Jane Doe v. John Kelly

FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JANE DOE, # 1; JANE DOE, # 2; Nos. 17-15381 NORLAN FLORES, on behalf of 17-15383 themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellants/Cross- D.C. No. Appellees, 4:15-cv-00250- DCB v. JOHN F. KELLY, Secretary, United OPINION States Department of Homeland Security; KEVIN K. MCALEENAN, Acting Commissioner, United States Customs and Border Protection; RONALD VITIELLO, Chief, United States Border Patrol; JEFFREY SELF, Commander, Arizona Joint Field Command; PAUL BEESON, Chief Patrol Agent - Tucson Sector, Defendants-Appellees/Cross- Appellants. 2 DOE V. KELLY Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona David C. Bury, Senior District Judge, Presiding Argued and Submitted October 16, 2017 San Francisco, California Filed December 22, 2017 Before: Richard C. Tallman and Consuelo M. Callahan, Circuit Judges, and David A. Ezra,* District Judge. Opinion by Judge Callahan SUMMARY** Civil Rights The panel affirmed the district court’s preliminary injunction in an action brought by civil detainees confined in U.S. Customs and Border Protection facilities within the Tucson Sector of the U.S. Border Patrol who alleged they were subjected to inhumane and punitive treatment. The district court granted a preliminary injunction requiring that defendants provide detainees with mats and * The Honorable David A. Ezra, United States District Judge for the District of Hawaii, sitting by designation. ** This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It has been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader. DOE V. KELLY 3 blankets after 12 hours. Defendants appealed, alleging that the district court misapprehended the standard set forth in Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520 (1979), and that the order was too rigid and burdensome. Plaintiffs also appealed, alleging that the district court should have ordered defendants to provide the detainees with beds and mattresses, allow them access to showers, and deliver adequate medical care through medical professionals. The panel held that the district court carefully considered plaintiffs’ allegations of constitutional violations, recognized the guidance provided by the Supreme Court in Bell, and issued a limited preliminary injunction requiring defendants to provide detainees with mats and blankets after 12 hours. Defendants failed to show that, in doing so, the district court misapprehended Bell or that the preliminary injunction was overly rigid or burdensome. The panel found unpersuasive plaintiffs’ assertions that the district court should have required defendants to provide detainees with beds, showers, and medical treatment provided by medical professionals. The panel held that the district court recognized the unique mission of the Border Patrol and, at least for the purposes of a preliminary injunction, reasonably balanced the government’s interests and the detainees’ constitutional rights. 4 DOE V. KELLY COUNSEL James R. Sigel (argued), Robert J. Esposito, and Elizabeth G. Balassone, Morrison & Foerster LLP, San Francisco, California; Deanne E. Maynard, Sophia M. Brill, Bryan J. Leitch, and Lena H. Hughes, Morrison & Foerster LLP, Washington, D.C.; Louise C. Stoupe and Pieter S. de Ganon, Morrison & Foerster LLP, Tokyo, Japan; Colette Rainer ...

Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals