Case 1:15-cv-00446-RP Document 1 Filed 05/26/15 Page 1 of 21

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS AUSTIN DIVISION

Maria Isabel Perales Serna on her own behalfand as next friend tor her minor daughter, K.Z.P.S.; Luisa lnes Barragan Gutierrez on her own behalf and as next

***ss

friend tor her minor son, L.A.B.;

§

Maria del Rosario Teran Uriegas on her §

own behalf and as next friend for

§

her minor son, S.Z.; Nancy Garcia

§

Castro on her own behalf and as next

§

Friend tor her minor children, L.M.,

§

J.M. and Y.M.

s s

C.A.

§

Plaintiffs

§

v.

* §

Texas Department of State Health

§

Services, Vital Statistics Unit,

§

Commissioner Kirk Cole, in his official capacity, Unit Chief Geraldine Harris, in her otlicial capacity

* * §

§

Defendants

§

I. Introduction:

COMPLAINT

I. The adult Plaintiffs in this case arc citizens of Mexico now residing in Texas. They bring suit on behalfof themselves and as next friend t(lr their children, who were born in Texas and arc citizens of the United States.
2. The Defendant oftkials have refused, and continue to refuse, to provide the adult Plaintiffs with certified copies of the birth certificates tor their Texas born children. Such reti.1sal is de facto based upon the immigration status of the Plaintiff parents. The lack of a birth certificate, in turn, is causing serious hann, as discussed herein.
1

Case 1:15-cv-00446-RP Document 1 Filed 05/26/15 Page 2 of 21
3. Detendants' actions violate the Equal Protection C'lause of the Fourteenth Amendment, as well as the Supremacy Clause. Defendants are sued in their otlicial capacities. Plaintifts seek declaratory and injunctive relief.
ll. Jurisdiction and Venue:
4. This court has federal question jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 133 1, and pendent jurisdiction over state law claims arising from the same operative tacts.
* 28 u.s.c. 1367.
5. Declaratory judgment is sought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2201.
6. Venue is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391 because many of the complained of acts in this case occurred in Travis County, Texas, and because the Defendants reside in Travis County, Texas.
In. Parties:
7. Plaintitf Maria Isabel Perales Serna (..PlaintitT Perales") is a resident of Hidalgo County, Texas. She brings suit on her own behalf and as next friend tor her minor daughter K.Z.P.S.
8. Plaintiff Luisa lnes Barragan ("'PlaintitTBarragan") is a resident of Cameron County. She brings suit on her own behalf and as next tiiend for her minor son L.A.B.
9. Plaintiff Maria Del Rosario Teran Uriegas ("PiaintitTTeran") is a resident of Cameron County, T exas. She brings suit on her own behalf and as next friend lor her minor son, PlaintiffS.Z. 2

Case 1:15-cv-00446-RP Document 1 Filed 05/26/15 Page 3 of 21
I0. Plainti tT Nancy Garcia Castro (..PlaintiffGarcia") is a resident of Hidalgo County,
Texas. She brings suit on her own behalf and as next friend tor her three minor children, L.M., J.M., and Y.M. II. Detendant Texas Department of State Health Services, Vital Statistics Unit is the state agency and unit charged with recording Texas births and providing certified birth certificates upon proper applications therefore. State headquarters for the agency are located in Travis County, Texas. 12. Defendant Kirk Coles is the Commissioner of the Texas Department ofState Health Services. He resides in Travis County, Texas. He is sued in his ofticial capacity. 13. Defendant Geraldine Harris is the Unit Chief for the Texas Department of State Health Services, Vital Statistics Unit. She is a resident ofTravis County, Texas. She is sued in her official capacity.
IV. FACTS: A. llllroduction: 14. The Texas Department of State Health Services, Vital Statistics Unit, e·DHS-
VSU"), is responsible tor registering, collecting, compiling, and preserving all state birth, death, marriage, and adoption records. 15. This duty is carried out through a network oflocal Vital Records otlices located throughout the state. Tex. Health & Sa[ Code, Titl e 3 (Vital Statistics),§ 191 .002.

Case 1:15-cv-00446-RP Document 1 Filed 05/26/15 Page 4 of 21
16. Vital Statistics officers must provide certitied copies of birth ccrtiticates upon rcqu<..-st to all persons qualified to receive them. !d., Title 3 (Vital Statistics), Chapter§ 191.051 .
17. To qualify tor receipt of a certitied copy of a birth certiticate, a person must produce adequate personal identification. Specitically, the person must present one of the identitication documents set torth in the regulations. 25 Tex. Admin . Code, ("T.A.C'."), §181.28 (i)(I0-11).
18. The acceptable tonns of identi tication are divided into two categories, primary and secondary.
19. Primary fonns of identification are available only to U.S. citizens or to persons who already have legal immigration status in this country, such as a Pennanent Resident card, an Employment Authorization Document, or a U.S. Re-Entry or Border Crossing pennit. § 181.28 (i)( IO)(D).
20. Persons who cannot produce a primary document may qualify by producing two fonns ofsecondary identification, as set forth in§ 181.28 (i)( II )(D).
21. These documents will only be available, tor the most part, to persons who can establish their legal immigration status, whether temporary or pennanent, in this country.
22. Although passports arc internationally recognized government identification documents of the highest tonnality, §181.28 (i)( II )(D)(ix) accepts foreign passports only if they bear a current U.S. visa.
4

Case 1:15-cv-00446-RP Document 1 Filed 05/26/15 Page 5 of 21
23. §181.28 (i)( II) (xiv and xv) list the only documents available to persons other than those who can prove their legal status within the United States. This section pennits acceptance of Mexican Voter Registration cards and/or a foreign photo identification card.
24. For the last many years, the toreign photo identification has been satisfied by producing official photo identification cards, known as "matriculas", issued by the person's local consulate.
25. Should a person have but one of the secondary documents, they may still satisty the requirements by producing two torms ofsupporting identification.
26. For the past many months, Defendants have been refusing to accept any of the secondary documents set torth in§ 181.28 (i)( 11) (xiv and xv).
27. As a result, scores of women trom Mexico and Central America have been denied birth certificates tor their Texas bom children.
28. Counsel tor these children has also been denied birth certificates tor their infant client.
29. This leaves the child with no birth certificate, and both mother and child with no official proofof the parent-child relationship.
30. No amendment to T.A.C'. §181.28( II ) toreclosing ofticial consular identi tication and other matters has been promulgated or even proposed.
31 . In rejecting the matricula and other such documents, the local registrars urc acting upon the instructions, policies, and orders of Defendants.
5

Case 1:15-cv-00446-RP Document 1 Filed 05/26/15 Page 6 of 21
32. This situation is causing and will cause grave and irremediable hann to the parents and children.
33. Defendants and their attorneys have been notified of this growing problem, but have failed and refused to correct the situation.
34. Instead, Defendants have consulted with the foreign consulates, explaining the state requirements and reasons for rejecting the matricula.
35. The burden on the consulates would become untenable should all fifty states issue individualized requirements.
36. Such actions interfere with the exclusive federal authority over matters involving diplomatic affairs.
37. Matters of immigration, and the benefits to be provided to immigrants, are preempted by the federal government.
38. Defendants' conduct tails to serve any reasonable state purpose. 39. Defendants' conduct violates the equal protection rights ofboth the Plaintiff
mothers and children. 40. Defendants have knowingly and intentionally instructed and/or ordered their local
ofticers to deny birth certificates to the mothers and children in the Plaintiffs' situation, as described below, and will continue to do so. 41. Defendants have at all times acted in their official capacities in this case.
6

Case 1:15-cv-00446-RP Document 1 Filed 05/26/15 Page 7 of 21
42. As set forth below, Defendants arc engaged in actions beyond the scope of their authority and in violation of the U.S. Constitution.
B. Plaintiffs: 43. Plaintitf Maria Isabel Perales Serna was born and raised in Mexico. 44. As a young adult, Plaintiff Perales tled to Texas to escape from an abusive husband. 45. Ms. Perales gave birth in Texas to a daughter, "Y", now fourteen years old. 46. To obtain the birth certificate for this U.S. citizen child, Ms. Perales simply presented her matricula from the Mexican consulate. 47. The matricu/a is an ofticial photo identification card provided by the Mexican consulate to Mexican citizens residing in the United States. Such persons must provide proofof their Mexican citizenship and identity to the consulate to obtain this identification card. 48. The Texas Vital Statistics office accepted the matricula and issued the birth certificate to Ms. Perales, pursuant to Texas Administrative Code § 181.28( 11 )(D)(xv). 49. On November 24, 2014, Plaintiff Perales gave birth to Plaintiff K.Z.P.S. in a McAllen, Texas hospital. 50. Ms. Perales took her hospital records, matricula, and Mexican passp011 to the Vital Statistics office in McAllen, Texas.
7

Case 1:15-cv-00446-RP Document 1 Filed 05/26/15 Page 8 of 21
51. There, she was infonned that the malricu/a would no longer be accepted by the State ofTexas. The passport was also rejected.
52. Plaintiff Perales had fled Mexico before she had obtained a voter card, and can only obtain one now by returning to Mexico, at great risk to her own safety.
53. Birth certiticates are the only ot1icial proof of the parent-child relationship. 54. As a result of Defendants' wrongful denial of the birth certificates, there is no
ofticial proofof the parent-child relationship between Ms. Perales and K.Z.P.S. 55. As a result of Defendants' wrongful denial of the birth certificate, Plaintiff
Perales faces serious problems in enrolling her daughter in day care, travelling with her child, obtaining necessary medical care and other health, education, and welfare services requiring parental consent and/or proof of Plaintiff K.Z.P.S. 's Texas birth. 56. Plaintiff Luisa Ines Barragan Gutierrez is a citizen of Mexico and has lived in Texas tor approximately eight years. She too had fled an abusive relationship. 57. Ms. Barragan gave birth to L.A.B. in Texas on November 28,2010. The father has refused to recognize his child. 58. This birth certificate was stolen. 59. In April2015, she brought the hospital records, her son's social security, her matricula. and her expired Mexican voter idcnti tication card.
8

Case 1:15-cv-00446-RP Document 1 Filed 05/26/15 Page 9 of 21
60. The ofticer rejected her matricu/a, suggesting that Ms. Barragan could get into trouble tor asking tor the document of a U.S. citizen and threatened to report her to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (LC.E.}.
61. Plaintiff Barragan needs to enroll her child in school, but school ofticials have told her she must present a certified copy of the birth certificate. They will not accept the other papers.
62. Plaintiff Maria Del Rosario Teran-Urriegas is a citizen of Mexico who has lived in the United States since 1998.
63. She and her husband have 2 children. 64. The first child is 17 months old, and Ms. Teran had no trouble getting a birth
certificate to r him. 65. The second child, Plaintiff S.Z., was bom December 18, 2014. 66. Plaintiff Teran has her matricula, passport, hospital papers, and the child's social
security card, but no Mexican voter card. 67. In February 2015, PlaintitTTeran went to the Registrar's oftice to get the birth
certificate and spoke to a man there. He would not accept the matricula and told her to get a passport. 68. Piainti ffTeran obtained the passport and returned, only to be rejected because she did not have a valid U.S. visa in the passport.
9

Case 1:15-cv-00446-RP Document 1 Filed 05/26/15 Page 10 of 21
69. The third time, Ms. Teran took her mother-in-law, who had a Mexican voter identification card and has also been in the United States for many years. They rejected her mother-in-law's voter card because it was too old.
70. PlaintitfNancy Garcia Castro is a citizen of Mexico who has lived in the United States for many years.
71. Ms. Garcia gave birth in Texas to PlaintiffL.M. on March 5, 2009, to Plaintiff J.M. on May 9, 2010, and to Y.M. on October 10,2012.
72. In early May 2015, Plaintiff Garcia sought birth certificates tor her three U.S. citizen children at the McAllen, Texas Vital Statistics office.
73. The registrar refused to accept Plaintiff Garcia's valid matricu/a. 74. This Defendants' denial of birth certificates is causing all of the Plaintiff mothers
problems with school enrollment, travel, medical assistance and other benetits tor their U.S. citizen children. 75. Numerous other women from Central America are being denied birth certiticates tor their U.S. citizen infants at this time as well.
C. Discriminatioll and Harm : 76. The current Texas Vital Statistics Unit's practice and policy ofdenying birth
certificates to U.S. citizen children is causing and will continue to cause serious harm to Plaintitls as set t()rth above.
77. A birth certificate is the primary official continnation of the parent-child relationship as well as of the citizenship of the child born in the U.S. 10

Case 1:15-cv-00446-RP Document 1 Filed 05/26/15 Page 11 of 21
78. Denial of the birth certificate will greatly complicate and/or obstruct the Plaintiff children's right to enroll in schools and other educational and cultural programs, to obtain a passport and travel, and even to receive medical care and assistance.
79. The denial of the birth certificates also interferes with the Plaintiff mothers' ability to properly care tor their children, and hence with the parent-child relationship.
80. Should any of the Plaintiff mothers be deported to Mexico in the future, their U.S. born children will later face complications in establishing their citizenship.
81. Every U.S. citizen has a right to receive his or her birth certificate. 82. A minor has no way to obtain his or her own birth certificate other than through
his or her parents. 83. The State of Texas is discriminating against U.S. citizen children on the basis of
their national origin and their parents' immibrration status.
84. There is no state justi tication tor denying a U.S. citizen his or her own birth certificate on the basis of their parents' entry into the United Stutes.
85. The State of Texas is also discriminating against the Plaintiff mothers in this case on the basis of their national origin and immigration status.
86. There is no justification to r denying citi zens of Mexico or Central America a birth certificate tor their Texas born children.
87. This Texas practice and policy interferes with the exclusive federal function of regulating immigration. 11

Case 1:15-cv-00446-RP Document 1 Filed 05/26/15 Page 12 of 21
88. The State ofTexas has also engaged in communications with the Mexican and Central American consulates, suggesting changes in the official malricula system.
89. Such requests and requirements, if made by all fitly states, would create a severe burden on the foreign consulates nnd grossly interfere with tederal diplomatic relationships.
90. The detennination of the rights and privileges of undocumented immigrants and their families has long been preempted by the federal government.
91. The de tacto changes in the regulations accepting the consular matricu/as and/or Mexican Voter Registration cards were never properly promulgated.
92. The requirement that a Mexicnn passport bear a current U.S. visa has no rational basis and furthers no state concerns.
93. Plaintiffs are facing imminent and irreparable hann. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT
94. Plaintiffs herein incorporate Paragraphs 1- 93 above. 95. At all relevant times, Defendants in this case were acting in their official
capacities on behalf of the State ofTexas. 96. At all relevant times, Defendants were acting under color of state law. 97. Detendants have a current policy, pattern, and practi~.:c of denying birth
12

Case 1:15-cv-00446-RP Document 1 Filed 05/26/15 Page 13 of 21
certificates to the Texas-born, infant children of undocumented immigrants from Mexico and Central America. 98. The Plaintiff children in this case were born in the United States and are United States citizens. 99. The Plaintiff mothers have produced valid and official identification in seeking the birth certificates for their Texas born children. They were nevertheless denied, pursuant to Defendants' policies and practices. 100. All persons born in the United States are entitled to receive otlicial copies of their own birth certificates. I0 I. Defendants are violating the Fourteenth Amendment by abridging the privileges and immunities of the Texas born children. I02. Defendants arc giving unequal treatment to the Plaintiff children, as compared with the treatment of all otherwise similarly situated children in the State of Texas. I03. Speci tically, the Plaintiff children arc being denied birth certificates on the basis of their parents' immik'fation status. I04. The Plaintiff children are turther being discriminated against on the basis of their national origin. I05. Defendants have no valid justification tor their discriminatory denial of birth certificates to the Plaintiff children.
13

Case 1:15-cv-00446-RP Document 1 Filed 05/26/15 Page 14 of 21
I06. Dctcndants have at all times acted knowingly, intentionally, and under color of state law.
I07. Detendants' conduct violates the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution.
I08. Defendants' conduct is causing and will cause Plaintitfs irreparable hann as set torth above.
I09. Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief, declaring the Defendants' current practices and/or regulation unconstitutional, and enjoining the current rejection of valid consular malriculas and/or passports.
II 0. Plaintiffs bring this claim pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983 and 28 U.S.C. §220 I. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION: EQUAL PROTECTION
Ill. Plaintiffs herein incorporate Paragraphs 1-93 above. 112. At all relevant times, the Defendants were acting in their otlicial capacities on
behalf of the State of Texas. 113. At all relevant times, the Defendants were acting under color of state law. 114. The Defendants have a current policy, pattern, and practice of denying birth
ccrtiticates to undocumented immigrant women from Mexico and Central America, who have given birth to a child in Texas.
14

Case 1:15-cv-00446-RP Document 1 Filed 05/26/15 Page 15 of 21
115. As set forth above, the Plaintiff mothers in this case have protlcred valid and ofticial tonns of identification, but have been denied the birth certificates tor their U.S. citizen children.
I 16. All parents have the right to receive a birth certi ftcate tor their U.S. born children. 117. The denial of this birth certificate deprives the Plaintiff mothers of any ofticial
conftnnation of their relationship to their own children. 118. Such denial greatly complicates and obstructs the Plaintiffs mothers' rights to
consent to urgent medical care, to enroll their children in school, and to obtain other educational, health and cultural benefits tor which such U.S. citizen children are eligible. 119. Defendants are treating the Plaintiff mothers unequally to all otherwise similarly situated mothers of U.S. born children. 120. Defendants are discriminating against the Plaintiff mothers on the basis of their immib'Tation status and national origin. 121. Defendants have no adequate justification tor their discriminatory denial of birth certi ticates to Plainti tfs. 122. Defendants have at all times acted knowingly, intentionally and under color of state law. 123. Defendants' conduct violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment ofthe United States Constitution.
15

Case 1:15-cv-00446-RP Document 1 Filed 05/26/15 Page 16 of 21
124. Defendants' conduct is causing und will cuuse the Plaintitl'mothcrs irreparable hann.
125. The Plainti tf mothers seek declaratory and injunctive relict: declaring Defendants' current practices and/or regulations unconstitutional, and enjoining the current rejection of valid consular matriculas and/or passports.
126. Plaintitfs bring this claim pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983 and 28 U.S.C. §220 I.
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION SUPREMACY CLAUSE AND PREEMPTION
127. Plainti fts herein incorporate Paragraphs 1-93 above.
128. Defendants have during all relevant time periods acted in their official capacities on behalfof the State ofTexas.
I29. Defendants have at all times acted under color of state Jaw. 130. The tederal government has preempted the field of immi1:,rration, especially
matters involving the rights and privileges due to persons present in this country who have not yet attained legal immigration status. 131. Specitically, Congress has promulgated extensive statutory provisions and regulations with regard to such immigrants' documentation, employment, benefits, shelter, and numerous other matters.
16

Case 1:15-cv-00446-RP Document 1 Filed 05/26/15 Page 17 of 21
132. Detennination of immihrration policies, including the treatment, rights and privileges of such immigrants, is the exclusive function of the federal government.
133. Likewise, matters of international diplomacy are solely matters tor the federal government.
134. Defendants have no authority to interfere with such matters. 135. Defendants have violated the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution
by refusing to accept valid consular identification cards and/or valid foreign passports. 136. Plaintiffs have been and will be irreparably harmed by the unconstitutional actions and policies of Defendants. 137. Defendants have at all times acted knowingly and intentionally. 138. Plaintiffs seck declaratory and injunctive relict: declaring Defendants' current practices unconstitutional, and enjoining the current rejection of valid consular malriculas and/or passports. 139. Plaintiffs bring this claim pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983 and 28 U.S.C. §2201.
FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION: PENDANT STATE CLAIM
140. Plaintifts herein incorporate Paragraphs 1- 93 above.
17

Case 1:15-cv-00446-RP Document 1 Filed 05/26/15 Page 18 of 21
142. At all relevant times, Defendants were acting in their official capacities on behalf of the State ofTexas.
143. At all relevant times, Defendants were acting under color of state law. 144. T.A.C. §181.28 (i)( II) specifics that consular matricu/as are acceptable forms of
identification for purposes of obtaining a birth certificate. 145. In previous times, these documents were properly accepted and the birth
certificates were issued. 146. As set forth above, these documents are no longer being accepted by the local
registrar officials. 147. Such denials arc being made upon the current orders and policies of Defendants. 148. Certainly, such matters are of great public interest and impact, and cause great
hann to Plaintiffs. 149. Such substantial changes to published regulations are required to be promulgated
in accordance with the Texas State Administrative Procedure Act ("A.P.A."), including, but not limited to, an opportunity tor public comment. V.T.C'.A., Govemment Code, §§200 I ct seq. 150. Such changes have been made, and new rules de facto issued, without benefit of any of the A.P.A. required procedures. 151. Such new policies and de tacto regulations are accordingly void.
18

Case 1:15-cv-00446-RP Document 1 Filed 05/26/15 Page 19 of 21
152. Plaintifts are suffering and will continue to suffer serious and irreparable hann as a result of these violations.
153. Plaintitls seck declaratory and injunctive relict~ declaring Defendants' current practices unconstitutional, and enjoining the current rejection of valid consular matriculas.
WHEREFORE PLAINTIFFS PRAY THAT THIS COURT: I. GRANT Plaintiffs' request for a Declaratory Judgement, declaring that the denial
of birth certificates to U.S. born children on the basis of their parents' immigration status is a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. 2. GRANT Plaintiffs' request for a Declaratory Judgement, declaring the rejection of the Plaintiff mothers' consular matriculas and/or passports, and hence the denial of birth certificates tor their U.S. born children, a violation of the Equal Protection Clause. 3. GRANT Plaintiffs' request tor a Declaratory Judgement, declaring that the denial of birth certificates to undocumented women tor their U.S. born children is preempted by the federal government, and that Defendants' current policies violate the Supremacy Clause. 4. ISSUE an injunction requiring Defendants to once again accept the consular matriculas andfor passports of women seeking birth certificates tor their U.S. born children.
19

Case 1:15-cv-00446-RP Document 1 Filed 05/26/15 Page 20 of 21
5. ORDER Dctendants to pay attorneys' tees, costs, interest, and all other such
matters as this Court deems just and reasonable.
Respectfully Submitted,
IS/Jennifer K. Harbury
Jennifer K. Harbury Attorney in Charge1 Texas bar No. 08946500 S.D. No.26569 TEXAS RIOGRANDE LEGAL AID, INC. 300 S. Texas Blvd. Weslaco, Texas 78596 Tel. 956-447-4800 Fax: 956-968-8823
/S/ Marinda Van Dalen
Marinda Van Dalen Attorney at Law Texas Bar No. 00789698 S.D. No. I7577 TEXAS RIOGRANDE LEGAL AID, INC. 531 E. St. Francis St. Brownsville , TX 78520 Tel. 956-982-5540 Fax: 956-541-1410
/S/ James C. Harrington
James C. Harrington Attorney at Law State Bar No. 09048500 TEXAS CIVIL RIGHTS PROJECT 1405 Montopolis Drive Austin, Texas 78741-3438
/S/ Efrcn C. Olivares Attorney at Law
1 Texas RioGrande Legal Aid, Inc. represents all Plaintiff children in this case. All adult Plaintiffs are
Represented by the Texas Civil Rights Project.
20

Case 1:15-cv-00446-RP Document 1 Filed 05/26/15 Page 21 of 21 Texas Bar No. 24065844 Southern District of Texas No. I015826 SOUTH TEXAS CIVIL RIGHTS PROJECT 1017 W. Hackberry Ave. Alamo, Texas 78516 Tel 956-787-8171 Fax: 956-787-6348
21

'J5 44 (Rev, 11107)

Case 1:15-cv-00446-RP Document 1-1 Filed 05/26/15 Page 1 of 2
CIVIL COVER SHEET

The JS 44 civil cover sheet and the infonnation contained herein neither replace nor supplement the filing and servicc:ofpiCIIdingsorotherpmpm as required by Jaw, cxcc:ptas provided by local rules ofcourt. This fonn, approved by the Judicial Conference ofthe Unircd States in September 1974, is required for the usc ofthe Clc:dc ofCourt for the purpose ofmitiating the civil docket sheet. (SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON THE REVI!IlSI! OF THE FORM )

I. (a) PLAINTIFFS

f'r\P, il. ~

,.
.-1

S

A'"-.)e_xn.

P~rl...A~es

Se.it..f.JA d

GJ

~AffA~

(b) CountyofRc:sidenc:c offirst Listed Plaintiff \-\,\)At... di,.C

(EXCEPT IN U S PLAINTIFF CASES)

County of Residence ofFirst Listed Defendant
(IN US. PLAINTIFF CASES ONLY)
NOTE: IN LAND CONDEMNATION CASES, USE THE LOCATION OF THE LAND INVOLVED.

(c) Anomey's (Firm Name, Addrcoa, and Telephone Number)
':T \'"~ ~""S ; ~!-\l,-.\.,A~~rA~.-..NJLi~i':) f......tt~~ a....,:._.t~.
ooo '5 -r~s "B\...,d. uJ~
·x· II. BASIS OF JURISDICTION (Pto.. an in Ooc Bo• oatyl

01 U S Oovcmmcat PloiatiiT

~ Fcdcrol Qunlion (U .S Oovcmmcat Not • Party)

Anomeys (lfKaowo)

·x· Ill. CITIZENSHIP 0 F PRINCIPAL PARTIES(Ptace an in oac Boa ror Ptaiallrr

(for Di•.uolty Caoco Oaly)

aa4 Oac Boo for Defendaat)

•

PTF DEf

PTF D!F

CitilCD ofTbil Slate

0 I 0 I looorporated or Priaelpal Place

0 4 04

ofBuoiocn lo Tlda Slate

0 2 U S 0 ovcmmcat Dc(rndant

0 4 Di..rally (ladicllc Citiunahlp of Partin in llcm Ill)

Citl&co or Another State

0 2 0 3

0 1 Incorporated o•d Priocipal Plaoc
ofBuoiacoa lo Aaotbor State
0 3 Forcls• Natloa

0 5 05 0 6 Cl 6

IV NATURE OF SUIT [Place •• • x• In One Boa Onl•l

I

CO!ITRAC1'

TORTII

IR.i9tr.lii.U,1'1'

8ANl

OTHI:R ITAT11TU

I

0 I JO lantat:Lce

PERSONAL INJURY

PERSONAL INJURY lie 610 Asrieulturc

0 422 App..t21 USC lSI

0 400 State R capportlonmcot

0 120 Marine Cl llO Miller Act

0 310 Airplaac 0 3 IS Airplaao Product

0 362 Pcnonallnjury • Mcd, Malpractice

CJ 620 Other Food a Dru1
0 625 OrusRclatcd Seizure

0 423 Withdrawal
l8 usc 157

0 41 o Aatilruot
0 430 Baaka aad Baakiaa

Cl 140 Nesotlablc lootrumenl

Liability

0 ISO Recovery ofOvcrpaymcot 0 320 Auault, Libel a

CJ 365 Pcroooal Injury • Producl Llabilily

or Propcrty21 USC Bll 0 630 Liquor Lawa

'RICliiTI

CJ 450 Commc~• 0 460 Dcportatlon

a earorcemcolofJudamcnl

Slander

0 361 Aobuloo Pcraooal CJ 640 R R. A Truek

0 120 Copyriahto

0 470 Raokctccr lnnucaccd and

0 151 M cdloara Aet

0 330 Federal Employen'

Injury Producl

0 650 Airlioc R•l••

0 830 Poteat

Cona&pt Oraaaiz.atlon1

0 152 Rcoovcry of Defaulted

Liability

Liobllity

0 660 0 ceupatlonal

0 840 Trademark

0 .SO Coooumcr Credit

Studcal Loaao

0 340 Marioe

PERSONAL PROPERTY

SdctyfHealth

0 490 CablciSal TV

(Eacl Vctcraoo)

0 345 Marioe Product

0 370 Other Fraud

0 6900tbor

0 81 0 Sclcetivc Service

0 153 Recovery ofO..rpaymcat

Liability

0 371 Truth in Lcndin1

. AROR

IOCIAL UCtJRI1'Y

0 150 Sc~u.ritin/Comrnodltic11

oiVcteraa'• BeaeRla

0 350 Molar Vehicle

Cl 310 Other Pcroooal

0 71 0 Fair Labor Staadardo

Cl 16li(IA (ll95R)

Eachaaac

0 160 Slockholdcn' Suito 0 190 Other Contraet

0 3SS Motor Vehicle Product Liability

Property Damaa• 0 315 Property Dam•1•

'

Act

0 720 Labor' Mimt. Rclatioao

0 162 Black Luna (923)

0 875 Cootomor Cltallcoac

0 16) DIWCIDIWW (405(1))

12 usc 3410

0 195 Coatract Product Liability 0 360 Other Penonal

Produ<l Liability

0 730 LaboriM1mr Rcporti•l 0 164 551D Title XVI

0 190 Otbcr Statutory Action•

0 196 Franchloe

lo)ory

.t Dil<loourc Act

0 165 RSI (40Sflll

0 191 A1rloultural Acto

R&lt.L PROPERTY

crvu. IIIG.• n

PRIIONIR PI:TITIONS 0 740 Raih""Y Labor Aot

n•ERAL TAX 5 ITI 0 192 Eeoaomk: Stabllizat!oa Act

0 210 Laad Coodcmaatioa

0 441 Vodn1

~ 510 Motlooo to Vaoatc 0 790 Other Labor Liti11tion

0 170 Ta&eo (U S, l'laintiiT

0 893 Eniroamcotal Mattera

0 220 Forcdoaure

Cl 442 Employmcol

ScottACC

0 791 Empl. ltct lac.

or Defcodaot)

0 194 EacrJy AUocatiao Act

0 230 Rent Leue .t Ej<etmcat 0 240 Torto 10 Laod 0 245 Tort Product Liabilily
0 290 AII Other Real Property

CJ 443 Houoioa/ Accommodatioas

I a

Holteu Cttpuo:
5lo a•••,.,

~ 0 444 Wclfan:
CJ 445 Amcr wiDioabilitin •

HS Dcatb Penalty 540 Mandamuo A Other

Sccurky Aet

0 171 IRS Third Party
26 usc 7609

IMMIGRATION

0 46l Naturalinlioa Applieatloo

0 195 Freedom orlnfonnatloo

I

Act

0 900Appul o( Fcc Dctcrmlnatioa

Uadcr Equal Acecoa

~ Employmcot
0 ·t46 Amcr wkDiaabililita •

550 Civil RIJhla 555 Priooo Cooditiao

0 463 Habcaa Corpuo • Alien Dctaiace

to Juslice
0 950 c onotilutiaaality 0 r

Otbcr

0 465 Other lmmiJration

State Statuteo

~ 40 Other Civil Riahu

Aci~Oill

V. ORIGIN ~ Original
Proceeding

(Place an "X" ia Oac Bo• Ooly)

CJ 2 Removed from

CJ 3 Remanded from

Stale Court

Appellarc Court

Appeal to District

CJ 4 Reinstated or 0
Reopened

5 Transfe~ '!om 0 6 Multidistrict

ttnoth.c:r dtsmct

Litigation

5 I

0

7

Judge from Magisuurc

Jud ent

Cite the U.S. Civil Statule under which you are filing (Do not die jurlsdldlonal slalulet unltss dlvenlty):
u . ? , c . VL CAUSE OF ACTION ~B~ri~d(~+d~eo~~t~_n)~ti~on~o~r~ca~u~sc~: ~~ I ~~ ~~~~~~n~_~ - ~ _ ~. ~ n ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Uf\C..UI\?ItivTt CIY\<:V( ~

t r':l.J/'1 Ct:.i'LrrF•C.Arc..A...

VII. REQUESTED IN

0 CHECK IF THIS IS A CLASS ACTION

DEMANDS

CHECK YES only ifdemanded in complaint:

COMPLAINT:

UNDER F.R.C.P. 23

JUR\' DEMAND: 0 Yes 0 No

VIII. RELATED CASE(S)

IF ANY ,._;, ~

(Sec inatruclions)

JUDGE

DOCKET NUMBER

D ATE

SIGNATURE OF ATTORNEY OF RECORD
5 :l~ ;u//

--------- -------------------------------- RECEIPT-

AMOUNT

1\PPLYINO IFP

--~-------

--~~~~---

-~~~~-

JUDGE

MAG JUDOE

Case 1:15-cv-00446-RP Document 1-1 Filed 05/26/15 Page 2 of 2
Attachment:
Cover Sheet
Plaintiffs:
Maria Isabel Perales Serna on her own behalf and as next friend tor her minor daughter, K.Z.P.S.
Luisa lnes Barragan Gutierrez on her own behalfand as next friend tor her minor son, L.A.B.
Maria del Rosario Teran Uriegas on her own behalf and as next friend tor her minor son, S.Z.
Nancy Garcia Castro on her own behalf and as next Friend tor her minor children, L.M., J.M. and Y.M.

 
 Case 1:15-cv-00446-RP Document 49 Filed 09/14/15 Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
AUSTIN DIVISION

MARIA ISABEL PERALES SERNA, ET AL., §

§

Plaintiffs,

§

§

V.

§

§

TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF STATE

§

HEALTH SERVICES, VITAL STATISTICS, §

UNIT, ET AL.,

§

§

Defendants.

§

1-15-CV-446 RP

ORDER

Before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Motion for Live Testimony by Remote Means at Hearing on

Preliminary Injunction, filed September 10, 2015 (Clerk’s Dkt. #48). By way of the motion, Plaintiffs

request the Court to permit live testimony by videoconference at the hearing on their motion for

preliminary injunction set for October 2, 2015.

Ordinarily, “witnesses' testimony must be taken in open court.” FED. R. CIV. P. 43(a).

However, testimony may be provided “by contemporaneous transmission from a different location”

on a showing of “good cause in compelling circumstances.” Id. Plaintiffs maintain good cause and compelling circumstances are present in this case because Plaintiffs cannot travel to Austin

because they lack the documentation necessary to travel through Border Patrol checkpoints.

Without specifically opining as to whether that circumstance meets the standard under Rule

43, the Court notes Plaintiffs have not addressed the specific need for live testimony at the

preliminary injunction hearing. At the preliminary injunction stage, a district court is permitted to

rely on otherwise inadmissible evidence, including hearsay evidence, and thus can accept evidence

in the form of deposition transcripts and affidavits.

, 992

Sierra Club, Lone Star Chapter v. F.D.I.C.

F.2d 545, 551 (5th Cir. 1993). In light of the challenges facing Plaintiffs in attending the hearing,

and the potential difficulties in accommodating their request to appear via teleconference, the Court

Case 1:15-cv-00446-RP Document 49 Filed 09/14/15 Page 2 of 2
finds additional information regarding the need for live testimony would be helpful. Accordingly, Plaintiffs are directed to file a supplement to their motion addressing the
necessity for the taking of live testimony at the hearing on their motion for preliminary injunction on or before September 17, 2015. Any response Defendants choose to file to Plaintiffs’ motion is due on or before September 21, 2015.
SIGNED on September 14, 2015. ROBERT L. PITMAN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
2

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
AUSTIN DIVISION

MARIA ISABEL PERALES SERNA, ET AL., §

§

Plaintiffs,

§

§

V.

§

§

TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF STATE

§

HEALTH SERVICES, VITAL STATISTICS §

UNIT, ET AL.,

§

§

Defendants.

§

1-15-CV-446 RP

ORDER Before the Court are Plaintiffs’ Emergency Application for Temporary Injunction, filed August 21, 2015 (Clerk’s Dkt. #25), the responsive pleadings thereto, as well as Amicus briefs filed both in support of, and opposition to, Plaintiffs’ application. The Court conducted a hearing on the application on October 2, 2015. Having considered the application, response, record in the case, and the applicable law, the Court is of the opinion that Plaintiffs’ application for a preliminary injunction should be denied. See FED. R. CIV. P. 65(b).
I. BACKGROUND Plaintiffs in this action are La Union del Pueblo Entero, Inc. (“LUPE”), which describes itself as a non-profit organization dedicated to promoting the health, education, labor, and civil rights of indigent farmworkers and other low-wage workers in the Rio Grande Valley, and undocumented person Maria Isabel Perales Serna, and other similarly situated parents, who bring this action on behalf of themselves and minor children. Plaintiffs assert claims against defendants the Texas Department of State Health Services, Vital Statistics Unit (“DSHS”), as well as DSHS Commissioner Kirk Cole and Unit Chief Geraldine Harris in their official capacities challenging recent policy changes adopted by DSHS.

