University of Michigan Law School
Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse
new search
page permalink
Case Name Roman v. Wolf IM-CA-0161
Docket / Court 5:20-cv-00768-TJH-PVC ( C.D. Cal. )
State/Territory California
Case Type(s) Immigration and/or the Border
Special Collection COVID-19 (novel coronavirus)
Attorney Organization ACLU Chapters (any)
ACLU of Southern California
Case Summary
COVID-19 Summary: This is a representative habeas action filed by immigrant detainees in the Adelanto ICE Processing Center, seeking writs of habeas corpus in light of COVID-19. The plaintiffs alleged that everyone at the detention center was particularly vulnerable to contracting the virus because ... read more >
COVID-19 Summary: This is a representative habeas action filed by immigrant detainees in the Adelanto ICE Processing Center, seeking writs of habeas corpus in light of COVID-19. The plaintiffs alleged that everyone at the detention center was particularly vulnerable to contracting the virus because the tight quarters in the detention center made it impossible to implement social distancing. The district court entered a preliminary injunction on April 23, which was stayed by the Ninth Circuit and later remanded to the district court on September 23.


On April 13, 2020, a group of immigrant detainees filed this lawsuit against the Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and the warden of the Adelanto ICE Processing Center in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. Represented by private counsel, the petitioners sought writs of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. In combination with their habeas petition, they also filed a complaint seeking injunctive and declaratory relief. Specifically, they alleged that their continued detention in Adelanto was a violation of their substantive due process rights under the Fifth Amendment, which guaranteed them protections against exposure to infectious disease.

Immediately, the plaintiffs filed a motion to certify the class as well as for temporary restraining orders as to why a preliminary injunction should not be issued regarding each of the three named plaintiffs.

The plaintiffs filed a notice of related cases, requesting this action to be related to the following cases: 5:20-cv-00605, 5:20-cv-00590, 5:20-cv-00617, 5:20-cv-00626, 5:20-cv-00627, 5:20-cv-00646, 5:20-cv-00650, 5:20-cv-00653, 5:20-cv-00668.

On April 14, the plaintiffs filed a motion for a preliminary injunction, requesting an order that would implement a system for class-wide relief or mandate that ICE implement social distancing measures necessary to protect the individuals in custody.

The case was assigned to District Judge Terry J. Hatter, Jr. and Magistrate Judge Pedro V. Castillo.

On April 16, Judge Hatter, Jr. entered a temporary restraining order for each of the named plaintiffs, authorizing their release from custody and ordered that the defendants must show cause as to why the court should not issue a preliminary injunction by April 24.

On April 23, Judge Hatter, Jr. provisionally certified the class to include all those who were currently detained at Adelanto, or had been detained thereafter March 23, 2020, and appointed the ACLU of Southern California as the class counsel.

Judge Hatter, Jr. also issued a preliminary injunction on April 23, requiring the defendants to:
-Not accept any new detainees at Adelanto
-Reduce the detainee population to a level that allows detainees to maintain social distancing of 6 feet from each other at all times by May 4
-Require staff and detainees to maintain 6 feet of distance whenever possible
-Clean and disinfect common areas and shared items on a regular basis (multiple times throughout each 24 hour period)
-Provide sufficient cleaning equipment and supplies for detainees to clean their own areas once a day
-Limit sleeping rooms/cells that have toilets without integrated lids to single occupancy
-Require all staff to wear masks and gloves at all times
-Require all detainees to wear masks, and provide gloves to those who wish to wear them
-Provide soap or hand sanitizer and paper towels to detainees
-Propose a plan for population reduction and cleaning procedures that comply with the injunction

Judge Hatter, Jr. stated that if the defendants failed to comply with any of the injunction's requirements, the court would consider the immediate release of class members. Regarding the related cases, the order stated that any class member who had been released from this order or a previously filed case would remain released, but that no additional injunctions would be entered for class members that had filed separate cases.

