Case: L.R. (Lucas R.) v. Azar
2:18-cv-05741 | U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
Filed Date: June 29, 2018
Case Ongoing
Clearinghouse coding complete
Case Summary
This class action suit, filed on June 29, 2018, sought to enjoin the Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), of which ORR is a component part, from causing grave harm to migrant and asylum-seeking children in its care. 2018 WL 3209193. The plaintiffs--represented by the Center for Human Rights & Constitutional Law, National Center for Youth Law, the Immigration Law Clinic at the UC Davis Law School, and private counsel--were members of the class protected under the consent decree issued in Flores v. Reno (“Flores Settlement”), available here in the Clearinghouse. The plaintiffs alleged violations of that Settlement, the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) 8 U.S.C. § 1101, William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Reauthorization Act of 2008 (TVPRA) 18 U.S.C. § 1589, the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) 5 U.S.C. § 703, as well as the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause and First Amendment’s Freedom of Association Clause. They sued the Secretary of HHS and the Director of ORR under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 2241, the APA, Bivens, the TVPRA, and the rights conferred to the plaintiffs in the Flores Settlement. They sought injunctive and declaratory relief, a writ of habeas corpus for their release from ORR custody, nominal damages, and attorneys’ fees. The case was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California and assigned to Judge Dolly Maizie Gee.
The named plaintiffs were several children in ORR custody (in facilities in Texas, California, New York, and Michigan) and two nonprofit organizations, the San Fernando Valley Refugee Children Center, Inc. and the Unaccompanied Central American Refugee Empowerment. The plaintiffs alleged that ORR confined unaccompanied children in residential treatment centers (RTCs) without a meaningful opportunity to challenge allegations that they were dangerous or posed a flight risk or that their parents or other custodians were unfit to care for them. The complaint also stated that the children were detained in conditions where they were administered psychotropic medication for weeks, months, or longer without parental consent or any other procedural safeguards. Several children were reportedly prescribed medications that increased suicidality, intentional self harm, pain, nausea, insomnia, and other symptoms in children. One of the children alleged they were assaulted by staff on multiple occasions, including with pepper spray, but that no disciplinary action was taken.
The four proposed classes included all children in ORR custody (a) whom ORR refused to release to their parents or other available custodians who completed family reunification packets but were allegedly unfit, (b) who had been or would be in an RTC or other facility for more than 30 days without notice and an opportunity to be heard regarding release, (c) who had been or would be administered psychotropic medication without procedural safeguards (e.g., parental consent), and (d) who were natives of non-contiguous countries and to whom ORR blocks legal assistance in matters related to their custody, medication, and release.
On July 9, 2018, Judge Gee granted the plaintiffs leave to use pseudonyms for the named plaintiffs and their next friends (i.e., family members, custodians, or sponsors), who sued on their behalf, and ordered the parties to use these pseudonyms in all documents filed with the court. The court subsequently granted leave to both parties to file documents under seal in order to protect the identities of the minors.
On August 2, 2018, the plaintiffs moved to certify the classes. On August 3, 2018, one named plaintiff detained in a southern Texas facility, moved for a preliminary injunction for his release from ORR custody “without unnecessary delay” as provided by the Flores Settlement and the TVPRA. On August 17, 2018, another named plaintiff detained in a southern Texas facility similarly moved for a preliminary injunction for her release.
On August 17, 2018, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss for improper venue and for failure to state a claim for which the court can grant relief. The defendants argued that this lawsuit was duplicative of the Flores litigation, and claimed that the plaintiffs were trying to rewrite or re-bargain that settlement by bringing this case.
On September 6 and 10, 2018, the court denied both preliminary injunction motions for lack of jurisdiction. 2018 WL 10483438. In both cases, the court found that the cited sections of the Flores Settlement and the APA did not authorize the court to order the release of the minors. The motions were dismissed without prejudice, indicating that they could refile in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas against the ORR Field Specialists in Texas responsible for the minors’ care. Judge Gee found that habeas matters would be properly venued before those specialists in that court if the plaintiffs were to refile.
