N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
ANGEL DE JESUS ZEPEDA R IVAS; e t a l., Pla i ntiffs-Appe lle e s, v. DAVID JENNINGS, Ac ting Fie ld Offic e r Dire c tor; e t a l .,

De fe nda nts-Appe lla

nts, and GEO GR OUP, INC .; NATHAN ALLEN, W arde n, De fe nda

nts. Nos. 20-16276 20-16690 D.C . No. 3:20-c v-02731-VC M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Northe rn Distric t of C a lifornia Vinc e C hha

bria , Distric t

Judge , Pre siding Argue d a nd Subm itte d Fe brua

ry 8, 2021 San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : B ER

ZON, C HR ISTEN, a

n d B ADE, C irc uit Judge s . 

# FIL ED FEB 18 2021 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.Pla intiffs, c ivil im m igrat ion de ta ine e s house d at M e sa Ve rde De te ntion Fa c ility and Yuba C ounty

Ja il (c olle c tive ly , the Fa c ilitie s), file d a c la ss pe tition for writ of ha be a s c orpus, a

nd a c la ss c om

pla int for injunc tive and de c la ratory re lie f. Pla i ntiffs a lle ge d the c onditions of c onfine m e nt a t the Fa c i litie s viola

te d the ir Fifth Am e ndm e nt right to due proc e s s in light of the thre at pose d by

the C OVID-19 pa nde m ic . Through a s e rie s of orde rs, the distric t c ourt e sta blishe d a sy ste m to c onside r individual ba il a pplic ations a

nd subse que ntly

issue d m ultipleba il orde rs gran ting inde finite re le a se to ove r 130 de ta ine e s . The de fe nda

nts first file d

an inte rloc utory

a ppe a l c h a lle nging thete m pora ry re stra i ning orde r e nte re d April 29, 2020, the ba il orde rs issue d the re unde r, and the pre l im ina ry injunc tion e nte re d June 9, 2020. De fe nda nts sepa rate ly a p pe a le d a dditional ba il orde rs issue d a fte r the pre lim ina ry injunc tion. This me m orandum disposition re solve s c e rta in thre shold issue s pre se nte d in the se a ppe a l s a nd is a c c om pa nie d by a se p a rate orde r re fe rring the re m a ining issue s to m e diation. He re , we c onc lude tha

t we have jurisdic t ion to re vie w the April 29, 2020 te m pora ry re stra ining orde r, the June 9, 2020 orde r granting pre l im ina ry injunc tion, a

n d the ba il orde rs; tha

t pla intiffs showe d a

like lihood of suc c e s s on the i r c l a im that c onditions a t the Fa c ilitie s fe ll be low a c onstitutiona l m inim um at

2le a st a s of the tim e t he te m pora ry re stra ining orde r wa s e nte re d ; a nd tha t, c ontra ry to the gove rnm e nt ’ s a

rgum e nt, distric t c ourts ha v e a uthority to e nte r injunc tive re lie f to re m e dy

unc onstitutiona

l c onditions of c o nfine m e nt, inc luding ove rc rowding tha

t pose s he a lth da

nge rs, unde r c e rta in c irc um sta nc e s. 1. W e have jurisdic tion to re vie w inte rloc utory orde rs “ granting, c ontinuing,
m odify ing, re fusing or dissolving injunc tions, or re fusing to dissolve or m o dify injunc tions.”28 U.S.C . § 1292(a)(1). Ge ne ra lly , te m pora ry re stra ining orde rs a

re not a ppe a la ble , se e E. Bay

Sanc tuary

C ov e nant v . Trump , 932 F.3d 742, 762 (9th C ir. 2018) (c iting Abbott v . Pe re z , 138 S. C t. 2305, 2319 (2018)), but the la be l atta c h e d to a n orde r doe s not de te rm ine our jurisdic tion. Se e Abbott , 138 S. C t. at 2319. R athe r, “ [w] e tre at a TR O a s a

pre l im ina

ry injunc tion ‘ whe re an a dve rsary he aring ha s be e n he l d, a

n d the c ourt’ s ba sis for issuing the orde r [is] strongly c ha lle nge d.’ ” E. Bay

Sanc tuary

C ov e nant , 932 F.3d a

t 762 (se c ond a lte ration in origina l) (quoting Be nne tt v . Me dtronic , Inc
. , 285 F.3d 801, 804 (9th C ir. 2002)). W e a lso c onside r whe the r the te m pora ry re stra ining orde r re m a ins in e ffe c t for longe r tha n 14 da y s. Id. W e c onc lude the individual ba il orde rs issue d pursua nt to thete m

pora ry re stra i ning orde r and a

ppe a le d he re are re vie wa

ble pursua

nt to § 1292(a

)(1). The distric t c o urt issue d e a c h ba il orde r following a dve rsaria l brie fing by both pa rtie s 3and the gove rnm e nt stre n uously c ha lle nge d the distric t c ourt’ s le ga l ba sis for issuing e a c h ba il orde r. M ore ove r, the distric t c ourt’ s ba il orde rs we re e nte re d for an inde finite pe riod, thus e xc e e ding thepre sum ptive 14-da

y duration of te m

pora ry re stra i ning orde rs. S

e e Fe d. R . C iv. P. 65(b). B e c a use we c onc lude the ba il orde rs a re a ppe a l a ble , we a lso hold the te m pora ry re stra ining orde r e nte re d on April 29, 2020 is a ppe a la ble . In Sw int v
. C hambe rs C

ounty C ommission , the Supre m e C ourt sugge ste d tha t a nona ppe a la ble orde r would be a

ppe a la ble if it we re “ ine x tric a

bly inte rtwine d” with a

n a ppe a la ble orde r or if “ re v ie w of the form e r de c ision [is] ne c e ssa ry to e nsure m e aningful re vie w of the latte r.” 514 U.S. 35, 51 (1995). This c ourt ha s sim ila rly he ld “ [a ] sum m ary judgm e nt orde r tha

t provide s the le ga l a

uthority to issuean injunc tion—

that c onstitute s a

‘ n e c e ssa ry pre dic ate ’ to c om

ple te re vie w of the injunc tion—is ine xtric a

bly bound up with the

injunc t ion.” Paige v . C

a lifornia , 102 F.3d 1035, 1040 (9th C ir. 1996) (a lte ration in origina l ) (quoting Se lf-Re alization Fe llow ship C hurc h v . Ananda C

hurc h of Se lf-Re alization , 59 F.3d 902, 905 (9th C ir. 1995)). B e c a

u se the April 29 te m

pora ry re stra ining orde r a

rtic ulate d the distric t c o urt’ s le ga l justific ation for theba il orde rs, the ba il orde rs a nd the te m pora ry re stra ining orde r worke d in ta n d e m . Ac c ordingly , we have jurisdic tion to re vie w the April 29 te m pora ry re stra ining orde r.

42. W e a lso c onc lude tha t pla intiffs de m onstra

te d a like lihood of suc c e ss on the m e rits of the ir c onditions-of-c onfine m e nt c la im a s of the tim e the distric t c ourt e nte re d its April 29 te

m pora ry re stra ining orde r. “ The Fifth Am e ndm e nt re quire s the g ove rnm e nt to provide c onditions of re a s ona

ble he a lth a

nd sa fe ty to pe o ple in its c u stody .” Roman v
. W olf (Roman I

), 977 F.3d 935, 943 (9th C ir. 2020) (c iting De Shane y v . W inne bago C

n ty . De p’t of Soc . Se rv

s. , 489 U.S. 189, 199–200 (1989) and Doev . K

e lly , 878 F.3d 710, 714 (9th C ir. 2017)). Thegove rnm e nt viola te s this duty if: (i) [It] m a [ke s] an inte ntiona l de c ision with re s pe c t to thec onditions unde r whic h the pla intiff wa s c onfine d; (ii) thosec onditions put the pla intiff a t substa ntia l risk of suffe ring se rious ha rm ; (iii) the [gove rnm e nt] did not ta

ke re a sona

ble ava ila b le m e a s ure s to a

bate tha t risk, e ve n though a

re a s ona ble offic i a l in thec irc um s ta nc e s would have a ppre c iate d the high de gre e of risk involve d . . . ; a nd (iv) by not taking suc h m e a sure s, the [gove rnm e nt] c a use d the pla i ntiff’ s injurie s. Id. (a l te ration in origina

l) (quoting Gordon v . C

o unty of Orange , 888 F.3d 1118, 1125 (9th C ir. 2018)). Whe n the te m

pora ry re stra ining orde r wa s e nte re d, the distric t found C OVID-19 pose d grave he a lth risks, the c rowde d de te ntion fa c ilitie s we re a

“ tinde rbox” for C OVID-19 tra nsm ission, a

nd C OVID-19 pose d

a se rious he a lth-risk to all de t a ine e s— n o t only those in high-risk c ate gorie s . De spite the se risks, thedistric t c ourt found thegove rnm e nt ha d only re c e ntly ta ke n m ode s t 5m e a sure s in re sponse to the pa n de m ic and tha

t soc ia l dista

nc ing wa s still im possiblefor m ost de ta ine e s. The gove rnm e nt ha d not y e t ide ntifie d de ta ine e s with m e dic a l c onditions tha t m a de the m

m ore vulne ra

b le to C OVID-19. Furthe r, the g ove rnm e nt ha d only

te s te d two de ta ine e s at

the Fa c i litie s e ve n though de ta ine e s re gula

rly arrive d from

fa c ilitie s with c onfirm e d

C OVID-19 c a se s. The gove rnm e nt doe s not a rgue the se findings we re c le arly e rrone ous. R athe r, a ddre ssing thec onditions tha t e xiste d at

