Alcantara v. Archambeault ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 ADRIAN RODRIGUEZ ALCANTARA; Case No.: 20cv0756 DMS (AHG) YASMANI OSORIO REYNA; MARIA 11 FLOR CALDERON LOPEZ; MARY ORDER (1) DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ 12 DOE; on behalf of themselves and all MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY others similarly situated, INJUNCTION AND (2) DENYING 13 WITHOUT PREJUDICE Plaintiffs-Petitioners, 14 PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR CLASS v. CERTIFICATION 15 GREGORY ARCHAMBEAULT, San 16 Diego Field Office Director, Immigration 17 and Customs Enforcement; et al., 18 Defendants-Respondents. 19 20 This case comes before the Court on Plaintiffs’ motion for certification of a class 21 consisting of all civil immigration detainees at Imperial Regional Detention Facility 22 (“IRDF”) and a subclass of all medically vulnerable civil immigration detainees at IRDF, 23 along with a motion for a preliminary injunction and writ of habeas corpus on behalf of 24 these detainees. Plaintiffs seek a preliminary injunction similar to the temporary 25 restraining order and preliminary injunction they requested for civil immigration detainees 26 at Otay Mesa Detention Center (“OMDC”), which at that time, had the highest number of 27 COVID-19 cases (160) among immigration detention facilities in the nation. In contrast 28 to OMDC, there have been two (2) confirmed cases of COVID-19 among detainees at 1 IRDF, both of whom have fully recovered. The Federal Defendants and Defendant Sixto 2 Marrero, the Facility Administrator for IRDF, oppose both motions. They argue, as 3 Defendants did in response to Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction for OMDC, 4 that the conditions at IRDF preclude a finding that Plaintiffs have a likelihood of success 5 on the merits of their claim, and that the other factors weigh against the issuance of a 6 preliminary injunction. Defendants also contend Plaintiffs have not met the requirements 7 for class certification. After reviewing the parties’ briefs, the record on file, and hearing 8 oral argument from counsel, the Court agrees with Defendants and denies Plaintiffs’ 9 motion. 10 I. 11 BACKGROUND 12 Since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, IRDF has implemented a number 13 of new policies and procedures designed to protect detainees from COVID-19 exposure 14 and infection. (Decl. of Sixto Marrero in Supp. of Opp’n to Mot. ¶10.) Those measures 15 include staff education and training; detainee education; screening of staff and other 16 visitors to the Facility; increased and enhanced cleaning and sanitation; provision of 17 hygiene supplies; social distancing when possible; staff and detainee use of personal 18 protective equipment; COVID-19 screening of all incoming detainees and, to the extent 19 possible, quarantining those individuals for 14 days prior to introducing them to the general 20 population; suspension of all social visits; non-contact legal visits; and isolation and 21 quarantine of detainees with suspected or known cases of COVID-19. (Id. ¶¶11-97.) 22 Defendants have also significantly reduced the detainee population at IRDF in light 23 of the pandemic. Indeed, with the exception of eight medically vulnerable detainees who 24 remain in custody due to Defendants’ determination that they are unsuitable for release, all 25 of the medically vulnerable detainees have been released. Overall, although IRDF has the 26 capacity to house 782 detainees, there were only 287 detainees in the Facility as of July 17, 27 2020, which translates to approximately 36 percent of total capacity. Of the twelve housing 28 units at IRDF, nine are currently being used for housing with capacity rates ranging from 1 26 to 56 percent. Three units are currently closed for maintenance or refurbishing, but 2 given the overall capacity rate, social distancing is possible. 3 These prevention and protection measures appear to be having their intended effect. 4 As of July 17, 2020, 100 detainees at IRDF had been tested for COVID-19. Only two of 5 those tests returned positive results, and as stated above, those individuals have recovered. 