Case: Garcia v. United States of America

3:17-cv-05380 | U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California

Filed Date: Sept. 18, 2017

Case Ongoing

Clearinghouse coding complete

Case Summary

This suit, brought on September 18, 2017 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, challenged President Trump's revocation of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA). The plaintiffs were DACA recipients who sought to enjoin the government from ending the program. Not only did the plaintiffs stand to lose benefits and security they have relied upon, but the plaintiffs argued that the communities in which they reside also stand to lose valuable contributing members. The complaint argued that the DACA program made promises to its recipients upon which they have relied for their entire lives in America. As a result, the plaintiffs contended that revoking DACA violated Fifth Amendment due process and equal protection, the Administrative Procedure Act, and the Regulatory Flexibility Act. They sought equitable estoppel, injunctive relief, and declaratory judgment.

In 2012, the Obama administration created the DACA program by DHS policy statements. The program offered work permits and temporary protection from deportation to undocumented immigrants who had been brought to the United States as children. As of 2017, there were an estimated 800,000 DACA recipients. On September 5, 2017, President Trump announced that he was ending the program in March unless Congress acted within the next six months. As the complaint highlighted, the Obama administration in promoting DACA made key promises to immigrants: that any information they provided in the application process would not be used for immigration enforcement, and that barring criminal activity or fraud in their DACA applications, DACA recipients would be able to renew their status and keep their benefits.

The plaintiffs, represented by public and private counsel, were six individuals who were brought into the U.S. at young ages and lived, worked, and studied in California. One was a practicing attorney, one was a special education teacher, and four others attended graduate school. The plaintiffs argued that they each relied on the government's promises. They also argued that the revocation of DACA was fueled by President Trump's anti-Mexican racial animus evidenced in his past statements and actions. Moreover, the plaintiffs stated that the government took "affirmative steps to reduce the protections applicable to information provided in connection with the DACA program" as evidenced by a January 2017 Executive Order mandating that all agencies “ensure that their privacy policies exclude persons who are not United States citizens or lawful permanent residents from the protections of the Privacy Act regarding personally identifiable information.”

The case was assigned to Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero. On Sept. 20, the case was marked as related to two other cases: State of California v. Department of Homeland Security, No. 17-cv-05235, and Regents of University of California v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, No. 17-cv-05211. The next day, the case was reassigned to Judge William Alsup. On Oct. 16, County of Santa Clara v. Trump and City of San Jose v. Trump, were added as related cases. All are in the Clearinghouse.

On Oct. 6, 2017, in a related challenge led by Regents of University of California before this judge, the government filed the administrative record, available here, which included a series of government documents pertaining to DACA from its inception to the decision to rescind it. On Oct. 17, after the University in the related case moved to compel the defendants to complete the administrative record, the court ordered them to do so in all related cases, including this one. The court found that the defendants did not produce all documents leading to the rescission, specifically related documents that Acting Secretary Duke did not directly review. The defendants moved to stay further proceedings at this court on Oct. 18 in light of their intent to appeal this ruling to the Ninth Circuit. The court denied staying proceedings on Oct. 19, and the defendants appealed the next day by filing a petition for a writ of mandamus to the district court and emergency motion for stay. On Oct. 23, 2017, the district court replied to the Ninth Circuit's invitation to answer the government's petition stating it would not stay proceedings in light of the narrow window of time until the DACA ends on March 5, 2018.

On Nov. 16, 2017, the Ninth Circuit denied defendants' motion for a writ of mandamus and vacated the stay of discovery and record expansion that had been entered, and the District Court immediately ordered the federal government to file an augmented administrative record by Nov 22, 2017. On Nov. 17, 2017, the federal government filed an emergency motion noting that it intended to file an application for mandamus with the Supreme Court no later than Nov. 20, 2017 and requesting that the Ninth Circuit stay its order pending the Supreme Court's resolution of the forthcoming petition. On Nov. 21, 2017, the Ninth Circuit dismissed the federal government's motion, noting that jurisdiction currently lies with the District Court and instructing the federal government that further relief must be sought in a new petition for mandamus.

Meanwhile, in the district court, Judge Alsup on Nov. 20, 2017, agreed to stay all discovery until Dec. 22, 2017 at which point the augmented administrative record will be due.

On Dec. 1, 2017, the government filed notice that they appealed the Ninth's Circuit denial of mandamus relief and applied for a stay to the Supreme Court. On Dec. 21 in a per curiam opinion, the Supreme Court vacated the Ninth Circuit's denial and remanded the case, arguing that the district court should have stayed implementation of the Oct. 17 order compelling the government to complete the administrative record. The Supreme Court stated that the lower court should have "first resolved the Government’s threshold arguments (that the Acting Secretary’s determination to rescind DACA is unreviewable because it is “committed to agency discretion,” 5 U. S. C. §701(a)(2), and that the Immigration and Nationality Act deprives the District Court of jurisdiction). Either of those arguments, if accepted, likely would eliminate the need for the District Court to examine a complete administrative record." 138 S. Ct. 443. The same day, the district court stayed the order compelling the government to complete the administrative record.

On Jan. 9, 2018, the court denied the government's motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction from Nov. 1, 2017 and provided provisional relief to the plaintiffs. The order indicated the court would separately dismiss the government's motion to dismiss under for failure to state a claim. The court ordered a nationwide preliminary injunction, ordering that DACA remain in effect on the same terms and conditions that existed prior to the recession. However, the government did not need to process new applications from individuals who never before received deferred action. The court then granted in part and denied in part the government's motion to dismiss on Jan. 12, 2018 dismissing the plaintiffs' Regulatory Flexibility Act and equitable estoppel claims as well the individual plaintiffs' declaratory relief claims. The court sustained the plaintiffs' APA, due process, and equal protection claims (with a few exceptions from the various complaints of the related cases).

The government appealed to the Ninth Circuit on Jan. 16, 2018. The government also sought certiorari from the Supreme Court on Jan. 18 while the Ninth Circuit appeal was pending, arguing that the Supreme Court's immediate review was warranted because of how long the appeal would take in the Ninth Circuit and how time sensitive the issue was. The Supreme Court denied cert without prejudice on Feb. 26, 2018, indicating the justices assume "that the Court of Appeals will proceed expeditiously to decide this case."

The related cases were consolidated in the Ninth Circuit for the purposes of appeal. In February and March 2018, the parties and amici filed their briefs, which can be found here.

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's rulings on Nov. 8, 2018. The panel held that the government's decision to rescind DACA was reviewable because it was based on a belief that law foreclosed any alternative because the agency lacked authority rather than on exercise of discretion. The panel further concluded the decision was reviewable because the government based rescission only on the belief that DACA went beyond DHS' authority and so the APA's bar did not apply, and the decision did not fall within the three discrete occasions when the INA bars judicial review of DHS decisions. As to the merits of preliminary injunction, the panel held that "DACA was a permissible exercise of executive discretion" and the government's belief that DACA was illegal was wrong. 2018 WL 5833232. Thus, the panel concluded the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on the merits in showing that the rescission was arbitrary and capricious under the APA. The panel also held that a nationwide injunction was appropriate because it "promotes uniformity in immigration enforcement, and is necessary to provide the plaintiffs here with complete redress." Id.

The defendants petitioned the Supreme Court of the U.S. for a writ of certiorari on Nov. 5.

On June 28, 2019, the Supreme Court granted writs of certiorari in three DACA cases: Regents of University of California v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Batalla Vidal v. Nielsen, and NAACP v. Trump, all of which were pending before different circuit courts of appeal. The Court consolidated the three cases (No. 18-587).

The Supreme Court heard oral argument on November 12, 2019, on the issues of whether DHS's decision to wind down the DACA policy is judicially reviewable and whether DHS’s decision to rescind DACA is lawful. On June 18, 2020, in an opinion by Chief Justice Roberts (joined by Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, Kagan, and Sotomayor), the Court held that the DACA rescission was subject to judicial review under the APA, that the DHS secretary had offered insufficient justification to rescind the program, and that the rescission was unlawful, arbitrary, and capricious in violation fo the APA. 140 S. Ct. 1891.

Following the Supreme Court's decision, in another case challenging the DACA recession, Casa De Maryland v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, the Fourth Circuit issued a mandate to reinstate DACA and set aside the recession memo on a nationwide basis on June 30, 2020. On July 17, 2020, the District Court of Maryland ordered DHS to reinstate DACA as it existed before the issuance of the recession memo and ordered DHS to resume accepting initial DACA applications.

However, Acting Secretary of Homeland Security Chad Wolf instead issued a memorandum entitled "Reconsideration of the June 15, 2012 Memorandum Entitled 'Exercising Prosecutorial Discretion with Respect to Individuals Who Came to the United States as Children" on July 28, 2020 ("Wolf Memorandum"). In this memo, Acting Secretary Wolf stated that he would reconsider DACA's future in light of the Supreme Court's decision. In the interim, the memo instructed USCIS to reject all initial requests for DACA, to only grant advance parole to current DACA beneficiaries in exceptional circumstances, and grant DACA renewals for only one-year, rather than two-year, periods. Later in August, Deputy Director for Policy for USCIS Joseph Edlow issued a memorandum implementing the Wolf Memorandum.

On August 4, 2020, the Ninth Circuit remanded the case to the district court for further action consistent with the opinion of the Supreme Court.

In response to the Wolf Memorandum, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on November 3, 2020. In the amended complaint, the plaintiffs substituted some of the defendants to reflect new individuals occupying the relevant roles and to add additional responsible officials, including Deputy Director for Policy Edlow. The amended complaint argued that Acting Secretary Wolf's actions were invalid under the Federal Vacancies Reform Action, Homeland Security Act, and the Appointments Clause of the Constitution because he lacked proper authority to issue the Wolf Memorandum. In addition, the plaintiffs argued that the Wolf Memorandum and Edlow Memorandum violated the APA because Wolf and Edlow acted in an arbitrary and capricious manner. The plaintiffs sought declaratory relief and an injunction preventing the defendants from altering or limiting DACA program and vacating the Wolf and Edlow Memoranda.

Before any additional activity on the amended complaint in this case, on December 4, the court in another case challenging the Wolf Memorandum,Batalla Vidal v. Nielsen and State of New York v. Trump, ordered DHS to fully reinstate DACA as it existed prior to the attempted recession in September 2017 after it found that Acting Secretary Wolf was not lawfully serving as Acting Secretary. The order required DHS to accept initial DACA applications, accept advance parole applications, and grant DACA renewals for two-years. On December 7, 2020 USCIS updated their website and indicated that effective that day, USCIS would accept initial applications, extend one-year DACA renewals to two-years, and accept applications for advance parole.

Then, in early 2021, President Biden took office. On the day of his inauguration (January 20, 2021), President Biden signed a memorandum directing DHS and the Attorney General “to preserve and fortify DACA.” In light of potential additional agency action to implement the memorandum, the parties filed a joint stipulation to stay further proceedings and vacate pending deadlines on March 22, 2021. They agreed to provide the court with status updates every 60 days. The first is due May 24, 2021. This case is ongoing.

	Document
3:17-cv-05380	Docket [PACER]	April 11, 2019	April 11, 2019 Docket
1 3:17-cv-05380	Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief	Sept. 18, 2017	Sept. 18, 2017 Complaint
57 3:17-cv-05380 17-00801	Order [Supreme Court] re United States, et al. Supreme Court of the United States	Dec. 21, 2017	Dec. 21, 2017 Order/Opinion 138 S.Ct. 443
60 3:17-cv-05380	Order Denying FRCP 12(b)(1) Dismissal and Granting Provisional Relief The Regents of the University of California v. United States Department of Homeland Security	Jan. 9, 2018	Jan. 9, 2018 Order/Opinion
65 3:17-cv-05380	Order Granting in Part Defendants' Motion to Dismiss under FRCP 12(b)(6) The Regents of the University of California v. United States Department of Homeland Security	Jan. 12, 2018	Jan. 12, 2018 Order/Opinion 298 F.Supp.3d 1304
88 3:17-cv-05380	Ninth Circuit Court Opinion The Regents of the University of California v. United States Department of Homeland Security	Nov. 8, 2018	Nov. 8, 2018 Order/Opinion 908 F.3d 476
0:18-00587 0:18-00588 0:18-00589	Opinion of the Court Department of Homeland Security v. Regents of the University of California Supreme Court of the United States	June 18, 2020	June 18, 2020 Order/Opinion 591 U.S. 1
98 3:17-cv-05380	First Amended Complaint	Nov. 2, 2020	Nov. 2, 2020 Complaint
318 3:17-cv-05211	Stipulation Re: Vacation of Deadlines and Stay of Proceedings Pending Defendants' Actions Pursuant to January 20, 2021 Presidential Memorandum Re: DACA The Regents of the University of California v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security	March 22, 2021	March 22, 2021 Settlement Agreement

Title	Description		External URL Date / External URL
Preserving and Fortifying Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) Executive Office of the President	In 2012, during the Obama-Biden Administration, the Secretary of Homeland Security issued a memorandum outlining how, in the exercise of prosecutorial discretion, the Department of Homeland Security…	Jan. 25, 2021	Jan. 25, 2021 https://www.federalregister.gov/...
Memorandum on Rescission Of Deferred Action For Childhood Arrivals (DACA) Department of Homeland Security	"This memorandum rescinds the June 15, 2012 memorandum entitled 'Exercising Prosecutorial Discretion with Respect to Individuals Who Came to the United States as Children,' which established the prog…	Sept. 5, 2017	Sept. 5, 2017 https://www.dhs.gov/...

ECF Number	Description	Date	Link Date / Link
1	COMPLAINT for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief against All Defendants. Filed by Saul Jimenez Suarez, Miriam Gonzalez Avila, Viridiana Chabolla Mendoza, Dulce Garcia, Jirayut Latthivongskorn. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet, # 2 Payment of Fees)(Boutrous, Theodore) (Filed on 9/18/2017) (Filing fee $400.00, receipt # 0971-11722776) Modified on 9/18/2017 (haS, COURT STAFF). Modified on 9/20/2017 (gbaS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/18/2017) 1 Civil Cover Sheet View on PACER 2 Payment of Fees View on PACER	Sept. 18, 2017	Sept. 18, 2017 RECAP
2	Case assigned to Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero. Counsel for plaintiff or the removing party is responsible for serving the Complaint or Notice of Removal, Summons and the assigned judge's standing orders and all other new case documents upon the opposing parties. For information, visit E-Filing A New Civil Case at http://cand.uscourts.gov/ecf/caseopening.Standing orders can be downloaded from the court's web page at www.cand.uscourts.gov/judges. Upon receipt, the summons will be issued and returned electronically. Counsel is required to send chambers a copy of the initiating documents pursuant to L.R. 5-1(e)(7). A scheduling order will be sent by Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) within two business days. Consent/Declination due by 10/2/2017. (haS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/18/2017) (Entered: 09/18/2017)	Sept. 18, 2017	Sept. 18, 2017 PACER
3	NOTICE RE SEPTEMBER 21 CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE Signed by Judge Alsup on 9/19/2017. (whalc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/19/2017) (Entered: 09/19/2017)	Sept. 19, 2017	Sept. 19, 2017 RECAP
4	Proposed Summons. (Boutrous, Theodore) (Filed on 9/19/2017) (Entered: 09/19/2017)	Sept. 19, 2017	Sept. 19, 2017 PACER
5	Certificate of Interested Entities by Viridiana Chabolla Mendoza, Dulce Garcia, Miriam Gonzalez Avila, Saul Jimenez Suarez, Jirayut Latthivongskorn, Norma Ramirez (Boutrous, Theodore) (Filed on 9/19/2017) (Entered: 09/19/2017)	Sept. 19, 2017	Sept. 19, 2017 PACER
6	ORDER RELATING CASES Signed by Judge Alsup on 9/20/2017. (whalc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/20/2017) (Entered: 09/20/2017)	Sept. 20, 2017	Sept. 20, 2017 RECAP
7	Initial Case Management Scheduling Order with ADR Deadlines. (gbaS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/20/2017) (Entered: 09/20/2017)	Sept. 20, 2017	Sept. 20, 2017 PACER
	Create Case Relationship	Sept. 20, 2017	Sept. 20, 2017 PACER
8	Summons Issued as to Elaine Duke, Donald J. Trump, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, United States of America. (gbaS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/20/2017) (Entered: 09/20/2017)	Sept. 20, 2017	Sept. 20, 2017 PACER
	Related cases: Create association to 3:17-cv-05211-WHA. (sxbS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/20/2017)	Sept. 20, 2017	Sept. 20, 2017 PACER
	Related cases: Create association to 3:17-cv-05235-WHA. (sxbS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/20/2017)	Sept. 20, 2017	Sept. 20, 2017 PACER
9	NOTICE of Appearance by Brad Prescott Rosenberg (Rosenberg, Brad) (Filed on 9/21/2017) (Entered: 09/21/2017)	Sept. 21, 2017	Sept. 21, 2017 PACER
10	NOTICE of Appearance by Brett A. Shumate (Shumate, Brett) (Filed on 9/21/2017) (Entered: 09/21/2017)	Sept. 21, 2017	Sept. 21, 2017 PACER
11	Case Reassigned to Judge Hon. William Alsup. Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero no longer assigned to the case. This case is assigned to a judge who participates in the Cameras in the Courtroom Pilot Project. See General Order 65 and http://cand.uscourts.gov/cameras (as, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/21/2017) (Entered: 09/21/2017)	Sept. 21, 2017	Sept. 21, 2017 PACER
12	CASE MANAGEMENT SCHEDULING ORDER FOR ALL DACA ACTIONS IN THIS DISTRICT: Bench Trial set for 2/5/2018 07:30 AM before Hon. William Alsup. Motion Hearing set for 12/20/2017 08:00 AM in Courtroom 8, 19th Floor, San Francisco before Hon. William Alsup. Pretrial Conference set for 1/24/2018 02:00 PM in Courtroom 8, 19th Floor, San Francisco before Hon. William Alsup.. Signed by Judge Alsup on 9/22/2017. (whalc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/22/2017) (Entered: 09/22/2017)	Sept. 22, 2017	Sept. 22, 2017 PACER
	Set/Reset Hearings	Sept. 22, 2017	Sept. 22, 2017 PACER
13	CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Viridiana Chabolla Mendoza, Dulce Garcia, Miriam Gonzalez Avila, Saul Jimenez Suarez, Jirayut Latthivongskorn, Norma Ramirez re 1 Complaint, 8 Summons Issued, 2 Case Assigned by Intake,,, 12 Case Management Scheduling Order, 7 Initial Case Management Scheduling Order with ADR Deadlines (Boutrous, Theodore) (Filed on 9/22/2017) (Entered: 09/22/2017)	Sept. 22, 2017	Sept. 22, 2017 PACER
	Set/Reset Hearing Tutorial Hearing set for 10/3/2017 08:00 AM in Courtroom 8, 19th Floor, San Francisco. (whasec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/22/2017)	Sept. 22, 2017	Sept. 22, 2017 PACER
14	Transcript of Proceedings held on 9/21/17, before Judge William H. Alsup. Court Reporter Jo Ann Bryce, telephone number 510-910-5888, joann_bryce@cand.uscourts.gov. Per General Order No. 59 and Judicial Conference policy, this transcript may be viewed only at the Clerk's Office public terminal or may be purchased through the Court Reporter until the deadline for the Release of Transcript Restriction after 90 days. After that date, it may be obtained through PACER. Any Notice of Intent to Request Redaction, if required, is due no later than 5 business days from date of this filing. (Re (45 in 3:17-cv-05211-WHA) Transcript Order ) Release of Transcript Restriction set for 12/21/2017. (jabS, COURTSTAFF) (Filed on 9/22/2017) (Entered: 09/22/2017)	Sept. 22, 2017	Sept. 22, 2017 PACER
15	FURTHER NOTICE RE TUTORIAL re (12 in 3:17-cv-05380-WHA) Case Management Scheduling Order, Signed by Judge Alsup on 9/25/2017. (whalc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/25/2017) (Entered: 09/25/2017)	Sept. 25, 2017	Sept. 25, 2017 PACER
16	NOTICE OF REFERRAL FOR DISCOVERY. Signed by Magistrate Judge Sallie Kim on 9/25/2017. (Attachments: # 1 Magistrate Judge Kim's Standing Order)(mklS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/25/2017) (Entered: 09/25/2017) 1 Standing Order View on PACER	Sept. 25, 2017	Sept. 25, 2017 PACER
17	Minute Entry for proceedings held before William Alsup: Initial Case Management Conference held on 9/21/2017. Motion(s) hearing set for 12/20/2017 at 8:00 AM. Tutorial set for 10/3/2017 at 8:00 AM. Final Pretrial Conference set for 1/24/2018 at 2:00 PM. Bench Trial set for 2/5/2018 at 7:30 AM. Case referred to Magistrate Sallie Kim for Discovery.Total Time in Court: 1:22. Court Reporter: Jo Ann Bryce. Plaintiff Attorney: Jeffrey Davidson; Alexander Berengaut; Alex Covington; Mark Lynch; James Zahradka; Nancy Fineman; Mark Rosenbaum; Ethan Dettmer. Defendant Attorney: Brad Rosenberg; Sara Winslow; Brett Shumate. Attachment: Civil Minutes. (tlS, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 9/25/2017) (Entered: 09/25/2017)	Sept. 25, 2017	Sept. 25, 2017 PACER
	CASE REFERRED to Magistrate Judge Sallie Kim for Discovery (ahm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/26/2017)	Sept. 26, 2017	Sept. 26, 2017 PACER
	Case Referred to Magistrate Judge for Discovery	Sept. 26, 2017	Sept. 26, 2017 PACER
18	STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER re 12 Case Management Scheduling Order, filed by Elaine Duke, Donald J. Trump, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, United States of America. (Rosenberg, Brad) (Filed on 9/29/2017) (Entered: 09/29/2017)	Sept. 29, 2017	Sept. 29, 2017 PACER
19	ORDER GRANTING STIPULATION REGARDING CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER by Judge William Alsup granting (57) Stipulation in case 3:17-cv-05211-WHA.Associated Cases: 3:17-cv-05211-WHA, 3:17-cv-05235-WHA, 3:17-cv-05329-WHA, 3:17-cv-05380-WHA(whalc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/29/2017) (Entered: 09/29/2017)	Sept. 29, 2017	Sept. 29, 2017 PACER
20	Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge William Alsup: Tutorial Hearing held on 10/3/2017.Total Time in Court: 2 Hours, 15 Minutes. Court Reporter: Belle Ball. Plaintiffs' Attorneys: Regents: Jeffrey Davidson, Mark Lynch, Monica Almadani; Garcia: Mark Rosenbaum, Kelsey Helland, Ethan Dettmer, Luis Romero; City of San Jose: Nancy Fineman; State of CA: James Zahradka, Ronald Lee. Defendant's Attorneys: Brad Rosenberg, Jeffrey Robins.Also Present via Videoconference: District Judge Nicholas Garaufis (This is a text-only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (afmS, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 10/3/2017) (Entered: 10/03/2017)	Oct. 3, 2017	Oct. 3, 2017 PACER
21	Transcript of Proceedings held on October 3, 2017, before Judge William H. Alsup. Court Reporter Belle Ball, CSR, CRR, RDR, telephone number (415)373-2529, belle_ball@cand.uscourts.gov. Per General Order No. 59 and Judicial Conference policy, this transcript may be viewed only at the Clerk's Office public terminal or may be purchased through the Court Reporter until the deadline for the Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Any Notice of Intent to Request Redaction, if required, is due no later than 5 business days from date of this filing. (Re (62 in 3:17-cv-05211-WHA) Transcript Order, (24 in 3:17-cv-05329-WHA) Transcript Order ) Release of Transcript Restriction set for 1/3/2018. (ballbb15S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/5/2017) (Entered: 10/05/2017)	Oct. 5, 2017	Oct. 5, 2017 PACER
22	ORDER SHORTENING TIME FOR BRIEFING ON MOTION TO COMPLETE ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD by Judge William Alsup re 66 Motion to Shorten Time in case 3:17-cv-05211-WHA. Motion Hearing set for 10/16/2017 11:00 AM in Courtroom 8, 19th Floor, San Francisco before Judge William Alsup.Associated Cases: 3:17-cv-05211-WHA, 3:17-cv-05235-WHA, 3:17-cv-05329-WHA, 3:17-cv-05380-WHA(whalc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/10/2017) Modified on 10/10/2017 (afmS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/10/2017)	Oct. 10, 2017	Oct. 10, 2017 PACER
23	Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge William Alsup: Motion Hearing held on 10/16/2017 re (65 in 3:17-cv-05211-WHA) MOTION for an Order Directing Defendants to Complete the Administrative Record filed by UC Regents, Janet Napolitano. Written Order to issue. Total Time in Court: 1:15. Court Reporter: Pamela Batalo. Plaintiff Attorney: Jeffery Davidson (Regents)Plaintiff Attorney: James Zahradka (State of CA)Plaintiff Attorney: Nancy Fineman (City of San Jose)Plaintiff Attorney: Kevin Yea (Garcia) Defendant Attorney: Brad Rosenberg (all defendants). (This is a text-only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (afmS, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 10/16/2017) (Entered: 10/16/2017)	Oct. 16, 2017	Oct. 16, 2017 PACER
24	ORDER RELATING CASE by Judge William Alsup granting (69) Motion to Relate Case in case 3:17-cv-05211-WHA.Associated Cases: 3:17-cv-05211-WHA, 3:17-cv-05235-WHA, 3:17-cv-05329-WHA, 3:17-cv-05380-WHA(whalc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/16/2017) (Entered: 10/16/2017)	Oct. 16, 2017	Oct. 16, 2017 PACER
25	Transcript of Proceedings held on 10/16/17, before Judge Alsup. Court Reporter Pamela A. Batalo, telephone number pamela_batalo@cand.uscourts.gov. Per General Order No. 59 and Judicial Conference policy, this transcript may be viewed only at the Clerk's Office public terminal or may be purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber until the deadline for the Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Any Notice of Intent to Request Redaction, if required, is due no later than 5 business days from date of this filing. (Re (74 in 3:17-cv-05211-WHA) Transcript Order ) Redaction Request due 11/7/2017. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 11/17/2017. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 1/16/2018. (Batalo, Pam) (Filed on 10/17/2017) (Entered: 10/17/2017)	Oct. 17, 2017	Oct. 17, 2017 PACER
26	ORDER RE MOTION TO COMPLETE ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD by Judge William Alsup granting in part and denying in part (65) Motion Complete Administrative Record in case 3:17-cv-05211-WHA.Associated Cases: 3:17-cv-05211-WHA, 3:17-cv-05235-WHA, 3:17-cv-05329-WHA, 3:17-cv-05380-WHA, 3:17-cv-05813-WHA(whalc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/17/2017) (Entered: 10/17/2017)	Oct. 17, 2017	Oct. 17, 2017 PACER
27	ORDER TO COMPILE SUPPLEMENT FORTHWITH re (12 in 3:17-cv-05813-WHA) Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief, Signed by Judge Alsup on 10/18/2017. (whalc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/18/2017) (Entered: 10/18/2017)	Oct. 18, 2017	Oct. 18, 2017 PACER
28	ORDER ADOPTING STIPULATED BRIEFING SCHEDULE FOR DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO STAY ALL PROCEEDINGS by Judge William Alsup granting (82) Stipulation in case 3:17-cv-05211-WHA.Associated Cases: 3:17-cv-05211-WHA, 3:17-cv-05235-WHA, 3:17-cv-05329-WHA, 3:17-cv-05380-WHA, 3:17-cv-05813-WHA(whalc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/19/2017) (Entered: 10/19/2017)	Oct. 19, 2017	Oct. 19, 2017 RECAP
	Set/Reset Hearings	Oct. 19, 2017	Oct. 19, 2017 PACER
	Terminate Hearing re (15 in 3:17-cv-05813-WHA) Order on Stipulation, (whalc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/19/2017)	Oct. 19, 2017	Oct. 19, 2017 PACER
29	ORDER RE MOTION TO STAY PROCEEDINGS by Judge William Alsup denying (81) Motion to Stay in case 3:17-cv-05211-WHA.Associated Cases: 3:17-cv-05211-WHA, 3:17-cv-05235-WHA, 3:17-cv-05329-WHA, 3:17-cv-05380-WHA, 3:17-cv-05813-WHA(whalc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/19/2017) (Entered: 10/19/2017)	Oct. 19, 2017	Oct. 19, 2017 PACER
30	NOTICE by Elaine Duke, Donald J. Trump, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, United States of America of Filing of Petition for Writ of Mandamus (Attachments: # 1 Petition for Writ of Mandamus)(Rosenberg, Brad) (Filed on 10/20/2017) (Entered: 10/20/2017) 1 Petition for Writ of Mandamus View on PACER	Oct. 20, 2017	Oct. 20, 2017 PACER
34	USCA Case Number 17-72917 USCA 9th Circuit re Petition for Writ of Mandamus (sxbS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/20/2017) (Entered: 10/24/2017)	Oct. 20, 2017	Oct. 20, 2017 PACER

Case: Garcia v. United States of America

3:17-cv-05380 | U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California

Case Summary

Related Cases

People

Documents in the Clearinghouse

Resources

Docket

Case Details