Case 3:14-cv-05273-RJB Document 4-1 Filed 04/02/14 Page 1 of 19

I

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

9

AT TACOMA

10

11

ANDRES RAMIREZ-MARTINEZ, MANUEL

URIOSTEGUI, and ERICSON GONZALES,

12

13

VS.

Plaintiffs,

NO.
COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF

14

UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS

15

ENFORCEMENT; THOMAS S. WINKOWSKI,

Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of the

16

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement;

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND

17

SECURITY; JEH JOHNSON, Secretary of

Homeland Security; NATHALIE R. ASHER,

18

Director of the Seattle Field Office of U.S.

19

Immigration and Customs Enforcement,

20

Defendants.

21

1.

INTRODUCTION
22

1. The Plaintiffs are being held at the Northwest Detention Center under the
23

24

custody of Defendant Immigration and Customs Enforcement ("ICE").

25

2. Plaintiffs, who are without any economic or social power, sought to exercise

26

their First Amendment rights of free speech and petitioning the government about this

COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF - I of 13 0
[100086128.docx)

LAW OFFICES
GORDON THOMAS HONEYWELL LLP
1201 PACIFIC AVENUE, SUITE 2100 TACOMA, WASHINGTON 98402
(253) 620-6500 - FACSIMILE (253) 620-6565

Case 3:14-cv-05273-RJB Document 4-1 Filed 04/02/14 Page 2 of 19

Iii country’s immigration policies and the conditions of their forced detentions at the

Northwest Detention Center.
3 3. ICE, and its parent agency, Defendant Department of Homeland Security
4
("DHS") have retaliated against and acted arbitrarily towards Plaintiffs for exercising 5
their right of free speech and their right to petition the government. 6

7

II.

JURISDICTION

8 4. This Court has subject-matter jurisdiction over this matter under 28 U.S.C.

9 § 1331 (federal question) and 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202 (declaratory relief).
10

III.

11

VENUE

12

5. Venue is proper in the Western District of Washington under 28 U.S.C.

13

§§ 1391(b) and (e) because a substantial part of the events and omissions giving rise to

14 Plaintiffs’ claims occurred, and continue to occur, in this District.

15 IV.

16

PARTIES

17

6.

Plaintiff Andres Ramirez-Martinez is being held in custody at the Northwest

18

Detention Center in Tacoma, Washington by ICE.

19

7. Plaintiff Manuel Uriostegui is being held in custody at the Northwest

20 Detention Center in Tacoma, Washington by ICE.

8. Plaintiff Ericson Gonzales is being held in custody at the Northwest
22 Detention Center in Tacoma, Washington by ICE.
23
9. Defendant ICE is a federal law enforcement agency within DHS. ICE is 24

responsible for the criminal and civil enforcement of the immigration laws, including the 25

26

detention, incarceration and removal of immigrants. ICE discharges its responsibility for

COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF - 2 of 13
0
[100086128.docx]

LAW OFFICES
GORDON THOMAS HONEYWELL LLP
1201 PACIFIC AVENUE, SUITE 2100 TACOMA, WASHINGTON 98402
(253) 620-6500 - FACSIMILE (253) 620-6565

Case 3:14-cv-05273-RJB Document 4-1 Filed 04/02/14 Page 3 of 19

I incarceration of immigrants by (1) promulgating detention standards to be followed in

2
the facilities in which immigrants are held pending removal hearings, and (2) contracting
3
with the government entities and private corporations that operate detention facilities,
4
including the Northwest Detention Center. Enforcement and Removal Operations
5

("ERO"), a division of ICE, manages and oversees the immigration detention system. ICE
6

7

contracts with the GEO Group, Inc. to handle the daily operations for the Northwest

8

Detention Center.

9

10. Defendant Thomas S. Winkowski is the Principal Deputy Assistant

10

Secretary of ICE. As Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary, Defendant Winkowski is

11

responsible for ICE’s policies, practices and procedures, including those relating to the

12

detention of immigrants during their removal procedures.

13

II. Defendant DHS is the arm of the federal government responsible for the

14
enforcement and administration of immigration laws.

15
12. Defendant Jeh Johnson is the Secretary and highest-ranking member of 16
DHS. As Secretary of DHS, Defendant Johnson is responsible for DHS’s policies, 17
practices, and procedures and exercises authority and oversight over ICE.
18
13. Defendant Nathalie R. Asher is the Field Office Director for the Seattle Field 19

20

Office of ICE. The Seattle Field Office is responsible for carrying out ICE’s immigration

21

detention and removal operations in Alaska, Oregon, and Washington State. As Director,

22

Defendant Asher oversees the Seattle Field Office’s functions and implementations of its

23

detention standards.

24

14. Defendants Winkowski, Johnson, and Asher are sued only in their official

25

capacities.

26

COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF -3 of 13
0
[100086128.docx]

LAW OFFICES
GORDON THOMAS HONEYWELL LLP
1201 PACIFIC AVENUE, SUITE 2100 TACOMA, WASHINGTON 98402
(253) 620-6500 - FACSIMILE (253) 620-6565

Case 3:14-cv-05273-RJB Document 4-1 Filed 04/02/14 Page 4 of 19

1

V.

FACTS

2
15. On Friday, March 7, 2014, some of the detainees incarcerated in the

3
Northwest Detention Center in Tacoma, Washington went on a hunger strike to express 4

their strong beliefs that this country’s immigration laws and policies result in injustices
5

upon many immigrant families and communities. Through hunger striking they also 6

7

sought to raise awareness about conditions in the Northwest Detention Center

8

("NWDC").

9

16. By March 21, 2014 many detainees had ended their hunger strikes, except

10

for two detainees who had been placed in medical isolation.

11

17. Beginning Monday, March 24, 2014, a number of the detainees in the F-3

12

unit of the NWDC went on another hunger strike to raise awareness about concerns they

13
have with national immigration policies and conditions at the NWDC.

14 18. Upon information and belief, the detainees voluntarily engaged in the
15
hunger strikes and did not force others to join them. 16
19. The hunger strike was peaceful and did not disrupt the operation of the 17
NWDC.
18
20. On Thursday, March 27, 2014 several corrections officers entered the F-3
19

20

unit. They took one of the detainees for what they said was a meeting with an assistant

21

warden.

22

21. The corrections officers returned to take other detainees to the "meeting."

23

Many of the detainees participating in the hunger strike asked the officers if they could

24

join the meeting because they wanted to tell the assistant warden about their concerns

25

and grievances. The officers took those detainees from F-3 to participate in the

26

"meeting" with the assistant warden. There was never going to be a meeting with the

COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF -4 of 13
0
[100086128.docx]

LAW OFFICES
GORDON THOMAS HONEYWELL LLP
1201 PACIFIC AVENUE, SUITE 2100 TACOMA, WASHINGTON 98402
(253) 620-6500 - FACSIMILE (253) 620-6565

Case 3:14-cv-05273-RJB Document 4-1 Filed 04/02/14 Page 5 of 19

I assistant warden. Instead, the detainees were immediately incarcerated in
2 administrative segregation.
3 22. Defendants never told Plaintiffs that if they engaged in a hunger strike that
4
they would be placed in solitary confinement. 5

23. ICE’s policy on hunger strikes does not permit NWDC to place hunger 6

7

striking detainees in solitary confinement for reasons other than medical observations.

8

A. Plaintiff Ericson Gonzales

9

24. Plaintiff Gonzales was one of the detainees who voluntarily participated in

10

the hunger strike in order to express his views.

11

25. Mr. Gonzales did not ask to attend the "meeting" with the assistant

12

warden. Nonetheless, a guard ordered Mr. Gonzales to go.

13

26. As soon as Mr. Gonzales was out of the F3 unit, he was handcuffed and

14 placed in administrative segregation.

liN 27. Mr. Gonzales has remained in solitary confinement since March 27, 2014.
16 28. Since March 27, 2014 Mr. Gonzales has spent 23 hours a day, in isolation,
17
in a cell that only has a bed, a toilet, and a sink. 18
29. Mr. Gonzales has only been let out of the isolation cell for one hour a day to 19

20

go to a small "yard."

21

30. Mr. Gonzales has only been allowed to shower three times a week.

22

31. Mr. Gonzales is prohibited from participating in any programming activities.

23

32. Mr. Gonzales was given an "Administrative Detention Order" on March 27,

24

2014. Attached as Exhibit "A" is a copy of the Order.

25

33. The Order states that Mr. Gonzales "is a security risk to him/herself or the

26

security of the facility."

COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF - 5 of 13
0
[100086128.docxl

LAW OFFICES
GORDON THOMAS HONEYWELL LLP
1201 PACIFIC AVENUE, SUITE 2100 TACOMA, WASHINGTON 98402
(253) 620-6500 - FACSIMILE (253) 620-6565

Case 3:14-cv-05273-RJB Document 4-1 Filed 04/02/14 Page 6 of 19

I 34. The Order provides, as details: "You have been identified by staff as a

principle [sic] party to intimidating others into not eating. Therefore for the security and
[’I
safety of the detainees in the affected housing units, you are being placed in Protective 4
Custody."
5
35. ICE’s administrative segregation policy 2.12 at 183 provides that "all 6

7

memoranda, medical reports and other relevant documents shall be attached to the

8

administrative segregation order." No documents were attached to the Administrative

9

Detention Order.

10

36. ICE policy provides, regarding protective custody that: "A detainee shall be

11

placed in ’protective custody’ status in administrative segregation only when there is

12

documentation and supervisory approval that it is necessary to protect a detainee from

13

harm and that no reasonable alternatives are available." No documents were attached

14 to the Administrative Detention Order to support Mr. Gonzales’s placement in

15
administrative segregation for protective custody.
16 37. Mr. Gonzales was never given any information as to what he allegedly did
17
to intimidate others to go on a hunger strike. Mr. Gonzales never intimidated anyone to
18
do so. Mr. Gonzales has not been given an opportunity to challenge this allegation or to
19

20

challenge his being kept in solitary confinement.

21

38. No one has told Mr. Gonzales how long he will be in solitary confinement.

22

39. No one has told Mr. Gonzales what he has to do to return to the general

23

population. Once he was thrown into solitary confinement, Mr. Gonzales stopped

24

engaging in his free speech and petitioning the government activities. Despite doing so,

25

he is still in solitary confinement.

26

COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF - 6 of 13 0
[100086128,docx]

LAW OFFICES
GORDON THOMAS HONEYWELL LLP
1201 PACIFIC AVENUE, SUITE 2100 TACOMA, WASHINGTON 98402
(253) 620-6500 - FACSIMILE (253) 620-6565

Case 3:14-cv-05273-RJB Document 4-1 Filed 04/02/14 Page 7 of 19

I

B. Plaintiff Manuel Uriostegui

2

40. Beginning Monday, March 24, 2013 Plaintiff Uriostegui went on a hunger

3

strike to express his concerns about the national immigration policies and the conditions

4

at the Northwest Detention Center.

5

41. On Thursday, March 27, 2014 Mr. Uriostegui was asked to attend to attend

6

a meeting with the assistant warden so he could express his concerns and grievances.

7

42. As soon as the officers had Mr. Uriostegui outside of F-3 they put him in

8
handcuffs and placed him in administrative segregation.
9
43. Since March 27, 2014 Mr. Uriostegui has spent 23 hours a day, in
10
isolation, in a cell that only has a bed, a toilet, and a sink.
11
44. Mr. Uriostegui has only been let out of the isolation cell for one hour a day
12

13

to go to a small "yard."

14

45. Mr. Uriostegui is only allowed to shower three times a week.

15

46. Mr. Uriostegui is prohibited from participating in any programming

16

activities.

17

47. Mr. Uriostegui was given an "Administrative Detention Order" on March 27,

18

2014. Attached as Exhibit "B" is a copy of the Order.

19

48. The Order states that Mr. Uriostegui "is a security risk to him/herself or the

20
security of the facility."
21
49. The Order provides, as details: "You have been identified by staff as a
22
principle [sic] party to intimidating others into not eating. Therefore for the security and
23
safety of the detainees in the affected housing units, you are being placed in Protective
24
Custody."
25

26

COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF - 7 of 13
0
[100086128.docx]

LAW OFFICES
GORDON THOMAS HONEYWELL LLP
1201 PACIFIC AVENUE, SUITE 2100 TACOMA, WASHINGTON 98402
(253) 620-6500 - FACSIMILE (253) 620-6565

Case 3:14-cv-05273-RJB Document 4-1 Filed 04/02/14 Page 8 of 19

I

50. ICE’s administrative segregation policy 2.12 at 183 provides that "all

2
memoranda, medical reports and other relevant documents shall be attached to the

3
administrative segregation order." No documents were attached to the Administrative
4
Detention Order.
5

51. ICE policy provides, regarding protective custody that: "A detainee shall be
6

placed in ’protective custody’ status in administrative segregation only when there is
7

8

documentation and supervisory approval that it is necessary to protect a detainee from

9

harm and that no reasonable alternatives are available." No documents were attached

10

to the Administrative Detention Order to support Mr. Uriostegui’s placement in

11

administrative segregation for protective custody.

12

52. Mr. Uriostegui was never given any information as to what he allegedly did

13

to intimidate others to go on a hunger strike. Mr. Uriostegui never intimidated anyone to

14

go on a hunger strike. Mr. Uriostegui has not been given an opportunity to challenge this

15
allegation or to challenge his being kept in solitary confinement.

16 53. No one has told Mr. Uriostegui how long he will be in solitary confinement.
17
54. No one has told Mr. Uriostegui what he has to do to return to the general
18

population. 19

20

55. Once he was thrown into solitary confinement, Mr. Uriostegui stopped

21

engaging in his free speech and petitioning the government activities. Despite doing so,

22

he is still in solitary confinement.

23

C. Plaintiff Andres Ramirez-Martinez

24

56. Beginning Monday, March 24, 2014 Plaintiff Ramirez-Martinez went on a

25

hunger strike to express his concerns about this nation’s immigration policies and laws

26

and the conditions of imprisonment at the Northwest Detention Center.

COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF -8 of 13
C)
[100086128.docxl

LAW OFFICES
GORDON THOMAS HONEYWELL LLP
1201 PACIFIC AVENUE, SUITE 2100 TACOMA, WASHINGTON 98402
(253) 620-6500 - FACSIMILE (253) 620-6565

Case 3:14-cv-05273-RJB Document 4-1 Filed 04/02/14 Page 9 of 19

I 57. Mr. Ramirez-Martinez was a food porter in unit F-3.
2 58. Mr. Ramirez-Martinez never coerced any other detainee to go on a hunger
3 strike. In fact, during the time that Mr. Ramirez-Martinez was on a hunger strike, he still
4 served meals to detainees where were not engaging in a hunger strike.
5
59. On Thursday, March 27, 2014, when the guards were taking detainees to 6
the "meeting" with the assistant warden, Mr. Ramirez-Martinez went and sat on his bed. 7

8

A guard pointed to Mr. Ramirez-Martinez and directed him to join the group.

9

60. As soon as the guards had Mr. Ramirez-Martinez outside of unit F-3, they

10

handcuffed him and placed him in administrative segregation.

11

61. Since March 27, 2014 Mr. Ramirez-Martinez has spent 23 hours a day, in

12

isolation, in a cell that only has a bed, a toilet, and a sink.

13

62. Mr. Ramirez-Martinez has only been let out of the isolation cell for one hour

14 a day to go to a small "yard."
15 63. Mr. Ramirez-Martinez is only allowed to shower three times a week.
16 64. Mr. Ramirez-Martinez is prohibited from participating in any programming
17
activities. 18
65. Mr. Ramirez-Martinez was given an "Administrative Detention Order" on 19

20

March 27, 2014. Attached as Exhibit "C" is a copy of the Order.

21

66. The Order states that Mr. Ramirez-Martinez "is a security risk to

22

him/herself or the security of the facility."

23

67. The Order provides, as details: "You have been identified by staff as a

24

principle [sic] party to intimidating others into not eating. Therefore for the security and

25

safety of the detainees in the affected housing units, you are being placed in Protective

26

Custody."

COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF -9 of 13
0.
[100086128.docx]

LAW OFFICES
GORDON THOMAS HONEYWELL LLP
1201 PACIFIC AVENUE, SUITE 2100 TACOMA, WASHINGTON 98402
(253) 620-6500 - FACSIMILE (253) 620-6565

Case 3:14-cv-05273-RJB Document 4-1 Filed 04/02/14 Page 10 of 19

I

68. ICE’s administrative segregation policy 2.12 at 183 provides that "all

2
memoranda, medical reports and other relevant documents shall be attached to the
3
administrative segregation order." No documents were attached to the Administrative 4
Detention Order.
5
69. ICE policy provides, regarding protective custody that: "A detainee shall be 6

7

placed in ’protective custody’ status in administrative segregation only when there is

8

documentation and supervisory approval that it is necessary to protect a detainee from

9

harm and that no reasonable alternatives are available." No documents were attached

10

to the Administrative Detention Order to support Mr. Ramirez-Martinez’s placement in

11

administrative segregation for protective custody.

12

70. Mr. Ramirez-Martinez was never given any information as to what he

13

allegedly did to intimidate others to go on a hunger strike. Mr. Ramirez-Martinez never

14 intimidated anyone to do so. Indeed, just the opposite: Ramirez-Martinez served
15
detainees who were not engaged in a hunger strike. Mr. Ramirez-Martinez has not been
16
given an opportunity to challenge this allegation or to challenge his being kept in solitary 17
confinement.
18
71. No one has told Mr. Ramirez-Martinez what he has to do to return to the 19
general population. No one has told Mr. Ramirez-Martinez how long he will be in solitary
20

21

confinement.

22

72. Once he was thrown into solitary confinement, Mr. Ramirez-Martinez

23

stopped engaging in his free speech and petitioning the government activities. Despite

24

doing so, he is still in solitary confinement.

25

26

COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF - 10 of 13
0
[100086128.docxl

LAW OFFICES
GORDON THOMAS HONEYWELL LLP
1201 PACIFIC AVENUE, SUITE 2100 TACOMA, WASHINGTON 98402
(253) 620-6500 - FACSIMILE (253) 620-6565

Case 3:14-cv-05273-RJB Document 4-1 Filed 04/02/14 Page 11 of 19

I

VI.

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION: VIOLATION OF FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION

2
73. The First Amendment guarantees Plaintiffs the right of freedom of speech

3
and freedom of expression. Plaintiffs exercised their right to these protected freedoms 4

by engaging in a hunger strike to express their views about national immigration policies
5

and how detainees were being treated at the Northwest Detention Center. 6

7

74. Defendants violated Plaintiffs’ right of freedom of speech and freedom of

8

expression by placing them in solitary confinement in retaliation for their free speech

9

activities.

10

75. Defendants’ actions chilled Plaintiffs’ right to freedom of speech and

11

expression.

12

76. Defendants’ actions did not reasonably advance a legitimate institutional

13
goal.

14 77. Plaintiffs have suffered, and continue to suffer, irreparable injuries as a

15
result of Defendants’ policies, practices, and omissions and are entitled to injunctive
16
relief to avoid further injury. 17

VII.

18

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION: VIOLATION OF RIGHT TO PETITION THE GOVERNMENT FOR

19

REDRESS OF GRIEVANCES

20

78. The First Amendment guarantees Plaintiffs the right to petition the

21

government for redress of grievances.

22

79. Defendants have violated Plaintiffs’ right to petition the government by

23

incarcerating them in solitary confinement in retaliation for their attempts to bring their

24

grievances to light.

KA

80. Defendants’ actions chilled Plaintiffs’ right to freedom of speech and

expression.

COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF -
0
[100086128.docxl

11 of 13
LAW OFFICES
GORDON THOMAS HONEYWELL LLP
1201 PACIFIC AVENUE, SUITE 2100 TACOMA, WASHINGTON 98402
(253) 620-6500 - FACSIMILE (253) 620-6565

Case 3:14-cv-05273-RJB Document 4-1 Filed 04/02/14 Page 12 of 19

I 81. Defendants’ actions did not reasonably advance a legitimate institutional
2 goal.
3 82. Plaintiffs have suffered, and continue to suffer, irreparable injuries as a
4
result of Defendants’ policies, practices, and omissions and are entitled to injunctive 5

relief to avoid further injury. 6

7

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

8

WHEREFORE Plaintiffs requests that the Court:

9

1. Issue a temporary restraining order and preliminary relief enjoining the

10

Defendants, their subordinates, agents, employees, and all others acting in concert with

11

them from incarcerating the Plaintiffs, and those similarly situated, in administrative

12

segregation, solitary confinement, or isolation based upon the Plaintiffs engaging in free

13

speech activities and specifically including the free speech activity of engaging in a

14 hunger strike;
15 2. Issue a permanent injunction prohibiting Defendants, their subordinates,
16 agents, employees, and all others acting in concert with them from incarcerating
17 Plaintiffs, and those similarly situated, in administrative segregation, solitary
18
confinement, or isolation based upon Plaintiffs engaging in free speech activities and 19

20

specifically including the free speech activity of engaging in a hunger strike;

21

3. Enter a declaratory judgment declaring that Defendants’ policies, practices,

22

acts, and omissions described in this Complaint violate Plaintiffs’ rights under the United

23

States Constitution; and

24

4. Grant such further relief as the Court deems just and proper.

25

26

COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF - 12 of 13
0
[100086128.docx]

