Case: California Attorneys for Criminal Justice v. Newsom

20-261829 | California state trial court

Filed Date: April 24, 2020

Closed Date: May 13, 2020

Clearinghouse coding complete

Case Summary

COVID-19 Summary: This is a state immigration detention case filed in light of COVID-19, alleging that the close quarters and unsanitary conditions in the detention facilities were unconstitutional. The California Supreme Court denied to issue a writ of mandate on May 13 and the case is now closed. The plaintiffs, California Attorneys for Criminal Justice and the American Immigration Lawyers Association (Southern California Chapter), filed this petition for writ of mandate on April 24, 2020. T…

COVID-19 Summary: This is a state immigration detention case filed in light of COVID-19, alleging that the close quarters and unsanitary conditions in the detention facilities were unconstitutional. The California Supreme Court denied to issue a writ of mandate on May 13 and the case is now closed.


The plaintiffs, California Attorneys for Criminal Justice and the American Immigration Lawyers Association (Southern California Chapter), filed this petition for writ of mandate on April 24, 2020. They were represented by attorneys from the ACLU of Southern California, ACLU of San Diego, and ACLU of Northern California. Respondents were Governor Gavin Newsom and Attorney General Xavier Becerra.

The petition identified several people, contemporaneously or formerly, held in ICE detention centers which were not offering proper care with regards to the spread of COVID-19. Petitioners argued that the detention centers continued to house detainees in close quarters and in unsanitary conditions. The petition argued that the State of California's continued transfers of non-citizen detainees to ICE detention centers constituted violations of the Due Process clause of both the U.S. Constitution and California state constitution. Petitioners also argued that the conditions also were a threat to the public in general. Therefore, the petition sought a writ of mandate to prohibit the state from transferring any more detainees to ICE detention centers and an order declaring respondents in violation of the Due Process clauses of the U.S. Constitution and the California state constitution. They also asked for attorney's fees and costs.

On April 30, respondents offered their response in opposition. They argued that any responsibility to keep conditions safe for detainees lied with the ICE and the federal government. They also argued that pending federal litigation would provide an adequate remedy and that the petitioners had not identified any duty that respondents had which could be remedied by a writ of mandate.

On May 13 the California Supreme Court issued its opinion. They denied the writ of mandate, finding that the petitioners failed to establish that the respondents had any clear duty. However, they denied the writ without prejudice, so that any party which did have a duty could be brought before the court.

The case is now closed.

Summary Authors

Jack Hibbard (7/13/2020)

People


Judge(s)

Cantil-Sakauye, Tani (California)

Liu, Goodwin (District of Columbia)

Attorneys(s) for Plaintiff

Bansal, Jessica Karp (California)

Chia, Liga (California)

Cho, Michelle (California)

Freeman, William S. (California)

Goodman, Melissa (California)

Langarica, Monika Yvette (California)

Moreshead, David William (California)

Pasquarella, Jennifer (California)

Judge(s)

Cantil-Sakauye, Tani (California)

Liu, Goodwin (District of Columbia)

Attorneys(s) for Plaintiff

Bansal, Jessica Karp (California)

Chia, Liga (California)

Cho, Michelle (California)

Freeman, William S. (California)

Goodman, Melissa (California)

Langarica, Monika Yvette (California)

Moreshead, David William (California)

Pasquarella, Jennifer (California)

Salceda, Angelica H. (California)

Vakili, Bardis (California)

Wells, Jordan (California)

Attorneys(s) for Defendant

Evans, Kelli M. (California)

Hartz, Alisa Louise (California)

Sapp, David B. (California)

Wise, R Matthew (California)

Documents in the Clearinghouse

Document

20-261829

Docket

California state supreme court

May 13, 2020

May 13, 2020

Docket

20-261829

Petition for Writ of Mandate

California state supreme court

April 24, 2020

April 24, 2020

Complaint

20-261829

Opinion

California state supreme court

2020 WL 2568388

May 13, 2020

May 13, 2020

Order/Opinion

Resources

Docket

Last updated Aug. 17, 2022, 3:02 a.m.

Docket sheet not available via the Clearinghouse.

Case Details

State / Territory: California

Case Type(s):

Immigration and/or the Border

Special Collection(s):

COVID-19 (novel coronavirus)

Key Dates

Filing Date: April 24, 2020

Closing Date: May 13, 2020

Case Ongoing: No

Plaintiffs

Plaintiff Description:

California Attorneys for Criminal Justice and American Immigration Lawyers Association -- Southern California Chapter

Plaintiff Type(s):

Non-profit NON-religious organization

Attorney Organizations:

ACLU of Southern California

ACLU Affiliates (any)

ACLU of Northern California

Public Interest Lawyer: Yes

Filed Pro Se: No

Class Action Sought: No

Class Action Outcome: Not sought

Defendants

Governor Gavin Newsom, State

Attorney General Xavier Becerra, State

Defendant Type(s):

Jurisdiction-wide

Case Details

Causes of Action:

42 U.S.C. § 1983

State law

Constitutional Clause(s):

Due Process

Special Case Type(s):

Appellate Court is initial court

Habeas

Availably Documents:

Trial Court Docket

Complaint (any)

Any published opinion

Outcome

Prevailing Party: Defendant

Nature of Relief:

Habeas relief

Source of Relief:

None

Issues

General:

Bathing and hygiene

Conditions of confinement

Neglect by staff

Placement in detention facilities

Sanitation / living conditions

Crowding:

Crowding / caseload

COVID-19:

Mitigation Denied

Mitigation Requested

Release Denied

Release Requested

Type of Facility:

Government-run

Immigration/Border:

Detention - conditions

Detention - procedures

Immigration lawyers