Immigrants Allege Detention Contractor GEO Group Separated Families After Injunction
“GEO's staff also told the fathers that they would be deported without their children, that their children would be adopted by families living in the United States and that they would never again see their children,” alleged the complaint.
May 28, 2019 at 05:52 PM
4 minute read
Twenty-six immigrant fathers and sons have sued The GEO Group, which runs immigration detention centers for the federal government, alleging that armed men swarmed their rooms in a Texas-based detention center and used excessive force to separate them, in violation of a nationwide preliminary injunction against family separations.
The plaintiffs are 13 fathers and their 13 sons, ranging in age from 6 to 17, who sought asylum in the U.S. after fleeing persecution and violence in their home countries of Honduras, Guatemala and Brazil. They were separated for weeks or months last year under the Trump administration's “zero tolerance” policy, but then reunited after a California federal court issued a preliminary injunction to stop family separations, and order the reunification of immigrant parents and children.
Their complaint in Rios v. The GEO Group, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, alleged that on Aug. 15, 2018, GEO sent “scores” of armed men in bulletproof vests, armed with tear gas and guns, to handcuff the fathers and remove them from the detention center, using such excessive force that some fathers' “shoes were knocked off.” Their sons witnessed it. The fathers were taken by bus to the Pearsall detention center two hours away. GEO didn't tell the men where they were going, why they were being taken away, where the children would be or who would take care of the children. Fathers screamed and cried for their children, vomited blood and shook uncontrollably, and one man attempted suicide, according to the lawsuit.
“GEO's staff also told the fathers that they would be deported without their children, that their children would be adopted by families living in the United States, and that they would never again see their children,” alleged the complaint.
GEO told the children, some as young as 6, that they'd be separated permanently from their fathers, and mocked them by saying their fathers were in jail, the complaint said. The children were isolated in the Karnes detention center's medical center all night, the plaintiffs alleged.
“At least one child hid under his bed in the isolation room out of fear, and at least another considered committing suicide,” the complaint said.
The next day, on Aug. 16, 2018, GEO took the fathers back to the Karnes detention center. Eventually they were reunited with their children.
The plaintiffs are suing GEO for intentional infliction of emotional distress, infliction of emotional distress on a bystander, false imprisonment, assault and battery, medical malpractice and failure to provide adequate medical care, negligence per se for failure to report child abuse, and a violation of the Texas Family Code regarding a possessory right to children.
GEO Group spokesman Pablo Paez wrote in an email that the company strongly denies the “baseless allegations” of the lawsuit, and is focused on providing high-quality services and treating people in its care with dignity and respect.
“Placement and transfer decisions are solely made by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Activist organizations understand that for three decades, under both Republican and Democratic administrations, the federal government has relied on contractors to provide operational services at ICE processing centers,” Paez said. “Attacking the contractors is part of a larger strategy to impact immigration policy.”
Manoj Govindaiah, director of litigation at RAICES in San Antonio, who represents the plaintiffs, said he's exploring causes of action against the government, but he believes GEO creates and enforces procedures in the Karnes detention center, and the company is responsible.
“Our clients want to ensure that GEO is held accountable for what happened to them,” said Govindaiah. “The key here is this was a very traumatized population and GEO knew that, and only worsened the trauma by its actions.”
Read the complaint.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllLawyers' Phones Are Ringing: What Should Employers Do If ICE Raids Their Business?
6 minute readRead the Document: DOJ Releases Ex-Special Counsel's Report Explaining Trump Prosecutions
3 minute readSpecial Counsel Jack Smith Prepares Final Report as Trump Opposes Its Release
4 minute readTrending Stories
- 1X Faces Intense Scrutiny as EU Investigation Races to Conclusion & Looming Court Battle
- 2'Nation is in Trouble': NY Lawmakers Advance Bill to Set Parameters for Shielding Juror IDs in Criminal Matters
- 3Margolis Edelstein Broadens Leadership With New Co-Managing Partner
- 4Menendez Asks US Judge for Bond Pending Appeal of Criminal Conviction
- 5Onit Acquires Case and Matter Management Software Provider Legal Files Software
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250