Case: 3:09-cv-02865-JZ Doc #: 1 Filed: 12/10/09 1 of 39. PageID #: 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION

ROBERTO MUÑIZ, ANTONIO

)

TORRES-FRANCO, JUANA MUÑIZ-TORRES, )

LUIS ENRIQUE MUÑIZ-MUÑIZ by next friend )

María Muñiz-Muñiz, MARÍA MUÑIZ-MUÑIZ, )

EMETERIO NIETO-MEDINA, ROCÍO ANANI )

SAUCEDO-CARRILLO, ROSA

)

CARRILLO-VASQUEZ,

)

MARÍA DE BELÉN MARTÍNEZ-CASTRO, JOSÉ )

CALDERÓN, BELINDA VEGA, ALFONSO

)

PALAFOX, individually and on behalf of a

)

class of others similarly situated,

)

the OHIO IMMIGRANT WORKER PROJECT, )

and the FARM LABOR ORGANIZING

)

COMMITTEE (FLOC), AFL-CIO,

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

)

v.

)

)

RANDY L. GALLEGOS, individually and in

)

his capacity as Chief Patrol Agent, Detroit

)

Sector, United States Border Patrol; JOHN

)

DOES 1 – 15, United States Border Patrol

)

Agents assigned or working from the Sandusky, )

Ohio United States Border Patrol Station,

)

individually and in their capacity

)

as Border Patrol Agents;

)

CHIEF JEFFREY A. BRIGGS, ATTICA OHIO

)

POLICE DEPARTMENT, in his official capacity; )

CHIEF KEVIN CASHEN, NORWALK OHIO

)

POLICE DEPARTMENT, in his official capacity; )

and, CHIEF CHARLES D. DOAN, PLYMOUTH )

OHIO POLICE DEPARTMENT, in his official

)

Capacity; JOHN DOES 16 - 18, Attica Ohio Police )

Department officers, individually and in their

)

Official capacities; JOHN DOES 19 - 21, Norwalk )

Ohio Police Department officer, individually

)

and in their official capacities; and, JOHN DOE 22, )

Plymouth Police Department officer,

)

COMPLAINT CLASS ACTION
No. ______________ Hon. ____________

Case: 3:09-cv-02865-JZ Doc #: 1 Filed: 12/10/09 2 of 39. PageID #: 2

individually and in his official capacity,

)

)

Defendants.

)

COMPLAINT FOR CLASSWIDE DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

INTRODUCTION 1. The individual Plaintiffs and class members are persons of Hispanic descent
or perceived Hispanic descent. The organizational plaintiffs, the Ohio Immigrant Worker Project (IWP) and the Farm Labor Organizing Committee, AFL-CIO (FLOC), work with and organize Hispanics to vindicate their rights and to enhance their lives. The individual Plaintiffs and members of both the IWP and FLOC have been restrained, interrogated, and sometimes arrested by the Defendants. 2. Plaintiffs bring this lawsuit to remedy their and their members being restrained (seized) and interrogated by Ohio law enforcement agencies and United States Border Patrol agents about their immigration status because of their Hispanic appearance. This restraint, interrogation, and arrest regarding immigration status based solely on Hispanic appearance will be referred to herein as “profiling.” 3. This profiling of persons of Hispanic appearance for immigration status questioning is done even though Ohio local law enforcement authorities have no jurisdiction regarding the enforcement of the civil provisions of federal immigration law and the Border Patrol agents were and are without reasonable suspicion or probable cause to believe Plaintiffs and the class members are non-United States citizens in the U.S. without proper authorization. 4. Plaintiffs and class members seek relief against the illegal and unconstitutional actions of the Border Patrol Agents stationed at or working out of the Sandusky Station, Detroit Sector, of the U.S. Border Patrol. Agents

- 2 -

Case: 3:09-cv-02865-JZ Doc #: 1 Filed: 12/10/09 3 of 39. PageID #: 3
of that Station are engaged in a pattern or practice of restraining, interrogating, and arresting persons regarding their immigration status based on their Hispanic appearance. These seizures and interrogations have taken place in gas stations, retail establishments, at soccer games, and in other public settings. 5. The actions of the Border Patrol agents have caused fear and concern in Hispanic communities. 6. The actions of the Border Patrol agents violate the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”), 8 U.S.C. § 1101 et seq., the 4th Amendment prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures, and the 5th Amendment’s guarantee of Due Process and Equal Protection of the law. 7. The Border Patrol has also held seminars, meetings, or has otherwise communicated with local law enforcement agencies in Northwest Ohio urging them to restrain and interrogate persons of Hispanic appearance regarding their immigration status. 8. The Border Patrol has also stated to these local law enforcement agencies that the Border Patrol will come and restrain and interrogate persons that the local law enforcement agencies have already seized based on the profiling activities of the agencies. 9. Local law enforcement authorities in Ohio, including the Defendant Attica, Norwalk, and Plymouth police departments, have profiled and stopped, restrained, and interrogated the individual Plaintiffs and class members regarding their immigration status. These actions violate the 14th Amendment’s guarantees for Due Process and Equal Protection of the law
JURISDICTION AND VENUE 10. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and 42
U.S.C. § 1983, 1985, and 1986. Because this lawsuit alleges violations of the United States Constitution as well as violations of federal statutes and
- 3 -

Case: 3:09-cv-02865-JZ Doc #: 1 Filed: 12/10/09 4 of 39. PageID #: 4
regulations, it raises questions of federal law. The actions of the Defendants also constitute a conspiracy to deprive the individual plaintiffs, the class, and members of the IWP and FLOC of their constitutional right to equal protection of the laws. 11. This Court has the authority to grant injunctive relief, declaratory relief, and other related relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202. 12. Venue is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b)(2) and (e)(2) because a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claims occurred in this district.
PLAINTIFFS 13. Plaintiff Rocío Anani Saucedo-Carrillo is a resident of Norwalk, Huron
County, Ohio. She is married with one child and is pregnant. She is a 2005 graduate of Norwalk High School. She was restrained, interrogated and arrested by a Border Patrol Agent at a Marathon gas station in Norwalk, Ohio, on September 13, 2009. 14. Rosa Carrillo-Vasquez is a resident of Norwalk, Huron County, Ohio. She was restrained, interrogated, and arrested by a Border Patrol Agent at a Marathon gas station in Norwalk, Ohio, on September 13, 2009. 15. Emeterio Nieto-Medina is a resident McAllen, Hidalgo County, Texas, and works and lives during the agricultural season in Willard, Huron County, Ohio. He was restrained and interrogated about his immigration status by Village of Attica, Ohio, police officers on September 27, 2009.
- 4 -

Case: 3:09-cv-02865-JZ Doc #: 1 Filed: 12/10/09 5 of 39. PageID #: 5
16. Roberto Muniz is a resident of Tulsa, Oklahoma. He was restrained and interrogated about his immigration status by Village of Attica, Ohio, police officers on September 27, 2009. At the time Mr. Muñiz was temporarily residing in an agricultural labor camp in Willard, Huron County, Ohio.
17. María Muñiz-Muñiz is a resident of Tulsa, Oklahoma. She was restrained and interrogated about her immigration status by Village of Attica, Ohio, police officers on September 27, 2009. At the time Mrs. Muñiz was temporarily residing in an agricultural labor camp in Willard, Huron County, Ohio.
18. Antonio Torres-Franco is a resident of McKinney, Collin County, Texas. He was restrained and interrogated about his immigration status by Village of Attica, Ohio, police officers on September 27, 2009. At the time Mr. Torres was temporarily residing in an agricultural labor camp in Willard, Huron County, Ohio.
19. Juana Muñiz-Torres is a resident of McKinney, Collin County, Texas. She was restrained and interrogated about her immigration status by Village of Attica, Ohio, police officers on September 27, 2009. At the time Mrs. Muñiz was temporarily residing in an agricultural labor camp in Willard, Huron County, Ohio, with her husband, Antonio Torres-Franco.
20. Luis Enrique Muñiz-Muñiz, a minor, is a resident of Tulsa, Oklahoma. He was restrained and interrogated about his immigration status by Village of Attica, Ohio, police officers on September 27, 2009. At the time Mr. Muñiz
- 5 -

Case: 3:09-cv-02865-JZ Doc #: 1 Filed: 12/10/09 6 of 39. PageID #: 6
was temporarily residing at an agricultural labor camp in Willard, Huron County, Ohio, with his parents, Roberto Muñiz and María Muñiz-Muñiz. He is a minor and this action is brought on his behalf by his mother, María Muñiz-Muñiz. 21. María de Belén Martínez-Castro is a resident of Norwalk, Huron County, Ohio. She has been followed on several occasions and asked her immigration status by a Norwalk Police Department officer when she was escorting her son from school. 22. José Calderón is a resident of Donna, Hidalgo County, Texas. During the incidents related herein he was living in an agricultural labor camp in Willard, Huron County, Ohio. He has been restrained and interrogated about his immigration status on at least three occasions by Village of Plymouth, Ohio, police officers. 23. Belinda Vega, the wife of Plaintiff José Calderón, is a resident of Donna, Hidalgo County, Texas. During the incidents related herein she was living in an agricultural labor camp in Willard, Huron County, Ohio. She has been restrained and interrogated about her immigration status on at least three occasions by Village of Plymouth, Ohio, police officers. 24. Alfonso Palafox is a resident of Fremont, Sandusky County, Ohio. He was restrained and interrogated on the street in Fremont by Border Patrol agents on November 3, 2009.
- 6 -

Case: 3:09-cv-02865-JZ Doc #: 1 Filed: 12/10/09 7 of 39. PageID #: 7
25. The Ohio Immigrant Worker Project (IWP), an unincorporated association, is dedicated to the struggle for justice and human dignity for Ohio’s rural immigrant workers from Latin America. The IWP was initiated in 1999 as a result of a study commissioned by the Ohio Catholic Rural Life Conference. The IWP works with and organizes immigrants regarding, e.g., workplace rights, human and immigration rights, leadership training, Limited English Proficiency (LEP) rights and health care, advocacy and networking, cultural and pastoral celebrations, educational programs, and microenterprise.
26. The Farm Labor Organizing Committee, AFL-CIO (FLOC), is both a social movement and a labor union. FLOC’s immediate constituency is migrant workers in the agricultural industry, but FLOC is also involved with immigrant workers, Latinos, local communities, and national and international coalitions concerned with justice. The FLOC vision emphasizes human rights as the standard and self-determination as the process for achieving these rights. FLOC struggles for full justice for those who have been marginalized and exploited for the benefit of others, and works to change the structures of society to enable these people a direct voice in their own conditions. FLOC has negotiated collective bargaining contracts for workers in both Ohio and North Carolina.
27. IWP and FLOC have members, or Hispanics who have worked with them, who have been restrained, interrogated, and sometimes arrested by local law enforcement authorities or Sandusky Station Border Patrol Agents because of
- 7 -

Case: 3:09-cv-02865-JZ Doc #: 1 Filed: 12/10/09 8 of 39. PageID #: 8
their Hispanic appearance. This illegal and unconstitutional behavior by the Defendants has deprived IWP and FLOC members of the equal protection of the laws and has also made some fearful of travel and association in the Ohio communities in which they live.
DEFENDANTS 28. Defendant Randy L. Gallegos is the Chief Agent of the Detroit Border Patrol
Sector. As Chief Agent Defendant Gallegos is the supervisor of the Detroit, Gibraltar, Marysville, Sault Sainte Marie, and Sandusky Border Patrol Stations that encompass the Detroit Sector. Gallegos oversees the daily activities of the Border Patrol Agents within those five Stations and is responsible for ensuring that their duties are carried out in a legal manner. Defendant Gallegos is sued in his individual and official capacities. 29. Defendants John Does 1 – 15 are Border Patrol Agents assigned to or working out of the Sandusky, Ohio, Border Patrol Station. These unknown and unnamed Agents are restraining, interrogating and arresting Plaintiffs and the members of the class based on Hispanic appearance and without reasonable suspicion or probable cause that they are aliens without a right to be or to remain in the United States. They are sued in their individual and official capacities. 30. At all relevant times, Defendants Gallegos and John Does 1 – 15 were acting under color of federal law, pursuant to their authority as officials, agents, contractors, or employees of U.S. governmental agencies or entities.
- 8 -

Case: 3:09-cv-02865-JZ Doc #: 1 Filed: 12/10/09 9 of 39. PageID #: 9
31. Defendant Jeffrey A. Briggs is the Police Chief of the Attica, Ohio Police Department in Seneca County, Ohio. He is sued in his official capacity.
32. Defendant Kevin Cashen is the Police Chief of the Norwalk, Ohio Police Department in Huron County, Ohio. He is sued in his official capacity.
33. Defendant Charles D. Doan is the Police Chief of the Plymouth, Ohio Police Department in Huron and Seneca Counties, Ohio. He is sued in his official capacity.
34. Defendants John Does 16 - 18 are police officers of the Attica, Ohio Police Department and are sued in their individual and official capacities.
35. John Does 19 - 21 are police officers of the Norwalk, Ohio Police Department and are sued in their individual and official capacities.
36. John Doe 22 is a police officer of the Plymouth, Ohio Police Department and is sued in his individual and official capacity. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
37. Upon information and belief the Border Patrol Agents assigned to the Sandusky, Ohio Station have targeted Hispanics in the area for restraint and interrogation regarding their immigration status without any reasonable suspicion or probable cause that the individual Hispanic has no right to be or to remain in the United States.
38. Upon information and belief the Agents assigned to the Sandusky Station have adopted a pattern or practice of targeting Hispanics encountered in
- 9 -

Case: 3:09-cv-02865-JZ Doc #: 1 Filed: 12/10/09 10 of 39. PageID #: 10
public settings for restraint and interrogation based on their appearance and without any specific articulable facts other than their Hispanic appearance. 39. Upon information and belief the Sandusky Border Patrol Station and its officers have held seminars, trainings or otherwise communicated with numerous local law enforcement agencies, including the Defendant Attica, Norwalk, and Plymouth Police Departments, encouraging those local law enforcement agencies to target Hispanics for restraint and interrogation about their immigration status.
Plaintiffs Anani Saucedo-Carrillo and Rosa Carrillo-Vasquez 40. Plaintiff Rocío Anani Saucedo-Carrillo (Saucedo) parked at a gas pump in the
Marathon gasoline station on U.S. 250/Milan Road, in Norwalk, Huron County, Ohio, in the early afternoon of September 13, 2009. 41. Saucedo went into the station to pay in advance and when she exited the station to return to the pump she saw a Border Patrol Chevrolet Suburban SUV traveling on Rte. 250. 42. After seeing Plaintiff Saucedo, the Border Patrol officer quickly pulled into the Marathon gas station and parked his car directly in front of and perpendicular to Plaintiff Saucedo’s pickup truck, blocking Plaintiff Saucedo’s exit. 43. Saucedo’s pickup truck has Ohio license plates and has no “cap” on it. 44. The Border Patrol Agent, John Doe 1, dressed in a green uniform, exited the Border Patrol vehicle and approached her as she was pumping gas.
- 10 -

Case: 3:09-cv-02865-JZ Doc #: 1 Filed: 12/10/09 11 of 39. PageID #: 11
45. Border Patrol Agent John Doe 1 started interrogating Saucedo in English. He did not introduce himself nor explain why he approached her. He asked for an ID. He then asked for her “papers,” which she understood to mean immigration documents. He then asked for her resident card. She presented an unexpired Michigan driver’s license to Winner.
46. Saucedo did not believe she was free to leave the Marathon station or refuse to answer the Agent’s questions due to his blocking her exit with his vehicle, his uniform, and the aggressive form of his questioning.
47. Eventually John Doe 1 asked Saucedo to move her pickup truck from the gas pump area to a small parking lot on the side of the building.
48. John Doe 1 then asked similar questions of Saucedo’s mother, Plaintiff Rosa Carrillo-Vasquez (Carrillo), a passenger in Saucedo’s pickup truck.
49. Plaintiff Carrillo did not believe she was free to leave nor to refuse to answer Winner’s questions based on his ordering Plaintiff Saucedo to move her pickup truck, John Doe 1’s uniform, and the nature of the questions and Doe 1’s tone of voice.
50. John Doe 1 then arrested Plaintiffs Saucedo and Carrillo. 51. Plaintiff Saucedo asked John Doe 1 if she could give the keys to her vehicle to
a young woman Saucedo knew who was walking past the Marathon gas station. 52. The Agent gave Plaintiff Saucedo permission to give her truck’s keys to Saucedo’s acquaintance.
- 11 -

Case: 3:09-cv-02865-JZ Doc #: 1 Filed: 12/10/09 12 of 39. PageID #: 12
53. John Doe 1 then placed the Plaintiffs in the locked part of his Border Patrol vehicle.
54. On the way to the Border Patrol Station in Sandusky, Plaintiff Saucedo started to cry. John Doe 1 told her “No tears, or you’ll leave (the United States) right now.”
55. Plaintiff Saucedo was seven months pregnant on September 13, 2009, and is to deliver the baby by Caesarean section in November, 2009.
56. John Doe 1 then transported Plaintiffs Saucedo and Carrillo to the Sandusky Border Patrol Station where they were fingerprinted, photographed and interrogated further.
57. Plaintiffs Saucedo and Carrillo signed documents requesting an immigration hearing before an Immigration Judge presented to them by John Doe Border Patrol Agents.
58. A relative of the Plaintiffs came to pick them up in Sandusky and take them back to their homes in Norwalk.
59. The next day, September 14, 2009, John Doe 1 called Plaintiff Saucedo and told her he needed her and Plaintiff Carrillo’s signatures on some documents he had failed to have them sign on the 13th. The Plaintiffs met with John Doe 1 around noon in Norwalk and signed as requested.
60. Plaintiffs Saucedo and Carrillo are agricultural workers and at the time of their arrest by John Doe 1 were so employed.
- 12 -

Case: 3:09-cv-02865-JZ Doc #: 1 Filed: 12/10/09 13 of 39. PageID #: 13
61. Upon information and belief the Sandusky Border Patrol Station has also restrained, interrogated and arrested Hispanics because of their Hispanic appearance at soccer games, in grocery stores, and at the same gasoline station as Plaintiffs Saucedo and Carrillo.
62. Upon information and belief the restraint and interrogation of Hispanics by the Sandusky Border Patrol Station Agents was not based on reasonable suspicion or probable cause, but solely on their Hispanic appearance.
63. Upon information and belief the Sandusky Border Patrol has restrained and interrogated persons who were or are U.S. citizens, Lawful Permanent Residents, or immigrants lawfully admitted and present in the United States.
Plaintiffs Roberto Muñiz, Emeterio Nieto-Medina, María Muñiz-Muñiz, Antonio Torres-Franco, Juana Muñiz-Torres, and Luis Enrique Muñiz-Muñiz
64. Plaintiff Roberto Muñiz (Muñiz) was stopped by the Attica Police Department on or about September 27, 2009. Two occupants of the vehicle, Emeterio Nieto-Medina and Muñiz’s son, Luis Enrique Muñiz-Muñiz, were placed in the Attica Police Department vehicle.
65. Muñiz and the other six occupants of the vehicle were asked by an Attica Police Department officer for their immigration documents and “who doesn’t have papers?” The pretext for the stop was that the light on the rear license plate was “too dim.” No ticket was issued by the Attica Police Department.
- 13 -

Case: 3:09-cv-02865-JZ Doc #: 1 Filed: 12/10/09 14 of 39. PageID #: 14
66. Plaintiff Emeterio Nieto-Medina was a passenger in the vehicle driven by Plaintiff Roberto Muniz when stopped by the Attica Police Department as described in paragraph 64 supra.
67. Mr. Nieto was riding in the back of Mr. Muniz’s pickup truck within a camper shell. When stopped by the Attica Police Department the Attica officer shined a flashlight into the camper shell, ordered Mr. Nieto out, searched him, and then placed Mr. Nieto in the locked back seat of the Attica police car.
68. The Attica police officer asked Mr. Nieto for his “papers” and whether he was “illegal.”
69. Plaintiff María Muñiz-Muñiz (Muñiz-Muñiz)was a passenger in the truck driven by her husband, Plaintiff Roberto Muñiz, when stopped by the Attica Police Department as described in paragraph 57 supra.
70. Mrs. Muñiz-Muñiz heard the Attica Police Department officer ask her and the other occupants of the vehicle whether anyone was “illegal” and for their “documents.” By “documents” the officer meant immigration documents.
71. Plaintiff Antonio Torres-Franco was a passenger in the vehicle driven by Plaintiff Roberto Muniz when stopped by the Attica Police Department as described in paragraph 64 supra.
72. Mr. Torres heard the Attica Police Department officer ask him and the other occupants of the vehicle whether anyone was “illegal” and for their “documents.” By “documents” the officer meant immigration documents.
- 14 -

Case: 3:09-cv-02865-JZ Doc #: 1 Filed: 12/10/09 15 of 39. PageID #: 15
73. Plaintiff Juana Muñiz-Torres was a passenger in the vehicle driven by Plaintiff Roberto Muniz when stopped by the Attica Police Department as described in paragraph 64 supra.
74. Mrs. Muñiz-Torres heard the Attica Police Department officer ask her and the other occupants of the vehicle whether anyone was “illegal” and for their “documents.” By “documents” the officer meant immigration documents.
75. Plaintiff Luis Enrique Muñiz-Muñiz was a passenger in the vehicle driven by his father, Plaintiff Roberto Muniz, when stopped by the Attica Police Department as described in paragraph 64 supra.
76. Mr. Muñiz-Muñiz was riding in the back of his father’s pickup truck within a camper shell. When stopped by the Attica Police Department the Attica officer shined a flashlight into the camper shell, ordered Mr. Muñiz-Muñiz out, searched him, and then placed Mr. Muñiz-Muñiz in the locked back seat of the Attica police car.
77. The Attica police officer asked Mr. Muñiz-Muñiz for his “papers” and whether he was “illegal.” Plaintiff María de Belén Martínez-Castro
78. Plaintiff María de Belén Martínez-Castro was pregnant and escorting her son from school when she was approached by a Norwalk police officer who asked her if she was “legal.” She responded: “Why are you asking me? Because I’m brownie?” The officer stopped questioning her and left.
- 15 -

Case: 3:09-cv-02865-JZ Doc #: 1 Filed: 12/10/09 16 of 39. PageID #: 16
79. On several other occasions Norwalk police officers followed her while she was taking her son from or to his elementary school in Norwalk. On one occasion she was followed by a Norwalk police officer. On the other occasion she was followed when she went into a drug store. A Norwalk police officer who had followed her parked his car and waited for her outside of the drug store. When she came out of the drug store she walked home while the Norwalk police officer watched her. Plaintiffs Belinda Vega and José Calderón
80. Plaintiffs Belinda Vega and José Calderón and their two young children, ages 5 and 4, were restrained and interrogated on three separate occasions by an officer of the Plymouth, Ohio, Police Department and, the Plaintiffs believe, an Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officer.
81. The first incident occurred on or about Sunday, June 28, 2009, at 1 p.m. Plaintiffs Belinda Vega and José Calderón and their minor children were stopped about two or three miles outside of Plymouth, on their way to Mansfield. The speed limit on the road is 35 miles per hour, and the stated reason for the stop was speeding. Plaintiff José Calderón is sure that he wasn’t speeding because he recalls that the road was very bumpy and he was driving slowly.
82. The officer, whom the Plaintiffs believe is an ICE agent, approached the driver’s window and asked Calderón for his license and registration.
- 16 -

Case: 3:09-cv-02865-JZ Doc #: 1 Filed: 12/10/09 17 of 39. PageID #: 17
Calderón did not produce his license, so the alleged ICE agent told Calderón to write down his name, date of birth, and Social Security number. 83. The ICE agent then went back to the Plymouth Police Department car and informed the Plymouth Police Officer, who was sitting in the driver’s seat, of Calderón’s information. The Plaintiffs saw the Plymouth Police Officer on his computer. After being stopped for about 10 minutes, the Plymouth Police Officer returned to the Plaintiff’s truck and informed Calderón that he was free to go. No citation or warning was issued. 84. The second incident occurred on or about Sunday, August 9, 2009, at 10:00 a.m. Plaintiffs Vega and Calderón, along with their young children, were stopped in Plymouth on their way to the Dollar General store. On this occasion, the same Plymouth Police Department officer and ICE agent approached the vehicle. The ICE agent stood outside of Vega’s (passenger) window, and the Plymouth Police Officer stood outside of Calderón’s (driver) window. Both Plaintiffs were asked for identification and proof of registration. 85. Plaintiffs’ identification cards were in the vehicle, but they did not want to search for them because they suspected they were being profiled and because their documents were not in a location that could be easily reached. Plaintiffs’ documents were in the back of the vehicle with their laundry, and they told the officers that they didn’t have their identification cards with them.
- 17 -

Case: 3:09-cv-02865-JZ Doc #: 1 Filed: 12/10/09 18 of 39. PageID #: 18
86. The Plymouth Police Officer then went back to his vehicle, and the ICE agent went to Calderón’s window; he told Calderón to write down his name, date of birth, and Social Security number. The ICE agent then returned to the Plymouth Police Department car and waited outside the driver’s door.
87. Plaintiffs saw the ICE agent giving the Plymouth Police Officer the sheet of paper with Calderón’s information, and the Plymouth Police Officer started using the computer. The ICE agent sat in the passenger seat of the car, and the Plymouth Police Officer approached Calderón and asked him if there is anything in the vehicle that should “concern” him.
88. Calderón, frustrated that this was his second time being stopped by the same officer and ICE agent, said no.
89. The Officer told Calderón that he was free to go. No reason was ever stated for the stop nor was any citation or warning issued.
90. The third incident occurred on or about Sunday, August 30, 2009, at 12:30 p.m. The Plaintiffs and their children were stopped as they were visiting numerous garage sales in the Plymouth area.
91. At the beginning of the stop, as with the two previous stops, the ICE agent, who was sitting in the passenger seat of the Plymouth Police Department car, approached Calderón and asked for his license and car registration. Calderón did not produce the requested documents, and the ICE agent told Calderón to write down his name, date of birth, and Social Security number on a small white sheet of paper.
- 18 -

Case: 3:09-cv-02865-JZ Doc #: 1 Filed: 12/10/09 19 of 39. PageID #: 19
92. Calderón complied and asked the ICE officer the reason for the stop; the ICE agent responded that it was “just a traffic stop.” Calderón again asked for the reason, and the ICE officer responded the same.
93. The ICE agent returned to and entered the Plymouth Police Department car and the Plymouth Police Officer was on his computer. Within two or three minutes, the Plymouth Police Officer approached Calderón’s car and told him that he was free to leave. No reason was ever stated for the stop nor was any citation or warning issued. Plaintiff Alfonso Palafox
94. Plaintiff Alfonso Palafox was walking with his 4 year old son on the sidewalk of a residential street in Fremont, Ohio, on November 3, 2009, after picking up his son from Head Start.
95. A U.S. Border Patrol vehicle came alongside him and asked Palafox if he knew the location of a particular street.
96. The two Border Patrol Agents in the vehicle then exited the vehicle and approached Palafox. Palafox answered that he did not know the street.
97. The Border Patrol Agents then asked Palafox where he was from, and then continued interrogating Palafox, asking him if he used drugs or knew anyone who sold drugs. The Border Patrol Agents also asked Palafox if he knew of any more Hispanics in the area. Palafox told them the Hispanics had all left the area.
- 19 -

Case: 3:09-cv-02865-JZ Doc #: 1 Filed: 12/10/09 20 of 39. PageID #: 20
98. The Border Patrol Agents asked Palafox for his date of birth, phone number and address and told him to take care of his son. One Agent also told him not to change his phone number so they could have business dealings later. The Agents refused him permission to take a picture of their vehicle and also asked if Palafox was working.
99. Upon information and belief, the Defendants Gallegos and the John Doe Border Patrol Agents 1 – 15 of the Sandusky Border Patrol Station have held seminars, trainings, or otherwise communicated with local law enforcement agencies (LEA), including Defendant Attica, Norwalk, and Plymouth Police Departments, encouraging those LEAs to restrain and interrogate Hispanics about their immigration status and then call the Sandusky Border Patrol Station to request assistance if any of those restrained and interrogated Hispanics appear to be without proper immigration documentation.
100. Upon information and belief the Defendants Gallegos and John Doe 1 – 15 Border Patrol Agents of the Sandusky Border Patrol Station have not monitored the LEAs in those agencies’ restraint and interrogation of Hispanics or have shown deliberate indifference to the restraint and interrogation of Hispanics by those LEAs, resulting in the restraint and interrogation of Hispanics by the LEAs without any reasonable belief that they have violated immigration laws of the United States.
101. Upon information and belief, the Defendants Gallegos and John Doe 1 – 15 Border Patrol Agents of the Sandusky Border Patrol Station know or should
- 20 -

Case: 3:09-cv-02865-JZ Doc #: 1 Filed: 12/10/09 21 of 39. PageID #: 21
know that their encouragement of the LEAs to restrain and interrogate Hispanics about their immigration status results in those Hispanics being deprived of the equal protection of the laws of the United States and is unconstitutional. 102. Upon information and belief, the Defendants Gallegos and John Doe 1 – 15 Border Patrol Agents of the Sandusky Border Patrol Station know or should know that suppression of unlawfully obtained evidence is very difficult in Immigration Court hearings and thus believed that their illegal restraint and interrogation of Hispanics and their encouragement of LEAs to do the same would go unnoticed or unpunished. 103. Upon information and belief, police officers of the Attica, Norwalk, and Plymouth, Ohio police departments have participated in seminars, trainings or otherwise communicated with Defendants Gallegos and John Does 1 – 15 of the Sandusky Border Patrol Station about restraining and interrogating Hispanics about their immigration status. 104. These restraints and interrogations have been as a result of the class members’ appearance to be of Hispanic descent. 105. The Attica, Norwalk, and Plymouth police departments have official policies or a pattern or practice of restraining and interrogating Hispanics about their immigration status based on their Hispanic appearance. 106. These official policies or a pattern or practice of restraining and interrogating Hispanics about their immigration status based on their Hispanic appearance
- 21 -

Case: 3:09-cv-02865-JZ Doc #: 1 Filed: 12/10/09 22 of 39. PageID #: 22
have been encouraged by Defendants Gallegos and John Doe 1 - 15 Sandusky Station Border Patrol Agents. 107. Defendants have shown a deliberate indifference to the Plaintiffs right to equal protection under the laws of the United States. 108. The Defendants Gallegos and John Does 1 -15 Sandusky Station Border Patrol Agents have conspired to deprive Hispanics in Ohio of the equal protection of the laws by restraining and interrogating them about their immigration status solely based on their Hispanic appearance. 109. The Defendants Briggs and John Does 16 - 18 Attica Ohio Police Department officers have conspired with the Sandusky Border Patrol Station defendants to deprive Hispanics in Ohio of the equal protection of the laws by restraining and interrogating them about their immigration status solely based on their Hispanic appearance. 110. The Defendants Cashen and John Does 19 – 21 of the Norwalk Ohio Police Department have conspired with the Sandusky Border Patrol Station defendants to deprive Hispanics in Ohio of the equal protection of the laws by restraining and interrogating them about their immigration status solely based on their Hispanic appearance. 111. The Defendants Doan and John Doe 22 of the Plymouth Ohio Police Department have conspired with the Sandusky Border Patrol Station defendants to deprive Hispanics in Ohio of the equal protection of the laws
- 22 -

Case: 3:09-cv-02865-JZ Doc #: 1 Filed: 12/10/09 23 of 39. PageID #: 23
by restraining and interrogating them about their immigration status solely based on their Hispanic appearance. 112. Defendant Randy L. Gallegos, the Chief Border Patrol Agent, Detroit Sector, has actual knowledge of the profiling of Hispanics by Sandusky Ohio Border Patrol Station Agents as a result of his supervision of those offices, statistics gathered by that office and reported to him, and his and their communication with local law enforcement agencies regarding the enforcement of the civil provisions of federal immigration law. 113. Defendant Gallegos had the authority to stop the profiling by his Agents and the authority to stop his Agents from encouraging and participating in profiling by local law enforcement agencies. He neglected or refused to prevent the profiling.
CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS 114. Plaintiffs bring this class action on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated. The proposed Classes are defined as follows: Class 1: All persons of Hispanic descent who have been or will be restrained and interrogated by Sandusky Border Patrol Agents based on their Hispanic appearance. Class 2: All persons of Hispanic descent who have been or will be restrained and interrogated by officers of the Attica, Norwalk, or Plymouth police departments based on their Hispanic appearance.
- 23 -

Case: 3:09-cv-02865-JZ Doc #: 1 Filed: 12/10/09 24 of 39. PageID #: 24
115. Plaintiffs and members of the Class bring this action for equitable, declaratory, and injunctive relief pursuant to subdivision (b)(2) of Rule 23 of the Federal rules of Civil Procedure.
116. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and based thereon allege that members of the Class are so numerous that individual joinder of all of their members would be impracticable. Joinder is also impracticable because the Hispanic population of the counties in the area of the Sandusky Border Patrol Station undergoes considerable change as one of the busiest agricultural areas for migrant farm workers in Ohio, because many class members are unaware of their rights, and, because class members’ access to legal services and representation is hampered by language, cultural and economic barriers.
117. There were approximately 282,603 Hispanics residing in the State of Ohio in 2007, the latest date for which demographic data is available. Of these residents, Erie County has 1,896, Huron County has 3,064, Ottawa County has 1,685, Sandusky County has 4,698, and Lucas County has 23,168. Additionally, Hispanic residents of counties in the Eastern Division number 22,184 in Lorain County and 52,960 in Cuyahoga County. http://pewhispanic.org/states/?stateid=OH. Hispanic residents of Lorain and Cuyahoga Counties frequently travel to or through counties in the Western Division of the Northern District.
118. There are tens of thousands of Hispanics within the Western Division of the Northern District of Ohio who could encounter profiling by various
- 24 -

Case: 3:09-cv-02865-JZ Doc #: 1 Filed: 12/10/09 25 of 39. PageID #: 25
Defendants. There are also thousands of Hispanics who reside in close proximity to the Western Division of the Northern District of Ohio who are subject to profiling while traveling through or to the counties within the Western Division of the Northern District. 119. There are many questions of law and fact common to the representative Plaintiffs and the members of the Class, including the following:
a. The legality of the restraint, interrogation, and arrest of Plaintiffs and members of the classes based on their Hispanic appearance.
b. The existence of the policy or pattern and practice of the Sandusky Station of the U.S. Border Patrol to restrain, interrogate, and arrest Plaintiffs and members of the Classes based on their Hispanic appearance.
c. The existence of the policy or pattern and practice of the Sandusky Station of the U.S. Border Patrol to encourage local law enforcement agencies and their officers to restrain, interrogate, and arrest Plaintiffs and members of the Classes based on their Hispanic appearance.
d. The existence of the policies or patterns and practices of the Attica, Norwalk, and Plymouth Police Departments to restrain, interrogate, and arrest Plaintiffs and members of the Classes based on their Hispanic appearance.
e. The failure of any of the Defendants to stop the policy or pattern and practice of restraining, interrogating, and arresting Plaintiffs and members of the Classes based on their Hispanic appearance.
- 25 -

Case: 3:09-cv-02865-JZ Doc #: 1 Filed: 12/10/09 26 of 39. PageID #: 26
120. The claims of the named Plaintiffs are typical of the claims of the Class because the named Plaintiffs have been subjected to or threatened with policies or practices that are identical or substantially similar to the policies and practices to which the class members have been subjected or with which the members of the Class have been threatened.
121. The organizational Plaintiffs, IWP and FLOC, have memberships that are primarily Hispanic. Their members have been subjected to profiling by the Defendants.
122. The named Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class. There is no conflict between the Plaintiffs and other class members. Moreover, Plaintiffs have retained counsel who are experienced in class action litigation and can adequately represent the interests of the class members as well as those of the named Plaintiffs.
123. Defendants have acted on grounds generally applicable to both the named Plaintiffs and other class members, making appropriate final declaratory and injunctive relief with respect to the members of the Class. The injuries suffered by the named Plaintiffs and other class members as a result of Defendants’ actions are capable of repetition yet may evade review, thereby making individual and class relief appropriate.
- 26 -

Case: 3:09-cv-02865-JZ Doc #: 1 Filed: 12/10/09 27 of 39. PageID #: 27
FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF Bivens Claims for Violation of the Fourth Amendment Prohibition Against
Unreasonable Searches and Seizures (On behalf of all individual plaintiffs and Class 1 class members against defendants Gallegos and John Does 1 – 15)
124. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference each and every allegation contained in the preceding paragraphs as though fully set forth herein.
125. Defendants Gallegos and John Does 1 – 15 are restraining or will restrain Plaintiffs’ liberty. Accordingly, under the 4th Amendment these restraints must be justified by reasonable suspicion that the person seized has no right to be or remain in the United States.
126. Restraining and interrogating Hispanics because of their Hispanic appearance is contrary to that standard.
127. Defendants’ actions have caused, are causing, and will cause Plaintiffs irreparable injury in the form of deprivation of their 4th Amendment rights. SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF
Bivens Claims for Violation of the Fifth Amendment Prohibition Against Deprivation of Liberty Without Due Process of Law
(On behalf of all individual plaintiffs and Class 1 class members against defendants Gallegos and John Does 1 – 15)
128. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference each and every allegation contained in the preceding paragraphs as though fully set forth herein.
- 27 -

Case: 3:09-cv-02865-JZ Doc #: 1 Filed: 12/10/09 28 of 39. PageID #: 28
129. Defendants are restraining or will restrain Plaintiffs’ liberty. Accordingly, under the 5th Amendment these restraints must be justified by reasonable suspicion that the person seized has no right to be or remain in the United States.
130. Restraining and interrogating Hispanics because of their Hispanic appearance is contrary to that standard.
131. Defendants’ actions have caused, are causing, and will cause Plaintiffs irreparable injury in the form of deprivation of their 5th Amendment rights. THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF
Bivens Claims for Violation of the Fifth Amendment Prohibition Against Deprivation of Liberty Without Equal Protection of the Law
(On behalf of all individual plaintiffs and Class 1 class members against defendants Gallegos and John Does 1 – 15)
132. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference each and every allegation contained in the preceding paragraphs as though fully set forth herein.
133. Defendants are restraining or will restrain Plaintiffs’ liberty. Accordingly, under the 5th Amendment these restraints must be justified by reasonable suspicion that the person seized has no right to be or remain in the United States.
134. Restraining and interrogating Hispanics because of their Hispanic appearance is contrary to that standard in that non-Hispanics are not subjected to these types of restraint and interrogation even though the Border Patrol Station was
- 28 -

Case: 3:09-cv-02865-JZ Doc #: 1 Filed: 12/10/09 29 of 39. PageID #: 29
established to detect and seize persons or goods coming into the United States from Canada without United States authorization. 135. Defendants’ actions have caused, are causing, and will cause Plaintiffs irreparable injury in the form of deprivation of their 5th Amendment right to equal protection of the laws.
FORTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF Bivens Claims for Violation of the Fifth Amendment Prohibition Against Conduct
That Shocks the Conscience (On behalf of all individual plaintiffs and Class 1 class members against defendants Gallegos and John Does 1 – 15)
136. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference each and every allegation contained in the preceding paragraphs as though fully set forth herein.
137. Defendants are restraining or will restrain Plaintiffs’ liberty. Accordingly, under the 5th Amendment these restraints must be justified by reasonable suspicion that the person seized has no right to be or remain in the United States.
138. Restraining and interrogating Hispanics because of their Hispanic appearance is contrary to that standard in that non-Hispanics are not subjected to these types of restraint and interrogation, even though the Sandusky Border Patrol Station was established to detect and seize persons or goods coming into the U.S. from Canada without U.S. authorization.
139. Defendants’ actions are shocking in that the policy or practice of the Sandusky Border Patrol Station to target, restrain and interrogate all
- 29 -

Case: 3:09-cv-02865-JZ Doc #: 1 Filed: 12/10/09 30 of 39. PageID #: 30
Hispanics and then release them if they are U.S. citizens, Lawful Permanent Residents, or immigrants lawfully in the U.S., but to arrest Hispanics who are not authorized to be in the U.S. These actions have caused, are causing, and will cause Plaintiffs irreparable injury in the form of deprivation of their 5th Amendment due process rights.
FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Claims for Violation of the Fourth Amendment Prohibition Against
Unreasonable Searches and Seizures (On behalf of plaintiffs Nieto, Muniz, Torres-Franco, Muñiz-Torres, María MuñizMuñiz, Luis Enrique Muñiz-Muñiz, and Class 2 class members against defendants Chief Jeffrey L. Briggs and John Does 16 - 18)
140. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference each and every allegation contained in the preceding paragraphs as though fully set forth herein.
141. Defendants Briggs and John Does 16 - 18 are restraining or will restrain Plaintiffs’ liberty. Accordingly, under the 4th Amendment these restraints must be justified by reasonable suspicion that the person seized has no right to be or remain in the United States.
142. Restraining and interrogating Hispanics because of their Hispanic appearance is contrary to that standard.
143. Defendants’ actions have caused, are causing, and will cause Plaintiffs irreparable injury in the form of deprivation of their 4th Amendment rights.
- 30 -

Case: 3:09-cv-02865-JZ Doc #: 1 Filed: 12/10/09 31 of 39. PageID #: 31
SIXTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Claims for Violation of the Fourth Amendment Prohibition Against
Unreasonable Searches and Seizures (On behalf of all individual plaintiffs and Class 2 class members against defendants Chief Kevin Cashen and John Does 19 - 21)
144. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference each and every allegation contained in the preceding paragraphs as though fully set forth herein.
145. Defendants Cashen and John Does 19 – 21 are restraining or will restrain Plaintiffs’ liberty. Accordingly, under the 4th Amendment these restraints must be justified by reasonable suspicion that the person seized has no right to be or remain in the United States.
146. Restraining and interrogating Hispanics because of their Hispanic appearance is contrary to that standard.
147. Defendants’ actions have caused, are causing, and will cause Plaintiffs irreparable injury in the form of deprivation of their 4th Amendment rights. SEVENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
42 U.S.C. § 1983 Claims for Violation of the Fourth Amendment Prohibition Against Unreasonable Searches and Seizures
(On behalf of Plaintiffs Belinda Vega, José Calderón, and Class 2 class members against defendants Chief Charles D. Doan and John Doe 22)
148. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference each and every allegation contained in the preceding paragraphs as though fully set forth herein.
- 31 -

Case: 3:09-cv-02865-JZ Doc #: 1 Filed: 12/10/09 32 of 39. PageID #: 32
149. Defendants Doan and John Doe 22 are restraining or will restrain Plaintiffs’ liberty. Accordingly, under the 4th Amendment these restraints must be justified by reasonable suspicion that the person seized has no right to be or remain in the United States.
150. Restraining and interrogating Hispanics because of their Hispanic appearance is contrary to that standard.
151. Defendants’ actions have caused, are causing, and will cause Plaintiffs irreparable injury in the form of deprivation of their 4th Amendment rights. EIGHTHCLAIM FOR RELIEF
42 U.S.C. § 1985(3) Claim for Conspiracy to Violate Hispanics Right to Equal Protection of the Law
(On behalf of plaintiffs Nieto, Muñiz, Torres-Franco, Muñiz-Torres, María MuñizMuñiz, Luis Enrique Muñiz-Muñiz, and Class 2 class members against defendants Chief Jeffrey L. Briggs and John Does 16 - 18) 152. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference each and every allegation
contained in the preceding paragraphs as though fully set forth herein. 153. Defendants Briggs and John Does 16 - 18 are restraining or will restrain
Plaintiffs’ liberty. Accordingly, under the 4th Amendment these restraints must be justified by reasonable suspicion that the person seized has no right to be or remain in the United States. 154. Restraining and interrogating Hispanics because of their Hispanic appearance is contrary to that standard.
- 32 -

Case: 3:09-cv-02865-JZ Doc #: 1 Filed: 12/10/09 33 of 39. PageID #: 33
155. These Defendants have conspired to deprive Hispanics of the equal protection of the laws and have, in furtherance of that conspiracy, restrained and interrogated them because of their Hispanic appearance.
156. Defendants’ actions have caused, are causing, and will cause Plaintiffs irreparable injury in the form of deprivation of their 4th Amendment rights. NINTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
42 U.S.C. § 1985(3) Claim for Conspiracy to Violate Hispanics Right to Equal Protection of the Law
(On behalf of Plaintiff Martinez and Class 2 class members against defendants Chief Kevin Cashen and John Does 19 - 21)
157. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference each and every allegation contained in the preceding paragraphs as though fully set forth herein.
158. Defendants Cashen and John Does 19 - 21 are restraining or will restrain Plaintiffs’ liberty. Accordingly, under the 4th Amendment these restraints must be justified by reasonable suspicion that the person seized has no right to be or remain in the United States.
159. Restraining and interrogating Hispanics because of their Hispanic appearance is contrary to that standard.
160. These Defendants have conspired to deprive Hispanics of the equal protection of the laws and have in furtherance of that conspiracy restrained and interrogated them because of their Hispanic appearance.
- 33 -

Case: 3:09-cv-02865-JZ Doc #: 1 Filed: 12/10/09 34 of 39. PageID #: 34
161. Defendants’ actions have caused, are causing, and will cause Plaintiffs irreparable injury in the form of deprivation of their 4th Amendment rights. TENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
42 U.S.C. § 1985(3) Claim for Conspiracy to Violate Hispanics Right to Equal Protection of the Law
(On behalf of Plaintiffs Belinda Vega, José Calderón, and Class 2 class members against defendants Chief Charles D. Doan and John Does 22)
162. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference each and every allegation contained in the preceding paragraphs as though fully set forth herein.
163. Defendants Doan and John Doe 22 are restraining or will restrain Plaintiffs’ liberty. Accordingly, under the 4th Amendment these restraints must be justified by reasonable suspicion that the person seized has no right to be or remain in the United States.
164. Restraining and interrogating Hispanics because of their Hispanic appearance is contrary to that standard.
165. These Defendants have conspired to deprive Hispanics of the equal protection of the laws and have in furtherance of that conspiracy restrained and interrogated them because of their Hispanic appearance.
166. Defendants’ actions have caused, are causing, and will cause Plaintiffs irreparable injury in the form of deprivation of their 4th Amendment rights.
- 34 -

Case: 3:09-cv-02865-JZ Doc #: 1 Filed: 12/10/09 35 of 39. PageID #: 35
ELEVENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF 42 U.S.C. § 1986 Claim for Failure to Stop Conspiracy to Violate Hispanics Right to
Equal Protection of the Law (On behalf of plaintiffs Nieto, Muñiz, Torres-Franco, Muñiz-Torres, María MuñizMuñiz, Luis Enrique Muñiz-Muñiz, and Class 2 class members against defendant Chief Jeffrey L. Briggs and John Does –16 - 18)
167. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference each and every allegation contained in the preceding paragraphs as though fully set forth herein.
168. Defendants Briggs and John Does 16 - 18 are restraining or will restrain Plaintiffs’ liberty. Accordingly, under the 4th Amendment these restraints must be justified by reasonable suspicion that the person seized has no right to be or remain in the United States.
169. Restraining and interrogating Hispanics because of their Hispanic appearance is contrary to that standard.
170. These Defendants have conspired to deprive Hispanics of the equal protection of the laws and have in furtherance of that conspiracy restrained and interrogated them because of their Hispanic appearance.
171. These Defendants failed to take action to prevent the 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3) violations.
172. Defendants’ actions have caused, are causing, and will cause Plaintiffs irreparable injury in the form of deprivation of their 4th Amendment rights.
- 35 -

Case: 3:09-cv-02865-JZ Doc #: 1 Filed: 12/10/09 36 of 39. PageID #: 36
TWELTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF 42 U.S.C. § 1986 Claim for Failure to Stop Conspiracy to Violate Hispanics Right to
Equal Protection of the Law (On behalf of Plaintiff Martinez and Class 2 class members against defendants Chief Kevin Cashen and John Does 19 - 21)
173. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference each and every allegation contained in the preceding paragraphs as though fully set forth herein.
174. Defendants Cashen and John Does 19 - 21 are restraining or will restrain Plaintiffs’ liberty. Accordingly, under the 4th Amendment these restraints must be justified by reasonable suspicion that the person seized has no right to be or remain in the United States.
175. Restraining and interrogating Hispanics because of their Hispanic appearance is contrary to that standard.
176. These Defendants have conspired to deprive Hispanics of the equal protection of the laws and have, in furtherance of that conspiracy, restrained and interrogated them because of their Hispanic appearance.
177. These Defendants failed to take action to prevent the 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3) violations.
178. Defendants’ actions have caused, are causing, and will cause Plaintiffs irreparable injury in the form of deprivation of their 4th Amendment rights.
- 36 -

Case: 3:09-cv-02865-JZ Doc #: 1 Filed: 12/10/09 37 of 39. PageID #: 37
THIRTEENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF 42 U.S.C. § 1986 Claim for Failure to Stop Conspiracy to Violate Hispanics Right to
Equal Protection of the Law (On behalf of Plaintiffs Belinda Vega, José Calderón, and Class 2 class members against defendants Chief Charles D. Doan and John Does 22)
179. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference each and every allegation contained in the preceding paragraphs as though fully set forth herein.
180. Defendants Doan and John Doe 22 are restraining or will restrain Plaintiffs’ liberty. Accordingly, under the 4th Amendment these restraints must be justified by reasonable suspicion that the person seized has no right to be or remain in the United States.
181. Restraining and interrogating Hispanics because of their Hispanic appearance is contrary to that standard.
182. These Defendants have conspired to deprive Hispanics of the equal protection of the laws and have in furtherance of that conspiracy restrained and interrogated them because of their Hispanic appearance.
183. These Defendants failed to take action to prevent the 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3) violations.
184. Defendants’ actions have caused, are causing, and will cause Plaintiffs irreparable injury in the form of deprivation of their 4th Amendment rights.
- 37 -

Case: 3:09-cv-02865-JZ Doc #: 1 Filed: 12/10/09 38 of 39. PageID #: 38
PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court: a. Issue an order certifying this action to proceed as a class action pursuant to Rules
23(a) and (b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; b. Appoint the undersigned as class counsel pursuant to Rule 23(g) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure; c. Issue a judgment declaring that Defendants’ policies, practices, acts, and
omissions described herein violate Plaintiffs’ rights under the Constitution of the United States, and federal statutory law; d. Permanently enjoin Defendants, their subordinates, agents, employees, and all others acting in concert with them from subjecting Plaintiffs to the unconstitutional and illegal conditions described herein, and issue injunctive relief sufficient to rectify those conditions, including:
i. An order that Defendants not restrain or seize members of the Classes without reasonable suspicion that the person has no right to be or to remain in the United States;
ii. An order allowing monitoring of the actions of the Sandusky Border Patrol Station by provision of redacted records of questioning, restraint of, interrogation of, and arrest of Hispanics by that Station. These forms would include, but not be limited to, the I-213, I-862, and other documents and incident reports prepared by Sandusky Border Patrol Agents.
- 38 -

Case: 3:09-cv-02865-JZ Doc #: 1 Filed: 12/10/09 39 of 39. PageID #: 39
e. Grant Plaintiffs their reasonable attorney fees and costs pursuant to the Equal
Access to Justice Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1988, and other applicable law.
f. Grant such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper.
Respectfully submitted,
By: /s/ Mark Heller_____ Mark Heller (0027027) /s/ Eugenio Mollo, Jr. Eugenio Mollo, Jr. (0081860) /s/Aneel L. Chablani Aneel L. Chablani (0083043) ADVOCATES FOR BASIC LEGAL EQUALITY, INC. 525 Jefferson Ave., Suite 300 Toledo, OH 43604 419.255.0814 (phone) 419.259.2880 (fax) mheller@ablelaw.org emollo@ablelaw.org achablani@ablelaw.org
/s/John T. Murray John T. Murray (0008793) /s/Leslie O. Murray Leslie O. Murray (0081496) MURRAY & MURRAY CO., L.P.A. 111 East Shoreline Drive Sandusky, OH 44870-2517 419.987.4067 (phone) 419.624.0707 (fax) jotm@murrayandmurray.com lom@murrayandmurray.com
Counsel for Plaintiffs
- 39 -

 
 Case: 3:09-cv-02865-JZ Doc #: 21 Filed: 03/01/10 1 of 72. PageID #: 144

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION

ROBERTO MUÑIZ, ANTONIO

)

TORRES-FRANCO, JUANA MUÑIZ-TORRES, )

LUIS ENRIQUE MUÑIZ-MUÑIZ by next friend )

María Muñiz-Muñiz, MARÍA MUÑIZ-MUÑIZ, )

EMETERIO NIETO-MEDINA, ROCÍO ANANI )

SAUCEDO-CARRILLO, ROSA

)

CARRILLO-VASQUEZ,

)

MARÍA DE BELÉN MARTÍNEZ-CASTRO, JOSÉ )

CALDERÓN, BELINDA VEGA, ALFONSO

)

PALAFOX, JOSÉ SAMUEL CONTRERAS GARCÍA, )

JESÚS RODRÍGUEZ-PÉREZ,

)

individually and on behalf of a

)

class of others similarly situated,

)

the OHIO IMMIGRANT WORKER PROJECT, )

and the FARM LABOR ORGANIZING

)

COMMITTEE (FLOC), AFL-CIO,

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

)

v.

)

)

UNITED STATES BORDER PATROL,

)

CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION,

)

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY;

)

RANDY L. GALLEGOS, individually and in

)

his capacity as Chief Patrol Agent, Detroit

)

Sector, United States Border Patrol; RAMIRO

)

CORONA, United States Border Patrol Agent,

)

individually and in his official capacity;

)

Agent MATEO, United States Border Patrol Agent, )

individually and in his official capacity;

)

ANDRE DARIO, United States

)

Border Patrol Agent, individually and in

)

his officialcapacity; ROBERT SIMON,

)

United States Border Patrol Agent,

)

individually and in his official capacity;

)

DAVID B. YORK, United States Border Patrol

)

Agent, individually and in his official capacity; )

S. WRISLEY, United States Border Patrol Agent, )

COMPLAINT CLASS ACTION
No. 3:09 – 02865 Hon. Jack Zouhary

Case: 3:09-cv-02865-JZ Doc #: 21 Filed: 03/01/10 2 of 72. PageID #: 145

individually and in his official capacity;

)

JOHN DOES 1 – 9, United States Border Patrol

)

Agents assigned or working from the Sandusky, )

Ohio, United States Border Patrol Station,

)

individually and in their capacity

)

as Border Patrol Agents; VILLAGE OF ATTICA, )

OHIO; JEFFREY A. BRIGGS, former chief of

)

Attica Ohio Police Department, individually;

)

POLICE CHIEF OF ATTICA OHIO

)

POLICE DEPARTMENT, in his or her

)

official capacity; CITY OF NORWALK, OHIO;

)

CHIEF DAVE LIGHT, NORWALK OHIO

)

POLICE DEPARTMENT, individually and in

)

his official capacity; VILLAGE OF

)

PLYMOUTH, OHIO; CHIEF CHARLES D. DOAN, )

PLYMOUTH OHIO POLICE DEPARTMENT,

)

individually and in his official capacity;

)

JOHN DOES 10 - 12, Attica Ohio Police

)

Department officers, individually and in their

)

official capacities; JOHN DOES 13 - 15, Norwalk )

Ohio Police Department officer, individually

)

and in their official capacities; and, JOHN DOES )

16 – 17, Plymouth Police Department officers,

)

individually and in their official capacities,

)

)

Defendants.

)

COMPLAINT FOR CLASSWIDE DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

INTRODUCTION 1. The individual Plaintiffs and class members are Hispanics. The organizational
plaintiffs, the Ohio Immigrant Worker Project (IWP) and the Farm Labor Organizing Committee, AFL-CIO (FLOC), work with and organize Hispanics to vindicate their rights and to enhance their lives. The individual Plaintiffs and members of both the IWP and FLOC have been restrained, interrogated, and sometimes arrested by the Defendants. 2. Plaintiffs bring this lawsuit to remedy their and their members being restrained (seized) and interrogated by Ohio law enforcement agencies and United States

- 2 -

Case: 3:09-cv-02865-JZ Doc #: 21 Filed: 03/01/10 3 of 72. PageID #: 146
Border Patrol agents about their immigration status because they are Hispanics. This restraint, interrogation, and arrest regarding immigration status based solely on their being Hispanic will be referred to herein as “profiling.” 3. This profiling of Hispanics for immigration status questioning is done even though Ohio local law enforcement authorities have no jurisdiction regarding the enforcement of the civil provisions of federal immigration law and the Border Patrol agents were and are without reasonable suspicion or probable cause to believe Plaintiffs and the class members are non-citizens in the United States without proper authorization. 4. Plaintiffs and class members seek relief against the illegal and unconstitutional actions of the Border Patrol Agents stationed at or working out of the Sandusky Station, Detroit Sector, of the U.S. Border Patrol. Agents of that Station are engaged in a pattern or practice of restraining, interrogating, and arresting persons regarding their immigration status based on their being Hispanic. These seizures and interrogations have taken place in bus stations, gas stations, retail establishments, during traffic stops, at soccer games, and in other public settings. 5. The actions of the Border Patrol agents have caused fear and concern in Hispanic communities. 6. The actions of the Border Patrol agents violate the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”), 8 U.S.C. § 1101 et seq., the 4th Amendment prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures, and the 5th Amendments’ guarantees of Due Process and Equal Protection of the law. 7. The Border Patrol has also held seminars, meetings, or has otherwise communicated with local law enforcement agencies in Northwest Ohio urging them to restrain and interrogate Hispanics regarding their immigration status. 8. The Border Patrol has also stated to these local law enforcement agencies that the Border Patrol will come and restrain and interrogate persons that the local law enforcement agencies have already seized based on the profiling activities of the agencies.
- 3 -

Case: 3:09-cv-02865-JZ Doc #: 21 Filed: 03/01/10 4 of 72. PageID #: 147
9. Local law enforcement authorities in Ohio, including the Defendant Attica, Norwalk, and Plymouth police departments, have profiled and stopped, restrained, and interrogated the individual Plaintiffs and class members regarding their immigration status. These actions violate the 4th Amendment’s prohibition of unreasonable searches and seizures and the 14th Amendment’s guarantees of Due Process and Equal Protection of the law.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE 10. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 (federal
question) and 1343 (civil rights), 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985(3), and 1986, and 5 U.S.C. § 702 (Administrative Procedure Act). Because this lawsuit alleges violations of the United States Constitution as well as violations of federal statutes and regulations, it raises questions of federal law. The actions of the Defendants also constitute a conspiracy to deprive the individual plaintiffs, the class, and members of the IWP and FLOC of their constitutional rights to due process and equal protection of the laws and protection against unreasonable searches and seizures. 11. This Court has the authority to grant injunctive relief, declaratory relief, and other related relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202. 12. Venue is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b)(2) and (e)(2) because a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claims occurred in this district.
PLAINTIFFS 13. Plaintiff Rocío Anani Saucedo-Carrillo is a Hispanic female resident of Norwalk,
Huron County, Ohio. She is married with two children. She is a 2005 graduate of Norwalk High School. She was restrained, interrogated and arrested by a
- 4 -

Case: 3:09-cv-02865-JZ Doc #: 21 Filed: 03/01/10 5 of 72. PageID #: 148
Border Patrol Agent at a Marathon gas station in Norwalk, Ohio, on September 13, 2009. 14. Rosa Carrillo-Vasquez is a Hispanic female resident of Norwalk, Huron County, Ohio. She was restrained, interrogated, and arrested by a Border Patrol Agent at a Marathon gas station in Norwalk, Ohio, on September 13, 2009. 15. Emeterio Nieto-Medina is a Hispanic male resident of McAllen, Hidalgo County, Texas, and works and lives during the agricultural season in Willard, Huron County, Ohio. He was restrained and interrogated about his immigration status by Village of Attica, Ohio, police officers on September 27, 2009. 16. Roberto Muñiz is a Hispanic male resident of Tulsa, Oklahoma. He was restrained and interrogated about his immigration status by a Village of Attica, Ohio, police officer on September 27, 2009. At the time Mr. Muñiz was temporarily residing in an agricultural labor camp in Willard, Huron County, Ohio. 17. María Muñiz-Muñiz is a Hispanic female resident of Tulsa, Oklahoma. She was restrained and interrogated about her immigration status by a Village of Attica, Ohio, police officer on September 27, 2009. At the time Mrs. Muñiz was temporarily residing in an agricultural labor camp in Willard, Huron County, Ohio. 18. Antonio Torres-Franco is a Hispanic male resident of McKinney, Collin County, Texas. He was restrained and interrogated about his immigration status aby Village of Attica, Ohio, police officer on September 27, 2009. At the time Mr.
- 5 -

Case: 3:09-cv-02865-JZ Doc #: 21 Filed: 03/01/10 6 of 72. PageID #: 149
Torres was temporarily residing in an agricultural labor camp in Willard, Huron County, Ohio. 19. Juana Muñiz-Torres is a Hispanic female resident of McKinney, Collin County, Texas. She was restrained and interrogated about her immigration status by a Village of Attica, Ohio, police officer on September 27, 2009. At the time Mrs. Muñiz was temporarily residing in an agricultural labor camp in Willard, Huron County, Ohio, with her husband, Antonio Torres-Franco. 20. Luis Enrique Muñiz-Muñiz, a minor, is a Hispanic male resident of Tulsa, Oklahoma. He was restrained and interrogated about his immigration status by a Village of Attica, Ohio, police officer on September 27, 2009. At the time Mr. Muñiz was temporarily residing at an agricultural labor camp in Willard, Huron County, Ohio, with his parents, Roberto Muñiz and María Muñiz-Muñiz. He is a minor and this action is brought on his behalf by his mother, María MuñizMuñiz. 21. María de Belén Martínez-Castro is a Hispanic female resident of Norwalk, Huron County, Ohio. She has been followed on several occasions and asked her immigration status by a Norwalk Police Department officer when she was escorting her son from school. 22. José Calderón is a Hispanic male resident of Donna, Hidalgo County, Texas. During the incidents related herein he was living in an agricultural labor camp in Willard, Huron County, Ohio. He has been restrained and interrogated about
- 6 -

Case: 3:09-cv-02865-JZ Doc #: 21 Filed: 03/01/10 7 of 72. PageID #: 150
his immigration status on at least three occasions by Village of Plymouth, Ohio, police officers. 23. Belinda Vega, the wife of Plaintiff José Calderón, is a Hispanic female resident of Donna, Hidalgo County, Texas. During the incidents related herein she was living in an agricultural labor camp in Willard, Huron County, Ohio. She has been restrained and interrogated about her immigration status on at least three occasions by Village of Plymouth, Ohio, police officers. 24. Alfonso Palafox is a Hispanic male resident of Fremont, Sandusky County, Ohio. He was restrained and interrogated on the street in Fremont, Ohio, by Border Patrol agents on November 3, 2009. 25. José Samuel Contreras García is a Hispanic male resident of Ixtapaluca, Estado de Mexico, Mexico. He was restrained, interrogated, and arrested by Border Patrol Agents at the Toledo, Ohio, Greyhound bus station on December 17, 2009. 26. Jesús Rodríguez-Pérez is a Hispanic male resident residing in Mexico. He was restrained, interrogated, and arrested by Border Patrol Agents at the Toledo, Ohio, Greyhound bus station on December 29, 2009. 27. The Ohio Immigrant Worker Project (IWP), an unincorporated association, is dedicated to the struggle for justice and human dignity for Ohio’s rural immigrant workers from Latin America. The Projects’s membership includes persons who have been and/or are imminently susceptible to being injured by Defendants’ unlawful practices, as well as family members of such persons. Most, if not all, of IWP’s members are Hispanic.
- 7 -

Case: 3:09-cv-02865-JZ Doc #: 21 Filed: 03/01/10 8 of 72. PageID #: 151
28. The Farm Labor Organizing Committee, AFL-CIO (FLOC), an Ohio non-profit corporation, is both a social movement and a labor union. FLOC’s membership includes persons who have been and/or are imminently susceptible to being injured by Defendants’ unlawful practices, as well as family members of such persons. Most, if not all, of FLOC’s members are Hispanic. DEFENDANTS
29. Defendant United States Border Patrol is a subagency of Customs and Border Protection, an agency of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, and exists under the Constitution and laws of the United States.
30. Defendant Randy L. Gallegos is the Chief Agent of the Detroit Border Patrol Sector. As Chief Agent Defendant Gallegos is the supervisor of the Detroit, Gibraltar, Marysville, Sault Sainte Marie, and Sandusky Border Patrol Stations that encompass the Detroit Sector. Gallegos oversees the daily activities of the Border Patrol Agents within those five Stations and is responsible for ensuring that their duties are carried out in a legal manner. At all relevant times, Defendant Gallegos was acting under color of law, as an agent, employee, and/or representative of the United States. Defendant Gallegos is sued in his individual and official capacities.
31. Defendant Ramiro Corona is a Border Patrol Agent. At all relevant times, Defendant Corona was acting under color of law, as an agent, employee, and/or representative of the United States. He is sued in his individual and official capacities.
- 8 -

Case: 3:09-cv-02865-JZ Doc #: 21 Filed: 03/01/10 9 of 72. PageID #: 152
32. Defendant Andre Dario is a Border Patrol Agent. At all relevant times, Defendant Dario was acting under color of law, as an agent, employee, and/or representative of the United States. He is sued in his individual and official capacities.
33. Defendant Mateo is a Border Patrol Agent. At all relevant times, Defendant Mateo was acting under color of law, as an agent, employee, and/or representative of the United States. He is sued in his individual and official capacities.
34. Defendant Robert Simon is a Border Patrol Agent. At all relevant times, Defendant Simon was acting under color of law, as an agent, employee, and/or representative of the United States. He is sued in his individual and official capacities.
35. Defendant David B. York is a Border Patrol Agent. At all relevant times, Defendant York was acting under color of law, as an agent, employee, and/or representative of the United States. He is sued in his individual and official capacities.
36. Defendant S. Wrisley is a Border Patrol Agent. At all relevant times, Defendant Wrisley was acting under color of law, as an agent, employee, and/or representative of the United States. He is sued in his individual and official capacities.
37. Defendants John Does 1 – 9 are Border Patrol Agents assigned to or working out of the Sandusky, Ohio, Border Patrol Station. These unknown and unnamed
- 9 -

Case: 3:09-cv-02865-JZ Doc #: 21 Filed: 03/01/10 10 of 72. PageID #: 153
Agents are restraining, interrogating and arresting Plaintiffs, Hispanics, and the members of the class without reasonable suspicion or probable cause that they are aliens without a right to be or to remain in the United States. At all relevant times, Defendants John Does 1 – 9 were acting under color of law, as agents, employees, and/or representatives of the United States. They are sued in their individual and official capacities. 38. Defendant Village of Attica (Attica) is a political subdivision of the State of Ohio that can sue and be sued in its own name. Upon information and belief, Defendant Attica includes, operates, governs, and is responsible for the Attica Police Department pursuant to the laws of the State of Ohio. 39. Defendant Jeffrey A. Briggs is the former Police Chief of the Attica, Ohio Police Department in Seneca County, Ohio. At the time of the incidents detailed herein he was the Police Chief of Attica, Ohio. As such he was responsible for the policies, practices, and customs of the Attica Police Department. The Police Chief also directs the hiring, screening, training, retention, supervision, discipline, counseling, and control of the police officers under his supervision and command. At all relevant times Defendant Briggs was acting under color of law. He is sued in his individual capacity. 40. Defendant Police Chief of Attica Ohio Police Department is the Police Chief of the Attica, Ohio Police Department in Seneca County, Ohio, and is responsible for the policies, practices, and customs of the Attica Police Department. The Police Chief also directs the hiring, screening, training, retention, supervision,
- 10 -

Case: 3:09-cv-02865-JZ Doc #: 21 Filed: 03/01/10 11 of 72. PageID #: 154
discipline, counseling, and control of the police officers under his supervision and command. At all relevant times Defendant Police Chief was acting under color of law. He is sued in his official capacity. 41. Defendant City of Norwalk is a political subdivision of the State of Ohio that can sue and be sued in its own name. Upon information and belief, Defendant Norwalk includes, operates, governs, and is responsible for the Norwalk Police Department pursuant to the laws of the State of Ohio. 42. Defendant Dave Light is the Police Chief of the Norwalk, Ohio Police Department in Huron County, Ohio, and is responsible for the policies, practices, and customs of the Norwalk Police Department. Defendant Light also directs the hiring, screening, training, retention, supervision, discipline, counseling, and control of the police officers under his supervision and command. At all relevant times Defendant Light was acting under color of law. He is sued in his individual and official capacities. 43. Defendant Village of Plymouth is a political subdivision of the State of Ohio that can sue and be sued in its own name. Upon information and belief, Defendant Plymouth includes, operates, governs, and is responsible for the Plymouth Police Department pursuant to the laws of the State of Ohio. 44. Defendant Charles D. Doan is the Police Chief of the Plymouth, Ohio Police Department in Huron and Seneca Counties, Ohio, and is responsible for the policies, practices, and customs of the Plymouth Police Department. Defendant Doan also directs the hiring, screening, training, retention, supervision,
- 11 -

Case: 3:09-cv-02865-JZ Doc #: 21 Filed: 03/01/10 12 of 72. PageID #: 155
discipline, counseling, and control of the police officers under his supervision and command. At all relevant times Defendant Doan was acting under color of law. He is sued in his individual and official capacities. 45. Defendants John Does 10 - 12 are police officers of the Attica, Ohio Police Department. At all relevant times, John Does 10 – 12 were acting under color of law. Plaintiffs are not aware of their identities after reasonable efforts, but will amend this complaint to add or substitute them as named Defendants when Plaintiffs become aware of their identities. At all relevant times, Defendants John Does 10 - 12 were acting under color of law, as agents, employees, and/or representatives of the Attica Ohio Police Department. They are sued in their individual and official capacities. 46. Defendants John Does 13 - 15 are police officers of the Norwalk, Ohio Police Department. At all relevant times, John Does 13 - 15 were acting under color of law. Plaintiffs are not aware of their identities after reasonable efforts, but will amend this complaint to add or substitute them as named Defendants when Plaintiffs become aware of their identities. At all relevant times, Defendants John Does 13 - 15 were acting under color of law, as agents, employees, and/or representatives of the Norwalk Ohio Police Department. They are sued in their individual and official capacities. 47. John Does 16 and 17 are police officers of the Plymouth, Ohio Police Department. At all relevant times, John Does 16 - 17 were acting under color of law. Plaintiffs are not aware of their identities after reasonable efforts, but will amend this
- 12 -

Case: 3:09-cv-02865-JZ Doc #: 21 Filed: 03/01/10 13 of 72. PageID #: 156
complaint to add or substitute them as named Defendants when Plaintiffs become aware of their identities. At all relevant times, Defendant John Does 16 17 were acting under color of law, as agents, employees, and/or representatives of the Plymouth Police Department. They are sued in their individual and official capacities.
CIVIL IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT – LEGAL BACKGROUND Local Law Enforcement Agencies’ Lack of Authority to Enforce Immigration Law 48. State and federal law do not authorize local authorities such as Defendants
Briggs, Attica Police Chief, Doan, Light and John Does 10 – 17, to arrest or detain individuals based on suspected civil immigration violations. FLOC v. Ohio State Highway Patrol, 991 F.Supp. 895, 904 (N.D. Ohio 1997); Gonzales v. City of Peoria, 722 F.2d 468, 472-75(9th Cir. 1983); Mena v. City of Simi Valley, 322 F.3d 1255, 1265 n. 15 (9th Cir. 2003), vacated and remanded sub nom. Muehler v. Mena, 544 U.S. 93 (2005); Carrasca v. Pomeroy, 313 F.3d 828, 837 (3d Cir. 2002); Ohio Op. Att’y Gen. 2007-18. 49. Federal law preempts local law enforcement agencies from enforcing civil immigration law except as specifically provided by statute. Local law enforcement agencies may enforce criminal immigration law within the restrictions of state law. Ohio Op. Att’y Gen. 2007-18 50. In Ohio, local law enforcement authorities may make warrantless arrests only where they have probable cause to believe the arrestee has committed a crime in
- 13 -

Case: 3:09-cv-02865-JZ Doc #: 21 Filed: 03/01/10 14 of 72. PageID #: 157
their presence and certain specified crimes and felony offenses outside their presence. Ohio Revised Code § 2935.03. 51. None of the defendant local police departments here have entered into an agreement with the United States pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1357(g) to authorize their police officers to enforce civil immigration law. So called “287(g) agreements” require that local law enforcement officers receive five weeks of training on federal immigration law and that they remain under the supervision of immigration enforcement officers after that training. Limits on Border Patrol Agents’ Authority to Make Warrantless Arrests and Issue
Immigration Detainers 52. Border Patrol Agents are authorized to arrest individuals without a warrant only
if they (a) have reason to believe that the individuals are in the United States in violation of immigration law, and (b) have reason to believe that the individuals are likely to escape before a warrant can be obtained for their arrest. 8 U.S.C. § 1357. 53. Border Patrol Agents must provide certain procedural protections to individuals arrested for civil immigration violations without a warrant. These protections include: the right to be examined by a non-arresting officer without unnecessary delay; notice of the charges against them and their right to a hearing with counsel at their own expense; lists of available pro bono counsel and free legal services; and notice that statements made by the arrestee may be used against him in a subsequent proceeding. 8 U.S.C. §§ 1226, 1229, 1357; 8 C.F.R. § 287.3. A
- 14 -

Case: 3:09-cv-02865-JZ Doc #: 21 Filed: 03/01/10 15 of 72. PageID #: 158
bond determination and a decision whether to issue a Notice to Appear must be made within 48 hours of arrest except in the case of emergency or extraordinary circumstances. Id. 54. 8 C.F.R. § 287.7 allows Border Patrol Agents to issue immigration detainers requesting that other law enforcement agencies maintain custody of a suspected noncitizen already within that law enforcement agency’s custody on an independent civil or criminal charge, to permit the Border Patrol to assume custody of the suspected noncitizen. 8 C.F.R. § 287.7 does not, however, authorize Border Patrol Agents to issue immigration detainers to instruct local law enforcement agencies to detain or arrest individuals who are not already in the custody of those agencies.
Civil Immigration Enforcement By Attica, Norwalk and Plymouth Police Departments Unaccompanied By Border Patrol Agents
55. Defendants Attica, Norwalk, Plymouth, former Police Chief Briggs, Attica Police Chief, Light, Doan and John Does 10 – 17 have adopted the policy, practice, and custom of stopping, detaining, questioning, and/or searching Hispanics and interrogating them about their immigration status outside the presence of Border Patrol Agents.
56. These racially-motivated stops or restraints are frequently unsupported by reasonable suspicion or probable cause that the person or persons stopped have violated any criminal law.
- 15 -

Case: 3:09-cv-02865-JZ Doc #: 21 Filed: 03/01/10 16 of 72. PageID #: 159
57. Even where such stops may be initially supported by reasonable suspicion of criminal activity or traffic infractions, Defendants Attica, Norwalk, Plymouth, Attica Police Chief, Light, Doan and John Does 10 – 16 have adopted the policy, practice, and custom of prolonging the initial stop to interrogate individuals about their immigration status and sometimes conducting searches of their persons and vehicles despite having neither any criminal basis to prolong the detention nor any investigatory or safety justification for the searches. Upon information and belief, the individual’s being Hispanic is cause for the Defendants’ prolonged detention, interrogation, and search of such individuals.
58. The failure of all federal and state Defendants to provide the procedural protections required by 8 U.S.C. § 1357 and 8 C.F.R. 287.3 to civil immigration detainees arrested, or subjected to prolonged detention, without a warrant violate the due process rights of those detained under the 5th and 14th Amendments of the United States Constitution.
59. Plaintiffs are informed and believe the Border Patrol Agents assigned to the Sandusky, Ohio Border Patrol Station have targeted Hispanics in the area for restraint and interrogation regarding their immigration status without any reasonable suspicion or probable cause that the individual Hispanic has no right to be or to remain in the United States.
60. Plaintiffs are informed and believe the Agents assigned to the Sandusky Station have adopted a pattern or practice of targeting Hispanics encountered in public
- 16 -

Case: 3:09-cv-02865-JZ Doc #: 21 Filed: 03/01/10 17 of 72. PageID #: 160
settings for restraint and interrogation and without any specific articulable facts other than their being Hispanic. 61. Plaintiffs are informed and believe the Sandusky Border Patrol Station and its officers have held seminars, trainings or otherwise communicated with numerous local law enforcement agencies, including the Defendant Attica, Norwalk, and Plymouth Police Departments, encouraging those local law enforcement agencies to target Hispanics for restraint and interrogation about their immigration status. 62. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and therefore allege that each of the Defendants caused, and is liable for, the unconstitutional and unlawful conduct and resulting injuries alleged here, by, among other things, personally participating in said conduct or acting jointly with others who did so; by authorizing, acquiescing or setting in motion policies, plans or actions that led to the unlawful conduct; by failing to take action to prevent the unlawful conduct; by failing or refusing with deliberate indifference to maintain adequate training and supervision; and/or by ratifying the unlawful conduct taken by employees under his direction and control. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and therefore allege that Defendants’ actions were pursuant to a policy, custom or usage of the Border Patrol, the Attica, Norwalk and Plymouth police departments, or other related agencies.
INDIVIDUAL PLAINTIFFS’ EXPERIENCES Plaintiffs Rocío Anani Saucedo-Carrillo and Rosa Carrillo-Vasquez
- 17 -

Case: 3:09-cv-02865-JZ Doc #: 21 Filed: 03/01/10 18 of 72. PageID #: 161
63. Plaintiff Rocío Anani Saucedo-Carrillo (Saucedo) parked at a gas pump in the Marathon gasoline station on U.S. 250/Milan Road, in Norwalk, Huron County, Ohio, in the early afternoon of September 13, 2009.
64. Saucedo went into the station to pay in advance and when she exited the station to return to the pump she saw a Border Patrol Chevrolet Suburban SUV traveling on Rte. 250.
65. After seeing Plaintiff Saucedo, the Border Patrol officer quickly pulled into the Marathon gas station and parked his car directly in front of and perpendicular to Plaintiff Saucedo’s pickup truck, blocking Plaintiff Saucedo’s exit.
66. Saucedo’s pickup truck has Ohio license plates. 67. The Border Patrol Agent, John Doe 1, dressed in a green uniform, exited the
Border Patrol vehicle and approached her as she was pumping gas. 68. Border Patrol Agent John Doe 1 started interrogating Saucedo in English. He did
not introduce himself nor explain why he approached her. He asked for an ID. He then asked for her “papers,” which she understood to mean immigration documents. He then asked for her resident card. She presented an unexpired Michigan driver’s license to John Doe 1. 69. Saucedo did not believe she was free to leave the Marathon station or refuse to answer the Agent’s questions due to his blocking her exit with his vehicle, his uniform, and the aggressive form of his questioning. 70. Eventually John Doe 1 told Saucedo to move her pickup truck from the gas pump area to a small parking lot on the side of the building.
- 18 -

Case: 3:09-cv-02865-JZ Doc #: 21 Filed: 03/01/10 19 of 72. PageID #: 162
71. John Doe 1 then interrogated Saucedo’s mother, Plaintiff Rosa Carrillo-Vasquez (Carrillo), a passenger in Saucedo’s pickup truck, about her immigration status.
72. Plaintiff Carrillo did not believe she was free to leave nor to refuse to answer John Doe 1’s questions based on his ordering Plaintiff Saucedo to move her pickup truck, John Doe 10’s uniform, and the nature of the questions and Doe 1’s tone of voice.
73. John Doe 1 then arrested Plaintiffs Saucedo and Carrillo. 74. Plaintiff Saucedo asked John Doe 1 if she could give the keys to her vehicle to a
young woman Saucedo knew who was walking past the Marathon gas station. 75. The Agent gave Plaintiff Saucedo permission to give her truck’s keys to
Saucedo’s acquaintance. 76. John Doe 1 then placed the Plaintiffs in the locked part of his Border Patrol
vehicle. 77. On the way to the Border Patrol Station in Sandusky, Plaintiff Saucedo started to
cry. John Doe 1 told her “No tears, or you’ll leave (the United States) right now.” 78. Plaintiff Saucedo was seven months pregnant on September 13, 2009, and has
since delivered her baby. 79. John Doe 1 then transported Plaintiffs Saucedo and Carrillo to the Sandusky
Border Patrol Station where they were fingerprinted, photographed and interrogated further.
- 19 -

Case: 3:09-cv-02865-JZ Doc #: 21 Filed: 03/01/10 20 of 72. PageID #: 163
80. Plaintiffs Saucedo and Carrillo signed documents requesting an immigration hearing before an Immigration Judge presented to them by John Doe Border Patrol Agents.
81. A relative of the Plaintiffs came to pick them up in Sandusky and take them back to their homes in Norwalk.
82. The next day, September 14, 2009, John Doe 1 called Plaintiff Saucedo and told her he needed her and Plaintiff Carrillo’s signatures on some documents he had failed to have them sign on the 13th. The Plaintiffs met with John Doe 1 around noon in Norwalk and signed as requested.
83. Plaintiffs Saucedo and Carrillo are agricultural workers and at the time of their arrest by John Doe 1 were so employed.
84. Upon information and belief the Sandusky Border Patrol Station has also restrained, interrogated and arrested Hispanics at soccer games, in grocery stores, and at the same gasoline station as Plaintiffs Saucedo and Carrillo.
85. Upon information and belief the restraint and interrogation of Hispanics by the Sandusky Border Patrol Station Agents was not based on reasonable suspicion or probable cause, but solely on their being Hispanics.
86. Upon information and belief the Sandusky Border Patrol has restrained and interrogated persons who were or are U.S. citizens, Lawful Permanent Residents, or immigrants lawfully admitted and present in the United States.
Plaintiffs Roberto Muñiz, Emeterio Nieto-Medina, María Muñiz-Muñiz, Antonio Torres-Franco, Juana Muñiz-Torres, and Luis Enrique Muñiz-Muñiz
- 20 -

Case: 3:09-cv-02865-JZ Doc #: 21 Filed: 03/01/10 21 of 72. PageID #: 164
87. Plaintiff Roberto Muñiz (Muñiz) was stopped by the Attica Police Department Officer John Doe 10 on or about September 27, 2009. John Doe 10 There were a total of six persons in the Muñiz pickup truck. Two occupants of the vehicle, Emeterio Nieto-Medina and Muñiz’s minor son, Luis Enrique Muñiz-Muñiz, were immediately ordered to exit the vehicle and were placed in the Attica Police Department vehicle in the locked passenger area of the vehicle by John Doe 10.
88. John Doe 10 then asked Plaintiff Muñiz, the driver, for his driver’s license and Muñiz then presented a valid Ohio driver’s license. John Doe 10 then asked Muñiz and the other three occupants of the vehicle for their immigration documents and “who doesn’t have papers?” The pretext for the stop was that the light on the rear license plate was “too dim.” No ticket was issued by the Attica Police Department.
89. Plaintiff Emeterio Nieto-Medina was a passenger in the vehicle driven by Plaintiff Roberto Muniz when stopped by the Attica Police Department as described in paragraph 87 supra.
90. Mr. Nieto was riding in the back of Mr. Muniz’s pickup truck within a camper shell. When stopped by the Attica Police Department the John Doe 10 shined a flashlight into the camper shell, ordered Mr. Nieto out, searched him, and then placed Mr. Nieto in the locked back seat of the Attica police car.
91. The Attica police officer asked Mr. Nieto for his “papers” and whether he was “illegal.”
- 21 -

Case: 3:09-cv-02865-JZ Doc #: 21 Filed: 03/01/10 22 of 72. PageID #: 165
92. Plaintiff María Muñiz-Muñiz (Muñiz-Muñiz) was a passenger in the truck driven by her husband, Plaintiff Roberto Muñiz, when stopped by the Attica Police Department as described in paragraph 87 supra.
93. Mrs. Muñiz-Muñiz heard the Attica Police Department officer ask her and the other occupants of the vehicle whether anyone was “illegal” and for their “documents.” By “documents” the officer meant immigration documents.
94. Plaintiff Antonio Torres-Franco was a passenger in the vehicle driven by Plaintiff Roberto Muniz when stopped by the Attica Police Department as described in paragraph 87 supra.
95. Mr. Torres heard the Attica Police Department officer ask him and the other occupants of the vehicle whether anyone was “illegal” and for their “documents.” By “documents” the officer meant immigration documents.
96. Plaintiff Juana Muñiz-Torres was a passenger in the vehicle driven by Plaintiff Roberto Muniz when stopped by the Attica Police Department as described in paragraph 87 supra.
97. Mrs. Muñiz-Torres heard the Attica Police Department officer ask her and the other occupants of the vehicle whether anyone was “illegal” and for their “documents.” By “documents” the officer meant immigration documents.
98. Plaintiff Luis Enrique Muñiz-Muñiz was a passenger in the vehicle driven by his father, Plaintiff Roberto Muniz, when stopped by the Attica Police Department as described in paragraph 87 supra.
- 22 -

Case: 3:09-cv-02865-JZ Doc #: 21 Filed: 03/01/10 23 of 72. PageID #: 166
99. Mr. Muñiz-Muñiz was riding in the back of his father’s pickup truck within a camper shell. When stopped by the Attica Police Department John Doe 10 shined a flashlight into the camper shell, ordered Mr. Muñiz-Muñiz out, searched him, and then placed Mr. Muñiz-Muñiz in the locked back seat of the Attica police car.
100. John Doe 10 asked Mr. Muñiz-Muñiz for his “papers” and whether he was “illegal.”
101. The length of the stop far exceeded the time for a traffic stop, even though no traffic citations were issued. The stop here prolonged the initial stop to interrogate individuals about their immigration status and conduct searches of their persons and vehicle despite having the Attica police officer having neither any criminal basis to prolong the detention nor any investigatory or safety justification for the searches.
102. Plaintiffs Roberto Muñiz, Emeterio Nieto-Medina, María Muñiz-Muñiz, Antonio Torres-Franco, Juana Muñiz-Torres, and Luis Enrique Muñiz-Muñiz were restrained throughout this encounter and did not believe they were free to leave. Plaintiff María de Belén Martínez-Castro
103. Plaintiff María de Belén Martínez-Castro was pregnant and escorting her son from school when she was approached by a Norwalk police officer, John Doe13, who asked her if she was “legal.” She responded: “Why are you asking me? Because I’m brownie?” John Doe 13 stopped questioning her and left.
- 23 -

Case: 3:09-cv-02865-JZ Doc #: 21 Filed: 03/01/10 24 of 72. PageID #: 167
104. On several other occasions Norwalk police officers, John Does 14 and 15,
followed her while she was taking her son from or to his elementary school in
Norwalk. On one occasion she was followed by a Norwalk police officer. On the
other occasion she was followed when she went into a drug store. A Norwalk
police officer who had followed her parked his car and waited for her outside of
the drug store. When she came out of the drug store she walked home while the
Norwalk police officer watched her.
105. The stop, interrogation, and observations of Plaintiff were not based on any
suspicion of criminal activity and were based solely on Plaintiff being Hispanic.
Other Evidence of Discriminatory Intent by Defendants
106. The Norwalk Police Department has adopted an official policy or custom of
reporting persons believed to be civil immigration violators to the Border Patrol.
On June 9, 2009, at 3:54 p.m. Captain Jack O’Neil of that Department sent the
following email to “All Police Personnel”:
“Bradley Beldin from the United States Border Patrol stopped in and spoke to me. He wanted us to be aware they are here to help us with any illegal Alien (sic) problems we encounter. He advised if you have illegals and need help you can call them and they will come out to assist with interrogations and even as far as arresting them with being here illegally. I put his card on the board in the officers room. Also he advised they do not have to have charges against them for them to come out and assist and to have them deported. There (sic) office is in Sandusky.
Bradley Beldin Border Patrol Agent Sandusky Bay Agent
- 24 -

Case: 3:09-cv-02865-JZ Doc #: 21 Filed: 03/01/10 25 of 72. PageID #: 168

Office: (419) 624-0009

Fax: (419) 624-0011

Dispatch: (800) 537-3220

Cell: (567) 2289042

”

107. Upon information and belief “All Police Personnel” in the previous paragraph

refers to all Norwalk Police Department personnel. This email was received

from the Norwalk Police Department in answer to an Open Records Act request

from ABLE in June, 2009.

108. Norwalk Police Department officers also responded to a Border Patrol restraint

and interrogation of three Hispanics at the same gasoline station noted in

paragraphs 63 through 85 supra. This incident took place on September 16, 2009.

The Border Patrol agents approached two Hispanic men at the gasoline station to

question them about their immigration status. When the men fled the scene

Norwalk Police assisted Border Patrol Agents in the search for an hour to an

hour and a half. The Border Patrol Agent at the scene, Corey Bammer, was

quoted as saying “I’d hesitate to call it a manhunt,” but declined to say why the

suspects were initially approached by the Border Patrol Agents. Upon

information and belief the suspects were initially approached by the Border

Patrol Agents because they were Hispanic and the intended restraint and

interrogation concerned alleged civil immigration violations, not criminal ones.

109. Upon information and belief the Norwalk Police Department and its officers

have adopted a custom, policy or practice of profiling Hispanics for stops,

- 25 -

Case: 3:09-cv-02865-JZ Doc #: 21 Filed: 03/01/10 26 of 72. PageID #: 169
restraint, and interrogation about their immigration status based solely on their status as Hispanics.
Plaintiffs Belinda Vega and José Calderón 110. Plaintiffs Belinda Vega and José Calderón and their two young children, ages 5
and 4, were restrained and interrogated on three separate occasions by officers of the Plymouth, Ohio, Police Department, John Does 16 – 17. 111. The first incident occurred on or about Sunday, June 28, 2009, at 1 p.m. Plaintiffs Belinda Vega and José Calderón and their minor children were stopped about two or three miles outside of Plymouth, on their way to Mansfield. The speed limit on the road is 35 miles per hour, and the stated reason for the stop was speeding. Plaintiff José Calderón is sure that he wasn’t speeding because he recalls that the road was very bumpy and he was driving slowly. 112. John Doe 17 approached the driver’s window and asked Calderón for his license and registration. Calderón did not produce his license, so John Doe 17 told Calderón to write down his name, date of birth, and Social Security number. 113. John Doe 17 then went back to the Plymouth Police Department car and informed John Doe 16, who was sitting in the driver’s seat, of Calderón’s information. The Plaintiffs saw Defendant John Doe 16 on his computer. After being stopped for about 10 minutes, John Doe 16 returned to the Plaintiff’s truck
- 26 -

Case: 3:09-cv-02865-JZ Doc #: 21 Filed: 03/01/10 27 of 72. PageID #: 170
and informed Calderón that he was free to go. No citation or warning was issued. 114. The second incident occurred on or about Sunday, August 9, 2009, at 10:00 a.m. Plaintiffs Vega and Calderón, along with their young children, were stopped in Plymouth on their way to the Dollar General store. On this occasion, the same John Does 16 - 17 approached the vehicle. John Doe 17 stood outside of Vega’s (passenger) window, and John Doe 16 stood outside of Calderón’s (driver) window. Both Plaintiffs were asked for identification and proof of registration. 115. Plaintiffs’ identification cards were in the vehicle, but they did not want to search for them because they suspected they were being profiled and because their documents were not in a location that could be easily reached. Plaintiffs’ documents were in the back of the vehicle with their laundry, and they told the officers that they didn’t have their identification cards with them. 116. John Doe 16 then went back to his vehicle, and the ICE agent went to Calderón’s window; he told Calderón to write down his name, date of birth, and Social Security number. John Doe 17 then returned to the Plymouth Police Department car and waited outside the driver’s door. 117. Plaintiffs saw John Doe 17 giving John Doe 16 the sheet of paper with Calderón’s information, and John Doe 16 started using the computer. John Doe 17 sat in the passenger seat of the car, and John Doe 16 approached Calderón and asked him if there is anything in the vehicle that should “concern” him.
- 27 -

Case: 3:09-cv-02865-JZ Doc #: 21 Filed: 03/01/10 28 of 72. PageID #: 171
118. Calderón, frustrated that this was his second time being stopped by the same Defendants, said no.
119. John Doe 16 told Calderón that he was free to go. No reason was ever stated for the stop nor was any citation or warning issued.
120. The third incident occurred on or about Sunday, August 30, 2009, at 12:30 p.m. The Plaintiffs and their children were stopped as they were visiting numerous garage sales in the Plymouth area.
121. At the beginning of the stop, as with the two previous stops, John Doe 17, who was sitting in the passenger seat of the Plymouth Police Department car, approached Calderón and asked for his license and car registration. Calderón did not produce the requested documents, and John Doe 17 told Calderón to write down his name, date of birth, and Social Security number on a small white sheet of paper.
122. Calderón complied and asked John Doe 17 the reason for the stop; John Doe 17 responded that it was “just a traffic stop.” Calderón again asked for the reason, and John Doe 17 responded the same.
123. John Doe 17 returned to and entered the Plymouth Police Department car and John Doe 16 was on his computer. Within two or three minutes, John Doe 16 approached Calderón’s car and told him that he was free to leave. No reason was ever stated for the stop nor was any citation or warning issued.
- 28 -

Case: 3:09-cv-02865-JZ Doc #: 21 Filed: 03/01/10 29 of 72. PageID #: 172
124. In each of these stops Plaintiffs did not believe they were free to leave as the officers indicated that Plaintiffs were being investigated for unnamed purposes and at the end of the stop were told they were free to leave.
125. Each of the stops of plaintiffs Belinda Vega and José Calderón and their two young children resulted in prolonged detention and exceeded the time to determine their driving status and issue any traffic citations. Plaintiff Alfonso Palafox
126. Plaintiff Alfonso Palafox was walking with his 4 year old son on the sidewalk of a residential street in Fremont, Ohio, on November 3, 2009, after picking up his son from Head Start.
127. A U.S. Border Patrol vehicle came alongside him and a Border Patrol Agent in the vehicle asked Palafox if he knew the location of a particular street.
128. The two Border Patrol Agents, John Does 2 and 3, then exited the vehicle and approached Palafox. Palafox answered that he did not know the street.
129. The Border Patrol Agents then asked Palafox where he was from, and then continued interrogating Palafox, asking him if he used drugs or knew anyone who sold drugs. The Border Patrol Agents also asked Palafox if he knew of any more Hispanics in the area. Palafox told them the Hispanics had all left the area.
130. John Does 2 and 3 asked Palafox for his date of birth, phone number and address and told him to take care of his son. One Agent also told him not to change his phone number so they could have business dealings later. The Agents refused
- 29 -

Case: 3:09-cv-02865-JZ Doc #: 21 Filed: 03/01/10 30 of 72. PageID #: 173
him permission to take a picture of their vehicle and also asked if Palafox was working. 131. Palafox did not believe he was free to leave during this interrogation because the Border Patrol Agents exited their vehicle and started interrogating him on the street rather than awaiting his response to their question from inside the Border Patrol vehicle.
Plaintiff José Samuel Contreras García 132. Plaintiff José Samuel Contreras García was traveling between Florida and
Indiana as a passenger on a Greyhound bus on December 17, 2009. 133. The bus stopped at the Toledo Greyhound bus station, 811 Jefferson Avenue,
Toledo, Ohio, to load and unload passengers. 134. The bus contained approximately fifty (50) passengers when it arrived at the
station. 135. When the bus stopped a number of passengers exited the bus. A Border Patrol
Agent, Defendant Ramiro Corona, then boarded the bus and asked the only three Hispanic-appearing persons remaining on the bus for their identity documents. 136. Plaintiff José Samuel Contreras García was one of the three Hispanics Defendant Corona restrained and interrogated about their identity and immigration status. Defendants Corona and Mateo then arrested Plaintiff José Samuel Contreras García. 137. None of the passengers on the bus who appeared white or African-American were restrained and interrogated about their identity or immigration status by
- 30 -

Case: 3:09-cv-02865-JZ Doc #: 21 Filed: 03/01/10 31 of 72. PageID #: 174
Defendants Corona and Mateo. Their conduct was later approved by Defendant York who issued a Notice to Appear to Plaintiff Contreras García. 138. Plaintiff did not believe he was free to leave during this encounter.
Plaintiff Jesús Rodríguez-Pérez 139. Plaintiff Jesús Rodríguez-Pérez was traveling between Kentucky and Toledo,
Ohio, as a passenger on a Greyhound bus on December 29, 2009. 140. The bus stopped at the Toledo Greyhound bus station, 811 Jefferson Avenue,
Toledo, Ohio, to load and unload passengers. 141. When the bus stopped a number of passengers exited the bus, including Plaintiff
Jesús Rodríguez-Pérez. 142. Approximately fifteen passengers exited the bus; Plaintiff Jesús Rodríguez-Pérez
was about the tenth person in line exiting the bus. 143. Defendant Border Patrol Agents Andre Dario and S. Wrisley were at the Toledo
Greyhound station at the bus exit watching the fifteen passengers exit the bus. 144. Defendants Dario and Wrisley approached the plaintiff and asked for his
“papers,” his “green card,” an “ID,” and then asked if he was “illegal.” The agents also asked the person who had come to pick up the plaintiff, a Hispanic female, if she was a U.S. citizen. 145. Defendants Dario and Wrisley did not question any of the other passengers exiting the bus. None of the other passengers exiting the bus were Hispanic. 146. Plaintiff Jesús Rodríguez-Pérez was arrested by the agents and taken to the Border Patrol Station in Sandusky, Ohio. The actions of Defendants Dario and
- 31 -

Case: 3:09-cv-02865-JZ Doc #: 21 Filed: 03/01/10 32 of 72. PageID #: 175
Wrisley were approved by Defendant David B. York when York issued a Notice to Appear to Plaintiff Rodríguez-Pérez. 147. Plaintiff Jesús Rodríguez-Pérez did not believe he was free to leave during his restraint and interrogation by Defendants.
Plaintiff Immigrant Worker Project 148. The IWP was initiated in 1999 as a result of a study commissioned by the Ohio
Catholic Rural Life Conference. The IWP works with and organizes immigrants regarding, e.g., workplace rights, human and immigration rights, leadership training, Limited English Proficiency (LEP) rights and health care, advocacy and networking, cultural and pastoral celebrations, educational programs, and microenterprise. 149. IWP has members, or Hispanics who have worked with them, who have been restrained, interrogated, and sometimes arrested by local law enforcement authorities or Sandusky Station Border Patrol Agents because of their being Hispanic. This illegal and unconstitutional behavior by the Defendants has deprived IWP members of the equal protection of the laws and has also made some fearful of travel and association in the Ohio communities in which they live. The IWP has had to expend approximately fifty percent more time on detained cases since the opening of the Sandusky Border Patrol Station due to that Station’s profiling of Hispanics.
- 32 -

Case: 3:09-cv-02865-JZ Doc #: 21 Filed: 03/01/10 33 of 72. PageID #: 176
150. The IWP’s activities and membership are focused on the Hispanic community. The IWP’s members in northwest Ohio are especially likely to be subjected to the profiling activities of the Defendants.
151. The IWP has been, and continues to be, harmed by Defendants’ practices because those practices undermine IWP’s organizational missions and divert IWP resources from the pursuit of other, related goals.
152. The IWP staff and members believe and have witnessed the fear caused in the Hispanic community by the Defendants’ pattern or practice of profiling Hispanics for restraint, interrogation, and possible arrest in northwest Ohio.
153. Profiling has injured the IWP as profiling has made IWP’s organizing and empowerment activities more difficult due to Hispanics’ reluctance to attend activities and to come forward regarding violations of their rights. Law enforcement activities based on profiling of Hispanics chills the rights of IWP’s members and the entire Hispanic community without regard to immigration status.
154. The IWP seeks only injunctive and declaratory relief from Defendants, as discussed below. Plaintiff Farm Labor Organizing Committee, AFL-CIO (FLOC)
155. FLOC was started in 1968 in Ohio in order to obtain collective bargaining agreements with agricultural processors and farmers. Although not protected by the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. 141 et seq., FLOC has sought to protect and enhance labor protections throughout its history by, among other
- 33 -

Case: 3:09-cv-02865-JZ Doc #: 21 Filed: 03/01/10 34 of 72. PageID #: 177
methods, negotiating three party collective bargaining agreements between the union, agricultural processors, and farmers. 156. FLOC’s immediate constituency is migrant workers in the agricultural industry, but FLOC is also involved with immigrant workers, Hispanics, local communities, and national and international coalitions concerned with justice. The FLOC vision emphasizes human rights as the standard and selfdetermination as the process for achieving these rights. FLOC struggles for full justice for those who have been marginalized and exploited for the benefit of others, and works to change the structures of society to enable these people a direct voice in their own conditions. FLOC has negotiated collective bargaining contracts for workers in both Ohio and North Carolina. 157. FLOC’s members, and Hispanics who have worked with FLOC, who have been restrained, interrogated, and sometimes arrested by local law enforcement authorities or Sandusky Station Border Patrol Agents because of their being Hispanic. This illegal and unconstitutional behavior by the Defendants has deprived FLOC members of the equal protection of the laws and has also made some fearful of travel and association in the Ohio communities in which they live. 158. FLOC’s activities and membership are focused on the farmworker and Hispanic communities. These constituencies are especially likely to be subjected to the profiling activities of the Defendants. Indeed, most of the individual named plaintiffs were agricultural workers working in Northwest Ohio.
- 34 -

Case: 3:09-cv-02865-JZ Doc #: 21 Filed: 03/01/10 35 of 72. PageID #: 178
159. FLOC has been, and continues to be, harmed by Defendants’ practices because those practices injure FLOC’s members, frustrate FLOC’s organizational missions and divert FLOC resources from the pursuit of other, related goals.
160. FLOC staff and members have witnessed the fear caused in the Hispanic and farmworker communities by the Defendants’ pattern or practice of profiling Hispanics for restraint, interrogation, and possible arrest in northwest Ohio.
161. Profiling has injured FLOC as it has made FLOC’s organizing and empowerment activities more difficult due to farmworkers’ and Hispanics’ reluctance to attend activities and to come forward regarding violations of their rights. Law enforcement activities based on profiling of Hispanics chills the rights of the farmworker and Hispanic communities without regard to immigration status.
162. FLOC seeks only injunctive and declaratory relief from Defendants, as discussed below. Border Patrol Pattern Or Practice Of Profiling And Encouraging Local Law Enforcement Agencies To Profile
163. Upon information and belief, the Defendants Gallegos, Corona, Dario, Mateo, Simon, York, Wrisley, and the John Doe Border Patrol Agents 1 – 9 of the Sandusky Border Patrol Station have held seminars, trainings, or otherwise communicated with local law enforcement agencies (LEA), including Defendant Attica, Norwalk, and Plymouth Police Departments, encouraging those LEAs to restrain and interrogate Hispanics about their immigration status and then call the Sandusky Border Patrol Station to request assistance if any of those
- 35 -

Case: 3:09-cv-02865-JZ Doc #: 21 Filed: 03/01/10 36 of 72. PageID #: 179
restrained and interrogated Hispanics appear to be without proper immigration documentation. 164. Upon information and belief the Defendants Gallegos, Corona, Dario, Mateo, Simon, York, Wrisley, and John Does 1 – 9 Border Patrol Agents of the Sandusky Border Patrol Station have not monitored the LEAs in those agencies’ restraint and interrogation of Hispanics or have shown deliberate indifference to the restraint and interrogation of Hispanics by those LEAs, resulting in the restraint and interrogation of Hispanics by the LEAs without any reasonable belief that they have violated immigration laws of the United States. 165. Upon information and belief, the Defendants Gallegos, Corona, Dario, Mateo, Simon, York, Wrisley, and John Does 1 – 9 Border Patrol Agents of the Sandusky Border Patrol Station know or should know that their encouragement of the LEAs to restrain and interrogate Hispanics about their immigration status results in those Hispanics being deprived of the equal protection of the laws of the United States and is unconstitutional. 166. Upon information and belief, the Defendants Gallegos, Corona, Dario, Mateo, Simon, York, Wrisley, and John Does 1 – 9 Border Patrol Agents of the Sandusky Border Patrol Station know or should know that suppression of unlawfully obtained evidence is very difficult in Immigration Court hearings and thus believed that their illegal restraint and interrogation of Hispanics and their encouragement of LEAs to do the same would go unnoticed or unpunished.
- 36 -

Case: 3:09-cv-02865-JZ Doc #: 21 Filed: 03/01/10 37 of 72. PageID #: 180
167. Upon information and belief, police officers of the Attica, Norwalk, and
Plymouth, Ohio police departments have participated in seminars, trainings or
otherwise communicated with Defendants Gallegos, Corona, Dario, Mateo,
Simon, York, Wrisley, and John Does 1 – 9 of the Sandusky Border Patrol Station
about restraining and interrogating Hispanics about their immigration status.
168. These restraints and interrogations have been as a result of the class members’
being Hispanic.
169. Local law enforcement, the Sandusky Ohio County Sheriff’s office, have had to
respond to an inquiry about Agent Mateo of the Sandusky Ohio Border Patrol
Station trespassing on private property allegedly assisting the Ohio State
Highway Patrol in a marijuana eradication program. Sandusky County Sheriff
Overmyer had to order Agent Mateo and possibly another Agent to terminate
their activities. An incident report dated September 18, 2009, obtained by ABLE
from the Sandusky County Sheriff’s Department, through an Open Records Act
request, states in relevant part:
“This office received a complaint of a low flying airplane in the area of Cr. 260 & Cr. 183. The complainant stated that the airplane was circling the area for more than an hour and thought it was suspicious. Dispatch contacted Det. Capt. Consolo and asked if we were currently conducting any investigations using a low flying aircraft in that area. Dispatch was advised we were not. Det. Capt. Consolo & Det. Sgt. Meyer responded to the area to investigate the suspicious low flying aircraft. Upon arrival detectives located an US Boarder Patrol unit parked along the Cr. 260 roadway. Detectives Consolo spoke with boarder patrol agent Mateo and asked what was going on. The agent responded that they conducting a marijuana eradication
- 37 -

Case: 3:09-cv-02865-JZ Doc #: 21 Filed: 03/01/10 38 of 72. PageID #: 181
investigation with the State Highway Patrol aviation unit. Det. Consolo asked agent Mateo under who's authority they were operating under due to neither having the authority or jurisdiction to conduct such an investigation on private property. After speaking with agent Mateo for sometime he then refused to cooperate or answer anymore questions concerning the matter and called his supervisor. Sheriff Overmyer was contacted and responded to the scene. After speaking with the Boarder Patrol agents Sheriff Overmyer advised them that since they nor the State Highway Patrol have any authority or jurisdiction to conduct such an investigation on private property it was to be terminated immediately. Report Filed. Det. Capt. James M. Consolo” 170. The Border Patrol Agents at the Sandusky Ohio Border Patrol Station do not
have adequate training regarding their duties and the manner in which they
must be carried out consistent with the United States Constitution.
171. The Border Patrol Agents at the Sandusky Ohio Border Patrol Station do not
have enough work preventing the “illegal entry of aliens into the United States,”
8 U.S.C. § 1377(a)(3), across the Canada-U.S. border and have instead been given
permission to engage in the restraint and interrogation of Hispanics and other
activities unrelated to preventing illegal entries into the U.S.
172. The Attica, Norwalk, and Plymouth police departments have official policies or a
pattern or practice of restraining and interrogating Hispanics about their
immigration status.
173. These official policies or a pattern or practice of restraining and interrogating
Hispanics about their immigration status have been encouraged by Defendants
Gallegos, Corona, Dario, Mateo, Simon, York, Wrisley, and John Does 1 - 9
Sandusky Station Border Patrol Agents.
- 38 -

Case: 3:09-cv-02865-JZ Doc #: 21 Filed: 03/01/10 39 of 72. PageID #: 182
174. Defendants have shown a deliberate indifference to the Plaintiffs’ right to equal protection under the laws of the United States.
175. The Defendants Gallegos, Corona, Dario, Mateo, Simon, York, Wrisley, and John Does 1 - 9 Sandusky Station Border Patrol Agents have conspired to deprive Hispanics in Ohio of the equal protection of the laws by restraining and interrogating them about their immigration status solely based on their being Hispanic
176. The Defendants Attica, Briggs, Attica Police Chief, and John Does 10 - 12 Attica Ohio Police Department officers have conspired with the Sandusky Border Patrol Station defendants to deprive Hispanics in Ohio of the equal protection of the laws by restraining and interrogating them about their immigration status solely based on their being Hispanic.
177. The Defendants Norwalk, Light, and John Does 13 - 15 of the Norwalk Ohio Police Department have conspired with the Sandusky Border Patrol Station defendants to deprive Hispanics in Ohio of the equal protection of the laws by restraining and interrogating them about their immigration status solely based on their being Hispanic.
178. The Defendants Plymouth, Doan and John Doe 16 of the Plymouth Ohio Police Department have conspired with the Sandusky Border Patrol Station defendants to deprive Hispanics in Ohio of the equal protection of the laws by restraining and interrogating them about their immigration status solely based on their being Hispanic.
- 39 -

Case: 3:09-cv-02865-JZ Doc #: 21 Filed: 03/01/10 40 of 72. PageID #: 183
179. Defendant Randy L. Gallegos, the Chief Border Patrol Agent, Detroit Sector, has actual knowledge of the profiling of Hispanics by Sandusky Ohio Border Patrol Station Agents as a result of his supervision of those offices, statistics gathered by that office and reported to him, and his and their communication with local law enforcement agencies regarding the enforcement of the civil provisions of federal immigration law.
180. Defendant Gallegos had the authority to stop the profiling by his Agents and the authority to stop his Agents from encouraging and participating in profiling by local law enforcement agencies. He neglected or refused to prevent the profiling.
181. Defendant Border Patrol, a subagency within Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, has the responsibility to see that its responsibilities and duties under the Immigration and Nationality Act and the United States Constitution are carried out and has failed in those duties and responsibilities to comply with the law. CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS
182. Plaintiffs bring this class action on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated. The proposed Classes are defined as follows:
Class 1: All Hispanics who have been or will be restrained and interrogated on or after January 1, 2009, by Border Patrol Agents stationed at the Sandusky Border Patrol station.
- 40 -

Case: 3:09-cv-02865-JZ Doc #: 21 Filed: 03/01/10 41 of 72. PageID #: 184

Class 2: All Hispanics who have been or will be restrained and interrogated on or

after January 1, 2009, by officers of the Attica, Norwalk, or Plymouth police

departments.

183. Plaintiffs and members of the Classes bring this action for equitable, declaratory,

and injunctive relief pursuant to subdivision (b)(2) of Rule 23 of the Federal rules

of Civil Procedure.

184. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and based thereon allege that members of the

Class are so numerous that individual joinder of all of their members would be

impracticable. Joinder is also impracticable because the Hispanic population of

the counties in the area of the Sandusky Border Patrol Station undergoes

considerable change as one of the busiest agricultural areas for migrant farm

workers in Ohio, because many class members are unaware of their rights, and,

because class members’ access to legal services and representation is hampered

by language, cultural, and economic barriers.

185. There were approximately 282,603 Hispanics residing in the State of Ohio in

2007, the latest date for which demographic data is available. Of these residents,

Erie County has 1,896, Huron County has 3,064, Ottawa County has 1,685,

Sandusky County has 4,698, and Lucas County has 23,168. Additionally,

Hispanic residents of counties in the Eastern Division number 16,184 in Lorain

County

and

52,960

in

Cuyahoga

County.

http://pewhispanic.org/states/?stateid=OH. Hispanic residents of Lorain and

- 41 -

Case: 3:09-cv-02865-JZ Doc #: 21 Filed: 03/01/10 42 of 72. PageID #: 185
Cuyahoga Counties frequently travel to or through counties in the Western Division of the Northern District. 186. There are tens of thousands of Hispanics within the Western Division of the Northern District of Ohio who could encounter profiling by various Defendants. There are also thousands of Hispanics who reside in close proximity to the Western Division of the Northern District of Ohio who are subject to profiling while traveling through or to the counties within the Western Division of the Northern District. 187. There are many questions of law and fact common to the representative Plaintiffs and the members of the Class, including the following:
a. The legality of the restraint, interrogation, and arrest of Plaintiffs and members of the classes based on their being Hispanic.
b. The existence of the policy or pattern and practice of the Sandusky Station of the U.S. Border Patrol to restrain, interrogate, and arrest Plaintiffs and members of the Classes based on their being Hispanic.
c. The existence of the policy or pattern and practice of the Sandusky Station of the U.S. Border Patrol to encourage local law enforcement agencies and their officers to restrain, interrogate, and arrest Plaintiffs and members of the Classes based on their being Hispanic.
d. The existence of the policies or patterns and practices of Attica, Norwalk, Plymouth, and the Attica, Norwalk, and Plymouth Police Departments
- 42 -

Case: 3:09-cv-02865-JZ Doc #: 21 Filed: 03/01/10 43 of 72. PageID #: 186
to restrain, interrogate, and arrest Plaintiffs and members of the Classes based on their being Hispanic.
e. The failure of any of the Defendants to stop the policy or pattern and practice of restraining, interrogating, and arresting Plaintiffs and members of the Classes based on their being Hispanic. 188. The organizational Plaintiffs, IWP and FLOC, have memberships that are wholly or primarily Hispanic. Their members have been subjected to profiling by the Defendants. 189. The claims of the named Plaintiffs are typical of the claims of the Class because the named Plaintiffs have been subjected to or threatened with policies or practices that are identical or substantially similar to the policies and practices to which the class members have been subjected or with which the members of the Class have been threatened. 190. The named Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class. There is no conflict between the Plaintiffs and other class members. Moreover, Plaintiffs have retained counsel who are experienced in class action litigation and can adequately represent the interests of the class members as well as those of the named Plaintiffs. 191. Defendants have acted on grounds generally applicable to both the named Plaintiffs and other class members, making appropriate final declaratory and injunctive relief with respect to the members of the Class. The injuries suffered by the named Plaintiffs and other class members as a result of Defendants’
- 43 -

Case: 3:09-cv-02865-JZ Doc #: 21 Filed: 03/01/10 44 of 72. PageID #: 187
actions are capable of repetition yet may evade review, thereby making individual and class relief appropriate.
FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF Fourth Amendment and 8 U.S.C. § 1357 (Bivens and 5 U.S.C. § 702)
Unreasonable Searches and Seizures Individual plaintiffs Palafox, Contreras García, and Rodríguez-Pérez, the IWP and FLOC, and and Class 1 class members against defendants Border Patrol, Gallegos, Corona, Dario, Mateo, Simon, York, Wrisley, and John Does 1 – 9 192. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations in the paragraphs above as
though fully set forth here. 193. Individual plaintiffs Palafox, Contreras García, and Rodríguez-Pérez, the IWP,
FLOC, and Class 1 members seek injunctive and declaratory relief against the above-described policies, practices and conduct of Defendants Border Patrol, Gallegos, Corona, Dario, Mateo, Simon, York, Wrisley, and John Does 1 – 9 in their official capacities, enjoining them from continuing to engage in the abovedescribed policies, practices and conduct violating the rights of Plaintiffs, their members, and Class 1 members to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures under the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution, including but not limited to:
a. Stopping persons and vehicles without reasonable suspicion of criminal activity or of their being noncitizens present in the U.S. without authorization;
- 44 -

Case: 3:09-cv-02865-JZ Doc #: 21 Filed: 03/01/10 45 of 72. PageID #: 188
b. Restraining and interrogating persons based solely on their being Hispanic; b. Conducting personal and vehicle searches without probable cause to believe that the areas searched contain evidence of criminal activity or a reasonable belief that the person search or car’s occupants are dangerous and may gain access to a weapon in the area searched; c. Unreasonably arresting individuals without warrants and without probable cause to believe they are noncitizens present in violation of civil immigration laws; and, d. Unreasonably arresting individuals for suspected civil immigration violations without warrants and without reason to believe they are likely to escape before a warrant can be obtained. 194. Plaintiff Alfonso Palafox seeks compensatory and punitive damages against Defendants Gallegos and unknown John Does in their personal capacities for violations of his right to be free from unreasonable seizure, including seizing (restraining) him based on his being Hispanic and then interrogating him. 195. Plaintiff José Samuel Contreras García seeks compensatory and punitive damages against Defendants Gallegos, Corona, Simon, York, and unknown John Does in their personal capacities for violations of his right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures , including but not limited to, detaining, interrogating, and arresting him without reasonable suspicion of criminal activity or that he was a noncitizen present in the United States without
- 45 -

Case: 3:09-cv-02865-JZ Doc #: 21 Filed: 03/01/10 46 of 72. PageID #: 189
authorization, these actions by Defendants at a bus station being based solely on his being Hispanic. 196. Plaintiff Jesús Rodríguez-Pérez seeks compensatory and punitive damages against Defendants Gallegos, Dario, Wrisley, York, and unknown John Does in their personal capacities for violations of his right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures , including but not limited to, detaining, interrogating, and arresting him without reasonable suspicion of criminal activity or that he was a noncitizen present in the United States without authorization, these actions by Defendants at a bus station being based solely on his being Hispanic.
SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF Fifth Amendment, 8 U.S.C. §1357, 8 C.F.R. § 287.3
Bivens and 5 U.S.C. § 702 Due Process
Individual plaintiffs Palafox, Contreras García, and Rodríguez-Pérez, the IWP and FLOC, and Class 1 class members against defendants Border Patrol, Gallegos, Corona, Dario, Mateo, Simon, York, Wrisley, and John Does 1 – 9 197. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations in the paragraphs above as
though fully set forth here. 198. A federal agency’s failure to follow its own governing statutes and regulations
violates due process guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution. 199. Plaintiffs Palafox, Contreras García, Rodríguez-Pérez, the IWP, FLOC, and Class 1 class members seek injunctive and declaratory relief against Defendants Border
- 46 -

Case: 3:09-cv-02865-JZ Doc #: 21 Filed: 03/01/10 47 of 72. PageID #: 190
Patrol, Gallegos, Corona, Dario, Mateo, Simon, York, Wrisley, Dario, and John Does 1 – 9 in their official capacities, enjoining them from continuing to engage in the above-described policies, practices and conduct violating the rights of Plaintiffs to due process under the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution, including but not limited to:
a. Violating 8 U.S.C. § 1357 by profiling Hispanics for restraint and interrogation about their immigration status based solely on their being Hispanic and without a reasonable belief that they are noncitizens or aliens without the right to be or to remain in the United States; and, b. Violating the terms of 8 U.S.C. § 1357 and 8 C.F.R. § 287.3 and its authorizing statutes by failing to provide procedural protections required for persons arrested without a warrant for civil immigration violations. 200. Plaintiffs José Samuel Contreras García and Jesús Rodríguez-Pérez seek compensatory and punitive damages against Defendants Gallegos, Corona, Mateo, Simon, Dario, Wrisley, York, and unknown John Does in their personal capacities for violations of their right to due process under the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution, including but not limited to, detaining, interrogating, and arresting them without reasonable suspicion of criminal activity or that they were noncitizens present in the United States without authorization, these actions by Defendants at a bus station being based solely on their being Hispanic.
- 47 -

Case: 3:09-cv-02865-JZ Doc #: 21 Filed: 03/01/10 48 of 72. PageID #: 191
THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF Fifth Amendment, 8 U.S.C. §1357, 8 C.F.R. § 287.3
Bivens and 5 U.S.C. § 702 Equal Protection
Individual plaintiffs Palafox, Contreras García, and Rodríguez-Pérez, the IWP, FLOC, and Class 1 class members against defendants Border Patrol, Gallegos, Corona, Dario, Mateo, Simon, York, Wrisley, and John Does 1 – 9 201. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations in the paragraphs above as
though fully set forth here. 202. As Hispanics, the individual Plaintiffs and members of Class 1 are members of a
protected class. 203. Plaintiffs Palafox, Contreras García, Rodríguez-Pérez, the IWP, FLOC, and Class
1 class members seek injunctive and declaratory relief against Defendants Border Patrol, Gallegos, Corona, Dario, Mateo, Simon, York, Wrisley, Dario, and John Does 1 – 9 in their official capacities, enjoining them from continuing to engage in the above-described policies, practices and conduct violating the rights of Plaintiffs to be free from discrimination on the basis of race, ethnicity, or national origin, including but not limited to: a. Using race as a motivating factor to stop, detain, interrogate and/or search persons who are Hispanic; and, b. Using race as a motivating factor to unreasonably prolong detentions in order to question persons regarding their citizenship and immigration status.
- 48 -

Case: 3:09-cv-02865-JZ Doc #: 21 Filed: 03/01/10 49 of 72. PageID #: 192
204. Plaintiffs José Samuel Contreras García and Jesús Rodríguez-Pérez seek compensatory and punitive damages against Defendants Gallegos, Corona, Simon, Dario, Wrisley, York, and unknown John Does in their personal capacities for violations of their right to be free from discrimination on the basis of race, ethnicity, or national origin, including but not limited to: a. Using race as a motivating factor to stop, detain, interrogate and/or search persons who are Hispanic; and, b. Using race as a motivating factor in deciding to unreasonably prolong detentions in order to question persons regarding their citizenship and immigration status. FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF Fourth Amendment (42 U.S.C. § 1983) Unreasonable Search and Seizure
42 U.S.C. § 1983 Claims for Violation of the Fourth Amendment Prohibition Against Unreasonable Searches and Seizures
Plaintiffs Nieto, Muniz, Torres-Franco, Muñiz-Torres, María Muñiz-Muñiz, Luis Enrique Muñiz-Muñiz, and Class 2 class members against defendants Attica, Briggs, Attica Ohio Police Chief and John Does 10 - 12 205. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations in the paragraphs above as
though fully set forth here. 206. Plaintiffs Nieto, Muniz, Torres-Franco, Muñiz-Torres, María Muñiz-Muñiz, Luis
Enrique Muñiz-Muñiz, the IWP, FLOC, and Class 2 class members seek injunctive and declaratory relief against Defendants Attica, Police Chief of Attica
- 49 -

Case: 3:09-cv-02865-JZ Doc #: 21 Filed: 03/01/10 50 of 72. PageID #: 193
Ohio Police Department and John Does 10 - 12 in their official capacities, enjoining them from continuing to engage in the above-described policies, practices and conduct violating the rights of Plaintiffs to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures under the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution, including but not limited to: a. Stopping person and vehicles without reasonable suspicion of criminal activity or traffic infraction; b. Using race as a motivating factor to stop, detain, interrogate and/or search persons who are Hispanic; and, c. Using race as a motivating factor in deciding to unreasonably prolong detentions in order to question persons regarding their citizenship and immigration status. 207. Plaintiffs Nieto, Muniz, Torres-Franco, Muñiz-Torres, María Muñiz-Muñiz, Luis Enrique Muñiz-Muñiz seek compensatory damages against Defendant Attica and compensatory and punitive damages against Defendants Briggs and John Does 10 - 12 in their personal capacities for violations of their rights to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures , including but not limited to: a. Stopping persons and vehicles without reasonable suspicion of criminal activity or traffic infraction; b. Using race as a motivating factor to stop, detain, interrogate and/or search persons who are Hispanic;
- 50 -

Case: 3:09-cv-02865-JZ Doc #: 21 Filed: 03/01/10 51 of 72. PageID #: 194
c. Using race as a motivating factor in deciding to unreasonably prolong detentions in order to question persons regarding their citizenship and immigration status; and, d. Engaging in the enforcement of the civil provisions of federal immigration
law. FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF Fourth Amendment (42 U.S.C. § 1983) Unreasonable Search and Seizure 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Claims for Violation of the Fourth Amendment Prohibition Against Unreasonable Searches and Seizures Plaintiffs María de Belén Martínez-Castro, the IWP, FLOC, and Class 2 class members against defendants Norwalk, Light, and John Does 13 - 15 208. Plaintiffs María de Belén Martínez-Castro, the IWP, FLOC, and Class 2 class members seek injunctive and declaratory relief against Defendants Norwalk, Light, and John Does 13 - 15 in their official capacities, enjoining them from continuing to engage in the above-described policies, practices and conduct violating the rights of Plaintiffs to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures under the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution, including but not limited to: a. Stopping persons and vehicles without reasonable suspicion of criminal activity or traffic infraction; b. Using race as a motivating factor to stop, detain, interrogate and/or search persons who are Hispanic;
- 51 -

Case: 3:09-cv-02865-JZ Doc #: 21 Filed: 03/01/10 52 of 72. PageID #: 195
c. Using race as a motivating factor in deciding to unreasonably prolong detentions in order to question persons regarding their citizenship and immigration status; and, d. Engaging in the enforcement of the civil provisions of federal immigration law. 209. Plaintiff María de Belén Martínez-Castro seeks compensatory damages against Defendant Norwalk and compensatory and punitive damages against Light and John Does 13 - 15 in their personal capacities for violations of her right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures , including but not limited to: a. Stopping her without reasonable suspicion of criminal activity or traffic infraction; b. Using race as a motivating factor to stop, detain, interrogate and/or search her because she is Hispanic; c. Using race as a motivating factor in deciding to unreasonably prolong detentions in order to question her regarding her citizenship and immigration status.
SIXTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF Fourth Amendment (42 U.S.C. § 1983)
Unreasonable Search and Seizure 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Claims for Violation of the Fourth Amendment Prohibition Against
Unreasonable Searches and Seizures
- 52 -

Case: 3:09-cv-02865-JZ Doc #: 21 Filed: 03/01/10 53 of 72. PageID #: 196
Plaintiffs Belinda Vega, José Calderón, the IWP, FLOC, and Class 2 class members against defendants Plymouth, Doan and John Does 16 - 17 210. Plaintiffs Belinda Vega, José Calderón, the IWP, FLOC, and Class 2 class
members seek injunctive and declaratory relief against Defendants Plymouth, Doan, and John Does 16 - 17 in their official capacities, enjoining them from continuing to engage in the above-described policies, practices and conduct violating the rights of Plaintiffs to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures under the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution, including but not limited to: a. Stopping persons and vehicles without reasonable suspicion of criminal activity or traffic infraction; b. Using race as a motivating factor to stop, detain, interrogate and/or search persons who are Hispanic; c. Using race as a motivating factor in deciding to unreasonably prolong detentions in order to question persons regarding their citizenship and immigration status; and, d. Engaging in the enforcement of the civil provisions of federal immigration law. 211. Plaintiff Belinda Vega and José Calderón seek compensatory damages against Defendant Plymouth and compensatory and punitive damages against Defendants Doan and John Does 16 - 17 in their personal capacities for violations
- 53 -

Case: 3:09-cv-02865-JZ Doc #: 21 Filed: 03/01/10 54 of 72. PageID #: 197
of her right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures , including but not limited to: a. Detaining them without reasonable suspicion of criminal activity; and, b. Unreasonably prolonging their detention beyond the time they would otherwise take to question them about matters unrelated to the purported purpose of the stop, specifically their citizenship and immigration status.
SEVENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF Fourteenth Amendment (42 U.S.C. § 1983)
Equal Protection Plaintiffs Nieto, Muniz, Torres-Franco, Muñiz-Torres, María Muñiz-Muñiz, Luis Enrique Muñiz-Muñiz, the IWP, FLOC, and Class 2 class members against defendants Attica, Briggs, Attica Ohio Police Chief and John Does 10 - 12 212. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations in the paragraphs above as
though fully set forth here. 213. Plaintiffs Nieto, Muniz, Torres-Franco, Muñiz-Torres, María Muñiz-Muñiz, Luis
Enrique Muñiz-Muñiz, the IWP, FLOC, and Class 2 class members seek injunctive and declaratory relief against Defendants Attica, Police Chief of Attica Ohio Police Department, and John Does 10 – 12 in their official capacities, enjoining them from continuing to engage in the above-described policies, practices and conduct violating the rights of Plaintiffs to be free from discrimination on the basis of race, ethnicity, or national origin, including but not limited to:
- 54 -

Case: 3:09-cv-02865-JZ Doc #: 21 Filed: 03/01/10 55 of 72. PageID #: 198
a. Using race as a motivating factor to stop, detain, interrogate and/or search persons who are Hispanic; b. Using race as a motivating factor in deciding to unreasonably prolong detentions in order to question persons regarding their citizenship and immigration status; c. Using race as a motivating factor in deciding to contact Border Patrol Agents or Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents regarding the immigration status of persons. 214. Plaintiffs Nieto, Muniz, Torres-Franco, Muñiz-Torres, María Muñiz-Muñiz, Luis Enrique Muñiz-Muñiz seek compensatory damages against Defendant Attica and compensatory and punitive damages against Defendants Briggs and John Does 10 - 12 in their personal capacities for violations of their rights to be free from discrimination on the basis of race, ethnicity, or national origin, , including but not limited to: a. Using race as a motivating factor to stop, detain, interrogate and/or search persons who are Hispanic; b. Using race as a motivating factor in deciding to unreasonably prolong detentions in order to question persons regarding their citizenship and immigration status; c. Using race as a motivating factor in deciding to contact Border Patrol Agents or Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents regarding the immigration status of persons.
- 55 -

Case: 3:09-cv-02865-JZ Doc #: 21 Filed: 03/01/10 56 of 72. PageID #: 199
EIGHTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF Fourteenth Amendment (42 U.S.C. § 1983)
Equal Protection Plaintiffs María de Belén Martínez-Castro, the IWP, FLOC, and Class 2 class members against defendants Norwalk, Light and John Does 13 - 15 215. Plaintiffs María de Belén Martínez-Castro, the IWP, FLOC, and Class 2 class
members seek injunctive and declaratory relief against Defendants Norwalk, Light, and John Does 13 - 15 in their official capacities, enjoining them from continuing to engage in the above-described policies, practices and conduct violating the rights of Plaintiffs to be free from discrimination on the basis of race, ethnicity, or national origin, including but not limited to: a. Using race as a motivating factor to stop, detain, interrogate and/or search persons who are Hispanic; b. Using race as a motivating factor in deciding to unreasonably prolong detentions in order to question persons regarding their citizenship and immigration status; c. Using race as a motivating factor in deciding to contact Border Patrol Agents or Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents regarding the immigration status of persons. 216. Plaintiff María de Belén Martínez-Castro seeks compensatory damages against Defendant Norwalk and compensatory and punitive damages against Defendants Light and John Does 13 - 15 in their personal capacities for violations
- 56 -

Case: 3:09-cv-02865-JZ Doc #: 21 Filed: 03/01/10 57 of 72. PageID #: 200
of her right to be free from discrimination on the basis of race, ethnicity, or national origin, , including but not limited to: a. Using race as a motivating factor to stop, detain, interrogate and/or search persons who appear to be Hispanic; b. Using race as a motivating factor in deciding to unreasonably prolong detentions in order to question persons regarding their citizenship and immigration status; c. Using race as a motivating factor in deciding to contact Border Patrol Agents or Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents regarding the immigration status of persons.
NINTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF Fourteenth Amendment (42 U.S.C. § 1983)
Equal Protection Plaintiffs Belinda Vega, José Calderón, the IWP, FLOC, and Class 2 class members against defendants Plymouth, Doan, and John Does 16 - 17 217. Plaintiffs Belinda Vega, José Calderón, the IWP, FLOC, and Class 2 class
members seek injunctive and declaratory relief against Defendants Plymouth, Doan, and John Does 16 - 17 in their official capacities, enjoining them from continuing to engage in the above-described policies, practices and conduct violating the rights of Plaintiffs to be free from discrimination on the basis of race, ethnicity, or national origin, including but not limited to:
- 57 -

Case: 3:09-cv-02865-JZ Doc #: 21 Filed: 03/01/10 58 of 72. PageID #: 201
a. Using race as a motivating factor to stop, detain, interrogate and/or search persons who are Hispanic; b. Using race as a motivating factor in deciding to unreasonably prolong detentions in order to question persons regarding their citizenship and immigration status; c. Using race as a motivating factor in deciding to contact Border Patrol Agents or Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents regarding the immigration status of persons. 218. Plaintiff Belinda Vega and José Calderón seek compensatory damages against Defendant Plymouth and compensatory and punitive damages against Defendants Doan and John Does 16 - 17 in their personal capacities for violations of their right to be free from discrimination on the basis of race, ethnicity, or national origin, , including but not limited to: a. Using race as a motivating factor to stop, detain, interrogate and/or search persons who are Hispanic; b. Using race as a motivating factor in deciding to unreasonably prolong detentions in order to question persons regarding their citizenship and immigration status; c. Using race as a motivating factor in deciding to contact Border Patrol Agents or Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents regarding the immigration status of persons.
- 58 -

Case: 3:09-cv-02865-JZ Doc #: 21 Filed: 03/01/10 59 of 72. PageID #: 202
TENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF Fourteenth Amendment (42 U.S.C. § 1983)
Due Process Plaintiffs Nieto, Muniz, Torres-Franco, Muñiz-Torres, María Muñiz-Muñiz, Luis Enrique Muñiz-Muñiz, the IWP, FLOC, and Class 2 class members against defendants Attica, Briggs, Attica Ohio Police Chief and John Does 10 - 12 219. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations in the paragraphs above as
though fully set forth here. 220. Plaintiffs Nieto, Muniz, Torres-Franco, Muñiz-Torres, María Muñiz-Muñiz, Luis
Enrique Muñiz-Muñiz, the IWP, FLOC, and Class 2 class members seek injunctive and declaratory relief against Defendants Attica, Police Chief of Attica Ohio Police Department, and John Does 10 - 12 in their official capacities, enjoining them from continuing to engage in the above-described policies, practices and conduct violating the rights of Plaintiffs to due process under the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution, including but not limited to:
a. Restraining and interrogating individuals without probable cause of criminal activity and for civil immigration violations without any lawful authority, in violation of the persons’ rights to substantive due process; and, b. Aiding and abetting Defendant Border Patrol Agents in deying procedural protections due civil immigration arrestees who are arrested without a warrant.
- 59 -

Case: 3:09-cv-02865-JZ Doc #: 21 Filed: 03/01/10 60 of 72. PageID #: 203
221. Plaintiffs Nieto, Muniz, Torres-Franco, Muñiz-Torres, María Muñiz-Muñiz, Luis Enrique Muñiz-Muñiz seek compensatory damages against Defendant Attica and compensatory and punitive damages against Defendants Briggs and John Does 10 - 12 in their personal capacities for violations of their rights to due process, , including but not limited to: a. Restraining and interrogating them without probable cause of criminal activity and for civil immigration violations without any lawful authority, in violation of their rights to substantive due process; and, b. Aiding and abetting Defendant Border Patrol Agents in deying procedural protections due civil immigration arrestees who are arrested without a warrant. ELEVENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF Fourteenth Amendment (42 U.S.C. § 1983) Due Process
Plaintiffs María de Belén Martínez-Castro, the IWP, FLOC, and Class 2 class members against defendants Norwalk, Light and John Does 13 - 15) 222. Plaintiffs María de Belén Martínez-Castro, the IWP, FLOC, and Class 2 class
members seek injunctive and declaratory relief against Defendants Norwalk, Light, and John Does 13 - 15 in their official capacities, enjoining them from continuing to engage in the above-described policies, practices and conduct violating the rights of Plaintiffs to due process under the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution, including but not limited to:
- 60 -

Case: 3:09-cv-02865-JZ Doc #: 21 Filed: 03/01/10 61 of 72. PageID #: 204
a. Restraining and interrogating individuals without probable cause of criminal activity and for civil immigration violations without any lawful authority, in violation of the persons’ rights to substantive due process; and, b. Aiding and abetting Defendant Border Patrol Agents in deying procedural protections due civil immigration arrestees who are arrested without a warrant. 223. Plaintiff María de Belén Martínez-Castro seeks compensatory damages against Defendant Norwalk and compensatory and punitive damages against Defendants Light and John Does 13 - 15 in their personal capacities for violations of her right to due process, , including but not limited to: a. Restraining and interrogating her without probable cause of criminal activity and for civil immigration violations without any lawful authority, in violation of her rights to substantive due process.
TWELTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF Fourteenth Amendment (42 U.S.C. § 1983)
Due Process Plaintiffs Belinda Vega, José Calderón, the IWP, FLOC, and Class 2 class members against defendants Plymouth, Doan, and John Does 16 - 17 224. Plaintiffs Belinda Vega, José Calderón, the IWP, FLOC, and Class 2 class
members seek injunctive and declaratory relief against Defendants Plymouth, Doan, and John Does 16 - 17 in their official capacities, enjoining them from continuing to engage in the above-described policies, practices and conduct
- 61 -

Case: 3:09-cv-02865-JZ Doc #: 21 Filed: 03/01/10 62 of 72. PageID #: 205
violating the rights of Plaintiffs to due process under the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution, including but not limited to:
a. Restraining and interrogating individuals without probable cause of criminal activity and for civil immigration violations without any lawful authority, in violation of the persons’ rights to substantive due process; and, b. Aiding and abetting Defendant Border Patrol Agents in deying procedural protections due civil immigration arrestees who are arrested without a warrant. 225. Plaintiff Belinda Vega and José Calderón seek compensatory damages against Defendant Plymouth and compensatory and punitive damages against Defendants Doan and John Does 16 - 17 in their personal capacities for violations of their right to due process, , including but not limited to: a. Restraining and interrogating individuals without probable cause of criminal activity and for civil immigration violations without any lawful authority, in violation of their rights to substantive due process.
THIRTEENTH CLAIM 42 U.S.C. § 1983, 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3)
Conspiracy Plaintiffs Nieto, Muñiz, Torres-Franco, Muñiz-Torres, María Muñiz-Muñiz, Luis Enrique Muñiz-Muñiz, the IWP, FLOC, and Class 2 class members against defendants Attica, Briggs, Attica Police Chief, Gallegos, John Does 1 – 9, and John Does 10 - 12
- 62 -

Case: 3:09-cv-02865-JZ Doc #: 21 Filed: 03/01/10 63 of 72. PageID #: 206
226. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations in the paragraphs above as though fully set forth here.
227. Defendants Attica, Briggs, Attica Police Chief, and John Does 10 – 12 conspired with Gallegos and John Does 1 – 9 by entering into a mutual understanding and agreement and committing overt acts in furtherance of their agreement to violate Plaintiffs’ constitutional and statutory rights, including their right to equal protection under law, in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3), , including but not limited to the following: a. Using race as a motivating factor to stop, detain, interrogate and/or search persons who are Hispanic; b. Using race as a motivating factor in deciding to unreasonably prolong detentions in order to question persons regarding their citizenship and immigration status; c. Using race as a motivating factor in deciding to contact Border Patrol Agents or Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents regarding the immigration status of persons.
228. As a direct and proximate cause of the aforementioned conspiracy between Defendants through individual actions and policies and practices, Plaintiffs Nieto, Muñiz, Torres-Franco, Muñiz-Torres, María Muñiz-Muñiz, Luis Enrique Muñiz-Muñiz have been deprived of their rights to be free from unreasonable and unlawful searches and seizures, to equal protections under the laws, and to
- 63 -

Case: 3:09-cv-02865-JZ Doc #: 21 Filed: 03/01/10 64 of 72. PageID #: 207
substantive and procedural due process rights, as secured by the Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. 229. Plaintiffs Nieto, Muñiz, Torres-Franco, Muñiz-Torres, María Muñiz-Muñiz, Luis Enrique Muñiz-Muñiz, the IWP, FLOC, and Class 2 class members seek injunctive and declaratory relief against Defendants Attica, Attica Police Chief, Gallegos, John Does 1 – 9, and John Does 10 – 12 in their official capacities, enjoining them from continuing to engage in the above-described conspiracy to violate the constitutional and statutory rights of Plaintiffs. 230. Plaintiffs Nieto, Muñiz, Torres-Franco, Muñiz-Torres, María Muñiz-Muñiz, Luis Enrique Muñiz-Muñiz seeks compensatory damages against Defendant Attica and compensatory and punitive damages against Defendants Briggs, John Does 10 – 12, Gallegos, and John Does 1 – 9 for conspiring to violate their constitutional and statutory rights , including but not limited to: a. Agreeing to and intentionally subjecting them to discriminatory treatment on the basis of their race, ethnicity, or national origin; b. Agreeing to and intentionally subjecting them to unreasonable searches and seizures; and, c. Agreeing to and intentionally denying them substantive and procedural due process.
FOURTEENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF 42 U.S.C. § 1983, 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3)
Conspiracy
- 64 -

Case: 3:09-cv-02865-JZ Doc #: 21 Filed: 03/01/10 65 of 72. PageID #: 208
Plaintiff Martinez, the IWP, FLOC, and Class 2 class members against Defendants Norwalk, Light, Gallegos, John Does 1 – 9, and John Does 13 - 15 231. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations in the paragraphs above as
though fully set forth here. 232. Defendants Norwalk, Light, and John Does 13 - 15 conspired with Gallegos and
John Does 1 – 9 by entering into a mutual understanding and agreement and committing overt acts in furtherance of their agreement to violate Plaintiffs’ constitutional and statutory rights, including their right to equal protection under law, in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3), , including but not limited to the following: a. Using race as a motivating factor to stop, detain, interrogate and/or search persons who are Hispanic; b. Using race as a motivating factor in deciding to unreasonably prolong detentions in order to question persons regarding their citizenship and immigration status; c. Using race as a motivating factor in deciding to contact Border Patrol Agents or Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents regarding the immigration status of persons. 233. As a direct and proximate cause of the aforementioned conspiracy between Defendants through individual actions and policies and practices, Plaintiff Martinez has been deprived of her right to be free from unreasonable and unlawful searches and seizures, to equal protections under the laws, and to
- 65 -

Case: 3:09-cv-02865-JZ Doc #: 21 Filed: 03/01/10 66 of 72. PageID #: 209
substantive and procedural due process rights, as secured by the Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. 234. Plaintiffs Martinez, the IWP, FLOC, and Class 2 class members seek injunctive and declaratory relief against Defendants Norwalk, Light, Gallegos, John Does 1 – 9, and John Does 13 - 15 in their official capacities, enjoining them from continuing to engage in the above-described conspiracy to violate the constitutional and statutory rights of Plaintiffs. 235. Plaintiff Martinez seeks compensatory damages against Defendant Attica and compensatory and punitive damages against Defendants Light, John Does 13 15, Gallegos, and John Does 1 – 9 for conspiring to violate her constitutional and statutory rights , including but not limited to: a. Agreeing to and intentionally subjecting her to discriminatory treatment on the basis of her race, ethnicity, or national origin; b. Agreeing to and intentionally subjecting her to unreasonable searches and seizures; and, c. Agreeing to and intentionally denying her substantive and procedural due process.
FIFTEENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF 42 U.S.C. § 1983, 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3)
Conspiracy Plaintiffs Belinda Vega, José Calderón, the IWP, FLOC, and Class 2 class members against Defendants Plymouth, Doan, Gallegos, John Does 1 – 9, and John Does 16 - 17
- 66 -

Case: 3:09-cv-02865-JZ Doc #: 21 Filed: 03/01/10 67 of 72. PageID #: 210
236. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations in the paragraphs above as though fully set forth here.
237. Defendants Plymouth, Doan, and John Does 16 - 17 conspired with Gallegos and John Does 1 – 9 by entering into a mutual understanding and agreement and committing overt acts in furtherance of their agreement to violate Plaintiffs’ constitutional and statutory rights, including their right to equal protection under law, in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3), , including but not limited to the following: a. Using race as a motivating factor to stop, detain, interrogate and/or search persons who are Hispanic; b. Using race as a motivating factor in deciding to unreasonably prolong detentions in order to question persons regarding their citizenship and immigration status; c. Using race as a motivating factor in deciding to contact Border Patrol Agents or Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents regarding the immigration status of persons.
238. As a direct and proximate cause of the aforementioned conspiracy between Defendants through individual actions and policies and practices, Plaintiffs Vega and Calderón have been deprived of their rights to be free from unreasonable and unlawful searches and seizures, to equal protections under the laws, and to substantive and procedural due process rights, as secured by the Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.
- 67 -

Case: 3:09-cv-02865-JZ Doc #: 21 Filed: 03/01/10 68 of 72. PageID #: 211
239. Plaintiffs Vega, Calderón, the IWP, FLOC, and Class 2 class members seek injunctive and declaratory relief against Defendants Plymouth, Doan, Gallegos, John Does 1 – 9, and John Does 16 - 17 in their official capacities, enjoining them from continuing to engage in the above-described conspiracy to violate the constitutional and statutory rights of Plaintiffs.
240. Plaintiff Vega and Calderón seek compensatory damages against Defendant Plymouth and compensatory and punitive damages against Defendants Doan, John Doe 16, Gallegos, and John Does 1 – 9 for conspiring to violate their constitutional and statutory rights , including but not limited to: a. Agreeing to and intentionally subjecting them to discriminatory treatment on the basis of their race, ethnicity, or national origin; b. Agreeing to and intentionally subjecting them to unreasonable searches and seizures; and, c. Agreeing to and intentionally denying their substantive and procedural due process. SIXTEENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF 42 U.S.C. § 1986
Failure to Stop Conspiracy to Violate Hispanics Right to Equal Protection of the Law Plaintiffs Nieto, Muñiz, Torres-Franco, Muñiz-Torres, María Muñiz-Muñiz, Luis Enrique Muñiz-Muñiz, against Defendants Attica, Attica Police Chief, Gallegos, John Does 1 – 9, and John Does 10 - 12 241. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations in the paragraphs above as
though fully set forth here.
- 68 -

Case: 3:09-cv-02865-JZ Doc #: 21 Filed: 03/01/10 69 of 72. PageID #: 212
242. Plaintiffs Nieto, Muñiz, Torres-Franco, Muñiz-Torres, María Muñiz-Muñiz, Luis Enrique Muñiz-Muñiz seeks compensatory damages against Defendant Attica and compensatory and punitive damages against Defendants Attica Police Chief, John Does 10 – 12, Gallegos, and John Does 1 – 9 for failing to stop the conspiracy to violate their constitutional and statutory rights , including but not limited to: a. Agreeing to and intentionally subjecting them to discriminatory treatment on the basis of their race, ethnicity, or national origin; b. Agreeing to and intentionally subjecting them to unreasonable searches and seizures; and, c. Agreeing to and intentionally denying them substantive and procedural due process. SEVENTEENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
42 U.S.C. § 1986 Claim for Failure to Stop Conspiracy to Violate Hispanics Right to Equal Protection of the Law
Plaintiff Martinez against Defendants Norwalk, Light, Gallegos, John Does 1 – 9, and John Does 13 - 15 243. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations in the paragraphs above as
though fully set forth here. 244. Plaintiff Martinez seeks compensatory damages against Defendant Norwalk and
compensatory and punitive damages against Defendants Light, John Does 13 15, Gallegos, and John Does 1 – 9 for failing to stop the conspiracy to violate her constitutional and statutory rights , including but not limited to:
- 69 -

Case: 3:09-cv-02865-JZ Doc #: 21 Filed: 03/01/10 70 of 72. PageID #: 213
a. Agreeing to and intentionally subjecting her to discriminatory treatment on the basis of her race, ethnicity, or national origin; b. Agreeing to and intentionally subjecting her to unreasonable searches and seizures; and, c. Agreeing to and intentionally denying her substantive and procedural due process.
EIGHTEENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF 42 U.S.C. § 1986 Claim for Failure to Stop Conspiracy to Violate Hispanics Right to
Equal Protection of the Law Plaintiffs Belinda Vega and José Calderón against Defendants Plymouth, Doan, Gallegos, John Does 1 – 9, and John Does 16 - 17 245. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations in the paragraphs above as
though fully set forth here. 246. Plaintiffs Vega and Calderón seek compensatory damages against Defendant
Plymouth and compensatory and punitive damages against Defendants Doan, John Does 16 - 17, Gallegos, and John Does 1 – 9 for failing to stop the conspiracy to violate their constitutional and statutory rights , including but not limited to: a. Agreeing to and intentionally subjecting them to discriminatory treatment on the basis of their race, ethnicity, or national origin; b. Agreeing to and intentionally subjecting them to unreasonable searches and seizures; and,
- 70 -

Case: 3:09-cv-02865-JZ Doc #: 21 Filed: 03/01/10 71 of 72. PageID #: 214
c. Agreeing to and intentionally denying their substantive and procedural due process.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court: a. Issue an order certifying this action to proceed as a class action pursuant to Rules
23(a) and (b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; b. Appoint the undersigned as class counsel pursuant to Rule 23(g) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure; c. Issue a judgment declaring that Defendants’ policies, practices, acts, and
omissions described herein violate Plaintiffs’ rights under the Constitution of the United States, and federal statutory law; d. Permanently enjoin Defendants, their subordinates, agents, employees, and all others acting in concert with them from subjecting Plaintiffs to the unconstitutional and illegal conditions described herein and consistent with the relief requested in the individual Claims, and issue injunctive relief sufficient to rectify those conditions; e. An order allowing monitoring of the actions of the Sandusky Border Patrol Station by provision of redacted records of questioning, restraint of, interrogation of, and arrest of Hispanics and all others by that Station. These forms would include, but not be limited to, the I-213, I-862, and other documents and incident reports prepared by Sandusky Border Patrol Agents.
- 71 -

Case: 3:09-cv-02865-JZ Doc #: 21 Filed: 03/01/10 72 of 72. PageID #: 215
f. Grant Plaintiffs their reasonable attorney fees and costs pursuant to the Equal
Access to Justice Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1988, and other applicable law.
g. Grant such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper.
Respectfully submitted,
By: /s/ Mark Heller_____ Mark Heller (0027027) /s/ Eugenio Mollo, Jr. Eugenio Mollo, Jr. (0081860) /s/Aneel L. Chablani Aneel L. Chablani (0083043) ADVOCATES FOR BASIC LEGAL EQUALITY, INC. 525 Jefferson Ave., Suite 300 Toledo, OH 43604 419.255.0814 (phone) 419.259.2880 (fax) mheller@ablelaw.org emollo@ablelaw.org achablani@ablelaw.org
/s/John T. Murray John T. Murray (0008793) /s/Leslie O. Murray Leslie O. Murray (0081496) MURRAY & MURRAY CO., L.P.A. 111 East Shoreline Drive Sandusky, OH 44870-2517 419.987.4067 (phone) 419.624.0707 (fax) jotm@murrayandmurray.com lom@murrayandmurray.com
Counsel for Plaintiffs
- 72 -

 
 Case: 3:09-cv-02865-JZ Doc #: 76 Filed: 09/29/10 1 of 2. PageID #: 825

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION

Maria Muniz-Muniz, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
-vs-
United States Border Patrol, Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security, et al.,
Defendants.

Case No. 3:09 CV 2865 O R D E R JUDGE JACK ZOUHARY

While presently denying Federal Defendants’ Motion to Dism iss / Motion for Sum mary Judgment (Doc. No. 62) , this Court questions wh ether subject matter jurisdiction is proper with respect to the declaratory and injunctive relief sought in Plaintiffs’ Claims One, Two, and Three.
Plaintiffs argue jurisdiction is proper u nder 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and the Adm inistrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. §702 (Doc. No. 68, pp. 7-8). It is ture that Section 1331 grants broad jurisdictional authority to this Court. However, it does not waive sovereign i mmunity for Federal Defendants. City of Albuquerque v. U.S. Dep’t of Interior, 379 F.3d 901, 907 (10th Cir. 2004). As stated by the Supr eme Court in Califano v. Sanders , 430 U.S. 99, 105 (1977), the Section 702 language must be read in conjunction with Section 703, which suggests that the APA remedies under Section 702 must be paired with other jurisdictional statutes to waive sovereign immunity. See City of Albuquerque, 379 F.3d at 907; Consejo de Desarrollo Economico de Mexicali, A.C. v. U.S., 482 F.3d 1157, 1174 (9th Cir., 2007).
Because the only other statutory bases cited by Plaintiffs in Claims One, Two, and Three do not support a private right of action, this Court is skeptical of having proper subjectatmter jurisdiction over the requested equi table portions of these Claim s. See Chairez v. U.S. Immigration and

Case: 3:09-cv-02865-JZ Doc #: 76 Filed: 09/29/10 2 of 2. PageID #: 826 Naturalization Service, 790 F.2d 544, 548 (6th Cir. 1986) (finding no private right of action under 8 U.S.C. § 1357); Navarro-Chalan v. Ashcroft , 359 F.3d 19, 23 (1st Ci r. 2004) (quoting 8 C.F.R. § 287.11) (“[Section] 287.3 and the other regulations in its subpart ‘do not, are not intended to, shall not be construed to, and m ay not be relied upon to create any rights, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law by any party in any matter, civil or criminal.’”)
This issue can be further addressed by the parties, if necessary during later briefing. IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ Jack Zouhary JACK ZOUHARY U. S. DISTRICT JUDGE September 29, 2010
2

 
 Case: 3:09-cv-02865-JZ Doc #: 161 Filed: 06/15/12 1 of 4. PageID #: 2032

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION

Maria Muniz-Muniz, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
-vs-
United States Border Patrol, Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security, et al.,
Defendants.

Case No. 3:09 CV 2865 O R D E R JUDGE JACK ZOUHARY

Pending before this Court is Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to File Third Amended Complaint (Doc. 155). Def endants responded (Docs. 158), and Plaintiffs replied (Doc. 159). The Federal Defendants (“Defendants”) assert three arguments for denying Plaintiffs’ leave to amend:
1. First, Defendants contend this Court lacks subject m atter jurisdiction to consider Plaintiffs’ Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”) because Plaintiffs did not exhaust those claims until more than two years after they filed this suit. As the Supreme Court recognized, the FTCA requires plaintiffs to exhaust adm inistrative remedies prior to instituting a lawsuit. See McNeil v. United States, 508 U.S. 106, 107 (1993) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 2675);Harris v. Cleveland, 7 F. App’x 452, 459 (6th Cir. 2001). The Sixth Circuit clarified thatexhaustion does not occur by merely filing an action with the relevant agency. Rather, a claim is exhausted and ripe for federal cour t review when the agency takes action on the claim -- i.e., deny or sustain the claim. See Harris, 7 F. App’x at 459. Further, the denial of an administrative claim is statutorily presumed if six months pass without action on a properly filed administrative claim. Id. at 458 (citing Section 2675(a)).

Case: 3:09-cv-02865-JZ Doc #: 161 Filed: 06/15/12 2 of 4. PageID #: 2033
According to Defendants, Plaintiffs filed this suit before they filed their administrative claims with the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) and, more importantly, before DHS denied their claims. Specifically, Defendants assert Plaintiffs FTCA claims were not ripe when they filed suit in December 2009 because DHS did not deny the claims until April 2012 (Doc. 158 at 3). Defendants, however, rely on the wrong date for purposes of exhuastion. As the Sixth Circuit emphasized, district courts have subject matter jurisdiction to hear FTCA claims which are “ripe when the complaint was filed.” Harris, 7 F. App’x at 459. Here, Plani tiffs did not seek to addFTCA claims until they moved for leave to file a Third Amended Complaint on May, 21, 2012 -- the relevant date for ripeness purposes. Because DHS deni ed their administrative claims in April 2012, Plaintiffs’ claim s are properly exhausted and ripe for review.
2. Defendants next urge this Court to deny Plaintiffs’ request to amend because adding the FTCA claims will delay the resolution of this case and result in undue prejudice. Under Federal Civil Rule15(a)(2), a party may amend a complaint at this late stage of the case only after obtaining leave of court. Although the Rule provides that courts “should freely give leave whe n justice so requires,” leave may be denied for several reasons, including undue delay, bad fai th, futility of the proposed new claim, or undue prejudice to the opposite party. See Forman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962); Seals v. Gen. Motors Corp,. 546 F.3d 766, 770 (6th Cir. 2008)D; uggins v. Steak & Shake, Inc., 195 F.3d 828, 834 (6th Cir. 1999). While the Rule does not establish a deadline for the filing of a motion to amend, “[n]otice and substantial prejudice to the opposing party are critical factors in determining whether an amendment should be granted.” Wade v. Knoxville Utilities Bd., 259 F.3d 452, 458–459 (6th Cir. 2001).
2

Case: 3:09-cv-02865-JZ Doc #: 161 Filed: 06/15/12 3 of 4. PageID #: 2034
Moreover, while delay alone does not justify the denial of a motion brought pursuant to Rule 15(a), Security Ins. Co. of Hartford v. Kevin Tucker & Assocs., 64 F.3d 1001, 1009 (6th Cir. 1995), a party seeking to amend should “act with due diligence if it wants to take advantage of the Rule’s liberality.” Parry v. Mohawk Motors of Mich., Inc., 236 F.3d 299, 306 (6th Cir. 2000). This Court has great discretion “ in determining whether justice requires that [an] am endment be allowed.” Greenberg v. Life Ins. Co. of Virginia, 177 F.3d 507 (6th Cir. 1999) (citation omitted).
This Court finds that requiring Defendants to defend against a new theory of liability at this stage in the litigation would result in delay and unf air prejudice. The parties in this case have conducted extensive discovery on Plaintiffs’ original claims -- filed well over two years ago. This case has a firm trial date in November 2012. This Court believes additional needed discovery will result in significant delay. Plaintiffs’ proposed amendments, while arising “out of the same common operative facts” as their original allegations, are substantively different from their original racial profiling claims. Indeed, adding new claims for alleged personal injuries to this suit will necessarily require discovery into matters not previously relevant. Exposing Defendants to new di scovery, as well as forcing themto prepare new defenses for clami s “quite different” fromthose before this Court, would result in significant prejudice. See Duggins, 195 F.3d at 834.
3. Defendants finally argue that a Third Amended Complaint will complicate the trial in this matter. As support, Defendants essentially repeat the same arguments from above, emphasizing that alleged incidents ofpersonal injuries in thiscivil rights suit would complicate resolution because the new claims are “largely distinct” fromwhat needs to be shown to demonstrate racial profiling, and further would result in “trials within a trial” -- specifically, individual personal injury trials within a trial on racial profiling (Doc. 158 a4t ). Defendants’ argument is persuasive. Litigating constitutional
3

Case: 3:09-cv-02865-JZ Doc #: 161 Filed: 06/15/12 4 of 4. PageID #: 2035 issues alongside tort claims of five individuals would complicate issues at trial. These individualized, non-constitutional tort claims are more appropriately brought in a separate action.
IT IS SO ORDERED. s/ Jack Zouhary
JACK ZOUHARY U. S. DISTRICT JUDGE June 15, 2012
4

 
 Case: 3:09-cv-02865-JZ Doc #: 200 Filed: 11/15/12 1 of 1. PageID #: 4862

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION

Maria Muniz-Muniz, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
-vs-
United States Border Patrol, Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security, et al.,
Defendants.

Case No. 3:09 CV 2865 JUDGMENT ENTRY JUDGE JACK ZOUHARY

This Court filed its Mem orandum Opinion and Order (Doc. 195) finding this Court lac ks jurisdiction to consider Plaintiffs’ claim s against the Federal Defendants. All othe r claims against other Defendants have been dismissed. Therefore, the Complaint is dismissed and case is closed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ Jack Zouhary JACK ZOUHARY U. S. DISTRICT JUDGE November 15, 2012

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION

Maria Muniz-Muniz, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
-vs-
United States Border Patrol, Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security, et al.,
Defendants.

Case No. 3:09 CV 2865
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
JUDGE JACK ZOUHARY

INTRODUCTION Plaintiffs in this case seek injunctive and declaratory relief for what they contend is a pattern and practice of unconstitutional racial profiling by United States Border Patrol agents assigned to the Sandusky Bay Station in O hio. S pecifically, Plaintiffs bring their claim s against the F ederal Defendants under the Fourth and Fifth Am endments to the U.S. Constitution, as well as under multiple civil rights statutes. Pending beof re this Court is the Federal Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss and/or in the Alternative Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 170). According to the Federal Defendants, this Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction to consider Plaintiffs’ claims and should therefore dismiss this case under Federal Civil Rule 12(b)(1) (Doc. 170 at 15–47). Alternatively, the Federal Defendants assert there is no genuine issue as to any material fact regarding Plaintiffs’ constitutional claims, entitling them to judgment as a matter of law under Federal Civil Rule 56(a) (Doc. 170 at 47–48). The matter has been fully briefed (Docs. 170, 187 & 191).

BACKGROUND The United States Border Patrol is primarily responsible for patrolling international border areas between Ports-of-Entry, including the 158-mile stretch between Ohio and Canada (Docs. 62-1 at 2; 181 at 7 & 17). The Border Patrol’s objectives include apprehending terror ists and weapons illegally entering the United States, deterring illegael ntry, reducing crime in border communities, and identifying individuals in the United States without proper papers (Docs. 181 at 21; 185 at 16–17). The Border Patrol station pertinent to this case is the Sandusky Bay Station (“SBY”), which opened in February 2009 (Doc. 62-1 at 2). This station is accountable for carrying out Border Patrol day-today duties and responsibilities, including planning and conducting operations in Ohio. In November 2010, the Border Patrol created a Prim ary Operational Domain (“POD”) for SBY, which is “the area within a Sector’s geogarphically delineated area of operational responsibility where stations routinely plan for and conduct daily operations which directly support the Sector’s primary enforcement efforts” (Docs. 181 at 17; 170- 3 at 1). In other words, the POD is whe re a station sends its routine, daily patrols; for SBYt,his stretches fromLucas County to Cuyahoga County (Docs. 170-3 at 1; 181 at 17 & 33–34). Plaintiffs argue the Border Patrol “has straye d far from its stated mission of protecting the country’s northern border from‘transnational threats’” (Doc. 187 at 7). According to Plaintiffs, SBY agents use Hispanic appearance to initiate enforcement action. Plaintiffs note that in the three years SBY has been open, between 61.8% and 85.6% of those apprehended have been Hispanic (Doc. 187 at 7), with “an alarming use of racial slurs” by agents in official Border Patrol correspondence; and the two highest ranking SBY agents are unable to “consistently articulate race- neutral basis for stopping and detaining suspected unauthorized aliens”(Doc. 187 at 7). The heart of Plaintiffs’ theory
2

in this case is that “SBY patrols the area for suspicious persons with a deliberate focus on Hispanic persons as is demonstrated both by its organizational culture ofutilizing dehumanizing language when describing Hispanic persons and . . . by the disp arate impact experienced by Hispanic persons in Ohio” (Doc. 187 at 9).
Plaintiffs filed suit in December 2009, alleging racial profiling by the Border Patrol, individual Border Patrol agents, the Village of Attica, the City of Norwalk, the Village of Plymouth, and local law enforcement officers (Doc. 1). The Compla int was brought as a class action representing individuals, the Ohio Immigrant Worker Project (“IWP”), and the FarmLabor Organizing Committee (“FLOC”). Despite having filed suit as a class action, and completed months of discovery, Plaintiffs did not move for class certification under Federal Civil Rule 23.
In July 2010, the Federal Defendants filed a Moti on to Dismiss, or in the Alternative, for Summary Judgment (Doc. 62). Plaintiffs opposed the Motion and requested discovery be permitted under Federal Civil Rule 56(d) (Doc. 68). This Court questioned whether it had s ubject-matter jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ claim s for declarator y and injunctive relief, but denied the Federal Defendants’ Motions without prejudice to permit discovery (Doc. 76).
In late April 2012, following a long period of discovery, Plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint, adding factual allegations against the Federal Defenda nts and naming two additional Border Patrol agents in their official capacities (Doc. 143). Plaintiffs also dropped their request for money damages and all claims against Federal Defendants in their personal capacities. Because all claims against the Local Defendants (Attica, Norwalk, Plymouth, and local law enforcement officers) have also been dismissed, the only active claims in this case are official capacity claims against the Federal Defendants for declaratory and injunctive relief (Claims 1–3 & 10–13).
3

The Federal Defendants now offer three reasons why this Court lacks subject-m atter jurisdiction: (1) there has not been a waiver osfovereign immunity (Doc. 170 at 15–20); (2) Plaintiffs lack standing (Doc. 170 at 20–46); and (3) the statutoyrclaims do not allow for suit against the United States (Doc. 170 at 46–47).
Further, even ifthis Court finds it has subject-matter jurisdiction, the Federal Defendants argue they are entitled to summary judgment on each of Plaintiffs’ claims. First, Plaintiffs cannot prevail on their Equal Protection claim because they cannot demonstrate they were treated differently than a similarly situated, but non-protected, class of individuals (Doc. 170 at 11). Second, Plaintiffs’ Fourth Amendment claims fail as a matter of law because each incident with the Border Patrol was a consensual encounter -- not a seizure -- followedby probable cause to make an arrest, and further, such claims cannot succeed because Plaintiffs cannot dem onstrate an unconstitutional poli cy or custom (Doc. 170 at 11). Third, Plaintiffs’ Due Process claim s fail because Plaintiffs have not sufficiently pled or provided evidence that the Federal Defendants violated a procedural or substantive right under the Constitution (Doc. 170 at 11–12). Fourth -- and last -- Plaintif fs cannot prevail on their conspiracy claims because the United States is not a “person” who can be sued under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 or 1985 (Doc. 170 at 12).
Plaintiffs disagree with each contention, arguing jurisdiction is proper because their claims fit within the waiver of sovereign immunity under the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”), and that the individual Plaintiffs have standing because they are likely to be subject to repeated racial profiling by the Border Patrol (Doc. 187 at 6–7). Plaintiffs also argue the Organizational Plaintiffs (IWP and FLOC) have standing on their own behalf“because their mission has been frustrated by the Federal Defendants’ pattern and practice of racialprofiling,” as well as on behalf of their constituents
4

(Doc. 187 a t 6). Plaintiffs lastly assert th at summary judgment on their constitutional claim s is inappropriate because the record contains various disputes of material facts.
STANDARDS OF REVIEW Motions to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under Federal Civil Rule 12(b)(1) fall into two general categories: facial attacks and factual attacks. See United States v. Ritchie, 15 F.3d 592, 598 (6th Cir. 1994);Ohio Nat’l Life Ins. v. United States, 922 F.2d 320, 325 (6th Cir. 1990). A factual attack, which the Federal Defendants assert in this case (Doc. 170 at 15 n.5), does not question the sufficiency of the pleading itself. Ritchie, 15 F.3d at 598. Rather, a factual attack is “a challenge to the factual exis tence of subject matter jurisdiction.” Id. “On such a m otion, no presumptive truthfulness applies to the factua l allegations . . . and the court is free to weigh the evidence and satisfy itself as to the existence of its power to hear the case.” Id. (internal citation omitted). Plaintif fs, as the parties asserting jurisdiction, have the burden under a Rule 12(b)(1) motion, and jurisdiction must be established by a preponderance of the evidence. Golden v. Gorno Bros., Inc., 410 F.3d 879, 881 (6th Cir. 2005). Pursuant to Federal Civil Rule 56(a), sum mary judgment is appropriate where there is “no genuine issue as to any material fact” and “the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” This burden “may be discharged by ‘showing’—that is, pointing out to the district court—that there is an absence of evidence tosupport the nonmoving party’s case.” Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). When considering a motion for summary judgment, this Court must draw all inferences from the record in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. See Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986). The Court is not permitted to weigh the evidence or determine the truth of any matter in dispute; rather, the Court determines only whether
5

the case contains sufficient evidence from which a jury could reasona bly find for the non-m oving

party. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248–49 (1986).

DISCUSSION

This Court Lacks Subject-Matter Jurisdiction Over Plaintiffs’ Claims

•

Plaintiffs’ Constitutional Claims under the APA are Barred by

Sovereign Immunity

Plaintiffs assert three separate constitutional claims against the Federal Defendants under the

APA (Claims 1–3). The Federal Defe ndants contend these claim s are barred by the doctrine of

sovereign immunity, which holds “the United States is im mune from suit unless it consents to be

sued.” United States v. City of Detroit , 329 F.3d 515, 520 (6th Cir. 2003) (citing Hercules, Inc. v.

United States, 516 U.S. 417, 422 (1996)). As the Sixth Circuit has acknowledged, the United States

“has waived its immunity with respect to non-monetary claims” under the APA, 5 U.S.C. § 702, which

provides:

[a]n action in a court of the United States seeking relief other than omney damages and stating a claim that an agency or an officer or employee thereof acted or failed to act in an official capacity or under color of legal authority shall not be dismissed nor relief therein be denied on the ground that it is against the United States . . . Provided, That any mandatory or injunctive decree shall sp ecify the Federal officer of officers (by name or by title), and their successors in fofice, personally responsible for compliance.

Section 702’s waiver of im munity applies in cases brought under the APA, as well as under other

federal statutes. City of Detroit, 329 F.3d at 521 (citing A.E. Finley & Assocs. v. United States, 898

F.2d 1165, 1167 (6th Cir. 1990)). However, in this caseP,laintiffs assert there is no need for this Court

to decide whether a federal statute provides a basisfor relief because their claims “fall squarely within

the contours of judicial review of agency actions contemplated by the APA” (Doc. 187 at 15).

6

To prevail on this argument, Plaintiffs must convince this Court that their claims for relief seek “judicial review of agency action” under the APA. See Blakely v. United States, 276 F.3d 853, 870 (6th Cir. 2002) (“By its own terms, [Section] 702 only applies where [a] party seeks judicial review of agency action.”). Furthermore, Plaintiffs’ claims must satisfy 5 U.S.C. § 704, which limits the types of actions reviewable under the APA. Specifically, Section 704 provides for review of two types of actions: (1) agency action made reviewable by statute; and (2) final agency action for which there is no other adequate remedy in a court.
As the Federal Defendants note, Plaintiffs cannot demonstrate that judicial review is appropriate under the first type of Section 704 reviewbecause Plaintiffs have not identified an agency action that is “m ade reviewable by statute.” Ther efore, Plaintiffs must rely on the second type of review by demonstrating they seek judicial review ofa “final agency action for which there is no other adequate remedy in a court.” Plaintiffs cannot m ake this showing because they fail to identify a “specific agency action that has caused t heir alleged injuries” and instead “m ake broad, general allegations about the Border Patrol and its en forcement operations” (Doc. 170 at 18). Federal Defendants cite Lujan v. Nat’l Wildlife Fed’n, 497 U.S. 871, 891 (1990), a case where the Supreme Court held APA plaintiffs “m ust direct [their] a ttack[s] against some particular agency action that causes [them] harm.” To be sure, courts may only “intervene in the administration of the laws [] when, and to the extent that, a specific ‘final agency actoi n’ has an actual or immediately threatened effect.” Id. at 894.
This leaves the second type of review -- whether Plaintiffs can dem onstrate a “final agency action.” The APA defines “agency action” as “the whole or a part of an agency rule, order, license, sanction, relief, or the equivalent or denial thereof, or failure to act.” See 5 U.S.C. § 551(13).
7

Plaintiffs argue their allegationsof unlawful stops, detentions, andapprehensions by the Border Patrol clearly qualify as “sanctions” under Section 551(13) (Doc. 187 at 13). This Court agrees. The APA expressly holds that sanctions include “conditi ons[s] affecting the freedom of a person,” the “imposition of penalty,” and “taking other com pulsory or restrictive action.” See 5 U.S.C. § 551(10)(A), (C) & (G). There isno doubt restraining, interrogating, and arresting individuals “affects” their freedom, as well as constitutes “restrictive action.” See Indus. Safety Equip. Ass’n. v. EPA, 837 F.2d 1115, 1119–20 (D.C. Cir. 1988) (construi ng “sanction” under the APA broadly to include an agency’s penalizing of a party through adverse publicity). Moreover, arresting individuals -- lawful or otherwise -- is a penalty, which in this case was imposed by the Federal Defendants.
There is also evidence suggesting the agency action in this case was not final. To be deemed “final,” agency action must satisfy two conditions: (1) it must mark the consummation of the agency’s decision-making process; and (2) itmust be one by which rights or obligations have been determined, or from which legal cons equences will f ollow. Bennett v. Spear , 520 U.S. 154, 177–78 (1997). Although Federal Defendants argue the re is no “final” action in this case, they fail to explain how restraining, interrogating, and arresting individua ls does not consum mate their decision-m aking process regarding these individuals, or how their actions do not determine the individuals’ “rights or obligations” from which legal consequences will f ollow. Sim ply put, this Court is persuaded otherwise.
Although Plaintiffs have identified a final agency action that can be challenged under the APA, they have not satisfied the requirem ent that there be “no other adequate rem edy.” Indeed, Federal Defendants note at least three plausible avenues of relief for the claims in this case. First, Plaintiffs may seek relief by suing those individuals, in their personal capacities, who purportedly caused their
8

injuries. See Bivens v. Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents, 403 U.S. 388, 396–97 (1971) (implying a private right of action for damages where no other federal remedy is provided for the vindication of constitutional rights). Plaintiffs argue that aBivens action would be inadequate because the relief they seek in this case is non-monetary (Doc. 187 at 20–21),and that injunctive relief would serve as a better deterrent “to stop the unlawful seizures and profi ling of Hispanics by the Border Patrol and their encouragement of local law enforcement agencies to assist them in apprehending individuals based on Hispanic appearance” (Doc. 187 at 21).
That argument, however, is inconsistent with the Suprem e Court’s repeated holdings that Bivens actions are an effective deterrent to constitutional violations. See, e.g., Carlson v. Green, 446 U.S. 14, 20–22 (1980). “It is alm ost axiomatic that the threat of damages has a deterrent effect . . . surely particularly so when the individualofficial faces personal financial liability.” Id. at 21 (internal citation omitted). As the Supreme Court acknowledged, “underlying the qualified immunity which public officials enjoy for actions taken in good faith [undeBrivens] is the fear that exposure to personal liability would otherwise deter them from acting at all.” Id. at 21 n.7 (citing Butz v. Economou, 438 U.S. 478, 497 (1978)). A Bivens action would therefore provide adequate relief.
Second, Plaintiffs could also pursue claim s under the Federal Tort Claim s Act (“FTCA”) against those individuals who violated Plainti ffs’ constitutional rights. Plaintiffs provide no explanation why an FTCA claim would be inadequa te in this case. Finally, a specific statutory provision exists that permits the Attorney General tofile a civil action to eliminate any alleged “pattern or practice” of unconstitutional conduct. See 42 U.S.C. § 14141. To the extent Plaintiffs believe the Federal Defendants are racially profiling Hispanics, Section 14141 also provides adequate relief.
9

Because Plaintiffs have not satisfied the requirme ent that there be “no other adequate remedy,”

they have not identified a final agency action thatis reviewable under Section 704. Accordingly, the

APA cannot serve as a waiver of the United States’ sovereign immunity in this case, and as such, this

Court lacks jurisdiction for Claims 1–3.

•

Plaintiffs’ Conspiracy Claims Unde r the Civil Rights Statutes are

Barred by Sovereign Immunity

In addition to their constitutional claim s, Plaintiffs assert four separate conspiracy claim s

against the Federal Defendants in their offci ial capacities under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985(3), and 1986

(Claims 10–13). However, Plaintiffs’ reliance on Section 1983 is misplaced, as that provision neither

authorizes suits challenging actions taken under color of federal law, nor waives the United States’

sovereign immunity. See Strickland ex rel. Strickland v. Shalala, 123 F.3d 863, 866 (6th Cir. 1997);

see also Hall v. United States , 773 F.2d 703, 707 (6th Cir. 1985) (“Federal official s do not violate

[S]ection 1983 by acting under color of federal law.”). Indeed, the “actual nature and character” of

the Federal Defendants’ actions in this case -- even assuming they conspired with state authorities --

were federal, not state. Strickland, 123 F.3d at 866.

Unlike Section 1983, the scope of Section 1985(3) “is cons iderably broader and can reach

conspiracies composed of federal officers or federal employees.” Federer v. Gephardt, 363 F.3d 754,

758 (8th Cir. 2004) (citing Hobson v. Wilson, 737 F.2d 1, 19–20 (D.C. Cir. 1984)). In other words,

there is no requirement that the offending conduct be committed under color of state law. However,

sovereign immunity bars Section 1985(3) claim s brought against the United States and its officers

acting in their official capacity. See, e.g., Davis v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 204 F.3d 723, 726 (7th Cir.

2000); Aff’l Prof’l Home Health Care v. Shalala , 164 F.3d 282, 286 (5th Cir. 1999); Mousseaux v.

United States, 28 F.3d 786, 787 (8th Cir. 1994). The same is true for Plaintiffs’ claims under Section

10

1986. See Davis, 204 F.3d at 726 (“Sovereign i mmunity . . . bars [Section] 1985(3) and 1986 suits

brought against the United States and its officers acting in their official capacity.”);Aff’l Prof’l Home

Health Care, 164 F.3d at 286. Plaintiffs have not met their burden of demonstrating a waiver of that

immunity, and therefore Claims 10–13 cannot proceed in this Court.

•

Plaintiffs’ Claims Are Not Subject to the “Ultra Vires Exception” to

Sovereign Immunity

Plaintiffs summarily argue that their claim s in this case fall under the so-called “ultra vires

exception” to sovereign immunity (Doc. 187 at 21). See Larson v. Domestic & Foreign Commerce

Corp., 337 U.S. 682, 689–90 (1949). Larson articulated two circumstances, not relevant in this case,

where the requested specific relief would not implicate sovereign immunity: (1) where the officers’

actions are beyond their statutory authority; and (2) where the statute conferring power upon the

officers is unconstitutional. See TransAmerica Assur. Corp. v. Settlement Capital Corp, .489 F.3d 256,

260 n.2 (6th Cir. 2007). To invoke the exception, Plaintiffs “must do more than simply allege that the

actions of the officer are illegal or unauthorized.” Danos v. Jones, 652 F.3d 577, 583 (5th Cir. 2011)

(internal quotation omitted). The complaint must allege sufficient facts “to establish that the officer[s]

[were] acting ‘without any authority whatever,’ or without any ‘colorable basis for the exercise of

authority.’” Id. (quoting Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 101 n.11 (1984)).

The Second Amended Complaint fails to meet this standard, as there is no allegation that 8

U.S.C. § 1357 is unconstitutional, or that the federal officers were acting without authority. In fact,

Plaintiffs’ theory in this case is directly opposite: the Border Patrol authorizes its SBY agents to

maintain “a practice of profiling individuals of Hsipanic and Mexican appearance for questioning and

detention” (Doc. 187 at 6), and Plaintiffs wish tochange that alleged practice by Border Patrol agents

11

under Section 1357. But Plaintiffs are not challenging Defendants’ activities as outside the scope of their statutory authority. For these reasons, Plaintiffs’ ultra vires argument is unconvincing.
CONCLUSION Because this Court lacks jurisdiction to consider Plaintiffs’ claims, this case must be dismissed. Accordingly, there is no need to consider the Federal Defendants’ standing argum ents or their alternative Motion for Summary Judgment. The Motion to Dismiss is granted. IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ Jack Zouhary JACK ZOUHARY U. S. DISTRICT JUDGE October 19, 2012
12

 
 CasCea: s3e:0: 91-2c-v4-40129865-DJZocuDmocen#t: 200561F1i1le9d1:661521/20/1F3ile1d:o1f21/02.0/P20a1g3eID #P:a4g8e9:71

RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b)
File Name: 13a0352p.06
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT _________________

MARIA MUNIZ-MUNIZ, et al.

X

Plaintiffs,

-

-

ROCIO ANANI SAUCEDO-CARRILLO; ROSA CARRILLO-VASQUES; ALFONSO PALAFOX;

-,>

JOSE SAMUEL CONTRERAS GARCIA; JESUS

-

RODRIGUEZ-PEREZ, individually and on behalf of a class of others similarly situated;

-

OHIO IMMIGRANT WORKER PROJECT; FARM

-

LABOR ORGANIZING COMMITTEE, AFL-CIO, -

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

-

-

v.

-

-

UNITED STATES BORDER PATROL, et al., Defendants-Appellees.

N

No. 12-4419

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio at Toledo. No. 3:09-cv-02865—Jack Zouhary, District Judge.

3:09cv2865

Argued: August 1, 2013

Decided and Filed: December 20, 2013 Before: GIBBONS and WHITE, Circuit Judges; GREER, District Judge.*

_________________

COUNSEL
ARGUED: John T. Murray, MURRAY & MURRAY CO., L.P.A., Sandusky, Ohio, for Appellants. William C. Silvis, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Appellees. ON BRIEF: John T. Murray, Leslie O. Murray, Michael Stewart, MURRAY & MURRAY CO., L.P.A., Sandusky, Ohio, Mark Heller, Eugenio Mollo, Jr., Aneel L. Chablani, ADVOCATES FOR BASIC LEGAL EQUALITY, INC., Toledo, Ohio, for Appellants. William C. Silvis, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Appellees.

*The Honorable J. Ronnie Greer, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Tennessee, sitting by designation.
1

CasCea: s3e:0: 91-2c-v4-40129865-DJZocuDmocen#t: 200561F1i1le9d1:661521/20/1F3ile2d:o1f21/02.0/P20a1g3eID #P:a4g8e9:82

No. 12-4419 Muniz-Muniz, et al. v. United States Border Patrol, et al.

Page 2

_________________
OPINION _________________
GREER, District Judge. The plaintiffs-appellants, five individuals and two organizations, appeal the district court’s grant of a motion to dismiss their claims for prospective, injunctive relief for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. We REVERSE and REMAND.
I.
The individual plaintiffs are a part of a group of individuals who allege that they were illegally stopped, searched, and/or detained by officers of the United States Border Patrol for the Sandusky Bay Station in Ohio, based upon their Hispanic appearance, race and ethnicity. The two organizational plaintiffs are organizations that advocate on behalf of migrant workers. The defendants are the United States Border Patrol, the Department of Homeland Security, and a number of the Border Patrol’s officers (the “federal defendants”).
The district court summarized the factual allegations as follows:
The United States Border Patrol is primarily responsible for patrolling international borders between Ports-of-Entry, including the 158-mile stretch between Ohio and Canada. The Border Patrol’s objectives include apprehending terrorists and weapons illegally entering the United States, deterring illegal entry, reducing crime in border communities, and identifying individuals in the United States without proper papers. The Border Patrol station pertinent to this case is the Sandusky Bay Station (“SBY”), which opened in February, 2009. This station is accountable for carrying out Border Patrol day-to-day duties and responsibilities, including planning and conducting operations in Ohio.
In November, 2010, the Border Patrol created a Primary Operational Domain (“POD”) for SBY, which is “the area within a Sector’s geographically delineated area of operational responsibility where stations routinely plan for and conduct daily operations which directly support the Sector’s primary enforcement efforts.” In other

CasCea: s3e:0: 91-2c-v4-40129865-DJZocuDmocen#t: 200561F1i1le9d1:661521/20/1F3ile3d:o1f21/02.0/P20a1g3eID #P:a4g8e9:93

No. 12-4419 Muniz-Muniz, et al. v. United States Border Patrol, et al.

Page 3

words, the POD is where a station sends its routine, daily patrols; for SBY, this stretches from Lucas County to Cuyahoga County.
Plaintiffs argue the Border Patrol “has strayed far from its stated mission of protecting the country’s northern border from ‘transnational threats.’” According to Plaintiffs, SBY agents use Hispanic appearance to initiate enforcement action. Plaintiffs note that in the three years SBY has been open, between 61.8% and 85.6% of those apprehended have been Hispanic, with “an alarming use of racial slurs” by agents in official Border Patrol correspondence; and the two highest ranking SBY agents are unable to “consistently articulate race-neutral basis for stopping and detaining suspected unauthorized aliens.” The heart of Plaintiffs’ theory in this case is that “SBY patrols the area for suspicious persons with a deliberate focus on Hispanic persons as is demonstrated both by its organizational culture of utilizing dehumanizing language when describing Hispanic persons and . . . by the disparate impact experienced by Hispanic persons in Ohio.”
Muniz-Muniz v. United States Border Patrol, No. 3:09-cv-2865, 2012 WL 5197250, at
*1 (N.D. Ohio Oct. 19, 2012).
Plaintiffs filed their original class action complaint on December 10, 2009,
seeking equitable relief and monetary damages under Bivens v. Six Unknown Agents,
403 U.S. 388 (1971) and 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985, and 1986. The original complaint
named as defendants the chief of the Border Patrol’s district sector, which oversees the
Sandusky Bay Station, and 15 “John Doe” Border Patrol agents in their official and
individual capacities and alleged that the Border Patrol agents had engaged in a practice
of racial profiling of Hispanics in violation of the Immigration and Nationality Act
(“INA”), 8 U.S.C. § 1101 et seq., and the Fourth and Fifth Amendments. The complaint
included allegations of a conspiracy between the Border Patrol and three local
municipalities, their police chiefs and individual officers, to violate the civil rights of
Hispanics by profiling them for stops, seizures and detentions and for violations of the
Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments.
Three months after filing the original complaint, plaintiffs filed a first amended
complaint naming the Border Patrol, Customs and Border Protection, Department of
Homeland Security, and additional Border Patrol agents in their individual and official

CasCea: s3e:0: 91-2c-v4-40129865-DJZocuDmocen#t: 200561F1i1le9d1:661521/20/1F3ile4d:o1f21/02.0/P20a1g3eID #P:a4g9e0:04

No. 12-4419 Muniz-Muniz, et al. v. United States Border Patrol, et al.

Page 4

capacities. The first amended complaint added the Administrative Procedures Act (“APA”), 5 U.S.C. § 702, as an additional source of jurisdiction. The defendants filed motions to dismiss. The federal defendants asserted lack of standing and lack of subject matter jurisdiction, arguing that a plaintiff can only challenge “final agency actions for which there is no adequate remedy in a court” and that the APA does not waive sovereign immunity with regard to constitutional torts or negligence actions. The plaintiffs requested an opportunity to complete discovery and the district court denied the motions to dismiss and permitted discovery. The court stated that it was “skeptical” whether it had subject matter jurisdiction, noting that “the APA remedies under § 702 must be paired with other jurisdictional statutes to waive sovereign immunity . . . [and the INA] do[es] not support a private right of action.”
At the urging of the district court in an effort to simplify and expedite the discovery process, plaintiffs agreed to dismiss without prejudice their claims against the local law enforcement agencies and officers and their claims for monetary damages. Plaintiffs retained the express right to file an amended complaint reasserting the dismissed claims. In February, 2012, after some discovery in the case, plaintiffs were granted leave to file a second amended complaint reasserting the previous claims against the local police agencies. Plaintiffs ultimately settled all their claims with the local agencies. After the district court denied plaintiffs’ request to file a third amended complaint to add claims under the Federal Tort Claims Act (‘FTCA”), 28 U.S.C. § 2671 et seq., the federal defendants renewed their motion to dismiss, or in the alternative for summary judgment, arguing that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the United States had not waived sovereign immunity under the APA and that plaintiffs lacked standing. The district court granted the motion to dismiss, determining that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction because plaintiffs had failed to establish a waiver of sovereign immunity. It did not address the standing issue raised by the federal defendants.

CasCea: s3e:0: 91-2c-v4-40129865-DJZocuDmocen#t: 200561F1i1le9d1:661521/20/1F3ile5d:o1f21/02.0/P20a1g3eID #P:a4g9e0:15

No. 12-4419 Muniz-Muniz, et al. v. United States Border Patrol, et al.

Page 5

II.
We review de novo the dismissal of a complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Hamdi ex rel. Hamdi v. Napolitano, 620 F.3d 615, 619 (6th Cir. 2010) (citing Davis v. United States, 499 F.3d 590, 593-94 (6th Cir. 2007)). Without a waiver of sovereign immunity, a court is without subject matter jurisdiction over claims against federal agencies or officials in their official capacities. Reed v. Reno, 146 F.3d 392, 39798 (6th Cir. 1998).
III.
Plaintiffs challenge the district court’s holding that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ claims for prospective, non-monetary, injunctive relief because there was no waiver of sovereign immunity. More specifically, plaintiffs take issue with the district court’s conclusion that although the United States has waived its immunity for non-monetary damages under § 702 of the APA, plaintiffs must also show that their claims for relief seek judicial review of agency action as defined by § 704 of the APA. The federal defendants, however, argue that the court should not consider the merits of plaintiffs’ argument because they did not raise it in the district court. They argue, alternatively, that this Court should affirm on the grounds that plaintiffs lack standing to present or to pursue their equitable claims.
“It is axiomatic that the United States may not be sued without its consent and that the existence of consent is a prerequisite for jurisdiction.” Munaco v. United States, 522 F.3d 651, 652-53 (6th Cir. 2008) (quoting United States v. Mitchell, 463 U.S. 206, 212 (1983)). In other words, “[t]he United States cannot be sued at all without the consent of Congress.” Block v. North Dakota, 461 U.S. 273, 287 (1983). Sovereign immunity “extends to agencies of the United States” or “federal officers [acting] in their official capacities.” Whittle v. United States, 7 F.3d 1259, 1262 (6th Cir. 1993); Robinson v. Overseas Military Sales Corp., 21 F.3d 502, 510 (2d Cir. 1994). A waiver of sovereign immunity may not be implied and exists only when Congress has expressly

CasCea: s3e:0: 91-2c-v4-40129865-DJZocuDmocen#t: 200561F1i1le9d1:661521/20/1F3ile6d:o1f21/02.0/P20a1g3eID #P:a4g9e0:26

No. 12-4419 Muniz-Muniz, et al. v. United States Border Patrol, et al.

Page 6

waived immunity by statute. United States v. Nordic Village, Inc., 503 U.S. 30, 33-34 (1992).
Before we can address the question whether § 702 of the APA waives sovereign immunity for plaintiffs’ claims, we must first address the federal defendants’ argument that we should not address the issue on the merits because plaintiffs have raised their argument for the first time on appeal. We conclude that the federal defendants’ argument lacks merit because it is factually incorrect. Plaintiffs did in fact raise the argument before the district court. Plaintiffs stated their reliance on § 702 in a number of pleadings in the district court, although not as clearly as they could have. In the first amended complaint, the plaintiffs specifically alleged that the district court had subject matter jurisdiction under a number of federal statutes, including 5 U.S.C. § 702. In their response to the second motion to dismiss, plaintiffs mention § 702 as the source of a broad immunity waiver several times, specifically stating that their claims for injunctive and declaratory judgment “fit within the waiver [of § 702] under the APA.”
The case relied on by the federal defendants, Local 3-689, Oil, Chemical & Atomic Int’l Union v. Martin Marietta Energy Sys., Inc., 77 F.3d 131 (6th Cir. 1996), is inapposite. Local 3-689 is distinguishable for several reasons. First, the plaintiff in Local 3-689 attempted to raise an APA claim for the first time on appeal; here, plaintiffs identified the APA, and specifically § 702, as a basis for jurisdiction in multiple filings in the district court. Second, Local 3-689 was decided before this Court’s en banc determination in United States v. City of Detroit, 329 F.3d 515 (6th Cir. 2003), discussed in further detail below.
It follows then that neither the failure of plaintiffs to raise the argument that § 702 provides a waiver of sovereign immunity for their claim against the Border Patrol, nor their lack of clarity in raising the issue, precludes our review of the district court’s holding that § 702 does not waive immunity unless the requirements of § 704 are also met. Our holding on this issue is largely dispositive of the appeal given that the federal defendants do not now argue that the text of § 702 limits its scope to “agency action” as defined in § 704 of the APA, or “final agency action,” for which § 704 directly provides

CasCea: s3e:0: 91-2c-v4-40129865-DJZocuDmocen#t: 200561F1i1le9d1:661521/20/1F3ile7d:o1f21/02.0/P20a1g3eID #P:a4g9e0:37

No. 12-4419 Muniz-Muniz, et al. v. United States Border Patrol, et al.

Page 7

the right to judicial review. In addition, counsel for the federal defendants conceded at oral argument that, unless the federal defendants prevail on their waiver claim, the district court’s holding was likely in error.
This Court has not previously addressed specifically the interplay between § 702 and § 704 of the APA. However, we now join all of our sister circuits who have done so in holding that § 702’s waiver of sovereign immunity extends to all non-monetary claims against federal agencies and their officers sued in their official capacity, regardless of whether plaintiff seeks review of “agency action” or “final agency action” as set forth in § 704.
The APA “sets forth the procedures by which federal agencies are accountable to the public and their actions subject to review by the courts.” Franklin v. Massachusetts, 505 U.S. 788, 796 (1992). Section 702 of the APA provides in relevant part:
A person suffering legal wrong because of agency action, or adversely affected or aggrieved by agency action within the meaning of a relevant statute, is entitled to judicial review thereof. An action in a court of the United States seeking relief other than money damages and stating a claim that an agency or an officer or employee thereof acted or failed to act in an official capacity or under color of legal authority shall not be dismissed nor relief therein be denied on the ground that it is against the United States or that the United States is an indispensable party.
5 U.S.C. § 702. The second sentence of § 702 was added to the APA in the 1976 amendments, by which Congress sought to remove “technical barriers to the consideration on the merits of citizens’ complaints against the Federal Government, its agencies, or employees.” See Treasurer of New Jersey v. United States Department of Treasury, 684 F.3d 382, 397 (3d Cir. 2012) (quoting H.R. Rep. No. 94-1656, at 3 (1976), reprinted in 1976 U.S.C.C.A.N. 6121, 6123). The Supreme Court later explained that “the 1976 amendment to § 702 was intended to broaden the avenues for judicial review of agency action by eliminating the defense of sovereign immunity in cased covered by the amendment.” Bowen v. Massachusetts, 487 U.S. 879, 891-92 (1988).

CasCea: s3e:0: 91-2c-v4-40129865-DJZocuDmocen#t: 200561F1i1le9d1:661521/20/1F3ile8d:o1f21/02.0/P20a1g3eID #P:a4g9e0:48

No. 12-4419 Muniz-Muniz, et al. v. United States Border Patrol, et al.

Page 8

Against the backdrop of this history, our en banc court considered the question of whether § 702 is a general waiver of sovereign immunity for suits against the United States in United States v. City of Detroit. We rejected a restrictive reading of § 702 which would have limited the § 702 waiver only to complaints filed under the APA, noting that the Sixth Circuit had previously applied the waiver of sovereign immunity in § 702 in cases under statutes other than the APA. City of Detroit, 329 F.3d at 521 (citing A. E. Finley & Assocs., Inc. v. United States, 898 F.2d 1165, 1167 (6th Cir. 1990) and Newsom v. Vanderbilt University, 653 F.2d 1100, 1107 (6th Cir. 1981)); see also Warin v. Director, Department of the Treasury, 672 F.2d 590, 592 (6th Cir. 1982) (holding that § 702 operates as a waiver of the sovereign immunity defense for equitable actions seeking nonstatutory review of agency actions under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 which confers federal question jurisdiction on the district courts); Ghandi v. Police Dep’t of the City of Detroit, 747 F.2d 338, 343 (6th Cir. 1984) (“Although amended section 702 eliminates the defense of sovereign immunity in actions for specific, non-monetary relief, Congress did not alter the existing law barring the recovery of money damages against the United States.”).
The district court recognized as much, acknowledging that “the United States ‘has waived its immunity with respect to non-monetary claims’ under the APA,” and that § 702’s “waiver of immunity applies in cases brought under the APA, as well as other federal statutes.” 2012 WL 5197250, at *4 (citing A.E. Finley & Assocs., Inc., 898 F.2d at 1167). The district court, however, went further by requiring plaintiffs to “satisfy 5 U.S.C. § 704, which limits the types of actions reviewable under the APA,” by identifying either agency action made reviewable by statute or final agency action for which there is no other adequate remedy. Id. (citing 5 U.S.C. § 704). That was error.
As noted above, this Circuit has not specifically addressed the interplay between § 702 and § 704 of the APA where a plaintiff seeks non-monetary damages against the United States. Other circuits have and they are unanimous in their conclusion that a plaintiff who seeks non-monetary relief against the United States need not also satisfy the requirements of § 704 of the APA before there is a waiver of sovereign immunity.

CasCea: s3e:0: 91-2c-v4-40129865-DJZocuDmocen#t: 200561F1i1le9d1:661521/20/1F3ile9d:o1f21/02.0/P20a1g3eID #P:a4g9e0:59

No. 12-4419 Muniz-Muniz, et al. v. United States Border Patrol, et al.

Page 9

For instance, in Treasurer of New Jersey v. United States Dep’t of Treasury, several states sued to recover proceeds of matured but unredeemed United States Savings Bonds from the United States Treasury. The United States raised an argument similar to that adopted by the district court here, that is, that the scope of the waiver of sovereign immunity under § 702 is limited to “final agency action” as defined by § 704. 684 F.3d at 397. The Third Circuit rejected the argument, holding that the waiver of § 702 extends to all non-monetary claims against federal agencies and their officers, regardless of whether plaintiff seeks review of an agency action or final agency action under § 704. Id at 399; see also Michigan v. U. S. Army Corp of Eng’rs, 667 F.3d 765, 775 (7th Cir. 2011) (“[T]he conditions of § 704 affect the right of action contained in the first sentence of § 702, but they do not limit the waiver of immunity in § 702’s second sentence.”); Trudeau v. Federal Trade Commission, 456 F.3d 178, 187 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (stating section 702’s waiver of sovereign immunity “is not limited to APA cases” and applies “regardless of whether the elements of an APA cause of action are satisfied”); Red Lake Band of Chippewa Indians v. Barlow, 846 F.2d 474, 476 (8th Cir. 1988) (“[S]ection 702 [waiver] is not dependent on application of the procedures and review standards of APA. It is dependent on the suit against the government being one for non-monetary relief.”); Delano Farms Co. v. California Table Grape Com’n, 655 F.3d 1337, 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“We hold that section 702 of the APA waives sovereign immunity for nonmonetary claims against federal agencies . . . . It is not limited to ‘agency action’ or ‘final agency action,’ as those terms are defined in the APA.”).
The federal defendants ask us to affirm the district court’s finding that it lacks jurisdiction on an alternative ground—that appellants lack standing to pursue their equitable claims because they “failed to demonstrate to the district court [that] there is a persistent pattern of police misconduct, and a substantial risk of imminent, irreparable harm without court intervention.” The federal defendants also urge us to find that they are entitled to summary judgment because plaintiffs fail to demonstrate a genuine issue of fact. The district court has not considered either of these issues, and we prefer that the issues be decided in the first instance by the district court. We therefore decline the invitation to address these issues in this proceeding.

CasCea: s3e:0: 91-2c-v4-40129865-DJZocuDmocen#t: 200561F1i1le9d1:661521/20/1F3ile1d0: 1o2f/120./2P01a3geIDP#a:g4e9:0160

No. 12-4419 Muniz-Muniz, et al. v. United States Border Patrol, et al.

Page 10

IV.
For the reasons set forth herein, we REVERSE the district court and REMAND the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

 
 Case: 3:09-cv-02865-JZ Doc #: 216 Filed: 05/28/14 1 of 2. PageID #: 4938

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION

Maria Muniz-Muniz, etc., et al.,
Plaintiffs,
-vs-
United States Border, Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security, et al.,
Defendants.

Case No. 3:09 CV 2865 O R D E R JUDGE JACK ZOUHARY

This Court held a record hearing on May 27, 2014 (Court reporter: Angela Nixon). Counsel present: John Murray, Leslie Murray, Michael Stewart, Mark Heller, and Eugenio Mollo, Jr. for Plaintiffs; William Silvis for the Federal Defendants. This Court heard argument and denied the remaining claims in the Federal Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 170). This Order supplements this Court’s ruling at the hearing.
The Federal Defendants argue Plaintiffs lack Article III standing to pursue their claims. During the hearing, Plaintiffs represented they will not be proceeding as a class with individual representatives and now only wish to proceed with Organizational Plaintiffs Ohio Immigrant Worker Project and the Farm Labor Organizing Committee for purposes of the instant proceedings. This Court finds the Organizational Plaintiffs have adequately pled standing on their own behalf and on behalf of its members. See Havens Realty Corp. v. Coleman, 455 U.S. 363, 378–79 (1982) (organizational standing); Hunt v. Wash. State Apple Adver. Comm’n, 432 U.S. 333, 343 (1977) (representational standing). The Federal Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss asserting the contrary is denied.

Case: 3:09-cv-02865-JZ Doc #: 216 Filed: 05/28/14 2 of 2. PageID #: 4939 During the hearing, Plaintiffs stipulated they are alleging only constitutional Bivens claims
against the Federal Defendants, not statutory claims premised on 8 U.S.C. § 1357. Therefore, the Federal Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ claims as not cognizable is denied.
Finding summary judgment premature at this juncture because discovery is incomplete, this Court also declines the Federal Defendants’ invitation to grant summary judgment on the record as it now stands.
Parties to exchange additional discovery. This Court will hold a Status Phone Conference on Monday, July 28, 2014 at 10:30 a.m. At that time, counsel are instructed to use the District Court conference line.
IT IS SO ORDERED. s/ Jack Zouhary
JACK ZOUHARY U. S. DISTRICT JUDGE May 28, 2014
2

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION

Farm Labor Organizing Committee, AFL-CIO and the Ohio Immigrant Worker Project,
Plaintiffs,

Case No. 3:09 CV 2865
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

-vs-

JUDGE JACK ZOUHARY

United States Border Patrol,

Defendant.

BACKGROUND Plaintiffs Ohio Immigrant Worker Project (“IWP”) and Farm Labor Organizing Committee (“FLOC”) allege Defendant United States Border Patrol, Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) maintains a policy, pattern and practice of targeting Hispanic individuals in conducting stops, detentions, interrogations and searches. Plaintiffs point to specific incidents of alleged racial profiling by the Sandusky Bay Detroit Sector (“SBY”) station, and seek declaratory and injunctive relief under the Fourth and Fifth Amendments. This Court held a bench trial in June 2015 and reviewed post-trial briefing (Docs. 243–44). Pursuant to Federal Civil Rule 52(a), this Court makes the following findings of facts based on the preponderance of the credible evidence presented at trial, as well as the pre- and post-trial filings.
FINDINGS OF FACT Ohio Immigrant Worker Project and Farm Labor Organizing Committee Plaintiffs are nonprofit membership organizations that advocate on behalf of migrant workers. Plaintiffs initiated this action on their own behalf, and on behalf of their members, to “challenge the institutional practice of profiling our people, perpetuating inequity, not allowing us to defend

ourselves, and advocate for full due process of all our people, whether they’re documented or not, and defend their labor rights, regardless of their status” (Doc. 236 at 121–22).
IWP was founded in 1998 with the mission to “walk in solidarity with the world’s immigrants and farm workers, empower them to take full . . . presence in both the economic, social and cultural level in the United States” (id. at 175–76). IWP has approximately 3,800 members in Ohio. Over eighty percent of its members are rural immigrants and farm workers, and eight-five to ninety percent of those members identify as Hispanic (id. at 178–79, 208). IWP has five principal areas of focus: leadership development, education, workplace rights, cultural celebrations, and immigration (id. at 180–82). IWP is funded through donations and grassroots fundraising from churches and foundations (id. at 176).
FLOC was founded in 1967 by Baldemar Velasquez and his father (id. at 115). FLOC’s mission is “to form and comprise a Union of people to work for the betterment of farm workers . . . and all other persons, regardless of race, color, citizenship, age, sex, creed, place of national origin, who for any reason have been excluded from full enjoyment of social, economic and political rights” (id. at 121–22; Ex. 110). All FLOC members identify as Hispanic, and are either of Mexican or Mexican-American heritage (Doc. 236 at 120).
United States Border Patrol, Customs and Border Protection CBP is a federal law enforcement agency created by regulation to execute border enforcement powers authorized by the Immigration and Nationality Act. CBP is primarily responsible for patrolling international border areas between Ports-of-Entry, including the 158-mile stretch between Ohio and Canada (Doc. 232 at 5). CBP’s mission is to gain operational control of the Nation’s border by: apprehending terrorist and terrorist weapons illegally entering the United States; deterring illegal entry through improved enforcement; detecting, apprehending and deterring smugglers of humans,
2

drugs and other contraband; and reducing crime in border communities and improving quality of life (Ex. 17 at 3–4; see Ex. 138 at 8). All CBP agents are required to speak Spanish and generally spend some period of time, after the academy, training on the southern border (Doc. 241 at 80; Ex. 17 at 10).
Following the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, CBP reassessed its strategy for protecting the northern border. In February 2009, CBP opened SBY to create a permanent CBP presence in northern Ohio (see Doc. 237 at 103–08; Ex. 21). SBY’s Primary Operational Domain, where the station patrols, stretches from the international line in the middle of Lake Erie south to the Ohio Turnpike, and from Lucas County east to Cuyahoga County (Doc. 237 at 9–10; Ex. 21 at 5–6; Ex. 23).
CBP agents generally encounter individuals in one of two ways: the agent makes direct contact with the individual during the agent’s patrol activities; or the agent’s encounter is precipitated by an earlier interaction between the individual and local law enforcement officers. In the second scenario, referred to as an “Other Agency (OA) Stop,” a third-party law enforcement agency, such as municipal police or highway patrol, stops an individual and requests CBP’s assistance at the scene (Doc. 237 at 117–18). Prior to November 2012, CBP responded to requests from other law enforcement agencies to translate for Spanish speaking suspects (Doc. 242 at 21–22). After that date, CBP adopted a policy that requests from other law enforcement organizations for CBP assistance “based solely on a need for language translation, absent any other circumstance” would be referred to an approved list of translation services (Ex. 134). At present, SBY provides translation assistance strictly relating to identification of a subject (Doc. 237 at 6; Doc. 242 at 21–22).
A CBP agent’s encounter with an individual generally begins as a “consensual encounter,” whereby an agent approaches an individual and initiates a non-threatening, “casual conversation.” The interaction is voluntary and the individual is free to walk away at any point (Doc. 237 at 13; Doc. 242 at 14). An “immigration inspection” occurs when a CBP agent asks about citizenship and lawful
3

right to be in the United States. An immigration inspection may be part of a consensual encounter so long as the person feels free to leave, or may be part of a stop (Doc. 237 at 13–15; Doc. 241 at 54; Doc. 242 at 14–15).
SBY has a policy of documenting all apprehensions, but not all consensual encounters or pedestrian stops (Doc. 237 at 54–55). An I-213, referred to as a Record of Deportable/Inadmissible Alien, is CBP’s form for documenting the arrest of a known or suspected alien without lawful status in the United States (see, e.g., Ex. 31). An I-213 is generated only when a stop leads to an arrest (Doc. 237 at 65). If a state law enforcement agency has previously apprehended and detained an individual, CBP will prepare an I-247, known as an immigration detainer, if CBP determines there is probable cause to believe the individual is removable (Doc. 232 at 7). CBP will prepare an I-44 to document an arrest or seizure where an individual or contraband is turned over to another agency (Doc. 237 at 84–85). If a stop or encounter does not result in an apprehension, detainer or seizure, but does involve a vehicle, CBP will document the stop in a Vehicle Stop Memorandum (see, e.g., Ex. 132).
SBY maintains a “Daily Apprehension Log,” which compiles information from SBY agents’ apprehension reports (I-213’s, I-44’s, etc.). The Apprehension Log catalogues the suspect’s name, gender, age, nationality, approximate location of the interaction (“Arrest Landmark”), and whether the individual was initially encountered by CBP itself (“PB” in the log) or another agency (“OA” in the log). As part of discovery in this action, Defendant produced Apprehension Logs from October 1, 2008 until June 17, 2014 (Exs. 25–27). The parties stipulate the Apprehensions Logs contain data on all apprehensions, but not all encounters, recorded by SBY during the relevant time period (see Doc. 232 at 9).
4

Individual CBP Encounters This Court heard testimony from nine Hispanic individuals regarding eight encounters with CBP agents. This Court also heard testimony from five of the agents involved in those encounters. Willian Bautista-Morales. Bautista, an IWP member, arrived in the United States in 2006 from Mexico (Doc. 236 at 27–28, 35; Ex. 1 at 3). Bautista is a native Spanish speaker and has limited ability speaking and understanding English (Doc. 236 at 45–46). Bautista testified regarding two interactions he had with CBP agents. Both encounters were OA Stops, where local or state police requested CBP’s assistance at the scene of a traffic accident. On May 21, 2010, Bautista received a phone call from a friend who had been in a car accident, asking Bautista to come to the accident site in Wakeman, Ohio. Bautista and two others drove to the accident site in a green Ford Explorer bearing Wisconsin license plates. They parked in the lot of a pizza restaurant located on the same street as the accident site. When Bautista exited his car, a highway patrol officer instructed him to wait behind his car and asked about his “documents” (id. at 29–32). Bautista presented a New Mexico driver’s license. The highway patrol officer was speaking in English; Bautista responded in Spanish with the assistance of a friend who was translating for him (id. at 61–62, 65–66). Highway patrol requested CBP assistance to translate and identify the subjects at the location (Ex. 1 at 2). Bautista waited approximately ninety minutes for CBP to arrive. He would have left had highway patrol not instructed him to stand behind his car (Doc. 236 at 29–32). When CBP Agent Matthew Rosenberg arrived, he reviewed Bautista’s identification and determined Bautista was illegally present in the United States. Rosenberg took Bautista into custody for further processing (id. at 34; Ex. 1). On June 17, 2014, Bautista was working for Corso’s Landscape and arrived at a BP gas station in Huron, Ohio, to mow the lawn. While Bautista was parking the Corso’s truck, another motorist
5

accused Bautista of hitting his car with the Corso’s truck. The driver called the Huron Police. A police officer arrived and asked for Bautista’s identification (Doc. 236 at 42–44). Bautista claimed to have a New Mexico driver’s license, but could not produce it. He eventually produced a digital image of his license, which was determined to be invalid, and a U.S. Customs and Immigration Employment Card authorizing him to work in the United States (Ex. 2 at 2). The police officer called CBP for assistance identifying Bautista and translating for him (Ex. 4 at 2–3). CBP Agents Bradley Shaver and Patrick Barron verified Bautista’s work permit (id. at 3; Doc. 238 at 166). The police officer issued Bautista a traffic citation for no operator’s license and, with Barron’s translation assistance, explained to Bautista he needed to obtain an Ohio driver’s license since he had established residence in Ohio (Ex. 2 at 2).
These were Bautista’s only encounters with CBP (Doc. 236 at 83). Bautista has been “affected morally” by his experiences with CBP. He feels intimidated when he sees a CBP agent and is less likely to travel (id. at 51–52).
Edson Perez-Perez. Perez-Perez, an IWP member, arrived in the United States from Mexico in 2013 (id. at 89; Ex. 4 at 4). Perez-Perez works at Corso’s Landscape and was with Bautista at the BP gas station on June 17, 2014. While Bautista was speaking with the Huron Police Officer, PerezPerez and another co-worker walked down the street to an ice cream shop to buy lunch and wait for Bautista (Doc. 236 at 90–91). From where Bautista was standing with the Huron police officer, he could see Perez-Perez at the ice cream shop (id. at 45).
When CBP Agents Bradley Shaver and Patrick Barron arrived at the gas station in response to the request from Huron Police to assist with Bautista, the police officer advised there had been two other subjects who walked away in an unknown direction (Doc. 238 at 166–67; Ex. 4 at 3). Shaver asked Bautista where his co-workers went and whether they were legally present in the United States.
6

Bautista said he did not know (Doc. 236 at 49–50). In Shaver’s experience, when there are multiple people at an accident scene and they learn from local police that CBP is coming and decide to leave, they are avoiding CBP because they are concerned they will be deported (Doc. 238 at 167–68, 192).
When the CBP agents left the BP station, they observed Perez-Perez and his co-worker at the ice cream stand (Ex. 4 at 3). Perez-Perez was wearing a Corso’s work uniform (id.; Doc. 236 at 80; Doc. 238 at 171). Shaver knew, based on his law enforcement experience, that Corso’s had a history of hiring undocumented workers (Doc. 238 at 172). Shaver approached Perez-Perez and his coworkers and initiated a consensual encounter in English, greeting them and asking if they had been involved in the gas station accident (Doc. 236 at 97; Doc. 238 at 171). Perez-Perez did not respond, so Shaver repeated the questions in Spanish. Perez-Perez acknowledged he had been with Bautista, at which point Shaver initiated an immigration inspection to identify them (Doc. 238 at 171–72). Perez-Perez presented his Mexican voter registration card (Doc. 236 at 95–96; Ex. 4 at 3). He admitted he was illegally present in the United States without any immigration documents permitting him to be in, remain in, or pass through the United States (Doc. 236 at 110; Ex. 4 at 3). Shaver arrested Perez-Perez (Ex. 4).
This was Perez-Perez’s only encounter with CBP (Doc. 236 at 101). Jose Montez-Ramirez. Ramirez is a United States citizen, and is not a member of either Plaintiff organization (Doc. 238 at 3, 18). On August 8, 2012, Ramirez was in Toledo, Ohio, driving his father’s 2001 Dodge Ram van with tinted windows (id. at 4, 16). Ramirez was on his way to Belle Tire when he stopped to pick up his sister and drop her off at their grandmother’s house (id. at 5–8). CBP Agent Thomas Payne was patrolling an area of North Toledo known for human trafficking when he observed Ramirez driving the van with his sister in the passenger seat. Based on Payne’s experience, seeing a young male driving such a large vehicle, particularly when there is a
7

young female passenger, fits the characteristics for sex servitude. Payne lost sight of the van, but saw it again near some trailers. The vehicle was driving away with the passenger door open (Doc. 241 at 101–02). The vehicle’s tinted side and rear windows made it difficult to see inside from a distance (Doc. 238 at 28–29). Payne lost sight of the van a second time, but spotted it again about fifteen minutes later. Payne eased behind the van and when Ramirez turned into a side street, Payne pulled behind him. The rear of the CBP cruiser was sticking out onto the main road, so Payne activated the cruiser’s back flashers to alert oncoming traffic that the cruiser was stopped (Doc. 241 at 103–04). Payne approached Ramirez, asked for his identification, and inquired where he was coming from and going to, where he attended school, and whether he was employed. Ramirez presented a valid driver’s license and was cooperative in answering questions. Payne never asked Ramirez any immigration questions, handed back his identification, and told him to “have a nice day” (id. at 103). Ramirez’s interaction with CBP was less than twenty-five minutes, and may have been closer to three to four minutes (id.; Doc. 238 at 10–11, 25).
This was Ramirez’s only encounter with CBP (Doc. 238 at 18). Isaias Sanchez-Montejo. Sanchez-Montejo arrived in the United States from Mexico in 2006 (Ex. 68 at 3). On June 28, 2012, Sanchez-Montejo was driving in Toledo, Ohio, with his brother in the passenger seat (Doc. 238 at 200–01). Sanchez-Montejo was driving a white Kia Optima sedan with a green driver’s side door. The car belonged to a friend and Sanchez-Montejo had attached license plates he found in his garage (id. at 199, 216). While stopped at an intersection, Sanchez-Montejo noticed a CBP patrol car stopped at the intersection, to his left (id. at 200). CBP Agents Thomas Payne and Jason Smith observed SanchezMontejo and his brother slump down in their seats and turn away (Doc. 241 at 86; Ex. 68 at 2). CBP ran a registration check on the car and determined it was a “hot-plated vehicle” -- the license plate did
8

not match the make and model of the vehicle (Doc. 241 at 87, 90; Ex. 68 at 2). Based on his law enforcement training, Payne knew that observing a subject slumping in a car seat may be “an indicator that possibly something . . . could be going on, because the general public typically does not do that” (Doc. 241 at 89). Payne also thought the car, the license plates, or both might be stolen, and knew from his experience that hot-plated vehicles are often used for smuggling (id. at 89–90).
Sanchez-Montejo pulled into a 7-Eleven gas station to purchase gas and to see if CBP would follow (Doc. 238 at 224). Payne did follow, and parked on the opposite side of the gas pump; the CBP cruiser did not block Sanchez-Montejo’s vehicle (Doc. 241 at 91). When Sanchez-Montejo went into the 7-Eleven to pay for gas, Smith approached Sanchez-Montejo’s brother who remained in the car (Doc. 238 at 203; Ex. 68 at 2). Sanchez-Montejo’s brother was cooperative and admitted he was illegally present in the United States (Doc. 241 at 95–96; Ex. 68 at 2).
Sanchez-Montejo exited the 7-Eleven and began pumping gas. Payne approached SanchezMontejo and initiated a consensual encounter, asking questions about the vehicle and where SanchezMontejo was going. Sanchez-Montejo told Payne the car belonged to a friend and he was driving his brother to work (Doc. 238 at 204; Ex. 68 at 2). Sanchez-Montejo quickly became argumentative and uncooperative, questioning Payne’s motives and refusing to answer his questions (Doc. 238 at 205–06; Doc. 241 at 92–93). Payne was standing behind Sanchez-Montejo’s car, five to six feet away from him. At some point in the conversation, Sanchez-Montejo tried to get into his car to leave and Payne placed his hand on the car door to prevent Sanchez-Montejo from driving away. Payne asked Sanchez-Montejo for identification and Sanchez-Montejo presented a Mexican voter registration card (Doc. 238 at 204–08; Doc. 241 at 94). Sanchez-Montejo admitted to being present in the United States illegally. The agents took Sanchez-Montejo and his brother into custody for further processing (Ex. 68 at 2).
9

This was Sanchez-Montejo’s only encounter with CBP (Doc. 238 at 219). Rosa Carrillo-Vasquez and Rocio Anani Saucedo-Carrillo.1 Carrillo-Vasquez and SaucedoCarrillo are mother and daughter who legally entered the United States from Mexico in January 2001 on six-month visitor visas (Ex. 63 at 3; Ex. 64 at 3; Doc. 239 at 20–21). Carrillo-Vasquez and Saucedo-Carrillo are both IWP members (Doc. 239 at 4, 114). On September 13, 2009, CBP Agent Bradley Shaver observed an old model, blue Chevrolet pickup truck parked at a gas station in Norwalk, Ohio. The rear windows were tinted and had two silver scorpion decals with the words “Durango Durango.” The truck had flares on each side, blocking the view of the undercarriage, and vanity Ohio license plates with the name “Anani” (Saucedo-Carrillo’s middle name) (Doc. 238 at 159–60, 178; Doc. 239 at 16, 50; Ex. 63 at 3; Ex. 64 at 3). Shaver knew from his experience as a law enforcement officer that Durango is a state in Mexico known for cross-border drug trafficking, and scorpions are one of the logos used by drugtrafficking organizations.2 He also knew smugglers often used flares to hide narcotics in vehicles. With that knowledge, and given that the truck was near an area of the Ohio Turnpike known as a drug corridor, Shaver thought the vehicle might be involved in narcotics smuggling and pulled into the gas station parking lot to investigate further. Shaver’s vehicle was between the food mart and the front of the truck, but was not blocking the truck from leaving. Without knowing who was driving the truck, Shaver decided he wanted to speak with the driver (Doc. 238 at 161, 175, 189).
1 This Court previously analyzed this encounter in a related action, Saucedo-Carrillo v. United States, 983 F. Supp. 2d 917 (N.D. Ohio 2013), aff’d 2015 WL 4773258, and granted Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment. 2 Carrillo-Vasquez and Saucedo-Carrillo offer a benign explanation for the decals, explaining scorpions are a symbol of Durango, like the Buckeyes are to Ohio (Doc. 239 at 16, 51).
10

Shaver observed Carrillo-Vasquez seated in the passenger seat and Saucedo-Carrillo pumping gas. Shaver approached the vehicle and, standing on the far side of the car, initiated a consensual encounter with Saucedo-Carrillo by asking if she owned the vehicle. Saucedo-Carrillo replied she owned the car but could not register it in her name, which made Shaver curious (id. at 178). SaucedoCarrillo told Shaver she was originally from Mexico, was not a naturalized citizen, did not have a permanent resident card, and that she and her mother entered the United States in 2001 on ten-year visas (id. at 179; Ex. 64 at 3). Shaver walked around the truck to speak with Carrillo-Vasquez, who remained seated in the vehicle. Carrillo-Vasquez similarly explained she was from Durango, Mexico, and had entered the United States in 2001 on a ten-year visa. Shaver asked Carrillo-Vasquez for photo identification, which she did not have (Doc. 239 at 17–20). Although Shaver did not require Carrillo-Vasquez to answer questions, she felt she was not free to leave (id. at 18–19).
Suspecting the women had overstayed their visas, Shaver contacted Detroit Sector Dispatch for a records check based on their names and dates of birth. Prior to receiving a response, the women admitted they entered the United States on six-month visas and had knowingly overstayed their visas. Shaver arrested them and transported them to SBY for processing (Ex. 63 at 3; Ex. 64 at 3).
This was Carrillo-Vasquez’s and Saucedo-Carrillo’s only encounter with CBP (Doc. 239 at 26, 55). As a result of her interaction with CBP, Saucedo-Carrillo avoids rest areas in the Sandusky area. She used to take the Route 80 toll road when she would drive her father to Toledo for dialysis treatments. Although the toll road is the fastest route, she takes an alternate path to avoid seeing CBP agents (id. at 47, 52–53).
Rolando Aboytes-Bermudez. Aboytes, an IWP member, entered the United States from Mexico in 2007 on a work visa and began work as a landscaper (Doc. 240 at 3, 12).
11

On March 12, 2013, Aboytes and four Hispanic, male friends were returning to Cleveland after a trip to Chicago to renew their Illinois driver’s licenses. Aboytes believed he could not obtain an Ohio driver’s license because of his immigration status. The men were traveling in a black Infiniti sport utility vehicle with Ohio temporary tags. The group stopped at a rest area in Vermilion, Ohio, to use the restrooms (id. at 4–5; Ex. 70 at 3).
Agents Santiago Mateo-Deleon and Alexander Chavez were patrolling the rest area, looking generally for suspicious vehicles potentially involved in human smuggling (Doc. 241 at 23–24). The Agents exited the restroom and passed one of the men, with three of the others immediately behind him (id. at 27; Doc. 240 at 6). The Agents perceived the men became uncomfortable in their presence -- they stopped speaking, failed to make eye contact with the Agents, mumbled a greeting to the Agents, and hastened to walk away (Doc. 241 at 27, 52–53). Based on their law enforcement experience, the Agents knew that sometimes smugglers transporting large groups of people will only permit small groups to take restroom breaks so as not to raise suspicion (Ex. 70 at 2–3). Chavez observed five or six vehicles in the parking lot and walked around each one. The black Infiniti SUV caught his attention because of its size, tinted windows, and temporary tags (Doc. 241 at 24–28). Chavez knew, based on his experience, that it is common for alien smuggling organizations to steal vehicles and replace the vehicle’s tags to avoid detection (Ex. 70 at 3). He peered into the vehicle with his flashlight and noticed it did not contain any luggage or baggage (Doc. 241 at 28).
Mateo initiated a consensual encounter with one of the individuals, who turned out to be the driver of the SUV. When Aboytes returned to the car, the agents instructed him to stand behind the vehicle. The agents asked each man where he was coming from and going to, and if he had permission to be in the United States. Aboytes did not feel he could walk away while being questioned. Aboytes presented his new Illinois driver’s license, U.S. Social Security card and
12

Mexican passport (Doc. 240 at 9–11). The men were vague as to their status in the United States, with some telling Chavez they had pending immigration petitions, and/or that a change in their status was in process. Chavez contacted Detroit Sector Dispatch and requested immigration and criminal warrants record checks. Mateo requested a vehicle registration check on the Ohio temporary tag. Dispatch relayed to Mateo that all the individuals except for the driver were in the country illegally after overstaying their time of admission to the United States. Mateo placed the three individuals under arrest (Ex. 70 at 3–5).
Before leaving, one of the men told Chavez there was a fifth friend traveling with them who was missing (Doc. 241 at 28–29). The driver consented to Chavez searching the vehicle, and Chavez found the fifth man “sitting down in the third row seat of the SUV” “hiding underneath the last seat of the SUV” (Ex. 70 at 3–4; Doc. 241 at 29). Aboytes testified the man “wasn’t hiding” but rather “was sleeping” (Doc. 240 at 22). The fifth individual told Mateo he was a Mexican citizen and presented a Mexican passport and a new Illinois driver’s license. After a check with Dispatch, the Agents determined the subject was in the country illegally and took him into custody with the others.
This was Aboytes’ only encounter with CBP. Though he has seen CBP agents on prior occasions, the agents never approached him (id. at 19). As a result of his interaction with CBP, Aboytes avoids Ohio rest areas out of “fear of being discriminated against because of [his] Hispanic appearance” (id. at 14).
Maria Martinez-Castro and Julio Basaldua-Nueva. Martinez entered the United States from Mexico in approximately 2001 (Ex. 72 at 3). Basaldua, Martinez’s husband, entered the United States from Mexico in 2004 (Ex. 73 at 3).
On February 23, 2011, Martinez was driving home from work with Basaldua and three other Hispanics, when a Wakeman police officer pulled her over for speeding. Martinez does not speak or
13

understand English. She did not have a valid driver’s license, did not have any form of identification, could not produce registration documents for the vehicle (which belonged to a friend), and provided the officer an incorrect name and date of birth. None of the other passengers spoke English or had identification (Doc. 240 at 41, 76–78, 109, 134). The police officer requested CBP assistance to identify the passengers and translate (Exs. 71–73). The police officer issued Martinez a citation and told her to wait for CBP. Martinez and Basaldua would have left had the police officer not told her to stay (Doc. 240 at 52–54, 92).
After approximately thirty minutes, Agent Matthew Richardson arrived (Ex. 73 at 2). After speaking with the police officer, Richardson approached Martinez and initiated an immigration inspection based on Martinez providing false information and because there were five individuals in the vehicle with no identification. Richardson first asked Martinez for her name, and then repeatedly asked for her country of origin. Martinez responded only that she was from Norwalk, Ohio (Doc. 240 at 41, 55–57, 79–80, 134–35). She refused to tell him where she was born “out of intuition” (id. at 80).
Richardson next spoke with the man in the rear passenger side of the vehicle, who admitted to being illegally present in the United States. Richardson asked him to get out of the car, and placed him under arrest (id. at 43, 59, 135–36). Richardson then approached Rafael Fuentes-Valdez, also seated in the rear of the car, who similarly refused to answer questions and did not have any identification. Richardson then decided to take all the passengers to the CBP station for further investigation and radioed for additional CBP assistance (id. at 136–37).
Richardson opened the passenger-side front door where Basaldua was seated and asked him to step out of the car and present identification (id. at 93–94). He pushed Basaldua against the side of the car face-first, and handcuffed his arms behind his back. He repeatedly asked Basaldua for his
14

country of origin, but Basaldua responded only that he was from Norwalk, Ohio. Richardson removed Basaldua’s wallet from his pocket and located a Mexican voter registration card, at which point Basaldua admitted he was unlawfully present in the United States (id. at 82–83, 94–95, 100, 108, 136).
Agent Adam Morgan arrived at the scene to assist. Morgan and Richardson removed each of the five passengers from the vehicle, handcuffed them, escorted them to their patrol cars, and transported them to SBY for investigation and processing (id. at 58–60, 137–39). This was Martinez’s and Basaldua’s only encounter with CBP (id. at 75, 110).
Expert Testimony Dr. Kara Joyner. Plaintiffs presented the testimony of Kara Joyner, a Professor of Sociology at Bowling Green State University. Joyner has a B.A., M.A., and Ph.D. in Sociology. For six years, she served as Associate Director of the Center for Family and Demographic Research, and now teaches undergraduate and graduate level courses in statistics and demographic techniques (Doc. 238 at 30–31). Plaintiffs did not move to certify Joyner as an expert in any field, and this Court admitted Joyner’s reports over Defendant’s objection (Doc. 239 at 80–83). Joyner’s honors, academic appointments and publications, qualify her as an expert in statistics (see Ex. 76 at 51–66). Joyner prepared three reports analyzing SBY’s Apprehension Logs (Exs. 74, 76, 99). The Apprehension Logs document 2,857 apprehensions between October 1, 2008 and June 17, 2014 (Doc. 238 at 40; Ex. 76 at 4). Joyner compared the nationality of individuals detained by SBY agents, as reflected on the Apprehension Logs, to a series of “benchmarks” based on publicly available population estimates and data concerning apprehensions at other CBP locations throughout the country.
15

Based on her analysis, Joyner concluded that Hispanic and Mexican representation in the SBY Apprehension Log is “high both in absolute and relative terms” (Ex. 76 at 17), and that in most years, the percent of SBY apprehensions involving a person of Hispanic national origin exceeds 90 percent (id. at 5, 23–24). According to 2012 population estimates based on census data, Ohio’s foreign-born population is 18.4 percent Hispanic and 11 percent Mexican (id. at 7). For the same year, the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) and Pew Research Center estimated Ohio’s unauthorized population at 34 percent Mexican (Ex. 101 at 8). Although SBY’s jurisdictional population includes a smaller percentage of Hispanic and Mexican individuals than the United States as a whole, Hispanic and Mexican representation in the SBY log resembles the national CBP apprehension log, and more closely resembles CBP stations on the southern border than stations in northern sectors (Ex. 77 at 2; Ex. 76).
Joyner calculated a “disproportionality index” of the Hispanic and Mexican representation in the SBY Apprehension Log compared to the benchmark population of Ohio’s foreign-born Hispanic and Mexican populations (Doc. 238 at 46–47; Ex. 101 at 6). She concluded that compared to Ohio’s overall foreign-born population, individuals from Hispanic countries are 5.8 to 7 times more likely to be apprehended by SBY agents, and Mexicans are 5.7 to 8.1 times more likely to be apprehended (Ex. 76 at 8; Doc. 238 at 44–47). Compared to Ohio’s unauthorized population, Mexicans are overrepresented by factors of 2.6 to 3 (Ex. 76 at 9). It is Joyner’s “professional opinion that the overrepresentation of Hispanics in the SBY log must be a consequence of targeting on the basis of Hispanic appearance” (id. at 17 (emphasis added); Doc. 238 at 43, 103–05).
Dr. Brian Withrow. Defendant offered the testimony of Brian Withrow, who presented a critical analysis of Joyner’s report (Ex. 78). Withrow is an Associate Professor of Criminal Justice and Graduate Director at Texas State University–San Marcos. He is also Principal of Atticus
16

Analytics, a consulting firm for criminal justice agencies (Doc. 240 at 147; see also Ex. 78 at 55). Withrow has a B.A. in Criminal Justice, an M.A. in Public Administration, and a Ph.D. in Criminal Justice. He worked twelve years with the Texas Department of Public Safety, starting as a trooper in the Traffic Law Enforcement Division and rising through the ranks to Bureau Manager of the Crime Records Division (Ex. 78 at 3–4). With no objection from Plaintiffs, this Court accepts Withrow as an expert in racial profiling, police systems and practices, and social research methods (Doc. 240 at 152).
Withrow agrees with Joyner’s mathematical computations, but highlights issues with the assumptions she makes, calling into question the general reliability of her statistical analysis. The numerator in Joyner’s disproportionality index calculation is based on the SBY Apprehension Log, which contains only those individuals arrested after SBY agents made a finding of probable cause. The Apprehension Log does not include information on non-arrest stops (Doc. 238 at 43–44). To determine whether SBY agents were treating Hispanics differently than other groups, Joyner would have had to look at the entire population of individuals SBY agents encounter -- not just those apprehended -- and evaluate how all individuals are treated. By using the Apprehension Log, Joyner’s analysis measured SBY agents’ activities at the wrong point in time (see Doc. 240 at 174–76). Joyner also did not account for OA Stops in the Apprehension Log, which she acknowledged cannot be based on agents’ racial profiling considering CBP does not initiate the encounter (Doc. 238 at 119–21).
Joyner’s method of determining the benchmark population, the denominator in the disproportionality index, is also unreliable. First, Withrow explained it is “exceedingly difficult” to measure foreign-born and unauthorized populations, and the Census Bureau routinely undercounts them (Doc. 240 at 167). Second, Joyner took national estimates and reduced them to the relatively small geographic area of SBY’s jurisdiction -- Northern Ohio. As Withrow explains, “the potential
17

for having error in the sample is very high when you drill it down to a small geographic area” (id. at 168–71; Doc. 241 at 10–11). Third, Joyner’s benchmarks rely on three key assumptions: (1) Hispanic and Mexican representation in SBY’s jurisdiction matches their representation in Ohio; (2) Hispanic and Mexican representation is similar among unauthorized populations traveling throughout Ohio; and (3) unauthorized Hispanics and Mexican citizens do not differ from unauthorized persons of other national origins with respect to traffic violations (Doc. 241 at 6–7). In Withrow’s opinion, those assumptions are “purely guesses on her part,” unsupported by any scientific bases because “we do not have a solid sense of what the population is” (id. at 7). And even assuming Joyner’s analysis is not flawed, there is no scientifically recognized standard for determining whether overrepresentation at a certain level is due to racial profiling (id. at 5; Ex. 78 at 17). Fourth, and perhaps most importantly, Joyner’s analysis fails to consider reasonable alternatives, such as “the impact of enforcement aggressiveness on overall productivity” (Ex. 78 at 13). Specifically, from 2008 to 2011, SBY “increased its patrol strength from approximately eight to more than fifty agents” (id.). This more than five-fold increase in patrol strength legitimately resulted in an increase in immigration detainments and deportations from the northern Ohio area (see id. at 12–13; Doc. 240 at 161–63, 173).
Finally, Joyner’s ultimate conclusion that SBY agents “must” be targeting individuals for stops based on their “Hispanic appearance” is unsupported by her methodology. As Withrow explained, Joyner assumes, without any support, that the agents “knew the ethnicity of the individual arrested prior to initiating the enforcement action” (Doc. 240 at 160). This Court finds it troubling that Joyner admitted she was speculating in forming her conclusion and “making a little bit of a jump” (Doc. 238 at 104–05). Joyner conceded she did not have any data concerning the appearances of the individuals included in the Apprehension Log and could only testify that a “Hispanic appearance” is “something like are they speaking Spanish, because that can be part of it” (id. at 104). This Court does not need,
18

but appreciates witness testimony that nationality does not determine ethnicity and that individuals documented as being from a Hispanic country of origin do not all look the same (see Doc. 236 at 164–65; Doc. 239 at 29–30; Doc. 240 at 178). This glaring error in Joyner’s ultimate conclusion taints her testimony and makes her analysis unreliable.
This Court finds Withrow a more reliable expert than Joyner. While Joyner has a sophisticated understanding of statistics, she presented a limited understanding of the practical implications of her analysis. Withrow demonstrated a deeper understanding of the real-world meaning of Joyner’s analysis and identified serious flaws in her methodology.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Standing Defendant argues Plaintiffs lack standing to sue under the circumstances of this case. Plaintiffs assert two distinct theories of standing: standing to sue on their own behalf for alleged injuries to their organizations, and standing to sue on behalf of their members (Doc. 232 at 12–13). To prove Article III standing, Plaintiffs must allege: (1) an injury in fact; (2) a causal connection between the injury and the challenged conduct that is fairly traceable to CBP’s actions; and (3) that the requested relief will redress the injury. Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560–61 (1992). A drain on an organization’s resources constitutes a “concrete and demonstrable injury for standing purposes.” Miami Valley Fair Hous. Ctr., Inc. v. Connor Grp., 725 F.3d 571, 576 (6th Cir. 2013) (citing Havens Realty Corp. v. Coleman, 455 U.S. 363, 372 (1982)). At a minimum, Plaintiffs have established standing to sue on their own behalf by demonstrating they have diverted resources to counteract CBP enforcement activities. Jeff Stewart, IWP Coordinator, testified on behalf of the organization. Prior to 2009, the IWP allocated twenty-five to thirty percent of its resources to immigration issues. After SBY opened in 2009, as members
19

reported an increase in CBP encounters based on perceived racial profiling and stricter enforcement of immigration laws, IWP increased its focus on immigration issues. IWP now allocates approximately seventy to seventy-five percent of its time to immigration issues, to the detriment of the organization’s other programs (Doc. 236 at 183–84). IWP spent $3,000–$7,000 each year since 2009 on legal fees to preserve the rights of undocumented workers (id. at 186–87, 197–98; see also Ex. 104 at 5–7; Ex. 106 at 6). IWP also incurs costs in accepting collect calls from individuals detained by CBP on civil immigration matters (Ex. 106 at 6; Doc. 236 at 193).
Similarly, FLOC President Velasquez testified that shortly after SBY opened in 2009, FLOC instituted a system for responding to members’ inquiries and concerns regarding immigration issues (Doc. 236 at 124–29). FLOC investigates members’ complaints regarding improper CBP tactics, which includes traveling to locations where CBP agents are alleged to be targeting Hispanics (id. at 150–51). Since 2009, FLOC has suffered a decline in its Ohio membership from 2,500 members to just over 1,000 members, which corresponds to a decline in revenue (id. at 131). In response to members’ fears of encountering CBP while traveling through Ohio, FLOC hired charter buses to transport members to its 2009 convention in Toledo (id. at 147–48; Ex. 9).
Plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged an injury in fact. Their claims against Defendant are based on their organizational interests, which have been negatively affected by CBP’s increased enforcement. CBP’s alleged constitutional violations prevent Plaintiffs from performing the full extent of their daily operations. See American Canoe Ass’n, Inc. v. City of Louisa Water & Sewer Com’n, 389 F.3d 536, 546–47 (6th Cir. 2004).
20

Fifth Amendment “Racial Profiling” Claims Plaintiffs allege SBY agents violate Hispanic individuals’ Fifth Amendment3 rights to due
process and equal protection of the law by discriminating against them on the basis of their race (see
Doc. 143 at ¶¶ 264–66 (Due Process Claim); ¶¶ 267–69 (Equal Protection Claim)). These distinct
claims in the Complaint reduce to a general allegation that SBY agents are engaged in a pattern of
racial profiling against Hispanics. In analyzing Plaintiffs’ claims, this Court employs the definition
of “racial profiling” adopted by DHS: racial profiling is “the invidious use of race or ethnicity as a
criterion in conducting stops, searches and other law enforcement activities. It is premised on the
erroneous assumption that any particular individual of one race or ethnicity is more likely to engage
in misconduct than any particular individual of another race or ethnicity” (Exs. 126, 130).
“The liberty protected by the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause contains within it the
prohibition against denying to any person the equal protection of the laws.” United States v. Windsor,
133 S. Ct. 2675, 2695 (2013) (citing Bolling v. Sharpe, 347 U.S. 497, 499–500 (1954)). Law
enforcement officers cannot select individuals for investigation solely on the basis of race or ethnic
origin, regardless of whether the treatment is pursuant to a lawful investigation, detention, or arrest.
See Farm Labor Org. Comm. v. Ohio State Hwy. Patrol, 308 F.3d 523, 533 (6th Cir. 2002). To prove
a Fifth Amendment violation, Plaintiffs must demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that
SBY maintains a policy or custom that had a discriminatory effect on Hispanics, and was motivated
3 Although some of the cited cases construe the Fourteenth Amendment, those cases are authoritative when adjudicating a Fifth Amendment claim. See United States v. Stewart, 306 F.3d 295, 308 n.2 (6th Cir. 2002) (noting the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments are “analogous”); Medical Mut. v. deSoto, 245 F.3d 561, 575 (6th Cir. 2001) (“[T]he language and policies behind the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment are essentially the same as those behind the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.”); Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 93 (1976) (“Equal protection analysis in the Fifth Amendment area is the same as that under the Fourteenth Amendment.”).
21

by a discriminatory purpose. See Bennett v. City of Eastpointe, 410 F.3d 810, 818 (6th Cir. 2005); United States v. Avery, 137 F.3d 343, 356 (6th Cir. 1997) (“a factually supported record of the selection for interview because of race, [or] a general practice or pattern that primarily targeted minorities for consensual interviews . . . would have given rise to due process and equal protection constitutional implications cognizable by this court”) (internal quotation omitted). Plaintiffs contend that “a combination of statistical evidence, [anecdotal] evidence presented by the individual witnesses and the racially charged language utilized by SBY agents themselves establishes that the [CBP’s] enforcement activity had a discriminatory effect and that it was motivated by a discriminatory purpose” (Doc. 232 at 13) (internal quotation omitted).
Anecdotal Testimony. The eight CBP encounters (discussed above) fail to show that CBP has a practice of racially profiling Hispanics. Three of the encounters were OA Stops. Both of Bautista’s interactions with CBP were the result of local law enforcement requesting CBP assistance at the scene of a traffic accident to identify Bautista and translate. Martinez was stopped by local police for speeding, and there is no evidence the officer was profiling her, Basaldua, or any of the other occupants of her vehicle when they requested CBP assistance.
Immigration agents are required to respond to requests by state officials for verification of a person’s citizenship or immigration status. 8 U.S.C. § 1373©; see also Arizona v. United States, 132 S. Ct. 2492, 2508 (2012) (recognizing that “[c]onsultation between federal and state officials is an important feature of the immigration system”). Plaintiffs have not shown SBY maintains a policy or custom of only responding to OA calls involving Hispanic motorists. CBP agents testified that when dispatched to assist local police, they generally do not know the reason local law enforcement is requesting assistance (see Doc. 241 at 78–79) (“Generally there’s not a whole lot of information that . . . we have at that time”). Joyner admitted she should have excluded data regarding OA Stops from
22

her analysis because, in those encounters, CBP agents are not deciding who to stop (Doc. 238 at

118–23).

