Jane Doe #1, Jane Doe #2, Norlan Flores, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Kirstjen M. Nielsen, et al.
Published: May 15, 2020 | Result Date: Feb. 19, 2020 | Filing Date: Jun. 8, 2015 |Case number: 4:15-cv-00250-DCB Bench Decision – Permanent Injunction
Judge
Court
D AZ
Attorneys
Plaintiff
Colette R. Mayer
(Morrison & Foerster LLP)
Jack W. Londen
(Morrison & Foerster LLP)
John S. Douglass
(Morrison & Foerster LLP)
Pieter S. de Ganon
(Morrison & Foerster LLP)
Alvaro M. Huerta
(National Immigration Law Center)
Bree A. Bernwanger
(Lawyers' Committee For Civil Rights)
Mary Kenney
(National Immigration Litigation Alliance)
Karolina J. Walters
(American Immigration Council)
Yvette Borja
(ACLU Foundation of Arizona)
Defendant
Carlton F. Sheffield
(U.S. Dept. of Justice)
Christina Parascandola
(U.S. Dept. of Justice)
Colin A. Kisor
(U.S. Dept. of Justice)
Katelyn Masetta-Alvarez
(U.S. Dept. of Justice)
Michael A. Celone
(U.S. Dept. of Justice)
William C. Silvis
(U.S. Dept. of Justice)
Facts
A class action suit was initiated by formerly detained civil immigration detainees against the U.S. Customs and Border Patrol concerning the conditions of confinement in CBP's Tucson Sector stations. The suit alleged that the conditions in the Brian A. Terry, Casa Grande, Douglas, Sonita, Nogales, Why/Ajo, Willcox, and Three Points stations violated Plaintiffs' due process rights and sought an injunction compelling their improvement.
Contentions
PLAINTIFFS' CONTENTIONS: Plaintiffs contended that they were subjected to unconstitutional conditions during their detention in CBP custody. Plaintiffs further contended that defendants kept them in crowded cells that were unsanitary, cold, and illuminated 24 hours of the day, seven days a week. Plaintiffs also contended that defendants forced Plaintiffs to sleep on the floor, without beds or bedding for the duration of their detention, which spanned over three days in some instances. Plaintiffs also contended that defendants did not provide potable water, adequate food, or adequate medical screening and care. Plaintiffs further contended that defendants denied them sanitation and hygiene products, including diapers and access to showers. Plaintiffs also alleged that the conditions defendants subjected them to were punitive and a violation of the U.S. Constitution.
DEFENDANTS' CONTENTIONS: Defendants denied the contentions and argued that the conditions plaintiffs encountered during their extended detentions were not punitive. Defendants further contended that the state of the detention facilities were the result of capacity restraints.
Result
The court granted plaintiff's request for a permanent injunction enjoining defendants from holding "processing complete" detainees for more than 48 hours without first providing confinement conditions that allow detainees to sleep in a bed with a blanket, shower, access to medical assessments by medical professionals, and potable water and food options that meet acceptable dietary standards.
Length
seven days
For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:
Email
jeremy@reprintpros.com
for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390