Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca9-13-56755/USCOURTS-ca9-13-56755-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 

---

FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ALEJANDRO RODRIGUEZ, for himself

and on behalf of a class of similarlysituated individuals; ABDIRIZAK

ADEN FARAH, for himself and on

behalf of a class of similarly-situated

individuals; JOSE FARIAS CORNEJO;

YUSSUF ABDIKADIR; ABEL PEREZ

RUELAS,

Petitioners-Appellees,

and

EFREN OROZCO,

Petitioner,

v.

TIMOTHY ROBBINS, Field Office

Director, Los Angeles District,

Immigration and Customs

Enforcement; JEH JOHNSON,

Secretary, Homeland Security;

LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney

General; WESLEY LEE, Assistant

Field Office Director, Immigration

and Customs Enforcement; RODNEY

PENNER, Captain, Mira Loma

Detention Center; SANDRA

HUTCHENS, Sheriff of Orange

County; NGUYEN, Officer, OfficerNo. 13-56706

D.C. No.

2:07-cv-03239-

TJH-RNB

 Case: 13-56755, 10/02/2015, ID: 9705009, DktEntry: 130, Page 1 of 8
2 RODRIGUEZ V. ROBBINS

in-Charge, Theo Lacy Facility;

DAVIS NIGHSWONGER, Captain,

Commander, Theo Lacy Facility;

MIKE KREUGER, Captain, Operations

Manager, James A. Musick Facility;

ARTHUR EDWARDS, Officer-inCharge, Santa Ana City Jail;

RUSSELL DAVIS, Jail Administrator,

Santa Ana City Jail; JUAN P. OSUNA,

Director, Executive Office for

Immigration Review,

Respondents-Appellants.

ALEJANDRO RODRIGUEZ, for himself

and on behalf of a class of similarlysituated individuals; ABDIRIZAK

ADEN FARAH, for himself and on

behalf of a class of similarly-situated

individuals; JOSE FARIAS CORNEJO;

YUSSUF ABDIKADIR; ABEL PEREZ

RUELAS,

Petitioners-Appellants,

and

EFREN OROZCO,

Petitioner,

v.

TIMOTHY ROBBINS, Field Office

Director, Los Angeles District,

No. 13-56755

D.C. No.

2:07-cv-03239-

TJH-RNB

ORDER

 Case: 13-56755, 10/02/2015, ID: 9705009, DktEntry: 130, Page 2 of 8
RODRIGUEZ V. ROBBINS 3

Immigration and Customs

Enforcement; LORETTA E. LYNCH,

Attorney General; WESLEY LEE,

Assistant Field Office Director,

Immigration and Customs

Enforcement; RODNEY PENNER,

Captain, Mira Loma Detention

Center; SANDRA HUTCHENS, Sheriff

of Orange County; NGUYEN, Officer,

Officer-in-Charge, Theo Lacy

Facility; DAVIS NIGHSWONGER,

Captain, Commander, Theo Lacy

Facility; MIKE KREUGER, Captain,

Operations Manager, James A.

Musick Facility; RUSSELL DAVIS,

Jail Administrator, Santa Ana City

Jail; ARTHUR EDWARDS, Officer-inCharge, Santa Ana City Jail;

THOMAS G. SNOW, Acting Director,

Executive Office for Immigration

Review; JEH JOHNSON, Secretary,

Homeland Security,

Respondents-Appellees.

Filed October 2, 2015

Before: Kim McLane Wardlaw and Ronald M. Gould,

Circuit Judges and Sam E. Haddon,*

 District Judge.

* The Honorable Sam E. Haddon, District Judge for the U.S. District

Court for the District of Montana, sitting by designation.

 Case: 13-56755, 10/02/2015, ID: 9705009, DktEntry: 130, Page 3 of 8
4 RODRIGUEZ V. ROBBINS

SUMMARY**

Immigration Habeas Corpus

In a class action lawsuit brought by detained non-citizens,

the panel discharged its Order to Show Cause dated August

13, 2015, and held that no government attorney provided

information to the Los Angeles Times with the object of

influencing this appeal. 

The panel wrote that it was concerned that at oral

argument on July 24, 2015, government counsel made an

argument based on evidence not properly before the court

from a July 21, 2015 Los Angeles Times article which

referenced an immigration detainee’s bond hearings. 

However, the panel found no basis to conclude that counsel

deliberately attempted to mislead the court. The panel

discharged the OSC and did not impose sanctions for

improper oral argument.

ORDER

We have considered both the government’s and

petitioners’ responses to the Order to Show Cause dated

August 13, 2015, and these submissions have satisfied us that

no government attorney provided information to the press

with the object of influencing this appeal. Rather, it appears

that a U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)

spokesperson provided information about this case in

** This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It has

been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader.

 Case: 13-56755, 10/02/2015, ID: 9705009, DktEntry: 130, Page 4 of 8
RODRIGUEZ V. ROBBINS 5

response to an inquiry by a Los Angeles Times reporter on

July 16, 2015, and that the timing of the article’s publication

was only coincidentally related to the date of the hearing. We

therefore discharge the Order to Show Cause.

Though we appreciate the government’s prompt and

respectful submission, we remain concerned that government

counsel made an argument based on evidence not properly

before this court, which left an impression contrary to the

facts surrounding Kaene Dean’s immigration bond hearings.

Under review are cross-motions for summary judgment. 

