21.  Center for Human Rights & Constitutional Law  256 S. Occidental Blvd.  Los Angeles, CA 90057  213/388-8693  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  decision-maker to conduct periodic reviews of those medications as  treatment continues; or  (d)  who are natives of non-contiguous countries and to whom ORR blocks  legal assistance in legal matters or proceedings involving their custody,  placement, release, and/or non-consensual consumption of psychotropic  drugs.   22.  Center for Human Rights & Constitutional Law  256 S. Occidental Blvd.  Los Angeles, CA 90057  213/388-8693  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  lawyers from representing members of the proposed class in legal proceedings relating  to custody, placement, or release. Unless this matter proceeds as a class action, the  majority of class members have little chance of securing judicial review of the policies  and practices challenged herein.   38.  Center for Human Rights & Constitutional Law  256 S. Occidental Blvd.  Los Angeles, CA 90057  213/388-8693  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  the Freedom of Association Clause of the First Amendment of the United States  Constitution.  IX.  39.  Center for Human Rights & Constitutional Law  256 S. Occidental Blvd.  Los Angeles, CA 90057  213/388-8693  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  6, 8, 12, and 19 and Exhibit 1 of the Flores Settlement, the TVPRA, the Administrative  Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 501 et seq., and the Due Process Clause of the Fifth  Amendment to the United States Constitution.   XI.  71.  The exact size of the proposed class is unknown, but likely includes  hundreds of children. The size of the class is so numerous that joinder of all members  is impracticable.    72.  The claims of Plaintiffs and those of the proposed class members raise  common questions of law and fact concerning whether Defendants’ policies and  practices relating to the release, placement, treatment, and legal representation of  detained immigrant children are consistent with the Flores Settlement, § 235 of the  TVPRA, the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, and the First  Amendment of the Constitution. These questions are common to the named Plaintiffs  and the members of the proposed class because Defendants have acted and will  continue to act on grounds generally applicable to the named Plaintiffs and the  proposed class members. Plaintiffs’ claims are typical of the class’s claims.   74.  Defendants, their agents, employees, and predecessors and successors in  office have acted or refused to act, and will continue to act or refuse to act, on grounds  generally applicable to the class, thereby making injunctive relief and corresponding  declaratory relief appropriate with respect to the class as a whole. Plaintiffs will  vigorously represent the interests of unnamed class members. All members of the  proposed class will benefit by this action. The interests of the named Plaintiffs and  those of the proposed class members are identical.     75.  Plaintiffs are represented by experienced and reputable lawyers  associated with non-profit public interest law firms and an international law firm  serving pro bono publico. Plaintiffs’ counsel includes attorneys with years of  experience litigating complex suits and class actions on behalf of children and foreign  nationals, including counsel for the plaintiff class in Flores v. Sessions.  VI.  [DENIAL OF DUE PROCESS: RESTRICTIVE PLACEMENT]  131. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate by reference Paragraphs 1-127 of this  Complaint as though fully set forth here.  132. As a matter of policy and practice, Defendants place Plaintiffs and those  similarly situated in RTCs, secure facilities, and medium-secure facilities without  affording them a meaningful opportunity to be heard either prior or subsequent to such  placement.    133. Such policy and practice individually and collectively violate Definition  6 and paragraph 19 of the Flores Settlement, TVPRA § 235(c)(2)(A), the  Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 701 et seq., and the Due Process Clause of  the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution.  X. 