University of Michigan Law School
Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse
new search
page permalink
Case Name Franco-Gonzalez v. Holder IM-CA-0067
Docket / Court 2:10-cv-02211-DMG-DTB ( C.D. Cal. )
State/Territory California
Case Type(s) Disability Rights-Pub. Accom.
Immigration and/or the Border
Intellectual Disability (Facility)
Mental Health (Facility)
Attorney Organization ACLU Chapters (any)
ACLU of Southern California
Northwest Immigrant Rights Project (NWIRP)
Public Counsel
Case Summary
On March 26, 2010, the ACLU filed this petition for writ of habeas corpus and class action complaint, representing several named plaintiffs with serious mental disorders or disabilities who had been detained by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and denied provision of legal counsel ... read more >
On March 26, 2010, the ACLU filed this petition for writ of habeas corpus and class action complaint, representing several named plaintiffs with serious mental disorders or disabilities who had been detained by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and denied provision of legal counsel. The plaintiffs filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, against the federal Government. Many of the documents filed in this case are under seal or otherwise unavailable to the Clearinghouse, including the initial habeas petition. But a third amended complaint from October 25, 2011, is available and included in our collection. The third amended complaint lists the Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause of the U.S. Constitution, a collection of federal immigration laws, and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 as causes of action under which the suit was brought.

The Third Amended Complaint alleged that the plaintiffs, due to their mental disabilities, were incompetent to defend themselves but had been forced to do so by the immigration courts. It alleged that many class members would be pushed through these proceedings without any comprehension of their meaning and then deported, regardless of whether they had been in the United States legally. The plaintiffs estimated that the size of the plaintiff class was at least several hundred individuals, and that two to five percent of all immigrant detainees would have a qualifying serious mental illness. The plaintiffs sought a declaratory judgment that the Government had violated federal law, and injunctions ordering the Government to implement meaningful adequate competency evaluations for detainees where appropriate and ordering the appointment of counsel for individuals found to be incompetent to represent themselves. They also sought attorneys' fees under the fee-shifting provisions of the statutes under which the case was brought.

Congress had mandated that immigration and deportation proceedings must be fundamentally fair and had directed the Attorney General to develop and promulgate meaningful safeguards for detainees lacking competence to represent themselves. The plaintiff alleged the Government had failed to do this, implementing no system to identify such individuals and failing to ensure fair hearings for mentally incompetent detainees. The complaint contended that the Government had not even established procedures defining competence or whether a person was mentally incompetent. No system was in place for assigning counsel to incompetent individuals. According to the complaint, the few regulations that had been established as "safeguards" were actually functioning as barriers to the appointment of counsel, making it easier to deport incompetent individuals without regard to their legal immigration status.

One of the named plaintiffs, Mr. Franco-Gonzalez, who had been previously diagnosed with a moderate intellectual disability (characterized by an IQ between 35 and 55), was identified by the Government as incompetent in 2005, but was not provided with counsel. Instead, the Immigration Judge administratively closed his case because of his lack of counsel and his mental condition. The plaintiff remained in detention by the Government for four and a half years without a hearing. He was released three days after the lawsuit was filed, apparently in response to the filing, with the Government retaining the right to detain him again at will.

The other named plaintiffs had all been diagnosed with schizophrenia or other mental conditions involving psychosis and included several lawful permanent residents of the United States. Most of these men were forced to represent themselves in immigration court despite their established mental health diagnoses and their symptoms of psychosis. Most or all of them never had their competency evaluated while their cases were before the immigration courts.

The complaint argued that the Rehabilitation Act required the appointment of counsel and prompt custody hearings as a reasonable accommodation for disabled individuals who are discriminated against in regards to their access to immigration courts. It also argued that the Due Process Clause of the Constitution required the appointment of counsel for mentally incompetent individuals, because without counsel they could not have full and fair immigration hearings. They also argued that the same clause prevents prolonged detention without a custody hearing to determine whether detention is necessary.

Prior to the filing of the third amended complaint described above, the court had already issued several rulings. On December 27, 2010, the court (Judge Dolly Gee) granted the plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction, which enjoined the Government, pending the outcome of a trial on the merits of the case, from pursuing further immigration proceedings against the named plaintiffs unless they were first appointed qualified counsel. The court also ordered the release from detention of two of the named plaintiffs. 767 F.Supp.2d 1034 (C.D. Cal 2010).

On May 4, 2011, and October 2, 2011, the court granted two additional preliminary injunctions, each in response to a motion filed by a named plaintiff, ordering the Government to either hold a bond hearing within 45 days to determine whether their ongoing detention was justified, or to release them from detention on conditions of supervision. The two men were released. 828 F.Supp.2d 1133 (C.D. Cal 2011).

On November 21, 2011, the court granted class certification, allowing the suit to move forward as a class action. The court certified the following class and sub-classes:
  • Plaintiff Class: All individuals who are or will be in DHS custody for removal proceedings in California, Arizona, and Washington who have been identified by or to medical personnel, DHS, or an Immigration Judge, as having a serious mental disorder or defect that may render them incompetent to represent themselves in detention or removal proceedings, and who presently lack counsel in their detention or removal proceedings.
  • Plaintiff Sub-Class 1: Individuals in the above-named Plaintiff Class who have a serious mental disorder or defect that renders them incompetent to represent themselves in detention or removal proceedings.
  • Plaintiff Sub-Class 2: Individuals in the above-named Plaintiff Class who have been detained for more than six months.
On April 23, 2013, the court granted in part the plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment, finding that Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act required the Government to provide qualified representatives to represent class members in all aspects of their removal and detention proceedings. She also found that the Government was in violation of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), which forbids detentions longer than 180 days without a custody hearing. The court granted a permanent injunction requiring the Government to provide class members with counsel, and to provide timely custody hearings in accordance with the INA.

The day prior to this ruling (but in response to this case), the Department of Justice and the Department of Homeland Security announced a new nationwide policy to require that immigration detention facilities perform screenings for serious mental disorders or conditions where appropriate, and to ensure the availability of competency hearings and independent psychological and psychiatric examinations. Detainees found to be incompetent who are unrepresented by counsel will, by this new policy, be provided with qualified representation.

On March 14, 2014, the parties reached a partial settlement agreement that dismissed causes of action six and seven (violation of the right to release under INA and the Due Process Clause, respectively). The court dismissed the remaining causes of action on September 25, 2015, when the parties reached a final settlement agreement. The settlement addressed individuals in Arizona, California, and Washington who had been given final orders of removal on or after November 21, 2011, and had qualifying mental conditions. It allowed them to file a motion to reopen their cases with the Board of Immigration Appeals or the Immigration Court. For individuals who had already been removed from the country, ICE agreed to assist their return to the United States by processing their paperwork, restoring their previous immigration status, and partially paying for their travel expenses.

Additionally, on October 29, 2014, the court issued an order further implementing the permanent injunction, outlining the screening process that the Government needed to implement to identify individuals with serious mental disorders and assign them qualified representation.

On October 8, 2015, the parties reached an agreement to pay $9,500,000 in attorneys' fees. During the following years, the parties and the court worked to ensure the injunctions and monitoring orders were being complied with. On April 30, 2018, the court confirmed that the monitoring period had ended, and terminated the monitoring. In that order, the court also included recommendations from a retained expert, Dr. Melissa Piasecki, regarding future opportunities for improvement.

On April 2, 2019, the court issued an order awarding the plaintiffs $35,500 in attorneys' fees. This award was apportioned among the counsel organizations as follows: $29,978.90 for the ACLU of Southern California; $4,896.45 for the Northwest Immigrant Rights Project; and $624.65 for Public Counsel.

On November 8, 2019, the plaintiffs filed a motion for Order for Reopening Limited Discovery to Establish Non-Compliance with Court Orders, stating that there appears to be a pattern of violations of the court's comprehensive Immigration Plan Order issued five years ago. A few weeks later, the court agreed that good cause was shown in the parties' stipulation regarding the plaintiff's motion, and set a briefing schedule; the Government was to submit its response by November 20, 2019, and the plaintiffs' reply was due on November 27, 2019.

Since then, the parties have consulted with one another to set schedule and terms for discovery; the schedule and terms were laid out on the joint status report filed on March 24, 2020. The case is ongoing.

Alex Colbert-Taylor - 06/20/2013
Allison Hight - 10/25/2015
Virginia Weeks - 11/05/2016
Lisa Koo - 03/10/2019
Bogyung Lim - 06/29/2020