The defendants appealed to the Ninth Circuit on April 24, challenging the class certification order, preliminary injunction and related findings in the case (docket no. 20-55436). The Ninth Circuit issued an administrative stay, which temporarily stayed the lower court's preliminary injunction.

On May 5, the Ninth Circuit stayed the lower court's preliminary injunction to the extent that it went beyond the Center for Disease Control and Prevention's guidelines for correctional and detention facilities for managing COVID-19.

On June 5, the plaintiffs filed a motion for class-wide bail, which Judge Hatter granted on June 17, granting class-wide bail and stating that the court would make individualized bail determinations for each class member. 2020 WL 3481564.

On June 19, Judge Hatter issued an order, implementing a process for individualized bail determinations for each class member, which required the defendants to create a spreadsheet including information about each detainee, weekly updates, and notice to class members. 2020 WL 3487632. The defendants appealed to the Ninth Circuit (docket no. 20-55662), which granted an administrative stay of the June 17 bail order and June 19 bail process on July 1. However, on July 8, the Ninth Circuit denied the defendant's motion, stating that the district court's individualized determinations were consistent with processes of other district courts. Back in the district court, Judge Hatter, Jr. continued the individualized bail process and granted bail for various class members.

On August 10, the plaintiffs filed a motion to enforce the preliminary injunction's CDC Guidance provision and a separate motion for non-provisional class certification. In their motion for class certification, they relied on the provisional certification order, arguing that circumstances were still the same. That same day, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss and on August 24, the defendants filed a motion in opposition to the plaintiffs' motion to enforce. On August 31, the defendants filed a motion in opposition to the non-provisional class certification motion, arguing that the plaintiffs had failed to establish commonality, typicality and adequacy.

On September 16, upon learning of a COVID-19 outbreak at the detention center, the plaintiffs filed an ex parte application for temporary restraining order in the district court, seeking the court to compel testing of all detainees and for isolation of all detainees with positive test results. The court denied the application and, separately, stated that any previous bail orders releasing detainees who were still in the detention center were stayed - so as not to release a COVID-positive detainee into the community. The plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration on September 18.

On September 22, Judge Hatter, Jr. entered 2 orders. The first, denied reconsideration of the September 17 order, stating that since "the Ninth Circuit stayed the preliminary injunction, the Court cannot, now, order the Government to isolate detainees in single occupant cells because such order would contravene the stay," despite the fact that the court "does not disagree that the Government's procedures were inadequate." The second order granted class certification. Judge Hatter, Jr. stated that the reasons each class member was being detained was immaterial to the certification decision -- ultimately, the question before the court for each class member was whether their conditions of confinement were in violation of their Fifth Amendment substantive due process rights; the statutory authority for detention, bail status or other variances between class members did not destroy their ability to be certified as a class.

On September 23, the Ninth Circuit issued a Memorandum Opinion regarding the provisional class certification and preliminary injunction issues that the defendants had appealed in April. The circuit court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion by issuing a preliminary injunction and that the court had subject matter jurisdiction. However, since several months had passed and situations had evolved in the detention center, the Ninth Circuit vacated many of the preliminary injunction's provisions - including the CDC provision - and remanded the matter with instructions to issue an updated preliminary injunction. 2020 WL 5683233.

On September 25, Judge Hatter, Jr. issued an order denying the plaintiffs' motion to enforce the preliminary injunction and the defendants' motion to dismiss. Judge Hatter, Jr. stated that given the Ninth Circuit's September 23 opinion, the plaintiffs' motion to enforce was now moot. Furthermore, the defendant's arguments in their motion to dismiss -- namely that the district court did not have subject matter jurisdiction and that the class had not been fully certified -- had now been foreclosed.

The case is ongoing.

