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 DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ 12 DOE; on behalf of themselves and all MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM others similarly situated, ORDER, OR IN THE 13 ALTERNATIVE, FOR Plaintiffs-Petitioners, 14 PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION v. 15 GREGORY ARCHAMBEAULT, San 16 Diego Field Office Director, Immigration 17 and Customs Enforcement; et al., 18 Defendants-Respondents. 19 20 This case returns to the Court on Plaintiffs’ motion for relief from the Court’s May 21 26, 2020 Order denying Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction, or in the 22 alternative, for a preliminary injunction to establish a dispute resolution process regarding 23 the Otay Mesa Medically Vulnerable Subclass Members who remain in detention. 24 Defendants filed an opposition to the motion, Plaintiffs filed a reply, and each side filed 25 unsolicited supplemental briefs. After reviewing all of the briefs, the relevant legal 26 authority, and the record in this case, the Court denies the motion. 27 / / / 28 / / / 1 I. 2 RULE 60(b) MOTION 3 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) provides that a court may relieve a party 4 from a final judgment or order for the following reasons: 5 (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; 6 (2) newly discovered evidence that, with reasonable diligence, could not have 7 been discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b); 8 (3) fraud (whether previously called intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, 9 or misconduct by an opposing party; 10 (4) the judgment is void; 11 (5) the judgment has been satisfied, released or discharged; it is based on an 12 earlier judgment that has been reversed or vacated; or applying it 13 prospectively is no longer equitable; or 14 (6) any other reason that justifies relief. 15 16 Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). Plaintiffs proceed under the assumption that the Court’s May 26, 17 2020 Order denying their motion for a preliminary injunction is a “final order” subject to 18 Rule 60(b), but the Ninth Circuit has concluded otherwise. See Prudential Real Estate 19 Affiliates, Inc. v. PPR Realty, Inc., 204 F.3d 867, 880 (9th Cir. 2000) (citations omitted) 20 (stating “preliminary injunction is not a ‘final judgment, order, or proceeding’ that may 21 be addressed by a motion under Rule 60(b).”) Indeed, Plaintiffs relied on the preliminary 22 nature of the Court’s Order to defeat Defendants’ motion to dismiss. (See ECF No. 110 23 at 11) (discussing preliminary nature of Court’s ruling). Thus, absent a showing that the 24 Court’s Order is a “final order” subject to Rule 60(b), Plaintiffs’ request for relief under 25 that Rule is denied. 26 / / / 27 / / / 28 / / / 1 II. 2 MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION 3 As an alternative to relief under Rule 60(b), Plaintiffs move the Court for a 4 preliminary injunction to establish a dispute resolution process for the thirty Otay Mesa 5 Medically Vulnerable Subclass Members who remain in detention. Specifically, 6 Plaintiffs request that the Court allow them to file release applications for these Subclass 7 Members with the Court, as they would a motion, and have the Court rule on those 8 applications. In support of this request, Plaintiffs argue the conditions at Otay Mesa have 9 changed since the Court denied their request for a preliminary injunction, and the current 10 conditions warrant the grant of this relief. Defendants acknowledge that conditions have 11 changed, but they maintain that even under the current conditions, Plaintiffs have not 12 shown a likelihood of success on the merits. 13 The Court agrees with Defendants. Plaintiffs’ request for a preliminary injunction 14 is based on two assertions, neither of which demonstrates a likelihood of success on the 15 merits of their claim. First, Plaintiffs claim Otay Mesa has resumed accepting new 16 admissions, including individuals who have tested positive for COVID-19. Defendants 17 do not dispute this, but the resumption of new admissions, standing alone, does not 18 demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits. This is especially so considering the 19 precautions that are being taken with respect to those new admissions. Specifically, 20 Warden LaRose states that all new ICE admissions are tested for COVID-19 and 21 quarantined for fourteen days for observation. (See Decl. of Warden LaRose in Supp. of 22 Opp’n to Mot., ¶14.) If any of them test positive, they are then quarantined in the Medical 23 Unit until recovered. (Id.) 24 Plaintiffs’ second assertion, namely that these new admissions, including those 25 who test positive for COVID-19, are being housed with members of the Medically 26 Vulnerable Subclass, is more concerning, but given the evidence set out above and 27 elsewhere in Warden LaRose’s Declarations, it is unclear whether that is actually 28 happening. Indeed, Plaintiffs point to only one member of the Medically Vulnerable 1 Subclass who was being housed in the same pod as new admissions, (see Reply at 7), but 2 ||according to Warden LaRose, that individual “is never out of his cell at the same time as 3 ||the quarantined detainees—whether for recreation, showers, or any other purpose.” 4 ||(Decl. of Warden LaRose in Supp. of Defs.’ Notice of Supp. Facts, 926.) Warden LaRose 5 on to state that although this individual “uses the same recreation enclosures, 6 ||showers, and telephones as the detainees under intake quarantine, they never use those 7 || facilities at the same time, and the enclosures, showers, and telephones are regularly 8 ||cleaned and disinfected pursuant to the facility’s COVID-19 protocols.” (Ud.) Most 9 ||importantly, there is no evidence that any of the new admissions who were housed with 10 || this individual tested positive for COVID-19. 11 In light of the above, Plaintiffs have not shown a likelihood of success on the merits 12 || of their claim sufficient to warrant preliminary injunctive relief. Absent that showing, the 13 ||Court declines to address the three remaining factors. Martin v. Int’l Olympic Comm., 14 || 740 F.2d 670, 675 (9th Cir. 1984). 15 III. 16 CONCLUSION 17 For the reasons set out above, Plaintiffs’ motion for relief from the Court’s May 18 2020 order denying their motion for a preliminary injunction, or in the alternative, for 19 preliminary injunction to establish a dispute resolution process for the Medically 20 || Vulnerable Subclass Members who remain in detention is denied. 21 IT IS SO ORDERED. 22 Dated: November 12, 2020 73 ns my. L4\ Hon. Dana M. Sabraw 24 United States District Judge 25 26 27 28