Case

Brizuela v.
Feliciano

Roy v. Los
Angeles
County

Procedural vehicle

Federal / Constitutional
claims

A Connecticut resident,
represented by students
in Yale Law School’s
immigration clinic, filed
P: Yale Law School
a representative habeas
Worker and
No. 12petition and class action
Immigrant Rights
0226 (D.
complaint challenging
Advocacy Clinic
Conn. filed
the Connecticut
(Michael Wishnie)
Feb. 13,
Department of
2012)
Corrections’ practice of
D: Local law
holding individuals after
enforcement
their lawful state
custody has expired
solely on the basis of an
immigration detainer

Petition for writ of
habeas corpus; in the
alternative for relief
under 42 U.S.C.
1983; seeking class
certiciation for
representative habeas
action, or class action
under 1983.

1. Fourth Amendment
violation.
2. Fourth Amendment
violation (ultra vires)
3. Fourth Amendment
violation (detention w/o
hearing)
4. Fourth Amendment
violation (state
comandeering)
5. Fourteenth Amendment
(substantive due process)
6. Fourteenth Amendment
(procedural due process)

Roy v. Los Angeles
County is a lawsuit
No. CV 12against Los Angeles
9012
P: ACLU
County and the L.A.
(Central
County Sheriff Lee Baca
District
D: County of Los for denying bail on the
California,
Angeles; Sheriff of basis of ICE holds, and
filed
Los Angeles
for holding people in
October 19,
County Jail for more
2012)
than 48 hours based on
those ICE holds.

3. Violation of
California
Constituion, Article 1
Section 7 (due
process)
4. Violation of
1. Fourteenth Amendment
California
42 USC 1983; seeking
(42 USC 1983) (due process) Constitution, Article
class certification
2. Fourth Amendment
1 Section 13
pursuant to FRCP
(unlawful seizure)
(unlawful seizure)
23(b)(2)
3.
5. False imprisonment
6. California
Government code
815.2 and 815.6
(mandatory LASD
duty to allow persons
to post bail)

Cite

Parties

Facts

State law claims

Relief sought

None.

1. Writ of habeas
corpus
2. Issue injunction
3. Declaratory
judgment
4. Reasonable costs
5. Any other relief
court deems proper

1. Declaratory
judgment that refusal
to allow posting bail
is unlawful
2. Injunction not to
detain pursuant to
immigration hold
3. Injunction not to
detain beyond 48
hours without
probable cause
hearing
4. Declaratory
judgment that
detention per
immigration hold is
unlawful

Status

Complaint
URL

Settled

http://www.le
galactioncente
r.org/sites/def
ault/files/docs
/lac/Brizuela%
20v.%20Felicia
no%20Complai
nt.pdf

Filed 10/19/12

https://www.s
cribd.com/doc
/110550860/R
oy-v-L-ACountyComplaint

All Plaintiffs voluntarily
reported to the
Williamson County
1. Fourth Amendment (42
Criminal Justice Center
Decision
USC 1983) (illegal policy,
(“CJC”) after each
5. Violation of
9/10/2012, granting
No. 3:11practice, and custom)
receiving a
Tennesse
defendant's motion
cv-01168
2. Fourteenth Amendment
P: Elliott Ozment misdemeanor citation in
Constitution, Article 1. Declaratory relief
to dismiss: ICE
(Middle
(procedural due process)
Available on
Rios-Quiroz v.
Law
lieu of custodial arrest. 42 USC 1983; class
1, Section 15 (denial
2. Damages
detainer is
District
3. Fourth Amendment (TCA
PACER; to be
Williamson
When Plaintiffs arrived certification pursuant
of bail to persons
3. Class certification
mandatory and
Tennessee,
40-7-123 unconstitutional as
County
D: Williamson
at the Williamson
to FRCP 23 (b)(3)
charged with non4-5. Reasonable
therefore complaint filed on X drive
filed
applied)
County Tennessee County Sheriff’s Office
capital offenses)
expenses / costs
is properly
12/12/2011
4. Violation of Supremacy
(“WCSO”), employees
6. False
addressed to
)
Clause (preempted local
of the WCSO
Imprisonment
federal
enforcement of federal
communicated with the
government.
immigration law)
United States
Immigration and
Customs Enforcement
On March 18,
2011, the district
court denied
defendants’ motion
P: Mexican
to dismiss for
1. Assume
American Legal
An individual filed suit
failure to state a http://www.le
jurisdiction.
No. 10Defense and
against the LaGrange
claim, finding that galactioncente
2. Declaratory
r.org/sites/def
0197 (N.D. Educational Fund County Sheriff and jail
1. Fifth and Fourteenth
plaintiff had
Rivas v.
judgment.
Ind. filed
administrators for
42 USC 1983
Amendment (due process)
None.
sufficiently stated a ault/files/docs
Martin
3. Compensatory
June 16,
D: Sheriff of
holding her on an ICE
(42 USC 1983)
claim for violation /lac/Melendre
damages
2010)
LaGrange County;
detainer for ten days
of her due process
z-6-6-104. Reasonable fees
various jail
after she posted bond.
rights. On
Complaint.pdf
5. Other relief.
commanders
September 1, 2011,
the parties
stipulated to
dismissal with
prejudice of all
District court
granted defendants’
motions for
No. 09A U.S. citizen sued
summary judgment,
3417
individual ICE officers
finding that
(W.D. Mo.
and a Department of
1. Actual and
plaintiff’s Fourth http://www.le
P: Sharma1. Fourth Amendment
filed Nov.
State official alleging
compensatory
Amendment claim galactioncente
Crawford,
(unreasonable search and
r.org/sites/def
6, 2009)
that they violated his
damages
failed because
Keil v.
Attorneys at Law,
seizure)
appeal
Fourth and Fifth
Habeas corpus
None.
2. Punitive and
defendants had ault/files/docs
Triveline
LLC
2. Fifth Amendment (due
docketed,
Amendment rights by
exemplarary damages probable cause to /lac/Keil-11-9process)
No. 11unlawfully arresting and
3-4. Attorney fees / arrest plaintiff for
09D: ICE agents
3. Federal Tort Claims Act
1647 (8th
holding him in a county
other relief
falsely claiming Complaint.pdf
Cir., Mar.
jail pursuant to an ICE
U.S. citizenship
24, 2011)
detainer.
and misusing a
U.S. passport. The
Eighth Circuit
affirmed the lower

JimenezMoreno v.
Napolitano

Galarza v.
Szalczyk

Two individuals filed a
1. Violation of 5 U.S.C. §§
Writ of habeas
No. 11P: National
class action lawsuit
706 (Administrative
corpus; injunctive
05452
Immigrant Justice
challenging ICE’s
Procedure Act)
relief pursuant to 5
(N.D.
Center (Mark
assertion of authority to
2. Violation of Fourth
U.S.C. 702. Seeking
Ill. filed Au
Fleming)
instruct law enforcement
Amendment
class cert via FRCP
g. 11,
agencies to detain
3. Violation of Fifth
23(b)(1) and (2) or
2011)
D: ICE
alleged noncitizens for
Amendment
(c)(4)
the sole purpose of
4. Violation of Tenth
In November 2008, Mr.
Galarza was mistakenly
1. Fourth Amendment and
swept up in a series of
due process (Bivens)
drug arrests by
2. Fifth Amendment
Allentown police. Mr.
(Bivens) (equal protection)
Galarza, who had
3. Fifth Amendment and 8
nothing to do with the
CFR 1357 (due process)
2012 WL
P: ACLU of
crimes, was jailed at the
4. Fourteenth Amendment
1080020
Pennsylvania &
Lehigh County Prison
(42 USC 1983) (equal
(E.D. Pa.
ACLU IRP
along with other
protection)
Mar. 30,
arrestees. He was later
42 USC 1983
5. Fourth and Fourteenth
2012)
D: ICE; local law
acquitted of any
Amendment (42 USC 1983)
(unpublish enforcement; local wrongdoing. Though he
(unreasonable seizure,
ed)
government
posted bail the next day,
deprivation of liberty and
Mr. Galarza was not
due process)
released because ICE
6. Fourteenth Amendment
had issued an
(42 USC 1983) (due process)
immigration detainer
7. Fourteenth Amendment
against him. Mr.
(42 USC 1983) (equal
Galarza’s Social
protection)
Security card and

None.

None.

1-3. Certification as
class action
4-7. Declaratory
judgment
8. Injunction
9-10 Costs/fees and
other relief

http://www.le
galactioncente
r.org/sites/def
Appears to be still
ault/files/docs
pending
/lac/MorenoComplaint-811-11.pdf

1. Compensatory
On March 19,
damages as to City of
2013, Plaintiff
Allentown and
appealed the March
individual defendants
30, 2012 order and
2. Punitive damages
opinion of the
as to individual
court granting
defendants
Lehigh County’s
3-4. Reasonable costs
Motion to Dismiss.
/ other relief

http://www.ac
lu.org/files/ass
ets/2011.04.06
_first_amende
d_complaint.p
df

The ACLU-NC filed a
lawsuit in September
2008 charging that the
Committee for 2010 WL
P: ACLU of
Sonoma County
Immigrant
841372
Northern CA
Sheriff's Department
Rights of
(N.D. Ca.
(Andre Segura)
and the U.S. Bureau of
Sonoma
Mar. 10,
Immigration and
County v.
2010)
D: ICE; local law Customs Enforcement
Sonoma
(unpublish enforcement; local
(ICE) have been
County
ed)
govt
collaborating beyond the
law to target, arrest, and
detain Latino residents
of Sonoma County.

Florida
Immigrant
Coalition v.
Mendez

2010 WL
4384220
(S.D.Fl.
Oct. 28,
2010)
(unpublish
ed)

P: LatinoJustice
PRLDEF
D: local govt

Three Florida immigrant
rights organizations and
an individual plaintiff
filed a habeas petition
and complaint seeking
to enjoin the policies
and practices of the
defendant, Palm Beach
County Sheriff, that
result
in confinement
of
Appellant
was arrested

for a third degree felony,
and a bond of $1,000
P: Palm Beach PDs
was promptly set.
Ricketts v.
985 So.2d
However, when he
Palm Beach
591 (2008)
D: local govt
attempted to post the
County Sheriff
bond, the sheriff refused
to accept it, because
appellant was subject to
an immigration hold.

1. Fourth Amendment (42
USC 1983) (unreasonable
search and seizure)
2. Fourteenth Amendment
(42 USC 1983) (equal
protection)
3. Fourteenth Amendment
(42 USC 1983) (due process)
4. Fourth Amendment and 8
USC 1357 (Bivens and 5
USC 702) (unreasonable
search and seizure)
42 USC 1983, 5 USC
5. Fifth Amendment (Bivens
702
and 5 USC 702) (equal
protection)
6. Fifth Amendment, 8 USC
1357, 8 CFR 287.3, 8 CFR
287.7 (Bivens and 5 USC
702) (due process)
7. Violation of 42 USC
2000d et seq.
8. 5 USC 706
9. 42 USC 1983, 42 USC
1985(3)
18. False Imprisonment

10. California
Constution, Art. I.,
Section 13
11. California
1. Preliminary and
Constitution, Art. I,
permanent injunction
Section 7(a) (equal
against County
protection)
Defendants
12. California
2. Preliminary and
Constitution, Art. I,
permanent
Section 7(a) (due
injunctions against
process)
287.7 claims
ICE and individual
13. Violation of Bane
rejected.
defendants
Act, California Civil
Otherwise, settled
3-5 Declaratory
Code 52.1
for money damages
judgment
14. California
and policy changes
6. Nominal,
Government Code §
compensatory,
11135 and Its
special, statutory, and
Implementing
punitive damages
Regulations
7 -9.
15. False
Costs/expenses/other
Imprisonment (Cal
relief
Gov’t Code § 815.2)
16. Intentional
Infliction of
Emotional Distress
1. Issue writ of
habeas corpus
2. Declatory
1. Fourteenth Amendment
judgment
Dismissed
42 USC 1983, habeas (42 USC 1983) (due process)
3. Injunction
None.
(governmental
corpus
2. Fourth Amendment and
4. Nominal,
immunity)
Fourteenth Amendment
compensatory, and
punitive damages
5-6. Costs / other
relief.