Nor does the testimony regarding the other five CBP encounters support Plaintiffs’ claim.

Consensual encounters may violate the Equal Protection Clause when they are initiated solely based

on racial considerations. United States v. Travis, 62 F.3d 170, 173–74 (6th Cir. 1995) (discussing

United States v. Jennings, 985 F.2d 562 (6th Cir. 1993)). However, the evidence demonstrates the

apprehending agents initiated these encounters based on factors unrelated to racial or ethnic

appearances.

•

Agent Shaver began a consensual encounter with Perez-Perez based on information

Perez-Perez fled the scene of a traffic accident when he learned CBP had been called to assist (Doc.

238 at 166–68, 192). Perez-Perez’s behavior, not his race, caused Agent Shaver to investigate.

•

Montez-Ramirez assumes, without support, that Agent Payne stopped him because he

saw his skin color and recognized him to be Mexican (id. at 22, 277–78). Payne investigated Montez-

Ramirez based on his initial observation that a male was driving a female passenger in a large van

with tinted windows in an area known for human trafficking. He further observed the van driving

away from an area with trailers with the passenger door open (Doc. 241 at 101–04). Montez-

Ramirez’s race was not a factor in Agent Payne’s decision to investigate.

•

Agent Payne began his investigation of Sanchez-Montejo because of the condition of

the vehicle, not because of the passengers’ Hispanic appearance. While Sanchez-Montejo testified

he “exchanged eye contact” with the agents at the intersection, he acknowledges he was wearing

sunglasses and Payne testified he could not see what the passengers looked like because they slumped

down in their seats and turned their bodies away from him (Doc. 238 at 199–200; Doc. 241 at 86).

23

Payne initiated the consensual encounter with Sanchez-Montejo only after confirming the vehicle was

hot-plated, which in his experience suggested it was involved in criminal activity.

•

Agent Shaver observed Saucedo-Carrillo’s truck at the gas station and decided he

wanted to speak with the driver, without knowing if it was anyone of Hispanic nationality, because

of the type of vehicle, the tinted windows, and the “Durango Durango” decals (Doc. 238 at 161, 175,

189).

•

Agent Chavez did not investigate Aboytes and his friends based on their Hispanic

appearance. He first noticed their suspicious behavior when he passed them near the restroom, and

later connected them to the large SUV that caught his attention because of its size, tinted windows,

temporary tags, emptiness, and location near a route known for smuggling (Doc. 241 at 27–28).

Statistical Evidence. Even if the facts presented are sufficient to infer a discriminatory intent,

Plaintiffs do not provide evidence of discriminatory effect through Joyner’s analysis of SBY

Apprehension Logs. Although statistical analysis could be considered as evidence of discrimination,

“[o]nly in rare cases will a statistical pattern of discriminatory impact conclusively demonstrate a

constitutional violation.” Avery, 137 F.3d at 357 (affirming district court’s rejection of statistics to

prove discrimination). Courts are generally cautious to rely on statistical evidence to show

discriminatory purpose. See United States v. Alcaraz-Arellano, 302 F. Supp. 2d 1217, 1233–34

(D. Kan. 2004) (finding racial profiling study was not relevant or reliable), aff’d 441 F.3d 1252 (10th

Cir. 2006).

As explained above, there are numerous problems with Joyner’s analysis, and Withrow’s

criticism is well supported and well taken. Joyner incorrectly assumes the rules of probability apply

to the manner in which CBP agents select individuals for enforcement. As Withrow explains, CBP

does not select individuals randomly and not all people within an enforcement area are equally likely 24

to be selected for enforcement (Ex. 78 at 19). Joyner claims there is a causal link between ethnic bias by SBY agents and over-representation of Hispanics within the Apprehension Log. But, “proving racial profiling is more complicated than mere ratio comparisons;” a causal relationship must be established, and the cause must precede the effect while eliminating alternative explanations (id. at 16; see also Doc. 240 at 160) (“If you’re going to allege that ethnicity is the cause of the arrest, then you must establish that the officer knew the ethnicity of the individual arrested prior to initiating the enforcement action”). In Withrow’s opinion, “it would seem logical [that] a law enforcement agency tasked with the duty to apprehend unauthorized immigrants would report arresting a large number of individuals from the ethnic group representing the largest proportion of unauthorized immigrants” (Ex. 78 at 20). By relying only on the Apprehension Log, which includes OA Stops and does not include data regarding consensual encounters and other SBY enforcement actions, Joyner’s analysis produces an “incomplete and misleading measure” of SBY’s performance (id.). See Travis, 62 F.3d at 175–76 (discounting statistical analysis of “incident reports” compiled by law enforcement officers as “not a reliable basis for an inference of discrimination” where reports do not include all consensual encounters).
SBY Record Keeping. Plaintiffs argue SBY’s failure to record consensual encounters and the “woefully inadequate records of its enforcement activities” is part of the problem (see Doc. 243 at 17). Yet Joyner could have collected that data through field observations, interviews, or other methods. And as Defendant points out, “[i]t may well be that agencies like the Border Patrol would be better able to defend racial profiling allegations if they recorded more data, but that is [a] decision that the Executive Branch, vis-à-vis DHS-CBP, must be allowed to make given their own limited resources” (Doc. 244 at 17 n.6). The absence of data regarding the full extent of SBY’s enforcement activities is not affirmative evidence of racial profiling.
25

Use of Term “Wetback.” Plaintiffs introduced internal e-mail communications between CBP agents using the term “wet” or referring to Hispanic individuals as “wetbacks” as evidence of a culture of racial animus at SBY. Historically, the term “wetback” referred to people crossing the Rio Grande River from Mexico into the United States (Doc. 237 at 160). The parties dispute whether the term is an ethnic slur for Hispanics, a derogatory description of an undocumented alien regardless of race or national origin, or both (see id. at 33–34 (Bammer testified “wet” was used on the southern border to refer “to an illegal status . . . it was universal as far as . . . what nationality, didn’t refer to a specific culture or country of origin”); Doc. 241 at 35–36 (Chavez testified “wet” refers to “someone that is in the country illegally . . . of any ethnicity”)). Either way, CBP concedes it has a negative connotation, and that directives prohibiting its use (see Exs. 96–97) should have been followed.
However, the occasional use of the word is insufficient to support a conclusion of racial profiling. Carrillo-Vasquez is the only motorist to testify a CBP agent used the term “wet” in speaking with her, asking if she “knew where more wets worked” (Doc. 239 at 12). Bautista and Martinez each overheard an agent use the term “wet,” but it was not specially directed at them (see Doc. 236 at 40; Doc. 240 at 64). Three motorists testified to isolated incidents of post-arrest mistreatment by CBP agents: agents yelled at Martinez and spoke to her in a rude manner (Doc. 240 at 63); agents escorted Carrillo-Vasquez to a bathroom where there was a dog and a male agent outside the stall (Doc. 239 at 35); Sanchez-Montejo was detained at the SBY station for eleven hours without food (Doc. 238 at 742). And yet, most of the motorists acknowledge the officers were polite and did not use any ethnic or racial slurs (Doc. 236 at 110 (Perez-Perez); Doc. 238 at 12–13 (Ramirez); Doc. 238 at 221 (Sanchez-Montejo); Doc. 239 at 28 (Carrillo-Vasquez); Doc. 240 at 19–20 (Aboytes); Doc. 240 at 70–71 (Martinez)). The few times the term appears in what presumably were hundreds or thousands of emails exchanged in discovery (see, e.g., Exs. 10–13, 55–56) represent
26

isolated instances of poor judgment and do not substantiate Plaintiffs’ claim of a culture of racial animus at SBY. Multiple witnesses testified CBP strictly enforces its prohibition of the phrase, it is “no longer part of the Border Patrol culture,” and agents who had used the term have been counseled by supervisors not to use the term (Doc. 237 at 32–33; Doc. 241 at 40–41; Doc. 242 at 23). To the extent it was used at some point in time, its use is not “so permanent and well settled as to constitute a custom or usage with the force of law.” Doe v. Claiborne County, Tenn., 103 F.3d 495, 507–08 (6th Cir. 1996).
CBP Training Procedures. Plaintiffs argued at trial there “is a completely absent effort [at SBY] to train people to avoid racial profiling” (Doc. 240 at 119). But the evidence at trial presented that agents received racial profiling training, as well as training on protocol for stops and seizures (see, e.g., Doc. 241 at 82–83). Mario Martinez, Chief of the Detroit Sector, does not tolerate racial profiling and would not permit any agent to initiate a consensual encounter based solely on a person’s race (Doc. 242 at 10–12, 15). DHS, of which CBP is part, has adopted the Department of Justice’s “Guidance Regarding the Use of Race by Federal Law Enforcement Agencies,” issued in June 2003. That policy “prohibit[s] the consideration of race or ethnicity in our daily law enforcement activities in all but the most exceptional instances, as defined in the DOJ Guidance,” and permits personnel to “use race or ethnicity only when a compelling governmental interest is present” (Ex. 125; see also Exs. 126–28).
Plaintiffs failed to establish a policy or practice by CBP agents of constitutional violations. The evidence presented, at best, a handful of distasteful incidents. But that certainly does not rise to the level necessary for this Court to impose equitable relief on CBP and to assume the role of monitoring. Each of the individual witnesses testified these were the only encounters they have had with CBP agents (see Doc. 236 at 83 (Bautista); Doc. 236 at 101 (Perez-Perez); Doc. 238 at 18
27

(Ramirez); Doc. 238 at 219 (Sanchez-Montejo); Doc. 239 at 26 (Carrillo-Vasquez); Doc. 239 at 55 (Saucedo-Carrillo); Doc. 240 at 19 (Aboytes); Doc. 240 at 75 (Martinez); Doc. 240 at 110 (Basaldua)). There is no “imminent threat of irreparable harm” to justify an injunction against the SBY station. See City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 111 (1983); Farm Labor Org. Comm. v. Ohio State Highway Patrol, 95 F. Supp. 2d 723, 732 (N.D. Ohio 2000) (“Whether the named plaintiffs are likely to be stopped again by the Border Patrol is simply too speculative to warrant an equitable judicial remedy, including declaratory relief, that would require, or provide a basis for requiring that the Border Patrol change its practices”) (internal quotation omitted).
Fourth Amendment Claim Plaintiffs allege SBY agents systematically violate the Fourth Amendment through a pattern and practice of unreasonable detentions (Doc. 143 at ¶¶ 262–63). First, Plaintiffs claim SBY agents routinely initiate “nominally ‘consensual’ encounters with the aim of developing the reasonable suspicion necessary to escalate to a non-consensual immigration inspection” (Doc. 243 at 19). Though Plaintiffs admit this law enforcement strategy is permissible, they take issue with SBY’s implementation. Second, Plaintiffs argue routine stops initiated by local law enforcement agencies are extended for the sole purpose of summoning SBY agents to investigate immigration status (id. at 20). There are three types of permissible encounters between law enforcement and citizens: a consensual encounter, an investigative detention or seizure, and an arrest. United States v. Waldon, 206 F.3d 597, 602–03 (6th Cir. 2000). A consensual encounter “may be initiated without any objective level of suspicion.” Id. at 602 (citing Avery, 137 F.3d at 352). An investigative detention or seizure of the person “if non-consensual, must be supported by a reasonable, articulable suspicion of criminal activity.” Id. And an arrest is “valid only if supported by probable cause.” Id.
28

For a seizure to occur under the Fourth Amendment, “the encounter must not be consensual

and the officers must use physical force or the individual must submit to the officers’ show of

authority.” United States v. Smith, 594 F.3d 530, 535 (6th Cir. 2010). Additionally, to constitute a

seizure, the individual’s freedom must be restrained. United States v. Mendenhall, 446 U.S. 544, 554

(1980). “As long as the person to whom questions are put remains free to disregard the questions and

walk away, there has been no intrusion upon the person’s liberty or privacy as would under the

Constitution require some particularized and objective justification.” Id.

Plaintiffs adduce no evidence that the five encounters CBP agents initiated through consensual

encounters improperly advanced to immigration interrogations or escalated to seizures without the

requisite level of reasonable suspicion or probable cause. Law enforcement officers can approach an

individual, ask for identification, and pose a few questions without intruding on any constitutionally

protected interest. Id. at 555; see United States v. Campbell, 486 F.3d 949, 954 (6th Cir. 2007) (law

enforcement does not need reasonable suspicion or probable cause to question individuals). That the

questions relate to an individual’s immigration status or identification does not transform a consensual

encounter into a seizure. See INS v. Delgado, 466 U.S. 210, 219 (1984). Officers may ask for

identification, provided they do not condition the person’s departure on its production “or convey a

message that compliance with [the] request is required.” United States v. Hinojosa, 534 F. App’x 468,

470–71 (6th Cir. 2013) (quoting Florida v. Bostick, 501 U.S. 429, 437 (1991)).

The anecdotal testimony regarding the five encounters initiated by CBP agents (again,

discussed above) does not support Plaintiffs’ claim.

•

Agent Shaver’s questioning of Perez-Perez is a textbook consensual encounter, with

Perez-Perez feeling he had the option not to answer and walk away (Doc. 236 at 97–98). This type

29

of encounter is not a seizure. When asked, Perez-Perez admitted he was illegally present, at which

point Shaver had probable cause to arrest him (see id. at 110; Ex. 4 at 3).

•

Agent Payne did not even stop Montez-Ramirez, let alone seize him (Doc. 241 at

102–06). Payne never asked Montez-Ramirez any immigration questions and, satisfied with the

answers, told him to “have a nice day” (id. at 103).

•

Agent Payne did not unreasonably seize Sanchez-Montejo. Payne did not approach

Sanchez-Montejo until after solid confirmation the vehicle was hot-plated, giving him reasonable

suspicion of some criminal activity. When Payne pulled into the gas station, he did not block

Sanchez-Montejo’s car. Payne prevented Sanchez-Montejo from leaving only after he became

uncooperative. Sanchez-Montejo eventually admitted he was unlawfully present in the United States,

at which point Payne had probable cause to arrest him (id. at 87, 90–94; Doc. 238 at 204–08; Ex. 68

at 2).

•

Agent Shaver did not unreasonably seize Saucedo-Carrillo or Carrillo-Vasquez. He

initiated a consensual encounter, never told them they could not leave, and did not condition their

departure on production of identification or compliance with his questions (Doc. 238 at 178–79).

After Shaver learned they were in the country illegally, he had probable cause to arrest them.

•

Agent Chavez did not unreasonably seize Aboytes. Aboytes and his companions acted

suspiciously in the presence of the CBP agents (Doc. 241 at 27, 52–53). When the agents learned

Aboytes was in the country illegally, they had probable cause to arrest him.

Plaintiffs fail to show CBP agents encourage local officers to detain anyone, let alone prolong

detentions. To the contrary, Agent Corey Bammer, patrol agent in charge of the Detroit Sector,

testified CBP’s policy is that local law enforcement must have authority to hold the suspect for its

30

own enforcement purposes, and CBP would not request officers hold a suspect absent probable cause

(Doc. 237 at 120–22). The anecdotal evidence from the agents involved in OA Stops confirms this.

•

Both of Bautista’s encounters with CBP were precipitated by requests from local law

enforcement officers investigating automobile accidents to assist in identifying Bautista and

translating for him. Bautista admitted he spoke limited English and needed another person to translate

for him when speaking with the highway patrol officer (Doc. 236 at 61–62, 66). In the first encounter,

he presented the officer a driver’s license form New Mexico and was driving a car with Wisconsin

license plates even though he admitted he was an Ohio resident (id. at 59–60). It was reasonable for

Agent Rosenberg to ask Bautista some preliminary questions without cause. See Mendenhall, 446

U.S. at 553 (“The purpose of the Fourth Amendment is not to eliminate all contact between the police

and citizenry.”). Once Rosenberg determined Bautista was illegally present in the United States, he

had probable cause to arrest him. In the second encounter, Bautista presented a document unfamiliar

to the Huron police officer; Agent Shaver contacted CBP dispatch to verify the document was valid

and, once he did so, told Bautista he was free to go (Doc. 238 at 166).

•

Agent Richardson did not unreasonably prolong the seizure of Martinez or Basaldua.

The Wakeman police officer requested CBP assistance to identify five occupants in the vehicle, none

of whom spoke English, had any identification, and refused to provide their names. Martinez and

Basaldua refused to answer Richardson’s questions. One of the passengers immediately admitted he

was unlawfully present in the United States, and Basaldua did so later, giving Richardson probable

cause to arrest them (Doc. 240 at 134–36).

Plaintiffs fail to establish that CBP has a policy or practice of escalating consensual encounters

through immigration interrogations or encouraging local law enforcement officers to

unconstitutionally prolong their investigations. 31

CONCLUSION

The eight CBP encounters over a period of six years that were the focus of testimony at trial

do not support the allegation that CBP has a policy or custom of racial profiling and unlawful

seizures. Plaintiffs have not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that Defendant committed any

constitutional violations, or that any of the alleged violations were the result of Defendant’s custom

or policy. For the foregoing reasons, this Court finds in favor of Defendant on all claims.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/ Jack Zouhary JACK ZOUHARY U. S. DISTRICT JUDGE

February 24, 2016

32

 
 RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b) File Name: 17a0195p.06
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

MARIA MUNIZ-MUNIZ, et al.,

┐

Plaintiffs, │ │

OHIO IMMIGRANT WORKER PROJECT; FARM LABOR ORGANIZING COMMITTEE, AFL-CIO,

││>

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

│ │

│

v.

│

│

UNITED STATES BORDER PATROL, Customs and Border │

Protection, Department of Homeland Security,

│

Defendant-Appellee.

│ ┘

No. 16-3400

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio at Toledo. No. 3:09-cv-02865—Jack Zouhary, District Judge.
Argued: March 16, 2017
Decided and Filed: August 24, 2017
Before: MERRITT, KETHLEDGE, and WHITE, Circuit Judges. _________________

COUNSEL
ARGUED: John T. Murray, MURRAY & MURRAY CO., L.P.A., Sandusky, Ohio, for Appellants. William C. Silvis, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Appellee. ON BRIEF: John T. Murray, Leslie O. Murray, Michael Stewart, MURRAY & MURRAY CO., L.P.A., Sandusky, Ohio, Mark Heller, Eugenio Mollo, Jr., Aneel L. Chablani, ADVOCATES FOR BASIC LEGAL EQUALITY, INC., Toledo, Ohio, for Appellants. William C. Silvis, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Appellee.
KETHLEDGE, J., delivered the opinion of the court in which MERRITT and WHITE, JJ., joined. MERRITT, J. (pg. 9), delivered a separate concurring opinion.

No. 16-3400

Muniz-Muniz, et al. v. U.S. Border Patrol

Page 2

_________________
OPINION _________________
KETHLEDGE, Circuit Judge. The Plaintiffs in this case—now only two organizations that represent migrant farmworkers—claim that the United States Border Patrol allows agents at its Sandusky Bay, Ohio station to target persons of Hispanic appearance for questioning. After a bench trial, the district court found that the Plaintiffs had not proved their claim. We affirm.
I.
The Border Patrol’s mission includes enforcing the Nation’s immigration laws, as well as preventing terrorism and combatting border-related crimes like human smuggling and sex trafficking. The agency’s Sandusky Bay Station lies near Lake Erie, about an hour west of Cleveland. Agents from Sandusky Bay patrol a roughly 30-mile swath of land along 150 miles of the Ohio shoreline of Lake Erie, including Interstates 80 and 90 and the rest areas there. In the course of their duties, agents often initiate consensual conversations with people they encounter. Sometimes those conversations lead to information that gives an agent probable cause to think that a person is present in the United States illegally, in which case the person is arrested. The Station records all arrests in an “apprehension log,” which includes information about each arrestee’s nationality and specifies whether the Border Patrol or some other lawenforcement agency originally approached or stopped the person.
The Plaintiff organizations—the Ohio Immigrant Worker Project and the Farm Labor Organizing Committee (collectively, “Plaintiffs”)—brought this lawsuit in 2009, claiming among other things that the Border Patrol’s policy at its Sandusky Bay Station was to allow its agents to target persons of Hispanic appearance when deciding whom to approach during the agents’ patrols. Eventually the district court held a two-week bench trial on that claim, after which it found that the Plaintiffs had not shown that the Border Patrol had such a policy. The district court therefore entered judgment in favor of the Border Patrol. This appeal followed.

No. 16-3400

Muniz-Muniz, et al. v. U.S. Border Patrol

Page 3

II.
After a bench trial, “we review a district court’s factual findings for clear error and its legal conclusions de novo.” Calloway v. Caraco Pharm. Labs., Ltd., 800 F.3d 244, 251 (6th Cir. 2015).
We first engage in some analytical housekeeping, of which there is plenty to do here. The only remaining defendant is the United States Border Patrol, and the Plaintiffs’ only remaining claim is one for injunctive relief. The parties assume that, for the Plaintiffs to succeed on that claim, they must show that the Border Patrol itself has a policy that allows agents to use race in some unconstitutional manner. See generally United States v. Avery, 137 F.3d 343, 355 (6th Cir. 1997); Ellis v. District of Columbia, 84 F.3d 1413, 1424 (D.C. Cir. 1996). They further assume that, to show the existence of such a policy, the Plaintiffs must satisfy the standard used in cases brought against municipalities under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs. of N.Y., 436 U.S. 658, 690-91 (1978). We will likewise assume, without deciding, that the Monell standard applies in determining whether the Plaintiffs can prevail against the Border Patrol here.
Couched in terms of Monell, the Plaintiffs’ argument is that the Border Patrol has a policy that allows agents at its Sandusky Bay Station to use race in a manner that violates the Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection as applied to the federal government. See generally Washington v. Davis, 426 U.S. 229, 239 (1976). That means the Plaintiffs must show two things: first, that the Border Patrol has a policy that allows consideration of race in determining whom to approach; and second, that such a policy is unconstitutional.
We begin and end with the first point. A plaintiff can prove the existence of an agency policy in several ways. One is to show the existence of an “official policy” that expressly permits the conduct at issue. D’Ambrosio v. Marino, 747 F.3d 378, 386 (6th Cir. 2014). The Plaintiffs do not contend that the Border Patrol has any such policy here. (For good reason: the Border Patrol’s official policy expressly “prohibit[s] the consideration of race or ethnicity in [agents’] daily law enforcement activities in all but the most exceptional instances . . . [and only] when a compelling governmental interest is present[.]”) Another way is to show the existence of

No. 16-3400

Muniz-Muniz, et al. v. U.S. Border Patrol

Page 4

an informal policy that causes the constitutional violation. To that end a plaintiff can show that the agency has “a policy of inadequate training or supervision,” which in turn causes agency personnel to act in ways that are unconstitutional. Id. But the Plaintiffs make no such argument here. (Again for good reason: the Border Patrol trains its agents to follow the official policy described above and to avoid racial profiling.)
That leaves two other ways to show the existence of an informal policy. One is to prove that an agency “official with final decision[-]making authority ratified illegal actions”; another is to prove that the agency has a custom of tolerating violations of federal law. Id. Here the Plaintiffs say they have done both—that they have proof of both ratification and custom, to show that the Border Patrol allows agents at its Sandusky Bay Station to consider race as a factor in determining whom to approach.
As to ratification, the Plaintiffs contend that “[t]estimony by high-ranking supervisors” at Sandusky Bay shows that the Border Patrol maintains a policy of racial profiling there. But Corey Bammer, the Sandusky Station Chief from 2008-12, testified unequivocally that race “can’t be any basis for a stop whatsoever[.]” He added that “I feel confident that I would be able to see in a report if somebody had used race as a [] basis of making a stop.” The current Station Chief at Sandusky Bay, Robert Simon, likewise testified that he would not “tolerate racial profiling [at his] station,” and that Mario Martinez, the Border Patrol’s Sector Chief for the area encompassing Sandusky, “[a]bsolutely” would not tolerate racial profiling “in the Sandusky Bay Station or anywhere in the sector[.]” And Martinez himself testified that he would not “tolerate racial profiling at the stations” in his sector and that he would “know about it if it was going on[.]”
The Plaintiffs elide all this testimony and instead focus upon the testimony of two deputies at Sandusky Bay. One of them, David York, testified that race “could be one of many factors, but it shouldn’t be the sole factor” in deciding whom to approach. The other, Matthew Richardson, testified that he thought race could be “an articulable fact” in determining whom to approach, but that “you can’t base your sole stop on race.” Neither of these agents, however, testified that he ratified anyone else’s use of race as a factor in determining whom to approach. And neither of them has served at Sandusky Bay as the sort of “final decision-maker” whose

No. 16-3400

Muniz-Muniz, et al. v. U.S. Border Patrol

Page 5

ratification could create an informal policy in the first place. See Feliciano v. City of Cleveland, 988 F.2d 649, 655 (6th Cir. 1993). The Plaintiffs therefore did not prove the existence of a ratification-based policy of racial targeting at Sandusky Bay.
That leaves the Plaintiffs’ evidence of custom, which takes three forms. First, the Plaintiffs say that four encounters in particular demonstrate that agents from Sandusky Bay routinely target people of Hispanic appearance for questioning. After observing the testimony of the agents who initiated these encounters, however, the district court flatly disagreed. In one encounter, the agent observed a young man driving a 2001 Dodge Ram with tinted windows, a young woman in the passenger seat, and a passenger door hanging open—all in an area of North Toledo known for sex trafficking, and all of which (excepting perhaps the open door) fit the profile of a vehicle used in sex trafficking. (The woman turned out to be the driver’s sister, and the agent promptly sent the driver on his way—the agent testified that the entire encounter lasted “[t]hree or four minutes max.”) In another encounter, Agent Thomas Payne approached the driver of a vehicle only after determining that it was “hot-plated,” i.e., that the registration associated with the license plate did not match the vehicle. In a third encounter, Agent Bradley Shaver began a conversation with the driver of a pickup truck at a gas station near the Ohio Turnpike, in an area known as a corridor for drug trafficking. The truck had decals with the words “Durango Durango,” which is a state in Mexico known for drug trafficking. The decals also had silver scorpions, which Shaver testified is a symbol used by Mexican drug cartels. And the pickup had flared stepboards, which the agent testified are often used to conceal narcotics. In the fourth encounter, Agent Alexander Chavez was patrolling on foot at a plaza along the Ohio Turnpike, looking for indications of human smuggling. He walked past several Hispanic men who seemed evasive when he greeted them, but Chavez notably did not approach them then. Instead he walked out to the parking lot, where he eventually saw a large SUV with tinted windows and temporary license tags, all of which fit the profile for a vehicle used in human smuggling. At that point, the men Chavez had seen in the plaza came to him—because the SUV he was looking at was theirs. Only then did Chavez begin questioning them. Thus, the district court did not clearly err in finding that, in each instance, the agent initiated the encounter for reasons other than race.

No. 16-3400

Muniz-Muniz, et al. v. U.S. Border Patrol

Page 6

The Plaintiffs next point to the testimony of their expert, Dr. Kara Joyner, as proof of racial targeting. Joyner analyzed the Sandusky Bay Station’s “apprehension log” for 2008-14, which in her view showed that persons arrested by Sandusky Bay agents were disproportionately citizens of Mexico or of countries in Central and South America. And from that statistical disparity, standing alone, Joyner opined that agents from Sandusky Bay were targeting persons of Hispanic appearance.
The district court found that Joyner’s analysis was unreliable, again for good reason. Joyner’s analysis involved both a numerator and a denominator. The numerator comprised the persons whose arrests were reflected on the apprehension log. About 90 percent of those persons, Joyner said, came from primarily Hispanic countries. The denominator purportedly comprised the “at-risk” population—which Joyner rather vaguely described as “the group that’s likely to elicit reasonable suspicion” from the Border Patrol—in the area of Northern Ohio patrolled by agents from the Sandusky Bay Station. Perhaps one-third of that population, Joyner estimated, was Mexican or Hispanic. Hence Joyner said that Hispanics were overrepresented in the apprehension log.
As the district court explained, however, Joyner’s numerator and denominator alike were seriously flawed. To begin, the numerator measured activity at the wrong point in time. The Plaintiffs claim that Sandusky Bay agents use race in determining whom to approach for an encounter. The apprehension log, in contrast, identifies whom the agents arrested. And for all the record shows here, the proportion of Hispanics approached might have been quite different from the proportion arrested. Joyner’s statistics thus contained precisely the same flaw as the statistical evidence in United States v. Travis, 62 F.3d 170 (6th Cir. 1995). There Travis argued, much like the Plaintiffs do here, that “the ‘incident reports’ compiled by the Airport Police Task [F]orce reveal that officers in the airport have interviewed a disproportionate number of minorities.” Id. at 175. There, we held that “the methodology used to compile these numbers is deeply flawed—so much so that the numbers do not reliably report any data that could give rise to an inference of racial discrimination.” Id. Specifically, we explained, “the ‘incidents’ do not include all consensual encounters between officers and passengers. Officers only report those incidents in which a passenger has been arrested” or where the officer otherwise believed that the

No. 16-3400

Muniz-Muniz, et al. v. U.S. Border Patrol

Page 7

person interviewed “was involved with drugs in some capacity.” Id. Nearly the same thing is true here. “Consequently,” we said in Travis, “the statistics do not give a representative picture of the people whom the airport police approach for interviews.” Id. Change “airport police” to “Border Patrol,” and again the same is true here. See also Avery, 137 F.3d at 357 (rejecting statistical evidence based on law-enforcement activity at the wrong point in time).
Joyner’s numerator also suffers from a more obvious flaw: her analysis in effect holds the Border Patrol responsible for stops initiated by “Other Agencies.” Specifically, many of the arrests recorded in the apprehension log came after a different law-enforcement agency—say, the local police—initiated the stop and then called the Border Patrol for assistance. Those encounters are plainly irrelevant here, because the Border Patrol did not initiate them. Yet Joyner included them in calculating her “90 percent” figure.
Joyner’s denominator, for its part, is little more than a guess. As an initial matter, and to some extent in Joyner’s defense, the number of undocumented persons present in a particular area is undisputedly very hard to measure. Here, Joyner cited national and statewide estimates— some purporting to measure the undocumented population, others purporting to measure the “foreign-born”—and then produced an estimate of the “at-risk” population in the swath of Northern Ohio patrolled by agents from Sandusky Bay. But Joyner offered little explanation as to why those national or statewide estimates afforded her a reliable basis to estimate the “at-risk” population in the comparative sliver of territory at issue here. Joyner also overlooked the presence in that territory of large corporate farms that make heavy use of migrant labor. And she overlooked that agents from Sandusky Bay do focus disproportionately on one group: the transient population on Interstates 80 and 90 and at the rest areas along the way, who undisputedly get intensive attention from the Border Patrol—but who got little or none from Dr. Joyner. The district court was correct to discount her testimony as unreliable.
Finally, as evidence of a custom or widespread practice of targeting Hispanics, the Plaintiffs point to testimony and several emails showing that in years past (though as recently as eight years ago) Border Patrol agents at Sandusky Bay and elsewhere used the terms “wets” and “tonks” to refer to persons present in the United States illegally. “Wets,” in particular, is an odious term, being derived from an epithet directed against Mexicans. But at trial all of the

No. 16-3400

Muniz-Muniz, et al. v. U.S. Border Patrol

Page 8

agents—including Latino agents—testified that Border Patrol agents used these words as terms of art to refer to undocumented persons generally, rather than Hispanics specifically. And as the Plaintiffs themselves point out, the Border Patrol has acted aggressively, and it appears successfully, to end the usage of these terms by its agents. That the agents used these terms in the past, therefore, is no reason to award injunctive relief now.

Thus, the district court did not clearly err in finding that the Border Patrol did not have the policy alleged here.

*

*

*

The district court’s judgment is affirmed.

No. 16-3400

Muniz-Muniz, et al. v. U.S. Border Patrol

Page 9

_________________
CONCURRENCE _________________
MERRITT, Circuit Judge, concurring. In United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, the Supreme Court said: “The likelihood that any given person of Mexican ancestry is an alien is high enough to make Mexican appearance a relevant factor, but standing alone it does not justify stopping all Mexican-Americans to ask if they are aliens.” 422 U.S. 873, 886-87 (1975). I read this as forbidding use of Hispanic appearance as the basis for an arrest, but not as a basis for taking such a fact into account when deciding whether to conduct an investigation. The facts in this case do not violate such a rule. This should allow Border Patrol agents sufficient leeway to do their job effectively but not enough to encourage discrimination based on nationality.

 
 Case: 3:09-cv-2865 As of: 04/04/2016 03:35 PM EDT 1 of 39
Cat03,Knepp,Protect,Reopen,Termed
U.S. District Court Northern District of Ohio (Toledo) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 3:09−cv−02865−JZ

Muniz et al v. Gallegos et al Assigned to: Judge Jack Zouhary Case in other court: 6th Circuit, 12−04419 Cause: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act
Plaintiff
Maria Muniz−Muniz individually and on behalf of a class of others similarly situated, and as next friend of TERMINATED: 04/18/2012 other Roberto Muniz other Antonio Torres−Franco other Juana Muniz−Torres other Luis Enrique Muniz−Muniz

Date Filed: 12/10/2009 Date Terminated: 02/24/2016 Jury Demand: Defendant Nature of Suit: 440 Civil Rights: Other Jurisdiction: Federal Question
represented by Mark R. Heller Advocates for Basic Legal Equality − Toledo Center for Equal Justice Ste. 300 525 Jefferson Avenue Toledo, OH 43604 419−255−0814 Fax: 419−259−2880 Email: mheller@ablelaw.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael J. Stewart Murray & Murray 111 East Shoreline Drive Sandusky, OH 44870 419−626−7008 Fax: 419−624−0707 Email: stewart@murrayandmurray.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Aneel L. Chablani Advocates for Basic Legal Equality − Toledo Ste. 300 525 Jefferson Avenue Toledo, OH 43604 419−930−2370 Fax: 419−259−2880 Email: achablani@ablelaw.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Eugenio Mollo , Jr. Advocates for Basic Legal Equality − Toledo Center for Equal Justice Ste. 300 525 Jefferson Avenue Toledo, OH 43604 419−255−0814 Fax: 419−259−2880 Email: emollo@ablelaw.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John T. Murray Murray & Murray 111 East Shoreline Drive Sandusky, OH 44870−2517 419−624−3125

Case: 3:09-cv-2865 As of: 04/04/2016 03:35 PM EDT 2 of 39

Fax: 419−624−0707 Email: jotm@murrayandmurray.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Leslie O. Murray Murray & Murray 111 East Shoreline Drive Sandusky, OH 44870 419−624−3135 Fax: 419−624−0707 Email: leslie@murrayandmurray.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Maria Muniz−Muniz individually and on behalf of a class of others similarly situated TERMINATED: 07/30/2014

represented by Aneel L. Chablani (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Eugenio Mollo , Jr. Advocates for Basic Legal Equality − Toledo Ste. 300 525 Jefferson Avenue Toledo, OH 43604 419−255−0814 Fax: 419−259−2880 Email: emollo@ablelaw.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John T. Murray Murray & Murray 111 East Shoreline Drive Sandusky, OH 44870 419−624−3125 Fax: 419−624−0707 Email: jotm@murrayandmurray.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Leslie O. Murray (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Mark R. Heller Advocates for Basic Legal Equality − Toledo Ste. 300 525 Jefferson Avenue Toledo, OH 43604 419−255−0814 Fax: 419−259−2880 Email: mheller@ablelaw.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael J. Stewart (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff

Case: 3:09-cv-2865 As of: 04/04/2016 03:35 PM EDT 3 of 39

Roberto Muniz individually and on behalf of a class of others similarly situated TERMINATED: 07/30/2014

represented by Aneel L. Chablani (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Eugenio Mollo , Jr. (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John T. Murray (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Leslie O. Murray (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Mark R. Heller (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael J. Stewart (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Antonio Torres−Franco individually and on behalf of a class of others similarly situated TERMINATED: 07/30/2014

represented by Aneel L. Chablani (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Eugenio Mollo , Jr. (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John T. Murray (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Leslie O. Murray (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Mark R. Heller (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael J. Stewart (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Juana Muniz−Torres individually and on behalf of a class of

represented by Aneel L. Chablani (See above for address)

Case: 3:09-cv-2865 As of: 04/04/2016 03:35 PM EDT 4 of 39

others similarly situated TERMINATED: 07/30/2014

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Eugenio Mollo , Jr. (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John T. Murray (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Leslie O. Murray (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Mark R. Heller (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael J. Stewart (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Luis Enrique Muniz−Muniz individually and on behalf of a class of others similarly situated TERMINATED: 07/30/2014

represented by Aneel L. Chablani (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Eugenio Mollo , Jr. (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John T. Murray (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Leslie O. Murray (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Mark R. Heller (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael J. Stewart (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Emeterio Nieto−Medina individually and on behalf of a class of others similarly situated TERMINATED: 07/30/2014

represented by Mark R. Heller (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 3:09-cv-2865 As of: 04/04/2016 03:35 PM EDT 5 of 39

Plaintiff Rocio Anani Saucedo−Carrillo individually and on behalf of a class of others similarly situated TERMINATED: 09/18/2015
Plaintiff Rosa Carrillo−Vasquez individually and on behalf of a class of others similarly situated TERMINATED: 09/18/2015

Michael J. Stewart (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Aneel L. Chablani (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Eugenio Mollo , Jr. (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John T. Murray (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Leslie O. Murray (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Michael J. Stewart (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Aneel L. Chablani (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Eugenio Mollo , Jr. (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John T. Murray (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Leslie O. Murray (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mark R. Heller (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Mark R. Heller (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael J. Stewart (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Aneel L. Chablani (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Eugenio Mollo , Jr.

