Case 2:10-cv-02211-DMG-DTB Document 344 Filed 10/25/11 Page 1 of 56 Page ID #:6938

1 AHILAN T. ARULANANTHAM (State Bar No. 237841)

aarulanantham(cV,aclu-sc.org

t~:

C:.

2 ACLU FOUNDATION OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA "' 1313 West 8th Street

0:--

""' P"I'""
- . , .~,
.., , " '

C.:::>
.... "

3 Los Angeles, California 90017 Telephone: (213) 977-5211
4 Facsunile: (213) 417-2211

r- :~'.';;:::
~:~ ;~~ ~'\

C:Jo
C.....)..

....,

'" ::-,. :.:::: ~:~
:.:-: ( ..., './1

Ul

r-

5 ArAttdodrniteioynsafol rCPoluaninsteinffos-rPPeltaitiinotinfefsrs
6 Listed on Following Pages]

. • (,;.,.,

.~~

. '.l

""D

~,'.-=' ;::; ~;:

1"1 0

Cd I ~.., ,-' ~ ~.., w ;~c

~~ N

7

-<

8

9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11

12 JOSE ANTONIO FRANCOGONZALEZ, EVER FRANCISCO
13 MARTINEZ-RIVAS, ALEKSANDR PETROVICH KHUKHRYANSKIY,
14 MAKSIM ZHALEZNY, JOSE CHAVEZ, YONAS
15 WOLDEMARIAM, JOSE ANTONIO MORENO-VASOUEZ, and JUAN
16 CARLOS SEPULVEDA-PEREZ on behalf of themselves and all others
17 similarly situated,

Case No. CV 10-2211 DMG (DTB) THIRD AMENDED CLASSACTION COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS Judge: Honorable Dolly M. Gee

18

Plaintiffs-Petitioners,

19

v.

20 ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General, THOMAS G. SNOW, Acting
21 Director of the Executive Office of Immigration Review, JANET
22 NAPOLITANO, Secretary- of Homeland Security, JOHN MORTON,
23 Assistant Secretary of U.S. Immigration and Customs
24 Enforcement, and TIMOTHY S. ROBBINS, Field Office Director for
25 the Los Angeles District of U.S. Immigration and Customs
26 Enforcement,

27

Defendants-Respondents.

28

Case 2:10-cv-02211-DMG-DTB Document 344 Filed 10/25/11 Page 2 of 56 Page ID #:6939
1 MICHAEL H. STEINBERG (State Bar No. 134179) steinbergm(a)sullcrom.com
2 SULLIVAN'& CROMWELL LLP 1888 Century Park East, Suite 2100
3 Los Angeles, California 90067-1725 Telephone: (310) 712-6600
4 FaCSimile: (310) 712-8800 5 JUDY LONDON (State Bar No. 149431)
jlondon(a)publiccounsel.org 6 TALIA lNLENDER (State Bar No. 253796)
tinlender(a)]Jubliccounsel.org 7 PUBLIC 'COUNSEL
610 South Ardmore Avenue 8 Los Angeles, California 90005
Telephone: (213) 3852977 9 FaCSimile: (:213) 385-9089 10 JUDY RABINOVITZ (State Bar No. JR-1214)
JRabinovitz(a)aclu.org 11 ACLU IMMIGRANTS' RIGHTS PROJECT
125 Broad Street, 18th Floor 12 New York, New York 10004-2400
Telephone: (212) 549-2618 13 FaCSimile: (:212) 549-2654 14 DAVID BLAIR-LOY (State Bar No. 229235)
dblairloy(a)aclusandiego.org 15 SEAN RIDRDAN (State Bar No. 255752)
sriordan(a)aclusandlego.org
16 ACLU Of' SAN DIEGO 8Z IMPERIAL COUNTIES
P.O. Box 87131 17 San Diego, California 92138
Telephone: (619) 232-2121 18 FaCSimile: (619) 232-0036 19 JAMES PREIS (State Bar No. 82690)
jpf()is(a)mhas-Ia.org . 20 MEN'lAL HEALTH ADVOCACY SERVICES
3255 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 902 21 Los Angeles, California 90010
Telephone: (213) 389-2077 22 FaCSimile: (213) 389-2595 23 MATT ADAMS (State Bar No. 28287)
matt(a)nwirp.org 24 RIDilln MUKHOPADHYAY
riddhi(a)nwirp.org 25 NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT
615 2nd Avenue, Suite 400 26 Seattle, Washington 98104-2244
Telephone: (206) 957-8611 27 FaCSimile: (:206) 587-4025
28

Case 2:10-cv-02211-DMG-DTB Document 344 Filed 10/25/11 Page 3 of 56 Page ID #:6940
1 VICTORIA A. LOPEZ (IL State Bar No. 6275388) (pro hac vice application forthcoming)
2 vlopez02acluaz.org ACLU'TOUNDATION OF ARIZONA
3 3707 N. 7th Street, Suite 235 Phoenix, Arizona 85014
4 Telephone: (602) 650-1854 Facslmile: (602) 650-1376
5 Attorneys for Plaintiffs-Petitioners
6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Case 2:10-cv-02211-DMG-DTB Document 344 Filed 10/25/11 Page 4 of 56 Page ID #:6941
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT 1 2 1. "No trial can be fair that leaves the defense to a man who is insane, 3 unaided by counsel, and who by reason of his mental conditions stands helpless 4 and alone before the court." Massey v. Moore, 348 U.S. 105, 108 (1954). The 5 unanimous Supreme Court's observation more than five decades ago in Massey is 6 as inefutable now as it was then, yet trials that are supposed to be fair continue in 7 the immigration cOUlis of this Nation with no protection at all for those whose 8 mental conditions render them "helpless and alone before the court." 9 2. Plaintiffs are indigent individuals, detained by the United States, who 10 suffer from mental disabilities that may render them incompetent to defend 11 themselves, but who are nevertheless forced to do so in immigration court. 12 Rarely are these individuals able to obtain counsel to assist them, undoubtedly as 13 a function of the challenges arising from their mental disabilities, the poverty that 14 accompanies those with serious mental disorders and defects, and the detention 15 that hinders their access to those who might help. Without counsel to guide 16 them, these detained individuals are often simply left to create their own 17 "defense" in detention centers, awaiting the point in time (if such a day ever 18 comes) when their mental facilities will be sufficiently clear to allow them to 19 represent themselves and navigate through the complex and highly-technical field 20 of immigration law. For others whose fog of mental disabilities never lifts, they 21 are simply pushed through the immigration process, without any comprehension 22 of the proceedings, and ultimately deported, ilTespective of whether they had a 23 legal right to remain in the United States or to obtain release from custody during 24 the pendency of the often-prolonged proceedings 25 3. Congress has specified that these individuals are entitled to a hearing to 26 determine whether there is a basis for the deportation, has mandated that this 27 hearing be fundamentally fair, and has specifically directed the Attorney General 28 to promulgate safeguards for detainees who are not competent. Nonetheless, the
1

Case 2:10-cv-02211-DMG-DTB Document 344 Filed 10/25/11 Page 5 of 56 Page ID #:6942
1 Government has created no system to identifY individuals who are not competent 2 to represent themselves due to their mental illness, promulgated no meaningful 3 safeguards to ensure that hearings for mentally incompetent prisoners are, in fact, 4 fair, and provided no safeguards that afford these individuals any ability to 5 challenge their prolonged detention. 6 4. Even the extremely limited "safeguards" that currently exist are rarely, if 7 ever, invoked: the Government has established no procedures for defining 8 competence; no procedures for identifYing whether a person is "incompetent" in 9 the first instance, such as by noting when an individual's past evidences 10 significant "red flags" as to their competency; no procedures for evaluating the 11 mental health of individuals in immigration proceedings, even if an Immigration 12 Judge suspects that an individual may not be competent; no system for appointing 13 counsel for those incompetent to represent themselves; and no rules for 14 determining how people subject to prolonged detention as a result of their mental 15 disabilities can be considered for release from incarceration pending resolution of 16 their immigration cases. In the case of Plaintiff-Petitioner Jose Antonio Franco17 Gonzalez ("Mr. Franco"), after he was identified as incompetent in 2005, he was 18 forgotten in a detention facility for more than four and a half years, and not 19 released until this lawsuit was first filed. Mr. Franco's story is, unfortunately, not 20 ul1lque. 21 5. Without any meaningful procedures to protect those with serious mental 22 disabilities, the resulting system is paradigmatically arbitrary. In many cases, the 23 Government forces detainees to represent themselves in removal hearings 24 proceedings to determine whether they will be permanently banished from the 25 United States - even though the detainees lack the mental capacity to understand 26 the nature of the proceedings against them. In other cases, Immigration Judges 27 continue or close cases, leaving people with mental disabilities subject to 28 indefinite incarceration while their cases, like their mental health, remain in a
2

Case 2:10-cv-02211-DMG-DTB Document 344 Filed 10/25/11 Page 6 of 56 Page ID #:6943

1 perpetual limbo. Even in those rare cases where an Immigration Judge orders a

2 mental health evaluation and the Government actually conducts it, the evaluators

3 have no standards or procedures to use in their assessments, which only adds to

4 the arbitrary and capricious nature of the current regime.

5 6. Plaintiffs pursue this action because the Due Process Clause of the United

6 States Constitution, the immigration laws, and the Rehabilitation Act require a

7 better system - one that ensures the fair treatment of people with mental

8 disabilities facing immigration proceedings while in Government custody.

9

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

10 7. Plaintiffs challenge the Government's failure to create procedures for

11 dealing with people with mental disabilities in immigration proceedings

12 (including detention, removal, and any appellate proceedings), on constitutional

13 and federal statutory grounds, and pursue this lawsuit to obtain procedures to

14 avoid the harm that has befallen these Plaintiffs.

15 8. Congress has provided this Court with subject matter jurisdiction over this

16 case pursuant to the general federal question statute. 28 U.S.C. § 1331. This

17 Court also has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (habeas corpus) to consider

18 the claims of Plaintiff-Petitioners whose immigration cases are supervised within

19 this judicial district, and residual jurisdiction over all claims under 28 U.S.C. §

20 1651 (All Writs Act).l

21 9. Personal jurisdiction exists over the Defendants in this case, owing to,

22 among other things, the federal and nationwide nature of Defendants' conduct.

23 10. Venue is proper in the Central District of California under 28 U.S.C.

24 § 1391(e)(2) because a significant number of the events relevant to this action,

25 particularly with respect to the initial Plaintiff-Petitioner in this action, Mr.

26

27 l The Suspension Clause, Due Process Clause, and Article III also require that
28 some forum remain available for Plaintiff-Petitioners' claims.

3

Case 2:10-cv-02211-DMG-DTB Document 344 Filed 10/25/11 Page 7 of 56 Page ID #:6944

I Franco, including the majority of his prolonged detention and removal

2 proceedings, took place in this District, and because numerous witnesses reside in

3 this District. Venue is also proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d) because

4 certain relevant legal custodians reside in this District.

5

PARTIES

6 Plaintiffs-Petitioners

7 II. Plaintiff-Petitioner Jose Antonio Franco-Gonzalez ("Mr. Franco") is a

8 native and citizen of Mexico who has been diagnosed with moderate mental

9 retardation and is not competent to represent himself in his immigration

10 proceedings. For nearly five years, the Department of Homeland Security

II ("DHS") incarcerated Mr. Franco while his case sat in limbo after an Immigration

12 Judge administratively closed it on account of the fact that he was unrepresented

13 and mentally incompetent. Mr. Franco was released from DHS detention three

14 business days after filing the original complaint in this case. The Government

15 retains discretion to detain him at any time. Although he was unrepresented for

16 many years, counsel undersigned in this action from Public Counsel now

17 represent him in his removal proceedings.

18 12. Plaintiff Ever Francisco Martinez-Rivas ("Mr. Martinez") is a native and

19 citizen ofEI Salvador and a Lawful Permanent Resident ofthe United States.

20 Mr. Martinez has been diagnosed with schizophrenia (with symptoms including

21 hallucinations, disorganized speech and behavior, and flat or inappropriate

22 affect), and is not competent to represent himself in his immigration proceedings.

23 Although Mr. Martinez's mental illness is documented in DHS's records, DHS

24 did not request, and the Immigration Judge did not order, an evaluation of Mr.

25 Mmtinez's competency in the approximately ten months that the case was before

26 the immigration court. Rather, in response to filings in this lawsuit, DHS

27 provided the Immigration Judge with a copy of a psychiatric evaluation,

28 conducted at the request of undersigned counsel, which concluded that Mr.

4

Case 2:10-cv-02211-DMG-DTB Document 344 Filed 10/25/11 Page 8 of 56 Page ID #:6945
1 Martinez is not competent to represent himself in immigration proceedings. On 2 September 16,2010, the Immigration Judge terminated Mr. Martinez's removal 3 case and certified her decision to the Board of Immigration Appeals ("BIA"). 4 His appeal brief to the BIA was originally due on December 8, 2010, but this 5 Court required the Government to locate representation for him at the Board in its 6 preliminary injunction order. Mr. Martinez's BIA brief was due on May 6, 2011, 7 and the Government secured counsel on appeal for Mr. Martinez in compliance 8 with the preliminary injunction. Mr. Martinez's case remains pending before the 9 BIA. 10 13. Plaintiff Aleksandr Petrovich Khukhryanskiy ("Mr. Khukhryanskiy") is a 11 refugee from the Ukraine. Mr. Khukhryanskiy has been diagnosed with paranoid 12 schizophrenia and psychosis (not otherwise specified), along with major 13 depression. Mr. Khukhryanskiy is not competent to represent himself in 14 immigration proceedings. Nonetheless, he was forced to proceed unrepresented 15 before the Immigration Judge. Neither DHS counsel nor the Immigration Judge 16 ordered an evaluation to determine if Mr. Khukhryanskiy is competent to 17 represent himself in immigration proceedings, despite repeated references to his 18 mental health issues in the record. Apparently acknowledging that Mr. 19 Khukhryanskiy is not competent to represent himself, Defendants assigned Mr. 20 Khukhryanskiy a "custodian" for his removal hearing, presumably to satisfy their 21 obligations under 8 C.F.R. § 1240.4. Remarkably, the "custodian" assigned was 22 Mr. Khukhryanskiy's deportation officer, Officer Robert Mason. Officer Mason 23 offered no defense for Mr. Khukhryanskiy, and failed to speak on Mr. 24 Khukhyranskiy's behalf at the immigration court hearing, even when Mr. 25 Khukhyranskiy was ordered deported. When Mr. Khukhryanskiy was ordered 26 removed on August 25, 2010, he stated at the hearing that he did not understand 27 the proceedings. In ordering his removal, the Immigration Judge relied on Mr. 28 Khukhryanskiy's prior admission of removability, despite the fact that 8 C.F.R.
5

Case 2:10-cv-02211-DMG-DTB Document 344 Filed 10/25/11 Page 9 of 56 Page ID #:6946
1 1240.10(c) expressly prohibits any reliance on the admission of an unrepresented 2 incompetent respondent. After this Court entered its motion granting preliminary 3 injunctive relief, Defendants successfully procured counsel to represent Mr. 4 Khukhryanskiy on his appeal of the removal order to the Board of Immigration 5 Appeals ("BIA"). The BIA then vacated the removal order and remanded his 6 case to the Immigration Judge for further proceedings. While Mr. 7 Khukhryanskiy was forced to appear at the first remanded hearing without 8 representation before the Immigration Judge, Defendants subsequently complied 9 with this Court's preliminary injunctive order by ensuring that he was represented 10 for further proceedings. Similarly, pursuant to this Court's order, Defendants 11 obtained legal counsel to represent him at a custody hearing. However, because 12 the Immigration Judge set a $30,000 bond, which Mr. Khukhryanskiy is unable 13 to pay, he remains in detention. 14 14. Plaintiff Maksim Piotrovich Zhalezny ("Mr. Zhalezny") is a 20-year-old 15 native and citizen of Belarus and a Lawful Permanent Resident of the United 16 States. Mr. Zhalezny suffers from schizophrenia experienced as delusions, 17 hallucinations, and negativism, and is not competent to represent himself in his 18 removal proceedings. Although an Immigration Judge recognized Mr. 19 Zhalezny's mental disability, attempted to secure legal assistance for Mr. 20 Zhalezny through the UC Davis Immigration Law Clinic, recommended to Mr. 21 Zhalezny's father that he arrange for a psychiatric evaluation of Mr. Zhalezny on 22 his own accord, and later found Mr. Zhalezny to be mentally incompetent to 23 represent himself, Mr. Zhalezny remains unrepresented in his immigration 24 proceedings. While Mr. Zhalezny's father initially agreed to act as his son's 25 representative at the Immigration Judge's request, he subsequently withdrew his 26 consent because he does not speak English and does not feel qualified to serve as 27 his son's legal representative. After Plaintiffs filed a preliminary injunction 28 motion on Mr. Zhalezny's behalf, the Government unilaterally continued his
6

Case 2:10-cv-02211-DMG-DTB Document 344 Filed 10/25/11 Page 10 of 56 Page ID #:6947
1 hearing by nearly three months, to May 2, 2011. On June 30, 2011, pursuant to 2 the Court's preliminary injunction order in his case, Mr. Zhalezny was afforded a 3 bond hearing at which he was represented by a pro bono attorney from the UC 4 Davis law clinic. The Immigration Judge ordered him released subject to certain 5 conditions, and Mr. Zhalezny has now been released from detention. However, 6 he remains unrepresented with respect to the merits of his removal case. Absent 7 a ruling from this Court or action by the Government to locate a pro bono 8 attorney for him, he will be obligated to argue for asylum, present witnesses, and 9 submit documentation supporting his case on his own, despite the fact that Mr. 10 Zhalezny does not understand the nature of the proceedings to which he is being 11 subjected. 12 15. Plaintiff-Petitioner Jose Chavez ("Mr. Chavez") is a native and citizen of 13 El Salvador. He has a long history of mental illness, and has been diagnosed with 14 schizoaffective disorder and chronic paranoid schizophrenia with psychotic 15 symptoms. Mr. Chavez's immigration case has been ongoing sporadically since 16 June 23,2006, and is cUlTentiy administratively closed, pending an unscheduled 17 asylum hearing. Mr. Chavez is unrepresented, but is not competent to represent 18 himself at that hearing or any other proceedings in his case. 19 16. PlaintiffYonas Woldemariam ("Mr. Woldemariam") is a 48-year-old 20 Lawful Permanent Resident who was born in Ethiopia but is ethnically Eritrean. 21 He has been diagnosed with bipolar disorder with psychotic features. Mr. 22 Woldemariam was unrepresented at the time the First Amended Complaint was 23 filed in this case, but has since secured counsel through his family's assistance. 24 He remained detained for over six months without being afforded a bond hearing, 25 notwithstanding the delays in his case that occurred in part because of his mental 26 disability. In March of2011, Mr. Woldemariam was transferred to Sacramento 27 County Jail because he refused to take a type of anti-psychotic medication that 28 makes the voices in his head worse and irritates his prostate, making it extremely
7

Case 2:10-cv-02211-DMG-DTB Document 344 Filed 10/25/11 Page 11 of 56 Page ID #:6948
1 difficult for him to urinate. At the Sacramento County Jail, Mr. Woldemariam 2 was subject to lockdown for 23 hours a day, which exacerbates the voices in his 3 head that tell him that he is worthless, no good, and that he is going to die if he is 4 forced to return to Ethiopia or Eritrea. This Court ordered Respondents to afford 5 him a bond hearing pursuant to its order granting Plaintiffs' Motion for 6 Preliminary Injunction on his behalf. Pursuant to that order, Mr. Woldemariam 7 finally received a bond hearing before an Immigration Judge on October 4, 2011. 8 The Judge ordered him released on $1,500 and subject to certain conditions, and 9 Mr. Woldemariam is now out on bond and living with his family. His removal 10 case remains pending. 11 17. Plaintiff Jose Antonio Moreno Vasquez ("Mr. Moreno") is allegedly a 5512 year-old native and citizen of Mexico. He has been diagnosed with 13 schizophrenia, multiple personality disorder, and possibly bipolar disorder. 14 While in immigration detention, Mr. Moreno is believed to have received 15 Seroquel for his symptoms. Despite the medication, he continued to experience 16 auditory, visual, and sensory hallucinations. Mr. Moreno first appeared before 17 the Immigration Court in El Paso, where he was represented by counsel. 18 However, he requested and was granted leave to transfer venue to California so 19 that he could be closer to his family. On January 3,2010, Mr. Moreno's counsel 20 filed a motion for a telephonic hearing with the Immigration Judge in California, 21 noting that Mr. Moreno has a serious mental health condition, that the 22 Government has failed to prove alienage, that the attorney was no longer able to 23 represent Mr. Moreno in light of the changed venue, and that Mr. Moreno was 24 unable to secure independent counsel in Los Angeles. On April 4, 20 II, a DIHS25 employed forensic psychologist noted that Mr. Moreno was confused about his 26 court proceedings and stated that his psychological testing could not be 27 completed because of Mr. Moreno's active hallucinations and lack of 28 concentration. While the forensic psychologist found Mr. Moreno competent to
8

Case 2:10-cv-02211-DMG-DTB Document 344 Filed 10/25/11 Page 12 of 56 Page ID #:6949
1 assist counsel in preparing a defense of his case, no conclusion was drawn in 2 regard to Mr. Moreno's competency to represent himself. On April 20, 2011, an 3 Immigration Judge granted Mr. Moreno's request for withholding of removal 4 apparently based on his mental disability. However, the Government appealed 5 that decision. Because Mr. Moreno would have had to defend against the 6 Government's appeal while unrepresented, Plaintiffs filed a motion for 7 preliminary injunction on his behalf. While that motion was pending, the Board 8 ofImmigration Appeals remanded Mr. Moreno's case without allowing any 9 briefing, on the ground that the record was incomplete. On remand, Mr. Moreno 10 appeared in immigration court without representation. On August 2,2011, the 11 same day that an EOIR-28 was apparently entered on his behalf, the Immigration 12 Judge returned the case to the Board ofImmigration Appeals. Then, after nearly 13 18 months in detention (and shortly before the hearing on Plaintiffs' preliminary 14 injunction motion on his behalf) the Government located pro bono counsel to 15 assist Mr. Moreno at the Board ofImmigration Appeals. His appeal remains 16 pending at the Board. 17 18. Plaintiff-Petitioner Juan Carlos Sepulveda-Perez ("Mr. Sepulveda") is a 18 native and citizen of the Dominican Republic who has been diagnosed with 19 chronic paranoid schizophrenia, schizoaffective disorder and psychotic disorder. 20 He has been in the custody ofDHS since approximately May 2011 and is 21 currently held in segregated confinement in the "F-Med" psychiatric unit at the 22 San Diego Correctional Facility ("SDCF") in Otay Mesa. He is in removal 23 proceedings and is not competent to represent himself. 24 Defendants-Respondents 25 19. Defendant Eric H. Holder, Jr. is the Attorney General ofthe United States 26 and the head of the U.S. Department ofJustice (the "DOJ"). Mr. Holder shares 27 responsibility for implementation and enforcement ofthe immigration laws along 28 with Defendant Janet Napolitano. Mr. Holder is sued in his official capacity.
9

Case 2:10-cv-02211-DMG-DTB Document 344 Filed 10/25/11 Page 13 of 56 Page ID #:6950

1 20. Defendant Thomas G. Snow is the Acting Director for the Executive

2 Office for Immigration Review ("EOIR"), which is the federal agency that runs

3 the Immigration Courts. Mr. Snow is responsible for the supervision of the

4 Deputy Director, the Chairman of the Board ofImmigration Appeals ("BIA"), the

5 ChiefImmigration Judge, the Chief Administrative Hearing Officer, and all

6 EOIR agency personnel in the execution of their duties. Mr. Snow is sued in his

7 official capacity.

8 21. Defendant Janet Napolitano is the Secretary of Homeland Security and the

9 highest-ranking member ofDHS, the arm of the US. Government responsible for

10 enforcement of the immigration laws. Ms. Napolitano is sued in her official

11 capacity.

12 22. Defendant John Morton is the Assistant Secretary of US. Immigration and

13 Customs Enforcement ("ICE"), the ann of DHS charged with detaining and

14 removing aliens pursuant to federal immigration law. Mr. Morton is sued in his

15 official capacity.

16 23. Defendant and Respondent Timothy S. Robbins is the Field Office

17 Director for the Los Angeles District ofICE. Mr. Robbins has authority over and

18 legal custody of Plaintiff-Petitioner Franco and Plaintiff-Petitioner Chavez. Mr.

19 Robbins is sued in his official capacity.

20

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

21 24. A significant number of detained individuals in immigration proceedings

22 have serious mental disabilities, including those held in custody in California,

23 Arizona and Washington, the three western states containing between 15 and 25

24 percent of the Nation's immigration detainee population on any given day. Upon

25 information and belief, a significant number of the detainees with serious mental

26 disabilities, including those held in custody in California, Arizona and

27 Washington, are not competent to represent themselves in their immigration

28 proceedings. Upon information and belief, a large number of those people,

10

Case 2:10-cv-02211-DMG-DTB Document 344 Filed 10/25/11 Page 14 of 56 Page ID #:6951
1 including those in California, Arizona and Washington, also suffer long delays in 2 their removal cases due to their mental disabilities, as a result of which they 3 languish in detention for well over six months, and often for years, without a 4 hearing where the Government bears the burden of proof to show that their 5 detention remains justified. 6 25. Neither the DOJ nor DHS has any procedure to identify exactly how many 7 individuals in removal proceedings have a mental disability that renders them 8 incompetent to represent themselves. Nevertheless, recent data gathered by the 9 Department ofImmigration Health Services ("DIHS") indicates that, in 2008, 10 two to five percent of all immigration detainees-or between 7,571 and 18,929 11 detainees-had a "serious mental illness.,,2 12 26. Given the potentially high costs oflegal representation and the special 13 difficulty finding attorneys for detained individuals, most persons in immigration 14 proceedings have no legal representation. Government data for fiscal year 2009 15 shows that 61 percent of respondents in immigration proceedings did not have a 16 lawyer. SeeEOIRStatistical Year Book FY2009, atGl. Fordetained 17 respondents (like Plaintiffs here), the percentage is even higher.3 18 19 20 2 Selected responses .l!om ICE to questions posed by The Washington Post
regarding the provision o/mental health care to immigration detainees, May 21 2008, http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-
srv/natioruspecials/immigration/documents/day3 ice mentalhealth.gif (accessed 22 May 11,2010); see also Dr. Dora Schriro, Dep'toflfomeland Security,
Immigration Detention Overview and Recommendations 2 (2009), 23 httr:l/www.ice.gov/doclib/
09 005 ice detention report-final.pdf(accessed July 30, 2010) (stating that 24 378,58Tpel'Sons were C1etained by ICE in FY 2008). 25 3 See, e.g., Vera Institute for Justice, Improving Efficiency and Promoting
Justice in the Immigration System: Lessons from the Legal Onentation Program I 26 (2008) (finding that 84 percent of immigration detainees in 2006-2007 did not
have a lawyer); Texas Appleseed, Justice for Immigration's Hidden Population: 27 Protecting the Rights of Persons with Mental Disaollities in the Immigration COUli
and Detention System 13 (2010) (finding that 97 percent of immigratlOn detainees 28 in Texas were unrepresented in 2009).
11

Case 2:10-cv-02211-DMG-DTB Document 344 Filed 10/25/11 Page 15 of 56 Page ID #:6952

1 27. Without counsel to assist them, many individuals with serious mental

2 disabilities languish in detention for years, are precluded from obtaining fair

3 hearings, and are erroneously deported. These tragic facts have been documented 4 by several different organizations.4

5 28. The immigration detention system's treatment of people with mental

6 disabilities stands in stark contrast to federal legislative policy in this area. For

7 over 20 years, Congress has recognized and condemned the many ways in which 8 legal systems exclude individuals with disabilities from accessing their services.5

9 29. Because no meaningful procedures are in place to deal with the unique

10 problems faced by people with mental disabilities in immigration proceedings (or

11

12 4

See generally Human Rights Watch and the American Civil Liberties

13 Union, Deportation by Default: Mental Disability( Unfair Hearings, and Indefinite Detention 111 the US Immigration Justice System 2010) (hereafter "HRW

14 Report"); Texas Appleseed, Justice for Immigration's Hidden Population:

Protecting the Rights of Persons with Mental Disabilities in the Immigration COUli

15 and Detention System (2010); see also Editorial, Detention and the Disabled, N.Y. Times, July 31, 2010, at A18, available at

16 http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/3110pinion/31sat3 .html? r=3&ref=global; Nina Bernstein, Disabled Immigration Detamees Face Deportation, N.Y. Times,

17 March 30, 2010, at A18, available at http://www.nytimes.comI2010/03/30/us/30immig.html? 1'=1 &ref=texas; Renee C.

18 Lee, Mentally ill detainees' care criticized, Houston Chronicle, March 30, 2010, available at httQ:llwww.chron.com/disp/story.m]:Jl/metropolitan/6936070.html;

19 Julian Aguilar, The Dumping Point: Mental Health Patients Suffer in Detention, Texas Tnbune, March 30,2010, available at

20 http://www.texastribune.org/immigration-in-texas/immigration/mental-healthpatients-suffer-in-detention7; Nina13ernstein, Mentally III and in Immigration
21 Limbo, N.Y. Times, May 4, 2009, at A17, available at http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/04/nyregion/04immigrant.html; Nina Bernstein,

22 Immigrant Finds Path Out ofMaze ofDetention, N.Y. Times, Sept. 11,2009, at A20, available at http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09111/nyregionfl1mental.html.

23 5 See, e.g., overs:;;'ht HearinfJ on HR. 4498 before the House Subcommittee
24 on Select Education a the Committee on Education and Labor, 100th Cong., 2d Sess., 40-41, 48 (198 ) (including testimony from individuals with disabilities
25 who described their inability to access courtrooms and court services); Task Force on the Rights and Empowerment of Americans with Disabilities, From ADA to
26 Empowerment (1990) (documenting examples of people with developmental disabilities being denied an o]:Jportunity to testify 111 court cases involving abuse,
27 individuals with physical disaoilities being unaole to access courtrooms, people with hearing impairments being denied interpretive services, and people witli
28 visual and nearing impairments being excluded from jury service).

12

Case 2:10-cv-02211-DMG-DTB Document 344 Filed 10/25/11 Page 16 of 56 Page ID #:6953
1 even to identify them), and in particular because no counsel is appointed for 2 them, people with serious mental disabilities are left unable to present evidence 3 or arguments in support of their claims to remain in the United States. See HRW 4 Report at 4-6, 51-56. 5 30. Likewise, without any clear policies or procedures within DHS 6 concerning when to release detainees with mental disabilities, such individuals 7 are more likely than others to languish in detention unnecessarily for months or 8 even years. In some cases where an Immigration Judge recognizes (almost by 9 chance) that a respondent with a mental disability needs assistance, the typical 10 course of action is to delay the proceedings, thereby subjecting the detainee to 11 prolonged incarceration precisely because he or she suffers from a mental 12 disability. See f-IRW Report at 47-49,72-74 (noting that Immigration Judges are 13 not authorized to release detainees, many of whom are deemed subject to 14 mandatory detention, notwithstanding their serious mental disabilities and the 15 prolonged length of their detention). 16 31. The Government's inability to implement even the most basic procedural 17 protections for detained individuals with mental disabilities in immigration 18 proceedings has had drastic human consequences on the named Plaintiffs, as their 19 individual cases make clear: 20 Jose Antonio Franco-Gonzalez 21 32. Mr. Franco is a 31-year-old native and citizen of Mexico. He is the son of 22 Maria and Francisco Franco, both Lawful Permanent Residents of the United 23 States. Mr. Franco is one oftwelve siblings, eleven of whom live in the United 24 States. Mr. Franco and all of his siblings who reside in the United States have, or 25 are in the process of obtaining, legal status. Mr. Franco's three eldest brothers 26 are United States citizens. Two of his sisters are Lawful Permanent Residents. 27 Mr. Franco and five of his siblings have approved family petitions that will 28 ultimately permit them to adjust to Lawful Permanent Resident status.
13

Case 2:10-cv-02211-DMG-DTB Document 344 Filed 10/25/11 Page 17 of 56 Page ID #:6954
1 33. Mr. Franco has been diagnosed with moderate mental retardation, a 2 condition generally characterized by an IQ level of between 35 and 55. See 3 Diagnostic and Statistical Manual ofMental Disorders, 4th Edition (DSM-IV). 4 He did not learn to speak at all until he was six or seven years old. He does not 5 know his own birthday or age. He has trouble recognizing numbers and 6 counting. He cannot tell time. Mr. Franco functions at the cognitive level of a 7 child, by some measures a two-year-old. 8 34. In April 2005, the Government transferred Mr. Franco from criminal to 9 immigration custody after he pled guilty to a charge of assault with a deadly 10 weapon (non-firearm). The Government then commenced removal proceedings 11 against Mr. Franco. During these proceedings, Mr. Franco was unrepresented by 12 counsel. 13 35. On May 23,2005, pursuant to an Immigration Judge's request, a 14 psychiatrist evaluated Mr. Franco. The psychiatrist determined that Mr. Franco 15 "had no clue as to what type of court [the Immigration Judge] presided over, what 16 the possible outcomes might be, or how to defend himself at trial. 17 Diagnostically, he has a Severe Cognitive Disturbance, probably life-long, 18 secondary to development disability. In view of this, it is impossible for him to 19 stand trial." On June 6, 2005, an Immigration Judge ordered the administrative 20 closure of Mr. Franco's removal proceedings, citing his incompetence. 21 36. Mr. Franco, however, was not released from immigration custody. Despite 22 the fact that there were no open removal proceedings against him, Mr. Franco 23 remained incarcerated for approximately four and a half years. During that entire 24 period, Mr. Franco never had a hearing to determine whether his lengthy 25 detention was justified or at all appropriate. 26 37. Finally, on December 29,2009, the Government moved to re-calendar Mr. 27 Franco's removal proceedings. In its motion, the Government provided no 28
14

Case 2:10-cv-02211-DMG-DTB Document 344 Filed 10/25/11 Page 18 of 56 Page ID #:6955
1 explanation whatsoever for its extraordinarily lengthy delay in addressing Mr. 2 Franco's removal proceedings. 3 38. While Mr. Franco is currently represented in his removal proceedings by 4 undersigned counsel from Public Counsel, Mr. Franco was not represented for the 5 first four and a half years of his immigration case. 6 39. On March 26, 2010, Mr. Franco filed the original action in this case. See 7 Original Complaint, CV 10-02211 DMG (DTB). On March 31, 20 10, three 8 business days later, DES released Mr. Franco subject to a number of conditions. 9 Should Mr. Franco violate any of these provisions, or should he lose on the 10 merits of his removal case, he will again be subject to detention. 11 40. Mr. Franco's case is currently pending before the Los Angeles 12 Immigration Court. 13 Ever Francisco Martinez-Rivas 14 41. Mr. Martinez is a 32-year-old Lawful Permanent Resident of the United 15 States. Originally from EI Salvador, three generations of Mr. Martinez's family 16 now lawfully reside in the United States. Mr. Martinez's grandmother, Ana 17 Martinez, became a Lawful Permanent Resident of the United States almost ten 18 years ago; his mother, Maria Elena Felipe ("Ms. Felipe"), became a Lawful 19 Permanent Resident four years ago; Mr. Martinez himself has been a Lawful 20 Permanent Resident since July 24, 2006. 21 42. Mr. Martinez has been diagnosed with schizophrenia, with symptoms 22 including hallucinations, disorganized speech and behavior, and flat or 23 inappropriate affect. Mr. Martinez's illness prevents him from conceptualizing 24 ideas or verbally articulating them in a way that would allow him to defend 25 himself in immigration proceedings. Accordingly, he is not competent to 26 represent himself. 27 43. Mr. Martinez has a lengthy history of mental illness. At the age of21, Mr. 28 Martinez was admitted to the psychiatric ward at Cedars Sinai Medical Center
15

Case 2:10-cv-02211-DMG-DTB Document 344 Filed 10/25/11 Page 19 of 56 Page ID #:6956
1 after he arrived at the emergency room in a "catatonic state" and was determined 2 by a physician to be "a gravely disabled person." For the next six years, Mr. 3 Martinez remained at various mental health facilities because he was unable to 4 care for himself and lacked the capacity to "knowingly and intelligently" accept 5 or refuse treatment. During this period, he was hospitalized multiple times. 6 44. At the end of March 2007, for the first time in over six years, Mr. Martinez 7 returned home to live with his mother, Maria Elena Felipe ("Ms. Felipe"). By 8 that time, Ms. Felipe was living with her new husband, Vicente Felipe Charco. 9 The transition proved to be difficult for Mr. Martinez. In June 2007, Mr. 10 Martinez was arrested after an altercation between the two men. Ms. Felipe 11 explains that Mr. Felipe later took responsibility for initiating the fight while he 12 was drunk. This was Mr. Martinez's first and only violent crime. 13 45. Initially, the court adjudicating Mr. Martinez's criminal case determined 14 that he was incompetent to stand trial for the offense. After several months of 15 treatment, Mr. Martinez was deemed to have been restored to competence and 16 pled guilty to a felony charge of using force to inflict serious bodily injury. 17 While serving his sentence, Mr. Martinez was placed in the mental health 18 program at California's Solano State Prison. 19 46. Mr. Martinez was transferred from criminal to immigration custody in 20 approximately November 2009, and is housed at the SDCF in Otay Mesa, 21 California. At the time of his transfer, Mr. Martinez's mental illness was 22 documented in his immigration file. His Form 1-213 (Record of 23 Deportable/Inadmissible Alien) states that Mr. Martinez "is schizophrenic and 24 currently is taking medication for said medical condition." Nevertheless, Mr. 25 Martinez appeared alone before the Immigration Court multiple times. His 26 mother, who attended some of these hearings, has explained that Mr. Martinez 27 does not seem to understand the questions he is asked in court and that it takes 28 him a very long time to answer when the judge speaks to him. Although he
16

Case 2:10-cv-02211-DMG-DTB Document 344 Filed 10/25/11 Page 20 of 56 Page ID #:6957
1 requested continuances in order to try to obtain counsel, Mr. Martinez is indigent 2 and was unable to secure pro bono representation. 3 47. Despite his documented disability and a prior finding of incompetence in 4 criminal court, the Immigration Court did not order (and DHS did not seek) an 5 evaluation of Mr. Martinez's competence. Nor did the court appoint counsel to 6 assist him. Rather, until the filing ofthis lawsuit, the Immigration Judge insisted 7 that Mr. Martinez move forward with the case on his own. 8 48. On August 16, 2010, Mr. Martinez filed a preliminary injunction in this 9 Court seeking appointment of counsel in his immigration proceedings.6 In 10 response, DHS notified the Immigration Judge that Mr. Martinez was a 11 prospective plaintiff in this lawsuit and provided the Immigration Judge with a 12 copy of a psychiatric evaluation, conducted at the request of undersigned counsel, 13 concluding that Mr. Martinez "is clearly not competent to represent himself. His 14 illness precludes a capacity to conceptualize ideas and verbally advocate a 15 defense in his removal proceedings." On September 16, 2010, the Immigration 16 Judge issued a written order terminating Mr. Martinez's removal proceedings 17 because of his inability to represent himself. The Immigration Judge then 18 certified her decision for appellate review; as a result, Mr. Martinez's removal 19 case is currently pending before the BIA. 20 49. In light of concerns about Mr. Martinez's prolonged detention and inability 21 to represent himself on appeal before the BIA, counsel in this lawsuit filed a 22 preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order on November 15, 2011, 23 seeking appointment of counsel and a custody hearing for Mr. Martinez. On 24 December 27, 2010, this Court granted the preliminary injunction in part, finding 25 that the Government must provide Mr. Martinez with a custody hearing and a 26 27 6 On August 19, 2010, this Court denied without prejudice Mr. Martinez's motion
for a preliminary injunction as premature because he had not yet been added as a 28 plaintiff to the present action.
17

Case 2:10-cv-02211-DMG-DTB Document 344 Filed 10/25/11 Page 21 of 56 Page ID #:6958
1 "qualified representative" to represent Mr. Martinez in the entirety of his 2 immigration proceedings. Pursuant to this Court's order, the Government located 3 counsel for both Mr. Martinez's bond hearing and his appeal to the BIA. 4 50. But for the preliminary injunction, Mr. Martinez would remain 5 unrepresented on appeal. With legal representation, counsel will now be able to 6 assist Mr. Martinez in demonstrating why the Immigration Judge properly 7 terminated proceedings against him. Similarly, with legal assistance, Mr. 8 Martinez was able to demonstrate that his ongoing detention is not justified. On 9 January 26, 2011, an II ordered that Mr. Martinez be released on $1,500.00 bond 10 as soon as he secures placement in a mental health facility. On April 14, 2011It approximately 17 months after first entering detention-Mr. Martinez was 12 released and transferred to a mental health hospital close to his mother. His case 13 remains pending before the BIA. 14 Aleksandr Petrovich Khukhryanskiy 15 51. Mr. Khukhryanskiy is a 45-year-old refugee, originally from Ukraine. Mr. 16 Khukhryanskiy was admitted to the United States as a refugee on January 9, 17 1998. He has a 22-year-old son and a 21-year-old son who are both in the 18 process of obtaining Lawful Permanent Resident status. 19 52. Mr. Khukhryanskiy has a history of psychiatric hospitalization and requires 20 ongoing treatment for his mental health. He has been diagnosed with paranoid 21 schizophrenia and psychosis (not otherwise specified), along with major 22 depression. For the past several years, Mr. Khukhryanskiy has been receiving 23 mental health treatment after being involuntarily placed at Adventist Mental 24 Health Services in 2004 through a mental health commitment hearing. He suffers 25 from frequent auditory hallucinations that plague him daily and interfere with his 26 cognitive functioning. 27 53. Mr. Khukhryanskiy has several convictions for driving violations, a 2001 28 conviction for menacing, and a 2005 conviction for attempted assault and
18

Case 2:10-cv-02211-DMG-DTB Document 344 Filed 10/25/11 Page 22 of 56 Page ID #:6959
1 robbery. Mr. Khukhryanskiy's convictions appear to arise from his paranoid 2 belief that others are intentionally trying to harm him and his lack of stable 3 mental health treatment. In unfamiliar surroundings and without language 4 interpretation, Mr. Khukhryanskiy appears irritable and combative, but with 5 proper treatment his mental health care providers have noted that his affect 6 brightens and that he exhibits no dangerous or threatening behavior. 7 54. On April 15, 2010, Mr. Khukhryanskiy was taken into DHS custody and 8 detained at the Northwest Detention Center in Tacoma, Washington. DHS 9 initiated removal proceedings against him, charging him as deportable for having 10 been convicted of an aggravated felony based on his 2005 conviction. 11 55. DHS has acknowledged Mr. Khukhryanskiy's mental health issues in the 12 charging documents issued against him. His Form 1-213 states that he has been 13 diagnosed by Snake River Correctional Institution ("SCRI") as a paranoid 14 schizophrenic and notes that he has been subjected to involuntary haldol 15 decanoate injections, as well as cogentin twice daily. Nonetheless, the 16 Immigration Judge did not order (and DHS counsel did not request) an evaluation 17 to determine if Mr. Khukhryanskiy is competent to represent himself in 18 immigration proceedings. 19 56. On August 25,2010, appearing pro se, Mr. Khukhryanskiy was ordered 20 deported by the Immigration Judge. The master calendar hearing, originally 21 scheduled for August 30, 2010, was advanced five days without notice to Mr. 22 Khukhryanskiy. These "master calendar hearings" are for limited procedural 23 matters only - i.e., "pleadings, scheduling, and other similar matters." See 24 Immigration Court Practice Manual § 4.15(a). At this hearing, however, the 25 Immigration Judge decided to resolve the merits of Mr. Khukhryanskiy's case. 26 57. At the August 25 hearing, a DHS enforcement and removal officer named 27 Robert Mason - a Government official who makes arrangements for the 28
19

Case 2:10-cv-02211-DMG-DTB Document 344 Filed 10/25/11 Page 23 of 56 Page ID #:6960
1 deportation of detained individuals - appeared as a "custodian" and 2 representative for Mr. Khukhryanskiy. 3 58. During the hearing, Mr. Khukhryanskiy stated that he did not understand 4 what was happening during the proceedings-nevertheless, neither the 5 Immigration Judge ordered, nor did his "custodian" request, a competency 6 evaluation at that time. At no time in the hearing did the Immigration Judge 7 explain that Mr. Khukhyranskiy was eligible to renew his application for 8 adjustment of status for lawful permanent residence, an application that had 9 previously been filed with USCIS. Nor did the Immigration Judge explain that 10 he may be eligible to apply for asylum, withholding of removal, or relief under 11 the Convention Against Torture. Upon ordering Mr. Khukhryanskiy deported, 12 the Immigration Judge did not ask Mr. Khukhryanskiy whether he would like to 13 reserve appeal. Instead she marked down that he had waived his right to appeal. 14 59. Through the Legal Orientation Program provided by EOrR, Mr. 15 Khukhranskiy received assistance filing a pro se appeal to the BIA. At the same 16 time, upon learning ofMr. Khukhryanskiy's removal order, undersigned counsel 17 from the Northwest Immigrant Rights Project ("NWIRP") submitted a request to 18 participate as amicus to the BIA. 19 60. Mr. Khukhryanskiy's brief to the BIA was originally due on November 12, 20 2010. However, after this Court required the Government to ensure that he be 21 afforded counsel, those proceedings were suspended. Once the Government 22 arranged counsel for Mr. Khukhryanskiy, his appeal resumed. 23 61. On April 27, 2011, the BIA issued an order vacating the removal order 24 previoLlsly entered by the Immigration Judge and remanding the proceedings in 25 order to provide Mr. Khukhryanskiy an opportunity to apply for the relief for 26 which he qualifies. His case remains pending before the Immigration Judge. 27 62. Also pursuant to this Court's order, the Government provided a custody 28 hearing, but at the hearing ICE advised the IJ that they were opposed to any
20

Case 2:10-cv-02211-DMG-DTB Document 344 Filed 10/25/11 Page 24 of 56 Page ID #:6961
1 release, even to a treatment program, but rather believed that Mr. Khukhryanskiy 2 should be subject to mandatory detention. Consequently, the IJ set a bond of 3 $30,000, which the indigent Mr. Khukhryanskiy has been unable to post. As 4 such, he remains subject to detention. 5 63. But for filing a preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order with 6 this Court on Mr. Khukhryanskiy's behalf, a final order of removal would have 7 been entered against Mr. Khukhryanskiy, as he would have been unrepresented 8 throughout the removal proceedings. 9 Maksim Piotrovich Zhalezny 10 64. Mr. Zhalezny is a 20-year-old native and citizen of Belarus. Mr. Zhalezny 11 won the diversity visa lottery program as a derivative of his parent's application, 12 and arrived in the United States with his family as a Lawful Pennanent Resident 13 on January 30, 2007. His mother, Svetlana Zhaleznya, father, Piotr Zhalezny, 14 and brother, Vladislav Zhalezny, are all Lawful Permanent Residents as well. 15 65. Mr. Zhalezny appears to have undifferentiated schizophrenia. He 16 experiences delusions, hallucinations, and negativism. He is disheveled, with 17 poor grooming and hygiene, and believes that his body is absorbing a light that is 18 killing him. 19 66. Mr. Zhalezny's mental health problems began to manifest soon after he 20 came to the United States. He could not speak English and had to drop out of 21 school soon after beginning. During this time, Mr. Zhalezny started to exhibit 22 bizarre behaviors, such as talking to himself, screaming at night, and drinking 23 water out of a 5-gallon container even though his parents repeatedly gave him a 24 cup. Mr. Zhalezny would also dress up ten to fifteen times a day, go outside the 25 apartment, smoke a cigarette, and then return and get undressed. At times, he 26 would spend entire days in bed. On other occasions, he would not return home 27 during an entire night and later arrive beaten up.
28
21

Case 2:10-cv-02211-DMG-DTB Document 344 Filed 10/25/11 Page 25 of 56 Page ID #:6962
1 67. From May of2008 through February of2010, Mr. Zhalezny was arrested 2 on several occasions for attempting to steal small items from stores such as Rite3 Aid, Wal-Mart, and Target. He was convicted of misdemeanor theft three times, 4 as well as petty theft with priors, misdemeanor assault, second-degree 5 commercial burglary, and disturbing the peace. 6 68. Mr. Zhalezny came to the attention ofICE in February of 20 10 while 7 being held at the Sacramento County Jail. At the time, he was booked for petty 8 theft and public drunkenness, though turned over to ICE without prosecution for 9 those charges. He was instead sentenced to 60 days in custody, apparently for 10 violating probation arising from his August 3, 2009 conviction for petty theft 11 with priors. 12 69. Mr. Zhalezny has been in ICE detention at the Sacramento County Jail 13 since approximately April 14, 2010. The Government charges that Mr. Zhalezny 14 is removable because he has committed two crimes involving moral turpitude. 15 70. Since entering ICE custody, Mr. Zhalezny has appeared before an 16 Immigration Judge on several occasions. Throughout these proceedings, Mr. 17 Zhalezny has exhibited bizarre and inconsistent behavior, including demanding 18 that the lights be turned off in the courtroom because they were "hurting him." 19 This behavior led the Immigration Judge to inquire about Mr. Zhalezny's ability 20 to understand the proceedings, and then to reach out to the UC Davis 21 Immigration Law Clinic to see if they would be able to provide legal 22 representation for Mr. Zhalezny. Unfortunately, due to their full caseload, the 23 Clinic was unable to provide such representation. 24 71. Mr. Zhalezny's status as an unrepresented detainee with a mental disability 25 caused significant confusion for the Immigration Judge and the DHS attorney. At 26 one hearing in July of 20 I 0, DHS counsel noted that she did not know what, if 27 any, DHS procedures there were for dealing with issues of mental competency. 28
22

Case 2:10-cv-02211-DMG-DTB Document 344 Filed 10/25/11 Page 26 of 56 Page ID #:6963
At another hearing, the Immigration Judge expressed frustration when Mr. 2 Zhalezny's answers to questions did not make sense. 3 72. On or about September 24,2010, DHS sent a letter to Mr. Zhalezny's 4 father informing him that the Sacramento County Jail does not conduct 5 competency evaluations and suggesting that the family conduct its own 6 psychiatric evaluation. While Mr. Zhalezny's father attempted to arrange for a 7 psychiatric evaluation by Blue Cross/ Blue Shield, the Sacramento County Jail 8 refused to allow Mr. Zhalezny to be released from detention for the evaluation. 9 73. At a master calendar hearing in October of2010, the IJ found that Mr. 10 Zhalezny was not competent to represent himself due to his mental disability. 11 The IJ then ordered Mr. Zhalezny's father, Piotr, to serve as Maksim's 12 representative, even though he does not speak English and does not believe he is 13 equipped to serve as Mr. Zhalezny's legal representative. 14 74. Due to concerns about Mr. Zhalezny's mental competency and an inability 15 to know what had transpired in court previously, on November 1,2010, 16 undersigned counsel from the ACLU of Southern California submitted a friend of 17 the court letter seeking to alert the Immigration Judge to concerns about Mr. 18 Zhalezny's competency to represent himself in removal proceedings. After 19 taking note of the letter, the Immigration Judge stated that he was required by law 20 to proceed and set the next merits hearing for February 17, 2011. 21 75. On January 14,2011, Mr. Zhalezny filed a preliminary injunction with this 22 Court, seeking appointment of counsel and a custody hearing. The Government 23 then unilaterally continued Mr. Zhalezny's individual hearing after the motion for 24 preliminary injunction was filed on his behalf. 25 76. On May 4,2011, the Court granted Mr. Zhalezny's motion for a 26 preliminary injunction, in part. Pursuant to this Court's order, Mr. Zhalezny 27 received a bond hearing on June 30, 2011, at which he was represented by a pro 28 bono attorney from the UC Davis law clinic. Through this attorney's assistance,
23

Case 2:10-cv-02211-DMG-DTB Document 344 Filed 10/25/11 Page 27 of 56 Page ID #:6964
1 the Immigration Judge agreed to grant a $5,000 bond to Mr. Zhalezny subject to 2 certain conditions. Mr. Zhalezny has since been released from detention. 3 77. Mr. Zhalezny remains unrepresented, however, in his removal 4 proceedings. Unless the Government locates pro bono counsel for him, Mr. 5 Zhalezny will be expected to argue for asylum, present witnesses, and submit 6 documentation supporting his case, despite the fact that he remains unrepresented 7 by counsel in his removal proceedings and does not understand the nature of his 8 case. 9 Jose Chavez 10 78. Mr. Chavez is a 49 year-old native and citizen ofEI Salvador who came to 11 the United States in 1988 after fleeing the Salvadoran civil war. The Government 12 has stipulated in a prior case that Mr. Chavez is eligible to apply for asylum and 13 reliehmder the Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act 14 ("NACARA"). 15 79. Mr. Chavez has been diagnosed with schizoaffective disorder-including a 16 combination of auditory hallucinations, persecutory delusions, suicidal ideations, 17 and depression-as well as chronic paranoid schizophrenia. He has spent much 18 of the past ten years in and out of psychiatric hospitals. 19 80. Mr. Chavez was found incompetent to stand trial in a criminal case in 20 August 2001. At that time, he had two misdemeanor convictions for battery and 21 assault with a deadly instrument (not a fIrearm). During his 2001 case, in which 22 Mr. Chavez was charged with unlawfully starting a fire that caused an inhabited 23 structure to burn, the court found him incompetent. Because he was not 24 competent, Mr. Chavez was placed in treatment for his mental disability for the 25 next three years. He then pleaded nolo contendere. 26 81. Mr. Chavez was taken into DHS custody on June 23, 2006 and charged 27 with being removable. He was held in custody at the San Pedro Service 28 Processing Center in San Pedro, California and the SDCF in Otay Mesa,
24

Case 2:10-cv-02211-DMG-DTB Document 344 Filed 10/25/11 Page 28 of 56 Page ID #:6965
1 California. During this detention, Mr. Chavez's mental health suffered so 2 significantly that he required emergency medical assistance on at least three 3 occasions and long-term hospitalization on at least two other occasions. 4 82. During Mr. Chavez's initial removal proceedings, he was not represented 5 by counsel. Throughout those hearings, Mr. Chavez experienced auditory 6 hallucinations and delusions. Nonetheless, an Immigration Judge found him 7 removable and denied his asylum claim, apparently because of the discrepancies 8 between his written and oral statements about his fear of persecution. 9 83. With the assistance of other detainees, Mr. Chavez attempted to reverse 10 this decision through various avenues. He first sought to appeal the decision to 11 the BIA on the ground that he was mentally incompetent, filing both a direct 12 appeal and a motion to reopen, apparently with the help of an inmate. The BIA 13 denied both his appeal and his motion to reopen. That decision was appealed to 14 the Ninth Circuit. 15 84. In March of 2008, through the assistance of a pro bono attorney working 16 under the supervision of undersigned counsel Mental Health Advocacy Services, 17 Mr. Chavez filed a second motion to reopen arguing that he had been mentally 18 incompetent at the time of his previous removal proceedings and that his 19 statutory and constitutional rights to due process had been violated. This time, 20 the BIA reached the opposite conclusion and granted Mr. Chavez's motion to 21 reopen because he may not have been mentally competent to waive his right to 22 counsel and proceed pro se. 23 85. On September 18, 2008, an Immigration Judge ordered Mr. Chavez's case 24 to be administratively closed so that he could apply for asylum and other benefits 25 under the agreement set forth in American Baptist Church v. Thornburgh, 760 F. 26 Supp. 796 (N.D. Cal. 1991) ("ABC"). Because counsel had shown that Mr. 27 Chavez was a member of the ABC class, the judge ordered U.S. Citizenship and 28 Immigration Services to adjudicate his applications for relief. The judge's order
25

Case 2:10-cv-02211-DMG-DTB Document 344 Filed 10/25/11 Page 29 of 56 Page ID #:6966
1 stated that the Government could initiate further action against Mr. Chavez by 2 filing a written motion to re-calendar his case. 3 86. Prior to his relief interview, Mr. Chavez was arrested and charged with 4 arson. Subsequent to his arrest, Mr. Chavez was committed for mental health 5 treatment at Patton State Hospital, apparently based on a finding that he was not 6 competent to stand trial. His criminal charges remain pending, as there has yet to 7 be a finding that he is competent. 8 87. While he remained committed at Patton State Hospital, DHS officials 9 issued a new NTA on June 21, 2010 with a hearing scheduled for July 26, 2010. 10 Mr. Chavez could not attend the hearing, as he remained at Patton State Hospital. 11 Because he is no longer represented, no attorney appeared on his behalf. 12 88. At the hearing on July 26, 2010, the Government filed a Motion to 13 Terminate the proceedings under the new charging document, claiming that it 14 was "improvidently issued" because "respondent was previously placed in 15 removal proceedings with another NTA issued back on June 17,2006." 16 Consequently, the Immigration Judge granted the Government's Motion to 17 Terminate, but explicitly did so without prejudice to any proceedings arising 18 from the NTA issued in 2006. 19 89. On August 12,2010, DHS Counsel contacted undersigned counsel from 20 the ACLU of Southern California and noted that Mr. Chavez has a right to a 21 review of the denial of his NACARA application before an Immigration Judge 22 and should file a motion to re-calendar when he is released from criminal 23 custody. However, the ACLU of Southern California does not represent Mr. 24 Chavez in his removal proceedings. 25 90. Mr. Chavez remains both unable to hire an immigration attorney and 26 unable to obtain pro bono representation. He also remains incompetent to stand 27 criminal trial and also incompetent to represent himself in his immigration case 28
26

Case 2:10-cv-02211-DMG-DTB Document 344 Filed 10/25/11 Page 30 of 56 Page ID #:6967
1 Yonas Woldemariam 2 91. Mr. Wo1demariam is a 48 year-old Lawful Permanent Resident who has 3 been living in the United States for over 32 years. Mr. Woldemariam is 4 ethnically Eritrean, though he was born in Ethiopia at a time when Eritrea was 5 still part of Ethiopia. He arrived in the United States on a non-immigrant visa 6 when he was approximately 16 years old. Shortly thereafter, Mr. 7 Woldemariam's parents applied for political asylum, which he was granted as a 8 derivative of their application. Mr. Woldemariam subsequently adjusted his 9 status to become a Lawful Permanent Resident in 1983. The rest of his family 10 members-his two parents and five siblings-are now United States citizens. 11 92. Mr. Woldemariam has been diagnosed with schizoaffective order, bipolar 12 type. He hears voices that command him to do things. These voices do not go 13 away with medication. While Mr. Woldemariam's mental health problems began 14 in the early 1990s, his symptoms became more severe after his brother was 15 murdered in 1993. After this time, Mr. Woldemariam became very depressed 16 and unable to work. His condition grew even worse when he was the victim of a 17 hit-and-run accident a few years later. Following this accident, Mr. 18 Woldemariam was put on disability and, approximately five years ago, spent a 19 year at the Olive Vista Center, a healthcare center for people with chronic mental 20 illnesses. 21 93. During periods of intense depression, anxiety, and psychosis, Mr. 22 Woldemariam would try to avoid his family and ended up living on the streets or 23 being brought to mental institutions. Sometimes he would get arrested for minor 24 crimes, such as shoplifting. For instance, in 2008, when Mr. Woldemariam was 25 not taking his medication, he reported hearing voices telling him to steal clothes 26 from a store. Mr. Woldemariam was then convicted of second-degree robbery. 27 When a store clerk tried to stop him, Mr. Woldemariam attempted to run away, 28 but was overpowered. Mr. Woldemariam was then convicted of second-degree
27

Case 2:10-cv-02211-DMG-DTB Document 344 Filed 10/25/11 Page 31 of 56 Page ID #:6968
1 robbery and sentenced to two years in prison, in part due to violating probation 2 on a prior petty theft. 3 94. Mr. Woldemariam was transferred from criminal to immigration custody 4 on or around September 2,2010 to Yuba County Jail in Yuba County, California. 5 DHS initiated removal proceedings against him, charging him as deportable for 6 having been convicted of an aggravated felony. 7 95. Mr. Woldemariam appeared pro se before an Immigration Judge on two 8 occasions but secured representation before his hearing on November 8, 2010 9 through the assistance of his family. During his immigration proceedings, Mr. 10 Woldemariam sometimes understands what is happening and sometimes does 11 not. Recently, the voices in Mr. Woldemariam's head have been telling him that 12 he is worthless, no good, and that he is going to be tortured and die if he is forced 13 to return to Ethiopia or Eritrea. 14 96. In March 2011, DHS transferred Mr. Woldemariam to the Sacramento 15 County Jail after he refused to take a particular anti-psychotic medication that 16 enhances the voices Mr. Woldemariam hears and irritates his prostate, making it 17 extremely difficult for him to urinate. Mr. Woldemariam suffered even more 18 significant harm from detention in the Sacramento County Jail, because that 19 facility keeps at least some of its inmates on lockdown for 23 hours of the day 20 and limits detainees' ability to make phone calls. This kind of physical 21 restriction was extremely detrimental to Mr. Woldemariam, as he needs to be 22 able to move around in order to keep the voices in his head at bay, and his 23 condition only becomes worse when he is under stress and unable to 24 communicate with his family. 25 97. Mr. Woldemariam's immigration attorney sought a bond hearing on June 26 7,2011 on the grounds that his detention had become prolonged, but that request 27 was denied on June 20, 2011. 28
28

Case 2:10-cv-02211-DMG-DTB Document 344 Filed 10/25/11 Page 32 of 56 Page ID #:6969
1 98. Plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary injunction on Mr. Woldemariam's 2 behalf on June 13,2011. The motion sought a bond hearing for Mr. 3 Woldemariam at which the Government must bear the burden of demonstrating 4 that his prolonged detention was justified. 5 99. On August 23,2011 the Court granted the motion for preliminary 6 injunction and ordered the Government to provide Mr. Woldemariam with a bond 7 hearing. On October 4,2011, pursuant to that order, an Immigration Judge held a 8 hearing and ordered Mr. Woldemariam released on bond and conditions requiring 9 that he submit a mental treatment plan. He was released shortly thereafter, and is 10 currently living with his family in Southern California. 11 Jose Antonio Moreno Vasquez 12 100. Mr. Moreno is allegedly a 55 year-old native and citizen of Mexico with 13 mental disabilities. Mr. Moreno's father was a United States citizen by birth, and 14 he has two brothers who naturalized to become United States citizens. Upon 15 information and belief, in 1981 Mr. Moreno married Susanna Johnson, also a 16 United States citizen, and had six children with her, all of whom are also United 17 States citizens. In or around 1985, Mr. Moreno's wife filed an 1-130 petition on 18 Mr. Moreno's behalf. He has been living in the United States for over 33 years 19 and knows no one in Mexico. 20 101. Mr. Moreno has been diagnosed with schizophrenia, multiple personality 21 disorder, and possibly bipolar disorder, and was receiving Seroquel for his 22 symptoms while detained. Despite the medication, he experiences auditory, 23 visual, and sensory hallucinations. He also experiences persecutory and 24 grandiose delusions, such as believing that he has a divine connection to God, 25 that he is being persecuted for his desire to bring peace to the land, and that he 26 will some day be a leader of great nations and rule from the White House. He 27 frequently launches into speeches exclaiming, "Justice will prevail!" and "the 28 Captain must be free!" Mr. Moreno also states that sometimes he does things
29

Case 2:10-cv-02211-DMG-DTB Document 344 Filed 10/25/11 Page 33 of 56 Page ID #:6970
1 that he cannot control, such as exposing himself in public or speaking through the 2 voice of a young girl. 3 102. Mr. Moreno reports that he began to develop mental health problems after 4 Child Protective Services removed his children from his care. For the next 16 5 years, he was homeless. He was admitted to psychiatric hospitals involuntarily 6 pursuant to California Welfare and Institutions Code 5150 on at least four 7 occasions, and spent time at mental health facilities in San Bernardino, 8 Victorville, Arrowhead, and Colton. 9 103. In 2002, Mr. Moreno was convicted of second-degree burglary and petty 10 theft with a prior after stealing a pair of scissors from a Rite Aid, which he 11 immediately returned. He was sentenced to 207 days in jail. In 2009, Mr. 12 Moreno was arrested by DHS following a raid on a factory in which he was 13 working. He was first detained at the Otero Detention Center in New Mexico and 14 represented by an attorney at the Diocesan Migrant and Renlgee Services, Inc. 15 104. On February 25, 2010, DHS served Mr. Moreno with a Notice to Appear, 16 alleging that he is deportable because he entered the United States without 17 inspection and was not thereafter admitted or paroled. On September 3, 2010, the 18 Immigration Court in El Paso, Texas granted his attorney's Motion to Change 19 Venue to Los Angeles, based apparently on the attorney's desire to bring him 20 closer to his family and thereby permit greater investigation of his possible U.S. 21 citizenship. Mr. Moreno was then transfen'ed to the Mira Loma Detention 22 Facility in Lancaster, California, and then to the Santa Ana City Jail. On January 23 3,2010, Mr, Moreno's counsel filed a motion for a telephonic hearing with the 24 Immigration Judge, noting that Mr. Moreno has a serious mental health 25 condition, that the Government has failed to prove alienage, that the attorney was 26 no longer able to represent Mr. Moreno in light ofthe changed venue, and that 27 Mr. Moreno was unable to secure independent counsel on account of his mental 28 disability. Despite raising issues of mental competency to the Court, the IJ does
30

Case 2:10-cv-02211-DMG-DTB Document 344 Filed 10/25/11 Page 34 of 56 Page ID #:6971
1 not seem to have scheduled a competency evaluation to assess Mr. Moreno's 2 ability to represent himself. 3 105. Mr. Moreno was scheduled for an individual hearing on March 7, 2011, at 4 which he was to present his claims for relief despite his inability to understand 5 the nature of the immigration proceedings. Prior to the hearing, counsel in this 6 lawsuit learned ofMr. Moreno's condition and submitted a Friend of the Court 7 letter alerting the IJ to the fact that Mr. Moreno is unrepresented and has a serious 8 mental health condition that may render him unable to represent himself. 9 106. Subsequently, the IJ re-calendared Mr. Moreno's case for a new master 10 calendar hearing, which was set for March 30, 2011. At the hearing on March 11 30, the IJ asked DHS whether they had conducted a competency evaluation of 12 Mr. Moreno. DHS stated that they would have a completed evaluation by April 13 2, 2011. At that point, Mr. Moreno started to yell, claiming that the government 14 would fall, that his family had been adopted without his consent, that the 15 government was after his assets, and that he would one day be king. The IJ then 16 set another hearing for April 7, 20 II. 17 107. On April 7, 2011, DHS submitted a competency evaluation to the IJ which 18 noted that Mr. Moreno has a mental illness and that celiain psychological tests 19 could not be completed because of Mr. Moreno's active hallucinations and lack 20 of concentration. The evaluation also indicated that Mr. Moreno was confused 21 about the nature of his immigration proceedings and did not feel as though he 22 could represent himself in cOUli. Nevertheless, the psychologist concluded that 23 Mr. Moreno would be competent to assist counsel in preparing his case. 24 However, the evaluation provides no assessment, or even discussion, of Mr. 25 Moreno's competence to represent himself in his removal proceedings. 26 108. On April 20, 2011, Mr. Moreno appeared unrepresented before the 27 immigration cOUli at his removal hearing. The Immigration Judge granted 28 withholding of removal apparently based on the likelihood that Mr. Moreno
31

Case 2:10-cv-02211-DMG-DTB Document 344 Filed 10/25/11 Page 35 of 56 Page ID #:6972
1 would suffer persecution on account of his mental disability. The Government 2 timely appealed that decision. Mr. Moreno had no counsel on appeal to the Board 3 ofImmigration Appeals. 4 109. On June 13,2011, Plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary injunction on 5 Mr. Moreno's behalf. The motion sought appointed representation for Mr. 6 Moreno at his immigration proceedings - both with respect to his merits hearings 7 and bond proceedings. 8 110. On June 30, 2011, the Board ofImmigration Appeals remanded Mr. 9 Moreno's removal case back to the Immigration Judge on the ground that the 10 record was incomplete due to some missing transcription. On July 20, 2011, Mr. 11 Moreno again appeared without counsel before the immigration court. However, 12 the Immigration Judge apparently found the missing audio, and on August 2, 13 20 II reinstated her prior decision granting withholding of removal. The case was 14 then returned to the BIA, apparently pursuant to the Government's prior appeal. 15 111. In September 2011, after Mr. Moreno had been detained for nearly 18 16 months and after argument on the motion for preliminary injunction filed on his 17 behalf, the Government located pro bono counsel to assist him in his appeal. The 18 Court then dismissed the motion for preliminary injunction without prejudice. 19 Mr. Moreno's brief is now due to the Board ofImmigration Appeals on 20 November 15,2011. 21 112. Mr. Moreno's bond proceedings have been equally complex. On or around 22 June 15 or 16, 2011, the Government secured pro bono counsel Antonio Bugge 23 for Mr. Moreno's bond proceedings. Mr. Bugge, who was located in Florida and, 24 upon information and belief, did not meet or speak with Mr. Moreno, then 25 requested a bond hearing on his behalf. Counsel did not argue that the 26 Government should bear the burden of proof at that hearing, or that it should 27 otherwise comply with the requirements for prolonged detention hearings in the 28 Ninth Circuit.
32

Case 2:10-cv-02211-DMG-DTB Document 344 Filed 10/25/11 Page 36 of 56 Page ID #:6973
1 113. The Government arranged for Mr. Bugge to appear telephonically at the 2 bond hearing. On July 7, 2011, Mr. Bugge purported to represent Mr. Moreno at 3 a bond hearing, although Mr. Moreno referred to Mr. Bugge as a "friend of the 4 Court" at that hearing. The Immigration Judge set a $5,000 bond - an amount 5 that Mr. Moreno's family struggled to pay. In August 2011, Mr. Moreno's 6 family secured the required funds and, after nearly 18 months of detention, Mr. 7 Moreno was released on bond. 8 114. But for the filing of a preliminary injunction on his behalf, Mr. Moreno 9 would not have been afforded a bond hearing and would remain unrepresented on 10 appeal. With legal representation, Mr. Moreno was able to secure a bond and 11 release from nearly 18 months of detention. Similarly, Mr. Moreno will now 12 have an attorney to assist him before the Board ofImmigration Appeals. That 13 attorney can investigate the facts of Mr. Moreno's case to determine whether he 14 is a United States citizen by vitiue of his father, whether he has an approved 115 130 application through his marriage to a United States citizen, and defend the 16 Immigration Judge's grant of withholding of removal. 17 Juan Carlos Sepulveda-Perez 18 115. Mr. Sepulveda is a 53-year-old Lawful Pennanent Resident of the United 19 States. Originally from the Dominican Republic, Mr. Sepulveda entered the 20 United States on an immigrant visa in 1974. All of his living siblings are either 21 Lawful Permanent Residents or U.S. Citizens. He also has two U.S. Citizen 22 daughters. Except for a brief trip abroad for about one month in 1985, he has not 23 left the United States in the nearly forty years since his arrival. He has no 24 remaining connection to his country of birth and there is nobody there to care for 25 him. He is terrified of being deported there. 26 116. Mr. Sepulveda used to work, but has been unable to do so since his mental 27 illness worsened in recent years. Since 2006, Mr. Sepulveda has been 28 hospitalized for psychiatric treatment on several occasions. For example, during
33

Case 2:10-cv-02211-DMG-DTB Document 344 Filed 10/25/11 Page 37 of 56 Page ID #:6974
1 his first hospitalization, he was admitted for acute inpatient treatment on the 2 finding that he was a "danger to self" and was "gravely disabled." Among Mr. 3 Sepulveda'S recurrent symptoms are what a psychiatrist called "persecutory 4 command auditory hallucinations" - voices telling him to harm himself. 5 117. In 2008, DHS detained Mr. Sepulveda and initiated removal proceedings 6 based on criminal convictions that he incurred during a period when he was 7 frequently homeless and sometimes used illicit drugs to try to control the voices 8 in his head. DHS health care staff at the detention center diagnosed Mr. 9 Sepulveda as suffering from "schizophrenic disorders" and prescribed several 10 anti-psychotic drugs for him to take. 11 118. Mr. Sepulveda was represented by counsel in those proceedings. His 12 counsel obtained an independent psychiatric evaluation of Mr. Sepulveda, which l3 diagnosed Mr. Sepulveda with schizoaffective disorder. The evaluation 14 concluded that he was able to "rationally consult with and aid his counsel," but 15 that without treatment, he would likely become severely delusional, be unable to 16 communicate clearly or make rational decisions rationally, and would hurt 17 himself by acting on his command auditory hallucinations. 18 119. That evaluation also determined that Mr. Sepulveda would not be able to 19 represent himselfpro se, noting that Mr. Sepulveda did not understand why he 20 had to go to immigration court, why he was in immigration detention, what a 21 prosecutor was, or that there was a lawyer representing the Government. It also 22 noted that his "concrete and simple thinking" made it unlikely that he could 23 "organize a defense on his behalf." 24 120. In May 2009, an IJ granted Mr. Sepulveda's application for cancellation of 25 removal. After Mr. Sepulveda's release from DHS custody, he obtained a 26 placement in a Board and Care facility for individuals in need of intensive mental 27 health services. 28
34

Case 2:10-cv-02211-DMG-DTB Document 344 Filed 10/25/11 Page 38 of 56 Page ID #:6975
1 121. On March 29, 2011, Mr. Sepulveda pled no contest to possession of 2 methamphetamine and drug paraphernalia. He served a briefjail sentence and 3 was transfelTed once again to DHS custody. 4 122. DHS initiated the CUlTent proceedings against Mr. Sepulveda in 5 approximately May 2011. On May 16, 2011 an ICE detention officer appeared at 6 Mr. Sepulveda's master calendar hearing and told the IJ that he was a 7 schizophrenic and was "a little off." Mr. Sepulveda then repeatedly told the IJ 8 that he was being held in a cell where he was hearing lots of voices telling him to 9 kill himself, was left without clothes, and was cold. The IJ asked Mr. Sepulveda 10 whether he had been able to contact any family members to assist him. Mr. 11 Sepulveda explained that he was not allowed to make any calls from his cell and 12 that he did not have any money to make phone calls. At the end of the hearing, 13 the IJ asked the DHS prosecutor to try to contact Mr. Sepulveda'S public 14 defenders and prior immigration attorney and ask them how to get in touch with 15 Mr. Sepulveda's relatives. The IJ said he wanted to find Mr. Sepulveda's 16 daughters and expressed concern at what would happen if they weren't willing to 17 help. 18 123. Mr. Sepulveda's subsequent hearings were similarly marked by confusion. 19 He was never able to secure a lawyer or to contact his family. At one point, Mr. 20 Sepulveda explained to the IJ that he believed his former lawyer still represented 21 him. At another, he asked the IJ who in the room was "against him." When the 22 IJ asked him ifhe understood why ICE was trying to depoli him, he responded, "I 23 don't understand anything. I already complied with ICE's sentence." On the day 24 of his final hearing, Mr. Sepulveda told the judge: "I feel dizzy," "my mind 25 hurts," and "I feel crazy. They took me to a mental hospital. I see things 26 swirling around me." 27 124. At a June 23 hearing, despite Mr. Sepulveda's mental infirmity and fear of 28 return to the Dominican Republic, the II ordered him removed without providing
35

Case 2:10-cv-02211-DMG-DTB Document 344 Filed 10/25/11 Page 39 of 56 Page ID #:6976

1 him an opportunity to apply for asylum, withholding of removal, or relief under

2 the Convention Against Torture. The II reserved appeal on Mr. Sepulveda's

3 behalf. At the close of the hearing, Mr. Sepulveda turned to the interpreter and

4 said, "I didn't understand anything." Mr. Sepulveda later confirmed that he did

5 not understand how to appeal his case, despite his fear of return to the Dominican

6 Republic and his desire to remain in the United States.

7 125. In order to prevent Mr. Sepulveda's imminent removal, Plaintiffs' counsel

8 assisted him in preparing a pro se notice of appeal to the Board of Immigration

9 Appeals. In a notice dated September 9,2011, the BrA remanded Mr.

10 Sepulveda's case to the IJ because "indiscernible notations" rendered the IJ's oral

11 decision "incomplete." The BrA instructed the IJ to "ensure preparation of a

12 complete transcript of the proceedings, including a new hearing if necessary."

13 126. Mr. Sepulveda has remained detained, severely mentally impaired, and

14 without legal representation for nearly six months, during which time his mental

15 health has deteriorated. He is currently being held in an isolation cell and reports

16 that although the amount of psychiatric medication he is taking has increased, he

17 continues to hear voices that tell him to kill himself. If he had an attorney, Mr.

18 Sepulveda could pursue an application for asylum, withholding of removal, and

19 relief under the Convention Against TOliure based on his fear of return to the

20 Dominican Republic. He also could likely pursue some form of humanitarian

21 relief before DHS given his long-time legal residence in this country and his

22 serious mental illness. Mr. Sepulveda's next master calendar hearing is set for

23 October 20, 2011.

24

LEGAL BACKGROUND & CLAIMS

25

The Current Regulatory Framework

26 127. The Immigration and Nationality Act ("INA") and corresponding

27 regulations require that all persons in Immigration Court have a "reasonable

28 opportunity" to present, examine and object to evidence. 8 U.S.C.

36

Case 2:10-cv-02211-DMG-DTB Document 344 Filed 10/25/11 Page 40 of 56 Page ID #:6977
1 § 1229a(b)(4)(B); 8 C.F.R. § 1240.10(a)(4). In addition, all persons in removal 2 proceedings have the right to be advised of the charges against them, 8 U.S.C. 3 § 1229(a); 8 C.F.R. § 239.1, and the "privilege of being represented, at no 4 expense to the Government, by counsel of the alien's choosing." 8 U.S.C. 5 § 1229a(b)(4)(A); 8 C.F.R. § 1240.10 (a)(I); 8 C.F.R. § 238.l(b)(2). 6 128. The INA also requires the Attorney General to provide procedural 7 "safeguards" for people in removal proceedings who are incompetent due to 8 serious mental disability and who are not "present" at their proceedings. See 8 9 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(3). But the Attorney General's minimal regulations dealing 10 with persons who have mental disabilities do nothing to provide these 11 "safeguards." The only such regulations are: 12 8 C.F.R. § 1240.10(c), which prohibits Immigration Judges from accepting 13 admissions by unrepresented, incompetent persons, but allows admissions by 14 friends or relatives ofthe person and allows DHS to prove removability without 15 involvement of the incompetent person; 16 8 C.F.R. § 103.5a(c)(2), which requires DHS to serve charging documents upon a 17 known mentally incompetent person by service upon the custodian of the facility 18 where the person is housed and, if possible, "the near relative, guardian, 19 committee, or friend;" and 20 8 C.F.R. § 1240.4, which allows a mentally incompetent person to be represented 21 by a guardian, near relative, friend, or the custodian of the facility where the 22 person is housed. 23 Far from providing "safeguards" to protect the rights of incompetent persons, 24 these regulations merely make it easier to facilitate their removal. 25 129. Most shockingly, none of these regulations-nor any other rules, 26 regulations, policies or procedures adopted by the Attorney General, DI-IS, ICE 27 or EOIR-defines mental incompetence, requires a review of readily available 28 information to determine if the detainee has a serious mental disability, sets fOlih
37

Case 2:10-cv-02211-DMG-DTB Document 344 Filed 10/25/11 Page 41 of 56 Page ID #:6978
1 procedures for determining whether any given person lacks competence to 2 represent himself or herself, or states what, if any, additional safeguards should 3 be provided to a non-citizen found to be incompetent. The regulations also make 4 no provision for appointment of counsel in cases where individuals are not 5 competent to represent themselves, and make no provision for altering the 6 custody status of individuals whose cases have be~n delayed or stopped 7 indefinitely due to their mental disability. 8 The Government's Refusal to Systemically Address this Critical Problem 9 130. While the Attorney General's delegate, EOIR, has acknowledged the 10 absence of needed procedures concerning treatment of people with mental 11 disabilities in the detention and removal system, the Attorney General, Secretary 12 of Homeland Security and corresponding agencies have failed to take measures to 13 ensure fair procedures for this vulnerable population. 14 131. In February of2009, Congress explicitly directed EOIR to "develop[] 15 standards and materials for immigration judges to use in conducting competency 16 evaluations of persons appearing before the courts." 155 Congo Rec. H1762 17 (Feb. 23, 2009) (citing a now binding explanatory statement in Comm. on 18 Appropriations, Illth Cong., Omnibus Appropriations Act 2009, Legislative 19 Text and Explanatory Statement, H.R. 1105, P.L. 111-8, at 175 (Comm. Print 20 2009). To this day, no such materials seemingly exist.? 21
? In 2010, Congress renewed this commitment to ensuring competency procedures 22 in immigration court, stating "EOIR is directed to report to the House and Senate
Committees on Appropriations within 30 days of the enactment of this Act on the 23 status of its efforts to develop this competency bench book. The report should also
address the steps DOJ has taken to provide safeguards for the rights of aliens 24 judged to be mentally incomRetent, as required by 8 U.S.C. 1229a(b)(3)." H.R.
111-149. The report EOIR submitted in May 2010 confirmed that no definition of 25 competency or procedure for obtaining an evaluation has yet been enacted:
"Immigration law has never defined competency or established a legal framework 26 for making competency determinations. The safeguards in the regulations presume
that a finding ofincompetency has already been made. Yet, no authority provides 27 when or how an immigration Judge shoulCl make a comRetency finding."
Executive Office ofImmigratlon Review, Competency Standards Report (2010) at 28 2.
38

Case 2:10-cv-02211-DMG-DTB Document 344 Filed 10/25/11 Page 42 of 56 Page ID #:6979
1 132. In April of2009, the EOIR published an article by Immigration Judge 2 Mimi E. Tsankov, in the Government's Immigration Law Advisor, highlighting 3 the lack of guidance for Immigration Judges faced with respondents who are not 4 competent to represent themselves. Mimi E. Tsankov, Incompetent Respondents 5 in Removal Proceedings, 3 Immigration Law Advisor 1, 17 (2009) (noting the 6 "limited regulatory framework"). Earlier this year, the EOIR added a chapter to 7 the Immigration Judge Benchbook acknowledging the current lack of procedures 8 for identifying and evaluating mental health claims, and the lack of guidelines for 9 providing appropriate safeguards, including the appointment of counsel. EOIR, 10 Immigration Judge Benchbook, 11 http://www.justice.gov/eoir/vlllbenchbook/tools/MHI/index.html. 12 133. In July of2009, a group of 60 advocacy organizations and 11 individuals 13 sent a detailed letter to the Attorney General setting forth the problems facing 14 persons with mental disabilities in immigration proceedings and requesting that 15 the Attorney General utilize his statutory authority to "prescribe safeguards to 16 protect the rights and privileges" of persons whose incompetency prevents them 17 from being present at their hearings, in particular by providing for a right to 18 appointed counsel. See Letter to the Honorable Eric H. Holder, Jr., Attorney 19 General of the United States, U.S. Department of Justice regarding non-citizens 20 with mental disabilities, July 24, 2009, available at 21 http://www.caircoalition.org/wp-content/uploads//2009/09/July-24-Holder22 Letter-final-sent-to-AG-7-24-09.pdf. Nonetheless, the Attorney General has 23 failed to provide any further safeguards. 24 Legal Background and Claims 25 134. Plaintiffs and the proposed class raise both statutory and constitutional 26 challenges to the Government's failure to adopt procedures to deal with the needs 27 of people with mental disabilities in immigration proceedings. Specifically, they 28 contend that federal statutory law as well as the Constitution require the
39

Case 2:10-cv-02211-DMG-DTB Document 344 Filed 10/25/11 Page 43 of 56 Page ID #:6980
1 Government to (1) conduct adequate competency evaluations for all those whom 2 the Government knows or should know may be incompetent to represent 3 themselves, (2) appoint counsel for those found in need of counsel as a result of 4 the evaluations, and (3) conduct custody hearings for those who face prolonged 5 detention as a result of the delays caused by their mental disability. 6 135. Both the statute mandating that the Attorney General provide individuals 7 with "safeguards to protect [their] rights and privileges" and the Constitution 8 require-as a first step-that people with a serious mental disorder or defect 9 receive an adequate competency evaluation. For an evaluation to be "adequate," 10 it must at a minimum have procedures which screen all individuals with a serious 11 mental disorder or defect and ultimately provide independent assessments to 12 those individuals, identified by the screen or otherwise, as likely to be 13 incompetent. The assessment must be conducted by an independent clinician 14 with a license or certification in psychiatry or psychology. The assessment must 15 ultimately be considered by the Immigration Judge at the time of the detainee's 16 immigration proceedings. 17 136. The Supreme Court held more than a century ago that non-citizens present 18 in the United States could not be removed without a hearing. See Yamataya v. 19 Fisher (The Japanese Immigration Case), 189 U.S. 86, 100-10 1 (1903). Subject 20 to certain limitations not relevant to this lawsuit, the Due Process Clause 21 continues to require "a full and fair hearing of [their] claims and a reasonable 22 opportunity to present evidence on [their] behalf." Cinapian v. Holder, 567 F.3d 23 1067, 1073 (9th Cir. 2009). Without an initial competency evaluation, the 24 promise of a "full and fair" hearing for people with serious mental disabilities is 25 an empty one. 26 137. For those detained individuals who are in fact not mentally competent to 27 represent themselves in immigration proceedings, federal statutes and the 28
40

Case 2:10-cv-02211-DMG-DTB Document 344 Filed 10/25/11 Page 44 of 56 Page ID #:6981
1 Constitution also require the appointment of counsel if no counsel is otherwise 2 available to represent them. 3 138. Section 504 ofthe Rehabilitation Act and its implementing regulations 4 require the appointment of counsel as a reasonable accommodation for 5 individuals with mental disabilities who are discriminated against in their access 6 to immigration court services. EOIR's failure to create procedural protections for 7 unrepresented, mentally incompetent detainees in immigration proceedings 8 precludes those with mental disabilities from receiving fair hearings in a number 9 of ways. Absent counsel, such detainees are unable to understand and participate 10 meaningfully in the adversarial process. They are far less likely to contest the 11 charges of removability, and where found removable, less likely to demonstrate 12 eligibility for applications for relief. In addition, the Attorney General's 13 regulations allow a system to exist with lower standards for the representation of 14 an incompetent individual, allowing untrained representatives with potential and 15 unexamined conflicts of interest to waive non-citizens' fundamental rights 16 without their consent or even comprehension. Where such representatives are 17 unavailable, the current system permits Immigration Judges to delay or close 18 cases for an indefinite time, thereby resulting in indefinite detention. Given the 19 many ways individuals with mental disabilities are excluded from accessing 20 justice within the Immigration Courts, EOIR has a duty to accommodate the 21 special needs of people with mental disabilities, just as it does individuals with 22 physical disabilities. 23 139. The Due Process Clause also requires the appointment of counsel for 24 people not competent to represent themselves in immigration proceedings. 25 Without the assistance of legal counsel, individuals who are both unrepresented 26 and not mentally competent cannot understand the proceedings against them and 27 obtain a full and fair hearing. The Supreme Court repeatedly recognized this 28 aspect of Due Process in criminal cases before it recognized the Sixth
41

Case 2:10-cv-02211-DMG-DTB Document 344 Filed 10/25/11 Page 45 of 56 Page ID #:6982

1 Amendment right to appointed counsel in the criminal justice system. Massey v.

2 Moore, 348 U.S. 105, 108 (1954) ("No trial can be fair that leaves the defense to

3 a man who is insane, unaided by counsel, and who by reason of his mental

4 conditions stands helpless and alone before the court."); Wade v. Mayo, 334 U.S.

5 672,684 (1948) (noting that mental incapacity may render individuals incapable

6 of representing themselves, and that in such circumstances "the refusal to appoint

7 counsel is a denial of due process of law under the Fourteenth Amendment.").

8 More recently, several circuit courts have held that the Due Process Clause may

9 in some circumstances require that non-citizens in removal proceedings be 10 afforded appointed counsel.8

II 140. Plaintiffs subject to prolonged detention on account of their disabilities are

12 also entitled to release hearings under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act.

13 Dl-IS' s application of the existing detention statutes to detainees with serious

14 mental disabilities, coupled with the absence of any meaningful EOIR procedures

15 for dealing with "mental competency," leads to disability discrimination because

16 detainees whose cases have been continued or administratively closed on account

17 of their mental disability are at increased risk of languishing in detention without

18 any opportunity to contest their incarceration. For these individuals, a reasonable

19 accommodation would be for DHS to allow them to have a hearing concerning

20

21

22 8 See Lin v. Ashcroft, 377 F.3d 1014, 1033 (9th Cir. 2004) (holding in the

context of unaccompal1led minors placed in removal proceedings that "la]bsent a

23 minor's knowing, intelligent, and voluntary waiver ofthe right to counsel, the IJ

may have to take an affirmative role in securing representatlOn by competent

24

counsel."); United States v. Torres-Sanchez, (" ... in some instances, depriving an alien of

68 the

F.3d 227, 230-3 right to counsel

Im(a8ythriCseir.to19ra9]5)

25 Clue process violation.'')' United States v. Campps-Asencio, 822 F.2a 506, 50'9 (5th

Cir. 1987) (" ... an alien has a right to counsel If the absence of counsel would

26 violate due process under the filth amendment."); Aguiler-Enriquez v. INS, 516

F.2d 565,568 n.3 (6th Cir. 1975) (" ... where an unrepresented indigent alien

27 would require counsel to present his position adequately to an immigration judge,

he must be provided with a lawyer at the Government's expense. Otherwise

28 'fundamental fairness' would be violated.").

42

Case 2:10-cv-02211-DMG-DTB Document 344 Filed 10/25/11 Page 46 of 56 Page ID #:6983

1 the appropriateness of their continued detention in light of their mental 2 disabilities.9
3 141. Finally, both relevant statutes and the u.s. Constitution prohibit DHS from

4 subjecting mentally incompetent individuals to prolonged detention without

5 providing a custody hearing to determine if their detention is justified. Because

6 their mental disabilities and the Government's failure to create a system for

7 dealing with those disabilities result in prolonged detention for many of these

8 individuals, the immigration statutes and the Due Process Clause require that they

9 be provided individualized bond hearings to determine whether or not their

10 ongoing detention is justified.

11

CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS

12 142. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23, Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of

13 themselves and all other similarly-situated individuals. Plaintiffs do not seek

14 claims for compensatory relief. Instead, Plaintiffs seek injunctive relief broadly

15 applicable to members of the Plaintiff Class, Subclass-1 and Subclass-2 as

16 defined below. The requirements of Rule 23, and in particular Rule n(b)(2), are

17 met with respect to the classes defined below.

18 143. The plaintiff-class ("Plaintiff Class") consists of:

19 All individuals who are or will be in DHS custody for removal proceedings in

20 California, Arizona, and Washington who have been identified by or to medical

21 personnel, DHS, or an Immigration Judge, as having a serious mental disorder

22 or defect that may render them incompetent to represent themselves in detention

23

24

25 9 See, generally, Alexander v. Choate, 469 U.S. 287, 302 n.21 (1985) (stating that "[t]he regulations implementing Section 504 are consistent with the view that
26 reasonable adjustments in the nature of the benefit must be made to assure meaningful access."); School Board ofNassau County, Fla. v. Arline, 480 U.S.
27 273 (19E7) (underscoring the importance of individualized hearings under Section 504 ofthe Rehab Act to aetermine whether an individual has a qualifying
28 disability and, if so, whether reasonable accommodations can be made).

43

Case 2:10-cv-02211-DMG-DTB Document 344 Filed 10/25/11 Page 47 of 56 Page ID #:6984
1 or removal proceedings, and who presently lack counsel in their detention or 2 removal proceedings. 3 144. In addition, a first sub-class of individuals ("Sub-Class 1") is defined as: 4 Individuals in the above-named Plaintiff Class who have a serious mental 5 disorder or defect that renders them incompetent to represent themselves in 6 detention or removal proceedings. 7 145. Further, a second sub-class of individuals ("Sub-Class 2") is defined as: S Individuals in the above-named Plaintiff Class who have been detained/or more 9 than six months. lO 146. Each of the Plaintiff Class, Sub-Class 1 and Sub-Class 2 (collectively, the 11 "Classes") is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable. The 12 number of individuals in DRS custody who are incompetent to represent 13 themselves in removal proceedings due to a serious mental disorder or defect is 14 not known with precision. It fluctuates continually as DRS takes immigrants into 15 its custody for removal proceedings. The size of each of the Classes also varies 16 as Immigration Courts rule in favor or against removal from the United States. 17 The number of members of the Classes is believed to be in the hundreds, based IS on internal DRS estimates that two to five percent of immigrants in custody have 19 a serious mental illness. 10 20 147. Moreover, members of the Classes reside in various DRS detention 21 facilities across the western United States. Joinder of the members of the Classes 22 23 24 [0 See Selected responses from ICE to questions posed by The Washington Post
regarding the provision a/mental heafth care to immigration detainees, May 25 20-0S, http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-
srv/nation/syecials/immigration/documents/day3 ice mentalhealth.gif (accessed 26 May 11,20 0); see also Dr. Dora Schriro, Dep'tonromeland Security,
Immigration Detention Overview and Recommendations 2 (2009), 27 htty:l/www.ice.gov/doclibl
09 005 ice detention report-final. pdf {accessed July 30, 20lO) (stating that 2S 378,5STpersons were aetained by fCE in FY 200S).
44

Case 2:10-cv-02211-DMG-DTB Document 344 Filed 10/25/11 Page 48 of 56 Page ID #:6985

1 in one case would create significant challenges to the efficient administration of

2 justice that make the joinder of the members of the Classes impracticable.

3 148. Further, there are questions oflaw and fact common to the members of the

4 Classes. Common questions of law include but are not limited to the following:

5 a.

Whether it is unlawful to conduct any immigration proceedings for any

6

member of the Plaintiff Class without first evaluating whether that

7

person is competent to represent himself or herself, when there is a

8

bona fide doubt raised regarding his or her competency;

9 b.

Whether the United States Constitution or federal statutory law requires

10

the Government to conduct adequate competency evaluations for all

11

those who may not be competent to represent themselves in

12

immigration proceedings;

13 c.

Whether the United States Constitution or federal statutory law requires

14

the Government to appoint counsel for those found incompetent to

15

represent themselves as a result of the evaluations;

16 d.

Whether the United States Constitution or federal statutory law requires

17

that the Government conduct custody hearings for those who face

18

prolonged detention as a result of the delays caused by their mental

19

disability; and

20 e.

Whether the regulations promulgated by the Attorney General are truly

21

"safeguards" and whether those suffering from a mental disability may

22

receive a fair hearing with those "safeguards."

23 149. The claims ofthe named Plaintiffs are typical of the claims of the Plaintiff

24 Class. Plaintiffs know of no conflict between their interests and those of the

25 Classes they seek to represent. The members of the Plaintiff Class can be readily

26 identified through notice and discovery. In defending their own rights, the

27 individual Plaintiffs will defend the rights of all proposed Plaintiff Class

28 members. Plaintiffs have retained counsel experienced in class litigation and in

45

Case 2:10-cv-02211-DMG-DTB Document 344 Filed 10/25/11 Page 49 of 56 Page ID #:6986

1 immigration law to represent them and the Classes for the purpose of this

2 litigation.

3 150. Defendants have acted, or refused to act, on grounds generally applicable

4 to each member of the Plaintiff Class, insofar as they have failed to provide

5 Plaintiffs and the members ofthe Classes with an adequate mental competency

6 evaluation utilizing appropriate standards to determine if they are competent to

7 represent themselves, and failed to provide Plaintiffs and members of Sub-Class

8 1 with counsel in the event that the evaluation found a person to be unable to

9 represent himself or herself in removal proceedings. With respect to Sub-Class 2,

10 Defendants have detained members of that Sub-Class for longer than six months

11 without a custody hearing.

12 151. A class action is superior to other methods available for the fair and

13 efficient adjudication of this controversy because joinder of all members of the

14 Classes is impracticable. Further, members of these Classes are unrepresented in

15 these immigration proceedings and, absent the relief sought here, there would be

16 no other way for the Plaintiff Class members to individually redress the wrongs

17 suffered by them.

18

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

19

Violation ofImmigration and Nationality Act

20 (Against All Defendants by all Plaintiffs Except Franco and Woldemariam)

21

(Right to an Adequate Competency Evaluation)

22 152. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference each and every allegation

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

24 153. The Immigration and Nationality Act requires that Plaintiffs be afforded

25 adequate evaluations to determine whether they are mentally competent to

26 represent themselves. 8 U.S.C. 1229a(b)(3).

27

28

46

Case 2:10-cv-02211-DMG-DTB Document 344 Filed 10/25/11 Page 50 of 56 Page ID #:6987

1 154. Plaintiffs and the Plaintiff Classes have suffered and will imminently suffer

2 irreparable injury as a proximate result of this conduct, and are entitled to

3 injunctive relief to avoid that injury.

4

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

5

Violation of Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause

6 (Against All Defendants by all Plaintiffs Except Franco and Woldemariam)

7

(Right to an Adeqnate Competency Evaluation)

8 155. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference each and every allegation

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

10 156. The Due Process Clause requires that Plaintiffs be afforded adequate

11 evaluations to determine whether they are mentally competent to represent

12 themselves.

13 157. Plaintiffs and the Plaintiff Classes have suffered and will imminently suffer

14 irreparable injury as a proximate cause of this failure to act, and are entitled to

15 injunctive reliefto avoid any injury.

16

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

17

Violation of Immigration and Nationality Act

18 (Against all Defendants by all Plaintiffs Except Franco and Woldemariam)

19

(Right to Appointed Counsel)

20 158. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference each and every allegation

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

22 159. The Immigration and Nationality Act's requirement that all people in

23 removal proceedings be afforded a reasonable opportunity to examine and

24 present evidence and witnesses, see 8 U.S.C. 1229a(b)(4)(B), requires that

25 unrepresented individuals who are not mentally competent to represent

26 themselves be afforded appointed counsel in their immigration detention and

27 removal proceedings, if they are unable to secure counsel by other means.

28

47

Case 2:10-cv-02211-DMG-DTB Document 344 Filed 10/25/11 Page 51 of 56 Page ID #:6988

1 160. Plaintiffs and the Plaintiff Classes have suffered and will imminently suffer

2 irreparable injury as a proximate conduct ofthis failing and are entitled to

3 injunctive relief to avoid any injury.

4

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION

5

Violation of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act

6 (Against All Defendants by All Plaintiffs Except Franco and Woldemariam)

7

(Right to Appointed Counsel)

8 161. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference each and every allegation

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

10 162. Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act and its implementing regulations

11 require the appointment of counsel as a reasonable accommodation for

12 unrepresented individuals with mental disabilities that render them incompetent

13 to represent themselves in immigration detention and removal proceedings.

14 163. Plaintiffs and the Plaintiff Classes have suffered and will imminently suffer

15 irreparable injury as a result of this failure to provide accommodations and are

16 entitled to injunctive reliefto avoid any injury.

17

FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION

18

Violation of Fifth Amendment Due Process

19 (Against all Defendants by all Plaintiffs Except Franco and Woldemariam)

20

(Right to Appointed Counsel)

21 164. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference each and every allegation

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

23 165. The Due Process Clause requires that unrepresented non-citizens who are

24 not mentally competent to represent themselves in immigration detention and

25 removal proceedings be afforded appointed counsel ifthey are unable to obtain

26 counsel by other means.

27

28

48

Case 2:10-cv-02211-DMG-DTB Document 344 Filed 10/25/11 Page 52 of 56 Page ID #:6989

1 166. Plaintiffs and the Plaintiff Classes have suffered and will imminently suffer

2 irreparable injury by this failure to act and are entitled to injunctive relief to avoid

3 any ll1Jury.

4

SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION

5

Violation ofImmigration and Nationality Act (Right to Release)

6

(Against all Defendants by Franco)

7 167. Plaintiff-Petitioner Franco realleges and incorporates by reference each and

8 every allegation contained in the preceding paragraphs as if set forth filily herein.

9 168. Plaintiff-Petitioner Franco is entitled to immediate release from detention

10 because the Government's unreasonable delay in pursuing removal proceedings

11 renders his detention unauthorized by the Immigration and Nationality Act.

12

SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION

13

Violation of Fifth Amendment Due Process

14

(Right to Release)

15

(Against All Defendants by Franco)

16 169. Plaintiff-Petitioner Franco realleges and incorporates by reference each and

17 every allegation contained in the preceding paragraphs as if set fotih fully herein.

18 170. Defendant-Respondents' continued detention of Mr. Franco has become so

19 prolonged that it is no longer reasonably related to its purpose of effecting

20 removal and therefore violates the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment

21 to the U.S. Constitution.

22

EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION

23

Violation of Immigration and Nationality Act

24

(Against All Defendants by all Plaintiffs)

25

(Right to a Detention Hearing)

26 171. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference each and every allegation

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

28

49

Case 2:10-cv-02211-DMG-DTB Document 344 Filed 10/25/11 Page 53 of 56 Page ID #:6990

1 172. Defendants' continued detention of Plaintiffs without a hearing violates the

2 Immigration and Nationality Act, because no immigration detention statute

3 authorizes their detention for a prolonged period of time, absent a hearing where

4 the Government bears the burden to prove that their prolonged detention remains

5 justified in light of their mental disabilities and the attendant delays in their

6 removal proceedings.

7 173. Plaintiffs and the Plaintiff Classes have suffered and will imminently suffer

8 irreparable injury as a result of this conduct and are entitled to injunctive relief to

9 avoid that injury.

10

NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION

11

Violation of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act and

12

Implementing Regulations

13

(Against all Defendants by all Plaintiffs)

14

(Right to a Detention Hearing)

15 174. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference each and every allegation

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

17 175. Section 504 ofthe Rehabilitation Act and its implementing regulations

18 require the provision of detention hearings where the Government bears the

19 burden to prove that prolonged detention remains justified, notwithstanding

20 Plaintiffs' mental disabilities and attendant delays in removal proceedings, as a

21 reasonable accommodation for detained individuals with mental disabilities who

22 have suffered prolonged detention.

23 176. Plaintiffs and the Plaintiff Classes have suffered and will imminently suffer

24 irreparable injury as a result of this failing and are entitled to injunctive relief to

25 avoid any injury.

26

27

28

50

Case 2:10-cv-02211-DMG-DTB Document 344 Filed 10/25/11 Page 54 of 56 Page ID #:6991

1

TENTH CAUSE OF ACTION

2

Violation of Fifth Amendment Due Process

3

(Against all Defendants by all Plaintiffs)

4

(Right to a Detention Hearing)

5 177. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference each and every allegation

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

7 178. Defendants' continued detention of Plaintiffs without a hearing where the

8 Government bears the burden to prove that their prolonged detention remains

9 justified in light of their mental disability and the attendant delays in their

10 removal proceedings violates their right to be free of prolonged non-criminal

11 detention without adequate justification and sufficient procedural safeguards, as

12 guaranteed by the Due Process Clause.

13 179. Plaintiffs and the Plaintiff Classes have suffered and will imminently suffer

14 irreparable injury as a right of this failing and are entitled to injunctive relief to

15 avoid any injury.

16

ELEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION

17

Violation of the Administrative Procedures Act

18

(Against All Defendants by all Plaintiffs)

19 180. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference each and every allegation

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

21 181. 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(3) of the INA requires Defendants to prescribe

22 safeguards to protect Plaintiffs' rights and privileges in immigration proceedings.

23 182. Defendants' continued failure~for an unreasonable period of more than

24 50 years~to promulgate and implement meaningful regulations in compliance

25 with this Congressional mandate violates the Administrative Procedure Act, 5

26 U.S.C. § 702, et seq.

27 183. Plaintiffs and the Plaintiffs Classes have suffered and will imminently

28 suffer irreparable injury as a proximate result of Defendants' failure to act.

5 I

Case 2:10-cv-02211-DMG-DTB Document 344 Filed 10/25/11 Page 55 of 56 Page ID #:6992

1

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

2

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs and Petitioners respectfully request that the Court

3 grant the following relief:

4 a. Certify a class pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 in accordance

5 with the allegations ofthis Amended Complaint and the forthcoming class

6 certification motion;

7 b. Grant preliminary injunctive relief for the named Plaintiffs in accordance

8 with the forthcoming motions for preliminary injunction;

9 c. Declare that Defendants' failure to afford Plaintiffs and other class

10 members with adequate competency evaluations, appointed counsel, and detention

11 hearings violates federal statutory and constitutional law;

12 d. Order the Government to provide all class members with adequate

13 competency evaluations, to provide qualifying class members with appointed

14 counsel, and to provide qualifying class members with adequate detention

15 hearings;

16 e. Alternatively, appoint counsel to represent Plaintiffs and other class

17 members in their immigration proceedings, which includes all proceedings before

18 the Immigration Judge, the BIA, and any petitions for review in the Coutis of

19 Appeal, pursuant to the Criminal Justice Act;

20 f. Grant such other relief as the Court deems just and equitable, including but

21 not limited to fees under the Rehabilitation Act, Equal Access to Justice Act, and

22 any other applicable statute or regulation.

23

24

Respectfully submitted,

25
26
Dated: October 25,2011 27
28

ACLU OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
~Bl~Z-~
Attorney for Plaintiffs-Petitioners

52

Case 2:10-cv-02211-DMG-DTB Document 344 Filed 10/25/11 Page 56 of 56 Page ID #:6993

1

PROOF OF SERVICE

2 STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

3

I am employed in the County of Los Angeles, State of California. I am over

4 the age of 18 and not a party to the within action. My business address is 1313

5 West Eighth Street, Los Angeles, California 90017. I am employed in the office of

6 a member of the bar of this cowt at whose direction the service was made.

7

On October 25,2011, I served the following document:

8 THIRD AMENDED CLASS-ACTION COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY

9 AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS

10 CORPUS on the parties in this action by enclosing a true and correct copy of said

11 document in a sealed envelope, addressed as follows:

12 Victor Lawrence US DOJOffice ofImmigration Litigation
13 District Court Section 450 5th Street, NW
14 Room 6052 Washington, DC 20530
15

16

I caused such envelope(s) to be placed in the United States Mail at Los

17 Angeles, California. I am "readily familiar" with the firm's practice of collection

18 and processing correspondence for mailing. Under that practice it would be

19 deposited with the US Postal Service on that same day with postage thereon fully

20 prepaid at Los Angeles, California in the ordinary course of business.

21

I also caused said document to be delivered by electronic mail to Mr.

22 Lawrence's email address, Victor.Lawrence@usdoj.gov.

23

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California

24 that the above is true and correct.

25

Executed on October 25,2011, at Los Angeles, California.

26

27

28

 
 Case 2:10-cv-02211-DMG-DTB Document 285 Filed 08/02/11 Page 1 of 13 Page ID #:5227

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

11 JOSE ANTONIO FRANCO-GONZALES, ) Case No. CV 10-02211 DMG (DTBx)

ET AL.,

)

12

Petitioner,

) ORDER RE PLAINTIFF YONAS

13

v.

) WOLDEMARIAM’S MOTION FOR A

14 ERIC H. HOLDER, JR. ATTORNEY

) PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION )

15 GENERAL, ET AL.,

)

16

Respondents.

)

)

17

18

19

This matter is before the Court on the Motion for a Preliminary Injunction filed by

20 Plaintiff Yonas Woldemariam (“Plaintiff”). The Court held a hearing on July 29, 2011.1

21

22
1 Plaintiffs originally brought their Motion as to Plaintiff Woldemariam and putative plaintiff
23 Jose Antonio Moreno-Vasquez. In the Order dated July 18, 2011, however, the Court determined that

24

because Moreno had been provided with both representation and a custody hearing, Moreno did not have standing and therefore denied Plaintiffs’ motion to add him as a new Named Plaintiff. [Doc. #

25 242.] Accordingly, the Court addresses Plaintiffs’ Motion only as to Plaintiff Woldemariam. On July

28, 2011, Plaintiffs filed a Notice of Lodging Alternative Second Amended Class Action Complaint
26 [Doc. # 248] stating that Moreno did not have representation, and is not represented, in his removal

27 proceedings. At the July 29, 2011 hearing, Defendants asserted that Moreno may have counsel on his
appeal before the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”). In light of the lack of clarity regarding the

28 status of Moreno’s representation, the Court will defer ruling on whether the Court’s July 18, 2011

Order regarding Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint [Doc. #242] should be

-1-

Case 2:10-cv-02211-DMG-DTB Document 285 Filed 08/02/11 Page 2 of 13 Page ID #:5228

1 Having duly considered the respective positions of the parties, as presented in their briefs

2 and at oral argument, the Court now renders its decision. For the reasons set forth below,

3 Plaintiff’s Motion is GRANTED.

4

I.

5

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

6

On June 13, 2011, Plaintiff Yonas Woldemariam filed a Motion for a Preliminary

7 Injunction. Defendants filed an Opposition on June 29, 2011 and Plaintiff filed a Reply

8 on July 13, 2011.

9

II.

10

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

11

Plaintiff Woldemariam is a 48-year-old lawful permanent resident. He is

12 ethnically Eritrean, although he was born in Ethiopia. (Decl. of Yohannes Woldemariam

13 [Doc. # 217-3] (“Woldemariam Decl.”) ¶ 2.) Woldemariam arrived in the United States

14 on a non-immigrant visa in 1979, when he was approximately 16 years old.

15 (Woldemariam Decl. ¶ 4.) Woldemariam became a lawful permanent resident on

16 September 11, 1983. (Decl. of Ahilan Arulanantham [Doc. # 217-2] (“Arulanantham

17 Decl.”) ¶ 25, Ex. 171.)

18

On September 2, 2010, United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement

19 (“ICE”) took custody of Woldemariam. (Decl. of Neelam Ihsanullah [Doc. # 232-1]

20 (“Ihsanullah Decl.”) ¶ 4, Ex. 3.) The Notice to Appear (“NTA”) charged Woldemariam

21 with being removable under Section 237(a)(2)(A)(iii) of the Immigration and Nationality

22 Act, as amended (“INA”), for having been “convicted of an aggravated felony as defined

23 in section 101(a)(43)(G) of the act, a law relating to a theft offense (including receipt of

24

25

26

27
amended, pending the Court’s review of the parties’ supplemental briefs on this matter. The Motion for
28 Preliminary Injunction as to Moreno is hereby taken under submission.

-2-

Case 2:10-cv-02211-DMG-DTB Document 285 Filed 08/02/11 Page 3 of 13 Page ID #:5229

1 stolen property) or burglary offense for which the term of imprisonment at least 1 year 2 was imposed.”2 (Arulanantham Decl. ¶ 25, Ex. 171.)

3

Woldemariam is currently detained at the Sacramento County Jail. (Woldemariam

4 Decl. ¶ 13.)

5 A. Woldemariam’s Psychiatric Evaluation

6

Woldemariam has been diagnosed with schizoaffective disorder, bipolar type.

7 (Ihsanullah Decl. ¶ 7, Ex. 6.) According to Roz Wright, Psy.D., a staff psychologist at

8 Bay Area Psychological Testing Associates in San Francisco, who conducted a

9 psychiatric evaluation of Plaintiff at the Yuba County Jail on January 8, 2011, Plaintiff

10 “suffers from a severe, chronic mental illness,” which “renders him exceptionally

11 vulnerable.” (Id. at 6-7.)

12

Dr. Wright states that although Plaintiff is receiving mental health care and taking

13 anti-depressant and anti-psychotic medications, Plaintiff:

14

continues to suffer from significant affective distress,

15

delusional beliefs, and auditory hallucinations . . . [and]

16

continues to hear angry voices in his head, many of which he

17

believes are the product of an evil, all-knowing and all-

18

powerful being intent on harming him.

19 (Id. at 5.) Dr. Wright noted that Plaintiff arrived to the interview with tissue in his ears,

20 which Plaintiff explained “was there to help lower the volume of ‘the voices’ and to

21 block out environmental sounds exacerbate [sic] his anxiety.” (Id.) Plaintiff explained to

22 Dr. Wright that “the ‘voices in (his) head’ are symptoms of his mental illness . . . he is

23 constantly ‘fighting against them’ . . . [and that] the voices belong to ‘evil spirits’ and

24 ‘demons’ whose intention it is to harm him.” (Id. at 6.)

25

26

27

2 The NTA indicates that on March 17, 2009, Plaintiff was convicted of second degree robbery in

violation of Cal. Penal Code § 211 and was sentenced to serve two years at the California Department of

28 Corrections.” (Arulanantham Decl. ¶ 25, Ex. 171.)

-3-

Case 2:10-cv-02211-DMG-DTB Document 285 Filed 08/02/11 Page 4 of 13 Page ID #:5230

1

Plaintiff believes that “his psychosis is controlled by a ‘switch’ that doctors

2 implanted in his head when he was hospitalized years ago following a car accident.” (Id.)

3 B. Immigration Court Proceedings

4

Plaintiff appeared pro se before Hon. Michael J. Yamaguchi, Judge of the San

5 Francisco Immigration Court, on September 27, 2010 and on October 18, 2010. At each

6 of those hearings, Judge Yamaguchi continued Plaintiff’s removal proceedings in order to

7 permit Plaintiff to retain counsel. On November 8, 2010, attorney Kira Murray entered

8 her appearance on Plaintiff’s behalf. (Ihsanullah Decl. ¶ 5, Ex. 4.)

9

Ms. Murray has twice sought and received continuances in Plaintiff’s case in order

10 to secure an expert report and to obtain a psychiatric evaluation that would assess

11 Plaintiff’s competency for purposes of removal proceedings. On March 24, 2011, Ms.

12 Murray filed a motion to continue Plaintiff’s individual merits hearing, then set for April

13 12, 2011 or, in the alternative, to change the merits hearing to a competency hearing.

14 (Ihsanullah Decl. ¶ 7, Ex. 6.) Ms. Murray attached Dr. Wright’s psychological evaluation

15 and requested additional time for Dr. Wright to evaluate Plaintiff’s “level of competence

16 and ability to testify meaningfully in his own removal proceedings.” (Id.) Judge

17 Yamaguchi granted Plaintiff’s motion on March 25, 2011. (Id.)

18

On June 8, 2011, Ms. Murray filed a request for a bond hearing for Plaintiff.

19 (Ihsanullah Decl. ¶ 8, Ex. 7.) In their opposition, Defendants argued that Plaintiff was

20 not eligible for a custody hearing because he was detained pursuant to section 236(c) of

21 the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”) and because “the extensive continuances”

22 were attributable, “in significant part, to the respondent’s own requests.” (Id.) On June

23 20, 2011, the Immigration Judge denied Plaintiff’s request because he “agree[d] with the

24 reasons stated in the opposition to the motion” and because Plaintiff was in “mandatory

25 custody per 236(c).” (Ihsanullah Decl. ¶ 9, Ex. 8.)

26

According to Plaintiff, a competency hearing was set for Plaintiff on July 19, 2011.

27 (Mot. at 9.) Neither party presents the Court with evidence establishing whether the

28 hearing was, in fact, held and/or the results of such hearing.

-4-

Case 2:10-cv-02211-DMG-DTB Document 285 Filed 08/02/11 Page 5 of 13 Page ID #:5231

1

III.

2

DISCUSSION

3

“Toutes choses sont dites déjà; mais comme personne n’écoute,

4

il faut toujours recommencer.”3

5

André Gide, Le Traité du Narcisse (1892)

6

Plaintiff seeks a custody hearing at which the Government must justify his

7 continued detention on the basis that he is either a flight risk or that he will be a danger to

8 the community.

9 A. Plaintiff Is Likely To Succeed On The Merits Of His Claims

10

Defendants contend that Plaintiff is ineligible for the injunctive relief he seeks

11 because Plaintiff is subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c) and not

12 eligible for a bond hearing so long as the detention is reasonable or expeditious and

13 because Plaintiff is required to first exhaust all administrative remedies. Defendants also

14 assert jurisdictional arguments which the Court will address first.

15

1. The Court’s Jurisdiction Over this Action

16

As a preliminary matter, Defendants argue that the Court is without jurisdiction to

17 provide Mr. Woldemariam the relief he seeks because none of the named Defendants are 18 proper respondents and because he is not confined within this district.4 In support of

19

20

3 As André Gide, the French author, once observed, “Everything has been said already; but as no

21 one listens, we must always begin again.”

22

4 Defendants also argue that, under Zepeda v. U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service, 753

F.2d 719 (9th Cir. 1983), the Court may issue an injunction only if it has personal jurisdiction over the

23 parties and subject matter jurisdiction over the claim and may not attempt to determine the rights of

24

persons not before the Court. (Defs.’ Opp’n at 7 n.1.) It is unclear why Defendants think that Zepeda is relevant here. The Court’s orders granting preliminary injunctions to date have been narrowly tailored

25 to the circumstances of the individual plaintiffs who have sought injunctive relief. Here, the parties have

not challenged the Court’s personal jurisdiction over them. Indeed, personal jurisdiction can be, and has
26 been, waived. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(1). Insofar as Defendants assert that Woldemariam’s Motion

27 should be denied for improper venue, the Court finds that Defendants have waived such a defense as
well. Id. Plaintiffs point out that Defendants’ assertions regarding venue would also have applied to

28 Plaintiffs Khukhryanskiy (Tacoma), Martinez (San Diego), and Zhalezny (Sacramento), but that

Defendants have not, until now, ever raised a challenge to venue. See Wachovia Bank v. Schmidt, 546

-5-

Case 2:10-cv-02211-DMG-DTB Document 285 Filed 08/02/11 Page 6 of 13 Page ID #:5232

1 their position, Defendants cite to Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 124 S.Ct. 2711

2 (2004), where the Supreme Court held that whenever a 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas

3 petitioner seeks to challenge his present physical custody, he should name his warden as

4 respondent and file the petition in the district of confinement. Id. at 447. Padilla is 5 inapposite here simply because Plaintiff does not bring a habeas corpus petition.5 The

6 question currently before the Court is not “[Plaintiff’s] physical confinement,” as

7 Defendants frame it (Defs.’ Opp’n at 7 n.1), or whether Plaintiff should now be released,

8 but rather, whether Plaintiff is entitled to a bond hearing at which the Government will

9 bear the burden of establishing that his confinement is necessary. Unlike in Padilla,

10 where the petitioner filed a habeas petition alleging that his military detention was

11 unconstitutional, Plaintiff in this case contends that, due to his prolonged detention,

12 Defendants’ failure to provide him with a bond hearing is unconstitutional.

13

Thus, while Plaintiff’s ultimate goal may be his release from detention, Plaintiff

14 would not be entitled to such relief from this Court notwithstanding that he prevails on

15 this Motion. The only relief he will obtain here is a custody hearing.

16

2. Extension of the Six-Month Rule to Section 1226(c) Detentions

17

Defendants themselves acknowledge that mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. §

18 1226(c) is authorized only for the “‘limited period’ necessary to complete removal

19 proceedings” and the Ninth Circuit has held that mandatory detention is authorized only

20 insofar as removal proceedings are “expeditious.” (Opp’n at 8-9, referring to Casas-

21 Castrillon v. Dep’t of Homeland Security, 535 F.3d 942, 951 (9th Cir. 2008).) When a

22

23

24
U.S. 303, 316, 126 S.Ct. 941, 163 L.Ed.2d 797 (2006) (affirming that venue is “largely a matter of
25 litigational convenience” and waived if not timely raised).

26

5 While Plaintiffs assert subject matter jurisdiction in this case under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 “to

27 consider the claims of Plaintiff-Petitioners whose immigration cases are supervised within this judicial
district,” Plaintiffs also invoke this Court’s jurisdiction based on the existence of a federal question

28 under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. (2d Am. Compl. ¶ 7.)

-6-

Case 2:10-cv-02211-DMG-DTB Document 285 Filed 08/02/11 Page 7 of 13 Page ID #:5233

1 detention has become prolonged under section 1226(c) and there is no determinate end to

2 detention in sight, the authority to detain shifts to 8 U.S.C § 1226(a). Id. at 948.

3

While Casas-Castrillon did not define what constitutes a “prolonged” period, the

4 Ninth Circuit later extended the Supreme Court’s definition of what is presumptively

5 reasonable in the 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(6) removal context—i.e., a six-month detention

6 period—to pre-removal discretionary detentions under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a). See

7 Rodriguez v. Hayes, 591 F.3d 1105, 1115 (9th Cir. 2010); accord Diouf v. Napolitano,

8 634 F.3d 1081, 1092 (9th Cir. 2011) (holding that detention is prolonged when it has

9 lasted six months and is expected to continue more than minimally beyond six months).

10 Defendants, in effect, seek reconsideration of the Court’s prior rulings requiring a bond

11 hearing where plaintiffs detained under section 1226(c) have suffered “prolonged”

12 detention as that concept has been defined by Ninth Circuit precedents. The Court will

13 not revisit those arguments now.

14

Defendants also urge the Court to find that even if a detention longer than six

15 months is presumptively unreasonable under Casas-Castrillon, such a presumption is

16 rebuttable based on a consideration of various factors, such as the length of the detention,

17 the conduct of the alien during removal proceedings, whether the Government acted

18 promptly to advance its interests, the probable extent of future removal proceedings, and

19 the likelihood that removal proceedings actually will result in removal. As explained

20 below, the Court is not persuaded by Defendants’ contentions, especially given the

21 factual context of this case.

22

Defendants rely on Alli v. Decker, 644 F. Supp. 2d 535 (M.D. Penn. 2009), to

23 support its call for a “flexible” approach. In Alli, however, the court noted the “divergent

24 approaches” taken by the Ninth Circuit in Casas-Castrillon and the Sixth Circuit in Ly v.

25 Hansen, 351 F. 3d 263 (6th Cir. 2003). The Alli court adopted the Sixth Circuit’s

26 approach and construed section 1226(c) as authorizing mandatory detention for “a period

27 of time reasonably necessary to promptly initiate and conclude removal proceedings” and

28 that an alien must first make a showing through a habeas petition that detention is no

-7-

Case 2:10-cv-02211-DMG-DTB Document 285 Filed 08/02/11 Page 8 of 13 Page ID #:5234

1 longer reasonable. 644 F. Supp. 2d at 541. In contrast, the Ninth Circuit held in Casas-

2 Castrillon that the Government may not detain a lawful permanent resident for a

3 “prolonged period” without providing him a neutral forum in which to contest the

4 necessity of his continued detention. Casas-Castrillon, 535 F.3d at 949. Whereas the

5 Sixth Circuit places the burden on the detainee to demonstrate that detention is no longer

6 reasonable, the Ninth Circuit places the burden on the Government to establish whether

7 continued detention is justified. Id. at 951; see also Singh v. Holder, 638 F.3d 1196, 1203

8 (9th Cir. 2011) (affirming that burden of establishing whether detention is justified falls

9 on the Government and that Government must do so with clear and convincing evidence).

10 Obviously, this Court is bound by Ninth Circuit precedent.

11

Defendants argue that a bright-line “six-month rule” creates “perverse incentives

12 for gamesmanship” because petitioners could, with the aid of the courts, prolong their

13 removal proceedings and their detention regardless of agency diligence. Defendants’

14 position is disingenuous in the context of mentally incompetent detainees. Defendants

15 attribute four continuances and a 211-day delay to Plaintiff, even though the Immigration

16 Judge granted the first two continuances in order to provide Plaintiff, then pro se, with an

17 opportunity to find counsel, and the fourth continuance to allow for a competency hearing

18 to determine Plaintiff’s ability to testify meaningfully in his own removal proceedings.

19 While such continuances were undoubtedly granted in order to protect Plaintiff’s rights,

20 Defendants cannot, in good faith, contend that the lack of safeguards, which jeopardized

21 Plaintiff’s rights in the first place, were attributable to Plaintiff. It is Defendants’

22 characterization of Plaintiff’s efforts to safeguard his rights as “gamesmanship” that the 23 Court finds perverse.6 Presumably, if Defendants had an orderly system in place to

24

25

6 Even accepting Defendants’ position that only 86 days in detention (as of June 29, 2011) were not attributable to continuances granted by the Immigration Judge for the purpose of ensuring Plaintiff’s

26 constitutional rights were protected, Defendants fail to explain why Mr. Woldemariam continues to be

mandatorily detained under section 1226(c) now, with no end in sight. (Defs.’ Opp’n at 16.) The
27 Supreme Court emphasized in Demore that detention under section 1226(c) “lasts roughly a month and a

28

half in the vast majority of cases in which it is invoked.” Demore, 538 U.S. at 530. Six months represents the outer limit of reasonableness, not the threshold. See Diouf, 645 F.3d at 1092 n. 13.

-8-

Case 2:10-cv-02211-DMG-DTB Document 285 Filed 08/02/11 Page 9 of 13 Page ID #:5235

1 safeguard Plaintiff’s rights without undue delay, there would have been no need for the

2 Immigration Judge to grant the lengthy continuances.

3

As the Court noted in its May 4, 2011 Order, an individual, like Plaintiff

4 Woldemariam, who is a lawful permanent resident and who has yet to receive a final

5 order of removal, has a stronger liberty interest in being free from governmental

6 detention than someone like Mr. Diouf, who was collaterally attacking a removal order.

7 See Diouf, 634 F.3d at 1086-87. In Diouf, the Government took the position that it has a

8 stronger interest in detaining the latter type of alien, i.e., one who is “at least as a

9 theoretical matter, closer to actual removal from the United States.” Id. at 1087.

10

Defendants posit that the Court need not feel constrained to follow the Ninth

11 Circuit’s decision in Diouf, because Diouf does not address prolonged detention under 12 section 1226(c).7 This argument is a bit of a non-sequitur. In its May 4, 2011 Order, the

13 Court clarified that with respect to Plaintiffs Khukhryanskiy, Martinez, and Zhalezny, the

14 statutory authority for their prolonged detention had shifted from section 1226(c) to

15 section 1226(a). In doing so, the Court explained that it was relying by analogy on the

16 reasoning in the Supreme Court’s decision in Demore v. Kim, 538 U.S. 510, 517-18, 123

17 S.Ct. 1708, 155 L.Ed.2d 724 (2003) and the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Casas-Castrillon,

18 535 F.3d at 948. The Court’s analysis in that regard still stands and need not be repeated

19 here.

20 //

21

22

7 Citing Carver v. Lehman, 558 F.3d 869 (9th Cir. 2009), Defendants also argue that Diouf is not

binding precedent because no mandate has issued yet. See id. at 878 (noting that opinions do not
23 become final until mandate issues and reliance on the opinion is a “gamble”). The Court does not agree

24 that this matters. This Court noted Diouf’s holding that “[a]s a general matter, detention is prolonged
when it last[s] six months and is expected to continue more than minimally beyond six months,” because

25 it “bolster[ed]” the Court’s prior ruling regarding Plaintiffs Martinez and Khukhryanskiy. [Doc. # 215

at 12.] The Court did not rely on Diouf for its prior rulings. Nevertheless, the Court is not constrained
26 from applying Diouf’s reasoning to this case now because the Ninth Circuit has held that even where a

27 mandate has not yet issued, the judgment filed is nevertheless final for such purposes as stare decisis,
unless it is withdrawn by the court. Wedbush, Noble, Cooke, Inc. v. S.E.C., 714 F.2d 923, 924 (9th Cir.

28 1983).

-9-

Case 2:10-cv-02211-DMG-DTB Document 285 Filed 08/02/11 Page 10 of 13 Page ID #:5236

1

3. Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies

2

Defendants also assert that Plaintiff is not entitled to an injunction because he has

3 not exhausted his administrative remedies. They point out that Plaintiff’s immigration

4 counsel never sought to challenge his mandatory detention pursuant to a Joseph hearing

5 and instead sought a bond hearing 97 days after the six-month period elapsed. 8 C.F.R. §

6 1003.19(h)(2)(ii). A Joseph hearing allows a detainee to argue that he or she is not

7 ”properly included” in a mandatory detention category. Tijani v. Willis, 430 F.3d 1241,

8 1243-44 (9th Cir. 2005) (citing In re Joseph, 22 I. & N. Dec. 799 (BIA 1999)). The

9 glaring problem with Defendant’s argument is that Plaintiff does not contest that his

10 underlying robbery conviction subjects him to mandatory detention under section

11 1226(c).

12

Undaunted, Defendants next assert that the Court lacks jurisdiction to order a bond

13 hearing here because Plaintiff must comply with the process outlined in Leonardo v.

14 Crawford, __ F.3d __, 2011 WL 1814706 (9th Cir. 2011). Specifically, Defendants

15 contend that Plaintiff must first appeal to the BIA and, only after exhausting that remedy,

16 may he file a habeas petition in the district court. Leonardo is inapposite. In Leonardo,

17 the Government afforded Leonardo a bond hearing before an immigration judge, who

18 denied bond because he found that Leonardo posed a danger to the community. On those

19 facts, the Ninth Circuit determined that Leonardo was required to first exhaust

20 administrative remedies by appealing to the BIA before asking the federal district court to

21 review the immigration judge’s decision. Here, the Immigration Judge denied Plaintiff’s

22 request for a bond hearing because Plaintiff was in “mandatory custody per 236(c).”

23 (Ihsanullah Decl. ¶ 9, Ex. 8.) Plaintiff has not yet received any bond determination; he

24 was denied any bond hearing at all.

25

Moreover, Plaintiff presents the Court with a prior BIA precedent that a mentally

26 ill detainee held for nearly five years was not entitled to a bond hearing because he was

27

28

-10-

Case 2:10-cv-02211-DMG-DTB Document 285 Filed 08/02/11 Page 11 of 13 Page ID #:5237

1 subject to mandatory detention.8 (Arulanantham Decl. ¶ 28, Ex. 174.) Insofar as the

2 Immigration Judge denied Mr. Woldemariam’s request for a bond hearing, and the BIA

3 has adopted that same position in a prior case for an individual who had been in detention

4 for an even longer period of time than Plaintiff, requiring Plaintiff to appeal the denial of

5 a bond hearing in this case would be an exercise in futility.

6 B. Plaintiff Demonstrates A Likelihood Of Irreparable Harm And The Balance

7

Of Hardships Tips Sharply In His Favor

8

Defendants argue that Plaintiff will not suffer irreparable harm because he is

9 represented by counsel and “engaged in the bond re-determination process” and that he

10 has waited four months since his detention passed the six-month mark, “rebutting any

11 suggestion of urgency and irreparable harm.” (Defs.’ Opp’n at 22-23.)

12

First, it is undisputed by the parties that on June 8, 2011, Plaintiff’s immigration

13 counsel requested a custody hearing on Plaintiff’s behalf, which request was denied.

14 Thus, Plaintiff has not sat on his hands or refrained from taking any action to secure a

15 custody hearing.

16

Moreover, Plaintiff explains that “in the interests of judicial economy, [he] waited

17 for the Court to decide the second preliminary injunction motion [on behalf of Plaintiff

18 Zhalezny] in the . . . hope that Defendants would then abide by the Court’s ruling with

19 respect to [Mr. Woldemariam].” (Pl.’s Reply at 27.) Certainly, Defendants’ voluntary

20 compliance with the Court’s prior orders would have promoted judicial economy and

21 efficiency in this case. The fact that Defendants failed to apply the Court’s prior rulings

22 and sought another bite at the apple to interpose additional legal objections to those

23 rulings should not now prejudice Plaintiff’s claim for injunctive relief.

24

25

26

8 At the July 29, 2011 hearing, Defendants pointed out that the BIA precedent referred to by

27 Plaintiff is an unpublished decision. Defendants do not present any evidence, however, that the BIA has
taken, or would be likely to take, a contrary position, i.e., that a detainee in mandatory custody under 8

28 U.S.C. § 1226(c) is entitled to a bond hearing if he has been detained for a prolonged period.

-11-

Case 2:10-cv-02211-DMG-DTB Document 285 Filed 08/02/11 Page 12 of 13 Page ID #:5238

1

Because Woldemariam is now represented by counsel, Defendants claim that he is

2 in a materially different position than that of Plaintiffs Khukhryansiky, Martinez, and 3 Zhalezny.9 The fact that Woldemariam is now represented by counsel, however, does not

4 change the fact that he has been detained for more than ten months and will be detained

5 for the foreseeable future, without having been provided a custody hearing. As discussed

6 supra, the fact that Woldemariam is a lawful permanent resident who has not yet been

7 ordered removed suggests his liberty interests justifying a custody hearing are that much

8 more compelling.

9

On the evidence presented, the Court finds that the likelihood of irreparable harm

10 and the balance of hardships tip sharply in favor of Plaintiff.

11 C. An Injunction Is In The Public Interest And A Mandatory Injunction Is

12

Appropriate In This Case

13

For the reasons articulated herein and in its prior orders granting preliminary

14 injunctions, the Court finds that granting Plaintiff’s Motion for a custody hearing is in the

15 public interest. Plaintiff has met his burden of demonstrating the need for a mandatory

16 injunction because the law and facts are clearly in his favor and the potential for

17 irreparable harm cannot be undone by a later award of damages given the liberty interests

18 at stake.

19

IV.

20

CONCLUSION

21

In light of the foregoing:

22

(1) The Court GRANTS Plaintiff Woldemariam’s Motion for a Preliminary

23 Injunction as follows: Pending a trial on the merits, Defendants, and their officers,

24 agents, employees, and attorneys are hereby enjoined from detaining Plaintiff

25 Woldemariam under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) or (c) unless, within 45 days of this Order, they

26

27

9 Plaintiffs clarify that Woldemariam was not represented by counsel at the time that he became a

28 Plaintiff in this action.

-12-

Case 2:10-cv-02211-DMG-DTB Document 285 Filed 08/02/11 Page 13 of 13 Page ID #:5239

1 provide Plaintiff with a bond hearing before an Immigration Judge with the authority to

2 order his release on conditions of supervision, unless the Government shows that

3 Plaintiff’s ongoing detention is justified.

4

(2) The Court waives the bond requirement. See, e.g., Barahona-Gomez v.

5 Reno, 167 F.3d 1228, 1237 (9th Cir. 1999) (nominal security not an abuse of discretion

6 where “vast majority of aliens [affected by class action] were very poor”); Cal. ex rel.

7 Van De Kamp v. Tahoe Reg’l Planning Agency, 766 F.2d 1319, 1325 (9th Cir. 1985)

8 (“[t]he district court has discretion to dispense with the security requirement, or to request

9 mere nominal security, where requiring security would effectively deny access to judicial

10 review”).

11

(3) Due to privacy considerations, this Order shall be filed under seal. Within

12 14 days from the date of this Order, the parties will meet and confer regarding which

13 portions of the Order they propose to be redacted such that a redacted version of the

14 Order may be filed, or notify the Court that Plaintiff waives his privacy rights as to the

15 confidential information relied upon herein and that the Order may be unsealed. The

16 parties shall file a joint report with the Court by no later than August 16, 2011 regarding

17 the sealed status of this Order.

18

19

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20

21 DATED: August 2, 2011

22

DOLLY M. GEE

23

United States District Judge

24

25

26

27

28

-13-

 
 Case 2:10-cv-02211-DMG-DTB Document 284 Filed 08/19/11 Page 1 of 4 Page ID #:5223

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES--GENERAL
Case No. CV 10-2211-DMG (DTB)

Date: August 19, 2011

Title: Jose Antonio Franco-Gonzalez v. Eric H. Holder, Jr. ============================================================ DOCKET ENTRY =========================================================== PRESENT:
HON. DAVID T. BRISTOW, MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Deb Taylor Deputy Clerk

n/a Court Reporter

ATTORNEY PRESENT FOR PLAINTIFFS: None Present

ATTORNEY PRESENT FOR DEFENDANTS: None Present

PROCEEDINGS:

RULING RE: PROTECTIVE ORDER

On July 28, 2011, the parties file d a Joint Stipulation wherein, inter alia, they agreed to produce certain discovery information (“Jt. Stip.”). The District Court granted the Joint Stipulation on July 29, 2011. Pursua nt to the Joint Stipulation, the parties agreed that a stipulated protective order would govern theinformation produced thereby. However, the parties were unable to agree to the terms of a protective order. While the parties have resolved the majority of their disputes regarding the protective order, the parties are in disagreement as to the scope of use by defendants of inform ation which plaintiffs have agreed to produce (all the names of the individuals and their A-numbers whom they believe to be m embers of their class and subclasses). (See Jt. Stip. at 8.) Plaintiffs are concerned that if they produ ce this information, defendants will use the information to provide the requested relief to such plaintiffs, and thereby “m oot out” these proposed members in order to prevent class certification. (Plaintiffs’ August 9, 2011 Letter Brief (“Pl. Brief”) at 1.) On the other hand, defendants contend that plaintiffs’ proposed language for the protective order would unreasonably restrict their ability to carry out their “statutorily authoirzed functions.” (Defendants’ August 9, 2011 Letter Brief (“Def. Brief”) at 3.)
At the most recent telephonic status conference held on August 16, 2011, the Court ordered the parties to subm it their fi nal positions regarding this dispute. On August 18, 2011, the parties filed a Joint Statem ent Regarding Stipulated Protective Order for Discovery Produced Pursuant to Parties’ July 29, 2011 Joint Stipulation (“Jt.

MINUTES FORM 11 CIVIL-GEN

Initials of Deputy Clerk dts

Case 2:10-cv-02211-DMG-DTB Document 284 Filed 08/19/11 Page 2 of 4 Page ID #:5224

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES--GENERAL

Case No.:

CV 10-2211-DMG (DTB) Jose Antonio Franco-Gonzalez v. Eric H. Holder, Jr.

August 19, 2011 Page 2

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Stat.”). As the parties have agreed, m ost recently at the August 16, 2011 status conference, the Court shall resolve the remaining dispute and the parties have agreed to be bound by this Court’s ruling. Therefore, pursuant to this agreement, the Court now rules as follows:
As the Court previously advised the parties, the Supreme Court has indicated that in class actions alleging claims similar in nature to those raised in the instant litigation, even if a class representativeis provided with the requestedrelief, thereby rendering that plaintiff’s claims moot, this would have no bearing on the claim s of the unnam ed members of the class. County of Riverside v. McLaughlin, 500 U.S. 44, 51-52, 111 S. Ct. 1661, 114 L. Ed. 2d 49 (1991); seealso Sosna v. Iowa, 419 U.S. 393, 402, 95 S. Ct. 553, 42 L. Ed. 2d 532 (1975) (providing that a case or controversy “m ay exist . . . between a nam ed defendant and a m ember of the class repres ented by the nam ed plaintiff, even though the claimof the named plaintiff has become moot.”). McLaughlin involved a class action challenging the timeliness of probable cause determinations to persons arrested without a warrant. 500 U.Sa. t 47. The County of Riverside argued that the plaintiffs lacked standing because the named plaintiffs had since received a probable cause determination. Id. at 50-51. The Court disagr eed. At the time the second amended complaint was filed, the plainti ffs were suffering from a direct and current injury as a result of their detention. Id. at 51. While the claims of the named plaintiffs were later rendered m oot, “the termination of a class representative’s claim does not moot the claims of the unnam ed members of the class” even where the class is not certified until after the nam ed plaintiffs’ claim s have becom e moot. Id. at 51-52 (citations omitted). As the Supreme Court explained, “[s]ome claims are so inherently transitory that the trial court will not haveeven enough time to rule on a motion for class certification before the proposed representative’s individual interest expires.” Id. at 52 (alternation in original, cita tion omitted). This Court concludes that, like the claim s alleged in McLaughlin , plaintiffs’ alleg ations in the present action are sim ilarly “transitory” such that the Supreme Court’s holding in McLaughlin is applicable to the instant action at least for purposes of resolving this discovery dispute. In light of this authority, it appears that if defendants should provide the putative class members with the relief sought by way of this action, this would not deprive the District Court of

MINUTES FORM 11 CIVIL-GEN

Initials of Deputy Clerk dts

Case 2:10-cv-02211-DMG-DTB Document 284 Filed 08/19/11 Page 3 of 4 Page ID #:5225

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES--GENERAL

Case No.:

CV 10-2211-DMG (DTB) Jose Antonio Franco-Gonzalez v. Eric H. Holder, Jr.

August 19, 2011 Page 3

-----------------------------------------------------------------

jurisdiction or the certification of the class. However, out of an abundance of caution, the Court finds that the defendants shall beaffirmatively estopped from challenging the standing of any such plaintiffs in order to prevent class certification . As such, defendants are estopped from challenging potential class membership of any putative class member identified by inform ation provided by plaintiffs pursuant to the Joint Stipulation. Defendants are not prohibited from pursuing their statutory or regulatory duties or providing any such putative plaintif fs with the relief sought in this action. However, providing such relief will not affect the status of such putative plaintiffs as prospective class members or class representatives.
In light of this ruling, the Court adoptsthe language offered bydefendants in their August 18, 2011 proposed stipulated protective order (Jt. Stat., Ex. B) with respect to Paragraphs 8(g), (h), (i) and 13(a), with the additional language in Paragraph 16 as follows:
16. Nothing in this Stipulated Protective Order shall be construed as a waiver of any defense, right or claim by either party, nor shall this Stipulated Protective Order affect the right of eitherParty to seek additional protection against the disclosure of any documents or materials, or of the Par ties to seek additional disclosures except as follows:
a. With respect to those individuals identified by plaintiffs pursuant to Paragraph II of the Joint Stipulation, defendants’ provision of any relief as requested in this action shall not be a basis for challenging standing or class certification to any such plaintiff.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

cc: Judge Gee

MINUTES FORM 11 CIVIL-GEN

Initials of Deputy Clerk dts

Case 2:10-cv-02211-DMG-DTB Document 284 Filed 08/19/11 Page 4 of 4 Page ID #:5226

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES--GENERAL

Case No.:

CV 10-2211-DMG (DTB) Jose Antonio Franco-Gonzalez v. Eric H. Holder, Jr.

August 19, 2011 Page 4

-----------------------------------------------------------------

MINUTES FORM 11 CIVIL-GEN

Initials of Deputy Clerk dts

 
 Case 2:10-cv-02211-DMG -DTB Document 348 Filed 11/21/11 Page 1 of 29 Page ID #:7036

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

11 JOSE ANTONIO FRANCO-GONZALES, ) Case No. CV 10-02211 DMG (DTBx)

et al.,

)

12

Petitioner,

) ORDER RE: PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION

13

v.

14 JANET NAPOLITANO, et al.,

) FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION ) ) UNDER SEAL

15

Respondents.

)

16

)

17

This matter is before the Court on Plainti ffs’ motion for class certification [Doc. #

18 127]. The Court held a hearing on April 15, 2011. On May 13, 2011, the Court issued an

19 order deferring its ruling on Plaintiffs’ Mo tion until after the parties co mpleted class

20 discovery, in particular with regard to the numerosity of the Plaintiff Class and the two

21 Sub-Classes [Doc. # 206] , and filed supplem ental briefs. The Court held a further

22 hearing on October 24, 2011. Having duly co nsidered the respective positions of the

23 parties, as presented in their briefs and at oral argum ent, the Court now renders its

24 decision. For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiffs’ Motion is GRANTED.

25

I.

26

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

27

Plaintiffs filed their first amended cla ss action com plaint on Novem ber 2, 2010,

28 asserting claims for violations of the Im migration and Nationality Act, the Due Process

-1-

Case 2:10-cv-02211-DMG -DTB Document 348 Filed 11/21/11 Page 2 of 29 Page ID #:7037

1 Clause of the Fifth Am endment to the U.S. Constitution, Section 504 of the

2 Rehabilitation Act, and the Adm inistrative Procedures Act. [Do c. # 6 4.] They filed a

3 second amended class action com plaint on April 18, 2011. [Doc. ## 250, 300]

4 Defendants filed an answer on Septem ber 22, 2011. [Doc. # 320] On October 25, 2011,

5 Plaintiffs filed a third amended class action complaint in which they added a new Named

6 Plaintiff, Juan Carlos Sepulveda-Perez. [Doc. # 344.]

7

The Court previousl y granted Plaintiffs’ m otions for prelim inary injunction as to

8 Plaintiffs Ever Francisco Ma rtinez-Rivas, Aleksandr Petr ovich Khukhryanskiy, Maksim

9 Zhalezny, and Jonas Woldemariam. [Doc. ## 107, 215, and 285.] By those three orders

10 granting the preliminary injunction m otions, the Court requi red Defendants to provide

11 each of the m oving parties with a Qualifie d Representative, as defined by the Court’s

12 orders, or a bond hearing, or both.

13

On February 14, 2011, Plaintiffs filed th is motion for class certification [Doc. #

14 126]. On March 17, 2011, De fendants filed an opposition [D oc. # 161]. On March 28,

15 2011, Plaintiffs filed a reply [Doc. # 166].

16

On September 19, 2011, Plaintiffs filed a supplemental brief in support of thei r

17 Motion [Doc. # 318]. On October 4, 2011, Defendants filed a supplemental oppositi on 18 [Doc. # 328].1 On October 12, 2011, Plaintiffs filed a supplemental reply [Doc. # 338].

19

II.

20

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

21 A. Plaintiff Class and Sub-Classes

22

Pursuant to Rules 23(a) and 23(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,

23 Plaintiffs move to certify the following class and sub-classes.

24

25

26

27

1 On October 17, 2011, Defendants filed an ex parte application for an order granting Defendants

leave to file a surreply brief. [Doc. # 341.] As the parties have had ampl e opportunity to brief the

28 issues, the Court denies Defendants’ ex parte application.

-2-

Case 2:10-cv-02211-DMG -DTB Document 348 Filed 11/21/11 Page 3 of 29 Page ID #:7038

1

1. Plaintiff Class

2

All individuals who are or will be in DHS custody for rem oval

3

proceedings in California, Ariz ona, and Washington who have

4

been identified by or to me dical personnel, DHS, or an

5

Immigration Judge, as having a serious mental disorder or

6

defect that m ay render them incompetent to represent

7

themselves in detention or removal proceedings, and who

8

presently lack counsel i n their detention or rem oval

9

proceedings.

10

2. Plaintiff Sub-Class 1

11

Individuals in the above-named Plaintiff Class who have a

12

serious mental disorder or defect that renders them incompetent

13

to represent themselves in detention or removal proceedings

14

3. Plaintiff Sub-Class 2

15

Individuals in the above-named Plaintiff Class who have been

16

detained for more than six months.

17 B. Class Representatives

18

Plaintiffs seek to appoint the following class representatives:

19

(1) for the Plaintiff Class: (a) Jose Ch avez, (b) Ever Francisco Martinez- Rivas

20

(“Martinez”), (c) Aleksandr Petrovich Khukhryanskiy, (d) Juan Carlos

21

Sepulveda-Perez (“Sepulveda”)2; and Maksim Piotrovich Zhalezny;

22

(2) for Plaintiff Sub-Class 1: (a) Chavez; (b) Martinez; (c) Khukhryanskiy; and

23

(d) Zhalezny; and

24

(3) for Plaintiff Sub-Class 2: (a) Martin ez; (b) Khukhryanskiy; (c) Zhalezny;

25

and (d) Sepulveda.

26

27
2 At the October 24, 20 11 hearing, Plaintiffs cl arified that Sepulveda h as not received a bon d
28 hearing and requested that he be added as a class representative for Sub-Class 2.

-3-

Case 2:10-cv-02211-DMG -DTB Document 348 Filed 11/21/11 Page 4 of 29 Page ID #:7039

1

The Court previously set forth detailed fact ual backgrounds of Plaintiffs Martinez,

2 Khukhyranskiy, and Zhalezny in its Orders dated December 27, 2010 [Doc. # 107] and

3 May 4, 2011 [Doc. # 215]. It need not repeat the same information here.

4

Plaintiff Chavez suffers from schizo affective disorder, which includes a

5 combination of auditory hallu cinations, persecutory delusions, suicidal ideations, and

6 depression, as well as chronic paranoid schi zophrenia, and i s currently hospitalized at

7 Patton State Hospital pending an attempt to restore his competency. (Decl. of Michael H.

8 Steinberg [Doc. # 126-1] (“Steinberg Decl.”) ¶¶ 8-9, Exs. 124A, 124B.) Chavez was first 9 placed in removal proceedings on June 23, 2006.3 (Pls.’ RJN, Ex. 126.) On December 7,

10 2006, the Immigration Judge denied Chavez’s asylum petition and ordered him removed.

11 (Id., Ex. 127.)

12

With the assistance of pro bono counsel, Chavez was able to reopen his rem oval

13 proceedings and, on September 18, 2008, the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”)

14 administratively closed his re moval proceedings so that he could apply for asylum

15 pursuant to the procedure set forth i n American Baptist Church v. Thornburgh, 760 F.

16 Supp. 796 (N.D. Cal. 1991) (providing qua lified Salvadorans and Guatemalans de novo,

17

18

19

20

3 Plaintiffs ask the Court to take jud icial notice of the following documents issued in Chavez’s immigration case: (1) S eptember 8, 2008 Order of I mmigration Judge DePaolo (Pls.’ Req. for Judicial

21 Not. (“RJN”), Ex. 122); (2) June 17, 2006 Notice to Appear (“NTA”) issued by U.S. Departm ent of
Homeland Security (“DHS”) ( id., Ex. 126); (3) Decem ber 7, 2006 decision by Immigration Judge
22 Sitgraves (id., Ex. 127); (4) May 2, 2008 decision by Board of I mmigration Appeals (“BIA”) ( id., Ex.

23

128); (5) June 21, 2010 NTA issued by DHS ( proceedings (id., Ex. 130).

id., Ex. 129); (6) July 15, 2010 motion to term inate

24

Federal Rule of Evidence 201 perm its a court to ta ke into judicial notice facts not subject to

reasonable dispute th at are “capable of accurate a nd ready determination by resort to sources whose

25 accuracy cannot reason ably be questioned.” F ed. R. Evid. 201. A court m ay take judicial n otice of

26

matters of public record. United States v. 14.02 Acres of Land More or Less in Fresno County, 547 F.3d 943, 955 (9th Cir. 2008). In addition, courts “m ay take notice of proceedings in other courts, both

27 within and without the federal judici al system, if those proceedings have a direct relation to m atters at

issue.” United States ex rel. Robinson Rancheria Citizens Council v. Borneo, Inc. , 971 F.2d 244, 248
28 (9th Cir. 1992).

-4-

Case 2:10-cv-02211-DMG -DTB Document 348 Filed 11/21/11 Page 5 of 29 Page ID #:7040

1 unappealable asylum adjudication). Thereafte r, Chavez was rel eased from custody.

2 (Pls.’ RJN, Ex. 122.)

3

After Chavez failed to appear for his as ylum interview, on June 21, 2010, DHS

4 denied his Request for Asylum and Withhol ding of Rem oval and again placed him in

5 removal proceedings by issuing a new Notice to Appear. (

Id., Ex. 129.) After

6 correspondence with counsel from the ACLU of Southern California, on Jul y 15, 2010,

7 DHS agreed to end the removal proceedings, without prejudice to the order entered in the

8 original 2006 proceedings. (Id., Ex. 130.) The Immigration Judge granted DHS’s motion

9 to re-calendar Mr. Chavez’s asylum case. (Id.)

10

The Government has stipulated as part of a settlement related to Chavez’s rem oval

11 proceedings that he is eligible to appl y for asylum and relie f under the Nicaraguan

12 Adjustment and Central American Relief Act. (Id., Ex. 122; Steinberg Decl. [Doc. # 126-

13 1] ¶ 7, Ex. 123.)

14

Plaintiff Sepulveda has been diagnose d with chronic paranoid schi zophrenia,

15 schizoaffective disorder, and psychotic disord er. (Third Amended Com plaint, ¶ 18) He

16 has been in DHS custody si nce approximately May 2011 and is c urrently held in

17 segregated confinement in the “F-Med” psyc hiatric unit at the San Diego Correctional

18 Facility (“SDCF”) in Otay Mesa. He is in removal proceedings and is unrepresented .

19 (Id.)

20 C. Class Counsel

21

Plaintiffs seek the appointment of the following attorneys as class counsel: Ahilan

22 T. Arulanantham, Judy London, Talia Inlende r, Michael H. Steinberg, Judy R abinovitz,

23 David Blair-Loy, Sean Riordan, James Preis, and Matt Adams.

24

III.

25

LEGAL STANDARD

26

Rule 23 provi des district c ourts with broad discretion in m aking a class

27 certification determination. Navellier v. Sletten, 262 F.3d 923, 941 (9th Cir. 2001); see

28 also Reiter v. Sonotone Corp., 442 U.S. 330, 345, 99 S.Ct. 2326, 60 L.Ed.2d 931 (1979)

-5-

Case 2:10-cv-02211-DMG -DTB Document 348 Filed 11/21/11 Page 6 of 29 Page ID #:7041

1 (recognizing that district courts “have broad power and discretion vested in them by Fed.

2 Rule Civ. Proc. 23”). Nonetheless, a cour t must exercise its discretion “within the

3 framework of Rule 23.” Navellier, 262 F.3d at 941. A district court may certify a class

4 only if the following prerequisites are met:

5

(1) the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable;

6

(2) there are questions of law or fact common to the class;

7

(3) the claims or defenses of the repr esentative parties are typical of the

8

claims or defenses of the class; and

9

(4) the representative p arties will fairly and adequately protect the

10

interests of the class.

11 Fed. R. Civ. P. 2 3(a). Th ese prerequisites “ensure[] that the named plaintiffs are

12 appropriate representatives of the class whose claims they wi sh to litigate.” Wal-Mart

13 Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, __ U.S. __, 131 S.Ct. 2541, 2551, 180 L.Ed.2d 374 (2011).

14

If the Rule 23(a) requirem ents are satis fied, a cl ass action may be maintained

15 pursuant to Rule 23(b)(2) if “t he party opposing the class has acted or refused to act on

16 grounds that apply generally to the class, so that final injunctive relief or correspondi ng

17 declaratory relief is appropria te respecting the class as a whole.” The party seekin g

18 certification bears the burden of dem onstrating that it meets the Rule 23(b) requirements.

19 Vinole v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc ., 571 F.3d 935, 944 n.9 (9th Cir. 2009) (citing

20 Zinser v. Accufix Research Inst., Inc., 253 F.3d 1180, 1186 (9th Cir. 2001)).

21

The Rule 23 analysi s must be rigorous t o ensure that its prerequisites have been

22 satisfied, and such analysis will often requi re looking beyond the pleadings to issues

23 overlapping with the merits of the underlying claims. Dukes, 131 S.Ct. at 2551-52.

24

IV.

25

DISCUSSION

26 A. The Named Plaintiffs Do Not Lack Standing

27

As a prelim inary matter, Defendants contend that the Named Plaintiffs la ck

28 standing to obtain t he relief they seek. Defe ndants argue that the Named Plaintiffs are

-6-

Case 2:10-cv-02211-DMG -DTB Document 348 Filed 11/21/11 Page 7 of 29 Page ID #:7042

1 not members of their own proposed cla ss because Martinez a nd Khukhryanskiy were

2 both provided counsel and have already received bond hearings before the imm igration

3 judge. Likewise, Defendants ch allenge Chavez’s standing on the ground t hat he is 4 neither in DHS custody, nor is he likely to be, in light of his current hospitalization.4

5

As the Court discussed at length in it s September 12, 2011 Or der, standing is

6 determined as of the filing of the complaint.5 [Doc. # 300.] Martinez and Khukhryanskiy

7 were deemed mentally incompetent and were unrepresented in their removal proceedings

8 as of the time the act ion was filed. Similarl y, as of the date the first amended complaint

9 was filed, Zhalezny was deemed mentally incompetent and unrepresented in his rem oval

10 proceedings.

11

To establish standing, Plaintiffs must satisfy the following criteria: (1) an injury in

12 fact, i.e., one that is sufficiently (a) c oncrete and particularized and (b) act ual or

13 imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical; (2 ) the injury is fairly traceabl e to the

14 challenged conduct; and (3) the in jury is likely to be redressed by a favorable decision.

15 See, e.g., Sierra Forest Legacy v. Sherman, 646 F.3d 1161, 1177 (9th Cir. 2011).

16

As of the time of the filing of t he complaint in which they were first named, each

17 of the Plaintiffs had an actual injury suffici ently concrete and particularized to confer

18 standing upon them to proceed with their clai ms against Defendants. Therefore, they did

19 not lack standing to pursue the remedies sought herein. To th e extent that circumstances

20

21

4 At the tim e that Defendants filed their Oppos ition, the Court had not ye t ruled on Plaintiffs’

22 motion for a prelim inary injunction as to Zhalezny. In the Cour t’s May 4, 2011 Or der, the Court
ordered Defendants to provide Zhalezny with a bond hearing before an imm igration judge and a
23 Qualified Representative (as defi ned therein) to represent him at such hearing. [Doc. # 215.]

24

Presumably, Defendants would sim ilarly contend that Zhalezny lacks standing on the same basis they assert as to Martinez and Khukhryanskiy. For the reasons discussed with respect to Martinez and

25 Khukhyranskiy, however, any assertion that Zhalezny lacks standing is without merit.

26

5 Martinez was transferred to immigratio n custody in or around October 20, 2009. Khukhryanskiy was taken into im migration custody on April 15, 2010. Zhalezny was taken into

27 immigration custody on April 14, 2010. Martinez, Khukhryanskiy, and Zhalezny were nam ed as

Plaintiffs in this action as of the filing of the First Am ended Complaint on November 2, 2010. [Doc. #
28 64.]

-7-

Case 2:10-cv-02211-DMG -DTB Document 348 Filed 11/21/11 Page 8 of 29 Page ID #:7043

1 have changed since the commencemen t of the action calling into question w hether

2 Plaintiffs’ injuries are likely to be redressed by a favorable decision in this case, the Court

3 turns next to consider Defendants’ contentions under the rubric of mootness.

4 B. The Class Claims Are Not Moot

5

Even if Plaintiffs did not lack standing to proceed with their claims at the inception

6 of the action, Defendants insist that Plainti ffs’ claims have s ince become moot because

7 they have already obtained the relief they seek. See, e.g., Pinnacle Armor, Inc. v. U.S. ,

8 648 F.3d 708, 715 (9th Cir. 2011) (“T he basic question i n determining mootness is

9 whether there is a present controversy as to which effective relief can be granted.”)

10 Specifically, Defendants point out that Ma rtinez, Khukhryanskiy, and Zhalezny already

11 have had counsel appointed to represent them and bond hear ings to determ ine whether

12 they should remain in custody. There is no ev idence, say Defendants, that Plaintiffs wil l

13 be subject to the same challenged injuries going forward.

14

Plaintiffs, on the other hand, maintain that they have not obtained all of the relief

15 they seek and that the Court’s prelim inary injunction orders do not finally resolve any of

16 their claims. It is well-settled that a ru ling on a m otion for a prelim inary injunction

17 “leaves open the final determ ination of the merits of the case.” Ranchers Cattlemen

18 Action legal Fund United Stockgrowers of America v. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, 499 F.3d

19 1108, 1114 (9t h Cir. 2007). “This rule acknowledges that decisions on prelim inary

20 injunctions are just that—preliminary—and must often be made hastily and on less than a

21 full record.” Id. (internal quotations om itted). As such, decisions at the prelim inary

22 injunction phase do not constitute the law of the case. Id.

23

The Court examines each of Plaintiffs’ claims for relief to determine whether there

24 is a present controversy as to which effective relief can be granted.

25

1. Competency Evaluations

26

Among the various form s of relief Pl aintiffs seek are ade quate competency

27 evaluations for all Class mem bers. Defenda nts do not di spute that all proposed Class

28 representatives are individuals currently with “a serious m ental disorder or defect that

-8-

Case 2:10-cv-02211-DMG -DTB Document 348 Filed 11/21/11 Page 9 of 29 Page ID #:7044

1 may render them incompetent to represen t themselves in detention or rem oval

2 proceedings.” What they do contend is that Plaintiffs have alrea dy been diagnosed as

3 mentally incompetent and therefore do not need competency evaluations. Insofar as both

4 sides acknowledge that an individual’s me ntal condition and, thus, competency, can

5 change over tim e, all of the proposed Class representatives maintain a “live” stake in

6 securing a procedure for competen cy screenings in this action. Moreover, this Court has

7 not yet issued even a prelim inary ruling on th e availability of such a remedy, let alone a

8 final determination on the merits. To the ex tent Plaintiffs may benefit from future

9 competency screenings should such final relie f issue in this action, the Court finds that

10 the proposed Class representati ves’ claim for adequate com petency evaluations is not

11 moot.

12

2. Appointed Counsel

13

The Court also fi nds that the Government’s successful voluntary efforts to secure

14 pro bono counsel to represent Martinez, Khukhryanskiy, and Zhalezny in certain types of

15 impending proceedings—at least, in part, to comply with this Court’s orders—do not

16 moot Plaintiffs’ claim for appointed counsel. Cf. Barnes v. Healy, 980 F.2d 572, 580 (9th

17 Cir. 1992) (given the court’s conflicting orders, the class was entitled to an enforceable

18 order to ensure non-repetition of past due pr ocess violations despite the defendant’s

19 voluntarily compliance with the preliminary injunction). In its orders granting the

20 motions for a prelim inary injunction, the Court determ ined that Martinez,

21 Khukhryanskiy, and Zhalezny were each entitle d to a “Qualified Representative” which,

22 as defined by the Court, could include an

eligible non-attorney representative, to

23 represent them in an im pending appeal before the BIA or at their custody heari ng, or

24 both. What Plaintiffs seek in t his action, however, is the right to appointed counsel in all

25 future immigration proceedings so long as th ey remain mentally incompetent and unable

26 to represent themselves. They have not yet obtained the full relief they seek.

27

28

-9-

Case 2:10-cv-02211-DMG -DTB Document 348 Filed 11/21/11 Page 10 of 29 Page ID #:7045

1

Moreover, Plaintiffs asserted at th e October 24, 2011 hearing that Zhalezny

2 remains unrepresented in his immigration court proceedings. 6 Plaintiff Sepulveda also is

3 unrepresented in his removal proceedings. Thus, there can be no doubt that Zhalezny and

4 Sepulveda’s claims for appointed counsel are not moot at this time.

5

3. Custody Hearing

6

Whether the proposed Sub-Cl ass 2 repr esentatives’ claims are moot, however,

7 presents a somewh at more comp licated question. Plaintiffs seek relief in the form of

8 timely custody hearings for individuals detained longer than six m onths. Even though

9 the Court has not yet issued a final ruling on the merits of the custody hearing clai m,

10 Martinez, Khukhryanskiy, and Zhalezny alrea dy have received bond he arings as a result

11 of this Court’s prior prelim inary injunction orders. They would not benefit from any

12 class-wide injunctive relief that the Court might issue with regard to the right to a custody

13 hearing, because they already have received such a hearing and there is no evidence that

14 they are entitled to receive yet another one in the foreseeable future.

15

As such, Martinez, Khukhrya nskiy, and Zhalezny do not have a “live” claim for a

16 custody hearing, unless their claim is so inhe rently transitory as to be “capable of

17 repetition, yet evading review.” “An inherently transitory claim is one that will certainly

18 repeat as t o the class, either because ‘[t ]he individual could none theless suffer repeat ed

19 [harm]’ or because ‘it is certain that other persons similarly situated’ will have the same

20 complaint.” Pitts v. Terrible Herbst, Inc. , 653 F.3d 1081, 1090 (9t h Cir. 2011) quoting

21 Gerstein v. Pugh, 420 U.S. 103, 110 n.11, 95 S.Ct. 854, 43 L.Ed.2d 54 (1975). Alt hough

22 there is no evidence in the r ecord that these three Named Pl aintiffs will suffer repeated

23 harm with regard to the claim for a custody hearing, it is certainly true that other similarly

24

25

26

6 The Court’s May 4, 2011 ruling on Zhalezny’s mo tion for preliminary injunction ordered the

27 Government to provide Zhalezny with a custody hearing and a Qualified Representative to represent him

at such a hearing. According to Plaintiffs, Zhalezny’s immigra tion appeal was rem anded to the
28 immigration court and he remains unrepresented in those proceedings.

-10-

Case 2:10-cv-02211-DMG -DTB Document 348 Filed 11/21/11 Page 11 of 29 Page ID #:7046

1 situated persons will have the same co mplaint.7 Indeed, Plaintiffs in this case filed serial

2 motions for prelim inary injunction in order to secure bond hearings for those plaintiffs

3 whose detention had exceeded six months.

4

At the hearing on October 24, 2011, Plaintiffs proposed to add Plaintiff Sepulveda

5 as a new Sub-Class 2 representative. As of the date of this order, Sepulveda has been in

6 custody for approximately six m onths and ha s not yet recei ved a bond hearing. The

7 Court therefore finds that a live controversy exists as to Plai ntiffs’ claim for a custody

8 hearing not only because it is an inherently tr ansitory claim but also because there is a

9 new Named Plaintiff—Sepulveda—whose claim is clearly not moot.

10

Although Plaintiff Chavez is no longe r in detention, he along with the other

11 Plaintiffs, seeks relief for a class and sub-cl ass of peopl e who “are or will be” in

12 Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) custody. Chavez need only show that he

13 is realistically threatened by a repetition of the harm he challe nges. ICE expressly

14 reserved the right to re-calendar his case ba sed on an existing charge that has not been

15 terminated or dismissed and, in fact, re-in itiated removal proceedings against him a year

16 ago. Those proceedings were then ter minated “without prejudice.” Given these

17 circumstances, none of Chavez’s claims are moot.

18 C. The Rule 23(a) Factors

19

1. Numerosity

20

A putative class may be certified only if it “i s so num erous that joi nder of al l

21 members is impracticable.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(1). “‘[I]mpracticability’ does not mean

22 ‘impossibility,’ but only the difficulty or in convenience of joini ng all mem bers of the

23 class.” Harris v. Palm Springs Alpine Estates, Inc., 329 F.2d 909, 913-14 (9th Cir. 1964)

24

25

7 Because the custody hearing claim is time-sensitive and is subject to the “capable of repetition,

26

yet evading review” exception to the m ootness doctrine, once the Court certifies the class, it m ay apply the “relation back” doctrine to relate Plaintiffs’ claims back to the f iling date of the initial complaint to

27 preserve the m erits of the case for judicial resolution. Pitts, 653 F.3d at 1090. “Application of the

relation back doctrine in this context thus avoids the spectre of plaintiffs filing lawsuit after lawsuit, only
28 to see their claims mooted before they can be resolved.” Id.

-11-

Case 2:10-cv-02211-DMG -DTB Document 348 Filed 11/21/11 Page 12 of 29 Page ID #:7047

1 (quoting Adver. Specialty Nat’l Ass’n v. FTC , 238 F.2d 108, 119 (1st C ir. 1956)). The

2 numerosity requirement imposes no absolute limitations; rather, it “requires exam ination

3 of the specific facts of each cas e.” Gen. Tel. Co. of the Nw. v. EEOC , 446 U.S. 318, 330,

4 100 S.Ct. 1698, 64 L.Ed.2d 319 (1980). Thus, while the Supreme Court has noted that

5 putative classes of 15 are too small to meet the num erosity requirement, id. at 330 &

6 n.14, district courts in this Circuit have found that classes with as few as 39 members met

7 the numerosity requirem ent, see Patrick v. Marshall , 460 F. Supp. 23, 26 (N.D. Cal.

8 1978); see also Jordan v. L.A. County , 669 F.2d 1311, 1320 (9t h Cir.) (noting, in dicta,

9 that the court “would be inclined to find the numerosity requirement . . . satisfied solely

10 on the basis of [39] ascert ained class members”), vacated on other grounds , 459 U.S .

11 810, 103 S.Ct. 35, 74 L.Ed.2d 48 (1982).

12

Plaintiffs indicate that on February 14, 20 11, the day on which Plaintiffs filed their

13 Motion, there were 112 detainees who fit in the Class, 37 in Sub-Cla ss 1, and 43 in Sub-

14 Class 2. (Decl. of Talia Inlender (“Inl ender Decl.”) [Doc. # 319] ¶¶ 11-12, Exs. 198,

15 199.)

16

Plaintiffs argue that these num bers are under-inclusive because: (1) t he numbers

17 reflect individuals counted on a single day; (2) t he numbers count individuals from just

18 four facilities in California, Arizona, and Washington, which Plaintiffs estimate to be less 19 than one-half of the daily population detained in such states 8; (3) Plaintiffs include only

20 those detainees diagnosed by ICE as ha ving a mental health condit ion; and (4)

21 Defendants have no systematic mechanism for evaluating whether individuals are able to 22 represent themselves in immi gration proceedings.9 In addition, because Defen dants

23

24

25

8 The four facilities fro m which Defendants produced evidence are: San Diego Correctional

Facility, El Centro Serv ice Processing Center, Eloy Federal Contract Facility, and Northwest Detention

26 Center. (Pls.’ Supp. Brief [Doc. # 318] at 3 n.3.)

27

9 Plaintiffs concede that Defendants occasionally arrange for competency exams that determine a

detainee’s ability to pro ceed if represented, not that determine com petency if they are unrep resented.

28 (Pls.’ Supp. Brief [Doc. # 318] at 4 n.4.)

-12-

Case 2:10-cv-02211-DMG -DTB Document 348 Filed 11/21/11 Page 13 of 29 Page ID #:7048

1 failed to produce a list of individuals currently unrepresented, Plaintiffs included in their

2 count only those detainees for whom an attorney appearance had never been entered.

3 Thus, for example, Khukhryanskiy is not included in this count because, after this Court’s

4 preliminary injunction order, an attorney appeared in his case on January 25, 2011 to 5 represent him at his bond hearing.10 (Pls.’ Supp. Brief [Doc. # 318] at 7 n.8.)

6

Plaintiffs also poi nt to aggregate govern mental data, reported by ICE in a May

7 2008 Washington Post article, in which the governmen t estimated that 2-5% of 8 immigrants in ICE custody suffer from serious mental illness.11 Extrapolating from the

9 Government’s estimate of the num ber of removal proceedings conducted in California,

10 Arizona, and Washi ngton in 2009, Plaintiffs estimate that there are between 475 and

11 1,187 members of the Class. Plaintiffs cont end this figure is furt her supported by a

12 separate ICE report, Detainee Health Care: The Rest of the Story, dated May 14, 2008,

13 which stated that “[i] n the last 12 mont hs, psychologists and social workers have

14 managed a daily population of over 1,350 seriously mentally ill detainees without a single

15 suicide.” (Inlender Decl. ¶ 9, Ex. 197 [Doc. # 319].)

16

Defendants, on the other hand, estimate that there are 55 detainees in the Class, 25

17 detainees in Sub-Cl ass 1, and 19 in Sub-Cl ass 2. (Decl. of Victor M. Lawrence ¶ 18

18 [Doc. # 328] .) Defendants argue that Plain tiffs’ Class and Sub-Class 2 estim ates are

19 over-inclusive for various reasons. Defendants take issue with: (1) Pla intiffs’ inclusion

20 of detainees with only a prior history of mental illness, while the Class definition includes

21

22

23

10 Plaintiffs further indic ate that the estimated 37 Sub-Class 1 individu als is under-inclusive because: (1) Plaintiffs do not in clude five unrepres ented individuals who received “Treatm ent

24 Authorization Requests” for psychiatric conditions, but never received a competency determination from

the immigration judge; (2) other than where an immigration judge uses a Code 53 designation,
25 Defendants do not track the use of safeguards (e.g., Khukhryanskiy’s case was not coded as “Code 53”).

26

11 Washington Post, May 2008, available at

http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-

27

srv/nation/special/immigration/documents/day3_ice_mentalhealth.gif. (Steinberg Decl. [Doc. # 126-1] ¶ 2, Ex. 115.)

28

-13-

Case 2:10-cv-02211-DMG -DTB Document 348 Filed 11/21/11 Page 14 of 29 Page ID #:7049

1 individuals with a current mental disorder or defect th at may render them inco mpetent;

2 and (2) Plaintiffs’ inclusion of detainees with mental health diagnoses, without any

3 indicia of whether the detainees’ symp toms are ameliorated through medicati on or

4 counseling.

5

Defendants assail Plaintiffs’ failure to account for the severity of the putative class

6 members’ mental health condition or responsiveness to medication, whether the detainee

7 had a mental health examination, or the detainee’s legal competency. And yet there’s the

8 rub—Defendants’ contentions do not hold water precisely because it is this lack of

9 information and absence of any systematic procedure ai med at identifyi ng such

10 information that Plaintiffs seek to redress through this action. Defen dants produced

11 evidence indicating that they conducted only approximately 77 competency examinations

12 for detainees in the three subject states over the last three years. Defendants present no

13 evidence that there is any procedure or me chanism in place for either identifying or

14 evaluating a detain ee’s competency to repr esent himself or herself in imm igration

15 proceedings.

16

The very relief that Plaintiffs seek for their Class members are mental competency

17 evaluations. “Plaintiffs do not argue that all of those class members are not competent to

18 represent themselves, but rather that those individuals m ust be screened (by a trained,

19 qualified individual) to determ ine competency.” (Pls.’ Supp. Reply [Doc. #338] at 1

20 (emphasis in original).)

21

Defendants also argue that Plai ntiffs’ Sub-Class 1 calculation s hould be revised to

22 omit the 12 individuals for whom the alleged indicia of incompetency was administrative

23 closure or termination, because it is not unc ommon for proceedings to be t erminated or

24 administratively closed for reasons unrelated to mental co mpetency. The Court must

25 reject this argument as mer e speculation, however, because Defendan ts fail to identify

26 with any specificity the particular factual circumstances of those 12 cases, despite the fact

27 that the complete case files remain solely in their possession.

28

-14-

Case 2:10-cv-02211-DMG -DTB Document 348 Filed 11/21/11 Page 15 of 29 Page ID #:7050

1

Defendants emphasize that, as of August 25, 2011, Plaintiffs identified only 13

2 potential class memb ers, five of whom ar e Named Plaintiffs in this action. Defendants

3 point to t he June 27, 2011 Joint Stipulati on entered into by the pa rties, in which

4 Defendants asked Plaintiffs to provide the following:

5

the full identification (including names and A-numbers) of those

6

individuals whom Plaintiffs have identified by name and

7

circumstances whom Plaintiffs cu rrently believe to meet the

8

criteria for class [ and sub-class] membership as defined in

9

Plaintiffs’ operative complaint

10 (Decl. of Neelam Ihsanullah ¶ 3, Ex. 31 [Doc. # 328]) (italics in origi nal). In response,

11 Plaintiffs provided a chart listing names and A-numbers for 13 individuals. According to

12 Defendants, that Plaintiffs can nam e only 13 individuals undermines their ability to m eet

13 their burden of establishing numerosity.

14

As Defendants the mselves acknowledge in their supplemental opposition,

15 Plaintiffs “need not allege the exact number or identity of class mem bers to satisfy the

16 numerosity requirement.” (Defs.’ S upp. Opp’n [Doc. # 328] at 4 (citing Perez-Olano v.

17 Gonzalez, 248 F.R.D. 248 (C.D. Cal. 2008).) The disparity in the part ies’ information

18 highlights the fact that the data necessary to specifically identify members of the Clas s

19 and Sub-Classes by nam e and A-num bers are entirely within Defendants’ control.

20 Plaintiffs’ estimates of the num ber and id entity of Class and Sub-Class m embers are

21 based on the form and content of the information produced by Defendants. It is precisely

22 in situations such as this that joinder of plaintiffs is impracticable because it is difficult to

23 identify the proposed class mem bers, particularly where the defendant did not

24 systematically track such information and where the information necessary to identify

25 class members is within the defendant’s control. See Perez-Olano, 248 F.R.D. at 260

26 (finding sufficient evidence of num erosity where the government represented that they

27 did not track the information necessary to identify proposed class members).

28

-15-

Case 2:10-cv-02211-DMG -DTB Document 348 Filed 11/21/11 Page 16 of 29 Page ID #:7051

1

Defendants do not respond to the fact that Plaintiffs’ estim ates are based on data

2 collected for a single day in 2010, other than to say that it is not their fault that Plaintiffs

3 chose to prepare their estimates in that ma nner. Even by Defenda nts’ own est imates,

4 however, there were 55 Class mem bers as of February 14, 2010. Given the snapshot

5 information derived from class discovery and the previous adm issions by the

6 Government regarding the substantial num ber of detainees who suffer from serious

7 mental illnesses, the num ber of individuals falling within the defi nition of the proposed

8 Class and Sub-Classes is sufficiently large to warrant class treat ment. “Where the exact

9 size of the class is unknown but general know ledge and common sense indicate that it is

10 large, the num erosity requirement is satisfied.” 1 Robert Newberg, Newberg on Class

11 Actions, § 3:3 (4th e d. 2002); see also Jordan v. L.A. County , 669 F.2d 1311, 1319 n.9

12 (9th Cir.) (where injunctive relief is sought, particularly in sit uations involving a small

13 number of known cl ass members but a potentia lly large num ber of unknown or fut ure

14 class members, certi fication may be appropriate), vacated on other grounds , 459 U.S.

15 810, 103 S.Ct. 35, 74 L.Ed.2d 48 (1982).

16

Under these circu mstances, the Court finds that Plaintiffs satisfy Rule 23(a)(1)’s

17 numerosity requirement.

18

2. Commonality

19

The commonality requirement is satisfied if “there are questions of law or fact

20 common to the class.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23( a)(2). “Commonality requires the plaintiff to

21 demonstrate that the class members ‘have suffered the same injury.’” Dukes, 131 S.Ct. at

22 2551 (quoting Falcon, 457 U.S. at 157). In determ ining that a common questi on of law

23 exists, it is insufficient to find that all puta tive class members have suffered a violation of

24 the same provision of law. Id. Rather, the putative class members’ claims “must depend

25 upon a common contention” that is “of such a nature that it is capable of classwide

26 resolution—which means that determ ination of its truth or falsity will resolve an issue

27 that is central to the validity of each one of the claims in one stroke.” Id.

28

-16-

Case 2:10-cv-02211-DMG -DTB Document 348 Filed 11/21/11 Page 17 of 29 Page ID #:7052

1

Nonetheless, in conducting the co mmonality inquiry, one significant issue shared

2 by the class may suffice to warrant certification. Id. at 2556; see also Hanlon v. Chrysler

3 Corp., 150 F.3d 1011, 1019 (9th Cir. 1998) (“All questions of fact and law need not be

4 common to satisfy the rule. The existence of shared legal issues w ith divergent factual

5 predicates is sufficient . . . .”).

6

In this case, Plaintiffs posit that all of the proposed Plaintiff C lass and Sub-Class

7 members: (1) are in DHS cus tody for rem oval proceedings in California, Arizona, or

8 Washington; and (2) suffer from a serious mental disorder that may render them

9 incompetent to represent thems elves in immigration proceedings. Plaintiffs contend that

10 the proposed Class poses the following legal questions:

11

a. Whether it is lawful to conduct imm igration proceedings

12

involving members of the Cl ass where concerns are

13

raised regarding com petency without fi rst conducting a

14

competency hearing;

15

b. Whether the Constitution or statutory law requires the

16

Government to conduct com petency evaluations in

17

immigration proceedings;

18

c. Whether the Constitution or statutory law requires the

19

Government to appoint counsel for those found

20

incompetent to represent themselves;

21

d. Whether the Constit ution or st atutory law requires bon d

22

hearings for those who face prolonged detention due to

23

delays caused by their mental disability; and

24

e. Whether the regulations prom ulgated by the Att orney

25

General are adequate “safe guards” for the m entally

26

disabled and whether thos e suffering from a mental

27

disability may receive a fa ir hearing with those

28

“safeguards.”

-17-

Case 2:10-cv-02211-DMG -DTB Document 348 Filed 11/21/11 Page 18 of 29 Page ID #:7053

1 (Pl.’s Mot. at 19-20.) Plaintiffs’ Sub-Class 1 shares in common questions b, c, d and e

2 above and Sub-Class 2 shares in all five of the above questions.

3

Defendants contend that the highl y fact-based approach taken by the Court i n

4 adjudicating the Plaintiffs’ prelim inary injunction motions precludes a findi ng of

5 commonality. Contrary to Defendants’ conten tion, the Court’s fact-based approach was

6 necessary in the preliminary injunction context to provide a backdrop for the legal clai ms

7 and to determine the existence of irreparable harm justifying the extraordinary mandatory

8 injunctive relief requested by Pl aintiffs. As Defendants themselves have acknowledged

9 in responding to Plaintiffs’ discovery requests, however, “the claims raised by Plaintiffs

10 in this lawsuit are generally legal matters.” (Steinberg Decl . ¶ 6, Ex. 120 at 2-3 [Doc. #

11 126-1]; Defs.’ Initial Disclosures and Responses and Objections to Pls.’ Informal Request

12 of Production of Documents.)

13

Defendants further argue th at “[a]lthough Plaintiffs have raised several questions

14 of law that are common to their proposed class, these do not generate a common answer.”

15 (Defs.’ Supp. Opp’n at 16.) As discusse d supra, the Supreme Court held in Dukes that

16 one significant issue shared by the class may suffice to warrant certification. Dukes, 131

17 S.Ct. at 2556. Furtherm ore, Plaintiffs do, in fact, propose common answers in the relief

18 they seek, i.e., adequate competency evaluations, appointed counsel, and tim ely bond

19 hearings. (Pls.’ Supp. Brief at 18-19 [Doc. # 318].)

20

Defendants question whether the alleged failure to provide adequate safeguards for

21 the four Named Plaintiffs, in fi ve immigration courts in two st ates, speaks to a system ic

22 failure by 82 imm igration judges in 13 imm igration courts in t hree states to provi de

23 adequate procedural safeguard s and due process t o mentally incompetent aliens. The

24 voluminous record and num erous Orders in th is case have highli ghted the dearth of

25 guidance available to imm igration judges in proceedings pertaining to unrepresented

26 mentally incompetent aliens. The observati ons of the Immigration Judge who presided

27 over Martinez’s case are illustrative:

28

-18-

Case 2:10-cv-02211-DMG -DTB Document 348 Filed 11/21/11 Page 19 of 29 Page ID #:7054

1

The current law and regulations offer little guidance, as to how

2

the Court should proceed with a pro se Respondent who has

3

been deemed ment ally incompetent to proceed with removal

4

proceedings. . . . [T] he Attorney General has provided little

5

guidance regarding steps to ta ke to protect the rights and

6

privileges of the alien. Imm igration case law has also failed to

7

adequately address what such steps are to be taken for an

8

incompetent, pro se, alien i n removal proceedings. . . .

9

Currently there are no cases discussing the

procedural

10

safeguards for an unrepresented mentally incompetent alien; on

11

the contrary, the cases discuss matters where the aliens were

12

represented by counsel or an accredited representative or where

13

the Respondent was deemed to be competent.

14 (December 27 Order at 32-33.)

15

Defendants argue that the recent Board of Immigration Appeals decision, Matter of

16 M-A-M, 25 I. & N. Dec. 474 (BIA 2011) [Doc. # 201], undermines Plaintiffs’ request for

17 class treatment because it provides a framework for an immigration judge in assessing the

18 competency of an a lien appearing i n Immigration Court. Defenda nts assert that the

19 BIA’s formal definition of me ntal competency with respect to removal proceedings and

20 the identified safeguards resolve Plainti ffs’ claims. Defendants’ position is not

21 persuasive.

22

Nothing in the Matter of M-A-M- case changes the current legal landscape. Even

23 under a Matter of M-A-M- regime, respondents exhibiting indicia of mental incompetency

24 are neither entitled to m ental competency evaluations, appointment of a Qualified

25 Representative, nor any safe guards different from those al ready prescribed by existing

26 statutes and regulations and relied upon by the Government in this action. Rather, Matter

27 of M-A-M- reaffirms “an Immigration Judge is unde r no obligation to analyze an alien’s

28 competency.” 25 I. & N. Dec. 474 at 477. Where there are indicia of incompetency, the

-19-

Case 2:10-cv-02211-DMG -DTB Document 348 Filed 11/21/11 Page 20 of 29 Page ID #:7055

1 immigration judge “m ust make further inqui ry to determ ine whether the alien is

2 competent for purposes of i mmigration proceedings.” Id. at 484. Matter of M-A-M-

3 identifies the following safeguards:

4

Refusal to accept an ad mission of rem ovability from an

5

unrepresented respondent; identif ication and appearance of a

6

family member or close friend who can assist the respondent

7

and provide the court with info rmation; docketing or m anaging

8

the case to facilitate the responde nt’s ability to obtain legal

9

representation and/or medical treat ment in an effort to restore

10

competency; participation of a guardian in the proceedings;

11

continuance of the case for good cause shown; closing the

12

hearing to the publi c; waiving the respondent’s appearance;

13

actively aiding in the development of the record, including t he

14

examination and cross-examination of witnesses; and reserving

15

appeal rights for the respondent.

16 Id. at 483. The immigration judge must determine which of these safeguards are relevant

17 to the facts and circumstances of the case at hand. Id.

18

The relief that Plaintiffs seek herein has not been supplanted by the BIA’s decision

19 in Matter of M-A-M- . In fact, Plaintiffs herein di rectly challenge, among others, the

20 notion that m entally incompetent detainees can be adequately re presented by a fam ily

21 member or close fri end. In a ddition, Plaintiffs seek to implement procedures whereby

22 mental incompetency screenings can be obtained and counsel appointed if necessary.

23

In light of the existence of common le gal questions identifi ed above, which are

24 susceptible of a cl ass-wide resolution, the Court finds that Plaintiffs satisfy Rule

25 23(a)(2)’s commonality requirement.

26

3. Typicality

27

Typicality requires a showing that “the cl aims or defenses of the representative

28 parties are typical of the claims or defenses of the class.” F ed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(3). The

-20-

Case 2:10-cv-02211-DMG -DTB Document 348 Filed 11/21/11 Page 21 of 29 Page ID #:7056

1 purpose of this requirem ent “is to assure th at the interest of the named representative

2 aligns with the interests of the class.” Wolin v. Jaguar Land Rover N. Am., LLC , 617

3 F.3d 1168, 1175 (9t h Cir. 2010) (quoting Hanon v. Dataproducts Corp. , 976 F.2d 497,

4 508 (9th Cir. 1992)). “The test of typicality is whether ot her members have the same or

5 similar injury, whether the action is based on conduct which is not uni que to the named

6 plaintiffs, and whether other class m embers have been injured by the same course of

7 conduct.” Id. (quoting Hanon, 976 F.2d at 508).

8

The typicality standard unde r Rule 23(a)(3 ) is “perm issive”: “representative

9 claims are ‘typical’ if they are r easonably coextensive with those of absent class

10 members; they need not be substantially identical.” Staton v. Boeing Co., 327 F.3d 938,

11 957 (9th Cir. 2003) (quoting Hanlon, 150 F.3d at 1020).

12

Defendants argue that the Named Plaintiffs do not have the “same interests” an d

13 have not suffered t he “same injury” as the members of the putative class for various 14 reasons.12

15

First, Defendants contend that none of t he Named Plaintiffs were detained in or

16 had removal proceedings in Arizona. In their supplemental opposition, Defendants

17 propose that Plaintiffs’ proposed class defi nition be amended to om it Washington and

18 Arizona. Defendants fail, howev er, to cite any authorit y indicating that implementation

19 of the uniform federal policy that Plaintiffs challenge varies am ongst the three states or

20 any evidence that t he removal proceedings , either in Washington or Arizona, ar e 21 unique.13

22

23

24

12 As discussed supra, at the time that Defendants filed their o pposition, Zhalezny’s preliminary injunction motion remained pending before the Court. Defendants argued that his case posed the unique

25 question of whether his father m ay serve as an adequate representative . The Court determ ined that in
Zhalezny’s case, his father was not a Qualified Repr esentative. The Court ordered the Government to

26 provide Zhalezny with a Qualified Representative and a bond hearing.

27

13 When asked by the Court at the October 24, 20 11 hearing whether there were any differences

in the manner in which such f ederal policies are implemented at the f ederal detention facilities in th e

28 three states, Defendant’s counsel stated that he did not believe there were.

-21-

Case 2:10-cv-02211-DMG -DTB Document 348 Filed 11/21/11 Page 22 of 29 Page ID #:7057

1

Second, Defendants argue that Chavez is not currently in re moval proceedings or

2 in ICE custody. As discussed above with regard to the mootness issue, Chavez’s removal

3 proceedings were term inated “without prejudi ce.” He therefore remains subject to th e

4 reinstitution of removal proceedings at D efendants’ discretion. In this respect, Ch avez’s

5 situation is analogous to that of the petitioner in Rodriguez v. Hayes, 591 F.3d 1105 (9t h

6 Cir. 2010), who had been voluntarily released from mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. §

7 1226(c), but remained subject to the government’s exercise of discretion to re-detain him.

8 Just as Ch avez’s claims are not moot, his injuries are typical of those of putative class

9 members, especially those for whom rem oval proceedings have been voluntarily

10 terminated but who rem ain subject to the di scretionary reinstitution of future rem oval

11 proceedings.

12

Third, Defendants point out that Martinez and Khukhryanskiy’s a ppeals are

13 pending before the BIA, not the Imm igration Court. Plaintiffs do not need to establish,

14 however, that the Named Plainti ffs’ claims are substantially id entical. Plaintiffs define

15 the Class as those “who are or will be in DHS custody for remo val proceedings.”

16 Plaintiffs do not limit the Class to those whos e proceedings are pending before either the

17 BIA or the Immigration Court.

18

Finally, Defendants make m uch of the fact that Plaintiffs Zhalezny, M artinez, and

19 Khukhryanskiy were detained pursuant to th e mandatory detention st atute, 8 U.S.C. §

20 1226(c), while some proposed Class m embers may be detained pursuant to the

21 discretionary detention statute, 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a). Again, the Ninth Circuit’s decision in

22 Rodriguez is instructive. In Rodriguez, the Ninth Circuit certified a class even though the

23 class members were detained under the authority of different statutes at different points in

24 the removal process. 591 F.3d at 1124. The issues presented in this case transcend any

25 concerns over the specific subsection of the statute that authorizes detention.

26

The Named Plaintiffs and proposed Cla ss and Sub-Class m embers exhibit indicia

27 of mental incompetency and seek an evaluation to determine whether they are competent

28 to represent them selves. The redress that the Named Plaintiffs and t he proposed Class

-22-

Case 2:10-cv-02211-DMG -DTB Document 348 Filed 11/21/11 Page 23 of 29 Page ID #:7058

1 members seek is not continge nt upon whether they are in fact ment ally incompetent or

2 will be found to be so, nor does it turn upon th e reasons for their detention. The Named

3 Plaintiffs and the Sub-Class me mbers share the additional char acteristic that they have

4 been found to be mentally incom petent or have been in detention for m ore than si x

5 months, or both. The members of the Sub-Classes seek appointment of counsel and bond

6 hearings.

7

The Court finds that the cl aims of the Named Plaintiffs are reasonably coextensive

8 with those of the putative class and that Plaintiffs therefore satisfy Rule 23(a)(3).

9

4. Adequate Representation

10

Rule 23(a)(4) permit s certification of a cl ass action if “the re presentative parties

11 will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(4).

12 “Class representation is inadequate if the na med plaintiff fails to prosecute th e action

13 vigorously on behalf of the enti re class or has an insurm ountable conflict of interest with

14 other class members.” Hesse v. Sprint C orp., 598 F.3d 581, 589 (9 th Cir. 2010) (citing

15 Hanlon, 150 F.3d at 1020); see also Dukes, 131 S.Ct. at 2551 n.5 (explaining t hat the

16 adequacy of repre sentation inquiry is di stinct from questions of typicality and

17 commonality insofar as it “rai ses concerns about t he competency of class counsel and

18 conflicts of interest”). The Named Plain tiffs themselves must be entitled to seek

19 injunctive relief if they are to repr esent a class seeking such relief. Hodgers-Durgin v.

20 De La Vina, 199 F.3d 1037, 1045 (9th Cir. 1999).

21

As discussed supra, Plaintiffs satisfy the co mmonality and typicality requirements

22 of Rule 23(a)(3). Defendant s concede that Plaintiffs’ proposed class counsel are

23 qualified to serve as class couns el, but reassert their contentio n that the Named Plaintiffs

24 are not adequate class representatives for the reasons already addressed above in the

25 discussion regarding mootness. (Defs.’ Opp’n at 17.) The Court need not revi sit those

26 arguments. The fact that certain Named Plai ntiffs have sought a nd obtained injunctive

27 relief bolsters the adequacy of their representation rather than detracts from it. The Court

28 finds that the Named Plaint iffs are adequate class representatives as specified below and

-23-

Case 2:10-cv-02211-DMG -DTB Document 348 Filed 11/21/11 Page 24 of 29 Page ID #:7059

1 no conflict of i nterest has been identified which disqualifies them from serving in that

2 capacity.

3 D. The Rule 23(b)(2) Requirements

4

Classes may be certified pursuant to Rul e 23(b)(2) if “the party opposing the class

5 has acted or refused to act on grounds t hat apply generally to the class, so that fina l

6 injunctive relief or correspondi ng declaratory relief is appropriate respect ing the class as

7 a whole.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2). Clas s certification under Rule 23(b)(2) is possible

8 only when declaratory or i njunctive relief is sought. Rule 23(b)(2) certification i s

9 available for monetary relief, if at all, only when such relief is incidental to the injunctive

10 or declaratory relief. Dukes, 131 S.Ct. at 2557. This subsection “appl ies only when a

11 single injunction or declaratory judgm ent would provide relief to each mem ber of the

12 class. It does not authorize class certifica tion when each individual class member would

13 be entitled to a different injunction or declaratory judgm ent against the defendant.”

14 Dukes, 131 S.Ct. at 2557.

15

In determining whether certification is appropriate under Rule 23(b)(2), a court

16 must “look at whether class members seek uniform relief from a practice applicable to all

17 of them.” Rodriguez, 591 F.3d at 1125. “The fact that some class mem bers may have

18 suffered no injury or different injuries fr om the challenged practice does not prevent the

19 class from meeting the requirements of Rule 23(b)(2).” Id. (citing Walters v. Reno, 145

20 F.3d 1032, 1047 (9t h Cir. 1998)). Claim s for individualized relief, in contrast, do not

21 satisfy Rule 23(b)(2). Dukes, 131 S.Ct. at 2557.

22

Civil rights actions against parties charged

with unlawful, class-based

23 discrimination are “prim e examples” of Rule 23(b)(2) cases. Amchem Prods., Inc. v.

24 Windsor, 521 U.S. 591, 614, 117 S.Ct. 2231, 138 L.Ed.2d 689 (1997); see also Walters,

25 145 F.3d at 1047 (e xplaining that Rule 23(b)(2 ) “was adopted in orde r to perm it the

26 prosecution of civil rights actions”).

27

Defendants argue t hat Plaintiffs fail to demonstrate that the proposed class is

28 maintainable under Rule 23(b)(2) because, under Matter of M-A-M- , the comp etency

-24-

Case 2:10-cv-02211-DMG -DTB Document 348 Filed 11/21/11 Page 25 of 29 Page ID #:7060

1 determination and sa feguards provided to an incompetent alien will vary based on the 2 circumstances of the cas e.14 Defendants base t heir argument on t he discretion that

3 immigration judges are afforded under Matter of M-A-M-.

4

As the Court has discussed supra, however, the BIA’s determination in the Matter

5 of M-A-M- neither alters the current legal lands cape nor defeats Plaintiffs’ ability to

6 establish the commonality of their claim s for relief. At the cr ux of this action is

7 Plaintiffs’ claim that Defend ants have faile d, on a syste mic basis, to have adequate

8

9

14 Defendants argue that the propos ed class definition is defectiv e because it is overly broad and urge the Court to consider a modified class definition, as follows:

10

All individuals in DHS custody for re moval proceedings in California and

Washington who have been deem ed or declared mentally incompetent by

11

an Immigration Judge for purposes of their rem oval proceedings; who

12

presently lack a qualif ied representative in the f orm of an attorne y, representative, legal guardian, near relative or friend in their detention or

13

removal proceedings; and who m ay suffer preju dice if their deten tion or

removal proceedings continue without a qualified representative to ass ist

14

them.

15 (Defs.’ Opp’n at 23 n. 10.)
Defendants appear to m isunderstand Plaintiffs’ proposed Class definition. As discussed supra,

16 Plaintiffs seek, by the current defi nition, to include those individuals who m ay be determ ined to be

17

mentally incompetent to represent themselves. “Plaintiffs do not a rgue that all of those class members are not com petent to represent them selves, but rather that those individuals m ust be screened (by a

18 trained, qualified individual) to determine competency.” (Pls.’ Supp. Reply [Doc. # 338] at 1.)
At the October 24, 2011 hearing, Defendants ad ditionally argued that Plaintiffs’ use of the term

19 “serious mental disorder” is so vague and ambiguous that Defendants will be unable to determ ine which

20

detainees must be screened. Th e California Departm ent of Corr ections (“CDC”) m ade a sim ilar argument in Coleman v. Wilson , 912 F. Supp. 1282 (E.D. Cal. 1995), where the court considered an

21 Eighth Amendment challenge to the ade quacy of mental health care. In Coleman, the CDC argued that
the absence of a specific definition of “serious ment al disorder” precluded the court or anyone charged

22 with implementing relief from determining who is a member of the class and the extent of relief. Id. at

23

1300. The court disagreed and concluded that “the phrase ‘serious m ental disorder’ has a readily available definition in a medical context [and] in a legal co ntext.” Id. at 1301. T he Coleman court’s

24 defense of the “serious m ental disorder” terminology is persuasive. In this cas e, a list of the types of
serious mental health disorders that would trigger a competency evaluation would provide Def endants
25 with the type of guidance they need. Moreover, De fendants’ proposed class definition responds to only

26

a part of the problem and suffers from the sam e defect as the cu rrent allegedly defective sy stem of handling mentally incompetent deta inees – it presupposes that a findi ng of m ental incompetency will

27 somehow materialize spontaneously from an Imm igration Judge. By defining a “Qualified

Representative” to include a relati ve or friend, Defendants’ proposed class definition also seeks to wipe
28 out Plaintiffs’ claim for appointed counsel before it has even been litigated on the merits.

-25-

Case 2:10-cv-02211-DMG -DTB Document 348 Filed 11/21/11 Page 26 of 29 Page ID #:7061

1 procedures in place to both identify mentally incompetent aliens and provide them with

2 necessary safeguards. As such, Plaintiffs seek uniform relief in the form of (1)

3 independent mental com petency evaluations for Class m embers, (2) appointed counsel

4 for Sub-Class 1 members, and (3) bond hearings for Sub-Class 2 members.

5

Furthermore, contrary to Defendants’ characterization of the issues presented in the

6 preliminary injunction motions of Marti nez, Khukhryanskiy, and Zhalezny, the relief

7 provided to each of these Plaintiffs was well w ithin the scope of the relief that Plaintiffs

8 seek on behalf of the Class and Sub-Cla

sses. Although t he particular factual

9 circumstances of Plaintiffs Martinez, K hykryanskiy, and Zhalezny may have varied

10 slightly, each of them suffered from the sa me failure by Defe ndants to implemen t

11 meaningful systemic guidelines for unrepr esented mentally incompetent aliens in

12 removal proceedings. The Court therefore finds that Plaintiffs me et the Rule 23(b)(2)

13 standard as to the Class and Sub-Classes.

14 E. Injunctive Relief Is Not Foreclosed By 8 U.S.C. § 1252(f)(1)

15

Defendants contend that the plain language of 8 U. S.C. § 1252(f)(1) di vests this

16 Court of subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ request for bond hearings for al l class 17 members suffering from prolonged detention.15

18

The Government made a similar argument in Rodriguez, 591 F.3d 1105, where the

19 petitioners sought to certify a cl ass of aliens detained for longer than six months without

20 a bond hearing. The court dete rmined that section 1252(f) did not bar certification of the

21

22

23

15 Section 1252(f)(1) provides: Regardless of the nature of the action or claim or of the identity of the

24

party or parties bringing the action, no court (other than the Suprem e

Court) shall have jurisdiction or au thority to enjo in or restrain the

25

operation of the provisions of part IV of this subchapter, as am ended by

26

the Illegal Imm igration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, other than with respect to the application of such provisions to an

27

individual alien against whom proceedings under such part have been

initiated.
28 8 U.S.C. § 1252(f)(1).

-26-

Case 2:10-cv-02211-DMG -DTB Document 348 Filed 11/21/11 Page 27 of 29 Page ID #:7062

1 class unless it barred the proposed class from receiving any class relief. According to the

2 Ninth Circuit, section 1252(f) did not prohibit the court from enjoining a violation of the

3 detention statutes, as opposed to “the operation of” the detention statutes:

4

Petitioner here does not seek to enjoin the operation of the

5

immigration detention statutes, but to enjoin conduct it asserts

6

is not authorized by the statutes. Petitioner argues only that the

7

immigration detention statutes, to the extent they cannot be

8

interpreted as requiri ng provision of a bond hearing, m ust be

9

enjoined as unconstitutional. Ho wever, as this latter argument

10

for relief may never be reached, it cannot be a basis for denial

11

of class certification.

12 Id. at 1120.

13

Defendants attempt to distinguish Rodriguez insofar as that case involved a facial

14 challenge to the constitutionality or scope of the statutes and regulations with respect to

15 the continued detention of ali ens for more than six m onths without a bond hearing.

16 According to Defendants, Plaintiffs here seek bond hearings for ali ens detained for

17 “prolonged periods,” which is an attack on th e operation of the statute. The attempt t o

18 distinguish Rodriguez is unavailing.

19

To the extent Plaintiffs’ proposed Sub- Class 2 incl udes individuals det ained for

20 periods longer than six m onths, it seeks to implement the guidance already given by the

21 Ninth Circuit to prevent the alleged violation of the detention statutes as they have been

22 construed in cases such as Rodriguez, Casas-Castrillon v. Dept. of Homeland Security,

23 535 F.3d 942 (9th Cir. 2008), and Diouf v. Napolitano, 634 F.3d 1081 (9t h Cir. 2011).

24 The Court finds that Section 1252(f)(1) does not limit injunctive relief in this context.

25

V.

26

CONCLUSION

27

In light of the foregoing:

28

1. Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification is GRANTED.

-27-

Case 2:10-cv-02211-DMG -DTB Document 348 Filed 11/21/11 Page 28 of 29 Page ID #:7063

1

2. The Court certifies the following Class and Sub-Classes:

2

a. Plaintiff Class: All individuals who are or will be in DHS custody for

3

removal proceedings in California, Arizona, and Washington who

4

have been identified by or to medical personnel, DHS, or an

5

Immigration Judge, as having a serious mental disorder or defect that

6

may render them incompetent to represent themselves in detention or

7

removal proceedings, and who presently lack counsel in their

8

detention or removal proceedings.

9

b. Plaintiff Sub-Class 1: Individuals in the above-named Plaintiff Class

10

who have a serious mental disorder or defect that renders them

11

incompetent to represent themselves in detention or removal

12

proceedings

13

c. Plaintiff Sub-Class 2: Individuals in the above-named Plaintiff Class

14

who have been detained for more than six months.

15

3. The Court certifies class representatives as follows:

16

a. With respect to the Plaintiff Class, the Court certifies Plaintiffs

17

Chavez, Khukhyranskiy, Martinez, Sepulveda, and Zhalezny;

18

b. With respect to Plaintiff Sub-Cla ss 1, the Court certifies Plaintiffs

19

Chavez, Khukhryanskiy, Martinez, and Zhalezny; and

20

c. With respect to Plaintiff Sub-Cla ss 2, the Court certifies Plaintiffs

21

Khukhryanskiy, Martinez, Zhalezny, and Sepulveda.

22

4. The Court certifies the followi ng individuals as class counsel: Ahilan T.

23

Arulanantham, Judy London, Talia Inle nder, Michael H. Steinberg, Judy

24

Rabinovitz, David Blair-Loy, Sean Riordan, James Preis, and Matt Adams.

25

5. Due to privacy considerations, this Or der shall be filed under seal. Within

26

14 days from the date of thi s Order, the parties shall meet and confer

27

regarding which portions of the Order, if any, they propose t o be redacted

28

such that a redact ed version of the Orde r may be f iled, or notify the Court

-28-

Case 2:10-cv-02211-DMG -DTB Document 348 Filed 11/21/11 Page 29 of 29 Page ID #:7064

1

that the parties waive privacy rights as to the confidential information relied

2

upon herein and t hat the Order m ay be unsealed. The parties shall fi le a

3

joint report with the Cour t by no later than Decem ber 2, 2011 regarding the

4

sealed status of this Order.

5 IT IS SO ORDERED.

6

7 DATED: November 21, 2011

8

DOLLY M. GEE

9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

-29-

 
 Case 2:10-cv-02211-DMG-DTB Document 592 Filed 04/23/13 Page 1 of 35 Page ID #:13159

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10 11 JOSE ANTONIO
FRANCO-GONZALEZ, ET AL., 12

13

Plaintiffs,

14

v.

15 ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., ATTORNEY 16 GENERAL, ET AL.,

17

Defendants.

18

19

) Case No. CV 10-02211 DMG (DTBx) ) ) ORDER RE PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION ) FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY ) JUDGMENT AND PLAINTIFFS’ ) MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY ) INJUNCTION ON BEHALF OF ) SEVEN CLASS MEMBERS [DOC. ## ) 398, 527] ) ) )

20

21

This matter is before the Court on Plai ntiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment

22 [Doc. # 398] and Plaintiffs’ m otion for a pre liminary injunction on be half of seven class

23 members [Doc. # 527]. Plaintiffs seek par tial summary judgment on the third through

24 fifth and eighth t hrough tenth causes of acti on in the t hird amended com plaint. In

25 accordance with that motion, Plaintiffs ask the Court to ma ke permanent its preliminary

26 injunction rulings [Doc. ## 107, 215, 285] and apply t he rulings to the Named

27 Representatives and all members of Sub-Classes One and Two.

28

-1-

Case 2:10-cv-02211-DMG-DTB Document 592 Filed 04/23/13 Page 2 of 35 Page ID #:13160

1

I.

2

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

3

On March 26, 2010, Petitioner Jose An tonio Franco-Gonzalez filed a Petition for

4 Writ of Habeas Corpus (the “Petition”) in this Court a lleging various violations of the

5 Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”), the Du e Process Clause of the Fifth

6 Amendment to the United States Constitution, and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act,

7 29 U.S.C. § 794. On March 31, 2010, Respondents rele ased Franco-Gonzalez from

8 custody on his own recognizance, under conditions of supervision pursuant to section 236

9 of the INA, 8 U.S.C. § 1226.

10

On August 2, 2010, Franco-Gonzalez attempted to file a first amended class action

11 complaint (the “Amended Com plaint”), which sought to a dd new plaintiffs and new

12 causes of action and to certify a class of plaintiffs similarly situated to Franco-Gonzalez,

13 i.e., mentally di sabled immigrant detainees w ho are held in custody w ithout counsel.

14 (Am. Compl. ¶¶ 39-82, 96-137.) On August 6, 2010, the Honorable David T. Bristow,

15 United States Magistrate Judge, rejected th e Amended Complaint as untimely under Fed.

16 R. Civ. P. 15(a). On August 23, 2010, Franco-Gonzalez filed an Ex Parte Application to

17 file the Amended Com plaint, which Magistra te Judge Bristow deni ed on September 3,

18 2010.

19

On September 14, 2010, Franco-Gonzalez filed a Motion for Review of Magistrate

20 Judge’s Decision Denying Ex Parte Application to Amend Com plaint. On October 18,

21 2010, this Court granted Franco-Gonzalez’ s Motion and provided Franco-Gonzalez 15

22 days to file an amended complaint. [D oc. # 54.] On Novem ber 2, 2010, Franco-

23 Gonzalez filed a first am ended class action complaint, which added Plaintiffs Aleksandr

24 Petrovich Khukhryanskiy and Ever Francisco Martinez as well as three other nam ed

25 plaintiffs. [Doc. # 64.]

26

On November 15, 2010, Plai ntiffs Khukhryanskiy and Martinez-Rivas filed (1) an

27 application for a tem porary restraining or der (“TRO”) [Doc. # 57], (2) a m otion for a

28 preliminary injunction [Doc. # 57], and (3) an expedited discovery application [Doc.

-2-

Case 2:10-cv-02211-DMG-DTB Document 592 Filed 04/23/13 Page 3 of 35 Page ID #:13161

1 # 60]. On November 24, 2010, the Court issued an order granting Plainti ffs’ TRO

2 application and denying Plaintiffs’ expe dited discovery application. [Doc. # 78.] The

3 Court issued an order granting Plaintiffs Khukhryanskiy’s and Martinez-Rivas’ m otion

4 for a preliminary injunction on December 22, 2010 [Doc. # 106] and an amended order

5 on December 27, 2010 [Doc. # 107].

6

On January 14, 2011, Plaintiff Maksim Zhalezny filed a m otion for a prelim inary

7 injunction [Doc. # 111] . On May 4, 2011, the Court issued an order granting Pl aintiff

8 Zhalezny’s motion for a preliminary injunction [Doc. # 215].

9

On February 14, 2011, Plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification. The Court

10 held a hearing on that motion on April 15, 2011 [Doc. # 182], granted the parties leave to

11 conduct class discovery [Doc . # 206] , and conducted a furt her hearing on October 24,

12 2011 [Doc. # 342]. On November 21, 2011, the Court issued an order granting Plaintiffs’

13 motion for class certification (“Class Cert. Or der”) [Doc. # 348]. The Court certifi ed the

14 following Class and Sub-Classes:

15

All individuals who are or will be in DHS custody for removal proceed ings

16

in California, Arizona, and Washington who have been identified by or to

17

medical personnel, DHS, or an Imm igration Judge, as having a serious

18

mental disorder or defect that may render them inco mpetent to represent

19

themselves in detention or removal proceedings, and who presently lack

20

counsel in their detention or removal proceedings.

21

22

Sub-Class 1: Individuals in t he above-named Plaintiff Class who have a

23

serious mental disorder or defect that renders them incompetent to represent

24

themselves in detention or removal proceedings.

25

26

Sub-Class 2: Individuals in t he above-named Plaintiff Class who have been

27

detained for more than six months.

28

-3-

Case 2:10-cv-02211-DMG-DTB Document 592 Filed 04/23/13 Page 4 of 35 Page ID #:13162

1 (Id.) On June 22, 2012, Defend ants filed a motion for reconsideration of the Class Cert.

2 Order [Doc. # 389], which the Court denied on August 27, 2012 [Doc. # 460].

3

On April 18, 2011, Plaintiffs filed a m otion for leave to file a second amended

4 complaint, by which Plaintiffs sought to add new Named Plaintiffs and to request

5 psychological evaluations conducted by an independent expert and appointment of

6 counsel pursuant to t he Criminal Justice Act (“CJA”), 18 U.S.C. § 3006A. On July 18,

7 2011, the Court issued an order granting in part and denying in part Plaintiffs’ motion for

8 leave to file a second amended complaint [Doc. # 242]. Plaintiffs filed a second amended

9 class action complaint on July 25, 2011 [Doc. # 250].

10

On June 13, 2011, Putative Plaintiff Jo se Antonio Moreno and Plaintiff Yonas

11 Woldemariam each filed a m otion for a preliminary injunction [Doc. # 217]. On August

12 2, 2011, the Court issued an order gran ting Plaintiff Wol demariam’s motion for a

13 preliminary injunction [Doc. # 285]. On Septem ber 12, 2011, the Court denied Plaintiff

14 Moreno’s motion for a preliminary injunction without prejudice [Doc. # 300].

15

On October 25, 2011, with leave of the Court, Plaintiffs filed a third amended class

16 action complaint—the operative com plaint in this action. [Doc. # 344.] The third

17 amended complaint alleges the following cause s of action: (1) right to a co mpetency

18 evaluation under the INA; (2) right to a co mpetency evaluation under t he Due Process

19 Clause; (3) right to appointed counsel under the INA; (4) right to appointed counsel under

20 Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C . § 794 (“Section 5 04”); (5) right to

21 appointed counsel under the Due Process Clause ; (6) right t o release under the INA; (7)

22 right to release under the Due Process Clause; (8) right to a detention hearing under the

23 INA; (9) right to a detention hearing under Se ction 504; (10) right to a detention hearing 24 under the Due Process Clause; and (11) violation of the Administrative Procedures Act.1

25

26

27

1 Plaintiffs Franco-Gonzalez and Woldemariam do not join in C laims One through Five.

28 Plaintiff Franco-Gonzalez alone asserts Claims Six and Seven.

-4-

Case 2:10-cv-02211-DMG-DTB Document 592 Filed 04/23/13 Page 5 of 35 Page ID #:13163

1

On July 9, 2012, Plaintiffs Martinez, Khukhryanskiy, Zhalezny, and Chavez filed a

2 motion for partial summary judgm ent on behalf of Sub-Class One members as to Counts

3 3-5 (right to appoi nted counsel) of their third amended cl ass action complaint [Doc.

4 # 398]. Plaintiffs Martinez, Khukhryanskiy, Zhalezny, and Sepulveda also seek partial

5 summary judgment on behalf of Sub-Cl ass Two members as to Counts 8-10 (right to

6 detention hearing). Defenda nts filed an opposition on Augu st 17, 2012 [Doc. # 441] .

7 Plaintiffs filed a reply on Au gust 24, 2012 [Doc. # 453] . The Court conducted a hearing

8 on the motion on September 7, 2012. The par ties filed supplemental briefs on October

9 26, 2012 [Doc. ## 503, 504].

10

While the motion for partial summary ju dgment remained pending, Plaintiffs filed

11 another motion for a prelim inary injunction on behalf of purported class m embers Elijah

12 Ibanga, Vasily Zotov, Veas ana Meas, J esus Tapia, Nicolas Guerrero-Ram irez, Ismael

13 Mendez, and Maria Valdivia [Doc. # 527]. The Court held a hearing on the pending

14 motions on March 22, 2013. Both the m otion for partial summary judgm ent and the

15 motion for preliminary injunction are addressed herein.

16

II.

17

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

18

The detailed factual background of this case is set fort h in a series of orders

19 previously issued by this Court and will not be repeated here [ see Doc. ## 106, 107, 215,

20 348, 285, 300].

21

Plaintiffs have disti lled that backgroun d into three key facts: (1) that the

22 Government detains and places into remo val proceedings Sub- Class One memb ers, i.e.,

23 individuals who are not com petent to represent themselves by reason of a serious mental

24 disorder or defect; (2) the Government im poses on itself no legal obli gation to provi de

25 representation for such individuals in their immigration proceedings; and (3) the

26 Government detains Sub-Class Two mem bers for m ore than six m onths without

27 providing bond hearings i n which it m ust show by clear and convincing evidence that

28 further detention is justified. Defendants do not dispute these basic facts.

-5-

Case 2:10-cv-02211-DMG-DTB Document 592 Filed 04/23/13 Page 6 of 35 Page ID #:13164

1

III.

2

DISCUSSION

3 A. Plaintiffs Are Entitled to Appointment of a Qualified Representative in Their

4

Immigration Proceedings

5

1. Plaintiffs Are Entitled to a Reasonable Accommodation under

6

Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act

7

Plaintiffs first assert that the Rehabilita tion Act requires legal representation as a

8 reasonable accommodation for indivi duals who are not comp etent to represent

9 themselves by virtue of their mental disab ilities. For the reasons disc ussed below, the

10 Court finds that Section 504 of the Rehab ilitation Act does require the appointment of a

11 Qualified Representative as a reaso nable accommodation, and accordingl y grants

12 Plaintiffs’ motion as to Count Four.

13

a. Defendants Fail to Raise a Triable Issue Whether Plaintiffs

14

Establish a Prima Facie Case Under the Rehabilitation Act

15

Defendants argue that Plaintiffs fail to establish a prima facie case under the

16 Rehabilitation Act because they have not dem onstrated that all Sub-Class One mem bers,

17 or even a substantial portion of them, were denied meaningful access to the immigration

18 courts solely by reason of their disability.

19

In order to establish a prima facie case under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act,

20 Plaintiffs must establish that: (1) Sub-Cl ass One members are persons with disabilities

21 within the meaning of the Rehabilitation Act; (2 ) they were “otherwise qualified for the

22 benefit or services sought”; (3) they w ere “denied the benefit or services solely by

23 reason” of their disability; and (4) the entity to provide the bene fit receives f ederal

24 funding. Lovell v. Chandler, 303 F.3d 1039, 1052 (9th Cir. 2002). Defendants do not 25 contest that Plaintiffs satisfy the first, second, and fourth requirements.2 (Defs.’ Opp’n to

26

27

2 The record shows that the first, second, and fourth requirem ents are, in fact, m et. First, the Rehabilitation Act defines “disability” as “(A) a physic al or mental impairment that substantially limits

28 one or more major life activities of [the] individual; (B) a record of such an impairment; or (C) being

regarded as having such an im pairment.” 42 U. S.C. § 12102(1). Sub-class One m embers “have a

-6-

Case 2:10-cv-02211-DMG-DTB Document 592 Filed 04/23/13 Page 7 of 35 Page ID #:13165

1 Pls.’ Mot. for Partial Summary Judgment (“Opp’n”) at 4 [Doc. # 441] .) They do dispute

2 whether Plaintiffs satisfy the third requirement. ( Id.) The Court therefore focuses only

3 on the third factor.

4

First, Defendants present evidence that , of the 21 ident ified Sub-Class One

5 members, 17 are no longer part of the class because three are represented by counsel and

6 14 have been released from De partment of Homeland Security (“DHS”) custody. (Decl.

7 of Samuel P. Go (“Go Decl .”) ¶¶ 25-26 [Doc. # 442] .) Among the 14 released, one has 8 been granted relief and seven of them h ave had th eir removal proceed ings terminated.3

9 (Id.) Defendants argue that, at a m inimum, this raises a genuine issu e of mater ial fact

10 whether all Sub-Class One members have been denied meaningful access to the courts.

11

Plaintiffs emphasize that the injury of whic h they complain is procedural in nature

12 and therefore these developments in certain class members’ cases need not affect the

13 Court’s analysis. Indeed, Plaintiffs have ne ver argued that Class or Sub-Class members

14 are entitled to relief from removal. Rathe r, Plaintiffs point out that 8 U.S.C.

15 § 1229a(b)(4)(B) provides that an alien in removal proceedings “shall have a reas onable

16 opportunity to examine the evidence against th e alien, to present evidence on the alien' s

17 own behalf, and to cross-exam ine witnesses presented by the Government.” Id.

18

19 serious mental disorder or defect that renders them incompetent to represent themselves in detention or

20

removal proceedings,” and therefore are “disab led” under this definitio n. ( See Class Cert. Order.) Second, the exercise of rights to pr esent evidence, cross-examine witnesses, and make legal arguments

21 against the Governm ent’s charges constitute a “ben efit or service s” to whic h all ind ividuals in
immigration proceedings, including Sub-class One m embers, are entitled. See 29 C.F.R. § 39.102
22 (Section 504 applies to “all program s or activities” conducted by executive agencies). Finally, it is

23 undisputed that Defendants, all federal agencies, receive federal funding.

24

3 Plaintiffs submit evidence that, although Immigr ation Judges terminated proceedings as a

safeguard for Sub-class One m embers, the DHS has appeal ed such terminations in at least some cases.

25 (See Decl. of Talia Inlender (“Inlender Decl.”) at ¶ 2 [Doc. # 399].) Pl aintiffs’ evidence also shows that

26

one Sub-class One member who was previously released is now back in custody, another Sub-class One member continues to appear in immigration proceedings without a representative, and another Sub-class

27 One member was removed after an Immigration Judge reversed his p revious incompetency
determination at a proceeding in which the m ember was not repres ented. (Pls.’ Notice to Court [Doc.
28 # 495].)

-7-

Case 2:10-cv-02211-DMG-DTB Document 592 Filed 04/23/13 Page 8 of 35 Page ID #:13166

1 Defendants present no evidence that Sub-Cla ss One members are able to m eaningfully

2 exercise such rights absent court intervention.

3

Moreover, as the Court has reiterated tim e and again in this case, “the mere

4 [voluntary] cessation of illegal activity in response to pendi ng litigation does not m oot a

5 case.” Rosemere Neighborhood Ass’n v. U.S. EPA, 581 F.3d 1169, 1173 (9th Cir. 2009).

6 Thus, Defendants’ swift actions to ensure that identified Sub-Class One mem bers have

7 been released, appointed counsel, or had pr oceedings terminated during the course of

8 these proceedings or pursuant to this Court’s preliminary injunction rulings do not vitiate

9 Plaintiffs’ claims that, absent court intervention, they have been unable to meaningfull y

10 participate in the system solely by reason of their mental disabilities.

11

Second, Defendants argue that Plaintiffs are not denied access “solely by reason”

12 of their disability be cause the Government does not intend to pr event them from full

13 participation in their rem oval proceedings. A suit for da mages under Section 504

14 requires a showing t hat the defendant acted with “deliberate indifference” in denying a

15 reasonable accommodation. See Mark H. v. L emahieu, 513 F.3d 922, 938 (9t h Cir.

16 2008). In an action solely for i njunctive relief, however, it is sufficient t hat Plaintiffs are

17 unable to meaningfully access the benefit offere d—in this case, full participation in their

18 removal and detention proceedings—be cause of their disa bility. See Alexander v.

19 Choate, 469 U.S. 287, 299, 105 S. Ct. 712, 719, 83 L. Ed. 2d 661 (1985) (finding tha t

20 Section 504 is not limited to intentional di scrimination alone, but “requires that an

21 otherwise qualified handicapped individual must be provided with meaningful access t o

22 the benefit); Hunsaker v. Contra Costa Cnty, 149 F.3d 1041, 1043 (9th Cir. 1998) (citing

23 Alexander).

24

On the record presented, the Court finds that Defendants fail to raise a triable issue

25 whether Plaintiffs have established a prima facie case under the Rehabilitation Act.

26

27

28

-8-

Case 2:10-cv-02211-DMG-DTB Document 592 Filed 04/23/13 Page 9 of 35 Page ID #:13167

1

b. Appointment of a Qualified Representative is a Reasonable

2

Accommodation and Does Not Constitute a “Fundamental

3

Alteration” of the Immigration Court System4

4

Defendants next argue that, even if Plaintiffs are able to establish a prima facie

5 case, legal representation for all mentally incompetent aliens detained for rem oval

6 proceedings is far beyond a “reasonable acco mmodation” and amounts to a “fundamental

7 alteration” of the immigration court system , primarily because the Ex ecutive Office of

8 Immigration Review (“EOIR”) does not have th e capacity or fundi ng to implement such

9 a program. (Decl. o f Steven Lang (“Lang D ecl.”) at ¶¶ 6-8, 12-15; Ex. C [Doc. # 441-

10 2].)

11

Whether an accommodation is reasonable depends on the individual circumstances

12 of each case and requires a fact-specific, i ndividualized analysis of the individual’s

13 circumstances and the acco mmodations that enable meaningful access to the federal

14 program. See Mark H v. Ha mamoto, 620 F.3d 1090, 1098 (9th Cir. 2010); see also

15 American Council of the Blind v. Paulson, 525 F.3d 1256, 1267 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (noting

16 that, where plaintiffs seek to expand the scope of a progra m or benefit, they seek a

17 fundamental alteration to an existing progra m rather than a reasonable accomm odation).

18 As discussed supra, however, Plaintiffs do not seek relief from removal or automatic

19 termination of their proceedings. They seek only the ability to meaningfully participate

20 in the immigration court process, including t he rights to “exam ine the evidence against

21 the alien, to present evidence o n the alien’s own behalf, and to cr oss-examine witnesses

22

23

4 In their third am ended complaint and m otion, Plaintiffs seek relief in the form of “legal

24 representation” under the Rehabilitation Act. In their prior efforts to seek prelim inary injunctive relief
for various of the Na med Plaintiffs, however, Plainti ffs advocated for, and the Court granted, relief i n

25 the form of appointment of a “Qualified Representati ve,” a broader term that includes (1) an attorney,

26

(2) a law student or law graduate directly supervised by a reta ined attorney, or (3) an ac credited representative, all as defined in 8 C.F.R. § 1292.1. See Franco-Gonzalez, et al. v. Holder, 828 F. Supp.

27 2d 1133, 1147 (C.D. Cal. 2011). When the Court asked Plaintiffs at the Sept ember 7, 2012 hearing to
clarify that they seek appointm ent of a Qualified Representative as previously defined by this Court,

28 Plaintiffs responded affirmatively.

-9-

Case 2:10-cv-02211-DMG-DTB Document 592 Filed 04/23/13 Page 10 of 35 Page ID #:13168

1 presented by the Government.” 8 U.S.C. § 1229a (b)(4)(B). Plaintiffs’ ability to exercise

2 these rights is hindered by their m ental incompetency, and the provisi on of competent

3 representation able to navigate the proceed ings is the only means by which they m ay

4 invoke those rights.

5

i. The Requested Accommodation Does Not Impose an Und ue

6

Financial

Burden

7

That EOIR does not currently have a budge t, or that Defendants currently do not

8 have any established structure , to protect the rights of Sub-Class One members far from

9 establishes that the requested accommodation would be a f undamental alteration of the

10 immigration court system. On May 4, 2011, the Court defined a Qualified Representative

11 as (1) an attorney, (2) a law student or law graduate directly supervised by a retained

12 attorney, or (3) an accredited representative, all as defined in 8 C.F.R. § 1292.1. Franco-

13 Gonzalez, 828 F. Supp. 2d at 1147.

14

As the Court has previously noted, a Qualified Representative would be a

15 reasonable accommodation, whether he or she is performing services pro bono or a t 16 Defendants’ expense.5 [Doc. # 107 at 37.] Moreover, while a reasonable

17 accommodation should not i mpose “undue fina ncial . . . burdens,” the rule does not

18 preclude “some financial burden resultin g from accommodation.” U.S. v. Cal. Mobile

19 Home Park Mgmt., Co. , 29 F.3d 1413, 1417 (9th Cir. 1994) (citi ng Southeastern

20 Community College v. Davis, 442 U.S. 397, 412, 99 S. Ct . 2361, 2370, 60 L. Ed. 2d 980

21 (1979)) (interpreting “reasonable accommoda tion” under t he Fair Housing Act, which

22 incorporates the Rehabilitation Act’s standard).

23

The Court is wary of i ssuing an un funded mandate requiring Government-paid

24 counsel for all mentally incompetent class me mbers. Indeed, neither this Order nor the

25

26

5 As Plaintif fs point out, Departm ent of Just ice (“DOJ”) and DHS regul ations recognize that

27 Defendants “may comply with the requirem ents of . . . [Section 504] thr ough such m eans as . . .
assignment of aides to beneficiaries.” 28 C.F. R. 39.150 (DOJ); 6 C.F.R. 15.50 ( DHS). A “Qualified

28 Representative” would seem to be such an “aide.”

-10-

Case 2:10-cv-02211-DMG-DTB Document 592 Filed 04/23/13 Page 11 of 35 Page ID #:13169

1 Court’s previous preliminary injunction rulings requires Defendants to provide Sub-Class

2 One members with paid legal counsel. Defenda nts have in the past been able to obtain

3 pro bono counsel for certain class members from various non-profit organizations and 4 pro bono panels.6 (Id.)

5

Nevertheless, EOIR claims that it has found “relatively scarce capacity am ong pro

6 bono providers to fi ll very lim ited roles.” (Lang Decl. ¶ 15.) Defendants are not

7 required, however, to provi de bar-certified attorneys, as long as the representatives they

8 provide meet the requirements for a Qualif ied Representative. For example, the

9 regulations allow for representation by law students and law graduates not admitted to the

10 bar and “accr edited representatives” who represent qualified non-profit religious, 11 charitable, social service, or sim ilar organizations. 8 C.F.R. §§ 1292.1, 1292.2.7

12 Defendants fail to address why the provision of these types of Qua lified Representatives

13 would not be feasible. Thus, given that the Government has already contem plated the

14 possibility of certain non-attorneys providi ng assistance to imm igrants in rem oval

15

16

17

18

6 The Court need not prescribe the exact source from which Defendants should provide Qualified Representatives nor how they m ust do so. EOIR repr esents that “[t]here is currently no m echanism in

19 place to locate and retain appointed counsel for all mentally incompetent detained aliens throughout the

class action states, and no ‘public defender’-like body currently in existence from which appointed
20 counsel for removal proceedings can be drawn.” (Lang Decl. ¶ 11 [Doc. # 441-2].) Plaintiffs, however,

21

present a declaration from Sean K. Kennedy, the Fede ral Public Defender for the Central District of California, wherein Kennedy states that “[a]fter consulting with officials from the Administrative Office

22 of the United States Courts and independently resear ching the issues, the FPDO has determined that the

CJA would authorize their appointm ent in this case and is prepared to accept such an appointm ent to
23 represent detained mentally disabled persons facing removal proceedings in the Central District of

24

California.” (Decl. of Sean K. Kennedy ¶ 2 [Doc. # 217-2].) Without deciding the issue, the Court has expressed reservations about its au thority to appoint coun sel under the CJA in light of the nature and

25 purpose of the CJA. [ Doc. # 107 at 38-39 n.20.] Nonetheless, Kennedy’s statement provides one

among many potential options that Defendants may explore in implementing the Court’s order.
26

27

7 Although the regulations provide for representa tion by law-student representatives, Defendants fail to explain why they could no t partner with law school immigrati on clinics and other program s that

28 are already engaged in these types of activities. That the practice is already in place on som e level

suggests another option that may augment the ranks of pro bono or paid attorneys.

-11-

Case 2:10-cv-02211-DMG-DTB Document 592 Filed 04/23/13 Page 12 of 35 Page ID #:13170

1 proceedings, it is reasonable that they do so to provide S ub-Class One memb ers 2 meaningful access to a fair and participatory process.8

3

ii. The Requested Accommodation Does Not Contravene the

4

Statutory Framework Governing the Privilege of Counsel

5

Defendants also argue that the requirement of re presentation runs counter t o the

6 INA, which provides in several provisions th at individuals have a “privilege” to obtain

7 representation at no expense to the Govern ment. 8 U.S.C. §§ 1229a (b)(4)(A), 1362.

8 EOIR asserts its belief that these provisions bar the use of federal funding to provide for

9 direct representation. (Lang Decl. ¶¶ 3-5, 8 [Doc. # 441-2] ) (indicating that, becaus e

10 “there is no statute or regulation that spe cifically confers Im migration Judges wit h the

11 power to appoint counsel for any unreprese nted alien,” Imm igration Judges do not

12 appoint Government-paid counsel for unrepr esented mentally incom petent aliens and

13 that, “[a]s a result of Secti on 292 [8 U.S.C. § 1362] , the legal orientation services funded

14 by the [Legal Orientation Program] do not in clude funds for di rect representation as

15 defined in 8 C.F.R. § 1001.1(m)”).

16

Yet, writing on behalf of the Office of the General Counsel for the DHS, David P.

17 Martin, Principal Deputy General Counsel, conf irmed that the plain language of Section

18 1362 does not lend itself to the interpretation that it “prohibits the provision of counsel at

19 government expense.” (Supp. Decl. of Mari sol Orihuela ¶ 25, Ex. 310 [Doc. # 454] .)

20 “[N]othing in [8 U.S.C. §§ 1229a(b)(4), 1362] or 5 U.S.C. § 3106 prohibi ts the use of

21 discretionary federal funding for representation of aliens in immigration proceedings”

22 and “[w]hether any particular expenditure would be perm issible . . . depends on a fiscal

23 law analysis of the specific proposed funding source.” ( Id.) The Court agrees that these

24 statutes cannot reasonably be interpreted to forbid the appoi ntment of a Qualified

25

26

27

8 On April 8, 2013, in response to the Court’s inquiry, Defendants filed a supplemental brief

indicating that there are currently 17 Sub-class One members for whom Qualified Represen tatives must

28 be provided. [Doc. # 577.]

-12-

Case 2:10-cv-02211-DMG-DTB Document 592 Filed 04/23/13 Page 13 of 35 Page ID #:13171

1 Representative to i ndividuals who otherwise l ack meaningful access to their rights in

2 immigration proceedings as a result of mental incompetency.

3

Thus, the proposed accomm odation would not contravene a ny existing statutory

4 prohibition.

5

iii. The Requested Accommodation Does Not Expand the Scope

6

of Benefits Available to Class Members

7

Defendants also reiterate their position that Plaintiffs’ requested relief would place

8 Sub-Class One memb ers in a significantly better position than nondisabled, detained

9 aliens because providing legal representati on “would do m uch more than rem ove a

10 barrier to access; it would expand the scope of benefits provided to aliens in imm igration 11 court.” 9 (Opp’n at 8.) This is not the first time Defendants have ra ised this argument.

12 See Franco-Gonzalez, et al. v. Holder, 767 F. Supp. 2d 1034, 1056 (C.D. Cal. 2010). In a

13 new twist to the argument, however, Defendant s now assert that, because Plaintiffs ar e

14 not requesting an exception to existing rules, but instead attempting to create an entirely

15 new system of benefits in immigration court, the decisions on which the Court previously

16 relied are not applicable to the present case. (Opp’n at 8 (citing US Airways, Inc. v.

17 Barnett, 535 U.S. 391, 122 S. Ct. 1516, 152 L. Ed. 2d 589 (2002) and Giebeler v. M & B

18 Associates, 343 F.3d 1143 (9th Cir. 2003)).)

19

Defendants urge the Court to rely instead on a Second Circuit decision, Rodriguez

20 v. City of New York, 197 F.3d 611 (2d Cir. 1999). In Rodriguez, the Second Circuit

21 addressed whether the distric t court erred when it found that New York’s failure to

22 include safety monitoring as an independent task am ong personal-care services violated,

23 inter alia, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. Id. at 614. The plaintiffs i n that case

24 argued that safety monitoring was “co mparable” to the personal-care services al ready

25 provided by New York. Id. Finding that safety m onitoring was not “comparable” to

26

27

9 Defendants present evidence that 5 1% of all alie ns in immigration court were represented in

FY2011. (Defs.’ Opp’n at 6 n.5 (citing U.S. Depa rtment of Justice, EOIR, FY 2011 Statistical

28 Yearbook, at G1, available at http://www.justice.gov/eoir/statspub/fy11syb.pdf).)

-13-

Case 2:10-cv-02211-DMG-DTB Document 592 Filed 04/23/13 Page 14 of 35 Page ID #:13172

1 personal-care services, the Second Circuit de termined that “New York cannot have

2 unlawfully discriminated against appellees by denying a benefit that it provides to no

3 one.” Rodriguez, 197 F.3d at 618.

4

Defendants mischaracterize the nature of the benefit Plaintiffs seek. In Rodriguez,

5 the plaintiffs sought a unique, independent be nefit that was not available to any other

6 individuals under the State program . Rodriguez, 197 F.3d at 618. In contrast, Plaintiffs

7 here seek only to meaningfully participate in their removal proceedings. The opportunity

8 to “examine the evidence against the alien, to present evidence on the alien’s own behalf,

9 and to cr oss-examine witnesses presented by the Government” is available to all

10 individuals in immigration proceedings, but is beyond Plaintiffs’ reach as a r esult of their

11 mental incompetency. 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(4)( B). Thus, the provisi on of a Qualified

12 Representative is merely the means by which Plaintiffs may exercise the same benefits as

13 other non-disabled individuals, and not the benefit itself.

14

In this sense, and contrary to Defendants’ assertions, th is case is m ore similar to

15 Paulson, 525 F.3d 1256. In Paulson, the D.C. Circuit explained, “[w]here the plaintiffs

16 identify an obstacle that im pedes their access to a government program or benefit, they

17 likely have established that they lack meaningful access to the program or benefit.” Id. at

18 1267. In that case, by failing to provide a m eans by which the visually im paired could

19 easily utilize United States curre ncy, the Government effectiv ely deprived Plaintiffs of

20 “meaningful access” to a benefit available to the general public, namely, the ability to

21 engage in economic activity. Id. at 1269. In this case, those who are in full possession of

22 their faculties alread y have the ability to par ticipate in immigration proceedings or, a t

23 least, have the wherewithal to obtain access.

24

Aspiring to a system that allows the ment ally incompetent to sim ilarly participate

25 in the removal proceedings against them is not tantamount to “creating an entirely new

26 system of benefits in imm igration.” Defendants can hardly argue that i t is audacious to

27 require a Qualified Representa tive for mentally incom petent individuals in im migration

28 proceedings when the INA itself has pronounced that some form of procedural safeguards

-14-

Case 2:10-cv-02211-DMG-DTB Document 592 Filed 04/23/13 Page 15 of 35 Page ID #:13173

1 are required for those who are mentally incompetent. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(3) (“If it is

2 impracticable by reason of an alien’s m ental incompetency for the alien to be present at

3 the proceeding, the Attorney General shall pr escribe safeguards to protect the rig hts and

4 privileges of the alien.”). By the sam e token, the appoi ntment of a Qualified

5 Representative for Sub-Class One members serves only t o level the playing field by

6 allowing them to meaningfully access the hearing process. Indeed, the accommodation is

7 just as reasonable as and no more burdensome than EOIR’s requirement that interpreters 8 be provided to those who cannot understand English.10 See El Rescate Legal Servs., Inc.

9 v. Exec. Office for Immigration Revi ew, 959 F.2d 742, 752 (9th Cir. 1991) (upholdi ng

10 BIA’s policy, articulated in Matter of Exilus, 18 I&N Dec. 276 (BIA 1982), of requiring

11 interpretation of statem ents made and questions asked of the a lien and the alien’s

12 responses, and giving Immigration Judges discretion to require more interpretation where

13 “essential to his ability to assist in the presentation of his case”).

14

For the reasons discussed herein and in the Court’s previous orders in this case, the

15 Court finds that providing Sub-Class One me mbers with a Qualified Representative is a

16 reasonable accommodation. Defe ndants have failed to raise a ny triable issue of fact in

17 support of their contention that the accommodation poses a fundamental alteration of the

18 immigration court system. See Paulson, 525 F.3d at 1267.

19

c. Matter of M-A-M- Fails to Provide Sufficient Safeguards

20

Defendants contend that, while the Re habilitation Act requi res Defendants to

21 provide a reasonable accomm odation, it doe s not require that they provide the

22 accommodation of Plaintiffs’ c hoice. Defendants argue that Matter of M-A-M-, 25 I. &

23 N. Dec. 474 (BIA 2011), changes the legal lands cape for aliens with mental competency

24

25

26

10 Of particular note is the tre atment of the interpreter issue by EOIR’s Imm igration Court Practice Manual, which states, in pertinent part: “I nterpreters are provided at governm ent expense to

27 individuals whose command of the English language is inadequate to fully understand and participate in
removal proceedings.” U.S. Dep’t of Justice, EOIR, Immigration Court Practice Manual, C h. 4.11

28 (2008) (http://www.justice.gov/eoir/vll/OCIJPracManual/ocij_page1.htm).

-15-

Case 2:10-cv-02211-DMG-DTB Document 592 Filed 04/23/13 Page 16 of 35 Page ID #:13174

1 issues and that DHS has also im plemented a num ber of initiative s to ensure that

2 Immigration Judges are provided with relevant information within DHS’s possession that

3 may be indicative of a detained alien’s mental impairment.

4

As Defendants themselves acknowledge, “M-A-M- does not suggest ‘any authorit y

5 to appoint counsel for individuals not compet ent to represent themselves.’” (Id.) (citing

6 Pls.’ Motion at 14) (emphasis in original). Nor does M-A-M- address Plaintiffs’ claim for 7 appointment of Qualified Represent atives for Sub-Class One mem bers.11 Rather, M-A-

8 M- allows Immigration Judges to adopt certain “safeguards” where an alien ha s been

9 determined incompetent to proceed with the h earing. 25 I&N Dec. at 482. For exam ple,

10 an Immigration Judge may refuse to ac cept an ad mission of removability from an

11 incompetent, unrepresented al ien; allow the alien’s custod ian to appear on his behalf;

12 continue proceedings to allow the alien to obtain representation; aid in the development

13 of the record, including cros s-examination of witnesses; and allow re presentation by a

14 family member or close friend. Id. at 483. The majority of these “safeguards,” however,

15 are left to the Imm igration Judge’s discretion, and none gua rantee that the incom petent

16 alien may participate in his proceedings as fully as an individual who is not disabled. Id.

17 at 482 (noting that Immigration Judges “hav e discretion to determ ine which safeguards

18 are appropriate”).

19

Moreover, while both the regulations and M-A-M- allow for “representation” by a

20 family member or close friend to “assi st the respondent a nd provide the court with

21 information,” Defendants offer no safeguard that such individuals are qualified to provide 22 this type of assistance for a mentally incomp etent person.12 See also 8 C.F.R. § 1240.4

23

24

11 The initia tives Defendants describe include: (1) setting f orth medical criteria to identify

detained aliens with serious m ental health co nditions who m ay have a functional im pairment; (2)

25 completing new standardized m ental health form s, known as “m ental health re view reports”; and (3)

26

providing training and guidance to DHS trial attorneys to e nsure that they comply with M-A-M- in their practice before the immigration courts and BIA. (Opp’n at 11.)

27

12 Defendants still fail to addres s the Gordian K not Plaintiffs w ould face if forced to accept

28 representation by persons listed in 8 C.F.R. § 1240.4, many of whom m ay lack legal expertise or

accountability to ensure Plaintiffs’ full participation in their proceedings. As the Court has previously

-16-

Case 2:10-cv-02211-DMG-DTB Document 592 Filed 04/23/13 Page 17 of 35 Page ID #:13175

1 (allowing for representation by a “legal guardia n, near relative, or friend who was served

2 with a cop y of the notice to ap pear,” or th e respondent’s “custodian”). The Court has

3 discussed at length the reasons why the “safeguards” set forth in M-A-M- are insufficient 4 in its prior orders. 13 Suffice it to say that Defendants have yet to present any evidence

5 from which a reaso nable jury c ould find that, as a result of M-A-M-, Sub-Class One

6 members are not entitled to a Qualified Representative as a reasonable accommodation.

7

Accordingly, the Court finds that Pl aintiffs are entitled to the reasonable

8 accommodation of appointm ent of a Qualifie d Representative to assist them in their

9 removal and detention procee dings under Section 504 of th e Rehabilitation Act. The

10 Court grants Plaintiffs’ motion for parti al summary judgm ent as to C ount Four of t he

11 third amended complaint.

12

2. Plaintiffs Are Not Entitled to Partial Summary Judgment on Their

13

Representation

Claim Under the INA or Due Process Clause

14

Plaintiffs also argue that the INA’s guara ntee of a “full and fair hearing” requires

15 the appointment of legal representation for Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs cite generally to 8 U.S.C.

16 § 1229a(b)(4)(B), which en umerates an a lien’s rights in proceedings, including a

17 reasonable opportunity to examin e the evidence against him, to pr esent evidence on his

18 own behalf, and to cross-examine witnesses. Plaintiffs also cite Matter of Exilus, 18 I&N

19 Dec. at 278, which states “[t]he constitutional requirements of due process are satisfied in

20 an administrative hearing if the proceedi ng is found to be fair.” But Section

21 1229a(b)(4)(A) also states that aliens have “the privi lege of being represented, at no

22

23 explained, such representation woul d depend in part on w hether the detainee can valid ly consent to

24 representation by a non-attorney, “a dubious propositi on for som eone who is m entally incompetent.”

Franco-Gonzalez, 828 F. Supp. 2d at 1145-46.

25

26

13 Indeed, the crux of Plaintiffs’ claim is that they were all denied the ability to participate in their immigration court proceedings, despite Immigration Judges’ existing obligations to aid them in

27 developing the record and that, instead of M-A-M-‘s instruction that mentally incompetent detainees may
be represented by a family member or close friend, Plaintiffs are entitled to an appointed Qualified

28 Representative.

-17-

Case 2:10-cv-02211-DMG-DTB Document 592 Filed 04/23/13 Page 18 of 35 Page ID #:13176

1 expense to the Government.” Although, by DHS General Counsel’s ow n admission, the

2 INA cannot reasonably be read to prohibit the appointm ent of counsel in all

3 circumstances, Plaintiffs have not shown in their motion that the statute expressly

4 requires as much. (See Supp. Orihuela Decl. ¶ 25, Ex. 310.)

5

Although Plaintiffs attem pt to fram e the requirement of fundam ental fairness as

6 “statutory” in nature, they point to no specific statutor y provisions that require the

7 particular relief they seek. Rather, the concept of a “fundamentally fair” hearing is rooted

8 in due process. See id. (“Due process in an ad ministrative proceeding is not defined by

9 inflexible rules which are universally applied, but rather varies according to the nature of

10 the case and the relative im portance of the governmental and private interests

11 involved.”); see also Shaughnessey v. United States ex rel. Mezei , 345 U.S. 206, 212, 73

12 S. Ct. 625, 629, 97 L. Ed. 956 (1953) (no ting that imm igration proceedings m ust

13 “conform[] to tradit ional standards of fairne ss encompassed in due process of law”).

14 Without more, Plaintiffs fail to establish the absence of any material dispute that the INA

15 imposes the requirement they seek on some basis independent of constit utional due

16 process. Having decided in favor of Pl aintiffs on their Reh abilitation Act claim,

17 however, it is not necessary for the Court to reach the constitutional dimensions of their

18 request for relief under Count s Three and Five. The Court m ust “avoid reaching

19 constitutional questions in advance of the necessity of deciding them.” In re Joye, 578

20 F.3d 1070, 1074 (9th Cir. 2009).

21

Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ motion for part ial summary judgm ent is denied as to

22 Counts Three and Five.

23

24 //

25

26 //

27

28 //

-18-

Case 2:10-cv-02211-DMG-DTB Document 592 Filed 04/23/13 Page 19 of 35 Page ID #:13177

1 B. Plaintiffs Are Entitled to a Bond Hearing After 180 Days in Detention14

2

Plaintiffs next argue that class members who are detained for m ore than 180 days

3 (Sub-Class Two) are entitled to a custody redetermination hearing, at which the

4 Government bears the burden of establishing by clear and convincing evidence that their

5 continued detention is necessary. Again, the Court has already addressed this issue in its

6 previous orders. The Court now concludes that Plaintiffs subjected to p rolonged

7 detention are entitled to such a hearing un der the INA and existing Ninth Circuit

8 precedent.

9

1. The INA Requires a Bond Hearing for Detainees Held for a

10

Prolonged Period of Time

11

In analyzing Plainti ffs’ bond hearing cl aim, the Court is guided by the canon of

12 constitutional avoidance, which requires that st atutes be construed so as to avoid serious

13 doubts as to the constitutionality of an alternate construction. Nadarajah v. Gonzales ,

14 443 F.3d 1069, 1076 (9th Cir. 2006) (citing INS v. St. Cyr, 533 U.S. 289, 299–300, 121 S.

15 Ct. 2271, 150 L. Ed. 2d 347 (2001)).

16

a. INA Provisions Governing Detention

17

As the parties themselves note, class members may be detained pursuant to several

18 statutory provisions governing detention of aliens in various sta ges of rem oval

19 proceedings. Although the Court’s pre vious orders have addressed only the legality of

20 prolonged detention under Section 1226(c), the certified class, which extends to

21 individuals “in DHS custody for removal proceedings,” may enco mpass individuals

22 detained under ot her sections as well. A br ief summary of the INA’s authorization of

23 detention follows.

24

25

26

14 Although Sub-Class Two is defined as Class Members who have been detained for

27 more than “six m onths,” the Court finds that “1 80 days” is more precise and therefore m odifies
the definition of Sub-Class Two accordingly.

28

-19-

Case 2:10-cv-02211-DMG-DTB Document 592 Filed 04/23/13 Page 20 of 35 Page ID #:13178

1

First, Section 1225(b) authori zes detention of “arriving aliens,” including lawful

2 permanent residents (“LPRs”), under certain circumstances. See Rodriguez v. Robbins ,

3 __ F.3d __, 2013 WL 1607706 at *1 (9t h Cir. 2013) (“ Robbins”). The statute provides

4 that “if the exam ining immigration officer determines that an alien seeking admission is

5 not clearly and beyond a doubt entitled to be ad mitted, the alien sha ll be detained” for

6 removal proceedings. 8

U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A); see also 8 U.S.C.

7 § 1225(b)(1)(B)(iii)(IV) (providing for mandato ry detention of indivi duals who have

8 expressed a “credible fear” of returning to their home country until re solution of their

9 request for asylum or a determination that they do not possess a credible fear).

10

Next, 8 U.S.C. § 1226 authorizes the G overnment to, upon issuance of a warrant,

11 arrest and detain an alien “pending a decision on whether the alien is to be removed from

12 the United States.” Under subsection (a), the Government may either release the alien o n

13 bond or conditional parole, or it may continue to detain the arrested alien if he is a danger

14 to the community or a flight risk. Unde r subsection (c), certain aliens who are

15 inadmissible or deportable due to having co mmitted certain criminal offenses are subject

16 to mandatory detention without a bond hearing.

17

Finally, Section 1231(a)(1)(A) governs de tention during the “rem oval period,” or

18 the time after issuance of a final order of removal but prior to actual removal. During this

19 period, subject to certain exceptions, t he Government “shall” de tain aliens ordered

20 removed as a result of certain criminal bases for removal. 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(2).

21

b. Neither Section 1225(b), 1226, nor 1231 Sanctions Prolonged

22

Detention

Without a Bond Hearing

23

The Ninth Circuit’s recent ruling in Robbins makes clear that indi viduals in

24 immigration custody may not be subjected to prol onged detention without the provision

25 of a bond hearing at which the Governme nt must justify continued detention. See 2013

26 WL 1607706 at *8, 12. Nevertheless, the C ourt briefly addresse s the recent legal

27 developments that require Defendants t o provide the requested bond hearings to Sub-

28 Class Two members.

-20-

Case 2:10-cv-02211-DMG-DTB Document 592 Filed 04/23/13 Page 21 of 35 Page ID #:13179

1

In its previous orders, this Court has acknowledged and relied upon Supreme Court

2 precedents holding that six months is a presumptively reasonable benchmark for pre-

3 removal detentions under Section 1231. Zadvydas v. Davis , 533 U.S. 678, 701, 121 S.

4 Ct. 2491, 150 L. Ed. 2d 653 (2001); see also Clark v. Martinez , 543 U.S. 371, 125 S. Ct.

5 716, 160 L. Ed. 2d 734 (2005). The Ninth Circ uit has also c onsistently applied the six-

6 month benchmark not only to detentions under Section 1231, but under Sections 1225(b)

7 and 1226(a) as well. See, e.g., Robbins, 2013 WL 1607706 at *12 (t o the extent

8 detention under Section 1225 (b) is mandatory, it is im plicitly time-limited under Casas-

9 Castrillon v. Dep’t of Homela nd Security, 535 F.3d 942 (9th Cir. 2008)); Rodriguez v.

10 Hayes, 591 F.3d 1105, 1115 (9th Cir. 2009) (extending

Zadvydas framework to

11 detentions under Sections 1225(b) and 1226(a)); Nadarajah, 443 F.3d at 1078-80 (noting

12 that Section 1225(b) does not authorize indefinite detention after Zadvydas and Clark).

13

Furthermore, the Ninth Circuit has held that Section 1226(c) cannot reasonably be

14 applied to authorize the prolonged detention of aliens seeking judicial review o f their

15 removal orders. Casas-Castrillon, 535 F.3d at 947-48; see also Robbins , 2013 WL

16 1607706 at *8 (discussing Casas-Castrillon and holding that “detention always becomes

17 prolonged at six m onths”); Tijani v. Willis, 430 F.3d 1241, 1242 (9 th Cir. 2005) (noting

18 that the detention under Section 1226(c) of a LPR subject to rem oval for 32 months was

19 “constitutionally doubtful”). In Casas-Castrillon, the court relied heavily on the

20 Supreme Court’s analysis in Demore v. Kim, 538 U.S. 510, 530, 123 S. Ct. 1708, 155 L.

21 Ed. 2d 724 (2003), which recognized that dete ntion under Section 1226(c) generally lasts

22 “roughly a m onth and a half in the vast major ity of cases in which it is invoked, and

23 about five months in the m inority of cases in which the alien chooses to appeal.” See

24 also Casas-Castrillon, 535 F. 3d at 950 (“References to the brevit y of m andatory

25 detention under § 1226( c) run throughout Demore.”). The court c oncluded that “a

26 prolonged detention m ust be accom panied by appropri ate procedural safeguards,

27 including a hearing to establish whethe r continued detention is requi red. Id. at 944.

28 Thus, the Government’s authority to detain the petitioner shifted to Section 1226(a) when

-21-

Case 2:10-cv-02211-DMG-DTB Document 592 Filed 04/23/13 Page 22 of 35 Page ID #:13180

1 the BIA dismissed his appeal, and at that point the Government was required to conduct a

2 hearing to determine the reasonableness of his continued detention. Id. at 948.

3

In Diouf v. Napolitano , 634 F.3d 1081 (9th Cir. 2011) (“ Diouf II”), the Ninth

4 Circuit reached the same conclusion with re spect to an alien detained under Section

5 1231(a)(6) who attem pted to reopen his proceed ings after issuance of a final order of

6 removal. Again, the court st ated, “[a]s a general matter, detention is prolonged when it

7 has lasted six m onths and is expected to continue more than m inimally beyond six

8 months.” Id. at 1092 n.13. A t that point, or where rem oval is no longer imm inent, the

9 “private interests at stake are profound.” Id. at 1084. Accordingl y, detention under

10 Section 1231(a)(6) following e ntry of a final order of rem oval is authorized only for a

11 reasonable period, after which aliens “are entitled to the same procedural safeguards

12 against prolonged detention as indi viduals detained under Section 1226(a).” Id. at 1084.

13 In Robbins, the Ninth Circuit stated that “ Diouf II strongly suggested that immigration

14 detention becomes prolonged at the six-m onth mark regardless of the authorizing

15 statute.” 2013 WL 1607706 at *8 (emphasis added) (citing Diouf II, 634 F.3d at 1091-

16 92). Robbins held that, like detention under Secti on 1226(c), detent ion pursuant to

17 Section 1225(b) only authori zes six months of mandatory detention, after which the

18 authority to detain further shifts to Section 1226(a) and a bond hearing is required. 2013

19 WL 1607706 at *12.

20

Defendants ask the Court to distinguish Casas-Castrillon and Diouf II because,

21 like the petitioner in Zadvydas and unli ke many of the class members in this case, the

22 petitioners in those cases had already been ordered removed. (Opp’n at 23-24.)

23 Defendants argue that, in the pre-removal-order context, th e Government’s interest in

24 detaining individuals “pending a decision on whet her the alien is t o be removed” is not

25 extinguished and therefore the six-month benchmark does not apply. 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a).

26 Defendants’ argument fails in light of the Ninth Ci rcuit’s recent pronouncement that, “if

27 anything, . . . [lawful permanent resident s] detained prior to the entry of an

28 administratively final rem oval order . . . would seem to have a greater liberty interest

-22-

Case 2:10-cv-02211-DMG-DTB Document 592 Filed 04/23/13 Page 23 of 35 Page ID #:13181

1 than individuals detained pending judicial review or the pendency of a motion to reopen.”

2 Robbins, 2012 WL 1607706 at *8. That some, even if not all, detainees held pursuant to

3 a statute are entitled to heighte ned due process protections requires construing the statute

4 “with these aliens in mind.” Id. at 10. Thus, given the Ninth Circuit’s rulings in Robbins,

5 Diouf II, Casas-Castrillon, and Tijani, the pre-removal-order distinction does not require

6 the result Defendants urge. See also Demore v. Kim, 538 U.S. 510, 552, 123 S. Ct. 1708,

7 155 L. Ed. 2d 724 (2003) (Sout er, J., concurring in part and dissenting i n part) (arguing

8 that aliens detained under Section 1226(c) should be afforded greater procedural

9 protections than those detained under Sec tion 1231(a)(6) because t he latter, having 10 already been ordered removed, “enjoy [] no lawful immigration status”)).15

11

The Government’s interest in “ensuri ng that aliens are avail able for removal if

12 their legal challenges do not succeed” is the same irrespective of the st atutory basis for

13 the detention or the stage of proceedings. Diouf II, 634 F.3d at 1087-88. Signi ficantly,

14 Plaintiffs do not seek out right release from detention after six months. Rather, they seek

15 only a custody redeterm ination hearing at wh ich the Government bears the burden of

16 justifying their continued detention. In all cases, this procedure protects public safety and

17 the Government’s interest in facilitati ng removal proceedings w hile preventing

18 infringement of individual liberty interests. See id. at 1088 (noting that the Government’s

19 interest . . . is served by the bond hearing process itself” because “[i]f the alien poses a 20 flight risk, detention is permitted”) (emphasis added).16

21

22

15 At oral argum ent, Defendants contended that any injunction s hould not extend to individuals

detained pursuant to Secti on 1225(b), in part because P laintiffs have not established that any current
23 class members are actually detained under that statute. Fi rst, the certified clas s does not distinguish

24 between individuals detain ed pursuant to different provisions of the INA, and thus Defe

ndants’

argument would have been m ore appropriate at th e class certification stage. Second, because all

25 detainees have a substantial interest in freedom from prolonged detention regardless of the statute under

26

which they are held, the named Sub-class Two Plaintiffs adequately represent the interests of other Subclass Two members. Diouf II, 634 F.3d at 1087.

27

16 The Government also argues that the doctrine of constitutional avoidance cannot be applied to

28 detention pursuant to Section 122 6(c) or 122 5(b) because both prov isions contain express language

forbidding the provision of a bond hearing. (See Opp’n at 27.) The Ninth Circuit expressly rejected that

-23-

Case 2:10-cv-02211-DMG-DTB Document 592 Filed 04/23/13 Page 24 of 35 Page ID #:13182

1

c. The Government Bears the Burden of Justifying Continued

2

Detention

at Bond Hearings

3

Finally, Defendants argue that, at any cu stody redetermination hearing to be held

4 after six months of detention, the burden of proof should rest with the detainee and not

5 with the Government. (Opp’n at 28.) De fendants do not addre ss how this position

6 squares with Casas-Castrillon, 535 F.3d at 951, or Singh v. Holder, 638 F.3d 1196, 1203

7 (9th Cir. 2011), bot h of which place the burden on the Government to establish that an

8 alien subject to prolonged detention should not be released because h e is either a flight

9 risk or a danger to the community.

10

Moreover, the Ninth Circuit recently reaf firmed Singh in Robbins, requiring that

11 individuals held in ICE custody for more than six months are entitled to a bond hearing at

12 which the Government bears the burden of pr oof, whether the individual is being held

13 pursuant to Section 1226 or 1225. 2013 WL 1607706 at *12. The “clear and

14 convincing” standard of proof is necessary because “it is improper to ask the individual to

15 ‘share equally with society the risk of error when the possible injury to the individual’ . . .

16 is so significant.” Singh, 638 F.3d at 1203-04; see also Tijani v. Willis , 430 F.3d 1241,

17 1244 (9th Cir. 2005) (Tashima, J ., concurring) (explaining that due process places a

18 “heightened burden of proof on the State” where the indivi dual interests at stake ar e

19 particularly important) (citing Cooper v. Oklahoma, 517 U.S. 348, 363, 116 S. Ct. 1373,

20 134 L. Ed. 2d 498 (1996)). As the Ninth Circuit has recogni zed, the individual liberty at

21 stake is equally urgent for a de tainee who languishes in detention either before or after

22 entry of a removal order. Therefore, the Cour t sees no reason to disti nguish between the

23 two for purposes of assigning the burden of proof.

24

25

26

argument in Robbins, stating that “while the governm ent may be correct that reading § 1226(c) as anything other than a m andatory detention statute is not a plausible in terpretation[] of [the] statutory

27 text, it does not argue that reading an im plicit temporal limitation on mandatory detention into the
statute is implausible. Indeed, it could not d o so, because such an argum ent is foreclosed by our

28 decisions.” 2013 WL 1607706 at *7 (internal citations omitted).

-24-

Case 2:10-cv-02211-DMG-DTB Document 592 Filed 04/23/13 Page 25 of 35 Page ID #:13183

1

For the foregoing re asons and as discusse d in the Court’s previous orders, the

2 Court finds that t he INA requires t hat class members who are detained beyond a

3 reasonable period are entitled to a custody re determination hearing, at which the

4 Government bears t he burden of just ifying their continued detention by clear and

5 convincing evidence.

6

2. Plaintiffs Are Not Entitled to Partial Summary Judgment on the Bond

7

Hearing Issue Under the Rehabilitation Act or Due Process Clause

8

Plaintiffs also briefly argue that they are entitled to a bond hearing as a reasonable

9 accommodation under Section 504 of the Reha bilitation Act. As discussed above, to

10 succeed under the Rehabilitation Act, Plaintiffs must establish, am ong other things, that

11 they were “denied the benefit or services solely by reason” of their disability. Lovell, 303

12 F.3d at 1052 (9t h Cir. 2002). Plaintiffs assert that the lack of adequate safeguards or

13 guidelines for mentally incompetent immigrant detainees places them at a heightened risk

14 of prolonged detention, and thus a bond hear ing is necessary to gi ve them meaningful

15 access to some unarticulated benefit, presum ably the opportunity to attem pt to secure

16 one’s release. (Mot. at 31.)

17

On the present reco rd, Plaintiffs’ theory fails for at least two reasons. First, as

18 several courts have already held, the INA requires a bond hearing after six months for all

19 immigrant detainees—not only those sufferi ng from a mental health disability—in order

20 to avoid the “serious constitutional concer ns” that would result from allowing prolonged

21 detention without such a hearing. Casas-Castrillon, 535 F.3d at 950. In this regard, the

22 “accommodation” Plaintiffs seek is not unique to the class, but it is the necessary result of

23 interpreting the INA to avoid constitutional pr oblems. Relatedly, although Plaintiffs

24 present some evidence that class members’ proceedings are delayed at least in part due to

25 their mental incompetency, they fail to estab lish that other individuals do not expe rience

26 similar delays that similarly threaten their liberty.

27

28

-25-

Case 2:10-cv-02211-DMG-DTB Document 592 Filed 04/23/13 Page 26 of 35 Page ID #:13184

1

Plaintiffs have not carried their burden of demonstrating that there are no triable

2 issues of material fact as to their claim for a bond heari ng under the Rehabilitation Act.

3 Plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment is denied as to Count Nine.

4

In light of the Court’s conc lusion that the INA requires the relief Plaintiffs seek, it

5 need not reach whether the Constitu tion also mandates that relief. See Joye, 578 F.3d at

6 1074.

7 C. Whether Plaintiffs Are Entitled to Permanent Injunctive Relief

8

Defendants argue that Plaintiffs are not entitled to permanent injunc tive relief

9 because they fail to show that irreparable harm would be generally applicable to the class.

10 Specifically, Defendants point to Plaintiffs’ response to certain interrogatories, including

11 those asking Plaintiffs to identify (1) cl ass and sub-class mem bers who have suffere d

12 prejudice as a result of not having had appointed counsel in t heir immigration

13 proceedings and the prejudice such individua ls suffered and (2) Sub-Class Two memb ers

14 who would have been released on bond if th ey had a bond hearing after being detained

15 for at least six m onths and whether they had adequate means to afford the m inimum

16 $1,500 bond.

17

Plaintiffs respond by indicating that “ all Main Class [and Sub-class One] members

18 have suffered prejudice as a re sult of not having had counsel.” Plaintiffs quote from this

19 Court’s Class Cert. Order:

20

The unnamed class members are all subject to a system that lacks sufficient

21

safeguards to protect their rights. W ithout a systemic mechanism to identify

22

those who are, in fact, mentally incompetent, they are all subject to the same

23

risk of injury that the named Plaintiffs already have encountered.17

24

25

17 In their response, Plaintiffs also objected to the interrogatories on the grounds that information

26

about the mem bers in the Class, S ub-class One, a nd Sub-class Two is in th e Government’s exclusive possession, custody, and cont rol and the Governm ent has thus fa r not produced docum ents such as A-

27 Files, medical records, and record s of i mmigration proceedings responsive to P laintiffs’ discovery
requests after November 21, 2011. (Pls.’ Resp. to Defs.’ 1st Interrogs. at 12-14.)

28

-26-

Case 2:10-cv-02211-DMG-DTB Document 592 Filed 04/23/13 Page 27 of 35 Page ID #:13185

1 (Pls.’ Resp. to Defs.’ 1st Interrogs. at 12-14 [Doc. # 484-1].)

2

The parties agree that the Ninth Circ uit has l eft open the questi on whether

3 discrimination in violation of the Americ ans with Disabilities Act or the Reh abilitation

4 Act constitutes irreparable harm per se, or whether irreparable harm can be presum ed

5 based on such a statutory viol ation. Enyart v. Na t’l Conf. of Bar Examiners, Inc. , 630

6 F.3d 1153, 1165 (9th Cir. 2011).

7

Nevertheless, as thi s Court has repeated ly recognized in th is case, it is the

8 procedural harm that Plaintiffs seek to remedy. Similar to the situation in Enyart, where

9 the plaintiff suffered from a disease that impaired her visi on and sought a com puter

10 software accommodation that would allow her to take the Californi a State Bar entrance

11 examinations, Plaintiffs here seek the implementation of procedures and accommodations

12 that will enable them to meaningfully partic ipate in the immigration court process. Th e

13 plaintiff in Enyart did not seek reprieve from taking the requisite examinations any more

14 than Plaintiffs here seek guaranteed reli ef from r emoval or i mmediate release from

15 custody. The Enyart court found that the plaintiff dem onstrated irreparable harm in the

16 form of the loss of opportunity to pursue her chosen profession. Likewise, Plaintiffs here

17 have demonstrated harm by not being able to meaningfully participate in their rem oval

18 hearings and by the ir having languished in prolonged detention as a result of the

19 immigration court system ’s failure to acco mmodate their mental disabilities or provide

20 the opportunity for a bond hearing.

21

Defendants also argue that Plaintiffs cannot rely on facts regarding the Named

22 Plaintiffs alone to satisfy the irreparable ha rm requirement. They contend that, in order

23 to establish their claim for a permanent injunction, Plaintiffs must show a “persistent

24 pattern” of individuals being irreparably harmed as a resu lt of Defendants’ policies.

25 (Defs.’ Supp. Opp’n at 5 [Doc. # 503] .) The cases on which Defe ndants rely, however,

26 are not analogous to this case. In Allee v. Medrano, 416 U.S. 802, 94 S. Ct. 2191, 40 L.

27 Ed. 2d 566 (1974), t he Supreme Court held that a persistent pattern of police m isconduct

28 justified the granting of i njunctive relief, while isolated incidents of police m isconduct

-27-

Case 2:10-cv-02211-DMG-DTB Document 592 Filed 04/23/13 Page 28 of 35 Page ID #:13186

1 under valid statutes would not. Id. at 815. Si milarly, Elkins v. Dreyfus, 2010 WL

2 3947499 (W.D. Wash. 2010), relied on Armstrong v. Davis, 275 F.3d 849 (9th Cir. 2001),

3 where, in the context of a standing analysis, the Ninth Circuit set forth two ways a named

4 plaintiff could establish that a threat ened injury is likely to recur, i.e., by showing that, at

5 the time of injury, the defendants had a writte n policy and the harm is traceable to the

6 policy, and by show ing that t here is a pa ttern of officially sanctioned conduct. Elkins,

7 2010 WL 3947499 at * 9 (citing Armstrong, 275 F.3d at 861).

8

In this case, however, the very basis of Plaintiffs’ clai

m is the absence of

9 meaningful procedures to safeguard mentally incompetent detainees, i.e., that Defendants

10 have no explicit pol icy to reasonably accom modate any Sub-Class One memb ers with a

11 Qualified Representative or to provide Sub-Class Two members with an individualized

12 custody hearing after the presum ptively reasonable period of six m onths. The Court’s

13 three prior preliminary injunction orders am ply illustrate the harm s that can ensue fro m

14 the absence of procedures. Ev ery class member who is mentally incompetent suffers the

15 same harm from this absence of adequate pr ocedures and need not show, like Plaintiffs

16 Khukhryanskiy and Martinez did, that they have been actually ordered removed or been

17 detained for prolonged periods of time before they can obtain permanent injunctive relief.

18 See Robbins, 2013 WL 1607706 at *13 (preliminary injunction appropriate as to an entire

19 class where all class members faced a likeli hood of deprivation of constitutional rights,

20 even though onl y some class m embers were lik ely to be granted release or relief from

21 removal); Rodriguez v. Hayes, 591 F.3d at 1125 (class certif ication appropriate because

22 class members sought “uniform relief from a practice applicable to all of them” based on

23 INA’s mandatory detention provisions).

24

The Court finds t hat Plaintiffs have es tablished that the absence of adequate

25 procedures to safeguard the rights of me ntally incompetent detainees constitutes

26 irreparable harm as to Sub-Class One and Sub-Class Two members. Finally, as the Court

27 has found in its previous orders, the balance of hardships and public interest also weigh in

28

-28-

Case 2:10-cv-02211-DMG-DTB Document 592 Filed 04/23/13 Page 29 of 35 Page ID #:13187

1 favor of granting injunctive relief. [Doc. # 107 at 41-42; Doc. # 215 at 24-25; Doc. # 285

2 at 11-12.]

3

V.

4

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

5

As noted above, Plaintiffs have filed a fifth motion for a preliminary injunction on

6 behalf of seven class m embers, seeking both appoi ntment of a Qualified Representative 7 and a bond hearing.18 In light of the Court ’s order granting in part Plaintiffs’ m otion for

8 partial summary judgm ent and granting permanent injunctive relief, the m otion for a

9 preliminary injunction is DENIED as moot. The Court notes , however, that Defen dants

10 assert that two purported class m embers, Elijah Ibanga and Nicola s Guerrero-Ramirez,

11 are not class memb ers and ther efore lack standing. In or der to clarify the scope of

12 Defendants’ obligations following entry of partial summary judgment, the Court

13 addresses the standing of these two purported class members and those similarly situated.

14 A. Factual Background of Plaintiffs Ibanga and Guerrero

15

1. Elijah Ibanga

16

According to the DHS, Ibanga was admitted to the United States as a LPR in 1980,

17 and he has remained here since that time. (First Decl. of Carmen Iguina (“First Iguina

18 Decl.”) ¶ 17, Ex. 335 at 2 [Doc. # 527-3] .) He is allegedly a native and citizen of

19 Nigeria, although this fact has not been proven in his removal proceedings. ( Id. at 1, 3.)

20 On December 4, 1992, Plaintiff Ibanga was convicted of a felony under Cal. Penal Code

21 § 288.5(a) and sentenced to 24 years in

prison. (Decl. of Neelam Ihsannulah

22 (“Ihsannulah Decl.”) ¶ 9, Ex. 8 at 579-581 [Doc. # 554-1].)

23

On December 7, 2011, an Immigration Judge found that Ibanga was not competent

24 to represent himself in his removal proceedings based, in part, on me dical reports stating

25 that he suffers from a serious m ental illness. (First Igui na Decl. ¶ 17, Ex. 335 at 17.)

26

27

18 On March 21, 2013, Plaintiffs notif ied the Court that class m ember Vasily Zotov was released

28 from custody and withdrew the motion with respect to his claims. [Doc. # 568.]

-29-

Case 2:10-cv-02211-DMG-DTB Document 592 Filed 04/23/13 Page 30 of 35 Page ID #:13188

1 According to the transcript of Ibanga’s proceedings on Decem

ber 7, 2011, the

2 Immigration Judge asked the DHS to “provide some type of legal assistance to” Ibanga in

3 light of hi s mental illness, but the DHS fa iled to do so, arguing t hat the Immigration

4 Judge lacked authority to issue such an order. (Id. at 29.) Due to Ibanga’s incompetency,

5 the Immigration Judge found that she could no t take pleadings as to his rem ovability and

6 terminated proceedings. (Id.)

7

The DHS appealed the ter mination order to the Board of Imm igration Appeals

8 (“BIA”). (First Iguina Decl. ¶ 14, Ex. 320 at 2.) On February 24, 2013, Attorney Walter

9 H. Ruehle filed a Form EOIR-27, Notice of Entry of Appearance as Attorney or

10 Representative Before the Board of Immigr ation Appeals, on behalf of Ibanga.

11 (Ihsannulah Decl. ¶ 10, Ex. 9.) Ibanga rema ins represented before the BIA. As of

12 January 18, 2013, Ibanga had been in Immi gration and Custom s Enforcement (“ICE”)

13 custody for 1466 days, since January 2009. (First Iguina Decl. ¶ 14; Second Decl. of

14 Carmen Iguina (“Second Iguina Decl.”) ¶ 3, Ex. 382 [Doc. # 555-1] ; Ihsannulah Decl.

15 ¶ 10, Ex. 9 at 80.)

16

2. Nicolas Guerrero-Ramirez

17

According to the DHS, Guerrero is a nativ e and citizen of Mexico and has been a

18 LPR of the United States since 1991. (Firs t Iguina Decl. ¶ 40, Ex. 379.) In 2006,

19 Guerrero was convicted under Cal. Penal Code § 261(a)(2) and sentenced to eight years

20 in prison. (Ihsannulah Decl. ¶ 4, Ex. 3.) He was placed in rem oval proceedings on

21 November 10, 2011. (First Igui na Decl. ¶ 20, Ex. 338 at 1.) Since being incarcer ated in

22 2006, Guerrero has undergone several mental health assessments and has at various times

23 been diagnosed with different mental illne sses of varying degrees of se verity. (See id. ¶¶

24 26-31, Exs. 344-49.) An Imm igration Judge has twice found t hat Guerrero is not

25 competent to represent hims elf in his proceedings. ( Id. ¶¶ 20-21, Exs. 338-39.) On

26 March 15, 2012, while Guerrero was pro se, an Immigration Judge determ ined that he

27 was not competent to represent hims elf and terminated proceedings. ( Id. ¶ 20, Ex. 338.)

28 The DHS appealed, and the BIA vacated the decision and remanded for further

-30-

Case 2:10-cv-02211-DMG-DTB Document 592 Filed 04/23/13 Page 31 of 35 Page ID #:13189

1 proceedings on July 18, 2012. ( Id. ¶ 41, Ex. 380.) On Septem ber 17, 2012, the

2 Immigration Judge again found Guerrero to be incompetent and terminated his removal

3 proceedings, and the DHS ag ain appealed. ( Id. ¶ 21, Ex. 339.) On January 2, 2013,

4 Attorney Ryan C. Morris file d a Form EOIR-27 and entered his appearance on behalf of

5 Guerrero before the BIA. (Ihsannulah Decl. ¶ 6, Ex. 5.)

6

On September 19, 2012, wh ile Guerrero remained pro se and after termination of

7 his removal proceedings, an Immigration Judge ordered that he be released from custody

8 subject to the posting of a bond of $1,500. (Ih sannulah Decl. ¶ 7, Ex. 6.) Guerrero di d

9 not post bond and remains in de tention. The DHS appealed this order, and on Decem ber

10 21, 2012 the BIA sustained the appeal and ordered that Guerrero remain detained without

11 bond notwithstanding term ination of his proceedings because “he is a d anger to th e

12 community.” (Id. ¶ 8, Ex. 7.) As of January 18, 2013, Guerrero had been in ICE custody

13 for 444 days, apparently since his release from state custody on November 1, 2011. (First

14 Iguina Decl. ¶ 40, Ex. 379.)

15 B. Discussion

16

Defendants argue t hat Ibanga and Gue rrero are not presently class member s

17 because they are now represented by counsel before the BIA. It is undisputed that Ibanga

18 and Guerrero suffe r from a serious mental disorder or defect that renders them

19 incompetent to represent thems elves in detention or removal proceedings. ( See First

20 Iguina Decl. ¶ 17, Ex. 335 at 17 (Immigration Judge’s finding as to Ibanga); ¶¶ 21, 26-31,

21 Exs. 339, 344-49 (Mental Health reports and Immigration Judge’s finding as to

22 Guerrero).) Indeed, Imm igration Judges have terminated both Ibanga’s and Guerrero’s

23 proceedings based on incompetency findings. ( See First Iguina Decl. ¶ 17, Ex. 335

24 (termination order re Ibanga); ¶ 20, Ex. 338 (first term ination order re Guerrero).)

25 Moreover, both Ibanga and Gue rrero have been detained in ICE custody for m ore than

26 six months. (First Iguina Decl. ¶ 14.)

27

The immigration regulations require that all representatives file a Notice of Entry

28 of Appearance before appearing on behalf of any alien before th e Immigration Court,

-31-

Case 2:10-cv-02211-DMG-DTB Document 592 Filed 04/23/13 Page 32 of 35 Page ID #:13190

1 BIA, U.S. Custom s and Immigration Se rvices (“USCIS”), ICE, or U.S. Customs and

2 Border Patrol (“CBP”). 8 C.F.R. § 1003.17(a) (requiring filing of Form EOIR-28 prior to

3 entry of appearance before Immigration Court); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.38(b) (requiring filing of

4 Form EOIR-27 before entry of appearance before BIA); 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(a)(3) (requiring

5 filing of Form G-28 prior to entry of appearance in adjudication of benefit requests before

6 the DHS). According to the Immigrati on Court Practice Manual, “[a]ll representatives

7 must file a Notice of Entry of Appearance . . . (Form EOIR-2 8).” U.S. Dep’t of Justice,

8 EOIR, Office of the Chief I mmigration Judge Practice M anual, Ch. 2.1 at 15. The

9 Practice Manual also states that “[t]he Immigration Court will not recognize a

10 representative using a Form EOIR-27 or a Form G-28.” Id. at 16. S imilarly, the BI A

11 Practice Manual expressly requires the filing of a Form EOIR-27 and states that “the

12 Board will not recognize a repr esentative using Form EOIR-28.” U.S. Dep’t of Justice,

13 EOIR, BIA Practice Manual, Ch. 2.1 at 17. In fact, the Forms themselves warn parties

14 that the filing of a form with one body is not sufficient to satisfy the requirement as to the

15 other. (See Second Iguina Decl. ¶ 19, Ex. 398.) Thus , entry of appearance of a Qualified

16 Representative before the BIA does n ot establish representation for all purposes,

17 specifically, for ensuring that an incom petent alien is adequately represented in his

18 detention proceedings.

19

The immigration regulations also treat bond determination hearings “separate and

20 apart from” any “deportation or removal proceeding or hearing.” 8 C.F.R. § 1003.19(d);

21 Matter of Adeniji , 22 I&N Dec. 1102, 1115 (BIA 1999) (declining t

o consider

22 information presented duri ng the respondent’s removal hearing i n connection with his

23 appeal of a bond determination because “[c]ustody proceedings must be kept separate and

24 apart from, and mus t form no part of, removal proceedings.” ). Thus, the regulations

25 themselves suggest that an alien who is repres ented in an appeal of an order in re moval

26 proceedings is not necessarily represented for detention purposes.

27

Defendants’ position is further undermined by the factual circumstances

28 surrounding Guerrero’s dete ntion. Guerrero has been found incom petent by an

-32-

Case 2:10-cv-02211-DMG-DTB Document 592 Filed 04/23/13 Page 33 of 35 Page ID #:13191

1 Immigration Judge twice, and yet the DHS has pursued two appeals of the Imm igration

2 Judge’s termination orders. (First Igui na Decl. ¶¶ 20-21, Exs. 338-39.) Aft er an

3 Immigration Judge term inated his proceedi ngs, Guerrero appeared before the same

4 Immigration Judge at a bond hearing, and the Immigration Judge granted his release upon

5 posting of a bond. (Ihsannul ah Decl. ¶ 7, Ex. 6.) The DHS’s two appeals—of the

6 termination order and of the bond redeterm ination order—proceeded separately, which

7 the BIA explicitly noted in its order vacating the bond redetermination. (Id. ¶ 8, Ex. 7 n.1

8 (“A separate decision addressing the respondent’s removal proceedings will be issued at a

9 later date.”).)

10

Notwithstanding his subseque nt release from detention, Vasily Zotov’s case is

11 nonetheless illustrative of the Court’s point. Zotov’s rem oval proceedings are on appeal

12 before the BIA for the third ti me since his case began. ( See First Iguina Decl. ¶ 5, Ex.

13 320; Second Iguina Decl. ¶ 14, Ex. 393.) A lthough Zotov w as represented during his

14 initial proceedings at the Los Angeles Immigr ation Court, he filed his first appeal pro se.

15 (Second Iguina Decl. ¶ 14, Ex. 393 at 3.) He remained pro se through remand and

16 renewed court proceedings, until he was appointed counsel af ter filing his second appeal

17 in early 2012. ( Id. at 4.) Pro bono counsel stated in his brief that the representation

18 would “end with the Board’s decision in th is appeal and [would] not extend to any

19 subsequent proceedings.” ( Id. at 4 n.1.) Zotov’s case was again remanded, and he

20 remains unrepresented, including at his most recent removal and custody redetermination

21 hearings on February 11 a nd 14, 2013, respectively. ( See Notice of Ad min. Dec. re

22 Vasily Zotov [Doc. # 559] , Exs. A-B.) Desp ite the fact that Zotov had been in ICE

23 custody since September 2010, it does not a ppear from the record that Zotov’s pro bono

24 appellate counsel attempted to obtain his release. (See Second Iguina Decl. ¶ 3, Ex. 382.)

25 Zotov’s case, like those of se veral other cl ass members named in the instant Motion,

26 illustrates that detained aliens are often equipped with only piecemeal representation

27 during the course of their proceedings and that representation existing at one stage of the

28 proceedings does not necessarily carry over to other stages.

-33-

Case 2:10-cv-02211-DMG-DTB Document 592 Filed 04/23/13 Page 34 of 35 Page ID #:13192

1

The Court therefore finds that Guerrero and Ibanga are not excluded from the clas s

2 merely because they have obtai ned counsel for appeals of rem oval determinations if they

3 remain detained without representation in th eir detention proceedings. I ndividuals like

4 Guerrero and Ibanga share an in jury with the class at large, see Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v.

5 Dukes, __ U.S. __, 131 S. Ct. 2541, 2551, 180 L. Ed. 2d 374 (2011), because their

6 detention is prolonged due to delays caused by their mental disability, and alone they are

7 unable to ensure that their detention pro ceedings are co nducted fairly. Indeed, th e

8 definition of the class itself is clear: the cla ss extends to individuals “who presently lack

9 counsel in their detention or removal proceedings.” Accord ingly, Ibanga, Guerrero, and

10 individuals similarly situated to them are within the class certified by this Court.

11 Moreover, because both Ibanga and Guerrero have been f ound incompetent to represent

12 themselves in their proceedings and have been detained for more than six mon ths, they

13 are members of both Sub-Classes One and Two.

14

VI.

15

CONCLUSION

16

The Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ m otion for partial summary judgm ent on the

17 grounds that (1) Section 504 of the Rehab ilitation Act requires De fendants to provide

18 Qualified Representatives to represent Sub- Class One mem bers in all aspects of their

19 removal and detenti on proceedings (“C ount Four”), and (2) the INA requires the

20 provision of a custody redeterm ination hearing for indivi duals in Sub-Class Two who

21 have been detained for a prolonged period of time greater than 180 days (“Count Eight”).

22 Plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary Judgm ent is DENIED in all other respects.

23 Plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction is DENIED as moot. In addition, Plaintiffs’

24 Request to Unseal t he Court’s Tentative Order [Doc. # 586] is DENIED because the

25 “tentative” ruling, by its very nature, was never filed, either under seal or otherwise.

26

Under Fed. R. Civ. P 54(b), the Court ma y direct entry of final judgment as to

27 fewer than all claims if it determines that “there is no just reason for delay.” The record

28 in this case dem onstrates that delaying relief for class members results in an inability to

-34-

Case 2:10-cv-02211-DMG-DTB Document 592 Filed 04/23/13 Page 35 of 35 Page ID #:13193

1 fairly participate in r emoval proceedings and may result in prolonged detention without

2 adequate representation or a bond hearing for an ever-increasing num ber of class

3 members. The Court finds that there is no just reason for delay and therefore enter s

4 judgment for Plaintiffs as to Counts Four and Eight. Accordingly, the Court orde rs that

5 judgment be entered and a pe rmanent injunction shall issue in accordance with this

6 Order. A Judgment and Permanent Injunction is filed concurrently herewith.

7

8 IT IS SO ORDERED.

9

10 DATED: April 23, 2013

11

DOLLY M. GEE

12

United States District Judge

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

-35-

 
 1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10 11 JOSE ANTONIO
FRANCO-GONZALEZ, ET AL., 12

13

Plaintiffs,

14

v.

15 ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., ATTORNEY 16 GENERAL, ET AL.,

17

Defendants.

18

19

) Case No. CV 10-02211 DMG (DTBx) ) ) PARTIAL JUDGMENT AND ) PERMANENT INJUNCTION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

20

21

In accordance with the Order issued concurrently herewith, the Court GRANTS in

22 part and DENIES in part Plaintiffs’ m otion for partial summary judgment. Accordingly,

23 the Court orders the following:

24

(1) Judgment is entered in favor of Plaintiffs Martinez, Khukhryanhskiy,

25 Chavez, Zhalezny, and other members of S ub-Class One, and again st Defendants, on

26 Count Four. Judgment is en tered in favor of Plaintif fs Martinez, Khukhryanskiy,

27 Zhalezny, Sepulveda, and other members of Sub-Class Two, on Count Eight;

28

-1-

1

(2) The Court hereby declares that Defendants have violated Section 504 of the

2 Rehabilitation Act by failing to provide Sub- Class One mem bers with a reasonable

3 accommodation, i.e., a Qu alified Representative in all aspects of their immigration

4 proceedings;

5

(3) The Court further decl ares that De fendants have violat ed the Immigr ation

6 and Nationality Act by failing to provide Sub-Class Two members with a bond hearing

7 after a presum ptively reasonable period of 180 days in detenti on at which the

8 Government bears the burden of just ifying continued detention by clear and convincing

9 evidence;

10

(4) Defendants, and their officers, agen ts, servants, employees and attorneys,

11 and all those who are in active concert or pa rticipation with them, are hereby enjoined

12 from pursuing further immigration proceed

ings against Plaintiffs Martinez,

13 Khukhryanskiy, Chavez, Zhalezny, and other members of Sub-Class One, who have been

14 identified on or before the date of this Or der and Judgment, unless within 60 days from

15 the date of this Order and Judgm ent, Sub-Class One members are afforded Qualified

16 Representative(s) as defined in the concurrently issued Order who are willing and able to

17 represent them during all phases of their immigration proceedings, including appeals

18 and/or custody hearings, whether pro bono or at Defendants’ expense;

19

(5) Defendants, and their officers, agen ts, servants, employees and attorneys,

20 and all those who are in active concert or pa rticipation with them, are hereby enjoined

21 from detaining m embers of Sub-Class Two unl ess, within 40 days of this Order an d

22 Judgment, they provide Sub-Class Two m embers with a bond hearing before an

23 Immigration Judge with the authority t o order their release on conditi ons of supervision,

24 unless the Government shows by clear a nd convincing e vidence that their ongoing

25 detention is justified. Within 30 days from the date of this Order and Judgment, members

26 of Sub-Class Two who are also member s of Sub-Class One shall be provided a Qualified

27 Representative to represent them during such bo nd hearing. In all cases, at least seven

28 days prior to any bond hearing, Defendants shall provide these sub-class members and/or

-2-

1 their Qualified Representatives with ad equate notice of a bond he aring scheduled

2 pursuant to this Order and Judgment.

3

(6) For all individuals identified as S ub-Class One memb ers after the date of

4 this Order and Judgment, Defe ndants, and their officers, agents, servants, em ployees and

5 attorneys, and all those who ar e in active c oncert or participation with them , are hereby

6 enjoined from pursuing further immigrati on proceedings against these Sub-Class On e

7 members unless, within 60 days of their ha ving been identified by an Immigration Judge

8 as a Sub-Class One member, such individuals are afforded Qualified Representatives who

9 are willing and able to represent them during all phases of their immigration proceedings,

10 including appeals and/or custody hearings, whether pro bono or at Defendants’ expense;

11

(7) For individuals identified as Sub-Cl ass Two members after the date of this

12 Order and Judgm ent, Defendants, and their officers, agents, servants, em ployees and

13 attorneys, and all those who ar e in active c oncert or participation with them , are hereby

14 enjoined from detaining newly identifie d Sub-Class Two mem bers for m ore than 180

15 days unless they provide such sub-cla ss members with a bond hearing before an

16 Immigration Judge with the authority t o order their release on conditi ons of supervision,

17 unless the Government shows by clear and co nvincing evidence that the Sub-Class Two

18 members’ ongoing detention is justi fied. Such hearing shall be prov ided as soon as is

19 practicable, but no m ore than 15 days, after the Sub-Class Two member has been

20 detained for 180 da ys. All future m embers of Sub-Class Two who are also identified as

21 members of Sub-Class One shall be provided with a Qualified Representative to represent

22 them during such bond hearing.

23

(8) For purposes of this order, the re quirement that all Sub-Class One Mem bers

24 be afforded a Qualified Representative will be deemed satisfied only if at least one

25 Qualified Representative has en tered a notice of appearance , in the form of a Form

26 EOIR-27 or EOIR-28, in every forum in which the Sub-Class One memb er is eligible to

27 have proceedings. The Sub- Class One member may be r epresented by the same or a

28 different Qualified Representative in each forum, so long as a Qu alified Representative

-3-

1 has entered an appearance in each forum in which the Sub-Class One member is eligible

2 to have proceedings.

3

(9) That a Sub-Class Two m ember has had a prior bond hearing shall not be

4 sufficient to satisfy the requirements of this Order and Judgment unless that bond hearing

5 complied with the requiremen ts of Singh v. Holder, 638 F.3d 1196 (9t h Cir. 2011). For

6 Sub-Class Two members who are also Sub-Class One members, the individual must also

7 have been represented by a Qualified Representative at that hearing.

8

(10) Within 45 days of t his Order and Judgment, Defendants shall subm it to the

9 Court a pl an and status report describing the steps taken to implement this Order and

10 Judgment and future plans for implementation, including (1) identification of current and

11 future class members and Sub-Class members, (2) provision of Qualified Representatives

12 for Sub-Class One mem bers, and (3) provisi on of tim ely bond hearings as required by

13 this Order.

14

(11) This Court retains jurisdiction to entertain such further proc eedings and to

15 enter such further orders as may be necessary or appropriate to im plement and enforce

16 the provisions of this Order and Judgment.

17

18 IT IS SO ORDERED.

19

20 DATED: April 23, 2013

21

DOLLY M. GEE

22

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

23

24

25

26

27

28

-4-

 
 Franco-Gonzales v. Holder, 828 F.Supp.2d 1133 (2011)

828 F.Supp.2d 1133 United States District Court,
C.D. California.
Jose Antonio FRANCO–GONZALES, et al., Petitioner, v.
Eric H. HOLDER, Jr. Attorney General, et al., Respondents.
Case No. CV 10–02211 DMG (DTBx). | May 4, 2011.
Synopsis Background: Immigrant detainees brought putative class action on behalf of mentally disabled detainees being held in custody without counsel during removal proceedings, asserting claims under Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), Rehabilitation Act, and Due Process Clause. Detainee who was native and citizen of Belarus, and who had been deemed mentally incompetent to represent himself in removal proceedings, moved for preliminary injunction.
Holdings: The District Court, Dolly M. Gee, J., held that:
[1] detainee was entitled to custody hearing at which government had to justify his continued detention on the basis that he was flight risk or would be danger to community;
[2] qualified representative for mentally incompetent immigrant detainee may be attorney, law student or law graduate directly supervised by retained attorney, or accredited representative;
[3] father could not serve as qualified representative for detainee at custody hearing;
[4] appointment of qualified representative to represent detainee at custody hearing was reasonable accommodation under Rehabilitation Act;
[5] likelihood of irreparable harm and balance of hardships favored detainee; and
[6] mandatory injunction was warranted.

Motion granted in part.
Attorneys and Law Firms
*1135 John David Blair–Loy, Sean Riordan, ACLU of San Diego & Imperial Counties, San Diego, CA, Michael H. Steinberg, Alexa M. Lawson–Remer, Antonia Stamenova–Dancheva, Damion D.D. Robinson, Theresa A. Buckley, Sullivan & Cromwell LLP, Ahilan T. Arulanantham, ACLU Foundation of Southern California, James J. Preis, Mental Health Advocacy Services Inc., Judy London, Talia R. Inlender, Public Counsel, Los Angeles, CA, Judy Rabinovitz, American Civil Liberties Union Immigrants’ Rights Project, New York, NY, Matt Adams, Riddhi Mukhopadhyay, Northwest Immigrant Rights Project, Seattle, WA, Shawn Joe Lichaa, Sullivan and Cromwell LLP, Palo Alto, CA, for Petitioners.
Samuel P. Go, Victor M. Lawrence, Office of Immigration Litigation—District Court Section, Erez Reuveni, Jesi J. Carlson, Neelam Ihsanullah, Nicole R. Prairie, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Assistant U.S. Attorney LA–CV, AUSA—Office of U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, for Respondents.
Opinion
ORDER RE PLAINTIFF MAKSIM ZHALEZNY’S MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
DOLLY M. GEE, District Judge.
This matter is before the Court on the Motion for a Preliminary Injunction filed by Plaintiff Maksim Zhalezny (“Plaintiff”). The Court held a hearing on March 7, 2011. Having duly considered the respective positions of the parties, as presented in their briefs and at oral argument, the Court now renders its decision. For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiff’s Motion is GRANTED in part.
I.
1

Franco-Gonzales v. Holder, 828 F.Supp.2d 1133 (2011)
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
The procedural background of this case is set forth more fully in the Court’s Amended Order dated December 27, 2010, 767 F.Supp.2d 1034 (C.D.Cal.2010) [Doc. # 107] (the “December 27 Order”) and will not be repeated here.
On January 14, 2011, Plaintiff Maksim Zhalezny filed a Motion for a Preliminary Injunction. On February 24, 2011, Defendants filed an Opposition. Plaintiff filed a Reply on February 25, 2011. At the March 7, 2011 hearing, the Court provided the parties with the opportunity to submit *1136 supplemental briefing on (1) categories of non-attorneys that may be qualified to represent Plaintiff and (2) whether a guardian ad litem is needed to effectuate Plaintiff’s legal representation. Plaintiff filed a supplemental brief on March 14, 2011 and Defendants filed a supplemental brief on March 21, 2011.
II.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Plaintiff Zhalezny is a 21 year-old native and citizen of Belarus. (Decl. of Ahilan Arulanantham (“Arulanantham Decl.”) ¶ 4, Ex. 105.) Zhalezny won the diversity visa lottery program as a derivative of his parent’s application and arrived in the United States as a Lawful Permanent Resident on January 30, 2007. (Id.; Decl. of Piotr Zhalezny (“Zhalezny Decl.”) ¶¶ 2–3.)
On February 9, 2010, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) placed an immigration detainer on Zhalezny. (Decl. of Neelam Ihsanullah (“Ihsanullah Decl.”) ¶ 6, Ex. 13.) On April 14, 2010, Zhalezny was turned over to ICE custody and served with a Notice to Appear (“NTA”) for removal proceedings. (Ihsanullah Decl. ¶ 7, Ex. 14; Arulanantham Decl. ¶ 6, Ex. 108.) The NTA charged Zhalezny with being removable under Section 237(a)(2)(A)(ii) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, as amended (“INA”), 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(ii), for having been “convicted of two crimes involving moral turpitude not arising out of a single scheme of criminal misconduct.” (Arulanantham Decl. ¶ 6, Ex. 108.) The NTA stated that Plaintiff was convicted of the following: (1) theft in violation of Cal.Penal Code § 484, on January 12, 2009 and on April 16, 2009; (2) burglary in violation of Cal.Penal Code §

459, on February 24, 2009; and (3) petty theft with priors in violation of Cal.Penal Code § 666, on August 3, 2009. (Id.) The NTA was filed with the San Francisco Immigration Court on April 19, 2010. (Id.)
Zhalezny is currently detained at the Sacramento County Jail. (Arulanantham Decl. ¶ 4, Ex. 105.)
A. Zhalezny’s Psychiatric Evaluation Zhalezny has been diagnosed with undifferentiated schizophrenia. (Arulanantham Decl. ¶ 5, Ex. 107.) Jessica Ferranti, M.D., an Assistant Clinical Professor of Psychiatry at the University of California at Davis Medical Center, conducted a psychiatric evaluation of Plaintiff at the Sacramento County Jail. (Arulanantham Decl. ¶ 5, Ex. 107.) According to Dr. Ferranti, Plaintiff is neither able to understand the nature of the immigration proceedings or the charges against him nor to represent himself in immigration proceedings. (Id. at 13.)
Dr. Ferranti noted that Plaintiff failed to express any understanding that he is currently facing deportation and gave incongruous responses to questions about the nature of his legal proceedings. “Due to severe mental illness, Mr. Zhalezny was unable to rationally discuss a possible defense strategy.” (Id.) Dr. Ferranti further noted that Plaintiff’s psychosis manifests with “severe thought process impairment.” (Id.) Plaintiff exhibited preoccupation with his perceptual disturbance, i.e., his belief that he was being killed by the fluorescent lights in the jail and that he heard voices coming from the lights, as well as a disorganized thought process and preoccupation with delusions. (Id. at 14.) Due to schizophrenia, Plaintiff lacks sufficient contact with reality and the ability to make consistent decisions. (Id.)
B. Immigration Court Proceedings Plaintiff’s first removal hearing took place before Hon. Michael J. Yamaguchi, *1137 Judge of the San Francisco Immigration Court, on April 28, 2010. (Ihsanullah Decl. ¶ 8, Ex. 15.) Defendants present evidence that in the master calendar hearings that ensued, Judge Yamaguchi made several inquiries into obtaining pro bono counsel for Plaintiff and securing the presence of Plaintiff’s parents at the hearings. Judge Yamaguchi delayed scheduling Plaintiff’s merits hearing while such efforts were ongoing.
On June 8, 2010, with Plaintiff’s parents present, Judge
2

Franco-Gonzales v. Holder, 828 F.Supp.2d 1133 (2011)
Yamaguchi continued Plaintiff’s hearing until June 30, 2010 in order to provide Plaintiff’s parents with time to find an immigration attorney to represent Plaintiff. (Id. at 51.) On June 30, 2010, Plaintiff’s father, Piotr Zhalezny, informed Judge Yamaguchi that he had been unable to secure an attorney and requested additional time. Judge Yamaguchi informed Piotr that he would consider appointing Piotr pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 1240.4:
Q: ... the law allows you as the—as the respondent—as Maksim’s father to represent, to step into his shoes, to act on his behalf. What I could do is give you the application for asylum to you today, today—give you the application. And you could continue looking for an attorney, but while you’re looking, you could fill out the papers for your son. And if you’re unsuccessful—I’ll give you one more continuance to try to find an attorney—but if you’re unsuccessful, I’ll have to appoint you as his representative. And then what you could do then is present his case for him as if you were him. I assume he was very young when you left. Belarus. So, it’s frankly much of what is—what fear he may have in Belarus is based upon you and your wife’s experiences there, is that correct?
A: Yes.
(Id. at 54.)
Judge Yamaguchi then asked Piotr if he consented to acting as his son’s representative:
JUDGE: Sir, I am going—I have made a finding that your son is not competent to represent himself. Now, my finding doesn’t mean that I find that—I’m not a medical professional, so I’m not saying your son is mentally ill. What I’m saying though legally that he doesn’t have the full mental capacity to represent himself, to do the things necessary to protect his interests. So, that’s why I’m going to appoint you to be his—to represent him, to step into his shoes. Do you understand?
A: Yes.
Q: And you’re willing to do that?
A: Very much so. Yes, it’s my duty to do that.
(Id. at 109.)
At the November 1, 2010 hearing (the “November 1 Hearing”), the ACLU of Southern California submitted a

friend of the court letter (the “ACLU’s Letter”) expressing “concerns about the fairness of [Plaintiff’s] removal proceedings and to recommend that those proceedings be continued to a future date.” (Arulanantham Decl. ¶ 8, Ex. 110.) In the ACLU’s Letter, Jennifer Stark, on behalf of the ACLU, stated:
Because of our concerns about Mr. Zhalezny’s mental health and apparent competency issues, my office is engaging in litigation and advocacy efforts in an attempt to obtain counsel for him. I do not believe that he can obtain a fundamentally fair removal hearing, including a fair adjudication of his application for *1138 asylum, without an attorney to represent him.
(Id.)
At the November 1 Hearing, Judge Yamaguchi explained the ACLU’s Letter to Piotr as follows:
JUDGE: ... this lady works with an attorney by the name of Jennifer Stark, and she is an attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union. And they are thinking about having your son join in a class action lawsuit. And that lawsuit is going to be—is filed—would be up in Sacramento, is that right?
A: No, down in Central District.
JUDGE: Oh, in the Central, down in Los Angeles. And generally, the nature of the proceeding is that they’re seeking to have similarly situated respondents such as your son that there would be some requirement that an attorney be appointed to represent your son. That’s the general nature of the lawsuit. Now, that lawsuit is different and separate from these proceedings. So, until the Court makes a ruling, I’m required to continue on to hear the nature of your application filed on behalf of your son.
(Ihsanullah Decl. ¶ 8, Ex. 15 at 118.) Judge Yamaguchi then set the case for a February 17, 2011 merits hearing. (Id. at 120.)
It was at the November 1 Hearing that Piotr met Asel Aliyasova, one of the co-counsel representing Plaintiff in the present action. (Ihsanullah Decl. ¶ 10, Ex. 17;
3

Franco-Gonzales v. Holder, 828 F.Supp.2d 1133 (2011)
Deposition of Piotr Zhalezny (“Zhalezny Depo.”) p. 78.) After the November 1 Hearing, Piotr spoke with Ms. Aliyasova and asked her what the organization was and whether she would be able to help. (Ihsanullah Decl. ¶ 10, Ex. 17; Zhalezny Depo. p. 85.) Piotr recounted the events as follows:
A. Yeah. I asked her as to what the organization was and whether she was—she would be able to help.
Q. And later that evening you determined to write this letter as Exhibit 1, is that correct?
A. Well, I went home and I told my wife that the judge made a decision and I made a decision to represent my son. And then I told her let’s think as to where [sic] I would be able to do it. And I mentioned that there is this organization that was willing to help us free of charge.
Q. And what organization was that?
A. I can’t tell you for sure what it’s called in English.
Q. ACLU?
A. Yes, something like that. I need to take a look at the paperwork.
(Ihsanullah Decl. ¶ 10, Ex. 17; Zhalezny Depo. pp. 85–86.)
Thereafter, in a letter dated November 8, 2010 to the Immigration Court, Piotr stated that he would not be able to serve as his son’s representative:
When I came to home after court, I understood that I do not have the abillity [sic] to do this part of job. I don’t have any practice or education, I don’t understand the process. I don’t [sic] exactly what clueses [sic] I need to prepare in order to help my son. I’m informing you, your honor that I can’t carry out this representative job. I will try to find another way to help him.
(Arulanantham Decl. ¶ 9, Ex. 111; Zhalezny Decl. ¶ 15.) On November 18, 2010, Plaintiff’s father sent a second letter to the Immigration Court requesting Plaintiff’s

release pending his immigration proceedings so that Plaintiff could be treated for illness and looked after at home. (Arulanantham Decl. ¶ 10, Ex. 112; Zhalezny Decl. ¶ 17.)
*1139 On February 22, 2011, Defendants filed a Notice of Clarification informing the Court that Plaintiff’s immigration hearing, originally scheduled for February 17, 2011, was re-calendared for March 24, 2011. [Doc. # 137.] On March 21, 2011, Defendants filed yet another Notice informing the Court that Plaintiff’s immigration hearing was rescheduled for May 2, 2011 at 1:00 p.m. [Doc. # 163.]
III.
DISCUSSION
The December 27 Order sets forth the standard the Court must apply when considering a motion for preliminary injunction. Suffice it to say that the same standard governs the current motion.
Plaintiff seeks an order from the Court (1) appointing a Qualified Representative to represent Plaintiff in all aspects of his immigration proceedings, whether pro bono or at Defendants’ expense, and (2) requiring Plaintiff to be released within 30 days unless the Government provides Plaintiff with a bond hearing at which the Government must show that Plaintiff’s ongoing detention is justified. Defendants urge the Court to decline to define “Qualified Representative” prior to the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) ruling in the cases of Plaintiffs Martinez and Khukhryanskiy and to afford the agency the opportunity to provide initial guidance to the Immigration Courts and the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”).
The Court is mindful of the narrow purpose of preliminary injunctive relief and that the Court’s power should be exercised only after considering the individualized circumstances presented in each case. Plaintiff is entitled to injunctive relief only to the extent he is able to demonstrate that he is both likely to succeed on the merits of his claim and that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of such relief. In this case, Defendants have at least twice continued Plaintiff’s
4

Franco-Gonzales v. Holder, 828 F.Supp.2d 1133 (2011)
individual hearing before the Immigration Judge. Moreover, the Court assumes that the parties would have informed the Court if the May 2, 2011 hearing had not been continued. In view of the apparent ease with which Defendants have been able to do so, the Court does not find that Plaintiff is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of this Court’s action with respect to the timing of Plaintiff’s individual hearing. Should Defendants fail to, or be unable to, secure an appropriate continuance of Plaintiff’s merits hearing before the Immigration Court, the parties shall notify this Court immediately. In any event, the Court’s December 27 Order and today’s ruling should provide adequate guidance to the parties regarding the Court’s expectations as to who would be a Qualified Representative for any rescheduled merits hearing before the Immigration Court.
As discussed in greater detail below, however, Plaintiff has been in ICE custody for more than one year, a “prolonged” period by the Ninth Circuit’s measure. Insofar as Plaintiff’s detention will continue to be prolonged indefinitely by Defendants’ failure to provide him with a custody hearing, and in light of the ongoing irreparable harm Plaintiff faces as a result, the Court must decide the merits of Plaintiff’s custody hearing claim and whether Plaintiff is entitled to a Qualified Representative at such hearing.
A. Plaintiff Is Likely To Succeed On The Merits Of His Claims Defendants do not challenge the fact that Plaintiff is a “qualified individual with a disability” as defined by the Rehabilitation Act and that Plaintiff has established a prima facie case under Section 504. As in the case of Plaintiffs Aleksandr Petrovich *1140 Khukhryanskiy and Ever Francisco Martinez–Rivas, the Court therefore assumes for purposes of this Motion that a prima facie case under Section 504 exists.
1. Plaintiff’s Custody Hearing Claim Defendants contend that the Plaintiff fails to demonstrate that his detention is unreasonable merely because more than six months have elapsed since he was first taken into custody. According to Defendants, the length of Plaintiff’s detention is attributable to the Immigration Judge’s efforts to ensure a fair hearing and Plaintiff’s own conduct in this action. Defendants find fault with the Court’s December 27 Order to the extent that it “created”

a six-month presumptively reasonable period for pre-removal detentions under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c) notwithstanding that the six-month benchmark for post-removal period detentions under 8 U.S.C. § 1231 established by the Supreme Court in Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 121 S.Ct. 2491, 150 L.Ed.2d 653 (2001) does not apply to mandatory detentions under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c).1 (Defs.’ Opp’n at 23.)

1

Defendants cite 8 U.S.C. § 1241 in their Opposition,

but the Court presumes Defendants intended to refer to

8 U.S.C. § 1231, the detention statute at issue in

Zadvydas. (Defs.’ Opp’n at 23 n. 11.)

The Court clarifies its December 27 Order.
[1] Section 1226(c) mandates detention during removal proceedings for a limited class of deportable aliens, including those convicted of an aggravated felony.2 Demore v. Kim, 538 U.S. 510, 517–18, 123 S.Ct. 1708, 155 L.Ed.2d 724 (2003). The purpose of section 1226(c) is to prevent deportable criminal aliens from fleeing prior to or during their removal proceedings and increase the chance that such aliens will be successfully removed if so ordered. Id. at 527–28, 123 S.Ct. 1708. As a result, detentions under section 1226(c) have “a definite termination point” and, in the majority of cases, last for less than the 90–day period contemplated by detentions under 8 U.S.C. § 1231.3 Id. at 529, 123 S.Ct. 1708; cf. 8 U.S.C. § 1231 (governing detention following a final order of removal).

2

Section 1226(c) provides in pertinent part:

The Attorney General shall take into custody any

alien who—

(A) is inadmissible by reason of having committed

any offense covered in section 1182(a)(2) of this

title,

(B) is deportable by reason of having committed

any offense covered in section 1227(a)(2)(A)(ii),

(A)(iii), (B), (C), or (D) of this title,

(C) is deportable under section 1227(a)(2)(A)(i) of

this title on the basis of an offense for which the

alien has been sentenced to a term of

imprisonment of at least 1 year, or

(D) is inadmissible under section 1182(a)(3)(B) of

this title or deportable under section 1227(a)(4)(B)

of this title,

when the alien is released, without regard to

whether the alien is released on parole, supervised

release, or probation, and without regard to

whether the alien may be arrested or imprisoned

5

Franco-Gonzales v. Holder, 828 F.Supp.2d 1133 (2011)

again for the same offense. 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c).

3

Section 1231(a)(6) provides:

An alien ordered removed who is inadmissible

under section 1182 of this title, removable under

section 1227(a)(1)(C), 1227(a)(2), or 1227(a)(4) of

this title or who has been determined by the

Attorney General to be a risk to the community or

unlikely to comply with the order of removal, may

be detained beyond the removal period and, if

released, shall be subject to the terms of

supervision in paragraph (3).

8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(6) (emphasis added). Unlike the

statutes that require detention during removal

proceedings and the removal period, such as under 8

U.S.C. § 1226(c), post-removal period detentions

under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(6) have no obvious

termination point. Zadvydas, 533 U.S. at 697, 121

S.Ct. 2491.

*1141 The Supreme Court has emphasized that:
the detention at stake under § 1226(c) lasts roughly a month and a half in the vast majority of cases in which it is invoked, and about five months in the minority of cases in which the alien chooses to appeal.
538 U.S. at 530, 123 S.Ct. 1708 (emphasis added) (holding that, while the respondent was detained “somewhat longer than the average—spending six months in INS custody,” the respondent had requested a continuance of his removal hearing and therefore his detention under section 1226(c) was not unconstitutional).
The Ninth Circuit subsequently held in Casas–Castrillon v. Department of Homeland Security, 535 F.3d 942 (9th Cir.2008) that because section 1226(c)’ s mandatory detention provision applies only to “expedited removal of criminal aliens” pending removal proceedings, it does not govern the prolonged detention of aliens awaiting judicial review of their removal orders. Casas–Castrillon, 535 F.3d at 947–48. In Casas–Castrillon, the petitioner had been detained for nearly seven years. Noting the Supreme Court’s decision in Demore, the Ninth Circuit concluded that because the mandatory detention of aliens under section 1226(c) was intended to apply for only a limited

time, the petitioner’s section 1226(c) detention ended when the BIA affirmed his removal order. Thereafter, the authority to detain the petitioner shifted to section 1226(a).4 Id. at 948.

4

Section 1226(a) provides that the Attorney General

“may” detain an alien “pending a decision on whether

the alien is to be removed from the United States.” 8

U.S.C. § 1226(a).

In Casas–Castrillon, the Ninth Circuit additionally considered whether the government could detain an alien for a prolonged period without providing an individualized determination as to the necessity of his detention. The court noted that although the alien’s detention was permitted by statute, he may nonetheless have a right to contest before a neutral decision-maker whether the government’s purported interest was actually served by his continued detention. Id. at 949. Emphasizing the constitutional concerns of prolonged detentions and the due process protections guaranteed to aliens in removal proceedings, the court held:
Because the prolonged detention of an alien without an individualized determination of his dangerousness or flight risk would be ‘constitutionally doubtful,’ we hold that § 1226(a) must be construed as requiring the Attorney General to provide the alien with such a hearing.
Id. (italics in original).
In its December 27 Order, the Court determined that Martinez’s more than one-year detention and Khukhryanskiy’s eight-month detention were prolonged. In light of the Supreme Court’s decision in Demore and the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Casas–Castrillon, the Court concluded that (1) the authority for these plaintiffs’ respective prolonged detentions shifted to section 1226(a) and (2) plaintiffs were entitled to a custody hearing and the opportunity to contest the necessity of their detentions. In doing so, the Court analogized to the reasoning in the Supreme Court’s Zadvydas decision, in which the Supreme Court established a presumptively reasonable six-month detention period for “removal period” detentions under 8 U.S.C. § 1231. See Zadvydas, 533 U.S. at 701, 121 S.Ct. 2491. The Court also noted that the
6

Franco-Gonzales v. Holder, 828 F.Supp.2d 1133 (2011)

Ninth Circuit had extended the Zadvydas framework beyond post-removal period detentions *1142 to those under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a).5 See Rodriguez v. Hayes, 591 F.3d 1105, 1115 (9th Cir.2010) (noting the Zadvydas framework had been extended to discretionary detention pursuant to 8 U.S.C. §§ 1225(b) and 1226(a)).

5

On March 7, 2011, the same date as the hearing in this

case, the Ninth Circuit issued a ruling in Diouf v.

Napolitano, 634 F.3d 1081 (9th Cir.2011), where the

court considered whether individuals detained pursuant

to 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(6) are entitled to the same

procedural safeguards against prolonged detention as

individuals detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a). The

court held prolonged detention under 8 U.S.C. §

1231(a)(6), without adequate procedural protections,

would raise “serious constitutional concerns” and that,

therefore, such aliens were entitled to release on bond

unless the government establishes that the alien is a

flight risk or will be a danger to the community. Id. at

1081–87.

Indeed, the Ninth Circuit’s recent Diouf decision bolsters this Court’s ruling regarding Plaintiffs Martinez and Khukhryanskiy. Diouf v. Napolitano, 634 F.3d 1081 (9th Cir.2011). In Diouf, the Ninth Circuit held that “[a]s a general matter, detention is prolonged when it has lasted six months and is expected to continue more than minimally beyond six months.” 634 F.3d at 1092 n. 13 (holding that DHS regulations governing the subsequent 180–day review raised “serious constitutional concerns,” in part because when the 180–day review takes place, the alien has been detained for approximately six months and any continuing detention becomes prolonged). According to the Ninth Circuit, “[w]hen detention crosses the six-month threshold and release or removal is not imminent, the private interests at stake are profound.” Id.
In this case, Plaintiff has been detained for a period of more than 12 months. From the outset, the Immigration Judge inquired into obtaining pro bono counsel for Plaintiff and securing the presence of Plaintiff’s parents at the hearings, and granted continuances for that purpose. At least as of May 12, 2010, the Immigration Judge became aware that Plaintiff might be suffering from mental health problems. (Ihsanullah Decl. ¶ 8, Ex. 15 at 19–21.)
Not surprisingly, the parties characterize Plaintiff’s resulting prolonged detention differently. According to Plaintiff, the lack of systemic guidelines for unrepresented

mentally incompetent aliens who require reasonable accommodations in removal proceedings unnecessarily prolonged Plaintiff’s detention. (Pl.’s Reply at 19.) Defendants, on the other hand, contend that the length of Plaintiff’s detention does not raise constitutional concerns exactly because the Immigration Judge used continuances to ensure that Plaintiff’s rights to a fair hearing were protected and that it is because of the continuances that Plaintiff’s family has been allowed to fully litigate his removal.6 These two positions are not at odds with each other. Plaintiff’s detention was prolonged for both of the reasons proffered by the parties. Unfortunately, his detention was also prolonged *1143 by the time needed for this Court to address the merits of the instant motion. Debating what caused the unnecessary prolongation of Plaintiff’s detention, however, begs the question.

6

Defendants also contend that Plaintiff’s custody hearing

claim is likely to fail because “Plaintiff has contributed

to prolonging his own detention, by encouraging his

father to attempt to withdraw as his representative and

seeking an appointed counsel through this lawsuit. If

Plaintiff, through federal court counsel, had not

obstructed Piotr’s representation in this manner,

Plaintiff Zhalezny’s merits hearing would have

occurred on February 17, and the immigration judge

might have issued a decision on his asylum application

on that date or shortly thereafter.” (Defs.’ Opp’n at 25.)

As the record indicates, however, it was the

Immigration Judge who explained to Piotr the nature of

the instant action. (Ihsanullah Decl. ¶ 8, Ex. 15 at 118.)

Defendants present no evidence that Plaintiff

encouraged his father to withdraw as his representative

or that Plaintiff has acted in bad faith to prolong his

own detention.

[2] Plaintiff’s detention falls outside the intended scope of section 1226(c) and is well-beyond the outer limit of the five-month period estimated by the Demore Court for mandatory detentions under section 1226(c). Particularly in light of the fact that Plaintiff remains without a Qualified Representative to represent him in his removal proceedings, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s detention can no longer be classified as detention for an “expedited removal.” Plaintiff has been detained for over a year and neither release nor removal is imminent. Consequently, as in the case of Plaintiffs Khukhryanskiy and Martinez, the Court finds that the authority for Plaintiff’s detention is no longer that of mandatory detention under section 1226(c), but has shifted to discretionary detention under section 1226(a). In light of Plaintiff’s prolonged detention and the profound private interests at stake, Plaintiff is
7

Franco-Gonzales v. Holder, 828 F.Supp.2d 1133 (2011)

entitled to a custody hearing at which the government must justify his continued detention on the basis that he is either a flight risk or will be a danger to the community.7

7

Plaintiff’s prolonged detention is even more compelling

when viewed against the factors deemed relevant by the

Ninth Circuit in Diouf. In Diouf, the court considered

(1) the fact that a detainee sought direct or collateral

review, (2) the alien’s liberty interests, and (3) the

government’s interests in ensuring the alien’s presence

at his removal proceedings. In this case, Plaintiff’s case

is at a nascent stage and he is not yet seeking any

review. Furthermore, as he is subject to detention

pending removal proceedings (as opposed to any

detention during the post-removal period), Plaintiff has

a stronger liberty interest than a section 1231(a)(6)

alien and the government has a slightly weaker interest

in ensuring Plaintiff’s presence at the moment of

removal. Unlike an alien who has already been ordered

removed, Plaintiff is a lawful permanent resident who

is facing charges of removability. A custody hearing

would ensure that Plaintiff is not being detained

unnecessarily pending removal proceedings.

2. Plaintiff’s Representation Claim As mentioned supra, Defendants urge the Court to decline to define the concept of “Qualified Representative” prior to the BIA’s ruling in the cases of Plaintiffs Martinez and Khukhryanskiy. In light of the Court’s ruling that Plaintiff is entitled to a custody hearing before an Immigration Judge, however, the Court must necessarily decide who is a Qualified Representative to represent Plaintiff at that hearing.
a. “Qualified Representative” as Defined in the December 27 Order
Defendants first contend that “[a]lthough attorneys are viewed as the pinnacle of legal representation, counsel is not always necessary to represent the rights of individuals, particularly in federal administrative proceedings.” (Defs.’ Opp’n at 13.) In fact, Plaintiff does not argue otherwise.8 Plaintiff urges the Court to find that (1) accredited representatives and (2) law students and law graduates supervised by attorneys, as set forth in 8 C.F.R. § 1292.1, may act as Qualified Representatives for mentally incompetent immigrant detainees, including

Plaintiff in this case.

8

At the December 8, 2010 hearing on the Preliminary

Injunction Motion filed by Plaintiffs Khukhryanskiy

and Martinez, Plaintiff’s counsel conceded that the

appointment of certain non-attorneys may be sufficient

to safeguard Plaintiffs’ rights.

In the case of Plaintiffs Martinez and Khukhryanskiy, the Court “[found] it significant that Plaintiffs themselves define[d] what they consider[ed] to be adequate representation” *1144 and adopted the definition of a “Qualified Representative” as set forth by Plaintiffs. (December 27 Order, 767 F.Supp.2d at 1058.) There, Plaintiffs sought a representative who met five criteria, including that he or she:

(1) be obligated to provide zealous

representation; (2) be subject to

sanction by the EOIR for

ineffective assistance; (3) be free of

any conflicts of interest; (4) have

adequate knowledge and

information

to

provide

representation at least as competent

as that provided by a detainee with

ample time, motivation, and access

to legal materials; and (5) maintain

confidentiality of information.

(Id.) In response, Defendants engaged in vigorous efforts to secure pro bono counsel meeting each of these five criteria and filed various status reports updating the Court as to the same.

Consequently, the question of whether Plaintiffs’ proposed criteria were the only “reasonable accommodation” for mentally incompetent immigrant detainees was not squarely before the Court. The Court, in its December 27 Order, noted that “Defendants’ offer of counsel [spoke] volumes ... regarding the reasonableness of the proposed accommodation and the absence of undue burden in providing the accommodation.” (Id. at 1057.) Accepting Plaintiffs’ proposed definition of a “Qualified Representative,” the Court stated:

In view of the circumstances presented by Plaintiffs’ cases, Plaintiffs’ definition of a Qualified Representative, and Defendants’

8

Franco-Gonzales v. Holder, 828 F.Supp.2d 1133 (2011)
apparent offer of counsel that meet such criteria, the Court finds that it is a reasonable accommodation for Defendants to provide a Qualified Representative(s) to represent Plaintiffs in the entirety of their immigration proceedings, whether such Qualified Representative is performing the services pro bono or at Defendants’ expense. (December 27 Order, 767 F.Supp.2d at 1058.)
At this juncture, the parties urge the Court to consider whether a Qualified Representative, as defined in the December 27 Order, is the only “reasonable accommodation” for mentally incompetent immigrant detainees in removal proceedings and, in particular, for this Plaintiff’s custody hearing. While the Court does not find that Plaintiff’s father is an adequate representative, the Court also does not find that a Qualified Representative, as defined in the December 27 Order, must be a lawyer in order to be a “reasonable accommodation” for Plaintiff. The Court refines its definition of a Qualified Representative below.
b. Whether a Mentally Incompetent Alien Detainee Can Knowingly and Voluntarily Waive His Right to Counsel
[3] As a general matter, while aliens do not have a Sixth Amendment right to counsel in an immigration hearing, Congress has recognized a right by aliens to obtain counsel in removal proceedings before an immigration judge. U.S. v. Ramos, 623 F.3d 672, 682 (9th Cir.2010). Section 1362 provides:
In any removal proceedings before an immigration judge and in any appeal proceedings before the Attorney General from any such removal proceedings, the person concerned shall have the privilege of being represented (at no expense to the Government) by such counsel, authorized to practice in such proceedings, as he shall choose.
8 U.S.C. § 1362 (emphasis added). The alien’s right to counsel stems from the Fifth Amendment’s due process guarantee. Ramos, 623 F.3d at 682.

[4] [5] Consequently, immigration judges are required to (1) inquire whether the petitioner wishes counsel, (2) determine *1145 a reasonable period for obtaining counsel, and (3) assess whether any waiver of counsel is knowing and voluntary. Id. In order for a waiver to be valid, the immigration judge must (1) inquire specifically as to whether the petitioner wishes to continue without a lawyer and (2) receive a knowing and voluntary affirmative response. Tawadrus v. Ashcroft, 364 F.3d 1099, 1103 (9th Cir.2004).
Indeed, Defendants contend that the immigration judge acts as a safeguard to ensure that the alien receives a full and fair hearing and point to the immigration judge’s duty to develop a full record, particularly when the alien proceeds pro se.
As Plaintiff’s case illustrates, however, where an immigrant detainee is mentally incompetent, it is questionable whether the detainee is able to make a “knowing and voluntary” waiver of his right to counsel. In Plaintiff’s case, the evidence indicates that Plaintiff’s mental illness causes “severe thought process impairment” and inhibits his ability to make consistent decisions. In the only mental competence evaluation presented to the Court, Dr. Ferranti concluded that Plaintiff was unable to rationally discuss a possible defense strategy or to understand the nature of the immigration proceedings or the charges against him. For this very reason, the Court at the March 7, 2011 hearing asked the parties to additionally brief the question whether a mentally incompetent alien can consent to any representation or whether he would need a guardian to do so on his behalf.
Defendants argue (1) that consent is not required for a Qualified Representative to appear and speak for an incompetent alien under 8 C.F.R. § 1240.4 and (2) that once the Qualified Representative is established or permitted to proceed by the immigration judge, he or she can consent on the alien’s behalf. As explained below, Defendants’ position presents the Court with a Gordian Knot.
Defendants urge the Court to find that the persons listed in 8 C.F.R. § 1240.4 are appropriate Qualified Representatives. Section 1240.4 contemplates that in the case of mentally incompetent immigrant detainees, “the attorney, legal representative, legal guardian, near relative, or friend who was served with a copy of the notice to appear shall be permitted to appear on behalf of the
9

Franco-Gonzales v. Holder, 828 F.Supp.2d 1133 (2011)

respondent.”9 8 C.F.R. § 1240.4. As discussed supra, however, mentally incompetent immigrant detainees also have a constitutional right to representation and any waiver of such right must be knowing and voluntary. If a mentally incompetent immigrant detainee were to agree to be represented by a non-attorney identified in 8 C.F.R. § 1240.4, such detainee would, in any case, be required to knowingly and voluntarily waive his right to counsel. As a result, even if the Court were to determine that all non-attorneys identified in 8 C.F.R. § 1240.4 are appropriate Qualified Representatives, whether such non-attorney can serve as a representative for a mentally incompetent immigrant detainee would depend ultimately on whether the detainee can validly waive his right to counsel and consent to certain types of non-attorney representation—a *1146 dubious proposition for someone who is mentally incompetent.

9

Section 1240.4 provides as follows:

When it is impracticable for the respondent to be

present at the hearing because of mental

incompetency, the attorney, legal representative,

legal guardian, near relative, or friend who was

served with a copy of the notice to appear shall be

permitted to appear on behalf of the respondent. If

such a person cannot reasonably be found or fails

or refuses to appear, the custodian of the

respondent shall be requested to appear on behalf

of the respondent.

8 C.F.R. § 1240.4.

On the other hand, as Plaintiff indicates, federal regulations provide that a person “entitled to representation” may be represented by attorneys, law students and law graduates, reputable individuals, accredited representatives, and accredited officials. 8 C.F.R. § 1292.1. Among these categories of persons authorized by federal regulations to represent aliens in removal proceedings, only attorneys and accredited representatives may represent aliens without “the request of the person entitled to representation” under federal regulations.10 Compare 8 C.F.R. §§ 1292.1(a)(2), (a)(3) (providing that (1) law students and law graduates and (2) reputable individuals may represent aliens in removal proceedings only if they are appearing “at the request of the person entitled to representation”) with 8 C.F.R. §§ 1292.1(a)(1), (a)(4) (no requirement of a request for attorneys and accredited representatives). Plaintiff therefore argues that because law students and law graduates directly supervised by retained attorneys may represent detainees without the detainee’s consent, such

non-attorneys may also be appropriate Qualified Representatives.11

10

Federal regulations provide that aliens in removal

proceedings may be represented (1) attorneys, (2) law

students and law graduates, (3) reputable individuals,

(4) accredited representatives, and (5) accredited

officials, all as defined therein. 8 C.F.R. § 1292.1.

11

Plaintiff also urges the Court to limit its definition of

Qualified Representatives to people who can be held

accountable for their performance. Plaintiff argues that

in light of Plaintiff’s disability, it is critical that anyone

acting on his behalf be accountable to the courts and an

accrediting body. As such, Plaintiff contends that the

definition of Qualified Representatives should be

limited to attorneys, accredited representatives, and law

students and law graduates directly supervised by

retained attorneys.

The Court finds merit in Plaintiff’s position. Defendants argue that such a “blanket determination” eliminates the possibility of having other individuals such as “social workers, mental health professionals, reputable individuals, country condition experts, psychologists, or persons with college degrees” represent mentally incompetent detainees. (Defs.’ Supp. Brief at 9.) The Court disagrees. Federal regulations define an “accredited representative” as

a person who is approved by the Board to represent aliens before the Board, the Immigration Courts, and DHS. He or she must be a person of good moral character who works for a specific nonprofit religious, charitable, social service, or similar organization which has been recognized by the Board to represent aliens.

Board of Immigration Appeals Practice Manual § 2.4;

available

at

http://www.

justice.gov/eoir/vll/qapracmanual/apptmtn4.htm (“BIA

Practice Manual”). In order to receive accreditation, an

individual must demonstrate that he or she works for a

qualifying organization that “has at its disposal adequate

knowledge, information, and experience in immigration

law and procedure” and the qualifying organization must

“set forth the nature and extent of the proposed

10

Franco-Gonzales v. Holder, 828 F.Supp.2d 1133 (2011)
representative’s experience and knowledge of immigration and naturalization law and procedure.” 8 C.F.R. §§ 1292.2(a), (d). To the extent “social workers, mental health professionals, reputable individuals, country condition experts, psychologists, or persons with college degrees” meet the qualifications, such individuals may be approved as “accredited representatives.” The Court also notes that, because the issue was not presented in this motion or in Martinez/Khukhryanskiy’s prior motion, this decision does not *1147 address who would be a Qualified Representative for mentally ill detainees who are not mentally incompetent and are capable of giving valid consent to representation by non-attorneys.
[6] The Court therefore finds that a Qualified Representative for a mentally incompetent detainee may be (1) an attorney, (2) a law student or law graduate directly supervised by a retained attorney, or (3) an accredited representative, all as defined in 8 C.F.R. § 1292.1.
c. Whether Piotr is a Qualified Representative in Plaintiff’s Case
[7] Defendants assert that by permitting Plaintiff’s father, Piotr Zhalezny (hereinafter “Piotr”) to appear on his son’s behalf, the Immigration Judge ensured that Plaintiff’s disability was accommodated and his procedural rights safeguarded. The Court disagrees. Plaintiff’s father is not a Qualified Representative.
Defendants argue that Piotr is in the best position to speak for his son because he “obviously cares deeply” for his son’s welfare, performed tasks that put plaintiff in the same position as a mentally competent alien proceeding pro se, and is the only known person who can relay facts that support Plaintiff’s asylum application. (Defs.’ Supp. Brief at 5.) While Plaintiff’s father has expressed an earnest desire to assist his son in removal proceedings, as most parents would, the Court must look beyond an individual’s mere willingness to take on the role of representative for a mentally incompetent person.
Setting aside the fact that Plaintiff’s father does not work for a BIA recognized organization, which is a requirement for an “accredited representative,” Plaintiff’s father lacks “adequate knowledge, information, and experience in immigration law and procedure” to represent his son. According to Plaintiff, in the short time Plaintiff’s father

served as his representative, Piotr: (1) failed to assert an available basis for asylum, i.e., his son’s mental illness, despite being advised to do so (Ihsanullah Decl. ¶ 13, Ex. 20); (2) failed to discuss the asylum application with his son prior to filing it, despite the requirement that the preparer read the form aloud to the applicant for verification (Zhalezny Depo. pp. 49–50); (3) does not have time to represent his son because he supports his family by working full-time as a newspaper delivery-man and takes English classes (Zhalezny Decl. ¶ 2); (4) has only a basic knowledge of English and requires the services of a translator; and (5) is the primary witness in support of his son’s asylum application (Zhalezny Decl. ¶¶ 2, 11, 14). Piotr lacks basic knowledge of his son’s circumstances as demonstrated by the fact that he believes his son has no attorney in his criminal proceedings and he has minimal and incorrect knowledge of his son’s criminal and medical history. (Zhalezny Depo. pp. 34–36; Ihsanullah Decl. ¶ 8, Ex. 15 at 101.)
Nor is there anything in the record to suggest that Plaintiff has knowingly or voluntarily waived any potential conflict between himself and his father and has consented to his father’s representation. Plaintiff has repeatedly refused to obtain his father’s help, despite requests from the Immigration Judge that he do so. (Ihsanullah Decl. ¶ 8, Ex. 15 at 4–5, 10–11, 13–14, 24–27, 39–40.) The record indicates that the Immigration Judge repeatedly urged Plaintiff to seek counsel or assistance from his parents and that Plaintiff refused. As a result, while it is certainly not the case that one’s parent can never be a Qualified Representative, the Court finds that in this particular case, Plaintiff’s father cannot serve as a Qualified Representative for Plaintiff at his custody hearing.
*1148 [8] Defendants also make much of the argument that allowing Piotr to “speak for his son in removal proceedings ... would essentially place the Plaintiff in the same position as that of a competent alien proceeding pro se.” (Defs.’ Supp. Brief at 6.) As discussed in the December 27 Order, however, it is well-established that an accommodation that provides a preference is not, in and of itself, unreasonable. (December 27 Order, 767 F.Supp.2d at 1055–56.) Other than arguing that the appointment of counsel for mentally incompetent immigrant detainees is “rare” and difficult due to funding concerns, Defendants fail to present any evidence why the criteria for a Qualified Representative, as set forth by the Court herein, are not a “reasonable accommodation” for one who is mentally incompetent.
In addition, far from helping their position, Defendants’
11

Franco-Gonzales v. Holder, 828 F.Supp.2d 1133 (2011)
exposition of the Immigration Judge’s valiant ad hoc efforts to find pro bono counsel and to contact Plaintiff’s parents actually undermines it. If Defendants had a system in place to identify mentally incompetent detainees and to promptly accommodate their needs by the appointment of a Qualified Representative, Immigration Judges would not be placed in the untenable position of navigating uncharted territory when confronted with mentally ill aliens in their courtrooms. In the absence of any systemic guidelines setting forth what is a “reasonable accommodation” for unrepresented mentally incompetent aliens in removal proceedings, the Court finds that the appointment of a Qualified Representative, as redefined above, is a “reasonable accommodation” for Plaintiff at his custody hearing in this case.
Finally, Defendants present evidence that Plaintiff’s counsel offered to assist Plaintiff “free of charge” and urge this Court to require Plaintiff’s counsel to represent him in his removal proceedings as a result. At his deposition, Piotr testified as follows:
A. Well, I went home and I told my wife that the judge made a decision and I made a decision to represent my son. And then I told her let’s think as to where [sic] I would be able to do it. And I mentioned that there is this organization that was willing to help us free of charge.
Q. And what organization was that?
A. I can’t tell you for sure what it’s called in English.
Q. ACLU?
A. Yes, something like that. I need to take a look at the paperwork.
(Ihsanullah Decl. ¶ 10, Ex. 17; Zhalezny Depo. pp. 85–86.)
If Plaintiff’s counsel herein did, in fact, offer to represent Plaintiff “free of charge” in the immigration proceedings, the Court agrees that Plaintiff’s counsel should be required to fulfill its promise. It is not clear from Piotr’s testimony, however, whether Plaintiff’s counsel offered to “represent” Plaintiff “free of charge” in the immigration proceedings or merely to “assist” Plaintiff in securing such representation. At the hearing on this motion, the Court asked Plaintiff’s counsel whether such an offer to represent Plaintiff in the immigration proceedings had

been made and the response was an unequivocal denial. Plaintiff’s counsel deny any claim that they “unduly influenced [Piotr] to withdraw as his son’s representative, or that class counsel acted inappropriately in any way.” (Pl.’s Reply at 15.) The Court finds no misconduct on Plaintiff’s counsel’s part for informing the Immigration Judge and Plaintiff’s parents of the pendency of this case. Under these circumstances, the Court finds no basis upon which to require Plaintiff’s counsel to undertake the representation *1149 of Plaintiff in the immigration proceedings against their will.

B. Plaintiff Demonstrates A Likelihood Of Irreparable Harm And The Balance Of Hardships Tips Sharply In His Favor [9] In this case, Defendants argue that Plaintiff will not suffer irreparable harm because his father may serve as an adequate representative on his behalf and Plaintiff may appeal any denial of his asylum application to the BIA. [Redacted]
As discussed above, Plaintiff has been detained for more than a year without proper representation. [Redacted] Defendants also underestimate the importance of Plaintiff’s case before the Immigration Court. Even if Plaintiff has a right to appeal any denial, the record developed and established before the Immigration Court will form the basis of any such appeal. Under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(d)(3), the BIA does not have de novo review of factual questions or credibility determinations and generally does not engage in factfinding.12

12

Section 1003.1(d)(3) outlines the scope of the BIA’s

review as follows:

(i) The Board will not engage in de novo review of

findings of fact determined by an immigration

judge. Facts determined by the immigration judge,

including findings as to the credibility of

testimony, shall be reviewed only to determine

whether the findings of the immigration judge are

clearly erroneous.

(ii) The Board may review questions of law,

discretion, and judgment and all other issues in

appeals from decisions of immigration judges de

novo.

(iii) The Board may review all questions arising in

appeals from decisions issued by Service officers

de novo.

(iv) Except for taking administrative notice of

commonly known facts such as current events or

the contents of official documents, the Board will

12

Franco-Gonzales v. Holder, 828 F.Supp.2d 1133 (2011)
not engage in factfinding in the course of deciding appeals. A party asserting that the Board cannot properly resolve an appeal without further factfinding must file a motion for remand. If further factfinding is needed in a particular case, the Board may remand the proceeding to the immigration judge or, as appropriate, to the Service. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(d)(3).
On the evidence presented, the Court finds that the likelihood of irreparable harm and the balance of hardships tip sharply in favor of Plaintiff.
C. An Injunction Is In The Public Interest And A Mandatory Injunction Is Appropriate In This Case [10] For the reasons discussed in its December 27 Order, the Court similarly finds that granting Plaintiff’s Motion for a custody hearing is in the public interest. Plaintiff has met his burden of demonstrating the need for a mandatory injunction because the law and facts clearly favor him and the potential for irreparable harm cannot be undone by a later award of damages.
IV.
CONCLUSION
In light of the foregoing:
(1) The Court GRANTS Plaintiff Zhalezny’s Motion for a Preliminary Injunction as follows:

Pending a trial on the merits, Defendants, and their officers, agents, employees, and attorneys are hereby enjoined from detaining Plaintiff Zhalezny under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) or (c) unless, within 45 days of this Order, they (i) provide Plaintiff with a bond hearing before an Immigration Judge with the authority to order his release on conditions of supervision, unless the Government shows that Plaintiff’s ongoing detention is justified; and (ii) *1150 provide Plaintiff with a Qualified Representative, as defined in this decision, who is willing and able to represent Plaintiff during such bond hearing, whether pro bono or at Defendants’ expense.
(2) The Court waives the bond requirement. See, e.g., Barahona–Gomez v. Reno, 167 F.3d 1228, 1237 (9th Cir.1999) (nominal security not an abuse of discretion where “vast majority of aliens [affected by class action] were very poor”); Cal. ex rel. Van De Kamp v. Tahoe Reg’l Planning Agency, 766 F.2d 1319, 1325 (9th Cir.1985) (“[t]he district court has discretion to dispense with the security requirement, or to request mere nominal security, where requiring security would effectively deny access to judicial review”).
(3) Due to privacy considerations, this Order shall be filed under seal. Within 14 days from the date of this Order, the parties will meet and confer regarding which portions of the Order they propose to be redacted such that a redacted version of the Order may be filed, or notify the Court that Plaintiff waives his privacy rights as to the confidential information relied upon herein and that the Order may be unsealed. The parties shall file a joint report with the Court by no later than May 20, 2011 regarding the sealed status of this Order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

13

 
 Franco-Gonzales v. Holder, 767 F.Supp.2d 1034 (2010)

767 F.Supp.2d 1034 United States District Court,
C.D. California.
Jose Antonio FRANCO–GONZALES, et al., Petitioner, v.
Eric H. HOLDER, Jr. Attorney General, et al., Respondents.
Case No. CV 10–02211 DMG (DTB). | Dec. 27, 2010. | Ordered Unsealed on Feb. 1, 2011.
Synopsis Background: Aliens, who were diagnosed with severe mental illnesses, filed putative class action, alleging that their continued detention without counsel, during pending removal proceedings, violated the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), the Rehabilitation Act, and the Due Process Clause. Aliens moved for preliminary injunction.
Holdings: The District Court, Dolly M. Gee, J., held that:
[1] REAL ID Act did not strip District Court of jurisdiction;
[2] aliens were not required to exhaust administrative remedies;
[3] exclusive jurisdiction provision of Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA) did not deprive District Court of jurisdiction;
[4] as a matter of first impression, aliens were entitled to reasonable accommodation of appointment of counsel, under the Rehabilitation Act;
[5] aliens were entitled to a custody hearing, at which the government was required to demonstrate that further detention was necessary; and
[6] mandatory injunction was warranted.
Motion granted in part.

Attorneys and Law Firms
*1037 John David Blair–Loy, Sean Riordan, ACLU of San Diego & Imperial Counties, San Diego, CA, Michael H. Steinberg, Sullivan & Cromwell LLP, Ahilan T. Arulanantham, Jennifer L. Stark, ACLU Foundation of Southern California, James J. Preis, Mental Health Advocacy Services Inc., Judy London, Talia R. Inlender, Public counsel, Los Angeles, CA, Judy Rabinovitz, American Civil Liberties Union, New York, NY, Matt Adams, Northwest Immigrant Rights Project, Riddhi Mukhopadhyay Northwest Immigrants’ Rights Project, Seattle, WA, for Petitioner.
Samuel P. Go, Victor M. Lawrence, Office of Immigration Litigation, Neelam Ihsanullah, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Assistant U.S. Attorney LA–CV, AUSA–Office of U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, for Respondent.
Opinion
AMENDED ORDER RE PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
DOLLY M. GEE, District Judge.
This matter is before the Court on the Motion for a Preliminary Injunction filed by Plaintiffs Aleksandr Petrovich Khukhryanskiy and Ever Francisco Martinez–Rivas (“Plaintiffs”). The Court conducted a hearing on December 8, 2010 (the “December 8 Hearing”). Having duly considered the parties’ respective positions, as presented in their briefs and at oral argument, the Court now renders is decision. For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiffs’ Motion is GRANTED in part.
I.
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On March 26, 2010, Petitioner Jose Antonio 1

Franco-Gonzales v. Holder, 767 F.Supp.2d 1034 (2010)

Franco–Gonzales (“Franco”) filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (the “Petition”) in this Court alleging various violations of the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”), the Due Process Clause of the 5th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. On March 31, 2010, Respondents released Franco from custody on his own recognizance, under conditions of supervision pursuant to section 236 of the INA, 8 U.S.C. § 1226.
On August 2, 2010, Franco attempted to file a first amended class action complaint *1038 (the “Amended Complaint”), which sought to add new plaintiffs and new causes of action and sought certification on behalf of a class of plaintiffs whose situations are similar to Franco’s former situation, i.e., mentally disabled immigrant detainees who are held in custody without counsel. (Am. Compl. ¶¶ 39–82, 96–137.) On August 6, 2010, the Honorable David T. Bristow, United States Magistrate Judge, rejected the Amended Complaint as untimely under Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a). On August 23, 2010, Franco filed an Ex Parte Application to file the Amended Complaint, which Magistrate Judge Bristow denied on September 3, 2010.
On September 14, 2010, Franco filed a Motion for Review of Magistrate Judge’s Decision Denying Ex Parte Application to Amend Complaint. On October 18, 2010, this Court granted Franco’s Motion and provided Franco 15 days to file an amended complaint. [Doc. # 54.]
On November 2, 2010, Franco filed a First Amended Class Action Complaint (“First Amended Complaint”), which added Khukhryanskiy and Martinez as well as three other named plaintiffs. [Doc. # 64.] The First Amended Complaint alleges the following causes of action: (1) right to a competency evaluation under the INA; (2) right to a competency evaluation under the Due Process Clause; (3) right to appointed counsel under the INA; (4) right to appointed counsel under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act; (5) right to appointed counsel under the Due Process Clause; (6) right to release under the INA; (7) right to release under the Due Process Clause; (8) right to a detention hearing under the INA; (9) right to a detention hearing under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. § 794 (“Section 504”); (10) right to a detention hearing under the Due Process Clause; and (11) violation of the Administrative Procedures Act.1

1

Plaintiff Martinez does not allege the first two causes of

action. Franco does not allege the First through Fifth causes of action; only Franco alleges the Sixth and Seventh causes of action.
On November 15, 2010, Plaintiffs filed (1) a TRO Application [Doc. # 57], (2) a Motion for a Preliminary Injunction [Doc. # 57], and (3) an Expedited Discovery Application [Doc. # 60]. On November 16, 2010, Defendants filed an Opposition to the TRO Application, and on November 17, 2010, Plaintiffs filed a Reply. Defendants filed their Opposition to the Expedited Discovery Application on November 19, 2010, and on November 22, 2010, Plaintiffs filed a Reply. On November 24, 2010, the Court issued an order (the “TRO”) granting Plaintiffs’ TRO Application and denying Plaintiffs’ Expedited Discovery Application. [Doc. # 78.] The Court also set a hearing on the Preliminary Injunction Motion for December 8, 2010.
On December 1, 2010, Defendants filed an Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Preliminary Injunction Motion. On December 6, 2010, Plaintiffs filed a Reply. On December 15, 2010, each of the parties filed supplemental briefs on issues identified at the December 8 Hearing, and on December 17, 2010, the parties filed their respective supplemental responses. On December 20, 21, and 22, 2010, the parties submitted additional unsolicited filings, including Defendants’ “Notice of Clarification,” a “Response to Defendants’ Notice of Clarification,” and Defendants’ Status Reports regarding their efforts to secure pro bono counsel for Plaintiffs.
II.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
A. ALEKSANDR KHUKHRYANSKIY Plaintiff Khukhryanskiy is a 45–year–old native and citizen of Ukraine who was *1039 admitted to the United States as a refugee on January 9, 1998. (Pls.’ Req. for Judicial Notice (“RJN”), Ex. 58.) According to Defendants, Khukhryanskiy failed to adjust his status to that of a legal permanent resident, a step that he was required to take as early as January 9, 1999, pursuant to 8
2

Franco-Gonzales v. Holder, 767 F.Supp.2d 1034 (2010)

U.S.C. § 1159(a)(1)(C).2 (Defs.’ Opp’n at 6.)

2

Section 1159 provides that “Any alien who has been

admitted to the United States under section 1157 of this

title ... who has not acquired permanent resident status,

shall, at the end of such year period, return or be

returned to the custody of the Department of Homeland

Security for inspection and examination for admission

to the United States as an immigrant in accordance with

the provisions of sections 1225, 1229a, and 1231 of this

title.” 8 U.S.C. § 1159(a)(1)(C) (emphasis added).

On April 15, 2010, Khukhryanskiy was taken into custody by Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”). He was referred to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) from the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) after submitting his application for refugee adjustment of status pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1159. (Pls.’ RJN, Ex. 58.) DHS initiated removal proceedings against him, charging him as deportable for having been convicted of an aggravated felony on the basis of his 2005 conviction for attempted assault and robbery. (Pls.’ RJN, Ex. 64.) He is currently detained at the Northwest Detention Center in Tacoma, Washington.

1. Khukhryanskiy’s Psychiatric Evaluation Khukhryanskiy has been diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia and psychosis (not otherwise specified), post-traumatic stress disorder, and major depression. (Decl. of Ahilan T. Arulanantham (“Arulanantham Decl.” ¶¶ 5–6, Exs. 60–61.)) He has been receiving mental health treatment after being involuntarily placed at Adventist Mental Health Services in 2004 through a mental health commitment hearing. (Arulanantham Decl. ¶ 7, Ex. 62.)
DHS’s Form I–213, “Record of Deportable/Inadmissible Alien,” for Khukhryanskiy states:
Subject has been diagnosed by [Snake River Correctional Institute] medical as a Paranoid Schizophrenic and is taking involuntary Haldol Decanoate (150 mg IM q 3 weeks) injections as well as Cogentin (2mg bid prn) twice daily otherwise the subject has no visible defects or injuries.

(Defs.’ RJN, Ex. 58 at 4.)
Khukhryanskiy’s medical records indicate that on August 20, 2010, Khukhryanskiy went to the clinic and stated:
The voices are really bothering me. I can not be here anymore. Let them deport me. I have court on the 30th, I will sign any thing they ask me to sign. Just get me out of here. I am not sleeping. I need something to help me sleep.
(Decl. of Ahilan Arulanantham in Supp. of Pls.’ Reply (“Arulanantham Reply Decl.”) ¶ 8, Ex. 87, at 84.) Then, on August 21, 2010, Khukhryanskiy was brought to medical staff because he was deemed to be a danger to himself. (Id. at 82.) One entry for August 21, 2010 states:
Patient with paranoid schizophrenia brought down to medical for danger to self. He is banging his head extremely hard to the point that he will injure himself and was yelling. He was brought into clinic in a state of streaming [sic] and struggling with the officers ... He is delusional and hallucinating and in a psychotic episode with aggitation/acting out [sic].
*1040 (Id.) Another entry on August 21, 2010 indicates that Khukhryanskiy placed a cord around his neck:
Suicide Watch Started p/ detainees in POD reported Khuklhyanskiy [sic] was hitting his head against the wall and had placed a ‘cord’ around his neck ...
S: ‘I can’t take this place anymore, I can’t control the voices in my head. I need to be released. I am going mad here!!!’
When asked if he would hurt/kill self he said, ‘No,’ but when RN asked detainee why he had wrapped a cord around his neck he said it was because he was going mad. Detainee would not elaborate on voices, but instead just kept saying, ‘I must get out.’
(Id. at 83.)
On September 20 and September 24, 2010, Kimberly
3

Franco-Gonzales v. Holder, 767 F.Supp.2d 1034 (2010)

Barrett, a professor at the University of Washington’s Department of Psychology with 20 years of experience conducting competency and mental health evaluations in criminal and immigration proceedings, met with Khukhryanskiy. Declaration of Riddhi Mukhopadhyay (“Mukhopadhyay Decl.” ¶¶ 10–11.) In a report dated October 3, 2010, which is entitled, “Psychological Evaluation: Aleksandra [sic] Mestrovic Khukhryanskiy,” Dr. Barrett states that Khukhryanskiy’s mental illness is “chronic and very severe.” (Mukhopadhyay Decl. ¶¶ 10–11, Ex.). Dr. Barrett states:

“Mr. Khukhryanskiy suffers from a

very active and pronounced

psychotic disorder, schizophrenia

of the paranoid type.... He has

frequent auditory hallucinations

that occur every day, most of the

day.... His psychosis interferes with

a great deal of his cognitive

functioning including thinking,

judgment,

concentration,

interpretation of verbal input, and

inability to express himself a great

deal of the time.... This client is not

competent to represent himself, nor

is he competent to stand trial with

an attorney.”

(Mukhopadhyay Decl. ¶¶ 10–11, Ex. at 2–3; emphasis in original.)

2. Immigration Court Proceedings At a hearing on May 25, 2010, Khukhryanskiy stated to the Immigration Judge:
I have to say that I have to be back—to go urgently to the hospital. I have some problems with my head.
(Pl.’s RJN, Ex. 88.) In response, the Immigration Judge stated:
All right, sir. There is a public health clinic here at the facility and you can see them on a daily basis, sir. Let the officer know you need

to go to the clinic for any reason.
(Id.)
On August 25, 2010, the Immigration Judge held a master calendar hearing (the “August 25 Hearing”). At that hearing, Khukhryanskiy stated, “I just want to leave this country.” (Pls.’ RJN, Ex. 66 at 8–9.) Defendants also highlight the following exchange:
Judge to Respondent: ... Sir, are you afraid to return to the Ukraine?
Respondent to Judge: No.
Judge to Respondent: Would you like to choose the Ukraine as the country of deportation?
Respondent to Judge: Yes, I want to be deported to the Ukraine.
Judge to Respondent: Okay. All right, then I will enter an Order of Removal. You do not wish to apply for any relief from removal? You just want to go home?
Respondent to Judge: Yes.
(Pls.’ RJN, Ex. 66, at 13.) On that basis, the Immigration Judge ordered Khukhryanskiy removed from the United States to Ukraine. (Pls.’ RJN, Ex. 65.) *1041 The Order of the Immigration Judge indicates that Khukhryanskiy waived his right to appeal, even though no such waiver is explicit in the record. (Id.)
During that same August 25 Hearing, Khukhryanskiy stated that he did not understand the proceedings:
Judge to Respondent: Okay. But before I do that, sir, we’ve got to go through some other things first. Do you understand what’s happening today?
Respondent to Judge: Yes. But I don’t understand anything now.
(Pls.’ RJN, Ex. 66, at 10.) Plaintiffs contend that Robert Mason, a DHS officer, attended the August 25 Hearing to assist the Immigration Judge by answering questions regarding Mr. Khukhryanskiy. According to Defendants, however, Mr. Mason was not present to serve as Mr. Khukhryanskiy’s representative.
Khukhryanskiy’s appeal is pending at the Board of
4

Franco-Gonzales v. Holder, 767 F.Supp.2d 1034 (2010)
Immigration Appeals (“BIA”), which issued a briefing schedule requiring Khukhryanskiy to file his appeal brief by November 12, 2010. (Pls.’ RJN, Ex. 67.) Through the Legal Orientation Program (“LOP”) provided by the Executive Office for Immigration Review (“EOIR”), Khukhryanskiy received assistance filing a Briefing Extension Request, which extended the briefing schedule to approximately December 3, 2010. (Pls.’ RJN, Ex. 68.) But for the issuance of the TRO, Khukhryanskiy’s brief would have been due on or about December 3, 2010.
B. EVER FRANCISCO MARTINEZ–RIVAS Plaintiff Martinez is a 31–year–old native and citizen of El Salvador who has been a Lawful Permanent Resident since 2006. (Declaration of Maria Elena Felipe (“Felipe Decl.”) ¶¶ 2–3.) On May 30, 2008, Martinez was convicted in the Riverside Superior Court for a violent crime against his stepfather. (Felipe Decl. ¶ 6; Defs.’ RJN, Exs. 1–2.) At that time, Martinez was initially deemed incompetent to stand trial for the offense, but was eventually restored to competency and pled guilty. (Arulanantham Decl. ¶ 9, Ex. 71 at 6.) ICE served Martinez with a Notice to Appear (“NTA”) dated October 20, 2009, which placed Martinez in removal proceedings. (Pls.’ RJN, Ex. 72; Defs.’ RJN, Ex. 4.) Martinez is currently detained at the Otay Mesa Detention Facility in San Diego, California. (Pls.’ RJN, Ex. 75.)
1. Martinez’s Psychiatric Evaluation Martinez suffers from schizophrenia and has been repeatedly hospitalized over a number of years due to this disability. (Arulanantham Decl. ¶ 8, Ex. 70.) DHS’s Form I–213, “Record of Deportable/Inadmissible Alien,” for Martinez states that he “is schizophrenic and currently is taking medication for said medical condition.” (Pls.’ RJN, Ex. 72 at 2.)
On August 2, 2010, Robert Burchuk, M.D., a member of the Expert Panel of the Los Angeles Superior Court, examined Martinez. (Declaration of Robert Burchuk, ¶¶ 3–4.) Following his examination, Dr. Burchuk diagnosed Martinez with “Schizophrenia, Undifferentiated Type, Continuous with Prominent Negative Symptoms,” and described Martinez’s symptoms as “[a]ffective flattening—the absence of facial expression, alogia—the inability to speak more than a few words at a time, and avolition—the inability to initiate and persist in

goal-directed activity.” (Burchuk Decl. ¶¶ 6–7.) According to Dr. Burchuk, Martinez:
[c]annot understand, formulate, and verbally express ideas in a way that most other people can. His schizophrenia also causes him to suffer from auditory hallucinations and a paucity of spontaneous thoughts, and renders him unable to process and synthesize information *1042 ... As a result of his illness, Mr. Martinez is only marginally competent to proceed in the deportation hearing with the assistance of an attorney. He is clearly not competent to represent himself. His illness precludes a capacity to conceptualize ideas and verbally advocate a defense in his removal proceedings.
(Id.) (emphasis added.)
2. Immigration Court Proceedings During the pendency of his removal proceedings, Martinez attended several master calendar hearings before the San Diego Immigration Court. (Felipe Decl. ¶ 9, Pls.’ RJN, Ex. 75.) At a hearing on June 4, 2010, Martinez’s mother, Ms. Maria Elena Felipe, addressed the court to point out that she had served as her son’s conservator for several years. (Felipe Decl. ¶ 9; Pls.’ RJN, Ex. 75 at 3.) At each of the hearings, the Immigration Judge apprised Martinez of his right to obtain counsel and recommended he seek attorneys from the LOP. (Pls.’ RJN, Ex. 75 at 2.) Martinez remained unrepresented during the entirety of his Immigration Court proceedings. (Id.)
On April 2, 2010, the Immigration Judge took Martinez’s pleas to the NTA and provided Martinez with a copy of Form I–589 for Martinez to pursue relief under the Convention Against Torture. (Id. at 2.) Martinez filed the application with the Immigration Court on May 25, 2010. (Id.) The immigration court set the merits hearing on September 16, 2010 (the “September 16 Hearing”). (Id. at 3.)
On August 31, 2010, Defendants submitted Dr. Burchuk’s evaluation to the Immigration Court. (Pls.’ RJN, Exs.
5

Franco-Gonzales v. Holder, 767 F.Supp.2d 1034 (2010)
74–75.) In a memorandum to the Immigration Judge, DHS stated “in the event that Martinez is determined by the Court to be mentally incompetent, this Court has the authority to appoint a custodian, such as Maria Elena Felipe (Martinez’s mother and former conservator) to speak on his behalf.” (Pls.’ RJN, Ex. 74.) Martinez’s mother was not in attendance at the September 16 Hearing.
At the September 16 Hearing, the Immigration Judge found that Martinez was not mentally competent to proceed pro se in the removal proceedings. The judge further stated that:
Due to the unstable and fluctuating competence of the Respondent, and at the request of the government to ensure that all of the Respondent’s rights and privileges be protected, since the Court cannot be certain that the Respondent was mentally competent when: (1) he was served the NTA; (2) when pleadings were taken; (3) when exhibits were admitted; (4) and when the Respondent filed his relief application, the Court, out of an abundance of caution and to ensure that all of the Respondent’s rights and privileges are protected, will set aside all prior actions taken in this case. Additionally, the court will find that the NTA was not properly served, since it was served on a mentally incompetent pro se individual, and it was not properly served on an individual who was authorized to accept such service on behalf fo [sic] the Respondent ... Simply put, the Respondent is unrepresented and is mentally incompetent. The Court finds that the Respondent is unable to effectively participate in a coherent manner, to comprehend the nature and consequences of the proceedings, to communicate with the Court in any meaningful dialog, to assert or waive any rights, and to seek various forms of relief.

(Pls.’ RJN, Ex. 75 at 8–9.)
The Immigration Judge terminated the proceedings and certified her decision for appellate review. (Id. at 9–10.) Martinez’s case is currently pending before the BIA and, but for the issuance of the TRO, *1043 his brief would have been due on December 8, 2010. (Declaration of Talia Inlender [Doc. # 69–1] ¶ 3.)
III.
LEGAL STANDARDS
[1] [2] Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65 governs the issuance of preliminary injunctions. The purpose of such injunctive relief is to preserve the rights and relative positions of the parties, i.e., the status quo, until a final judgment issues. See U.S. Philips Corp. v. KBC Bank N.V., 590 F.3d 1091, 1094 (9th Cir.2010) (citing Univ. of Tex. v. Camenisch, 451 U.S. 390, 395, 101 S.Ct. 1830, 68 L.Ed.2d 175 (1981)). An injunction is an exercise of a court’s equitable authority, which should not be invoked as a matter of course, and “only after taking into account all of the circumstances that bear on the need for prospective relief.” Salazar v. Buono, ––– U.S. ––––, 130 S.Ct. 1803, 1816, 176 L.Ed.2d 634 (2010).
[3] [4] A plaintiff seeking injunctive relief must show that (1) it is likely to succeed on the merits; (2) it is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief; (3) the balance of equities tips in its favor; and (4) that an injunction is in the public interest. Toyo Tire Holdings Of Ams. Inc. v. Cont’l Tire N. Am., Inc., 609 F.3d 975, 982 (9th Cir.2010) (citing Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 129 S.Ct. 365, 374, 172 L.Ed.2d 249 (2008)). An injunction may be appropriate when a plaintiff raises “serious questions going to the merits” and demonstrates that “the balance of hardships tips sharply in the plaintiffs favor.” Alliance for Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 622 F.3d 1045, 1052 (9th Cir.2010) (quoting The Lands Council v. McNair, 537 F.3d 981, 987 (9th Cir.2008)).
[5] [6] [7] Unlike a preliminary injunction, a mandatory injunction “goes well beyond simply maintaining the status quo [p]endente lite [and] is particularly disfavored.” Marlyn Nutraceuticals, Inc. v. Mucos Pharma GmbH &
6

Franco-Gonzales v. Holder, 767 F.Supp.2d 1034 (2010)
Co., 571 F.3d 873, 879 (9th Cir.2009) (internal quotations omitted). Mandatory injunctions should be denied unless the facts and law clearly favor the moving party. Transwestern Pipeline Co. v. 17.19 Acres of Property Located in Maricopa County, 550 F.3d 770, 776 (9th Cir.2008) (citing Stanley v. University of Southern California, 13 F.3d 1313, 1320 (9th Cir.1994)). The Court, however, is empowered to grant mandatory injunctions, especially when prohibitory orders may be ineffective or inadequate. Katie A., ex rel. Ludin v. Los Angeles County, 481 F.3d 1150, 1156–57 (9th Cir.2007).
IV.
DISCUSSION
A. THE COURT HAS JURISDICTION TO REVIEW PLAINTIFFS’ CLAIMS Defendants argue that the Preliminary Injunction Motion should be denied because: (1) judicial review of legal questions arising from Plaintiffs’ removal proceedings are barred by 8 U.S.C. §§ 1252(a)(5), (b)(9); (2) Plaintiffs failed to exhaust their administrative remedies; and (3) the Court lacks jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. 1252(g) because the Preliminary Injunction Motion arises from the BIA’s decision or action to adjudicate Plaintiffs’ cases. Defendants concede that their “jurisdictional argument specifically pertains to [Plaintiffs’] appointment of counsel claim [and that Plaintiffs’] challenges to detention are still permitted under the Real ID Act because they are deemed independent of the removal proceedings themselves.” (Defs.’ Opp’n to Pl.’s App. for Expedited Discovery at 3 n. 1.)
*1044 1. Sections 1252(a)(5) and (b)(9) Do Not Strip This Court of Jurisdiction In This Case [8] Defendants contend that Plaintiffs’ claims are barred by the REAL ID Act because Plaintiffs seek judicial review of legal and factual questions “arising from” Plaintiffs’ removal proceedings. Plaintiffs respond that neither Section 1252(a)(5) nor Section 1252(b)(9) bar review of their claims because they do not challenge final orders of removal.3 As a general matter, the REAL ID Act of 2005 eliminated district court habeas corpus jurisdiction over

orders of removal and vested jurisdiction exclusively in the courts of appeals. Morales–Izquierdo v. Dept. of Homeland Security, 600 F.3d at 1080, 1083. The Ninth Circuit has determined that “[b]y virtue of their explicit language, both §§ 1252(a)(5) and 1252(b)(9) apply only to those claims seeking judicial review of orders of removal.” Singh v. Gonzales, 499 F.3d 969, 978 (9th Cir.2007) (emphasis added); see also Nadarajah v. Gonzales, 443 F.3d 1069, 1075 (9th Cir.2006) (the REAL ID Act’s jurisdiction stripping does not apply to habeas petitions that do not involve final orders of removal).

3

Section 1252(a)(5) provides:

Notwithstanding any other provision of law

(statutory or nonstatutory), including section 2241

of Title 28, or any other habeas corpus provision,

and sections 1361 and 1651 of such title, a petition

for review filed with an appropriate court of

appeals in accordance with this section shall be the

sole and exclusive means for judicial review of an

order of removal entered or issued under any

provision of this chapter, except as provided in

subsection (e) of this section. For purposes of this

chapter, in every provision that limits or eliminates

judicial review or jurisdiction to review, the terms

“judicial review” and “jurisdiction to review”

include habeas corpus review pursuant to section

2241 of Title 28, or any other habeas corpus

provision, sections 1361 and 1651 of such title,

and review pursuant to any other provision of law

(statutory or nonstatutory).

8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(5) (emphasis added).

Section 1252(b)(9) provides:

Judicial review of all questions of law and fact,

including interpretation and application of

constitutional and statutory provisions, arising

from any action taken or proceeding brought to

remove an alien from the United States under this

subchapter shall be available only in judicial

review of a final order under this section. Except

as otherwise provided in this section, no court

shall have jurisdiction, by habeas corpus under

section 2241 of Title 28 or any other habeas

corpus provision, by section 1361 or 1651 of such

title, or by any other provision of law (statutory or

nonstatutory), to review such an order or such

questions of law or fact.

8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(9) (emphasis added).

Under the REAL ID Act, an “order of removal” means:
the order of the special inquiry officer, or other such administrative
7

Franco-Gonzales v. Holder, 767 F.Supp.2d 1034 (2010)
officer to whom the Attorney General has delegated the responsibility for determining whether an alien is deportable, concluding that the alien is deportable or ordering deportation.
8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(47)(A); see also Morales–Izquierdo, 600 F.3d at 1082.
An order of removal becomes final upon the earlier of:
(i) a determination by the Board of Immigration Appeals affirming such order; or
(ii) the expiration of the period in which the alien is permitted to seek review of such order by the Board of Immigration Appeals.
8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(47)(B); see also Singh, 499 F.3d at 979.
In Singh, the Ninth Circuit distinguished between challenges to removal orders and “challenges that arise independently.” 499 F.3d at 978. Although the petitioner’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim arose after the issuance of the *1045 final removal, the court emphasized that permitting Singh’s petition would “lead to nothing more than a ‘day in court’ for Singh.” Id. at 979. The Singh court recognized that while Singh’s ultimate goal may have been to overturn the final removal order, success on his habeas petition itself would not produce that result. Rather, Singh’s petition was “consistent with Congressional intent underlying the REAL ID Act” and neither Sections 1252(a)(5) nor (b)(9) stripped the court of jurisdiction. Id. at 973.
[9] In their Opposition, Defendants highlight the fact that Singh’s claim arose after the issuance of the final order of removal. Singh, 499 F.3d at 979. The Court is not persuaded by Defendants’ attempt to distinguish Singh. In fact, the timing of Singh’s claim was not critical to the Ninth Circuit’s analysis. See, e.g., Kharana v. Chertoff, 2007 WL 4259323, at *3 (N.D.Cal.2007) (Singh court did not limit its holding to situations where the ineffective assistance claim arose after the issuance of the removal order). Instead, emphasizing the difference between the immediate goal of his habeas petition and his “ultimate goal,” the Ninth Circuit concluded that Singh’s claim was a “challenge that [arose] independently.” Likewise, in the instant matter, if Plaintiffs prevail on the merits of this

case, they would be entitled only to relief that would help to ensure their meaningful participation in removal and/or custody proceedings.
At this time, neither Plaintiff has received a final removal order. Their BIA appeals are currently pending. While Plaintiffs’ ultimate goal undoubtedly pertains to the removal orders themselves, their petition for relief before this Court is indistinguishable from that in Singh. As Plaintiffs explain in their Reply:
If [Plaintiffs] cannot litigate their appointment of counsel claim prior to the BIA briefing deadlines, they could be deported imminently—if the BIA dismisses their cases because they have failed to file a brief—and in any event will never be able to present their claim, because they are not competent to brief it pro se. In contrast, if the relief sought is granted, then once this Court has resolved their claim for right to appointed counsel, the BIA can continue to assess their cases (hopefully with the assistance of counsel). Plaintiffs will still have one and only one opportunity to seek judicial review of their removal orders, as Congress intended.
(Pl.’s Reply at 6.)
Defendants also rely on Aguilar v. U.S. Immigr. and Customs Enf. Div. of Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 510 F.3d 1 (1st Cir.2007), in support of their contention that this Court is devoid of jurisdiction. The petitioners in Aguilar, who had been detained en mass in a raid along with more than 300 individuals, filed a habeas petition and a complaint alleging a violation of constitutional and statutory rights, including the right to counsel. No formal removal proceedings had been initiated as of the time of their petition. Noting the “frequency with which right-to-counsel claims arise in removal proceedings” and finding no evidence that the petitioners would be irreparably harmed if they were required to administratively exhaust their claims, the court held that Section 1252(b)(9) stripped the court of jurisdiction to consider the petitioners’ right-to-counsel claims. Id. at 13.
8

Franco-Gonzales v. Holder, 767 F.Supp.2d 1034 (2010)
This Court is neither bound by the First Circuit’s decision nor persuaded that it is applicable in this case. Here, as discussed supra, the weight of the evidence presented demonstrates that Plaintiffs are mentally incompetent. Plaintiffs’ unique circumstances withstand characterization as the same type of right-to-counsel claims that *1046 the First Circuit found are “frequently” raised in removal proceedings. Because Plaintiffs are mentally incompetent, they are likely to be irreparably harmed if they are unable to meaningfully participate in their respective immigration proceedings. The Court finds that Plaintiffs’ claims represent the other category of cases recognized by the Aguilar court, i.e., those in which “adequate relief” is unavailable through the administrative process because irreparable injury would result from requiring administrative exhaustion. Id. at 12. As the Aguilar court noted, “courts have demonstrated a particular hostility” to requiring administrative exhaustion in such circumstances.
Finding no basis to construe Plaintiffs’ claims as a challenge to a final order of removal as defined in 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(47)(B), the Court concludes that 8 U.S.C. §§ 1252(a)(5) and (b)(9) do not strip the Court of jurisdiction in this case.

2. Plaintiffs Are Not Required to Exhaust Administrative Remedies Before the BIA [10] Defendants contend that Plaintiffs should be required to proceed with their BIA appeals because the BIA is already on notice in both cases that it must adjudicate the issue of the procedural safeguards guaranteed to mentally ill respondents in removal proceedings. Defendants fail to identify, and the Court has not found, any authority mandating administrative exhaustion under these circumstances.4 Instead, Defendants contend that prudential exhaustion is “an appropriate prerequisite” for Plaintiffs’ claims.5

4

Defendants’ reliance on J.L. v. Social Security

Administration, 971 F.2d 260 (9th Cir.1992), overruled

in part by Lane v. Pena, 518 U.S. 187, 116 S.Ct. 2092,

135 L.Ed.2d 486 (1996), is misplaced. In J.L., the court

acknowledged that the Rehabilitation Act contained no

“per se exhaustion requirement,” but held that the

plaintiffs should first seek relief before the Social

Security Administration (“SSA”) under a prudential

exhaustion requirement. The court held that prudential

exhaustion was proper because the SSA’s expertise was

essential to the court’s understanding of the case, the administrative scheme conformed to the Rehabilitation Act, and the plaintiffs sought the adoption of new SSA application procedures. Id. at 271. In that case, the plaintiffs made no showing that their needs could not be satisfied through an administrative procedure and the court determined exhaustion would not be futile. Id. Here, at the very core of Plaintiffs’ claims is that without the appointment of counsel, Plaintiffs will be unable to meaningfully participate in the administrative process before the BIA, and that as a result of well-established administrative policies, resort to the BIA would be futile. The Court therefore finds J.L. distinguishable from the instant case. Douglas v. Gonzalez, 2006 WL 5159196 (M.D.Fla. June 12, 2006) is also inapposite. There, the petitioner challenged his continued mandatory detention with simultaneous appeals to the BIA and to the district court. Noting that the petitioner’s appeal to the BIA was specifically authorized by 8 C.F.R. 236.1(d)(3), the BIA appeal was still pending, and his appeal contained virtually the same arguments made to the district court, the court determined that the petitioner should be required to first exhaust administratively before seeking relief from the court. Id. at *2.

5

Defendants cite to 28 C.F.R. § 39.170 as a basis for

requiring Plaintiffs to first administratively exhaust

their claims. The plain language of section 39.170,

however, does not require administrative exhaustion,

but rather, provides that “[a]ny person who believes

that he or she has been subject to discrimination

prohibited by this part may by him or herself or by his

or her authorized representative file a complaint with

the Official.” 28 C.F.R. § 39.170(d)(1)(i) (emphasis

added).

[11] Exhaustion is required where mandated by Congress,

but where Congress has not clearly required exhaustion,

“sound judicial discretion governs.” McCarthy v.

Madigan, 503 U.S. 140, 144, 112 S.Ct. 1081, 117 L.Ed.2d

291 (1992). In determining whether exhaustion is required,

*1047 the Supreme Court spoke of an “intensely

practical” approach in balancing the individual interests in

prompt access to a federal judicial forum with

countervailing

institutional

interests.6

Id.

(“[A]dministrative remedies need not be pursued if the

litigant’s interests in immediate judicial review outweigh

the government’s interests in the efficiency or

administrative autonomy that the exhaustion doctrine is

designed to further”). The Ninth Circuit has held that

9

Franco-Gonzales v. Holder, 767 F.Supp.2d 1034 (2010)

there is no exhaustion requirement where resort to the administrative agency would be futile, i.e., in cases where the agency’s position “appears already set and it is very likely what the result of recourse to administrative remedies would be.” El Rescate Legal Services, Inc. v. Executive Office of Immigration Review, 959 F.2d 742, 747 (9th Cir.1992) (citing Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 330, 96 S.Ct. 893, 900, 47 L.Ed.2d 18 (1976)) (internal quotations omitted).

6

The Supreme Court has recognized that the interests of

the individual weigh heavily against requiring

administrative exhaustion in the following

circumstances: (1) where requiring administrative

exhaustion causes undue prejudice to subsequent

assertion of a court action; (2) where an administrative

remedy is inadequate because of some doubt as to

whether the agency was empowered to grant effective

relief; and (3) where the administrative body is shown

to be biased or has otherwise predetermined the issue.

McCarthy, 503 U.S. at 146–148, 112 S.Ct. 1081.

In El Rescate, where the petitioners challenged the failure of the INS to require translation of all removal proceedings, the Ninth Circuit determined that it would be unrealistic to require the plaintiffs to exhaust their administrative remedies where the BIA had already “announced and reaffirmed its policy regarding translation of immigration proceedings, and its understanding of the requirements of the due process clause.” El Rescate, 959 F.2d at 747.
In this case, the Court likewise takes an “intensely practical” approach in determining whether requiring exhaustion would, in fact, be futile. Sections 2.3(a) and 5.9(h)(1) of the BIA Practice Manual indicate that the BIA neither entertains motions to hold cases in abeyance while other matters are pending nor recognizes a right to appointed counsel in removal proceedings under any circumstances.7 Defendants argue that “Congress has decided that aliens in immigration court proceedings, whether incompetent or not, do not have a right to appointed counsel at government expense.” (Defs.’ Opp’n to Pl.’s App. for Expedited Discovery at 12) (citing 8 U.S.C. § 1362, 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(4)(A)).8 The *1048 Court can discern no administrative mechanism that would even entertain Plaintiffs’ claims for assistance of counsel.

7

Section 2.3(a) provides:

(a) Right to Counsel.—An alien in immigration

proceedings may be represented by an attorney of

his or her own choosing, at no cost to the

government. Unlike criminal proceedings, the

government is not obligated to provide legal

counsel. The Immigration Courts provide lists of

attorneys who may represent aliens for little or no

cost, and many of these attorneys handle cases on

appeal as well. Bar associations and nonprofit

agencies can also refer aliens to practicing

attorneys.

(BIA Practice Manual, Section 2.3(a).)

Section 5.9(h)(i) provides:

(i) Motion to hold in abeyance.—The Board does

not normally entertain motions to hold cases in

abeyance while other matters are pending (e.g.,

waiting for a visa petition to become current,

waiting for a criminal conviction to be

overturned).

(BIA Practice Manual, Section 5.9(h)(i).)

8

Section 1362 provides:

In any removal proceedings before an immigration

judge and in any appeal proceedings before the

Attorney General from any such removal

proceedings, the person concerned shall have the

privilege of being represented (at no expense to

the Government ) by such counsel, authorized to

practice in such proceedings, as he shall choose.

8 U.S.C. § 1362 (emphasis added).

Section 1229a(b)(4)(A) provides:

(A) the alien shall have the privilege of being

represented, at no expense to the Government, by

counsel of the alien’s choosing who is authorized

to practice in such proceedings....

8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(4)(A) (emphasis added).

In response, Defendants argue that a variety of accommodations are possible at the administrative level short of appointment of counsel, including the appointment of guardians ad litem, termination of Plaintiffs’ immigration proceedings, and administrative closure of Plaintiffs’ immigration proceedings. Defendants further argue that Plaintiffs can move the BIA to hold their proceedings in abeyance while they pursue their administrative claims under the Rehabilitation Act.
Defendants’ arguments ring hollow given the procedural background of this case and Defendants’ constantly evolving positions. Plaintiffs find themselves in a unique
10

Franco-Gonzales v. Holder, 767 F.Supp.2d 1034 (2010)

posture following a Kafkaesque journey to this Court’s door. Prior to the commencement of this action, Khukhryanskiy had been in mandatory detention without a hearing for over seven months. Despite existing evidence of his mental incompetence, the Immigration Court proceeded with a removal hearing wherein Khukhryanskiy appeared pro se. It is unclear whether anyone brought Khukhryanskiy’s mental condition to the Immigration Judge’s attention or whether anyone involved in the process considered the implications of Khukhryanskiy’s condition. A removal order ultimately issued against Khukhryanskiy and he was deemed by the Immigration Judge to have waived his right to appeal, notwithstanding that no such waiver appears in the record.
Juxtaposed against Khukhryanskiy’s experience is that of Martinez, who had been in mandatory detention without a hearing for more than one year. Appearing pro se at his removal proceeding, Martinez was deemed mentally incompetent by the Immigration Judge. To her credit, the Immigration Judge terminated the removal proceedings after recognizing that she could not go forward with the proceeding given Martinez’s mental condition. Martinez is expected, however, to represent himself on the appeal to the BIA as to the propriety of the Immigration Judge’s decision.
Aside from the voices inside their heads, both Plaintiffs are for all intents and purposes voiceless. Defendants, in essence, urge this Court to allow mentally incompetent aliens to proceed pro se to see if they can present a thoughtful and coherent analysis of, and recommendations of possible remedies for, the lack of procedural safeguards facing unrepresented mentally incompetent aliens.9 (Defs.’ Opp’n at 15–18.) The Court cannot find that requiring Plaintiffs to exhaust—whether in administrative proceedings prior to reaching the BIA, or before the BIA itself—would be fruitful in any respect in light of the severe mental illnesses from which Plaintiffs suffer.

9

As of the date of today’s Order, Defendants have

shifted positions once again and have informed the

Court that they have successfully located pro bono

counsel for both Plaintiffs. (Defendants’ Status Report,

filed December 22, 2010.) Apparently, Defendants are

of the view that this renders Plaintiffs’ issues in the

Preliminary Injunction Motion moot or, at least, no

longer exigent. As will be discussed further below, the

Court disagrees.

Accordingly, the Court finds that, as in El Rescate, it would be futile to require Plaintiffs to exhaust their administrative remedies.
3. Section 1252(g) Does Not Strip This Court of Jurisdiction [12] Defendants next argue that 8 U.S.C. § 1252(g) strips this Court of jurisdiction. Plaintiffs respond that *1049 Section 1252(g) does not bar this action because Plaintiffs merely seek to continue their cases for a matter of several weeks until such time as they have secured qualified representation.
Section 1252(g) states as follows:
Except as provided in this section and notwithstanding any other provision of law (statutory or nonstatutory), including section 2241 of Title 28, 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 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 orders against any alien under this chapter.
8 U.S.C. § 1252(g) (emphasis added).
The Supreme Court has emphasized Section 1252(g)’s narrow reach. See Reno v. American–Arab Anti–Discrimination Committee, 525 U.S. 471, 119 S.Ct. 936, 142 L.Ed.2d 940 (1999). The provision applies only to the following “three discrete actions that the Attorney General may take: her decision or action to commence proceedings, adjudicate cases, or execute removal orders.” Id. at 482, 119 S.Ct. 936 (emphasis in original; internal quotations omitted). The Supreme Court has also recognized that there are decisions or actions “collateral” to those discrete actions, stating:
There are of course may other decisions or actions that may be part of the deportation process—such as the decisions to open an investigation, to surveil the
11

Franco-Gonzales v. Holder, 767 F.Supp.2d 1034 (2010)
suspected violator, to reschedule the deportation hearing, to include various provisions in the final order that is the product of the adjudication, and to refuse reconsideration of that order. [¶] “It is implausible that the mention of three discrete events along the road to deportation was a short-hand way of referring to all claims arising from deportation proceedings. Not because Congress is too unpoetic to use synecdoche, but because that literary device is incompatible with the need for precision in legislative drafting.”
American–Arab, 525 U.S. at 482, 119 S.Ct. 936 (emphasis added).
Like other Circuit courts, the Ninth Circuit has recognized that Section 1252(g)’s jurisdiction-stripping over decisions or actions to “adjudicate” cases does not remove federal jurisdiction to grant injunctive relief to classes of aliens challenging deportation procedures. See, e.g., Barahona–Gomez v. Reno, 236 F.3d 1115, 1121 (9th Cir.2001) (noting Fourth and Seventh Circuits have held that decisions or actions that occur during the formal adjudicatory process are not rendered unreviewable because of Section 1252(g)). Instead, the Ninth Circuit has distinguished between actions to obtain judicial review of the merits of INS proceedings and actions to enforce constitutional rights to due process in the context of those proceedings. See Walters v. Reno, 145 F.3d 1032, 1052 (9th Cir.1998).
In Ortiz v. Meissner, 179 F.3d 718 (9th Cir.1999), the Ninth Circuit determined that it had jurisdiction to review administrative denials of the plaintiffs’ applications for interim work authorization. In so doing, the court was particularly concerned that without district court jurisdiction, there would be no meaningful opportunity for the plaintiffs to obtain a resolution of their claim. The court stated:
Plaintiffs, according to the government, must wait until they have been ordered deported to seek interim work authorization in a court of appeals review of the deportation proceeding. Yet by that time, the period in which plaintiffs claim they are entitled to work authorization would already have passed. The legal *1050 issue would be moot. District court jurisdiction is therefore available because limiting judicial review of the INS’s construction of the statute here would be ‘the practical equivalent of a total denial of judicial review’ of this claim.

Ortiz, 179 F.3d at 722 (citing McNary v. Haitian Refugee Center, Inc., 498 U.S. 479, 497 111 S.Ct. 888, 112 L.Ed.2d 1005 (1991)).
Similarly, the Walters court determined that it had jurisdiction to review the plaintiffs’ due process claims that document fraud forms failed to provide plaintiffs with adequate notice:
They have not raised a constitutional challenge to any of the substantive factors used by the government in determining whether to charge someone with document fraud, nor have they made any allegations as to the merits of the decision to execute removal orders against them, except the extent necessary to substantiate their due process claims. Although constitutional violations ultimately may have led to the plaintiffs’ erroneous deportation, the resulting removal orders were simply a consequence of the violations, not the basis of the claims. Moreover, if the plaintiffs prevail on their claims, they will not be entitled to any substantive benefits; rather, they will only be entitled to reopen their proceedings.
Walters, 145 F.3d at 1052.
In this case, Defendants contend that Plaintiffs’ action is one challenging the Attorney General’s action to “adjudicate” Plaintiffs’ cases because “their request is to enjoin the adjudication of Plaintiffs’ immigration cases entirely by requesting that this Court prohibit any and all actions in their removal proceedings from being taken—a request that is plainly barred by 8 U.S.C. § 1252(g).” (Def.’s Opp’n at 7–8.)
The Court is not persuaded by Defendants’ attempt to reframe Plaintiffs’ petition. Plaintiffs ask the Court to enjoin removal proceedings until Plaintiffs are afforded adequate legal representation and to enjoin Plaintiffs’ detention unless Plaintiffs are provided a bond hearing before an Immigration Judge. As in Walters, Plaintiffs have not raised a constitutional challenge to Defendants’ decision to adjudicate cases against them or the merits of
12

Franco-Gonzales v. Holder, 767 F.Supp.2d 1034 (2010)
that adjudication. While the alleged constitutional violations that Plaintiffs allege may have led to the decisions currently on appeal before the BIA, if Plaintiffs prevail on their claims, they will only be entitled to legal representation to assist in their removal proceedings. Defendants disregard this pivotal distinction.
The Court also finds the cases cited by Defendants are inapposite. As Defendants recognize in their Opposition, Ali v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 145 (2d Cir.2008), held that Section 1252(g) applied to a claim that the DHS improperly exercised its discretion in bringing removal proceedings against various aliens. As discussed supra, the instant action does not involve a challenge to the Attorney General’s exercise of his discretion to adjudicate Plaintiffs’ cases. Tobar–Barrera v. Napolitano, 2010 WL 972557 (D.Md.2010), simply follows the holding in American–Arab that Section 1252(g) deprives courts of jurisdiction over challenges to government actions “to commence proceedings, adjudicate cases, or execute removal orders.” Id. at *2. In Tobar–Barrera, the petitioner sought to enjoin proceedings pending before the Immigration Court, challenging the Government’s discretion to re-commence removal proceedings against him after had awaited an asylum ruling for almost 16 years.
Finally, Moore v. Mukasey, 2008 WL 4560619 (S.D.Tex.2008), held that to the extent petitioner sought to enjoin the commencement of removal proceedings, the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction. Presumably, even Plaintiffs would agree *1051 that if they were mounting a challenge to the Attorney General’s discretion to commence proceedings, adjudicate cases, or execute removal orders, such claims would be barred by Section 1252(g).
Finding no authority to the contrary, the Court concludes that Section 1252(g) does not preclude this Court from exercising jurisdiction in this case.
B. PLAINTIFFS DEMONSTRATE LIKELIHOOD OF SUCCESS ON THE MERITS Plaintiffs maintain that they are likely to succeed on the merits of their claims because: (1) the Due Process Clause requires (a) the appointment of counsel for unrepresented non-citizens whose serious mental disabilities render them incompetent to represent themselves and (b) the provision of a custody hearing in light of Plaintiffs’ prolonged

detention; (2) Plaintiffs’ liberty interests at stake entitle them to appointed counsel; and (3) Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act requires (a) the appointment of counsel as an accommodation for non-citizens who are not competent to represent themselves and (b) a custody hearing in light of Plaintiffs’ prolonged detention.
The Court discusses Plaintiffs’ claims for appointment of counsel and for a custody hearing in turn. As explained below, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have demonstrated that they are likely to succeed on the merits of their claims.
1. Plaintiffs’ Claims for Appointment of Counsel [13] The Court must avoid reaching constitutional questions in advance of the necessity of deciding them. Rosenberg v. Fleuti, 374 U.S. 449, 451, 83 S.Ct. 1804, 10 L.Ed.2d 1000 (1963); see also In re Joye, 578 F.3d 1070, 1074 (9th Cir.2009). Accordingly, the Court first addresses Plaintiffs’ claims for appointment of counsel under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. § 794.

a. Plaintiffs State a Prima Facie Case for Violation of the Rehabilitation Act
Section 504 provides that no “qualified individual with a disability” be “excluded from the participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance or under any program or activity conducted by any Executive agency.” 29 U.S.C. § 794(a); see also 6 C.F.R. § 15.30 (prohibiting discrimination by DHS); 28 C.F.R. § 39.130 (prohibiting discrimination by the Department of Justice). An organization that receives federal funds violates Section 504 if it denies a qualified individual with a disability a reasonable accommodation that the individual needs in order to enjoy meaningful access to the benefits of public services.10 28 C.F.R. § 35.130(b)(7); Alexander v. Choate, 469 U.S. 287, 300–01 n. 21, 105 S.Ct. 712, 83 L.Ed.2d 661 (1985); Mark H. v. Hamamoto, 620 F.3d 1090, 1098 (9th Cir.2010).

10

Section 35.130(b)(7) provides:

A public entity shall make reasonable

modifications in policies, practices, or procedures

13

Franco-Gonzales v. Holder, 767 F.Supp.2d 1034 (2010)

when the modifications are necessary to avoid discrimination on the basis of disability, unless the public entity can demonstrate that making the modifications would fundamentally alter the nature of the service, program, or activity. 28 C.F.R. § 35.130(b)(7).
[14] To state a prima facie case under Section 504, Plaintiffs must demonstrate that: (1) they are qualified individuals with a disability, as defined under the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), (2) they are otherwise qualified for the benefit or services sought; (3) that they were denied the benefit or services solely by reason of their handicap; and (4) the program *1052 providing the benefit or services receives federal financial assistance. Lovell v. Chandler, 303 F.3d 1039, 1052 (9th Cir.2002). A “disability” is defined as:
(A) a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more of the major life activities of such individual,
(B) a record of such an impairment, or
(C) being regarded as having such an impairment.
42 U.S.C. § 12102(1).
Defendants do not appear to challenge the fact that Plaintiffs have established a prima facie case under Section 504. The Court therefore assumes, for purposes of this Motion, that a prima facie case exists.

b. Existing Safeguards Are Inadequate And Do Not Satisfy The Requirements Of The Rehabilitation Act
[15] Although the INA provides aliens with the “privilege” of representation, such representation is not provided at the Government’s expense. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(4)(B), 8 U.S.C. § 1362.11 Nevertheless, 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(3) requires the Attorney General to provide certain “safeguards” to protect the rights of mentally incompetent aliens:

11

Section 1229a(b)(4)(B) provides:

(4) Alien’s rights in proceeding

In proceedings under this section, under

regulations of the Attorney General— (A) the alien shall have the privilege of being represented, at no expense to the Government, by counsel of the alien’s choosing who is authorized to practice in such proceedings, (B) the alien shall have a reasonable opportunity to examine the evidence against the alien, to present evidence on the alien’s own behalf, and to cross-examine witnesses presented by the Government but these rights shall not entitle the alien to examine such national security information as the Government may proffer in opposition to the alien’s admission to the United States or to an application by the alien for discretionary relief under this chapter, and (C) a complete record shall be kept of all testimony and evidence produced at the proceeding. 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(4)(B) (emphasis added). Section 1362 states: In any removal proceedings before an immigration judge and in any appeal proceedings before the Attorney General from any such removal proceedings, the person concerned shall have the privilege of being represented (at no expense to the Government) by such counsel, authorized to practice in such proceedings, as he shall choose. 8 U.S.C. § 1362 (emphasis added).

If it is impracticable by reason of an alien’s mental incompetency for the alien to be present at the proceeding, the Attorney General shall prescribe safeguards to protect the rights and privileges of the alien. 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(3) (emphasis added). Among such existing “safeguards” are that (1) Immigration Judges are prohibited from accepting admissions of removability from unassisted mentally ill aliens, see 8 C.F.R. § 1240.10(c),12 and (2) the Government is required to serve the NTA on a mentally incompetent alien’s representative, see 8 C.F.R. § 103.5a(c)(2)(ii).13 In *1053 addition, pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 1240.4, a representative or guardian is permitted to appear on behalf of the alien in removal proceedings:

12

Section 1240.10(c) provides:

The immigration judge shall not accept an

admission of removability from an unrepresented

respondent who is incompetent or under the age of

18 and is not accompanied by an attorney or legal

representative, a near relative, legal guardian, or

friend; nor from an officer of an institution in

14

Franco-Gonzales v. Holder, 767 F.Supp.2d 1034 (2010)

which a respondent is an inmate or patient. When, pursuant to this paragraph, the immigration judge does not accept an admission of removability, he or she shall direct a hearing on the issues. 8 C.F.R. § 1240.10(c) (emphasis added).

13

Section 103.5a(c)(2)(ii) provides:

In case of mental incompetency, whether or not

confined in an institution, and in the case of a

minor under 14 years of age, service shall be made

upon the person with whom the incompetent or the

minor resides; whenever possible, service shall

also be made on the near relative, guardian,

committee, or friend.

8 C.F.R. § 103.5a(c)(2)(ii).

When it is impracticable for the respondent to be present at the hearing because of mental incompetency, the attorney, legal representative, legal guardian, near relative, or friend who was served with a copy of the notice to appear shall be permitted to appear on behalf of the respondent. If such a person cannot reasonably be found or fails or refuses to appear, the custodian of the respondent shall be requested to appear on behalf of the respondent. 8 C.F.R. § 1240.4 (emphasis added).14

14

In Martinez’s case, DHS took the position that “in the

event that Martinez is determined by the [Immigration

Court] to be mentally incompetent, [the Immigration

Court had] the authority to appoint a custodian, such as

Maria Elena Felipe (Martinez’s mother and former

conservator) to speak on his behalf.” (Pls.’ RJN, Ex.

74.) The Immigration Judge, however, noted in her

ruling that she was “unaware of any jurisdiction [the

court had] to ‘appoint’ Ms. Felipe as the Respondent’s

custodian for these removal proceedings” and that even

if Ms. Felipe had been served with a copy of the NTA,

“the Court [could not] compel her to appear on behalf

of the Respondent.” (Pls.’ RJN, Ex. 75.)

The parties appear to agree that neither Plaintiff received the appropriate existing “safeguards,” as required by 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(3). In both cases, service of the NTA was defective because it was not served on either Plaintiff’s representative and, as a result, neither Plaintiff was accompanied by a representative, as contemplated by 8 C.F.R. § 1240.4.15 Thus, Plaintiffs were not provided with even the most minimal of existing safeguards under

section 1240.4, let alone more robust accommodations required under the Rehabilitation Act.

15

The parties appear to dispute whether Robert Mason, a

DHS officer, attended Khukhryanskiy’s hearing for the

purposes of assisting Khukhryanskiy. According to

Plaintiffs, Mason was present for the purposes of

assisting Khukhryanskiy, but was an inadequate

safeguard to protect Khukhryanskiy’s rights.

Defendants clarified at the December 8 Hearing that

Mason was not present to represent Khukhryanskiy, but

instead, was present to ensure Khukhryanskiy appeared

at the hearing and to prevent an in absentia order from

being filed against Khukhryanskiy.

Where the parties diverge is on what must be done at this juncture. According to Plaintiffs, none of the regulatory “safeguards,” discussed supra and cited to by Defendants, even if properly implemented, would assist Plaintiffs in their appeals before the BIA absent the appointment of counsel. Defendants contend that the BIA should first be allowed to determine what procedural rights are necessary for mentally incompetent aliens.

c. Plaintiffs’ Individual Circumstances Warrant A Reasonable Accommodation
The unique circumstances of Plaintiffs’ case present a matter of first impression to the Court. The Court must take into account Plaintiffs’ individual characteristics and the procedural posture of their cases pending before the BIA in order to assess the reasonableness of the accommodation requested. See Mark H., 620 F.3d at 1098 (a determination of what is “reasonable” depends on an individualized inquiry and requires a “fact-specific, individualized analysis of the disabled individual’s circumstances and the accommodations that might allow meaningful access to the program”).

i. Plaintiff Martinez
Martinez prevailed in his underlying Immigration Court removal proceedings. After *1054 being presented with Dr. Burchuk’s finding of Martinez’s mental incompetency, the Immigration Judge determined Martinez was not
15

Franco-Gonzales v. Holder, 767 F.Supp.2d 1034 (2010)

competent to proceed pro se and sua sponte terminated the proceedings and set aside all prior actions taken in the case. She then certified her decision for review by the BIA.
On the facts presented, it is difficult to conceive of any paradigm in which Martinez could proceed pro se. Dr. Burchuk found that Martinez’s mental illness “causes him to suffer from auditory hallucinations and a paucity of spontaneous thoughts, and renders him unable to process and synthesize information,” the result of which is that he is unable to “understand, formulate, and verbally express ideas in a way that most other people can.” (Burchuk Decl. ¶¶ 6–7.) What Martinez now faces is the daunting task of drafting and filing a brief that sets forth the factual and legal basis upon which the BIA should uphold the termination of his removal proceedings.16 Indeed, if, as the regulations recognize, an Immigration Judge cannot accept an admission of removability from an unrepresented mentally incompetent alien, it is hard to imagine how Martinez could now be deemed competent to represent himself in presenting arguments in support of his position on any appellate review.

16

Defendants conceded at the December 8 Hearing, the

BIA proceedings are “almost always” paper

proceedings, i.e., there is no hearing, but a brief needs

to be filed.

Federal regulations permit a mentally incompetent alien to be accompanied by an “attorney, legal representative, legal guardian, near relative, or friend who was served with a copy of the notice to appear,” or if such person cannot be found, a “custodian.” 8 C.F.R. § 1240.4. As the Immigration Judge noted in her decision, however, “[t]he regulations at 8 C.F.R. § 1204.4[sic] are only a single paragraph long, and fail to define key terms, such as ‘custodian.’ ” (Pls.’ RJN, Ex. 75 at 7.)
Notwithstanding that Martinez’s mother had been appointed as his conservator at certain times in the past, she was not so appointed at the time of the September 16 Hearing and was not served with the NTA on Martinez’s behalf. In any case, the Immigration Judge found that the Immigration Court could not “compel her to appear” on Martinez’s behalf. Plaintiffs also present Ms. Felipe’s testimony that she “could not and cannot serve” as Martinez’s legal representative, stating:

I want what is best for my son. I cannot do as good a job as an attorney because I have no experience or education in the law. I do not understand many of the legal terms that I have heard used by the judge at court. I also do not have access to all of the information that real attorneys need to make legal arguments. For instance, I do not have or know how to use a computer, and I do not have books about the law.
(Decl. of Maria Elena Felipe, dated December 2, 2010, ¶ 8) [Doc. # 85–1].
Even if the Court could compel Ms. Felipe to serve as Martinez’s “representative,” the Court is not convinced that doing so would be a “reasonable accommodation” for Martinez at this juncture. Martinez finds himself at this critical crossroad due to Defendants’ failure to provide adequate safeguards at the inception of his detention and removal proceedings. What Martinez’s case presents is an opportunity for the BIA to finally provide, at best, systemic guidelines for unrepresented mentally incompetent aliens who require reasonable accommodations in removal proceedings, and, at least, clearer guidance to the Immigration Court, Defendants, and Martinez in this uncharted area of the law. As the Immigration Judge plaintively pointed out in her decision, there is a marked lack of *1055 precedent and guidance available to immigration judges in proceedings pertaining to unrepresented mentally incompetent aliens:
The current law and regulations offer little guidance, as to how the Court should proceed with a pro se Respondent who has been deemed mentally incompetent to proceed with removal proceedings.... [T]he Attorney General has provided little guidance regarding steps to take to protect the rights and privileges of the alien. Immigration case law has also failed to adequately address what such steps are to be taken for an incompetent, pro se, alien in removal proceedings ... Currently there are no cases discussing the procedural
16

Franco-Gonzales v. Holder, 767 F.Supp.2d 1034 (2010)
safeguards for an unrepresented mentally incompetent alien; on the contrary, the cases discuss matters where the aliens were represented by counsel or an accredited representative or where the Respondent was deemed to be competent.
(Pls.’ RJN, Ex. 75 at 6) (emphasis in original).
Given Plaintiff Martinez’s mental condition and the importance of the issues at stake in the pending BIA appeal, the Court is compelled to conclude that he is entitled under the Rehabilitation Act to a reasonable accommodation that would provide him with adequate representation.

him removed and Khukhryanskiy filed an appeal before the BIA. Plaintiffs ask the Court to enjoin the BIA appellate proceedings pending appointment of counsel at Government expense to assist Khukhryanskiy in prosecuting his appeal.
On the evidence presented, the Court finds that Khukhryanskiy was not mentally competent when he was served with the NTA and when his pleadings were taken. Thus, Khukhryanskiy, like Martinez, did not meaningfully participate in his removal proceedings as a result of his mental illness. As with Martinez, the Court finds that Khukhryanskiy is likely to prevail on his claim that Defendants violated the Rehabilitation Act when they failed to provide him with adequate safeguards at the inception of his detention and during removal proceedings and that he is entitled to adequate representation under that Act.

ii. Plaintiff Khukhryanskiy
Unlike Martinez, Khukhryanskiy was ordered removed at his removal proceeding. The Immigration Judge in Khukhryanskiy’s case did not address whether Khukhryanskiy was mentally competent to proceed pro se, despite the plethora of evidence in Khukhryanskiy’s medical records indicating that he suffers from severe mental illness.
Not only did the Form I–213 in Khukhryanskiy’s file reveal that he was diagnosed as a paranoid schizophrenic, his medical records indicate that on August 20, 2010, just five days before the August 25 Hearing in which he admitted to his removability, Khukhryanskiy complained of hearing voices in his head, stating he “[would] sign anything they ask [him] to sign.” (Arulanantham Reply Decl. ¶ 8, Ex. 87, at 84.) The next day, on August 21, 2010, Khukhryanskiy was taken to medical staff because he was “banging his head extremely hard to the point that he will injure himself and he was yelling” and wrapped a cord around his neck. (Id. at 82.) According to the medical records, Khukhryanskiy stated, “I can’t take this place anymore, I can’t control the voices in my head. I need to be released. I am going mad here!!!” (Id. at 83.)
As in Martinez’s case, the NTA was not served on a “near relative, guardian, committee, or friend,” as required by 8 C.F.R. § 103.5a(c)(2)(ii). Khukhryanskiy appeared pro se at his August 25 Hearing. The Immigration Judge ordered

*1056 d. A “Qualified Representative” Is A Reasonable Accommodation For These Plaintiffs
Given the Court’s finding that Plaintiffs are entitled to adequate representation under the Rehabilitation Act, the Court must next examine what constitutes “adequate representation” and determine whether paid appointed counsel would be a reasonable accommodation for Plaintiffs in this case.
[16] While a reasonable accommodation does not require an organization to make a “fundamental” or “substantial” alteration to its programs, reasonable adjustments may be required at times to assure “meaningful access.” Alexander, 469 U.S. at 300–01, 105 S.Ct. 712.
Defendants attack the reasonableness of Plaintiffs’ proposed accommodation—paid appointed counsel—and argue that Section 504 is only intended to level the playing field and not to provide advantages to the disabled.17 Defendants fail, however, to address well-established authority holding that an accommodation that provides a preference is not, in and of itself, unreasonable. In Barnett, the U.S. Supreme Court held:

17

Defendants initially took the position that Section 504

does not apply at all to removal proceedings because it

could not override the specific provisions of the INA.

In their reply to Plaintiffs’ supplemental brief on

17

Franco-Gonzales v. Holder, 767 F.Supp.2d 1034 (2010)
administrative exhaustion, Defendants concede that the Rehabilitation Act does apply to immigration removal proceedings. (Defs.’ Reply to Pls.’ Supp. Brief [Doc. # 97] at 1.) See 6 C.F.R. § 15.30 (prohibiting discrimination by DHS); 28 C.F.R. § 39.130 (prohibiting discrimination by the Department of Justice).

While linguistically logical, this argument fails to recognize what the Act specifies, namely, that preferences will sometimes prove necessary to achieve the Act’s basic equal opportunity goal. The Act requires preferences in the form of “reasonable accommodations” that are needed for those with disabilities to obtain the same workplace opportunities that those without disabilities automatically enjoy. By definition any special “accommodation” requires the employer to treat an employee with a disability differently, i.e., preferentially. And the fact that the difference in treatment violates an employer’s disability-neutral rule cannot by itself place the accommodation beyond the Act’s potential reach. US Airways, Inc. v. Barnett, 535 U.S. 391, 397, 122 S.Ct. 1516, 152 L.Ed.2d 589 (2002) (emphasis added); see also Giebeler v. M & B Associates, 343 F.3d 1143, 1150 (9th Cir.2003) (applying Barnett to hold that an accommodation may result in a preference for disabled individuals over otherwise similarly situated nondisabled individuals).18

18

The Ninth Circuit has recognized that “[t]here is no

significant difference in analysis of the rights and

obligations created by the [ADA] and the

Rehabilitation Act.” Pierce v. County of Orange, 526

F.3d 1190, 1216 n. 27 (9th Cir.2008) (citing Zukle v.

Regents of Univ. of California, 166 F.3d 1041, 1045 n.

11 (9th Cir.1999)) (internal quotations omitted).

Defendants initially urged the Court, at this critical phase of the BIA proceedings, to allow important issues to be presented to the BIA and addressed by an unrepresented mentally incompetent alien. Defendants contended that the fact that the BIA is on notice of Plaintiffs’ mental incompetence is a sufficient safeguard of Plaintiffs’ rights.19 (Defs.’ Opp’n at 15–18.) *1057 Perhaps recognizing that such a position is untenable, Defendants alternatively requested that the Court permit them time to find pro bono counsel to represent Martinez or to hold the immigration proceedings in abeyance while Plaintiffs

exhaust their administrative remedies under the Rehabilitation Act. As discussed supra, in light of the Court’s finding that requiring Plaintiffs to administratively exhaust would be futile, the Court does not find merit in Defendants’ request to hold the immigration proceedings in abeyance pending exhaustion of administrative remedies.

19

Defendants also made much of the fact that the

Northwest Immigrant Rights Project (“NWIRP”), an

LOP associated with the EOIR requested leave with the

BIA to file an amicus brief in support of

Khukhryanskiy’s appeal. (Defs.’ Opp’n at 16.)

Defendants’ efforts to secure pro bono counsel for

Plaintiffs appear to be a concession that an amicus brief

from the NWIRP would not be a reasonable

accommodation for Khukhryanskiy.

On December 21, 2010, Defendants filed a status report [Doc. # 103] informing the Court that on December 20, 2010, the Capital Area Immigrants’ Rights (“CAIR”) Coalition, a pro bono legal organization, agreed to represent Martinez in his case before the BIA, which Defendants argue extinguishes the exigency of Martinez’s claim. Defendants filed another status report on December 22, 2010 to report that they had located pro bono counsel for Khukhryanskiy and requested the Court delay its ruling on Plaintiffs Motion until December 27, 2010 to see if the pro bono representation would “come[ ] to fruition.” (Defendants’ Status Report, filed December 22, 2010.)
The Court is not authorized to extend the TRO beyond the date of this Order without the parties’ consent. Rule 65(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure states:
The order expires at the time after entry—not to exceed 14 days—that the court sets, unless before that time the court, for good cause, extends it for a like period or the adverse party consents to a longer extension. The reasons for an extension must be entered in the record.
Fed.R.Civ.P. 65(b)(2) (emphasis added). The Court issued the TRO on November 24, 2010 and it cannot be extended more than 28 days without the parties’ consent. At the telephonic status conference held on December 21,
18

Franco-Gonzales v. Holder, 767 F.Supp.2d 1034 (2010)
2010, the parties declined to consent to any further extension of the TRO.
As of the date of this Order, Defendants have filed a “status report.” There is no sworn declaration confirming that Defendants have secured counsel for both Martinez and Khukhryanskiy relating to their immigration proceedings, presenting evidence that a retainer agreement has been signed by Plaintiffs and pro bono counsel, or providing the Court with information demonstrating that the scope of the proposed representation encompasses the full extent of the legal proceedings contemplated by Plaintiffs’ Preliminary Injunction Motion. Rather, Defendants have notified the Court that Defendants have engaged in the process of securing counsel for Plaintiffs and that certain counsel have responded favorably to Defendants’ efforts. Such information, in and of itself, is insufficient to either extinguish the urgency of, or to moot, Plaintiffs’ claims. See Rosemere Neighborhood Ass’n v. U.S. EPA, 581 F.3d 1169, 1173 (9th Cir.2009) (“the mere [voluntary] cessation of illegal activity in response to pending litigation does not moot a case”). Defendants’ offer of counsel speaks volumes, however, regarding the reasonableness of the proposed accommodation and the absence of undue burden in providing the accommodation.
In response to Defendants’ offer of pro bono counsel, Plaintiffs argue that “to allow the Expedited Relief Plaintiffs to be accelerated in their consideration for pro bono work would lessen the ability of others in the proposed class to be considered, and would thus impact the fiduciary duties that Plaintiffs’ counsel has for class members.” (Parties’ Joint Report [Doc. # 99] at 3.) While Plaintiffs dismiss Defendants’ offer of pro bono counsel as a calculated *1058 effort to moot Plaintiffs’ claims with piecemeal remedies, Plaintiffs, too, have piecemealed their claims by bringing their Motion as to just two of their named Plaintiffs. What Plaintiffs seem to forget is that before the Court at this time is a fact-specific, individualized analysis of the accommodations that may allow Plaintiffs Martinez and Khukhryanskiy to meaningfully participate in their removal proceedings and proposed custody hearing. The merits of the putative class members’ claims are not before the Court on Plaintiffs’ Preliminary Injunction Motion.
The Court finds it significant that Plaintiffs themselves define what they consider to be adequate representation. Plaintiffs ask that the representative (a “Qualified

Representative”) meet five criteria, including that he or she: “(1) be obligated to provide zealous representation; (2) be subject to sanction by the EOIR for ineffective assistance; (3) be free of any conflicts of interest; (4) have adequate knowledge and information to provide representation at least as competent as that provided by a detainee with ample time, motivation, and access to legal materials; and (5) maintain confidentiality of information.” (Id.) The Court finds that a Qualified Representative would be a reasonable accommodation for Plaintiffs whether he or she is performing the services pro bono or at Defendants’ expense.
In view of the circumstances presented by Plaintiffs’ cases, Plaintiffs’ definition of a Qualified Representative, and Defendants’ apparent offer of counsel that meet such criteria, the Court finds that it is a reasonable accommodation for Defendants to provide a Qualified Representative(s) to represent Plaintiffs in the entirety of their immigration proceedings, whether such Qualified Representative is performing the services pro bono or at Defendants’ expense.20

20

Plaintiffs urge the Court to appoint an attorney pursuant

to 18 U.S.C. §§ 3006A(a)(1)(D), (I) of the Criminal

Justice Act (“CJA”). Plaintiffs cite authority for their

position that the CJA has been applied in civil

proceedings and that courts recognize that deportation

involves the “loss of liberty.” Defendants, on the other

hand, point to section 210.20.50(d) of the “Guidelines

for Administering the CJA and Related Statutes,”

volume 7, Part A of the Administrative Office of the

United States Courts’ Guide to Judiciary Policy

(“Guide to Judiciary Policy”), which provides:

Cases or proceedings which are not covered by or

compensable under the CJA include the

following.... Administrative proceedings before

the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services

(USCIS), removal or deportation proceedings

before the Immigration Court, review of the

Immigration Court’s decision by the Board of

Immigration Appeals, and judicial review by the

federal courts of appeals of petitions for review

from these administrative decisions. But see: §

210.20.30 (ancillary matters) and §

210.20.20(a)(2) (habeas corpus cases).

Guide to Judiciary Policy, § 210.20.50(d) (available

at

http://www.

uscourts.gov/FederalCourts/AppointmentOfCounsel/

CJAGuid

elinesForms/vol7PartA/vol7PartAChapter2.aspx#

210_20)(emphasis in original); cf. Chamblin v.

I.N.S., 176 F.Supp.2d 99 (D.N.H.2000) (appointing

19

Franco-Gonzales v. Holder, 767 F.Supp.2d 1034 (2010)
counsel under the CJA to represent INS detainees on habeas petitions under 28 U.S.C. § 2241), Saldina v. Thornburgh, 775 F.Supp. 507 (D.Conn.1991) (appointing counsel under the CJA for petitioners because the interests of justice so required). The Court is not persuaded that it has authority under the CJA to appoint counsel to represent Plaintiffs in their administrative proceedings before the Immigration Court. As far as the Court is aware, CJA Panel Attorneys, at least in the Central District of California, are screened and selected based upon their qualifications to serve as criminal defense attorneys. Appointing a criminal defense attorney to represent Plaintiffs in a case that revolves around reasonable accommodations for mentally incompetent aliens in removal proceedings would not appear to be a reasonable use of CJA funds or an appropriate accommodation for Plaintiffs.
*1059 e. Plaintiffs’ Due Process Claims
Plaintiffs also contend that they are likely to prevail in their quest for appointed counsel based upon the Due Process Clause. They analogize their need for appointed counsel to the recognized right to translation services in removal proceedings. They point out that the Due Process Clause applies to deportation hearings and that deportation proceedings violate due process if the alien does not receive a “full and fair” hearing and suffers prejudice as a result. Cruz Rendon v. Holder, 603 F.3d 1104, 1109 (9th Cir.2010). The Ninth Circuit has held that “a competent translation is fundamental to a full and fair hearing” and that “an incorrect or incomplete transaction is the functional equivalent of no translation.” Perez–Lastor v. I.N.S., 208 F.3d 773, 778 (9th Cir.2000).
In light of the Court’s ruling under the Rehabilitation Act, however, the Court need not, and does not, address the merits of Plaintiffs’ Due Process claims at this time.
2. Plaintiffs’ Claims for a Custody Hearing [17] Plaintiffs also contend that they are entitled to a custody hearing at which Defendants will bear the burden of showing that further detention is justified under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c). Section 1226(c) only authorizes mandatory detention where immigration proceedings are

“expeditious.”21 Plaintiffs in this case have been held for prolonged periods.

21

Section 1226(c) provides:

(1) Custody

The Attorney General shall take into custody any

alien who—

(A) is inadmissible by reason of having committed

any offense covered in section 1182(a)(2) of this

title,

(B) is deportable by reason of having committed

any offense covered in section 1227(a)(2)(A)(ii),

(A)(iii), (B), (C), or (D) of this title,

(C) is deportable under section 1227(a)(2)(A)(i) of

this title on the basis of an offense for which the

alien has been sentenced to a term of

imprisonment of at least 1 year, or

(D) is inadmissible under section 1182(a)(3)(B) of

this title or deportable under section 1227(a)(4)(B)

of this title,

when the alien is released, without regard to

whether the alien is released on parole, supervised

release, or probation, and without regard to

whether the alien may be arrested or imprisoned

again for the same offense.

8 U.S.C. § 1226(c).

[18] [19] “A statute permitting indefinite detention of an alien would raise a serious constitutional problem.” Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 689, 121 S.Ct. 2491, 150 L.Ed.2d 653 (2001). The Supreme Court has estimated the mandatory detention period under Section 1226(c) to last “roughly a month and a half in the vast majority of cases in which it is invoked, and about five months in the minority of cases in which the alien chooses to appeal.”22 Demore v. Kim, 538 U.S. 510, 530, 123 S.Ct. 1708, 155 L.Ed.2d 724 (2003). After the six-month period, once an alien provides good reason to believe that there is “no significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future, the Government must respond with evidence sufficient to rebut that showing.” Zadvydas, 533 U.S. at 701, 121 S.Ct. 2491; see also Nadarajah v. Gonzales, 443 F.3d 1069 (9th Cir.2006). The six-month presumption does not require release of every *1060 alien not removed after six months. Id. The Ninth Circuit has held that detention beyond an expedited period ceases to be mandatory under Section 1226(c) and instead becomes discretionary under Section 1226(a). Rodriguez v. Hayes, 591 F.3d 1105, 1116 (9th Cir.2010); see also Casas–Castrillon v. Dep’t of Homeland Security, 535 F.3d 942, 951 (9th Cir.2008) (“Because the prolonged
20

Franco-Gonzales v. Holder, 767 F.Supp.2d 1034 (2010)

detention of an alien without an individualized determination of his dangerousness or flight risk would be ‘constitutionally doubtful,’ ... § 1226(a) must be construed as requiring the Attorney General to provide the alien with such a hearing”).

22

Because non-citizens detained under Section 1226(c)

are not given a bond hearing before an Immigration

Judge, they do not have the opportunity to show that

they do not pose a danger to the community or a flight

risk such that their detention is unnecessary.

Casas–Castrillon, 535 F.3d 942, 946 (9th Cir.2008).

In this case, both Plaintiffs have been held pursuant to the mandatory detention authority under Section 1226(c) for longer than the presumptively reasonable six months. Thus, their detention has ceased to be mandatory and is now deemed discretionary under Section 1226(a). See Rodriguez, 591 F.3d at 1116. In light of the Court’s ruling on Plaintiffs’ Motion, the Court finds that for both Plaintiffs, there is not “significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future.” Plaintiffs are therefore entitled to a custody hearing under Section 1226(a) at which Defendants must demonstrate that further detention is necessary.

C. PLAINTIFFS DEMONSTRATE A LIKELIHOOD OF IRREPARABLE HARM AND THE BALANCE OF HARDSHIPS TIPS SHARPLY IN THEIR FAVOR [20] Plaintiffs argue that unless counsel is provided, Plaintiffs could be found removable and subsequently deported without ever having an opportunity to litigate the issues that they raise in this lawsuit. If deported, Plaintiffs claim that they could face persecution in their home countries due to their mental disabilities. Plaintiffs further argue that without a custody hearing, Plaintiffs are likely to remain detained for a lengthy and indeterminate period pending their BIA appeals. Plaintiffs also contend that the cost of providing an attorney to represent them is modest if such representation helps to expedite proceedings and thus minimize the cost of detaining Plaintiffs. They point out that because Defendants regularly conduct custody hearings, holding two custody hearings for Plaintiffs is not a significant burden to Defendants.
Defendants neither contest Plaintiffs’ position regarding irreparable harm nor present any evidence to the contrary.

In fact, in a Notice of Clarification filed on December 20, 2010, Defendants clarified that, contrary to the position they took at the December 8 Hearing, the time period for completing removals is not dependent on the expiration of the 30–day period for appeals taken from the BIA to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. [Doc. # 101.] Indeed, 8 C.F.R. § 241.33 provides that “once an order of deportation becomes final, an alien shall be taken into custody and the order shall be executed,” and “the order shall be executed no sooner than 72 hours after service of the decision, regardless of whether the alien is in Service custody.” Thus, Plaintiffs become deportable within 72 hours after the BIA renders its decision.
In light of these circumstances, the Court finds that the likelihood of irreparable harm and the balance of hardships tip sharply in favor of Plaintiffs.
D. AN INJUNCTION IS IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST Finally, the Rehabilitation Act embodies Congress’ response to its finding that “individuals with disabilities continually encounter various forms of discrimination in such critical areas as ... public accommodations ... and public services” and that “the goals of the Nation properly include *1061 the goal of providing individuals with disabilities with the tools necessary to ... make informed choices and decisions....” 29 U.S.C. § 701(a)(5), (a)(6). Defendants do not dispute that the public has a strong interest in accurate and fair determinations in removal proceedings. By granting Plaintiffs’ Motion, the Court will be furthering the public interest.
E. A MANDATORY INJUNCTION IS APPROPRIATE IN THIS CASE As discussed supra, while a mandatory injunction is generally disfavored, the Court is nevertheless empowered to grant a mandatory injunction when prohibitory orders are otherwise ineffective or inadequate. See, e.g., D.R. v. Antelope Valley Union High School District, 746 F.Supp.2d 1132, 2010 WL 4262047 (C.D.Cal.2010) (granting mandatory injunction to provide disabled plaintiff with elevator key as a reasonable accommodation). For the reasons discussed supra, any relief short of providing a Qualified Representative for Plaintiffs in this case would be both ineffective and inadequate in providing them with meaningful access to
21

Franco-Gonzales v. Holder, 767 F.Supp.2d 1034 (2010)
participate in their immigration proceedings. As the Court finds that the law and facts clearly favor Plaintiffs and that the potential for irreparable harm cannot be remedied by a later award of damages, the Court also finds that Plaintiffs have met their burden of demonstrating the need for a mandatory injunction.
V.
CONCLUSION
In light of the foregoing:
(1) The Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ Motion for a Preliminary Injunction as follows:
(a) Pending a trial on the merits, Defendants, and their officers, agents, servants, employees and attorneys, and all those who are in active concert or participation with them, are hereby enjoined from pursuing further immigration proceedings against Plaintiffs until such time as (i) Plaintiffs are afforded a Qualified Representative(s) who is willing and able to represent Plaintiffs during all phases of their immigration proceedings, including appeals and/or custody hearings, whether pro bono or at Defendants’ expense, and (ii) after the implementation of a briefing schedule to be mutually agreed upon by the parties in the underlying BIA proceedings;
(b) Pending a trial on the merits, Defendants, and their

officers, agents, servants, employees and attorneys, and all those who are in active concert or participation with them, are hereby enjoined from detaining Plaintiffs Martinez and Khukhryanskiy under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c) unless, within 30 days of this Order, they provide both Plaintiffs with a bond hearing before an Immigration Judge with the authority to order their release on conditions of supervision, unless the Government shows that Plaintiffs’ ongoing detention is justified.
(2) The Court waives the bond requirement. See, e.g., Barahona–Gomez v. Reno, 167 F.3d 1228, 1237 (9th Cir.1999) (nominal security not an abuse of discretion where “vast majority of aliens [affected by class action] were very poor”); Cal. ex rel. Van De Kamp v. Tahoe Reg’l Planning Agency, 766 F.2d 1319, 1325 (9th Cir.1985) (“[t]he district court has discretion to dispense with the security requirement, or to request mere nominal security, where requiring security would effectively deny access to judicial review”).
(3) Due to privacy considerations, this Order shall be filed under seal. Within 14 days from the date of this Order, the parties will meet and confer regarding which portions of the Order they propose to be redacted such that a redacted version of the Order may be filed. The parties *1062 shall file a joint report with the Court by no later than January 7, 2011 regarding the proposed redacted version of the Order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

22

 
 Case 2:10-cv-02211-DMG-DTB Document 786 Filed 10/29/14 Page 1 of 40 Page ID #:19787

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

11 JOSE ANTONIO FRANCOGONZALEZ, et al.,
12 Plaintiffs-Petitioners,
13 v.
14 ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney
15 General, et al.,

16

Defendants-Respondents.

17

18

19

) Case No. CV-10-02211 DMG (DTBx) ) ) ORDER FURTHER ) IMPLEMENTING THIS COURT’S ) PERMANENT INJUNCTION [785] ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Case 2:10-cv-02211-DMG-DTB Document 786 Filed 10/29/14 Page 2 of 40 Page ID #:19788

1 2 I. 3 4 5 6 7 8 II. 9
III. 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 IV. 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

TABLE OF CONTENTS SCREENING SYSTEM ............................................................................... 2 A. Screening Procedures ................................................................................. 2
 Main Class Membership Criteria .......................................................... 6 B. Information Gathering Procedures for ICE and Detention Facility
Personnel ....................................................................................................8 INFORMATION SHARING SYSTEM BETWEEN ICE AND EOIR .10 EVALUATION SYSTEM .......................................................................... 12 A. Pro Se Competency Standard .................................................................. 13 B. Judicial Competency Inquiries and Competency Reviews ...................... 15 C. Forensic Competency Evaluations........................................................... 18 D. Additional Procedures ..............................................................................19 OTHER MATTERS ....................................................................................22 A. EOIR’s nationwide policy ........................................................................22 B. Released Main Class Members ................................................................ 22 C. Released Sub-Class One Members ..........................................................23 D. Class Definition ........................................................................................23 E. Implementation of Partial Settlement Agreement, Subject to the Court’s
Approval ...................................................................................................25 F. Tools .........................................................................................................26 G. Retention of Jurisdiction ..........................................................................26

i

Case 2:10-cv-02211-DMG-DTB Document 786 Filed 10/29/14 Page 3 of 40 Page ID #:19789

1

The purpose of this Order is to further implement the Court’s Permanent

2 Injunction. [Doc. # 593.] Defendants will share both the Court’s Permanent

3 Injunction as well as this Order with the persons, agencies, or legal entities

4 responsible for compliance with the Permanent Injunction, this Order, U.S.

5 Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s (“ICE”) national detention standards, and 6 oversight of medical care provided at any immigration detention facility1 in

7 California, Arizona, or Washington.

8

The Court orders Defendants to implement the following:

9 (I) Screening and Information Gathering System. Such system, which is

10

designed to determine Class membership, shall include initial mental

11

health screening of detainees upon arrival at detention facilities, mental

12

health assessments, and gathering of documents and information relevant

13

to detainees’ mental health. See Section I, infra.

14 (II) Information Sharing System. Such system shall ensure that Defendants

15

provide relevant documents and information regarding detainees’ mental

16

health to Immigration Judges. See Section II, infra.

17 (III) Evaluation System. Such system, which is designed to determine

18

whether a Main Class member is competent to represent him- or herself

19

in immigration proceedings, shall include Judicial Competency Inquiries,

20

Forensic Competency Evaluations and Competency Reviews. See

21

Section III, infra.

22 (IV) Other Matters. See Section IV, infra.

23

24

25

26

1 Throughout this Order, the terms “immigration detention facility,”

“detention facility,” and “facility” are used interchangeably, and refer to facilities

27 used by, contracted with, or acting on behalf of ICE to hold detainees for more

than 72 hours.

28

1

Case 2:10-cv-02211-DMG-DTB Document 786 Filed 10/29/14 Page 4 of 40 Page ID #:19790

1 I. 2

SCREENING SYSTEM To comply with the Permanent Injunction, Defendants must implement,

3 within 90 days of the entry of this Order, a system for screening individuals in the 4 Department of Homeland Security’s (“DHS”) custody with the purpose of 5 accurately identifying Sub-Class One and Sub-Class Two members, both of which

6 are sub-classes of the Plaintiff Class, i.e., “individuals who are or will be in DHS 7 custody for immigration proceedings in California, Arizona, and Washington who 8 have been identified by or to medical personnel, DHS, or an Immigration Judge, as 9 having a serious mental disorder or defect that may render them incompetent to 10 represent themselves in immigration proceedings, and who presently lack counsel

11 in their immigration proceedings.” See Section IV.D, infra. Sub-Class One 12 members are those members of the Plaintiff Class who are “incompetent to 13 represent themselves in immigration proceedings.” Id. Sub-Class Two members

14 are those members of the Plaintiff Class “who have been detained for more than 15 six months.” Id. Therefore, the Court orders that the following steps be taken with 16 respect to all individuals who are admitted into ICE custody at an immigration

17 detention facility in California, Washington, and Arizona, whether or not such

18 facility is staffed by the ICE Health Service Corps (“IHSC”):

19

A. Screening Procedures

20

1. To ensure the integrity of the screening procedures set out in this

21

Section, and of the competency procedures set out in Section III,

22

infra:

23

a. Unless and until such time as the individual is determined mentally

24

competent by an Immigration Judge, individuals identified as Class

25

members pursuant to the procedures set forth herein shall not be

26

27

28

2

Case 2:10-cv-02211-DMG-DTB Document 786 Filed 10/29/14 Page 5 of 40 Page ID #:19791

1

removed from the United States2 unless first afforded a Qualified

2

Representative under the procedures set forth in the Court’s

3

Permanent Injunction. [Doc. # 593.]

4

b. The transfer of detainees between immigration detention facilities

5

may be necessary and appropriate in order to facilitate compliance

6

with this Order. ICE shall seek, however, to avoid transfers that

7

may significantly hamper the ability of the detainee’s family or

8

community support resources to provide assistance in the

9

detainee’s immigration proceedings (including custody

10

determinations and placement plans). In addition, ICE must take

11

into consideration whether any transfer will cause further

12

deterioration of the detainee’s mental health. Any Class member

13

who has entered ICE custody after November 21, 2011, and who is

14

subsequently transferred outside of Arizona, California or

15

Washington, continues to be a Class member and entitled to all of

16

the benefits of Class membership during the course of their

17

immigration proceedings, including those in the Permanent

18

Injunction [Doc. # 593] and in this Order.

19

20

21

22

23

2 Once jurisdiction vests before the Immigration Judge and an individual is

24 identified as a Class member in his or her pending immigration proceedings,

Defendants shall not terminate immigration proceedings for the purpose of

25 removing, deporting, or excluding the Class member (i.e., pursuant to voluntary

departure, or return, under 8 U.S.C. § 1229c; reinstatement under 8 U.S.C. §

26 1231(a)(5); expedited removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b); or administrative

removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1228(b)), unless or until he or she has first been

27 determined mentally competent by the Immigration Judge or provided a Qualified

Representative.

28

3

Case 2:10-cv-02211-DMG-DTB Document 786 Filed 10/29/14 Page 6 of 40 Page ID #:19792

1

2. Absent emergency circumstances related to facility security or the

2

health and safety of staff or detainees, all detainees3 shall be initially

3

screened for evidence of a “serious mental disorder or condition”4

4

upon their admission into ICE custody at an immigration detention

5

facility, in accordance with the applicable ICE national detention

6

standards.5 Absent emergency circumstances related to facility

7

security or the health and safety of staff or detainees, detainees shall

8

be further screened (or assessed) by a currently and appropriately

9

licensed psychiatrist, physician, physician assistant, psychologist,

10

clinical social worker, licensed nurse practitioner, or registered nurse

11

within 14 days of their admission into ICE custody at an immigration

12

detention facility. Such further screening shall be conducted utilizing

13

a written screening questionnaire designed to identify individuals who

14

may suffer from serious mental disorders or conditions, including

15

mental health conditions for which the individual has not been

16

previously diagnosed. Such screening questionnaire must not rely

17

solely on a self-reported history of mental illness, but must ask the

18

screener to interpret behavior and ask the individual questions to

19

3 The terms “immigration detainee” and “detainee” are used interchangeably

20 and refer to individuals detained in ICE custody for immigration proceedings in California, Arizona, or Washington.

21

4 The term “serious mental disorder or condition” shall have the same

22 meaning as the Class membership criteria, identified in Section I.A.3.b.

23

5 “Applicable ICE national detention standards” are those standards

currently applicable to detainees detained at the facilities set forth in Appendix A

24 to this Order. Defendants affirm that the facilities identified in Appendix A are the

exclusive locations where immigration detainees are detained for more than 72

25 hours in the States of Washington, Arizona and California, and further affirm that

the national detention standards listed next to each of those facilities are those in

26 force at those facilities today. To the extent that there are prospective changes in

the “applicable ICE national detention standards,” the screening procedures

27 applicable to Class members shall be no less protective than those found in the

detention standards set forth in Appendix A.

28

4

Case 2:10-cv-02211-DMG-DTB Document 786 Filed 10/29/14 Page 7 of 40 Page ID #:19793

1

gauge his or her understanding of his or her current situation. The

2

results of the screening questionnaire shall be documented.6

3

3. Individuals identified through the above-referenced screening process

4

as exhibiting evidence of a serious mental disorder or condition shall

5

be referred for a mental health assessment. Individuals first identified

6

at any later stage as exhibiting evidence of a serious mental disorder

7

or condition, such as at a hearing before an Immigration Judge or

8

upon receipt of information provided by a third party, shall also be

9

referred for a mental health assessment. Such mental health

10

assessments are for the purpose of diagnosis, treatment, or

11

stabilization of the individual and are not conducted for the purpose of

12

assessing the individual’s legal competency. Based on the results of

13

the mental health assessment and any other available information, the

14

qualified mental health provider will determine whether an

15

unrepresented detainee meets the criteria set forth in Section I.A.3.b(i)

16

or (ii), such that he or she is a member of the Class certified in this

17

case. Where clinically indicated, in conducting the mental health

18

assessment, the qualified mental health provider must inquire about

19

20

21

6 For example, the screening shall seek to identify whether the individual has

22 a history of mental illness, has previously taken medication for mental illness or

received mental health services, has been hospitalized for psychiatric condition(s),

23 experienced auditory or visual hallucinations, or demonstrates evidence of

cognitive impairment. The screener will also look for evidence of a mental

24 disability, bizarre or unusual behavior, or other obvious signs of mental illness.

Within 90 days of the entry of this Order, Defendants will provide to Plaintiffs the

25 relevant screening forms currently in use at all immigration detention facilities in

Arizona, California and Washington, ensuring that the forms satisfy the

26 requirements set forth in this Order. If Plaintiffs allege such forms do not comply

with the terms of this Order, the Parties shall meet and confer regarding the

27 screening forms and, if the Parties do not resolve their dispute informally, the

matter shall be addressed, initially, before the Special Master.

28

5

Case 2:10-cv-02211-DMG-DTB Document 786 Filed 10/29/14 Page 8 of 40 Page ID #:19794

1

and consider the detainee’s relevant social history.7 The mental health

2

assessment will be completed as soon as practicable, ordinarily within

3

14 days after the detainee is identified through the screening process

4

described in Section I.A.2, supra, as exhibiting evidence of a serious

5

mental disorder or condition.

6

a. The mental health assessment shall be performed by a qualified

7

mental health provider. For purposes of this Order, “qualified

8

mental health providers” are currently and appropriately licensed

9

psychiatrists, physicians, physician assistants, psychologists,

10

clinical social workers, licensed nurse practitioners, and registered

11

nurses. Providers who are general practitioners shall have

12

appropriate training in mental health assessments.

13

b. For purposes of this Order, unrepresented8 immigration detainees

14

are members of the Class certified in this case, see Section IV.D,

15

infra, if the criteria of subparagraph (i), (ii) or (iii) of this

16

paragraph are met:

17

(i) a qualified mental health provider determines the

18

detainee9 meets one or both of the following criteria:

19

20

21

7 Relevant social history may include factors such as educational level,

special education history, if any, occupational functioning, relationships, and

22 cultural concerns.

23

8 Detainees shall be considered unrepresented unless one of the following

has entered an appearance on their behalf: “(1) an attorney, (2) a law student or

24 law graduate directly supervised by a retained attorney, or (3) an accredited

representative, all as defined in 8 C.F.R. § 1292.1.” Franco-Gonzalez, et al. v.

25 Holder, 828 F. Supp. 2d 1133, 1147 (C.D. Cal. 2011); see also Doc. # 593 at ¶ 8.

26

9 Such determination may be made regardless of whether the detainee was

previously diagnosed with a psychiatric condition, was treated in the past or is now

27 being treated for a psychiatric condition, and regardless of whether the cause of the

disorder would be considered a medical or, instead, a psychiatric condition.

28

6

Case 2:10-cv-02211-DMG-DTB Document 786 Filed 10/29/14 Page 9 of 40 Page ID #:19795

1

(1) has a mental disorder that is causing serious

2

limitations in communication, memory or general

3

mental and/or intellectual functioning (e.g.,

4

communicating, reasoning, conducting activities of

5

daily living, social skills); or a severe medical

6

condition(s) (e.g., traumatic brain injury or

7

dementia) that is significantly impairing mental

8

function; or

9

(2) is exhibiting one or more of the following active

10

psychiatric symptoms or behavior: severe

11

disorganization, active hallucinations or delusions,

12

mania, catatonia, severe depressive symptoms,

13

suicidal ideation and/or behavior, marked anxiety

14

or impulsivity.

15

(ii) a qualified mental health provider otherwise diagnoses

16

the detainee as demonstrating significant symptoms of

17

one of the following:

18

(1) Psychosis or Psychotic Disorder;

19

(2) Bipolar Disorder;

20

(3) Schizophrenia or Schizoaffective Disorder;

21

(4) Major Depressive Disorder with Psychotic

22

Features;

23

(5) Dementia and/or a Neurocognitive Disorder; or

24

(6) Intellectual Development Disorder (moderate,

25

severe or profound).

26

(iii) an Immigration Judge finds that the evidence of record

27

results in a bona fide doubt about the detainee’s

28

competency to represent him- or herself.

7

Case 2:10-cv-02211-DMG-DTB Document 786 Filed 10/29/14 Page 10 of 40 Page ID #:19796

1

4. Class membership, as defined in Section I.A.3.b, supra, shall not be

2

terminated by a later determination of competency by an Immigration

3

Judge pursuant to Section III, infra.

4

5. Within seven (7) days of completion of the mental health assessment

5

described in Section I.A.3, supra, the qualified mental health provider

6

shall cause the ICE Office of the Chief Counsel to be notified if such

7

mental health assessment or other available information shows that an

8

immigration detainee meets the criteria described in Section I.A.3.b(i)

9

or (ii), supra.

10

B. Information Gathering Procedures for ICE and Detention Facility

11

Personnel

12

1. Whenever ICE or detention facility personnel become aware that an

13

immigration detainee identified through the screening system

14

described in Section I.A.2, supra, was previously found incompetent

15

in any court proceedings (including past criminal proceedings) or was

16

hospitalized due to a mental disorder or condition, ICE or detention

17

facility personnel must provide that information, and any related

18

documents in their possession, to the qualified mental health provider

19

performing the mental health assessment. If the mental health

20

assessment has already been completed at the time that ICE or

21

detention facility personnel provide this information to the qualified

22

mental health provider, the qualified mental health provider must

23

determine whether the new information affects the determination

24

whether a detainee meets the Class membership criteria described in

25

Section I.A.3.b(i) or (ii), supra, and shall cause the ICE Office of the

26

Chief Counsel to be notified of any change in that determination.

27

2. ICE and detention facility personnel must accept relevant information

28

and documents from family members, social workers, or treatment

8

Case 2:10-cv-02211-DMG-DTB Document 786 Filed 10/29/14 Page 11 of 40 Page ID #:19797

1

providers regarding detainees’ mental disorders or conditions, and

2

provide such information and documents to the qualified mental

3

health provider performing the mental health assessment. If a

4

detainee was not referred for a mental health assessment upon initial

5

screening, but information and/or records received through third

6

parties indicate that an individual suffers from a serious mental

7

disorder or condition, such individual shall be referred for a mental

8

health assessment for further evaluation. If the mental health

9

assessment has already been completed at the time that ICE or

10

detention facility personnel provide this information or documents to

11

the qualified mental health provider, the qualified mental health

12

provider must determine whether the new information or documents

13

affect the determination whether a detainee meets the Class

14

membership criteria described in Section I.A.3.b(i) or (ii), supra, and

15

shall cause the ICE Office of the Chief Counsel to be notified of any

16

change in that determination.

17

3. ICE will utilize a toll-free telephone hotline and contact information

18

for detainees, family members, and others to report and provide

19

relevant information regarding detainees who have serious mental

20

disorders or conditions that may impact their ability to represent

21

themselves in immigration proceedings. A notice advertising the

22

telephone hotline and contact information will be posted at all

23

detention facilities, both where detainees reside and in visitation areas,

24

and on ICE’s public website. Such notice shall explicitly state that the

25

hotline is available to report detainees who have serious mental

26

disorders or conditions, and shall be available in the languages most

27

likely to be understood by detainees and family members, including

28

English and Spanish. Hotline operators shall cause any relevant

9

Case 2:10-cv-02211-DMG-DTB Document 786 Filed 10/29/14 Page 12 of 40 Page ID #:19798

1

information regarding detainees with serious mental disorders or

2

conditions to be reported to the ICE Office of the Chief Counsel

3

within seven (7) days of the receipt of such information. If a detainee

4

identified through the hotline was not previously referred for a mental

5

health assessment, but information received through the hotline

6

indicates that the detainee suffers from a serious mental disorder or

7

condition, then ICE shall ensure that the detainee is referred for a

8

mental health assessment.

9

4. In the event Plaintiffs’ counsel alleges that detention facility personnel

10

have failed to comply with the terms of Section I.B, Plaintiffs’

11

counsel shall provide Defendants with a written statement describing

12

the alleged non-compliance (“Notice of Non-Compliance”). Within

13

seven (7) calendar days, counsel for the Parties shall meet and confer

14

in a good faith effort to resolve their dispute informally. In the event

15

that the Parties are unable to resolve the dispute informally within 21

16

calendar days of the Notice of Non-Compliance, Plaintiffs may file a

17

motion for enforcement in the United States District Court for the

18

Central District of California. Nothing in this provision is intended to

19

limit Plaintiffs’ ability to seek enforcement of any other provisions of

20

this injunction by any appropriate means. The provisions of this

21

Section are not intended to resolve the question of whether third

22

parties who are not Defendants in this case can be subject to

23

contempt. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(d)(2).

24 II. INFORMATION SHARING SYSTEM BETWEEN ICE AND EOIR

25

To further ensure that Immigration Judges have all of the information

26 available to Defendants so that they can, among other things, evaluate competency

27 and identify members of Sub-Class One, Defendants must implement a

28 functioning system for sharing information gathered through that screening and

10

Case 2:10-cv-02211-DMG-DTB Document 786 Filed 10/29/14 Page 13 of 40 Page ID #:19799

1 identification process with the Executive Office for Immigration Review

2 (“EOIR”), which includes Immigration Judges and the Board of Immigration

3 Appeals (“BIA” or “Board”). Therefore, the Court orders that within 90 days of

4 this Order, Defendants shall implement the following system:

5

A. Upon notification that a detainee meets the criteria of Section I.A.3.b,

6

and is therefore a member of the Class, the ICE Office of the Chief

7

Counsel shall gather the following documents and information, if in the

8

possession of ICE or the detention facility personnel: any documents or

9

information that ICE identifies as relevant to competency provided to an

10

immigration detention facility or to ICE by the unrepresented

11

immigration detainee, his or her family, medical providers, caseworkers,

12

friends, legal service providers, and detention facility staff; any

13

information or documents gathered by ICE or the detention facility

14

personnel pursuant to Section I.B, supra; any competency determinations

15

made in prior judicial proceedings; any forensic competency evaluations;

16

any mental health assessment completed pursuant to Section I.A.3, supra;

17

any other evidence of an evaluation or a determination regarding whether

18

the detainee is or was mentally incompetent; and any other documents

19

that ICE identifies as relevant to the Immigration Judge’s determination

20

pursuant to Section III. ICE and detention facility personnel shall also

21

notify the ICE Office of the Chief Counsel (or cause the ICE Office of

22

the Chief Counsel to be notified) when they are aware that, in the last

23

five years, a detainee has been housed in a medical unit or cell due to a

24

mental disorder, has been placed in segregation due to a mental disorder,

25

has displayed an intent to commit suicide or self-harm due to a mental

26

disorder, or has been hospitalized due to a mental disorder. Finally, if

27

ICE is aware of third party records that it identifies as relevant to the

28

Immigration Judge’s determination pursuant to Section III, ICE will

11

Case 2:10-cv-02211-DMG-DTB Document 786 Filed 10/29/14 Page 14 of 40 Page ID #:19800

1

inform the ICE Office of the Chief Counsel of the existence of those

2

records.

3

B. Within 21 days of the notification described in Section II.A, supra, the

4

ICE Office of the Chief Counsel shall file a notice with EOIR to notify

5

the Immigration Judge presiding over the detainee’s case, or the Board of

6

Immigration Appeals, if applicable, that the detainee—if unrepresented—

7

is a member of the Class. The notice shall contain all information

8

gathered by the ICE Office of the Chief Counsel pursuant to Section II.A,

9

supra, and shall attach to that notice all documents gathered by the ICE

10

Office of the Chief Counsel pursuant to Section II.A, supra, for

11

consideration by the Immigration Judge at the Judicial Competency

12

Inquiry and Competency Review. If the ICE Office of Chief Counsel

13

receives additional documents or information described in Section II.A

14

after the notice is filed, it will provide such documents or information to

15

the Immigration Judge as soon as practicable.

16

C. The ICE Office of the Chief Counsel will also submit to the Immigration

17

Judge any other medical records in ICE’s possession, custody, or control,

18

should the Immigration Judge request such information.10

19 III. EVALUATION SYSTEM

20

Within 90 days of the entry of this Order, Defendants are ordered to

21 implement the following system:

22

When documentary, medical, or other evidence that comes to ICE’s or

23 EOIR’s attention indicates that the detainee is a member of the Class (i.e., meets

24 one of the criteria set forth in Section I.A.3.b, supra), the Immigration Judge shall

25

10 If an unrepresented detainee with an appeal pending before the Board was

26 not previously determined to be a Class member, and information comes to the

attention of ICE that the individual falls under Section I.A.3.b, supra, ICE will

27 notify the Board and request a limited remand, in accordance with Section III.D.5,

infra.

28

12

Case 2:10-cv-02211-DMG-DTB Document 786 Filed 10/29/14 Page 15 of 40 Page ID #:19801

1 conduct a Judicial Competency Inquiry and, when appropriate, a Competency

2 Review, for the purpose of determining whether the Class member is competent to

3 represent him- or herself in immigration proceedings. Such hearings shall conform

4 to the standard and procedures set forth below.

5

A. Pro Se Competency Standard

6

When determining whether an unrepresented respondent is competent to

7 represent him- or herself in an immigration proceeding, the Immigration Judge

8 must consider both the individual’s ability to meaningfully participate in the

9 proceeding as set forth in Matter of M-A-M-, 25 I. & N. Dec. 474 (BIA 2011), and

10 the individual’s ability to perform additional functions necessary for self-

11 representation.

12

Immigration Judges shall consider the following when determining if a

13 respondent is competent to represent him- or herself:

14

First, the respondent must be able to meaningfully participate in the

15 proceeding as set forth in Matter of M-A-M- . To meaningfully participate, the

16 respondent must have a rational and factual understanding of:

17

a. the nature and object of the proceeding;

18

b. the privilege of representation by counsel;

19

c. the right to present, examine, and object to evidence;

20

d. the right to cross-examine witnesses; and

21

e. the right to appeal.

22

Second, for an unrepresented respondent to be competent to represent him or

23 herself in an immigration proceeding, he or she must also be able to perform

24 additional functions necessary for self-representation. To represent him- or

25 herself, the respondent must have sufficient present ability to:

26

a. exercise the rights listed above;

27

b. make informed decisions about whether to waive the rights listed

28

above;

13

Case 2:10-cv-02211-DMG-DTB Document 786 Filed 10/29/14 Page 16 of 40 Page ID #:19802

1

c. respond to the allegations and charges in the proceeding;

2

d. present information and evidence relevant to eligibility for relief; and

3

e. act upon instructions and information presented by the Immigration

4

Judge and government counsel.

5

A respondent is incompetent to represent him- or herself in an immigration

6 proceeding if he or she, because of a mental disorder (including Intellectual

7 Disability), is unable to satisfy any of the provisions above. For purposes of this

8 standard, “mental disorder” (including Intellectual Disability) is defined as a

9 significant impairment of the cognitive, emotional, or behavioral functioning of a

10 person.

11

Guidance on applying the pro se competency standard.11 The following

12 guidance is provided to assist Immigration Judges in applying the pro se

13 competency standard.

14

First, in applying the above definition, the presence of a legal guardian, near

15 relative, friend, or custodian, under 8 C.F.R. § 1240.4, shall not affect an

16 Immigration Judge’s assessment of whether a respondent is able to perform the

17 additional functions necessary for self-representation.

18

Second, in assessing whether the respondent can respond to allegations and

19 charges in the proceedings, the Immigration Judge should consider, among other

20 things, the person’s ability to evaluate and coherently discuss legal arguments and

21 defenses.

22

Third, in assessing whether the respondent can present information and

23 evidence relevant to eligibility for relief, the Immigration Judge should consider,

24

25

11 Wherever the pro se competency standard appears in written materials that

26 will be used as a reference or to train either Immigration Judges or mental health

experts who will implement the terms of the Injunction, the standard will be

27 accompanied by the text of the “guidance” on applying the definition of pro se

competency.

28

14

Case 2:10-cv-02211-DMG-DTB Document 786 Filed 10/29/14 Page 17 of 40 Page ID #:19803

1 among other things, the person’s ability to present rational and coherent testimony

2 based upon adequate recall.

3

B. Judicial Competency Inquiries and Competency Reviews

4

Judicial Competency Inquiries and Competency Reviews shall proceed as

5 follows.

6

1. There is no presumption of competence or incompetence for Class

7

members.

8

2. There is no burden of production or persuasion at either the Judicial

9

Competency Inquiry or the Competency Review. Such inquiries and

10

reviews shall serve as information-gathering hearings, which will

11

inform Immigration Judges’ determinations concerning a Class

12

member’s competence to represent him- or herself in the

13

proceedings. Consistent with Matter of M-A-M-, 8 U.S.C. § 1229a

14

and its implementing regulations, and the procedures set forth in

15

Section II, supra, the parties agree that the ICE Office of the Chief

16

Counsel’s interest in presenting evidence and argument is “in the law

17

being observed” and not in a particular result concerning a Class

18

member’s competence or incompetence. Reid v. INS, 949 F.2d 287,

19

288 (9th Cir. 1991). To the extent the evidence establishes a Class

20

member’s incompetence, the ICE Office of the Chief Counsel’s

21

presentation of evidence and argument should assist the Immigration

22

Judge in according the appropriate procedural rights or benefits

23

pursuant to the Court’s Permanent Injunction [Doc. # 593] or

24

Implementation Plan Order. See Matter of S-M-J-, 21 I. & N. Dec.

25

722, 727 (BIA 1997).

26

3. The Immigration Judge shall convene a Judicial Competency Inquiry

27

no later than 21 days after receiving the notice pursuant to Section

28

II.B that a detainee is a member of the Main Class.

15

Case 2:10-cv-02211-DMG-DTB Document 786 Filed 10/29/14 Page 18 of 40 Page ID #:19804

1

4. At the beginning of the Judicial Competency Inquiry, the Immigration

2

Judge shall advise and question the Class member based on the

3

Competency Proceeding Advisal, attached as Appendix B. The

4

Immigration Judge is neither required to ask each and every question

5

listed in the Advisal nor prohibited from asking questions not

6

otherwise listed therein.

7

5. Following the Judicial Competency Inquiry, the Immigration Judge

8

may make any of the following findings, based on all available

9

evidence and any testimony presented:

10

a. Class member is competent. There is no reasonable cause12 to

11

believe that the Class member is suffering from a mental disorder

12

that impairs his or her ability to perform the functions listed in the

13

definition of competence to represent him- or herself.

14

b. Class member is incompetent. A preponderance of the evidence

15

establishes that the Class member is not competent to represent

16

him- or herself in the proceedings.

17

c. Insufficient evidence to determine if Class member is competent.

18

The evidence is not sufficient to support a finding of incompetence

19

but the Immigration Judge has reasonable cause to believe that the

20

Class member is suffering from a mental disorder that may impair

21

his or her ability to represent him- or herself.

22

6. When, at the conclusion of the Judicial Competency Inquiry, an

23

Immigration Judge determines that a Class member is not competent

24

to represent him- or herself in the proceedings pursuant to Section

25

26

27

12 The “no reasonable cause to believe” standard is equivalent to a “bona

fide doubt” standard and is less onerous than a probable cause standard.

28

16

Case 2:10-cv-02211-DMG-DTB Document 786 Filed 10/29/14 Page 19 of 40 Page ID #:19805

1

III.B.5.b, supra, EOIR shall have 60 days from the date of the

2

determination to arrange for provision of a Qualified Representative.

3

7. When, at the conclusion of the Judicial Competency Inquiry, an

4

Immigration Judge determines that he or she has insufficient evidence

5

to determine if the Class member is competent pursuant to III.B.5.c,

6

supra, the Immigration Judge shall follow the procedures set forth

7

below:

8

a. Upon the conclusion of the Judicial Competency Inquiry, the

9

Immigration Judge shall promptly order that a Forensic

10

Competency Evaluation of the Class member be conducted and

11

that the results of the evaluation be provided to the Immigration

12

Judge, the ICE Office of the Chief Counsel, and the Class member.

13

b. A Forensic Competency Evaluation ordered by the Immigration

14

Judge shall be completed and a written report provided to the

15

Judge and the parties within 45 days after the date of the order set

16

forth in III.B.7.a, supra.

17

c. Within 30 days after receiving the report from the Forensic

18

Competency Evaluation, the Immigration Judge shall convene a

19

Competency Review, including further testimony if necessary, and

20

shall make a determination by a preponderance of the evidence as

21

to whether the Class member is mentally competent or

22

incompetent to represent him- or herself.

23

d. When, at the conclusion of the Competency Review, an

24

Immigration Judge determines that a Class member is mentally

25

incompetent to represent him- or herself pursuant to Section

26

III.B.5.b, supra, EOIR shall have 21 days from the date of the

27

determination to arrange for provision of a Qualified

28

Representative.

17

Case 2:10-cv-02211-DMG-DTB Document 786 Filed 10/29/14 Page 20 of 40 Page ID #:19806

1

8. The Immigration Judge may allow one extension of no more than 30

2

days for each of the timeframes set forth above for Judicial

3

Competency Inquiries (Section III.B.3), Forensic Competency

4

Evaluations (Section III.B.7.b), and Competency Reviews (Section

5

III.B.7.c). The Immigration Judge may, thereafter, allow for

6

additional extensions of these time frames in exceptional

7

circumstances or where the Immigration Judge otherwise determines

8

that such extensions are necessary to ensure the fundamental fairness

9

of the Class member’s proceeding.

10

C. Forensic Competency Evaluations

11

As set forth below, defendants shall provide Forensic Competency

12 Evaluations upon the request of Immigration Judges:

13

1. Forensic Competency Evaluations shall be conducted by a “mental

14

health professional,” defined as forensically trained and currently

15

licensed psychiatrists, psychologists, and licensed clinical social

16

workers.

17

2. Except in very rare exigent circumstances, the Forensic Competency

18

Evaluations conducted at the request of an Immigration Judge will be

19

conducted in person, and not by teleconference, videoconference, or

20

other remote access means. The parties agree that the following are

21

not exigent circumstances that justify deviation from the in-person

22

requirement: a) the unavailability of a trained mental health

23

professional who meets the requisite qualifications and who is willing

24

to travel to the individual’s location at the compensation rate

25

requested by Defendants; b) the inconvenience or expense to

26

Defendants associated with obtaining a trained mental health

27

professional at additional cost. The exigent circumstances envisioned

28

by the Parties are circumstances in which the unique characteristics or

18

Case 2:10-cv-02211-DMG-DTB Document 786 Filed 10/29/14 Page 21 of 40 Page ID #:19807

1

social circumstances of the individual to be evaluated are such that the

2

quality of the Forensic Competency Evaluation will be enhanced by

3

the use of remote access technology, even though a qualified clinician

4

is available for an in-person evaluation.

5

3. Forensic Competency Evaluations must be conducted substantially in

6

accordance with the procedures described in the American Academy

7

of Psychiatry and the Law Practice Guideline for the Forensic

8

Evaluation of Competence to Stand Trial.

9

D. Additional Procedures

10

1. Judicial Competency Inquiries and Competency Reviews shall be

11

recorded. The Immigration Judge shall state on the record the

12

reasoning supporting a finding of competence or incompetence.

13

2. At or before Judicial Competency Inquiries and Competency

14

Reviews, the ICE Office of the Chief Counsel, the Class member, and

15

third parties (including family members, social service providers, and

16

others) may submit to the Immigration Judge, and the Immigration

17

Judge shall consider, additional mental health information or other

18

information relevant to a detainee’s mental competency or

19

incompetency to represent him- or herself in immigration

20

proceedings.

21

3. “Mental Health Information” includes any information expressly

22

contained in or directly obtained from an Immigration Court’s

23

administrative inquiry into mental competence, a portion of a hearing

24

in which mental competence is addressed, a mental health

25

examination of a detainee (including a request for such examination),

26

and a report of such examination. Except as otherwise noted below,

27

Mental Health Information shall only be used to determine a

28

detainee’s mental competency to participate or represent oneself in an

19

Case 2:10-cv-02211-DMG-DTB Document 786 Filed 10/29/14 Page 22 of 40 Page ID #:19808

1

immigration proceeding, and may not be used to establish the truth of

2

allegations or charges against the detainee, or to establish ineligibility

3

for relief.

4

The paragraph above shall not apply to DHS’s use of Mental

5

Health Information if such information is independently submitted by,

6

obtained by, or in the possession of DHS. If a respondent uses Mental

7

Health Information in any proceeding for any purpose other than to

8

inform his or her mental competency to participate in an immigration

9

proceeding, the paragraph above shall not apply, and disclosure and

10

use of the Mental Health Information shall be governed by rules of

11

evidence and procedures applicable in immigration proceedings. If

12

the detainee uses a part of a document or report, DHS may request the

13

production of any other portion of that document or report. Such

14

requests shall be granted at the Immigration Judge’s discretion upon

15

consideration of all relevant factors.

16

4. Either party may appeal the Immigration Judge’s determination that a

17

detainee is mentally competent to represent him- or herself in

18

immigration proceedings to the Board. In the event the ICE Office of

19

the Chief Counsel appeals an Immigration Judge’s determination that

20

a detainee is mentally incompetent to represent him- or herself in

21

immigration proceedings to the Board, EOIR shall provide the

22

detainee with a Qualified Representative to represent the detainee in

23

the appeal before the Board and any other proceedings, including

24

bond hearings, to which the detainee may be entitled under the

25

Permanent Injunction unless and until the detainee is otherwise

26

determined to be competent by an Immigration Judge.

27

5. In the case of an unrepresented immigration detainee with an appeal

28

pending before the Board who has not previously been determined to

20

Case 2:10-cv-02211-DMG-DTB Document 786 Filed 10/29/14 Page 23 of 40 Page ID #:19809

1

be a Class member, when documentary, medical, or other evidence

2

indicating that such individual falls under Section I.A.3.b comes to the

3

Board’s attention, the Board shall order a remand to the Immigration

4

Judge with instructions to apply the procedures set forth in Section

5

III.B of this Order.

6

6. Where an Immigration Judge finds from the record and proceedings

7

before him/her, or from evidence made available to all parties, that

8

there is sufficient reason to believe that the Sub-Class One member is

9

no longer suffering from a mental disorder that renders him

10

incompetent to represent him-or herself, before issuing any finding

11

that the Sub-Class One member has in fact been restored to

12

competency, the Immigration Judge shall employ and follow the

13

procedures set forth in Section III.B.4 for conducting a Judicial

14

Competency Inquiry, including reliance on and application of the

15

Competency Proceeding Advisal attached as Appendix B. No finding

16

of restored competency may be issued unless and until the

17

Immigration Judge has invited the input of the Qualified

18

Representative. The Immigration Judge shall state on the record the

19

reasoning supporting a finding that the Sub-Class One member is now

20

competent to represent him- or herself. Prior to stating such a finding,

21

the Immigration Judge, in his or her discretion, may order that a

22

Forensic Competency Evaluation of the Sub-Class One member be

23

conducted and that the results of the evaluation be provided to the

24

Immigration Judge and the parties, within the time frames set forth in

25

Section III.B7(b) and (c).

26

7. Absent exceptional circumstances, a Sub-Class One member shall not

27

be found to have knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily waived his

28

right to a Qualified Representative.

21

Case 2:10-cv-02211-DMG-DTB Document 786 Filed 10/29/14 Page 24 of 40 Page ID #:19810

1 IV. OTHER MATTERS

2

A. EOIR’s nationwide policy

3

Nothing in EOIR’s nationwide policy is intended to negate or alter the

4 obligations of EOIR under the orders of the Court in Franco-Gonzalez v. Holder.

5

B. Released Main Class Members

6

The procedural protections set forth in the Permanent Injunction and in this

7 Order are limited to individuals who are physically detained in ICE custody, except

8 as provided in Sections IV.B and IV.C, infra:

9

If a Main Class member is released from detention after an Immigration

10 Judge has ordered a Forensic Competency Evaluation but before the Immigration

11 Judge has made a competency determination, the Main Class member continues to

12 be entitled to the procedural protections set forth in the Permanent Injunction and

13 in this Order, including the completion of the Forensic Competency Evaluation,

14 Section III.B.7.a-b, a Competency Review, Section III.B.7.c, and, if the

15 Immigration Judge determines that the individual is not competent to represent

16 him-or herself, the provision of a Qualified Representative, Section III.B.7.d. The

17 timelines, however, for scheduling a Forensic Competency Evaluation, a 18 Competency Review, and, if applicable, for provision of a Qualified 19 Representative at the conclusion of a Competency Review shall not apply

20 following such Main Class member’s release from detention; provided that, the 21 Competency Review shall be scheduled no more than 45 days after the 22 Immigration Court receives the report from the Forensic Competency Evaluation

23 (absent exceptional circumstances or where the Immigration Judge otherwise 24 determines that more time is necessary to ensure the fundamental fairness of the 25 Class member’s proceeding). If such released Main Class member fails to appear

26 at the Forensic Competency Evaluation ordered by the Immigration Judge for an 27 unexcused reason or no reason, he or she may thereby forfeit the right to such an

28

22

Case 2:10-cv-02211-DMG-DTB Document 786 Filed 10/29/14 Page 25 of 40 Page ID #:19811

1 evaluation, and the Immigration Judge may make the competency determination 2 without the aid of that evaluation.

3

If a Main Class member (who is not also a Sub-Class One member) is

4 released from detention after Defendants have carried out the requirements in

5 Section II.B, but before an Immigration Judge has ordered a Forensic Competency

6 Evaluation in the case pursuant to Section III.B.7 or made a competency 7 determination pursuant to Section III.B.5, he or she is not entitled to the procedural 8 protections set forth in the Permanent Injunction and in this Order. However, if 9 such released Main Class member fails to appear at a scheduled hearing for an 10 unexcused reason or no reason, he or she shall not be ordered removed in absentia,

11 unless or until (1) he or she is represented in his or her immigration proceedings or 12 (2) he or she has been determined mentally competent by the Immigration Judge 13 prior to the failure to appear. If such released Main Class member fails to appear

14 at a scheduled hearing for an unexcused reason or no reason, he or she may be re15 detained by ICE and, for purposes of any subsequent bond hearings, the failure to 16 appear shall constitute clear and convincing evidence that the Main Class member

17 is a flight risk.

18

C. Released Sub-Class One Members

19

Released Sub-Class One members are entitled to representation by Qualified

20 Representatives pursuant to this Court’s Injunction until the conclusion of their

21 immigration proceedings, irrespective of whether their case is transferred to a

22 venue outside of the three states in which this Order applies.

23

D. Class Definition

24

Pursuant to the Parties’ agreement, the Court hereby substitutes the term

25 “immigration proceedings” for “removal proceedings” and “detention and removal

26 proceedings” in the Class definition. Therefore, the Class and Sub-Class

27 definitions are as follows:

28

23

Case 2:10-cv-02211-DMG-DTB Document 786 Filed 10/29/14 Page 26 of 40 Page ID #:19812

1

Plaintiff (or “Main”) Class:

2

All individuals who are or will be in DHS custody for immigration

3

proceedings in California, Arizona, and Washington who have been

4

identified by or to medical personnel, DHS, or an Immigration Judge, as

5

having a serious mental disorder or defect that may render them incompetent

6

to represent themselves in immigration proceedings, and who presently lack

7

counsel in their immigration proceedings.

8

Sub-Class 1:

9

Individuals in the above-named Plaintiff Class who have a serious

10

mental disorder or defect that renders them incompetent to represent

11

themselves in immigration proceedings.

12

Sub-Class 2:

13

Individuals in the above-named Plaintiff Class who have been

14

detained for more than six months.

15

For purposes of the Class and Sub-Class definitions above, the class

16 certification order [Doc. # 348], permanent injunction order [Doc. # 593], and this

17 implementation plan order, “immigration proceedings” shall mean, and be limited

18 to, proceedings at which Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) appears

19 on behalf of the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) before an Immigration

20 Judge or the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA” or “Board”):

21

(1) that occur prior to the entry of a final administrative order of removal,

22

final administrative order of deportation, final administrative order of

23

exclusion, or a final administrative determination pursuant to 8 C.F.R.

24

§ 1208.2(c)(3);13 and

25

13 Pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 1208.2(c)(3), in proceedings falling under the

26

jurisdiction of an immigration judge for asylum and withholding of removal only applications under 8 C.F.R. § 1208.2(c)(1)‐(2), Defendants shall apply the

27

provisions of Sections I (Screening and Information Gathering), II (Information Sharing), and III (Evaluation System), supra, as well as the Permanent Injunction

28 and clarifying minute order [Doc. ## 593, 626].

24

Case 2:10-cv-02211-DMG-DTB Document 786 Filed 10/29/14 Page 27 of 40 Page ID #:19813

1

(2) bond hearings that occur after the entry of a final administrative order

2

of removal, final administrative order of deportation, final

3

administrative order of exclusion, or a final administrative

4

determination pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 1208.2(c)(3) (collectively, “post-

5

order bond hearings”), except in such cases where the final order is

6

thereafter reopened; provided that, Defendants shall not be bound to

7

apply the provisions of Section I (Screening and Information

8

Gathering) and II (Information Sharing), supra. Instead, in all such

9

post‐order bond hearings, the ICE Office of the Chief Counsel shall

10

notify the Immigration Judge whenever the information contained in

11

the file in its possession shows that a detainee was previously

12

identified as a Class or Sub‐Class member. If the information in the

13

file shows that a detainee was previously identified as a Class

14

member, or if the Immigration Judge determines that the detainee is a

15

Class member pursuant to Section I.A.b.3(iii), supra, then the

16

Immigration Judge shall determine the detainee’s competence in

17

compliance with Section III (Evaluation System), supra.

18

Notwithstanding the above, if a detainee was previously determined to

19

be a member of Sub‐Class One, he or she must be afforded a

20

Qualified Representative in his or her post‐order bond hearings, unless

21

a determination has been made that he is competent pursuant to the

22

procedures described in Section III.D.6, supra.

23

E. Implementation of Partial Settlement Agreement, Subject to the Court’s

24

Approval

25

1. Definition of “Removal Order Class Member.”

26

Subject to the Court’s approval of the Parties’ Partial Settlement Agreement

27 Regarding Procedures of Notifying and Reopening Cases of Franco Class

28 Members who Have Received Final Orders of Removal (the “Agreement”)—

25

Case 2:10-cv-02211-DMG-DTB Document 786 Filed 10/29/14 Page 28 of 40 Page ID #:19814

1 For purposes of this Order and Sections IV.E.2, infra, the term “Removal Order

2 Class Member(s)” shall have the same meaning and applicability, and be limited

3 to, the definition as set forth in Parties’ Agreement. See Agreement at Section I.

4

2. Equitable Tolling of Time and Numerical Limitations for Motions to

5

Reopen under the Agreement.

6

Subject to the Court’s approval of the Parties’ Agreement, the Court hereby

7 orders that the time and numerical limitations set forth in the Immigration and

8 Nationality Act and its implementing regulations shall be equitably tolled for

9 motions to reopen filed by “Removal Order Class Members” and accepted for

10 adjudication on the merits, as provided under the terms of the Parties’ Agreement.

11

F. Tools

12

Within 90 days of the entry of this Order, Defendants shall prepare tools to

13 be provided to all Main Class members before the Judicial Competency Inquiry

14 that will have basic information to help individuals prepare for the hearing. Prior

15 to finalizing these tools, Defendants shall provide Plaintiffs with a reasonable

16 opportunity to review Defendants’ proposed tools and to provide input.

17

G. Retention of Jurisdiction

18

This Court retains jurisdiction to entertain such further proceedings and to

19 enter such further orders as may be necessary or appropriate to enforce the 20 provisions of this Order, or to amend this Order for good cause shown.14 In

21 addition to the dispute resolution procedures contained in this or further Orders, the

22 //

23 //

24

// //

25 //

26

14 Nothing in this order should be read to suggest that the Court has subject

27 matter jurisdiction to entertain individual challenges to removal orders entered in

immigration proceedings brought by or on behalf of Class members.

28

26

Case 2:10-cv-02211-DMG-DTB Document 786 Filed 10/29/14 Page 29 of 40 Page ID #:19815

1 Parties shall comply with the requirements of Local Rule 7-3 prior to bringing any

2 motion seeking to implement, enforce, or amend this Order.

3

4 IT IS SO ORDERED.

5 6 DATED: October 29, 2014
7 UNITED

______________________________ DOLLY M. GEE STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

27

Case 2:10-cv-02211-DMG-DTB Document 786 Filed 10/29/14 Page 30 of 40 Page ID #:19816

1

TABLE OF TIMELINES15

2

3

Implementation

4

DATE ACTION

5

Within 90 days of the entry of this Order.

6

7

8 Within 90 days of the entry of this 9 Order.

10

11

Defendants must implement the Screening System (see Section I), Information Sharing System Between ICE and EOIR (see Section II), and the Evaluation System (see Section III). Defendants shall prepare tools to be
provided to all Main Class members
before the Judicial Competency
Inquiry. See Section IV.F.

12

Screening Procedures

13

DATE ACTION

14 Upon a detainee’s admission into ICE

15

custody at an immigration detention facility for immigration proceedings in

16 California, Arizona, or Washington.

17

18

19 Within 14 days of a detainee’s

20 admission into ICE custody at an

21

immigration detention facility for immigration proceedings in California,

22 Arizona, or Washington.

23

24

25

Absent emergency circumstances related to facility security or the health and safety of staff or detainees, all detainees shall be initially screened for evidence of a “serious mental disorder or condition,” in accordance with the applicable ICE national detention standards. See Section I.A.2. Absent emergency circumstances related to facility security or the health and safety of staff or detainees, detainees shall be further screened (or assessed) by a currently and appropriately licensed psychiatrist, physician, physician assistant, psychologist, clinical social worker, licensed nurse practitioner, or

26

15 The Table of Timelines is provided for convenience only and is not a part

27 of this Order. Accordingly, it does not supplement, modify, or in any way alter the

contents of this Order.

28

28

Case 2:10-cv-02211-DMG-DTB Document 786 Filed 10/29/14 Page 31 of 40 Page ID #:19817

1 As soon as practicable, ordinarily

registered nurse. See Section I.A.2. Individuals identified as exhibiting

2 within 14 days after a detainee is

evidence of a serious mental disorder

3

identified through the screening process as exhibiting evidence of a

4 serious mental disorder or condition.16

5 Within seven (7) days of the

or condition shall be referred for a mental health assessment performed by a qualified mental health provider. See Section I.A.3.17 The qualified mental health provider

6 completion of a mental health

shall cause the ICE Office of the Chief

7 assessment.

Counsel to be notified if such mental health assessment or other available

8

information shows that an immigration

9

detainee meets specified Main Class

Membership Criteria. See Section

10

I.A.5.18

11 Within seven (7) days of a toll-free telephone hotline operator’s receipt of
12 relevant information regarding

The Hotline operator shall cause such information to be reported to the ICE Office of the Chief Counsel. See

13 detainees with serious mental disorders Section I.B.3.

or conditions.

14 Within seven (7) calendar days of

Counsel for the Parties shall meet and

15 Plaintiffs’ counsel providing Defendants with a written statement
16 describing alleged non-compliance

confer in a good faith effort to resolve their dispute informally. See Section I.B.4.

17

16 As set forth in the Order, whenever ICE or detention facility personnel

18 become aware that an immigration detainee identified through the screening system was previously found incompetent in any court proceedings (including past

19 criminal proceedings) or was hospitalized due to a mental disorder or condition, ICE or detention facility personnel must provide that information, and any related

20 documents in their possession, to the qualified mental health provider performing the mental health assessment. See Section I.B.1.

21

17 As set forth in the Order, if a detainee was not referred for a mental health

22 assessment upon initial screening, but information and/or records received through third parties indicate that an individual suffers from a serious mental disorder or

23 condition, such individual shall be referred for a mental health assessment for further evaluation. See Section I.B.2.

24

18 As set forth in the Order, if the mental health assessment has already been

25 completed at the time that ICE or detention facility personnel provide the information or documents referenced in footnote 16 or 17, supra, the qualified

26 mental health provider must determine whether the new information affects the determination whether a detainee meets the Class membership criteria, and shall

27 cause the ICE Office of the Chief Counsel to be notified of any change in that

determination. See Section I.B.1, I.B.2.

28

29

Case 2:10-cv-02211-DMG-DTB Document 786 Filed 10/29/14 Page 32 of 40 Page ID #:19818

1

with the Information Gathering Procedures (i.e., “Notice of Non-

2 Compliance”).

3

In the event the Parties are unable to resolve the dispute regarding the

4 alleged non-compliance with the

5

Information Gathering Procedures informally within 21 calendar days of

6 the Notice of Non-Compliance.

Plaintiffs may file a motion for enforcement in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. See Section I.B.4.

7

Information Sharing

8

9

DATE ACTION Upon notification that a detainee meets

The ICE Office of the Chief Counsel

10 the Main Class Membership Criteria, shall gather relevant documents and

11

and is therefore a member of the Class.

information, if in the possession of ICE or the detention facility personnel. See

12

Section II.A.

13 Within 21 days of notification that a detainee meets the Main Class

The ICE Office of Chief Counsel shall file a notice with EOIR to notify the

14 Membership Criteria.

Immigration Judge presiding over the

15

detainee’s case, or the Board of

Immigration Appeals, if applicable,

16

that the detainee – if unrepresented – is

17

a member of the Class. See Section

II.B.

18

19

Evaluation System19

20

DATE ACTION

21 No later than 21 days after receiving the notice that a detainee is a member
22 of the Main Class.

23

The Immigration Judge shall convene a Judicial Competency Inquiry, following which the Immigration Judge may, based on all available evidence

24

19 As set forth in the Order, the Immigration Judge may allow one extension

25 of no more than 30 days for each of the timeframes for Judicial Competency Inquiries, Forensic Competency Evaluations, and Competency Reviews. The

26 Immigration Judge may, thereafter, allow for additional extensions of these time frames in exceptional circumstances or where the Immigration Judge otherwise

27 determines that such extensions are necessary to ensure the fundamental fairness of the Class member’s proceeding. See Section III.B.8.

28

30

Case 2:10-cv-02211-DMG-DTB Document 786 Filed 10/29/14 Page 33 of 40 Page ID #:19819

1

and testimony presented, find the Class member competent or not competent,

2

or determine that there is not sufficient

3

evidence to determine if the Class member is competent. See Section

4

III.B.3, III.B.5.

5

60 days from the date an Immigration Judge determines that a Class member

EOIR shall arrange for the provision of a Qualified Representative. See

6 is not competent to represent him- or Section III.B.6.

7

herself in the proceedings (if the determination is made at the conclusion

8 of the Judicial Competency Inquiry).

9 Upon the conclusion of the Judicial Competency Inquiry.
10

The Immigration Judge shall promptly order that a Forensic Competency Evaluation of the Class member be

11

conducted and that the results of the

evaluation be provided to the

12

Immigration Judge, the ICE Office of

13 14 Within 45 days after the date an

the Chief Counsel, and the Class member. See Section III.B.7.a. The Forensic Competency Evaluation

15 Immigration Judge orders a Forensic Competency Evaluation.
16

shall be completed and a written report provided to the Immigration Judge and the parties. See Section III.B.7.b.

17 Within 30 days after receiving the report from the Forensic Competency
18 Evaluation.

The Immigration Judge shall convene a Competency Review, and shall make a determination by a preponderance of

19

the evidence as to whether the Class

member is mentally competent or

20

incompetent to represent him- or

21

herself. See Section III.B.7.c.

22 21 days from the date of an

EOIR shall arrange for the provision of

23 Immigration Judge determines that a a Qualified Representative. See

Class member is not competent to 24 represent him- or herself (if the

Section III.B.7.d.

25 determination is made at the conclusion

of the Competency Review). 26

27

28

31

Case 2:10-cv-02211-DMG-DTB Document 786 Filed 10/29/14 Page 34 of 40 Page ID #:19820

1

Other Matters – Released Main Class Members

2

3

DATE ACTION No more than 45 days after the

Absent exceptional circumstances or

4 Immigration Court receives the report where an Immigration Judge otherwise

5

from the Forensic Competency Evaluation (if the Main Class member

determines that more time is necessary to ensure the fundamental fairness of

6 was released from detention after the the Class member’s proceeding, a

7 Immigration Judge ordered a Forensic Competency Review shall be Competency Evaluation but before the scheduled. See Section IV.B.

8 Immigration Judge made a competency 9 determination).20

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

20 As set forth in the Order, the timelines for scheduling a Forensic

Competency Evaluation, a Competency Review, and, if applicable, for provision of

27 a Qualified Representative at the conclusion of a Competency Review shall not

apply following a Main Class member’s release from detention. See Section IV.B.

28

32

Case 2:10-cv-02211-DMG-DTB Document 786 Filed 10/29/14 Page 35 of 40 Page ID #:19821
Appendix A

Case 2:10-cv-02211-DMG-DTB Document 786 Filed 10/29/14 Page 36 of 40 Page ID #:19822

ERO Custody Management Division
Authorized Facilities in the States of Arizona, California and Washington
/FTF+ 1FHMNMTU <JRKQROFPHJ 8FPFLJOJPT >USTJO !1<8>" IFTFGFSJ# '&%'&%(&')$

$%0),#

&"#()(01 +"*%

#(01

..,/.,E ..,17,E 0,E 17; >7=/.,E ,/79?., .;9B0., 4=,/1., 8@>46., =4;..., ..,>/., >,.4?., ?7,.D., D@-,5., .>.9BB,

.., .09?=,7 ,=4E;9, /0?09?4;9 .09?0=

17;=09.0

..,# 17;=09.0 .;==0.?4;9,7 .09?0=

17;=09.0

07;D 10/0=,7 .;9?=,.? 1,.474?D

07;D

17;=09.0 >0=A4.0 <=;.0>>492 .09?0=

17;=09.0

>,9 7@4> =024;9,7 /0?09?4;9 .09?0=

>,9 7@4>

,/07,9?; .;==0.?4;9,7 1,.474?D

,/07,9?;

.;9?=, .;>?, .;@9?D 5,47 B0>?

=4.38;9/

48<0=4,7 =024;9,7 ,/@7? /0?09?4;9 1,.474?D

.,70C4.;

5,80> 8@>4.6 1,.474?D

4=A490

>,.=,809?; .;@9?D 5,47 " =4; .;>@890> .;==$ .09?0= 076 2=;A0

>,9 /402; .;9?=,.? /0?09?4;9 1,.474?D " ..,

>,9 /402;

>,9?, ,9, .4?D 5,47

>,9?, ,9,

?30; 7,.D 1,.474?D

;=,920

D@-, .;@9?D 5,47

8,=D>A4770

9;=?3B0>? /0?09?4;9 .09?0=

?,.;8,

/0"0%
,E ,E ,E ,E ,E ., ., ., ., ., ., ., ., ., B,

",.
<3; <3; <3; <3; <3; 7;> >1= >9/ 7;> >1= >9/ 7;> 7;> >1= >0,

&"#()(01 01-%
@>8> 42, @>8> 42, /42>, ><. 42>, /42>, @>8> 42, /42>, 42>, 42>, ./1 42>, 42>, 42>, ./1

$%0%+0(,+ /0"+$".$
<-9/> (&&* <-9/> (&&* <-9/> (&'' <-9/> (&'' 9/> <-9/> (&'' 9/> <-9/> (&'' <-9/> (&&* 9/> <-9/> (&'' 9/> <-9/> (&&* 9/> <-9/> (&''

('/# /0"&&%$!
9; 9; D0> D0> 9; 9; 9; 9; 9; 9; D0> 9; 9; 9; D0>

Case 2:10-cv-02211-DMG-DTB Document 786 Filed 10/29/14 Page 37 of 40 Page ID #:19823
Appendix B

!C"a# s$ e% 2&':1( 0)*-c+ v)(-0% 2% 2' 1' 1),-D- M. G),-D/ T0 B , D1 o* c2 u3 m$ e4 n5 t6 76 87 6)8 F9il;e<$d= 1'0'/2>(98/1>'47 P?a"g@e$ 3'8A o1f B4%0% P?a"g@e$ IDC, D#:&'1E987 A24(
f  y{  |  Y  z  y } w`  z yw _    
_Df     {  | ~{ `  z yw _     G n             ~}{       ~                ~  ê }      }       { ~ {    G~   }      }       {{  ~H
__Dc w z w   Wz   w æn   ~}{         ~     {  }}  {     {           ~      {  { ~             }  ~  { ~    ~    {~  {     ~  R ]H`HlH ½KLNJ HKJ B{CH
___Di } } { {z Wz   w G n   ~}{         ~ |   |    {           ~           { ~   }     }  ~ }     ~}{     H [  {   {~  {     T
_ w  w  _  }  w   `  z } { D c   x   z { y z {  ~ { ~ {       x { w   { z   w   ~ { k  { z i w {  D _ w  }   }  ~  z w ~ { w   }  } w ~ {   |   w   |      w  z ~ {  {   {  {  w  {  | ~ { ]   {    {    ~ {   { z { y z {  ~ { ~ {       x { w   { z   w   ~ { k  { z i w {  D
_      w   ~ w       z {   w  z  ~ w   ~ w   {   }  y    D _      w   ~ w       z {   w  z  ~ w   x {  }  w z w x       D _  w       w   ~ w     w  { w x {  {       z {  | ~ {     D
j   w  {    { ~ w     w  { w x {    z {   w  z w  z {          B _ w  }   }  w      {   {     w x       w  z     y w  { D _     { ~   |   w    z { y z {  ~ { ~ {        { { z w     { y w  ~ {   ~ { ~ { w   } D
Y w     {   w    {  ~ w  _     w z            z  U
Z     ~ w  { w     {     x { |  {  { x { }   z w  U
_lDi } } { {z g  {   
[H W {w  | _     G q    }  ~ }     ~}{     F  c   {  d ~      {          {          ~  ê T
KH   ~  { ~       {  { ~  | }       }  ~  F LH   ~  { ~    { ~ {|     }  }     { ~       F MH {|       ~    {  {   { ~ } {   F NH {|           {  { ~      ~            {     |  
  F{ ~ OH }     F     {F{ ~ |  {  {   }    H

!C"a# s$ e% 2&':1( 0)*-c+ v)(-0% 2% 2' 1' 1),-D- M. G),-D/ T0 B , D1 o* c2 u3 m$ e4 n5 t6 76 87 6)8 F9il;e<$d= 1'0'/2>(98/1>'47 P?a"g@e$ 3%9( o1f B4%0% P?a"g@e$ IDC, D#:&'1E987 A25'
\H i } } { {z g  {    æn                   ~     ~     ~             ~  ê TKC }     F     {F{ ~ |  {  {   }    U { ~ LC {|           G       H n           {    H n   ~   { {                {          ~  ê    {   { { ~ {|    }  {     ~      {  B{ D} DF{|  }     }{ F  | }   { F     F{ ~         CH c     {    { ~    |         ~  ê    G  |{ {    {   |{                     ~H
GD Y }   {B[    wBw z X{~w   w \  y   } {H b  {     ~{ Y |H q  {       {  Y }H q  {   ~{ ê ~{ B } ~    {CY ~H q  {  { { ~ }    {     ~{ Y  H b  ~~          o   ~ m{  Y H q    ~~    }      o   ~ m{  Y [|          {     |      o   ~ m{  Y  H ^     {    {    o   ~ m{  Y  H q    ~      Y H q  {                 }     {    }     ~Y H [         {~ }    {   {    ~}{   Y KC c    F  { }  ~      |   {    |    { ~  Y LC c    F  {   ~}{   {    {   Y  H [    }    |    { ~   {   {   { B   }    }{I   } {}C        {   |  Y KC c    F  {      |      }    { |    { ~Y LC c    F      ~         ~ } Y MC c    F  {   ~}{   F {  F{     }          |  Y H b{     |    { ~   {   {   { B   }    }{I   } {}C        {   |      { Y KC c    F    { ~     {   |  Y
HD Wx  h{    z  ~{ W{} w   w z Y~w } { {H q         {   ~Y Bq   ~~      {   }   }      YC |H q          {   ~Y }H q          {   ~Y Bq  {  {   ~{ { ~         {  YC ~H ]{       {         {  } {   { {      YB]{       {      {             {     ~~     YC  H c    {        {   {       c    ~     {|     {     {    ~~     YB^    {       {              {   {|      YC

!C"a# s$ e% 2&':1( 0)*-c+ v)(-0% 2% 2' 1' 1),-D- M. G),-D/ T0 B , D1 o* c2 u3 m$ e4 n5 t6 76 87 6)8 F9il;e<$d= 1'0'/2>(98/1>'47 P?a"g@e$ 4%0' o1f B4%0% P?a"g@e$ IDC, D#:&'1E987 A26%
H q  { ~   yyyyyyyyyyyyyB{ D} DF{         F}    ~   | { } F }   }  F { C   { Y
 H b  ~     {    }  ~  }  YBq  { ~     {  ~    YC  H q  { ~     {         {|      { ~I        {    Y H q  { ~         {      }  Y
ID k z {  w z  } w z Wx  [ { y { h} ~ w z f  {} { {H q  { {            {    }  ~   Y |H q  {  {  {       {  Y q  { ~   {  {       {  ~  }  Y }H b  ~     ~ { {        {       {  Y ~H c    {        }{             }{  Y  H q  {  è  ~  } é Y H ]{         {   {     è  ~  } é  {  { |    ~        }  ~  Y  H q  {  { è{   {é Y  H q   { ~       ~     { {   {Y
JD Wx  f { {  _ |   w  w z h{    z  g  {    h{{ w   h{{| {H q  { ~   è         {é   { Y |H q  {               {  { | { {{|        }  ~   Y }H b      {     |      o   ~ m{  Y ~H ^     {  {  {     o   ~ m{  Y  H b{           {       {~  {             |    o   ~ m{  Y H b{                 ~             }    Y  H [    {{~    |{}      }    Y q   Y  H q  { ~   yyyyyyyyyyyyyB{ D} DF{    F}{ } {        {F     ~        {C   { Y H c{             {   {  }{  H j {  {  {             {  }{  H ]{       {             ~    {  }{       |   |{}    }     ~Y H q   ~               | {|              }{  Y
KD e~{ w      w{   {    {H c    {              ~        Y |H [    {                   ~    {  Y

 
 Case 2:10-cv-02211-DMG-DTB Document 713 Filed 03/14/14 Page 1 of 1 Page ID #:18570

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL

Case No. CV 10-2211 DMG (DTBx)

Date March 14, 2014

Title Jose Antonio Franco-Gonzalez v. Eric H. Holder, et al.

Page 1 of 1

Present: The Honorable DOLLY M. GEE, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

VALENCIA VALLERY Deputy Clerk

NOT REPORTED Court Reporter

Attorneys Present for Plaintiff(s) None Present

Attorneys Present for Defendant(s) None Present

Proceedings: IN CHAMBERS—ORDER RE PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR COURT APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT [Doc. ## 686, 704]

On February 12, 2014, Plaintiff-Petitioner Jose Antonio Franco-Gonzalez, by and through his guardian ad litem, Ruben Franco-Gonzalez, filed a motion for court approval of the settlement agreement entered into by Defendants and Plaintiff-Petitioner resolving causes of action six and seven of the Third Amended Complaint and to dismiss those claims. [Doc. ## 686, 704.] In support of the motion, Plaintiff-Petitioner filed a declaration of his guardian ad litem, in which the guardian ad litem explained that he reviewed the terms of the settlement agreement in detail and believes that the settlement is in Plaintiff-Petitioner’s best interests. [Doc. # 704-1.] On February 21, 2014, Defendants filed a notice of non-opposition to the motion. [Doc. # 706.] The motion came on for hearing on March 14, 2014, at which the parties made their appearances.
In light of the foregoing, and upon a review of the settlement agreement and the articulated reasons underlying the settlement, the Court finds that the settlement agreement is in the best interests of Plaintiff-Petitioner Franco-Gonzalez and GRANTS the motion for approval of the settlement agreement. Pursuant to the parties’ settlement agreement, causes of action six and seven of the Third Amended Complaint are hereby dismissed with prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

CV-90

CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL

Initials of Deputy Clerk vv

 
 1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

11 JOSE ANTONIO FRANCOGONZALEZ, et al.,
12 Plaintiffs-Petitioners,
13 v.
14 ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney
15 General, et al.,

16

Defendants-Respondents.

17

18

19

) Case No. CV-10-02211 DMG (DTBx) ) ) ORDER FURTHER ) IMPLEMENTING THIS COURT’S ) PERMANENT INJUNCTION [785] ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1 2 I. 3 4 5 6 7 8 II. 9
III. 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 IV. 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

TABLE OF CONTENTS SCREENING SYSTEM............................................................................... 2 A. Screening Procedures ................................................................................. 2
 Main Class Membership Criteria .......................................................... 6 B. Information Gathering Procedures for ICE and Detention Facility
Personnel .................................................................................................... 8 INFORMATION SHARING SYSTEM BETWEEN ICE AND EOIR . 10 EVALUATION SYSTEM .......................................................................... 12 A. Pro Se Competency Standard .................................................................. 13 B. Judicial Competency Inquiries and Competency Reviews ...................... 15 C. Forensic Competency Evaluations........................................................... 18 D. Additional Procedures .............................................................................. 19 OTHER MATTERS.................................................................................... 22 A. EOIR’s nationwide policy........................................................................ 22 B. Released Main Class Members ................................................................ 22 C. Released Sub-Class One Members .......................................................... 23 D. Class Definition........................................................................................ 23 E. Implementation of Partial Settlement Agreement, Subject to the Court’s
Approval................................................................................................... 25 F. Tools ......................................................................................................... 26 G. Retention of Jurisdiction .......................................................................... 26

i

1

The purpose of this Order is to further implement the Court’s Permanent

2 Injunction. [Doc. # 593.] Defendants will share both the Court’s Permanent

3 Injunction as well as this Order with the persons, agencies, or legal entities

4 responsible for compliance with the Permanent Injunction, this Order, U.S.

5 Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s (“ICE”) national detention standards, and 6 oversight of medical care provided at any immigration detention facility1 in

7 California, Arizona, or Washington.

8

The Court orders Defendants to implement the following:

9 (I) Screening and Information Gathering System. Such system, which is

10

designed to determine Class membership, shall include initial mental

11

health screening of detainees upon arrival at detention facilities, mental

12

health assessments, and gathering of documents and information relevant

13

to detainees’ mental health. See Section I, infra.

14 (II) Information Sharing System. Such system shall ensure that Defendants

15

provide relevant documents and information regarding detainees’ mental

16

health to Immigration Judges. See Section II, infra.

17 (III) Evaluation System. Such system, which is designed to determine

18

whether a Main Class member is competent to represent him- or herself

19

in immigration proceedings, shall include Judicial Competency Inquiries,

20

Forensic Competency Evaluations and Competency Reviews. See

21

Section III, infra.

22 (IV) Other Matters. See Section IV, infra.

23

24

25

26

1 Throughout this Order, the terms “immigration detention facility,”

“detention facility,” and “facility” are used interchangeably, and refer to facilities

27 used by, contracted with, or acting on behalf of ICE to hold detainees for more

than 72 hours.

28

1

1 I. SCREENING SYSTEM

2

To comply with the Permanent Injunction, Defendants must implement,

3 within 90 days of the entry of this Order, a system for screening individuals in the

4 Department of Homeland Security’s (“DHS”) custody with the purpose of 5 accurately identifying Sub-Class One and Sub-Class Two members, both of which 6 are sub-classes of the Plaintiff Class, i.e., “individuals who are or will be in DHS

7 custody for immigration proceedings in California, Arizona, and Washington who 8 have been identified by or to medical personnel, DHS, or an Immigration Judge, as 9 having a serious mental disorder or defect that may render them incompetent to

10 represent themselves in immigration proceedings, and who presently lack counsel 11 in their immigration proceedings.” See Section IV.D, infra. Sub-Class One 12 members are those members of the Plaintiff Class who are “incompetent to

13 represent themselves in immigration proceedings.” Id. Sub-Class Two members 14 are those members of the Plaintiff Class “who have been detained for more than 15 six months.” Id. Therefore, the Court orders that the following steps be taken with

16 respect to all individuals who are admitted into ICE custody at an immigration 17 detention facility in California, Washington, and Arizona, whether or not such 18 facility is staffed by the ICE Health Service Corps (“IHSC”):

19

A. Screening Procedures

20

1. To ensure the integrity of the screening procedures set out in this

21

Section, and of the competency procedures set out in Section III,

22

infra:

23

a. Unless and until such time as the individual is determined mentally

24

competent by an Immigration Judge, individuals identified as Class

25

members pursuant to the procedures set forth herein shall not be

26

27

28

2

1

removed from the United States2 unless first afforded a Qualified

2

Representative under the procedures set forth in the Court’s

3

Permanent Injunction. [Doc. # 593.]

4

b. The transfer of detainees between immigration detention facilities

5

may be necessary and appropriate in order to facilitate compliance

6

with this Order. ICE shall seek, however, to avoid transfers that

7

may significantly hamper the ability of the detainee’s family or

8

community support resources to provide assistance in the

9

detainee’s immigration proceedings (including custody

10

determinations and placement plans). In addition, ICE must take

11

into consideration whether any transfer will cause further

12

deterioration of the detainee’s mental health. Any Class member

13

who has entered ICE custody after November 21, 2011, and who is

14

subsequently transferred outside of Arizona, California or

15

Washington, continues to be a Class member and entitled to all of

16

the benefits of Class membership during the course of their

17

immigration proceedings, including those in the Permanent

18

Injunction [Doc. # 593] and in this Order.

19

20

21

22

23

2 Once jurisdiction vests before the Immigration Judge and an individual is

24 identified as a Class member in his or her pending immigration proceedings,

Defendants shall not terminate immigration proceedings for the purpose of

25 removing, deporting, or excluding the Class member (i.e., pursuant to voluntary

departure, or return, under 8 U.S.C. § 1229c; reinstatement under 8 U.S.C. §

26 1231(a)(5); expedited removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b); or administrative

removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1228(b)), unless or until he or she has first been

27 determined mentally competent by the Immigration Judge or provided a Qualified

Representative.

28

3

1

2. Absent emergency circumstances related to facility security or the

2

health and safety of staff or detainees, all detainees3 shall be initially

3

screened for evidence of a “serious mental disorder or condition”4

4

upon their admission into ICE custody at an immigration detention

5

facility, in accordance with the applicable ICE national detention

6

standards.5 Absent emergency circumstances related to facility

7

security or the health and safety of staff or detainees, detainees shall

8

be further screened (or assessed) by a currently and appropriately

9

licensed psychiatrist, physician, physician assistant, psychologist,

10

clinical social worker, licensed nurse practitioner, or registered nurse

11

within 14 days of their admission into ICE custody at an immigration

12

detention facility. Such further screening shall be conducted utilizing

13

a written screening questionnaire designed to identify individuals who

14

may suffer from serious mental disorders or conditions, including

15

mental health conditions for which the individual has not been

16

previously diagnosed. Such screening questionnaire must not rely

17

solely on a self-reported history of mental illness, but must ask the

18

screener to interpret behavior and ask the individual questions to

19

3 The terms “immigration detainee” and “detainee” are used interchangeably

20 and refer to individuals detained in ICE custody for immigration proceedings in California, Arizona, or Washington.

21

4 The term “serious mental disorder or condition” shall have the same

22 meaning as the Class membership criteria, identified in Section I.A.3.b.

23

5 “Applicable ICE national detention standards” are those standards

currently applicable to detainees detained at the facilities set forth in Appendix A

24 to this Order. Defendants affirm that the facilities identified in Appendix A are the

exclusive locations where immigration detainees are detained for more than 72

25 hours in the States of Washington, Arizona and California, and further affirm that

the national detention standards listed next to each of those facilities are those in

26 force at those facilities today. To the extent that there are prospective changes in

the “applicable ICE national detention standards,” the screening procedures

27 applicable to Class members shall be no less protective than those found in the

detention standards set forth in Appendix A.

28

4

1

gauge his or her understanding of his or her current situation. The

2

results of the screening questionnaire shall be documented.6

3

3. Individuals identified through the above-referenced screening process

4

as exhibiting evidence of a serious mental disorder or condition shall

5

be referred for a mental health assessment. Individuals first identified

6

at any later stage as exhibiting evidence of a serious mental disorder

7

or condition, such as at a hearing before an Immigration Judge or

8

upon receipt of information provided by a third party, shall also be

9

referred for a mental health assessment. Such mental health

10

assessments are for the purpose of diagnosis, treatment, or

11

stabilization of the individual and are not conducted for the purpose of

12

assessing the individual’s legal competency. Based on the results of

13

the mental health assessment and any other available information, the

14

qualified mental health provider will determine whether an

15

unrepresented detainee meets the criteria set forth in Section I.A.3.b(i)

16

or (ii), such that he or she is a member of the Class certified in this

17

case. Where clinically indicated, in conducting the mental health

18

assessment, the qualified mental health provider must inquire about

19

20

21

6 For example, the screening shall seek to identify whether the individual has

22 a history of mental illness, has previously taken medication for mental illness or

received mental health services, has been hospitalized for psychiatric condition(s),

23 experienced auditory or visual hallucinations, or demonstrates evidence of

cognitive impairment. The screener will also look for evidence of a mental

24 disability, bizarre or unusual behavior, or other obvious signs of mental illness.

Within 90 days of the entry of this Order, Defendants will provide to Plaintiffs the

25 relevant screening forms currently in use at all immigration detention facilities in

Arizona, California and Washington, ensuring that the forms satisfy the

26 requirements set forth in this Order. If Plaintiffs allege such forms do not comply

with the terms of this Order, the Parties shall meet and confer regarding the

27 screening forms and, if the Parties do not resolve their dispute informally, the

matter shall be addressed, initially, before the Special Master.

28

5

1

and consider the detainee’s relevant social history.7 The mental health

2

assessment will be completed as soon as practicable, ordinarily within

3

14 days after the detainee is identified through the screening process

4

described in Section I.A.2, supra, as exhibiting evidence of a serious

5

mental disorder or condition.

6

a. The mental health assessment shall be performed by a qualified

7

mental health provider. For purposes of this Order, “qualified

8

mental health providers” are currently and appropriately licensed

9

psychiatrists, physicians, physician assistants, psychologists,

10

clinical social workers, licensed nurse practitioners, and registered

11

nurses. Providers who are general practitioners shall have

12

appropriate training in mental health assessments.

13

b. For purposes of this Order, unrepresented8 immigration detainees

14

are members of the Class certified in this case, see Section IV.D,

15

infra, if the criteria of subparagraph (i), (ii) or (iii) of this

16

paragraph are met:

17

(i) a qualified mental health provider determines the

18

detainee9 meets one or both of the following criteria:

19

20

21

7 Relevant social history may include factors such as educational level,

special education history, if any, occupational functioning, relationships, and

22 cultural concerns.

23

8 Detainees shall be considered unrepresented unless one of the following

has entered an appearance on their behalf: “(1) an attorney, (2) a law student or

24 law graduate directly supervised by a retained attorney, or (3) an accredited

representative, all as defined in 8 C.F.R. § 1292.1.” Franco-Gonzalez, et al. v.

25 Holder, 828 F. Supp. 2d 1133, 1147 (C.D. Cal. 2011); see also Doc. # 593 at ¶ 8.

26

9 Such determination may be made regardless of whether the detainee was

previously diagnosed with a psychiatric condition, was treated in the past or is now

27 being treated for a psychiatric condition, and regardless of whether the cause of the

disorder would be considered a medical or, instead, a psychiatric condition.

28

6

1

(1) has a mental disorder that is causing serious

2

limitations in communication, memory or general

3

mental and/or intellectual functioning (e.g.,

4

communicating, reasoning, conducting activities of

5

daily living, social skills); or a severe medical

6

condition(s) (e.g., traumatic brain injury or

7

dementia) that is significantly impairing mental

8

function; or

9

(2) is exhibiting one or more of the following active

10

psychiatric symptoms or behavior: severe

11

disorganization, active hallucinations or delusions,

12

mania, catatonia, severe depressive symptoms,

13

suicidal ideation and/or behavior, marked anxiety

14

or impulsivity.

15

(ii) a qualified mental health provider otherwise diagnoses

16

the detainee as demonstrating significant symptoms of

17

one of the following:

18

(1) Psychosis or Psychotic Disorder;

19

(2) Bipolar Disorder;

20

(3) Schizophrenia or Schizoaffective Disorder;

21

(4) Major Depressive Disorder with Psychotic

22

Features;

23

(5) Dementia and/or a Neurocognitive Disorder; or

24

(6) Intellectual Development Disorder (moderate,

25

severe or profound).

26

(iii) an Immigration Judge finds that the evidence of record

27

results in a bona fide doubt about the detainee’s

28

competency to represent him- or herself.

7

1

4. Class membership, as defined in Section I.A.3.b, supra, shall not be

2

terminated by a later determination of competency by an Immigration

3

Judge pursuant to Section III, infra.

4

5. Within seven (7) days of completion of the mental health assessment

5

described in Section I.A.3, supra, the qualified mental health provider

6

shall cause the ICE Office of the Chief Counsel to be notified if such

7

mental health assessment or other available information shows that an

8

immigration detainee meets the criteria described in Section I.A.3.b(i)

9

or (ii), supra.

10

B. Information Gathering Procedures for ICE and Detention Facility

11

Personnel

12

1. Whenever ICE or detention facility personnel become aware that an

13

immigration detainee identified through the screening system

14

described in Section I.A.2, supra, was previously found incompetent

15

in any court proceedings (including past criminal proceedings) or was

16

hospitalized due to a mental disorder or condition, ICE or detention

17

facility personnel must provide that information, and any related

18

documents in their possession, to the qualified mental health provider

19

performing the mental health assessment. If the mental health

20

assessment has already been completed at the time that ICE or

21

detention facility personnel provide this information to the qualified

22

mental health provider, the qualified mental health provider must

23

determine whether the new information affects the determination

24

whether a detainee meets the Class membership criteria described in

25

Section I.A.3.b(i) or (ii), supra, and shall cause the ICE Office of the

26

Chief Counsel to be notified of any change in that determination.

27

2. ICE and detention facility personnel must accept relevant information

28

and documents from family members, social workers, or treatment

8

1

providers regarding detainees’ mental disorders or conditions, and

2

provide such information and documents to the qualified mental

3

health provider performing the mental health assessment. If a

4

detainee was not referred for a mental health assessment upon initial

5

screening, but information and/or records received through third

6

parties indicate that an individual suffers from a serious mental

7

disorder or condition, such individual shall be referred for a mental

8

health assessment for further evaluation. If the mental health

9

assessment has already been completed at the time that ICE or

10

detention facility personnel provide this information or documents to

11

the qualified mental health provider, the qualified mental health

12

provider must determine whether the new information or documents

13

affect the determination whether a detainee meets the Class

14

membership criteria described in Section I.A.3.b(i) or (ii), supra, and

15

shall cause the ICE Office of the Chief Counsel to be notified of any

16

change in that determination.

17

3. ICE will utilize a toll-free telephone hotline and contact information

18

for detainees, family members, and others to report and provide

19

relevant information regarding detainees who have serious mental

20

disorders or conditions that may impact their ability to represent

21

themselves in immigration proceedings. A notice advertising the

22

telephone hotline and contact information will be posted at all

23

detention facilities, both where detainees reside and in visitation areas,

24

and on ICE’s public website. Such notice shall explicitly state that the

25

hotline is available to report detainees who have serious mental

26

disorders or conditions, and shall be available in the languages most

27

likely to be understood by detainees and family members, including

28

English and Spanish. Hotline operators shall cause any relevant

9

1

information regarding detainees with serious mental disorders or

2

conditions to be reported to the ICE Office of the Chief Counsel

3

within seven (7) days of the receipt of such information. If a detainee

4

identified through the hotline was not previously referred for a mental

5

health assessment, but information received through the hotline

6

indicates that the detainee suffers from a serious mental disorder or

7

condition, then ICE shall ensure that the detainee is referred for a

8

mental health assessment.

9

4. In the event Plaintiffs’ counsel alleges that detention facility personnel

10

have failed to comply with the terms of Section I.B, Plaintiffs’

11

counsel shall provide Defendants with a written statement describing

12

the alleged non-compliance (“Notice of Non-Compliance”). Within

13

seven (7) calendar days, counsel for the Parties shall meet and confer

14

in a good faith effort to resolve their dispute informally. In the event

15

that the Parties are unable to resolve the dispute informally within 21

16

calendar days of the Notice of Non-Compliance, Plaintiffs may file a

17

motion for enforcement in the United States District Court for the

18

Central District of California. Nothing in this provision is intended to

19

limit Plaintiffs’ ability to seek enforcement of any other provisions of

20

this injunction by any appropriate means. The provisions of this

21

Section are not intended to resolve the question of whether third

22

parties who are not Defendants in this case can be subject to

23

contempt. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(d)(2).

24 II. INFORMATION SHARING SYSTEM BETWEEN ICE AND EOIR

25

To further ensure that Immigration Judges have all of the information

26 available to Defendants so that they can, among other things, evaluate competency

27 and identify members of Sub-Class One, Defendants must implement a

28 functioning system for sharing information gathered through that screening and

10

1 identification process with the Executive Office for Immigration Review

2 (“EOIR”), which includes Immigration Judges and the Board of Immigration

3 Appeals (“BIA” or “Board”). Therefore, the Court orders that within 90 days of

4 this Order, Defendants shall implement the following system:

5

A. Upon notification that a detainee meets the criteria of Section I.A.3.b,

6

and is therefore a member of the Class, the ICE Office of the Chief

7

Counsel shall gather the following documents and information, if in the

8

possession of ICE or the detention facility personnel: any documents or

9

information that ICE identifies as relevant to competency provided to an

10

immigration detention facility or to ICE by the unrepresented

11

immigration detainee, his or her family, medical providers, caseworkers,

12

friends, legal service providers, and detention facility staff; any

13

information or documents gathered by ICE or the detention facility

14

personnel pursuant to Section I.B, supra; any competency determinations

15

made in prior judicial proceedings; any forensic competency evaluations;

16

any mental health assessment completed pursuant to Section I.A.3, supra;

17

any other evidence of an evaluation or a determination regarding whether

18

the detainee is or was mentally incompetent; and any other documents

19

that ICE identifies as relevant to the Immigration Judge’s determination

20

pursuant to Section III. ICE and detention facility personnel shall also

21

notify the ICE Office of the Chief Counsel (or cause the ICE Office of

22

the Chief Counsel to be notified) when they are aware that, in the last

23

five years, a detainee has been housed in a medical unit or cell due to a

24

mental disorder, has been placed in segregation due to a mental disorder,

25

has displayed an intent to commit suicide or self-harm due to a mental

26

disorder, or has been hospitalized due to a mental disorder. Finally, if

27

ICE is aware of third party records that it identifies as relevant to the

28

Immigration Judge’s determination pursuant to Section III, ICE will

11

1

inform the ICE Office of the Chief Counsel of the existence of those

2

records.

3

B. Within 21 days of the notification described in Section II.A, supra, the

4

ICE Office of the Chief Counsel shall file a notice with EOIR to notify

5

the Immigration Judge presiding over the detainee’s case, or the Board of

6

Immigration Appeals, if applicable, that the detainee—if unrepresented—

7

is a member of the Class. The notice shall contain all information

8

gathered by the ICE Office of the Chief Counsel pursuant to Section II.A,

9

supra, and shall attach to that notice all documents gathered by the ICE

10

Office of the Chief Counsel pursuant to Section II.A, supra, for

11

consideration by the Immigration Judge at the Judicial Competency

12

Inquiry and Competency Review. If the ICE Office of Chief Counsel

13

receives additional documents or information described in Section II.A

14

after the notice is filed, it will provide such documents or information to

15

the Immigration Judge as soon as practicable.

16

C. The ICE Office of the Chief Counsel will also submit to the Immigration

17

Judge any other medical records in ICE’s possession, custody, or control,

18

should the Immigration Judge request such information.10

19 III. EVALUATION SYSTEM

20

Within 90 days of the entry of this Order, Defendants are ordered to

21 implement the following system:

22

When documentary, medical, or other evidence that comes to ICE’s or

23 EOIR’s attention indicates that the detainee is a member of the Class (i.e., meets

24 one of the criteria set forth in Section I.A.3.b, supra), the Immigration Judge shall

25

10 If an unrepresented detainee with an appeal pending before the Board was

26 not previously determined to be a Class member, and information comes to the

attention of ICE that the individual falls under Section I.A.3.b, supra, ICE will

27 notify the Board and request a limited remand, in accordance with Section III.D.5,

infra.

28

12

1 conduct a Judicial Competency Inquiry and, when appropriate, a Competency

2 Review, for the purpose of determining whether the Class member is competent to

3 represent him- or herself in immigration proceedings. Such hearings shall conform

4 to the standard and procedures set forth below.

5

A. Pro Se Competency Standard

6

When determining whether an unrepresented respondent is competent to

7 represent him- or herself in an immigration proceeding, the Immigration Judge

8 must consider both the individual’s ability to meaningfully participate in the

9 proceeding as set forth in Matter of M-A-M-, 25 I. & N. Dec. 474 (BIA 2011), and

10 the individual’s ability to perform additional functions necessary for self-

11 representation.

12

Immigration Judges shall consider the following when determining if a

13 respondent is competent to represent him- or herself:

14

First, the respondent must be able to meaningfully participate in the

15 proceeding as set forth in Matter of M-A-M- . To meaningfully participate, the

16 respondent must have a rational and factual understanding of:

17

a. the nature and object of the proceeding;

18

b. the privilege of representation by counsel;

19

c. the right to present, examine, and object to evidence;

20

d. the right to cross-examine witnesses; and

21

e. the right to appeal.

22

Second, for an unrepresented respondent to be competent to represent him or

23 herself in an immigration proceeding, he or she must also be able to perform

24 additional functions necessary for self-representation. To represent him- or

25 herself, the respondent must have sufficient present ability to:

26

a. exercise the rights listed above;

27

b. make informed decisions about whether to waive the rights listed

28

above;

13

1

c. respond to the allegations and charges in the proceeding;

2

d. present information and evidence relevant to eligibility for relief; and

3

e. act upon instructions and information presented by the Immigration

4

Judge and government counsel.

5

A respondent is incompetent to represent him- or herself in an immigration

6 proceeding if he or she, because of a mental disorder (including Intellectual

7 Disability), is unable to satisfy any of the provisions above. For purposes of this

8 standard, “mental disorder” (including Intellectual Disability) is defined as a

9 significant impairment of the cognitive, emotional, or behavioral functioning of a

10 person.

11

Guidance on applying the pro se competency standard.11 The following

12 guidance is provided to assist Immigration Judges in applying the pro se

13 competency standard.

14

First, in applying the above definition, the presence of a legal guardian, near

15 relative, friend, or custodian, under 8 C.F.R. § 1240.4, shall not affect an

16 Immigration Judge’s assessment of whether a respondent is able to perform the

17 additional functions necessary for self-representation.

18

Second, in assessing whether the respondent can respond to allegations and

19 charges in the proceedings, the Immigration Judge should consider, among other

20 things, the person’s ability to evaluate and coherently discuss legal arguments and

21 defenses.

22

Third, in assessing whether the respondent can present information and

23 evidence relevant to eligibility for relief, the Immigration Judge should consider,

24

25

11 Wherever the pro se competency standard appears in written materials that

26 will be used as a reference or to train either Immigration Judges or mental health

experts who will implement the terms of the Injunction, the standard will be

27 accompanied by the text of the “guidance” on applying the definition of pro se

competency.

28

14

1 among other things, the person’s ability to present rational and coherent testimony

2 based upon adequate recall.

3

B. Judicial Competency Inquiries and Competency Reviews

4

Judicial Competency Inquiries and Competency Reviews shall proceed as

5 follows.

6

1. There is no presumption of competence or incompetence for Class

7

members.

8

2. There is no burden of production or persuasion at either the Judicial

9

Competency Inquiry or the Competency Review. Such inquiries and

10

reviews shall serve as information-gathering hearings, which will

11

inform Immigration Judges’ determinations concerning a Class

12

member’s competence to represent him- or herself in the

13

proceedings. Consistent with Matter of M-A-M-, 8 U.S.C. § 1229a

14

and its implementing regulations, and the procedures set forth in

15

Section II, supra, the parties agree that the ICE Office of the Chief

16

Counsel’s interest in presenting evidence and argument is “in the law

17

being observed” and not in a particular result concerning a Class

18

member’s competence or incompetence. Reid v. INS, 949 F.2d 287,

19

288 (9th Cir. 1991). To the extent the evidence establishes a Class

20

member’s incompetence, the ICE Office of the Chief Counsel’s

21

presentation of evidence and argument should assist the Immigration

22

Judge in according the appropriate procedural rights or benefits

23

pursuant to the Court’s Permanent Injunction [Doc. # 593] or

24

Implementation Plan Order. See Matter of S-M-J-, 21 I. & N. Dec.

25

722, 727 (BIA 1997).

26

3. The Immigration Judge shall convene a Judicial Competency Inquiry

27

no later than 21 days after receiving the notice pursuant to Section

28

II.B that a detainee is a member of the Main Class.

15

1

4. At the beginning of the Judicial Competency Inquiry, the Immigration

2

Judge shall advise and question the Class member based on the

3

Competency Proceeding Advisal, attached as Appendix B. The

4

Immigration Judge is neither required to ask each and every question

5

listed in the Advisal nor prohibited from asking questions not

6

otherwise listed therein.

7

5. Following the Judicial Competency Inquiry, the Immigration Judge

8

may make any of the following findings, based on all available

9

evidence and any testimony presented:

10

a. Class member is competent. There is no reasonable cause12 to

11

believe that the Class member is suffering from a mental disorder

12

that impairs his or her ability to perform the functions listed in the

13

definition of competence to represent him- or herself.

14

b. Class member is incompetent. A preponderance of the evidence

15

establishes that the Class member is not competent to represent

16

him- or herself in the proceedings.

17

c. Insufficient evidence to determine if Class member is competent.

18

The evidence is not sufficient to support a finding of incompetence

19

but the Immigration Judge has reasonable cause to believe that the

20

Class member is suffering from a mental disorder that may impair

21

his or her ability to represent him- or herself.

22

6. When, at the conclusion of the Judicial Competency Inquiry, an

23

Immigration Judge determines that a Class member is not competent

24

to represent him- or herself in the proceedings pursuant to Section

25

26

27

12 The “no reasonable cause to believe” standard is equivalent to a “bona

fide doubt” standard and is less onerous than a probable cause standard.

28

16

1

III.B.5.b, supra, EOIR shall have 60 days from the date of the

2

determination to arrange for provision of a Qualified Representative.

3

7. When, at the conclusion of the Judicial Competency Inquiry, an

4

Immigration Judge determines that he or she has insufficient evidence

5

to determine if the Class member is competent pursuant to III.B.5.c,

6

supra, the Immigration Judge shall follow the procedures set forth

7

below:

8

a. Upon the conclusion of the Judicial Competency Inquiry, the

9

Immigration Judge shall promptly order that a Forensic

10

Competency Evaluation of the Class member be conducted and

11

that the results of the evaluation be provided to the Immigration

12

Judge, the ICE Office of the Chief Counsel, and the Class member.

13

b. A Forensic Competency Evaluation ordered by the Immigration

14

Judge shall be completed and a written report provided to the

15

Judge and the parties within 45 days after the date of the order set

16

forth in III.B.7.a, supra.

17

c. Within 30 days after receiving the report from the Forensic

18

Competency Evaluation, the Immigration Judge shall convene a

19

Competency Review, including further testimony if necessary, and

20

shall make a determination by a preponderance of the evidence as

21

to whether the Class member is mentally competent or

22

incompetent to represent him- or herself.

23

d. When, at the conclusion of the Competency Review, an

24

Immigration Judge determines that a Class member is mentally

25

incompetent to represent him- or herself pursuant to Section

26

III.B.5.b, supra, EOIR shall have 21 days from the date of the

27

determination to arrange for provision of a Qualified

28

Representative.

17

1

8. The Immigration Judge may allow one extension of no more than 30

2

days for each of the timeframes set forth above for Judicial

3

Competency Inquiries (Section III.B.3), Forensic Competency

4

Evaluations (Section III.B.7.b), and Competency Reviews (Section

5

III.B.7.c). The Immigration Judge may, thereafter, allow for

6

additional extensions of these time frames in exceptional

7

circumstances or where the Immigration Judge otherwise determines

8

that such extensions are necessary to ensure the fundamental fairness

9

of the Class member’s proceeding.

10

C. Forensic Competency Evaluations

11

As set forth below, defendants shall provide Forensic Competency

12 Evaluations upon the request of Immigration Judges:

13

1. Forensic Competency Evaluations shall be conducted by a “mental

14

health professional,” defined as forensically trained and currently

15

licensed psychiatrists, psychologists, and licensed clinical social

16

workers.

17

2. Except in very rare exigent circumstances, the Forensic Competency

18

Evaluations conducted at the request of an Immigration Judge will be

19

conducted in person, and not by teleconference, videoconference, or

20

other remote access means. The parties agree that the following are

21

not exigent circumstances that justify deviation from the in-person

22

requirement: a) the unavailability of a trained mental health

23

professional who meets the requisite qualifications and who is willing

24

to travel to the individual’s location at the compensation rate

25

requested by Defendants; b) the inconvenience or expense to

26

Defendants associated with obtaining a trained mental health

27

professional at additional cost. The exigent circumstances envisioned

28

by the Parties are circumstances in which the unique characteristics or

18

1

social circumstances of the individual to be evaluated are such that the

2

quality of the Forensic Competency Evaluation will be enhanced by

3

the use of remote access technology, even though a qualified clinician

4

is available for an in-person evaluation.

5

3. Forensic Competency Evaluations must be conducted substantially in

6

accordance with the procedures described in the American Academy

7

of Psychiatry and the Law Practice Guideline for the Forensic

8

Evaluation of Competence to Stand Trial.

9

D. Additional Procedures

10

1. Judicial Competency Inquiries and Competency Reviews shall be

11

recorded. The Immigration Judge shall state on the record the

12

reasoning supporting a finding of competence or incompetence.

13

2. At or before Judicial Competency Inquiries and Competency

14

Reviews, the ICE Office of the Chief Counsel, the Class member, and

15

third parties (including family members, social service providers, and

16

others) may submit to the Immigration Judge, and the Immigration

17

Judge shall consider, additional mental health information or other

18

information relevant to a detainee’s mental competency or

19

incompetency to represent him- or herself in immigration

20

proceedings.

21

3. “Mental Health Information” includes any information expressly

22

contained in or directly obtained from an Immigration Court’s

23

administrative inquiry into mental competence, a portion of a hearing

24

in which mental competence is addressed, a mental health

25

examination of a detainee (including a request for such examination),

26

and a report of such examination. Except as otherwise noted below,

27

Mental Health Information shall only be used to determine a

28

detainee’s mental competency to participate or represent oneself in an

19

1

immigration proceeding, and may not be used to establish the truth of

2

allegations or charges against the detainee, or to establish ineligibility

3

for relief.

4

The paragraph above shall not apply to DHS’s use of Mental

5

Health Information if such information is independently submitted by,

6

obtained by, or in the possession of DHS. If a respondent uses Mental

7

Health Information in any proceeding for any purpose other than to

8

inform his or her mental competency to participate in an immigration

9

proceeding, the paragraph above shall not apply, and disclosure and

10

use of the Mental Health Information shall be governed by rules of

11

evidence and procedures applicable in immigration proceedings. If

12

the detainee uses a part of a document or report, DHS may request the

13

production of any other portion of that document or report. Such

14

requests shall be granted at the Immigration Judge’s discretion upon

15

consideration of all relevant factors.

16

4. Either party may appeal the Immigration Judge’s determination that a

17

detainee is mentally competent to represent him- or herself in

18

immigration proceedings to the Board. In the event the ICE Office of

19

the Chief Counsel appeals an Immigration Judge’s determination that

20

a detainee is mentally incompetent to represent him- or herself in

21

immigration proceedings to the Board, EOIR shall provide the

22

detainee with a Qualified Representative to represent the detainee in

23

the appeal before the Board and any other proceedings, including

24

bond hearings, to which the detainee may be entitled under the

25

Permanent Injunction unless and until the detainee is otherwise

26

determined to be competent by an Immigration Judge.

27

5. In the case of an unrepresented immigration detainee with an appeal

28

pending before the Board who has not previously been determined to

20

1

be a Class member, when documentary, medical, or other evidence

2

indicating that such individual falls under Section I.A.3.b comes to the

3

Board’s attention, the Board shall order a remand to the Immigration

4

Judge with instructions to apply the procedures set forth in Section

5

III.B of this Order.

6

6. Where an Immigration Judge finds from the record and proceedings

7

before him/her, or from evidence made available to all parties, that

8

there is sufficient reason to believe that the Sub-Class One member is

9

no longer suffering from a mental disorder that renders him

10

incompetent to represent him-or herself, before issuing any finding

11

that the Sub-Class One member has in fact been restored to

12

competency, the Immigration Judge shall employ and follow the

13

procedures set forth in Section III.B.4 for conducting a Judicial

14

Competency Inquiry, including reliance on and application of the

15

Competency Proceeding Advisal attached as Appendix B. No finding

16

of restored competency may be issued unless and until the

17

Immigration Judge has invited the input of the Qualified

18

Representative. The Immigration Judge shall state on the record the

19

reasoning supporting a finding that the Sub-Class One member is now

20

competent to represent him- or herself. Prior to stating such a finding,

21

the Immigration Judge, in his or her discretion, may order that a

22

Forensic Competency Evaluation of the Sub-Class One member be

23

conducted and that the results of the evaluation be provided to the

24

Immigration Judge and the parties, within the time frames set forth in

25

Section III.B7(b) and (c).

26

7. Absent exceptional circumstances, a Sub-Class One member shall not

27

be found to have knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily waived his

28

right to a Qualified Representative.

21

1 IV. OTHER MATTERS

2

A. EOIR’s nationwide policy

3

Nothing in EOIR’s nationwide policy is intended to negate or alter the

4 obligations of EOIR under the orders of the Court in Franco-Gonzalez v. Holder.

5

B. Released Main Class Members

6

The procedural protections set forth in the Permanent Injunction and in this

7 Order are limited to individuals who are physically detained in ICE custody, except

8 as provided in Sections IV.B and IV.C, infra:

9

If a Main Class member is released from detention after an Immigration

10 Judge has ordered a Forensic Competency Evaluation but before the Immigration

11 Judge has made a competency determination, the Main Class member continues to

12 be entitled to the procedural protections set forth in the Permanent Injunction and

13 in this Order, including the completion of the Forensic Competency Evaluation,

14 Section III.B.7.a-b, a Competency Review, Section III.B.7.c, and, if the

15 Immigration Judge determines that the individual is not competent to represent

16 him-or herself, the provision of a Qualified Representative, Section III.B.7.d. The

17 timelines, however, for scheduling a Forensic Competency Evaluation, a

18 Competency Review, and, if applicable, for provision of a Qualified

19 Representative at the conclusion of a Competency Review shall not apply

20 following such Main Class member’s release from detention; provided that, the

21 Competency Review shall be scheduled no more than 45 days after the

22 Immigration Court receives the report from the Forensic Competency Evaluation

23 (absent exceptional circumstances or where the Immigration Judge otherwise

24 determines that more time is necessary to ensure the fundamental fairness of the

25 Class member’s proceeding). If such released Main Class member fails to appear

26 at the Forensic Competency Evaluation ordered by the Immigration Judge for an

27 unexcused reason or no reason, he or she may thereby forfeit the right to such an

28

22

1 evaluation, and the Immigration Judge may make the competency determination

2 without the aid of that evaluation.

3

If a Main Class member (who is not also a Sub-Class One member) is

4 released from detention after Defendants have carried out the requirements in

5 Section II.B, but before an Immigration Judge has ordered a Forensic Competency

6 Evaluation in the case pursuant to Section III.B.7 or made a competency

7 determination pursuant to Section III.B.5, he or she is not entitled to the procedural

8 protections set forth in the Permanent Injunction and in this Order. However, if

9 such released Main Class member fails to appear at a scheduled hearing for an

10 unexcused reason or no reason, he or she shall not be ordered removed in absentia,

11 unless or until (1) he or she is represented in his or her immigration proceedings or

12 (2) he or she has been determined mentally competent by the Immigration Judge

13 prior to the failure to appear. If such released Main Class member fails to appear

14 at a scheduled hearing for an unexcused reason or no reason, he or she may be re-

15 detained by ICE and, for purposes of any subsequent bond hearings, the failure to

16 appear shall constitute clear and convincing evidence that the Main Class member

17 is a flight risk.

18

C. Released Sub-Class One Members

19

Released Sub-Class One members are entitled to representation by Qualified

20 Representatives pursuant to this Court’s Injunction until the conclusion of their

21 immigration proceedings, irrespective of whether their case is transferred to a

22 venue outside of the three states in which this Order applies.

23

D. Class Definition

24

Pursuant to the Parties’ agreement, the Court hereby substitutes the term

25 “immigration proceedings” for “removal proceedings” and “detention and removal

26 proceedings” in the Class definition. Therefore, the Class and Sub-Class

27 definitions are as follows:

28

23

1

Plaintiff (or “Main”) Class:

2

All individuals who are or will be in DHS custody for immigration

3

proceedings in California, Arizona, and Washington who have been

4

identified by or to medical personnel, DHS, or an Immigration Judge, as

5

having a serious mental disorder or defect that may render them incompetent

6

to represent themselves in immigration proceedings, and who presently lack

7

counsel in their immigration proceedings.

8

Sub-Class 1:

9

Individuals in the above-named Plaintiff Class who have a serious

10

mental disorder or defect that renders them incompetent to represent

11

themselves in immigration proceedings.

12

Sub-Class 2:

13

Individuals in the above-named Plaintiff Class who have been

14

detained for more than six months.

15

For purposes of the Class and Sub-Class definitions above, the class

16 certification order [Doc. # 348], permanent injunction order [Doc. # 593], and this

17 implementation plan order, “immigration proceedings” shall mean, and be limited

18 to, proceedings at which Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) appears

19 on behalf of the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) before an Immigration

20 Judge or the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA” or “Board”):

21

(1) that occur prior to the entry of a final administrative order of removal,

22

final administrative order of deportation, final administrative order of

23

exclusion, or a final administrative determination pursuant to 8 C.F.R.

24

§ 1208.2(c)(3);13 and

25

13 Pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 1208.2(c)(3), in proceedings falling under the

26

jurisdiction of an immigration judge for asylum and withholding of removal only applications under 8 C.F.R. § 1208.2(c)(1)‐(2), Defendants shall apply the

27

provisions of Sections I (Screening and Information Gathering), II (Information Sharing), and III (Evaluation System), supra, as well as the Permanent Injunction

28 and clarifying minute order [Doc. ## 593, 626].

24

1

(2) bond hearings that occur after the entry of a final administrative order

2

of removal, final administrative order of deportation, final

3

administrative order of exclusion, or a final administrative

4

determination pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 1208.2(c)(3) (collectively, “post-

5

order bond hearings”), except in such cases where the final order is

6

thereafter reopened; provided that, Defendants shall not be bound to

7

apply the provisions of Section I (Screening and Information

8

Gathering) and II (Information Sharing), supra. Instead, in all such

9

post‐order bond hearings, the ICE Office of the Chief Counsel shall

10

notify the Immigration Judge whenever the information contained in

11

the file in its possession shows that a detainee was previously

12

identified as a Class or Sub‐Class member. If the information in the

13

file shows that a detainee was previously identified as a Class

14

member, or if the Immigration Judge determines that the detainee is a

15

Class member pursuant to Section I.A.b.3(iii), supra, then the

16

Immigration Judge shall determine the detainee’s competence in

17

compliance with Section III (Evaluation System), supra.

18

Notwithstanding the above, if a detainee was previously determined to

19

be a member of Sub‐Class One, he or she must be afforded a

20

Qualified Representative in his or her post‐order bond hearings, unless

21

a determination has been made that he is competent pursuant to the

22

procedures described in Section III.D.6, supra.

23

E. Implementation of Partial Settlement Agreement, Subject to the Court’s

24

Approval

25

1. Definition of “Removal Order Class Member.”

26

Subject to the Court’s approval of the Parties’ Partial Settlement Agreement

27 Regarding Procedures of Notifying and Reopening Cases of Franco Class

28 Members who Have Received Final Orders of Removal (the “Agreement”)—

25

1 For purposes of this Order and Sections IV.E.2, infra, the term “Removal Order

2 Class Member(s)” shall have the same meaning and applicability, and be limited

3 to, the definition as set forth in Parties’ Agreement. See Agreement at Section I.

4

2. Equitable Tolling of Time and Numerical Limitations for Motions to

5

Reopen under the Agreement.

6

Subject to the Court’s approval of the Parties’ Agreement, the Court hereby

7 orders that the time and numerical limitations set forth in the Immigration and

8 Nationality Act and its implementing regulations shall be equitably tolled for

9 motions to reopen filed by “Removal Order Class Members” and accepted for

10 adjudication on the merits, as provided under the terms of the Parties’ Agreement.

11

F. Tools

12

Within 90 days of the entry of this Order, Defendants shall prepare tools to

13 be provided to all Main Class members before the Judicial Competency Inquiry

14 that will have basic information to help individuals prepare for the hearing. Prior

15 to finalizing these tools, Defendants shall provide Plaintiffs with a reasonable

16 opportunity to review Defendants’ proposed tools and to provide input.

17

G. Retention of Jurisdiction

18

This Court retains jurisdiction to entertain such further proceedings and to

19 enter such further orders as may be necessary or appropriate to enforce the 20 provisions of this Order, or to amend this Order for good cause shown.14 In

21 addition to the dispute resolution procedures contained in this or further Orders, the

22 //

23 //

24

// //

25 //

26

14 Nothing in this order should be read to suggest that the Court has subject

27 matter jurisdiction to entertain individual challenges to removal orders entered in

immigration proceedings brought by or on behalf of Class members.

28

26

1 Parties shall comply with the requirements of Local Rule 7-3 prior to bringing any

2 motion seeking to implement, enforce, or amend this Order.

3

4 IT IS SO ORDERED.

5 6 DATED: October 29, 2014
7

______________________________ DOLLY M. GEE
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

27

1

TABLE OF TIMELINES15

2

3

Implementation

4

DATE

5 Within 90 days of the entry of this Order.

6

7

8 Within 90 days of the entry of this 9 Order.

10

11

ACTION Defendants must implement the Screening System (see Section I), Information Sharing System Between ICE and EOIR (see Section II), and the Evaluation System (see Section III). Defendants shall prepare tools to be
provided to all Main Class members
before the Judicial Competency
Inquiry. See Section IV.F.

12

Screening Procedures

13

DATE

14 Upon a detainee’s admission into ICE

custody at an immigration detention 15 facility for immigration proceedings in

16 California, Arizona, or Washington.

17

18

19 Within 14 days of a detainee’s

20 admission into ICE custody at an

21

immigration detention facility for immigration proceedings in California,

22 Arizona, or Washington.

23

24

25

ACTION Absent emergency circumstances related to facility security or the health and safety of staff or detainees, all detainees shall be initially screened for evidence of a “serious mental disorder or condition,” in accordance with the applicable ICE national detention standards. See Section I.A.2. Absent emergency circumstances related to facility security or the health and safety of staff or detainees, detainees shall be further screened (or assessed) by a currently and appropriately licensed psychiatrist, physician, physician assistant, psychologist, clinical social worker, licensed nurse practitioner, or

26 15 The Table of Timelines is provided for convenience only and is not a part
27 of this Order. Accordingly, it does not supplement, modify, or in any way alter the contents of this Order.
28

28

1 As soon as practicable, ordinarily

registered nurse. See Section I.A.2. Individuals identified as exhibiting

2 within 14 days after a detainee is

evidence of a serious mental disorder

3

identified through the screening process as exhibiting evidence of a

4 serious mental disorder or condition.16

5 Within seven (7) days of the

or condition shall be referred for a mental health assessment performed by a qualified mental health provider. See Section I.A.3.17
The qualified mental health provider

6 completion of a mental health

shall cause the ICE Office of the Chief

7 assessment.

Counsel to be notified if such mental health assessment or other available

8

information shows that an immigration

9

detainee meets specified Main Class

Membership Criteria. See Section

10

I.A.5.18

11 Within seven (7) days of a toll-free telephone hotline operator’s receipt of
12 relevant information regarding

The Hotline operator shall cause such information to be reported to the ICE Office of the Chief Counsel. See

13 detainees with serious mental disorders Section I.B.3.

or conditions.

14 Within seven (7) calendar days of

Counsel for the Parties shall meet and

15 Plaintiffs’ counsel providing Defendants with a written statement
16 describing alleged non-compliance

confer in a good faith effort to resolve their dispute informally. See Section I.B.4.

17

16 As set forth in the Order, whenever ICE or detention facility personnel

18 become aware that an immigration detainee identified through the screening system was previously found incompetent in any court proceedings (including past

19 criminal proceedings) or was hospitalized due to a mental disorder or condition, ICE or detention facility personnel must provide that information, and any related

20 documents in their possession, to the qualified mental health provider performing the mental health assessment. See Section I.B.1.

21

17 As set forth in the Order, if a detainee was not referred for a mental health

22 assessment upon initial screening, but information and/or records received through

third parties indicate that an individual suffers from a serious mental disorder or

23 condition, such individual shall be referred for a mental health assessment for further evaluation. See Section I.B.2.

24

18 As set forth in the Order, if the mental health assessment has already been

25 completed at the time that ICE or detention facility personnel provide the

information or documents referenced in footnote 16 or 17, supra, the qualified

26 mental health provider must determine whether the new information affects the

determination whether a detainee meets the Class membership criteria, and shall

27 cause the ICE Office of the Chief Counsel to be notified of any change in that

determination. See Section I.B.1, I.B.2.

28

29

1

with the Information Gathering Procedures (i.e., “Notice of Non-

2 Compliance”).

3

In the event the Parties are unable to resolve the dispute regarding the

4 alleged non-compliance with the

5

Information Gathering Procedures informally within 21 calendar days of

6 the Notice of Non-Compliance.

Plaintiffs may file a motion for enforcement in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. See Section I.B.4.

7

Information Sharing

8

9

DATE Upon notification that a detainee meets

ACTION The ICE Office of the Chief Counsel

10 the Main Class Membership Criteria, shall gather relevant documents and

11

and is therefore a member of the Class.

information, if in the possession of ICE or the detention facility personnel. See

12

Section II.A.

13 Within 21 days of notification that a detainee meets the Main Class

The ICE Office of Chief Counsel shall file a notice with EOIR to notify the

14 Membership Criteria.

Immigration Judge presiding over the

15

detainee’s case, or the Board of

Immigration Appeals, if applicable,

16

that the detainee – if unrepresented – is

17

a member of the Class. See Section

II.B.

18

19

Evaluation System19

20

DATE

21 No later than 21 days after receiving the notice that a detainee is a member
22 of the Main Class.

23

ACTION The Immigration Judge shall convene a Judicial Competency Inquiry, following which the Immigration Judge may, based on all available evidence

24 19 As set forth in the Order, the Immigration Judge may allow one extension
25 of no more than 30 days for each of the timeframes for Judicial Competency Inquiries, Forensic Competency Evaluations, and Competency Reviews. The
26 Immigration Judge may, thereafter, allow for additional extensions of these time frames in exceptional circumstances or where the Immigration Judge otherwise
27 determines that such extensions are necessary to ensure the fundamental fairness of the Class member’s proceeding. See Section III.B.8.
28

30

1

and testimony presented, find the Class member competent or not competent,

2

or determine that there is not sufficient

3

evidence to determine if the Class member is competent. See Section

4

III.B.3, III.B.5.

5

60 days from the date an Immigration Judge determines that a Class member

EOIR shall arrange for the provision of a Qualified Representative. See

6 is not competent to represent him- or Section III.B.6.

7

herself in the proceedings (if the determination is made at the conclusion

8 of the Judicial Competency Inquiry).

9 Upon the conclusion of the Judicial Competency Inquiry.
10

The Immigration Judge shall promptly order that a Forensic Competency Evaluation of the Class member be

11

conducted and that the results of the

evaluation be provided to the

12

Immigration Judge, the ICE Office of

13 14 Within 45 days after the date an

the Chief Counsel, and the Class member. See Section III.B.7.a. The Forensic Competency Evaluation

15 Immigration Judge orders a Forensic Competency Evaluation.
16

shall be completed and a written report provided to the Immigration Judge and the parties. See Section III.B.7.b.

17 Within 30 days after receiving the report from the Forensic Competency
18 Evaluation.

The Immigration Judge shall convene a Competency Review, and shall make a determination by a preponderance of

19

the evidence as to whether the Class

member is mentally competent or

20

incompetent to represent him- or

21

herself. See Section III.B.7.c.

22 21 days from the date of an

EOIR shall arrange for the provision of

23 Immigration Judge determines that a a Qualified Representative. See

Class member is not competent to 24 represent him- or herself (if the

Section III.B.7.d.

25 determination is made at the conclusion

of the Competency Review). 26

27

28

31

1

Other Matters – Released Main Class Members

2

3

DATE

No more than 45 days after the

ACTION Absent exceptional circumstances or

4 Immigration Court receives the report where an Immigration Judge otherwise

5 from the Forensic Competency

determines that more time is necessary

Evaluation (if the Main Class member to ensure the fundamental fairness of

6 was released from detention after the the Class member’s proceeding, a

7 Immigration Judge ordered a Forensic Competency Review shall be Competency Evaluation but before the scheduled. See Section IV.B.

8 Immigration Judge made a competency 9 determination).20

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

20 As set forth in the Order, the timelines for scheduling a Forensic

Competency Evaluation, a Competency Review, and, if applicable, for provision of

27 a Qualified Representative at the conclusion of a Competency Review shall not

apply following a Main Class member’s release from detention. See Section IV.B.

28

32

Appendix A

ERO Custody Management Division
Authorized Facilities in the States of Arizona, California and Washington
/FTF+ 1FHMNMTU <JRKQROFPHJ 8FPFLJOJPT >USTJO !1<8>" IFTFGFSJ# '&%'&%(&')$

$%0),#

&"#()(01 +"*%

#(01

..,/.,E ..,17,E 0,E 17; >7=/.,E ,/79?., .;9B0., 4=,/1., 8@>46., =4;..., ..,>/., >,.4?., ?7,.D., D@-,5., .>.9BB,

.., .09?=,7 ,=4E;9, /0?09?4;9 .09?0=

17;=09.0

..,# 17;=09.0 .;==0.?4;9,7 .09?0=

17;=09.0

07;D 10/0=,7 .;9?=,.? 1,.474?D

07;D

17;=09.0 >0=A4.0 <=;.0>>492 .09?0=

17;=09.0

>,9 7@4> =024;9,7 /0?09?4;9 .09?0=

>,9 7@4>

,/07,9?; .;==0.?4;9,7 1,.474?D

,/07,9?;

.;9?=, .;>?, .;@9?D 5,47 B0>?

=4.38;9/

48<0=4,7 =024;9,7 ,/@7? /0?09?4;9 1,.474?D

.,70C4.;

5,80> 8@>4.6 1,.474?D

4=A490

>,.=,809?; .;@9?D 5,47 " =4; .;>@890> .;==$ .09?0= 076 2=;A0

>,9 /402; .;9?=,.? /0?09?4;9 1,.474?D " ..,

>,9 /402;

>,9?, ,9, .4?D 5,47

>,9?, ,9,

?30; 7,.D 1,.474?D

;=,920

D@-, .;@9?D 5,47

8,=D>A4770

9;=?3B0>? /0?09?4;9 .09?0=

?,.;8,

/0"0%
,E ,E ,E ,E ,E ., ., ., ., ., ., ., ., ., B,

",.
<3; <3; <3; <3; <3; 7;> >1= >9/ 7;> >1= >9/ 7;> 7;> >1= >0,

&"#()(01 01-%
@>8> 42, @>8> 42, /42>, ><. 42>, /42>, @>8> 42, /42>, 42>, 42>, ./1 42>, 42>, 42>, ./1

$%0%+0(,+ /0"+$".$
<-9/> (&&* <-9/> (&&* <-9/> (&'' <-9/> (&'' 9/> <-9/> (&'' 9/> <-9/> (&'' <-9/> (&&* 9/> <-9/> (&'' 9/> <-9/> (&&* 9/> <-9/> (&''

('/# /0"&&%$!
9; 9; D0> D0> 9; 9; 9; 9; 9; 9; D0> 9; 9; 9; D0>

Appendix B

!"# $ % &' ( )* + )( % % ' ' ), - . ), / 0 , 1 * 2 3 $ 4 5 6 6 7 )8 9 ;<$ = ' ' >( 8 >' 7 ? "@ $ ' A 1 B % % ? "@ $ C, D &' E 7 A (
f  y{  |  Y  z  y } w`  z yw _    
_Df     {  | ~{ `  z yw _     G n             ~}{       ~                ~  ê }      }       { ~ {    G~   }      }       {{  ~H
__Dc w z w   Wz   w æn   ~}{         ~     {  }}  {     {           ~      {  { ~             }  ~  { ~    ~    {~  {     ~  R ]H`HlH ½KLNJ HKJ B{CH
___Di } } { {z Wz   w G n   ~}{         ~ |   |    {           ~           { ~   }     }  ~ }     ~}{     H [  {   {~  {     T
_ w  w  _  }  w   `  z } { D c   x   z { y z {  ~ { ~ {       x { w   { z   w   ~ { k  { z i w {  D _ w  }   }  ~  z w ~ { w   }  } w ~ {   |   w   |      w  z ~ {  {   {  {  w  {  | ~ { ]   {    {    ~ {   { z { y z {  ~ { ~ {       x { w   { z   w   ~ { k  { z i w {  D
_      w   ~ w       z {   w  z  ~ w   ~ w   {   }  y    D _      w   ~ w       z {   w  z  ~ w   x {  }  w z w x       D _  w       w   ~ w     w  { w x {  {       z {  | ~ {     D
j   w  {    { ~ w     w  { w x {    z {   w  z w  z {          B _ w  }   }  w      {   {     w x       w  z     y w  { D _     { ~   |   w    z { y z {  ~ { ~ {        { { z w     { y w  ~ {   ~ { ~ { w   } D
Y w     {   w    {  ~ w  _     w z            z  U
Z     ~ w  { w     {     x { |  {  { x { }   z w  U
_lDi } } { {z g  {   
[H W {w  | _     G q    }  ~ }     ~}{     F  c   {  d ~      {          {          ~  ê T
KH   ~  { ~       {  { ~  | }       }  ~  F LH   ~  { ~    { ~ {|     }  }     { ~       F MH {|       ~    {  {   { ~ } {   F NH {|           {  { ~      ~            {     |  
  F{ ~ OH }     F     {F{ ~ |  {  {   }    H

!"# $ % &' ( )* + )( % % ' ' ), - . ), / 0 , 1 * 2 3 $ 4 5 6 6 7 )8 9 ;<$ = ' ' >( 8 >' 7 ? "@ $ % ( 1 B % % ? "@ $ C, D &' E 7 A '
\H i } } { {z g  {    æn                   ~     ~     ~             ~  ê TKC }     F     {F{ ~ |  {  {   }    U { ~ LC {|           G       H n           {    H n   ~   { {                {          ~  ê    {   { { ~ {|    }  {     ~      {  B{ D} DF{|  }     }{ F  | }   { F     F{ ~         CH c     {    { ~    |         ~  ê    G  |{ {    {   |{                     ~H
GD Y }   {B[    wBw z X{~w   w \  y   } {H b  {     ~{ Y |H q  {       {  Y }H q  {   ~{ ê ~{ B } ~    {CY ~H q  {  { { ~ }    {     ~{ Y  H b  ~~          o   ~ m{  Y H q    ~~    }      o   ~ m{  Y [|          {     |      o   ~ m{  Y  H ^     {    {    o   ~ m{  Y  H q    ~      Y H q  {                 }     {    }     ~Y H [         {~ }    {   {    ~}{   Y KC c    F  { }  ~      |   {    |    { ~  Y LC c    F  {   ~}{   {    {   Y  H [    }    |    { ~   {   {   { B   }    }{I   } {}C        {   |  Y KC c    F  {      |      }    { |    { ~Y LC c    F      ~         ~ } Y MC c    F  {   ~}{   F {  F{     }          |  Y H b{     |    { ~   {   {   { B   }    }{I   } {}C        {   |      { Y KC c    F    { ~     {   |  Y
HD Wx  h{    z  ~{ W{} w   w z Y~w } { {H q         {   ~Y Bq   ~~      {   }   }      YC |H q          {   ~Y }H q          {   ~Y Bq  {  {   ~{ { ~         {  YC ~H ]{       {         {  } {   { {      YB]{       {      {             {     ~~     YC  H c    {        {   {       c    ~     {|     {     {    ~~     YB^    {       {              {   {|      YC

!"# $ % &' ( )* + )( % % ' ' ), - . ), / 0 , 1 * 2 3 $ 4 5 6 6 7 )8 9 ;<$ = ' ' >( 8 >' 7 ? "@ $ % ' 1 B % % ? "@ $ C, D &' E 7 A %
H q  { ~   yyyyyyyyyyyyyB{ D} DF{         F}    ~   | { } F }   }  F { C   { Y
 H b  ~     {    }  ~  }  YBq  { ~     {  ~    YC  H q  { ~     {         {|      { ~I        {    Y H q  { ~         {      }  Y
ID k z {  w z  } w z Wx  [ { y { h} ~ w z f  {} { {H q  { {            {    }  ~   Y |H q  {  {  {       {  Y q  { ~   {  {       {  ~  }  Y }H b  ~     ~ { {        {       {  Y ~H c    {        }{             }{  Y  H q  {  è  ~  } é Y H ]{         {   {     è  ~  } é  {  { |    ~        }  ~  Y  H q  {  { è{   {é Y  H q   { ~       ~     { {   {Y
JD Wx  f { {  _ |   w  w z h{    z  g  {    h{{ w   h{{| {H q  { ~   è         {é   { Y |H q  {               {  { | { {{|        }  ~   Y }H b      {     |      o   ~ m{  Y ~H ^     {  {  {     o   ~ m{  Y  H b{           {       {~  {             |    o   ~ m{  Y H b{                 ~             }    Y  H [    {{~    |{}      }    Y q   Y  H q  { ~   yyyyyyyyyyyyyB{ D} DF{    F}{ } {        {F     ~        {C   { Y H c{             {   {  }{  H j {  {  {             {  }{  H ]{       {             ~    {  }{       |   |{}    }     ~Y H q   ~               | {|              }{  Y
KD e~{ w      w{   {    {H c    {              ~        Y |H [    {                   ~    {  Y

 
 Case 2:10-cv-02211-DMG-DTB Document 818 Filed 03/30/15 Page 1 of 3 Page ID #:20286

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

11

JOSE ANTONIO FRANCO-

) Case No. CV 10-02211 DMG (DTBx)

12 GONZALEZ, et al.,

) ) ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’

13

Plaintiffs-Petitioners,

) MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY ) APPROVAL OF PARTIAL

14

v.

) SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT [806] )

15 ERIC H. HOLDER, JR.,

) )

16 Attorney General, et al.,

) )

17

Defendants- Respondents,

)

)

18 ____________________________ )

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Case 2:10-cv-02211-DMG-DTB Document 818 Filed 03/30/15 Page 2 of 3 Page ID #:20287

1

The Court determines, preliminarily, that the Agreement Regarding

2 Procedures for Notifying and Reopening Cases of Franco Class Members Who

3 Have Received Final Orders of Removal (“Reopening Settlement Agreement”) and

4 its terms fall within the range of reasonableness and merits possible final approval.

5

The Court also determines that the Class Notices and the Notice Program as

6 described in the Reopening Settlement Agreement: (i) meet the requirements of

7 Rule 23(e)(1) and due process; (ii) are the best practicable notice under the

8 circumstances; (iii) are reasonably calculated, under the circumstances, to apprise

9 the Class, Sub-Classes, and Removal Order Class Members of their right to object to

10 the proposed Settlement; and (iv) are reasonable and constitute due, adequate, and

11 sufficient notice to all those entitled to receive notice.

12

Having determined the above, the Court hereby GRANTS Plaintiffs’

13 unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of the Reopening Agreement, and

14 orders the following:

15

A. The proposed Class Notices and Notice Program, as set forth in the

16 Reopening Settlement Agreement, are approved, subject to the Court’s edits;

17

B. There are no rights to “opt-out” of the Reopening Settlement Agreement

18 and the proposed agreement would bind Class Members and Removal Order Class

19 Members;

20

C. The Parties or their designee(s) shall cause the Class Notices to be

21 disseminated in the manner set forth in the Notice Program on or before the Notice

22 Date;

23

D. Any Class Member or Removal Order Class Member who wishes to object

24 to the fairness, reasonableness, or adequacy of the Settlement must submit his or her

25 objection (“Objection”) to the Court in writing, via regular mail on or before the

26 Objection Date, with copies to counsel for the parties. Such Objection shall include

27 a statement of his or her objection, as well as the specific reason, if any, for each

28 objection, including any legal support the Class Member or Removal Order Class

Case 2:10-cv-02211-DMG-DTB Document 818 Filed 03/30/15 Page 3 of 3 Page ID #:20288

1 Member wishes to bring to the Court’s attention and any evidence the Class

2 Member or Removal Order Class Member wishes to introduce in support of his or

3 her objection. Such Objection also shall state whether the Class Member and/or his

4 or her counsel wish to make an appearance at the Approval Hearing, or be barred

5 from separately objecting;

6

E. The Notice Date is hereby set for August 17, 2015;

7

F. The Objection Date is hereby set for September 25, 2015; and

8

G. The Final Approval Hearing to consider the fairness, reasonableness and

9 adequacy of the Reopening Settlement Agreement is hereby set for October 16,

10 2015 at 10:00 a.m.

11

IT IS SO ORDERED.

12 13 DATED: March 30, 2015
14

_______________________________ DOLLY M. GEE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

 
 Case 2:10-cv-02211-DMG-DTB Document 844 Filed 09/02/15 Page 1 of 2 Page ID #:22503

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

11

) Case No.: CV 10-2211-DMG (DTBx)

)

12 JOSE ANTONIO FRANCOGONZALEZ, et al.,
13

) ) )

ORDER RE: DEFENDANTS’ STATEMENT OF NON-OPPOSITION

Plaintiffs-Petitioners,

) TO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO

14

v.

) )

DISMISS

REMAINING CLAIMS [826]

15

)

ERIC H. HOLDER, JR.,

)

16 Attorney General, et al.,

)

)

17

Defendants- Respondents,

)

)

18 ____________________________

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Case 2:10-cv-02211-DMG-DTB Document 844 Filed 09/02/15 Page 2 of 2 Page ID #:22504

1

Pursuant to Federal Rule 41(a)(2), IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that

2 Plaintiffs’ unopposed Motion to Dismiss Remaining Claims is GRANTED, and the

3 Court hereby dismisses Causes of Action One, Two, Three, Five, Nine, Ten, and

4 Eleven of Plaintiffs’ Third Amended Complaint [Doc. # 344], without prejudice

5 and without costs.

6

IT IS SO ORDERED.

7 8 DATED: September 2, 2015
9

_______________________________ DOLLY M. GEE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

 
 Case 2:10-cv-02211-DMG-DTB Document 849 Filed 09/15/15 Page 1 of 1 Page ID #:22535

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

11 JOSE ANTONIO FRANCO

)

GONZALEZ, et al.,

)

12

)

Plaintiffs & Petitioners, )

13

)

v.

)

14

)

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney )

15 General, et al.,

)

)

16

Defendants & Respondents. )

)

17

Case No.: CV 10-2211 DMG (DTBx) ORDER STAYING DISMISSAL OF CAUSES OF ACTION ONE, TWO, THREE, FIVE, NINE, TEN AND ELEVEN OF PLAINTIFFS’ THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT [845][847]

18

The Court has considered Plaintiffs’ Request for Stay of Order Dismissing

19 Plaintiffs’ Remaining Claims. Good cause appearing, the Court hereby GRANTS

20 Plaintiffs’ request and orders that the dismissal of causes of action One, Two,

21 Three, Five, Nine, Ten, and Eleven of Plaintiffs’ Third Amended Complaint is

22 hereby stayed until final approval of the Reopening Settlement Agreement.

23

24 DATED: September 15, 2015 25

DOLLY M. GEE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

26

27

28

ORDER

 
 Case 2:10-cv-02211-DMG-DTB Document 860 Filed 09/25/15 Page 1 of 4 Page ID #:22639

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

11 JOSE ANTONIO FRANCO

)

GONZALEZ, et al.,

)

12

)

Plaintiffs & Petitioners, )

13

)

v.

)

14

)

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney )

15 General, et al.,

)

)

16

Defendants & Respondents. )

)

17

Case No. 10-CV-02211 DMG (DTBx) ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF PARTIAL CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

ORDER GRANTING UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL

Case 2:10-cv-02211-DMG-DTB Document 860 Filed 09/25/15 Page 2 of 4 Page ID #:22640

1

This matter came before the Court pursuant to Plaintiffs’ Unopposed Motion

2 for Final Approval of the Parties’ Partial Settlement Agreement Regarding

3 Procedures for Notifying and Reopening Cases of Removal Order Class Members

4 (“Reopening Settlement Agreement”). The beneficiaries of the Reopening

5 Settlement Agreement who have received final orders of removal are referred to

6 herein as the “Removal Order Class Members.”

7

On March 30, 2015, this Court granted Plaintiffs’ Unopposed Motion for

8 Preliminary Approval of the Reopening Settlement Agreement (“Preliminary

9 Approval Order”) [Doc. # 818]. Thereafter, the Parties disseminated notice to the

10 Class by July 27, 2015 in substantial compliance with the Notice Program set forth

11 in the Reopening Settlement Agreement, except that Defendants failed to provide

12 timely notice to the applicable Legal Orientation Providers (“LOPs”) as required

13 by the Reopening Settlement Agreement and the Court’s Preliminary Approval

14 Order. Thereafter, Defendants provided notice to the LOPs on September 11,

15 2015. The Court subsequently excused Defendants’ failure to provide timely

16 notice to the LOPs, extended the time for the LOPs to object, and found that the

17 notice provided by the Parties “satisfied the Parties’ obligations pursuant to Federal

18 Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e)(1) and due process.” [Doc. # 856.]

19

To date, there have been no objections to the Reopening Settlement

20 Agreement from Class Members, Sub-Class Members, Removal Order Class

21 Members, or LOPs and the deadline to submit objections has passed.

22

Having reviewed and considered Plaintiffs’ Unopposed Motion for Final

23 Approval, and the exhibits thereto, and good cause having been shown, the Court

24 hereby orders as follows:

25 I. FINAL APPROVAL OF THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

26

1. The Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ motion for final approval of the terms

27 of the Reopening Settlement Agreement. The Reopening Settlement Agreement is

28 in all respects fair, reasonable, and adequate, and in the best interest of the

ORDER GRANTING UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL

Case 2:10-cv-02211-DMG-DTB Document 860 Filed 09/25/15 Page 3 of 4 Page ID #:22641

1 Removal Order Class Members. In reaching this conclusion, the Court has

2 considered a number of factors, including an assessment of the strength of

3 Plaintiffs’ case, the risk, expense, complexity, and likely duration of further

4 litigation in the absence of settlement, the benefit offered to the Removal Order

5 Class Members immediately as opposed to the risk and uncertainty of litigation,

6 the extent of discovery completed, the stage of the proceedings, the experience and

7 views of counsel, and the fact that there are no objections to the Reopening

8 Settlement Agreement.

9

2. The Reopening Settlement Agreement was entered into by

10 experienced counsel and only after extensive arm’s-length, non-collusive

11 negotiations, including obtaining the views of the Special Master through his

12 Report and Recommendation.

13 II. NOTICE

14

3. The Court hereby finds that the Parties complied with the Notice

15 Program as described in the Reopening Settlement Agreement in all material

16 respects, and fully complied with this Court’s subsequent order requiring

17 Plaintiffs’ counsel to notify LOPs of the extension of time to object.

18

4. The Court hereby confirms its prior order [Doc. # 856] finding that

19 the Parties satisfied their obligations to provide notice of the Reopening Settlement

20 Agreement pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e)(1) and due process:

21 (a) class notice was reasonably calculated, under the circumstances, to apprise the

22 Class, Sub-Classes, and Removal Order Class Members of their right to object to

23 the proposed Reopening Settlement Agreement; and (b) class notice was

24 reasonable and constituted due, adequate, and sufficient notice to all those entitled

25 to receive notice.

26 III. DISMISSAL OF REMAINING CAUSES OF ACTION

27

5. The Court previously stayed its order dismissing Causes of Action

28 One, Two, Three, Five, Nine, Ten and Eleven of Plaintiffs’ Third Amended

ORDER GRANTING UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL

Case 2:10-cv-02211-DMG-DTB Document 860 Filed 09/25/15 Page 4 of 4 Page ID #:22642

1 Complaint [Doc. # 849]. The stay is now lifted. Causes of Action One, Two,

2 Three, Five, Nine, Ten and Eleven of Plaintiffs’ Third Amended Complaint are

3 hereby dismissed without prejudice.

4 IV. IMPLEMENTATION; CONTINUING JURISDICTION

5

6. The Court hereby orders the Parties to proceed with implementation

6 of the Reopening Settlement Agreement.

7

7. The Court retains jurisdiction for the purpose of supervising the

8 implementation of the Reopening Settlement Agreement and determining the 9 pending motion for attorneys’ fees.1

10

11 IT IS SO ORDERED.

12

13 DATED: September 25, 2015 14 15

DOLLY M. GEE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

1 The Court previously retained jurisdiction, and continues to retain jurisdiction, over the

28

Permanent Injunction [Doc. # 593], Implementation Plan Order [Doc. # 786], and Monitoring Order [Doc. # 810].

ORDER GRANTING UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL

 
 1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

11

JOSE ANTONIO FRANCOGONZALEZ, et al.,

) Case No.: CV 10-2211 DMG (DTBx) )

12

Plaintiffs-Petitioners,

) ORDER APPROVING PARTIES’ ) SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

13

v.

) RESOLVING PLAINTIFFS’ ) MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’

14 ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney

) )

FEES AND COSTS [827, 864]

15 General, et al.,

) )

16

Defendants-Respondents. ) )

17

) )

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

WHEREAS, the Parties provided proper notice to the Class [Doc. # 860];

2

WHEREAS, the Court has already approved the notice provided to the Class

3 as satisfying the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e)(1) and due

4 process [Doc. ## 856, 860];

5

WHEREAS, the notice provided to the Class stated that Plaintiffs would

6 seek attorneys’ fees and costs up to $15,000,000, and no Class Member has

7 objected;

8

WHEREAS, Plaintiffs did not seek the full $15,000,000 in fees and costs of

9 which they gave notice to the Class, and instead filed a Motion for Attorneys’ Fees

10 and Costs (“Fee Motion”) seeking $11,632,425.73 in attorneys’ fees and

11 $81,701.73 in costs (as corrected) [Doc. ## 827, 843];

12

WHEREAS, Defendants were granted, by order of this Court, over two

13 months to analyze and respond to Plaintiffs’ Fee Motion and indicated that they

14 would engage an expert to assist them in analyzing and responding to Plaintiffs’

15 Fee Motion [Doc. ## 822 at 14-16, 825];

16

WHEREAS, the Parties engaged in non-collusive, arms’-length negotiations

17 to resolve Plaintiffs’ Fee Motion, and have now reached a settlement (“Fee

18 Settlement Agreement”);

19

WHEREAS, the Fee Settlement Agreement, attached hereto as Exhibit A, is

20 the entire agreement between the Government and Plaintiffs regarding attorneys’

21 fees and costs;

22

WHEREAS, the Fee Settlement Agreement requires Defendants to pay

23 Plaintiffs $9,500,000.00 in full satisfaction of all attorneys’ fees and costs that

24 Plaintiffs have sought or could seek in this matter as of September 29, 2015;

25

WHEREAS, Plaintiffs’ Fee Motion provides ample support for an award of

26 at least $9,500,000;

27

WHEREAS, there is no evidence of collusion between the Parties regarding

28 fees, or of Plaintiffs putting their interests in obtaining fees ahead of the interests of

1

1 the Class [Doc. # 854 at 15-16];

2

The Court hereby awards Plaintiffs $9,500,000 in attorneys’ fees and costs,

3 subject to the terms set forth in the Fee Settlement Agreement. The Fee Settlement

4 Agreement is a compromise reached by the Parties as a result of arms’-length

5 negotiations, including negotiations after Defendants had the opportunity to review

6 Plaintiffs’ entire Fee Motion, which contained voluminous time records and

7 supporting materials. The Fee Settlement Agreement does not prejudice the Class

8 and was not the result of collusion between the Parties. The Class has received

9 notice of Plaintiffs’ Fee Motion that complied with the requirements of Federal

10 Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e)(1), and no Class Member has objected to the Fee

11 Motion. The Court therefore finds the award to be fair, adequate, and reasonable.

12

The Parties are hereby ordered to implement the terms of the Fee Settlement

13 Agreement. The Court retains jurisdiction for the purpose of enforcing compliance

14 with the terms of the Fee Settlement Agreement.

15

IT IS SO ORDERED.

16

17 DATED: October 8, 2015 18 19

______________________________ DOLLY M. GEE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

Exhibit A

 
 (AGRx),CLOSED,DISCOVERY,PROTORD,REFVAC,SM
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA (Western Division − Los Angeles)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 2:10−cv−02211−DMG−AGR

Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez v. Janet Napolitano et al Assigned to: Judge Dolly M. Gee Referred to: Magistrate Judge Alicia G. Rosenberg Related Cases: 2:15−cv−09875−DMG−DTB
8:12−cv−01912−DMG−DTB Cause: 28:2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federal)
Petitioner

Date Filed: 03/26/2010 Date Terminated: 03/16/2016 Jury Demand: None Nature of Suit: 890 Other Statutory Actions Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Defendant

Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez by and through his guardian ad litem, Ruben Franco Gonzalez, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated

represented by John David Loy ACLU of San Diego and Imperial Counties P O Box 87131 San Diego, CA 92138−7131 619−398−4496 Fax: 619−232−0036 Email: davidloy@aclusandiego.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael H Steinberg Sullivan and Cromwell LLP 1888 Century Park East Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90067−1725 310−712−6600 Fax: 310−712−8800 Email: steinbergm@sullcrom.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ahilan T Arulanantham ACLU Foundation of Southern California 1313 West Eighth Street Los Angeles, CA 90017 213−977−5211 Fax: 213−977−5297 Email: aarulanantham@aclu−sc.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Alexa M Lawson−Remer Sullivan and Cromwell LLP 1888 Century Park East Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 310−712−6600 Fax: 310−712−8800 Email: lawsonr@sullcrom.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Antonia Stamenova−Dancheva Sullivan and Cromwell LLP 1888 Century Park East Los Angeles, CA 90067 310−712−6600 Fax: 310−712−8800 Email: stamenovaa@sullcrom.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Asel Aliyasova Sullivan and Cromwell LLP

1870 Embarcadero Road Palo Alto, CA 94303 650−461−5600 Fax: 650−461−5700 Email: aliyasovaa@sullcrom.com TERMINATED: 07/21/2014
Bardis Vakili ACLU Foundation of San Diego and Imperial Counties P O Box 87131 San Diego, CA 92138−7131 619−398−4485 Fax: 619−232−0036 Email: bvakili@aclusandiego.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Carmen Iguina 2845 Hollister Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90032 6176946590 Fax: 6176946590 Email: carmen.iguina@nyu.edu TERMINATED: 05/18/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Damion D D Robinson Van Vleck Turner and Zaller LLP 604 Arizona Avenue Suite 28 Santa Monica, CA 90401 323−592−3501 Fax: 323−592−3506 Email: drobinson@vtzlaw.com TERMINATED: 01/27/2012
Esha Bhandari ACLU Immigrants Rights Project 125 Broad Street 18th Floor New York, NY 10004 212−284−7359 Fax: 212−549−2654 Email: ebhandari@aclu.org TERMINATED: 07/19/2013 PRO HAC VICE
James Duff Lyall ACLU Foundation of Arizona 3707 North Seventh Street Suite 235 Phoenix, AZ 85014 602−773−6001 Fax: 602−650−1376 Email: jlyall@acluaz.org PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
James J Preis Mental Health Advocacy Services Inc 3255 Wilshire Boulevard Suite 902 Los Angeles, CA 90010 213−389−2077 Fax: 213−389−2595 Email: jpreis@mhas−la.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jennifer L Stark

ACLU of Southern California 1313 West 8th Street, Suite 200 Los Angeles, CA 90017 (213) 977−9500 TERMINATED: 09/06/2011
Jessica Karp Bansal ACLU Foundation of Southern California 1313 West 8th Street Los Angeles, CA 90017 909−380−7501 Fax: 909−332−7280 Email: jbansal@aclusocal.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Judy London Public Counsel 610 South Ardmore Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90005 213−385−2977 Fax: 213−385−9089 Email: jlondon@publiccounsel.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Judy Rabinovitz American Civil Liberities Union Immigrants' Rights Project 125 Broad Street 18th Floor New York, NY 10004 212−549−2618 Fax: 212−549−2654 Email: jrabinovitz@aclu.org PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lauren Michelle Cruz Sullivan and Cromwell LLP 1888 Century Park East Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 310−712−6600 Fax: 310−712−8800 Email: Lauren.Cruz@blbglaw.com TERMINATED: 07/25/2019
Marisol Orihuela Federal Public Defenders Office 321 East 2nd Street Los Angeles, CA 90012 213−894−2644 Fax: 213−894−0081 Email: Marisol_Orihuela@fd.org TERMINATED: 10/01/2012
Matt Adams Northwest Immigrant Rights Project 615 Second Avenue Suite 400 Seattle, WA 98104−2244 206−957−8611 Fax: 206−587−4025 Email: matt@nwirp.org PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael P Murtagh Sullivan and Cromwell LLP

1870 Embarcadero Road Palo Alto, CA 94303 650−461−5600 Fax: 650−461−5700 Email: murtaghm@sullcrom.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Riddhi Mukhopadhyay Northwest Immigrants' Rights Project 615 Second Avenue Suite 400 Seattle, WA 98104−2244 206−957−8651 Fax: 206−587−4025 Email: riddhi@nwirp.org TERMINATED: 11/15/2013
Sameer Ahmed ACLU of Southern California 1313 West Eight Street Los Angeles, CA 90017 213−977−5284 Fax: 213−977−5297 Email: sahmed@aclusocal.org TERMINATED: 07/29/2019 PRO HAC VICE
Sean Riordan ACLU Foundation of San Diego & Imperial Counties P O Box 87131 San Diego, CA 92138 619−398−4485 Fax: 619−232−0036 Email: sriordan@aclusandiego.org TERMINATED: 12/29/2014
Shawn Joe Lichaa Sullivan and Cromwell LLP 1870 Embarcadero Road Palo Alto, CA 94303−3308 650−461−5662 Email: slichaa@fenwick.com TERMINATED: 01/07/2013
Stephen Bonggyun Kang ACLU Immigrants' Rights Project 39 Drumm Street San Francisco, CA 94111 415−343−0763 Fax: 415− 395−0950 Email: skang@aclu.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Talia R Inlender Public Counsel 610 South Ardmore Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90005 213−385−2977 Fax: 213−385−9089 Email: tinlender@publiccounsel.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Theresa A Buckley SunEdison, Inc. 600 Clipper Drive

Petitioner
Ever Francisco Martinez−Rivas on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated

Belmont, CA 94002 (650) 743−8170 Email: tbuckley@sunedison.com TERMINATED: 01/20/2012
represented by John David Loy (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael H Steinberg (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ahilan T Arulanantham (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Asel Aliyasova (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/21/2014 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Carmen Iguina (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/18/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Esha Bhandari (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/19/2013 PRO HAC VICE
James Duff Lyall (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
James J Preis (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jennifer L Stark (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/06/2011
Jessica Karp Bansal (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Judy London (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Judy Rabinovitz (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lauren Michelle Cruz (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/25/2019

Petitioner
Jose Chavez on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated

Marisol Orihuela (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/01/2012
Matt Adams (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael P Murtagh (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Riddhi Mukhopadhyay (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/15/2013 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sameer Ahmed (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/29/2019 PRO HAC VICE
Sean Riordan (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/29/2014
Stephen Bonggyun Kang (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Talia R Inlender (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Theresa A Buckley (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/20/2012
represented by John David Loy (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael H Steinberg (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ahilan T Arulanantham (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Asel Aliyasova (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/21/2014 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Carmen Iguina (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/18/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Esha Bhandari (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/19/2013 PRO HAC VICE
James Duff Lyall (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
James J Preis (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jennifer L Stark (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/06/2011
Jessica Karp Bansal (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Judy London (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Judy Rabinovitz (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lauren Michelle Cruz (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/25/2019
Marisol Orihuela (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/01/2012
Matt Adams (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael P Murtagh (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Riddhi Mukhopadhyay (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/15/2013
Sameer Ahmed (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/29/2019 PRO HAC VICE
Sean Riordan (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/29/2014
Stephen Bonggyun Kang (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Petitioner
Jonas Woldemariam on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated TERMINATED: 07/25/2011

Talia R Inlender (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Theresa A Buckley (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/20/2012
represented by John David Loy (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael H Steinberg (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ahilan T Arulanantham (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
James J Preis (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jennifer L Stark (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/06/2011
Judy London (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Judy Rabinovitz (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lauren Michelle Cruz (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/25/2019
Matt Adams (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Riddhi Mukhopadhyay (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/15/2013 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sean Riordan (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/29/2014
Talia R Inlender (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Theresa A Buckley

Petitioner
Aleksandr Petrovich Khukhryanskiy on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated

(See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/20/2012
represented by John David Loy (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael H Steinberg (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ahilan T Arulanantham (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Asel Aliyasova (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/21/2014 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Carmen Iguina (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/18/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Esha Bhandari (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/19/2013 PRO HAC VICE
James Duff Lyall (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
James J Preis (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jennifer L Stark (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/06/2011
Jessica Karp Bansal (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Judy London (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Judy Rabinovitz (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lauren Michelle Cruz (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/25/2019
Marisol Orihuela

Petitioner
Maksim Zhalezny on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated

(See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/01/2012
Matt Adams (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael P Murtagh (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Riddhi Mukhopadhyay (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/15/2013 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sameer Ahmed (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/29/2019 PRO HAC VICE
Sean Riordan (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/29/2014
Stephen Bonggyun Kang (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Talia R Inlender (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Theresa A Buckley (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/20/2012
represented by John David Loy (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael H Steinberg (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ahilan T Arulanantham (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Asel Aliyasova (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/21/2014 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Carmen Iguina (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/18/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Esha Bhandari

(See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/19/2013 PRO HAC VICE
James Duff Lyall (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
James J Preis (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jennifer L Stark (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/06/2011
Jessica Karp Bansal (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Judy London (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Judy Rabinovitz (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lauren Michelle Cruz (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/25/2019
Marisol Orihuela (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/01/2012
Matt Adams (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael P Murtagh (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Riddhi Mukhopadhyay (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/15/2013 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sameer Ahmed (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/29/2019 PRO HAC VICE
Sean Riordan (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/29/2014
Stephen Bonggyun Kang (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Petitioner
Yonas Woldemariam on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated

Talia R Inlender (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Theresa A Buckley (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/20/2012
represented by John David Loy (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael H Steinberg (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ahilan T Arulanantham (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Asel Aliyasova (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/21/2014 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Carmen Iguina (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/18/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Esha Bhandari (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/19/2013 PRO HAC VICE
James Duff Lyall (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
James J Preis (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jennifer L Stark (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/06/2011
Jessica Karp Bansal (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Judy London (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Judy Rabinovitz (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Petitioner
Jose Antonio Moreno−Vasquez on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated

Lauren Michelle Cruz (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/25/2019
Marisol Orihuela (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/01/2012
Matt Adams (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael P Murtagh (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Riddhi Mukhopadhyay (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/15/2013 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sameer Ahmed (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/29/2019 PRO HAC VICE
Sean Riordan (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/29/2014
Stephen Bonggyun Kang (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Talia R Inlender (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by John David Loy (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael H Steinberg (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ahilan T Arulanantham (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Asel Aliyasova (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/21/2014 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Carmen Iguina (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/18/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Esha Bhandari (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/19/2013 PRO HAC VICE
James Duff Lyall (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
James J Preis (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jennifer L Stark (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/06/2011
Jessica Karp Bansal (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Judy London (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Judy Rabinovitz (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lauren Michelle Cruz (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/25/2019
Marisol Orihuela (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/01/2012
Matt Adams (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael P Murtagh (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Riddhi Mukhopadhyay (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/15/2013 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sameer Ahmed (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/29/2019 PRO HAC VICE
Sean Riordan (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/29/2014
Stephen Bonggyun Kang (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Petitioner
Juan Carlos Sepulveda−Perez on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated

Talia R Inlender (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Theresa A Buckley (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/20/2012
represented by John David Loy (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael H Steinberg (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ahilan T Arulanantham (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Asel Aliyasova (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/21/2014 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Carmen Iguina (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/18/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Esha Bhandari (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/19/2013 PRO HAC VICE
James Duff Lyall (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
James J Preis (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jessica Karp Bansal (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Judy London (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Judy Rabinovitz (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lauren Michelle Cruz (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/25/2019

V.
Respondent
Janet Napolitano Secretary of Homeland Security

Marisol Orihuela (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/01/2012
Matt Adams (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael P Murtagh (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Riddhi Mukhopadhyay (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/15/2013 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sameer Ahmed (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/29/2019 PRO HAC VICE
Sean Riordan (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/29/2014
Stephen Bonggyun Kang (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Talia R Inlender (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Theresa A Buckley (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/20/2012
represented by August E Flentje United States Department of Justice Civil Division 950 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington, DC 20530−0009 202−514−1278 Email: august.flentje@usdoj.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jeffrey S Robins Department of Justice Office of Immigration Litigation − District Court Section PO Box 868 Ben Franklin Station Washington, DC 20044 202−616−1246 Fax: 202−305−7000 Email: jeffrey.robins@usdoj.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Samuel P Go Office of Immigration Litigation − District Court Section US Department of Justice, Civil Division P O Box 868 Ben Franklin Station Washington, DC 20044 202−353−9923 Fax: 202−305−7000 Email: samuel.go@usdoj.gov TERMINATED: 08/23/2013 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Anthony Daniel Bianco US Department of Justice Civil Division − Office of Immigration Litigation PO Box 868 Ben Franklin Station Washington, DC 20044 202−305−8014 Fax: 202−305−7000 Email: anthony.d.bianco@usdoj.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Assistant US Attorney LA−CV AUSA − Office of US Attorney Civil Division 300 North Los Angeles Street Suite 7516 Los Angeles, CA 90012 213−894−2879 Email: USACAC.Civil@usdoj.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Erez Reuveni US Department of Justice Office of Immigration Litigation − Civil Division Ben Franklin Station PO Box 868 Washington, DC 20044 202−307−4293 Fax: 202−305−7000 Email: erez.r.reuveni@usdoj.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jennifer L Stark (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/06/2011
Jesi J Carlson United States Department of Justice Office of Immigration Litigation − Civil Division PO Box 868 Ben Franklin Station Washington, DC 20044 202−305−7037 Fax: 202−305−7000 Email: jesi.j.carlson@usdoj.gov TERMINATED: 09/03/2013 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Neelam Ihsanullah US Department of Justice Office of Immigration Litigation − Civil

Respondent
Eric H. Holder, Jr. Attorney General also known as Eric Holder

Division PO Box 868 Ben Franklin Station Washington, DC 20044 202−532−4269 Fax: 202−616−8962 Email: neelam.ihsanullah@usdoj.gov TERMINATED: 04/13/2015 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Nicole R Prairie US Department of Justice Civil Division − Office of Immigration Litigation Ben Franklin Station PO Box 868 Washington, DC 20044 202−532−4074 Fax: 202−305−7000 Email: Nicole.Prairie@usdoj.gov TERMINATED: 08/23/2013 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sarah S Wilson US Department of Justice Office of Immigration Litigation − District Court Section PO Box 868 Ben Franklin Station Washington, DC 20044 202−532−4700 Fax: 202−395−7000 Email: sarah.s.wilson@usdoj.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Victor M Lawrence Office of U.S. Immigration Litigation Civil Division U.S. Department of Justice P.O. Box 878, Ben Franklin Station Washington, DC 20044 202−305−8788 Fax: 202−305−7000 Email: victor.lawrence@usdoj.gov TERMINATED: 08/23/2013 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by August E Flentje (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jeffrey S Robins (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ahilan T Arulanantham ACLU Foundation of Southern California 1313 West Eighth Street Los Angeles, CA 90017 213−977−9500 Fax: 213−977−5299 Email: aarulanantham@aclu−sc.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Respondent
John T. Morton Assistant Secretary of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)

Anthony Daniel Bianco (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Assistant US Attorney LA−CV (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Erez Reuveni (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jennifer L Stark (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/06/2011
Jesi J Carlson (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/03/2013
Neelam Ihsanullah (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/13/2015 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Nicole R Prairie (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/23/2013
Samuel P Go (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/23/2013
Sarah S Wilson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Victor M Lawrence (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/23/2013
represented by August E Flentje (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jeffrey S Robins (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Samuel P Go (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/23/2013 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Anthony Daniel Bianco (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Assistant US Attorney LA−CV (See above for address)

Respondent
Trey Lund Field Office Director, ICE, Los Angeles Field Office TERMINATED: 11/02/2010

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Erez Reuveni (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jennifer L Stark (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/06/2011
Jesi J Carlson (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/03/2013 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Neelam Ihsanullah (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/13/2015 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Nicole R Prairie (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/23/2013 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sarah S Wilson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Victor M Lawrence (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/23/2013 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Jeffrey S Robins (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Anthony Daniel Bianco (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Assistant US Attorney LA−CV (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jennifer L Stark (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/06/2011
Jesi J Carlson (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/03/2013 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Neelam Ihsanullah (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/13/2015 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Nicole R Prairie (See above for address)

Respondent
Thomas G Snow Acting Director of the Executive Office of Immigration Review

TERMINATED: 08/23/2013
Samuel P Go (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/23/2013
Victor M Lawrence (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/23/2013
represented by August E Flentje (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jeffrey S Robins (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Anthony Daniel Bianco (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Erez Reuveni (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jesi J Carlson (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/03/2013 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael P Murtagh (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Neelam Ihsanullah (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/13/2015 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Nicole R Prairie (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/23/2013 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Samuel P Go Office of Immigration Litigation − District Court Section US Department of Justice, Civil Division PO Box 868 Ben Franklin Station Washington, DC 20044 202−353−9923 Fax: 202−616−8962 Email: samuel.go@usdoj.gov TERMINATED: 08/23/2013 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sarah S Wilson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Respondent Timothy S Robbins Field Office Director for the Los Angeles District of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement
Special Master A Howard Matz

Victor M Lawrence (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/23/2013 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by August E Flentje (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jeffrey S Robins (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Anthony Daniel Bianco (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Erez Reuveni (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jesi J Carlson (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/03/2013 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Neelam Ihsanullah (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/13/2015 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Nicole R Prairie (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/23/2013 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Samuel P Go (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/23/2013 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sarah S Wilson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Victor M Lawrence (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/23/2013 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by A Howard Matz Bird Marella Boxer Wolpert Nessim Drooks Lincenberg & Rhow 1875 Century Park East 23rd Floor Los Angeles, CA 90067−2561 310−201−2100 Fax: 310−201−2110 Email: ahm@birdmarella.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Interested Party Kevin Lapp Expert
Interested Party Katherine Byrne Mahoney Monitor

represented by Kevin Lapp Loyola Law School Los Angeles 919 Albany Street B−424 Los Angeles, CA 90015 213−736−1165 Email: kevin.lapp@lls.edu PRO SE
represented by Katherine Byrne Mahoney 635 Page Street, Apt. 4 San Francisco, CA 94117 415−517−9423 PRO SE

Date Filed 03/26/2010 03/26/2010 03/26/2010 03/26/2010 03/26/2010 03/31/2010
04/05/2010
04/09/2010

# Docket Text
1 PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person In Federal Custody (28:2241) Case assigned to Judge Dolly M. Gee and referred to Magistrate Judge David T. Bristow.(Filing fee $ 5: PAID), filed by petitioner Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez.(ghap) (ds). (Entered: 03/26/2010)
2 APPLICATION for Order to Show Cause, filed by petitioner Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez. Lodged Proposed Order. (ghap) (Additional attachment(s) added on 3/29/2010: # 1 Proposed Order) (ds). (Entered: 03/26/2010)
3 NOTICE of Interested Parties filed by Petitioner Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez. (ghap) (ds). (Entered: 03/26/2010)
4 NOTICE of Related Case(s) filed by petitioner Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez. Related Case(s): no related actions. (ghap) (ds). (Entered: 03/26/2010)
5 NOTICE OF REFERENCE TO A U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE. Pursuant to the provisions of the Local Rules, the within action has been assigned to the calendar of Judge Dolly M. Gee and referred to Magistrate Judge David T. Bristow to consider preliminary matters and conduct all further matters as appropriate. The Court must be notified within 15 days of any change of address. (ghap) (Entered: 03/26/2010)
6 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE by Magistrate Judge David T Bristow: It is ORDERED that:1. The Clerk of this Court shall promptly serve a copy of the Petition and a copy of this Order to Show Cause on respondent and the United States AttorneysOffice; and (b) serve a copy of this Order to Show Cause on petitioner. 2. Respondent is to file a return on the Order to Show Cause within 20 days of the filing of this Order. No extensions will be granted. 3. Petitioner shall have an opportunity to file a Reply or Traverse within 3 days of the filing of respondents return. No extensions will be granted. 4. The Order to Show Cause will be heard on April 29, 2010, at 9:00 a.m. in Courtroom 4 of the United States District Court, Eastern Division, Riverside Courthouse, in Riverside, California. 2 (am) (Entered: 03/31/2010)
7 ORDER TO REASSIGN CASE PURSUANT TO Section 5.4 of General Order 08−05 by Judge Gary A. Feess, Chair of the Case Management and Assignment Committee, all related Indefinite Detention cases are assigned to Judge Terry J. Hatter, Jr. for all further proceedings. Any discovery matters will be referred to Magistrate Judge Robert N. Block. The case number will now read as follows: CV 10−02211 TJH(RNB). The Related Group Control Case Number is: CV 04−03266 TJH (RNB). (rn) (Entered: 04/05/2010)
8 ORDER VACATING REASSIGNMENT by Judge Gary A. Feess, Case Management and Assignment Committee Chair. Upon further review of the above−entitled case, and with concurrence of the Case Management and Assignment Committee, it is hereby ordered that the Order For Reassignment dated March 30, 2010, is vacated.

04/15/2010 04/19/2010
04/27/2010 05/03/2010 05/05/2010
06/02/2010 06/03/2010 06/04/2010
07/30/2010 08/02/2010 08/02/2010 08/02/2010 08/03/2010

This case is returned from the calendar of Magistrate Judge Robert N. Block and Judge Terry J. Hatter, Jr to the calendar of Judge Dolly M. Gee and Magistrate Judge David T Bristow for all further proceedings. The case number will now read as: CV 10−02211 DMG(DTB). (rn) (Entered: 04/09/2010)
9 STIPULATION for Extension of Time to File Response as to Order on Application for Order to Show Cause,,, 6 filed by Respondents Eric Holder, Trey Lund, John T. Morton, Janet Napolitano. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Proposed Order)(Go, Samuel) Modified on 7/27/2011 (gk). (Entered: 04/15/2010)
10 ORDER APPROVING STIPULATION TO EXTEND DATES by Magistrate Judge David T Bristow, re Stipulation for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply 9 . IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the response date for Respondents Return on the Order to Show Cause is extended from April 20, 2010 to May 4, 2010. (am) (Entered: 04/19/2010)
11 MINUTES OF IN CHAMBERS ORDER held before Magistrate Judge David T Bristow: COUNSEL ARE NOTIFIED that the Order to Show Cause Hearing has been continued fromApril 29, 2010 to May 11, 2010, at 10:00 a.m. before Magistrate Judge David T Bristow. (am) (Entered: 04/28/2010)
12 Second STIPULATION for Extension of Time to File Response as to Order on Application for Order to Show Cause,,, 6 filed by Respondents Eric Holder, Trey Lund, John T. Morton, Janet Napolitano. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Go, Samuel) Modified on 7/27/2011 (gk). (Entered: 05/03/2010)
13 ORDER APPROVING STIPULATION TO EXTEND DATES by Magistrate Judge David T Bristow: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the response date for Respondents Return on the Order to Show Cause (OSC) is extended from May 4, 2010 to June 3, 2010. The May 11, 2010, hearing on the OSC will be continued to June 8, 2010, at 9:00 a.m. before Magistrate Judge David T Bristow. (am) (Entered: 05/05/2010)
14 Third STIPULATION to Continue Hearing Date and Traverse Due Date from Hearing Date: June 8, 2010 at 9am to Hearing Date: August 9, 2010 at 9am; Traverse Due on or Before August 2, 2010 filed by Plaintiff Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Arulanantham, Ahilan) (Entered: 06/02/2010)
15 RETURN to Habeas Corpus Petition and Order to Show Cause filed by Respondents Eric Holder, Trey Lund, John T. Morton, Janet Napolitano. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)(Go, Samuel) Modified on 7/27/2011 (gk). (Entered: 06/03/2010)
16 ORDER GRANTING EXTENSION OF TRAVERSE DUE DATE AND HEARING DATE by Magistrate Judge David T Bristow: Good cause having been shown in the Stipulation to Extend Traverse Due Date and Hearing Date, it is hereby ordered that Petitioner file his traverse on or before August 2, 2010, and the hearing date be continued from June 8, 2010 at 9:00 a.m. to August 9, 2010 at 9:00 a.m. (am) (Entered: 06/04/2010)
17 NOTICE of Association of Counsel associating attorney Michael H. Steinberg on behalf of Petitioner Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez. Filed by Petitioner Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez (Steinberg, Michael) (Entered: 07/30/2010)
18 NOTICE of Association of Counsel associating attorney David Blair−Loy on behalf of Petitioner Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez. Filed by Petitioner Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez (Blair−Loy, John) (Entered: 08/02/2010)
19 NOTICE of Association of Counsel associating attorney James J Preis on behalf of Petitioner Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez. Filed by Petitioner Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez (Preis, James) (Entered: 08/02/2010)
20 OPPOSITION to Motion to Dismiss filed by Petitioner Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez. (Arulanantham, Ahilan) (Entered: 08/02/2010)
21 NOTICE of Filing Additional Legal Authority filed by Respondents Eric Holder, Trey Lund, John T. Morton, Janet Napolitano. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Go, Samuel) Modified on 7/27/2011 (gk). (Entered: 08/03/2010)

08/04/2010 08/06/2010 08/11/2010 08/12/2010 08/16/2010 08/16/2010
08/17/2010
08/17/2010 08/18/2010 08/19/2010
08/19/2010

22 MINUTES OF IN CHAMBERS ORDER held before Magistrate Judge David T Bristow: COUNSEL ARE NOTIFIED that on the Court's own motion, the Order to Show CauseHearing scheduled for Monday, August 9, 2010, is hereby taken off calendar and will be decided without oral argument (am) (Entered: 08/05/2010)
23 NOTICE OF DISCREPANCY AND ORDER: by Magistrate Judge David T Bristow, ORDERING Plaintiffs First Amended Class Action Complaint submitted by Petitioner Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez received on 8//2/10 is not to be filed but instead rejected. Denial based on: Pursuant to FRCP Rule 15(a)(1)(B) plaintiff's proposed First Amended complaint Class Action Complaint is untimely. The responsive pleading in this action was filed on 6/3/10.. (am) (Entered: 08/09/2010)
24 OBJECTIONS to Notice of Document Discrepancies and Order − Rejecting, 23 and in the Alternative Request for Leave to Amend filed by Petitioner Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, Part 1, # 2 Exhibit A, Part 2, # 3 Exhibit A, Part 3, # 4 Exhibit A, Part 4, # 5 Exhibit A, Part 5, # 6 Exhibit A, Part 6)(Steinberg, Michael) (Entered: 08/11/2010)
25 NOTICE OF LODGING filed re Objections − non−motion, 24 (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Steinberg, Michael) (Entered: 08/12/2010)
26 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Preliminary Injunction re: Removal Hearing of Ever Martinez−Rivas filed by Plaintiff Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez. Motion set for hearing on 9/13/2010 at 09:00 AM before Judge Dolly M. Gee. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit, # 4 Exhibit, # 5 Proposed Order)(Steinberg, Michael) (Entered: 08/16/2010)
27 MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS PLAINTIFFS OBJECTION TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE BRISTOWS NOTICE OF DISCREPANCY AND ORDER, AND IN THE ALTERNATIVE REQUEST FOR LEAVE TO AMEND by Magistrate Judge David T Bristow: Defendants are hereby ORDERED to file a response to the Objection within 20 days of the date of the Minute Order. The Court will take the matter under submission and rule on the papers submitted. ( Objections to R&R due by 9/5/2010) (mrgo) (Entered: 08/17/2010)
28 NOTICE TO FILER OF DEFICIENCIES in Electronically Filed Documents RE: MOTION for Preliminary Injunction re: Removal Hearing of Ever Martinez−Rivas 26 . The following error(s) was found: Other error(s) with document(s) are specified below. Other error(s) with document(s): The document indicates that the hearing shall take place on 9/13/2010 TBD. Filer set this matter on calendar for 9/13/2010 at 9:00 AM. Counsel is advised to re−notice the motion for an appropriate date/time before Judge Gee. Judge Gee hears law and motion matters on Mondays at 9:30 AM.. In response to this notice the court may order (1) an amended or correct document to be filed (2) the document stricken or (3) take other action as the court deems appropriate. You need not take any action in response to this notice unless and until the court directs you to do so. (se) (Entered: 08/17/2010)
29 NOTICE Amended Notice of Motion filed by Plaintiff Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez. Amended Notice of Motion for Preliminary Injunction for Plaintiff Ever Martinez−Rivas. (Steinberg, Michael) (Entered: 08/17/2010)
34 APPLICATION for attorney Judy Rabinovitz to Appear Pro Hac Vice. (PHV FEE PAID.) filed by Plaintiff Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez. Lodged Proposed Order. (shb) (Entered: 08/20/2010)
30 ORDER RE MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION FOR PLAINTIFF MARTINEZ−RIVAS by Judge Dolly M. Gee: As Plaintiff Martinez−Rivas has not yet been added as a Plaintiff in this action, it is premature for this Court to rule upon a Motion for Preliminary Injunction on his behalf. The Court therefore DENIES Petitioner's Motion for Preliminary Injunction for Plaintiff Martinez−Rivas 26 without prejudice. Should Magistrate Judge Bristow grant Plaintiff's Objection, and therein allow Plaintiff Martinez−Rivas to be added as a party in this action, Petitioner may re−file his motion, if appropriate. (gk) (Entered: 08/19/2010)
31 NOTICE OF PRO HAC VICE APPLICATION AND FILING FEE DUE on Pro Hac Vice Application mailed to attorney Judy Rabinovitz for Petitioner Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez. (Attachments: # 1 G−64 Application, # 2 G−64 Proposed Order) (gk) (Entered: 08/19/2010)

08/19/2010 08/19/2010 08/23/2010 08/24/2010 08/25/2010 08/25/2010 08/27/2010 08/30/2010
09/02/2010 09/02/2010 09/02/2010 09/03/2010 09/14/2010

32 NOTICE OF PRO HAC VICE APPLICATION AND FILING FEE DUE on Pro Hac Vice Application mailed to attorney Matt Adams for Petitioner Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez. (Attachments: # 1 G−64 Application, # 2 G−64 Proposed Order) (gk) (Entered: 08/19/2010)
33 NOTICE OF PRO HAC VICE APPLICATION AND FILING FEE DUE on Pro Hac Vice Application mailed to attorney Riddhi Mukopadhyay for Petitioner Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez. (Attachments: # 1 G−64 Application, # 2 G−64 Proposed Order) (gk) (Entered: 08/19/2010)
35 EX PARTE APPLICATION to AMEND Complaint filed by Plaintiffs Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration, # 2 Proposed Order)(Steinberg, Michael) (Entered: 08/23/2010)
36 OPPOSITION to EX PARTE APPLICATION to AMEND Complaint 35 filed by Respondents Eric Holder, Trey Lund, John T. Morton, Janet Napolitano. (Go, Samuel) Modified on 7/27/2011 (gk). (Entered: 08/24/2010)
37 REPLY In Support of EX PARTE APPLICATION to AMEND Complaint 35 filed by Petitioner Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez. (Steinberg, Michael) (Entered: 08/25/2010)
38 ORDER by Magistrate Judge David T Bristow: granting 34 Application to Appear Pro Hac Vice by Attorney Judy Rabinovitz on behalf of Plaintiff, designating Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez as local counsel. (am) (Entered: 08/26/2010)
39 MINUTES OF IN CHAMBERS−ORDER AND NOTICE TO ALL PARTIES by Judge Dolly M. Gee: On 8/23/2010, Plaintiff filed an Ex Parte Application to Amend, etc. 35 and mistakenly noticed it before Judge Dolly M. Gee. Counsel are hereby notified that this matter is to be rescheduled before Judge David T. Bristow, Magistrate Judge. Court Reporter: Not Reported. (gk) (Entered: 08/27/2010)
40 MINUTES OF TELEPHONIC STATUS CONFERENCE Re: Petitioners' Ex Parte Application to Amend Petition held before Magistrate Judge David T Bristow: A status conference was held regarding petitioner's Ex Parte Application to Amend Petition. The Court directed counsel to meet and confer on Tuesday, August 31, 2010, to attempt to resolve their disagreements regarding the propriety of petitioner's Motion to Amend Petition. Based upon the representations of counsel, in the event that the parties are unable to reach a resolution, theCourt set an expedited briefing schedule as follows: Respondent's Supplemental Opposition will be due by close of business Thursday, September 2, 2010 and the Court will issue a decision no later than Friday, September 3, 2010, as to whether petitioners may amend the Petition.Court Recorder: RS−4 8−30−10. (am) (Entered: 09/02/2010)
41 OPPOSITION to Objection filed by Respondents Eric Holder, Trey Lund, John T. Morton, Janet Napolitano. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E)(Go, Samuel) Modified on 7/27/2011 (gk). (Entered: 09/02/2010)
43 APPLICATION of Non−Resident Attorney Matt Adams to appear on behalf of Petitioner Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez, and designating Ahilan T. Arulanantham as local counsel. (PHV FEE PAID.) (gk) (Entered: 09/07/2010)
44 ORDER by Judge Dolly M. Gee granting Application of Non−Resident Attorney Matt Adams to appear on behalf of Petitioner Jose Antonion Franco−Gonzalez 43 , designating Ahilan T. Arulanantham as local counsel. (gk) (Entered: 09/07/2010)
42 MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER by Magistrate Judge David T Bristow: denying without prejudice petitioner's 35 Ex Parte Application to Amend/Correct. (See document for specifics) (mrgo) (Entered: 09/07/2010)
45 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Review of Magistrate Judge's Decision Denying Ex Parte Application to Amend Complaint re Order on Ex Parte Application to Amend/Correct 42 filed by Plaintiffs Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez. Motion set for hearing on 10/18/2010 at 09:30 AM before Judge Dolly M. Gee. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Arulanantham, Ahilan) (Entered: 09/14/2010)

09/27/2010 10/04/2010 10/12/2010 10/12/2010
10/14/2010 10/14/2010 10/14/2010 10/18/2010
10/18/2010 11/02/2010

46 OPPOSITION to MOTION for Review of Magistrate Judge's Decision Denying Ex Parte Application to Amend Complaint re Order on Ex Parte Application to Amend/Correct 42 MOTION for Review of Magistrate Judge's Decision Denying Ex Parte Application to Amend Complaint re Order on Ex Parte Application to Amend/Correct 42 45 filed by Respondents Eric Holder, Trey Lund, John T. Morton, Janet Napolitano. (Go, Samuel) Modified on 7/27/2011 (gk). (Entered: 09/27/2010)
47 REPLY in Support of MOTION for Review of Magistrate Judge's Decision Denying Ex Parte Application to Amend Complaint re Order on Ex Parte Application to Amend/Correct 42 MOTION for Review of Magistrate Judge's Decision Denying Ex Parte Application to Amend Complaint re Order on Ex Parte Application to Amend/Correct 42 45 filed by Petitioner Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 56)(Steinberg, Michael) (Entered: 10/04/2010)
48 EX PARTE APPLICATION for Leave to File Surreply filed by Respondents Eric Holder, Trey Lund, John T. Morton, Janet Napolitano. (Attachments: # 1 Surreply, # 2 Proposed Order)(Go, Samuel) Modified on 7/27/2011 (gk). (Entered: 10/12/2010)
49 MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS by Judge Dolly M. Gee: re: Notice of Filing Fee Due (PHV) 33 . On August 19, 2010, the Clerk for the U.S. District Court issued a notice to attorney Riddhi Mukopadhyay advising that his Pro Hac Vice Application fee had not been paid. As of the date of this minute order, the Pro Hac Vice application fee of $275 remains unpaid. If counsel fails to pay within 21 days of this notice, the Clerk is directed to remove the applicants name and address information from the docket. If the applicant believes payment has been satisfied, please provide proof of payment to the Fiscal Department. (cbr) (Entered: 10/13/2010)
50 ORDER GRANTING RESPONDENTS' EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SURREPLY by Judge Dolly M. Gee: Respondents' Ex Parte Application for Leave to File a Surreply to Petitioner's Reply in Support of their Motion for Review of Magistrate Judge's Decision Denying Ex Parte Application to Amend Complaint 48 is GRANTED, and Respondents shall be granted leave to file a Surreply to Petitioner's Reply. (gk) (Entered: 10/14/2010)
51 REPLY in opposition to MOTION for Review of Magistrate Judge's Decision Denying Ex Parte Application to Amend Complaint re Order on Ex Parte Application to Amend/Correct 42 MOTION for Review of Magistrate Judge's Decision Denying Ex Parte Application to Amend Complaint re Order on Ex Parte Application to Amend/Correct 42 45 (SURREPLY) filed by Respondents Eric Holder, Trey Lund, John T. Morton, Janet Napolitano. (Go, Samuel) Modified on 7/27/2011 (gk). (Entered: 10/14/2010)
52 NOTICE of Appearance filed by attorney Neelam Ihsanullah on behalf of Respondents Eric Holder, Trey Lund, John T. Morton, Janet Napolitano (Ihsanullah, Neelam) Modified on 7/27/2011 (gk). (Entered: 10/14/2010)
53 MINUTES OF Motion for Review; Motion Hearing held before Judge Dolly M. Gee:RE PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR REVIEW OF MAG. JUDGE'S DECISION DENYING EX PARTE APPLICATION TO AMEND COMPLAINT 45 .Tentative ruling is handed out to all counsel. The Court invites counsel to respond to the tentative ruling granting plaintiff's motion for review of Magistrate Judge's decision. Following oral argument, the Court advises counsel that the motion is taken under submission and a written order will issue.Court Reporter: Anne Kielwasser. (lc) (Entered: 10/18/2010)
54 ORDER by Judge Dolly M. Gee: granting (1) Petitioners Motion for Review of Magistrate Judge Bristows September 3 Ruling is GRANTED 45 ; (2) Petitioner shall have 15 days from the date of this Order to file an amended complaint; and(3) Respondents shall have 15 days from the service of an amended complaintto file a responsive pleading. (lc) (Entered: 10/18/2010)
64 FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT AND PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS against Defendants Eric H. Holder, Jr., Attorney General, Thomas G. Snow, Acting Director of the Executive Office of Immigration Review, Janet Napolitano, Secretary of Homeland Security, John Morton, Assistant Secretary of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and Timothy S. Robbins, Field Office Director for the Los Angeles District of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement;

11/02/2010
11/03/2010 11/12/2010 11/12/2010 11/12/2010 11/15/2010 11/15/2010
11/15/2010 11/15/2010 11/16/2010 11/16/2010

Party Trey Lund terminated; re Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (2241) 1 ; filed by Plaintiffs−Petitioners Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez, Ever Francisco Martinez−Rivas, Aleksandr Petrovich Khukhryanskiy, Maksim Zhalezny, Jose Chavez, and Jonas Woldemariam on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated. (Attachments: # 1 Issued Summons on First Amended Complaint)(gk) (Entered: 11/17/2010)
15−Day Summons Issued re First Amended Class Action Complaint 64 as to Defendants−Respondents Eric H. Holder, Jr., Attorney General, Thomas G. Snow, Acting Director of the Executive Office of Immigration Review, Janet Napolitano, Secretary of Homela nd Security, John Morton, Assistant Secretary of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and Timothy S. Robbins, Field Office Director for the Los Angeles District of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. (gk) (Entered: 11/17/2010)
55 PROOF OF SERVICE filed by Plaintiffs−Petitioners Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez, served on 11/2/10. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration)(Arulanantham, Ahilan) (Entered: 11/03/2010)
59 APPLICATION for attorney Riddhi Mukhopadhyay to Appear Pro Hac Vice. (PHV FEE PAID.) filed by petitioner Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez. Lodged order. (mrgo) (Entered: 11/15/2010)
65 AMENDED NOTICE of Interested Parties filed by Plaintiffs−Petitioners Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez, Ever Francisco Martinez−Rivas, Aleksandr Petrovich Khukhryanskiy, Maksim Zhalezny, Jose Chavez, and Jonas Woldemariam. (gk) (Entered: 11/17/2010)
74 ORDER ON APPLICATION OF NON−RESIDENT ATTORNEY TO APPEAR IN A SPECIFIC CASE by Judge Dolly M. Gee: granting 59 Application to Appear Pro Hac Vice by Attorney Riddi Mukhopadhyay on behalf of Plaintiff Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez, et al., designating Ahilan Arulanantham as local counsel. (ag) (Entered: 11/23/2010)
56 STIPULATION for Extension of Time to File Answer filed by Defendants Eric Holder, Trey Lund, John T. Morton, Janet Napolitano. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Go, Samuel) Modified on 7/27/2011 (gk). (Entered: 11/15/2010)
57 EX PARTE APPLICATION for Temporary Restraining Order as to Expedited Relief Plaintiffs filed by Plaintiffs & Petitioner Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 57−63, # 2 Exhibit 64, # 3 Exhibit 65, # 4 Exhibit 66, # 5 Exhibit 67, # 6 Exhibit 68, # 7 Exhibit 69, # 8 Exhibit 70, # 9 Exhibit 71, # 10 Exhibit 72, # 11 Exhibit 73, # 12 Exhibit 74, # 13 Exhibit 75, # 14 Exhibit 76, # 15 Request for Judicial Notice, # 16 Proposed Order For Temporary Restraining Order, # 17 Proposed Order For Preliminary Injunction)(Steinberg, Michael) (Entered: 11/15/2010)
58 APPLICATION to Exceed Page Limitation Memorandum in Support of Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction filed by Plaintiffs & Petitioners Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez. Application set for hearing on 12/13/2010 at 09:30 AM before Judge Dolly M. Gee. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order Allowing Plaintiffs to Extend Page Limit)(Steinberg, Michael) (Entered: 11/15/2010)
60 EX PARTE APPLICATION to Expedite Discovery in Support of Preliminary Injunction Hearing filed by Plaintiffs and Petitioner Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 77 − 30(b)(6) Deposition Notice, # 2 Exhibit 78 − First Set of Document Requests, # 3 Declaration of Ahilan T. Arulanantham, # 4 Proposed Order)(Steinberg, Michael) (Entered: 11/15/2010)
61 OPPOSITION to EX PARTE APPLICATION for Temporary Restraining Order as to Expedited Relief Plaintiffs 57 filed by Respondents Eric Holder, Trey Lund, John T. Morton, Janet Napolitano. (Go, Samuel) Modified on 7/27/2011 (gk). (Entered: 11/16/2010)
62 EXPARTE APPLICATION for Extension of Time to File Response to Plaintiffs' Ex Parte Application for Expedited Discovery filed by defendants Eric Holder, Trey Lund, John T. Morton, Janet Napolitano. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Proposed

11/17/2010 11/17/2010 11/18/2010
11/18/2010 11/19/2010 11/19/2010 11/22/2010 11/22/2010 11/22/2010
11/23/2010 11/23/2010

Order)(Go, Samuel) Modified on 7/27/2011 (gk). (Entered: 11/16/2010)
63 Opposition re: EXPARTE APPLICATION for Extension of Time to File Response to Plaintiffs' Ex Parte Application for Expedited Discovery 62 filed by Petitioner Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 79)(Steinberg, Michael) (Entered: 11/17/2010)
66 REPLY in Support of EX PARTE APPLICATION for Temporary Restraining Order as to Expedited Relief Plaintiffs 57 filed by Petitioners Jose Chavez, Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez, Aleksandr Petrovich Khukhryanskiy, Ever Francisco Martinez−Rivas, Jonas Woldemariam, Maksim Zhalezny. (Arulanantham, Ahilan) (Entered: 11/17/2010)
67 ORDER ALLOWING PLAINTIFFS MARTINEZ−RIVAS AND KHUKHRYANSKIY'S TO FILE A MEMORANDUM OF 42 PAGES IN CONNECTION WITH THEIR MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION by Judge Dolly M. Gee: Upon Plaintiffs' Application 58 , IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: (1) The Expedited Relief Plaintiffs are hereby granted permission to file a 42−page memorandum in support of their motion for a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction. (2) Defendants are also granted a corresponding extension of 17 additional pages for their opposition brief, thereby extending the page limit from 25 pages to 42 pages. (gk) (Entered: 11/18/2010)
68 ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND by Judge Dolly M. Gee: The Court GRANTS Defendants' Ex Parte Application 62 as follows: IT IS ORDERED that defendants shall file a response to plaintiffs' ex parte application for expedited discovery 60 on or before 11/19/2010 at 6 PM. (gk) (Entered: 11/18/2010)
69 NOTICE of Information Regarding Plaintiff Martinez−Rivas' BIA Briefing Deadline filed by Plaintiffs Jose Chavez, Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez, Aleksandr Petrovich Khukhryanskiy, Ever Francisco Martinez−Rivas, Jonas Woldemariam, Maksim Zhalezny. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Arulanantham, Ahilan) (Entered: 11/19/2010)
70 Opposition re: EX PARTE APPLICATION to Expedite Discovery in Support of Preliminary Injunction Hearing 60 filed by Respondents Eric Holder, Trey Lund, John T. Morton, Janet Napolitano, Timothy S Robbins, Thomas G Snow. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Ihsanullah, Neelam) Modified on 7/27/2011 (gk). (Entered: 11/19/2010)
71 REPLY in Support of EX PARTE APPLICATION to Expedite Discovery in Support of Preliminary Injunction Hearing 60 filed by Petitioners Jose Chavez, Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez, Aleksandr Petrovich Khukhryanskiy, Ever Francisco Martinez−Rivas, Jonas Woldemariam, Maksim Zhalezny. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Arulanantham, Ahilan) (Entered: 11/22/2010)
72 EXPARTE APPLICATION for Extension of Time to File response to motion for preliminary injunction filed by defendants Eric Holder, Trey Lund, John T. Morton, Janet Napolitano, Timothy S Robbins, Thomas G Snow. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Go, Samuel) Modified on 7/27/2011 (gk). (Entered: 11/22/2010)
73 NOTICE TO FILER OF DEFICIENCIES in Electronically Filed Documents RE: Objection/Opposition (Motion related) 70 . The following error(s) was found: Local Rule 11−8 Memorandum brief exceeding 10 pages shall contain table of contents. In response to this notice the court may order (1) an amended or correct document to be filed (2) the document stricken or (3) take other action as the court deems appropriate. You need not take any action in response to this notice unless and until the court directs you to do so. (ag) (Entered: 11/23/2010)
75 STIPULATION for Extension of Time to File Response and Reply as to EX PARTE APPLICATION for Temporary Restraining Order as to Expedited Relief Plaintiffs 57 filed by defendants Eric Holder, Trey Lund, John T. Morton, Janet Napolitano, Timothy S Robbins, Thomas G Snow. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Go, Samuel) Modified on 7/27/2011 (gk). (Entered: 11/23/2010)
76 NOTICE of Addendum filed by Defendants−Respondents Eric Holder, Trey Lund, John T. Morton, Janet Napolitano, Timothy S Robbins, Thomas G Snow.

11/24/2010 11/24/2010
11/29/2010 11/29/2010 11/30/2010

(Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Addendum)(Ihsanullah, Neelam) Modified on 7/27/2011 (gk). (Entered: 11/23/2010)
77 ANSWER to Amended Complaint,,, 64 filed by defendants Eric Holder, Trey Lund, John T. Morton, Janet Napolitano, Timothy S Robbins, Thomas G Snow.(Go, Samuel) Modified on 7/27/2011 (gk). (Entered: 11/24/2010)
78 MINUTES OF IN CHAMBERS − ORDER (1) GRANTING EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER, (2) DENYING EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR EXPEDITED DISCOVERY, AND (3) DENYING EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME by Judge Dolly M. Gee: Plaintiffs' TRO Application 57 is GRANTED as follows: Defendants, and their officers, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys, and all persons in active concert or participation with them, are restrained and enjoined from proceeding against Plaintiffs Ever Francisco Martinez−Rivas and Aleksandr Petrovich Khukhryanskiy in their respective proceedings before the Board of Immigration Appeals, pending a hearing on the Expedited Relief Plaintiffs' Motion for a Preliminary Injunction before this Court. Plaintiffs' Expedited Discovery Application 60 is DENIED without prejudice. The parties shall meet and confer by no later than 11/26/2010 to narrow the expedited discovery requests solely to those issues relevant to the Motion for a Preliminary Injunction. If the parties are unable to agree upon the relevant discovery to be produced, the parties shall file a joint report to the Court of no more than 10 pages in length identifying the areas of dispute in the discovery requests by no later than 11/30/2010 and, if necessary, shall participate in a telephone conference with the Court on 11/30/2010 at 10:00 AM. Absent a stipulation by the parties for an alternative briefing schedule, Defendants shall have until 12/1/2010 to file a brief in opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for a Preliminary Injunction. Plaintiffs shall have until 12/3/2010 to file a brief in reply to Defendants' opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for a Preliminary Injunction. The hearing on Plaintiff's Motion for a Preliminary Injunction shall be advanced to 12/8/2010 at 2:00 PM. Defendants' Ex Parte Application for Extension of Time 72 is DENIED as moot. Court Reporter: Not Reported. (gk) (Entered: 11/24/2010)
79 MINUTES OF IN CHAMBERS − ORDER REQUIRING ADDITIONAL BRIEFING by Judge Dolly M. Gee: On 11/24/2010, the Court issued an order granting the Ex Parte Application for Temporary Restraining Order ("TRO") filed by Plaintiffs Aleksandr Petrovich Khukhryanskiy and Ever Francisco Martinez−Rivas 78 . In their briefs, the parties neglected to address the security for the issuance of the TRO. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(c), the Court may issue a temporary restraining order "only if the movant gives security in an amount that the court considers proper to pay the costs and damages sustained by any party found to have been wrongfully enjoined or restrained." In light of the foregoing, the parties shall be prepared to address the security at the Telephonic Status Conference set for 11/30/2010 10:00 AM before Judge Dolly M. Gee. Court Reporter: Not Reported. (gk) (Entered: 11/29/2010)
80 STATUS REPORT on Application for Expedited Discovery filed by Respondent Eric Holder, Petitioners Aleksandr Petrovich Khukhryanskiy, Ever Francisco Martinez−Rivas. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibits A − C)(Steinberg, Michael) Modified on 7/27/2011 (gk). (Entered: 11/29/2010)
81 MINUTES OF Telephonic Status Conference − Plaintiffs' Ex Parte Application for Expedited Discovery 60 ; Bond Requirement Under F.R.Civ.P. 65(c) 79 held before Judge Dolly M. Gee: On 11/29/2010, the parties filed a Joint Report Regarding Plaintiffs' Ex Parte Application for Expedited Discovery 80 . Although the parties met and conferred and were able to narrow some of their disputes, they were not able to consummate an agreement as to all the requested relief in Plaintiffs' renewed Expedited Discovery Application. Defendants shall produce documents pertaining to Plaintiffs Aleksandr Petrovich Khukhryanskiy and Ever Francisco Martinez−Rivas ("Expedited Relief Plaintiffs") pursuant to Document Requests #1−8 as narrowed during the parties' "meet and confer" process by no later than 12/2/2010 at noon. Expedited Relief Plaintiffs shall provide Defendants with at least a faxed or email copy of their executed privacy waivers by 12/2/2010 at noon. The Court denies Plaintiffs' request to take the deposition of Robert Mason, the officer whom the Immigration Judge appointed to "assist" in the representation of Mr. Khukhryanskiy. Defendants request that the Court require the Expedited Relief Plaintiffs to post a bond in the amount of $2,660. The Court hereby waives the bond requirement. See

12/01/2010 12/01/2010 12/03/2010 12/06/2010 12/06/2010 12/06/2010 12/07/2010 12/08/2010
12/08/2010
12/08/2010

document for details. Court Reporter: Anne Kielwasser. (gk) (Entered: 12/01/2010)
82 NOTICE OF LODGING filed re Stipulated Protective Order re Telephone Conference,,,,, 81 (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Go, Samuel) Modified on 7/27/2011 (gk). (Entered: 12/01/2010)
83 Opposition re: EX PARTE APPLICATION for Temporary Restraining Order as to Expedited Relief Plaintiffs 57 filed by Respondents Eric Holder, Trey Lund, John T. Morton, Janet Napolitano, Timothy S Robbins, Thomas G Snow. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibits 1−8, # 2 Declarations 1−3)(Ihsanullah, Neelam) Modified on 7/27/2011 (gk). (Entered: 12/01/2010)
84 STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER for discovery produced pursuant to plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction by Judge Dolly M. Gee. (SEE DOCUMENT FOR FURTHER DETAILS). (vv) (Entered: 12/03/2010)
85 SEALED DOCUMENT − REPLY in Support of EX PARTE APPLICATION for Temporary Restraining Order as to Expedited Relief Plaintiffs 57 filed by Petitioners Jose Chavez, Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez, Aleksandr Petrovich Khukhryanskiy, Ever Francisco Martinez−Rivas, Jonas Woldemariam, Maksim Zhalezny. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Request for Judicial Notice, # 3 Exhibit, # 4 Declaration)(Arulanantham, Ahilan) Modified on 12/10/2010 (gk). (Entered: 12/06/2010)
86 NOTICE of Manual Filing filed by Petitioners Jose Chavez, Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez, Aleksandr Petrovich Khukhryanskiy, Ever Francisco Martinez−Rivas, Jonas Woldemariam, Maksim Zhalezny of Petitioners' Reply ISO PI Motion, Declaration of Ahilan T. Arulanantham, Exhibits. (Arulanantham, Ahilan) (Entered: 12/06/2010)
88 EX PARTE APPLICATION to file plaintiffs Martinez−Rivas and Khukhryanskiy's reply 85 in support of motion for preliminary injunction under seal. Filed by petitioner Aleksandr Petrovich Khukhryanskiy, Ever Francisco Martinez−Rivas. (Lodged Proposed Order)(vv) (Entered: 12/08/2010)
87 NOTICE of Changed Circumstance filed by Plaintiffs Jose Chavez, Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez, Aleksandr Petrovich Khukhryanskiy, Ever Francisco Martinez−Rivas, Jonas Woldemariam, Maksim Zhalezny. (Arulanantham, Ahilan) (Entered: 12/07/2010)
89 MINUTES OF Motion Hearing held before Judge Dolly M. Gee: The Court hears oral argument regarding issues raised in the Motion for Preliminary Injunction 26 . Following discussions with counsel, the Court extends the Temporary Restraining Order until 12/22/2010. The parties shall meet and confer re a possible informal resolution of all or a portion of the issues raised on the motion for preliminary injunction and shall report to the Court regarding the status of their mediation efforts as expeditiously as possible but by no later than 12/17/2010. If necessary, the parties may notify the Court if they require assistance in identifying a mediator. Defendants may file a supplemental brief re Plaintiffs' Criminal Justice Act argument by no later than 12/15/2010 at noon. Plaintiffs may file a supplemental brief re Defendants' Rehabilitation Act administrative exhaustion argument by no later than 12/15/2010 at noon. The parties may file a response to the supplemental briefs by 12/17/2010. Thereafter, the motion for preliminary injunction will stand submitted and a written order will issue. Court Reporter: Anne Kielwasser. (gk) (Entered: 12/13/2010)
90 ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS' EX PARTE APPLICATION TO FILE PLAINTIFFS MARTINEZ−RIVAS AND KHUKHRYANSKIY'S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION; DECLARATION OF AHILAN T. ARULANANTHAM; EXHIBITS IN SUPPORT THEREOF UNDER SEAL by Judge Dolly M. Gee: Plaintiffs' Ex Parte Application to File Plaintiffs Martinez−Rivas and Khukhryanskiy's Reply in Support of Motion for Preliminary Injunction; Declaration of Ahilan T. Arulanantham; Exhibits in Support Thereof Under Seal 88 is GRANTED and said documents 85 are hereby sealed. (gk) (Entered: 12/13/2010)
91 SEALED DOCUMENT− Declaration of Ahilan T. Arulanantham in Support of Plaintiffs Martinez−Rivas and Khukhryanskiy's Reply in Support of Motion for

12/08/2010
12/08/2010 12/15/2010 12/15/2010 12/15/2010 12/17/2010 12/17/2010 12/17/2010 12/19/2010 12/20/2010 12/21/2010 12/21/2010 12/21/2010 12/22/2010

Preliminary Injunction. (mat) (Entered: 12/14/2010)
92 AMENDED ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS' EX PARTE APPLICATION TO FILE PLAINTIFFS MARTINEZ−RIVAS AND KHUKHRYANSKIY'S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION; DECLARATION OF AHILAN T. ARULANANTHAM; EXHIBITS IN SUPPORT THEREOF UNDER SEAL 90 by Judge Dolly M. Gee: Plaintiffs' Ex Parte Application to File Plaintiffs Martinez−Rivas and Khukhryanskiy's Reply in Support of Motion for Preliminary Injunction; Declaration of Ahilan T. Arulanantham; Exhibits in Support Thereof Under Seal 88 , is GRANTED and said documents 85 are hereby sealed. (gk) (Entered: 12/14/2010)
93 SEALED DOCUMENT− Plaintiffs Martinez−Rivas and Khukhryanskiy's Reply in Support of Motion for Preliminary Injunction. (Attachments: Part 2, Part 3, Part 4)(mat) (Entered: 12/14/2010)
94 SUPPLEMENT re: Criminal Justice Act in Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for a Preliminary Injunction filed by Respondents Eric Holder, Trey Lund, John T. Morton, Janet Napolitano, Timothy S Robbins, Thomas G Snow. (Ihsanullah, Neelam) Modified on 7/27/2011 (gk). (Entered: 12/15/2010)
95 SUPPLEMENT filed by Petitioners Jose Chavez, Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez, Aleksandr Petrovich Khukhryanskiy, Ever Francisco Martinez−Rivas, Jonas Woldemariam, Maksim Zhalezny. (Arulanantham, Ahilan) (Entered: 12/15/2010)
96 SUPPLEMENT to Supplement (non−motion) 95 filed by Petitioners Jose Chavez, Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez, Aleksandr Petrovich Khukhryanskiy, Ever Francisco Martinez−Rivas, Jonas Woldemariam, Maksim Zhalezny. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Arulanantham, Ahilan) (Entered: 12/15/2010)
97 REPLY filed by Respondents Eric Holder, Trey Lund, John T. Morton, Janet Napolitano, Timothy S Robbins, Thomas G Snow to Supplement (non−motion) 95 on the Rehabilitation Act (Ihsanullah, Neelam) Modified on 7/27/2011 (gk). (Entered: 12/17/2010)
98 REPLY filed by Petitioners Jose Chavez, Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez, Aleksandr Petrovich Khukhryanskiy, Ever Francisco Martinez−Rivas, Jonas Woldemariam, Maksim Zhalezny to Supplement(Motion related) 94 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Arulanantham, Ahilan) (Entered: 12/17/2010)
99 JOINT STATEMENT of Meet−and−Confer on Preliminary Injunction EX PARTE APPLICATION for Temporary Restraining Order as to Expedited Relief Plaintiffs 57 filed by Petitioners Aleksandr Petrovich Khukhryanskiy, Ever Francisco Martinez−Rivas. (Steinberg, Michael) (Entered: 12/17/2010)
100 NOTICE of Appearance (Lawrence, Victor) (Entered: 12/19/2010)
101 NOTICE Notice of Clarification filed by defendants Eric Holder, Trey Lund, John T. Morton, Janet Napolitano, Timothy S Robbins, Thomas G Snow. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration Declaration of Victor M. Lawrence)(Lawrence, Victor) Modified on 7/27/2011 (gk). (Entered: 12/20/2010)
102 RESPONSE filed by Petitioners Jose Chavez, Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez, Aleksandr Petrovich Khukhryanskiy, Ever Francisco Martinez−Rivas, Jonas Woldemariam, Maksim Zhaleznyto Notice (Other) 101 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Arulanantham, Ahilan) (Entered: 12/21/2010)
103 STATUS REPORT filed by Respondents Trey Lund, John T. Morton, Janet Napolitano, Timothy S Robbins, Thomas G Snow. (Lawrence, Victor) (Entered: 12/21/2010)
105 MINUTES OF Telephonic Status Conference held before Judge Dolly M. Gee. Court and counsel confer regarding the pending Motion 26 for Preliminary Injunction. The Court's ruling on Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction will issue on December 22, 2010.Court Reporter: Anne Kielwasser. (vdr) (Entered: 12/29/2010)
104 STATUS REPORT filed by Respondents Eric Holder, Trey Lund, John T. Morton, Janet Napolitano, Timothy S Robbins, Thomas G Snow. (Lawrence, Victor) Modified

12/22/2010 12/27/2010 01/04/2011 01/10/2011 01/10/2011
01/12/2011
01/14/2011
01/18/2011 01/20/2011 01/20/2011

on 7/27/2011 (gk). (Entered: 12/22/2010)
106 SEALED DOCUMENT− Order Re: Plaintiffs' Motion for a Preliminary Injunction. (mat) (Entered: 12/29/2010)
107 Amended Order Re: Plaintiffs' Motion for a Preliminary Injunction. (mat) ** DOCUMENT UNSEALED PURSUANT TO ORDER OF 2/1/2011 122 ** Modified on 2/2/2011 (gk). (Entered: 12/29/2010)
108 JOINT REPORT of Regarding Redaction of Medical Information in Order Granting Plaintiffs' Preliminary Injunction filed by Petitioners Jose Chavez, Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez, Aleksandr Petrovich Khukhryanskiy, Ever Francisco Martinez−Rivas, Jonas Woldemariam, Maksim Zhalezny. (Arulanantham, Ahilan) (Entered: 01/04/2011)
109 SCHEDULING MEETING OF COUNSEL [Fed. R. Civ. P. 16, 26(f)] by Judge Dolly M. Gee: Scheduling Conference set for 3/7/2011 11:00 AM before Judge Dolly M. Gee. Counsel shall meet at least 21 days in advance of the Scheduling Conference to prepare a jointly signed report for the court to be submitted no less than 14 days before the Scheduling Conference. (gk) (Entered: 01/11/2011)
110 MINUTES OF IN CHAMBERS − ORDER SETTING TELEPHONE STATUS CONFERENCE by Judge Dolly M. Gee: On 1/4/2011, the parties filed a joint report regarding proposed redactions of confidential medical information in the order and amended order granting Plaintiffs' preliminary injunction 108 . The Court hereby sets a Telephone Status Conference on 1/12/2011 04:30 PM before Judge Dolly M. Gee, to discuss the parties' proposed redactions. Court Reporter: Not Reported. (gk) (Entered: 01/11/2011)
112 MINUTES OF Telephonic Status Conference held before Judge Dolly M. Gee: The Court and counsel confer re Plaintiffs' proposed redactions to the Court's Order and Amended Order re Preliminary Injunction. Plaintiffs' counsel will meet and confer with their clients within two weeks to discuss and obtain a privacy waiver re medical records, if possible, and notify the Court by 1/26/2011 whether redactions are still needed, otherwise the Court will issue the redacted orders as proposed. The Court confirms that Defendants have 30 days from the date of the Amended Order re Preliminary Injunction to comply with the requirement of a bond hearing. Following discussions with counsel, the Court sets a further Telephonic Status Conference for 1/20/2011 04:30 PM before Judge Dolly M. Gee. Court Reporter: Anne Kielwasser. (gk) (Entered: 01/18/2011)
111 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Preliminary Injunction re: Plaintiff−Petitioner Maksim Zhalezny's Immigration Proceedings filed by Plaintiffs−Petitioners Jose Chavez, Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez, Aleksandr Petrovich Khukhryanskiy, Ever Francisco Martinez−Rivas, Jonas Woldemariam, Maksim Zhalezny. Motion set for hearing on 2/14/2011 at 09:30 AM before Judge Dolly M. Gee. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum, # 2 Exhibits, # 3 Proposed Order)(Arulanantham, Ahilan) (Entered: 01/14/2011)
113 MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS by Judge Dolly M. Gee. On the Court's own motion, the telephonic Status Conference, currently scheduled for 1/20/2011 at 4:30 PM, is hereby continued to 1/20/2011 at 5:30 PM. (vdr) (Entered: 01/18/2011)
114 STATUS REPORT filed by Respondents Eric Holder, Trey Lund, John T. Morton, Janet Napolitano, Timothy S Robbins, Thomas G Snow. (Go, Samuel) Modified on 7/27/2011 (gk). (Entered: 01/20/2011)
117 MINUTES OF Telephonic Status Conference held before Judge Dolly M. Gee. The Court and counsel confer. The Court continues the Preliminary Injunction Motion hearing to 3/7/2011 at 11:00 AM. Defendants' opposition shall be filed by 2/18/2011 and Plaintiff Zhalezny's reply shall be filed by 2/22/2011. The Court orders the parties to participate in early mediation with Magistrate Judge Segal. The deadline for completion of early mediation is 3/31/2011. The parties shall contact Magistrate Judge Segal to reserve a date. Defendants' request for a stay of the action pending mediation is denied.Court Reporter: Anne Kielwasser. (vdr) (Entered: 01/25/2011)

01/21/2011 01/21/2011 01/25/2011 01/27/2011
01/28/2011 02/01/2011
02/01/2011 02/10/2011 02/10/2011
02/14/2011

115 NOTICE of Waivers Regarding Medical Information filed by Plaintiffs−Petitioners Jose Chavez, Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez, Aleksandr Petrovich Khukhryanskiy, Ever Francisco Martinez−Rivas, Jonas Woldemariam, Maksim Zhalezny. (Arulanantham, Ahilan) (Entered: 01/21/2011)
116 NOTICE OF LODGING filed re Stipulated Protective Order re Amended Complaint,,, 64 (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Certificate of Service)(Go, Samuel) Modified on 7/27/2011 (gk). (Entered: 01/21/2011)
118 First STIPULATION for Extension of Time to File Motion for Class Certification filed by Plaintiff Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration Declaration in Support of Parties' Stipulation, # 2 Notice of Lodging, # 3 Certificate of Service)(Steinberg, Michael) (Entered: 01/25/2011)
119 NOTICE TO FILER OF DEFICIENCIES in Electronically Filed Documents RE: Parties' Stipulation and Proposed Order to Extend 118 . The following error(s) was found: Proposed Document was not submitted as a separate attachment; Proposed Order on Page 5. Other error(s) with document(s) are specified below. In response to this notice the court may order (1) an amended or correct document to be filed (2) the document stricken or (3) take other action as the court deems appropriate. You need not take any action in response to this notice unless and until the court directs you to do so. (vdr) (Entered: 01/28/2011)
120 REQUEST to Unseal Document Order, Document Sealed 107 filed by Plaintiffs−Petitioners Jose Chavez, Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez, Aleksandr Petrovich Khukhryanskiy, Ever Francisco Martinez−Rivas, Jonas Woldemariam, Maksim Zhalezny. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Arulanantham, Ahilan) (Entered: 01/28/2011)
121 ORDER RE PARTIES' STIPULATION TO EXTEND PLAINTIFFS' TIME TO FILE MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION by Judge Dolly M. Gee: Upon Stipulation 118 , Court hereby orders as follows: Plaintiffs shall have until 2/14/2011 to file their Motion for Class Certification. Defendants shall have until 3/17/2011 to file their opposition, if any, to Plaintiffs' Motion. Plaintiffs shall have until 3/28/2011 to file their reply, if any, to Defendants' Opposition. A hearing on the Motion shall be held on 4/15/2011 at 2:00 PM. (gk) (Entered: 02/02/2011)
122 ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS−PETITIONERS' REQUEST FOR UNSEALING OF AMENDED ORDER OF 12/27/2011 by Judge Dolly M. Gee: Plaintiffs' Request to Unseal 120 is hereby granted, and this Court's Order 107 , which was previously issued under seal as the Amended Order of 12/27/2011, is hereby ordered unsealed. (gk) (Entered: 02/02/2011)
123 ORDER by Magistrate Judge Suzanne H. Segal RE SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE−− Settlement Conference set for 3/7/2011 02:00 PM before Magistrate Judge Suzanne H. Segal (see Order for specifics) (dhl) (Entered: 02/10/2011)
124 MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS by Magistrate Judge Suzanne H. Segal: ) ORDER SETTING TELEPHONIC CONFERENCE REGARDING SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE SET FOR MARCH 7, 2011: The Court sets this matter for a Telephonic Conference Regarding Settlement Conference set for March 7, 2011 on Monday, February 14, 2011, at 10:00 a.m. Counsel will call into the conference by calling (213) 894−0800 and using the access codes listed below.Telephonic Conference Access Codes (Please follow the prompts and enter the codes below):Meeting ID: 7002#User Password:0357# (dhl) (Entered: 02/10/2011)
125 MINUTES OF Telephone Conference Regarding Settlement Conference set for 3/7/11 held before Magistrate Judge Suzanne H. Segal: Counsel make their telephonic appearances. The Court conducts telephonic conference regarding settlement conference set for March 7, 2011. Petitioners must provide a written demand to Respondents by Tuesday, February 15, 2011. Respondents must provide Petitioners with a written counteroffer by March 1, 2011. Both sides are to address issues regarding demand and counteroffer in their settlement statements which are due March 2, 2011. Parties are directed to fax a copy of all correspondence to chambers at (213) 894−4368. Respondents are directed to e−mail to the courtroom deputy a list of specific client representatives who will be present at the conference as soon as

02/14/2011 02/14/2011 02/14/2011 02/14/2011 02/14/2011
02/14/2011
02/15/2011 02/16/2011
02/18/2011 02/18/2011 02/18/2011
02/22/2011 02/22/2011

possible. The e−mail address is: denise_lazo@cacd.uscourts.gov. The Court resets the time of the Settlement Conference to 1:00 p.m. on Monday, March 7, 2011. Parties are advised that the conference may continue on Tuesday, March 8, 2011, and to ensure that all parties will be available throughout the day for continued settlement proceedings. :Tape #: #11−02. (dhl) (Entered: 02/14/2011)
126 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Certify Class filed by Plaintiffs Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez. Motion set for hearing on 4/15/2011 at 02:00 PM before Judge Dolly M. Gee. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibits 113−142)(Steinberg, Michael) (Entered: 02/14/2011)
127 NOTICE of Motion and Motion for Class Certification filed by Plaintiffs Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez. (Steinberg, Michael) (Entered: 02/14/2011)
128 REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE re MOTION to Certify Class 126 filed by Plaintiffs Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez. (Steinberg, Michael) (Entered: 02/14/2011)
129 NOTICE OF LODGING filed re MOTION to Certify Class 126 (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order Granting Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification)(Steinberg, Michael) (Entered: 02/14/2011)
130 NOTICE of Manual Filing filed by Petitioner Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez of Notice of Lodging of Audio Recordings in Support of Motion for Class Certification; Ex Parte Application to File Under Seal Audio Recordings ISO Motion for Class Certification; and [Proposed] Order Granting Ex Parte Application. (Steinberg, Michael) (Entered: 02/14/2011)
131 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE filed by Plaintiffs Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez, served on Notice of Lodging of Audio Recordings in Support of Motion for Class Certification; Ex Parte Application to File Under Seal Audio Recordings in Support of Motion for Class Certification; and [Proposed] Order Granting Application to File Under Seal. (Steinberg, Michael) (Entered: 02/14/2011)
132 EX PARTE APPLICATION to file Under Seal Audio Recordings in support of Motion for Class Certification filed by plaintiffs Jose Chavez, Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez, Aleksandr Petrovich Khukhryanskiy, Ever Francisco Martinez−Rivas, Jonas Woldemariam, Maksim Zhalezny.(am) (Entered: 02/16/2011)
133 JOINT REPORT of Regarding Rule 26(f) Conference filed by Petitioners Jose Chavez, Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez, Aleksandr Petrovich Khukhryanskiy, Ever Francisco Martinez−Rivas, Jonas Woldemariam, Maksim Zhalezny, Respondents Eric Holder, Trey Lund, John T. Morton, Janet Napolitano, Timothy S Robbins, Thomas G Snow. (Arulanantham, Ahilan) Modified on 7/27/2011 (gk). (Entered: 02/16/2011)
134 NOTICE of Manual Filing filed by Respondents Eric Holder, Trey Lund, John T. Morton, Janet Napolitano, Timothy S Robbins, Thomas G Snow of Ex Parte Application for Order that Opposition to Preliminary Injunction Motion Be Filed Under Seal. (Ihsanullah, Neelam) Modified on 7/27/2011 (gk). (Entered: 02/18/2011)
135 NOTICE of Manual Filing filed by Respondents Eric Holder, Trey Lund, John T. Morton, Janet Napolitano, Timothy S Robbins, Thomas G Snow of Defendants' Opposition to Preliminary Injunction Motion. (Ihsanullah, Neelam) Modified on 7/27/2011 (gk). (Entered: 02/18/2011)
136 EXPARTE APPLICATION for Order that the Opposition to Motion for Preliminary Injunction and Supporting Documents be Filed Under Seal; Memorandum of Points and Authorities; Declaration; filed by Defendants Eric Holder, Trey Lund, John T. Morton, Janet Napolitano, Timothy S Robbins, Thomas G Snow.(mg) Modified on 7/27/2011 (gk). (Entered: 02/22/2011)
137 NOTICE of Clarification regarding Defendants' Opposition to Motion for a Preliminary Injunction filed by defendants Eric Holder, Trey Lund, John T. Morton, Janet Napolitano, Timothy S Robbins, Thomas G Snow. (Ihsanullah, Neelam) Modified on 7/27/2011 (gk). (Entered: 02/22/2011)
138 REPLY In Support of Motion for Preliminary Injunction MOTION for Preliminary Injunction re: Plaintiff−Petitioner Maksim Zhalezny's Immigration Proceedings 111 filed by Petitioner Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez. (Arulanantham, Ahilan) (Entered:

02/23/2011
02/23/2011
02/23/2011
02/24/2011 02/24/2011 02/24/2011 02/24/2011 02/24/2011 02/25/2011 02/25/2011 02/25/2011 02/25/2011 02/25/2011 02/28/2011

02/22/2011)
139 NOTICE of Manual Filing filed by Petitioners Jose Chavez, Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez, Aleksandr Petrovich Khukhryanskiy, Ever Francisco Martinez−Rivas, Jonas Woldemariam, Maksim Zhalezny of Ex Parte Application to File Under Seal; Proposed Order Granting Ex Parte Application to File Under Seal; Reply in Support of Motion for Preliminary Injunction Filed Under Seal. (Arulanantham, Ahilan) (Entered: 02/23/2011)
140 MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS by Magistrate Judge Suzanne H. Segal: ORDER SETTING TELEPHONIC CONFERENCE RE SETTLEMENT: The Court sets this matter for a Telephonic Conference re Settlement for Thursday, March 3, 2011, at 1:45 p.m.. Counsel will call into the conference by calling (213) 894−0800 and using the access codes listed below.Telephonic Conference Access Codes (Please follow the prompts and enter the codes below):Meeting ID: 7002#User Password:1242# (dhl) (Entered: 02/23/2011)
141 EX PARTE APPLICATION to File Under Seal Reply in Support of Maksim Zhalezny's Motion for Preliminary Injunction; Declaration of Ahilan T. Arulanantham in Support Thereof filed by Plaintiffs−Petitioners Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez, Ever Francisco Martinez−Rivas, Aleksandr Petrovich Khukhryanskiy, Maksim Zhalezny, Jose Chavez, and Jonas Woldemariam. Lodged Proposed Order.(gk) (Entered: 02/24/2011)
142 NOTICE OF LODGING filed Amended Proposed Order re EXPARTE APPLICATION to Seal 141 (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order Granting Ex Parte to File Reply Under Seal)(Arulanantham, Ahilan) (Entered: 02/24/2011)
143 DECLARATION of Michael H. Steinberg in support of EX PARTE APPLICATION for Order for to file Under Seal Audio Recordings in support of Motion for Class Certification 132 filed by Petitioner Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Steinberg, Michael) (Entered: 02/24/2011)
146 ORDER by Judge Dolly M. Gee: granting 136 Ex Parte Application to Seal Defendants' Opposition to the Motion for Preliminary Injunction and Supporting Documents. (kpa) (Entered: 02/25/2011)
148 SEALED DOCUMENT− Declaration of Neelam Ihsanullah and Exhibits in Support of Opposition to Motion for a Preliminary Injunction. (Attachments: Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5 Part 6)(mat) Modified on 7/27/2011 (gk). (Entered: 02/28/2011)
150 SEALED DOCUMENT− Defendants' Opposition to Motion for a Preliminary Injunction. (mat) Modified on 7/27/2011 (gk). (Entered: 02/28/2011)
144 INITIAL STANDING ORDER FOR CASES ASSIGNED TO JUDGE GEE by Judge Dolly M. Gee. Please read this order carefully as it governs this case. *See order for procedures and requirements.* (vdr) (Entered: 02/25/2011)
145 Order Granting Plaintiff's Ex Parte Application 141 to File Plaintiff Maksim Zhalezny's Reply in Support of Motion for Preliminary Injunction 111 by Judge Dolly M. Gee: Plaintiff's application is GRANTED and said document is hereby sealed. (kpa) (Entered: 02/25/2011)
147 ORDER Granting Ex Parte Application to file Audio Recordings 132 Under Seal by Judge Dolly M. Gee: Plaintiffs' application is GRANTED and said recordings are hereby ordered to be filed under seal. (kpa) (Entered: 02/25/2011)
151 SEALED DOCUMENT− Plaintiff's Reply in Support of Motion for Preliminary Injunction. (mat) (Entered: 02/28/2011)
152 SEALED DOCUMENT− NOTICE OF LODGING of Audio Recordings in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification.(mat) Modified on 3/1/2011 (mat). (Entered: 03/01/2011)
149 ORDER VACATING REFERENCE TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE by Judge Dolly M. Gee. Reference of case to Magistrate Judge David T Bristow is vacated. Case transferred to the calendar of Magistrate Judge David T Bristow for Discovery. Case number now reads as CV 10−02211 DMG(DTBx). (rn) (Entered: 02/28/2011)

03/03/2011 03/07/2011
03/07/2011 03/07/2011
03/08/2011 03/14/2011 03/15/2011 03/15/2011 03/17/2011

153 MINUTES OF Telephone Conference re Settlement held before Magistrate Judge Suzanne H. Segal: Counsel made their telephonic appearances. Telephonic conference re settlement is held. Settlement conference in this matter shall proceed as scheduled for Monday, March 7, 2011 at 1:00 p.m Tape #: #11−03. (dhl) (Entered: 03/03/2011)
154 SCHEDULING AND CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER FOR JURY TRIAL by Judge Dolly M. Gee: The Court has scheduled the dates set forth on the last page of this Order after review of the parties' Joint Rule 26(f) Report. The dates and requirements set forth in this Order are firm. Bench Trial set for 2/28/2012 08:30 AM before Judge Dolly M. Gee. Final Pretrial Conference set for 1/31/2012 02:00 PM before Judge Dolly M. Gee. Amended Pleadings and Addition of Parties Cut−Off 5/9/2011. Non−Expert Discovery cut−off 9/14/2011. Motions due by 10/12/2011. Initial Expert Disclosure & Report Deadline 7/15/2011. Rebuttal Expert Disclosure & Report Deadline 8/15/2011. Expert Discovery Cut−Off 9/14/2011. Settlement Conference Completion Date 12/16/2011. Motions in Limine to be filed by 1/10/2012. Opposition to Motion in Limine Filing Deadline 1/17/2012. Class Certification motion cut−off 2/14/2011. Early Mediation 3/31/2011. Joint Status Report re Results of Early Mediation 4/28/2011. Status Report re Settlement due by 1/6/2012. Proposed Pretrial Conference Order due by 1/20/2012. Pretrial Exhibit Stipulation 1/20/2012. Joint Exhibit List due by 1/20/2012. Witness Lists & Joint Trial Witness Time Estimate Form due by 1/20/2012. Witness Declarations or Marked Depositions 2/7/2012. Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law 2/7/2012. Mark Up of Opponent's Proposed Findings/Conclusions 2/14/2012. (gk) (Entered: 03/08/2011)
155 MINUTES OF Settlement Conference held before Magistrate Judge Suzanne H. Segal: Settlement conference held and continued to March 8, 2011. Tape #: CS 03/07/11. (dhl) (Entered: 03/08/2011)
156 MINUTES OF Scheduling Conference held before Judge Dolly M. Gee: Based upon the parties' Joint Rule 26(f) Report, the Court hereby sets the Final Pretrial Conference for 1/31/2012 at 2:00 PM and the Court Trial date is set for 2/28/2012 at 8:30 AM (est. 3−5 days). The Court issues the scheduling and case management order with further deadlines. Counsel are reminded of their obligations and requirements to timely and fully comply with all orders. A hearing on Plaintiff Maksim Zhalezny's Motion for Preliminary Injunction 111 is held. Court and counsel confer. After oral argument, the matter is taken under submission pending further supplemental briefing by Plaintiffs which is due on 3/14/2011. Defendants may file a written response by 3/21/2011. Court Reporter: Anne Kielwasser. (gk) (Entered: 03/08/2011)
157 MINUTES OF Settlement Conference held before Magistrate Judge Suzanne H. Segal: The settlement conference was conducted off the record. No settlement was reached. Tape #: CS 03/08/11. (dhl) (Entered: 03/10/2011)
158 Supplemental BRIEF filed by Plaintiffs−Petitioners Jose Chavez, Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez, Aleksandr Petrovich Khukhryanskiy, Ever Francisco Martinez−Rivas, Jonas Woldemariam, Maksim Zhalezny. regarding Order on Motion for Preliminary Injunction, Scheduling Conference, Terminate Deadlines and Hearings,,,,,,,,, 156 . (Arulanantham, Ahilan) (Entered: 03/14/2011)
159 NOTICE OF ERRATA filed by Petitioners Jose Chavez, Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez, Aleksandr Petrovich Khukhryanskiy, Ever Francisco Martinez−Rivas, Jonas Woldemariam, Maksim Zhalezny. correcting Brief (non−motion non−appeal), Brief (non−motion non−appeal) 158 (Attachments: # 1 Corrected Supplemental Brief Regarding Qualified Representatives)(Arulanantham, Ahilan) (Entered: 03/15/2011)
160 NOTICE OF ERRATA filed by Petitioners Jose Chavez, Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez, Aleksandr Petrovich Khukhryanskiy, Ever Francisco Martinez−Rivas, Jonas Woldemariam, Maksim Zhalezny. correcting Errata, 159 (Attachments: # 1 Second Corrected Supplemental Brief Regarding Qualified Representatives)(Arulanantham, Ahilan) (Entered: 03/15/2011)
161 Opposition re: MOTION to Certify Class 126 filed by Respondents Eric Holder, Trey Lund, John T. Morton, Janet Napolitano, Timothy S Robbins, Thomas G Snow. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibits 21−26, # 2 Exhibits 27−29)(Ihsanullah, Neelam) Modified on 7/27/2011 (gk). (Entered: 03/17/2011)

03/21/2011 03/21/2011 03/21/2011 03/23/2011 03/28/2011 03/28/2011 03/30/2011 04/01/2011 04/08/2011 04/10/2011 04/10/2011 04/10/2011 04/11/2011

162 NOTICE of Appearance filed by attorney Nicole Prairie on behalf of Respondents Eric Holder, Trey Lund, John T. Morton, Janet Napolitano, Timothy S Robbins, Thomas G Snow (Prairie, Nicole) Modified on 7/27/2011 (gk). (Entered: 03/21/2011)
163 NOTICE Regarding Plaintiff Zhalezny's New Immigration Court Hearing Date filed by Defendants Eric Holder, Trey Lund, John T. Morton, Janet Napolitano, Timothy S Robbins, Thomas G Snow. (Attachments: # 1 Hearing Notice)(Ihsanullah, Neelam) Modified on 7/27/2011 (gk). (Entered: 03/21/2011)
164 Supplemental Brief re Qualified Representatives BRIEF filed by Defendants' Eric Holder, Trey Lund, John T. Morton, Janet Napolitano, Timothy S Robbins, Thomas G Snow. (Prairie, Nicole) Modified on 7/27/2011 (gk). (Entered: 03/21/2011)
165 First EX PARTE APPLICATION for Leave to File Response Brief filed by Plaintiffs Jose Chavez, Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez, Aleksandr Petrovich Khukhryanskiy, Ever Francisco Martinez−Rivas, Jonas Woldemariam, Maksim Zhalezny. (Attachments: # 1 Response Brief, # 2 Proposed Order)(Arulanantham, Ahilan) (Entered: 03/23/2011)
166 REPLY in support MOTION to Certify Class 126 filed by Petitioners Jose Chavez, Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez, Aleksandr Petrovich Khukhryanskiy, Ever Francisco Martinez−Rivas, Jonas Woldemariam, Maksim Zhalezny. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 145−149)(Steinberg, Michael) (Entered: 03/28/2011)
167 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE filed by Plaintiffs Jose Chavez, Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez, Aleksandr Petrovich Khukhryanskiy, Ever Francisco Martinez−Rivas, Jonas Woldemariam, Maksim Zhalezny, re Reply (Motion related), Reply (Motion related) 166 served on March 28, 2011. (Steinberg, Michael) (Entered: 03/28/2011)
168 Joint Stipulation to Extend Deadline for Early Mediation filed by Respondents Eric Holder, Trey Lund, John T. Morton, Janet Napolitano, Timothy S Robbins, Thomas G Snow (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Ihsanullah, Neelam) Modified on 7/27/2011 (gk). (Entered: 03/30/2011)
169 ORDER EXTENDING DEADLINE FOR EARLY MEDIATION by Judge Dolly M. Gee, re Stipulation 168 . The deadline for completion of early mediation is extended until 5/30/2011. The parties shall file a joint in camera status report with Hon. Suzanne Segal, United States Magistrate Judge, on 4/12/2011, 5/3/2011 and 5/24/2011. (vdr) (Entered: 04/04/2011)
170 NOTICE of Manual Filing filed by Respondents Eric Holder, Trey Lund, John T. Morton, Janet Napolitano, Timothy S Robbins, Thomas G Snow of Parties' Joint In Camera Status Report. (Ihsanullah, Neelam) Modified on 7/27/2011 (gk). (Entered: 04/08/2011)
171 STIPULATION for Extension of Time to Amend Scheduling Order, Set/Reset Deadlines/Hearings,,,,,,,,,, 154 filed by Plaintiffs & Petitioners Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order Order To Extend Deadline For Amended Pleadings And Addition Of Parties)(Arulanantham, Ahilan) (Entered: 04/10/2011)
172 NOTICE Notice of Errata filed by Plaintiffs & Petitioners Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez. Correcting Joint Stipulation To Extend Deadline For Amended Pleadnings and Addition of Parties (Arulanantham, Ahilan) (Entered: 04/10/2011)
173 Amended STIPULATION for Extension of Time to Amend Scheduling Order, Set/Reset Deadlines/Hearings,,,,,,,,,, 154 filed by Plaintiffs & Petitioners Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order To Extend Deadline For Amended Pleadings And Addition Of Parties)(Arulanantham, Ahilan) (Entered: 04/10/2011)
174 EX PARTE APPLICATION for Leave to File Supplemental Statement Re Putative Class Member filed by Plaintiffs/Petitioners Jose Chavez, Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez, Aleksandr Petrovich Khukhryanskiy, Ever Francisco Martinez−Rivas, Jonas Woldemariam, Maksim Zhalezny. (Attachments: # 1 Supplement Statement Re Putative Class Member, # 2 Exhibit Exhibits 150−154, # 3 Proposed Order)(Steinberg, Michael) (Entered: 04/11/2011)

04/12/2011 04/12/2011 04/13/2011
04/14/2011
04/15/2011 04/15/2011 04/18/2011
04/19/2011
04/19/2011 04/21/2011 04/21/2011

175 RESPONSE filed by Respondents Eric Holder, Trey Lund, John T. Morton, Janet Napolitano, Timothy S Robbins, Thomas G Snowto EX PARTE APPLICATION for Leave to File Supplemental Statement Re Putative Class Member 174 (Prairie, Nicole) Modified on 7/27/2011 (gk). (Entered: 04/12/2011)
176 ORDER TO EXTEND DEADLINE FOR AMENDED PLEADINGS AND ADDITION OF PARTIES by Judge Dolly M. Gee, re Stipulation 173 . The hearing for any motions to amend pleadings and add parties is extended to 5/16/2011. (vdr) (Entered: 04/13/2011)
177 ORDER GRANTING LEAVE TO FILE PLAINTIFFS' SUPPLEMENTAL STATEMENT RE PUTATIVE CLASS MEMBER MIGUEL CANTO−ORTIZ IN SUPPORT OF THEIR MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION by Judge Dolly M. Gee: Plaintiffs' unopposed Ex Parte Application For Leave to File Supplemental Statement re Putative Class Member Miguel Canto−Ortiz in Support of their Motion for Class Certification 174 is granted and the Supplemental Statement submitted in Docket Number 174 is hereby deemed filed. (gk) (Entered: 04/13/2011)
178 EX PARTE APPLICATION for Leave to File Supplemental Response to Plaintiffs' Supplemental Statement Re Putative Class Member Miguel Canto−Ortiz in Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification filed by Defendants Eric Holder, Trey Lund, John T. Morton, Janet Napolitano, Timothy S Robbins, Thomas G Snow. (Attachments: # 1 Supplemental Response, # 2 Declaration − Richardson, # 3 Transcripts, # 4 Declaration − Hollandsworth, # 5 Proposed Order)(Go, Samuel) Modified on 7/27/2011 (gk). (Entered: 04/14/2011)
179 ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' EX PARTE APPLICATION 178 FOR LEAVE TO FILE SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE by Judge Dolly M. Gee. The Court GRANTS Defendants' application as follows: the Supplemental Response 178 is hereby deemed filed. (vdr) (Entered: 04/18/2011)
182 MINUTES OF Plaintiffs' Motion 126 for Class Certification Hearing held before Judge Dolly M. Gee. The case is called and counsel state their appearance. Following oral argument, the Court advises counsel that the motion is taken under submission and a written order will issue.Court Reporter: Sherri Kleeger. (vdr) (Entered: 04/19/2011)
180 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Leave to file Second Amended Complaint filed by Plaintiff Jose Chavez, Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez, Aleksandr Petrovich Khukhryanskiy, Ever Francisco Martinez−Rivas, Jonas Woldemariam, Maksim Zhalezny. Motion set for hearing on 5/16/2011 at 09:30 AM before Judge Dolly M. Gee. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Ahilan T. Arulanantham, # 2 Proposed Order Granting Leave to File Second Amended Complaint, # 3 [Proposed] Second Amended Complaint)(Arulanantham, Ahilan) (Entered: 04/18/2011)
181 MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS by Magistrate Judge Suzanne H. Segal: ORDER SETTING TELEPHONIC STATUS CONFERENCE: The Court sets this matter for a Telephonic Status Conference on Friday, April 22, 2011, at 1:30 p.m. This will be a very brief status conference concerning future settlement proceedings. For ease of scheduling this brief status conference, the Court only requires one attorney representing Plaintiffs and one attorney representing Defendants to participate. Accordingly, only Mr. Arulanantham and Mr. Lawrence need call in for the conference. Counsel will call into the conference by calling (213) 894−0800 and using the access codes listed below. Telephonic Conference Access Codes (Please follow the prompts and enter the codes below): Meeting ID: 7002# User Password: 4424# (dhl) Modified on 4/19/2011 (dhl). (Entered: 04/19/2011)
183 NOTICE filed by Defendants Eric Holder, Trey Lund, John T. Morton, Janet Napolitano, Timothy S Robbins, Thomas G Snow. (Lawrence, Victor) Modified on 7/27/2011 (gk). (Entered: 04/19/2011)
184 APPLICATION for Leave to File Plaintiffs' Response to the Government's Post−Hearing "Notice" Ex Parte filed by Plaintiffs Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez. (Steinberg, Michael) (Entered: 04/21/2011)
185 RESPONSE IN SUPPORT of APPLICATION for Leave to File Plaintiffs' Response to the Government's Post−Hearing "Notice" Ex Parte 184 filed by Petitioner Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez. (Steinberg, Michael) (Entered: 04/21/2011)

04/21/2011 04/21/2011 04/21/2011 04/21/2011 04/22/2011 04/22/2011 04/22/2011
04/25/2011 04/25/2011 04/27/2011 05/02/2011 05/02/2011

186 DECLARATION of Ahilan T. Arulanantham in support of APPLICATION for Leave to File Plaintiffs' Response to the Government's Post−Hearing "Notice" Ex Parte 184 filed by Petitioner Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez. (Steinberg, Michael) (Entered: 04/21/2011)
187 Certificate OF SERVICE filed by Plaintiffs Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez, re APPLICATION for Leave to File Plaintiffs' Response to the Government's Post−Hearing "Notice" Ex Parte 184 , Response in Support of Motion 185 , Declaration (Motion related), Declaration (Motion related) 186 served on April 21, 2011. (Steinberg, Michael) (Entered: 04/21/2011)
188 NOTICE OF ERRATA filed by Petitioner Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez. correcting APPLICATION for Leave to File Plaintiffs' Response to the Government's Post−Hearing "Notice" Ex Parte 184 (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Steinberg, Michael) (Entered: 04/21/2011)
189 ORDER GRANTING EX PARTE APPLICATION 184 FOR LEAVE TO FILE PLAINTIFFS' RESPONSE TO THE GOVERNMENT'S POST−HEARING NOTICE by Judge Dolly M. Gee. Good cause having been shown in Plaintiffs Ex Parte Application For Leave to file Plaintiffs Response to the Governments Post−Hearing Notice, Plaintiffs application is granted and the Response submitted in Docket # 184 is hereby deemed filed. (vdr) (Entered: 04/22/2011)
190 REPLY APPLICATION for Leave to File Plaintiffs' Response to the Government's Post−Hearing "Notice" Ex Parte 184 Defendants' Reply to Plaintiffs' Response to Defendants' Notice Re the DHS OIG Report filed by Respondents Eric Holder, Trey Lund, John T. Morton, Janet Napolitano, Timothy S Robbins, Thomas G Snow. (Lawrence, Victor) Modified on 7/27/2011 (gk). (Entered: 04/22/2011)
191 NOTICE Notice of Errata filed by Defendants Eric Holder, Trey Lund, John T. Morton, Janet Napolitano, Timothy S Robbins, Thomas G Snow. (Lawrence, Victor) Modified on 7/27/2011 (gk). (Entered: 04/22/2011)
192 MINUTES OF Telephone Status Conference held before Magistrate Judge Suzanne H. Segal: Telephonic status conference held. Court and counsel confer regarding settlement. Defendants shall provide a written response to Plaintiffs March 23, 2011 letter by Monday, May 9, 2011. A copy of the both Plaintiffs March 23, 2011 letter and Defendants May 9, 2011 response shall be faxed to chambers at (213) 894−4368. The Court places this matter on calendar for a further settlement conference on Monday, May 16, 2011, at 2:00 p.m., in Courtroom 23. To maximize the efficiency of the conference, the Court directs both parties to limit attendance at the settlement conference to no more than five counsel per side. This limitation does not apply to individuals who are clients or representatives of client agencies Tape #: #11−04. (dhl) (Entered: 04/22/2011)
193 REPLY Corrected Reply to Plaintiffs' Response to Defendants' Notice Re the DHS OIG Report filed by Respondents Eric Holder, Trey Lund, John T. Morton, Janet Napolitano, Timothy S Robbins, Thomas G Snow. (Lawrence, Victor) Modified on 7/27/2011 (gk). (Entered: 04/25/2011)
194 Opposition re: MOTION for Leave to file Second Amended Complaint 180 filed by Respondents Eric Holder, Trey Lund, John T. Morton, Janet Napolitano, Timothy S Robbins, Thomas G Snow. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibits 30−33)(Ihsanullah, Neelam) Modified on 7/27/2011 (gk). (Entered: 04/25/2011)
195 Request for Court Decision filed by Petitioners Jose Chavez, Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez, Aleksandr Petrovich Khukhryanskiy, Ever Francisco Martinez−Rivas, Jonas Woldemariam, Maksim Zhalezny (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Arulanantham, Ahilan) (Entered: 04/27/2011)
196 REPLY in Support of MOTION for Leave to file Second Amended Complaint 180 filed by Petitioners Jose Chavez, Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez, Aleksandr Petrovich Khukhryanskiy, Ever Francisco Martinez−Rivas, Jonas Woldemariam, Maksim Zhalezny. (Arulanantham, Ahilan) (Entered: 05/02/2011)
198 MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS AND NOTICE TO ALL PARTIES by Judge Dolly M. Gee: 180 .The Court finds that plaintiff's motion for leave to file second amended complaint filed on April 18, 2011 180 and currently set for hearing on May

05/03/2011 05/03/2011 05/03/2011 05/04/2011 05/04/2011 05/04/2011
05/05/2011 05/13/2011
05/13/2011

16, 2011, is appropriate for decision without oral argument. Fed. R. Civ. P. 78(b); C.D. L.R. 7−15. Accordingly, this motion is taken UNDER SUBMISSION and the hearing is vacated. No appearances are necessary on May 16, 2011. (im) (Entered: 05/03/2011)
197 MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS by Magistrate Judge Suzanne H. Segal: ORDER CONTINUING SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE: The settlement conference in this matter is continued from Monday, May 16, 2011 to Monday, June 6, 2011, at 2:00 p.m. in Courtroom 23, Spring Street Courthouse. (dhl) (Entered: 05/03/2011)
199 NOTICE of Manual Filing filed by Respondents Eric Holder, Trey Lund, John T. Morton, Janet Napolitano, Timothy S Robbins, Thomas G Snow of Parties' Second Joint Status Report Regarding Early Mediation. (Ihsanullah, Neelam) Modified on 7/27/2011 (gk). (Entered: 05/03/2011)
200 REQUEST for Order for Granting In Part Plaintiff Zhalezny's Motion for Preliminary Injunction filed by Plaintiffs Jose Chavez, Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez, Aleksandr Petrovich Khukhryanskiy, Ever Francisco Martinez−Rivas, Jonas Woldemariam, Maksim Zhalezny. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Arulanantham, Ahilan) (Entered: 05/03/2011)
201 NOTICE of Additional Legal Authority filed by Defendants Eric Holder, Trey Lund, John T. Morton, Janet Napolitano, Timothy S Robbins, Thomas G Snow. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 34)(Go, Samuel) Modified on 7/27/2011 (gk). (Entered: 05/04/2011)
204 SEALED DOCUMENT− Order Re: Plaintiff Maksim Zhalezny's Motion for a Preliminary Injunction. (mat) (Entered: 05/06/2011)
215 REDACTED ORDER RE PLAINTIFF MAKSIM ZHALEZNY'S MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION by Judge Dolly M. Gee: The Court GRANTS Plaintiff Maksim Zhalezny's Motion for a Preliminary Injunction 111 as follows: Pending a trial on the merits, Defendants, and their officers, agents, employees, and attorneys are hereby enjoined from detaining Plaintiff Zhalezny under 8 U.S.C. Section 1226(a) or (c) unless, within 45 days of this Order, they (i) provide Plaintiff with a bond hearing before an Immigration Judge with the authority to order his release on conditions of supervision, unless the Government shows that Plaintiff's ongoing detention is justified; and (ii) provide Plaintiff with a Qualified Representative, as defined in this decision, who is willing and able to represent Plaintiff during such bond hearing, whether pro bono or at Defendants' expense. (2) The Court waives the bond requirement. (3) Due to privacy considerations, this Order shall be filed under seal. Within 14 days from the date of this Order, the parties will meet and confer regarding which portions of the Order they propose to be redacted such that a redacted version of the Order may be filed, or notify the Court that Plaintiff waives his privacy rights as to the confidential information relied upon herein and that the Order may be unsealed. The parties shall file a joint report with the Court by no later than 5/20/2011 regarding the sealed status of this Order. (gk) (Entered: 06/08/2011)
202 Supplemental Notice of Additional Legal Authority filed by Respondents Eric Holder, Trey Lund, John T. Morton, Janet Napolitano, Timothy S Robbins, Thomas G Snow (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 35)(Go, Samuel) Modified on 7/27/2011 (gk). (Entered: 05/05/2011)
205 MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS by Magistrate Judge Suzanne H. Segal: The Court sets this matter for a Telephonic Status Conference on Tuesday, May 17, 2011, at 1:30 p.m. For ease of scheduling this status conference, the Court only requires two attorneys representing Plaintiffs and one attorney representing Defendants to participate. Accordingly, only Mr. Arulanantham, Mr. Steinberg, and Mr. Lawrence need call in for the conference. Counsel will call into the conference by calling (213) 894−0800 and using the access codes listed below. Telephonic Conference Access Codes (Please follow the prompts and enter the codes below): Meeting ID: 1112# User Password: 7620# (rp) (Entered: 05/13/2011)
206 MINUTES OF IN CHAMBERS − ORDER AND NOTICE TO ALL PARTIES by Judge Dolly M. Gee: The Court defers its ruling on Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification 126 until after the parties have completed class discovery, especially

05/17/2011
05/20/2011 06/01/2011 06/01/2011
06/03/2011 06/06/2011 06/06/2011 06/07/2011 06/07/2011
06/13/2011

with regard to the numerosity of the Plaintiff Class and the two Sub−Classes. Plaintiffs shall have until 7/15/2011 to complete class discovery and until 7/29/2011 to file any supplemental brief in support of their Motion. Defendants may file a supplemental opposition by 8/12/2011. Plaintiffs may file a supplemental reply by 8/19/2011. The Motion shall remain under submission pending receipt of the parties' supplemental briefs. Court Reporter: Not Reported. (gk) (Entered: 05/13/2011)
207 MINUTES OF Telephone Status Conference held before Magistrate Judge Suzanne H. Segal: Telephonic status conference held. Court and counsel confer. Following discussion with counsel, the Court VACATES the settlement conference set for June 6, 2011. If the parties believe that a settlement conference will facilitate a resolution of this matter at a later date, the parties shall contact Denise Lazo, Courtroom Deputy Clerk, at (213) 894−0958, to arrange another settlement conference.Tape #: #11−05. (dhl) (Entered: 05/17/2011)
208 JOINT REPORT of Parties Re Redaction of Medical Info in Order Re Zhalezny's PI Motion filed by Petitioners Jose Chavez, Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez, Aleksandr Petrovich Khukhryanskiy, Ever Francisco Martinez−Rivas, Jonas Woldemariam, Maksim Zhalezny. (Stark, Jennifer) (Entered: 05/20/2011)
209 NOTICE TO COURT RE DEFENDANTS' NON−COMPLIANCE WITH AMENDED ORDER filed by Plaintiffs Aleksandr Petrovich Khukhryanskiy. Amended Order of December 22, 2010 (Steinberg, Michael) (Entered: 06/01/2011)
210 MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS by Judge Dolly M. Gee: Counsel are hereby notified that the above matter is set for a Telephonic Status Conference onJune 7, 2011 at 10:30 a.m., to discuss the joint status report [Doc. #208] filed on May 20, 2011. Counsel are directed to contact the Courtroom Deputy, Valencia Vallery at (213) 894−5452, at least two (2) days before the hearing date, and provide her with the telephone number (land lines only; no cellphones) at which the Court can reach you. Be available at that number for at least one−half hour before the time scheduled for the hearing. (vv) (Entered: 06/01/2011)
211 NOTICE Defendants' Response to Plaintiffs' Notice to the Court Regarding Defendants' Alleged Non−Compliance with the Amended Order Re Plaintiffs' Motion for a Preliminary Injunction filed by Defendants Eric Holder, Trey Lund, John T. Morton, Janet Napolitano, Timothy S Robbins, Thomas G Snow. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D)(Prairie, Nicole) Modified on 7/27/2011 (gk). (Entered: 06/03/2011)
212 Joint STIPULATION for Protective Order Eric Holder, Trey Lund, John T. Morton, Janet Napolitano, Timothy S Robbins, Thomas G Snow. (Attachments: # 1 [Proposed] Protective Order for Discovery)(Ihsanullah, Neelam) Modified on 7/27/2011 (gk). (Entered: 06/06/2011)
213 NOTICE re Plaintiffs' Class Discovery Propounded on Defendants filed by Defendants Eric Holder, Trey Lund, John T. Morton, Janet Napolitano, Timothy S Robbins, Thomas G Snow. (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)(Go, Samuel) Modified on 7/27/2011 (gk). (Entered: 06/06/2011)
214 PROTECTIVE ORDER by Magistrate Judge David T Bristow re Stipulation for Protective Order 212 . (See document for specifics) (mrgo) (Entered: 06/07/2011)
216 MINUTES OF Telephonic Status Conference held before Judge Dolly M. Gee: The Court confirms that the parties are in agreement regarding the proposed redactions from the Court's May 4, 2011 Order so that a redacted version of the Order may be filed. The Court limits Plaintiffs' Rule 30(b)(6) depositions to four, without prejudice. The Court will be available on the following dates for future telephonic status conferences, if needed: June 21, 2011 at 10:30 a.m. and July 12, 2011 at 11:00 a.m. Counsel are urged to cooperate in streamlining class discovery and to meet and confer to resolve their differences before calling the Court. Counsel shall notify the Courtroom Deputy Clerk if the status conferences will not be needed. Court Reporter: Sheri Kleeger. (im) (Entered: 06/09/2011)
217 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Preliminary Injunction re: Putative Plaintiffs Jose Antonio Moreno & Yonas Woldemariam filed by Plaintiffs −

06/14/2011
06/15/2011 06/15/2011 06/21/2011
06/24/2011 06/24/2011 06/24/2011 06/24/2011 06/27/2011 06/27/2011 06/28/2011
06/28/2011
06/29/2011 06/29/2011

Petitioners Jose Chavez, Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez, Aleksandr Petrovich Khukhryanskiy, Ever Francisco Martinez−Rivas, Jonas Woldemariam, Maksim Zhalezny. Motion set for hearing on 7/29/2011 at 02:00 PM before Judge Dolly M. Gee. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum, # 2 Exhibits 155A−164, # 3 Exhibits 165−174, # 4 Proposed Order)(Arulanantham, Ahilan) (Entered: 06/13/2011)
218 NOTICE of Manual Filing filed by Petitioners Jose Chavez, Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez, Aleksandr Petrovich Khukhryanskiy, Ever Francisco Martinez−Rivas, Jonas Woldemariam, Maksim Zhalezny of Ex Parte Application to file Unredacted Exhibits 170 & 172 Under Seal; Proposed Order. (Stark, Jennifer) (Entered: 06/14/2011)
219 SEALED DOCUMENT− Exparte Application to File Unredacted Exhibits 170 and 172 of Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction (DKT. #127). (mat) (Entered: 06/21/2011)
220 SEALED DOCUMENT− Order Granting Exparte Application to File Unredacted Exhibits 170 and 172 of Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction (DKT. #217). (mat) (Entered: 06/21/2011)
221 MINUTES OF Telephone Conference held before Judge Dolly M. Gee: Court grants defendants' request to file their opposition to plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction by June 29, 2011. Plaintiffs may file a reply brief by July 13, 2011. A further telephonic status conference is set for July 8, 2011 at 1:00 p.m., if necessary. SEE ORDER. Court Reporter: Victoria Valine. (im) (Entered: 06/24/2011)
222 NOTICE of Appearance filed by attorney Michael H Steinberg on behalf of Petitioner Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez (Steinberg, Michael) (Entered: 06/24/2011)
223 NOTICE of Appearance filed by attorney Michael H Steinberg on behalf of Petitioner Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez (Steinberg, Michael) (Entered: 06/24/2011)
224 NOTICE of Appearance filed by attorney Michael H Steinberg on behalf of Petitioner Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez (Steinberg, Michael) (Entered: 06/24/2011)
225 NOTICE of Association of Counsel associating attorney Damion D. D. Robinson on behalf of Petitioner Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez. Filed by Petitioner Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez (Steinberg, Michael) (Entered: 06/24/2011)
226 EX PARTE APPLICATION for Order for Deposition filed by Planitiffs Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Michael H. Steinberg, # 2 Exhibit 175−181)(Steinberg, Michael) (Entered: 06/27/2011)
227 NOTICE OF LODGING filed re EX PARTE APPLICATION for Order for Deposition 226 (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Steinberg, Michael) (Entered: 06/27/2011)
228 Opposition Opposition re: EX PARTE APPLICATION for Order for Deposition 226 filed by Respondents Eric Holder, Trey Lund, John T. Morton, Janet Napolitano, Timothy S Robbins, Thomas G Snow. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit A Lawrence Declaration, # 2 Exhibit Exhibit B Mann Declaration)(Lawrence, Victor) Modified on 7/27/2011 (gk). (Entered: 06/28/2011)
229 MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER by Judge Dolly M. Gee: Proceedings: Order Referring All Discovery Matters to Hon. David T. Bristow, United States Magistrate Judge. Plaintiffs' EX PARTE APPLICATION 226 is hereby referred to Magistrate Judge David T Bristow. The July 8, 2011 telephonic status conference scheduled before this Court is VACATED and shall be reset, as needed, by Magistrate Judge Bristow. (mg) (Entered: 06/28/2011)
230 NOTICE of Manual Filing filed by Respondents Eric Holder, Trey Lund, John T. Morton, Janet Napolitano, Timothy S Robbins, Thomas G Snow of Stipulation to File Audio Recordings Under Seal. (Ihsanullah, Neelam) Modified on 7/27/2011 (gk). (Entered: 06/29/2011)
231 NOTICE of Manual Filing filed by Respondents Eric Holder, Trey Lund, John T. Morton, Janet Napolitano, Timothy S Robbins, Thomas G Snow of Exhibit 14 (Immigration Court Record of Proceedings for Jose Antonio Moreno Vasquez).

06/29/2011 06/29/2011 06/29/2011
07/01/2011 07/01/2011 07/06/2011 07/07/2011 07/08/2011
07/11/2011

(Ihsanullah, Neelam) Modified on 7/27/2011 (gk). (Entered: 06/29/2011)
232 Opposition re: MOTION for Preliminary Injunction re: Putative Plaintiffs Jose Antonio Moreno & Yonas Woldemariam 217 filed by Respondents Eric Holder, Trey Lund, John T. Morton, Janet Napolitano, Timothy S Robbins, Thomas G Snow. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibits 1−4, # 2 Exhibits 5−9, # 3 Exhibits 10−15, # 4 Exhibits 16−20)(Ihsanullah, Neelam) Modified on 7/27/2011 (gk). (Entered: 06/29/2011)
233 JOINT STIPULATION File Audio Recordings Under Seal filed by Defendants−Respondents Eric Holder, Trey Lund, John T. Morton, Janet Napolitano.(im) Modified on 7/27/2011 (gk). (Entered: 06/30/2011)
234 MINUTES OF RE PLAINTIFFS EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR DEPOSITION ORDER held before Magistrate Judge David T Bristow: After lengthy argument regarding the specific 30(b)(6) deposition which was the subject of the Motion, as well as argument relating to the remaining discovery subject to Judge Gees June 7, 2011 Order and the case in general, the Court indicated that it was inclined to grant plaintiffs an additional 30(b)(6) deposition of Secretary Napolitano (or her designee) pertaining to the first category (and five subparts) listed in Exhibit A to the plaintiffs Amended Notice of Deposition dated June 9, 2011. The Court advised the parties to confer following the conclusion of the remaining scheduled depositions to determine whether the additional deposition will be necessary. However, if plaintiffs believe it to be necessary, they will be afforded the opportunity to conduct the deposition. The deposition will be held in Washington, D.C., and will not exceed five hours in length. If the deposition is held, defendants are to produce the appropriate designee (or desginees) who can provide substantive responses pertaining to the specific topic set forth in the notice. 226 Court Recorder: RS−4 06−29−11. (am) (Entered: 07/01/2011)
236 ORDER APPROVING STIPULATION TO FILE AUDIO RECORDINGS UNDER SEAL by Judge Dolly M. Gee: Upon Stipulation 233 , IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants' Exhibit 14, filed in support of their Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for a Preliminary Injunction, is to be filed under seal. (gk) (Entered: 07/07/2011)
240 SEALED DOCUMENT− Exhibit #14 in Support of Opposition to Motion for a Preliminary Injunction. (mat) Modified on 7/27/2011 (gk). (Main Document 240 replaced on 10/9/2015) (kag). (Entered: 07/12/2011)
235 NOTICE of Administrative Decision Relating to Moreno Preliminary Injunction Motion filed by Respondents Eric Holder, Trey Lund, John T. Morton, Janet Napolitano, Timothy S Robbins, Thomas G Snow. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit A BIA Decision)(Lawrence, Victor) Modified on 7/27/2011 (gk). (Entered: 07/06/2011)
237 MINUTES OF Telephonic Status Conference held before Magistrate Judge David T Bristow: This matter came on regularly for a Telephonic Status Conference on certain discovery disputes as stated on the record. A further telephonic status conference is ordered set for Friday, July 8, 2011, at 12:00 p.m. (Noon) In order to streamline the next hearing, the Court orders the appearances of Attorney Michael H. Steinberg on behalf of the Plaintiffs and Attorney Victor M. Lawrence (AUSA) for the Government, to participate in the next telephonic hearing.Court Recorder: CS RS 7−07−11. (am) (Entered: 07/11/2011)
289 MINUTES OF a FurtherTelephone Conference held before Magistrate Judge David T Bristow: The parties, through counsel, were ordered to meet and confer for purposes of resolving their current discovery dispute, including, inter alia, the formulation of a pseudonymic protocol for identifying potential class members, and creation of a privilege log, no later than 5:00pm (P.S.T.) on July 15, 2011. In the event counsel can stipulate to eliminate their dispute or significantly narrow the issues of dispute, they may file a stipulated request with the District Judge seeking a short extension of the current briefing schedule. Such a request must be filed no later than July 21, 2011, and counsel were advised that Judge Gee has not indicated that she will grant such a request to extend the briefing schedule. A further telephonic status conference was set for Monday, July 18, 2011, at 1:00 pm. Court Recorder: RS−4 7/8/11. (mrgo) (Entered: 08/26/2011)
238 MINUTES OF Telephonic Status Conference held before Magistrate Judge David T Bristow: A further telephonic status conference was held by the Court with regard to

07/12/2011 07/13/2011 07/18/2011
07/18/2011
07/19/2011 07/19/2011 07/20/2011

ongoing discovery issues. Attorney Michael Steinberg appeared telephonically on behalf of plaintiff, Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez, who was not present. Assistant United States Attorney Victor M. Lawrence appearedtelephonically on behalf of defendants, who were not present. The parties, through counsel, were ordered to meet and confer for purposes of resolving their current discovery dispute, including, inter alia, the formulation of a pseudonymic protocol for identifying potential class members, and creationof a privilege log, no later than 5:00 p.m. (P.S.T.) on July 15, 2011. In the event counsel can stipulate to eliminate their dispute or significantly narrow the issues of dispute, they may file a stipulated request with the District Court seeking a short extension of the current briefing schedule. Such a request must be filed no later than July 21, 2011, and counsel were advised that Judge Gee has not indicated that she will grant such a request to extend the briefing schedule. A further telephonic status conference was set for Monday, July 18, 2011, at 1:00 p.m. Court Recorder: RS−4 7/8/11. (am) (Entered: 07/11/2011)
239 NOTICE of Administrative Decision Regarding Moreno Preliminary Injunction filed by Defendants Eric Holder, Trey Lund, John T. Morton, Janet Napolitano, Timothy S Robbins, Thomas G Snow. (Bond Decision) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibits 1−2)(Ihsanullah, Neelam) Modified on 7/27/2011 (gk). (Entered: 07/12/2011)
241 REPLY in Support of MOTION for Preliminary Injunction re: Putative Plaintiffs Jose Antonio Moreno & Yonas Woldemariam 217 filed by Petitioners Jose Chavez, Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez, Aleksandr Petrovich Khukhryanskiy, Ever Francisco Martinez−Rivas, Jonas Woldemariam, Maksim Zhalezny. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Arulanantham, Ahilan) (Entered: 07/13/2011)
242 MINUTES OF IN CHAMBERS − ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT by Judge Dolly M. Gee: Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint 180 is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as follows: (1) Plaintiffs' Motion is GRANTED as to Miguel Canto−Ortiz; and (2) Plaintiffs' Motion is DENIED in all other respects. Plaintiffs may file their Second Amended Complaint consistent with this ruling by 7/25/2011. Defendants' responsive pleading is due within 15 days after service of the Second Amended Complaint. Court Reporter: Not Reported. (gk) (Entered: 07/18/2011)
243 MINUTES OF Telephonic Status Conference held before Magistrate Judge David T Bristow: After lengthy discussions with counsel as to outstanding discovery issues, the Court ORDERED counsel to meet and confer on such outstanding issued in order to resolve them. The meet and confer was set for 1:00 p.m. on Thursday, July 21, 2011, via video conference. The date for the parties to file any stipulated request to extend the briefing schedule for Judge Gees consideration was continued to July 22, 2011, with any brief to be filed no later than 5:00 p.m. P.S.T. A further telephonic status conference was set for Monday, July 25, 2011, at 1:00 p.m. Counsel are further reminded that if the briefing schedule is continued as the result of the necessity of filing a motion to compel discovery responses (by any party), and if such motion is ultimately granted, the Court will not hesitate to avail itself of the permissible appropriate sanctions authorized by Fed.R.Civ.P. 37.Court Recorder: RS−4 07−18−11. (mrgo) (Entered: 07/19/2011)
244 TRANSCRIPT for proceedings held on 6−29−11 3:05 p.m.. Court Reporter/Electronic Court Recorder: Babykin Courthouse Services, phone number (202) 353−9923. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Electronic Court Recorder before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Notice of Intent to Redact due within 7 days of this date. Redaction Request due 8/9/2011. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 8/19/2011. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 10/17/2011. (ha) (Entered: 07/19/2011)
245 NOTICE OF FILING TRANSCRIPT filed for proceedings 6−29−11 3:05 p.m. (ha) (Entered: 07/19/2011)
246 PARTIAL TRANSCRIPT for proceedings held on 7/18/2011 2:05pm−2:23pm. Court Reporter/Electronic Court Recorder: Exceptional Reporting Services, Inc., phone number (361)949−2988. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Electronic Court Recorder before the deadline

07/20/2011 07/25/2011 07/25/2011
07/25/2011 07/25/2011 07/26/2011 07/26/2011 07/28/2011 07/28/2011 07/28/2011

for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Notice of Intent to Redact due within 7 days of this date. Redaction Request due 8/10/2011. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 8/20/2011. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 10/18/2011. (ml) (Entered: 07/20/2011)
247 NOTICE OF FILING PARTIAL TRANSCRIPT filed for proceedings 7/18/2011 2:05pm−2:23pm (ml) (Entered: 07/20/2011)
248 NOTICE OF LODGING filed re Order on Motion for Leave to File Document,, 242 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibits for Notice of Lodging, # 2 Second Amended Complaint, # 3 Alternative Second Amended Complaint)(Arulanantham, Ahilan) (Entered: 07/25/2011)
250 SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT AND PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS against Respondents Eric H. Holder, Jr., Attorney General, Thomas G. Snow, Acting Director of the Executive Office of Immigration Review, Janet Napolitano, Secretary of Homeland Security, John Morton, Assistant Secretary of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and Timothy S. Robbins, Field Office Director for the Los Angeles District of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement; Party Jonas Woldemariam terminated; amending First Amended Class Action Complaint 64 filed by Petitioner Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez, Ever Francisco Martinez−Rivas, Aleksandr Petrovich Khukhryanskiy, Maksim Zhalezny, Jose Chavez, Yonas Woldemariam, and Jose Antonio Moreno−Vasquez, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated. (gk) (Entered: 07/27/2011)
251 SECOND AMENDED NOTICE of Interested Parties filed by Plantiffs−Petitioners Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez, Ever Francisco Martinez−Rivas, Aleksandr Petrovich Khukhryanskiy, Maksim Zhalezny, Jose Chavez, Yonas Woldemariam, and Jose Antonio Moreno−Vasquez. (gk) (Entered: 07/27/2011)
258 MINUTES OF Telephone Conference held before Magistrate Judge David T Bristow: A further telephonic status conference was held by the Court with regard to ongoing discovery issues. After lengthy discussions with counsel as tooutstanding discovery issues, the Court ORDERED counsel to meet and confer on such outstanding issues in order to resolve them. A further telephonic status conference was set for Tuesday, July 26, 2011, at 1:00 p.m.Court Reporter: RS−4 07−25−11. (kca) (Entered: 08/02/2011)
249 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Reconsideration re Order on Motion for Leave to File Document,, 242 by Defendants Eric Holder, Trey Lund, John T. Morton, Janet Napolitano, Timothy S Robbins, Thomas G Snow. Motion set for hearing on 8/29/2011 at 09:30 AM before Judge Dolly M. Gee. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Arthur Edwards)(Ihsanullah, Neelam) Modified on 7/27/2011 (gk). (Entered: 07/26/2011)
259 MINUTES OF Telephone Conference held before Magistrate Judge David T Bristow: A further telephonic status conference was held by the Court with regard to ongoing discovery issues. After lengthy discussions with counsel as to outstanding discovery issues, the Court ORDERED counsel to meet and confer on such outstanding issues in order to resolve them. The parties were ordered to contact theClerk to set a further telephonic status conference.Court Reporter: RS−4 07−26−11. (kca) (Entered: 08/02/2011)
252 Joint STIPULATION for Order Regarding Parties' Discovery Disputes, and for a Modified Scheduling Order Jose Chavez, Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez, Aleksandr Petrovich Khukhryanskiy, Ever Francisco Martinez−Rivas, Jose Antonio Moreno−Vasquez, Yonas Woldemariam, Maksim Zhalezny. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Arulanantham, Ahilan) (Entered: 07/28/2011)
253 EXPARTE APPLICATION for Extension of Time to File Supplemental Class Certification Briefs filed by Plaintiffs Jose Chavez, Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez, Aleksandr Petrovich Khukhryanskiy, Ever Francisco Martinez−Rivas, Jose Antonio Moreno−Vasquez, Yonas Woldemariam, Maksim Zhalezny. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Proposed Order)(Arulanantham, Ahilan) (Entered: 07/28/2011)
257 MINUTES OF Telephone Conference held before Magistrate Judge David T Bristow: A further telephonic status conference was held by the Court with regard to ongoing

07/29/2011 07/29/2011
07/29/2011
08/01/2011 08/02/2011 08/02/2011

discovery issues. The parties advised the Court that a joint stipulation had been reached in regards to outstanding discovery and the same would be filed today with Judge Gee.Court Reporter: RS−4 07−28−11. (kca) (Entered: 08/02/2011)
254 ORDER GRANTING UNOPPOSED EX PARTE APPLICATION TO EXTEND TIME TO FILE SUPPLEMENTAL CLASS CERTIFICATION BRIEFS by Judge Dolly M. Gee 253 . 1. The current deadlines for the parties supplemental briefing on class certification are VACATED; and 2. The parties supplemental briefing will be completed on the following schedule a. Plaintiffs Supplemental Brief will be due on September 16, 2011; b. Defendants Opposition Brief will be due on September 30, 2011; and c. Plaintiffs Reply Brief, if any, will be due on October 7, 2011. (im) (Entered: 08/01/2011)
255 MINUTES OF Motion Hearing held before Judge Dolly M. Gee: The Court invites counsel to respond to the tentative ruling granting plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction 217 . Following oral argument, the Court advises counsel that the motion is taken under submission and a written order will issue. The Court permits counsel to submit supplemental briefing of no more than 10 pages in length regarding whether Jose Antonio Moreno may be added as a plaintiff. The Court requests clarification of the facts regarding the status of Mr. Moreno's legal representation as to the custody hearing, merits hearing, and BIA appeal. Defendants may file a supplemental brief by 8/5/2011. Plaintiffs may file a supplemental reply brief by 8/12/2011. A Scheduling Conference is set for 9/12/2011 10:30 AM before Judge Dolly M. Gee. Counsel are instructed to file an Amended Joint Rule 26(f) Report by no later than 9/8/2011. Defendants' due date to file a responsive pleading to Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint is vacated and will be addressed in the Court's amended order regarding Plaintiff's motion for leave to file second amended complaint. Court Reporter: Bridget Montero. (gk) (Entered: 08/01/2011)
256 ORDER RE JOINT STIPULATION OF 7/28/2011 by Judge Dolly M. Gee: Upon Stipulation 252 , all portions of the Court's current schedule of pretrial and trial dates and supplemental briefing schedule regarding Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification are hereby vacated. The Court sets a status conference for 9/12/2011 at 10:30 AM to discuss the scheduling of new dates. By no later than 9/8/2011, the parties shall file a Joint Amended Rule 26(f) Report. Plaintiffs' supplemental brief in support of their motion for class certification 126 will be due on or before 9/16/2011. Defendants' opposition brief will be due on or before 9/30/2011. Plaintiffs' reply brief will be due on or before 10/7/2011. The parties shall produce discovery as specified in the joint stipulation pursuant to the procedures set forth in that stipulation. Except as specifically provided in the joint stipulation, no party shall propound discovery prior to the status conference of 9/12/2011. (gk) (Entered: 08/01/2011)
260 NOTICE TO FILER OF DEFICIENCIES in Electronically Filed Documents RE:Defendants' Notice of Motion and Motion for Reconsideration Filed 7/26/2011 249 . The following error(s) was found: Proposed order not submitted pursuant to Local Rule 52−4.1. In response to this notice the court may order (1) an amended or correct document to be filed (2) the document stricken or (3) take other action as the court deems appropriate. You need not take any action in response to this notice unless and until the court directs you to do so. (gk) (Entered: 08/02/2011)
262 SEALED DOCUMENT− Order Re: Plaintiff Yonas Woldemarianm's Motion for a Preliminary Injunction. (mat) (Entered: 08/03/2011)
285 ORDER RE PLAINTIFF YONAS WOLDEMARIAM'S MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION by Judge Dolly M. Gee: The Court GRANTS Plaintiff Yonas Woldemariam's Motion for a Preliminary Injunction 217 as follows: Pending a trial on the merits, Defendants, and their officers, agents, employees, and attorneys are hereby enjoined from detaining Plaintiff Woldemariam under 8 U.S.C. Section 1226(a) or (c) unless, within 45 days of this Order, they provide Plaintiff with a bond hearing before an Immigration Judge with the authority to order his release on conditions of supervision, unless the Government shows that Plaintiff's ongoing detention is justified. The Court waives the bond requirement. Due to privacy considerations, this Order shall be filed under seal. Within 14 days from the date of this Order, the parties will meet and confer regarding which portions of the Order they propose to be redacted such that a redacted version of the Order may be filed, or notify the Court that Plaintiff waives his privacy rights as to the confidential

08/03/2011 08/05/2011 08/05/2011 08/05/2011 08/05/2011 08/06/2011 08/08/2011
08/08/2011 08/08/2011 08/08/2011
08/09/2011
08/09/2011 08/11/2011

information relied upon herein and that the Order may be unsealed. The parties shall file a joint report with the Court by no later than 8/16/2011 regarding the sealed status of this Order. (gk) (Entered: 08/23/2011)
261 NOTICE OF CLERICAL ERROR: Document #261 was deleted due to the system was not able to attach the document to entry #261. The document will be re−docket and given a new number. (mat) (Entered: 08/03/2011)
263 NOTICE of Manual Filing filed by Respondents Eric H. Holder, Jr, Trey Lund, John T. Morton, Janet Napolitano, Timothy S Robbins, Thomas G Snow of Exhibit B to Defendants' Supplemental Brief on Putative Plaintiff Jose Moreno's Representation Status. (Ihsanullah, Neelam) (Entered: 08/05/2011)
264 NOTICE of Manual Filing filed by Respondents Eric H. Holder, Jr, Trey Lund, John T. Morton, Janet Napolitano, Timothy S Robbins, Thomas G Snow of Parties' Joint Stipulation to File Audio Recordings Under Seal. (Ihsanullah, Neelam) (Entered: 08/05/2011)
265 SUPPLEMENT Regarding Putative Plaintiff Jose Moreno's Representation Status filed by Respondents Eric H. Holder, Jr, Trey Lund, John T. Morton, Janet Napolitano, Timothy S Robbins, Thomas G Snow. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibits)(Ihsanullah, Neelam) (Entered: 08/05/2011)
267 JOINT STIPULATION to File Audio Recordings Under Seal. Lodged Proposed Order. (gk) (Entered: 08/08/2011)
266 NOTICE of Appearance filed by attorney Jesi J Carlson on behalf of Respondents Eric H. Holder, Jr, Trey Lund, John T. Morton, Janet Napolitano, Timothy S Robbins, Thomas G Snow (Carlson, Jesi) (Entered: 08/06/2011)
268 OPPOSITION to MOTION for Reconsideration re Order on Motion for Leave to File Document,, 242 by Defendants MOTION for Reconsideration re Order on Motion for Leave to File Document,, 242 by Defendants 249 filed by Petitioners Jose Chavez, Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez, Aleksandr Petrovich Khukhryanskiy, Ever Francisco Martinez−Rivas, Jose Antonio Moreno−Vasquez, Yonas Woldemariam, Maksim Zhalezny. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Arulanantham, Ahilan) (Entered: 08/08/2011)
271 SEALED DOCUMENT− Exhibit B in support of Defendants' Supplemental Brief on Putative Plaintiff Jose Moreno's Representation Status. (mat) (Main Document 271 replaced on 10/9/2015) (kag). (Entered: 08/11/2011)
276 ORDER APPROVING STIPULATION TO FILE AUDIO RECORDINGS UNDER SEAL by Judge Dolly M. Gee, re Notice of Manual Filing (G−92) 264 . (rp) (Entered: 08/15/2011)
278 MINUTES OF TELEPHONIC STATUS CONFERENCE RE PROTECTIVE ORDER held before Magistrate Judge David T Bristow: Simultaneous opening letter briefs are due on August 9, 2011, by 3:00pm. Pacific Standard Time, single spaced, and no more than 4 pages in length. Simultaneous reply letter briefs are due on August 11, 2011, by 3:00pm. Pacific Standard Time, single spaced, and no more than 3 pages in length. A telephonic hearing was set for Friday, August 12, 2011, at 1:00pm.Court Recorder: RS−4 8−8−11. (ad) (Entered: 08/16/2011)
269 Letter Re: Discovery filed by Petitioners Jose Chavez, Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez, Aleksandr Petrovich Khukhryanskiy, Ever Francisco Martinez−Rivas, Jose Antonio Moreno−Vasquez, Yonas Woldemariam, Maksim Zhalezny (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Protective Order)(Steinberg, Michael) (Entered: 08/09/2011)
270 BRIEF filed by Defendants Eric H. Holder, Jr, Trey Lund, John T. Morton, Janet Napolitano, Timothy S Robbins, Thomas G Snow. (Letter Brief) & Proposed Protective Order (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(Carlson, Jesi) (Entered: 08/09/2011)
272 REPLY filed by Respondents Eric H. Holder, Jr, Trey Lund, John T. Morton, Janet Napolitano, Timothy S Robbins, Thomas G Snow (Defendants' Letter Brief) (Carlson, Jesi) (Entered: 08/11/2011)

08/11/2011 08/11/2011 08/12/2011 08/12/2011 08/15/2011 08/16/2011 08/16/2011
08/18/2011 08/19/2011 08/19/2011 08/25/2011 08/25/2011 08/26/2011

273 8/11/11 Letter to the Court Re Protective Order filed by Petitioners Jose Chavez, Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez, Aleksandr Petrovich Khukhryanskiy, Ever Francisco Martinez−Rivas, Jose Antonio Moreno−Vasquez, Yonas Woldemariam, Maksim Zhalezny re: Miscellaneous Document, 269 , Brief (non−motion non−appeal) 270 (Steinberg, Michael) (Entered: 08/11/2011)
274 NOTICE Regarding Putative Plaintiff Jose Moreno's Release From Detention filed by Defendants Eric H. Holder, Jr, Trey Lund, John T. Morton, Janet Napolitano, Timothy S Robbins, Thomas G Snow. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit− Form I−830)(Ihsanullah, Neelam) (Entered: 08/11/2011)
275 SUPPLEMENT to MOTION for Preliminary Injunction re: Putative Plaintiffs Jose Antonio Moreno & Yonas Woldemariam 217 filed by Petitioners Jose Chavez, Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez, Aleksandr Petrovich Khukhryanskiy, Ever Francisco Martinez−Rivas, Jose Antonio Moreno−Vasquez, Yonas Woldemariam, Maksim Zhalezny. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Arulanantham, Ahilan) (Entered: 08/12/2011)
281 MINUTES OF Telephonic Status Conference held before Magistrate Judge David T Bristow: Further Telephonic Status Conference set for 8/16/2011 at 01:00 PM before Magistrate Judge David T Bristow.Court Recorder: RS−4 08−12−11. (mrgo) (Entered: 08/19/2011)
277 REPLY in support of MOTION for Reconsideration re Order on Motion for Leave to File Document,, 242 by Defendants MOTION for Reconsideration re Order on Motion for Leave to File Document,, 242 by Defendants 249 filed by Respondents Eric H. Holder, Jr, Trey Lund, John T. Morton, Janet Napolitano, Timothy S Robbins, Thomas G Snow. (Ihsanullah, Neelam) (Entered: 08/15/2011)
279 JOINT REPORT of Re Redactions In Order Re Woldermariam PI Motion filed by Petitioners Jose Chavez, Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez, Aleksandr Petrovich Khukhryanskiy, Ever Francisco Martinez−Rivas, Jose Antonio Moreno−Vasquez, Yonas Woldemariam, Maksim Zhalezny. (Stark, Jennifer) (Entered: 08/16/2011)
282 MINUTES OF Telephonic Status Conference held before Magistrate Judge David T Bristow: The Court heard oral argument as to the remaining issues. The parties shall email the Clerk, no later than Thursday, August 18, 2011, at 10:00 a.m., a joint stipulation indicating issues that have been agreed upon and issues that are still in dispute. Thereafter, the Court will issues its ruling on Friday, August, 19, 2011.Court Recorder: RS−4 08−16−11. (mrgo) (Entered: 08/19/2011)
280 STATEMENT Re Stipulated Protective Order filed by Petitioners Jose Chavez, Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez, Aleksandr Petrovich Khukhryanskiy, Ever Francisco Martinez−Rivas, Jose Antonio Moreno−Vasquez, Yonas Woldemariam, Maksim Zhalezny (Attachments: # 1 Exhibits)(Stark, Jennifer) (Entered: 08/18/2011)
283 MINUTE ORDER (IN CHAMBERS) RE: PROTECTIVE ORDER by Magistrate Judge David T Bristow re Protective Order 214 , Stipulation for Protective Order 212 , Stipulation for Order, 252 SEE DOCUMENT FOR COMPLETE DETAILS (dts) (Entered: 08/19/2011)
284 MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS RULING RE PROTECTIVE ORDER by Magistrate Judge David T Bristow: (see document image for futher details). IT IS SO ORDERED. (ad) (Entered: 08/22/2011)
286 Joint STIPULATION to Continue Hearing on Defendants' Motion for Reconsideration from August 29, 2011 to September 12, 2011 at 10:30 a.m., or alternatively at any subsequent hearing concerning class certification Eric H. Holder, Jr, Trey Lund, John T. Morton, Janet Napolitano, Timothy S Robbins, Thomas G Snow. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Ihsanullah, Neelam) (Entered: 08/25/2011)
288 ORDER by Judge Dolly M. Gee re Stipulation to Continue 286 : IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the hearing on Defendants' motion for reconsideration is continued until September 12,2011 at 10:30 AM. (kpa) (Entered: 08/26/2011)
287 STIPULATION for Protective Order filed by Defendants−Respondents Eric H. Holder, Jr, Trey Lund, John T. Morton, Janet Napolitano, Timothy S Robbins, Thomas G Snow. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Carlson, Jesi) (Entered: 08/26/2011)

08/29/2011
08/29/2011
08/29/2011
08/29/2011 08/29/2011 09/02/2011 09/06/2011
09/07/2011 09/08/2011 09/09/2011 09/12/2011

290 TRANSCRIPT for proceedings held on 8/08/2011 10:01am. Court Reporter/Electronic Court Recorder: Babykin Courthouse Services, phone number (626) 963−0566. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Electronic Court Recorder before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Notice of Intent to Redact due within 7 days of this date. Redaction Request due 9/19/2011. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 9/29/2011. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 11/27/2011. (ml) (Entered: 08/29/2011)
291 TRANSCRIPT for proceedings held on 8/12/2011 1:03pm. Court Reporter/Electronic Court Recorder: Babykin Courthouse Services, phone number (626) 963−0566. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Electronic Court Recorder before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Notice of Intent to Redact due within 7 days of this date. Redaction Request due 9/19/2011. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 9/29/2011. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 11/27/2011. (ml) (Entered: 08/29/2011)
292 TRANSCRIPT for proceedings held on 8/16/2011 1:07pm. Court Reporter/Electronic Court Recorder: Babykin Courthouse Services, phone number (626) 963−0566. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Electronic Court Recorder before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Notice of Intent to Redact due within 7 days of this date. Redaction Request due 9/19/2011. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 9/29/2011. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 11/27/2011. (ml) (Entered: 08/29/2011)
293 NOTICE OF FILING TRANSCRIPT filed for proceedings 8/08/2011 10:01am, 8/12/2011 1:03pm, 8/16/2011 1:07pm (ml) (Entered: 08/29/2011)
294 STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER FOR DISCOVERY PRODUCED PURSUANT TO PARTIES 7/29/11, JOINT STIPULATION by Magistrate Judge David T Bristow re Stipulation for Protective Order 287 . (See document for specifics) (mrgo) (Entered: 08/29/2011)
295 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Review of Magistrate Judge's August 19, 2011 Ruling Re: Protective Order re Protective Order 283 filed by Defendants Eric H. Holder, Jr, Trey Lund, John T. Morton, Janet Napolitano, Timothy S Robbins, Thomas G Snow. Motion set for hearing on 10/3/2011 at 09:30 AM before Judge Dolly M. Gee. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Proposed Protective Order)(Ihsanullah, Neelam) (Entered: 09/02/2011)
296 NOTICE of Change of Attorney Information for attorney Ahilan T Arulanantham counsel for Petitioners Jose Chavez, Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez, Aleksandr Petrovich Khukhryanskiy, Ever Francisco Martinez−Rivas, Jose Antonio Moreno−Vasquez, Yonas Woldemariam, Maksim Zhalezny.Jennifer Stark is no longer attorney of record for the aforementioned party in this case for the reason indicated in the G−06 Notice. Filed by Plaintiffs Ahilan T. Arulanantham (Arulanantham, Ahilan) (Entered: 09/06/2011)
297 Addendum to Stipulated Protective Order filed by Respondents Eric H. Holder, Jr, John T. Morton, Janet Napolitano, Timothy S Robbins, Thomas G Snow re: Protective Order 294 (Go, Samuel) (Entered: 09/07/2011)
298 JOINT REPORT Rule 26(f) Discovery Plan Amended ; estimated length of trial P−5, D−3, filed by Petitioners Jose Chavez, Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez, Aleksandr Petrovich Khukhryanskiy, Ever Francisco Martinez−Rivas, Jose Antonio Moreno−Vasquez, Yonas Woldemariam, Maksim Zhalezny.. (Steinberg, Michael) (Entered: 09/08/2011)
299 ADDENDUM TO STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER FOR DISCOVERY PRODUCED PURSUANT TO PARTIES' JULY 29, 2011, JOINT STIPULATION and ORDER approved by Magistrate Judge David T Bristow, re Miscellaneous Document 297 . (See document for specifics) (mrgo) (Entered: 09/12/2011)
300 MINUTES OF ORDER RE (1) PLAINTIFFS' NOTICE OF LODGING, (2) DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION, AND (3) PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION; and SCHEDULING

09/12/2011 09/12/2011 09/12/2011 09/12/2011

CONFERENCE held before Judge Dolly M. Gee: This matter is before the Court on (1) Plaintiffs' Notice of Lodging Alternative Second Amended Class−Action Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief 248 , (2) Defendants' Motion for Reconsideration of the Court's Order dated 7/18/2011 249 , and (3) Plaintiffs' Motion for a Preliminary Injunction 217 . For the reasons set forth in the order, Plaintiffs' request for clarification is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part, Defendants' Motion for Reconsideration is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part, and Plaintiff Moreno's Motion for a Preliminary Injunction is DENIED without prejudice. The Court therefore GRANTS Defendants' Motion for Reconsideration as to Canto and DENIES Plaintiffs' request for leave to amend to add Canto as a named plaintiff because to do so would be futile. Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint 25 is deemed filed nunc pro tunc as of the date Plaintiffs filed their motion for leave to amend 180 , i.e., 4/18/2011. Defendants shall have ten days from the date of this Order, i.e., by 9/22/2011, to file a responsive pleading. The Court advances the hearing on Defendants' Motion for Review of Magistrate Judge's 8/19/2011 Ruling 295 to 9/23/2011 at 11:00 AM before Judge Dolly M. Gee. Plaintiffs will file their opposition by 9/12/2011 and Defendants may file their reply by 9/16/2011. The Court will not change the supplemental briefing schedule previously established for Plaintiffs motion for class certification 126 . The hearing on the motion for class certification shall be set for 10/24/2011 at 09:30 AM before Judge Dolly M. Gee. The parties may proceed with merits discovery as to the individual plaintiffs, starting with the production of the so−called "A files." Merits discovery as to the class, if certified, may commence within one week after the Court's ruling on Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. The parties shall meet and confer regarding proposed new pretrial and trial dates consistent with the parameters set by the Court. The parties shall file a Second Amended Joint Rule 26(f) Report with a proposed schedule by 9/16/2011. Court Reporter: Anne Kielwasser. (gk) (Entered: 09/12/2011)
301 TRANSCRIPT for proceedings held on 7−8−11 12:08 p.m.. Court Reporter/Electronic Court Recorder: Exceptional Reporting Services, Inc., phone number (361) 949−2988. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Electronic Court Recorder before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Notice of Intent to Redact due within 7 days of this date. Redaction Request due 10/3/2011. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 10/13/2011. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 12/11/2011. (ha) (Entered: 09/12/2011)
302 PARTIAL TRANSCRIPT for proceedings held on 7−8−11 1:15 p.m.. Court Reporter/Electronic Court Recorder: Exceptional Reporting Services, Inc., phone number (361) 949−2988. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Electronic Court Recorder before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Notice of Intent to Redact due within 7 days of this date. Redaction Request due 10/3/2011. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 10/13/2011. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 12/11/2011. (ha) (Entered: 09/12/2011)
303 TRANSCRIPT for proceedings held on 7−25−11 1:00 p.m.. Court Reporter/Electronic Court Recorder: Exceptional Reporting Services, Inc., phone number (361) 949−2988. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Electronic Court Recorder before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Notice of Intent to Redact due within 7 days of this date. Redaction Request due 10/3/2011. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 10/13/2011. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 12/11/2011. (ha) (Entered: 09/12/2011)
304 TRANSCRIPT for proceedings held on 7−26−11 1:13 p.m.. Court Reporter/Electronic Court Recorder: Exceptional Reporting Services, phone number (361) 949−2988. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Electronic Court Recorder before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Notice of Intent to Redact due within 7 days of this date. Redaction Request due 10/3/2011. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 10/13/2011. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 12/11/2011. (ha) (Entered: 09/12/2011)

09/12/2011
09/12/2011 09/12/2011
09/16/2011 09/16/2011 09/16/2011 09/16/2011 09/16/2011 09/16/2011 09/19/2011
09/19/2011

305 TRANSCRIPT for proceedings held on 7−28−11 9:35 a.m.. Court Reporter/Electronic Court Recorder: Exceptional Reporting Services, Inc., phone number (361) 949−2988. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Electronic Court Recorder before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Notice of Intent to Redact due within 7 days of this date. Redaction Request due 10/3/2011. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 10/13/2011. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 12/11/2011. (ha) (Entered: 09/12/2011)
306 NOTICE OF FILING TRANSCRIPT filed for proceedings 7−8−11; 7−18−11; 7−25−11; 7−26−11 & 7−28−11 (ha) (Entered: 09/12/2011)
307 Opposition re: MOTION for Review of Magistrate Judge's August 19, 2011 Ruling Re: Protective Order re Protective Order 283 MOTION for Review of Magistrate Judge's August 19, 2011 Ruling Re: Protective Order re Protective Order 283 295 filed by Petitioners Jose Chavez, Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez, Aleksandr Petrovich Khukhryanskiy, Ever Francisco Martinez−Rivas, Jose Antonio Moreno−Vasquez, Yonas Woldemariam, Maksim Zhalezny. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibits)(Arulanantham, Ahilan) (Entered: 09/12/2011)
308 NOTICE of Manual Filing filed by Petitioner Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez of Ex Parte Application, Declaration of Michael H. Steinberg, Proposed Order, and Supplemental Brief in Support of Class and Subclass Certification and Exhibits in Support Thereof with Confidential Information Protected by Stipulated Protective Order. (Steinberg, Michael) (Entered: 09/16/2011)
309 STATUS REPORT Joint Amended Rule 26(f) Report filed by Petitioners Jose Chavez, Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez, Aleksandr Petrovich Khukhryanskiy, Ever Francisco Martinez−Rivas, Jose Antonio Moreno−Vasquez, Jonas Woldemariam, Yonas Woldemariam, Maksim Zhalezny, Respondents Eric H. Holder, Jr, Trey Lund, John T. Morton, Janet Napolitano, Timothy S Robbins, Thomas G Snow. (Lawrence, Victor) (Entered: 09/16/2011)
310 NOTICE of Appearance (Reuveni, Erez) (Entered: 09/16/2011)
311 RESPONSE IN SUPPORT of MOTION for Review of Magistrate Judge's August 19, 2011 Ruling Re: Protective Order re Protective Order 283 MOTION for Review of Magistrate Judge's August 19, 2011 Ruling Re: Protective Order re Protective Order 283 295 filed by Respondents Eric H. Holder, Jr, Trey Lund, John T. Morton, Janet Napolitano, Timothy S Robbins, Thomas G Snow. (Reuveni, Erez) (Entered: 09/16/2011)
315 EX PARTE APPLICATION to File Plaintiffs' Supplemental Brief in Support of Class and Subclass Certification and Exhibits in Support Thereof Under Seal filed by Plaintiffs−Petitioners Jose Chavez, Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez, Aleksandr Petrovich Khukhryanskiy, Ever Francisco Martinez−Rivas, Jose Antonio Moreno−Vasquez, Yonas Woldemariam, Maksim Zhalezny. Lodged Proposed Order.(gk) (Entered: 09/22/2011)
316 DECLARATION of Michael H. Steinberg in Support of Plaintiffs' Ex Parte Application to File Plaintiffs' Supplemental Brief in Support of Class and Subclass Certification and Exhibits in Support Thereof Under Seal 315 filed by Petitioners Jose Chavez, Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez, Aleksandr Petrovich Khukhryanskiy, Ever Francisco Martinez−Rivas, Jose Antonio Moreno−Vasquez, Yonas Woldemariam, Maksim Zhalezny. (gk) (Entered: 09/22/2011)
312 NOTICE of Manual Filing filed by Petitioners Jose Chavez, Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez, Aleksandr Petrovich Khukhryanskiy, Ever Francisco Martinez−Rivas, Jose Antonio Moreno−Vasquez, Jonas Woldemariam, Maksim Zhalezny of Notice of Errata Re Declaration of Talia Inlender in Support of Plaintiffs' Supplemental Brief in Support of Class Certification; [Attachment: Corrected Declaration of Talia Inlender in Support of Plaintiffs Supplemental Brief in Support of Class Certification, filed as Corrected Exhibit 191]. (Steinberg, Michael) (Entered: 09/19/2011)
313 NOTICE of Manual Filing filed by Petitioners Jose Chavez, Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez, Aleksandr Petrovich Khukhryanskiy, Ever Francisco Martinez−Rivas, Jose Antonio Moreno−Vasquez, Jonas Woldemariam, Maksim

09/19/2011 09/19/2011 09/19/2011 09/19/2011 09/22/2011 09/23/2011
09/28/2011

Zhalezny of Ex Parte Application to File Under Seal; Proposed Order; Notice of Errata Re Declaration of Talia Inlender;[Attachment: Corrected Declaration of Talia Inlender in Support of Plaintiffs Supplemental Brief in Support of Class Certification, filed as Corrected Exhibit 191]. (Steinberg, Michael) (Entered: 09/19/2011)
314 EX PARTE APPLICATION to File Plaintiffs' Supplemental Brief in Support of Class and Subclass Certification and Exhibits in Support Thereof Under Seal filed by Plaintiffs−Petitioners Jose Chavez, Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez, Aleksandr Petrovich Khukhryanskiy, Ever Francisco Martinez−Rivas, Jose Antonio Moreno−Vasquez, Yonas Woldemariam, Maksim Zhalezny. Lodged Proposed Order.(gk) (Entered: 09/22/2011)
317 ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS' UNOPPOSED EX PARTE APPLICATION TO FILE PLAINTIFFS' SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF CLASS AND SUBCLASS CERTIFICATION AND EXHIBITS IN SUPPORT THEREOF UNDER SEAL by Judge Dolly M. Gee: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs−Petitioners' Ex Parte Application 314 , 315 , is GRANTED. The Clerk of the Court shall file Plaintiffs' Supplemental Brief in Support of Class and Subclass Certification and Exhibits in Support Thereof under seal. (gk) (Entered: 09/22/2011)
318 SEALED DOCUMENT− Plaintiffs' Supplemental Brief in Support of Class and Subclass Certification. (Attachments: Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5, Part 6, Part 7, Part 8, Part 9, Part 10)(mat) (Entered: 09/22/2011)
319 SEALED DOCUMENT− Notice of Errata Re: Declaration of Talia Inleader in Support of Plaintiffs' Supplemental Brief in Support of Class Certification. (mat) (Entered: 09/22/2011)
320 ANSWER to Amended Complaint,,, 250 filed by Defendants Eric H. Holder, Jr, John T. Morton, Janet Napolitano, Timothy S Robbins, Thomas G Snow.(Go, Samuel) (Entered: 09/22/2011)
321 MINUTES of hearing on Defendants' Motion for Review of Judge Bristow's August 19, 2011 Ruling 295 held before Judge Dolly M. Gee: Defendants' Motion is GRANTED IN PART and the language in Paragraph 16(a) is stricken from the protective order and modified as follows: Any information disclosed by plaintiffs pursuant to Paragraph II of the Joint Stipulation shall be designated as "Attorneys Eyes Only," until this Court issues its ruling on Plaintiffs' pending motion for class certification. "Attorneys' Eyes Only" shall include those attorneys working on this case from the Department of Justice, and representatives of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the Executive Office for Immigration Review, and the Department of Homeland Security (collectively the "agencies"), whom Defendants' counsel may consult for the purpose of formulating Defendants opposition to Plaintiffs'pending motion for class certification. Defendants counsel shall advise all such agency representatives that they are subject to this Protective Order. Court hereby extends the deadline for the filing of any motion to amend pleadingsand add parties to October 17, 2011.Court Reporter: Anne Kielwasser. (kpa) (Entered: 09/26/2011)
322 MINUTES IN CHAMBERS − Amended Scheduling Order by Judge Dolly M. Gee: On 9/16/2011, the parties filed a Joint Amended Rule 26(f) Report. Pursuant to the parties' agreement and good cause appearing, the Court hereby amends its Scheduling and Case Management Order 154 to incorporate the new pretrial and trial dates attached hereto. Bench Trial set for 6/5/2012 08:30 AM before Judge Dolly M. Gee. Final Pretrial Conference set for 5/15/2012 02:00 PM before Judge Dolly M. Gee. Amended Pleadings and Addition of Parties Cut−Off 10/17/2011. Start of Merits Discovery as to Named Plaintiffs 9/12/2011. Start of Merits Discovery as to Class 7 days after ruling on class certification motion (scheduled for 10/24/2011). Non−Expert Discovery cut−off 1/13/2012. Motions due by 2/13/2012. Initial Expert Disclosure & Report Deadline 10/14/2011. Rebuttal Expert Disclosure & Report Deadline 11/14/2011. Expert Discovery Cut−Off 1/13/2012. Settlement Conference Completion Date 2/27/2012. Motions in Limine to be filed by 4/23/2012. Opposition to Motion in Limine Filing Deadline 4/30/2012. Status Report re Settlement due by 3/20/2012. Proposed Pretrial Conference Order due by 5/3/2012. Pretrial Exhibit Stipulation 5/3/2012. Joint Exhibit List due by 5/3/2012. Witness Lists & Joint Trial Witness Time Estimate Form due by 5/3/2012. Witness Declarations or Marked Depositions 5/15/2012. Objections to Witness Declarations/Marked Depositions

09/30/2011
09/30/2011 09/30/2011 10/04/2011 10/04/2011 10/04/2011
10/06/2011 10/07/2011
10/12/2011 10/12/2011 10/12/2011 10/12/2011 10/13/2011 10/17/2011

5/22/2012. Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law 5/15/2012. Mark Up of Opponent's Proposed Findings/Conclusions 5/22/2012. Court Reporter: None Present. (gk) (Entered: 09/28/2011)
323 NOTICE of Manual Filing filed by Respondents Eric H. Holder, Jr, Trey Lund, John T. Morton, Janet Napolitano, Timothy S Robbins, Thomas G Snow of Joint Stipulation to File Defendants' Supplemental Brief in Opposition to Class Certification and Supporting Documents Under Seal. (Ihsanullah, Neelam) (Entered: 09/30/2011)
324 NOTICE of Manual Filing filed by Respondents Eric H. Holder, Jr, Trey Lund, John T. Morton, Janet Napolitano, Timothy S Robbins, Thomas G Snow of Defendants' Supplemental Brief in Opposition to Class Certification with Exhibits 30−41. (Ihsanullah, Neelam) (Entered: 09/30/2011)
325 JOINT STIPULATION to File Supplemental Brief in Opposition to Class Certification and Supporting Documents Under Seal. Lodged Proposed Order. (gk) (Entered: 10/03/2011)
326 NOTICE of Appearance filed by attorney Michael H Steinberg on behalf of Petitioner Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez (Steinberg, Michael) (Entered: 10/04/2011)
328 SEALED DOCUMENT− Defendants' Supplemental Brief in Opposition to Class Certification. (Attachments: Part 2, Part 3, Part 4)(mat) (Entered: 10/06/2011)
331 ORDER APPROVING JOINT STIPULATION TO FILE SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO CLASS CERTIFICATION AND SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS UNDER SEAL by Judge Dolly M. Gee: Upon Joint Stipulation 325 , IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants' Supplemental Brief in Opposition to Class Certification and supporting documents be filed under seal. (gk) (Entered: 10/14/2011)
327 AMENDED ANSWER to Amended Complaint,,, 250 filed by Defendants Janet Napolitano, Eric H. Holder, Jr, Thomas G Snow, John T. Morton, Timothy S Robbins. (Go, Samuel) (Entered: 10/06/2011)
329 NOTICE of Manual Filing filed by Petitioners Jose Chavez, Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez, Aleksandr Petrovich Khukhryanskiy, Ever Francisco Martinez−Rivas, Jose Antonio Moreno−Vasquez, Jonas Woldemariam, Maksim Zhalezny of Ex Parte Application to File Supplemental Reply and Exhibits in Support Thereof Under Seal; Declaration of Michael H. Steinberg; Proposed Order Granting Ex Parte Application to File Under Seal; Plaintiffs' Supplemental Reply in Support of Class and Subclass Certification and Exhibits in Support Thereof. (Steinberg, Michael) (Entered: 10/07/2011)
335 SEALED DOCUMENT− Unopposed Exparte Application to File Plaintiffs' Supplemental Reply Brief in Support of Class and Subclass Certification and Exhibits in Support Thereof Under Seal. (mat) (Entered: 10/20/2011)
336 SEALED DOCUMENT− Order Granting Plaintiff' Unopposed Exparte Application to File Plaintiffs' Supplemental Reply in Support of Class and Subclass Certification and Exhibits in Support Thereof Under Seal. (mat) (Entered: 10/20/2011)
337 SEALED DOCUMENT− Declaration of Michael H. Steinberg in Support of Plaintiffs' Exparte Application to File Plaintiffs' Supplemental Reply Brief in Support of Class and Subclass Certification and Exhibits in Support Thereof Under Seal. (mat) (Entered: 10/20/2011)
338 SEALED DOCUMENT− Plaintiffs' Supplemental Reply Brief in Support of Motion for Class Certification. (Attachments: Part 2)(mat) (Entered: 10/20/2011)
330 NOTICE to Court Re Plaintiff Yonas Woldemariam's Bond Hearing filed by Plaintiffs Jose Chavez, Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez, Aleksandr Petrovich Khukhryanskiy, Ever Francisco Martinez−Rivas, Jose Antonio Moreno−Vasquez, Yonas Woldemariam, Maksim Zhalezny. (Arulanantham, Ahilan) (Entered: 10/13/2011)
332 NOTICE of Manual Filing filed by Respondents Eric H. Holder, Jr, Trey Lund, John T. Morton, Janet Napolitano, Timothy S Robbins, Thomas G Snow of Defendants' Ex

10/17/2011 10/17/2011 10/18/2011 10/21/2011
10/21/2011 10/24/2011 10/24/2011 10/25/2011
10/25/2011 10/26/2011

Parte Application for Order Granting Leave to File Surreply Brief, and Directing that the Surreply Brief be Filed Under Seal. (Ihsanullah, Neelam) (Entered: 10/17/2011)
333 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Amend Amended Complaint,,, 250 filed by Plaintiffs Jose Chavez, Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez, Aleksandr Petrovich Khukhryanskiy, Ever Francisco Martinez−Rivas, Jose Antonio Moreno−Vasquez, Yonas Woldemariam, Maksim Zhalezny. Motion set for hearing on 11/14/2011 at 09:30 AM before Judge Dolly M. Gee. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum, # 2 Proposed Third Amended Complaint, # 3 Proposed Order)(Arulanantham, Ahilan) (Entered: 10/17/2011)
341 EX PARTE APPLICATION for Order (a) Granting Leave to File Surreply Brief; (b) Directing that the Surreply Brief Be Filed Under Seal; Memorandum of Points and Authorities; Declaration filed by Defendants Eric H. Holder, Jr, John T. Morton, Janet Napolitano, Timothy S. Robbins, Thomas G. Snow. Lodged Proposed Order.(gk) (Entered: 10/24/2011)
334 PLAINTIFFS OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS REQUEST FOR LEAVE TO FILE SUR−REPLY (Steinberg, Michael) (Entered: 10/18/2011)
339 TRANSCRIPT for proceedings held on 7/29/11 2:15 p.m. Court Reporter/Electronic Court Recorder: Bridget Montero, phone number www.bridgetmontero.com. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Electronic Court Recorder before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through the Court Reporter, www.bridgetmontero.com, or PACER. Notice of Intent to Redact due within 7 days of this date. Redaction Request due 11/11/2011. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 11/21/2011. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 1/19/2012. (Montero, Bridget) (Entered: 10/21/2011)
340 NOTICE OF FILING TRANSCRIPT filed for proceedings 7/29/11 2:15 p.m (Montero, Bridget) (Entered: 10/21/2011)
342 Minutes of Motion Hearing: Court will grant plaintiffs' motion for leave to file third amended complaint 333 and a separate order will issue. Court advises counsel that Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification 126 is taken under submission and a written order will issue.Court Reporter: Anne Kielwasser. (kpa) (Entered: 10/25/2011)
343 IN CHAMBERS Order Granting Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to File Third Amended Complaint 333 by Judge Dolly M. Gee: Plaintiffs' Motion to amend is GRANTED as follows: 1. Plaintiffs shall have three days from the date of this Order to file their third amended complaint; 2. Defendants shall have 15 days after the service of the third amended complaint within which to file a responsive pleading; and 3. The November 14, 2011 hearing is VACATED. (kpa) (Entered: 10/25/2011)
344 THIRD AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT AND PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS against Respondents Eric H. Holder, Jr., Attorney General, Thomas G. Snow, Acting Director of the Executive Office of Immigration Review, Janet Napolitano, Secretary of Homeland Security, John Morton, Assistant Secretary of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and Timothy S. Robbins, Field Office Director for the Los Angeles District of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement; amending Second Amended Class Action Complaint 250 ; filed by Petitioners Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez, Ever Francisco Martinez−Rivas, Aleksandr Petrovich Khukhryanskiy, Maksim Zhalezny, Jose Chavez, Yonas Woldemariam, Jose Antonio Moreno−Vasquez, and Juan Carlos Sepulveda−Perez. (gk) (gk). (Entered: 10/26/2011)
345 AMENDED NOTICE of Interested Parties filed by Petitioners Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez, Ever Francisco Martinez−Rivas, Aleksandr Petrovich Khukhryanskiy, Maksim Zhalezny, Jose Chavez, Yonas Woldemariam, Jose Antonio Moreno−Vasquez, and Juan Carlos Sepulveda−Perez. (gk) (gk). (Entered: 10/26/2011)
346 NOTICE OF PRO HAC VICE APPLICATION AND FILING FEE DUE on Pro Hac Vice Application mailed to Victoria A. Lopez for Petitioners Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez, Ever Francisco Martinez−Rivas, Aleksandr Petrovich Khukhryanskiy, Maksim Zhalezny, Jose Chavez, Yonas Woldemariam, Jose Antonio

11/09/2011 11/21/2011 12/01/2011
12/01/2011
12/02/2011 12/02/2011 12/02/2011 12/06/2011 12/06/2011 12/07/2011 12/07/2011
12/07/2011

Moreno−Vasquez, and Juan Carlos Sepulveda−Perez. (Attachments: # 1 G−64 Application, # 2 G−64 Proposed Order) (gk) (Entered: 10/26/2011)
347 ANSWER to Amended Complaint,,, 344 filed by Defendants Eric H. Holder, Jr, John T. Morton, Janet Napolitano, Timothy S Robbins, Thomas G Snow.(Go, Samuel) (Entered: 11/09/2011)
348 ORDER Re: Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification. (mat) Modified on 12/20/2011 (mat). (Entered: 11/21/2011)
349 EX PARTE APPLICATION for Order for for Notice filed by Plaintiffs Jose Chavez, Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez, Aleksandr Petrovich Khukhryanskiy, Ever Francisco Martinez−Rivas, Jose Antonio Moreno−Vasquez, Juan Carlos Sepulveda−Perez, Yonas Woldemariam, Maksim Zhalezny. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum, # 2 Exhibits, # 3 Proposed Order)(Arulanantham, Ahilan) (Attachment 2 replaced on 12/14/2011) (cbr). (Entered: 12/01/2011)
350 NOTICE OF ERRATA filed by Petitioners Jose Chavez, Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez, Aleksandr Petrovich Khukhryanskiy, Ever Francisco Martinez−Rivas, Jose Antonio Moreno−Vasquez, Juan Carlos Sepulveda−Perez, Yonas Woldemariam, Maksim Zhalezny. correcting EX PARTE APPLICATION for Order for for Notice 349 (Attachments: # 1 Corrected Exhibits 238, 245 & 246)(Arulanantham, Ahilan) (Entered: 12/01/2011)
351 JOINT REPORT of 12/2/11 Re Redactions of Order Re Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification filed by Petitioners Jose Chavez, Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez, Aleksandr Petrovich Khukhryanskiy, Ever Francisco Martinez−Rivas, Jose Antonio Moreno−Vasquez, Juan Carlos Sepulveda−Perez, Yonas Woldemariam, Maksim Zhalezny. (Arulanantham, Ahilan) (Entered: 12/02/2011)
352 EXPARTE APPLICATION for Extension of Time to File Response to Plaintiffs' Ex Parte Application for Notice filed by Defendants Eric H. Holder, Jr, Trey Lund, John T. Morton, Janet Napolitano, Timothy S Robbins, Thomas G Snow. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Proposed Order)(Ihsanullah, Neelam) (Entered: 12/02/2011)
353 ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' EX PARTE APPLICATION TO EXTEND TIME TO RESPOND TO PLAINTIFFS' EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR NOTICE by Judge Dolly M. Gee: Upon Defendants' Ex Parte Application 352 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants are granted leave to file their response to the Ex Parte Application for Notice on 12/7/2011 at 9:00 AM. (gk) (Entered: 12/02/2011)
354 REQUEST for Order for Withdrawal of Document Filed in Error filed by Plaintiffs Jose Chavez, Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez, Aleksandr Petrovich Khukhryanskiy, Ever Francisco Martinez−Rivas, Jose Antonio Moreno−Vasquez, Juan Carlos Sepulveda−Perez, Yonas Woldemariam, Maksim Zhalezny. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Arulanantham, Ahilan) (Entered: 12/06/2011)
355 NOTICE of Appearance filed by attorney Marisol Orihuela on behalf of Petitioners Jose Chavez, Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez, Aleksandr Petrovich Khukhryanskiy, Ever Francisco Martinez−Rivas, Jose Antonio Moreno−Vasquez, Juan Carlos Sepulveda−Perez, Yonas Woldemariam, Maksim Zhalezny (Orihuela, Marisol) (Entered: 12/06/2011)
356 Opposition re: EX PARTE APPLICATION for Order for for Notice 349 filed by Respondents Eric H. Holder, Jr, Trey Lund, John T. Morton, Janet Napolitano, Timothy S Robbins, Thomas G Snow. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibits 1−5)(Ihsanullah, Neelam) (Entered: 12/07/2011)
357 APPLICATION of Non−Resident Attorney Esha Bhandari to appear on behalf of Petitioners Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez, Jose Chavez, Aleksandr Petrovich Khukhryanskiy, Ever Francisco Martinez−Rivas, Jose Antonio Moreno−Vasquez, Juan Carlos Sepulveda−Perez, Yonas Woldemariam, Maksim Zhalezny, and designating Ahilan Arulanantham as local counsel. (PHV FEE PAID.) (gk) (Entered: 12/12/2011)
358 ORDER by Judge Dolly M. Gee: granting 357 Application to Appear Pro Hac Vice by Attorney Esha Bhandari on behalf of Plaintiff, designating Ahilan Arulanantham

12/13/2011 12/13/2011 12/19/2011 01/11/2012
01/12/2012
01/18/2012 01/20/2012
01/20/2012 01/24/2012 01/24/2012
01/26/2012 01/27/2012

as local counsel. (lt) (Entered: 12/13/2011)
359 ORDER by Judge Dolly M. Gee: granting 354 Plaintiffs' Request to Withdraw Document Filed in Error. The Court strikes Page ID #: 7094 and 7095, Dkt. 349−2 from the record in this case, and orders that the pages be removed from the CM/ECF system. (cbr) (Entered: 12/14/2011)
360 MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS): ORDER by Judge Dolly M. Gee: granting in part Ex Parte Application for Order 349 . Plaintiffs' ex parte application for notice is GRANTED IN PART. See order for further details. (smom) (Entered: 12/14/2011)
361 MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS NO PROCEEDINGS: by Judge Dolly M. Gee: re: Order Unsealing Order of November 21, 2011 348 . In light of the foregoing, the Courts Order of November 21, 2011 [Doc. #348], which was previously issued under seal, is hereby ordered unsealed. (mat) (Entered: 12/20/2011)
362 Joint STIPULATION to Extend Discovery Cut−Off Date, Joint STIPULATION for Order Modification of Scheduling Order filed by Plaintiffs−Petitioners Jose Chavez, Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez, Aleksandr Petrovich Khukhryanskiy, Ever Francisco Martinez−Rivas, Jose Antonio Moreno−Vasquez, Juan Carlos Sepulveda−Perez, Yonas Woldemariam, Maksim Zhalezny. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Steinberg, Michael) (Entered: 01/11/2012)
363 ORDER EXTENDING DISCOVERY PERIOD AND MODIFYING SCHEDULING ORDER by Judge Dolly M. Gee: Upon Joint Stipulation 362 , the Court VACATES all dates in the Amended Scheduling Order 322 from 1/11/2012 onward. The parties are ordered to meet and confer and file a joint status report regarding a proposed new schedule of pretrial and trial dates within 20 days from the date of this Order. (gk) (Entered: 01/12/2012)
364 STIPULATION for Protective Order filed by defendants Eric H. Holder, Jr, Trey Lund, John T. Morton, Janet Napolitano, Timothy S Robbins, Thomas G Snow.(Lawrence, Victor) (Entered: 01/18/2012)
365 NOTICE of Change of Attorney Information for attorney Theresa A Buckley counsel for Petitioners Jose Chavez, Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez, Aleksandr Petrovich Khukhryanskiy, Ever Francisco Martinez−Rivas, Jose Antonio Moreno−Vasquez, Juan Carlos Sepulveda−Perez, Jonas Woldemariam, Maksim Zhalezny.Theresa A Buckley is no longer attorney of record for the aforementioned party in this case for the reason indicated in the G−06 Notice. Filed by Plaintiffs−Petitioners Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez et al. (Buckley, Theresa) (Entered: 01/20/2012)
366 NOTICE filed by Plaintiffs Jose Chavez, Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez, Aleksandr Petrovich Khukhryanskiy, Ever Francisco Martinez−Rivas, Jose Antonio Moreno−Vasquez, Juan Carlos Sepulveda−Perez, Jonas Woldemariam, Maksim Zhalezny. Notice of Change of Attorney Information for Asel Aliyasova (Steinberg, Michael) (Entered: 01/20/2012)
367 PROTECTIVE ORDER FOR DISCOVERY by Magistrate Judge David T Bristow. (ad) (Entered: 01/24/2012)
368 APPLICATION of Non−Resident Attorney James Lyall to appear on behalf of Plaintiffs/Petitioners Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez, Jose Chavez, Aleksandr Petrovich Khukhryanskiy, Ever Francisco Martinez−Rivas, Jose Antonio Moreno−Vasquez, Juan Carlos Sepulveda−Perez, Yonas Woldemariam, Maksim Zhalezny, and designating Marisol Orihuela as local counsel. (PHV FEE PAID.) Lodged Proposed Order. (gk) (Entered: 01/25/2012)
369 ORDER by Judge Dolly M. Gee: granting 368 Application to Appear Pro Hac Vice by Attorney James Duff Lyall on behalf of Plaintiffs, designating Marisol Orihuela as local counsel. (lt) (Entered: 01/27/2012)
370 NOTICE of Change of Attorney Information for attorney Michael H Steinberg counsel for Petitioner Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez.Damion D. D. Robinson is no longer attorney of record for the aforementioned party in this case for the reason indicated in the G−06 Notice. Filed by Plaintiff Damion D. D. Robinson (Steinberg, Michael) (Entered: 01/27/2012)

02/01/2012 02/09/2012 02/13/2012
03/12/2012 03/13/2012
04/13/2012 04/13/2012 04/13/2012 04/18/2012

371 STATUS REPORT (Joint) filed by Petitioners Jose Chavez, Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez, Aleksandr Petrovich Khukhryanskiy, Ever Francisco Martinez−Rivas, Jose Antonio Moreno−Vasquez, Juan Carlos Sepulveda−Perez, Jonas Woldemariam, Maksim Zhalezny. (Arulanantham, Ahilan) (Entered: 02/01/2012)
372 Joint STIPULATION to Stay Case pending Settlement Negotiations filed by Plaintiffs−Petitioners Jose Chavez, Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez, Aleksandr Petrovich Khukhryanskiy, Ever Francisco Martinez−Rivas, Jose Antonio Moreno−Vasquez, Juan Carlos Sepulveda−Perez, Yonas Woldemariam, Maksim Zhalezny. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Arulanantham, Ahilan) (Entered: 02/09/2012)
373 ORDER STAYING PROCEEDINGS by Judge Dolly M. Gee: Upon Stipulation 372 , IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows: All obligations and deadlines in these proceedings are stayed for 30 days from the date of the issuance of this order to allow the parties to pursue a potential settlement. Pursuant to the parties' agreement, the Court will dissolve the stay prior to that time if either side requests in writing that the Court do so. The stay ordered above shall not apply to the Notice requirement set forth in the Court's order of 2/13/2011, or to any agreement between the parties to exchange information pursuant to that order. If the stay has not already been dissolved pursuant to a party's written request, the parties shall submit a joint status report to the Court no later than 3/12/2012. If the parties have not made meaningful progress towards a settlement of the case by that date, the stay will automatically expire on 3/14/2012 and the parties shall provide new proposed pretrial and trial dates in their joint report. (gk) (Entered: 02/13/2012)
374 Joint Status Report Re Stay of Proceedings and Request for Extension of Stay filed by Petitioners Jose Chavez, Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez, Aleksandr Petrovich Khukhryanskiy, Ever Francisco Martinez−Rivas, Jose Antonio Moreno−Vasquez, Juan Carlos Sepulveda−Perez, Yonas Woldemariam, Maksim Zhalezny re: Order, Case Stayed, Terminate Deadlines and Hearings, Set/Reset Deadlines,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, 373 (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Arulanantham, Ahilan) (Entered: 03/12/2012)
375 ORDER EXTENDING STAY OF PROCEEDINGS by Judge Dolly M. Gee: Upon the Parties' Joint Status Report Re: Stay of Proceedings and Request for Extension of Stay 374 , IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows: The Court hereby extends the stay of all obligations and deadlines in these proceedings for an additional 30 days from the date of the issuance of this order to allow the parties to continue pursuing a potential settlement. Pursuant to the Parties' agreement, the Court will dissolve the stay prior to that time if either side requests in writing that the Court do so. See document for further details. (gk) (Entered: 03/14/2012)
376 STATUS REPORT (Joint) re: Stay of Proceedings and Second Request for Extension of Stay filed by Respondents Eric H. Holder, Jr, Trey Lund, John T. Morton, Janet Napolitano, Timothy S Robbins, Thomas G Snow. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Ihsanullah, Neelam) (Entered: 04/13/2012)
377 EXHIBIT Filed filed by Respondents Eric H. Holder, Jr, Trey Lund, John T. Morton, Janet Napolitano, Timothy S Robbins, Thomas G Snow. Exhibit A, Proposed Second Amended Schedule of Pretrial and Trial Dates, as to Status Report, 376 . (Ihsanullah, Neelam) (Entered: 04/13/2012)
378 STATUS REPORT CORRECTED STATUS REPORT (Joint) re: Stay of Proceedings and Second Request for Extension of Stay filed by Respondents Eric H. Holder, Jr, Trey Lund, John T. Morton, Janet Napolitano, Timothy S Robbins, Thomas G Snow. (Lawrence, Victor) (Entered: 04/13/2012)
379 MINUTES OF Telephonic Status Conference held before Judge Dolly M. Gee: The Court and counsel confer regarding the parties settlement negotiations. Counsel advise the Court of their mutual agreement to request the assistance of Magistrate Judge Kenton as mediator on an issue which is in dispute. The parties are instructed to contact the Courtroom Deputy to Magistrate Kenton to inquire of his availability to conduct a mediation within 30 days from the date of this order. Further, counsel are instructed to contact Courtroom Deputy, Valencia Vallery and provide her with the date obtained for mediation. The Court orders the matter stayed for an additional 30 days until 5/18/2012 to allow the parties to pursue mediation. The parties shall submit

04/18/2012 04/19/2012 04/20/2012 05/14/2012 05/15/2012
05/30/2012 05/31/2012 06/05/2012 06/07/2012 06/08/2012

a joint status report by 5/11/2012. Court Reporter: Anne Kielwasser. (gk) (Entered: 04/19/2012)
380 ORDER EXTENDING STAY OF PROCEEDINGS by Judge Dolly M. Gee: Upon the Parties' Joint Status Report Re: Stay of Proceedings and Request for Extension of Stay 378 , IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows: The terms of the stay of litigation, as previously set forth in the Court's 3/13/2012 Order 375 , shall continue in place for an additional 30 days until 5/18/2012 to allow the parties to pursue a mediation of their dispute. The parties shall submit a joint status report by 5/11/2012. (gk) (Entered: 04/19/2012)
381 ORDER by Magistrate Judge Victor B. Kenton,, Set deadlines and hearings( Confidential Settlement Statement due by 5/4/2012, Settlement Conference set for 5/11/2012 10:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Victor B. Kenton.) (rh) (Entered: 04/19/2012)
382 NOTICE TO FILER OF DEFICIENCIES in Electronically Filed Documents RE: Exhibits re Joint Status Report filed 4/13/2012 377 . The following error(s) was found: Title page is missing. In response to this notice the court may order (1) an amended or correct document to be filed (2) the document stricken or (3) take other action as the court deems appropriate. You need not take any action in response to this notice unless and until the court directs you to do so. (gk) (Entered: 04/20/2012)
383 STATUS REPORT (Joint) and Request for Order filed by Petitioners Jose Chavez, Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez, Aleksandr Petrovich Khukhryanskiy, Ever Francisco Martinez−Rivas, Jose Antonio Moreno−Vasquez, Juan Carlos Sepulveda−Perez, Yonas Woldemariam, Maksim Zhalezny. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Arulanantham, Ahilan) (Entered: 05/14/2012)
384 ORDER GRANTING THIRD EXTENSION OF STAY OF PROCEEDINGS by Judge Dolly M. Gee: Upon 383 , the Court hereby extends the stay of all obligations and deadlines in these proceedings for an additional 30 days from the date of the issuance of this order until 6/18/2012 to allow the parties to continue pursuing a potential settlement. Pursuant to the Parties' agreement, the Court will dissolve the stay prior to that time if either side requests in writing that the Court do so. The stay ordered above shall not apply to the Notice requirement set forth in the Court's order of 12/13/2011, or to any agreement between the Parties to exchange information pursuant to that order. If the stay has not already been dissolved pursuant to a party's written request, the Parties shall submit a status update to this Court no later than 6/13/2012, and indicate at that time whether they wish the Court to continue the stay. (gk) (Entered: 05/16/2012)
385 REQUEST for Order for Dissolution of Stay filed by Plaintiffs−Petitioners Jose Chavez, Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez, Aleksandr Petrovich Khukhryanskiy, Ever Francisco Martinez−Rivas, Jose Antonio Moreno−Vasquez, Juan Carlos Sepulveda−Perez, Yonas Woldemariam, Maksim Zhalezny. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Arulanantham, Ahilan) (Entered: 05/30/2012)
386 Defendants' Response to Plaintiffs' Request for Order for Dissolution of Stay re: REQUEST for Order for Dissolution of Stay 385 (Lawrence, Victor) (Entered: 05/31/2012)
392 MINUTES OF Telephone Conference held before Magistrate Judge Victor B. Kenton:Counsel will contact the Courts clerk no later than Friday, June 8, 2012, to advise the Court on the status for rescheduling a settlement conferenceCourt Recorder: CS. (rh) (Entered: 06/18/2012)
387 NOTICE TO FILER OF DEFICIENCIES in Electronically Filed Documents RE: Request for Dissolution of Stay filed 5/30/2012 385 . The following error(s) was found: Local Rule 7−19.1 Notice to other parties of Ex Parte Application lacking. In response to this notice the court may order (1) an amended or correct document to be filed (2) the document stricken or (3) take other action as the court deems appropriate. You need not take any action in response to this notice unless and until the court directs you to do so. (gk) (Entered: 06/07/2012)
388 ORDER DISSOLVING STAY OF PROCEEDINGS by Judge Dolly M. Gee: Pursuant to Plaintiffs' Request 385 , the Court hereby dissolves the stay of all

06/15/2012 06/15/2012 06/15/2012 06/22/2012
06/22/2012 06/29/2012 07/09/2012 07/09/2012 07/09/2012

obligations and deadlines in these proceedings. The Court hereby orders the Parties to submit a joint proposed schedule of pre−trial and trial dates by no later than 6/15/2012. (gk) (Entered: 06/08/2012)
389 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Reconsideration re Order, Document Sealed 348 filed by Defendants Eric H. Holder, Jr, Trey Lund, John T. Morton, Janet Napolitano, Timothy S Robbins, Thomas G Snow. Motion set for hearing on 7/13/2012 at 09:30 AM before Judge Dolly M. Gee. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibits 1−4, # 2 Exhibits 5−6, # 3 Proposed Order)(Ihsanullah, Neelam) (Entered: 06/15/2012)
390 Proposed Second Amended Schedule of Pretrial & Trial Dates (Steinberg, Michael) (Entered: 06/15/2012)
391 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE filed by Plaintiff Jose Chavez, Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez, Aleksandr Petrovich Khukhryanskiy, Ever Francisco Martinez−Rivas, Jose Antonio Moreno−Vasquez, Juan Carlos Sepulveda−Perez, Jonas Woldemariam, Yonas Woldemariam, Maksim Zhalezny, re Miscellaneous Document 390 (Proposed Second Amended Schedule of Pretrial & Trial Dates served on 6/15/12. (Steinberg, Michael) (Entered: 06/15/2012)
393 OPPOSITION to MOTION for Reconsideration re Order, Document Sealed 348 MOTION for Reconsideration re Order, Document Sealed 348 389 Plaintiffs' Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Amend or, in the Alternative, Reconsider the Class Certification Order filed by Petitioners Jose Chavez, Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez, Aleksandr Petrovich Khukhryanskiy, Ever Francisco Martinez−Rivas, Jose Antonio Moreno−Vasquez, Juan Carlos Sepulveda−Perez, Jonas Woldemariam, Yonas Woldemariam, Maksim Zhalezny. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 248, # 2 Exhibit 249, # 3 Exhibit 250, # 4 Exhibit 251, # 5 Exhibit 252, # 6 Exhibit 253, # 7 Exhibit 254, # 8 Exhibit 255, # 9 Exhibit 256, # 10 Exhibit 257, # 11 Exhibit 258, # 12 Exhibit 259, # 13 Exhibit 260, # 14 Exhibit 261, # 15 Exhibit 262, # 16 Exhibit 263, # 17 Exhibit 264, # 18 Exhibit 265)(Steinberg, Michael) (Entered: 06/22/2012)
394 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE filed by PLAINTIFF Jose Chavez, Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez, Aleksandr Petrovich Khukhryanskiy, Ever Francisco Martinez−Rivas, Jose Antonio Moreno−Vasquez, Juan Carlos Sepulveda−Perez, Jonas Woldemariam, Yonas Woldemariam, Maksim Zhalezny, re Response in Opposition to Motion,,, 393 served on 6/22/12. (Steinberg, Michael) (Entered: 06/22/2012)
395 REPLY in support of MOTION for Reconsideration re Order, Document Sealed 348 MOTION for Reconsideration re Order, Document Sealed 348 389 filed by Respondents Eric H. Holder, Jr, Trey Lund, John T. Morton, Janet Napolitano, Timothy S Robbins, Thomas G Snow. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A (Broussard Decl.))(Ihsanullah, Neelam) (Entered: 06/29/2012)
396 NOTICE to Court Re Plaintiffs Khukhryanskiy & Martinez−Rivas filed by Plaintiffs Jose Chavez, Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez, Aleksandr Petrovich Khukhryanskiy, Ever Francisco Martinez−Rivas, Jose Antonio Moreno−Vasquez, Juan Carlos Sepulveda−Perez, Yonas Woldemariam, Maksim Zhalezny. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibits)(Arulanantham, Ahilan) (Entered: 07/09/2012)
397 EX PARTE APPLICATION to Exceed Page Limitation for Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Partial Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Plaintiffs Jose Chavez, Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez, Aleksandr Petrovich Khukhryanskiy, Ever Francisco Martinez−Rivas, Jose Antonio Moreno−Vasquez, Juan Carlos Sepulveda−Perez, Yonas Woldemariam, Maksim Zhalezny. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibits, # 2 Proposed Order)(Arulanantham, Ahilan) (Entered: 07/09/2012)
398 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment as to Counts 3−5 and 8−10 of the Third Amended Complaint filed by Plaintiffs Jose Chavez, Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez, Aleksandr Petrovich Khukhryanskiy, Ever Francisco Martinez−Rivas, Jose Antonio Moreno−Vasquez, Juan Carlos Sepulveda−Perez, Yonas Woldemariam, Maksim Zhalezny. Motion set for hearing on 8/9/2012 at 02:00 PM before Judge Dolly M. Gee. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum of Points and Authorities, # 2 Statment of Uncontroverted Facts and Conclusions of Law, # 3

07/09/2012 07/10/2012 07/10/2012 07/10/2012 07/11/2012 07/11/2012 07/11/2012 07/11/2012 07/11/2012 07/11/2012

Proposed Order)(Arulanantham, Ahilan) (Entered: 07/09/2012)
399 DECLARATION of Marisol Orihuela in Support of MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment as to Counts 3−5 and 8−10 of the Third Amended Complaint 398 filed by Petitioners Jose Chavez, Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez, Aleksandr Petrovich Khukhryanskiy, Ever Francisco Martinez−Rivas, Jose Antonio Moreno−Vasquez, Juan Carlos Sepulveda−Perez, Yonas Woldemariam, Maksim Zhalezny. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibits 63−71, # 2 Exhibits 73−124−A, # 3 Exhibits 125−256, # 4 Exhibits 267−Govt. 30)(Arulanantham, Ahilan) (Entered: 07/09/2012)
400 NOTICE of Manual Filing filed by Petitioners Jose Chavez, Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez, Aleksandr Petrovich Khukhryanskiy, Ever Francisco Martinez−Rivas, Jose Antonio Moreno−Vasquez, Juan Carlos Sepulveda−Perez, Yonas Woldemariam, Maksim Zhalezny of Ex Parte App for Under Seal Filing, Proposed Order, Dec of Ahilan Arulanantham, Exhibits 266, 269−73. (Arulanantham, Ahilan) (Entered: 07/10/2012)
401 EX PARTE APPLICATION to Continue Hearing from August 9, 2012 to September 7, 2012 filed by Defendants Eric H. Holder, Jr, Trey Lund, John T. Morton, Janet Napolitano, Timothy S Robbins, Thomas G Snow. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Proposed Order)(Ihsanullah, Neelam) (Entered: 07/10/2012)
411 EXPARTE APPLICATION to File Exhibits 266, 269−73, Under Seal filed by petitioners Jose Chavez, Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez, Aleksandr Petrovich Khukhryanskiy, Ever Francisco Martinez−Rivas, Jose Antonio Moreno−Vasquez, Juan Carlos Sepulveda−Perez, Yonas Woldemariam, Maksim Zhalezny. Lodged Proposed Order.(jp) (Entered: 07/12/2012)
402 MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS): ORDER AND NOTICE TO ALL PARTIES by Judge Dolly M. Gee: The Court finds that defendants' motion to amend or, in the alternative, reconsider the class certification order 389 , currently scheduled for hearing on July 13, 2012, is appropriate for decision without oral argument. Fed.R.Civ.P.78(b); C.D.L.R. 7−15. Accordingly, this motion is taken UNDER SUBMISSION and the hearing is vacated. (bp) (Entered: 07/11/2012)
403 Opposition to Defendants' Ex Parte Application to Continue August 9, 2012 Hearing Opposition re: EX PARTE APPLICATION to Continue Hearing from August 9, 2012 to September 7, 2012 401 filed by Petitioners Jose Chavez, Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez, Aleksandr Petrovich Khukhryanskiy, Ever Francisco Martinez−Rivas, Jose Antonio Moreno−Vasquez, Juan Carlos Sepulveda−Perez, Jonas Woldemariam, Yonas Woldemariam, Maksim Zhalezny. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 281−283)(Steinberg, Michael) (Entered: 07/11/2012)
404 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE filed by Plaintiffs Jose Chavez, Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez, Aleksandr Petrovich Khukhryanskiy, Ever Francisco Martinez−Rivas, Jose Antonio Moreno−Vasquez, Juan Carlos Sepulveda−Perez, Jonas Woldemariam, Yonas Woldemariam, Maksim Zhalezny, re Objection/Opposition (Motion related), Objection/Opposition (Motion related) 403 served on 07/11/12. (Steinberg, Michael) (Entered: 07/11/2012)
405 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Compel Production of Records filed by Plaintiffs Jose Chavez, Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez, Aleksandr Petrovich Khukhryanskiy, Ever Francisco Martinez−Rivas, Jose Antonio Moreno−Vasquez, Juan Carlos Sepulveda−Perez, Jonas Woldemariam, Yonas Woldemariam, Maksim Zhalezny. Motion set for hearing on 8/2/2012 at 10:00 AM before Magistrate Judge David T Bristow. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Steinberg, Michael) (Entered: 07/11/2012)
406 JOINT STIPULATION to MOTION to Compel Production of Records 405 Joint Stipulation Regarding Dispute Over Production of Records filed by Petitioners Jose Chavez, Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez, Aleksandr Petrovich Khukhryanskiy, Ever Francisco Martinez−Rivas, Jose Antonio Moreno−Vasquez, Juan Carlos Sepulveda−Perez, Jonas Woldemariam, Yonas Woldemariam, Maksim Zhalezny. (Steinberg, Michael) (Entered: 07/11/2012)
407 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE filed by PLAINTIFFS Jose Chavez, Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez, Aleksandr Petrovich Khukhryanskiy, Ever Francisco

07/11/2012
07/11/2012 07/11/2012 07/11/2012 07/12/2012 07/13/2012 07/13/2012 07/13/2012 07/13/2012 07/13/2012 07/18/2012
07/19/2012

Martinez−Rivas, Jose Antonio Moreno−Vasquez, Juan Carlos Sepulveda−Perez, Jonas Woldemariam, Yonas Woldemariam, Maksim Zhalezny, re MOTION to Compel Production of Records 405 , Joint Stipulation re Discovery Motion, 406 served on 7/11/12. (Steinberg, Michael) (Entered: 07/11/2012)
408 EXHIBIT Filed filed by Petitioners Jose Chavez, Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez, Aleksandr Petrovich Khukhryanskiy, Ever Francisco Martinez−Rivas, Jose Antonio Moreno−Vasquez, Juan Carlos Sepulveda−Perez, Jonas Woldemariam, Yonas Woldemariam, Maksim Zhalezny. Defendants' Exhibits to Joint Stipulation Regarding Dispute Over Production of Records as to Joint Stipulation re Discovery Motion, 406 . (Steinberg, Michael) (Entered: 07/11/2012)
409 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE filed by PLAINTIFFS Jose Chavez, Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez, Aleksandr Petrovich Khukhryanskiy, Ever Francisco Martinez−Rivas, Jose Antonio Moreno−Vasquez, Juan Carlos Sepulveda−Perez, Jonas Woldemariam, Yonas Woldemariam, Maksim Zhalezny, re Exhibit (non−trial), Exhibit (non−trial) 408 served on 7/11/12. (Steinberg, Michael) (Entered: 07/11/2012)
412 ORDER by Judge Dolly M. Gee: GRANTING 411 Plaintiff's Ex Parte Application to File Exhibits 266, 269−73, Under Seal (es) (Entered: 07/12/2012)
413 SEALED DOCUMENT− DECLARATION of Ahilan T. Arulanantham of July 10, 2012. (mat) (Entered: 07/13/2012)
410 NOTICE of Manual Filing filed by Petitioners Jose Chavez, Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez, Aleksandr Petrovich Khukhryanskiy, Ever Francisco Martinez−Rivas, Jose Antonio Moreno−Vasquez, Juan Carlos Sepulveda−Perez, Yonas Woldemariam, Maksim Zhalezny of Ex Parte App. to File Defendants' Ex. C, Proposed Order, Defendants' Exhibit C. (Orihuela, Marisol) (Entered: 07/12/2012)
414 ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS' Ex Parte Application for Enlargment of Page Limite 397 by Judge Dolly M. Gee that Plaintiffs have leave to enlarge their Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Motion for Partial Summary Judgment up to 32 pages. Defendants may file an opposition of the same length. (jp) (Entered: 07/13/2012)
415 ORDER by Judge Dolly M. Gee GRANTING Ex Parte Application to Continue on Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment 401 , and the 8/9/2012 hearing is CONTINUED until 9/7/2012 at 11:00 AM. There shall be no further continuances. (jp) (Entered: 07/13/2012)
417 EX PARTE APPLICATION to File Exhibit C of Defendants' Exhibits (Doc. No. 408) to Joint Stipulation Regarding Dispute Over Production of Records (Doc. No. 406) Under Seal filed by petitioners.(ad) (Main Document 417 replaced on 7/19/2012) (ad). (Entered: 07/18/2012)
418 ORDER by Magistrate Judge David T Bristow GRANTING Plaintiffs' 417 Ex Parte Application to File Exhibit C of Defendants' Exhibits (Doc. 408) to Joint Stipulation Regarding Dispute Over Production of Records (Doc. 406) Under Seal: the application is GRANTED and Exhibit C is hereby SEALED. It is so ORDERED. (ad) (Entered: 07/18/2012)
419 Defendants' EXHIBIT C of Defendants' Exhibits (Dkt. 408) to Joint Stipulation Regarding Dispute Over Production of Records (Dkt. 406). (ad) (Entered: 07/18/2012)
416 MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS): ORDER by Magistrate Judge David T Bristow: The Court is in receipt of plaintiffs Motion to Compel Production of Records (Motion) [Dkt. # 405] filed July 11, 2012. The Court notes that on June 15, 2012, defendants/respondents filed a Motion to Amend or, in the Alternative, Reconsider the Class Certification Order (Motion to Amend). Pending ruling on the Motion to Amend, the Court hereby stays the instant Motion. Upon the District Courts ruling on the Motion to Amend, the Court will either order a briefing schedule or rule on the Motion. As such, the hearing noticed for August 2, 2012 is taken off calendar. 405 (am) (Entered: 07/18/2012)
420 EX PARTE APPLICATION for Discovery regarding class discovery and staying discovery until court's ruling on motion to amend, and placing reasonable limitations

07/20/2012
07/20/2012 07/20/2012 07/20/2012 07/30/2012
08/07/2012
08/07/2012 08/08/2012 08/09/2012
08/09/2012

on merits discovery filed by defendants Eric H. Holder, Jr, Trey Lund, John T. Morton, Janet Napolitano, Timothy S Robbins, Thomas G Snow. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit, # 4 Proposed Order)(Lawrence, Victor) (Entered: 07/19/2012)
421 OPPOSITION PLAINTIFFS' OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS' EX PARTE APPLICATION TO STAY CLASS RELATED DISCOVERY UNTIL RULING ON MOTION TO AMEND; AND TO PLACE LIMITS ON MERITS DISCOVERY re: EX PARTE APPLICATION for Discovery regarding class discovery and staying discovery until court's ruling on motion to amend, and placing reasonable limitations on merits discovery 420 filed by Petitioner Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration MARISOL ORIHUELA, # 2 Exhibit 284−288)(Steinberg, Michael) (Entered: 07/20/2012)
422 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE filed by PLAINTIFFS Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez, served on 07/20/2012. (Steinberg, Michael) (Entered: 07/20/2012)
423 NOTICE PLAINTIFFS' NOTICE REGARDING CASE MANAGEMENT & DISCOVERY DURING PENDENCY OF DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO AMEND OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, RECONSIDER THE CLASS CERTIFICATION ORDER filed by PLAINTIFFS Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Steinberg, Michael) (Entered: 07/20/2012)
424 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE filed by PLAINTIFFS Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez, re Notice (Other), Notice (Other) 423 served on 07/20/2012. (Steinberg, Michael) (Entered: 07/20/2012)
425 MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS): ORDER by Magistrate Judge David T Bristow: The Court has read and considered the Application and hereby denies the same as the moving parties have not alleged sufficient facts to warrant such a request on an ex parte basis 420 . As there is no qualifying exigency, the Court hereby sets a hearing on the Application for August 30, 2012, at 10:00 a.m. Pursuant to Central District of California Local Rules 7−9 and 7−10, any Opposition to the Application is due on or before August 9, 2012 and moving parties Reply is due on or before August 16, 2012. (la) (Entered: 07/30/2012)
426 NOTICE PLAINTIFFS' NOTICE WITHDRAWING CONSENT TO PROPOSED SCHEDULING ORDER AND REQUEST FOR COURT TO ORDER PARTIES TO SUBMIT A NEW PROPOSED SCHEDULING ORDER BY AUGUST 30, 2012 filed by PLAINTIFFS Jose Chavez, Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez, Aleksandr Petrovich Khukhryanskiy, Ever Francisco Martinez−Rivas, Jose Antonio Moreno−Vasquez, Juan Carlos Sepulveda−Perez, Jonas Woldemariam, Yonas Woldemariam, Maksim Zhalezny. (Steinberg, Michael) (Entered: 08/07/2012)
427 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE filed by Petitioners Jose Chavez, Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez, Aleksandr Petrovich Khukhryanskiy, Ever Francisco Martinez−Rivas, Jose Antonio Moreno−Vasquez, Juan Carlos Sepulveda−Perez, Jonas Woldemariam, Yonas Woldemariam, Maksim Zhalezny re: Notice (Other), Notice (Other) 426 (Steinberg, Michael) (Entered: 08/07/2012)
428 RESPONSE filed by Respondents Eric H. Holder, Jr, Trey Lund, John T. Morton, Janet Napolitano, Timothy S Robbins, Thomas G Snowto Notice (Other), Notice (Other) 426 Defendants' Response to Plaintiffs' Notice Withdrawing Consent to Proposed Scheduling Order (Lawrence, Victor) (Entered: 08/08/2012)
429 EX PARTE APPLICATION to Continue HEARING from 08/30/2012 to WEEK OF 09/17/2012 OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, PERMIT MICHAEL STEINBERG TO APPEAR TELEPHONICALLY filed by PLAINTIFFS Jose Chavez, Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez, Aleksandr Petrovich Khukhryanskiy, Ever Francisco Martinez−Rivas, Jose Antonio Moreno−Vasquez, Juan Carlos Sepulveda−Perez, Jonas Woldemariam, Yonas Woldemariam, Maksim Zhalezny. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS' EX PARTE APPLICATION)(Steinberg, Michael) (Entered: 08/09/2012)
430 DECLARATION of Michael H. Steinberg In Support of EX PARTE APPLICATION to Continue HEARING from 08/30/2012 to WEEK OF 09/17/2012 OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, PERMIT MICHAEL STEINBERG TO APPEAR TELEPHONICALLY

08/09/2012
08/09/2012 08/09/2012 08/09/2012 08/09/2012 08/10/2012 08/10/2012 08/13/2012 08/14/2012

429 filed by Petitioners Jose Chavez, Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez, Aleksandr Petrovich Khukhryanskiy, Ever Francisco Martinez−Rivas, Jose Antonio Moreno−Vasquez, Juan Carlos Sepulveda−Perez, Jonas Woldemariam, Yonas Woldemariam, Maksim Zhalezny. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 289−290)(Steinberg, Michael) (Entered: 08/09/2012)
431 OF SERVICE filed by PLAINTIFFS Jose Chavez, Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez, Aleksandr Petrovich Khukhryanskiy, Ever Francisco Martinez−Rivas, Jose Antonio Moreno−Vasquez, Juan Carlos Sepulveda−Perez, Jonas Woldemariam, Yonas Woldemariam, Maksim Zhalezny, re Declaration (Motion related), Declaration (Motion related), Declaration (Motion related) 430 , EX PARTE APPLICATION to Continue HEARING from 08/30/2012 to WEEK OF 09/17/2012 OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, PERMIT MICHAEL STEINBERG TO APPEAR TELEPHONICALLY 429 served on 08/09/2012. (Steinberg, Michael) (Entered: 08/09/2012)
432 MEMORANDUM in Opposition to EX PARTE APPLICATION for Discovery regarding class discovery and staying discovery until court's ruling on motion to amend, and placing reasonable limitations on merits discovery 420 filed by Petitioners Jose Chavez, Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez, Aleksandr Petrovich Khukhryanskiy, Ever Francisco Martinez−Rivas, Jose Antonio Moreno−Vasquez, Juan Carlos Sepulveda−Perez, Jonas Woldemariam, Yonas Woldemariam, Maksim Zhalezny. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Steinberg, Michael) (Entered: 08/09/2012)
433 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE filed by PLAINTIFFS Jose Chavez, Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez, Aleksandr Petrovich Khukhryanskiy, Ever Francisco Martinez−Rivas, Jose Antonio Moreno−Vasquez, Juan Carlos Sepulveda−Perez, Jonas Woldemariam, Yonas Woldemariam, Maksim Zhalezny, re MEMORANDUM in Opposition to Motion,, 432 served on 08/09/2012. (Steinberg, Michael) (Entered: 08/09/2012)
434 REPLY filed by Petitioners Jose Chavez, Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez, Aleksandr Petrovich Khukhryanskiy, Ever Francisco Martinez−Rivas, Jose Antonio Moreno−Vasquez, Juan Carlos Sepulveda−Perez, Jonas Woldemariam, Yonas Woldemariam, Maksim Zhalezny to Response (non−motion), Response (non−motion) 428 of Defendants to Plaintiffs' Notice of Withdrawal of Consent to Proposed Scheduling Order (Steinberg, Michael) (Entered: 08/09/2012)
435 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE filed by PLAINTIFF Jose Chavez, Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez, Aleksandr Petrovich Khukhryanskiy, Ever Francisco Martinez−Rivas, Jose Antonio Moreno−Vasquez, Juan Carlos Sepulveda−Perez, Jonas Woldemariam, Yonas Woldemariam, Maksim Zhalezny, re Reply (non−motion), Reply (non−motion) 434 served on 08/09/2012. (Steinberg, Michael) (Entered: 08/09/2012)
436 Opposition re: EX PARTE APPLICATION to Continue HEARING from 08/30/2012 to WEEK OF 09/17/2012 OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, PERMIT MICHAEL STEINBERG TO APPEAR TELEPHONICALLY 429 filed by Respondents Eric H. Holder, Jr, Trey Lund, John T. Morton, Janet Napolitano, Timothy S Robbins, Thomas G Snow. (Lawrence, Victor) (Entered: 08/10/2012)
437 REPLY IN SUPPORT EX PARTE APPLICATION to Continue HEARING from 08/30/2012 to WEEK OF 09/17/2012 OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, PERMIT MICHAEL STEINBERG TO APPEAR TELEPHONICALLY 429 filed by Petitioners Jose Chavez, Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez, Aleksandr Petrovich Khukhryanskiy, Ever Francisco Martinez−Rivas, Jose Antonio Moreno−Vasquez, Juan Carlos Sepulveda−Perez, Jonas Woldemariam, Yonas Woldemariam, Maksim Zhalezny. (Steinberg, Michael) (Entered: 08/10/2012)
439 ORDER by Magistrate Judge David T Bristow GRANTING Plaintiffs' 429 Ex Parte Application [NOTE CHANGES MADE BY THE COURT]: the Court hereby GRANTS Plaintiffs Ex Parte Application, and ADVANCES the hearing to August 23, 2012, at 3:00pm as the parties have indicated their availability on said date and time. Defendants reply to plaintiffs opposition shall be filed no later than 5:00pm on August 16, 2012. IT IS SO ORDERED. (ad) (Entered: 08/14/2012)
438 SCHEDULING NOTICE IN CHAMBERS by Magistrate Judge David T Bristow previously scheduled HEARING for 8/30/12 10:00 a.m. has been rescheduled.

08/16/2012 08/17/2012
08/20/2012 08/20/2012 08/20/2012 08/21/2012 08/21/2012 08/21/2012
08/21/2012 08/21/2012 08/21/2012 08/22/2012

HEARING set for 8/23/2012 at 03:00 PM before Magistrate Judge David T Bristow. THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY.(dts) TEXT ONLY ENTRY (Entered: 08/14/2012)
440 REPLY in support EX PARTE APPLICATION for Discovery regarding class discovery and staying discovery until court's ruling on motion to amend, and placing reasonable limitations on merits discovery 420 filed by Respondents Eric H. Holder, Jr, Trey Lund, John T. Morton, Janet Napolitano, Timothy S Robbins, Thomas G Snow. (Lawrence, Victor) (Entered: 08/16/2012)
441 Defendants' Opposition re: MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment as to Counts 3−5 and 8−10 of the Third Amended Complaint 398 filed by Respondents Eric H. Holder, Jr, Trey Lund, John T. Morton, Janet Napolitano, Timothy S Robbins, Thomas G Snow. (Attachments: # 1 Statement of Genuine Disputes of Material Fact, # 2 Declarations and Exhibits A−E, # 3 Exhibits F−G, # 4 Exhibit H)(Ihsanullah, Neelam) (Entered: 08/17/2012)
442 NOTICE of Manual Filing filed by Respondents Eric H. Holder, Jr, Trey Lund, John T. Morton, Janet Napolitano, Timothy S Robbins, Thomas G Snow of Parties' Joint Stipulation to File Declaration of Samuel P. Go and Exhibits A and B in Support of Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment Under Seal. (Ihsanullah, Neelam) (Entered: 08/20/2012)
443 NOTICE of Manual Filing filed by Respondents Eric H. Holder, Jr, Trey Lund, John T. Morton, Janet Napolitano, Timothy S Robbins, Thomas G Snow of Declaration of Samuel P. Go and Exhibits A and B in Support of Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. (Ihsanullah, Neelam) (Entered: 08/20/2012)
444 NOTICE of and EX PARTE APPLICATION to File a Surreply in Opposition to Defendants' Discovery Stay Application filed by Plaintiffs Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Proposed Order Granting Plantiffs' Ex Parte Application)(Steinberg, Michael) (Entered: 08/20/2012)
445 NOTICE of Manual Filing filed by Respondents Eric H. Holder, Jr, Trey Lund, John T. Morton, Janet Napolitano, Timothy S Robbins, Thomas G Snow of Proposed Order Approving Parties' Joint Stipulation to File Declaration of Samuel P. Go and Exhibits A and B in Support of Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment Under Seal. (Ihsanullah, Neelam) (Entered: 08/21/2012)
446 EX PARTE APPLICATION for Leave to file surreply Opposition filed by defendants Eric H. Holder, Jr, Trey Lund, John T. Morton, Janet Napolitano, Timothy S Robbins, Thomas G Snow. (Lawrence, Victor) (Entered: 08/21/2012)
447 MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS by Magistrate Judge David T Bristow:On the Courts own motion, the Court hereby takes the August 23, 2012, hearing on defendants/respondents Ex Parte Application to Stay Class−Related Discovery Until Ruling on Motion to Amend; and to Place Limits on Merits Discovery OFF CALENDAR. The Court has taken the matter under submission and will rule on the papers submitted. (am) (Entered: 08/22/2012)
449 SEALED DOCUMENT− JOINT STIPULATION to File Declaration of Samuel P. Go and Exhibits A and B in Support of Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Partially Summary Judgment. (mat) (Entered: 08/23/2012)
450 SEALED DOCUMENT− ORDER Approving Joint Stipulation to File Declaration of Samuel P. Go and Exhibits A and B in Support of Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. (mat) (Entered: 08/23/2012)
451 SEALED DOCUMENT− DECLARATION of Samuel P. Go and Exhibits A and B in Support of Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. (mat) (Entered: 08/23/2012)
448 MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS): ORDER by Magistrate Judge David T Bristow: The Court is in receipt of plaintiffs/petitioners Ex Parte Application to File a Surreply in Opposition to Defendants Discovery Stay Application (Application) filed August 20, 2012. Under Local Rule 7−10, [a]bsent prior written order of the Court, the opposing party shall not file a response to the reply. In the present circumstances,

08/24/2012 08/24/2012 08/24/2012 08/24/2012 08/27/2012 08/27/2012 08/27/2012 08/28/2012 08/28/2012

plaintiffs/petitioners seek leave to file a Surreply in Opposition to defendants/respondents Application to Stay Class−Related Discovery Until Ruling On Motion to Amend; and to Place Limits on Merits Discovery because defendants/respondents raised new arguments in their Reply to which plaintiffs/petitioners have not had the opportunity to respond. Courts have discretion regarding whether to consider new arguments raised for the first time in a reply brief. See Lane v. Dept of the Interior, 523 F.3d 1128, 1140 (9th Cir. 2008); Cedano−Viera v. Ashcroft, 324 F.3d 1062, 1066 n.5 (9th Cir. 2003). Here, the Court declines to consider defendants/respondents new arguments raised for the first time in their Reply and as such, the Court DENIES plaintiffs/petitioners Application. 446 (am) (Entered: 08/23/2012)
452 NOTICE of Manual Filing filed by Petitioners Jose Chavez, Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez, Aleksandr Petrovich Khukhryanskiy, Ever Francisco Martinez−Rivas, Jose Antonio Moreno−Vasquez, Juan Carlos Sepulveda−Perez, Yonas Woldemariam, Maksim Zhalezny of Ex Parte Application to File Exs. 305−307 Under Seal; Exs. 305−307, Proposed Order. (Orihuela, Marisol) (Entered: 08/24/2012)
453 REPLY in Support of MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment as to Counts 3−5 and 8−10 of the Third Amended Complaint 398 filed by Petitioners Jose Chavez, Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez, Aleksandr Petrovich Khukhryanskiy, Ever Francisco Martinez−Rivas, Jose Antonio Moreno−Vasquez, Juan Carlos Sepulveda−Perez, Yonas Woldemariam, Maksim Zhalezny. (Attachments: # 1 Reply in Support of Statement of Uncontroverted Facts)(Arulanantham, Ahilan) (Entered: 08/24/2012)
454 DECLARATION of Marisol Orihuela in Suport of MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment as to Counts 3−5 and 8−10 of the Third Amended Complaint 398 ; Exhibits filed by Petitioners Jose Chavez, Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez, Aleksandr Petrovich Khukhryanskiy, Ever Francisco Martinez−Rivas, Jose Antonio Moreno−Vasquez, Juan Carlos Sepulveda−Perez, Yonas Woldemariam, Maksim Zhalezny. (Arulanantham, Ahilan) (Entered: 08/24/2012)
459 EX PARTE APPLICATION to File Exhibits 305−307 Under Seal filed by Plaintiffs−Petitioners Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez, Jose Chavez, Aleksandr Petrovich Khukhryanskiy, Ever Francisco Martinez−Rivas, Jose Antonio Moreno−Vasquez, Juan Carlos Sepulveda−Perez, Yonas Woldemariam, Maksim Zhalezny. Lodged Proposed Order.(gk) (Entered: 08/29/2012)
455 MINUTES OF IN CHAMBERS − ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO AMEND OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, RECONSIDER THE CLASS CERTIFICATION ORDER 389 by Judge Dolly M. Gee: Defendants' Motion to amend or, in the alternative, reconsider the class certification order dated 11/21/2011 348 is DENIED. Court Reporter: Not Reported. (gk) (Entered: 08/28/2012)
458 SEALED DOCUMENT− DECLARATION of Marisol Orihuela of August 24, 2012. Exhibits 305−307. (mat) (Entered: 08/29/2012)
460 ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS' EX PARTE APPLICATION TO FILE EXHIBITS 305−307, UNDER SEAL by Judge Dolly M. Gee: Plaintiffs' Ex Parte Application to File Exhibits 305−307 Under Seal 459 is hereby GRANTED and Exhibits 305−307 are hereby SEALED. (gk) (Entered: 08/29/2012)
456 NOTICE of Entry of Decision, re: Order on Motion for Reconsideration, 455 , filed by Plaintiffs Jose Chavez, Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez, Aleksandr Petrovich Khukhryanskiy, Ever Francisco Martinez−Rivas, Jose Antonio Moreno−Vasquez, Juan Carlos Sepulveda−Perez, Yonas Woldemariam, Maksim Zhalezny. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Arulanantham, Ahilan) (Entered: 08/28/2012)
457 MINUTES OF IN CHAMBERS − ORDER AND NOTICE TO ALL PARTIES by Judge Dolly M. Gee: On 8/7/2012, Plaintiffs filed a notice withdrawing their consent to the parties' proposed second amended schedule of pretrial and trial dates, filed on 6/15/2012 390 , 426 . On 8/8/2012, Defendants filed their response, indicating that they do not oppose Plaintiffs' request 428 . In light of the foregoing, the parties are hereby ordered to meet and confer and jointly submit a new proposed scheduling order by no later than 9/12/2012. Court Reporter: Not Reported. (gk) (Entered: 08/29/2012)

08/29/2012 08/30/2012
08/30/2012
09/06/2012 09/06/2012 09/07/2012 09/10/2012 09/10/2012 09/12/2012

461 SCHEDULING NOTICE in chambers by Magistrate Judge David T Bristow Telephone Conference set for 8/30/2012 02:00 PM before Magistrate Judge David T Bristow. THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY.(dts) TEXT ONLY ENTRY (Entered: 08/29/2012)
462 MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS by Magistrate Judge David T Bristow: In light of the recent denial of defendants/respondents Motion to Amend or, in the Alternative, Reconsider the Class Certification Order (Motion to Amend) onAugust 27, 2012, the Court DENIES defendants/respondents Application to Stay Class−Related Discovery Until Ruling on Motion to Amend; and to Place Limits on Merits Discovery as MOOT. Additionally, to the extent defendants/respondents request to place limits on merits discovery may be construed as a request for a protective order, they have failed to demonstrate good cause for the issuance of such an order, or otherwise demonstrated that limitations should be placed on plaintiffs/petitioners rights to discovery in this matter, particularly in light of the denial of the Motion to Amend. See Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 26(c)(1). Accordingly, the Court DENIES defendants/respondents request for a limitation on discovery and/or protective order without prejudice. (am) Modified on 8/30/2012 420 (am). (Entered: 08/30/2012)
463 MINUTES OF Telephonic Status Conference held before Magistrate Judge David T Bristow: The Court and counsel conferred regarding the defendants/respondents Ex Parte Application for Discovery regarding class discovery, staying discovery until Courts ruling on the motion to amend, and placing reasonable limitations on merits discovery. The Court encouraged counsel to meet and confer on the remaining issues and advised counsel to file simultaneous supplemental briefs in support of their respective positions no later than 5:00 p.m. on September 10, 2012. The matter is set for hearing on September 12, 2012, at 3:00 p.m. Court Recorder: RS−4 08−30−12. (mrgo) (Entered: 09/04/2012)
464 IN CHAMBERS by Magistrate Judge David T Bristow Motion set for hearing on 9/12/2012 at 03:00 PM before Magistrate Judge David T Bristow WILL BE HEARD IN COURTROOM 1, 2ND FLOOR. THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY.(dts) TEXT ONLY ENTRY (Entered: 09/06/2012)
465 NOTICE of Errata Re Ex. 268 filed by Plaintiffs Jose Chavez, Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez, Aleksandr Petrovich Khukhryanskiy, Ever Francisco Martinez−Rivas, Jose Antonio Moreno−Vasquez, Juan Carlos Sepulveda−Perez, Yonas Woldemariam, Maksim Zhalezny. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Arulanantham, Ahilan) (Entered: 09/06/2012)
468 MINUTES OF Motion Hearing held before Judge Dolly M. Gee: Jillian Woods from Immigration and Customs Enforcement is also present. Court and counsel confer. Counsel present arguments. Following discussions with counsel, the Court advises counsel that Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment 398 is taken under submission and a written order will issue. The Court grants the parties' oral stipulation to extend the deadline to submit new proposed pretrial and trial deadlines and dates to 9/21/2012. Court Reporter: Kathy Stride. (gk) (Entered: 09/11/2012)
466 OPPOSITION to MOTION to Compel Production of Records 405 filed by Respondents Eric H. Holder, Jr, Trey Lund, John T. Morton, Janet Napolitano, Timothy S Robbins, Thomas G Snow. (Lawrence, Victor) (Entered: 09/10/2012)
467 SUPPLEMENT to MOTION to Compel Production of Records 405 filed by Petitioners Jose Chavez, Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez, Aleksandr Petrovich Khukhryanskiy, Ever Francisco Martinez−Rivas, Jose Antonio Moreno−Vasquez, Juan Carlos Sepulveda−Perez, Yonas Woldemariam, Maksim Zhalezny. (Arulanantham, Ahilan) (Entered: 09/10/2012)
470 MINUTES OF Motion Hearing held before Magistrate Judge David T Bristow:Asexplained at the hearing, defendants/respondents are ORDERED to produce thefollowing discovery to plaintiffs/petitioners: A−files, medical documents, and records of proceedings for 150 individuals, in a sampling method chosen by plaintiffs/petitioners. 50 individuals shall be drawn from each of the three time frames as chosen by plaintiffs/petitioners and identified in the Joint Stipulation as the Numerosity Group, Post May 23 Sampling Group, and Notice Group. Additionally, defendants/respondents are ORDERED to produce the A−files, medical documents,

09/14/2012
09/14/2012 09/17/2012 09/17/2012 09/18/2012 09/18/2012

and records of proceedings for each of the individuals that the Government has or hereafter identifies as incompetent to represent themselves in their immigration proceedings (Subclass 1 Members). For each of the 150 selected individuals, as well as the individuals identified as Subclass 1 Members, defendants/respondents shall also produce all database information regarding these individuals, as discussed by the parties. Finally, defendants/respondents are ORDERED to produce A−files, medical documents, and records of proceedings for individual class members plaintiffs/petitioners have identified as One−off Requests. plaintiffs/petitioners may request information regarding up to 30 individuals in this category. Parties are ORDERED to further meet and confer regarding the timing of the production of these documents. Prior to September 20, 2012, defendants/respondents shall submit a joint schedule regarding the timing of production or otherwise submit a joint statement regarding the reasons the parties were unable to reach an agreement regarding this issue and their respective positions. The Court sets a further status conference for September 20, 2012 at 11:00 a.m. To the extent that the parties have not reached an agreement as to the timing of the production by this time, the Court will set a production schedule at the status conference.Court Recorder: RS−1 09−12−12. (am) (Entered: 09/14/2012)
469 TRANSCRIPT ORDER for date of proceedings 8/30/2010 to 8/30/2012 as to Plaintiffs−Petitioners Jose Chavez, Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez, Aleksandr Petrovich Khukhryanskiy, Ever Francisco Martinez−Rivas, Jose Antonio Moreno−Vasquez, Juan Carlos Sepulveda−Perez, Jonas Woldemariam, Yonas Woldemariam, Maksim Zhalezny Court Reporter Anne Kielwasser. Court will contact Michael P. Murtagh at murtaghm@sullcrom.com with any questions regarding this order. Transcript portion requested: Pre−Trial Proceeding: 8/30/2010 7/7/2011 8/30/2012. Category: Ordinary. Transcript preparation will not begin until payment has been satisfied with the court reporter/recorder. (Steinberg, Michael) (Entered: 09/14/2012)
471 TRANSCRIPT ORDER for date of proceedings 9/7/2012 to 9/7/2012 as to Plaintiffs−Petitioners Jose Chavez, Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez, Aleksandr Petrovich Khukhryanskiy, Ever Francisco Martinez−Rivas, Jose Antonio Moreno−Vasquez, Juan Carlos Sepulveda−Perez, Jonas Woldemariam, Yonas Woldemariam, Maksim Zhalezny Court Reporter Anne Kielwasser. Court will contact Michael Murtagh at murtaghm@sullcrom.com with any questions regarding this order. Transcript portion requested: Other: 9/7/2012. Category: Expedited. Transcript preparation will not begin until payment has been satisfied with the court reporter/recorder. (Steinberg, Michael) (Entered: 09/14/2012)
472 NOTICE TO FILER OF DEFICIENCIES in Electronically Filed Documents RE: Transcript Order Form (AO−435), Transcript Order Form (AO−435), Transcript Order Form (AO−435) 471 , Motion Hearing, Set/Reset Hearing,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, 470 . The following error(s) was found: Please select Court Smart for the 8/30/2012 and Katherine Stride for the 09/07/2012. A transcript order form must be filed for each reporter or recorder. You must electronically refile the above referenced Request for Transcript in this case to correct this deficiency. THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY.(dc) TEXT ONLY ENTRY (Entered: 09/17/2012)
473 NOTICE OF LODGING filed re MOTION to Compel Production of Records 405 (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Orihuela, Marisol) (Entered: 09/17/2012)
474 TRANSCRIPT ORDER for date of proceedings 8/30/2010 to 8/30/2010 as to Plaintiffs−Petitioners Jose Chavez, Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez, Aleksandr Petrovich Khukhryanskiy, Ever Francisco Martinez−Rivas, Jose Antonio Moreno−Vasquez, Juan Carlos Sepulveda−Perez, Jonas Woldemariam, Yonas Woldemariam, Maksim Zhalezny Court Smart (CS). Court will contact Michael Murtagh at murtaghm@sullcrom.com with any questions regarding this order. Transcript portion requested: Pre−Trial Proceeding: 8/30/2010. Category: Ordinary. Transcript preparation will not begin until payment has been satisfied with the court reporter/recorder. (Steinberg, Michael) (Entered: 09/18/2012)
475 TRANSCRIPT ORDER for date of proceedings 7/7/2011 to 7/7/2011 as to Plaintiffs−Petitioners Jose Chavez, Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez, Aleksandr Petrovich Khukhryanskiy, Ever Francisco Martinez−Rivas, Jose Antonio

09/18/2012
09/18/2012
09/19/2012 09/19/2012 09/20/2012 09/20/2012 09/20/2012
09/21/2012

Moreno−Vasquez, Juan Carlos Sepulveda−Perez, Jonas Woldemariam, Yonas Woldemariam, Maksim Zhalezny Court Smart (CS). Court will contact Michael Murtagh at murtaghm@sullcrom.com with any questions regarding this order. Transcript portion requested: Pre−Trial Proceeding: 7/7/2011. Category: Ordinary. Transcript preparation will not begin until payment has been satisfied with the court reporter/recorder. (Steinberg, Michael) (Entered: 09/18/2012)
476 TRANSCRIPT ORDER for date of proceedings 8/30/2012 to 8/30/2012 as to Petitioners−Plaintiffs Jose Chavez, Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez, Aleksandr Petrovich Khukhryanskiy, Ever Francisco Martinez−Rivas, Jose Antonio Moreno−Vasquez, Juan Carlos Sepulveda−Perez, Jonas Woldemariam, Yonas Woldemariam, Maksim Zhalezny Court Smart (CS). Court will contact Michael Murtagh at murtaghm@sullcrom.com with any questions regarding this order. Transcript portion requested: Pre−Trial Proceeding: 8/30/2012. Category: Ordinary. Transcript preparation will not begin until payment has been satisfied with the court reporter/recorder. (Steinberg, Michael) (Entered: 09/18/2012)
477 TRANSCRIPT ORDER for date of proceedings 9/7/2012 to 9/7/2012 as to Plaintiffs−Petitioners Jose Chavez, Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez, Aleksandr Petrovich Khukhryanskiy, Ever Francisco Martinez−Rivas, Jose Antonio Moreno−Vasquez, Juan Carlos Sepulveda−Perez, Jonas Woldemariam, Yonas Woldemariam, Maksim Zhalezny Court Reporter Kathryn Stride. Court will contact Michael Murtagh at murtaghm@sullcrom.com with any questions regarding this order. Transcript portion requested: Pre−Trial Proceeding: 9/7/2012. Category: Expedited. Transcript preparation will not begin until payment has been satisfied with the court reporter/recorder. (Steinberg, Michael) (Entered: 09/18/2012)
478 NOTICE OF LODGING filed re MOTION to Compel Production of Records 405 (Arulanantham, Ahilan) (Entered: 09/19/2012)
479 NOTICE OF LODGING filed by Defendants Concerning Production Schedule re Notice of Lodging 478 (Lawrence, Victor) (Entered: 09/19/2012)
480 NOTICE OF LODGING filed Corrected Defendants' Production Schedule re Notice of Lodging 479 , Notice of Lodging 478 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Lawrence, Victor) (Entered: 09/20/2012)
481 ORDER by Magistrate Judge David T Bristow GRANTING Plaintiffs' 405 Motion to Compel: (see document image for specifics). (ad) (Entered: 09/21/2012)
483 MINUTES OF TELEPHONIC STATUS CONFERENCE RE: PLAINTIFFS/PETITIONERS MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS held before Magistrate Judge David T Bristow: Therefore, at the September 20, 2012 status conference, after hearing from counsel for the parties, the Court ordered the production schedule as follows: 1. For Subclass One members, defendants/respondents are ordered to produce the requested information within 45 days of September 13, 2012. 2. For the 50 individuals from the Numerosity Group and for the 50 individuals from the Notice Group, defendants/respondents are ordered to produce the requested information within 90 days of September 13, 2012. 3. For the 50 individuals from the Post−May 23 Sampling Group, defendants/respondents are ordered to produce the requested information within 90 days of September 13, 2012. 4. For individuals identified as One−off Requests, defendants/respondents are ordered to produce the requested information within 60 days of the date upon which plaintiff/petitioners request(s) for such information. With respect to the one individual that has already been identified, and who does not qualify as a Subclass One member, defendants/respondents will produce the requested information regarding this individual within 60 days of September 13, 2012. 5. Defendants/respondents shall produce the requested database information within 45 days of September 13, 2012. Defendants/respondents have an obligation to produce the foregoing information as soon as they obtain such and on a rolling basis.Court Recorder: RS−1 09−20−12. (am) (Entered: 09/25/2012)
482 NOTICE OF LODGING filed PROPOSED SCHEDULE RE: PRETRIAL AND TRIAL DATES re Minutes of In Chambers Order/Directive − no proceeding held,, 457 (Arulanantham, Ahilan) (Entered: 09/21/2012)

09/26/2012 09/27/2012
09/27/2012 10/01/2012
10/01/2012 10/01/2012 10/02/2012 10/02/2012 10/03/2012 10/04/2012

484 EX PARTE APPLICATION to Supplement Briefing re MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment as to Counts 3−5 and 8−10 of the Third Amended Complaint 398 filed by Defendants Eric H. Holder, Jr, Trey Lund, John T. Morton, Janet Napolitano, Timothy S Robbins, Thomas G Snow. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibits A and B, # 2 Proposed Order)(Ihsanullah, Neelam) (Entered: 09/26/2012)
485 TRANSCRIPT for proceedings held on 09/07/2012; 11:00 A.M.. Court Reporter: Katherine M. Stride, phone number 213−894−2187. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through Court Reporter or PACER. Notice of Intent to Redact due within 7 days of this date. Redaction Request due 10/18/2012. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 10/28/2012. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 12/26/2012. (Stride, Katherine) (Entered: 09/27/2012)
486 NOTICE OF FILING TRANSCRIPT filed for proceedings 09/07/2012; 11:00 A.M. re Transcript 485 THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY.(Stride, Katherine) TEXT ONLY ENTRY (Entered: 09/27/2012)
487 Opposition re: EX PARTE APPLICATION to Supplement Briefing re MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment as to Counts 3−5 and 8−10 of the Third Amended Complaint 398 EX PARTE APPLICATION to Supplement Briefing re MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment as to Counts 3−5 and 8−10 of the Third Amended Complaint 398 484 filed by Petitioners Jose Chavez, Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez, Aleksandr Petrovich Khukhryanskiy, Ever Francisco Martinez−Rivas, Jose Antonio Moreno−Vasquez, Juan Carlos Sepulveda−Perez, Yonas Woldemariam, Maksim Zhalezny. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration, # 2 Exhibit)(Arulanantham, Ahilan) (Entered: 10/01/2012)
488 NOTICE of Change of Attorney Information for attorney Ahilan T Arulanantham counsel for Petitioners Jose Chavez, Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez, Aleksandr Petrovich Khukhryanskiy, Ever Francisco Martinez−Rivas, Jose Antonio Moreno−Vasquez, Juan Carlos Sepulveda−Perez, Yonas Woldemariam, Maksim Zhalezny.Marisol Orihuela is no longer attorney of record for the aforementioned party in this case for the reason indicated in the G−06 Notice. Filed by Plaintiffs Ahilan Arulanantham (Arulanantham, Ahilan) (Entered: 10/01/2012)
489 NOTICE of Appearance filed by attorney Carmen G Iguina on behalf of Petitioners Jose Chavez, Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez, Aleksandr Petrovich Khukhryanskiy, Ever Francisco Martinez−Rivas, Jose Antonio Moreno−Vasquez, Juan Carlos Sepulveda−Perez, Yonas Woldemariam, Maksim Zhalezny (Iguina, Carmen) (Entered: 10/01/2012)
490 REPLY in support EX PARTE APPLICATION to Supplement Briefing re MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment as to Counts 3−5 and 8−10 of the Third Amended Complaint 398 EX PARTE APPLICATION to Supplement Briefing re MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment as to Counts 3−5 and 8−10 of the Third Amended Complaint 398 484 filed by Respondents Eric H. Holder, Jr, Trey Lund, John T. Morton, Janet Napolitano, Timothy S Robbins, Thomas G Snow. (Lawrence, Victor) (Entered: 10/02/2012)
491 OBJECTIONS to Reply (Motion related), Reply (Motion related) 490 filed by Petitioners Jose Chavez, Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez, Aleksandr Petrovich Khukhryanskiy, Ever Francisco Martinez−Rivas, Jose Antonio Moreno−Vasquez, Juan Carlos Sepulveda−Perez, Yonas Woldemariam, Maksim Zhalezny. (Arulanantham, Ahilan) (Entered: 10/02/2012)
492 NOTICE Notice of Correction filed by defendants Eric H. Holder, Jr, Trey Lund, John T. Morton, Janet Napolitano, Timothy S Robbins, Thomas G Snow. (Lawrence, Victor) (Entered: 10/03/2012)
493 NOTICE of Appearance filed by attorney Michael H Steinberg on behalf of Petitioners Jose Chavez, Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez, Aleksandr Petrovich Khukhryanskiy, Ever Francisco Martinez−Rivas, Jose Antonio Moreno−Vasquez, Juan Carlos Sepulveda−Perez, Jonas Woldemariam, Yonas Woldemariam, Maksim Zhalezny (Steinberg, Michael) (Entered: 10/04/2012)

10/05/2012 10/16/2012 10/17/2012 10/17/2012 10/17/2012 10/17/2012 10/19/2012
10/19/2012 10/22/2012

494 NOTICE Correction Related to Statement of Defendants' Counsel at Hearing on Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, Made on 9/7/12 filed by Plaintiffs Jose Chavez, Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez, Aleksandr Petrovich Khukhryanskiy, Ever Francisco Martinez−Rivas, Jose Antonio Moreno−Vasquez, Juan Carlos Sepulveda−Perez, Yonas Woldemariam, Maksim Zhalezny. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Arulanantham, Ahilan) (Entered: 10/05/2012)
495 NOTICE to Court Re: Subclass One Members filed by Plaintiffs Jose Chavez, Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez, Aleksandr Petrovich Khukhryanskiy, Ever Francisco Martinez−Rivas, Jose Antonio Moreno−Vasquez, Juan Carlos Sepulveda−Perez, Yonas Woldemariam, Maksim Zhalezny. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibits 316−317)(Arulanantham, Ahilan) (Entered: 10/16/2012)
496 TRANSCRIPT for proceedings held on 7/7/11 2:44 p.m.. Court Reporter/Electronic Court Recorder: Echo Reporting, Inc., phone number (858) 453−7590. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Electronic Court Recorder before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Notice of Intent to Redact due within 7 days of this date. Redaction Request due 11/7/2012. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 11/17/2012. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 1/15/2013. (ha) (Entered: 10/17/2012)
497 TRANSCRIPT for proceedings held on 8/30/12 2:07 p.m.. Court Reporter/Electronic Court Recorder: Echo Reporting, Inc., phone number (858) 453−7590. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Electronic Court Recorder before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Notice of Intent to Redact due within 7 days of this date. Redaction Request due 11/7/2012. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 11/17/2012. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 1/15/2013. (ha) (Entered: 10/17/2012)
498 NOTICE OF FILING TRANSCRIPT filed for proceedings 7/7/11 & 8/30/12 re Transcript 497 , 496 THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY.(ha) TEXT ONLY ENTRY (Entered: 10/17/2012)
499 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Compel Production of Records filed by Plaintiffs Jose Chavez, Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez, Aleksandr Petrovich Khukhryanskiy, Ever Francisco Martinez−Rivas, Jose Antonio Moreno−Vasquez, Juan Carlos Sepulveda−Perez, Yonas Woldemariam, Maksim Zhalezny. Motion set for hearing on 11/8/2012 at 10:00 AM before Magistrate Judge David T Bristow. (Attachments: # 1 Joint Stipulation, # 2 Govt Ex. A, # 3 Appendix A, # 4 Appendix B, # 5 Declaration of Ahilan Arulanantham, # 6 Exhibits 318−326, # 7 Proposed Order)(Arulanantham, Ahilan) (Entered: 10/17/2012)
500 ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO CONDUCT SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING ON PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT by Judge Dolly M. Gee: 484 . The parties shall have seven days from the date of this Order to file supplemental briefs, no longer than five pages (exclusive of exhibits), solely addressing the effect of Plaintiffs September 20, 2012 interrogatory responses on the motion for partial summary judgment currently pending before the Court. The parties shall refrain from repeating arguments already made in their voluminous briefing on the underlying motion. (im) (Entered: 10/19/2012)
501 Notice of Withdrawal of Motion to Compel,, 499 filed by Plaintiffs Jose Chavez, Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez, Aleksandr Petrovich Khukhryanskiy, Ever Francisco Martinez−Rivas, Jose Antonio Moreno−Vasquez, Juan Carlos Sepulveda−Perez, Yonas Woldemariam, Maksim Zhalezny. (Arulanantham, Ahilan) (Entered: 10/19/2012)
502 STIPULATION for Order to direct Defendants to produce asylum−related information in A−files and ROPs pursuant to the entry of a revised protective order filed by Defendants Eric H. Holder, Jr, Trey Lund, John T. Morton, Janet Napolitano, Timothy S Robbins, Thomas G Snow. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order Regarding Production of Asylum−Related Information, # 2 Proposed Order − Protective Order for Discovery)(Go, Samuel) (Entered: 10/22/2012)

10/26/2012 10/26/2012 10/31/2012 11/01/2012
11/02/2012
11/02/2012 11/20/2012 11/21/2012 12/20/2012 12/20/2012

503 SUPPLEMENT re: Effect of Plaintiffs' September 20, 2012 Interrogatory Responses on the Summary Judgment Motion filed by Respondents Eric H. Holder, Jr, Trey Lund, John T. Morton, Janet Napolitano, Timothy S Robbins, Thomas G Snow. (Ihsanullah, Neelam) (Entered: 10/26/2012)
504 SUPPLEMENT Re: Discovery Responses filed by Petitioners Jose Chavez, Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez, Aleksandr Petrovich Khukhryanskiy, Ever Francisco Martinez−Rivas, Jose Antonio Moreno−Vasquez, Juan Carlos Sepulveda−Perez, Yonas Woldemariam, Maksim Zhalezny. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Arulanantham, Ahilan) (Entered: 10/26/2012)
505 SCHEDULING NOTICE IN CHAMBERS by Magistrate Judge David T Bristow Telephone Conference set for 11/1/2012 10:00 AM before Magistrate Judge David T Bristow. THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY.(dts) TEXT ONLY ENTRY (Entered: 10/31/2012)
508 MINUTES OF TELEPHONIC STATUS CONFERENCE RE PARTIES STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER 502 held before Magistrate Judge David T Bristow: The Court inquired with the parties on certain aspects of the Exhibits A and B, attached to the parties stipulation, Dkt. No. 502, and the attached proposed order tendered to the court for approval and signing. Counsel agreed to the revisions suggested by the Court as discussed on the record. Counsel for Respondents indicated that he would make the revisions to the proposed order for protective order and forward same to the E−mail of assigned deputy clerk, Deb Taylor−Spears. Once the Court receives the revised proposed order as discussed on the record, it will review such and, if appropriate, sign and enter the proposed order. Court Recorder: RS−4 11−01−12. (ad) (Entered: 11/08/2012)
506 ORDER REGARDING PRODUCTION OF ASYLUM−RELATED INFORMATION by Magistrate Judge David T Bristow: Pursuant to the Stipulation Regarding Production of Asylum−Related Information and for good cause shown, it is hereby: ORDERED that Defendants produce the alien files and records of proceedings that Defendants were ordered to produce in the Courts September 20, 2012 Order, including asylum−related information in unredacted form, pursuant to a revised Protective Order; and it is further ORDERED that the Protective Order [ECF No. 367] shall be revised to permit the production of asylum−related information that is, in part, the subject of the Courts September 20, 2012 Order [ECF No. 481]. (am) (Entered: 11/02/2012)
507 PROTECTIVE ORDER FOR DISCOVERY by Magistrate Judge David T Bristow. (ad) (Entered: 11/02/2012)
509 NOTICE to Court Re Subclass Members filed by Plaintiffs Jose Chavez, Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez, Aleksandr Petrovich Khukhryanskiy, Ever Francisco Martinez−Rivas, Jose Antonio Moreno−Vasquez, Juan Carlos Sepulveda−Perez, Yonas Woldemariam, Maksim Zhalezny. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibits)(Arulanantham, Ahilan) (Entered: 11/20/2012)
510 NOTICE filed by Defendants Eric H. Holder, Jr, Trey Lund, John T. Morton, Janet Napolitano, Timothy S Robbins, Thomas G Snow. Defendants' Response to Plaintiffs' Notice (Dkt # 509) (Lawrence, Victor) (Entered: 11/21/2012)
511 EX PARTE APPLICATION to Continue Motions to Compel and Time to Respond to Defendants' Joint Stipulation filed by Plaintiffs Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Michael H. Steinberg, # 2 Exhibit A and B, # 3 Proposed Order Granting Ex Parte Application)(Steinberg, Michael) (Entered: 12/20/2012)
512 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Order for Amending Order Re Plaintiffs's Ex Parte Application for Notice, Dkt. 360 filed by Plaintiffs Jose Chavez, Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez, Aleksandr Petrovich Khukhryanskiy, Ever Francisco Martinez−Rivas, Jose Antonio Moreno−Vasquez, Juan Carlos Sepulveda−Perez, Yonas Woldemariam, Maksim Zhalezny. Motion set for hearing on 1/18/2013 at 09:30 AM before Judge Dolly M. Gee. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum, # 2 Exhibits 322−329, # 3 Proposed Order)(Arulanantham, Ahilan) (Entered: 12/20/2012)

12/21/2012 12/21/2012 12/21/2012 12/21/2012 12/21/2012 12/28/2012
01/07/2013 01/08/2013
01/11/2013 01/17/2013

513 NOTICE Defendants' Notice Re Discovery Motion As It Relates To Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment filed by defendants Eric H. Holder, Jr, Trey Lund, John T. Morton, Janet Napolitano, Timothy S Robbins, Thomas G Snow. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)(Lawrence, Victor) (Entered: 12/21/2012)
514 MEMORANDUM in Opposition to EX PARTE APPLICATION to Continue Motions to Compel and Time to Respond to Defendants' Joint Stipulation 511 filed by Respondents Eric H. Holder, Jr, Trey Lund, John T. Morton, Janet Napolitano, Timothy S Robbins, Thomas G Snow. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)(Lawrence, Victor) (Entered: 12/21/2012)
515 REQUEST for Leave to to File Declaration in Support of Ex Parte Application for Extension of Time to Respond to Defendants' Joint Statement and to Set a Briefing Schedule for Cross−Motions to Compel filed by Plaintiffs Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Michael H. Steinberg, # 2 Exhibit A, # 3 Exhibit B)(Steinberg, Michael) (Entered: 12/21/2012)
516 EX PARTE APPLICATION to Continue hearing from January 18, 2013 to February 1, 2013 Re: MOTION for Order for Amending Order Re Plaintiffs's Ex Parte Application for Notice, Dkt. 360 512 filed by defendants Eric H. Holder, Jr, Trey Lund, John T. Morton, Janet Napolitano, Timothy S Robbins, Thomas G Snow.(Lawrence, Victor) (Entered: 12/21/2012)
517 MINUTES OF IN CHAMBERS − ORDER RE DEFENDANTS' EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE PLAINTIFFS' PROPOSED HEARING SET FOR 1/18/2013 516 by Judge Dolly M. Gee: The hearing on Plaintiffs' Motion to Amend Order re Plaintiffs' Ex Parte Application for Notice 512 is continued to 2/1/2013 at 11:00 AM before Judge Dolly M. Gee. Defendants shall provide "next hearing date" information on 12/28/2012 and 1/11/2013 as described in the Application. Court Reporter: Not Reported. (gk) (Entered: 12/21/2012)
518 MINUTES OF Plaintiffs' 511 EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND TO DEFENDANTS JOINT STIPULATION IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL and TO SET A BRIEFING SCHEDULE FOR CROSS−MOTIONS TO COMPEL: (see document image for further details). Accordingly, plaintiffs Application is hereby GRANTED as modified. Plaintiffs Request for Leave to file Declaration in Support of Application 515 filed on December 21, 2012 is DENIED as moot. Court Recorder: RS−4 12−21−12. (ad) (Entered: 01/02/2013)
519 NOTICE of Change of Attorney Information for attorney Michael H Steinberg counsel for Petitioner Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez.Shawn J. Lichaa is no longer attorney of record for the aforementioned party in this case for the reason indicated in the G−06 Notice. Filed by Plaintiffs Shawn J. Lichaa (Steinberg, Michael) (Entered: 01/07/2013)
520 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Compel Production of Records filed by Defendants Eric H. Holder, Jr, John T. Morton, Janet Napolitano, Timothy S Robbins, Thomas G Snow. Motion set for hearing on 1/28/2013 at 10:00 AM before Magistrate Judge David T Bristow. (Attachments: # 1 Joint Stipulation, # 2 Declaration of Victor Lawrence, # 3 Exhibit A, # 4 Declaration of Michael Steinberg, # 5 Exhibit B, # 6 Exhibit C, # 7 Exhibit D, # 8 Exhibit E, # 9 Exhibit F, # 10 Exhibit G, # 11 Exhibit H, # 12 Exhibit I, # 13 Exhibit J, # 14 Exhibit K, # 15 Proposed Order)(Go, Samuel) (Entered: 01/08/2013)
521 Opposition re: MOTION for Order for Amending Order Re Plaintiffs's Ex Parte Application for Notice, Dkt. 360 512 filed by Respondents Eric H. Holder, Jr, Trey Lund, John T. Morton, Janet Napolitano, Timothy S Robbins, Thomas G Snow. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibits A−C)(Ihsanullah, Neelam) (Entered: 01/11/2013)
522 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Compel Production of Records filed by Plaintiffs Jose Chavez, Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez, Aleksandr Petrovich Khukhryanskiy, Ever Francisco Martinez−Rivas, Jose Antonio Moreno−Vasquez, Juan Carlos Sepulveda−Perez, Jonas Woldemariam, Yonas Woldemariam, Maksim Zhalezny. Motion set for hearing on 1/28/2013 at 10:00 AM before Magistrate Judge David T Bristow. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order Proposed Order Granting Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Proeduction of Records, # 2 Joint Stipulation re Dispute

01/18/2013 01/18/2013 01/18/2013 01/18/2013 01/18/2013
01/18/2013 01/22/2013 01/22/2013

Over Production of Records, # 3 Declaration Declaration of Michael H. Steinberg, # 4 Exhibit Exhibits A−Z, # 5 Exhibit Exhibits AA−FF, # 6 Declaration Declaration of Samuel P. Go, # 7 Exhibit Exhibits 1−8)(Steinberg, Michael) (Entered: 01/17/2013)
523 NOTICE of Manual Filing filed by Petitioner Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez of Ex Parte Application to File Under Seal Exhibits to Declaration of Michael Steinberg in Support of Plaintiffs' Portion of Joint Stipulation Regarding Dispute Over Production of Records and [Proposed] Order. (Steinberg, Michael) (Entered: 01/18/2013)
524 NOTICE of Manual Filing filed by Petitioners Jose Chavez, Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez, Aleksandr Petrovich Khukhryanskiy, Ever Francisco Martinez−Rivas, Jose Antonio Moreno−Vasquez, Juan Carlos Sepulveda−Perez, Jonas Woldemariam, Maksim Zhalezny of Ex Parte Application for Under Seal Filing, Second Declaration of Carmen Iguina, Exhibits 350−370. (Iguina, Carmen) (Entered: 01/18/2013)
525 NOTICE of Manual Filing filed by Petitioners Jose Chavez, Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez, Aleksandr Petrovich Khukhryanskiy, Ever Francisco Martinez−Rivas, Jose Antonio Moreno−Vasquez, Juan Carlos Sepulveda−Perez, Yonas Woldemariam, Maksim Zhalezny of Ex Parte Application for Under Seal Filing, Second Declaration of Carmen Iguina, Exhibits 350−370, Proposed Order. (Iguina, Carmen) (Entered: 01/18/2013)
526 REPLY in Support of MOTION for Order for Amending Order Re Plaintiffs's Ex Parte Application for Notice, Dkt. 360 512 filed by Petitioners Jose Chavez, Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez, Aleksandr Petrovich Khukhryanskiy, Ever Francisco Martinez−Rivas, Jose Antonio Moreno−Vasquez, Juan Carlos Sepulveda−Perez, Yonas Woldemariam, Maksim Zhalezny. (Arulanantham, Ahilan) (Entered: 01/18/2013)
527 SEALED DOCUMENT− NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Preliminary Injunction re To Protect Seven Subclass 1 and Subclass 2 Members.. If this is filed during normal business hours, please contact the courtroom deputy assigned to the judge. If you are filing this document after 5:00 Monday through Friday, on a weekend or holiday, and need immediate judicial review, please call 213−894−2485 to advise that a Preliminary Injunction has been electronically filed. Failure to call the courtroom deputy, or the after hours filing contact number, may result in a delay of judicial review. Motion filed by Plaintiffs Jose Chavez, Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez, Aleksandr Petrovich Khukhryanskiy, Ever Francisco Martinez−Rivas, Jose Antonio Moreno−Vasquez, Juan Carlos Sepulveda−Perez, Jonas Woldemariam, Yonas Woldemariam, Maksim Zhalezny. Motion set for hearing on 3/1/2013 at 09:30 AM before Judge Dolly M. Gee. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for a Preliminary Injunction, # 2 Memorandum in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for a Preliminary Injunction, # 3 Declaration of Carmen Iguina, # 4 Exhibits 316−17, 319−20, 330−49, 371−81)(Arulanantham, Ahilan) Modified on 1/25/2013 (mat). (Entered: 01/18/2013)
535 EX PARTE APPLICATION to File Second Declaration of Carmen Iguina and Attached Exhibits in Support of Plaintiffs' Reply in Support of Motion to Amend Order re Plaintiffs' Ex Parte Application for Notice, Under Seal filed by Plaintiffs−Petitioners Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez, Jose Chavez, Aleksandr Petrovich Khukhryanskiy, Ever Francisco Martinez−Rivas, Jose Antonio Moreno−Vasquez, Juan Carlos Sepulveda−Perez, Yonas Woldemariam, Maksim Zhalezny. Lodged Proposed Order.(gk) (Entered: 01/23/2013)
528 NOTICE of Manual Filing filed by Petitioner Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez of Plaintiffs' Ex Parte Application to File Under Seal Exhibits 334, 336−39, 341−49, 371−81 and to Seal [Proposed] Order Granting Preliminary Injunction; Exhibits 334, 336−39, 341−49, 371−81; Exhibit A to Plaintiffs' Ex Parte Application; [Proposed] Order Granting Plaintiffs' Ex Parte Application. (Steinberg, Michael) (Entered: 01/22/2013)
529 NOTICE of Errata Re Second Declaration of Carmen Iguina filed by Plaintiffs Jose Chavez, Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez, Aleksandr Petrovich Khukhryanskiy, Ever Francisco Martinez−Rivas, Jose Antonio Moreno−Vasquez, Juan Carlos Sepulveda−Perez, Yonas Woldemariam, Maksim Zhalezny. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration)(Iguina, Carmen) (Entered: 01/22/2013)

01/22/2013 01/22/2013 01/22/2013
01/22/2013 01/22/2013 01/22/2013 01/22/2013 01/22/2013 01/22/2013
01/23/2013 01/23/2013

530 MEMORANDUM in Opposition to MOTION to Compel Production of Records 522 filed by Respondents Eric H. Holder, Jr, John T. Morton, Janet Napolitano, Timothy S Robbins, Thomas G Snow. (Go, Samuel) (Entered: 01/22/2013)
531 MEMORANDUM in Support of MOTION to Compel Production of Records 520 filed by Respondents Eric H. Holder, Jr, John T. Morton, Janet Napolitano, Timothy S Robbins, Thomas G Snow. (Go, Samuel) (Entered: 01/22/2013)
532 MEMORANDUM in Support of MOTION to Compel Production of Records 522 filed by Petitioners Jose Chavez, Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez, Aleksandr Petrovich Khukhryanskiy, Ever Francisco Martinez−Rivas, Jose Antonio Moreno−Vasquez, Juan Carlos Sepulveda−Perez, Jonas Woldemariam, Yonas Woldemariam, Maksim Zhalezny. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Carmen Iguina, # 2 Exhibits A−D, # 3 Declaration of Aaron Cornell, # 4 Exhibits E−H, # 5 Declaration of Ahilan Arulanantham)(Steinberg, Michael) (Entered: 01/22/2013)
533 MEMORANDUM in Opposition to MOTION to Compel Production of Records 520 filed by Petitioners Jose Chavez, Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez, Aleksandr Petrovich Khukhryanskiy, Ever Francisco Martinez−Rivas, Jose Antonio Moreno−Vasquez, Juan Carlos Sepulveda−Perez, Jonas Woldemariam, Yonas Woldemariam, Maksim Zhalezny. (Steinberg, Michael) (Entered: 01/22/2013)
534 MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER by Magistrate Judge David T. Bristow: The Court is in receipt of defendants/respondents Motion to Compel Production of Records 520 and plaintiffs Motion to Compel Production of Records 522 . On the Courts own motion, the Court hereby VACATES the hearings set for January 28, 2013. At a later date, the Court will coordinate with counsel in rescheduling the hearings on the Motions to Compel. (ad) (Entered: 01/23/2013)
537 SEALED DOCUMENT: EXPARTE APPLICATION TO FILE UNDER SEAL EXHIBITS TO DECLARATION OF MICHAEL STEINBERG IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS' PORTION OF JOINT STIPULATION REGARDING DISPUTE OVER PRODUCTION OF RECORDS (am) (Entered: 01/24/2013)
538 SEALED DOCUMENT: ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF ' EX PARTE APPLICATION TO FILE UNDERSEAL EXHIBITS TO DECLARATION OF MICHAEL STEINBERG IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS' PORTION OF JOINT STIPULATION REGARDING DISPUTE OVER PRODUCTION OF RECORDS by Magistrate Judge David T. Bristow 537 (am) (Entered: 01/24/2013)
539 SEALED DOCUMENT: EXHIBITS O−V, Z, BB, AND DD TO DECLARATION OF MICHAEL STEINBERG IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS' PORTION OF JOINT STIPULATION REGARDING DISPUTE OVER PRODUCTION OF RECORDS Filed (am) (Entered: 01/24/2013)
540 EX PARTE APPLICATION to File Under Seal Exhibits to Declaration of Carmen Iguina in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction to Protect Seven Subclass One and Subclass Two Members and to File Under Seal Proposed Order Granting Plaintiffs' Motion filed by Plaintiffs−Petitioners Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez, Jose Chavez, Aleksandr Petrovich Khukhryanskiy, Ever Francisco Martinez−Rivas, Jose Antonio Moreno−Vasquez, Juan Carlos Sepulveda−Perez, Yonas Woldemariam, Maksim Zhalezny. Lodged Proposed Order.(gk) (Entered: 01/24/2013)
536 NOTICE of Manual Filing of Plaintiffs' Ex Parte Application to File Under Seal Exhibit D to Declaration of Carmen Iguina in Support of the Supplemental Memorandum in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel, DKT #532−1 and [Proposed] Order filed by Petitioner Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez. (Steinberg, Michael) (Entered: 01/23/2013)
541 ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS'EX PARTE APPLICATION TO FILE SECOND DECLARATION OF CARMEN IGUINA AND ATTACHED EXHIBITS IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS' REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO AMEND ORDER RE PLAINTIFFS' EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR NOTICE, UNDER SEAL by Judge Dolly M. Gee: Plaintiffs' Ex Parte Application for under seal filing 535 is GRANTED. Exhibits 350−370 are hereby sealed. (gk) (Entered: 01/24/2013)

01/23/2013 01/24/2013
01/24/2013 01/24/2013 01/24/2013 01/24/2013 01/25/2013 01/30/2013 02/07/2013 02/07/2013
02/11/2013

544 SEALED DOCUMENT− SECOND DECLARATION of Carmen Iguina. (Attachments: Part 2, Part 3)(mat) (Entered: 01/28/2013)
542 ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS' EX PARTE APPLICATION TO FILE UNDER SEAL CERTAIN EXHIBITS TO DECLARATION OF CARMEN IGUINA OF 1/18/2013 AND TO SEAL PROPOSED ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION by Judge Dolly M. Gee: Plaintiffs' Ex Parte Application to File Under Seal Exhibits to Declaration of Carmen Iguina in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction to Protect Seven Subclass One and Subclass Two Members and to File Under Seal Proposed Order Granting Plaintiffs' Motion for a Preliminary Injunction 540 is hereby GRANTED and Exhibits 334, 336−39, 341−49, 371−81 to the Declaration and the Proposed Order are hereby sealed. It is further ORDERED that the unredacted version of the Proposed Order Granting Plaintiffs' Motion for a Preliminary Injunction filed on 1/18/2013 be sealed the public redacted version submitted by Plaintiffs with their Ex Parte Application to Seal shall be filed. (gk) (Entered: 01/25/2013)
545 SEALED DOCUMENT: EXPARTE APPLICATION TO SEAL EXHIBIT D TO DECLARATION OF CARENIGUIA ISO THE SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM ISO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO COMPEL(am) (Entered: 01/28/2013)
546 SEALED DOCUMENT: ORDER by Magistrate Judge David T. Bristow: granting 545 EXPARTE APPLICATION TO SEAL EXHIBIT D TO DECLARATION OF CARMEN IGUIA ISO THE SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM ISO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO COMPEL (am) (Entered: 01/28/2013)
547 SEALED DOCUMENT: EXHIBIT EXHIBIT D TO DECLARATION OF CARMEN IGUINA ISO THE SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM ISO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO COMPEL 522 (am) (Entered: 01/28/2013)
548 SEALED DOCUMENT− EXHIBITS 334, 336−339, 341−349, 371−381 to the Declaration of Carmen Iguina in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for a Preliminary Injunction to Protect Seven Subclass One and Subclass two Members. (Attachments: Part 2, Part 3)(mat) (Entered: 01/30/2013)
543 SCHEDULING NOTICE by Judge Dolly M. Gee re: MOTION for Order for Amending Order Re Plaintiffs's Ex Parte Application for Notice, Dkt. 360 512 previously scheduled for 2/1/13 at 11:00 AM has been rescheduled. Motion now set for hearing on 2/1/2013 at 9:30 AM.THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY.(im) TEXT ONLY ENTRY (Entered: 01/25/2013)
549 SCHEDULING NOTICE by Judge Dolly M. Gee − motion to amend order 512 previously scheduled for 2/1/13 9:30 a.m. has been taken under submission. Hearing is vacated.THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY.(im) TEXT ONLY ENTRY (Entered: 01/30/2013)
550 MINUTES OF IN CHAMBERS − ORDER RE PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO AMEND ORDER RE PLAINTIFFS' EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR NOTICE by Judge Dolly M. Gee: Plaintiffs' Motion to Amend Order Re Plaintiffs' Ex Parte Application for Notice 512 is hereby DENIED. Court Reporter: Not Reported. (gk) (Entered: 02/07/2013)
551 Joint STIPULATION for Extension of Time to File RESPONSE as to MOTION for Preliminary Injunction re To Protect Seven Subclass 1 and Subclass 2 Members.. If this is filed during normal business hours, please contact the courtroom deputy assigned to the judge. If you are filing this document after 5:00 Monday thro 527 , Joint STIPULATION for Hearing re MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION TO PROTECT SEVEN SUBCLASS ONE AND SUBCLASS TWO MEMBERS filed by Plaintiffs Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Steinberg, Michael) (Entered: 02/07/2013)
552 ORDER GRANTING STIPULATION TO EXTEND BRIEFING SCHEDULE AND HEARING DATE ON PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO PROTECT SEVEN SUBCLASS ONE AND SUBCLASS TWO MEMBERS by Judge Dolly M. Gee 551 . Defendants shall file their response to Plaintiffs motion on or before February 13, 2013. Plaintiffs shall file any reply in support of their motion on or before March 1, 2013. Plaintiffs

02/12/2013 02/13/2013 03/01/2013
03/04/2013 03/04/2013 03/05/2013 03/06/2013 03/06/2013 03/06/2013

motion shall be heard on March 15, 2013 at 2:00 p.m. (im) (Entered: 02/11/2013)
553 TRANSCRIPT ORDER as to Plaintiffs Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez Court Reporter. Court will contact Antonia Stamenova−Dancheva at stamenovaa@sullcrom.com with any questions regarding this order. Transcript portion requested: Other: November 30, 2010 Telephonic Status Conference. Transcript preparation will not begin until payment has been satisfied with the court reporter/recorder. (Stamenova−Dancheva, Antonia) (Entered: 02/12/2013)
554 Opposition re: MOTION for Preliminary Injunction re To Protect Seven Subclass 1 and Subclass 2 Members.. If this is filed during normal business hours, please contact the courtroom deputy assigned to the judge. If you are filing this document after 5:00 Monday thro 527 filed by Respondents Eric H. Holder, Jr, Trey Lund, John T. Morton, Janet Napolitano, Timothy S Robbins, Thomas G Snow. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibits 1−5, # 2 Exhibits 6−9, # 3 Exhibits 10−15, # 4 Exhibits 15−22)(Ihsanullah, Neelam) (Entered: 02/13/2013)
555 REPLY in Support of MOTION for Preliminary Injunction re To Protect Seven Subclass 1 and Subclass 2 Members.. If this is filed during normal business hours, please contact the courtroom deputy assigned to the judge. If you are filing this document after 5:00 Monday thro 527 filed by Petitioners Jose Chavez, Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez, Aleksandr Petrovich Khukhryanskiy, Ever Francisco Martinez−Rivas, Jose Antonio Moreno−Vasquez, Juan Carlos Sepulveda−Perez, Yonas Woldemariam, Maksim Zhalezny. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Carmen Iguina, Exhibits, # 2 Declaration of Ahilan Arulanantham, # 3 Declaration of Talia Inlender)(Arulanantham, Ahilan) (Entered: 03/01/2013)
556 NOTICE of Manual Filing filed by Petitioner Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez of EXHIBITS TO DECLARATION OF CARMEN IGUINA OF MARCH 1, 2013; EXHIBITS 384−90, 392−95, 397 AND 399. (Steinberg, Michael) (Entered: 03/04/2013)
557 NOTICE of Manual Filing filed by Petitioner Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez of NOTICE of Manual Filing filed by Petitioner Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez of EX PARTE APPLICATION TO FILE UNDER SEAL EXHIBITS TO DECLARATION OF CARMEN IGUINA; [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS' EX PARTE APPLICATION. (Steinberg, Michael) (Entered: 03/04/2013)
558 EX PARTE APPLICATION to File Under Seal Exhibits to Declaration of Carmen Iguina of 3/1/2013 in Further Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction to Protect Seven Subclass One and Subclass Two Members filed by Plaintiffs−Petitioners Jose Antonio Moreno−Vasquez, Jose Chavez, Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez, Aleksandr Petrovich Khukhryanskiy, Ever Francisco Martinez−Rivas, Juan Carlos Sepulveda−Perez, Yonas Woldemariam, Maksim Zhalezny. (gk) (Entered: 03/06/2013)
559 NOTICE of Administrative Decisions re: Vasily Zotov filed by Defendants Eric H. Holder, Jr, Trey Lund, John T. Morton, Janet Napolitano, Timothy S Robbins, Thomas G Snow. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibits A−C)(Ihsanullah, Neelam) (Entered: 03/06/2013)
560 NOTICE of Manual Filing filed by Respondents Eric H. Holder, Jr, Trey Lund, John T. Morton, Janet Napolitano, Timothy S Robbins, Thomas G Snow of Ex Parte Application to File Exhibit A in Support of Defendants' Notice of Administrative Decisions re: Vasily Zotov under Seal; Proposed Order; and Exhibit A in Support of Defendants' Notice of Administrative Decisions re: Vasily Zotov. (Ihsanullah, Neelam) (Entered: 03/06/2013)
561 ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS' EX PARTE APPLICATION TO FILE UNDER SEAL CERTAIN EXHIBITS TO DECLARATION OF CARMEN IGUINA OF 3/1/2013 by Judge Dolly M. Gee: Plaintiffs' Ex Parte Application to File Under Seal Exhibits to Declaration of Carmen Iguina of 3/1/2013 in Further Support of Motion for Preliminary Injunction to Protect Seven Subclass One and Subclass Two Members 558 is hereby GRANTED and Exhibits 384−90, 392−95, 397 and 399 to the Declaration are hereby sealed. (gk) (Entered: 03/07/2013)

03/06/2013 03/06/2013
03/08/2013 03/08/2013 03/13/2013 03/13/2013 03/21/2013 03/22/2013
03/29/2013 04/03/2013
04/03/2013

562 SEALED DOCUMENT− EXPARTE APPLICATION to File Exhibit A in Support of Defendants' Notice of Administrative Decisions Re: Vasily Zotov Under Seal; Declaration; and [Proposed] Order. (mat) (Entered: 03/08/2013)
565 SEALED DOCUMENT − EXHIBITS 384−90, 392−95, 397 AND 399 to the Declaration of Carmen Iguina of March 1, 2013 in Further Support of Plaintiffs Motion for a Preliminary Injunction to Protest Seven Subclass One and Subclass Two Members. (FILED CONDITIONALLY UNDER SEAL) (PURSUANT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER DATED 11/2/2013, DKT #507). (Attachments: # 1 Part 2, # 2 Part 3, # 3 Part 4). (jp) (Entered: 03/11/2013)
563 SEALED DOCUMENT − ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' EXPARTE APPLICATION to File Exhibit A in Support of Defendants' Notice of Administrative Decisions Re: Vasily Zotov Under Seal. (jp) (Entered: 03/11/2013)
564 SEALED DOCUMENT − EXHIBIT A IN SUPPORT OF NOTICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS RE: VASILY ZOTOV. (jp) (Entered: 03/11/2013)
566 RESPONSE filed by Petitioners Jose Chavez, Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez, Aleksandr Petrovich Khukhryanskiy, Ever Francisco Martinez−Rivas, Jose Antonio Moreno−Vasquez, Juan Carlos Sepulveda−Perez, Yonas Woldemariam, Maksim Zhaleznyto Notice (Other) 559 (Arulanantham, Ahilan) (Entered: 03/13/2013)
567 SCHEDULING NOTICE by Judge Dolly M. Gee re: On the Court's own motion, Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction 527 previously scheduled for 3/15/2013 at 2:00 PM has been CONTINUED to 3/22/2013 at 2:00 PM. PLEASE NOTE THE NEW DATE. THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY.(ms) TEXT ONLY ENTRY (Entered: 03/13/2013)
568 NOTICE PLAINTIFFS NOTICE RE: RELEASE OF VASILY ZOTOV filed by Plaintiff Jose Chavez, Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez, Aleksandr Petrovich Khukhryanskiy, Ever Francisco Martinez−Rivas, Jose Antonio Moreno−Vasquez, Juan Carlos Sepulveda−Perez, Jonas Woldemariam, Yonas Woldemariam, Maksim Zhalezny. (Arulanantham, Ahilan) (Entered: 03/21/2013)
569 MINUTES OF Motion Hearing held before Judge Dolly M. Gee: The Court invites counsel to respond to the tentative ruling. Following oral argument, respondents may file a supplemental brief by 4/8/2013. Petitioners may file a supplemental reply brief by no later than 4/15/2013. The parties briefs shall not exceed 15 pages in length. Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction to Protect Seven Subclass One and Subclass Two Members 527 shall stand submitted upon the filing of the parties supplemental briefs. Court Reporter: Anne Kielwasser. (gk) (Entered: 03/26/2013)
570 SCHEDULING NOTICE IN CHAMBERS by Magistrate Judge David T. Bristow Telephone Conference RE: PENDING DISCOVERY MOTIONS set for 4/3/2013 11:00 AM before Magistrate Judge David T. Bristow. THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY.(dts) TEXT ONLY ENTRY (Entered: 03/29/2013)
571 TRANSCRIPT ORDER re: Text Only Scheduling Notice, 570 , as to Plaintiffs Jose Chavez, Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez, Aleksandr Petrovich Khukhryanskiy, Ever Francisco Martinez−Rivas, Jose Antonio Moreno−Vasquez, Juan Carlos Sepulveda−Perez, Jonas Woldemariam, Yonas Woldemariam, Maksim Zhalezny Court Smart (CS). Court will contact Jodi Carr at carrjo@sullcrom.com with any questions regarding this order. Transcript portion requested: Other: 04/03/13. Transcript preparation will not begin until payment has been satisfied with the court reporter/recorder. (Steinberg, Michael) (Entered: 04/03/2013)
578 PROCEEDINGS: TELEPHONIC CONFERENCE RE: (1) PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF RECORDS; AND (2) DEFENDANTS MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF RECORDS held before Magistrate Judge David T. Bristow. A telephonic conference was held as previously scheduled. Attorneys Michael H. Steinberg, Carmen Iguina and Michael Murtagh appeared on behalf of plaintiffs. Assistant United States Attorney Victor Lawrence appeared on behalf of the government. The Court and counsel discussed the status of the case. The Court ordered supplemental briefing to the parties pending Motions to Compel as follows: Plaintiffs and defendants shall simultaneously tender their briefs (if any) regarding the remaining discovery issues to opposing counsel no later than April 8, 2013, and

04/04/2013
04/04/2013 04/05/2013
04/05/2013
04/05/2013 04/08/2013 04/15/2013 04/15/2013 04/16/2013 04/16/2013

opposing portions shall be returned in the joint stipulation no later than April 15, 2013. Thereafter, the joint stipulations shall be filed no later than April 16, 2013. The Court will thereafter issue its ruling without further argument, unless otherwise noted. Court Recorder: RS−4 04−03−13. (adu) (Entered: 04/11/2013)
572 TRANSCRIPT for proceedings held on 4/3/13 11:02 A.M.. Court Reporter/Electronic Court Recorder: Babykin Courthouse Services, phone number (626) 963−0566. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Electronic Court Recorder before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Notice of Intent to Redact due within 7 days of this date. Redaction Request due 4/25/2013. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 5/5/2013. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 7/3/2013. (mo) (Entered: 04/04/2013)
573 NOTICE OF FILING TRANSCRIPT filed for proceedings 4/3/13 11:02 A.M. re Transcript 572 THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY.(mo) TEXT ONLY ENTRY (Entered: 04/04/2013)
574 JOINT REPORT of REGARDING REDACTIONS TO TENTATIVE RULING RE PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION ON BEHALF OF SEVEN CLASS MEMBERS filed by Petitioners Jose Chavez, Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez, Aleksandr Petrovich Khukhryanskiy, Ever Francisco Martinez−Rivas, Jose Antonio Moreno−Vasquez, Juan Carlos Sepulveda−Perez, Jonas Woldemariam, Yonas Woldemariam, Maksim Zhalezny. (Arulanantham, Ahilan) (Entered: 04/05/2013)
575 TRANSCRIPT for proceedings held on 03/22/13 @ 2p.m.. Court Reporter/Electronic Court Recorder: Anne Kielwasser, phone number 213/894−2969. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Electronic Court Recorder before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Notice of Intent to Redact due within 7 days of this date. Redaction Request due 4/26/2013. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 5/6/2013. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 7/4/2013. (Kielwasser, Anne) (Entered: 04/05/2013)
576 NOTICE OF FILING TRANSCRIPT filed for proceedings 03/22/13 @ 2pm re Transcript 575 THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY.(Kielwasser, Anne) TEXT ONLY ENTRY (Entered: 04/05/2013)
577 SUPPLEMENT to Order on Motion for Preliminary Injunction, Motion Hearing,,,, 569 filed by Respondents Eric H. Holder, Jr, Trey Lund, John T. Morton, Janet Napolitano, Timothy S Robbins, Thomas G Snow. (Lawrence, Victor) (Entered: 04/08/2013)
579 RESPONSE filed by Petitioners Jose Chavez, Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez, Aleksandr Petrovich Khukhryanskiy, Ever Francisco Martinez−Rivas, Jose Antonio Moreno−Vasquez, Juan Carlos Sepulveda−Perez, Yonas Woldemariam, Maksim Zhaleznyto Supplement (non−motion) 577 (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Proposed Judgment)(Arulanantham, Ahilan) (Entered: 04/15/2013)
580 STIPULATION to Stay Case filed by Plaintiffs Jose Chavez, Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez, Aleksandr Petrovich Khukhryanskiy, Ever Francisco Martinez−Rivas, Jose Antonio Moreno−Vasquez, Juan Carlos Sepulveda−Perez, Jonas Woldemariam, Maksim Zhalezny. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Arulanantham, Ahilan) (Entered: 04/15/2013)
581 JOINT STIPULATION to MOTION to Compel Production of Records 520 (Supplemental) filed by Respondents Eric H. Holder, Jr, John T. Morton, Janet Napolitano, Timothy S Robbins, Thomas G Snow. (Go, Samuel) (Entered: 04/16/2013)
582 ORDER GRANTING Five−Day Stay of Proceedings 580 by Judge Dolly M. Gee that For a period of five days (from April 15, 2013 until April 20, 2013), neither side shall file any motions, or serve any discovery, to allow the parties to engage in settlement negotiations. Nothing in the Stay shall preclude Plaintiffs from filing their brief relating to the tentative decision. (See attached Order for further details). (jp)

04/22/2013 04/22/2013 04/22/2013 04/22/2013 04/22/2013
04/22/2013 04/23/2013 04/23/2013 04/23/2013

(Entered: 04/16/2013)
583 NOTICE Notice of Defendants' New Nationwide Policy for Unrepresented Immigration Detainees with Serious Mental Disorders or Conditions filed by defendants Eric H. Holder, Jr, Trey Lund, John T. Morton, Janet Napolitano, Timothy S Robbins, Thomas G Snow. (Lawrence, Victor) (Entered: 04/22/2013)
584 NOTICE − PLAINTIFFS' NOTICE OF SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITY IN CONNECTION WITH THE COURT'S TENTATIVE DECISION GRANTING PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT filed by Plaintiffs Jose Chavez, Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez, Aleksandr Petrovich Khukhryanskiy, Ever Francisco Martinez−Rivas, Jose Antonio Moreno−Vasquez, Juan Carlos Sepulveda−Perez, Jonas Woldemariam, Yonas Woldemariam, Maksim Zhalezny. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Steinberg, Michael) (Entered: 04/22/2013)
585 RESPONSE filed by Petitioners Jose Chavez, Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez, Aleksandr Petrovich Khukhryanskiy, Ever Francisco Martinez−Rivas, Jose Antonio Moreno−Vasquez, Juan Carlos Sepulveda−Perez, Jonas Woldemariam, Yonas Woldemariam, Maksim Zhaleznyto Notice (Other), 583 PLAINTIFFS RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS NOTICE OF NEW NATIONWIDE POLICY FOR UNREPRESENTED IMMIGRATION DETAINEES WITH SERIOUS MENTAL DISORDERS OR CONDITIONS (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Steinberg, Michael) (Entered: 04/22/2013)
586 REQUEST to Unseal Document Plaintiffs' Request to Unseal Tentative Ruling of March 22, 2013 filed by Plaintiffs' Jose Chavez, Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez, Aleksandr Petrovich Khukhryanskiy, Ever Francisco Martinez−Rivas, Jose Antonio Moreno−Vasquez, Juan Carlos Sepulveda−Perez, Jonas Woldemariam, Yonas Woldemariam, Maksim Zhalezny. (Steinberg, Michael) (Entered: 04/22/2013)
587 JOINT STIPULATION to MOTION to Compel Production of Records 522 (SUPPLEMENTAL) filed by Petitioners Jose Chavez, Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez, Aleksandr Petrovich Khukhryanskiy, Ever Francisco Martinez−Rivas, Jose Antonio Moreno−Vasquez, Juan Carlos Sepulveda−Perez, Jonas Woldemariam, Yonas Woldemariam, Maksim Zhalezny. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Carmen G. Iguina of April 9, 2013, # 2 Exhibit − Iguina Exhibits A−R, # 3 Declaration of Michael H. Steinberg ISO Plaintiffs' Supplemental Joint Stipulation, # 4 Exhibit − Steinberg Exhibits S−X, # 5 Exhibit − Defendants' Exhibits 1−11)(Steinberg, Michael) (Entered: 04/22/2013)
588 NOTICE OF ERRATA filed by Petitioners Jose Chavez, Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez, Aleksandr Petrovich Khukhryanskiy, Ever Francisco Martinez−Rivas, Jose Antonio Moreno−Vasquez, Juan Carlos Sepulveda−Perez, Jonas Woldemariam, Yonas Woldemariam, Maksim Zhalezny. correcting REQUEST to Unseal Document Plaintiffs' Request to Unseal Tentative Ruling of March 22, 2013 586 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − Plaintiffs' Request to Unseal Tentative Ruling of March 22, 2013)(Steinberg, Michael) (Entered: 04/22/2013)
589 First NOTICE of Manual Filing filed by Petitioners Jose Chavez, Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez, Aleksandr Petrovich Khukhryanskiy, Ever Francisco Martinez−Rivas, Jose Antonio Moreno−Vasquez, Juan Carlos Sepulveda−Perez, Jonas Woldemariam, Yonas Woldemariam, Maksim Zhalezny of Ex Parte Application to File Under Seal Exhibits to Declaration of Carmen Iguina of 4/9/13 and Defendants' Exhibits to Supplemental Joint Stipulation; [Proposed] Order Granting Ex Parte Application to Seal. (Steinberg, Michael) (Entered: 04/23/2013)
590 Second NOTICE of Manual Filing filed by Petitioners Jose Chavez, Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez, Aleksandr Petrovich Khukhryanskiy, Ever Francisco Martinez−Rivas, Jose Antonio Moreno−Vasquez, Juan Carlos Sepulveda−Perez, Jonas Woldemariam, Yonas Woldemariam, Maksim Zhalezny of Exhibits A, F, G, H, J, L−P and R to the Declaration of Carmen Iguina; Defendants' Exhibits 5, and 7−10 to Supplemental Joint Stipulation. (Steinberg, Michael) (Entered: 04/23/2013)
591 SUPPLEMENT to Parties' Joint Stipulation Regarding Dispute Over Production of Records (Dkt # 587) filed by Respondents Eric H. Holder, Jr, Trey Lund, John T. Morton, Janet Napolitano, Timothy S Robbins, Thomas G Snow. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration)(Lawrence, Victor) (Entered: 04/23/2013)

04/23/2013
04/23/2013
04/23/2013 04/24/2013 04/25/2013 04/25/2013 04/25/2013

592 ORDER RE PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION ON BEHALF OF SEVEN CLASS MEMBERS by Judge Dolly M. Gee: The Court GRANTS Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment 398 on the grounds that (1) Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act requires Defendants to provide Qualified Representatives to represent Sub−Class One members in all aspects of their removal and detention proceedings ("Count Four"), and (2) the INA requires the provision of a custody redetermination hearing for individuals in Sub−Class Two who have been detained for a prolonged period of time greater than 180 days ("Count Eight"). Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment 398 is DENIED in all other respects. Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction 527 is DENIED as moot. In addition, Plaintiffs' Request to Unseal the Court's Tentative Order 586 is DENIED because the "tentative" ruling, by its very nature, was never filed, either under seal or otherwise. The Court finds that there is no just reason for delay and therefore enters judgment for Plaintiffs as to Counts Four and Eight. Accordingly, the Court orders that judgment be entered and a permanent injunction shall issue in accordance with this Order. A Judgment and Permanent Injunction is filed concurrently herewith. (gk) (Entered: 04/23/2013)
593 PARTIAL JUDGMENT AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION by Judge Dolly M. Gee: The Court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment 398 . The Court orders the following: (1) Judgment is entered in favor of Plaintiffs Martinez, Khukhryanhskiy, Chavez, Zhalezny, and other members of Sub−Class One, and against Defendants, on Count Four. Judgment is entered in favor of Plaintiffs Martinez, Khukhryanskiy, Zhalezny, Sepulveda, and other members of Sub−Class Two, on Count Eight; (2) The Court hereby declares that Defendants have violated Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act by failing to provide Sub−Class One members with a reasonable accommodation, i.e., a Qualified Representative in all aspects of their immigration proceedings; (3) The Court further declares that Defendants have violated the Immigration and Nationality Act by failing to provide Sub−Class Two members with a bond hearing after a presumptively reasonable period of 180 days in detention at which the Government bears the burden of justifying continued detention by clear and convincing evidence. See document for details re Permanent Injunction. Within 45 days of this Order and Judgment, Defendants shall submit to the Court a plan and status report describing the steps taken to implement this Order and Judgment and future plans for implementation. (gk) (Entered: 04/23/2013)
594 Notice of Electronic Filing re Judgment, Permanent Injunction,,,,,,,,,, 593 e−mailed to lichaas@sullcrom.com bounced due to 550 5.7.110 The intended recipient is no longer with the Firm.. Primary e−mail address corrected. Notice of Electronic Filing resent addressed to lichaas@fenwick.com. Pursuant to the General Order and Local Rules it is the attorneys obligation to maintain all personal contact information including e−mail address in the CM/ECF system. THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY.(tyw) TEXT ONLY ENTRY (Entered: 04/23/2013)
595 REQUEST for Order for RE: PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST TO FILE DECLARATION OF AARON CORNELL TO REFUTE DECLARATION OF VICTOR LAWRENCE REGARDING DISPUTE OVER PRODUCTION OF RECORDS filed by Plaintiff Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Declaration)(Steinberg, Michael) (Entered: 04/24/2013)
598 SEALED DOCUMENT: EXPARTE APPLICATION TO FILE UNDER SEAL EXHIBITS TO DECLARATION OF CARMEN IGUINA OF APRIL 9, 2013 AND DEFENDANTS EXHIBITS TO SUPPLEMENTAL JOINT STIPULATION(am) (Entered: 05/02/2013)
599 SEALED DOCUMENT: ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS EX PARTE APPLICATION TO FILE UNDER SEAL EXHIBITS TO DECLARATION OF CARMEN IGUINA OF APRIL 9, 2013 AND DEFENDANTS EXHIBITS TO SUPPLEMENTAL JOINT STIPULATION by Magistrate Judge David T. Bristow 598 (am) (Entered: 05/02/2013)
600 SEALED DOCUMENT: EXHIBIT 5, AND 7−10 TO SUPPLEMENTAL JOINT STIPULATION (Attachments: # 1 Part 2, # 2 Part 3)(am) (Entered: 05/02/2013)

04/25/2013 04/29/2013
05/01/2013 05/02/2013 05/03/2013 05/03/2013 05/13/2013

601 SEALED DOCUMENT: EXHIBIT A F, G, H, J L−P AND R TO THE DECLARATION OF CARMEN IGUINA OF APRIL 9, 2013 IN FURTHER SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO COMPEL (Attachments: # 1 Part 2, # 2 Part 3)(am) (Entered: 05/02/2013)
596 MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS): ORDER by Magistrate Judge David T. Bristow: Currently pending before the Court is plaintiffs Motion to Compel Production of Records (Motion) filed on January 17, 2013. At the telephonic status conference held on April 3, 2013, the Court ordered the parties to file one Supplemental Joint Stipulation regarding this discovery dispute. The Court expressly stated that each party was limited to ten pages each. Nevertheless, the parties agreed, without the Courts approval, to extend the deadline for filing the Supplemental Joint Stipulation and permit plaintiffs to file an extra 1.5 pages of briefing. As the Court previously advised, if any partys briefing exceeded the 10−page limit, the Court would strike the entirety of that partys portion of the Supplemental Joint Stipulation. Although the Court declines to strike plaintiffs portion of the Supplemental Joint Stipulation, the Court will strike plaintiffs portion of the brief beyond the 10 page limit and it will not be considered for purposes of the Motion. Additionally, the parties stipulated, again without Court approval, to permit defendants to file a response to the Supplemental Joint Stipulation to address a new claim regarding defendants document production (Supplement). [Dkt. # 591.] As the Supplement and supporting declaration were also filed without the Courts approval, these documents are likewise stricken and will not be considered in deciding the Motion. Finally, plaintiffs Request to File Declaration of Aaron Cornell to Refute Declaration of Victor Lawrence Regarding Dispute over Production of Records [Dkt. # 595] is DENIED as moot, since defendants Supplement has been stricken. 595 (am) (Entered: 04/29/2013)
597 EXPARTE APPLICATION for Extension of Time to File Motion for Attorneys' Fees filed by Plaintiffs Jose Chavez, Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez, Aleksandr Petrovich Khukhryanskiy, Ever Francisco Martinez−Rivas, Jose Antonio Moreno−Vasquez, Juan Carlos Sepulveda−Perez, Yonas Woldemariam, Maksim Zhalezny. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Arulanantham, Ahilan) (Entered: 05/01/2013)
602 MINUTES OF IN CHAMBERS − ORDER RE PLAINTIFFS' EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES by Judge Dolly M. Gee: The Court orders the following: (1) By no later than 5/10/2013, the parties shall meet and confer regarding the status of the outstanding claims and whether they plan to litigate those claims through trial or resolve them by some other means; (2) By no later than 5/13/2013, the parties shall file a joint report regarding the status of the outstanding claims; (3) Plaintiffs' Ex Parte Application for Extension of Time to File Motion for Attorneys' Fees 597 is denied, but the requirement in Local Rule 54−10 is waived and Plaintiffs shall have 30 days from the resolution of all outstanding claims to file a motion for attorneys' fees. Court Reporter: Not Reported. (gk) (Entered: 05/02/2013)
603 MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS): ORDER by Magistrate Judge David T. Bristow: Currently pending before the Court is defendants Motion to Compel Production of Records (Motion) [Dkt. # 520] filed January 8, 2013, together with a Joint Stipulation Regarding Dispute over Production of Records (Jt. Stip.). Accordingly, based on the foregoing, defendants Motion to Compel is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Within 14 days of the date of this Order, plaintiffs shall supplement their responses to Interrogatory Nos. 11−14. To the extent plaintiffs contend that they do not have all of the information available to fully respond to these interrogatory requests, plaintiffs are reminded that they have a continuing duty to supplement their interrogatory responses should new information require it. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(e). Defendants Motion to Compel is DENIED in all other respects. 520 (am) (Entered: 05/03/2013)
604 ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO COMPELPRODUCTION OF RECORDS by Magistrate Judge David T. Bristow 522 (am) (Entered: 05/03/2013)
605 STATUS REPORT (JOINT REPORT ON STATUS OF OUTSTANDING CLAIMS) filed by Petitioners Jose Chavez, Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez, Aleksandr Petrovich Khukhryanskiy, Ever Francisco Martinez−Rivas, Jose Antonio Moreno−Vasquez, Juan Carlos Sepulveda−Perez, Yonas Woldemariam, Maksim Zhalezny. (Attachments: # 1 NOTICE OF LODGING OF PROPOSED FOURTH

05/14/2013 05/21/2013 05/21/2013 05/23/2013
05/28/2013
06/07/2013 06/21/2013 06/21/2013 06/21/2013

AMENDED SCHEDULE OF PRE−TRIAL AND TRIAL DATES)(Arulanantham, Ahilan) (Entered: 05/13/2013)
606 NOTICE filed by defendants Eric H. Holder, Jr, Trey Lund, John T. Morton, Janet Napolitano, Timothy S Robbins, Thomas G Snow. Notice of Defendants' Correction to Status Report Filed By Plaintiffs on May 13, 2013 (Dkt # 605); Declaration of Victor M. Lawrence (Lawrence, Victor) (Entered: 05/14/2013)
607 NOTICE of Manual Filing filed by Petitioner Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez of DECLARATION OF ALEXA M. LAWSON−REMER IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS' EX PARTE APPLICATION. (Steinberg, Michael) (Entered: 05/21/2013)
608 EX PARTE APPLICATION to Strike EXHIBIT 391 TO PLAINTIFFS' REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION (DKT. # 555) FROM THE PUBLIC RECORD AND RE−FILE EXHIBIT 391 UNDER SEAL re Reply (Motion related),, 555 filed by Plaintiff Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Steinberg, Michael) (Entered: 05/21/2013)
609 MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER RE PLAINTIFFS' EX PARTE APPLICATION TO STRIKE EXHIBIT 391 TO PLAINTIFFS' REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION (DKT. # 555) FROM THE PUBLIC RECORD AND REFILE EXHIBIT 391 UNDER SEAL by Judge Dolly M. Gee: It has recently come to the Court's attention that, since the inception of this case, all documents in the matter, with the exception of orders and minute orders, are restricted to case participants and not available for public viewing pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 5.2 (c). Therefore, it is unnecessary for parties to request sealing of their documents. Plaintiff's ex parte application 608 is therefore DENIED as moot. Court Reporter: Not Reported. (gk) (Entered: 05/23/2013)
610 MINUTES OF IN CHAMBERS − ORDER RE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN AND SCHEDULE OF PRETRIAL AND TRIAL DATES by Judge Dolly M. Gee: Pursuant to the Court's order of 4/23/2013, the parties submitted a Joint Report on Status of Outstanding Claims on 5/13/2013 605 The parties agree to a schedule for briefing and approval of Defendants' Implementation Plan. Accordingly, the Court adopts the proposed schedule as follows: Defendants shall file Implementation Plan with the Court 6/7/2013. Plaintiffs shall provide to Defendants and file with the Court comments/objections on Defendants' Implementation Plan 6/21/2013. Defendants shall reply to Plaintiffs' comments/objections 7/5/2013. The Court shall hold a hearing on the Implementation Plan 7/19/2013 11:00 AM before Judge Dolly M. Gee. If necessary, the Court will set an amended schedule of pretrial and trial dates at the hearing on 7/19/2013. The Court declines to stay proceedings prior to the hearing on the Implementation Plan, but urges the parties to focus upon the resolution of all remaining claims. Court Reporter: Not Reported. (gk) (Entered: 05/28/2013)
611 STATUS REPORT and Implementation Plan filed by Respondents Eric H. Holder, Jr, Trey Lund, John T. Morton, Janet Napolitano, Timothy S Robbins, Thomas G Snow. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit 5, # 6 Exhibit 6, # 7 Exhibit 7, # 8 Exhibit 8, # 9 Exhibit 9, # 10 Exhibit 10, # 11 Exhibit 11, # 12 Exhibit 12, # 13 Exhibit 13)(Lawrence, Victor) (Entered: 06/07/2013)
612 RESPONSE filed by Petitioners Jose Chavez, Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez, Aleksandr Petrovich Khukhryanskiy, Ever Francisco Martinez−Rivas, Jose Antonio Moreno−Vasquez, Juan Carlos Sepulveda−Perez, Yonas Woldemariam, Maksim Zhaleznyto Status Report, 611 (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Arulanantham, Ahilan) (Entered: 06/21/2013)
613 DECLARATION re Response (non−motion), 612 Bhandari Dec. in Support of Response to Defendants' Status Report and Implementation Plan filed by Petitioners Jose Chavez, Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez, Aleksandr Petrovich Khukhryanskiy, Ever Francisco Martinez−Rivas, Jose Antonio Moreno−Vasquez, Juan Carlos Sepulveda−Perez, Yonas Woldemariam, Maksim Zhalezny. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibits A−U)(Arulanantham, Ahilan) (Entered: 06/21/2013)
614 DECLARATION of Carmen Iguina re Response (non−motion), 612 filed by Petitioners Jose Chavez, Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez, Aleksandr Petrovich Khukhryanskiy, Ever Francisco Martinez−Rivas, Jose Antonio Moreno−Vasquez,

06/21/2013 06/21/2013 06/21/2013 07/05/2013
07/15/2013 07/15/2013
07/16/2013 07/17/2013 07/17/2013 07/18/2013

Juan Carlos Sepulveda−Perez, Yonas Woldemariam, Maksim Zhalezny. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibits A−M)(Arulanantham, Ahilan) (Entered: 06/21/2013)
615 DECLARATION of Sean Riordan re Response (non−motion), 612 filed by Petitioners Jose Chavez, Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez, Aleksandr Petrovich Khukhryanskiy, Ever Francisco Martinez−Rivas, Jose Antonio Moreno−Vasquez, Juan Carlos Sepulveda−Perez, Yonas Woldemariam, Maksim Zhalezny. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibits A−T)(Arulanantham, Ahilan) (Entered: 06/21/2013)
616 DECLARATION of Dr. Kristen Ochoa re Response (non−motion), 612 filed by Petitioners Jose Chavez, Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez, Aleksandr Petrovich Khukhryanskiy, Ever Francisco Martinez−Rivas, Jose Antonio Moreno−Vasquez, Juan Carlos Sepulveda−Perez, Yonas Woldemariam, Maksim Zhalezny. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibits A−B)(Arulanantham, Ahilan) (Entered: 06/21/2013)
617 RESPONSE filed by Petitioners Jose Chavez, Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez, Aleksandr Petrovich Khukhryanskiy, Ever Francisco Martinez−Rivas, Jose Antonio Moreno−Vasquez, Juan Carlos Sepulveda−Perez, Yonas Woldemariam, Maksim Zhalezny PLAINTIFFS OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS POST−JUDGMENT REQUEST TO AMEND CLASS DEFINITION (Steinberg, Michael) (Entered: 06/21/2013)
618 REPLY filed by Respondents Eric H. Holder, Jr, Trey Lund, John T. Morton, Janet Napolitano, Timothy S Robbins, Thomas G Snow to Response (non−motion), 617 , Status Report, 611 Defendants' Reply to Plaintiffs' Response to Defendants' Status Report and Implementation Plan (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G, # 8 Exhibit H1, # 9 Exhibit H2, # 10 Exhibit H3, # 11 Exhibit H4, # 12 Exhibit I1, # 13 Exhibit I2, # 14 Exhibit I3, # 15 Exhibit 14, # 16 Exhibit J1, # 17 Exhibit J2, # 18 Exhibit J3, # 19 Exhibit K, # 20 Exhibit L)(Lawrence, Victor) (Entered: 07/05/2013)
619 NOTICE RE: DEFENDANTS' DISCOVERY RESPONSES RE: NEW POLICIES ANNOUNCED ON APRIL 22, 2013 filed by Plaintiffs Jose Chavez, Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez, Aleksandr Petrovich Khukhryanskiy, Ever Francisco Martinez−Rivas, Jose Antonio Moreno−Vasquez, Juan Carlos Sepulveda−Perez, Yonas Woldemariam, Maksim Zhalezny. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibits 400−402)(Arulanantham, Ahilan) (Entered: 07/15/2013)
620 OBJECTIONS to Reply (non−motion),, 618 PLAINTIFFS' OBJECTION TO EVIDENCE RELIED UPON BY DEFENDANTS' REPLY TO PLAINTIFFS' RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS' STATUS REPORT AND IMPLEMENTATION PLAN filed by Petitioners Jose Chavez, Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez, Aleksandr Petrovich Khukhryanskiy, Ever Francisco Martinez−Rivas, Jose Antonio Moreno−Vasquez, Juan Carlos Sepulveda−Perez, Yonas Woldemariam, Maksim Zhalezny. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Carmen Iguina)(Arulanantham, Ahilan) (Entered: 07/15/2013)
621 NOTICE RE: POSSIBLE NON−COMPLIANCE WITH PERMANENT INJUNCTION filed by Plaintiffs Jose Chavez, Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez, Aleksandr Petrovich Khukhryanskiy, Ever Francisco Martinez−Rivas, Jose Antonio Moreno−Vasquez, Juan Carlos Sepulveda−Perez, Yonas Woldemariam, Maksim Zhalezny. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Kali Cohn, # 2 Declaration of Carmen Iguina)(Arulanantham, Ahilan) (Entered: 07/16/2013)
622 RESPONSE filed by Respondents Eric H. Holder, Jr, Trey Lund, John T. Morton, Janet Napolitano, Timothy S Robbins, Thomas G Snowto Notice (Other), 621 (Notice Re: Possible Non−Compliance with Permanent Injunction) (Ihsanullah, Neelam) (Entered: 07/17/2013)
623 RESPONSE filed by Respondents Eric H. Holder, Jr, Trey Lund, John T. Morton, Janet Napolitano, Timothy S Robbins, Thomas G Snowto Objections − non−motion,, 620 Response to Plaintiffs' Objection to Evidence (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Jay Brooks)(Lawrence, Victor) (Entered: 07/17/2013)
624 SCHEDULING NOTICE by Judge Dolly M. Gee: On the Court's own motion, the hearing on the implementation plan is hereby ADVANCED to 9:30 a.m. on 7/19/2013. *PLEASE NOTE TIME CHANGE ONLY. THERE IS NO PDF

07/19/2013 07/19/2013
07/26/2013 07/31/2013 07/31/2013 08/01/2013 08/01/2013

DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY.(vv) TEXT ONLY ENTRY (Entered: 07/18/2013)
625 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION of Esha Bhandari to Withdraw as Attorney filed by plaintiff Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez. Motion set for hearing on 7/19/2013 at 04:50 PM before Judge Dolly M. Gee. (Bhandari, Esha) (Entered: 07/19/2013)
626 MINUTES OF Hearing on Status Report and Implementation Plan; Order re Implementation Plan held before Judge Dolly M. Gee: On 7/19/2013, the Court held a hearing on Defendants' Status Report and Implementation Plan 611 . After careful consideration of the parties' briefs, exhibits, and arguments relating to Defendants' ongoing efforts to implement a plan to comply with the requirements of the Court's permanent injunction 593 , the Court has determined that a Special Master shall be appointed to (1) assist the parties in their joint efforts to devise a workable plan to implement the injunction, and (2) provide the Court with a report and recommendation regarding Defendants' proposed implementation plan. The parties shall meet and confer with the purpose of coming to an agreement about who may serve as the Special Master. The parties should also meet and confer regarding the issue of the Special Master's compensation. The parties will submit a joint report within seven days of this order addressing the selection of a Special Master. Once the Court appoints the Special Master, the parties shall meet and confer with the Special Master with regard to all the issues raised at the 7/19/2013 hearing and in the related filings within 30 days. The Special Master will then provide the Court with a report and recommendation relating to the implementation plan within 40 days after his or her appointment. The parties shall file a joint report no later than 7/26/2013 addressing (1) selection of a Special Master, or a list of nominees and relevant biographical information for each, if no agreement has been reached; (2) a deadline for completion of discovery pertinent to the remaining claims; and (3) whether and as to which cause(s) of action it is appropriate to enter partial judgment in favor of Plaintiff Jose Franco−Gonzalez. See document for details. Court Reporter: Anne Kielwasser. (gk) (Entered: 07/22/2013)
627 JOINT REPORT of Re: Appointment of Special Master filed by Petitioners Jose Chavez, Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez, Aleksandr Petrovich Khukhryanskiy, Ever Francisco Martinez−Rivas, Jose Antonio Moreno−Vasquez, Juan Carlos Sepulveda−Perez, Yonas Woldemariam, Maksim Zhalezny. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibits A−G)(Arulanantham, Ahilan) (Entered: 07/26/2013)
628 NOTICE TO FILER OF DEFICIENCIES in RE: MOTION. The following error(s) was found: Incorrect event selected. The correct event is: Notice of Appearance or Withdrawal of Counsel (G−123). In response to this notice the court may order (1) an amended or correct document to be filed (2) the document stricken or (3) take other action as the court deems appropriate. You need not take any action in response to this notice unless and until the court directs you to do so. (lom) Modified on 7/31/2013 (lom). (Entered: 07/31/2013)
629 SCHEDULING NOTICE by Judge Dolly M. Gee: The Court hereby sets a status conference for 8/2/2013 at 3:00 PM. Counsel may appear either in person or by telephone. Further, counsel are instructed to contact the Courtroom Deputy, Valencia Vallery at (213) 894−5452 by no later than the close of business today, and provide her with the telephone number (land lines only; no cell phones) at which the Court can reach you. THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY. (vv) TEXT ONLY ENTRY (Entered: 07/31/2013)
630 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Compel complete interrogatory responses filed by defendants Eric H. Holder, Jr, Trey Lund, John T. Morton, Janet Napolitano, Timothy S Robbins, Thomas G Snow. Motion set for hearing on 8/22/2013 at 10:00 AM before Magistrate Judge David T. Bristow. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum Joint Statement, # 2 Declaration Declaration of Victor M. Lawrence, # 3 Exhibit Defendants' Exhibits A, B, C, # 4 Declaration Declaraton of Ahilan Arulanantham, # 5 Exhibit Pl Ex 1, # 6 Exhibit Pl Ex. 2, # 7 Proposed Order)(Lawrence, Victor) (Entered: 08/01/2013)
631 NOTICE of Appearance filed by attorney Victor M Lawrence on behalf of Respondents Eric H. Holder, Jr, John T. Morton, Janet Napolitano, Timothy S Robbins, Thomas G Snow (Lawrence, Victor) (Entered: 08/01/2013)

08/01/2013
08/01/2013 08/01/2013 08/01/2013 08/01/2013 08/01/2013 08/01/2013 08/01/2013

632 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Compel Discovery Responses filed by Plaintiffs Jose Chavez, Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez, Aleksandr Petrovich Khukhryanskiy, Ever Francisco Martinez−Rivas, Jose Antonio Moreno−Vasquez, Juan Carlos Sepulveda−Perez, Jonas Woldemariam, Yonas Woldemariam, Maksim Zhalezny. Motion set for hearing on 8/22/2013 at 10:00 AM before Magistrate Judge David T. Bristow. (Attachments: # 1 Joint Stipulation Regarding Dispute Over Defednats' Failure to Respond to Discovery Requests, # 2 Declaration of Carmen Iguina, # 3 Exhibits A − E, # 4 Declaration of Helaine Perlman, # 5 Declaration of Matthew Gordon, # 6 Declaration of Sarah Wilson, # 7 Exhibits 1 and 2, # 8 Exhibit 3, # 9 Exhibit 4)(Steinberg, Michael) (Entered: 08/01/2013)
633 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Compel Compliance With The Court's May 3,2013 Order filed by Plaintiffs Jose Chavez, Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez, Aleksandr Petrovich Khukhryanskiy, Ever Francisco Martinez−Rivas, Jose Antonio Moreno−Vasquez, Juan Carlos Sepulveda−Perez, Yonas Woldemariam, Maksim Zhalezny. Motion set for hearing on 8/22/2013 at 10:00 AM before Magistrate Judge David T. Bristow. (Attachments: # 1 Joint Stipulation Regarding Dispute Over Defendants' Alleged Faliure to Comply With The Court's May 3, 2013 Order, # 2 Declaration of Antonia Stamenova−Dancheva)(Steinberg, Michael) (Entered: 08/01/2013)
634 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Compel Compliance With The Court's May 3, 2013 Order Declaration of Michael H. Steinberg and Exhibits A − C filed by Plaintiffs Jose Chavez, Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez, Aleksandr Petrovich Khukhryanskiy, Ever Francisco Martinez−Rivas, Jose Antonio Moreno−Vasquez, Juan Carlos Sepulveda−Perez, Yonas Woldemariam, Maksim Zhalezny. Motion set for hearing on 8/22/2013 at 10:00 AM before Magistrate Judge David T. Bristow. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibits A − C)(Steinberg, Michael) (Entered: 08/01/2013)
635 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Compel Compliance with the Court's May 3, 2013 Order Exhibits D − H filed by Plaintiffs Jose Chavez, Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez, Aleksandr Petrovich Khukhryanskiy, Ever Francisco Martinez−Rivas, Jose Antonio Moreno−Vasquez, Juan Carlos Sepulveda−Perez, Yonas Woldemariam, Maksim Zhalezny. Motion set for hearing on 8/22/2013 at 10:00 AM before Magistrate Judge David T. Bristow. (Steinberg, Michael) (Entered: 08/01/2013)
636 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Compel Compliance with the Court's May 3, 2013 Order Exhibits I −R, S −Z filed by Plaintiffs Jose Chavez, Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez, Aleksandr Petrovich Khukhryanskiy, Ever Francisco Martinez−Rivas, Jose Antonio Moreno−Vasquez, Juan Carlos Sepulveda−Perez, Yonas Woldemariam, Maksim Zhalezny. Motion set for hearing on 8/22/2013 at 10:00 AM before Magistrate Judge David T. Bristow. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibits S − Z)(Steinberg, Michael) (Entered: 08/01/2013)
637 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Compel Compliance with the Court's May 3, 2013 Order Exhibits AA−GG, HH−OO filed by Plaintiffs Jose Chavez, Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez, Aleksandr Petrovich Khukhryanskiy, Ever Francisco Martinez−Rivas, Jose Antonio Moreno−Vasquez, Juan Carlos Sepulveda−Perez, Yonas Woldemariam, Maksim Zhalezny. Motion set for hearing on 8/22/2013 at 10:00 AM before Magistrate Judge David T. Bristow. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibits HH − OO)(Steinberg, Michael) (Entered: 08/01/2013)
638 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Compel Compliance with the Court's May 3, 2013 Order Exhibit PP part 1 and part 2 of 2 filed by Plaintiffs Jose Chavez, Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez, Aleksandr Petrovich Khukhryanskiy, Ever Francisco Martinez−Rivas, Jose Antonio Moreno−Vasquez, Juan Carlos Sepulveda−Perez, Yonas Woldemariam, Maksim Zhalezny. Motion set for hearing on 8/22/2013 at 10:00 AM before Magistrate Judge David T. Bristow. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit PP − part 2 of 2)(Steinberg, Michael) (Entered: 08/01/2013)
639 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Compel Compliance with the Court's May 3, 2013 Order Exhibits QQ − SS filed by Plaintiffs Jose Chavez, Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez, Aleksandr Petrovich Khukhryanskiy, Ever Francisco Martinez−Rivas, Jose Antonio Moreno−Vasquez, Juan Carlos Sepulveda−Perez, Yonas Woldemariam, Maksim Zhalezny. Motion set for hearing on 8/22/2013 at 10:00 AM before Magistrate Judge David T. Bristow. (Steinberg, Michael) (Entered:

08/01/2013 08/02/2013 08/02/2013 08/02/2013
08/06/2013 08/06/2013 08/08/2013

08/01/2013)
640 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Compel Compliance with the Court's May 3, 2013 Order Declarations of Moira Skinner and Samuel Go and Exhibits filed by Plaintiffs Jose Chavez, Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez, Aleksandr Petrovich Khukhryanskiy, Ever Francisco Martinez−Rivas, Jose Antonio Moreno−Vasquez, Juan Carlos Sepulveda−Perez, Yonas Woldemariam, Maksim Zhalezny. Motion set for hearing on 8/22/2013 at 10:00 AM before Magistrate Judge David T. Bristow. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Samuel Go, # 2 Exhibits 1, 7, 8, # 3 Exhibits 2−6)(Steinberg, Michael) (Entered: 08/01/2013)
641 STATEMENT JOINT STATEMENT OF PARTIES CONCERNING ISSUES APPROPRIATE FOR SPECIAL MASTER CONSIDERATION filed by Petitioners Jose Chavez, Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez, Aleksandr Petrovich Khukhryanskiy, Ever Francisco Martinez−Rivas, Jose Antonio Moreno−Vasquez, Juan Carlos Sepulveda−Perez, Yonas Woldemariam, Maksim Zhalezny (Arulanantham, Ahilan) (Entered: 08/02/2013)
642 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Compel Complaince with the Court's May 3, 2013 Order Notice of Lodging of Defendants' DVD with Voluminous Exhibits filed by Plaintiffs Jose Chavez, Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez, Aleksandr Petrovich Khukhryanskiy, Ever Francisco Martinez−Rivas, Jose Antonio Moreno−Vasquez, Juan Carlos Sepulveda−Perez, Yonas Woldemariam, Maksim Zhalezny. Motion set for hearing on 8/22/2013 at 10:00 AM before Magistrate Judge David T. Bristow. (Steinberg, Michael) (Entered: 08/02/2013)
648 MINUTES OF Status Conference held before Judge Dolly M. Gee: Some of Defendants' representatives appear telephonically. The Honorable A. Howard Matz, former United States District Judge, is also in attendance. The Court finds that it would be appropriate to appoint a Special Master to assist the parties and the Court in finalizing an implementation plan for the permanent injunction. The Court rules that Defendants shall pay for the cost of the Special Master because Plaintiffs are indigent and mentally incompetent and do not have the wherewithal to pay for, or share in the cost of, the Special Master. The Court intends to issue an order appointing a Special Master pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 53. The Court and Judge Matz confer with counsel regarding the logistics, time frame, and compensation issues. By 8/16/2013, Defendants shall file pertinent information regarding the range of hourly compensation that the Government has paid for Special Masters, and any associates or law clerks, in connection with other ongoing or past litigation. Defendants shall provide Plaintiffs with a redline of that proposed plan prior to any meet and confer session(s). Following their meet and confer efforts, the parties shall file an updated joint status report regarding the proposed implementation plan. The updated joint status report shall be filed by 8/30/2013. By 8/6/2013, the parties shall file a joint status report regarding (1) a proposed stipulation to hold discovery in abeyance, and (2) Defendants' ability to identify at least five competency hearings that Plaintiffs' counsel may attend in August or early September. See document for details. Court Reporter: Anne Kielwasser. (gk) (Entered: 08/12/2013)
643 MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER by Magistrate Judge David T. Bristow: The Court is in receipt of the following: Defendants Motion and Motion to Compel Production of Complete Interrogatory Responses 630 ; Plaintiffs Motion to Compel Discovery Responses 632 ; and Plaintiffs Motion to Compel Compliance with May 3, 2013 Order (Dkt. # 604) and for Sanctions 633 . The Motions will be taken under submission as of the date any reply is due and/or filed, and will be decided on the papers without oral argument. See Local Rule 7−15. Accordingly, the hearings noticed for August 22, 2013, are ordered off calendar. In the event the Court determines that a hearing is necessary, the same will be scheduled. (ad) (Entered: 08/06/2013)
644 STATUS REPORT Joint Status Report of the Parties filed by Respondents Eric H. Holder, Jr, Trey Lund, John T. Morton, Janet Napolitano, Timothy S Robbins, Thomas G Snow. (Lawrence, Victor) (Entered: 08/06/2013)
645 NOTICE of Related Injunction and Ruling filed by Plaintiffs Jose Chavez, Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez, Aleksandr Petrovich Khukhryanskiy, Ever Francisco Martinez−Rivas, Jose Antonio Moreno−Vasquez, Juan Carlos Sepulveda−Perez,

08/09/2013 08/09/2013 08/15/2013 08/16/2013
08/16/2013 08/16/2013 08/23/2013
08/23/2013
08/23/2013 08/30/2013 09/03/2013

Yonas Woldemariam, Maksim Zhalezny. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Steinberg, Michael) (Entered: 08/08/2013)
646 NOTICE of Intent to Remove filed by defendants Eric H. Holder, Jr, Trey Lund, John T. Morton, Janet Napolitano, Timothy S Robbins, Thomas G Snow. (Lawrence, Victor) (Entered: 08/09/2013)
647 NOTICE of Postponement of Removal of Haengja Lee filed by Defendants Eric H. Holder, Jr, Trey Lund, John T. Morton, Janet Napolitano, Timothy S Robbins, Thomas G Snow. (Ihsanullah, Neelam) (Entered: 08/09/2013)
649 NOTICE Of Intent Not To Seek Injunctive Relief for Class Member Haengja Lee filed by Plaintiffs Jose Chavez, Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez, Aleksandr Petrovich Khukhryanskiy, Ever Francisco Martinez−Rivas, Jose Antonio Moreno−Vasquez, Juan Carlos Sepulveda−Perez, Yonas Woldemariam, Maksim Zhalezny. (Steinberg, Michael) (Entered: 08/15/2013)
650 MINUTES OF IN CHAMBERS − ORDER RE STAY OF DISCOVERY by Judge Dolly M. Gee: Pursuant to the Court's order of 8/2/2013, the parties submitted a Joint Report on, inter alia, the proposal that the Court hold all discovery matters in abeyance except those matters necessary to the Special Master's Report and Recommendation and certain other ongoing obligations 644 . The parties agree that all discovery, including pending motions to compel 630 , 632 , 633 , shall be stayed pending conclusion of the Special Master's duties, subject to the caveats in this order. See document for details. Court Reporter: Not Reported. (gk) (Entered: 08/16/2013)
651 NOTICE of Appearance filed by attorney Jeffrey S Robins on behalf of Respondents Eric H. Holder, Jr, John T. Morton, Janet Napolitano, Timothy S Robbins, Thomas G Snow (Robins, Jeffrey) (Entered: 08/16/2013)
652 REPORT of REPORT PROVIDING THE RANGE OF HOURLY COMPENSATION THE GOVERNMENT HAS PAID FOR SPECIAL MASTERS filed by Respondents Eric H. Holder, Jr, Trey Lund, John T. Morton, Janet Napolitano, Timothy S Robbins, Thomas G Snow. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit A)(Robins, Jeffrey) (Entered: 08/16/2013)
653 Notice of Appearance or Withdrawal of Counsel: for attorney Victor M Lawrence counsel for Respondents Eric H. Holder, Jr, Trey Lund, John T. Morton, Janet Napolitano, Timothy S Robbins, Thomas G Snow. Victor M. Lawrence is no longer attorney of record for the aforementioned party in this case for the reason indicated in the G−123 Notice. Filed by Defendants Victor M. Lawrence. (Lawrence, Victor) (Entered: 08/23/2013)
654 Notice of Appearance or Withdrawal of Counsel: for attorney Nicole R Prairie counsel for Respondents Eric H. Holder, Jr, Trey Lund, John T. Morton, Janet Napolitano, Timothy S Robbins, Thomas G Snow. Nicole R. Prairie is no longer attorney of record for the aforementioned party in this case for the reason indicated in the G−123 Notice. Filed by Defendants Nicole R. Prairie. (Prairie, Nicole) (Entered: 08/23/2013)
655 Notice of Appearance or Withdrawal of Counsel: for attorney Samuel P Go counsel for Respondents Eric H. Holder, Jr, John T. Morton, Janet Napolitano, Timothy S Robbins, Thomas G Snow. Samuel P. Go is no longer attorney of record for the aforementioned party in this case for the reason indicated in the G−123 Notice. Filed by Defendants Samuel P. Go. (Go, Samuel) (Entered: 08/23/2013)
656 Joint STIPULATION for Extension of Time to File Joint Status Report filed by Defendants Eric H. Holder, Jr, Trey Lund, John T. Morton, Janet Napolitano, Timothy S Robbins, Thomas G Snow. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Robins, Jeffrey) (Entered: 08/30/2013)
657 Notice of Appearance or Withdrawal of Counsel: for attorney Jesi J Carlson counsel for Respondents Eric H. Holder, Jr, Trey Lund, John T. Morton, Janet Napolitano, Timothy S Robbins, Thomas G Snow. Jesi J. Carlson is no longer attorney of record for the aforementioned party in this case for the reason indicated in the G−123 Notice. Filed by Defendants/Respondents Jesi J. Carlson. (Carlson, Jesi) (Entered: 09/03/2013)

09/03/2013 09/03/2013 09/03/2013 10/16/2013 10/16/2013
11/04/2013
11/06/2013 11/14/2013 11/15/2013
11/19/2013 11/19/2013

658 ORDER RE JOINT STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME TO FILE JOINT STATUS REPORT TO THE COURT by Judge Dolly M. Gee: It is hereby ordered that the Joint Stipulation to Extend Time to File Joint Status Report to the Court 656 is granted. The parties' Joint Status Report is now due on or before 9/3/2013. (gk) (Entered: 09/03/2013)
659 Joint Submission of Background Materials for the Special Master filed by Petitioners Jose Chavez, Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez, Aleksandr Petrovich Khukhryanskiy, Ever Francisco Martinez−Rivas, Jose Antonio Moreno−Vasquez, Juan Carlos Sepulveda−Perez, Yonas Woldemariam, Maksim Zhalezny (Attachments: # 1 Attachments 1−3)(Arulanantham, Ahilan) (Entered: 09/03/2013)
660 JOINT STATUS REPORT of Outstanding Claims for Special Master Consideration filed by Respondents Eric H. Holder, Jr, Trey Lund, John T. Morton, Janet Napolitano, Timothy S Robbins, Thomas G Snow. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C)(Ihsanullah, Neelam) (Entered: 09/03/2013)
661 AFFIDAVIT of A. Howard Matz filed by A. Howard Matz. (gk) (Entered: 10/16/2013)
662 ORDER RE: APPOINTMENT OF SPECIAL MASTER by Judge Dolly M. Gee: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: The Honorable A. Howard Matz, retired United States District Judge of the Central District of California, and now Senior Counsel in the Law Firm of Bird, Marella, Boxer, Wolpert, Nessim, Drooks & Lincenberrg, P.C. is appointed Special Master to perform the services as described in this order. The parties shall file on the case docket all papers submitted for consideration by the Special Master. The Special Master shall preserve and, where appropriate, file those materials reflecting the essential activities he and any of his aides performed in carrying out his duties. He shall file on the case docket all requests for modification of this Order, status reports, and his Report and Recommendation. See document for details. (gk) (Entered: 10/16/2013)
663 RESPONSE filed by Respondents Eric H. Holder, Jr, John T. Morton, Janet Napolitano, Timothy S Robbins, Thomas G Snow to Special Master's First Directive (Attachments: # 1 Plaintiffs' Exhibit 1, # 2 Plaintiffs' Exhibit 2, # 3 Plaintiffs' Exhibit 3, # 4 Defendants' Exhibit 1, # 5 Defendants' Exhibit 2, # 6 Defendants' Exhibit 3, # 7 Defendants' Exhibit 4, # 8 Defendants' Exhibit 5, # 9 Defendants' Exhibit 6, # 10 Defendants' Exhibit 7, # 11 Defendants' Exhibit 8, # 12 Defendants' Exhibit 9, # 13 Defendants' Exhibit 10, # 14 Defendants' Exhibit 11, # 15 Defendants' Exhibit 12, # 16 Defendants' Exhibit 13, # 17 Defendants' Exhibit 14, # 18 Defendants' Exhibit 15)(Robins, Jeffrey) (Entered: 11/04/2013)
664 Special Masters' Second Directive To Counsel filed by Special Master A Howard Matz (Matz, A) (Entered: 11/06/2013)
665 STATEMENT Special Master's Initial Commentary re Parties' Responses to First Directive to Counse filed by Special Master A Howard Matz re: Response (non−motion),,, 663 . (Matz, A) (Entered: 11/14/2013)
666 Notice of Appearance or Withdrawal of Counsel: for attorney Matt Adams counsel for Petitioners Jose Chavez, Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez, Aleksandr Petrovich Khukhryanskiy, Ever Francisco Martinez−Rivas, Jose Antonio Moreno−Vasquez, Juan Carlos Sepulveda−Perez, Jonas Woldemariam, Yonas Woldemariam, Maksim Zhalezny. Riddhi Mukhopadhyay is no longer attorney of record for the aforementioned party in this case for the reason indicated in the G−123 Notice. Filed by Counsel for Plaintiff Matt Adams. (Adams, Matt) (Entered: 11/15/2013)
667 STATEMENT of Defendants for November 21, 2013 Meeting (Ihsanullah, Neelam) (Entered: 11/19/2013)
668 RESPONSE filed by Petitioners Jose Chavez, Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez, Aleksandr Petrovich Khukhryanskiy, Ever Francisco Martinez−Rivas, Jose Antonio Moreno−Vasquez, Juan Carlos Sepulveda−Perez, Yonas Woldemariam, Maksim Zhalezny TO SPECIAL MASTER'S QUESTIONS AND OBSERVATIONS (Attachments: # 1 Appendix to Plaintiffs' Response to Special Master's Questions and Observations)(Steinberg, Michael) (Entered: 11/19/2013)

11/20/2013 11/25/2013 12/03/2013 12/03/2013 12/11/2013 12/12/2013 12/16/2013
12/17/2013 12/19/2013 12/20/2013
12/20/2013
12/30/2013

669 SUPPLEMENT to Statement 667 filed by Respondents Eric H. Holder, Jr, Trey Lund, John T. Morton, Janet Napolitano, Timothy S Robbins, Thomas G Snow. (Attachments: # 1 El Centro Transcript, # 2 Arizona Transcript)(Ihsanullah, Neelam) (Entered: 11/20/2013)
670 RESPONSE filed by Petitioners Jose Chavez, Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez, Aleksandr Petrovich Khukhryanskiy, Ever Francisco Martinez−Rivas, Jose Antonio Moreno−Vasquez, Juan Carlos Sepulveda−Perez, Yonas Woldemariam, Maksim Zhalezny PLAINTIFFS' RESPONSE TO SPECIAL MASTER'S NOVEMBER 21, 2013 REQUEST (Attachments: # 1 Exhibits 1−7)(Arulanantham, Ahilan) (Entered: 11/25/2013)
671 APPENDIX filed by Respondents Eric H. Holder, Jr, Trey Lund, John T. Morton, Janet Napolitano, Timothy S Robbins, Thomas G Snow. Re: Statement 667 regarding Competency Standards and Burdens (Robins, Jeffrey) (Entered: 12/03/2013)
672 STATEMENT TO SPECIAL MASTER REGARDING STANDARD FOR DETERMINING COMPETENCY filed by Petitioners Jose Chavez, Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez, Aleksandr Petrovich Khukhryanskiy, Ever Francisco Martinez−Rivas, Jose Antonio Moreno−Vasquez, Juan Carlos Sepulveda−Perez, Jonas Woldemariam, Yonas Woldemariam, Maksim Zhalezny (Arulanantham, Ahilan) (Entered: 12/03/2013)
673 JOINT STIPULATION PURSUANT TO SPECIAL MASTERS REQUEST AT NOVEMBER 21, 2013 MEETING filed by Petitioners Jose Chavez, Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez, Aleksandr Petrovich Khukhryanskiy, Ever Francisco Martinez−Rivas, Jose Antonio Moreno−Vasquez, Juan Carlos Sepulveda−Perez, Yonas Woldemariam, Maksim Zhalezny (Arulanantham, Ahilan) (Entered: 12/11/2013)
674 NOTICE of Belated Filing of Special Master's First Directive To Counsel filed by Special Master A Howard Matz. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Matz, A) (Entered: 12/12/2013)
675 MINUTES OF IN CHAMBERS − ORDER EXTENDING TIME FOR FILING OF REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION BY SPECIAL MASTER by Judge Dolly M. Gee: IT IS ORDERED that the Special Master's requested extension of time by which to file his Report and Recommendation to the Court regarding a proposed plan to implement the injunction is GRANTED. The deadline for the Special Master's Report and Recommendation is 2/24/2014. Court Reporter: Not Reported. (gk) (Entered: 12/16/2013)
676 REQUEST for Order for Compensation for Professor Lapp filed by Special Master A Howard Matz. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A_Resume of Professor Lapp)(Matz, A) (Entered: 12/17/2013)
677 Special Master's Third Directive To Counsel filed by Special Master A Howard Matz (Matz, A) (Entered: 12/19/2013)
678 PETITION FOR APPOINTMENT OF GUARDIAN AD LITEM FOR JOSE ANTONIO FRANCO GONZALEZ, FOR THE PURPOSES OF SETTLEMENT filed by Petitioners Jose Chavez, Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez, Aleksandr Petrovich Khukhryanskiy, Ever Francisco Martinez−Rivas, Jose Antonio Moreno−Vasquez, Juan Carlos Sepulveda−Perez, Yonas Woldemariam, Maksim Zhalezny (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Consent to Serve as Guardian Ad Litem, # 4 Proposed Order)(Arulanantham, Ahilan) (Entered: 12/20/2013)
679 MINUTES OF IN CHAMBERS − ORDER GRANTING SPECIAL MASTER'S REQUEST RE COMPENSATION FOR PROFESSOR KEVIN LAPP by Judge Dolly M. Gee: IT IS ORDERED that the request by the Special Master, Judge A. Howard Matz (Ret.), that the Department of Justice be ordered to compensate Professor Kevin Lapp as an expert at the hourly rate of $125 676 is GRANTED, nunc pro tunc to 10/16/2013, the date on which the Special Master was appointed herein. Hereinafter, Professor Kevin Lapp shall be included on the service list in this case. Court Reporter: Not Reported. (gk) (Entered: 12/23/2013)
680 ORDER GRANTING APPOINTMENT OF GUARDIAN AD LITEM by Judge Dolly M. Gee: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition of Jose Antonio

01/10/2014 01/10/2014
01/10/2014 01/10/2014 01/14/2014 01/14/2014 01/23/2014
01/24/2014
01/24/2014 01/29/2014

Franco−Gonzalez for appointment of Ruben Franco Gonzalez as his guardian ad litem 678 , forthe purpose of permitting the execution and enforcement of his and Defendants' settlement agreement (attached as Exhibit 1 to the Petition for Appointment of Guardian ad Litem, is granted, and that Ruben Franco Gonzalez is appointed as guardian ad litem of petitioner for this purpose. (gk) (Entered: 12/30/2013)
681 PLAINTIFFS' BRIEF RE: WITHDRAWAL OF REPRESENTATION BY QUALIFIED REPRESENTATIVES PURSUANT TO SPECIAL MASTERS THIRD DIRECTIVE re: Miscellaneous Document 677 (Arulanantham, Ahilan) (Entered: 01/10/2014)
682 PLAINTIFFS' BRIEF RE: PRO SE COMPETENCY DETERMINATION PROCESS PURSUANT TO SPECIAL MASTER'S THIRD DIRECTIVE filed by Petitioners Jose Chavez, Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez, Aleksandr Petrovich Khukhryanskiy, Ever Francisco Martinez−Rivas, Jose Antonio Moreno−Vasquez, Yonas Woldemariam, Maksim Zhalezny, Respondent Timothy S Robbins re: Miscellaneous Document 677 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibits 1−2)(Arulanantham, Ahilan) (Entered: 01/10/2014)
683 BRIEF filed by Defendants Eric H. Holder, Jr, Trey Lund, John T. Morton, Janet Napolitano, Timothy S Robbins, Thomas G Snow. Brief Regarding Withdrawal of Qualified Representatives regarding Miscellaneous Document 677 . (Attachments: # 1 Exhibits A−C)(Ihsanullah, Neelam) (Entered: 01/10/2014)
684 BRIEF filed by Defendants Eric H. Holder, Jr, Trey Lund, John T. Morton, Janet Napolitano, Timothy S Robbins, Thomas G Snow. Brief Regarding Pro Se Competency Standards and Burdens regarding Miscellaneous Document 677 . (Robins, Jeffrey) (Entered: 01/10/2014)
685 Defendants' Response to Special Master's Inquiry Regarding the San Diego Mental Health Docket (Ihsanullah, Neelam) (Entered: 01/14/2014)
686 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Dismiss CAUSES OF ACTION SIX AND SEVEN OF THE THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT WITH PREJUDICE filed by Plaintiffs Jose Chavez, Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez, Aleksandr Petrovich Khukhryanskiy, Ever Francisco Martinez−Rivas, Jose Antonio Moreno−Vasquez, Juan Carlos Sepulveda−Perez, Yonas Woldemariam, Maksim Zhalezny. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Arulanantham, Ahilan) (Entered: 01/14/2014)
687 NOTICE TO FILER OF DEFICIENCIES in Electronically Filed Documents RE: Plaintiff−Petitioner's Motion to Dismiss Causes of Action Six and Seven of the Third Amended Complaint with Prejudice filed 1/14/2014 686 . The following error(s) was found: Hearing information is missing, incorrect, or not timely. Lacking statement re conference of counsel, pursuant to Local Rule 7−3. In response to this notice the court may order (1) an amended or correct document to be filed (2) the document stricken or (3) take other action as the court deems appropriate. You need not take any action in response to this notice unless and until the court directs you to do so. (gk) (Entered: 01/23/2014)
688 PLAINTIFFS BRIEF RE: REMEDY FOR CLASS MEMBERS ORDERED REMOVED, FILED PURSUANT TO SPECIAL MASTERS THIRD DIRECTIVE filed by Petitioners Jose Chavez, Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez, Aleksandr Petrovich Khukhryanskiy, Ever Francisco Martinez−Rivas, Jose Antonio Moreno−Vasquez, Juan Carlos Sepulveda−Perez, Yonas Woldemariam, Maksim Zhalezny re: Miscellaneous Document 677 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Arulanantham, Ahilan) (Entered: 01/24/2014)
689 BRIEF Defendants' Briefing to the Special Master Regarding Remedy/Motion to Reopen regarding Miscellaneous Document 677 . (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Ihsanullah, Neelam) (Entered: 01/24/2014)
690 Joint STIPULATION for Order Pursuant to Special Master's Third Directive to Counsel filed by Plaintiff Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix Parties' Proposed Definition of the Term "Immigration Proceedings")(Steinberg, Michael) (Entered: 01/29/2014)

01/29/2014 01/30/2014 01/31/2014 02/03/2014
02/04/2014 02/04/2014 02/05/2014 02/05/2014
02/07/2014
02/07/2014
02/07/2014 02/10/2014

691 SUPPLEMENT to Stipulation for Order, 690 filed by Petitioner Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix Proposed Order on the Competency Evaluation System)(Steinberg, Michael) (Entered: 01/29/2014)
692 Special Master's Fourth Directive To Counsel filed by Special Master A Howard Matz (Matz, A) (Entered: 01/30/2014)
693 SUPPLEMENT to Stipulation for Order, 690 filed by Respondents Eric H. Holder, Jr, Trey Lund, John T. Morton, Janet Napolitano, Timothy S Robbins, Thomas G Snow. (Ihsanullah, Neelam) (Entered: 01/31/2014)
694 MINUTES OF IN CHAMBERS − ORDER FOR NOTICED HEARING ON COMPROMISE OF CLAIMS by Judge Dolly M. Gee: On 1/14/2014, Plaintiff−Petitioner Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez, by and through his guardian ad litem, Ruben Franco−Gonzalez, filed a motion to dismiss his individual detention claims pursuant to the terms of a settlement agreement 686 . By moving to dismiss, Plaintiff's guardian ad litem is seeking to compromise Plaintiff's claims. In order for the Court to determine whether to approve such compromise, Plaintiff's guardian ad litem is ORDERED to file a properly noticed motion in support of the settlement by 2/14/2014 addressing whether the settlement is in the best interests of Plaintiff Franco−Gonzalez. Court Reporter: Not Reported. (gk) (Entered: 02/03/2014)
695 BRIEF filed by Defendants−Respondents Eric H. Holder, Jr, John T. Morton, Janet Napolitano, Timothy S Robbins, Thomas G Snow. regarding Supplement (non−motion) 691 . (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)(Robins, Jeffrey) (Entered: 02/04/2014)
696 NOTICE OF ERRATA filed by Respondents John T. Morton, Janet Napolitano, Timothy S Robbins, Thomas G Snow. correcting Brief (non−motion non−appeal) 695 (Attachments: # 1 Corrected Filing)(Robins, Jeffrey) (Entered: 02/04/2014)
697 RESPONSE filed by Respondents Eric H. Holder, Jr, Trey Lund, John T. Morton, Janet Napolitano, Timothy S Robbins, Thomas G Snowto Miscellaneous Document 692 (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Jeff Rosenblum Regarding Defendants Submission of Reopening Proposal)(Ihsanullah, Neelam) (Entered: 02/05/2014)
698 PLAINTIFFS FURTHER BRIEF RE: REMOVAL REMEDY filed by Petitioners Jose Chavez, Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez, Aleksandr Petrovich Khukhryanskiy, Ever Francisco Martinez−Rivas, Jose Antonio Moreno−Vasquez, Juan Carlos Sepulveda−Perez, Yonas Woldemariam, Maksim Zhalezny re: Miscellaneous Document 692 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibits A−C)(Arulanantham, Ahilan) (Entered: 02/05/2014)
699 PLAINTIFFS' BRIEF RE: SCOPE OF "IMMIGRATION PROCEEDINGS" PURSUANT TO SPECIAL MASTER'S FOURTH DIRECTIVE TO COUNSEL filed by Petitioners Jose Chavez, Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez, Aleksandr Petrovich Khukhryanskiy, Ever Francisco Martinez−Rivas, Jose Antonio Moreno−Vasquez, Juan Carlos Sepulveda−Perez, Yonas Woldemariam, Maksim Zhalezny re: Miscellaneous Document 692 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Arulanantham, Ahilan) (Entered: 02/07/2014)
700 NOTICE OF ERRATA filed by Petitioners Jose Chavez, Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez, Aleksandr Petrovich Khukhryanskiy, Ever Francisco Martinez−Rivas, Jose Antonio Moreno−Vasquez, Juan Carlos Sepulveda−Perez, Yonas Woldemariam, Maksim Zhalezny. correcting Miscellaneous Document, 699 (Attachments: # 1 Corrected Brief, # 2 Exhibit A)(Arulanantham, Ahilan) (Entered: 02/07/2014)
701 BRIEF filed by Defendants Eric H. Holder, Jr, Trey Lund, John T. Morton, Janet Napolitano, Timothy S Robbins, Thomas G Snow. Defendants' Briefing to the Special Master Regarding Post−Order Bond Hearings regarding Miscellaneous Document 692 . (Ihsanullah, Neelam) (Entered: 02/07/2014)
702 SUPPLEMENT to Miscellaneous Document, 698 filed by Petitioners Jose Chavez, Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez, Aleksandr Petrovich Khukhryanskiy, Ever Francisco Martinez−Rivas, Jose Antonio Moreno−Vasquez, Juan Carlos Sepulveda−Perez, Yonas Woldemariam, Maksim Zhalezny. (Arulanantham, Ahilan) (Entered: 02/10/2014)

02/11/2014 02/12/2014
02/14/2014 02/21/2014 02/21/2014
02/28/2014 03/12/2014 03/12/2014 03/14/2014 03/14/2014

703 NOTICE OF ERRATA filed by Petitioners Jose Chavez, Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez, Aleksandr Petrovich Khukhryanskiy, Ever Francisco Martinez−Rivas, Jose Antonio Moreno−Vasquez, Juan Carlos Sepulveda−Perez, Yonas Woldemariam, Maksim Zhalezny. correcting Supplement (non−motion), 702 (Attachments: # 1 PLAINTIFFS' REVISED SUPPLEMENT TO FURTHER BRIEF RE: REMOVAL REMEDY)(Arulanantham, Ahilan) (Entered: 02/11/2014)
704 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Order for APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT RESOLVING CAUSES OF ACTION SIX AND SEVEN OF THE THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT ENTERED INTO BY DEFENDANTS AND JOSE FRANCO GONZALEZ, BY AND THROUGH HIS GUARDIAN AD LITEM, RUBEN FRANCO GONZALEZ filed by Plaintiffs Jose Chavez, Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez, Aleksandr Petrovich Khukhryanskiy, Ever Francisco Martinez−Rivas, Jose Antonio Moreno−Vasquez, Juan Carlos Sepulveda−Perez, Yonas Woldemariam, Maksim Zhalezny. Motion set for hearing on 3/14/2014 at 09:30 AM before Judge Dolly M. Gee. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Proposed Order)(Arulanantham, Ahilan) (Entered: 02/12/2014)
705 NOTICE filed by Defendants/Respondents Eric H. Holder, Jr, John T. Morton, Janet Napolitano, Timothy S Robbins, Thomas G Snow. regarding Defendants' Reopening Proposal (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit A)(Robins, Jeffrey) (Entered: 02/14/2014)
706 NOTICE OF NON−OPPOSITION to MOTION for Order for APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT RESOLVING CAUSES OF ACTION SIX AND SEVEN OF THE THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT ENTERED INTO BY DEFENDANTS AND JOSE FRANCO GONZALEZ, BY AND THROUGH HIS GUARDIAN AD LITEM, RUBEN FRANCO GONZALEZ 704 filed by Respondents Eric H. Holder, Jr, Trey Lund, John T. Morton, Janet Napolitano, Timothy S Robbins, Thomas G Snow. (Ihsanullah, Neelam) (Entered: 02/21/2014)
707 MINUTES OF IN CHAMBERS − ORDER EXTENDING TIME FOR FILING OF REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION BY SPECIAL MASTER AND SETTING BRIEFING SCHEDULE AND HEARING by Judge Dolly M. Gee:The Special Master having requested an extension of time to 3/12/2014 by which to file his Report and Recommendation to the Court regarding a proposed plan to implement the injunction, and good cause appearing, IT IS ORDERED that the requested extension of time is GRANTED. The deadline for the Special Master's Report and Recommendation is 3/12/2014. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that any party may file objections within one week after the filing of the Report and Recommendation. Thereafter, any party may file a reply to objections within one week after the filing of opposing parties' objections. A hearing on the matter is set for 4/17/2014 10:00 AM before Judge Dolly M. Gee. Court Reporter: Not Reported. (gk) (Entered: 02/21/2014)
708 RESPONSE filed by Petitioners Jose Chavez, Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez, Aleksandr Petrovich Khukhryanskiy, Ever Francisco Martinez−Rivas, Jose Antonio Moreno−Vasquez, Juan Carlos Sepulveda−Perez, Yonas Woldemariam, Maksim Zhaleznyto Notice (Other) 705 (Arulanantham, Ahilan) (Entered: 02/28/2014)
709 REPORT of Special Master's First Report to District Judge filed by Special Master A Howard Matz. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F)(Matz, A) (Entered: 03/12/2014)
710 STIPULATION to Continue Hearing Regarding the Special Master's Report and Recommendatoin from April 17, 2014 to May 15, 2014, STIPULATION for Extension of Time to File Objections, STIPULATION for Order Setting Briefing Schedule and Hearing Date for Plaintiffs' Anticipated Motions filed by Respondents Eric H. Holder, Jr, John T. Morton, Janet Napolitano, Timothy S Robbins, Thomas G Snow. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Robins, Jeffrey) (Entered: 03/12/2014)
711 MINUTES OF Motion Hearing held before Judge Dolly M. Gee: A written order will issue. Court Reporter: Anne Kielwasser. (rne) (Entered: 03/14/2014)
712 ORDER RE: JOINT STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME TO FILE OBJECTIONS, CONTINUE HEARING, AND TO SET BRIEFING SCHEDULE AND HEARING DATE by Judge Dolly M. Gee: Upon Joint Stipulation 710 , the parties shall file

03/14/2014
03/27/2014 03/28/2014 03/28/2014 04/01/2014
04/03/2014 04/03/2014

simultaneous objections to the Special Master Report, if any, by 4/3/2014. The parties shall file simultaneous replies to the objections, if any, by 4/17/2014. The Court shall hold a hearing on the Special Master Report on 5/15/2014 at 10:00 AM. In addition, Plaintiffs shall file the two motions they anticipate filing by 4/10/2014. Defendants shall file a response by no later than 4/24/2014. Plaintiffs shall file replies, if any, by no later than 5/1/2014. The Court will hold a hearing on such motions on 5/15/2014 at 10:00 AM. (gk) (Entered: 03/17/2014)
713 MINUTES OF IN CHAMBERS − ORDER RE PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR COURT APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT by Judge Dolly M. Gee: On 2/12/2014, Plaintiff−Petitioner Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez, by and through his guardian ad litem, Ruben Franco−Gonzalez, filed a motion for court approval of the settlement agreement entered into by Defendants and Plaintiff−Petitioner resolving causes of action six and seven of the Third Amended Complaint and to dismiss those claims 686 , 704 . The Court finds that the settlement agreement is in the best interests of Plaintiff−Petitioner Franco−Gonzalez and GRANTS the motion for approval of the settlement agreement. Pursuant to the parties' settlement agreement, causes of action six and seven of the Third Amended Complaint are hereby dismissed with prejudice. Court Reporter: Not Reported. (gk) (Entered: 03/18/2014)
714 EX PARTE APPLICATION for Order for freedom to disseminate the Special Masters Report, Dkt. 709, and exhibits thereto filed by Plaintiffs Jose Chavez, Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez, Aleksandr Petrovich Khukhryanskiy, Ever Francisco Martinez−Rivas, Jose Antonio Moreno−Vasquez, Juan Carlos Sepulveda−Perez, Yonas Woldemariam, Maksim Zhalezny. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Ahilan Arulanantham, # 2 Declaration of Li Chia, # 3 Proposed Order)(Arulanantham, Ahilan) (Entered: 03/27/2014)
715 OPPOSITION to EX PARTE APPLICATION for Order for freedom to disseminate the Special Masters Report, Dkt. 709, and exhibits thereto 714 filed by Respondents Eric H. Holder, Jr, Trey Lund, John T. Morton, Janet Napolitano, Timothy S Robbins, Thomas G Snow. (Robins, Jeffrey) (Entered: 03/28/2014)
716 REPLY filed by Petitioners Jose Chavez, Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez, Aleksandr Petrovich Khukhryanskiy, Ever Francisco Martinez−Rivas, Jose Antonio Moreno−Vasquez, Juan Carlos Sepulveda−Perez, Yonas Woldemariam, Maksim Zhalezny to EX PARTE APPLICATION for Order for freedom to disseminate the Special Masters Report, Dkt. 709, and exhibits thereto 714 (Arulanantham, Ahilan) (Entered: 03/28/2014)
717 MINUTES OF IN CHAMBERS − ORDER RE PLAINTIFFS' EX PARTE APPLICATION by Judge Dolly M. Gee: This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs' ex parte application, filed on 3/27/2014, for clarification that Plaintiffs may disseminate the Special Master's Report and accompanying exhibits 709 , 714 . Defendants filed an opposition to the application on 3/28/2014. Plaintiffs filed a reply on 3/28/2014. Defendants may file supplemental briefing no later than 4/8/2014 in which they specifically identify compelling reasons, if any, to justify the sealing of each of the documents in this order (see Minutes for details). Defendants shall explain whether partial redaction of sensitive matters within the documents will address their concerns and, if so, they shall describe with specificity the redactions they deem necessary. Plaintiffs may file a response by 4/15/2014. The matter shall stand submitted after the completion of briefing. Court Reporter: Anne Kielwasser. (gk) (Entered: 04/01/2014)
718 OBJECTIONS to Report 709 (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)(Ihsanullah, Neelam) (Entered: 04/03/2014)
719 PLAINTIFFS' COMMENTARIES UPON AND OBJECTIONS TO THE SPECIAL MASTER'S FIRST REPORT TO DISTRICT JUDGE filed by Petitioners Jose Chavez, Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez, Aleksandr Petrovich Khukhryanskiy, Ever Francisco Martinez−Rivas, Jose Antonio Moreno−Vasquez, Juan Carlos Sepulveda−Perez, Yonas Woldemariam, Maksim Zhalezny re: Report 709 (Attachments: # 1 Appendix A, # 2 Declaration of Dr. Ochoa, # 3 Declaration of Carmen Iguina)(Arulanantham, Ahilan) (Entered: 04/03/2014)

04/08/2014 04/10/2014 04/10/2014
04/10/2014 04/10/2014 04/11/2014 04/16/2014
04/17/2014 04/17/2014 04/23/2014

720 SUPPLEMENT filed by Respondents Eric H. Holder, Jr, John T. Morton, Janet Napolitano, Timothy S Robbins, Thomas G Snow. (Robins, Jeffrey) (Entered: 04/08/2014)
721 NOTICE of Manual Filing filed by Petitioners Jose Chavez, Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez, Aleksandr Petrovich Khukhryanskiy, Ever Francisco Martinez−Rivas, Jose Antonio Moreno−Vasquez, Juan Carlos Sepulveda−Perez, Yonas Woldemariam, Maksim Zhalezny of Ex Parte Application for Under Seal Filing, Proposed Order, Declaration of Talia Inlender, Exhibits. (Iguina, Carmen) (Entered: 04/10/2014)
722 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Order for APPOINTMENT OF QUALIFIED REPRESENTATIVES AT COMPETENCY HEARINGS filed by Plaintiffs Jose Chavez, Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez, Aleksandr Petrovich Khukhryanskiy, Ever Francisco Martinez−Rivas, Jose Antonio Moreno−Vasquez, Juan Carlos Sepulveda−Perez, Yonas Woldemariam, Maksim Zhalezny. Motion set for hearing on 5/15/2014 at 10:00 AM before Judge Dolly M. Gee. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum of Points and Authorities, # 2 Declaration of Carmen Iguina, # 3 Proposed Order)(Arulanantham, Ahilan) (Entered: 04/10/2014)
723 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Order for APPOINTMENT OF A SUCCESSOR MONITOR filed by Plaintiffs Jose Chavez, Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez, Aleksandr Petrovich Khukhryanskiy, Ever Francisco Martinez−Rivas, Jose Antonio Moreno−Vasquez, Juan Carlos Sepulveda−Perez, Yonas Woldemariam, Maksim Zhalezny. Motion set for hearing on 5/15/2014 at 10:00 AM before Judge Dolly M. Gee. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum of Points and Authorities, # 2 Proposed Order)(Steinberg, Michael) (Entered: 04/10/2014)
725 EX PARTE APPLICATION for Under Seal Filing filed by Plaintiffs−Petitioners Jose Chavez, Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez, Aleksandr Petrovich Khukhryanskiy, Ever Francisco Martinez−Rivas, Jose Antonio Moreno−Vasquez, Juan Carlos Sepulveda−Perez, Yonas Woldemariam, Maksim Zhalezny. Lodged Proposed Order and One Envelope with CRD.(gk) (Entered: 04/14/2014)
724 SUPPLEMENT filed by Petitioners Jose Chavez, Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez, Aleksandr Petrovich Khukhryanskiy, Ever Francisco Martinez−Rivas, Juan Carlos Sepulveda−Perez, Jonas Woldemariam, Yonas Woldemariam, Maksim Zhalezny. (Arulanantham, Ahilan) (Entered: 04/11/2014)
726 MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS ORDER REQUESTING SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING RE:PLAINTIFFS' APPLICATION TO FILE UNDER SEAL [DOC. #725] by Judge Dolly M. Gee: The Court declines to rule on Plaintiffs' application to file under seal at this time. Plaintiffs are ordered to file supplemental briefing within seven days of the date of this Order (1) identifying their reason for filing the documents at issue and the appropriate standard of review to be applied to their sealing request; and (2) providing evidence to support a finding of either "compelling reasons" or "good cause" to file the declaration and second exhibit under seal and proposing the least restrictive manner for doing so. The least restrictive manner of filing may be public filing with redactions. (bp) (Entered: 04/16/2014)
727 RESPONSE filed by Respondents Eric H. Holder, Jr, Trey Lund, John T. Morton, Janet Napolitano, Timothy S Robbins, Thomas G Snowto Miscellaneous Document, 719 Defendants' Response to Plaintiffs' Commentaries and Objections to the Special Master's First Report to District Judge (Ihsanullah, Neelam) (Entered: 04/17/2014)
728 RESPONSE filed by Petitioners Jose Chavez, Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez, Aleksandr Petrovich Khukhryanskiy, Ever Francisco Martinez−Rivas, Jose Antonio Moreno−Vasquez, Juan Carlos Sepulveda−Perez, Yonas Woldemariam, Maksim Zhalezny Plaintiffs' Response to Defendants' Objections To The Special Master's Report (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C)(Arulanantham, Ahilan) (Entered: 04/17/2014)
729 SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING RE: PLAINTIFFS' EX PARTE APPLICATION TO FILE UNDER SEAL [DKT. 725] filed by Petitioners Jose Chavez, Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez, Aleksandr Petrovich Khukhryanskiy, Ever Francisco Martinez−Rivas, Jose Antonio Moreno−Vasquez, Juan Carlos Sepulveda−Perez, Yonas Woldemariam, Maksim Zhalezny re: EXPARTE APPLICATION to Seal 725

04/24/2014
04/24/2014 04/24/2014 04/24/2014 05/01/2014 05/01/2014 05/07/2014 05/08/2014 05/12/2014
05/12/2014

(Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(Arulanantham, Ahilan) (Entered: 04/23/2014)
730 NOTICE of Appearance filed by attorney Sarah S Wilson on behalf of Respondents Eric H. Holder, Jr, John T. Morton, Janet Napolitano, Timothy S Robbins, Thomas G Snow (Attorney Sarah S Wilson added to party Eric H. Holder, Jr(pty:res), Attorney Sarah S Wilson added to party John T. Morton(pty:res), Attorney Sarah S Wilson added to party Janet Napolitano(pty:res), Attorney Sarah S Wilson added to party Timothy S Robbins(pty:res), Attorney Sarah S Wilson added to party Thomas G Snow(pty:res))(Wilson, Sarah) (Entered: 04/24/2014)
731 OPPOSITION to MOTION for Order for APPOINTMENT OF A SUCCESSOR MONITOR 723 filed by Respondents Eric H. Holder, Jr, John T. Morton, Janet Napolitano, Timothy S Robbins, Thomas G Snow. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Sarah Wilson with Exhibits)(Wilson, Sarah) (Entered: 04/24/2014)
732 Special Master's Commentary on His Role filed by Special Master A Howard Matz re: MOTION for Order for APPOINTMENT OF A SUCCESSOR MONITOR 723 , Response in Opposition to Motion, 731 (Matz, A) (Entered: 04/24/2014)
733 OPPOSITION to MOTION for Order for APPOINTMENT OF QUALIFIED REPRESENTATIVES AT COMPETENCY HEARINGS 722 filed by Respondents Eric H. Holder, Jr, John T. Morton, Janet Napolitano, Timothy S Robbins, Thomas G Snow. (Robins, Jeffrey) (Entered: 04/24/2014)
734 REPLY in Support of MOTION for Order for APPOINTMENT OF QUALIFIED REPRESENTATIVES AT COMPETENCY HEARINGS 722 filed by Petitioners Jose Chavez, Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez, Aleksandr Petrovich Khukhryanskiy, Ever Francisco Martinez−Rivas, Jose Antonio Moreno−Vasquez, Juan Carlos Sepulveda−Perez, Yonas Woldemariam, Maksim Zhalezny. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Arulanantham, Ahilan) (Entered: 05/01/2014)
735 REPLY In Support of MOTION for Order for APPOINTMENT OF A SUCCESSOR MONITOR 723 filed by Petitioner Jose Chavez. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration Declaration of Ahilan Arulanantham, # 2 Exhibit August 2, 2013 Hearing Transcript)(Steinberg, Michael) (Entered: 05/01/2014)
736 EX PARTE APPLICATION for Leave to TO FILE A BRIEF RESPONDING TO THE DECLARATION OF ERICA B. SCHOMMER, ECF NO. 728−1 filed by Defendants Eric H. Holder, Jr, Trey Lund, John T. Morton, Janet Napolitano, Timothy S Robbins, Thomas G Snow. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration, # 2 Proposed Brief Addressing the Declaration of Erica B. Schommer, # 3 Proposed Order)(Ihsanullah, Neelam) (Entered: 05/07/2014)
737 Opposition re: EX PARTE APPLICATION for Leave to TO FILE A BRIEF RESPONDING TO THE DECLARATION OF ERICA B. SCHOMMER, ECF NO. 728−1 736 filed by Petitioners Jose Chavez, Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez, Aleksandr Petrovich Khukhryanskiy, Ever Francisco Martinez−Rivas, Jose Antonio Moreno−Vasquez, Juan Carlos Sepulveda−Perez, Yonas Woldemariam, Maksim Zhalezny. (Arulanantham, Ahilan) (Entered: 05/08/2014)
738 MINUTES Of ORDER RE DEFENDANTS' EX PARTE APPLICATION by Judge Dolly M. Gee: On 5/7/2014, Defendants filed an Ex Parte Application for an Order granting leave to file a supplemental brief in response to the Declaration of Erica B. Schommer, which Plaintiffs submitted in support of their response to Defendants' objections to the Special Master's Report 736 . Upon review of Defendants' proposed supplemental briefing and Plaintiffs' opposition, the Court finds that the Lang Declaration is relevant and admissible for the purpose of clarifying OLAP's policy. Upon finding good cause for the proposed briefing, the Court GRANTS Defendants' Ex Parte Application. Defendants may file forthwith their brief addressing the Schommer Declaration. Court Reporter: Not Reported. (gk) (Entered: 05/12/2014)
739 MINUTES OF IN CHAMBERS − ORDER RE: PLAINTIFFS' APPLICATION TO FILE UNDER SEAL by Judge Dolly M. Gee: Plaintiffs' application to file under seal the declaration of Talia Inlender and attached exhibits 725 is GRANTED. Plaintiffs shall file forthwith the redacted version of the Inlender Declaration on the public docket. In the future, Plaintiffs shall not burden the record with a redacted version of the document they seek to seal until after the Court has ruled on their application to

05/12/2014 05/12/2014 05/12/2014 05/13/2014 05/13/2014
05/14/2014
05/15/2014
05/27/2014 05/27/2014

seal or redact the document. Court Reporter: Not Reported. (gk) (Entered: 05/12/2014)
740 BRIEF filed by Defendants Eric H. Holder, Jr, Trey Lund, John T. Morton, Janet Napolitano, Timothy S Robbins, Thomas G Snow. Defendants' Brief Addressing the Declaration of Erica B. Schommer (Ihsanullah, Neelam) (Entered: 05/12/2014)
741 DECLARATION of Talia Inlender in Support of MOTION for Order for APPOINTMENT OF QUALIFIED REPRESENTATIVES AT COMPETENCY HEARINGS 722 (Redacted Declaration of Talia Inlender) filed by Petitioners Jose Chavez, Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez, Aleksandr Petrovich Khukhryanskiy, Ever Francisco Martinez−Rivas, Jose Antonio Moreno−Vasquez, Juan Carlos Sepulveda−Perez, Yonas Woldemariam, Maksim Zhalezny. (Arulanantham, Ahilan) (Entered: 05/12/2014)
777 SEALED DOCUMENT− NUNC PRO TUNC− DECLARATION OF TALIA INLENDER OF APRIL 10, 2014− EXHIBITS A−B. (mat) (Entered: 09/04/2014)
742 Joint STIPULATION to Continue Hearing from May 15, 2014 Re: MOTION for Order for APPOINTMENT OF A SUCCESSOR MONITOR 723 , Report 709 filed by Plaintiffs Jose Chavez, Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez, Aleksandr Petrovich Khukhryanskiy, Ever Francisco Martinez−Rivas, Jose Antonio Moreno−Vasquez, Juan Carlos Sepulveda−Perez, Jonas Woldemariam, Yonas Woldemariam, Maksim Zhalezny.(Steinberg, Michael) (Entered: 05/13/2014)
743 (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER re Stipulation to Continue 742 by Judge Dolly M. Gee: Upon review of the parties stipulation and finding good cause therefor, the Court ORDERS as follows: 1. The hearing on Plaintiffs motion for a successor monitor and the parties objections to the Special Masters recommendations with respect to remedies for Class Members with removal orders is continued to a date no later than 30 days from the date of this Order pending the parties negotiations; and 2. If the parties cannot reach agreement on one or both issues, Plaintiffs will renotice a hearing on the issue(s) as to which they cannot reach agreement not less than 14 days prior to the new hearing date. The hearing remains on calendar on May 15, 2014 at 10:00 a.m. with regard to the remaining issues. IT IS SO ORDERED. (See order for details.) (kti) (Entered: 05/13/2014)
744 DECLARATION of Erica B. Schommer in Opposition to EX PARTE APPLICATION for Leave to TO FILE A BRIEF RESPONDING TO THE DECLARATION OF ERICA B. SCHOMMER, ECF NO. 728−1 736 filed by Petitioners Jose Chavez, Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez, Aleksandr Petrovich Khukhryanskiy, Ever Francisco Martinez−Rivas, Jose Antonio Moreno−Vasquez, Juan Carlos Sepulveda−Perez, Yonas Woldemariam, Maksim Zhalezny. (Attachments: # 1 Supplemental Declaration of Erica B. Schommer)(Arulanantham, Ahilan) (Entered: 05/14/2014)
745 MINUTES OF Special Master Report Hearing held before Judge Dolly M. Gee: The case is called and counsel state their appearance. Also present is the appointed Special Master, the Honorable A. Howard Matz, retired United States District Judge, and Professor Kevin D. Lapp. Court invites counsel to respond to the oral tentative ruling. Following oral argument, the Court advises counsel that Petitioners' Motion for Appointment of Qualified Representatives At Competency Hearings 722 and Petitioners' Motion for the Appointment of a Successor Monitor to Ensure Compliance with the Permanent Injunction and Implementation Plan Order 723 are taken under submission and a written order will issue. Court Reporter: Anne Kielwasser. (gk) (Entered: 05/15/2014)
746 NOTICE of Appearance (Kang, Stephen) (Entered: 05/27/2014)
747 NOTICE OF MOTION re MOTION for Order for APPOINTMENT OF A SUCCESSOR MONITOR 723 AMENDED NOTICE RE: HEARING ON MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF A SUCCESSOR MONITOR filed by Petitioners Jose Chavez, Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez, Aleksandr Petrovich Khukhryanskiy, Ever Francisco Martinez−Rivas, Jose Antonio Moreno−Vasquez, Juan Carlos Sepulveda−Perez, Jonas Woldemariam, Yonas Woldemariam, Maksim Zhalezny. Motion set for hearing on 6/13/2014 at 03:30 PM before Judge Dolly M. Gee. (Steinberg, Michael) (Entered: 05/27/2014)

05/30/2014 06/03/2014
06/04/2014
06/06/2014 06/10/2014 06/12/2014 06/12/2014

748 NOTICE OF LODGING filed RE: [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING JOINT STIPULATION TO FURTHER CONTINUE HEARING ON SECTION V.C. OF THE SPECIAL MASTER'S REPORT REGARDING REMEDIES FOR CLASS MEMBERS WITH REMOVAL ORDERS re Stipulation and Order,,, 743 (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Steinberg, Michael) (Entered: 05/30/2014)
749 ORDER CONTINUING HEARING ON SECTION V.C. OF THE SPECIAL MASTER'S REPORT REGARDING REMEDIES FOR CLASS MEMBERS WITH REMOVAL ORDERS by Judge Dolly M. Gee: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: (a) The deadline set by the Court in its Order re: Parties' Stipulation to Continue Hearing as to Certain Issues 743 is continued as to the issue of relief re removal orders, while the parties continue to work to resolve any remaining issues. (b) Should resolution not occur, and because the matter is fully briefed, Plaintiffs will re−notice the hearing not less than 14 days prior to a new hearing date. (c) Plaintiffs' Notice of Motion and Motion for Appointment of a Successor Monitor 723 and any other matters the Court wishes to address will remain on calendar for 6/13/2014 at 3:30 PM. (gk) (Entered: 06/04/2014)
750 ORDER RE SPECIAL MASTER'S REPORT by Judge Dolly M. Gee: On 3/12/2014, the Honorable A. Howard Matz, Special Master, filed his First Report to this Court ("Special Master's Report") 709 . The Court held a hearing on the objections on 5/15/2014. Having duly considered the Special Master's Report, the parties' briefing, and oral argument, the Court memorializes its tentative rulings at the 5/15/2014 hearing with some modifications as follows: The Court declines to incorporate the Special Masters proposed additional sentences to the parties' jointly agreed−upon competency standard, which has been vetted by experts in the field. The Court adopts the Special Master's recommendation that individuals in the Main Class are not presumed to be competent. The Court adopts the Special Master's recommendation that Qualified Representatives need not be provided to Main Class members at competency hearings 722 . The Court will retain jurisdiction over this action for a limited period during the expeditious implementation of its Permanent Injunction. The Court intends for Judge Matz to continue to act as Special Master to provide an oversight role and to perform such tasks as the Court requires and as described in its appointment order 662 , regardless of whether a successor monitor is appointed. Within four weeks from the date of this Order, the parties shall file a joint proposed Implementation Plan Order consistent with this Order. See document for details. Court Reporter: Not Reported. (gk) (Entered: 06/04/2014)
751 NOTICE filed by Defendants Eric H. Holder, Jr, Trey Lund, John T. Morton, Janet Napolitano, Timothy S Robbins, Thomas G Snow. Notice to Court Regarding Plaintiffs' Motion for Appointment of a Successor Monitor (Ihsanullah, Neelam) (Entered: 06/06/2014)
752 RESPONSE filed by Petitioners Jose Chavez, Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez, Aleksandr Petrovich Khukhryanskiy, Ever Francisco Martinez−Rivas, Jose Antonio Moreno−Vasquez, Juan Carlos Sepulveda−Perez, Yonas Woldemariam, Maksim Zhaleznyto Notice (Other) 751 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(Steinberg, Michael) (Entered: 06/10/2014)
753 MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS VACATING HEARING ON PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF SUCCESSOR MONITOR 723 by Judge Dolly M. Gee: The June 13, 2014 hearing on Plaintiffs Motion for Appointment of a Successor Monitor to Ensure Compliance with the Permanent Injunction and Implementation Plan Order is VACATED. IT IS SO ORDERED. (See order for details.) (kti) (Entered: 06/12/2014)
754 MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS re AMENDED ORDER RE SPECIAL MASTERS REPORT 709 by Judge Dolly M. Gee: The Court adopts the Special Masters recommendations, not otherwise discussed above, to which the parties did not object. The Court will retain jurisdiction over this action for a limited period during the expeditious implementation of its Permanent Injunction. The Court intends for Judge Matz to continue to act as Special Master to provide an oversight role and to perform such tasks as the Court requires and as described in its appointment order 662 , regardless of whether a successor monitor is appointed. Within four weeks from the date of this Order, the parties shall file a joint proposed Implementation Plan Order consistent with this Order. IT IS SO ORDERED. (See order for details.) (kti)

07/02/2014 07/02/2014 07/02/2014 07/03/2014 07/03/2014
07/08/2014

(Entered: 06/12/2014)
755 STIPULATION for Extension of Time to File Joint Proposed Implementation Plan Order filed by Defendants Eric H. Holder, Jr, Janet Napolitano, Timothy S Robbins, Thomas G Snow. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Robins, Jeffrey) (Entered: 07/02/2014)
756 Joint STIPULATION to Exclude to Exempt Defendants' Motion for Reconsideration from "Joint Position Statement" Format filed by Defendants Eric H. Holder, Jr, Trey Lund, John T. Morton, Janet Napolitano, Timothy S Robbins, Thomas G Snow. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Ihsanullah, Neelam) (Entered: 07/02/2014)
757 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Reconsideration re Order on Motion for Order,,,,,, 750 filed by Defendants Eric H. Holder, Jr, Trey Lund, John T. Morton, Janet Napolitano, Timothy S Robbins, Thomas G Snow. Motion set for hearing on 8/1/2014 at 09:30 AM before Judge Dolly M. Gee. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Proposed Order)(Ihsanullah, Neelam) (Entered: 07/02/2014)
758 (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER by Judge Dolly M. Gee: The Court hereby sets a Telephonic Status Conference re Defendants Motion for Reconsideration 757 on July 8, 2014 at 9:30 a.m. Parties shall contact the Court Clerk with a telephone number at which they wish to be contacted (landlines only). IT IS SO ORDERED. THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY. (kti) TEXT ONLY ENTRY (Entered: 07/03/2014)
759 ORDER RE: JOINT STIPULATION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE JOINT PROPOSED IMPLEMENTATION PLAN ORDER 755 by Judge Dolly M. Gee: In accordance with the parties Joint Stipulation for Extension of Time to File Joint Proposed Implementation Plan Order, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, nunc pro tunc, that the deadline for filing the parties Joint Proposed Implementation Plan Order is extended from July 2, 2014 to on or before July 11, 2014. (kti) (Entered: 07/03/2014)
760 MINUTES OF Telephonic Hearing Re Defendants' Motion for Reconsideration and Plaintiffs' Ex Parte Application held before Judge Dolly M. Gee: The Court determines that no further briefing will be necessary on Defendants' Motion for Reconsideration 757 . The Court will hold Defendants' motion for reconsideration in abeyance pending the parties' meet and confer process. The parties requested guidance, while they collectively draft a proposed FinalImplementation Order, as to how to present areas of disagreement to the Court. The Court instructed the parties to present, by July 11, their alternate proposed language along with their respective brief explanations in support thereof in a joint position statement to Judge Matz (and filed on the docket). Judge Matz may order a hearing to address differences in the parties' proposed language, if he feels a hearing would be appropriate and constructive. The Court will consider Judge Matz's recommendations following his review of the parties' joint statement. Plaintiffs renewed their application for permission to publicly disseminate certain documents on the docket 714 . The Court GRANTS Plaintiffs' request as to any documents no longer under seal pursuant to today's order. Specifically, with regard to Plaintiffs' request to be able to disseminate the parties' jointly agreed upon competency standard, the Court indicated that they could do so provided that they shall place a notation on the document stating that it is "NON−FINAL" or include an explanatory sentence on the document such as the following: "This document reflects the agreement of the parties in Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez, et al. v. Eric H. Holder, Jr., Attorney General, et al., Case No. CV 10−2211 DMG (DTBx) (C.D. Cal), but it is not a final Order of the Court." Notwithstanding Fed. R. Civ. P. 5.2(c), the Court indicated to the parties that it does not believe that many of the documents that are automatically restricted on the docket in this class action should remain restricted, per the Ninth Circuit's discussion of the sealing standard in Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1179 (9th Cir. 2006). Accordingly, the Court ORDERS that all documents on the docket prior to Docket No. 609 shall be unrestricted unless the Court has granted an application by one of the parties to file the particular document under seal. By 8/8/2014, Defendants shall review all documents after Docket No. 609 and propose which, if any, documents should be filed under seal, identify the reasons justifying sealing under Kamakana, and propose the least restrictive method for sealing. Court Reporter: Not Reported. (gk) (Entered: 07/09/2014)

07/10/2014
07/10/2014 07/10/2014
07/10/2014 07/11/2014
07/21/2014 07/25/2014
07/29/2014 08/07/2014 08/08/2014 08/08/2014

761 TRANSCRIPT for proceedings held on 07/08/14 @ 10a.m.. Court Reporter/Electronic Court Recorder: Anne Kielwasser, phone number AKtranscripts.com. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Electronic Court Recorder before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Notice of Intent to Redact due within 7 days of this date. Redaction Request due 7/31/2014. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 8/10/2014. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 10/8/2014. (Kielwasser, Anne) (Entered: 07/10/2014)
762 NOTICE OF FILING TRANSCRIPT filed for proceedings 07/08/14 @ 10 a.m. re Transcript 761 THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY. (Kielwasser, Anne) TEXT ONLY ENTRY (Entered: 07/10/2014)
763 TRANSCRIPT for proceedings held on 5/15/14 at 10 a.m.. Court Reporter/Electronic Court Recorder: Anne Kielwasser, phone number AKtranscripts.com. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Electronic Court Recorder before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Notice of Intent to Redact due within 7 days of this date. Redaction Request due 7/31/2014. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 8/10/2014. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 10/8/2014. (Kielwasser, Anne) (Entered: 07/10/2014)
764 NOTICE OF FILING TRANSCRIPT filed for proceedings 5/15/14 at 10 a.m. re Transcript 763 THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY. (Kielwasser, Anne) TEXT ONLY ENTRY (Entered: 07/10/2014)
765 PARTIES' JOINT STATEMENT OF POSITIONS filed by Petitioners Jose Chavez, Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez, Aleksandr Petrovich Khukhryanskiy, Ever Francisco Martinez−Rivas, Jose Antonio Moreno−Vasquez, Juan Carlos Sepulveda−Perez, Yonas Woldemariam, Maksim Zhalezny re: Minutes of In Chambers Order/Directive − no proceeding held,,, 754 , Order on Ex Parte Application for Order, Order on Motion for Reconsideration, Telephone Conference,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, 760 (Attachments: # 1 PROPOSED ORDER FURTHER IMPLEMENTING THIS COURT'S PERMANENT INJUNCTION)(Arulanantham, Ahilan) (Entered: 07/11/2014)
766 Notice of Appearance or Withdrawal of Counsel: for attorney Michael H Steinberg counsel for Petitioner Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez. Asel Aliyasova is no longer attorney of record for the aforementioned party in this case for the reason indicated in the G−123 Notice. Filed by Plaintiff's counsel Asel Aliyasova. (Steinberg, Michael) (Entered: 07/21/2014)
767 Joint STIPULATION to Withdraw Motion MOTION to Compel Discovery Responses 632 , MOTION to Compel Compliance With The Court's May 3,2013 Order 633 , MOTION to Compel complete interrogatory responses 630 filed by Plaintiffs Jose Chavez, Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez, Aleksandr Petrovich Khukhryanskiy, Ever Francisco Martinez−Rivas, Jose Antonio Moreno−Vasquez, Juan Carlos Sepulveda−Perez, Yonas Woldemariam, Maksim Zhalezny. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Steinberg, Michael) (Entered: 07/25/2014)
768 ORDER GRANTING JOINT STIPULATION REGARDING WITHDRAWAL OF DISCOVERY MOTIONS by Magistrate Judge David T. Bristow. Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Discovery Responses (Dkt. # 632), Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Compliance with May 3, 2013 Order (Dkt. # 633), and Defendants' Motion to Compel Complete Interrogatory Responses (Dkt. # 630), are hereby withdrawn without prejudice.It is so ORDERED. (dc) (Entered: 07/30/2014)
769 Special Master's Second Report to District Judge (Matz, A) (Entered: 08/07/2014)
770 Amended and Corrected Special Master's Second Report to District Judge (Matz, A) (Entered: 08/08/2014)
771 Joint STIPULATION for Extension of Time to File Notice to Identify Documents for Under Seal Filing filed by Defendants Eric H. Holder, Jr, John T. Morton, Janet Napolitano, Timothy S Robbins, Thomas G Snow. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Robins, Jeffrey) (Entered: 08/08/2014)

08/11/2014
08/11/2014 08/15/2014 08/29/2014 09/03/2014
09/15/2014 10/03/2014 10/07/2014 10/15/2014 10/20/2014
10/27/2014

772 (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER by Judge Dolly M. Gee: On August 8, 2014, the Honorable Howard A. Matz, Special Master, issued his Amended and Corrected Special Master's Second Report to District Judge 770 . The parties shall meet and confer and may file a joint statement containing their response to the Special Master's Second Report by no later than August 29, 2014. THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY. (kti) TEXT ONLY ENTRY (Entered: 08/11/2014)
773 ORDER RE: JOINT STIPULATION TO EXTEND DEFENDANTS' DEADLINE TO IDENTIFY DOCUMENTS FOR UNDER−SEAL FILING by Judge Dolly M. Gee: Upon Stipulation 771 , IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants' deadline for identifying documents for under−seal filing pursuant to the Court's order dated 7/8/2014, Doc. 760 , is extended to on or before 8/15/2014. (gk) (Entered: 08/11/2014)
774 NOTICE filed by In Response to the Court's July 8, 2014 Order Eric H. Holder, Jr, John T. Morton, Janet Napolitano, Timothy S Robbins, Thomas G Snow. (Robins, Jeffrey) (Entered: 08/15/2014)
775 RESPONSE filed by Respondents Eric H. Holder, Jr, Trey Lund, John T. Morton, Janet Napolitano, Timothy S Robbins, Thomas G Snowto Miscellaneous Document 770 Joint Statement In Response to the Special Master's Second Report (Robins, Jeffrey) (Entered: 08/29/2014)
776 (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER by Judge Dolly M. Gee: The Court has reviewed the parties' Joint Statement in Response to the Special Master's Second Report 775 . By September 15, 2014, the parties shall lodge an updated Joint Proposed Implementation Plan Order incorporating the areas of the parties' agreement and placing in brackets and in bold print the parties' respective proposed language upon which the parties disagree. IT IS SO ORDERED. THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY. (kti) TEXT ONLY ENTRY (Entered: 09/03/2014)
778 NOTICE OF LODGING filed re Text Only Scheduling Notice,, 776 (Attachments: # 1 PROPOSED ORDER FURTHER IMPLEMENTING THIS COURT'S PERMANENT INJUNCTION)(Ihsanullah, Neelam) (Entered: 09/15/2014)
779 (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER by Judge Dolly M. Gee: On the Court's own motion, a Status Conference is hereby set on October 20, 2014 at 10:00 a.m. IT IS SO ORDERED. THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY. (kti) TEXT ONLY ENTRY (Entered: 10/03/2014)
780 Notice of Appearance or Withdrawal of Counsel: for attorney Bardis Vakili counsel for Petitioner Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez. Adding Bardis Vakili as attorney as counsel of record for Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez for the reason indicated in the G−123 Notice. Filed by Petitioner(s) Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez, et al. (Attorney Bardis Vakili added to party Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez(pty:pet))(Vakili, Bardis) (Entered: 10/07/2014)
781 NOTICE OF LODGING filed (NOTICE OF LODGING OF APPENDICES TO [PROPOSED] ORDER FURTHER IMPLEMENTING THIS COURT'S PERMANENT INJUNCTION) re Notice of Lodging 778 (Attachments: # 1 Appendix A & B)(Arulanantham, Ahilan) (Entered: 10/15/2014)
782 MINUTES of Status Conference held before Judge Dolly M. Gee: The cause is called and counsel state their appearance. The appointed Special Master, theHonorable A. Howard Matz, retired United States District Judge, is also present.The Court and counsel confer. Parties are to lodge a final version of the proposed Order Further Implementing This Court's Injunction, inserting the items stated on the record, by no later than October 27, 2014. Any new language inserted in the text shall be redlined or highlighted for ease of reference.The parties also discuss the timetable for resolution of remaining issues in the case. Court Reporter: Anne Kielwasser. (vv) (Entered: 10/21/2014)
783 Joint STIPULATION for Extension of Time to File Lodge Final Version of the Proposed Order Further Implementing this Court's Injunction filed by Defendants Eric H. Holder, Jr, John T. Morton, Janet Napolitano, Timothy S Robbins, Thomas G Snow. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Robins, Jeffrey) (Entered: 10/27/2014)

10/27/2014
10/28/2014 10/29/2014 10/30/2014
10/30/2014 11/05/2014 11/05/2014 11/07/2014 11/11/2014 11/24/2014 12/10/2014 12/29/2014

784 ORDER RE JOINT STIPULATION FOR ONE DAY EXTENSION OF TIME TO LODGE FINAL VERSION OF PROPOSED ORDER FURTHER IMPLEMENTING THIS COURT'S INJUNCTION by Judge Dolly M. Gee: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Joint Stipulation for One Day Extension of Time to Lodge Final Version of the Proposed Order Further Implementing this Courts Injunction 783 is approved. The parties shall lodge the final version of the proposed Order Further Implementing this Court's Injunction on or before 10/28/2014. (gk) (Entered: 10/27/2014)
785 NOTICE OF LODGING filed REVISED [PROPOSED] ORDER FURTHER IMPLEMENTING THIS COURTS PERMANENT INJUNCTION re Order,, 784 (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order REVISED [PROPOSED] ORDER FURTHER IMPLEMENTING THIS COURTS PERMANENT INJUNCTION)(Iguina, Carmen) (Entered: 10/28/2014)
786 ORDER FURTHER IMPLEMENTING THIS COURT'S PERMANENT INJUNCTION filed by Judge Dolly M. Gee. See document for details. (gk) (Entered: 10/29/2014)
787 TRANSCRIPT for proceedings held on 10−20−14. Court Reporter/Electronic Court Recorder: Anne Kielwasser, phone number AKtranscripts.com. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Electronic Court Recorder before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Notice of Intent to Redact due within 7 days of this date. Redaction Request due 11/20/2014. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 11/30/2014. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 1/28/2015. (Kielwasser, Anne) (Entered: 10/30/2014)
788 NOTICE OF FILING TRANSCRIPT filed for proceedings 10−20−14 re Transcript 787 THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY. (Kielwasser, Anne) TEXT ONLY ENTRY (Entered: 10/30/2014)
789 Joint STIPULATION for Extension of Time to File Joint Statement filed by Plaintiffs Jose Chavez, Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez, Aleksandr Petrovich Khukhryanskiy, Ever Francisco Martinez−Rivas, Jose Antonio Moreno−Vasquez, Juan Carlos Sepulveda−Perez, Yonas Woldemariam, Maksim Zhalezny. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Arulanantham, Ahilan) (Entered: 11/05/2014)
790 ORDER GRANTING TWO−DAY EXTENSION FOR PARTIES TO FILE JOINT STATEMENT RE: REMAINING ISSUES by Judge Dolly M. Gee: Upon Stipulation 789 , the parties are granted a two−day extension and shall file their joint statement regarding the remaining issues in this case by 11/7/2014. (gk) (Entered: 11/05/2014)
791 STATEMENT JOINT POSITION STATEMENT RE: REMAINING ISSUES filed by Petitioner Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez re: Minutes of In Chambers Order/Directive − no proceeding held, 753 . (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E)(Steinberg, Michael) (Entered: 11/07/2014)
792 NOTICE OF CORRECTION RE: JOINT POSITION STATEMENT RE: REMAINING ISSUES (DKT. 791) filed by PLAINTIFF Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez. (Steinberg, Michael) (Entered: 11/11/2014)
793 (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER by Judge Dolly M. Gee. On the Court's own motion, a Status Conference is hereby set on December 22, 2014 at 10:00 a.m. IT IS SO ORDERED. THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY. (kti) TEXT ONLY ENTRY (Entered: 11/24/2014)
794 (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER by Judge Dolly M. Gee: Pursuant to Plaintiffs' request, the status conference presently set on December 22, 2014 is hereby continued to January 9, 2015 at 11:00 a.m. IT IS SO ORDERED. THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY. (kti) TEXT ONLY ENTRY (Entered: 12/10/2014)
795 Notice of Appearance or Withdrawal of Counsel: for attorney Bardis Vakili counsel for Petitioner Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez. Sean Riordan is no longer attorney of record for the aforementioned party in this case for the reason indicated in the G−123 Notice. Filed by Petitioner Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez. (Vakili, Bardis) (Entered: 12/29/2014)

01/09/2015 01/12/2015 01/12/2015
01/15/2015
01/15/2015 02/11/2015
02/13/2015 02/13/2015 02/18/2015 02/27/2015

798 MINUTES OF Status Conference held before Judge Dolly M. Gee:The Special Master, the Honorable A. Howard Matz, retired United States District Judge, and Katherine Mahoney (via telephone) are also present. The Court and counsel confer. The Court indicates its intention to appoint Ms. Mahoney as the Monitor in this matter and will provide the draft Order Appointing Monitor to the parties within the next week.Court Reporter: Anne Kielwasser. (lc) (Entered: 01/14/2015)
796 (Inlender, Talia) (Entered: 01/12/2015)
797 NOTICE TO FILER OF DEFICIENCIES in Electronically Filed Documents RE: Notice of Appearance or Withdrawal of Counsel (G−123) 796 . The following error(s) was found: Other error(s) with document(s) are specified below: Docket entry does not have any text indicating that the attached document is a Notice of Appearance or Withdrawal of Counsel. The attorney listed on the form does not appear on the docket. In response to this notice the court may order (1) an amended or correct document to be filed (2) the document stricken or (3) take other action as the court deems appropriate. You need not take any action in response to this notice unless and until the court directs you to do so. (lt) (Entered: 01/12/2015)
799 TRANSCRIPT for proceedings held on 01/09/15 at 11 a.m.. Court Reporter/Electronic Court Recorder: Anne Kielwasser, phone number AKtranscripts.com. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Electronic Court Recorder before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Notice of Intent to Redact due within 7 days of this date. Redaction Request due 2/5/2015. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 2/15/2015. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 4/15/2015. (Kielwasser, Anne) (Entered: 01/15/2015)
800 NOTICE OF FILING TRANSCRIPT filed for proceedings 01/09/15 at 11 a.m. re Transcript 799 THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY. (Kielwasser, Anne) TEXT ONLY ENTRY (Entered: 01/15/2015)
801 (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER by Judge Dolly M. Gee. On January 28, 2015, the Court provided the parties with a draft of its Order Appointing Monitor as a courtesy so that they could review it and provide the Court with any final comments or requests for clarification of the draft language. The purpose of the exercise is not to revisit issues previously aired and resolved. The parties shall provide the Court with their Joint Statement regarding the specific language in the draft by no later than February 13, 2015. Each side's portion of the Joint Statement shall be no more than 10 pages. There shall be no further requests for extension of time. IT IS SO ORDERED. THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY. (kti) TEXT ONLY ENTRY (Entered: 02/11/2015)
802 STATEMENT Defendants' Separate Statement re: Court's Draft Monitoring Order filed by Respondents Eric H. Holder, Jr, John T. Morton, Janet Napolitano, Timothy S Robbins, Thomas G Snow re: Text Only Scheduling Notice,,, 801 . (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 − Defendants' Proposed Revisions to the Draft Order, # 2 Exhibit 2 − Declaration of Jean King, # 3 Exhibit 3 − Defendants' Redline of Parties' Agreed Modifications to the Draft Order)(Robins, Jeffrey) (Entered: 02/13/2015)
803 STATEMENT Plaintiffs' Statement re: Draft Monitoring Order filed by Petitioner Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Declaration of Michael H. Steinberg, # 3 Exhibit A, # 4 Exhibit B)(Steinberg, Michael) (Entered: 02/13/2015)
804 SUPPLEMENT to Statement, 802 filed by Respondents Eric H. Holder, Jr, John T. Morton, Janet Napolitano, Timothy S Robbins, Thomas G Snow. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Robins, Jeffrey) (Entered: 02/18/2015)
805 NOTICE of Manual Filing filed by Petitioners Jose Chavez, Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez, Aleksandr Petrovich Khukhryanskiy, Ever Francisco Martinez−Rivas, Jose Antonio Moreno−Vasquez, Juan Carlos Sepulveda−Perez, Jonas Woldemariam, Yonas Woldemariam, Maksim Zhalezny of Exhibit 1−F to Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Approval of Partial Settlement Agreement. (Arulanantham, Ahilan) (Entered: 02/27/2015)

02/27/2015
02/27/2015
02/27/2015 03/02/2015 03/02/2015 03/02/2015
03/03/2015 03/05/2015 03/05/2015 03/18/2015 03/26/2015
03/30/2015 03/30/2015

806 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Settlement Approval of Partial Settlement Agreement filed by Plaintiffs Jose Chavez, Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez, Aleksandr Petrovich Khukhryanskiy, Ever Francisco Martinez−Rivas, Jose Antonio Moreno−Vasquez, Juan Carlos Sepulveda−Perez, Jonas Woldemariam, Yonas Woldemariam, Maksim Zhalezny. Motion set for hearing on 3/27/2015 at 09:30 AM before Judge Dolly M. Gee. (Arulanantham, Ahilan) (Entered: 02/27/2015)
807 MEMORANDUM in Support of MOTION for Settlement Approval of Partial Settlement Agreement 806 filed by Petitioners Jose Chavez, Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez, Aleksandr Petrovich Khukhryanskiy, Ever Francisco Martinez−Rivas, Jose Antonio Moreno−Vasquez, Juan Carlos Sepulveda−Perez, Jonas Woldemariam, Yonas Woldemariam, Maksim Zhalezny. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(Arulanantham, Ahilan) (Entered: 02/27/2015)
808 NOTICE OF LODGING filed re Memorandum in Support of Motion, 807 (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order Granting Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Approval of Partial Settlement Agreement)(Arulanantham, Ahilan) (Entered: 02/27/2015)
809 DECLARATION of Katherine B Mahoney filed by Interested Party Katherine Byrne Mahoney. (lc) (Entered: 03/02/2015)
810 ORDER APPOINTING KATHERINE MAHONEY AS MONITOR (SEE DOCUMENT FOR SPECIFICS) 723 , 791 by Judge Dolly M. Gee (lc) (Entered: 03/02/2015)
811 STATEMENT in response to the Court's July 8, 2014 Order regarding the sealing of documents filed by Respondents Eric H. Holder, Jr, John T. Morton, Janet Napolitano, Timothy S Robbins, Thomas G Snow (submitted jointly) re: Order on Ex Parte Application for Order,,,,,,,,,,, Order on Motion for Reconsideration,,,,,,,,,,, Telephone Conference,,,,,,,,,, 760 . (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Robins, Jeffrey) (Entered: 03/02/2015)
812 EX PARTE APPLICATION for Order for Granting Under Seal Filing filed by Plaintiffs Jose Chavez, Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez, Aleksandr Petrovich Khukhryanskiy, Ever Francisco Martinez−Rivas, Jose Antonio Moreno−Vasquez, Juan Carlos Sepulveda−Perez, Yonas Woldemariam, Maksim Zhalezny. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Arulanantham, Ahilan) (Entered: 03/03/2015)
813 ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS EX PARTE APPLICATION TO FILE EXHIBIT 1−F UNDER SEAL 812 by Judge Dolly M. Gee (lc) (Entered: 03/05/2015)
814 SEALED DOCUMENT−EXHIBIT 1−F (lc) (Entered: 03/05/2015)
815 NOTICE OF NON−OPPOSITION to MOTION for Settlement Approval of Partial Settlement Agreement 806 filed by Respondents Eric H. Holder, Jr, John T. Morton, Janet Napolitano, Timothy S Robbins, Thomas G Snow. (Robins, Jeffrey) (Entered: 03/18/2015)
816 (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER by Judge Dolly M. Gee: The Court finds that Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Approval of Partial Settlement Agreement 806 presently scheduled for hearing on March 27, 2015, is appropriate for decision without oral argument. Fed. R. Civ. P. 78(b); C.D. L.R. 7−15. Accordingly, the motion is taken UNDER SUBMISSION and the hearing is vacated. IT IS SO ORDERED. THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY. (kti) TEXT ONLY ENTRY (Entered: 03/26/2015)
817 ORDER RE JOINT STATEMENT IN RESPONSE TO THE COURTS JULY 8, 2014 ORDER REGARDING THE SEALING OF DOCUMENTS 760 by Judge Dolly M. Gee: (SEE DOCUMENT FOR DETAILED SPECIFIC INSTRUCTIONS AND REQUIREMENTS THEREIN AND DUE DATES). (lc) (Entered: 03/30/2015)
818 ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF PARTIAL SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT 806 by Judge Dolly M. Gee. The Notice Date is hereby set for August 17, 2015; The Objection Date is hereby set for September 25, 2015; and The Final Approval Hearing to consider the fairness, reasonableness and adequacy of the Reopening Settlement Agreement is hereby set for October 16, 2015 at 10:00 a.m. (lc) (Entered: 03/30/2015)

04/13/2015 06/19/2015
06/24/2015 07/16/2015 07/17/2015 07/17/2015 07/20/2015
07/31/2015 07/31/2015

819 Notice of Appearance or Withdrawal of Counsel: for attorney Neelam Ihsanullah counsel for Respondents Eric H. Holder, Jr, Trey Lund, John T. Morton, Janet Napolitano, Timothy S Robbins, Thomas G Snow. Neelam Ihsanullah is no longer attorney of record for the aforementioned party in this case for the reason indicated in the G−123 Notice. Filed by Respondents Eric H. Holder et al. (Ihsanullah, Neelam) (Entered: 04/13/2015)
820 STATEMENT SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT DEADLINES AND NOTICE PROCEDURES filed by Respondents Eric H. Holder, Jr, John T. Morton, Janet Napolitano, Timothy S Robbins, Thomas G Snow re: Order on Motion for Settlement, 818 . (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Exhibit Summary Class Notice, # 3 Exhibit Detention Facility Notice, # 4 Exhibit Address List, # 5 Exhibit Joint Motion Notice and Instructions, # 6 Exhibit Unilateral Notice and Instructions, # 7 Exhibit Cover Letter re Joint Reopening, # 8 Exhibit Cover Letter re Unilateral Reopening)(Robins, Jeffrey) (Entered: 06/19/2015)
821 ORDER re: JOINT STATEMENT REGARDING SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT DEADLINES ANDNOTICE PROCEDURES 820 . The request that the Final Approval hearing be advanced three weeks, to September 25, 2015 at 10:00 a.m., or at least 90 days after the Court approves the attached Class Notices (whichever is latest) is APPROVED by Judge Dolly M. Gee. (SEE DOCUMENT FOR OTHERSPECIFICS). (lc) (Entered: 06/24/2015)
822 STATEMENT Parties' Joint Statement of Positions re: Briefing Scheduling on Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Motion for Dismissal of Remaining Claims filed by Petitioners Jose Chavez, Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez, Aleksandr Petrovich Khukhryanskiy, Ever Francisco Martinez−Rivas, Jose Antonio Moreno−Vasquez, Juan Carlos Sepulveda−Perez, Jonas Woldemariam, Yonas Woldemariam, Maksim Zhalezny (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Arulanantham, Ahilan) (Entered: 07/16/2015)
823 EXHIBIT Filed filed by Respondents Eric H. Holder, Jr, Janet Napolitano, Timothy S Robbins, Thomas G Snow. Defendants' Proposed Order as to Statement, 822 . (Robins, Jeffrey) (Entered: 07/17/2015)
824 NOTICE OF LODGING filed [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS' REQUESTED BRIEFING SCHEDULING re Statement, 822 (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Steinberg, Michael) (Entered: 07/17/2015)
825 ORDER RE: BRIEFING SCHEDULE ON PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS FEES AND MOTIONFOR DISMISSAL OF REMAINING CLAIMS 822 by Judge Dolly M. Gee: Plaintiffs Motion to Dismiss: Class Notice Date: July 27, 2015; Plaintiffs Motion: July 31, 2015; Defendants Opposition or Notice of Non−Opposition: August 21, 2015;Class Objection Date: September 4, 2015; Plaintiffs Reply: September 11, 2015;Hearing Date: September 25, 2015 at 10:00 a.m.. Plaintiffs Motion for Attorneys Fees and Costs: Class Notice Date: July 27, 2015; Plaintiffs Motion: July 31, 2015;Class Objection Date: September 4, 2015; Fairness Hearing: September 25, 2015 at 10:00 a.m.; Defendants Opposition: October 2, 2015; Plaintiffs Reply: October 16, 2015; Hearing Date: October 30, 2015 at 10:00 a.m. (lc) (Entered: 07/20/2015)
826 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Dismiss Causes of Action One, Two, Three, Five, Nine, Ten and Eleven of Plaintiffs' Third Amended Complaint filed by Plaintiffs Jose Chavez, Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez, Aleksandr Petrovich Khukhryanskiy, Ever Francisco Martinez−Rivas, Jose Antonio Moreno−Vasquez, Juan Carlos Sepulveda−Perez, Yonas Woldemariam, Maksim Zhalezny. Motion set for hearing on 9/25/2015 at 10:00 AM before Judge Dolly M. Gee. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum, # 2 Proposed Order) (Arulanantham, Ahilan) (Entered: 07/31/2015)
827 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Attorney Fees filed by Plaintiffs Jose Chavez, Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez, Aleksandr Petrovich Khukhryanskiy, Ever Francisco Martinez−Rivas, Jose Antonio Moreno−Vasquez, Juan Carlos Sepulveda−Perez, Yonas Woldemariam, Maksim Zhalezny. Motion set for hearing on 10/30/2015 at 10:00 AM before Judge Dolly M. Gee. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum, # 2 Proposed Order) (Arulanantham, Ahilan) (Entered: 07/31/2015)

07/31/2015 07/31/2015 07/31/2015 07/31/2015 07/31/2015 07/31/2015 07/31/2015 07/31/2015 07/31/2015 07/31/2015

