NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 26 2020 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT IMMIGRANT LEGAL RESOURCES No. 20-16580 CENTER; FREEDOM FOR IMMIGRANTS, Attorney General, D.C. No. 1:20-cv-00966-TLN-AC Petitioners-Appellees, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, MEMORANDUM* Intervenor, v. CITY OF MCFARLAND, Respondent-Appellant, and CITY OF MCFARLAND PLANNING COMMISSION, Respondent, GEO GROUP, INC., Real-party-in-interest. IMMIGRANT LEGAL RESOURCES No. 20-16557 CENTER; FREEDOM FOR * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. IMMIGRANTS, Attorney General, D.C. No. 1:20-cv-00966-TLN-AC Petitioners-Appellees, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, Intervenor, v. CITY OF MCFARLAND; CITY OF MCFARLAND PLANNING COMMISSION, Respondents, and GEO GROUP, INC., Real-party-in-interest- Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Troy L. Nunley, District Judge, Presiding Argued and Submitted October 9, 2020 Pasadena, California Before: KLEINFELD, HURWITZ, and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges. The City of McFarland (“the City”) and Geo Group, Inc. (“GEO”) challenge the district court’s preliminary injunction preventing the City from executing modifications to GEO’s Conditional Use Permits and barring GEO from accepting or transferring immigration detainees into or out of its two facilities in McFarland, 2 California. We review a district court’s decision to grant or deny a preliminary injunction for abuse of discretion and its interpretation of the underlying legal principles de novo. Cuviello v. City of Vallejo, 944 F.3d 816, 825–26 (9th Cir. 2019) (citing Sw. Voter Registration Educ. Project v. Shelley, 344 F.3d 914, 918 (9th Cir. 2003)). We vacate the preliminary injunction and remand. 1 1. The district court abused its discretion in finding that Appellees raised “serious questions” as to whether the City violated California Civil Code § 1670.9(d). First, the City complied with § 1670.9(d)’s requirement that it hold “at least two separate meetings open to the public.” Cal. Civ. Code § 1670.9(d)(2). In fact, the City held three public meetings to consider the permit modifications: two before the Planning Commission and one before the City Council. Section 1670.9(d) only requires two public meetings for the permitting authority—“[a] city, county, city and county, or public agency,” Cal. Civ. Code § 1670.9(d)—without distinguishing it from the constituent agencies through which it acts. Cities act through their subsidiary departments, and the Planning 1 Immigrant Legal Resources Center and Freedom for Immigrants, two non- profit organizations that provide services to immigrant detainees, sought the injunction against the City and GEO. The City and GEO challenge the organizations’ standing to bring this claim. Our precedent dictates that we do not dismiss this case on standing grounds. See E. Bay Sanctuary Covenant v. Trump, 950 F.3d 1242, 1266 (9th Cir. 2020). 3 Commission acted as an arm of the City. See, e.g., A Local & Reg’l Monitor v. City of Los Angeles, 16 Cal. Rptr. 2d 358, 366 (Ct. App. 1993) (describing city’s “Planning Commission” as “an arm of the City” when convening a public hearing to consider a zoning proposal). Moreover, the City’s municipal code makes clear that ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals