1/18/2021

DC CM/ECF LIVE- US District Court-Texas Southern

Alerts not yet Supported for this Docket

APPEAL,HABEAS,STAYED

U.S. District Court SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (Houston) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 4:20-cv-01241

Vazquez Barrera et al v. Wolf et al Assigned to: Judge Keith P Ellison Related Case: 4:20-cv-02149 Cause: 28:2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federa

Date Filed: 04/08/2020 Jury Demand: None Nature of Suit: 463 Habeas Corpus - Alien Detainee Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Defendant

Petitioner Roman Vazquez Barrera

represented by Bernardo Rafael Cruz ACLU Foundation of Texas Inc 109 North Oregon, Suite 600 El Paso, TX 79901 915-308-7163 Email: brcruz@aclutx.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

David Fathi American Civil Liberties Union, National Prison Project 915 15th Street NW 7th Floor Washington, DC 20005 202-548-6603 Email: dfathi@aclu.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Eunice Cho American Civil Liberties Union National Prison Project 915 15th Street NW 7th Floor Washington, DC 20005 202-548-6619 Email: echo@aclu.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kathryn Huddleston ACLU Foundation of Texas Inc 5225 Katy Fwy Suite 350 Houston, TX 77007 346-331-7123

https://ecf.txsd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?740402072891158-L_1_0-1

1/32

1/18/2021

DC CM/ECF LIVE- US District Court-Texas Southern
Email: khuddleston@aclutx.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lauren Kuhlik ACLU National Prison Project 915 15th Street NW 7th Floor Washington, DC 2005 202-548-6618 Email: lkuhlik@aclu.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael Tan American Civil Liberties Untion Foundation 125 Broad Street 18th Floor New York, NY 10004 347-714-0740 Email: mtan@aclu.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Noor Zafar American Civil Liberties Union Foundation 125 Broad St New York, NY 10004 212-549-2500 Email: nzafar@aclu.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Paul Richard Genender Weil, Gotshal & Manges L.L.P. 200 Crescent Court Suite 300 Dallas, TX 75201-6950 214.746.7877 Fax: 2143746.7777 Email: paul.genender@weil.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Vera Eidelman American Civil Liberties Union Foundation 125 Broad Street 18th Floor New York, NY 10004 212-549-2500 Email: veidelman@aclu.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

https://ecf.txsd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?740402072891158-L_1_0-1

2/32

1/18/2021
Petitioner Georgina Rojas

DC CM/ECF LIVE- US District Court-Texas Southern
Edgar Saldivar American Civil Liberties Union of Texas 5225 Katy Freeway Suite 350 Houston, TX 77007 7139428146 Fax: 7139428966 Email: esaldivar@aclutx.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Rochelle Mercedes Garza American Civil Liberties Union Foundation of Texas, Inc. 2406 Thor's Hammer Boulevard Brownsville, TX 78521 956-544-1111 Email: rgarza@aclutx.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Andre Ivan Segura ACLU of Texas 5225 Katy Freeway Suite 350 Houston, TX 77007 713-942-8146 Email: asegura@aclutx.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Bernardo Rafael Cruz (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
David Fathi (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Eunice Cho (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kathryn Huddleston (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lauren Kuhlik (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

https://ecf.txsd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?740402072891158-L_1_0-1

3/32

1/18/2021

DC CM/ECF LIVE- US District Court-Texas Southern
Michael Tan (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Noor Zafar (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Paul Richard Genender (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Vera Eidelman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Edgar Saldivar (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Rochelle Mercedes Garza (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Petitioner Luis Antonio Par Alvarado

Andre Ivan Segura (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Bernardo Rafael Cruz (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

David Fathi (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Eunice Cho (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kathryn Huddleston (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Lauren Kuhlik

https://ecf.txsd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?740402072891158-L_1_0-1

4/32

1/18/2021

DC CM/ECF LIVE- US District Court-Texas Southern
(See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael Tan (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Noor Zafar (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Paul Richard Genender (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Vera Eidelman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Edgar Saldivar (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Rochelle Mercedes Garza (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Petitioner Bassam Jebril

Andre Ivan Segura (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Bernardo Rafael Cruz (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

David Fathi (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Eunice Cho (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

https://ecf.txsd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?740402072891158-L_1_0-1

Kathryn Huddleston (See above for address)
5/32

1/18/2021

DC CM/ECF LIVE- US District Court-Texas Southern
LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Lauren Kuhlik (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael Tan (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Noor Zafar (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Paul Richard Genender (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Vera Eidelman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Edgar Saldivar (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Rochelle Mercedes Garza (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Petitioner Maria Eugenia Escobar Milano

Andre Ivan Segura (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Paul Richard Genender (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Edgar Saldivar (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

https://ecf.txsd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?740402072891158-L_1_0-1

Erin Marie Choi Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP 200 Crescent Court Suite 300
6/32

1/18/2021

DC CM/ECF LIVE- US District Court-Texas Southern
Dallas, TX 75201 214-746-7700 Email: erin.choi@weil.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kathryn Huddleston (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ronald L. Miller Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP 200 Crescent Court Suite 300 Dallas, TX 75006 214-981-9981 Fax: 214-981-9901 Email: ron.miller@weil.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Petitioner Phillip Bakasa

Andre Ivan Segura (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Paul Richard Genender (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Edgar Saldivar (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Erin Marie Choi (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ronald L. Miller (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Petitioner Yaneysi Diaz- Ramirez

Andre Ivan Segura (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Paul Richard Genender (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

https://ecf.txsd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?740402072891158-L_1_0-1

Edgar Saldivar (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
7/32

1/18/2021
Petitioner Chenghui Gao

DC CM/ECF LIVE- US District Court-Texas Southern
Erin Marie Choi (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kathryn Huddleston (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ronald L. Miller (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Andre Ivan Segura (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Paul Richard Genender (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Edgar Saldivar (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Erin Marie Choi (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kathryn Huddleston (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ronald L. Miller (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Andre Ivan Segura (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Respondent Chad Wolf

represented by Annalisa L. Cravens United States Attorney's Ofﬁce 1000 Louisiana Street Suite 2300 Houston, TX 77002 713-567-9489 Fax: 713-718-3303

https://ecf.txsd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?740402072891158-L_1_0-1

8/32

1/18/2021
Respondent U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement
Respondent Matthew Albence
Respondent

DC CM/ECF LIVE- US District Court-Texas Southern
Email: Annalisa.Cravens@usdoj.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Christopher D Pineda United States Attorneys Ofﬁce 600 E. Harrison Suite 201 Brownsville, TX 78520 956-548-2554 Fax: 956-548-2776 Email: christopher.pineda@usdoj.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel David Hu Ofﬁce of the US Attorneys Ofﬁce 1000 Louisiana Ste 2300 Houston, TX 77002 713-567-9518 Fax: 713-718-3303 Email: daniel.hu@usdoj.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Annalisa L. Cravens (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Christopher D Pineda (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel David Hu (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Annalisa L. Cravens (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Christopher D Pineda (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel David Hu (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

https://ecf.txsd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?740402072891158-L_1_0-1

9/32

1/18/2021
Patrick Contreras

DC CM/ECF LIVE- US District Court-Texas Southern
represented by Annalisa L. Cravens (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Christopher D Pineda (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel David Hu (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Respondent Randy Tate

Kathryn Huddleston (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Annalisa L. Cravens (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Christopher D Pineda (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant Carlos Pinon Rocha

Daniel David Hu (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Andre Ivan Segura (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant Joana Martinez Collazo

Paul Richard Genender (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Andre Ivan Segura (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant Abdullah Alhamawi

Paul Richard Genender (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Andre Ivan Segura (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

https://ecf.txsd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?740402072891158-L_1_0-1

10/32

1/18/2021

DC CM/ECF LIVE- US District Court-Texas Southern

Movant Jose Rodriguez Garcia

Paul Richard Genender (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Andre Ivan Segura (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant Alcides Garcia

Paul Richard Genender (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Andre Ivan Segura (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant Andres Lara Corona

Paul Richard Genender (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Andre Ivan Segura (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant Juana Hidrogo De Collins

Paul Richard Genender (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Andre Ivan Segura (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant Maria Casco-George

Paul Richard Genender (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Andre Ivan Segura (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Paul Richard Genender (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant Richard Gonzales

represented by Andre Ivan Segura (See above for address)

https://ecf.txsd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?740402072891158-L_1_0-1

11/32

1/18/2021

DC CM/ECF LIVE- US District Court-Texas Southern
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Paul Richard Genender (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Amicus Joseph Brick
Amicus Brie Williams
https://ecf.txsd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?740402072891158-L_1_0-1

represented by Darren W Johnson Paul Weiss Rifkind Wharton & Garrison LLP 1285 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10019 212-373-3710 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
David Kimball-Stanley Paul Weiss Rifkind Wharton & Garrison LLP 1285 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10019 212-373-3275 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Paul Stevens Turkevich AZA 1221 McKinney St Ste 2500 Houston, TX 77010 713-600-4917 Email: pturkevich@azalaw.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Susanna Buergel Paul Weiss Rifkind Wharton & Garrison, LLP 1285 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10019 212-373-3553 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Darren W Johnson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
David Kimball-Stanley
12/32

1/18/2021
Amicus Joe Goldenson
Amicus Kathryn Hampton

DC CM/ECF LIVE- US District Court-Texas Southern
(See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Paul Stevens Turkevich (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Susanna Buergel (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Darren W Johnson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
David Kimball-Stanley (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Paul Stevens Turkevich (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Susanna Buergel (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Darren W Johnson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
David Kimball-Stanley (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Paul Stevens Turkevich (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Susanna Buergel (See above for address)

https://ecf.txsd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?740402072891158-L_1_0-1

13/32

1/18/2021
Amicus Judith Resnik

DC CM/ECF LIVE- US District Court-Texas Southern
LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Nimish Ramesh Desai Lieff Cabraser et al 275 Battery St 29th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 415-956-1000 Email: ndesai@lchb.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 04/08/2020
04/10/2020 04/10/2020 04/10/2020 04/10/2020 04/10/2020 04/10/2020 04/10/2020 04/10/2020

# Docket Text
1 PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Filing fee $ 5 receipt number 0541-24525589) ﬁled by Luis Antonio Par Alvarado, Georgina Rojas, Bassam Jebril, Roman Vazquez Barrera. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Declaration of Jonathan Golob, # 2 Exhibit Declaration of Joseph Amon, # 3 Exhibit Declaration of Georgina Rojas, # 4 Exhibit Declaration of Roman Vazquez Barrera, # 5 Exhibit Declaration of Bassam Jebril, # 6 Exhibit Declaration of Katharina Obser, # 7 Exhibit Declaration of Homer Venters, # 8 Exhibit Declaration of Luis Antonio Par Alvarado, # 9 Exhibit Declaration of Federico Lopez Santiago, # 10 Exhibit Declaration of Cindy Edith Ramirez, # 11 Civil Cover Sheet)(Segura, Andre) (Entered: 04/08/2020)
2 NOTICE of Setting. Parties notiﬁed. Telephone Conference set for 4/13/2020 at 02:00 PM by telephone before Judge Keith P Ellison, ﬁled. (arrivera, 4) (Entered: 04/10/2020)
3 NOTICE of Appearance by Annalisa L. Cravens on behalf of Matthew Albence, Patrick Contreras, Randy Tate, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Chad Wolf, ﬁled. (Cravens, Annalisa) (Entered: 04/10/2020)
4 MOTION for Bernardo Rafael Cruz to Appear Pro Hac Vice by Bassam Jebril, Luis Antonio Par Alvarado, Georgina Rojas, Roman Vazquez Barrera, ﬁled. Motion Docket Date 5/1/2020. (Segura, Andre) (Entered: 04/10/2020)
5 MOTION for Kathryn Huddleston to Appear Pro Hac Vice by Bassam Jebril, Luis Antonio Par Alvarado, Georgina Rojas, Roman Vazquez Barrera, ﬁled. Motion Docket Date 5/1/2020. (Segura, Andre) (Entered: 04/10/2020)
6 MOTION for Eunice Cho to Appear Pro Hac Vice by Bassam Jebril, Luis Antonio Par Alvarado, Georgina Rojas, Roman Vazquez Barrera, ﬁled. Motion Docket Date 5/1/2020. (Segura, Andre) (Entered: 04/10/2020)
7 MOTION for Vera Eidelman to Appear Pro Hac Vice by Bassam Jebril, Luis Antonio Par Alvarado, Georgina Rojas, Roman Vazquez Barrera, ﬁled. Motion Docket Date 5/1/2020. (Segura, Andre) (Entered: 04/10/2020)
8 MOTION for David Fathi to Appear Pro Hac Vice by Bassam Jebril, Luis Antonio Par Alvarado, Georgina Rojas, Roman Vazquez Barrera, ﬁled. Motion Docket Date 5/1/2020. (Segura, Andre) (Entered: 04/10/2020)
9 MOTION for Lauren Kuhlik to Appear Pro Hac Vice by Bassam Jebril, Luis Antonio Par Alvarado, Georgina Rojas, Roman Vazquez Barrera, ﬁled. Motion Docket Date 5/1/2020. (Segura, Andre) (Entered: 04/10/2020)

https://ecf.txsd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?740402072891158-L_1_0-1

14/32

1/18/2021
04/10/2020
04/10/2020
04/10/2020
04/10/2020 04/10/2020 04/10/2020 04/10/2020 04/10/2020 04/10/2020 04/10/2020 04/10/2020 04/11/2020 04/13/2020

DC CM/ECF LIVE- US District Court-Texas Southern
10 MOTION for Michael Tan to Appear Pro Hac Vice by Bassam Jebril, Luis Antonio Par Alvarado, Georgina Rojas, Roman Vazquez Barrera, ﬁled. Motion Docket Date 5/1/2020. (Segura, Andre) (Entered: 04/10/2020)
11 MOTION for Noor Zafar to Appear Pro Hac Vice by Bassam Jebril, Luis Antonio Par Alvarado, Georgina Rojas, Roman Vazquez Barrera, ﬁled. Motion Docket Date 5/1/2020. (Segura, Andre) (Entered: 04/10/2020)
12 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order by Bassam Jebril, Luis Antonio Par Alvarado, Georgina Rojas, Roman Vazquez Barrera, ﬁled. Motion Docket Date 5/1/2020. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Memorandum In Support of Temporary Restraining Order, # 2 Exhibit Declaration of Julia Montiel, # 3 Exhibit Declaration of Luis Antonio Par Alvarado, # 4 Exhibit Declaration of Maria Vazquez, # 5 Exhibit Declaration of Holly Kuchera, # 6 Exhibit Declaration of Abeer Wadi, # 7 Proposed Order)(Segura, Andre) (Entered: 04/10/2020)
14 ORDER granting 6 Motion for Eunice Cho to Appear Pro Hac Vice.(Signed by Judge Keith P Ellison) Parties notiﬁed.(jdav, 4) (Entered: 04/13/2020)
15 ORDER granting 4 Motion for Bernardo Rafael Cruz to Appear Pro Hac Vice.(Signed by Judge Keith P Ellison) Parties notiﬁed.(jdav, 4) (Entered: 04/13/2020)
16 ORDER granting 7 Motion for Vera Eidelman to Appear Pro Hac Vice.(Signed by Judge Keith P Ellison) Parties notiﬁed.(jdav, 4) (Entered: 04/13/2020)
17 ORDER granting 8 Motion for David Fathi to Appear Pro Hac Vice.(Signed by Judge Keith P Ellison) Parties notiﬁed.(jdav, 4) (Entered: 04/13/2020)
18 ORDER granting 5 Motion for Kathryn Huddleston to Appear Pro Hac Vice.(Signed by Judge Keith P Ellison) Parties notiﬁed.(jdav, 4) (Entered: 04/13/2020)
19 ORDER granting 9 Motion for Lauren Kuhlik to Appear Pro Hac Vice.(Signed by Judge Keith P Ellison) Parties notiﬁed.(jdav, 4) (Entered: 04/13/2020)
20 ORDER granting 10 Motion for Michael Tan to Appear Pro Hac Vice.(Signed by Judge Keith P Ellison) Parties notiﬁed.(jdav, 4) (Entered: 04/13/2020)
21 ORDER granting 11 Motion for Noor Zafar to Appear Pro Hac Vice.(Signed by Judge Keith P Ellison) Parties notiﬁed.(jdav, 4) (Entered: 04/13/2020)
13 NOTICE by Bassam Jebril, Luis Antonio Par Alvarado, Georgina Rojas, ﬁled. (Segura, Andre) (Entered: 04/11/2020)
22 RESPONSE in Opposition to 12 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order, ﬁled by Matthew Albence, Patrick Contreras, Randy Tate, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Chad Wolf. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Par Alvarado Order Granting Bond, # 2 Exhibit Rojas Notice to Appear, # 3 Exhibit Rojas Misdemeanor Pleas, # 4 Exhibit Rojas USCIS Notice, # 5 Afﬁdavit Declaration of Dr. Uchenna Orazulike, # 6 Exhibit Jebril Order of Removal, # 7 Exhibit Jebril Criminal Complaint for Assault of Family Member Impeding Breathing, # 8 Exhibit Jebril Judgment of Conviction for Assault of Family Member, # 9 Exhibit Jebril Order of Protection, # 10 Exhibit Jebril Criminal Complaint for Violation of Condition of Bond, # 11 Exhibit Jebril Immigration Court decision denying cancellation of removal, # 12 Exhibit Jebril Judgment of Conviction for Violation of Protective Order, # 13 Exhibit Jebril Felony Indictment for Aggravated Sexual Assault, # 14 Exhibit Jebril Order scheduling 4-17-2020 setting in aggravated sexual assault case, # 15 Exhibit Jebril BIA decision dismissing appeal, dated 3-17-2020, # 16 Afﬁdavit Declaration of Deportation Ofﬁcer Angel Bracero, # 17 Exhibit ICE Guidance re: Custody Review, dated 4-4-2020, # 18 Exhibit N.Z.M. v. Wolf, # 19

https://ecf.txsd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?740402072891158-L_1_0-1

15/32

1/18/2021
04/13/2020 04/13/2020 04/13/2020
04/14/2020 04/14/2020 04/14/2020
04/14/2020 04/14/2020 04/14/2020 04/14/2020 04/15/2020 04/15/2020 04/15/2020 04/15/2020

DC CM/ECF LIVE- US District Court-Texas Southern
Afﬁdavit Declaration of Annalisa L. Cravens, # 20 Proposed Order)(Cravens, Annalisa) (Entered: 04/13/2020)
23 NOTICE of Service by Bassam Jebril, Luis Antonio Par Alvarado, Georgina Rojas, Roman Vazquez Barrera, ﬁled. (Segura, Andre) (Entered: 04/13/2020)
24 Supplemental REPLY to Response to 12 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order, ﬁled by Bassam Jebril, Luis Antonio Par Alvarado, Georgina Rojas, Roman Vazquez Barrera. (Segura, Andre) (Entered: 04/13/2020)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Keith P Ellison. TELEPHONE CONFERENCE held on 4/13/2020. Motion taken under advisement. Appearances:Daniel Hu, Paul Genender, Erin Choi. Annalisa L. Cravens, Paul Stevens Turkevich, Noor Zafar, Andre Ivan Segura, Rochelle Mercedes Garza, Eunice Cho, Vera Eidelman, David Fathi, Kathryn Huddleston, Michael Tan.(Court Reporter: J. Sanchez)(Law Clerk: J. Zhang), ﬁled.(arrivera, 4) (Entered: 04/15/2020)
25 RESPONSE to Plaintiffs' Supplemental Brief [Dkt. 24], ﬁled by Matthew Albence, Patrick Contreras, Randy Tate, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Chad Wolf. (Cravens, Annalisa) (Entered: 04/14/2020)
26 SEALED RESPONSE to Plaintiffs' Supplemental Brief [Dkt. 24] by Matthew Albence, Patrick Contreras, Randy Tate, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Chad Wolf, ﬁled. (Cravens, Annalisa) (Entered: 04/14/2020)
27 Unopposed MOTION for Leave to File Brief of Amici Curiae Public Health & Human Rights Experts by Joseph Brick, Brie Williams, Joe Goldenson, Kathryn Hampton, ﬁled. Motion Docket Date 5/5/2020. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Proposed Order) (Turkevich, Paul) (Entered: 04/14/2020)
28 MOTION for Susanna Buergel to Appear Pro Hac Vice by Joseph Brick, Joe Goldenson, Kathryn Hampton, Brie Williams, ﬁled. Motion Docket Date 5/5/2020. (Turkevich, Paul) (Entered: 04/14/2020)
29 MOTION for Darren W. Johnson to Appear Pro Hac Vice by Joseph Brick, Joe Goldenson, Kathryn Hampton, Brie Williams, ﬁled. Motion Docket Date 5/5/2020. (Turkevich, Paul) (Entered: 04/14/2020)
30 MOTION for David Kimball-Stanley to Appear Pro Hac Vice by Joseph Brick, Joe Goldenson, Kathryn Hampton, Brie Williams, ﬁled. Motion Docket Date 5/5/2020. (Turkevich, Paul) (Entered: 04/14/2020)
31 Supplemental RESPONSE , ﬁled by Matthew Albence, Patrick Contreras, Randy Tate, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Chad Wolf. (Cravens, Annalisa) (Entered: 04/14/2020)
32 NOTICE of Appearance by Rochelle Garza on behalf of Bassam Jebril, Luis Antonio Par Alvarado, Georgina Rojas, Roman Vazquez Barrera, ﬁled. (Garza, Rochelle) (Entered: 04/15/2020)
33 RESPONSE to 31 Response to Defendants' Supplement, ﬁled by Bassam Jebril, Luis Antonio Par Alvarado, Georgina Rojas. (Segura, Andre) (Entered: 04/15/2020)
34 ORDER granting 27 Motion for Leave to File Brief of Amici Curiae Public Health and Human Rights Experts.(Signed by Judge Keith P Ellison) Parties notiﬁed.(rguerrero, 4) (Entered: 04/15/2020)
35 ORDER granting 28 Motion for Susanna Buergel to Appear Pro Hac Vice.(Signed by Judge Keith P Ellison) Parties notiﬁed.(jdav, 4) (Entered: 04/16/2020)

https://ecf.txsd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?740402072891158-L_1_0-1

16/32

1/18/2021
04/15/2020 04/15/2020 04/16/2020 04/16/2020 04/16/2020 04/17/2020 04/23/2020
04/28/2020 04/28/2020 04/29/2020
04/29/2020
04/30/2020 04/30/2020

DC CM/ECF LIVE- US District Court-Texas Southern
36 ORDER granting 29 Motion for Darren W. Johnson to Appear Pro Hac Vice.(Signed by Judge Keith P Ellison) Parties notiﬁed.(jdav, 4) (Entered: 04/16/2020)
37 ORDER granting 30 Motion for David Kimball-Stanley to Appear Pro Hac Vice.(Signed by Judge Keith P Ellison) Parties notiﬁed.(jdav, 4) (Entered: 04/16/2020)
38 NOTICE Regarding Receipt of Mr. Jebril's Medical Records by Matthew Albence, Patrick Contreras, Randy Tate, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Chad Wolf, ﬁled. (Cravens, Annalisa) (Entered: 04/16/2020)
39 NOTICE of Appearance by Omar Jadwat on behalf of Bassam Jebril, Luis Antonio Par Alvarado, Georgina Rojas, Roman Vazquez Barrera, ﬁled. (Segura, Andre) (Entered: 04/16/2020)
40 NOTICE by Bassam Jebril, Luis Antonio Par Alvarado, Georgina Rojas, Roman Vazquez Barrera, ﬁled. (Segura, Andre) (Entered: 04/16/2020)
41 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER granting in part 12 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order.(Signed by Judge Keith P Ellison) Parties notiﬁed.(arrivera, 4) (Entered: 04/17/2020)
Mail Returned Undeliverable as to attorney Bernardo Rafael Cruz as to Roman Vazquez Barrera re: 20 Order on Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice, 17 Order on Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice, 19 Order on Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice, 15 Order on Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice, 18 Order on Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice, 16 Order on Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice, 21 Order on Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice, ﬁled. (dmorales, 5) (Entered: 04/23/2020)
***Delivery Conﬁrmation re: 42 Document(s) Sent,, ﬁled. (hlerma, 4) (Entered: 04/28/2020)
43 NOTICE by Bassam Jebril, Luis Antonio Par Alvarado, Georgina Rojas, Roman Vazquez Barrera, ﬁled. (Segura, Andre) (Entered: 04/28/2020)
44 AMENDED COMPLAINT against Matthew Albence, Joseph Brick, Patrick Contreras, Joe Goldenson, Kathryn Hampton, Randy Tate, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Brie Williams, Chad Wolf ﬁled by Georgina Rojas, Roman Vazquez Barrera, Luis Antonio Par Alvarado, Bassam Jebril, Maria Eugenia Escobar Milano, Phillip Bakasa, Yaneysi Diaz- Ramirez, Chenghui Gao. (Attachments: # 1 Afﬁdavit, # 2 Exhibit Homer Venters Suppl. Declaration, # 3 Exhibit Joseph J. Amon Suppl. Decl, # 4 Exhibit Dora Schriro Decl., # 5 Exhibit Yaneysi Diaz Ramirez Decl., # 6 Exhibit Chenghui Gao Decl., # 7 Exhibit Phillip Bakasa Decl., # 8 Exhibit Maria Eugenia Escobar Milano Decl., # 9 Exhibit Phillip Bakasa Suppl. Decl.)(Segura, Andre) (Entered: 04/29/2020)
45 MOTION to Certify Class by Phillip Bakasa, Yaneysi Diaz- Ramirez, Maria Eugenia Escobar Milano, Chenghui Gao, ﬁled. Motion Docket Date 5/20/2020. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Exhibit A Supplemental Declaration of Attorney Holly Kuchera, # 3 B Declaration of Andre I. Segura, # 4 Proposed Order)(Genender, Paul) (Entered: 04/29/2020)
46 NOTICE of Appearance by Daniel D. Hu on behalf of Matthew Albence, Patrick Contreras, Randy Tate, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Chad Wolf, ﬁled. (Hu, Daniel) (Entered: 04/30/2020)
47 NOTICE of Appearance by Christopher D. Pineda on behalf of Matthew Albence, Patrick Contreras, Randy Tate, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Chad Wolf, ﬁled. (Pineda, Christopher) (Entered: 04/30/2020)

https://ecf.txsd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?740402072891158-L_1_0-1

17/32

1/18/2021
04/30/2020 04/30/2020 04/30/2020 05/01/2020 05/01/2020 05/01/2020 05/01/2020
05/01/2020 05/04/2020 05/04/2020
05/05/2020 05/07/2020

DC CM/ECF LIVE- US District Court-Texas Southern
48 NOTICE of Certiﬁcate of Conference re: 45 MOTION to Certify Class by Phillip Bakasa, Yaneysi Diaz- Ramirez, Maria Eugenia Escobar Milano, Chenghui Gao, Bassam Jebril, Luis Antonio Par Alvarado, Georgina Rojas, Roman Vazquez Barrera, ﬁled. (Segura, Andre) (Entered: 04/30/2020)
49 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE of 45 MOTION to Certify Class by Phillip Bakasa, Yaneysi Diaz- Ramirez, Maria Eugenia Escobar Milano, Chenghui Gao, ﬁled.(Genender, Paul) (Entered: 04/30/2020)
50 Mail Returned Undeliverable as to attorney Lauren Kuhlik re: 35 Order on Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice. No new address found., ﬁled. (Attachments: # 1 Cover) (CodyArnold, 5) (Entered: 05/01/2020)
51 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction by Matthew Albence, Patrick Contreras, Randy Tate, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Chad Wolf, ﬁled. Motion Docket Date 5/22/2020. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Proposed Order) (Cravens, Annalisa) (Entered: 05/01/2020)
52 Opposed MOTION to Strike 44 Amended Complaint/Counterclaim/Crossclaim etc.,, 45 MOTION to Certify Class by Matthew Albence, Patrick Contreras, Randy Tate, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Chad Wolf, ﬁled. Motion Docket Date 5/22/2020. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Cravens, Annalisa) (Entered: 05/01/2020)
53 NOTICE by Phillip Bakasa, Yaneysi Diaz- Ramirez, Maria Eugenia Escobar Milano, Chenghui Gao, Bassam Jebril, Luis Antonio Par Alvarado, Georgina Rojas, Roman Vazquez Barrera, ﬁled. (Segura, Andre) (Entered: 05/01/2020)
54 MOTION to Expedite Discovery, MOTION for Discovery( Motion Docket Date 5/22/2020.) by Phillip Bakasa, Yaneysi Diaz- Ramirez, Maria Eugenia Escobar Milano, Chenghui Gao, Bassam Jebril, Luis Antonio Par Alvarado, Georgina Rojas, Roman Vazquez Barrera, ﬁled. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Segura, Andre) (Entered: 05/01/2020)
55 MEMORANDUM In Support re: 54 MOTION to Expedite Discovery MOTION for Discovery by Phillip Bakasa, Yaneysi Diaz- Ramirez, Maria Eugenia Escobar Milano, Chenghui Gao, Bassam Jebril, Luis Antonio Par Alvarado, Georgina Rojas, Roman Vazquez Barrera, ﬁled.(Segura, Andre) (Entered: 05/01/2020)
56 RESPONSE in Opposition to 54 MOTION to Expedite Discovery MOTION for Discovery, ﬁled by Matthew Albence, Patrick Contreras, Randy Tate, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Chad Wolf. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Cravens, Annalisa) (Entered: 05/04/2020)
57 MOTION to Expedite Relief by Phillip Bakasa, Yaneysi Diaz- Ramirez, Maria Eugenia Escobar Milano, Chenghui Gao, Bassam Jebril, Luis Antonio Par Alvarado, Georgina Rojas, Roman Vazquez Barrera, ﬁled. Motion Docket Date 5/26/2020. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Memorandum ISO Motion to Expedite Relief, # 2 Proposed Order Proposed Order ISO Motion to Expedite Relief)(Segura, Andre) (Entered: 05/04/2020)
58 NOTICE of Appearance by Edgar Saldivar on behalf of Phillip Bakasa, Yaneysi DiazRamirez, Maria Eugenia Escobar Milano, Chenghui Gao, Bassam Jebril, Luis Antonio Par Alvarado, Georgina Rojas, Roman Vazquez Barrera, ﬁled. (Saldivar, Edgar) (Entered: 05/05/2020)
59 REPLY in Support of 54 MOTION to Expedite Discovery MOTION for Discovery, ﬁled by Phillip Bakasa, Yaneysi Diaz- Ramirez, Maria Eugenia Escobar Milano, Chenghui Gao, Bassam Jebril, Luis Antonio Par Alvarado, Georgina Rojas, Roman Vazquez Barrera. (Segura, Andre) (Entered: 05/07/2020)

https://ecf.txsd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?740402072891158-L_1_0-1

18/32

1/18/2021
05/13/2020 05/15/2020
05/18/2020
05/18/2020 05/18/2020 05/18/2020 05/18/2020
05/18/2020 05/18/2020 05/18/2020 05/20/2020

