Zepeda Rivas v. Jennings

Background

A group of Immigration and Customs Enforcement detainees at the Mesa Verde Detention Facility and Yuba County Jail filed a proposed class action seeking release-related relief and improved confinement conditions. They argued that ICE had not changed conditions enough to permit social distancing, exposing detainees to a serious risk of COVID-19 infection. The plaintiffs moved for provisional class certification and a temporary restraining order. The government moved to stay, or pause, the case because of a separate nationwide class action concerning ICE’s response to the pandemic.

Provisional Class Certification

The court granted provisional class certification. It held that neither the case’s request for detention-related relief nor the detainees’ immigration status prevented certification. The court concluded that the case concerned common conditions of confinement rather than whether any particular detainee should be released. The proposed class members allegedly faced the same injury—a substantial risk of contracting COVID-19 because of inadequate social distancing—and could benefit from a common remedy requiring social distancing at the two facilities.

The court also rejected the government’s arguments concerning commonality, typicality, adequacy, and the requirements for a class action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b). The possibility that some detainees might need to be released, including people with health vulnerabilities whose records showed they were not a danger to the community, did not defeat certification.

Temporary Restraining Order

The court granted a temporary restraining order. It found that the Northern District of California was a proper forum and that the detainees had standing, meaning they were sufficiently affected to sue in federal court. On the record before it, the court found an exceedingly strong likelihood that the plaintiffs would prevail on their claim that the facilities’ conditions violated the class members’ due-process rights by unreasonably exposing them to a significant risk of harm.

The court found a strong likelihood of irreparable harm, meaning harm that could not be adequately repaired later. Although ICE had reported no COVID-19 cases at the two facilities, only two detainees had been tested, and people were being transported from facilities with COVID-19 cases. The court also concluded that the public interest and balance of hardships favored emergency relief because the conditions threatened detainees, facility staff, and the broader community.

The order required ICE to provide the court and class counsel, on a rolling basis and no later than Friday at noon, information and records for each detainee. The required information included names, ages, health vulnerabilities, and criminal information, including rap sheets and I-213 forms. ICE also had to ensure that class counsel could promptly communicate with detainees.

The purpose was to allow individualized bail applications to be considered while the case was pending. The court planned to consider those applications over roughly 14 days, likely with assistance from magistrate judges, and then hold a preliminary-injunction hearing to determine what additional measures, if any, were needed for people who remained detained. The court denied ICE’s request for a 48-hour stay of the temporary restraining order because the order required only documents and access to detainees.

Motion for a Stay

The court denied the government’s motion for a stay. It concluded that the preliminary relief in the related nationwide case was too general to protect the immediate interests of detainees at these specific facilities. The court also stated that the nationwide case did not appear intended to prevent facility-specific litigation from proceeding and that managing specific relief through a nationwide class action did not appear workable.

The court expressly stated that denial of the stay was without prejudice to raising the issue again if the related cases later created conflicting obligations for ICE.

Disposition

The court granted the motion for provisional class certification, granted the motion for a temporary restraining order, and denied the motion for a stay.