salkin Deputy Sheriff, individually and in their official capacities TERMINATED: 07/22/2011

represented by Anne L. Keck (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Richard William Osman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ila Casy Deiss (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant U.S. Department of Homeland Security

represented by Ellen FitzGerald United States Attorney's Office Civil Division 450 Golden Gate Avenue, 9th Floor P.O. Box 36055 San Francisco, CA 94102−3495 415−436−7314 Fax: 415−436−6748 Email: ellen.fitzgerald@usdoj.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ila Casy Deiss (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 3:08-cv-04220-RS As of: 05/24/2012 06:22 AM PDT 8 of 33

Colin A. Kisor , Office of Immigration Litigation Civil Division, Justice Department P.O. Box 878 Ben Franklin Station Washington, DC 20044 202−532−4331 Fax: Email: colin.kisor@usdoj.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Lana Vahab Department of Justice Civil Division − Office of Immigration Litigation 450 5th Street NW Room 6025 Washington, DC 20002 (202) 532−4067 Fax: 202−305−7000 Email: lana.vahab@usdoj.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement

represented by Ellen FitzGerald (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ila Casy Deiss (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Colin A. Kisor , (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Lana Vahab (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Mark Wollman Special Agent−In−Charge TERMINATED: 09/14/2009

represented by Ellen FitzGerald (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ila Casy Deiss (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Colin A. Kisor , (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Mario Huelga Special Agent

represented by Ellen FitzGerald (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 3:08-cv-04220-RS As of: 05/24/2012 06:22 AM PDT 9 of 33

Ila Casy Deiss (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Colin A. Kisor , (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Lana Vahab (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Chris Merendino individually and in their official capacities

represented by Ellen FitzGerald (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ila Casy Deiss (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Colin A. Kisor , (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Lana Vahab (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
U.S. Attorney Genera Michael B. Mukasey

represented by Ila Casy Deiss (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Colin A. Kisor Office of Immigration Litigation P.O. Box 878 Ben Franklin Station Washington, DC 20044 202−532−4331 Email: colin.kisor@usdoj.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
US Attorney ND Joseph P. Russoniello TERMINATED: 09/14/2009

represented by Ila Casy Deiss (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Colin A. Kisor (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant United States of America

represented by Colin A. Kisor Office of Immigration Litigation Civil Division, Justice Department P.O. Box 878

Case: 3:08-cv-04220-RS As of: 05/24/2012 06:22 AM PDT 10 of 33
Ben Franklin Station Washington, DC 20044 202−532−4331 Email: colin.kisor@usdoj.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ila Casy Deiss (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lana Vahab (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 09/05/2008
09/05/2008 09/05/2008 09/05/2008 09/05/2008 10/01/2008 10/15/2008 10/22/2008

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES against County of Sonoma, Bill Cogbill, Morris Eric Salkin, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Mark Wollman, Mario Huelga, Chris Merendino ( Filing fee $ 350, receipt number 34611023164). DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL. Filed byChristyan Sonato Vega, Committee for Immigrant Rights of Sonoma County, Samuel Medel Moyado, Francisco Sanchez Lopez. (far, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/5/2008) (far, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/09/2008)
CASE DESIGNATED for Electronic Filing. (far, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/5/2008) (Entered: 09/09/2008)
2 ADR SCHEDULING ORDER: Case Management Statement due by 12/11/2008. Case Management Conference set for 12/18/2008 02:30 PM. (Attachments: # 1 Standing Order)(far, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/5/2008) (Entered: 09/09/2008)
3 Summons Issued as to County of Sonoma, Bill Cogbill, Morris Eric Salkin, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Mark Wollman, Mario Huelga, Chris Merendino. (far, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/5/2008) (Entered: 09/09/2008)
4 Certificate of Interested Entities (NONE) by Christyan Sonato Vega, Committee for Immigrant Rights of Sonoma County, Samuel Medel Moyado, Francisco Sanchez Lopez (far, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/5/2008) (far, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/09/2008)
5 STIPULATION For Extension of Time To File Responsive Pleading On Behalf of Defendants County of Sonoma, Sheriff−Coroner William Cogbill and Deputy Sheriff Morris Erric Salkin by County of Sonoma, Bill Cogbill, Morris Eric Salkin. (Osman, Richard) (Filed on 10/1/2008) (Entered: 10/01/2008)
6 STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE RESPONSIVE PLEADING re 5 Stipulation, filed by Bill Cogbill, Morris Eric Salkin, County of Sonoma. Signed by Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton on 10/15/08. (nah, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/15/2008) (Entered: 10/15/2008)
7 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Christyan Sonato Vega, Committee for Immigrant Rights of Sonoma County, Samuel Medel Moyado, Francisco Sanchez Lopez. Michael B. Mukasey served on 9/15/2008, answer due 10/6/2008; Joseph P. Russoniello served on 9/10/2008, answer due 9/30/2008; County of Sonoma served on 9/10/2008, answer due 9/30/2008; Bill Cogbill served on 9/10/2008, answer due 9/30/2008; Morris Eric Salkin served on 9/10/2008, answer due 9/30/2008; Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement served on 9/12/2008, answer due 10/2/2008; Mark Wollman served on 9/16/2008, answer due 10/6/2008; Mario Huelga served on 9/22/2008, answer due 10/14/2008; Chris Merendino served on 10/17/2008, answer due 11/6/2008. County of Sonoma, Bill Cogbill, and Morris Eric Salkin response dates modified by Stipulation and Order dated 10/15/2008. Michael B. Mukasey and Joseph P. Russoniello served only per F.R.C.P. 4(i).

Case: 3:08-cv-04220-RS As of: 05/24/2012 06:22 AM PDT 11 of 33

12/01/2008 12/01/2008 12/01/2008 12/01/2008 12/05/2008 12/09/2008 12/10/2008 12/11/2008 12/11/2008 12/12/2008 12/15/2008
12/15/2008
12/15/2008
12/18/2008

(Chan, Melissa) (Filed on 10/22/2008) (Entered: 10/22/2008)
8 ADR Certification (ADR L.R. 3−5 b) of discussion of ADR options on behalf of Defendant Sheriff William Cogbill (Keck, Anne) (Filed on 12/1/2008) (Entered: 12/01/2008)
9 ADR Certification (ADR L.R. 3−5 b) of discussion of ADR options on behalf of Defendant Morris Eric Salkin (Keck, Anne) (Filed on 12/1/2008) (Entered: 12/01/2008)
10 ADR Certification (ADR L.R. 3−5 b) of discussion of ADR options on behalf of County of Sonoma (Keck, Anne) (Filed on 12/1/2008) (Entered: 12/01/2008)
11 ADR Certification (ADR L.R. 3−5 b) of discussion of ADR options on behalf of Plaintiffs Committee for Immigrant Rights of Sonoma County, Francisco Sanchez−Lopez, Christyan Sonato−Vega, and Samuel Medel Moyado (Pfeiffer, Alfred) (Filed on 12/1/2008) (Entered: 12/01/2008)
12 STIPULATION For Extension of Time To File Responsive Pleading On Behalf of All Defendants by County of Sonoma, Bill Cogbill, Morris Eric Salkin. (Osman, Richard) (Filed on 12/5/2008) (Entered: 12/05/2008)
13 STIPULATION AND ORDER re 12 Stipulation filed by Bill Cogbill, Morris Eric Salkin, County of Sonoma. Signed by Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton on 12/9/08. (nah, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/9/2008) (Entered: 12/09/2008)
14 STIPULATION For Extention of Time To File Responsive Pleading on Behalf of All Defendants by County of Sonoma, Bill Cogbill, Morris Eric Salkin. (Osman, Richard) (Filed on 12/10/2008) (Entered: 12/10/2008)
15 JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT filed by Christyan Sonato Vega, Committee for Immigrant Rights of Sonoma County, Samuel Medel Moyado, Francisco Sanchez Lopez. (Pfeiffer, Alfred) (Filed on 12/11/2008) (Entered: 12/11/2008)
16 REPORT of Rule 26(f) Planning Meeting Filed on Behalf of all Parties. (Pfeiffer, Alfred) (Filed on 12/11/2008) (Entered: 12/11/2008)
17 NOTICE of Appearance by Ellen FitzGerald (FitzGerald, Ellen) (Filed on 12/12/2008) (Entered: 12/12/2008)
18 MOTION for Protective Order regarding Discovery of Immigration Status and for Bifurcation of Damages Issues filed by Christyan Sonato Vega, Committee for Immigrant Rights of Sonoma County, Samuel Medel Moyado, Francisco Sanchez Lopez. Motion Hearing set for 1/21/2009 09:00 AM in Courtroom 3, 17th Floor, San Francisco. (Pfeiffer, Alfred) (Filed on 12/15/2008) (Entered: 12/15/2008)
19 Declaration of Richard Coshnear in Support of 18 MOTION for Protective Order regarding Discovery of Immigration Status and for Bifurcation of Damages Issues filed byChristyan Sonato Vega, Committee for Immigrant Rights of Sonoma County, Samuel Medel Moyado, Francisco Sanchez Lopez. (Related document(s) 18 ) (Pfeiffer, Alfred) (Filed on 12/15/2008) (Entered: 12/15/2008)
20 Proposed Order re 18 MOTION for Protective Order regarding Discovery of Immigration Status and for Bifurcation of Damages Issues by Christyan Sonato Vega, Committee for Immigrant Rights of Sonoma County, Samuel Medel Moyado, Francisco Sanchez Lopez. (Pfeiffer, Alfred) (Filed on 12/15/2008) (Entered: 12/15/2008)
21 Minute Entry: Initial Case Management Conference held on 12/18/2008 before Phyllis J. Hamilton (Date Filed: 12/18/2008), CASE REFERRED to Magistrate Judge Edward M. Chen for Settlement Conference. Non−Expert Discovery due by 9/21/2009. Disclosure of Experts due by 11/20/2009. Rebuttal due by 1/21/2010. Expert Discovery due by 2/18/2010. Dispostive Motions to be filed by 4/21/2010; Opposition to be filed by 6/2/2010; Reply to be filed by 6/9/2010. Motion Hearing set for 6/30/2010 09:00 AM. (Court Reporter Not Reported.) (nah, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 12/18/2008) (Entered: 12/23/2008)

Case: 3:08-cv-04220-RS As of: 05/24/2012 06:22 AM PDT 12 of 33

12/19/2008 12/23/2008 12/23/2008 01/07/2009
01/07/2009 01/07/2009 01/07/2009 01/08/2009
01/14/2009 01/28/2009
01/28/2009 01/28/2009

22 CASE MANAGEMENT AND PRETRIAL ORDER re 21 Case Management Conference − Initial. Signed by Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton on 12/19/08. (nah, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/19/2008) (Entered: 12/23/2008)
Set/Reset Deadlines as to 18 MOTION for Protective Order regarding Discovery of Immigration Status and for Bifurcation of Damages Issues. Motion Hearing set for 1/28/2009 09:00 AM. (nah, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/23/2008) (Entered: 12/23/2008)
23 STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE RESPONSIVE PLEADING ON BEHALF OF ALL DEFENDANTS AS MODIFIED re 14 Stipulation filed by Bill Cogbill, Morris Eric Salkin, County of Sonoma. Signed by Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton on 12/23/08. (nah, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/23/2008) (Entered: 12/23/2008)
24 Memorandum in Opposition re 18 MOTION for Protective Order regarding Discovery of Immigration Status and for Bifurcation of Damages Issues filed byU.S. Department of Homeland Security, Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Mark Wollman, Mario Huelga, Chris Merendino, Michael B. Mukasey, Joseph P. Russoniello. (Kisor, Colin) (Filed on 1/7/2009) (Entered: 01/07/2009)
25 Memorandum in Opposition re 18 MOTION for Protective Order regarding Discovery of Immigration Status and for Bifurcation of Damages Issues filed byCounty of Sonoma, Bill Cogbill, Morris Eric Salkin. (Osman, Richard) (Filed on 1/7/2009) (Entered: 01/07/2009)
26 Declaration of Anne Keck in Support of 25 Memorandum in Opposition filed byCounty of Sonoma, Bill Cogbill, Morris Eric Salkin. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit A)(Related document(s) 25 ) (Osman, Richard) (Filed on 1/7/2009) (Entered: 01/07/2009)
27 Proposed Order re 25 Memorandum in Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Protective Order by County of Sonoma, Bill Cogbill, Morris Eric Salkin. (Osman, Richard) (Filed on 1/7/2009) (Entered: 01/07/2009)
28 Memorandum in Opposition re 18 MOTION for Protective Order regarding Discovery of Immigration Status and for Bifurcation of Damages Issues PROPOSED ORDER filed byU.S. Department of Homeland Security, Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Mark Wollman, Mario Huelga, Chris Merendino, Michael B. Mukasey, Joseph P. Russoniello. (Kisor, Colin) (Filed on 1/8/2009) (Entered: 01/08/2009)
29 Reply Memorandum re 18 MOTION for Protective Order regarding Discovery of Immigration Status and for Bifurcation of Damages Issues filed byChristyan Sonato Vega, Committee for Immigrant Rights of Sonoma County, Samuel Medel Moyado, Francisco Sanchez Lopez. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Pfeiffer, Alfred) (Filed on 1/14/2009) (Entered: 01/14/2009)
30 Minute Entry: Motion Hearing held on 1/28/2009 before Phyllis J. Hamilton (Date Filed: 1/28/2009) re 18 MOTION for Protective Order regarding Discovery of Immigration Status and for Bifurcation of Damages Issues filed by Christyan Sonato Vega, Francisco Sanchez Lopez, Committee for Immigrant Rights of Sonoma County, Samuel Medel Moyado. (Court Reporter Sahar McVickar 415−626−6060) (nah, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 1/28/2009) Modified on 1/29/2009 (far, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/28/2009)
31 MOTION to Dismiss ;Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support Thereof filed by U.S. Department of Homeland Security. Motion Hearing set for 4/22/2009 09:00 AM in Courtroom 3, 17th Floor, San Francisco. (FitzGerald, Ellen) (Filed on 1/28/2009) (Entered: 01/28/2009)
32 Declaration of Daniel Bible in Support of 31 MOTION to Dismiss ;Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support Thereof filed byU.S. Department of Homeland Security. (Related document(s) 31 ) (FitzGerald, Ellen) (Filed on 1/28/2009) (Entered: 01/28/2009)

Case: 3:08-cv-04220-RS As of: 05/24/2012 06:22 AM PDT 13 of 33

01/28/2009 01/28/2009 01/28/2009 01/28/2009 01/28/2009 01/29/2009 01/29/2009
02/05/2009 02/06/2009 02/24/2009 02/27/2009 02/27/2009
02/27/2009 02/27/2009

33 Proposed Order re 31 MOTION to Dismiss ;Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support Thereof, 32 Declaration in Support by U.S. Department of Homeland Security. (FitzGerald, Ellen) (Filed on 1/28/2009) (Entered: 01/28/2009)
34 MOTION to Stay Discovery; Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support Thereof filed by U.S. Department of Homeland Security. Motion Hearing set for 3/18/2009 09:00 AM in Courtroom 3, 17th Floor, San Francisco. (FitzGerald, Ellen) (Filed on 1/28/2009) (Entered: 01/28/2009)
35 Proposed Order re 34 MOTION to Stay Discovery; Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support Thereof by U.S. Department of Homeland Security. (FitzGerald, Ellen) (Filed on 1/28/2009) (Entered: 01/28/2009)
36 MOTION to Dismiss , Notice and Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support filed by County of Sonoma, Bill Cogbill, Morris Eric Salkin. Motion Hearing set for 4/22/2009 09:00 AM in Courtroom 3, 17th Floor, San Francisco. (Osman, Richard) (Filed on 1/28/2009) (Entered: 01/28/2009)
37 Proposed Order re 36 MOTION to Dismiss , Notice and Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support by County of Sonoma, Bill Cogbill, Morris Eric Salkin. (Osman, Richard) (Filed on 1/28/2009) (Entered: 01/28/2009)
38 ERRATA re 36 MOTION to Dismiss , Notice and Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support Solely To Change Title To Include Alternate Motion For More Definite Statement by County of Sonoma, Bill Cogbill, Morris Eric Salkin. (Osman, Richard) (Filed on 1/29/2009) (Entered: 01/29/2009)
39 NOTICE by U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Mark Wollman, Mario Huelga, Chris Merendino re 35 Proposed Order, 34 MOTION to Stay Discovery; Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support Thereof Notice of Withdrawal of Motion to Stay Discovery (FitzGerald, Ellen) (Filed on 1/29/2009) (Entered: 01/29/2009)
40 NOTICE of Appearance by Jason L. Daniels (Daniels, Jason) (Filed on 2/5/2009) (Entered: 02/05/2009)
41 NOTICE of Appearance by Andre Ivan Segura (Segura, Andre) (Filed on 2/6/2009) (Entered: 02/06/2009)
42 ORDER − Notice of Settlement Conference and Settlement Conference Order. Settlement Conference set for 8/25/2009 09:30 AM. Signed by Magistrate Judge Edward M. Chen on 2/24/2009. (emcsec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/24/2009) (Entered: 02/24/2009)
43 STATUS REPORT of Plaintiffs Following Meet and Confer Regarding Protective Order by Christyan Sonato Vega, Committee for Immigrant Rights of Sonoma County, Samuel Medel Moyado, Francisco Sanchez Lopez. (Pfeiffer, Alfred) (Filed on 2/27/2009) (Entered: 02/27/2009)
44 Declaration of Melissa N. Chan in Support of 43 Status Report filed byChristyan Sonato Vega, Committee for Immigrant Rights of Sonoma County, Samuel Medel Moyado, Francisco Sanchez Lopez. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G, # 8 Exhibit H, # 9 Exhibit I, # 10 Exhibit J)(Related document(s) 43 ) (Pfeiffer, Alfred) (Filed on 2/27/2009) (Entered: 02/27/2009)
45 RESPONSE to Order re Meet and Confer Process on Plaintiffs' Motion for Protective Order by County of Sonoma, Bill Cogbill, Morris Eric Salkin. (Keck, Anne) (Filed on 2/27/2009) (Entered: 02/27/2009)
46 Declaration of ANNE L. KECK in Support of 45 Response ( Non Motion ) To Order Re Meet and Confer Process on Plaintiffs' Motion for Protective Order filed byCounty of Sonoma, Bill Cogbill, Morris Eric Salkin. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G)(Related document(s) 45 ) (Keck, Anne) (Filed on 2/27/2009) (Entered: 02/27/2009)

Case: 3:08-cv-04220-RS As of: 05/24/2012 06:22 AM PDT 14 of 33

02/27/2009 03/07/2009 03/07/2009 03/07/2009 03/07/2009 03/07/2009 03/09/2009 03/09/2009
03/11/2009
03/11/2009 03/11/2009 03/12/2009 03/12/2009

47 RESPONSE to this Court's Order to Meet and Confer Regarding Plaintiff's Motion for Protective Order by U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Mark Wollman, Mario Huelga, Chris Merendino. (FitzGerald, Ellen) (Filed on 2/27/2009) (Entered: 02/27/2009)
48 MOTION for Protective Order filed by Mark Wollman, Mario Huelga, Chris Merendino. Motion Hearing set for 4/22/2009 09:00 AM in Courtroom 3, 17th Floor, San Francisco. (FitzGerald, Ellen) (Filed on 3/7/2009) (Entered: 03/07/2009)
49 Proposed Order re 48 MOTION for Protective Order by Mark Wollman, Mario Huelga, Chris Merendino. (FitzGerald, Ellen) (Filed on 3/7/2009) (Entered: 03/07/2009)
50 MOTION for Extension of Time to Respond to Plaintiffs' Requests for Production of Documents filed by U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Mark Wollman, Mario Huelga, Chris Merendino. Motion Hearing set for 4/22/2009 09:00 AM in Courtroom 3, 17th Floor, San Francisco. (FitzGerald, Ellen) (Filed on 3/7/2009) (Entered: 03/07/2009)
51 Declaration of Ellen M. FitzGerald in Support of 50 MOTION for Extension of Time to Respond to Plaintiffs' Requests for Production of Documents filed byU.S. Department of Homeland Security, Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Mark Wollman, Mario Huelga, Chris Merendino. (Related document(s) 50 ) (FitzGerald, Ellen) (Filed on 3/7/2009) (Entered: 03/07/2009)
52 Proposed Order re 50 MOTION for Extension of Time to Respond to Plaintiffs' Requests for Production of Documents by U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Mark Wollman, Mario Huelga, Chris Merendino. (FitzGerald, Ellen) (Filed on 3/7/2009) (Entered: 03/07/2009)
53 MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages Unopposed Motion for Administrative Relief to Permit Plaintiffs to File Joint Opposition to Defendants' Motions to Dismiss filed by Christyan Sonato Vega, Committee for Immigrant Rights of Sonoma County, Samuel Medel Moyado, Francisco Sanchez Lopez. (Chan, Melissa) (Filed on 3/9/2009) (Entered: 03/09/2009)
54 STIPULATION re 53 MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages Unopposed Motion for Administrative Relief to Permit Plaintiffs to File Joint Opposition to Defendants' Motions to Dismiss and [Proposed Order] and Electronic Case Filing Attestation, by Christyan Sonato Vega, Committee for Immigrant Rights of Sonoma County, Samuel Medel Moyado, Francisco Sanchez Lopez. (Chan, Melissa) (Filed on 3/9/2009) (Entered: 03/09/2009)
55 MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 31 MOTION to Dismiss ;Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support Thereof, 36 MOTION to Dismiss , Notice and Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support filed byChristyan Sonato Vega, Committee for Immigrant Rights of Sonoma County, Samuel Medel Moyado, Francisco Sanchez Lopez. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix A)(Related document(s) 31 , 36 ) (Pfeiffer, Alfred) (Filed on 3/11/2009) (Entered: 03/11/2009)
56 Declaration of Julia Harumi Mass in Support of 55 Memorandum in Opposition, filed byChristyan Sonato Vega, Committee for Immigrant Rights of Sonoma County, Samuel Medel Moyado, Francisco Sanchez Lopez. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C)(Related document(s) 55 ) (Pfeiffer, Alfred) (Filed on 3/11/2009) (Entered: 03/11/2009)
57 Proposed Order re 55 Memorandum in Opposition, by Christyan Sonato Vega, Committee for Immigrant Rights of Sonoma County, Samuel Medel Moyado, Francisco Sanchez Lopez. (Pfeiffer, Alfred) (Filed on 3/11/2009) (Entered: 03/11/2009)
58 ORDER by Judge Hamilton Denying 53 Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages. (pjhlc4, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/12/2009) (Entered: 03/12/2009)
59 MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 36 MOTION to Dismiss , Notice and Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support filed byChristyan Sonato Vega, Committee for Immigrant Rights of Sonoma County, Samuel Medel Moyado, Francisco Sanchez Lopez. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix A)(Related document(s) 36

Case: 3:08-cv-04220-RS As of: 05/24/2012 06:22 AM PDT 15 of 33

03/12/2009 03/12/2009 03/12/2009 03/12/2009 03/12/2009 04/01/2009 04/01/2009 04/01/2009 04/01/2009 04/01/2009 04/01/2009 04/01/2009 04/08/2009

) (Pfeiffer, Alfred) (Filed on 3/12/2009) (Entered: 03/12/2009)
60 Proposed Order re 59 Memorandum in Opposition, by Christyan Sonato Vega, Committee for Immigrant Rights of Sonoma County, Samuel Medel Moyado, Francisco Sanchez Lopez. (Pfeiffer, Alfred) (Filed on 3/12/2009) (Entered: 03/12/2009)
61 Proposed Order re 59 Memorandum in Opposition, by Christyan Sonato Vega, Committee for Immigrant Rights of Sonoma County, Samuel Medel Moyado, Francisco Sanchez Lopez. (Pfeiffer, Alfred) (Filed on 3/12/2009) (Entered: 03/12/2009)
62 MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 31 MOTION to Dismiss ;Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support Thereof filed byChristyan Sonato Vega, Committee for Immigrant Rights of Sonoma County, Samuel Medel Moyado, Francisco Sanchez Lopez. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix A)(Related document(s) 31 ) (Pfeiffer, Alfred) (Filed on 3/12/2009) (Entered: 03/12/2009)
63 Declaration of Julia Harumi Mass in Support of 62 Memorandum in Opposition, filed byChristyan Sonato Vega, Committee for Immigrant Rights of Sonoma County, Samuel Medel Moyado, Francisco Sanchez Lopez. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C)(Related document(s) 62 ) (Pfeiffer, Alfred) (Filed on 3/12/2009) (Entered: 03/12/2009)
64 Proposed Order re 62 Memorandum in Opposition, by Christyan Sonato Vega, Committee for Immigrant Rights of Sonoma County, Samuel Medel Moyado, Francisco Sanchez Lopez. (Pfeiffer, Alfred) (Filed on 3/12/2009) (Entered: 03/12/2009)
65 Memorandum in Opposition re 48 MOTION for Protective Order filed byChristyan Sonato Vega, Committee for Immigrant Rights of Sonoma County, Samuel Medel Moyado, Francisco Sanchez Lopez. (Pfeiffer, Alfred) (Filed on 4/1/2009) (Entered: 04/01/2009)
66 Proposed Order re 65 Memorandum in Opposition by Christyan Sonato Vega, Committee for Immigrant Rights of Sonoma County, Samuel Medel Moyado, Francisco Sanchez Lopez. (Pfeiffer, Alfred) (Filed on 4/1/2009) (Entered: 04/01/2009)
67 Memorandum in Opposition re 50 MOTION for Extension of Time to Respond to Plaintiffs' Requests for Production of Documents filed byChristyan Sonato Vega, Committee for Immigrant Rights of Sonoma County, Samuel Medel Moyado, Francisco Sanchez Lopez. (Pfeiffer, Alfred) (Filed on 4/1/2009) (Entered: 04/01/2009)
68 Declaration of Jason L. Daniels in Support of 65 Memorandum in Opposition, 67 Memorandum in Opposition, filed byChristyan Sonato Vega, Committee for Immigrant Rights of Sonoma County, Samuel Medel Moyado, Francisco Sanchez Lopez. (Related document(s) 65 , 67 ) (Pfeiffer, Alfred) (Filed on 4/1/2009) (Entered: 04/01/2009)
69 Proposed Order re 67 Memorandum in Opposition, by Christyan Sonato Vega, Committee for Immigrant Rights of Sonoma County, Samuel Medel Moyado, Francisco Sanchez Lopez. (Pfeiffer, Alfred) (Filed on 4/1/2009) (Entered: 04/01/2009)
70 Reply to Opposition re 36 MOTION to Dismiss , Notice and Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support And Motion for More Definite Statement filed byCounty of Sonoma, Bill Cogbill, Morris Eric Salkin. (Keck, Anne) (Filed on 4/1/2009) (Entered: 04/01/2009)
71 Reply Memorandum re 31 MOTION to Dismiss ;Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support Thereof filed byU.S. Department of Homeland Security, Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Mark Wollman, Mario Huelga, Chris Merendino. (FitzGerald, Ellen) (Filed on 4/1/2009) (Entered: 04/01/2009)
72 Reply Memorandum re 50 MOTION for Extension of Time to Respond to Plaintiffs' Requests for Production of Documents filed byU.S. Department of

Case: 3:08-cv-04220-RS As of: 05/24/2012 06:22 AM PDT 16 of 33

04/08/2009 04/08/2009 04/20/2009 04/20/2009 04/22/2009
04/24/2009 05/05/2009
05/18/2009
05/18/2009
05/18/2009

Homeland Security, Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Mark Wollman, Mario Huelga, Chris Merendino. (FitzGerald, Ellen) (Filed on 4/8/2009) (Entered: 04/08/2009)
73 Declaration of Ellen M. FitzGerald in Support of 72 Reply Memorandum, filed byU.S. Department of Homeland Security, Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Mario Huelga, Chris Merendino. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D)(Related document(s) 72 ) (FitzGerald, Ellen) (Filed on 4/8/2009) (Entered: 04/08/2009)
74 Reply Memorandum re 48 MOTION for Protective Order filed byMark Wollman, Mario Huelga, Chris Merendino. (FitzGerald, Ellen) (Filed on 4/8/2009) (Entered: 04/08/2009)
75 ORDER by Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton granting 48 Motion for Protective Order (nah, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/20/2009) (Entered: 04/20/2009)
76 ORDER by Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton granting 50 Motion by Federal Defendants for Extension of Time to Respond to Plaintiffs' Request for Production of Documents (nah, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/20/2009) (Entered: 04/20/2009)
77 Minute Entry: Motion Hearing held on 4/22/2009 before Phyllis J. Hamilton re 31 MOTION to Dismiss ;Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support Thereof filed by U.S. Department of Homeland Security, 36 MOTION to Dismiss , Notice and Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support filed by Bill Cogbill, Morris Eric Salkin, County of Sonoma, 18 MOTION for Protective Order regarding Discovery of Immigration Status and for Bifurcation of Damages Issues filed by Christyan Sonato Vega, Francisco Sanchez Lopez, Committee for Immigrant Rights of Sonoma County, Samuel Medel Moyado. (Court Reporter Connie Kuhl 415−431−2020) (nah, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 4/22/2009) Modified on 4/23/2009 (far, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/22/2009)
78 ORDER by Judge Hamilton Granting in Part and Denying in Part 18 Motion for Protective Order. (pjhlc4, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/24/2009) (Entered: 04/24/2009)
79 Transcript of Proceedings held on 4−22−09, before Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton. Court Reporter/Transcriber Connie Kuhl, Telephone number 415−431−2020. Per General Order No. 59 and Judicial Conference policy, this transcript may be viewed only at the Clerks Office public terminal or may be purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber until the deadline for the Release of Transcript Restriction.After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Any Notice of Intent to Request Redaction, if required, is due no later than 5 business days from date of this filing. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 7/31/2009. (ck, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/5/2009) (Entered: 05/05/2009)
80 MOTION to Compel Federal Defendants' Notice of Motion to Compel Compliance with Court Order and Motion for an Extension of Time to Respond to Request for Documents; Memorandum of Law filed by U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Mark Wollman, Mario Huelga, Chris Merendino. Motion Hearing set for 6/24/2009 09:00 AM in Courtroom 3, 17th Floor, San Francisco. (FitzGerald, Ellen) (Filed on 5/18/2009) (Entered: 05/18/2009)
81 Declaration of Ellen M. FitzGerald in Support of 80 MOTION to Compel Federal Defendants' Notice of Motion to Compel Compliance with Court Order and Motion for an Extension of Time to Respond to Request for Documents; Memorandum of Law filed byU.S. Department of Homeland Security, Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Mark Wollman, Mario Huelga, Chris Merendino. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E)(Related document(s) 80 ) (FitzGerald, Ellen) (Filed on 5/18/2009) (Entered: 05/18/2009)
82 Proposed Order re 80 MOTION to Compel Federal Defendants' Notice of Motion to Compel Compliance with Court Order and Motion for an Extension of Time to Respond to Request for Documents; Memorandum of Law by U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Mark

Case: 3:08-cv-04220-RS As of: 05/24/2012 06:22 AM PDT 17 of 33

05/20/2009 06/01/2009 06/01/2009 06/01/2009 06/03/2009 06/03/2009 06/03/2009 06/05/2009 06/10/2009 06/10/2009
06/10/2009

Wollman, Mario Huelga, Chris Merendino. (FitzGerald, Ellen) (Filed on 5/18/2009) (Entered: 05/18/2009)
83 STATEMENT OF RECENT DECISION pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7−3.d RE: Motions to Dismiss and For More Definite Statement; Order filed byCounty of Sonoma, Bill Cogbill, Morris Eric Salkin. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Keck, Anne) (Filed on 5/20/2009) (Entered: 05/20/2009)
84 MOTION for Joinder in Federal Defendants' Motion to Compel Compliance with Court Order re: Plaintiffs' Initial Disclosures filed by County of Sonoma, Bill Cogbill, Morris Eric Salkin. Motion Hearing set for 6/24/2009 09:00 AM in Courtroom 3, 17th Floor, San Francisco. (Keck, Anne) (Filed on 6/1/2009) (Entered: 06/01/2009)
85 Declaration of ANNE L. KECK in Support of 84 MOTION for Joinder in Federal Defendants' Motion to Compel Compliance with Court Order re: Plaintiffs' Initial Disclosures filed byCounty of Sonoma, Bill Cogbill, Morris Eric Salkin. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G, # 8 Exhibit H)(Related document(s) 84 ) (Keck, Anne) (Filed on 6/1/2009) (Entered: 06/01/2009)
86 Proposed Order re 84 MOTION for Joinder in Federal Defendants' Motion to Compel Compliance with Court Order re: Plaintiffs' Initial Disclosures by County of Sonoma, Bill Cogbill, Morris Eric Salkin. (Keck, Anne) (Filed on 6/1/2009) (Entered: 06/01/2009)
87 Memorandum in Opposition re 80 MOTION to Compel Federal Defendants' Notice of Motion to Compel Compliance with Court Order and Motion for an Extension of Time to Respond to Request for Documents; Memorandum of Law filed byChristyan Sonato Vega, Committee for Immigrant Rights of Sonoma County, Samuel Medel Moyado, Francisco Sanchez Lopez. (Heard, Mary) (Filed on 6/3/2009) (Entered: 06/03/2009)
88 Declaration of Mary Elizabeth Heard in Support of 87 Memorandum in Opposition, filed byChristyan Sonato Vega, Committee for Immigrant Rights of Sonoma County, Samuel Medel Moyado, Francisco Sanchez Lopez. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G, # 8 Exhibit H)(Related document(s) 87 ) (Heard, Mary) (Filed on 6/3/2009) (Entered: 06/03/2009)
89 Proposed Order re 87 Memorandum in Opposition, by Christyan Sonato Vega, Committee for Immigrant Rights of Sonoma County, Samuel Medel Moyado, Francisco Sanchez Lopez. (Heard, Mary) (Filed on 6/3/2009) (Entered: 06/03/2009)
90 NOTICE of Appearance by Casey Richard O'Connor (O'Connor, Casey) (Filed on 6/5/2009) (Entered: 06/05/2009)
91 Reply Memorandum re 80 MOTION to Compel Federal Defendants' Notice of Motion to Compel Compliance with Court Order and Motion for an Extension of Time to Respond to Request for Documents; Memorandum of Law filed byBureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Mario Huelga, Chris Merendino, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Mark Wollman. (FitzGerald, Ellen) (Filed on 6/10/2009) (Entered: 06/10/2009)
92 Declaration of Ellen M. FitzGerald in Support of 80 MOTION to Compel Federal Defendants' Notice of Motion to Compel Compliance with Court Order and Motion for an Extension of Time to Respond to Request for Documents; Memorandum of Law, 91 Reply Memorandum, filed byBureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Mario Huelga, Chris Merendino, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Mark Wollman. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)(Related document(s) 80 , 91 ) (FitzGerald, Ellen) (Filed on 6/10/2009) (Entered: 06/10/2009)
93 *** FILED IN ERROR. PLEASE SEE DOCKET # 94 . *** REPLY to Response to Motion to Compel Compliance with Court Order re Plaintiffs' Initial Disclosures filed byBill Cogbill, County of Sonoma, Morris Eric

Case: 3:08-cv-04220-RS As of: 05/24/2012 06:22 AM PDT 18 of 33

06/10/2009 06/19/2009 06/19/2009 06/19/2009 06/23/2009 07/08/2009 07/08/2009
07/08/2009 07/08/2009
07/08/2009

Salkin. (Osman, Richard) (Filed on 6/10/2009) Modified on 6/10/2009 (ewn, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/10/2009)
94 REPLY to Response to Motion to Compel Compliance with Court Order filed byBill Cogbill, County of Sonoma, Morris Eric Salkin. (Osman, Richard) (Filed on 6/10/2009) (Entered: 06/10/2009)
95 MOTION for Protective Order filed by Bill Cogbill, County of Sonoma, Morris Eric Salkin. Motion Hearing set for 7/29/2009 09:00 AM in Courtroom 3, 17th Floor, San Francisco. (Osman, Richard) (Filed on 6/19/2009) (Entered: 06/19/2009)
96 Declaration of Richard W. Osman in Support of 95 MOTION for Protective Order filed byBill Cogbill, County of Sonoma, Morris Eric Salkin. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibits A through F)(Related document(s) 95 ) (Osman, Richard) (Filed on 6/19/2009) (Entered: 06/19/2009)
97 Proposed Order re 95 MOTION for Protective Order by Bill Cogbill, County of Sonoma, Morris Eric Salkin. (Osman, Richard) (Filed on 6/19/2009) (Entered: 06/19/2009)
98 ORDER by Judge Hamilton Denying Motion to Compel Compliance with Court Order; and Granting Motion for an Extension of Time to Respond to Requests for Production of Documents 80 ; Denying 84 Motion for Joinder. (pjhlc4, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/23/2009) (Entered: 06/23/2009)
99 Memorandum in Opposition re 95 MOTION for Protective Order filed byCommittee for Immigrant Rights of Sonoma County, Francisco Sanchez Lopez, Samuel Medel Moyado, Christyan Sonato Vega. (Chan, Melissa) (Filed on 7/8/2009) (Entered: 07/08/2009)
100 Declaration of Melissa N. Chan in Support of 99 Memorandum in Opposition to County Defendants' Motion for Protective Order filed byCommittee for Immigrant Rights of Sonoma County, Francisco Sanchez Lopez, Samuel Medel Moyado, Christyan Sonato Vega. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit, # 4 Exhibit, # 5 Exhibit)(Related document(s) 99 ) (Chan, Melissa) (Filed on 7/8/2009) (Entered: 07/08/2009)
101 Proposed Order re 99 Memorandum in Opposition to County Defendants' Motion for Protective Order by Committee for Immigrant Rights of Sonoma County, Francisco Sanchez Lopez, Samuel Medel Moyado, Christyan Sonato Vega. (Chan, Melissa) (Filed on 7/8/2009) (Entered: 07/08/2009)
102 MOTION to Compel County Defendants' Production of Documents in Response to Plaintiffs' Request for Production (Set One) and Deposition of County of Sonoma Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 30(B)(6) filed by Committee for Immigrant Rights of Sonoma County, Francisco Sanchez Lopez, Samuel Medel Moyado, Christyan Sonato Vega. Motion Hearing set for 8/12/2009 09:00 AM in Courtroom 3, 17th Floor, San Francisco. (O'Connor, Casey) (Filed on 7/8/2009) (Entered: 07/08/2009)
103 Declaration of Casey R. O'Connor in Support of 102 MOTION to Compel County Defendants' Production of Documents in Response to Plaintiffs' Request for Production (Set One) and Deposition of County of Sonoma Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 30(B)(6) MOTION to Compel County Defendants' Production of Documents in Response to Plaintiffs' Request for Production (Set One) and Deposition of County of Sonoma Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 30(B)(6) filed byCommittee for Immigrant Rights of Sonoma County, Francisco Sanchez Lopez, Samuel Medel Moyado, Christyan Sonato Vega. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − Request for Production of Documents to Defendants County of Sonoma; Sheriff−Coroner Bill Cogbill; and Deputy Sheriff Morris Eric Salkin (Set One), # 2 Exhibit B − County Defendants Response to Plaintiffs First Request for Production of Documents, # 3 Exhibit C −Plaintiffs letter to County Defendants requesting meet and confer regarding Plaintiffs RFP, # 4 Exhibit D − Email exchange between Plaintiffs and County Defendants regarding Defendants response to meet and confer letter, # 5 Exhibit E − Transcript of hearing on Defendants Motion to Dismiss, # 6 Exhibit F − Plaintiffs email to Defendants regarding production of documents, # 7 Exhibit G − County Defendants letter to Plaintiffs regarding 3rd

Case: 3:08-cv-04220-RS As of: 05/24/2012 06:22 AM PDT 19 of 33

07/08/2009
07/15/2009 07/15/2009 07/22/2009 07/22/2009 07/22/2009 07/22/2009

Supplemental Production to Plaintiffs RFP, # 8 Exhibit H − Plaintiffs Notice of Deposition of Defendant County of Sonoma Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6), # 9 Exhibit I − Plaintiffs Amended Notice of Deposition of Defendant County of Sonoma Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6), # 10 Exhibit J − Plaintiffs letter to Defendants regarding date for 30(b)(6) deposition and regarding meet and confer regarding Defendants productions in response to Plaintiffs RFP, # 11 Exhibit K − County Defendants Objections to Plaintiffs Amended Notice of Deposition of County of Sonoma Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6), # 12 Exhibit L − Plaintiffs letter to Defendants requesting meet and confer regarding discovery, # 13 Exhibit M − County Defendants letter in response to Plaintiffs letter of 6/18/2009, # 14 Exhibit N− County Defendants letter in response to Plaintiffs letter of 6/05/2009)(Related document(s) 102 ) (O'Connor, Casey) (Filed on 7/8/2009) (Entered: 07/08/2009)
104 Proposed Order re 102 MOTION to Compel County Defendants' Production of Documents in Response to Plaintiffs' Request for Production (Set One) and Deposition of County of Sonoma Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 30(B)(6) MOTION to Compel County Defendants' Production of Documents in Response to Plaintiffs' Request for Production (Set One) and Deposition of County of Sonoma Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 30(B)(6) by Committee for Immigrant Rights of Sonoma County, Francisco Sanchez Lopez, Samuel Medel Moyado, Christyan Sonato Vega. (O'Connor, Casey) (Filed on 7/8/2009) (Entered: 07/08/2009)
105 REPLY to Response to Motion re 95 MOTION for Protective Order ;REQUEST TO RESOLVE THRESHOLD DISCOVERY ISSUES RE APPLICABILITY OF IQBAL filed byBill Cogbill, County of Sonoma, Morris Eric Salkin. (Keck, Anne) (Filed on 7/15/2009) (Entered: 07/15/2009)
106 Declaration of ANNE L. KECK in Support of 105 Reply to Response to Motion for Protective Order; Request to Resolve Threshold Discovery Issues Re Applicability of Iqbal filed byBill Cogbill, County of Sonoma, Morris Eric Salkin. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C)(Related document(s) 105 ) (Keck, Anne) (Filed on 7/15/2009) (Entered: 07/15/2009)
107 MOTION for Hearing Plaintiffs' Motion for Administrative Relief for Consolidated Hearing Date Of August 12, 2009 and Response to County Defendants' Request to Resolve Threshold Discovery Issues Regarding Applicability of IQBAL filed by Francisco Sanchez Lopez, Samuel Medel Moyado, Christyan Sonato Vega. (Chan, Melissa) (Filed on 7/22/2009) Modified on 1/19/2010 (vlk, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/22/2009)
108 Declaration of Melissa N. Chan in Support of 107 MOTION for Hearing Plaintiffs' Motion for Administrative Relief for Consolidated Hearing Date Of August 12, 2009 and Response to County Defendants' Request to Resolve Threshold Discovery Issues Regarding Applicability of IQBAL filed byCommittee for Immigrant Rights of Sonoma County, Francisco Sanchez Lopez, Samuel Medel Moyado, Christyan Sonato Vega. (Related document(s) 107 ) (Chan, Melissa) (Filed on 7/22/2009) (Entered: 07/22/2009)
109 Proposed Order re 107 MOTION for Hearing Plaintiffs' Motion for Administrative Relief for Consolidated Hearing Date Of August 12, 2009 and Response to County Defendants' Request to Resolve Threshold Discovery Issues Regarding Applicability of IQBAL by Committee for Immigrant Rights of Sonoma County, Francisco Sanchez Lopez, Samuel Medel Moyado, Christyan Sonato Vega. (Chan, Melissa) (Filed on 7/22/2009) (Entered: 07/22/2009)
110 Memorandum in Opposition re 102 MOTION to Compel County Defendants' Production of Documents in Response to Plaintiffs' Request for Production (Set One) and Deposition of County of Sonoma Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 30(B)(6) MOTION to Compel County Defendants' Production of Documents in Response to Plaintiffs' Request for Production (Set One) and Deposition of County of Sonoma Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 30(B)(6) Request to Stay Motion filed byBill Cogbill, County of Sonoma, Morris Eric Salkin. (Keck, Anne) (Filed on 7/22/2009) (Entered: 07/22/2009)

Case: 3:08-cv-04220-RS As of: 05/24/2012 06:22 AM PDT 20 of 33

07/22/2009
07/22/2009 07/22/2009 07/23/2009 07/24/2009 07/24/2009 07/27/2009 07/28/2009 07/29/2009
07/29/2009 07/31/2009 08/07/2009

111 Appendix re 102 MOTION to Compel County Defendants' Production of Documents in Response to Plaintiffs' Request for Production (Set One) and Deposition of County of Sonoma Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 30(B)(6) MOTION to Compel County Defendants' Production of Documents in Response to Plaintiffs' Request for Production (Set One) and Deposition of County of Sonoma Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 30(B)(6) filed byBill Cogbill, County of Sonoma, Morris Eric Salkin. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix A, # 2 Appendix B)(Related document(s) 102 ) (Keck, Anne) (Filed on 7/22/2009) (Entered: 07/22/2009)
112 DECLARATION of Anne L. Keck in Opposition to 110 Memorandum in Opposition,, to Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Production of Documents in Response to Plaitniffs' Request for Production of Documents (Set One) and Deposition of County of Sonoma Pursuant to FRCP 30(b)(6) filed byBill Cogbill, County of Sonoma, Morris Eric Salkin. (Related document(s) 110 ) (Keck, Anne) (Filed on 7/22/2009) (Entered: 07/22/2009)
113 Proposed Order re 110 Memorandum in Opposition,, Order Denying Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel by Bill Cogbill, County of Sonoma, Morris Eric Salkin. (Keck, Anne) (Filed on 7/22/2009) (Entered: 07/22/2009)
114 Memorandum in Opposition re 107 MOTION for Hearing Plaintiffs' Motion for Administrative Relief for Consolidated Hearing Date Of August 12, 2009 and Response to County Defendants' Request to Resolve Threshold Discovery Issues Regarding Applicability of IQBAL Response to Administrative Motion filed byU.S. Department of Homeland Security. (Kisor, Colin) (Filed on 7/23/2009) (Entered: 07/23/2009)
115 Memorandum in Opposition re 107 MOTION for Hearing Plaintiffs' Motion for Administrative Relief for Consolidated Hearing Date Of August 12, 2009 and Response to County Defendants' Request to Resolve Threshold Discovery Issues Regarding Applicability of IQBAL and Proposed Order filed byBill Cogbill, County of Sonoma, Morris Eric Salkin. (Keck, Anne) (Filed on 7/24/2009) (Entered: 07/24/2009)
116 ORDER. Signed by Judge Hamilton on July 24, 2009. (pjhlc4, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/24/2009) (Entered: 07/24/2009)
117 NOTICE of Appearance by Ila Casy Deiss (Deiss, Ila) (Filed on 7/27/2009) (Entered: 07/27/2009)
118 STIPULATION To Vacate Case Management and Pretrial Order, and To Set Subsequent Case Management Conference; [Proposed] Order by Bill Cogbill, County of Sonoma, Morris Eric Salkin. (Keck, Anne) (Filed on 7/28/2009) (Entered: 07/28/2009)
119 Reply to Opposition re 102 MOTION to Compel County Defendants' Production of Documents in Response to Plaintiffs' Request for Production (Set One) and Deposition of County of Sonoma Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 30(B)(6) MOTION to Compel County Defendants' Production of Documents in Response to Plaintiffs' Request for Production (Set One) and Deposition of County of Sonoma Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 30(B)(6) filed byCommittee for Immigrant Rights of Sonoma County, Francisco Sanchez Lopez, Samuel Medel Moyado, Christyan Sonato Vega. (O'Connor, Casey) (Filed on 7/29/2009) (Entered: 07/29/2009)
120 Declaration of Casey R. O'Connor in Support of 119 Reply to Opposition,, filed byCommittee for Immigrant Rights of Sonoma County, Francisco Sanchez Lopez, Samuel Medel Moyado, Christyan Sonato Vega. (Related document(s) 119 ) (O'Connor, Casey) (Filed on 7/29/2009) (Entered: 07/29/2009)
121 ORDER by Judge Hamilton Granting in Part and Denying in Part 31 Federal Defendants' Motion to Dismiss; Granting in Part and Denying in part 36 County Defendants' Motion to Dismiss; Granting County Defendants' Motion for a More Definite Statement; Granting 95 County Defendants' Motion for Protective Order; Denying 102 Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel; and Vacating Pretrial Order. (pjhlc4, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/31/2009) (Entered: 07/31/2009)
122 STIPULATION TO RESET SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE DATE; [PROPOSED] ORDER (JOINT) by Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Mario

Case: 3:08-cv-04220-RS As of: 05/24/2012 06:22 AM PDT 21 of 33

08/10/2009 08/21/2009 08/21/2009 08/27/2009 08/28/2009 08/31/2009
09/03/2009 09/03/2009 09/04/2009 09/04/2009

Huelga, Chris Merendino, Michael B. Mukasey, Joseph P. Russoniello, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Mark Wollman. (Deiss, Ila) (Filed on 8/7/2009) (Entered: 08/07/2009)
123 Order − 122 Joint Stipulation to Reset Settlement Conference Date. Settlement Conference set for 8/25/2009 09:30 AM has been reset to 10/20/2009 09:30 AM. Signed by Magistrate Judge Edward M. Chen on 8/10/2009. (emcsec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/10/2009) (Entered: 08/10/2009)
124 MOTION for Leave to File Motion for Reconsideration of Limited Portions of Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Defendants' Motions to Dismiss filed by Committee for Immigrant Rights of Sonoma County, Francisco Sanchez Lopez, Samuel Medel Moyado, Christyan Sonato Vega. (Pfeiffer, Alfred) (Filed on 8/21/2009) (Entered: 08/21/2009)
125 Proposed Order re 124 MOTION for Leave to File Motion for Reconsideration of Limited Portions of Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Defendants' Motions to Dismiss by Committee for Immigrant Rights of Sonoma County, Francisco Sanchez Lopez, Samuel Medel Moyado, Christyan Sonato Vega. (Pfeiffer, Alfred) (Filed on 8/21/2009) (Entered: 08/21/2009)
126 STIPULATION and [Proposed] Order to Extend Time to File First Amended Complaint by Committee for Immigrant Rights of Sonoma County, Francisco Sanchez Lopez, Samuel Medel Moyado, Christyan Sonato Vega. (Pfeiffer, Alfred) (Filed on 8/27/2009) (Entered: 08/27/2009)
127 Memorandum in Opposition re 124 MOTION for Leave to File Motion for Reconsideration of Limited Portions of Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Defendants' Motions to Dismiss filed byBill Cogbill, County of Sonoma, Morris Eric Salkin. (Keck, Anne) (Filed on 8/28/2009) (Entered: 08/28/2009)
128 AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES against Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Bill Cogbill, County of Sonoma, Mario Huelga, Chris Merendino, Michael B. Mukasey, Joseph P. Russoniello, Morris Eric Salkin, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Mark Wollman. Filed byChristyan Sonato Vega, Francisco Sanchez Lopez, Samuel Medel Moyado, Committee for Immigrant Rights of Sonoma County. (Pfeiffer, Alfred) (Filed on 8/31/2009) (Entered: 08/31/2009)
129 STIPULATION AND ORDER TO EXTEND TIME TO FILE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT re 126 Stipulation filed by Christyan Sonato Vega, Francisco Sanchez Lopez, Committee for Immigrant Rights of Sonoma County, Samuel Medel Moyado. Signed by Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton on 9/3/09. (nah, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/3/2009) (Entered: 09/03/2009)
130 ORDER by Judge Hamilton Re 124 Motion for Leave to File Motion for Reconsideration (pjhlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/3/2009) (Entered: 09/03/2009)
131 NOTICE of Appearance by Lana Lunskaya on behalf of the United States (Lunskaya, Lana) (Filed on 9/4/2009) (Entered: 09/04/2009)
132 CLERKS NOTICE
Effective September 14, 2009, Judge Phyllis Hamilton's courtroom and chambers will be located in the Oakland Courthouse, Courtroom #3, 3rd floor, 1301 Clay Street, Oakland, California 94612.
On or after September 14, 2009, all filings for matters pending on Judge Hamiltons docket, all court appearances, and all deliveries of chambers' copies of documents must be made at the Oakland Courthouse.
The days and times for law and motion calendars and all currently scheduled proceedings remain unchanged.
Please note that all of Judge Hamilton's case files will be moved to the Oakland Courthouse, therefore all cases numbers assigned to her will be changed slightly to

Case: 3:08-cv-04220-RS As of: 05/24/2012 06:22 AM PDT 22 of 33

09/04/2009 09/09/2009 09/14/2009
10/01/2009 10/02/2009 10/07/2009 10/07/2009 10/14/2009 10/15/2009

reflect the correct venue. Previously, all case numbers started with "3:" to indicate the San Francisco office (Example: 3:09−cv−12345−PJH). As of September 14th, 2009, all of Judge Hamilton's case files will begin with "4:" to indicate the Oakland office, but everything else will stay the same (Example: 4:09−cv−12345−PJH). When e−filing, using the short case number format will always avoid problems when searching for the correct case: 09−12345 (YY−NNNNN).
For information on the Oakland Courthouse's accessibility, parking, driving directions, public transit, hotels and other helpful links, please visit our website: http://www.cand.uscourts.gov, click on "Court Information" on the right hand side of our main page, then select the Oakland link under "Address and Jurisdiction". The main telephone number for the Oakland Division is 510 637−3530.
(sis, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/4/2009) (Entered: 09/04/2009)
133 STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO ALLOW PLAINTIFFS TO ADD FEDERAL TORT CLAIMS IN A SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT, AND TO EXTEND DEFENDANTS' TIME TO RESPOND by Committee for Immigrant Rights of Sonoma County, Francisco Sanchez Lopez, Samuel Medel Moyado, Christyan Sonato Vega. (Pfeiffer, Alfred) (Filed on 9/4/2009) (Entered: 09/04/2009)
134 STIPULATION AND ORDER TO ALLOW PLAINTIFFS TO ADD FEDERAL TORT CLAIMS IN A SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT, AND TO EXTEND DEFENDANTS TIME TO RESPOND re 133 Stipulation, filed by Christyan Sonato Vega, Francisco Sanchez Lopez, Committee for Immigrant Rights of Sonoma County, Samuel Medel Moyado. Signed by Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton on 9/9/09. (nah, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/9/2009) (Entered: 09/09/2009)
135 AMENDED COMPLAINT SECOND Amended Complaint against Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Bill Cogbill, County of Sonoma, Mario Huelga, Chris Merendino, Michael B. Mukasey, Joseph P. Russoniello, Morris Eric Salkin, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Mark Wollman. Filed byChristyan Sonato Vega, Francisco Sanchez Lopez, Samuel Medel Moyado, Committee for Immigrant Rights of Sonoma County. (Pfeiffer, Alfred) (Filed on 9/14/2009) (Entered: 09/14/2009)
136 STIPULATION TO RESET SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE DATE; [PROPOSED] ORDER {Second} by Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Mario Huelga, Michael B. Mukasey, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, United States of America. (Deiss, Ila) (Filed on 10/1/2009) (Entered: 10/01/2009)
137 STIPULATION RE BRIEFING AND HEARING SCHEDULE ON MOTIONS TO DISMISS SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT; PROPOSED ORDER by Bill Cogbill, County of Sonoma, Morris Eric Salkin. (Keck, Anne) (Filed on 10/2/2009) (Entered: 10/02/2009)
138 *** FILED IN ERROR. REFER TO DOCUMENT 139 . *** STIPULATION TO MODIFY CASE MANAGEMENT AND PRETRIAL ORDER WITH RESPECT TO SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE DATE; [PROPOSED] ORDER by Bill Cogbill, County of Sonoma, Morris Eric Salkin. (Keck, Anne) (Filed on 10/7/2009) Modified on 10/7/2009 (feriab, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/07/2009)
139 STIPULATION CORRECTION TO DOCKET # 138 . JOINT STIPULATION TO MODIFY CASE MANAGEMENT AND PRETRIAL ORDER WITH RESPECT TO SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE DATE; [PROPOSED] ORDER by Bill Cogbill, County of Sonoma, Morris Eric Salkin. (Keck, Anne) (Filed on 10/7/2009) (Entered: 10/07/2009)
140 Scheduling ORDER. Signed by Judge Hamilton on 10/14/2009. (pjhlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/14/2009) (Entered: 10/14/2009)
141 STIPULATION AND ORDER RE BRIEFING AND HEARING SCHEDULE ON MOTIONS TO DISMISS SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT re 137 Stipulation filed by Bill Cogbill, Morris Eric Salkin, County of Sonoma. Signed by Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton on 10/15/09. (nah, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/15/2009)

Case: 3:08-cv-04220-RS As of: 05/24/2012 06:22 AM PDT 23 of 33

10/15/2009 10/29/2009
10/29/2009 10/29/2009
11/03/2009 12/02/2009 12/14/2009 12/14/2009 12/14/2009 12/14/2009 12/14/2009

(Entered: 10/15/2009)
142 STIPULATION AND ORDER TO MODIFY CASE MANAGEMENT AND PRETRIAL ORDER WITH RESPECT TO SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE DATE re 139 Stipulation, filed by Bill Cogbill, Morris Eric Salkin, County of Sonoma. Signed by Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton on 10/15/09. (nah, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/15/2009) (Entered: 10/15/2009)
143 MOTION to Dismiss SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; APPENDICES filed by Bill Cogbill, County of Sonoma, Morris Eric Salkin. Motion Hearing set for 2/17/2010 09:00 AM in Courtroom 3, 3rd Floor, Oakland. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix A, # 2 Appendix B)(Keck, Anne) (Filed on 10/29/2009) Modified on 11/5/2009 (vlk, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/29/2009)
144 Proposed Order re 143 MOTION to Dismiss SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; APPENDICES by Bill Cogbill, County of Sonoma, Morris Eric Salkin. (Keck, Anne) (Filed on 10/29/2009) (Entered: 10/29/2009)
145 MOTION to Dismiss Second Amended Complaint; Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support Thereof filed by Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Mario Huelga, Chris Merendino, Michael B. Mukasey, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, United States of America. Motion Hearing set for 2/17/2010 09:00 AM in Courtroom 3, 3rd Floor, Oakland. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Deiss, Ila) (Filed on 10/29/2009) Modified on 11/4/2009 (vlk, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/29/2009)
146 MOTION to Dismiss corrected formatting filed by Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Mario Huelga, Chris Merendino, Michael B. Mukasey, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, United States of America. Motion Hearing set for 2/17/2010 09:00 AM in Courtroom 3, 3rd Floor, Oakland. (Kisor, Colin) (Filed on 11/3/2009) (Entered: 11/03/2009)
147 NOTICE of Appearance by Tienlon Ho (Ho, Tienlon) (Filed on 12/2/2009) (Entered: 12/02/2009)
148 MOTION for Voluntary Dismissal Without Prejudice filed by Committee for Immigrant Rights of Sonoma County, Francisco Sanchez Lopez, Samuel Medel Moyado, Christyan Sonato Vega. (Pfeiffer, Alfred) (Filed on 12/14/2009) (Entered: 12/14/2009)
149 Proposed Order re 148 MOTION for Voluntary Dismissal Without Prejudice by Committee for Immigrant Rights of Sonoma County, Francisco Sanchez Lopez, Samuel Medel Moyado, Christyan Sonato Vega. (Pfeiffer, Alfred) (Filed on 12/14/2009) (Entered: 12/14/2009)
150 MOTION to Withdraw of the ACLU−Northern California and Latham &Watkins LLP as Counsel for Samuel Medel Moyado filed by Committee for Immigrant Rights of Sonoma County, Francisco Sanchez Lopez, Samuel Medel Moyado, Christyan Sonato Vega. (Pfeiffer, Alfred) (Filed on 12/14/2009) (Entered: 12/14/2009)
151 Proposed Order re 150 MOTION to Withdraw of the ACLU−Northern California and Latham &Watkins LLP as Counsel for Samuel Medel Moyado by Committee for Immigrant Rights of Sonoma County, Francisco Sanchez Lopez, Samuel Medel Moyado, Christyan Sonato Vega. (Pfeiffer, Alfred) (Filed on 12/14/2009) (Entered: 12/14/2009)
152 Declaration of Julia Harumi Mass in Support of 150 MOTION to Withdraw of the ACLU−Northern California and Latham &Watkins LLP as Counsel for Samuel Medel Moyado, 148 MOTION for Voluntary Dismissal Without Prejudice filed byCommittee for Immigrant Rights of Sonoma County, Francisco Sanchez Lopez, Samuel Medel Moyado, Christyan Sonato Vega. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Related document(s) 150 , 148 ) (Pfeiffer, Alfred) (Filed on 12/14/2009) (Entered: 12/14/2009)

Case: 3:08-cv-04220-RS As of: 05/24/2012 06:22 AM PDT 24 of 33

12/16/2009
12/16/2009
12/16/2009
12/17/2009 12/22/2009 12/22/2009 01/20/2010 01/20/2010 01/26/2010
02/12/2010 02/12/2010 03/03/2010
03/10/2010 03/18/2010

153 RESPONSE re 148 MOTION for Voluntary Dismissal Without Prejudice filed byBureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Michael B. Mukasey, Joseph P. Russoniello, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, United States of America. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Deiss, Ila) (Filed on 12/16/2009) Modified on 12/17/2009 (vlk, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/16/2009)
154 Memorandum in Opposition to re 143 County Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Second Amended Complaint filed byCommittee for Immigrant Rights of Sonoma County, Francisco Sanchez Lopez, Samuel Medel Moyado, Christyan Sonato Vega. (Pfeiffer, Alfred) (Filed on 12/16/2009) Modified on 12/17/2009 (vlk, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/16/2009)
155 Memorandum in Opposition to 146 Federal Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Second Amended Complaint filed byCommittee for Immigrant Rights of Sonoma County, Francisco Sanchez Lopez, Samuel Medel Moyado, Christyan Sonato Vega. (Pfeiffer, Alfred) (Filed on 12/16/2009) Modified on 12/17/2009 (vlk, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/16/2009)
156 Memorandum in Opposition re 148 MOTION for Voluntary Dismissal Without Prejudice and Declaration of Anne L. Keck filed byBill Cogbill, County of Sonoma, Morris Eric Salkin. (Keck, Anne) (Filed on 12/17/2009) (Entered: 12/17/2009)
157 ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE by Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton granting 148 Motion (nah, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/22/2009) (Entered: 12/22/2009)
158 ORDER GRANTING LEAVE TO WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL FOR SAMUEL MEDEL MOYADO by Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton granting 150 Motion to Withdraw (nah, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/22/2009) (Entered: 12/22/2009)
159 Reply to 155 Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint filed by Mario Huelga, Chris Merendino, Michael B. Mukasey, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, United States of America. (Deiss, Ila) (Filed on 1/20/2010) Modified on 1/21/2010 (vlk, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/20/2010)
160 Reply to 155 Opposition to Motion to Dismiss Second Amended Complaint filed by Bill Cogbill, County of Sonoma, Morris Eric Salkin. (Keck, Anne) (Filed on 1/20/2010) Modified on 1/21/2010 (vlk, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/20/2010)
161 STATEMENT OF RECENT DECISION pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7−3.d re County Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Second Amended Complaint filed byBill Cogbill, County of Sonoma, Morris Eric Salkin. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Related document(s) 160 ) (Keck, Anne) (Filed on 1/26/2010) (Entered: 01/26/2010)
162 ORDER CONTINUING HEARING DATE. Signed by Judge Hamilton on 2/12/2010. (pjhlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/12/2010) (Entered: 02/12/2010)
Set Hearings: Motion Hearing re 143 , 146 Motions to Dismiss set for 3/3/2010 09:00 AM in Courtroom 3, 3rd Floor, Oakland. (vlk, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/12/2010) (Entered: 02/16/2010)
163 Minute Entry: Motion Hearing held on 3/3/2010 before Phyllis J. Hamilton (Date Filed: 3/3/2010) re 143 MOTION to Dismiss SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; APPENDICES filed by Bill Cogbill, Morris Eric Salkin, County of Sonoma, 146 MOTION to Dismiss corrected formatting filed by Chris Merendino, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Michael B. Mukasey, United States of America, Mario Huelga. (Court Reporter Sarah Goekler.) (nah, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 3/3/2010) (Entered: 03/03/2010)
164 ORDER by Judge Hamilton granting in part and denying in part 143 146 Motions to Dismiss. (pjhlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/10/2010) (Entered: 03/10/2010)
165 ORDER REASSIGNING CASE. Case reassigned to Judge Hon. Richard Seeborg for all further proceedings. Judge Hon. Phyllis J. Hamilton no longer assigned to case. Signed by Richard Wieking for the Executive Committee on 3/18/2010. (vlk,

Case: 3:08-cv-04220-RS As of: 05/24/2012 06:22 AM PDT 25 of 33

03/18/2010 03/18/2010 03/19/2010 03/26/2010
03/26/2010 03/26/2010 03/29/2010 03/30/2010 03/31/2010
03/31/2010 04/02/2010 04/02/2010 04/06/2010

COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/18/2010) (Entered: 03/18/2010)
166 STIPULATION (Joint) to Reset the Defendants' Answer Date; [Proposed] Order by Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Bill Cogbill, County of Sonoma, Mario Huelga, Chris Merendino, Michael B. Mukasey, Morris Eric Salkin, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, United States of America. (Deiss, Ila) (Filed on 3/18/2010) (Entered: 03/18/2010)
167 STIPULATION AND ORDER RE: 166 RESETTING DEFENDANTS' ANSWER DATE TO 05/10/2010. Signed by Judge Richard Seeborg on 03/18/2010. (rslc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/18/2010) (Entered: 03/18/2010)
168 Order Setting Settlement Conference before Magistrate Judge. Settlement Conference set for 7/13/2010 09:30 AM in Courtroom C, 15th Floor, San Francisco. Signed by Magistrate Judge Edward M. Chen on 3/19/2010. (emcsec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/19/2010) (Entered: 03/19/2010)
169 Ex Parte Application For Leave to File "Motion To Reconsider Portions of Order Re Motions To Dismiss Entered 3/10/10," and Motion for Temporary Stay of Discovery filed by Bill Cogbill, County of Sonoma, Morris Eric Salkin. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Appendix 1 to Exhibit A, # 3 Appendix 2 to Exhibit A, # 4 Appendix 3 to Exhibit A, # 5 Appendix 4 to Exhibit A)(Keck, Anne) (Filed on 3/26/2010) (Entered: 03/26/2010)
170 Declaration of ANNE L. KECK in Support of 169 Ex Parte Application For Leave to File "Motion To Reconsider Portions of Order Re Motions To Dismiss Entered 3/10/10," and Motion for Temporary Stay of Discovery filed byBill Cogbill, County of Sonoma, Morris Eric Salkin. (Attachments: # 1 Errata A)(Related document(s) 169 ) (Keck, Anne) (Filed on 3/26/2010) (Entered: 03/26/2010)
171 Proposed Order re 169 Ex Parte Application For Leave to File "Motion To Reconsider Portions of Order Re Motions To Dismiss Entered 3/10/10," and Motion for Temporary Stay of Discovery by Bill Cogbill, County of Sonoma, Morris Eric Salkin. (Keck, Anne) (Filed on 3/26/2010) (Entered: 03/26/2010)
172 NOTICE by Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Mario Huelga, Chris Merendino, Michael B. Mukasey, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, United States of America (Deiss, Ila) (Filed on 3/29/2010) (Entered: 03/29/2010)
173 ORDER RE: 169 GRANTING LEAVE TO SEEK RECONSIDERATION. Signed by Judge Richard Seeborg on 03/30/2010. (rslc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/30/2010) (Entered: 03/30/2010)
174 MOTION for Reconsideration Portions of Order re Motions to Dismiss Entered 3/10/10; Memoradum of Points and Authorities filed by Bill Cogbill, County of Sonoma, Morris Eric Salkin. Motion Hearing set for 5/6/2010 01:30 PM in Courtroom 3, 17th Floor, San Francisco. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix 1, # 2 Appendix 2, # 3 Appendix 3, # 4 Appendix 4)(Keck, Anne) (Filed on 3/31/2010) (Entered: 03/31/2010)
175 Proposed Order re 174 MOTION for Reconsideration Portions of Order re Motions to Dismiss Entered 3/10/10; Memoradum of Points and Authorities by Bill Cogbill, County of Sonoma, Morris Eric Salkin. (Keck, Anne) (Filed on 3/31/2010) (Entered: 03/31/2010)
176 JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT filed by Committee for Immigrant Rights of Sonoma County, Francisco Sanchez Lopez, Christyan Sonato Vega. (Pfeiffer, Alfred) (Filed on 4/2/2010) (Entered: 04/02/2010)
177 MOTION for Leave to File Motion to Join County Defendants' Motion to Reconsider and to Stay Discovery; [Proposed] Order filed by Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Mario Huelga, Chris Merendino, Michael B. Mukasey, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, United States of America. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(Deiss, Ila) (Filed on 4/2/2010) (Entered: 04/02/2010)
178 ORDER RE: 177 GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE MOTION TO JOIN COUNTY DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO RECONSIDER AND TO STAY. Signed by Judge Richard Seeborg. (cl, COURT STAFF) (Filed

Case: 3:08-cv-04220-RS As of: 05/24/2012 06:22 AM PDT 26 of 33

04/06/2010 04/06/2010
04/12/2010 04/15/2010 04/15/2010 04/22/2010 04/22/2010
05/06/2010
05/07/2010 05/07/2010 05/10/2010 05/10/2010

on 4/6/2010) (Entered: 04/06/2010)
Set/Reset Hearings: Motion Hearing set for 5/6/2010 01:30 PM in Courtroom 3, 17th Floor, San Francisco. (cl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/6/2010) (Entered: 04/06/2010)
179 Transcript of Proceedings held on 03/03/10, before Judge Hamilton. Court Reporter/Transcriber Sarah Goekler, Telephone number (530)941−2621; email: sgoekler25@yahoo.com. Per General Order No. 59 and Judicial Conference policy, this transcript may be viewed only at the Clerks Office public terminal or may be purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber until the deadline for the Release of Transcript Restriction.After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Any Notice of Intent to Request Redaction, if required, is due no later than 5 business days from date of this filing. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 7/6/2010. (slg, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/6/2010) (Entered: 04/06/2010)
180 NOTICE of Appearance by Amalia Louise Greenberg Delgado (Greenberg Delgado, Amalia) (Filed on 4/12/2010) (Entered: 04/12/2010)
181 Memorandum in Opposition re 174 MOTION for Reconsideration Portions of Order re Motions to Dismiss Entered 3/10/10; Memoradum of Points and Authorities and Request for Lift of Temporary Stay of Discovery filed byCommittee for Immigrant Rights of Sonoma County, Francisco Sanchez Lopez, Christyan Sonato Vega. (Pfeiffer, Alfred) (Filed on 4/15/2010) (Entered: 04/15/2010)
182 Declaration of Alfred C. Pfeiffer, Jr. in Support of 181 Memorandum in Opposition, filed byCommittee for Immigrant Rights of Sonoma County, Francisco Sanchez Lopez, Christyan Sonato Vega. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D)(Related document(s) 181 ) (Pfeiffer, Alfred) (Filed on 4/15/2010) (Entered: 04/15/2010)
183 Reply to Opposition to the 174 Motions to Reconsider filed by U.S. Department of Homeland Security, United States of America. (Deiss, Ila) (Filed on 4/22/2010) Modified on 4/23/2010 (slh, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/22/2010)
184 Reply to Opposition re 174 MOTION for Reconsideration Portions of Order re Motions to Dismiss Entered 3/10/10; Memoradum of Points and Authorities (County Defendants' Reply re Motion to Reconsider Portions of Order re Motions to Dismiss Entered 3/10/10; Objections to Plaintiffs' Request for Alternate Relief and to Lift Temporary Stay of Discovery) filed byBill Cogbill, County of Sonoma, Morris Eric Salkin. (Keck, Anne) (Filed on 4/22/2010) (Entered: 04/22/2010)
185 Minute Entry: Motion Hearing held on 5/6/2010 before Judge Richard Seeborg; Matter Submitted. (Date Filed: 5/6/2010) re 177 MOTION for Leave to File Motion to Join County Defendants' Motion to Reconsider and to Stay Discovery; [Proposed] Order MOTION for Leave to File Motion to Join County Defendants' Motion to Reconsider and to Stay Discovery; [Proposed] Order filed by Chris Merendino, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Michael B. Mukasey, United States of America, Mario Huelga.(Court Reporter Joan Columbini.)(cl, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 5/6/2010) (Entered: 05/06/2010)
186 NOTICE OF INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL as to 164 Order on Motion to Dismiss by Mario Huelga, Chris Merendino, United States of America. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Appeal Docketing Statement)(slh, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/7/2010) (USCA Case No. 10−16071) (Entered: 05/07/2010)
187 Transmission of Notice of Appeal and Docket Sheet to US Court of Appeals re 186 Notice of Interlocutory Appeal. (Attachments: # 1 Docket Sheet)(slh, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/7/2010) (Entered: 05/07/2010)
188 ORDER RE: 186 REQUESTING FURTHER BRIEFING BY MAY 17, 2010. Signed by Judge Richard Seeborg on 05/10/2010. (rslc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/10/2010) (Entered: 05/10/2010)
189 STIPULATION by Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Mario Huelga, Chris Merendino, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, United States of America. (Vahab, Lana) (Filed on 5/10/2010) (Entered: 05/10/2010)

Case: 3:08-cv-04220-RS As of: 05/24/2012 06:22 AM PDT 27 of 33

05/11/2010
05/12/2010 05/14/2010 05/17/2010 05/24/2010 06/11/2010 06/21/2010 06/22/2010
06/24/2010 07/01/2010 07/01/2010 07/02/2010 07/09/2010 07/12/2010 07/12/2010 07/14/2010

190 STIPULATION AND ORDER RE: 189 TO EXTEND TIME WITHIN WHICH DEFENDANTS MUST FILE AN ANSWER TO SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT; EXTEND TIME TO FILE INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL. Signed by Judge Richard Seeborg on 5/11/10. (cl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/11/2010) (Entered: 05/11/2010)
191 RESPONSE to re 188 Order by Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Mario Huelga, Chris Merendino, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, United States of America. (Deiss, Ila) (Filed on 5/12/2010) (Entered: 05/12/2010)
192 RESPONSE to re 188 Order Requesting Further Briefing by Bill Cogbill, County of Sonoma, Morris Eric Salkin. (Keck, Anne) (Filed on 5/14/2010) (Entered: 05/14/2010)
193 Reply Memorandum in Response to the Court's May 10, 2010 Order Requesting Further Briefing filed byCommittee for Immigrant Rights of Sonoma County, Francisco Sanchez Lopez, Christyan Sonato Vega. (Heard, Mary) (Filed on 5/17/2010) (Entered: 05/17/2010)
194 USCA Case Number 10−16071 for 186 Notice of Interlocutory Appeal filed by Chris Merendino, United States of America, Mario Huelga. (slh, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/24/2010) (Entered: 05/24/2010)
195 ORDER RE: 174 MOTIONS FOR RECONSIDERATION. Signed by Judge Richard Seeborg on 06/11/2010. (rslc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/11/2010) (Entered: 06/11/2010)
196 STIPULATION to Schedule a Case Management Conference; [Proposed] Order by Mario Huelga, Chris Merendino. (Deiss, Ila) (Filed on 6/21/2010) (Entered: 06/21/2010)
197 STIPULATION AND ORDER RE 196 TO SCHEDULE A CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE. Case Management Conference set for 7/15/2010 10:00 AM in Courtroom 3, 17th Floor, San Francisco. Signed by Judge Richard Seeborg on 6/21/10. (cl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/22/2010) (Entered: 06/22/2010)
198 NOTICE by Committee for Immigrant Rights of Sonoma County re 179 Transcript,, Reporter's Transcripts Necessary for Appeal Pursuant to Fed. R. App. P.10(b)(3)(B) and Ninth Cir. R. 10−3.1(b) (Ho, Tienlon) (Filed on 6/24/2010) (Entered: 06/24/2010)
199 Federal Defendants' ANSWER to Amended Complaint (Second) byMario Huelga, Chris Merendino, United States of America. (Deiss, Ila) (Filed on 7/1/2010) (Entered: 07/01/2010)
200 County Defendants' ANSWER to Amended Complaint (Second Amended) byBill Cogbill, County of Sonoma, Morris Eric Salkin. (Keck, Anne) (Filed on 7/1/2010) (Entered: 07/01/2010)
201 Federal Defendats' Amended ANSWER to Amended Complaint byBureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Mario Huelga, Chris Merendino, United States of America. (Deiss, Ila) (Filed on 7/2/2010) (Entered: 07/02/2010)
202 JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT (SUPPLEMENTAL) filed by Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Mario Huelga, Chris Merendino, United States of America. (Deiss, Ila) (Filed on 7/9/2010) (Entered: 07/09/2010)
203 NOTICE of Appearance by Hyun Jee Son (Son, Hyun Jee) (Filed on 7/12/2010) (Entered: 07/12/2010)
204 NOTICE of Change In Counsel by Hyun Jee Son (Son, Hyun Jee) (Filed on 7/12/2010) (Entered: 07/12/2010)
205 Minute Entry: Settlement Conference held 7/13/2010. Case did not settle. (Date Filed: 7/14/2010). (Court Reporter: Not Recorded.). (emcsec, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 7/14/2010) (Entered: 07/14/2010)

Case: 3:08-cv-04220-RS As of: 05/24/2012 06:22 AM PDT 28 of 33

07/15/2010
07/16/2010 07/16/2010 09/07/2010 09/07/2010
09/07/2010 09/08/2010 09/10/2010 09/17/2010
09/17/2010 09/24/2010 09/24/2010 09/29/2010

206 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Committee for Immigrant Rights of Sonoma County, Francisco Sanchez Lopez, Samuel Medel Moyado, Christyan Sonato Vega Proof of Service − Judge Richard Seeborg Standing Order Re: Initial Case Management (Attachments: # 1 Standing Order − Judge Richard Seeborg Standing Order Re: Initial Case Management)(O'Connor, Casey) (Filed on 7/15/2010) (Entered: 07/15/2010)
207 Minute Entry: Further Case Management Conference held on 7/15/2010 before Judge Seeborg (Date Filed: 7/16/2010). Further Case Management Conference set for 10/21/2010 10:00 AM in Courtroom 3, 17th Floor, San Francisco. (Court Reporter unreported.)(cl, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 7/16/2010) (Entered: 07/16/2010)
208 CASE MANAGEMENT SCHEDULING ORDER: Further Case Management Conference set for 10/21/2010 10:00 AM in Courtroom 3, 17th Floor, San Francisco. Signed by Judge Richard Seeborg on 7/15/10. (cl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/16/2010) (Entered: 07/16/2010)
209 MOTION for Protective Order Re: Use of Identifying Information Outside of Litigation filed by Committee for Immigrant Rights of Sonoma County, Francisco Sanchez Lopez, Christyan Sonato Vega. Motion Hearing set for 10/14/2010 01:30 PM in Courtroom 3, 17th Floor, San Francisco. (Ho, Tienlon) (Filed on 9/7/2010) (Entered: 09/07/2010)
210 Declaration of Jason Daniels in Support of 209 MOTION for Protective Order Re: Use of Identifying Information Outside of Litigation filed byCommittee for Immigrant Rights of Sonoma County, Francisco Sanchez Lopez, Christyan Sonato Vega. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibits A and B, # 2 Exhibits C and D, # 3 Exhibits E and F, # 4 Exhibits G through J)(Related document(s) 209 ) (Ho, Tienlon) (Filed on 9/7/2010) (Entered: 09/07/2010)
211 Proposed Order re 209 MOTION for Protective Order Re: Use of Identifying Information Outside of Litigation by Committee for Immigrant Rights of Sonoma County, Francisco Sanchez Lopez, Christyan Sonato Vega. (Ho, Tienlon) (Filed on 9/7/2010) (Entered: 09/07/2010)
212 ORDER OF REFERENCE TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE. Order Referring Case to Magistrate Judge. Signed by Judge Richard Seeborg on 9/8/10. (cl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/8/2010) (Entered: 09/08/2010)
213 CLERKS NOTICE Motion Hearing on Plaintiff's motion for a protective order 209 set for 10/20/2010 09:30 AM before the Honorable James Larson in Courtroom F, 15th Floor, San Francisco. (fj, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/10/2010) (Entered: 09/10/2010)
214 Memorandum in Opposition to Plaintiffs' 209 Motion For A Global Protective Order and CROSS−MOTION for a Privacy Act Protective Order filed by Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Michael B. Mukasey, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, United States of America. (Attachments: # 1 Ex.1 − Privacy Act Protective Order, # 2 Ex. 2 − Transcript of Proceedings, Jan. 29, 2009, # 3 Ex. 3 − Aguilar Discovery Order)(Deiss, Ila) (Filed on 9/17/2010) Modified on 9/21/2010 (slh, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/17/2010)
215 Letter from All Parties To Court Requesting Assignment of Another Magistrate Judge for a Settlement Conference. (Son, Hyun Jee) (Filed on 9/17/2010) (Entered: 09/17/2010)
216 ORDER of USCA granting appellant's motion for voluntary dismissal as to 186 Notice of Interlocutory Appeal, filed by Chris Merendino, United States of America, Mario Huelga (slh, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/24/2010) (Entered: 09/24/2010)
217 CLERKS Letter Spreading Mandate to Counsel (slh, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/24/2010) (Entered: 09/24/2010)
218 Memorandum in Opposition re 209 MOTION for Protective Order Re: Use of Identifying Information Outside of Litigation "Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for a Global Protecitve Order, et al.; Non−Opposition to Federal Defendants'

Case: 3:08-cv-04220-RS As of: 05/24/2012 06:22 AM PDT 29 of 33

10/05/2010 10/06/2010 10/06/2010 10/12/2010 10/14/2010 10/14/2010 10/21/2010
10/22/2010 10/22/2010 10/25/2010 11/10/2010 11/10/2010 11/10/2010

Cross−Motion for a Privacy Act Protective Order filed byBill Cogbill, County of Sonoma, Morris Eric Salkin. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix A)(Keck, Anne) (Filed on 9/29/2010) (Entered: 09/29/2010)
219 RESPONSE in Support re 214 MOTION for Protective Order filed byBureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Mario Huelga, Chris Merendino, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, United States of America. (Vahab, Lana) (Filed on 10/5/2010) (Entered: 10/05/2010)
220 Reply to Opposition to 209 Motion for a Global Protective Order Re: Use of Identifying Information Outside of Litigation filed by Committee for Immigrant Rights of Sonoma County. (Son, Hyun Jee) (Filed on 10/6/2010) Modified on 10/7/2010 (slh, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/06/2010)
221 Declaration of Hyun Jee Son in Support of 220 Reply to Opposition to Motion for Global Protective Order Re: Use of Identifying Information Outside of Litigation filed byCommittee for Immigrant Rights of Sonoma County. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit Exhibit C)(Related document(s) 220 ) (Son, Hyun Jee) (Filed on 10/6/2010) (Entered: 10/06/2010)
222 NOTICE of Substitution of Counsel by Megan Susanna Bouchier (Bouchier, Megan) (Filed on 10/12/2010) (Entered: 10/12/2010)
223 NOTICE of Appearance by Robert William Studley (Studley, Robert) (Filed on 10/14/2010) (Entered: 10/14/2010)
224 CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT Joint Supplemental Case Management Statement filed by Committee for Immigrant Rights of Sonoma County, Francisco Sanchez Lopez, Christyan Sonato Vega. (Son, Hyun Jee) (Filed on 10/14/2010) (Entered: 10/14/2010)
225 Minute Entry: Motion Hearing held on 10/20/2010 before James Larson (Date Filed: 10/21/2010) re 209 MOTION for Protective Order Re: Use of Identifying Information Outside of Litigation filed by Christyan Sonato Vega, Francisco Sanchez Lopez, Committee for Immigrant Rights of Sonoma County. After hearing oral arguments, the matter is taken under submission. The Court will issue an order. (Court Reporter Kathy Wyatt.) (fj, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 10/21/2010) (Entered: 10/21/2010)
226 Minute Entry:Further Case Management Conference held on 10/21/2010 before Judge Richard Seeborg (Date Filed: 10/22/2010). Further Case Management Conference set for 1/20/2011 10:00 AM in Courtroom 3, 17th Floor, San Francisco. (Court Reporter unreported.)(cl, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 10/22/2010) (Entered: 10/22/2010)
227 CASE MANAGEMENT SCHEDULING ORDER: Further Case Management Conference set for 1/20/2011 10:00 AM in Courtroom 3, 17th Floor, San Francisco. Signed by Judge Richard Seeborg on 10/21/10. (cl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/22/2010) (Entered: 10/22/2010)
228 Order Setting Further Settlement Conference. Further Settlement Conference set for 12/14/2010 09:30 AM in Courtroom C, 15th Floor, San Francisco. Signed by Magistrate Judge Edward M. Chen on 10/25/2010. (emcsec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/25/2010) (Entered: 10/25/2010)
229 MOTION for Judgment on the Pleadings filed by Bill Cogbill, County of Sonoma, Morris Eric Salkin. Motion Hearing set for 12/16/2010 01:30 PM in Courtroom 3, 17th Floor, San Francisco. (Keck, Anne) (Filed on 11/10/2010) (Entered: 11/10/2010)
230 Declaration of Anne L. Keck in Support of 229 MOTION for Judgment on the Pleadings filed byBill Cogbill, County of Sonoma, Morris Eric Salkin. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Related document(s) 229 ) (Keck, Anne) (Filed on 11/10/2010) (Entered: 11/10/2010)
231 Proposed Order re 229 MOTION for Judgment on the Pleadings by Bill Cogbill, County of Sonoma, Morris Eric Salkin. (Keck, Anne) (Filed on 11/10/2010) (Entered: 11/10/2010)

Case: 3:08-cv-04220-RS As of: 05/24/2012 06:22 AM PDT 30 of 33

11/12/2010 11/12/2010 11/18/2010 11/19/2010
12/01/2010 12/02/2010 12/02/2010 12/06/2010 12/06/2010 12/07/2010 12/08/2010 12/10/2010
12/13/2010

232 ORDER by Judge James Larson Denying Plaintiffs' Motion for Global Protective Order Re: Use of Identify 209 Motion for Protective Order (jlsec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/12/2010) (Entered: 11/12/2010)
233 Statement Joint Statement on Parties' Dispute Over County Defendants' Response to Plaintiffs' Requests for Admissions by Committee for Immigrant Rights of Sonoma County, Francisco Sanchez Lopez, Christyan Sonato Vega. (Son, Hyun Jee) (Filed on 11/12/2010) (Entered: 11/12/2010)
234 STIPULATION and [Proposed] Order to Continue Hearing Date on County Defendants' Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings and Further Case Management Conference by Committee for Immigrant Rights of Sonoma County, Francisco Sanchez Lopez, Christyan Sonato Vega. (Son, Hyun Jee) (Filed on 11/18/2010) (Entered: 11/18/2010)
235 STIPULATION AND ORDER TO CONTINUE HEARING DATE ON COUNTY DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS AND FURTHER CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE. Further Case Management Conference set for 1/27/2011 01:30 PM in Courtroom 3, 17th Floor, San Francisco. Joint Case Management Statement filed by 1/20/11. Motion Hearing set for 1/27/2011 01:30 PM in Courtroom 3, 17th Floor, San Francisco. Signed by Judge Richard Seeborg on 11/19/10. (cl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/19/2010) (Entered: 11/19/2010)
236 STIPULATION (Proposed) Stipulated Privacy Act Protective Order by Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Mario Huelga, Chris Merendino, Michael B. Mukasey, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, United States of America. (Deiss, Ila) (Filed on 12/1/2010) (Entered: 12/01/2010)
237 OBJECTIONS to re 232 Order on Motion for Protective Order re: use of identifying information outside of litigation by Committee for Immigrant Rights of Sonoma County, Francisco Sanchez Lopez, Christyan Sonato Vega. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Studley, Robert) (Filed on 12/2/2010) (Entered: 12/02/2010)
238 PROTECTIVE ORDER Re: 236 Stipulated Privacy Act Protective Order. Signed by Judge James Larson on 12/2/10. (fj, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/2/2010) (Entered: 12/02/2010)
239 NOTICE by Bill Cogbill, County of Sonoma, Morris Eric Salkin re 237 Objection, "County Defendants' Notice and Request for Entry of Order RE Untimeliness of Plaintiffs' Objections to November 12, 2010 Nondispositive Pre−Trial Order of Magistrate Judge; [Proposed] Order" (Keck, Anne) (Filed on 12/6/2010) (Entered: 12/06/2010)
240 RESPONSE to County Defendants' Notice and Request for Entry of Order Re "Untimeliness" of Plaintiffs' Objections by Committee for Immigrant Rights of Sonoma County, Francisco Sanchez Lopez, Christyan Sonato Vega. (Son, Hyun Jee) (Filed on 12/6/2010) (Entered: 12/06/2010)
241 Statement Joint Statement on Parties' Dispute over Federal Defendants' Noticed Location for Deposition of Christyan Sonato−Vega by Christyan Sonato Vega. (O'Connor, Casey) (Filed on 12/7/2010) (Entered: 12/07/2010)
242 ORDER RE: 237 , 239 BRIEFING. Signed by Judge Richard Seeborg on 12/08/2010. (rslc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/8/2010) Modified on 6/9/2011 to correct hyperlinked references (rslc1, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/08/2010)
243 Memorandum in Opposition Federal Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiffs' 239 Motion for Relief from Nondispositive Pretrial Order Of Magistrate Judge filed by Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Mario Huelga, Chris Merendino, Michael B. Mukasey, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, United States of America. (Deiss, Ila) (Filed on 12/10/2010) Modified on 12/13/2010 (slh, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/10/2010)
244 NOTICE by Bill Cogbill, County of Sonoma, Morris Eric Salkin OF UNAVAILABILITY (Keck, Anne) (Filed on 12/13/2010) (Entered: 12/13/2010)

Case: 3:08-cv-04220-RS As of: 05/24/2012 06:22 AM PDT 31 of 33

12/15/2010
12/22/2010 12/22/2010
01/20/2011 02/04/2011 02/09/2011 02/10/2011 03/07/2011 03/09/2011 03/09/2011
04/07/2011 04/07/2011 04/07/2011 04/07/2011 04/07/2011 04/15/2011

245 Minute Entry: Further Settlement Conference held 12/14/2010. Partial settlement reached (placed on record UNDER SEAL). Only counsel of record shall have access to the transcript (if any) and/or FTR proceeding. (Date Filed: 12/15/2010). (Court Reporter FTR 12142010 (3:37 − 3:52; 3:59 − 4:01).). (emcsec, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 12/15/2010) (Entered: 12/15/2010)
246 STIPULATION (Joint) to Vacate Dates and Proposed Order by Committee for Immigrant Rights of Sonoma County, Francisco Sanchez Lopez, Christyan Sonato Vega. (Studley, Robert) (Filed on 12/22/2010) (Entered: 12/22/2010)
247 JOINT STIPULATION AND ORDER RE 246 TO VACATE DATES AS MODIFIED BY THE COURT. Further Case Management Conference set for 3/17/2011 10:00 AM in Courtroom 3, 17th Floor, San Francisco. Signed by Judge Richard Seeborg on 12/22/10. (cl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/22/2010) (Entered: 12/22/2010)
248 ORDER Setting Further Settlement Conference before Magistrate Judge. Further Settlement Conference set for 3/4/2011 09:30 AM in Courtroom C, 15th Floor, San Francisco. Signed by Magistrate Judge Edward M. Chen on 1/20/2011. (emcsec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/20/2011) (Entered: 01/20/2011)
249 NOTICE of Change In Counsel by Hyun Jee Son for Plaintiffs (Son, Hyun Jee) (Filed on 2/4/2011) (Entered: 02/04/2011)
250 STIPULATION to Extend Temporary Stay of Action; [Proposed] Order by Bill Cogbill, County of Sonoma, Morris Eric Salkin. (Keck, Anne) (Filed on 2/9/2011) (Entered: 02/09/2011)
251 STIPULATION AND ORDER RE 250 TO EXTEND TEMPORARY STAY OF ACTION. Signed by Judge Richard Seeborg on 2/9/11. (cl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/10/2011) (Entered: 02/10/2011)
252 Minute Entry: Further Settlement Conference held 3/4/2011. Case did not settle. No Further Settlement Conference scheduled. (Date Filed: 3/7/2011). (Court Reporter: Not Recorded.). (emcsec, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 3/7/2011) (Entered: 03/07/2011)
253 STIPULATION [JOINT] TO FURTHER EXTEND TEMPORARY STAY OF ACTION AND CONTINUE CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE; [PROPOSED] ORDER by Bill Cogbill, County of Sonoma, Morris Eric Salkin. (Keck, Anne) (Filed on 3/9/2011) (Entered: 03/09/2011)
254 STIPULATION AND ORDER RE 253 TO FURTHER EXTEND TEMPORARY STAY OF ACTION AND CONTINUE CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE. Further Case Management Conference set for 5/26/2011 10:00 AM in Courtroom 3, 17th Floor, San Francisco. Signed by Judge Richard Seeborg on 3/9/11. (cl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/9/2011) (Entered: 03/09/2011)
255 NOTICE of Substitution of Counsel by Stephanie Amy Song (Song, Stephanie) (Filed on 4/7/2011) (Entered: 04/07/2011)
256 STIPULATION to Dismiss All Claims Against Federal Defendants by Christyan Sonato Vega. (O'Connor, Casey) (Filed on 4/7/2011) (Entered: 04/07/2011)
257 STIPULATION to Dismiss All Claims Against Federal Defendants by Francisco Sanchez Lopez. (O'Connor, Casey) (Filed on 4/7/2011) (Entered: 04/07/2011)
258 STIPULATION AND ORDER TO DISMISS ALL CLAIMS BROUGHT BY PLAINTIFF SONATO VEGA AGAINST FEDERAL DEFENDANTS WITH PREJUDICE. Signed by Judge Richard Seeborg on 4/7/11/. (cl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/7/2011) (Entered: 04/07/2011)
259 STIPULATION AND ORDER TO DISMISS ALL CLAIMS BROUGHT BY PLAINTIFF SANCHEZ−LOPEZ AGAINST FEDERAL DEFENDANTS WITH PREJUDICE. Signed by Judge Richard Seeborg on 4/7/11. (cl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/7/2011) (Entered: 04/07/2011)
260 CLERKS NOTICE RESCHEDULING CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE. Case Management Conference set for 6/9/2011 10:00 AM in Courtroom 3, 17th

Case: 3:08-cv-04220-RS As of: 05/24/2012 06:22 AM PDT 32 of 33

05/23/2011
06/01/2011
06/02/2011 06/09/2011 06/10/2011 06/16/2011 07/08/2011 07/12/2011 07/21/2011 07/22/2011 08/23/2011 08/23/2011

Floor, San Francisco. (cl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/15/2011) (Entered: 04/15/2011)
CASE REFERRED to Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley for Settlement: Due to Judge Chen's elevation to Article III status, this case is re−referred to Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley for settlement. All Future settlement matters should be addressed to Judge Corley unless otherwise ordered by the presiding judge. Please contact Judge Corley's courtroom deputy, Ada Means, at (415) 522−2015 or Ada_Means@cand.uscourts.gov with any questions or concerns. (slh, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/23/2011) (Entered: 05/23/2011)
Magistrate Judge James Larson no longer assigned to case. Due to Magistrate Judge Larson's retirement, this case is re−referred to Magistrate Judge Nathanael M. Cousins for discovery. All matters scheduled before, and deadlines set by, Judge Larson are hereby vacated. All future discovery matters should be addressed to Judge Cousins unless otherwise ordered by the presiding judge. Until Judge Cousins takes the bench on July 5, 2011, any urgent discovery issues requiring immediate judicial attention should be addressed to Acting Chief Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero by contacting his courtroom deputy, Karen Hom, at (415) 522−2035. (aaa, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/1/2011) (Entered: 06/01/2011)
261 CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT filed by Committee for Immigrant Rights of Sonoma County, Francisco Sanchez Lopez, Christyan Sonato Vega. (Studley, Robert) (Filed on 6/2/2011) Modified on 6/3/2011 (feriab, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/02/2011)
262 Minute Entry: Further Case Management Conference held on 6/9/2011 before Judge Richard Seeborg (Date Filed: 6/9/2011). Further Case Management Conference set for 10/27/2011 10:00 AM in Courtroom 3, 17th Floor, San Francisco. (Court Reporter Not Reported.) (cl, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 6/9/2011) (Entered: 06/09/2011)
***Deadlines terminated*** Release of Transcript Restriction date of 07/06/2010 Date Terminated 179 Transcript. (gba, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/10/2011) (Entered: 06/10/2011)
263 ORDER RE OBJECTION TO RULING OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE. Signed by Judge Richard Seeborg on 6/16/11. (cl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/16/2011) (Entered: 06/16/2011)
CASE REFERRED to Magistrate Judge Nathanael M. Cousins for Discovery. (lmh, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/8/2011) (Entered: 07/08/2011)
264 NOTICE of Change In Counsel by Robert William Studley FOR PLAINTIFFS (Studley, Robert) (Filed on 7/12/2011) (Entered: 07/12/2011)
265 STIPULATION TO DISMISS ALL CLAIMS BROUGHT BY PLAINTIFF COMMITTEE FOR IMMIGRANT RIGHTS OF SONOMA COUNTY AGAINST COUNTY DEFENDANTS WITH PREJUDICE; and [proposed] ORDER by Committee for Immigrant Rights of Sonoma County. (O'Connor, Casey) (Filed on 7/21/2011) (Entered: 07/21/2011)
266 STIPULATION AND ORDER RE 265 TO DISMISS ALL CLAIMS BROUGHT BY PLAINTIFF COMMITTEE FOR IMMIGRANT RIGHTS OF SONOMA COUNTY AGAINST COUNTY DEFENDANTS WITH PREJUDICE. Signed by Judge Richard Seeborg on 7/22/11. (cl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/22/2011) (Entered: 07/22/2011)
267 STIPULATION STIPULATION TO DISMISS ALL CLAIMS BROUGHT BY PLAINTIFF SANCHEZ−LOPEZ AGAINST COUNTY DEFENDANTS WITH PREJUDICE; AND [PROPOSED] ORDER by Francisco Sanchez Lopez. (O'Connor, Casey) (Filed on 8/23/2011) (Entered: 08/23/2011)
268 STIPULATION STIPULATION TO DISMISS ALL CLAIMS BROUGHT AGAINST COUNTY DEFENDANTS WITH PREJUDICE; AND [PROPOSED] ORDER by Christyan Sonato Vega. (O'Connor, Casey) (Filed on 8/23/2011) (Entered: 08/23/2011)

Case: 3:08-cv-04220-RS As of: 05/24/2012 06:22 AM PDT 33 of 33

08/25/2011 08/25/2011 10/20/2011 10/21/2011 12/06/2011
12/09/2011 12/09/2011 12/09/2011
12/12/2011 12/12/2011

269 STIPULATION AND ORDER RE 267 TO DISMISS ALL CLAIMS BROUGHT BY PLAINTIFF SANCHEZ−LOPEZ AGAINST COUNTY DEFENDANTS WITH PREJUDICE. Signed by Judge Richard Seeborg on 8/25/11. (cl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/25/2011) (Entered: 08/25/2011)
270 STIPULATION AND ORDER RE 268 TO DISMISS ALL CLAIMS BROUGHT BY PLAINTIFF SONATO−VEGA AGAINST COUNTY DEFENDANTS WITH PREJUDICE. Signed by Judge Richard Seeborg on 8/25/11. (cl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/25/2011) (Entered: 08/25/2011)
271 STIPULATION JOINT STIPULATION TO RESCHEDULE CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE; and [proposed] ORDER by Committee for Immigrant Rights of Sonoma County. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Studley, Robert) (Filed on 10/20/2011) (Entered: 10/20/2011)
272 CLERKS NOTICE Further Case Management Conference set for 1/5/2012 10:00 AM in Courtroom 3, 17th Floor, San Francisco. (rslc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/21/2011) (Entered: 10/21/2011)
273 MOTION Joint Administrative Motion to Vacate Prior Order; [Proposed] Order filed by Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Mario Huelga, Chris Merendino, Michael B. Mukasey, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, United States of America. Responses due by 12/20/2011. Replies due by 12/27/2011. (Deiss, Ila) (Filed on 12/6/2011) (Entered: 12/06/2011)
274 ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO VACATE PRIOR ORDER. by Judge Richard Seeborg (cl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/9/2011) (Entered: 12/09/2011)
275 Letter from Anne L. Keck re: Administrative Motion to Vacate Prior Order. (Keck, Anne) (Filed on 12/9/2011) (Entered: 12/09/2011)
276 STIPULATION To Dismiss All Remaining Claims Brought by Plaintiff Committee For Immigrants Rights of Sonoma County Against Federal Defendants with Prejudice; and [proposed] Order by Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Mario Huelga, Chris Merendino, Michael B. Mukasey, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, United States of America. (Deiss, Ila) (Filed on 12/9/2011) (Entered: 12/09/2011)
277 ORDER CLARIFYING SCOPE OF VACATUR. Signed by Judge Richard Seeborg on 12/12/11. (cl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/12/2011) (Entered: 12/12/2011)
278 STIPULATION AND ORDER RE 276 TO DISMISS REMAINING CLAIMS. Signed by Judge Richard Seeborg on 12/12/11. (cl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/12/2011) (Entered: 12/12/2011)

 
 Case Reference: Committee for Immigrant Rights of Sonoma County, et al. v. County of Sonoma, et al., U.S.D.C., Northern Dist. of Cal., Case No. 08-4220
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND GENERAL RELEASE OF CLAIMS
This Settlement Agreement and General Release of Claims (“Agreement”) is entered into by and between Plaintiffs Francisco Sanchez-Lopez (“Sanchez-Lopez”), Christyan Sonato-Vega (“Sonato-Vega”), and the Committee for Immigrant Rights of Sonoma County (“Committee”), collectively referred to herein as “Plaintiffs”, and Defendant the County of Sonoma (“County”), including its administrative subdivision the Sonoma County Sheriff’s Office (“Sheriff’s Office”). The effective date of this Agreement is July 15, 2011 (the “Effective Date”).
RECITALS WHEREAS, Plaintiffs filed a Complaint on September 5, 2008, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, styled Committee for Immigrant Rights of Sonoma County, et al. v. County of Sonoma, et al., Case No. 08-4220, and filed a Second Amended Complaint on September 14, 2009 (hereinafter referred to as the “Action”). WHEREAS, Plaintiffs filed the Action against the County, as well as former Sonoma County Sheriff-Coroner William Cogbill and Deputy Sheriff Morris Eric Salkin, in their official and personal capacities, and Does 1 through 50, all of whom shall be collectively referred to hereinafter as “County Defendants.” WHEREAS, Plaintiffs also filed the Action against other defendants, including the United States of America, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”), and certain of its federal officers, agents and employees. WHEREAS, in the Action, Plaintiffs alleged against County Defendants violations of both federal and state law, and sought damages, declaratory and injunctive relief.
Page 1 of 21

NOW, THEREFORE, to avoid the delay, uncertainty, inconvenience, and expense of protracted litigation of the Action, Plaintiffs and County Defendants reach a full and complete settlement of all claims against all County Defendants, and each of them in their official and personal capacities, pursuant to the terms and conditions below.
AGREEMENT Settlement Terms Applicable to Plaintiff Sanchez-Lopez
1. The County agrees to pay Plaintiff Sanchez-Lopez the sum of Three Thousand Dollars and no cents ($3,000.00) under the terms and conditions set forth herein.
2. Plaintiff Sanchez-Lopez and his heirs, executors, administrators, assigns and attorneys, hereby agree to accept the sum of Three Thousand Dollars and no cents ($3,000.00) in full and final settlement and satisfaction of his claims in the Action against the County Defendants, and each of them in their official as well as personal capacities, under the terms and conditions set forth herein.
3. It is also agreed by and between Plaintiff Sanchez-Lopez and the County that, upon providing Plaintiff Sanchez-Lopez’s Social Security Number to County, the amount of Three Thousand Dollars and no cents ($3,000.00) shall be drafted via check made payable to “Francisco Sanchez-Lopez” and shall be sent to Latham & Watkins, LLP, 505 Montgomery Street, Suite 2000, San Francisco, CA 94111.
4. In consideration of the payment of Three Thousand Dollars and no cents ($3,000.00) as set forth above, and other terms and conditions contained herein, Plaintiff Sanchez-Lopez agrees that he will immediately upon execution of this Agreement also execute a Stipulation of Dismissal of the Action, which stipulation shall dismiss with prejudice his claims in the Action against County Defendants, and each of them in their official and personal capacities. The fully executed Stipulation of Dismissal will be held by counsel for the Plaintiffs
Page 2 of 21

and will be filed with the Court within three (3) business days of counsel’s receipt of the check for Plaintiff Sanchez-Lopez’s Three Thousand Dollars and no cents ($3,000.00), his full settlement amount.
5. In consideration of the payment of Three Thousand Dollars and no cents ($3,000.00) as set forth above, and other terms and conditions contained herein, Plaintiff Sanchez-Lopez hereby releases and forever discharges County Defendants, and all of their past and present agencies, officials, employees, agents, attorneys, successors, and assigns from any and all obligations, damages, liabilities, causes of actions, claims, and demands of any kind and nature whatsoever, whether suspected or unsuspected, arising in law or equity, arising from or by reason of any and all known, unknown, foreseen, or unforeseen injuries, and the consequences thereof, resulting from the facts, circumstances and subject matter that gave rise to the Action, including all claims that were asserted or that Plaintiff Sanchez-Lopez could have asserted in the Action (the “Sanchez-Lopez Released Claims”).
6. This release of claims is intended by Plaintiff Sanchez-Lopez to be completely effective and binding irrespective of whether any Sanchez-Lopez Released Claims have been asserted and irrespective of any present lack of knowledge on the part of Plaintiff Sanchez-Lopez of any such claims. With respect to the Sanchez-Lopez Released Claims, Plaintiff SanchezLopez expressly waives the benefits and provisions of Section 1542 of the Civil Code of the State of California, which provides as follows:
GENERAL RELEASE - CLAIMS EXTINGUISHED A general release does not extend to claims which the creditor does not know or suspect to exist in his or her favor at the time of executing the release, which if known by him or her must have materially affected his or her settlement with the debtor.
Page 3 of 21

Plaintiff Sanchez-Lopez also waives the benefits and provisions of any similar law of any other jurisdiction concerning the Sanchez-Lopez Released Claims. Settlement Terms Applicable to Plaintiff Sonato-Vega
7. The County agrees to pay Plaintiff Sonato-Vega the sum of Five Thousand Dollars and no cents ($5,000.00) under the terms and conditions set forth herein.
8. Plaintiff Sonato-Vega and his heirs, executors, administrators, assigns and attorneys hereby agree to accept the sum of Five Thousand Dollars and no cents ($5,000.00) in full and final settlement and satisfaction of his claims in the Action against the County Defendants, and each of them in their official as well as personal capacities, under the terms and conditions set forth herein.
9. It is also agreed by and between Plaintiff Sonato-Vega and the County that, upon providing Latham & Watkins, LLP’s Tax ID Number to County, the amount of Five Thousand Dollars and no cents ($5,000.00) shall be drafted via check made payable to “Latham & Watkins, LLP, re: Christyan Sonato-Vega, client number 500001-0012,” and shall be sent to Latham & Watkins, LLP, 505 Montgomery Street, Suite 2000, San Francisco, CA 94111.
10. In consideration of the payment of Five Thousand Dollars and no cents ($5,000.00) as set forth above, and other terms and conditions contained herein, Plaintiff SonatoVega agrees that he will immediately upon execution of this Agreement also execute a Stipulation of Dismissal of the Action, which stipulation shall dismiss with prejudice his claims in the Action against County Defendants, and each of them in their official and personal capacities. The fully executed Stipulation of Dismissal will be held by counsel for the Plaintiffs and will be filed with the Court within three (3) business days of counsel’s receipt of the check for Plaintiff Sonato-Vega’s Five Thousand Dollars and no cents ($5,000.00), his full settlement amount.
Page 4 of 21

11. In consideration of the payment of Five Thousand Dollars and no cents ($5,000.00) as set forth above, and other terms and conditions contained herein, Plaintiff SonatoVega hereby releases and forever discharges County Defendants, and all of their past and present agencies, officials, employees, agents, attorneys, successors, and assigns from any and all obligations, damages, liabilities, causes of actions, claims, and demands of any kind and nature whatsoever, whether suspected or unsuspected, arising in law or equity, arising from or by reason of any and all known, unknown, foreseen, or unforeseen injuries, and the consequences thereof, resulting from the facts, circumstances and subject matter that gave rise to the Action, including all claims that were asserted or that Plaintiff Sonato-Vega could have asserted in the Action (the “Sonato-Vega Released Claims”).
12. This release of claims is intended by Plaintiff Sonato-Vega to be completely effective and binding irrespective of whether any Sonato-Vega Released Claims have been asserted and irrespective of any present lack of knowledge on the part of Plaintiff Sonato-Vega of any such claims. With respect to the Sonato-Vega Released Claims, Plaintiff Sonato-Vega expressly waives the benefits and provisions of Section 1542 of the Civil Code of the State of California, which provides as follows:
GENERAL RELEASE - CLAIMS EXTINGUISHED A general release does not extend to claims which the creditor does not know or suspect to exist in his or her favor at the time of executing the release, which if known by him or her must have materially affected his or her settlement with the debtor.
Plaintiff Sonato-Vega also waives the benefits and provisions of any similar law of any other jurisdiction concerning the Sonato-Vega Released Claims.
Page 5 of 21

Settlement Terms Applicable to Plaintiff Committee 13. In consideration of the terms and conditions set forth herein, Plaintiff Committee
agrees that it will immediately upon execution of this Agreement also execute a Stipulation of Dismissal, which stipulation shall dismiss with prejudice its claims in the Action against County Defendants, and each of them in their official and personal capacities. The fully executed Stipulation of Dismissal will be held by counsel for the Plaintiffs and will be filed with the Court within three (3) business days from the Effective Date of this Agreement.
14. In consideration of the terms and conditions set forth herein, Plaintiff Committee hereby releases and forever discharges County Defendants, and all of their past and present agencies, officials, employees, agents, attorneys, successors, and assigns from any and all obligations, damages, liabilities, causes of actions, claims, and demands of any kind and nature whatsoever, whether suspected or unsuspected, arising in law or equity, arising from or by reason of any and all known, unknown, foreseen, or unforeseen injuries, and the consequences thereof, resulting from the facts, circumstances and subject matter that gave rise to the Action, including all claims that were asserted or that Plaintiff Committee could have asserted in the Action (the CIRSC Released Claims”).
15. This release of claims is intended by Plaintiff Committee to be completely effective and binding irrespective of whether any CIRSC Released Claims have been asserted and irrespective of any present lack of knowledge on the part of Plaintiff Committee of any such claims. With respect to the CIRSC Released Claims, Plaintiff Committee expressly waives the benefits and provisions of Section 1542 of the Civil Code of the State of California, which provides as follows:
Page 6 of 21

