University of Michigan Law School
Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse
new search
page permalink
Case Name California Attorneys for Criminal Justice v. Newsom IM-CA-0163
Docket / Court S261829 ( State Court )
State/Territory California
Case Type(s) Immigration and/or the Border
Special Collection COVID-19 (novel coronavirus)
Attorney Organization ACLU Chapters (any)
ACLU of Northern California
ACLU of Southern California
Case Summary
COVID-19 Summary: This is a state immigration detention case filed in light of COVID-19, alleging that the close quarters and unsanitary conditions in the detention facilities were unconstitutional. The California Supreme Court denied to issue a writ of mandate on May 13.


The ... read more >
COVID-19 Summary: This is a state immigration detention case filed in light of COVID-19, alleging that the close quarters and unsanitary conditions in the detention facilities were unconstitutional. The California Supreme Court denied to issue a writ of mandate on May 13.


The plaintiffs, California Attorneys for Criminal Justice and the American Immigration Lawyers Association (Southern California Chapter), filed this petition for writ of mandate on April 24, 2020. They were represented by attorneys from the ACLU of Southern California, ACLU of San Diego, and ACLU of Northern California. Respondents were Governor Gavin Newsom and Attorney General Xavier Becerra.

The petition identified several people, contemporaneously or formerly, held in ICE detention centers which were not offering proper care with regards to the spread of COVID-19. Petitioners argued that the detention centers continued to house detainees in close quarters and in unsanitary conditions. The petition argued that the State of California's continued transfers of non-citizen detainees to ICE detention centers constituted violations of the Due Process clause of both the U.S. Constitution and California state constitution. Petitioners also argued that the conditions also were a threat to the public in general. Therefore, the petition sought a writ of mandate to prohibit the state from transferring any more detainees to ICE detention centers and an order declaring respondents in violation of the Due Process clauses of the U.S. Constitution and the California state constitution. They also asked for attorney's fees and costs.

On April 30, respondents offered their response in opposition. They argued that any responsibility to keep conditions safe for detainees lied with the ICE and the federal government. They also argued that pending federal litigation would provide an adequate remedy and that the petitioners had not identified any duty that respondents had which could be remedied by a writ of mandate.

On May 13 the California Supreme Court issued it's opinion. They denied the writ of mandate, arguing that petitioners failed to establish that respondents had any clear duty. However, they denied the writ without prejudice, so that any party which did have a duty could be brought before the court.

The case is now closed.

Jack Hibbard - 07/13/2020


compress summary

- click to show/hide ALL -
Issues and Causes of Action
click to show/hide detail
Issues
Constitutional Clause
Due Process
Crowding
Crowding / caseload
Defendant-type
Jurisdiction-wide
General
Bathing and hygiene
Conditions of confinement
Neglect by staff
Placement in detention facilities
Sanitation / living conditions
Immigration/Border
Detention - conditions
Detention - procedures
Immigration lawyers
Medical/Mental Health
COVID-19 Mitigation Denied
COVID-19 Mitigation Requested
COVID-19 Release Denied
COVID-19 Release Requested
Plaintiff Type
Non-profit NON-religious organization
Special Case Type
Appellate Court is initial court
Habeas
Type of Facility
Government-run
Causes of Action 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983
State law
Defendant(s) Attorney General Xavier Becerra
Governor Gavin Newsom
Plaintiff Description California Attorneys for Criminal Justice and American Immigration Lawyers Association -- Southern California Chapter
Indexed Lawyer Organizations ACLU Chapters (any)
ACLU of Northern California
ACLU of Southern California
Class action status sought No
Class action status granted No
Filed Pro Se No
Prevailing Party Defendant
Public Int. Lawyer Yes
Nature of Relief Habeas relief
Source of Relief None
Filed 04/24/2020
Case Closing Year 2020
Case Ongoing No reason to think so
Docket(s)
S261829 (State Supreme Court)
IM-CA-0163-9000.pdf | Detail
Date: 05/13/2020
Source: State Court Website
General Documents
Petition for Writ of Mandate
IM-CA-0163-0001.pdf | Detail
Date: 04/24/2020
Source: ACLU
Opinion (2020 WL 2568388)
IM-CA-0163-0002.pdf | WESTLAW | Detail
Date: 05/13/2020
Source: State Court Website
show all people docs
Judges Cantil-Sakauye, Tani Court not on record show/hide docs
IM-CA-0163-0002
Liu, Goodwin Court not on record show/hide docs
IM-CA-0163-0002
Plaintiff's Lawyers Bansal, Jessica Karp (California) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0163-0001 | IM-CA-0163-9000
Chia, Liga (California) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0163-0001 | IM-CA-0163-9000
Cho, Michelle (California) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0163-0001 | IM-CA-0163-9000
Freeman, William S. (California) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0163-0001 | IM-CA-0163-9000
Goodman, Melissa (California) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0163-0001 | IM-CA-0163-9000
Langarica, Monika Yvette (California) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0163-0001 | IM-CA-0163-9000
Moreshead, David William (California) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0163-9000
Pasquarella, Jennifer (California) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0163-0001 | IM-CA-0163-9000
Salceda, Angelica H. (California) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0163-0001 | IM-CA-0163-9000
Vakili, Bardis (California) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0163-0001 | IM-CA-0163-9000
Wells, Jordan (California) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0163-0001 | IM-CA-0163-9000
Defendant's Lawyers Evans, Kelli M. (California) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0163-9000
Hartz, Alisa Louise (California) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0163-9000
Sapp, David B. (California) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0163-9000
Wise, R Matthew (California) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0163-9000

- click to show/hide ALL -

new search
page permalink

- top of page -