Case: A.M. v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security

3:25-cv-02308 | U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California

Filed Date: Sept. 4, 2025

Case Ongoing

Clearinghouse coding complete

Case Summary

This case challenges the Department of Homeland Security’s practice of arresting and re-detaining asylum seekers at the San Diego Immigration Court after they have been released on bond, parole, or recognizance. On September 4, 2025, two asylum seekers—A.M. and C.L.V.—filed this class action lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS), U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), and the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) in the U.S. District Court for the Sout…

This case challenges the Department of Homeland Security’s practice of arresting and re-detaining asylum seekers at the San Diego Immigration Court after they have been released on bond, parole, or recognizance.

On September 4, 2025, two asylum seekers—A.M. and C.L.V.—filed this class action lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS), U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), and the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California. Represented by Singleton Schreiber LLP, the plaintiffs brought this suit on behalf of all noncitizens released from ICE custody in San Diego who have been, or will be, re-arrested by ICE at immigration courthouses.

The plaintiffs alleged that ICE’s courthouse arrests and subsequent re-detentions violate the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), and the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. Specifically, they argued that the government’s policy and practice are “arbitrary, capricious, and contrary to law” under 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A)–(C) because they disregard ICE’s own release determinations and the INA’s procedural safeguards for detention. The complaint contended that ICE lacked statutory authority to re-arrest individuals previously released by defendants absent new findings of danger or flight risk, and that these re-arrests involved stark due process violations. The plaintiffs further alleged that the policy undermined the functioning of the immigration court system by chilling attendance at court hearings, interfering with access to counsel, and impeding the exercise of statutory and constitutional rights to seek relief from removal.

The plaintiffs sought declaratory and injunctive relief to prohibit ICE from making courthouse arrests and to vacate all related agency directives and practices in light the irreparable harm caused by sudden and traumatic re-detention and/or and severe disruption to asylum proceedings. They also asked the court to certify a class of all noncitizens in San Diego County who are or will be subject to ICE re-arrests at immigration court.

The case was initially assigned to Judge Andrew G. Schopler.

On the same day the complaint was filed, the plaintiffs submitted a Notice of Related Case identifying A.M. v. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement et al. as a related action. That earlier case, filed by A.M. individually on June 4, 2025, also challenges the legality of his civil immigration arrest at the San Diego Immigration Court. The notice explained that both actions raise the same central question—whether DHS and ICE may lawfully conduct civil immigration arrests of asylum seekers at the San Diego Immigration Court after their release on bond or parole—and involve overlapping defendants and factual circumstances. The plaintiffs argued that assigning the two cases to a single judge would promote judicial efficiency and consistent adjudication of the issues.

The case was reassigned to Judge Jinsook Ohta on September 17. It remains ongoing as of December 22, 2025.

Summary Authors

Claire Pollard (9/6/2025)

Jack Buckfire (12/1/2025)

Related Cases

A.M. v. Larose, Southern District of California (2025)

People

For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/71273161/parties/clv-v-us-department-of-homeland-security/


Judge(s)
Attorney for Plaintiff

Bluth, Andrew Daniel (California)

Hutchison, Kimberly Sue (California)

Attorney for Defendant

CV, U S (California)

Expert/Monitor/Master/Other

Documents in the Clearinghouse

Documents in this case
1

3:25-cv-02308

Class Action Complaint for Declaratory and Other Relief

Sept. 4, 2025

Sept. 4, 2025

Complaint
2

3:25-cv-02308

Notice of Related Case

A.M. et al. v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security et al.

Sept. 4, 2025

Sept. 4, 2025

Pleading / Motion / Brief
13

3:25-cv-02308

Plaintiff C.L.V.'s Status Update Concerning Removal Proceedings

A.M. et al. v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security et al.

Oct. 14, 2025

Oct. 14, 2025

Pleading / Motion / Brief

Docket

See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/71273161/clv-v-us-department-of-homeland-security/

Last updated Sept. 2, 2026, 3:54 a.m.

