University of Michigan Law School
Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse
new search
view search results
page permalink
Case Name Zepeda Rivas v. Jennings IM-CA-0162
Docket / Court 3:20-cv-02731 ( N.D. Cal. )
State/Territory California
Case Type(s) Immigration and/or the Border
Special Collection COVID-19 (novel coronavirus)
Attorney Organization ACLU Affiliates (any)
ACLU of Northern California
ACLU of Southern California
Lawyers Comm. for Civil Rights Under Law
Case Summary
COVID-19 Summary: This is a class-action lawsuit brought on April 20, 2020, by seven individuals in immigration detention at the Mesa Verde Detention Facility (MVDF) and the Yuba County Jail (YCJ), seeking immediate release from unsafe conditions of the jail in light of the global coronavirus ... read more >
COVID-19 Summary: This is a class-action lawsuit brought on April 20, 2020, by seven individuals in immigration detention at the Mesa Verde Detention Facility (MVDF) and the Yuba County Jail (YCJ), seeking immediate release from unsafe conditions of the jail in light of the global coronavirus pandemic. The court granted the request for TRO on April 29, requiring ICE to provide information and access to detainees to facilitate a process of considering bail requests. On June 9, the court granted the motion for preliminary injunction and ordered the defendants to maintain the status quo while the case was pending. On August 5, the plaintiffs sought a TRO, claiming that the defendants' actions were insufficient and it was granted the next day. After the parties agreed to implement testing and other public safety protocols, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss and the plaintiffs responded with an amended class-action complaint. The court granted a second preliminary injunction on December 3, 2020, and a preliminary injunction related to a YCJ outbreak on January 6, 2021. The defendants appealed to the Ninth Circuit and the parties entered into mediation.


On April 20, 2020, seven noncitizens detained at the Mesa Verde Detention Facility (MVDF) and the Yuba County Jail (YCJ) filed this class-action lawsuit against Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), seeking immediate release from what they said were unsafe jail conditions in light of the global coronavirus pandemic. Represented by the ACLU of Northern California and Southern California, the San Francisco Public Defender’s Office, Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights, and private attorneys, the plaintiffs brought this lawsuit as a habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. under § 2241, and as a declaratory action under 42 U.S.C. § 2201-02. They alleged that their detention violated the Administrative Procedure Act, and their First and Fifth Amendment rights by subjecting them to a serious risk of contracting COVID-19. The plaintiffs sought a declaratory judgment and injunctive relief for the release of detainees in order to maintain a number of detainees for social distancing and prohibition against placing plaintiff class members into solitary confinement as a means of achieving social distancing, as well as attorney fees.

The case was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California and initially assigned to Magistrate Judge Sallie Kim, then reassigned to Judge Vince Chhabria.

Concurrent with the complaint, plaintiffs sought class certification and a temporary restraining order to release a sufficient number of putative class members in order to allow for social distancing. The proposed class consisted of all civil immigration detainees at Mesa Verde and YCJ, with two subclasses: the “YCJ Subclass” and the “Mesa Verde Subclass.”

Plaintiffs were detainees in custody of ICE, many of whom with a high risk of COVID-19 due to underlying medical conditions. However, the conditions they faced during detention had become so dire that detainees at Mesa Verde organized a hunger strike to call attention to the lack of hygiene products, proper testing, and continued foot traffic in and out of the facility. In response to the hunger strike, GEO Group, the ICE contractor that ran the facility, threatened to revoke their access to purchases from the commissary.

On April 25, the defendants moved to stay these proceedings in light of a separate case, Fraihat v. ICE (here in the Clearinghouse) in which a federal judge had just certified a nationwide class of immigration detainees challenging ICE’s overall response to the pandemic. In this case, the court denied the defendant’s motion to stay on April 29, and granted the plaintiffs’ motion for class certification and motion for a temporary restraining order, requiring ICE to provide information and access to detainees to facilitate a process of considering bail requests. 2020 WL 2059848.

On May 27, the defendants sought an order that would:
-Confirm the TRO had expired;
-End the ongoing bail process;
-Vacate all bail orders; and,
-Deny the plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction.
Two days later, the plaintiffs filed a brief opposing the expiration of the TRO.

On June 9, the district court granted the motion for preliminary injunction. 2020 WL 3055449. The court found that although significant improvements had been made since the TRO, ICE had only made the safety improvements because it was ordered to do so. Therefore, the court found a preliminary injunction necessary to lock in place the safety improvements made. The defendants were ordered to maintain the status quo while the case was pending.

A status conference was held on June 19, and the court ordered the defendant to file a status report by June 22, regarding their planned response to the discovery that a member of the medical staff at Mesa Verde tested positive for COVID-19. ICE was ordered to respond to the plaintiff's discovery requests on an expedited basis by June 26.

The defendant submitted status reports on June 22 and 25, reporting that the nurse is in self-isolation. Detainees who had exposure to the nurse tested negative.

On June 29, the defendants reported that they would be implementing COVID-19 testing for all new arrivals on or about June 29 with a new Rapid RNA test that allowed for same-day results. They further reported that training for the medical staff and testing of the new equipment began the week of June 22.

The same day, the defendants appealed to the Ninth Circuit and the Ninth Circuit ordered mediation on July 8.

On August 5, the plaintiffs moved for a TRO directing defendants to conduct rapid testing of all class members, clear a dorm to isolate all class members who tested positive for COVID-19, and to observe the limits on increased population in the remaining dorms as set out by the preliminary injunction order. The plaintiffs claimed that the defendants failed to take meaningful steps to halt an outbreak of COVID-19, and added more class members to MVDF than they released, increasing the density while the outbreak spread. They pointed out that the defendants also left symptomatic class members in their dorms to potentially infect other people, leading to more positive cases. In the motion, the plaintiffs alleged that "MVDF has failed to implement widespread testing of detainees and staff not because the facility lacks the resources to do so but precisely because MVDF has not developed a workable strategy for facilitating the isolation and cohorting that appropriately responding to many test results would require . . . In other words, widespread testing has not been done because Defendants fear they would not be able to handle the truths that it would reveal."

On August 6, the court granted the TRO, stating that "[t]he defendants, having responded to the health crisis in such a cavalier fashion (even in the face of litigation and a string of court orders), have lost the credibility to complain that the relief requested by the plaintiffs is too rigid or burdensome. The defendants have also lost the right to be trusted that they will accomplish on their own what the plaintiffs contend requires a court order to ensure." 2020 WL 4554646. The defendants were ordered to administer a COVID-19 test that returns rapid results to all detainees at the facility for each week at a minimum, maintain the current practice of not admitting new class members to the facility, maintain a dormitory to segregate detainees who test positive for COVID-19, and file daily reports about the status of the facility and the defendants’ efforts to manage COVID-19 risk. The plaintiffs’ request to impose a rigid cap of 35 detainees per dormitory was denied and the defendants were ordered to show cause why a preliminary injunction should not issue requiring the defendants to meet some or all of the above requirements on an ongoing basis pending final resolution of this case.

After the status conference held on August 11, the parties agreed that the defendants could exercise discretion regarding how frequently to re-test people who have already tested positive. The court ordered the defendants to provide more detailed information in their daily reports under threat of attorney sanction. GEO was ordered to submit a declaration explaining the current status of testing capacity and speed at Mesa Verde, and the defendants were ordered to enable class counsel to communicate with detainees who refused testing by both written communication to the Mesa Verde population as a whole, as well as real-time communication with the individual detainees who refused testing. The court also ordered that class members must agree to be tested prior to release, and that defendants are required to inform class counsel if any class member tests positive upon or after release. The parties were ordered to file briefs on the issue of whether it would be legally appropriate and practical for the court to issue an order requiring regular testing of all staff at Mesa Verde.

On August 14, the court ordered the defendants to administer point-of-care tests to everyone at Mesa Verde facility who had not already tested positive, and to file a submission answering the question of how it could be sufficient from a medical standpoint to check on people known to be infected with COVID only two times per day, considering the ongoing outbreak at the facility. The court denied the plaintiffs request to release everyone in the facility who had tested negative. The Court ordered that each staff member entering the facility be tested and that they be subsequently tested once a week until further notice. Staff members who declined testing were not allowed to enter the facility.

The court further ordered the parties to file briefs discussing the appropriate level of care and monitoring necessary for a dorm full of people who have tested positive, the level of monitoring necessary to ensure that detainees are hospitalized promptly when needed, the assertion that people with COVID-19 are at greater risk of complications or death in the facility than if released, and who should pay for hospitalization and whether there are any financial disincentives to hospitalizing detainees. In the briefs, the plaintiffs criticized that the "[d]efendant's responses are not based on credible expert testimony[.]"

On August 21, the court ordered the defendants to create a written plan to improve their system of monitoring, caring for, and responding to medical assistance requests from detainees who had tested positive and who had health conditions that the CDC identified as creating an elevated risk of complications.

During the course of the litigation, the court granted several bail requests, which the defendant appealed to the Ninth Circuit on August 31.

The defendants submitted a written plan based on CDC guidelines on August 31. They argued that no further court order was warranted and that the court should specify "in objective terms what the constitutional requirements are for treating COVID-19 patients" that was “narrowly tailored” to constitutional requirements. They argued that the plaintiffs' request of "acceptable standards” or otherwise to release additional detainees was too vague. On September 2, the plaintiffs objected to the defendants' written plan which they considered "outdated" and "incomplete" and merely defended its current practices and alleged that the defendants failed to meet and confer with them, contrary to the court's order. The defendants objected to this characterization of their written plan, and claimed that as of September 4, all of the detainees at Mesa Verde who tested positive for COVID-19 had recovered under the criteria set out by the CDC.

On September 21, the defendants submitted a motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' complaint. They argued that the plaintiffs did not have a viable First Amendment retaliation claim, as a hunger strike is not a First Amendment protected conduct, and that their action in curbing such conduct had a legitimate goal in seeking to prevent civil detainees from harming themselves. The court continued to grant bail requests and requested briefing on the matter of likelihood of reinfection, finding that it was sufficiently unlikely to warrant heightened concern. Judge Chhabria denied the motion as moot on October 16, 2020, allowing the plaintiffs to file an amended complaint.

The plaintiffs filed their amended complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief and habeas petition on October 30 that requested certification for two subclasses, confined their claims for relief to the due process claims, and argued that it was defendants’ resistance to testing and quarantine led to the massive outbreak in Mesa Verde between June and August.