Case: 3:09-cv-2865 As of: 04/04/2016 03:35 PM EDT 6 of 39

(See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John T. Murray (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Leslie O. Murray (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Maria de Belen Martinez−Castro individually and on behalf of a class of others similarly situated TERMINATED: 07/30/2014

represented by Mark R. Heller (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael J. Stewart (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Aneel L. Chablani (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Eugenio Mollo , Jr. (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John T. Murray (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Leslie O. Murray (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Jose Calderon individually and on behalf of a class of others similarly situated TERMINATED: 04/18/2012

represented by Mark R. Heller (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael J. Stewart (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Aneel L. Chablani (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Eugenio Mollo , Jr. (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John T. Murray (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Leslie O. Murray (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 3:09-cv-2865 As of: 04/04/2016 03:35 PM EDT 7 of 39

Plaintiff Belinda Vega individually and on behalf of a class of others similarly situated TERMINATED: 04/18/2012
Plaintiff Alfonso Palafox individually and on behalf of others similarly situated TERMINATED: 09/18/2015
Plaintiff Jose Samuel Contreras Garcia individually and on behalf of a class of others similarly situated TERMINATED: 09/18/2015

represented by Mark R. Heller (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael J. Stewart (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Aneel L. Chablani (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Eugenio Mollo , Jr. (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John T. Murray (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Leslie O. Murray (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Mark R. Heller (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael J. Stewart (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Aneel L. Chablani (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Eugenio Mollo , Jr. (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John T. Murray (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Leslie O. Murray (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Michael J. Stewart (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Aneel L. Chablani (See above for address)

Case: 3:09-cv-2865 As of: 04/04/2016 03:35 PM EDT 8 of 39

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Eugenio Mollo , Jr. (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John T. Murray (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Leslie O. Murray (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Mark R. Heller (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Jesus Rodriguez−Perez individually and on behalf of a class of others similarly situated TERMINATED: 09/18/2015

represented by Michael J. Stewart (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Aneel L. Chablani (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Eugenio Mollo , Jr. (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John T. Murray (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Leslie O. Murray (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Mark R. Heller (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Ohio Immigrant Worker Project

represented by Leslie O. Murray (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael J. Stewart (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Aneel L. Chablani (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Eugenio Mollo , Jr. (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John T. Murray

Case: 3:09-cv-2865 As of: 04/04/2016 03:35 PM EDT 9 of 39

(See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Mark R. Heller (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Farm Labor Organizing Committee, AFL−CIO

represented by Mark R. Heller (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael J. Stewart (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Aneel L. Chablani (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Eugenio Mollo , Jr. (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John T. Murray (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Leslie O. Murray (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V.
Defendant
United States Border Patrol Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security

represented by Colin A. Kisor U.S. Department of Justice − Immigration Litigation Ben Franklin Station P.O. Box 878 Washington, DC 20001 202−532−4331 Fax: 202−305−7000 Email: colin.kisor@usdoj.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Holly Taft Sydlow_AUSA Former Assistant U.S. Attorney Email: ava.rotell.dustin@usdoj.gov TERMINATED: 10/19/2010 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
J. Max Weintraub U.S. Department of Justice − Immigration Litigation Ben Franklin Station P.O. Box 868 Washington, DC 20044 202−305−7551 Fax: 202−305−7000 Email: jacob.weintraub@usdoj.gov

Case: 3:09-cv-2865 As of: 04/04/2016 03:35 PM EDT 10 of 39

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Timothy M. Belsan U.S. Department of Justice − Immigration Litigation Ben Franklin Station P.O. Box 868 Washington, DC 20044 202−532−4596 Fax: 202−305−7000 Email: timothy.m.belsan@usdoj.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

William C. Silvis U.S. Department of Justice − Immigration Litigation Ben Franklin Station P.O. Box 868 Washington, DC 20044 202−307−4693 Fax: 202−305−7000 Email: william.silvis@usdoj.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Randy L. Gallegos in his official capacity as Chief Patrol Agent, Detroit Sector, United States Border Patrol TERMINATED: 09/18/2015

represented by Colin A. Kisor (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Holly Taft Sydlow_AUSA (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/19/2010 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

J. Max Weintraub (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Timothy M. Belsan (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

William C. Silvis (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
John Does 1−15 individually and in their capacity as United States Border Patrol Agents assigned or working from the Sandusky, Ohio United States Border Patrol Station TERMINATED: 03/01/2010

Defendant
Bradley Shaver United States Border Patrol Agent, in his official capacity TERMINATED: 09/18/2015

represented by Colin A. Kisor (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

William C. Silvis (See above for address)

Case: 3:09-cv-2865 As of: 04/04/2016 03:35 PM EDT 11 of 39

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Kevin Cashen In his official capacity as Chief of Police Department, Norwalk, Ohio TERMINATED: 04/18/2012

represented by Joan C. Szuberla Spengler Nathanson − Toledo Ste. 400 Four SeaGate Toledo, OH 43604 419−241−2201 Fax: 419−241−8599 Email: JSzuberla@snlaw.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Teresa L. Grigsby Spengler Nathanson − Toledo Ste. 400 Four SeaGate Toledo, OH 43604 419−252−6261 Fax: 419−241−8599 Email: TGrigsby@Snlaw.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Charles D. Doan individually and in his official capacity as Chief of Plymouth, Ohio Police Department, Plymouth, Ohio TERMINATED: 04/18/2012

represented by Nick C. Tomino O'Toole McLaughlin Dooley & Pecora 5455 Detroit Road Sheffield Village, OH 44054 440−930−4001 Fax: 440−934−7205 Email: ntomino@omdplaw.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
John Does 16−18 individually and in their official capacities as Attica Ohio Police Department officers TERMINATED: 03/01/2010

Defendant
John Does 19−21 individually and in their official capacities as Norwalk Ohio Police Department officers TERMINATED: 03/01/2010

Defendant
John Doe 22 Individually, and in his official capacity as police department officer, Plymouth, Ohio TERMINATED: 03/01/2010

Defendant
Ramiro Corona United States Border Patrol Agent, in his official capacity TERMINATED: 09/18/2015

represented by Colin A. Kisor (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Holly Taft Sydlow_AUSA

Case: 3:09-cv-2865 As of: 04/04/2016 03:35 PM EDT 12 of 39

(See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/19/2010 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

J. Max Weintraub (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Timothy M. Belsan (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

William C. Silvis (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Santiago Mateo−Deleon United States Border Patrol Agent, in his official capacity TERMINATED: 09/18/2015 formerly known as Mateo TERMINATED: 09/18/2015

represented by Colin A. Kisor (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Holly Taft Sydlow_AUSA (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/19/2010 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

J. Max Weintraub (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Timothy M. Belsan (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

William C. Silvis (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Andre Dario United States Border Patrol Agent, in his official capacity TERMINATED: 09/18/2015

represented by Colin A. Kisor (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Holly Taft Sydlow_AUSA (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/19/2010 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

J. Max Weintraub (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Timothy M. Belsan (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

William C. Silvis (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant

Case: 3:09-cv-2865 As of: 04/04/2016 03:35 PM EDT 13 of 39

Robert Simon United States Border Patrol Agent, in his official capacity TERMINATED: 09/18/2015

represented by Colin A. Kisor (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Holly Taft Sydlow_AUSA (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/19/2010 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

J. Max Weintraub (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Timothy M. Belsan (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

William C. Silvis (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Stephanie Wrisley United States Border Patrol Agent, in her official capacity TERMINATED: 09/18/2015 formerly known as S. Wrisley TERMINATED: 09/18/2015

represented by Colin A. Kisor (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
J. Max Weintraub (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Holly Taft Sydlow_AUSA (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/19/2010 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Timothy M. Belsan (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

William C. Silvis (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
David B. York Field Operations Supervisor, in his official capacity TERMINATED: 09/18/2015

represented by Colin A. Kisor (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Holly Taft Sydlow_AUSA (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/19/2010 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

J. Max Weintraub (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Timothy M. Belsan (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 3:09-cv-2865 As of: 04/04/2016 03:35 PM EDT 14 of 39

Defendant John Does 1−9 in their capacity as United States Border Patrol Agents assigned or working from the Sandusky, Ohio Border Patrol Station TERMINATED: 04/18/2012 Defendant Village Attica, Ohio TERMINATED: 10/23/2012
Defendant Attica, Ohio Police Department Police Chief in his or her officical capacity TERMINATED: 10/23/2012 Defendant City of Norwalk, Ohio TERMINATED: 11/15/2012
Defendant Dave Light Chief, Norwalk Ohio Police Department, individually and in his official capacity

William C. Silvis (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Cara M. Wright Mazanec, Raskin & Ryder − Cleveland 100 Franklin's Row 34305 Solon Road Cleveland, OH 44139 440−248−7906 Fax: 248−8861 Email: cwright@mrrlaw.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John T. McLandrich Mazanec, Raskin & Ryder − Solon 100 Franklin's Row 34305 Solon Road Solon, OH 44139 440−248−7906 Fax: 440−248−8861 Email: jmclandrich@mrrlaw.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Tami Z. Hannon Mazanec, Raskin & Ryder − Solon 100 Franklin's Row 34305 Solon Road Solon, OH 44139 440−248−7906 Fax: 440−248−8861 Email: thannon@mrrlaw.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Joan C. Szuberla (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Teresa L. Grigsby (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Joan C. Szuberla (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 3:09-cv-2865 As of: 04/04/2016 03:35 PM EDT 15 of 39

TERMINATED: 11/15/2012

Teresa L. Grigsby (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Village of Plymouth, Ohio TERMINATED: 04/18/2012

represented by Nick C. Tomino (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
John Does 10−12 individually and in their official capacities as Attica, Ohio Police Department officers TERMINATED: 04/18/2012

Defendant
John Does 13−15 individually and in their official capacities as Norwalk, Ohio Police Department officers TERMINATED: 04/18/2012

Defendant
John Does 16−17 individually and in thir official capacities as Plymouth Police Department officers TERMINATED: 04/18/2012

Defendant
Corey Bammer United States Border Agent in Charge, Sandusky Bay Station, in his official capacity TERMINATED: 07/30/2014

represented by William C. Silvis (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
United States Department of Homeland Security Customs and Border Protection TERMINATED: 09/18/2015

represented by J. Max Weintraub (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Timothy M. Belsan (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

William C. Silvis (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Colin A. Kisor (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Holly Taft Sydlow_AUSA (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/19/2010 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 3:09-cv-2865 As of: 04/04/2016 03:35 PM EDT 16 of 39

Defendant United States of America TERMINATED: 07/30/2014
Defendant Hugh Campbell United States Border Patrol Agent, in his official capacity TERMINATED: 07/30/2014
Defendant Joshua Querin Officer, Attica Ohio Police Department, individually and in his official capacity TERMINATED: 10/23/2012
Defendant John Doe 1 Norwalk Ohio Police Department officer, individually and in his official capacity TERMINATED: 07/30/2014
Defendant Matthew J. Richardson in his official capacity TERMINATED: 09/18/2015
Defendant Jeffrey A. Briggs former chief of Attica Ohio Police Department, individually TERMINATED: 10/23/2012

represented by Colin A. Kisor (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED William C. Silvis (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by William C. Silvis (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by John T. McLandrich (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Tami Z. Hannon (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by William C. Silvis (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Cara M. Wright (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED John T. McLandrich (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Tami Z. Hannon (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 12/10/2009

# Docket Text
1 Complaint against All Defendants. Filing fee paid $ 350, receipt number 0647−3869916. Filed by Belinda Vega, Rocio Anani Saucedo−Carrillo, Antonio Torres−Franco, Roberto Muniz, Ohio Immigrant Worker Project, Emeterio Nieto−Medina, Juana Muniz−Torres, Maria de Belen Martinez−Castro, Alfonso Palafox, Farm Labor Organizing Committee, Rosa Carrillo−Vasquez, L. E. M−M., Jose Calderon, Maria Muniz−Muniz. (Attachment: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet) (Heller, Mark) (Entered: 12/10/2009)

Case: 3:09-cv-2865 As of: 04/04/2016 03:35 PM EDT 17 of 39

12/10/2009 12/11/2009 01/05/2010 01/06/2010 01/06/2010 01/11/2010 01/13/2010 01/15/2010 02/05/2010 02/05/2010 02/08/2010 02/11/2010 02/12/2010 02/12/2010 02/16/2010 02/22/2010 02/22/2010 02/22/2010 02/22/2010 02/24/2010

Judge Jack Zouhary assigned to case. (M,L) (Entered: 12/10/2009)
2 Magistrate Consent Form issued to counsel. Summons were not provided and were not issued. (M,C) (Entered: 12/11/2009)
3 Waiver of Service Returned Executed by All Plaintiffs. Charles D. Doan waiver sent on 12/10/2009, answer due 2/8/2010. filed on behalf of All Plaintiffs (Heller, Mark) (Entered: 01/05/2010)
4 Notice of Entry of Appearance and Request for Initial Extension of Time to Move, Plead or Answer filed by Kevin Cashen. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Grigsby, Teresa) (Entered: 01/06/2010)
5 ORDER granting extension of time to 2/16/10 for deft Kevin Cashen to plead. re 4 Judge Jack Zouhary on 1/6/10. (B,CJ) (Entered: 01/06/2010)
6 Waiver of Service Returned Executed by All Plaintiffs. Kevin Cashen waiver sent on 12/10/2009, answer due 2/8/2010. filed on behalf of All Plaintiffs (Heller, Mark) (Entered: 01/11/2010)
7 Waiver of Service Returned Executed by All Plaintiffs. Jeffrey A. Briggs waiver sent on 12/10/2009, answer due 2/8/2010. filed on behalf of All Plaintiffs (Heller, Mark) (Entered: 01/13/2010)
8 Attorney Appearance by Nick C. Tomino filed by on behalf of Charles D. Doan. (Tomino, Nick) (Entered: 01/15/2010)
9 Motion for extension of time until 02/25/2010 to answer filed by Defendant Charles D. Doan. (Tomino, Nick) (Entered: 02/05/2010)
10 Marginal Entry Order granting 9 Motion for Extension of Time to Answer Charles D. Doan answer due 2/25/2010.. Judge Jack Zouhary on 2/5/10.(G,D) (Entered: 02/05/2010)
11 Motion to dismiss filed by Defendant Jeffrey A. Briggs. (Wright, Cara) (Entered: 02/08/2010)
12 Answer to 1 Complaint, filed by Kevin Cashen. (Grigsby, Teresa) (Entered: 02/11/2010)
13 Supplemental summonses filed on behalf of all Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Summons, # 2 Summons, # 3 Summons)(Heller, Mark) Modified on 2/16/2010 to correct text (B,TM). (Entered: 02/12/2010)
14 Praecipe to Clerk for the issuance of summons filed on behalf of all Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Summons, # 2 Summons, # 3 Summons, # 4 Summons)(Heller, Mark) Modified on 2/16/2010 to correct text (B,TM). (Entered: 02/12/2010)
15 Original Summons issued for service upon Randy L. Gallegos, Eric Holder (Attorney General) Holly Tafy Sydlow, (U.S. Attorney's Office) and Steven Dettelbach (Office of the U.S Attorney) on 2/16/10. (B,TM) (Entered: 02/16/2010)
16 Notice of Separation from Office and Motion to Dismiss Jeffrey Briggs filed by Jeffrey A. Briggs. (Wright, Cara) Modified on 2/24/2010 (C,D). (Entered: 02/22/2010)
17 Return of Service by certified mail executed upon Randy L. Gallegos, Chief Patrol Agent on 2/18/2010 filed on behalf of all plaintiffs. Related document(s) 15 , 14 , 1 . (B,TM) (Entered: 02/22/2010)
18 Return of Service by certified mail upon Holly Taft Sydlow, U.S. Attorneys Office on 2/17/2010 filed on behalf of all Plaintiffs. Related document(s) 1 , 14 and 15 (B,TM) (Entered: 02/22/2010)
19 Return of Service by certified mail upon Steven M. Dettelbach, U.S. Attorney's Office (Cleveland) on 2/19/2010 filed on behalf of all Plaintiffs. Related document(s) 1 , 14 and 15 . (B,TM) (Entered: 02/22/2010)
20 Answer to 1 Complaint, filed by Charles D. Doan. (Tomino, Nick) (Entered: 02/24/2010)

Case: 3:09-cv-2865 As of: 04/04/2016 03:35 PM EDT 18 of 39

03/01/2010
03/08/2010
03/11/2010 03/15/2010 03/15/2010 03/16/2010 03/16/2010 03/16/2010 03/16/2010 03/16/2010 03/16/2010 03/16/2010

21 First Amended complaint against Jeffrey A. Briggs, Kevin Cashen, Charles D. Doan, Randy L. Gallegos, Jose Samuel Contreras Garcia, Jesus Rodriguez−Perez, John Does 1−9, John Does 10−12, John Does 13−15, John Does 16−17, Village of Attica, Village of Plymouth, City of Norwalk, Ohio, Jeffrey A. Briggs, Chief, Village of Attica Police Department, S. Wrisley, Robert Simon, Andre Dario, Mateo, David B. York, Ramiro Corona, United States Border Patrol, Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security and adding new party defendant(s) United States Border Patrol, Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security; John Does 1−9; John Does 10−12; John Does 13−15; John Does 16−17; Chief, Village of Attica Police Department; S. Wrisley; Andre Dario; Mateo; Robert Simon; David B. York; Ramiro Corona; Village of Attica; Village of Plymouth; City of Norwalk. Filed by Belinda Vega, Rocio Anani Saucedo−Carrillo, Antonio Torres−Franco, Roberto Muniz, Ohio Immigrant Worker Project, Emeterio Nieto−Medina, Juana Muniz−Torres, Maria de Belen Martinez−Castro, Alfonso Palafox, Farm Labor Organizing Committee, AFL−CIO, Rosa Carrillo−Vasquez, L.E. M−M., Jose Calderon, Maria Muniz−Muniz. (Heller, Mark). Modified on 3/1/2010: Per attorney, the document attached is an Amended Complaint. (M,C). (Entered: 03/01/2010)
23 Original Summons issued for service upon Amended Complaint as to Jeffrey A. Briggs, Ramiro Corona, Andre Dario, Charles D. Doan, Randy L. Gallegos, Mateo, City of Norwalk, Ohio, Village of Plymouth, Ohio, United States Border Patrol, Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security, S. Wrisley, Chief Dave Light, David B. York, Holly Taft Sydlow, Eric Holder and Steven Dattelbach. (Attachments: # 1 Summons United States Border Control, # 2 Summons Jeffrey A. Briggs, # 3 Summons Ramiro Corona, # 4 Summons Andre Dario, # 5 Summons Steven Dattelbach, # 6 Summons Charles D. Doan, # 7 Summons Randy Gallegos, # 8 Summons Chief Dave Light, # 9 Summons Agent Mateo, # 10 Summons City of Norwalk, Ohio, # 11 Summons Village of Plymouth, Ohio, # 12 Summons Robert Simon, # 13 Summons Holly Taft Sydlow, # 14 Summons S. Wrsiely, # 15 Summons David B. York) (B,TM) Modified on 3/11/2010 (B,TM). (Entered: 03/08/2010)
24 Original Summons on Amended Complaint issued for service upon Eric Holder. (B,TM) Modified on 3/11/2010 (B,TM). (Entered: 03/11/2010)
25 Return of Service by certified mail executed upon Chief Dave Light on 3/13/2010 filed on behalf of All Plaintiffs. Related document(s) 23 , 21 , 22 . (B,TM) (Entered: 03/16/2010)
26 Return of Service by certified mail executed upon Jeffrey A. Briggs on 3/13/2010 filed on behalf of All Plaintiffs. Related document(s) 23 , 21 , 22 . (B,TM) (Modified on 3/22/2010 (B,TM) (Entered: 03/16/2010)
27 Return of Service by certified mail executed upon S. Wrisley on 3/15/2010 filed on behalf of All Plaintiffs. Related document(s) 23 , 21 . (B,TM) Modified on 3/22/2010 (B,TM). (Entered: 03/16/2010)
28 Return of Service by certified mail executed upon City of Norwalk, Ohio on 3/15/2010 filed on behalf of All Plaintiffs. Related document(s) 23 , 21 . (B,TM) Modified on 3/22/2010 (B,TM). (Entered: 03/16/2010)
29 Return of Service by certified mail executed upon Ramiro Corona on 3/15/2010 filed on behalf of All Plaintiffs. Related document(s) 23 , 21 . (B,TM) Modified on 3/22/2010 (B,TM). (Entered: 03/16/2010)
30 Return of Service by certified mail executed upon Andre Dario on 3/15/2010 filed on behalf of All Plaintiffs. Related document(s) 23 , 21 . (B,TM) Modified on 3/22/2010 (B,TM). (Entered: 03/16/2010)
31 Return of Service by certified mail executed upon Village of Plymouth, Ohio on 3/15/2010 filed on behalf of All Plaintiffs. Related document(s) 23 , 21 . (B,TM) Modified on 3/22/2010 (B,TM). (Entered: 03/16/2010)
32 Return of Service by certified mail executed upon Robert Simon on 3/15/2010 filed on behalf of All Plaintiffs. Related document(s) 23 , 21 . (B,TM) Modified on 3/22/2010 (B,TM). (Entered: 03/16/2010)
33 Return of Service by certified mail executed upon Chief Charles D. Doan on 3/15/2010 filed on behalf of All Plaintiffs. Related document(s) 23 , 21 . (B,TM)

Case: 3:09-cv-2865 As of: 04/04/2016 03:35 PM EDT 19 of 39

03/17/2010 03/17/2010 03/17/2010 03/17/2010 03/17/2010 03/18/2010 03/19/2010 03/19/2010 03/19/2010
03/22/2010
03/22/2010
03/23/2010 03/23/2010 03/29/2010
03/29/2010 03/29/2010 03/31/2010

Modified on 3/22/2010 (B,TM). (Entered: 03/16/2010)
34 Motion for To Exceed the Page Limit filed by Village Attica, Ohio, Jeffrey A. Briggs. (Wright, Cara) (Entered: 03/17/2010)
35 Return of Service by certified mail executed upon Agent Mateo on 3/15/2010 filed on behalf of All Plaintiffs. Related document(s) 23 , 21 . (B,TM) (Modified on 3/22/2010 (B,TM). (Entered: 03/17/2010)
36 Return of Service by certified mail upon Holly Taft Sydlow, U.S. Attorney's Office on 3/15/2010 filed on behalf of All Plaintiffs. Related document(s) 23 , 21 (B,TM) Modified on 3/17/2010 (B,TM). (Entered: 03/17/2010)
37 Return of Service by certified mail executed upon Randy L. Gallegos on 3/15/2010 filed on behalf of All Plaintiffs. Related document(s) 23 , 21 . (B,TM) Modified on 3/22/2010 (B,TM). (Entered: 03/17/2010)
38 Marginal Entry Order granting Motion to exceed page limits. Brief not to exceed 25 pages. (Related Doc # 34 ). Judge Jack Zouhary on 3/17/10.(G,D) (Entered: 03/17/2010)
39 Motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint filed by Village Attica, Ohio, Jeffrey A. Briggs. (Wright, Cara) (Entered: 03/18/2010)
40 Answer to 21 Amended complaint filed by City of Norwalk and David Light. (Grigsby, Teresa) Modified on 3/22/2010 to correct filing party names (B,TM). (Entered: 03/19/2010)
41 Return of Service by certified mail executed upon Village Attica, Ohio on 3/18/2010 filed on behalf of All Plaintiffs. Related document(s) 23 , 21 . (B,TM) Modified on 3/22/2010 (B,TM). (Entered: 03/19/2010)
43 Return of Service by certified mail executed upon Steven M. Dettelbach, U.S. Attorney (United States Border Patrol, Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security) on 3/15/2010 filed on behalf of All Plaintiffs. Related document(s) 23 and 21 (B,TM) Modified on 3/22/2010 (B,TM). (Entered: 03/22/2010)
42 ORDER. Telephone Conference set for 3/31/10 at 9:30 AM before Judge Jack Zouhary. Counsel are instructed to call Chambers at (419) 213−5675 to obtain the number for the District Court conference line and advise who will be attending the conference. Judge Jack Zouhary on 3/22/10. (S,Na) (Entered: 03/22/2010)
44 Return of Service by certified mail executed upon United States Border Patrol, Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security on 3/16/2010 filed on behalf of All Plaintiffs. Related document(s) 23 , 21 . (B,TM) (Entered: 03/22/2010)
45 Answer to 21 Amended complaint filed by Charles D. Doan and Village of Plymouth, Ohio. (Tomino, Nick) Modified on 3/23/2010 (B,TM). (Entered: 03/23/2010)
46 Return of Service by certified mail executed upon David B. York (no date on green card) filed on behalf of All Plaintiffs. Related document(s) 23 , 21 . (B,TM) (Entered: 03/23/2010)
47 Motion for extension of time until July 21, 2010 to answer or Otherwise Respond to the Amended Complaint and Memorandum in Support filed by Defendant United States Border Patrol, Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security. Related document(s) 21 . (Sydlow, Holly) (Entered: 03/29/2010)
48 Certified mail receipts returned (8) addressed to Eric H. Holder and delivered on 3/17/2010 and 3/23/2010 per Amended Complaint. Related document(s) 23 , 21 . (B,TM) (Entered: 03/29/2010)
49 Certified mail receipts returned, addressed to Steven M. Dettelbach (7) and delivered on 3/15/2010 per Amended Complaint. Related document(s) 23 , 21 . (B,TM) (Entered: 03/29/2010)
50 ORDER Phone Status held on 3/31/10 Time: 30 min. 47 Motion for extension of time to answer Amended Complaint filed by United States Border Patrol, Customs and

Case: 3:09-cv-2865 As of: 04/04/2016 03:35 PM EDT 20 of 39

04/15/2010 05/21/2010 05/24/2010 05/24/2010
05/25/2010 05/28/2010 06/18/2010 06/21/2010 06/21/2010 06/30/2010 06/30/2010 07/21/2010

Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security is granted. Answer due 7/21/10. 11 Deft Briggs' Motion to dismiss is denied as moot. 16 Deft Briggs' Notice of Separation from Office and Motion to dismiss is denied with right to refile upon showing of good cause in the event that pltfs do not voluntarily dismiss (as pltf previously dismissed deft Kevin Cashen). 39 Deft Briggs' and Village of Attica's Motion to dismiss is denied without prejudice. Deft may renew the motion after limited discovery is completed to determine if pltfs have grounds to pursue Attica. Settlement Conference set for 5/21/2010 at 10:00 AM in Chambers 203 before Judge Jack Zouhary. Prior to the settlement conference, parties shall continue to informally exchange Rule 26a disclosures. Judge Jack Zouhary on 3/31/10. (B,CJ) (Entered: 03/31/2010)
51 Answer to 21 Amended complaint filed by Village Attica, Ohio, Jeffrey A. Briggs. (Wright, Cara) Modified on 4/16/2010 (B,TM). (Entered: 04/15/2010)
52 Attorney Appearance by J. Max Weintraub filed by on behalf of United States Border Patrol, Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security. (Weintraub, J.) (Entered: 05/21/2010)
53 Attorney Appearance by William C. Silvis filed by on behalf of United States Border Patrol, Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security. (Silvis, William) (Entered: 05/24/2010)
54 ORDER Settlement Conference held 5/21/10. To the extent the arguments made in deft Village Attica's pending motion to dismiss apply to defts Norwalk & Plymouth, those defts are considered joined in that motion without further briefing. Deft US Border Patrol and other federal defts to file motion to dismiss or motion for judgment on the pleadings by 7/21/10; other local defts have until 6/21/10 to file similar motions. Should a party believe it requires more than alloted page limit for cases on complex track, call the court for permission sufficiently prior to filing deadline. Pltfs shall file opposition to motions of fed defts by 8/23/10 and oppos to motions of local defts by 8/6/10; Parties shall complete FRCP 26a initial disclosurs by 6/30/10. The individual fed defts are excluded from this deadline as they are expected to raise immunity defenses by way of motion. The Court reminds counsel that these disclosures are to be thorough and substantive to avoid costs & delay. Phone Conference set for 8/26/2010 at 10:00 AM. By consent, pltf shall have extension of time to serve John Doe defts; Ct and counsel will discuss at phone status deadline for serving those defts as well as whether reply briefs or oral arguments will be necessary on defts motions. Time: 4 hrs. (Attachments: # 1 sign in sheet) (B,CJ) (Entered: 05/24/2010)
55 Attorney Appearance by Holly Taft Sydlow filed by on behalf of Ramiro Corona, Andre Dario, Randy L. Gallegos, Mateo, Robert Simon, S. Wrisley, David B. York. (Sydlow, Holly) (Entered: 05/25/2010)
56 Initial Disclosures of Rule 26(a) filed by Dave Light, City of Norwalk, Ohio. (Grigsby, Teresa) Modified on 6/2/2010 (B,TM). (Entered: 05/28/2010)
57 Motion for judgment on the pleadings filed by Defendant City of Norwalk, Ohio. (Grigsby, Teresa) (Entered: 06/18/2010)
58 Motion for judgment on the pleadings filed by Village Attica, Ohio, Jeffrey A. Briggs. (Wright, Cara) (Entered: 06/21/2010)
59 Motion for judgment on the pleadings filed by Charles D. Doan, Village of Plymouth, Ohio. (Tomino, Nick) (Entered: 06/21/2010)
60 Initial Disclosures filed by Charles D. Doan, Village of Plymouth, Ohio. (Attachments: # 1 Plymouth Police Department Call Record)(Tomino, Nick) (Entered: 06/30/2010)
61 Notice of Service of Initial Disclosures filed by United States Border Patrol, Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security. (Silvis, William) Modified on 7/2/2010 (B,TM). (Entered: 06/30/2010)
62 Motion to dismiss and/or in the Alternative Motion for Summary Judgment and Memorandum in Support filed by Ramiro Corona, Andre Dario, Randy L. Gallegos, Mateo, Robert Simon, United States Border Patrol, Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security, S. Wrisley, David B. York. (Attachments: # 1

Case: 3:09-cv-2865 As of: 04/04/2016 03:35 PM EDT 21 of 39

07/28/2010
08/06/2010 08/16/2010 09/07/2010 09/07/2010
09/07/2010 09/08/2010 09/08/2010 09/10/2010
09/10/2010 09/14/2010 09/17/2010

Exhibit Declaration of Gallegos, # 2 Exhibit Declaration of Corona, # 3 Exhibit Declaration of Mateo, # 4 Exhibit Declaration of York, # 5 Exhibit Declaration of Dario, # 6 Exhibit Declaration of Wrisley, # 7 Exhibit Declaration of Simon)(Sydlow, Holly) (Entered: 07/21/2010)
63 ORDER. Plaintiffs' combined Opposition to local Defendants' Motions for Judgment due 8/6/10 (40 pages). Plaintiffs' Opposition to federal Defendants' Motion to Dismiss due 9/7/10 (60 pages). 8/26/10 Status Phone Conference vacated and reset for 9/20/10 at 4:30 PM before Judge Jack Zouhary. Counsel to call Chambers to obtain call−in number and advise who will be attending the conference. Judge Jack Zouhary on 7/28/10. (S,Na) (Entered: 07/28/2010)
64 Consolidated Opposition to 59 Plymouth Motion for judgment on the pleadings, 57 Norwalk Motion for judgment on the pleadings, 58 Attica Motion for judgment on the pleadings Consolidated Opposition filed by All Plaintiffs. (Heller, Mark) Modified on 8/10/2010 (M,L). (Entered: 08/06/2010)
65 Reply Memorandum in Support of 58 Motion for judgment on the pleadings filed by Village Attica, Ohio, Jeffrey A. Briggs. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Bybee Opinion) (Wright, Cara) Modified on 8/19/2010 (B,TM). (Entered: 08/16/2010)
66 Notice of Service of First Set of Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents Propounded upon Plaintiffs filed by Village Attica, Ohio, Jeffrey A. Briggs. (Wright, Cara) (Entered: 09/07/2010)
67 Motion for extension of time to respond to Federal Defendants Motion for Summary Judgment until the completion of Discovery filed by Jose Calderon, Rosa Carrillo−Vasquez, Jose Samuel Contreras Garcia, Farm Labor Organizing Committee, AFL−CIO, Maria de Belen Martinez−Castro, Maria Muniz−Muniz, Emeterio Nieto−Medina, Ohio Immigrant Worker Project, Alfonso Palafox, Jesus Rodriguez−Perez, Rocio Anani Saucedo−Carrillo, Belinda Vega. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit)(Heller, Mark) Modified on 9/8/2010 (B,TM). (Entered: 09/07/2010)
68 Response to 62 Motion to dismiss and/or in the Alternative Motion for Summary Judgment and Memorandum in Support filed by All Plaintiffs. (Heller, Mark) (Entered: 09/07/2010)
69 Attorney Appearance by Michael J. Stewart filed by on behalf of plaintiffs. (Murray, John) Modified on 9/9/2010 (B,TM). Modified on 9/14/2010 (C,D). Document contains wrong s/signature. (Entered: 09/08/2010)
70 Notice of Service First Set of Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents Propounded Upon Plaintiff Roberto Muniz filed by Village Attica, Ohio, Jeffrey A. Briggs. (Wright, Cara) (Entered: 09/08/2010)
71 Opposition to 67 Motion for extension of time to respond to Motion for Summary Judgment until the completion of discovery filed by Ramiro Corona, Andre Dario, Randy L. Gallegos, Mateo, Robert Simon, United States Border Patrol, Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security, S. Wrisley, David B. York. (Sydlow, Holly) (Entered: 09/10/2010)
72 Notice of Withdrawal of 70 Notice of Service of Discovery Request upon plaintiff filed by Village Attica, Ohio, Jeffrey A. Briggs. (Wright, Cara) Modified on 9/13/2010 (B,TM). (Entered: 09/10/2010)
73 Status Conference set for 9/15/2010 at 01:00 PM to be held telephonically before Judge Jack Zouhary. Counsel are insturcted to call chambers to obtain conference call number and advise who will be attending. Judge Jack Zouhary on 9/14/2010. (C,D) (C,D). (Entered: 09/14/2010)
74 ORDER. Status Phone Conference held on 9/15/10. Court reviewed with counsel suggestion for handling pending motions. Counsel will discuss suggestion with their respective clients. Further Phone Conference set for 9/24/10 at 2:00 PM before Judge Jack Zouhary. Counsel instructed to use same conference line number. 9/20/10 Phone Conference is vacated. (30 min) Judge Jack Zouhary on 9/17/10. (S,Na) (Entered: 09/17/2010)

Case: 3:09-cv-2865 As of: 04/04/2016 03:35 PM EDT 22 of 39

09/29/2010
09/29/2010 10/01/2010 10/07/2010 10/08/2010 10/14/2010 10/15/2010 10/19/2010
11/05/2010 11/10/2010 11/12/2010
12/07/2010
12/09/2010 12/21/2010

75 Order of Status Conference: The pending Motions for Judgment on the Pleadings (Doc. Nos. 57−59), and Motion to Dismiss / Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 62), are each denied without prejudice and with the right to refile following limited discovery. Counsel for all parties shall confer and submit by October 6, 2010 a staged discovery planfor this Courts approval. Time: 30 minutes. Judge Jack Zouhary on 9/29/2010. (C,D) (Entered: 09/29/2010)
76 Order re 62 Motion to dismiss and/or in the Alternative Motion for Summary Judgment. See order for full details. Judge Jack Zouhary on 9/29/2010. (C,D) Modified on 10/4/2010 (G,Di). (Entered: 09/29/2010)
77 Marginal Entry Order denying as moot 67 Motion to Extend Deadlines. Judge Jack Zouhary on 10/1/2010.(C,D) (Entered: 10/01/2010)
Order (non−document) re 75 Status Conference order. Counsel are granted a one week extension until October 14, 2010 to submit a staged discovery plan for this Court's approval. Judge Jack Zouhary on 10/7/2010. (C,D) (Entered: 10/07/2010)
Notice [(non−document)] of Status Conference set for 10/18/2010 at 01:30 PM in Chambers 203 before Judge Jack Zouhary. (C,D) (Entered: 10/08/2010)
78 Discovery Plan and Report of Party Negotiations with Respect to Discovery and Dismissal of Local Defendants filed by plaintiffs. (Murray, Leslie) Modified on 10/15/2010 (G,D). (Entered: 10/14/2010)
79 RESPONSE to 78 Discovery Plan and Report of Party Negotiations with Respect to Discovery and Dismissal of Local Defendan filed by United States Border Patrol, Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security. (Weintraub, J.) Modified on 10/18/2010: s/ by William Silvis (M,L). (Entered: 10/15/2010)
80 ORDER. Status Conference held on 10/18/10. Counsel agreed to dismiss without prejudice Federal Defendants named in their individual capacities. Parties agreed to tiered discovery plan. Counsel shall exchange letters setting forth agreed upon discovery plan, and shall file with Court a general description of the plan. Amended pleadings or dispositive motions may be filed with leave of Court or as agreed by the parties. Further status conference to be scheduled for December 2010 or earlier if requested by a party. Defendants still remaining in case to promptly file Answer to Complaint. (1 hr) Judge Jack Zouhary on 10/19/10. (S,Na) (Entered: 10/19/2010)
81 Consent Motion for extension of time until November 12, 2010 to answer filed by Defendant United States Border Patrol, Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security. Related document(s) 21 . (Weintraub, J.) (Entered: 11/05/2010)
82 Marginal Entry Order granting 81 Motion for Extension of Time to Answer United States Border Patrol, Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security answer due 11/12/2010. Judge Jack Zouhary on 11/10/2010.(C,D) (Entered: 11/10/2010)
83 Answer to 21 First Amended complaint, filed by United States Border Patrol, Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security, Ramiro Corona, Andre Dario, Randy L. Gallegos, Mateo, Robert Simon, S. Wrisley and David B. York. (Weintraub, J.) Modified on 11/15/2010 (M,L). Modified on 11/17/2010 to add additional filers.(M,L). (Entered: 11/12/2010)
84 ORDER. Pursuant to Court Order 80 , Telephone Status set for 12/22/10 at 2:00 PM before Judge Jack Zouhary. Counsel instructed to call Chambers to obtain District Court conference number and advise who will be attending conference. Prior to Conference, and as agreed at the 10/18/10 Status Conference, Plaintiffs are to dismiss certain Defendants and all counsel should be prepared to set a firm case schedule. Judge Jack Zouhary on 12/7/10. (S,Na) (Entered: 12/07/2010)
Notice [non−document] of Telephone Conference set for 12/22/10 at 9:00 AM (not 2:00 PM or originally scheduled) before Judge Jack Zouhary. (S,Na) (Entered: 12/09/2010)
85 Initial Discovery Plan and Voluntary Dismissal without Predjudice of Local Defendants, filed by All Plaintiffs. (Murray, Leslie) Modified on 12/22/2010 (M,L). (Entered: 12/21/2010)

Case: 3:09-cv-2865 As of: 04/04/2016 03:35 PM EDT 23 of 39

12/22/2010
01/11/2011 01/11/2011 01/11/2011 01/13/2011 02/15/2011 02/18/2011 02/22/2011 03/16/2011 04/05/2011 04/07/2011 04/08/2011
04/14/2011
04/15/2011

86 ORDER. Phone Status held on 12/22/10. Initial Discovery Plan 85 approved with some clarifications as outlined in Order. Parties agreed discovery between Plaintiffs and Federal Defendants will be shared with Local Defendants. Follow−up telephone conference set for 4/8/11 at 10:00 AM before Judge Jack Zouhary (if counsel wish in−person conference, call Chambers). Discovery disputes will be referred to Magistrate Knepp. (20 min) Judge Jack Zouhary on 12/22/10. (S,Na) (Entered: 12/22/2010)
87 Notice of Service of First Set of Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents upon Attica Police Chief filed by All Plaintiffs. (Heller, Mark) Modified on 1/12/2011 (M,L). (Entered: 01/11/2011)
88 Notice of Service of Plaintiffs' First Set of Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents upon Norwalk Police Chief, David Light filed by All Plaintiffs. (Heller, Mark) Modified on 1/12/2011 (M,L). (Entered: 01/11/2011)
89 Notice of Service of First Set of Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents upon Plymouth Police Chief Doan filed by All Plaintiffs. (Heller, Mark) Modified on 1/12/2011 (M,L). (Entered: 01/11/2011)
90 Notice of Service of First Sets of Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents upon Defendant U.S. Border Patrol filed by All Plaintiffs. (Heller, Mark) (Entered: 01/13/2011)
91 Notice of Service of Federal Defendants' Responses and Objections to Plaintiffs' First Set of Interrogatories filed by United States Border Patrol, Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security. (Silvis, William) Modified on 2/18/2011 (M,L). (Entered: 02/15/2011)
92 Notice of Service of Federal Defendants Responses and Objections to Plaintiffs' First Set of Requests for Production filed by United States Border Patrol, Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security. (Silvis, William) (Entered: 02/18/2011)
93 Notice of Service of Responses to Interrogatories and Production of documents filed by Dave Light, City of Norwalk, Ohio. (Attachments: # 1 Pleading Certificate of Service)(Grigsby, Teresa) (Entered: 02/22/2011)
94 Notice of Service of Federal Defendants' first set of discovery requests and requests for admission filed by United States Border Patrol, Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security. (Silvis, William) Modified on 3/17/2011 (M,L). (Entered: 03/16/2011)
95 Status Report for Status Conference April 8, 2011 filed by All Plaintiffs. (Heller, Mark) (Entered: 04/05/2011)
96 Status Report filed by United States Border Patrol, Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security. (Silvis, William) (Entered: 04/07/2011)
97 ORDER. Status Phone Conference held on 4/8/11. Federal Defendants shall produce documents or privileged log by 4/29/11. Parties shall complete depositions by 7/29/11. All counsel are to exchange key word search terms for e−discovery production. Phone Status set for 8/8/11 at 4:00 PM before Judge Jack Zouhary. Counsel instructed to use District Court conference line. Parties shall submit Joint Status Report with proposed case dates prior to Phone Status. (20 min) Judge Jack Zouhary on 4/8/11. (S,Na) (Entered: 04/08/2011)
98 Stipulated Motion for extension of time until May 13, 2011 to file Response to Defendant U.S. Border Patrols First Set of Discovery Requests and Requests for Admission of March 16, 2011 filed by Jose Calderon, Rosa Carrillo−Vasquez, Jose Samuel Contreras Garcia, Farm Labor Organizing Committee, AFL−CIO, Maria de Belen Martinez−Castro, Maria Muniz−Muniz, Emeterio Nieto−Medina, Ohio Immigrant Worker Project, Alfonso Palafox, Jesus Rodriguez−Perez, Rocio Anani Saucedo−Carrillo, Belinda Vega. (Heller, Mark) Modified on 4/15/2011 (M,L). (Entered: 04/14/2011)
99 Marginal Entry Order granting 98 Motion for Extension of Time until 5/13/11 to Respond to Defendant U.S. Border Patrols First Set of Discovery Requests and

Case: 3:09-cv-2865 As of: 04/04/2016 03:35 PM EDT 24 of 39

04/25/2011 04/26/2011 04/26/2011 05/12/2011
05/13/2011 06/10/2011
06/17/2011 07/29/2011 08/01/2011 08/08/2011 08/09/2011
08/22/2011 08/23/2011

Requests for Admission. Judge Jack Zouhary on 4/15/11.(G,D) (Entered: 04/15/2011)
100 Joint Motion for protective order filed by Defendant United States Border Patrol, Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security. (Silvis, William) (Entered: 04/25/2011)
101 Stipulated Protective Order (Related Doc # 100 ). Judge Jack Zouhary on 4/26/11.(C,D) (Entered: 04/26/2011)
102 Status Report regarding discovery filed by United States Border Patrol, Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security. (Silvis, William) (Entered: 04/26/2011)
103 Stipulated Motion for extension of Plaintiffs' Response to Defendant Border Patrols Request for Discovery and Admissions until June 10, 2011 filed by Jose Calderon, Rosa Carrillo−Vasquez, Jose Samuel Contreras Garcia, Farm Labor Organizing Committee, AFL−CIO, Maria de Belen Martinez−Castro, Maria Muniz−Muniz, Emeterio Nieto−Medina, Ohio Immigrant Worker Project, Alfonso Palafox, Jesus Rodriguez−Perez, Rocio Anani Saucedo−Carrillo, Belinda Vega. (Heller, Mark) (Entered: 05/12/2011)
104 Marginal Entry Order granting 103 Motion for extension of Plaintiffs' Response to Defendant Border Patrols Request for Discovery and Admissions until June 10, 2011 Deadlines. Judge Jack Zouhary on 5/13/11.(C,D) (Entered: 05/13/2011)
105 Order of Discovery Conference held on 6/10/11 before Magistrate Judge James R. Knepp, II. Federal Defendants responses to Plaintiffs discovery requests are to be completed by 12/31/11. Depositions are to be completed by 2/28/12. Federal Defendants will provide an update about the progress of the above discovery at 8/8/11 status conference with Judge Zouhary. Plaintiffs are granted extension of time to 6/17/11 to respond to Federal Defendants requests. After parties confer, if there is still a dispute, Federal Defendants may file Motion to Compel on or before 7/29/11; response on or before 8/29/11; reply on or before 9/12/11. Magistrate Judge James R. Knepp, II on 6/10/11. Time: 40 minutes(A,P) (Entered: 06/10/2011)
106 Notice of Service of Plaintiffs' Second Set of Responses and Objections to Defendant Border Patrol's First Set of Discovery Requests and Requests for Admission filed by All Plaintiffs. (Heller, Mark) (Entered: 06/17/2011)
107 Motion to compel discovery filed by Defendant United States Border Patrol, Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Ex A − Border Patrol's Discovery Requests, # 2 Exhibit Ex B − Plaintiffs' Discovery Responses & Objections)(Silvis, William) (Entered: 07/29/2011)
Order referring 107 Motion to compel discovery filed by United States Border Patrol, Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security to Magistrate Judge James R. Knepp, II for disposition. Judge Jack Zouhary on 8/1/11. (C,D) (Entered: 08/01/2011)
108 Joint Status Report filed by All Parties. (Heller, Mark) Modified on 8/9/2011 (B,TM). (Entered: 08/08/2011)
109 ORDER. Status Phone Conference held on 8/8/11. Court amended proposed schedule: Federal Defendants' responses to Plaintiffs' discovery requests due by 11/30/11. Parties to be Joined and Pleading Amendments due by 12/1/11. Depositions completed by 1/31/12. No dates set for filing dispositive motions or Final Pretrial Conference. Parties shall try to resolve promptly the outstanding e−discovery issue. If unable to do so, counsel shall request Court assistance. Next Telephone Status set for 11/21/11 at 11:00 AM (District Court bridge line). (30 min) Judge Jack Zouhary on 8/9/11. (S,Na) (Entered: 08/09/2011)
110 Opposition to 107 Motion to compel discovery filed by Maria Muniz−Muniz. (Murray, Leslie) (Entered: 08/22/2011)
111 Notice of withdrawal of opposition to motion to compel [doc 110] filed by Maria Muniz−Muniz. (Murray, Leslie) (Entered: 08/23/2011)

Case: 3:09-cv-2865 As of: 04/04/2016 03:35 PM EDT 25 of 39

08/29/2011 08/30/2011
09/07/2011 09/14/2011 09/19/2011 10/13/2011 10/25/2011 11/16/2011 11/18/2011 11/21/2011
12/16/2011 12/16/2011 12/20/2011

112 Opposition to 107 Motion to compel discovery filed by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Border Patrol's Race Neutral Policies, # 2 Exhibit Plaintiffs' Discovery Responses to Border Patrol)(Heller, Mark) (Entered: 08/29/2011)
113 AMENDED Opposition to 107 Motion to compel discovery (Complying With Local Rule Page Limitation with Consent of Defendant Border Patrol Counsel) filed by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Guidance and Memoranda Regarding The Use Of Race By Federal Law Enforcement Agencies, # 2 Exhibit List of Persons and Members of the Immigrant Worker Project Assisted By IWP Regarding Border Patrol Issues, # 3 Exhibit Plaintiffs' Second Set of Responses to Border Patrol's First Set of Discovery)(Heller, Mark) Modified on 8/31/2011 (B,TM). (Entered: 08/30/2011)
114 Unopposed Motion for extension of time to file reply in support of the motion to compel until September 19, 2011 filed by Defendant United States Border Patrol, Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security. (Silvis, William) (Entered: 09/07/2011)
Order [non−document] granting 114 unopposed Motion to Extend time until 9/19/11 for Border Patrol to file reply brief to motion to compel. Magistrate Judge James R. Knepp, II on 9/14/11.(A,P) (Entered: 09/14/2011)
115 Reply to response to 107 Motion to compel discovery filed by United States Border Patrol, Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security. (Silvis, William) (Entered: 09/19/2011)
116 Order granting in part Motion to compel discovery. Plaintiffs are ordered to comply with Defendants discovery requests. (Related Doc # 107 ) Magistrate Judge James R. Knepp, II on 10/13/11.(A,P) (Entered: 10/13/2011)
117 Notice of Service of Plaintiffs' Second Set of Requests for Production of Documents and Interrogatories and Plaintiffs' First Set of Requests for Admission upon defendants filed by Plaintiffs. (Heller, Mark) Modified on 10/26/2011 (B,TM). (Entered: 10/25/2011)
118 Notice of Service of Plaintiffs' Responses to Defendant Border Patrol's Discovery Requests Pursuant to the Court's Order of October 13, 2011 filed by All Plaintiffs. (Heller, Mark) (Entered: 11/16/2011)
119 Status Report re Discovery filed by United States Border Patrol, Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security. (Silvis, William) (Entered: 11/18/2011)
120 ORDER. Status Phone Conference held on 11/21/11. December−January deadlines set at 8/8/11 status conference vacated. Court will re−visit those deadlines at a status conference scheduled for 12/20/11 at 11:00 AM. Counsel are instructed to use the same conference line number. Counsel should be prepared to discuss firm dates for the remaining case schedule. Status Report due by 12/16/11. (15 min) Judge Jack Zouhary on 11/21/11. (S,Na) (Entered: 11/21/2011)
121 Status Report for December 20, 2011 filed by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit DOJ's Investigation of Profiling and Discrimination Against Hispanics by Maricopa County Sheriff's Office)(Heller, Mark) Modified on 12/19/2011 to edit text (B,TM). (Entered: 12/16/2011)
122 Status Report Regarding Discovery filed by United States Border Patrol, Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security. (Silvis, William) (Entered: 12/16/2011)
123 ORDER. Status Phone Conference held on 12/20/11. After discussion, Court adopted following case schedule. Deadline for Federal Defendants to produce certain discovery documents due by 1/6/12 (see Order for detailed summary). Deadline for Plaintiffs to move for reinstatement of claims against Local Defendants due by 2/3/12. Parties to be Joined and Pleading Amendments due by 3/16/12. Deadline for completion of depositions by all parties due by 4/12/12. Trial month: November 2012. Deposition of Corey Bammer to take place prior to next status conference set for 1/27/12 at 2:00 PM before Judge Jack Zouhary. Counsel are instructed to use same conference line number. Parties shall file Joint Agenda in advance of conference. (40 min) Judge Jack Zouhary on 12/20/11. (S,Na) (Entered: 12/20/2011)