Docket for: C.L.V. v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security
ECF Number Date Description Link
1 Sept. 4, 2025

COMPLAINT Against Jason Aguilar, Sidney Aki, Pamela Bondi, Executive Office for Immigration Review, Todd Lyons, Kristi Noem, Sirce E. Owen, Gregory J. Archambeault, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Does 1 through 20 (Filing fee $405.00 receipt number ACASDC-20253775.), filed by A.M., C.L.V. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet)The new case number is 3:25-cv-2308-AGS-AHG. Judge Andrew G. Schopler and Magistrate Judge Allison H. Goddard are assigned to the case. (Hutchison, Kimberly)(ggv)(jrd) (Entered: 09/04/2025)

1 Civil Cover Sheet

View on PACER

Clearinghouse
2 Sept. 4, 2025

NOTICE OF RELATED CASE(S) by A.M., C.L.V. of case(s) 25cv1412-JO-AHG. (ggv) (Entered: 09/04/2025)

Clearinghouse
3 Sept. 4, 2025

Summons Issued. Counsel receiving this notice electronically should print this summons and serve it in accordance with Rule 4, Fed.R.Civ.P and LR 4.1. (ggv) (Entered: 09/04/2025)

RECAP
4 Sept. 4, 2025

MOTION To Proceed Under Pseudonyms by A.M., C.L.V.. (Hutchison, Kimberly) (mef). (Entered: 09/04/2025)

RECAP
5 Sept. 17, 2025

ORDER OF TRANSFER. District Judge Andrew G. Schopler is no longer assigned. Case reassigned to Judge Jinsook Ohta for all further proceedings. The new case number is 25cv2308-JO-AHG. Signed by District Judge Andrew G. Schopler on 09/08/2025.(mef) (Entered: 09/17/2025)

RECAP
6 Sept. 17, 2025

Minute Order by Judge Jinsook Ohta: On September 4, 2025, Plaintiffs filed a class action complaint alleging that Defendants had committed statutory and constitutional violations against the proposed class. Specifically, Plaintiffs alleged that one of the proposed class representatives, C.L.V., had his section 240 proceedings dismissed in May 2025, and has been detained at Otay Mesa Detention Center since, despite participating in a credible fear interview. Defendants are ordered to provide a status update to the court regarding the date that C.L.V. received a credible fear interview, the outcome of his credible fear interview, as well as the procedural posture of C.L.V.'s immigration case/s, by 5pm on Friday, September 19, 2025. Signed by Judge Jinsook Ohta on September 17, 2025. (Entered: 09/17/2025)

RECAP
Sept. 17, 2025

Minute Order (No Time)