tha t tim e of the te m

pora ry re stra i ning orde r, the gove rnm e nt prim arily argue s tha

t the la c k of c onfirm e d C OVID-19 c a se s at the Fa c ilitie s unde rc uts pla intiffs’ c la im that the y we re e ntitle d to injunc tive re lie f. This a rgum e nt is de fe ate d by

the we ll-e sta

blishe d princ iple that to pre va i l on a

c onditions-of-c o nfine m e nt c la i m , pla i ntiffs ne e d only prove a

“ suffic ie ntly

im m ine nt da n ge r[ ] ,” be c a

u se a “ re m e dy for unsa fe c onditions ne e d not a wa it a tra gic e ve nt.” He l ling v
. Mc K inne y , 509 U.S. 25, 33–34 (1993). On this re c ord, we a g re e with thedistric t c ourt tha t pla intiffs de m onstra

te d a like lihood of suc c e ss on the ir c la im

tha t c onditions a

t the Fa c ilitie s fe ll be low the c onstitutiona

l thre shold whe n the April 29 te m pora ry re s tra ining orde r wa s e nte re d. 3. The gove rnm e nt a

rgue s tha t to thee xte nt the pla intiffs’ c la im s re l y on ha be a s c orpus, thedistric t c ourt la c ke d a uthority to re m e dy

pla intiffs’ c o nditions of c onfine m e nt. B ut in Roman I , we re c ogniz e d tha

t the Due Proc e s s C la

use of the 6Fifth Am e ndm e nt provide s c ivil im m igration de ta ine e s a

n im plie d c a use of a c tion to se e k e quita

ble re lie f from

unc onstitutiona

l c onditions of c onfine m e nt . 977 F.3d at 941–42. As in Roman I , we ne e d not de c i de whe the r a writ ha be a s c orpus is the prope r ve hic le to pursuepla intiffs’ c la im be c a use pla intiffs a lso brought a c la ss a c tion se e king de c la

ratory and injunc tive re lie f to re m e dy the c ondition. Se e id. at 941. Distric t

c o urts “posse ss[] broa d e quita ble a uthority to re m e dy

a like l y c onstitutiona

l viola t ion.” Id. at 945. “ The distric t c ourt m ay , for e xam ple , re quire
. . . a re duc tion in the

popula tion to a le ve l tha t would a llow for six-foot soc ia l dista nc ing, if it c onc lude s [tha t] a c tion[] [is] ne c e ssa

ry to bring the

c onditions to a c onstitutiona

lly a de quate le v e l.” Id. at

945–46; se e also Brow

n v . Plata , 563 U.S. 493, 502 (2011) (a ffirm i ng a thre e -judge distric t

c ourt’ s orde r lim iting theinm ate popula tion a t C a lifornia

prisons be c a

use ove rc rowding ha d re sulte d in Eighth Am e ndm e nt viola

tions a nd no othe r re lie f would c ure the viola t ion). Ac c o rdingly , a lthough wedo not de c ide he re the sc ope of the distric t c ourt’ s a uthority to e nte r injunc tive re lie f, we c onc lude the distric t c ourt ha d a uthority to e nte r a ppropria te injunc tive re lie f to re m e dy ongoing viola

tions. 4. W e do not de c ide he re whe the r unc onstitutiona l c onditions of c onfine m e nt pe rsiste d

a s of the tim e the distric t c ourt e nte re d the pre lim ina ry 7injunc tion on June 9, 2020. B y

the tim e the distric t c ourt e nte re d the pre lim ina

ry injunc tion, it had a lre a dy

he ld e ight sta

tus c onfe re nc e s, a

nd the pre lim i na

ry injunc tion orde r inc lude s the distric t c ourt’ s finding tha t the gove rnm e nt unre a s ona

bly re siste d ta king m e a sure s to sa fe gua

rd de ta i ne e s in re sponse to C OVID-19. The p a

rtie s a re no doubt a

ware of the positions a sse rte d at the sta tus c onfe re nc e s but those

tra nsc ripts we re not inc lude d in the pa rtie s’ e xc e rpts of re c o rd. Whe t

he r the distric t

c ourt’ s finding tha

t the gove rnm e nt unre a s ona b ly fa ile d to ta

ke a c t ion is supporte d by

the re c ord will like l y

re quire re vie w of those transc ripts. Ac c ordingly , we do not de c ide whe t he r the distric t c ourt e xc e e de d the sc ope o f its a

uthority to e nte r injunc tive re lie f a s of June 9. The gove rnm e nt se pa

rate ly argue s the distric t c ourt did not ha ve a uthority to re le a se any

pla intiffs de ta ine d pursua nt to them andatory

de te ntion sta

tute s, 8 U.S.C . §§ 1226(c ) a

nd 1231(a)(2). Ne ithe r party brie fe d whe the r the distric t c ourt wa s re quire d to prioritiz e re le a sing de ta ine e s who we re not subje c t to m andatory de te ntion. Rathe r tha

n de c ide the se que stions a nd the othe r unre solve d

issue s, in the a c c om

pa ny ing Orde r we re fe r this a p pe a l to theC irc uit M e diat ion Progra m .

8