UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA N.S., individually and on behalf of all others ) similarly situated, ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) Case No. 1:20-cv-101-RCL ) MICHAEL A. HUGHES, in his official ) capacity as U.S. Marshal for the District of ) Columbia Superior Court, ) ) Defendant. ) _______________________________________) MEMORANDUM OPINION Plaintiff N.S.,1 on behalf of the proposed class, requests a preliminary injunction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“Fed. R. Civ. P.”) 65 against defendant Michael A. Hughes in his official capacity as United States Marshal for the District of Columbia Superior Court. Plaintiff alleges that the United States Marshals Service (“USMS”) is unlawfully seizing individuals for suspected civil immigration violations despite its lack of authority to do so, thus violating the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”). Upon consideration of the motion (ECF No. 4), opposition (ECF No. 16), reply (ECF No. 19), amicus curiae briefs (ECF Nos. 31 & 35), and responses thereto (ECF Nos. 34 & 38), the Court will GRANT plaintiff’s motion and preliminarily ENJOIN defendant and defendant’s subordinates, agents, and employees from seizing individuals for suspected civil immigration violations. As explained below, deciding whether to issue a preliminary injunction has necessarily forced the Court to consider the Motion to Certify Class. Upon consideration of that motion (ECF No. 5), opposition (ECF No. 27), and 1 Chief Judge Beryl A. Howell granted plaintiff’s motion (ECF No. 1) to proceed under pseudonym, finding that his status as an undocumented individual could subject him to threats and harassment, and therefore his privacy interest outweighed the public interest in requiring disclosure of his identity. See ECF No. 2. 1 reply (ECF No. 29), the Court will GRANT the motion and certify the class. Furthermore, the Court will DENY as moot plaintiff’s motion for expedited discovery (ECF No. 14). N.S. specifically requested expedited discovery to support his motion for a preliminary injunction, but the Court is already prepared to grant a preliminary injunction without that additional discovery. BACKGROUND I. PLAINTIFF N.S. & THE PROPOSED CLASS Plaintiff N.S. was arrested on January 13, 2020. On January 14, 2020, plaintiff appeared before Magistrate Judge Heide L. Herrmann, who found that he was not a flight risk, posed no danger to the community, and could therefore be released on his own recognizance with orders to return to D.C. Superior Court on January 27, 2020. After being ordered released—but before he could leave the courthouse—USMS officers immediately detained him, claiming that N.S. had an “ICE hold.” The USMS held him for at least two hours before transferring him to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”). These facts are not contested, and defendant admits that it routinely detains anyone suspected of civil immigration violations after that person is either released by a judge or after the criminal charges are dropped. Plaintiff believes that the USMS lacks the authority to make civil immigration arrests and brings this suit as a class action on behalf of all others who have been or ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals