Case 6:16-cv-01424 Document 1 Filed 10/11/16 Page 1 of 13 PageID #: 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
____________________________________
)
Daniel Acosta Sarmiento
)
A 098 285 863
)
)
Petitioner,
)
)
v.
)
)
Indalecio Ramos, Warden,
)
Pine Prairie Correctional Center;
)
David Rivera, New Orleans Field Office
)
Director, Office of Enforcement and
)
Removal, U.S. Immigration and Customs )
Enforcement;
)
Sarah Saldaña, Director,
)
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement;)
Jeh Johnson, Secretary,
)
Department of Homeland Security; and
)
Department of Homeland Security
)
)
Respondents.
)
____________________________________)
Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
Case No. 6:16-cv-1424
PETITION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 2241
Petitioner Daniel Acosta Sarmiento seeks immediate release or an immediate bond
hearing to argue for his release as he is being held in no-bond detention while his claim for
humanitarian immigration relief from removal is adjudicated. This detention violates federal
statute, which prohibits the deportation of immigrants with humanitarian claims for relief from
removal—though the government erroneously contends that these immigrant victims of
persecution may be held in prolonged, no-bond detention. See 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3).
1
Case 6:16-cv-01424 Document 1 Filed 10/11/16 Page 2 of 13 PageID #: 2
Mr. Acosta Sarmiento seeks humanitarian relief in the form of withholding of removal, as
his entire family is being persecuted and threatened with death in their home country of
Honduras. On June 16, 2016, an Asylum Officer conducted an interview with Mr. Acosta
Sarmiento and found his fear of persecution in Honduras to be reasonable.
While his claim is being adjudicated, he is entitled to argue for his release at a bond
hearing—as other aliens in removal proceedings are generally permitted. But Immigration and
Customs Enforcement (ICE) has denied him bond and the Immigration Judge found he had no
jurisdiction over bond because Mr. Acosta Sarmiento has a prior order of removal. The
government’s interpretation of the statute as authorizing prolonged, no-bond detention is
erroneous and inconsistent with the plain language and structure of the statute. Every federal
circuit court that has considered the question has rejected the government’s interpretation. See
Guerra v. Shanahan, -- F.3d --, 2016 WL 4056035 (2d Cir. 2016) (alien in withholding-only
proceedings entitled to a bond hearing); see also Luna-Garcia v. Holder, 777 F.3d 1182, 1186
(10th Cir. 2015) (denial of withholding in withholding-only proceedings is an appealable final
order and reinstatement of removal is not an appealable final order); Ortiz-Alfaro v. Holder, 694
F.3d 955, 958 (9th Cir. 2012) (same).
Mr. Acosta Sarmiento is a long-time resident of Louisiana and had been living with his
U.S.-citizen wife and their U.S.-citizen children in Kenner, Louisiana for years. He was abruptly
seized by ICE on May 17, 2016 and was immediately placed in detention in Pine Prairie
Correctional Center in Pine Prairie, Louisiana—over three hours away from his home and his
family. His requests for bond have been repeatedly denied. His wife is working two jobs to
support the family but nevertheless makes the trip to Pine Prairie to see Mr. Acosta Sarmiento
every week on Sundays—the only day when Mr. Acosta Sarmiento is permitted to see visitors.
2
Case 6:16-cv-01424 Document 1 Filed 10/11/16 Page 3 of 13 PageID #: 3
Mr. Acosta Sarmiento sees his youngest U.S.-citizen child only once a month because the
detention center is too far away for the infant to comfortably make the trip on a regular basis.
Mr. Acosta Sarmiento is likely to be unlawfully detained for many more months or even
years unless this court intervenes. Mr. Acosta Sarmiento is actively pursuing a meritorious claim
for relief from removal based on his fear of returning to Honduras. He fears removal because of
violence already committed and threats of future violence against all members of his family by
another family heavily involved with local gangs in Honduras. Two of Mr. Acosta Sarmiento’s
family members have been shot and one shooting victim died, and those responsible have made
known their intention to kill every remaining living relative of Mr. Acosta Sarmiento’s family.
To deport Mr. Acosta Sarmiento would be to condemn him to probable death, which makes his
removal unlawful under U.S. and international law.
JURISDICTION
1. Mr. Acosta Sarmiento challenges the legality of his detention without bail under the U.S.
Constitution and the Immigration and Nationality Act, at 8 U.S.C. § 1101 et seq. This
Court has jurisdiction to hear such claims pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 703, 28 U.S.C. § 2241 et
seq. and Article 1, §9, clause 2 of the United States Constitution (Suspension Clause).
2. Petitioner is in custody under color of the authority of the United States in violation of the
Constitution and laws of the United States.
VENUE
3. The Western District of Louisiana is the proper venue for this petition because Petitioner
3
Case 6:16-cv-01424 Document 1 Filed 10/11/16 Page 4 of 13 PageID #: 4
is being detained in Pine Prairie Correctional Center in Pine Prairie, Louisiana.
PARTIES
4. Petitioner, Mr. Acosta Sarmiento, is a native and citizen of Honduras. He was taken into
ICE custody on May 17, 2016, and he has remained in ICE custody ever since.
5. Respondent U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is an agency of the United
States government, responsible for the administration and enforcement of the nation's
immigration laws. DHS is a legal custodian of Petitioner.
6. Respondent Jeh Johnson is sued in his official capacity as the Secretary of the
Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”). He is responsible for administering and
enforcing immigration laws. As such, Mr. Johnson is a legal custodian of Petitioner.
7. Respondent Sarah Saldaña is sued in her official capacity as the Director of ICE. She is
responsible for the administration of ICE and the implementation and enforcement of
immigration laws. As such, Ms. Saldaña is a legal custodian of Petitioner.
8. Respondent David Rivera is sued in his official capacity as the ICE Field Office Director
of the New Orleans Field Office. He is responsible for the enforcement of immigration
laws and for the custody of all aliens detained by Respondent DHS at the Pine Prairie
Correctional Center. Therefore he is a legal custodian of Petitioner.
9. Respondent Indalecio Ramos is sued in his official capacity as Warden of the Pine Prairie
Correctional Center where Petitioner is currently detained under the authority of ICE. He
is the Petitioner’s legal and physical custodian.
4
Case 6:16-cv-01424 Document 1 Filed 10/11/16 Page 5 of 13 PageID #: 5
EXHAUSTION OF REMEDIES
10. On September 28, 2016, the Immigration Judge found that he has no jurisdiction over
bond. On September 29, 2016, Petitioner’s wife delivered a letter to the New Orleans
ICE Field Office requesting Petitioner’s release, given that agency’s lack of statutory
authority for holding Petitioner in no-bond detention. On October 7, 2016, Petitioner’s
wife delivered a second letter to the New Orleans ICE Field Office, again requesting
release. ICE denied the request for release, communicated by Assistant Field Office
Director Brian Acuna to counsel.
11. Petitioner has no other remedy at law but to seek habeas relief from this Court. Mr.
Acosta Sarmiento exhausted his administrative remedies in this case or any
administrative remedies would be futile.
RELEVANT LAW
12. Under the INA, noncitizens in removal proceedings are generally eligible for release on
bond. The INA provides that the Attorney General may release aliens on parole or bond
“pending a decision on whether or not the alien is to be removed from the United States.”
8 U.S.C. § 1226(a).
13. There is a limited exception for noncitizens who have committed certain crimes,
including crimes involving moral turpitude, crimes relating to a controlled substance, or
an aggravated felony, among others. 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c). This provision does not apply in
Mr. Acosta Sarmiento’s case.