At issue in this case is the claim by Plaintiffs that persons without legal immigration status in the United States are effectively denied the ability to obtain a birth certificate for children born in Texas, who are thus citizens of the United States. Plaintiffs contend the effective bar creates numerous issues in obtaining the rights and benefits which inure to citizens of the United States, including enrollment in schools and social welfare programs, as well as other services such as baptism and day care services. They maintain access to those benefits, services and programs is contingent on presentation of a birth certificate, and thus the inability to obtain a birth certificate effectively denies access to children born in Texas to persons without legal immigration status.
DSHS is the Texas state agency statutorily empowered to “administer the registration of vital statistics.” TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE ANN. § 191.002(a). Subject to DSHS rules, the state registrar is required to “supply to a properly qualified applicant, on request, a certified copy of a record, or part of a record, of a birth” registered with DSHS. Id. § 191.051(a). A “properly qualified applicant” is defined as:
The registrant, or immediate family member either by blood, marriage or adoption, his or her guardian, or his or her legal agent or representative. Local, state and federal law enforcement or governmental agencies and other persons may be designated as properly qualified applicants by demonstrating a direct and tangible interest in the record when the information in the record is necessary to implement a statutory provision or to protect a personal legal property right. 25 TEX. ADMIN. CODE § 181.1(21). The governing regulation (“Section 181") also mandates, to meet the requirement that an applicant requesting a record be “properly qualified,” the applicant “must present proof of identity acceptable to the State Registrar.” Id. § 181.28(i)(2).1 Section 181 sets forth an extensive list of acceptable forms of identification divided into three categories – primary, secondary and supporting. Primary identification documents are a variety of documents issued by the federal or state governments, including a driver’s license,
1 Prior to 2013, the forms of acceptable identification were contained not in the Texas Administrative Code, but in the Vital Statistics Unit's Local Registrar Handbook. (Def. Resp. Decl. of Farinelli ¶ 7).
2

military id, passport and permanent resident card. The documents must be current and valid. Id.
§ 181.28(i)(10). Section 181 lists the following acceptable forms of secondary identification:
(I) Current student identification; (ii) Any Primary Identification that is expired; (iii) Signed Social Security card, or Numident; (iv) DD Form 214 Certificate of Release; (v) Medicaid card; (vi) Medicare card; (vii) Veterans Affairs card; (viii) Medical insurance card; (ix) Foreign Passport accompanied by a Visa issued by the United States Department of State; (x) Foreign Passport in accordance with the United States Department of State, Visa Waiver Program; (xi) Certified birth certificate from the Department of State (FS-240, DS-1350 or FS-545); (xii) Private Company Employment Identification card; (xiii) Form I-94 - accompanied by the applicant's Visa or Passport; (xiv) Mexican voter registration card; or (xv) Foreign Identification with identifiable photo of applicant.
Id. § 181.28(i)(11)(D). Supporting identification is described simply as “[o]ther records or
documents that verify the applicant's identity” and directs “examining or supervisory personnel”
to consult DSHS policies to determine whether the supporting identification document is
acceptable. Id. § 181.28(i)(12).2
A single primary identification document is sufficient to establish identity. Id. §
181.28(i)(10). Absent primary identification, to satisfy the identification requirement, an applicant
must submit two forms of secondary identification of different types, or one form of secondary
identification and two forms of acceptable supporting identification of different types. Id. §
181.28(i)(11)(B).
Persons without legal immigration status almost universally lack any primary identification
2 The DSHS Local Registrar Handbook, revised in April 2015, provides examples including recent utility bill, school transcripts, bank account statements, foreign birth certificates and marriage licenses. (Def. Supp. Decl. of Kerr Ex. 5-1 at 43).
3

documents. Plaintiffs allege many persons without legal immigration status do not have foreign identity documents which would qualify as secondary identification for a variety of reasons. For example, many left their native country as minors, and thus never obtained a drivers’ license or electoral identity card. They further allege many such persons were stripped of, or have lost, identification cards during their journey to the United States. (2nd Am. Compl ¶ 48-53).
According to Plaintiffs, for a number of years, registrars accepted official photo identification cards, issued by a local consulate, as satisfying the identification requirement for a “properly qualified applicant.”3 (Id. ¶ 56). Plaintiffs describe the consular identification documents as official photo identification cards provided by the foreign government, by way of its consulate, to its citizens residing in the United States. The documents can be obtained by presentation of proof of citizenship and identity to the consulate. (Id. ¶ 57).
Plaintiffs allege Defendants began rejecting Mexican matriculas as a policy change a few years ago. They contend the change in policy was only sporadically enforced until approximately 2013, when it began to be ever more strictly enforced. According to Plaintiffs, consular identification from other nations is now rejected as well. (Id. ¶¶ 58-59).
Plaintiffs assert six causes of action. By way of the first four, they contend the rights of the Plaintiff children and Plaintiff parents to equal protection and due process are being denied as a result of Defendants’ interpretation and enforcement of Section 181 which effectively denies the issuance of birth certificates for the Plaintiff children. (Id. ¶¶ 124-90). By way of the fifth, Plaintiffs contend Defendants’ interpretation and enforcement of Section 181 violates the Supremacy Clause because matters of immigration policy are the exclusive function of the federal government. (Id. ¶¶ 191-205). By way of the sixth, they contend the Defendants’ change in policy regarding interpretation and enforcement of Section 181 constitutes a de facto change to
3 The Mexican version of the consular identification document is known as the "matricula.”
4

published regulations without benefit of any of the procedures required under Texas’ Administrative Procedures Act and thus the de facto regulations are void under state law. (Id. ¶¶ 206-18).
Plaintiffs now seek a preliminary injunction requiring Defendants to “determine at least two forms of identification [that are] reasonably and actually accessible to undocumented immigrant parents of Texas-born children” that satisfy the identification requirement for a properly qualified applicant to obtain the birth certificate of a child born in Texas. The parties have filed responsive pleadings and supporting affidavit testimony. The Court conducted a hearing on October 2, 2015 and the matter is now ripe for review.
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy and the decision to grant a preliminary injunction is to be treated as the exception rather than the rule. Valley v. Rapides Parish Sch. Bd., 118 F.3d 1047, 1050 (5th Cir. 1997). The party seeking a preliminary injunction may be granted relief only if the moving party establishes: (1) a substantial likelihood of success on the merits; (2) a substantial threat that failure to grant the injunction will result in irreparable injury; (3) that the threatened injury out-weighs any damage that the injunction may cause the opposing party; and (4) that the injunction will not disserve the public interest. See Hoover v. Morales, 146 F.3d 304, 307 (5th Cir.1998); Wenner v. Texas Lottery Comm'n, 123 F.3d 321, 325 (5th Cir. 1997); Cherokee Pump & Equip. Inc. v. Aurora Pump, 38 F.3d 246, 249 (5th Cir. 1994). The party seeking a preliminary injunction must clearly carry the burden of persuasion on all four requirements to merit relief. Mississippi Power & Light Co., 760 F.2d 618, 621 (5th Cir. 1985).
III. ANALYSIS A. Substantial Threat of Irreparable Injury
In seeking a preliminary injunction Plaintiffs contend they face irreparable injury as a result
5

of Defendants’ conduct. Plaintiffs in this action fall into three categories. One, the non-profit organization LUPE. Two, the “Plaintiff parents” who are parents to Texas born children. And, three, the “Plaintiff children” who were born in Texas to undocumented parents. Based on the focus of the arguments raised at the hearing, the Court will turn to the third category first.4
Plaintiffs maintain the inability to obtain birth certificates for children born in Texas deprives the Plaintiff children of the rights and benefits to which they are entitled as United States citizens. The Supreme Court has stated that the “loss of First Amendment freedoms, for even minimal periods of time, unquestionably constitutes irreparable injury.” Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S. 347, 373 (1976); see also Palmer v. Waxahachie Indep. Sch. Dist., 579 F.3d 502, 506 (5th Cir. 2009) (“loss of First Amendment freedoms for even minimal periods of time constitutes irreparable injury justifying the grant of a preliminary injunction.”). Our sister court has extended that conclusion, pointing out that “[f]ederal courts at all levels have recognized that violation of constitutional rights constitutes irreparable harm as a matter of law.” De Leon v. Perry, 975 F. Supp. 2d 632, 663 (W.D. Tex. 2014), aff'd sub nom. De Leon v. Abbott, 791 F.3d 619 (5th Cir. 2015). See also 11A CHARLES ALAN WRIGHT, ARTHUR R. MILLER & MARY KAY KANE, FEDERAL PRACTICE & PROCEDURE § 2948.1 (2d ed. 1995) (“When an alleged deprivation of a constitutional right is involved, most courts hold that no further showing of irreparable injury is necessary.”). Noting that “[a]n injury is irreparable if money damages cannot compensate for the harm,” our sister court found allegations of infringement on due process and equal protection rights resulting from enforcement of a state law prohibiting their marriage constituted an irreparable injury. De Leon, 975 F. Supp. 2d at 663. The Court thus concludes Plaintiffs need only show a deprivation of a constitutional right to establish the requisite irreparable injury.
4 Plaintiffs did not address LUPE’s interest in, or suggest it faced irreparable injury without, the grant of a preliminary injunction either in their briefs or during the hearing. Accordingly, the Court will not address LUPE any further herein.
6

Plaintiffs argue the conduct of Defendants has interfered with the fundamental rights of citizenship, to travel and to familial integrity, as well as education and public benefits. By way of affidavit testimony, Plaintiffs detail a list of harms facing families unable to obtain birth certificates for their Texas born child. Specifically, they present evidence that because Plaintiff parents possessed only consular identification cards they were unable to obtain birth certificates for Texas born children and: (1) Plaintiff Cedillo Nieto was unable to bring her son back into the United States after traveling to Mexico (Plf. App. Aff. of Cedillo Nieto); (2) are unable to baptize their children (Id. Aff. of Garcia; Aff. of Gomez Ibarra); (3) have difficulties retaining Medicaid assistance for children facing serious health issues (Id. Aff. of Garcia; Aff. of Ibarra; Aff. of Perales Serna); (4) enrollment in school or day care may be terminated or refused (Id. Aff. of Garcia; Aff. of Gomez Ibarra; Aff. of Perez; Aff. of Teran Uriegas; Aff. of Garza); (5) cannot complete an application for or retain Section 8 housing assistance (Id. Aff. of Garcia; Aff. of Vega); (6) face difficulties at immigration checkpoints when officers threaten to detain a child without proof of citizenship or relation to the Plaintiff parent (Id. Aff. of Gomez Ibarra; Aff. of Perales Serna); and (7) face difficulties obtaining and retaining Social Security Disability benefits for their children (Id. Aff. of Garza).
Defendants respond by contending that the lack of a birth certificate does not prevent a Texas born child from attending school or qualifying for Medicaid. They point to a provision of the governing statute which permits the state registrar to issue to a parent “a certificate necessary for admission to school” which is “limited to a statement of the child’s birth.” TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE ANN. § 191.0046(a). According to Defendants, identification is not required in order to obtain this certificate. (Def. Resp. Decl. of Farinelli ¶ 8). Further, the Texas Health and Human Services Commission (“HHSC”), which administers the Medicaid program, has a gateway to the Vital Statistics Unit and can verify birth records. Thus, parents need not have a birth certificate
7

for a child born in Texas to obtain Medicaid. (Id. ¶ 8; Decl. of Muth ¶ 8). Defendants also suggest Plaintiffs have not satisfied their burden to show irreparable injury because they have not presented affidavit testimony from each named Plaintiff parent which contains sufficient facts to establish the need for a birth certificate to obtain the benefits and privileges of citizenship.5
The Court finds Defendants’ response inadequate for a number of reasons. First, Defendants have addressed only two of the seven harms Plaintiffs assert they face as a result of the inability to obtain birth certificates for Texas born children. Second, Defendants themselves have presented supplemental evidence which establishes that, for a student under eleven years of age being enrolled in a school for the first time, the person enrolling a child born in the United States must provided a certified copy of the child’s birth certificate within thirty days. (Def. Supp. Aff of Marx Ex. 5-1 at 49). If the person is unable to produce a certified copy of the birth certificate, other identification may be acceptable, but must be accompanied by a “signed note explaining why the person was unable to produce a certified copy of the birth certificate.” (Id.). In the case of an undocumented person, this signed note would admit their status and thus expose them to potential criminal liability and removal from the United States.6
Third, Plaintiffs, in their reply, present evidence from two witnesses who called a number of Medicaid offices in Texas and were told by many that they had no ability to verify birth absent a birth certificate. (Plf. Reply Aff. of Anway; Aff. of Dabaghi). Plaintiffs also present affidavit testimony that Plaintiff parents have been specifically told by personnel at Medicaid offices that
5 Defendants also suggest, because Plaintiff Cedillo Nieto admits she was able to obtain a birth certificate for her son, she has failed to establish irreparable injury. But they do not contest it took some months to obtain the birth certificate, and that her son was in dangerous circumstances in Mexico during that period. (Plf. Reply Aff. of Cedillo Nieto). As noted above, even a brief deprivation of a constitutional right, such as the right of citizenship and to travel, is sufficient to establish injury.
6 An August 11, 2015 informational letter sent by the Texas Education Agency to school administrators specifically directs that, if the person enrolling a child does not provide the required information, “the school shall notify the appropriate law enforcement agency before the 31st day after the person fails to comply.” (Def. Supp. Aff. of Marx Ex. 6-2 at 19).
8

a birth certificate must be presented to renew Medicaid.7 (Id. Aff. of Barragan Gutierrez). Fourth, Plaintiffs present additional affidavit testimony detailing personal experiences of
the difficulties faced in obtaining birth certificates and the attendant benefits thereof. Specifically, Plaintiffs provide evidence that one or more of them has been informed by workers at the pertinent offices that: (1) a birth certificate is required to obtain WIC benefits (Id. Aff. of Barragan Gutierrez); (2) a birth certificate is required to obtain Section 8 housing benefits (Id. Aff. of Garza; Aff. of Garcia Castro); (3) the Catholic Church requires a birth certificate for baptism (Id. Aff. of Garcia Castro; Aff. of Gomez Ibarra); (4) a birth certificate is a requirement to obtain Medicaid (Id. Aff. of Garcia Castro); (5) a birth certificate is required to attend public school (Id. Aff. of Garcia Castro);8 and (6) a birth certificate is required to enroll in Head Start (Id. Aff. of Gomez Ibarra).
Finally, it simply begs credulity for Defendants to argue a birth certificate is not a vitally important document. The rights and privileges of citizenship inure to those who are citizens. The lack of a birth certificate, or other documentation establishing citizenship, presents a clear bar to access to those rights.
Based on the evidence presented by Plaintiffs, the Court concludes Plaintiffs have established, at a minimum, that deprivation of a birth certificate to the Plaintiff children results in deprivations of the rights and benefits which inure to them as citizens, as well as deprivations of their right to free exercise of religion by way of baptism, and their right to travel.
The question of whether the Plaintiff parents have met the requisite burden at this stage of the litigation is a closer one. The sole argument Plaintiffs offer in their pleadings is that the
7 When a child is born, the hospital will report the birth to DSHS, issue a Verification of Birth letter to the parent, and make arrangements for a Social Security card and the first year of Medicaid coverage. (Plf. Reply Aff. of Gonzalez).
8 Plaintiffs also present affidavit testimony that in response to phone calls to five individual public schools, as well as one school district, the caller was consistently told a birth certificate was required for attendance. (Plf. Reply Aff. of Martinez).
9

Plaintiff parents are deprived of their fundamental right to raise and protect their children absent the issuance of a birth certificate.
The right to family integrity is clearly protected by the Constitution. See Moore v. City of E. Cleveland, 431 U.S. 494, 503-05 (1977) (discussing source and extent of constitutional protection of the sanctity of the family); Kipps v. Caillier, 205 F.3d 203, 206 (5th Cir. 2000) (“parent-child relationship lies at the heart of protected familial associations”); Morris v. Dearborne, 181 F.3d 657, 671 (5th Cir. 1999) (“The constitutional right to family integrity was well established in 1992”). This right is held by both the child and the parents. Wooley v. City of Baton Rouge, 211 F.3d 913, 923 (5th Cir. 2000). However, as Defendants point out, the Fifth Circuit has repeatedly characterized the right as ill-defined. See, e.g., Doop v. Chapman, 211 F. App'x 246, 248 (5th Cir. 2006) (noting court has not “clearly defined the nebulous right to family integrity in this context”); Rolen v. City of Brownfield, 182 F. App'x 362, 364 (5th Cir. 2006) (referring to “due process right of family integrity” as “nebulous and undefined”); Peters v. Lowrey, 114 F.3d 1184 (5th Cir. 1997) (although right to family integrity has been recognized, contours of the right are “nebulous and not clearly established”); Kiser v. Garrett, 67 F.3d 1166, 1172 (5th Cir. 1995) (“nebulous, ill-defined right to family integrity”); Doe v. Louisiana, 2 F.3d 1412, 1417 (5th Cir. 1993) (prior cases have noted ““nebulous nature” of right of family integrity); Hodorowski v. Ray, 844 F.2d 1210, 1217 (5th Cir. 1988) (referring to “nebulous right of family integrity”).
Although the right to family integrity may be nebulous, the Court concludes its parameters extend to issue of food, shelter, medical care and religious participation by a parent on behalf of his or her child. In this case, Plaintiffs have presented evidence that the lack of a birth certificate for a Texas-born child presents grave difficulties to a parent seeking to obtain public assistance in providing that child food, shelter and medical care. In addition, Plaintiffs have presented evidence that the lack of a birth certificate makes it impossible for at least some parents to have
10

a child baptized. The Court thus finds Plaintiffs have sufficiently shown a substantial threat of irreparable
injury to the Plaintiff children and parents to meet the first element necessary to obtain a preliminary injunction. B. Likelihood of Success
Plaintiffs contend they are likely to succeed on the merits of their equal protection and due process claims, as well as their claim based on federal preemption.9 To show a substantial likelihood of success, “the plaintiff must present a prima facie case, but need not prove that he is entitled to summary judgment.” Daniels Health Sciences, L.L.C. v. Vascular Health Sciences, L.L.C., 710 F.3d 579, 582 (5th Cir. 2013). See also Janvey v. Alguire, 647 F.3d 585, 596 (5th Cir. 2011) (same, citing CHARLES ALAN WRIGHT, ARTHUR R. MILLER, MARY KAY KANE, 11A FEDERAL PRACTICE & PROCEDURE § 2948.3 (2d ed. 1995) (“All courts agree that plaintiff must present a prima facie case but need not show that he is certain to win.”)).
1. Equal Protection and Due Process a. Guiding Principles
Under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment no State shall “deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” U.S. CONST. amend. XIV. The fundamental liberties protected by this Clause include both the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights, as well as personal choices central to individual dignity and autonomy, including “intimate choices that define personal identity and beliefs.” Obergefell v. Hodges, 135 S. Ct. 2584, 2597 (2015). See also Simi Inv. Co. v. Harris Cnty., 236 F.3d 240, 249 (5th Cir. 2000) (violation of
9 As set forth above, Plaintiffs also assert a claim for violation of the Texas Administrative Procedures Act in their complaint. They have not, however, addressed that claim in moving for a preliminary injunction. The Court thus declines to address that claim at this stage of the proceedings.
11

substantive due process occurs when the government “works a deprivation of a constitutionally protected interest”). The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment commands that no State shall "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." U.S. CONST. amend. XIV. The basis of an equal protection claim is, thus, the requirement that all persons similarly situated should be treated alike. City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Ctr., Inc., 473 U.S. 432, 439 (1989); Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202, 216 (1982); Piotrowski v. City of Houston, 237 F.3d 567, 578 n.15 (5th Cir. 2001).
In analyzing an equal protection challenge strict scrutiny is appropriate “only where a government classification implicates a suspect class or a fundamental right.” Rublee v. Fleming, 160 F.3d 213, 217 (5th Cir. 1998). See City of Cleburne, 473 U.S. at 440 (“when a statute classifies by race, alienage, or national origin” law is subjected to strict scrutiny). Otherwise, equal protection analysis requires only “that the classification be rationally related to a legitimate state interest.” Cornerstone Christian Sch. v. Univ. Interscholastic League, 563 F.3d 127, 139 (5th Cir. 2009). Similarly, in a due process challenge, “I[if] the right is so deeply rooted—if it is fundamental—we subject it to more exacting standards of review. If it is not, we review only for a rational basis.” Cantu-Delgadillo v. Holder, 584 F.3d 682, 687 (5th Cir. 2009) (citing Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702, 720 (1997)).
b. Appropriate Level of Scrutiny Although Defendants maintain there is no fundamental right at issue, the Court has concluded the Plaintiffs have presented evidence showing that a lack of a birth certificate affects the fundamental rights of the citizen Plaintiff children and the fundamental right of family integrity for both the Plaintiff children and parents. Insofar as a birth certificate is the primary means of documenting citizenship, it follows that a citizen’s right to obtain it is as fundamental as the rights and privileges that flow from the status it documents. Accordingly, a heightened level of scrutiny
12

is appropriate in analyzing the constitutional claims presented in this case. See Regan v. Taxation with Representation of Wash., 461 U.S. 540, 547 (1983) (“Statutes are subjected to a higher level of scrutiny if they interfere with the exercise of a fundamental right, such as freedom of speech....”); Merced v. Kasson, 577 F.3d 578, 587 n.12 (5th Cir. 2009) (noting even neutral laws of general applicability must still pass strict scrutiny if more than one constitutional right is implicated, citing Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972) (combining the right to free exercise of religion with parents' fundamental right to raise their children as they choose)).10
Under strict scrutiny, the challenged law must be narrowly tailored to be the least restrictive means of achieving a compelling government interest. Citizens United v. Fed. Election Comm'n, 558 U.S. 310, 340 (2010). A law is narrowly tailored if it “actually advances the state's interest ..., does not sweep too broadly ..., does not leave significant influences bearing on the interest unregulated (is not underinclusive), and could be replaced by no other regulation that could advance the interest as well with less infringement of [a constitutional right] (is the least-restrictive alternative).” Dep't of Tex., Veterans of Foreign Wars of U.S. v. Tex. Lottery Comm'n, 760 F.3d 427, 440 (5th Cir. 2014) (quoting Republican Party of Minn. v. White, 416 F.3d 738, 751 (8th Cir. 2005) (en banc)). A policy is underinclusive if it is too narrow in scope to reasonably fulfill the government's purported interest. See id. Such a policy fails strict scrutiny because its underinclusiveness raises the possibility that the government's stated interest is pretextual and that the policy is actually intended to serve another end. See Brown v. Entm't Merchants Ass'n, 131 S. Ct. 2729, 2740 (2011) ("Underinclusiveness raises serious doubts about whether the government is in fact pursuing the interest it invokes"); Tex. Lottery Comm'n, 760 F.3d at 440 ("Such obvious underinclusiveness undermines any argument that Texas is truly interested in
10 The Court notes the Fifth Circuit has applied a heightened level of scrutiny to challenges to statutes imposing additional burdens on citizens in immigration related matters. See Nguyen v. INS, 208 F.3d 528, 534–35 (5th Cir. 2000), aff'd, 533 U.S. 53 (2001).
13

regulating gambling."). c. Application of Strict Scrutiny
Plaintiffs first suggest Defendants have not proffered any state interest which rises to the level of compelling. Although Defendants disagree that strict scrutiny applies to this case, they have pointed out that a certified copy of a birth record can be used to obtain numerous identification documents, such as a passport or driver's license, as well as to commit identity theft. (Def. Resp. Decl. of Farinelli ¶ 3). Accordingly, in Texas, birth certificates are not treated as open records. TEX. GOV'T CODE ANN. § 552.115 (excepting birth certificates from requirements of Texas Open Records Act). In further recognition of the importance of protection of a birth certificate, it is a felony offense in Texas to fraudulently use or possess identifying information of another person, specifically including the “identifying information of a child younger than 18 years of age.” TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 32.51(b)(3).11 Accordingly, the Court concludes Plaintiffs have not shown Texas lacks a compelling interest in protecting the issuance of birth certificates. See Voting for Am., Inc. v. Steen, 732 F.3d 382, 386 (5th Cir. 2013) (party seeking injunction carries the burden of persuasion on all four requirements).
The remaining issue is whether Section 181 is narrowly tailored to be the least restrictive means of vindicating Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights. Of particular significance in this case is that the determination of likelihood of success is not solely a question of law, but rather a mixed question of law and fact. Hoover v. Morales, 164 F.3d 221, 224 (5th Cir. 1998). The threshold factual question is whether Plaintiffs have established Section 181 prevents the issuance of a birth certificate for the Plaintiff children. “Consequently, to establish a substantial likelihood of success on the merits, [Plaintiffs] must demonstrate that [Section 181], as applied against [Plaintiffs] in this
11 The Court notes any argument Plaintiffs assert which downplays Texas’ interest in protecting possession of a birth certificate is strongly rebutted by their testimony regarding the importance of that document.
14

case on these facts, likely violates the Constitution.” Jackson Women's Health Org. v. Currier, 760 F.3d 448, 453 (5th Cir. 2014).
As a preliminary matter, the Court notes the record in this case has been an evolving one. At the outset, Plaintiffs presented a broad sweeping narrative which suggested an entire class of persons was being deprived, as a matter of law, from obtaining a birth certificate. As the record developed, the evidence became something of a moving target, and unfortunately less clear. Specifically, it is particularly troubling that the affidavits of the Plaintiff parents lack precision in detailing which forms of identification they, or other qualified applicants, actually possess or can reasonably obtain. Nonetheless, following a detailed and thorough analysis of Plaintiffs’ evidence, the Court finds the affidavit testimony establishes there are two sets of Plaintiff parents.12
The first set consists of those Plaintiffs whose testimony establishes they either personally have, or another “qualified applicant” has, sufficient identification documents for a birth certificate to issue to the related Plaintiff child. For example, Plaintiffs present testimony from Quenia Perez in which she states her child’s paternal grandmother possesses a Mexican passport without visa, and a valid Mexican electoral card, and further that she has been advised by the “birth certificate office” that those documents satisfy Section 181. (Plf. Add’l Aff. Aff. of Perez). Nancy Garcia Castro states her husband has a current Mexican driver’s license and expired Mexican electoral card, which would satisfy Section 181. (Plf. Reply Aff. of Garcia Castro).
As to this first set of Plaintiff parents, while the Plaintiff parents indicate they have not been able to obtain birth certificates,13 Defendants maintain the evidence presented does not point to
12 The evidence, as well as statements during the hearing, establish that there is a third, unique, Plaintiff parent who has been able to obtain a birth certificate for her Texas-born child since the filing of this lawsuit. The claims raised on behalf of her and her child thus need not be addressed in ruling on Plaintiffs’ application for preliminary injunction.
13 Some Plaintiff parents’ affidavit testimony indicates they have been denied birth certificates for their respective children even though the documents presented satisfy Section 181. If true, this conduct could support a cause of action against individual DSHS employees. It does not, however, suffice to support their attack on Section
15

any inadequacy in Section 181 as the cause.14 The language of Section 181 clearly supports that
position, and Plaintiffs do not argue otherwise. Accordingly, as to this first set of Plaintiff parents,
there is not a sufficient showing demonstrating that Section 181, as applied to them in this case
on these facts, likely violates the Constitution.
The other set of Plaintiff parents have submitted affidavits in which each states she has
attempted to obtain a birth certificate by presenting documents which do not satisfy the
requirements of Section 181 and was turned down. These parents state they presented
documents, including consular identification or a foreign passport without a visa, which would
have, or actually had, previously sufficed to establish identity sufficient to obtain a birth certificate for their child.15
As set forth above, under Section 181 a foreign passport may be used as a secondary
form of identification only if it includes a visa, or is issued by a “Visa Waiver” country. 25 TEX.
ADMIN. CODE § 181.28(i)(11)(D)(ix-x). Section 181 accepts as a form of secondary identification
any "Foreign Identification with identifiable photo of applicant. Id. § 181.28(i)(11)(D)(xv).
However, the Vital Statistics Unit's Local Registrar Handbook specifically states DSHS “does not
accept the Matricula Consular as an independent form of valid identification.” (Def. Resp. Supp.
181. As noted above, counsel for Defendants acknowledged during the hearing on this application that the filing of this lawsuit directly led to the issuance of a birth certificate for one Plaintiff child. The Court urges counsel for both parties to review the testimony and documents presented with the application for preliminary injunction and responsive pleadings to determine whether other Plaintiffs are eligible for issuance of a birth certificate for their child.
14 The Court additionally notes Plaintiffs have provided testimony which suggests a troubling practice by certain employees at local registrar offices. Specifically, Plaintiffs have presented testimony that: (1) the registrar’s office told one plaintiff she could get in trouble requesting a birth certificate for a United States citizen and threatened to call immigration (Plf. Reply Aff. of Barragan Gutierrez); and (2) that, during the first week of September 2015, a plaintiff went to the HHSC office in Austin to obtain her daughter’s birth certificate but when she informed an employee she was not a United States citizen or resident, was told by the employee that birth certificates for children of immigrants would not be processed as the children are considered immigrants, and was removed from the waiting line. (Id. Aff. of Rodriguez Bonilla). These allegations, however, also do not support a challenge to Section 181, but rather possibly to the practices of specific employees of DSHS.
15 A number of the Plaintiff parents have other, older, Texas-born children for whom they were able to obtain birth certificates.
16

Ex. B at 43). Based on the clear language of Section 181 and the Local Registrar Handbook, the Court concludes the second set of Plaintiff parents have sufficiently shown that application of Section 181 to them has actually resulted in a deprivation of a fundamental right. The Court, therefore, turns to the second portion of the strict scrutiny analysis. That is, whether the law is sufficiently narrowly tailored to be the least restrictive means of achieving a compelling government interest. Citizens United v. Fed. Election Comm'n, 558 U.S. 310, 340 (2010).
Defendants contend the current requirements were adopted due to concerns regarding identity theft and the reliability of identification documents. While this explanation is facially reasonable, it is worth noting that counsel for Defendants admitted at the hearing on the preliminary injunction that no evidence, statistical or otherwise, was presented by Defendants establishing that those concerns were not being adequately addressed prior to the implementation of Section 181. Nonetheless, Defendants have presented evidence which they maintain shows DSHS was concerned with, and attempted to address, a real potential for fraud in implementing Section 181.
Specifically, in 2008 DSHS was contacted by the Consul General of Mexico who inquired whether consular identification, specifically the Mexican matricula, was no longer acceptable. (Def. Resp. Decl. of Connelly ¶ 3). According to Defendants, research undertaken by DSHS “revealed that matriculas are issued by individual Mexican Consulates in the United States, and that the Consulates do not maintain a centralized database that keeps track of persons who have been issued a matricula and which consular office issued the person a matricula.” (Id. Decl. of Harris ¶ 3). Additionally, the research revealed that Mexican Consulates did not verify the authenticity of the documents presented by persons seeking a matricula, and that registrars in only four of twenty states responding to DSHS’ inquiry accepted the matricula as stand-alone identification. (Id.). Further, when conducting its research, DSHS learned of, and apparently
17

relied heavily on, “extensive research” which had already been performed by the United States Government. (Def. Resp. Decl. of Connelly ¶ 4). Specifically noted is testimony provided to Congress by the FBI that neither the FBI nor the Department of Justice recognized the matricula as a valid form of identification, nor did United States Immigration and Custom Enforcement. (Id.). DSHS informed the Consul General by letter dated June 20, 2008 that the matricula would no longer be accepted as an independent verification of identity. (Id. ¶ 8).
Further, according to Defendants, a foreign passport, even if authentic, does not necessarily indicate that the foreign government verified the authenticity of the source documents used to obtain the passport. (Id. Decl. of Farinelli ¶ 6). In addition, if a copy of a passport is mailed in, rather than directly presented at a DSHS’ office, there is no opportunity to examine the passport for the presence of certain security features. (Id.). According to Defendants, these concerns are mitigated through the visa process, because if a visa was issued, the State Department conducted inquiries that would confirm the identity of the passport holder. And, in the case of a visa waiver, the State Department has determined that there is minimal risk from accepting the passport without any further investigation into the holder of the passport. (Id.).
Plaintiffs, in turn, argue Defendants’ research and conclusions are outdated. In support of this assertion, they provided the affidavit of the Consul General of the United Mexican States (“Mexico”) located in Austin, Texas. (Plf. Reply Aff. of Gonzalez Gutierrez). The affidavit testimony establishes that, in 2006, Mexico improved the security features of the consular identification card by beginning “operation of a centralized database including biometrics, decoded information of the bearer using bi-dimensional code bars and other methods used according to international standards.” (Id. ¶ 14). Further, in November 2014, Mexican consulates across the United States started issuing a new version of the consular identification card, which has additional security measures including biometrics of the applicant with embedded identity data,
18

upgraded design features of the card itself, and a photograph that is clearer than on past versions. (Id. ¶¶ 16, 21-27).
In addition, Plaintiffs cite the affidavit of Austin Police Chief Art Acevedo (“Acevedo”). Acevedo states he considers both the current, newest Mexican matricula and its 2012 predecessor to be “a completely safe and secure identity document” which his department accepts routinely and considers “to be as safe and secure as a Texas driver's license.” (Plf. Reply Decl. of Acevedo ¶¶ 7-8). Acevedo additionally notes he is familiar with practices of other police departments in the area, and they also use and accept the matricula as a safe and secure form of identity. (Id. ¶ 11).
Plaintiffs’ evidence concerning recent upgrades to the Mexican matricula does indicate Defendants’ concern regarding the ability to fabricate or readily tamper with the document may well be outdated. However, the evidence does not directly address Defendants’ concern regarding the reliability or authenticity of the document. The Mexican consul general broadly testifies that, to obtain a consular identification card, a person must go to a Mexican Consulate and show original documentation establishing proof of Mexican nationality, official proof of identity, from either Mexico or the United States, and proof of address within the consular district. (Plf. Reply Aff. of Gonzalez Gutierrez ¶ 30). But Plaintiffs have not explained what documents are necessary to meet those requirements. Nor have they directly addressed whether a person can present those documents at different consulates and obtain multiple Mexican matricula. Nor, significantly, have Plaintiffs presented any evidence rebutting or otherwise casting doubt on the legitimacy of Defendants’ concern regarding authenticity and reliability of passports lacking visas.
Although Plaintiffs do not directly address the issue, the Court notes Section 181 permits acceptance of other forms of "Foreign Identification” with an identifiable photo other than the matricula. Similarly, the policy allows other forms of secondary identification, such as a current student identification or a medical insurance card. The singling out of the Mexican matricula may
19

suggest it is being subjected to a different, and more exacting, standard than other forms of identification. Such treatment could lead to the conclusion that Section 181, and the Local Registrar Handbook, are implementing an underinclusive policy which would violate strict scrutiny.
Unfortunately, Plaintiffs have failed to present any evidence which would support such a conclusion. While a review of the secondary identification documents listed in Section 181 might cause the reviewer to question the relative reliability and ease of obtaining the documents as contrasted with the matricula and foreign passport without a visa, Plaintiffs have presented no evidence which would substantiate those questions. Wholly absent from the record is evidence which would confirm such documents are less reliable than the matricula and passport, or that the documents can be obtained with only minimal, or at least a lesser showing of identification, than the excluded matricula and foreign passport without visa.
In contrast, Defendants have presented evidence that a workgroup was commissioned by the 2011 Texas Legislature to develop recommendations to improve the security and effectiveness of the state's birth registration system. The workgroup consisted of staff from the Governor's office, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, the U.S. Department of State, local registrars, and other local, state, and federal agencies. (Def. Resp. Decl. of Farinelli ¶ 7). The workgroup recommended that DSHS "consider amending administrative rule [25 TAC Section 181.1(13)] to strengthen the controls related to the identification required to issue a birth certificate." (Id.). Specifically, the workgroup recommended reducing the number of forms of acceptable identification to reduce the state’s exposure to the presentation of fraudulent documents. The current regulation was adopted in response to the workgroup’s recommendations. (Id.).
Defendants suggest that they are stuck between a rock and hard place: they have crafted what they believe to be an inclusive policy so that birth certificates are reasonably available to the appropriate parties, but Plaintiffs are now using the policy's generally inclusive character against
20

them to challenge its restrictive components. A regulatory scheme “will not satisfy strict scrutiny if there is a less restrictive means that would be at least as effective in achieving the legitimate purpose that is being served.” Service Emps. Int'l Union, Local 5 v. City of Houston, 595 F.3d 588, 596 (5th Cir. 2010) (quoting Reno v. ACLU, 521 U.S. 844, 874 (1997)) (internal quotation marks omitted). At the same time, "there simply has to be some room for judgment about how wide to cast the net." Republican Party, 416 F.3d at 783.
While the Court is very troubled at the prospect of Texas-born children, and their parents, being denied issuance of a birth certificate, as the evidence presented by Plaintiffs themselves establishes, a birth certificate is a vital and important document. As such, Texas has a clear interest in protecting access to that document. Defendants have presented substantial evidence which suggests they have attempted to vindicate both interests. Specifically, they have provided evidence which substantiates other governmental agencies, including the FBI, the Department of Justice and United States Immigration and Custom Enforcement, have expressed concerns regarding the reliability of the matricula. Although Plaintiffs maintain that at least some of that evidence is outdated or otherwise questionable, the Court does not presently have a record which permits resolution of that challenge. Moreover, as noted above, Plaintiffs have not presented any evidence which suggests Defendants have improperly focused on and excluded the matricula and foreign passport without visa as forms of secondary identification.
The Court must always keep in mind that “[t]he purpose of a preliminary injunction is to preserve the status quo and thus prevent irreparable harm until the respective rights of the parties can be ascertained during a trial on the merits.” Exhibitors Poster Exch., Inc. v. Nat'l Screen Serv. Corp., 441 F.2d 560, 561 (5th Cir. 1971). For this reason, mandatory preliminary relief, such as that sought here, “which goes well beyond simply maintaining the status quo pendente lite, is particularly disfavored, and should not be issued unless the facts and law clearly favor the moving
21

party.” Martinez v. Mathews, 544 F.2d 1233, 1243 (5th Cir. 1976) (emphasis added). And, at this preliminary stage, it is the Plaintiffs who bear the “heavy burden of persuading the district court that all four elements are satisfied” and if they do not succeed, “a preliminary injunction may not issue.” Enterprise Int'l, Inc. v. Corporacion Estatal Petrolera Ecuatoriana, 762 F.2d 464, 472 (5th Cir. 1985).
In sum, the arguments of Plaintiffs, while heartfelt, compelling and persuasive, are not enough without substantiating evidence to carry the burden necessary to grant relief to Plaintiffs at this early stage of the proceedings. This is an important and difficult case which merits full factual development and a thorough presentation of evidence, which are both lacking at this stage. The Court thus concludes the state of the record at this preliminary stage falls short of sufficiently establishing that Plaintiffs are substantially likely to succeed on the merits of their constitutional claims.
2. Preemption Plaintiffs have also alleged that the conduct of Defendants implicates a variety of preemption doctrines in violation of the Supremacy Clause. The focus of their argument is that immigration law is a matter wholly reserved to the federal government. More specifically, Plaintiffs allege that the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. §§ 1101, et seq., along with developments in federal immigration regulation, preempt Defendants' restrictions on access to the Plaintiff children's birth certificates. Plaintiffs raise three arguments in support of their claim. First, Plaintiffs argue that, by effectively curtailing the Plaintiff children's access to birth certificates, Defendants deny their rights, privileges, and immunities as citizens in conflict with the federal laws and the Constitution. Second, Plaintiffs contend that, by curtailing access to birth certificates, Defendants render life in the United States so intolerable that Plaintiffs are pushed to "self deport." According to Plaintiffs,
22

such conduct intrudes upon the federal government's exclusive power to determine who may stay in the United States and who must leave, and conflicts with Congressional objectives. Finally, Plaintiffs argue that Defendants' restrictions on access to birth certificates are a state sanction on undocumented immigrants. They maintain such punishment is impermissible because the federal government, and not the states, determines the "rights and sanctions" available to or imposed upon immigrants.
It is a "fundamental principle of the Constitution [] that Congress has the power to preempt state law." Crosby v. Nat'l Foreign Trade Council, 530 U.S. 363, 372 (2000); see also U.S. CONST. art. VI, cl. 2 (stating federal law "shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding"). Preemption takes different forms. In addition to expressly preempting state and local law, Congress can preempt states from passing laws in regulatory "field[s]" that it determines "must be regulated by its exclusive governance." Arizona v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2492, 2501 (2012). The determination is reflected by "a framework of regulation 'so pervasive . . . that Congress left no room for the States to supplement it' or where there is a 'federal interest . . . so dominant that the federal system will be assumed to preclude enforcement of state laws on the same subject.'" Id. (alterations in original) (quoting Rice v. Santa Fe Elevator Corp., 331 U.S. 218, 230 (1947)). Congress may also preempt state laws that conflict with - or pose an obstacle to the purposes of - federal law. Id. "What is a sufficient obstacle is a matter of judgment, to be informed by examining the federal statute as a whole and identifying its purpose and intended effects." Id. (quoting Crosby, 530 U.S. at 372).
The federal preemption power is particularly strong with regard to immigration regulation. "The Government of the United States has broad, undoubted power over the subject of immigration and the status of aliens." Id. at 2498. A state may regulate noncitizens without
23

running afoul of federal supremacy. See De Canas v. Bica, 424 U.S. 351, 355 (1976); LeClerc v. Webb, 419 F. 3d 405, 423 (5th Cir. 2005). However, "[a]s the Supreme Court has emphasized - and indeed, as a constitutional imperative - a country's treatment of noncitizens within its borders can gravely affect foreign relations." Villas at Parkside Partners v. City of Farmers Branch, 726 F.3d 524, 526 (2013); see also Arizona, 132 S. Ct. at 2498-99 ("It is fundamental that foreign countries concerned about the status, safety, and security of their nationals in the United States must be able to confer and communicate on this subject with one national sovereign, not the 50 separate States.").
Defendants challenge Plaintiffs' preemption claims with a call for specificity. That is, they point out Plaintiffs neither specifically define the "field" preempted, nor identify the Congressional act or statute with which Defendants' policies conflict. The “field,” as Defendants characterize it, is "to whom and upon what showing the State should issue a certified copy of a birth certificate." (Def. Resp. at 24). Against that definitional backdrop, Plaintiffs' argument has no traction. Such a determination would seem to fall directly into a state's police power. E.g. Gonzales v. Oregon, 546 U.S. 243,270 (2006) (noting regulation of health and safety is primarily a state's concern). More broadly still, if the field is "the validity of foreign-issued identification documents," Plaintiffs' argument crashes against the reality that, as noted above, governmental agencies within the United States variously recognize (or decline to recognize) different forms of foreign identification.
Plaintiffs, in turn, respond that Defendants consider preemption too narrowly. They point out, correctly, that Defendants' reliance on the Supreme Court's decision in De Canas and the Fifth Circuit's decision in Le Clerc glosses over a proliferation of federal immigration regulation and developments in preemption jurisprudence as it relates to immigration. Both the Fifth Circuit and the Supreme Court have noted that the line Defendants hope to draw - between regulating who enters and must leave a country and regulating how immigrants are treated - is a blurry one. See,
24

e.g., Arizona, 132 S. Ct., at 2498-99; Villas at Parkside, 726 F. 3d, at 526. Plaintiffs are also correct that federal preemption does not depend on a specific congressional act precluding narrowly-defined state conduct. Rather, the Supreme Court has clearly established that a federal regulatory scheme can be so pervasive that there is no room for state regulation, or that federal law can preempt state laws contrary to its purposes.
Even in light of these developments, the factual record currently before the Court does not support a substantial likelihood of success for Plaintiffs' preemption claims. Plaintiffs' arguments trip on two hurdles. First, Plaintiffs' citations supporting a more expansive view of immigration preemption are to cases in which state or local laws expressly targeted undocumented immigrants. In Arizona v. United States, the Supreme Court addressed an Arizona law which, among other things, authorized officers to arrest a person whom officers had probable cause to believe "ha[d] committed any public offense that ma[de] that person removable from the United States." 132 S. Ct. at 2498. In Villas at Parkside, the Fifth Circuit addressed a municipal ordinance prohibiting undocumented immigrants from renting apartments or single-family residences. 726 F. 3d at 526. Thus, both the Arizona statute and municipal ordinance expressly determined rights and sanctions based on a person's immigration status. This Court is not aware of, nor have Plaintiffs pointed to, any cases in which courts have looked beyond the face of the statute to find federal field or conflict preemption.
Second, even if Plaintiffs had cited to cases permitting this Court to look beyond the face of a statute in determining field or conflict preemption, they have not shown such an examination would succeed. Simply put, Plaintiffs have not presented evidence which establishes an impermissible purpose by Defendants in promulgating section 191 of the Texas Health and Safety Code and Section 181. In fact, the evidence establishes Defendants have a compelling governmental interest in regulating with care the process of accessing birth certificates. Finally,
25

