Doe v. Nielsen, No. 4:15-cv-00250-DCB (D. Ariz., filed June 8, 2015)
Three individuals filed a class action suit challenging detention conditions in the Tucson Sector of the U.S. Border Patrol. The complaint alleges that the Tucson Sector Border Patrol holds men, women, and children in freezing, overcrowded, and filthy cells for days at a time in violation of the U.S. Constitution and CBP’s own policies. Detained individuals are stripped of outer layers of clothing and forced to suffer in brutally cold temperatures; deprived of beds, bedding, and sleep; denied adequate food, water, medicine and medical care, and basic sanitation and hygiene items such as soap, sufficient toilet paper, sanitary napkins, diapers, and showers; and held virtually incommunicado in these conditions for days.
The American Immigration Council, the National Immigration Law Center, the ACLU of Arizona, the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights of the San Francisco Bay Area, and Morrison & Foerster LLP represent the plaintiffs and class. Plaintiffs seek to compel the Tucson Sector to bring its detention facilities in line with Constitutional standards, including limiting the time a person may be detained in holding cells to a few hours, providing adequate food, water, and medical care, beds and bedding, access to showers and hygiene supplies, and maintaining appropriate capacity limits and temperature controls, among other reforms.
Subsequent to filing the suit, Plaintiffs sought and were granted expedited discovery, and thus were able to inspect 4 of the 8 Border Patrol facilities at issue, and were given copies of CBP video recordings of the holding cells and agency logs from these same 4 facilities dating back to the filing of the complaint. Thereafter, Plaintiffs filed a motion for sanctions over Defendants’ failure to fully comply with the expedited discovery order, which the Court granted in part.
On December 4, 2015, Plaintiffs moved for a preliminary injunction. Defendants’ moved to seal much of the evidence supporting Plaintiffs’ motion, and thus block public exposure to photographs and other revealing evidence. On January 28, 2016, Phoenix Newspapers Inc., the parent corporation to the Arizona Republic, moved to intervene in the suit for the limited purpose of opposing Defendants’ Motion to Seal. The Court granted the Arizona Republic’s motion and unsealed numerous documents.
In early 2016, the Court certified a class consisting of all detainees who now or in the future will be detained by the Border Patrol in the Tucson Sector. The Court also denied Defendants’ motion to dismiss with respect to the constitutional claims but did dismiss Plaintiffs’ APA claim.
In late 2016, following an evidentiary hearing, the District Court issued a preliminary injunction which held, among other things, that forcing a detainee to sleep on a concrete floor with no bedding was a violation of his or her constitutional rights. The Court ordered Border Patrol to provide sleeping mats to all individuals detained for 12 hours or more; afford individuals a means to clean themselves; provide them with toothbrushes and toothpaste; monitor cell conditions to ensure that they were sanitary and that toilets and sinks were in working condition; and adopt an enhanced medical screening form to use with all detained individuals. Both parties appealed to the Ninth Circuit. On December 22, 2017, the Ninth Circuit upheld the District Court’s decision in its entirety.
Plaintiffs’ partial motion for summary judgment was denied on March 15, 2019, with the Court ruling that all issues are best resolved at trial. A seven-day trial took place in January 2020 during which the Plaintiffs presented numerous witness, including three experts.
- Motion for Class Certification
- Reply in Support of Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification
- Plaintiffs’ Motion for Expedited Discovery
- Reply in Support of Plaintiffs’ Motion for Expedited Discovery
- Order Granting Motion for Expedited Discovery
- Plaintiffs’ Motion for Sanctions
- Reply to Defendants’ Opposition to Sanctions
- Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Plaintiffs’ Motion for Sanctions
- Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss
- Order Granting Plaintiff’s Motion for Class Certification
- Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss
- Motion to Intervene
- Plaintiffs’ Reply in Support of Motion for Preliminary Injunction
- Order on Motion to Seal and Intervention
- Amended Class Definition Order
- Doe Preliminary Injunction Order
- Brief in Support of Plaintiff
- Ninth Circuit Decision – Doe et al., v. Kelly
- Order on Motion for Partial Summary Judgment
Counsel: The American Immigration Council, the National Immigration Law Center, the ACLU of Arizona, the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights of the San Francisco Bay Area, and Morrison & Foerster LLP
Contact: Mary Kenney | American Immigration Council | 202.507.7512 | email@example.com
- FAQ: Border Patrol “Hieleras” – Background and Legal Action
- Way Too Long: Prolonged Detention in Arizona’s Border Patrol Holding Cells, Government Records Show
- Press Release
- Listen to the press teleconference on the lawsuit here.