Zepeda Rivas v. Jennings, 445 F.Supp.3d 36

A proposed habeas class of ICE detainees at Mesa Verde and Yuba County Jail sued, alleging current conditions create a substantial risk of COVID-19 infection because ICE has not enabled social distancing.
Plaintiffs moved for provisional class certification and a temporary restraining order (TRO) requiring measures to permit social distancing; the government sought a stay based on overlapping nationwide litigation.
The court provisionally certified the class, finding the suit challenges conditions of confinement (a common injury) and is suitable for class treatment.
The court found plaintiffs likely to succeed on their due process claim: crowded, dorm-style housing and limited testing create an unreasonable risk of serious harm and irreparable injury.
As emergency relief, the court ordered ICE to produce detainee information (names, ages, health vulnerabilities, criminal records) and to provide counsel prompt access to detainees so individualized bail applications can be processed over about 14 days; a preliminary injunction hearing will follow.
The court denied the government’s stay request and ICE’s alternative proposal to simply release an unspecified number of detainees; a 48-hour stay to consider appeal was also denied.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Provisional class certification	Classwide challenge to facility conditions presents common injury and common remedy (social distancing)	Class unsuitable because individualized release determinations may be required	Granted: conditions challenge supports provisional certification; release possibilities don't defeat class treatment
Due process claim (risk of COVID-19)	Conditions create an unreasonable risk of serious harm to detainees	ICE has taken some steps; no outbreak detected at these facilities	Plaintiffs likely to succeed: record shows inadequate social distancing, limited testing, and real risk of spread
Emergency relief / TRO scope	Court should order processes to enable social distancing, including considering individualized bail	ICE proposed releasing a set number of detainees instead of providing information for bail review	Granted in part: Court ordered ICE to provide records and access so individualized bail applications can be considered; TRO directs information production and counsel access
Stay pending related nationwide litigation	N/A	Proceedings should be stayed because of overlapping nationwide class (Fraihat)	Denied: nationwide relief was too general and not intended to preclude facility-specific relief; denial without prejudice to future conflict claims

Jennings v. Rodriguez, 138 S. Ct. 830 (2018) (habeas and class-action procedural principles governing immigration detention challenges)
Rodriguez v. Hayes, 591 F.3d 1105 (9th Cir. 2010) (procedural precepts for habeas claims by immigration detainees)
Padilla v. ICE, 953 F.3d 1134 (9th Cir. 2020) (immigration-detainee habeas/class authority in the Ninth Circuit)
Helling v. McKinney, 509 U.S. 25 (1993) (Eighth Amendment/due-process doctrine allowing relief for substantial future risk of serious harm)
Youngberg v. Romeo, 457 U.S. 307 (1982) (constitutional limits on conditions of confinement)
Brown v. Plata, 563 U.S. 493 (2011) (remedial authority to remedy unconstitutional conditions in confinement)
Parsons v. Ryan, 754 F.3d 657 (9th Cir. 2014) (class certification principles applicable to conditions-of-confinement suits)
Mapp v. Reno, 241 F.3d 221 (2d Cir. 2001) (authority for courts to release detainees on bail while habeas petitions proceed)
In re Roe, 257 F.3d 1077 (9th Cir. 2001) (Ninth Circuit precedent recognizing courts’ authority over release in the habeas context)