LAW OFFICES
GORDON THOMAS HONEYWELL LLP
1201 PACIFIC AVENUE, SUITE 2100 TACOMA, WASHINGTON 98402
(253) 620-6500 - FACSIMILE (253) 620-6565

Case 3:14-cv-05273-RJB Document 4-1 Filed 04/02/14 Page 13 of 19

I

2

3
Dated this 2nd day of April, 2014.
4

5

GORDON THOMAS HONEYWELL LLP

6

By

/

7

Salvador& Mungia, WSBA No. 14807

smungia@gth-law.com 1201 Pacific Avenue,

8

Suite 2100

Tacoma, WA 98402

9

(253) 620-6500

10
Cooperating Attorney for the

11

ACLU of Washington Foundation

12

ACLU OF WASHINGTON FOUNDATION

COLUMBIA LEGAL SERVICES

13

By:

14

Sarahi(Dunne, WSBA No. 34869 dunne@aclu-wa.org

15

La Rond Baker, WSBA No. 43610

Ibaker@aclu-wa.org

16

Margaret Chen, WSBA No. 46156

mchen@aclu-wa.org

17

901 Fifth Avenue, Suite 630

Seattle, WA 98164

18

(206) 624-2184

19 Attorneys for Plaintiffs
20

/1.. By: Melissa . ee, WSBA No. 38808 melissa.lee@columbialegal.org Nicholas B. Straley, WSBA No. 25963 nick.straley@columbialegal.org Andrea Schmitt, WSBA No. 39759 andrea.schmitt@columbialegal.org 101 Yesler Way, Suite 300 Seattle, WA 98104 (206) 464-0838
Attorneys for Plaintiffs

21

22

23

24

25

26

COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF - 13 of 13

()
[100086128.docx]

LAW OFFICES
GORDON THOMAS HONEYWELL LLP
1201 PACIFIC AVENUE, SUITE 2100 TACOMA, WASHINGTON 98402
(253) 620-6500 - FACSIMILE (253) 620-6565

Case 3:14-cv-05273-RJB Document 4-1 Filed 04/02/14 Page 14 of 19

31 1

0mq007

jiAk Alk

Case 3:14-cv-05273-RJB Document 4-1 Filed 04/02/14 Page 15 of 19

10 j1d* Mii.j 1in11
Frow of Person AuthłtItk, i)ct*nUon)

Md,ca1 Notified. Yci JQj

No

D.*. Mi,tckaiaJL
Ti(ICI
ANumber.

Tho above named indivUlual it to be admitted in Adtobittralk L)dentlon kr the following reaon(s)

U pending an in sttott1c*nng ht the eomtniofl of a prohibited act or rule violation A) and quircs thiing dctctton.
_________(U) U under medical ohceration (medical stafftnut comment an4 sigh thU order).
Me4cal ornc Sgnatus - - .---
U pending a transfer or release within 24 bourL
It tenninating confinement in flisciphnary Segregation and hits been ordered in ________(ID) Admmnirstc t)etcntkm by the lnstitutton t)isctplinay Jand
Is a security risk to hiinh dior the secunty of the facility.
_________(F) t)eurncc has requested admission for Potesaie Custody
I hereby request aement in the Spectal hia agement Unit (or my own protection. I do do not request is hearing concerning my segrcg4tion
IDetalnec. (SgnaIurc)
Wails (as ncccuy) You have been identified by siatias a principle party to intiruidating others into not eating. 1hbs (or the security and safety of the detaiwom in the ofectcd housing units, you are being placed in Protective Custody

Copy delivered to detirnee by (Signature
Origint Detainee Ffle White
CC Mm biurativc F1r Yellow Dctabsec Ptnl PItS - 6014
ICE. - Blue
t)t5002

Captains Review: SW.iture

L)atef time
Date I lime
1101%

Case 3:14-cv-05273-RJB Document 4-1 Filed 04/02/14 Page 16 of 19
F:’ 0

Case 3:14-cv-05273-RJB Document 4-1 Filed 04/02/14 Page 17 of 19

Northi est OtIttillon. Ccifltr In.
Medical Notmed Yes j. nctrncc Name

AtIn1a1tn1avt Dmntlłn Ordcr
I)alo: L40A 1L2QL4_
Title. ir

.-

ANnmbcr

Itte above named individual is to be admitted to Mminicuaftve Detention for the following rason(s)

Is pending an invcsti tioftcaring for the commission of a prohibited at or rule violation __________(A) and requires pr -hearing detention.

Is under medical obscrntion (medical staff must comment and sign this order)

Medical Officer (Signature):_ ,

...

______

Is pending a transfer or release within 24 hours,

Is tenninating eon11nement in Disciplinary Segregation and has been ordered in (D) Administrative Detention by the Institution Disciplinary Panel,

isa security risk to himTherself or the security of the facility.

,(F) Detainee has requested admission for Protective Custody

hereby request placement in the Special Management Unit for my own protection I do I $ do not f I request a hearing concerning my segregation.

I)ctainee:

(Stg.naiure)

Details (as necessary) Von have been identified by staff 11i a principle party to intimidating otht into not eating Iberefore lr the security and sakiy of the detainees in the affected housing units, you arc being placed

in Protective Cnstody,

Original. Det*htee Ilk White CC Adfl*Iniatr*dve file - Yellow
1$..(f ICU Blue
Ow

Captains Review
Signature

Date Time
110701

Case 3:14-cv-05273-RJB Document 4-1 Filed 04/02/14 Page 18 of 19

Case 3:14-cv-05273-RJB Document 4-1 Filed 04/02/14 Page 19 of 19

Northwest Detention Center

J1

ir

To:

From:

Medical Notified: Yes__",_

No

Detainee Name:

Administrative Detention Order Date: March 27, 2014 Title:
A.Number

The above named individual is to be admitted to Administrative Detention for the following reason(s):

Is pending an investigation/hearing for the commission of a prohibited act or rule violation (A) and requires pre-hearing detention.

(13) Is under medical observation (medical staff must comment and sIgn this order).

Medical Officer (Signature): .

_________(C) Is pending a transfer or release within 24 hours.

Is terminating confinement in Disciplinary Segregation and has been ordered in (0) Administrative Detention by the Institution Disciplinary Panel,

,j(E) Is a security risk to him/herself or the security of the facility,

_________(F) Detainee has requested admission for Protective Custody

I hereby request placement in the Special Management Unit for my own protection.
I do ( 3 do not I 3 request a hearing concerning my segregation.

Detainee:

Date:

(Signature)

Details (as necessary): You have been identified by staff as a principle party to intimidating others into not eating. Therefore for the security and safety of the detainees in the affected housing units you are being placed

in Protective Custody.

Copy delivered to detainee by
Original: Detainee File - White
cc: Adminisustive .File - Yellow
tabeeP P145 - Gold ICE - Blue
015002

Captain’s Review:
Signature

Date / Time 110708

 
 Case 3:14-cv-05273 Document 2 Filed 04/02/14 Page 1 of 18

I 2 3 4

6

7

8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

9

AT TACOMA

10

11

ANDRES RAMIREZ-MARTINEZ, MANUEL

URIOSTEGUI, and ERICSON GONZALES,

12

13

VS.

Plaintiffs,

NO.
MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER

14

UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION AND

15

CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT; THOMAS S.

WINKOWSKI, Principal Deputy Assistant

Noted for Hearing at 9:30 a.m. on Friday, April 4, 2014

16

Secretary of the U.S. Immigration and

Customs Enforcement; UNITED STATES

17

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY;

JEH JOHNSON, Secretary of Homeland

18

Security; NATHALIE R. ASH ER, Director of the

19

Seattle Field Office of U.S. Immigration and

Customs Enforcement,

20

Defendants.

21

I.

INTRODUCTION AND RELIEF REQUESTED

22

Detainees at the Northwest Detention Center (NWDC) in Tacoma, Washington 23

have taken up hunger strikes over the last several weeks in order to express their 24

25

opposition to federal immigration policies and protest the conditions of their confinement

26

at the NWDC. The public responded by focusing media attention on the issues raised by

the detainees. Members of Congress have issued public statements criticizing the

Mot. For Temporary Restraining Order - I of 18

LAW OFFICES
GORDON THOMAS HONEYWELL LLP
1201 PACIFIC AVENUE, SUITE 2100 TACOMA, WASHINGTON 98402
(253) 620-6500 - FACSIMILE (253) 620-6565

Case 3:14-cv-05273 Document 2 Filed 04/02/14 Page 2 of 18

1 NWDC’s operations and management and federal immigration law. Rather than respond
2 to the concerns expressed by detainees, United States Immigration and Customs
3 Enforcement (ICE) threw individual hunger strikers into solitary confinement after falsely
4

promising them that they would meet to talk about the detainees’ concerns. ICE’s 5

6

arbitrary, retaliatory actions continue to violate the First Amendment rights of the

7

Plaintiffs and other detainees who remain in segregation. This Court should enter a

8

temporary restraining order that requires ICE to immediately release these individuals

9

from solitary confinement and prohibits ICE from engaging in any further retaliation

10

against detainees engaging in protected speech.

11

II. FACTS

12

Plaintiffs in this case are civil immigration detainees awaiting adjudication of their

13

immigration cases at the NWDC. Ramirez-Martinez Declaration in Support of Motion for

14
Temporary Restraining Order 12; Gonzales Declaration in Support of Motion for
15
Temporary Restraining Order 12; Uriostegui Declaration in Support of Motion for
16
Temporary Restraining Order 12.’ Each engaged in a hunger strike within the last week.
17
Ramirez-Martinez DecI. 110; Gonzales DecI. 110; Uriostegui DecI. 110. Their hunger 18

strikes were intended to bring detained immigrants’ experiences into the national debate 19

20

about immigration policy and to raise awareness about conditions at the NWDC. Ramirez-

21

Martinez DecI. 14; Gonzales Deci. 14; Uriostegui Decl. 14.

22

Plaintiffs have engaged in hunger strikes as acts of conscience and not because

23

of any coercion or intimidation by others but because of their strongly held convictions. Id.

24

25

Mr. Ramirez Martinez’s native language is Spanish, so his attached declaration has

been filed in Spanish. A certified English translation of his declaration is attached as

26

Exhibit ito the Declaration of Salvador A. Mungia in Support of Motion for Temporary

Restraining Order.

Mot. For Temporary Restraining Order - 2 of 18

LAW OFFICES
GORDON THOMAS HONEYWELL LLP
1201 PACIFIC AVENUE, SUITE 2100 TACOMA, WASHINGTON 98402
(253) 620-6500 - FACSIMILE (253) 620-6565

Case 3:14-cv-05273 Document 2 Filed 04/02/14 Page 3 of 18

I At no time did Plaintiffs engage in any activity that endangered the safety or security of
2 the detention center, its staff or other detainees. Ramirez-Martinez Decl.13; Gonzales
3 DecI. 13; Uriostegui DecI. 13. In fact, Plaintiffs did not affect NWDC’s regular operations
4
in any way, except that they refused meal trays when offered. Plaintiff Ramirez- Martinez 5
in fact distributed meal trays to those detainees who were not engaged in hunger strikes. 6

7

Ramirez-Martinez Decl.13.

8

On March 27, 2014, while detainees in the F-3 unit, including Plaintiffs, were in

9

the living area of their unit, guards entered and offered them the opportunity to meet with

10

NWDC administrators to discuss their reasons for engaging in hunger strikes. Ramirez-

11

Martinez Decl.Decl.16; Gonzales Deci. 16; Uriostegui Deci. 16. Several detainees

12

expressed interest in attending the meeting. Id. Under the subterfuge of taking them to

13

such a meeting, guards escorted detainees, including Plaintiffs, from the F-3 unit.

14 Ramirez-Martinez Decl.17; Gonzales DecI. 17; Uriostegui DecI. 17. Once out of sight of
15 other detainees, and without warning or explanation, guards handcuffed each detainee
16 and escorted him to solitary confinement cells. Ramirez-Martinez Decl.917; Gonzales DecI.
17
18; Uriostegui DecI. ¶7. The detainees were given no notice that they were at risk of
18

being placed in solitary confinement or even that their participation in hunger strikes 19

20

could result in sanctions. Ramirez-Martinez Decl.91; Gonzales DecI. 110; Uriostegui DecI.

21

¶10.

22

The detainees, including Plaintiffs, have been held in solitary confinement for the

23

last six days. Ramirez-Martinez Decl.17; Gonzales DecI. 18; Uriostegui Decl. 17. They are

24

allowed only one hour each day in a small "yard" by themselves, have limited access to

25

programming, are allowed to shower only three times a week, and when they do, they are

26

taken in handcuffs and released only once they are in the showers. Ramirez-Martinez

Mot. For Temporary Restraining Order - 3 of 18

LAW OFFICES
GORDON THOMAS HONEYWELL LLP
1201 PACIFIC AVENUE, SUITE 2100 TACOMA, WASHINGTON 98402
(253) 620-6500 - FACSIMILE (253) 620-6565

Case 3:14-cv-05273 Document 2 Filed 04/02/14 Page 4 of 18

Decl.97; Gonzales DecI. 18; Uriostegui DecI. 17. The detainees, including Plaintiffs,

2
otherwise spend twenty-three hours a day in small cells with little or no natural light and
3
only a bed, a sink, and a toilet. Id.
4
The only explanation that ICE has provided Plaintiffs regarding the basis for their
5
isolation is a one page "Administrative Detention Order," each of which is identical to the 6

7

other. See Ramirez-Martinez DecI. Exhibit A; Gonzales DecI. Exhibit A; Uriostegui Exhibit A.

8

In these Orders, ICE alleges that placement of Plaintiffs in solitary confinement is justified

9

because each Plaintiff is "a security risk to him/herself or the security of the facility." Id.

10

Despite the seemingly arbitrary selection of detainees from the F-3 unit to participate in

11

the "meeting," ICE justifies the placement of Plaintiffs and the other detainees based on

12

its unsupported allegation that the detainees "have been identified by staff as a principle

13

[sic] party to intimidating others into not eating." Id. ICE further asserts that "for the

14

security and safety of the detainees in the affected housing units, [Plaintiffs and the other

15

detainees removed from the F-3 unit] are being placed in Protective Custody." Id.

16 Plaintiffs have not been provided any information articulating facts to support ICE’s

17

allegations nor have they been given the opportunity to contest the allegations in the
18

Orders. ICE has not informed the detainees of when, or even if, they will be returned to 19

20

the general population.

21

Although Plaintiffs had intended to continue their hunger strikes through Friday,

22

March 28, 2014, they ended their hunger strikes upon their placement in solitary

23

confinement because of their fear of further retaliation by ICE. Ramirez-Martinez

24

DecI.111; Gonzales Decl. 111; Uriostegui DecI. 510.

25

On Monday, March 31, 2014, Attorneys for Plaintiffs requested that ICE release

26

Plaintiffs and other detainees who were placed in solitary confinement on March 27,

Mot. For Temporary Restraining Order - 4 of 18

LAW OFFICES
GORDON THOMAS HONEYWELL LLP
1201 PACIFIC AVENUE, SUITE 2100 TACOMA, WASHINGTON 98402
(253) 620-6500 - FACSIMILE (253) 620-6565

Case 3:14-cv-05273 Document 2 Filed 04/02/14 Page 5 of 18

I

2014. ICE refused to do so. Declaration of Salvador A. Mungia Exhibit A. Accordingly, on

2
April 1, 2014, Attorneys for Plaintiffs informed ICE that they would be filing suit and seek

3
a temporary restraining order the following day. Id. at Exhibit B.
4
Ill. ARGUMENT
5
A. Standard For Issuance Of Temporary Restraining Order.
6

The standard for issuing a temporary restraining order in the Ninth Circuit is
7

8

identical to the standard for issuing a preliminary injunction. Lockheed Missile & Space

9

Co., Inc. V. HughesAircraft Co., 887 F. Supp. 1320, 1323 (N.D. Cal. 1995); see Stuhlbarg

10

Int’l Sales Co., Inc. v. John D. Brush & Co., Inc., 240 F.3d 832, 839 n. 7 (9th Cir. 2001).

11

To prevail on a motion for a preliminary injunction Plaintiffs must establish: (1) a

12

likelihood of success on the merits; (2) a likelihood of irreparable harm; (3) the balance of

13

equities tips in their favor; and (4) that an injunction is in the public interest. Winter v.

14

Natural Res. Def Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008). 2

15
B. Plaintiffs are Likely to Succeed on the Merits. 16
Defendants placed Plaintiffs and the other hunger strikers into solitary
17
confinement to retaliate against them for speaking out about conditions in the detention
18
center and U.S. immigration policy. Defendants’ actions were intended and geared 19
toward quieting Plaintiffs’ speech and dissuading them and others from engaging in
20

21

protected speech in the future. This violated Plaintiffs’ First Amendment rights, and the

22

violation is ongoing.

23

24
2 Recently, the Ninth Circuit clarified that its longstanding "serious questions" approach,

25

survives Winterwhen applied as part of the four-element Wintertest. Alliance for Wild

Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127, 1131-35 (9th Cir. 2011). Under this approach,

26

"serious questions going to the merits" and a hardship balance that tips sharply towards

the plaintiff will support issuance of an injunction, so long as the plaintiff also shows a

likelihood of irreparable injury and that the injunction is in the public interest.

Mot. For Temporary Restraining Order - 5 of 18

LAW OFFICES
GORDON THOMAS HONEYWELL LLP
1201 PACIFIC AVENUE, SUITE 2100 TACOMA, WASHINGTON 98402
(253) 620-6500 - FACSIMILE (253) 620-6565

Case 3:14-cv-05273 Document 2 Filed 04/02/14 Page 6 of 18

I

1.

Plaintiffs eniov signiflcant First Amendment protections.

2
As immigrants, Plaintiffs enjoy all of the protections of the Bill of Rights that are

3
not expressly limited to citizens, including most importantly here the protections of the 4
First Amendment. Bridges v. Wtvon, 326 U.S. 135, 148 (1945) (freedom of speech and of
5
press is accorded aliens residing in this country). See also Kim Ho Ma v. Ashcroft, 257 6

F.3d 1095, 1109 (9th Cir. 2001) (Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments protect all who have 7

8

entered the United States regardless of status).

9

Plaintiffs are immigration detainees but this does not limit their First Amendment

10

rights beyond restrictions absolutely necessary to the detention setting. They are civil

11

detainees held pursuant to civil immigration laws. As such, under the Fifth Amendment

12

they can be punished while in detention and their rights may not be limited even as much

13

as pre-trial criminal detainees. Jones v. Blanas, 393 F.3d 918, 933-34 (9th Cir. 2004),

14

cert. denied, 546 U.S. 820 (2005). Under Jones, a civil detainee "is entitled to ’more

15
considerate treatment’ than his criminally detained counterparts..". Id. at 933 (quoting

16 Youngberg v. Romeo, 457 U.S. 307, 321-32 (1982)). See Agyeman v. Corrections Corp. of
17
Amer., 390 F.3d 1101, 1104 (9th Cir. 2004) (noting that detention on noncriminal
18

charges "may be a cruel necessity of our immigration policy; but if it must be done, the 19

greatest care must be observed in not treating the innocent like a dangerous criminal").
20

21

Under Jones, the Plaintiffs in this case are effectively in the same status as other

22

civil detainees, such as people confined against their will in mental health institutions or

23

similar settings. While there can be some restrictions on free expression in any

24

institutional setting, civil detainees of this kind retain expressive and associational rights

25

that criminal justice prisoners do not enjoy. Jones, 393 F.3d at 934.

26

Mot. For Temporary Restraining Order - 6 of 18

LAW OFFICES
GORDON THOMAS HONEYWELL LLP
1201 PACIFIC AVENUE, SUITE 2100 TACOMA, WASHINGTON 98402
(253) 620-6500 - FACSIMILE (253) 620-6565

Case 3:14-cv-05273 Document 2 Filed 04/02/14 Page 7 of 18

I The greater constitutional protections afforded civil detainees mean that
2 restrictions that limit those rights are unconstitutional where they are either intended to
3 punish or are excessive in relation to the allegedly non-punitive purpose for which they
4
are imposed. Id. ICE’s treatment of Plaintiffs fails this test: It had the effect of punishing 5

6

Plaintiffs for their First Amendment expression through a hunger strike to call attention to

7

conditions of confinement and important issues of public policy. If it was intended to have

8

this punitive effect, it fails the first prong of the Jonestest. If not intended to punish, it

9

fails the second prong. Defendants’ response to the peaceful protests was clearly

10

excessive when they first deceived the Plaintiffs into identifying themselves and then

11

placed them in isolation even though there was no threat to the security of the institution.

12

2. ICE retaliated against Plaintiffs in violation of the First Amendment.

13

One of the vital constitutional protections afforded civil detainees, like the

14 Plaintiffs, is the right to engage in protected speech without fear of retaliation. Rhodes v.
15 Robinson, 408 F.3d 559, 567 (9th Cir. 2005). A First Amendment retaliation claim arises
16 when the following five elements are present: (1) the Plaintiffs engaged in conduct
17
protected by the First Amendment; (2) ICE took an adverse action against them (3) 18

because of that conduct; (4) ICE’s action chilled their exercise of their First Amendment 19

20

rights, and (5) ICE’s action did not reasonably advance a legitimate institutional goal. Id.

21

at 567-68. All five elements are present here.

22

a.

