Filed Date: Feb. 13, 2017
Closed Date: Jan. 23, 2023
Clearinghouse coding complete
On February 13, 2017, a recipient of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) -- and believed to be the first DACA recipient detained under the Trump administration -- filed this lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington. The plaintiff sued the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS). Represented by the organization Public Counsel, and by private attorneys including constitutional scholars Laurence Tribe and Erwin Chemerinsky, he sought a writ of habeas corpus to release him from detention, an injunction to prevent future detention, and attorneys' fees.
Plaintiff alleged that he was a 23-year-old DACA recipient, had entered the United States from Mexico at the age of seven, and had no criminal record (as confirmed by his DACA background check). On February 10, 2017, plaintiff was apprehended by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents who came to arrest his father. In his father's home at the time, plaintiff was also arrested and then detained at the federal Northwest Detention Center in Tacoma, Washington. He alleged that the government had violated his Fifth Amendment substantive and procedural due process rights and his Fourth Amendment right to be free from unlawful searches and seizures.
The case was assigned to Magistrate Judge James P. Donohue. On February 14, 2017, Magistrate Judge Donohue scheduled a February 17 status conference for the parties to discuss on what basis plaintiff was detained given his DACA grant; if he was in removal proceedings, the status of his processing; whether the court had authority to order an Immigration Judge and the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) to consider an expedited challenge to plaintiff's detention; and whether the court could hold a detention hearing before deciding the merits of the habeas case.
On February 16, plaintiff filed a response brief. Plaintiff alleged that after his arrest, ICE agents questioned him about whether he had gang affiliations. He denied this, but ICE then told news media it took him into custody because he was a "self-admitted gang member." Plaintiff asserted that some of the documentation offered by the government in support of gang affiliation had been illicitly altered by ICE officials.
After the status conference, on February 17, Magistrate Judge Donohue issued an order denying plaintiff's petition for immediate release from the ongoing removal proceedings, on the basis that the court lacked jurisdiction and had to refer the initial inquiry to an Immigration Judge. Magistrate Judge Donohue ordered plaintiff to request a bond hearing from an Immigration Judge by February 21 and for the bond hearing to take place by February 24. However, if the Immigration Judge were to deny the request, at that point plaintiff could also ask the court to waive the general requirement that he appeal the determination to the BIA, so that he could instead appeal to the court. Magistrate Judge Donohue scheduled a hearing for March 8 on defendants' motion to dismiss based on lack of jurisdiction, and set a briefing schedule. After that hearing, the court would schedule another hearing on the merits of the habeas petition.
On February 21, plaintiff filed an amended complaint that added a claim for violation of the Equal Protection Clause. The plaintiff requested immediate release and a declaratory judgment that all current and future DACA beneficiaries could not be arrested based on immigration status. Plaintiff argued that the court had federal question jurisdiction over this habeas case, and that Immigration Court lacked jurisdiction because no removal proceeding had been initiated. This complaint was followed by plaintiff's February 22 emergency motion for conditional release pending final determination.
On February 23, Magistrate Judge Donohue extended the deadline for defendants' motion to dismiss to February 27, and ordered that this motion respond to plaintiffs' emergency motion. Defendants filed the motion on February 27.
On February 24, plaintiff requested an immediate hearing on conditional release. However, on February 27, Magistrate Judge Donohue denied plaintiff's request for an immediate hearing, stating that plaintiff had already been granted an expedited briefing schedule on his federal habeas claim and that the hearing would take place as scheduled on March 8.
Magistrate Judge Donohue, in a February 28 minute order, specified that plaintiff's response to the government's motion to dismiss was due on March 3 and should address the form of relief sought for the habeas petition; how a habeas petition could proceed on a parallel track alongside removal proceedings; and why J.E.F.M. v. Lynch did not preclude jurisdiction.
On March 14, Magistrate Judge Donohue issued a report and recommendation (R&R) on plaintiff's February 22 emergency motion for conditional release pending final determination as well as defendants' motion to dismiss. 2017 WL 2954719 (W.D. Wash. Mar 14, 2017). On March 16, plaintiff raised objections and requested expedited consideration by District Judge Ricardo Martinez; defendants responded on March 21.
