Doe v. Kelly, No. 17-15381 (9th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this CaseThe Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's preliminary injunction in an action brought by civil detainees confined in U.S. Customs and Border Protection facilities within the Tucson Sector of the U.S. Border Patrol. The detainees alleged that they were subjected to inhumane and punitive treatment. The panel held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting a preliminary injunction requiring that defendants provide detainees with mats and blankets after 12 hours, and properly applied precedent such that neither side has shown that the limited preliminary injunction was illogical, implausible, or without support in the record. In this case, the district court properly read and applied Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520 (1979). The panel also held that plaintiffs have not shown that the district court abused its discretion in issuing only a limited preliminary injunction.
Court Description: Civil Rights. The panel affirmed the district court’s preliminary injunction in an action brought by civil detainees confined in U.S. Customs and Border Protection facilities within the Tucson Sector of the U.S. Border Patrol who alleged they were subjected to inhumane and punitive treatment. The district court granted a preliminary injunction requiring that defendants provide detainees with mats and DOE V. KELLY 3 blankets after 12 hours. Defendants appealed, alleging that the district court misapprehended the standard set forth in Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520 (1979), and that the order was too rigid and burdensome. Plaintiffs also appealed, alleging that the district court should have ordered defendants to provide the detainees with beds and mattresses, allow them access to showers, and deliver adequate medical care through medical professionals. The panel held that the district court carefully considered plaintiffs’ allegations of constitutional violations, recognized the guidance provided by the Supreme Court in Bell, and issued a limited preliminary injunction requiring defendants to provide detainees with mats and blankets after 12 hours. Defendants failed to show that, in doing so, the district court misapprehended Bell or that the preliminary injunction was overly rigid or burdensome. The panel found unpersuasive plaintiffs’ assertions that the district court should have required defendants to provide detainees with beds, showers, and medical treatment provided by medical professionals. The panel held that the district court recognized the unique mission of the Border Patrol and, at least for the purposes of a preliminary injunction, reasonably balanced the government’s interests and the detainees’ constitutional rights. 4 DOE V. KELLY
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.