Author Archives: josephcmeyers

Garcia Pleytes v. United States of America

Posted on by

Garcia Pleytes v. United States of America, No. 2:24-cv-1451 (W.D. Wash., filed Sept. 12, 2024)

On March 30, 2022, Jose Garcia Pleytes was seriously injured by a U.S. Border Patrol (BP) officer on an all-terrain vehicle (ATV) near the Arizona-Mexico border. Mr. Garcia was walking in the desert after having recently entered the United States without inspection. He was approached by Border Patrol agents on ATVs, one of whom hit Mr. Garcia’s lower body with the ATV and completely crushed Mr. Garcia’s right leg with the front tires. Mr. Garcia felt excruciating pain and fell to the ground, nearly losing consciousness. In spite of Mr. Garcia’s state, the agent flipped Mr. Garcia over and stood over him, forcefully pulling Mr. Garcia’s hands behind his back to handcuff him, and causing him even greater pain. Eventually, the agents carried Mr. Garcia onto one of their ATVs and drove for two hours through rough desert terrain to an ambulance, each bump of the ride causing him even more pain.

After the ambulance transported Mr. Garcia to a nearby hospital, he was x-rayed and diagnosed with acute right knee dislocation and closed right tibial plateau fracture, with a likely ligament injury or rupture that required MRI imaging which the hospital could not perform. He was released with a knee immobilizer, crutches, and instructions that he needed an MRI and evaluation by an orthopedic surgeon as soon as possible.

However, Mr. Garcia was instead taken to a U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) holding facility, or hielera, where he was placed in a cramped, frigid cell with only the floor or hard benches for sleeping. He was denied a request to contact his family and denied prompt and comprehensive medical treatment. The next morning, CBP officers placed Mr. Garcia on a bus with other migrants and attempted to deport him. When the Mexican authorities saw that Mr. Garcia was a citizen of Guatemala, they refused to accept him for deportation due to his injuries.

CBP transported Mr. Garcia back to a holding facility, then later that night, drove him and another small group of migrants into Mexico and left them in the Sonoran desert, without alerting Mexican authorities of their presence. Later, Mexican authorities recognized Mr. Garcia and reiterated that CBP should not have deported him to Mexico, and that they could not return him to Guatemala due to his injuries. Instead, they took him to a migrant shelter in Mexico, where he remained for 7 months until he was paroled back into the United States for medical treatment, with the help of Kino Border Initiative and the American Civil Liberties Union of Arizona. He later underwent orthopedic surgery for reconstruction of his knee, and continued to use assistive devices for mobility for almost a year and a half after his injury.

Mr. Garcia Pleytes filed an administrative claim against CBP under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) on February 14, 2024. CBP subsequently issued a notice denying Mr. Garcia’s claim, and he filed suit in the Western District of Washington on September 12, 2024. On March 14, 2025, the case was dismissed as the parties reached a settlement.

Documents:

Counsel: Northwest Immigrant Rights Project

Contact: Matt Adams | Northwest Immigrant Rights Project | 206.957.8611 | matt@nwirp.org

American Immigration Council v. CBP

Posted on by

American Immigration Council and Center for Gender and Refugee Studies v. U.S. Customs and Border Protection, et al., No. 3:23-cv-5270 (N.D. Cal., filed Oct. 16, 2023)

In early 2023, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) implemented a new policy requiring asylum seekers approaching ports of entry (POEs) along the southern border to first schedule an appointment through the CBP One mobile application. Under the CBP One Turnback Policy, CBP officers turn away most asylum seekers who have not made an appointment through CBP One, thereby endangering asylum seekers who must remain in potentially dangerous conditions and risk losing their asylum eligibility.

On July 11, 2023, the American Immigration Council and Center for Gender and Refugee Studies sent Defendants a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request, seeking to understand CBP’s policies regarding asylum seekers who approach POEs without a CBP One appointment, including the number of migrants impacted and CBP’s cooperation with authorities in Mexico. Plaintiffs requested expedited processing because of the urgency of the situation. Plaintiffs also believe that this policy directly conflicts with the federal court ruling in Al Otro Lado, Inc. v. Mayorkas, 619 F. Supp. 3d 1029 (S.D. Cal. 2022), which held that refusing to inspect asylum seekers arriving to the United States—as officers do to those without a CBP One appointment—is unlawful. CBP did not respond to the request. On October 16, 2023, Plaintiffs filed a lawsuit in federal court under FOIA to obtain the responsive documents. The parties have negotiated a proposed schedule for Defendants to produce the requested records. The parties are now engaged in settlement conversations, with a status update on settlement due to the court by October 1, 2024.

Documents:

Council: American Immigration Council ǀ Center for Gender and Refugee Studies

Contact: Raul Pinto | American Immigration Council ǀ rpinto@immcouncil.org
Neela Chakravartula | Center for Gender and Refugee Studies ǀ neela@uclawsf.edu

Press

Wilbur P.G. v. United States

Posted on by

Wilbur P.G, et al., v. United States, No. 4:21-cv-04457 (N.D. Cal., filed June 10, 2021)

Plaintiffs are three families who were separated at the Arizona border in May 2018 under the Department of Justice’s Zero Tolerance policy. The parents were separated from their children while in Customs and Border Protection (CBP) custody, under the guise of pursuing criminal prosecutions against the parents. Two parents were never criminally prosecuted, while the other parent was prosecuted for illegal entry—a misdemeanor—and served a three-day sentence in criminal custody.

After separating the children from their parents, CBP officers transferred the plaintiff children to the custody of the Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR). The families were separated for weeks. While detained, one parent sustained lasting physical injuries after being denied medical attention. One of the children was sexually abused while in ORR custody.

The families sued under the Federal Tort Claims Act to recover damages caused by the separation itself, as well as the physical and emotional injuries suffered by various plaintiffs during their time in detention.

Plaintiffs filed suit on June 10, 2021 in the Northern District of California. On January 5, 2022, Defendant United States filed a motion to transfer the case to the District of Arizona. Defendants also moved to dismiss the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. On May 10, 2022, the district court denied Defendant’s motion to transfer and motion to dismiss. On May 24, 2022, Defendant filed its answer to the complaint; Defendant later amended the answer on July 29, 2022. After some pre-trial briefing, in July 2024 the parties submitted a joint notice of conditional settlement and stipulation to stay litigation.

Documents:

Counsel: Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights of the San Francisco Bay Area | Keker, Van Nest & Peters

Contact: Victoria Petty | vpetty@lccrsf.org

Press:

Note: Other family separation cases filed in California include:

  • I.T. v. United States, 4:22-cv-5333 (N.D. Cal., filed Sept. 20, 2022);
  • J.R.G. and M.A.R. v. United States, 4:22-cv-5183 (N.D. Cal., filed Sept. 12, 2022);
  • Rodriguez v. United States, 2:22-cv-2845 (C.D. Cal., filed Apr. 28, 2022);
  • A.F.P. v. United States, 1:21-cv-780 (E.D. Cal., filed May 14, 2021);
  • Nunez Euceda v. United States, 2:20-cv-10793 (C.D. Cal., filed Nov. 25, 2020).

Other family separation cases filed in district courts in other states:

  • F.C.C. v. United States, 2:22-cv-5057 (E.D.N.Y., filed Aug. 25, 2022);
  • W.P.V. v. Cayuga Home for Children, Inc. and United States, 1:21-cv-4436 (S.D.N.Y., filed May 17, 2021);
  • C.D.A. v. United States, 5:21-cv-469 (E.D. Pa., filed Feb. 1, 2021);
  • R.Y.M.R v. United States, 1:20-cv-23598 (S.D. Fla., filed Aug. 28, 2020);
  • D.J.C.V. v. United States, 1:20-cv-5747 (S.D.N.Y., filed July 24, 2020).

For a list of District of Arizona family separation cases, consult the entry on C.M. v. United States.

Letters Protesting CBP’s Practice of Confiscating Sikh Individuals’ Turbans During Asylum Processing

Posted on by

On August 1, 2022, the ACLU of Arizona, along with the ACLU Program on Freedom of Religion and Belief, filed a letter with Customs and Border Protection (CBP) Commissioner Chris Magnus asking for an investigation and cessation of the Yuma Border Patrol Sector’s practice of confiscating religious headwear from Sikh individuals seeking asylum. The letter argued that such confiscations violate individuals’ religious freedom rights, federal law, and CBP’s own non-discrimination policy.

The ACLU of Arizona, ACLU Program on Freedom of Religion and Belief, and Sikh Coalition, along with over 160 other organizations sent a second letter to Department of Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas on August 22, 2022.  The letter requested DHS investigation on the broader property confiscation issue to include all religious articles of faith, personal belongings, and access to religious-compliant meals.

Counsel: ACLU of Arizona | ACLU Program on Freedom of Religion and Belief

Contact: Vanessa Pineda, vpineda@acluaz.org | Noah Schramm, nschramm@acluaz.org

Press:

Clark v. Wolf

Posted on by

Clark v. Wolf, No. 3:20-cv-1436 (D. Or., filed Aug. 24, 2020)

In July 2020, Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officers—in concert with other federal and local law enforcement officers—used violent crowd control devices on nonviolent protestors during ongoing Black Lives Matter protests in Portland, Oregon. This included the use of tear gas, pepper-spray balls, rubber bullets, and flashbangs, which disoriented and injured many protestors.

Four individuals who had participated in the protests brought a putative class action against federal law enforcement officers, seeking damages under Bivens for the physical and mental harms they had suffered from the defendants’ actions. Additionally, the plaintiffs sought a declaratory judgment that the use of tear gas on peaceful protestors violates the First Amendment.

On February 3, 2022, the district court dismissed the plaintiffs’ damages claims on the basis that special factors counseled against the extending of Bivens to the context of plaintiffs’ claims. A rule 54(b) judgment issued, which plaintiffs appealed to the Ninth Circuit.

On June 27, 2022, plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the case and the pending appeal.

Documents:

Counsel: Pickett Dummigan McCall LLP | Elliot & Park PC | Sugerman Law Office | Harmon Johnson LLC | Chase Law PC | People’s Law Project | Piucci Law | Michelle R. Burrows PC

A.F.P. and J.F.C. v. United States of America

Posted on by

A.F.P. and J.F.C. v. United States of America, No. 1:21-cv-780 (E.D. Cal., filed May 14, 2021)

Plaintiff A.F.P. and his fifteen-year-old son J.F.C., both citizens of Honduras, approached Border Patrol agents near McAllen, Texas to seek asylum. Instead, Border Patrol agents separated J.F.C. from his father and detained both in a holding facility, often referred to as a hielera or “ice box” for its freezing cold temperatures. The hielera was cold and cramped, and the food provided was frozen and expired.

The two were only permitted to speak to each other for 30 minutes per day. Three days after the two were taken into custody, A.F.P. was charged with illegal entry and taken to federal criminal court. During A.F.P.’s court hearing, CBP and ICE officers designated J.F.C. as an unaccompanied minor, transferred his custody to the Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) and moved him to a facility in New York. When A.F.P. returned to the detention center, his son was gone. The officers did not advise A.F.P. of the reason or destination of his son’s transfer.

In New York, J.F.C. resided at the Children’s Village facility, where he was not allowed to communicate with his father, was denied medical care, and was subject to emotional abuse. As a result of this neglect, J.F.C. suffers from hearing loss from an untreated ear infection and severe memory problems because of the trauma he experienced.

During this time, A.F.P. was held in ICE detention in Texas, where he had an interview with an asylum officer and was told he had a credible asylum case. After officers at the detention center put A.F.P. in touch with a notary public who led him to believe that pursuing his asylum case would keep him from reuniting with his son, A.F.P. withdrew his asylum application at his hearing in front of an immigration judge. He was then transferred to maximum security prisons and deported a month later. He was separated from his son for almost fifteen months. A human rights organization later helped A.F.P. lawfully re-enter the U.S. and reunite with J.F.C.

Plaintiffs filed suit against the federal government in the Eastern District of California, seeking damages under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) for intentional infliction of emotional distress, abuse of process, negligence as to family separation, and negligence. Defendant United States moved to dismiss the claims and moved to transfer the case to the Southern District of Texas. On July 11, 2022, the court dismissed Plaintiffs’ negligence cause of action regarding J.F.C.’s time in ORR custody as barred by the independent contractor exception to the FTCA’s waiver of sovereign immunity.  On July 26, 2022, Defendant filed its answer to the remaining claims. As of February 2023, discovery is currently underway.

On December 11, 2023, the court dismissed the case after the parties jointly stipulated to dismiss with prejudice.

Documents:

Counsel: Morgan, Lewis & Bockius L.L.P.

Johnson v. United States of America

Posted on by

Carey Johnson v. United States of America, No. 18-cv-2178 (S.D. Cal., filed Sept. 20, 2018)

Carey Johnson is a U.S. citizen and military veteran who resides in Mexico. Johnson has a disability and carries a Department of Veterans’ Affairs (VA) identification card with a disability designation. He frequently crosses the U.S.-Mexico border near San Diego to receive treatment at VA facilities.  On September 22, 2016, Johnson approached Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officers at the Otay Mesa SENTRI gate and requested that he be allowed to use the SENTRI gate for expedited crossing as an accommodation for his disability. CBP denied his request, and officers told him he would need to request accommodations each time he crossed the border. After this encounter, the CBP officer wrote up a report that led to Johnson being repeatedly stopped and harassed on several future crossings.

During Johnson’s following border crossings, he attempted to request accommodations to expedite his border crossing. CBP officers repeatedly abused him. On one occasion, CBP officers impounded his car and shackled him to a bench for 3 hours. On another, officers dragged him from his car and tasered him. CBP agents seized his car on at least two occasions, allegedly based on SENTRI lane violations. CBP officers refused to return the car unless Johnson paid a $10,000 fine, which he was unable to afford.

Johnson eventually sued to seek redress for the repeated abuses he suffered. He sought damages under Bivens, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act,the Federal Tort Claims Act, and California’s Bane Act. On July 14, 2020, the district court dismissed Johnson’s Bivens claims against the individual CBP officers. On January 25, 2021, the court granted Defendant United States’ motion for summary judgment on the Rehabilitation Act and Bane Act claims.

The case settled and was dismissed pursuant to a joint motion on March 26, 2021.

Documents:

Counsel: Robbins & Curtin, P.L.L.C.
Contact: Joel Robbins | joel@robbinsandcurtin.com

Reyes v. United States, DOE CBP Officers 1-30

Posted on by

Reyes v. United States, DOE CBP Officers 1-30, No. 3:20-cv-01752 (S.D. Cal., filed Sept. 8, 2020)

On August 2, 2018, Marco Reyes was waiting in his car to cross into the United States at the Otay Mesa Port of Entry in California. Due to an incident in another vehicle lane, a Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officer knocked at Reyes’ car window and asked him to step out of the car. Reyes, who suffered from significant hearing loss from military service, did not immediately hear the officer or comply with his commands. When Reyes realized the officer was speaking to him, he immediately got out of the car and stood behind his vehicle. The CBP officer then began to yell profanities at Reyes and bumped him with his chest, accusing him of not immediately following directions. When Reyes raised his hand to keep the officer from bumping into him, the officer accused him of assault and called for back-up assistance. A larger group of CBP officers arrived, pushed Reyes to the ground, and proceeded to beat him up while he was on the ground, injuring his shoulder and arm and breaking several ribs. After beating Reyes up, the officers arrested him for assault on a federal officer. The U.S. Attorney’s office declined to pursue prosecution of Reyes.

On September 8, 2020, Reyes filed this action, alleging violations of his rights under California’s Bane Act, the federal Rehabilitation Act, and the Federal Tort Claims Act. On February 16, 2021, the district court dismissed Reyes’ Bane Act claims and Rehabilitation Act claims without prejudice and with leave to file an amended complaint. The court also dismissed on consent the FTCA claims against the individual CBP officers.

Reyes proceeded to file two amended complaints. The case settled and was dismissed pursuant to a joint motion to dismiss on January 11, 2022.

Documents:

Counsel: McKenzie Scott, P.C.
Contact: Timothy Scott | tscott@mckenziescott.com

Anibowei v. Morgan

Posted on by

Anibowei v. Morgan, No. 20-10059 (5th Cir., appeal filed Jan. 17, 2020); Anibowei v. Wolf, Civil Action No. 3:16-CV-3495 (N.D. Tex., filed Dec. 23, 2016)

Anibowei filed a lawsuit to challenge the actions of the CBP officers—and the underlying CBP and ICE directives—as violative of the First Amendment, Fourth Amendment, and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). He sought damages under Bivens v. Six Unknown Agents as well as injunctive and declaratory relief. Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint. On February 14, 2019, the court dismissed Anibowei’s claims under Bivens as improperly pled, with leave to replead. On March 14, 2019, Anibowei filed a second amended complaint, and shortly thereafter filed a motion for summary judgment and for a preliminary injunction. On January 14, 2020, the district court denied Anibowei’s motions for partial summary judgment and a preliminary injunction. 

George Anibowei—a U.S. citizen and licensed attorney based in Dallas, Texas—was repeatedly stopped and questioned by Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officers when returning to the United States from international travel. On several such occasions, CBP officers also searched Anibowei’s cellphone and copied the cellphone’s contents without a warrant. CBP conducted these nonconsensual searches of Anibowei’s cellphone in accordance with CBP and ICE internal directives that permit the search of electronic devices at the border without individualized suspicion.

On January 17, 2020, Anibowei appealed the district court’s decision, asking the Fifth Circuit to rule on whether searching a cellphone without exigent circumstances or a warrant violates the Fourth Amendment, even if said search is conducted at the U.S. border. On December 3, 2020, the Fifth Circuit heard oral argument in this case. On June 19, 2023, the Fifth Circuit released its decision affirming the denial of the preliminary injunction, finding that Anibowei did not show a substantial risk of irreparable harm. The court also declined to review the district court’s denial of Anibowei’s motion for summary judgment for lack of jurisdiction, and so did not rule on the question of whether the search violated the Fourth Amendment.

On August 30, 2023, Anibowei filed a petition for writ of certiorari with the Supreme Court, which was denied on January 8, 2024.

Documents

Counsel: Arnold & Porter
Contact: Andrew Tutt | Andrew.tutt@arnoldporter.com

Haitian Bridge Alliance, et al. v. Biden

Posted on by

Haitian Bridge Alliance, et al. v. Biden, et al., No. 1:21-cv-03317 (D.D.C., filed Dec. 20, 2021)

Mirard Joseph is a Haitian man who was whipped by a U.S. Border Patrol agent while attempting to bring food to his family in a Texas migrant encampment. Mr. Joseph alleges his wife received only bread and water and a single diaper for their infant daughter each day—conditions that eventually drove him and others to leave the Del Rio encampment and return to Mexico to buy food. When they attempted to reenter the camp with their purchases, they were met by Border Patrol officers who grabbed Mr. Joseph’s shirt, “lashed at him with reins, attempted to drag him back into the water, and nearly trampled him.”

Mr. Joseph and ten other Haitian nationals held in the temporary Border Patrol camp allege that this mistreatment was part of a discriminatory policy by the Biden administration to target Haitians. Plaintiffs allege that the U.S. government differentially applied the Title 42 process—a summary expulsion process purportedly designed to protect public health during the COVID-19 pandemic. Specifically, plaintiffs allege that the government used Title 42 at the Del Rio Port of Entry against Haitian and Haitian-appearing asylum seekers with the purpose of discouraging them from accessing their right to seek asylum. Plaintiffs assert that this Haitian Deterrence Policy diverges from standard practice for asylum seekers and is driven by discriminatory purpose. Despite ample warning that thousands of Haitian migrants were heading toward Del Rio, federal authorities refused to prepare adequate infrastructure to receive them when arrivals started ramping up in September. As a result, a makeshift processing center under the Del Rio International Bridge turned into an encampment, where up to 15,000 people were made to wait for days at a time in temperatures topping 100 degrees without adequate food, water, bedding, or medical attention.

Footage described in the complaint prompted a national outcry in September 2021, with White House press secretary Jen Psaki calling the tape “horrific” during her September 20 press briefing. DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas launched an internal investigation into the encounter. While the Secretary initially called for findings to be released by the end of September, results are still pending.

Plaintiffs allege that the Haitian Deterrence Policy did not end with mistreatment in Del Rio. After being processed for admission, the U.S. government placed those Haitian asylum seekers in detention, split up families, and shackled and removed them to Haiti without providing the opportunity to request humanitarian protection in the United States. Plaintiff Wilson Doe testified that DHS officers lied and said his family was being transferred to another detention facility when they were actually being expelled pursuant to Title 42. Officers then beat him when he resisted boarding the plane.

Plaintiffs allege violations of the Fifth Amendment due process clause and the Administrative Procedure Act. They also seek certification for a class of all Haitian or presumed Haitian individuals who were denied access to the U.S. asylum process in or around the Del Rio encampment between September 9 and 24, 2021. Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief enjoining the government from subjecting members of the proposed class to the Haitian Deterrence Policy or Title 42 expulsions. They also seek return of those already expelled under Title 42 to allow them to pursue their asylum claims. Plaintiffs filed their complaint on December 20, 2021. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss on June 10, 2022. On June 14, 2022, the court found that the case was not related to Huisha-Huisha and P.J.E.S. v. Wolf and J.B.B.C. v. Wolf. Thus, it transferred the case for random reassignment.

On May 12, 2013, the court noted that it understood the Haitian Deterrence Policy to have expired on May 11, 2023, alongside the formal end of the Title 42 Policy, and so ordered plaintiffs to show cause as to why the case was not moot. On June 16, 2023, plaintiffs filed a show cause motion and a supplemental complaint, both of which defendants opposed.  On February 22, 2024, the court issued an oral order at a status conference denying the motion to dismiss and granting plaintiffs’ leave to file an amended complaint. Plaintiffs filed their amended complaint on March 18, 2024, adding new plaintiffs and seeking declaratory and injunctive relief to remedy ongoing injuries and to prevent defendants from engaging in similar violations of civil rights in the future. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on May 17, 2024. After briefing concluded, the court held oral argument on August 29, 2024. The parties jointly requested the opportunity to submit supplemental briefing regarding their respective views on 8 U.S.C. 1231(b)(3) and 8 U.S.C. 1231 (United States Policy With Respect to Involuntary Return of Persons in Danger of Subjection to Torture) and how those provisions affect claims made in plaintiffs’ amended complaint.

Documents:

Counsel: Innovation Law Lab | Haitian Bridge Alliance | Justice Action Center

Contacts:
Taisha Santil | tsaintil@haitianbridge.org
Tasha Moro | tasha.moro@justiceactioncenter.org
Alex Mensing | alexm@innovationlawlab.org

Press:
● Jennifer Doherty, Class Action Ties Alleged Whipping To Haitian Discrimination, Law 360, Dec. 21, 2021.
● Eileen Sullivan, Haitian Migrants File Lawsuit Protesting Treatment by Border Patrol, The New York Times, Dec. 20, 2021.