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
Discrimination Prohibition
Monitoring
Preliminary relief granted
Reasonable Accommodation
Reporting
Defendant-type
Jurisdiction-wide
Law-enforcement
Disability
Mental impairment
Discrimination-basis
Disability (inc. reasonable accommodations)
General
Access to lawyers or judicial system
Conditions of confinement
Confinement/isolation
Deinstitutionalization/decarceration
Habeas Corpus
Over/Unlawful Detention
Placement in detention facilities
Quality of representation
Reasonable Accommodations
Timeliness of case assignment
Immigration/Border
Constitutional rights
Deportation - judicial review
Deportation - procedure
Detention - conditions
Detention - criteria
Detention - procedures
Immigration lawyers
Status/Classification
Mental Disability
Intellectual/developmental disability, unspecified
Plaintiff Type
Private Plaintiff
Special Case Type
Habeas
Type of Facility
Government-run
Causes of Action Ex Parte Young (Federal) or Bivens
Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. §§ 1101 et seq.
Section 504 (Rehabilitation Act), 29 U.S.C. § 701
Defendant(s) The United States of America
Plaintiff Description Class of individuals with severe mental disabilities or illnesses, detained by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, denied hearings to determine competency and forced to represent themselves at immigration hearings, and held in detention for long periods.
Indexed Lawyer Organizations ACLU Chapters (any)
ACLU of Southern California
Northwest Immigrant Rights Project (NWIRP)
Public Counsel
Class action status sought Yes
Class action status granted Yes
Filed Pro Se No
Prevailing Party Plaintiff
Public Int. Lawyer Yes
Nature of Relief Preliminary injunction / Temp. restraining order
Habeas relief
Attorneys fees
Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement
Source of Relief Litigation
Settlement
Form of Settlement Court Approved Settlement or Consent Decree
Order Duration 2014 - n/a
Filed 03/26/2010
Case Ongoing Yes
Additional Resources
click to show/hide detail
  See this case at CourtListener.com (May provide additional documents and, for active cases, real-time alerts)
  Franco-Gonzalez v. Holder
American Civil Liberties Union
Date: Apr. 24, 2013
By: American Civil Liberties Union
[ Detail ] [ External Link ]

Docket(s)
2:10-cv-02211 (C.D. Cal.)
IM-CA-0067-9002.pdf | Detail
Date: 03/31/2020
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
General Documents
Amended Order Re Plaintiffs' Motion for a Preliminary Injunction (767 F.Supp.2d 1034) (C.D. Cal.)
IM-CA-0067-0010.pdf | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Date: 12/27/2010
Source: Westlaw
Order Re Plaintiff Maksim Zhalezny's Motion for a Preliminary Injunction [ECF# 204] (828 F.Supp.2d 1133) (C.D. Cal.)
IM-CA-0067-0009.pdf | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Date: 05/04/2011
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Order Re Plaintiff Yonas Woldemariam's Motion for a Preliminary Injunction [ECF# 285] (2011 WL 5966657) (C.D. Cal.)
IM-CA-0067-0003.pdf | WESTLAW | Detail
Date: 08/02/2011
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Ruling Re: Protective Order [ECF# 284] (C.D. Cal.)
IM-CA-0067-0004.pdf | Detail
Date: 08/19/2011
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Third Amended Class-Action Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief and Writ of Habeas Corpus [ECF# 344]
IM-CA-0067-0002.pdf | Detail
Date: 10/25/2011
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Order Re: Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification [ECF# 348] (C.D. Cal.)
IM-CA-0067-0005.pdf | Detail
Date: 11/21/2011
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
DOJ Executive Office for Immigration Press Release: Department of Justice and the Department of Homeland Security Announce Safeguards for Unrepresented Immigration Detainees with Serious Mental Disorders or Conditions
IM-CA-0067-0011.pdf | External Link | Detail
Date: 04/22/2013
Civil Immigation Detention: Guidance for New Identification and Information-Sharing Procedures Related to Unrepresented Detainees With Serious Mental Disorders or Conditions
IM-CA-0067-0012.pdf | External Link | Detail
Date: 04/22/2013
ACLU Press Release: Class Action Lawsuit Forces Policy Change to Protect Detained Immigrants with Serious Mental Disabilities
IM-CA-0067-0013.pdf | External Link | Detail
Date: 04/22/2013
Source: ACLU
Order Re: Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction on Behalf of Seven Class Members [ECF# 592] (C.D. Cal.)
IM-CA-0067-0006.pdf | Detail
Date: 04/23/2013
Partial Judgment and Permanent Injunction [ECF# 593] (2013 WL 3674492) (C.D. Cal.)
IM-CA-0067-0007.pdf | WESTLAW | Detail
Date: 04/23/2013
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Order Re: Plaintiffs' Motion For Court Approval of Settlement Agreement [ECF# 713] (C.D. Cal.)
IM-CA-0067-0015.pdf | Detail
Date: 03/14/2014
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Order Further Implementing This Court's Permanent Injunction [ECF# 786] (C.D. Cal.)
IM-CA-0067-0014.pdf | Detail
Date: 10/29/2014
Order Further Implementing This Court's Permanent Injunction [ECF# 786] (2014 WL 5475097) (C.D. Cal.)
IM-CA-0067-0016.pdf | WESTLAW | Detail
Date: 10/29/2014
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Order Granting Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Approval of Partial Settlement Agreement [ECF# 818] (2015 WL 11116636) (C.D. Cal.)
IM-CA-0067-0017.pdf | WESTLAW | Detail
Date: 03/30/2015
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Order Re: Defendants' Statement of Non-Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion to Dismiss Remaining Claims [ECF# 844] (C.D. Cal.)
IM-CA-0067-0018.pdf | Detail
Date: 09/02/2015
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Order Staying Dismissal of Causes of Action One, Two, Three, Five, Nine, Ten, and Eleven of Plaintiffs' Third Amended Complaint [ECF# 849] (C.D. Cal.)
IM-CA-0067-0019.pdf | Detail
Date: 09/15/2015
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Order Granting Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Final Approval of Partial Class Action Settlement [ECF# 860] (2015 WL 11116905) (C.D. Cal.)
IM-CA-0067-0020.pdf | WESTLAW | Detail
Date: 09/25/2015
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Order Approving Parties' Settlement Agreement Resolving Plaintiffs' Motion For Attorneys' Fees and Costs [ECF# 866] (C.D. Cal.)
IM-CA-0067-0021.pdf | Detail
Date: 09/30/2015
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Order Re Compliance with Goals of Extended Monitoring Period and Termination of Monitoring [ECF# 996] (C.D. Cal.)
IM-CA-0067-0023.pdf | Detail
Date: 04/30/2018
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
show all people docs
Judges Gee, Dolly Maizie (C.D. Cal.) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0067-0003 | IM-CA-0067-0004 | IM-CA-0067-0005 | IM-CA-0067-0006 | IM-CA-0067-0007 | IM-CA-0067-0009 | IM-CA-0067-0010 | IM-CA-0067-0014 | IM-CA-0067-0015 | IM-CA-0067-0016 | IM-CA-0067-0017 | IM-CA-0067-0018 | IM-CA-0067-0019 | IM-CA-0067-0020 | IM-CA-0067-0021 | IM-CA-0067-0023 | IM-CA-0067-9002
Rosenberg, Alicia G. (C.D. Cal.) [Magistrate] show/hide docs
IM-CA-0067-9002
Monitors/Masters Mahoney, Katherine Byrne (California) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0067-9002
Matz, A. Howard (California) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0067-9002
Plaintiff's Lawyers Adams, Matthew (Washington) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0067-9002
Ahmed, Sameer (New York) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0067-9002
Aliyasova, Asel (California) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0067-9002
Arulanantham, Ahilan T (California) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0067-0002 | IM-CA-0067-9002
Bansal, Jessica Karp (California) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0067-9002
Bhandari, Esha (New York) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0067-9002
Buckley, Theresa A. (California) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0067-9002
Cruz, Lauren Michelle (California) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0067-9002
Iguina, Carmen G. (California) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0067-9002
Inlender, Talia R. (California) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0067-9002
Kang, Stephen B. (California) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0067-9002
Lawson-Remer, Alexa M. (California) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0067-9002
Lichaa, Shawn Joe (California) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0067-9002
London, Judith Maura (California) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0067-9002
Loy, John David (California) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0067-9002
Lyall, James Duff (Arizona) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0067-9002
Mukhopadhyay, Riddhi (Washington) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0067-9002
Murtagh, Michael P. (California) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0067-9002
Orihuela, Marisol (California) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0067-9002
Preis, James Joseph (California) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0067-9002
Rabinovitz, Judy (New York) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0067-9002
Riordan, Sean (California) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0067-9002
Robinson, Damion D. (California) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0067-9002
Stamenova-Dancheva, Antonia (California) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0067-9002
Stark, Jennifer L (California) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0067-9002
Steinberg, Michael H. (California) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0067-9002
Vakili, Bardis (California) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0067-9002
Defendant's Lawyers Bianco, Anthony Daniel (District of Columbia) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0067-9002
Carlson, Jesi J. (District of Columbia) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0067-9002
Flentje, August E. (District of Columbia) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0067-9002
Go, Samuel P. (District of Columbia) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0067-9002
Ihsanullah, Neelam (District of Columbia) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0067-9002
Lawrence, Victor M. (District of Columbia) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0067-9002
Prairie, Nicole Rogers (District of Columbia) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0067-9002
Reuveni, Erez (District of Columbia) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0067-9002
Robins, Jeffrey S (District of Columbia) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0067-9002
Wilson, Sarah S. (District of Columbia) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0067-9002

- click to show/hide ALL -

new search
page permalink

- top of page -