Filed Date: June 8, 2015
Case Ongoing
Clearinghouse coding complete
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. 611 F.Supp.3d 786. 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.
On February 16, 2022, the parties reported to the district court that they had reached an agreement on attorneys' fees and costs. 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, wherein the defendants agreed to pay $3,832,052.00.
The case remained on the district court docket for overseeing compliance with the injunction.
Summary Authors
Frances Hollander (10/4/2015)
Ava Morgenstern (3/19/2018)
Aaron Gurley (2/24/2020)
Robin Peterson (4/15/2023)
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4134324/parties/unknown-parties-v-wolf/
Atoyama−Little, Akari (California)
Balassone, Elizabeth Gilmore (California)
Bernwanger, Bree (California)
Borja, Aleyda Yvette (Arizona)
Bodney, David Jeremy (Arizona)
Atoyama−Little, Akari (California)
Balassone, Elizabeth Gilmore (California)
Borja, Aleyda Yvette (Arizona)
Brill, Sophia M. (District of Columbia)
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)
Furnish, Brenda Munoz (Arizona)
Huerta, Alvaro M. (California)
Hughes, Lena H. (District of Columbia)
Kenney, Mary (District of Columbia)
Leitch, Bryan J. (District of Columbia)
Mayer, Colette Reiner (California)
Maynard, Deanne (District of Columbia)
McElhinny, Harold J. (California)
Peard, William Bradford (Arizona)
Pochoda, Daniel Joseph (Arizona)
Reichlin-Melnick, Aaron (District of Columbia)
Stoupe, Louise Carita (California)
Walters, Karolina Joanna (District of Columbia)
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)
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4134324/unknown-parties-v-wolf/
Last updated Feb. 5, 2025, 9:35 p.m.
State / Territory: Arizona
Case Type(s):
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):
Attorney Organizations:
Lawyers Comm. for Civil Rights Under Law
National Immigration Law Center
American Immigration Council's Legal Action Center
Public Interest Lawyer: Yes
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: Yes
Class Action Outcome: Granted
Defendants
U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Federal
U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Federal
Defendant Type(s):
Facility Type(s):
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):
Available Documents:
Injunctive (or Injunctive-like) Relief
Outcome
Prevailing Party: Plaintiff
Nature of Relief:
Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement
Preliminary injunction / Temp. restraining order
Source of Relief:
Content of Injunction:
Amount Defendant Pays: 3,832,052.00
Order Duration: 2020 - None
Issues
General/Misc.:
Access to lawyers or judicial system
Food service / nutrition / hydration
Sanitation / living conditions
Immigration/Border:
Undocumented immigrants - rights and duties
Jails, Prisons, Detention Centers, and Other Institutions:
Assault/abuse by non-staff (facilities)
Assault/abuse by staff (facilities)
Over/Unlawful Detention (facilities)
Placement in detention facilities
Medical/Mental Health Care: