Support the Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse?

The Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse is committed to making information about civil rights lawsuits public, accessible, and free. If you use our--recently revamped--website and the posted documents and information, would you consider a donation? Our small but mighty team relies principally on grant funding and donations. Can you help?

Support the Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse?

The Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse is committed to making information about civil rights lawsuits public, accessible, and free. If you use our--recently revamped--website and the posted documents and information, would you consider a donation? Our small but mighty team relies principally on grant funding and donations. Can you help?

Thank you!

DONATE

Case: Arias v. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement

0:07-cv-01959 | U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota

Filed Date: April 19, 2007

Closed Date: Feb. 2, 2010

Clearinghouse coding complete

Case Summary

On April 19, 2007, a group of Latino plaintiffs filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota, challenging a series of raids by immigration agents of the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Division ("ICE") and local police officials in and around Willmar, Minnesota, between April 10 - 14, 2007. The plaintiffs sued ICE, the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”), and various ICE and DHS officials and officers in their official capacity (“United States defendant…

On April 19, 2007, a group of Latino plaintiffs filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota, challenging a series of raids by immigration agents of the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Division ("ICE") and local police officials in and around Willmar, Minnesota, between April 10 - 14, 2007. The plaintiffs sued ICE, the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”), and various ICE and DHS officials and officers in their official capacity (“United States defendants”), various ICE and DHS agents and officers in their individual capacities (“Bivens defendants”), Willmar and Atwar police officers (“city defendants”), Kandiyohi County officers (“county officers”). Plaintiffs alleged that the raids, which were conducted pursuant to "Operation Crosscheck", were the calculated product of racial and ethnic profiling of Latinos and resulted in egregious violations of plaintiffs' Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendment Rights. Plaintiffs further alleged that defendants violated the Immigration and Nationality Act and the Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996. In connection with the Complaint, plaintiffs requested a TRO to stop further unlawful raids and unconstitutional practices.

Following a hearing on April 26, 2007, the District Court (Judge Ann D. Montgomery) denied plaintiffs' request for a TRO.

Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint filed on June 25, 2007 and dropped class allegations. Each group of defendants responded by filing motions to dismiss. The United States defendants filed a motion to dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction or, in the alternative, for failure to state a claim. The Bivens, city, and county defendants each responded by filing a motion for dismissal, or in the alternative for summary judgment. The county defendants further requested their case be severed.

On April 23, 2008, the court (Judge Ann D. Montgomery) granted the United States defendants' motion to dismiss in their official capacity. 2008 WL 1827604. The court granted the Bivens defendants' motion to dismiss with respect to removal-proceeding and removed plaintiffs, but denied the motion as to citizen plaintiffs and legal-noncitzen plaintiffs. The court also granted in part and denied in part the city defendants' motion, allowing the individual-capacity claims to go forward but dismissing the official capacity claims. Similarly, the court dismissed supervisory-liability claims against county defendants, but not the individual claims. The court postponed consideration of the motions for summary judgment, so plaintiffs could file an affidavit explaining the need for discovery to respond to the motions for summary judgment. On April 30, 2008, the plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint.

On May 16, 2008, the court denied the remaining defendants' motion for summary judgment. 2008 WL 1827604. The court found that the plaintiffs demonstrated a need for discovery to allow them to specify and support their claims because much of the relevant evidence was in defendants’ possession. The defendants argued they were entitled to qualified immunity, but the court noted that a limited amount of discovery is usually needed to determine if defendants acted objectively reasonably and if a right was clearly established before resolving qualified immunity on a motion for summary judgment.

Three of the Bivens defendants (the Assistant Secretary for DHS, the ICE Director of Detention and Removal, and an ICE Field Office Director) then requested leave to file a motion for reconsideration of the order denying summary judgment. They argued that they were not personally involved in the planning or execution of the rid and that discovery would result in costs qualified immunity was meant to prevent. The court denied their request for leave, but stayed the claims against them pending discovery from other parties on June 19, 2008. 2008 WL 11349709

The Bivens defendants serving in supervisory positions then appealed to the Eighth Circuit on June 20, 2008.

On October 1, 2008, the plaintiffs requested leave to file a fourth amended complaint to add class allegations against the remaining defendants and to add back in certain dismissed defendants. The court (Magistrate Judge Janie S. Mayeron) denied plaintiffs’ request to file an amended complaint because it would result in undue prejudice and delay on January 21, 2009. 2009 WL 10678149.

The parties continued to engage in limited discovery throughout the first half of 2009 and stipulated the dismissal of a number of plaintiffs. The Bivens and city defendants then once again each filed a motion to dismiss or for summary judgment in May 2009. At the time the court ruled on these motions, only three plaintiffs remained.

In July 2009, the court granted Bivens defendants' summary judgment motion except as to one claim for illegal entry against an ICE deportation officer. 2009 WL 2171037. The court found that each of the federal defendants that were in supervisory roles were entitled to qualified immunity because they were not present or engaged in the misconduct. The court also granted the city defendants motion for summary judgment, finding the officers were entitled to qualified immunity. The defendants’ interlocutory appeal was therefore moot.

On July 28, 2009, defendants filed a motion requesting sanctions against plaintiffs' attorneys. The court denied the motion on September 2, 2009. 2009 WL 2900315.

On January 29, 2010, the parties stipulated to dismiss the case. The case was dismissed on February 2, 2010. The case is closed.

Summary Authors

Dan Dalton (9/24/2007)

Jennifer Bronson (12/7/2013)

People

For PACER's information on parties and their attrorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4795843/parties/arias-v-united-states-immigration-and-customs-enforcement-division-of-the/


Judge(s)

Mayeron, Janie S. (Minnesota)

Montgomery, Ann D. (Minnesota)

Attorneys(s) for Plaintiff

Ebert, Matthew S (Minnesota)

Edin, Gloria Contreras (Minnesota)

Long, Robert C (Minnesota)

Shulman, Daniel R (Minnesota)

Stover, Jason J (Minnesota)

Thompson, Travis C (Minnesota)

Attorneys(s) for Defendant

Anderson, Scott T. (Minnesota)

Angolkar, Stephanie A. (Minnesota)

Judge(s)

Mayeron, Janie S. (Minnesota)

Montgomery, Ann D. (Minnesota)

Attorneys(s) for Plaintiff

Ebert, Matthew S (Minnesota)

Edin, Gloria Contreras (Minnesota)

Long, Robert C (Minnesota)

Shulman, Daniel R (Minnesota)

Stover, Jason J (Minnesota)

Thompson, Travis C (Minnesota)

Attorneys(s) for Defendant

Anderson, Scott T. (Minnesota)

Angolkar, Stephanie A. (Minnesota)

Benson, Erin E. (Minnesota)

Brooker, Gregory G (Minnesota)

Bryan, Lonnie F. (Minnesota)

Goering, Ann R. (Minnesota)

Iverson, Jon K (Minnesota)

Juncaj, Gjon (District of Columbia)

Langel, Joseph J. (Minnesota)

Paulose, Rachel K (Minnesota)

Whitmore, Pamela Fisher (Minnesota)

Documents in the Clearinghouse

Document

0:07-cv-01959

Docket [PACER]

Arias v. United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement Division of the Department of Homeland Security

May 12, 2010

May 12, 2010

Docket
11-1

0:07-cv-01959

Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief and Damages

April 24, 2007

April 24, 2007

Complaint
14

0:07-cv-01959

Response of Federal Defendants

April 25, 2007

April 25, 2007

Pleading / Motion / Brief
43

0:07-cv-01959

Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief and Damages

Arias v. United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement Division of the Department of Homeland Security

July 27, 2007

July 27, 2007

Complaint
100

0:07-cv-01959

Memorandum Opinion and Order

Arias v. United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement Division

April 23, 2008

April 23, 2008

Order/Opinion
102

0:07-cv-01959

Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief and Damages

Arias v. United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement Division

April 30, 2008

April 30, 2008

Complaint
105

0:07-cv-01959

Memorandum Opinion and Order

Arias v. United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement Division

May 16, 2008

May 16, 2008

Order/Opinion
116

0:07-cv-01959

Memorandum Opinion and Order

Arias v. United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement Division of the Department of Homeland Security

June 19, 2008

June 19, 2008

Order/Opinion
163

0:07-cv-01959

Memorandum

Arias v. Myers

Jan. 21, 2009

Jan. 21, 2009

Order/Opinion
210

0:07-cv-01959

Memorandum Opinion and Order

Arias v. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Division of the Department of Homeland Security

July 17, 2009

July 17, 2009

Order/Opinion

Docket

See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4795843/arias-v-united-states-immigration-and-customs-enforcement-division-of-the/

Last updated Nov. 26, 2022, 3:24 a.m.

ECF Number Description Date Link Date / Link
100

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER granting 77 Motion to Dismiss Counts I-IV, VI, and VII of Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint; granting in part and denying in part 55 Motion to Dismiss; granting in part and denying in part 60 Motion to Dismiss; gra nting in part and denying in part 68 Motion to Dismiss Count V of the Amended Complaint; deferring ruling on 68 Motion for Summary Judgment, by April 30, 2008, Plaintiffs' counsel must file affidavits addressing why Plaintiffs cannot present facts in opposition to the Bivens Defendants, the City Defendants, and the Kandiyohi County Defendants' alternative motions for summary judgment. The Court does not anticipate that additional briefing of the summary judgment motions will be necessary. If the affidavits raise issues requiring briefing, the Court will notify counsel(Written Opinion). Signed by Judge Ann D. Montgomery on 04/23/2008. (tlu)

April 23, 2008

April 23, 2008

RECAP
210

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER granting in part and denying in part 187 Defendants Peter Berg, Allen Gay, Julie L. Myers, John P. Torres, Scott R. Baniecke and John Doe ICE Agents ##1-30's Motion to Dismiss/Motion for Summary Judgment; granting 189 Defendants James A. Kulset, Reed Schmidt, Paul Schmidt, and John Doe Willmar Police Officers ##1-10's Motion for Summary Judgment (Written Opinion). Signed by Judge Ann D. Montgomery on 07/17/2009. (TLU)

July 17, 2009

July 17, 2009

RECAP
225

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER denying 211 Defendants' Motion for Sanctions (Written Opinion). Signed by Judge Ann D. Montgomery on 09/02/2009. (TLU)

Sept. 2, 2009

Sept. 2, 2009

RECAP

Case Details

State / Territory: Minnesota

Case Type(s):

Immigration and/or the Border

Special Collection(s):

Multi-LexSum (in sample)

Key Dates

Filing Date: April 19, 2007

Closing Date: Feb. 2, 2010

Case Ongoing: No

Plaintiffs

Plaintiff Description:

Latino individuals subjected to raids and searches by agents of the United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement Division (“ICE”) of the Department of Homeland Security and local police in and around Willmar, Minnesota, between April 10 – 14, 2007.

Plaintiff Type(s):

Private Plaintiff

Public Interest Lawyer: Yes

Filed Pro Se: No

Class Action Sought: No

Class Action Outcome: Not sought

Defendants

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Federal

Department of Homeland Security, Federal

Kandiyohi County Sherriff's Department (Kandiyohi), County

City of Willmar Police Department (Willmar), City

City of Atwater Police Department (Atwater), City

Case Details

Causes of Action:

42 U.S.C. § 1983

Ex Parte Young (Federal) or Bivens

Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. §§ 1101 et seq.

Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA)

Constitutional Clause(s):

Due Process

Unreasonable search and seizure

Equal Protection

Availably Documents:

Trial Court Docket

Complaint (any)

Outcome

Prevailing Party: Defendant

Nature of Relief:

None

Source of Relief:

None

Issues

Immigration/Border:

Constitutional rights

Detention - conditions

Detention - criteria

Detention - procedures

ICE/DHS/INS raid