GENERAL RELEASE - CLAIMS EXTINGUISHED A general release does not extend to claims which the creditor does not know or suspect to exist in his or her favor at the time of executing the release, which if known by him or her must have materially affected his or her settlement with the debtor.
Plaintiff Committee also waives the benefits and provisions of any similar law of any other jurisdiction concerning the CIRSC Released Claims.
16. The Sheriff’s Office agrees to take the following actions within thirty (30) days of the Effective Date of this Agreement:
a. The Sheriff’s Office will officially adopt the revised policy attached hereto as Exhibit “A”, styled “Immigration Violations.” Plaintiffs agree that the policies reflected in Exhibit “A” are valuable consideration for purposes of settlement; however, this Settlement Agreement does not imply and shall not be construed as Plaintiffs’ agreement with all legal assertions or policy decisions reflected by Exhibit “A.”
b. The Sheriff’s Office will officially adopt the revisions to Sections 4.6 and 5.1(L) of its Detention Division policy styled “Booking – General Procedures,” attached hereto as Exhibit “B”.
c. The Sheriff’s Office will implement such revised policies and train on them pursuant to its normal and customary practice. Such implementation and training process includes, but is not limited to, the following: an e-mail is sent to all affected members of the Sheriff’s Office summarizing the policy revisions, requiring them to review the revised policy, and directing compliance with the revised policy. In addition, Sheriff’s Office supervisors who are responsible for persons performing the policies are required to ensure such persons have reviewed the policies and are complying with them, as well as arrange for any training deemed necessary, including refresher training, as necessary, in the event of non-compliance.
Page 7 of 21

17. For a period of three years from the Effective Date, the Sheriff’s Office will provide to no more than three persons (the “Designated Persons”) a 10-day meet and confer notice prior to making a Material Change in the revised policies attached hereto as Exhibits “A” and “B”. For the purposes of this Agreement, the term “Material Change” shall mean a change in the policies regarding Sheriff’s Office duties and obligations that would impact members of the public who come into contact with Sheriff’s Office employees. The names and addresses of such Designated Persons shall be provided in writing to counsel for County Defendants on or prior to the Effective Date, and may be changed with reasonable notice to counsel for County Defendants no more than five times for the three years after the Effective Date. Any notice issued pursuant to the terms of this paragraph will provide Plaintiff Committee with the opportunity to comment on the proposed policy revisions and meet directly with the Sheriff or Assistant Sheriff. The Sheriff retains the sole discretion to modify the policies.
18. The Sheriff’s Office will continue to work with the Mexican Consulate in San Francisco for the purpose of conducting due diligence with respect to the Consulate’s Matricula Consular (“MC”) card for the purpose of determining the reliability of the MC card to ascertain the identity of an individual. If the Sheriff determines that the MC card is a reliable method for ascertaining identity, he will direct Sheriff’s Office members to rely on the MC card for that purpose in the field. The Sheriff’s Office is not obligated to take any action with respect to the provisions of this paragraph within any designated period of time.
19. The Sheriff’s Office will post the “Notice to Non-Citizens” in the form attached hereto as Exhibit “C” in the booking/intake areas of each Sonoma County jail facility, as well as in each housing module where postings are otherwise allowed. The notice will include both English and Spanish translations, which together shall not exceed one 8.5” x 11” page. The notice will be posted within thirty (30) days of the Effective Date of this Agreement, and shall
Page 8 of 21

remain posted for a period of at least three (3) years from the Effective Date. Actions by jail inmates to remove or deface such notice postings shall not be construed as a violation of the terms of this paragraph, though the Sheriff’s Office will take reasonable actions to replace such postings upon receipt of notice that the postings have been removed or defaced. Settlement Terms Applicable to All Parties
20. Plaintiffs and the Sheriff’s Office (including their respective counsel, agents, representatives, officers, employees, and anyone else acting on their behalf or subject to their control) shall not provide written press releases, editorials, or other writings intended for publication to media outlets regarding the resolution of the Action and terms of this Agreement (“Publications”), without providing prior notice via e-mail and an opportunity to respond to the other parties pursuant to the provisions set forth below. These parties shall comply with the provisions of this paragraph for a period of three years from the Effective Date of this Agreement.
a. The parties issuing the Publication (“Issuing Parties”) shall provide to the other parties (“Responding Parties”) notice of such intended issuance in a time and manner that allows for a response time of at least 48 hours (excluding holidays and weekends). Such notice and any response shall be provided via e-mail, to persons and e-mail addresses exchanged by counsel for the parties on or prior to the Effective Date; the identified persons and e-mail addresses may be revised upon reasonable notice provided in the same manner.
b. If the Responding Parties timely object to statements made in the proposed Publication and explain the objection, and the parties are not able to resolve such objection, the Issuing Parties shall include the following statement in its Publication: “[Name of Responding Parties] disagree(s) with this description of the lawsuit settlement terms.”
Page 9 of 21

c. Failure to comply with the requirements in this Paragraph No. 20 shall be deemed a material breach of this Agreement, permitting the non-breaching party to rescind prospective provisions in this Agreement (specifically, the County Defendants may rescind the provisions of Paragraph Nos. 17 and 20, and Plaintiffs may rescind the requirements of this Paragraph No. 20), but the other provisions of this Agreement shall remain in force. Any rescission under the terms of this provision must be made in writing and sent via e-mail to counsel for the breaching parties and to the identified persons and e-mail addresses exchanged pursuant to this Paragraph No. 20; rescission is effective immediately upon sending such e-mail notice (unless otherwise provided in the notice).
d. This Paragraph No. 20 applies only to written statements regarding the resolution of the Action and terms of this Agreement; it does not apply to any statements regarding the underlying claims or defenses.
21. The parties also agree that neither Plaintiffs nor any of their attorneys may make any claim for attorneys’ fees or other costs against County Defendants. In addition, the parties agree that Plaintiffs and County Defendants shall bear their own respective costs, attorneys’ fees, and expenses incurred in or related to the Action, and that any attorneys’ fees owed by Plaintiffs will be paid out of the settlement amounts described above, and not in addition thereto.
22. The parties acknowledge that neither this Agreement nor any of its provisions shall constitute an admission of liability or fault on the part of any of the County Defendants, in either their official or personal capacities, or their agents, representatives, officers or employees. This Agreement is entered into by the parties for the purpose of compromising disputed claims and avoiding the expenses of litigation.
Page 10 of 21

23. The parties represent and warrant that they have not assigned or transferred to any other person or entity, in any manner, all or any portion of any claim arising out of the matters released herein.
24. The invalidity or unenforceability of any provision of this Agreement, or any part of any such provision, shall in no way affect the validity or enforceability of any other provision of this Agreement or the remainder of such provision.
25. The parties further acknowledge that they have mutually participated in the drafting of this Agreement, and it is agreed that no provision herein shall be construed against any party hereto by virtue of its drafting any provision. This instrument shall constitute the entire agreement between the parties, and it is expressly understood and agreed that this Agreement has been freely and voluntarily entered into by the parties hereto with the advice of counsel, who have explained the legal effect of this Agreement. The parties further acknowledge that no warranties or representations have been made on any subject other than as set forth in this Agreement.
26. The persons signing this Agreement warrant and represent that they possess full authority to bind the parties on whose behalf they are signing this Agreement to its terms. This Agreement may not be altered, modified or otherwise changed in any respect except in writing, duly executed by all of the parties or their authorized representatives.
27. This Agreement may be signed in counterparts, and facsimile signatures shall have the same force and effect as original signatures. It is further understood and agreed that no legal obligation shall arise under this instrument unless and until each and every party has signed his, her or its respective copy of this Agreement and provided it to the other parties. Timing is of the essence in the signing, execution, and performance of this Agreement.
Page 11 of 21

IN WITNESS WHEREOF and in agreement herewith, the parties have entered into this Agreement as of the Effective Date of July 15, 2011.
FOR PLAINTIFFS:
By: ___________________________________ Dated: __________________ Francisco Sanchez-Lopez Plaintiff
By: ___________________________________ Dated: __________________ Christyan Sonato-Vega Plaintiff
By: ___________________________________ Dated: __________________ Richard Coshnear Authorized Representative, Committee for Immigrant Rights of Sonoma County Plaintiff
Approved as to form for Plaintiffs:
By: ___________________________________ Dated: __________________ Julia Harumi Mass ACLU of Northern California Counsel for Plaintiffs
By: ___________________________________ Dated: __________________ Alfred Pfeiffer Latham & Watkins, LLP Counsel for Plaintiffs
Page 12 of 21

FOR DEFENDANT THE COUNTY OF SONOMA:
By: ___________________________________ Dated: __________________ Steve Freitas Sheriff-Coroner Sonoma County Sheriff’s Office
By: ___________________________________ Dated: __________________ Marcia Chadbourne Risk Manager County of Sonoma
Approved as to form for the County of Sonoma:
By: ___________________________________ Dated: __________________ Anne L. Keck Deputy County Counsel, Sonoma County Counsel for County Defendants
By: ___________________________________ Dated: __________________ Richard W. Osman Bertrand, Fox & Elliot Counsel for County Defendants
Page 13 of 21

EXHIBIT A
Page 14 of 21

Sonoma County Sheriff’s Office

428 - Immigration Violations

428.1 PURPOSE AND SCOPE
The Sheriff’s Office is committed to equal enforcement of the law and equal service to the public -- regardless of a lien status. Confidence in this commitment will increase the Sheriff’s Office's effectiveness in protecting and serving the entire community.

428.2 GENERAL
The United States Department of Homeland Security, Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has primary jurisdiction for enforcement of the Immigration and Nationality Act (Title 8 of the United States Codes) as t o both civil and criminal immigration violations. California peace officers are not authorized under federal law to arrest an individual for violation of a civil immigration law, such as being illegally present in the country (i.e., an un documented alien). California peace officers are, however, authorized to arrest an individual fo r a crimina l immigration violation, such as illegal reentry after removal.

ICE Officers have the authority to issue

immigration detainers (h olds) as t o individuals

suspected of violating federal immigration laws, pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 2 87.7 and other federal

laws. Such immigration detainer s require the Sheriff’s Office to maintain custody of th e

individual for a period not to exceed 48 hours (excluding weekends and holidays) to permit ICE

time in which to assu me custody. Current ICE policies preclude I CE Officers from issuin g

immigration detainers against an individual unless a local law enforcement agency (such as th e

Sheriff’s Office) has ex ercised its independent authority to arrest the alien. ICE Officers are

directed not to issue de tainers for aliens who have been te mporarily detained by t he Sheriff’s

Office (i.e., roadside or Terry stops) but not arrested. ICE’s policy, however, does not preclude

temporary detention of an alien by the Sheriff’s Office while ICE respo nds to th e scene. (See

ICE Interim Policy Number 10074.1: Detainers, § 4.1.)

428.3

SHERIFF’S OFFICE CONTACT WITH PERSONS SUSPECTED OF

BEING ILLEGALLY PRESENT IN THE COUNTRY (CIVIL IMMIGRATION

VIOLATIONS)

Members of the Sheriff’s Office occasionally come into contact with persons suspected solely of being illegally present in the country (civil immigration violations). If a Sheriff’s Office member suspects that an individual is unlawfully present in the United States, such a suspicion shall not, by itself, serve as the basis for contact, detention, or arrest. Absent a separate law enforcement reason, Sheriff’s Office me mbers shall not question such perso ns directly about their immigration status, nor telephone ICE while in the field to obtain such information.

428.31 EQUAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE LAWS Sheriff’s Office members shall give equal consideration to all persons with whom they come into contact. As stated in other policies, law enforcement actions shall not be taken against persons on the basis of race, ethnicity, national origin, age, gender, sexual orientation, religion, socioeconomic status, or other protected classificat ion. I n addition, the disposition of each contact (i.e., warning, citation, arr est, etc.), while discretionary in each case, shall not be affected by any of those factors.
Page 15 of 21

428.32 IMMIGRATION SWEEPS The Sheriff’s Office shall not indepe ndently conduct “sweeps” or other concentrate d efforts for the purpose of locating and detain ing persons who are solely suspe cted of bei ng illegally present in the United States.

428.4 INDIVIDUAL REQUESTS BY ICE FOR FIELD ASSISTANCE
If a specific request for assistance is made b y ICE or another federal law enforcement agency, the Sheriff’s Office will provide available support services such as traffic control, keep-the-peace efforts, or mutual aid, during the federal operation.

428.5 JOINT OPERATIONS WITH ICE
The Sheriff's Office will work cooperatively with ICE and other federal law enforcement agencies to help locate known or suspected criminals and gang members. All oth er requests to conduct joint operations with ICE or other federal law enforcement agencies shall be refe rred to the Sheriff or designee for prior approval and to establish operational parameters.

As a cond ition to working with ICE on a joint operation in the fie ld, the Sheriff’s Office sh all

require ICE to refrain from arresting or taking custody of persons solely based on a suspicion

that they are unlawfully present in the country (i.e., civil immigration violations), or solely based

on low level traffic violations (e.g., Vehicle Code § 12500). Under such condition, ICE must

agree at the outset of a joint operation not to arrest persons for civil immigratio

n violations

unless the subject was identified as a target of the joint oper ation, or if probable cause exists to

believe the subject has engaged in criminal activity.

428.6 COMPLIANCE WITH IMMIGRATION DETAINERS ISSUED BY ICE
ICE Agents have the authority to issue immigration detain ers for the purpose of requiring the Sheriff’s Office to maint ain custody of persons suspected of violating federal immigration laws. Absent a contrary directive from ICE, compliance with deta iners is mandatory (see 8 C.F.R. § 287.7, subd. (d)).

428.7 COMMUNICATIONS WITH ICE DURING BOOKING
Upon booking a perso n into the County jail solely based on a Ve hicle Code infraction or misdemeanor violation of Vehicle Code §12500, Sheriff’s Office members shall not contact ICE to alert them for the pu rpose of issuing an immigration deta iner unless otherwise required by a warrant, BOL, or alert, or based on imminent public safety concerns.

428.8 PROCEDURES FOR IMMIGRATION COMPLAINTS
Persons wishing to report immigration violations should be referred to the United States Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) in San Francisco.

Page 16 of 21

EXHIBIT B
Page 17 of 21

Revisions to the Sheriff’s Office Detention Division Policy, Booking – General Procedures, Sections 4.6 and 5.1(L) only:
4.6 IMMIGRATION INFORMATION AND CONTACTING FOREIGN NATIONALS’ CONSULATES
A. It is the general policy of the Sheriff’s Office to comply with ICE requests for information relating to arrestees or inmates sought for the purpose of immigration enforcement. However, such policy shall be subject to the following terms and conditions:
1. Jail Staff shall respond to ICE requests for information relating to specific individuals in Sheriff’s Office custody, and shall provide ICE access to the Daily Booking Log available to the public.
2. If ICE requests documents generally relating to foreign-born arrestees booked into the jail (such as, but not limited to, booking sheets), then Jail Staff may respond appropriately but shall not provide documents related to persons arrested only for traffic infractions or Vehicle Code § 12500 misdemeanor violations, nor shall they volunteer such documents.
3. If ICE requests booking information summaries of a broad category of foreign-born persons booked into the jail, then Jail Staff may respond appropriately but shall not provide information related to persons arrested only for traffic infractions or Vehicle Code § 12500 misdemeanor violations, nor shall they volunteer such information.
4. Upon booking a person into the jail solely based on a Vehicle Code infraction or misdemeanor violation of Vehicle Code §12500, Jail Staff shall not contact ICE to alert them for the purpose of issuing an immigration detainer unless otherwise required by a warrant, BOL, or alert, or based on imminent public safety concerns.
5. Nothing in this policy shall affect compliance with the United States government’s Secure Communities Program, or other similar programs or other applicable laws.
B. The Sheriff’s Office shall comply with and enforce all facially valid immigration detainers (holds) issued by ICE. Inmates may be held on ICE holds only for 48 hours, excluding federal holidays and weekends. If ICE does not assume custody of the inmate before expiration of that time period, the inmate will be released at that time (unless another hold or warrant prevents release). The Records Legal Processor is responsible for sending information to ICE regarding the initiation of the hold and expiration of the hold.
C. If an arrestee is a foreign national or believed to be a foreign national, Booking Staff may be required to contact his/her consulate; all persons believed to be foreign nationals shall be provided a reasonable opportunity to contact their consulates.(Refer to: Consulate Notification Policy)
Page 18 of 21

5.1 ACCEPTING COOPERATIVE ARRESTEES
* * * L. The Booking Legal Processor shall:
1. Verify that the information on the Pre-Booking form is complete and accurate, and shall: a. Confirm the agency case number with the Arresting Officer; and b. If any information is inaccurate or incomplete, return the paperwork to the Arresting Officer and ask that he/she correct the error. c. [DELETED]
2. Verify that any warrants required are present and signed off. 3. Verify that all bulk property items are tagged. 4. Verify that the property inventory and money amount matches the property and
money taken, sign it and give a copy to the Arresting Officer and to the arrestee. (Property- Inmate Cash and Valuables) 5. Place the original Affidavit re Probable Cause aside in the slot reserved for Probable Cause Statements.
Page 19 of 21

EXHIBIT C
Page 20 of 21

NOTICE TO IMMIGRANTS IN THE JAIL

What is an ICE Hold?

The Federal government (ICE) may issue an immigration detainer against you (also called a “hold”) to the jail if it suspects that you are unlawfully present in the United States.

What happens if ICE issues a hold for me?

You will be held in the jail for 48 hours (excluding weekends and holidays) after you would otherwise have been released. ICE may take you into custody during or at the end of this period and transfer you to an immigration facility. The jail will hold you during this period even if you are allowed to post bail.

When will I be released?
What if I think my hold is improper?

The jail will release you after the hold expires or earlier if ICE removes the hold, unless it is required to maintain custody of you for some other reason.
You may contact an attorney or an ICE Agent, and provide the information supporting your reason to contest the hold. A hold may be improper if you (1) are a U.S. Citizen; (2) are authorized to be in the United States; or (3) are being detained based on immigration status without any criminal basis for arrest.

What are my rights if ICE takes me into custody?

You will have the right to (1) a hearing before an immigration judge or to an interview prior to removal from the United States; (2) attorney representation at no cost to the government; and (3) receive information about low or no-cost immigration legal services. You may also have the right to seek release from custody on bond prior to and during your immigration proceedings.

AVISO A INMIGRANTES EN LA CARCEL

¿Qué es una orden de detención de inmigración?
¿Qué sucede si inmigración emite una orden de detención en mi contra?
¿Cuándo seré puesto en libertad?
¿Qué hago si creo que la orden de detención fue inapropiada?

El gobierno federal (inmigración o ICE) puede emitir una orden de detención de inmigración en su contra (también llamado "hold") a la cárcel si se sospecha que usted está en los Estados Unidos ilegalmente.
Usted será detenido por 48 horas (sin contar los fines de semana y días feriados) después de que lo que hubieran puesto en libertad. Inmigración puede proceder a detenerlo durante o al final de este período y trasladarlo a un centro de inmigración. La cárcel lo detendrá durante este período, aun si se le permita pagar una fianza.
La cárcel lo dejara en libertad después de que la orden de detención se venza o antes, si inmigración la retracta, a menos que sea necesario mantenerlo en custodia por alguna otra razón. Usted puede contactar a un abogado o un agente de inmigración, y proveer información que apoye su contestación de la orden de detención. Una orden de detención puede ser inapropiada si: (1) es ciudadano de los Estados Unidos (2) está autorizado estar en los Estados Unidos, o (3) lo están deteniendo a base de su estado migratorio sin base criminal para su arresto.

¿Cuáles son mis derechos si inmigración me detiene?

Usted tendrá el derecho a (1) una audiencia ante un juez de inmigración o a una entrevista antes de la deportación de los Estados Unidos (2) representación de un abogado sin costo alguno para el gobierno, y (3) recibir información sobre servicios legales de inmigración gratis o de bajo costo. Usted también puede tener derecho a pedir ser puesto en libertad bajo fianza antes de y durante los procesos de inmigración.

ICE, San Francisco Field Office: (415) 844-5512 U.C. Davis School of Law Immigration Clinic: (530) 752-6942 (for possible legal assistance or referral) Centro Legal de la Raza: (510) 437-1554 (for possible legal assistance or referral) Catholic Charities Immigration: (707) 578-6000 (for legal referral only/solo para referencia de abogados)

Page 21 of 21

 
 SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN PLAINTIFF COMMITTEE FOR IMMIGRANT RIGHTS OF SONOMA COUNTY
AND THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, IMMIGRATION
AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT; ICE SPECIAL AGENTS CHRISTOPHER MERENDINO AND MARIO HUELGA IN THEIR OFFICIAL CAPACITIES
CV-08-4220 (RS) This Settlement Agreement ("Agreement") is entered into by and between remaining Plaintiff, Committee for Immigrant Rights of Sonoma County (referred to hereinafter as "PlaintiffCIRSC"), and remaining Federal Defendants, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Immigration and Customs Enforcement ("ICE"), and ICE Special Agents Christopher Merendino and Mario Huelga in their official.capacities, (collectively referred to hereinafter as "Defendants."). The effective date of this Agreement is December 5, 2011 (the "Effective Date").
RECITALS WHEREAS, Plaintiffs Francisco Sanchez-Lopez ("Sanchez-Lopez"); Christyan SonatoVega, ("Sonato-Vega"); and Plaintiff CIRSC filed a Complaint against Defendants United States of America ("USA"); U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Immigration and Customs Enforcement ("ICE"); Special Agent Mario Huelga ("Huelga"), in his official and individual capacities; Special Agent Chris Merendino ("Merendino"), in his official and personal capacities; ROES 1-50; County of Sonoma, Sheriff-Coroner Bill Cogbill ("Cogbill"), in his official ~md individual capacities; Deputy Sheriff Morris Eric Salkin ("Salkin"), in his official and individual capacities; and DOES 1-50, (collectively referred to hereinafter as "County Defendants") on September 5, 2008, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, styled Committee for Immigrant Rights ofSonoma County, et al. v. County ofSonoma, et al.,
Page I of9
AGREEMENT BETWEEN PLAINTIFF CIRSC AND REMAINING FEDERAL DEFENDANTS Case No. C 08-4220 RS

Case No. 08-4220, seeking injunctive and declaratory relief against ICE, County of Sonoma, and officials with both agencies, and seeking monetary relief against the USA, County of Sonoma and against Huelga, Merendino, Cogbill, and Salkin in their personal capacities,
WHEREAS, Plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint ("SAC") on September 14, 2009, claiming violations of: the Fourth Amendment against County Defendants, ICE, Huelga, Merendino, and ROES 1-50; the Fifth Amendment (Equal Protection and Due Process) against ICE, Huelga, Merendino, and ROES 1-50; the Fourteenth Amendment (Equal Protection and Due Process) against County Defendants; 8 U.S.C. § 1357 and 8 C.P.R.§§ 287.3 and 287.7 (through the Due Process Clause and the Administrative Procedure Act) against ICE, Huelga, Merendino, and ROES 1-50; Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 against County Defendants; 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985(3) against Federal and County Defendants, except the USA; California Constitution (Art. I, § 13 and Art. I, § 7(a)) against County Defendants; Bane Act (California Civil Code § 52.1) against County Defendants; California Government Code against County Defendants; state tort claims against the County Defendants; and Federal Tort Claims Act against USA,
WHEREAS, on March 10, 2010, the Court dismissed Plaintiffs' challenges to ICE's interpretation of 8 C.F.R. § 287.7, holding the regulation could reasonably be i!lterpreted to allow the issuance of a detainer for persons not already in custody pursuant to an independent criminal or other state law arrest, but reserved statutory and constitutional claims arising from the application of 8 C.F.R. § 287.7 based on this interpretation,
WHEREAS, on August 2, 2010, ICE issued an interim policy governing the use of immigration detainers, which is subject to change at the discretion ofiCE ("Interim Policy")
Page 2 of9
AGREEMENT BETWEEN PLAINTIFF CIRSC AND REMAINING FEDERAL DEFENDANTS Case No. C 08-4220 RS

(attached hereto as Exhibit A) that, among other things, prohibits the use of immigration detainers to initiate local custody of aliens,
WHEREAS, on April 7, 2011, Plaintiffs Sanchez-Lopez and Sonato-Vega dismissed with prejudice all of their claims against the Federal Defendants,
WHEREAS, on July 22, 2011, and on August 25,2011, all Plaintiffs dismissed with prejudice all of their claims against County Defendants,
NOW, THEREFORE, to avoid the delay, uncertainty, inconvenience, and expense of protracted litigation ofthe Action, remaining PlaintiffCIRSC and Defendants reached settlement of all Plaintiff CIRSC' s remaining claims against Defendants pursuant to the terms and conditions below.
AGREEMENT 1. ICE acknowledges that its Interim Policy (attached hereto as Exhibit A) states that an immigration detainer may serve three key functions. See also 8 C.P.R.§ 287.7. One such function is to advise a law enforcement agency ("LEA") of ICE's intent to assume custody of an alien in the LEA's custody. Another key function is to request information regarding an alien's release in order to allow ICE to make arrangements to take the alien into custody. The third key function is to request that an LEA maintain custody of an alien who may otherwise be released, so as to allow ICE to decide whether to assume custody of the alien. Indeed, as to the third function, 8 C.P.R. § 287.7(d) provides that under certain circumstances, an LEA "shall maintain custody of the alien for a period not to exceed 48 hours, exclusive of Saturdays, Sundays and holidays in order to permit assumption of custody" by ICE. ICE acknowledges to Plaintiff CIRSC that pursuant to current ICE policy, ICE will not seek to compel compliance with its detainers by local LEAs in Sonoma County.
Page 3 of9
AGREEMENT BETWEEN PLAINTIFF CIRSC AND REMAINING FEDERAL DEFENDANTS Case No. C 08-4220 RS

2. ICE acknowledges to Plaintiff CIRSC that the Interim Policy prohibits the use of immigration detainers to initiate local custody of aliens. Specifically, ICE agents and officers shall issue detainers only after an LEA has exercised its independent authority to arrest the alien for a criminal violation, and detainers may not be issued if an LEA temporarily detains, but does not arrest, the alien. This does not preclude temporary detention of an alien by the LEA while ICE responds to the scene. As of the date of execution of this Agreement, the Interim Policy is in effect and ICE is not planning or presently taking any steps to reverse the Interim Policy's prohibition against the use of detainers to initiate local custody. As with other policies issued, ICE has discretion to revise, supersede or revoke the Interim Policy at any time. 3. ICE agrees to take a one-time action to provide a copy of the Interim Policy to each and every ICE law enforcement officer who is authorized to issue detainers and is assigned, as of the Effective Date, to the San Francisco field offices ofiCE's Enforcement and Removal Operations and Homeland Security Investigations. The Interim Policy will be conveyed to such officers within ten (10) days ofthe Effective Date, and it will be accompanied by the following statement: "Officers are reminded that they must comply with the Interim Policy's prohibition against using detainers to initiate local custody of aliens." 4. ICE agrees to request that Sonoma County Jail post in the booking/intake areas of each Sonoma County jail facility, as well as in each housing module where postings are otherwise allowed, the forms attached hereto as Exhibit B, specifically, (1) ICE's current list of free legal providers, and (2) a blank I-826 "Notice of Rights and Request for Disposition" accompanied by the following printed statement: "This form is provided to people who are taken into custody by Immigration and Customs Enforcement. It explains certain rights and procedures in the immigration system." ICE agrees to request that Sonoma County Jail post the forms within
Page 4 of9
AGREEMENTBETWEEN PLAINTIFF CIRSC AND REMAINING FEDERAL DEFENDANTS Case No. C 08-4220 RS

thirty (30) days of the Effective Date, and to continue the postings for a period of three (3) years from the Effective Date. The parties acknowledge that Sonoma County Jail has the exclusive authority to decide whether, where, or how to post foims in its facilities, and that in the event that Sonoma County Jail declines to post the forms, such action shall not constitute a breach of this Agreement. 5. ICE has prepared a new detainer form, I-247, attached hereto as Exhibit C ("New I247"). As ofthe Effective Date, the New I-247 is in limited use and ICE has not approved it for use in Sonoma County. ICE agrees to begin, within ten (10) days of the Effective Date, using the New I-247 as the exclusive detainer form in Sonoma County, and to continue using the New I-247 there for a period of one (1) year following the Effective Date unless a court decision or order or exceptional operational requirement necessitates otherwise. 6. To effectuate the complete dismissal of this matter and to foreclose any appeal of interlocutory orders that have disposed of claims in this litigation prior to this Agreement, Defendants and PlaintiffCIRSC agree to jointly move the Court to vacate only the Court's Order Re: Motions to Dismiss the SAC, dated March 10,2010 (Dkt. 164) through filing of a Joint Motion, attached hereto as Exhibit D, within three (3) business days ofthe Effective Date of this Agreement. This term of this Agreement is satisfied upon the filing of the Joint Motion, and any action or inaction by the Court on the motion shall not constitute a breach of this Agreement. 7. In consideration of the terms and conditions set forth herein, Plaintiff CIRSC hereby releases and forever discharges Defendants, and all of their past and present agencies, officials, employees, agents, attorneys, successors, and assigns from any and all obligations, damages, liabilities, causes of action, claims, and demands of any kind and nature whatsoever, whether suspected or unsuspected, arising in law or equity, arising from or by reason of any and all
Page 5 of9
AGREEMENT BETWEEN PLAINTIFF CIRSC AND REMAINING FEDERAL DEFENDANTS Case No. C 08-4220 RS

known, unknown, foreseen, or unforeseen injuries, and the consequences thereof, resulting from the facts, circumstances and subject matter that gave rise to the Action, including all claims that were asserted or that Plaintiff CIRSC could have asserted in the Action (the "CIRSC Released Claims"). 8. This release of claims is intended by Plaintiff CIRSC to be completely effective and binding irrespective of whether any CIRSC Released Claims have been asserted and irrespective of any present lack of knowledge on the part of Plaintiff of any such claims. With respect to the CIRSC Released Claims, Plaintiff CIRSC expressly waives the benefits and provisions of Section 1542 of the Civil Code of the State of California, which provides as follows:
GENERAL RELEASE - CLAIMS EXTINGUISHED A general release does not extend to claims which the creditor does not know or suspect to exist in his or her favor at the time of executing the release, which if known by him or her must have materially affected his or her settlement with the debtor. Plaintiff CIRSC also waives the benefits and provisions of any similar law of any other jurisdiction concerning the CIRSC Released Claims. 9. In consideration of the terms and conditions set forth herein, PlaintiffCIRSC agrees that it will immediately upon execution of this Agreement also execute a Stipulation of Dismissal, which stipulation shall dismiss with prejudice its claims in the Action against Defendants. A copy of the Stipulation of Dismissal is attached hereto as Exhibit E. The fully executed ' Stipulation of Dismissal will be held by counsel for the Plaintiffs and will be filed with the Court within three (3) business days of the Court's ruling on the parties' Joint Motion or sixty (60) days from the Effective Date, whichever date is earlier. Both parties shall receive fully executed copies of this Agreement, with counsel for the party completing full execution of this Agreement
Page 6 of9
AGREEMENT BETWEEN PLAINTIFF CIRSC AND REMAINING FEDERAL DEFENDANTS Case No. C 08-4220 RS

being responsible to provide a fully executed copy of this Agreement to counsel for the other party. 10. The parties acknowledge that neither this Agreement nor anything contained herein shall constitute an admission of liability or fault on the part of the Defendants, sued in their official or personal capacities, or their agents, servants, or employees. This Agreement is entered into by the parties for the purpose of compromising disputed claims, avoiding the expenses and risks of litigation, and buying peace. 11. It is also agreed by and among Plaintiff CIRSC and Defendants that neither Plaintiff CIRSC nor any of their attorneys may make any claim for attorneys' fees or other costs against the Defendants. 12. It is also agreed by and among Plaintiff CIRSC and Defendants that neither Defendants nor any of their attorneys may make any claim for attorneys' fees or other costs against Plaintiff. 13. The parties further acknowledge that the parties have mutually participated in the drafting of this Agreement and it is agreed that no provision herein shall be construed against any party hereto by virtue of the drafting of this Agreement. If any provision of this Agreement shall be held invalid, illegal, or unenforceable, the validity, legality, and enforceability of the remaining provisions shall not in any way be affected or impaired thereby. This instrument shall constitute the entire agreement between the parties, and it is expressly understood and agreed that this Agreement has been freely and voluntarily entered into by the parties hereto with the advice of counsel, who have explained the legal effect of this Agreement. The parties further acknowledge that no warranties or representations have been made on any subject other than as set forth in this Agreement.
Page 7 of9
AGREEMENT BETWEEN PLAINTIFF CIRSC AND REMAINING FEDERAL DEFENDANTS Case No. C 08-4220 RS

14. The persons signing this Agreement, as well as the Joint Motion and Stipulation of Dismissal provided for herein, warrant and represent that they possess full authority to bind the persons on whose behalf they are signing to the terms of this Agreement. This Agreement may not be altered, modified, or otherwise changed in any respect except in writing, duly executed by all of the parties or their authorized representatives. 15. This Agreement may be signed in counterparts and facsimile signatures shall have the same force and effect as original signatures.
Page 8 of9
AGREEMENT BETWEEN PLAINTIFF CIRSC AND REMAINING FEDERAL DEFENDANTS Case No. C 08-4220 RS

IN WITNESS WHEREOF and in agreement herewith, the Parties have entered into and

executed this Agreement as ofthe effective date.

COl\.1lv.llTTEE FOR IMMIGRANT RIGHTS

Dated:

OF SONOMA COUNTY
By: q;z'kc;-Au:f
RICHARD COSHNEAR On Behalf ofPlaintiff CIRSC

'2/ Dated: j· t; } ·I.t> (\

MELINDA HAAG
By:
Assistant United States Attorney Attorneys for the Federal Defendants
WILLIAM ORRICK, III Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Civil Division DAVID J. KLINE Director
By: CcJ; A- Yvv~ COLIN A. KISOR Deputy Director LANAVAHAB Trial Attorney Attorneys for the Federal Defendants

Page 9 of9 AGREEMENT BETWEEN PLAINTIFF CIRSC AND REMAINING FEDERAL DEFENDANTS Case No. C OS-4220 RS

12/05/2011 11:54 7075731094

LAW OFFICES

PAGE 02/02

IN WITNESS WHEREOF and in agreement herewith, the Parties have entered into and

executed this Agreement as ofthe effective date.

Dated:

COMMITTBE FOR TMMIGRANT RIGHTS
~~ By: CiiARDCOSHNEAR On BehalfofPlaintiffCIRSC

Dated:

MEUNDAHAAO United States Attorney
By: tLAC.DEISS Assistant United States Attorney Attorneys for the Federal Defendants
WILLIAM ORRICK, In Deputy Ass.istant Attorney General, Civil Division DAV1D J. KLINE
Director
By:
COLIN A. KISOR Deputy Director LANAVAHAB Trial Attorney Attomeys for the Federal Defendants

Pqe9of9

AG'P..BBMENT BETWEBN PLAINTIFF CIRSC AND 'REMAINING FED.SRAL DEFENDANTS

Case No. C 08-4220 RS

.

EXHIBIT A

U~S. IMMIGRATION AND· CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT
INTERIM Policy Number 10074.1: Detainers
Issue Date: 08/021201 0 Effective Date: 08/0212010 Superseded: LESC LOP 005-09 (September 23, 2009) Federal Enterprise Architecture Number: 111-601-001-a
1. Purpose/Background. This directive establishes the interim policy of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) regarding the issuance of civil immigration detainers.
2. Definitions. The following definitions apply for purposes of this directive only.
2.1. A detainer (Form 1-247) is a notice that ICE issues to Federal, State, and local law enforcement agencies (LEAs) to inform the LEA that ICE intends to assume custody of an individual in the LEA's custody. An immigration detainer may serve three key functions• notify an LEA that ICE intends to arrest or remove an alien in the LEA's custody once the alien is no longer subject to the LEA's detention; • request information from an LEA about an alien's impending release so ICE may assume custody before the alien is released from the LEA's custody; and • request that the LEA maintain custody of an alien who would otherwise be released for a period not to exceed 48 hours (excluding Saturdays, Sundays, and holidays) to provide ICE time to assume custody.
2.2. An Immigration officer includes an officer or an agent who is authorized to issue detainers pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 287.7(b), or who a state, local, or tribal officer or agent who is delegated such authority pursuant to§ 287(g) ofthe Immigration and Nationality Act.
3. Policy.
3.1. Only immigration officers may issue detainers.
3.2. Immigration officers shall issue detainers only after an LEA has exercised its independent authority to arrest the alien for a criminal violation.
4. Procedures.
4.1. Immigration officers shall not issue a detainer unless an LEA has exercised its independent authority to arrest the alien. Immigration officers shall not issue detainers for aliens who have been temporarily detained by the LEA (i.e., roadside or Terry stops)
Detainer Policy

2
but not arrested. This policy, however, does not preclude temporary detention ofan alien by the LEA while ICE responds to the scene.
4.2. Ifan immigration officer has reason to believe that an individual arrested by an LEA is subject to ICE detention for removal or removal proceedings, and issuance ofthe detainer otherwise comports with this policy and appears to advance the priorities ofthe agency, the immigration officer may issue a detainer (Form I-247) to the LEA.
4.3. Ifthe alien is the subject of an administrative arrest warrant, warrant ofremoval, or removal order, the immigration officer who issues the detainer should attach the warrant or order to the detainer, unless impracticable.
4.4. Immigration officers are expected to make arrangements to assume custody ofan alien who is the subject ofa detainer in a timely manner and without unnecessary delay. Although a detainer serves to request that an LEA temporarily detain an alien for a period not to exceed 48 hours from the time the LEA otherwise would have released the alien (excluding Saturdays, Sundays, and holidays) to permit ICE to assume custody ofthe alien, immigration officers should avoid relying on that hold period. If at any time after a detainer is issued, ICE determines it will not assume custody ofthe alien, the detainer should be withdrawn or rescinded and the LEA notified.
4.5. ICE shall timely assume custody ofthe alien if ICE has opted to lodge a detainer against an alien in any of the following categorie~
• aliens who are subject to removal based upon certain criminal or security-related grounds set forth in INA§ 236(c);
• aliens who are within the "removal period," as defined in INA§ 241(a)(2); and • aliens who have been arrested for controlled substance offenses under INA §
287(d).
4.6. Immigration officers shall take particular care when issuing a detainer against a lawful permanent resident (LPR) as some grounds of removability hinge on a conviction, while others do not [eg. removability pursuant to INA§ 237(a)(4) and INA§ 237(a)(l)(E).] Although in certain instances ICE may hold LPRs for up to 48 hours to make charging determinations, immigration officers should exercise such authority judiciously ~d seek advice ofcounsel for guidance ifthe LPR has not been convicted ofa removable offense.
4.7. Immigration officers should consult their supervisors or local chief counsel office with all inquiries, questions, or concerns regarding this policy.
S. Authorities/References.
5.1. INA§§ 103(a)(3), 236, 241,287.
5.2. 8 C.F.R. §§ 236.1, 287.3. 287.5, 287.7, 287.8, 1236.1.
Detainer Policy

3 6. Attachments. 6.1. Form 1·247: Immigration Detainer- Notice of Action. Director U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement
Detainer Policy

EXHIBITB

This form is provided to people who are taken into custody by Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

It explains certain rights and procedures in the immigration system.

U.S.DepartmentofHomelandSecurity

Notice ofR1ghts and Request for Disposition

Subject ID FINS #:

Event No: File No:_ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

Nrune:_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _

NOTICE OF RIGHTS
You have been arrested because immigration officers believe that you are illegally in the United States. You have the right to a hearing before the Immigration Court to determine whether you may remain in the United States. If you request a hearing, you may be detained in custody or you may be eligible to be released on bond, until your hearing date. In the alternative, you may request to return to your country as soon as possible, without a hearing.
You have the right to contact an attorney or other legal representative to represent you at your hearings, or to answer any questions regarding your legal rights in the United States. Upon your request, the officer who gave you this notice will provide you with a list of legal organizations that may represent you for free or for a small fee. You have the right to communicate with the consular or diplomatic officer from your country. You may use a telephone to call a lawyer, other legal representative, or consular officer at any time prior to your departure from the United States.

REQUEST FOR DISPOSITION
tJ I request a hearing before the Immigration Court to determine whether or not I may remain in the
laldols United States.
0 I believe I face harm ifl return to my country. My case will be referred to the Immigration Court
laldab for a hearing.
0 I admit that I am in the United States illegally, and I believe that I do not face harm if! return to my
Initials country. I give up my right to a hearing before the Immigration Court. I wish to return to my country as soon as arrangements can be made to effect my departure. I understand that I may be held in detenticm until mv departure.

' , Si~re~

'

1:1 Notice read by subject. D Notice read to subject by

CERTIFICATION OF SERVICE
, in the

Date
.
language.

Name ofOfficer (Print)

Name ofInterpreter (Print)

Signature ofOfficer

Date and Time of Service

. Fonn 1-826 (Rev. 08/01/07)

U.S. Department of Justice Executive Office for Immigration Review

Immigration Court
120 Montgomery Street, Suite 800 San Francisco, CA 94 I04

LIST OF FREE LEGAL SERVICE PROVIDERS

ASIAN' LAW CAUCUS 55 Columbus Avenue San Francisco, CA 94111 (415) 896-1701-No collect calls are accepted Mon.-Fri. 9am-5pm, Contact: Philip Van

Free legal consultation to .low income aliens in criminal removal matters. Will represent aliens in some asylum cases.

Languages: Mandarin, Vietnamese, Cantonese, Tagalog. Serves the San Francisco Bay area.

.

ASYLUM PROGRAM OF THE SAl'l FRANCISCO LAWYERS' COMMITTEE FOR CIVIL RIGHTS
131 Steuart Street, #400
San Francisco, CA 94105 (415) 543-9444, Contact: Philip Hwang Mon.-Fri. 9am-5 :30pm Interviews Wed-Fri by appt. Pro Bono or nominal fee.

Must meet income guidelines for representation. Asylum cases screened for finances & meritorious claims. Languages: Spanish & French. Serves San Francisco Bay area.

CENTRAL AMERICAN RESOURCE CENTER (CARECEN)
3101 Mission Street, Suite 101 San Francisco, CA 94110 (415) 824-2330 Mon.-Fri. 9am-5 pm.

Charges nominal fee. Must meet (HUD) income guidelines for representation. Will represent Latin American aliens in asylum cases. Language: Spanish.

CATHOLIC CHARITIES I.MMIGRATION PROGRAM 2625 Zanker Road, Suite 201 San Jose, CA 95134
(408) 944-0691 .
Mon.-Fri. 9am-5 p.m. Must meet low income guidelines for representation;

Will represent aliens in immigration cases. Languages: Spanish, Tagalog, Vietnamese, Italian, Portuguese, Mandarin.

LA RAZA CENTRO LEGAL
474 Valencia Street, Suite 295 San Francisco, CA 941 03
(415) 575-3500 May charge nominal fee. Will represent aliens in asylum cases. Language: Spanish

,ADDITIONAL PROVIDERS ON BACK OF PAGE IS'"

LIST OF FBEE LEGAL SERVICE PROVIDERS
SANTA CLARA UNIVERSITY, SCHOOL OF LAW CIVIL CLINICAL PROGRAMS EAS'F SAN JOSE COMMUNITY LAW CENTER 1030 The Alameda San Jose, CA 95 126 (408) 288-7030 Every Tuesday from 1-4pm. Contact: Lynette Parker
Drop-in advice clinics as well as representation before Immigration Court. Must meet low income guidelines for representation.
IMMIGRATION LAW CLINIC U.C. DAVIS SCHOOL OF LAW 400 Mrak HaJJ Davis, CA 95616-5201 (530) 752·6942 -No collect calls'hre accepted. Mon.-Fri. Sam- 5pm Contact: Amagda Perez or James Smith Must meet income guidelines for representation.
Will represent aliens in asylum and cancellation cases. Language: Spanish. Pro Bono. Serves Davis, Yolo, Solano, Sacramento within a 60-mile radius.
ASIAN PACIFIC ISLAND LEGAL OUTREACH 1188 Franklin Street, Suite 202 ·San Francisco, California 94109 (415) 561-6255
Willing to represent indigent aliens in asylum proceedings. Provides legal services in the following languages: Cantonese, Japanese, Korean, Mandarin, and Vietnamese.
NATIONAL CENTER FOR LESBIAN RIGHTS (NCLR) 870 Market Street, Suite 370 San Francisco, CA 941 02 (415)392-6257 . Fax: (415) 392-8442
Seeks to represent lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LOST) indigent aliens in asylum proceedings. Assists LOBT aliens and immigrants in understanding visas, asylum claims, and HIV exclusion, and provides legal and practical strategies for bi~national couples.
upd11ted January 201 I
..