Habeas corpus

Habeas; Fourth amendment

None.

http://www.le
galactioncente
r.org/sites/def
ault/files/docs
/lac/P-2ndAmend-Comp9-14-09.pdf

http://www.le
galactioncente
r.org/sites/def
ault/files/docs
/lac/9-03-09Complaint.pdf

Dismissed (court
held that
Writ of habeas corpus
immigration
Not available
detainer habeas is a
federal issue)

No. 090091 (M.D.
Cote v. Lubins Fla. filed F
eb. 23,
2009)

No. 111582 (S.D.
Jimenez v.
Ind. filed N
United States
ov. 30,
2011)

Urbina v.
Rustin

No. 080979
(W.D.
Pa. filed Ju
ly 11,
2008)

2011 WL
Renteria4048523
Villegas v.
(M.D.
Metropolitan Tenn. Sept.
Government 12, 2011)
of Nashville (unpublish
ed)

Cote, a twenty-threeyear-old mother of
three, was arrested
without charge. The
P: ACLU of Florida
police ignored a
domestic violence call to
Habeas corpus
D: local govt
which they were
responding, and arrested
Cote instead who
couldn’t prove her
citizenship, usurping
federal immigration
A U.S. Citizen who was
unlawfully held for three
P: ACLU of IN days pursuant to an ICE
Bivens. Federal Tort
detainer and denied
Claims Act.
D: ICE
bond filed suit against
unknown individual ICE
officers and the United

P: Community
Justice Project
(Pittsburgh, PA)
D: Local
government

P: National
Lawyers Guild
National
Immigration
Project, SPLC
(Tom Fritzsche)
D: ICE, local
government

1. No administrative
remedies available
2. Arrest in violation of
Fourth Amendment
3. Deprivation of liberty
without due process in
violation of Fourteenth
Amendment
4. Form I-247 does not
provide lawful basis to
detain
1. Unreasonable seizure in
violation of Fourth
Amendment (Bivens)
2. Erroneous detention and
injury represent negligence,
false imprisonment; U.S. is
liable under F.T.C.A.

Two individuals filed a
habeas petition and class
action suit against the
Warden of Allegheny
Habeas corpus, 42
County Jail challenging USC 1983. Seeking
their continued
class certification
detention pursuant to
pursuant to FRCP
ICE detainers and
23(b)(2) and (3)
alleging violations of
the Fourteenth
Amendment

1. Violation of Due Process
Clause of Fourteenth
Amendment

The lawsuit argued that
the Tennessee Supreme
Court previously ruled
that the Nashville Police
Department was solely
responsible for all
prevention and detection
of crimes, investigation
and apprehension of
criminals, and
enforcement of criminal
and civil laws.

2. Violation of
Administrative Procedure
Act (5 U.S.C. §§ 701 et seq.;
28 U.S.C. § 2201)
3. Violation of Fourteenth
Amendment Due Process
clause

5 USC 702

None.

Writ of habeas corpus

http://www.ac
Dismissed as moot
lufl.org/pdfs/c
(P released)
otehabeas.pdf

None.

1. Accept jurisdiction
2. Compensatory
damages
3. Award all other
relief

None.

“Plaintiffs filed a
motion for class
certification on
July 23, 2008,
1. Assume
seeking to certify a
jurisdiction
class consisting of
2. Order to show
all who are or will
cause why writ
be detained in the
should not be granted
Allegheny County
3. Grant writ
Jail based solely on
4. Grant other relief
an immigration
detainer and
without the
opportunity to

http://www.le
galactioncente
r.org/sites/def
ault/files/docs
/lac/Complaint
,%2011-3011.pdf

1. Violation of
Metropolitan Charter
(Tenn. Code. §§ 2914-102, 103, 111; 28
U.S.C. § 2201)
4. False imprisonment

Currently in
discovery

http://www.le
galactioncente
r.org/sites/def
ault/files/docs
/lac/Urbina%2
0v.%20Rustin%
20Habeas%20
Petition%20an
d%20Compl.pd
f

1. Declaratory
http://cdna.spl
judgment
Claim that local center.org/site
2. Preliminary and
cooperation with s/default/files/
then permanent
ICE violated city downloads/cas
injunction
charter was
e/Renteria3. Compensatory and
allowed to go
Villegas_Third_
permanent damages
forward
Amended_Co
4-5. Reasonable costs
mplaint.pdf
/ other relief