On November 2, the defendants filed a response arguing why the court should not issue a preliminary injunction requiring them to meet the conditions of the temporary restraining order pending resolution of the case. The defendants stated that the situation at Mesa Verde had evolved since the initial issuance of the August 6 order, there had been no positive cases in 3 months and had created intake procedures to use if intakes into the facility were to be allowed; ultimately they argued that the conditions required by the temporary restraining order now went beyond what was necessary to address a constitutional harm.The plaintiffs responded to the defendants on November 10, arguing that the situation at Mesa Verde still required the court's oversight and that the defendants' factual assertions about compliance with CDC and ICE guidelines were misrepresentations.

On December 3, 2020 Judge Chhabria granted the plaintiffs' motion for a second preliminary injunction, citing to the inconsistencies and misrepresentations in the record of how the defendants were caring for the detainees in Mesa Verde, especially given the 15 staff members who had recently tested positive for COVID-19 after several months of no positive cases. Judge Chhabria ordered the defendants to: (1) maintain the dorm reserved for positive-test detainees; (2) perform pre-intake screening for COVID-19 symptoms including temperature and verbal checks, and reserve a dorm for quarantining new intakes for 14 days; (3) limit each dorm's population sufficiently to allow for bunk beds to be spaced at least 6 feet apart; (4) administer rapid-result testing to all detainees and staff, isolate detainees who test positive and ensure that staff do not work; (5) isolate any symptomatic detainees and offer them a test; (6) report positive tests to plaintiff's counsel immediately and file weekly status reports; and (7) not transfer detainees out of Mesa Verde unless necessary for medical care, security, release/removal, or to prevent overcrowding.

The plaintiffs filed a motion for temporary restraining order on December 23, citing a new outbreak in YCJ, asking the court to step in and require protections for the class members detained in YCJ - including testing, isolation, prohibition of intakes and better hygiene supplies. The defendants filed their opposition, but Judge Chhabria granted the motion in part later that evening. The defendants were required to prevent new intakes into YCJ until the end of the outbreak (after there had been no new positive tests for 2 consecutive weeks), give rapid antigen tests to symptomatic class members and those who had been in close contact with a positive individual, individual isolation for symptomatic class members and isolate all individuals who test positive (either individually or with other positive detainees), clean and disinfect any cell or bunk prior to transfer, provide disposable masks to all class members daily, and provide daily updates to the court.

On January 6, 2021, Judge Chhabria converted the December 23 temporary restraining order to a preliminary injunction, requiring the defendants to continue the prescribed preventative measures for the duration of the outbreak in YCJ.

On January 19, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the compliant, strike portions of the complaint, or transfer the matter to the Eastern District of California.

On February 1, the federal defendants filed two appeals to the Ninth Circuit regarding the preliminary injunctions, which were later consolidated and sent to mediation (Case Nos. 21-15195 and 21-15197). Back in the district court, the plaintiffs filed a status report noting the defendants' noncompliance with the January 6 preliminary injunction for YCJ. They cited the defendants' inability to provide accurate and timely information, lack of clean cells, and not following protocols for determining when to quarantine or isolate individuals. Additionally, they cited the Pekoske Memo, which was a newly released DHS document regarding immigration enforcement and COVID-19 protocols in detention. The plaintiffs requested further relief, which Judge Chhabria denied their request in part, only requiring the defendants to provide testing information for each class member at YCJ going back to December 11, 2020, and required the parties to meet further on the effect of the Pekoske memo to the case.

Judge Chhabria denied the defendant's motion to dismiss on February 23, 2021, stating that GEO qualified as state actors for the purpose of the constitutional claim and denied the motion to transfer as frivolous. Judge Chhabria also denied the plaintiffs' request for further relief related to the Pekoske memo on March 16.

Following initial mediation related to the appeals, the parties requested a stay of discovery and future case management deadlines in the district court while they sought to resolve the case in mediation. Judge Chhabria granted the stay on March 18, 2021.

On March 27, the GEO defendants filed a motion to modify the December 3, 2020, preliminary injunction, requesting removal of the population cap in dorms that housed fully-vaccinated detainees and to eliminate weekly testing requirement for all fully vaccinated detainees and staff unless they were exposed to a positive individual or were symptomatic. On June 1, the GEO defendants further moved to modify the preliminary injunction to permit a total population of 300 detainees or less. The plaintiffs opposed this motion on June 3, arguing that the motion was not permissible since the parties had agreed to defer briefing and argument on the motion pending mediation at the appellate level and that further discovery would be required in order to fully brief the motion. Judge Chhabria denied the plaintiffs motion but stayed the briefing schedule on the motion to modify.

On July 14, 2021, the parties notified the court that they had reached an agreement in principle and that the Ninth Circuit had set a deadline of 60 days for the federal defendants to file a motion to dismiss the appeal; they stated this motion for dismissal, due September 14, would fully resolve the case and address the preliminary injunctions and their population caps, at issue in the GEO defendants' motions to modify.

The case is ongoing.

