Zepeda Rivas v. Jennings
- Laurel Beeler
- 3:20-cv-02731
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Zepeda Rivas v. Jennings, Judge Chhabria denied motions to dismiss, strike, and transfer, allowing the plaintiffs’ constitutional claim to proceed.
The ruling affected the plaintiffs, including Angel De Jesus Zepeda Rivas, and the defendants, including the GEO defendants and David Jennings. The case was not dismissed, the complaint was not altered by striking material, and the requested transfer was denied.
What happened
In Zepeda Rivas v. Jennings, the plaintiffs brought a constitutional claim against defendants including the GEO defendants. The defendants asked the court to dismiss the claim, strike material from the complaint, and transfer the case.
The court denied the motion to dismiss, ruling that the GEO defendants qualify as state actors for purposes of the plaintiffs’ constitutional claim. It denied the motion to strike as unnecessary and explained that any request for habeas relief could not be obtained through a judgment against the GEO defendants. It also denied the motion to transfer as frivolous, citing the inconvenience of transferring the case at that late stage.
Judge Vince Chhabria signed the order on February 23, 2021. The order did not dismiss the case or strike material from the complaint.
The detailed version
- Zepeda Rivas v. Jennings · No. 3:20-cv-02731
- Laurel Beeler
- Feb. 23, 2021
Background
The plaintiffs are Angel De Jesus Zepeda Rivas and others. The defendants include David Jennings and the GEO defendants. The opinion addresses three defense motions: a motion to dismiss, a motion to strike, and a motion to transfer.
Motion to dismiss
The court denied the motion to dismiss. It held that the GEO defendants clearly qualify as state actors for purposes of the plaintiffs’ constitutional claim. The court relied on Pollard v. The GEO Group, Inc. and on a concurrence in Holly v. Scott. The order does not describe any other grounds raised in the motion or decide the ultimate merits of the constitutional claim.
Motion to strike
The court denied the motion to strike as unnecessary. It explained that, to the extent the plaintiffs seek habeas relief—court-ordered relief concerning the lawfulness of a person’s custody—they cannot obtain that relief through a judgment against the GEO defendants. The court nevertheless found no need to remove anything from the complaint.
Motion to transfer and disposition
The court denied the motion to transfer as frivolous. It stated that transferring the case at that late stage would obviously inconvenience everyone involved, except the judge and his law clerk. The order therefore denied all three motions: the motion to dismiss, the motion to strike, and the motion to transfer. Judge Vince Chhabria signed the order.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.