6 Six tests were pending as of July 17, 2020. The conditions inside IRDF are a lone bright 7 spot for Imperial County, generally, which, as of last week, had the highest rate of COVID- 8 19 spread and highest COVID-19 mortality rate in California. (Pls.’ Notice of Supp. Facts, 9 Ex. A.) 10 II. 11 DISCUSSION 12 As set out in the Court’s previous orders in this case, the standard for issuing a 13 preliminary injunction is the same as for issuing a temporary restraining order. Lockheed 14 Missile & Space Co., Inc. v. Hughes Aircraft Co., 887 F. Supp. 1320, 1323 (N.D. Cal. 15 1995). To meet that standard, Plaintiffs must demonstrate “‘[they are] likely to succeed on 16 the merits, that [they are] likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary 17 relief, that the balance of equities tips in [their] favor, and that an injunction is in the public 18 interest.’” Am. Trucking Ass’ns v. City of Los Angeles, 559 F.3d 1046, 1052 (9th Cir. 2009) 19 (quoting Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008)). 20 “The first factor under Winter is the most important—likely success on the merits.” 21 Garcia v. Google, Inc., 786 F.3d 733, 740 (9th Cir. 2015). While Plaintiffs carry the burden 22 of demonstrating likelihood of success, they are not required to prove their case in full at 23 this stage but only such portions that enable them to obtain the injunctive relief they seek. 24 See Univ. of Texas v. Camenisch, 451 U.S. 390, 395 (1981). 25 As with Plaintiffs’ previous requests for injunctive relief for the OMDC detainees, 26 the only claim at issue for the IRDF detainees is that Defendants are violating their rights 27 to substantive due process under the Fifth Amendment. To prevail on this claim, Plaintiffs 28 must show their continued confinement or their conditions of confinement amount to 1 punishment. Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 535 (1979). In Bell, the Supreme Court stated 2 that “if a particular condition or restriction of pretrial detention is reasonably related to a 3 legitimate governmental objective, it does not, without more, amount to ‘punishment.’” Id. 4 at 539. “Conversely, if a restriction or condition is not reasonably related to a legitimate 5 goal-if it is arbitrary or purposeless-a court permissibly may infer that the purpose of the 6 governmental action is punishment that may not constitutionally be inflicted upon 7 detainees qua detainees.” Id. The Ninth Circuit, expanding upon Bell, has held that a 8 condition or restriction of confinement “is ‘punitive’ where it is intended to punish, or 9 where it is ‘excessive in relation to [its non-punitive] purpose,’ or is ‘employed to achieve 10 objectives that could be accomplished in so many alternative and less harsh methods[.]’” 11 Jones v. Blanas, 393 F.3d 918, 934 (9th Cir. 2004) (citations omitted). 12 Here, as with the OMDC detainees, Plaintiffs have not made the requisite showing. 13 Unlike at OMDC, where there were active positive COVID-19 cases, there are currently 14 no active COVID-19 cases at IRDF. Of the 100 detainees who have been tested, only two 15 returned positive results, and both have recovered. Unlike at OMDC, there is no concern 16 that the eight medically vulnerable individuals who remain at IRDF are being housed with 17 others who are positive for COVID-19. And to the extent that any of the six outstanding 18 tests come back positive, Defendants appear to have the necessary protective measures in 19 place to protect other detainees from exposure and infection. Given the current conditions 20 at IRDF, Plaintiffs have not shown a likelihood of success on their substantive due process 21 claim. In light of this finding, the Court cannot enter injunctive relief based on the 22 remaining three factors. Martin v. Int’l Olympic Comm., 740 F.2d 670, 675 (9th Cir. 1984). 23 / / / 24 / / / 25 / / / 26 / / / 27 / / / 28 / / / 1 HI. 2 CONCLUSION 3 For these reasons, the Court denies Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction. A || Should circumstances change, Plaintiffs are free to seek relief from the Court.! 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. 6 || DATED: July 22, 2020 , Voos Yn. 7 DANA M. SABRAW United States District Judge 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 In light of this ruling, the Court denies without prejudice Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification.