Case: Doe v. Johnson [later Kelly, Nielsen]

4:15-cv-00250 | U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona

Filed Date: June 8, 2015

Case Ongoing

Clearinghouse coding complete

Case Summary

This is a class action about conditions of confinement in the "hold rooms" used by the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) for short-term detention of noncitizens apprehended near the border. The case deals with all the hold rooms in the Tucson Sector, which consists of nine "stations" covering most of Arizona and accounted for 18% of all border patrol apprehensions along the U.S.-Mexico border in 2014. Most recently, the District Court entered a comprehensive opinion finding conditions un…

This is a class action about conditions of confinement in the "hold rooms" used by the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) for short-term detention of noncitizens apprehended near the border. The case deals with all the hold rooms in the Tucson Sector, which consists of nine "stations" covering most of Arizona and accounted for 18% of all border patrol apprehensions along the U.S.-Mexico border in 2014. Most recently, the District Court entered a comprehensive opinion finding conditions unconstitutional.

On June 8, 2015, civil detainees confined in a U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) "hold room" within the Tucson Sector of the U.S. Border Patrol filed this class-action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona, alleging violations of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). All plaintiffs were apprehended at or near the U.S. border with Mexico and then detained. The plaintiffs, represented by attorneys from the ACLU of Arizona, the National Immigration Law Center, American Immigration Council, the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights, and the law firm Morrison & Foerster, sought declaratory and injunctive relief, alleging that they were subjected to inhumane and punitive conditions while being detained in holding cells.

As expedited discovery proceeded, the plaintiffs moved in August 2015 for sanctions against defendants, asserting that defendants had violated discovery rules by destroying critical video evidence of unconstitutional conditions of confinement in the Tucson Sector CBP facilities. On Sept. 28, 2015, Judge Bury granted the plaintiffs' motion for sanctions in part. He found that defendants had caused spoliation of evidence and created prejudice against the plaintiffs because the destroyed videos contained the only visual evidence of conditions of confinement in these facilities. Consequently, Judge Bury ordered that defendants immediately produce all existing and retained video evidence of detainee holding areas that were the subject of this case. 2015 WL 13021467 (D. Ariz. 2015).

On December 4, 2015, the plaintiffs filed a motion for a preliminary injunction, seeking an immediate order for improved conditions in the hold rooms. Briefing on the motion was stayed for a short time until the resolution of the class action and motion to dismiss issues.

On Jan. 11, 2016, Judge Bury certified the case as a class action. The class consisted of all individuals who at that time or in the future were detained for one or more nights at a Tuscon Sector CBP facility. 163 F.Supp.3d 630 (D. Ariz. 2016). A few weeks later, Judge Bury shifted the wording slighting, ordering that "one or more nights" be understood to mean "more than 8 hours within the same calendar day." And on June 27, 2016, Judge Bury again amended the Jan. 11 order certifying the class, to include all individuals at that time or in the future who were detained at a Tuscon Sector CBP facility (regardless of duration). 2016 WL 8199309 (D. Ariz. 2016).

The same day as he granted certification of the class, Judge Bury issued another order granting in part and denying in part the defendants' motion to dismiss. The plaintiffs' APA claims were dismissed (on grounds that the challenged CBP conduct was not "final agency action"), but their constitutional claims remained. 2016 WL 3484403 (D. Ariz. 2016).

Once the class was certified and the motion to dismiss denied, briefing continued on plaintiffs' request for a preliminary injunction.

The defendants sought to seal various court documents, but Phoenix Newspapers, Inc., moved to intervene for the limited purpose of opposing that motion. Judge Bury granted intervention on June 26, 2016, holding that the public interest in access to the record outweighed the defendants' rationale for keeping the documents sealed. Rejecting the defendants' general reasons based on privacy and law enforcement, Judge Bury asked the defendants for a more specific showing of harm from the disclosure of any document not already covered by a protective order, and ordered the unsealing of several documents.

The preliminary injunction issue finally got to a hearing on Nov. 14-15, 2016; on Nov. 18, Judge Bury granted a preliminary injunction. He found that the plaintiffs had established a likelihood of success on the merits of their constitutional claims and that violation of a constitutional right would constitute irreparable injury. Judge Bury stated that if defendants held detainees long enough for detainees to need to sleep, then defendants must maintain conditions of confinement adequate for the detainees' physical needs during that time (as there was no security rationale overriding this obligation). 2016 WL 8188563 (D. Ariz. 2016). The defendants moved for reconsideration on Dec. 2, which Judge Bury denied on Jan. 3, 2017. He did, though, clarify that the twelve-hour confinement period began when a detainee arrived at a CBP station. 2017 WL 467238 (D. Ariz. 2017).

On Jan. 9, 2017, the plaintiffs moved for sanctions against the defendants for civil contempt, alleging violation of the court's Aug. 14, 2015, and Sept. 28, 2015, orders mandating that defendants produce relevant video evidence. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants had failed to preserve from destruction videos of the Tucson Center hold rooms, and had failed to inform the plaintiffs or the Court of this problem. The defendants responded on Feb. 3.

On Mar. 2, 2017, both parties filed notices to appeal to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, from Judge Bury's Nov. 18, 2016, and Jan. 3, 2017, orders. The 9th Circuit, on Mar. 3, opened two new dockets, Nos. 17-15381 and 17-15383, and set a briefing schedule. The 9th Circuit then set a mediation hearing for Mar. 20, but on that date, the Court declined to include the case in its mediation program.

Back in the District Court, on Mar. 13, 2017, Judge Bury granted in part and denied in part plaintiffs' Jan. 9, 2017 motion for sanctions against the defendants for civil contempt. 2017 WL 7520602. Judge Bury found that the defendants had failed to take all reasonable steps within their power to preserve video evidence. While some violations were not good-faith or reasonable interpretations of court orders, other violations were merely technical or de minimis. Judge Bury ordered the defendants to improve certain aspects of their data archiving, to meet with plaintiffs about their progress, and to pay the plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and costs incurred in connection with this data discovery. Defendants responded on Mar. 20, stating that they were now either in compliance or on track to being in compliance with all requirements of the Court's Mar. 13 order.

In the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, on Mar. 30, 2017, the plaintiffs filed their brief on cross-appeal. The plaintiffs acknowledged that the District Court had correctly recognized the detainees' due process rights to medical care, beds, and personal hygiene. Nevertheless, the plaintiffs argued, the District Court had erred as a matter of law by allowing CBP to deny detainees medical screenings and prescriptions by trained personnel, to deprive detainees of beds when held overnight, and to provide merely body wipes in lieu of showers. The defendants submitted their brief on cross-appeal on Apr. 27. They argued that the detainees' due process rights did not include sleeping mats for all detainees after twelve hours, and that the District Court had not abused its discretion in the terms of the preliminary injunction, considering the unique challenges faced by the Tuscon Sector Border Patrol. The plaintiffs filed another brief on cross-appeal on May 25, and the defendants filed a reply brief on June 8. The 9th Circuit (Judges Tallman, Callahan, and Ezra) held oral argument on Oct. 16.

In the District Court, on Apr. 13, 2017, the defendants followed up on the Mar. 13 civil contempt order. The defendants informed Judge Bury of potential corruption and gaps in relevant video recordings, and maintained that these were good-faith errors and that defendants were working to fix them.

Also on Apr. 13, the defendants moved to stay the District Court proceedings until the 9th Circuit ruled on the parties' cross-appeals of the District Court's preliminary injunction order. On May 25, 2017, Judge Bury granted in part and denied in part the motion to stay. Only expert discovery was stayed, while all other discovery was to proceed. Judge Bury stated:

The hardship and inequity falls decidedly on the Plaintiffs. Staying this discovery, suspends not only resolution of the case but puts the Plaintiff at an evidentiary disadvantage. It creates a chronic state of evidentiary suspension, with any end in sight being totally dependent on the Government’s ability to correct a problem which it has been unable or unwilling to correct for over a year.

On Dec. 22, 2017, the Ninth Circuit (Judges Tallman, Callahan, and Ezra) affirmed the District Court's Nov. 18 preliminary injunction order. 878 F.3d 710. (The order had required defendants to provide detainees after 12 hours with mats and blankets, but not beds, showers, or medical care provided by medical professionals.) The opinion, written by Judge Callahan, found that the District Court had not abused its discretion in the limited preliminary injunction. According to the opinion, the District Court had broad discretion to craft this remedy to balance the detainees' constitutional rights with the government's interests.

On Feb. 5, 2018, the plaintiffs petitioned the Ninth Circuit for a rehearing en banc. Plaintiffs argued that the Ninth Circuit's Dec. 22 decision conflicted with prior decisions of that court and the Supreme Court on (1) whether civil detainees' right to adequate medical care encompasses a right to screening conducted by properly trained individuals supervised by medical professionals, and (2) whether, having found the existence of constitutional violations, a district court may decline to fully remedy them based on government expense. However, on Mar. 13, the Ninth Circuit denied the rehearing petition. The Ninth Circuit mandate issued, putting into effect the judgment of its Dec. 22 decision.

On May 4, 2018, the plaintiffs filed a sealed proposed motion for partial summary judgment. The clerk was to file the motion if the plaintiffs' motion to seal is granted. Throughout the rest of 2018, the parties litigated what evidence would be permitted in the motion for summary judgment and whether exhibits would be sealed. When this was resolved (by an order granting in part and denying in part the defendants' motion to seal) the clerk filed the plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment.

The plaintiffs sought summary judgment on the issue of the defendants' obligation to provide beds. The plaintiffs asserted that civil pretrial detainees must be provided beds or mattresses raised off of the floor if held for any period requiring sleep and that "anything less, including floor mats, is a violation of their Fifth Amendment Due Process rights.” Further, the plaintiffs argued that the use of floor mats led to overcrowding and unsanitary conditions that are “reprehensible and dehumanizing.” The plaintiffs contended that there are no disputed facts precluding partial summary for their claim that civil detainees are constitutionally entitled to beds.

On March 15, 2019, Judge Bury issued an order denying the plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment. 2017 WL 7520603. Judge Bury held that Ninth Circuit case law does not support plaintiffs' request for judgment as a matter of law that providing floor mats rather than raised beds is an unconstitutional practice. Judge Bury concluded the court was to consider the severity and duration of the conditions, along with the operational needs of the detention facility, to determine whether these conditions constituted objective deprivation of the constitutional right to humane shelter. Judge Bury determined that this was a fact-intensive inquiry and could not be properly made on the summary judgment record.

Judge Bury ordered a 13-day bench trial set for January 13, 2020. For the remainder of 2019, the parties litigated various issues in preparation for trial. Beginning on January 13, 2020, the parties participated in a seven-day bench trial. On February 19, 2020, Judge Bury issued the court's finding of fact and conclusions of law, finding in favor of plaintiffs and against the defendants. 2020 WL 813774. Judge Bury concluded that the defendants' holding facilities were designed for short-term holds, "lasting hours not days." Judge Bury found that the conditions of extended confinement in defendants' holding facilities were "substantially worse than detainees face upon commitment to either a civil immigration detention facility or even a criminal detention facility, like a jail or prison." Accordingly, Judge Bury concluded that extended confinement in these facilities did not advance the government's legitimate interest in immigration enforcement and resulted in conditions, including detainees' inability to sleep for several nights, that were "presumptively punitive" and violated the Constitution.

Based on these conclusions and finding of fact, Judge Bury issued an order enjoining defendants from holding detainees considered to be "processing complete" for longer than 48 hours unless defendants provide "conditions of confinement that meet basic human needs for sleeping in a bed with a blanket, a shower, food that meets acceptable dietary standards, potable water, and medical assessments performed by a medical professional." Judge Bury adopted a "no longer than 48 hour" rule to accommodate logistic difficulties of transporting detainees after they are processed. Judge Bury maintained that anything beyond 48 hours forced CBP to perform the role of other civil immigration detention agencies and thus required it to provide the conditions of confinement standard at the facilities of other agencies.

On April 17, 2020, the court entered an order for a permanent injunction, setting minimum standards with respect to detention length, available care, and compliance. The permanent injunction adopted many of the same standards as both the preliminary injunction and proposed permanent injunction. The court required defendants to collect and maintain data about each individual's time in the detention center, provide that data to the plaintiffs on a quarterly basis for a two-year period, and allow plaintiffs to request class access visits on a quarterly basis for two years. Further, the defendants were also ordered to conduct internal compliance evaluations and provide them to plaintiffs.

The Court gave the defendants 90 days to attain compliance with the order. It also retained jurisdiction to reopen the case and enforce the permanent injunction and action. On September 11, 2020, two months following the defendants' third and final monthly status report, the plaintiffs filed a report alleging noncompliance. However, the court declined to act on the plaintiffs' report and instead noted on November 18, 2020, that the court's jurisdiction over the permanent injunction was to be narrow and only could be invoked if clear and convincing evidence of noncompliance were shown.

Defendants filed appeals as to both the court's finding and the permanent injunction, and plaintiffs filed cross-appeals to each. On November 10, 2020, defendants voluntarily dismissed their appeal, after which plaintiffs also dismissed their cross-appeals on November 18, 2020. The case remained on the district court docket for overseeing compliance with the injunction.  

On February 16, 2022, the parties reported to the District Court that that had reached an agreement on attorneys' fees and costs, pursuant to which CBP would pay plaintiffs' counsel $3,832,052.00.   The parties sought approval of the settlement award and corresponding notice to the class.  On February 28, 2022, the Court granted preliminary approval of the settlement and notice to the class, and on April 7, 2022, it granted final approval of the parties' settlement of attorneys' fees and costs.     

Summary Authors

Frances Hollander (10/4/2015)

Ava Morgenstern (3/19/2018)

Aaron Gurley (2/24/2020)

People

For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4134324/parties/unknown-parties-v-wolf/


Judge(s)

Bury, David C. (Arizona)

Callahan, Consuelo Maria (California)

Attorneys(s) for Plaintiff

Atoyama−Little, Akari (California)

Balassone, Elizabeth Gilmore (California)

Bernwanger, Bree (California)

Borja, Aleyda Yvette (Arizona)

Brill, Sophia M. (District of Columbia)

Brody, Kathleen E. (Arizona)

Cekola, James J. (California)

Colella, Abigail L. (New York)

Judge(s)

Bury, David C. (Arizona)

Callahan, Consuelo Maria (California)

Attorneys(s) for Plaintiff

Atoyama−Little, Akari (California)

Balassone, Elizabeth Gilmore (California)

Bernwanger, Bree (California)

Borja, Aleyda Yvette (Arizona)

Brill, Sophia M. (District of Columbia)

Brody, Kathleen E. (Arizona)

Cekola, James J. (California)

Colella, Abigail L. (New York)

Coles, Kevin Martin (California)

Cortina, Samuel Christopher (California)

Creighton, Emily J. (District of Columbia)

Crow, Melissa E. (District of Columbia)

de Ganon, Pieter S (California)

Della-Piana, Elisa (California)

Douglas, John Sebastiano (California)

Esposito, Robert (California)

Furnish, Brenda Munoz (Arizona)

Huerta, Alvaro M. (California)

Hughes, Lena H. (District of Columbia)

Joaquin, Linton (California)

Kenney, Mary (District of Columbia)

Leitch, Bryan J. (District of Columbia)

Lieberman, Martin (Arizona)

Londen, Jack W. (California)

Lopez, Victoria (Arizona)

Lyall, James Duff (Arizona)

Mayer, Colette Reiner (California)

Maynard, Deanne (District of Columbia)

McElhinny, Harold J. (California)

Peard, William Bradford (Arizona)

Pochoda, Daniel Joseph (Arizona)

Preciado, Nora (California)

Reichlin-Melnick, Aaron (District of Columbia)

Sallomi, Megan (California)

Sigel, James R. (California)

Silva, Travis (California)

Stoupe, Louise Carita (California)

Tumlin, Karen C. (California)

Walters, Karolina Joanna (District of Columbia)

Wee, Christine Keeyeh (Arizona)

Attorneys(s) for Defendant

Celone, Michael Anthony (District of Columbia)

Davila, Yamileth G. (District of Columbia)

Fabian, Sarah B. (District of Columbia)

Fishman, Dillon (District of Columbia)

Kisor, Colin A. (District of Columbia)

Masetta−Alvarez, Katelyn (District of Columbia)

Parascandola, Christina B. (District of Columbia)

Peachey, William Charles (District of Columbia)

Readler, Chad Andrew (District of Columbia)

Sheffield, Carlton F. (District of Columbia)

Shieh, Woei-Tyng Daniel (District of Columbia)

Silvis, William C. (District of Columbia)

Vuong, Sarah Lake (District of Columbia)

Other Attorney(s)

Bodney, David Jeremy (Arizona)

Documents in the Clearinghouse

Document

4:15-cv-00250

Docket [PACER]

Doe v. Johnson

March 4, 2021

March 4, 2021

Docket
4

4:15-cv-00250

Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification; Memorandum of Points and Authorities

Doe v. Johnson

June 8, 2015

June 8, 2015

Pleading / Motion / Brief
1

4:15-cv-00250

Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief - Class Action

Doe v. Johnson

June 8, 2015

June 8, 2015

Complaint
51

4:15-cv-00250

Order

Doe v. Johnson

2015 WL 5086291

Aug. 14, 2015

Aug. 14, 2015

Order/Opinion
56

4:15-cv-00250

Plaintiffs' Motion for Sanctions

Doe v. Johnson

Aug. 28, 2015

Aug. 28, 2015

Pleading / Motion / Brief
64

4:15-cv-00250

Order

Doe v. Johnson

2015 WL 13021467

Sept. 28, 2015

Sept. 28, 2015

Order/Opinion
68

4:15-cv-00250

Order Approving Stipulation and Protective Order

Doe v. Johnson

Oct. 1, 2015

Oct. 1, 2015

Order/Opinion
117

4:15-cv-00250

Order

Unknown Parties v. Johnson

163 F.Supp.3d 630

Jan. 11, 2016

Jan. 11, 2016

Order/Opinion
118

4:15-cv-00250

Order

Unknown Parties v. Johnson

163 F.Supp.3d 630, 2016 WL 3484403

Jan. 11, 2016

Jan. 11, 2016

Order/Opinion
124

4:15-cv-00250

Motion of Phoenix Newspapers, Inc. to Intervene for the Limited Purpose of Opposing Defendants' Motion to Seal and Securing an Order to Unseal Court Records

Doe v. Johnson

Jan. 28, 2016

Jan. 28, 2016

Pleading / Motion / Brief

Resources

Title Description External URL Date / External URL

Doe v. Johnson: Challenge to Deplorable Detention Conditions in U.S. Customs & Border Protection Facilities

National Immigration Law Center (NILC)

Last year, the National Immigration Law Center, along with the American Immigration Council, the ACLU of Arizona, the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights of the San Francisco Bay Area, and Morrison &… Sept. 1, 2016

Sept. 1, 2016

https://www.nilc.org/...

Unconstitutional Conditions in CBP Detention Facilities Challenged in Class Action Lawsuit

Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights of the San Francisco Bay Area

Immigrant rights groups have filed a class-action lawsuit challenging detention conditions in CBP (Customs and Border Protection) detention facilities. The complaint alleges that Tucson Sector Border… June 8, 2015

June 8, 2015

https://www.lccr.com/...

Challenging Unconstitutional Conditions in CBP Detention Facilities

American Immigration Council

The American Immigration Council, the National Immigration Law Center, the ACLU of Arizona, the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights of the San Francisco Bay Area, and Morrison & Foerster LLP have fil… June 12, 2017

June 12, 2017

https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/...

Doe v. Johnson

American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Arizona

In June 2015, the ACLU of Arizona filed a lawsuit challenging the inhumane and unconstitutional conditions in detention facilities used by the U.S. Border Patrol in the Tucson Sector. The lawsuit com… June 8, 2015

June 8, 2015

https://www.acluaz.org/...

Docket

See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4134324/unknown-parties-v-wolf/

Last updated June 1, 2022, 9:31 p.m.

ECF Number Description Date Link Date / Link
1

COMPLAINT. Filing fee received: $ 400.00, receipt number 0970-11767191 filed by Unknown Parties, Norlan Flores. (Lyall, James) (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet, # 2 Declaration, # 3 Declaration, # 4 Declaration, # 5 Declaration, # 6 Declaration) (KEP) (Entered: 06/09/2015)

1 Civil Cover Sheet

View on PACER

2 Declaration

View on PACER

3 Declaration

View on PACER

4 Declaration

View on PACER

5 Declaration

View on PACER

6 Declaration

View on PACER

June 8, 2015

June 8, 2015

Clearinghouse
2

Additional Attachments to Main Document re: 1 Complaint by Plaintiffs Norlan Flores, Unknown Parties. (Lyall, James) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit) (KEP) (Entered: 06/09/2015)

1 Exhibit

View on PACER

2 Exhibit

View on PACER

3 Exhibit

View on PACER

June 8, 2015

June 8, 2015

RECAP
3

Filing fee paid, receipt number 0970-11767191. This case has been assigned to the Honorable David C. Bury. All future pleadings or documents should bear the correct case number: 4:15-CV-00250-TUC-DCB. Notice of Availability of Magistrate Judge to Exercise Jurisdiction form attached. (KEP) (Entered: 06/09/2015)

June 8, 2015

June 8, 2015

RECAP
4

MOTION for Class Certification by Norlan Flores, Unknown Parties. (Lyall, James) (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(KEP) (Entered: 06/09/2015)

1 Text of Proposed Order

View on PACER

June 8, 2015

June 8, 2015

Clearinghouse
8

NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT: (KEP) (Entered: 06/10/2015)

June 8, 2015

June 8, 2015

RECAP
5

MOTION for Admission Pro Hac Vice as to attorney Linton Joaquin by Norlan Flores, Unknown Parties. (Joaquin, Linton) (Entered: 06/09/2015)

June 9, 2015

June 9, 2015

RECAP
6

MOTION for Admission Pro Hac Vice as to attorney Karen C. Tumlin by Norlan Flores, Unknown Parties. (Tumlin, Karen) (Entered: 06/09/2015)

June 9, 2015

June 9, 2015

PACER
7

MOTION for Admission Pro Hac Vice as to attorney Nora A. Preciado by Norlan Flores, Unknown Parties. (Preciado, Nora) (Entered: 06/09/2015)

June 9, 2015

June 9, 2015

PACER

PRO HAC VICE FEE PAID. $ 105, receipt number PHX159542 as to Nora A Preciado, Karen Cassandra Tumlin, Linton Joaquin. This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry. (BAS)

June 11, 2015

June 11, 2015

PACER
9

ORDER pursuant to General Order 09-08 granting 5 Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice; granting 6 Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice; granting 7 Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice. Per the Court's Administrative Policies and Procedures Manual, applicant has five (5) days in which to register as a user of the Electronic Filing System. Registration to be accomplished via the court's website at www.azd.uscourts.gov. Counsel is advised that they are limited to two (2) additional e-mail addresses in their District of Arizona User Account. (BAS) (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no.pdf document associated with this entry.) (Entered: 06/11/2015)

June 11, 2015

June 11, 2015

PACER
10

MOTION for Admission Pro Hac Vice as to attorney Elizabeth Balassone on behalf of plaintiffs Norlan Flores, and Unknown Parties. (BAS) (Entered: 06/11/2015)

June 11, 2015

June 11, 2015

PACER

PRO HAC VICE FEE PAID. $ 35, receipt number PHX159543 as to Elizabeth Gilmore Balassone. This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry. (BAS)

June 11, 2015

June 11, 2015

PACER
11

ORDER pursuant to General Order 09-08 granting 10 Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice. Per the Court's Administrative Policies and Procedures Manual, applicant has five (5) days in which to register as a user of the Electronic Filing System. Registration to be accomplished via the court's website at www.azd.uscourts.gov. Counsel is advised that they are limited to two (2) additional e-mail addresses in their District of Arizona User Account. (BAS) (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no.pdf document associated with this entry.) (Entered: 06/11/2015)

June 11, 2015

June 11, 2015

PACER
12

SUMMONS Submitted by Norlan Flores, Unknown Parties. (Attachments: # 1 Summons to Defendant R. Gil Kerlikowske, # 2 Summons to Defendant Michael J. Fisher, # 3 Summons to Defendant Jeffrey Self, # 4 Summons to Defendant Manuel Padilla)(McElhinny, Harold) (Entered: 06/11/2015)

1 Summons to Defendant R. Gil Kerlikowske

View on PACER

2 Summons to Defendant Michael J. Fisher

View on PACER

3 Summons to Defendant Jeffrey Self

View on PACER

4 Summons to Defendant Manuel Padilla

View on PACER

June 11, 2015

June 11, 2015

RECAP
13

Summons Issued as to All Defendants. (Attachments: # 1 Summons, # 2 Summons, # 3 Summons, # 4 Summons)(SIB). *** IMPORTANT: When printing the summons, select "Document and stamps" or "Document and comments" for the seal to appear on the document. (Entered: 06/11/2015)

1 Summons

View on PACER

2 Summons

View on PACER

3 Summons

View on PACER

4 Summons

View on PACER

June 11, 2015

June 11, 2015

PACER
14

MOTION for Admission Pro Hac Vice as to attorney Pieter S deGanon on behalf of plaintiffs Norlan Flores, and Unknown Parties. (BAS) (Entered: 06/17/2015)

June 15, 2015

June 15, 2015

PACER
15

MOTION for Admission Pro Hac Vice as to attorney Louise Stoupe on behalf of plaintiffs Norlan Flores, and Unknown Parties. (BAS) (Entered: 06/17/2015)

June 15, 2015

June 15, 2015

PACER
16

MOTION for Admission Pro Hac Vice as to attorney Travis Silva on behalf of plaintiffs Norlan Flores, and Unknown Parties. (BAS) (Entered: 06/17/2015)

June 15, 2015

June 15, 2015

PACER
19

MOTION for Admission Pro Hac Vice as to attorney Colette Reiner Mayer on behalf of Norlan Flores, and Unknown Parties. (BAS) (Entered: 06/17/2015)

June 16, 2015

June 16, 2015

PACER
20

MOTION for Admission Pro Hac Vice as to attorney Kevin Martin Coles on behalf of Norlan Flores, and Unknown Parties. (BAS) (Entered: 06/17/2015)

June 16, 2015

June 16, 2015

PACER
21

MOTION for Admission Pro Hac Vice as to attorney Harold J McElhinny on behalf of Norlan Flores, and Unknown Parties. (BAS) (Entered: 06/17/2015)

June 16, 2015

June 16, 2015

Clearinghouse

PRO HAC VICE FEE PAID. $ 35, receipt number PHX159625 as to Pieter S DeGanon. This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry. (BAS)

June 17, 2015

June 17, 2015

PACER

PRO HAC VICE FEE PAID. $ 35, receipt number PHX159626 as to Louise Stoupe. This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry. (BAS)

June 17, 2015

June 17, 2015

PACER

PRO HAC VICE FEE PAID. $ 35, receipt number PHX159627 as to Travis Silva. This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry. (BAS)

June 17, 2015

June 17, 2015

PACER
17

ORDER pursuant to General Order 09-08 granting 14 Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice; granting 15 Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice; granting 16 Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice. Per the Court's Administrative Policies and Procedures Manual, applicant has five (5) days in which to register as a user of the Electronic Filing System. Registration to be accomplished via the court's website at www.azd.uscourts.gov. Counsel is advised that they are limited to two (2) additional e-mail addresses in their District of Arizona User Account. (BAS) (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no.pdf document associated with this entry.) (Entered: 06/17/2015)

June 17, 2015

June 17, 2015

PACER
18

NOTICE OF ATTORNEY APPEARANCE: Sarah B. Fabian appearing for Michael J Fisher, Jeh Johnson, R Gil Kerlikowske, Manuel Padilla, Jr, Jeffrey Self. . (Fabian, Sarah) (Entered: 06/17/2015)

June 17, 2015

June 17, 2015

PACER

PRO HAC VICE FEE PAID. $ 35, receipt number PHX159733 as to Colette Reiner Mayer. This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry. (BAS)

June 17, 2015

June 17, 2015

PACER

PRO HAC VICE FEE PAID. $ 35, receipt number PHX159734 as to Kevin M Coles. This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry. (BAS)

June 17, 2015

June 17, 2015

PACER

PRO HAC VICE FEE PAID. $ 35, receipt number PHX159732 as to Harold J McElhinny. This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry. (BAS)

June 17, 2015

June 17, 2015

PACER
22

ORDER pursuant to General Order 09-08 granting 19 Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice; granting 20 Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice; granting 21 Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice. Per the Court's Administrative Policies and Procedures Manual, applicant has five (5) days in which to register as a user of the Electronic Filing System. Registration to be accomplished via the court's website at www.azd.uscourts.gov. Counsel is advised that they are limited to two (2) additional e-mail addresses in their District of Arizona User Account. (BAS) (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no.pdf document associated with this entry.) (Entered: 06/17/2015)

June 17, 2015

June 17, 2015

PACER
23

NOTICE OF ATTORNEY APPEARANCE: Dillon A. Fishman appearing for Michael J Fisher, Jeh Johnson, R Gil Kerlikowske, Manuel Padilla, Jr, Jeffrey Self. . (Fishman, Dillon) (Entered: 06/17/2015)

June 17, 2015

June 17, 2015

PACER
24

ORDER that Defendants must answer the Complaint or otherwise respond by appropriate motion within the time provided by the applicable provisions of Rule 12(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See attached Order for complete details. Signed by Senior Judge David C Bury on 6/16/2015. (MFR) (Entered: 06/19/2015)

June 19, 2015

June 19, 2015

PACER
25

MOTION for Discovery Plaintiffs' Motion For Expedited Discovery; Memorandum of Points And Authorities by Norlan Flores, Unknown Parties. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order [Proposed] Order Granting Plaintiffs' Motion For Expedited Discovery)(McElhinny, Harold) (Entered: 06/23/2015)

1 Text of Proposed Order [Proposed] Order Granting Plaintiffs' Motion For Exp

View on PACER

June 23, 2015

June 23, 2015

RECAP
26

DECLARATION of Kevin M. Coles In Support Of Plaintiffs' Motion For Expedited Discovery re: 25 MOTION for Discovery Plaintiffs' Motion For Expedited Discovery; Memorandum of Points And Authorities by Plaintiffs Norlan Flores, Unknown Parties. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Index of Exhibits and Exhibits A-U)(McElhinny, Harold) (Entered: 06/23/2015)

1 Exhibit Index of Exhibits and Exhibits A-U

View on PACER

June 23, 2015

June 23, 2015

PACER
27

MOTION for Protective Order Motion To Proceed Under Pseudonyms And For A Protective Order by Norlan Flores, Unknown Parties. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order [Proposed] Order Granting Plaintiffs' Motion To Proceed Under Pseudonyms And For A Protective Order)(McElhinny, Harold) (Entered: 06/23/2015)

1 Text of Proposed Order [Proposed] Order Granting Plaintiffs' Motion To Proc

View on RECAP

June 23, 2015

June 23, 2015

RECAP
28

DECLARATION of Elizabeth Balassone In Support Of Plaintiffs' Motion To Proceed Under Pseudonyms And For A Protective Order re: 27 MOTION for Protective Order Motion To Proceed Under Pseudonyms And For A Protective Order by Plaintiffs Norlan Flores, Unknown Parties. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Index of Exhibits to Elizabeth Balassone Declaration In Support Of Motion To Proceed Under Pseudoymns And For A Protective Order)(McElhinny, Harold) (Entered: 06/23/2015)

1 Exhibit Index of Exhibits to Elizabeth Balassone Declaration In Support Of Motio

View on PACER

June 23, 2015

June 23, 2015

RECAP
29

SERVICE EXECUTED filed by Norlan Flores, Unknown Parties: Certificate of Service re: Summons, Complaint (See Attachment A for List of Documents) upon Jeffrey Self on June 12, 2015. (Balassone, Elizabeth) (Entered: 06/24/2015)

June 24, 2015

June 24, 2015

Clearinghouse
30

SERVICE EXECUTED filed by Norlan Flores, Unknown Parties: Certificate of Service re: Summons, Complaint (See Attachment A for List of Documents) upon Manuel Padilla, Jr. on June 12, 2015. (Balassone, Elizabeth) (Entered: 06/24/2015)

June 24, 2015

June 24, 2015

PACER
31

First MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 4 MOTION to Certify Class Unopposed by Michael J Fisher, Jeh Johnson, R Gil Kerlikowske, Manuel Padilla, Jr, Jeffrey Self. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Fabian, Sarah) (Entered: 06/29/2015)

1 Text of Proposed Order

View on PACER

June 29, 2015

June 29, 2015

PACER
32

ORDER granting 27 Motion To Proceed Under Pseudonyms and for a Protective Order. Plaintiffs Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe # 2 may proceed in this action under pseudonyms. All parties shall use Plaintiff Jane Doe #1s and Jane Doe # 2s pseudonyms in all documents filed in this action. Dated this 29th day Signed by Senior Judge David C Bury on 6/29/2015.(BAR) (Entered: 06/29/2015)

June 29, 2015

June 29, 2015

Clearinghouse
33

MOTION for Admission Pro Hac Vice as to attorney Mary Kenney on behalf of plaintiffs Norlan Flores, and Unknown Parties. (BAS) (Entered: 07/01/2015)

July 1, 2015

July 1, 2015

PACER

PRO HAC VICE FEE PAID. $ 35, receipt number PHX160259 as to Mary Kenney. This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry. (BAS)

July 1, 2015

July 1, 2015

PACER
34

MOTION for Admission Pro Hac Vice as to attorney Emily Creighton on behalf of plaintiffs Norlan Flores, and Unknown Parties. (BAS) (Entered: 07/01/2015)

July 1, 2015

July 1, 2015

PACER

PRO HAC VICE FEE PAID. $ 35, receipt number PHX160257 as to Emily Creighton. This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry. (BAS)

July 1, 2015

July 1, 2015

PACER
35

MOTION for Admission Pro Hac Vice as to attorney Melissa Crow on behalf of plaintiffs Norlan Flores, and Unknown Parties. (BAS) (Entered: 07/01/2015)

July 1, 2015

July 1, 2015

PACER

PRO HAC VICE FEE PAID. $ 35, receipt number PHX160256 as to Melissa Ellen Crow. This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry. (BAS)

July 1, 2015

July 1, 2015

PACER
36

ORDER pursuant to General Order 09-08 granting 33 Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice; granting 34 Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice; granting 35 Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice. Per the Court's Administrative Policies and Procedures Manual, applicant has five (5) days in which to register as a user of the Electronic Filing System. Registration to be accomplished via the court's website at www.azd.uscourts.gov. Counsel is advised that they are limited to two (2) additional e-mail addresses in their District of Arizona User Account. (BAS) (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no.pdf document associated with this entry.) (Entered: 07/01/2015)

July 1, 2015

July 1, 2015

PACER
37

Second MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 4 MOTION to Certify Class, 31 First MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 4 MOTION to Certify Class Unopposed by Michael J Fisher, Jeh Johnson, R Gil Kerlikowske, Manuel Padilla, Jr, Jeffrey Self. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Fishman, Dillon) (Entered: 07/03/2015)

1 Text of Proposed Order

View on PACER

July 3, 2015

July 3, 2015

PACER
38

ORDER granting 31 Motion for Extension of Time to 7/14/2015 to File the Response to the 4 MOTION to Certify Class. Signed by Senior Judge David C Bury on 7/6/2015.(BAR) (Entered: 07/06/2015)

July 6, 2015

July 6, 2015

PACER
39

RESPONSE in Opposition re: 25 MOTION for Discovery Plaintiffs' Motion For Expedited Discovery; Memorandum of Points And Authorities filed by Michael J Fisher, Jeh Johnson, R Gil Kerlikowske, Manuel Padilla, Jr, Jeffrey Self. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Padilla Declaration)(Fabian, Sarah) (Entered: 07/07/2015)

1 Exhibit Padilla Declaration

View on PACER

July 7, 2015

July 7, 2015

PACER
40

REPLY re: 25 MOTION for Discovery Plaintiffs' Motion For Expedited Discovery; Memorandum of Points And Authorities by Plaintiffs Norlan Flores, Unknown Parties. (McElhinny, Harold) (Entered: 07/13/2015)

July 13, 2015

July 13, 2015

PACER
41

RESPONSE in Opposition re: 4 MOTION to Certify Class filed by Michael J Fisher, Jeh Johnson, R Gil Kerlikowske, Manuel Padilla, Jr, Jeffrey Self. (Fishman, Dillon) (Entered: 07/14/2015)

July 14, 2015

July 14, 2015

PACER
42

REPLY re: 4 MOTION to Certify Class Reply In Support of Plaintiffs' Motion For Class Certification by Plaintiffs Norlan Flores, Unknown Parties. (McElhinny, Harold) (Entered: 07/21/2015)

July 21, 2015

July 21, 2015

PACER
43

STATEMENT of Recent Decision In Support of Plaintiffs' Motions for Class Certification and For Expedited Discovery re: 4 MOTION to Certify Class, 25 MOTION for Discovery Plaintiffs' Motion For Expedited Discovery; Memorandum of Points And Authorities by Plaintiffs Norlan Flores, Unknown Parties. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 Flores Order)(McElhinny, Harold) (Entered: 07/27/2015)

1 Exhibit 1 Flores Order

View on PACER

July 27, 2015

July 27, 2015

PACER
44

RESPONSE re: 43 Statement in Opposition by Defendants Michael J Fisher, Jeh Johnson, R Gil Kerlikowske, Manuel Padilla, Jr, Jeffrey Self. (Fishman, Dillon) (Entered: 07/28/2015)

July 28, 2015

July 28, 2015

PACER
45

ORDER that the Plaintiffs Motion for Expedited Discovery is set for oral argument at a telephonic hearing on Thursday, August 13, 2015 at 9:30 am. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the oral argument shall be held telephonically before the Honorable David C. Bury in Courtroom 6B, Sixth Floor, Evo A. DeConcini United States Courthouse, 405 W. Congress Street, Tucson, Arizona. Signed by Senior Judge David C Bury on 8/10/2015. (See Order for details) (KEP) (Entered: 08/10/2015)

Aug. 10, 2015

Aug. 10, 2015

PACER
46

MINUTE ENTRY for Motion Hearing held on 8/13/2015 before Senior Judge David C. Bury: Re: 25 MOTION for Discovery Plaintiffs' Motion For Expedited Discovery; Memorandum of Points And Authorities filed by Unknown Parties, Norlan Flores. Oral arguements heard. Formal order shall follow. APPEARANCES: Telephonic appearance by Harold J McElhinny for Plaintiffs. Telephonic appearance by Sara Fabian for Defendants (Court Reporter Cindy Shearman) Hearing held 9:35 AM to 10:45 AM. This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry. (MLH) (Entered: 08/13/2015)

Aug. 13, 2015

Aug. 13, 2015

PACER
47

TRANSCRIPT REQUEST by Norlan Flores, Unknown Parties for proceedings held on 8/13/2015, Judge David C Bury hearing judge(s). (McElhinny, Harold) (Entered: 08/13/2015)

Aug. 13, 2015

Aug. 13, 2015

PACER
48

TRANSCRIPT of MOTION HEARING held on 08/13/2015, before Judge DAVID C. BURY. Court Reporter Cindy J. Shearman. The ordering party will have electronic access to the transcript immediately. All others may view the transcript at the court public terminal or it may be purchased through the Court Reporter by filing a Transcript Order Form on the docket before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Redaction Request due 9/3/2015. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 9/14/2015. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 11/12/2015. (CSL) (Entered: 08/13/2015)

Aug. 13, 2015

Aug. 13, 2015

RECAP
49

TRANSCRIPT REQUEST (for telephonic pretrial hearing) by Michael J Fisher, Jeh Johnson, R Gil Kerlikowske, Manuel Padilla, Jr, Jeffrey Self for proceedings held on 8/13/15, Judge David C Bury hearing judge(s). (Fishman, Dillon) (Entered: 08/14/2015)

Aug. 14, 2015

Aug. 14, 2015

PACER
50

AMENDED TRANSCRIPT REQUEST by Michael J Fisher, Jeh Johnson, R Gil Kerlikowske, Manuel Padilla, Jr, Jeffrey Self for proceedings held on 8/13/15, Judge David C Bury hearing judge(s). (Fishman, Dillon) Modified on 8/14/2015 (CSL). (Entered: 08/14/2015)

Aug. 14, 2015

Aug. 14, 2015

PACER
51

ORDER granting 25 Motion for Expedited Discovery. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED the Plaintiffs are granted permission to conduct expedited discovery. Defendants shall not destroy or record over any video surveillance tapes of any and all detainee holding areas and shall preserve such surveillance tapes currently in their possession. Pending entry of a formal Protective Order to be drafted by the Defendants, the Plaintiffs stipulate that this expedited discovery shall be for "attorney eyes only." The Defendant shall draft a Protective Order to address the privacy issues that may arise during discovery in this case. That on or before the close of business on Thursday, August 20, 2015, the Defendants shall produce the daily logs and video list logs. Defendants shall accommodate the Plaintiffs with respect to completing the expedited discovery within 22 days, including holidays and weekends, of August 14, 2015. Signed by Senior Judge David C Bury on 8/14/2015. (See Order for details) (KEP) (Entered: 08/14/2015)

Aug. 14, 2015

Aug. 14, 2015

Clearinghouse
52

MOTION to Dismiss Case by Michael J Fisher, Jeh Johnson, R Gil Kerlikowske, Manuel Padilla, Jr, Jeffrey Self. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Fishman, Dillon) (Entered: 08/14/2015)

1 Exhibit

View on PACER

Aug. 14, 2015

Aug. 14, 2015

PACER
53

NOTICE re: Facts Regarding Discovery Order Compliance by Michael J Fisher, Jeh Johnson, R Gil Kerlikowske, Manuel Padilla, Jr, Jeffrey Self re: 51 Order on Motion for Discovery . (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Fishman, Dillon) (Entered: 08/19/2015)

1 Exhibit

View on PACER

Aug. 19, 2015

Aug. 19, 2015

PACER
54

STIPULATION re: 51 Order on Motion for Discovery to extend time for site inspections by Michael J Fisher, Jeh Johnson, R Gil Kerlikowske, Manuel Padilla, Jr, Jeffrey Self. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Fishman, Dillon) (Entered: 08/21/2015)

1 Text of Proposed Order

View on PACER

Aug. 21, 2015

Aug. 21, 2015

PACER
55

NOTICE re: of Facts Regarding Compliance With Court Order by Michael J Fisher, Jeh Johnson, R Gil Kerlikowske, Manuel Padilla, Jr, Jeffrey Self . (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Allen Declaration, # 2 Exhibit Shivers Declaration)(Fabian, Sarah) (Entered: 08/27/2015)

1 Exhibit Allen Declaration

View on PACER

2 Exhibit Shivers Declaration

View on PACER

Aug. 27, 2015

Aug. 27, 2015

PACER
56

MOTION for Sanctions by Norlan Flores, Unknown Parties. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order [Proposed] Order Granting Plaintiffs' Motion for Sanctions)(McElhinny, Harold) (Entered: 08/28/2015)

1 Text of Proposed Order [Proposed] Order Granting Plaintiffs' Motion for San

View on PACER

Aug. 28, 2015

Aug. 28, 2015

Clearinghouse
57

DECLARATION of Colette R. Mayer re: 56 MOTION for Sanctions by Plaintiffs Norlan Flores, Unknown Parties. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F)(Mayer, Colette) (Entered: 08/28/2015)