14. In the case of noncitizens who have been ordered removed and will be imminently
deported, they can be held in no-bond detention for the “removal period,” a short period
5
Case 6:16-cv-01424 Document 1 Filed 10/11/16 Page 6 of 13 PageID #: 6
of detention necessary to effectuate removal. 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(1). According to the
statute's express language, the removal period commences on the date the order of
removal becomes administratively final or, if judicial review is sought and a judicial stay
of removal is issued, the date the federal court's order becomes final. 8 U.S.C.
§ 1231(a)(1).
15. Noncitizens who have entered the United States after having been previously removed
and have been seized by ICE are placed in summary proceedings to reinstate the
previously entered order of removal. The INA provides: “If the Attorney General finds
that an alien has reentered the United States after having been removed or having
departed voluntarily under an order of removal, the prior order of removal is reinstated
from its original date and is not subject to being reopened or reviewed, the alien is not
eligible and may not apply for any relief under this chapter, and the alien shall be
removed under the prior order at any time after the reentry.” 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(5).
16. However, under 8 C.F.R. § 208.31, if the alien has a reasonable fear of a threat to their
freedom or life in their country of origin, the matter is referred to an Immigration Judge
for further proceedings. Those proceedings are referred to as withholding-only
proceedings, meaning that withholding of removal (under statute and under the
Convention Against Torture) because of threat to freedom or life is the only form of relief
available to the alien.
17. For a removal period pursuant to a reinstatement of removal order to be triggered, the
order of removal must be administratively final. 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(1)(A). Importantly, 8
U.S.C. § 1231 further provides “the Attorney General may not remove an alien to a
country if the Attorney General decides that the alien’s life or freedom would be
6
Case 6:16-cv-01424 Document 1 Filed 10/11/16 Page 7 of 13 PageID #: 7
threatened in that country because of the alien's race, religion, nationality, membership in
a particular social group, or political opinion.” 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3). Family has been
recognized as a particular social group. See Sealed Petitioner v. Sealed Respondent, 829
F.3d 379, 389 n.5 (5th Cir. 2016) (noting that “each court that has addressed the issue has
concluded that family background can constitute a particular social group under the
INA”).
18. The language in 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3) makes clear that aliens seeking withholding of
removal are awaiting a determination of whether or not they should be removed from the
United States. They are not in the removal period because the statute prohibits their
removal if their claim for withholding is legitimate.
19. Because the decision to remove them from the United States is still being adjudicated,
aliens in withholding proceedings are detained, “pending a decision on whether the alien
is to be removed from the United States,” under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a). Every federal circuit
court that has considered the question has found that respondents in withholding-only
proceedings do not have an administratively final order of removal. See Guerra v.
Shanahan, -- F.3d --, 2016 WL 4056035 (2d Cir. 2016) (affirming district court’s order
of a bond hearing for alien in withholding-only proceedings because detention is
governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a)); Luna-Garcia v. Holder, 777 F.3d 1182, 1186 (10th Cir.
2015) (denial of withholding in withholding-only proceedings is an appealable final
order and reinstatement of removal is not an appealable final order); Ortiz-Alfaro v.
Holder, 694 F.3d 955, 958 (9th Cir. 2012) (same).
20. The Second Circuit opinion in Guerra v. Shanahan thoroughly analyzed the statutory
bases for immigration detention and found that immigrants in withholding-only
7
Case 6:16-cv-01424 Document 1 Filed 10/11/16 Page 8 of 13 PageID #: 8
proceedings were entitled to bond hearings because they are being held under 8 U.S.C.
§ 1226(a). -- F.3d --, 2016 WL 4056035 (2d Cir. 2016). That Court held that the statute’s
text and structure showed that the immigrant seeking withholding was in removal
proceedings and had no administratively final removal order and so was entitled to bond.
Id. at *2–3. The Court found that the 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) was the “more logical source of
authorization for the detention of aliens currently in withholding-only proceedings,” id.
at *3, because “the purpose of withholding-only proceedings is to determine precisely
whether the alien ‘is to be removed from the United States,’” id. at *2 (quoting 8 U.S.C.
§ 1226(a)).
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
21. Mr. Acosta Sarmiento is a native and citizen of Honduras. He came to the United States
in 2004 seeking to escape violence in Honduras and to find work in the United States.
22. In 2008, ICE removed Mr. Acosta Sarmiento back to Honduras.
23. Mr. Acosta Sarmiento returned to the U.S. in late 2008, entering without inspection. He
came back to the U.S. to be with his U.S.-citizen child and U.S.-citizen partner, who is
now his wife.
24. Mr. Acosta Sarmiento was arrested on May 17, 2016 by ICE. ICE issued a Notice of
Intent/Decision to Reinstate Prior Order pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(5).
25. Nothing in Mr. Acosta Sarmiento’s record triggers mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C.
§ 1226(c).
26. Because Mr. Acosta Sarmiento articulated a fear of returning to Honduras, Mr. Acosta
8
Case 6:16-cv-01424 Document 1 Filed 10/11/16 Page 9 of 13 PageID #: 9
Sarmiento’s case was referred to the DHS’s Asylum Office to conduct a Reasonable Fear
Interview.
27. On June 16, 2016, an Asylum Officer conducted Mr. Acosta Sarmiento’s reasonable fear
interview and found his fear reasonable. Mr. Acosta Sarmiento’s case was referred to the
Immigration Court for proceedings to determine his eligibility for Withholding of
Removal pursuant to INA § 241(b)(3) and Withholding of Removal under the
Convention Against Torture (“CAT”) pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2).
28. Mr. Acosta Sarmiento fears being removed to Honduras because of death threats and
violence committed by another family heavily involved with local gangs. One of Mr.
Acosta Sarmiento’s brothers has been assassinated by the family’s persecutors and
another brother was a victim of a shooting that caused serious injury. Even relatives
living in the United States are receiving death threats.
29. Mr. Acosta Sarmiento seeks adjudication of his claim for withholding of removal based
on his fear of family-based persecution in Honduras if he is forced to return. He is
terrified of returning to Honduras.
30. At a scheduling hearing in Immigration Court on September 12, 2016, the Immigration
Judge set the merits hearing for Mr. Acosta Sarmiento’s withholding claim for December
6, 2016.
31. On September 28, 2016, at a bond hearing for Mr. Acosta Sarmiento, the Immigration
Judge found that he had no jurisdiction to consider Mr. Acosta Sarmiento’s request for
release on bond.
9
Case 6:16-cv-01424 Document 1 Filed 10/11/16 Page 10 of 13 PageID #: 10
CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
COUNT ONE
UNLAWFUL NO-BOND DETENTION
32. Mr. Acosta Sarmiento re-alleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 30
above.
33. Detention without bond of such aliens like Petitioner in withholding-only proceedings is
not authorized by statute and is prohibited by the Due Process Clause of the U.S.
Constitution.
34. Petitioner, in withholding-only proceedings seeking humanitarian relief from removal,
has now been detained without bond and without review for over four months.
COUNT TWO
PROLONGED NO-BOND DETENTION
35. Mr. Acosta Sarmiento re-alleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 30
above.
36. Prolonged detention of aliens is not authorized by statute and is prohibited by the Due
Process Clause of the U.S. Constitution.
37. Petitioner should be released pending the determination of his application for withholding
of removal because his prolonged detention is not authorized by statute and raises
constitutional concerns under the Due Process Clause of the U.S. Constitution.
38. Regardless of the statutory authority for Petitioner’s detention, he is entitled to a bond
hearing when that detention becomes prolonged and unreasonable. The Supreme Court
10
Case 6:16-cv-01424 Document 1 Filed 10/11/16 Page 11 of 13 PageID #: 11
has recognized that due process concerns limit permissible civil detention, holding that
civil detention violates the Due Process Clause unless there is a strong special
justification that outweighs the individual’s constitutionally protected interest in freedom
from imprisonment. Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 690 (2001). The Court further held
that detention of an alien with a final order of removal was presumptively unreasonable
after six months of detention because of due process concerns. Id. at 701. After six
months of detention, the alien is entitled to a hearing to argue for his release.
