Case: Cervantez v. Whitfield

2:79-cv-00206 | U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas

Filed Date: Dec. 12, 1979

Clearinghouse coding complete

Case Summary

On December 12, 1979, Pedro Cervantez and Juan Lozano filed suit in the United States District Court of the Northern District of Texas, challenging their arrest, detention and interrogation for suspected violations of immigration law by local and state law enforcement officers and federal border patrol agents. Defendants included the Immigration and Naturalization Service ("INS"), the Texas Department of Public Safety ("DPS"), and the Deaf Smith County Sheriff's Department and individuals offi…

On December 12, 1979, Pedro Cervantez and Juan Lozano filed suit in the United States District Court of the Northern District of Texas, challenging their arrest, detention and interrogation for suspected violations of immigration law by local and state law enforcement officers and federal border patrol agents. Defendants included the Immigration and Naturalization Service ("INS"), the Texas Department of Public Safety ("DPS"), and the Deaf Smith County Sheriff's Department and individuals officers of those agencies. Plaintiffs sought monetary, declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as class certification on behalf of all persons of Hispanic descent who had been questioned, arrested, detained, incarcerated or charged by defendants following investigation of their immigration status.

Several years of extensive discovery and litigation followed. In early 1984, plaintiffs and the federal defendants reached a stipulated settlement which was approved by the Court on February 6, 1984.

Settlement with the remaining county and state defendants followed shortly thereafter. On June 4, 1984, the District Court (Judge Mary Lou Robinson) entered an Agreed Order certifying two classes with respect to Plaintiffs' claims against the county defendants: the "Injunctive Relief Class" and the "Monetary Relief Class." The Court also preliminary approved the settlement with the county defendants. On July 16, 1984, the Court entered an Agreed Order certifying two classes with respect to claims against the state defendants: the "Statewide Class" and the "D.P.S. Region 5 Class." The Court also preliminary approved the settlement with the state defendants.

While settlement with county and state defendants was being finalized, plaintiffs moved for an award of attorneys' fees and costs against the federal defendants, but the District Court (Judge Robinson) denied the request, finding that plaintiffs were not the prevailing parties under the Equal Access to Justice Act. The Fifth Circuit affirmed. Cervantez v. Whitfield, 776 F.2d 556 (5th 1985).

On April 4, 1985, the District Court held a fairness hearing concerning final approval of the proposed settlements of the County Injunctive Relief Class, the County Monetary Relief Class, and the Statewide Class. (The D.P.S. Region 5 Class settlement was not ready for approval at that time.) Following the hearing, Judge Robinson entered her order approving the County Monetary Relief Class settlement, but disapproving the proposed County Injunctive Relief Class and Statewide Class settlements because of unreasonable limitations the injunctive settlements would place on communications between the state/county officials and the INS. Under the terms of the County Monetary Relief Class settlement, each class member that submitted a claim would receive $220 per day detained in jail. Aggregate of claims totaled $11,000. Cervantez v. Whitfield, 613 F.Supp. 1439 (N.D.Tex. 1985).

As there is no PACER docket available, and no further reported opinions, it is unclear what happened to plaintiffs' injunctive relief claims after the Court refused to approve settlement of those claims.

Summary Authors

Brian Ponton (8/22/2007)

People


Judge(s)

Hill, Robert Madden (Texas)

Attorney for Plaintiff
Attorney for Defendant

Kanter, William (District of Columbia)

Kraatz, Ann (Texas)

Expert/Monitor/Master/Other

Deutsch, Morris H (District of Columbia)

McRoberts, Roger (Texas)

show all people

Documents in the Clearinghouse

Document

2:79-cv-00206

Opinion

July 22, 1985

July 22, 1985

Order/Opinion

613 F.Supp. 613

84-01736

Opinion

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

Nov. 18, 1985

Nov. 18, 1985

Order/Opinion

776 F.2d 776

Docket

Last updated April 2, 2024, 3:08 a.m.

Docket sheet not available via the Clearinghouse.

Case Details

State / Territory: Texas

Case Type(s):

Immigration and/or the Border

Key Dates

Filing Date: Dec. 12, 1979

Case Ongoing: No

Plaintiffs

Plaintiff Description:

Persons of Hispanic descent who had been questioned, arrested, detained, incarcerated or charged by federal, state and county officials following investigation of their immigration status.

Plaintiff Type(s):

Private Plaintiff

Public Interest Lawyer: No

Filed Pro Se: Unknown

Class Action Sought: Yes

Class Action Outcome: Granted

Defendants

Texas Department of Public Safety (Hereford, Deaf Smith), State

Deaf Smith County (Deaf Smith), County

Immigration and Naturalization Service, Federal

Case Details

Causes of Action:

42 U.S.C. § 1983

Ex Parte Young (Federal) or Bivens

Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. §§ 1101 et seq.

Constitutional Clause(s):

Due Process

Due Process: Procedural Due Process

Unreasonable search and seizure

Available Documents:

Any published opinion

Outcome

Prevailing Party: Plaintiff

Nature of Relief:

Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement

Damages

Source of Relief:

Settlement

Form of Settlement:

Court Approved Settlement or Consent Decree

Issues

Reproductive rights:

Fetus Identity

Immigration/Border:

Border police

Constitutional rights

Detention - procedures