Doe v. McAleenan ( 2022 )


Menu:
  • 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 CRISTIAN DOE, et al., Ca se No. 19cv2119 DMS AGS 11 Plaintiffs, 12 ORDER DENYING STAY AND v. FINDING OF MOOTNESS, AND 13 GRANTING UNOPPOSED MOTION KEVIN K. McALEENAN, Acting FOR 90-DAY EXTENSION TO 14 Secretary of Homeland Security; et. al., ANSWER 15 Defendants. 16 17 18 Pending before the Court is Defendants’ Motion to Stay or alternatively Unopposed 19 Motion for 90-Day Extension to Answer, and Suggestion of Mootness. (ECF Nos. 87, 86.) 20 For the following reasons, the motion to stay and suggestion of mootness are denied, and 21 the unopposed motion for a 90-day extension to answer or otherwise respond to the 22 complaint is granted. 23 I. 24 INTRODUCTION 25 This case concerns access to counsel for nonrefoulement interviews under the 26 Government’s “Migrant Protection Protocols” (“MPP”). Though initially filed in 27 November 2019 (ECF No. 1), the Government has sought and been granted numerous 37, 41, 61, 65), and has to date not answered Plaintiffs’ initial complaint. The status of 1 MPP has changed several times since this case was first filed but the policy is currently 2 implemented again by court order. See Texas v. Biden, No. 21-10806 (5th Cir. 2021). The 3 Government now seeks a stay (ECF No. 87), and suggests the case is moot (ECF No. 86), 4 given its appeal to the United States Supreme Court of Texas v. Biden, No. 21-954, which 5 will determine whether the injunction currently ordering the government to reimplement 6 MPP will stand. Since the Government’s filing of its motion, the Supreme Court granted 7 the government’s petition for a writ of certiorari. See Miscellaneous Order, Biden v. Texas, 8 9 No. 21-954 (Feb. 18, 2022). There is an expedited schedule, with briefing due in March 10 and April, and oral argument in the second week of April. Id. 11 II. 12 DISCUSSION 13 The Government argues this case is moot as the currently implemented version of 14 MPP is separate from the policy Plaintiffs initially challenged, and the current version 15 provides the same or greater access to counsel than that Plaintiffs initially sought. (ECF 16 No. 86). The Government also argues for a stay as there are risks of conflicting injunctions 17 given Texas v. Biden. (ECF No. 91 at 4–5). 18 The Court agrees with Plaintiffs’ argument that, while the instant case will become 19 moot should the Government prevail in Texas v. Biden and subsequently terminate MPP, 20 it currently remains live. (ECF No. 89 at 3.) The possibility remains of a renewed or 21 reimplemented MPP policy with disagreements between the parties regarding access-to- 22 counsel requirements for nonrefoulement interviews, and thus the dispute is merely paused, 23 not resolved such that the parties “lack a legally cognizable interest in the outcome,” or 24 any chance for “effectual relief.” Chafin v. Chafin, 568 U.S. 165, 172 (2013). 25 The Court understands that Plaintiffs do not challenge the Texas injunction, but 26 rather a narrower access to counsel issue, and thus do not wish to wait for the Texas 27 disposition before they pursue their claims in the instant case. However, given the 1 |[likely be provided in the near, rather than distant, future. As such, the Court grants the 7 || unopposed 90-day extension, giving Defendants until May 3, 2022, to answer or otherwise 3 ||respond to the complaint. The Court acknowledges that the Supreme Court may not issue 4 ||a decision by May 3, 2022, and other events may shift the landscape of this case in the 5 ||interim. The parties may file appropriate motions or notices to present updated information 6 || to the Court and allow for reevaluation of the posture of this case, as needed. 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. 8 || Dated: March 14, 2022 \ g 9 ay Hon. Dana M. Sabraw, Chief Judge 10 United States District Court 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Document Info

Docket Number: 3:19-cv-02119

Filed Date: 3/14/2022

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 6/20/2024