39. There is no likelihood of removal of Mr. Acosta Sarmiento because federal statute
prohibits his removal while his claim for withholding is being adjudicated. 8 U.S.C.
§ 1231(b)(3). Mr. Acosta Sarmiento intends to fully press his claim for relief, including
any appeals that might be necessary.
40. Furthermore, the same constitutional due process concerns with prolonged detention
apply to aliens in removal proceedings. Though the Court in Demore v. Kim, 538 U.S.
510 (2003), permitted mandatory detention of aliens convicted of certain crimes for five
months during their removal proceedings, Justice Kennedy noted that even mandatory
detention for criminal aliens would violate due process “if the continued detention
became unreasonable or unjustified.” Demore v. Kim, 538 U.S. 510, 532 (Kennedy, J.,
concurring).
41. Petitioner has currently been detained for over four months. His merits hearing is
scheduled for December 6, 2016, and if he continues to be held in no-bond detention he
will be detained for over six months by the time he appears for his merits hearing. He
could be detained even longer for an unforeseeable period of time while his claim for
relief is being adjudicated.
11
Case 6:16-cv-01424 Document 1 Filed 10/11/16 Page 12 of 13 PageID #: 12
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Petitioner prays that this Court grant the following relief:
1) Assume jurisdiction over this matter;
2) Grant Petitioner a writ of habeas corpus directing the Respondents to immediately release
Petitioner on his own recognizance or under parole, bond, or reasonable conditions of
supervision;
3) If DHS seeks to put conditions on Petitioner’s release, grant Petitioner an individualized
hearing as to his flight risk and danger to the community or direct Respondent to grant Petitioner
such a hearing, at which DHS will bear the burden of proving that Petitioner is a flight risk or
danger to the community;
4) Award Petitioner reasonable attorney fees and costs pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice
Act, 5 U.S.C. § 504 and 28 U.S.C. § 2412; and
5) Grant any other further relief that this court deems just and proper.
Dated: October 11, 2016
_/s/ Mary Yanik
Mary Yanik
Staff Attorney / Liman Legal Fellow
New Orleans Workers’ Center for Racial Justice
217 N Prieur St
New Orleans, LA 70012
Phone: 504-264-4219
Fax:
504-309-5205
Email: [email protected]
/s/ JJ Rosenbaum
JJ Rosenbaum
Legal Director
New Orleans Workers’ Center for Racial Justice
12
Case 6:16-cv-01424 Document 1 Filed 10/11/16 Page 13 of 13 PageID #: 13
217 N Prieur St
New Orleans, LA 70112
Phone: 504-309-5165
_/s/ William P. Quigley
William P. Quigley
Loyola University New Orleans College of Law
7214 St. Charles Avenue
New Orleans, LA 70118
Phone: 504-710-3074
E-mail: [email protected]
Pro Bono Counsel for Petitioner
13
JS 44 (Rev. 08/16)
Case 6:16-cv-01424 Document 1-1 Filed 10/11/16 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 14
CIVIL COVER SHEET
The JS 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replace nor supplement the filing and service of pleadings or other papers as required by law, except as
provided by local rules of court. This form, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is required for the use of the Clerk of Court for the
purpose of initiating the civil docket sheet. (SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON NEXT PAGE OF THIS FORM.)
I. (a) PLAINTIFFS
DEFENDANTS
(b) County of Residence of First Listed Plaintiff
County of Residence of First Listed Defendant
(EXCEPT IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES)
NOTE:
(c) Attorneys (Firm Name, Address, and Telephone Number)
(IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES ONLY)
IN LAND CONDEMNATION CASES, USE THE LOCATION OF
THE TRACT OF LAND INVOLVED.
Attorneys (If Known)
II. BASIS OF JURISDICTION (Place an “X” in One Box Only)
’ 1
U.S. Government
Plaintiff
’ 3
Federal Question
(U.S. Government Not a Party)
✘2
’
U.S. Government
Defendant
’ 4
Diversity
(Indicate Citizenship of Parties in Item III)
III. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES (Place an “X” in One Box for Plaintiff
(For Diversity Cases Only)
PTF
Citizen of This State
’ 1
DEF
’ 1
Citizen of Another State
’ 2
’
2
Incorporated and Principal Place
of Business In Another State
’ 5
’ 5
Citizen or Subject of a
Foreign Country
’ 3
’
3
Foreign Nation
’ 6
’ 6
IV. NATURE OF SUIT (Place an “X” in One Box Only)
CONTRACT
’
’
’
’
’
’
’
’
’
’
’
’
110 Insurance
120 Marine
130 Miller Act
140 Negotiable Instrument
150 Recovery of Overpayment
& Enforcement of Judgment
151 Medicare Act
152 Recovery of Defaulted
Student Loans
(Excludes Veterans)
153 Recovery of Overpayment
of Veteran’s Benefits
160 Stockholders’ Suits
190 Other Contract
195 Contract Product Liability
196 Franchise
’
’
’
’
’
’
’
’
’
’
’
’
’
’
’
’
Clic
TORTS
REAL PROPERTY
210 Land Condemnation
220 Foreclosure
230 Rent Lease & Ejectment
240 Torts to Land
245 Tort Product Liability
290 All Other Real Property
’
’
’
’
’
’
’
PERSONAL INJURY
310 Airplane
315 Airplane Product
Liability
320 Assault, Libel &
Slander
330 Federal Employers’
Liability
340 Marine
345 Marine Product
Liability
350 Motor Vehicle
355 Motor Vehicle
Product Liability
360 Other Personal
Injury
362 Personal Injury Medical Malpractice
CIVIL RIGHTS
440 Other Civil Rights
441 Voting
442 Employment
443 Housing/
Accommodations
445 Amer. w/Disabilities Employment
446 Amer. w/Disabilities Other
448 Education
FORFEITURE/PENALTY
PERSONAL INJURY
’ 365 Personal Injury Product Liability
’ 367 Health Care/
Pharmaceutical
Personal Injury
Product Liability
’ 368 Asbestos Personal
Injury Product
Liability
PERSONAL PROPERTY
’ 370 Other Fraud
’ 371 Truth in Lending
’ 380 Other Personal
Property Damage
’ 385 Property Damage
Product Liability
PRISONER PETITIONS
Habeas Corpus:
✘ 463 Alien Detainee
’
’ 510 Motions to Vacate
Sentence
’ 530 General
’ 535 Death Penalty
Other:
’ 540 Mandamus & Other
’ 550 Civil Rights
’ 555 Prison Condition
’ 560 Civil Detainee Conditions of
Confinement
’ 625 Drug Related Seizure
of Property 21 USC 881
’ 690 Other
and One Box for Defendant)
PTF
DEF
Incorporated or Principal Place
’ 4
’ 4
of Business In This State
ere for: Nature of Suit Code Descriptions.
BANKRUPTCY
’ 422 Appeal 28 USC 158
’ 423 Withdrawal
28 USC 157
PROPERTY RIGHTS
’ 820 Copyrights
’ 830 Patent
’ 840 Trademark
LABOR
’ 710 Fair Labor Standards
Act
’ 720 Labor/Management
Relations
’ 740 Railway Labor Act
’ 751 Family and Medical
Leave Act
’ 790 Other Labor Litigation
’ 791 Employee Retirement
Income Security Act
’
’
’
’
’
SOCIAL SECURITY
861 HIA (1395ff)
862 Black Lung (923)
863 DIWC/DIWW (405(g))
864 SSID Title XVI
865 RSI (405(g))
FEDERAL TAX SUITS
’ 870 Taxes (U.S. Plaintiff
or Defendant)
’ 871 IRS—Third Party
26 USC 7609
IMMIGRATION
’ 462 Naturalization Application
’ 465 Other Immigration
Actions
OTHER STATUTES
’ 375 False Claims Act
’ 376 Qui Tam (31 USC
3729(a))
’ 400 State Reapportionment
’ 410 Antitrust
’ 430 Banks and Banking
’ 450 Commerce
’ 460 Deportation
’ 470 Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations
’ 480 Consumer Credit
’ 490 Cable/Sat TV
’ 850 Securities/Commodities/
Exchange
’ 890 Other Statutory Actions
’ 891 Agricultural Acts
’ 893 Environmental Matters
’ 895 Freedom of Information
Act
’ 896 Arbitration
’ 899 Administrative Procedure
Act/Review or Appeal of
Agency Decision
’ 950 Constitutionality of
State Statutes
V. ORIGIN (Place an “X” in One Box Only)
’ 1 Original
Proceeding
’ 2 Removed from
State Court
’ 3
Remanded from
Appellate Court
’ 4 Reinstated or
Reopened
’ 5 Transferred from
Another District
’ 6 Multidistrict
Litigation Transfer
(specify)
Cite the U.S. Civil Statute under which you are filing (Do not cite jurisdictional statutes unless diversity):
’ 8 Multidistrict
Litigation Direct File
VI. CAUSE OF ACTION Brief description of cause:
’ CHECK IF THIS IS A CLASS ACTION
VII. REQUESTED IN
UNDER RULE 23, F.R.Cv.P.
COMPLAINT:
VIII. RELATED CASE(S)
(See instructions):
IF ANY
JUDGE
DATE
CHECK YES only if demanded in complaint:
’ Yes
’ No
JURY DEMAND:
DEMAND $
DOCKET NUMBER
SIGNATURE OF ATTORNEY OF RECORD
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY
RECEIPT #
AMOUNT
Print
APPLYING IFP
Save As...
JUDGE
MAG. JUDGE
Reset
Case 6:16-cv-01424 Document 1-1 Filed 10/11/16 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 15
JS 44 Reverse (Rev. 08/16)
INSTRUCTIONS FOR ATTORNEYS COMPLETING CIVIL COVER SHEET FORM JS 44
Authority For Civil Cover Sheet
The JS 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replaces nor supplements the filings and service of pleading or other papers as
required by law, except as provided by local rules of court. This form, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is
required for the use of the Clerk of Court for the purpose of initiating the civil docket sheet. Consequently, a civil cover sheet is submitted to the Clerk of
Court for each civil complaint filed. The attorney filing a case should complete the form as follows:
I.(a)
(b)
(c)
Plaintiffs-Defendants. Enter names (last, first, middle initial) of plaintiff and defendant. If the plaintiff or defendant is a government agency, use
only the full name or standard abbreviations. If the plaintiff or defendant is an official within a government agency, identify first the agency and
then the official, giving both name and title.
County of Residence. For each civil case filed, except U.S. plaintiff cases, enter the name of the county where the first listed plaintiff resides at the
time of filing. In U.S. plaintiff cases, enter the name of the county in which the first listed defendant resides at the time of filing. (NOTE: In land
condemnation cases, the county of residence of the "defendant" is the location of the tract of land involved.)
Attorneys. Enter the firm name, address, telephone number, and attorney of record. If there are several attorneys, list them on an attachment, noting
in this section "(see attachment)".
II.
Jurisdiction. The basis of jurisdiction is set forth under Rule 8(a), F.R.Cv.P., which requires that jurisdictions be shown in pleadings. Place an "X"
in one of the boxes. If there is more than one basis of jurisdiction, precedence is given in the order shown below.
United States plaintiff. (1) Jurisdiction based on 28 U.S.C. 1345 and 1348. Suits by agencies and officers of the United States are included here.
United States defendant. (2) When the plaintiff is suing the United States, its officers or agencies, place an "X" in this box.
Federal question. (3) This refers to suits under 28 U.S.C. 1331, where jurisdiction arises under the Constitution of the United States, an amendment
to the Constitution, an act of Congress or a treaty of the United States. In cases where the U.S. is a party, the U.S. plaintiff or defendant code takes
precedence, and box 1 or 2 should be marked.
Diversity of citizenship. (4) This refers to suits under 28 U.S.C. 1332, where parties are citizens of different states. When Box 4 is checked, the
citizenship of the different parties must be checked. (See Section III below; NOTE: federal question actions take precedence over diversity
cases.)
III.
Residence (citizenship) of Principal Parties. This section of the JS 44 is to be completed if diversity of citizenship was indicated above. Mark this
section for each principal party.
IV.
Nature of Suit. lace an
in t e appropriate o . f t ere are multiple nature of suit codes associated it t e case pic t e nature of suit code
t at is most applica le. Clic ere for: Nature of Suit Code Descriptions.
V.
Origin. Place an "X" in one of the seven boxes.
Original Proceedings. (1) Cases which originate in the United States district courts.
Removed from State Court. (2) Proceedings initiated in state courts may be removed to the district courts under Title 28 U.S.C., Section 1441.
When the petition for removal is granted, check this box.
Remanded from Appellate Court. (3) Check this box for cases remanded to the district court for further action. Use the date of remand as the filing
date.
Reinstated or Reopened. (4) Check this box for cases reinstated or reopened in the district court. Use the reopening date as the filing date.
Transferred from Another District. (5) For cases transferred under Title 28 U.S.C. Section 1404(a). Do not use this for within district transfers or
multidistrict litigation transfers.
Multidistrict Litigation – Transfer. (6) Check this box when a multidistrict case is transferred into the district under authority of Title 28 U.S.C.
Section 1407.
Multidistrict Litigation – Direct File. (8) Check this box when a multidistrict case is filed in the same district as the Master MDL docket.
PLEASE NOTE THAT THERE IS NOT AN ORIGIN CODE 7. Origin Code 7 was used for historical records and is no longer relevant due to
changes in statue.
VI.
Cause of Action. Report the civil statute directly related to the cause of action and give a brief description of the cause. Do not cite jurisdictional
statutes unless diversity. Example: U.S. Civil Statute: 47 USC 553 Brief Description: Unauthorized reception of cable service
VII.
Requested in Complaint. Class Action. Place an "X" in this box if you are filing a class action under Rule 23, F.R.Cv.P.
Demand. In this space enter the actual dollar amount being demanded or indicate other demand, such as a preliminary injunction.
Jury Demand. Check the appropriate box to indicate whether or not a jury is being demanded.
VIII. Related Cases. This section of the JS 44 is used to reference related pending cases, if any. If there are related pending cases, insert the docket
numbers and the corresponding judge names for such cases.
Date and Attorney Signature. Date and sign the civil cover sheet.
Case 6:16-cv-01424 Document 1-2 Filed 10/11/16 Page 1 of 1 PageID #: 16
Attachment to Civil Cover Sheet
Attorneys for Plaintiff:
Mary Yanik
Staff Attorney / Liman Legal Fellow
New Orleans Workers’ Center for Racial Justice
217 N Prieur St
New Orleans, LA 70012
Phone: 504-264-4219
Fax:
504-309-5205
Email: [email protected]
JJ Rosenbaum
Legal Director
New Orleans Workers’ Center for Racial Justice
217 N Prieur St
New Orleans, LA 70112
Phone: 504-309-5165
William P. Quigley
Loyola University New Orleans College of Law
7214 St. Charles Avenue
New Orleans, LA 70118
Phone: 504-710-3074
E-mail: [email protected]
Attorneys for Defendants:
Attorney for the Department of Homeland Security, David Rivera, Sarah Saldaña, Jeh
Johnson, Indalecio Ramos
The Office of the General Counsel, United States Department of Homeland Security,
Washington, DC, 20258
Phone number not known