1 Exhibit A

View on PACER

2 Exhibit B

View on PACER

3 Exhibit C

View on PACER

4 Exhibit D

View on PACER

5 Exhibit E

View on PACER

6 Exhibit F

View on PACER

Aug. 28, 2015

Aug. 28, 2015

PACER
58

ORDER granting 54 Joint Stipulation Extending Time for Inspections. Ordered Plaintiffs shall have permission to inspect the four Border Patrol Stations at Tucson, Douglas, Nogales and Casa Grande, over four consecutive days from September 8 through September 11, 2015. Signed by Senior Judge David C Bury on 9/1/2015. (BAR) (Entered: 09/01/2015)

Sept. 1, 2015

Sept. 1, 2015

PACER
59

STIPULATION Re: Proposed Protective Order by Michael J Fisher, Jeh Johnson, R Gil Kerlikowske, Manuel Padilla, Jr, Jeffrey Self. (Fabian, Sarah) (Entered: 09/02/2015)

Sept. 2, 2015

Sept. 2, 2015

PACER
60

RESPONSE in Opposition re: 56 MOTION for Sanctions filed by Michael J Fisher, Jeh Johnson, R Gil Kerlikowske, Manuel Padilla, Jr, Jeffrey Self. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Allen Declaration, # 2 Exhibit Shivers Declaration)(Fabian, Sarah) (Entered: 09/04/2015)

1 Exhibit Allen Declaration

View on PACER

2 Exhibit Shivers Declaration

View on PACER

Sept. 4, 2015

Sept. 4, 2015

PACER
61

*REPLY re: Response in Opposition to Motion for Sanctions 56 by Plaintiffs Norlan Flores, Unknown Parties. (McElhinny, Harold)* Modified to correct reference to related document on 9/9/2015 (DLC). (Entered: 09/08/2015)

Sept. 8, 2015

Sept. 8, 2015

PACER
62

RESPONSE in Opposition re: 52 MOTION to Dismiss Case filed by Norlan Flores, Unknown Parties. (McElhinny, Harold) (Entered: 09/17/2015)

Sept. 17, 2015

Sept. 17, 2015

PACER
63

DECLARATION of Elizabeth Balassone re: 62 Response in Opposition to Motion . filed by Norlan Flores, Unknown Parties. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Index of Exhibits and Exhibits A and B)(McElhinny, Harold) (Entered: 09/17/2015)

1 Exhibit Index of Exhibits and Exhibits A and B

View on PACER

Sept. 17, 2015

Sept. 17, 2015

PACER
64

ORDER granting in part and denying in part 56 Motion for Sanctions. Signed by Senior Judge David C Bury on 9/25/2015. (SEE ORDER FOR FURTHER DETAILS.)(BAR) (Entered: 09/28/2015)

Sept. 28, 2015

Sept. 28, 2015

Clearinghouse
65

REPLY to Response to Motion re: 52 MOTION to Dismiss Case filed by Michael J Fisher, Jeh Johnson, R Gil Kerlikowske, Manuel Padilla, Jr, Jeffrey Self. (Fishman, Dillon) (Entered: 10/05/2015)

Oct. 5, 2015

Oct. 5, 2015

PACER
66

MOTION Modify Court's Order re: 64 Order on Motion for Sanctions by Michael J Fisher, Jeh Johnson, R Gil Kerlikowske, Manuel Padilla, Jr, Jeffrey Self. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Declaration, # 2 Exhibit Stipulation, # 3 Text of Proposed Order)(Fabian, Sarah) (Entered: 10/05/2015)

1 Exhibit Declaration

View on PACER

2 Exhibit Stipulation

View on PACER

3 Text of Proposed Order

View on PACER

Oct. 5, 2015

Oct. 5, 2015

PACER
67

LODGED PROPOSED ORDER by Michael J Fisher, Jeh Johnson, R Gil Kerlikowske, Manuel Padilla, Jr, Jeffrey Self. Amendment to 66 MOTION Modify Court's Order re: 64 Order on Motion for Sanctions Amended Proposed Order. (Fabian, Sarah) Modified on 10/8/2015, incorrect event. (BAR). (Entered: 10/06/2015)

Oct. 6, 2015

Oct. 6, 2015

PACER
68

ORDER granting 59 Stipulation and Protective Order. Signed by Senior Judge David C Bury on 10/1/2015. (BAR) (Entered: 10/08/2015)

Oct. 8, 2015

Oct. 8, 2015

Clearinghouse
69

STIPULATION AND PROTECTIVE ORDER GOVERNING THE HANDLING OF CONFIDENTIAL MATERIAL. Signed by Senior Judge David C Bury on 10/19/2015. (BAR) (Entered: 10/22/2015)

Oct. 22, 2015

Oct. 22, 2015

PACER
70

ORDER ON STIPULATED SCHEDULE FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION BRIEFING, granting 66 Motion to Modify Court's Order re: 64 Order on Motion for Sanction. Signed by Senior Judge David C Bury on 10/26/2015. (See Order for Details.)(BAR) (Entered: 10/27/2015)

Oct. 27, 2015

Oct. 27, 2015

PACER
71

STATUS REPORT Joint Status Report and Notice of Stipulation Regarding Video Productions by Norlan Flores, Unknown Parties. (McElhinny, Harold) (Entered: 10/30/2015)

Oct. 30, 2015

Oct. 30, 2015

PACER
72

Emergency MOTION to Stay preliminary injunction briefing by Michael J Fisher, Jeh Johnson, R Gil Kerlikowske, Manuel Padilla, Jr, Jeffrey Self. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Declaration, # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Fabian, Sarah) (Entered: 12/03/2015)

1 Exhibit Declaration

View on PACER

2 Text of Proposed Order

View on PACER

Dec. 3, 2015

Dec. 3, 2015

PACER
73

RESPONSE in Opposition re: 72 Emergency MOTION to Stay preliminary injunction briefing Plaintiff's Opposition To Defendants' Motion To Stay Preliminary Injunction Briefing filed by Norlan Flores, Unknown Parties. (McElhinny, Harold) (Entered: 12/04/2015)

Dec. 4, 2015

Dec. 4, 2015

PACER
74

NOTICE of Confidential Doc. Designation Lodging pursuant to LRCiv.5.6.d. (McElhinny, Harold) (Entered: 12/04/2015)

Dec. 4, 2015

Dec. 4, 2015

PACER
75

SEALED LODGED Proposed Proposed Order Granting Plaintiffs' Motion For Preliminary Injunction. Document to be filed by Clerk if Motion or Stipulation to Seal is granted. Filed by Norlan Flores, Unknown Parties. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order Granting Preliminary Injunction)(McElhinny, Harold) (Entered: 12/04/2015)

Dec. 4, 2015

Dec. 4, 2015

PACER
76

SEALED LODGED Proposed Brief in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction. Document to be filed by Clerk if Motion or Stipulation to Seal is granted. Filed by Norlan Flores, Unknown Parties. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order - Under Seal, # 2 Vail Decl ISO PI Motion - Under Seal, # 3 Powitz Decl ISO PI Motion - Under Seal, # 4 Goldenson Decl ISO PI Motion - Under Seal, # 5 Gaston Decl ISO PI Motion - Under Seal, # 6 Coles Decl ISO PI Motion - Under Seal)(McElhinny, Harold) (Entered: 12/04/2015)

Dec. 4, 2015

Dec. 4, 2015

PACER
77

FILED AT DOC. 190 --SEALED LODGED Proposed Appendix of Exhibits in Support of PI Motion - Under Seal. Document to be filed by Clerk if Motion or Stipulation to Seal is granted. Filed by Norlan Flores, Unknown Parties. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibits 1-9 (Part 1 of 17) - Under Seal)(McElhinny, Harold) Modified on 8/3/2016 (MFR). (Entered: 12/04/2015)

Dec. 4, 2015

Dec. 4, 2015

PACER
78

UNSEALED BY 164 AND FILED AT 165 -SEALED LODGED Proposed Exhibits 10-18 (Part 2 of 17) - Under Seal. Document to be filed by Clerk if Motion or Stipulation to Seal is granted. Filed by Norlan Flores, Unknown Parties. (McElhinny, Harold) Modified on 6/27/2016 (BAR). (Entered: 12/04/2015)

Dec. 4, 2015

Dec. 4, 2015

PACER
79

UNSEALED BY 164 AND FILED AT 166 -SEALED LODGED Proposed Exhibits 19 - 24 (Part 3 of 17) - Under Seal. Document to be filed by Clerk if Motion or Stipulation to Seal is granted. Filed by Norlan Flores, Unknown Parties. (McElhinny, Harold) Modified on 6/27/2016 (BAR). (Entered: 12/04/2015)

Dec. 4, 2015

Dec. 4, 2015

PACER
80

UNSEALED BY 164 AND FILED AT 167 -SEALED LODGED Proposed Exhibits 25 - 27 (Part 4 of 17) - Under Seal. Document to be filed by Clerk if Motion or Stipulation to Seal is granted. Filed by Norlan Flores, Unknown Parties. (McElhinny, Harold) Modified on 6/27/2016 (BAR). (Entered: 12/04/2015)

Dec. 4, 2015

Dec. 4, 2015

RECAP
81

UNSEALED BY 164 AND FILED AT 168 -SEALED LODGED Proposed Exhibits 28 - 31 (Part 5 of 17) - Under Seal. Document to be filed by Clerk if Motion or Stipulation to Seal is granted. Filed by Norlan Flores, Unknown Parties. (McElhinny, Harold) Modified on 6/27/2016 (BAR). (Entered: 12/04/2015)

Dec. 4, 2015

Dec. 4, 2015

PACER
82

UNSEALED BY 164 AND FILED AT 169 -SEALED LODGED Proposed Exhibits 32 - 42 (Part 6 of 17) - Under Seal. Document to be filed by Clerk if Motion or Stipulation to Seal is granted. Filed by Norlan Flores, Unknown Parties. (McElhinny, Harold) Modified on 6/27/2016 (BAR). (Entered: 12/04/2015)

Dec. 4, 2015

Dec. 4, 2015

PACER
83

FILED AT DOC. 191 --SEALED LODGED Proposed Exhibits 43 - 50 (Part 7 of 17) - Under Seal. Document to be filed by Clerk if Motion or Stipulation to Seal is granted. Filed by Norlan Flores, Unknown Parties. (McElhinny, Harold) Modified on 8/3/2016 (MFR). (Entered: 12/04/2015)

Dec. 4, 2015

Dec. 4, 2015

PACER
84

UNSEALED BY DOC. 189 AND FILED AT DOC. 198 --SEALED LODGED Proposed Exhibits 51 - 59 (Part 8 of 17) - Under Seal. Document to be filed by Clerk if Motion or Stipulation to Seal is granted. Filed by Norlan Flores, Unknown Parties. (McElhinny, Harold) Modified on 8/3/2016 (MFR). (Entered: 12/04/2015)

Dec. 4, 2015

Dec. 4, 2015

PACER
85

UNSEALED BY 164 AND FILED AT 170 -SEALED LODGED Proposed Exhibits 60 - 69 (Part 9 of 17) - Under Seal. Document to be filed by Clerk if Motion or Stipulation to Seal is granted. Filed by Norlan Flores, Unknown Parties. (McElhinny, Harold) Modified on 6/27/2016 (BAR). (Entered: 12/04/2015)

Dec. 4, 2015

Dec. 4, 2015

PACER
86

*SEALED LODGED Proposed Exhibits 70 - 80 (Part 10 of 17) - Under Seal. Document to be filed by Clerk if Motion or Stipulation to Seal is granted. Filed by Norlan Flores, Unknown Parties. (McElhinny, Harold) *Modified to clarify docket text on 8/3/2016 (MFR). (Entered: 12/04/2015)

Dec. 4, 2015

Dec. 4, 2015

PACER
87

FILED AT DOC. 193 --SEALED LODGED Proposed Exhibits 81 - 87 (Part 11 of 17) - Under Seal. Document to be filed by Clerk if Motion or Stipulation to Seal is granted. Filed by Norlan Flores, Unknown Parties. (McElhinny, Harold) Modified on 8/3/2016 (MFR). (Entered: 12/04/2015)

Dec. 4, 2015

Dec. 4, 2015

PACER
88

FILED AT DOC. 194 --SEALED LODGED Proposed Exhibits 88 - 103 (Part 12 of 17) - Under Seal. Document to be filed by Clerk if Motion or Stipulation to Seal is granted. Filed by Norlan Flores, Unknown Parties. (McElhinny, Harold) Modified on 8/3/2016 (MFR). (Entered: 12/04/2015)

Dec. 4, 2015

Dec. 4, 2015

PACER
89

UNSEALED BY 164 AND FILED AT 171 -SEALED LODGED Proposed Exhibits 104 - 105 (Part 13 of 17) - Under Seal. Document to be filed by Clerk if Motion or Stipulation to Seal is granted. Filed by Norlan Flores, Unknown Parties. (McElhinny, Harold) Modified on 6/27/2016 (BAR). (Entered: 12/04/2015)

Dec. 4, 2015

Dec. 4, 2015

PACER

Case Details

State / Territory: Arizona

Case Type(s):

Immigration and/or the Border

Special Collection(s):

Post-WalMart decisions on class certification

Key Dates

Filing Date: June 8, 2015

Case Ongoing: Yes

Plaintiffs

Plaintiff Description:

Detainees in the Tucson sector of Customs and Border Protection.

Plaintiff Type(s):

Private Plaintiff

Attorney Organizations:

ACLU Affiliates (any)

American Immigration Council's Legal Action Center

Lawyers Comm. for Civil Rights Under Law

National Immigration Law Center

Public Interest Lawyer: Yes

Filed Pro Se: No

Class Action Sought: Yes

Class Action Outcome: Granted

Defendants

U.S. Border Patrol, Federal

U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Federal

U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Federal

Defendant Type(s):

Law-enforcement

Case Details

Causes of Action:

Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 551 et seq.

Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201

Ex parte Young (federal or state officials)

Constitutional Clause(s):

Due Process

Availably Documents:

Trial Court Docket

Complaint (any)

Injunctive (or Injunctive-like) Relief

Non-settlement Outcome

Any published opinion

Outcome

Prevailing Party: Plaintiff

Nature of Relief:

Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement

Attorneys fees

Preliminary injunction / Temp. restraining order

Source of Relief:

Litigation

Amount Defendant Pays: 3,832,052.00

Order Duration: 2020 - None

Content of Injunction:

Preliminary relief granted

Recordkeeping

Reporting

Issues

General:

Access to lawyers or judicial system

Assault/abuse by staff

Bathing and hygiene

Conditions of confinement

Confinement/isolation

Food service / nutrition / hydration

Over/Unlawful Detention

Placement in detention facilities

Sanitation / living conditions

Medical/Mental Health:

Medical care, general

Type of Facility:

Government-run

Immigration/Border:

Border police

Constitutional rights

Detention - conditions

Undocumented immigrants - rights and duties