Staff at two U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement detention facilities in California regularly retaliated against migrant detainees for engaging in hunger strikes, including by denying them basic hygiene supplies and threatening solitary confinement, a new lawsuit alleges.

The proposed class action filed in California's Northern District on Thursday claims that approximately 82 migrants currently detained at the Mesa Verde and Golden State Annex ICE facilities — operated by the GEO Group Inc., a private prison company — began a hunger strike earlier this month to protest poor facility conditions and mistreatment. The plaintiffs are seeking to end the retaliation on First Amendment grounds.

"They have been subjected to egregious retaliation by ICE and GEO, including having family visits cut off, having the dorms deliberately set to cold temperatures, being taunted and harassed, threatened with being put in solitary confinement — all manner of retaliation," said Jenny Zhao, senior staff attorney at the Asian Law Caucus, co-counsel for the plaintiffs in the litigation.

The complaint — which states that hunger strikes are a First Amendment-protected activity, making the retaliatory practices a violation of the U.S. Constitution — claims the conditions the detainees were initially protesting included "being served expired food, inadequate medical care, moldy showers, lack of access to hygienic clothes and footwear, a pattern of retaliation, and other conditions causing or exacerbating illnesses or injury." The detainees also demanded that ICE raise the minimum wage of its voluntary work program, which currently pays at a rate of $1 per hour, to fall in line with California minimum wage laws, according to the suit.

When detainees have filed grievances regarding such issues in the past, the complaint states they've been met with placement in solitary confinement and "sexually abusive pat-downs."

When asked for comment, the GEO Group responded to Law360 with a statement via email that read in part: "We strongly reject these baseless allegations, which are part of a long-standing radical campaign to attack ICE's contractors, abolish ICE, and end federal immigration detention by proxy in the State of California.  As it relates to allegations regarding retaliation, GEO has a zero-tolerance policy with respect to staff misconduct. We have a grievance process in place for use by persons housed at our facilities that is grounded in accessibility, confidentiality, fairness, objectivity, and integrity, without fear of retaliation. Any alleged misconduct by GEO staff is promptly investigated and addressed."

The lawsuit cites previous complaints filed against ICE, alleging that similar patterns have been found at the same facilities over a long time.

"It's been an ongoing practice over several years. Whenever detained individuals have come together to stand up for their rights, they've been met with retaliation," said Zhao.

In addition to ending the retaliation over the hunger strike, Zhao said the lawsuit is part of a longer-term goal. "We want to lift up the demands of the hunger strikes, specifically the demands to release everyone out of these facilities and shut them down. Ultimately, immigration detention is an unjust system," said Zhao.

The plaintiffs are represented by Michelle (Minju) Y. Cho and Sean Riordan of the ACLU of Northern California, Aseem Mehta and Jingni (Jenny) Zhao of the Asian Law Caucus, Bree Bernwanger and Lee Ann Felder-Heim of the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights of the San Francisco Bay Area, Michael Kaufman and Mayra B. Joachín of the ACLU of Southern California, Roxana Moussavian and Etan Newman of Pangea Legal Services, and Hong-An N. Tran, Mei H. Liu and Maura E. Smyles of Jenner & Block LLP.

Representatives for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement did not immediately respond on Friday to Law360's request for comment.

Counsel information for ICE and GEO were not immediately available.

The case is Mendez et al. v. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement et al., case number 3:23-cv-00829, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.

--Editing by Rich Mills.

Have a story idea for Access to Justice? Reach us at accesstojustice@law360.com.