Then, on March 24, Judge Ricardo Martinez adopted in part Magistrate Judge Donohue's March 14 R&R, and denied plaintiff's objections. 2017 WL 1101370 (W.D. Wash. Mar. 24, 2017). Judge Martinez stated that since plaintiff conceded he was not challenging his removal proceedings, and DHS had the statutory discretion to detain him during these proceedings, plaintiff was not entitled to immediate release through the court. Judge Martinez also specified that if plaintiff were to request a bond redetermination hearing, the government must schedule it within a week from that request. Oddly, the government didn't object to the March 14 R&R until a few days later, on March 29. At that point, defendants filed an argument that district courts lack jurisdiction over matter such as this one.
By March 30, plaintiff had been released from custody, according to defendants. News reports confirmed the release, and indicated that plaintiff was released on bond and was still in immigration removal proceedings. On April 7, plaintiff filed an unopposed motion to delay his response; Judge Martinez granted the motion on April 10.
Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint on April 25 that added a claim for violations of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and a Bivens claim for defamation. He sought restoration of his DACA status, a declaratory judgment that the benefits he received under DACA were liberty and property interests protected by the Due Process Clause, and monetary damages.
Defendants filed a motion to dismiss on June 26. They argued that the Court lacked jurisdiction because DHS's decision to place plaintiff in removal proceedings was an unreviewable exercise of agency discretion. Because DHS had initiated removal proceedings, plaintiff had to proceed through the immigration court system to challenge DHS's decision to terminate his DACA grant. Defendants also argued that plaintiff had no administrative or constitutionally protected claim to DACA benefits because DACA was an exercise of prosecutorial discretion and may be terminated at any time.
On July 10, the parties and Judge Martinez agreed that the Second Amended Complaint had rendered moot any objections to the R&R, and that no further action on the R&R was necessary.
On August 7, plaintiff responded to defendants' June 26 motion to dismiss. Plaintiff argued that defendants could not invoke the INA and agency discretion to assert that judicial review did not apply to their actions. Instead, plaintiff argued, his claim centered on defendants' violation of DHS procedures and due process in revoking his DACA status and work permit. Defendants replied on August 18.
Individual defendants responded to plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint on August 10. They argued that the Court lacked jurisdiction over removal proceedings and that, in any event, plaintiff's Bivens claims against individual defendants was invalid because qualified immunity protected them.
Plaintiff then, on September 20, filed a notice of voluntary dismissal of his claims against the individual defendants. The next day, in light of this, the court found moot defendants' August 10 response to plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint. However, plaintiff did not dismiss his claims against the federal agency defendants. The court noted that it still needed to resolve these defendants' June 26 motion to dismiss. A motion hearing was scheduled for November 2.
On October 11, plaintiff filed a supplemental authority in support of his opposition to defendants' motion to dismiss. He argued that the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California's recent preliminary injunction in Gonzalez Torres v. DHS should apply to his case. In that injunction, that court had vacated a DACA revocation after concluding that it had jurisdiction over the plaintiff’s challenge to the termination of his DACA status, and that DHS's failure to follow the DACA SOP's termination proceedings was unlawful.
On November 2, Judge Martinez held a motion hearing on defendants' June 26 motion to dismiss. He then issued a November 8 order denying defendants' motion. He found that the court had jurisdiction under the INA and APA, because plaintiff was not challenging the government's discretionary decision to terminate his DACA status, but rather defendants' alleged noncompliance with their own non-discretionary procedures when taking plaintiff into custody. Next, Judge Martinez found that plaintiff had stated plausible claims that the government violated the APA with conduct that was arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, and a due process violation. 2017 WL 5176720 (W.D. Wash. Nov. 8, 2017).
On February 6, 2018, plaintiff moved for a preliminary injunction to reinstate his DACA status and work authorization pending a decision on the merits of his claims. He noted the January 2018 injunction in Regents of the University of California v. DHS requiring the government to maintain the DACA program and allow DACA recipients to renew their status. Plaintiff, however, could not benefit from the Regents injunction because his DACA status had already been revoked. He argued the Court should grant him a preliminary injunction because he was likely to succeed on the merits of his claims that defendants violated the APA and the Due Process Clause, and that he would suffer irreparable harm without relief, since he could not work or receive benefits. Defendant responded on February 26 and plaintiff replied on March 2, 2018.
On April 12, 2018, plaintiff moved for an expedited decision on the preliminary injunction. Plaintiff explained that DHS had recently restored his DACA status (pursuant to a class-wide injunction in Inland Empire) but then immediately notified him of its intent to terminate his status again. Judge Martinez, on April 13, denied the expedite motion as moot and instead held a May 1 hearing, at which he requested additional briefing.
On May 15, 2018, the court (Judge Martinez) granted the plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction, enjoining DHS from terminating his DACA status and work authorization pending merits adjudication, and also from accusing him of gang membership in further proceedings. The court found that the plaintiff was likely to succeed on the merits of his APA claim, finding that DHS' assertion of gang affiliation had no evidentiary support and that it violated due process to revoke his DACA status on the basis of this assertion. 313 F.Supp.3d 1237.
On March 28, 2019, the plaintiff filed an ex parte motion for leave to file a third amended complaint. Judge Martinez granted the motion on May 16. The plaintiffs then filed a third amended complaint on May 29. In the third amended complaint, the plaintiff pled additional factual allegations regarding DHS' denial of his DACA renewal application on December 19, 2018, after the court issued a preliminary injunction enjoining DHS from terminating his benefits. The plaintiff also asserted an equitable estoppel claim based on DHS efforts to conceal the basis for denying his application and sought a declaration that DHS is estopped from terminating his DACA status and work authorization. Lastly, the plaintiff added an assertion that DHS' denial of his DACA application violated his rights under the First Amendment.
On June 7, 2019, plaintiff filed a motion for a second preliminary injunction, seeking to enjoin DHS from "denying, terminating, or otherwise interfering" with plaintiff's DACA status pending resolution of this case. The plaintiff also sought the court to order DHS to again restore his DACA and work authorization. The plaintiff claimed that in denying his DACA renewal in December 2018, a request that is approved more than 99% of the time, DHS violated the "letter and spirit" of the court's preliminary injunction and that denial based on plaintiff's alleged offense history was pretextual. In their July 1 response, defendants argued that plaintiff did not establish irreparable relief that warrants a preliminary injunction and that they exercised their discretion in a manner that bars judicial review and was compliant with applicable law.
On August 7, 2019, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the third amended complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction or, in the alternative, for summary judgment. The defendants argued that the claims set forth in the first two amended complaints were now moot or had been voluntarily dismissed, such that the court could no longer grant relief. With regard to the claims laid forth in the third amended complaint, the defendants contended that the court lacked jurisdiction to review the denial of plaintiff's DACA application because that denial involved unreviewable agency discretion. In support of its alternative motion for summary judgment, the defendants asserted that the Administrative Record (AR) showed that they followed the applicable process in denying plaintiff's DACA application and that because plaintiff no longer had DACA authorization, he had no constitutionally protected interest. In his response, the plaintiff argued that the court had already determined that it had jurisdiction to review USCIS decisions and that the defendants were simply rehashing prior unsuccessful arguments.
Following a hearing on September 27, 2019, Judge Martinez issued an order on October 9, 2019, granting the defendants' motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and denying the plaintiff's motion for a second preliminary injunction. Judge Martinez concluded that the court did not have jurisdiction to review USCIS' denial of plaintiff's DACA application and that the defendants had complied with the preliminary injunction. Further, filing the third amended complaint had dissolved the prior preliminary injunction. Judge Martinez did not come to these conclusions without chagrin; "the Court is left with the uneasy feeling that the Government did not honestly consider the facts of Mr. Ramirez’s case to arrive at a just conclusion." However, given the law as it stood, Judge Martinez could not intervene and "assur[e] equal justice under the law." In issuing this order, Judge Martinez called upon Congress to "fully address our nation’s much needed immigration reform," and stated that without reform, "there will continue to be cases like this in which courts are compelled to reach unjust, though legally correct, results." 408 F.Supp.3d 1224.
