Immigration Services & Legal Advocacy v. Homeland Security, 1:23-cv-00948

Five legal-services organizations sued DHS, ICE, and ICE officials over attorney-client communications and related conditions at four immigration-detention facilities (Krome, FL; Florence, AZ; River, LA; Laredo, TX). Plaintiffs are counsel organizations, not detainees, and have no ties to D.C.
Plaintiffs allege facility-specific deficiencies (e.g., lack of private rooms, overheard legal calls, restrictions on laptops/phones, limited VTC/privacy dividers) and contend these violate applicable standards and detainees’ rights.
Facilities are operated by different contractors (e.g., Akima at Krome; CoreCivic at Florence and Laredo; LaSalle at River), and most relevant witnesses/evidence are local to each facility.
Defendants moved under Rule 21 to sever the case into four and transfer each subcase to the appropriate district; Plaintiffs opposed, arguing common federal-oversight issues and deference to plaintiff’s choice of forum.
The Court concluded the claims are principally facility-specific (and that administrative-law claims were unlikely to succeed), severed the case as to three plaintiffs and transferred those subcases to their home districts, but retained the FIRRP (Florence) action.
The Court cited judicial-economy and monitoring concerns for retaining Florence (FIRRP) because preliminary relief had already been entered there; the other three were transferred where discovery had not yet begun.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Severance under Fed. R. Civ. P. 21	Claims stem from common federal standards and oversight, so consolidation in D.C. is appropriate	Claims arise from distinct facility conditions and local operators; severance is proper	Court severed the case as to each facility (three plaintiffs transferred) because claims are facility-specific and Plaintiffs lack D.C. ties
Transfer of venue (28 U.S.C. § 1404(a))	D.C. forum acceptable; plaintiff’s forum choice and judicial economy favor retention	Transferee districts are proper and more convenient; witnesses and evidence are local	Transfer granted for three plaintiffs; actions sent to their respective districts; Florence retained
Venue sufficiency and convenience factors	D.C. is a permissible venue; plaintiffs emphasize oversight claims	Defendants stress that the events/omissions and witnesses are in the facilities’ districts	Transferee forums "might have been brought" there; private-interest factors favor transfer
Retention of FIRRP despite severance/transfer	Court should retain because it already entered and must monitor a preliminary injunction at Florence	Defendants sought transfer even for Florence	Court retained the Florence (FIRRP) action due to existing preliminary relief and monitoring/judicial-economy concerns

M.M.M. on behalf of J.M.A. v. Sessions, 319 F. Supp. 3d 290 (D.D.C. 2018) (severance analysis and Rule 21 factors)
Southern Poverty Law Ctr. v. U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 605 F. Supp. 3d 157 (D.D.C. 2022) (facility-specific access-to-counsel litigation and injunction oversight)
C.G.B. v. Wolf, 464 F. Supp. 3d 174 (D.D.C. 2020) (limited overlap among confinement-condition claims across facilities)
Cameron v. Thornburgh, 983 F.2d 253 (D.C. Cir. 1993) (venue principles for suits against federal officers/agencies)
Bourdon v. U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 235 F. Supp. 3d 298 (D.D.C. 2017) (forum- and oversight-related transfer discussion)
Greater Yellowstone Coal. v. Bosworth, 180 F. Supp. 2d 124 (D.D.C. 2001) (private/public interest factors for transfer)
Aishat v. U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 288 F. Supp. 3d 261 (D.D.C. 2018) (venue proper where local officials are most relevant sources)
Nat’l Ass’n of Home Builders v. EPA, 675 F. Supp. 2d 173 (D.D.C. 2009) (reduced deference to plaintiff’s forum when not home forum)
Starnes v. McGuire, 512 F.2d 918 (D.C. Cir. 1974) (congestion is not alone dispositive for transfer)
Douglas v. Chariots for Hire, 918 F. Supp. 2d 24 (D.D.C. 2013) (judicial-economy consideration in transfer decisions)
Exxon Corp. v. U.S. Dep’t of Energy, 594 F. Supp. 84 (D. Del. 1984) (transfer and impact of existing injunctions)
Lentz v. Eli Lilly & Co., 464 F. Supp. 2d 35 (D.D.C. 2006) (private/public interest factors framework for § 1404(a) transfer)