On September 7, 2018, the plaintiffs filed their first amended complaint, which included two more named plaintiffs and additional detail concerning the original complaint's named plaintiffs’ mental health, including hospitalization due to their extreme distress at not being released to their families. 2018 WL 8803996. It also described fundraising and other community efforts made in preparation of the children’s release.
On September 10, 2018, Judge Gee denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss as moot because the plaintiff’s amended complaint was treated as superseding the first. In the same order, she denied the plaintiff’s motion for class certification without prejudice, reasoning that it would be more efficient to decide on that motion at a later date, because it was anticipated that the defendants would again move to have the case dismissed.
On September 18, 2018, the defendants did again move to have the complaint dismissed for improper venue and failure to state a claim. On September 28, 2018, the defendants supplemented their motion to dismiss, requesting that the case be transferred to the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia if it were not dismissed.
Also on September 28, 2018, the plaintiffs again moved to certify the classes. These first four class definitions were the same as those in their August motion for class certification; the new motion added one more class, including only children who had or would have a behavioral, mental health, or intellectual and/or developmental disability and who were placed in an ORR facility because of that disability.
On November 2, 2018, Judge Gee issued an order granting in part and denying in part the defendants' motion to dismiss and granting the plaintiffs' motion for class certification. 2018 WL 10111336. The defendants' motion to dismiss was granted only with regard to the plaintiffs' claims to enforce the Flores Agreement, but was denied in all other respects, including the plaintiffs' claims that "ORR failed to provide sufficient procedural safeguards for alien minors to exercise their Flores rights." In the order granting the plaintiffs' motion for class certification, Judge Gee certified each of the proposed classes but slightly re-wrote the definitions of some classes.
On November 16, 2018, the defendants filed a motion for reconsideration of the court's November 2 order, asserting that in re-writing the definitions of certain classes, the court failed to consider material facts and denied defendants the opportunity to address the newly created class. On December 27, 2018, Judge Gee issued an order granting in part and denying in part the defendants' motion for reconsideration and simultaneously issued an amended version of the November 2 order. 2018 WL 7200716 and 2018 WL 10483527. The amended order made a slight change to the "disability class" (described below) to reflect the defendants' concern with the class definition.
The court approved 5 classes, encompassing: “all minors in ORR custody pursuant to 6 U.S.C. section 279 and/or 8 U.S.C. section 1232:
a. who are or will be placed in a secure facility, medium-secure facility, or RTC, or whom ORR has continued to detain in any such facility for more than 30 days, without being afforded notice and an opportunity to be heard before a neutral and detached decisionmaker regarding the grounds for such placement (i.e., the “step-up class”);
b. whom ORR is refusing or will refuse to release to parents or other available custodians within 30 days of the proposed custodian’s submission of a complete family reunification packet on the ground that the proposed custodian is or may be unfit (i.e., the “unfit custodian class”);
c. who are or will be prescribed or administered one or more psychotropic medications without procedural safeguards;
d. who are natives of non-contiguous countries and to whom ORR is impeding or will impede legal assistance in legal matters or proceedings involving their custody, placement, release, and/or administration of psychotropic drugs (i.e., the “legal representation class”); and
e. who have or will have a behavioral, mental health, intellectual, and/or developmental disability as defined in 29 U.S.C. section 705, and who are or will be placed in a secure facility, medium-secure facility, or RTC solely by reason of such disabilities (i.e., the “disability class”).”
On March 2, 2019, defendant E. Scott Lloyd -- the former Director of ORR who was also sued in his individual capacity under Bivens -- filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' complaint and action against him for lack of personal jurisdiction and a motion for judgment on the pleadings. The defendant asserted that the complaint did not establish that the court had personal jurisdiction over him, failed to give notice of the claims against him, failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted against him, and failed to defeat his qualified immunity.
On April 23, 2019, following the parties' stipulation for mediation, Judge Gee issued an order referring the matter to Magistrate Judge Sheri Pym for mediation proceedings. Over the next several months, the parties underwent the discovery process and conferred to attempt to reach a settlement.
On August 21, 2019, Judge Gee issued an order granting Lloyd's motion for judgment on the pleadings, concluding that the plaintiffs' Bivens claim against him was not "supported by a cognizable legal theory" and because "special factors counsel against recognizing such a remedy in this context." 2019 WL 6655262. As such, the individual defendant in his individual capacity was dismissed.
On March 25, 2020, in light of the nationwide outbreak of COVID-19, the plaintiffs filed an ex parte application for a temporary restraining order (TRO) and for issuance of an order to show cause why a preliminary injunction should not be issued. The plaintiffs requested that the court issue an order "requiring ORR to release children it has already detained for 30 days to ready custodians, transfer them to non-congregate settings, or else justify why it has done neither." At the time the application was filed, there were a reported 46,481 cases in the U.S. and 593 deaths and several staff members at ORR facilities had tested positive for COVID-19. No cure or vaccine existed at the time of filing so social distancing and frequent hand washing were the only effective measures to prevent the transmission of COVID-19. The plaintiffs contended that the "vast majority of children in ORR custody live in congregate settings, where they spend all of their time in close proximity to other children and staff members" and are thus unable to practice effective methods of preventing transmission. Moreover, while the elderly and those with underlying health conditions remained the most vulnerable to serious illness or death from COVID-19, the plaintiffs stated that "approximately 6% of infected children and 11% of infected infants had severe or critical cases," demonstrating a risk of severe harm to the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs urged that a TRO was appropriate because “[t]he Flores Settlement, the TVPRA, and the First and Fifth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution each vest children who have custodians available to receive them with substantive rights against ORR’s keeping them in congregate care, especially during a global pandemic."
On March 27, 2020, the government filed an opposition to the plaintiffs' motion for TRO. The government asserted that if there was a claim that the Flores Settlement Agreement has been violated, that claim "must proceed in a Flores enforcement action." The government also argued that the plaintiffs' due process claim lacked merit, proclaiming that they had "gone to extraordinary lengths to care for children in a profoundly challenging situation, while also fulfilling its statutory mandate under the TVPRA for expeditious release of children to custodians who will care for them, implementing measures both to prevent the spread of COVID-19 and provide appropriate medical care in the case of infection." Finally, the government contended that, considering the risk posed by the proposed mass transit of plaintiffs and strained resources for administrative hearings caused by COVID-19, plaintiffs "fail to show how their alleged injury would be redressed by the relief they seek."
On March 28, 2020, Judge Gee issued a TRO in Flores v. Reno, ordering the government to promptly adjudicate the class members' claims for release to outside sponsors and for the inspection of government facilities to ensure compliance with public health guidelines.
Following oral argument on April 2, 2020, Judge Gee issued an order denying the plaintiffs' application for TRO and an order to show cause. Judge Gee concluded that the TRO issued in Flores rendered "the most urgent portions of Plaintiffs’ request for interim relief moot," and thus a TRO here was not appropriate.
On October 2, 2020, the defendants moved for partial summary judgment. They alleged that some of the claims were barred by res judicata, as the Court had already decided the issues in Flores v. Reno. The defendants further argued that, even if the claims were not barred, the policies and procedures implemented satisfied the judicial standards for procedural due process. The same day, the plaintiffs also moved for partial summary judgment on different claims. The plaintiffs argued that the defendants' non-compliance with the Flores Settlement Agreement violated their right to procedural due process, and required court intervention. The court held a hearing on this cross-motion for summary judgment on December 22, 2020.
On March 11, 2022, Judge Gee issued an order granting in part and denying in part plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, as well as granting in part and denying in part defendants' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. 2022 WL 2177454. Judge Gee ordered:
- Regarding the “step-up class”: Granted relief as to plaintiffs’ due process claim in part, requiring several specific actions of defendants, including providing specific criteria for and employing a “clear and convincing” evidentiary standard deciding when minors may be transferred. Issued judgment in defendants’ favor on the TVPRA/APA claim.
- Regarding the “unfit custodian class”: Granted relief as to plaintiffs’ due process claim in part, requiring several specific actions of defendants, including ensuring written notice to denied sponsors and instating an automatic review of pending family reunification applications every 90 days. Issued judgment in defendants’ favor on the TVPRA/APA claim. Issued judgment against defendants’ First Amendment claim without prejudice.
- Regarding the “legal representation class”: Issued “summary judgment to Defendants on Plaintiffs’ due process and TVPRA/APA claim that ORR must fund their legal representation in challenging ORR’s administrative decisions.” Granted relief as to plaintiffs’ due process claim in part, requiring several specific actions of defendants, including providing minors assistance of counsel and providing case files to legal representatives when requested. Issued judgment against “the parties’ cross-summary judgment motions as to the remainder of the legal representation class’ claims that relate to access to counsel to challenge decisions regarding psychotropic drugs and whether ORR blocks counsel from representing minors in challenging ORR decisions.”
Judge Gee also ordered that the parties confer and submit a proposed preliminary injunction by April 1, 2022. The parties conferred several times but were unable to reach an agreed-upon proposed injunction, and on August 30, 2022, Judge Gee issued a preliminary injunction:
- Regarding the “step-up class”: the injunction required that ORR issue a Notice Of Placement (NOP) within 48 hours after step-up to a restrictive placement, as well as every 30 days the minor remained in a restrictive placement, along with procedures for minors to contest placement before a Placement Review Panel and administrative review processes.
- Regarding the “unfit custodian class”: the injunction established automatic reviews every 90 days for pending Family Reunification Applications, as well as procedures for providing written notice of denials and for appealing ORR decisions.
- Regarding the “legal representation class”: the injunction required that ORR serve a minor’s NOP on counsel, permit minors assistance of counsel, and provide case files to a minor’s counsel upon request.
2022 WL 3908829. The preliminary injunction was slightly modified on September 27, 2022, editing the language of the procedure for the "unfit custodian class."
On November 14, 2023, the parties submitted a joint motion for settlement approval. After a fairness hearing, Judge Gee issued orders on May 3, 2024, granting a motion to modify the class certification by changing the lawyers representing the classes, granting a joint motion to appoint a monitor, and granting final approval of settlements for the plaintiffs’ 3rd, 4th, and 5th, claims, also noting that the parties “shall meet and confer in good faith to attempt to settle attorneys' fees and costs.” The settlement required ORR to implement policies and procedural protections regarding the administration of psychotropic medications, access to legal representation, and the placement and release of children with disabilities. Kathleen Noonan was selected to monitor the implementation of and compliance with these policies and procedures, and defendants agreed to submit compliance reports to Noonan every 6 months.
The agreement regarding psychotropic medications was to terminate six years after the effective date, or earlier if the defendants moved for early termination and were able to show continued compliance after three years from the effective date. The agreement regarding legal representation was to terminate three years after the effective date, unless Congressional action were to supersede the agreement prior to the termination date. The agreement regarding the placement and release of children with disabilities was to terminate five years after the effective date, or earlier if the defendants moved for early termination and were able to show continued compliance after two years from the implementation date.
On March 12, 2024, because Magistrate Judge Pym was no longer available, the case was reassigned to Magistrate Judge Brianna Fuller Mircheff.
On May 14, 2024, the parties issued a joint notice, stating that they had met regarding the defendants’ anticipated motion to dissolve the preliminary injunction. The parties agreed that once the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families’ Foundational Rule (89 Fed. Reg. 34384, 34585 (Apr. 30, 2024)) went into effect, the preliminary injunction should be dissolved. At the time of the statement, the anticipated effective date of the Foundational Rule was July 1, 2024, and the parties planned to inform the court of the status of the implementation around July 1. On July 2, 2024, the parties filed a joint stipulation to dissolve the preliminary injunction, which Judge Gee then ordered dissolved on the same day.
On July 12, 2024, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss for mootness, and on July 26, 2024, the plaintiffs filed a motion for declaratory judgment on their due process claims (regarding determining custodial fitness and restrictive placement).
Following briefings on the matter, Judge Gee issued an order on the motion to dismiss and motion for declaratory judgment on September 16, 2024. First, the defendants’ motion to dismiss was denied. Although commending the promulgation of the Foundational Rule, the court determined that because ORR was not a legislative body, the rule’s “permanence” was not guaranteed. Considering 46 senators had then introduced a joint resolution pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (“CRA”) to undo the Foundational Rule, the court determined that it was not “absolutely clear” that there was no reasonable expectation of recurrence of injuries to the plaintiffs. As such, the court granted the plaintiffs’ motion for declaratory judgment given the need to “afford relief from the uncertainty, insecurity, and controversy giving rise to the proceeding”—the plaintiffs would find themselves and their rights back at square one in the absence of the Rule or the Court’s now-dissolved preliminary injunction. Final judgment was subsequently entered in favor of the plaintiffs and the action was dismissed on the merits. 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 167645.
Following the entry of a final judgment in their favor, the plaintiffs filed a motion to recuperate attorney’s fees and other expenses under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA) on December 13, 2024. A hearing on the matter was initially scheduled for May 9, 2025; however, this was opposed by the defendants who sought to continue the hearing until July 11, 2025. As of February 2025, the case remains ongoing as (a) the court determines when the hearing ought to be held and (b) the parties continue briefings on the issue of attorney’s fees.
Summary Authors
Veronica Portillo Heap (10/28/2018)
Aaron Gurley (5/23/2020)
Justin Hill (10/18/2020)
Tessa McEvoy (3/12/2021)
Kyle O'Hara (8/2/2024)
Kavitha Babu (3/4/2025)
Related Cases
Flores v. Reno, Central District of California (1985)
People
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/7320332/parties/lucas-r-v-alex-azar/
Abrams, Paul L. (California)
Adams, Crystal (District of Columbia)
Adamson, Melissa Ann (California)
Ancar, Katina (California)
Alexander, Sarah Pascal (California)
Adams, Crystal (District of Columbia)
Adamson, Melissa Ann (California)
Cloyd, Jennifer Kelleher (California)
Corrigan, Virginia Elizabeth (California)
Diwan, Shaila Rahman (California)
Donohue, Megan L. (California)
Echtman, Elyse D. (California)
Felt, Daisy Ocampo (California)
Gramont, Diane Beatrix (California)
Harman, Thomas Wayne (California)
Holguín, Carlos R. (California)
Iahdjian, Marchela (California)
Julian, Monica J. (California)
Kazantzis, Kyra A. (California)
Kelley, Mary Kathryn (California)
Kirkham, Annette D. (California)
Manning, Katherine H. (California)
Mayhugh, Alexandra Rex (California)
McMahon, Megan L.. (Massachusetts)
McMahon, Michael J (California)
Messuri, Anthony John (District of Columbia)
Mulligan, Jonathan P. (California)
Natarajan, Ranjana (California)
Pitts, Freya E. K. (California)
Roberts, Eleanor F. (California)
Robertson, Jamie D (California)
Rosenbaum, Stephen A (California)
Schulman, Steven H (California)
Shum, Brenda L. (District of Columbia)
Sorgen, Michael S. (California)
Tarneja, Rebecca L. (California)
Viramontes, Angela C. (California)
Wolozin, Rebecca Ruth (California)
Andrapalliyal, Vinita (California)
Bates, Christopher A (District of Columbia)
Canter, Nancy K (District of Columbia)
Cartagena, Diego Jose (California)
Celone, Michael Anthony (California)
Clark, Jeffrey Bossert (District of Columbia)
Davila, Yamileth G. (District of Columbia)
Flentje, August E. (District of Columbia)
Ginsburg, Douglas E. (California)
Heyse, Michael C. (District of Columbia)
Hunt, Joseph H. (District of Columbia)
Insenga, Andrew Brenner (District of Columbia)
Keisler, Peter D. (California)
Lawrence, Victor M (California)
Lesnau, Jessica R. (California)
Lindemann, Michael P (California)
Marcos, Robin Dunn (California)
Masetta-Alvarez, Katelyn (California)
McCarter, Joseph Aaron (California)
McCroskey, Joshua Clayton (California)
Molina, Ernesto H. Jr. (District of Columbia)
Moss, Benjamin M. (District of Columbia)
Parascandola, Christina (California)
Robins, Jeffrey S (District of Columbia)
Sheffield, Carlton F (California)
Shieh, Woei-Tyng Daniel (District of Columbia)
Silvis, William Charles (California)
Soanes, Sherry Denise (District of Columbia)
Steinhart, Eric C (California)
Stevenson, Marina C. (District of Columbia)
Stewart, Scott Grant (District of Columbia)
Travieso, Frank Michael (California)
Alexander, Sarah Pascal (California)
Arulanantham, Ahilan T (California)
Bach-y-Rita, Peter (California)
Barber, Jeremy S. (California)
Barenfeld, Gabriel (California)
Callahan, Caitlin G. (California)
Daughtrey, Natasha E. (California)
Dundas, Michael J (California)
Fretz, Rebekah A. (California)
Goldberg, Justine Alan (California)
Govindaiah, Manoj G (California)
Kaloyanides, David J. (California)
Lombardo, Joseph P (California)
Manisco, Brett Michael (California)
Nelson, Gretchen M. (California)
Nightingale, Zachary M. (California)
Ordin, Andrea Sheridan (California)
Sethi, Chanakya A. (California)
Silvestri, Eric S (California)
Stortz, Michael James (California)
Tan, Michael K. T. (California)
Documents in the Clearinghouse
Resources
Docket
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/7320332/lucas-r-v-alex-azar/
Last updated July 19, 2026, 5:43 a.m.
