University of Michigan Law School
Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse
new search
page permalink
Case Name Padilla v. Ridge IM-TX-0016
Docket / Court 7:03-cv-00126 ( S.D. Tex. )
State/Territory Texas
Case Type(s) Immigration
Attorney Organization MALDEF
Case Summary
On May 28, 2003, plaintiffs who had been granted the status of lawful permanent resident during their removal proceedings filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas to compel the federal government to provide them with documentation of their permanent resident status ... read more >
On May 28, 2003, plaintiffs who had been granted the status of lawful permanent resident during their removal proceedings filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas to compel the federal government to provide them with documentation of their permanent resident status in a timely manner. Plaintiffs alleged they applied for their alien registration card ("green card") and temporary proof of their legal permanent resident status in the United States but that the government had not issued that documentation. Without such documentation, plaintiffs alleged, they were denied employment, travel, educational, and public benefits privileges granted to other legal permanent residents. Plaintiffs asserted claims for violation of the Immigration and Nationality Act ("INA"), 8 U.S.C. § 1101 et seq., as amended by the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 ("IIRIRA"), the Administrative Procedure Act ("APA"), 5 U.S.C. § 701 et seq. and the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. Attorneys with the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights under Law of Texas and private law firms, represented the plaintiffs.

On March 31, 2004, the District Court (Judge Ricardo H. Hinojosa) certified the case as a class action, over the objection of the government. Plaintiffs' request for a preliminary injunction was denied.

Thereafter, both parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment which were amended and supplemented numerous times. Plaintiffs' complaint likewise underwent numerous amendments. Along with their filings, the parties also notified the Court in July 2004 that substantially identical cases were pending in federal courts in California (Santillan v. Ashcroft, No. 3:04-cv-02686 (N.D. Cal.), IM-CA-0003) and Florida (Amor v. Ashcroft, No. 1:04-CV-21685 (S.D. Fla.), IM-FL-0021).

Discovery and litigation continued. On September 9, 2005, the Court (Judge Hinojosa) instructed the parties to refile new motions for summary judgment to address rulings made in the California case, Santillan v. Ashcroft.

At a motion hearing on March 22, 2006, the Court (Judge Hinojosa) granted a motion to stay the case pending Santillan (a certified national class action on the same issue), and set a status conference for early the following year. The Court also denied the cross-motions for summary judgments without prejudice to refiling.

After several continuances, a status conference was held on August 10, 2007 at which time the parties advised the Court that they were still waiting for the resolution to Santillan, but that they were also finalizing a resolution to the Padilla case.

On September 27, 2007, the Court (Judge Hinojosa), noting that the parties had urged little action over the past two years, ordered an indefinite stay of the case pending the resolution of Santillan and inviting the parties to file for reinstatement if a resolution was reached in California that would allow the case to progress.

Meanwhile, the parties had been negotiating, and in December 2007 both they and the parties in Santillan came to an agreement with the federal government. On January 25, 2008, the parties jointly moved to reactive the case and have it transferred to the Northern District of California to facilitate a settlement of both Padilla and Santillan on identical terms.

On February 25, the Court (Judge Hinojosa) granted their motion and the case was transferred to be consolidated with Santillan. On July 22, 2008, the California court approved a settlement for both cases; see the entry on Santillan, IM-CA-0003, for more details.

Christopher Schad - 06/08/2012


compress summary

- click to show/hide ALL -
Issues and Causes of Action
click to show/hide detail
Issues
General
Public benefits (includes, e.g., in-state tuition, govt. jobs)
Immigration
Constitutional rights
Status/Classification
Plaintiff Type
Private Plaintiff
Causes of Action Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. §§ 1101 et seq.
Bivens
Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 551 et seq.
Defendant(s) Department of Homeland Security (DHS)
U.S. Attorney General's Office
United States Citizenship and Immigration Services
Plaintiff Description All persons who were or will be granted lawful permanent resident status in removal proceedings in the Harlingen, Houston and San Antonio Districts of the BCIS and to whom BCIS fails to issue temporary documentation evidencing their status.
Indexed Lawyer Organizations MALDEF
Class action status sought Yes
Class action status granted Yes
Prevailing Party Plaintiff
Public Int. Lawyer Yes
Nature of Relief Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement
Source of Relief Settlement
Form of Settlement Court Approved Settlement or Consent Decree
Order Duration not on record
Case Closing Year 2008
Case Ongoing Yes
Case Listing IM-CA-0003 : Santillan v. Mukasey (N.D. Cal.)
IM-FL-0021 : Amor v. U.S. Attorney General (S.D. Fla.)
Additional Resources
click to show/hide detail
Case Studies Threats to the Future of the Immigration Class Action
Washington University Journal of Law and Policy
By: Jill E. Family (Widener University School of Law)
Citation: 27 Wash. U. J.L. & Pol'y 71 (2008)
[ Detail ] [ External Link ]

Docket(s)
7:03-cv-00126 (S.D. Tex.) 02/26/2008
IM-TX-0016-9000 PDF | Detail
PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
General Documents
Order [Granting Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification] 03/31/2004 (S.D. Tex.)
IM-TX-0016-0002 PDF | Detail
Plaintiffs' Fifth Amended Complaint for Mandamus, Declaratory and Injunctive Relief 08/19/2004
IM-TX-0016-0001 PDF | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Notice of Final Settlement Agreement 08/24/2005
IM-TX-0016-0005 PDF | Detail
Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement and Release 02/07/2007
IM-TX-0016-0006 PDF | Detail
Joint Motion to Reinstate Case on Active Calendar and to Transfer Case to Northern District of California 01/25/2008
IM-TX-0016-0003 PDF | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Order of Reinstatement and Transfer 02/25/2008 (S.D. Tex.)
IM-TX-0016-0004 PDF | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Judges Hinojosa, Ricardo H. (S.D. Tex.)
IM-TX-0016-0002 | IM-TX-0016-0004 | IM-TX-0016-9000
Monitors/Masters None on record
Plaintiff's Lawyers Armendariz, David Anton (Texas)
IM-TX-0016-0001 | IM-TX-0016-0005 | IM-TX-0016-9000
Berra, Joseph Pacifico (Texas)
IM-TX-0016-0005 | IM-TX-0016-9000
Maldonado, Javier N (Texas)
IM-TX-0016-0001 | IM-TX-0016-0003 | IM-TX-0016-9000
Perales, Nina (Texas)
IM-TX-0016-0001 | IM-TX-0016-9000
Perez, Marisol Linda (Texas)
IM-TX-0016-0003 | IM-TX-0016-9000
Rhyu, Michelle S (California)
IM-TX-0016-0006
Saucedo, Leticia M. (Texas)
IM-TX-0016-9000
Solis, Selena N. (Texas)
IM-TX-0016-9000
Defendant's Lawyers Bucholtz, Jeffrey S. (District of Columbia)
IM-TX-0016-0003
De Gabrielle, Donald J. Jr. (Texas)
IM-TX-0016-0003
Flynn, Steven J. (District of Columbia)
IM-TX-0016-0003 | IM-TX-0016-9000
Putnam, Lisa M. (Texas)
IM-TX-0016-0003 | IM-TX-0016-9000
Stevens, Elizabeth Jones (District of Columbia)
IM-TX-0016-0003
Walters, Mark C. (District of Columbia)
IM-TX-0016-0003 | IM-TX-0016-0006 | IM-TX-0016-9000
Other Lawyers None on record

- click to show/hide ALL -

new search
page permalink

- top of page -