Case 5:19-cv-01546-JGB-SHK Document 207 Filed 07/13/20 Page 1 of 17 Page ID #:4195 1 Timothy P. Fox (CA Bar 157750) [email protected] 2 Elizabeth Jordan* [email protected] 3 CIVIL RIGHTS EDUCATION AND ENFORCEMENT CENTER 4 1245 E. Colfax Avenue, Suite 400 5 Denver, CO 80218 Tel: (303) 757-7901 6 Fax: (303) 872-9072 7 Lisa Graybill* [email protected] Stuart Seaborn (CA Bar 198590) 8 Jared Davidson* [email protected] [email protected] Melissa Riess (CA Bar 295959) 9 SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW [email protected] CENTER DISABILITY RIGHTS ADVOCATES 10 201 St. Charles Avenue, Suite 2000 2001 Center Street, 4th Floor 11 New Orleans, Louisiana 70170 Berkeley, California 94704 Tel: (504) 486-8982 Tel: (510) 665-8644 12 Fax: (504) 486-8947 Fax: (510) 665-8511 13 14 Attorneys for Plaintiffs (continued on next page) 15 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 16 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 17 EASTERN DIVISION – RIVERSIDE 18 FAOUR ABDALLAH FRAIHAT, et al., Case No.: 19-cv-01546-JGB(SHKx) 19 Plaintiffs, Plaintiffs’ Reply Brief in Support of 20 v. Motion to Enforce the April 20, 21 U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS 2020 Preliminary Injunction Order 22 ENFORCEMENT, et al., Hearing Date: July 13, 2020 23 Defendants. Time: 2:00 pm Hon. Jesus G. Bernal 24 25 26 27 28 Case 5:19-cv-01546-JGB-SHK Document 207 Filed 07/13/20 Page 2 of 17 Page ID #:4196 1 William F. Alderman (CA Bar 47381) Mark Mermelstein (CA Bar 208005) [email protected] [email protected] 2 Jake Routhier (CA Bar 324452) ORRICK, HERRINGTON & [email protected] SUTCLIFFE LLP 3 ORRICK, HERRINGTON & 777 South Figueroa Street SUTCLIFFE LLP Suite 3200 4 405 Howard Street Los Angeles, CA 90017 5 San Francisco, CA 94105 Tel: (213) 629-2020 Tel: (415) 773-5700 Fax: (213) 612-2499 6 Fax: (415) 773-5759 Leigh Coutoumanos* 7 Michael W. Johnson* [email protected] [email protected] Timothy Ryan** 8 Dania Bardavid* [email protected] [email protected] WILLKIE FARR & 9 Jessica Blanton* GALLAGHER LLP [email protected] 1875 K Street NW, Suite 100 10 Joseph Bretschneider** Washington, DC 20006 11 [email protected] Tel: (202) 303-1000 WILLKIE FARR & Fax: (202) 303-2000 12 GALLAGHER LLP 787 Seventh Avenue Shalini Goel Agarwal 13 New York, NY 10019 (CA Bar 254540) Tel: (212) 728-8000 [email protected] 14 Fax: (212) 728-8111 SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER 15 Maia Fleischman* 106 East College Avenue [email protected] Suite 1010 16 SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW Tallahassee, FL 32301 CENTER Tel: (850) 521-3024 17 2 South Biscayne Boulevard Fax: (850) 521-3001 18 Suite 3750 Miami, FL 33131 Maria del Pilar Gonzalez Morales 19 Tel: (786) 347-2056 (CA Bar 308550) Fax: (786) 237-2949 [email protected] 20 CIVIL RIGHTS EDUCATION Christina Brandt-Young* AND ENFORCEMENT CENTER 21 [email protected] 1825 N. Vermont Avenue, #27916 DISABILITY RIGHTS Los Angeles, CA 90027 22 ADVOCATES Tel: (805) 813-8896 655 Third Avenue, 14th Floor Fax: (303) 872-9072 23 New York, NY 10017 24 Tel: (212) 644-8644 Veronica Salama* Fax: (212) 644-8636 [email protected] 25 SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER 26 P.O. Box 1287 Decatur, GA, 30031 Tel: (404) 221-5825 27 Fax: (404) 221-5857 28 Attorneys for Plaintiffs (continued from previous page) *Admitted Pro Hac Vice **Pro Hac Vice Application Forthcoming Case 5:19-cv-01546-JGB-SHK Document 207 Filed 07/13/20 Page 3 of 17 Page ID #:4197 1 Table of Contents 2 3 I. Introduction ...................................................................................................... 1 4 II. Defendants’ Declarations Establish Noncompliance ...................................... 1 5 III. The Court Has Jurisdiction to Enforce Compliance ........................................ 3 6 IV. Defendants Have Not Rebutted the Need to Revise the PRR ......................... 5 A. Defendants Have Not Rebutted the Need for Expanded 7 Testing ................................................................................................... 5 8 B. An Adequately Revised PRR Would Limit Transfers .......................... 6 9 C. Defendants Do Not Refute Their Dangerous Segregation 10 Practices ................................................................................................. 6 11 D. An Adequate PRR Would Address Harmful Disinfectants .................. 7 12 E. Defendants Do Not Refute the Need for Other Precautions ............................................................................................ 8 13 V. Defendants’ Brief Confirms Inadequate Monitoring of the PRR ................... 8 14 VI. Defendants Fail to Refute Facts Demonstrating Their Failure to 15 Adequately Implement Court-Ordered Custody Redeterminations ............................................................................................. 9 16 VII. Appointment of a Special Master Is Necessary ............................................. 12 17 VIII. Conclusion ..................................................................................................... 12 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Fraihat, et al., v. ICE, et al., Case No. 19-cv-01546-JGB(SHKx) i Plaintiffs’ Reply Brief in Support of Motion to Enforce the April 20, 2020 Preliminary Injunction Order Case 5:19-cv-01546-JGB-SHK Document 207 Filed 07/13/20 Page 4 of 17 Page ID #:4198 1 Table of Authorities 2 Case Page(s) 3 A&M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc., 284 F.3d 1091 (9th Cir. 2002) ......................................................................... 4 4 5 Armstrong v. Brown, 732 F.3d 955 (9th Cir. 2013) ........................................................................... 4 6 7 Hoffman v. Beer Drivers & Salesmen's Local Union No. 888, 536 F.2d 1268 (9th Cir. 1976); ........................................................................ 4 8 9 Hoptowit v. Ray, 10 682 F.2d 1237 (9th Cir. 1982) ....................................................................... 12 11 Meinhold v. U.S. Dep’t of Def., 12 34 F.3d 1469 (9th Cir. 1994) ........................................................................... 4 13 Nat’l Org. for the Reform of Marijuana Laws v. Mullen, 14 828 F.2d 536 (9th Cir. 1987) ......................................................................... 12 15 Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc. v. Sw. Marine Inc., 16 242 F.3d 1163 (9th Cir. 2001) ................................................................... 4, 11 17 Roman v. Wolf, No. 18 EDCV2000768TJHPVCX, 2020 WL 3481564 (C.D. Cal. June 17, 2020) .... 4 19 Sierra Club, Lone Star Chapter v. Cedar Point Oil Co. Inc., 20 73 F.3d 546 (5th Cir. 1996) ............................................................................. 4 21 State v. Trump, 22 263 F. Supp. 3d 1049 (D. Haw. 2017) ............................................................. 4 23 24 25 26 27 28 Fraihat, et al., v. ICE, et al., Case No. 19-cv-01546-JGB(SHKx) ii Plaintiffs’ Reply Brief in Support of Motion to Enforce the April 20, 2020 Preliminary Injunction Order Case 5:19-cv-01546-JGB-SHK Document 207 Filed 07/13/20 Page 5 of 17 Page ID #:4199 1 I. Introduction 2 Unable to rebut Plaintiffs’ evidence of noncompliance, Defendants instead 3 resort to erecting a straw man. Both their legal positions and their factual assertions 4 address a motion to hold them in contempt for their violation of the PI Order. But 5 no such motion has been made. Plaintiffs seek an order compelling Defendants to 6 comply with the PI Order rather than punishing them for having failed to do so.1 7 Nor have Defendants shown compliance in any case. They do not seriously contest 8 the crucial need for the enforcement measures requested by Plaintiffs, instead 9 attempting to convince the Court that the PI Order requires lip service rather than 10 meaningful compliance. Not only have they failed to rebut Plaintiffs’ evidence 11 regarding custody redeterminations, testing, transfer, segregation, disinfectants, 12 and other precautionary measures, their own declarations in fact strengthen the 13 reasons why Plaintiffs’ motion should be granted. 14 II. Defendants’ Declarations Establish Noncompliance 15 Defendants urge the Court to credit Defendants’ declarations rather than 16 Plaintiffs’. Opp. at 5-6.2 But their proposed comparison of the parties’ respective 17 evidence only digs them a deeper hole. Their declarations routinely mislead the 18 Court or undermine their arguments altogether. 19 For example, Defendant Tae Johnson falsely claims that ICE has tested 20 “nearly 46% of the ICE detained population” (ECF 204-2 ¶ 21). He derives that 21 figure by comparing the total number of tests since testing began (~10,500) with 22 only the current population in detention (~23,000). But since March 1, ICE has 23 24 1 Thus, while Plaintiffs have shown by “clear and convincing evidence” that Defendants are non-compliant with the PI Order, that evidentiary standard is 25 inapposite here because Plaintiffs seek only enforcement of the PI Order—not a finding of civil contempt. 26 2 Defendants’ argument that Plaintiffs’ evidence is inadmissible hearsay is also meritless. The Court has already rejected Defendants’ argument, ECF 132 at 5 n.4, 27 and, in any event, they have failed to comply with the Standing Order’s 28 requirements for evidentiary objections. Standing Order at 9-10; Opp. at 5. Fraihat, et al., v. ICE, et al., Case No. 19-cv-01546-JGB(SHKx) 1 Plaintiffs’ Reply Brief in Support of Motion to Enforce the April 20, 2020 Preliminary Injunction Order Case 5:19-cv-01546-JGB-SHK Document 207 Filed 07/13/20 Page 6 of 17 Page ID #:4200 1 removed over 41,000 people from