Plaintiffs were retaliated against for engaging in two Woes of

protected conduct. 23

24

Plaintiffs took two separate protected actions which led to their confinement in

25

solitary. First, they engaged in hunger strikes to bring detained immigrants’ experiences

26

into the national debate about immigration policy and to raise awareness about

Mot. For Temporary Restraining Order - 7 of 18

LAW OFFICES
GORDON THOMAS HONEYWELL LLP
1201 PACIFIC AVENUE, SUITE 2100 TACOMA, WASHINGTON 98402
(253) 620-6500 - FACSIMILE (253) 620-6565

Case 3:14-cv-05273 Document 2 Filed 04/02/14 Page 8 of 18

I

conditions at the NWDC. Second, they sought to address their grievances with the NWDC

2

administration. The First Amendment protects each of these separate activities.

3

Hunger strikes by detainees are protected First

4

Amendment activities.

5

"The First Amendment literally forbids the abridgment only of ’speech,’ but [the

6

United States Supreme Court] ha[s] long recognized that its protection does not end at

7

the spoken or written word." Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397, 404 (1989). Accordingly,

8

courts have consistently acknowledged that conduct may be "sufficiently imbued with

9

elements of communication to fall within the scope of the First and Fourteenth

10

Amendments[.]" Id.; see also, Roulette v. City of Seattle, 97 F.3d 300, 302-03 (9th Cir.

11

1996) ("The First Amendment protects not only the expression of ideas through printed or

12 spoken words, but also symbolic speech" (citing Spence V. Washington, 418 U.S. 405,

13 409 (1974)). "In deciding whether particular conduct possesses sufficient
14 communicative elements to bring the First Amendment into play, courts ask whether ’[a]n
15
intent to convey a particularized message was present, and [whether] the likelihood was 16

great that the message would be understood by those who viewed it." Johnson, 491 U.S. 17

18

at 404.

19

Hunger strikes are such protected conduct. They are particularly powerful modes

20

of expressive conduct often used as a way of communicating what is otherwise not being

21

heard. 3 Courts have held that a hunger strike may be expressive conduct protected by the

22

First Amendment in the prison setting "if it was intended to convey a particularized

23

message." Stefanoff V. Hays Cnty., Tex., 154 F.3d 523, 527 (5th Cir. 1998) (citing

24

Johnson, 491 U.S. at 404).

25

"The passive nonviolence of King and Gandhi are proof that the resolute acceptance of

26

pain may communicate dedication and righteousness more eloquently than mere words

ever could. A boycott, like a hunger strike, conveys an emotional message that is absent

in a letter to the editor, a conversation with the mayor, or even a protest march." F.T.C. v.

Superior Court Trial Lawyers Assn, 493 U.S. 411,450-51(1990) (emphasis added).

Mot. For Temporary Restraining Order - 8 of 18

LAW OFFICES
GORDON THOMAS HONEYWELL LLP
1201 PACIFIC AVENUE, SUITE 2100 TACOMA, WASHINGTON 98402
(253) 620-6500 - FACSIMILE (253) 620-6565

Case 3:14-cv-05273 Document 2 Filed 04/02/14 Page 9 of 18

I
Accordingly, a number of federal courts have recognized that hunger strikes even
2
in prison may constitute protected activity sufficient to support First Amendment
3
retaliation claims. See, e.g., Ajaj v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, No. 13-1010, 2014 WL
4
998413 (10th Cir. Mar. 17, 2014) (upholding the district court’s decision that Mr. Ajaj
5
had adequately pled a First Amendment retaliation claim against a BOP employee for 6

7

issuance of a disciplinary notice based on Mr. Ajaj’s participation in a hunger strike);

8

Brown v. Graham, 9:07-CV-1353 FJS ATB, 2010 WL 6428251 (N.D.N.Y. Mar. 30, 2010)

9

report and recommendation adopted, 9:07-CV-1353 FJS ATB, 2011 WL 1213482

10

(N.D.N.Y. Mar. 31, 2011), aff’d, 470 F. App’x 11 (2d Cir. 2012) (accepting "for the

11

purposes of these motions, that a hunger strike is protected activity in the context of a

12

retaliation claim"); Green v. Ph///is, No. 04 Civ. 10202, 2006 WL 846272 (S.D.N.Y. Mar.

13

31, 2006) ("assuming for the sake of argument that retaliation against an inmate for

14 participation in a hunger strike could state a claim"). Because of the expanded First
15
Amendment rights held by the Plaintiffs here as c/v//detainees, their right to engage in 16
peaceful hunger strikes is even more significant than that recognized by courts 17
addressing prison related actions.
18
Even ICE’s own policies recognize that hunger strikes by immigrant detainees are 19

20

constitutionally protected, expressive conduct. ICE Policy 4.2 provides the guidelines for

21

the medical and administrative management of detainees who engage in hunger strikes.

22

See Mungia DecI. Exhibit C (ICE Policy 4.2 (Hunger Strikes)). This policy focuses solely

23

upon how ICE should monitor and manage the health of a detainee engaged in a hunger

24

strike. It explicitly prohibits ICE from taking any action to end a hunger strike, until such

25

time as ICE has followed an elaborate set of procedures and only when a physician has

26

verified that the detainee’s "life or health is at risk." Id. at 4.2(V)(E). The hunger strike

Mot. For Temporary Restraining Order - 9 of 18

LAW OFFICES
GORDON THOMAS HONEYWELL LLP
1201 PACIFIC AVENUE, SUITE 2100 TACOMA, WASHINGTON 98402
(253) 620-6500 - FACSIMILE (253) 620-6565

Case 3:14-cv-05273 Document 2 Filed 04/02/14 Page 10 of 18

1 policy authorizes the isolation of a hunger striker only "[w]hen medically advisable ... for
2 close supervision, observation and monitoring." Id. at 4.2(11)(4).
3 ICE’s disciplinary policy also implicitly recognizes that hunger strikes are protected
4
activities with which it should not interfere until medically necessary. See Mungia DecI. 5

Exhibit D (ICE Policy 3.1 (Disciplinary Policy)). Hunger strikes are not conduct for which a 6

7

detainee can be disciplined under 3.1 Id. Like the hunger strike policy, the disciplinary

8

policy does not allow ICE to transfer a hunger striker into segregation, absent a

9

documented medical need. Id. ICE policies 3.1 and 4.2 implicitly recognize, as have the

10

courts that have reviewed the issue, that detainees have a constitutionally protected right

11

to engage in hunger strikes.

12

Here, Plaintiffs engaged in hunger strikes to protest national immigration policy

13

that separates families and places communities at-risk. They sought to raise awareness

14 about the problems that deportations and incarceration have on them as individuals and
15 on all who are in the immigration system. They did so at a time when the national debate
16 about immigration reform has been at a peak. Plaintiffs also sought to raise awareness
17
about the NWDC and problems with the physical conditions of the facility, which has had 18

some degree of success as Representative Adam Smith visited the facility to learn more 19

20

about immigrant detainees’ concerns at the NWDC. See Alexis Krell, Congressman Adam

21

Smith Speaks with Detainees Amid Hunger Strike at Tacoma /mmiration Center, Tacoma

22

News Tribune (March 20, 2014) (attached as Exhibit G to Mungia DecL). There is thus

23

little doubt that Plaintiffs were engaged in expressive conduct meant to convey a

24

message; conduct protected by the First Amendment.

25

26

Mot. For Temporary Restraining Order - 10 of 18

LAW OFFICES
GORDON THOMAS HONEYWELL LLP
1201 PACIFIC AVENUE, SUITE 2100 TACOMA, WASHINGTON 98402
(253) 620-6500 - FACSIMILE (253) 620-6565

Case 3:14-cv-05273 Document 2 Filed 04/02/14 Page 11 of 18

1

i

The First Amendment also protects the detainees’

rights to present grievances to ICE and NWDC

2

administrators.

3

In addition to their right to engage in hunger strikes, Plaintiffs also retain the right

4

to petition the authorities over the conditions of their confinement. Lewis v. Casey, 518

5

U.S. 343, 355 (1996). This First Amendment right includes the right to raise grievances

6
with detention administrators. See Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 1114 (9th Cir.
7
2012). In fact, "[r]etaliation against prisoners for their exercise of this right is itself a
8
constitutional violation, and prohibited as a matter of clearly established law." Brodheim
9
v. Cry, 584 F.3d 1262, 1269 (9th Cir. 2009) (citing Rhodes, 408 F.3d at 566).
10
Here, ICE placed Plaintiffs in isolation following a ruse in which ICE offered the 11
detainees an opportunity to express their concerns directly to detention center
12

13

administrators. Rightly expecting such a meeting, at least one of the Plaintiffs and other

14

detainees identified themselves as interested in participating. However, rather than abide

15

by its promise, ICE instead placed each man in handcuffs and marched him to isolation.

16

ICE’s trick was predicated on the men identifying themselves as detainees with

17

grievances that they would like to share with detention center administrators. The men’s

18

interest in presenting these grievances led directly to ICE placrng them in isolation.

19
Plaintiffs and other detainees engaged in protected speech.
20
b. Placing Plaint/ifs in isolation constitutes an adverse action.
21
A jailer’s use of segregation to punish a prisoner for speaking out about conditions
22
in the jail is an actionable adverse action. Hines v. Gomez, 108 F.3d 265, 269 (9th Cir.
23
1997) (ten-day confinement is sufficiently serious to support First Amendment retaliation
24

25

claim); Gray V. Hernandez, 651 F.Supp.2d 1167, 1175 (S.D. Cal. 2009) (placement in

26

solitary confinement); cf, Pratt v. Row/and, 65 F.3d 802, 807 (9th Cir. 1995) (transfer

and double-ceIling). Here is it undisputed that ICE locked these men away in solitary

Mot. For Temporary Restraining Order - 11 of 18

LAW OFFICES
GORDON THOMAS HONEYWELL LLP
1201 PACIFIC AVENUE, SUITE 2100 TACOMA, WASHINGTON 98402
(253) 620-6500 - FACSIMILE (253) 620-6565

Case 3:14-cv-05273 Document 2 Filed 04/02/14 Page 12 of 18

I confinement and that they suffered injury in lost access to privileges and programming

2
usually available to immigrant detainees at NWDC.

3

C.

ICE placed the men in isolation because they engaged in protected

4

activities.

5

ICE retaliated against Plaintiffs by placing them in solitary confinement for

6

speaking out about conditions within the NWDC and ICE policies more broadly. This is

7 evident by how ICE identified the detainees it would place in segregation. ICE officials did
8
not carefully catalog alleged conduct or behavior by the detainees over an extended 9
period of time. Instead, ICE determined who would be placed in solitary confinement by
10
asking detainees who were interested in speaking with a warden about complaints in the 11
detention center to identify themselves. Those men who did were rounded up and thrown
12

13

in isolation without notice or a hearing. None of these men engaged in any act that

14

threatened the safety or security of the institution. Rather, these men sought to improve

15

conditions within the institution via the only means available to them, speaking out.

16

Furthermore, ICE has not alleged that these men violated any rule or policy that

17

would justify disciplinary segregation. See Ramirez-Martinez DecI. Exhibit A; Gonzales

18

DecI. Exhibit A; Uriostegui Decl. Exhibit A. The absence of any legitimate justification to

19

support ICE’s action and the clear temporal link between the actions these men took and

20
ICE’s reaction demonstrate that ICE took this adverse action because the men had

21
engaged in protected activity. The close correlation in time between the protected speech
22
and the adverse action is strong evidence of ICE’s retaliatory motive. See Pratt, 65 F.3d
23
at 808 ("timing can properly be considered as circumstantial evidence of retaliatory
24

intent").
25

26

Mot. For Temporary Restraining Order - 12 of 18

LAW OFFICES
GORDON THOMAS HONEYWELL LLP
1201 PACIFIC AVENUE, SUITE 2100 TACOMA, WASHINGTON 98402
(253) 620-6500 - FACSIMILE (253) 620-6565

Case 3:14-cv-05273 Document 2 Filed 04/02/14 Page 13 of 18

I

d. ICE’s actions dulled Plaintiffs’ exercise of their First Amendment

its.

2 Confining a detainee to isolation has a "chilling effect" on that person’s First

3
Amendment rights and constitutes sufficient injury to support a retaliation claim. Gomez, 4

108 F.3d at 269; see also, Austin v. Terhune, 367 F.3d 1167, 1171 (9th Cir. 2004) 5

6

(prisoner stated claim for retaliation where he alleged that he was placed in segregation

7

for filing grievance); cf, Pratt, 65 F.3d at 807 (illegal for corrections officials "to transfer

8

and double-cell plaintiff solely in retaliation for his exercise of protected First Amendment

9

rights.") Moreover, even a limited restriction upon a detainee’s First Amendment right is

10

actionable. "[W]e have never required a litigant.., to demonstrate a total chilling of his

11

First Amendment rights to file grievances... Speech can be chilled even when not

12

completely silenced." Rhodes, 408 F.3d at 568.

13

The chilling effect of segregation on speech is evident in this instance. The

14 Plaintiffs stopped their hunger strikes after placement in isolation out of fear of continued
15 or additional retaliation. Further, the chilling effect of placing individuals, who are
16 peacefully protesting immigration policies and conditions within the facility, on other
17
detainees who witness the retaliation is immense. 18

19

e.

ICE’S actions do not reasonably advance any legitimate institutional

goal.

20 ICE’S actions serve no legitimate purpose if its actions are intended to punish the

21 detainees or are excessive in relation to the allegedly non-punitive purpose for which it is
22
imposed. Jones, 393 F2d at 932, 934. As detailed in Plaintiffs’ declarations, they and the 23

other detainees engaged in voluntary hunger strikes that were free from coercion. Even 24

25

though their actions did not interrupt the daily functions of the facility, Plaintiffs were

26

placed in segregation after allegedly having been "identified by staff as a principle [sic]

party to intimidating others into not eating." See Ramirez-Martinez DecI. Exhibit A;

Mot. For Temporary Restraining Order - 13 of 18

LAW OFFICES
GORDON THOMAS HONEYWELL LLP
1201 PACIFIC AVENUE, SUITE 2100 TACOMA, WASHINGTON 98402
(253) 620-6500 - FACSIMILE (253) 620-6565

Case 3:14-cv-05273 Document 2 Filed 04/02/14 Page 14 of 18

Gonzales Decl. Exhibit A; Uriostegui Deci. Exhibit A. The Order further indicated that "for

2 the security and safety of the detainees in the affected housing units, you are being
3 placed in Protective Custody." Id. However, ICE’s explicit justification is not supported by
4
the facts and its shifting justifications indicate that the proffered reason for the 5

segregation was pretext to cover up its actual, illegal motivation. 6

7

Even if ICE tries to articulate a post-hoc legitimate institutional interest, its actual

8

retaliatory motive and arbitrary actions invalidates that interest. See Clement v. California

9

Dept. of Corr., 364 F.3d 1148, 1152 (9th Cir. 2004); Williams v. Lane, 851 F.2d 867,

10

875 (7th Cir. 1988). Furthermore, even if segregating Plaintiffs for participating in a

11

hunger strike and for seeking to redress grievances with administrators could be a

12

legitimate penological interest in a prison context, because detainees’ First Amendment

13

rights are entitled to greater protections than prisoners, any institutional interest should

14

fail scrutiny here unless it is important, factually supported and verifiable. C), Jones, 393

15 F2d at 932.
16 ICE choice to utilize administrative segregation rather than disciplinary segregation
17
also evidences its desire to avoid scrutiny of its reasons for placing Plaintiffs and other 18
detainees in solitary. ICE policy provides for two different types of segregation, disciplinary 19

segregation for violation of a detention center rules or administrative segregation for 20

21

other purposes. See Mungia DecI. Exhibit E and F (ICE policies regarding segregation). In

22

order to utilize disciplinary segregation, ICE would have been required to provide Plaintiffs

23

with procedural protections, including explicit notice of the allegations against them, the

24

opportunity for disciplinary proceedings at which the men could have contested those

25

charges and copies of relevant documents. See Mungia DecI. Exhibit D (ICE policy

26

3.1(V)(H) (stating that a detainee may not be placed in disciplinary segregation until so

Mot. For Temporary Restraining Order - 14 of 18

LAW OFFICES
GORDON THOMAS HONEYWELL LLP
1201 PACIFIC AVENUE, SUITE 2100 TACOMA, WASHINGTON 98402
(253) 620-6500 - FACSIMILE (253) 620-6565

Case 3:14-cv-05273 Document 2 Filed 04/02/14 Page 15 of 18

ordered by a disciplinary panel following a disciplinary hearing at which Plaintiffs would

2
have the right to present witnesses).
3
Instead, ICE summarily threw these detainees in solitary confinement and did so
4
without providing any explanation short of a single, vague, two-sentence statement. 4
5
Rather than being required to present some justification for its actions, ICE simply locked
6

the men away with little explanation.
7

8

The rationale included in these orders also indicates the arbitrary nature of the

9

claims brought against the men. ICE alleges that they have coerced others into engaging

10

in hunger strikes while asserting this as a basis to place them in "Protective Custody."

11

Under ICE’s policy, protective custody is only appropriate "to protect the detainee from

12

harm." See Mungia DecI. Exhibit E (ICE policy 2.12(V)(A)(1)(c)). ICE does not explain why it

13

believes that the detainees are in danger.

14

Furthermore, the manner in which ICE identified the men to segregate

15
demonstrates its intent to punish those who had chosen to speak out. It asked men to

16
self-identify as interested in speaking with detention center administrators. Those who 17
did so were placed in segregation.
18
ICE’s interest in ending the hunger strikes and limiting further scrutiny into its 19

actions is clear. Before ICE shuttled these men into segregation, there were many local
20

21

and national media reports documenting the hunger strikers’ activities and their

22

23

4 The lack of additional documentation with the Order of Detention is illuminating. ICE’s policy regarding Administrative Segregation requires that ICE prepare a written order to

which it must attach "[ajIl memoranda, medical reports and other relevant documents."

24

Mungia Decl. Exhibit E (ICE Policy 2.12(V)(A)(2)(d). These documents "shall be

immediately provided to the detainee, unless delivery would jeopardize the safe, secure,

25

or orderly operation of the facility." Id. at 2.12(V)(A)12)(f). ICE policy also requires that any

ICE officer who witnesses "a prohibited act, or [has] reason to suspect one has been

26

committed, shall prepare and submit an Incident Report". Mungia DecI. Exhibit D (ICE Policy 3.1(V)(D)). The absence of any Incident Report outlining the allegations against

them from the documents provided to Plaintiffs indicates that any alleged coercion either

did not occur or was so insignificant that it went unreported by staff.

Mot. For Temporary Restraining Order - 15 of 18

LAW OFFICES
GORDON THOMAS HONEYWELL LLP
1201 PACIFIC AVENUE, SUITE 2100 TACOMA, WASHINGTON 98402
(253) 620-6500 - FACSIMILE (253) 620-6565

Case 3:14-cv-05273 Document 2 Filed 04/02/14 Page 16 of 18

concerns. See e.g., Alex Altman, Prison Hunger Strike Puts Spotlight on Immigration

2
Detention, Time.com (March 17, 2014) (attached as Exhibit Ito Mungia DecI.); Dan

3
Berger and Angelico Chazaro, What’s Behind the Hunger Strike at Northwest Detention
4
Center, Seattle Times (March 19, 2014) (attached as Exhibit H to Mungia DecI.). Federal
5

officials, including United States Representative Adam Smith, toured the facilities and 6

7

issued statements critical of ICE’s actions. See Mungia DecI. Exhibit G. ICE attempted to

8

downplay the reports and limit embarrassing exposure. Id.

9

The record strongly suggests that ICE threw these men into solitary in order to

10

keep them quiet. The strength of Plaintiffs’ showing justifies issuance of a temporary

11

restraining order.

12

C.

Detaining Plaintiffs In Solitary Confinement Constitutes Irreparable Harm.

13

Plaintiffs have suffered, and will continue to suffer irreparable harm if a temporary

14
restraining order is not granted. ICE has violated Plaintiffs’ First Amendment rights by

15
retaliating against them for engaging in hunger strikes and for desiring to discuss their
16 grievances with ICE. "The loss of First Amendment freedoms, for even minimal periods of
17
time, unquestionably constitutes irreparable injury." Elrod V. Burns, 427 U.S. 347, 373
18

19

(1976); see Me/endres v. Arpaio, 695 F.3d 990, 1002 (9th Cir. 2012) (finding no abuse

20

of discretion where Plaintiffs "faced irreparable harm in the form of a deprivation of

21

constitutional rights absent a preliminary injunction"); Mitchell v. Cuomo, 748 F.2d 804,

22

806 (2d Cir. 1984) (upholding finding of irreparable harm where prisoners showed

23

possible deprivation of constitutional rights). Furthermore, Plaintiffs are likely to suffer

24

further irreparable injury because of their indefinite placement in solitary confinement.

25

See Adams v. Car/son, 488 F.2d 619, 629 (7th Cir. 1973) ("Imprisonment in segregation

26

is the condition perhaps most paradigmatic of [irreparable harm].").

Mot. For Temporary Restraining Order - 16 of 18

LAW OFFICES
GORDON THOMAS HONEYWELL LLP
1201 PACIFIC AVENUE, SUITE 2100 TACOMA, WASHINGTON 98402
(253) 620-6500 - FACSIMILE (253) 620-6565

Case 3:14-cv-05273 Document 2 Filed 04/02/14 Page 17 of 18

I

2

D. The Balance Of The Hardships And The Public Interest Both Support Issuance Of A

3

Temporary Restraining Order.

4 In considering whether a temporary restraining order should issue, "courts must

5 balance the competing claims of injury and must consider the effect on each party of the
6
granting or withholding of the requested relief." Winter, 555 U.S. at 24. In this case, 7

8

Plaintiffs are being irreparably injured by the on-going punishment they are suffering.

9

"The loss of First Amendment freedoms, for even minimal periods of time, unquestionably

10

constitutes irreparable injury." Klein v. City of San Clemente, 584 F.3d 1196, 1207-08

11

(9th Cir. 2009). By contrast, absent a showing of an actual threat to the orderly

12

operations of the Northwest Detention Center, any countervailing injury ICE may allege is

13 not sufficient to defeat a TRO. Sammartano v. First Judicial Dist Court, in & for Cnty. of
14 Carson City, 303 F.3d 959, 973 (9th Cir. 2002).
15
Finally, the Ninth Circuit has recognized the "significant public interest" in 16

17

upholding free speech principles. Klein, 584 F.3d at 1208. This is especially true where

18

the infringement affects not only the individual plaintiff, "but also.., anyone seeking to

19

express their views in this manner." Id. Here, all detainees are chilled by ICE’s actions.

20

IV. CONCLUSION

21 ICE has placed Plaintiffs and other men into solitary confinement because they
22 exercised their constitutional right to free speech. Because ICE has refused to remedy the
23
situation by releasing these men from segregation, this Court should enter an order 24

25

requiring ICE to do so and barring it from engaging in any further retaliatory actions.

26

Mot. For Temporary Restraining Order - 17 of 18

LAW OFFICES
GORDON THOMAS HONEYWELL LLP
1201 PACIFIC AVENUE, SUITE 2100 TACOMA, WASHINGTON 98402
(253) 620-6500 - FACSIMILE (253) 620-6565

Case 3:14-cv-05273 Document 2 Filed 04/02/14 Page 18 of 18

I Because Plaintiffs have been in solitary confinement since March 27, 2014 they
2 are requesting a hearing on their request for immediate injunctive relief to be set for
3 Friday, April 4, 2014 at 9:30 a.m.
4

5

6

Dated this Z.. day of April, 2014.

7

8

Sa!v’dor A. Mungia, WSBA No. 14807

9

smungia@,d,th-law.com

10

1201 Pacific Avenue, Suite 2100

Tacoma, WA 98402

11

(253) 620-6500

12

Cooperating Attorney for the

ACLU of Washington Foundation 13

14

ACLU OF WASHINGTON FOUNDATION

15

By:

Sarah A. Dunne, WSBA No. 34869

16

dunne@aclu-wa.org

La Rond Baker, WSBA No. 43610

17

Ibaker'aclu-wa.org

18

Margaret Chen, WSBA No. 46156

mchen@aclu-wa.org

19

901 Fifth Avenue, Suite 630

Seattle, WA 98164

20

(206) 624-2184

COLUMBIA LEGAL SERVICES
By: Melissa R. Lee, WSBA No. 38808 melissa.lee@columbialegal.org Nicholas B. Straley, WSBA No. 25963 nick.straley@coIumbialegal.org Andrea Schmitt, WSBA No. 39759 andrea.schmitt@coIumbialegal.org 101 Yesler Way, Suite 300 Seattle, WA 98104 (206) 464-0838

21

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

22

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

23

24

25

26

Mot. For Temporary Restraining Order - 18 of 18

LAW OFFICES
GORDON THOMAS HONEYWELL LLP
1201 PACIFIC AVENUE, SUITE 2100 TACOMA, WASHINGTON 98402
(253) 620-6500 - FACSIMILE (253) 620-6565

 
 Case 3:14-cv-05273-RJB Document 17 Filed 05/12/14 Page 1 of 3

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

THE HONORABGLE ROBERT J. BRYAN

9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

10

AT TACOMA

11

ANDRES RAMIREZ-MARTINEZ, MANUEL

12

URIOSTEGUI, and ERICSON GONZALES,

13

Plaintiffs,

NO. C14-5273RJB

14

vs.

NOTICE OF VOLUNTARY

15

UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION AND

CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT; THOMAS S.

16

WINKOWSKI, Principal Deputy Assistant

DISMISSAL PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i)

17

Secretary of the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement; UNITED STATES

18

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY;

JEH JOHNSON, Secretary of Homeland

19

Security; NATHALIE R. ASHER, Director of the

Seattle Field Office of U.S. Immigration and

20

Customs Enforcement,

21

Defendants.

22
Plaintiffs hereby provide notice to the Court and to Defendants of their voluntary

23
dismissal of this action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i).
24
Over the last several months, Plaintiffs and other immigrant detainees at the
25

26

Northwest Detention Center (NWDC) in Tacoma, Washington, engaged in hunger strikes

to protest United States’ immigration policies and poor conditions at the NWDC.

Not. of Dism. - 1 of 3

LAW OFFICES
GORDON THOMAS HONEYWELL LLP
1201 PACIFIC AVENUE, SUITE 2100 TACOMA, WASHINGTON 98402
(253) 620-6500 - FACSIMILE (253) 620-6565

Case 3:14-cv-05273-RJB Document 17 Filed 05/12/14 Page 2 of 3

1

When these strikes brought national and international attention to Defendants’

2

policies and practices, Defendants retaliated against hunger strikers living in the F-3 unit

3

of the NWDC and locked them in solitary confinement. Defendants’ retaliation violated

4

the hunger strikers’ rights to Free Speech guaranteed them by the First Amendment of

5
the United States Constitution.
6
Plaintiffs filed this action seeking their release from solitary confinement on April
7

2, 2014 after Defendants rejected repeated requests to release Plaintiffs and other
8

9

hunger strikers from solitary confinement. Immediately after Plaintiffs filed this lawsuit

10

and set a hearing on their Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order, Defendants

11

released Plaintiffs and the other hunger strikers from solitary confinement and reinstated

12

the privileges the hunger strikers enjoyed before being retaliated against by Defendants.

13
Plaintiffs succeeded in their objectives when ICE released Plaintiffs and other

14
hunger striking detainees from solitary confinement soon after the initiation of this action.
15
Because Plaintiffs have achieved their goal and detainees at the NWDC currently do not
16

17

plan to engage in further hunger strikes, Plaintiffs now voluntarily dismiss this suit.

18

However, they reserve the right to again seek redress through the courts should

19

Defendants once again threaten the Free Speech rights of the individuals detained at the

20

NWDC.

21

Dismissal without prejudice and without costs or attorneys’ fees is mandatory, as

22
Defendants have not yet answered Plaintiffs’ complaint or filed a motion for summary
23
judgment. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i). The Clerk of the Court is asked to enter this
24

25

dismissal in the records of the Court.

26

Not. of Dism. - 2 of 3

LAW OFFICES
GORDON THOMAS HONEYWELL LLP
1201 PACIFIC AVENUE, SUITE 2100 TACOMA, WASHINGTON 98402
(253) 620-6500 - FACSIMILE (253) 620-6565

Case 3:14-cv-05273-RJB Document 17 Filed 05/12/14 Page 3 of 3

1
Dated this _____ day of May, 2014.
2
GORDON THOMAS HONEYWELL LLP
3

4

By:/s/ Salvador A. Mungia ____________ Salvador A. Mungia, WSBA No. 14807

5

smungia@gth-law.com

1201 Pacific Avenue, Suite 2100

6

Tacoma, WA 98402

(253) 620-6500
7

Cooperating Attorney for the

8

ACLU of Washington Foundation

9
ACLU OF WASHINGTON FOUNDATION

COLUMBIA LEGAL SERVICES

10

By/s/ Sarah A. Dunne ______________

By:/s/ Melissa R. Lee______________

11

Sarah A. Dunne, WSBA No. 34869

Melissa R. Lee, WSBA No. 38808

dunne@aclu-wa.org

12

La Rond Baker, WSBA No. 43610

melissa.lee@columbialegal.org Nicholas B. Straley, WSBA No. 25963

13

lbaker@aclu-wa.org

Margaret Chen, WSBA No. 46156

nick.straley@columbialegal.org Andrea Schmitt, WSBA No. 39759

14

mchen@aclu-wa.org

901 Fifth Avenue, Suite 630

15

Seattle, WA 98164

andrea.schmitt@columbialegal.org 101 Yesler Way, Suite 300 Seattle, WA 98104

(206) 624-2184
16

(206) 464-0838

17

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

Not. of Dism. - 3 of 3

LAW OFFICES
GORDON THOMAS HONEYWELL LLP
1201 PACIFIC AVENUE, SUITE 2100 TACOMA, WASHINGTON 98402
(253) 620-6500 - FACSIMILE (253) 620-6565

 
 Case: 3:14-cv-5273 As of: 09/29/2014 06:36 PM PDT 1 of 6
CLOSED
U.S. District Court United States District Court for the Western District of Washington (Tacoma)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 3:14−cv−05273−RJB

Ramirez−Martinez et al v. United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement et al Assigned to: Judge Robert J. Bryan Cause: 28:1331 Federal Question: Other Civil Rights
Plaintiff

Date Filed: 04/02/2014 Date Terminated: 05/13/2014 Jury Demand: None Nature of Suit: 550 Prisoner: Civil Rights Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Defendant

Andres Ramirez−Martinez

represented by Andrea L Schmitt COLUMBIA LEGAL SERVICES (OLY) 711 CAPITOL WAY S STE 304 OLYMPIA, WA 98501 360−943−6260 Email: andrea.schmitt@columbialegal.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

La Rond Baker ACLU OF WASHINGTON 901 FIFTH AVENUE STE 630 SEATTLE, WA 98164 206−624−2184 Email: lbaker@aclu−wa.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Margaret Chen ACLU OF WASHINGTON 901 5TH AVENUE STE 630 SEATTLE, WA 98164 206−624−2184 Email: mchen@aclu−wa.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Melissa R Lee COLUMBIA LEGAL SERVICES (SEA) 101 YESLER WAY STE 300 SEATTLE, WA 98104−2552 206−464−0838 Email: melissa.lee@columbialegal.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Nicholas Broten Straley COLUMBIA LEGAL SERVICES (SEA) 101 YESLER WAY STE 300 SEATTLE, WA 98104−2552 206−464−5933 Email: nick.straley@columbialegal.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sal Mungia

Case: 3:14-cv-5273 As of: 09/29/2014 06:36 PM PDT 2 of 6

GORDON THOMAS HONEYWELL MALANCA PETERSON &DAHEIM PO BOX 1157 TACOMA, WA 98401−1157 253−620−6500 Fax: 253−620−6565 Email: smungia@gth−law.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sarah A Dunne ACLU OF WASHINGTON 901 FIFTH AVENUE SUITE 630 SEATTLE, WA 98164 206−624−2184 Email: dunne@aclu−wa.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Manuel Uriostegui

represented by Andrea L Schmitt (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

