Category Archives: Arizona

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

Skylight Engagement and AIC v. DHS and CBP

Posted on by

Skylight Engagement, Inc. and American Immigration Council v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security and U.S. Customs and Border Protection, No. 1:21-cv-00922 (E.D.N.Y., filed Feb. 19, 2021)

Skylight Engagement, a nonprofit human rights media organization, and the American Immigration Council filed a lawsuit under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) on February 19, 2021, seeking records from U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) regarding their actions at and around a humanitarian aid station near Arivaca, Arizona in 2017 and 2020.

The records sought include information on three aggressive raids conducted by CBP on the aid station, located about 11 miles from the U.S.-Mexico border and intended to provide aid to migrants who have crossed the border and are at risk due to the extremely hot and dry climate. The aid station was organized and operated by No More Deaths/No Más Muertes, a humanitarian organization that supplies medical care, food, and water to migrants.

CBP raided the Arivaca aid station on June 15, 2017, July 31, 2020, and again on October 5, 2020. During these raids, CBP interrogated, detained, and arrested individuals at the aid station in an aggressive manner. Plaintiffs filed an administrative FOIA request on October 14, 2020, seeking CBP records regarding the raids, but did not receive responsive records. In particular, the request sought video footage, photographs, or other media that CBP recorded documenting their actions during the raids, as well as communication and correspondence regarding the raids, including records related to search warrants.

On May 19, 2023, the parties stipulated to dismiss the suit after Defendants released records requested by Plaintiffs. The case was dismissed on June 5, 2023.

Documents:

Counsel:

Raul Pinto ǀ American Immigration Council ǀ rpinto@immcouncil.org

Annette Mattia v. USA

Posted on by

Annette Mattia, et al. v. United States of America, et al., No. 4:24-cv-00252 (D. Ariz., filed May 16, 2024)

The family of indigenous Arizona man Raymond Mattia filed suit against U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) after he was shot and killed by U.S. Border Patrol agents outside his home on tribal land. Tohono O’odham Nation Police Department requested assistance from Border Patrol after receiving a report of two gunshots heard on Tohono O’odham Nation land on the evening of May 18, 2023. Border Patrol agents agreed to respond and arrived on the reservation lands within 30 minutes in a convoy of approximately seven vehicles, with body armor and assault rifles.

Upon arriving at the location of the reported gunshots, agents did not see or hear additional activity, but nonetheless began searching a wide area to attempt to encounter persons of interest. After several minutes exploring the neighborhood and surrounding yards and wilderness, agents approached Mr. Mattia’s home. Agents had no specific suspicion of Mr. Mattia, or of any particular person in the neighborhood.

According to body camera footage, one agent drew a handgun and aimed it at Mr. Mattia’s home before announcing himself or the other agents present. Mr. Mattia emerged from his home and complied with agents’ requests to toss aside his hunting knife. Agents did not identify themselves or explain why they were present. They began yelling conflicting commands at Mr. Mattia, who remained calm and compliant. Several other agents drew firearms and aimed them at Mr. Mattia. When told to remove his hand from his pocket, Mr. Mattia did so, holding nothing but a cell phone. At least three agents opened fire, and Mr. Mattia was pronounced dead on the scene.

The family of Mr. Mattia filed suit against CBP under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) for use of excessive force, deprivation of right to familial association, assault, battery, negligence, and wrongful death, as well as for intentional infliction of emotional distress on surviving family members. Defendant United States filed a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim, which plaintiffs have opposed.

Documents:

Contact:

Ryan Stitt ǀ Stitt Vu Trial Lawyers APC ǀ rstitt@stittvu.com

Marcus Bourassa ǀ Mckenzie Scott PC ǀ mbourassa@mckenziescott.com

Press:

Florence Immigrant & Refugee Rights Project v. Department of Homeland Security

Posted on by

Florence Immigrant & Refugee Rights Project, et al., v. DHS, et al., No. 1:23-cv-10479 (D. Mass, filed Mar. 2, 2023)

On December 14, 2021, the Florence Immigrant & Refugee Rights Project (FIRRP) and Lawyers for Civil Rights (LCR) submitted a request for records under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) with Customs and Border Protection (CBP) seeking information about how CBP adjudicates humanitarian parole requests. Immigration law authorizes CBP and other agencies to parole noncitizens into the United States for “humanitarian reasons or significant public benefit.” As the government sets up more obstacles to legal entry—such as the former bar on entry pursuant to Title 42 and other limits on processing asylum seekers at ports of entry—humanitarian parole is often the only vehicle to seek temporary protection in the United States.

CBP has provided little information about how it adjudicates these urgent requests. Since 2017, FIRRP has been providing legal services to asylum seekers in Nogales, Sonora, just across the border from the Nogales Port of Entry into Nogales, Arizona. For their most vulnerable clients, FIRRP submits humanitarian parole applications, but the overwhelming majority of these clients have received boilerplate denials or no response at all. FIRRP and LCR submitted a FOIA request seeking CBP’s policies and procedures for processing these requests and data regarding processing times and outcomes.

After CBP failed to provide any responsive records for over a year, on March 2, 2023, FIRRP and LCR filed a lawsuit under FOIA to compel CBP to respond. The parties jointly proposed a briefing schedule to permit the government to produce responsive records to plaintiffs’ FOIA request, with production to be completed by November 3, 2023. The parties jointly proposed a briefing schedule to permit the government to produce responsive records to plaintiffs’ FOIA request. On March 19, 2024, the court stayed the case while the parties continue to cooperatively attempt to satisfy the FOIA request.

Documents:

Counsel: Lawyers for Civil Rights | Florence Immigration & Refugee Rights Project

Contact: Marian Albert | Lawyers for Civil Rights | (617) 482-1145

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:

Mendivil Perez v. United States

Posted on by

Angel Mendivil Perez v. United States, et al., 4:21-cv-00051-JEM (D. Ariz., filed Feb. 4, 2021)

On February 7, 2019, Alex Mendivil Perez, a U.S. citizen who was then 21 years old, was shot in the head by a Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officer while attempting to exit the U.S. into Mexico through the Nogales port of entry. At around 7 p.m. that day, Mr. Mendivil arrived at the border crossing driving a pickup truck with a passenger. CBP officers approached his truck, which had license plates registered to a different vehicle, and questioned him. During the questioning, Mr. Mendivil accelerated towards Mexico. As Mr. Mendivil drove away, an unknown CBP officer shot Mr. Mendivil in the head through the back window of his car. Though Mr. Mendivil was so gravely injured that he was believed dead at the scene of his shooting, he survived with permanent injuries, including brain damage.

In February 2021, Mr. Mendivil filed suit against the United States and the unknown CBP officer alleging claims under the Federal Tort Claims Act as well as violations of his Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights. Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on August 13, 2021, and Defendants filed their answer on August 24, 2021. After a period of discovery, the parties filed a proposed pretrial order on March 15, 2024, and then filed a joint notice of contingent settlement on April 12, 2024. On October 7, 2024, Plaintiffs filed a stipulation of dismissal with prejudice, which the Court granted the same day.

Documents:

Counsel: Risner & Graham

Contact: William J. Risner & Kenneth K. Graham | bill@risnerandgraham.com | kk@risnerandgraham.com

Additional links:

• Dana Liebelson, A CBP Officer Shot a 21-Year-Old American in the Head. 6 Months Later, CBP Won’t Say Why, Huffington Post, Oct. 19, 2019.
• Ray Stern, A Tucson Man Shot by a Border Officer While Entering Mexico Has Filed a Lawsuit Against DHS, Phoenix New Times, Feb. 8, 2021.

No More Deaths v. U.S. Customs and Border Protection

Posted on by

No More Deaths, et al. v. U.S. Customs and Border Protection, 1:21-cv-00954 (S.D.N.Y., filed Feb. 3, 2021)

Every year hundreds—possibly thousands—of migrants die while crossing into the United States from Mexico. The U.S. Border Patrol, within Customs and Border Protection (CBP), is responsible for most emergency aid requests for assistance in the desert, in part because local law enforcement agencies often refer 911 calls for emergency to Border Patrol when Spanish-speaking individuals call seeking help. Border Patrol’s role as an emergency services provider at the border is directly at odds with its role as an immigration enforcement agency.

Documentation by No More Deaths (NMD), a border aid organization, suggests that Border Patrol has often failed to carry out its search and rescue responsibilities: in 63% of all border distress calls referred to Border Patrol, the agency did not conduct any confirmed search or rescue mobilization. And when Border Patrol does initiate searches, they are significantly less effective when compared to searches for missing or lost U.S. citizens. Some Border Patrol searches last less than a day, or scarcely an hour. Documentation by local human rights organizations shows that in over 100 cases over a two-year period, Border Patrol agents actively interfered with family and humanitarian-organization led search efforts. In April 2019, NMD and the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request seeking information about CBP’s practices and policies relating to emergency services it claims to provide along the U.S.-Mexico border. In February 2021, after CBP failed to provide records for over 20 months, NMD and CCR filed a complaint seeking to compel an immediate, expedited search for and disclosure of requested records. The government filed its answer to the complaint in March 2021. CBP has finished producing documents, and plaintiffs are now determining whether to pursue litigation over any of the documents CBP withheld during production.

Documents:

Counsel: Center for Constitutional Rights

Contact: Angelo Guisado | aguisado@ccrjustice.org

Additional Links

Adlerstein v. U.S. Customs and Border Protection

Posted on by

Adlerstein, et al., v. U.S. Customs and Border Protection, et al., No. 4:19-cv-00500-CKJ (D. Ariz., filed Oct. 16, 2019)

Ana Adlerstein, Jeff Valenzuela, and Alex Mensing are humanitarian activists whom U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) subjected to repeated and lengthy detentions, searches, and interrogations without any connection to legitimate border control functions. All three are U.S. citizens with a right to return to the United States and yet all three were targeted as part of the federal government’s surveillance of individuals and groups protesting United States immigration policies.

On May 5, 2019, Ms. Adlerstein lawfully accompanied an asylum seeker to the Lukeville, Arizona port of entry. Without any evidence that Ms. Adlerstein had committed a crime, a CBP officer arrested and handcuffed Ms. Adlerstein, subjected her to an intrusive search, and detained her for hours, denying her requests to speak to her attorney. When Ms. Adlerstein protested that the CBP officers were violating her rights, an officer responded: “The Fourth Amendment doesn’t apply here.”

Mr. Valenzuela, a photographer and humanitarian volunteer, attempted to drive back into the United States at a port of entry in San Diego in December 2018. When he arrived, border officers walked to his car, ordered him out, handcuffed him, and marched him into their offices. They took his belongings, searched his bags, and shackled him by his ankles to a steel bench. They left him there, chained, for hours. Eventually they brought him to a small room where they interrogated him about his volunteer work, his associations, and his political beliefs.

Mr. Mensing crossed into the United States from Mexico twenty-eight times during a period of six months between June 2018 and October 2019. On twenty-six of those entries, CBP agents summarily referred him for “secondary inspection,” which for him included detention, searches, and repeated interrogation. During these interrogations, officers repeatedly asked him the same questions about his work, his finances, his associations, and his personal writings. These seizures became a routine part of his life: cross the border, get detained for hours, and be forced to answer the same questions by the government.

In their complaint, filed on October 16, 2019, the activists allege that CBP’s conduct violated the Fourth and First Amendments. The complaint also alleges that the government’s collection of private and protected information from the activists violated the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552a(a)-(l). The activists sought injunctive and declaratory relief. In April 2020, the parties completed briefing on the government’s motion to dismiss and motion for summary judgment. The court held oral argument on defendants’ motion to dismiss and motion for summary judgment on August 4, 2020. On October 1, 2020, the court granted in part and denied in part defendants’ motion to dismiss, allowing plaintiffs to proceed on their First and Fourth Amendment claims regarding Mr. Valenzuela’s detention. Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on October 26, 2020. Defendants responded to the amended complaint on December 4, 2020. The case continued in discovery. On April 25, 2023, the court granted in part plaintiffs’ motion to compel, ordering defendants to search for and produce documents related to the affiliated organizations and documents related to Lukeville arrests involving 8 U.S.C. § 1324. On June 18, 2025, the Court set a bench trial for September 30, 2025, notwithstanding a notice of settlement and final approval from the Court. On July 14, 2025, the parties submitted a joint status report that they have reached an agreement in principle to settle all of plaintiffs’ claims in this matter, pending defendants’ final approval of the proposed settlement.

On September 15, 2025, the court adopted the parties’ stipulations and proposed settlement in full, dismissing the case with prejudice.

Documents:

Counsel: ACLU of Southern California | ACLU of Arizona | Kirkland & Ellis

Contact: Mohammad Tajsar | (213) 977-9500 | mtajsar@aclusocal.org

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