Averyn Lee - 09/25/2020
Chandler Hart-McGonigle - 11/22/2020
Caitlin Kierum - 09/07/2021


compress summary

- click to show/hide ALL -
Issues and Causes of Action
click to show/hide detail
Issues
Constitutional Clause
Due Process
Due Process: Substantive Due Process
Freedom of speech/association
Content of Injunction
Preliminary relief granted
COVID-19
CDC Guidance ordered implemented
Contact tracing ordered
COVID reporting ordered
COVID testing ordered/modified
Mitigation Denied
Mitigation Granted
Mitigation Requested
Population reduction/cap
PPE-ordered provided to prisoners for free
PPE-ordered worn by staff
Quarantine/isolation ordered
Release Granted
Release granted-group
Release granted-individual
Release Requested
Release-process created/modified
Sanitizer/Handsoap ordered made available/used
Social distancing ordered
Transfer-ordered or process created/modified
Wellness/temperature checks ordered
Crowding
Crowding / caseload
Defendant-type
Law-enforcement
General
Bathing and hygiene
Conditions of confinement
Sanitation / living conditions
Totality of conditions
Immigration/Border
Constitutional rights
Detention - conditions
Medical/Mental Health
Medical care, general
Plaintiff Type
Private Plaintiff
Special Case Type
Habeas
Type of Facility
Government-run
Non-government for profit
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
Defendant(s) GEO Group
Immigration and Customs Enforcement
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement
Plaintiff Description Seven individuals detained at the Mesa Verde Detention Facility and the Yuba County Jail seeking immediate release of detainees from unsafe conditions of the jail in light of the global coronavirus pandemic. The class is all civil immigration detainees at Mesa Verde and YCJ, with two subclasses: the “YCJ Subclass” and the “Mesa Verde Subclass.”
Indexed Lawyer Organizations ACLU Affiliates (any)
ACLU of Northern California
ACLU of Southern California
Lawyers Comm. for Civil Rights Under Law
Class action status sought Yes
Class action status outcome Granted
Filed Pro Se No
Prevailing Party Plaintiff
Public Int. Lawyer Yes
Nature of Relief Preliminary injunction / Temp. restraining order
Source of Relief Litigation
Order Duration 2020 - n/a
Filed 04/20/2020
Case Ongoing Yes
Additional Resources
click to show/hide detail
  See this case at CourtListener.com (May provide additional documents and, for active cases, real-time alerts)
  Zepeda Rivas v. Jennings (Immigration Detention)
https://www.aclunc.org/
Date: Apr. 24, 2020
By: ACLU of Northern California
[ Detail ] [ External Link ]

  Planned Parenthood Center for Choice, et al. v. Abbott, et al.
www.reproductiverights.org
Date: Apr. 22, 2020
By: Center for Reproductive Rights
[ Detail ] [ External Link ]

Court Docket(s)
N.D. Cal.
09/06/2021
3:20-cv-02732
IM-CA-0162-9000.pdf | Detail
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
General Documents
N.D. Cal.
04/20/2020
Class Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and Class Complaint for Injunctive and Declaratory Relief [ECF# 1]
IM-CA-0162-0001.pdf | Detail
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
N.D. Cal.
04/20/2020
Petitioners-Plaintiffs' Notice of Motion and Motion for Temporary Restraining Order [ECF# 5 & 5-1 to 5-5]
IM-CA-0162-0002.pdf | Detail
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
N.D. Cal.
04/20/2020
Declarations in Support of Petitioners-Plaintiffs' Motion for Temporary Restraining Order [ECF# 5-6, 5-7 & 35]
IM-CA-0162-0003.pdf | Detail
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
N.D. Cal.
04/20/2020
Plaintiffs-Petitioners' Notice of Motion and Motion for Provisional Class Certification; Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support Thereof [ECF# 6 & 6-1 to 6-14]
IM-CA-0162-0004.pdf | Detail
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
N.D. Cal.
04/25/2020
Federal Defendants' Opposition to Motions for TRO and Provisional Class Certification, and Motion to Stay in Light of Fraihart [ECF# 37 & 37-1 to 37-20]
IM-CA-0162-0005.pdf | Detail
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
N.D. Cal.
04/27/2020
Reply in Support of Petitioners-Plaintiffs' Motion for Temporary Restraining Order [ECF# 39 & 39-1 to 39-5]
IM-CA-0162-0006.pdf | Detail
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
N.D. Cal.
04/27/2020
Opposition to Motion to Stay in Light of Fraihat (ECF NO. 38) [ECF# 40]
IM-CA-0162-0007.pdf | Detail
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
N.D. Cal.
04/27/2020
Reply in Support of Petitioners-Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification [ECF# 41]
IM-CA-0162-0008.pdf | Detail
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
N.D. Cal.
04/27/2020
Federal Defendants' Reply in Support of Motion to Stay in Light of Fraihat [ECF# 50]
IM-CA-0162-0009.pdf | Detail
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
N.D. Cal.
04/29/2020
Order Granting Motion for Provisional Class Certification, Granting Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order, and Denying Motion for a Stay [ECF# 53] (445 F.Supp.3d 36)
IM-CA-0162-0010.pdf | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
N.D. Cal.
05/01/2020
Petitioners-Plaintiffs' Memorandum of Law Regarding Statutory Authority of Magistrate Judges [ECF# 62]
IM-CA-0162-0011.pdf | Detail
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
N.D. Cal.
05/22/2020
Petitioners-Plaintiffs' Notice of Motion and Motion for Preliminary Injunction and Supporting Exhibits (1/2) [ECF# 229, 229-1 to 229-19]
IM-CA-0162-0012.pdf | Detail
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
N.D. Cal.
05/22/2020
Exhibits to Petitioners-Plaintiffs' Notice of Motion and Motion for Preliminary Injunction (2/2) [ECF# 229-20 to 229-21]
IM-CA-0162-0013.pdf | Detail
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
N.D. Cal.
05/27/2020
Federal Defendants' (1) Motion for Order Confirming that Temporary Restraining Order has Expired, Ending Bail Process, and Vacating Bail Orders and (2) Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction [ECF# 264 (incl. 264-1 to 264-3)]
IM-CA-0162-0014.pdf | Detail
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
N.D. Cal.
05/29/2020
Petitioners-Plaintiffs' Reply in Support of Motion for Preliminary Injunction and Opposition to Motion to Dissolve Temporary Restraining Order [ECF# 286 (incl. 286-1 to 286-3)]
IM-CA-0162-0015.pdf | Detail
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
N.D. Cal.
06/01/2020
Federal Defendants' Reply in Support of Motion for Order Confirming that Temporary Restraining Order has Expired, Ending Bail Process, and Bail Orders and Objection to Plaintiffs' Declaration [ECF# 290]
IM-CA-0162-0016.pdf | Detail
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
N.D. Cal.
06/09/2020
Order Granting Motion for Preliminary Injunction [ECF# 357] (465 F.Supp.3d 1028)
IM-CA-0162-0017.pdf | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Source: ACLU
N.D. Cal.
06/29/2020
Defendants' Joint Status Report Re Plan to Test all Incoming Detainees and Positive COVID-19 Test of Geo Officer at Mesa Verde [ECF# 407]
IM-CA-0162-0018.pdf | Detail
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
N.D. Cal.
08/05/2020
Notice of Motion and Motion for Temporary Restraining Order [ECF# 485, 486, 487, 488 (& 488-1 to 488-13), 489 (& 489-1 to 489-8), 490]
IM-CA-0162-0019.pdf | Detail
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
N.D. Cal.
08/05/2020
Federal Defendants' Objections to Plaintiffs' Revised Proposed Temporary Restraining Order [ECF# 495]
IM-CA-0162-0020.pdf | Detail
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
N.D. Cal.
08/05/2020
Objections to Plaintiffs' Proposed Temporary Restraining Order [Doc. #490] [ECF# 496]
IM-CA-0162-0021.pdf | Detail
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
N.D. Cal.
08/06/2020
Reply in Support of Plaintiffs-Petitioners' Motion for Temporary Restraining Order [ECF# 497, 498 (& 498-1 to 498-6)]
IM-CA-0162-0022.pdf | Detail
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
N.D. Cal.
08/06/2020
Order Granting Motion for Temporary Restraining Order [ECF# 500] (2020 WL 4554646)
IM-CA-0162-0023.pdf | WESTLAW | Detail
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
N.D. Cal.
08/17/2020
Order to File Briefs Regarding Medical Conditions for COVID Positive Detainees [ECF# 563]
IM-CA-0162-0024.pdf | Detail
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
N.D. Cal.
08/19/2020
Federal Defendants' Response to the Court's August 17, 2020 Order Calling for Briefs and Declarations Regarding Medical Conditions for COVID-Positive Detainees [ECF# 585]
IM-CA-0162-0025.pdf | Detail
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
N.D. Cal.
08/20/2020
Petitioners-Plaintiffs' Response to Defendants' Submissions Re Medical Care at Mesa Verde [ECF# 591]
IM-CA-0162-0026.pdf | Detail
N.D. Cal.
08/21/2020
Order to Create Written Plan to Improve Medical Assistance for COVID-Positive Detainees [ECF# 595]
IM-CA-0162-0027.pdf | Detail
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
N.D. Cal.
08/31/2020
Defendants' Response to the Court's August 21, 2020 Order to Create a Written Plan to Improve Medical Assistance for COVID-Positive Detainees [ECF# 645, 645-1, 645-2]
IM-CA-0162-0028.pdf | Detail
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
N.D. Cal.
09/02/2020
Plaintiffs' Objections to Defendants' Written Plan to Improve Medical Assistance for COVID-Positive Detainees at Mesa Verde [ECF# 658, 659 (& 659-1, 659-5 - 659-7)]
IM-CA-0162-0029.pdf | Detail
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
N.D. Cal.
09/04/2020
Defendants' (1) Objection to the Plaintiffs' Characterization of Defendants' Response to the Court's August 21, 2020 Order and (2) Opposition to the Extent Plaintiffs Seek Expedited Discovery [ECF# 672 & 672-1]
IM-CA-0162-0030.pdf | Detail
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
N.D. Cal.
09/21/2020
Motion by Defendants the GEO Group, Inc. and Nathan Allen to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Complaint [ECF# 709]
IM-CA-0162-0031.pdf | Detail
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
N.D. Cal.
10/30/2020
First Amended Class Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and Class Complaint for Injunctive and Declaratory Relief [ECF# 780]
IM-CA-0162-0033.pdf | Detail
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
N.D. Cal.
11/02/2020
Defendants' Response to Order to Show Cause Why Preliminary Injunction Should not be Entered (ECF NO. 500) [ECF# 786]
IM-CA-0162-0035.pdf | Detail
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
N.D. Cal.
11/10/2020
Plaintiffs' Reply Memorandum in Support of Order to Show Cause Why Preliminary Injunction Should not be Entered (ECF NO. 500) [ECF# 799]
IM-CA-0162-0036.pdf | Detail
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
N.D. Cal.
12/03/2020
Order Granting Motion for Second Preliminary Injunction [ECF# 867] (504 F.Supp.3d 1060)
IM-CA-0162-0037.pdf | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
N.D. Cal.
12/23/2020
Order Granting Motion for TRO [ECF# 922] (2020 WL 9066082)
IM-CA-0162-0038.pdf | WESTLAW | Detail
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
N.D. Cal.
01/06/2021
Order Granting Motion for Preliminary Injunction Re Yuba County Jail [ECF# 951]
IM-CA-0162-0039.pdf | Detail
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
N.D. Cal.
02/02/2021
Plaintiffs' Status Report Regarding Implementation of the Yuba County Jail Preliminary Injunction and Issuance of New Department of Homeland Security Enforcement Guidance [ECF# 1005]
IM-CA-0162-0040.pdf | Detail
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
N.D. Cal.
02/12/2021
Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Request for Further Relief [ECF# 1037]
IM-CA-0162-0041.pdf | Detail
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
N.D. Cal.
06/03/2021
Plaintiffs' Administrative Motion to Strike Geo's Motion to Modify Preliminary Injunction (ECF 1104) or Extend Time for Briefing and Hearing [ECF# 1106]
IM-CA-0162-0042.pdf | Detail
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
N.D. Cal.
08/04/2021
Seventh Supplemental Declaration of Robert B. Greifinger, MD [ECF# 1134-5]
IM-CA-0162-0032.pdf | Detail
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
N.D. Cal.
08/04/2021
Declaration of Salmaan Deshavjee, MD, PHD, SCM [ECF# 1134-6 ]
IM-CA-0162-0034.pdf | Detail
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
show all people docs
Judges Chhabria, Vince Girdhari (N.D. Cal.) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0162-0010 | IM-CA-0162-0017 | IM-CA-0162-0023 | IM-CA-0162-0024 | IM-CA-0162-0027 | IM-CA-0162-0037 | IM-CA-0162-0038 | IM-CA-0162-0039 | IM-CA-0162-0041 | IM-CA-0162-9000
Plaintiff's Lawyers Beier, Genna Ellis (California) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0162-0001 | IM-CA-0162-0002 | IM-CA-0162-0003 | IM-CA-0162-0004 | IM-CA-0162-0006 | IM-CA-0162-0007 | IM-CA-0162-0008 | IM-CA-0162-0011 | IM-CA-0162-0012 | IM-CA-0162-0013 | IM-CA-0162-0015 | IM-CA-0162-0019 | IM-CA-0162-0022 | IM-CA-0162-0026 | IM-CA-0162-0029 | IM-CA-0162-0033 | IM-CA-0162-0036 | IM-CA-0162-0040 | IM-CA-0162-0042 | IM-CA-0162-9000
Bernwanger, Bree (California) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0162-0001 | IM-CA-0162-0002 | IM-CA-0162-0003 | IM-CA-0162-0004 | IM-CA-0162-0006 | IM-CA-0162-0007 | IM-CA-0162-0008 | IM-CA-0162-0011 | IM-CA-0162-0015 | IM-CA-0162-0019 | IM-CA-0162-0022 | IM-CA-0162-0026 | IM-CA-0162-0029 | IM-CA-0162-0033 | IM-CA-0162-0036 | IM-CA-0162-0040 | IM-CA-0162-0042 | IM-CA-0162-9000
Cook, Timothy W (Massachusetts) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0162-0001 | IM-CA-0162-0002 | IM-CA-0162-0003 | IM-CA-0162-0004 | IM-CA-0162-0006 | IM-CA-0162-0007 | IM-CA-0162-0008 | IM-CA-0162-0011 | IM-CA-0162-0015 | IM-CA-0162-0019 | IM-CA-0162-0022 | IM-CA-0162-0026 | IM-CA-0162-0029 | IM-CA-0162-0033 | IM-CA-0162-0036 | IM-CA-0162-0040 | IM-CA-0162-0042 | IM-CA-0162-9000
Freeman, William S. (California) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0162-0001 | IM-CA-0162-0002 | IM-CA-0162-0003 | IM-CA-0162-0004 | IM-CA-0162-0006 | IM-CA-0162-0007 | IM-CA-0162-0008 | IM-CA-0162-0011 | IM-CA-0162-0012 | IM-CA-0162-0013 | IM-CA-0162-0015 | IM-CA-0162-0019 | IM-CA-0162-0022 | IM-CA-0162-0026 | IM-CA-0162-0029 | IM-CA-0162-0033 | IM-CA-0162-0036 | IM-CA-0162-0040 | IM-CA-0162-0042 | IM-CA-0162-9000
Friedman, Jennifer Taylor (California) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0162-9000
Gonzalez, Matt (California) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0162-0001 | IM-CA-0162-0002 | IM-CA-0162-0003 | IM-CA-0162-0004 | IM-CA-0162-0006 | IM-CA-0162-0007 | IM-CA-0162-0008 | IM-CA-0162-0011 | IM-CA-0162-0012 | IM-CA-0162-0013 | IM-CA-0162-0015 | IM-CA-0162-0019 | IM-CA-0162-0022 | IM-CA-0162-0026 | IM-CA-0162-0029 | IM-CA-0162-0033 | IM-CA-0162-0036 | IM-CA-0162-0040 | IM-CA-0162-0042
Kaufman, Michael Bryan (California) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0162-0001 | IM-CA-0162-0002 | IM-CA-0162-0033
Lakin, Judah Ben (California) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0162-0001 | IM-CA-0162-0002 | IM-CA-0162-0003 | IM-CA-0162-0004 | IM-CA-0162-0006 | IM-CA-0162-0007 | IM-CA-0162-0008 | IM-CA-0162-0011 | IM-CA-0162-0015 | IM-CA-0162-0019 | IM-CA-0162-0022 | IM-CA-0162-0026 | IM-CA-0162-0029 | IM-CA-0162-0033 | IM-CA-0162-0036 | IM-CA-0162-0040 | IM-CA-0162-0042 | IM-CA-0162-9000
MacLean, Emilou (California) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0162-0001 | IM-CA-0162-0002 | IM-CA-0162-0003 | IM-CA-0162-0004 | IM-CA-0162-0006 | IM-CA-0162-0007 | IM-CA-0162-0008 | IM-CA-0162-0011 | IM-CA-0162-0012 | IM-CA-0162-0013 | IM-CA-0162-0015 | IM-CA-0162-0019 | IM-CA-0162-0022 | IM-CA-0162-0026 | IM-CA-0162-0029 | IM-CA-0162-0033 | IM-CA-0162-0036 | IM-CA-0162-0040 | IM-CA-0162-0042 | IM-CA-0162-9000
Padilla, Stephanie (California) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0162-0001 | IM-CA-0162-0002 | IM-CA-0162-0003 | IM-CA-0162-0004 | IM-CA-0162-0006 | IM-CA-0162-0007 | IM-CA-0162-0008 | IM-CA-0162-0011 | IM-CA-0162-0015 | IM-CA-0162-0019 | IM-CA-0162-0022 | IM-CA-0162-0026 | IM-CA-0162-0029 | IM-CA-0162-0036 | IM-CA-0162-0040 | IM-CA-0162-0042 | IM-CA-0162-9000
Raju, Manour (California) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0162-0001 | IM-CA-0162-0002 | IM-CA-0162-0003 | IM-CA-0162-0004 | IM-CA-0162-0006 | IM-CA-0162-0007 | IM-CA-0162-0008 | IM-CA-0162-0011 | IM-CA-0162-0012 | IM-CA-0162-0013 | IM-CA-0162-0015 | IM-CA-0162-0019 | IM-CA-0162-0022 | IM-CA-0162-0026 | IM-CA-0162-0029 | IM-CA-0162-0033 | IM-CA-0162-0036 | IM-CA-0162-0040 | IM-CA-0162-0042
Ressl-Moyer, Tifanei (California) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0162-0001 | IM-CA-0162-0002 | IM-CA-0162-0003 | IM-CA-0162-0004 | IM-CA-0162-0006 | IM-CA-0162-0007 | IM-CA-0162-0008 | IM-CA-0162-0011
Riordan, Sean Connor (California) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0162-0001 | IM-CA-0162-0002 | IM-CA-0162-0003 | IM-CA-0162-0004 | IM-CA-0162-0006 | IM-CA-0162-0007 | IM-CA-0162-0008 | IM-CA-0162-0011 | IM-CA-0162-0012 | IM-CA-0162-0013 | IM-CA-0162-0015 | IM-CA-0162-0019 | IM-CA-0162-0022 | IM-CA-0162-0026 | IM-CA-0162-0029 | IM-CA-0162-0033 | IM-CA-0162-0036 | IM-CA-0162-0040 | IM-CA-0162-0042 | IM-CA-0162-9000
Rodarte, Hayden (California) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0162-0001 | IM-CA-0162-0002 | IM-CA-0162-0003 | IM-CA-0162-0004 | IM-CA-0162-0006 | IM-CA-0162-0007 | IM-CA-0162-0008 | IM-CA-0162-0011 | IM-CA-0162-0015 | IM-CA-0162-0019 | IM-CA-0162-0022 | IM-CA-0162-0026 | IM-CA-0162-0029 | IM-CA-0162-0033 | IM-CA-0162-0036 | IM-CA-0162-0040 | IM-CA-0162-0042 | IM-CA-0162-9000
Salceda, Angelica H. (California) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0162-0001 | IM-CA-0162-0002 | IM-CA-0162-0003 | IM-CA-0162-0004 | IM-CA-0162-0006 | IM-CA-0162-0007 | IM-CA-0162-0008 | IM-CA-0162-0011 | IM-CA-0162-0012 | IM-CA-0162-0013 | IM-CA-0162-0015 | IM-CA-0162-0019 | IM-CA-0162-0022 | IM-CA-0162-0026 | IM-CA-0162-0029 | IM-CA-0162-9000
Schenker, Martin S. (California) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0162-0001 | IM-CA-0162-0002 | IM-CA-0162-0003 | IM-CA-0162-0004 | IM-CA-0162-0006 | IM-CA-0162-0007 | IM-CA-0162-0008 | IM-CA-0162-0011 | IM-CA-0162-0015 | IM-CA-0162-0019 | IM-CA-0162-0022 | IM-CA-0162-0026 | IM-CA-0162-0029 | IM-CA-0162-0033 | IM-CA-0162-0036 | IM-CA-0162-0040 | IM-CA-0162-0042 | IM-CA-0162-9000
Ugarte, Fransisco (California) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0162-0001 | IM-CA-0162-0002 | IM-CA-0162-0003 | IM-CA-0162-0004 | IM-CA-0162-0006 | IM-CA-0162-0007 | IM-CA-0162-0008 | IM-CA-0162-0011 | IM-CA-0162-0012 | IM-CA-0162-0015 | IM-CA-0162-0019 | IM-CA-0162-0022 | IM-CA-0162-0026 | IM-CA-0162-0029 | IM-CA-0162-0033 | IM-CA-0162-0036 | IM-CA-0162-0040 | IM-CA-0162-0042 | IM-CA-0162-9000
Unger, Francisco (Massachusetts) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0162-0001 | IM-CA-0162-0002 | IM-CA-0162-0003 | IM-CA-0162-0004 | IM-CA-0162-0006 | IM-CA-0162-0007 | IM-CA-0162-0008 | IM-CA-0162-0011 | IM-CA-0162-0015 | IM-CA-0162-0019 | IM-CA-0162-0022 | IM-CA-0162-0026 | IM-CA-0162-0029 | IM-CA-0162-0033 | IM-CA-0162-0036 | IM-CA-0162-0040 | IM-CA-0162-0042 | IM-CA-0162-9000
Veroff, Julie Michelle (California) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0162-9000
Wells, Jordan (California) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0162-0001 | IM-CA-0162-0002 | IM-CA-0162-0003 | IM-CA-0162-0004 | IM-CA-0162-0006 | IM-CA-0162-0007 | IM-CA-0162-0008 | IM-CA-0162-0011 | IM-CA-0162-0015 | IM-CA-0162-0019 | IM-CA-0162-0022 | IM-CA-0162-0026 | IM-CA-0162-0029 | IM-CA-0162-0033 | IM-CA-0162-0036 | IM-CA-0162-0040 | IM-CA-0162-0042 | IM-CA-0162-9000
Wells, Kelly Engel (California) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0162-9000
Wille, Amalia Margarete (California) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0162-0001 | IM-CA-0162-0002 | IM-CA-0162-0003 | IM-CA-0162-0004 | IM-CA-0162-0006 | IM-CA-0162-0007 | IM-CA-0162-0008 | IM-CA-0162-0011 | IM-CA-0162-0015 | IM-CA-0162-0019 | IM-CA-0162-0022 | IM-CA-0162-0026 | IM-CA-0162-0029 | IM-CA-0162-0033 | IM-CA-0162-0036 | IM-CA-0162-0040 | IM-CA-0162-0042 | IM-CA-0162-9000
Defendant's Lawyers Anderson, David Lloyd (California) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0162-0005 | IM-CA-0162-0009 | IM-CA-0162-0014 | IM-CA-0162-0016 | IM-CA-0162-0018 | IM-CA-0162-0020 | IM-CA-0162-0025 | IM-CA-0162-0028 | IM-CA-0162-0030 | IM-CA-0162-0035
Choe, Shiwon (California) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0162-0014 | IM-CA-0162-0016 | IM-CA-0162-0018 | IM-CA-0162-0020 | IM-CA-0162-0025 | IM-CA-0162-0028 | IM-CA-0162-0030 | IM-CA-0162-0035 | IM-CA-0162-9000
Coleman, Susan E. (California) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0162-0018 | IM-CA-0162-0021 | IM-CA-0162-0028 | IM-CA-0162-0030 | IM-CA-0162-0031 | IM-CA-0162-9000
Garbers, Wendy Marie (California) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0162-0005 | IM-CA-0162-0009 | IM-CA-0162-0014 | IM-CA-0162-0016 | IM-CA-0162-0018 | IM-CA-0162-0020 | IM-CA-0162-0035 | IM-CA-0162-9000
Hong, Neal (California) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0162-0035 | IM-CA-0162-9000
Hsu, Shining J (California) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0162-9000
Newman, Michael A.S. (California) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0162-0031 | IM-CA-0162-9000
Oakes, Royal F. (California) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0162-0031 | IM-CA-0162-9000
Weinstein, David S. (Florida) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0162-0031 | IM-CA-0162-9000
Winslow, Sara (California) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0162-0005 | IM-CA-0162-0009 | IM-CA-0162-0014 | IM-CA-0162-0016 | IM-CA-0162-0018 | IM-CA-0162-0020 | IM-CA-0162-0035 | IM-CA-0162-9000
Zack, Adrienne (California) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0162-0005 | IM-CA-0162-0009 | IM-CA-0162-0014 | IM-CA-0162-0016 | IM-CA-0162-0018 | IM-CA-0162-0020 | IM-CA-0162-0035 | IM-CA-0162-9000
Other Lawyers Day, Allison Marie (California) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0162-9000
Hon, Willis (California) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0162-9000

- click to show/hide ALL -

new search
view search results
page permalink

- top of page -