We are therefore limited to considering evidence that was

before the district court when it issued its ruling, unless we

take judicial notice of the new evidence pursuant to Federal

Rule of Evidence 201. See Fed. R. App. P. 10(a); LVRC

Holdings LLC v. Brekka, 581 F.3d 1127, 1136 (9th Cir.

2009). Government counsel did not request judicial notice of

the July 21, 2015, Los Angeles Times article, which

referenced Mr. Dean’s bond hearings. Nor was the article

properly a subject for judicial notice as it contained

representations neither “generally known within the trial

court’s territorial jurisdiction” nor “accurately and readily

determined from sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably

be questioned.” Fed. R. Evid. 201(b). Unfortunately, the

representations made to the court by government counsel

about those proceedings appear to have been based on the

news article, which included partial and potentially

misleading information concerning the proceedings. See

Model Rules of Prof’l Conduct r. 3.3; Cal. Rules of Prof’l

Conduct r. 5-200.

Government counsel argued to the panel that Mr. Dean

was initially denied release on bond under the § 1226(a)

 Case: 13-56755, 10/02/2015, ID: 9705009, DktEntry: 130, Page 5 of 8
6 RODRIGUEZ V. ROBBINS

standard, but that under the Rodriguez preliminary injunction

standard, in a second bond hearing, the immigration judge

(IJ) concluded that Mr. Dean had to be released because the

government had not carried its burden.1 The government has

now provided us with the transcript of the April 28, 2015,

Rodriguez bond hearing. The transcript shows that the IJ

conducted a total of four bond hearings for Mr. Dean and had

previously released him twice on bond with conditions before

she held the bond hearing pursuant to Rodriguez. On each

occasion, Mr. Dean violated the conditions of release on bond

and was returned to detention. See Apr. 28, 2015 Tr. at 16

(“[Y]ou’ve been given bond twice before, and you’ve broken

the terms of the bond twice before.”). Mr. Dean’s release on

bond on the prior two occasions was not due to the

government’s failure to meet the Rodriguez standard, as the

district court did not issue its preliminary injunction until

September 13, 2012. Moreover, as the IJ states, she released

Mr. Dean on bond on April 28, 2015, because she concluded

 

1

 Counsel argued that:

We know that initially the hearing was conducted under

the 1226(a) standard, that the first hearing when he was

taken into custody was conducted under that standard. 

That standard places the burden on the individual alien

to prove that he is not a flight risk or a danger. The IJ

denied bond and said that this person is not entitled to

release. It was only after 180 days passed and we then

conducted the hearing again anew under the standard

under the preliminary injunction, which requires the

government to prove by clear and convincing evidence,

that that individual was released. It was concluded by

the immigration judge that the government had not

carried the burden . . . .

Oral Argument at 12:23–13:00; see also id. at 10:44–10:53.

 Case: 13-56755, 10/02/2015, ID: 9705009, DktEntry: 130, Page 6 of 8
RODRIGUEZ V. ROBBINS 7

that Mr. Dean’s predatory behavior was treatable, his mother

presented a concrete treatment plan, and Mr. Dean and his

mother assured her that he would comply with it.2Id. at

14–17. The IJ also reasoned that, “at the last hearing,” i.e., on

December 2, 2014 (the “initial” hearing to which government

counsel referred) when Mr. Dean was denied release on bond,

Mr. Dean’s mother wasn’t sure if Mr. Dean would consent to

mental health treatment. Id. at 15.3

We do not see the relevance of Mr. Dean’s immigration

proceedings to the legal issues on appeal, and neither in its

 

2

 As the IJ explained:

I am going to grant you bond. I think what’s going on

here is treatable. I don’t think there’s enough evidence

to show that you’re a danger. Well it’s a disturbing

record but it’s not enough for me to find that you’re a

danger and not eligible for bond. It is disturbing

though. But I think it’s treatable. I think this is

something you can figure out. Okay? So I’m going to

grant you bond. Because you’ve broken bond twice

before though it has to be a significant bond. Even

though I gave you $10,000 bond and you got in trouble,

I’m going to do $10,000 again. But obviously I’m

going to add a couple things to it. I’m going to add a

requirement that you report to the Department of

Homeland Security once a month, and I’m requiring

that you enroll in a mental health treatment plan with

the Santa Marita Mental Health Center. This is the

program that your mother has provided us with

evidence of. You must do that. You must go to that

center and set up the treatment plan within 10 days.

Id. at 16–17.

3 The government’s response to the Order to Show Cause indicates that

there is no transcript of the December 2, 2014, proceeding available.

 Case: 13-56755, 10/02/2015, ID: 9705009, DktEntry: 130, Page 7 of 8
8 RODRIGUEZ V. ROBBINS

response to the Order to Show Cause nor at any time in a

proper way, e.g., a letter brief filed pursuant to Federal Rule

of Appellate Procedure 28(j), has government counsel

explained the relevance. We will therefore disregard the Los

Angeles Times article and government counsel’s arguments

referencing it. However, we find no basis for concluding that

government counsel deliberately attempted to mislead the

court by relying on only a partial and potentially misleading

news report of Mr. Dean’s immigration proceedings; we

therefore do not find her conduct in doing so sanctionable.4

The Order to Show Cause is discharged; no sanctions are

imposed.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

4 The ICE spokesperson, in her email of July 17, 2015, alluded to Mr.

Dean’s prior immigration bond hearings and release when she wrote

“[t]his individual most recently came into [ICE] custody in October 2014

. . . .” Dkt. 130, at 12 (emphasis added).

 Case: 13-56755, 10/02/2015, ID: 9705009, DktEntry: 130, Page 8 of 8