EXHIBITC

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

IMMIGRATION DETAINER- NOTICE OF ACTION

~~F~il_e_N_o_:--------------------~--~~~

_ lrD-a~re-: ___________________________~

TO: (Name and Title of Institution- OR Any Subsequent Law Enforcement Agency)

FROM: (Department of Homeland Security Office Address)

MAINTAIN CUSTODY OF ALIEN FOR A PERIOD NOT TO EXCEED 48 HOURS

Name of A l i e n : - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Date of Birth:------------ Nationality:---------------------------- Sex: _____
THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY (DHS) HAS TAKEN THE FOLLOWING ACTION RELATED TO THE PERSON IDENTIFIED ABOVE, CURRENTLY IN YOUR CUSTODY:
D Initiated an investigation to determine whether this person is subject to removal from the United States. D Initiated removal proceedings and served a Notice to Appear or other charging document. A copy of the charging
document is attached and was served on -----=--:-:----(Date)
D Served a warrant of arrest for removal proceedings. A copy of the warrant is attached and was served on

(Date)
D Obtained an order of deportation or removal from the United States for this person.

(This action does not limit your discretion to make decisions related to this person's custody classification, work quarter
assignments, or other matters. ICE discourages dismissing criminal charges based on the existence of a detainer.)

IT IS REQUESTED THAT YOU:

D Maintain custody of the subject for a period NOT TO EXCEED 48 HOURS, excluding Saturdays, Sundays, and holidays,

beyond the time when the subject would have otherwise been released from your custody to allow DHS to take custody of

the subject. This request flows from federal regulation 8 C.F.R. § 287.7, which provides that a law enforcement agency

"shall maintain custody of an alien" once a detainer has been issued by DHS. You are not authorized to hold the

subject beyond these 48 hours. As early as possible prior to the time you otherwise would release the subject, please

notify the Department by calling

during business hours or

after hours or in an

emergency. If you cannot reach a Department Official at these numbers, please contact the Immigration and Customs

Enforcement (ICE) Law Enforcement Support Center in Burlington, Vermont at (802) 872-6020.

1Z1 Provide a copy to the subject of this detainer.

D Notify this office of the time of release at least 30 days prior to release or as far in advance as possible.

D Notify this office in the event of the inmate's death, hospitalization or transfer to another institution.

D Consider this request for a detainer operative only upon the subject's conviction.
D Cancel the detainer previously placed by this Office on -----.,,....,...,..-----
(Date)

(Name and title of Immigration Officer)

(Signature of Immigration Officer)

TO BE COMPLETED BY THE LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY CURRENTLY HOLDING THE SUBJECT OF THIS NOTICE:

Please provide the information below, sign, and return to the Department using the envelope enclosed for your convenience or

by faxing a copy to

. You should maintain a copy for your own records so you may track the case and

not hold the subject beyond the 48-hour period.

Local Booking or Inmate #

Date of latest criminal charge/conviction: - - - - - - -

~~~min~~a~~on~ct~n: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Estimated release date: - - - - - - - -

Notice: Once in our custody, the subject of this detainer may be removed from the United States. If the individual may be the victim of a crime, or if you want this individual to remain in the United States for prosecution or other law enforcement purposes, including acting as a witness, please notify the ICE Law Enforcement Support Center at (802) 872-6020.

(Name and title of Officer) Form 1-247 (3/11)

(Signature of Officer)

NOTICE TO THE DETAINEE The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has placed an immigration detainer on you. An immigration detainer is a notice from DHS informing law enforcement agencies that DHS intends to assume custody of you after you otherwise would be released from custody. DHS has requested that the law enforcement agency which is currently detaining you maintain custody of you for a period not to exceed 48 hours (excluding Saturdays, Sundays, and holidays) beyond the time when you would have been released by the state or local law enforcement authorities based on your criminal charges or convictions. If DHS does not take you Into custody during that additional 48 hour period, not counting weekends or holidays, you should contact your custodian (the law enforcement agency or other entity that is holding you now) to inquire about your release from state or local custody. If you have a complaint regarding this detainer or related to violations of civil rights or civil liberties, please c.ontact the ICE Joint Intake Center at 1-877-21NTAKE (877-246-8253). If you believe you are the victim of a crime, please advise DHS by calling the ICE Law Enforcement Support Center at (802) 872-6020.
NOTIFICACION A LA PERSONA DETENIDA El Departamento de Seguridad Nacional (DHS) de EE. UU. ha emitido una arden de detenci6n inmigratoria en su contra. Mediante esta arden, se notifica a los organismos policiales que el DHS pretende arrestarlo cuando usted cumpla su reclusion actual. El DHS ha solicitado que el organismo policiallocal o estatal a cargo de su actual detenci6n lo mantenga en custodia par un periodo no mayor a 48 horas (excluyendo sabados, domingos y dfas festivos) tras el cese de su reclusion penal. Si el DHS no procede con su arresto inmigratorio durante este periodo adicional de 48 horas, excluyendo los fines de semana o dias festivos, usted debe contactarse con Ia autoridad estatal o local que lo tiene detenido (el organismo policial u otra entidad a cargo de su custodia) para obtener mayores detalles sobre el cese de su reclusi6n. Si tiene alguna queja que se relacione con esta orden de detenci6n o con posibles infracciones a los derechos o libertades civiles, comuniquese con el Joint Intake Center (Centro de Admisi6n) del ICE (Servicio de lnmigraci6n y Control de Aduanas) llamando ai1-877-21NTAKE (877-246-8253). Si cree que ha sido vlctima de un delito, inf6rmeselo al DHS llamando al Centro de Apoyo a los Organismos Policiales (Law Enforcement Support Center) del ICE, teletono (802) 872-6020.
Avis au detenu Le departement de Ia Securite lnterieure [Department of Homeland Security (DHS)] a emis, a votre encontre, un ordre d'incarceration pour des raisons d'immigration. Un ordre d'incarceration pour des raisons d'immigration est un avis du DHS informant les agences des forces de l'ordre que le DHS a !'intention de vous detenir apres Ia date normale de votre remise en liberte. Le DHS a requis que l'agence des forces de l'ordre, qui vous detient actuellement. vous garde en detention pour une periode maximum de 48 heures (excluant les samedls, dimanches et jours feries) au-dela de Ia periode a Ia fin de laquelle vous auriez ete remis en liberte par les autorites policieres de I'Etat ou locales en fonction des inculpations ou condemnations penales a votre encontre. Si le DHS ne vous detient pas durant cette periode supplementaire de 48 heures, sans compter les fins de semaines et les jours feries, vous devez contacter votre gardien (l'agence des forces de l'ordre qui vous detient actuellement) pour vous renseigner a propos de votre liberation
a par I'Etat ou l'autorite locale. Si vous avez une plainte formuler au sujet de cet ordre d'lncarceration ou en rapport
avec des violations de vos droits civils, veuillez contacter te centre commun d'admissions du Service de !'Immigration et des Douanes [ICE - Immigration and Customs Enforcement] [ICE Joint Intake Center] au 1-877-21NTAKE (877-246-8253). Sl vous croyez etre Ia victlme d'un crime, veuillez en aviser le DHS en appelant le centre d'assistance des forces de l'ordre de I'ICE [ICE Law Enforcement Support Center] au (802) 872-6020.
AVISO AO DETENTO 0 Departamento de Seguranya Nacional (DHS) emitiu uma ordem de custodia imigrat6ria em seu nome. Este documento
e um aviso enviado as agencias de imposit;ao da lei de que o DHS pretende assumir a custodia da sua pessoa, caso
seja liberado. 0 DHS pediu que a agencia de imposit;€1o da lei encarregada da sua atual detent;ao mantenha-o sob cust6dia durante, no maximo. 48 horas (excluindo-se sabados, domingos e feriados) apos o periodo em que seria liberado pelas autoridades estaduais ou municipals de imposit;io da lei, de acordo com as respectivas acusat;oes e penas criminals. Se o DHS nao assumir a sua cust6dia durante essas 48 horas adicionais, excluindo-se os fins de semana e ferlados, voce devera entrar em contato com o seu custodiante (a agt'3ncia de imposiyao da lei ou qualquer outra entldade que esteja detendo-o no momenta) para obter informat;Oes sobre sua libera~ao da custodia estadual ou municipal. Caso voce tenha alguma reclamac;ao a fazer sobre esta or~em de cust6dia imlgrat6ria ou relacionada a violac;oes dos seus direitos ou liberdades civis, entre em contato tom o Centro de Entrada Conjunta da Agencia de Controle de lmigrac;ao e Alfandega (ICE) pelo telefone 1-877-246-8253. Se voce acreditar
que estil sendo vitima de um crime, informe o DHS ligando para o Centro de Apoio a lmposic;ao da Lei do ICE
pelo telefone (802) 872-6020.

ICE Form 1-247 (6/11)

Page 2 of 3

EXHIBITD

1 MELINDA HAAG

United States Attorney

2 JOANN M. SWANSON (CSBN 88143)

Chief, Civil Division

3 ILA C. DEISS, (NY SBN 3052909)

Assistant United States Attorney

4 450 Golden Gate Avenue, Box 36055

San Francisco, California 94102

5

Telephone: (415) 436-7124 Fax: (415) 436-7169

6 E-mail: ila.deiss@usdoj.gov

7 WILLIAM ORRICK Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Civil Division
8 DAVID J. KLINE Director
9 COLIN A. KISOR (DC 497145)
Deputy Director 10 LANA L. VAHAB (DC 976203)
Trial Attorney 11 Office of Immigration Litigation
Civil Division, Justice Department 12 P.O. Box 868, Ben Franklin Station
Washington, D.C. 20044
13 Tel: (202) 532-4331 Fax: (202) 305-7000
14 E-mail: colin.kisor@usdoj.gov

15 Attorneys for Federal Defendants

16

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

17

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

18 COMMITTEE FOR IMMIGRANT RIGHTS OF SONOMA COUNTY, et al.,

19 Plaintiffs,

20

v.

CASE NO. CV-08-04220-RS
JOINT ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO VACATE PRIOR ORDER; [PROPOSED] ORDER

21 COUNTY OF SONOMA, et al.,

22

Defendants.

L.R. 7-11

23

24

25

26

27

28

JOINT MOTION Case No. CV- 08-4220-RS

1

Pursuant to the established practice of the court, the authorities cited below, and the

2 parties' Settlement Agreement, effective December 5, 2011, all remaining parties hereby jointly

3 move the Court to vacate the Order ReMotions to Dismiss dated March 10,2010 (Dkt. 164) as

4

moot.

5

I. 6

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

In their Second Amended Complaint, Plaintiffs alleged that the issuance of immigration 7

8 detainers to arrest any person not already in custody of a state or local law enforcement agency

9 was not authorized by 8 C.P.R.§ 287.7. See Dkt. 135 11 164-65, 178.

10

On March 10, 2010, the Court issued an order dismissing Plaintiffs' claims for reliefto

11 the extent they relied on an interpretation of 8 C.F.R. § 287.7 that would not authorize issuance

12 of immigration detainers for any person not already in the custody of a state or local law
13 enforcement agency on an independent criminal or state-law basis ("Independent LLEA Basis
14 for Custody"). 1
15

16

On or about August 10, 2010, ICE issued an Interim Policy on Detainers (the "Interim

17 Policy") that specifically instructs that immigration detainers not be issued for any person not

18 already in the custody of a state or local law enforcement agency on an independent criminal or

19 state-law basis.

20 On April 7, 2011, Plaintiffs Sanchez-Lopez and Sonato-Vega dismissed with prejudice
21
all of their claims against all Federal Defendants. 22

23

On July 22, 2011, all Plaintiffs dismissed with prejudice all of their claims against all

24 County Defendants.

25

On December 5, 2011, the remaining parties, Plaintiff Committee for Immigrant Rights

26 of Sonoma County ("CIRSC") and Federal Defendants, entered into a settlement agreement.

27 1 In the March 10, 2010 order, the Court allowed Plaintiffs' constitutional and statutory claims

28

regarding the application of the regulation to proceed. Dkt. 164, p. 11, lines 1-3.

JOINT MOTION

Case No. CV- 08-4220-RS

1 Under the terms of that settlement agreement, the parties hereby jointly seek vacatur of the

2 Court's March 10, 2010 order.

3 II. 4

VACATUR IS APPROPRIATE BECAUSE THE INTERIM POLICY RENDERS MOOT A POTENTIAL APPEAL OF THE COURT'S MARCH 10, 2010 ORDER

5

ICE's unilateral decision to enact the Interim Policy has mooted Plaintiffs potential

6 appeal of the March 10, 2010 order making vacatur appropriate. "Vacatur must ... be granted

7 where mootness results from the unilateral action of the party who prevailed in the lower court."
8 United States Bancorp Mortg. Co. v. Bonner Mall P'ship, 513 U.S. 18,23 (1994). On March 10, 9
2010, the Court upheld Federal Defendants' interpretation of 8 C.F.R. § 287.7 as allowing 10
detainers to be issued without an Independent LLEA Basis for Custody. In August, 2010, ICE 11 12 issued the Interim Policy, explicitly stating that ICE agents may not issue detainers without an
13 Independent LLEA Basis for Custody. The adoption of the Interim Policy by the Federal

14 Defendants constituted unilateral action, mooting the Plaintiffs' challenge to the practice of
15 issuing detainers without an Independent LLEA Basis for Custody as well as Plaintiffs' potential
16 appeal ofthe March 10, 2010 order.
17 The unilateral action standard for vacatur as articulated in Bancorp has been applied in
18 both the Ninth Circuit and the Northern District of California to vacate decisions after the
19 20 prevailing party has unilaterally changed their policy rendering a court's decision on an issue
21 moot. In Santa Monica Food Not Bombs v. City ofSanta Monica, 450 F.3d 1022, 1032 (9th Cir.

22 2006), the Ninth Circuit vacated a judgment by the district court that upheld the validity of a City
23 of Santa Monica ordinance that required prior authorization for distribution of food on public
24 sidewalks. After the district court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendant, the City
25 of Santa Monica amended its food distribution policy to allow for the non-commercial
26 27 distribution of food on public sidewalks in Santa Monica. /d. at 1029-1030. Based on this
28 policy change, the plaintiffs abandoned their challenge to the food distribution ordinance and the
JOINT MOTION Case No. CV- 08-4220-RS

1 Ninth Circuit "vacate[d) the district court's judgment insofar as it upheld [the ordinance's]

2 validity" on the grounds that the ordinance "amendments made subsequent to the filing of this
3 suit render moot the challenge to the food distribution ordinance." !d. at 1032.
4 In Davis, Cowell & Bowe v. Social Security Administration, 281 F.Supp.2d 1154 (N.D.
5 Cal. 2003), the court granted the defendant's summary judgment motion and dismissed
6
7 plaintiffs Freedom oflnformation Act ("FOIA") request on the grounds that the W-2 and W-3
8 statements that the plaintiffs sought constituted confidential tax information exempt from

9 disclosure under FOIA. Following the court's order granting summary judgment, the Internal

10 Revenue Service changed its policy regarding the treatment ofW-2 and W-3 statements as
11 confidential tax return information. Based on this change and a declaration filed by defendants,
12 the parties jointly moved for vacatur ofthe court's order granting summary judgment. The court
13 granted the motion for vacatur because, in part, the "unilateral change in policy also moots the
14
15 case." !d. at 1156.

16

In the instant case, the Federal Defendants prevailed in their motion to dismiss Plaintiffs'

17 claims for relief to the extent they were based on a regulatory interpretation that would have
18 prohibited the issuance of detainers without an Independent LLEA Basis for Custody. Less than 19
six months later, while the litigation was still ongoing, ICE unilaterally issued the Interim Policy 20
which specifically prohibits the issuance of detainers without an Independent LLEA Basis for 21
22 Custody. The issuance of the Interim Policy, like the amendment to the food distribution
23 ordinance in Santa Monica Food Not Bombs, renders moot an appeal of the March 10,2010

24 order by the Plaintiff. Thus, in accordance with the parties' settlement agreement and desire to

25 avoid litigating any appeal ofthe March 10,2010 order, Plaintiff and Defendants jointly seek the
26 order's vacatur.
27 Ill
28
JOINT MOTION Case No. CV- 08-4220-RS

2

IT IS HEREBY JOINTLY REQUESTED that the Court vacate as moot the Order Re

3 Motions to Dismiss dated March 10, 2010 (Dkt. 164).

4

COMMITTEE FOR IMMIGRANT RIGHTS

5

OF SONOMA COUNTY

6 DATED: 7 8 9 10 11

December(2o 11

LATHAM & WATKINS LLP Alfred C. Pfeiffer Megan Bouchier Jason Daniels Casey R. O'Connor Robert Studley Ste ani.~1.Ju1:1.
By:

12

Julia Harumt Mass

13

Alan L. Schlosser

14

AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION

15

FOUNDATION OF NORTHERN CALIFORNIA

16

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

17 DATED: 18 19
20 1 !
21 I I
22 23 24 25 26 27

December , 2011

Respectfully submitted,
MELINDA HAAG United States Attorney By: ILA DEISS Assistant United States Attorney
WILLIAM ORRICK, Ill Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Civil Division DAVID J. KLINE Director
By: COLIN KISOR Deputy Director Attorneys for Federal Defendants

28
JOINT MOTION Case No. CV- 08-4220-RS

1

2

IT IS HEREBY JOINTLY REQUESTED that the Court vacate as moot the Order Re

3 Motions to Dismiss dated March 10,2010 (Dkt. 164).

4

COMMITTEE FOR IMMIGRANT RIGHTS

5

OF SONOMA COUNTY

6 DATED: 7 8 9 10

December , 2011

LATHAM & WATKINS LLP Alfred C. Pfeiffer Megan Bouchier Jason Daniels Casey R. O'Connor Robert Studley Stephanie Song

11

By:

CASEY R. O'CONNOR .

12

Julia Harumi Mass

13

Alan L. Schlosser

14

AMERICAN CIVIL LffiERTIES UNION

15

FOUNDATION OF NORTHERN CALIFORNIA

16

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

17 DATED: 18

December('2011

Respectfully submitted,

19

20

21

22

WILLIAM ORRICK, III.

Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Civil Division

23

DAViD J. KLINE

Director

24

25

By: U & b COLIN KISOR

26

Deputy Director

Attorneys for Federal Defendants

27

28
JOINT MOTION Case No. CV- 08-4220-RS

1

[PROPOSED] ORDER

2

Pursuant to Joint Motion, the Court hereby vacates as moot the Order ReMotions to

3 Dismiss, dated March 10, 2010 (Dkt. 164).

4 IT IS SO ORDERED.
5 Dated:
6
7

RICHARD SEEBORG United States District Judge

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28
JOINT MOTION Case No. CV- 08-4220-RS

EXHIBITE

1 MELINDA HAAG United States Attorney
2 JOANN M. SWANSON (CSBN 88143) Chief, Civil Division
3 ILA C. DEISS, (NY SBN 3052909) Assistant United States Attorney
4 450 Golden Gate Avenue, Box 36055 San Francisco, California 94102
5 Telephone: (415) 436-7124 Fax: (415) 436-7169
6 E-mail: ila.deiss@usdoj.gov

7
·WILLIAM ORRICK 8 Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Civil Division
DAVID J. KLINE 9 Director
COLIN A. KISOR (DC 497145) 1 0 Deputy Director
LANA L. VAHAB (DC 976203) 11 Trial Attorney
Office of Immigration Litigation 12 Civil Division, Justice Department
P.O. Box 868, Ben Franklin Station 13 Washington, D.C. 20044
Tel: (202) 532-4331 14 Fax: (202) 305-7000
Email: colin.kisor@usdoj. gov
15 Attorneys for Federal Defendants
16 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
17 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
18 SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
19

20 COMMITTEE FOR IMMIGRANT

)

RIGHTS OF SONOMA COUNTY,

)

21

)

Plaintiff,

)

22

)

v.

)

23

)

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND )

24 SECURITY, IMMIGRATION AND

)

CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT;

)

25 DEPORTATION OFFICER MARIO

)

HUELGA and SPECIAL AGENT CHRIS )

26 MERENDINO, in their official capacities, )

No. C 08-4220 RS
STIPULATION TO DISMISS ALL REMAINING CLAIMS BROUGHt BY PLAINTIFF COMMITTEE FOR IMMIGRANTS RIGHTS OF SONOMA COUNTY AGAINST FEDERAL DEFENDANTS WITH PREJUDICE; and [proposed] ORDER

27

Defendants.

28

STIPULATED DISMISSAL C 08-4220 RS

1

2

3

4

WHEREAS, on December 5, 2011, remaining Plaintiff Committee for hnmigrant Rights

5 of Sonoma County (CIRSC) and the remaining Federal Defendants entered into a Settlement

6 Agreement resolving all remaining claims in this Action,

7

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED that all remaining claims brought by Plaintiff CIRSC

8 against the Federal Defendants be dismissed with prejudice pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.

9 41(a)(l)(ii) and the parties' December 5, 2011 Settlement Agreement, each party to bear its own

10 costs and fees.

11

12

COMMITTEE FOR IMMIGRANT RIGHTS

OF SONOMA COUNTY

13

14 DATED: December{2011
15
16
17
18
19

LATHAM & WATKINS LLP Alfred C. Pfeiffer Megan Bouchier Jason Daniels Casey R. O'Connor Robert Studley
s~
By:
cASEYRONNOR

20

Julia Harumi Mass

Alan L. Schlosser

21

·AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION

22

FOUNDATION OF NORTHERN CALIFORNIA

23

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

24 Ill
25 Ill Ill
26

27

28

STIPULATED DISMISSAL C 08-4220 RS

.i
~ 1
I
l . !
!
!

1 DATED: DecemberJ,'2011

Respectfully submitted,

2

3

4 5 6 7 8
<, g· DATED: December 2011
10

ILA EI

/

A 1stant United States Attorney
i

WILLIAM ORRICK, ill.

Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Civil Division

DAVID J. KL1NE

Director

By: ·c~A~so~· Deputy Director

11

. Attorneys for Federal Defendants

12

13

14

[Proposed] ORDER

15 Pursuant to Stipulation,
16 IT IS SO ORDERED. The Clerk shall close this case.
17

18 Dated: 19

RICHARD .SEEBORG
United States District Judge

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

STIPULATED DISMISSAL

C 08-4220 RS

2

I
I _j
I