7 Sept. 23, 2025

Minute Order by Judge Jinsook Ohta: re 4 MOTION To Proceed Under Pseudonyms filed by A.M., C.L.V. Plaintiffs filed a motion requesting to proceed under pseudonyms, specifically with the initials "A.M." and "C.L.V." instead of their full names, citing their safety concerns and fear of retaliation as political activists seeking asylum in this country. Dkt. 4. Proceeding under pseudonym is appropriate in "unusual case[s]" where nondisclosure of the party's identity "is necessary... to protect a person from harassment, injury, ridicule or personal embarrassment." Does I Thru XXIII v. Advanced Textile Corp ., 214 F.3d 1058, 1067-68 (9th Cir. 2000) (alteration in original) (quoting United States v. Doe, 655 F.2d 920, 922 n.1 (9th Cir. 1981)). Where a party seeks to proceed pseudonymously on the basis of retaliatory harm, "a district court must balance five factors: '(1) the severity of the threatened harm, (2) the reasonableness of the anonymous party's fears,... (3) the anonymous party's vulnerability to such retaliation,' (4) the prejudice to the opposing party, and (5) the public interest." Doe v. Kamehameha Schs./Bernice Pauahi Bishop Est., 596 F.3d 1036, 1042 (9th Cir. 2010). Petitioner has demonstrated this is an "unusual case" where nondisclosure of the party's identity "is necessary... to protect a person from harassment, injury, ridicule or personal embarrassment." Does I Thru XXIII., 214 F.3d 1058, 1067-68.Here, Plaintiffs have established reasonable grounds to fear such retaliatory harm. They allege that they are facing deportation to countries where they have faced persecution and torture. Dkt. 1, par. 1, 3-4, 19, 20; Dkt. 4. Plaintiffs concerns for their safety if deported would be amplified if their identifying information were to be disclosed to the public and their respective countrys authorities knew they sought asylum. Dkt. 4; Kamehameha Schools, 596 F.3d at 1043 (Threats of physical harm "present[ ] the paradigmatic case for allowing anonymity."). The Ninth Circuit and district courts have recognized retaliation from a foreign government as a sufficient basis to proceed anonymously. Does I thru XXIII, 214 F.3d at 1063 (considering possible retaliation by the Chinese government against Chinese national plaintiffs residing in Saipan and their family members residing in China as supporting the use of pseudonyms); Al Otro Lado, Inc. v. Nielsen, No. 17-CV-02366-BAS-KSC, 2017 WL 6541446, at *8 (S.D. Cal. Dec. 20, 2017) (granting plaintiffs' requests to proceed pseudonymously considering their identity was not central to the legal merits of their asylum claim).Based on the Court's review of the severity of the harm, the reasonableness of Plaintiffs' proffered fears, and Plaintiffs' vulnerability to retaliation, the Court finds that the need for anonymity in this case outweighs countervailing considerations of potential prejudice to Defendants. See Kamehameha Schools, 596 F.3d at 1042. The Court also finds that revealing the identity of Plaintiffs would not advance the public's understanding of these legal proceedings. For these reasons, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs' motion to proceed pseudonymously. Signed by Judge Jinsook Ohta on September 23, 2025. (Entered: 09/23/2025)

RECAP
Sept. 23, 2025

Minute Order (No Time)

8 Oct. 2, 2025

SUMMONS Returned Executed by C.L.V., A.M.. Jason Aguilar served. (Hutchison, Kimberly) (dim). (Entered: 10/02/2025)

RECAP
9 Oct. 2, 2025

SUMMONS Returned Executed by C.L.V., A.M.. Gregory J. Archambeault served. (Hutchison, Kimberly) (dim). (Entered: 10/02/2025)

RECAP
10 Oct. 2, 2025

SUMMONS Returned Executed by C.L.V., A.M.. Pamela Bondi served. (Hutchison, Kimberly) (dim). (Entered: 10/02/2025)

RECAP
11 Oct. 2, 2025

SUMMONS Returned Executed by C.L.V., A.M.. Executive Office for Immigration Review served. (Hutchison, Kimberly) (dim). (Entered: 10/02/2025)

RECAP
12 Oct. 2, 2025

SUMMONS Returned Executed by C.L.V., A.M.. Sirce E. Owen served. (Hutchison, Kimberly) (dim). (Entered: 10/02/2025)

RECAP
13 Oct. 14, 2025

NOTICE re Status Update Concerning Removal Proceedings by A.M., C.L.V. (Hutchison, Kimberly) (Entered: 10/14/2025)

Clearinghouse
14 Oct. 14, 2025

Minute Order by Judge Jinsook Ohta: The Court sets a status conference for October 17, 2025 at 9:30 a.m. to discuss the status of service on the named Defendants U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Kristi Noem, U.S. Immigration and Customers Enforcement, Todd Lyons, and Sidney Aki, as well as service on the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of California by a method prescribed in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(i)(1) and (2). Counsel may appear in person or by video teleconference. The courtroom deputy will provide the videoconference information prior to the hearing. Parties may contact chambers if they are unable to appear on this date. Signed by Judge Jinsook Ohta on 10/14/2025. (mk) (Entered: 10/14/2025)

RECAP
15 Oct. 14, 2025

SUMMONS Returned Executed by C.L.V., A.M.. Kristi Noem served. (Hutchison, Kimberly) (Entered: 10/14/2025)

RECAP
16 Oct. 14, 2025

SUMMONS Returned Executed by C.L.V., A.M.. Todd Lyons served. (Hutchison, Kimberly) (Entered: 10/14/2025)

RECAP
17 Oct. 14, 2025

SUMMONS Returned Executed by C.L.V., A.M.. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement served. (Hutchison, Kimberly) (Entered: 10/14/2025)

RECAP
18 Oct. 17, 2025

Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Jinsook Ohta: Status Conference held on 10/17/2025. Order to follow. (Court Reporter/ECR Cristine Gerongco). (Plaintiff Attorney Kimbery Sue Hutchison). (Defendant Attorney Janel Cabral, AUSA). (no document attached) (smy) (Entered: 10/17/2025)

RECAP
19 Oct. 17, 2025

Minute Order by Judge Jinsook Ohta: The Court held a status conference on October 17, 2025. Under General Order No. 766, a stay has been issued for civil cases involving the United States as a party, except for habeas corpus petitions under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. However, the Court exercises its discretion to exempt this case from that stay, given its related nature to pending habeas petitions. See General Order No. 766, P.7 (such cases are stayed "unless otherwise ordered by the assigned district judge"). Plaintiff is ordered to file proof of service on all remaining Defendants, including the United States Attorney for the Southern District of California, by October 21, 2025. Defendants are ordered to file a response to the Complaint consistent with the deadlines under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(a)(2). Signed by Judge Jinsook Ohta on 10/17/2025. (mk) (Entered: 10/17/2025)

RECAP
29 March 26, 2026

NOTICE of Vacated Hearing: To the extent that a hearing on a motion to dismiss is scheduled on the Court's calendar, that hearing is VACATED as there is no motion to dismiss pending as of the date of this notice. (no document attached) (smy) (Entered: 03/26/2026)

RECAP
31 March 31, 2026

Minute Order by Judge Jinsook Ohta: On March 30, 2026, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss. Dkt. 23. The Court schedules oral argument on the motion to dismiss [Dkt. 30] for June 11, 2026, at 9:30 AM in Courtroom 4C before Judge Jinsook Ohta. The Court sets the following briefing schedule: Plaintiff's opposition brief is due on April 21, 2026, and Defendant's reply brief is due by May 5, 2026. Signed by Judge Jinsook Ohta on 3/31/2026. (mk) (Entered: 03/31/2026)

RECAP
32 April 10, 2026

Minute Order by Judge Jinsook Ohta: Due to a scheduling conflict, the Court reschedules the hearing on Defendants' motion to dismiss [Dkt. 30] currently set for June 11, 2026 to June 4, 2026, at 9:30 a.m. in Courtroom 4C before Judge Jinsook Ohta. If counsel has a scheduling conflict with the new date, the parties shall file stipulated alternative dates that are available to all parties. Signed by Judge Jinsook Ohta on 4/10/2026. (mk) (Entered: 04/10/2026)

RECAP
36 May 1, 2026

Minute Order by Judge Jinsook Ohta: The parties filed a joint motion seeking a one-week extension for Defendants to file their reply in support of their motion to dismiss. Dkt. 35. The court GRANTS the motion [Dkt. 35]. Defendants shall file their reply by May 12, 2026. Signed by Judge Jinsook Ohta on 5/1/2026. (mk) (Entered: 05/01/2026)

RECAP
38 June 4, 2026

Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Jinsook Ohta: Motion Hearing held on 6/4/2026 re 30 MOTION to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim and Lack of Jurisdiction re: Plaintiff's Class Action Complaint for Declaratory and Other Relief; or in the Alternative, Motion to Stay Case During Pendency of Related Federal Litigation filed by U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Sidney Aki, Sirce E. Owen, Jason Aguilar, Todd Lyons, Pamela Bondi, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Kristi Noem, Executive Office for Immigration Review, Gregory J. Archambeault. The Court will issue a written order. (Court Reporter/ECR Cristine Gerongco). (Plaintiff Attorney Liam Samuel Barett; Kimberly Sue Hutchison). (Defendant Attorney Lisa M. Hemann, AUSA; Matthew Bryan Riley, AUSA). (no document attached) (smy) (Entered: 06/04/2026)

RECAP
46 July 24, 2026

Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Allison H. Goddard: Discovery Conference held on 7/24/2026. (Plaintiffs' Attorney Liam Barrett). (Defendants' Attorney Lisa Hemann). (no document attached) (mxm2) (Entered: 07/24/2026)

RECAP
49 Aug. 7, 2026

Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Allison H. Goddard: Status Conference held on 8/7/2026. (Plaintiffs' Attorneys Liam Barrett; Kimberly Hutchison). (Defendants' Attorneys Lisa Hemann; Matthew Riley). (no document attached) (mxm2) (Entered: 08/07/2026)

RECAP
50 Aug. 12, 2026

Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Allison H. Goddard: Early Neutral Evaluation Conference held on 8/12/2026. The case did not settle. (Plaintiffs' Attorneys Liam Barrett; Kimberly Hutchison). (Defendants' Attorneys Lisa Hemann; Matthew Riley). (no document attached) (mxm2) (Entered: 08/12/2026)

RECAP
51 Aug. 12, 2026

ORDER. Based on the parties' recent update regarding the status of discovery, the Court VACATES the Status Conference set for August 14, 2026. Signed by Magistrate Judge Allison H. Goddard on 8/12/2026. (no document attached) (mxm2) (Entered: 08/12/2026)

RECAP
53 Aug. 20, 2026

ORDER. Based on the parties' recent update regarding the status of discovery, the Court VACATES the Status Conference set for August 21, 2026. Signed by Magistrate Judge Allison H. Goddard on 8/20/2026. (no document attached) (mxm2) (Entered: 08/20/2026)

RECAP
54 Aug. 28, 2026

Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Allison H. Goddard: Status Conference held on 8/28/2026. Order to issue. (Plaintiff's Attorneys Liam Barrett; Kimberly Hutchison). (Defendants' Attorney Matthew Riley). (no document attached) (mxm2) (Entered: 08/28/2026)

RECAP
57 Aug. 31, 2026

ORDER Setting Recurring Attorney-Only Status Conferees. (Status Conference set for 9/4/2026 02:30 PM before Magistrate Judge Allison H. Goddard., Status Conference set for 9/18/2026 04:00 PM before Magistrate Judge Allison H. Goddard., Status Conference set for 10/1/2026 03:00 PM before Magistrate Judge Allison H. Goddard).Signed by Magistrate Judge Allison H. Goddard on 08/31/2026.(gsw) (Entered: 09/01/2026)

RECAP

Case Details

State / Territory:

California

Case Type(s):

Immigration and/or the Border

Special Collection(s):

Trump 1.0 & 2.0 Immigration Enforcement Order Challenges

Trump Administration 2.0: Challenges to the Government

Key Dates

Filing Date: Sept. 4, 2025

Case Ongoing: Yes

Plaintiffs

Plaintiff Description:

Plaintiffs consist of asylum seekers, A.M. and C.L.V., who filed this action on behalf of a proposed class of noncitizens in San Diego who have been, or will be, re-arrested by ICE at immigration courthouses after being released on bond, parole, or recognizance.

Public Interest Lawyer: No

Filed Pro Se: No

Class Action Sought: Yes

Class Action Outcome: Pending

Defendants

Federal

U.S. Department of Homeland Security

Case Details

Causes of Action:

Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 551 et seq.

Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201

Constitutional Clause(s):

Due Process

Other Dockets:

Southern District of California 3:25-cv-02308

Available Documents:

Complaint (any)

Trial Court Docket

Outcome

Prevailing Party: None Yet / None

Relief Sought:

Attorneys fees

Declaratory judgment

Injunction

Relief Granted:

None yet

Source of Relief:

None yet

Issues

Immigration/Border:

Asylum - procedure

Constitutional rights

Deportation - procedure

Detention - procedures

Employment

Family Separation

Visas - procedures

Work authorization - procedures

Jails, Prisons, Detention Centers, and Other Institutions:

Crowding (General)

Over/Unlawful Detention (facilities)

Placement in detention facilities

Recommended Citation