J.E.C.M. et al v. Lloyd et al, No. 1:2018cv00903 - Document 60 (E.D. Va. 2018)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION: For the reasons stated above, defendant's motion to dismiss [Dkt. No. 35] will be GRANTED in part as to the individual claims of plaintiffs J.E.C.M., Jimenez Saravia, R.A.I., Alvarado, K.T.M., and Velasquez Trail and as to Count II and DENIED in all other respects by an appropriate Order to be issued with this Memorandum Opinion. Signed by District Judge Leonie M. Brinkema on 11/15/18. (yguy)

Download PDF

J.E.C.M. et al v. Lloyd et al Doc. 60 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Alexandria Division J.E.C.M., a minor, by and through his next friend JOSE JIMENEZ SARAVIA,et al.. Plaintiffs/Petitioners, l:18-cv-00903(LMB/MSN) SCOTT LLOYD,Director, Office of Refugee Resettlement, et al.. Defendants/Respondents. MEMORANDUM OPINION Plaintiffs/petitioners ("plaintiffs") in this putative class action' are four minors from Central America designated as "unaccompanied alien children" who are, or who have been, in the custody ofthe Office of Refugee Resettlement("ORR")and the four sponsors who filed family reunification applications on their behalf. Defendants/respondents("defendants")^ are the minors' custodians and the officials responsible for administering ORR's policies with respect to the detention and release of unaccompanied minors. Plaintiffs allege that defendants' policies violate constitutional, statutory, and administrative law, and they seek declaratory and habeas relief as well as attorney's fees and costs. Before the Court is defendants' motion to dismiss for 'Plaintiffs have filed two motions for class certification [Dkt. Nos. 5 and 28]. The Court has stayed both motions[Dkt. No.20] pending resolution of defendants' motion to dismiss. 2 Defendants are Scott Lloyd, Director of ORR;Jonathan White, Deputy Director of ORR; Natasha David, ORR Federal Field Specialist; Alex Azar, Secretary ofthe Department of Health and Human Services; Steven Wagner, Acting Assistant Secretary for the Administration for Children and Families; Johnitha McNair, Executive Director ofthe Northern Virginia Juvenile Detention Center; Timothy Smith, Executive Director ofthe Shenandoah Valley Juvenile Detention Center; and Gary L. Jones, Chief Executive Officer of Youth for Tomorrow. Dockets.Justia.com sought in the first place, amounts to such a restraint on their liberty that they remain in "custody" under § 2241. Finally, plaintiffs rely on the "particular traits ofcivil class actions" as they relate to justiciability principles, Sanchez-Gomez. 138 S. Ct. at 1538, arguing that their putative class claims change the mootness calculus. To be sure, a defendant cannot nullify a putative class action by strategically "picking off named plaintiffs' claims while a class certification motion is pending. Pis.' Opp'n 8 (citing Wilson v. Gordon. 822 F.3d 934,947-51 (6th Cir. 2016)). Similarly, certain claims by their nature are so "inherently transitory" that class claims remain justiciable even if the underlying individual claims become moot before the court can rule on class certification. Id at 10(citing U.S. Parole Comm'n v. Geraghtv. 445 U.S. 388,399(1980)). Courts in this district have recognized as much,^Revna v. Hott. No. 1:17-cv-01192, 2018 WL 3551558, at *3(E.D. Va. Mar. 20, 2018), and defendants offer no objection, Defs.' Reply 2 n.l (recognizing "that the pending class action claims do not automatically become moot because these individuals' claims have become moot"). But neither doctrine saves individual claims from being mooted. Here,the three minor plaintiffs who have been released and the three sponsors to whom they have been released received the relief they sought in this litigation; they no longer possess the requisite stake to press their individual claims. Accordingly, the Court will grant defendants' motion to dismiss as to individual claims advanced by J.E.C.M., Jimenez Saravia, R.A.I., Alvarado, K.T.M., and Velasquez Trail. 2. Ripeness On the reverse side of the justiciability coin, defendants argue that B.G.S.S.'s and Jeronimo Sis's claims are not ripe. In defendants' view, the only Article III injury that could sustain their challenge to ORR's policies would be an outright denial of Jeronimo Sis's family 20

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.