La Rond Baker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Margaret Chen (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Melissa R Lee (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Nicholas Broten Straley (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sal Mungia (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sarah A Dunne (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Ericson Gonzales

represented by Andrea L Schmitt (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

La Rond Baker (See above for address)

Case: 3:14-cv-5273 As of: 09/29/2014 06:36 PM PDT 3 of 6
LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Margaret Chen (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Melissa R Lee (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Nicholas Broten Straley (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sal Mungia (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sarah A Dunne (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Defendant United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement
Defendant Thomas S Winkowski Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of the US Immigration and Customs Enforcement
Defendant

represented by Priscilla To−Yin Chan US ATTORNEY'S OFFICE (SEA) 700 STEWART ST STE 5220 SEATTLE, WA 98101−1271 206−553−7970 Email: Priscilla.Chan@usdoj.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Regan Cook Hildebrand US DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE (BOX 868) PO BOX 868 BEN FRANKLIN STATION WASHINGTON, DC 20044 202−305−3797 Email: Regan.Hildebrand@usdoj.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Priscilla To−Yin Chan (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Regan Cook Hildebrand (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 3:14-cv-5273 As of: 09/29/2014 06:36 PM PDT 4 of 6

United States Department of Homeland Security

represented by Priscilla To−Yin Chan (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Regan Cook Hildebrand (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Jeh Johnson Secretary of Homeland Security

represented by Priscilla To−Yin Chan (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Regan Cook Hildebrand (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Nathalie R. Asher Director of the Seattle Field Office of US Immigration and Customs Enforcement

represented by Priscilla To−Yin Chan (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Regan Cook Hildebrand (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 04/02/2014
04/02/2014
04/02/2014
04/02/2014 04/02/2014 04/03/2014 04/03/2014

# Docket Text
1 SEALED COMPLAINT for Injunctive and Declaratory Relief against all defendants, filed by Andres Ramirez−Martinez, Manuel Uriostegui, and Ericson Gonzales. (Receipt # 0981−3559256)(Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet, # 2 Summons)(Mungia, Sal) Modified on 4/3/2014− SEE 4 PRAECIPE FOR REDACTED COMPLAINT (GMR). (Entered: 04/02/2014)
2 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order, by Plaintiffs Andres Ramirez−Martinez, Manuel Uriostegui, and Ericson Gonzales. (Attachments: # 1 Dec− pltf #1 (English); # 2 SEALED Dec− pltf #1 (Spanish); # 3 SEALED Dec− pltf #2; # 4 SEALED Dec− pltf #3; # 5 Declaration of Salvador A Mungia) Noting Date 4/4/2014, (Mungia, Sal) Modified on 4/3/2014, SEE 3 PRAECIPE FOR REDACTED DECLARATIONS (GMR). (Entered: 04/02/2014)
3 PRAECIPE to attach documents DECLARATIONS− REDACTED re 2 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order by Plaintiffs Andres Ramirez−Martinez, Manuel Uriostegui, Ericson Gonzales. (Attachments: # 1 Redacted Dec 2−2− pltf #1 (Spanish); # 2 Redacted Dec 2−3− pltf #2; # 3 Redacted Dec 2−4− pltf #3)(Mungia, Sal) Modified on 4/3/2014 (GMR). (Entered: 04/02/2014)
4 PRAECIPE to attach document COMPLAINT− REDACTED re 1 Complaint by Plaintiffs Andres Ramirez−Martinez, Manuel Uriostegui, Ericson Gonzales. (Attachments: # 1 Complaint− redacted)(Mungia, Sal) Modified on 4/3/2014 (GMR). (Entered: 04/02/2014)
Judge Robert J. Bryan added. (GMR) (Entered: 04/02/2014)
5 NOTICE of Hearing on Motion re 2 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order : Motion Hearing set for 4/4/2014 at 09:30 AM in Courtroom A before Judge Robert J. Bryan.(DK) (Entered: 04/03/2014)
6 NOTICE of Appearance by attorney Regan Cook Hildebrand on behalf of Defendants Nathalie R. Asher, Jeh Johnson, United States Department of

Case: 3:14-cv-5273 As of: 09/29/2014 06:36 PM PDT 5 of 6

04/03/2014 04/03/2014 04/03/2014
04/03/2014 04/04/2014
04/04/2014
04/04/2014 04/04/2014 04/04/2014 04/04/2014 04/08/2014 04/08/2014

Homeland Security, United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Thomas S Winkowski. (Hildebrand, Regan) (Entered: 04/03/2014)
Attorney Priscilla To−Yin Chan for Nathalie R. Asher,Priscilla To−Yin Chan for Jeh Johnson,Priscilla To−Yin Chan for United States Department of Homeland Security,Priscilla To−Yin Chan for United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement,Priscilla To−Yin Chan for Thomas S Winkowski added; per 6 Notice of Appearance. (ELS) (Entered: 04/03/2014)
Attorney Margaret Chen added for plaintiffs Ericson Gonzales, Andres Ramirez−Martinez, and Manuel Uriostegui; per 1 Complaint and 4/3/2014 admission to USDC of W/WA. (GMR) (Entered: 04/03/2014)
NOTICE of Docket Text Modification to the following docket entries: 1 SEALED Complaint, refer to 4 PRAECIPE FOR REDACTED COMPLAINT; 2 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order as to the attachments only: (Attachments: # 1 Dec− pltf #1 (English); # 2 SEALED Dec− pltf #1 (Spanish); # 3 SEALED Dec− pltf #2; # 4 SEALED Dec− pltf #3; # 5 Declaration of Salvador A Mungia); refer to 3 PRAECIPE FOR REDACTED DECLARATIONS (GMR) (Entered: 04/03/2014)
7 MOTION to Dismiss by Defendants Nathalie R. Asher, Jeh Johnson, United States Department of Homeland Security, United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Thomas S Winkowski. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit) Noting Date 4/4/2014, (Hildebrand, Regan) (Entered: 04/03/2014)
8 MINUTE ENTRY for proceedings held before Judge Robert J. Bryan− Dep Clerk: Dara Kaleel; Pla Counsel: Sal Mungia, La Rond Baker, Melissa Lee, Margaret Chen; Def Counsel: Regan Hildebrand, Priscilla Chan; CR: Teri Hendrix; TRO Hearing held on 4/4/2014. Parties advise the Motion for Temporary Restraining Order is now moot − motion is WITHDRAWN. Dfts' pending Motion to Dismiss (Dkt 7) will be properly noted for consideration according to the Civil Local Rules. (DK) (Entered: 04/04/2014)
9 MINUTE ORDER Regarding 7 Defendants' MOTION to Dismiss filed on April 3, 2014. Dispositive motions are to be NOTED for consideration no earlier than the fourth Fridays after filing and service of the motion. Local Rule CR 7(d)(3). Accordingly, the Court has RE−NOTED the motion for its correct noting date of April 25, 2014. Plaintiffs shall respond to the motion in accordance with Local Rule CR 7(d)(3). Entered as directed by Judge Robert J. Bryan. (DK) (Entered: 04/04/2014)
Noting Date Set/Reset re 7 MOTION to Dismiss : Noting Date 4/25/2014. (DK) (Entered: 04/04/2014)
10 MINUTE ORDER: Plaintiffs' 2 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order, filed on April 2, 2014, is WITHDRAWN, for reasons stated orally during the motion hearing conducted on April 4, 2014. Entered as directed by Judge Robert J. Bryan. (DK) (Entered: 04/04/2014)
***Motion terminated: 2 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order filed by Manuel Uriostegui, Andres Ramirez−Martinez, Ericson Gonzales. (DK) (Entered: 04/04/2014)
11 NOTICE to Withdraw Pending Motion re 7 MOTION to Dismiss ; by Defendants Nathalie R. Asher, Jeh Johnson, United States Department of Homeland Security, United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Thomas S Winkowski. (Hildebrand, Regan) (Entered: 04/04/2014)
12 ORDER REGARDING DISCOVERY AND DEPOSITIONS. Authorized by Judge Robert J. Bryan. (JL) (Entered: 04/08/2014)
13 ORDER REGARDING INITIAL DISCLOSURES AND JOINT STATUS REPORT. FRCP 26f Conference Deadline is 6/23/2014 ; Initial Disclosure Deadline is 6/30/2014; Joint Status Report due by 7/7/2014. Authorized by Judge Robert J. Bryan. (JL) (Entered: 04/08/2014)

Case: 3:14-cv-5273 As of: 09/29/2014 06:36 PM PDT 6 of 6

04/08/2014 04/09/2014
04/21/2014 04/21/2014 05/12/2014 05/13/2014

JSR due 7/7/2014. (JL) (Entered: 04/08/2014)
14 MINUTE ENTRY for proceedings held before Judge Ronald B. Leighton− Dep Clerk: Jean Boring, Dara Kaleel; Pla Counsel: Regan Hildebrand; Def Counsel: Sal Mungia; CR: None; Telephone Conference held on 4/9/2014. Counsel for Ericson Gonzales move for an emergency TRO to keep Mr. Gonzales from being deported to the Philippines pending a hearing to be scheduled before Judge Bryan. Counsel for the Government objects to the issuance of the TRO but does not object to delaying deportation to allow briefing and a hearing. The Court is advised that the plaintiff is already on the plane and it may already be too late. Judge Leighton GRANTS the Emergency TRO and directs that the plaintiff be removed from the plane. Call concluded.(JAB) (Entered: 04/09/2014)
15 MOTION to Stay Plaintiff Gonzales's Deportation by Plaintiffs Ericson Gonzales, Andres Ramirez−Martinez, Manuel Uriostegui. Oral Argument Requested. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) Noting Date 5/16/2014, (Baker, La Rond) (Entered: 04/21/2014)
16 DECLARATION of Salvador A. Mungia in Support of Motion for Stay of Plaintiff Gonzales's Deportation filed by Plaintiffs Ericson Gonzales, Andres Ramirez−Martinez, Manuel Uriostegui re 15 MOTION to Stay Plaintiff Gonzales's Deportation (Baker, La Rond) (Entered: 04/21/2014)
17 NOTICE of Voluntary Dismissal of case by Plaintiffs Ericson Gonzales, Andres Ramirez−Martinez, Manuel Uriostegui (Mungia, Sal) (Entered: 05/12/2014)
18 MINUTE ORDER re: 17 Notice of Voluntary Dismissal. Pursuant to the Notice of Voluntary Dismissal Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(i) (Dkt. 17 ), filed by plaintiffs on May 12, 2014, this case is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Authorized by Judge Robert J. Bryan. (JL) (Entered: 05/13/2014)