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. The complaint further noted that during master calendar hearings, immigration detainees are often chained to each another in a “daisy chain.” The plaintiffs alleged that the restraints caused physical and emotional pain and discomfort and also impaired their ability to participate fully in their immigration proceedings. When “daisy-chained,” the attorney-client relationship could be impaired because plaintiffs were forced to choose between disclosing personal facts within hearing distance of other detainees or withholding information from counsel that could be critical to their case.

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 certified the class as “all current and future adult immigration detainees who have or will have proceedings in immigration court in San Francisco.” 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. In the same order, the court denied the motion of the Asian Law Caucus, Centro Legal De La Raza, and Dolores Street Community Services for leave to file an amicus curiae brief in support of opposition to the motion to dismiss. The court found that as the motion to dismiss presented purely legal issues, proposed amici’s perspectives were not especially relevant at this stage of the proceedings.

On March 20, 2012, the case was referred to Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler for settlement. While settlement conferences proceeded with Magistrate Judge Beeler, the case was also referred to Magistrate Judge Kandis A. Westmore for discovery, who ruled on a number of discovery disputes throughout 2012 and 2013. In late December 2013, the parties moved for preliminary approval of a settlement agreement, and on January 23, 2014, Judge Seeborg preliminarily approved the settlement. After a fairness hearing, Judge Seeborg approved the settlement agreement on April 10, 2014. 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.

The court's jurisdiction to enforce the settlement agreement has lapsed, and there has been no activity on the case's docket since this agreement was accepted. Therefore, this case is closed.

Jennifer Bronson - 10/06/2013
Allison Hight - 01/06/2016
Sean Whetstone - 06/25/2018


compress summary