Favela Avendano v. Bostock

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: June 11, 2020
• Docket: 2:20-cv-00700
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 7 8 JOSUE CASTAÑEDA JUAREZ, et al.,

9 Petitioners-Plaintiffs, Case No. C20-0700JLR-MLP

10 v. ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PARTICIPATE AS AMICI 11 NATHALIE ASHER, et al., CURIAE

12 Respondents-Defendants.

13 14 Before the Court is correctional health experts Robert L. Cohen, M.D., Joe Goldenson, 15 M.D., Michael Puisis, D.O., and Brie Williams, M.D. (collectively, “Public Health Officials”)’s 16 motion for leave to participate in this action as amici curiae. (Mot. (Dkt. #49).) The court has 17 reviewed the submissions of of the Public Health Officials, the balance of the record, and the 18 governing law. Being fully advised, the court GRANTS Public Health Officials’ motion to 19 participate as amici curiae as described below. 20 I. BACKGROUND 21 On May 8, 2020, Petitioner-Plaintiffs Jose Castañeda Juarez, Wilfredo Favela Avendaño, 22 Josue Andrade-Machado, and Naeem Khan’s (collectively, “Petitioners”) filed their petition, 23 seeking a writ of habeas corpus, or in the alternative, injunctive relief, against Respondents. (Compl. (Dkt. #1).) On May 11, 2020, Petitioners filed a motion for a temporary restrainting order 1 seeking immediate release from detention in light of the COVID-19 public health crisis. (“TRO”) 2 (TRO Mot. (Dkt. #22).) Public Health Officials filed the instant motion seeking permission to 3 participate as amici curiae in support of Petitioners’ petition for habeas corpus and their request 4 for injunctive and declaratory relief. (See generally Prop. Amici Brief (Dkt. #49-1).) 5 II. ANALYSIS

6 District courts may consider amicus briefs from non-parties “concerning legal issues that 7 have potential ramifications beyond the parties directly involved or if the amicus has unique 8 information or perspective that can help the court beyond the help that the lawyers for the parties 9 are able to provide.” Skokomish Indian Tribe v. Goldmark, No. C13-5071JLR, 2013 WL 5720053, 10 at *1 (W.D. Wash. Oct. 21, 2013) (internal quotations omitted). The court has “broad discretion” 11 to appoint amicus curiae. Hoptowit v. Ray, 682 F.2d 1237, 1260 (9th Cir.1982), abrogated on other 12 grounds by Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 115 S. Ct. 2293, 132 L.Ed.2d 418 (1995). 13 Public Health Officials are experts in infectious diseases, healthcare policy, correctional 14 healthcare, human rights, and related fields. (Mot. at 4.; see also Prop. Amici Brief at 7-9.) They

15 claim that based on their experience and review of information regarding the COVID-19 16 pandemic, they will provide the court with a “unique correctional health perspective” to assist the 17 court in addressing the dangers COVID-19 poses to certain individuals detained at the Northwest 18 Detention Center. Respondents have not opposed Public Health Officials’ participation as amici. 19 The court concludes that Public Health Officials may have “unique information or 20 psespective that can help the court.” Skokomish Indian Tribe, 2013 WL 5720053, at *2 (quoting 21 Cmty. Ass’n for Restoration of Env’t v. DeRuyter Bros. Dairy, 54 F.Supp.2d 974, 975 (E.D.Wash. 22 1999)); see also Warren v. United States, No. 06-CV-0226S, 2009 WL 1663991, at * 1 (W.D.N.Y. 23 1 June 15, 2009) (“The usual rationale for amicus curiae submissions is that they are of aid to the 2 court and offer insights not available from the parties.”). 3 Accordingly, the court GRANTS Public Health Officials’ motion to participate as amici 4 curiae (Dkt. #49). Unless authorized by the court in advance, amici may not file reply 5 memorandum or participate in any oral arguments before the court.

6 7 Dated this 11th day of June, 2020. 8 A 9 MICHELLE L. PETERSON United States Magistrate Judge 10

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23