University of Michigan Law School
Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse
new search
page permalink
Case Name Abadia-Peixoto v. DHS IM-CA-0070
Docket / Court 3:11-cv-4001 ( N.D. Cal. )
State/Territory California
Case Type(s) Immigration
Attorney Organization ACLU Chapters (any)
Lawyers Comm. for Civil Rights Under Law
Case Summary
On August 15, 2011, civil immigration detainees filed this lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for Northern District of California. The plaintiffs filed under the Declaratory Judgment Act and 42 U.S.C. § 1983, against the Immigration and Customs Enforcement ("ICE") and the Executive Office of ... read more >
On August 15, 2011, civil immigration detainees filed this lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for Northern District of California. The plaintiffs filed under the Declaratory Judgment Act and 42 U.S.C. § 1983, against the Immigration and Customs Enforcement ("ICE") and the Executive Office of Immigration Review ("EOIR") for violating the Due Process Clause. Plaintiffs, represented by attorneys at the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California (ACLU), the Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights of the San Francisco Bay Area, and private counsel, challenged ICE's blanket policy of shackling all adult detainees for the duration of immigration court proceedings in San Francisco. They claimed the policy violated the Fifth Amendment and sought class certification and declaratory and injunctive relief. According to the complaint, ICE adopted a practice of shackling all immigration detainees in its custody, in court, without conducting an individualized review of the need for restraints.

On December 23, 2011 the District Court (Judge Richard Seeborg) granted plaintiffs' motion for class certification and denied defendants' motion for summary judgment. De Abadia-Peixoto v. DHS, 277 F.R.D. 572 (N.D. Cal. 2011). The court rejected the defendants' argument that the plaintiffs' claims were not ripe, holding that "while the plaintiffs' particular hearings may not yet have occurred, they have sufficiently alleged facts showing a concrete threat of imminent conduct presenting a ripe controversy that can be adjudicated." The court also rejected the defendants' argument that the claims were foreclosed by the Ninth Circuit's decision in United States v. Howard, 480 F.3d 1005 (9th Cir. 2007), which held that a different shackling policy was legal. The court found that Howard did not stand for the rule that blanket shackling is always allowed if no jury is present.

On March 20, 2012, the case was referred to Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler for settlement, who issued a number of opinions on discovery issues. On March 6, 2014, the parties reached a court-approved settlement agreement. The agreement stipulated that the defendants would no longer restrain all detainees and instead only shackle those who demonstrated “combative, disruptive, violent, or threatening” behavior. Detainees who were restrained would also be allowed to request that the restraints be removed or lessened. The defendants agreed to monitor their officers to ensure that these terms would be followed. Finally, the defendants agreed to pay $350,000 in attorneys’ fees. On April 10, 2014, the court approved the settlement agreement and dismissed the case but retained jurisdiction to enforce the settlement agreement for three years.

Jennifer Bronson - 10/06/2013
Allison Hight - 01/06/2016


compress summary

- click to show/hide ALL -
Issues and Causes of Action
click to show/hide detail
Issues
Constitutional Clause
Due Process
Content of Injunction
Develop anti-discrimination policy
Monitoring
Discrimination-basis
Immigration status
General
Restraints : physical
Immigration
Detention - conditions
Plaintiff Type
Private Plaintiff
Type of Facility
Government-run
Causes of Action Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201
42 U.S.C. § 1983
Defendant(s) Executive Office for Immigration Review
Immigrations and Customs Enforcement
Plaintiff Description Civil immigration detainees in San Francisco Immigration Court
Indexed Lawyer Organizations ACLU Chapters (any)
Lawyers Comm. for Civil Rights Under Law
Class action status sought Yes
Class action status granted Yes
Prevailing Party Plaintiff
Public Int. Lawyer Yes
Nature of Relief Attorneys fees
Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement
Source of Relief Settlement
Form of Settlement Court Approved Settlement or Consent Decree
Order Duration 2014 - n/a
Case Closing Year n/a
Case Ongoing Yes
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)
3:11−cv−04001 (N.D. Cal.) 09/23/2013
IM-CA-0070-9000.pdf | Detail
PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
General Documents
Class Action (Civil Rights) Complaint 08/15/2011
IM-CA-0070-0001.pdf | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Order Denying Motion to Dismiss and Granting Motion to Certify Class 12/23/2011 (277 F.R.D. 572) (N.D. Cal.)
IM-CA-0070-0002.pdf | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Plaintiffs' Unopposed Notice of Motion, Motion, and Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Final Approval of Class Action Settlement 03/06/2014
IM-CA-0070-0003.pdf | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Final Order and Stipulated Dismissal 04/10/2014 (N.D. Cal.)
IM-CA-0070-0004.pdf | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Judges Beeler, Laurel (N.D. Cal.) [Magistrate]
IM-CA-0070-9000
Seeborg, Richard G. (N.D. Cal.) [Magistrate]
IM-CA-0070-0002 | IM-CA-0070-0004 | IM-CA-0070-9000
Westmore, Kandis Arianne Court not on record
IM-CA-0070-9000
Monitors/Masters None on record
Plaintiff's Lawyers Berger, David J. (California)
IM-CA-0070-0001 | IM-CA-0070-0003 | IM-CA-0070-9000
Chavez, Paul R (California)
IM-CA-0070-0001 | IM-CA-0070-0003 | IM-CA-0070-9000
Daniel, Audrey (California)
IM-CA-0070-9000
Goldfaden, Robin Lisa (California)
IM-CA-0070-0003
Hwang, Philip Kim (California)
IM-CA-0070-9000
Iyengar, Savith S. (California)
IM-CA-0070-0003 | IM-CA-0070-9000
Kim, Angie Young (California)
IM-CA-0070-0003 | IM-CA-0070-9000
Martin, Thomas James (California)
IM-CA-0070-0003 | IM-CA-0070-9000
Mass, Julia Harumi (California)
IM-CA-0070-0001 | IM-CA-0070-0003 | IM-CA-0070-9000
Moreno, Catherine Eugenia (California)
IM-CA-0070-0003 | IM-CA-0070-0004 | IM-CA-0070-9000
Pratt, Analisa M (California)
IM-CA-0070-9000
Sanchez, Briza (California)
IM-CA-0070-0003 | IM-CA-0070-9000
Schlosser, Alan Lawrence (California)
IM-CA-0070-0003 | IM-CA-0070-9000
Zhao, Jingni (California)
IM-CA-0070-0003 | IM-CA-0070-9000
Defendant's Lawyers Atkinson, Theodore W (District of Columbia)
IM-CA-0070-9000
Bauer, Jeffrey Michael (District of Columbia)
IM-CA-0070-9000
Go, Samuel P. (District of Columbia)
IM-CA-0070-9000
Hollis, Christopher W. (District of Columbia)
IM-CA-0070-9000
Reuveni, Erez (District of Columbia)
IM-CA-0070-9000
Wilson, Sarah S. (District of Columbia)
IM-CA-0070-9000
Other Lawyers Slenkovich, Keith Leonard (California)
IM-CA-0070-9000

- click to show/hide ALL -

new search
page permalink

- top of page -