University of Michigan Law School
Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse
new search
page permalink
Case Name Martinez v. Chertoff IM-OH-0002
Docket / Court 1:07-cv-00722-SJD-T ( S.D. Ohio )
State/Territory Ohio
Case Type(s) Immigration
Case Summary
On August 31, 2007, two plaintiffs filed suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio individually and on behalf of over 120 individuals who were arrested and detained several days earlier during an immigration enforcement raid conducted by the local sheriff and ... read more >
On August 31, 2007, two plaintiffs filed suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio individually and on behalf of over 120 individuals who were arrested and detained several days earlier during an immigration enforcement raid conducted by the local sheriff and federal agents of the Immigration and Custom Enforcement at a chicken processing plant in Fairfield, Ohio. The Emergency Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, Writ of Mandamus, Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief, and Motion for a Stay of Removal, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio. Plaintiffs alleged that the conduct of the local and federal officers was in violation of the Supremacy Clause, the Due Process Clause, the Equal Protection Clause, 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiffs also sought relief under the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1151, §1255; Administration Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 701, Mandamus Act 28 U.S.C. § 1361, Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 220 and the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651.

After the suit was filed, the parties reached an informal agreement that no detained workers would be immediately deported or moved to a jail outside of the Greater Cincinnati area.

Koch Foods, the owner of the raided chicken plant, sought emergency intervention in the case and filed a motion for a Temporary Restraining Order and preliminary injunction to prevent the government from removing or deporting any of the detained Koch Foods workers. Anticipating further legal exposure, Koch Foods asserted that it needed to interview the detained workers to aid in its defense against any potential criminal investigation and prosecution.

Over the course of the next several months, many of the workers either left the country or opted to drop the charges. As a result, the Plaintiffs moved for, and were granted, dismissal of the case without prejudice on October 26, 2007.

Joshua Arocho - 07/13/2012


compress summary

- click to show/hide ALL -
Issues and Causes of Action
click to show/hide detail
Issues
Constitutional Clause
Federalism
Immigration
Constitutional rights
Criminal prosecution
Detention - conditions
Detention - criteria
Detention - procedures
Employer sanctions
Employment
Undocumented immigrants - rights and duties
Work authorization - criteria
Work authorization - procedures
Plaintiff Type
Private Plaintiff
Causes of Action Mandamus, 28 U.S.C. § 1361
Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. §§ 1101 et seq.
Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201
All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651
Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 551 et seq.
42 U.S.C. § 1983
42 U.S.C. § 1981
Defendant(s) Department of Homeland Security
Sheriff of Butler County
U.S. Immigration and Custom Enforcement
Plaintiff Description Individuals arrested and detained for alleged immigration violations by local and federal authorities at Koch Food plant
Indexed Lawyer Organizations None on record
Class action status sought No
Class action status granted No
Prevailing Party Defendant
Public Int. Lawyer No
Nature of Relief None
Source of Relief None
Form of Settlement Voluntary Dismissal
Order Duration not on record
Case Closing Year 2007
Case Ongoing No
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)
1:07-cv-00722-SJD-TSH (S.D. Ohio) 10/29/2007
IM-OH-0002-9000 PDF | Detail
PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
General Documents
Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus, Writ of Mandamus, Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief and Motion for a Stay of Removal 08/31/2007
IM-OH-0002-0001 PDF | Detail
Plaintiff-Intervenor’s Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction 09/10/2007
IM-OH-0002-0002 PDF | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Notice of Dismissal 09/21/2007
IM-OH-0002-0003 PDF | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Motion to Dismiss Without Prejudice 10/19/2007
IM-OH-0002-0004 PDF | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Order 10/26/2007 (S.D. Ohio)
IM-OH-0002-0005 PDF | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Judges Dlott, Susan J. (S.D. Ohio)
IM-OH-0002-0005 | IM-OH-0002-9000
Hogan, Timothy Sylvester (S.D. Ohio)
IM-OH-0002-9000
Monitors/Masters None on record
Plaintiff's Lawyers Crouse, Candace C. (Ohio)
IM-OH-0002-0002 | IM-OH-0002-9000
Namei, Firooz Taghi (Ohio)
IM-OH-0002-0001 | IM-OH-0002-0002 | IM-OH-0002-0004 | IM-OH-0002-9000
Nesbit, Mark (Ohio)
IM-OH-0002-0001
Pillich, Constance M. (Ohio)
IM-OH-0002-0003 | IM-OH-0002-9000
Pinales, Martin Stanley (Ohio)
IM-OH-0002-0002 | IM-OH-0002-9000
Defendant's Lawyers Ferguson, Dan Lee (Ohio)
IM-OH-0002-9000
Holtzman, Jan Martin (Ohio)
IM-OH-0002-0002 | IM-OH-0002-9000
Kaminski, Gerald Francis (Ohio)
IM-OH-0002-9000
Lockhart, Gregory G. (Ohio)
IM-OH-0002-0001
Terrien, Jeb (Ohio)
IM-OH-0002-0002
Other Lawyers None on record

- click to show/hide ALL -

new search
page permalink

- top of page -