Caitlin Kierum - 09/27/2020


compress summary

- click to show/hide ALL -
Issues and Causes of Action
click to show/hide detail
Issues
Constitutional Clause
Due Process: Substantive Due Process
Content of Injunction
Preliminary relief granted
Defendant-type
Corrections
General
Conditions of confinement
Habeas Corpus
Medical/Mental Health
COVID-19 Mitigation Granted
COVID-19 Mitigation Requested
COVID-19 Release Granted
COVID-19 Release Requested
Plaintiff Type
Private Plaintiff
Special Case Type
Habeas
Causes of Action Ex parte Young (federal or state officials)
Habeas Corpus, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2241-2253; 2254; 2255
Defendant(s) Adelanto Detention Center
Department of Homeland Security
ICE Los Angeles Field Office
Immigration and Customs Enforcement
Plaintiff Description All detainees currently in civil immigration detention at the Adelanto Immigration and Customs Enforcement Processing Center, as well as those who were at the center any time between March 23, 2020 and the final disposition of the case
Indexed Lawyer Organizations ACLU Chapters (any)
ACLU of Southern California
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
Source of Relief Litigation
Filed 04/13/2020
Case Ongoing Yes
Case Listing IM-CA-0160 : Castillo v. Barr (C.D. Cal.)
Additional Resources
click to show/hide detail
  See this case at CourtListener.com (May provide additional documents and, for active cases, real-time alerts)
Docket(s)
5:20-cv-00768 (C.D. Cal.)
IM-CA-0161-9000.pdf | Detail
Date: 09/25/2020
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
General Documents
Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and Class Action Complaint for Injunctive and Declaratory Relief [ECF# 1]
IM-CA-0161-0001.pdf | Detail
Date: 04/13/2020
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Petitioners'-Plaintiffs' Notice of Motion and Motion for Provisional Class Certification [ECF# 5 (& 5-1 to 5-2)]
IM-CA-0161-0002.pdf | Detail
Date: 04/13/2020
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Beatriz Andrea Forero Chavez's Ex Parte Application for Temporary Restraining Order [ECF# 6 & 6-1]
IM-CA-0161-0003.pdf | Detail
Date: 04/13/2020
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Kelvin Hernandez Roman's Ex Parte Application for Temporary Restraining Order [ECF# 7 & 7-1]
IM-CA-0161-0004.pdf | Detail
Date: 04/13/2020
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Miguel Angel Aguilar Estrada's Ex Parte Application for Temporary Restraining Order [ECF# 8 & 8-1]
IM-CA-0161-0005.pdf | Detail
Date: 04/13/2020
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Petitioners'-Plaintiffs' Notice of Motion and Motion for Preliminary Injunction [ECF# 9 (& 9-1 to 9-13)]
IM-CA-0161-0006.pdf | Detail
Date: 04/14/2020
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Temporary Restraining Order and Order to Show Cause [ECF# 33] (C.D. Cal.)
IM-CA-0161-0007.pdf | Detail
Date: 04/16/2020
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Temporary Restraining Order and Order to Show Cause [ECF# 34] (C.D. Cal.)
IM-CA-0161-0008.pdf | Detail
Date: 04/16/2020
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Provisional Class Certification Order [ECF# 52] (2020 WL 3869729) (C.D. Cal.)
IM-CA-0161-0009.pdf | WESTLAW | Detail
Date: 04/23/2020
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law [ECF# 53] (2020 WL 1952656) (C.D. Cal.)
IM-CA-0161-0010.pdf | WESTLAW | Detail
Date: 04/23/2020
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Preliminary Injunction [ECF# 55] (C.D. Cal.)
IM-CA-0161-0011.pdf | Detail
Date: 04/23/2020
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Order [Ct. of App. ECF# 17] (2020 WL 2188048)
IM-CA-0161-0012.pdf | WESTLAW | Detail
Date: 05/05/2020
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Order [ECF# 118] (2020 WL 3481564) (C.D. Cal.)
IM-CA-0161-0013.pdf | WESTLAW | Detail
Date: 06/17/2020
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Order [ECF# 124] (2020 WL 3487632) (C.D. Cal.)
IM-CA-0161-0014.pdf | WESTLAW | Detail
Date: 06/19/2020
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Order [ECF# 208] (C.D. Cal.)
IM-CA-0161-0015.pdf | Detail
Date: 07/14/2020
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Order [ECF# 237] (C.D. Cal.)
IM-CA-0161-0016.pdf | Detail
Date: 07/27/2020
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Order [ECF# 561] (C.D. Cal.)
IM-CA-0161-0018.pdf | Detail
Date: 09/22/2020
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Order [ECF# 562] (C.D. Cal.)
IM-CA-0161-0020.pdf | Detail
Date: 09/22/2020
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Memorandum (2020 WL 5683233)
IM-CA-0161-0017.pdf | WESTLAW | External Link | Detail
Date: 09/23/2020
Source: Justia
Order [ECF# 586] (C.D. Cal.)
IM-CA-0161-0019.pdf | Detail
Date: 09/25/2020
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
show all people docs
Judges Castillo, Pedro V. Court not on record [Magistrate] show/hide docs
IM-CA-0161-9000
Collins, Daniel Paul (Ninth Circuit) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0161-0012
Friedland, Michelle Taryn (Ninth Circuit) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0161-0017
Hatter, Terry J. Jr. (C.D. Cal.) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0161-0007 | IM-CA-0161-0008 | IM-CA-0161-0009 | IM-CA-0161-0010 | IM-CA-0161-0011 | IM-CA-0161-0013 | IM-CA-0161-0014 | IM-CA-0161-0015 | IM-CA-0161-0016 | IM-CA-0161-0018 | IM-CA-0161-0019 | IM-CA-0161-0020 | IM-CA-0161-9000
Miller, Eric David (Ninth Circuit) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0161-0017
Nguyen, Jacqueline Hong-Ngoc (C.D. Cal., Ninth Circuit) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0161-0012
Silverman, Barry G. (D. Ariz., Ninth Circuit) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0161-0012
Watford, Paul Jeffrey (Ninth Circuit) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0161-0017
Plaintiff's Lawyers Arulanantham, Ahilan T (California) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0161-9000
Bansal, Jessica Karp (California) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0161-9000
Barnett, Amanda (California) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0161-0001 | IM-CA-0161-0002 | IM-CA-0161-0003 | IM-CA-0161-0004 | IM-CA-0161-0005 | IM-CA-0161-0006 | IM-CA-0161-9000
Berdahl, Charles A (District of Columbia) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0161-9000
Cammack, Jessie Alice (California) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0161-9000
Chia, Liga (California) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0161-9000
Chin, Roger J (California) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0161-9000
Cho, Michelle (California) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0161-9000
Deger-Sen, Samir (District of Columbia) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0161-9000
Friedman, William M. (District of Columbia) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0161-9000
Groendyke, Emily Jane (California) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0161-9000
Kaufman, Michael Bryan (California) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0161-9000
Virgien, Kyle A. (California) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0161-9000
Defendant's Lawyers Bates, Christopher A (District of Columbia) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0161-9000
Beck, Daniel A (California) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0161-9000
Burrelle, Hillary Morgan (California) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0161-9000
Chen, Hans (District of Columbia) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0161-9000
Dichter, Anna (District of Columbia) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0161-9000
Kurz, Julian (District of Columbia) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0161-9000
Mercado-Santana, Victor M. (District of Columbia) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0161-9000
Robins, Jeffrey S (District of Columbia) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0161-9000
Wilson, Sarah S. (District of Columbia) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0161-9000
Windrow, Hayden (District of Columbia) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0161-9000
Other Lawyers Comstock, Hannah Karin (California) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0161-9000
Glazer, Nicolette (California) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0161-9000
Motlagh, Jasmin F (California) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0161-9000
O'Connor, William V Jr (California) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0161-9000
Soni, Munmeeth Kaur (California) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0161-9000
Trigilio, Joseph A (California) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0161-9000

- click to show/hide ALL -

new search
page permalink

- top of page -