Case Name Barrera v. Wolf IM-TX-0053
Docket / Court 4:20-cv-01241 ( S.D. Tex. )
State/Territory Texas
Case Type(s) Immigration and/or the Border
Special Collection COVID-19 (novel coronavirus)
Attorney Organization ACLU Affiliates (any)
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 ... read more >
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.
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 (No. 20-20617).
The parties filed a joint stipulation on December 23, 2020 asking the court to stay consideration of discovery motions in order for the parties to seek a resolution without the court's intervention. The court granted the motion, requesting a status report by January 7, 2021.
On February 11, 2021, the defendants filed a motion to dissolve the preliminary injunction that released on of the plaintiffs and on March 26, they filed a motion to vacate the court's orders releasing various plaintiffs. The defendants also filed a notice with the court based on a recent Fifth Circuit decision in Rice v. Gonzalez, which they argued was intervening, in that the court had affirmed a denial of a writ of habeas corpus that sought release from pre-trial custody due to the COVID pandemic.
On May 28, Judge Ellison stayed consideration on the defendants' motions, finding that Rice was not intervening. 2021 WL 2188563. The court distinguished Rice, noting how the Fifth Circuit had emphasized the availability of § 1983 as a means of relief for that plaintiff, while § 1983 was not available to the plaintiffs in this case, who were not detained by a state actor. The court found that in this case, the plaintiffs were not seeking collateral relief or an injunction against their conditions of confinement, but rather about the custodial restraint upon their liberty in an area where habeas claims have historically been the strongest.
The case is ongoing.
Caitlin Kierum - 05/09/2020
Chandler Hart-McGonigle - 11/27/2020
Due Process: Substantive Due Process
Content of Injunction
Preliminary relief granted
Mitigation Granted
Mitigation Requested
Release Granted
Release granted-group
Release granted-individual
Release Requested
Release-process created/modified
Defendant-type
Law-enforcement
Bathing and hygiene
Conditions of confinement
Habeas Corpus
Sanitation / living conditions
Totality of conditions
Immigration/Border
Detention - conditions
Detention - criteria
Undocumented immigrants - rights and duties
Special Case Type
Habeas
Causes of Action Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201
Ex parte Young (federal or state officials)
Habeas Corpus, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2241-2253; 2254; 2255
Defendant(s) Immigration and Customs Enforcement
Plaintiff Description Four immigrants held at the Montgomery Processing Center. Proposed Class: "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."
Indexed Lawyer Organizations ACLU Affiliates (any)
Class action status outcome Pending
Nature of Relief Preliminary injunction / Temp. restraining order
Case Ongoing Yes
Vazquez Barrera et al v. Wolf et al
https://www.aclutx.org/
Date: Apr. 8, 2020
By: ACLU of Texas
S.D. Tex.
06/21/2021 4:20-cv-01241
IM-TX-0053-9000.pdf | Detail
Verified Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 and Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief [ECF# 1]
Memorandum and Order [ECF# 41] (455 F.Supp.3d 330)
IM-TX-0053-0002.pdf | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Memorandum and Order [ECF# 79] (2020 WL 2617939)
IM-TX-0053-0003.pdf | WESTLAW | Detail
Memorandum and Order [ECF# 145] (2020 WL 5646138)
Judges Ellison, Keith P. (S.D. Tex.) show/hide docs
IM-TX-0053-0002 | IM-TX-0053-0003 | IM-TX-0053-0004 | IM-TX-0053-0005 | IM-TX-0053-0006 | IM-TX-0053-9000
Plaintiff's Lawyers Buser-Clancy, Thomas Paul (Texas) show/hide docs
IM-TX-0053-0001
Cho, Eunice (District of Columbia) show/hide docs
IM-TX-0053-0001 | IM-TX-0053-9000
Choi, Erin (Texas) show/hide docs
Cruz, Bernardo Rafael (Texas) show/hide docs
Eidelman, Vera (New York) show/hide docs
Fathi, David Cyrus (District of Columbia) show/hide docs
Garza, Rochelle M (Texas) show/hide docs
Genender, Paul R (Texas) show/hide docs
Huddleston, Kathryn Lynn (Arizona) show/hide docs
Jadwat, Omar C. (New York) show/hide docs
Kuhlik, Lauren (District of Columbia) show/hide docs
Miller, Ron (Texas) show/hide docs
Saldivar, Edgar (Texas) show/hide docs
Segura, Andre (Texas) show/hide docs
Tan, Michael K. T. (New York) show/hide docs
Zafar, Noor (New York) show/hide docs
Defendant's Lawyers Cravens, Annalisa L (Texas) show/hide docs
Hu, Daniel David (Texas) show/hide docs
Pineda, Christopher D. (Texas) show/hide docs
Other Lawyers Buergel, Susanna M. (New York) show/hide docs
Desai, Nimish Ramesh (California) show/hide docs
Johnson, Darren W. (New York) show/hide docs
Kimball-Stanley, David C. (New York) show/hide docs
Turkevich, Paul Stevens (Texas) show/hide docs