Category Archives: All Cases

A.B.-B. v. Morgan

Posted on by

A.B.-B., et al., v. Morgan, et al., No. 1:20-cv-00846 (D.D.C., filed Mar. 27, 2020)

On March 27, 2020, five asylum-seeking mothers and their children filed this action challenging the use of U.S. Border Patrol agents to screen asylum seekers for their “credible fear” of persecution.

Many people seeking asylum at the border must first pass a “credible fear” screening interview before an immigration judge can more fully review their claims. At this interview, asylum seekers provide sensitive details about the persecution they suffered and the reasons they fled. These screenings are not supposed to be interrogations. They must be done by officers trained specifically to evaluate asylum claims and work with victims of trauma. And for decades, that is how these interviews were conducted.

Beginning in April 2019, however, the government quietly started to change who was responsible for conducting the interview. A pilot program replaced some experienced asylum officers with Border Patrol agents—a law enforcement agency with a history of abuse and misconduct toward asylum seekers.

Asylum seekers and attorneys report that Border Patrol agents conduct the interviews like criminal interrogations. Asylum seekers say they are yelled at, cut off when responding, and scolded if they cry or show other signs of trauma.

Border Patrol agents conducted credible fear interviews, and issued negative credible fear determinations, for the plaintiff families while they were detained at the South Texas Family Residential Center in Dilley, Texas. Their complaint alleges that the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) official who authorized Border Patrol agents to conduct these interviews was illegally appointed, that only U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) has authority to conduct these interviews, and that Border Patrol agents are not properly trained and cannot conduct non-adversarial interviews.

 On April 2, 2020, the court granted Plaintiffs’ motion for a temporary restraining order and administrative stay and temporarily enjoined their removal. On May 12, 2020, the court heard oral argument on Plaintiffs’ motion seeking a preliminary injunction. The parties submitted supplemental briefing on June 1, 2020. On August 29, 2020, the district court granted a preliminary injunction, enjoining Defendants from removing Plaintiffs until the court has ruled on the merits of this case and enjoining Defendants from continuing to permit Border Patrol agents to conduct credible fear interviews and make credible fear determinations. Defendants proceeded to request several extensions of their deadline to answer the complaint. No answer has been filed. On October 5, 2022, the court granted a joint motion to stay the proceedings for 180 days. As of June 2024, the parties continue to file joint status reports with the court.

Counsel: Tahirih Justice Center | Constitutional Accountability Center

Contact: Julie M. Carpenter | Tahirih Justice Center | juliec@tahirih.org

Guan v. Mayorkas

Posted on by

Guan, et al., v. Mayorkas, et al., No. 1:19-cv-06570 (E.D.N.Y., filed Nov. 20, 2019)

In Guan v. Wolf, five journalists were tracked by U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), and other government agencies, and then detained, and interrogated by CBP officials when attempting to re-enter the United States. In response to this unprecedented coordinated attack on the freedom of the press, Plaintiffs filed a federal lawsuit alleging violations of their First Amendment rights on November 20, 2019.

Bing Guan, Go Nakamura, Mark Abramson, Kitra Cahana, and Ariana Drehsler are all U.S. citizen professional photojournalists. Between November 2018 and January 2019, they separately traveled to Mexico to document people traveling north from Central America by caravan in an attempt to reach the U.S.-Mexico border. Border patrol agents referred each journalist to secondary inspection on their return to the United States and questioned them about their work as photojournalists, including their coverage of the caravan, their observations of conditions at the U.S.-Mexico border, and their knowledge of the identities of certain individuals. This questioning focused on what each journalist had observed in Mexico in the course of working as a journalist, and did not relate to any permissible immigration or customs purpose. A secret government database leaked to NBC San Diego in March 2019 revealed that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) had engaged in wide-ranging intelligence collection targeting activists, lawyers, and journalists—including these five journalists—working on issues related to the October 2018 migrant caravan and conditions at the U.S.-Mexico border.

The five journalists filed this action alleging that CBP’s questioning aimed at uncovering their sources of information and their observations as journalists was unconstitutional. They seek a declaratory judgment that such conduct violated the First Amendment. The journalists further seek an injunction requiring the government to expunge any records it retained regarding the unlawful questioning and to inform the journalists whether those records have been disclosed to other agencies, governments, or individuals. On August 14, 2020, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss, which Plaintiffs have opposed. On March 30, 2021, the District Court denied Defendants’ motion to dismiss, holding that Plaintiffs plausibly alleged infringement of their First Amendment rights. The case is now in discovery.

Counsel: ACLU; NYCLU; ACLU of San Diego & Imperial Counties; Covington & Burling LLP

Contact:  Scarlet Kim | ACLU | scarletk@aclu.org

Clear, et al. v. CBP

Posted on by

Clear, et al., v. U.S. Customs and Border Protection, No. 1:19-cv-07079 (E.D.N.Y., filed Dec. 18, 2019)

The American Civil Liberties Union and CUNY Law School CLEAR Project filed a FOIA lawsuit against U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) in December 2019 over its Tactical Terrorism Response Teams (TTRT), which plaintiffs argue are discriminatory against individuals from the Middle East.

The complaint alleges that CBP is deploying secret teams across at least 46 airports and other U.S. ports of entry which target, detain, and interrogate innocent travelers. Frequently TTRT officers request that travelers unlock their electronic devices and subject them to search. While TTRTs operate largely in secret, CBP has publicly admitted the teams are explicitly targeting individuals who are not on any government watchlist and whom the government has never identified as posing a security risk. Former CBP Commissioner and form acting Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, Kevin McAleenan, has indicated TTRT officers may rely on their “instincts” or hunches to target travelers.

On February 21, 2021, the parties submitted cross-motions for summary judgment on all claims. The motions have been fully briefed and oral argument was held on April 26, 2021. On March 31, 2022, the Court indicated that it would partially grant and partially deny each party’s summary judgment motion. A written order was published on November 2, 2022, in which the court directed CBP to release all non-exempt and segregable information requested by Plaintiffs.

Additionally, the ACLU of Northern California has filed an administrative complaint on behalf of an individual who was detained and interrogated by a TTRT.

CBP’s Public Statements about TTRTs:

Press:

Counsel: American Civil Liberties Union

Contact: Scarlet Kim | American Civil Liberties Union Foundation | ScarletK@aclu.org

E.L.A. and O.L.C. v. United States of America

Posted on by

E.L.A. and O.L.C. v. United States of America, No. 2:20-cv-1524 (W.D. Wash., filed Oct. 10, 2020)

On October 9, 2019, an asylum-seeking father, Mr. L.A., and his son, O.L., filed administrative claims for six million dollars in damages for the trauma they suffered when torn apart under the Trump administration’s family separation policy. The family endured nine months of forced separation in 2018 while the father was unlawfully deported to Guatemala, in spite of expressing a credible fear of persecution in that country. On October 15, 2020, after the government neglected to make a final disposition on the administrative claims, Mr. L.A. and his son filed a lawsuit in the Western District of Washington, having exhausted all possible administrative remedies.

While in the custody of the Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR), at a youth facility called Lincoln Hall in New York, then-17-year-old O.L. was medicated without his parent’s consent in order to “calm” him and dissuade thoughts of escaping from the facility. A Lincoln Hall staff member physically assaulted and insulted O.L.; rather than discipline the offending staff member, facility staff simply transferred O.L. to a different part of the facility. Additionally, Lincoln Hall was an abusive and sexualized environment. On two separate occasions, staff completed an ORR Serious Incident Report or “Sexual Abuse SIR,” listing O.L. as a victim of sexualized staff actions. During one incident, a staff member showed O.L. and other children in the facility a pornographic video on his phone. In another incident, a staff member dropped a nude photo of herself in front of O.L.

Both Mr. L.A. and his son endured dehumanizing conditions while being held in a hielera prior to and immediately after separation. Mr. L.A. reported freezing temperatures, very limited food, and limited access to drinking water other than from a bathroom sink. At one point, he was packed in a cell with fifteen other men, with no beds and a shared toilet without privacy. As the men were not permitted to shower or brush their teeth, the smell in the cell was horrible. Officers left bright fluorescent lights on at all times, conducted roll-calls even at nighttime, and provided only Mylar emergency blankets for sleeping; as a result, Mr. L.A. reports experiencing sleep deprivation.