Plaintiffs have not shown an effect on undocumented immigrants as a class akin to the effect of the statute at issue in Arizona v. United States or the ordinance at issue in Villas at Parkside.
The Court thus concludes Plaintiffs have not presented evidence and argument which makes a prima facie showing they are likely to succeed on the merits of their preemption claims. C. Balancing of Respective Interests
The final two prongs of the preliminary injunction inquiry require weighing of the respective interests of the parties and the public. Specifically, that the threatened injury out-weighs any damage that the injunction may cause the opposing party and that the injunction will not disserve the public interest. In this case, the inquiry essentially collapses because the interests asserted by Defendants are in the form of protecting the public from injury.
Because the Court has concluded Plaintiffs have failed, at this preliminary stage, to meet their burden of showing a substantial likelihood of success on the merits, the Court need not address this issue.
IV. CONCLUSION In summary, although the Plaintiffs have provided evidence which raises grave concerns regarding the treatment of citizen children born to immigrant parents, this case requires additional determinations which can be made only upon development and presentation of an evidentiary record which thoroughly explores the facts and circumstances of the issues raised in this case. Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ Emergency Application for Temporary Injunction (Clerk’s Dkt. #25)
26

is hereby DENIED. SIGNED on October 16, 2015. ROBERT L. PITMAN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
27

 
 Case 1:15-cv-00446-RP Document 127 Filed 03/29/16 Page 1 of 62

IN TI-lE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS AUSTIN DIVISION

.Juana Gomez on her own behalf and on §

behalf of her minor daughters E.S. and

§

I.G.; Diana Hernandez and Javier Reyes §

on their own beh~alf and on behalf of their §

minor son M.A.R.H.; Nnncy Hern~mdcz on §

her own behalf nnd on behalf of her minor §

daughter R.J.H.; M~arta Ibarra Luna and §

.Juan Carlos Rodriguez Velasquez on

§

behalf of their minor daughter Y.R.R.I.; §

Knterine .Joh~m~a Portillo on her own

§

behalf and on behalf of her minor daughter §

K.E.P.; Marcclina Rangel Martinez on her §

own behalf and on behalf of her minor

§

children A.M.P. and S.A.P.; Antonia

§

Rodriguez on her own behalf nnd on beh~alf §

of her minor daughter .J.N.A.R.; Damnris §

Romero Hernandez de Reyes on her own §

behalf ~md on behalf of her minor sons

§

.J.R.R. and G.G.R.: Flavia Garza on her §

own behalf and on behalf of her minor sons §

D.G. and S.G.; Yvcth Vcgn Dhaz on her

§

own behalf ~md on behalf of her minor

§

daughter N.Y.R.; Fany Ventura on her

§

own behalf and on behalf of her minor

§

d•aughter E.I.H.; M~tria Carrillo on her

§

own behalf and on behalf of her minor son §

A.S.; Yuliana Dominguez on her own

§

behalf and on behalf of her minor son

§

A.•J.M.; Diana P:trras on her own behalf §

and on behalf of her minor daughter

§

A.L.M.; Patricia Rojas on her own behalf §

~md on behalf of her minor son M.L.;

§

Maria Torres on her own behalf and on

§

behalf of her minor daughter F.T.; M:aria §

Fmncisca Rodriguez on her own behalf

§

and on behalf of her minor son G.M.;

§

Leonor Reyma Flores on her own behalf §

and on behalf of her minor son G.C.;

§

Mirna Ugalde on her own behalf and on §

behalf of her minor children .J.I,. and G.P.; §

Qucnha Perez on her own behalf and on

§

beb:tlf of her minor sons .J.A.R. and Y.F.; §

C.A. I: 15-cv-00-1-16

1

Case 1:15-cv-00446-RP Document 127 Filed 03/29/16 Page 2 of 62

Giovanna Castro on her own behalf nod on §

behalf of her minor son .J••J.A.; Cynthia

§

Ibarra on her own behalf and on behalf of §

her minor daughter K.E.R.: Maria De

§

Luna on her own behalf ~md on behalf of §

her minor daughter A.R.; Felipa Velazquez §

on her own beh~tlf and on beh~tlf of her

§

minor son S.I.V.; Maria Teresita Madera §

Esparza on her own behalf and on behalf §

of her minor daughter M.C.; M~trin del

§

Carmen Reyes Zapata on her own behalf §

and on behalf of her minor son N.A.; Ana §

Karina Ramirez Gonzalez on her own

§

behnlf and on behalf of her minor dnughter §

D.C.; nod Ln Union Del Pueblo Entero,

§

§

Pin in tiffs

§

§

v.

§

§

Commissioner of Texas Department of

§

State Health Services .John Hellerstcdt, in §

his offichtl capacity, Vital Statistics Unit §

Chief Registrar Geraldine Harris, in her §

official capacity, Executive Commissioner §

ofTcx~ts of Health and Human Services

§

Commission, Chris Traylor, in his official §

capacity,

§

§

Defendants

§

§

§

§

§

FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. Introduction .....................................................................................................................p. 4 II. Jurisdiction and Venue .................................................................................................... p. 4 Ill. Parties......................................................................................................................... p. 5
2

Case 1:15-cv-00446-RP Document 127 Filed 03/29/16 Page 3 of 62
IV. Facts..... .......... ............................................................................................................ p. 9
A. State Regulations and Policies ............................................................................... p .9
8. Plaint(ff.\·................... .......................................................................................... .. ... p. 21
I. LUPE.. .. ..................................................................................................................... p. 24 2. Maria Carrillo .................................................................................................................. p. 24 3. Giovanna Castro.............................................................. ... ....... .... ........p. 33 4. Maria De Luna... ........... ... .. . ..................... ...... . ..... .. ...... .. ......................p. 34 5. Yuliana Dominguez......................................................................................................... p. 25 6. Flavia Garza.....................................................................................................................p. 30 7. Juana Gomez.................................................................................................................... p. 23 8. Diana Hernandez and Javier Reyes ................................................................................. p. 25 9. Nancy l·lernandez ........................................................................................................... p. 24 10. Cynthia lbarra .................................................................................................................. p. 38 11. Marta Ibarra Luna and Juan Carlos Rodriguez Velazquez.............................................. p. 39 12. Maria Teresita Madera Esparza .... .............................................. .......... .. ....p. 41 13. Diana Parras..................................................................................................................... p. 30 14. Quenia Perez....... .. ...... .. .... ...................................................................p. 32 15. Katerine Johana Portillo ................................................................................................. p. 36 16. Ana Karina Ramirez Gonzalez..... ........... ...................................................p. 26 17. Marcelina Rangel Martinez............................................................................................. p. 26 18. Maria del Cam1en Reyes Zapata..... ... . ..... ........ .... . ..... . ....... ................... ... ...p. 41 19. Lconor Reyna Flores ....................................................................................................... p. 32 20. Antonia Rodriguez........................................................................................................... p. 27 21. Maria Francisca Rodriguez............................................................................................. p. 31 -""-' · Patn.c1.a ROJ.US................................................................................................................... p. 35 23. Damaris Romero Hernandez de Reyes............................................................................ p. 28 24. Maria Torres.. .................................................................................................................. p. 35 25. Mirna Ugalde ................................................................................................................... p. 38 26. Yveth Vega...................................................................................................................... p. 33 27. Fclipa Velazquez........................... . ............................................. .. ........p. 40 28. Fany Vcntura.. ................................................................................................................. p. 30
V. First ('ause of Action ................................................................................................. p. 43
VI. Second ('ausc of Action ............................................................................................. p. 47
VII. Third Cause of Action ...................................................................................... ....... ... p. 51
3

Case 1:15-cv-00446-RP Document 127 Filed 03/29/16 Page 4 of 62
VII. Fourth Cause of Action............................................................................................... p.55 VIII. Fitlh Cause of Action ................................................................................................. p. 59 IX. Prayer lur Relief ......................................................................................................... p. 60
I. Introduction: 1. The adult PlaintifTs in this case nre citizens of Mexico and Central America who now reside in Texas. They bring suit on behalf of themselves and as next friend for their Plaintiff children, who were born in Texas hospitals and are citizens of the United States. The
n: Organizational/Associational Plainti La Union del Pueblo Entero, Inc. ('"LUPE''), is a non-
profit membership group. Both LUPE and its members have been injured by the Delendants' improper denial of birth certificates. 2. The Delendants have refused. and continue to refuse, to provide the adult Plaintiffs with certitied copies of the birth certificates lur their Texas-born sons and daughters (the Plaintiff children). Such refusal is de faciO based upon the immigration status of the Plaintiff parents. The lack of birth certificates, in turn, is resulting in serious harn1 and/or the risk of imminent serious harm. to all Plaintiffs. 3. Defendants' actions violate the Fourteenth Amendment, as well as the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution. Defendants are sued in their ollicial capacities. PlaintiiTs seek declaratory and injunctive relict:
II..Jurisdiction and Venue: 4. This court has federal question jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1331.
5. Declaratory judgment is sought pursuant to 28 lJ.S.C. §2201.
4

Case 1:15-cv-00446-RP Document 127 Filed 03/29/16 Page 5 of 62
6. Vcnue is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1391 because many of the complained of acts in this case occurred in Travis County, Texas. and because the Delendants reside in Travis County, Texas.
Ill. Parties:
7. LUPE is a non- protit organization based in Hidalgo County, Texas. It is dedicated to promoting the health, education, labor, and civil rights of indigent farm workers and other low-wage workers in the Rio Grande Valley. At this time, it has approximately seven thousand members, many of whom are undocumented immigrants. A number of them have already been denied birth certiticates for their Texas-born children. Additional members will be affected by the practices complained of in this lawsuit in the future.
7.A. LUPE assists its members in obtaining identilication, which is crucial to the wellbeing of the members and their tamilics. Birth certiticates tor a Texas-born child are often required lor school enrollment, certain bcnetit applications, immigration applications, parental consent for medical care, travel , and tor stops or other interactions with ICE and/or the U.S. Border Patrol. Crucially. a U.S. citizen child removed from the country with his or her family will be unable to return to the United States without a birth certiticate.
78. LUPE has diverted signHicant resources in an attempt to identify and address the problems caused by denials of birth certilicates to its members and others in the community. It has informed its leadership, stan: and others about the current problem. LUPE has also expended time. energy, and money to identify and try to assist parents who have been aflectcd by denials. It is currently working to advise members of their right to their children's
5

Case 1:15-cv-00446-RP Document 127 Filed 03/29/16 Page 6 of 62
birth certilicates and otherwise assisting them in all ways possible. This important work comes at the cost of other activities that are core to the organization·s mission.
8. Plaintiff Giovanna Castro is a resident of Hidalgo, Texas. She brings suit on her own behalf and on behalf of her minor daughter J.J.A. 9. Plaintiff Maria Carrillo is a resident of llidalgo County, Texas. She brings suit on her own behalf and on behalf of her minor son A.S. 10. Plaintiff Maria De Luna is a resident of Hidalgo County. She brings this suit on her own behalf and on behalf of her minor daughter A.R. 11. PlaintiffYuliana Dominguez is a resident of llidalgo County. She brings suit on her own behalf and on behalf of her minor son A.J.M. 12. Plaintiff Leonor Reyna Flores is a resident of Hidalgo County. She brings suit her own behalf and on behalfof her minor son G.C. 13. Plaintiff Flavia Garza is a resident of Hidalgo County. Texas. She brings suit on her own behalf and on behalf of her minor sons D.O. and S.G. 14. Plaintiff Juana Gomez is a resident of Starr County, Texas. She brings suit on her own behalf and on behalf of her minor daughters E.S. and I.G. 15. Plaintifls Diann Hernandez and Javier Reyes are residents of Cameron County, Texas. They bring suit on their own behalf and on behalf of their minor son M.A.R.I I. I6. Plaintiff Nancy llernandez is a resident of llidalgo County, Texas. She brings suit on her own behalf and on behalf of her minor daughter R.J.II. 17. Plaintiffs Marta Ibarra Luna and Juan Carlos Rodriguez Velazquez are residents of Hidalgo County. Texas. They bring suit on their own behalf and on behalf of their minor daughter Y.R.R.I.
6

Case 1:15-cv-00446-RP Document 127 Filed 03/29/16 Page 7 of 62
18. Plaintiff Cynthia Ibarra is a resident of Cameron County, Texas. She brings suit on her own behalf and on behalf of her minor daughter K.E. R. 19. Maria Teresita Madera Esparza is a resident of El Paso, Texas. She brings this suit on her own behalf and on her own behalf and on behalf of her minor daughter M.C. 20. Plaintiff Diana Parras is a resident of Hidalgo County. She brings suit her own behalf and on behalf of her minor daughter A.L.M. 21. Plaintiff Quenia Perez is a resident of llidalgo County, Texas. She brings suit on her own behalf and on behalf of her minor sons J.A.R. and Y.F. 23. Plaintiff Katerine Johana Portillo is a resident of llidalgo County. Texas. She brings suit on her own behalf and on behalfof her minor daughter K.E.P. 24. Ana Karina Ramirez Gonzalez is a resident of Houston Texas, She brings this suit on her own behalf and on behalf of her minor daughter D.C.
PlaintiffMarcelina Rangel Martinez is a resident of Hidalgo County. Texas. She brings suit on her own behalf and on behalf of her minor children A.M.P. and S.A.P. 26. Maria del Carmen Reyes Zapata is a resident of El Paso, Texas. She brings this suit on her own behalf and on behalfof her minor son N.A. 27. Plainti IT Antonia Rodriguez is a resident of llidalgo County, Texas. She brings suit on her own behalfand on behalf of her minor daughter J.N.A.R. 28. Plaintiff Maria Francisca Rodriguez is a resident of Hidalgo County. She brings suit her own behalf and on behalf of her minor son G.M. 29. Plaintiff Patricia Rojas is a resident of Cameron County. She brings suit her own behalf and on behalf of her minor son M.L. 30. Plaintiff Damaris Romero llernandcz de Reyes is a resident of llidalgo County. Texas. She brings suit on her own behalf and on behalf of her minor sons .J.R.R. and U.G.R.
7

Case 1:15-cv-00446-RP Document 127 Filed 03/29/16 Page 8 of 62
31. Plaintiff Maria Torres is a resident of llidalgo County. She brings suit her own behalf and on behalf of her minor daughter F.T. 32. Plaintiff Ugalde is a resident of Hidalgo County. She brings this suit on her own behalf and on behalf of her minor sons J.P. and G. P. 33. PlaintiffYveth Vega Diaz is a resident of Hidalgo County, Texas. She brings suit on her own behalf and on behalf of her minor daughter N.Y.R. 34. PlaintiffFelipa Velazquez is a resident of Hidalgo County. She brings this suit on her own behalf and on behalf of her minor son S.I.V. 35. PlaintiffFany Ventura is a resident ofllidalgo County, Texas. She brings suit on her own behalfand on behalfofher minor daughter E.I.H. 36. Defendant John llellerstedt is the Commissioner of the Texas Department of State Health Services. lie resides in Travis County, Texas. He is sued in his oft1cial capacity. 37. Detendant Geraldine IIarris is the Texas State Registrar lor the Texas Department of State llealth Services. Vital Statistics Unit. She is a resident of Travis County, Texas. She is sued in her oft1cial capacity. 38. Delcndant Chris Traylor is the Executive Commissioner of the Texas llealth and I Iuman Services Commission, (..liiiSC}I Ie is a resident of Travis County. lie is sued in his oflicial capacity.
IV. FACTS: A. Stttte Regultttory Scheme: Defemltmts t Duties am/ Authority
39. The Texas Health and lluman Services Commission (..IIIISC'") oversees the Texas health and human services system. which is composed or live agencies. including the Texas
8

Case 1:15-cv-00446-RP Document 127 Filed 03/29/16 Page 9 of 62
Department of State llealth Services. IIIISC participated in the promulgation and approval of the regulations and policies set torth herein below. 40. The Texas Department of State llealth Services, through its Vital Statistics Unit, ("'DHSVSU''), is responsible lor registering, collecting, compiling, and preserving all state birth, death. marriage, and adoption records. 41. This duty is carried out through a network of local Vital Records oftices located throughout the state. Tex. Health & Sat: Code, Title 3 (Vital Statistics), §191.002. 42. All Vital Statistics otlicers must provide certitied copies of birth certificates upon request to any persons qualified to receive them. /d., Title 3 (Vital Statistics), Chapter § 191.051. 43. The local registrar officials must enforce the state regulations and requirements. /d., Title 3 (Vital Statistics), Chapter§ 191.001. 44. Detendants are responsible for ensuring uniform compliance throughout the state, and have supervisory power over all local registrars. /d. 45. Defendrmts can investigate local irregularities and report the matter to local district or county attorneys tor prosecution. and such attorneys must promptly initiate proceedings for such violations. /d. 46. The State can also deprive non-complying districts of their authority to collect lees lor birth certificates issued.
47. To qualify tor receipt of a certified copy of a birth certificate, a person must produce acceptable personal identification. Specilically. the person must present the identilication documents set torth in the regulations. 25 Tex. Admin. Code. ("'T.A.C."), §181.28 (i)(l 0-11 ).
9

Case 1:15-cv-00446-RP Document 127 Filed 03/29/16 Page 10 of 62
48. All Defendants are responsible for promulgating and enforcing the eligibility regulations and their interpretations. 49. Defendants issue guidance and monitor the local offices to ensure compliance.
Pareutal Eligibility Regulatious 50. The acceptable forms of identification are divided into two categories. primary and secondary.' 25 Tex. Admin. Code, ("T.A.C."). §181.28 (i)(ll)(B)(ii). 51 . Primary forms of identitication are available only to U.S. citizens or to persons who already have legal immigration status or permission to be in this country, such as a Permanent Resident Card (green card), an Employment Authorization Document, or a U.S. Re-Entry or Border Crossing Permit. §I 81.28 (i)( IO)(D). 52. Persons who cannot produce a primary document may quality by producing two forms of secondary identil"ication, as set torth in §181.28 (i)(J I)(D), or one secondary document with supporting documents. (See below). 53. Most of these secondary documents will also only be available to persons who can establish their legal status, whether temporary or permanent. in this country. 54. However, valid foreign identity cards (such as drivers' licenses, consular identification documents, and national identity cards), foreign passports (see discussion below) and Mexican electoral cards are acceptable, and could provide one of the two required secondary identification documents. T.A.C., §§ 181.28 (i)( II )(D)(xiv)-(xv).
1 ··supporting identification" can he accepted in lieu of one secondary identification. llowcvcr. as discussed herein below. these provisions arc often ignored.
10

Case 1:15-cv-00446-RP Document 127 Filed 03/29/16 Page 11 of 62
55. llowevcr, many immigrants leave Mexico and Central America when they are still minors, and have thus never attained such foreign drivers· licenses or national or electoral identity cards. 56. Even those who once possessed foreign drivers· licenses, or national or electoral identity cards, may soon find them expired, stolen, or lost. 57. These foreign drivers' licenses and national identification and electoral cards cannot be obtained or renewed once the person arrives in the United States. 58. Central Americans and Mexicans making the extremely dangerous journey north are otlen forcibly stripped of all identitication cards before arriving in Texas, either through assaults and theft, or tbr the other grim reasons discussed herein below. See. Plaintiff Katerine Johana Portillo, below. 59. Unlike the adult Plaintiffs, persons residing in Texas with a recognized immigration status me able to relatively easily obtain replacements tor lost, stolen. or expired identitication documents.
2fJ 12~2fJ13 Cltmtges to Eligibility Regu/atio11s ami Policies
60. Prior to 2013, the Texas regulations permitted the acceptance ofall toreign passports. Most undocumented immigrants are able to obtain passports from their local consulates in the United States.
11

Case 1:15-cv-00446-RP Document 127 Filed 03/29/16 Page 12 of 62
61. llowever, in 2013, the regulation was amended to require that all proftered foreign passports bear a current U.S. visa in order to be accepted. This, of course. excludes all undocumented immigrants.2
62. As noted above, T.A.C. *§181.28 (i)(1 1) (xiv) and (xv) permit acceptance of a foreign government photo identitication card.
63. For many years, this provision was properly interpreted to include foreign consular identitication cards. such as the Mexican ·'matricula. "This had long resolved many of the problems described above.
64. These consular identitication documents are oflicial photo identification cards provided by the toreign government, through its consulates, to its citizens residing in the United States. Such persons must provide proof of their citizenship and identity to their consulate to obtain this card.
65. However, in approximately 2013, the Del:endants decided that the Mexican matricula.'t and all other consular identitication were to be rejected. Defendants knew and intended that a large percentage of undocumented persons would thus be unable to produce any other acceptable toreign identification card.3
66. This change was never promulgated under proper rule making procedures.
1 On Feb. 15. 2013, the Executive Commissioner of the llealth and IIuman Services
Commission proposed amendments to Tex. Admin. Code § 181.28 to "address the
recommendations of Rider 72 ." These amendments were adopted and liled with the Secretary of State. eflcctive August II. 2013. ' AIthough a 2008 letter from the Chief of Vital Statistics indicates as early as 2008 that matriculas would be rejected. local onices continued to accept them. with the acquiescence of Defendants. until 2013. Many Plaintiffs were thus able to obtain hirth certificates for children born prior to 2013.
12

Case 1:15-cv-00446-RP Document 127 Filed 03/29/16 Page 13 of 62
67. These changes regarding foreign passports and mulricula.\· coincided with growing
political opposition to attempts to develop immigration relief lor many undocumented lamilies, especially those with U.S. born children.
68. Even though the Mexican government has carefully revised its malricula to greatly increase its security, the new 2015 matriculas are still being rejected.
69. Tellingly, although passports are internationally recognized government identification documents4 of the highest formality, and may be obtained lrom the local consulates,§ 181.28 (i)( II )(D)(ix) permits the acceptance of foreign passports only if they bear a current U.S. visa.
70. This combination of changes in regulations, interpretations, and policy lett a large portion of the undocumented community without any torm ofidentilication acceptable to the Defendants, and without any possibility of obtaining such identification.
71. Defendants have been notil1ed of this situation, but have provided no reasonable alternative means for the Plaintiffs to obtain the birth certificates. 72. Counsel for these children have also been denied birth certificates lor their infimt clients.
73. Beginning in 2013, Defendants began an aggressive campaign of audits, monitoring visits, and other communications with local birth ccrtilicatc offices, focusing especially upon those located in areas with high concentrations of immigrants.
1 Vienna Convention on Consular Rcl<ttions. Art. 5. done in Vienna on April I~. 1963. U.N. Treaty Series, vol. 596, p. 261. I he United States ratilied the ViemHl Convention in 1969.
13

Case 1:15-cv-00446-RP Document 127 Filed 03/29/16 Page 14 of 62
74. The immediate purpose of the campaign was to give strict orders to all local registrars to reject all consular identilication and all foreign passports lacking a current U.S. visa. Defendants also ordered and/or encouraged and/or acquiesced to the harsh scrutiny of all applications and paperwork presented by undocumented parents. 75. As a direct and intended result of this harsh campaign, many families able to produce at least one eligible relative with one acceptable secondary document and supporting identitication have also been wrongfully denied birth certificates. See, Category 2 Plaintiffs set torth below. This problem was relatively rare prior to 2013. 76. Such persons are summarily told that their identitication is unacceptable, and they are either not permitted a chance to present any supporting materials, or have their supporting materials ignored. 77. The ofticials rejecting these persons usually list some U.S. or Texas documents that must be produced. but make no eftort to review the applicant's additional supporting materials. 78. The officials also tail to give any notice, intormation, or instructions about acceptable supporting identitication accessible to these persons. Instead, as stated above. such persons are summarily rejected. 79. Thus a number of parents with identitication in compliance with Dctendants· new requirements are nevertheless denied birth ccrtiticates.
80. Twenty- nine families arc current Plaintiffs in this case, together with LUPE. See below at p. 35et seq. Of these. nine had acceptable idcntitication yet were wrongfully turned away.
14

Case 1:15-cv-00446-RP Document 127 Filed 03/29/16 Page 15 of 62
Reports have been received of many similar cases throughout the state, often involving persons who tear to come forward due to their vulnerable status.
8 I. Eight former Plaintiff tami lies in this case were also unlawfully denied birth certi ticates, despite the fact that they had at least one valid identitication card and adequate supporting identitication. Such Plaintiffs were eventually able to obtain birth certilicates through extreme ertorts,5 despite the current harsh regulations and policies.
82. Defendants are tully aware of this pattcm and practice of wrongful denials to eligible persons and inconsistent standards being applied. This knowledge is based upon, inter alia. communications with their local registrars, reports from counsel tor the Plaintitls. the pleadings in this case, and widespread press accounts.
83. Defendants have refused to take any reasonable action to correct this grave situation, seeking instead to moot the claims of individual Plaintifts rather than correct the unlawful pattern and practice.
84. Defendants have ordered. encouraged, intended, directed, accepted, condoned. and/or acquiesced to the pattern and practice of unlawful denials of birth certificates to even those
~ By way of illustmtion. fonner Plaintiff Nieto was lorced to seek legal help in order to rescue her grandson B.R.. who was trapped in a dangerous situation in Reynosa. Mexico. A birth cenilicate was issued only alter her lawyers threatened to seek a Temporary Rcstmining Order and engaged in two days of emergency negotiations with opposing counsel. Another Plainti IT parent obtained a birth certificate lor her child afier her Jill her managed to obtain a U.S. visa and travel across Mexico. at great personal risk. A third mother. atlcr many unsuccessllll attempts. obtained a birth certificate by once again presenting her matric:ula. which was then. inexplicably. accepted. These Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed their claims lor purposes ofjudicial eflicicncy. hut litce similar problems should additional copies of birth ccttiticntcs be required or lor nny future children they may hear.
15

Case 1:15-cv-00446-RP Document 127 Filed 03/29/16 Page 16 of 62

undocumented families presenting one acceptable tbnn of secondary identit1cation and adequate supporting materials.

85. The intended and lbreseeable result of the new regulations, policies. and practices, is the denial of birth certi licates to thousands of undocumented parents since the 2013 changes.6 The majority of these parents simply lack adequate identitication and are unable to secure it. Others present the requisite documents, yet be improperly turned away.

86. This situation leaves the child with no birth certificate at all, and both the parents and child with no ofticial proof of their familial and legal relationship to one another. The resulting harms and dangers are set torth below.

Harms flJ Phlillli/fs

87. The Defendants' actions are inflicting very serious hardships and deprivations upon the Plaintiff parents and their Texas-born Plaintiff children. The problems faced by each named Plainti IT are set forth below

88. At the time of the child's birth in a hospital, the hospital staffarrange for an initial period of Medicaid and the issuance of a social security card tor the child.

89. Nonetheless, the parents are frequently told to present the birth certificate to renew Medicaid coverage and to obtain other public benefits to which the U.S. citizen child is entitled.

1 '

For

example.

one

birth

ccrti !kate

oflice

estimates

that

an

average

of four

Huni lies

arc

turned

away each day. Even assuming that some of these parents later obtain birth certificates. this

could mean that l~tr more than a thousand Hunil ies were denied birth certificates there during

the last two years. Another local office estimated at least f(mr denials per week. This would

result in upproximatcly -WO rejections during the l<tst two years. Other community leaders. as

well as consular officials from various countries. confirm numerous other denials to

undocumented persons throughout the slate. most or whom fear to step forward.

16

Case 1:15-cv-00446-RP Document 127 Filed 03/29/16 Page 17 of 62
90. Likewise. many public schools and day care centers require a birth certificate lor enrollment no matter what the country or state of issuance. 91. Without the birth certi licate, there is no ofJicial proof of the parent-child relationship, raising serious problems whenever parental consent is required, such as consent lor emergency medical care or travel. 92. Plaintiff children cannot travel to, inter alia, cultural and educational events without a birth certiticate indicating their citizenship and their parents' lawful custody. 93. A number of Plaintiff children cannot be baptized without their birth certif1cates. 94. Thus. by denying the Plaintiff children their birth certificates, Defendants have created a category of second-class citizens, disadvantaged from childhood on with respect to. imer alia, health and educational opportunities. 95. The denial of a birth certi licate also endangers the salety of the child. Crucially, a U.S. citizen child removed to Mexico or Central America with his or her parents due to their lack of proper immigration status may face grave dangers as a result of the ongoing drug cartel wars. yet be unable to return to the safety of the United States. 96. The Defendants have also placed the Plaintiff families in danger of being detained or separated by U.S. ICE and Border Patrol agents tor lack of proof of any parent-child relationship. 97. The Defendants also place the Plaintiff children at risk of being deported with their parents, and. with the passage of time. defaclo, forever losing their citizenship rights.
17

Case 1:15-cv-00446-RP Document 127 Filed 03/29/16 Page 18 of 62
98. This situation greatly disrupts the sanctity of the family, the fundamental right of the Plaintiff parents to raise their children to the best of their ability. and abridges numerous fundamental rights of citizenship to the Texas-born children.
99. All Plaintiffs have suftered and will continue to suffer such irreparable ham1s.
100. Defendants knew and intended that their actions would result in such hanns.
10 I. Many Plainti IT parents are of child bearing age and will probably have additional children in the future. Without an adequate remedy in this case, they will tace precisely the same problems again and again.
State E11croacllmellt 011 £vc/11sive Federal F11uctious
102. Defendants' conduct has created an undue burden upon the to reign consulates to somehow support and protect their citizens. I03. The burden on the consulates would become untenable should all fitly states issue individualized requirements which in effect preclude undocumented parents from obtaining birth certificates lor their U.S. born children. 104. Such harsh treatment of foreign nationals by a state negatively impacts the United States' diplomatic relations. 105. The United States Congress has enacted a pervasive and detailed statutory scheme setting forth the rights and sanctions applicable to immigrants and their U.S. citizen relatives. 106. All matters of immigration, including the benefits to be provided to, or penalties imposed upon. immigrants are preempted by the federal government as set torth below. I07. Defendants' actions interfere with the exclusive ledera! authority over matters involving immigrant rights and penalties, as well as foreign and diplomatic am1irs.
18

Case 1:15-cv-00446-RP Document 127 Filed 03/29/16 Page 19 of 62
108. Defendants are acting beyond the scope of their authority in denying birth certificates on the basis of the parents' immigration status, as set lorth above.
Discrimi11atio11
109. Defendants, in rejecting consular identification documents and foreign passports without valid visas, knew and intended that a substantial percentage of undocumented persons arriving from Mexico and Central America would be denied birth certificates tor their Texas-born children as a result. 110. Likewise, Defendants in ordering, accepting. and acquiescing to the wrongful and summary denial of birth certificates to many undocumented parents presenting at least one secondary document, knew and intended that yet more families would be wrongfully denied birth certificates tor their Texas born children as a result. 111. Despite actual awareness of the resulting harms. Defendants have failed and refused to make any arrangements tor the acceptance ofany identification documents reasonably accessible to undocumented persons residing in Texas. particularly those residing along the border, south of the Border Patrol checkpoint stations, who cannot travel to the interior of the state.7
112. Defendants have also failed and refused to correct the ongoing and unlawful pattern and practice of denying birth certificates even to undocumented families which eun produce one acceptable form of secondary identification and supporting identification.
7 For instance. some Central American countries, such as llonduras. onl} issue passports out of their llouston consulate. to which the adult Plaint ins cannot travel.
19

Case 1:15-cv-00446-RP Document 127 Filed 03/29/16 Page 20 of 62
113. Defendants have acted with the intent to discriminate against the Texas-born children on the basis of their parents· immigration status, depriving the children of the rights, benetits, and privileges granted to all other citizen children. I 14. Defendants have also acted with the intent to discriminate against undocumented parents on the basis of their immigration status, penalizing them and making their lives near untenable by obstructing their ability to properly care tor their children. 115. Such discriminatory animus and intent is evidenced in many ways, including but not limited to the tollowing:
a. Passports. the most tormal of international identi lication documents, are rejected unless accompanied by a current U.S. visa.
b. In changing state policy and rejecting the malriculas and other consular identitication documents. Defendants have failed and refused to provide any other means for the adult
Plainti lls and numerous other undocumented persons to obtain the birth certificates or their
Texas-born children. c. Despite awareness of this serious and growing problem. Defendants have Jailed and
refused to take any steps to rectify the situation.
d. Despite actual awareness of the local offices' pattern and practice of improperly denying birth certificates to many of those undocumented families who are able to produce acceptable identification, Defendants have failed and retuscd to correct this situation.
c. Such changes. and the resulting denials of birth certificates. have coincided with the intensifying public debate over immigration reform.
20

Case 1:15-cv-00446-RP Document 127 Filed 03/29/16 Page 21 of 62
1": As explained by one Vital Statistics orticcr. the law wns changed to keep undocumented persons from gnining legal status in this country
g. Texas continues to accept identification cards from persons with lcgnl immigration status which have the same or less security than the matricula or foreign pnssports lacking a U.S. visa. 116. There is no reasonable state justitication tor denying a U.S. citizen his or her own birth certificate on the basis of his or her parents· immigration status in the United States. 117. There is no reasonable state justi tication tor denying citizens of Mexico or Central America a birth certificate tor their Texas-born children. 118. Defendants have at all times ncted in their ofticial capacities and under color ofstate law in this case.
B. Plailltif/s 119. For pmvoscs of clarity, three distinct groups of Plaintiffs arc presented here. lh~ l"irst is IJ JPE. the organi/ation/associational Plaimi IT in this case. The second group is comprised of Plainti IT parcnls (and their childrcn) \vho have no access to the iuenti lication documents nO\\ l'l!lJUired by the Dd'cndants (Category I). l'hc third group is comprised of Plaintiff parents (and their children) \\ho have managed to produce at least one acceptable secondary document togdher with adcqumc supporting iJcntilication, hut ha\ c. noncthcleso;, hccn denied birth ccrlilicates pursuant to lkl~nJants· unconstitutional policies. pattcnt~. anJ practiccs as sd forth above (Category :!).
fllstillltimwl I .·tswcialimwll'lttiutijf
21

Case 1:15-cv-00446-RP Document 127 Filed 03/29/16 Page 22 of 62
120. Plaintiff l.a l 'nion lkl Pueblo Fnh;ro. ("I .I IPF" L is a non-prolit organ intion tkdicatcc.f to protecting and aJ\ andng the rights of indigent l~mn workers and other hm \\age \\orkcrs in the Rio Grande Valley, as \\·dl as promoting their health. education. and welfare.
a.As Jiscusscd abO\c Ll fPE has appro\im:.~tcly seven thousand members. a number of whom me alread y Plaintiffs inthiscm;c. c.md man} more of whom ha\c been or will be denied birth certilicates for their Te:-.as-born children pursuant to Del~ndants' current regulations. policies. and practices. These persons fall '' ithin both Categories I and 2.
h.Ll 'PE has long pnH·ided programs to assi-.ttheir<mn members. as ''ell as members of the broaJer community. to obtain identilication papers crucial to Jail) lilc J()r thcmsch cs and their l~unilics.
c.J\s n.trther discu<>scd above. l.l 'PF has bccn Jirecting its time and rc~ources to Jcaling with the current birth ccrtilicatc crisis.
d.l.lJPE leadership is dcepl} concerned about the de ja<.·Jo disenfranchi~t:ment of rt:xas born children :md the consequent loss or education. health. and other benelits to \\hil:h they are entitled.
e.l.llPE kaJcr<;hip is also deep)) concerned :.~bout the potential separation of the Plaintiff parents and children by t. '.S. onidals given the lack ol'prooforthc parent-child relationship; and the potential loss or the children's citi.r.cnship should the l~tmilics he remo\ ed from the l '.S.
f. Ll'PE is further concerned about the creation of a population of st:coiH.I dass citi;cns. and the ongoing deprivation or '>llch fundamental right<> as the right to familial integrity. the right hl tra\ cl . and many others
22

Case 1:15-cv-00446-RP Document 127 Filed 03/29/16 Page 23 of 62
g.tvkmbcrs of U IPE and/or its sen icc community an: l~1cing such serious harms and deprivations at this time.
Category I: Pillilltiffs witlt No Access to Acceptable Documeuts
121. Plaintiff .luana Goma is a citizen of tvkxico \\ ho has resided in rexas for sixteen years.
a. Because she len Mexico as a minor. Ms. Gomct.: has no Mexican electoral card and cannot obtain one.
b. In 2013 PlaintiffGomcL gaH! birth to her daughter. Plaintiff E.S.. in Edinburg. texas.
c. PlaintiffCiomeL has repeatedly ath:mptcJ to obtain a birth certilicatc f()r her daughter E.S.. but her matrh·u/a anJ school identilication carJ \\ere rejected. 'I he school identification carJ is no\\ cxpircJ.
J. J>laintiiTCiomcz was recently stopped by t •.s. Border Patrol agents \"ho questioncJ her doscl) about her relation to E.S.• in~isting on a birth ccrtilicatc. In the end they released her. \\arning her she must obtain a birth ccrti lieate at once.
c. Plaintiff gaH! birth to I.G. in 2015. She has no identification acceptable to Vital Statistics li.w thc purpose of obtaining her child·s birth ccrtilicate. and hence \Vas turned 1.1\\a) a gam.
r. Plainti IT Gom~L is concerned about arranging for li.llurc hcnclits and educational
opportunities for \\hich her l '.S. citiLcn children arc eligible. She has all·cad) had serious diflicultics enrolling L~. in I lead Start.
23

Case 1:15-cv-00446-RP Document 127 Filed 03/29/16 Page 24 of 62
g. Plaintiff Gomez is part icularl} concerneu about preserving her chi ldrcn's l 1.S. citizenship and the security of her lamily should they be stoppcu hy Border Patrol onicials or deportl!d to Mexico. 122. Plaintiff Nancv IIcrnanucz is a citizen of Mexico.
a. She arrh eu in rexa<; :.1t the age of l(lllrtcen and has lived here for about fi flccn years.
h. lkcause she lelt Mexico as a minor, she has no Mexican electoral can.! or Jrih!r's lkens<.: and cannot obtain one.
c. Ifer husband is also a rvlcxican citi;cn residing in Iexas. lie has a matricula anJ his birth ct.>rtilicatc.
d. Plaintiff Nancy llcrnandcz ga\'c birth to her lirst two children in !"exas in 20 I0 and 2012.
c. Both children \\ere gi ven birth ccrtilkates upon presentation of their l~tthcr's matricula.
f. In 20 I~ Ms. Ih!m:.tndeL gmc birth in fcxas to her daughter. Plaintiff lt.l.ll. g . ., he local office rcll.tscJ to issue a birth ccrtilicatc lt)r Plaintiff R.J.I I. h. Plainti IT has repcatcJiy returned to seek the birth ccrt ilieate llx R.J.II., but ha~ lx-cn told that the law changed in 20 I~. i. ~ls. llcrnandc;. is deep!) concerned about Plaintiff R.J.II.'s baptism and future s~.:hool enrollment. as \\.ell as the l~unil) ·s safety. l2J. J>lainti fTf\·laria Carrillo i<:. a dti1.en of i\l~x ico. She arri\cd in the l 'nit~.:J States at the
24

Case 1:15-cv-00446-RP Document 127 Filed 03/29/16 Page 25 of 62
a. l'vh. Carrillo has a Mc'\ican birth certificate and an cxpircd l ' .S. school idcntilication card.
b. She gave birth to V.S. in 2012, and was able to obtain his birth certificate at the McAllen, Texas oflice using her mother's matricula and birth certi11cate.
c. In 2015 Ms. Carrillo gave birth to A.V. in Texas. d. She has been told by the local registrar that her malric:ula and the other documents accessible to her and her mother were no longer being accepted. c. Plaintiff Carrillo is very worried about the safety of her family and future problems with travel. benel"its, and school matters. 12~. Plaintiff Yuliana Pomill!.!lll.:/. is a citizen of Mexico. She arrived in the United States at the age of live.
a. Ms. Dominguez possesses a school ID card from 2011, her ma/ricula. and a passport.
b. Ms. Dominguez gave birth to A.J.D. in 2014 in Texas. c. She went to the local birth certiticate oflice to obtain his birth ccrtiticate and was told to obtain a Mexican passport. d. She complied and returned with the passport, only to be told she needed a U.S. visa on the passport. c. Ms. Dominguez cannot baptize her son and is concerned about future satety problems. I~5. l>Jaintills Diana lkrnanJ..:.-7 and .lm icr Rc\ cs arc citi1cns of :Ylcxil:o. They arrh cd in Ic'\as more than a decade ago.
a. PlaintiiTIIcrnandct \'vas a minor at the tim~: of her arrhal and Plaintiff Rc)cs had just
or turned I8 ~cars ug.c.
25

Case 1:15-cv-00446-RP Document 127 Filed 03/29/16 Page 26 of 62
b. Beeaus~: of their young age on arri\ al in ·1exas. the) have nc\ cr haJ. and cannot 110\\ obtain. a Mexican electoral carJ or Jriver's license.
c. l'hci r oiJcr chi!Jrcn were born in 200 and 20 I0 und they obtained birth ccrli licatcs l(.ll' them \\ ith their nwtriodw.
d. rhcir son 1\:U :.R.I I. \\<IS born in l'cxas in 2015 t: Plaintiff Rc}CS \Vent to the Ilnrlingcn Vital Statistics onicc \\ith his malricula. but was turncJ away. The onicial at the ollice stated that the new laws diu not permit them to accept the matricula 126. Plaintiff Ana Karina Ramirez Gonzalez is a citizen of Mexico who now resides in Houston, Texas.
a. Plaintiff Ramirez lives with her husband who is also a Mexican citizen. b. Both of them have Mexican matriculas. expired Mexican electoral cards, and their birth certificates. c. Their first child was born in Houston in 2014 and they easily obtained a birth certiticate tor him by presenting their matriculas. d. Ms. Ramirez then gave birth to her daughter D.C. in 2015 in llouston.
e. She and her husband have applied lor D.C.'s birth certificate at the localllouston office, but have been denied for lack of acceptable identit1cation under the current rules and policies.
f. Plaintiffs are concerned about D.C.'s safety and other problems they will fuce if they cannot obtain a birth certificate for their child.
I'27. Plaintiff ['vlarccl ina Ram.!.d !\rl arline;: is a ~.:it i;cn of\ h:.\ico.
26

Case 1:15-cv-00446-RP Document 127 Filed 03/29/16 Page 27 of 62
a. Plaintiff l'vlarcdina Rangd nrriH:d in r..:xns at the age of 21 and has resit.led here li.lr I7 yo.:ms.
h. l)lainti ff arri"ed here bdi.)re she had obtained a Mexican \ otcr electoral card or Jri\cr's lic~nsc, and she cannot obtain those h..:rc.
c. Plaintiff gave birth to her lirst lour children in l"cxas in \999, 2002. 200-L anJ 2011.
d. All t<ntr children reed\ cJ birth ccrtilicatcs upon presentation of PlaintiiT Marcel ina Rangd's 11Wiriculu and birth ccrti !kate, and/or her husbanJ's Mexican passport.
c. PlaintitT gave birth to her snn, Plaintiff S.A.I'., in 2014. J: She brought the same nwtrh:ulus anJ passport to the Vital Statistics orticc. hut was Jcnicd the l'lirth ccrLilicatc J(1r S.i\.Y. g. PlaintifL alter applying at sc\eral diflcrcnt local Vital Statistic.; ofticcs. sent her application to Austin in December 20 1-L She nc\ cr rccci\ed a reply. h. In late 201-l Pl<.lintifTiost the birth certilicate ofho.:r daughter ;\.M.P. i. She has also been denied a duplicate cop) of A.M.P.'s birth ccrtilicatc. j. Plaintiff is \ef) worried ahout the salcty of her J~unily . anJ the bcnelils and opportunities owed to her dti1en children. 128. Plaintiff Antonia Rodri!.!Ut:!. is u citi; cn of Mcxieo. a. She ll~J the \·iolcncc in M~:--. ico anu has rcsideu in rexas since 2009. b. PlaintifThas her Mexican binh certilkate. pas'iporl. matriculu. and school ccrlilicatc. c. 1\·ls. Rodrigucl. gme birth to her daught~r. Plaintiff .I. N.A.R.• in r~xa-. in 20 1-l.
27

Case 1:15-cv-00446-RP Document 127 Filed 03/29/16 Page 28 of 62
- J. Shortl.v alh:r the birth, l '.S. lmmiuration and Customs Enfor~cment ("ICI·.")
apprehended and detained both Plaintiffs Rodrigth.!l and her inl~ult daughter. later rdeasing. them on bond. I hey IHl\'C not rclllrncd any of Plaintiff Rodriguez's oflkial identification papers.
L Plaintiff RmlrigucL obtained a ne\\ matricula and passport from the Mcxi~an s.:onsulate.
g. fhc.! local Vital Statistics oflice has ncvcrthdcss refused to issue a birth ccrti licate J()r PlaintiiT .I.N.A.R.
h. Ms. Rodrigue7 shares all of the same concerns as the other Plaintiffs. as set forth herein. 129. Plainti IT Damaris Romero llernandc/' de Reves and her husband an.! citizens of Mexico.
a. Both :.uTi\cJ in this countr) when the) were minors and hence do not have. and cannot obt:.~in. a Mcxic:m driver's license or dectoral card.
b. rheir first child. PlaintilTJ.R.R., \\as born here in 2011. c. Plaintiff Damaris Romero took .I.R.R.'s papcnvork, together \>.:ith her O\\n birth ccrti licatc and matricula. to the local Vital Statistics onicc. d. rherc, she \\aS told she \Vou\d have to produce \.1 pussporl.
c. She n:tumcd \\ith a passport and \\US again denied. this time l(w lack ora l l.S. visa in the passport.
f. J.R.R.'s gnmdparents also applied J(x the birth ccrtilil:atc, using expired IVkxican electoral cards. They too \\~rc denied.
g. In 2013 Plaintilrs ->cconJ son. Plaintilf(i.(I.R.. \\<IS horn.
28

Case 1:15-cv-00446-RP Document 127 Filed 03/29/16 Page 29 of 62
h. PlaintiiT Damaris Rom~:ro r~:turncd to the Vital Statistics oflic~: requesting birth ccrtilicat~:s for hoth Texas-born children.
i. I he birth ccnilicates \\Cn: aguin denied. j. PlaintiiThus grave concerns about the safct) of her l~unil) and her ability to obtain und preser\ c the bcnclits to \\ hich the Jlunily is entitled.
130. Piainti If Flavia ( iar;a is a citi;.cn of Mexico. She arrh eJ in Texas as a child and has li\cJ here 1\.lr more than twenl) ycurs.
a. Because of her age on arri\ al. she has never had. ami cannot obtain. a Mexican cll!ctoral card or dri\cr's license.
h. PlaintiffGarn guvc birth to PlaintiiTS.G. in 2013. c. She went to the local birth cl!rtilicute oflicc with her malrit.:ula. her school transcripts, and her hirth ccrti lieate, us well as S.O.'s hospital hirth records. She was <.h:nictl a birth certilicatc. J. She approuchcd other oniccs. seeking assistance. All denied hcr a l'lirth certificate. telling her that S.Ci. could ol'ltain one himsclf\\hen he turned 18 }Cars of age. c. Approximately l\m months ago, Plaintiffcalled the Vital Statistics oflicc. asking li.1r assistance for both sons. She \\as told no birth cert ilicatcs can be issu~:d to her.
r. Ihe lack of birth certi licates has causctl Plainti IT Garta problems in caring J()r her
l i.S. citi;~:n children. including. but not limited to, obtaining SSI l()r them. and. in the past. enrolling them in Ilead Start and grade school.
g. Plaintiff is also concerned \\ ith travel and safct) issues. I~ I. Plainti!f!2iana Parras is a citi;cn of t\lc:-.ico.
a. She and h~:r husband came to the t LnitcJ States \vhen thcv.. \\Crc \·Cf*\ •\ oun!...!. . Both
29

Case 1:15-cv-00446-RP Document 127 Filed 03/29/16 Page 30 of 62
have Mexican llwrricu/a-.;. Ms. Parras once had an ekdornl card. but it is now lost. b.Ms. Parras gave birth to fiw children between 2000 and 2012 in the state of Texas.
and had no problems obtaining birth certilicates lor them with her matrkula and supporting identi lication.
c.ln2012 she \Vas \\arncd at the Registrar's oniec that it would be more dillicult in the future for her to oblain a birth ccrtilicalc for her children using hcr matricu/a and supporting idcnti lication.
d.Ms. Parras gave birth to A.L.M. in 2014 in Edinburg, Texas. c.Ms. Parras has communicated with the birth ecrtilicatc onice sevcrnltimes and been told that h~.:r matricula will no long~r he accepted. She and her husband have no other acceptable documents.
r. Ms. Parras is H!r)' concerned about the safct) of her family. as well as ensuring
hcnclits and educational opportunities due to A.L.M.
I32. Plaintiff Fanv Ventunl was born in llonduras ami arri\·cd in Texas as a minor. She has lived here since 1996.
a. Bccuusc she lett llondums us a minor. she has no national idc111i Jication card or drh cr's license and cannot obtain them here.
h. J>laintiiT gave birth to a son. Plaintiff V.ll., in 2011 in Edinburg. Texas. c. Plaintiff Ventura obtained a birth ccrti licatc f(x V.II. using her own birth certificate, Medicaid receipts. rent n.:ccipts. and other similar materials. d. J>lai nti If ga\ c birth to her daughter 1~.1.1 I. in 20 1-J..
30

Case 1:15-cv-00446-RP Document 127 Filed 03/29/16 Page 31 of 62
c. PluintiiTagain wcm to the registrar'!; oflicc and produced her own birth ccrtilicatc and llondun.tn school photo ID card. supporting identification. and her child's hospital birth records and ::;ocial sccurit) card.
1: Plaintiff has been repeatedly denied the birth ccrtilicutc for Plaintilfl·.. l.ll.
g. ,\sa result of these deniab Plilintilris having serious probkms \\ith hcnclits due to her child. and knows that she \\ill probably lac!! similar future obstacles with rcspcd to school enrollment. She is also worried about the safi:ty or her family. 133. Plaintitl' Maria Francisca Rodriguez is a citizen of Mexico now residing in Texas.
a. Ms. Rodriguez has a matricu/a, an expired electoral card, and a LUPE membership card. Her husband has his birth certit1cate and a LUPE membership card.
b. With these documents, they were able to obtain birth certificates for their tirst three Texas-born children between 2007-2010.
c. Their son G.M. was born in Edinburg in 2014. d. They brought the same papers to the local birth ccrtilicate oftice, but were denied the birth certificate. e . Plaintiff is very concerned about her inability to baptize her son and about the future school enrollment and benetits problems she will face on his behalf. She is also worried about her son·s safety as there is no proof of his parentage or citizenship. 134. Plaintiff Leonor Reyna Flores is a citizen of Mexico and now resides in Texas. a. ller lirst two children were born in Texas between 2004-2006. She had no trouble obtaining their birth certiJicates.
31

Case 1:15-cv-00446-RP Document 127 Filed 03/29/16 Page 32 of 62
b. Plaintiff has an expired voter card, her nwtric:u/a, and her birth certificnte. Her husband has an expired Mexican driver's license and matric:ula.
c. When she returned in 2013 to get a birth certiticate for her third child, G.C., she was turned away.
d. She is concerned about school enrollment tor her child as well as other matters. She is especially concerned about problems with U.S. Border Patrol as she has no proofof her relationship to her son or his birth of place. 135. PlaintiiT Oucnia Per~I. is a citit.:cn of Mexico who has long n.:siucd in Tc\as.
a. PlaintilTPcrc/ has the nc\v~st version of the Mexican malrh:ula caru. \\hich \\·as issued to her in i'vlay :2015. fhis wrsion has gn:atly increased security aspct.:ts and includes a microchip. She also has an expired Mexican d.:ctoral card.
b. Ikr son. PJaintitlJ .A.R.. \\as born in Tc:-.:as in :WO(> anJ she obtained a birth ccrti licate lor him \vith no di niculty.
c. llowcv<:r. in 20 II her f(mncr hushand rdurncd to Me-xico, taking all of J.A.R.'s dot.:umcnts with him and severing communications. (I lis ddcrl) mother lives in tvkxico and cannot as~isL)
J. Plaintiff Pcra has tried to ohlain a new birth ccrtilicme fi.H· J.A.R.. but her documents were r~jccted.
c. PluintiiT Pen:z's sister then presented her 0\\11 Mc.xkun clc!;toral card. drhcr'~ liccn~l.!. and ma!ricu/a, hut \\liS also turned <may.
f. For a time. Plainli IT Perc; \\as able to arrange for the continuation of .I .i\.R.'s bendits and school enrollment because the local agents knc\\· her and had his documents on Jilc.
I hm~' ~.-. '' h.:n Plainti fr Perc; 111m cd to anlll hcr hm n. she had grc.1t di rticult) l.!nrolli ng her
son in school. 32

Case 1:15-cv-00446-RP Document 127 Filed 03/29/16 Page 33 of 62
g. Ms. 1\:reL has hc~!n informed her that sh!! will need to present .I A.R.'s birth certificate l(lr certain hcnclits due to him a:-. \\ell.
h. In 2015 Plaintil'fPera gave birth to her youngest son. PlaintifTY.F. i. ror the same reasons set l(nth abO\ c. she has been unable to obtain a birth certilicate for him and now !~tees the same problc:ms with regard to this chilo. 136. Pia inti ff Uio..anna Castro is a citit.en or l'vlcxico \vho 110\\ resides in l'cxas. a. Ikr lirstthrcc children \\ere born in Icxas hel\\Cen 2007 and 20 l0.
h. She haJ no problems obtaining birth certi ticatc.:s l(lr these thrc.:e children She simpl) presented her Mexican 111£1/ricula. c. Iter youngest child. Plainti IT J..I.A.. \\·as born in 2015. d. Neither she nor her husband has been able to oblain a birth ccrtilicatc f()r .l..f.R.. even though she has a Mexican birth ceni licatc and malricula, and her husband has the new. mon.: secure malricula. an expired l'vlexican electoral card. and an expired Mexican dri\cr's license. c. 'I he} \\ere toltlthey would need a fvh:xican passp<lrt \\ith a l i.S. \isa.
t: The Plaintiffs were linally able to obtain a short version of the birth certi lieate at a
difkrent orticl.!. but were warn~:d that it could only be uscJ unuer limited ~.:ircumstances.
137. PlaintilT Yycth Y~ came to the l'nit~d States as a ~.:hild nearly l\\ent) )~ars ago a. Bec<tusc she lcli fvh:xico as a minor. she has no tvkxican Jri\er's license or \otcr registration emu anJ cannot obtain th~:m her~. b. In 2013, Plaintiff Yveth Vega gmc birth to her daughter, Plaint itT~. Y.R. in 1\lct\lkn. lcxas.
33

Case 1:15-cv-00446-RP Document 127 Filed 03/29/16 Page 34 of 62
c. PlaintiiT took h~r Jaught~r's hospitalllirth records and social security card. tog.~thcr \\ith her mvn uwlrh'ula. to her local Vital Statistics onicc. J. Onicials there denied the birth certilicatc l(lr N.Y.R.. and told hcth she needed a Mexican passporl. She then ohtaincJ a passport. )Ct \\US again turned Jown at the Vital Statistics o!Hcc. c. Plaintiffthcn \HOI<.: to Austin, rc<.tue-;ting the birth ccrtilicatc for N.Y.R.
r. 'I he :\ustin Ofticc nf VitaI Statistics denied the birth ccrti licatc.
13R. Plainti!T Maria De I una is a citizen of Mexico \vho 110\\ rcsiJcs in Texas. a. Plaintiff A.R. was born in 2014 in Edinburg, Texas to her mother, Maria de Luna. b. Plaintiff Maria De Luna visited her local vital statistics desk at Edinburg City Hall in
2015 to obtain her daughter·s birth certificate. She was denied the birth certificate alier she presented her matricula, passport with no visa, and her birth certificate.
c. She was told she needed a Texas JD, a Mexican electoral card, or a Mexican Driver's License or Identification Card. Ms. De Luna has none of these documents and cannot obtain them.
d. Plaintiff Maria De Luna has an older child, born in 2013 in Edinburg, Texas. She was able to receive a birth certificate for that child simply by presenting her state benefits 1·om1s.
e. ller husband, Mezalet Rosales Mesa, has only his LUPE membership card and his birth certilicate. All tour grandparents currently reside in Mexico and cannot travel.
f. The tamily is concerned about safety issues and other complic<llions they will lace if they cannot obtain n birth certilicate.
34

Case 1:15-cv-00446-RP Document 127 Filed 03/29/16 Page 35 of 62
Clllegory 2: Pal/em Am/ Pmclice: 1'/uiuli.ffs De11ied Birllt Cerlijicale.'i Despite Preseul{lfioll OfOne Ac:cepluh/e ld
Note: Pursuant to this Court's instructions. Counsel have attempted and will continue to attempt to resolve as many cases in this category as possible with opposing Counsel.
139. Plaintiff Maria Torres is a citizen of Mexico. a. She lled Mexico at the age of 22, after her lbther was murdered in front of their
home, and she and her mother were threatened with kidnapping. b. Her 11rst two children were born in McAllen Texas in 2005 and 2010. c. Ms. Torres had no problem obtaining their birth certiticates with her matricula
and supporting documents. Ms. Torres also has a valid Mexican driver's license. d. Her daughter F.T. was born prematurely in McAllen, in 2015. e. F.T. suflered severe breathing problems tor some time. f. Ms. Torres had serious problems with the Medicaid coverage, which she was
unable to quickly resolve without the birth certificate tor the child. g. To avoid further problems. she has tried to get her birth ccrtiticatc for F.T. in
McAllen. Jlowever, the olliccrs rejected her matricula and other documents, demanding a valid electoral card, which she does not have and cannot obtain.
h. She returned with her valid Mexican drivers· license and full supporting documents, and was again summarily denied the birth certiticate.
i. Ms. Torres is very worried about further health care complications. as well as other problems in the future. She is also concerned about the safety of her lamily as there is no proof of her parental relationship or the child's birthplace.
a. Ms. Rojas has lived in the United States l(.lr nine years. 35

Case 1:15-cv-00446-RP Document 127 Filed 03/29/16 Page 36 of 62
b. Ms. Rojas gave birth to three children, one in 2006 and twins in 2007. c. She obtained the 2006 birth certiticate with her then-valid laser visa. and for the twins, used her matricula with supporting materials. d. The birth certificates are the abbreviated forms, however, and she is now having problems with these being rejected by local day care centers. e. In 2006 she was stripped of her laser card by U.S. ofticials. This lett her with a matricula, an expired Mexican electoral card, an expired Mexican student card, and an expired U.S. B1/82 visa from her childhood. f. In 2015 Ms. Rojas gave birth to M.L. in Brownsville, Texas. g. She went to the local birth certiticate ollice with her documentation and was summarily denied a birth ccrtiticate for her son. She was not informed ofany way she could obtain it with her U.S. B1/82 visa. h. Ms. Rojas insisted upon speaking with the supervisor. i. She was told that because ofa 2014 audit, much stricter requirements were now enforced. j. llcr older sons have been diagnosed with autism. but she cannot work to better support them because the day care centers will not take the children without birth certificates. She also cannot baptize her youngest child. She has serious concerns about the Htmily's safety as well.
141. J>lainti IT Katcrinc .lohana or Portillo is a dti;.cn Ciuut~mala. She anJ her thrcl!-)car-
old ~on llcd her \ iol~nt spou~c in (juatcmala anJ \\o cn.: brought to Iexas b) .1 "Co)-ole". or hum.m ~muggier.
36

Case 1:15-cv-00446-RP Document 127 Filed 03/29/16 Page 37 of 62
a. 1\.s the group of immigrants neared northern 1\th:xico, the Coyote ordered e\ cryone to throw all of tlh:ir idcntilication cards ami telephone lisb inlo the \\oods.~
b.Pregnant and fearing J()r her saiCty if she disobeycJ. Plaintiff Portillo discarded her Guatemalan iJcntilication card. She cannot obtain a new one in the ll nitcd States.
c. In 2014 Plaintiff gave birth to her daughter. K.J-'.P. d.Becausc she had lived in the U.S. as 41 child with her mother. Plaintiff Portillo still has a l'vl inncsota iJemi lication card J()r minors. and a social security card. e. Plaintiff Portillo took her iJcntilication card anJ social security card, together with a photo-copy of her Guatemalan national iJcntiJkation cant. U.S. immigration rclcasc paperwork. her daughter's hospital birth records and social ~ccurity card. to the Vital Statistics office in McAllen. Tc;..as. 1: PlainlifT was denied a birth certificate for K. E.P. ami \\as told to bring a pa~sport. Plaintiff rcturneJ with a Guatemalan passport. but was still JcnicJ the birth ccrtilicatc for K.E.J>. g.PI::tinti IT Portillo's mother, Gredys Portillo. also attempted to assist in obtaining the birth certil1cme. She brought with her a valid California identification card. her social security card. Guatemalan passport. and an U.S. employment authorization card and applied at the McAllen ollice as well. She also had supporting documents.
K fhc drug cartels have full control over the crossing of the Rio Grande River. and charge exorbitant Ices to persons seeking to cross. As Central Americans have travelled further and arc more desperate. higher fees arc charged. lienee. the Coyotes olicn insist that the migrants claim to be from southern Mexico.
37

Case 1:15-cv-00446-RP Document 127 Filed 03/29/16 Page 38 of 62
h.AII of the idcntitication documents were rejected by the clerk, who told her that she and/or Katerinc should bring in a passport. When they did, they were still denied tor lack of current U.S. visas.
rrs. i. Plaintiff llu.:cs the sam\! l:OilCI!rtlS and problcms as the other Plai nti or 1~2. PlaintiffCvnthia Ibarra is a citizl!n 1\tll:xico. and is now rl!siding in Texas.
a. Plaintiff Iharm's Jaughtcr K. L R. '"~'s horn in Cameron County in ~0 1~. b. M-;. Ibarra and her husband \\"cnt to the Bro\\llS\illc registrar's oflicl! to obtain a birth certificate l(ll" her child. c. i\t that time. she posscsscJ a \aliJ Mexican electoral card and her husband had a \·alid Mexican drivers' license. a malricula card. and supporting identification. d. f'he registrar orticial t \\ ict.! summarily denied them the birth ccrtilil:atc. The
onic<.:r did not ask n.H any olh<.:r materials and Jid not advise them us to hm\ lo obtain the
hirth ccrtilicatc \\ ith thl!ir acccpt<lhlc identification. 1.!. i\s a result Ms. Ibarra cannot bapti1c her child.
r. Plaintiff child K.E.R also needs continuing medical evaluations as a result or a
serious inlcction suflcrcd \\hen she born. f\.ts. lharru was warned that she must prodm:e K.E.R.'s hirlh certiliL:ate to avoid problems \\ith her i'vlcdi~aiJ co\erage.
g. Ihe lharras arc concerned about \vhat couiJ happen if they are stopped h) agents of the l i.S. Border Patrol and cannot establish their parental relationship\\ ith their daughter. or her birthright citiLenship. I~:l. Plaintiffs Mirna U!!alde and her husband. Miguel Angel Palomino Al!uilera. lled Mexico years ago because of violence and poverty.
38

Case 1:15-cv-00446-RP Document 127 Filed 03/29/16 Page 39 of 62
a. Ms. Ugalde's has a nwlricu/a, her passport. and her valid IFE. Her husband has his matricula, his passport and his valid IFE card. b. Ms. Ugalde gave birth to three children between 2009-2012. c. She easily obtained birth certilicates tor all three children with her documents. d. J>bintitl.J.P. was born in 2013 in Edinburg, Texas. His sister, G.P. was born in 2015 in McAllen, Texas. d. In 2013, Ms. Ugalde and her husband went to the McAllen City Hall to obtain their son's birth certificate and were turned away. She was told she needed to present a passport. e. Ms. Ugalde went in a second time, alter obtaining a passport, and was turned away again tor not having a U.S. visa on the passport. J: In 2015, aHer the birth of her daughter. G.P., Ms. Ugalde attempted once more at the McAllen City Hall to obtain both of the children's birth certificates but was turned away once again. g. Ms. Ugalde finally went to the Weslaco City llall to obtain the birth certificates. She was only able to obtain the abbreviated version. h. In November 2015 PlaintifTs presented their valid electoral cards and supporting documents. but were still summarily denied birth certificates. 144. Plaintiffs i\larLa Ibarra Luna and Juan Carlos RodriuueL Vclasquc;. me citi1cn.s of i'vlcxico mm residing in rcxas. a. Plaintiff Marta Ibarra Lunn ha$ a Mc'(ican /11(1/rh'u/a and current dcctoral curd. a!-> \Vd I as supporting documents. h. Ikr hu'lh:md. Plaintiff .luun Carlo::-. RoJrigu~:1. has n i\kxican matricula and JXI'i!->p( u·t. c. Ih~:ir daughter. Plainti ff Y.R.IU .. \\as horn in 20 I5.
39

Case 1:15-cv-00446-RP Document 127 Filed 03/29/16 Page 40 of 62
d. I hey took their credentials and the hahy's hospital birth r<.:cords to the :\,·leA lien Vital Statistics Onicc.
c. ~luna Ibarra Luna's current ekctoral card was summarily rejected and she \HIS told
she would need a passport with a \alid l r.s. visa. Juan Carlo~ Rodrigue;;' Mexican pussport
and matricllla \\·ere also rejected. f. I he Plainli ITs were not asked l()r any supporting identi lication nor \\ere they
advised of this option. 1hey \\en: only told to get a passport with a l i.S. visa. g. When Pluintill<i as!-.cd the i'vlc!\llcn Vital Statistics orticial \\h} birth certilicates
had become so di rticult to obtain. the \\Oman responded th:..ll si nee 20 14-2015 the rcquin:mcnts had become stricter to pn:\cnt undocumented persons from obtaining status through their l 1.S. citi1.en children.
h. Aller nearly a year. Plaintiff Ibarra managed to obtain the ahbrc\ iated birth ccrtilicatcs. but still cannot obtain l11e complete f\)rm for her children. 145. Plaintifffelipa Velazquez is a citizen of Mexico who now resides in Texas.
a. Ms. Velazquez· husband is also a Mexican national residing in Texas. b. Their first two children, born in 2006 and 2008 were born in Texas. Ms. Velazquez and her husband obtained their birth certificates without any difliculties. c. Plaintiff Velazquez gave birth to her minor son S.I.V. in 2016. d. She and her husband went to the McAllen office to seek a birth certiticate for S.I.V. c. I ler husband presented his valid Mexican military card. a valid Mexican drivers· license. a Mexican passport. and a LUPE photo identification card. t: PlaintifTVelazquez presented her malricula, an expired McAllen lood processor card bearing her photograph. and an expired Mexican voter idcntilication card.
40

Case 1:15-cv-00446-RP Document 127 Filed 03/29/16 Page 41 of 62
g. They were nevertheless denied a birth certificate for their child S.I.V.. despite her husband's presentation of two valid secondary identitication cards.
146. Maria Teresita Madera Esparza:
a. Plainti IT Maria Madera and her husband are citizens of Mexico and are now residing in El Paso, Texas.
b. Their child, M.C.. was born in El Paso in 2015. c. Plaintiff Maria Madera and her husband both have current Mexican electoral cards. She also her Mexican birth certificate, a Matricula. and supporting materials. He also has his Mexican school papers. d. Plaintiff Maria Madera took these identi lication materials, and the hospital birth certitication documents. to the city birth certificate office in El Paso. e. She was denied the birth certificate and her electoral card was rejected. She was told she must bring her Mexican drivers' license. She explained that she had lett Mexico before learning to drive. She was then told to bring an uncle. She did so but he was also rejected. She was directed to an internet site, but it required the social security number she does not have. [ Plaintiff Madera was not once informed that her electoral card would be accepted with supporting materials. g. The tamily is concerned about immigration and safety and other problems.
147. Maria del Carmen Reves Zapata a. Plaintiff Maria del Carmen Reyes Zapata is a citizen of Mexico now residing in El
Paso. Texas.
41

Case 1:15-cv-00446-RP Document 127 Filed 03/29/16 Page 42 of 62
b. She has two older children born in El Paso, and had no problems obtaining birth certificates tor them.
b. She gave birth to her son N.A. in 2013 in El Paso, Texas. c. She then took her expired U.S. visa, expired Mexican electoral card, and expired Mexican drivers' license to the city birth certificate ofllce. d. The registrar oflicials there rejected all of her identification and denied her the birth certificate lor N.A. e. The clerk suggested bringing a U.S. born sibling, but none are old enough to apply lor N.A. [ PlaintilT Reyes Zapata made several inquiries but was always rejected. She was never told that her valid electoral card would be accepted with supporting materials. g. Plaintiff will soon seek to enroll N.A. in head Start, which will require a birth certilicate. She is concerned as well with other salety and immigration issues.
V. Causes of Action: FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION: ..f2 U.S.C. §1983
PLAINTIFF CHILDREN: EQUAL PROTECTION
148. Plaintifts herein incorporate Paragraphs 1- 147 above. 149. At all relevant times, Defendants llellerstcdt, Traylor and Harris in this case were acting under color of slate law. A. CATEGORY I PLAINTIFFS 150. Delendants have a current policy. pattern. and practice of denying birth certificates to the Texas-born. infant children of undocumented immigrants from Mexico and Central America.
42

Case 1:15-cv-00446-RP Document 127 Filed 03/29/16 Page 43 of 62
151. Specifically, Plaintiffs were denied birth certificates pursuant to the Defendants· regulations and harsh interpretations thereoC as set Jorth above. Such regulations and interpretations leave Plaintiffs with no access to birth certiticates. 152. The Plaintiff children in this case were born in the United States and are United States citizens. 153. The Plaintiff parents have produced valid, official identification in seeking the birth certificates on behalfoftheirTexas-born children, but were still denied, as intended by Defendants. 154. All persons born in the United States are entitled to receive their own birth certiticates. 155. Delendants are violating the Fourteenth Amendment by abridging the privileges and immunities of the U.S. citizen children. 156. Furthermore, Defendants are giving unequal treatment to the Plaintiff children. as compared with the treatment of all otherwise similarly situated children in the State of Texas. 157. Specifically, the Plaintilrchildren are being denied birth certilicates on the basis of their parents' immigration status; and as a result arc being denied numerous health, educational and legal benefits to which they are entitled as well as other basic rights of all citizens. including but not limited the right to travel and saleguard their citizenship. 158. Dclendants have no reasonable justi11cation for their discriminatory denial of birth certilicates to the Plaintiff children. 159. Dclcndants have knowingly taken the actions complained or in this suit with the intent to discriminate against the Plainti IT children and deprive them of their rights. 160. Delendants' conduct violates the Equal Protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United Stales Constitution.
43

Case 1:15-cv-00446-RP Document 127 Filed 03/29/16 Page 44 of 62
161. Defendants' conduct is causing and will cause Plaintiffs irreparable harm as set forth above. 162. Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief against Defendants Hellersted, Traylor and Harris in their otlicial capacities, declaring the Defendants' current policies. practices and/or regulation unconstitutional. and enjoining the Defendants' current failure and refusal to accept any identification reasonably accessible to the Plaintiffs. 163. Plaintifts bring this claim pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 28 U.S.C. §2201. B. CATEGORY 2 PLAINTIFFS 164. Defendants have a current policy, pattern, and practice of denying birth certilicates to the Texas-born. infant children of undocumented immigrants from Mexico and Central America. 165. Defendants. in their campaign of audits. orders. and instructions to all local birth certificate offices, required and/or encouraged local orticials to give harsh scrutiny to all undocumented immigrant parents applying for birth certificates t{>r their Texas born children. 166. Such instructions have resulted in a pattern and practice of summary denials of birth certit1cates even to numerous undocumented parents able to produce at least one acceptable identification document, together with supporting documents. 167. The Plaintiff children in this case were born in the United States and are United States citizens. 168. The Plaintitf parents have produced valid, ort1cial identitication which in fact satisfied the current and rigorous regulations. as well as supporting documents. but were still denied birth certiticates. 169. Such pattern and practice of wrongful. summary denials is the direct. foreseeable and intended result of the Defendants· campaign.
44

Case 1:15-cv-00446-RP Document 127 Filed 03/29/16 Page 45 of 62
170. Defendants ordered and/or encouraged this pattern and practice, or in the alternative, they are fully aware of this pattern and practice and accept, condone and acquiesce to it. 171. Defendants have taken no action to correct this pattern and practice of unlawful denials. 172. All persons born in the United States are entitled to receive their own birth certificates. 173. Defendants are violating the Fourteenth Amendment by abridging the privileges and immunities of the U.S. citizen children. 174. Furthermore. Defendants are giving unequal treatment to the Plaintiffchildren, as compared with the treatment of all otherwise similarly situated children in the State ofTexas. 175. Specitically. the Plaintiffchildren are being denied birth certificates on the basis of their parents' immigration status; and as a result are being denied numerous health. educational and legal benefits to which they are entitled as well as other basic rights of all citizens. including but not limited the right to travel. 176. Defendants have no reasonable justification for their discriminatory denial of birth certificates to the Plaintiffchildren. 178. Defendants have knowingly taken the actions complained of in this suit with the intent to discriminate against the Plaintiff children and deprive them oftheir rights. 179. Defendants' conduct violates the Equal Protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. 180. Defendants' conduct is causing and will cause Plaintiffs irreparable hann as set torth above. 181 . Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief against Dclendants Ilcllersted, Traylor and Ifarris in their otlicial capacities. declaring the Defendants' current policies. practices ami/or regulation unconstitutional. and enjoining the Defendants· current failure and refusal to accl.!pt any iucntilication reasonably accessible to the Plaintiffs.
45

Case 1:15-cv-00446-RP Document 127 Filed 03/29/16 Page 46 of 62
I82. Plaintiffs bring this claim pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983 and 28 U.S.C. §2201. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION: -'2 U.S.C. §1983 PLAINTIFF CHILDREN: DUE PROCESS
183. Plaintiffs herein incorporate Paragraphs 1- 147 above. 184. At all relevant times, Defendants IIellerstedt, Traylor, and Ifarris in this case acted under color ofstate law. A. Ct11egory 1 Plttillliffs 185. Defendants have a current policy. pattern. and practice of denying birth certificates to the Texas-born, infant children of undocumented immigrants from Mexico and Central America. 186. Spcci fically, Plainti ITs were denied birth certiticates pursuant to the Defendants· regulations and harsh interpretations thereot~ as set forth above. This leaves the Plaintiffs with no access to birth certiticates. 187. The Plaintiff children in this case were born in the United States and are United States citizens. 188. The Plaintiff parents have produced valid and ofticial identification in seeking the birth certi licates on behalfof their Texas-born children. Defendants have denied the parents, and hence their minor children, the birth certificates. 189. Defendants are violating the Fourteenth Amendment by abridging the privileges and immunities of the U.S. citizen children. 190. All persons born in the United States arc entitled to receive their own birth certificates. 191. The Plaintiff children have a constitutionally protected property and liberty interest in receiving the birth ccrti licatc and all other rights. privileges and bcnclits due to them as li.S.
46

Case 1:15-cv-00446-RP Document 127 Filed 03/29/16 Page 47 of 62
citizens including but not limited to familial integrity, the public benclits and opportunities for which they arc eligible, and the right to travel. 192. By denying the birth certilicates for the Plaintiff children, the Defendants are intentionally obstructing and burdening the many public benetits to which the children are constitutionally entitled, including but not limited to a public school education. housing assistance. and health care programs. 193. By denying the birth certi licates for Plaintiff children, the Defendants are intentionally obstructing and burdening the children's fundamental right to travel, enter the United States, and protect and maintain their U.S. citizenship. 194. Defendants have no adequate justi tication for the denial of birth certificates to the Plaintiffs. and are basing their denial of the Plaintiffs children's rights upon the immigration status of their parents. 195. Defendants' conduct violates the Due Process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. 196. Defendants' conduct is causing and will cause Plaintiffs irreparable ham1 as set forth above. 197. Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief against Hellersted, Traylor and Harris in their official capacities, declaring their current practices and/or regulation unconstitutional, and enjoining the Defendants' current lailure and refusal to accept any identilication reasonably accessible to the Plaintifls. 198. Plaintifts bring this claim pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 28 U.S.C. §220 I. B. CATEGORY 2 PLAINT/FFS
47

Case 1:15-cv-00446-RP Document 127 Filed 03/29/16 Page 48 of 62
200. Defendants have a current policy. pattern, and practice ofdenying birth certi licates to the Texas-born. infant children of undocumented immigrants from Mexico and Central America. 199. DeJcndants. in their campaign of audits, orders, and instructions to all local birth certiJicate ofJices. required and/or encouraged local ofJicials to give harsh scrutiny to all undocumented immigrant parents applying tor birth ccrtilicates tor their Texas born children. 200. Such instructions have resulted in a pattern and practice ofsummary denials of birth certiJicates even to numerous undocumented parents able to produce at least one acceptable identification document, together with supporting documents. 20 I. Such pattern and practice of wrongful, summary denials is the direct, foreseeable and intended result of the Defendants· campaign. 202. Delendants ordered and/or encouraged this pattern and practice, or in the alternative, they are fully aware of this pattern and practice and accept, condone and acquiesce to it. 203. Defendants have taken no action to correct this pattern and practice of unlawful denials. 204. The Plaintiff children in this case were born in the United States and are United States citizens. 205. The Plaintiff parents have produced valid, official identilication which in tact satislied the current and rigorous regulations, but were still denied birth certilicates. 206. All persons born in the United States are entitled to receive their own birth certi ticates. 207. The Plaintiff children have a constitutionally protected property and liberty interest in receiving the birth certificate and all other rights, privileges and benelits due to them as U.S. citizens including but not limited to lnmilial integrity. the public benelits and opportunities l()r which they arc eligible. and the right to traveL
48

