Mesa Verde / Golden State Annex Hunger Strike Retaliation
Case Overview
Class action filed February 23, 2023 by hunger strikers at GEO Group's Mesa Verde ICE Processing Center (Bakersfield) and Golden State Annex (McFarland), alleging unlawful First Amendment retaliation: threats of solitary confinement, denial of family visitation, religious services, yard access, and riot-gear removals. Related forced-labor/$1/day suit also filed (2022).
The Application
Hunger striking constitutes protected First Amendment expression; the alleged deprivations (solitary confinement threats, visitation/religious services/yard denial) are substantial adverse actions; if imposed because of strike participation, they establish actionable retaliation at both Mesa Verde and Golden State Annex facilities.
The Conclusion
The class action remains active in the California Court of Appeal; liability turns on whether plaintiffs can prove retaliatory intent and establish the causal connection between protected conduct and the specific deprivations alleged.
No circuit court data for this case.
No Supreme Court data for this case.
Case Analysis
Overview
Class action filed February 23, 2023 by hunger strikers at GEO Group's Mesa Verde ICE Processing Center (Bakersfield) and Golden State Annex (McFarland), alleging unlawful First Amendment retaliation: threats of solitary confinement, denial of family visitation, religious services, yard access, and riot-gear removals. Related forced-labor/$1/day suit also filed (2022).
Issue
Whether detention facility officials violated the First Amendment by retaliating against hunger strikers through threats of solitary confinement and denial of family visitation, religious services, and yard access.
Rule
First Amendment retaliation claims require: (1) constitutionally protected conduct, (2) adverse action by government officials, and (3) a causal nexus between them; retaliation violates the First Amendment when officials penalize protected speech or expressive conduct.
Analysis
Hunger striking constitutes protected First Amendment expression; the alleged deprivations (solitary confinement threats, visitation/religious services/yard denial) are substantial adverse actions; if imposed because of strike participation, they establish actionable retaliation at both Mesa Verde and Golden State Annex facilities.
Conclusion
The class action remains active in the California Court of Appeal; liability turns on whether plaintiffs can prove retaliatory intent and establish the causal connection between protected conduct and the specific deprivations alleged.
Notes
[UNVERIFIED docket + district]. Filed Feb 23 2023. Court may be E.D. Or N.D. Cal. Counsel: ACLU NorCal, Centro de Derechos del Migrante, Asian Law Caucus, LCCRSF.
Flag an issue
This tracker is maintained by BrynoDC and is free because readers fund it. Support