Cancino Castellar et al v. Kelly et al
Filing
179
Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Plaintiff's Renewed Motion for Class Certification (ECF No. 125 ) and Certifying the Class for Declaratory Relief. Plaintiffs Cancino Castellar and Ana Maria Hernandez Aguas are appointed class repres entatives. On or before 9/15/21, Plaintiffs are ordered to submit a short brief, not to exceed three pages, about which attorneys are to be appointed as class counsel pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(g). Signed by Judge Cynthia Bashant on 9/8/21. (jmo)
Case 3:17-cv-00491-BAS-AHG Document 179 Filed 09/08/21 PageID.4469 Page 1 of 28
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
12
15
16
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND
DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFFS’
RENEWED MOTION FOR CLASS
CERTIFICATION (ECF No. 125)
AND CERTIFYING THE CLASS
FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF
Plaintiffs,
13
14
Case No. 17-cv-00491-BAS-AHG
JOSE ORLANDO CANCINO
CASTELLAR, et al.,
v.
ALEJANDRO MAYORKAS, et al.,
Defendants.
17
18
19
In this action, individuals who were held in the custody of Defendants Department
20
of Homeland Security (“DHS”) and its agencies challenge Defendants for not providing
21
prompt presentment to an immigration judge within 48 hours of arrest. Plaintiffs seek to
22
certify a class of individuals, other than unaccompanied minors or individuals with
23
administratively final removal orders, who are or will have been in the civil custody of the
24
San Diego offices of Defendants for longer than 48 hours and have not had a hearing before
25
an immigration judge for declaratory and injunctive relief.
26
The Court is asked to decide whether it has jurisdiction under Section 242 of the
27
Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”), 8 U.S.C. § 1252, to certify the class. The Court
28
is also asked to decide whether the proposed class definition in the renewed motion for
-117cv491
Case 3:17-cv-00491-BAS-AHG Document 179 Filed 09/08/21 PageID.4470 Page 2 of 28
1
class certification improperly broadens the class, as compared to the class definition set
2
forth in the Complaint. After resolving these preliminary issues, the Court must decide
3
whether the proposed class satisfies the requirements of Rule 23(a) and (b)(2) of the
4
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
5
The Court holds that it lacks jurisdiction under Section 1252(e)(1) to certify the class
6
as to individuals screened for or subject to expedited removal proceedings under Section
7
1225(b)(1) because the statute requires that those individuals be held in mandatory
8
detention. The Court separately holds that Section 1252(f)(1) strips it of jurisdiction to
9
certify the class for injunctive relief.
In addition, the Court finds that Plaintiffs
10
impermissibly broaden the class by including individuals detained outside of the district in
11
the class definition, who were not included in the initial proposed class definition set forth
12
in the Complaint. The Court exercises its jurisdiction to redefine the class as follows:
All individuals in the Southern District of California—other than individuals
subject to expedited removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(1), unaccompanied
minors, or individuals with administratively final removal orders—who
(1) are or will have been in the civil custody of the San Diego offices of
Defendants for longer than 48 hours and (2) have not had a hearing before an
immigration judge.
13
14
15
16
17
18
The Court concludes that it has jurisdiction to certify the class as redefined for declaratory
19
relief and that the redefined class satisfies the requirements of Rule 23(a) and (b)(2).
20
Accordingly, the Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART Plaintiffs’ renewed
21
motion for class certification. (ECF No. 125.)
22
23
I.
BACKGROUND
Named Plaintiffs1
24
A.
25
Plaintiffs Jose Orlando Cancino Castellar, Ana Maria Hernandez Aguas, and
26
Michael Gonzalez (“Named Plaintiffs”) filed the Complaint on March 9, 2017. (Compl.,
27
28
1
The Complaint and the parties use the terms “Plaintiff-Petitioners” and “DefendantRespondents.” For ease, the Court uses the terms “Plaintiffs” and “Defendants.”
-217cv491
Case 3:17-cv-00491-BAS-AHG Document 179 Filed 09/08/21 PageID.4471 Page 3 of 28
1
ECF No. 1.) At the time of the filing of the Complaint, Named plaintiffs had been in
2
Defendants’ custody for more than 48 hours following their initial arrests without having
3
seen an immigration judge. (Compl. ¶¶ 9–11, 47–49, ECF No. 1.)
4
1.
5
Cancino Castellar
6
The Complaint describes Cancino Castellar as a noncitizen eligible for Deferred
7
Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA). (Compl. ¶ 47.) Cancino Castellar’s Form I-2132
8
indicates that he was a student with no criminal history and had lived in the United States
9
from 2004, when he was five years old. (ECF No. 171-9 at 1, 3.) DHS took Cancino
10
Castellar into custody on February 17, 2017, and detained him at the Otay Mesa Detention
11
Center. (Compl. ¶ 47.) On February 21, 2017, ICE issued him a Notice to Appear (“NTA”)
12
and a warrant for his arrest and determined that he should not be released from custody.
13
(ECF 28-2, at 4-5, NTA.) The NTA was filed with the immigration court on February 24,
14
2017. (Id.) At the time of the filing of the Complaint, on March 9, 2017, Cancino Castellar
15
had not seen an immigration judge nor had he been notified of a date for an initial
16
appearance or a bond hearing. (Compl. ¶ 47; Cancino Castellar Decl. ¶ 8, ECF No. 125-
17
4.) Cancino Castellar first saw an immigration judge on March 23, 2017. (ECF No. 28-2
18
at 9, Notice of Hearing.)
19
2.
20
Ana Maria Hernandez Aguas
21
The Complaint describes Hernandez Aguas as a mother of two U.S. citizen children
22
eligible to apply for cancellation of removal. (Compl. ¶ 48.) DHS took Hernandez Aguas
23
into custody on February 7, 2017. (ECF No. 28-2 at 9.) She was processed at a Border
24
Patrol station in San Clemente and was sent to another station in Chula Vista, where she
25
stayed until February 12, 2017. (Hernandez Aguas Decl. ¶¶ 5–6, ECF No. 125-5.)
26
27
28
2
Form I-213 is a recorded recollection of immigration officer’s interview with a noncitizen
individual. See Espinoza v. I.N.S., 45 F.3d 308, 309 n.1 (9th Cir. 1995), as amended on denial of reh’g
(Jan. 12, 1995) (quoting Bustos–Torres v. INS, 898 F.2d 1053, 1056 (5th Cir. 1990)).
-317cv491
Case 3:17-cv-00491-BAS-AHG Document 179 Filed 09/08/21 PageID.4472 Page 4 of 28
1
Hernandez Aguas was detained first at the San Luis Regional Detention Center for two
2
days and then after at the Otay Mesa Detention Center. (Compl. ¶ 48.) ICE filed
3
Hernandez’s NTA with the immigration court on February 21, 2021. (Hernandez Aguas
4
NTA, ECF No. 171-7.) At the time of the filing of the Complaint, she had not seen an
5
immigration judge nor been scheduled for an initial master calendar hearing. Hernandez
6
Aguas was presented to an immigration judge for the first time at a bond hearing on March
7
13, 2017. (Compl. ¶ 48; Hernandez Aguas Decl. ¶¶ 9–11, ECF No. 125-6.)
8
3.
9
Michael Gonzalez
10
Michael Gonzalez was taken into custody on November 17, 2016, at the San Ysidro
11
Port of Entry, where he expressed a fear of persecution in Mexico. (Gonzalez Decl. ¶¶ 4–
12
5, ECF No. 125-7.) Gonzalez told a CBP official that he is a United States Citizen and that
13
he was fearful of being forced to live in Mexico. 3 (Id. ¶ 5.) He was transferred to the Otay
14
Mesa Detention Center a week later. (Id.) An asylum officer conducted a credible fear
15
interview and determined that Gonzalez had a credible fear of persecution. (Id. ¶ 7.) DHS
16
served Gonzalez with an NTA on January 5, 2017, and his first hearing in immigration
17
court was scheduled for April 5, 2017. (Id. ¶¶ 8, 9.) At the time of the filing of the
18
Complaint, Gonzalez had been detained at the Otay Mesa Detention Center without seeing
19
an immigration judge. (Compl. ¶ 49.)
20
21
B.
22
The statutory and regulatory framework relevant to this action is set forth in the
23
Court’s prior orders. (ECF Nos. 49, 56, 63.) The Court briefly summarizes some
24
significant parts here.
Custody Determination and Removal Proceedings
25
26
27
28
3
While the record is not clear whether there was a determination that Gonzalez was not a United
States Citizen, Plaintiffs have “effectively concede[d] that Gonzalez is an ‘arriving alien’ under applicable
law.” (ECF No. 63 at 39:22–23 (citing ECF No. 61 at 22 and 8 U.S.C. § 1225(a)(1)).)
-417cv491
Case 3:17-cv-00491-BAS-AHG Document 179 Filed 09/08/21 PageID.4473 Page 5 of 28
1
1.
Initial Custody Determination
2
An immigration officer may arrest a noncitizen individual with or without a warrant.
3
8 U.S.C. §§ 1226(a) (arrest with a warrant), 1357(a)(2) (arrest without a warrant). A
4
warrant is required unless the immigration officer apprehends a noncitizen individual while
5
the individual is entering, attempting to enter, or is present in the United States in violation
6
of the immigration laws. See 8 U.S.C. § 1357(a)(2).
7
If an arrest is made with a warrant, ICE “may” detain or release the arrested
8
noncitizen individual pending the formal removal proceedings before an immigration
9
judge. 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a). If an arrest is made without a warrant, the government must
10
“without unnecessary delay” have an officer examine the arrested individual “as to [the
11
individual’s] right to enter or remain in the United States.” 8 U.S.C. § 1357(a)(2); see also
12
8 C.F.R. § 287.3(a) (providing that “an alien arrested without a warrant . . . will be
13
examined by an officer other than the arresting officer” but “the arresting officer” may
14
conduct the examination “if taking the alien before another officer would entail
15
unnecessary delay”). Upon finding “prima facie evidence that the arrested alien was
16
entering, attempting to enter, or is present in the United States in violation of the
17
immigration laws,” the examining officer must: refer the case to an immigration judge;
18
order the individual removed on an expedited basis, pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(1) and
19
8 C.F.R. § 235.3(b); or take other action as authorized by relevant law and regulations.
20
8 C.F.R. § 287.3(b). Within 48 hours of the arrest without a warrant, the officer must
21
determine “whether the individual will be continued in custody or released” and whether
22
to issue an NTA and an arrest warrant. 8 C.F.R. § 287.3(d).
23
24
2.
Removal Proceedings
25
Noncitizen individuals that the CBP determines inadmissible are ordinarily placed
26
in a removal proceeding set forth in Section 240 of the INA unless a statutory exception
27
applies. 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(a)(3). One such exception applies to arriving aliens and “certain
28
other aliens” who recently entered the United States without inspection and lack valid entry
-517cv491
Case 3:17-cv-00491-BAS-AHG Document 179 Filed 09/08/21 PageID.4474 Page 6 of 28
1
documents or have tried to gain their admission by fraud. See 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(1). Those
2
noncitizen individuals are placed in expedited removal proceedings under Section
3
235(b)(1) of the INA. Id.
4
5
a.
Section 240 Removal Proceeding
6
A Section 240 removal proceeding is initiated when an immigration officer files an
7
NTA against an alien with the immigration court, an entity within the Executive Office for
8
Immigration Review (“EOIR”). 8 C.F.R. § 1239.1(a); see also 8 C.F.R. § 1003.14. By
9
statute, the INA requires that “in order that an alien be permitted the opportunity to secure
10
counsel before the first hearing date in [Section 240 removal proceedings], the hearing date
11
shall not be scheduled earlier than 10 days after service of the [NTA], unless the alien
12
requests in writing an earlier hearing date.” 8 U.S.C. § 1229(b)(1).
13
14
b.
Expedited Removal Proceeding
15
If a noncitizen individual “meets the requirements for expedited removal pursuant
16
to 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b), DHS has the discretion to place them in the expedited removal
17
process or to place them in full removal proceedings before an immigration judge pursuant
18
to INA Section 240, 8 U.S.C. § 1229a.” (DHS Resp. to RFA No. 3, ECF No. 125-17 at 4.)
19
The expedited removal proceeding can result in a final removal order “without further
20
hearing or review unless the alien indicates either an intention to apply for asylum . . . or a
21
fear of persecution.” 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(1)(A)(i). Once the individual indicates the
22
intention to apply for asylum or a fear of persecution, the individual is referred for a
23
credible fear determination interview. Id. § 1225(b)(1)(A)(ii). The statute requires the
24
individual be detained “pending a final determination of credible fear of persecution and,
25
if found not to have such a fear, until removed.” Id. § 1225(b)(1)(B)(iii)(IV). Upon a
26
finding of credible fear, the individual is placed in detention and referred to a Section 240
27
removal proceeding before an immigration judge. Id. § 1225(b)(1)(B)(ii) (“[T]he alien
28
shall be detained for further consideration of the application for asylum.”); 8 C.F.R.
-617cv491
Case 3:17-cv-00491-BAS-AHG Document 179 Filed 09/08/21 PageID.4475 Page 7 of 28
1
§ 235.6(a)(1)(ii) (stating the NTA will be issued to initiate a Section 240 proceeding where
2
“an alien subject to expedited removal . . . has been . . . granted asylum”).
3
A final expedited removal order is issued when an individual screened for an
4
expedited removal proceeding waives his or her right to an immigration judge’s review of
5
credible fear determination or an immigration judge affirms an individual’s lack of credible
6
fear. 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(1)(B)(iii)(I).
7
8
3.
Initial Master Calendar Hearing
9
The initial Master Calendar Hearing (“IMCH”) is the first removal hearing
10
conducted by an immigration judge. See 8 C.F.R. § 1240.10(a). At the IMCH, detainees
11
may request a bond hearing, in which case the immigration judge must schedule the bond
12
hearing at the earliest possible date. EOIR Policy Manual, Pt. II, Chs. 4.15(e), 9.3(d),
13
https://www.justice.gov/eoir/eoir-policy-manual/ (last visited Sep. 5, 2021). In addition,
14
the regulation requires the immigration judge to:
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
(1) Advise the respondent of his or her right to representation, at no expense
to the government, by counsel of his or her own choice authorized to practice
in the proceedings and require the respondent to state then and there whether
he or she desires representation;
(2) Advise the respondent of the availability of pro bono legal services for the
immigration court location at which the hearing will take place, and ascertain
that the respondent has received a list of such pro bono legal service providers.
(3) Ascertain that the respondent has received a copy of appeal rights.
(4) Advise the respondent that he or she will have a reasonable opportunity to
examine and object to the evidence against him or her, to present evidence in
his or her own behalf and to cross-examine witnesses presented by the
government (but the respondent shall not be entitled to examine such national
security information as the government may proffer in opposition to the
respondent's admission to the United States or to an application by the
respondent for discretionary relief);
27
28
(5) Place the respondent under oath;
-717cv491
Case 3:17-cv-00491-BAS-AHG Document 179 Filed 09/08/21 PageID.4476 Page 8 of 28
1
2
(6) Read the factual allegations and the charges in the notice to appear to the
respondent and explain them in non-technical language; and
3
4
5
(7) Enter the notice to appear as an exhibit in the Record of Proceeding.
8 C.F.R. § 1240.10(a).
6
The IMCH provides an opportunity for the immigration judge to verify service of
7
the NTA, provide the NTA if service was not made, and examine the NTA for and demand
8
correction of any defects. See EOIR Policy Manual, Pt. II, Ch. 4.15. Where there are
9
otherwise no issues with the NTA, “the immigration judge shall require the [individual] to
10
plead to the [NTA] by stating whether he or she admits or denies the factual allegations
11
and his or her removability under the charges contained therein.” 8 C.F.R. § 1240.10(c).
12
The immigration judge advises the individual of his or her opportunity to examine and
13
object to evidence of removability. Id. § 1240.10(a)(4). “If necessary, an interpreter is
14
provided to an alien whose command of the English language is inadequate to fully
15
understand and participate in the hearing.” See EOIR Policy Manual, Pt. II, Ch. 4.15(f).
16
17
C.
18
Plaintiffs filed this action, alleging that Defendants’ policies and practices violate
19
the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, the Fourth
20
Amendment’s prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures without probable cause,
21
and the APA, 5 U.S.C. §§ 702, 706(1), 706(2)(A)–(D). (Compl. ¶¶ 75–80, 81–84, 85–90.)
22
As relief, Plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment, an injunction barring the Defendants’
23
allegedly unlawful policy and practice, and the issuance of writs of habeas corpus
24
commanding the release of Plaintiffs and class members from detention “to the extent
25
necessary for the Defendant[s] to comply with their constitutional and statutory
26
obligations.” (Id. at 23, Prayer for Relief.)
27
28
Relevant Procedural History
Plaintiffs filed their first motion to certify the class, which requested certifying the
proposed class set forth in the Complaint:
-817cv491
Case 3:17-cv-00491-BAS-AHG Document 179 Filed 09/08/21 PageID.4477 Page 9 of 28
All individuals in the Southern District of California, other than those with
final removal orders, who are or will be detained by DHS more than 48 hours
without a hearing before an immigration judge or judicial review of whether
their detention is justified by probable cause.
1
2
3
4
(Compl. ¶ 68; Mot. for Class Cert., ECF No. 2.)
5
Defendants moved to dismiss the Complaint for lack of jurisdiction pursuant to Rule
6
12(b)(1) and for failure to state a claim pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6). (ECF No. 28.) The
7
Court granted Defendants’ motion and terminated Plaintiffs’ motion to certify the class as
8
moot. (ECF No. 49.)
9
After the Supreme Court decided Jennings v. Rodriguez, 138 S. Ct. 830 (2018),
10
Plaintiffs moved for a reconsideration of the dismissal. (ECF No. 50.) The Court reinstated
11
Plaintiffs’ Fifth Amendment claims but not the Fourth Amendment claims. (ECF No. 56.)
12
Defendants renewed the motion to dismiss the Complaint (ECF No. 60), and the Court
13
dismissed Plaintiff Gonzalez’s procedural due process claim and all Plaintiffs’ Section
14
706(1) APA claims. (ECF No. 63.) The Court declined to dismiss other Plaintiffs’
15
procedural due process claims and all Plaintiffs’ substantive due process claims raised
16
under the Fifth Amendment. (ECF No. 63.) The Court denied Plaintiffs’ second motion
17
for reconsideration. (ECF No. 178.)
18
Plaintiffs renew their motion for class certification. (ECF No. 125.) Defendants
19
have opposed (ECF No. 133), and Plaintiffs have replied (ECF No. 140). The Court held
20
an oral argument. (ECF No. 177.) The motion is ripe for decision.
21
22
23
24
II.
JURISDICTION
Defendants invoke Section 242(e) and (f) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. § 1252(e), (f), to
argue that the Court lacks jurisdiction to certify the class or grant class-wide relief.
25
26
A.
27
Section 1252(e) limits and channels judicial review of expedited removal orders.
28
8 U.S.C. § 1252(e). Among others, the Court cannot “certify a class under Rule 23 of the
Section 1252(e)(1), (3)
-917cv491
Case 3:17-cv-00491-BAS-AHG Document 179 Filed 09/08/21 PageID.4478 Page 10 of 28
1
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in any action for which judicial review is authorized under
2
a subsequent paragraph of this subsection.” Id. § 1252(e)(1). Defendants argue that the
3
present action falls within the scope of paragraph (e)(3), entitled “[c]hallenges on validity
4
of the system,” which channels “[j]udicial review of determinations under section 1225(b)
5
. . . and its implementation” to the United States District Court for the District of Columbia.
6
Id. § 1252(e)(3)(A); see also United States v. Barajas-Alvarado, 655 F.3d 1077, 1087 n. 10
7
(9th Cir. 2011) (Ҥ 1252(e)(3) limits jurisdiction over general challenges to expedited
8
removal proceedings to ‘action[s] instituted in the United States District Court for the
9
District of Columbia.’” (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1252(e)(3))).
10
Claims subject to channeling under Section 1252(e)(3) are “determinations under
11
Section 1225(b) . . . and its implementation.” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(e)(3). The dictionary
12
meaning of the word, “implement” is to “carry out, accomplish” or “provide
13
instruments . . . for.” Implement, Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary (Sep. 5, 2021),
14
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/implement. Thus, the Court is asked to
15
determine whether the presentment of detainees subject to expedited removal is a means to
16
carry out or accomplish the expedited removal scheme set forth in Section 1225(b).
17
Plaintiffs’ renewed motion proposes certifying a class that includes individuals
18
screened for expedited removal proceedings under Section 1225(b)(1). “Section 1225(b)
19
generally mandates the detention of aliens seeking admission pending their removal
20
proceedings.” Rodriguez v. Robbins, 715 F.3d 1127, 1132 (9th Cir. 2013). “[I]f the
21
examining immigration officer determines that an alien seeking admission is not clearly
22
and beyond a doubt entitled to be admitted,” the officer is required to detain the individual
23
for removal proceedings. 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A). Once the individual invokes a fear of
24
persecution upon return to the originating country or indicates his or her intent to apply for
25
asylum, the individual is detained “pending a final determination of credible fear of
26
persecution
27
Id. § 1225(b)(1)(B)(iii)(IV). The statute also requires detaining an individual “for further
28
consideration of the application for asylum,” if the interviewing officer determines that the
and,
if
found
not
to
have
such
a
fear,
until
removed.”
- 10 17cv491
Case 3:17-cv-00491-BAS-AHG Document 179 Filed 09/08/21 PageID.4479 Page 11 of 28
1
individual has a credible fear of persecution. Id. § 1225(b)(1)(B)(ii). In sum, Section
2
1225(b) mandates that individuals screened for or subject to expedited removal be detained.
3
Whether and when to present a detained individual to an immigration judge—a
4
question invoked by Plaintiffs’ Fifth Amendment claim—concerns a means by which to
5
carry out, accomplish, or provide an instrument for a mandatory detention applicable to
6
individuals subject to expedited removal proceedings and thus concerns the
7
implementation of Section 1225(b)(1). Because Section 1252(e)(3) channels such actions
8
to the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, the Court may not certify
9
the class that includes individuals screened for or subject to expedited removal proceedings
10
under Section 1225(b)(1).
11
That said, the Court’s inquiry need not stop here. “Rule 23 provides district courts
12
with broad authority at various stages in the litigation to revisit class certification
13
determinations and to redefine or decertify classes as appropriate.” Wang v. Chinese Daily
14
News, Inc., 737 F.3d 538, 546 (9th Cir. 2013). The Court exercises this discretion to
15
redefine the class to exclude individuals subject to expedited removal proceedings.
16
17
B.
18
Section 1252(f)(1) provides in full:
19
Regardless of the nature of the action or claim or of the identity of the party
or parties bringing the action, no court (other than the Supreme Court) shall
have jurisdiction or authority to enjoin or restrain the operation of the
provisions of part IV of this subchapter, as amended by the Illegal
Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, other than
with respect to the application of such provisions to an individual alien against
whom proceedings under such part have been initiated.
20
21
22
23
24
Section 1252(f)(1)
8 U.S.C. § 1252(f)(1). Part IV includes 8 U.S.C. §§ 1221–32.
25
As an initial matter, Section 1252(f)(1) does not bar jurisdiction to grant class-wide
26
declaratory relief. See Nielsen v. Preap, 139 S. Ct. 954, 962 (2019); Rodriguez v. Hayes
27
(“Rodriguez I”), 591 F.3d 1105, 1119 (9th Cir. 2010) (holding that § 1252(f)(1) does not
28
limit declaratory relief); accord Vazquez Perez v. Decker, No. 18-CV-10683 (AJN), 2019
- 11 17cv491
Case 3:17-cv-00491-BAS-AHG Document 179 Filed 09/08/21 PageID.4480 Page 12 of 28
1
WL 4784950, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2019) (collecting cases from the First, Third, and
2
Ninth Circuits).
3
Indeed, the Supreme Court has held that “[b]y its plain terms, and even by its title,
4
[Section 1252(f)(1)] is nothing more or less than a limit on injunctive relief.” Reno v. Am.-
5
Arab Anti-Discrimination Comm. (“Reno III”), 525 U.S. 471, 481–82 (1999). “It prohibits
6
federal courts from granting class-wide injunctive relief against the operation of §§ 1221–
7
32, but specifies that this ban does not extend to individual cases.” Id. “Operation” means
8
“method or manner of functioning.” Operation, Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary (Sep.
9
5, 2021), https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/operation; see Vazquez Perez,
10
2019 WL 4784950, at *5.
11
Thus, under the plain meaning of Section 1252(f)(1), the Court must examine
12
whether the requested class-wide injunctive relief—here, enjoining Defendants to provide
13
class members with a prompt presentment to an immigration judge—would enjoin or
14
restrain the method or manner of functioning of any provision within part IV. If the answer
15
is yes, the Court must analyze whether it has jurisdiction under the the carve-out clause,
16
which applies “with respect to the application of [sections 1221–32] to an individual alien
17
against whom [removal proceedings] have been initiated.” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(f)(1).
18
19
1.
Whether the Requested Relief Enjoins or Restrains the Operation
20
of Part IV
21
Defendants argue that Plaintiffs’ requested relief would enjoin or restrain the
22
operation of two statutory provisions within Part IV: Sections 1225(b)(1)(B)(III) and
23
1229(b)(1). Section 1225(b)(1)(B)(III) applies only to individuals subject to expedited
24
removal proceedings. The Court has redefined the class to exclude all individuals subject
25
to expedited removal proceedings. See supra Part II.A. Thus, the Court need not analyze
26
the operation of Section 1225(b)(1)(B)(III). The Court turns to examine whether the
27
requested injunctive relief would enjoin or restrain the operation of Section 1229(b)(1).
28
- 12 17cv491
Case 3:17-cv-00491-BAS-AHG Document 179 Filed 09/08/21 PageID.4481 Page 13 of 28
1
Section 1229(b), entitled “securing of counsel,” provides that the first removal
2
hearing, also known as the IMCH, “shall not be scheduled earlier than 10 days after the
3
service of the notice to appear, unless the alien requests in writing an earlier hearing date,”
4
to allow the noncitizen individual “the opportunity to secure counsel before the [IMCH].”
5
8 U.S.C. § 1229(b)(1). In other words, unless the noncitizen individual waives the right,
6
the government must allow at least ten days for an individual to secure counsel before
7
holding an IMCH.
8
The Court finds instructive a case that construed Section 1252(f)(1) and held that a
9
class-wide injunction similar to the one requested by Plaintiffs in this action would enjoin
10
or restrain the operation of Section 1229(b)(1). See Vazquez Perez, 2019 WL 4784950,
11
at *1. In Vazquez Perez, the court held that the requested injunction against “ICE’s practice
12
of failing to provide initial appearances before an Immigration Judge for up to several
13
months after arrest” would enjoin or restrain the operation of Section 1229(b)(1):
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
the Court finds that the requested injunction would enjoin or restrain, at a
minimum, the operation of Section 1229(b). That section provides that an
initial master calendar “hearing date shall not be scheduled earlier than 10
days after the service of the notice to appear.” 8 U.S.C. § 1229(b)(1). By its
terms, this provision sets a time before which the initial master calendar
hearing may not be scheduled but provides no time beyond which the initial
master calendar hearing cannot be scheduled. In other words, it prescribes a
floor but no ceiling with respect to the timing of initial master calendar
hearings. Because Congress, in its judgment, chose not to mandate a statutory
ceiling, an injunction imposing one where the statute is silent would displace
that judgment in a way that would enjoin or restrain the method or manner of
Section 1229(b)’s functioning.
22
23
Id. at *1, 6.
The Court adopts this reasoning and finds that the requested prompt
24
presentment would enjoin or restrain the method or manner of Section 1229(b)(1)’s
25
functioning.
26
Plaintiffs raise two arguments against this conclusion. First, Plaintiffs argue that
27
their request is to be provided a prompt a presentment hearing after arrest, wherein a
28
detained individual would be provided “meaningful advisals of rights, including the right
- 13 17cv491
Case 3:17-cv-00491-BAS-AHG Document 179 Filed 09/08/21 PageID.4482 Page 14 of 28
1
specified in § 1229(b)(1) to waive the 10-day grace period, and rights regarding custody
2
issues that are distinct from removal issues.” (Pls.’ Reply at 3:21–23.) Plaintiffs’ argument
3
is unpersuasive. To begin with, Plaintiffs’ Complaint challenges the lack of a prompt
4
IMCH, in alleging that “[a]n unreasonable delay before the initial Master Calendar Hearing
5
(such as the current one to three month delay) violates substantive due process rights of
6
immigration detainees.” (Compl. ¶ 44.) More importantly, the scope of the requested
7
initial hearing would overlap in significant parts with the IMCH. Under the relevant
8
regulation, the IMCH functions as a first hearing where the immigration judge advises the
9
noncitizen individual subject to a removal proceeding of various rights: the right to counsel
10
and availability of pro bono services; right to appeal; and “opportunity examine and object
11
to the evidence against him or her, to present evidence in his or her own behalf and to cross-
12
examine witnesses presented by the government.” 8 C.F.R. § 1240.10. Plaintiffs’ own
13
Complaint describes the IMCH as “the first time a neutral adjudicator (the immigration
14
judge)” advises a noncitizen individual in a removal proceeding of their rights—a purpose
15
substantially similar to that of the “first hearing” that Plaintiffs request. (Compl. ¶¶ 29–
16
34.) Based on Plaintiffs’ pleading and relevant regulation, the Court finds that Section
17
1229(b)(1) is implicated by Plaintiffs’ requested prompt presentment for the proposed class
18
members.
19
Second, Plaintiffs argue that their requested relief would not restrain or enjoin the
20
operation of Section 1229(b)(1) because the statutory provision anchors the date of the
21
IMCH to the date of the service of the NTA and not to the date of arrest, when in practice
22
an NTA is not served on the person until many days after the initial arrest. (Pls.’ Reply at
23
3:16–19.) Even if Plaintiffs are right, imposing a deadline for an immigration judge to
24
conduct a hearing that serves a purpose substantially similar to that of an IMCH would be
25
to enjoin the method or manner of the functioning of the IMCH.
26
27
Therefore, the Court finds that the hearing requested by Plaintiff would enjoin or
restrain the operation of Section 1229(b)(1).
28
- 14 17cv491
Case 3:17-cv-00491-BAS-AHG Document 179 Filed 09/08/21 PageID.4483 Page 15 of 28
2.
1
Whether the Carve-Out Clause Applies
2
Having found that Section 1252(f)(1) is invoked, the Court next analyzes whether
3
the Court has jurisdiction to certify the class under the carve-out clause, which excepts
4
from the jurisdictional bar an action that would enjoin or restrain the operation of the
5
provisions of part IV “with respect to the application of such provisions to an individual
6
alien against whom proceedings under such part have been initiated.”
7
§ 1252(f)(1). The question is whether the Congress intended for the carve-out clause’s use
8
of the term, “individual alien,” to encompass individuals proceeding as a class.
8 U.S.C.
9
A binding Supreme Court opinion has concluded that it does. In Jennings, five
10
justices interpreted Section 1252(f)(1) as “prohibit[ing] federal courts from granting
11
classwide injunctive relief against the operation of §§ 1221–123[2],” interpreting the carve-
12
out clause as applying only to non-class actions brought by a qualifying individual. See
13
Jennings, 138 S. Ct. at 851 (Alito, J.) (plurality opinion).4 The Court is bound by this
14
interpretation of the carve-out clause and thus declines to apply it to the present action.
15
In sum, Section 1252(f)(1) does not bar the Court’s jurisdiction to certify the class
16
for declaratory relief, but it does strip the Court of jurisdiction to certify the class for
17
injunctive relief. Therefore, the Court proceeds with the remaining class analysis as to the
18
certification of the class for declaratory relief only.
19
20
III.
PROPOSED CHANGES TO CLASS DEFINITION
21
The issue is whether Plaintiffs’ new class definition set forth in the motion for class
22
certification impermissibly broadens the class definition set forth in their Complaint. The
23
definition of the class at the class certification stage may diverge from that set forth in the
24
25
26
27
28
4
The plurality opinion authored by Justice Alito was joined by Justices Roberts and Kennedy, and
Justice Thomas issued a concurrence in other aspects, joined by Justice Gorsuch. Dissenting justices,
Justices Breyer, Sotomayor, and Ginsburg, opposed such an interpretation by holding: “[e]very one of [the
class] is an ‘individual alien against whom proceedings under such part have been initiated.’ The Court
in [Reno III] did not consider, and had no reason to consider, the application of § 1252(f)(1) to such a
class.” See Jennings, 138 S. Ct. at 875 (Breyer J., dissenting) (citations omitted). Justice Kagan took no
part in the decision of the case.
- 15 17cv491
Case 3:17-cv-00491-BAS-AHG Document 179 Filed 09/08/21 PageID.4484 Page 16 of 28
1
Complaint, as long as the new class definition is narrower than the original, see Costello v.
2
Chertoff, 258 F.R.D. 600, 604–05 (C.D. Cal. 2009), or the proposed change is minor and
3
non-prejudicial to the defendant, see Patten v. Vertical Fitness Grp., LLC, No. 12CV1614-
4
LAB (MDD), 2013 WL 12069031, at *3 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 8, 2013).
5
Here, the Complaint defines the proposed class as follows:
6
8
All individuals in the Southern District of California, other than those with
final removal orders, who are or will be detained by DHS more than 48 hours
without a hearing before an immigration judge or judicial review of whether
their detention is justified by probable cause.
9
(Compl. ¶ 68.) Plaintiffs revise the class definition in their motion for class certification
7
10
11
to the following:
15
All individuals, other than unaccompanied minors or individuals with
administratively final removal orders, who (1) are or will have been in the
civil custody of the San Diego Field Office of ICE, the San Diego Field Office
of CBP Office of Field Operations, the San Diego Sector of U.S. Border
Patrol, and/or the El Centro Sector of U.S. Border Patrol, collectively, for
longer than 48 hours and (2) have not had a hearing before an immigration
judge.
16
(Mot. for Class Cert., ECF No. 125.) According to Plaintiffs, there are two changes to the
17
class definition: (1) the new class excludes three categories of individuals who fell within
18
the original definition: unaccompanied minors, people detained in connection with
19
criminal charges, and individuals with administratively final removal orders; and (2) the
20
new class is redefined to “include people detained by the Immigration Agencies operating
21
in this district,” which reflects the facts uncovered in discovery that “the San Diego Field
22
Office of ICE detains people in [the San Luis Regional Detention Center] and San Diego
23
Sector of Border Patrol detains people in the Newton and Azrak Border Patrol Station in
24
Murrieta, each just outside this district.” (Pls.’ Mem. of P. & A. ISO Mot. for Class Cert.
25
(“Pls.’ Mem.”) at 15:17–16:16, ECF No. 165.)
12
13
14
26
Defendants do not challenge the first change, that is exclusion of the three categories
27
of individuals: unaccompanied minors, people detained in connection with criminal
28
charges, and individuals with administratively final removal orders. (Defs.’ Opp’n at 8:2–
- 16 17cv491
Case 3:17-cv-00491-BAS-AHG Document 179 Filed 09/08/21 PageID.4485 Page 17 of 28
1
3.) However, Defendants argue that including individuals detained at centers located
2
outside this district is a material and prejudicial change because those centers would need
3
to administer two sets of rules: one for the members of the class and the other for the rest
4
of the individuals held in the respective center. (Opp’n at 8:17–9:4.) Plaintiffs argue that
5
the proposed change in the definition is minor because “[t]he new definition removes one
6
Border Patrol station (the Blythe Station, operated by Yuma Sector of Border Patrol) and
7
adds a different one, Murrieta Station.” (Reply at 9:10–12.) Plaintiffs also argue that “the
8
addition of San Luis [facility] is minor because it is an overflow facility for ICE’s San
9
Diego Field Office, which has held a small percentage of class members in the last three
10
years.” (Id. at 9:13–15.) Plaintiffs’ response does not address the administrative burden
11
Defendants allege they would face as a result of the inclusion of individuals detained
12
outside of this district. Consequently, the proposed change is not minor and non-prejudicial
13
to the defendant, and is impermissible under the general rule that “a plaintiff is limited to
14
the class definition in the operative complaint.” Patten, 2013 WL 12069031, at *3 (citing
15
Costelo v. Chertoff, 258 F.R.D. 600, 604–05 (C.D. Cal. 2009) and Berlowitz v. Nob Hill
16
Masonic Mgmt., 1996 WL 724776 at *2 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 6, 1996).)
17
Exercising this Court’s “broad authority . . . to redefine . . . classes as appropriate,”
18
the Court excludes from the class definition the individuals detained outside of this district.
19
Accordingly, the Court analyzes the following class definition for certification for
20
declaratory relief under Rule 23:
All individuals in the Southern District of California—other than
individuals subject to expedited removal under § 1225(b)(1),
unaccompanied minors, or individuals with administratively final removal
orders—who (1) are or will have been in the civil custody of the San Diego
Field Office of ICE, the San Diego Field Office of CBP Office of Field
Operations, the San Diego Sector of U.S. Border Patrol, and/or the El Centro
Sector of U.S. Border Patrol, collectively, for longer than 48 hours and
(2) have not had a hearing before an immigration judge.
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
//
28
//
- 17 17cv491
Case 3:17-cv-00491-BAS-AHG Document 179 Filed 09/08/21 PageID.4486 Page 18 of 28
1
IV.
RULE 23 ANALYSIS
2
A.
Legal Standard
3
Motions for class certification proceed under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil
4
Procedure. Rule 23(a) provides four prerequisites to a class action: (1) the class is so
5
numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable (“numerosity”), (2) there are
6
questions of law or fact common to the class (“commonality”), (3) the claims or defenses
7
of the representative parties are typical of the claims or defenses of the class (“typicality”),
8
and (4) the representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class
9
(“adequate representation”). Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a).
10
The proposed classes must also satisfy one of the subdivisions of Rule 23(b). Here,
11
Plaintiffs seek to maintain the class action under Rule 23(b)(2). Rule 23(b)(2) requires that
12
“the party opposing the class has acted or refused to act on grounds that apply generally to
13
the class, so that final injunctive relief or corresponding declaratory relief is appropriate
14
respecting the class as a whole.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2).
15
“In determining the propriety of a class action, the question is not whether the
16
plaintiff or plaintiffs have stated a cause of action or will prevail on the merits, but rather
17
whether the requirements of Rule 23 are met.” Eisen v. Carlisle & Jacquelin, 417 U.S.
18
156, 178 (1974). “Rule 23 does not set forth a mere pleading standard.” Wal-Mart Stores,
19
Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338, 350 (2011). Rather, “[the parties] seeking class certification
20
must affirmatively demonstrate [their] compliance with the Rule—that is, [they] must be
21
prepared to prove that there are in fact sufficiently numerous parties, common questions of
22
law or fact, etc.” Id. The court is “at liberty to consider evidence which goes to the
23
requirements of Rule 23 even though the evidence may also relate to the underlying merits
24
of the case.” Hanon v. Dataproducts Corp., 976 F.2d 497, 509 (9th Cir. 1992). A weighing
25
of competing evidence, however, is inappropriate at this stage of the litigation. Staton v.
26
Boeing Co., 327 F.3d 938, 954 (9th Cir. 2003).
27
//
28
//
- 18 17cv491
Case 3:17-cv-00491-BAS-AHG Document 179 Filed 09/08/21 PageID.4487 Page 19 of 28
1
2
3
4
B.
Rule 23(a) Requirements
1.
Numerosity
Defendants do not challenge the numerosity requirement. (Opp’n at 11 n.13.) The
Court finds that the numerosity requirement is satisfied.
5
6
2.
Commonality
7
The commonality requirement “serves chiefly two purposes: (1) ensuring that
8
absentee members are fairly and adequately represented; and (2) ensuring practical and
9
efficient case management.” Walters v. Reno (“Reno II”), 145 F.3d 1032, 1045 (9th Cir.
10
1998). This requirement is construed “permissively.” Hanlon v. Chrysler Corp., 150 F.3d
11
1011, 1019 (9th Cir. 1998). Not all questions of fact and law need to be common to satisfy
12
the rule. Id. “The existence of shared legal issues with divergent factual predicates is
13
sufficient, as is a common core of salient facts coupled with disparate legal remedies within
14
the class.” Id.; see, e.g., Marisol A. v. Giuliani, 126 F.3d 372, 376 (2d Cir. 1997) (“The
15
commonality requirement is met if plaintiffs’ grievances share a common question of law
16
or of fact.”); Baby Neal for & by Kanter v. Casey, 43 F.3d 48, 56 (3d Cir. 1994) (“The
17
commonality requirement will be satisfied if the named plaintiffs share at least one question
18
of fact or law with the grievances of the prospective class.”). Nor does “common” as used
19
in Rule 23(a)(1) mean “complete congruence.” In re First Alliance Mortg. Co., 471 F.3d
20
977, 990 (9th Cir. 2006).
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Plaintiffs identify the following legal and factual issues common to the class
members that can be resolved on a class-wide basis:
Whether Defendants have a policy and practice of denying prompt
judicial presentment to class members;
Whether Defendants’ other policies and practices contribute to delays
in presentment;
Whether the delays in judicial presentment faced by all class members
violate their rights under the substantive component of the Due Process
- 19 17cv491
Case 3:17-cv-00491-BAS-AHG Document 179 Filed 09/08/21 PageID.4488 Page 20 of 28
1
2
3
4
Clause of the Fifth Amendment; and
Whether Defendants’ policies and practices of delaying judicial
presentment violate the Administrative Procedure Act.
(Pls.’ Mem. at 18:10–18.)
5
Defendants argue that the proposed class lacks commonality because the definition
6
encompasses all individuals “subject to divergent statutory authority” and with “varying
7
factual circumstances,” which preclude uniform relief. (Opp’n at 13:12–22:4.)
8
9
a.
Divergent Statutory Authority
10
In Defendants’ view, the different statutes that authorize the class members’
11
detention necessitate the Court to make individual determinations of “the statutory basis
12
that governs the alien’s detention and removal process,” as well as “whether that specific
13
statute and associated statutory or regulatory procedures violate the Constitution or the
14
APA.” (Opp’n at 13:24–27.)
15
Defendants’ argument is foreclosed by the Ninth Circuit’s binding precedent,
16
Rodriguez v. Hayes (“Rodriguez I”), 591 F.3d 1105 (9th Cir. 2010). In Rodriguez I, the
17
proposed class, composed of noncitizen individuals detained in the Central District of
18
California for longer than six months without a bond hearing while subject to immigration
19
proceedings, sought class-wide injunctive and declaratory relief requiring individual bond
20
hearings to all members of the class. Id. In rejecting the government’s argument that the
21
class failed to establish commonality “on the ground that class members suffer detention
22
for different reasons and under the authority of different statutes,” the Ninth Circuit held
23
that the dispositive question was whether the “constitutional issue at the heart of each class
24
member’s claim for relief is common.” Id. at 1123. The Ninth Circuit in Rodriguez I found
25
that it was enough that the plaintiff-petitioners posed the following common question:
26
“may an individual be detained for over six months without a bond hearing under a statute
27
that does not explicitly authorize detention for longer than that time without generating
28
serious constitutional concerns?” Id. (citing Casas-Castrillon v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec.,
- 20 17cv491
Case 3:17-cv-00491-BAS-AHG Document 179 Filed 09/08/21 PageID.4489 Page 21 of 28
1
535 F.3d 942, 951 (9th Cir. 2008) and Tijani v. Willis, 430 F.3d 1241, 1242 (9th Cir. 2005).)
2
The common question posed in this action is similar: whether an individual may be
3
detained for more than 48 hours after arrest without being presented to an immigration
4
judge to receive meaningful notice and advisal of rights without generating serious
5
constitutional concerns.
6
7
Based on the above, the Court holds that the various statutes that authorize class
members’ detention do not defeat the commonality requirement.
8
b.
9
Varying Factual Circumstances
10
Defendants argue that the proposed class members cannot satisfy the commonality
11
requirement because of varying factual circumstances including (1) different DHS
12
subcomponents involved in detaining and processing an individual; (2) specifics of each
13
individual such as medical condition or status as a criminal defendant or a witness; and
14
(3) differences in the individuals’ litigation choices in immigration court. (Defs.’ Opp’n
15
at 19:1–20:6.) This Court denied a similar argument in Al Otro Lado and held that “[t]he
16
different factual circumstances between each class member’s particular experience does
17
not destroy commonality because there is still a common underlying legal question . . . .”
18
Al Otro Lado, Inc. v. Wolf (“AOL II”), 336 F.R.D. 494, 503 (S.D. Cal. 2020). Here, because
19
the Court finds a question of law common to the class, divergent factual circumstances,
20
assuming they exist, do not defeat the commonality requirement. See Hanlon, 150 F.3d at
21
1019 (holding that “[t]he existence of shared legal issues with divergent factual predicates
22
is sufficient” to satisfy the commonality requirement).
23
In sum, Plaintiffs have established that the commonality requirement is satisfied.
24
25
3.
Typicality
26
The typicality requirement looks to whether “the claims of the class representatives
27
[are] typical of those of the class, and [is] ‘satisfied when each class member’s claim arises
28
from the same course of events, and each class member makes similar legal arguments to
- 21 17cv491
Case 3:17-cv-00491-BAS-AHG Document 179 Filed 09/08/21 PageID.4490 Page 22 of 28
1
prove the defendant’s liability.’” Armstrong v. Davis, 275 F.3d 849, 868 (9th Cir. 2001)
2
(quoting Marisol A. v. Giuliani, 126 F.3d 372, 376 (2d Cir. 1997)). Like the commonality
3
requirement, the typicality requirement is “permissive” and requires only that the
4
representative’s claims are “reasonably co-extensive with those of absent class members;
5
they need not be substantially identical.” Hanlon, 150 F.3d at 1020.
6
Defendants challenge the typicality element based on the same arguments raised
7
against the commonality element. For the same reasons that commonality is satisfied, the
8
Court concludes that the named class representatives Cancino Castellar and Hernandez
9
raise a claim reasonably co-extensive with the claims of the class. See Rodriguez I, 591
10
F.3d at 1124 (holding that although the named class representatives and some class
11
members “are detained under different statutes and are at different points in the removal
12
process and hence do not raise identical claims, they all . . . raise similar constitutionally-
13
based arguments and are alleged victims of the same practice of prolonged detention while
14
in immigration proceedings”).
15
Because Plaintiff Gonzalez was subject to expedited removal proceedings, the Court
16
finds that his claim is subject to the jurisdictional bar under Section 1252(e)(1) and thus is
17
not co-extensive with the class. See supra Part II.A.
18
4.
19
Adequacy5
20
Under Rule 23(a)(4), the named representative must “fairly and adequately protect
21
the interests of the class.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(4). To determine whether this adequacy
22
requirement is met, courts ask: “(1) Do the representative plaintiffs and their counsel have
23
any conflicts of interest with other class members, and (2) will the representative plaintiffs
24
and their counsel prosecute the action vigorously on behalf of the class?” Staton, 327 F.3d
25
at 957; see also Walters, 145 F.3d at 1046 (“Whether the class representatives satisfy the
26
adequacy requirement depends on ‘the qualifications of counsel for the representatives, an
27
28
5
Because the Court has found that Plaintiff Gonzalez’s claims are atypical of the class, the Court
does not reach whether he is an adequate representative. See supra Part IV.B.3.
- 22 17cv491
Case 3:17-cv-00491-BAS-AHG Document 179 Filed 09/08/21 PageID.4491 Page 23 of 28
1
absence of antagonism, a sharing of interests between representatives and absentees, and
2
the unlikelihood that the suit is collusive.’” (quoting Crawford v. Honig, 37 F.3d 485, 487
3
(9th Cir. 1994))).
4
a.
5
Mootness of Named Plaintiffs’ Claims
6
Defendants argue that Plaintiffs are not adequate class representatives because their
7
claims have become moot after receiving the requested hearings and being released from
8
detention. (Defs.’ Opp’n at 22:16–23:14.) However, in a previous court filing, Defendants
9
waived the mootness argument by stipulating that they “will not oppose . . . [the] Motion
10
for Class Certification on the grounds that the named Plaintiffs-Petitioners . . . are
11
inadequate class representatives because their claims became moot when they each
12
appeared before an immigration judge or were released from custody.” (Joint Mot. Ext. at
13
2:17–22, ECF No. 18.) Such a stipulation binds the parties who make it absent “special
14
circumstances.” Parks v. American Warrior, Inc., 44 F.3d 889, 894 (10th Cir. 1995).
15
Defendants do not explain why this stipulation does not constitute a waiver of the
16
argument, and the Court does not find other special circumstances that would nullify the
17
waiver.
18
In any case, even if Defendants did not waive the mootness argument, it lacks merit.
19
Ordinarily, a federal court loses jurisdiction once the issues presented are no longer live or
20
the plaintiff no longer holds a legally cognizable interest in the outcome because the action
21
is made moot. See U.S. Parole Comm’n v. Geraghty, 445 U.S. 388, 396 (1980). Such
22
mootness principle applies to class actions, and when a “plaintiff’s claim becomes moot
23
before the district court certifies the class, the class action normally also becomes moot.”
24
Slayman v. FedEx Ground Package Sys., Inc., 765 F.3d 1033, 1048 (9th Cir. 2014).
25
However, an exception to this rule applies where the claims “are so inherently transitory
26
that the trial court will not have even enough time to rule on a motion for class certification
27
before the proposed representative’s individual interest expires.” Id. (quoting Pitts v.
28
Terrible Herbst, Inc., 653 F.3d 1081, 1090 (9th Cir. 2011)). For such inherently transitory
- 23 17cv491
Case 3:17-cv-00491-BAS-AHG Document 179 Filed 09/08/21 PageID.4492 Page 24 of 28
1
claims, the mootness is adjudged at the time of the filing of the complaint. See Cnty. of
2
Riverside v. McLaughlin, 500 U.S. 44, 52 (1991) (holding that in cases involving inherently
3
transitory claims, “the ‘relation back’ doctrine is properly invoked to preserve the merits
4
of the case for judicial resolution”); Doe v. Wolf, 424 F. Supp. 3d 1028, 1043 (S.D. Cal.
5
2020) (invoking the relation-back doctrine to determine “whether adequacy was satisfied
6
at the filing of the complaint”).
7
Here, Plaintiffs’ Fifth Amendment claim challenges the denial of prompt judicial
8
presentment to class members after arrest. The Fifth Amendment claim is inherently
9
transitory because the immigration detainees would likely receive a judicial presentment
10
before courts can rule on a motion for class certification. Therefore, the Court invokes the
11
relation-back doctrine and examines whether Plaintiffs’ claims were moot at the time of
12
the filing of the Complaint. See McLaughlin, 500 U.S. at 52; Pitts, 653 F.3d at 1090. At
13
the time Plaintiffs filed their Complaint, all named Plaintiffs were detained by DHS.
14
(Compl. ¶ 9 (Cancino Castellar), ¶ 10 (Hernandez Aguas).) All Plaintiffs had been detained
15
without appearance before a judge or a judicial determination of probable cause for her
16
detention. (Id. ¶ 47 (Cancino Castellar), ¶ 48 (Hernandez Aguas).) Therefore, Plaintiffs’
17
claims were not moot at the time of the filing of the Complaint, and under the relation-back
18
doctrine that is enough to satisfy the adequacy requirement.
19
20
b.
Defendants’ Other Arguments
21
Defendants also argue that Plaintiffs have not met the burden to show that they have
22
the willingness to litigate the class claims. (Defs.’ Opp’n at 23:15–24:13.) Separately,
23
Defendants argue that Plaintiffs’ failure to name an adequate representative for each of the
24
DHS facilities at issue defeats a finding of adequacy. (Id. at 24:14–21.)
25
Adequacy is satisfied if the proposed class representative “has some rudimentary
26
knowledge of her role as a class representative and is committed to serving in that role in
27
the litigation.” 1 Newberg on Class Actions § 3:67 (5th ed. rev. Dec. 2020); cf. CE Design
28
Ltd. v. King Architectural Metals, Inc., 637 F.3d 721, 728 (7th Cir. 2011) (holding that an
- 24 17cv491
Case 3:17-cv-00491-BAS-AHG Document 179 Filed 09/08/21 PageID.4493 Page 25 of 28
1
argument based on the credibility of a class representative does not undermine adequacy
2
unless “a fact finder might reasonably focus on plaintiff’s credibility, to the detriment of
3
the absent class members’ claims”). While Defendants argue Plaintiffs have not shown
4
that the proposed class representatives hold an interest in litigating the class claims, “there
5
is no requirement that a named plaintiff submit a declaration specifically affirming their
6
interest, willingness, and understanding of the need to participate.” Padilla v. US Immigr.
7
& Customs Enf’t, No. C18-928 MJP, 2019 WL 1056466, at *5 (W.D. Wash. Mar. 6, 2019).
8
Further, Plaintiffs have submitted declarations in support of the initial motion for class
9
certification that indicate the proposed class representatives’ interests in representing the
10
class. (See Cancino Castellar Decl., ECF No. 2-2, Ex. 1; Hernandez Aguas Decl., ECF No.
11
2-2, Ex. 2.1–2.2.) Plaintiffs have demonstrated that the class representatives held enough
12
interest in the class action and were willing to pursue it at the time of the filing of the
13
Complaint, which is enough to satisfy the adequacy requirement under the relation-back
14
doctrine. See Doe, 424 F. Supp. 3d at 1043 (invoking the relation-back doctrine to
15
determine “whether adequacy was satisfied at the filing of the complaint”).
16
Defendants fare no better with their argument that Plaintiffs must include a class
17
representative for each detention center implicated in this class action to satisfy the
18
adequacy requirement. While creative, the argument is not supported by any authority or
19
rationale. Further, courts have rejected a similar argument in other contexts. See Postawko
20
v. Mo. Dep’t of Corr., 910 F.3d 1030, 1034 (8th Cir. 2018) (affirming certification of a
21
class of individuals in the custody of Missouri Department of Corrections represented by
22
three named plaintiffs, although the plaintiffs did not name a class representative for each
23
of the facilities in the system); see also Baxley v. Jividen, 338 F.R.D. 80, 89 (S.D.W. Va.
24
2020) (“Plaintiffs are not required to name a class representative at each facility.”).
The Court concludes that the adequacy requirement is satisfied as to Cancino
25
26
Castellar and Hernandez Aguas.
27
//
28
//
- 25 17cv491
Case 3:17-cv-00491-BAS-AHG Document 179 Filed 09/08/21 PageID.4494 Page 26 of 28
1
C.
Rule 23(b) Requirements
2
Having found that the redefined class satisfies the Rule 23(a) requirements, the Court
3
next turns to determine whether the proposed certification under Rule 23(b)(2) would be
4
warranted. Rule 23(b)(2) permits class certification when “the party opposing the class has
5
acted or refused to act on grounds that apply generally to the class, so that final injunctive
6
relief or corresponding declaratory relief is appropriate respecting the class as a whole.”
7
Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2). The Ninth Circuit has held that “‘it is sufficient’ to meet the
8
requirements of Rule 23(b)(2) [when] ‘class members complain of a pattern or practice that
9
is generally applicable to the class as a whole.’” Rodriguez I, 591 F.3d at 1125 (quoting
10
Walters, 145 F.3d at 1047). “The rule does not require [the Court] to examine the viability
11
or bases of class members’ claims for declaratory and injunctive relief, but only to look at
12
whether class members seek uniform relief from a practice applicable to all of them.” Id.
13
at 1125; see also Dukes, 564 U.S. at 360 (“The key to the (b)(2) class is the indivisible
14
nature of the injunctive or declaratory remedy warranted—the notion that the conduct is
15
such that it can be enjoined or declared unlawful only as to all of the class members or as
16
to none of them.”) (internal quotation marks omitted).
17
The Court finds that Plaintiffs have established that the proposed class meets the
18
requirements of Rule 23(b)(2). Plaintiffs’ Prayer for Relief requests that this Court:
19
(1) declare that Defendants’ policies, practices, acts, and omissions violate the Due Process
20
Clause of the Fifth Amendment and the APA; and (2) issue injunctive relief prohibiting
21
Defendants from continuing to implement the challenged policies, practices, acts, and
22
omissions. (Compl. at 22–23.) This relief would benefit the Named Plaintiffs as well as
23
members of the proposed class in the same manner, in a single stroke. See Parsons v. Ryan,
24
754 F.3d 657, 689 (9th Cir. 2014) (“[E]very [member] in the proposed class is allegedly
25
suffering the same (or at least a similar) injury and that injury can be alleviated for every
26
class member by uniform changes in . . . policy and practice.”); see also Inland Empire-
27
Immigrant Youth Collective v. Nielsen, No. EDCV 17-2048 PSG (SHKx), 2018 WL
28
1061408, at *12 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 26, 2018).
- 26 17cv491
Case 3:17-cv-00491-BAS-AHG Document 179 Filed 09/08/21 PageID.4495 Page 27 of 28
1
Defendants’ arguments against certifying the class under Rule 23(b)(2) lack merit.
2
Defendants argue that Plaintiffs have not demonstrated that Defendants have “refused to
3
act on grounds that apply generally to the class” as required by Rule 23(b)(2). Defendants
4
also argue the civil immigration detainees hold no right to prompt presentment and neither
5
DHS nor EOIR has a policy on how quickly a detained alien can appear before an
6
immigration judge. However, those arguments go to the merit of the class claims and not
7
to whether the proposed class falls within the scope of a Rule 23(b)(2) class. See Amgen
8
Inc. v. Connecticut Ret. Plans & Tr. Funds, 568 U.S. 455, 466 (2013) (“Rule 23 grants
9
courts no license to engage in free-ranging merits inquiries at the certification stage. Merits
10
questions may be considered to the extent—but only to the extent—that they are relevant
11
to determining whether the Rule 23 prerequisites for class certification are satisfied.”). As
12
to Defendants’ argument that they did not hold a “policy,” for Rule 23(b)(2) purposes “[i]t
13
is sufficient if class members complain of a pattern or practice that is generally applicable
14
to the class as a whole.” Walters, 145 F.3d at 1047; Rodriguez I, 591 F.3d at 1126
15
(certifying class of immigrant detainees under Rule 23(b)(2) where “relief from a single
16
practice is requested by all class members”). Plaintiffs have met their burden because they
17
request relief from a single practice, that is, Defendants’ alleged failure to promptly present
18
them to an immigration judge after the initial arrest.
Therefore, the Court concludes the requirements of Rule 23(b)(2) are satisfied.
19
20
21
IV.
CONCLUSION
22
Plaintiffs have met the requirements of Rule 23(a) and (b)(2). Accordingly, the
23
Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART Plaintiffs’ motion for class
24
certification (ECF No. 125) and ORDERS the following:
25
1.
26
All individuals in the Southern District of California—other than individuals
subject to expedited removal under § 1225(b)(1), unaccompanied minors, or
individuals with administratively final removal orders—who (1) are or will
have been in the civil custody of the San Diego Field Office of ICE, the San
27
28
The following class is CERTIFIED for declaratory relief only:
- 27 17cv491
Case 3:17-cv-00491-BAS-AHG Document 179 Filed 09/08/21 PageID.4496 Page 28 of 28
3
Diego Field Office of CBP Office of Field Operations, the San Diego Sector
of U.S. Border Patrol, and/or the El Centro Sector of U.S. Border Patrol,
collectively, for longer than 48 hours and (2) have not had a hearing before an
immigration judge.
4
2.
1
2
5
6
Plaintiffs Cancino Castellar and Ana Maria Hernandez Aguas are appointed
class representatives.
3.
On or before September 15, 2021, Plaintiffs are ordered to submit a short brief,
7
not to exceed three pages, about which attorneys are to be appointed as class counsel
8
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(g).
9
IT IS SO ORDERED.
10
11
DATED: September 8, 2021
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
- 28 17cv491
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?