Case 1:15-cv-00446-RP Document 127 Filed 03/29/16 Page 49 of 62
208. By denying the birth certif'icates tor the Plaintiff children, the Defendants are intentionally obstructing and burdening the many public bcnelits to which the children are constitutionally entitled, including but not limited to a public school education, housing assistance, and health care programs. 209. By denying the birth certificates for Plaintiff children, the Defendants are intentionally obstructing and burdening the children's fundamental right to travel, enter the United States. and protect and maintain their U.S. citizenship. 210. Defendants have no adequate justification lor the denial of birth certificates to the Plaintiffs. and are basing their denial of the Plaintiffs children' s rights upon the immigration status of their parents. 211 . The Defendants' pattern and practice has also resulted in a de tacto lack of clearly articulated, unitorm. and consistently enforced eligibility criterion tor these Plaintifts. 2 I2. Plaintiffs are left without adequate notice as to how to obtain a birth certificate and without reasonable and uniform consideration of their applications therefore. 213. Defendants' conduct violates both the substantive and procedural Due Process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. 214. Defendants· conduct is causing and will cause Plaintiffs irreparable harm as set forth above. 2 I5. Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief against Defendants llellersted. Traylor and llarris in their official capacities. declaring their current practices and/or regulation unconstitutionaL and enjoining the Defendants' current failure and refusal to accept any idcntiflcation reasonably accessible to the Plaintifts.
216. Plaintiffs bring this claim pursuant to 42 l r.s.c. §1983 and 28 ll.S.C. §220 I.
49

Case 1:15-cv-00446-RP Document 127 Filed 03/29/16 Page 50 of 62
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION: .u U.S.C. § 1983
PLAINTIFF PARENTS: EQUAL I)ROTECTION CLAUSE
217. Plaintiffs herein incorporate Paragraphs 1- 147 above. 218. At all relevant times, the Defendants llellerstedt, Traylor, and Harris were acting under color of state law. A. CATEGORY I Pllliuli.ffs 219. Defendants have a current policy, pattern. and practice ofdenying birth certificates to the Texas-born, infant children of undocumented immigrants from Mexico and Central America. 220. Specitically. Plaintifts were denied birth certificates pursuant to the Defendants' regulations and harsh interpretations thereof, as set forth above. Such regulations and interpretations leave Plaintiffs with no access to birth certificates. 221. The Plaintiff children in this case were born in the United States and are United States citizens. 222. As set forth above, the Plaintiff parents in this case have proflered valid and ofticial forms ofidcntilication. but have been denied the birth certiticates lor their U.S. citizen children. 223. All parents have the right to receive a birth certificate tor their U.S. born minor children. 224. All parents have a fundamental right to raise their children as they see lit. to protect them, provide lor them, and make all key decisions as to their health education and wei flue. 225. The denial of birth ccrti licates deprives the Plaintiff parents of any oflicial confirmation of their relationship to their own children.
so

Case 1:15-cv-00446-RP Document 127 Filed 03/29/16 Page 51 of 62
226. Such denial greatly complicates and obstructs the Plaintifls parents' rights to consent to urgent medical care. to travel with their children, to preserve their child's U.S. citizenship. to enroll their children in school, and to obtain other educational. health and cultural bene tits tor which such U.S. citizen children are eligible. 227. Defendants are treating the Plaintiff parents unequally to all otherwise similarly situated parents of U.S. born children. 228. Defendants arc discriminating against the Plaintiff parents on the basis of their immigration status. 229. Defendants have taken the actions complained of in this suit with the intent to discriminate against and penalize the Plainti fT parents as set forth above. 230. Defendants have no reasonable state justification for their discriminatory denial of birth certificates to Plaintiffs. 231. Defendants have at all times acted knowingly. intentionally and under color of state law. 232. Defendants' conduct violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. 233. Defendants· conduct is causing and will cause the Plaintiff parents irreparable harm. 234. The Plaintiff parents seek declaratory and injunctive relief against defendants 1-lellersted. Traylor and Harris in their official capacities, declaring Defendants' current practices and/or regulations unconstitutional. and enjoining the Defendants' current failure and refusal to accept any identification reasonably accessible to the Plaintifls. 235. Plaintiffs bring this claim pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 28 U.S.C. §2201.
51

Case 1:15-cv-00446-RP Document 127 Filed 03/29/16 Page 52 of 62
B. CATEGORY 2 PLAINTIFFS 236. Delendants have a current policy. pattern. and practice of denying birth certificates to the Texas-born, infant children of undocumented immigrants from Mexico and Central America. 237. Defendants. in their campaign of audits, orders, and instructions to all local birth certificate offices, required local oflicials to give harsh scrutiny to all undocumented immigrant parents applying lor birth certillcates for their Texas born children. 238. Such instructions have resulted in a pattern and practice of summary denials of birth certificates even to numerous undocumented parents able to produce at least one acceptable identification document, together with supporting documents. 239. As set forth above, the Plaintiff parents in this case have proffered valid and oflicial forms of identilication. but have been denied the birth certificates tor their U.S. citizen children. 240. Such pattern and practice of wrongful. summary denials is the direct, foreseeable and intended result of the Defendants' campaign. 241. Defendants ordered and/or encouraged this pattern and practice, or in the alternative. they are fully aware of this pattern and practice and accept. condone and acquiesce to it. 242. Defendants have taken no action to correct this pattern and practice of unlawful denials. 243. All parents have the right to receive a birth certificate lor their U.S. born minor children. 244. All parents have a fundamental right to raise their children as they see tit. to protect them. provide tor them. and make all key decisions as to their health education and welfare. 245. The denial of birth certificates deprives the Plaintiff parents of any official confirmation of their relationship to their O\\n chiiJren.
52

Case 1:15-cv-00446-RP Document 127 Filed 03/29/16 Page 53 of 62
246. Such denial greatly complicates and obstructs the Plaintiffs parents' rights to consent to urgent medical care, to travel with their children, to preserve their child's U.S. citizenship. to enroll their children in school. and to obtain other educational, health and cultural benefits for which such U.S. citizen children are eligible. 247. Defendants are treating the Plainti IT parents unequally to all otherwise similarly situated parents of U.S. born children. 248. Defendants are discriminating against the PlaintiiTparents on the basis of their immigration status. 249. Defendants have taken the actions complained of in this suit with the intent to discriminate against and penalize the Plaintiff parents as set forth above.
250. Delendants have no reasonable state justitication tor their discriminatory denial of birth
certiticates to Plaintills. 251. Defendants have at all times acted knowingly, intentionally and under color of state law. 252. DeJendants· conduct violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. 253. Defendants' conduct is causing and will cause the Plaintiff parents irreparable harm. 254. The Plainti IT parents seek declaratory and injunctive relief against defendants llellersted, Traylor and Harris in their official capacities. declaring Defendants' current practices and/or regulations unconstitutional, and enjoining the Delendants' current lailurc and refusal to accept any identitication reasonably accessible to the Plaintifls. 255. Plaintiffs bring this claim pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983 and 28 U.S.C. §2201.
53

Case 1:15-cv-00446-RP Document 127 Filed 03/29/16 Page 54 of 62
FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION: 42 U.S.C.§1983 PLAINTIFF PARENTS: DUE PROCESS CLAUSE
256. Plaintiffs herein incorporate Paragraphs 1- 151 above. 257. At all relevant times, Defendants Ifarris, Traylor and l·lellerstedt were under color of state law. A. CATEGORY 1 PLAINTIFFS 258. Delendants have a current policy, pattern, and practice of denying birth certificates to the Texas-born, inlant children of undocumented immigrants from Mexico and Central America. 259. Specifically, Plaintiffs were denied birth certificates pursuant to the Defendants' regulations and harsh interpretations thereof~ as set forth above. Such regulations and interpretations leave Plaintiffs with no access to birth certificates. 260. As set torth above, the Plaintiff parents in this case have proffered valid and ofticial forms of identi tication, but have been denied the birth certificates tor their U.S. citizen children. 261. All parents have the right to receive a birth certificate tor their U.S. born minor children. 262. All parents have a fundamental right to raise their children as they see fit, to protect them, provide for them. and make all key decisions as to their health education and welfare. 263. Such parental/familial rights are liberty and property interests protected by the fourteenth amendment of the U.S. constitution. 264. The denial of birth ccrtilicatcs deprives the Plaintiff parents ofany orticial confirmation of their relationship to their own children.
54

Case 1:15-cv-00446-RP Document 127 Filed 03/29/16 Page 55 of 62
265. Such denial greatly obstructs and burdens the Plaintiffs parents' rights to consent to urgent medical care, to arrange travel tor their children, to enroll their children in school, and to obtain other educational, health and cultural bene tits for which such U.S. citizen children are eligible. 266. Defendants are denying the birth certificates to Plaintiff parents on the basis of their immigration status. 267. Defendants have no adequate state justification lor their discriminatory denial of birth certificates to Plaintiffs. 268. Defendants are also violating the Due Process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by failing and refusing to articulate, impose and entorce clear, rational, and consistent standards for obtaining birth certificates, and by failing to properly intom1 applicants of those standards. 269. Plaintiffs are left without adequate notice as to how to obtain a birth certificate, and without reasonable and uni tonn consideration of their applications theretore. 270. Defendants' conduct violates both the substantive and procedural Due Process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. 271. Defendants' conduct is causing and will cause Plaintiffs irreparable harm as set forth above. 272. Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief against Defendants llellersted. Traylor and llarris in their official capacities, declaring their current practices and/or regulation unconstitutionaL and enjoining the Defendants' current failure and refusal to accept any identification reasonably accessible to the Plainti!Ts. 273. Plaintiffs bring this claim pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983 and 28 U.S.C. §220 I.
55

Case 1:15-cv-00446-RP Document 127 Filed 03/29/16 Page 56 of 62
B. CATEGORY 2 PLAINTIFFS 274. Defendants have a current policy, pattern, and practice of denying birth certificates to the Texas-born, infant children of undocumented immigrants from Mexico and Central America. 275. Defendants. in their campaign of audits, orders, and instructions to all local birth certificate offices, required and/or encouraged local oflicials to give harsh scrutiny to all undocumented immigrant parents applying tor birth certiticates tor their Texas born children. 276. Such instructions have resulted in a pattern and practice of summary denials of birth certificates even to numerous undocumented parents able to produce at least one acceptable identi tication document. together with supporting documents. 277. Such pattern and practice of wrongful, summary denials is the direct, foreseeable and intended result of the Defendants" campaign. 278. Defendants ordered and/or encouraged this pattern and practice, or in the alternative, they are fully aware of this pattern and practice and accept, condone and acquiesce to it. 279. Defendants have taken no action to correct this pattern and practice of unlawful denials. 280. The Plaintiff children in this case were born in the United States and are United States citizens. 281. All parents have a fundamental right to raise their children as they see fit. to protect them, provide for them. and make all key decisions as to their health education and welt~ue. 282. Such parental/tamilial rights arc liberty and property interests protected by the fourteenth amendment of the U.S. constitution. 283. The denial of birth certificates deprives the Plaintiff parents ofany official confirmation of their relationship to their own children.
56

Case 1:15-cv-00446-RP Document 127 Filed 03/29/16 Page 57 of 62
284. Such denial greatly obstructs and burdens the Plaintiffs' parents· rights to consent to urgent medical care, to arrange travel for their children. to enroll their children in school, and to obtain other educational, health and cultural benetits tor which such U.S. citizen children are eligible. 285. Dclendants are denying the birth certificates to Plaintiff parents on the basis of their immigration status. 286. Defendants have no adequate state justification tor their discriminatory denial of birth certilicates to Plaintiffs. 287. Defendants are also violating the Due Process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by tailing and refusing to articulate, impose and enforce clear, rational, and consistent standards tor obtaining birth certificates. and by tailing to properly intonn applicants of those standards. 288. Plaintifts are left without adequate notice as to how to obtain a birth certificate, and without reasonable and unilonn consideration of their applications therefore. 289. Defendants· conduct violates both the substantive and procedural Due Process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. 290. Defendants· conduct is causing and will cause Plaintiffs irreparable hann as set torth above. 291. Plaintiffs seck declaratory and injunctive relief against Defendants llellersted, Traylor and Harris in their onicial capacities, declaring their current practices and/or regulation unconstitutional. and enjoining the Dclendants· current failure and refusal to accept any identification reasonably accessible to the Plaintiffs. 292. Plaintiffs bring this claim pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983 and 28 U.S.C. §2201 .
57

Case 1:15-cv-00446-RP Document 127 Filed 03/29/16 Page 58 of 62
FIFTH CAUSE OFACTION: SUPREMACY CLAUSE AND PREEMPTION
293. Plaintiffs herein incorporate Paragraphs 1- 151 above. 294. Defendants Ifarris, Jlellerstedt, and Traylor have. during all relevant time periods, acted in their ofticial capacities on behalfof the State of Texas. 295. Defendants have at all times acted under color of state law. 296. The tederal government has preempted the f1eld of immigration and birthright citizenship. especially matters involving the rights, privileges, and penalties applicable to persons present in this country who have not yet attained legal immigration status. 297. Specitically. Congress has promulgated extensive statutory provisions and regulations with regard to such immigrants· documentation. employment, benetits, shelter, penalties, and numerous other matters. 298. Determination of immigration policies. including the treatment. rights and privileges of such immigrants, is the exclusive function of the federal government. 299. Likewise. matters of international diplomacy and tbreign affairs are solely matters tor the tederal government. 300. Defendants have no authority to intertere with such matters. 301. Defendants have violated the Supremacy Clause or the United States Constitution by refusing to accept valid consular identilication cards and/or valid toreign passports or any other lorm of identi lication reasonably accessible to the Piainti ffs. 302. Plaintiffs have been and will be irreparably harmed by the unconstitutional actions and policies or Defendants. 303. lnlliction ofsuch harms and hardships upon the Plaintirts in turn harms lcdcral diplomatic and international affairs.
58

Case 1:15-cv-00446-RP Document 127 Filed 03/29/16 Page 59 of 62
304. Likewise, lorcing foreign governments to respond to the 11 fly states on such key matters interteres with federal diplomatic and foreign affairs. 305. Such sanctions and hardships also interfere and contlict with the careful, extensive and detailed federal statutory scheme tor immigration. 306. Defendants have at all times acted knowingly and intentionally. 307. Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief against Defendants Harris and Cole in their official capacities~ declaring Defendants' current practices unconstitutional, and enjoining the current rejection of valid consular malricu/as and/or passports. 308. Plaintiffs bring this claim pursuant to 42 U.S.C'. § 1983 and 28 U.S.C'. §2201.
WHEREFORE PLAINTIFFS PRAY THAT THIS COURT: 1. GRANT Plaintiffs' request tor a Declaratory Judgment. declaring that the denial of birth certit1cates to Texas-born children on the basis of their parents· immigration status is a violation of the Equal Protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. 2. GRANT Plaintiffs· request for a Declaratory Judgment, declaring that the denial of birth certificates to Texas-born children on the basis of their parents' immigration status 1s a violation of the Due Process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. 3. GRANT Plaintiffs· request for a Declaratory Judgment, declaring the Defendants' failure and refusal to accept any form of identification reasonably accessible to the Plaintiff parents. and hence the denial of birth certificates for their Texas-born children, is a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. 4. GRANT Plaintiffs· request for a Declaratory Judgment. declaring the Dclendants'
59

Case 1:15-cv-00446-RP Document 127 Filed 03/29/16 Page 60 of 62
failure and refusal to accept any form of identification reasonably accessible to the Plaintiff parents, and hence the denial of birth certificates for their Texas-born children, is a violation of the Due Process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. 5. GRANT Plaintiffs' request lor a Declaratory Judgment, declaring the Defendants' failure and refusal to correct the ongoing pattern and practice of refusing birth certificates even to undocumented immigrants able to produce at least one acceptable identification torm violates the Equal Protection clause and Due process of the Fourteenth Amendment. 6. GRANT Plaintiffs' request tor a Declaratory Judgment, declaring the Defendants' failure and refusal to set articulate and entorce unitorm and rational eligibility criterion is a violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. 7. GRANT Plaintiffs' request for a Declaratory Judgment. declaring that the denial of birth certiticates to undocumented parents for their Texas-born children is preempted by the federal government, and that Defendants' current policies violate the Supremacy Clause. 8. ISSUE an injunction requiring Defendants to immediately identity at least two forms of identi lication reasonably and actually accessible to undocumented immigrant parents now present in Texas. including adult Plaintills: and to issue birth certificates forthwith to any Texas-born child upon presentation ofeither form of parental identification. or in the alternative. requiring Defendants to return to the 2012 status quo. 9. ISSUE an injunction enjoining Defendants, in the alternative, from enforcing the current regulations and policies of rejecting both consular identification such as the matricula. as well as passports \Vithout U.S. visas. consular identilication and foreign passports without U.S. visas. I0. ORDER Defendants to pay attorneys· f·ecs. costs. interest. and all other such matters as this Court deems just and reasonable.
60

Case 1:15-cv-00446-RP Document 127 Filed 03/29/16 Page 61 of 62
Respectfully Submitted,
/S/Jennitcr K. Harbury
Jenniter K. Harbury Attorney in Charge9 Texas Bar No. 08946500 S.D. No.26569 TEXAS RIOGRANDE LEGAL AID, INC. 300 S. Texas Blvd. Weslaco, Texas 78596 Tel. 956-447-4800 Fax:956-968-8823
/S/ Marinda van Dalen
Marinda van Dalen Attorney at Law Texas Bar No. 00789698 S.D. No. 17577 TEXAS RIOGRANDE LEGAL AID. INC. 531 E. St. francis St. Brownsville , TX 78520 Tel. 956-982-5540 Fax: 956-541-1410
IS! Etrcn C. 0 livares
Etren C. Olivares Attorney at Law Texas Bar No. 24065844 Southern DistrictofTcxas No. 1015826
SOUTll TEXAS CIVIL RIGIITS PROJECT 1017 W. llackberry Ave. Alamo. Texas 78516 Tel956-787-8171 Fax: 956-787-6348
'I Texas RioGrandc Legal Aid, Inc. represents all PlaintiiTchildrcn in this case. All adult Plaintiiis arc represented by the fc~as Civil Rights Pr~jcct.
61

Case 1:15-cv-00446-RP Document 127 Filed 03/29/16 Page 62 of 62 Certi licate of Service:
I. Jennit~r K. Harbury, hereby certify that this Fourth Amended Complaint was Served upon the Defendants by t-iling the same through this Court's electronic filing service on March 29, 2016. /S/ Jennifer K. Harbury Jennifer K. Harbury Attorney at Law
62

 
 Case: 1:15-cv-446 As of: 11/02/2017 03:49 PM CDT 1 of 44
U.S. District Court [LIVE] Western District of Texas (Austin) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:15−cv−00446−RP

CLOSED

Perales Serna et al v. Texas Department of State Health Services, Vital Statistics Unit et al Assigned to: Judge Robert Pitman Cause: 28:1331 Federal Question: Other Civil Rights
Plaintiff

Date Filed: 05/26/2015 Date Terminated: 05/09/2017 Jury Demand: Plaintiff Nature of Suit: 440 Civil Rights: Other Jurisdiction: Federal Question

Maria Isabel Perales Serna on her own behalf and as next friend for her minor daughter K.Z.P.S. TERMINATED: 03/28/2016

represented by Efren Carlos Olivares Texas Civil Rights Project 1017 W. Hackberry Alamo, TX 78516 956−787−8171 ext. 108 Fax: 956−787−6348 Email: efren@texascivilrightsproject.org TERMINATED: 03/28/2016 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

James C. Harrington 1405 Montopolis Drive Austin, TX 78741 (512) 771−1759 Email: jch@utexas.edu TERMINATED: 03/28/2016 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jennifer K. Harbury Texas Rio Grande Legal Aid, Inc. TRLA, 300 S. Texas Blvd. Weslaco, TX 78596 956−447−4800 Fax: 956−968−8823 Email: jharbury@trla.org TERMINATED: 03/28/2016 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marinda Van Dalen Texas RioGrande Legal Aid 1206 E. Van Buren Brownsville, TX 78520 956−982−5543 Fax: 956−541−1410 Email: mvandalen@trla.org TERMINATED: 03/28/2016 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Luisa Ines Barragan on her own behalf and as next friend for her minor son L.A.B. TERMINATED: 12/23/2015

represented by Efren Carlos Olivares (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

James C. Harrington (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/19/2016

Case: 1:15-cv-446 As of: 11/02/2017 03:49 PM CDT 2 of 44

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jennifer K. Harbury (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marinda Van Dalen (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Maria Del Rosario Teran Uriegas on her own behalf and as next friend for her minor son, Plaintiff S.Z. TERMINATED: 12/23/2015

represented by Efren Carlos Olivares (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

James C. Harrington (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/19/2016 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jennifer K. Harbury (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marinda Van Dalen (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Nancy Garcia Castro on her own behalf anf as next friend for her three minor children, L.M., J.M., and Y.M. TERMINATED: 12/23/2015

represented by Efren Carlos Olivares (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
James C. Harrington (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/19/2016 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jennifer K. Harbury (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marinda Van Dalen (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Brizeida Sanchez on her own behalf and on behalf of her minor children B.L.R. and L.A.R. TERMINATED: 12/23/2015

represented by Efren Carlos Olivares (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 1:15-cv-446 As of: 11/02/2017 03:49 PM CDT 3 of 44

James C. Harrington (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/19/2016 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jennifer K. Harbury (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marinda Van Dalen (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Juana Gomez on her own behalf and on behalf of her minor daughter E.S.

represented by Efren Carlos Olivares (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

James C. Harrington (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/19/2016 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jennifer K. Harbury (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marinda Van Dalen (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Mimi M.D. Marziani Texas Civil Rights Project 1405 Montopolis Drive Austin, TX 78741 512−474−5073 x108 Fax: 512−474−0726 Email: mimi@texascivilrightsproject.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Yveth Vega Diaz on her own behalf and on behalf of her minor daughter N.Y.R.

represented by Efren Carlos Olivares (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

James C. Harrington (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/19/2016 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jennifer K. Harbury (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 1:15-cv-446 As of: 11/02/2017 03:49 PM CDT 4 of 44

Plaintiff Juan Carlos Rodriguez Velasquez on his own behalf and on behalf of his minor daughter Y.R.R.I.
Plaintiff Diana Hernandez on her own behalf and on behalf of her minor son M.A.R.H.

Marinda Van Dalen (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mimi M.D. Marziani (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Efren Carlos Olivares (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
James C. Harrington (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/19/2016 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jennifer K. Harbury (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marinda Van Dalen (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mimi M.D. Marziani (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Efren Carlos Olivares (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
James C. Harrington (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/19/2016 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jennifer K. Harbury (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marinda Van Dalen (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mimi M.D. Marziani (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 1:15-cv-446 As of: 11/02/2017 03:49 PM CDT 5 of 44

Plaintiff Antonia Rodriguez on her own behalf and on behalf of her minor daughter J.N.A.R.
Plaintiff Flavia Garza on her own behalf and on behalf of her minor sons, D.G. and S.G. TERMINATED: 04/27/2016
Plaintiff Javier Reyes on his own behalf and on behalf of his minor son M.A.R.H.

represented by Efren Carlos Olivares (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
James C. Harrington (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/19/2016 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jennifer K. Harbury (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marinda Van Dalen (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mimi M.D. Marziani (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Efren Carlos Olivares (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/27/2016 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
James C. Harrington (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/19/2016 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jennifer K. Harbury (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/27/2016 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marinda Van Dalen (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/27/2016 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mimi M.D. Marziani (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/27/2016 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Efren Carlos Olivares (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Case: 1:15-cv-446 As of: 11/02/2017 03:49 PM CDT 6 of 44

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

James C. Harrington (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/19/2016 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jennifer K. Harbury (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marinda Van Dalen (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Mimi M.D. Marziani (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Marcelina Rangel Martinez on her own behalf and on behalf of her minor children A.M.P. and S.A.P.

represented by Efren Carlos Olivares (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

James C. Harrington (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/19/2016 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jennifer K. Harbury (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marinda Van Dalen (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Mimi M.D. Marziani (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Katerine Johana Portillo on her own behalf and on behalf of her minor daughter K.E.P.

represented by Efren Carlos Olivares (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

James C. Harrington (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/19/2016 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jennifer K. Harbury (See above for address)

Case: 1:15-cv-446 As of: 11/02/2017 03:49 PM CDT 7 of 44

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marinda Van Dalen (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Mimi M.D. Marziani (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Damaris Romero Hernandez de Reyes on her own behalf and on behalf of her minor sons J.R.R. and G.G.R.

represented by Efren Carlos Olivares (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

James C. Harrington (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/19/2016 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jennifer K. Harbury (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marinda Van Dalen (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Mimi M.D. Marziani (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Marta Alicia Ibarra Luna on her own behalf and on behalf of her minor daughter Y.R.R.I.

represented by Efren Carlos Olivares (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

James C. Harrington (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/19/2016 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jennifer K. Harbury (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marinda Van Dalen (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Mimi M.D. Marziani (See above for address)

Case: 1:15-cv-446 As of: 11/02/2017 03:49 PM CDT 8 of 44

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Rosa Isela Garcia Naranjo on her own behalf and on behalf of her minor son, F.D. TERMINATED: 12/23/2015

represented by Efren Carlos Olivares (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

James C. Harrington (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/19/2016 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jennifer K. Harbury (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marinda Van Dalen (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Nancy Hernandez on her own behalf and on behalf of her minor daughter R.J.H.

represented by Efren Carlos Olivares (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

James C. Harrington (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/19/2016 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jennifer K. Harbury (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marinda Van Dalen (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Mimi M.D. Marziani (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Fany Ventura on her own behalf and on behalf of her minor daughter E.I.H.

represented by Efren Carlos Olivares (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

James C. Harrington (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/19/2016 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 1:15-cv-446 As of: 11/02/2017 03:49 PM CDT 9 of 44

Plaintiff Paulina Nieto Ibarra on her own behalf and on behalf of her minor son B.R. TERMINATED: 12/23/2015
Plaintiff Estrella De Jesus Cedillo Nieto TERMINATED: 12/23/2015
Plaintiff Violeta Vega on her own behalf and on behalf of her

Jennifer K. Harbury (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marinda Van Dalen (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mimi M.D. Marziani (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Efren Carlos Olivares (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
James C. Harrington (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/19/2016 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jennifer K. Harbury (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marinda Van Dalen (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Efren Carlos Olivares (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
James C. Harrington (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/19/2016 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jennifer K. Harbury (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marinda Van Dalen (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Efren Carlos Olivares (See above for address)

Case: 1:15-cv-446 As of: 11/02/2017 03:49 PM CDT 10 of 44

minor son M.G.R. TERMINATED: 03/28/2016

TERMINATED: 03/28/2016 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

James C. Harrington (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/28/2016 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jennifer K. Harbury (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/28/2016 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marinda Van Dalen (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/28/2016 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Leticia Torres on her own behalf and on behalf of her minor daughter S.G.G. TERMINATED: 12/23/2015

represented by Efren Carlos Olivares (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

James C. Harrington (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/19/2016 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jennifer K. Harbury (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marinda Van Dalen (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Eloina Palafox on her own behalf and on behalf of her minor daughter J.M. TERMINATED: 02/16/2016

represented by Efren Carlos Olivares (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

James C. Harrington (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/19/2016 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jennifer K. Harbury (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/16/2016 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marinda Van Dalen (See above for address)

Case: 1:15-cv-446 As of: 11/02/2017 03:49 PM CDT 11 of 44

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Giovanna Castro on her own behalf and on behalf of her minor daugter J.J.A.

represented by Efren Carlos Olivares (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

James C. Harrington (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/19/2016 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jennifer K. Harbury (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marinda Van Dalen (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Mimi M.D. Marziani (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Quenia Perez on her own behalf and on behalf of her minor sons J.A.R. and Y.F.

represented by Efren Carlos Olivares (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

James C. Harrington (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/19/2016 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jennifer K. Harbury (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marinda Van Dalen (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Mimi M.D. Marziani (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Yesenia Cortez on her own behalf and on behalf of her minor son N.F.C. TERMINATED: 12/23/2015

represented by Efren Carlos Olivares (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 1:15-cv-446 As of: 11/02/2017 03:49 PM CDT 12 of 44

James C. Harrington (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/19/2016 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jennifer K. Harbury (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marinda Van Dalen (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Cynthia Ibarra on her own behalf and on behalf of her minor daughter K.E.R.

represented by Efren Carlos Olivares (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

James C. Harrington (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/19/2016 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jennifer K. Harbury (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marinda Van Dalen (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Mimi M.D. Marziani (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Maria Carrillo on her own behalf and on behalf of her minor son A.S.

represented by Efren Carlos Olivares (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

James C. Harrington (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/19/2016 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jennifer K. Harbury (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marinda Van Dalen (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 1:15-cv-446 As of: 11/02/2017 03:49 PM CDT 13 of 44

Plaintiff Yuliana Dominguez on her own behalf and on behalf of her minor son A.J.M.
Plaintiff Diana Parras on her own behalf and on behalf of her minor daughter A.L.M.
Plaintiff Maria Torres on her own behalf and on behalf of her

Mimi M.D. Marziani (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Efren Carlos Olivares (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
James C. Harrington (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/19/2016 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jennifer K. Harbury (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marinda Van Dalen (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mimi M.D. Marziani (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Efren Carlos Olivares (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
James C. Harrington (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/19/2016 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jennifer K. Harbury (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marinda Van Dalen (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mimi M.D. Marziani (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Efren Carlos Olivares (See above for address)

Case: 1:15-cv-446 As of: 11/02/2017 03:49 PM CDT 14 of 44

minor daughter F.T.

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

James C. Harrington (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/19/2016 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jennifer K. Harbury (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marinda Van Dalen (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Mimi M.D. Marziani (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Maria Francisca Rodriguez on her own behalf and on behalf of her minor son G.M.

represented by Efren Carlos Olivares (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

James C. Harrington (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/19/2016 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jennifer K. Harbury (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marinda Van Dalen (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Mimi M.D. Marziani (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Leonor Reyna Flores on her own behalf and on behalf of her minor son G.C.

represented by Efren Carlos Olivares (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

James C. Harrington (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/19/2016 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jennifer K. Harbury

Case: 1:15-cv-446 As of: 11/02/2017 03:49 PM CDT 15 of 44

(See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marinda Van Dalen (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Mimi M.D. Marziani (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Mirna Ugalde on her own behalf and on behalf of her minor sons J.P. and G.P.

represented by Efren Carlos Olivares (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

James C. Harrington (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/19/2016 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jennifer K. Harbury (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marinda Van Dalen (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Mimi M.D. Marziani (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Patricia Rojas on her own behalf and on behalf of her minor son M.L.

represented by Efren Carlos Olivares (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

James C. Harrington (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/19/2016 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jennifer K. Harbury (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marinda Van Dalen (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Mimi M.D. Marziani

Case: 1:15-cv-446 As of: 11/02/2017 03:49 PM CDT 16 of 44

(See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff La Union Del Pueblo Entero

represented by Efren Carlos Olivares (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

James C. Harrington (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/19/2016 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jennifer K. Harbury (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marinda Van Dalen (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Mimi M.D. Marziani (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Maria De Luna on her own behalf and on behalf of her minor daughter A.R.

represented by Marinda Van Dalen (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Mimi M.D. Marziani (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Efren Carlos Olivares (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jennifer K. Harbury (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Felipa Velazquez on her own behalf and on behalf of her minor son S.I.V.

represented by Jennifer K. Harbury (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marinda Van Dalen (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Mimi M.D. Marziani (See above for address)

Case: 1:15-cv-446 As of: 11/02/2017 03:49 PM CDT 17 of 44

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Efren Carlos Olivares (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Maria Teresita Madera Esparza on her own behalf and on behalf of her minor son N.A.

represented by Marinda Van Dalen (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Mimi M.D. Marziani (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Efren Carlos Olivares (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jennifer K. Harbury (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Maria del Carmen Reyes Zapata

represented by Marinda Van Dalen (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Mimi M.D. Marziani (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Efren Carlos Olivares (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jennifer K. Harbury (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Ana Karina Ramirez Gonzalez on her own behalf and on behalf of her minor daughter D.C.

represented by Marinda Van Dalen (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Mimi M.D. Marziani (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Efren Carlos Olivares (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jennifer K. Harbury (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 1:15-cv-446 As of: 11/02/2017 03:49 PM CDT 18 of 44

V. Defendant Texas Department of State Health Services, Vital Statistics Unit TERMINATED: 12/23/2015
Defendant Kirk Cole in his official capacity
Defendant Geraldine Harris in her official capacity

represented by Marc Edward Rietvelt Office of the Attorney General Capitol Station PO Box 12548 Austin, TX 78711 512−463−2120 Email: marc.rietvelt@oag.texas.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Thomas A. Albright Office of the Attorney General General Litigation Division P. O. Box 12548, Capitol Station Austin, TX 78711−2548 (512) 463−2120 Fax: (512) 320−0667 Email: Thomas.Albright@oag.texas.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by John Earl Duke Constangy Brooks Smith & Prophete LLP 8911 N. Capital of Texas Highway, Bldg 3, Suite 3350 Austin, TX 78759 (512) 382−8797 Email: jduke@constangy.com TERMINATED: 12/05/2016 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Edward Rietvelt (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Thomas A. Albright (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by John Earl Duke (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/05/2016 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Edward Rietvelt (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Thomas A. Albright (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 1:15-cv-446 As of: 11/02/2017 03:49 PM CDT 19 of 44

Defendant Chris Traylor Executive Commissioner of Texas Health and Human Services Commission
Amicus Anti−Defamation League
Amicus United Mexican States
Amicus National Immigration Law Center Amicus for Plaintiffs

represented by John Earl Duke (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/05/2016 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Thomas A. Albright (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Edward Rietvelt (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Cheryl R. Drazin Anti−Defamation League 12800 Hillcrest Road Suite 219 Dallas, TX 75230 972−960−0342 Fax: 972−960−0591 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lauren Jones 605 Third Avenue New York, NY 10158 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Steve Freeman 605 Third Avenue New York, NY 10158 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Virginia Marie Raymond Law Office of Virginia Raymond 1006 East Cesar Chavez Street Austin, TX 78702 512−472−6270 Fax: 512−472−8263 Email: virginiaraymond@austin.rr.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Daniel M. Kowalski The Fowler Law Firm, P.C. 919 Congress Ave − Ste 900 Austin, TX 78701 (512) 441−1411 Fax: (512) 469−2975 Email: dkowalski@thefowlerlawfirm.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Melissa S. Keaney

Case: 1:15-cv-446 As of: 11/02/2017 03:49 PM CDT 20 of 44

National Immigration Law Center 3435 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 2850 Los Angeles, CA 90010 213−639−3900 Fax: 213−639−3911 Email: keaney@nilc.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Nicholas Espiritu National Immigration Law Center 3435 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 2850 Los Angeles, CA 90010 (213) 639−3900 Email: espiritu@nilc.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Amicus El Salvador

Amicus Guatemala

Amicus Honduras

Amicus Texas Appleseed Foundation

represented by David P. Lein Graves Dougherty Hearon & Moody, PC P.O. Box 98 Austin, TX 78767 (512) 480−5717 Fax: 512/536−9917 Email: dlein@gdhm.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Gary L. Lewis George Brothers Kincaid & Horton, L.L.P. 1100 Norwood Tower 114 W. Seventh St. Suite 1100 Austin, TX 78701 (512) 495−1400 Fax: 512/499−0094 Email: glewis@gbkh.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Peter D. Kennedy Graves, Dougherty, Hearon & Moody, PC 401 Congress Avenue − Suite 2200 Austin, TX 78701 (512) 480−5764 Fax: 512/536−9908 Email: pkennedy@gdhm.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

R. James George , Jr. George, Brothers, Kincaid & Horton, LLP

Case: 1:15-cv-446 As of: 11/02/2017 03:49 PM CDT 21 of 44

114 W. 7th Street, Suite 1100 Austin, TX 78701 (512) 495−1400 Fax: 512/499−0094 Email: rjgeorge@gbkh.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Amicus
American Civil Liberties Union of Texas

Amicus
American Civil Liberties Union Foundation

Movant Legislative Budget Board

represented by Kimberly Fuchs Office of the Texas Attorney General P.O. Box 12548 Capitol Station Austin, TX 78711−2548 (512) 463−2080 Fax: (512) 495−9139 Email: kimberly.fuchs@texasattorneygeneral.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant Texas Legislative Council

represented by Kimberly Fuchs (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Neutral Magistrate Andrew W. Austin

Date Filed 05/26/2015
05/26/2015 05/26/2015
05/26/2015 05/27/2015

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT ( Filing fee $ 400 receipt number 0542−7474658). No Summons requested at this time, filed by SZ, Luisa Ines Barragan Gutierrez, Nancy Garcia Castro, JM, KZPS, LM, LAB, Maria Isabel Perales Serna, YM, Maria Teran Uriegas. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet)(Harbury, Jennifer) (Additional attachment(s) added on 5/29/2015: # 2 Sealed Exhibit) (dm). (Entered: 05/26/2015)
2 Motion for leave to File Sealed Document (Attachments: # 1 Sealed Document, # 2 Proposed Order) (Harbury, Jennifer) (Entered: 05/26/2015)
Case Assigned to Judge Robert Pitman. CM WILL NOW REFLECT THE JUDGE INITIALS AS PART OF THE CASE NUMBER. PLEASE APPEND THESE JUDGE INITIALS TO THE CASE NUMBER ON EACH DOCUMENT THAT YOU FILE IN THIS CASE. (afd) (Entered: 05/26/2015)
3 Letters to Marinda Van Dalen and Efren C. Olivares re: Non−Admitted Status. (afd) (Entered: 05/26/2015)
Text Order GRANTING 2 Motion for Leave to File Sealed Document entered by Judge Robert Pitman. (This is a text−only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (aemp) (Entered: 05/27/2015)

Case: 1:15-cv-446 As of: 11/02/2017 03:49 PM CDT 22 of 44

06/08/2015 06/10/2015
06/10/2015 06/11/2015 06/11/2015
06/15/2015 06/16/2015 06/16/2015
06/17/2015 06/17/2015
06/18/2015 06/26/2015 06/26/2015

