ACCO,(GJSx),DISCOVERY,MANADR
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA (Western Division − Los Angeles)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 2:19−cv−10424−AB−GJS

Freedom For Immigrants v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security et al Assigned to: Judge Andre Birotte Jr Referred to: Magistrate Judge Gail J. Standish Cause: 28:1331 Federal Question: Other Civil Rights
Plaintiff

Date Filed: 12/10/2019 Jury Demand: None Nature of Suit: 440 Civil Rights: Other Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Defendant

Freedom For Immigrants

represented by Moez M Kaba Hueston Hennigan LLP 523 West Sixth Street Suite 400 Los Angeles, CA 90014 213−788−4340 Fax: 888−755−0898 Email: mkaba@hueston.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ashley Marie Artmann Hueston Hennigan LLP 523 West 6th Street Suite 400 Los Angeles, CA 90014 213−788−4340 Fax: 888−775−0898 Email: aartmann@hueston.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Rajan S Trehan Hueston Hennigan LLP 523 West 6th Street Suite 400 Los Angeles, CA 90014 213−788−4340 Fax: 888−775−0898 Email: rtrehan@hueston.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Defendant U.S. Department of Homeland Security

represented by Anna Dichter United States Department of Justice Civil Division − Office of Immigration Litigation PO Box 868 Ben Franklin Station Washington, DC 20044 202−353−2405 Fax: 202−305−7038 Email: anna.l.dichter@usdoj.gov 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

Defendant U.S. Immigration & Customs Enforcement
Defendant Chad F. Wolf acting in his official capacity as Acting Secretary of DHS
Defendant Matthew T. Albence acting in his official capacity as Acting Director for ICE

Email: jeffrey.robins@usdoj.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Joanne I Osinoff AUSA − Office of US Attorney Civil Division 300 North Los Angeles Street Suite 7516 Los Angeles, CA 90012 213−894−6880 Fax: 213−894−7819 Email: USACAC.Civil@usdoj.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ozlem B Barnard US Department of Justice Office of Immigration Litigation − District Court Section PO Box 868 Ben Franklin Station Washington, DC 20044 202−307−4469 Fax: 202−305−7000 Email: ozlem.b.barnard@usdoj.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Anna Dichter (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jeffrey S Robins (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Joanne I Osinoff (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ozlem B Barnard (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Anna Dichter (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jeffrey S Robins (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Joanne I Osinoff (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ozlem B Barnard (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Anna Dichter (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Derek N. Benner acting in his official capacity as Acting Deputy Director for ICE

Jeffrey S Robins (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Joanne I Osinoff (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ozlem B Barnard (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Anna Dichter (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jeffrey S Robins (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Joanne I Osinoff (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ozlem B Barnard (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 12/10/2019 12/10/2019 12/10/2019 12/10/2019
12/10/2019
12/10/2019 12/10/2019

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT Receipt No: 0973−24921171 − Fee: $400, filed by Plaintiff Freedom For Immigrants. (Attorney Moez M Kaba added to party Freedom For Immigrants(pty:pla))(Kaba, Moez) (Entered: 12/10/2019)
2 CIVIL COVER SHEET filed by Plaintiff Freedom For Immigrants. (Kaba, Moez) (Entered: 12/10/2019)
3 CERTIFICATION AND NOTICE of Interested Parties filed by Plaintiff Freedom For Immigrants, identifying Talton Communications, Inc.. (Kaba, Moez) (Entered: 12/10/2019)
4 APPLICATION for Preliminary Injunction re Injunctive and Declaratory Relief . Motion filed by Plaintiff Freedom For Immigrants. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Moez M. Kaba, # 2 Exhibit 1, # 3 Exhibit 2, # 4 Exhibit 3, # 5 Exhibit 4, # 6 Exhibit 5, # 7 Exhibit 6, # 8 Declaration of Christina Fialho, # 9 Exhibit 1, # 10 Exhibit 2, # 11 Exhibit 3, # 12 Exhibit 4, # 13 Exhibit 5, # 14 Exhibit 6, # 15 Proposed Order) (Kaba, Moez) (Entered: 12/10/2019)
5 Notice of Appearance or Withdrawal of Counsel: for attorney Rajan S Trehan counsel for Plaintiff Freedom For Immigrants. Adding Rajan S. Trehan as counsel of record for Freedom For Immigrants for the reason indicated in the G−123 Notice. Filed by Plaintiff Freedom For Immigrants. (Attorney Rajan S Trehan added to party Freedom For Immigrants(pty:pla))(Trehan, Rajan) (Entered: 12/10/2019)
6 Request for Clerk to Issue Summons on Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening) 1 filed by Plaintiff Freedom For Immigrants. (Kaba, Moez) (Entered: 12/10/2019)
7 Notice of Appearance or Withdrawal of Counsel: for attorney Ashley Marie Artmann counsel for Plaintiff Freedom For Immigrants. Adding Ashley M. Artmann as counsel of record for Freedom For Immigrants for the reason indicated in the G−123 Notice. Filed by Plaintiff Freedom For Immigrants. (Attorney Ashley Marie Artmann added to party Freedom For Immigrants(pty:pla))(Artmann, Ashley) (Entered: 12/10/2019)

12/11/2019 12/11/2019 12/11/2019 12/12/2019 12/13/2019 12/18/2019
12/19/2019
12/20/2019
01/02/2020
01/07/2020 01/07/2020 01/07/2020

8 NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT to District Judge Andre Birotte Jr and Magistrate Judge Gail J. Standish. (jtil) (Entered: 12/11/2019)
9 NOTICE TO PARTIES OF COURT−DIRECTED ADR PROGRAM filed. (jtil) (Entered: 12/11/2019)
10 60 DAY Summons Issued re Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening) 1 as to Defendants All Defendants. (jtil) (Entered: 12/11/2019)
11 STANDING ORDER upon filing of the complaint by Judge Andre Birotte Jr. (cb) (Entered: 12/12/2019)
12 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE filed by Plaintiff Freedom For Immigrants, re APPLICATION for Preliminary Injunction re Injunctive and Declaratory Relief . Motion 4 served on 12/12/2019. (Kaba, Moez) (Entered: 12/13/2019)
13 MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER SETTING HEARING DATE AND BRIEFING SCHEDULE by Judge Andre Birotte Jr.: The Court ORDERS Defendants shall file their opposition to Plaintiffs motion for a preliminary injunction 4 by 1/3/2020 at 5:00 PM. Plaintiff shall file its reply by 1/10/2020 at 5:00 PM. The parties shall appear on 1/17/2020 at 10:00 AM before Judge Andre Birotte Jr. to show cause why the preliminary injunction should or should not be granted. Plaintiffs counsel shall serve a copy of this Order on Defendants by 12/20/2019 at 5:00 PM. Court Reporter: N/A. (gk) (Entered: 12/18/2019)
14 STIPULATION for Order for Extension of Time for Defendants to Oppose Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction and Plaintiff's Reply filed by DEFENDANTS Matthew T. Albence, Derek N. Benner, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Immigration & Customs Enforcement, Chad F. Wolf. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Attorney Joanne I Osinoff added to party Matthew T. Albence(pty:dft), Attorney Joanne I Osinoff added to party Derek N. Benner(pty:dft), Attorney Joanne I Osinoff added to party U.S. Department of Homeland Security(pty:dft), Attorney Joanne I Osinoff added to party U.S. Immigration & Customs Enforcement(pty:dft), Attorney Joanne I Osinoff added to party Chad F. Wolf(pty:dft))(Osinoff, Joanne) (Entered: 12/19/2019)
15 ORDER RE: JOINT STIPULATION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME FOR DEFENDANTS TO OPPOSE PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND PLAINTIFF'SREPLY 14 by Judge Andre Birotte Jr. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. Defendants' time to file their opposition to Plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction is extended up to and including January 7, 2010; 2. Plaintiff's time to file its reply, if any, is extended up to and including January 17, 2020; and 3. The hearing on Plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction is continued to Friday, January 31, 2020 at 10:00 a.m. (lom) (Entered: 12/20/2019)
16 NOTICE of Appearance filed by attorney Anna Dichter on behalf of Defendants Matthew T. Albence, Derek N. Benner, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Immigration & Customs Enforcement, Chad F. Wolf (Attorney Anna Dichter added to party Matthew T. Albence(pty:dft), Attorney Anna Dichter added to party Derek N. Benner(pty:dft), Attorney Anna Dichter added to party U.S. Department of Homeland Security(pty:dft), Attorney Anna Dichter added to party U.S. Immigration & Customs Enforcement(pty:dft), Attorney Anna Dichter added to party Chad F. Wolf(pty:dft))(Dichter, Anna) (Entered: 01/02/2020)
17 (Attorney Ozlem B Barnard added to party Matthew T. Albence(pty:dft), Attorney Ozlem B Barnard added to party Derek N. Benner(pty:dft), Attorney Ozlem B Barnard added to party U.S. Department of Homeland Security(pty:dft), Attorney Ozlem B Barnard added to party U.S. Immigration & Customs Enforcement(pty:dft), Attorney Ozlem B Barnard added to party Chad F. Wolf(pty:dft))(Barnard, Ozlem) (Entered: 01/07/2020)
18 REQUEST for Extension of Time to File PI opp filed by Defendants Matthew T. Albence, Derek N. Benner, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Immigration & Customs Enforcement, Chad F. Wolf. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) (Barnard, Ozlem) (Entered: 01/07/2020)
19 Corrected STIPULATION for Extension of Time to File Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction as to APPLICATION for Preliminary

01/08/2020 01/08/2020
01/08/2020 01/17/2020 01/29/2020 01/30/2020 01/31/2020
01/31/2020 02/07/2020 02/11/2020

Injunction re Injunctive and Declaratory Relief . Motion 4 filed by defendants Matthew T. Albence, Derek N. Benner, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Immigration & Customs Enforcement, Chad F. Wolf. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Dichter, Anna) (Entered: 01/07/2020)
20 ORDER RE: JOINT STIPULATION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME FOR DEFENDANTS' OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION by Judge Andre Birotte Jr.: Upon Stipulation 18 , IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants' time to file their opposition to Plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction is extended up to and including 1/8/2020. (gk) (Entered: 01/08/2020)
21 NOTICE TO FILER OF DEFICIENCIES in Electronically Filed Documents RE: Notice of Appearance or Withdrawal of Counsel (G−123), 17 . The following error(s) was/were found: Incomplete docket text; missing name of event. In response to this notice, the Court may: (1) order an amended or correct document to be filed; (2) order the document stricken; or (3) take other action as the Court deems appropriate. You need not take any action in response to this notice unless and until the Court directs you to do so. (ak) (Entered: 01/08/2020)
22 OPPOSITION to APPLICATION for Preliminary Injunction re Injunctive and Declaratory Relief . Motion 4 filed by Defendants Matthew T. Albence, Derek N. Benner, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Immigration & Customs Enforcement, Chad F. Wolf. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Dichter, Anna) (Entered: 01/08/2020)
23 REPLY In Support Of APPLICATION for Preliminary Injunction re Injunctive and Declaratory Relief . Motion 4 filed by Plaintiff Freedom For Immigrants. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Francis Conlin, # 2 Declaration of Christina Fialho)(Kaba, Moez) (Entered: 01/17/2020)
24 First APPLICATION for Leave to file Sur−reply Ex Parte filed by Defendants Matthew T. Albence, Derek N. Benner, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Immigration & Customs Enforcement, Chad F. Wolf. Application set for hearing on 1/31/2020 at 10:00 AM before Judge Andre Birotte Jr. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration, # 2 Proposed Order, # 3 Memorandum) (Barnard, Ozlem) (Entered: 01/29/2020)
25 OPPOSITION re: First APPLICATION for Leave to file Sur−reply Ex Parte 24 filed by Plaintiff Freedom For Immigrants. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Christina Fialho, # 2 Exhibit 1, # 3 Exhibit 2, # 4 Exhibit 3)(Kaba, Moez) (Entered: 01/30/2020)
26 NOTICE of Appearance filed by attorney Jeffrey S Robins on behalf of Defendants Matthew T. Albence, Derek N. Benner, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Immigration & Customs Enforcement, Chad F. Wolf (Attorney Jeffrey S Robins added to party Matthew T. Albence(pty:dft), Attorney Jeffrey S Robins added to party Derek N. Benner(pty:dft), Attorney Jeffrey S Robins added to party U.S. Department of Homeland Security(pty:dft), Attorney Jeffrey S Robins added to party U.S. Immigration & Customs Enforcement(pty:dft), Attorney Jeffrey S Robins added to party Chad F. Wolf(pty:dft))(Robins, Jeffrey) (Entered: 01/31/2020)
27 MINUTES OF Hearing held before Judge Andre Birotte Jr. RE: Application for Preliminary Injunction 4 . The Court having carefully considered the papers and the evidence submitted by the parties, and having heard the oral argument of counsel, hereby takes the application under submission. Court Reporter: Amy Diaz. (gk) (Entered: 01/31/2020)
28 Joint STIPULATION Extending Time to Answer the complaint as to All Defendants, filed by Defendants Derek N. Benner, Chad F. Wolf, U.S. Immigration & Customs Enforcement, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Matthew T. Albence.(Dichter, Anna) (Entered: 02/07/2020)
29 ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION by Judge Andre Birotte Jr.: The Court GRANTS Plaintiff Freedom for Immigrants' ("FFI") Motion for Preliminary Injunction 4 . The Court also GRANTS Defendants U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Immigration & Customs Enforcement, Chad F. Wolf, Matthew T. Albence, and Derek N. Benner's (collectively "DHS") Ex Parte Application for Leave to File a Sur−Reply 24 . The Court accordingly ORDERS that

Defendants U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Chad F. Wolf, U.S. Immigration & Customs Enforcement, Matthew T. Albence, and Derek N. Benner are (1) ENJOINED AND RESTRAINED from further interference with the operation of the free and confidential extension used by Freedom for Immigrants and Friends of Miami Dade Detainees as a hotline for communicating with immigrants in detention; and (2) ORDERED to restore Freedom for Immigrants and Friends of Miami Dade Detainees' free and confidential extension at all detention facilities operated, controlled, and/or overseen by U.S. Immigration & Customs Enforcement, until such time as the Court renders a final judgment on the merits of this action. (gk) (Entered: 02/11/2020)

 
 Case 2:19-cv-10424-AB-GJS Document 1 Filed 12/10/19 Page 1 of 19 Page ID #:1

1 HUESTON HENNIGAN LLP

2

Moez M. Kaba, State Bar No. 257456 mkaba@hueston.com

3 Rajan S. Trehan, State Bar No. 302242 rtrehan@hueston.com

4 Ashley M. Artmann, State Bar No. 319374

5

aartmann@hueston.com 523 West 6th Street, Suite 400

6 Los Angeles, CA 90014

7

Telephone: Facsimile:

(213) 788-4340 (888) 775-0898

8 Attorneys for Plaintiff 9

10

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

12 FREEDOM FOR IMMIGRANTS,

Case No. 2:19-cv-10424

13 Plaintiff,
14

COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF

15

vs.

16 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND

17

SECURITY (“DHS”); CHAD F. WOLF, acting in his official capacity as Acting

18 Secretary of DHS; U.S. IMMIGRATION & CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT

19 (“ICE”); MATTHEW T. ALBENCE,

20

acting in his official capacity as Acting Director for ICE; and DEREK N.

21 BENNER, acting in his official capacity

22 as Acting Deputy Director for ICE,

23

Defendants.

24

25

26

27

28

-1-
COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF

Case 2:19-cv-10424-AB-GJS Document 1 Filed 12/10/19 Page 2 of 19 Page ID #:2

1

INTRODUCTION

2

1. In 2013, Plaintiff Freedom for Immigrants (“FFI”) created a free and

3 confidential National Immigration Detention Hotline (the “Hotline”) for persons in

4 immigration detention to report abuse, find resources, and bridge the divide between

5 detained persons and their family and loved ones. FFI’s Hotline was desperately

6 needed. FFI received between 600 and 14,500 calls per month from persons in

7 immigration detention around the country, who called the Hotline at no cost. The

8 Hotline enabled FFI to monitor conditions in detention facilities and advocate on

9 behalf of detained immigrants through legal action, political advocacy, and media

10 coverage. Detained immigrants used the Hotline to report instances of abuse and

11 mistreatment at detention facilities around the country operating under the control

12 and oversight of Defendant U.S. Immigration & Customs Enforcement (“ICE”). As

13 a result of reports received via the Hotline, FFI was been able to draw attention to the

14 physical and verbal abuse of detained persons, as well as ICE’s failure to ensure the

15 provision of necessary medical treatments.

16

2. Orange is the New Black (“OITNB”), a popular Netflix show about life

17 in U.S. prisons and immigration detention, prominently featured FFI’s Hotline in

18 Season 7 as a lifeline for those in detention. After Season 7’s national premiere in

19 July 2019, dozens of media outlets covered FFI’s work, and FFI spoke out about the

20 medical neglect, labor exploitation, and sexual abuse happening in detention

21 facilities.

22

3. On the show, one OITNB character, Gloria Mendoza, provides another

23 character potentially facing deportation, Maritza Ramos, with a four-digit telephone

24 extension so she can contact FFI’s Hotline for help. Presciently, Gloria warns

25 Maritza that, “You gotta be careful though. Apparently as soon as Big Brother

26 figures out you’re using the hotline, they shut it down.”

27

4. In the most perverse form of art imitating life imitating art, ICE did just

28 as Gloria Mendoza warned: it prohibited persons in detention from free access to the

- 2 -
COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF

Case 2:19-cv-10424-AB-GJS Document 1 Filed 12/10/19 Page 3 of 19 Page ID #:3

1 Hotline. ICE’s action occurred within two weeks of OITNB’s Season 7 premiere.

2 This action was only the latest in a long history of retaliation against FFI for FFI’s

3 speech and advocacy against inhumane, illegal, and immoral treatment of persons in

4 immigration detention.

5

5. ICE’s shutdown of the Hotline violates FFI’s First Amendment rights to

6 be free from retaliation for engaging in protected speech, and to speak freely to, and

7 associate with, persons in immigration detention. The shutdown also violates the

8 First Amendment rights of detained immigrants, who, without the Hotline, either are

9 unable to contact FFI at all or can only do so by paying exorbitant fees, as calls can

10 cost upwards of $1 a minute.

11

6. Just as the First Amendment protects the right to speak, so too does it

12 guarantee that one will not be punished for exercising that right. Frustrated as ICE

13 may be that FFI is providing resources to immigrants and shining a light on

14 otherwise hidden actions, Defendants may not punish FFI (or the immigrants they

15 assist) for doing so.

16

7. FFI seeks injunctive and declaratory relief to vindicate its First

17 Amendment rights, and the First Amendment rights of persons in immigration

18 detention, by declaring ICE’s actions unconstitutional and reinstating the Hotline so

19 that its vital work monitoring conditions in detention facilities and assisting detained

20 immigrants may continue.

21

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

22

8. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331

23 because Plaintiff’s claims arise under the laws and Constitution of the United States,

24 including the First Amendment. This Court has authority to grant declaratory relief

25 under 28 U.S.C. § 2201.

26

9. Venue is proper in this District under 28 U.S.C. § 1391. A substantial

27 part of the events giving rise to this action occurred in this District, as Plaintiff

28 manages the Hotline out of its offices in Santa Monica, California.

- 3 -
COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF

Case 2:19-cv-10424-AB-GJS Document 1 Filed 12/10/19 Page 4 of 19 Page ID #:4

1

PARTIES

2

10. Plaintiff FFI, formerly known as Community Initiatives for Visiting

3 Immigrants in Confinement (“CIVIC”), is a community-based 501(c)(3) non-profit

4 organization based in California. FFI runs the Hotline and supports a national

5 network of visitation programs in immigration detention facilities. It is also

6 organized to disseminate ideas through the permissible, non-violent exercise of the

7 rights of free speech guaranteed to it by the First Amendment to the United States

8 Constitution.

9

11. Defendant U.S. Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) is a

10 department of the executive branch of the United States government that is tasked

11 with, among other things, administering and enforcing the federal immigration laws.

12

12. Defendant Chad F. Wolf is the Acting Secretary of DHS. He is sued in

13 his official capacity.

14

13. Defendant ICE is the sub-agency of DHS that operates and oversees

15 immigration detention facilities.

16

14. Defendant Matthew T. Albence is the Acting Director for ICE. He is

17 sued in his official capacity.

18

15. Defendant Derek N. Benner is the Acting Deputy Director for ICE. He

19 is sued in his official capacity.

20

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

21

16. The United States immigration detention system detains upwards of

22 50,000 men and women in more than 200 detention facilities daily.1 For Fiscal Year

23 2018, ICE booked-in 396,448 persons into immigration detention, an increase of

24 22.5% over the previous year’s 323,591 newly detained immigrants.2 Sixty percent

25

26

1 ICE provides recent statistics on the number of immigrants who are detained. See Detention Management, ICE, https://www.ice.gov/detention-management. For

27

example, as of November 9, 2019, a total of 47,260 immigrants were detained, and as of November 30, 2019, 44,860 immigrants were detained.

28 2 See Fiscal Year 2018 ICE Enforcement and Removal Operations Report, ICE,

- 4 -
COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF

Case 2:19-cv-10424-AB-GJS Document 1 Filed 12/10/19 Page 5 of 19 Page ID #:5

1 of those people are held in privately-run prison facilities, run by private prison

2 companies such as GEO Group and Corrections Corporation of America/CoreCIVIC

3 (“CCA/CoreCIVIC”).3 ICE also detains immigrants in local jails and correctional

4 facilities run by local law enforcement.

5

17. Founded in 2012, FFI is a non-partisan, non-profit organization

6 dedicated to ending the isolation of persons held in immigration detention and

7 monitoring human rights abuses in detention facilities. FFI monitors conditions in

8 detention facilities through a free national telephone Hotline and a nationwide

9 network of visitation programs. Through person-to-person connections between

10 persons in immigration detention and FFI’s coalition of volunteers and members, FFI

11 strives to transform state and community responses to migration so that immigrants

12 are treated with dignity and are ensured the protections they are afforded under the

13 Constitution and the law.

14

18. FFI monitors detention conditions and gathers detained immigrants’

15 information and stories through the Hotline and its national network of visitation

16 programs. This on-the-ground monitoring enables FFI to report abuse of persons in

17 immigration detention and to shed light on detention conditions, including through

18 legal action, political advocacy, and, significantly, media coverage.

19

FFI’s Prior Advocacy and ICE’s Retaliatory Responses

20

19. FFI established and coordinates a national visitation program network

21 with visitation programs in 69 detention facilities across 26 states. FFI both runs its

22 own visitation programs and administers others in concert with local members of its

23 network, such as Friends of Miami Dade Detainees (“FOMDD”) and Friends of

24 Adelanto Detainees. Through FFI’s network, over 4,500 visitor-volunteers meet

25

26 https://www.ice.gov/doclib/about/offices/ero/pdf/eroFY2018Report.pdf.

27

3 See Livia Luan, Profiting from Enforcement: The Role of Private Prisons in U.S. Immigration Detention, Migration Policy Institute (May 2, 2018),

28

https://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/profiting-enforcement-role-private-prisonsus-immigration-detention.

- 5 -

COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF

Case 2:19-cv-10424-AB-GJS Document 1 Filed 12/10/19 Page 6 of 19 Page ID #:6

1 with immigrants in detention, usually on a weekly basis. These visitors are often the

2 only consistent community connection for persons in ICE custody, most of whom do

3 not have friends or family nearby. (In some instances, as has been well-reported,

4 their families have been forcibly separated from them.) Visitation programs can

5 lessen the emotional toll of confinement for persons in immigration detention by

6 providing sustained community support.

7

20. ICE has repeatedly interfered with FFI’s network of visitation programs

8 in a retaliatory manner. On at least seven different occasions, ICE has terminated or

9 suspended visitation programs in FFI’s national network without warning or

10 legitimate reason. Indeed, the only plausible explanation for ICE’s actions is that

11 ICE sought to punish FFI (and in turn the immigrants that it assists) for FFI’s

12 criticism of ICE and other officials involved in detention.

13

21. For example, in July 2013, FFI’s co-founder, Christina Fialho, penned

14 an FFI blog post and two articles in The Huffington Post, each of which was critical

15 of immigration detention and ICE’s poor administration of a deteriorating system.4

16 The second article, entitled “Who is Overseeing Immigration Detention?”, brought to

17 light the mistreatment and verbal abuse of gay and transgender persons in

18 immigration detention at the Santa Ana City Jail in Southern California. Fialho

19 recounted her interviews with transgender persons who guards told to “use their male

20 voice” and “act male” on an almost daily basis and who had experienced months-

21 long delays to receive medication for hormone therapy, in violation of ICE’s own

22 detention standards. Within 48 hours of publication, without explanation, ICE’s Los

23 Angeles field office told organizations in FFI’s visitation network that their visitation

24 programs at the Santa Ana City Jail, James Musick Facility, and Adelanto Detention

25

26 4 See Christina Fialho, Detained U.S. Veteran on Hunger Strike at Eloy Detention

27

Center, The Huffington Post (July 8, 2013), https://www.huffpost.com/entry/johnferron-hunger-strike_b_3544687; Christina Fialho, Who is Overseeing Immigration

28

Detention?, The Huffington Post (July 22, 2013), https://www.huffpost.com/entry/ who-is-overseeing-immigration-detention_b_3632009.

- 6 -

COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF

Case 2:19-cv-10424-AB-GJS Document 1 Filed 12/10/19 Page 7 of 19 Page ID #:7

1 Facility (“Adelanto”) were suspended until further notice. When volunteers from

2 FFI’s network subsequently attempted to visit detained immigrants at Adelanto on

3 July 26, 2013, they discovered that ICE also had created a blacklist of persons

4 prohibited from visiting individuals at the facility that included FFI-affiliated

5 volunteers.

6

22. In FFI’s conversations with ICE about ICE’s suspension of FFI’s

7 visitation programs at Santa Ana City Jail, James Musick Facility, and Adelanto, Mr.

8 Andrew Lorenzen-Strait, then-Deputy Assistant Director for Custody Programs and

9 Community Outreach for ICE, informed FFI that ICE had shut down the visitation

10 programs because of FFI’s public statements criticizing ICE and immigration

11 detention. Incredibly, Lorenzen-Strait asked FFI to take down the “Who is

12 Overseeing Immigration Detention?” article published by The Huffington Post.

13 ICE’s own words revealed its retaliatory motive.

14

23. A similar pattern has played out many times since. ICE has completely

15 terminated or crippled FFI-affiliated visitation programs at Otay Detention Center in

16 San Diego, California, Broward Transitional Center in Pompano Beach, Florida,

17 Etowah County Detention Center in Gadsden, Alabama (“Etowah”), West County

18 Detention Facility in Richmond, California, and T. Don Hutto Residential Center in

19 Taylor, Texas. These shutdowns, like the shutdown described above, occurred

20 shortly after FFI and its members raised their voices to shed light on the abuses and

21 conditions in detention facilities. For example, on November 5, 2019, ICE

22 suspended the FFI-affiliated visitation program at Etowah less than 48 hours after a

23 peaceful protest outside the facility that included FFI members and volunteers. A

24 facility administrator specifically cited the protests outside the jail as the reason for

25 the suspension.

26

24. ICE has even taken retaliatory action against FFI after FFI filed formal

27 complaints. For example, on July 14, 2015, FFI filed an official complaint against

28 ICE with the Department of Homeland Security’s Office of Civil Rights and Civil

- 7 -
COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF

Case 2:19-cv-10424-AB-GJS Document 1 Filed 12/10/19 Page 8 of 19 Page ID #:8

1 Liberties (“CRCL”) on behalf of detained immigrants at Etowah. The complaint

2 alleged systemic and severe abuses, including physical assaults of detained

3 immigrants to coerce them to sign removal documents and violations of medical and

4 mental health care standards. Less than two weeks later, on July 27, 2015, ICE and

5 the Etowah County Sheriff’s Department terminated FFI’s visitation program at

6 Etowah. In late September 2015, after protests and media coverage of the shutdown,

7 the Etowah County Sheriff finally notified FFI that they could again begin visiting

8 detained immigrants at Etowah.

9

25. The vast majority of times that ICE has retaliated by shutting down

10 FFI’s speech or access, ICE later reversed course, but only after further protest and

11 media attention. Even then, ICE has attempted to condition the reinstatement of

12 visitation programs on FFI’s relinquishment of its First Amendment rights. For

13 example, ICE has attempted to condition restoration of FFI’s visitation programs on

14 restrictive confidentiality agreements that would force FFI volunteers to indemnify

15 ICE from any liability “arising” out of the volunteers’ work––language that would

16 chill volunteers’ ability to raise concerns about the conditions they encountered

17 inside the detention facility.

18

ICE’s Retaliatory Shutdown of the Hotline

19

26. In 2013, FFI and FOMDD, a member of FFI’s visitation network, made

20 a formal proposal to ICE’s national office requesting a telephone extension on ICE’s

21 national platform. In December 2013, ICE provided FFI the telephone extension

22 number *9233# that operates as FFI’s national Hotline. Since then, the Hotline has

23 operated as a free and confidential phone line that persons in immigration detention

24 can use to contact FFI from any of the more than 200 detention facilities around the

25 country, all of which, on information and belief, operate under ICE’s oversight and

26 authority. The Hotline received between 600 and 14,500 calls per month, and FFI

27 saw a massive uptick in calls following the 2016 presidential election, receiving over

28 11,000 calls and 10,000 calls in January and February 2017, respectively.

- 8 -
COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF

Case 2:19-cv-10424-AB-GJS Document 1 Filed 12/10/19 Page 9 of 19 Page ID #:9

1

27. FFI provides the Hotline number to persons in immigration detention

2 through its network of visitation programs, as well as through legal service providers

3 in areas without such programs. Using dedicated, trained volunteers to answer

4 Hotline calls, detained immigrants who reach the Hotline can report abuse and

5 mistreatment and file complaints with CRCL, which in turn enables FFI to monitor

6 detention conditions. FFI also directly supports individuals in detention through an

7 individualized case management and support system. (FFI does not itself provide

8 legal advice or representation through the Hotline.)

9

28. The Hotline also helps detained persons reconnect with their loved ones.

10 For example, Luis, a 57-year-old father from Central America, traveled to the

11 California border with his wife and three children seeking asylum. ICE separated

12 Luis from his family and detained him in Northern California. He called the Hotline

13 uncertain of his own future and worried for his family’s wellbeing. Around that

14 time, Luis’s wife also reached out to FFI to seek the organization’s assistance. Using

15 this information, FFI was able to let Luis and his wife know of each other’s

16 whereabouts. FFI then raised funds to pay Luis’s bond to release him from detention

17 and for airfare to Texas to reunite him with his family. FFI also connected Luis’s

18 family with a volunteer host family that provided them with a place to live. Without

19 the Hotline, this family may not have found each other in the sprawling and fractured

20 immigration detention system.

21

29. Importantly, the Hotline allows FFI to stay in contact with immigrants

22 no matter where they are detained. Detained immigrants are often transferred from

23 facility to facility, making the free and nationwide Hotline an essential tool to

24 maintain contact with people throughout the course of their detention.

25

30. In November 2018, less than a week after FFI filed a letter with ICE and

26 CRCL regarding the imposition of restrictions on a visitation program, ICE restricted

27 free access to the national Hotline to seven detention facilities in Florida. In an email

28 on November 19, 2018, Peter Meitzner, Contract Support to Custody Management

- 9 -
COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF

Case 2:19-cv-10424-AB-GJS Document 1 Filed 12/10/19 Page 10 of 19 Page ID #:10

1 Division for ICE, told FFI that the restriction was due to a “recently completed pro

2 bono system audit.” FFI and its members made multiple entreaties to ICE to restore

3 the nationwide Hotline. This restriction also prompted 15 members of Congress to

4 send ICE’s Deputy Director a letter expressing their concern about ICE’s restriction

5 of the Hotline. 5

6

31. On December 4, 2018, Julie Plavsic, a Senior Policy Advisor for ICE,

7 sent an email stating that the Hotline had been restored at one additional facility in

8 Florida and that the Hotline “will be considered for inclusion on lists outside of

9 Florida on a case by case basis.” Plavsic stated that a request for such inclusion

10 could be made with “the name (and/or Alien ID) of the detainee, and the requesting

11 facility.” Given that the Hotline’s effectiveness is closely tied to maintaining the

12 confidentiality of its callers, FFI refused to provide the identifying information that

13 ICE demanded (nor was it justifiable for ICE to request FFI to identify detained

14 immigrants who sought the Hotline’s assistance). On December 6, 2018, a follow-up

15 email was sent to Plavsic again requesting that ICE restore the Hotline nationwide,

16 this time offering a list of detention facilities from which FFI had received calls as

17 proof of the Hotline’s national reach. ICE did not respond to the request, and the

18 Hotline remained restricted at every other detention facility except the eight ICE

19 selected in Florida.

20

32. On July 26, 2019, Season 7 of Orange is the New Black (“OITNB”)

21 premiered on Netflix. In its first six seasons, OITNB focused on the lives of women

22 in U.S. prisons. In Season 7, the show established new storylines centered around

23 women in ICE custody, depicting the dire circumstances of persons in detention and

24 the challenges they face in seeking assistance from those outside the detention

25

26 5 See Attachment A to Letter from C. Fialho and C. Galaz Re: Notice to Cease &

27

Desist Notice to Cease & Desist for Blocking Freedom for Immigrants’ ICE Pro Bono Telephone Extension From Being Accessed Nationwide (Aug. 22, 2019),

28

https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5a33042eb078691c386e7bce/t/5d5ee9fac5f736 000164e460/1566501374013/FFI_Letter.pdf.

- 10 -

COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF

Case 2:19-cv-10424-AB-GJS Document 1 Filed 12/10/19 Page 11 of 19 Page ID #:11

1 facility’s walls. One of the season’s lead characters, Maritza Ramos, is an immigrant

2 woman in detention. FFI worked with the creators and producers of OITNB to help

3 depict life in detention and to promote the Hotline on the show. As such, the show

4 referenced FFI by name, highlighted its work helping persons in detention, and

5 prominently featured the FFI Hotline. The show makes clear that the Hotline is a

6 four-digit extension that persons in detention can call for free, and characters are

7 even shown accessing FFI’s website to contact the Hotline.

8

33. OITNB focused national attention on FFI’s work, resulting in dozens of

9 media outlets mentioning FFI and covering its work on behalf of detained

10 immigrants, including People Magazine, Salon.com, Vanity Fair, Vulture, The Hill,

11 and Los Angeles Magazine. FFI used this attention to further the conversation

12 around the abuses and conditions in immigration detention. For example, FFI staff

13 published an op-ed in InStyle highlighting the plight of a detained immigrant at Otay

14 in limbo waiting for his prescription medication, as well as the high rates of sexual

15 assault and allegations of forced labor violations at that detention facility. OITNB

16 executive producer Carolina Paiz also published an op-ed on Buzzfeed about her visit

17 to Adelanto with FFI, describing the inhumanity of immigration detention.

18

34. Within two weeks of OITNB’s premiere, on August 7, 2019, FFI

19 stopped receiving calls on the Hotline from the eight facilities where ICE had not yet

20 censored the Hotline. FFI and FOMDD contacted ICE seeking an explanation. On

21 August 15, 2019, Felicia Johnson, a Contracting Officer’s Representative for ICE,

22 responded by email, copying Meitzner:

23

The current ICE Detainee Telephone Service (DTS) provider is Talton

24

Communications. Under Talton’s contract with ICE, they have agreed to add Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) approved pro

25

bono attorney/organization telephone numbers to the pro bono platform

26

and to delete those numbers that no longer appear on the EOIR approved list. This standardized process maintains the integrity of the

27

DTS platform which is meant to provide detainees with pro bono phone

28

access to vetted and legitimate pro bono legal assistance, while keeping paid calls at reasonable rates as specified in the contract.

- 11 -

COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF

Case 2:19-cv-10424-AB-GJS Document 1 Filed 12/10/19 Page 12 of 19 Page ID #:12

1

2

If a pro bono legal entity is not on the EOIR approved list, they may follow the instructions at the following Department of Justice (DOJ)

3

link to be vetted and added to the EOIR list:

4

https://www.justice.gov/eoir/list-probono-legal-service-providers. Once the pro bono legal entity is included on the EOIR list and Talton is

5

notified, they will be added to the DTS pro bono system. Note that the

6

EOIR list is updated quarterly and pro bono providers must re-apply every three years. Entities no longer appearing on the EOIR list shall be

7

removed from the DTS pro bono system.

8

Non-EOIR approved providers have the option to create a prepaid

9

account to allow contact with the detainee(s) they are representing until

10

such time that the provider is included on the EOIR approved list. If you have any further questions please feel free to contact (me) the

11

Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR), Ms. Felicia Johnson at

12

Felicia.A.Johnson@ice.dhs.gov.

13

35. At no point in time prior to Ms. Johnson’s email had ICE ever indicated

14 that FFI was required to appear on the EOIR-approved list in order to obtain or retain

15 a telephone extension. Nor has FFI ever appeared on that list—not in 2013 when

16 ICE granted the telephone extension or in the years thereafter when ICE maintained

17 the Hotline. Moreover, upon information and belief, at least one organization not

18 appearing on the EOIR list continues to operate an ICE-granted telephone extension.

19

36. On information and belief, each of the Defendants participated in the

20 decision to shut down the Hotline and/or took action to shut down the Hotline.

21

37. On August 22, 2019, FFI sent ICE, Matthew T. Albence, Derek N.

22 Benner, Johnson, and Meitzner a cease-and-desist letter explaining why ICE’s

23 stance, as communicated in Ms. Johnson’s August 15, 2019 email, could not be

24 reconciled with the agency’s prior actions or statements. FFI demanded that ICE

25 reinstate FFI’s telephone extension. Later, on August 22, 2019, Ms. Johnson replied

26 that ICE was “looking into th[e] matter” and would “respond shortly.”

27

38. Rather than respond to FFI, however, ICE attacked the organization in

28 the press. On August 26, 2019, The Washington Post published an article entitled

- 12 -
COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF

Case 2:19-cv-10424-AB-GJS Document 1 Filed 12/10/19 Page 13 of 19 Page ID #:13

1 “‘Orange Is the New Black’ highlighted an immigrant hotline. Then ICE shut it

2 down.”6 In that article, in contrast to Ms. Johnson’s e-mail, ICE spokesman Bryan

3 Cox stated that FFI’s telephone extension had been terminated because the “group

4 engaged in prohibited conduct” by permitting three-way calls and call forwarding.

5 Mr. Cox neither detailed the specific rules that FFI purportedly violated nor provided

6 any evidence in support of his accusations.

7

39. The Hotline remains shutdown and tens of thousands of persons in

8 detention remain unable to access a critical resource. As a way to mitigate these

9 harms, but in no way address them fully, FFI has deposited money into phone

10 accounts so that detained immigrants can continue to reach FFI. Because phone calls

11 can cost a detained person, who often does not have financial resources accessible in

12 detention, upwards of $1 a minute, maintaining these accounts has come at

13 significant financial cost to the organization, not to mention the time required to

14 monitor the status of the accounts. Managing these accounts has hindered FFI’s

15 ability to perform its mission. Unfortunately, because FFI has been unable to fund

16 each phone account, FFI has lost contact with many detained immigrants. The

17 Hotline shutdown thus interferes with FFI’s work monitoring the abuses and

18 conditions at detention facilities.

19

40. ICE’s censorship of the Hotline also interferes with detained

20 immigrants’ efforts to report abuse, seek assistance, and reconnect with their loved

21 ones.

22

41. ICE’s shutdown of the Hotline has deprived FFI and detained

23 immigrants of their confidential method of communicating with each other. Prior to

24 the shutdown, ICE never indicated to FFI that Hotline calls would be monitored, and

25 FFI never received any warning that any Hotline call was being monitored. But, on

26

27 6 Meagan Flynn, ‘Orange Is the New Black’ highlighted an immigrant hotline. Then

28

ICE shut it down., The Washington Post (August 26, 2019), https://www.washington post.com/nation/2019/08/26/oitnb-ice-immigrant-hotline/.

- 13 -

COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF

Case 2:19-cv-10424-AB-GJS Document 1 Filed 12/10/19 Page 14 of 19 Page ID #:14

1 information and belief, since the shutdown, the paid phone accounts FFI must now

2 use to speak with detained immigrants are monitored; FFI hears a pre-recorded

3 message on each call indicating that the call is monitored and recorded. FFI believes

4 that the lack of confidentiality will deter detained immigrants from reporting abuse

5 and seeking help, and FFI is concerned that its efforts on behalf of detained

6 immigrants who call FFI may lead to even further retaliation by ICE.

7

42. ICE’s shutdown of the Hotline is the culmination of a years-long pattern

8 of retaliatory harassment and interference. ICE has repeatedly targeted FFI for its

9 protected First Amendment speech and impeded FFI’s work to support and advocate

10 for detained immigrants across the country. Without an order from this Court, ICE’s

11 violation of FFI’s free speech rights will go unaddressed and FFI’s work monitoring

12 our nation’s detention facilities will continue to be impeded or obstructed. ICE’s

13 unconstitutional conduct harms not only FFI, but also immigrants, whose ability to

14 contact FFI is hindered, and the public at large, who remain in the dark about what is

15 happening inside our nation’s detention facilities.

16

CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

17

COUNT 1

18

Violation of the First Amendment – Retaliation

19

(Against All Defendants)

20

43. FFI repeats and realleges the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth in

21 this Count.

22

44. FFI has engaged in speech protected by the First Amendment to the

23 United States Constitution, including criticizing U.S. immigration detention, helping

24 detained immigrants report and rectify abuses and poor conditions in immigration

25 detention, mobilizing public sentiment towards demanding accountability by ICE,

26 and urging government officials to change the immigration detention system.

27

45. Defendants have taken prohibited adverse actions against FFI, namely,

28 geographically restricting and then shutting down FFI’s Hotline. Because the

- 14 -
COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF

Case 2:19-cv-10424-AB-GJS Document 1 Filed 12/10/19 Page 15 of 19 Page ID #:15

1 Hotline is the only way for FFI to maintain contact with many detained immigrants,

2 is FFI’s only method of speaking confidentially with detained immigrants, and is

3 critical to FFI’s work monitoring abuse against those immigrants, Defendants’

4 shutdown of the Hotline would chill a person of ordinary firmness from continuing to

5 engage in the protected activity.

6

46. Defendants’ adverse actions were motivated by their desire to retaliate

7 against FFI for engaging in protected speech and were intended to chill FFI’s

8 protected speech. Defendants shut down the Hotline immediately after OITNB

9 publicized FFI’s work and FFI spoke out critically about immigration detention

10 through national media outlets. Defendants had no legitimate reason to shut down

11 the Hotline. Before August 2019, Defendants had never conditioned FFI’s use of the

12 telephone extension on its appearance on the EOIR-approved pro bono list, and upon

13 information and belief, other organizations continue to operate telephone extensions

14 though they do not appear on that list. Thus, to the extent there is any procedure or

15 policy in place, Defendants have engaged in selective and retaliatory enforcement.

16 This conduct fits squarely within a pattern of retaliatory conduct carried out by ICE

17 against FFI for more than half a dozen years.

18

47. Further, ICE’s explanation for shutting down the Hotline has changed

19 over time, thereby suggesting that ICE’s explanations are insincere and pretextual.

20

48. ICE’s conduct constitutes unreasonable and unconstitutional

21 interference with and infringement of FFI’s exercise of its rights of free speech and

22 free association under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

23

49. Defendants’ actions have caused and will continue to cause FFI

24 irreparable injuries, including interfering with and infringing FFI’s First Amendment

25 rights, frustrating FFI’s mission, and causing FFI to divert significant resources to

26 engage with detained immigrants.

27

50. As a result, this Court should declare that Defendants’ actions targeting

28 FFI based on its protected speech violated the First Amendment to the United States

- 15 -
COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF

Case 2:19-cv-10424-AB-GJS Document 1 Filed 12/10/19 Page 16 of 19 Page ID #:16

1 Constitution, and enter a preliminary and permanent injunction reinstating the

2 Hotline and enjoining Defendants from further interference with FFI’s First

3 Amendment rights.

4

COUNT 2

5

Violation of the First Amendment – Freedom of Speech and Freedom of

6

Association

7

(Against All Defendants)

8

51. FFI repeats and realleges the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth in

9 this Count.

10

52. FFI has engaged and continues to engage in protected speech and

11 conduct, including, but not limited to, FFI’s activism and advocacy on behalf of

12 detained immigrants through legal action, political advocacy, and media coverage.

13 FFI’s advocacy depends on access to detained immigrants, who provide on-the-

14 ground information regarding abuses and conditions in immigration detention. FFI

15 has and continues to associate with detained immigrants to discuss and receive

16 information on conditions in detention facilities. FFI continues its efforts to

17 encourage greater numbers of detained immigrants to contact FFI and advocate for

18 their rights.

19

53. Defendants’ decision to shut down FFI’s Hotline because of its

20 protected speech abridges FFI’s ability to engage in protected speech, has

21 significantly impeded FFI’s ability to advocate its viewpoints, and has chilled FFI’s

22 right to speak freely under the First Amendment. Defendants’ shutdown of FFI’s

23 Hotline also directly and substantially interferes with FFI’s right to associate with

24 detained immigrants and has chilled FFI’s freedom of association by obstructing

25 FFI’s access to detained immigrants and depriving them of a confidential method of

26 communication with detained immigrants.

