Zepeda Rivas v. Jennings

1

ANGEL DE JESUS ZEPEDA RIVAS, et al., Plaintiffs, v. DAVID JENNINGS, et al., Defendants.

No. 20-cv-02731-LB

United States District Court, N.D. California, San Francisco Division

August 30, 2023

ORDER RESOLVING SETTLEMENT DISPUTES

Re: ECF Nos. 1280, 1281

LAUREL BEELER, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

INTRODUCTION

The plaintiffs in this class-action lawsuit are current and former civil immigration detainees at the Yuba County Jail and the Mesa Verde Processing Facility. They sued U.S Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and its private contractor GEO Group on the ground that the lack of protection from COVID-19 during the pandemic was an unconstitutional condition of confinement under the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The parties settled their case, and the trial court approved the settlement in June 2022. Under the settlement agreement, the defendants must mitigate COVID-19 risks at the facilities, there are limits on ICE's detaining and re-detaining class members, and disputes about compliance can be raised with the court.

The parties have two disputes. First, the plaintiffs want discovery about the defendants' transferring four hunger-striking detainees from the Mesa Verde facility to an El Paso facility. The plaintiffs assert that the transfers were medically unnecessary, in violation of the settlement agreement's prohibition against transfers that are not necessary for medical evaluation or care that exceeds “facility resources.” Alternatively, they contend that even on the existing record, the transfers violated the settlement agreement. Second, the plaintiffs move to enforce the settlement agreement's provision requiring ICE to evaluate all new detainees who are vulnerable to COVID-19 for release. The defendants respond that the provision does not apply to detainees subject to mandatory detention under the relevant statutes.

The court denies relief for the transfers, which were medically necessary, but grants the motion to enforce the settlement agreement and requires ICE to evaluate all vulnerable detainees for release.

STATEMENT

1. The Litigation and the Settlement Agreement

The plaintiffs sued on April 20, 2020, alleging that those in civil immigration detention at the Yuba County Jail and the Mesa Verde ICE Processing Facility were being held “under extraordinarily dangerous conditions during the current COVID-19 pandemic.”^[1] They claimed a violation of their Fifth Amendment right to substantive due process and sought declaratory and injunctive relief.^[2] On April 29, 2020, the trial court issued a temporary restraining order for ICE to provide information so that individual bail requests could be considered.^[3] That led to a reduction in detainee numbers to allow for social distancing, and in June 2020, the trial court issued a preliminary injunction to preserve that status quo.^[4] Then, in August and December 2020, the trial court issued a further temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction for the Mesa Verde facility.^[5] Similarly, in December 2020 and August 2021, the trial court issued a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction applicable to the Yuba County Jail.^[6] Also, during the course of the case, the trial court released many detainees subject to mandatory detention under the relevant statutes due to the public-health crisis.^[7]

In December 2021, the parties settled the case.^[8] In June 2022, the trial court approved the settlement under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23.^[9] The final-approval order vacated the preliminary injunctions.^[10] The class is “all people who are or have been in ICE custody at the Facilities from April 20, 2020, through the expiration of [the] settlement agreement.”^[11](Capitalized terms are those defined in the settlement agreement.)

The agreement requires the defendants to mitigate COVID-19 risks at the two facilities.^[12] For example, they must “[o]perate the Facilities consistent with applicable CDC Guidance, applicable nationwide orders and injunctions, and the [Pandemic Response Requirements published by ICE] (as updated).”^[13] The Pandemic Response Requirements that were in effect until July 12, 2023, provided that “[t]ranfers and transport of ICE detainees are discontinued unless necessary for medical evaluation, medical isolation/quarantine, clinical care, extenuating security concerns, release or removal, or to prevent overcrowding.”^[14] Also, “[i]f a detainee is determined to require health care beyond facility resources, the detainee will be transferred in a timely manner to an appropriate facility.”^[15] Effective July 13, 2023, the requirements provided only that “[i]f the facility is housing individuals with confirmed COVID-19 as a cohort,” then ICE would, “[i]f possible, limit medical transfers to another facility or within the facility to those necessary for care.”^[16]

The settlement agreement also has provisions specific to “Vulnerable Class Members:”