DC CM/ECF LIVE- US District Court-Texas Southern
60 STIPULATION re: Motion Response Deadlines by Matthew Albence, Patrick Contreras, Randy Tate, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Chad Wolf, ﬁled.(Cravens, Annalisa) (Entered: 05/13/2020)
61 RESPONSE in Opposition to 51 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction, 52 Opposed MOTION to Strike 44 Amended Complaint/Counterclaim/Crossclaim etc.,, 45 MOTION to Certify Class , ﬁled by Phillip Bakasa, Yaneysi Diaz- Ramirez, Maria Eugenia Escobar Milano, Chenghui Gao, Bassam Jebril, Luis Antonio Par Alvarado, Georgina Rojas, Roman Vazquez Barrera. (Genender, Paul) (Entered: 05/15/2020)
62 NOTICE of Setting as to 57 MOTION to Expedite Relief, 54 MOTION to Expedite Discovery MOTION for Discovery, 51 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction, 52 Opposed MOTION to Strike 44 Amended Complaint/Counterclaim/Crossclaim etc.,, 45 MOTION to Certify Class . Parties notiﬁed. Motion Hearing set for 5/21/2020 at 02:30 PM in by telephone before Judge Keith P Ellison, ﬁled. (arrivera, 4) (Entered: 05/18/2020)
63 Unopposed MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages by Matthew Albence, Patrick Contreras, Randy Tate, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Chad Wolf, ﬁled. Motion Docket Date 6/8/2020. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Cravens, Annalisa) (Entered: 05/18/2020)
64 SEALED RESPONSE re: 57 MOTION to Expedite Relief by Matthew Albence, Patrick Contreras, Randy Tate, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Chad Wolf, ﬁled. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) (Cravens, Annalisa) (Entered: 05/18/2020)
65 RESPONSE in Opposition to 57 MOTION to Expedite Relief, ﬁled by Matthew Albence, Patrick Contreras, Randy Tate, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Chad Wolf. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Cravens, Annalisa) (Entered: 05/18/2020)
66 SEALED EXHIBITS 1 through 11 and 17 through 20 re: 64 Sealed Response, 65 Response in Opposition to Motion by Matthew Albence, Patrick Contreras, Randy Tate, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Chad Wolf, ﬁled. (Attachments: # 1 Afﬁdavit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit, # 4 Exhibit, # 5 Exhibit, # 6 Exhibit, # 7 Exhibit, # 8 Exhibit, # 9 Afﬁdavit, # 10 Exhibit, # 11 Exhibit, # 12 Afﬁdavit Exhibit 17, # 13 Afﬁdavit Exhibit 18, # 14 Afﬁdavit Exhibit 19, # 15 Exhibit Exhibit 20) (Cravens, Annalisa) (Entered: 05/18/2020)
67 Additional EXHIBITS re: 64 Sealed Response, 65 Response in Opposition to Motion by Matthew Albence, Patrick Contreras, Randy Tate, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Chad Wolf. Attached documents may be viewed in the Ofﬁce of the Clerk., ﬁled. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit, # 4 Exhibit, # 5 Exhibit) (Cravens, Annalisa) (Entered: 05/18/2020)
68 OBJECTIONS to 57 MOTION to Expedite Relief (Defendants' Evidentiary Objections), ﬁled by Matthew Albence, Patrick Contreras, Randy Tate, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Chad Wolf. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Pineda, Christopher) (Entered: 05/18/2020)
69 ORDER granting 63 Unopposed MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages. IS ORDERED that Defendants 64 response in opposition to Plaintiffs motion for expedited bail hearings is accepted into the record. (Signed by Judge Keith P Ellison) Parties notiﬁed.(sanderson, 4) (Entered: 05/19/2020)
70 RESPONSE to 68 Objections, to 57 MOTION to Expedite Relief (Defendants' Evidentiary Objections), ﬁled by Phillip Bakasa, Yaneysi Diaz- Ramirez, Maria Eugenia Escobar

https://ecf.txsd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?740402072891158-L_1_0-1

19/32

1/18/2021
05/20/2020 05/20/2020 05/20/2020
05/20/2020 05/21/2020 05/21/2020 05/21/2020
05/22/2020 05/23/2020

DC CM/ECF LIVE- US District Court-Texas Southern
Milano, Chenghui Gao, Bassam Jebril, Luis Antonio Par Alvarado, Georgina Rojas, Roman Vazquez Barrera. (Genender, Paul) (Entered: 05/20/2020)
71 REPLY in Support of 51 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction, ﬁled by Matthew Albence, Patrick Contreras, Randy Tate, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Chad Wolf. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 2)(Pineda, Christopher) (Entered: 05/20/2020)
72 Unopposed MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages by Phillip Bakasa, Yaneysi DiazRamirez, Maria Eugenia Escobar Milano, Chenghui Gao, Bassam Jebril, Luis Antonio Par Alvarado, Georgina Rojas, Roman Vazquez Barrera, ﬁled. Motion Docket Date 6/10/2020. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Segura, Andre) (Entered: 05/20/2020)
73 RESPONSE in Opposition to 45 MOTION to Certify Class, ﬁled by Matthew Albence, Patrick Contreras, Randy Tate, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Chad Wolf. (Attachments: # 1 Afﬁdavit Declaration of Terry Manuel, ICE ERO, # 2 Exhibit List of Pro Bono Legal Services Providers, # 3 Exhibit CDC - People Who Are At Higher Risk for COVID-19, # 4 Exhibit CDC - Mitigation Strategies - March 2020, # 5 Exhibit CDC Mitigation Strategies - May 2020, # 6 Exhibit COVID-19 and Epilepsy, # 7 Exhibit Patients in China with Hypertension, # 8 Exhibit Int'l Society of Hypertension, # 9 Exhibit American Heart Ass'n, # 10 Exhibit American Journal of Hypertension, # 11 Exhibit Skrarupski re Aging Prison Population, # 12 Exhibit Garg re Hospitalization Rates, # 13 Exhibit Nat'l Kidney Foundation, # 14 Proposed Order)(Cravens, Annalisa) (Entered: 05/20/2020)
74 SEALED EXHIBITS Exhibit 14 re: 73 Response in Opposition to Motion,,, by Matthew Albence, Patrick Contreras, Randy Tate, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Chad Wolf, ﬁled. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Excerpt of Escobar Milano Medical Records) (Cravens, Annalisa) (Entered: 05/20/2020)
75 SEALED REPLY Petitioners-Plaintiffs' Reply In Support of Their Motion for Expedited Bail Hearings re: 65 Response in Opposition to Motion by Phillip Bakasa, Yaneysi DiazRamirez, Maria Eugenia Escobar Milano, Chenghui Gao, Bassam Jebril, Luis Antonio Par Alvarado, Georgina Rojas, Roman Vazquez Barrera, ﬁled. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit, # 4 Exhibit, # 5 Exhibit, # 6 Exhibit) (Segura, Andre) (Entered: 05/21/2020)
76 ORDER granting 72 Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages.(Signed by Judge Keith P Ellison) Parties notiﬁed.(ShoshanaArnow, 4) (Entered: 05/21/2020)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Keith P Ellison. MOTION HEARING held on 5/21/2020. Argument heard on 45 Motion for Class Certiﬁcation, 51 Motion to Dismiss, 52 Motion to Strike, 55 Motion for Expedited Discovery, 57 Motion for Expedited Relief. Motions taken under advisement. Appearances: Annalisa L. Cravens, Daniel David Hu, Christopher D Pineda, Andre Ivan Segura, Erin Marie Choi, Noor Zafar, Rochelle Mercedes Garza, Eunice Cho, Bernardo Rafael Cruz, Vera Eidelman, Kathryn Huddleston, Lauren Kuhlik, Michael Tan.(Court Reporter: M. Malone)(Law Clerk: J. Zhang), ﬁled.(arrivera, 4) (Entered: 05/28/2020)
77 NOTICE of Supplemental Authority by Phillip Bakasa, Yaneysi Diaz- Ramirez, Maria Eugenia Escobar Milano, Chenghui Gao, Bassam Jebril, Luis Antonio Par Alvarado, Georgina Rojas, Roman Vazquez Barrera, ﬁled. (Segura, Andre) (Entered: 05/22/2020)
78 SUPPLEMENT to 51 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction, 52 Opposed MOTION to Strike 44 Amended Complaint/Counterclaim/Crossclaim etc.,, 45 MOTION to Certify Class by Matthew Albence, Patrick Contreras, Randy Tate, U.S.

https://ecf.txsd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?740402072891158-L_1_0-1

20/32

1/18/2021
05/25/2020 05/26/2020 05/28/2020 05/28/2020 05/29/2020 05/29/2020 05/30/2020 06/01/2020 06/01/2020 06/02/2020 06/03/2020 06/04/2020 06/05/2020

DC CM/ECF LIVE- US District Court-Texas Southern
Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Chad Wolf, ﬁled.(Hu, Daniel) (Entered: 05/23/2020)
79 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER. Responses due by 5/28/2020.(Signed by Judge Keith P Ellison) Parties notiﬁed.(arrivera, 4) (Entered: 05/25/2020)
80 NOTICE of Supplemental Authority by Phillip Bakasa, Yaneysi Diaz- Ramirez, Maria Eugenia Escobar Milano, Chenghui Gao, Bassam Jebril, Luis Antonio Par Alvarado, Georgina Rojas, Roman Vazquez Barrera, ﬁled. (Segura, Andre) (Entered: 05/26/2020)
81 AO 435 TRANSCRIPT REQUEST by Defendants for Transcript of MOTION HEARING held on 5/21/2020 Judge Keith Ellison. 3-Day turnaround requested. Court Reporter/Transcriber: Mayra Malone, ﬁled. (Cravens, Annalisa) (Entered: 05/28/2020)
82 RESPONSE to 79 Memorandum and Order , ﬁled by Matthew Albence, Patrick Contreras, Randy Tate, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Chad Wolf. (Attachments: # 1 Afﬁdavit Declaration of Terry Manuel)(Cravens, Annalisa) (Entered: 05/28/2020)
83 RESPONSE to 77 Notice (Other), 80 Notice (Other) , ﬁled by Matthew Albence, Patrick Contreras, Randy Tate, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Chad Wolf. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit)(Cravens, Annalisa) (Entered: 05/29/2020)
84 NOTICE of Supplemental Authority by Matthew Albence, Patrick Contreras, Randy Tate, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Chad Wolf, ﬁled. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Sanchez v. Brown (N.D. Tex.), # 2 Exhibit Provines v. Wilson (N.D. Tex.), # 3 Exhibit Tendo v. Rodriguez (S.D. Tex.))(Cravens, Annalisa) (Entered: 05/29/2020)
85 REPLY in Support of 45 MOTION to Certify Class, ﬁled by Phillip Bakasa, Yaneysi Diaz- Ramirez, Maria Eugenia Escobar Milano, Chenghui Gao, Bassam Jebril, Luis Antonio Par Alvarado, Georgina Rojas, Roman Vazquez Barrera. (Segura, Andre) (Entered: 05/30/2020)
86 Supplemental RESPONSE to 79 Memorandum and Order , ﬁled by Matthew Albence, Patrick Contreras, Randy Tate, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Chad Wolf. (Attachments: # 1 Afﬁdavit)(Cravens, Annalisa) (Entered: 06/01/2020)
87 SEALED EX PARTE DOCUMENT by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, ﬁled. (rwestmoreland, 4) (Entered: 06/01/2020)
88 MOTION to Compel Production of Ex Parte Filing by Phillip Bakasa, Yaneysi DiazRamirez, Maria Eugenia Escobar Milano, Chenghui Gao, Bassam Jebril, Luis Antonio Par Alvarado, Georgina Rojas, Roman Vazquez Barrera, ﬁled. Motion Docket Date 6/23/2020. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Segura, Andre) (Entered: 06/02/2020)
89 RESPONSE in Opposition to 88 MOTION to Compel Production of Ex Parte Filing, ﬁled by Matthew Albence, Patrick Contreras, Randy Tate, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Chad Wolf. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Cravens, Annalisa) (Entered: 06/03/2020)
90 REPLY in Support of 88 MOTION to Compel Production of Ex Parte Filing, ﬁled by Phillip Bakasa, Yaneysi Diaz- Ramirez, Maria Eugenia Escobar Milano, Chenghui Gao, Bassam Jebril, Luis Antonio Par Alvarado, Georgina Rojas, Roman Vazquez Barrera. (Segura, Andre) (Entered: 06/04/2020)
91 NOTICE of Setting as to 88 MOTION to Compel Production of Ex Parte Filing. Parties notiﬁed. Motion Hearing set for 6/8/2020 at 03:30 PM in by telephone before Judge Keith P Ellison, ﬁled. (arrivera, 4) (Entered: 06/05/2020)

https://ecf.txsd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?740402072891158-L_1_0-1

21/32

1/18/2021
06/05/2020 06/07/2020
06/08/2020
06/08/2020 06/10/2020 06/11/2020 06/11/2020 06/11/2020
06/11/2020
06/11/2020 06/12/2020

DC CM/ECF LIVE- US District Court-Texas Southern
92 MOTION to Dismiss 44 Amended Complaint/Counterclaim/Crossclaim etc.,, as to all claims except Bakasa's individual claim under 8 U.S.C. 1231 by Matthew Albence, Patrick Contreras, Randy Tate, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Chad Wolf, ﬁled. Motion Docket Date 6/26/2020. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Cravens, Annalisa) (Entered: 06/05/2020)
93 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order by Phillip Bakasa, Yaneysi Diaz- Ramirez, Maria Eugenia Escobar Milano, Chenghui Gao, Bassam Jebril, Luis Antonio Par Alvarado, Georgina Rojas, Roman Vazquez Barrera, ﬁled. Motion Docket Date 6/29/2020. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Memorandum In Support of Temporary Restraining Order, # 2 Exhibit Declaration of Phillip Bakasa, # 3 Exhibit Declaration of Francisca Bakasa, # 4 Proposed Order)(Segura, Andre) (Entered: 06/07/2020)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Keith P Ellison. MOTION HEARING held on 6/8/2020. For the reasons stated on the record, 88 Motion to Compel is GRANTED. Defendants' request to modify spreadsheet prior to release is taken under advisement. Argument heard on 93 Motion for Temporary Restraining Order. Defendants to ﬁle sworn declaration by Thursday. Appearances: Annalisa L. Cravens, Daniel David Hu, Christopher D Pineda, Andre Ivan Segura, Paul Richard Genender, Erin Marie Choi, Ronald L. Miller, Edgar Saldivar, Paul Stevens Turkevich, Noor Zafar, Rochelle Mercedes Garza, Eunice Cho, Bernardo Rafael Cruz, Vera Eidelman, Kathryn Huddleston, Lauren Kuhlik.(Court Reporter: L. Smith)(Law Clerk: J. Zhang), ﬁled. (arrivera, 4) (Entered: 06/08/2020)
94 ORDER (Signed by Judge Keith P Ellison) Parties notiﬁed.(arrivera, 4) (Entered: 06/09/2020)
95 NOTICE by Phillip Bakasa, ﬁled. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Declaration of Phillip Bakasa)(Segura, Andre) (Entered: 06/10/2020)
96 SEALED DOCUMENT by Matthew Albence, Patrick Contreras, Randy Tate, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Chad Wolf, ﬁled. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Sealed Spreadsheet) (Cravens, Annalisa) (Entered: 06/11/2020)
97 STIPULATION re: Protective Order for Sealed Spreadsheet by Matthew Albence, Patrick Contreras, Randy Tate, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Chad Wolf, ﬁled. (Cravens, Annalisa) (Entered: 06/11/2020)
98 SEALED RESPONSE re: 93 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order by Matthew Albence, Patrick Contreras, Randy Tate, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Chad Wolf, ﬁled. (Attachments: # 1 Afﬁdavit Hunt Declaration (Unsealed), # 2 Afﬁdavit Tate Declaration (Sealed), # 3 Afﬁdavit Dr. Cantu Declaration (Unsealed), # 4 Exhibit ND Cal - Cutting off Ankle Monitor, # 5 Proposed Order) (Cravens, Annalisa) (Entered: 06/11/2020)
99 RESPONSE in Opposition to 93 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order, ﬁled by Matthew Albence, Patrick Contreras, Randy Tate, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Chad Wolf. (Attachments: # 1 Afﬁdavit Hunt Declaration, # 2 Afﬁdavit Tate Declaration - Redacted Version, # 3 Afﬁdavit Dr. Cantu Declaration, # 4 Exhibit ND Cal - Cutting off Ankle Monitor, # 5 Proposed Order)(Cravens, Annalisa) (Entered: 06/11/2020)
100 STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER (Signed by Judge Keith P Ellison) Parties notiﬁed.(arrivera, 4) (Entered: 06/12/2020)
101 REPLY in Support of 93 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order, ﬁled by Phillip Bakasa, Yaneysi Diaz- Ramirez, Maria Eugenia Escobar Milano, Chenghui Gao, Bassam

https://ecf.txsd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?740402072891158-L_1_0-1

22/32

1/18/2021
06/15/2020 06/16/2020 06/16/2020 06/17/2020 06/18/2020 06/22/2020 06/23/2020
06/24/2020 06/25/2020 06/26/2020 06/26/2020

DC CM/ECF LIVE- US District Court-Texas Southern
Jebril, Luis Antonio Par Alvarado, Georgina Rojas, Roman Vazquez Barrera. (Segura, Andre) (Entered: 06/12/2020)
102 RESPONSE to Defendants' Supplemental Filing, ﬁled by Phillip Bakasa, Yaneysi DiazRamirez, Maria Eugenia Escobar Milano, Chenghui Gao, Bassam Jebril, Luis Antonio Par Alvarado, Georgina Rojas, Roman Vazquez Barrera. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Hilborn Decl, # 2 Exhibit Dei Decl)(Segura, Andre) (Entered: 06/15/2020)
103 MOTION to Seal Document 102 by Phillip Bakasa, Yaneysi Diaz- Ramirez, Maria Eugenia Escobar Milano, Chenghui Gao, Bassam Jebril, Luis Antonio Par Alvarado, Georgina Rojas, Roman Vazquez Barrera, ﬁled. Motion Docket Date 7/7/2020. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Segura, Andre) (Entered: 06/16/2020)
104 ORDER granting 103 Motion to Seal. The Court ORDERS that Document 102, Plaintiffs Response to Defendants Supplemental Filing, be sealed. (Signed by Judge Keith P Ellison) Parties notiﬁed.(sanderson, 4) (Entered: 06/16/2020)
105 NOTICE of Supplemental Authorities by Phillip Bakasa, Yaneysi Diaz- Ramirez, Maria Eugenia Escobar Milano, Chenghui Gao, Bassam Jebril, Luis Antonio Par Alvarado, Georgina Rojas, Roman Vazquez Barrera, ﬁled. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit CDC Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, # 2 Exhibit DHS Science and Technology: Master Question List for COVID-19)(Segura, Andre) (Entered: 06/17/2020)
106 SEALED REPLY re: 102 Response, by Matthew Albence, Patrick Contreras, Randy Tate, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Chad Wolf, ﬁled. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Afﬁdavit Declaration of Terry Manuel, # 3 Afﬁdavit Declaration of Dr. Cantu, # 4 Exhibit) (Cravens, Annalisa) (Entered: 06/18/2020)
107 NOTICE of Setting. Parties notiﬁed. Status Conference set for 6/23/2020 at 03:30 PM in by telephone before Judge Keith P Ellison, ﬁled. (arrivera, 4) (Entered: 06/22/2020)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Keith P Ellison. STATUS CONFERENCE held on 6/23/2020. For the reasons stated on the record, 93 Motion for Temporary Restraining Order is DENIED AS MOOT. 54 Motion for Expedited Discovery is GRANTED. Plaintiffs may request up to 20 interrogatories, 15 requests for admission, and 5 document requests. Discovery is due in 15 days. Names and A-numbers of current detainees who fall within the proposed class deﬁnition are due on 7/1/2020. Appearances: Annalisa L. Cravens, Daniel David Hu, Christopher D Pineda, Andre Ivan Segura, Paul Richard Genender, Erin Marie Choi, Ronald L. Miller, Noor Zafar, Rochelle Mercedes Garza, Eunice Cho, Bernardo Rafael Cruz, Vera Eidelman, Kathryn Huddleston, Lauren Kuhlik.(Court Reporter: L. Smith)(Law Clerk: J. Zhang), ﬁled. (arrivera, 4) (Entered: 06/30/2020)
108 AO 435 TRANSCRIPT REQUEST by Annalisa Cravens for Transcript of Hearing, 6/23/2020, Judge Ellison. Daily (24 hours) turnaround requested. Court Reporter/Transcriber: Lanie Smith, ﬁled. (Cravens, Annalisa) (Entered: 06/24/2020)
109 MOTION for Reconsideration by Matthew Albence, Patrick Contreras, Randy Tate, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Chad Wolf, ﬁled. Motion Docket Date 7/16/2020. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Cravens, Annalisa) (Entered: 06/25/2020)
110 TRANSCRIPT re: Motion Proceedings held on 06/23/2020 before Judge Keith P Ellison. Court Reporter/Transcriber Lanie Smith. Ordering Party Cravens Release of Transcript Restriction set for 9/24/2020., ﬁled. (LanieSmith, ) (Entered: 06/26/2020)
111 NOTICE of Setting as to 109 MOTION for Reconsideration. Parties notiﬁed. Motion Hearing set for 6/29/2020 at 04:00 PM in by telephone before Judge Keith P Ellison, ﬁled. (arrivera, 4) (Entered: 06/26/2020)

https://ecf.txsd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?740402072891158-L_1_0-1

23/32

1/18/2021
06/26/2020
06/27/2020 06/29/2020 06/29/2020
07/03/2020 07/03/2020 07/06/2020
07/15/2020 07/24/2020
07/30/2020

DC CM/ECF LIVE- US District Court-Texas Southern
112 RESPONSE in Opposition to 92 MOTION to Dismiss 44 Amended Complaint/Counterclaim/Crossclaim etc.,, as to all claims except Bakasa's individual claim under 8 U.S.C. 1231, ﬁled by Phillip Bakasa, Yaneysi Diaz- Ramirez, Maria Eugenia Escobar Milano, Chenghui Gao, Bassam Jebril, Luis Antonio Par Alvarado, Georgina Rojas, Roman Vazquez Barrera. (Segura, Andre) (Entered: 06/26/2020)
113 RESPONSE in Opposition to 109 MOTION for Reconsideration, ﬁled by Phillip Bakasa, Yaneysi Diaz- Ramirez, Maria Eugenia Escobar Milano, Chenghui Gao, Bassam Jebril, Luis Antonio Par Alvarado, Georgina Rojas, Roman Vazquez Barrera. (Segura, Andre) (Entered: 06/27/2020)
114 Notice of Filing of Ofﬁcial Transcript as to 110 Transcript. Party notiﬁed, ﬁled. (JenniferOlson, 4) (Entered: 06/29/2020)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Keith P Ellison. MOTION HEARING held on 6/29/2020. Argument heard on 109 Defendants Motion to Reconsider. For the reasons stated on the record, the 109 Motion is hereby DENIED.Appearances: Annalisa L. Cravens, Daniel David Hu, Christopher D Pineda, Andre Ivan Segura, Paul Richard Genender, Erin Marie Choi, Ronald L. Miller, Edgar Saldivar, Rochelle Mercedes Garza, Eunice Cho, Bernardo Rafael Cruz, Vera Eidelman, Kathryn Huddleston, Lauren Kuhlik. (Court Reporter: L. Smith)(Law Clerk: T. Lieu), ﬁled.(arrivera, 4) (Entered: 06/29/2020)
115 STIPULATION re: Protective Order by Matthew Albence, Patrick Contreras, Randy Tate, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Chad Wolf, ﬁled.(Cravens, Annalisa) (Entered: 07/03/2020)
116 NOTICE by Phillip Bakasa, Yaneysi Diaz- Ramirez, Maria Eugenia Escobar Milano, Chenghui Gao, Bassam Jebril, Luis Antonio Par Alvarado, Georgina Rojas, Roman Vazquez Barrera, ﬁled. (Segura, Andre) (Entered: 07/03/2020)
117 REPLY in Support of 92 MOTION to Dismiss 44 Amended Complaint/Counterclaim/Crossclaim etc.,, as to all claims except Bakasa's individual claim under 8 U.S.C. 1231, ﬁled by Matthew Albence, Patrick Contreras, Randy Tate, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Chad Wolf. (Cravens, Annalisa) (Entered: 07/06/2020)
118 Stipulated PROTECTIVE ORDER. (Signed by Judge Keith P Ellison) Parties notiﬁed. (sanderson, 4) (Entered: 07/15/2020)
119 STATUS REPORT by Matthew Albence, Patrick Contreras, Randy Tate, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Chad Wolf, ﬁled. (Attachments: # 1 Afﬁdavit Declaration of Randy Tate, with Exhibits A and B, # 2 Afﬁdavit Declaration of Dr. Maribel Cantu, # 3 Afﬁdavit Declaration of Jennifer Buchanan)(Cravens, Annalisa) (Entered: 07/24/2020)
120 EMERGENCY MOTION, MOTION to Intervene( Motion Docket Date 8/20/2020.) by Carlos Pinon Rocha, Joana Martinez Collazo, Abdullah Alhamawi, Jose Rodriguez Garcia, Alcides Garcia, Andres Lara Corona, Juana Hidrogo De Collins, Maria CascoGeorge, Richard Gonzales, ﬁled. (Attachments: # 1 Continuation Memorandum, # 2 Proposed Order Proposed Order, # 3 Exhibit 1 - Supplemental Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, # 4 Exhibit 2 - Motion for TRO, # 5 Exhibit 3 - Filed Under Seal, # 6 Exhibit 4 Rocha Declaration, # 7 Exhibit 5 - Alhamawi Declaration, # 8 Exhibit 6 - Jose Rodriguez Garcia Declaration, # 9 Exhibit 7 - Alcides Garcia Declaration, # 10 Exhibit 8 - Hidrogo de Collins Declaration, # 11 Exhibit 9 - Casco-George Declaration, # 12 Exhibit 10 Gonzalez Declaration, # 13 Exhibit 11 - Lara Corona Declaration, # 14 Exhibit 12 Martinez Collazo Declaration, # 15 Exhibit 13 - Averyt Declaration, # 16 Exhibit 14 Venters Declaration)(Genender, Paul) (Entered: 07/30/2020)

https://ecf.txsd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?740402072891158-L_1_0-1

24/32

1/18/2021
07/30/2020

DC CM/ECF LIVE- US District Court-Texas Southern
121 SEALED EXHIBITS Exhibit 3 re: 120 EMERGENCY MOTION MOTION to Intervene by Abdullah Alhamawi, Maria Casco-George, Joana Martinez Collazo, Andres Lara Corona, Juana Hidrogo De Collins, Alcides Garcia, Jose Rodriguez Garcia, Richard Gonzales, Carlos Pinon Rocha, ﬁled. (Genender, Paul) (Entered: 07/30/2020)

08/07/2020

122 ORDER for Expedited Brieﬁng ; Motion-related deadline set re: 120 EMERGENCY MOTION MOTION to Intervene. Responses due by 8/11/2020. Replies due by 8/14/2020(Signed by Judge Keith P Ellison) Parties notiﬁed.(arrivera, 4) (Entered: 08/07/2020)

08/11/2020

123 RESPONSE in Opposition to 120 EMERGENCY MOTION MOTION to Intervene, ﬁled by Matthew Albence, Patrick Contreras, Randy Tate, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Chad Wolf. (Attachments: # 1 Afﬁdavit Declaration of Terry Manuel, # 2 Afﬁdavit Declaration of Dr. Maribel Cantu, # 3 Proposed Order)(Cravens, Annalisa) (Entered: 08/11/2020)

08/14/2020

124 REPLY in Support of 120 EMERGENCY MOTION MOTION to Intervene, ﬁled by Abdullah Alhamawi, Maria Casco-George, Joana Martinez Collazo, Andres Lara Corona, Juana Hidrogo De Collins, Alcides Garcia, Jose Rodriguez Garcia, Richard Gonzales, Carlos Pinon Rocha. (Genender, Paul) (Entered: 08/14/2020)

08/15/2020

125 NOTICE of Supplemental Authority by Matthew Albence, Patrick Contreras, Randy Tate, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Chad Wolf, ﬁled. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Order in Eyayu v. Wolf (Hittner, J.), # 2 Exhibit)(Cravens, Annalisa) (Entered: 08/15/2020)

08/20/2020

126 RESPONSE to Defendants' Notice of Supplemental Authority, ﬁled by Abdullah Alhamawi, Phillip Bakasa, Maria Casco-George, Joana Martinez Collazo, Andres Lara Corona, Juana Hidrogo De Collins, Yaneysi Diaz- Ramirez, Maria Eugenia Escobar Milano, Chenghui Gao, Alcides Garcia, Jose Rodriguez Garcia, Richard Gonzales, Bassam Jebril, Luis Antonio Par Alvarado, Carlos Pinon Rocha, Georgina Rojas, Roman Vazquez Barrera. (Segura, Andre) (Entered: 08/20/2020)

08/24/2020

127 NOTICE of Supplemental Authority - Crawford v. Gonzalez (Eskridge, J.) re: 92 MOTION to Dismiss 44 Amended Complaint/Counterclaim/Crossclaim etc.,, as to all claims except Bakasa's individual claim under 8 U.S.C. 1231 by Matthew Albence, Patrick Contreras, Randy Tate, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Chad Wolf, ﬁled. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Order in Crawford v. Gonzalez (Eskridge, J.), # 2 Exhibit District Court List)(Cravens, Annalisa) (Entered: 08/24/2020)

08/25/2020

128 NOTICE of Setting as to 120 EMERGENCY MOTION MOTION to Intervene. Parties notiﬁed. Motion Hearing set for 8/31/2020 at 02:00 PM in Courtroom 3A Houston before Judge Keith P Ellison, ﬁled. (arrivera, 4) (Entered: 08/25/2020)

08/27/2020

129 Joint MOTION for Leave to File Redacted Versions of Certain Exhibits at Dkt. 66 into the Public Record by Matthew Albence, Patrick Contreras, Randy Tate, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Chad Wolf, ﬁled. Motion Docket Date 9/17/2020. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Cravens, Annalisa) (Entered: 08/27/2020)

08/27/2020

130 SEALED EXHIBITS re: 129 Joint MOTION for Leave to File Redacted Versions of Certain Exhibits at Dkt. 66 into the Public Record by Matthew Albence, Patrick Contreras, Randy Tate, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Chad Wolf, ﬁled. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Dkt. 66-12 Redacted, # 2 Exhibit Dkt. 66-13 Redacted, # 3 Exhibit Dkt. 66-14 Redacted) (Cravens, Annalisa) (Entered: 08/27/2020)

08/27/2020

131 ORDER granting 129 Motion for Leave to supplement the record with redacted versions of three sealed exhibits.(Signed by Judge Keith P Ellison) Parties notiﬁed.(rguerrero, 4) (Entered: 08/27/2020)

https://ecf.txsd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?740402072891158-L_1_0-1

25/32

1/18/2021
08/31/2020 08/31/2020
09/03/2020 09/04/2020 09/04/2020
09/04/2020 09/04/2020 09/09/2020 09/09/2020

DC CM/ECF LIVE- US District Court-Texas Southern
132 NOTICE of Setting as to 128 motion hearing- 120 EMERGENCY MOTION MOTION to Intervene. Parties notiﬁed. Motion Hearing set for 8/31/2020 at 02:00 PM in by telephone before Judge Keith P Ellison, ﬁled. (arrivera, 4) (Entered: 08/31/2020)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Keith P Ellison. MOTION HEARING held on 8/31/2020.For the reasons stated on the record, 120 Emergency Motion to Intervene is GRANTED. The Court denied intervention as of right based on a ﬁnding that Applicants did not meet the fourth requirement of adequacy. The Court further found that the requirements for permissive intervention were met. The Court to set a future hearing as to 45 Motion to Certify Class and 92 Motion to Dismiss. Appearances: Annalisa L. Cravens, Andre Ivan Segura, Ronald L. Miller, Rochelle Mercedes Garza, Bernardo Rafael Cruz, Vera Eidelman, Kathryn Huddleston.(Court Reporter: N. Forrest)(Law Clerk: D. Sanchez), ﬁled.(arrivera, 4) (Entered: 09/02/2020)
133 NOTICE of Setting as to 92 MOTION to Dismiss 44 Amended Complaint/Counterclaim/Crossclaim etc.,, as to all claims except Bakasa's individual claim under 8 U.S.C. 1231, 57 MOTION to Expedite Relief. Parties notiﬁed. Motion Hearing set for 9/10/2020 at 03:30 PM in by telephone before Judge Keith P Ellison, ﬁled. (arrivera, 4) (Entered: 09/03/2020)
134 NOTICE REGARDING THE AUGUST 31, 2020 HEARING re: 132 Notice of Setting (FORM, noticing) - Judge Ellison by Matthew Albence, Patrick Contreras, Randy Tate, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Chad Wolf, ﬁled. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4)(Cravens, Annalisa) (Entered: 09/04/2020)
135 INTERVENOR COMPLAINT against Matthew Albence, Joseph Brick, Patrick Contreras, Joe Goldenson, Kathryn Hampton, Randy Tate, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Brie Williams, Chad Wolf ﬁled by Georgina Rojas, Andres Lara Corona, Abdullah Alhamawi, Roman Vazquez Barrera, Joana Martinez Collazo, Richard Gonzales, Alcides Garcia, Maria Casco-George, Luis Antonio Par Alvarado, Yaneysi Diaz- Ramirez, Jose Rodriguez Garcia, Carlos Pinon Rocha, Phillip Bakasa, Maria Eugenia Escobar Milano, Chenghui Gao, Bassam Jebril, Juana Hidrogo De Collins. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit, # 4 Exhibit, # 5 Exhibit, # 6 Exhibit, # 7 Exhibit, # 8 Exhibit, # 9 Exhibit, # 10 Exhibit, # 11 Exhibit)(Segura, Andre) (Entered: 09/04/2020)
136 SEALED EXHIBITS re: 135 Intervenor Complaint,, by Abdullah Alhamawi, Phillip Bakasa, Maria Casco-George, Joana Martinez Collazo, Andres Lara Corona, Juana Hidrogo De Collins, Yaneysi Diaz- Ramirez, Maria Eugenia Escobar Milano, Chenghui Gao, Alcides Garcia, Jose Rodriguez Garcia, Richard Gonzales, Bassam Jebril, Luis Antonio Par Alvarado, Carlos Pinon Rocha, Georgina Rojas, Roman Vazquez Barrera, ﬁled. (Segura, Andre) (Entered: 09/04/2020)
137 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order by Abdullah Alhamawi, Phillip Bakasa, Maria Casco-George, Joana Martinez Collazo, Andres Lara Corona, Juana Hidrogo De Collins, Yaneysi Diaz- Ramirez, Maria Eugenia Escobar Milano, Chenghui Gao, Alcides Garcia, Jose Rodriguez Garcia, Richard Gonzales, Bassam Jebril, Luis Antonio Par Alvarado, Carlos Pinon Rocha, Georgina Rojas, ﬁled. Motion Docket Date 9/25/2020. (Attachments: # 1 Complaint, # 2 Proposed Order)(Segura, Andre) (Entered: 09/04/2020)
138 NOTICE of Appearance by Nimish R. Desai on behalf of Judith Resnik, ﬁled. (Desai, Nimish) (Entered: 09/09/2020)
139 MOTION for Leave to File Amicus Brief by Amici Law Professors by Judith Resnik, ﬁled. Motion Docket Date 9/30/2020. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Proposed Brief of Amici Law Professors, # 2 Proposed Order)(Desai, Nimish) (Entered: 09/09/2020)

https://ecf.txsd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?740402072891158-L_1_0-1

26/32

1/18/2021
09/09/2020

DC CM/ECF LIVE- US District Court-Texas Southern
140 RESPONSE to Defendants' Notice Regarding the August 31, 2020 Hearing, ﬁled by Abdullah Alhamawi, Phillip Bakasa, Maria Casco-George, Joana Martinez Collazo, Andres Lara Corona, Juana Hidrogo De Collins, Yaneysi Diaz- Ramirez, Maria Eugenia Escobar Milano, Chenghui Gao, Alcides Garcia, Jose Rodriguez Garcia, Richard Gonzales, Bassam Jebril, Luis Antonio Par Alvarado, Carlos Pinon Rocha, Georgina Rojas. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit 1)(Segura, Andre) (Entered: 09/09/2020)

09/10/2020

141 NOTICE of Georgina Rojas's Felony Arrest for Possession of Methamphetamine by Matthew Albence, Patrick Contreras, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Chad Wolf, ﬁled. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Criminal Complaint - Rojas - Possession of a Controlled Substance, # 2 Exhibit Order of Release on Recognizance, # 3 Exhibit Incident Report, # 4 Exhibit Criminal Complaint - Young)(Cravens, Annalisa) (Entered: 09/10/2020)

09/10/2020

Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Keith P Ellison. MOTION HEARING held on 9/10/2020 Argument heard on 112 Motion to Dismiss and 57 Motion for Expedited Relief. For the reasons stated on the record, 92 Motion to Dismiss is DENIED, 139 Motion for Leave to File an Amici Brief is GRANTED, and 68 Objections to 57 Motion to Expedite Relief is DENIED. 57 Motion to Expedite Relief is taken under advisement. Appearances: Annalisa L. Cravens, Daniel David Hu, Christopher D Pineda, Andre Ivan Segura, Erin Marie Choi, Ronald L. Miller, Edgar Saldivar, Rochelle Mercedes Garza, Eunice Cho, Bernardo Rafael Cruz, Vera Eidelman, Kathryn Huddleston, Lauren Kuhlik.(Court Reporter: R. Miller)(Law Clerk: D. Sanchez), ﬁled. (arrivera, 4) Modiﬁed on 9/17/2020 (arrivera, 4). (Entered: 09/11/2020)

09/11/2020

142 AO 435 TRANSCRIPT REQUEST by Annalisa Cravens for Transcript of Motion Hearing, 9/10/2020, Judge Keith Ellison. Daily (24 hours) turnaround requested. Court Reporter/Transcriber: Kathleen Miller, ﬁled. (Cravens, Annalisa) (Entered: 09/11/2020)

09/16/2020

143 TRANSCRIPT re: Telephonic Motion Hearing held on September 10, 2020 before Judge Keith P Ellison. Court Reporter/Transcriber Kathleen Miller. Ordering Party Annalisa Cravens Release of Transcript Restriction set for 12/15/2020., ﬁled. (kmiller, ) (Entered: 09/16/2020)

09/17/2020 144 Notice of Filing of Ofﬁcial Transcript as to 143 Transcript,. Party notiﬁed, ﬁled. (jdav, 4) (Entered: 09/17/2020)

09/21/2020

145 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER denying in part 45 MOTION to Certify Class, granting in part 57 MOTION to Expedite Relief (Signed by Judge Keith P Ellison) Parties notiﬁed. (arrivera, 4) (Entered: 09/21/2020)

09/22/2020

146 Unopposed MOTION for Clariﬁcation as to 145 Memorandum and Order by Matthew Albence, Patrick Contreras, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Chad Wolf, ﬁled. Motion Docket Date 10/13/2020. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Cravens, Annalisa) (Entered: 09/22/2020)

09/22/2020

147 ORDER - granting in part and denying in part 146 Motion for Clariﬁcation of the Court's 9/21/20 Order regarding their 48-hour deadline to respond to a brief seeking release on bail. After a Plaintiff ﬁles a brief in support of release on bail, Defendants shall have 72 hours to ﬁle a response, with leave to request additional time if it becomes necessary. (Signed by Judge Keith P Ellison) Parties notiﬁed.(sanderson, 4) (Entered: 09/22/2020)

09/24/2020

148 SEALED DOCUMENT Brief in Support of Granting Bail for Abdullah Alhamawi by Abdullah Alhamawi, ﬁled. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Supplemental Declaration of Abdullah Alhamawi, # 2 Exhibit Third Declaration of Abdullah Alhamawi) (Segura, Andre) (Entered: 09/24/2020)

09/24/2020 149 SEALED DOCUMENT Brief in Support of Granting Bail for Andres Lara Corona by

https://ecf.txsd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?740402072891158-L_1_0-1

27/32

1/18/2021
09/24/2020 09/24/2020 09/27/2020
09/27/2020
09/27/2020 09/27/2020 09/28/2020 09/29/2020

DC CM/ECF LIVE- US District Court-Texas Southern
Andres Lara Corona, ﬁled. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Supplemental Declaration of Andres Lara Corona, # 2 Exhibit Declaration of Andrea Lara) (Segura, Andre) (Entered: 09/24/2020)
150 SEALED DOCUMENT Brief in Support of Granting Bail for Carlos Pinon Rocha by Carlos Pinon Rocha, ﬁled. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Supplemental Declaration of Carlos Rocha) (Segura, Andre) (Entered: 09/24/2020)
151 SEALED DOCUMENT Brief in Support of Granting Bail for Jose Rodriguez Garcia by Jose Rodriguez Garcia, ﬁled. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Supplemental Declaration of Jose Rodriguez Garcia) (Segura, Andre) (Entered: 09/24/2020)
152 SEALED RESPONSE to Abdullah Alhamawi's Request for Release on Bail re: 148 Sealed Document, by Matthew Albence, Patrick Contreras, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Chad Wolf, Randy Tate, ﬁled. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Afﬁdavit Declaration of Randy Tate, # 3 Afﬁdavit Declaration of Dr. Cantu, # 4 Exhibit CDC Risk Factors, # 5 Afﬁdavit Declaration of ICE-ERO Ofﬁcer, # 6 Exhibit August 2014 Violation Report, # 7 Exhibit September 2014 Violation Report, # 8 Exhibit December 2014 Violation Report, # 9 Exhibit March 2015 Violation Report, # 10 Exhibit July 2015 Violation Report with DWI, # 11 Exhibit September 2015 Violation Report, # 12 Exhibit August 2016 Judgment Revoking Community Supervision, # 13 Exhibit Immigration Judge's Order Denying Release on March 24, 2020) (Cravens, Annalisa) Modiﬁed on 9/28/2020 (arrivera, 4). (Entered: 09/27/2020)
153 SEALED RESPONSE to Carlos Pinon Rocha's Request for Release on Bail re: 150 Sealed Document by Matthew Albence, Patrick Contreras, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Chad Wolf, Randy Tate, ﬁled. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Afﬁdavit 2 & 2A - Declarations of Randy Tate, # 3 Afﬁdavit Declaration of Dr. Cantu, # 4 Exhibit CDC Risk Factors, # 5 Afﬁdavit Declaration of ICE-ERO Ofﬁcer, # 6 Exhibit Guilty Plea - Felony Hit & Run, # 7 Exhibit Judgment, # 8 Exhibit BIA Case Information) (Cravens, Annalisa) Modiﬁed on 9/28/2020 (arrivera, 4). (Entered: 09/27/2020)
154 SEALED RESPONSE to Jose Rodriguez Garcia's Request for Release on Bail re: 151 Sealed Document by Matthew Albence, Patrick Contreras, Randy Tate, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Chad Wolf, ﬁled. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit 5, # 6 Exhibit 6, # 7 Exhibit 7, # 8 Exhibit 8, # 9 Exhibit 9) (Pineda, Christopher) (Entered: 09/27/2020)
155 SEALED RESPONSE to Andres Lara Corona's Request for Release on Bail re: 149 Sealed Document by Matthew Albence, Patrick Contreras, Randy Tate, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Chad Wolf, ﬁled. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit 5, # 6 Exhibit 6, # 7 Exhibit 7, # 8 Exhibit 8) (Pineda, Christopher) (Entered: 09/27/2020)
156 SEALED EXHIBITS Supplemental Declaration of Randy Tate for Defendants' Response to Carlos Pinon Rocha's Request for Release on Bail re: 153 Sealed Response,, by Matthew Albence, Patrick Contreras, Randy Tate, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Chad Wolf, ﬁled. (Attachments: # 1 Afﬁdavit Supplemental Declaration of Randy Tate) (Cravens, Annalisa) (Entered: 09/28/2020)
157 ORDER - Pending before the Court is Plaintiff Lara Corona's Request for Release. The Court has found it necessary to conduct a non-evidentiary hearing on this matter tomorrow at 2:30 PM. If necessary, the Court will also make a determination at the hearing as to Defendants' request for a stay...***Non-Evidentiary Hearing set for 9/30/2020 at 02:30 PM before Judge Keith P Ellison. (Signed by Judge Keith P Ellison) Parties notiﬁed.(sanderson, 4) (Entered: 09/29/2020)

https://ecf.txsd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?740402072891158-L_1_0-1

28/32

1/18/2021
09/29/2020 09/30/2020
09/30/2020
10/06/2020 10/06/2020 10/07/2020 10/09/2020
10/14/2020
10/19/2020 10/19/2020

DC CM/ECF LIVE- US District Court-Texas Southern
158 NOTICE of Setting. Parties notiﬁed. Miscellaneous Hearing set for 9/30/2020 at 02:30 PM at by telephone before Judge Keith P Ellison, ﬁled. (arrivera, 4) (Entered: 09/29/2020)
159 SEALED EXHIBITS in Support of Defendants' Response to Andres Lara Corona's Request for Release on Bail re: 155 Sealed Response, by Matthew Albence, Patrick Contreras, Randy Tate, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Chad Wolf, ﬁled. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Police Report for Evading Arrest & Unlawful Carrying of a Weapon, # 2 Exhibit Police Report for Assault) (Cravens, Annalisa) (Entered: 09/30/2020)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Keith P Ellison. MOTION HEARING held on 9/30/2020 on Sealed Doc. 149 held on 9/30/2020. The Motion was taken under advisement.. Appearances: Annalisa L. Cravens, Daniel David Hu, Christopher D Pineda, Andre Ivan Segura, Ronald L. Miller, Rochelle Mercedes Garza, Bernardo Rafael Cruz. (Court Reporter: M. Malone)(Law Clerk: D. Oyer), ﬁled.(arrivera, 4) (Entered: 10/02/2020)
160 SEALED DOCUMENT Brief in Support of Granting Bail for Maria Casco-George by Maria Casco-George, ﬁled. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Supplemental Declaration of Maria Casco-George, # 2 Exhibit BIA Receipt of Notice of Appeal, # 3 Exhibit Second Supplemental Declaration of Dr. Dora B. Schriro) (Segura, Andre) (Entered: 10/06/2020)
161 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER granting Plaintiff-Intervenor Andres Lara Coronas Request for Release on Bail 149 .The Court orders Lara to remain in Houston, respond promptly to any contact by CBP, and not commit any new crimes. This order shall become effective on October 13, 2020. (Signed by Judge Keith P Ellison) Parties notiﬁed. (rguerrero, 4) (Entered: 10/06/2020)
162 AO 435 TRANSCRIPT REQUEST by Annalisa Cravens for Transcript of Motion Hearing, 10/31/2020, Judge Keith Ellison. Ordinary (30 days) turnaround requested. Court Reporter/Transcriber: Nichole Forrest, ﬁled. (Cravens, Annalisa) (Entered: 10/07/2020)
163 SEALED RESPONSE to Maria Casco George's Request for Release on Bail re: 160 Sealed Document, by Matthew Albence, Patrick Contreras, Randy Tate, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Chad Wolf, ﬁled. (Attachments: # 1 Afﬁdavit Declaration of Randy Tate, # 2 Afﬁdavit Declaration of Dr. Cantu, # 3 Exhibit CDC Risk Factors, # 4 Afﬁdavit Declaration of ICE-ERO Ofﬁcer, # 5 Exhibit Form I-213, # 6 Exhibit Incident Report - Fleeing Police, # 7 Exhibit Brazoria County Court Records, # 8 Exhibit Incident Report - Assault - Burglary, # 9 Exhibit Indictment - Felony Burglary of a Habitation, # 10 Exhibit Sept. 2019 Court Orders, # 11 Exhibit Personal Bond, # 12 Exhibit IJ Order Denying Release) (Cravens, Annalisa) (Entered: 10/09/2020)
164 NOTICE and Withdrawal of Request for Release by Abdullah Alhamawi, Phillip Bakasa, Maria Casco-George, Joana Martinez Collazo, Andres Lara Corona, Juana Hidrogo De Collins, Yaneysi Diaz- Ramirez, Maria Eugenia Escobar Milano, Chenghui Gao, Alcides Garcia, Jose Rodriguez Garcia, Richard Gonzales, Bassam Jebril, Luis Antonio Par Alvarado, Carlos Pinon Rocha, Georgina Rojas, Roman Vazquez Barrera, ﬁled. (Segura, Andre) (Entered: 10/14/2020)
165 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER re: 148 , 151 , 160 .(Signed by Judge Keith P Ellison) Parties notiﬁed.(arrivera, 4) (Entered: 10/19/2020)
166 Unopposed SEALED MOTION for Clariﬁcation by Maria Casco-George, Jose Rodriguez Garcia, ﬁled. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) (Segura, Andre) (Entered: 10/19/2020)

https://ecf.txsd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?740402072891158-L_1_0-1

29/32

1/18/2021
10/20/2020

DC CM/ECF LIVE- US District Court-Texas Southern
167 ORDER re: 166 Motion for clariﬁcation..(Signed by Judge Keith P Ellison) Parties notiﬁed.(arrivera, 4) (Entered: 10/20/2020)

10/22/2020

168 NOTICE of Richard Gonzales's Removal by Matthew Albence, Patrick Contreras, Randy Tate, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Chad Wolf, ﬁled. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Departure Documentation)(Cravens, Annalisa) (Entered: 10/22/2020)

10/24/2020

169 TRANSCRIPT re: Motion Hearing held on 8/31/20 before Judge Keith P Ellison. Court Reporter/Transcriber Nichole Forrest, RDR, CRR, CRC. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 1/22/2021., ﬁled. (NicholeForrest, ) (Entered: 10/24/2020)

10/26/2020 170 Notice of Filing of Ofﬁcial Transcript as to 169 Transcript. Party notiﬁed, ﬁled. (hcarr, 4) (Entered: 10/26/2020)

11/11/2020

171 MOTION to Expedite Discovery, MOTION for Discovery( Motion Docket Date 12/2/2020.) by Abdullah Alhamawi, Phillip Bakasa, Maria Casco-George, Joana Martinez Collazo, Andres Lara Corona, Juana Hidrogo De Collins, Yaneysi Diaz- Ramirez, Maria Eugenia Escobar Milano, Chenghui Gao, Alcides Garcia, Jose Rodriguez Garcia, Richard Gonzales, Bassam Jebril, Luis Antonio Par Alvarado, Carlos Pinon Rocha, Georgina Rojas, Roman Vazquez Barrera, ﬁled. (Attachments: # 1 Complaint, # 2 Proposed Order, # 3 Exhibit Exhibit A, # 4 Exhibit Exhibit B, # 5 Exhibit Exhibit C, # 6 Exhibit Exhibit D)(Segura, Andre) (Entered: 11/11/2020)

11/11/2020

172 ORDER FOR EXPEDITED RESPONSE ; Motion-related deadline set re: 171 MOTION to Expedite Discovery MOTION for Discovery Responses due by 11/20/2020. Replies due by 11/25/2020(Signed by Judge Keith P Ellison) Parties notiﬁed.(arrivera, 4) (Entered: 11/12/2020)

11/12/2020

173 NOTICE of Abdullah Alhamawi's Removal by Matthew Albence, Patrick Contreras, Randy Tate, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Chad Wolf, ﬁled. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Cravens, Annalisa) (Entered: 11/12/2020)

11/20/2020

174 RESPONSE in Opposition to 171 MOTION to Expedite Discovery MOTION for Discovery, ﬁled by Matthew Albence, Patrick Contreras, Randy Tate, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Chad Wolf. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Cravens, Annalisa) (Entered: 11/20/2020)

11/20/2020

175 NOTICE OF APPEAL to US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit re: 165 Memorandum and Order, 145 Memorandum and Order, 161 Memorandum and Order, by Matthew Albence, Patrick Contreras, Randy Tate, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Chad Wolf, ﬁled. (Cravens, Annalisa) (Entered: 11/20/2020)

11/23/2020

176 Clerks Notice of Filing of an Appeal. The following Notice of Appeal and related motions are pending in the District Court: 175 Notice of Appeal,. Fee status: GOV. Reporter(s): J. Sanchez; M. Malone; L. Smith; N. Forrest; D. Sanchez, ﬁled. (dnoriega, 1) (Entered: 11/23/2020)

11/23/2020

Appeal Review Notes re: 175 Notice of Appeal,. Fee status: GOV. The appellant is a U.S. government agency, and no fee is required.Hearings were held in the case. DKT13 transcript order form(s) due within 14 days of the ﬁling of the notice of appeal. Number of DKT-13 Forms expected: 8, ﬁled.(dnoriega, 1) (Entered: 11/23/2020)

11/24/2020

177 NOTICE of Setting as to 171 MOTION to Expedite Discovery MOTION for Discovery. Parties notiﬁed. Motion Hearing set for 12/1/2020 at 03:00 PM in Courtroom 3A Houston before Judge Keith P Ellison, ﬁled. (arrivera, 4) (Entered: 11/24/2020)

11/25/2020

178 REPLY in Support of 171 MOTION to Expedite Discovery MOTION for Discovery, ﬁled by Abdullah Alhamawi, Phillip Bakasa, Maria Casco-George, Joana Martinez Collazo, Andres Lara Corona, Juana Hidrogo De Collins, Yaneysi Diaz- Ramirez, Maria Eugenia

https://ecf.txsd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?740402072891158-L_1_0-1

30/32

1/18/2021

DC CM/ECF LIVE- US District Court-Texas Southern
Escobar Milano, Chenghui Gao, Alcides Garcia, Jose Rodriguez Garcia, Richard Gonzales, Bassam Jebril, Luis Antonio Par Alvarado, Carlos Pinon Rocha, Georgina Rojas, Roman Vazquez Barrera. (Segura, Andre) (Entered: 11/25/2020)

11/29/2020

179 NOTICE of Setting as to 177 Notice 171 MOTION to Expedite Discovery MOTION for Discovery. Parties notiﬁed. Motion Hearing set for 12/1/2020 at 03:00 PM in by telephone before Judge Keith P Ellison, ﬁled. Parties should appear by phone. (arrivera, 4) (Entered: 11/29/2020)

12/01/2020

Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Keith P Ellison. MOTION HEARING held on 12/1/2020. Argument heard on 171 Motion to Expedite Discovery. Motion is taken under advisement. Appearances: Annalisa L. Cravens, Daniel David Hu, Christopher D Pineda, Andre Ivan Segura, Erin Marie Choi, Ronald L. Miller, Rochelle Mercedes Garza, Bernardo Rafael Cruz, Kathryn Huddleston, Lauren Kuhlik.(Court Reporter: F. Warner)(Law Clerk: D. Sanchez), ﬁled.(arrivera, 4) (Entered: 12/03/2020)

12/02/2020

180 NOTICE by Abdullah Alhamawi, Phillip Bakasa, Maria Casco-George, Joana Martinez Collazo, Andres Lara Corona, Juana Hidrogo De Collins, Yaneysi Diaz- Ramirez, Maria Eugenia Escobar Milano, Chenghui Gao, Alcides Garcia, Jose Rodriguez Garcia, Richard Gonzales, Bassam Jebril, Luis Antonio Par Alvarado, Carlos Pinon Rocha, Georgina Rojas, Roman Vazquez Barrera, ﬁled. (Segura, Andre) (Entered: 12/02/2020)

12/02/2020

181 ORDER - Granting 171 MOTION to Expedite Discovery. Plaintiffs have shown their request is reasonable in light of the circumstances and record. Therefore, Defendants are ordered to provide Plaintiffs a corresponding list of the names and A-numbers of all putative class members. The Court directs Defendants to provide this information by December 11, 2020, and to update the list every fourteen (14) days. (Signed by Judge Keith P Ellison) Parties notiﬁed.(sanderson, 4) (Entered: 12/02/2020)

12/02/2020

182 ORDER - The Court requests additional information after yesterdays hearing and the unexpected news that Plaintiff Roman Vazquez Barrera has died. If there is no objection from the family, the Court asks Plaintiffs counsel for insight into the cause of his death; Response to Court due by 12/9/2020. (Signed by Judge Keith P Ellison) Parties notiﬁed. (sanderson, 4) (Entered: 12/02/2020)

12/02/2020

Notice of Assignment of USCA No. 20-20617 re: 175 Notice of Appeal,, ﬁled. (EdnitaPonce, 1) (Entered: 12/02/2020)

12/03/2020

183 TRANSCRIPT re: Telephone Conference held on May 21, 2020 before Judge Keith P Ellison. Court Reporter/Transcriber Mayra Malone. Ordering Party Annalisa Cravens Release of Transcript Restriction set for 3/3/2021., ﬁled. (mmalone, ) (Entered: 12/03/2020)

12/04/2020 184 Notice of Filing of Ofﬁcial Transcript as to 183 Transcript. Party notiﬁed, ﬁled. (ShoshanaArnow, 4) (Entered: 12/04/2020)

12/04/2020

185 DKT13 TRANSCRIPT ORDER REQUEST by Annalisa L. Cravens. This is to order a transcript of Motion Hearing on 09/30/20 before Judge Ellison. Court Reporter/Transcriber: Mayra Malone. This order form relates to the following: 175 Notice of Appeal, Motion Hearing,, ﬁled. (Cravens, Annalisa) (Entered: 12/04/2020)

12/09/2020

186 SEALED DOCUMENT Notice of Sealed Death Certiﬁcate of Roman Vazquez Barrera by Abdullah Alhamawi, Phillip Bakasa, Maria Casco-George, Joana Martinez Collazo, Andres Lara Corona, Juana Hidrogo De Collins, Yaneysi Diaz- Ramirez, Maria Eugenia Escobar Milano, Chenghui Gao, Alcides Garcia, Jose Rodriguez Garcia, Richard Gonzales, Bassam Jebril, Luis Antonio Par Alvarado, Carlos Pinon Rocha, Georgina Rojas, Roman Vazquez Barrera, ﬁled. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Death Certiﬁcate) (Segura, Andre) (Entered: 12/09/2020)

https://ecf.txsd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?740402072891158-L_1_0-1

31/32

1/18/2021
12/09/2020 12/10/2020 12/18/2020
12/20/2020
12/23/2020
12/23/2020 12/23/2020 12/28/2020 01/07/2021 01/07/2021

DC CM/ECF LIVE- US District Court-Texas Southern
187 RESPONSE to 182 Order, , ﬁled by Matthew Albence, Patrick Contreras, Randy Tate, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Chad Wolf. (Attachments: # 1 Afﬁdavit, # 2 Exhibit)(Cravens, Annalisa) (Entered: 12/09/2020)
Appeal Remark re: 175 Notice of Appeal. Pending the ﬁling of appeal transcript re: 185 Motion Hearing on 09/30/20, ﬁled.(jtabares, 1) (Entered: 12/10/2020)
188 EMERGENCY MOTION, MOTION to Compel Access( Motion Docket Date 1/8/2021.) by Patrick Contreras, Yaneysi Diaz- Ramirez, Maria Eugenia Escobar Milano, Chenghui Gao, ﬁled. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Huddleston, Kathryn) Withdrawn pursuant to 195 Order of Court (Entered: 12/18/2020)
189 ORDER FOR EXPEDITED RESPONSE ; Motion-related deadline set re: 188 EMERGENCY MOTION MOTION to Compel Access Responses due by 12/24/2020. Replies due by 12/29/2020(Signed by Judge Keith P Ellison) Parties notiﬁed.(arrivera, 4) (Entered: 12/21/2020)
190 APPEAL TRANSCRIPT re Miscellaneous Hearing held on September 30, 2020 before Judge Keith P Ellison. Court Reporter/Transcriber Mayra Malone. Ordering Party: Annalisa Cravens. This transcript relates to the following: 185 Appeal Transcript Request,. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 3/23/2021., ﬁled. (mmalone, ) (Entered: 12/23/2020)
191 STIPULATION re: Stay of Plaintiffs' Emergency Motion to Compel Access by Matthew Albence, Patrick Contreras, Randy Tate, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Chad Wolf, ﬁled.(Cravens, Annalisa) (Entered: 12/23/2020)
193 ORDER STAYING CASE Granting 191 Joint Stipulation Seeking Stay. (Signed by Judge Keith P Ellison) Parties notiﬁed.(jguajardo, 4) (Entered: 12/28/2020)
192 Notice of Filing of Ofﬁcial Transcript as to 190 Transcript - Appeal,. Party notiﬁed, ﬁled. (jdav, 4) (Entered: 12/28/2020)
194 STATUS REPORT by Matthew Albence, Patrick Contreras, Randy Tate, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Chad Wolf, ﬁled.(Cravens, Annalisa) (Entered: 01/07/2021)
195 ORDER - withdrawing 188 Motion for Emergency; terminating 188 Motion to Compel. Court has been informed that the parties have resolved the matter. Accordingly, the Court grants Plaintiff-Petitioners 194 request to withdraw the aforementioned motion. (Signed by Judge Keith P Ellison) Parties notiﬁed.(sanderson, 4) (Entered: 01/08/2021)

PACER Service Center

Transaction Receipt

PACER Login:
Description:
Billable Pages:

01/18/2021 15:22:40

CRClearinghouse:2563377:0 Client Code:

Docket Report

Search Criteria:

30

Cost:

Boyer
4:20-cv01241
3.00

https://ecf.txsd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?740402072891158-L_1_0-1

32/32

 </s> Case 4:20-cv-01241 Document 1 Filed on 04/08/20 in TXSD Page 1 of 32

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION _______________________________________

,

Petitioners-Plaintiffs,

v.

Case No.

CHAD WOLF, in his official capacity as Acting Secretary, U.S. Department of Homeland Security; U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT; MATTHEW ALBENCE, in his official capacity as Deputy Director and Senior Official Performing the Duties of the Director, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement; PATRICK CONTRERAS, in his official capacity as Field Office Director, Enforcement and Removal Operations, Houston Field Office, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement; and RANDY TATE, in his official capacity as Warden of the Montgomery Processing Center,

Respondents-Defendants. _______________________________________
VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 2241
AND COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
INTRODUCTION
1. Across the globe, we have collectively withdrawn, physically isolating ourselves
in our homes to protect ourselves from a potentially lethal interaction or touch. But the four

1

Case 4:20-cv-01241 Document 1 Filed on 04/08/20 in TXSD Page 2 of 32
people who bring this lawsuit cannot retreat to safety. Petitioners-Plaintiffs (“Plaintiffs”) are detained at Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s (“ICE”) Montgomery Processing Center (“MPC”). They live, sleep, shower, eat, and wash their hands close to other people—sometimes up to eighty other people. They have no face masks; they do not even always have soap. And yet they are precisely the people who most urgently need protection from the pandemic: they are highly vulnerable to serious illness and death from COVID-19 due to their preexisting medical conditions.
2. On March 23, 2020, ICE learned that an employee at MPC tested positive for COVID-19. Detainees at MPC live in extremely close quarters and cannot engage in risk mitigation as instructed by public health authorities. Nevertheless—despite the presence of COVID-19 at MPC, the enormous risk that the disease poses to vulnerable people’s health and safety, and the impossibility for those detained at MPC to follow the instructions of public health authorities to limit their exposure—ICE continues to hold Plaintiffs in custody.
3. Keeping vulnerable detainees in an environment in which social distancing and the necessary hygiene measures are impossible and waiting for COVID-19 to explode at MPC creates not only a humanitarian crisis but also a constitutional one. As courts have long recognized, the Constitution forbids the government from allowing the people in its custody to suffer and die from infectious disease. The nature of the pandemic and the conditions of confinement at MPC, as an immigration detention center, make it impossible for RespondentsDefendants (“Defendants”) to protect vulnerable Plaintiffs from risk of infection. That risk of harm is “so grave that it violates contemporary standards of decency to expose anyone unwillingly to such a risk.” Helling v. McKinney, 509 U.S. 25, 36 (1993).
2

Case 4:20-cv-01241 Document 1 Filed on 04/08/20 in TXSD Page 3 of 32
4. Plaintiffs are squarely at risk of severe illness and death from COVID-19. All have preexisting medical conditions—including diabetes, asthma, high blood pressure, severe obesity, and a chronic respiratory condition owing to a birth defect—which make them particularly vulnerable to serious complications or death from COVID-19. It is impossible for them to adequately socially distance or take the necessary hygiene measures to prevent contracting COVID-19 at MPC. Moreover, some of the Plaintiffs have already received inadequate medical care while at MPC. This includes inadequate medical care for breathing problems, which is a prevalent and dangerous complication of COVID-19.
5. This Court has the authority and the obligation to order Defendants to comply with the Fifth Amendment and release Plaintiffs from civil detention. Courts across the country have issued similar orders, requiring the immediate release of medically vulnerable individuals like Plaintiffs in ICE detention facilities in light of the potentially fatal consequences of the continuing constitutional violation. The Southern District of Texas has recognized the “especially important” need for “timely release . . . now during the COVID-19 pandemic” from ICE detention for a detainee at MPC. Ali v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., No. 4:20-cv-00140, Dkt. No. 37 (S.D. Tex. Apr. 2, 2020).
6. For the reasons discussed below, this Court should require Defendants to release Plaintiffs from custody immediately, which is the only means for them to avoid infection by a lethal virus with no vaccine or cure. COVID-19 has already entered MPC. Plaintiffs implore this Court to issue an order to protect their lives.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE 7. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this matter under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question), 28 U.S.C. § 1343 (original jurisdiction), 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (habeas
3

Case 4:20-cv-01241 Document 1 Filed on 04/08/20 in TXSD Page 4 of 32

jurisdiction), and Article I, Section 9, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution (the Suspension

Clause).

8. Venue lies in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas

because Plaintiffs are detained by Defendants at ICE’s Montgomery Processing Center, which is

located within the Southern District of Texas. 28 U.S.C. § 2242. Venue is proper in the Southern

District of Texas because a substantial portion of the relevant events occurred in the District and

because multiple Defendants reside in the District. 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), (e)(1).

PARTIES

Petitioners-Plaintiffs

9. Petitioner-Plaintiff

is a 58-year-old man originally from

Mexico who has been detained by ICE at MPC since February 2020. Mr.

suffers from diabetes, asthma, sleep apnea, and low blood oxygen levels. He also is at high risk

of blood clots and takes blood thinners on a daily basis. Following his detention at MPC in

February 2020, Mr.

became ill and was taken to an emergency room in Conroe,

Texas, where he was diagnosed with pneumonia. As a consequence of his health conditions and

age, Mr.

has a high risk of serious illness or death if he contracts COVID-19.

10. Petitioner-Plaintiff

is a 28-year-old woman who was born in

Guatemala and who has been detained by ICE at MPC since November 2019. Ms.

has a

body mass index of 48.3, which exceeds the CDC’s threshold of 40 for elevated risk from

COVID-19. As a consequence of her health condition, Ms.

has a high risk of serious

illness or death if she contracts COVID-19.

11. Petitioner-Plaintiff

is a 34-year-old man originally

from Guatemala who has been detained by ICE at MPC since March 21, 2020. Mr.

4

Case 4:20-cv-01241 Document 1 Filed on 04/08/20 in TXSD Page 5 of 32

lungs are underdeveloped due to premature birth, and, as a result, he suffers from

chronic respiratory illness. Four years ago, Mr.

was bedridden with the flu for

several weeks; he has become ill from the flu every winter for the past ten years. As a

consequence of his health conditions, Mr.

has a high risk of serious illness or death

if he contracts COVID-19.

12. Petitioner-Plaintiff

is a 37-year-old man originally from Jordan

who has been detained by ICE at MPC since August 2019. Mr.

has several respiratory

issues and frequently experiences difficulty breathing and chest pain; he experiences shortness of

breath if he attempts to walk for more than a few minutes. He suffers from high blood pressure

and is on a restricted diet. As a consequence of his health conditions, Mr.

has a high risk of

serious illness or death if he contracts COVID-19.

Respondents-Defendants

13. Respondent-Defendant Chad Wolf is the Acting Secretary for DHS. In this

capacity, he has responsibility for the administration of immigration laws pursuant to 8 U.S.C. §

1103(a), has authority over ICE and its field offices, and has authority to order the release of

Plaintiffs. At all times relevant to this complaint, Mr. Wolf was acting within the scope and

course of his position as the Acting Secretary for DHS. He also is a legal custodian of Plaintiffs.

He is sued in his official capacity.

14. Respondent-Defendant ICE is a federal law enforcement agency within the

Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”). ICE is responsible for the criminal and civil

enforcement of immigration laws, including the detention and removal of immigrants. ERO, a

division within ICE, manages and oversees the immigration detention system. Defendant ICE is

a legal custodian of Plaintiffs.

5

Case 4:20-cv-01241 Document 1 Filed on 04/08/20 in TXSD Page 6 of 32
15. Respondent-Defendant Matthew T. Albence is the Deputy Director and Senior Official Performing the Duties of the Director of ICE. Defendant Albence is responsible for ICE’s policies, practices, and procedures, including those relating to the detention of immigrants. Defendant Albence is a legal custodian of Plaintiffs. At all times relevant to this complaint, Defendant Albence was acting within the scope and course of his position as an ICE official. He is sued in his official capacity.
16. Respondent-Defendant Patrick Contreras is the Field Office Director for Enforcement and Removal Operations (“ERO”) in the Houston Field Office of ICE, an agency within the U.S. Department of Homeland Security. ERO is a division of ICE that manages and oversees the immigration detention system. In his capacity as Field Office Director for ERO, Defendant Contreras exercises control over and is a custodian of immigration detainees held at all of the Southeast Texas facilities that house ICE detainees, including the Montgomery Processing Center. At all times relevant to this Complaint, Defendant Contreras was acting within the scope and course of his employment with ICE. He is sued in his official capacity.
17. Respondent-Defendant Randy Tate is Warden of the Montgomery Processing Center in Montgomery County, where all Plaintiffs are detained. Respondent-Defendant Tate is the immediate, physical custodian of Plaintiffs. He is named in his official capacity.
STATEMENT OF FACTS I. COVID-19 Poses A Grave Risk of Harm, Including Serious Illness or Death, to
Persons with Certain Medical Conditions. 18. In the United States, at least 374,329 people have already tested positive for the virus, and at least 12,064 have died. The United States now has more reported cases than any other country in the world. In Texas, there are at least 8,262 confirmed cases and 154 known deaths.
6

Case 4:20-cv-01241 Document 1 Filed on 04/08/20 in TXSD Page 7 of 32
19. COVID-19 infects people who come into contact with respiratory droplets that contain the coronavirus, such as those produced when an infected person coughs or sneezes. Such droplets can spread between people at a distance of up to six feet. The virus that causes COVID-19 is highly contagious and can survive for long periods on inanimate surfaces, making the disease’s spread within a community inevitable once, as in MPC, it has appeared.
20. There is no vaccine to prevent COVID-19. There is no known cure or FDAapproved treatment for COVID-19 at this time. The only known means of minimizing the risk of infection—and therefore the risk of grave illness or death from COVID-19—are maintaining a distance of at least six feet from other people, a practice known as “social distancing,” and increased sanitization, including frequent hand- and face-washing and sanitization of commonlyused surfaces.
21. Outcomes from COVID-19 vary from a mild upper respiratory infection to pneumonia, sepsis, and death. Individuals with serious underlying medical conditions are at the highest risk of severe disease and death if they are infected with COVID-19.
22. COVID-19 can severely damage lung tissue, which requires an extensive period of rehabilitation, and in some cases can cause a permanent loss of respiratory capacity. COVID19 may also cause inflammation of the heart muscle, known as myocarditis. It can affect the heart muscle and electrical system, reducing the heart’s ability to pump. This reduction can lead to rapid or abnormal heart rhythms in the short term and long-term heart failure that limits exercise tolerance and the ability to work.
23. Emerging evidence also suggests that COVID-19 can trigger an over-response of the immune system, further damaging tissue and potentially resulting in widespread damage to the body’s organs, including permanent injury to the kidneys and neurologic injury.
7

Case 4:20-cv-01241 Document 1 Filed on 04/08/20 in TXSD Page 8 of 32
24. These complications can develop at an alarming pace. Patients can show the first symptoms of infection within two days of exposure, and their condition can seriously deteriorate in five days or sooner.
25. People in higher-risk categories who contract COVID-19 are more likely to need advanced support. This level of supportive care requires highly specialized equipment that is in limited supply and an entire team of care providers, including 1:1 or 1:2 nurse-to-patient ratios, respiratory therapists, and intensive care physicians.
26. The extensive degree of support that COVID-19 patients need can quickly exceed local healthcare resources, requiring doctors and public health authorities to allocate scarce resources and decide who receives care. By far the best way to avoid further burdening an already over-taxed healthcare system is to enable individuals, particularly those who are highly vulnerable to serious complications from COVID-19, to avoid infection in the first place.
27. According to recent estimates, the fatality rate of COVID-19 is about ten times higher than a severe seasonal influenza. For people in the highest-risk populations, the fatality rate of COVID-19 is about fifteen percent—or one in seven.
28. The only way to protect vulnerable people from serious health outcomes, including death, is to prevent them from being infected with the coronavirus.
29. Recognizing the risk of COVID-19 and the need to halt community transmission, the city of Conroe, Texas, in which MPC is located, has been under a stay-home order since March 28, 2020. The order extends through April 30. II. Conditions at the Montgomery Processing Center Increase the Risk of COVID-19
Infection. 30. The conditions at MPC place immigrant detainees at serious risk of infection with COVID-19.
8

Case 4:20-cv-01241 Document 1 Filed on 04/08/20 in TXSD Page 9 of 32
31. COVID-19 has already spread to MPC. On March 23, 2020, ICE learned that a GEO Group employee working at the Montgomery Processing Center tested positive for COVID-19. GEO Group released a statement stating that the employee had tested positive, that three additional employees had been advised to self-quarantine, and that “one detainee has been isolated from the general population in the medical area of the facility.”1 Neither ICE nor GEO Group has provided any public update in the intervening sixteen days on suspected COVID-19 cases related to MPC or any efforts to test for COVID-19 at MPC in order to attempt to mitigate its spread.
32. MPC is an enclosed environment in which contagious diseases easily spread. People live in close quarters and are subject to security measures that make the social distancing that is needed to effectively prevent the spread of COVID-19 impossible. Further, while people are held in this facility, they are unable to follow the relevant directives promulgated by medical and public health officials for mitigating the spread of COVID-19.
33. This presents ideal incubation conditions for the rapid spread of COVID-19 once it has been introduced into the facility. Enclosed group environments, like cruise ships or nursing homes, have become the sites for the most severe outbreaks of COVID-19. See Ex. 1 (Golob Decl.) ¶¶ 12 & 13. The virus is also spreading at an alarmingly high rate at jails and prisons. At Rikers Island Jail in New York, as of April 7, 2020, 287 prisoners have tested positive for the disease. At Federal Correctional Institution Oakdale I in Louisiana, since March 28, 5 of the approximately 970 prisoners have died of COVID-19.
1 Hamed Aleaziz, An ICE Detainee Has Become The First To Test Positive For The Coronavirus, Buzzfeed, March 24, 2020, https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/hamedaleaziz/immigrant-ice-detention-facilitycoronavirus-test.
9

Case 4:20-cv-01241 Document 1 Filed on 04/08/20 in TXSD Page 10 of 32

34. To halt the spread of COVID-19, CDC guidance instructs all people to maintain

six feet of distance between themselves. The same guidance applies to those who are

incarcerated or detained. The CDC emphasizes that this guidance “is especially important for

people who are at higher risk of getting very sick.”

35. The nature of their detention at MPC denies people the opportunity to follow

these directives. Social distancing is physically impossible. MPC and other immigration

detention facilities are not structurally designed to allow for the necessary physical distancing.

See Ex. 2 (Amon Decl.) ¶¶ 31, 33, 34, 43.

36. At MPC, many immigration detainees live in dormitories that hold up to 90

detainees at a time. Ex. 3 ( Decl.) ¶ 12; Ex. 4 (

Decl.) ¶ 15. In these

dormitories, detainees must share one large room for sleeping, eating, and socializing. Ex. 5

( Decl.) ¶ 11. Their beds, typically bunk beds, are close together, as little as one to two feet

apart.

Decl. ¶ 15; Ex. 6 (Obser Decl.) ¶ 15. Detainees share communal tables.

Obser Decl. ¶ 15.

37. In these larger cells—again, which may hold up to 90 people—detainees are

forced to share a communal bathroom, with a small number of sinks, toilets, urinals, and

showers. Obser Decl. ¶ 16.

38. These crowded conditions and shared common spaces and objects, such as

bathrooms and sinks, maximize the likelihood that COVID-19 will spread rapidly across the

facility, infecting vulnerable detainees. Ex. 7 (Venters Decl.) ¶ 23; Amon Decl. ¶¶ 42, 57.

39. Even detainees who do not live in these larger dormitories are in close proximity

to both other detainees and facility staff. See Ex. 8 (

Decl.) ¶ 6. Detainees who share

a single cell are in close proximity to their cell mate at all times, and they must interact with

10

Case 4:20-cv-01241 Document 1 Filed on 04/08/20 in TXSD Page 11 of 32

facility staff in close physical proximity. See

Decl. ¶ 11. They also interact with other

detainees during recreation time, when people share a common outdoor space. Id. ¶ 13. In an

eight-person cell, detainees share a single shower

Decl. ¶ 11.

40. Tellingly, the ICE guidance acknowledges that the options to safeguard

vulnerable detainees “depend on available space.” As the facility structure and daily routines of

MPC demonstrate, immigration detention facilities simply do not have sufficient space to enable

social distancing and therefore are incapable of protecting Plaintiffs and other detainees from the

risks of COVID-19. See Amon Decl. ¶¶ 31, 33, 34, 43.

41. CDC guidance also instructs everyone—including people who are incarcerated or

detained—to wash hands often with soap and water for at least 20 seconds and, absent soap and

water, to use a hand sanitizer of at least 60% alcohol. CDC guidance directs that detention

centers provide detainees with no-cost access to soap, running water, hand dryers or disposable

paper towels, and, where possible, hand sanitizer. It also directs that those incarcerated or

detained, like all others, cover their mouth and nose with a disposable tissue when coughing or

sneezing.

42. Facility staff at MPC have failed to provide detainees with even basic information

about COVID-19.

Decl. ¶ 10;

Decl. ¶ 9;

Decl. ¶ 17.

Detainees have not been told by detention staff what the signs and symptoms of COVID-19 are

and what to do if they become symptomatic.

Decl. ¶ 10;

Decl. ¶¶ 9, 10.

Detainees have not been given guidance on personal protective measures, such as recommended

handwashing and respiratory etiquette.

Decl. ¶ 17;

Decl. ¶ 10;

Decl. ¶ 9.

11

Case 4:20-cv-01241 Document 1 Filed on 04/08/20 in TXSD Page 12 of 32

43. MPC fails to provide sufficient resources for detainees to maintain hygiene as the

CDC recommends. Multiple Plaintiffs have not been provided with adequate soap or paper

towels.

Decl. ¶ 7;

Decl. ¶ 14;

Decl. ¶ 15; see also Obser Decl. ¶ 19

(describing pre-COVID-19 interviews with MPC detainees in which detainees expressed concern

over a lack of communal soap for handwashing in bathrooms). MPC does not provide detainees

hand sanitizer,

Decl. ¶ 8;

Decl. ¶ 15, or facial tissue.

44. CDC guidance instructs everyone—including people incarcerated or detained,

and staff at detention facilities—to wear face masks in settings where social distancing is not

feasible. CDC guidance further provides that those detained must wear personal protective

equipment, including masks and gloves, while cleaning in an area where a person with a

confirmed or suspected case of COVID-19 has been present.

45. ICE officers regularly do not use masks when they interact with detainees at

MPC. Ex. 9 (

Decl.) ¶¶ 4, 10;

Decl. ¶ 14. At times they wear masks around

their necks, rather than over their mouths as required to mitigate the risk of spread of COVID-19.

Decl. ¶ 14. This failure to properly wear personal protective equipment further increases

detainees’ risk of exposure to COVID-19.

46. MPC does not provide detainees with masks.

Decl. ¶ 9. It also does

not regularly provide gloves for detainees to use when cleaning areas of the facility. Id.;

Decl. ¶ 15.

47. Moreover, as described infra, some of the Plaintiffs have already received

inadequate medical care at MPC.

Decl. ¶¶ 10, 13;

Decl. ¶ 8. One

immunocompromised detainee has reported that a guard refused to take him to the medical clinic

when he requested a visit after developing a cough, a symptom of COVID-19, and that the guard

12

Case 4:20-cv-01241 Document 1 Filed on 04/08/20 in TXSD Page 13 of 32

instead informed him that he did not have coronavirus. Ex. 10 (

Decl.) ¶ 4. Detainees

described concerns about inadequate medical care at MPC, including lack of follow-up regarding

medical issues, problems with medications, and concerns as to the attentiveness of medical care,

prior to the COVID-19 pandemic in March 2019. Obser Decl. ¶ 18.

48. There has been rapid spread of COVID-19 in other facilities. In New York City,

for example, jails have become an epicenter of infectious spread. Across New York City’s jails,

at least 132 incarcerated people and 104 staff had tested positive for COVID-19.2

49. ICE guidance states that “[d]etainees who do not have fever or symptoms, but

meet CDC criteria for epidemiologic risk, are housed separately in a single cell, or as a group.”

However, experts have concluded that cohorting vulnerable detainees together increases their

risk of becoming infected with COVID-19.

Decl. ¶¶ 14(e), (f), 18;

Decl. ¶¶ 31,

49(c).

50. CDC guidance for detention facilities directs that facilities separate detainees with

symptoms of COVID-19 from others. It instructs that each individual with a confirmed or

suspected case of COVID-19 should be assigned their own room and bathroom. CDC guidance

provides that as a last resort, “if there are no other available options,” multiple laboratory-

confirmed COVID-19 cases—not suspected COVID-19 cases—may be placed together.

51. MPC’s failure to separate detainees with COVID-19 symptoms in a manner

consistent with best medical practices exposes other detainees to possible COVID-19 infection.

Despite exhibiting symptoms consistent with COVID-19, including a diagnosis of pneumonia,

Plaintiff

has not to his knowledge been tested for COVID-19.

2 See Ned Parker et al., Spread of Coronavirus Accelerates in U.S. Jails and Prisons, Reuters (Mar. 28, 2020), https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-usa-inmates-insigh/spread-ofcoronavirus-accelerates-in-u-s-jails-and-prisons-idUSKBN21F0TM.
13

Case 4:20-cv-01241 Document 1 Filed on 04/08/20 in TXSD Page 14 of 32

Decl. ¶ 12. Plaintiff

was confined in a medical observation room with three

other individuals and now has been transferred to a dormitory with roughly 80 people. Id. ¶¶ 11,

15. Since his transfer to the dormitory, he continues to feel fatigued and unable to walk long

distances and has been sweating profusely. Id. ¶ 14.

52. Other detainees at MPC have not received adequate medical care for symptoms of

COVID-19. Detainees have not been moved out of the dormitories and instead have remained

there while exhibiting symptoms consistent with COVID-19, such as coughing and body aches.

Decl. ¶ 15;

Decl. ¶ 6. This includes at least one person with

asthma.

Decl. ¶ 6. This person became ill with flu-like symptoms, body aches,

and a cough within two weeks of coming into contact with someone in his dormitory who had

twice been hospitalized with pneumonia and was exhibiting flu-like symptoms. Id.

53. Failure to regularly test staff and detainees presents a daily risk of spread of the

virus throughout the facility. See

Decl. ¶¶ 22, 49(a), (e), 57. The possibility of

asymptomatic transmission means that monitoring staff or detainees for fever is also inadequate

to identify all who may be infected and prevent transmission. Id. ¶¶ 11, 12, 44, 49(a), (e), 57.

This is also true because not all individuals infected with COVID-19 have a fever in early stages

of infection. Id. ¶ 11.

54. It is impossible to stop the spread of the virus within MPC, where social

distancing and necessary hygiene measures are not feasible. See

Decl. ¶¶ 53, 55, 57. CDC

guidance specifically recommends implementing social distancing strategies to increase the

physical space between incarcerated and detained persons, “ideally 6 feet between all

individuals, regardless of the presence of symptoms,” but Defendants continue to hold Plaintiffs

in conditions where this is impossible.

14

Case 4:20-cv-01241 Document 1 Filed on 04/08/20 in TXSD Page 15 of 32

III. Continued ICE Detention is Unsafe for Those Most Vulnerable to COVID-19.

55. Without a vaccine or cure for COVID-19, mitigating the risk of contracting the

virus is the only known way to protect those who are most vulnerable to serious harm from

infection.

Decl. ¶ 10;

Decl. ¶¶ 6, 11, 13.

56. Because the risk of infection is at its zenith in detention centers—where social

distancing measures are impossible to implement, where people share common spaces that are

not regularly sanitized, and where individuals are regularly exposed to potential vectors of

infection—public health experts with experience in detention and correctional settings have

recommended release of vulnerable individuals from custody.

Decl. ¶¶ 17, 49(j), 55, 58;

Decl. ¶¶ 7, 24. Indeed, two medical experts for the Department of Homeland Security

have concluded that COVID-19 poses an “imminent risk to the health and safety of immigration

detainees,” in light of the nature of detention facilities and have recommended release of

vulnerable people, both to mitigate their risk and to lessen the strain on local healthcare systems.3

57. Immigration detention facilities lack adequate medical care infrastructure to

address the strain of a COVID-19 outbreak.

Decl. ¶¶ 20, 31, 33, 34, 43. As a result,

individuals who due to their age or medical conditions are at particularly grave risk of severe

illness and death while detained and should be released.

3 Scott A. Allen, MD, FACP & Josiah Rich, MD, MPH, Letter to House and Senate Committees on Homeland Security (Mar. 19, 2020), available at https://whistleblower.org/wpcontent/uploads/2020/03/Drs.-Allen-and-Rich-3.20.2020-Letter-to-Congress.pdf [hereinafter “Allen & Rich Letter”].
15

Case 4:20-cv-01241 Document 1 Filed on 04/08/20 in TXSD Page 16 of 32

IV. Plaintiffs Must Be Released from ICE Custody Because They Are Particularly Vulnerable to Serious Illness or Death If Infected by COVID-19.

58. Plaintiffs in this case are all individuals who are especially vulnerable to serious

illness and death if they are infected with COVID-19, but ICE nonetheless continues to detain

them at MPC while they await the adjudication of their immigration cases.

59.

. Mr.

is a 58-year-old man originally

from Mexico. He has been detained by ICE at MPC for roughly one month.

Decl. ¶¶ 1, 4.

60. Mr.

came to the United States in 1988 and has lived here since

that time as a legal permanent resident. Mr.

wife and five children are United

States citizens. Id. ¶ 3.

61. Mr.

has significant health problems. He suffers from diabetes,

asthma, sleep apnea, and high cholesterol. He currently has dangerously low blood oxygen

levels. He takes medication daily for diabetes, asthma, low blood oxygen levels, and high risk of

blood clots. In summer 2019, Mr.

was hospitalized for roughly two weeks due

to complications from his asthma, diabetes, and high cholesterol. Following discharge, he used

oxygen tanks for roughly two months. Since September 2019, Mr.

has used a

continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) machine to sleep. Id. ¶¶ 6-9.

62. Following his detention at MPC, Mr.

became very ill and was

taken to the emergency room, where he was diagnosed with pneumonia. He was held in a

medical observation room for roughly two weeks and then returned to the general population.

Mr.

remains ill. His health has declined over the course of his detention at

MPC: he has been sweating profusely, he is experiencing severe fatigue, and he is unable to walk

long distances. Id. ¶¶ 11, 14.

16

Case 4:20-cv-01241 Document 1 Filed on 04/08/20 in TXSD Page 17 of 32

63. To Mr.

knowledge, he has not been tested for COVID-19

while detained at MPC. Id. ¶ 12.

64. MPC has not provided Mr.

with a CPAP machine while he has

been detained. He has been falling asleep randomly. Mr.

fell off his top bunk

onto a concrete floor after suddenly falling asleep, injuring his tailbone. When he sought medical

attention at MPC for this injury, staff provided topical cream and did not perform an x-ray; Mr.

is still in pain. Id. ¶ 10.

65. Mr.

uses a nebulizer every day for his asthma. Following his

transfer from a medical observation room to the general population, he was not provided with a

nebulizer for roughly two weeks. Id. ¶ 13.

66. Mr.

is currently held in a dormitory at MPC with roughly 80

people, in which the bunks are roughly 1 to 2 feet apart. As of April 4, 2020, there were at least

two other people in his dormitory who were exhibiting symptoms of illness, including coughing.

Id. ¶ 15.

67. Mr.

is at high risk of severe illness or death from COVID-19 due

to his significant health problem.

Decl. ¶ 20(a).

68.

. Ms.

is a 28-year-old woman who was born in Guatemala

and whose nationality is recorded by ICE as Nicaraguan. She has been detained by ICE at MPC

for roughly five months.

Decl. ¶¶ 1, 3.

69. Ms.

has lived in the United States since she was brought here twenty-five

years ago at the age of three. She has two children, ages seven and nine, who are U.S. citizens.

Ms.

mother is also a U.S. citizen. Id. ¶ 4.

17

Case 4:20-cv-01241 Document 1 Filed on 04/08/20 in TXSD Page 18 of 32

70. Ms. s has significant health problems. She is 5’5” and weighs 290 pounds,

meaning that she has a body mass index of 48.1. As a result of a back injury from a serious car

accident, in which she was ejected from the vehicle, Ms.

has a pinched nerve and

experiences chronic back pain. Due to the same accident, she also experiences chronic

headaches. Ms.

has a history of smoking: she began at age 16. By the time she quit

smoking a year and a half ago, she was smoking five to six cigarettes a day.

Decl. ¶¶ 6-8.

71. Since being detained, Ms.

has sought medical treatment for her chronic

back pain resulting from the car accident. However, ICE has not provided comparable

medication to the medication that she was taking before being detained, and Ms.

remains

in pain. Instead of a combination of muscle relaxants and non-prescription pain medication, she

has only been provided with non-prescription pain medication. She is currently taking ibuprofen,

which does not provide sufficient relief. Id. ¶ 8.

72. Ms.

is unable to socially distance at MPC. She is consistently two to three

feet away from her cell mate and regularly interacts in close proximity with ICE officers and

facility staff. Additionally, she and other detainees are exposed to each other during recreation.

Id. ¶¶ 11, 13.

73. Ms.

does not have access to hand sanitizer and has only limited access to

paper towels to dry her hands at MPC. Id. ¶ 15.

74. Ms.

is at high risk of severe illness or death from COVID-19 due to her

significant health problems. Venters Decl. ¶ 20(a).

75.

. Mr.

is a 34-year-old man originally

from Guatemala. He has been detained by ICE at MPC since March 21, 2020.

Decl. ¶ 2.

18

Case 4:20-cv-01241 Document 1 Filed on 04/08/20 in TXSD Page 19 of 32

76. Mr.

has significant health problems. He was born prematurely and

doctors have told him that his lungs never fully developed. As a result, he is extremely

susceptible to respiratory illnesses. Every winter for the past ten years, he has become bedridden

with the flu. Four years ago, he suffered a particularly severe case of influenza and almost died.

He had to stay in bed for several weeks to recover. Id. ¶ 4.

77. Mr.

is unable to socially distance at MPC: for example, his bed is in

close proximity to others’. Id. ¶ 6.

78. Mr

does not have access to hand sanitizer at MPC. Id. ¶ 8.

79. Mr.

is at high risk of severe illness or death from COVID-19 due to

his significant health problems.

Decl. ¶ 20(a).

80.

. Mr.

is a 37-year-old man originally from Jordan. He has

been detained by ICE at MPC for roughly eight months. Jebril Decl. ¶¶ 1, 3.

81. Mr.

has lived in the United States for 13 years, previously as a lawful

permanent resident. He has two children, ages three and six, who are U.S. citizens. Id. ¶ 4.

82. Mr

has significant health problems. Mr. Jebril frequently experiences

difficulty breathing and chest pain; he experiences shortness of breath if he attempts to walk for

more than a few minutes. He suffers from high blood pressure and is on a restricted diet. His

father has had two heart attacks. Id. ¶¶ 6-8.

83. Mr.

is unable to socially distance at MPC. He lives in a dormitory room

with 56 others. The dormitory has only eight showers, which are shared. The living area is also

shared, with a few communal tables at which people gather. Id. ¶¶ 10-11.

84. Mr.

does not have sufficient access to soap and does not have access to

hand sanitizer at MPC. Id. ¶ 14.

19

Case 4:20-cv-01241 Document 1 Filed on 04/08/20 in TXSD Page 20 of 32

85. Mr.

is at high risk of severe illness or death from COVID-19 due to his

significant health problems.

Decl. ¶ 20(a).

86. Plaintiffs remain detained at MPC despite their vulnerability and despite the

confirmed presence of COVID-19 at MPC.

LEGAL FRAMEWORK

I. Immigrant Detainees Are Entitled to Due Process Protections from Exposure to Serious Illness and Potential Death.

87. Immigrant detainees are civil detainees entitled to at least the same Fifth and

Fourteenth Amendment due process protections as pretrial detainees. See Zadvydas v. Davis, 533

U.S. 678, 690 (2001) (“government detention violates th[e] [Due Process] Clause unless the

detention is ordered in a criminal proceeding with adequate procedural protections . . . or, in

certain special and ‘narrow’ nonpunitive ‘circumstances’” not present here) (emphasis in

original); Edwards v. Johnson, 209 F.3d 772, 778 (5th Cir. 2000) (“We consider a person

detained for deportation to be the equivalent of a pretrial detainee; a pretrial detainee’s

constitutional claims are considered under the due process clause instead of the Eighth

Amendment.”) (citing Ortega v. Rowe, 796 F.2d 765, 767 (5th Cir. 1986)).

88. Under the Due Process Clause, “the State cannot punish a pretrial detainee.” Hare

v. City of Corinth, Miss., 74 F.3d 633, 639 (5th Cir. 1996). See also Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S.

520, 535 (1979). Therefore, civil detainees, including those held in federal immigration

detention, are entitled to “more considerate treatment and conditions of confinement than

criminals whose conditions of confinement are designed to punish.” Youngberg v. Romeo, 457

U.S. 307, 322 (1982); In re Kumar, 402 F. Supp. 3d 377, 384 (W.D. Tex. 2019).

89. The government violates the due process rights of a person in civil detention

when the conditions of his or her confinement “amount to punishment.” Garza v. City of Donna,

20

Case 4:20-cv-01241 Document 1 Filed on 04/08/20 in TXSD Page 21 of 32
922 F.3d 626, 632 (5th Cir. 2019), cert. denied sub nom. Garza v. City of Donna, Texas, 140 S. Ct. 651 (2019). “If ‘the condition of confinement is not reasonably related to a legitimate, nonpunitive governmental objective,’ it is assumed that ‘by the [defendant’s] very promulgation and maintenance of the complained-of condition, that it intended to cause the alleged constitutional deprivation.’” Cadena v. El Paso Cty., 946 F.3d 717, 727 (5th Cir. 2020) (quoting Scott v. Moore, 114 F.3d 51, 53 (5th Cir. 1997)).
90. To establish that the challenged conditions of confinement amount to punishment, the detainee need not demonstrate an official’s “actual intent to punish because . . . intent may be inferred from the decision to expose a detainee to an unconstitutional condition.” Shepherd v. Dallas Cty., 591 F.3d 445, 452 (5th Cir. 2009). “[E]ven where a State may not want to subject a detainee to inhumane conditions of confinement or abusive jail practices, its intent to do so is nevertheless presumed when it incarcerates the detainee in the face of such known conditions and practices.” Hare, 74 F.3d at 644. “[A] pervasive pattern of serious deficiencies” that subjects a detainee to the risk of serious injury, illness, or death “amounts to punishment.” Shepherd, 591 F.3d at 454. Such a pattern is evidenced by, for example, continuing to house detainees in conditions that expose them to a known risk of serious infectious disease. Duvall v. Dallas Cty., Tex., 631 F.3d 203, 208 (5th Cir. 2011).
91. In addition, it is cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment, and therefore necessarily a violation of civil detainees’ rights under the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause, for a federal official to show “deliberate indifference to a substantial risk of serious harm” to a detainee. Doe v. Robertson, 751 F.3d 383, 385 (5th Cir. 2014) (citing Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 828 (1994)); Hare, 74 F.3d at 648. This occurs, for example, when
21

Case 4:20-cv-01241 Document 1 Filed on 04/08/20 in TXSD Page 22 of 32
officials “know [] of and disregard [] an excessive risk to inmate health or safety.” Doe v. Robertson, 751 F.3d at 388.
92. A detainee “does not need to show that death or serious illness has yet occurred to obtain relief”; instead, they need only “show that the conditions pose a substantial risk of harm to which . . . officials have shown a deliberate indifference.” Gates v. Cook, 376 F.3d 323, 339 (5th Cir. 2004). Cf. Shepherd., 591 F.3d at 454 (finding violation of detainee’s due process rights where he “demonstrated that serious injury and death were the inevitable results of the jail's gross inattention to the needs of inmates with chronic illness”). Federal custodians may not ignore “a condition of confinement that is sure or very likely to cause serious illness and needless suffering the next week or month or year.” Helling v. McKinney, 509 U.S. 25, 33 (1993).
93. Housing detained persons where they are at risk of infectious disease is unconstitutional, even when it “is not alleged that the likely harm would occur immediately and even though the possible infection might not affect all of those exposed.” Id. (citing Hutto v. Finney, 437 U.S. 678, 682 (1978)). Nor can officials “be deliberately indifferent to the exposure of inmates to a serious, communicable disease on the ground that the complaining inmate shows no serious current symptoms.” Id. Further, deliberate indifference to underlying health conditions that make detainees “extremely vulnerable” to “serious . . . injury” is unconstitutional. For example, detention facilities cannot constitutionally permit “the mingling of inmates with serious contagious diseases with other prison inmates.” Id. at 34 (citing Gates v. Collier, 510 F.2d 1291 (5th Cir. 1974)). II. Defendants Are Violating Plaintiffs’ Constitutional Due Process Rights.
94. Due process requires that the nature and duration of noncriminal confinement bear “some reasonable relation to the purpose for which the individual is committed.” Jackson v.
22

Case 4:20-cv-01241 Document 1 Filed on 04/08/20 in TXSD Page 23 of 32
Indiana, 406 U.S. 715, 738 (1972); Brown v. Taylor, 911 F.3d 235, 243 (5th Cir. 2018). The only legitimate purpose, consistent with due process, for federal civil immigration detention is to prevent flight risk and ensure the detained person’s attendance for a legal hearing adjudicating their status or potential removal, or to otherwise ensure the safety of the community. Zadvydas, 533 U.S. at 699.
95. Keeping vulnerable detainees detained while at severe risk of infection serves no legitimate purpose. Nor is detention under these circumstances reasonably related to the enforcement of immigration laws.
96. Plaintiffs’ due process rights are also being violated because their confinement places them at serious risk of being infected with COVID-19 and Defendants are being deliberately indifferent to this critical safety concern.
97. There is no question that COVID-19 poses a serious risk to Plaintiffs. COVID-19 is highly contagious and can cause severe illness and death. See supra ¶¶ 16-25. Plaintiffs are at a heightened risk because of their age and/or underlying health conditions, as described above. See supra ¶¶ 56-83.
98. Defendants have knowledge of but are disregarding the serious risk that COVID19 poses to people like Plaintiffs who have underlying health conditions. Plaintiffs—all of whom are at high risk of serious illness or death from COVID-19—continue to be detained.
99. Defendants have long been on notice of the risk that COVID-19 poses to Plaintiffs and others with serious medical conditions. Indeed, as early as February 25, 2020, two medical experts for DHS raised concerns about the specific risk posed to immigrant detainees as a result of COVID-19 with the agency. On March 19, 2020, they brought their concerns to the House and Senate Committees on Homeland Security and warned of the danger of rapid spread
23

Case 4:20-cv-01241 Document 1 Filed on 04/08/20 in TXSD Page 24 of 32

of COVID-19 in immigration detention facilities. Allen & Rich Letter at 2. They explained that

in order to save both the lives of detainees and lives in the community at large, “minimally, DHS

should consider releasing all detainees in high risk medical groups[.]” Id. at 5.

100. John Sandweg, a former acting director of ICE, has written publicly about the

need to release detainees because ICE detention centers “are extremely susceptible to outbreaks

of infectious diseases” and “preventing the virus from being introduced into these facilities is

impossible.”4

101. The circumstances of this case make clear that release is the only means to protect

Plaintiffs’ due process rights. Public health experts have made clear that slowing the spread of

COVID-19 requires social distancing and increased hygiene and that individuals with Plaintiffs’

underlying medical conditions are vulnerable to serious disease and death if they contract this

virus. See supra ¶¶ 23, 32, 39, 42;

Decl. ¶¶ 3, 14.

102. However, Plaintiffs cannot take the requisite social distancing and hygiene

measures while detained at MPC. Plaintiffs share communal bathrooms, in which they share

sinks, toilets, and showers with other detainees. They sleep less than six feet away from others.

All share their living quarters, and two live in dormitory rooms with up to 80 other people.

Decl. ¶ 15;

Decl. ¶ 11. Recreational time is communal. Facility staff do

not regularly wear masks, and detainees do not wear masks at all. Soap and paper towels are in

short supply, and there is no hand sanitizer or facial tissue. Detainees exhibiting symptoms of

COVID-19 remain in close quarters with others.

4 See John Sandweg, “I Used to Run ICE. We Need to Release the Nonviolent Detainees.” The Atlantic (March 22, 2020), https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/03/release-icedetainees/608536/.
24

Case 4:20-cv-01241 Document 1 Filed on 04/08/20 in TXSD Page 25 of 32

103. The only course of action that can remedy these unlawful conditions is release

from the detention center, where risk mitigation is impossible.

III. ICE Regularly Uses Its Authority to Release People Detained In Custody Because They Suffer From Serious Medical Conditions.

104. ICE has a longstanding practice of humanitarian releases from custody. The

agency has routinely exercised its authority to release particularly vulnerable detainees. In fact,

ICE has exercised its discretion to release at least one particularly vulnerable individual from

MPC since the start of the pandemic.

Decl. ¶ 6.

105. ICE has a range of highly effective tools at its disposal to ensure that individuals

report for court hearings and other appointments, including conditions of supervision while

released. For example, ICE’s conditional supervision program, called Intensive Supervision

Appearance Program (“ISAP”), relies on the use of electronic ankle monitors, biometric voice

recognition software, unannounced home visits, employer verification, and in-person reporting to

supervise participants. A government-contracted evaluation of this program reported a 99%

attendance rate at all immigration court hearings and a 95% attendance rate at final hearings.

106. ICE’s exercise of discretion is based in a range of statutory and regulatory

provisions, and a long line of directives explicitly instruct officers to exercise favorable

discretion in cases involving severe medical concerns and other humanitarian equities militating

against detention. For example, under 8 C.F.R. § 212.5(b)(1), ICE has routinely exercised its

discretion to release particularly vulnerable detainees. See also 8 U.S.C. §§ 1182(d)(5), 1225(b),

1226, 1231; 8 C.F.R. §§ 1.1(q), 212.5, 235.3, 236.2(b).

107. While ICE officers may have been exercising discretion to release less frequently

in recent years, the statutory and regulatory authority underlying the use of prosecutorial

discretion in custodial determinations remains in effect.

25

Case 4:20-cv-01241 Document 1 Filed on 04/08/20 in TXSD Page 26 of 32
108. Moreover, ICE has released noncitizens on medical grounds regardless of the statutory basis for a noncitizen’s detention.
109. Here the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution requires ICE to release detainees where civil detention has become punitive and where release is the only remedy to prevent this impermissible punishment. Plaintiffs seek release on constitutional grounds, and not in the exercise of ICE’s discretion. However, the fact that ICE has the authority to release immigrants from custody and has exercised this authority in the past indicates that the remedy Plaintiffs request is neither unprecedented nor unmanageable for the agency. IV. This Court Has Authority to Order Plaintiffs’ Release to Vindicate Their Fifth
Amendment Rights, and Such Relief Is Necessary Here. 110. Courts have broad power to fashion equitable remedies to address constitutional
violations in prisons. Hutto v. Finney, 437 U.S. 678, 687 n.9 (1978). “When necessary to ensure compliance with a constitutional mandate, courts may enter orders placing limits on a prison’s population.” Brown v. Plata, 563 U.S. 493, 511 (2011); see also Duran v. Elrod, 713 F.2d 292, 297-98 (7th Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1108 (1984) (concluding that court did not exceed its authority in directing release of low-bond pretrial detainees as necessary to reach a population cap).
111. In light of the imminent threat posed by COVID-19, courts across the country have recognized immediate release as an appropriate and necessary remedy and have accordingly ordered the release of particularly vulnerable detainees in ICE facilities. See, e.g., Malam v. Adducci, No. 2:20-cv-10829-JEL-APP, Dkt. No. 23 (E.D. Mich. Apr. 6, 2020) (granting TRO releasing medically vulnerable immigrant detainee because of the risk of COVID-19); Thakker v. Doll, -- F. Supp. 3d ----, 2020 WL 1671563 (M.D. Pa. Mar. 31, 2020) (same for eleven
26

Case 4:20-cv-01241 Document 1 Filed on 04/08/20 in TXSD Page 27 of 32
detainees); Basank v. Decker, -- F. Supp. 3d ----, 2020 WL 1481503 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 26, 2020) (same, because “[t]he nature of detention facilities makes exposure and spread of the [coronavirus] particularly harmful”); Coronel v. Decker, -- F. Supp. 3d ----, 2020 WL 1487274 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 27, 2020) (same for four detainees); Robles Rodriguez v. Wolf, No. 5:20-cv00627-TJH-GJS, Dkt. Nos. 32, 35-39 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 2, 2020) (same for six detainees); see also Coreas v. Bounds, 2020 WL 1663133, at *11 (D. Md. Apr. 3, 2020) (holding that failure to act to address risk to high-risk individuals in light of any confirmed case of COVID-19 among staff members or detainees at the facility “would establish knowing disregard of a serious medical need constituting deliberate indifference”). In fact, a district court decision in the Southern District of Texas has specifically highlighted the “especially important” need for “timely release . . . now during the COVID-19 pandemic” from ICE detention for a detainee at MPC, in light of the possible consequences of “significant exposure to those affected by the virus.” Ali, Dkt. No. 37.
112. The circumstances of this case make clear that release is the only means to ensure compliance with the Fifth Amendment’s prohibition on punitive detention.
113. Plaintiffs’ medical conditions put them at grave risk of serious illness or death if they contract COVID-19. COVID-19 is exceptionally likely to spread quickly through MPC now that it has been introduced there. By continuing to detain Plaintiffs, Defendants are subjecting Plaintiffs to unreasonable harm, and to unconstitutional punishment. The only course of action that can remedy these unlawful conditions is release from MPC, where risk mitigation is impossible.
27

Case 4:20-cv-01241 Document 1 Filed on 04/08/20 in TXSD Page 28 of 32
CLAIM FOR RELIEF Violation of Fifth Amendment Right to Substantive Due Process (Substantive Due Process; Unlawful Punishment; Objectively Unreasonable Risk to Health and Safety; Freedom from Cruel Treatment and Conditions of Confinement) 114. The Fifth Amendment of the Constitution guarantees that civil detainees, including all immigrant detainees, may not be subjected to punishment. 115. The federal government violates this substantive due process right when it fails to satisfy its affirmative duty to provide conditions of reasonable health and safety to the people it holds in its custody, and violates the Constitution when it fails to provide for basic human needs—e.g., food, clothing, shelter, medical care, and reasonable safety for those in custody. The federal government also violates substantive due process when, acting with deliberate indifference, it subjects civil detainees to objectively unreasonable risks to their health and safety, to cruel treatment, or to conditions of confinement that amount to punishment. 116. By detaining Plaintiffs at MPC, Defendants are subjecting Plaintiffs to an unreasonable risk of contracting COVID-19, for which there is no vaccine and no cure, and which can be lethal. Plaintiffs are particularly vulnerable to serious medical complications from COVID-19 infection and are at unreasonable risk of illness and death as long as they are held in detention. 117. By subjecting Plaintiffs to this risk, Defendants are maintaining detention conditions that amount to punishment and are failing to ensure safety and health in violation of Plaintiffs’ due process rights. Likewise, Defendants’ continued detention of Plaintiffs at MPC is deliberately indifferent to Plaintiffs’ health and safety because only releasing Plaintiffs from custody can adequately protect them from COVID-19. Defendants are aware of the serious risk
28

Case 4:20-cv-01241 Document 1 Filed on 04/08/20 in TXSD Page 29 of 32
posed by COVID-19 and are failing to take the only action that can respond to Plaintiffs’ medical needs, which is to release Plaintiffs.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE Petitioners-Plaintiffs request that the Court grant the following relief:
a. Issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus on the ground that Plaintiffs’ continued detention violates the Due Process Clause, and order Plaintiffs’ immediate release, with appropriate precautionary public health measures;
b. In the alternative, issue injunctive relief ordering Defendants to immediately release Plaintiffs, with appropriate precautionary public health measures, on the grounds that their continued detention violates the Due Process Clause;
c. Issue a declaration that Defendants’ continued detention of Plaintiffs violates the Due Process Clause;
d. Award Plaintiffs their costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees in this action under the Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”), as amended, 5 U.S.C. § 504 and 28 U.S.C. § 2412, and on any other basis justified under law; and
e. Grant any other and further relief that this Court may deem fit and proper. //
29

Case 4:20-cv-01241 Document 1 Filed on 04/08/20 in TXSD Page 30 of 32

Dated: April 8, 2020
David C. Fathi** Eunice H. Cho** Lauren Kuhlik* AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION, NATIONAL PRISON PROJECT

Respectfully Submitted,
/s/ Andre Segura Andre Segura (“Attorney-In-Charge”)
Kathryn Huddleston* Thomas Buser-Clancy
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION OF TEXAS, INC.

Michael Tan* Omar C. Jadwat* AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION, IMMIGRANTS’ RIGHTS PROJECT

Bernardo Rafael Cruz* AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION OF TEXAS, INC.

Noor Zafar* AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION, NATIONAL SECURITY PROJECT

Rochelle M. Garza*** AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION OF TEXAS, INC.

Vera Eidelman* AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION, SPEECH, PRIVACY & TECHNOLOGY PROJECT

Paul R. Genender Erin Choi

Ron Miller

WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP

* Motions to appear pro hac vice forthcoming **Motions to appear pro hac vice forthcoming; not admitted in DC; practice limited to federal courts. ***S.D. Tex. renewal forthcoming

30

Case 4:20-cv-01241 Document 1 Filed on 04/08/20 in TXSD Page 31 of 32
Verification by someone acting on Petitioners’ behalf pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2242 We are submitting this verification on behalf of the Petitioners because we are some of the Petitioners’ attorneys. We have each discussed with one or more Petitioner and collectively have discussed with all Petitioners the events described in this Petition. On the basis of those discussions, we hereby verify that the statements made in the attached Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus are true and correct to the best of our knowledge. Dated: April 8, 2020 /s/ Bernardo Rafael Cruz Bernardo Rafael Cruz, Attorney for Petitioners /s/ Rochelle M. Garza Rochelle M. Garza, Attorney for Petitioners /s/ Kathryn Huddleston Kathryn Huddleston, Attorney for Petitioners /s/ Noor Zafar Noor Zafar, Attorney for Petitioners
31

Case 4:20-cv-01241 Document 1 Filed on 04/08/20 in TXSD Page 32 of 32

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that I served a copy of the foregoing motion via the Court’s ECF filing system and via email courtesy copy to the office of the United States Attorney for the Southern District of Texas.

Dated: April 8, 2020

/s/ Andre Segura

Andre Segura

32

 </s> Case 4:20-cv-01241 Document 41 Filed on 04/17/20 in TXSD
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION

Page 1 of 17
United States District Court Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
April 17, 2020
David J. Bradley, Clerk

ROMAN VAZQUEZ BARRERA, et al,
Petitioners, VS.
CHAD WOLF, et al,
Respondents.

§ § § § CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:20-CV-1241 § § § §

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Pending before the Court is Petitioner-Plaintiffs’ Motion for Temporary Restraining Order.

(Doc. No. 12). Petitioner-Plaintiffs (“Plaintiffs”) seek a temporary restraining order to compel their

immediate release from civil immigration detention. Plaintiffs, both of whom have medical

conditions that make them particularly vulnerable to serious illness or death if they were to be

infected by the novel coronavirus, claim that their continued detention in the face of the current

COVID-19 pandemic violates their Fifth Amendment right to due process. After considering the

Motion, the parties’ briefs and supplemental briefs, Amici Curiae’s brief, parties’ oral arguments,

and all applicable law, the Court determines that Plaintiffs’ Motion for Temporary Restraining

Order should be GRANTED in part, as a preliminary injunction, and DENIED in part.

I. BACKGROUND Plaintiffs are two individuals1 who are detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement

(ICE) at the Montgomery Processing Center (MPC) in Conroe, Texas. (Doc. No. 1 ¶ 1). Both

1 Plaintiffs’ original petition and complaint was filed on behalf of four Plaintiffs. However, only two Plaintiffs remain in custody. Roman Vazquez Barrera was released from ICE custody on April 11, 2020. (Doc. No. 13). Luis Par Alvarado, was granted release on bond by an immigration court on April 10, 2020. (Doc. No. 22, at 7). On April 16, 2020, Mr. Par Alvarado posted bond and was
1

Case 4:20-cv-01241 Document 41 Filed on 04/17/20 in TXSD Page 2 of 17
Plaintiffs suffer from chronic health conditions that make them particularly susceptible to serious illness or death if they contract COVID-19. Id. ¶¶ 10, 12; CDC, At Risk for Severe Illness, https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/need-extra-precautions/groups-at-higher-risk.html.
• Plaintiff Georgina Rojas is a 28-year-old woman who has a body mass index of 48.3, which exceeds the Center for Disease Control’s (CDC) threshold of 40 for elevated risk from COVID-19. Id. ¶ 10.
• Plaintiff Bassam Jebril is a 37-year-old man who has several respiratory issues and frequently experiences difficulty breathing and chest pains. He also has high blood pressure and is on a restricted diet. Id. ¶ 12.
Ms. Rojas is subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c), pending final adjudication of her removal proceedings. (Doc. No. 22, at 8). Mr. Jebril has a final order of removal and is thus held in mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(2). Id. at 9.
Both Plaintiffs are currently detained at MPC, an immigration detention facility that is operated by a private corporation, GEO Group, Inc. (Doc. No. 12-1, at 10). As of April 13, 2020, Defendants assert that only one GEO Group employee has tested positive for COVID-19, and no detainees have tested positive yet. (Doc. No. 22, at 11); see also Elizabeth Trovall, Immigrant Detention Center Employee Tests Positive for COVID-19, Hous. Pub. Media (Mar. 24, 2020), https://www.houstonpublicmedia.org/articles/news/health-science/coronavirus/2020/03/24 /365114/immigrant-detention-center-employee-tests-positive-for-covid-19/. As of April 13, 2020, three detainees had been tested. (Doc. No. 22-5 ¶ 18). There are around 833 individuals housed at MPC. See Trovall. Plaintiffs allege that multiple detainees have exhibited symptoms consistent
released from detention. (Doc. No. 40). Plaintiffs accordingly no longer seek relief on Mr. Vazquez Barrera’s or Mr. Par Alvarado’s behalf. (Doc. No. 13; Doc. No. 40).
2

Case 4:20-cv-01241 Document 41 Filed on 04/17/20 in TXSD Page 3 of 17
with COVID-19, such as coughing, body aches, and other flu-like symptoms, but have not been tested or isolated. (Doc. No. 1 ¶ 52).
At this point, the COVID-19 pandemic is well-known to all Americans. The Court will not recount its rapid development and its impact on our community here, as it has been well-discussed in other sources and court filings. It cannot be contested that the novel coronavirus that causes COVID-19 is highly contagious, and that among those who develop COVID-19, many require extended intensive emergency care, assistance breathing using mechanical ventilators, and roundthe-clock professional medical care. The virus is able to spread undetected among populations, given its long incubation period and asymptomatic presentation in some individuals. There is currently no cure or vaccine. The only way to protect our communities is to “socially distance” ourselves—avoid unnecessary human contact and maintain a safe distance of at least six feet from other people—and practice diligent hygiene, by frequently washing our hands and disinfecting commonly touched surfaces.
MPC has put certain procedures in place in response to the growing pandemic. Social visitation has been suspended, and all staff and visitors are screened for symptoms and given temperature checks before entering the facility. (Doc. No. 22-5 ¶ 10). All elective off-site medical and lab appointments have also been suspended. Id. ¶ 11. At intake screenings, new detainees are assessed for fever and respiratory illness, and asked if they have come into “close contact with a person with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 in the past 14 days, and whether they have traveled from or through area(s) [sic] with sustained community transmission in the past two weeks.” Id. ¶ 13. Individuals with COVID-like symptoms are isolated and, if they test positive, treated in isolation. Id. ¶ 14. Asymptomatic individuals exposed to a person with confirmed or suspected COVID-19 are placed in cohorts with others who have been exposed and monitored for symptoms
3

Case 4:20-cv-01241 Document 41 Filed on 04/17/20 in TXSD Page 4 of 17
for fourteen days. Id. ¶¶ 15–16. Field units have also been instructed to educate detainees on the importance of covering their coughs with their elbows and requesting assistance if they feel ill. Id. ¶ 17.
However, Plaintiffs allege that MPC’s actions do not protect them from infection, and thus, likely serious illness or death. While the CDC has announced that maintaining at least six feet of distance from others is crucial to preventing transmission, such distance is impossible to maintain in a detention environment. (Doc. No. 12-1, at 11). In MPC in particular, many detainees live in rooms of up to ninety detainees, sleeping in stacked beds that are as little as one or two feet apart. Id. Most detainees share bathrooms and other common spaces. Id. at 11–12. Plaintiffs also allege that MPC has not provided detainees with hand sanitizer or tissues, and many also lack soap and paper towels, items that the CDC considers essential for transmission prevention and has instructed detention facilities to provide. Id. at 12; CDC, Interim Guidance of Management of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) in Correctional and Detention Facilities (Mar. 23, 2020), https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/downloads/guidance-correctional-detention.pdf. Additionally, MPC allegedly has not provided detainees masks, has not provided detainees who clean the facility with gloves, and has not required its officers to wear masks when interacting with detainees. (Doc. No. 12-1, at 12). MPC has also allegedly failed to provide detainees with any education about the virus, how it spreads, how to prevent spread, what symptoms to track, and what to do if detainees become symptomatic. Id. at 13. MPC’s actions in the face of this pandemic, allege Plaintiffs, is “wholly insufficient” to protect Plaintiffs. Id.
Plaintiffs filed their Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief on April 8, 2020. (Doc. No. 1). They filed their Motion for Temporary Restraining Order on April 10, 2020. (Doc. No. 12). The Court held a telephonic hearing on April
4

Case 4:20-cv-01241 Document 41 Filed on 04/17/20 in TXSD Page 5 of 17
14, 2020 and took the Motion under advisement. (Minute Entry 4/14/2020). The Court now turns to Plaintiffs’ Motion. II. LEGAL STANDARD
To receive injunctive relief, Plaintiff must show: “(1) there is a substantial likelihood that the movant will prevail on the merits; (2) there is a substantial threat that irreparable harm will result if the injunction is not granted; (3) the threatened injury outweighs the threatened harm to the defendant; and (4) the granting of the [] injunction will not disserve the public interest.” Clark v. Prichard, 812 F.2d 991, 993 (5th Cir. 1987) (citing Canal Auth. v. Callaway, 489 F.2d 567, 572–73 (5th Cir. 1974)); see Parker v. Ryan, 960 F.2d 543, 545 (5th Cir. 1992) (“[T]he requirements of [R]ule 65 apply to all injunctions.”). Where Defendants were given notice of the motion as required for a preliminary injunction under Rule 65(a)(1), and the Court holds an adversary hearing, a motion for temporary restraining order may be treated as a preliminary injunction. 11A Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2951 (3d ed. 2002). III. ANALYSIS
Plaintiffs Georgina Rojas and Bassam Jabril are mandatorily detained pursuant to 8 U.S.C. §§ 1226(c) and 1231(a)(2), respectively. They challenge the constitutionality of their continued detention during the COVID-19 pandemic. Plaintiffs are seeking relief both through a writ of habeas corpus and through a direct constitutional claim for declaratory and injunctive relief under the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. The Court will address Plaintiffs’ claims for temporary relief under habeas. The Court finds relief cognizable under Plaintiffs’ habeas petition; therefore, it does not address the direct constitutional claim for relief.
5

Case 4:20-cv-01241 Document 41 Filed on 04/17/20 in TXSD Page 6 of 17
1. Substantial Likelihood of Prevailing on the Merits a. Jurisdiction to Grant Habeas Relief
As an initial matter, Defendants claim that Plaintiffs will not prevail under a writ of habeas corpus because (1) the Fifth Circuit does not allow conditions-of-confinement claims to be brought as habeas petitions and (2) Plaintiffs Jabril and Rojas are being detained under mandatory detention statutes, which bars the Court from issuing habeas relief.
28 U.S.C. § 2241 provides a district court with jurisdiction over petitions for habeas corpus where a petitioner is “in custody in violation of the Constitution or law or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3); see INS v. St. Cyr, 533 U.S. 289, 305 (2001). Habeas corpus has been recognized as an appropriate vehicle through which noncitizens may challenge the fact of their civil immigration detention. See Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 688 (2001); see generally Jennings v. Rodriguez, 138 S. Ct. 830 (2018) (ruling on merits of habeas petition challenging validity of indefinite mandatory detention).
Defendants argue that the Court cannot grant habeas relief on a challenge to Plaintiffs’ conditions of confinement. Generally, habeas petitions seek release from custody, while civil rights actions are the proper vehicle to attack unconstitutional conditions of confinement. Carson v. Johnson, 112 F.3d 818, 820 (5th Cir. 1997) (first citing Pugh v. Par. of St. Tammany, 875 F.2d 436, 439 (5th Cir. 1989), then citing Cook v. Tex. Dep’t of Crim. Justice Transitional Planning Dep’t, 37 F.3d 166, 168 (5th Cir. 1994)). However, the line between these two types of claims is “a blurry one.” Poree v. Collins, 866 F.3d 235, 243 (5th Cir. 2017) (quoting Cook, 37 F.3d at 168). While challenges to the “fact or duration of confinement” are usually brought under habeas, id. at 242, the Supreme Court has not explicitly foreclosed the use of habeas for conditions-ofconfinement claims, Boumediene v. Bush, 553 U.S. 723, 792 (2008); see also Poree, 866 F.3d at
6

Case 4:20-cv-01241 Document 41 Filed on 04/17/20 in TXSD Page 7 of 17
243. The Fifth Circuit has not explicitly limited habeas petitions to only “fact or duration” challenges and has described its own precedent on the matter as “less clear.” Poree, 866 F.3d at 243–44; see id. at 244 n.28 (citing Fifth Circuit cases that conflict on whether habeas and § 1983 claims are mutually exclusive). However, even in its own cases limiting habeas petitions in conditions-of-confinement challenges, the Fifth Circuit states that habeas is appropriate if a ruling in the petitioner’s favor would “automatically entitle [the petitioner] to accelerated release.” Carson, 112 F.3d at 821 (finding that, where petitioner’s reassignment from administrative segregation would not automatically entitle him to immediate release on parole, but “merely enhance eligibility for accelerated release,” habeas was an inappropriate vehicle to challenge conditions of confinement).
The Court need not decide today whether conditions-of-confinement cases that do not challenge the “fact or duration” of detention properly sound in habeas. Plaintiffs seek immediate release from detention because there are no conditions of confinement that are sufficient to prevent irreparable constitutional injury given the facts presented in their individual cases. Where an individual is “challenging the very fact or duration of his physical imprisonment, and the relief he seeks is a determination that he is entitled to immediate release,” the proper remedy is a writ of habeas corpus. Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 500 (1973); see also Poree, 866 F.3d at 243 (“Which statutory vehicle to use depends on the nature of the claim and the type of relief requested . . . .”); Carson, 112 F.3d at 820–21. Indeed, the Fifth Circuit has granted habeas relief where the petitioner was seeking immediate release from prison, even where the dissent was arguing the case was one involving conditions of confinement. Coleman v. Dretke, 409 F.3d 665, 669–70 (5th Cir. 2005) (“[N]either the Supreme Court nor this court has held that certain claims must be brought under § 1983 rather than habeas.” Id. at 670.)
7

Case 4:20-cv-01241 Document 41 Filed on 04/17/20 in TXSD Page 8 of 17
Because Plaintiffs are challenging the fact of their detention as unconstitutional and seek relief in the form of immediate release, their claims fall squarely in the realm of habeas corpus. The mere fact that Plaintiffs’ constitutional challenge requires discussion of conditions in immigration detention does not necessarily bar such a challenge in a habeas petition. Plaintiffs do not challenge the specific mitigation measures MPC are choosing to implement; rather, Plaintiffs argue that there are no possible steps that MPC can take that would protect their constitutional rights while they remain detained during the COVID-19 pandemic in its current form. (Doc. No. 1 ¶ 112 (“The circumstances of this case make clear that release is the only means to ensure compliance with the Fifth Amendment’s prohibition on punitive detention.”)).
Defendants cite a variety of cases in which courts in the Fifth Circuit have denied habeas relief to individuals claiming that their conditions of confinement amount to mistreatment, because the appropriate remedy is correction of conditions, not release. (Doc. No. 22, at 14–15; Doc. No. 25, at 4–5). The Court is aware that, in most cases, unconstitutional conditions of confinement can be remedied through injunctions that require abusive practices be changed. However, the current case is not one where such injunctive relief is available. We are living in unprecedented times. The COVID-19 pandemic threatens our communities and has required us to upend our routines and assumptions. With no known vaccine or cure for COVID-19 and the highly contagious and asymptomatic nature of the novel coronavirus, as well as overwhelmed medical systems throughout our communities, our prisons, jails, and detention facilities are facing outbreaks that differ from any infectious disease outbreaks that have occurred in the past. Given what is currently known about COVID-19 prevention and CDC guidelines, Plaintiffs have asserted, both in briefing and during the motion hearing, that no risk mitigation that the Court could order would appropriately protect Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights. Courts around the country have recognized
8

Case 4:20-cv-01241 Document 41 Filed on 04/17/20 in TXSD Page 9 of 17
similar assertions and ordered immediate release of particularly vulnerable detainees from ICE facilities under writs of habeas corpus as a result. See, e.g., Malam v. Adducci, No. 20-10829, 2020 WL 1672662, at *2–3 (E.D. Mich. Apr. 5, 2020) (finding that, although Sixth Circuit law stated that habeas was not the appropriate vehicle for challenging conditions of confinement, petitioner was properly seeking immediate release under habeas as the only adequate relief during COVID19 pandemic); see also Bent v. Barr, No. 19-cv-06123, 2020 WL 1812850, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 9, 2020) (finding that habeas petition challenging continued detention during COVID-19 pandemic challenges validity of confinement, not conditions of confinement); Coreas v. Bounds, No. TDC20-0780, 2020 WL 1663133, at *7 (D. Md. Apr. 3, 2020) (“[A]lthough the grounds on which they seek release relate to their conditions of confinement, Petitioners seek complete release from confinement, which is ‘the heart of habeas corpus.’”). Thus, because Plaintiffs challenge the validity of their continued confinement and because Plaintiffs seek immediate release from confinement as their only remedy, Plaintiffs’ claims were properly brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 and the Court has jurisdiction to rule on Plaintiffs’ petition for habeas corpus.
Defendants also argue that the Court is barred from granting habeas relief because Plaintiffs are mandatorily detained under 8 U.S.C. §§ 1226(c) and 1231(a)(2). Defendants present no case law that asserts that mandatory detention statutes strip courts of habeas jurisdiction.2 Rather, the Supreme Court has consistently allowed for habeas challenges to detention statutorily mandated by the Immigration and Nationality Act. See, e.g., Jennings, 138 S. Ct. at 837–38, 838–39
2 Defendants cite a Seventh Circuit case in which the court denied a noncitizen’s request for release from immigration detention on bond. (Doc. No. 25, at 2 (citing Bolante v. Keisler, 506 F.3d 618, 619 (7th Cir. 2007)). However, the petitioner in Bolante was seeking bond while his immigration case remained pending before the Seventh Circuit on a petition for review, not through a petition for habeas corpus. Bolante, 506 F.3d at 619. The Seventh Circuit explicitly noted that it had “[i]nherent judicial authority to grant bail to persons who have asked for relief in an application for habeas corpus.” Id. at 620.
9

Case 4:20-cv-01241 Document 41 Filed on 04/17/20 in TXSD Page 10 of 17
(deciding merits of habeas petition challenging indefinite mandatory detention under §§ 1225(b) and 1226(c)); Demore v. Kim, 538 U.S. 510, 517 (2003) (finding jurisdiction to review habeas challenge to § 1226(c)). Indeed, in order for a statutory provision to bar habeas review, the Supreme Court has required “a particularly clear statement” of Congress’s intent to do so. Demore, 538 U.S. at 517 (citing St. Cyr, 533 U.S. at 308–09). Defendants have not shown evidence of such intent and the Court is unable to find any. Thus, mandatory detention statutes do not bar this Court’s power to issue relief through a writ of habeas corpus.
b. Merits of Fifth Amendment Claim Having determined that the Court has the authority to grant habeas relief in the present case, the Court turns to the merits of Plaintiffs’ claim. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants are violating their right under the Fifth Amendment to substantive due process by continuing to detain them during the ongoing pandemic. (Doc. No. 1 ¶¶ 114–17). Immigration detainees are civil detainees, and thus, entitled to the same constitutional due process protections as pretrial detainees. See Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 690 (2001); Edwards v. Johnson, 209 F.3d 772, 778 (5th Cir. 2000) (“We consider a person detained for deportation to be the equivalent of a pretrial detainee; a pretrial detainee’s constitutional claims are considered under the due process clause instead of the Eighth Amendment.”). Detention for noncriminal purposes is only allowed in narrow circumstances, “where a special justification . . . outweighs the ‘individual’s constitutionally protected interest in avoiding physical restraint’” under the Fifth Amendment. Zadvydas, 533 U.S. at 690 (quoting Kansas v. Hendricks, 521 U.S. 346, 356 (1997)). Detention as punishment for noncriminal purposes is not allowed. See Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 535 (1979). Where the government is holding the detainee in conditions that amount to punishment, and those conditions
10

Case 4:20-cv-01241 Document 41 Filed on 04/17/20 in TXSD Page 11 of 17
do not reasonably relate to a “legitimate, non-punitive governmental objective,” such conditions violate the detainee’s due process rights. Cadena v. El Paso Cty., 946 F.3d 717, 727 (5th Cir. 2020).
Here, the Court finds that detention of Plaintiffs, who are at high risk of serious illness or death if they contract COVID-19, in MPC, where social distancing and proper hygiene are impossible, does not reasonably relate to a legitimate governmental purpose. Amici curiae, who are public health and human rights experts, have asserted that social distancing and proper hygiene, the only methods available to prevent transmission of the novel coronavirus, are not possible in detention facilities. (Doc. No. 27-1, at 14–15). Interim guidelines in effect at MPC fail to implement even simple hygiene measures, such as providing broad access to hand sanitizer and face masks. Id. at 17. Because there is no known vaccine or cure for COVID-19, prevention of transmission through proper social distancing and personal hygiene is the only option for medically vulnerable individuals, like Plaintiffs.. However, detention necessarily prevents Plaintiffs from protecting themselves in this way. Preventing Plaintiffs from protecting their own health from a high risk of serious illness or death does not reasonably relate to a legitimate governmental purpose and thus, violates the Fifth Amendment. See Sheperd v. Dallas Cty., 591 F.3d 445, 453–54 (5th Cir. 2009) (“When the State by the affirmative exercise of its power so restrains an individual’s liberty that it renders him unable to care for himself, and at the same time fails to provide for his basic human needs . . . it transgresses the substantive limits on state action set by the Eighth Amendment and the Due Process Clause.” (quoting Hare v. City of Corinth, 74 F.3d 633, 639 (5th Cir. 1996))).
The Court understands that the government’s purpose in detaining noncitizens is to ensure that detainees appear for removal hearings and deportation. However, under present conditions, that purpose is not served through detention. Requiring medically vulnerable individuals to remain
11

Case 4:20-cv-01241 Document 41 Filed on 04/17/20 in TXSD Page 12 of 17
in a detention facility where they cannot properly protect themselves from transmission of a highly contagious virus with no known cure is not rationally related to a legitimate government objective. This is particularly true given that ICE has many other means besides physical detention to monitor noncitizens and ensure that they are present at removal proceedings and at time of removal, such as GPS monitoring and routine check-ins. Additionally, lowering the risk of broad and severe outbreak within MPC also furthers a governmental interest in keeping the community outside of MPC safe. As Amici noted, because staff come in frequent and close contact with detainees, and staff live within the community, an outbreak within MPC will inevitably spread to the surrounding community. Additionally, lowering the risk of transmission among a high-risk population in particular, by releasing Plaintiffs, will relieve the potential burden on regional hospitals and health care providers who are already stretched thin treating the general population. (Doc. No. 27-1, at 17). Thus, lowering the population, and especially the high-risk population, in immigration detention is in the government’s interest as well. Where detention is unnecessary to effectuate the government’s goals, keeping Plaintiffs detained and at high risk of serious illness or death violates their due process rights.
Defendant notes that the mere existence of illness or even death in detention does not constitute a violation of due process rights. The Court acknowledges that “isolated examples of illness, injury, or even death, standing alone, cannot prove” constitutionally inadequate confinement, nor can “incidence of disease or infection, standing alone, imply unconstitutional confinement conditions.” Sheperd, 591 F.3d at 454. However, the current pandemic is not mere “incidence of disease or infection, standing alone.” Our currently exigent circumstances, in which our communities are engulfed by a novel and highly contagious disease, are unlike any “incidence of disease” that our society has faced in generations. The potential for a mass outbreak of COVID-
12

Case 4:20-cv-01241 Document 41 Filed on 04/17/20 in TXSD Page 13 of 17
19 within MPC is more than “isolated examples of illness . . . standing alone.” Rather, for Plaintiffs, the threat of a mass outbreak is one that portends a high likelihood of serious illness or death, and is one that MPC cannot take sufficient steps to prevent.
Because detention of Plaintiffs in current conditions is unconstitutional, and because there is no way for Plaintiffs to be detained in conditions that are constitutional, the Court finds that Plaintiffs are likely to prevail on the merits of their habeas petition.
2. Irreparable Harm Plaintiffs allege that they face irreparable harm because there is a strong likelihood that they will be infected with COVID-19 and, because of their medical vulnerabilities, they face a heightened risk of dying or suffering from serious illness and long-term health consequences. Plaintiffs must show that “irreparable injury is likely in the absence of an injunction.” Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 22 (2008). A harm need not be inevitable or have already happened in order for it to be irreparable; rather, imminent harm is also cognizable harm to merit an injunction. See Helling v. McKinney, 509 U.S. 25, 33 (1993) (“It would be odd to deny an injunction to inmates who plainly proved an unsafe, life-threatening condition in their prison on the ground that nothing yet had happened to them. . . . [A] remedy for unsafe conditions need not await a tragic event.”). Plaintiffs’ alleged harm is both imminent and irreparable. The COVID-19 pandemic has reached every state in our nation, and the numbers of infected and dead increase daily. According to the CDC, those with particular medical vulnerabilities, including Plaintiffs, are particularly susceptible to serious illness and death. There is currently no vaccine or cure for COVID-19. Medical experts have also concluded that continued detention in ICE facilities during the current pandemic presents an “imminent risk to the health and safety of immigrant detainees.” Letter from
13

Case 4:20-cv-01241 Document 41 Filed on 04/17/20 in TXSD Page 14 of 17
Scott A. Allen, MD, FACP & Josiah Rich, MD, MPH to Committee Chairpersons and Ranking Members of House and Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Committee on Oversight and Reform 3 (Mar. 19, 2020), https://whistleblower.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/Drs.-Allenand-Rich-3.20.2020-Letter-to-Congress.pdf. The question of COVID-19 spreading in MPC, specifically, is not one of if, but when. One staff member at MPC has already tested positive for COVID-19. Given how highly contagious the virus is, and how it can remain asymptomatic after transmission, it is very likely that COVID-19 is already present within the MPC population. Indeed, Plaintiffs have presented affidavits from multiple sources who have witnessed detainees exhibiting COVID-like symptoms. (Doc. No. 1 ¶ 52). Although Defendants repeatedly assert that there are no confirmed cases of COVID-19 among the detained population, according to their own records, only three detained individuals have been tested as of April 13, 2020. Without more widespread testing, there is no way to know that COVID-19 has not already spread to MPC. Given Plaintiffs’ vulnerabilities to serious illness if infected with the coronavirus and the serious and imminent risk of infection if they remain in immigration detention, Plaintiffs have shown irreparable harm.
3. Balancing of Equities and Public Interest The equities at issue weigh in Plaintiffs’ favor. Plaintiffs face serious irreparable harm if they are infected, in the form of severe illness, long-term health effects, and possibly death. Defendants have a countervailing interest in detaining Plaintiffs in order to ensure that they appear for future removal hearings and at time of removal. However, detention is not necessary to further Defendants’ interest in preventing Plaintiffs from absconding. Rather, ICE has a number of alternative tools available to it to ensure enforcement, which it is free to use with Plaintiffs if they are released from detention. For example, ICE’s conditional supervision program uses a combination of electronic ankle monitors, biometric voice recognition software, unannounced
14

Case 4:20-cv-01241 Document 41 Filed on 04/17/20 in TXSD Page 15 of 17
home visits, employer verification, and in-person reporting requirements to supervise individuals released from detention. (Doc. No. 12-1, at 27). An initial study of ICE’s alternatives to detention reported a 99% attendance rate at all immigration court hearings and a 95% attendance rate at final hearings among supervised individuals. U.S. Gov’t Accountability Office, GAO-15-26, Alternatives to Detention: Improved Data Collection and Analyses Needed to Better Assess Program Effectiveness 30 (2014). Thus, because Defendants’ interests can be served through means other than detention, and Plaintiffs’ interests are irreparably harmed by staying in detention, the balance of the equities favor Plaintiff.
The public interest also generally weighs in Plaintiffs’ favor. As discussed supra, the public has an interest in preventing an outbreak in MPC. An outbreak among the MPC detainee population will inevitably spread through the surrounding community, as MPC staff members, who live outside the detention facility, will be exposed to sick detainees. Additionally, an outbreak in MPC will put additional strain on hospitals and health care resources in the community, which are already straining to care for the community at large during the pandemic. An outbreak that affects particularly vulnerable detainees, like Plaintiffs, would be especially draining on those limited medical resources, as MPC is not equipped to care for many seriously ill patients and will have to transport those patients to outside hospitals. Thus, the public has an interest in decreasing the likelihood of infection in MPC and, specifically, of Plaintiffs, in order to prevent a communitywide outbreak and to conserve health care resources during a pandemic.
However, the public also has an interest in maintaining public safety. It is undisputed that Plaintiff Rojas does not have a history of violence, and thus, poses no danger to the public. (Doc. No. 22, at 22; Doc. No. 24, at 8). Defendants merely cite a public interest in the enforcement of
15

Case 4:20-cv-01241 Document 41 Filed on 04/17/20 in TXSD Page 16 of 17
immigration laws, which, although a public interest, is outweighed by the health interests at stake. Thus, the Court finds that Plaintiff Rojas does not pose a danger to the public.
Plaintiff Jebril, however, has a criminal history that is both recent and involved violence. Mr. Jebril pled guilty to two misdemeanors in late 2018, for assault of a family member and for violation of a protective order. (Doc. No. 22, at 9; Doc. No. 24, at 6). In October 2018, Mr. Jebril was ordered to have no contact with his wife after he was charged with assaulting her. (Doc. No. 22, at 9). However, he violated that protective order the next day to slash his wife’s tires. Id. It is true that Mr. Jebril has served his sentence in criminal detention and is now detained only for civil immigration purposes. Mr. Jebril may not continue to be punished for his criminal history through prolonged civil detention. However, the Court is concerned that Mr. Jebril so brazenly violated a previous judicial order. Release from detention would necessarily come with conditions that Plaintiffs must follow, and Mr. Jebril has shown one recent instance of being unable to comply with court-ordered conditions. Moreover, Mr. Jebril’s previous violent act was also targeted at his wife and occurred in the last year and a half. The Court is unaware of new developments that show Mr. Jebril’s wife will not be a continued target for Mr. Jebril, and is concerned that Mr. Jebril will be able to contact her if released from detention. Finally, Mr. Jebril has been indicted for aggravated sexual assault; the charge remains pending pre-trial. (Doc. No. 22, at 9). Mr. Jebril is presumed innocent pending trial, so the Court refuses to consider this charge as evidence that Mr. Jebril is a danger to public safety. However, the Court does acknowledge that a pending criminal charge may increase risk of flight. Mr. Jebril’s previous protective order violation, in conjunction with how recent his violent act was, weighs against his release, because he poses a danger to his wife. When considered in conjunction with his current risk of flight, the Court cannot find that it is in the public interest to release Mr. Jebril from detention.
16

Case 4:20-cv-01241 Document 41 Filed on 04/17/20 in TXSD Page 17 of 17
IV. CONCLUSION The Court therefore GRANTS in part Plaintiffs’ Motion for Temporary Restraining Order
as a preliminary injunction and ORDERS the Government to release Plaintiff Georgina Rojas from detention immediately, under appropriate conditions of supervised release. The Court DENIES in part Plaintiffs’ Motion as to Plaintiff Bassam Jabril.
The Defendants have not sought a bond and the Court finds and holds that no security need be posted. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(c); Kaepa, Inc. v. Achilles Corp., 76 F.3d 624, 628 (5th Cir. 1996) (“In holding that the amount of security required pursuant to Rule 65(c) is a matter for the discretion of the trial court, we have ruled that the court may elect to require no security at all.” (internal quotation marks omitted)); see also A.T.N. Indus., Inc. v. Gross, 632 F. App’x 185, 192 (5th Cir. 2015) (holding that, under Rule 65(c), a court may elect to require no security at all as the amount it considers to be proper).
IT IS SO ORDERED. SIGNED at Houston, Texas on this the 17th day of April, 2020.
KEITH P. ELLISON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
17

 </s> Case 4:20-cv-01241 Document 79 Filed on 05/25/20 in TXSD
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION

Page 1 of 9
United States District Court Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
May 25, 2020
David J. Bradley, Clerk

ROMAN VAZQUEZ BARRERA, et al,
Petitioners, VS.
CHAD WOLF, et al,
Respondents.

§ § § § CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:20-CV-1241 § § § §

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Pending before the Court are a number of motions: Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Doc.

No. 51), Defendants’ Motion to Strike Amended Complaint (Doc. No. 52), Plaintiffs’ Motion for

Class Certification (Doc. No. 45), Plaintiffs’ Motion for Expedited Discovery (Doc. No. 55), and

Plaintiffs’ Motion for Expedited Relief (Doc. No. 57). After considering the Motions, briefing,

oral arguments, and all applicable law, the Court hereby DENIES Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss

and Motion to Strike Amended Complaint. The Court defers ruling on any of Plaintiffs’ Motions

until after Defendants provide supplemental information about the proposed class to the Court, as

described in more detail below.

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiffs filed their original petition for writ of habeas corpus and complaint for

declaratory and injunctive relief on April 8, 2020. (Doc. No. 1). There were four original Plaintiffs,

all of whom were noncitizens detained at Montgomery Processing Center (MPC) and have medical

conditions that put them at particularly high risk of serious illness or death if they contract COVID-

19. Id. All four Plaintiffs sought a Temporary Restraining Order, requesting temporary release

from detention so they could remain healthy and alive for the pendency of the lawsuit. (Doc. No.

Case 4:20-cv-01241 Document 79 Filed on 05/25/20 in TXSD Page 2 of 9
12-1, at 6–7). Before the Court could rule on Plaintiffs’ request, two of the Plaintiffs were released from MPC—one was released by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) directly, and the other was ordered released on bond by an immigration judge. (Doc. No. 13; Doc. No. 40).
On April 17, 2020, the Court issued a Memorandum and Order granting in part Plaintiffs’ request as a preliminary injunction and releasing one of the Plaintiffs, Georgina Rojas. (Doc. No. 41). The Court denied preliminary relief to the other Plaintiff still in custody, Bassam Jebril, on the basis of his flight risk and the risk of danger to his wife. Id. at 16.
On April 28, 2020, Plaintiffs notified the Court that Mr. Jebril had been transferred out of MPC and was being detained in a different detention facility. (Doc. No. 43).
On April 29, 2020, Plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint. (Doc. No. 44). The Amended Complaint was filed within the twenty-one-day limit for amendment by right under Rule 15(a)(1)(A). The Amended Complaint adds four new individual Plaintiffs, who are also serving as proposed class representatives for a newly added class action claim. All four newly added Plaintiffs are detained at MPC and have medical conditions that they claim put them at higher risk of serious illness or death if they contract COVID-19. The original four Plaintiffs do not seek to act as class representatives.
Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Class Certification with their Amended Complaint. (Doc. No. 45). The proposed class consists of all individuals detained at MPC who have been diagnosed with or are receiving treatment for an enumerated list of medical conditions that put them at higher risk of serious illness or death if they were to contract COVID-19 and/or who are over the age of 50. (Doc. No. 45-1, at 9).
On May 1, 2020, Plaintiffs notified the Court that two of the newly added named Plaintiffs had been released from ICE custody. (Doc. No. 53). Thus, the only named Plaintiffs in this case

Case 4:20-cv-01241 Document 79 Filed on 05/25/20 in TXSD Page 3 of 9
who are currently detained at MPC are two of the newly added Plaintiffs: Philip Bakasa and Yaneysi Diaz-Ramirez.
In response to Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint, Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 51) and a Motion to Strike Amended Complaint (Doc. No. 52), arguing that Plaintiffs’ case became moot on April 28, 2020, the day before they filed their Amended Complaint, when Mr. Jebril, the last of the original Plaintiffs, left MPC. Plaintiffs then filed a Motion for Expedited Discovery (Doc. No. 54) and a Motion for Expedited Relief (Doc. No. 57).
The Court held a hearing on all pending motions on May 21, 2020. At the hearing, Defendants reported that six detainees had now tested positive for COVID-19. Reportedly, five MPC staff members have also tested positive. (Doc. No. 75, at 11). II. ANALYSIS
The Court first addresses Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss and Motion to Strike Amended Complaint. Because both Motions raise the same issues of mootness, the Court will address them together.
Defendants argue that, because all four original Plaintiffs were no longer detained at MPC when Plaintiffs filed their Amended Complaint on April 29, 2020, the original case had become moot and thus, Plaintiffs could not amend their original complaint. Thus, argue Defendants, Plaintiffs’ case should be dismissed as moot and their Amended Complaint should be stricken as improperly filed.
Article III of the Constitution limits the power of federal courts to adjudicate only “Cases” and “Controversies.” U.S. Const. art. III, § 2, cl. 1; see United States v. Sanchez-Gomez, 138 S. Ct. 1532, 1537 (2018). A dispute is no longer a case or controversy, and thus, moot, whenever “the issues presented are no longer ‘live’ or the parties lack a legally cognizable interest in the outcome.”

Case 4:20-cv-01241 Document 79 Filed on 05/25/20 in TXSD Page 4 of 9
Already, LLC v. Nike, Inc., 568 U.S. 85, 91 (2013). Any change in circumstances that “eliminates actual controversy after the commencement of a lawsuit renders that action moot.” Fontenot v. McCraw, 777 F.3d 741, 747 (5th Cir. 2015).
In their Original Complaint, Plaintiffs sought release from detention in MPC, either through a writ of habeas corpus or as injunctive relief, and a declaration that their continued detention at MPC violated their due process rights under the Fifth Amendment. For the two Plaintiffs who were released by ICE voluntarily and the third Plaintiff who was transferred out of MPC, the Court finds that their claims have become moot. Because the government has voluntarily released or transferred these three Plaintiffs through processes unrelated to this litigation, and Plaintiffs have only alleged claims relating to their continued detention in MPC, there is no longer a “live” controversy between adversarial parties. In other words, circumstances beyond the control of this Court have changed such that these three Plaintiffs no longer have live stakes in their original claims. Indeed, Defendants point to a number of habeas cases filed by immigration detainees seeking release from detention, in which the court found the claim mooted after the petitioner was released by ICE for independent reasons. (Doc. No. 51, at 5–6 (citing cases in Southern District of Texas)). Similarly, the Fifth Circuit has held that cases seeking injunctive and declaratory relief based on conditions at a specific facility become moot when plaintiffs are released or transferred by the detaining custodian. Smith v. City of Tupelo, 281 F. App’x 279, 282 (5th Cir. 2008); Herman v. Holiday, 238 F.3d 660, 665 (5th Cir. 2001). Thus, because the three Plaintiffs who were released or transferred from MPC were released and transferred by ICE voluntarily, these three Plaintiffs no longer have live claims and thus, their claims are rendered moot.

Case 4:20-cv-01241 Document 79 Filed on 05/25/20 in TXSD Page 5 of 9
However, Ms. Rojas, the fourth original Plaintiff, stands in a different posture than the other three Plaintiffs. Ms. Rojas was released from ICE custody pursuant to this Court’s preliminary injunction order on April 17, 2020. Because the relief granted by this Court was preliminary, and thus, issued only in order to maintain Ms. Rojas’s health for the pendency of this case, Ms. Rojas’s claims have not been finally adjudicated. The Court thus finds that Ms. Rojas has maintained a live case since she first filed her claims in the original complaint, and thus, has standing to amend the complaint to add other Plaintiffs.
Defendants argue that, because Ms. Rojas has received the relief she requested—release from MPC—she can no longer argue for her own release, and thus, her claims are moot. However, Defendants overlook the fact that the Court’s order releasing Ms. Rojas was preliminary relief. The Court is unaware of any instance in which a court’s order granting preliminary relief is automatically considered a final adjudication on the merits, even when preliminary relief provides the relief that plaintiff seeks as final relief, for example, as a permanent injunction. Rather, preliminary relief in the present case is no different from preliminary relief in any other case the Court has previously presided over—it “merely . . . preserve[s] the status quo pending a final determination of the rights of the parties involved.” Wooten v. Ohler, 303 F.2d 759, 769 (5th Cir. 1962). This Court has not adjudicated Ms. Roja’s habeas petition or claims for declaratory or injunctive relief on the merits. The Court remains free to deny Ms. Rojas’s claims after considering their merits, in which case, the Court’s preliminary order would no longer have effect and Defendants could seek to redetain Ms. Rojas. Additionally, if Ms. Rojas were to violate the terms of her supervised release, which the Court allowed Defendants to impose when it ordered her release, Defendants would also remain free to seek revocation of Ms. Rojas’s preliminary release before this Court. See also Basank v. Decker, 20 Civ. 2518, 2020 WL 1953847, at *4 (S.D.N.Y.

Case 4:20-cv-01241 Document 79 Filed on 05/25/20 in TXSD Page 6 of 9
Apr. 23, 2020) (“[I]t is clear that a live case or controversy exists as to the remaining Petitioners. . . . But for the Court’s order restraining Respondents from rearresting Petitioners, Respondents would presumably seek to detain Petitioners anew.”).
Indeed, if the Court were to adopt Defendants’ position that preliminary release of a habeas petitioner equates to final release and end the case, the Court would essentially be substituting the well-established legal standard for granting a writ of habeas corpus for the much lower standard required for preliminary relief. Such a position would, in practice, mean that “substantial likelihood of success on the merits” would be sufficient for granting a final writ of habeas on the merits. The Court has no such authority to alter the standard for granting a writ of habeas corpus.
Case law on appealability of writs of habeas provides further support. The Supreme Court has previously held that a live case or controversy exists for the government to appeal even when a lower court grants a writ of habeas and the petitioner has been released from custody. Eagles v. United States ex rel. Samuels, 329 U.S. 304, 307–08 (1946). The Supreme Court noted that, “[i]n such a case the release is obtained through the assertion of judicial power,” and so, though the petitioner is no longer in custody, the case remains live for appeal. Id.; see also Moreland v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 431 F.3d 180, 184 (5th Cir. 2005) (finding that habeas claim was not moot for appeal despite release of petitioner from custody because respondent intended to return petitioner to custody if respondent prevailed on appeal). This disproves Defendants’ claim that this case became moot when Ms. Rojas was released, because she received the relief requested. Rather, even where a petitioner is released, as requested, after a final adjudication, the case is not moot. Indeed, Defendants even argue in briefing that these cases on appellate jurisdiction are distinguishable from the present case because in those cases, the “underlying issue[s] . . . had not yet been adjudicated on the merits.” (Doc. No. 71, at 9). In fact, the present case is

Case 4:20-cv-01241 Document 79 Filed on 05/25/20 in TXSD Page 7 of 9
indistinguishable from the cited cases for this exact reason—this Court has not yet adjudicated the
underlying merits of Ms. Rojas’s claims. Thus, her claims are not moot.
At the hearing, the Court inquired whether Defendants were taking the position that they
had no right to appeal the order releasing Ms. Rojas because it was now moot. While Defendants
were unwilling to commit that position at the hearing, they later filed a notice with the Court that
they “will not appeal” the order. (Doc. No. 78). However, Defendants’ discretionary decision not
to appeal the order does not affect the analysis of whether Ms. Rojas’s claims are moot. Defendants
have not asserted that they have no right to appeal, but rather, just that they choose not to appeal.
Perhaps, if Defendants had provided Ms. Rojas and this Court with notice that they would no
longer be defending this suit and no longer sought to redetain Ms. Rojas, Defendants’ voluntary
decision could moot this case.1 However, Defendants have not done that, and certainly did not
before Plaintiffs filed their Amended Complaint.2 Because Defendants did not act in a way that
1 This, however, is not a given. A defendant’s “voluntary cessation” of conduct at issue in a lawsuit “does not moot a case or controversy unless subsequent events make it absolutely clear that the allegedly wrongful behavior could not reasonably be expected to recur.” Parents Involved in Cmty. Schs. v. Seattle Sch. Dist. No. 1, 551 U.S. 701, 719 (2007) (quotation and alteration omitted). Accordingly, alleged mootness based on a defendant’s voluntary actions “is viewed with caution.” Yarls v. Bunton, 905 F.3d 905, 910 (5th Cir. 2018) (quoting Fontenot v. McCraw, 777 F.3d 741, 747 (5th Cir. 2015)). “Allegations by a defendant that its voluntary conduct has mooted the plaintiff’s case require closer examination than allegations that ‘happenstance’ or official acts of third parties have mooted the case.” Id. (alterations omitted) (quoting Envt’l Conservation Org. v. City of Dallas, 529 F.3d 519, 528 n.4 (5th Cir. 2008)). 2 Defendants also raise an argument in their Reply brief that ICE has granted Ms. Rojas the relief she sought because they released her under an Order of Release on Recognizance and placed her under an electronic monitoring program. (Doc. No. 71, at 5). However, the Court ordered that Ms. Rojas be released “under appropriate conditions of supervised release.” (Doc. No. 41, at 17). Thus, ICE’s actions were taken pursuant to the Court’s order. Additionally, nothing in ICE’s Order of Release on Recognizance states that ICE cannot redetain Ms. Rojas; in fact, the one-page order contains multiple warnings that certain violations “may result in revocation of your release and your arrest and detention by Immigration and Customs Enforcement.” (Doc. No. 71-1, at 1). Thus, this document does not even imply that Defendants are no longer intending to defend their right to redetain Ms. Rojas in this case.

Case 4:20-cv-01241 Document 79 Filed on 05/25/20 in TXSD Page 8 of 9
mooted Ms. Rojas’s claims, and because the Court’s order that granted Ms. Rojas preliminary relief did not moot her interest in the final adjudication of her claims, Ms. Rojas’s claims have remained live cases or controversies throughout the pendency of this lawsuit. Thus, the Court has no basis to dismiss this case or strike Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint because of mootness. The Court hereby DENIES Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss and Motion to Strike Amended Complaint.
Having accepted Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint, the Court now turns to Plaintiffs’ pending motions, which seek certification of a class, expedited discovery on the identities of class members, and expedited relief for the class in the form of individualized bail hearings for release pending final adjudication of this lawsuit. The parties have briefed all pending motions and the Court heard argument on all pending motions at the hearing. However, the Court finds that it needs some additional information from Defendants about the proposed class before it can rule on any of Plaintiffs’ pending motions. In particular, the Court finds that Defendants’ claim that joinder is not impracticable, as required under Rule 23(a)(1) for class certification, is potentially meritorious. But the Court finds it cannot adjudicate the question of whether the proposed class members could bring their claims through joinder without some more information about the size and characteristics of the proposed class. Thus, the Court hereby ORDERS Defendants to file a supplemental brief that answers the following questions:
1. What is the current size of the proposed class, as defined by Plaintiffs in their Motion for Class Certification (Doc. No. 45-1, at 9)?
2. What is the composition of the individuals counted in Question 1, with regards to medical conditions? Please provide the number of proposed class members who have: (a) any CDC Risk Factors, as listed by Defendants in their Response to Motion for Class Certification

Case 4:20-cv-01241 Document 79 Filed on 05/25/20 in TXSD Page 9 of 9
(Doc. No. 73, at 17–18); (b) no CDC Risk Factors, but have hypertension; and (c) no CDC Risk Factors, and no hypertension, but are in Plaintiffs’ proposed class. 3. How many of the individuals counted in Question 1 are also class members in Fraihat v. U.S. Immigration & Customs Enf’t, 2020 WL 1932570 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 20, 2020)? 4. Pursuant to which statutory provisions are the individuals counted in Question 1 detained? Please provide the number of proposed class members who: (a) are detained pursuant to mandatory detention provisions; (b) are detained pursuant to discretionary detention provisions; (c) have been denied bond by an immigration judge or another authority; (d) are eligible for bond but have not had a bond adjudication. Defendants are not required to disclose any identifiable medical information. If there is information that Defendants consider to be sensitive medical information, they may file that information under seal or request that the Court review that information in camera. Defendants must file their response by Thursday, May 28, 2020 at 11:59PM. The Court will defer its ruling on Plaintiffs’ pending motions until after it receives Defendants’ response. IT IS SO ORDERED. SIGNED at Houston, Texas on this the 25th day of May, 2020.
KEITH P. ELLISON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

 </s> Case 4:20-cv-01241

Document 165 Filed on 10/19/20 in TXSD
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION

Page 1 of 10
United States District Court Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
October 19, 2020
David J. Bradley, Clerk

ROMAN VAZQUEZ BARRERA, et al,
Petitioners, VS.
CHAD WOLF, et al,
Respondents.

§ § § § CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:20-CV-1241 § § § §

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Pending before the Court are the Requests for Release on Bail of Plaintiff-Intervenors

(“Plaintiffs”) Alhamawi, Rodriguez Garcia, and Casco-George. (Docs. 148, 151, 160). After

considering the parties’ briefs, the Court determines that the requests by Plaintiffs Rodriguez

Garcia and Casco-George should be GRANTED, but the request by Plaintiff Alhamawi should be

DENIED. The Court addresses each Plaintiff’s request, in accordance with the legal standards and

criteria set out in this Court’s previous order. (Doc. 161).1

I. Plaintiff Abdullah Alhamawi (Doc. 148)

Alhamawi contends that he should be released for five reasons. First, he is “at serious risk

of severe illness or death” from COVID-19 because of his medical history, including cancer, a

bone marrow transplant, a history of seizures, chronic acid reflux, chronic heartburn, scoliosis,

arthritis, nerve damage, and bulging discs. (Doc. 148 at 2-4). Second, he has a strong incentive to

remain in Houston and abide by laws and conditions of release as he pursues his I-130 visa petition

filed by his wife. (Id. at 5). Third, he does not pose a danger to the community because his criminal

1 On October 14, Plaintiffs filed a Notice and Withdrawal of Request for Release informing the Court that Plaintiff Piñon Rocha was removed to Mexico. (Doc. 164). The Court therefore finds Plaintiff Piñon Rocha’s request denied as moot.
1

Case 4:20-cv-01241 Document 165 Filed on 10/19/20 in TXSD Page 2 of 10
history is limited to three misdemeanor convictions for driving under the influence—stemming from a struggle with substance abuse that arose after his sister’s death. (Id. at 5). Fourth, his wife (a medical assistant), mother, and mother-in-law would provide him with financial support and housing upon release. (Id. at 5-6). Fifth, Houston has been his and his family’s home since he was fifteen, and he has established long-term connections to the community including his wife, stepchildren, and his education towards a civil engineering degree. (Id. at 6-7).
The Government responds that Alhamawi should not be released for four reasons. First, Alhamawi’s medical conditions are not recognized by the CDC as proper risk factors, are not sufficiently substantiated by Alhamawi while he has been in detention, and he has already recovered from a prior COVID-19 infection. (Doc. 152 at 19-20). Second, Alhamawi is a “danger to society” because of his convictions for driving under the influence, possession of marijuana, and giving false information, as well as violations while under supervision. (Id. at 21-22). Third, the Government argues that Alhamawi is properly detained under § 1226(a) and was denied bond by an immigration judge. (Id. at 22). Fourth, the Government argues that Alhamawi is a flight risk because his visa petition is likely to be denied. (Id. at 22-23).
The Court will deny Alhamawi’s request for release for the following reasons: • Age. As this Court previously noted, age is a critical factor because of both potential risk
factors for COVID-19 and recidivism considerations. (Doc. 161 at 5). Alhamawi is thirty years old and thus his age alone does not place him in the higher risk levels for COVID19, although he does face a higher risk than an individual under 30.2 In addition, individuals
2 See CDC updates, expands list of people at risk of severe COVID-19 illness, Center for Disease Control and Prevention, https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2020/p0625-update-expands-covid19.html#:~:text=CDC%20now%20warns%20that%20among,severe%20illness%20from%20CO VID%2D19.
2

Case 4:20-cv-01241 Document 165 Filed on 10/19/20 in TXSD Page 3 of 10
between thirty and thirty-nine, a category which Alhamawi only barely falls in, are only slightly less likely to recidivate as compared to someone under thirty.3 Therefore, Alhamawi’s age weighs against release. • Medical History. Medical conditions and past exposure to COVID-19 are also both highly significant to the Court’s consideration. Alhamawi reports various medical conditions as described above. (Doc. 120-7 ¶ 4-11). The Court appreciates Dr. Averyt’s conclusion, upon a review of Alhamawi’s medical history, that he is at serious risk of complications from COVID-19. (Doc. 120-15 ¶ 20). On the other hand, CDC guidance leads to the conclusion that his conditions—although serious—are not currently recognized as risk factors for COVID-19. In addition, Alhamawi has already had COVID-19 and recovered. (Doc. 152-3 ¶ 12). Current CDC guidance continues to indicate that reinfection is possible but relatively unlikely.4 Alhamawi’s medical history thus does not weigh strongly in either direction. • Criminal History. Criminal history is another important factor. The Court understands the Government’s concerns about Alhamawi’s criminal record and violations while under supervision. The Court also recognizes Alhamawi’s struggle with substance abuse that seems to stem from the traumatic loss of his sister. Alhamawi has shown positive rehabilitation and appears to have a strong support system in his family, however the Court cannot take lightly the nature and recent time period of his convictions and arrest. For those reasons, this factor weighs against release.
3 UNITED STATES SENTENCING COMMISSION, THE EFFECTS OF AGING ON RECIDIVISM AMONG FEDERAL OFFENDERS 21 (2017). 4 Duration of Isolation and Precautions for Adults with COVID-19, Center for Disease Control and Prevention (last updated Sept. 10, 2020), https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019ncov/hcp/duration-isolation.html.
3

Case 4:20-cv-01241 Document 165 Filed on 10/19/20 in TXSD Page 4 of 10
• Flight Risk. The Court believes Alhamawi has relatively strong incentives to comply with conditions of release. Houston is essentially Alhamawi’s only home—having immigrated here from Saudi Arabia on a diplomatic visa at fifteen. He has strong ties to the community and a considerable support base in his mother, wife, and four stepchildren. He also has an I-130 visa petition which remains pending. Even if the petition is ultimately denied as the Government alleges is “likely” (Doc. 152 at 23), Alhamawi’s strong ties to the United States bolster his commitment to appeal any future denial. The Court is not convinced by the Government’s argument that his prior violations of court supervision suggest a flight risk, as they appear to stem from either substance abuse or poverty and are not flight related. Thus, this factor weighs in favor of release. Despite the fact that Alhamawi does not present a flight risk, his age, medical history, and
criminal history leave this Court with no present option but to deny Alhamawi’s Request for Release. II. Plaintiff Jose Rodriguez Garcia (Doc. 151)
Rodriguez Garcia argues that he should be released for five reasons. First, he is “at serious risk of severe illness or death” from COVID-19 because of his diabetes and heart disease. (Doc. 151 at 2-3). Second, he has a favorable immigration history, including thirty-seven years as a legal permanent resident and a case pending on appeal before the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”). (Id. at 5). Third, his criminal history is limited to a single misdemeanor in which he picked up a gun for a friend. (Id. at 5-6). Fourth, he has a plan for stable housing and quarantine with his wife and the 14-year-old grandson of whom they have custody. (Id. at 6). Fifth, he points to his extensive family network in the United States and the fact that his wife relies upon him for care. (Id. at 7).
4

Case 4:20-cv-01241 Document 165 Filed on 10/19/20 in TXSD Page 5 of 10
The Government responds with four arguments. First, the Government argues that Rodriguez Garcia’s medical conditions are vitiated by the fact that he has already contracted COVID-19 and he admits he does not typically wear a mask.5 (Doc. 154 at 19-20). Second, the Government argues that Rodriguez Garcia is a “danger to society” because Rodriguez Garcia attempted to smuggle firearms to Mexico. (Id. at 20-21). Third, the Government argues that Rodriguez Garcia is properly detained as an arriving alien. (Id. at 21). Fourth, the Government argues that Rodriguez Garcia is a flight risk because he has a pending order of removal. (Id. at 22).
The Court will grant Rodriguez Garcia’s request for release for the following reasons: • Age. As noted in the Court’s previous Order, advanced age cuts in favor of release both
because it raises the risk for severe illness for those infected by COVID-19 and because it lowers the risk that an offender will recidivate. (Doc. 161 at 5). At fifty-eight, Rodriguez Garcia is at a significantly increased risk for complications from COVID-19. Additionally, while Rodriguez Garcia is old enough that he is statistically unlikely to recidivate, that empirical figure is undermined by his recent conviction.6 Therefore, Rodriguez Garcia’s age cuts only slightly in his favor. • Medical History. Here, medical conditions and past exposure to COVID-19 weigh in opposite directions. Rodriguez Garcia’s diabetes, and possibly his heart condition, put him at high risk for COVID-19 complications. (Doc. 154-3 ¶ 7). Rodriguez Garcia has,
5 Rodriguez Garcia’s cited declaration states, “we do not wear masks inside the dorm, but there are some people who do. No MPC staff member has told me to wear my mask either when I was in quarantine or now.” (Doc. 120-8 ¶ 19). Rodriguez Garcia’s declaration dates back to July 22, 2020, at a time where Plaintiffs also alleged that Defendants had not provided guidance to detainees on proper mask practices. Thus, this does not compel the conclusion that Rodriguez Garcia is not concerned about his health nor undermine his medical conditions. 6 UNITED STATES SENTENCING COMMISSION, THE EFFECTS OF AGING ON RECIDIVISM AMONG FEDERAL OFFENDERS 21 (2017).
5

Case 4:20-cv-01241 Document 165 Filed on 10/19/20 in TXSD Page 6 of 10
however, already had COVID-19 and has since been medically cleared. (Doc. 154-3 ¶ 6). For the reasons previously stated by this Court, the sum total of Rodriguez Garcia’s medical history therefore does not cut strongly in either direction. (See Doc. 161 at 5). • Criminal History. Criminal history is relevant to Rodriguez Garcia’s propensity to commit a crime upon his release. Rodriguez Garcia’s criminal record is limited to a single offense from earlier this year. The Government does not dispute that Rodriguez Garcia was a law-abiding legal permanent resident for nearly four decades prior to his conviction. Moreover, Rodriguez Garcia’s conviction did not involve violent or threatening conduct, but merely the acquisition of a firearm. Thus, Rodriguez Garcia’s criminal history weighs in favor of his release. • Flight Risk. Finally, the Court will consider Rodriguez Garcia’s risk of flight. The Court believes that Rodriguez Garcia has good reasons to comply with conditions of release. He must take care of his wife and grandson, he has an extended family in Texas, and his immigration case remains pending on appeal. Given that Rodriguez Garcia’s immigration case is ongoing before the BIA, the Court is unpersuaded by the Government’s contention that the existence of a removal order inherently increases Rodriguez Garcia’s flight risk. In any case, Rodriguez Garcia’s strong family support and community ties outweigh any such increased risk. Therefore, this factor weighs in Rodriguez Garcia’s favor.
For those reasons—low flight risk, scant criminal history, somewhat advanced age, and relatively neutral medical history—the Court will grant Rodriguez Garcia’s Request for Release. III. Plaintiff Maria Casco-George (Doc. 160)
Casco-George argues that she should be released for five reasons. First, she has medical conditions that “place her at an increased risk of severe harm or death” from COVID-19 including
6

Case 4:20-cv-01241 Document 165 Filed on 10/19/20 in TXSD Page 7 of 10
diabetes, high blood pressure, high cholesterol, asthma, and gastritis. (Doc. 160 at 2-4). Second, she has strong incentive to abide by laws and court orders as she continues to fight for asylum by appealing her denial to the BIA. (Id. at 5-6). Third, she does not pose a danger to the community because she has no convictions, only pending charges for fleeing a police officer and burglary—a charge “she emphatically denies” and appears to stem from a domestic dispute with her allegedly abusive husband. (Id. at 6). Fourth, her daughter-in-law, a United States citizen, will provide financial and housing support upon her release. (Id. at 8). Fifth, Casco-George is an asylum-seeker fleeing threats against her and her daughters (ages eleven and seventeen), who has supported them up until her detention and has demonstrated model detainee conduct while in detention at MPC. (Id.).
The Government responds in turn that Casco-George should not be released for three reasons. First, although conceding that she has various medical conditions placing her at risk for complications from COVID-19 which require ongoing treatment, the Government also argues her other conditions are “irrelevant” and that she admits detainees only wear their masks when they leave their dorm.7 (Doc. 163 at 3-4). Second, she is a “danger to society and flight risk” because she has been arrested twice during the fourteen months she has been in the United States and not in custody. (Id. at 21-22). Third, the Government argues that Casco-George is properly detained under § 1226(a) and was denied bond by an immigration judge. (Id. at 6).
7 Casco-George’s declaration states, “we only wear the masks when we leave our dorm to go to the medic or to make phone calls. We are not required to use masks in our dorms . . . No MPC staff member has told me how to wear a mask or how to protect myself from COVID-19.” (Doc. 120-11 ¶ 15, 17). As with Rodriguez Garcia, this declaration is dated July 22, 2020 and, taken in context, alleges a lack of guidance to detainees on proper mask practices. The Court does not find that these statements vitiate Casco-George’s compromised medical condition, which the Government admits place her at heightened risk from COVID-19 complications.
7

Case 4:20-cv-01241 Document 165 Filed on 10/19/20 in TXSD Page 8 of 10
• Age. At forty-four, Casco-George’s age does not in and of itself place her in the highest risk levels for COVID-19, although she does face a higher risk than an individual in his or her thirties or forties. Similarly, the United States Sentencing Commission has found that individuals between the ages of forty and forty-nine years are slightly but not overwhelmingly statistically less likely to recidivate.8 As such, Casco-George is only slightly less likely to recidivate, though this is bolstered by the fact that the Court is not aware of any prior convictions. Thus, her age weighs in favor of release.
• Medical History. Casco-George’s diabetes, asthma, obesity, and high blood pressure present significant risks of severe harm if she were to become infected with COVID-19. There is also no indication that she has yet had COVID-19, which is particularly meaningful in light of Defendants’ significant intake of new detainees. (Doc. 163-1 ¶ 4). It appears that between September 27 and October 9, 2020, MPC has accepted approximately sixty-eight new detainees. (Id.; Doc. 154-2 ¶ 5). At this rate, the Court finds it unlikely that new detainees are housed individually, and more likely that all are being cohorted in groups of eight as Defendant Tate indicated. (Doc. 163-1 ¶ 8). This practice suggests cohorting of individuals with suspected or unconfirmed COVID-19 infections. It also appears new detainees are only being tested once upon arrival. (Id. ¶ 9). This limited testing combined with cohorting increases the risk of another outbreak in general population. The Government reports eight current cases among new detainees. (Id. ¶ 10). The intake conditions described render it highly possible that there will be more persons with an unidentified, active infection being released into general population. Therefore, this factor
8 UNITED STATES SENTENCING COMMISSION, THE EFFECTS OF AGING ON RECIDIVISM AMONG FEDERAL OFFENDERS 21 (2017).
8

Case 4:20-cv-01241 Document 165 Filed on 10/19/20 in TXSD Page 9 of 10
weighs heavily in favor of release from detention to a place where she can safely isolate herself. • Criminal History. Casco-George does not have any criminal convictions, although she has two pending cases. She has one case pending for failing to stop for a police officer. Particularly given her immigration status and recent arrival to the United States, this Court finds no nexus between that alleged conduct and any danger to the community or flight risk. Her second pending case appears to stem from a domestic dispute with her allegedly abusive partner. The parties strenuously dispute the facts of the event leading to her arrest and indictment. Given that that she has not been convicted of any offense, much less a felonious or violent one, Casco-George’s constitutional right to the presumption of innocence compels this Court to give minimal weight to the allegations. Moreover, even if the accusations were taken as true, they are not sufficiently violent such that she would pose a risk to the larger community. For these reasons, her minimal criminal history weighs in favor of release. • Flight Risk. Casco-George has not had the opportunity to build strong ties to the community, but she has a strong incentive to remain in the United States in order to appeal her immigration case and seek safety for her daughters and herself. Similar to Rodriguez, the Court is unpersuaded by the argument that her removal order makes her inherently likely to flee when she is also pursuing an appeal before the BIA and benefits from the support of her daughter-in-law and family friends. Thus, the Court finds that Casco-George has good reasons to comply with conditions of release and does not pose a high risk of flight.
9

Case 4:20-cv-01241 Document 165 Filed on 10/19/20 in TXSD Page 10 of 10 Based on her heightened medical risk, her criminal record limited to allegations, and
reduced flight risk, the Court will grant Casco-George’s release. The Court further orders all Plaintiffs to remain in Houston, respond promptly to any
contact by U.S. Customs and Border Protection, and not commit any new crimes. This order shall become effective upon issuance.
IT IS SO ORDERED. SIGNED at Houston, Texas on this the 19th day of October, 2020.
KEITH P. ELLISON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
10

 </s> Case 4:20-cv-01241

Document 145 Filed on 09/21/20 in TXSD
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION

Page 1 of 21
United States District Court Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
September 21, 2020
David J. Bradley, Clerk

ROMAN VAZQUEZ BARRERA, et al,
Petitioners, VS.
CHAD WOLF, et al,
Respondents.

§ § § § CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:20-CV-1241 § § § §

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff-Intervenors’ (“Plaintiffs”) Motion for Expedited

Relief. (Doc. 57). Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and the putative class, seek expedited relief

in the form of individualized bail hearings. Plaintiffs are individuals detained at Montgomery

Processing Center who are particularly vulnerable to serious illness and death from COVID-19

due to their age and/or underlying medical conditions. They allege that their continued detention

in the wake of the novel coronavirus pandemic violates their Fifth Amendment right to due process.

Plaintiffs urge the Court to remedy the ongoing constitutional violations—and risk to their lives—

through a process of bail hearings pending determination on the merits of their habeas petition.

After considering the Motion, the parties’ briefs and supplemental briefs, Amici Curiae’s brief,

parties’ oral arguments, and all applicable law, the Court determines that Plaintiffs’ Motion for

Expedited Relief should be GRANTED in part, as to the Plaintiffs, and DENIED in part, as to

provisional class certification.

1

Case 4:20-cv-01241 Document 145 Filed on 09/21/20 in TXSD Page 2 of 21
I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND Plaintiffs are eight1 individuals detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement
(“ICE”) at the Montgomery Processing Center (“MPC”) in Conroe, Texas. (Doc. 1 at ¶ 1). All Plaintiffs suffer from underlying medical conditions that place them at increased risk of severe illness or death from COVID-19.
The relevant timeline is as follows. On April 29, Plaintiffs reported knowledge of three detainees and three staff who were confirmed to have COVID-19. (Doc. 44 at ¶ 3). On May 4, 2020, when Plaintiffs filed this Motion, that number had increased to seven. (Doc. 57 at 3). On July 24, 2020, Defendants reported that there were 100 detainees and thirty-two staff members who had tested positive for a COVID-19 infection. (Doc. 119-2 at ¶ 2.b; Doc. 119-1 at ¶ 2-3). There was reportedly only one active case among detainees. (Doc. 119-2 at ¶ 2.b). On July 29, the number of confirmed cases was reported to be 206 detainees. (Doc. 135-11 at ¶ 4). And yet by August 11, Defendants reported zero active cases and deaths among detainees. (Doc. 123-2 at ¶ 1.b). For various reasons, however, the Court lacks confidence in these numbers.
In their September 4, 2020 update, Defendants did not provide a total number of detainees who have tested positive at MPC since late-July. (Doc. 134). They did not report whether and how many more cases were confirmed throughout August. The reality is we cannot know the number of deaths or the severity of the illness among the over 200 detainees who were infected because Defendants released, transferred, or removed hundreds of them—including those with current
1 The Court concludes there are currently eight Plaintiffs because Plaintiff Juana Hidrogo de Collins was reported by Defendants to have been removed to Mexico on August 7, 2020. (Doc. 123 at 1 n.1). Plaintiffs do not address Plaintiff Hidrogo de Collins’ current detention status in their recent Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order on September 4, 2020. (Doc. 137). This Court will assume Defendants are correct, due to their asymmetric access to information, unless Plaintiffs provide otherwise.
2

Case 4:20-cv-01241 Document 145 Filed on 09/21/20 in TXSD Page 3 of 21
infection and symptoms—amidst the outbreak. For example, former Plaintiff Bakasa had a confirmed COVID-19 infection with various symptoms when he was removed from the United States. (Doc. 95 at 1; Doc. 110 at 7).
Beginning in May 2020, Defendants reported various measures “striving to protect detainees from COVID-19.” (Doc. 64 at 39). Detainees are evaluated for symptoms and isolated if symptoms are present. (Doc. 66-13 at ¶ 8). Staff with symptoms are told to stay home and seek medical attention. (Doc. 66-13 at ¶ 14.B.ii). Staff temperatures are taken before entry. (Id.) Staff movement is also mitigated “when possible.” (Id.) However, staff are not tested with any regularity.
In addition, empty bunks are placed between detainees “[w]here possible.” (Id. at ¶ 15.) Detainees are issued masks weekly, along with a training document. (Id. at ¶ 17). There are also gloves available for detainees to use while cleaning various areas in the facility. (Id. at ¶ 18).
Defendants reported having adequate medical isolation and quarantine locations for those who test positive. (Id. at ¶ 11). If a detainee is symptomatic or tests positive, the remaining housing unit is then cohorted until test results are received. (Id. at ¶ 11.B). Any new detainees are assigned to an intake housing unit for 14 days. (Id. at ¶ 11.C).
Plaintiffs also described their experiences at MPC—which differ from Defendants’ account. Plaintiffs allege that, at least as of late July 2020, social distancing is not possible, and practices at MPC are insufficient to prevent the spread of COVID-19. (Doc. 135 at ¶ 187). Plaintiffs are not given hand sanitizer, or facial tissue, and there are often soap shortages. (Id. at ¶ 193, 201, 209, 220, 247). Plaintiffs, including those who are ill with COVID-19, clean the dormitories and bathrooms and are often not given gloves to do so. (Id. at ¶ 193, 202). Plaintiffs
3

Case 4:20-cv-01241 Document 145 Filed on 09/21/20 in TXSD Page 4 of 21
are given masks, but are only required to wear them outside their dormitory and many detainees do not wear masks while in their dormitory. (Id. at ¶ 194, 203, 215, 225, 241).
Plaintiffs report that many MPC staff fail to wear masks, and that staff are still assigned to various units throughout the facility. (See, e.g., Doc. 135-2 at ¶ 32-34; 135-4 at ¶ 15; 135-7 at ¶ 16). Notably, the staff member that Defendants depicted receiving a temperature check was not wearing a mask despite being in the building and within six feet of another staff member. (Doc. 64 at 41). Plaintiffs further allege they are not given any oral instructions on how to protect themselves—there are only written posters with limited guidance that do not include social distancing. (Doc. 135-3 at ¶ 21; Doc. 135-5 at ¶ 10). Plaintiff Rodriguez, as an example, cannot read the posters due to his vision issues. (Doc. 135-3 at ¶ 20).
Detainees who have tested positive are also transferred across various housing units during their COVID-19 recovery. (See, e.g., Doc. 135-2 at ¶ 12-20; Doc. 135-4 at ¶ 10-12). At least some Plaintiffs who have tested positive for COVID-19 do not appear to have been re-tested.
The Court appreciates the actions that Defendants have taken since the initiation of this suit and the outbreak that began in late April. The Court is encouraged by the considerable decrease in population at MPC. As of September 9, 2020, there were reportedly 161 detainees. (Doc. 143 at 5). The density within the housing units has also decreased. (Doc. 134-1 at ¶ 7). New detainees are tested and housed individually for fourteen days, then housed as a group another fourteen days, and enter general population after those twenty-eight days. (Doc. 143 at 38).
Defendants assert there has been a “near-total pause” of new detainees since June 11, 2020. (Doc. 134-1 at ¶ 5). Yet on August 11, 2020, Defendants also reported intaking thirty new detainees in the span of four days. (Doc. 123-2 at ¶ 1.b). Defendants have not provided a specific figure as to new intakes or the turnover at MPC, but stated to the court on September 10, 2020, that there
4

Case 4:20-cv-01241 Document 145 Filed on 09/21/20 in TXSD Page 5 of 21
could be new detainees entering in a few weeks. (Doc. 143 at 25). In addition, it is still the practice to cohort detainees who are suspected but unconfirmed to have COVID-19. (Id.) This practice continues despite Center for Disease Control and Prevention (“CDC”) guidance against cohorting unconfirmed cases.2 Staff are also not tested unless they report symptoms and are told to stay home. Because asymptomatic transmission of the disease is very common, many of these practices fall short and continue to threaten detainees at MPC.
The timeline of events at MPC demonstrates that, despite the measures Defendants allegedly implemented, the detention facility nonetheless experienced a significant outbreak of COVID-19 while those measures were already in place. II. PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Plaintiffs filed their Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief on April 8, 2020 (Doc. 1). On April 10, 2020, Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Temporary Restraining Order. (Doc. 12). The Court granted a preliminary injunction in part on April 17, 2020, and ordered the release of one Plaintiff. (Doc. 41). On April 29, 2020, Plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint and added multiple new Plaintiffs to the suit (all of whom are no longer in MPC custody). Plaintiffs also filed a Motion to Certify Class. (Doc. 45).
On May 1, 2020, Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction, along with a Motion to Strike the Amended Complaint. (Doc. 51; 52). Plaintiffs simultaneously filed a Motion to Expedite Discovery, requesting that Defendants identify the
2 Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Interim Guidance on Management of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) in Correctional and Detention Facilities, https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/community/correction-detention/guidancecorrectional-detention.html (last updated July 22, 2020).
5

Case 4:20-cv-01241 Document 145 Filed on 09/21/20 in TXSD Page 6 of 21
detainees in the proposed class. (Doc. 54; 55). On May 4, Plaintiffs also filed a Motion to Expedite Relief, seeking the immediate release of Plaintiffs and the putative class. (Doc. 57).
The Court held a Motions Hearing on May 21, 2020 to address the (1) Motion for Class Certification, (2) Motion to Dismiss, (3) Motion to Strike, (4) Motion for Expedited Discovery, and (5) Motion for Expedited Relief. On May 25, 2020, the Court denied Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss and Motion to Strike Amended Complaint. The Court also deferred ruling on Plaintiffs’ Motions until Defendants provided more information about the proposed class. Defendants filed responses to the Court’s questions on May 28, (Doc. 82), and May 29, (Doc. 86).
On June 1, Defendants filed an ex parte spreadsheet identifying the medical conditions, criminal history, and immigration status of putative class members. (Doc. 87). Plaintiffs then filed a Motion to Compel Production of the Ex Parte Filing. (Doc. 88). Defendants shortly after filed a second Motion to Dismiss. (Doc. 92).
On June 8, 2020, the Court held a hearing and granted Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Production of the Ex Parte Filing and Motion for Expedited Discovery. (Doc. 94). Defendants filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the Court’s discovery order (Doc. 109), which the Court denied after a hearing on June 29, 2020.
On July 30, 2020, nine Applicants filed an Emergency Motion to Intervene. (Doc. 120). The Court held a hearing on August 31, 2020, and granted the permissive intervention of the current Plaintiffs. On September 4, 2020, Plaintiffs filed an Intervenor Complaint, adopting the prior allegations and making additional allegations. (Doc. 135).
On September 10, 2020, the Court heard arguments on the second Motion to Dismiss, Motion for Expedited Relief, and Objections to the Motion for Expedited Relief. The Court denied the Motion to Dismiss, denied the Objections to the Motion for Expedited Relief, and granted
6

Case 4:20-cv-01241 Document 145 Filed on 09/21/20 in TXSD Page 7 of 21
Amici Law Professors’ Motion for Leave to File an Amicus Brief. (Doc. 139). The Court also took the current Motion under advisement. The Court now turns to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Expedited Relief. III. LEGAL STANDARD
District courts have the inherent authority to grant bail pending the merits of a habeas petition under limited circumstances. See Calley v. Callaway, 496 F.2d 701, 702 (5th Cir. 1974) (citing Aronson v. May, 85 S. Ct. 3 (1964)); Mapp v. Reno, 241 F.3d 221, 230 (2d Cir. 2001); Sacal-Micha v. Longoria, 449 F. Supp. 3d 656, 662 (S.D. Tex. 2020) (recognizing the inherent authority to grant bail in district courts but denying the grant of such relief); cf. Ex parte McCardle, 74 U.S. 506, 508 (1868) (petitioner admitted to bail pending final judgment on a habeas petition).
The Fifth Circuit has stated that, “[i]n spite of the lack of specific statutory authorization, it is within the inherent power of a District Court of the United States to enlarge a state prisoner on bond pending hearing and decision on his application for a writ of habeas corpus.” In re Wainwright, 518 F.2d 173, 174 (5th Cir. 1975) (per curiam); see also Boyer v. City of Orlando, 402 F.2d 966, 968 (5th Cir. 1968) (citing Dawkins v. Crevasse, 391 F.2d 921, 921–22 (5th Cir. 1968)) (granting immediate release on bail of state prisoner pending exhaustion for federal habeas review “in order to render [petitioner’s] remedies truly effective”).
In Aronson v. May, Justice Douglas recognized that this authority to grant bail pending a habeas petition extended beyond post-conviction habeas petitioners. 85 S. Ct. 3, 5 (1964). Indeed, Justice Douglas suggested habeas petitioners without a conviction could not only could seek this remedy, but may be subject to a lower standard than post-conviction prisoners. The Justice remarked, “[i]t is obvious that a greater showing of special reasons for admission to bail pending review should be required in this kind of case than would be required in a case where applicant
7

Case 4:20-cv-01241 Document 145 Filed on 09/21/20 in TXSD Page 8 of 21
had sought to attack by writ of habeas corpus an incarceration not resulting from a judicial determination of guilt.” Id.
The Fifth Circuit has also approved of applying authority for bail beyond post-conviction prisoners, including to immigrant habeas petitioners. See Pierre v. United States, 525 F.2d 933, 936 (5th Cir. 1976). In Pierre, the petitioners were Haitian citizens and refugees. Id. at 934. There, the court recognized the authority in habeas jurisdiction as including the “inherent power to grant bail pendente lite pending determination of the merits.” Id. at 936.
However, this remedy is available only if a petitioner can show (1) substantial constitutional claims upon which the petitioner has a high probability of success and (2) exceptional circumstances that make bail necessary in order to make the habeas remedy effective. See Calley, 496 F.2d at 702.
IV. ANALYSIS A. Whether the Court Holds Inherent Authority to Grant Bail Pending Plaintiffs’ Habeas Petition
Defendants posit that Congress has silently curtailed this authority for bail pending a habeas petition. The Court notes at the outset that Defendants must overcome two “clear-statement rules” to warrant such a conclusion. First, there is a “longstanding rule requiring a clear and unambiguous statement of congressional intent to repeal habeas jurisdiction.” INS v. St. Cyr, 533 U.S. 289, 298 (2001). This is especially true here because, “[a]t its historical core, the writ of habeas corpus has served as a means of reviewing the legality of Executive detention, and it is in that context that its protections have been strongest.” Rasul v. Bush, 542 U.S. 466, 474 (2004) (quoting St. Cyr, 533 U.S. at 300-301). Second, “where Congress intends to preclude judicial
8

Case 4:20-cv-01241 Document 145 Filed on 09/21/20 in TXSD Page 9 of 21
review of constitutional claims its intent to do so must be clear.” Demore v. Kim, 538 U.S. 510, 517 (2003).
This framework for habeas jurisdiction in immigration detention applies with equal force to a district court’s authority to grant bail because that authority lies within habeas corpus jurisdiction. If Congress must speak clearly and explicitly to foreclose habeas jurisdiction—which grants the power for ultimate release—it cannot silently curtail the bail authority rooted in that jurisdiction.
Defendants argue that this inherent bail authority has been curtailed by Congress’s mandatory detention for certain immigrants under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c). The Supreme Court has squarely held that “federal courts have jurisdiction to review a constitutional challenge to § 1226(c).” Demore, 538 U.S. at 517. By its plain terms, Section 1226(c) strips the executive branch’s statutory discretion over specific immigrants’ detention, but it does not restrict judicial review over the constitutionality of detention.3
Defendants’ reliance on Section 1226(e) is also misplaced.4 In Demore, the Supreme Court explicitly stated that Section 1226(e) does not bar habeas review for a constitutional challenge to detention, 538 U.S. at 517, and their reasoning applies here as well. Plaintiffs do “not challenge a ‘discretionary judgment’ by the Attorney General or a ‘decision’ that the Attorney General has made regarding his detention or release.” Id. at 516. They challenge the constitutionality of their confinement itself under the Fifth Amendment. Indeed, Section 1226(e) restricts judicial review
3 Section 1226(c) states in relevant part, “[t]he Attorney General shall take into custody any alien who . . .” 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c). 4 Section 1226(e) states, “[t]he Attorney General’s discretionary judgment regarding the application of this section shall not be subject to review. No court may set aside any action or decision by the Attorney General under this section regarding the detention or release of any alien.” 8 U.S.C. § 1226(e).
9

Case 4:20-cv-01241 Document 145 Filed on 09/21/20 in TXSD Page 10 of 21
of the Attorney General’s discretionary decisions, while Section 1226(c), in turn, strips the Attorney General of precisely that discretion. Thus, the Attorney General’s discretion is not implicated in Section 1226(c) at all.
Second, Defendants assert that the REAL ID Act of 2005 foreclosed habeas review of removal orders. While that may be true, this argument would apply to the petitioner in Bolante, who sought review of his removal order, but not to Plaintiffs. As already established, Plaintiffs have filed a habeas petition challenging their detention as unconstitutional under the Fifth Amendment—they do not seek review of a removal order.
For similar reasons, the Court declines to adopt the holding in Bolante v. Keisler, 506 F.3d 618 (7th Cir. 2007). As this Court already discussed (Doc. 41 at 9 n.2), the petitioner in Bolante sought bond while a challenge to his removal order was pending in the court of appeals—not a habeas petition. 506 F.3d at 619. The Seventh Circuit found no authority for bail under those circumstances, but did affirm that the “[i]nherent judicial authority to grant bail to persons who have asked for relief in an application for habeas corpus is a natural incident of habeas corpus, the vehicle by which a person questions the government’s right to detain him.” Id. at 620. Thus, Bolante is inapposite to the instant case. However, this Court need not rely on out-of-circuit precedent, either in Bolante or Mapp v. Reno, 241 F.3d 221 (2d Cir. 2001), because it can apply Fifth Circuit and Supreme Court precedent to grant bail pending this habeas petition.
Finally, Defendants argue that 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) foreclosed the Court’s authority to grant bail.5 Again, the Supreme Court has already held that this provision does not bar habeas
5 As relevant here, 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) states, “no court shall have jurisdiction to review . . . any other decision or action of the Attorney General or the Secretary of Homeland Security the authority for which is specified under this subchapter to be in the discretion of the Attorney General or the Secretary of Homeland Security.”
10

Case 4:20-cv-01241 Document 145 Filed on 09/21/20 in TXSD Page 11 of 21
claims that challenge the constitutionality of detention—notwithstanding the executive authority under the statute. Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 688 (2001). As discussed above, Plaintiffs do not seek review of DHS’s discretionary decisions to detain them.6 Rather, they challenge their detention on constitutional grounds, and the Supreme Court has made clear that habeas jurisdiction remains open for them to do so. Id.
Defendants also point to generalities about immigration being the prominent domain of the political branches. While the Supreme Court has recognized Congress’s plenary power in immigration, it has also consistently allowed for habeas detention challenges—notwithstanding the provisions relied on by Defendants. See, e.g., Jennings, 138 S. Ct. at 837–39 (deciding merits of habeas petition challenging indefinite mandatory detention under §§ 1225(b) and 1226(c)); Demore, 538 U.S. at 517 (finding jurisdiction to review habeas challenge to § 1226(c)); Zadvydas, 533 U.S. at 688 (holding that habeas remains available to review challenges to post-removal detention under § 1252).
Defendants’ attempt to reshape jurisdiction-stripping provisions, that are inapposite to Plaintiffs’ claims, are out of line with the robust framework requiring clear statements from Congress to bar constitutional challenges to detention under habeas. It does not follow that Congress silently foreclosed the authority—within habeas jurisdiction—to grant bail, while simultaneously allowing judicial courts to order the ultimate release of successful habeas
6 In Sacal-Micha, the district court rejected a similar argument. In that case, the government contested the court’s authority to grant bail by arguing that the petitioner could only be released through discretionary parole by DHS (pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1182(d)(5)(A)) because the petitioner was detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b). Sacal-Micha, 449 F. Supp. 3d at 662-63. The court aptly noted that, “this Court would not order Sacal’s release by finding that the Secretary of DHS should have done so under Section 1182, but only by finding that releasing Sacal is necessary to meaningfully consider Sacal’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and to maintain the possibility of providing effective habeas remedy.” Id.
11

Case 4:20-cv-01241 Document 145 Filed on 09/21/20 in TXSD Page 12 of 21
petitioners. Therefore, the Court holds it has the proper authority to grant bail pending the final adjudication of Plaintiffs’ habeas petition.
B. High Probability of Success on Substantial Constitutional Claims Plaintiffs must first show that they allege “substantial constitutional claims upon which [there is] a high probability of success.” Calley, 496 F.2d at 702.7 Here, the Plaintiffs allege that their continued detention violates their Fifth Amendment rights under the Due Process Clause. (Doc. 44 at ¶ 132-46). Immigration detainees are entitled to constitutional protections under the Due Process Clause, like pretrial detainees, and not the Eighth Amendment. Edwards v. Johnson, 209 F.3d 772, 778 (5th Cir. 2000). In Zadvydas v. Davis, the Supreme Court reiterated that “[f]reedom from imprisonment—from government custody, detention, or other forms of physical restraint—lies at the heart of the liberty that [the Due Process] Clause protects.” 533 U.S. 678, 690 (2001). Detention outside of criminal punishment is only constitutional under certain “special and ‘narrow’ nonpunitive circumstances,” where a “special justification . . . outweighs the ‘individual’s constitutionally protected interest in avoiding physical restraint.’” Id. (quoting Kansas v. Hendricks, 521 U.S. 346, 356 (1997)). To be valid, detention must bear a “reasonable relation to the purpose for which the individual [was] committed.” Id. (quoting Jackson v. Indiana, 406 U.S.
7 Plaintiffs assert that some courts have not required immigration petitioners to prove a likelihood of success on the merits because, as civil detainees, they are subject to a lower standard than post-conviction prisoners. (Doc. 57 at 6 n.2). In Aronson v. May, Justice Douglas stated, “[i]t is obvious that a greater showing of special reasons for admission to bail pending review should be required in this kind of case than would be required in a case where applicant had sought to attack by writ of habeas corpus an incarceration not resulting from a judicial determination of guilt.” 85 S. Ct. 3, 5 (1964). It is true that Plaintiffs are subject to civil detention and there has been no judicial determination of their guilt. However, Justice Douglas indicated civil detainees would be subject to a lower standard, but did not specifically note that this lower standard resulted in not having to show a likelihood of success. Therefore, the Court will apply the standard as set out in Supreme Court and Fifth Circuit precedent.
12

Case 4:20-cv-01241 Document 145 Filed on 09/21/20 in TXSD Page 13 of 21
715, 738 (1972)). Where detention does not reasonably relate to a “legitimate, nonpunitive governmental objective,” that detention falls outside the constitutional bounds of due process. Cadena v. El Paso Cty., 946 F.3d 717, 727 (5th Cir. 2020).
This Court has already concluded there is a “substantial likelihood” that Plaintiffs will prevail on the merits of the aforementioned claims when it granted a preliminary injunction on April 17, 2020. (Doc. 41 at 13). Between the Court’s preliminary injunction and the present, circumstances further deteriorated, and the Court’s concerns were only confirmed. Plaintiffs and all detainees at MPC suffered a significant outbreak of COVID-19—amounting to 206 confirmed cases among detainees and at least thirty-two among staff.
As described in detail supra, Defendants had protective measures in place at MPC on May 18, 2020. At first blush, the measures seem extensive. However, they are severely undermined by the fact that such practices were implemented in May, and yet MPC suffered a massive outbreak in June and July under those practices. It appears that MPC, as the Court predicted, could not take sufficient steps to prevent an outbreak and harm to detainees.
Other district courts have similarly recognized that, despite the efforts by detention facilities, immigration habeas petitioners had met the standard to invoke bail while their petitions were pending. In Yanes v. Martin, for example, the relevant facility had “instituted a number of new procedures in response to the health risk.” No. 120CV00216MSMPAS, 2020 WL 3047515, at *3 (D.R.I. June 2, 2020). Likewise, in Savino, the government described “strict protocols” instituted to prevent COVID-19 infection, yet the district court found that petitioners had shown a likelihood of success on the merits. Savino v. Souza, ––– F.Supp.3d ––––, 2020 WL 1703844, at *1, 8 (D. Mass. Apr. 8, 2020). The petitioners in both Yanes and Savino disputed many of the
13

Case 4:20-cv-01241 Document 145 Filed on 09/21/20 in TXSD Page 14 of 21
measures the government alleged it had put in place. 2020 WL 3047515 at *3; 2020 WL 1703844 at *2.
In Yanes, the court found that, even assuming the factual assertions by the government were true, the substantial risk of harm to the petitioners remained. 2020 WL 3047515 at *3. In spite of the precautionary efforts made, the number of cases continued to increase. Id. There was continued congregation, including the cohorting of detainees while they awaited test results, staff mingling throughout the institution, and inconsistent information regarding new detainees. Id. As to the staff, the court observed that “staff clearly go in and out of the institution and mix to varying degrees with family and the public.” Id. Additionally, the “high rate of false negative tests” undermined the process for new detainees. Id. at *4. Based on such circumstances, the court held “the burden [was] carried by the conditions that Respondents concede are present,” and warranted relief in the form of bail hearings. Id. at *6.
In the instant case, there is also much dispute as to the actual implementation of some measures. But even if the Court were to assume the alleged measures are in place, the circumstances as conceded by Defendants, continue to present substantial risk of harm to detainees. Within the housing units, there is continued congregation where detainees are not required to wear masks, Defendants continue to cohort housing units with suspected COVID-19 cases, and there is no regular testing of staff despite the persistent threat of staff presenting the virus into the facility.
Similarly, the uncertainty of how many new detainees are being brought into MPC undermines the ability of Defendants to maintain their alleged decline in cases. While Defendants ambiguously allege a “near-total pause” (Doc. 134-1 at ¶ 5), they also reported processing as many as thirty new detainees in the span of only four days. (Doc. 123-2 at ¶ 1.a). Defendants’ uncertainty
14

Case 4:20-cv-01241 Document 145 Filed on 09/21/20 in TXSD Page 15 of 21
about the influx of new detainees also does not offer much comfort. (Doc. 143 at 25). While new detainees are tested upon arrival, that process is likewise undermined by the high rate of false negatives, which will only be exacerbated if there is an increase in new detainees.
Unlike at MPC, however, in Savino, there had not been any detainees who had tested positive for COVID-19 and only one staff member. 2020 WL 1703844, at *2. In Yanes, there were forty-seven positive test results and no active cases among ICE detainees. 2020 WL 3047515 at *3 n.7. Here, the number of positive tests at MPC grew logarithmically—from three to seven to a hundred and then two hundred. The events between April and the present further confirm that MPC’s measures are inadequate to stop the spread of an outbreak.
The Court is also left with doubts as to how MPC went from over 200 cases confirmed in late July, to reporting “zero active cases” in August. (Doc. 123-2 at ¶ 1.b). At least part of that decline was because Defendants released or transferred detainees with active COVID-19 infections and symptoms—thereby placing our broader community and health care systems at risk. The very limited testing also gives pause to the Court in accepting such a sharp decline.
Aside from the conditions within MPC, Defendants also make the argument that GPS monitoring is not an adequate alternative to detention because many detainees abscond, GPS does not monitor criminal activity, and ICE’s resources are limited. (Doc. 64 at 47). If ICE continues to implement Alternatives to Detention, it is because it still considers such tools to be a reasonable alternative to detention. Unless ICE ends such alternatives, finding them ineffective or unreasonable, the Court will consider them as reasonable alternatives. As to the limited resources, the Court takes notice that, aside from GPS units, SmartLink and telephone reporting are two additional alternatives available to surveil immigrants upon release. (Doc. 75-6 at ¶ 17).
15

Case 4:20-cv-01241 Document 145 Filed on 09/21/20 in TXSD Page 16 of 21
Given the timeline of events, the continued threat of another outbreak running its course through MPC, and the available alternatives to detention, the Court is unconvinced that Defendants’ continued practices—which are similar to the practices in place before the last outbreak—should compel this Court to depart from its prior conclusion. Under present circumstances, the continued detention of medically vulnerable Plaintiffs does not reasonably relate to a legitimate government purpose. Plaintiffs have thus met the first prong in showing a high probability of success in what are decisively substantial constitutional claims.
C. Exceptional Circumstances Plaintiffs must also show “exceptional circumstances that make bail necessary to make the habeas remedy effective.” Calley, 496 F.2d at 702. The Fifth Circuit has explicitly recognized one example of such circumstances as a “serious deterioration of petitioner’s health while incarcerated.” Id. at n.1; see also Kennedy v. Adler, 35 F. App’x. 386 (5th Cir. 2002) (per curiam); United States v. Stafford, 253 F.3d 701 (5th Cir. 2001) (per curiam). The highly lethal and contagious nature of COVID-19, in the backdrop of our modern immigration detention system and Plaintiffs’ medical vulnerabilities, fall nothing short of exceptional. The Court need not recount the death toll and devastation to make the point that the stakes are high, and Plaintiffs’ position in a detention facility make their circumstances all the more precarious. In May, Defendants insisted that any deterioration to detainees’ health was speculative. (Doc. 62 at 48). Unfortunately, those statements have not aged well. Between approximately May and August 2020, over two hundred detainees, including four Plaintiffs, became infected with COVID-19. Because hundreds of detainees were released amidst the outbreak, we cannot know
16

Case 4:20-cv-01241 Document 145 Filed on 09/21/20 in TXSD Page 17 of 21

for certain the extent of harm or death that resulted to detainees from that outbreak. The risk of serious health deterioration is either already present or persistently ominous for Plaintiffs.
The Court is unpersuaded by Defendants’ position that serious illness or death from a virus with no cure, no vaccine, and sparse effective treatment is somehow unexceptional.8 While it may be true that a district court’s authority to grant bail pending a habeas petition seldom has been warranted, our society is seldom thrown into the throes of an incessant pandemic in which measures that may be unusual but are safely within legal authority must be invoked.
Plaintiffs continue to face grave risk of serious illness or death if they are infected with COVID-19 while in detention at MPC. Those who have already been infected remain at risk of further deterioration to their health because many patients report ongoing symptoms for weeks or months beyond the medical isolation period. (Doc. 135-11 at ¶ 8). In addition, the CDC reports that any protection from reinfection is uncertain.9 Under these circumstances, it is “particularly

8 Defendants also made specific arguments regarding Plaintiffs Bakasa and Diaz-Ramirez. Because both Plaintiffs are no longer in detention at MPC, those arguments are no longer relevant. And as to the question of hypertension, the CDC has since recognized hypertension as a risk factor that may increase the risk of severe illness from COVID-19, and ICE has also acknowledged as much. See Center for Disease Control and Prevention, People with Certain Medical Conditions, https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/need-extra-precautions/people-with-medicalconditions.html#serious-heart-conditions) (identifying hypertension as a condition that may cause an increased risk) (updated September 11, 2020); U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Enforcement and Removal Operations, COVID-19 Pandemic Response Requirements, https://www.ice.gov/doclib/coronavirus/eroCOVID19responseReqsCleanFacilities.pdf (updated September 4, 2020). However, the CDC also currently states that “people whose only underlying medical condition is hypertension are not considered to be at higher risk.” Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Interim Clinical Guidance for Management of Patients with Confirmed Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19), https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/clinicalguidance-management-patients.html (updated September 10, 2020). The Court will take these current findings into consideration when making individual bail decisions.

9 Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Interim Clinical Guidance for Management of

Patients

with

Confirmed

Coronavirus

Disease

(COVID-19),

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/clinical-guidance-management-

patients.html (updated September 10, 2020).

17

Case 4:20-cv-01241 Document 145 Filed on 09/21/20 in TXSD Page 18 of 21
compelling to at least consider bail because the remedy that the petition ultimately seeks . . . would be illusory and, indeed, moot for any petitioner who became sick and suffered major adverse effects or even death as a consequence of confinement during the pendency of the action.” Yanes, 2020 WL 3047515 at *2.
Thus, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have shown exceptional circumstances making bail necessary for a habeas remedy to be effective. In line with the nationwide trend, the Court joins other district courts who have invoked their authority to grant bail in immigrant detainee habeas petitions during the COVID-19 pandemic. See, e.g., Zepeda Rivas v. Jennings, 445 F. Supp. 3d 36, 41 (N.D. Cal. 2020); Yanes v. Martin, No. 120CV00216MSMPAS, 2020 WL 3047515, at *6 (D.R.I. June 2, 2020); Ferreyra v. Decker, ––– F. Supp. 3d ––––, 2020 WL 1989417, at *12 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 27, 2020); Gomes v. DHS, No. 20-cv-453-LM, Dkt. 34 at 2-4 (D.N.H. April 27, 2020); Savino v. Souza, ––– F.Supp.3d ––––, 2020 WL 1703844, at *8-9 (D. Mass. Apr. 8, 2020); Avendaño Hernandez v. Decker, No. 20-CV-1589 (JPO), 2020 WL 1547459, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 31, 2020); Coronel v. Decker, 20-cv-2472 (AJN), 449 F. Supp. 3d 274, 288-89 (S.D.N.Y. 2020); cf. Arana v. Barr, No. 1:19-cv-07924-PGG-DCF, 2020 WL 1502039, at *9 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 27, 2020), report and recommendation adopted in part, rejected in part, No. 19 CIV. 7924 (PGG), ––– F. Supp. 3d ––––, 2020 WL 1659713, at *8 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 3, 2020) (ordering bond hearing before an immigration judge or release on his own recognizance).
D. Provisional Class Certification Plaintiffs also ask the Court to grant provisional class certification for the putative class, defined as “[a]ll persons who are now, or will in the future be, detained in ICE custody at the Montgomery Processing Center, and who have been diagnosed with, or are receiving treatment for, an underlying medical condition and/or are over the age of 50.” (Doc. 45-1 at 9).
18

Case 4:20-cv-01241 Document 145 Filed on 09/21/20 in TXSD Page 19 of 21
At this time, the Court declines to grant provisional class certification. This does not constitute a ruling on the pending motion for class certification. (Doc. 45). The Court finds that it need not grant class certification to assuage the risks to those in detention at MPC who are most vulnerable to death or serious medical illness. As of September 9, 2020, there are reportedly 161 detainees at MPC. (Doc. 143 at 5). Plaintiffs account for eight of those detainees. The Court has already ordered discovery to assist Plaintiffs in identifying other putative class members. The Court believes Plaintiffs’ counsel can identify additional detainees who may similarly be entitled to permissive intervention and expedited relief in the form of bail.
Defendants contend that individual bail determination necessarily defeats Rule 23 because the relief would no longer be indivisible. (Doc. 64 at 15) (citing Wal-Mart v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338, 361 (2011)). The Court disagrees. First, Plaintiffs indeed seek an indivisible form of relief: each Plaintiff seeks a bail hearing. The ultimate outcome of that bail hearing may or may not be the same for each Plaintiff—but that does not defeat the identical relief sought and granted. Second, the bail hearings are, by definition, pending final relief on the merits. A final judgment may still result in indivisible relief. Thus, the Court’s order for individual bail hearings does not defeat a future class certification or impact any final remedy on the merits.
For similar reasons, the Court rejects Defendants’ position that granting bail pending a habeas petition equates to final relief and renders a claim moot. In denying Defendants’ First Motion to Dismiss, the Court discussed at length why a preliminary injunction in the form of release does not moot a claim where final adjudication on the merits remains pending. (Doc. 79 at 2-8). This Court will not repeat itself here but will emphasize that any release pursuant to a bail determination would be pending the final adjudication of the habeas petition.
19

Case 4:20-cv-01241 Document 145 Filed on 09/21/20 in TXSD Page 20 of 21
Because the Court declines to grant provisional class certification, it refrains from making any findings on the appropriateness of such measures or whether 8 U.S.C. § 1252(f)(1) prohibits classwide injunctive relief.
E. Individual Bail Proceedings In accordance with other district courts, the Court grants an individual bail hearing for Plaintiffs who (1) have a medical condition recognized as a risk factor for COVID-19 and (2) do not have a violent and felonious criminal history. The Court is guided by other district courts in adopting the appropriate factors for individual bail determinations. In Zepeda Rivas v. Jennings, for example, the district court held that release was not warranted unless four factors were shown: “(i) the likelihood that the class will ultimately prevail on its habeas petition; (ii) the risk posed to the detainee by current conditions at the facilities; (iii) the likelihood that the detainee will not be a danger to the community if released with conditions; and (iv) the likelihood that the detainee will appear for subsequent immigration/removal proceedings as required.”––– F. Supp. 3d –––, 2020 WL 3055449 at *1 (N.D. Cal. June 9, 2020). And in Yanes v. Martin, the district court ordered the parties to “address all relevant considerations, including any special characteristics of the detainee relative to medical risks, his criminal and immigration history, the danger if any to public safety presented by the release of that particular detainee, and the specific petitioner’s plan for release.” 2020 WL 3047515 at *3. Like other courts, the Court will consider any relevant factors, including risks posed by their medical conditions and age, immigration history, criminal history, whether the Plaintiff poses a danger to the community, whether plaintiff poses a flight risk, and the Plaintiff’s plan for housing and proper quarantine upon release.
20

Case 4:20-cv-01241 Document 145 Filed on 09/21/20 in TXSD Page 21 of 21
At a hearing on September 10, 2020, Defendants raised the prospect of discovery on Plaintiffs’ criminal histories. It is the Court’s understanding that if Defendants oppose release on the basis of criminal convictions, it is because they have a factual or documented basis for such convictions. Defendants have broader access to such records as part of their routine investigation and proceedings—not Plaintiffs or their counsel. Defendants are free to provide exhibits from Plaintiffs’ A-File or other necessary affidavits.
Therefore, as a logistical matter, the Court orders: 1. Plaintiffs will submit a brief in support of granting bail for each qualifying Plaintiff. 2. Defendants will then be given 48 hours to file a response. 3. The parties shall file any briefs and documentation under seal. 4. The Court will make a decision on the pleadings as soon as practicable. 5. Either party may move for reconsideration of a bail decision, and the Court will thereafter
set a hearing. V. CONCLUSION
The Court therefore GRANTS in part Plaintiffs’ Motion for Expedited Relief and ORDERS individual bail proceedings as to the Plaintiffs who meet the requirements set out above. The Court DENIES in part Plaintiffs’ Motion as to the provisional class certification.
IT IS SO ORDERED. SIGNED at Houston, Texas on this the 21st day of September, 2020.
KEITH P. ELLISON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
21


[CONTENT] four | the Montgomery Processing Center | COVID-19 |||  ||| April | one ||| September ||| Three | October ||| November |||  ||| April 8, 2020 | four | U.S. Immigrations and Customs Enforcement | ICE | the Montgomery Processing Center ||| ACLU | 28 |||  ||| COVID-19 | the Fifth Amendment ||| Keith P. Ellison ||| April 10 ||| April 17 | Ellison ||| 455 | 330 ||| one |||  ||| Ten days later ||| two ||| April 29 | four | COVID-19 ||| Two | May 1 |||  ||| MPC | the age of 50 ||| May 1 ||| May 1 and 4 ||| at least six | five | MPC | COVID-19 ||| May 25 | April 17 |||  ||| 2020 WL | 2617939 ||| June 5 ||| June 7 | June 23 ||| July 30 | August 31 |||  ||| September 4 | September 10 | September 21 ||| 2020 | WL 5646138 ||| July 29 | COVID-19 | MPC | 206 ||| August 11 | zero ||| MPC | COVID-19 ||| October | three | one ||| 2020 ||| WL 6130717 ||| November 20 | September 21 |||  [SUMMARY] COVID-19 Summary: This is a habeas action filed by four immigrants held at the Montgomery Processing Center, seeking release in light of COVID-19. The plaintiffs alleged that they were particularly vulnerable to the virus due to their medical conditions. In April, the court issued a temporary restraining order that provided for the release of one of the individual plaintiffs. In September, the court entered an order granting the plaintiffs' motion for individualized bail hearings. Three detainees were released in October. The defendants appealed in November. The case is ongoing. <hr>

On April 8, 2020, a group of four immigrants in detention filed this lawsuit against U.S. Immigrations and Customs Enforcement ("ICE"), ICE officials, and the warden of the Montgomery Processing Center ("MPC"). Represented by the ACLU and private counsel, the petitioners sought writs of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Alternatively, they sought declaratory and injunctive relief. Specifically, the petitioners argued that by detaining them, the defendants were subjecting them to an unreasonable risk of contracting COVID-19 in violation of the Fifth Amendment.

The case was assigned to Judge Keith P. Ellison.

On April 10, the plaintiffs filed a motion for temporary restraining order.

On April 17, Judge Ellison entered an order granting in part and denying in part the plaintiffs' motion for a temporary restraining order. 455 F.Supp.3d 330. The government was required to release one plaintiff from detention because the plaintiff did not have a history of violence, so the danger to the plaintiff in detention outweighed the public interest in safety; the court issued this order as a preliminary injunction rather than a temporary restraining order. The court declined to order the release of another plaintiff due to his history of violence and violation of previous court protective orders. Ten days later that plaintiff was transferred to a different detention facility. (The two other individual plaintiffs had already been released.) 

On April 29, the plaintiffs filed an amended class action complaint with four additionally plaintiffs with medical conditions that put them at higher risk of serious illness or death if they contracted COVID-19. Two of those plaintiffs were later released on May 1. The plaintiffs also filed a motion to certify the class. The proposed class consisted of "all individuals detained at MPC who have been diagnosed with or are receiving treatment for an enumerated list of medical conditions... and/or who are over the age of 50." 

The defendants filed a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction on May 1 on the basis that the plaintiffs' claims were mooted after each was either transferred or released. On May 1 and 4, the plaintiffs moved to expedite discovery and to expedite relief. In the meantime, at least six detainees and five MPC staff members had tested positive for COVID-19. 

On May 25, the court denied the defendants' motion to dismiss because the plaintiff that secured release through the April 17 preliminary injunction still had standing to amend the complaint since her claims had not been finally adjudicated. The court also ordered that plaintiffs submit supplemental information on the proposed class certification before the court rule on the other outstanding motions. 2020 WL 2617939.

Defendants filed another motion to dismiss the amended complaint on June 5. Plaintiffs filed a motion for a temporary restraining order on June 7 which was denied as moot on June 23. Several detainees filed an emergency motion to intervene on July 30 which was granted on August 31. The court found that the intervenors met the requirements for permissive intervention, but not intervention as of right.

The intervenors filed a complaint, adopting the prior allegations and making additional allegations, and a motion for a temporary restraining order on September 4. 

On September 10, the court denied defendants' motion to dismiss and on September 21, the court declined to grant provisional class certification, but granted in part plaintiffs' motion for expedited relief and outlined a process for the parties to proceed with individualized bail hearings for plaintiffs with high risk medical conditions that did not have violent and felonious criminal histories. 2020 WL 5646138. The court noted that by July 29, the number of confirmed COVID-19 cases among detainees at MPC was reported to be 206. By August 11, defendants reported zero active cases and deaths, but the court noted that it "lack[ed] confidence in these numbers." The court also noted that "the timeline of events at MPC demonstrates that, despite the measures [d]efendants allegedly implemented, the detention facility nonetheless experienced a significant outbreak of COVID-19 while those measures were already in place."

In October, the court granted bail for three detainees and denied bail for one detainee. 2020 WL 6130717. On November 20, the defendants appealed the bail determinations and the court's September 21 order granting the plaintiffs' motion for individualized bail hearings. 

The case is ongoing. 