Jimenez v. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement

Background

Victor Jimenez, Venancio Esteban Riego, and Jose Orozco Cuevas brought the case for themselves and other similarly situated people detained at the Golden State Annex. The plaintiffs alleged that U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and two named officials failed to provide frequent COVID-19 testing and antiviral medication to medically vulnerable civil immigration detainees.

The plaintiffs alleged that the facility’s COVID-19 policies did not require periodic testing unless detainees had symptoms or had contact with someone who tested positive. They also alleged that detainees who tested positive were assessed for possible antiviral treatment rather than automatically being offered medication, and that medically vulnerable detainees had not been offered antivirals. The proposed class consisted of civil immigration detainees over age 50 with medical conditions recognized by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention as creating vulnerability to COVID-19.

Claims and Motions

The amended complaint asserted two Fifth Amendment substantive due process claims. The first alleged that the defendants failed to provide reasonable health and safety in custody by denying adequate and timely COVID-19 testing and antiviral treatment. The second alleged that the conditions of civil detention amounted to unconstitutional punishment because California criminal detention facilities allegedly made frequent testing and antiviral medications available while the Golden State Annex did not.

The plaintiffs moved for a preliminary injunction and class certification. The defendants moved to dismiss, arguing that the plaintiffs lacked standing and that their requested class-wide injunction was barred by a federal immigration statute. The court said the defendants’ reliance on that statute appeared misplaced because the requested injunction concerned medical services rather than the enforcement of immigration laws, but the court did not resolve that issue because it dismissed the amended complaint.

Court’s Reasoning

The court applied the requirements for constitutional standing. A plaintiff must allege a concrete and particularized injury that is fairly traceable to the defendant’s conduct and likely to be remedied by a favorable decision. The court also discussed ripeness, which prevents courts from deciding disputes based on contingent future events that may not happen.

For the first claim, the court explained that a substantive due process claim concerning health and safety in custody requires allegations that the government intentionally made a confinement decision, the conditions created a substantial risk of serious harm, the government failed to take reasonable available measures to reduce that risk, and that failure caused injury. The court found that the amended complaint did not satisfy those requirements. It said the allegations essentially asserted that, if the plaintiffs later contracted COVID-19 and developed serious symptoms, the defendants might not treat them properly.

The court also found that the alleged danger was speculative and contingent. The plaintiffs had not alleged facts showing a genuine and specific threat of direct injury, such as a history of people detained at the facility suffering direct injury from the alleged testing and treatment failures. The court therefore concluded that the first claim did not satisfy the standing and ripeness requirements and also fell short of stating a Fifth Amendment health-and-safety claim.

For the second claim, the court found that the plaintiffs had not plausibly alleged that the defendants’ failure to offer Paxlovid or other antiviral medication was expressly intended to punish them, was excessive in relation to a nonpunitive purpose, or pursued an objective through unnecessarily harsh methods. The court again concluded that the plaintiffs had not alleged a sufficiently concrete and particularized injury.

Ruling

The court granted the defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. It dismissed the First Amended Complaint with leave to amend and allowed the plaintiffs 60 days to file a Second Amended Complaint. Because the operative complaint had been dismissed, the court denied the plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction and Motion to Certify Class. The order’s opening statement describes the plaintiffs’ motions as denied without prejudice, but the concluding paragraph states that they were denied without that qualifier.