Mr. L.A. and his son spoke briefly on the phone only twice while they were detained and before Mr. L.A. was deported. Mr. L.A. was devastated to learn his son had been transported across the country to New York, while he remained detained in Texas. After being detained separately for more than one month, Mr. L.A. received word from officers that he would be reunited with his son. However, they were not reunited; and Mr. L.A. was instead put on a plane and deported to Guatemala.

Both Mr. L.A. and his son report prolonged and lasting effects from their forced separation. Mr. L.A. still experiences nightmares, anxiety, and depression, and also survived an attempt on his life after his removal to the country from which he sought asylum. O.L. reports experiencing anxiety and depression in the wake of his detention and time spent separated from his father.

The claim letter charges the government with intentionally inflicting emotional pain on the family and punishing them for seeking asylum in the United States. The claims were filed against the Department of Homeland Security, Customs and Border Protection, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the Department of Health and Human Services, and the Office of Refugee Resettlement. They are brought under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), which allows individuals to sue the United States for injuries resulting from unlawful conduct of federal officers.

On January 19, 2021, Defendant moved to transfer the case to the Southern District of Texas and to dismiss two of Plaintiffs’ four claims (abuse of process and negligence). On June 3, 2022, the district court denied Defendant’s motion to transfer the case to Texas, but granted Defendant’s motion to dismiss the abuse of process and negligence claims. Plaintiffs filed a motion to reconsider the dismissal of claims on June 17, 2022. On October 19, 2022, the Court denied Plaintiffs’ motion to reconsider. On November 14, 2022, Defendant moved to dismiss Plaintiffs’ intentional infliction of emotional distress claim, arguing that the claim is barred by the discretionary function and due care exceptions to the FTCA and that there is no private analogue. On May 15, 2023, the court denied Defendant’s motion to dismiss, and Defendant filed their answer to the complaint on June 30, 2023. The parties entered into a stipulated protective order similar to those in other family separation litigation on August 4, 2023.

The parties reached a settlement agreement and filed a stipulated motion of dismissal in March 2024, and the case was dismissed on March 6, 2024.

Documents:

Counsel: Northwest Immigrant Rights Project and Morgan, Lewis, & Brockius, LLP

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

Note: Other cases involving family separation in the Western District of Washington include:

  • S.M.F. and A.R.M. v. United States of America, 2:22-cv-1193 (W.D. Wash., filed Aug. 26, 2022)

Gonzalez Recinos et al. v. McAleenan et al.

Posted on by

Gonzalez Recinos et al. v. McAleenan et al., No. 1:19-cv-00138 (S.D. Tex. filed Aug. 16, 2019).

This lawsuit was brought as a writ of habeas corpus by individuals detained by CBP in various facilities within the Rio Grande Valley Sector of the U.S. Border Patrol.

The lawsuit alleges that CBP has subjected petitioners to inhumane treatment and harsh conditions in these facilities by: packing them into overcrowded cells for lengthy periods, where they are denied adequate food, water, medical attention, and sanitation facilities, providing inadequate food and water, unsanitary toilets, showering and bathing facilities, and no access to phones, beds, or medical assistance. Petitioners are also alleging that it is CBP’s pattern or practice to deny access to family members and legal counsel.

Plaintiff-petitioners filed an amended petition on July 20, 2019, and a motion for preliminary injunction on August 12. The district court held a hearing on that motion on September 6, 2019. In October of 2019, the court denied plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction under the rationale that granting the requested relief would impose a substantial burden on CBP. The parties then stipulated to dismiss the case.

Counsel: Elisabeth (Lisa) Brodyaga, Refugio del Rio Grande; Jaime M. Diez, Jones and Crane; Thelma O. Garcia, Law Office of Thelma Garcia; Luis Campos, John Becker & Wesley D. Lewis, Haynes and Boone, LLP; Efrén C. Olivares, Texas Civil Rights Project

Contact: Lisa Brodyaga | Refugio del Rio Grande | 956-421-3226 | LisaBrodyaga@aol.com

A.I.I.L. et al. v. Sessions et al.

Posted on by

A.I.I.L. on behalf of herself and her minor children, J.A.H.I. and M.E.H.I., et al., No. 4:19-cv-00481 (D. Ariz., filed Oct. 3, 2019); 4:23-cv-01383 (S.D. Tex.)

This lawsuit seeks damages on behalf of thousands of traumatized children and parents who were forcibly torn from each other under the Trump administration’s illegal practice of separating families at the border.

Leading child welfare organizations, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and medical professionals have publicly denounced the forced separation of children from their parents, citing the long-lasting, detrimental effects on children’s emotional growth and cognitive development. Separated parents, meanwhile, face an increased risk of developing mental health disorders, with trauma linked to severe anxiety, depression, and suicidal thoughts.

Plaintiffs cited in the complaint include families from Guatemala and Honduras who were separated along the border in Arizona for up to 16 months. In addition to damages, the lawsuit seeks the creation of a fund to pay for professional mental health services for affected families.

The lawsuit, A.I.I.L. v. Sessions, cites violations of the Fourth Amendment (unreasonable seizure of children); the Fifth Amendment due process clause (fundamental right to family integrity; right to a hearing; right to adequate health care); and equal protection (prohibiting discrimination on the basis of race, ethnicity, or national origin).

Defendants include officials from the Department of Justice, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and Customs and Border Protection (CBP), and Health and Human Services (HHS)/Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR).

On February 14, 2020, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ complaint, asserting lack of personal jurisdiction, failure to state a claim, and qualified immunity. Briefing on that motion is complete. On July 22, 2020, Plaintiffs sought leave to amend their complaint to include their administratively exhausted Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) claims. Defendants requested that the court defer a decision on Plaintiffs’ motion to amend pending the court’s decision on Defendants’ motion to dismiss. On August 31, 2020 the court granted Plaintiffs’ motion to amend and denied Defendants’ motion to dismiss.

On September 3, 2020, Plaintiffs filed their amended complaint. In February 2021, Defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint for lack of jurisdiction, failure to state a claim, and on qualified immunity grounds.

On May 20, 2021, Plaintiffs sought a stay of the action to facilitate further settlement discussions in hopes of resolving their FTCA claims against the United States. The individual Defendants objected to the stay of the individual-capacity claims. The court lifted the abeyance on January 7, 2022.

On March 31, 2022, the court granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss all claims except for the FTCA claims of four of the five Plaintiff families. With respect to the FTCA claims, the court held, among other things, that those claims were not barred by the discretionary function or due care exceptions to the FTCA. With respect to the dismissed constitutional claims brought under Bivens, the court held, among other things, that special factors counseled against extending Bivens to a new context that challenged high level policy decisions. On July 14, 2022, the court denied the government’s motions to consolidate policy-level discovery in A.I.I.L. with related family separation cases in the district.

On July 15, 2022, the individual Defendants filed a Rule 54(b) motion for the entry of a final judgment as to the claims against the individual defendants. On March 31, 2023, the court denied the motion, finding that the dismissed individual claims and the pending FTCA claims raised related issues of fact and law and that two appeal tracks would complicate the case and burden Plaintiffs.

On April 11, 2023, the court transferred the claims of two of the named plaintiffs to the Southern District of Texas, where their separation occurred.

On March 6, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed an unopposed motion for court approval of the settlements of minor Plaintiffs’ claims. The settlements involved payment of stipulated amounts to the individual plaintiffs.

Documents:

Counsel: Christine Wee, ACLU of Arizona; Lee Gelernt, Anand Balakrishnan, Daniel Galindo, Stephen Kang, & Spencer Amdur, ACLU Immigrant Rights’ Project; Geoffry R. Chepiga, Jacqueline P. Rubin, Emily Goldberg, Hallie S. Goldblatt, Steven C. Herzog, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP; Alexander A. Reinert, Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law.

Contact: Lee Gelernt | ACLU Immigrants’ Rights Project | lgelernt@aclu.org

Electronic Frontier Foundation v. Dep’t of Homeland Security

Posted on by

Electronic Frontier Foundation v. Dep’t of Homeland Security, No. 1:19-cv-02578 (D.D.C., filed Aug. 27, 2019)

In United States v. Jones, 565 U.S. 400 (2012), the Supreme Court unanimously held that warrantless GPS tracking violates the Fourth Amendment and is therefore unconstitutional. In a 2018 California criminal case, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Customs and Border Protection (CBP) disclosed that it is their policy and practice to install tracking devices on vehicles at the border without a warrant. An ICE official stated in a declaration that the policy did not violate the Jones ruling, but the court disagreed.