Defendants will promptly screen Class Members (within 24 hours of any new intake) for Vulnerabilities to severe COVID-19 and identify vulnerable individuals for immediate release. A Class Member with Vulnerabilities should be released unless a Supervising Detention and Deportation Officer - following consultation with a medical professional, who will make the assessment as to the existence and/or severity of medical risk factors - determines that the risk of flight or danger to the community substantially outweighs the risk of severe illness or death to the Class Member. Any assessment will take into account mitigating factors, such as vaccination status.^[17]

A “‘Vulnerability' means a particular vulnerability to COVID-19, including (i) older adults (55 years or older, subject to change based on any subsequent nationwide order or settlement); (ii) CDC-identified comorbidities to severe COVID-19; and/or (iii) the inability to be vaccinated for medical or religious reasons.”^[18]

Under the settlement agreement and the final-approval order, disputes ultimately are resolved by a magistrate judge, including disputes where the plaintiffs claim that the defendants are in “material breach” of the settlement agreement.^[19] The parties later consented to magistrate-judge jurisdiction.^[20] The agreement provides a standard of review:

In all instances where the magistrate judge is tasked with determining whether a material breach has occurred, the inquiry is an objective one. By way of example, whether a Class Member poses a risk to public safety or is a flight risk, whether a Class Member has absconded, or whether a Class Member has been medically isolated, is an objective question that will be determined in the first instance by the magistrate judge and no deference will be given to a [p]arty's best efforts regarding the alleged breach at issue.^[21]

2. Detainee-Transfer Dispute

2.1 The Plaintiffs' Position

In the parties' first dispute, the plaintiffs ask for discovery about March 2023 detainee transfers (and alternatively ask for relief regarding the transfers on the existing record). They allege that the defendants violated the settlement agreement “by unnecessarily and violently transferring four class members” from the Mesa Verde facility.^[22] Those class members - Pedro Figueroa-Padilla, Jose Ruben Hernandez Gomez, Raymundo Noe Dominguez Vidal, and Roberto Carlos Franco Guardado - were engaged in a hunger strike.^[23] ICE transferred them to ICE's El Paso Service Processing Center on March 7, 2023, and then back to the Mesa Verde facility on March 14, 2023.^[24]

One of the transferred detainees, Mr. Hernandez Gomez, submitted a declaration describing what happened. On February 17, 2023, “dozens” of detainees at the Mesa Verde and nearby Golden State Annex ICE facilities began the hunger strike. It was a “peaceful protest against [their] prolonged detention, dehumanizing conditions of confinement, and mistreatment.”^[25]

Early in the morning on March 7, GEO Group employees and ICE officers entered Mr. Hernandez Gomez's dorm. They were dressed in riot and military gear, and the ICE officers had automatic rifles. The class members were ordered to get on the floor.^[26] “Officers [then] dragged [Mr. Hernandez Gomez] out of the dorm by [his] legs, and threw [him] on the ground, striking [his] shoulder and chest against the ground.” They “also violently dragged three other class members out of the dorm.” Mr. Hernandez Gomez was taken to a holding cell without an opportunity to call anyone.^[27] His cell was near that of Mr. Dominguez Vidal, a diabetic and stroke survivor who had lost consciousness. “[I]nstead of providing [Mr. Dominguez Vidal] with medical care, officers held him for several minutes by his arms like a rag doll before putting him in a wheelchair.”^[28]

Before the transfer, the detainees were not given medical tests (including COVID-19 tests) or care, even though two complained of pain from the violent move to the holding cells.^[29] The detainees were taken from the cells to two vans as “a group of GEO officers stood outside the facility applauding.”^[30] They were driven “many hours” to an airstrip. They were shackled during the drive, and the officers turned the van temperature to inappropriately cold and hot temperatures.^[31] As they boarded the plane, the detainees told the officers that they felt faint and dizzy and asked to be taken to a hospital, but the officers denied the request.^[32]

On arrival at the El Paso facility, a nurse conducted a verbal assessment of Mr. Hernandez Gomez but because ICE officers were present, he declined to answer sensitive medical questions.^[33] “Dr. Iglesias,” ICE's regional medical director, then saw him. Mr. Hernandez understood from Dr. Iglesias that she “was going to try to provide ...