On December 6, 2019, the plaintiff appealed the order granting the motion to dismiss to the Ninth Circuit (Docket No. 19-36034). The parties agreed to mediation on September 12, 2022. Following mediation, the Ninth Circuit appeal was dismissed voluntarily by the parties on January 23, 2023.
A DOJ press release indicated that the parties had settled. Under the settlement, ICE agreed not to deport the plaintiff in the next four years, and he would be able to apply for other immigration relief. Further, ICE agreed that in future decisions it wouldn't consider the claim that the plaintiff was a gang member.
Summary Authors
Ava Morgenstern (5/5/2018)
Virginia Weeks (5/22/2018)
Lisa Limb (5/7/2019)
Aaron Gurley (3/16/2020)
Samantha Houghton (4/8/2024)
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4585127/parties/ramirez-medina-v-asher/
Adams, Matthew (Matt) Hyrum (Washington)
Adams, Matt (Washington)
Aguiar, Lauren E. (Washington)
Alagesan, Deepa (Washington)
Ali, Amir (Washington)
Adams, Matthew (Matt) Hyrum (Washington)
Aguiar, Lauren E. (Washington)
Ashton, Laurie B. (Washington)
Bach, Nathaniel L. (Washington)
Boutrous, Theodore J. Jr. (California)
Chemerinsky, Erwin (California)
Davis, Abigail E. (Washington)
Dettmer, Ethan D. (California)
Eidmann, Kathryn A. (California)
Gabriel, Jesse S. (California)
Hadaway, Elizabeth (California)
Hawkins, Mary Elizabeth (Washington)
Hetfield, Mark J. (Washington)
Hudson-Price, Anne M. (California)
Keaney, Melissa S. (Washington)
Kornreich, Mollie M. (Washington)
London, Judith Maura (California)
Marquart, Katherine (California)
Meyer, Kathryn C. (Washington)
Roberts, Tyler S. (Washington)
Romero, Luis Cortes (California)
Rosenbaum, Mark Dale (California)
Sarko, Lynn Lincoln (Washington)
Staniar, Lauren Watts (Washington)
Sweet, Elizabeth G. (Washington)
Tribe, Laurence (Massachusetts)
Bennett, Michelle R. (Washington)
D'Alessio, C. Salavtore (District of Columbia)
Goldsmith, Aaron S. (District of Columbia)
Mason, Mary Hampton (District of Columbia)
Peachey, William Charles (District of Columbia)
Readler, Chad Andrew (District of Columbia)
Robins, Jeffrey S (District of Columbia)
Snell, Kevin Matthew (Washington)
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4585127/ramirez-medina-v-asher/
Last updated Feb. 6, 2025, 4:57 a.m.
State / Territory: Washington
Case Type(s):
Special Collection(s):
Trump Administration 1.0: Challenges to the Government
Key Dates
Filing Date: Feb. 13, 2017
Closing Date: Jan. 23, 2023
Case Ongoing: No
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
The plaintiff is believed to be the first Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) recipient arrested and detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) during the Trump administration.
Plaintiff Type(s):
Attorney Organizations:
Northwest Immigrant Rights Project (NWIRP)
Public Interest Lawyer: Yes
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: No
Class Action Outcome: Not sought
Defendants
U.S. Department of Homeland Security (- United States (national) -), Federal
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (- United States (national) -), Federal
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (- United States (national) -), Federal
Defendant Type(s):
Facility Type(s):
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Ex Parte Young (Federal) or Bivens
Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 551 et seq.
Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. §§ 1101 et seq.
Habeas Corpus, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2241-2253; 2254; 2255
Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201
Ex parte Young (federal or state officials)
Constitutional Clause(s):
Due Process: Procedural Due Process
Due Process: Substantive Due Process
Special Case Type(s):
Available Documents:
Injunctive (or Injunctive-like) Relief
Outcome
Prevailing Party: Plaintiff
Nature of Relief:
Preliminary injunction / Temp. restraining order
Source of Relief:
Form of Settlement:
Content of Injunction:
Preliminary relief request withdrawn/mooted
Order Duration: 2018 - 2019
Issues
General/Misc.:
Public benefits (includes, e.g., in-state tuition, govt. jobs)
Immigration/Border:
DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals)
Jails, Prisons, Detention Centers, and Other Institutions: