Zepeda Rivas v. Jennings

Background

The plaintiffs, immigration detainees at Mesa Verde Detention Center and Yuba County Jail, brought a class action alleging that crowded conditions made social distancing against COVID-19 impossible and that Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) had taken inadequate steps to reduce the risk of an outbreak. They claimed that the conditions violated due process.

The court had previously provisionally certified a class consisting of all detainees at the two facilities and entered a temporary restraining order. That order required ICE to provide information about detainees, including criminal histories and health vulnerabilities, and established a process for considering temporary release requests. Release required consideration of the likelihood of success on the habeas petition, the detainee’s health risk, danger to the community, and risk of failing to appear for immigration or removal proceedings.

Court’s analysis

The court found that conditions had substantially improved since the temporary restraining order. At Mesa Verde, more than half the bunks in each dorm were empty, detainees slept on alternating bunk levels and sides, meals were staggered, some sinks, showers, and toilets were closed to increase spacing, masks were provided, and medical staff responded to COVID-19 symptoms. At Yuba County Jail, many detainees had individual cells or bunks, distancing measures were used in other units, masks were provided, symptomatic detainees were isolated, and new arrivals were quarantined.

The court nevertheless concluded that preliminary injunctive relief remained necessary. It found that the improvements had resulted largely from the litigation and that ICE had shown inflexibility in responding to the pandemic and resistance to evaluating whether particular detainees could safely be released. The court also discussed an ICE declaration that inaccurately stated that all new arrivals from facilities with reported COVID-19 cases were quarantined for 14 days. ICE later submitted a declaration saying that the earlier statement was inadvertently inaccurate and that quarantine was not required unless a detainee had symptoms or was awaiting test results.

The court explained that people in government detention have a constitutional right to reasonably safe conditions, but not conditions as safe as those available outside detention. The constitutional analysis must account for the government’s interests and the reasonably available steps to reduce risks. The government also has an interest in detaining people in removal proceedings who pose a danger to the community or a flight risk. Based on the current record, the court said the facilities might have reached or approached the constitutional minimum for detainees who should not be released.

The plaintiffs had requested a more detailed and intrusive injunction, including ten feet of separation while sleeping, six feet of separation at other times, written compliance plans, and restrictions on admissions and transfers. The court found those measures broader than necessary on the current record. It instead determined that the primary relief should be preservation of the current safety conditions, while continuing the existing temporary-release process.

The court also rejected ICE’s objections that federal courts could not order temporary release of immigration detainees or address these conditions through habeas petitions or equitable relief. The court stated that the case included both habeas claims and claims for declaratory and injunctive relief, and that federal courts could issue provisional relief to address allegedly unlawful detention conditions.

Disposition

The court granted the motion for a preliminary injunction. While the case is pending, ICE and its officers, agents, employees, attorneys, and others covered by the order must maintain, at a minimum, the existing status quo for protection against COVID-19 transmission at Mesa Verde Detention Center and Yuba County Jail. ICE must continue providing information to the court and plaintiffs as previously ordered and must respond to reasonable discovery requests from class counsel. The court also directed the parties to address unresolved questions about screening new arrivals at Mesa Verde and stated that it would hold an evidentiary hearing if additional preliminary relief became necessary.

The opinion is signed by Vince Chhabria, although the supplied case metadata identifies Laurel Beeler as the judge.