Browse cases by category
- Attorneys & Legal Services
- Bankruptcy
- Civil Procedure & Administrative Law
- Civil Rights
- Consumer
- Criminal
- Disability
- Economic Development
- Education
- Elections
- Employment
- Environmental Justice
- Evidence
- Family Law
- Food Programs
- Government and Governmental Services
- Guardianship & Conservatorship
- Health
- Housing
- Immigration
- Juveniles
- License (Auto & Others)
- Mental Health
- Migrants
- Native Americans
- Other
- Prisons
- Public Utilities & Energy
- Rural Issues
- Senior Citizens
- Social Security & SSI
- Taxation
- Torts
- Unemployment Compensation & Unemployment Insurance
- Veterans & Military
- Welfare
- Wills & Estates
- Workforce Development
Flores v. Ridge
No. CV85-4544-RJK(Px) (C.D. Cal. filed, Jan. 15, 2004) ; Clearinghouse Number: 39665
Description
Detained Immigrant Juveniles Move Against Department of Homeland Security for Enforcement of 1997 Class Action Settlement Agreement
Abstract
Plaintiffs are asking the district court to enforce a 1997
settlement agreement in this class action challenging
defendants’ treatment of detained immigrant minors. Plaintiff
immigrant minors arrested and detained pending the outcome of
removal proceedings sued in 1985; they contended that predecessor
defendant Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) unlawfully
refused to release them on bond or recognizance to responsible
adults other than parents or legal guardians and subjected them to
unconstitutional conditions of confinement. Numerous twists and
turns at all levels of the federal courts followed a 1987
settlement, and the parties entered into a new settlement in 1997.
Plaintiffs characterize the basic thrust of that agreement as (1)
generally requiring their prompt release to parents and designated
family members or, if necessary, shelters and unrelated custodians,
(2) requiring placement of other class members in the least
restrictive setting, and (3), regardless of placement, guaranteeing
plaintiffs’ “basic educational, health, social, and
other benefits and rights.” They contend that defendants have
materially breached that settlement. Plaintiffs say that defendants
violate the policy favoring release and still refuse to release
plaintiffs to caregivers, including relatives, other than parents;
fail to place detained class members in the least restrictive
environment; fail to provide them with required treatment and
services; and expose them to dangerous and unhealthy conditions.
Plaintiffs argue that Congress recognized INS’ “chronic
mishandling” of minors in its custody when, as part of the
Homeland Security Act, Congress transferred most INS functions to
the Department of Homeland Security but gave primary responsibility
for the release and care of unaccompanied minors to the Office of
Refugee Resettlement of the U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services, neither of which, plaintiffs say, has honored the 1997
settlement.
Additional Information
Files
No files available.