828 DECLARATION of Li Chia in Support of NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Attorney Fees 827 filed by Petitioners Jose Chavez, Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez, Aleksandr Petrovich Khukhryanskiy, Ever Francisco Martinez−Rivas, Jose Antonio Moreno−Vasquez, Juan Carlos Sepulveda−Perez, Yonas Woldemariam, Maksim Zhalezny. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Arulanantham, Ahilan) (Entered: 07/31/2015)
829 DECLARATION of Michael Steinberg in Support of NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Attorney Fees 827 filed by Petitioners Jose Chavez, Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez, Aleksandr Petrovich Khukhryanskiy, Ever Francisco Martinez−Rivas, Jose Antonio Moreno−Vasquez, Juan Carlos Sepulveda−Perez, Yonas Woldemariam, Maksim Zhalezny. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibits A−C, # 2 Exhibits D−G, # 3 Exhibits H−M)(Arulanantham, Ahilan) (Entered: 07/31/2015)
830 DECLARATION of Ahilan T. Arulanantham in Support of NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Attorney Fees 827 filed by Petitioners Jose Chavez, Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez, Aleksandr Petrovich Khukhryanskiy, Ever Francisco Martinez−Rivas, Jose Antonio Moreno−Vasquez, Juan Carlos Sepulveda−Perez, Yonas Woldemariam, Maksim Zhalezny. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibits A−E, # 2 Exhibit F, # 3 Exhibit G, # 4 Exhibits H−K)(Arulanantham, Ahilan) (Entered: 07/31/2015)
831 DECLARATION of Judy London in Support of NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Attorney Fees 827 filed by Petitioners Jose Chavez, Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez, Aleksandr Petrovich Khukhryanskiy, Ever Francisco Martinez−Rivas, Jose Antonio Moreno−Vasquez, Juan Carlos Sepulveda−Perez, Yonas Woldemariam, Maksim Zhalezny. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibits A−H)(Arulanantham, Ahilan) (Entered: 07/31/2015)
832 DECLARATION of Matt Adams in Support of NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Attorney Fees 827 filed by Petitioners Jose Chavez, Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez, Aleksandr Petrovich Khukhryanskiy, Ever Francisco Martinez−Rivas, Jose Antonio Moreno−Vasquez, Juan Carlos Sepulveda−Perez, Yonas Woldemariam, Maksim Zhalezny. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibits A−F)(Arulanantham, Ahilan) (Entered: 07/31/2015)
833 DECLARATION of Judy Rabinovitz in Support of NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Attorney Fees 827 filed by Petitioners Jose Chavez, Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez, Aleksandr Petrovich Khukhryanskiy, Ever Francisco Martinez−Rivas, Jose Antonio Moreno−Vasquez, Juan Carlos Sepulveda−Perez, Yonas Woldemariam, Maksim Zhalezny. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibits A−H)(Arulanantham, Ahilan) (Entered: 07/31/2015)
834 DECLARATION of James Preis in Support of NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Attorney Fees 827 filed by Petitioners Jose Chavez, Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez, Aleksandr Petrovich Khukhryanskiy, Ever Francisco Martinez−Rivas, Jose Antonio Moreno−Vasquez, Juan Carlos Sepulveda−Perez, Yonas Woldemariam, Maksim Zhalezny. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibits A−C)(Arulanantham, Ahilan) (Entered: 07/31/2015)
835 DECLARATION of Bardis Vakili in Support of NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Attorney Fees 827 filed by Petitioners Jose Antonio Moreno−Vasquez, Juan Carlos Sepulveda−Perez, Jonas Woldemariam, Yonas Woldemariam. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibits 1−6)(Arulanantham, Ahilan) (Entered: 07/31/2015)
836 DECLARATION of Victoria Lopez in Support of NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Attorney Fees 827 filed by Petitioners Jose Chavez, Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez, Aleksandr Petrovich Khukhryanskiy, Ever Francisco Martinez−Rivas, Jose Antonio Moreno−Vasquez, Juan Carlos Sepulveda−Perez, Yonas Woldemariam, Maksim Zhalezny. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibits A−B)(Arulanantham, Ahilan) (Entered: 07/31/2015)
837 DECLARATION of Stacy Tolchin in Support of NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Attorney Fees 827 filed by Petitioners Jose Chavez, Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez, Aleksandr Petrovich Khukhryanskiy, Ever Francisco Martinez−Rivas, Jose Antonio Moreno−Vasquez, Juan Carlos Sepulveda−Perez, Yonas Woldemariam, Maksim Zhalezny. (Arulanantham, Ahilan) (Entered:

07/31/2015 08/03/2015 08/17/2015 08/19/2015 08/21/2015 08/31/2015
09/02/2015 09/04/2015 09/08/2015

07/31/2015)
838 DECLARATION of Carol Sobel in Support of NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Attorney Fees 827 filed by Petitioners Jose Chavez, Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez, Aleksandr Petrovich Khukhryanskiy, Ever Francisco Martinez−Rivas, Jose Antonio Moreno−Vasquez, Juan Carlos Sepulveda−Perez, Yonas Woldemariam, Maksim Zhalezny. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibits 1−10, # 2 Exhibits 11−20, # 3 Exhibits 21−28)(Arulanantham, Ahilan) (Entered: 07/31/2015)
839 NOTICE OF ERRATA filed by Petitioners Jose Chavez, Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez, Aleksandr Petrovich Khukhryanskiy, Ever Francisco Martinez−Rivas, Jose Antonio Moreno−Vasquez, Juan Carlos Sepulveda−Perez, Yonas Woldemariam, Maksim Zhalezny. correcting Declaration (Motion related), 829 (Attachments: # 1 Corrected Exhibits D & E)(Arulanantham, Ahilan) (Entered: 08/03/2015)
840 Joint STIPULATION for Order TO SHORTEN TIME FOR MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL filed by PLAINTIFFS & PETITIONERS Jose Chavez, Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez, Aleksandr Petrovich Khukhryanskiy, Ever Francisco Martinez−Rivas, Jose Antonio Moreno−Vasquez, Juan Carlos Sepulveda−Perez, Yonas Woldemariam, Maksim Zhalezny. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Steinberg, Michael) (Entered: 08/17/2015)
841 ORDER by Judge Dolly M. Gee, GRANTING Joint Stipulation to Shorten Time for Filing Motion for Final Approval, 840 . The Court hereby orders that the Parties Motion for Final Approval of the Parties Agreement Regarding Procedures for Notifying and Reopening Cases of Franco Class Members Who Have Received Final Orders of Removal (Reopening Settlement Agreement) shall be filed by September 11, 2015. (shb) (Entered: 08/19/2015)
842 NOTICE OF NON−OPPOSITION to NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Dismiss Causes of Action One, Two, Three, Five, Nine, Ten and Eleven of Plaintiffs' Third Amended Complaint 826 filed by Respondents Eric H. Holder, Jr, John T. Morton, Janet Napolitano, Timothy S Robbins, Thomas G Snow. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Robins, Jeffrey) (Entered: 08/21/2015)
843 NOTICE OF ERRATA filed by Petitioners Jose Chavez, Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez, Aleksandr Petrovich Khukhryanskiy, Ever Francisco Martinez−Rivas, Jose Antonio Moreno−Vasquez, Juan Carlos Sepulveda−Perez, Yonas Woldemariam, Maksim Zhalezny. correcting Declaration (Motion related), 828 , Declaration (Motion related), 832 , Declaration (Motion related), 830 , NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Attorney Fees 827 (Attachments: # 1 Corrected Memorandum of Points and Authorities, # 2 Corrected Arulanantham Dec & Exhibit I, # 3 Corrected Adams Dec & Exhibit F, # 4 Corrected Chia Dec & Exhibit A, # 5 Corrected Proposed Order)(Arulanantham, Ahilan) (Entered: 08/31/2015)
844 ORDER RE: DEFENDANTS STATEMENT OF NON−OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION TODISMISS REMAINING CLAIMS 826 by Judge Dolly M. Gee: The Court hereby dismisses Causes of Action One, Two, Three, Five, Nine, Ten, and Eleven of Plaintiffs Third Amended Complaint [Doc. No. 344], without prejudiceand without costs. (lc) (Entered: 09/02/2015)
845 REQUEST FOR STAY OF ORDER DISMISSING PLAINTIFFS' REMAINING CLAIMS re NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Dismiss Causes of Action One, Two, Three, Five, Nine, Ten and Eleven of Plaintiffs' Third Amended Complaint 826 filed by Petitioners Jose Chavez, Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez, Aleksandr Petrovich Khukhryanskiy, Ever Francisco Martinez−Rivas, Jose Antonio Moreno−Vasquez, Juan Carlos Sepulveda−Perez, Jonas Woldemariam, Yonas Woldemariam, Maksim Zhalezny. (Steinberg, Michael) (Entered: 09/04/2015)
846 NOTICE TO FILER OF DEFICIENCIES in Electronically Filed Documents RE: Motion Related Document 845 , pdf is a request to stay of order dismissing remaining claims. The following error(s) was found: Incorrect event selected. The correct event is: Request: order. Missing the Proposed order which was not submitted as separate attachment. In response to this notice the court may order (1) an amended or correct document to be filed (2) the document stricken or (3) take other action as the court deems appropriate. You need not take any action in response to this notice unless and

09/09/2015 09/11/2015
09/15/2015 09/15/2015 09/17/2015
09/17/2015 09/18/2015 09/18/2015
09/18/2015 09/18/2015

until the court directs you to do so. (lc) (Entered: 09/08/2015)
847 REQUEST for Order for Stay of Order Dismissing Remaining Claims filed by Plaintiffs Jose Chavez, Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez, Aleksandr Petrovich Khukhryanskiy, Ever Francisco Martinez−Rivas, Jose Antonio Moreno−Vasquez, Juan Carlos Sepulveda−Perez, Jonas Woldemariam, Yonas Woldemariam, Maksim Zhalezny. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) (Steinberg, Michael) (Entered: 09/09/2015)
848 NOTICE RE: COMPLIANCE WITH NOTICE PROGRAM AND REQUEST FOR TELEPHONIC STATUS CONFERENCE filed by PLAINTIFFS & PETITIONERS Jose Chavez, Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez, Aleksandr Petrovich Khukhryanskiy, Ever Francisco Martinez−Rivas, Jose Antonio Moreno−Vasquez, Juan Carlos Sepulveda−Perez, Jonas Woldemariam, Yonas Woldemariam, Maksim Zhalezny. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit 5, # 6 Exhibit 6, # 7 Proposed Order)(Steinberg, Michael) (Entered: 09/11/2015)
849 ORDER STAYING DISMISSAL OF CAUSES OF ACTION ONE, TWO, THREE, FIVE, NINE, TEN ANDELEVEN OF PLAINTIFFS THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT UNTIL FINAL APPROVAL OF THE REOPENING SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT 845 847 by Judge Dolly M. Gee (lc) (Entered: 09/15/2015)
850 ORDER SETTING CONFERENCE RE: REOPENING SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT 848 848 by Judge Dolly M. Gee: A telephonic status conference for September 18, 2015 at 10:00 a.m. The September 25, 2015 hearing date for Plaintiffs Motion for Final Approval of the Reopening Settlement Agreement remains on calendar. (lc) (Entered: 09/15/2015)
851 NOTICE Re: Reopening Settlement Agreement Notice Program filed by plaintiff−petioners Jose Chavez, Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez, Aleksandr Petrovich Khukhryanskiy, Ever Francisco Martinez−Rivas, Jose Antonio Moreno−Vasquez, Juan Carlos Sepulveda−Perez, Jonas Woldemariam, Yonas Woldemariam, Maksim Zhalezny. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order Excusing Non−Compliance With Notice Program In Reopening Settlement Agreement)(Arulanantham, Ahilan) (Entered: 09/17/2015)
852 NOTICE RE: DEFENDANTS' COMPLIANCE WITH REMOVAL ORDER CLASS MEMBER SETTLEMENT NOTICE PLAN filed by Defendants Eric H. Holder, Jr, John T. Morton, Janet Napolitano, Timothy S Robbins, Thomas G Snow. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Gordon Declaration, # 2 Exhibit Perlman Declaration)(Robins, Jeffrey) (Entered: 09/17/2015)
853 NOTICE of Errata filed by Defendants Eric H. Holder, Jr, John T. Morton, Janet Napolitano, Timothy S Robbins, Thomas G Snow. re Dkt. 852 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Robins, Jeffrey) (Entered: 09/18/2015)
854 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Order for Final Approval of Partial Settlement Agreement filed by Plaintiffs Jose Chavez, Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez, Aleksandr Petrovich Khukhryanskiy, Ever Francisco Martinez−Rivas, Jose Antonio Moreno−Vasquez, Juan Carlos Sepulveda−Perez, Yonas Woldemariam, Maksim Zhalezny. Motion set for hearing on 9/25/2015 at 10:00 AM before Judge Dolly M. Gee. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) (Arulanantham, Ahilan) (Entered: 09/18/2015)
855 MINUTES OF Telephonic Status Conference re Class Notice held before Judge Dolly M. Gee:The Court and counsel confer. For the reasons stated on the record, the Court extends the deadline for the Legal Orientation Providers objections, if any, to the date of the Final Approval hearing on September 25, 2015. Plaintiffs counsel shall give notice to the relevant LOPs of this extension of time.Court Reporter: Anne Kielwasser. (lc) Modified on 9/21/2015 (lc). (Entered: 09/21/2015)
856 ORDER EXCUSING NONCOMPLIANCE WITH NOTICE PROGRAM IN REOPENING SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT [851. The Court extends the deadline for objections, if any, that may be filed by affected LOPs from September 4, 2015 to September 25, 2015. Plaintiffs counsel shall give notice to the relevant LOPs of this extension of time by Judge Dolly M. Gee (lc) (Entered: 09/21/2015)

09/22/2015 09/24/2015 09/25/2015
09/25/2015 09/28/2015 09/29/2015 10/02/2015 10/05/2015 10/08/2015 10/08/2015 10/21/2015 10/21/2015

857 NOTICE OF NON−OPPOSITION to NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Order for Final Approval of Partial Settlement Agreement 854 filed by Respondents Eric H. Holder, Jr, John T. Morton, Janet Napolitano, Timothy S Robbins, Thomas G Snow. (Robins, Jeffrey) (Entered: 09/22/2015)
858 NOTICE OF LODGING filed AMENDED [PROPOSED] ORDER re NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Order for Final Approval of Partial Settlement Agreement 854 (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Steinberg, Michael) (Entered: 09/24/2015)
859 MINUTES OF Motion Hearing held before Judge Dolly M. Gee: RE: Plaintiffs−Petitioners' Motion for Final Approval of Partial Settlement Agreement 854 The Court and counsel confer.The Court GRANTS the above−entitled motion for the reasons stated on the record. A written order will issue and, thereafter, the order staying dismissal of causes of action one, two, three, five, nine, ten and eleven of plaintiffs third amended complaint [Doc. # 849] shall be LIFTED and the order dismissing remaining claims shall be in effect [Doc. # 844].Court Reporter: Anne Kielwasser. (lc) (Entered: 09/25/2015)
860 ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF PARTIAL CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT 854 by Judge Dolly M. Gee. (See order for details.) (kti) (Entered: 09/25/2015)
861 EX PARTE APPLICATION for Extension of Time to File Comments to Monitor's First Report Draft filed by Defendants Eric H. Holder, Jr, John T. Morton, Janet Napolitano, Timothy S Robbins, Thomas G Snow. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration, # 2 Proposed Order) (Robins, Jeffrey) (Entered: 09/28/2015)
862 ORDER RE: UNOPPOSED EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO SUBMIT COMMENTS TO MONITORS FIRST REPORT DRAFT 861 by Judge Dolly M. Gee: The Parties comments to the Monitors First Draft Report are due on or before October 7, 2015, and the Monitors First Report is due on or before October 20, 2015. (lc) (Entered: 09/29/2015)
863 (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER by Judge Dolly M. Gee. Pursuant to the parties' request, Plaintiffs Motion for Attorneys' Fees 827 presently set on October 30, 2015 is hereby advanced to October 8, 2015 at 11:00 a.m. IT IS SO ORDERED. THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY. (kti) TEXT ONLY ENTRY (Entered: 10/02/2015)
864 NOTICE OF LODGING filed NOTICE OF LODGING OF REVISED [PROPOSED] ORDER APPROVING PARTIES' SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT RESOLVING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES AND COSTS re Text Only Scheduling Notice, 863 (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Steinberg, Michael) (Entered: 10/05/2015)
865 MINUTES OF Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorneys' Fees 827 Hearing held before Judge Dolly M. Gee. The cause is called and counsel state their appearance. The Court GRANTS the above−entitled motions for the reasons stated on the record. A written order will issue. Court Reporter: Anne Kielwasser. (lom) (Entered: 10/08/2015)
866 ORDER APPROVING PARTIES SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT RESOLVING PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS FEES AND COSTS [827, 864] by Judge Dolly M. Gee:The Court hereby awards Plaintiffs $9,500,000 in attorneys fees and costs, subject to the terms set forth in the Fee Settlement Agreement. (lc) (Entered: 10/09/2015)
867 MONITORS REPORT ON STATUS OF IMPLEMENTATION FOR FIRST REPORTING PERIOD (APRIL 1 2015 THROUGH JUNE 30, 2015) REPORT filed by Monitor Katherine Byrne Mahoney. (Attachments: # 1 part 2, # 2 Attachment A, # 3 Attachment B, # 4 Attachment C, # 5 Attachment D)(lc) (Entered: 10/21/2015)
868 ADDENDUM TO MONITORS REPORT ON STATUS OF IMPLEMENTATION FOR FIRST REPORTING PERIOD 867 filed by Monitor Katherine Byrne Mahoney. Re: Report, 867 (Attachments: # 1 Plaintiffs comments on monitors draft report for first reporting period, # 2 Exhibit 1, # 3 Exhibit 2, # 4 Exhibit 3, # 5 Exhibit 4, # 6 Exhibit 5, # 7 Exhibit 6, # 8 Exhibit 7, # 9 Exhibit 8, # 10 Exhibit 9, # 11 Defendants Comments to Monitors Draft First Report)(lc) (Entered: 10/21/2015)

10/30/2015 11/09/2015 11/12/2015
11/12/2015 11/13/2015 11/23/2015
11/23/2015 11/30/2015 12/04/2015
12/04/2015 12/07/2015

869 (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER by Judge Dolly M. Gee. The Court sua sponte sets a status conference on November 23, 2015 at 10:30 a.m. IT IS SO ORDERED. THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY. (kti) (Entered: 10/30/2015)
870 MONITOR'S REQUEST for Additional Documents Pursuant to Monitoring Order Section B.1.b filed by Monitor Katherine Byrne Mahoney. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix)(gk) (Additional attachment(s) added on 11/9/2015: # 2 SEALED ATTACHMENT − Appendix) (gk). (Entered: 11/09/2015)
871 PLAINTIFFS' REQUEST TO ADOPT IN PART AND MODIFY IN PART MONITOR'S FIRST REPORT TO THE COURT, AND RESPONSE REGARDING AREAS OF CONCERN FOR FUTURE MONITORING filed by Petitioners Jose Chavez, Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez, Aleksandr Petrovich Khukhryanskiy, Ever Francisco Martinez−Rivas, Jose Antonio Moreno−Vasquez, Juan Carlos Sepulveda−Perez, Yonas Woldemariam, Maksim Zhalezny re: Report, 867 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Arulanantham, Ahilan) (Entered: 11/12/2015)
872 Defendants' Objections to Monitor's First Report re: Report, 867 , Appendix, 868 (Robins, Jeffrey) (Entered: 11/12/2015)
873 PLAINTIFFS' POSITION STATEMENT REGARDING DEFENDANTS' FAILURE TO PROVIDE ACCESS TO CLASS MEMBERS' HEARINGS filed by Petitioners Jose Chavez, Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez, Aleksandr Petrovich Khukhryanskiy, Ever Francisco Martinez−Rivas, Jose Antonio Moreno−Vasquez, Juan Carlos Sepulveda−Perez, Yonas Woldemariam, Maksim Zhalezny (Attachments: # 1 Exhibits A−E)(Arulanantham, Ahilan) (Entered: 11/13/2015)
874 NOTICE TO FILER OF DEFICIENCIES in Electronically Filed Documents RE: Plaintiffs' Request to Adopt in Part and Modify in Part Monitor's First Report to the Court, etc. filed 11/11/2015 871 . The following error(s) was found: Incorrect event selected. The correct event is: Applications/Ex Parte Applications/Motions/Petitions/Requests − Order. Miscellaneous Document event utilized for docketing this filing. Proposed order not submitted pursuant to Local Rule 52−4.1. In response to this notice the court may order (1) an amended or correct document to be filed (2) the document stricken or (3) take other action as the court deems appropriate. You need not take any action in response to this notice unless and until the court directs you to do so. (gk) (Entered: 11/23/2015)
875 MINUTES OF Status Conference held before Judge Dolly M. Gee: The Court and counsel confer. A joint status report regarding outstanding issues (access to A−files and Class Counsel access to competency hearings in Tacoma) is due by 12/7/2015. Following the filing of the joint status report, the Court will issue an order regarding the Monitor's report and recommendations. Court Reporter: Miriam Baird. (gk) (Entered: 11/30/2015)
876 NOTICE OF CORRECTION TO GOVERNMENT STATEMENT filed by Plaintiffs−Petitioners Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez. (Steinberg, Michael) (Entered: 11/30/2015)
877 TRANSCRIPT for proceedings held on 11/23/15 10:30 AM. Court Reporter/Electronic Court Recorder: Miriam V. Baird, phone number mvb11893@aol.com. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Electronic Court Recorder before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Notice of Intent to Redact due within 7 days of this date. Redaction Request due 12/28/2015. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 1/4/2016. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 3/3/2016. (Baird, Miriam) (Entered: 12/04/2015)
878 NOTICE OF FILING TRANSCRIPT filed for proceedings 11/23/15 10:30 AM re Transcript 877 THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY. (Baird, Miriam) TEXT ONLY ENTRY (Entered: 12/04/2015)
879 STATEMENT PARTIES' JOINT STATEMENT OF POSITIONS REGARDING CLASS COUNSEL'S ACCESS TO CLASS MEMBER HEARINGS AND PRODUCTION OF A−FILES TO QUALIFIED REPRESENTATIVES filed by Petitioners Jose Chavez, Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez, Aleksandr Petrovich Khukhryanskiy, Ever Francisco Martinez−Rivas, Jose Antonio Moreno−Vasquez,

12/29/2015
03/16/2016 03/25/2016 03/28/2016
04/21/2016 05/09/2016 05/10/2016
05/19/2016 05/19/2016 05/27/2016

Juan Carlos Sepulveda−Perez, Yonas Woldemariam, Maksim Zhalezny re: Status Conference,, Set/Reset Deadlines, 875 . (Iguina, Carmen) (Entered: 12/07/2015)
880 ORDER RE MONITOR'S REPORT ON STATUS OF IMPLEMENTATION FOR FIRST REPORTING PERIOD (APRIL 1, 2015 − JUNE 30, 2015) by Judge Dolly M. Gee: On 10/21/2015, the Monitor filed her Report on Status of Implementation for First Reporting Period (April 1, 2015 through June 30, 2015) 870 . On 11/23/2015, the Court held a status conference with the parties, the Special Master, and the Monitor. Having considered the positions set forth in the papers and at the status conference, the Court adopts in part the Monitor's Report. See document for further details. (gk) (Entered: 12/29/2015)
881 MINUTES − IN CHAMBERS by Judge Dolly M. Gee: Case should have been closed on entry dated 10/8/2015 866 . The Court retains jurisdiction to enforce compliance with prior orders. (Made JS−6. Case Terminated.) Court Reporter: Not Reported. (gk) (Entered: 03/16/2016)
882 Joint STIPULATION for Extension of Time to File Submit Comments to Monitor's Second Report Draft filed by Defendants Eric H. Holder, Jr, John T. Morton, Janet Napolitano, Timothy S Robbins, Thomas G Snow. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Robins, Jeffrey) (Entered: 03/25/2016)
883 ORDER RE: JOINT STIPULATION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO SUBMIT COMMENTS TO MONITOR'S SECOND REPORTDRAFT 882 by Judge Dolly M. Gee, re Stipulation for Extension of Time to File, 882 : It is hereby ORDERED that the Joint Stipulation for Extension of Time to Submit Comments to the Monitor's Second Draft Report is GRANTED. The Parties' comments to the Monitor's Second Draft Report are due on or before April 7, 2016, and the Monitor's Second Final Report is due submitted on or before April 21, 2016. (bm) (Entered: 03/28/2016)
884 MONITOR'S REPORT of Status of Implementation for Reporting Period 2 (July 1, 2015 Through December 31, 2015). (Attachments: # 1 Appendix A, # 2 Appendix B, # 3 Appendix C, # 4 Appendix D, # 5 Appendix E, # 6 Appendix F, # 7 Plaintiffs' comments, # 8 Plaintiffs' attachment, # 9 Defendants' comments)(gk) (Entered: 04/21/2016)
885 REQUEST for Order for Granting One−Week Extension to File Responses to Monitor's Second Report filed by Plaintiffs−Petitioners Jose Chavez, Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez, Aleksandr Petrovich Khukhryanskiy, Ever Francisco Martinez−Rivas, Jose Antonio Moreno−Vasquez, Juan Carlos Sepulveda−Perez, Yonas Woldemariam, Maksim Zhalezny. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) (Iguina, Carmen) (Entered: 05/09/2016)
886 ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS' UNOPPOSED REQUEST FOR ONE−WEEK EXTENSION TO FILE RESPONSES TO MONITOR'S SECOND REPORT by Judge Dolly M. Gee: Upon Plaintiffs' unopposed request 885 , the parties are hereby GRANTED a one−week extension to file their responses to the Monitor's Second Report. The parties' responses to the Monitors Second Report are now due on 5/19/2016. A hearing on the matter is scheduled for 5/31/2016 at 10:30 AM. (gk) (Entered: 05/10/2016)
887 PLAINTIFFS' RESPONSE & REQUEST, TO ADOPT IN PART & MODIFY IN PART, MONITOR'S SECOND REPORT filed by Petitioners Jose Chavez, Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez, Aleksandr Petrovich Khukhryanskiy, Ever Francisco Martinez−Rivas, Jose Antonio Moreno−Vasquez, Juan Carlos Sepulveda−Perez, Yonas Woldemariam, Maksim Zhalezny re: Report, 884 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibits A − B, # 2 Proposed Order)(Iguina, Carmen) (Entered: 05/19/2016)
888 OBJECTIONS to Report, 884 filed by Respondents Eric H. Holder, Jr, John T. Morton, Janet Napolitano, Timothy S Robbins, Thomas G Snow. (Robins, Jeffrey) (Entered: 05/19/2016)
889 NOTICE NOTICE AND SUPPLEMENTAL OBJECTION TO MONITOR'S SECOND REPORT filed by Defendants Eric H. Holder, Jr, John T. Morton, Janet Napolitano, Timothy S Robbins, Thomas G Snow. (Robins, Jeffrey) (Entered: 05/27/2016)

05/27/2016 05/31/2016
06/14/2016 06/16/2016 06/16/2016 06/22/2016
07/11/2016 07/12/2016
07/28/2016 08/08/2016

890 MONITOR'S SECOND REQUEST for Additional Documents Pursuant to Monitoring Order Section B.1.b filed by Monitor Katherine Byrne Mahoney. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix A − Public Version)(gk) (Additional attachment(s) added on 5/27/2016: # 2 SEALED ATTACHMENT − Appendix A − Sealed Version) (gk). (Entered: 05/27/2016)
891 MINUTES OF STATUS CONFERENCE held before Judge Dolly M. Gee. The cause is called and counsel state their appearance. The Special Master, the Honorable A. Howard Matz, retired United States District Judge, and the Monitor, Katherine Mahoney, are also present. The Court and counsel confer. The parties shall meet and confer regarding a reasonable timeline for a judicial competency inquiry to be scheduled after the filing of Class Notice and remand by the BIA. A joint status report is due by June 14, 2016. Thereafter, the Court will issue an order regarding the Monitor's recommendations. Court Reporter: Naren Jansen. (iv) (Entered: 06/01/2016)
892 PARTIES' JOINT STATUS REPORT AND STIPULATION RE: SCHEDULING OF JUDICIAL COMPETENCY INQUIRIES FOLLOWING REMAND BY THE BOARD OF IMMIGRATION APPEALS filed by Petitioners Jose Chavez, Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez, Aleksandr Petrovich Khukhryanskiy, Ever Francisco Martinez−Rivas, Jose Antonio Moreno−Vasquez, Juan Carlos Sepulveda−Perez, Yonas Woldemariam, Maksim Zhalezny (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Iguina, Carmen) (Entered: 06/14/2016)
893 TRANSCRIPT for proceedings held on 5/31/16 11:44AM. Court Reporter: NAREN JANSEN, contact: narenjusdc@gmail.com. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Notice of Intent to Redact due within 7 days of this date. Redaction Request due 7/7/2016. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 7/18/2016. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 9/14/2016. (nja) (Entered: 06/16/2016)
894 NOTICE OF FILING TRANSCRIPT filed for proceedings 5/31/16 11:44AM re Transcript 893 THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY. (nja) TEXT ONLY ENTRY (Entered: 06/16/2016)
895 ORDER RE MONITOR'S REPORT ON STATUS OF IMPLEMENTATION FOR SECOND REPORTING PERIOD (JULY 1, 2015 THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 2015) by Judge Dolly M. Gee: On April 21, 2016, the Monitor filed her Report on Status of Implementation for Second Reporting Period (July 1, 2015 through December 31, 2015) 884 . See document for recommendations adopted in full and recommendations modified and adopted. Defendants shall provide the Monitor with a detailed and specific description of any international quality−control system. (gk) (Entered: 06/22/2016)
896 EX PARTE APPLICATION for Extension of Time to File SUBMIT INFORMATION REQUIRED BY THE COURTS JUNE 22, 2016, ORDER RE: THE MONITORS SECOND REPORT filed by Defendants Eric H. Holder, Jr, John T. Morton, Janet Napolitano, Timothy S Robbins, Thomas G Snow. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration, # 2 Proposed Order) (Robins, Jeffrey) (Entered: 07/11/2016)
897 ORDER RE: UNOPPOSED EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO SUBMIT INFORMATION REQUIRED BY THE COURT'S JUNE 22, 2016 ORDER RE: THE MONITOR'S SECOND REPORT 896 by Judge Dolly M. Gee: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Ex Parte Application for Extension of Time to Submit Information Required by the Court's June 22, 2016 Order re: the Monitor's Second Report is GRANTED. The additional information that Defendants are required to provide the Monitor shall be due on or before August 11, 2016. (clee) (Entered: 07/12/2016)
898 NOTICE of Intent to Engage Expert Pursuant to Monitoring Order Section C.1. filed by Monitor Katherine Mahoney. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix)(gk) (Entered: 07/28/2016)
899 STATEMENT OF NONOPPOSITION RE: MONITOR'S NOTICE OF INTENT TO ENGAGE EXPERT PURSUANT TO MONITORING ORDER SECTION C.1 (DKT. 898) filed by Petitioners Jose Chavez, Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez, Aleksandr

08/08/2016 08/10/2016 08/19/2016 08/19/2016
11/16/2016
11/18/2016
11/28/2016 12/09/2016
12/09/2016
12/09/2016 12/09/2016 12/14/2016 12/19/2016

Petrovich Khukhryanskiy, Ever Francisco Martinez−Rivas, Jose Antonio Moreno−Vasquez, Juan Carlos Sepulveda−Perez, Yonas Woldemariam, Maksim Zhalezny re: Notice (Other) 898 . (Steinberg, Michael) (Entered: 08/08/2016)
900 RESPONSE filed by Respondents Eric H. Holder, Jr, John T. Morton, Janet Napolitano, Timothy S Robbins, Thomas G Snowto Notice (Other) 898 (Robins, Jeffrey) (Entered: 08/08/2016)
901 NOTICE OF ENGAGEMENT OF EXPERT by Monitor Katherine Byrne Mahoney. (jp) (Entered: 08/10/2016)
902 JOINT STIPULATION for Extension of Time to File Third Monitoring Report filed by Monitor Katherine Byrne Mahoney. (Attachments: # 1 Lodged Proposed Order)(gk) (Entered: 08/19/2016)
903 ORDER RE: JOINT STIPULATION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE THIRD MONITORING REPORT 902 by Judge Dolly M. Gee: The Court has reviewed and considered the parties joint stipulation to extend deadlines, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the joint request to extend time is GRANTED. The Monitors draft Report shall be circulated to the parties on or before October 14, 2016. The parties shall submit written comments to the Monitor in response to the draft Report on or before November 4, 2016. The Monitor shall file the Third Monitoring Report on or before November 18, 2016. (kti) (Entered: 08/19/2016)
904 NOTICE of Change of Attorney Business or Contact Information: for attorney Carmen G Iguina counsel for Petitioners Jose Chavez, Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez, Aleksandr Petrovich Khukhryanskiy, Ever Francisco Martinez−Rivas, Jose Antonio Moreno−Vasquez, Juan Carlos Sepulveda−Perez, Yonas Woldemariam, Maksim Zhalezny. Changing email to ciguina@aclusocal.org. Filed by Plaintiffs−Petitioners Carmen Iguina. (Iguina, Carmen) (Entered: 11/16/2016)
905 MONITOR'S REPORT ON STATUS OF IMPLEMENTATION FOR REPORTING PERIOD 3 (JANUARY 1, 2016 THROUGH JUNE 30, 2016) filed by Monitor Katherine Byrne Mahoney. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix A, # 2 Appendix B, # 3 Appendix C, # 4 Appendix D, # 5 Appendix E, # 6 Plaintiffs' Comments, # 7 Defendants' Comments)(gk) (Entered: 11/18/2016)
906 (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER by Judge Dolly M. Gee. The Court hereby sets a status conference on December 19, 2016 at 11:00 a.m. IT IS SO ORDERED. THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY. (kti) TEXT ONLY ENTRY (Entered: 11/28/2016)
907 MONITOR'S THIRD REQUEST for Additional Documents Pursuant to Monitoring Order Section B.1.b filed by Monitor Katherine Byrne Mahoney. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix A − Public Version, # 2 SEALED ATTACHMENT − Appendix A − Sealed Version, # 3 Appendix B)(gk) (Attachment 2 replaced on 12/9/2016) (gk). Modified on 12/9/2016 (gk). (Entered: 12/09/2016)
908 PLAINTIFFS' RESPONSE TO AND REQUEST TO ADOPT IN PART AND MODIFY IN PART MONITOR'S THIRD REPORT filed by Petitioners Jose Chavez, Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez, Aleksandr Petrovich Khukhryanskiy, Ever Francisco Martinez−Rivas, Jose Antonio Moreno−Vasquez, Juan Carlos Sepulveda−Perez, Yonas Woldemariam, Maksim Zhalezny re: Report, 905 (Iguina, Carmen) (Entered: 12/09/2016)
909 OBJECTIONS to Report, 905 (Robins, Jeffrey) (Entered: 12/09/2016)
910 NOTICE OF LODGING filed re Miscellaneous Document, 908 (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order Re Monitor's Report On Status Of Implementation For Reporting Period 3 (January 1, 2016 June 30, 2016))(Iguina, Carmen) (Entered: 12/09/2016)
911 NOTICE of Appearance (Steinberg, Michael) (Entered: 12/14/2016)
912 RETURN of Lodged Exhibits: Sealed Audio Recordings, Lodged by Plaintiffs on 2/25/2011, received by counsel on 12/19/2016. (gk) (Entered: 12/20/2016)

12/19/2016
12/23/2016
12/23/2016 12/27/2016 01/09/2017 01/13/2017 01/20/2017 01/20/2017 01/27/2017 01/27/2017

913 MINUTES OF Status Conference re Monitor's Third Report held before Judge Dolly M. Gee: In light of the Court's comments at the status conference, the parties shall meet and confer regarding the following topics: (1) transfers of Class Members, including whether ICE timely communicates transfers to qualified representatives and whether any facility has a policy of not communicating such transfers to QRs; (2) the meaning of the bona fide doubt standard and the extent to which the IJ training programs address that standard; (3) whether Cowlitz Juvenile Detention Facility, and other facilities that may be similarly situated either now or in the future, are covered by the Implementation Documents; and (4) a date and time to meet with the Monitor and Dr. Piasecki regarding the screening forms and Dr. Piasecki's recommendations thereon. To the extent the parties reach agreements on these topics, they shall also discuss timelines and logistics for implementing those agreements, if necessary. If disputes still remain after the parties' meeting, the parties shall submit briefing on these topics on the following timeline: Defendants to file brief by no later than 1/20/2017; Plaintiffs to respond by no later than 1/27/2017. With respect to Docket No. 907, Monitor's Third Request for Documents under Section B.1.b, Defendants shall file any objections to the pending request before Special Master Matz by no later than 1/20/2016; Plaintiffs shall respond by no later than 1/27/2016. The parties and Monitor shall appear for a hearing before Special Master Matz on the matter on 2/1/2017 at 10:00 AM. Court Reporter: Anne Kielwasser. (gk) (Entered: 12/21/2016)
914 TRANSCRIPT for proceedings held on 12/19/16. Court Reporter/Electronic Court Recorder: anne kielwasser, phone number AKtranscripts.com. Tape Number: annekielwasser@aol.com. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Electronic Court Recorder before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Notice of Intent to Redact due within 7 days of this date. Redaction Request due 1/13/2017. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 1/23/2017. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 3/23/2017. (Kielwasser, Anne) (Entered: 12/23/2016)
915 NOTICE OF FILING TRANSCRIPT filed for proceedings 12/19/16 re Transcript 914 THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY. (Kielwasser, Anne) TEXT ONLY ENTRY (Entered: 12/23/2016)
916 RETURN of Lodged Exhibits: (1) Sealed Exhibit "#14" (Lodged by Defendants−Respondents on 7/11/2011); (2) Sealed Exhibit "B" (Lodged by Defendants−Respondents on 8/8/2011) received by counsel on 12/27/2016. (gk) (Entered: 12/28/2016)
917 DECLARATION of Katherine B. Mahoney filed by Monitor Katherine Byrne Mahoney. (gk) (Entered: 01/09/2017)
918 NOTICE Defendants' Position On Post−Order Bond Hearings filed by Defendants Eric H. Holder, Jr, John T. Morton, Janet Napolitano, Timothy S Robbins, Thomas G Snow. (Robins, Jeffrey) (Entered: 01/13/2017)
919 OBJECTIONS to Notice (Other), 907 , Status Conference,,,,,, 913 Regarding Monitor's Third B.1.b. Request (Robins, Jeffrey) (Entered: 01/20/2017)
920 RESPONSE filed by Respondents Eric H. Holder, Jr, John T. Morton, Janet Napolitano, Timothy S Robbins, Thomas G Snowto Status Conference,,,,,, 913 , Report, 905 (Robins, Jeffrey) (Entered: 01/20/2017)
921 STATEMENT Plaintiffs' Brief in Support of Monitor's Third Request for Additional Documents Pursuant to Monitoring Order B.1.B filed by Petitioners Jose Chavez, Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez, Aleksandr Petrovich Khukhryanskiy, Ever Francisco Martinez−Rivas, Jose Antonio Moreno−Vasquez, Juan Carlos Sepulveda−Perez, Jonas Woldemariam, Yonas Woldemariam, Maksim Zhalezny re: Notice (Other), 907 , Status Conference,,,,,, 913 . (Steinberg, Michael) (Entered: 01/27/2017)
922 RESPONSE filed by Petitioners Jose Chavez, Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez, Aleksandr Petrovich Khukhryanskiy, Ever Francisco Martinez−Rivas, Jose Antonio Moreno−Vasquez, Juan Carlos Sepulveda−Perez, Jonas Woldemariam, Yonas Woldemariam, Maksim Zhaleznyto Status Conference,,,,,, 913 , Report, 905 (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Carmen Iguina)(Steinberg, Michael) (Entered: 01/27/2017)

02/03/2017
02/03/2017 02/07/2017 02/09/2017 02/17/2017
03/08/2017
03/22/2017 03/31/2017 03/31/2017

923 TRANSCRIPT for proceedings held on 2/1/17 at 10:00 a.m.. Court Reporter/Electronic Court Recorder: Anne Kielwasser, phone number 2136636610. Tape Number: anne.kielwasser@gmail.com. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Electronic Court Recorder before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Notice of Intent to Redact due within 7 days of this date. Redaction Request due 2/24/2017. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 3/6/2017. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 5/4/2017. (Kielwasser, Anne) (Entered: 02/03/2017)
924 NOTICE OF FILING TRANSCRIPT filed for proceedings 2/1/17 re Transcript 923 THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY. (Kielwasser, Anne) TEXT ONLY ENTRY (Entered: 02/03/2017)
925 SPECIAL MASTER'S RECOMMENDATION RE SPECIAL MONITOR'S REQUEST TO ATTEND TRAINING SESSION filed by Special Master A Howard Matz re: Report, 905 (Matz, A) (Entered: 02/07/2017)
926 DISCLOSURE of Special Master's Special Project filed by Special Master A Howard Matz (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Email of 1−30−17)(Matz, A) (Entered: 02/09/2017)
927 MINUTES OF IN CHAMBERS − ORDER by Judge Dolly M. Gee: The Court has reviewed and considered the Special Master's Recommendation re Monitor's Request to Attend Training Session ("Rec.") 925 as well as the documents referenced in the Special Master's Rec. The Court hereby adopts the Special Master's thorough and well−reasoned recommendation and approves the Monitor's request that she and Dr. Melissa Piasecki, the expert consultant, be permitted to attend the EOIR's next live training session of Immigration Judges on compliance with the Implementation Documents in this case. By no later than 3/31/2017, the parties shall meet and confer regarding a proposed Protective Order consistent with the Special Master's Rec. and lodge it for the Court's approval. Court Reporter: Not Reported. (gk) (Entered: 02/17/2017)
928 ORDER RE MONITOR'S REPORT ON STATUS OF IMPLEMENTATION FOR THIRD REPORTING PERIOD (1/1/2016 THROUGH 6/30/2016) 905 by Judge Dolly M. Gee: The Court orders: The Court proposes to clarify the Class definition. See document for definition. No later than 14 days from the date of this Order, the parties shall file a joint statement stating their respective positions on the clarified definition, including any known detention facilities or Immigration Courts that constitute "Covered Facilities" under the clarified definition. Defendants shall provide automatic bond hearings, in accordance with the terms of the Permanent Injunction, to all Class Members who have been detained for more than 180 days, regardless of the entry of a final order of removal. The Court adopts the Monitors Expert findings regarding deficiencies in screening forms and processes at the Covered Facilities, set forth at Appendix C to the Third Monitoring Report. See Order for further details. (gk) (Entered: 03/08/2017)
929 STATEMENT PARTIES JOINT STATEMENT RE: CLASS DEFINITION PURSUANT TO COURTS MARCH 8, 2017 ORDER, DKT. 928 filed by Respondents Eric H. Holder, Jr, John T. Morton, Janet Napolitano, Timothy S Robbins re: Order,,, 928 . (Robins, Jeffrey) (Entered: 03/22/2017)
930 STIPULATION for Protective Order filed by Defendants Eric H. Holder, Jr, John T. Morton, Janet Napolitano, Timothy S Robbins, Thomas G Snow.(Robins, Jeffrey) (Entered: 03/31/2017)
931 Joint STIPULATION to Reschedule Deadlines Relating to the Fourth Monitoring Report and Notice for Extension of the Monitoring Term filed by Plaintiffs−Petitioners Jose Chavez, Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez, Aleksandr Petrovich Khukhryanskiy, Ever Francisco Martinez−Rivas, Jose Antonio Moreno−Vasquez, Juan Carlos Sepulveda−Perez, Jonas Woldemariam, Yonas Woldemariam, Maksim Zhalezny. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order re Joint Stipulation to Continue Deadlines Relating to the Fourth Monitoring Report and Notice for Extension of the Monitoring Term)(Steinberg, Michael) (Entered: 03/31/2017)

04/04/2017
04/04/2017
04/05/2017 04/05/2017 04/06/2017 04/21/2017 04/21/2017

933 MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS − ORDER RE CLASS DEFINITION 905 908 by Judge Dolly M. Gee. On March 8, 2017, the Court proposed a clarification of the class definition with the purpose of eliminating future disputes between the parties as to those "rare" situations where potential class members are detained in states different from the location of their immigration proceedings 928 . In their Joint Statement responding to the Court's proposal, Plaintiffs accepted the proposed clarification, but Defendants opposed it 928 . Defendants assert that the Court's proposed clarification of the class definition expands the coverage of the Franco safeguards to individuals who are detained outside of the Covered States, but have their immigration proceedings within thema circumstance without factual predicate at the time of the parties' settlement agreement, not contemplated by the parties in either the lawsuit or the settlement agreement, and for whom there was no analogous class representative. As to this issue, the Court is of the view that, if the parties cannot voluntarily agree to adopt the Court's proposed revised class definition, it is a matter that must be reserved for another day. Accordingly, at this time, the Court adopts a more limited approach, which is to leave the existing class definition intact and to accept Defendants express agreement to extend the Franco safeguards to those class members detained at Cowlitz, even if their immigration proceedings are held outside of the Covered States. (lom) (Entered: 04/05/2017)
934 ORDER RE JOINT STIPULATION TO CONTINUE DEADLINES RELATING TO THE FOURTH MONITORING REPORT AND NOTICE FOR EXTENSION OF THE MONITORING TERM by Judge Dolly M. Gee: Upon Stipulation 931 , the deadline for the Parties' comments to the Fourth Draft Report is continued to 4/7/2017. The Monitor will provide Defendants' counsel with the Supplemental Draft Report for purposes of identifying any Protected Information pursuant to the Protective Order Addendum on 4/7/2017. The Supplemental Draft Report will be provided to Plaintiffs' counsel on 4/14/2017. The deadline for the Parties' comments to the Supplemental Draft Report is continued to 4/21/2017. The deadline for the Monitor to file the Fourth Report and Supplemental Report with the Court is continued to 5/5/2017. The deadline for Plaintiffs' Notice for an extension of the monitoring term is continued to 4/21/2017. The deadline for Defendants' response to Plaintiffs' notice for an extension of the monitoring term is continued to 5/5/2017. The hearing on Plaintiffs' notice for an extension of the monitoring term on is set for 5/12/2017 at 10:00 AM. The Court enters an administrative extension of the monitoring term until the date set for the hearing on Plaintiffs' notice for an extension of the monitoring term, or if the Court resolves the notice without a hearing prior to the hearing date, on the date on which the Court resolves the notice. In no event shall the monitoring term end before 4/30/2017. (gk) (Entered: 04/05/2017)
932 PROTECTIVE ORDER 930 by Judge Dolly M. Gee. See document for details. (lom) (Entered: 04/05/2017)
935 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Reconsideration re Order,,, 928 filed by Defendants Eric H. Holder, Jr, John T. Morton, Janet Napolitano, Timothy S Robbins, Thomas G Snow. Motion set for hearing on 5/12/2017 at 09:30 AM before Judge Dolly M. Gee. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) (Robins, Jeffrey) (Entered: 04/05/2017)
936 (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER by Judge Dolly M. Gee. The Court sua sponte continues Defendants' Motion for Reconsideration 935 from May 12, 2017 at 9:30 a.m. to 10:00 a.m. NOTE CHANGE IN TIME ONLY. IT IS SO ORDERED. THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY. (kti) TEXT ONLY ENTRY (Entered: 04/06/2017)
937 REQUEST for Order for Extension of Monitoring Term filed by Plaintiffs−Petitioners Jose Chavez, Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez, Aleksandr Petrovich Khukhryanskiy, Ever Francisco Martinez−Rivas, Jose Antonio Moreno−Vasquez, Juan Carlos Sepulveda−Perez, Yonas Woldemariam, Maksim Zhalezny. Request set for hearing on 5/12/2017 at 10:00 AM before Judge Dolly M. Gee. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration, # 2 Proposed Order) (Arulanantham, Ahilan) (Entered: 04/21/2017)
938 Opposition re: NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Reconsideration re Order,,, 928 935 filed by Petitioners Jose Chavez, Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez, Aleksandr Petrovich Khukhryanskiy, Ever Francisco Martinez−Rivas, Jose Antonio Moreno−Vasquez, Juan Carlos Sepulveda−Perez, Yonas Woldemariam, Maksim

04/28/2017 05/05/2017 05/05/2017 05/12/2017
05/12/2017
05/18/2017 05/19/2017 05/19/2017 05/26/2017

Zhalezny. (Arulanantham, Ahilan) (Entered: 04/21/2017)
939 REPLY in support of NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Reconsideration re Order,,, 928 935 filed by Respondents Eric H. Holder, Jr, Trey Lund, John T. Morton, Timothy S Robbins, Thomas G Snow. (Robins, Jeffrey) (Entered: 04/28/2017)
940 MONITOR'S REPORT of ON STATUS OF IMPLEMENTATION FOR REPORTING PERIOD 4 (JULY 1, 2016 THROUGH MARCH 3, 2017). (Attachments: # 1 Appendix A, # 2 Appendix B, # 3 Appendix C, # 4 Attachment 4 − UNDER SEAL, # 5 Appendix D, # 6 Plaintiffs Comments on Monitor Draft Report for Reporting Period 4, # 7 Plaintiffs Comments − 2, # 8 Attachment 8, # 9 Defendants Comments to Monitor Draft report on Status, # 10 Defendants Comments − 2). (jp) (Entered: 05/05/2017)
941 OPPOSITION to REQUEST for Order for Extension of Monitoring Term 937 filed by Respondents Eric H. Holder, Jr, John T. Morton, Janet Napolitano, Timothy S Robbins, Thomas G Snow. (Robins, Jeffrey) (Entered: 05/05/2017)
942 MINUTES OF Motion Hearing held before Judge Dolly M. Gee RE: Defendants' Motion for Reconsideration 935 ; Plaintiffs' Request for Extension of Monitoring Term Pursuant to Monitoring Order (Dkt. 810 Section A.3) 937 . The Court invites counsel to respond to the tentative ruling re motion for reconsideration. Following oral argument on the motions, the Court advises counsel that the motions shall be taken under submission and a written order will issue. For the reasons stated on the record, the Court extends the Monitor's term till the hearing on the Monitor's Report on Reporting Period 4 to be held on 6/12/2017 at 10:00 AM or such other date thereafter to which the hearing may be continued. Court Reporter: Anne Kielwasser. (gk) (Entered: 05/12/2017)
943 MINUTES OF IN CHAMBERS − ORDER RE DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION by Judge Dolly M. Gee: This matter comes before the Court upon Defendants' Motion for Reconsideration in connection with Part IV of this Court's Order Re Monitor's Report on Status of Implementation for Third Reporting Period ("Subclass Two Protections Order"). Defendants move pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e), and argue that the Court "committed clear error or made an initial decision that was manifestly unjust." Defendants take issue with the Court's ruling that the Government must provide Class Members with automatic bond hearings after 180 days of detention, regardless of the entry of a final order of removal. Defendants' failure to bring this specific question to the Court's attention does not warrant reconsideration of the issue now, during the monitoring period. Defendants' Motion for Reconsideration 935 is DENIED. Court Reporter: Not Reported. (gk) (Entered: 05/12/2017)
944 Notice of Appearance or Withdrawal of Counsel: for attorney Ahilan T Arulanantham counsel for Petitioners Jose Chavez, Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez, Aleksandr Petrovich Khukhryanskiy, Ever Francisco Martinez−Rivas, Jose Antonio Moreno−Vasquez, Juan Carlos Sepulveda−Perez, Yonas Woldemariam, Maksim Zhalezny. Carmen Iguina is no longer counsel of record for the aforementioned party in this case for the reason indicated in the G−123 Notice. Filed by Plaintiffs−Petitioners Ahilan T. Arulanantham. (Arulanantham, Ahilan) (Entered: 05/18/2017)
945 TRANSCRIPT for proceedings held on 5/12/17 at 10:00 a.m.. Court Reporter/Electronic Court Recorder: Anne Kielwasser, phone number AKtranscripts.com. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Electronic Court Recorder before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Notice of Intent to Redact due within 7 days of this date. Redaction Request due 6/9/2017. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 6/19/2017. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 8/17/2017. (Kielwasser, Anne) (Entered: 05/19/2017)
946 NOTICE OF FILING TRANSCRIPT filed for proceedings 5/12/17 re Transcript 945 THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY. (Kielwasser, Anne) TEXT ONLY ENTRY (Entered: 05/19/2017)
947 PLAINTIFFS' COMMENTS ON MONITORS REPORT ON STATUS OF IMPLEMENTATION FOR REPORTING PERIOD 4 filed by Petitioners Jose

05/26/2017 06/12/2017 06/16/2017 06/16/2017
06/19/2017 06/19/2017
06/19/2017 06/26/2017 08/08/2017

Chavez, Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez, Aleksandr Petrovich Khukhryanskiy, Ever Francisco Martinez−Rivas, Jose Antonio Moreno−Vasquez, Juan Carlos Sepulveda−Perez, Yonas Woldemariam, Maksim Zhalezny re: Report, 940 (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Dr. Kristen Ochoa, # 2 Proposed Order)(Arulanantham, Ahilan) (Entered: 05/26/2017)
948 OBJECTIONS to Report, 940 filed by Respondents John T. Morton, Janet Napolitano, Timothy S Robbins, Thomas G Snow. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Robins, Jeffrey) (Entered: 05/26/2017)
949 MINUTES OF Status Conference re Monitor's Fourth Report held before Judge Dolly M. Gee: The Special Master, the Honorable A. Howard Matz (retired United States District Judge) (by telephone), Katherine Mahoney (the Monitor), and Dr. Melissa Piasecki (by telephone) are also present. The Court and counsel confer. The Court will issue a written Order regarding the Monitor's Fourth Report 940 . Court Reporter: Anne Kielwasser. (gk) (Entered: 06/12/2017)
950 ORDER ORDER RE MONITORS REPORT ON STATUS OF IMPLEMENTATION FOR FOURTH REPORTING PERIOD 940 AND ORDER RE PLAINTIFFS REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF MONITORINGTERM 937 (kr) (Entered: 06/16/2017)
951 ORDER RE MONITOR'S REPORT ON STATUS OF IMPLEMENTATION FOR FOURTH REPORTING PERIOD 940 AND ORDER RE PLAINTIFFS' REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF MONITORING TERM 937 by Judge Dolly M. Gee: The Court adopts the findings and recommendations in the Fourth Monitoring Report 940 . The Court adopts the Monitor's recommendations, set forth in the Supplemental Report on IJ Training Program. The Court adopts the Monitor's recommendations for improving the facility screening forms, including the conclusion that a uniform screening process across all Covered Facilities is the most efficient and effective way to consistently identify Class Members. Defendants are therefore ordered to implement the recommendations set forth as Appendix C to the Report. The Monitoring Term is hereby extended until 4/13/2018 937 . By no later than 12/15/2017, Defendants shall file an interim status report addressing the status of implementation of the primary goals set forth in Section II.A of this order, as well as any other outstanding matters raised by the Monitor in her status report. By no later than 3/16/2018, Defendants shall file a final status report addressing the status of implementation of the primary goals. See document for further details. (gk) (Entered: 06/19/2017)
952 NOTICE OF CLERICAL ERROR Re: Order Re Monitor's Report on Status of Implementation for Fourth Reporting Period and Order Re Plaintiffs' Request for Extension of of Monitoring Term filed 6/16/2017 951 . Due to clerical error, document number 951 is a duplicative docket entry to document number 950. (gk) (Entered: 06/19/2017)
953 TRANSCRIPT for proceedings held on 6−12−17 10:00 a.m.. Court Reporter/Electronic Court Recorder: Anne Kielwasser, phone number AKtranscripts.com. Tape Number: anne.kielwasser@gmail.com. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Electronic Court Recorder before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Notice of Intent to Redact due within 7 days of this date. Redaction Request due 7/10/2017. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 7/20/2017. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 9/18/2017. (Kielwasser, Anne) (Entered: 06/19/2017)
954 NOTICE OF FILING TRANSCRIPT filed for proceedings 6−12−17 re Transcript 953 THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY. (Kielwasser, Anne) TEXT ONLY ENTRY (Entered: 06/19/2017)
955 NOTICE FILING RE: COURTS JUNE 16, 2017 ORDER filed by Defendants Eric H. Holder, Jr, John T. Morton, Janet Napolitano, Timothy S Robbins, Thomas G Snow. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Robins, Jeffrey) (Entered: 06/26/2017)
956 MONITOR'S FOURTH REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS PURSUANT TO MONITORING ORDER SECTION B.1.b filed by Monitor 956 Katherine Byrne Mahoney. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix A) (lom) (Additional

09/07/2017 09/07/2017 09/07/2017 09/08/2017
10/13/2017
11/01/2017
11/03/2017 11/03/2017 11/03/2017 11/06/2017

attachment(s) added on 8/8/2017: # 2 Appendix A) (lom). (Entered: 08/08/2017)
957 Joint STIPULATION for Extension of Time to File Submissions re: Monitor's Status Report filed by Defendants Eric H. Holder, Jr, John T. Morton, Janet Napolitano, Timothy S Robbins, Thomas G Snow. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Robins, Jeffrey) (Entered: 09/07/2017)
958 STIPULATION for Extension of Time to File Responde to Monitor's August 8, 2017, B.1.b Request filed by Defendants Eric H. Holder, Jr, John T. Morton, Janet Napolitano, Timothy S Robbins, Thomas G Snow. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Robins, Jeffrey) (Entered: 09/07/2017)
959 ORDER RE STIPULATION TO EXTEND DEFENDANTS' RESPONSE TO MONITOR'S 8/8/2017, REQUEST PURSUANT TO MONITORING ORDER SECTION B.1.b. by Judge Dolly M. Gee: It is hereby ORDERED that the Stipulation 958 extending the time for Defendants to respond to the Monitor's B.1.b request to 9/15/2017 956 is APPROVED. (gk) (Entered: 09/07/2017)
960 ORDER RE JOINT STIPULATION FOR EXTENSIONS OF TIME REGARDING MONITOR'S STATUS REPORT 957 by Judge Dolly M. Gee: It is hereby ORDERED that the Joint Stipulation for Extensions of Time Regarding Monitors Status Report is GRANTED. The Court extends the time for the Monitor to submit her draft status report to the parties to September 29, 2017, extends the time for the parties to provide comments on the Monitor's status report to October 6, 2017, and similarly extends the time for the Monitor to file her status report to October 13, 2017. (kti) (Entered: 09/08/2017)
961 MONITOR'S STATUS REPORT ON PRIMARY GOALS DURING EXTENSION OF MONITORING TERM filed by Monitor Katherine Byrne Mahoney. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix A, # 2 Appendix B, # 3 Appendix C)(gk) (Additional attachment(s) added on 10/13/2017: # 4 SEALED ATTACHMENT − Appendix D, # 5 SEALED ATTACHMENT − Appendix E, # 6 SEALED ATTACYMENT − Appendix F) (gk). (Additional attachment(s) added on 10/16/2017: # 7 Plaintiffs' Comments to Monitor's Draft Status Report, # 8 Defendants' Comments to Monitor's Status Report) (kti). (Entered: 10/13/2017)
962 MINUTES OF IN CHAMBERS − ORDER AND NOTICE TO ALL PARTIES by Judge Dolly M. Gee: Effective 10/31/2017, the Court accepted the resignation of the Monitor, Katherine Mahoney. The Court greatly appreciates the outstanding work performed by the Monitor since her appointment on 3/2/2015 810 . Pending the Court's review of the Monitor's Interim Status Report 961 , Pending the Court's review of the Monitor's Interim Status Report 951 . Dr. Piasecki shall be compensated by the United States Department of Justice and shall submit her billings directly to Defendants, c/o Jeffrey S. Robins, Esq., rather than to the Monitor. Any disputes regarding Dr. Piasecki's billings shall be subject to the same procedures set forth in the Monitoring Order, Section C.2 810 . Court Reporter: Anne Kielwasser. (gk) (Entered: 11/01/2017)
963 PLAINTIFFS' COMMENTS ON MONITOR'S STATUS REPORT ON PRIMARY GOALS DURING EXTENSION OF MONITORING TERM re: Report,, 961 (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Arulanantham, Ahilan) (Entered: 11/03/2017)
964 REQUEST for Hearing HEARING RE: MONITOR'S STATUS REPORT ON PRIMARY GOALS DURING EXTENSION OF MONITORING TERM, re Report,, 961 , filed by Plaintiffs Jose Chavez, Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez, Aleksandr Petrovich Khukhryanskiy, Ever Francisco Martinez−Rivas, Jose Antonio Moreno−Vasquez, Juan Carlos Sepulveda−Perez, Yonas Woldemariam, Maksim Zhalezny. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) (Arulanantham, Ahilan) (Entered: 11/03/2017)
965 OBJECTIONS to Report,, 961 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Robins, Jeffrey) (Entered: 11/03/2017)
966 APPLICATION of Non−Resident Attorney Sameer Ahmed to Appear Pro Hac Vice on behalf of Petitioners Jose Chavez, Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez, Aleksandr Petrovich Khukhryanskiy, Ever Francisco Martinez−Rivas, Jose Antonio Moreno−Vasquez, Juan Carlos Sepulveda−Perez, Yonas Woldemariam, Maksim

11/09/2017 11/09/2017 11/28/2017
12/05/2017
12/05/2017 12/14/2017
12/15/2017

Zhalezny (Pro Hac Vice Fee − Fee Paid, Receipt No. 0973−20784739) filed by Plaintiffs Jose Chavez, Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez, Aleksandr Petrovich Khukhryanskiy, Ever Francisco Martinez−Rivas, Jose Antonio Moreno−Vasquez, Juan Carlos Sepulveda−Perez, Yonas Woldemariam, Maksim Zhalezny. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Declaration of Sameer Ahmed, # 3 Exhibits A−D, # 4 G−64, # 5 G−64 Proposed Order) (Arulanantham, Ahilan) (Entered: 11/06/2017)
967 ORDER 964 by Judge Dolly M. Gee: Good cause having been shown in Plaintiffs' unopposed Request for Hearing Re: Monitor's Status Report on Primary Goals During Extension of Monitoring Term, the request is hereby GRANTED. A hearing on this matter is set for November 28, 2017 at 9:30 a.m. IT IS SO ORDERED. (kti) (Entered: 11/09/2017)
968 ORDER by Judge Dolly M. Gee Granting Application of Non−Resident Attorney Sameer Ahmed to Appear Pro Hac Vice on behalf of Plaintiffs−Petitioners Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez, et al., designating Ahilan T. Arulanantham as local counsel 966 . (gk) (Entered: 11/13/2017)
969 MINUTES OF Hearing Re: Monitor's Status Report held before Judge Dolly M. Gee: Melissa Piasecki, M.D., the Court's retained expert, appears telephonically. The Court and counsel confer. By 12/15/2017, Defendants shall file a supplemental report describing the types of written training materials provided to or expected to be provided to Immigration Judges for on−board training and at other training sessions in lieu of the Immigration Judge Benchbook. To the extent not already provided, a copy of such training materials shall be provided to Dr. Piasecki for her review. The Court also confirmed other dates/deadlines for future status reports as reflected on the record. The Court will issue a written order regarding the Monitor's recommendations 961 . Court Reporter: Anne Kielwasser. (gk) (Entered: 11/29/2017)
970 TRANSCRIPT for proceedings held on 11/28/17 @ 9:30 a.m.. Court Reporter/Electronic Court Recorder: Anne Kielwasser, phone number AKtranscripts.com. Tape Number: anne.kielwasser@gmail.com. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Electronic Court Recorder before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Notice of Intent to Redact due within 7 days of this date. Redaction Request due 12/26/2017. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 1/5/2018. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 3/5/2018. (Kielwasser, Anne) (Entered: 12/05/2017)
971 NOTICE OF FILING TRANSCRIPT filed for proceedings 11/28/17 re Transcript 970 THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY. (Kielwasser, Anne) TEXT ONLY ENTRY (Entered: 12/05/2017)
972 ORDER RE MONITOR'S REPORT ON STATUS OF PRIMARY GOALS DURING EXTENSION OF MONITORING TERM by Judge Dolly M. Gee: The Court adopts in part and modifies in part the findings and recommendations in the Monitor's Status Report on Primary Goals During Extension of Monitoring Term ("Status Report" or "Fifth Monitoring Report") 961 . By 3/16/2018, Defendants shall file a Final Status Report with the Court addressing the implementation of the primary goals identified in the Court's 6/16/2017 Order 951 . Plaintiffs may, but are not required to, file their response to Defendants' Final Status Report by 3/26/2018. The Court will hold its Final Status Conference on 4/2/2018 10:00 AM before Judge Dolly M. Gee. See document for further details. (gk) (Entered: 12/14/2017)
973 AMENDED ORDER RE MONITOR'S REPORT ON STATUS OF PRIMARY GOALS DURING EXTENSION OF MONITORING TERM 972 by Judge Dolly M. Gee: The Court adopts in part and modifies in part the findings and recommendations in the Monitor's Status Report on Primary Goals During Extension of Monitoring Term ("Status Report" or "Fifth Monitoring Report") 961 . By 3/16/2018, Defendants shall file a Final Status Report with the Court addressing the implementation of the primary goals identified in the Court's 6/16/2017 Order 951 . Plaintiffs may, but are not required to, file their response to Defendants' Final Status Report by 3/26/2018. The Court will hold its Final Status Conference on 4/2/2018 10:00 AM before Judge Dolly M. Gee. See document for additional deadlines and further details. (gk) (Entered: 12/15/2017)

12/15/2017 01/12/2018 01/19/2018 01/26/2018 02/16/2018 02/23/2018 03/01/2018 03/16/2018 03/26/2018 03/26/2018
03/26/2018 03/27/2018

974 STATUS REPORT filed by Respondents Eric H. Holder, Jr, John T. Morton, Janet Napolitano, Timothy S Robbins, Thomas G Snow. (Robins, Jeffrey) (Entered: 12/15/2017)
975 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Reconsideration re Order,,, 973 filed by Plaintiffs−Petitioners Jose Chavez, Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez, Aleksandr Petrovich Khukhryanskiy, Ever Francisco Martinez−Rivas, Jose Antonio Moreno−Vasquez, Juan Carlos Sepulveda−Perez, Yonas Woldemariam, Maksim Zhalezny. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum, # 2 Proposed Order) (Arulanantham, Ahilan) (Entered: 01/12/2018)
976 Joint STIPULATION for Order Hold Plaintiffs' Motion for Reconsideration in Abeyance filed by Defendants Eric H. Holder, Jr, John T. Morton, Janet Napolitano, Timothy S Robbins, Thomas G Snow. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Robins, Jeffrey) (Entered: 01/19/2018)
977 ORDER RE: JOINT STIPULATION REGARDING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 976 by Judge Dolly M. Gee: Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Joint Stipulation Regarding Plaintiffs' Motion for Reconsideration 976 is APPROVED. Plaintiffs Motion for Reconsideration shall be held in abeyance pending further action by the parties. (kti) (Entered: 01/26/2018)
978 Joint STIPULATION to Continue Final Status Conference from April 2, 2018 to April 16, 2018 Re: Order,,, 973 , Joint STIPULATION for Extension of Time to File Refined New Training Materials with Dr. Piasecki filed by Defendants Eric H. Holder, Jr, John T. Morton, Janet Napolitano, Timothy S Robbins, Thomas G Snow. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Robins, Jeffrey) (Entered: 02/16/2018)
979 ORDER RE: STIPULATION TO MODIFY DEADLINE AND HEARING DATE 978 by Judge Dolly M. Gee: Based on the parties' stipulation, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the time for Defendants to provide refined new training materials to Dr. Piasecki is extended from February 16, 2018 to March 9, 2018, and the final status conference is continued from April 2, 2018 to April 16, 2018 at 10:00 a.m. IT IS SO ORDERED. (kti) (Entered: 02/23/2018)
980 NOTICE Regarding Implementation filed by Defendants Eric H. Holder, Jr, John T. Morton, Janet Napolitano, Timothy S Robbins, Thomas G Snow. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration)(Robins, Jeffrey) (Entered: 03/01/2018)
981 STATUS REPORT filed by Respondents Eric H. Holder, Jr, John T. Morton, Janet Napolitano, Timothy S Robbins, Thomas G Snow. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration, # 2 Declaration)(Robins, Jeffrey) (Entered: 03/16/2018)
982 EX PARTE APPLICATION to file document Plaintiffs' Response to Defendants' Final Status Report under seal filed by Petitioners Jose Chavez, Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez, Aleksandr Petrovich Khukhryanskiy, Ever Francisco Martinez−Rivas, Jose Antonio Moreno−Vasquez, Juan Carlos Sepulveda−Perez, Yonas Woldemariam, Maksim Zhalezny. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Arulanantham, Ahilan) (Entered: 03/26/2018)
983 SEALED DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF EX PARTE APPLICATION to file document Plaintiffs' Response to Defendants' Final Status Report under seal 982 filed by Petitioners Jose Chavez, Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez, Aleksandr Petrovich Khukhryanskiy, Ever Francisco Martinez−Rivas, Jose Antonio Moreno−Vasquez, Juan Carlos Sepulveda−Perez, Yonas Woldemariam, Maksim Zhalezny. (Attachments: # 1 Unredacted Document Plaintiffs' Response to Defendants' Final Status Report, # 2 Proof of Service)(Arulanantham, Ahilan) (Entered: 03/26/2018)
984 RESPONSE filed by Petitioners Jose Chavez, Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez, Aleksandr Petrovich Khukhryanskiy, Ever Francisco Martinez−Rivas, Jose Antonio Moreno−Vasquez, Juan Carlos Sepulveda−Perez, Yonas Woldemariam, Maksim Zhaleznyto Status Report 981 REDACTED − PLAINTIFFS' RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS' FINAL STATUS REPORT (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Arulanantham, Ahilan) (Entered: 03/26/2018)
985 ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS' EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR UNDER SEAL FILING 982 by Judge Dolly M. Gee: Good cause having been shown in Plaintiffs' unopposed Ex Parte Application for Under Seal Filing (Application) 982 ,

03/27/2018 04/02/2018 04/03/2018 04/05/2018 04/16/2018 04/18/2018 04/20/2018
04/20/2018 04/20/2018
04/20/2018

the Application is hereby GRANTED. Pursuant to Local Rule 79−5.2.2(c), Plaintiffs shall e−file the unredacted document consistent with this Order within three (3) days of this Order. IT IS SO ORDERED. (kti) (Entered: 03/27/2018)
986 SEALED DOCUMENT Plaintiffs' Response to Defendants' Final Status Report re Order on Motion for Leave to File Document Under Seal, 985 filed by Petitioners Jose Chavez, Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez, Aleksandr Petrovich Khukhryanskiy, Ever Francisco Martinez−Rivas, Jose Antonio Moreno−Vasquez, Juan Carlos Sepulveda−Perez, Yonas Woldemariam, Maksim Zhalezny.(Arulanantham, Ahilan) (Entered: 03/27/2018)
987 EX PARTE APPLICATION for Leave to file Reply in Support of Defendants' Final Status Report filed by Defendants Eric H. Holder, Jr, John T. Morton, Janet Napolitano, Timothy S Robbins, Thomas G Snow. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration, # 2 Proposed Order, # 3 Exhibit Defendants' Reply) (Robins, Jeffrey) (Entered: 04/02/2018)
988 ORDER RE EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO FILE REPLY IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS' FINAL STATUS REPORT 987 by Judge Dolly M. Gee: Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants' unopposed Ex Parte Application to file a reply in support of Defendants' Final Status Report is GRANTED. Defendants shall file their reply on the docket within three (3) days of this Order. (kti) (Entered: 04/03/2018)
989 REPLY filed by Respondents Eric H. Holder, Jr, John T. Morton, Janet Napolitano, Timothy S Robbins, Thomas G Snow to Status Report 981 (Robins, Jeffrey) (Entered: 04/05/2018)
991 MINUTES OF Final Status Conference held before Judge Dolly M. Gee: The cause is called and counsel state their appearance. The Special Master, the Honorable A. Howard Matz (retired United States District Judge), is also present. The Court and counsel confer. The Court will issue a final order. Court Reporter: Anne Kielwasser. (gk) (Entered: 04/20/2018)
990 Notice of Withdrawal of Motion for Reconsideration, 975 filed by Plaintiffs Jose Chavez, Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez, Aleksandr Petrovich Khukhryanskiy, Ever Francisco Martinez−Rivas, Jose Antonio Moreno−Vasquez, Juan Carlos Sepulveda−Perez, Yonas Woldemariam, Maksim Zhalezny. (Arulanantham, Ahilan) (Entered: 04/18/2018)
992 TRANSCRIPT for proceedings held on 4/16/18 @ 10a.m.. Court Reporter/Electronic Court Recorder: Anne Kielwasser, phone number AKtranscripts.com. Tape Number: anne.kielwasser@gmail.com. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Electronic Court Recorder before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Notice of Intent to Redact due within 7 days of this date. Redaction Request due 5/11/2018. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 5/21/2018. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 7/19/2018. (Kielwasser, Anne) (Entered: 04/20/2018)
993 NOTICE OF FILING TRANSCRIPT filed for proceedings 4/16/18 re Transcript 992 THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY. (Kielwasser, Anne) TEXT ONLY ENTRY (Entered: 04/20/2018)
994 TRANSCRIPT for proceedings held on 1/28/18 @ 9:30 A.M.. Court Reporter/Electronic Court Recorder: Anne Kielwasser, phone number AKtranscripts.com. Tape Number: anne.kielwasser@gmail.com. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Electronic Court Recorder before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Notice of Intent to Redact due within 7 days of this date. Redaction Request due 5/11/2018. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 5/21/2018. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 7/19/2018. (Kielwasser, Anne) (Entered: 04/20/2018)
995 NOTICE OF CLERICAL ERROR: Due to clerical error Re: Transcript (CV),, 994 (Kielwasser, Anne) (Entered: 04/20/2018)

04/30/2018

996 ORDER RE COMPLIANCE WITH GOALS OF EXTENDED MONITORING PERIOD AND TERMINATION OF MONITORING by Judge Dolly M. Gee: The Court held a final status conference in this matter on 4/16/2018. Defendants have complied with the Court's 12/15/2017 Amended Order re Monitor's Report on Status of Primary Goals During Extension of Monitoring Term 972 , and the monitoring term has ended. The Court therefore terminates monitoring. At the Court's request, the retained expert in this case, Dr. Melissa Piasecki, conferred with Defendants about her observations regarding future opportunities for improvements in screening detainees for mental illness and supporting immigration judges ("IJ") in their work. The Court strongly recommends that Defendants embrace those opportunities for improvements and continue to implement improvements in the near future. Additionally, Defendants should continue to communicate with Plaintiffs regarding non−IHSC facilities' adoption of revised screening tools, including any incorporation of Franco procedures into their contracts, as well as the status of contract renegotiations, renewals, and/or expirations with regard to such facilities. Finally, the Court strongly encourages the parties to continue to meet and confer regarding Implementation Plan compliance issues to the extent they arise, as Defendants have indicated they are willing to do. See document for further details. (gk) (Entered: 04/30/2018)

06/29/2018

997 NOTICE REGARDING FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISON FACILITIES filed by Plaintiffs−Petitioners Jose Chavez, Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez, Aleksandr Petrovich Khukhryanskiy, Ever Francisco Martinez−Rivas, Jose Antonio Moreno−Vasquez, Juan Carlos Sepulveda−Perez, Yonas Woldemariam, Maksim Zhalezny. (Arulanantham, Ahilan) (Entered: 06/29/2018)

07/03/2018

998 NOTICE of Appearance filed by attorney Anthony Daniel Bianco on behalf of Respondents Eric H. Holder, Jr, John T. Morton, Janet Napolitano, Timothy S Robbins, Thomas G Snow (Attorney Anthony Daniel Bianco added to party Eric H. Holder, Jr(pty:res), Attorney Anthony Daniel Bianco added to party John T. Morton(pty:res), Attorney Anthony Daniel Bianco added to party Janet Napolitano(pty:res), Attorney Anthony Daniel Bianco added to party Timothy S Robbins(pty:res), Attorney Anthony Daniel Bianco added to party Thomas G Snow(pty:res))(Bianco, Anthony) (Entered: 07/03/2018)

07/03/2018

999 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Amend Permanent Injunction 786 filed by Defendants−Respondents Eric H. Holder, Jr, Trey Lund, John T. Morton, Janet Napolitano, Timothy S Robbins, Thomas G Snow. Motion set for hearing on 8/3/2018 at 09:30 AM before Judge Dolly M. Gee. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Proposed Order) (Attorney Anthony Daniel Bianco added to party Trey Lund(pty:res)) (Bianco, Anthony) (Entered: 07/03/2018)

07/12/2018

1000

Partial Opposition re: NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Amend Permanent Injunction 786 999 filed by Petitioners Jose Chavez, Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez, Aleksandr Petrovich Khukhryanskiy, Ever Francisco Martinez−Rivas, Jose Antonio Moreno−Vasquez, Juan Carlos Sepulveda−Perez, Yonas Woldemariam, Maksim Zhalezny. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibits)(Arulanantham, Ahilan) (Entered: 07/12/2018)

07/20/2018 1001 REPLY in support NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Amend Permanent Injunction 786 999 filed by Respondents Eric H. Holder, Jr, John T. Morton, Janet Napolitano, Timothy S Robbins. (Robins, Jeffrey) (Entered: 07/20/2018)

07/25/2018

1002

EX PARTE APPLICATION for Leave to file Surreply filed by Plaintiffs−Petitioners Jose Chavez, Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez, Aleksandr Petrovich Khukhryanskiy, Ever Francisco Martinez−Rivas, Jose Antonio Moreno−Vasquez, Juan Carlos Sepulveda−Perez, Yonas Woldemariam, Maksim Zhalezny. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Surreply, # 2 Proposed Order) (Arulanantham, Ahilan) (Entered: 07/25/2018)

07/27/2018 1003 OPPOSITION to EX PARTE APPLICATION for Leave to file Surreply 1002 filed by Respondents Eric H. Holder, Jr, John T. Morton, Janet Napolitano, Timothy S Robbins, Thomas G Snow. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration)(Robins, Jeffrey) (Entered: 07/27/2018)

07/30/2018 1004 ORDER RE DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO AMEND ORDER IMPLEMENTING COURT'S PERMANENT INJUNCTION AND PLAINTIFFS EX PARTE APPLICATION TO FILE A SURREPLY IN PARTIAL OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS MOTION 999 1002 by Judge Dolly M. Gee: The Court therefore

holds the Ex Parte Application and Motion in abeyance pending such meet and confer. The parties shall file a joint report as to their respective positions no later than August 6, 2018. The Court CONTINUES the hearing on the Ex Parte Application and Motion to August 10, 2018 at 10:00 a.m. (See order for details.) (kti) (Entered: 07/30/2018)

08/06/2018

1005

STATUS REPORT (JOINT STATUS REPORT REGARDING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO AMEND APPENDIX A OF THE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN ORDER AND PLAINTIFFS' EX PARTE APPLICATION TO FILE A SURREPLY) filed by Petitioners Jose Chavez, Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez, Aleksandr Petrovich Khukhryanskiy, Ever Francisco Martinez−Rivas, Jose Antonio Moreno−Vasquez, Juan Carlos Sepulveda−Perez, Yonas Woldemariam, Maksim Zhalezny. (Arulanantham, Ahilan) (Entered: 08/06/2018)

08/09/2018 1006 NOTICE OF LODGING filed re Status Report, 1005 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Robins, Jeffrey) (Entered: 08/09/2018)

08/10/2018

1007

MINUTES OF Motion Hearing held before Judge Dolly M. Gee RE: Defendants−Respondents' Motion to Amend Order Implementing Court's Permanent Injunction 999 ; and Plaintiffs' Ex Parte Application to File a Surreply in Partial Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Amend Order Implementing Court's Permanent Injunction 1002 . The Court invites counsel to respond to the tentative ruling. Following oral argument, the Court advises counsel that the motion shall be taken under submission and a written order will issue. The Government shall file a status report by 8/17/2018. Court Reporter: Lisa Gonzalez. (gk) (Entered: 08/10/2018)

08/10/2018

1008

MINUTES OF ORDER RE DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO AMEND PERMANENT INJUNCTION AND PARTIES' 8/6/2018 JOINT STATUS REPORT by Judge Dolly M. Gee: On 7/3/2018, Defendants filed an Unopposed Motion to Amend Order Implementing Court's Permanent Injunction ("Motion to Amend"), which sought to replace Appendix A with an Amended Appendix A 999 . Plaintiffs filed an ex parte application for leave to file a sur−reply to respond to Defendants' arguments and evidence, and suggested that the Court construe the Opposition as a motion to enforce 1002 . Recognizing the serious dispute between the parties and the snowball effect of their filings, the Court ordered the parties on 7/30/2018 to have a meaningful meet and confer and file a joint status report as to their respective positions. On 8/6/2018, the parties filed the Joint Status Report now before the Court 1005 . Defendants' Motion to Amend is DENIED without prejudice. Defendants may file a renewed noticed motion to amend that shows they have come into compliance with the Implementation Plan Order's requirements for inclusion in Appendix A by no later than 8/31/2018. Alternatively, by the same date, Plaintiffs may file a noticed motion to enforce based on Defendants' noncompliance, if appropriate. Defendants shall file a status report no later than 8/17/2018 that details their compliance with the Court's Order Further Implementing This Court's Permanent Injunction issued 10/29/2014 ("IPO") to date. The Court urges the parties to conduct a meaningful meet and confer under Local Rule 7−3 prior to bringing any such motions. After the parties worked so long and hard to develop the detailed standards set forth in the IPO, neither the parties nor the Court should countenance a dilution of those standards applicable to the Franco class members. Court Reporter: Not Reported. (gk) (Entered: 08/10/2018)

08/17/2018 1009 STATUS REPORT filed by Respondents Eric H. Holder, Jr, John T. Morton, Janet Napolitano, Timothy S Robbins, Thomas G Snow. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2)(Robins, Jeffrey) (Entered: 08/17/2018)

08/28/2018

1010

TRANSCRIPT for proceedings held on 08/10/18 − 10:00 a.m. Court Reporter/Electronic Court Recorder: Lisa M. Gonzalez, #5920, phone number 213−894−2979; CSRLISAG@AOL.COM. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Electronic Court Recorder before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Notice of Intent to Redact due within 7 days of this date. Redaction Request due 9/18/2018. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 9/28/2018. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 11/26/2018. (Gonzalez, Lisa) (Entered: 08/28/2018)

08/28/2018 1011 NOTICE OF FILING TRANSCRIPT filed for proceedings 08/10/18 − 10:00 a.m. re Transcript 1010 THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS

ENTRY. (Gonzalez, Lisa) TEXT ONLY ENTRY (Entered: 08/28/2018)

08/31/2018

1012

Joint STIPULATION for Extension of Time to File motions regarding the question of amendment of Appendix A and/or compliance with the Implementation Plan Order filed by Defendants Eric H. Holder, Jr, John T. Morton, Janet Napolitano, Timothy S Robbins, Thomas G Snow. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Robins, Jeffrey) (Entered: 08/31/2018)

09/04/2018

1013

ORDER RE: JOINT STIPULATION FOR EXTENSIONS OF TIME REGARDING COURT'S AUGUST 10, 2018 ORDER 1012 by Judge Dolly M. Gee: It is hereby ORDERED that the parties' Joint Stipulation to extend the time for the parties to file motions regarding the question of amendment of Appendix A, and/or compliance with the Implementation Plan Order, until September 21, 2018, is GRANTED. (kti) (Entered: 09/04/2018)

09/21/2018

1014

Second STIPULATION for Extension of Time to File motions regarding the question of amendment of Appendix A and/or compliance with the Implementation Plan Order filed by Defendants Eric H. Holder, Jr, John T. Morton, Janet Napolitano, Timothy S Robbins, Thomas G Snow. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Robins, Jeffrey) (Entered: 09/21/2018)

09/25/2018

1015

ORDER RE: SECOND JOINT STIPULATION FOR EXTENSIONS OF TIME REGARDING COURT'S AUGUST 10, 2018 ORDER 1014 by Judge Dolly M. Gee: It is hereby ORDERED that the parties' Second Joint Stipulation to extend the time for the parties to file motions regarding the question of amendment of Appendix A, and/or compliance with the Implementation Plan Order, until October 3, 2018, is GRANTED. (kti) (Entered: 09/25/2018)

10/03/2018 1016 Joint STIPULATION for Extension of Time to File Motion to Amend Appendix A and/or for compliance with the Implementation Plan Order filed by Defendants Eric H. Holder, Jr, John T. Morton, Janet Napolitano, Timothy S Robbins, Thomas G Snow. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Robins, Jeffrey) (Entered: 10/03/2018)

10/05/2018

1017

ORDER RE THIRD JOINT STIPULATION FOR EXTENSIONS OF TIME REGARDING COURT'S 8/10/2018 ORDER by Judge Dolly M. Gee: It is hereby ORDERED that the parties' Third Joint Stipulation to extend the time for the parties to file motions regarding the question of amendment of Appendix A, and/or compliance with the Implementation Plan Order, until 10/17/2018 1016 is GRANTED. (gk) (Entered: 10/05/2018)

10/17/2018 1018 Joint STIPULATION for Order Amend Appendix A of the Implementation Plan Order filed by Defendants Eric H. Holder, Jr, John T. Morton, Janet Napolitano, Timothy S Robbins, Thomas G Snow. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Proposed Order)(Robins, Jeffrey) (Entered: 10/17/2018)

10/19/2018 1019 ORDER ON JOINT STIPULATION RE: COURTS AUGUST 10, 2018 ORDER 1018 by Judge Dolly M. Gee: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appendix A of the Implementation Plan Order is AMENDED pursuant to and in accordance with the parties' stipulation [see Doc. # 1018, 1018−1]. (kti) (Entered: 10/19/2018)

10/31/2018

1020

EX PARTE APPLICATION for Extension of Time to File Motion for Attorneys' Fees filed by Plaintiffs−Petitioners Jose Chavez, Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez, Aleksandr Petrovich Khukhryanskiy, Ever Francisco Martinez−Rivas, Jose Antonio Moreno−Vasquez, Juan Carlos Sepulveda−Perez, Yonas Woldemariam, Maksim Zhalezny. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) (Arulanantham, Ahilan) (Entered: 10/31/2018)

10/31/2018 1021 ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS' UNOPPOSED EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES 1020 by Judge Dolly M. Gee. Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorneys' Fees is due on or before December 2, 2018. (lom) (Entered: 10/31/2018)

11/29/2018

1022

Joint STIPULATION for Order for an Extension of Time to File Motion for Attorneys' Fees filed by Plaintiffs−Petitioners Jose Chavez, Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez, Aleksandr Petrovich Khukhryanskiy, Ever Francisco Martinez−Rivas, Jose Antonio Moreno−Vasquez, Juan Carlos Sepulveda−Perez, Yonas Woldemariam, Maksim Zhalezny. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed

Order)(Arulanantham, Ahilan) (Entered: 11/29/2018)

11/30/2018

1023

ORDER RE: JOINT STIPULATION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES by Judge Dolly M. Gee: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the parties' Joint Stipulation to extend the time for Plaintiffs to file a motion for attorneys' fees 1022 is APPROVED. Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorneys' Fees is due on or before 1/18/2019. (gk) (Entered: 11/30/2018)

01/15/2019 1024 Joint STIPULATION for Extension of Time to File Motion for Attorneys' Fees filed by Defendants Eric H. Holder, Jr, John T. Morton, Janet Napolitano, Timothy S Robbins, Thomas G Snow. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Robins, Jeffrey) (Entered: 01/15/2019)

01/15/2019

1025

ORDER RE JOINT STIPULATION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES by Judge Dolly M. Gee: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the parties' Joint Stipulation to extend the time for Plaintiffs to file a motion for attorneys' fees 1024 is APPROVED. The parties shall meet and confer within 14 days after the restoration of appropriations and file a further stipulation or joint status report regarding their proposed new deadline for the filing of Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorneys' Fees. (gk) (Entered: 01/16/2019)

02/04/2019 1026 Joint STIPULATION for Extension of Time to File Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorneys' Fees filed by Defendants Eric H. Holder, Jr, John T. Morton, Janet Napolitano, Timothy S Robbins, Thomas G Snow. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Robins, Jeffrey) (Entered: 02/04/2019)

02/05/2019

1027

ORDER RE JOINT STIPULATION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES by Judge Dolly M. Gee: It is hereby ORDERED that the parties' Joint Stipulation to extend the time for Plaintiffs to file a Motion for Attorneys' Fees 1026 is APPROVED. Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorneys' Fees is due 3/1/2019. (gk) (Entered: 02/05/2019)

03/01/2019

1028

Joint STIPULATION for Extension of Time to File Motion for Attorneys' Fees filed by Plaintiffs−Petitioners Jose Chavez, Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez, Aleksandr Petrovich Khukhryanskiy, Ever Francisco Martinez−Rivas, Jose Antonio Moreno−Vasquez, Juan Carlos Sepulveda−Perez, Yonas Woldemariam, Maksim Zhalezny. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Arulanantham, Ahilan) (Entered: 03/01/2019)

03/05/2019 1029 ORDER RE JOINT STIPULATION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES 1028 by Judge Dolly M. Gee. Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Attorneys' Fees pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(h) is due on or before April 1, 2019. (lom) (Entered: 03/05/2019)

03/05/2019

1030

NOTICE Regarding Wrongful Deportation of Class Member filed by Plaintiffs−Petitioners Jose Chavez, Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez, Aleksandr Petrovich Khukhryanskiy, Ever Francisco Martinez−Rivas, Jose Antonio Moreno−Vasquez, Juan Carlos Sepulveda−Perez, Yonas Woldemariam, Maksim Zhalezny. (Arulanantham, Ahilan) (Entered: 03/05/2019)

04/01/2019

1031

NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Attorney Fees filed by Plaintiffs−Petitioners Jose Chavez, Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez, Eric H. Holder, Jr, Ever Francisco Martinez−Rivas, Jose Antonio Moreno−Vasquez, Juan Carlos Sepulveda−Perez, Yonas Woldemariam, Maksim Zhalezny. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum, # 2 Declaration, # 3 Proposed Order) (Attorney Ahilan T Arulanantham added to party Eric H. Holder, Jr(pty:res)) (Arulanantham, Ahilan) (Entered: 04/01/2019)

04/02/2019

1032

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS' UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES by Judge Dolly M. Gee: Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Attorneys' Fees 1031 is hereby GRANTED. Plaintiffs' total lodestar and requested hours for counsel in this case are reasonable and well−justified. Defendants are therefore ORDERED to pay to Plaintiffs attorneys' fees in the amount of $35,500.00. This award shall be apportioned among the counsel organizations as follows: $29,978.90 for the ACLU of Southern California; $4,896.45 for the Northwest Immigrant Rights Project; and $624.65 for Public Counsel. (gk) (Entered: 04/03/2019)

06/11/2019

1033

Joint NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Order for Clarification of April 2, 2019 Order filed by Defendants Eric H. Holder, Jr, John T. Morton, Janet Napolitano, Timothy S Robbins. Motion set for hearing on 7/12/2019 at 09:30 AM before Judge Dolly M. Gee. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) (Robins, Jeffrey) (Entered: 06/11/2019)

06/18/2019

1034

MINUTES OF IN CHAMBERS − ORDER RE JOINT MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION by Judge Dolly M. Gee: The Court granted Plaintiffs' unopposed Motion for Attorneys' Fees on 4/2/2019 ("the Order") 1032 . On 6/11/ 2019 the parties filed a Joint Motion for Clarification of two issues that the Order raised 1033 . The Court's 4/2/2019 Order is hereby HELD IN ABEYANCE to allow the parties to agree upon notice materials, the Court to approve those materials, the parties to accomplish notice, and class members to object. Within 14 days of this Order, the parties shall submit a joint proposal regarding notice that shall include the content of the class notice and the length of the notice period. See document for further details. Court Reporter: Not Reported. (gk) (Entered: 06/18/2019)

07/02/2019

1035

JOINT PROPOSAL REGARDING NOTICE TO FRANCO CLASS MEMBERS OF PLAINTIFFS' UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES filed by Petitioners Jose Chavez, Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez, Aleksandr Petrovich Khukhryanskiy, Ever Francisco Martinez−Rivas, Jose Antonio Moreno−Vasquez, Juan Carlos Sepulveda−Perez, Yonas Woldemariam, Maksim Zhalezny (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Proposed Order)(Ahmed, Sameer) (Entered: 07/02/2019)

07/03/2019

1036

ORDER RE NOTICE TO FRANCO CLASS MEMBERS OF PLAINTIFFS' UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES by Judge Dolly M. Gee: Having reviewed the parties' joint proposal regarding notice to Franco class members of Plaintiffs' unopposed motion for attorneys' fees 1035 , the Court approves the proposed Notice to Franco Class Members attached as Exhibit 1 to the joint proposal. Defendants shall post the Notice in English and Spanish at the immigration detention facilities listed in Appendix A of the Franco Implementation Plan Order. The length of the notice period shall be 30 days. If no Franco class member objects to Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorneys' Fees by the end of the notice period, Plaintiffs' counsel shall inform the Court. If any Franco class member objects to Plaintiffs' motion, Plaintiffs' counsel shall inform the Court and, if necessary, request that the Court hold a hearing on Plaintiffs' motion to resolve any objection. (gk) (Entered: 07/03/2019)

07/25/2019

1037

Notice of Appearance or Withdrawal of Counsel: for attorney Lauren Michelle Cruz counsel for Petitioners Jose Chavez, Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez, Aleksandr Petrovich Khukhryanskiy, Ever Francisco Martinez−Rivas, Jose Antonio Moreno−Vasquez, Juan Carlos Sepulveda−Perez, Jonas Woldemariam, Yonas Woldemariam, Maksim Zhalezny. LAUREN MICHELLE CRUZ is no longer counsel of record for the aforementioned party in this case for the reason indicated in the G−123 Notice. Filed by Attorney for Plaintiffs Lauren Michelle Cruz. (Attorney Lauren Michelle Cruz added to party Jonas Woldemariam(pty:pet))(Cruz, Lauren) (Entered: 07/25/2019)

07/29/2019

1038

Notice of Appearance or Withdrawal of Counsel: for attorney Sameer Ahmed counsel for Petitioners Jose Chavez, Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez, Aleksandr Petrovich Khukhryanskiy, Ever Francisco Martinez−Rivas, Jose Antonio Moreno−Vasquez, Juan Carlos Sepulveda−Perez, Jonas Woldemariam, Yonas Woldemariam, Maksim Zhalezny. Sameer Ahmed is no longer counsel of record for the aforementioned party in this case for the reason indicated in the G−123 Notice. Filed by Plaintiffs Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez, et al.. (Ahmed, Sameer) (Entered: 07/29/2019)

09/03/2019

1039

NOTICE Regarding Objections to Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorneys' Fees filed by Plaintiffs−Petitioners Jose Chavez, Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez, Aleksandr Petrovich Khukhryanskiy, Ever Francisco Martinez−Rivas, Jose Antonio Moreno−Vasquez, Juan Carlos Sepulveda−Perez, Yonas Woldemariam, Maksim Zhalezny. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Arulanantham, Ahilan) (Entered: 09/03/2019)

10/22/2019

1040

MINUTE (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER RE PLAINTIFFS' NOTICE REGARDING OBJECTIONS TO MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES 1039 by Judge Dolly M. Gee: On June 14, 2019, the Court issued an Order holding in abeyance its previous April 2, 2019 Order, which granted Plaintiffs' unopposed Motion for Attorneys' Fees. [Doc. ## 1034 ("June 14 Order"), 1032 ("April 2 Order").] The Court held the April 2 Order in abeyance so that the parties could provide class members with notice of the

Motion for Attorneys' Fees and class members could raise any potential objections to the fee award. See June 14 Order. Plaintiffs have indicated that they have given such notice and have received no objections from the class members. [Doc. # 1039.] The Court's April 2, 2019 Order [Doc. # 1032] is therefore no longer held in abeyanceit shall take effect as of the date of this Order. IT IS SO ORDERED. (kti) (Entered: 10/22/2019)

11/08/2019

1041

NOTICE of Appearance filed by attorney Jessica Karp Bansal on behalf of Petitioners Jose Chavez, Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez, Aleksandr Petrovich Khukhryanskiy, Ever Francisco Martinez−Rivas, Jose Antonio Moreno−Vasquez, Juan Carlos Sepulveda−Perez, Yonas Woldemariam, Maksim Zhalezny (Attorney Jessica Karp Bansal added to party Jose Chavez(pty:pet), Attorney Jessica Karp Bansal added to party Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez(pty:pet), Attorney Jessica Karp Bansal added to party Aleksandr Petrovich Khukhryanskiy(pty:pet), Attorney Jessica Karp Bansal added to party Ever Francisco Martinez−Rivas(pty:pet), Attorney Jessica Karp Bansal added to party Jose Antonio Moreno−Vasquez(pty:pet), Attorney Jessica Karp Bansal added to party Juan Carlos Sepulveda−Perez(pty:pet), Attorney Jessica Karp Bansal added to party Yonas Woldemariam(pty:pet), Attorney Jessica Karp Bansal added to party Maksim Zhalezny(pty:pet))(Bansal, Jessica) (Entered: 11/08/2019)

11/08/2019

1042

NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Order for Reopening Limited Discovery to Establish Non−Compliance with Court Orders filed by Plaintiffs−Petitioners Jose Chavez, Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez, Aleksandr Petrovich Khukhryanskiy, Ever Francisco Martinez−Rivas, Jose Antonio Moreno−Vasquez, Juan Carlos Sepulveda−Perez, Yonas Woldemariam, Maksim Zhalezny. Motion set for hearing on 12/13/2019 at 11:00 AM before Judge Dolly M. Gee. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum, # 2 Proposed Order) (Arulanantham, Ahilan) (Entered: 11/08/2019)

11/08/2019

1043

DECLARATION of Kathleen Anne Kavanagh in Support of NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Order for Reopening Limited Discovery to Establish Non−Compliance with Court Orders 1042 filed by Petitioners Jose Chavez, Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez, Aleksandr Petrovich Khukhryanskiy, Ever Francisco Martinez−Rivas, Jose Antonio Moreno−Vasquez, Juan Carlos Sepulveda−Perez, Yonas Woldemariam, Maksim Zhalezny. (Arulanantham, Ahilan) (Entered: 11/08/2019)

11/08/2019

1044

DECLARATION of VALERIE ANNE ZUKIN in Support of NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Order for Reopening Limited Discovery to Establish Non−Compliance with Court Orders 1042 filed by Petitioners Jose Chavez, Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez, Aleksandr Petrovich Khukhryanskiy, Ever Francisco Martinez−Rivas, Jose Antonio Moreno−Vasquez, Juan Carlos Sepulveda−Perez, Yonas Woldemariam, Maksim Zhalezny. (Arulanantham, Ahilan) (Entered: 11/08/2019)

11/08/2019

1045

DECLARATION of LAURA ST. JOHN in Support of NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Order for Reopening Limited Discovery to Establish Non−Compliance with Court Orders 1042 filed by Petitioners Jose Chavez, Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez, Aleksandr Petrovich Khukhryanskiy, Ever Francisco Martinez−Rivas, Jose Antonio Moreno−Vasquez, Juan Carlos Sepulveda−Perez, Yonas Woldemariam, Maksim Zhalezny. (Arulanantham, Ahilan) (Entered: 11/08/2019)

11/08/2019

1046

EX PARTE APPLICATION to file document Memorandum in Support of Motion to Reopen Limited Discovery; Kavanagh Declaration; Zukin Declaration, St. John Declaration, Exhibits A−G under seal filed by Petitioners Jose Chavez, Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez, Aleksandr Petrovich Khukhryanskiy, Ever Francisco Martinez−Rivas, Jose Antonio Moreno−Vasquez, Juan Carlos Sepulveda−Perez, Yonas Woldemariam, Maksim Zhalezny. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration, # 2 Redacted Document Memorandum in Support of Motion, # 3 Redacted Document Declaration of Kathleen Kavanagh, # 4 Redacted Document Declaration of Valerie Zukin, # 5 Redacted Document Declaration of Laura St. John, # 6 Proposed Order)(Arulanantham, Ahilan) (Entered: 11/08/2019)

11/08/2019 1047 SEALED DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF EX PARTE APPLICATION to file document Memorandum in Support of Motion to Reopen Limited Discovery; Kavanagh Declaration; Zukin Declaration, St. John Declaration, Exhibits A−G under

seal 1046 filed by Petitioners Jose Chavez, Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez, Aleksandr Petrovich Khukhryanskiy, Ever Francisco Martinez−Rivas, Jose Antonio Moreno−Vasquez, Juan Carlos Sepulveda−Perez, Yonas Woldemariam, Maksim Zhalezny. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support of Motion to Reopen Limited Discovery, # 2 Declaration of Kathleen Kavanaugh, # 3 Declaration of Valerie Zukin, # 4 Declaration of Laura St. John, # 5 Exhibit A, # 6 Exhibit B, # 7 Exhibit C, # 8 Exhibit D, # 9 Exhibit E, # 10 Exhibit F, # 11 Exhibit G)(Arulanantham, Ahilan) (Entered: 11/08/2019)

11/13/2019

1048

STIPULATION for Order for Briefing Schedule Re: Plaintiffs' Motion to Reopen Limited Discovery (Dkt. 1042) filed by Plaintiffs−Petitioners Jose Chavez, Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez, Aleksandr Petrovich Khukhryanskiy, Ever Francisco Martinez−Rivas, Jose Antonio Moreno−Vasquez, Juan Carlos Sepulveda−Perez, Yonas Woldemariam, Maksim Zhalezny. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Bansal, Jessica) (Entered: 11/13/2019)

11/14/2019

1049

MINUTES OF IN CHAMBERS − ORDER RE PLAINTIFFS' APPLICATION TO FILE DOCUMENTS UNDER SEAL by Judge Dolly M. Gee: Plaintiffs' Application to file under seal their concurrently−filed Motion to Reopen Discovery 1046 is GRANTED. Consistent with this Order, Plaintiffs shall e−file the motion and accompanying papers described in this order pursuant to Local Rule 79−5.2.2(c) within three court days of the date of this Order. See document for further details. Court Reporter: Not Reported. (gk) (Entered: 11/14/2019)

11/15/2019

1050

SEALED DOCUMENT MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO REOPEN LIMITED DISCOVERY TO ESTABLISH NON−COMPLIANCE WITH COURT ORDERS re NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Order for Reopening Limited Discovery to Establish Non−Compliance with Court Orders 1042 , Order on Motion for Leave to File Document Under Seal,, 1049 filed by Petitioners Jose Chavez, Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez, Aleksandr Petrovich Khukhryanskiy, Ever Francisco Martinez−Rivas, Jose Antonio Moreno−Vasquez, Juan Carlos Sepulveda−Perez, Yonas Woldemariam, Maksim Zhalezny.(Arulanantham, Ahilan) (Entered: 11/15/2019)

11/15/2019

1051

SEALED DOCUMENT Declaration of Kathleen Kavanagh re Declaration (Motion related), 1043 , Order on Motion for Leave to File Document Under Seal,, 1049 filed by Petitioners Jose Chavez, Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez, Aleksandr Petrovich Khukhryanskiy, Ever Francisco Martinez−Rivas, Jose Antonio Moreno−Vasquez, Juan Carlos Sepulveda−Perez, Yonas Woldemariam, Maksim Zhalezny.(Arulanantham, Ahilan) (Entered: 11/15/2019)

11/15/2019

1052

SEALED DOCUMENT Declaration of Valerie Zukin re Declaration (Motion related), 1044 , Order on Motion for Leave to File Document Under Seal,, 1049 filed by Petitioners Jose Chavez, Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez, Aleksandr Petrovich Khukhryanskiy, Ever Francisco Martinez−Rivas, Jose Antonio Moreno−Vasquez, Juan Carlos Sepulveda−Perez, Yonas Woldemariam, Maksim Zhalezny.(Arulanantham, Ahilan) (Entered: 11/15/2019)

11/15/2019

1053

SEALED DOCUMENT Declaration of Laura St. John re Declaration (Motion related), 1045 , Order on Motion for Leave to File Document Under Seal,, 1049 filed by Petitioners Jose Chavez, Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez, Aleksandr Petrovich Khukhryanskiy, Ever Francisco Martinez−Rivas, Jose Antonio Moreno−Vasquez, Juan Carlos Sepulveda−Perez, Yonas Woldemariam, Maksim Zhalezny. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G)(Arulanantham, Ahilan) (Entered: 11/15/2019)

11/18/2019

1054

ORDER RE STIPULATION ON BRIEFING SCHEDULE FOR PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO REOPEN LIMITED DISCOVERY TO ESTABLISH NON−COMPLIANCE WITH COURT ORDERS 1048 by Judge Dolly M. Gee: Good cause having been shown in the parties' Stipulation Re: Briefing Schedule for Plaintiffs' Motion to Reopen Limited Discovery to Establish Non−Compliance with Court Orders, the stipulation is hereby APPROVED. The briefing schedule for Plaintiffs' motion to be heard before this Court on December 13, 2019 is as follows: 1. Defendants' response will be due on November 20, 2019. 2. Plaintiffs' reply will be due on November 27, 2019. IT IS SO ORDERED. (kti) (Entered: 11/18/2019)

11/21/2019

1055

Joint STIPULATION to Continue Hearing and Reset Briefing Schedule from December 13, 2019 to December 20, 2019 Re: Stipulation and Order,, 1054 filed by Defendants Eric H. Holder, Jr, John T. Morton, Janet Napolitano, Timothy S Robbins, Thomas G Snow. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Robins, Jeffrey) (Entered: 11/21/2019)

11/25/2019

1056

ORDER RE: JOINT STIPULATION TO RENOTICE HEARING ON PLAINTIFFS' MOTION AND MODIFY BRIEFING SCHEDULE by Judge Dolly M. Gee: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the parties' Joint Stipulation to re−notice the hearing on Plaintiffs' motion 1042 and modify briefing schedule 1055 is GRANTED. The hearing is continued to 12/20/2019 at 10:00 AM before Judge Dolly M. Gee. Defendants' opposition is due 12/4/2019, and Plaintiffs' reply is due 12/11/2019. (gk) (Entered: 11/26/2019)

12/04/2019

1057

EX PARTE APPLICATION to file document Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion to Reopen Limited Discovery under seal filed by Respondents Eric H. Holder, Jr, John T. Morton, Janet Napolitano, Timothy S Robbins, Thomas G Snow. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration, # 2 Proposed Order, # 3 Exhibit Redacted Opposition)(Robins, Jeffrey) (Entered: 12/04/2019)

12/05/2019

1058

SEALED DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF EX PARTE APPLICATION to file document Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion to Reopen Limited Discovery under seal 1057 filed by Respondents Eric H. Holder, Jr, John T. Morton, Janet Napolitano, Timothy S Robbins, Thomas G Snow. (Attachments: # 1 Unredacted Document Opposition, # 2 Unredacted Document Exhibit 1, # 3 Unredacted Document Exhibit 1−A, # 4 Unredacted Document Exhibit 1−B, # 5 Unredacted Document Exhibit 1−C, # 6 Unredacted Document Exhibit 1−D, # 7 Unredacted Document Exhibit 1−E, # 8 Unredacted Document Exhibit 2, # 9 Unredacted Document Exhibit 3, # 10 Unredacted Document Exhibit 4, part 1, # 11 Unredacted Document Exhibit 4, part 2, # 12 Unredacted Document Exhibit 4, part 3, # 13 Unredacted Document Exhibit 4 part 4, # 14 Unredacted Document Exhibit 5, # 15 Unredacted Document Exhibit 6 part 1, # 16 Unredacted Document Exhibit 6 part 2, # 17 Unredacted Document Exhibit 7, # 18 Unredacted Document Exhibit 8, # 19 Unredacted Document Exhibit 9 part 1, # 20 Unredacted Document Exhibit 9 part 2, # 21 Unredacted Document Exhibit 10 part 1, # 22 Unredacted Document Exhibit 10 part 2, # 23 Unredacted Document Exhibit 10 part 3, # 24 Unredacted Document Exhibit 11, # 25 Unredacted Document Exhibit 12, # 26 Unredacted Document Exhibit 12−A, # 27 Unredacted Document Exhibit 12−B, # 28 Unredacted Document Exhibit 13, # 29 Unredacted Document Exhibit 14 part 1, # 30 Unredacted Document Exhibit 14 part 2, # 31 Unredacted Document Exhibit 15, # 32 Unredacted Document Exhibit 15−A, # 33 Unredacted Document Exhibit 15−B, # 34 Unredacted Document Exhibit 16, # 35 Unredacted Document Exhibit 16−A, # 36 Unredacted Document Exhibit 16−B, # 37 Unredacted Document Exhibit 17, # 38 Unredacted Document Exhibit 18, # 39 Unredacted Document Exhibit 19, # 40 Unredacted Document Exhibit 19−A, # 41 Unredacted Document Exhibit 20, # 42 Unredacted Document Exhibit 21 part 1, # 43 Unredacted Document Exhibit 21 part 2, # 44 Unredacted Document Exhibit 21 part 3, # 45 Unredacted Document Exhibit 21 part 4, # 46 Unredacted Document Exhibit 21 part 5, # 47 Unredacted Document Exhibit 24 part 1, # 48 Unredacted Document Exhibit 24 part 2, # 49 Unredacted Document Exhibit 24 part 3, # 50 Unredacted Document Exhibit 24 part 4, # 51 Unredacted Document Exhibit 24 part 5, # 52 Unredacted Document Exhibit 25)(Robins, Jeffrey) (Entered: 12/05/2019)

12/06/2019

1059

MINUTES OF IN CHAMBERS − ORDER RE DEFENDANTS' APPLICATION TO FILE DOCUMENTS UNDER SEAL by Judge Dolly M. Gee: Defendants' Application to file under seal their Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion to Reopen Discovery and certain documents in support of Defendants' Opposition 1057 is GRANTED. Consistent with this Order, Defendants shall e−file the documents described in this order pursuant to Local Rule 79−5.2.2(c) within three days of the date of this Order. See document for further details. Court Reporter: Not Reported. (gk) (Entered: 12/06/2019)

12/09/2019

1060

SEALED OPPOSITION RE Sealed Document,, 1053 , Sealed Document, 1052 , EX PARTE APPLICATION to file document Memorandum in Support of Motion to Reopen Limited Discovery; Kavanagh Declaration; Zukin Declaration, St. John Declaration, Exhibits A−G under seal 1046 , Sealed Document, 1051 , Sealed Document,, 1050 , Order on Motion for Leave to File Document Under Seal,, 1059

filed by Respondents Eric H. Holder, Jr, John T. Morton, Janet Napolitano, Timothy S Robbins, Thomas G Snow. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit Exhibit 1−A, # 3 Exhibit Exhibit 1−B, # 4 Exhibit Exhibit 1−C, # 5 Exhibit Exhibit 1−D, # 6 Exhibit Exhibit 1−E, # 7 Exhibit Exhibit 2, # 8 Exhibit Exhibit 3, # 9 Exhibit Exhibit 4 part 1, # 10 Exhibit Exhibit 4 part 2, # 11 Exhibit Exhibit 4 part 3, # 12 Exhibit Exhibit 4 part 4, # 13 Exhibit Exhibit 5, # 14 Exhibit Exhibit 6 part 1, # 15 Exhibit Exhibit 6 part 2, # 16 Exhibit Exhibit 7, # 17 Exhibit Exhibit 8, # 18 Exhibit Exhibit 9 part 1, # 19 Exhibit Exhibit 9 part 2, # 20 Exhibit Exhibit 10 part 1, # 21 Exhibit Exhibit 10 part 2, # 22 Exhibit Exhibit 10 part 3, # 23 Exhibit Exhibit 11, # 24 Exhibit Exhibit 12, # 25 Exhibit Exhibit 12−A, # 26 Exhibit Exhibit 12−B, # 27 Exhibit Exhibit 13, # 28 Exhibit Exhibit 14 part 1, # 29 Exhibit Exhibit 14 part 2, # 30 Exhibit Exhibit 15, # 31 Exhibit Exhibit 15−A, # 32 Exhibit Exhibit 15−B, # 33 Exhibit Exhibit 16, # 34 Exhibit Exhibit 16−A, # 35 Exhibit Exhibit 16−B, # 36 Exhibit Exhibit 17, # 37 Exhibit Exhibit 18, # 38 Exhibit Exhibit 19, # 39 Exhibit Exhibit 19−A, # 40 Exhibit Exhibit 20, # 41 Exhibit Exhibit 21 part 1, # 42 Exhibit Exhibit 21 part 2, # 43 Exhibit Exhibit 21 part 3, # 44 Exhibit Exhibit 21 part 4, # 45 Exhibit Exhibit 21 part 5, # 46 Exhibit Exhibit 22 part 1, # 47 Exhibit Exhibit 22 part 2, # 48 Exhibit Exhibit 22 part 3, # 49 Exhibit Exhibit 22 part 4, # 50 Exhibit Exhibit 22 part 5, # 51 Exhibit Exhibit 23, # 52 Exhibit Exhibit 24 part 1, # 53 Exhibit Exhibit 24 part 2, # 54 Exhibit Exhibit 24 part 3, # 55 Exhibit Exhibit 24 part 4, # 56 Exhibit Exhibit 24 part 5, # 57 Exhibit Exhibit 25)(Robins, Jeffrey) (Entered: 12/09/2019)

12/11/2019

1061

EX PARTE APPLICATION to file document Reply in Support of Motion to Reopen Limited Discovery to Establish Non−Compliance with Court's Orders under seal filed by Petitioners Jose Chavez, Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez, Aleksandr Petrovich Khukhryanskiy, Ever Francisco Martinez−Rivas, Jose Antonio Moreno−Vasquez, Juan Carlos Sepulveda−Perez, Yonas Woldemariam, Maksim Zhalezny. (Attachments: # 1 Arulanantham Decl., # 2 Redacted Reply, # 3 Proposed Order)(Arulanantham, Ahilan) (Entered: 12/11/2019)

12/11/2019

1062

SEALED DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF EX PARTE APPLICATION to file document Reply in Support of Motion to Reopen Limited Discovery to Establish Non−Compliance with Court's Orders under seal 1061 filed by Petitioners Jose Chavez, Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez, Aleksandr Petrovich Khukhryanskiy, Ever Francisco Martinez−Rivas, Jose Antonio Moreno−Vasquez, Juan Carlos Sepulveda−Perez, Yonas Woldemariam, Maksim Zhalezny. (Attachments: # 1 Reply in Support of Motion to Reopen Limited Discovery to Establish Non−Compliance with Court's Orders)(Arulanantham, Ahilan) (Entered: 12/11/2019)

12/11/2019

1063

REPLY in Support of NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Order for Reopening Limited Discovery to Establish Non−Compliance with Court Orders 1042 REDACTED filed by Petitioners Jose Chavez, Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez, Aleksandr Petrovich Khukhryanskiy, Ever Francisco Martinez−Rivas, Jose Antonio Moreno−Vasquez, Juan Carlos Sepulveda−Perez, Yonas Woldemariam, Maksim Zhalezny. (Arulanantham, Ahilan) (Entered: 12/11/2019)

12/11/2019

1064

DECLARATION of Kelly Wells in Support of NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Order for Reopening Limited Discovery to Establish Non−Compliance with Court Orders 1042 filed by Petitioners Jose Chavez, Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez, Aleksandr Petrovich Khukhryanskiy, Ever Francisco Martinez−Rivas, Jose Antonio Moreno−Vasquez, Juan Carlos Sepulveda−Perez, Yonas Woldemariam, Maksim Zhalezny. (Arulanantham, Ahilan) (Entered: 12/11/2019)

12/16/2019

1065

MINUTES OF IN CHAMBERS − ORDER RE PLAINTIFFS' APPLICATION TO FILE DOCUMENTS UNDER SEAL by Judge Dolly M. Gee: Plaintiffs' Application to file under seal their Reply in Support of their Motion to Reopen Discovery and certain documents associated with the Reply 1061 is GRANTED. Consistent with this Order, Plaintiffs shall e−file the documents described in this document pursuant to Local Rule 79−5.2.2(c) within three days of the date of this Order. See document for further details. Court Reporter: Not Reported. (gk) (Entered: 12/16/2019)

12/17/2019 1066 SEALED DOCUMENT REPLY IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO REOPEN LIMITED DISCOVERY TO ESTABLISH NON−COMPLIANCE WITH COURT ORDERS re NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Order for Reopening Limited Discovery to Establish Non−Compliance with Court Orders 1042

, Order on Motion for Leave to File Document Under Seal,, 1065 filed by Petitioners Jose Chavez, Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez, Aleksandr Petrovich Khukhryanskiy, Ever Francisco Martinez−Rivas, Jose Antonio Moreno−Vasquez, Juan Carlos Sepulveda−Perez, Yonas Woldemariam, Maksim Zhalezny.(Arulanantham, Ahilan) (Entered: 12/17/2019)

12/18/2019

1067

(IN CHAMBERS) ORDER by Judge Dolly M. Gee: The Court finds that Plaintiffs' Motion to Reopen Limited Discovery to Establish Non−Compliance with is appropriate for decision without oral argument. Fed. R. Civ. P. 78(b); C.D. L.R. 7−15. Accordingly, the motion is taken UNDER SUBMISSION and the hearing is vacated. IT IS SO ORDERED. THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY. (kti) TEXT ONLY ENTRY (Entered: 12/18/2019)

12/26/2019 1068 EX PARTE APPLICATION for Leave to file Sur−Reply filed by Defendants Eric H. Holder, Jr, John T. Morton, Janet Napolitano, Timothy S Robbins, Thomas G Snow. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration, # 2 Proposed Order) (Robins, Jeffrey) (Entered: 12/26/2019)

12/30/2019

1069

ORDER RE DEFENDANTS' EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SUR−REPLY RE PLAINTIFFS DISCOVERY MOTION 1068 by Judge Dolly M. Gee: Good cause having been shown in Defendants' Ex Parte Application for Leave to File Sur−Reply re: Plaintiffs' Discovery Motion, Defendants shall file a sur−reply within seven days of this Order in order to respond to new materials raised for the first time in Plaintiffs' Reply. Thereafter, briefing will be closed. IT IS SO ORDERED. (kti) (Entered: 12/30/2019)

01/06/2020 1070 OPPOSITION to NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Order for Reopening Limited Discovery to Establish Non−Compliance with Court Orders 1042 filed by Respondents Eric H. Holder, Jr, John T. Morton, Janet Napolitano, Timothy S Robbins, Thomas G Snow. (Robins, Jeffrey) (Entered: 01/06/2020)

01/08/2020

1071

EX PARTE APPLICATION for Leave to file SUR−REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO REOPEN LIMITED DISCOVERY TO ESTABLISH NON−COMPLIANCE WITH COURT ORDERS filed by Plaintiffs−Petitioners Jose Chavez, Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez, Aleksandr Petrovich Khukhryanskiy, Ever Francisco Martinez−Rivas, Jose Antonio Moreno−Vasquez, Juan Carlos Sepulveda−Perez, Yonas Woldemariam, Maksim Zhalezny. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Jessica Karp Bansal, # 2 Proposed Order) (Bansal, Jessica) (Entered: 01/08/2020)

01/10/2020

1072

MINUTES OF IN CHAMBERS − ORDER RE PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR LEAVE TO CONDUCT LIMITED DISCOVERY TO ESTABLISH NONCOMPLIANCE WITH COURT ORDER AND PLAINTIFFS' EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A SURREPLY by Judge Dolly M. Gee: Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to Conduct Limited Discovery to Establish Non−Compliance with Court Order ("Motion") 1042 is GRANTED. By no later than 1/24/2020, the parties shall meet and confer and file a joint status report to propose a timeline for the completion of the requested discovery. Given the Court's ruling on the Motion, Plaintiffs' Ex Parte Request for Leave to File a Surreply in response to Defendants' Surreply 1071 is DENIED as moot. Court Reporter: Not Reported. (gk) (Entered: 01/10/2020)

01/24/2020

1073

STATUS REPORT REGARDING COMPLIANCE DISCOVERY filed by Petitioners Jose Chavez, Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez, Aleksandr Petrovich Khukhryanskiy, Ever Francisco Martinez−Rivas, Jose Antonio Moreno−Vasquez, Juan Carlos Sepulveda−Perez, Jonas Woldemariam, Yonas Woldemariam, Maksim Zhalezny. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration)(Bansal, Jessica) (Entered: 01/24/2020)

02/20/2020

1074

MINUTES OF IN CHAMBERS − ORDER RE PARTIES' JOINT STATUS REPORT RE DISCOVERY DEADLINES by Judge Dolly M. Gee: The parties filed a document on 1/24/2020 1073 , it is not a "Joint" Status Report and the parties have not agreed on a discovery timeline. Instead, the parties have essentially filed separate briefs within a single document setting out competing positions as to the propriety of Plaintiffs' discovery requests and the amount of time that Defendants will need to comply with them. Plaintiffs shall serve on Defendants a set of Second Amended Interrogatories that comply with this Order and implement the modifications that the Court addressed above by 2/27/2020. By 3/6/2020, the parties will, once again, meet

and confer in an effort to agree on a discovery timeline in light of the Court's rulings. Either Plaintiffs or Defendants shall file their discovery motion by 3/20/2020. Any motion filed before the Magistrate Judge may not address any issues that the parties have not referenced in the briefing on Plaintiffs' previous motion or the Joint Status Report. This motion is not an invitation to litigate new and different discovery issues that the parties have not already identified. The motion shall follow the regular notice and briefing procedures under the Local Rules. The Clerk of Court is directed to assign a United States Magistrate Judge to this action. See document for further details. Court Reporter: Not Reported. (gk) (Entered: 02/20/2020)

02/20/2020 1075 NOTICE OF REASSIGNMENT OF CASE filed. Pursuant to order filed on 02/20/2020. Case referred to Magistrate Judge Alicia G. Rosenberg for any discovery matters that are or may be referred by the District Judge. Case number will now read 2:10−cv−02211 DMG(AGRx). (rn) (Entered: 02/20/2020)

03/10/2020 1076 Mail Returned addressed to Katherine Byrne Mahoney re Notice of Reassignment of Case 1075 . (gk) (Entered: 03/11/2020)

03/24/2020

1077

STATUS REPORT (Joint Status Report Regarding Compliance Discovery) filed by Petitioners Jose Chavez, Jose Antonio Franco−Gonzalez, Aleksandr Petrovich Khukhryanskiy, Ever Francisco Martinez−Rivas, Jose Antonio Moreno−Vasquez, Juan Carlos Sepulveda−Perez, Yonas Woldemariam, Maksim Zhalezny. (Attachments: # 1 Bansal Declaration, # 2 Exhibit A)(Bansal, Jessica) (Entered: 03/24/2020)

03/31/2020 1078 NOTICE RE: COMPLIANCE filed by Defendants Eric H. Holder, Jr, John T. Morton, Janet Napolitano, Timothy S Robbins, Thomas G Snow. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Robins, Jeffrey) (Entered: 03/31/2020)

 
 Case 2:10-cv-02211-DMG-DTB Document 996 Filed 04/30/18 Page 1 of 2 Page ID #:24751

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

11 JOSE ANTONIO FRANCO 12 GONZALEZ, et al.,

13

Plaintiffs-Petitioners,

14

v.

15 JEFFERSON SESSIONS, Attorney General, et al.,
16
Defendants-Respondents.
17

Case No.: CV 10-2211-DMG (DTBx)
ORDER RE COMPLIANCE WITH GOALS OF EXTENDED MONITORING PERIOD AND TERMINATION OF MONITORING

18

19

20

21

The Court held a final status conference in this matter on April 16, 2018.

22 Defendants have complied with the Court’s December 15, 2017 Amended Order re

23 Monitor’s Report on Status of Primary Goals During Extension of Monitoring Term

24 [Doc. # 972] and the monitoring term has ended. The Court therefore terminates

25 monitoring.

26

At the Court’s request, the retained expert in this case, Dr. Melissa Piasecki,

27 conferred with Defendants about her observations regarding future opportunities for

28 improvements in screening detainees for mental illness and supporting immigration

-1-

Case 2:10-cv-02211-DMG-DTB Document 996 Filed 04/30/18 Page 2 of 2 Page ID #:24752

1 judges (“IJ”) in their work. The Court strongly recommends that Defendants embrace

2 those opportunities for improvements and continue to implement improvements in the

3 near future, including the following:

4

1. Field testing in accordance with best practices;

5

2. Continue to use quality assurance process to establish performance metrics,

6

maintain quality, and generate improvements in the screening process,

7

training, and assessment tools;

8

3. Incorporate the latest revisions to screening and IJ training materials, which

9

highlight neurocognitive aspects of mental illness, to the extent possible;

10

4. Highlight aspects of revised improvements in on-board training and in all

11

future Franco-specific and more generalized IJ training regarding Franco

12

screening practices; and

13

5. Open Franco-specific training to existing IJs who may wish to attend such

14

training.

15

Additionally, Defendants should continue to communicate with Plaintiffs regarding

16 non-IHSC facilities’ adoption of revised screening tools, including any incorporation of

17 Franco procedures into their contracts, as well as the status of contract renegotiations,

18 renewals, and/or expirations with regard to such facilities.

19

Finally, the Court strongly encourages the parties to continue to meet and confer

20 regarding Implementation Plan compliance issues to the extent they arise, as Defendants

21 have indicated they are willing to do. See Defendants’ Reply in Support of Defendants’

22 Final Status Report at 6 n.7 [Doc. # 987-3].

23

The Court again expresses its appreciation to the parties and their counsel, the

24 Special Master, the Monitor, and the retained expert for all of their efforts to effectuate

25 the Implementation Plan.

26
27 DATED: April 30, 2018
28

________________________________ DOLLY M. GEE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

-2-

 
 6I2G'13
EDIRIiEWS

EOIRN .......
Department ofJustice

Executive Office for Immigration Review

Monday, April 22, 2013
Department ofJustice and the Department ofHomeland Security Announce Safeguards for Unrepresented Immigration Detainees with Serious Mental Disorders or Conditions
WASmNGTON -- The Department of Justice (00J) and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) will issue today a new nationwide policy for unrepresented immigration detainees with serious mental disorders or conditions that may render them mentally incompetent to represent themselves in immigration proceedings.
The policy entails implementation ofnew procedural protections, including: conducting screening for serious mental disorders or conditions when individuals held for removal proceedings enter a u.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Health Service Corps (IHSC)-staffed immigration detention facility; working with nonIHSC-staffed immigration detention facilities to identify detainees with serious mental disorders or conditions in those facilities; the availability ofcompetency hearings and independent psychiatric or psychological examinations; procedures that will make available qualified representatives to detainees who are deemed mentally incompetent to represent themselves in immigration proceedings; and bond hearings for detainees who were identified as having a serious mental disorder or condition that may render them mentally incompetent to represent themselves and have been held in immigration detention for at least six months.
Ifverifiable documentation, medical records or other forms ofevidence provide indication ofmental incompetency, Immigration Judges will convene a competency hearing to determine whether the detainee is competent to represent himselfor herselfin immigration proceedings. When an Immigration Judge is unable to make a determination ofmental competency based upon evidence already presented, the Immigration Judge will be authorized to order an independent examination and psychiatric or psychological report. The competency examinations will be administered through a program run by the DOJ Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) and performed by an independent medical professional.
EOIR will make available a qualified representative to unrepresented detainees who are deemed mentally incompetent to represent themselves in immigration proceedings. Additionally, detainees who were identified as having a serious mental disorder or condition that may render them mentally incompetent to represent themselves and who have been held in immigration detention for at least six months will also be afforded a bond hearing.
DOJ and DHS believe these new procedures will provide enhanced protections to unrepresented immigration detainees with serious mental disorders or conditions that may render them mentally incompetent to represent themselves in immigration proceedings, and will facilitate the conduct ofthose proceedings. The Government expects these new procedures to be fully operational on a national basis by the end of 2013.

WIIW.justice.grNear/pressl20131SafeguerdsUnrepresenlBdlrrrrigrelionDeiainees.hIn1

1/1

 
 Policy Number: 11063.1 FEA Number: 306-112-002b
April 22, 2013

Office ofthe Director
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 500 12th Street, SW Wash ington, DC 20536
u.s. Immigration
and Customs Enforcement

MEMORANDUM FOR:

Thomas D. Homan Acting Executive Associate Director Enforcement & Removal Operations

Peter S. Vincent Principal Legal Advisor

Kevin Landy Assistant Director Office of Detention Policy an

FROM:

Director

SUBJECT:

Civil Immi ation De ntion: Guidance for New Identification and Information-Sharing Procedures Related to Unrepresented Detainees With Serious Mental Disorders or Conditions

Purpose

This memorandum directs that procedures be in place to ensure that U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detainees who may be mentally incompetent to represent themselves in removal proceedings before the Department of Justice' s Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) are identified, that relevant information about them is provided to the immigration court so that an immigration judge (IJ) can rule on their competency and, where appropriate, that such aliens are provided with access to new procedures for unrepresented mentally incompetent detainees being implemented by EOIR. I In order to assist EOIR in identifying unrepresented individuals detained in ICE custody for removal proceedings who have serious mental disorders or conditions that may render them mentally incompetent to represent themselves in those proceedings, ICE personnel should immediately begin taking the following steps?

1 This policy directive supplements all previous guidance distributed by ICE pursuant to the Board of Immigration Appeals ' decision in Matter ofM-A-M-, 25 I. & N. Dec. 474 (BIA 2011). 2 On this same date, EOIR issued a nationwide policy authorizing 11s to order competency exams for detained aliens where there are indicia of mental incompetency and the immigration judge believes that he or she cannot render a competency determination in the absence of an exam . When an IJ orders a

Civil Immigration Detention: Guidance for New Identification and Information-Sharing Procedures Related to Unrepresented Detainees With Serious Mental Disorders or Conditions Page 2
Identification and Assessment Procedures
For facilities that are staffed by the ICE Health Service Corps (IHSC) where screening procedures have not yet begun being implemented, Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO) and IHSC personnel should immediately begin developing procedures to ensure that, absent emergency circumstances related to facility security or the health and safety of staff or detainees, all immigration detainees will be initially screened when they enter the facility and will receive a more thorough medical and mental health assessment within 14 days of their admission. For all other facilities, ERO and IHSC personnel should immediately begin working with the detention facilities' medical staff to develop procedures to identify detainees with serious mental disorders or conditions that may impact their ability to participate in their removal proceedings, including through use of a national telephone hotline for detainees and family members to report and provide information regarding detainees.
These procedures should provide that if a detainee is identified as having serious mental disorders or conditions, ICE will request that either a qualified mental health provider complete a mental health review report or the facility provide the detainee ' s medical records within the facility's possession to ICE for further review.
Information-Sharing Procedures
ERO and IHSC personnel should also immediately begin developing procedures to ensure that documents related to an unrepresented detainee's mental competency, including a mental health review report and mental health records in ICE's possession, are provided to the applicable Office of Chief Counsel (OCC). OCCs should begin developing procedures to ensure that relevant information in its possession that would inform the immigration court about the detainee's mental competency is made available to the IJ.
Timeline
Where these procedures have not yet begun being implemented, ICE personnel are directed to begin developing these procedures immediately and have the relevant procedures in place at all immigration detention facilities by December 31, 2013 .
competency exam for a detained alien, ICE will ensure that the independent examiner has the necessary access to the detained alien to conduct the competency exam . EOIR's new policy also provides custody hearings to unrepresented detained aliens who were identified as having a serious mental disorder or condition that may render them incompetent to represent themselves and have been detained in ICE custody for six months or longer. ICE trial counsel shall participate in these custody hearings. EOIR's new nationwide policy also provides qualified representatives to detainees who are found to be mentally incompetent to represent themselves. ICE trial counsel will work with such qualified representatives, consistent with treatment afforded any respondent's representative-of-record, in removal proceedings before EO IR.

 
 6I2G'13

Class Action laY.suit Faces PclicyChange to Prolect Detained Inrnigr!01ls wth Serirus Menial Disabilities I ACLU eX Southern Califa"nia

Class Action Lawsuit Forces Policy Change to

Protect Detained Immigrants with Serious Mental

Disabilities
Posted on April 22, 2013
IJC a ~ D~mt

LOS ANGELES - Class Counsel appointed by the United States District Court in the Franco v. Holdercase today issued the following statement regarding the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and the Executiw Office for Immigration Reloiew's announcement of new policies for detainees with mental illnesses:

Today's two announcements by the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement ("ICE") and the Executiw
Office for Immigration Reloiew ("EOIR") are notable for the fact that these changes haw only come on the ew of entry of Permanent Injunctiw Relief in a lawsuit pending in the United States District Court for the Central District of Califomia entitled Franco v. Holder, 2: 10-cv-02211. In that case, on March 22, 2013, United States District Court Judge Dolly Gee announced in a tentatiw opinion that she intended to enter a permanent injunction ordering extensiw relief against ICE and EOIR related to their treatment of detained immigrants.

The ACLU Foundation of Southem Califomia, Public Counsel, the Northwest Immigrant Rights PlOject, Mental Health Ad\Ocacy SeNces, the ACLU Immigrants' Rights PlOject and Sullivan & ClOmwell LLP all represent the class of detained immigrants who haw blOught the Franco action.

"While we welcome the announcement that ICE and EOIR will dewlop policies to plOloide basic plOcedural plOtections to a class of wlnerable immigration detainees," said Hector Villagra, executiw director of the ACLU of Southem Califomia (ACLU/SC), "we are tlOubled that it took the threat of an imminent injunction for the gowmment to ewn recognize that detainees with serious mental disabilities are being denied their basic rights. We are also tlOubled that ewn after sewral lead plaintiffs haw won rulings from the district court establishing the right to legal representation, the best that ICE and EOIR can announce is their hope to implement plOcedures by the end of the year."

"It is a shame that ICE and EOIR are taking these mows only because of the threat of an immediate and permanent injunction against their mistreatment of detained immigrants," said Michael H. Steinberg of Sullivan & ClOmwell LLP, co-lead counsel. "For years, the gowmment denied that there was any plOblem. It is only too bad that they acknowiedge the plOblem just before the Court enters an injunction."

The two announcements also underscore the failure of ICE's and EOIR's current systems. As one example,
the ICE policy memo acknowledges that facilities run by ICE still "haw not yet begun" implementing basic screening plOcedures. Moreowr, for non-ICE contract facilities where thousands of detainees are held, ICE has not ewn begun to dewlop plOcedures to identify detainees with mental disabilities.

"ICE's policy announcement contains stunning admissions about their failure to take actions for the past three years," said Talia Inlender of Public Counsel, one of class counsel. 'The Gowmment's announcement only underscores that they simply do not haw the ability to identify those detainees suffering from serious mental illnesses, and their policy announcements only confirm the lack of plOtections in place for mentally ill

WAW.acI u-sc.orglfranccLarnJUllCeIll9IlB1

112

6I2G.13

Class Action laY.suit Faces PclicyChange to Prolect Detained Inrnigr!01ls wth Serirus Menial Disabilities I ACLU eX Southern Califa"nia

detainees."

"While these policy announcements must obviously be placed into context of the ongoing litigation, it is encouraging that finally all sides seem to acknowledge that persons with sewre disabilities need legal representation to haw any chance at a fair hearing, as well as other protections to aloOid prolonged detention in these civil matters," said Matt Adams, with Northwest Immigrant Rights Project.

"After spending three years litigating against basic protections for immigrants with serious mental disabilities, the gowmment has finally recognized that its prior policies were inadequate." said Judy Rabinovitz, deputy director of the ACLU Immigrants' Rights Project. "These policy changes - ewn if implemented - do not go far enough to guarantee a right to appointed legal counsel for those who cannot represent themselws due to a serious mental illness."

For more infonnation about Franco-Gonzalez v. Holder: www.aclu-sc.org/francol

For the ACLU's framework on federal immigration refonn: www.aclu.org/immigrants-rights/aclu-frameworkimmigration-refonnl

Contact Info:

SULLIVAN & CROMWELL LLP, Michael H. Steinberg, (310) 712-e670, steinbergm@sullcrom.com NWIRP, Jorge L. Baron, 206 957 8609, jorge@nwirp.org ACLU Foundation of Southem Califomia, Diana Rubio & Vicki Fox, (213) 977-5252, drubio@aclu-sc.org ACLU Immigrants' Rights Project, Shawn Jain, (202) 568-{)079 media@aclu.org Public Counsel, Talia Inlender, (213) 385-2977, ext. 235, tinlender@publiccounsel.org ACLU of San Diego & Imperial Counties, Jess Jollett, (619) 203-{)959, llollett@aclusandiego.org

WAW.acI u-sc.orglfranccLarnJUllCeIll9IlB1

212