Neither agency submitted the actual policy to the court, so the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) filed Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests with ICE and CBP. EFF asked the agencies to produce records pertaining to “[p]olicies and/or procedures regarding the use of GPS tracking devices on vehicles crossing the border” and “[t]raining manuals and/or training materials on the use of GPA tracking devices on vehicles crossing the border.” Four months after EFF made the request, ICE notified EFF that the agency would withhold all relevant documents because of an exemption that protects “law enforcement sensitive information” that might alert people of government agents attempting to place tracking devices on their vehicles at the border. CBP did not take any action in response to the request, so in August 2019, EFF filed a federal lawsuit to enforce the FOIA and obtain the relevant records.

From December 2019 through April 2020, ICE and CBP made a small series of productions.

The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. Briefing on the motions for summary judgment was completed in May 2021.  On March 21, 2023, the court entered a minute order denying both motions for summary judgment without prejudice and ordering the parties to file a joint status report on the progress of the case. As of a joint status report filed August 9, 2023, the parties continue to meet and confer to evaluate the possibility of settlement.

Counsel: David L. Sobel, Saira Hussain, Jennifer Lynch, Electronic Frontier Foundation

Contact: David L. Sobel | Electronic Frontier Foundation | 415-436-9333 | sobel@eff.org

American Immigration Council v. U.S. Customs and Border Protection et. al.

Posted on by

American Immigration Council v. U.S. Customs and Border Protection et. al., No. 1:19-cv-02965 (D.D.C filed Oct. 2, 2019)

This Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit seeks to uncover information about the government’s troubling new practice of employing U.S. Custom and Border Protection (CBP) officers to screen asylum seekers. The suit, filed on October 2, 2019, on behalf of the American Immigration Council and Tahirih Justice Center, challenges the government’s failure to respond to multiple FOIA requests for records relating to the U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) decision to train and utilize CBP officers to conduct asylum screenings known as credible fear interviews (CFIs).

Congress intended that CFIs serve as a safeguard from summary removal. If a person seeking asylum passes this initial screening, they must be given the opportunity to file an asylum claim before an immigration judge. As threshold screenings, these interviews are not intended to be adversarial, but rather function to provide the person seeking asylum an opportunity to recount details of their feared persecution in their country of origin. People seeking asylum often describe instances of physical and sexual violence and other trauma to explain why they seek protection in the United States during a CFI. For decades, these interviews have been conducted by a corps of asylum officers employed by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) trained specifically to adjudicate asylum claims, including the handling of sensitive matters.

According to reports, DHS has begun to replace trained USCIS asylum officer with officers from CBP—a law enforcement agency with a history of abuse of and misconduct towards people seeking asylum—in the credible fear screening process. Despite the significance of this change, there are no publicly available records documenting this shift in functions.

In response to this lawsuit, CBP produced a single document. DHS has produced hundreds of pages of entirely redacted records. USCIS produced thousands of pages, largely consisting of training materials. On June 18, 2021, Plaintiffs filed a brief outlining for the court why Defendants improperly withheld records under FOIA exemptions and why Defendant CBP failed to conduct an adequate search. Plaintiffs requested that the court order Defendants to produce the disputed records and order CBP to conduct an adequate search.

On March 11, 2022, the court partially granted and partially denied motions for summary judgment by both sides. The court ordered CBP to conduct a new, adequate search. The court further held that DHS and USCIS failed to meet their burden to show that a FOIA exemption applied to the withheld documents Plaintiffs challenged. The court ordered DHS and USCIS to produce all challenged documents for in camera inspection. The court will then determine whether the documents should be redacted partially, in full, or not at all. Additionally, the court ordered USCIS to produce an unredacted email that includes the names of the CBP officers who performed the CFIs. In ordering that release, the court found that the public’s interest in learning the full scope of the pilot program and the interest of individuals potentially subjected to the pilot program in learning whether they were subjected to the program outweighed any privacy interest of the officers.

On June 21, 2022, Defendants filed a motion for reconsideration of the order requiring production of the unredacted email containing CBP officer names. On February 16, 2023, the parties executed an agreement to resolve Defendants’ outstanding motion to reconsider and in lieu of production of the CBP officers names. Pursuant to the agreement, Defendants agreed to provide Plaintiffs with the dates and locations where the pilot program operated. Plaintiffs will provide Defendants with up to 1,000 names, along with Department of Homeland Security Form G-639 releases, for individuals who received credible fear interviews at those locations during the relevant period. Defendants will provide confirmation as to whether the individuals were interviewed by U.S. Border Patrol agents. Plaintiffs agreed to provide the names within six months of execution of the agreement, or by August 16, 2023.

