Committee for Immigrant Rights v. County of Sonoma

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that a more definite statement was necessary 6 || where the complaint did not contain sufficient factual allegations to identify which legal claims 7 were raised against which defendants
• holding that 8 CFR section 287.7 is valid, and agreeing that “ICE has the authority to issue immigration detainers that require County Defendants to take and hold persons in local custody, even in the absence of an arrest for a controlled substance violation”
• applying Iqbal to Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, but not to Rule 12(e) 1 || motion for more definite statement filed in the alternative
• rejecting plaintiffs’ argument “that [8 C.F.R.] § 287.7 is facially invalid because its authorizing statute, § 1357, limits ICE’s authority to issue detainers for aliens in custody for violating laws relating to controlled substances”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).