Docket for: Lucas R. v. Alex Azar
Case Details
State / Territory:
Case Type(s):
Special Collection(s):
Trump 1.0 & 2.0 Immigration Enforcement Order Challenges
Trump Administration 1.0: Challenges to the Government
Key Dates
Filing Date: June 29, 2018
Case Ongoing: Yes
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
Several children in ORR custody (in facilities in Texas, California, New York, and Michigan) and two nonprofit organizations, the San Fernando Valley Refugee Children Center, Inc. and the Unaccompanied Central American Refugee Empowerment, representing “all minors in ORR custody pursuant to 6 U.S.C. section 279 and/or 8 U.S.C. section 1232: a. who are or will be placed in a secure facility, medium-secure facility, or RTC, or whom ORR has continued to detain in any such facility for more than 30 days, without being afforded notice and an opportunity to be heard before a neutral and detached decisionmaker regarding the grounds for such placement (i.e., the “step-up class”); b. whom ORR is refusing or will refuse to release to parents or other available custodians within 30 days of the proposed custodian’s submission of a complete family reunification packet on the ground that the proposed custodian is or may be unfit (i.e., the “unfit custodian class”); c. who are or will be prescribed or administered one or more psychotropic medications without procedural safeguards; d. who are natives of non-contiguous countries and to whom ORR is impeding or will impede legal assistance in legal matters or proceedings involving their custody, placement, release, and/or administration of psychotropic drugs (i.e., the “legal representation class”); and e. who have or will have a behavioral, mental health, intellectual, and/or developmental disability as defined in 29 U.S.C. section 705, and who are or will be placed in a secure facility, medium-secure facility, or RTC solely by reason of such disabilities (i.e., the “disability class”).”
Plaintiff Type(s):
Non-profit NON-religious organization
Attorney Organizations:
Center for Human Rights & Constitutional Law
Public Interest Lawyer: Yes
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: Yes
Class Action Outcome: Granted
Defendants
Federal
Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR)
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)
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 Bivens
Habeas Corpus, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2241-2253; 2254; 2255
Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. §§ 1101 et seq.
Trafficking Victims Protection Act (TVPA), 18 U.S.C. § 1589
Constitutional Clause(s):
Other Dockets:
Central District of California 2:18-cv-05741
Special Case Type(s):
Available Documents:
Injunctive (or Injunctive-like) Relief
Outcome
Prevailing Party: Plaintiff OR Mixed
Relief Granted:
Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement
Preliminary injunction / Temp. restraining order
Source of Relief:
Form of Settlement:
Court Approved Settlement or Consent Decree
Content of Injunction:
Order Duration: 2022 - 2024
Issues
General/Misc.:
Access to lawyers or judicial system
COVID-19:
Disability and Disability Rights:
Immigration/Border:
Jails, Prisons, Detention Centers, and Other Institutions:
Assault/abuse by staff (facilities)
Over/Unlawful Detention (facilities)
Placement in detention facilities
Placement in mental health facilities
Medical/Mental Health Care:
Intellectual/Developmental Disability
Intellectual disability/mental illness dual diagnosis
Case Summary of L.R. (Lucas R.) v. Azar, Civil Rights Litig. Clearinghouse, https://clearinghouse.net/case/16645/ (last updated 3/4/2025).