On April 3, 2023, the court issued a decision on the remaining disputed documents reviewed in camera and ordered the production of three as not properly withheld under the deliberative process exception. The court affirmed the withholding of the other three disputed documents.

On October 23, 2023, the parties stipulated to dismissal

Counsel: Emma Winger, American Immigration Council

Contact: Emma Winger, American Immigration Council | 617-505-5375 | ewinger@immcouncil.org

Mohanad Elshieky v. USA

Posted on by

Mohanad Elshieky v. United States of America, No. 2:20-cv-00064 (E.D. Wash., filed Feb. 14, 2020)

U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officials unlawfully seized and detained Mr. Elshieky, an asylum recipient lawfully present in the United States, aboard a Greyhound bus in January 2019. Shortly after Mr. Elshieky boarded a Greyhound bus in Spokane, Washington, CBP officials entered the bus and began questioning and detaining people of color. A CBP official approached Mr. Elshieky and asked him to produce identification and to confirm his citizenship status. When Mr. Elshieky presented his valid Oregon driver’s license and valid USCIS employment authorization card, officers ordered him off the bus. Although Mr. Elshieky explained his immigration status—that he had been granted asylum recently—the officers accused him of possessing a forged employment authorization card and refused to believe him, saying “we’ve heard all this before” and “illegals say that all the time.” The officials continued to detain him and accused him of being unlawfully present as they confirmed his immigration status.

Mr. Elshieky filed an administrative complaint under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) on April 25, 2019, seeking $250,000 in damages for wrongful arrest and false imprisonment. CBP issued a final disposition denying the claim on September 11, 2019. On February 14, 2020, Mr. Elshieky filed a complaint in federal district court under the FTCA. On June 23, 2020, the court denied Defendant’s motion to dismiss Mr. Elshieky’s claim of discrimination under the Washington Law Against Discrimination.

After the court denied Defendants’ motion to dismiss as to Mr. Elshieky’s discrimination claim, Defendants filed their answer. Discovery is now beginning, and a bench trial has been postponed due to the pandemic. After a bench trial was postponed due to the pandemic, the case was referred to mediation and all deadlines were vacated. In March 2021, the government reached a settlement with Mr. Elshieky which included an award for damages. 

Counsel: Northwest Immigrant Rights Project | American Civil Liberties Union of Washington | Davis Wright Tremaine LLP

Contact: Matt Adams | 206-957-8611 | Northwest Immigrant Rights Project

Lisa Nowlin | 206-624-2184 | ACLU Washington

Lewis v. Unknown Agents of the Department of Homeland Security

Posted on by

Lewis v. Unknown Agents of the United States Department of Homeland Security, No. 3:19-cv-00600 (S.D. Cal., filed Apr. 1, 2019)

Sams v. Unknown Agents of the United States Department of Homeland Security, No. 3:19-cv-00612 (S.D. Cal., filed Apr. 2, 2019)

These lawsuits arise from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS)’s detention of two individuals who were experiencing withdrawal from opiates and alcohol and were denied medical treatment. The plaintiffs bring claims under Bivens v. Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), alleging violations of their Fifth Amendment Rights.

Mr. Lewis, a U.S. citizen and military veteran, was arrested by DHS at the San Ysidro Port of Entry in February 2019. He alleges that he told the arresting officers of his history of substance abuse, prompting laughter. He began experiencing the symptoms of withdrawal, and instead of being given medical treatment, was transferred back-and-forth between the San Diego Metropolitan Correction Center and DHS custody. Mr. Lewis spent four days in DHS custody experiencing severe withdrawal symptoms, unable to move or eat, all the while requesting medical attention which was never given.

The facts of Ms. Sam’s case are similar. In January 2019, DHS officers interrogated and detained her. Despite advising officers of her substance abuse history, she was placed in a small holding cell. She remained in DHS custody for four days, during which time she experienced grave symptoms of withdrawal and repeatedly requested medical attention. Her requests were ignored.

In April 2020, both cases settled for an undisclosed amount.

Counsel: Brody McBride, Singleton Law Firm, APC