Zepeda Rivas v. Jennings

Background

The plaintiffs are current and former civil immigration detainees at the Yuba County Jail and the Mesa Verde Processing Facility. They alleged that inadequate protection from COVID-19 created an unconstitutional condition of confinement under the Fifth Amendment. The parties settled, and the court approved the settlement in June 2022. The settlement requires the defendants to reduce COVID-19 risks at the facilities, limits certain transfers and detentions, and allows disputes about compliance to be brought to the court.

The settlement covers all people who were or are in Immigration and Customs Enforcement custody at the facilities from April 20, 2020, through the settlement’s expiration. It requires defendants to screen new class members within 24 hours for vulnerabilities to severe COVID-19 and to identify vulnerable people for immediate release. A vulnerable person should be released unless a supervising officer, after consulting a medical professional, determines that the person’s risk of flight or danger to the community substantially outweighs the risk of severe illness or death.

Transfer Dispute

The plaintiffs sought discovery concerning the March 2023 transfers of four hunger-striking detainees—Pedro Figueroa-Padilla, Jose Ruben Hernandez Gomez, Raymundo Noe Dominguez Vidal, and Roberto Carlos Franco Guardado—from Mesa Verde to ICE’s El Paso Service Processing Center. They alternatively asked the court to find on the existing record that the transfers violated the settlement. The plaintiffs argued that the transfers were not medically necessary because local care was available, the care in El Paso was inadequate, and the transfers were excessive or punitive.

The defendants said medical professionals ordered the transfers because the detainees had suffered significant effects from their hunger strike, including weight loss, and needed a higher level of care. The defendants submitted evidence that El Paso had a designated medical housing unit, greater medical staffing, and experience treating hunger-striking detainees.

The court interpreted the settlement under federal contract-law principles. It held that the transfers were medically necessary under the agreement, particularly because of the advanced stage of the hunger strike and El Paso’s greater capacity for medical observation and care. The court did not interpret “necessary” to require defendants to exhaust proposed medical alternatives before transferring a detainee. It also held that the settlement did not cover the plaintiffs’ complaints about how the transfers were carried out or the quality of care provided in El Paso. Those issues, the court said, would have to be raised in a separate challenge to the conditions of confinement.

The court held that the defendants did not breach the settlement agreement through the transfers. Because there was no breach, the plaintiffs’ request for discovery about the transfers was moot, and the court denied relief on that dispute.

Vulnerable-Detainee Dispute

The plaintiffs argued that the settlement’s vulnerability provision applies to every class member, including people subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. §§ 1226(c) and 1231(a)(2). They asserted that ICE had detained 88 new vulnerable class members and had released none under the settlement; 41 remained in custody as of August 11, 2023.

The defendants argued that the mandatory-detention statutes prevented release and that another settlement provision concerning people re-detained in violation of the agreement showed that the vulnerability provision did not apply to mandatory detainees. They also argued that the court lacked authority to order releases under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(f)(1).

The court held that the plain language of the settlement applies the screening and release process to all class members, including mandatory detainees. It found that the separate re-detention provision did not change that conclusion because it addresses a different situation and remedy. The court also held that the individualized review required by the vulnerability provision falls within the relevant exception to § 1252(f)(1).

The court emphasized that the settlement was incorporated into the final approval order and had the full force of a court order. It ordered the defendants to comply with the vulnerability provision for all class members, including the 41 detainees then at issue and future new detainees during the settlement’s remaining term. The defendants also must comply with the settlement’s information-disclosure requirements. Individual disputes may be raised through the settlement’s dispute-resolution procedures.

Disposition

The order resolved ECF Nos. 1280 and 1281. The court denied relief concerning the four transfers and found the related discovery request moot. It granted the motion to enforce the settlement agreement and ordered the defendants to follow the vulnerability-screening and release process. Judge Laurel Beeler signed the order as a United States Magistrate Judge.