Reid v. Donelan
297 F.R.D. 185
D. Mass.2014Background
- Plaintiff (a lawful permanent resident) was detained by ICE under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c) after state criminal custody and held over 14 months without an individualized bond hearing.
- Plaintiff filed a habeas petition and a motion to certify a class of all persons detained in Massachusetts under § 1226(c) for more than six months without an individualized bond hearing.
- The court previously granted Plaintiff’s individual habeas petition, adopting a six‑month presumptively unreasonable ceiling for detention without an individualized hearing.
- The certification motion seeks Rule 23(b)(2) injunctive/declaratory relief requiring individualized bond hearings after six months of detention.
- Defendants argued against certification based on factual differences among detainees, asserted limits in 8 U.S.C. § 1252(f)(1) on class relief, and contended individualized inquiries are required.
- The court concluded Rule 23(a) factors (numerosity, commonality, typicality, adequacy) and Rule 23(b)(2) and 23(g) were satisfied and certified the proposed class.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the proposed class meets Rule 23(a) numerosity | ICE data plus future and transient detainees make joinder impracticable (≥40) | Data is outdated/overbroad | Numerosity satisfied (current + future members make joinder impracticable) |
| Whether common legal question exists across class | Single legal question: §1226(c) cannot permit detention >6 months without bond hearing | Individual criminal/factual differences defeat commonality; reasonableness requires individual inquiry | Commonality satisfied: single legal question disposes of all class claims given court's prior habeas ruling |
| Whether named plaintiff is typical and adequate | Reid’s claim (right to hearing) aligns with class; counsel experienced | Defendants: factual divergence and some detainees have final orders; individual strategy differences undermine adequacy | Typicality and adequacy satisfied; Reid may represent class; counsel meet Rule 23(g) standards |
| Whether class fits Rule 23(b)(2) and §1252(f)(1) bars class relief | Class seeks a uniform injunction/declaratory relief — individualized bond hearings after six months | Government treats detainees differently; §1252(f)(1) forbids class-wide injunctive relief | Class fits Rule 23(b)(2); declaratory relief at least permissible; §1252(f)(1) does not bar class-wide declaratory relief |
Key Cases Cited
- Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001) (statutory detention interpreted with constitutional limitations on indefinite post-removal detention)
- Demore v. Kim, 538 U.S. 510 (2003) (upholding mandatory detention during removal proceedings under certain circumstances)
- Rodriguez v. Robbins, 715 F.3d 1127 (9th Cir. 2013) (adopting a six‑month practical ceiling on prolonged detention without bail hearing)
- Bourguignon v. MacDonald, 667 F. Supp. 2d 175 (D. Mass. 2009) (challenging §1226(c) detention without individualized bond hearings)
- Comcast Corp. v. Behrend, 569 U.S. 27 (2013) (class‑certification requires rigorous analysis and may overlap with merits)
- Wal‑Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338 (2011) (commonality and Rule 23 standards for class certification)
- Arevalo v. Ashcroft, 344 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2003) (interpreting scope of 8 U.S.C. §1252(f)(1) in immigration class relief context)