4 MOTION to Appear Pro Hac Vice by Efren Carlos Olicares ( Filing fee $ 100 receipt number 100024349) by Luisa Ines Barragan, Nancy Garcia Castro, Maria Isabel Perales Serna, Maria Del Rosario Teran Uriegas. (dm) (Entered: 06/09/2015)
Text Order GRANTING 4 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice by attorney Efren Carlos Olivares, entered by Judge Robert Pitman. Pursuant to our Administrative Policies and Procedures for Electronic Filing, the attorney hereby granted to practice pro hac vice in this case must register for electronic filing with our court within 10 days of this order. (This is a text−only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (aemp) (Entered: 06/10/2015)
5 MOTION to Join Parties by Luisa Ines Barragan, Nancy Garcia Castro, Maria Isabel Perales Serna, Maria Del Rosario Teran Uriegas. (Attachments: # 1 Amended Complaint, # 2 Proposed Order)(Harbury, Jennifer) (Entered: 06/10/2015)
Text Order GRANTING 5 Motion to Join Parties entered by Judge Robert Pitman. (This is a text−only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (aemp) (Entered: 06/11/2015)
6 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT against Kirk Cole, Geraldine Harris, Texas Department of State Health Services, Vital Statistics Unit amending 1 Complaint,., filed by Nancy Garcia Castro, Maria Isabel Perales Serna, Luisa Ines Barragan, Maria Del Rosario Teran Uriegas, Brizeida Sanchez, Juana Gomez, Yveth Vega Diaz, Juan Carlos Rodriguez Velasquez, Diana Hernandez, Antonia Rodriguez, Flavia Garza, Javier Reyes, Marcelina Rangel Martinez, Katerine Johana Portillo, Damaris Romero Hernandez de Reyes, Marta Alicia Ibarra Luna, Rosa Isela Garcia Naranjo, Nancy Hernandez, Fany Ventura.(dm) (Additional attachment(s) added on 6/16/2015: # 1 Sealed List of Names) (dm). (Entered: 06/11/2015)
7 Motion for leave to File Sealed Document (Attachments: # 1 Sealed Document, # 2 Proposed Order) (Harbury, Jennifer) (Entered: 06/15/2015)
Text Order GRANTING 7 Motion for Leave to File Sealed Document entered by Judge Robert Pitman. (This is a text−only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (aemp) (Entered: 06/16/2015)
8 REQUEST FOR ISSUANCE OF SUMMONS by Luisa Ines Barragan, Nancy Garcia Castro, Rosa Isela Garcia Naranjo, Flavia Garza, Juana Gomez, Diana Hernandez, Nancy Hernandez, Marta Alicia Ibarra Luna, Maria Isabel Perales Serna, Katerine Johana Portillo, Marcelina Rangel Martinez, Javier Reyes, Antonia Rodriguez, Juan Carlos Rodriguez Velasquez, Damaris Romero Hernandez de Reyes, Brizeida Sanchez, Maria Del Rosario Teran Uriegas, Yveth Vega Diaz, Fany Ventura. (Harbury, Jennifer) (Entered: 06/16/2015)
9 Summons Issued as to Kirk Cole, Geraldine Harris, Texas Department of State Health Services, Vital Statistics Unit. (dm) (Entered: 06/17/2015)
10 REQUEST FOR ISSUANCE OF SUMMONS by Luisa Ines Barragan, Nancy Garcia Castro, Rosa Isela Garcia Naranjo, Flavia Garza, Juana Gomez, Diana Hernandez, Nancy Hernandez, Marta Alicia Ibarra Luna, Maria Isabel Perales Serna, Katerine Johana Portillo, Marcelina Rangel Martinez, Javier Reyes, Antonia Rodriguez, Juan Carlos Rodriguez Velasquez, Damaris Romero Hernandez de Reyes, Brizeida Sanchez, Maria Del Rosario Teran Uriegas, Yveth Vega Diaz, Fany Ventura. (Harbury, Jennifer) (Entered: 06/17/2015)
11 Summons Reissued as to Kirk Cole, Geraldine Harris, Texas Department of State Health Services, Vital Statistics Unit. (dm) (Entered: 06/18/2015)
12 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer re 6 Amended Complaint,, by Kirk Cole, Geraldine Harris, Texas Department of State Health Services, Vital Statistics Unit. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Albright, Thomas) (Entered: 06/26/2015)
Text Order GRANTING 12 Motion for Extension of Time to Answer entered by Judge Robert Pitman. Deft's responsive pleading due by July 22, 2015. (This is a text−only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (jg) (Entered: 06/26/2015)

Case: 1:15-cv-446 As of: 11/02/2017 03:49 PM CDT 23 of 44

06/26/2015 06/29/2015
06/29/2015
06/29/2015
07/22/2015 08/05/2015
08/12/2015 08/13/2015 08/13/2015 08/14/2015 08/14/2015 08/18/2015

Reset Deadlines: Kirk Cole answer due 7/22/2015; Geraldine Harris answer due 7/22/2015; Texas Department of State Health Services, Vital Statistics Unit answer due 7/22/2015. (dm) (Entered: 06/26/2015)
13 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Luisa Ines Barragan, Nancy Garcia Castro, Rosa Isela Garcia Naranjo, Flavia Garza, Juana Gomez, Diana Hernandez, Nancy Hernandez, Marta Alicia Ibarra Luna, Maria Isabel Perales Serna, Katerine Johana Portillo, Marcelina Rangel Martinez, Javier Reyes, Antonia Rodriguez, Juan Carlos Rodriguez Velasquez, Damaris Romero Hernandez de Reyes, Brizeida Sanchez, Maria Del Rosario Teran Uriegas, Yveth Vega Diaz, Fany Ventura (Harbury, Jennifer) (Entered: 06/29/2015)
14 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Luisa Ines Barragan, Nancy Garcia Castro, Rosa Isela Garcia Naranjo, Flavia Garza, Juana Gomez, Diana Hernandez, Nancy Hernandez, Marta Alicia Ibarra Luna, Maria Isabel Perales Serna, Katerine Johana Portillo, Marcelina Rangel Martinez, Javier Reyes, Antonia Rodriguez, Juan Carlos Rodriguez Velasquez, Damaris Romero Hernandez de Reyes, Brizeida Sanchez, Maria Del Rosario Teran Uriegas, Yveth Vega Diaz, Fany Ventura (Harbury, Jennifer) (Entered: 06/29/2015)
15 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Luisa Ines Barragan, Nancy Garcia Castro, Rosa Isela Garcia Naranjo, Flavia Garza, Juana Gomez, Diana Hernandez, Nancy Hernandez, Marta Alicia Ibarra Luna, Maria Isabel Perales Serna, Katerine Johana Portillo, Marcelina Rangel Martinez, Javier Reyes, Antonia Rodriguez, Juan Carlos Rodriguez Velasquez, Damaris Romero Hernandez de Reyes, Brizeida Sanchez, Maria Del Rosario Teran Uriegas, Yveth Vega Diaz, Fany Ventura (Harbury, Jennifer) (Entered: 06/29/2015)
16 MOTION to Dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) by Kirk Cole, Geraldine Harris, Texas Department of State Health Services, Vital Statistics Unit. (Albright, Thomas) (Entered: 07/22/2015)
17 Response in Opposition to Motion, filed by Luisa Ines Barragan, Nancy Garcia Castro, Rosa Isela Garcia Naranjo, Flavia Garza, Juana Gomez, Diana Hernandez, Nancy Hernandez, Marta Alicia Ibarra Luna, Maria Isabel Perales Serna, Katerine Johana Portillo, Marcelina Rangel Martinez, Javier Reyes, Antonia Rodriguez, Juan Carlos Rodriguez Velasquez, Damaris Romero Hernandez de Reyes, Brizeida Sanchez, Maria Del Rosario Teran Uriegas, Yveth Vega Diaz, Fany Ventura, re 16 MOTION to Dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) filed by Defendant Geraldine Harris, Defendant Texas Department of State Health Services, Vital Statistics Unit, Defendant Kirk Cole (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Harbury, Jennifer) (Entered: 08/05/2015)
19 MOTION for Leave to File Amicus Brief by Cheryl R. Drazin. by Anti−Defamation League. (Attachments: # 1 Amicus Letter Brief)(dm) (Entered: 08/13/2015)
18 REPLY to Response to Motion, filed by Kirk Cole, Geraldine Harris, Texas Department of State Health Services, Vital Statistics Unit, re 16 MOTION to Dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) filed by Defendant Geraldine Harris, Defendant Texas Department of State Health Services, Vital Statistics Unit, Defendant Kirk Cole (Albright, Thomas) (Entered: 08/13/2015)
20 Response in Opposition to Motion, filed by Kirk Cole, Geraldine Harris, Texas Department of State Health Services, Vital Statistics Unit, re 19 MOTION for Leave to File Amicus Brief by Cheryl R. Drazin. filed by Amicus Anti−Defamation League (Albright, Thomas) (Entered: 08/13/2015)
Text Order GRANTING 19 Motion for Leave to File Amicus Brief entered by Judge Robert Pitman. (This is a text−only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (aemp) (Entered: 08/14/2015)
21 AMICUS LETTER BRIEF by Anti−Defamation League. (dm) (Entered: 08/14/2015)
22 MOTION to Amend Complaint by Luisa Ines Barragan, Nancy Garcia Castro, Rosa Isela Garcia Naranjo, Flavia Garza, Juana Gomez, Diana Hernandez, Nancy Hernandez, Marta Alicia Ibarra Luna, Maria Isabel Perales Serna, Katerine Johana Portillo, Marcelina Rangel Martinez, Javier Reyes, Antonia Rodriguez, Juan Carlos Rodriguez Velasquez, Damaris Romero Hernandez de Reyes, Brizeida Sanchez, Maria

Case: 1:15-cv-446 As of: 11/02/2017 03:49 PM CDT 24 of 44

08/18/2015
08/21/2015
08/21/2015
08/24/2015 08/24/2015 08/25/2015
08/25/2015 08/26/2015 08/26/2015 08/26/2015

Del Rosario Teran Uriegas, Yveth Vega Diaz, Fany Ventura. (Attachments: # 1 Amended Complaint, # 2 Proposed Order)(Harbury, Jennifer) (Entered: 08/18/2015)
23 NOTICE of Correction by Luisa Ines Barragan, Nancy Garcia Castro, Rosa Isela Garcia Naranjo, Flavia Garza, Juana Gomez, Diana Hernandez, Nancy Hernandez, Marta Alicia Ibarra Luna, Maria Isabel Perales Serna, Katerine Johana Portillo, Marcelina Rangel Martinez, Javier Reyes, Antonia Rodriguez, Juan Carlos Rodriguez Velasquez, Damaris Romero Hernandez de Reyes, Brizeida Sanchez, Maria Del Rosario Teran Uriegas, Yveth Vega Diaz, Fany Ventura (Harbury, Jennifer) (Entered: 08/18/2015)
24 Unopposed MOTION for Leave to Exceed Page Limitation by Luisa Ines Barragan, Nancy Garcia Castro, Rosa Isela Garcia Naranjo, Flavia Garza, Juana Gomez, Diana Hernandez, Nancy Hernandez, Marta Alicia Ibarra Luna, Maria Isabel Perales Serna, Katerine Johana Portillo, Marcelina Rangel Martinez, Javier Reyes, Antonia Rodriguez, Juan Carlos Rodriguez Velasquez, Damaris Romero Hernandez de Reyes, Brizeida Sanchez, Maria Del Rosario Teran Uriegas, Yveth Vega Diaz, Fany Ventura. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Harbury, Jennifer) (Entered: 08/21/2015)
25 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction by Luisa Ines Barragan, Nancy Garcia Castro, Rosa Isela Garcia Naranjo, Flavia Garza, Juana Gomez, Diana Hernandez, Nancy Hernandez, Marta Alicia Ibarra Luna, Maria Isabel Perales Serna, Katerine Johana Portillo, Marcelina Rangel Martinez, Javier Reyes, Antonia Rodriguez, Juan Carlos Rodriguez Velasquez, Damaris Romero Hernandez de Reyes, Brizeida Sanchez, Maria Del Rosario Teran Uriegas, Yveth Vega Diaz, Fany Ventura. (Attachments: # 1**STRICKEN** Affidavit, # 2 Proposed Order)(Harbury, Jennifer) (Additional attachment(s) added on 9/28/2015: # 3 Amended Exhibit 1, # 4 Amended Affidavit) (dm). Modified on 9/28/2015 (dm). (Entered: 08/21/2015)
Text Order GRANTING 24 Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages entered by Judge Robert Pitman. (This is a text−only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (aemp) (Entered: 08/24/2015)
26 MOTION for Leave to File Amicus Brief by United Mexican States. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Amicus Curiae Brief)(td) (Entered: 08/24/2015)
27 Response in Opposition to Motion, filed by Kirk Cole, Geraldine Harris, Texas Department of State Health Services, Vital Statistics Unit, re 22 MOTION to Amend Complaint filed by Plaintiff Yveth Vega Diaz, Plaintiff Brizeida Sanchez, Plaintiff Damaris Romero Hernandez de Reyes, Plaintiff Rosa Isela Garcia Naranjo, Plaintiff Luisa Ines Barragan, Plaintiff Juan Carlos Rodriguez Velasquez, Plaintiff Flavia Garza, Plaintiff Maria Isabel Perales Serna, Plaintiff Maria Del Rosario Teran Uriegas, Plaintiff Fany Ventura, Plaintiff Antonia Rodriguez, Plaintiff Katerine Johana Portillo, Plaintiff Nancy Hernandez, Plaintiff Marcelina Rangel Martinez, Plaintiff Nancy Garcia Castro, Plaintiff Marta Alicia Ibarra Luna, Plaintiff Diana Hernandez, Plaintiff Javier Reyes, Plaintiff Juana Gomez (Albright, Thomas) (Entered: 08/25/2015)
28 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 25 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction by Kirk Cole, Geraldine Harris, Texas Department of State Health Services, Vital Statistics Unit. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Albright, Thomas) (Entered: 08/25/2015)
Text Order GRANTING 28 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply entered by Judge Robert Pitman. Defendants' response to the motion for preliminary injunction is due on or before September 4, 2015. (This is a text−only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (aemp) (Entered: 08/26/2015)
29 ORDER DISMISSING 16 Motion to Dismiss ; GRANTING 22 Motion to Amend Complaint. Signed by Judge Robert Pitman. (dm) (Entered: 08/26/2015)
30 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT against Kirk Cole, Geraldine Harris, Texas Department of State Health Services, Vital Statistics Unit amending 6 Amended Complaint, filed by Estrella De Jesus Cedillo Nieto, Marta Alicia Ibarra Luna, Javier Reyes, Fany Ventura, Nancy Garcia Castro, Rosa Isela Garcia Naranjo, Maria Isabel Perales Serna, Juana Gomez, Antonia Rodriguez, Juan Carlos Rodriguez Velasquez, Nancy Hernandez, Leticia Torres, Cynthia Ibarra, Quenia Perez, Giovanna Castro,

Case: 1:15-cv-446 As of: 11/02/2017 03:49 PM CDT 25 of 44

08/27/2015 08/28/2015 08/28/2015 08/31/2015
08/31/2015 08/31/2015 09/01/2015 09/01/2015 09/02/2015 09/02/2015 09/03/2015 09/04/2015 09/04/2015 09/04/2015 09/04/2015

Katerine Johana Portillo, Luisa Ines Barragan, Marcelina Rangel Martinez, Yveth Vega Diaz, Yesenia Cortez, Diana Hernandez, Eloina Palafox, Brizeida Sanchez, Paulina Nieto Ibarra, Damaris Romero Hernandez de Reyes, Flavia Garza, Violeta Vega, Maria Del Rosario Teran Uriegas.(dm) (Entered: 08/26/2015)
31 Third Party Motion for leave to File Sealed Document (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Proposed Order) (Harbury, Jennifer) (Entered: 08/27/2015)
Text Order GRANTING 31 Motion for Leave to File Sealed Document entered by Judge Robert Pitman. (This is a text−only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (aemp) (Entered: 08/28/2015)
32 Sealed Table of Names. (dm) (Entered: 08/28/2015)
33 Response in Opposition to Motion, filed by Kirk Cole, Geraldine Harris, Texas Department of State Health Services, Vital Statistics Unit, re 26 MOTION for Leave to File Amicus Brief filed by Amicus United Mexican States (Albright, Thomas) (Entered: 08/31/2015)
34 DEFICIENCY NOTICE: re 33 Response in Opposition to Motion, (dm) (Entered: 08/31/2015)
35 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Kirk Cole, Geraldine Harris, Texas Department of State Health Services, Vital Statistics Unit CORRECTED 33 Response in Opposition to Motion, (Albright, Thomas) (Entered: 08/31/2015)
Text Order GRANTING 26 Motion for Leave to File Amicus Brief entered by Judge Robert Pitman. (This is a text−only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (aemp) (Entered: 09/01/2015)
36 BRIEF in Support of 25 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction by United Mexican States. (dm) (Additional attachment(s) added on 9/4/2015: # 1 Corrected Affidavit) (dm). (Entered: 09/01/2015)
37 ORDER, Set Motion Hearing for 25 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction ( Motion Hearing set for 10/2/2015 09:30 AM before Judge Robert Pitman,). Signed by Judge Robert Pitman. (dm) (Entered: 09/02/2015)
38 MOTION for Leave to File Corrected Affidavit of Carlos Gonzalez Gutierrez by United Mexican States. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit)(dm) (Entered: 09/03/2015)
39 Unopposed MOTION for Leave to Exceed Page Limitation by Kirk Cole, Geraldine Harris, Texas Department of State Health Services, Vital Statistics Unit. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Albright, Thomas) (Entered: 09/03/2015)
Text Order GRANTING 38 Motion for Leave to File Corrected Affidavit entered by Judge Robert Pitman. (This is a text−only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (aemp) (Entered: 09/04/2015)
Text Order GRANTING 39 Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages entered by Judge Robert Pitman. (This is a text−only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (aemp) (Entered: 09/04/2015)
40 Amended MOTION to Dismiss by Kirk Cole, Geraldine Harris, Texas Department of State Health Services, Vital Statistics Unit. (Albright, Thomas) (Entered: 09/04/2015)
41 RESPONSE to Motion, filed by Kirk Cole, Geraldine Harris, Texas Department of State Health Services, Vital Statistics Unit, re 25 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction filed by Plaintiff Yveth Vega Diaz, Plaintiff Brizeida Sanchez, Plaintiff Damaris Romero Hernandez de Reyes, Plaintiff Rosa Isela Garcia Naranjo, Plaintiff Luisa Ines Barragan, Plaintiff Juan Carlos Rodriguez Velasquez, Plaintiff Flavia Garza, Plaintiff Maria Isabel Perales Serna, Plaintiff Maria Del Rosario Teran Uriegas, Plaintiff Fany Ventura, Plaintiff Antonia Rodriguez, Plaintiff Katerine Johana Portillo, Plaintiff Nancy Hernandez, Plaintiff Marcelina Rangel Martinez, Plaintiff Nancy Garcia Castro, Plaintiff Marta Alicia Ibarra Luna, Plaintiff Diana Hernandez, Plaintiff Javier Reyes, Plaintiff Juana Gomez (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 − Declaration of Geraldine Harris, # 2 Exhibit 2 − Declaration of Victor Farinelli, # 3 Exhibit 3 − Declaration of Marc Allen Connelly, # 4 Exhibit 4 − Declaration of Stephanie Muth, # 5 Proposed Order)(Albright, Thomas) (Entered: 09/04/2015)

Case: 1:15-cv-446 As of: 11/02/2017 03:49 PM CDT 26 of 44

09/06/2015
09/06/2015
09/08/2015 09/08/2015 09/10/2015 09/14/2015 09/15/2015
09/15/2015

42 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply by Luisa Ines Barragan, Giovanna Castro, Estrella De Jesus Cedillo Nieto, Yesenia Cortez, Nancy Garcia Castro, Rosa Isela Garcia Naranjo, Flavia Garza, Juana Gomez, Diana Hernandez, Nancy Hernandez, Cynthia Ibarra, Paulina Nieto Ibarra, Marta Alicia Ibarra Luna, Eloina Palafox, Maria Isabel Perales Serna, Quenia Perez, Katerine Johana Portillo, Marcelina Rangel Martinez, Javier Reyes, Antonia Rodriguez, Juan Carlos Rodriguez Velasquez, Damaris Romero Hernandez de Reyes, Brizeida Sanchez, Maria Del Rosario Teran Uriegas, Leticia Torres, United Mexican States, Violeta Vega, Yveth Vega Diaz, Fany Ventura. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Harbury, Jennifer) (Entered: 09/06/2015)
43 Unopposed MOTION for Leave to Exceed Page Limitation by Luisa Ines Barragan, Giovanna Castro, Estrella De Jesus Cedillo Nieto, Yesenia Cortez, Nancy Garcia Castro, Rosa Isela Garcia Naranjo, Flavia Garza, Juana Gomez, Diana Hernandez, Nancy Hernandez, Cynthia Ibarra, Paulina Nieto Ibarra, Marta Alicia Ibarra Luna, Eloina Palafox, Maria Isabel Perales Serna, Quenia Perez, Katerine Johana Portillo, Marcelina Rangel Martinez, Javier Reyes, Antonia Rodriguez, Juan Carlos Rodriguez Velasquez, Damaris Romero Hernandez de Reyes, Brizeida Sanchez, Maria Del Rosario Teran Uriegas, Leticia Torres, United Mexican States, Violeta Vega, Yveth Vega Diaz, Fany Ventura. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Harbury, Jennifer) (Entered: 09/06/2015)
Text Order GRANTING 42 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply entered by Judge Robert Pitman. Plaintiffs' reply in support of the motion for preliminary injunction is due on or before September 18, 2015. (This is a text−only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (aemp) (Entered: 09/08/2015)
Text Order GRANTING 43 Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages entered by Judge Robert Pitman. (This is a text−only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (aemp) (Entered: 09/08/2015)
48 MOTION FOR LIVE TESTIMONY BY REMOTE MEANS by Luisa Ines Barragan, Giovanna Castro, Estrella De Jesus Cedillo Nieto, Yesenia Cortez, Nancy Garcia Castro, Rosa Isela Garcia Naranjo, Flavia Garza, Juana Gomez, Diana Hernandez, Nancy Hernandez, Cynthia Ibarra, Paulina Nieto Ibarra, Marta Alicia Ibarra Luna, Eloina Palafox, Maria Isabel Perales Serna, Quenia Perez, Katerine Johana Portillo, Marcelina Rangel Martinez, Javier Reyes, Antonia Rodriguez, Juan Carlos Rodriguez Velasquez, Damaris Romero Hernandez de Reyes, Brizeida Sanchez, Maria Del Rosario Teran Uriegas, Leticia Torres, Violeta Vega, Yveth Vega Diaz. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Harbury, Jennifer) (Entered: 09/10/2015)
49 ORDER, Plaintiffs are directed to file a supplement to their motion addressing the necessity for the taking of live testimony at the hearing on their motion for preliminary injunction on or before September 17, 2015. Signed by Judge Robert Pitman. (dm) (Entered: 09/14/2015)
50 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply by Luisa Ines Barragan, Giovanna Castro, Estrella De Jesus Cedillo Nieto, Yesenia Cortez, Nancy Garcia Castro, Rosa Isela Garcia Naranjo, Flavia Garza, Juana Gomez, Diana Hernandez, Nancy Hernandez, Cynthia Ibarra, Paulina Nieto Ibarra, Marta Alicia Ibarra Luna, Eloina Palafox, Maria Isabel Perales Serna, Quenia Perez, Katerine Johana Portillo, Marcelina Rangel Martinez, Javier Reyes, Antonia Rodriguez, Juan Carlos Rodriguez Velasquez, Damaris Romero Hernandez de Reyes, Brizeida Sanchez, Maria Del Rosario Teran Uriegas, Leticia Torres, United Mexican States, Violeta Vega, Yveth Vega Diaz, Fany Ventura. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Harbury, Jennifer) (Entered: 09/15/2015)
51 Memorandum in Support of Motion for Video Testimony by Luisa Ines Barragan, Giovanna Castro, Estrella De Jesus Cedillo Nieto, Yesenia Cortez, Nancy Garcia Castro, Rosa Isela Garcia Naranjo, Flavia Garza, Juana Gomez, Diana Hernandez, Nancy Hernandez, Paulina Nieto Ibarra, Marta Alicia Ibarra Luna, Eloina Palafox, Maria Isabel Perales Serna, Quenia Perez, Katerine Johana Portillo, Marcelina Rangel Martinez, Javier Reyes, Antonia Rodriguez, Juan Carlos Rodriguez Velasquez, Damaris Romero Hernandez de Reyes, Brizeida Sanchez, Maria Del Rosario Teran Uriegas, Leticia Torres, Violeta Vega, Yveth Vega Diaz, Fany Ventura. (Harbury, Jennifer) (Entered: 09/15/2015)

Case: 1:15-cv-446 As of: 11/02/2017 03:49 PM CDT 27 of 44

09/15/2015
09/16/2015 09/16/2015 09/17/2015 09/17/2015 09/17/2015 09/18/2015 09/21/2015
09/21/2015

52 MOTION for Hearing Scheduling and Live Testimony by Luisa Ines Barragan, Giovanna Castro, Estrella De Jesus Cedillo Nieto, Yesenia Cortez, Nancy Garcia Castro, Rosa Isela Garcia Naranjo, Flavia Garza, Juana Gomez, Diana Hernandez, Nancy Hernandez, Cynthia Ibarra, Paulina Nieto Ibarra, Marta Alicia Ibarra Luna, Eloina Palafox, Maria Isabel Perales Serna, Quenia Perez, Katerine Johana Portillo, Marcelina Rangel Martinez, Javier Reyes, Antonia Rodriguez, Juan Carlos Rodriguez Velasquez, Damaris Romero Hernandez de Reyes, Brizeida Sanchez, Maria Del Rosario Teran Uriegas, Leticia Torres, Violeta Vega, Yveth Vega Diaz, Fany Ventura. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Harbury, Jennifer) (Entered: 09/15/2015)
Text Order GRANTING 50 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply entered by Judge Robert Pitman. Plaintiffs' response to Defendants' motion to dismiss and Plaintiffs' reply in support of their application for preliminary injunction are both due on oe before September 21, 2015. (This is a text−only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (aemp) (Entered: 09/16/2015)
53 ORDER GRANTING 52 Motion for Hearing. Telephonic Conference set for 9/24/2015 10:15 AM before Judge Robert Pitman, Signed by Judge Robert Pitman. (dm) (Entered: 09/16/2015)
54 MOTION to Appear Pro Hac Vice by Daniel M. Kowalski ( Filing fee $ 100 receipt number 0542−7791731) by Melissa S. Keaney on behalf of National Immigration Law Center. (Kowalski, Daniel) (Entered: 09/17/2015)
55 MOTION to Join El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras as Additional Amici Curiae by United Mexican States. (Raymond, Virginia) (Entered: 09/17/2015)
Text Order GRANTING 54 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice by atty Melissa S. Keaney. Pursuant to our Administrative Policies and Procedures for Electronic Filing, the attorney hereby granted to practice pro hac vice in this case must register for electronic filing with our court within 10 days of this order. entered by Judge Robert Pitman. (This is a text−only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (jg) (Entered: 09/17/2015)
Text Order GRANTING 55 Motion to Join. entered by Judge Robert Pitman. (This is a text−only entry generated by the court. El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras are hereby joined as additional amici curiae. There is no document associated with this entry.) (aemp) (Entered: 09/18/2015)
56 RESPONSE to Motion, filed by Kirk Cole, Geraldine Harris, Texas Department of State Health Services, Vital Statistics Unit, re 48 MOTION FOR LIVE TESTIMONY BY REMOTE MEANS filed by Plaintiff Eloina Palafox, Plaintiff Yveth Vega Diaz, Plaintiff Estrella De Jesus Cedillo Nieto, Plaintiff Brizeida Sanchez, Plaintiff Damaris Romero Hernandez de Reyes, Plaintiff Rosa Isela Garcia Naranjo, Plaintiff Luisa Ines Barragan, Plaintiff Juan Carlos Rodriguez Velasquez, Plaintiff Flavia Garza, Plaintiff Maria Isabel Perales Serna, Plaintiff Maria Del Rosario Teran Uriegas, Plaintiff Yesenia Cortez, Plaintiff Giovanna Castro, Plaintiff Violeta Vega, Plaintiff Antonia Rodriguez, Plaintiff Katerine Johana Portillo, Plaintiff Leticia Torres, Plaintiff Nancy Hernandez, Plaintiff Cynthia Ibarra, Plaintiff Marcelina Rangel Martinez, Plaintiff Paulina Nieto Ibarra, Plaintiff Quenia Perez, Plaintiff Nancy Garcia Castro, Plaintiff Marta Alicia Ibarra Luna, Plaintiff Diana Hernandez, Plaintiff Javier Reyes, Plaintiff Juana Gomez (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Albright, Thomas) (Entered: 09/21/2015)
57 RESPONSE to Motion, filed by Luisa Ines Barragan, Giovanna Castro, Estrella De Jesus Cedillo Nieto, Yesenia Cortez, El Salvador, Nancy Garcia Castro, Rosa Isela Garcia Naranjo, Flavia Garza, Juana Gomez, Guatemala, Diana Hernandez, Nancy Hernandez, Honduras, Cynthia Ibarra, Paulina Nieto Ibarra, Marta Alicia Ibarra Luna, National Immigration Law Center, Eloina Palafox, Maria Isabel Perales Serna, Quenia Perez, Katerine Johana Portillo, Marcelina Rangel Martinez, Javier Reyes, Antonia Rodriguez, Juan Carlos Rodriguez Velasquez, Damaris Romero Hernandez de Reyes, Brizeida Sanchez, Maria Del Rosario Teran Uriegas, Leticia Torres, United Mexican States, Violeta Vega, Yveth Vega Diaz, Fany Ventura, re 40 Amended MOTION to Dismiss filed by Defendant Geraldine Harris, Defendant Texas Department of State Health Services, Vital Statistics Unit, Defendant Kirk Cole (Harbury, Jennifer) (Entered: 09/21/2015)

Case: 1:15-cv-446 As of: 11/02/2017 03:49 PM CDT 28 of 44

09/21/2015 09/21/2015
09/22/2015 09/22/2015 09/22/2015
09/23/2015 09/23/2015 09/23/2015

58 Motion for leave to File Sealed Document (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit, # 4 Proposed Order) (Harbury, Jennifer) (Entered: 09/21/2015)
59 REPLY to Response to Motion, filed by Luisa Ines Barragan, Giovanna Castro, Estrella De Jesus Cedillo Nieto, Yesenia Cortez, Nancy Garcia Castro, Rosa Isela Garcia Naranjo, Flavia Garza, Juana Gomez, Diana Hernandez, Nancy Hernandez, Cynthia Ibarra, Paulina Nieto Ibarra, Marta Alicia Ibarra Luna, Eloina Palafox, Maria Isabel Perales Serna, Quenia Perez, Katerine Johana Portillo, Marcelina Rangel Martinez, Javier Reyes, Antonia Rodriguez, Juan Carlos Rodriguez Velasquez, Damaris Romero Hernandez de Reyes, Brizeida Sanchez, Maria Del Rosario Teran Uriegas, Leticia Torres, Violeta Vega, Yveth Vega Diaz, Fany Ventura, re 25 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction filed by Plaintiff Yveth Vega Diaz, Plaintiff Brizeida Sanchez, Plaintiff Damaris Romero Hernandez de Reyes, Plaintiff Rosa Isela Garcia Naranjo, Plaintiff Luisa Ines Barragan, Plaintiff Juan Carlos Rodriguez Velasquez, Plaintiff Flavia Garza, Plaintiff Maria Isabel Perales Serna, Plaintiff Maria Del Rosario Teran Uriegas, Plaintiff Fany Ventura, Plaintiff Antonia Rodriguez, Plaintiff Katerine Johana Portillo, Plaintiff Nancy Hernandez, Plaintiff Marcelina Rangel Martinez, Plaintiff Nancy Garcia Castro, Plaintiff Marta Alicia Ibarra Luna, Plaintiff Diana Hernandez, Plaintiff Javier Reyes, Plaintiff Juana Gomez (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit (STRICKEN), # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit)(Harbury, Jennifer) (Additional attachment(s) added on 9/22/2015: # 4 Sealed Exhibit C, # 5 Sealed Exhibit, # 6 Sealed Exhibit) (dm). (Additional attachment(s) added on 9/28/2015: # 7 Amended Exhibit 2) (dm). Modified on 9/28/2015 (dm (Entered: 09/21/2015)
Text Order GRANTING 58 Motion for Leave to File Sealed Document entered by Judge Robert Pitman. (This is a text−only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (aemp) (Entered: 09/22/2015)
60 MOTION for Leave to File Amicus Brief of Texas Appleseed Foundation in Support of Plaintiffs' Application for Preliminary Injunction by Peter D. Kennedy. by Texas Appleseed Foundation. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Brief)(Kennedy, Peter) (Entered: 09/22/2015)
61 REPLY to Response to Motion, filed by Luisa Ines Barragan, Giovanna Castro, Estrella De Jesus Cedillo Nieto, Yesenia Cortez, Nancy Garcia Castro, Rosa Isela Garcia Naranjo, Flavia Garza, Juana Gomez, Diana Hernandez, Nancy Hernandez, Cynthia Ibarra, Paulina Nieto Ibarra, Marta Alicia Ibarra Luna, Eloina Palafox, Maria Isabel Perales Serna, Quenia Perez, Katerine Johana Portillo, Marcelina Rangel Martinez, Javier Reyes, Antonia Rodriguez, Juan Carlos Rodriguez Velasquez, Damaris Romero Hernandez de Reyes, Brizeida Sanchez, Maria Del Rosario Teran Uriegas, Leticia Torres, Violeta Vega, Yveth Vega Diaz, Fany Ventura, re 48 MOTION FOR LIVE TESTIMONY BY REMOTE MEANS filed by Plaintiff Eloina Palafox, Plaintiff Yveth Vega Diaz, Plaintiff Estrella De Jesus Cedillo Nieto, Plaintiff Brizeida Sanchez, Plaintiff Damaris Romero Hernandez de Reyes, Plaintiff Rosa Isela Garcia Naranjo, Plaintiff Luisa Ines Barragan, Plaintiff Juan Carlos Rodriguez Velasquez, Plaintiff Flavia Garza, Plaintiff Maria Isabel Perales Serna, Plaintiff Maria Del Rosario Teran Uriegas, Plaintiff Yesenia Cortez, Plaintiff Giovanna Castro, Plaintiff Violeta Vega, Plaintiff Antonia Rodriguez, Plaintiff Katerine Johana Portillo, Plaintiff Leticia Torres, Plaintiff Nancy Hernandez, Plaintiff Cynthia Ibarra, Plaintiff Marcelina Rangel Martinez, Plaintiff Paulina Nieto Ibarra, Plaintiff Quenia Perez, Plaintiff Nancy Garcia Castro, Plaintiff Marta Alicia Ibarra Luna, Plaintiff Diana Hernandez, Plaintiff Javier Reyes, Plaintiff Juana Gomez (Harbury, Jennifer) (Entered: 09/22/2015)
Text Order GRANTING 60 Motion for Leave to File Amicus Brief entered by Judge Robert Pitman. (This is a text−only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (aemp) (Entered: 09/23/2015)
62 ATTACHMENT Proposed Order to 60 MOTION for Leave to File Amicus Brief of Texas Appleseed Foundation in Support of Plaintiffs' Application for Preliminary Injunction by Peter D. Kennedy. by Texas Appleseed Foundation. (Kennedy, Peter) (Entered: 09/23/2015)
63 AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF in Support of 25 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction by Texas Appleseed Foundation. (dm) (Entered: 09/23/2015)

Case: 1:15-cv-446 As of: 11/02/2017 03:49 PM CDT 29 of 44

09/23/2015 09/23/2015 09/23/2015 09/23/2015 09/24/2015 09/24/2015 09/24/2015 09/25/2015 09/25/2015 09/25/2015
09/28/2015
09/28/2015 09/29/2015

64 Unopposed MOTION for Leave to File Amicus Brief OF NATIONAL IMMIGRATION LAW CENTER IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS EMERGENCY APPLICATION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION by Melissa S. Keaney. by National Immigration Law Center. (Attachments: # 1 Amicus Curiae Brief, # 2 Proposed Order)(Keaney, Melissa) (Entered: 09/23/2015)
Text Order GRANTING 64 Motion for Leave to File Amicus Brief entered by Judge Robert Pitman. (This is a text−only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (aemp) (Entered: 09/23/2015)
65 AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF regarding 25 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction by National Immigration Law Center. (os) (Entered: 09/23/2015)
66 Unopposed MOTION for Leave to File Amicus Brief by Adriana Pinon. by American Civil Liberties Union of Texas. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Amicus Brief, # 2 Proposed Order)(Pinon, Adriana) (Entered: 09/23/2015)
Text Order GRANTING 66 Motion for Leave to File Amicus Brief entered by Judge Robert Pitman. (This is a text−only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (aemp) (Entered: 09/24/2015)
67 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Robert Pitman: Status Conference held on 9/24/2015 (Minute entry documents are not available electronically.). (Court Reporter Joe Reynosa.)(dm) (Entered: 09/24/2015)
68 BRIEF of Amici Curiae in Support of 25 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction by American Civil Liberties Union Foundation, American Civil Liberties Union of Texas. (dm) (Entered: 09/24/2015)
Text Order entered by Judge Robert Pitman DISMISSING 48 Motion for Live Testimony based on the agreement of the parties at the status conference conducted on September 24, 2015. (This is a text−only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (aemp) (Entered: 09/25/2015)
69 NOTICE of Attorney Appearance by Thomas A. Albright on behalf of Kirk Cole, Geraldine Harris, Texas Department of State Health Services, Vital Statistics Unit (Albright, Thomas) (Entered: 09/25/2015)
70 Unopposed MOTION to Strike and Refile Certain Attachments (25−1, 59−1) by Luisa Ines Barragan, Giovanna Castro, Estrella De Jesus Cedillo Nieto, Yesenia Cortez, Nancy Garcia Castro, Rosa Isela Garcia Naranjo, Flavia Garza, Juana Gomez, Diana Hernandez, Nancy Hernandez, Cynthia Ibarra, Paulina Nieto Ibarra, Marta Alicia Ibarra Luna, Eloina Palafox, Maria Isabel Perales Serna, Quenia Perez, Katerine Johana Portillo, Marcelina Rangel Martinez, Javier Reyes, Antonia Rodriguez, Juan Carlos Rodriguez Velasquez, Damaris Romero Hernandez de Reyes, Brizeida Sanchez, Maria Del Rosario Teran Uriegas, Leticia Torres, Violeta Vega, Yveth Vega Diaz, Fany Ventura. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Amended 25−1 Pt 1, # 2 Exhibit Amended 25−1 Pt 2, # 3 Exhibit Amended 59−1, # 4 Proposed Order Proposed Order)(Olivares, Efren) (Entered: 09/25/2015)
Text Order GRANTING 70 Motion to Strike And Refile Attachments entered by Judge Robert Pitman. The Court hereby STRIKES Attachment A to Plaintiffs Emergency Application for Preliminary Injunction (Dkt. 25−1) and Attachment A to Plaintiffs Reply to Defendants Response to Plaintiffs Application for a Preliminary Injunction (Dkt. 59−1). The Court further ORDERS that the Amended Attachments submitted with Dkt 70 be filed in their place. (This is a text−only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (aemp) (Entered: 09/28/2015)
71 REPLY to Response to Motion, filed by Kirk Cole, Geraldine Harris, Texas Department of State Health Services, Vital Statistics Unit, re 40 Amended MOTION to Dismiss filed by Defendant Geraldine Harris, Defendant Texas Department of State Health Services, Vital Statistics Unit, Defendant Kirk Cole (Albright, Thomas) (Entered: 09/28/2015)
72 MOTION to Dismiss Based on Lack of Standing and Mootness by Kirk Cole, Geraldine Harris, Texas Department of State Health Services, Vital Statistics Unit. (Albright, Thomas) (Entered: 09/29/2015)

Case: 1:15-cv-446 As of: 11/02/2017 03:49 PM CDT 30 of 44

09/29/2015 10/01/2015
10/01/2015 10/02/2015 10/02/2015 10/02/2015 10/06/2015
10/12/2015

73 SUPPLEMENT to 41 Response to Motion,,,, by Kirk Cole, Geraldine Harris, Texas Department of State Health Services, Vital Statistics Unit. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 5 − Declaration of Lonzo Kerr, # 2 Exhibit 5−1 − Local Registrar Handbook, # 3 Exhibit 5−2 − Letter and Application for B.R., # 4 Exhibit 6 − Affidavit of David Marx, # 5 Exhibit 6−1 − TEA Student Attendance Accounting Handbook, # 6 Exhibit 6−2 − TEA To the Administrator Addressed Letter, # 7 Exhibit 7 − Second Declaration of Stephanie Muth)(Albright, Thomas) (Entered: 09/29/2015)
74 Opposed MOTION to Strike Decl. of L. Kerr or Alternatively to File Additional Affidavits by Luisa Ines Barragan, Giovanna Castro, Estrella De Jesus Cedillo Nieto, Yesenia Cortez, Nancy Garcia Castro, Rosa Isela Garcia Naranjo, Flavia Garza, Juana Gomez, Diana Hernandez, Nancy Hernandez, Cynthia Ibarra, Paulina Nieto Ibarra, Marta Alicia Ibarra Luna, Eloina Palafox, Maria Isabel Perales Serna, Quenia Perez, Katerine Johana Portillo, Marcelina Rangel Martinez, Javier Reyes, Antonia Rodriguez, Juan Carlos Rodriguez Velasquez, Damaris Romero Hernandez de Reyes, Brizeida Sanchez, Maria Del Rosario Teran Uriegas, Leticia Torres, Violeta Vega, Yveth Vega Diaz, Fany Ventura. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order Proposed Order)(Olivares, Efren) (Entered: 10/01/2015)
75 AFFIDAVIT in Support of 25 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction by Pls. Perez, Ibarra and Torres by Luisa Ines Barragan, Giovanna Castro, Estrella De Jesus Cedillo Nieto, Yesenia Cortez, Nancy Garcia Castro, Rosa Isela Garcia Naranjo, Flavia Garza, Juana Gomez, Diana Hernandez, Nancy Hernandez, Cynthia Ibarra, Paulina Nieto Ibarra, Marta Alicia Ibarra Luna, Eloina Palafox, Maria Isabel Perales Serna, Quenia Perez, Katerine Johana Portillo, Marcelina Rangel Martinez, Javier Reyes, Antonia Rodriguez, Juan Carlos Rodriguez Velasquez, Damaris Romero Hernandez de Reyes, Brizeida Sanchez, Maria Del Rosario Teran Uriegas, Leticia Torres, Violeta Vega, Yveth Vega Diaz, Fany Ventura. (Olivares, Efren) (Entered: 10/01/2015)
76 DEFICIENCY NOTICE: re 75 Affidavit in Support. (dm) (Entered: 10/02/2015)
77 AFFIDAVIT in Support of 25 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction by Luisa Ines Barragan. (Olivares, Efren) (Entered: 10/02/2015)
78 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Robert Pitman: Motion Hearing held on 10/2/2015 re 25 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction filed by Yveth Vega Diaz, Brizeida Sanchez, Damaris Romero Hernandez de Reyes, Rosa Isela Garcia Naranjo, Luisa Ines Barragan, Juan Carlos Rodriguez Velasquez, Flavia Garza, Maria Isabel Perales Serna, Maria Del Rosario Teran Uriegas, Fany Ventura, Antonia Rodriguez, Katerine Johana Portillo, Nancy Hernandez, Marcelina Rangel Martinez, Nancy Garcia Castro, Marta Alicia Ibarra Luna, Diana Hernandez, Javier Reyes, Juana Gomez (Minute entry documents are not available electronically.). (Court Reporter Joe Reynosa.)(dm) (Entered: 10/02/2015)
79 RESPONSE to Motion, filed by Kirk Cole, Geraldine Harris, Texas Department of State Health Services, Vital Statistics Unit, re 74 Opposed MOTION to Strike Decl. of L. Kerr or Alternatively to File Additional Affidavits filed by Plaintiff Eloina Palafox, Plaintiff Yveth Vega Diaz, Plaintiff Estrella De Jesus Cedillo Nieto, Plaintiff Brizeida Sanchez, Plaintiff Damaris Romero Hernandez de Reyes, Plaintiff Rosa Isela Garcia Naranjo, Plaintiff Luisa Ines Barragan, Plaintiff Juan Carlos Rodriguez Velasquez, Plaintiff Flavia Garza, Plaintiff Maria Isabel Perales Serna, Plaintiff Maria Del Rosario Teran Uriegas, Plaintiff Yesenia Cortez, Plaintiff Giovanna Castro, Plaintiff Violeta Vega, Plaintiff Fany Ventura, Plaintiff Antonia Rodriguez, Plaintiff Katerine Johana Portillo, Plaintiff Leticia Torres, Plaintiff Nancy Hernandez, Plaintiff Cynthia Ibarra, Plaintiff Marcelina Rangel Martinez, Plaintiff Paulina Nieto Ibarra, Plaintiff Quenia Perez, Plaintiff Nancy Garcia Castro, Plaintiff Marta Alicia Ibarra Luna, Plaintiff Diana Hernandez, Plaintiff Javier Reyes, Plaintiff Juana Gomez (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Proposed Order)(Albright, Thomas) (Entered: 10/06/2015)
80 Response in Opposition to Motion, filed by Luisa Ines Barragan, Giovanna Castro, Estrella De Jesus Cedillo Nieto, Yesenia Cortez, Nancy Garcia Castro, Rosa Isela Garcia Naranjo, Flavia Garza, Juana Gomez, Diana Hernandez, Nancy Hernandez, Cynthia Ibarra, Paulina Nieto Ibarra, Marta Alicia Ibarra Luna, Eloina Palafox, Maria Isabel Perales Serna, Quenia Perez, Katerine Johana Portillo, Marcelina Rangel Martinez, Javier Reyes, Antonia Rodriguez, Juan Carlos Rodriguez Velasquez, Damaris Romero Hernandez de Reyes, Brizeida Sanchez, Maria Del Rosario Teran Uriegas, Leticia Torres, Violeta Vega, Yveth Vega Diaz, Fany Ventura, re 72

Case: 1:15-cv-446 As of: 11/02/2017 03:49 PM CDT 31 of 44

10/13/2015
10/16/2015 10/19/2015 11/02/2015 11/02/2015 11/02/2015 11/06/2015 11/11/2015

MOTION to Dismiss Based on Lack of Standing and Mootness filed by Defendant Geraldine Harris, Defendant Texas Department of State Health Services, Vital Statistics Unit, Defendant Kirk Cole (Harbury, Jennifer) (Entered: 10/12/2015)
81 REPLY to Response to Motion, filed by Luisa Ines Barragan, Giovanna Castro, Estrella De Jesus Cedillo Nieto, Yesenia Cortez, Nancy Garcia Castro, Rosa Isela Garcia Naranjo, Flavia Garza, Juana Gomez, Diana Hernandez, Nancy Hernandez, Cynthia Ibarra, Paulina Nieto Ibarra, Marta Alicia Ibarra Luna, Eloina Palafox, Maria Isabel Perales Serna, Quenia Perez, Katerine Johana Portillo, Marcelina Rangel Martinez, Javier Reyes, Antonia Rodriguez, Juan Carlos Rodriguez Velasquez, Damaris Romero Hernandez de Reyes, Brizeida Sanchez, Maria Del Rosario Teran Uriegas, Leticia Torres, Violeta Vega, Yveth Vega Diaz, Fany Ventura, re 74 Opposed MOTION to Strike Decl. of L. Kerr or Alternatively to File Additional Affidavits filed by Plaintiff Eloina Palafox, Plaintiff Yveth Vega Diaz, Plaintiff Estrella De Jesus Cedillo Nieto, Plaintiff Brizeida Sanchez, Plaintiff Damaris Romero Hernandez de Reyes, Plaintiff Rosa Isela Garcia Naranjo, Plaintiff Luisa Ines Barragan, Plaintiff Juan Carlos Rodriguez Velasquez, Plaintiff Flavia Garza, Plaintiff Maria Isabel Perales Serna, Plaintiff Maria Del Rosario Teran Uriegas, Plaintiff Yesenia Cortez, Plaintiff Giovanna Castro, Plaintiff Violeta Vega, Plaintiff Fany Ventura, Plaintiff Antonia Rodriguez, Plaintiff Katerine Johana Portillo, Plaintiff Leticia Torres, Plaintiff Nancy Hernandez, Plaintiff Cynthia Ibarra, Plaintiff Marcelina Rangel Martinez, Plaintiff Paulina Nieto Ibarra, Plaintiff Quenia Perez, Plaintiff Nancy Garcia Castro, Plaintiff Marta Alicia Ibarra Luna, Plaintiff Diana Hernandez, Plaintiff Javier Reyes, Plaintiff Juana Gomez (Harbury, Jennifer) (Entered: 10/13/2015)
82 ORDER DENYING 25 Motion for Preliminary Injunction. Signed by Judge Robert Pitman. (dm) (Entered: 10/16/2015)
83 NOTICE ADVISORY by Luisa Ines Barragan, Giovanna Castro, Estrella De Jesus Cedillo Nieto, Yesenia Cortez, Nancy Garcia Castro, Rosa Isela Garcia Naranjo, Flavia Garza, Juana Gomez, Diana Hernandez, Nancy Hernandez, Cynthia Ibarra, Paulina Nieto Ibarra, Marta Alicia Ibarra Luna, Eloina Palafox, Maria Isabel Perales Serna, Quenia Perez, Katerine Johana Portillo, Marcelina Rangel Martinez, Javier Reyes, Antonia Rodriguez, Juan Carlos Rodriguez Velasquez, Damaris Romero Hernandez de Reyes, Brizeida Sanchez, Maria Del Rosario Teran Uriegas, Leticia Torres, Violeta Vega, Yveth Vega Diaz, Fany Ventura (Harbury, Jennifer) (Entered: 10/19/2015)
91 ORDER DISMISSING 74 Motion to Strike Declaration. Signed by Judge Robert Pitman. (dm) (Entered: 11/02/2015)
92 Proposed Scheduling Order (JOINT) by Luisa Ines Barragan, Giovanna Castro, Estrella De Jesus Cedillo Nieto, Yesenia Cortez, Nancy Garcia Castro, Rosa Isela Garcia Naranjo, Flavia Garza, Juana Gomez, Diana Hernandez, Nancy Hernandez, Cynthia Ibarra, Paulina Nieto Ibarra, Marta Alicia Ibarra Luna, Eloina Palafox, Maria Isabel Perales Serna, Quenia Perez, Katerine Johana Portillo, Marcelina Rangel Martinez, Javier Reyes, Antonia Rodriguez, Juan Carlos Rodriguez Velasquez, Damaris Romero Hernandez de Reyes, Brizeida Sanchez, Maria Del Rosario Teran Uriegas, Leticia Torres, Violeta Vega, Yveth Vega Diaz, Fany Ventura. (Van Dalen, Marinda) (Entered: 11/02/2015)
93 Scheduling Recommendations JOINT DISCOVERY PLAN by Luisa Ines Barragan, Giovanna Castro, Estrella De Jesus Cedillo Nieto, Yesenia Cortez, Nancy Garcia Castro, Rosa Isela Garcia Naranjo, Flavia Garza, Juana Gomez, Diana Hernandez, Nancy Hernandez, Cynthia Ibarra, Paulina Nieto Ibarra, Marta Alicia Ibarra Luna, Eloina Palafox, Maria Isabel Perales Serna, Quenia Perez, Katerine Johana Portillo, Marcelina Rangel Martinez, Javier Reyes, Antonia Rodriguez, Juan Carlos Rodriguez Velasquez, Damaris Romero Hernandez de Reyes, Brizeida Sanchez, Maria Del Rosario Teran Uriegas, Leticia Torres, Violeta Vega, Yveth Vega Diaz, Fany Ventura. (Van Dalen, Marinda) (Entered: 11/02/2015)
94 ORDER, ( Initial Pretrial Conference set for 11/16/2015 10:30 AM before Judge Robert Pitman,). Signed by Judge Robert Pitman. (dm) (Entered: 11/06/2015)
95 MOTION to Amend Complaint by Luisa Ines Barragan, Giovanna Castro, Estrella De Jesus Cedillo Nieto, Yesenia Cortez, El Salvador, Nancy Garcia Castro, Rosa Isela Garcia Naranjo, Flavia Garza, Juana Gomez, Guatemala, Diana Hernandez, Nancy

Case: 1:15-cv-446 As of: 11/02/2017 03:49 PM CDT 32 of 44

11/16/2015 11/17/2015 11/18/2015
11/23/2015
11/23/2015

Hernandez, Honduras, Cynthia Ibarra, Paulina Nieto Ibarra, Marta Alicia Ibarra Luna, National Immigration Law Center, Eloina Palafox, Maria Isabel Perales Serna, Quenia Perez, Katerine Johana Portillo, Marcelina Rangel Martinez, Javier Reyes, Antonia Rodriguez, Juan Carlos Rodriguez Velasquez, Damaris Romero Hernandez de Reyes, Brizeida Sanchez, Maria Del Rosario Teran Uriegas, Texas Appleseed Foundation, Leticia Torres, United Mexican States, Violeta Vega, Yveth Vega Diaz, Fany Ventura. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Proposed Order)(Harbury, Jennifer) (Entered: 11/11/2015)
96 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Robert Pitman: Initial Pretrial Conference held on 11/16/2015, Bench Trial Set for December 12, 2016 at 9:00am, Written Order forthcoming. (Minute entry documents are not available electronically.). (Court Reporter Joe Reynosa.)(dm) (Entered: 11/16/2015)
98 SCHEDULING ORDER: Bench Trial set for 12/12/2016 09:00 AM before Judge Robert Pitman, ADR Report Deadline due by 1/15/2016, Amended Pleadings due by 2/15/2016, Discovery due by 8/1/2016, Joinder of Parties due by 2/15/2016, Motions due by 10/1/2016,. Signed by Judge Robert Pitman. (dm) (Entered: 11/17/2015)
99 Response in Opposition to Motion, filed by Kirk Cole, Geraldine Harris, Texas Department of State Health Services, Vital Statistics Unit, re 95 MOTION to Amend Complaint filed by Plaintiff Eloina Palafox, Amicus El Salvador, Plaintiff Brizeida Sanchez, Plaintiff Rosa Isela Garcia Naranjo, Plaintiff Luisa Ines Barragan, Plaintiff Juan Carlos Rodriguez Velasquez, Plaintiff Maria Isabel Perales Serna, Plaintiff Yesenia Cortez, Plaintiff Katerine Johana Portillo, Plaintiff Marcelina Rangel Martinez, Amicus Guatemala, Plaintiff Paulina Nieto Ibarra, Plaintiff Nancy Garcia Castro, Plaintiff Marta Alicia Ibarra Luna, Plaintiff Juana Gomez, Amicus Honduras, Plaintiff Yveth Vega Diaz, Plaintiff Estrella De Jesus Cedillo Nieto, Plaintiff Damaris Romero Hernandez de Reyes, Plaintiff Flavia Garza, Amicus National Immigration Law Center, Plaintiff Maria Del Rosario Teran Uriegas, Plaintiff Giovanna Castro, Plaintiff Violeta Vega, Plaintiff Fany Ventura, Plaintiff Antonia Rodriguez, Plaintiff Leticia Torres, Plaintiff Nancy Hernandez, Plaintiff Cynthia Ibarra, Amicus Texas Appleseed Foundation, Amicus United Mexican States, Plaintiff Quenia Perez, Plaintiff Diana Hernandez, Plaintiff Javier Reyes (Albright, Thomas) (Entered: 11/18/2015)
100 REPLY to Response to Motion, filed by Luisa Ines Barragan, Giovanna Castro, Estrella De Jesus Cedillo Nieto, Yesenia Cortez, Nancy Garcia Castro, Rosa Isela Garcia Naranjo, Flavia Garza, Juana Gomez, Diana Hernandez, Nancy Hernandez, Cynthia Ibarra, Paulina Nieto Ibarra, Marta Alicia Ibarra Luna, Eloina Palafox, Maria Isabel Perales Serna, Quenia Perez, Katerine Johana Portillo, Marcelina Rangel Martinez, Javier Reyes, Antonia Rodriguez, Juan Carlos Rodriguez Velasquez, Damaris Romero Hernandez de Reyes, Brizeida Sanchez, Maria Del Rosario Teran Uriegas, Leticia Torres, Violeta Vega, Yveth Vega Diaz, Fany Ventura, re 95 MOTION to Amend Complaint filed by Plaintiff Eloina Palafox, Amicus El Salvador, Plaintiff Brizeida Sanchez, Plaintiff Rosa Isela Garcia Naranjo, Plaintiff Luisa Ines Barragan, Plaintiff Juan Carlos Rodriguez Velasquez, Plaintiff Maria Isabel Perales Serna, Plaintiff Yesenia Cortez, Plaintiff Katerine Johana Portillo, Plaintiff Marcelina Rangel Martinez, Amicus Guatemala, Plaintiff Paulina Nieto Ibarra, Plaintiff Nancy Garcia Castro, Plaintiff Marta Alicia Ibarra Luna, Plaintiff Juana Gomez, Amicus Honduras, Plaintiff Yveth Vega Diaz, Plaintiff Estrella De Jesus Cedillo Nieto, Plaintiff Damaris Romero Hernandez de Reyes, Plaintiff Flavia Garza, Amicus National Immigration Law Center, Plaintiff Maria Del Rosario Teran Uriegas, Plaintiff Giovanna Castro, Plaintiff Violeta Vega, Plaintiff Fany Ventura, Plaintiff Antonia Rodriguez, Plaintiff Leticia Torres, Plaintiff Nancy Hernandez, Plaintiff Cynthia Ibarra, Amicus Texas Appleseed Foundation, Amicus United Mexican States, Plaintiff Quenia Perez, Plaintiff Diana Hernandez, Plaintiff Javier Reyes (Van Dalen, Marinda) (Entered: 11/23/2015)
101 MOTION TO DISMISS/NOTICE of Voluntary Dismissal by Luisa Ines Barragan, Estrella De Jesus Cedillo Nieto, Yesenia Cortez, Nancy Garcia Castro, Rosa Isela Garcia Naranjo, Paulina Nieto Ibarra, Brizeida Sanchez, Maria Del Rosario Teran Uriegas, Leticia Torres (Van Dalen, Marinda) Modified on 11/23/2015 to create motion (dm). (Entered: 11/23/2015)

Case: 1:15-cv-446 As of: 11/02/2017 03:49 PM CDT 33 of 44

11/23/2015 11/23/2015 12/11/2015 12/23/2015
01/04/2016
01/05/2016 01/05/2016 01/05/2016 01/11/2016
01/12/2016

102 DEFICIENCY NOTICE: re 101 MOTION to Dismiss/NOTICE of Dismissal. (dm) (Entered: 11/23/2015)
103 ATTACHMENT Proposed Order to 101 MOTION to Dismiss by Luisa Ines Barragan, Estrella De Jesus Cedillo Nieto, Yesenia Cortez, Nancy Garcia Castro, Rosa Isela Garcia Naranjo, Paulina Nieto Ibarra, Brizeida Sanchez, Maria Del Rosario Teran Uriegas, Leticia Torres. (Van Dalen, Marinda) (Entered: 11/23/2015)
106 ORDER DISMISSING as Moot 40 Motion to Dismiss ; DISMISSING 72 Motion to Dismiss Second Amended Complaint; GRANTING IN PART 95 Motion to Amend Complaint; GRANTING 101 Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff is hereby ORDERED to file an amended complaint in this action in compliance with this order on or before December 30, 2015. Signed by Judge Robert Pitman. (dm) (Entered: 12/11/2015)
107 AMENDED COMPLAINT against Kirk Cole, Geraldine Harris amending 30 Amended Complaint, filed by Marta Alicia Ibarra Luna, Maria Carrillo, Javier Reyes, Fany Ventura, Patricia Rojas, Maria Isabel Perales Serna, Juana Gomez, Antonia Rodriguez, Juan Carlos Rodriguez Velasquez, Nancy Hernandez, Mirna Ugalde, Leonor Reyna Flores, Cynthia Ibarra, Quenia Perez, Maria Francisca Rodriguez, Giovanna Castro, Katerine Johana Portillo, Maria Torres, La Union Del Pueblo Entero, Marcelina Rangel Martinez, Diana Parras, Yveth Vega Diaz, Diana Hernandez, Eloina Palafox, Damaris Romero Hernandez de Reyes, Yuliana Dominguez, Flavia Garza, Violeta Vega. (Attachments: # 1 Cover Letter and Certificate of Service)(os) (Entered: 12/28/2015)
108 Joint MOTION for Protective Order by Luisa Ines Barragan, Maria Carrillo, Giovanna Castro, Estrella De Jesus Cedillo Nieto, Yesenia Cortez, Yuliana Dominguez, Leonor Reyna Flores, Nancy Garcia Castro, Rosa Isela Garcia Naranjo, Flavia Garza, Juana Gomez, Diana Hernandez, Nancy Hernandez, Cynthia Ibarra, Paulina Nieto Ibarra, Marta Alicia Ibarra Luna, La Union Del Pueblo Entero, Eloina Palafox, Diana Parras, Maria Isabel Perales Serna, Quenia Perez, Katerine Johana Portillo, Marcelina Rangel Martinez, Javier Reyes, Antonia Rodriguez, Maria Francisca Rodriguez, Juan Carlos Rodriguez Velasquez, Patricia Rojas, Damaris Romero Hernandez de Reyes, Brizeida Sanchez, Maria Del Rosario Teran Uriegas, Leticia Torres, Maria Torres, Mirna Ugalde, Violeta Vega. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Proposed Order)(Harbury, Jennifer) (Entered: 01/04/2016)
Text Order GRANTING 108 Motion for Protective Order entered by Judge Robert Pitman. Protective Order will be entered separately. (This is a text−only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (aemp) (Entered: 01/05/2016)
109 PROTECTIVE ORDER. Signed by Judge Robert Pitman. (dm) (Entered: 01/05/2016)
110 Amended MOTION to Dismiss Third Amended Complaint and Rule 12(e) Motion for More Definite Statement by Kirk Cole, Geraldine Harris. (Albright, Thomas) (Entered: 01/05/2016)
111 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply by Luisa Ines Barragan, Maria Carrillo, Giovanna Castro, Estrella De Jesus Cedillo Nieto, Yesenia Cortez, Yuliana Dominguez, Leonor Reyna Flores, Nancy Garcia Castro, Rosa Isela Garcia Naranjo, Flavia Garza, Juana Gomez, Diana Hernandez, Nancy Hernandez, Cynthia Ibarra, Paulina Nieto Ibarra, Marta Alicia Ibarra Luna, La Union Del Pueblo Entero, Eloina Palafox, Diana Parras, Maria Isabel Perales Serna, Quenia Perez, Katerine Johana Portillo, Marcelina Rangel Martinez, Javier Reyes, Antonia Rodriguez, Maria Francisca Rodriguez, Juan Carlos Rodriguez Velasquez, Patricia Rojas, Damaris Romero Hernandez de Reyes, Brizeida Sanchez, Maria Del Rosario Teran Uriegas, Leticia Torres, Maria Torres, Mirna Ugalde, Violeta Vega, Yveth Vega Diaz, Fany Ventura. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Harbury, Jennifer) (Entered: 01/11/2016)
Text Order GRANTING 111 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply entered by Judge Robert Pitman. Plaintiffs' deadline to respond to the motion to dismiss is hereby extended seven days. (This is a text−only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (aemp) (Entered: 01/12/2016)

Case: 1:15-cv-446 As of: 11/02/2017 03:49 PM CDT 34 of 44

01/15/2016 01/26/2016
02/15/2016 02/15/2016 02/16/2016 02/18/2016 02/22/2016

112 ADR Report Filed − JOINT by Maria Carrillo, Giovanna Castro, Yuliana Dominguez, Leonor Reyna Flores, Flavia Garza, Juana Gomez, Diana Hernandez, Nancy Hernandez, Cynthia Ibarra, Marta Alicia Ibarra Luna, La Union Del Pueblo Entero, Eloina Palafox, Diana Parras, Maria Isabel Perales Serna, Quenia Perez, Katerine Johana Portillo, Marcelina Rangel Martinez, Javier Reyes, Antonia Rodriguez, Maria Francisca Rodriguez, Juan Carlos Rodriguez Velasquez, Patricia Rojas, Damaris Romero Hernandez de Reyes, Maria Torres, Mirna Ugalde, Violeta Vega, Yveth Vega Diaz, Fany Ventura(Van Dalen, Marinda) (Entered: 01/15/2016)
113 Response in Opposition to Motion, filed by Luisa Ines Barragan, Maria Carrillo, Giovanna Castro, Estrella De Jesus Cedillo Nieto, Yesenia Cortez, Yuliana Dominguez, Leonor Reyna Flores, Nancy Garcia Castro, Rosa Isela Garcia Naranjo, Flavia Garza, Juana Gomez, Diana Hernandez, Nancy Hernandez, Cynthia Ibarra, Paulina Nieto Ibarra, La Union Del Pueblo Entero, Eloina Palafox, Diana Parras, Maria Isabel Perales Serna, Quenia Perez, Katerine Johana Portillo, Marcelina Rangel Martinez, Javier Reyes, Antonia Rodriguez, Maria Francisca Rodriguez, Juan Carlos Rodriguez Velasquez, Patricia Rojas, Damaris Romero Hernandez de Reyes, Brizeida Sanchez, Maria Del Rosario Teran Uriegas, Leticia Torres, Maria Torres, Mirna Ugalde, Violeta Vega, Yveth Vega Diaz, Fany Ventura, re 110 Amended MOTION to Dismiss Third Amended Complaint and Rule 12(e) Motion for More Definite Statement filed by Defendant Geraldine Harris, Defendant Kirk Cole (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Olivares, Efren) (Entered: 01/26/2016)
114 MOTION to Amend Complaint by Maria Carrillo, Giovanna Castro, Yuliana Dominguez, Leonor Reyna Flores, Nancy Garcia Castro, Rosa Isela Garcia Naranjo, Flavia Garza, Juana Gomez, Diana Hernandez, Nancy Hernandez, Cynthia Ibarra, Marta Alicia Ibarra Luna, La Union Del Pueblo Entero, Eloina Palafox, Diana Parras, Maria Isabel Perales Serna, Quenia Perez, Katerine Johana Portillo, Marcelina Rangel Martinez, Javier Reyes, Antonia Rodriguez, Maria Francisca Rodriguez, Juan Carlos Rodriguez Velasquez, Patricia Rojas, Damaris Romero Hernandez de Reyes, Leticia Torres, Maria Torres, Mirna Ugalde, Violeta Vega, Yveth Vega Diaz, Fany Ventura. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit amended complaint, # 2 Proposed Order)(Harbury, Jennifer) (Entered: 02/15/2016)
115 MOTION to Dismiss as of right of Pl. Palafox by Giovanna Castro, Yuliana Dominguez, Leonor Reyna Flores, Nancy Garcia Castro, Rosa Isela Garcia Naranjo, Flavia Garza, Juana Gomez, Diana Hernandez, Nancy Hernandez, Cynthia Ibarra, Marta Alicia Ibarra Luna, La Union Del Pueblo Entero, Diana Parras, Maria Isabel Perales Serna, Quenia Perez, Katerine Johana Portillo, Marcelina Rangel Martinez, Javier Reyes, Antonia Rodriguez, Maria Francisca Rodriguez, Juan Carlos Rodriguez Velasquez, Patricia Rojas, Damaris Romero Hernandez de Reyes, Maria Torres, Mirna Ugalde, Violeta Vega, Yveth Vega Diaz, Fany Ventura. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Harbury, Jennifer) (Entered: 02/15/2016)
Text Order GRANTING 115 Motion to Dismiss the claims of Plaintiffs Eloina Palafox and her minor child J.M. entered by Judge Robert Pitman. (This is a text−only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (aemp) (Entered: 02/16/2016)
116 NOTICE to Court by Maria Carrillo, Giovanna Castro, Yuliana Dominguez, Leonor Reyna Flores, Nancy Garcia Castro, Rosa Isela Garcia Naranjo, Flavia Garza, Juana Gomez, Diana Hernandez, Nancy Hernandez, Cynthia Ibarra, Paulina Nieto Ibarra, Marta Alicia Ibarra Luna, La Union Del Pueblo Entero, Diana Parras, Maria Isabel Perales Serna, Quenia Perez, Katerine Johana Portillo, Marcelina Rangel Martinez, Antonia Rodriguez, Maria Francisca Rodriguez, Patricia Rojas, Damaris Romero Hernandez de Reyes, Maria Del Rosario Teran Uriegas, Maria Torres, Mirna Ugalde, Violeta Vega (Harbury, Jennifer) (Entered: 02/18/2016)
117 RESPONSE to Motion, filed by Kirk Cole, Geraldine Harris, Texas Department of State Health Services, Vital Statistics Unit, re 114 MOTION to Amend Complaint filed by Plaintiff Eloina Palafox, Plaintiff Yveth Vega Diaz, Plaintiff Damaris Romero Hernandez de Reyes, Plaintiff Rosa Isela Garcia Naranjo, Plaintiff Juan Carlos Rodriguez Velasquez, Plaintiff Flavia Garza, Plaintiff Maria Isabel Perales Serna, Plaintiff Maria Carrillo, Plaintiff Giovanna Castro, Plaintiff Patricia Rojas, Plaintiff Violeta Vega, Plaintiff Leonor Reyna Flores, Plaintiff Diana Parras, Plaintiff Fany Ventura, Plaintiff Maria Torres, Plaintiff Antonia Rodriguez, Plaintiff Katerine Johana

Case: 1:15-cv-446 As of: 11/02/2017 03:49 PM CDT 35 of 44

02/24/2016
02/24/2016 02/24/2016 03/01/2016 03/08/2016

Portillo, Plaintiff Leticia Torres, Plaintiff Mirna Ugalde, Plaintiff La Union Del Pueblo Entero, Plaintiff Nancy Hernandez, Plaintiff Cynthia Ibarra, Plaintiff Marcelina Rangel Martinez, Plaintiff Maria Francisca Rodriguez, Plaintiff Quenia Perez, Plaintiff Nancy Garcia Castro, Plaintiff Marta Alicia Ibarra Luna, Plaintiff Diana Hernandez, Plaintiff Yuliana Dominguez, Plaintiff Javier Reyes, Plaintiff Juana Gomez (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Albright, Thomas) (Entered: 02/22/2016)
118 REPLY to Response to Motion, filed by Luisa Ines Barragan, Maria Carrillo, Giovanna Castro, Yuliana Dominguez, Leonor Reyna Flores, Nancy Garcia Castro, Rosa Isela Garcia Naranjo, Flavia Garza, Juana Gomez, Diana Hernandez, Nancy Hernandez, Cynthia Ibarra, Paulina Nieto Ibarra, Marta Alicia Ibarra Luna, Diana Parras, Maria Isabel Perales Serna, Quenia Perez, Katerine Johana Portillo, Marcelina Rangel Martinez, Javier Reyes, Antonia Rodriguez, Maria Francisca Rodriguez, Juan Carlos Rodriguez Velasquez, Patricia Rojas, Damaris Romero Hernandez de Reyes, Leticia Torres, Maria Torres, Mirna Ugalde, Violeta Vega, Yveth Vega Diaz, Fany Ventura, re 114 MOTION to Amend Complaint filed by Plaintiff Eloina Palafox, Plaintiff Yveth Vega Diaz, Plaintiff Damaris Romero Hernandez de Reyes, Plaintiff Rosa Isela Garcia Naranjo, Plaintiff Juan Carlos Rodriguez Velasquez, Plaintiff Flavia Garza, Plaintiff Maria Isabel Perales Serna, Plaintiff Maria Carrillo, Plaintiff Giovanna Castro, Plaintiff Patricia Rojas, Plaintiff Violeta Vega, Plaintiff Leonor Reyna Flores, Plaintiff Diana Parras, Plaintiff Fany Ventura, Plaintiff Maria Torres, Plaintiff Antonia Rodriguez, Plaintiff Katerine Johana Portillo, Plaintiff Leticia Torres, Plaintiff Mirna Ugalde, Plaintiff La Union Del Pueblo Entero, Plaintiff Nancy Hernandez, Plaintiff Cynthia Ibarra, Plaintiff Marcelina Rangel Martinez, Plaintiff Maria Francisca Rodriguez, Plaintiff Quenia Perez, Plaintiff Nancy Garcia Castro, Plaintiff Marta Alicia Ibarra Luna, Plaintiff Diana Hernandez, Plaintiff Yuliana Dominguez, Plaintiff Javier Reyes, Plaintiff Juana Gomez (Harbury, Jennifer) (Entered: 02/24/2016)
119 DEFICIENCY NOTICE: re 118 Reply to Response to Motion.(dm) (Entered: 02/24/2016)
120 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Maria Carrillo, Giovanna Castro, Estrella De Jesus Cedillo Nieto, Yuliana Dominguez, Leonor Reyna Flores, Nancy Garcia Castro, Rosa Isela Garcia Naranjo, Flavia Garza, Juana Gomez, Diana Hernandez, Nancy Hernandez, Cynthia Ibarra, Paulina Nieto Ibarra, Marta Alicia Ibarra Luna, Diana Parras, Maria Isabel Perales Serna, Quenia Perez, Katerine Johana Portillo, Marcelina Rangel Martinez, Javier Reyes, Antonia Rodriguez, Maria Francisca Rodriguez, Juan Carlos Rodriguez Velasquez, Patricia Rojas, Damaris Romero Hernandez de Reyes, Brizeida Sanchez, Maria Del Rosario Teran Uriegas, Leticia Torres, Maria Torres, Mirna Ugalde, Yveth Vega Diaz, Fany Ventura (Harbury, Jennifer) (Entered: 02/24/2016)
121 Opposed MOTION for Protective Order by Maria Carrillo, Giovanna Castro, Yuliana Dominguez, Leonor Reyna Flores, Rosa Isela Garcia Naranjo, Flavia Garza, Juana Gomez, Diana Hernandez, Nancy Hernandez, Cynthia Ibarra, Marta Alicia Ibarra Luna, La Union Del Pueblo Entero, Diana Parras, Maria Isabel Perales Serna, Quenia Perez, Katerine Johana Portillo, Marcelina Rangel Martinez, Javier Reyes, Antonia Rodriguez, Maria Francisca Rodriguez, Juan Carlos Rodriguez Velasquez, Patricia Rojas, Damaris Romero Hernandez de Reyes, Leticia Torres, Maria Torres, Mirna Ugalde, Violeta Vega, Yveth Vega Diaz, Fany Ventura. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Proposed Order)(Harbury, Jennifer) (Entered: 03/01/2016)
122 RESPONSE to Motion, filed by Kirk Cole, Geraldine Harris, re 121 Opposed MOTION for Protective Order filed by Plaintiff Yveth Vega Diaz, Plaintiff Damaris Romero Hernandez de Reyes, Plaintiff Rosa Isela Garcia Naranjo, Plaintiff Juan Carlos Rodriguez Velasquez, Plaintiff Flavia Garza, Plaintiff Maria Isabel Perales Serna, Plaintiff Maria Carrillo, Plaintiff Giovanna Castro, Plaintiff Patricia Rojas, Plaintiff Violeta Vega, Plaintiff Leonor Reyna Flores, Plaintiff Diana Parras, Plaintiff Fany Ventura, Plaintiff Maria Torres, Plaintiff Antonia Rodriguez, Plaintiff Katerine Johana Portillo, Plaintiff Leticia Torres, Plaintiff Mirna Ugalde, Plaintiff La Union Del Pueblo Entero, Plaintiff Nancy Hernandez, Plaintiff Cynthia Ibarra, Plaintiff Marcelina Rangel Martinez, Plaintiff Maria Francisca Rodriguez, Plaintiff Quenia Perez, Plaintiff Marta Alicia Ibarra Luna, Plaintiff Diana Hernandez, Plaintiff Yuliana Dominguez, Plaintiff Javier Reyes, Plaintiff Juana Gomez (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Albright, Thomas) (Entered: 03/08/2016)

Case: 1:15-cv-446 As of: 11/02/2017 03:49 PM CDT 36 of 44

03/15/2016
03/25/2016 03/28/2016 03/28/2016 03/29/2016
03/30/2016 03/31/2016 04/04/2016
04/06/2016

123 REPLY to Response to Motion, filed by Maria Carrillo, Giovanna Castro, Yuliana Dominguez, Leonor Reyna Flores, Nancy Garcia Castro, Rosa Isela Garcia Naranjo, Flavia Garza, Juana Gomez, Diana Hernandez, Nancy Hernandez, Honduras, Cynthia Ibarra, Marta Alicia Ibarra Luna, La Union Del Pueblo Entero, Diana Parras, Maria Isabel Perales Serna, Quenia Perez, Katerine Johana Portillo, Marcelina Rangel Martinez, Javier Reyes, Antonia Rodriguez, Maria Francisca Rodriguez, Juan Carlos Rodriguez Velasquez, Patricia Rojas, Damaris Romero Hernandez de Reyes, Maria Torres, Mirna Ugalde, Violeta Vega, Yveth Vega Diaz, Fany Ventura, re 121 Opposed MOTION for Protective Order filed by Plaintiff Yveth Vega Diaz, Plaintiff Damaris Romero Hernandez de Reyes, Plaintiff Rosa Isela Garcia Naranjo, Plaintiff Juan Carlos Rodriguez Velasquez, Plaintiff Flavia Garza, Plaintiff Maria Isabel Perales Serna, Plaintiff Maria Carrillo, Plaintiff Giovanna Castro, Plaintiff Patricia Rojas, Plaintiff Violeta Vega, Plaintiff Leonor Reyna Flores, Plaintiff Diana Parras, Plaintiff Fany Ventura, Plaintiff Maria Torres, Plaintiff Antonia Rodriguez, Plaintiff Katerine Johana Portillo, Plaintiff Leticia Torres, Plaintiff Mirna Ugalde, Plaintiff La Union Del Pueblo Entero, Plaintiff Nancy Hernandez, Plaintiff Cynthia Ibarra, Plaintiff Marcelina Rangel Martinez, Plaintiff Maria Francisca Rodriguez, Plaintiff Quenia Perez, Plaintiff Marta Alicia Ibarra Luna, Plaintiff Diana Hernandez, Plaintiff Yuliana Dominguez, Plaintiff Javier Reyes, Plaintiff Juana Gomez (Harbury, Jennifer) (Entered: 03/15/2016)
124 MOTION to Dismiss as matter of right by Maria Isabel Perales Serna, Violeta Vega. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Harbury, Jennifer) (Entered: 03/25/2016)
125 ORDER GRANTING 124 Motion to Dismiss. Terminated party Maria Isabel Perales Serna (on her own behalf and as next friend for her minor daughter K.Z.P.S.) and Violeta Vega (on her own behalf and on behalf of her minor son M.G.R.). Signed by Judge Robert Pitman. (dm) (Entered: 03/28/2016)
126 ORDER DISMISSING 110 Motion to Dismiss ; GRANTING 114 Motion to Amend Complaint. Signed by Judge Robert Pitman. (dm) (Entered: 03/28/2016)
127 AMENDED COMPLAINT against All Defendants amending, filed by Marta Alicia Ibarra Luna, Maria Carrillo, Javier Reyes, Patricia Rojas, Nancy Garcia Castro, Rosa Isela Garcia Naranjo, Maria del Carmen Reyes Zapata, Juana Gomez, Antonia Rodriguez, Juan Carlos Rodriguez Velasquez, Nancy Hernandez, Mirna Ugalde, Leonor Reyna Flores, Cynthia Ibarra, Quenia Perez, Maria Teresita Madera Esparza, Maria Francisca Rodriguez, Maria De Luna, Giovanna Castro, Katerine Johana Portillo, Maria Torres, La Union Del Pueblo Entero, Marcelina Rangel Martinez, Diana Parras, Yveth Vega Diaz, Diana Hernandez, Ana Karina Ramirez Gonzalez, Damaris Romero Hernandez de Reyes, Yuliana Dominguez, Flavia Garza.(Harbury, Jennifer) (Entered: 03/29/2016)
128 REQUEST FOR ISSUANCE OF SUMMONS by Juana Gomez. (Van Dalen, Marinda) (Entered: 03/30/2016)
129 Summons Issued as to Chris Traylor. (dm) (Entered: 03/31/2016)
130 MOTION for Referral to ADR/Mediation by Maria Carrillo, Giovanna Castro, Maria De Luna, Maria Teresita Madera Esparza, Leonor Reyna Flores, Rosa Isela Garcia Naranjo, Flavia Garza, Guatemala, Diana Hernandez, Nancy Hernandez, Cynthia Ibarra, Marta Alicia Ibarra Luna, La Union Del Pueblo Entero, Diana Parras, Quenia Perez, Katerine Johana Portillo, Ana Karina Ramirez Gonzalez, Marcelina Rangel Martinez, Javier Reyes, Maria del Carmen Reyes Zapata, Antonia Rodriguez, Maria Francisca Rodriguez, Juan Carlos Rodriguez Velasquez, Patricia Rojas, Damaris Romero Hernandez de Reyes, Maria Torres, Mirna Ugalde, Yveth Vega Diaz, Felipa Velazquez, Fany Ventura. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Harbury, Jennifer) (Entered: 04/04/2016)
131 MOTION to Appear Pro Hac Vice by James C. Harrington Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice ( Filing fee $ 100 receipt number 0542−8359735) by on behalf of Maria Carrillo, Giovanna Castro, Yuliana Dominguez, Leonor Reyna Flores, Flavia Garza, Juana Gomez, Diana Hernandez, Nancy Hernandez, Cynthia Ibarra, Marta Alicia Ibarra Luna, La Union Del Pueblo Entero, Diana Parras, Quenia Perez, Katerine Johana Portillo, Marcelina Rangel Martinez, Javier Reyes, Antonia Rodriguez, Maria Francisca Rodriguez, Juan Carlos Rodriguez Velasquez, Patricia Rojas, Damaris Romero Hernandez de Reyes, Maria Torres, Mirna Ugalde, Yveth Vega Diaz, Fany

Case: 1:15-cv-446 As of: 11/02/2017 03:49 PM CDT 37 of 44

04/11/2016
04/13/2016 04/15/2016 04/15/2016 04/15/2016 04/19/2016
04/20/2016 04/20/2016 04/25/2016
04/26/2016 04/26/2016

Ventura. (Attachments: # 1 Supplement List of Admissions, # 2 Supplement List of Plaintiffs, # 3 Proposed Order Proposed Order)(Harrington, James) (Entered: 04/06/2016)
132 RESPONSE to Motion, filed by Kirk Cole, Geraldine Harris, re 130 MOTION for Referral to ADR/Mediation filed by Plaintiff Maria De Luna, Plaintiff Yveth Vega Diaz, Plaintiff Damaris Romero Hernandez de Reyes, Plaintiff Ana Karina Ramirez Gonzalez, Plaintiff Rosa Isela Garcia Naranjo, Plaintiff Juan Carlos Rodriguez Velasquez, Plaintiff Flavia Garza, Plaintiff Maria Carrillo, Plaintiff Giovanna Castro, Plaintiff Maria del Carmen Reyes Zapata, Plaintiff Patricia Rojas, Plaintiff Leonor Reyna Flores, Plaintiff Diana Parras, Plaintiff Fany Ventura, Plaintiff Felipa Velazquez, Plaintiff Maria Torres, Plaintiff Antonia Rodriguez, Plaintiff Katerine Johana Portillo, Plaintiff Mirna Ugalde, Plaintiff La Union Del Pueblo Entero, Plaintiff Nancy Hernandez, Plaintiff Cynthia Ibarra, Plaintiff Marcelina Rangel Martinez, Plaintiff Maria Teresita Madera Esparza, Amicus Guatemala, Plaintiff Maria Francisca Rodriguez, Plaintiff Quenia Perez, Plaintiff Marta Alicia Ibarra Luna, Plaintiff Diana Hernandez, Plaintiff Javier Reyes (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Albright, Thomas) (Entered: 04/11/2016)
133 Amended MOTION to Dismiss Fourth Amended Complaint and Rule 12(e) Motion for More Definite Statement by Kirk Cole, Geraldine Harris, Chris Traylor. (Albright, Thomas) (Entered: 04/13/2016)
Text Order GRANTING 131 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice by atty Mimi Marziani entered by Judge Robert Pitman. Pursuant to our Administrative Policies and Procedures for Electronic Filing, the attorney hereby granted to practice pro hac vice in this case must register for electronic filing with our court within 10 days of this order. (This is a text−only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (jg) (Entered: 04/15/2016)
134 SUMMONS RETURNED EXECUTED by Juana Gomez Proof of Service Chris Traylor (Van Dalen, Marinda) Modified on 4/18/2016 to correct docket text (dm). (Entered: 04/15/2016)
Set Deadlines: Chris Traylor answer due 4/21/2016. (dm) (Entered: 04/18/2016)
135 MOTION to Withdraw Motion to Withdraw and Substitute Counsel by Maria Carrillo, Giovanna Castro, Yuliana Dominguez, Leonor Reyna Flores, Flavia Garza, Juana Gomez, Diana Hernandez, Nancy Hernandez, Cynthia Ibarra, Marta Alicia Ibarra Luna, La Union Del Pueblo Entero, Diana Parras, Quenia Perez, Katerine Johana Portillo, Marcelina Rangel Martinez, Javier Reyes, Antonia Rodriguez, Maria Francisca Rodriguez, Juan Carlos Rodriguez Velasquez, Patricia Rojas, Damaris Romero Hernandez de Reyes, Maria Torres, Mirna Ugalde, Yveth Vega Diaz, Fany Ventura. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Marziani, Mimi) (Entered: 04/19/2016)
Text Order GRANTING 135 Motion to Withdraw and Substitute Counsel entered by Judge Robert Pitman. (This is a text−only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (aemp) (Entered: 04/20/2016)
136 Opposed MOTION to Compel Discovery by Juana Gomez. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Attachment A, # 2 Proposed Order)(Van Dalen, Marinda) (Entered: 04/20/2016)
137 ADVISORY TO THE COURT by Maria Carrillo, Giovanna Castro, Maria De Luna, Yuliana Dominguez, Maria Teresita Madera Esparza, Leonor Reyna Flores, Flavia Garza, Juana Gomez, Diana Hernandez, Nancy Hernandez, Cynthia Ibarra, Marta Alicia Ibarra Luna, La Union Del Pueblo Entero, Diana Parras, Quenia Perez, Katerine Johana Portillo, Ana Karina Ramirez Gonzalez, Marcelina Rangel Martinez, Javier Reyes, Maria del Carmen Reyes Zapata, Antonia Rodriguez, Maria Francisca Rodriguez, Juan Carlos Rodriguez Velasquez, Patricia Rojas, Maria Torres, Mirna Ugalde, Yveth Vega Diaz, Felipa Velazquez, Fany Ventura. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Harbury, Jennifer) (Entered: 04/25/2016)
138 MOTION to Dismiss Claim by Flavia Garza. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Harbury, Jennifer) (Entered: 04/26/2016)
139 RESPONSE to Motion, filed by Maria Carrillo, Giovanna Castro, Maria De Luna, Yuliana Dominguez, Maria Teresita Madera Esparza, Leonor Reyna Flores, Juana

Case: 1:15-cv-446 As of: 11/02/2017 03:49 PM CDT 38 of 44

04/26/2016 04/26/2016
04/26/2016
04/27/2016 04/27/2016 04/27/2016 04/29/2016
04/29/2016

Gomez, Diana Hernandez, Nancy Hernandez, Cynthia Ibarra, Marta Alicia Ibarra Luna, La Union Del Pueblo Entero, Diana Parras, Quenia Perez, Katerine Johana Portillo, Ana Karina Ramirez Gonzalez, Marcelina Rangel Martinez, Javier Reyes, Maria del Carmen Reyes Zapata, Antonia Rodriguez, Maria Francisca Rodriguez, Juan Carlos Rodriguez Velasquez, Patricia Rojas, Damaris Romero Hernandez de Reyes, Maria Torres, Mirna Ugalde, Yveth Vega Diaz, Felipa Velazquez, Fany Ventura, re 133 Amended MOTION to Dismiss Fourth Amended Complaint and Rule 12(e) Motion for More Definite Statement filed by Defendant Geraldine Harris, Defendant Kirk Cole, Defendant Chris Traylor (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Olivares, Efren) (Entered: 04/26/2016)
140 RESPONSE to Motion, filed by Kirk Cole, Geraldine Harris, re 136 Opposed MOTION to Compel Discovery filed by Plaintiff Juana Gomez (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Ds' Objs and Resps to TER Database Request, # 2 Exhibit Ds' First Suppl Resp to TER Database Request, # 3 Exhibit Decl of Victor Farinelli, # 4 Exhibit Decl of Lonzo Kerr, # 5 Proposed Order)(Rietvelt, Marc) (Entered: 04/26/2016)
141 ADVISORY TO THE COURT by Maria Carrillo, Giovanna Castro, Maria De Luna, Yuliana Dominguez, Maria Teresita Madera Esparza, Leonor Reyna Flores, Flavia Garza, Juana Gomez, Diana Hernandez, Nancy Hernandez, Cynthia Ibarra, Marta Alicia Ibarra Luna, La Union Del Pueblo Entero, Diana Parras, Quenia Perez, Katerine Johana Portillo, Ana Karina Ramirez Gonzalez, Marcelina Rangel Martinez, Javier Reyes, Maria del Carmen Reyes Zapata, Antonia Rodriguez, Maria Francisca Rodriguez, Juan Carlos Rodriguez Velasquez, Patricia Rojas, Damaris Romero Hernandez de Reyes, Maria Torres, Mirna Ugalde, Yveth Vega Diaz, Felipa Velazquez, Fany Ventura. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix)(Van Dalen, Marinda) (Entered: 04/26/2016)
142 ADVISORY TO THE COURT by Maria Carrillo, Giovanna Castro, Maria De Luna, Yuliana Dominguez, Maria Teresita Madera Esparza, Leonor Reyna Flores, Flavia Garza, Juana Gomez, Diana Hernandez, Nancy Hernandez, Cynthia Ibarra, Marta Alicia Ibarra Luna, La Union Del Pueblo Entero, Diana Parras, Quenia Perez, Katerine Johana Portillo, Ana Karina Ramirez Gonzalez, Marcelina Rangel Martinez, Javier Reyes, Maria del Carmen Reyes Zapata, Antonia Rodriguez, Maria Francisca Rodriguez, Juan Carlos Rodriguez Velasquez, Patricia Rojas, Damaris Romero Hernandez de Reyes, Maria Torres, Mirna Ugalde, Yveth Vega Diaz, Felipa Velazquez, Fany Ventura. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix)(Van Dalen, Marinda) (Entered: 04/26/2016)
Text Order GRANTING 138 Motion to Dismiss the claims of Plaintiffs Flavia Garza and her minor children D.G. and S.G. entered by Judge Robert Pitman. (This is a text−only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (aemp) (Entered: 04/27/2016)
143 ORDER, Set Motion Hearing for 136 Opposed MOTION to Compel Discovery ( Motion Hearing set for 5/5/2016 at 10:00 AM before Judge Robert Pitman,). Signed by Judge Robert Pitman. (dm) (Entered: 04/27/2016)
144 ORDER GRANTING 130 Motion for Referral to ADR/Mediation. Signed by Judge Robert Pitman. (dm) (Entered: 04/27/2016)
145 Opposed MOTION for Discovery TESTIMONY BY VIDEO MEANS by Giovanna Castro, Maria De Luna, Yuliana Dominguez, Maria Teresita Madera Esparza, Leonor Reyna Flores, Rosa Isela Garcia Naranjo, Juana Gomez, Diana Hernandez, Nancy Hernandez, Cynthia Ibarra, Marta Alicia Ibarra Luna, La Union Del Pueblo Entero, Diana Parras, Katerine Johana Portillo, Ana Karina Ramirez Gonzalez, Marcelina Rangel Martinez, Javier Reyes, Maria del Carmen Reyes Zapata, Antonia Rodriguez, Maria Francisca Rodriguez, Juan Carlos Rodriguez Velasquez, Patricia Rojas, Brizeida Sanchez, Maria Torres, Mirna Ugalde, Yveth Vega Diaz, Felipa Velazquez. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Harbury, Jennifer) (Entered: 04/29/2016)
146 MOTION for Leave to EXCEED TEN DEPOSITIONS by Maria Carrillo, Giovanna Castro, Maria De Luna, Maria Teresita Madera Esparza, Leonor Reyna Flores, Rosa Isela Garcia Naranjo, Juana Gomez, Diana Hernandez, Nancy Hernandez, Cynthia Ibarra, Marta Alicia Ibarra Luna, Diana Parras, Katerine Johana Portillo, Ana Karina Ramirez Gonzalez, Marcelina Rangel Martinez, Javier Reyes, Maria del Carmen Reyes Zapata, Antonia Rodriguez, Maria Francisca Rodriguez, Juan Carlos Rodriguez

Case: 1:15-cv-446 As of: 11/02/2017 03:49 PM CDT 39 of 44

04/29/2016 05/03/2016
05/05/2016 05/05/2016 05/06/2016
05/06/2016
05/06/2016

Velasquez, Patricia Rojas, Maria Del Rosario Teran Uriegas, Maria Torres, Mirna Ugalde, Yveth Vega Diaz, Felipa Velazquez, Fany Ventura. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Harbury, Jennifer) Modified on 4/29/2016 to edit text (os). (Entered: 04/29/2016)
147 NOTICE of Attorney Appearance by John Earl Duke on behalf of Kirk Cole, Geraldine Harris, Chris Traylor. Attorney John Earl Duke added to party Kirk Cole(pty:dft), Attorney John Earl Duke added to party Geraldine Harris(pty:dft), Attorney John Earl Duke added to party Chris Traylor(pty:dft) (Duke, John) (Entered: 04/29/2016)
148 REPLY to Response to Motion, filed by Maria Carrillo, Giovanna Castro, Maria De Luna, Yuliana Dominguez, Maria Teresita Madera Esparza, Leonor Reyna Flores, Juana Gomez, Diana Hernandez, Nancy Hernandez, Cynthia Ibarra, Marta Alicia Ibarra Luna, La Union Del Pueblo Entero, Diana Parras, Quenia Perez, Katerine Johana Portillo, Ana Karina Ramirez Gonzalez, Marcelina Rangel Martinez, Javier Reyes, Maria del Carmen Reyes Zapata, Antonia Rodriguez, Maria Francisca Rodriguez, Juan Carlos Rodriguez Velasquez, Patricia Rojas, Damaris Romero Hernandez de Reyes, Maria Torres, Mirna Ugalde, Yveth Vega Diaz, Felipa Velazquez, Fany Ventura, re 136 Opposed MOTION to Compel Discovery filed by Plaintiff Juana Gomez (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Olivares, Efren) (Entered: 05/03/2016)
149 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Robert Pitman: Motion Hearing held on 5/5/2016 re 136 Opposed MOTION to Compel Discovery filed by Juana Gomez (Minute entry documents are not available electronically.). (Court Reporter Pamela Andasola.)(dm) (Entered: 05/05/2016)
150 The parties are hereby ORDERED to submit a joint statement of theagreements they have reached to date regarding the scope and timing Defendants response to the requested discovery within seven days. Signed by Judge Robert Pitman. (dm) (Entered: 05/05/2016)
151 RESPONSE to Motion, filed by Kirk Cole, Geraldine Harris, Texas Department of State Health Services, Vital Statistics Unit, Chris Traylor, re 146 MOTION for Discovery EXCEED TEN DEPOSITIONS filed by Plaintiff Maria De Luna, Plaintiff Yveth Vega Diaz, Plaintiff Ana Karina Ramirez Gonzalez, Plaintiff Rosa Isela Garcia Naranjo, Plaintiff Juan Carlos Rodriguez Velasquez, Plaintiff Maria Del Rosario Teran Uriegas, Plaintiff Maria Carrillo, Plaintiff Giovanna Castro, Plaintiff Maria del Carmen Reyes Zapata, Plaintiff Patricia Rojas, Plaintiff Leonor Reyna Flores, Plaintiff Diana Parras, Plaintiff Fany Ventura, Plaintiff Felipa Velazquez, Plaintiff Maria Torres, Plaintiff Antonia Rodriguez, Plaintiff Katerine Johana Portillo, Plaintiff Mirna Ugalde, Plaintiff Nancy Hernandez, Plaintiff Marcelina Rangel Martinez, Plaintiff Cynthia Ibarra, Plaintiff Maria Teresita Madera Esparza, Plaintiff Maria Francisca Rodriguez, Plaintiff Marta Alicia Ibarra Luna, Plaintiff Diana Hernandez, Plaintiff Juana Gomez, Plaintiff Javier Reyes (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Albright, Thomas) (Entered: 05/06/2016)
152 RESPONSE to Motion, filed by Kirk Cole, Geraldine Harris, Texas Department of State Health Services, Vital Statistics Unit, Chris Traylor, re 145 Opposed MOTION for Discovery TESTIMONY BY VIDEO MEANS filed by Plaintiff Maria De Luna, Plaintiff Yveth Vega Diaz, Plaintiff Brizeida Sanchez, Plaintiff Ana Karina Ramirez Gonzalez, Plaintiff Rosa Isela Garcia Naranjo, Plaintiff Juan Carlos Rodriguez Velasquez, Plaintiff Giovanna Castro, Plaintiff Maria del Carmen Reyes Zapata, Plaintiff Patricia Rojas, Plaintiff Leonor Reyna Flores, Plaintiff Diana Parras, Plaintiff Felipa Velazquez, Plaintiff Maria Torres, Plaintiff Antonia Rodriguez, Plaintiff Katerine Johana Portillo, Plaintiff Mirna Ugalde, Plaintiff La Union Del Pueblo Entero, Plaintiff Nancy Hernandez, Plaintiff Marcelina Rangel Martinez, Plaintiff Cynthia Ibarra, Plaintiff Maria Teresita Madera Esparza, Plaintiff Maria Francisca Rodriguez, Plaintiff Marta Alicia Ibarra Luna, Plaintiff Diana Hernandez, Plaintiff Yuliana Dominguez, Plaintiff Juana Gomez, Plaintiff Javier Reyes (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Albright, Thomas) (Entered: 05/06/2016)
153 NOTICE of Filing AO 435 Transcript Order by Kirk Cole, Geraldine Harris, Chris Traylor (os) (Entered: 05/06/2016)

Case: 1:15-cv-446 As of: 11/02/2017 03:49 PM CDT 40 of 44

05/12/2016
05/13/2016 05/13/2016 05/13/2016 05/16/2016 05/16/2016 05/17/2016

154 REPLY to Response to Motion, filed by Maria Carrillo, Giovanna Castro, Maria De Luna, Yuliana Dominguez, Maria Teresita Madera Esparza, Nancy Garcia Castro, Rosa Isela Garcia Naranjo, Flavia Garza, Juana Gomez, Diana Hernandez, Nancy Hernandez, Marta Alicia Ibarra Luna, La Union Del Pueblo Entero, Diana Parras, Quenia Perez, Katerine Johana Portillo, Ana Karina Ramirez Gonzalez, Marcelina Rangel Martinez, Javier Reyes, Maria del Carmen Reyes Zapata, Antonia Rodriguez, Maria Francisca Rodriguez, Juan Carlos Rodriguez Velasquez, Patricia Rojas, Maria Torres, Mirna Ugalde, Yveth Vega Diaz, Felipa Velazquez, Fany Ventura, re 145 Opposed MOTION for Discovery TESTIMONY BY VIDEO MEANS filed by Plaintiff Maria De Luna, Plaintiff Yveth Vega Diaz, Plaintiff Brizeida Sanchez, Plaintiff Ana Karina Ramirez Gonzalez, Plaintiff Rosa Isela Garcia Naranjo, Plaintiff Juan Carlos Rodriguez Velasquez, Plaintiff Giovanna Castro, Plaintiff Maria del Carmen Reyes Zapata, Plaintiff Patricia Rojas, Plaintiff Leonor Reyna Flores, Plaintiff Diana Parras, Plaintiff Felipa Velazquez, Plaintiff Maria Torres, Plaintiff Antonia Rodriguez, Plaintiff Katerine Johana Portillo, Plaintiff Mirna Ugalde, Plaintiff La Union Del Pueblo Entero, Plaintiff Nancy Hernandez, Plaintiff Marcelina Rangel Martinez, Plaintiff Cynthia Ibarra, Plaintiff Maria Teresita Madera Esparza, Plaintiff Maria Francisca Rodriguez, Plaintiff Marta Alicia Ibarra Luna, Plaintiff Diana Hernandez, Plaintiff Yuliana Dominguez, Plaintiff Juana Gomez, Plaintiff Javier Reyes (Harbury, Jennifer) (Entered: 05/12/2016)
155 MOTION for Extension of Time to File by Maria Carrillo, Giovanna Castro, Maria De Luna, Yuliana Dominguez, Maria Teresita Madera Esparza, Leonor Reyna Flores, Rosa Isela Garcia Naranjo, Juana Gomez, Diana Hernandez, Nancy Hernandez, Cynthia Ibarra, Marta Alicia Ibarra Luna, La Union Del Pueblo Entero, Diana Parras, Quenia Perez, Katerine Johana Portillo, Ana Karina Ramirez Gonzalez, Marcelina Rangel Martinez, Maria del Carmen Reyes Zapata, Antonia Rodriguez, Maria Francisca Rodriguez, Juan Carlos Rodriguez Velasquez, Patricia Rojas, Maria Torres, Mirna Ugalde, Yveth Vega Diaz, Felipa Velazquez, Fany Ventura. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Harbury, Jennifer) (Entered: 05/13/2016)
156 MOTION to Quash by Legislative Budget Board (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Proposed Order)(Fuchs, Kimberly) Modified on 5/16/2016 to correct filer (dm). (Entered: 05/13/2016)
157 MOTION to Quash by Texas Legislative Council (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Proposed Order)(Fuchs, Kimberly) Modified on 5/16/2016 to correct filer (dm). (Entered: 05/13/2016)
Text Order GRANTING 155 Motion for Extension of Time to File entered by Judge Robert Pitman. The joint agreement regarding data base discovery is due on or before May 17, 2016. (This is a text−only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (aemp) (Entered: 05/16/2016)
158 Memorandum in Support of Motion to Compel by Maria Carrillo, Giovanna Castro, Maria De Luna, Yuliana Dominguez, Maria Teresita Madera Esparza, Nancy Garcia Castro, Rosa Isela Garcia Naranjo, Juana Gomez, Diana Hernandez, Nancy Hernandez, Cynthia Ibarra, Marta Alicia Ibarra Luna, La Union Del Pueblo Entero, Diana Parras, Quenia Perez, Katerine Johana Portillo, Ana Karina Ramirez Gonzalez, Marcelina Rangel Martinez, Javier Reyes, Maria del Carmen Reyes Zapata, Antonia Rodriguez, Maria Francisca Rodriguez, Patricia Rojas, Maria Torres, Mirna Ugalde, Yveth Vega Diaz, Felipa Velazquez, Fany Ventura. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit, # 4 Exhibit, # 5 Exhibit, # 6 Exhibit)(Harbury, Jennifer) (Entered: 05/16/2016)
159 ADVISORY TO THE COURT by Maria Carrillo, Giovanna Castro, Maria De Luna, Yuliana Dominguez, Maria Teresita Madera Esparza, Leonor Reyna Flores, Juana Gomez, Diana Hernandez, Nancy Hernandez, Cynthia Ibarra, Marta Alicia Ibarra Luna, La Union Del Pueblo Entero, Diana Parras, Quenia Perez, Katerine Johana Portillo, Ana Karina Ramirez Gonzalez, Marcelina Rangel Martinez, Javier Reyes, Maria del Carmen Reyes Zapata, Antonia Rodriguez, Maria Francisca Rodriguez, Juan Carlos Rodriguez Velasquez, Patricia Rojas, Damaris Romero Hernandez de Reyes, Maria Torres, Mirna Ugalde, Yveth Vega Diaz, Felipa Velazquez, Fany Ventura. (Van Dalen, Marinda) (Entered: 05/17/2016)

Case: 1:15-cv-446 As of: 11/02/2017 03:49 PM CDT 41 of 44

05/17/2016 05/20/2016
05/20/2016
05/23/2016 05/24/2016 05/25/2016 05/27/2016 05/27/2016 05/31/2016
05/31/2016 06/10/2016

160 STATUS REPORT Joint Statement on TER Database Request by Kirk Cole, Geraldine Harris, Chris Traylor. (Rietvelt, Marc) (Entered: 05/17/2016)
161 Response in Opposition to Motion, filed by Maria Carrillo, Giovanna Castro, Maria De Luna, Yuliana Dominguez, Maria Teresita Madera Esparza, Leonor Reyna Flores, Rosa Isela Garcia Naranjo, Juana Gomez, Diana Hernandez, Nancy Hernandez, Cynthia Ibarra, Marta Alicia Ibarra Luna, La Union Del Pueblo Entero, Diana Parras, Quenia Perez, Katerine Johana Portillo, Ana Karina Ramirez Gonzalez, Marcelina Rangel Martinez, Javier Reyes, Maria del Carmen Reyes Zapata, Antonia Rodriguez, Maria Francisca Rodriguez, Patricia Rojas, Maria Torres, Mirna Ugalde, Yveth Vega Diaz, Felipa Velazquez, Fany Ventura, re 156 MOTION to Quash filed by Legislative Budget Board (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Harbury, Jennifer) (Entered: 05/20/2016)
162 Memorandum in Opposition to Motion, filed by Maria Carrillo, Giovanna Castro, Maria De Luna, Yuliana Dominguez, Leonor Reyna Flores, Nancy Garcia Castro, Rosa Isela Garcia Naranjo, Juana Gomez, Diana Hernandez, Cynthia Ibarra, Marta Alicia Ibarra Luna, La Union Del Pueblo Entero, Diana Parras, Quenia Perez, Katerine Johana Portillo, Ana Karina Ramirez Gonzalez, Marcelina Rangel Martinez, Javier Reyes, Antonia Rodriguez, Maria Francisca Rodriguez, Patricia Rojas, Maria Torres, Mirna Ugalde, Yveth Vega Diaz, Felipa Velazquez, Fany Ventura, re 157 MOTION to Quash filed by Texas Legislative Council (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Harbury, Jennifer) (Entered: 05/20/2016)
163 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 158 Memorandum in Support,, by Kirk Cole, Geraldine Harris, Chris Traylor. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Rietvelt, Marc) (Entered: 05/23/2016)
Text Order GRANTING 163 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply entered by Judge Robert Pitman. Defendants' response to Plaintiffs Memorandum in Support of Their Request for Data Base is due on or before May 25, 2016. (This is a text−only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (aemp) (Entered: 05/24/2016)
164 RESPONSE to 158 Memorandum in Support,, by Geraldine Harris, Texas Department of State Health Services, Vital Statistics Unit, Chris Traylor. (Rietvelt, Marc) (Entered: 05/25/2016)
165 REPLY to Response to Motion, filed by Texas Legislative Council, re 157 MOTION to Quash filed by Texas Legislative Council. (dm) (Entered: 05/31/2016)
166 REPLY to Response to Motion, filed by Legislative Budget Board, re 156 MOTION to Quash filed by Legislative Budget Board. (dm) (Entered: 05/31/2016)
167 REPLY to Response to Motion, filed by Maria Carrillo, Giovanna Castro, Maria De Luna, Yuliana Dominguez, Maria Teresita Madera Esparza, Leonor Reyna Flores, Rosa Isela Garcia Naranjo, Juana Gomez, Diana Hernandez, Nancy Hernandez, Cynthia Ibarra, Marta Alicia Ibarra Luna, Diana Parras, Quenia Perez, Katerine Johana Portillo, Marcelina Rangel Martinez, Maria del Carmen Reyes Zapata, Antonia Rodriguez, Maria Francisca Rodriguez, Juan Carlos Rodriguez Velasquez, Patricia Rojas, Damaris Romero Hernandez de Reyes, Maria Torres, Mirna Ugalde, Yveth Vega Diaz, Felipa Velazquez, Fany Ventura, re 136 Opposed MOTION to Compel Discovery filed by Plaintiff Juana Gomez (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Harbury, Jennifer) (Entered: 05/31/2016)
168 MEDIATION NOTICE, Mediation set for 7/11/2016 at 09:00 AM before Judge Andrew W. Austin. Signed by Judge Andrew W. Austin. (dm) (Entered: 06/01/2016)
169 Joint MOTION to Extend Scheduling Order Deadlines by Luisa Ines Barragan, Maria Carrillo, Giovanna Castro, Estrella De Jesus Cedillo Nieto, Yesenia Cortez, Maria De Luna, Yuliana Dominguez, Maria Teresita Madera Esparza, Leonor Reyna Flores, Nancy Garcia Castro, Rosa Isela Garcia Naranjo, Flavia Garza, Juana Gomez, Diana Hernandez, Nancy Hernandez, Cynthia Ibarra, Paulina Nieto Ibarra, Marta Alicia Ibarra Luna, La Union Del Pueblo Entero, Eloina Palafox, Diana Parras, Maria Isabel Perales Serna, Quenia Perez, Katerine Johana Portillo, Ana Karina Ramirez Gonzalez, Marcelina Rangel Martinez, Javier Reyes, Maria del Carmen Reyes Zapata, Antonia Rodriguez, Maria Francisca Rodriguez, Juan Carlos Rodriguez Velasquez, Patricia Rojas, Damaris Romero Hernandez de Reyes, Brizeida Sanchez, Maria Del Rosario Teran Uriegas, Leticia Torres, Maria Torres, Mirna Ugalde, Violeta Vega, Yveth Vega

Case: 1:15-cv-446 As of: 11/02/2017 03:49 PM CDT 42 of 44

06/13/2016
06/13/2016
07/06/2016 07/06/2016 07/06/2016 07/06/2016 07/06/2016 07/07/2016 07/08/2016

Diaz, Felipa Velazquez, Fany Ventura. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Van Dalen, Marinda) (Entered: 06/10/2016)
170 ADVISORY TO THE COURT by Maria Carrillo, Giovanna Castro, Maria De Luna, Yuliana Dominguez, Maria Teresita Madera Esparza, Leonor Reyna Flores, Juana Gomez, Diana Hernandez, Nancy Hernandez, Cynthia Ibarra, Marta Alicia Ibarra Luna, La Union Del Pueblo Entero, Diana Parras, Quenia Perez, Katerine Johana Portillo, Ana Karina Ramirez Gonzalez, Marcelina Rangel Martinez, Javier Reyes, Maria del Carmen Reyes Zapata, Antonia Rodriguez, Maria Francisca Rodriguez, Juan Carlos Rodriguez Velasquez, Patricia Rojas, Damaris Romero Hernandez de Reyes, Maria Torres, Mirna Ugalde, Yveth Vega Diaz, Felipa Velazquez, Fany Ventura. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Van Dalen, Marinda) (Entered: 06/13/2016)
171 Transcript filed of Proceedings held on May 5, 2016, Proceedings Transcribed: Motion Hearing. Court Reporter: Pamela J. Andasola, Telephone number: 210−244−5038 | pjandasola@comcast.net. Parties are notified of their duty to review the transcript to ensure compliance with the FRCP 5.2(a)/FRCrP 49.1(a). A copy may be purchased from the court reporter or viewed at the clerk's office public terminal. If redaction is necessary, a Notice of Redaction Request must be filed within 21 days. If no such Notice is filed, the transcript will be made available via PACER without redaction after 90 calendar days. The clerk will mail a copy of this notice to parties not electronically noticed Redaction Request due 7/5/2016, Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 7/14/2016, Release of Transcript Restriction set for 9/12/2016, (Andasola, Pamela) (Entered: 06/13/2016)
Text Order GRANTING 169 Motion to Extend Scheduling Order Deadlines entered by Judge Robert Pitman. The parties' amended scheduling order will be entered separately. Dispositive motions are due on or before January 3, 2017. Trial will be set at a later date. (This is a text−only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (Entered: 07/06/2016)
Text Order DISMISSING 146 Motion for Discovery entered by Judge Robert Pitman. Motion is dismissed without prejudice to refiling for lack of proper conference as required by Local Rule CV−7(i). (This is a text−only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (Entered: 07/06/2016)
172 SCHEDULING ORDER: Discovery due by 11/3/2016, Dispositive Motions due by 1/3/2017, Bench Trial to be Determined. Signed by Judge Robert Pitman. (dm) (Entered: 07/06/2016)
173 ORDER REFERRING MOTION: 156 MOTION to Quash filed by Legislative Budget Board, 157 MOTION to Quash filed by Texas Legislative Council. Signed by Judge Robert Pitman.. Referral Magistrate Judge: Mark Lane. (dm) (Entered: 07/06/2016)
174 ORDER, Set Motion Hearing for 145 Opposed MOTION for Discovery TESTIMONY BY VIDEO MEANS ( Motion Hearing set for 7/20/2016 at 02:00 PM before Judge Robert Pitman,). Signed by Judge Robert Pitman. (dm) (Entered: 07/06/2016)
175 ORDER, Set Motion Hearing for 157 MOTION to Quash , 156 MOTION to Quash ( Motion Hearing set for 7/28/2016 02:30 PM before Judge Mark Lane,). Signed by Judge Mark Lane. (dm) (Entered: 07/08/2016)
176 Unopposed MOTION to Continue July 20, 2016 Hearing by Luisa Ines Barragan, Maria Carrillo, Giovanna Castro, Estrella De Jesus Cedillo Nieto, Yesenia Cortez, Maria De Luna, Yuliana Dominguez, Maria Teresita Madera Esparza, Leonor Reyna Flores, Nancy Garcia Castro, Rosa Isela Garcia Naranjo, Flavia Garza, Juana Gomez, Diana Hernandez, Nancy Hernandez, Cynthia Ibarra, Paulina Nieto Ibarra, Marta Alicia Ibarra Luna, La Union Del Pueblo Entero, Eloina Palafox, Diana Parras, Maria Isabel Perales Serna, Quenia Perez, Katerine Johana Portillo, Ana Karina Ramirez Gonzalez, Marcelina Rangel Martinez, Javier Reyes, Maria del Carmen Reyes Zapata, Antonia Rodriguez, Maria Francisca Rodriguez, Juan Carlos Rodriguez Velasquez, Patricia Rojas, Damaris Romero Hernandez de Reyes, Brizeida Sanchez, Maria Del Rosario Teran Uriegas, Leticia Torres, Maria Torres, Mirna Ugalde, Violeta Vega, Yveth Vega Diaz, Felipa Velazquez, Fany Ventura. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Van Dalen, Marinda) (Entered: 07/08/2016)

Case: 1:15-cv-446 As of: 11/02/2017 03:49 PM CDT 43 of 44

07/11/2016 07/11/2016 07/11/2016 07/12/2016 07/18/2016 07/19/2016 07/22/2016 07/25/2016
07/25/2016 08/31/2016 09/08/2016
09/22/2016 10/27/2016 11/01/2016
11/02/2016 12/02/2016 12/05/2016

177 ORDER GRANTING 176 Motion to Continue. Signed by Judge Robert Pitman. (dm) (Entered: 07/11/2016)
Motion Hearing: 145 Opposed MOTION for Discovery TESTIMONY BY VIDEO MEANS. Motion Hearing reset for 8/10/2016 at 09:00 AM before Judge Robert Pitman. (dm) (Entered: 07/11/2016)
178 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Andrew W. Austin: Mediation Conference held on 7/11/2016. Continued to Tuesday, July 12, 20116 at 9:00am. (Minute entry documents are not available electronically.). (dm) (Entered: 07/12/2016)
179 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Andrew W. Austin: Mediation Conference held on 7/12/2016 (Minute entry documents are not available electronically.). (dm) (Entered: 07/14/2016)
180 REPORT OF MEDIATOR. (dm) (Entered: 07/19/2016)
181 ORDER Cancelling Hearing. Signed by Judge Mark Lane. (dm) (Entered: 07/19/2016)
182 Agreed MOTION to Stay Case by Kirk Cole, Geraldine Harris, Texas Department of State Health Services, Vital Statistics Unit, Chris Traylor. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Albright, Thomas) (Entered: 07/22/2016)
183 ORDER DISMISSING WITHOUT PREJUDICE 121 Motion for Protective Order; DISMISSING WITHOUT PREJUDICE 133 Motion to Dismiss ; DISMISSING WITHOUT PREJUDICE 136 Motion to Compel; DISMISSING WITHOUT PREJUDICE 145 Motion for Discovery; DISMISSING WITHOUT PREJUDICE 156 Motion to Quash; DISMISSING WITHOUT PREJUDICE 157 Motion to Quash; GRANTING 182 Motion to Stay Case. The parties are directed to file a notice with the Court indicating the status of the settlement on or before May 1, 2017. Signed by Judge Robert Pitman. (ml) (Entered: 07/25/2016)
Motions No Longer Referred: 156 MOTION to Quash . (ml) (Entered: 07/25/2016)
186 NOTICE DEFENDANTS INTERIM CERTIFICATION UNDER SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT by Kirk Cole, Geraldine Harris, Chris Traylor (Albright, Thomas) (Entered: 08/31/2016)
187 ADVISORY TO THE COURT by Maria Carrillo, Giovanna Castro, Maria De Luna, Yuliana Dominguez, Maria Teresita Madera Esparza, Leonor Reyna Flores, Juana Gomez, Diana Hernandez, Nancy Hernandez, Cynthia Ibarra, Marta Alicia Ibarra Luna, La Union Del Pueblo Entero, Diana Parras, Quenia Perez, Katerine Johana Portillo, Ana Karina Ramirez Gonzalez, Marcelina Rangel Martinez, Antonia Rodriguez, Maria Francisca Rodriguez, Juan Carlos Rodriguez Velasquez, Patricia Rojas, Maria Torres, Mirna Ugalde, Felipa Velazquez, Fany Ventura. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Harbury, Jennifer) (Entered: 09/08/2016)
188 RESPONSE Reply to 187 Advisory to the Court,, by Kirk Cole, Geraldine Harris, Chris Traylor. (Albright, Thomas) (Entered: 09/22/2016)
189 NOTICE of Change of Address by Marinda Van Dalen (Van Dalen, Marinda) (Entered: 10/27/2016)
190 ADVISORY TO THE COURT by Maria Carrillo, Giovanna Castro, Maria De Luna, Yuliana Dominguez, Maria Teresita Madera Esparza, Leonor Reyna Flores, Juana Gomez, Diana Hernandez, Cynthia Ibarra, Marta Alicia Ibarra Luna, Diana Parras, Quenia Perez, Katerine Johana Portillo, Ana Karina Ramirez Gonzalez, Marcelina Rangel Martinez, Maria del Carmen Reyes Zapata, Maria Francisca Rodriguez, Patricia Rojas, Damaris Romero Hernandez de Reyes, Maria Torres, Mirna Ugalde, Yveth Vega Diaz. (Harbury, Jennifer) (Entered: 11/01/2016)
191 NOTICE Defendants' Second Interim Certification by Kirk Cole, Geraldine Harris, Chris Traylor (Albright, Thomas) (Entered: 11/02/2016)
192 MOTION to Withdraw Co−counsel by Kirk Cole, Geraldine Harris, Chris Traylor. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Albright, Thomas) (Entered: 12/02/2016)
Text Order GRANTING 192 Motion to Withdraw entered by Judge Robert Pitman. (This is a text−only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with

Case: 1:15-cv-446 As of: 11/02/2017 03:49 PM CDT 44 of 44

05/01/2017 05/04/2017
05/09/2017

this entry.) (Entered: 12/05/2016)
193 STATUS REPORT Joint by Kirk Cole, Geraldine Harris. (Albright, Thomas) (Entered: 05/01/2017)
194 Agreed MOTION to Dismiss by Maria Carrillo, Giovanna Castro, Maria De Luna, Yuliana Dominguez, Maria Teresita Madera Esparza, Leonor Reyna Flores, Rosa Isela Garcia Naranjo, Juana Gomez, Diana Hernandez, Nancy Hernandez, Cynthia Ibarra, Marta Alicia Ibarra Luna, La Union Del Pueblo Entero, Diana Parras, Quenia Perez, Katerine Johana Portillo, Ana Karina Ramirez Gonzalez, Marcelina Rangel Martinez, Maria del Carmen Reyes Zapata, Antonia Rodriguez, Maria Francisca Rodriguez, Patricia Rojas, Damaris Romero Hernandez de Reyes, Maria Torres, Mirna Ugalde, Yveth Vega Diaz. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Harbury, Jennifer) (Entered: 05/04/2017)
195 ORDER DISMISSING CASE. Signed by Judge Robert Pitman. (dm) (Entered: 05/09/2017)