27

54. Defendants’ selective enforcement of the regulations relating to the

28 provision of telephone extensions and its decision to shut down FFI’s Hotline targets

- 16 -
COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF

Case 2:19-cv-10424-AB-GJS Document 1 Filed 12/10/19 Page 17 of 19 Page ID #:17

1 speech based on its content, does not serve a compelling state interest, and is not

2 narrowly tailored.

3

55. Upon information and belief, Defendants shut down FFI’s telephone

4 extension because of the group’s protected speech. This impermissibly targets

5 private speech based on the viewpoint of the speaker.

6

56. Defendants’ termination of FFI’s telephone extension does not serve a

7 compelling state interest unrelated to the expression of ideas and is not the least-

8 restrictive means of regulating communication with detained immigrants.

9

57. The conduct outlined above constitutes unreasonable and

10 unconstitutional interference with and infringement of FFI’s exercise of its rights of

11 free speech and free association under the First Amendment to the United States

12 Constitution.

13

58. Defendants’ actions have caused and will continue to cause FFI

14 irreparable injuries, including interfering with and infringing FFI’s First Amendment

15 rights, frustrating FFI’s mission, and causing FFI to divert significant resources to

16 engage with detained immigrants.

17

COUNT 3

18

Violation of the First Amendment – Freedom of Speech and Freedom of

19

Association

20

(Against All Defendants on Behalf of Detained Immigrants)

21

59. FFI repeats and realleges the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth in

22 this Count.

23

60. Detained immigrants have the Hotline to engage in protected speech and

24 conduct, including, but not limited to, reporting abuse and mistreatment suffered in

25 detention facilities.

26

61. Detained immigrants depend on their association with FFI to engage in

27 this protected speech, as FFI is often the only resource for them to report abuse at no

28 cost to a non-governmental organization.

- 17 -
COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF

Case 2:19-cv-10424-AB-GJS Document 1 Filed 12/10/19 Page 18 of 19 Page ID #:18

1

62. Defendants’ decision to shut down FFI’s Hotline because of detained

2 immigrants’ protected speech abridges the detained immigrants’ ability to engage in

3 protected speech and to receive speech from FFI, has significantly impeded their

4 ability to advocate on their own behalf, and has chilled their right to speak freely

5 under the First Amendment. Defendants’ shutdown of FFI’s Hotline also directly

6 and substantially interferes with detained immigrants’ right to associate with FFI and

7 has chilled detained immigrants’ freedom of association by obstructing their access

8 to FFI and depriving them of a confidential method of communication to report

9 abuse and seek help.

10

63. Defendants’ selective enforcement of the regulations relating to the

11 provision of telephone extensions and its decision to shut down FFI’s Hotline targets

12 speech based on its content, does not serve a compelling state interest, and is not

13 narrowly tailored.

14

64. Upon information and belief, Defendants shut down FFI’s telephone

15 extension because of detained immigrants’ protected speech in conversations with

16 FFI, including speech exposing the mistreatment and abuse of detained immigrants.

17 This impermissibly targets private speech based on the viewpoint of the speaker.

18

65. Defendants’ termination of FFI’s telephone extension does not serve a

19 compelling state interest unrelated to the expression of ideas and is not the least-

20 restrictive means of regulating communication between detained immigrants and

21 FFI.

22

66. The conduct outlined above constitutes unreasonable and

23 unconstitutional interference with and infringement of detained immigrants’ exercise

24 of their rights of free speech and free association under the First Amendment to the

25 United States Constitution.

26

67. Defendants’ actions have caused and will continue to cause detained

27 immigrants irreparable injuries, including interfering with and infringing their First

28

- 18 -
COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF

Case 2:19-cv-10424-AB-GJS Document 1 Filed 12/10/19 Page 19 of 19 Page ID #:19

1 Amendment rights, frustrating their ability to report abuse and find loved ones, and

2 causing them to incur significant personal expense to contact FFI from detention.

3

68. FFI, which has developed a close relationship with thousands of

4 detained immigrants through its visitation programs and the Hotline, brings this

5 claim on behalf of detained immigrants, who face significant physical, financial, and

6 institutional barriers, including a fear of retaliation and risk of deportation, to

7 asserting their own rights.

8

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

9

WHEREFORE, FFI respectfully requests that the Court enter judgment in its

10 favor and:

11

a. Enter a preliminary and permanent injunction enjoining and restraining ICE

12

and its officers from further interference with FFI’s and detained

13

immigrants’ exercise of their First Amendment rights;

14

b. Enter a preliminary and permanent injunction reinstating FFI’s national

15

Hotline;

16

c. Declare that Defendants’ retaliation against FFI based on its protected

17

speech violated the First Amendment;

18

d. Award FFI attorneys’ fees and costs of suit as permitted by law; and

19

e. Order such further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.

20

21 Dated: December 10, 2019

HUESTON HENNIGAN LLP

22

23

By: ___________________________

24

Moez M. Kaba

25

Rajan S. Trehan Ashley M. Artmann

26

Attorneys for Plaintiff

Freedom for Immigrants

27

28

- 19 -
COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF

 
 Case 2:19-cv-10424-AB-GJS Document 29 Filed 02/11/20 Page 1 of 11 Page ID #:326

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10 FREEDOM FOR IMMIGRANTS,

11
12 13 v.

Plaintiff,

Case No. 2:19-cv-10424-AB (GJSx) ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

14 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF 15 HOMELAND SECURITY, et al.,

16

Defendants.

17 I. INTRODUCTION
18 Before the Court is Plaintiff Freedom for Immigrants’ (“FFI”) motion for a
19 preliminary injunction. (Dkt. No. 4.) Defendants U.S. Department of Homeland
20 Security, U.S. Immigration & Customs Enforcement, Chad F. Wolf, Matthew T.
21 Albence, and Derek N. Benner (collectively “DHS”) oppose FFI’s motion. (Dkt. No.
22 22.) The Court heard oral argument regarding FFI’s motion on January 31, 2020. For
23 the reasons stated below, the Court GRANTS FFI’s motion for preliminary injunctive
24 relief. The Court also GRANTS DHS’s ex parte application for leave to file a sur-
25 reply, and considers the additional evidence submitted both by DHS and FFI in
26 relation to this application. (Dkt. Nos. 24, 25.)
27 //
28
1.

Case 2:19-cv-10424-AB-GJS Document 29 Filed 02/11/20 Page 2 of 11 Page ID #:327

1

II. BACKGROUND

2

This case concerns the shutdown of FFI’s free and confidential National

3 Immigration Detention Hotline (the “Hotline”) by DHS, allegedly in retaliation for

4 FFI’s advocacy on behalf of detained immigrants who report abuse by DHS officials.

5

In 2013, FFI and Friends of Miami Dade Detainees (“FOMDD”) requested and

6 received a telephone extension number (*9233#) that operated on U.S. Immigration

7 and Customs Enforcement’s (“ICE”) free and confidential national telephone

8 program. (Dkt. No. 4-8 at ¶ 6.) DHS contests that FFI ever requested or received this

9 telephone extension, stating by declaration that “[w]hen ICE initially issued extension

10 9233 [in November 2013], Freedom for Immigrants was not mentioned.” (Dkt. No.

11 22-1 at ¶ 13). However, FFI presents evidence that around October 2013, when FFI

12 and FOMDD allegedly sought approval of the Hotline, FFI was known as Community

13 Initiatives for Visiting Immigrants in Confinement (“CIVIC”). (See Dkt. No. 4-2 at

14 pp. 4–6). FFI also presents evidence that FFI and FOMDD jointly sought approval of

15 the Hotline, and that FOMDD is and was an affiliate organization of FFI. (Dkt. No. 4-

16 8 at ¶ 6; Dkt. No. 23-1 at ¶¶ 5–7); (see also Dkt. No. 25-2 at 2) FFI further shows that

17 the Hotline, since its inception, has been operated and supervised by FFI and staffed

18 by FFI volunteers. (Dkt. No. 23-1 at ¶ 7.)

19

Through use of the Hotline, immigrants in any ICE detention center could call

20 FFI at no charge. (Dkt. No. 4-8 at ¶ 7.) The Hotline, as a part of ICE’s free and

21 confidential national telephone program, was not monitored by government officials.

22 Id. Through the Hotline, detained immigrants reported abuse and mistreatment by

23 DHS officials to FFI, and FFI helped immigrants file complaints with DHS’s Office

24 of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties. Id. ¶ 9. FFI also helped detained immigrants obtain

25 other services, including the ability to locate separated family members. Id. ¶ 10. In

26 January and February 2017, the Hotline received over 11,000 calls and 10,000 calls,

27 respectively. Id. ¶ 8.

28

//

2.

Case 2:19-cv-10424-AB-GJS Document 29 Filed 02/11/20 Page 3 of 11 Page ID #:328

1

From 2013 to 2019, FFI publicly criticized ICE’s treatment of detained

2 immigrants, and allegedly suffered various forms of retaliation. For example, in July

3 2013, FFI’s Co-Founder and Co-Executive Director published an article in The

4 Huffington Post criticizing the treatment of gay and transgender detained immigrants

5 in the Santa Ana City Jail. Id. ¶ 13; see also Dkt. No. 4-2.Within 48 hours, ICE had

6 temporarily shut down FFI’s visitation program at the Santa Ana City Jail, and had

7 temporarily blacklisted certain FFI members from visiting detainees at the Adelanto

8 Detention Facility. (Dkt. No. 4-8 at ¶ 13.) Similarly, in summer 2013, an FFI network

9 member told ICE about alleged sexual assault, harassment, and neglect of detainees at

10 Otay Detention Center in San Diego. Id. ¶ 14. ICE temporarily shut down the FFI

11 network member’s visitation program in August of that year. Id. In August 2014, the

12 visitation program coordinator for an FFI network member testified at a Florida state

13 congressional hearing, criticizing ICE’s treatment of detainees at the Broward

14 Transitional Center and Krome Service Processing Center. Id. ¶ 15. A few days after

15 this testimony, ICE temporarily shut down the visitation program at Broward. Id.

16 Later, in summer 2018, ICE shut down an FFI affiliate’s visitation program at the

17 Otay Detention Center in San Diego, following FFI’s work to help reunite separated

18 immigrant families. Id. ¶ 19. On November 3, 2019, members of FFI and its affiliates

19 participated in a protest outside of the Etowah County Detention Center in Alabama.

20 Id. ¶ 21. Less than 48 hours later, ICE indefinitely suspended an FFI affiliate’s

21 visitation program. Id.

22

This retaliation campaign by DHS allegedly extended to the Hotline. In

23 particular, ICE restricted the Hotline from its nationwide reach to eight detention

24 facilities in Florida, one month after FFI sent ICE and DHS’s Office of Civil Rights

25 and Civil Liberties a letter regarding the termination of its visitation program at the

26 Otay Detention Center. Id. ¶¶ 22–23. DHS contends that this geographical restriction

27 came as the result of a system-wide update to limit pro bono hotlines to only those

28 areas where particular organizations were located. (Dkt. No. 22-1 at ¶ 17.) However, 3.

Case 2:19-cv-10424-AB-GJS Document 29 Filed 02/11/20 Page 4 of 11 Page ID #:329

1 DHS does not provide any explanation for why this geographic limitation was

2 imposed.1 Id.

3

After DHS imposed this geographic restriction on the Hotline, FFI members

4 became involved with the writers and producers of Season 7 of Orange is the New

5 Black (“OITNB”). (Dkt. No. 4-8 at ¶ 25.) Season 7 of the show prominently features

6 FFI as a hotline for detained immigrants, and portrays detainees passing around FFI’s

7 hotline in secret to avoid detection by ICE. (Dkt. No. 4 at 17). The season, including

8 FFI’s involvement, received extensive media coverage. (Dkt. No. 4-8 at ¶ 25).

9

Within two weeks of the season premiere, on August 7, 2019, FFI stopped

10 receiving calls on the Hotline. Id. ¶ 26. When FFI and FOMDD contacted ICE to see

11 why the Hotline had been shut down, they were informed that the Hotline had been

12 removed as part of a standardization process. Id. DHS states that in summer 2019, it

13 decided to allow Hotlines only for those organizations identified on the Executive

14 Office for Immigration Review (“EOIR”) List of Pro Bono Legal Service Providers.

15 (Dkt. No. 22-1 at ¶ 18.) DHS states that because FOMDD was not on the EOIR list, its

16 Hotline was shut down. Id. ¶ 19. Moreover, DHS states that “Talton Communications

17 provided information that the extension 9233 was engaged in call forwarding and/or

18 three-way calling,” which posed a security risk. Id. However, DHS does not provide

19 any information in this declaration as to when this information as to call forwarding or

20 three-way calling was provided to DHS, or as to why it decided to allow Hotlines only

21 for those on EOIR’s list. In fact, evidence produced by DHS suggests that DHS was

22 aware of call forwarding by the Hotline as early as December 2013, years before DHS

23 decided to shutdown the Hotline. (Dkt. No. 24-3.)

24

//

25

26 1 At the January 31, 2020 hearing on this motion, DHS contended for the first time 27 that the Hotline was restricted from its nationwide outreach to Florida after DHS
discovered a technical glitch. However, DHS has provided no evidence, whether in 28 the form of a declaration or otherwise, in support of this assertion.
4.

Case 2:19-cv-10424-AB-GJS Document 29 Filed 02/11/20 Page 5 of 11 Page ID #:330

1

Because its Hotline has been shut down, FFI has been forced to incur numerous

2 additional expenses to continue its mission. In particular, FFI created phone accounts

3 at detention facilities and deposited money into those accounts to allow detained

4 immigrants to contact FFI at no cost. Id. ¶ 29. FFI notes that these calls can cost over

5 $1 per minute, rather than the free Hotline it had previously maintained. Id. In

6 addition to requiring payment, FFI’s new phone accounts are no longer confidential.

7 Id. ¶ 30. FFI contends that this discourages detainees from reporting abuse and

8 mistreatment. Id.

9

Based on the above, FFI brings the present preliminary injunction motion to

10 compel DHS to restore FFI’s hotline in all ICE detention facilities.

11

III. LEGAL STANDARD

12

“A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must establish [1] that he is likely

13 to succeed on the merits, [2] that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence

14 of preliminary relief, [3] that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and [4] that an

15 injunction is in the public interest.” Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7,

16 20 (2008) (alterations added). The first factor, likelihood of success on the merits, is a

17 threshold inquiry. See Garcia v. Google, Inc., 786 F.3d 733, 740 (9th Cir. 2015) (en

18 banc) (“[W]hen a plaintiff has failed to show the likelihood of success on the merits,

19 we need not consider the remaining three [factors]”) (internal quotation marks

20 omitted) (alterations added).

21

IV. DISCUSSION

22

1. FFI has established a likelihood of success on the merits

23

First, FFI has established a likelihood of success on the merits of its First

24 Amendment retaliation claim.

25

A First Amendment retaliation claim requires that the plaintiff show “that (1) it

26 engaged in constitutionally protected activity; (2) the defendant’s actions would chill a

27 person of ordinary firmness from continuing to engage in the protected activity; and

28 (3) the protected activity was a substantial motivating factor in the defendant’s 5.

Case 2:19-cv-10424-AB-GJS Document 29 Filed 02/11/20 Page 6 of 11 Page ID #:331

1 conduct—i.e., that there was a nexus between the defendant’s actions and an intent to

2 chill speech.”2 Ariz. Students’ Assoc. v. Ariz. Bd. of Regents, 824 F.3d 858, 867 (9th

3 Cir. 2016).

4

DHS first contends that FFI lacks standing to bring its First Amendment

5 retaliation claim. Here, because FFI brings suit on its own behalf as an organization, it

6 must demonstrate (1) injury in fact (i.e. a concrete and particularized invasion of a

7 legally protected interest), (2) causation (i.e. a fairly traceable connection between the

8 alleged injury and the alleged conduct of defendant), and (3) redressability (i.e. a

9 likelihood that the plaintiff’s injury will be remedied by the relief plaintiff seeks). See

10 La Asociacion de Trabajadores de Lake Forest v. City of Lake Forest, 624 F.3d 1083,

11 1088 (9th Cir. 2010) (holding that the same analysis is used to determine whether an

12 organizational plaintiff has standing in a particular case as is used for individual

13 plaintiffs) “An organization suing on its own behalf can establish injury when it

14 suffered ‘both a diversion of resources and a frustration of its mission.’” Id. (quoting

15 Fair Housing of Marin v. Combs, 285 F.3d 899, 905 (9th Cir. 2002).

16

Here, FFI demonstrates injury, as it shows that shutting down its Hotline

17 frustrated its mission of reporting on conditions of confinement in ICE detention

18 facilities, and forced FFI to divert financial resources to pay $1 per minute for

19 telephone calls with immigrant detainees. See supra. DHS contends that FFI cannot

20 show injury in fact, because FFI was not the organization actually assigned the

21

22 2 As an initial matter, the Court rejects DHS’s argument that the standard for First

23 Amendment retaliation claims within the prison context applies here. See Dkt. No. 22 at 14. DHS provides no authority extending this heightened standard to civil

24 immigration detention. Id. at 14–18. Moreover, because detention of immigrants by

DHS is civil confinement, not criminal confinement, “we assume that [it] [is] 25 nonpunitive in purpose and effect.” See Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 690 (2001).

26

Finally, in this case, FFI does not bring a First Amendment retaliation claim as a prisoner, but rather as a non-profit organization seeking to maintain its ability to

27 communicate freely and confidentially with detained immigrants. Accordingly, the

Court concludes that the heightened standard for First Amendment retaliation claims

28 in the prison context does not apply.

6.

Case 2:19-cv-10424-AB-GJS Document 29 Filed 02/11/20 Page 7 of 11 Page ID #:332

1 Hotline number. However, as the Court noted above, DHS has not shown that CIVIC,

2 FFI’s name at the time of its application, did not have access to the Hotline. Further,

3 DHS has failed to rebut FFI’s evidence that it was an affiliate organization of

4 FOMDD, which indisputably had access to the Hotline. See supra. Because FFI

5 demonstrates that shutting down the Hotline caused it to divert financial resources and

6 frustrated FFI’s mission, FFI shows injury in fact.

7

Second, FFI has demonstrated both causation and redressability. As to

8 causation, FFI has shown that its injury is fairly traceable to DHS’s conduct in

9 shutting down the Hotline. As to redressability, FFI has shown that its injury will

10 likely be remedied by an injunction reinstating the Hotline. Because FFI has

11 demonstrated (1) injury in fact, (2) causation, and (3) redressability, it has standing to

12 pursue its First Amendment retaliation claim.

13

As to the merits of FFI’s retaliation claim, DHS concedes, as it must, that FFI

14 has engaged in conduct protected under the First Amendment. (Dkt. No. 22 at 15); see

15 also Snyder v. Phelps, 562 U.S. 443, 451–52 (2011) (“[S]peech on matter of public

16 concern . . . is at the heart of First Amendment protection.”) (internal quotation marks

17 omitted) (alterations in original). As to the second element for First Amendment

18 retaliation, FFI has shown that DHS’s conduct would chill a person of ordinary

19 firmness from continuing to engage in protected activity. In particular, FFI has shown

20 that detained immigrants seeking to call FFI from ICE detention facilities now incur a

21 $1 per minute charge that was not imposed with the Hotline. Moreover, FFI has

22 shown that detained immigrants must now call FFI on monitored communications

23 lines, rather than on the Hotline’s confidential line. See supra. This evidence is

24 sufficient to show that DHS’s conduct in shutting down the Hotline would chill a

25 person of ordinary firmness from continuing to engage in protected activity. See Ariz.

26 Students Assoc., 824 F.3d at 868 (“Both the Supreme Court and we have recognized .

27 . . [that] the government may chill speech by threatening or causing pecuniary

28 harm.”). 7.

Case 2:19-cv-10424-AB-GJS Document 29 Filed 02/11/20 Page 8 of 11 Page ID #:333

1

With respect to the third element for First Amendment retaliation, FFI has

2 shown that its speech was a substantial and motivating factor behind DHS’s shutdown

3 of the Hotline. A plaintiff can demonstrate that its speech was a substantial and

4 motivating factor behind the government’s retaliation by demonstrating, among other

5 things, (1) a close proximity in time between the speech and the retaliatory conduct,

6 and (2) that the government’s proffered reasons are pretextual. See Anthoine v. N.

7 Cent. Ctys Consortium, 605 F.3d 740, 750–51 (9th Cir. 2010). Here, FFI provides

8 evidence that DHS restricted the Hotline to Florida approximately one month after FFI

9 petitioned ICE and DHS’s Office of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties to reopen its

10 visitation program in Otay. See Supra. FFI also provides evidence that its Hotline was

11 shut down within two weeks of the season premiere of OITNB featuring FFI’s Hotline

12 in immigration detention centers. Id. In addition to this evidence, FFI shows a litany

13 of retaliatory acts by DHS in response to FFI’s public advocacy from 2013 to 2019.

14 (See generally, Dkt. No. 4-8). This history of retaliatory conduct by DHS, in addition

15 to DHS’s failure to explain why it undertook the actions that had the effect of limiting

16 and ultimately shutting down FFI’s Hotline, suggests that DHS’s proffered

17 explanations are pretextual. This close proximity in time and evidence showing

18 pretext firmly support the conclusion that FFI has made a prima facie showing of

19 retaliatory intent, and that DHS has failed to rebut that presumption. Cf. Hartman v.

20 Moore, 547 U.S. 250, 260 (2006). FFI has accordingly shown that it is likely to

21 prevail on the third element of its First Amendment retaliation claim.

22

Because FFI has demonstrated that it has organizational standing, and because

23 its evidence shows the DHS has likely retaliated against FFI for its exercise of First

24 Amendment rights, FFI has demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits.

25

2. FFI has shown irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief

26

As FFI correctly argues, both the Supreme Court and the Ninth Circuit “have

27 repeatedly held that ‘[t]he loss of First Amendment freedoms, for even minimal

28 periods of time, unquestionably constitutes irreparable injury.’” Klein v. City of San 8.

Case 2:19-cv-10424-AB-GJS Document 29 Filed 02/11/20 Page 9 of 11 Page ID #:334

1 Clemente, 584 F.3d 1196, 1207–08 (9th Cir. 2009) (citing Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S.

2 347, 373 (1976)). That there exists an approximately four-month period between

3 DHS’s shutdown of the Hotline and FFI’s filing suit does not change this irreparable

4 harm analysis, as any continued deprivation of First Amendment harm remains

5 irreparable. Cf. Id. (holding that where a plaintiff seeks to engage in political speech,

6 “[a] delay of even a day or two may be intolerable[.]”) (second alteration added).

7

Because FFI has demonstrated that DHS’s conduct likely contravenes its First

8 Amendment rights, FFI satisfies the irreparable harm requirement for preliminary

9 injunctive relief.

10

3. The balance of equities and public interest favor issuance of a preliminary

injunction

11

Where, as here, the government is a party to a preliminary injunction motion,

12 the last two factors—the balance of equities and whether an injunction is in the public 13 interest—merge. See Drakes Bay Oyster Co. v. Jewell, 747 F.3d 1073, 1092 (9th Cir.

14 2014). FFI argues that the balance of equities and public interest tip in its favor
15 because shutting down the Hotline makes it harder for detained immigrants to report
16 abuse by DHS officials, and that DHS would suffer no hardship because it previously
17 allowed the Hotline since 2013. (Dkt. No. 4 at 32.) In turn, DHS argues that the
18 equities and public interest weigh in its favor because it shut down the Hotline to 19
ensure the safety of detainees and maintain order. (Dkt. No. 22 at 20.) 20
The evidence provided to the Court shows that the balance of equities and 21
public interest are in FFI’s favor. In particular, FFI’s evidence shows that shutting 22
down the Hotline has resulted in marked hurdles for those seeking to confidentially 23
report abuse by DHS officials to FFI. See generally, Dkt. No. 4-8. By contrast, the 24
evidence provided by DHS is insufficient to show that the Hotline posed a security 25
risk outweighing the interest of detainees to report abuse, as there is no indication as 26
to when or how frequently the extension engaged in call forwarding or three-way 27
calling. (See Dkt. No. 22-1 at ¶ 19). 28

9.

Case 2:19-cv-10424-AB-GJS Document 29 Filed 02/11/20 Page 10 of 11 Page ID #:335

1

Because the balance of the equities and public interest weigh in FFI’s favor, FFI

2 satisfies the final elements for preliminary injunctive relief.

3

4. FFI’s requested scope of preliminary injunctive relief is proper

4

DHS contends that even if FFI is entitled to preliminary injunctive relief, the

5 scope of any such injunction should be limited to ICE detention facilities in Florida, as

6 nationwide preliminary injunctions are disfavored. (Dkt. No. 22 at 20–21.)

7

As a general matter, a preliminary injunction “must be narrowly tailored to

8 remedy the specific harm shown.” City and Cty of San Fran. v. Trump, 897 F.3d 1225,

9 1244 (9th Cir. 2018). Here, FFI requests injunctive relief restoring the Hotline

10 throughout all ICE detention centers in the United States, based on it showing that the

11 harm it suffered comprises both (1) retaliation by DHS in restricting the geographic

12 reach of the Hotline to ICE detention facilities in Florida, and (2) retaliation by DHS

13 in shutting down the Hotline entirely. FFI provides evidence that prior to these alleged

14 retaliatory acts, the Hotline was available to all immigrant detainees in all ICE

15 detention centers in the United States. (See Dkt. No. 4-8 at ¶ 7). Because FFI’s alleged 16 harm occurred in all ICE detention centers throughout the United States, an injunction

17 applying to all ICE detention centers is necessary to remedy FFI’s injury. Moreover,

18 DHS’s argument that this is necessarily a disfavored nationwide injunction that

19 applies to non-parties is unavailing. Here, FFI does not seek to “order[] the

20 government to take . . . some action with respect to those who are strangers to the

21 suit.” See DHS v. New York, 589 U.S. ___ (2020) (Gorsuch, J., concurring). Rather,

22 FFI seeks a preliminary injunction “no broader and no narrower than necessary to

23 redress the injury shown by [FFI].” California v. Azar, 911 F.3d 558, 584 (9th Cir.

24 2018).

25

Because FFI’s requested preliminary injunctive relief is no broader and no

26 narrower than necessary to redress FFI’s alleged injury from DHS’s retaliatory acts,

27 the Court finds the scope of requested relief appropriate.

28

10.

Case 2:19-cv-10424-AB-GJS Document 29 Filed 02/11/20 Page 11 of 11 Page ID #:336

1

V. CONCLUSION

2

For the reasons stated above, the Court GRANTS FFI’s motion for a

3 preliminary injunction. The Court also GRANTS DHS’s ex parte application for

4 leave to file a sur-reply. The Court accordingly ORDERS that Defendants U.S.

5 Department of Homeland Security, Chad F. Wolf, U.S. Immigration & Customs

6 Enforcement, Matthew T. Albence, and Derek N. Benner are

7

1. ENJOINED AND RESTRAINED from further interference with the

8

operation of the free and confidential extension used by Freedom for

9

Immigrants and Friends of Miami Dade Detainees as a hotline for

10

communicating with immigrants in detention; and

11

2. ORDERED to restore Freedom for Immigrants and Friends of Miami Dade

12

Detainees’ free and confidential extension at all detention facilities operated,

13

controlled, and/or overseen by U.S. Immigration & Customs Enforcement,

14

until such time as the Court renders a final judgment on the merits of this

15

action.

16 IT IS SO ORDERED.

17

18 Dated: February 11, 2020 19 20

_______________________________________ HONORABLE ANDRÉ BIROTTE JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 11.