Case: 3:09-cv-2865 As of: 04/04/2016 03:35 PM EDT 26 of 39

01/17/2012 01/26/2012 01/30/2012
01/31/2012 02/01/2012 02/09/2012 02/09/2012
02/13/2012 02/15/2012 02/16/2012
02/29/2012

124 Notice to take Deposition of Defendant Representative on Janauary 25, 2012 filed by Maria Muniz−Muniz. (Murray, John) (Entered: 01/17/2012)
125 Joint Agenda for Status Conference filed by All Plaintiffs. (Mollo, Eugenio) Modified on 1/27/2012 to edit text (B,TM). (Entered: 01/26/2012)
126 ORDER. Status Phone Conference held on 1/27/12. Court adopted following amended dates: Local Defendants to produce local police/incident reports re specific incidents in which suspected aliens were referred to the Border Patrol by 2/3/12; Plaintiffs to move for reinstatement of claims against Local Defendants by 2/10/12; simultaneous expert disclosures due by 7/6/12; expert reports due by 8/7/12; completion of expert depositions by all parties by 9/7/12. All other dates and deadlines remain as set by prior Order 123 . (45 min) Judge Jack Zouhary on 1/30/12. (S,Na) (Entered: 01/30/2012)
127 ORDER. Following up 1/27/12 Phone Conference 126 , another Status Phone Conference set for 4/30/12 at 2:00 PM before Judge Jack Zouhary. Counsel instructed to call Chambers to obtain the District Court Conference number and advise who will be attending the conference. At that time, counsel should be prepared to discuss the results of discovery and set a firm trial date. Judge Jack Zouhary on 1/31/12. (S,Na) (Entered: 01/31/2012)
128 Notice of Production of Supplemental Discovery Responses and Compliance with the Court's January 30, 2012 Order filed by Dave Light, City of Norwalk, Ohio. (Grigsby, Teresa) (Entered: 02/01/2012)
129 Attorney Appearance by Timothy M. Belsan filed by on behalf of Ramiro Corona, Andre Dario, Randy L. Gallegos, Mateo, Robert Simon, United States Border Patrol, Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security, S. Wrisley, David B. York. (Belsan, Timothy) (Entered: 02/09/2012)
130 SEALED Motion to Vacate Voluntary Dismissal and Reinstate Claims Against the Local Defendants and Memorandum in Support 101 filed by Jose Calderon, Rosa Carrillo−Vasquez, Jose Samuel Contreras Garcia, Farm Labor Organizing Committee, AFL−CIO, Maria de Belen Martinez−Castro, Maria Muniz−Muniz, Emeterio Nieto−Medina, Ohio Immigrant Worker Project, Alfonso Palafox, Jesus Rodriguez−Perez, Rocio Anani Saucedo−Carrillo, Belinda Vega. Related document(s) 101 . (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Attica Response to Plaintiffs RFPD, # 2 Exhibit BP I−213 Incident Reports from Attica PD Referrals, # 3 Exhibit Attica PD Incident Reports to BP, # 4 Exhibit BP Contact List and Roster, # 5 Exhibit Norwalk Response to Plaintiffs RFPD, # 6 Exhibit BP I−213 Incident Reports from Norwalk PD Referrals, # 7 Exhibit Norwalk PD Incident Reports to BP, # 8 Exhibit Norwalk PD E−mail re BP, # 9 Exhibit BP Agent in Charge −− Wets, # 10 Exhibit Plymouth PD Incident Report, # 11 Exhibit Plymouth Response to Plaintiffs RFPD, # 12 Exhibit Plymouth PD Manual)(Mollo, Eugenio) (Entered: 02/09/2012)
131 Notice to take Deposition of Border Patrol Agents Bradley Shaver, Robert Simon and Matthew Richardson on February 23, 2012 filed by Maria Muniz−Muniz. (Murray, Leslie) (Entered: 02/13/2012)
Notice [non−document] of Telephone Conference set for 2/16/12 at 2:00 PM (EDT) before Judge Jack Zouhary. Counsel instructed to call the District Court conference line. (S,Na) (Entered: 02/15/2012)
132 ORDER. Phone Status held on 2/16/12. Motion to Vacate Voluntary Dismissal 130 held in abeyance pending Settlement Conference set for 3/19/12 at 1:30 PM in Chambers 318 before Magistrate Judge James Knepp. Lead counsel and party attendance required. Plaintiffs shall provide Local Defendants with a Position Letter by 3/5/12; Local Defendants shall respond by 3/12/12. Confidential statements due by 3/15/12. Phone Status Conference set for 3/19/12 at 4:30 PM before Judge Jack Zouhary. At that time, counsel should be prepared to discuss outstanding issues, including deadline for joining parties or amending pleadings. (45 min) Judge Jack Zouhary on 2/16/12. (S,Na) (Entered: 02/16/2012)
133 Notice to take Deposition of the Ohio Immigrant Worker Project on March 7, 2012 filed by United States Border Patrol, Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security. (Silvis, William) (Entered: 02/29/2012)

Case: 3:09-cv-2865 As of: 04/04/2016 03:35 PM EDT 27 of 39

02/29/2012 03/02/2012 03/15/2012 03/19/2012 03/21/2012 03/23/2012 03/27/2012 03/28/2012
04/16/2012 04/16/2012 04/18/2012 04/19/2012 04/23/2012
04/23/2012

134 Notice to take Deposition of Farm Labor Organizing Committee, AFL−CIO on March 9, 2012 filed by United States Border Patrol, Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security. (Silvis, William) (Entered: 02/29/2012)
135 Notice to take Deposition of Roco Anani Saucedo−Carrillo, Rosa Carrillo−Vasquez, and Alfonso Palafox on March 8 and 9, 2012 filed by United States Border Patrol, Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security. (Silvis, William) (Entered: 03/02/2012)
Notice [non−document] that the correct e:mail address is Knepp_chambers@ohnd.uscourts.gov to send ex parte statements by 3/15/12 for Settlement Conference set for 3/19/12. 132 (A,P) (Entered: 03/15/2012)
Minutes of Settlement Conference [non−document] held on 3/19/12 before Magistrate Judge James R. Knepp, II. Settlement conference to be continued. Time: 3 hours 30 minutes. (A,P) (Entered: 03/20/2012)
Notice [non−document] of continued Settlement Conference set for 3/27/2012 at 01:00 PM in Chambers 318 before Magistrate Judge James R. Knepp II. Parties to report to Judge Zouhary's chambers immediately following settlement conference if case does not settle. (A,P) (Entered: 03/21/2012)
136 Notice of Service of Plaintiffs' Supplemental Responses to Border Patrol's February 22, 2012, Request for Supplementation filed by All Plaintiffs. (Heller, Mark) (Entered: 03/23/2012)
Minutes of Settlement Conference [non−document] held on 3/27/12 before Magistrate Judge James R. Knepp, II. Case not settled. Time: 3 hours 30 minutes. (A,P) (Entered: 03/27/2012)
137 ORDER. Status Conference held on 3/27/12. Magistrate Knepp reported settlement with Local Defendants was not reached. Plaintiffs granted leave to file Amended Complaint by 4/18/12; Local Defendants' Answer due 5/8/12. 4/30/12 Phone Conference vacated and reset for 5/18/12 at 8:30 AM before Judge Jack Zouhary. Counsel instructed to use District Court conference line. At that time, counsel should be perpared to set firm dates and should confer beforehard and submit propposed dates for Court's review. (30 min) Judge Jack Zouhary on 3/28/12. (S,Na) (Entered: 03/28/2012)
138 Notice of Service of Plaintiffs Responses to Border Patrol's requests for production of documents filed by All Plaintiffs. (Heller, Mark) Modified on 4/16/2012 to edit text (B,TM). (Entered: 04/16/2012)
139 Notice of Service of Supplemental Responses to Border Patrol's request for production of documents filed by All Plaintiffs. (Heller, Mark) Modified on 4/17/2012 to edit text (B,TM). (Entered: 04/16/2012)
140 SEALED Document:Second Amended Complaint filed by All Plaintiffs. Related document(s) 101 . (Heller, Mark) (Entered: 04/18/2012)
141 ORDER. At request of counsel, Phone Conference held on 4/19/12. Plaintiffs granted until 4/23/12 to withdraw their Amended Complaint 140 and to refile. Unless otherwise advised, further Phone Conference set for 4/23/12 at 10:00 AM before Judge Jack Zouhary. Counsel instructed to call the District Court conference line. (15 min) Judge Jack Zouhary on 4/19/12. (S,Na) (Entered: 04/19/2012)
142 ORDER. Status Phone Conference held on 4/23/12. Plaintiffs' oral motion to withdraw Second Amended Complaint granted 140 ; leave also granted to file a revised Second Amended Complaint. Plaintiffs may seek leave to file Third Amended Complaint, which will be discussed at a Record Hearing set for 6/6/12 at 1:00 PM in Courtroom 209 before Judge Jack Zouhary. Counsel to advise Chambers if they will attend in person or by phone. In addition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave, Counsel shall be prepared to argue any other defense motions arising from the Second Amended Complaint. Status conference set for 5/18/12 is vacated. (30 min) Judge Jack Zouhary on 4/23/12. (S,Na) (Entered: 04/23/2012)
143 REVISED SEALED Document:Second Amended Complaint filed by All Plaintiffs. Related document(s) 101 . (Heller, Mark) Modified on 4/24/2012 to edit text (B,TM).

Case: 3:09-cv-2865 As of: 04/04/2016 03:35 PM EDT 28 of 39

05/02/2012 05/03/2012 05/04/2012 05/08/2012 05/14/2012 05/18/2012 05/18/2012 05/21/2012
05/23/2012 05/29/2012 05/29/2012 05/31/2012
06/07/2012 06/11/2012 06/13/2012 06/14/2012

(Entered: 04/23/2012)
144 Motion for leave to exceed page limitations filed by Village Attica, Ohio, Jeffrey A. Briggs, Joshua Querin. (Hannon, Tami) (Entered: 05/02/2012)
145 Marginal Entry Order granting Attica Defendants' Motion to exceed page limitations (Related Doc # 144 ). Judge Jack Zouhary on 5/3/2012.(G,D) (Entered: 05/03/2012)
146 Answer to Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint filed by Dave Light and City of Norwalk, Ohio. (Grigsby, Teresa) Modified on 5/7/2012 to edit text (B,TM). (Entered: 05/04/2012)
147 Motion to dismiss 2nd Amended Complaint for failure to state a claim filed by Village Attica, Ohio, Jeffrey A. Briggs, Joshua Querin. Related document(s) 143 . (Attachments: # 1 Brief in Support) (Hannon, Tami) Modified on 5/9/2012 to edit text (B,TM). (Entered: 05/08/2012)
148 Notice of Service of First Set of Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents filed by Dave Light, City of Norwalk, Ohio. (Grigsby, Teresa) (Entered: 05/14/2012)
149 Motion for conference/hearing by telephone to discuss the agenda for the hearing currently scheduled for June 6, 2012. filed by Plaintiff Maria Muniz−Muniz. (Murray, John) (Entered: 05/18/2012)
150 Marginal Entry Order granting Motion for telephone conference. Phone Conference set for 5/18/2012 at 03:00 PM before Judge Jack Zouhary. Counsel to call Chambers at (419) 213−5675 to obtain conference line and to advise who will be attending the conference. Judge Jack Zouhary on 5/18/2012.(G,Di) (Entered: 05/18/2012)
151 ORDER. Status Phone Conference held on 5/18/12. Hearing set for 6/6/12 rescheduled to 6/15/12 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 209 before Judge Jack Zouhary. Between now and then, counsel shall discuss pending Motion to Dismiss 147 and advise Court if ruling on Motion is necessary. Any opposition to Motion shall be filed no later than 6/7/12. (30 min) Judge Jack Zouhary on 5/21/12. (S,Na) (Entered: 05/21/2012)
152 Notice to take Deposition of David York on June 6, 2012 at 10:00 am filed by Roberto Muniz. (Murray, Leslie) (Entered: 05/23/2012)
153 Stipulated Notice of Dismissal under FRCP 41(a)(1) with prejudice against the Village of Plymouth and all Village of Plymouth Defendants filed by Jose Calderon, Belinda Vega. (Mollo, Eugenio) (Entered: 05/29/2012)
154 Notice of Service of Plaintiffs' Second Set of Certified Supplemental Responses to Border Patrol Discovery Requests of March 16 2012 filed by All Plaintiffs. (Heller, Mark) Modified on 5/30/2012 to edit text (B,TM). (Entered: 05/29/2012)
155 SEALED Motion for leave to file Third Amended Complaint filed by All Plaintiffs. Related document(s) 101 . (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Third Amended Complaint)(Heller, Mark) Modified on 6/1/2012 to edit text (B,TM). Modified to create motion on 6/4/2012. Filer advised for future filings (S,HR). (Entered: 05/31/2012)
156 Opposition to 147 Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim and Memorandum filed by All Plaintiffs. (Mollo, Eugenio) (Entered: 06/07/2012)
157 Notice of Service of Plaintiffs' Third Set of Supplemental Responses to Defendant Border Patrol's Document Request filed by All Plaintiffs. (Heller, Mark) Modified on 6/13/2012 to edit text (B,TM). (Entered: 06/11/2012)
158 Opposition to 155 SEALED Motion for leave to file Third Amended Complaint filed by United States Border Patrol, Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security, United States Department of Homeland Security, Customs and Border Protection, United States of America. (Silvis, William) (Entered: 06/13/2012)
159 Response to Reply of Federal Defendants' to Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to File Third Amended Complaint filed by All Plaintiffs. Related document(s) 158 . (Heller, Mark) Modified on 6/15/2012 to edit text (B,TM). (Entered: 06/14/2012)

Case: 3:09-cv-2865 As of: 04/04/2016 03:35 PM EDT 29 of 39

06/14/2012 06/15/2012 06/19/2012
06/20/2012
06/28/2012 06/29/2012
07/03/2012 07/05/2012 07/06/2012
07/13/2012 07/16/2012 07/16/2012

160 Opposition to 155 SEALED Motion for leave to file Third Amended Complaint filed by Village Attica, Ohio, Jeffrey A. Briggs, Joshua Querin. (Hannon, Tami) (Entered: 06/14/2012)
161 Order Regarding Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to File Third Amended Complaint (re 155 ). Defendants' argument is persuasive. Litigating constitutional issues alongside tort claims of five individuals would complicate issues at trial. These individualized, non−constitutional tort claims are more appropriately brought in a separate action. Judge Jack Zouhary on 6/15/12. (Entered: 06/15/2012)
162 Minute Order of Scheduling Conference held on 6/15/12, Time: 3 hours. Deadline for simultaneous expert name disclosures:July 6, 2012. Deadline for summary judgment motions: July 16, 2012, Responses shall be filed by August 17, 2012, and reply by August 31, 2012. Deadline for submitting expert reports: August 7, 2012. Deadline for completion of all expert depositions: September 30, 2012. Bench Trial set for 12/3/2012 at 01:30 PM in Courtroom 209 before Judge Jack Zouhary. Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim (Re: 147 ) is denied as moot. Please see order for full details. Judge Jack Zouhary on 6/19/12. (C,D) (Entered: 06/19/2012)
163 TRIAL ORDER. Bench Trial set for 12/3/12 at 1:30 PM in Courtroom 209 before Judge Jack Zouhary. Counsel shall file complete written transcript of depositions to be made part of trial record with page and line designations. Objections will be ruled on in advance of trial. Hard copy of transcript shall be provided to Chambers no later than 1 week before trial. Counsel shall exchange, and provide Chambers/Court Reporter, with copy of all exhibits no later than 1 week before trial. Counsel shall notify Chambers no later than 1 week before trial if counsel intend to utilize electronic presentation of evidence, have special needs for courtroom equipment or desire realtime −− training during trial is not permitted. Judge Jack Zouhary on 6/20/12. (S,Na) (Entered: 06/20/2012)
NOTICE [non−document] of Telephone Conference set for 6/29/12 at 2:00 PM before Judge Jack Zouhary. Counsel instructed to call the District Court conference line. (S,Na) (Entered: 06/28/2012)
164 Answer to Second Amended Complaint filed by Corey Bammer, Hugh Campbell, Ramiro Corona, Andre Dario, Randy L. Gallegos, Santiago Mateo−Deleon, Matthew J. Richardson, Bradley Shaver, Robert Simon, United States Department of Homeland Security, Customs and Border Protection, United States of America, Stephanie Wrisley, David B. York. (Silvis, William) Modified on 7/3/2012 to edit text (B,TM). (Entered: 06/29/2012)
165 Notice of Service of Plaintiffs' Fourth Set of Certified Supplemental Responses to Defendant Border Patrol's Document Requests of March 16, 2012 filed by All Plaintiffs. (Heller, Mark) (Entered: 07/03/2012)
166 Notice of Service of Plaintiffs' Expert Name Disclosures filed by All Plaintiffs. Related document(s) 162 .(Heller, Mark) (Entered: 07/05/2012)
167 Notice of Service of Expert Witness Identification filed by Corey Bammer, Hugh Campbell, Ramiro Corona, Andre Dario, Randy L. Gallegos, Santiago Mateo−Deleon, Matthew J. Richardson, Bradley Shaver, Robert Simon, United States Border Patrol, Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security, United States Department of Homeland Security, Customs and Border Protection, United States of America, Stephanie Wrisley, David B. York. (Silvis, William) (Entered: 07/06/2012)
168 Motion for a telephone conference filed by Plaintiff Roberto Muniz. (Murray, Leslie) Modified on 7/16/2012 (G,Di). (Entered: 07/13/2012)
169 Marginal Entry Order granting Motion for order (Related Doc # 168 ) Telephone Conference set for 7/17/2012 at 10:00 AM in to be held telephonically on the Court's Bridge Line: 419−213−5510 Access Code 551011 before Judge Jack Zouhary. Judge Jack Zouhary on 7/16/12.(C,D) (Entered: 07/16/2012)
170 SEALED Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction or in the alternative Motion for summary judgment filed by Corey Bammer, Hugh Campbell, Ramiro Corona, Andre Dario, Randy L. Gallegos, Santiago Mateo−Deleon, Matthew J. Richardson, Bradley Shaver, Robert Simon, United States Border Patrol, Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security, United States Department of Homeland Security,

Case: 3:09-cv-2865 As of: 04/04/2016 03:35 PM EDT 30 of 39

07/17/2012
08/06/2012 08/15/2012 08/15/2012 08/24/2012 08/24/2012
08/24/2012 08/24/2012 08/24/2012 08/24/2012 08/24/2012
08/24/2012

Customs and Border Protection, United States of America, Stephanie Wrisley, David B. York. Related document(s) 101 . (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Bammer Deposition Excerpts, # 2 Exhibit York Deposition Excerpts, # 3 Exhibit POD Memo, # 4 Exhibit Saucedo Deposition Excerpts, # 5 Exhibit Vasquez Deposition Excerpts, # 6 Exhibit Simon Deposition Excerpts, # 7 Exhibit Richardson Deposition Excerpts, # 8 Exhibit Palafox Deposition Excerpts, # 9 Exhibit Stewart Deposition Excerpts, # 10 Exhibit Federal Defendants' RFP, # 11 Exhibit Plaintiffs Produced Document 363, # 12 Exhibit Plaintiffs Produced Document 341, # 13 Exhibit Plaintiffs' Responses to ROG, # 14 Exhibit Velasquez Deposition Excerpts, # 15 Exhibit Plaintiffs' Responses RFPs)(Silvis, William) Modified on 9/17/2012 (B,TM). (Entered: 07/16/2012)
171 ORDER. Status Phone Conference held on 7/17/12. Counsel shall meet and confer at Toledo Federal Courthouse on 8/3/12 at 1:00 PM to discuss potential agreement re transportation check issue. Counsel shall also review ("attorney's eyes only") chapters of Border Patrol Handbook. Court also reviewed in camera CD and agrees with Defendants that these documents are non−responsive and find they were rightly withheld from production. (45 min) Judge Jack Zouhary on 7/17/12. (S,Na) (Entered: 07/17/2012)
172 ORDER. Conference held on 8/3/12. Border Patrol Handbook reviewed by Plaintiffs' counsel. Parties agree to postpone any ruling on document production pending completion of settlement talks. Current case schedule is to be followed. (1 hr) Judge Jack Zouhary on 8/6/12. (S,Na) (Entered: 08/06/2012)
173 Motion for extension of time until August 24, 2012 to file response/reply to 170 SEALED Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction AND Motion for summary judgment filed by Plaintiff Roberto Muniz. Related document(s) 101 and 170 . (Murray, Leslie) Modified on 8/16/2012 to edit text (B,TM). (Entered: 08/15/2012)
174 ORDER granting 173 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply. Response due 8/24/12. Reply due 9/7/12. Judge Jack Zouhary on 8/15/12.(D,L) (Entered: 08/15/2012)
175 SEALED Document: Deposition and Exhibits A−C of Jeff L. Stewart filed by All Plaintiffs. Related document(s) 101 . (Attachments: # 1 Stewart Exhibit A, # 2 Stewart Exhibit B, # (3 Stewart Exhibit C)(Murray, Leslie) Modified on 8/27/2012 to edit text (B,TM). (Entered: 08/24/2012)
176 SEALED Document: Deposition and Exhibits D−F of Rocio Anani Saucedo−Carrillo taken on 3/8/2012 filed by All Plaintiffs. Related document(s) 101 . (Attachments: # 1 Saucedo−Carrillo Exhibit D, # 2 Saucedo−Carrillo Exhibit E, # 3 Saucedo−Carrillo Exhibit F)(Murray, Leslie) Modified on 8/24/2012 (L,V). Modified on 8/28/2012 to edit text (B,TM) (Entered: 08/24/2012)
177 SEALED Document: Deposition and Exhibit G of Baldemar Velasquez filed by All Plaintiffs. Related document(s) 101 . (Attachments: # 1 Velasquez Exhibit G)(Murray, Leslie) Modified on 8/27/2012 to edit text (B,TM). (Entered: 08/24/2012)
178 SEALED Document:Deposition of Rosa Carrillo−Vasquez filed by All Plaintiffs. Related document(s) 101 . (Murray, Leslie) (Entered: 08/24/2012)
179 SEALED Document:Deposition of Alfonso Vazquez Palafox filed by All Plaintiffs. Related document(s) 101 . (Murray, Leslie) (Entered: 08/24/2012)
180 SEALED Document:Deposition of Matthew Richardson filed by All Plaintiffs. Related document(s) 101 . (Murray, Leslie) (Entered: 08/24/2012)
181 SEALED Document: Deposition and Exhibits 1−10 of Corey Bammer taken on 1/25/2012 filed by All Plaintiffs. Related document(s) 101 . (Attachments: # 1 Bammer Exhibit 1, # 2 Bammer Exhibit 2, # 3 Bammer Exhibit 3, # 4 Bammer Exhibit 4, # 5Bammer Exhibit 5, # 6 Bammer Exhibit 6, # 7 Bammer Exhibit 7, # 8 Bammer Exhibit 8, # 9 Bammer Exhibit 9, # 10 Bammer Exhibit 10)(Murray, Leslie) Modified on 8/24/2012 (L,V). Modified on 8/28/2012 to edit text (B,TM). (Entered: 08/24/2012)
182 SEALED Document: Deposition Exhibits 11−27 of the Deposition of Corey Bammer filed by All Plaintiffs. Related document(s) 101 . (Attachments: # 1 Bammer Exhibit 12, # 2 Bammer Exhibit 13, # 3 Bammer Exhibit 14, # 4 Bammer Exhibit 15, # 5 Bammer Exhibit 16, # 6 Bammer Exhibit 17, # 7 Bammer Exhibit 18, # 8 Bammer

Case: 3:09-cv-2865 As of: 04/04/2016 03:35 PM EDT 31 of 39

08/24/2012 08/24/2012 08/24/2012
08/24/2012
08/24/2012
09/04/2012 09/05/2012 09/11/2012 09/14/2012

Exhibit 19, # 9 Bammer Exhibit 20, # 10 Bammer Exhibit 21, # 11 Bammer Exhibit 22, # 12 Bammer Exhibit 23, # 13 Bammer Exhibit 24, # 14 Bammer Exhibit 25, # 15 Bammer Exhibit 26, # 16 Bammer Exhibit 27)(Murray, Leslie) Modified on 8/24/2012 (L,V). (Entered: 08/24/2012)
183 SEALED Document: Deposition and Exhibits 28−34 of Bradley Shaver taken on 2/23/2012 filed by All Plaintiffs. Related document(s) 101 . (Attachments: # 1 Shaver Exhibit 28, # 2 Shaver Exhibit 29, # 3 Shaver Exhibit 30, # 4 Shaver Exhibit 31, # 5 Shaver Exhibit 32, # 6 Shaver Exhibit 33, # 7 Shaver Exhibit 34)(Murray, Leslie) Modified on 8/24/2012 (L,V). (Entered: 08/24/2012)
184 SEALED Document: Deposition and Exhibits 35−43 of Robert Simon taken on 2/23/2012 filed by All Plaintiffs. Related document(s) 101 . (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Simon 35, # 2 Exhibit Simon 36, # 3 Exhibit Simon 37, # 4 Exhibit Simon 38, # 5 Exhibit Simon 39, # 6 Exhibit Simon 40, # 7 Exhibit Simon 41, # 8 Exhibit Simon 42, # 9 Exhibit Simon 43)(Murray, Leslie) Modified on 8/27/2012 to edit text (B,TM). (Entered: 08/24/2012)
185 SEALED Document: Deposition and Exhibits 44−65 of David York taken on 6/6/2012 filed by All Plaintiffs. Related document(s) 101 . (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit York 44, # 2 Exhibit York 45, # 3 Exhibit York 46, # 4 Exhibit York 47, # 5 Exhibit York 48, # 6 Exhibit York 49, # 7 Exhibit York 50, # 8 Exhibit York 51, # 9 Exhibit York 52, # 10 Exhibit York 53, # 11 Exhibit York 54, # 12 Exhibit York 55, # 13 Exhibit York 56, # 14 Exhibit York 57, # 15 Exhibit York 58, # 16 Exhibit York 59, # 17 Exhibit York 60, # 18 Exhibit York 61, # 19 Exhibit York 62, # 20 Exhibit York 63, # 21 Exhibit York 64, # 22 Exhibit York 65)(Murray, Leslie) Modified on 8/27/2012 to edit text (B,TM). (Entered: 08/24/2012)
186 SEALED Document: Exhibits 66−86 in support of 185 Deposition of David York filed by All Plaintiffs. Related document(s) 101 . (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit York 67, # 2 Exhibit York 68, # 3 Exhibit York 69, # 4 Exhibit York 70, # 5 Exhibit York 71, # 6 Exhibit York 72, # 7 Exhibit York 73, # 8 Exhibit York 74, # 9 Exhibit York 75, # 10 Exhibit York 76, # 11 Exhibit York 77, # 12 Exhibit York 78, # 13 Exhibit York 79, # 14 Exhibit York 80, # 15 Exhibit York 81, # 16 Exhibit York 82, # 17 Exhibit York 83, # 18 Exhibit York 84, # 19 Exhibit York 85, # 20 Exhibit York 86)(Murray, Leslie) Modified on 8/27/2012 to edit (B,TM). (Entered: 08/24/2012)
187 SEALED Document: Plaintiffs' Response in Opposition to Defendants' 170 Motion to Dismiss, or, in the Alternative, Motion for Summary Judgment filed by All Plaintiffs. Related document(s) 101 . (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 Joyner Report, # 2 Exhibit 2 Blaricom Report, # 3 Exhibit 3 Bammer Email, # 4 Exhibit 4 Donaldson Email, # 5 Exhibit 5 Beldin Email, # 6 Exhibit 6 Bammer Email 1−13−09, # 7 Exhibit 7 Bammer Email 11−24−08, # 8 Exhibit 8 Bammer Email 4−20−10, # 9 Exhibit 9 Attica 1−213, # 10 Exhibit 10 Garcia Declaration, # 11 Exhibit 11 Perez Declaration)(Murray, Leslie) Modified on 8/27/2012 to edit text (B,TM). (Entered: 08/24/2012)
188 Unopposed Motion for extension of time to file reply brief in support of SEALED Motion to dismiss and for Summary judgment until September 14, 2012 101 filed by ALL Federal Defendants. Related document(s) 170 . (Silvis, William) Modified on 9/6/2012 to edit text (B,TM). (Entered: 09/04/2012)
189 Marginal Entry Order granting 188 Motion to Extend Time to 9/14/12 to file a reply in support of Motion to Dismiss and for Summary Judgment 170 . Judge Jack Zouhary on 9/5/12.(D,L) (Entered: 09/05/2012)
190 Notice to take Deposition of Kara Joyner on September 14, 2012 filed by Corey Bammer, Hugh Campbell, Ramiro Corona, Andre Dario, Randy L. Gallegos, Matthew J. Richardson, Bradley Shaver, Robert Simon, United States Border Patrol, Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security, United States Department of Homeland Security, Customs and Border Protection, United States of America, Stephanie Wrisley, David B. York. (Silvis, William) (Entered: 09/11/2012)
191 Reply Brief in support of 170 SEALED Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction or in the alternative Motion for summary judgment filed by Corey Bammer, Hugh Campbell, Ramiro Corona, Andre Dario, Randy L. Gallegos, Santiago Mateo−Deleon, Matthew J. Richardson, Bradley Shaver, Robert Simon, United States Border Patrol, Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security, United States

Case: 3:09-cv-2865 As of: 04/04/2016 03:35 PM EDT 32 of 39

09/18/2012 09/18/2012 09/25/2012 10/19/2012
10/22/2012
10/23/2012 11/15/2012 11/15/2012 11/15/2012 11/16/2012

Department of Homeland Security, Customs and Border Protection, United States of America, Stephanie Wrisley, David B. York. (Silvis, William) Modified on 9/17/2012 to edit text (B,TM). (Entered: 09/14/2012)
192 Notice to take Deposition of Brian L. Withrow on October 24, 2012 filed by Roberto Muniz. (Murray, John) (Entered: 09/18/2012)
193 Notice to take Deposition of D.P. Van Blaricom on September 20, 2012, filed by Corey Bammer, Hugh Campbell, Ramiro Corona, Andre Dario, Randy L. Gallegos, Santiago Mateo−Deleon, Matthew J. Richardson, Bradley Shaver, Robert Simon, United States Border Patrol, United States Department of Homeland Security, United States of America, Stephanie Wrisley, David B. York. (Silvis, William) (Entered: 09/18/2012)
194 Notice of service of Supplemental Initial Disclosures filed by All Plaintiffs. (Heller, Mark) Modified on 9/26/2012 to edit text and to note incorrect event used, filer notified (B,TM). (Entered: 09/25/2012)
195 Memorandum Opinion and Order granting 170 SEALED Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction or in the alternative Motion for summary judgment filed by Matthew J. Richardson, United States Border Patrol, United States of America, Hugh Campbell, Randy L. Gallegos, Andre Dario, Robert Simon, Bradley Shaver, Stephanie Wrisley, Santiago Mateo−Deleon, Corey Bammer, Ramiro Corona, United States Department of Homeland Security, David B. York. Because the Court lacks jurisdiction to consider Plaintiff's claims, this case must be dismissed. There is no need to consider the Federal Defendant's standing arguments or their alternative Motion for Summary Judgment. Judge Jack Zouhary on 10/19/12. (D,L) (Entered: 10/19/2012)
196 Stipulated Notice of Dismissal Under FRCP 41(a)(1) of Village of Attica, Jeffrey Briggs, and Josh Querin filed by Farm Labor Organizing Committee, AFL−CIO, Roberto Muniz, Luis Enrique Muniz−Muniz, Maria Muniz−Muniz(individually and on behalf of a class of others similarly situated), Maria Muniz−Muniz(individually and on behalf of a class of others similarly situated, and as next friend of), Juana Muniz−Torres, Emeterio Nieto−Medina, Ohio Immigrant Worker Project, Antonio Torres−Franco. (Heller, Mark) (Entered: 10/22/2012)
197 Marginal Entry Order and Notice of Party Dismissal re 196 Stipulated Notice of Dismissal with Prejudice. The parties agree that all claims against the Village of Attica and Village of Attica Defendants Jeffrey A. Briggs and Joshua Querin are dismissed in their entirety with prejudice. Each party is to bear their own costs and attorney fees, other than those accounted for in the completed settlement agreement. Judge Jack Zouhary on 10/23/12. (D,L) Modified on 10/24/2012 (G,Di). (Entered: 10/23/2012)
198 Stipulated Notice of Dismissal Under FRCP 41(a)(1) Against Defendants City of Norwalk, Norwalk Police Chief Dave Light, and Norwalk Police Department Officer John Doe 1 filed by Farm Labor Organizing Committee, AFL−CIO, Maria de Belen Martinez−Castro, Ohio Immigrant Worker Project. (Heller, Mark) (Entered: 11/15/2012)
199 Marginal Entry Order and Notice of Party Dismissal re 198 Stipulated Notice of Dismissal with Prejudice. The parties agree that all claims against the City of Norwalk and City of Norwalk Defendants Davie Light and John Doe 1 are dismissed in their entirety with prejudice. Each party is to bear their own costs and attorney fees, other than those accounted for in the completed settlement agreement. Judge Jack Zouhary on 11/15/12. (D,L) (Entered: 11/15/2012)
200 Order of Case Dismissal. This Court lacks jurisdiction to consider Plaintiffs' claims against the Federal Defendants. Complaint is dismissed and this case is closed. Judge Jack Zouhary on 11/15/12. (D,L) (Entered: 11/15/2012)
201 NOTICE OF APPEAL to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals from the 161 Order of 6/16/12, 195 Memorandum, Opinion and Order of 10/19/12 and the 200 Judgment Entry of 11/15/12, filed by Rocio Anani Saucedo−Carrillo, Rosa Carrillo−Vasquez, Alfonso Palafox, Jose Samuel Contreras Garcia, Jesus Rodriguez−Perez, the Ohio Immigrant Worker Project and the Farm Labor Organizing Committee, AFL−CIO. (Filing fee of $455 paid, receipt number 0647−5691244) (Murray, Leslie). Modified text on 11/19/2012 (H,SP). (Entered: 11/16/2012)

Case: 3:09-cv-2865 As of: 04/04/2016 03:35 PM EDT 33 of 39

11/19/2012 11/26/2012 12/04/2012
12/13/2012 01/28/2013 12/20/2013
01/16/2014 01/17/2014 02/24/2014 03/20/2014 03/24/2014
03/28/2014 04/14/2014 04/14/2014

202 Transcript Request by Maria Muniz−Muniz(individually and on behalf of a class of others similarly situated) for proceedings held on June 15, 2012 before Judge Jack Zouhary, re 201 Notice of Appeal. Court Reporter: Tracy Spore. Transcript required for appeal. (Murray, John) (Entered: 11/19/2012)
Transcript Order received by court reporter Tracy Spore. Estimated number of pages: 25. Transcript Order received on 11/20/2012. Financial arrangements made on 11/21/2012. Estimated completion date is 12/5/2012. Related document(s) 202 . (S,Tr) (Entered: 11/26/2012)
203 Transcript of Status Conference held on 6/15/12 before Judge Jack Zouhary. To obtain a bound copy of this transcript please contact court reporter Tracy Spore at 419−213−5520. [28 pages] Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Parties requesting that privacy information be redacted must file a notice of intent to redact with the court by 12/11/2012. Redaction Request due 12/25/2012. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 1/4/2013. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 3/4/2013. Related document(s) 202 . (S,Tr) (Entered: 12/04/2012)
204 Acknowledgment from the USCA for Sixth Circuit of receipt of 201 Notice of Appeal (USCA# 12−4419). Date filed in USCA 11/29/12. (H,SP) (Entered: 12/13/2012)
Minutes of proceedings before Judge Jack Zouhary. At the request of counsel, telephone Conference held on 1/25/13 re Protective Order. (15 min) (S,Na) (Entered: 01/28/2013)
205 Information copy of opinion from the USCA for the Sixth Circuit: Reversing the District Court's decision and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion re 201 Notice of Appeal (USCA# 12−4419). This is not a mandate order. Circuit Judges: Gibbons and White, District Judge: Greer. Date issued by USCA 12/20/13 (Attachments: # 1 Judgment) (H,SP) (Entered: 12/20/2013)
NOTICE [non−document] of Telephone Conference set for 1/17/14 at 3:30 PM before Judge Jack Zouhary. Counsel instructed to call the District Court conference line. (S,Na) (Entered: 01/16/2014)
Minutes of proceedings before Judge Jack Zouhary. Telephone Conference held on 1/17/14 re Sixth Circuit Opinion. (15 min) (S,Na) (Entered: 01/17/2014)
206 ORDER. Court advised action remains pending in Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. Counsel shall advise Court once all appeals have been exhausted at which time Court will reopen case and set phone conference to discuss new case schedule. Judge Jack Zouhary on 2/24/14. (S,Na) (Entered: 02/24/2014)
NOTICE [non−document] of Telephone Conference set for 3/21/14 at 1:00 PM EST before Judge Jack Zouhary. Counsel instructed to call the District Court conference line. (S,Na) (Entered: 03/20/2014)
207 ORDER. Status Phone Conference held on 3/21/14. Court has not addressed additional arguments raised in Federal Defendants' Motion to Dismiss and/or in the Alternative Motion for Summary Judgment 170 . Parties may file letter supplementing the briefing with any new legal authority supporting their respective positions by 4/14/14. (15 min) Judge Jack Zouhary on 3/24/14. (S,Na) (Entered: 03/24/2014)
208 True copy of mandate from the USCA for the Sixth Circuit: Reversing the decision of the District Court and remanding for further proceedings re 201 Notice of Appeal (USCA# 12−4419). Date issued as mandate 3/27/14, Costs: None (Related document 205 ) (H,SP) (Entered: 03/28/2014)
209 Supplement Citations filed by Maria Muniz−Muniz(individually and on behalf of a class of others similarly situated). (Murray, Leslie) (Entered: 04/14/2014)
210 Letter filed by Corey Bammer, Hugh Campbell, Ramiro Corona, Andre Dario, Randy L. Gallegos, Santiago Mateo−Deleon, Matthew J. Richardson, Bradley Shaver, Robert Simon, United States Border Patrol, United States Department of Homeland Security, United States of America, Stephanie Wrisley, David B. York. (Silvis, William) (Entered: 04/14/2014)

Case: 3:09-cv-2865 As of: 04/04/2016 03:35 PM EDT 34 of 39

04/24/2014 04/29/2014 05/01/2014 05/02/2014
05/02/2014 05/28/2014
06/26/2014 06/27/2014 07/10/2014 07/30/2014
10/15/2014
10/30/2014 11/18/2014 11/25/2014 02/03/2015

211 Motion for oral argument filed by Plaintiff Maria Muniz−Muniz. (Murray, Leslie) (Entered: 04/24/2014)
212 Marginal Entry Order granting 211 Motion for oral argument. Oral Argument set for 5/28/2014 at 9:30 AM in Courtroom 209 before Judge Jack Zouhary. Judge Jack Zouhary on 4/29/2014.(D,L) (Entered: 04/29/2014)
213 Motion to continue May 28, 2014 Oral Argument filed by Plaintiff Maria Muniz−Muniz. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(Murray, Leslie) (Entered: 05/01/2014)
214 Response to 213 Motion to continue May 28, 2014 Oral Argument filed by Corey Bammer, Hugh Campbell, Ramiro Corona, Andre Dario, Randy L. Gallegos, Santiago Mateo−Deleon, Matthew J. Richardson, Bradley Shaver, United States Border Patrol, United States Department of Homeland Security, United States of America, Stephanie Wrisley, David B. York. (Silvis, William) (Entered: 05/02/2014)
215 Marginal Entry Order granting 213 Plaintiffs' Motion to continue oral argument. Oral Argument now set for 5/27/2014 at 2:30 PM in Courtroom 209 before Judge Jack Zouhary. Judge Jack Zouhary on 5/2/2014.(D,L) (Entered: 05/02/2014)
216 Order. Record hearing held on 5/27/2014. (Court Reporter: Angela Nixon). This Court heard argument and denied the remaining claims in the Federal Defendants' Motion to Dismiss 170 . This Order supplements this Court's ruling at the hearing. This Court will hold a Status Phone Conference on 7/28/2014 at 10:30 AM before Judge Jack Zouhary. At that time, counsel are instructed to use the District Court conference line. Judge Jack Zouhary on 5/28/2014. (D,L) (Entered: 05/28/2014)
217 Notice of Service of Plaintiffs' Fifth Set of Responses and Objections to Defendant United States Border Patrol's Discovery Requests and Requests for Admission filed by All Plaintiffs. (Heller, Mark) (Entered: 06/26/2014)
218 Notice of Service of Plaintiffs' Sixth Set of Discovery Responses to Defendant Border Patrol's Discovery Requests filed by All Plaintiffs. (Heller, Mark) (Entered: 06/27/2014)
219 Notice of Service of Plaintiffs' Seventh Supplemental Set of Discovery Responses to Defendant Border Patrol's Discovery Requests filed by All Plaintiffs. (Heller, Mark) (Entered: 07/10/2014)
220 Order. Status Phone Conference held on 7/28/2014. See order for specific parties remaining in this case.Discovery deadline is 11/14/2014. Plaintiffs' expert report due 12/5/2014. Defendants' expert report due 1/5/2015. Expert depositions (if necessary) due 1/30/2015. Tentative bench trial date of 3/16/2015. Counsel to hold that date and confirm witness availability. Judge Jack Zouhary on 7/30/2014. (30 mins)(D,L) (Entered: 07/30/2014)
221 Notice of Service of Federal Defendants' Second Set of Discovery Requests filed by Corey Bammer, Hugh Campbell, Ramiro Corona, Andre Dario, Randy L. Gallegos, Santiago Mateo−Deleon, Matthew J. Richardson, Bradley Shaver, United States Border Patrol, United States Department of Homeland Security, United States of America. (Silvis, William) (Entered: 10/15/2014)
NOTICE [non−document] of Telephone Conference set for 11/25/14 at 2:30 PM (DST) before Judge Jack Zouhary. At that time, counsel instructed to call the District Court conference line. (S,Na) (Entered: 10/30/2014)
222 Notice of Service of Plaintiffs' Certified Supplemental Responses to Federal Defendants' Second Set of Discovery Requests filed by All Plaintiffs. (Heller, Mark) (Entered: 11/18/2014)
223 ORDER. Status Phone Conference held on 11/25/14. Discovery is ongoing according to schedule. Counsel will be exchanging realistic witness lists. Bench Trial date of 3/16/15 vacated and reset for 5/11/15 before Judge Jack Zouhary. (15 min) Judge Jack Zouhary on 11/25/14. (S,Na) (Entered: 11/25/2014)
224 Notice to take Deposition of Brian L. Withrow, Ph.D. on March 19, 2015 filed by Maria Muniz−Muniz(individually and on behalf of a class of others similarly situated). (Murray, John) (Entered: 02/03/2015)

Case: 3:09-cv-2865 As of: 04/04/2016 03:35 PM EDT 35 of 39

04/10/2015
04/20/2015 04/21/2015 04/27/2015 05/04/2015 06/05/2015 06/05/2015 06/05/2015 06/08/2015 06/16/2015
06/17/2015

225 TRIAL ORDER. Phone Status held on 4/10/15. Bench Trial set for 5/11/15 at 9:00 AM in Courtroom 209 before Judge Jack Zouhary. Counsel shall consult with each other and submit a joint Trial Brief. Counsel shall confer re deposition testimony and try to agree on the designation of those portions of the depositions to be offered into evidence; and also identify any objections. See attached Order with attachment re designations. Objections will be ruled on in advance of trial. Counsel shall file a complete written transcript of each deposition to be used at trial with a hard copy to Chambers. If a complete written transcript has already been ECF filed, counsel need not file a duplicate copy, and need only file the relevant pages containing designations and objections. Counsel shall exchange exhibits with each other and provide Chambers with one hard copy set of all exhibits. Counsel shall also ECF file a Joint List of Exhibits to be offered by each party at trial, identifying each exhibit by number and a brief description. Do not file exhibits with the Clerk of Courts. See attached Order for procedures re marking of exhibits. In order to facilitate the creation of an accurate Realtime record, counsel shall provide a "Notice to Court Reporter." Notice to Court Reporter need not be filed but shall be provided in person or via e−mail. Well in advance of trial, counsel should be trained and familiar with the electronic presentation of evidence and the use of courtroom equipment. Training on the eve of or during trial is not permitted. All filings are due no later than 10 days before trial. (15 min) Judge Jack Zouhary on 4/10/15. (S,Na) (Entered: 04/10/2015)
NOTICE [non−document] of Telephone Conference set for 4/21/15 at 11:00 AM before Judge Jack Zouhary. At that time, counsel instructed to call the District Court conference line. (S,Na) (Entered: 04/20/2015)
226 ORDER. Phone Status held on 4/21/15. The following days, all beginning at 9:00 AM, have been reserved for trial. May 12, May 14−15 and May 19−22. (15 min) Judge Jack Zouhary on 4/21/15. (S,Na) (Entered: 04/21/2015)
227 ORDER. Phone Status held on 4/24/15. Due to conflicts, May trial days vacated 226 . Court and counsel agreed to reserve the following trial days: 6/16/15 through 6/19/15 and 6/23/15 through 6/26/15. Judge Jack Zouhary on 4/27/15. (S,Na) (Entered: 04/27/2015)
228 Attorney Appearance for Federal Defendants in Official Capacities by Colin A. Kisor filed by on behalf of United States Border Patrol, United States Department of Homeland Security, United States of America. (Kisor, Colin) (Entered: 05/04/2015)
229 SEALED Document:Deposition of Brian L. Withrow filed by All Plaintiffs. Related document(s) 101 . (Attachments: # 1 Deposition Exhibits 1−18)(Murray, Leslie) Modified text on 6/10/2015 (M,L). (Entered: 06/05/2015)
230 SEALED Document:Deposition of Kara Joyner filed by All Plaintiffs. Related document(s) 101 . (Attachments: # 1 Deposition Exhibit A: Statistical Analysis of Sandusky Bay Station Apprehension, # 2 Deposition Exhibit B: Critical Analysis of Expert Reports)(Murray, Leslie) Modified descriptions on 6/10/2015 (M,L). (Entered: 06/05/2015)
231 Joint Exhibit List filed by All Plaintiffs. (Murray, Leslie) (Entered: 06/05/2015)
232 Joint Trial Brief filed by All Plaintiffs. (Murray, Leslie) (Entered: 06/08/2015)
Minutes of proceedings [non−document] before Judge Jack Zouhary. Bench Trial held on 6/16/2015. Counsel present: John Murray, Leslie Murray, Mark Heller, Michael Stewart, Eugenio Mollo for Plaintiffs; William Silvis, Colin Kisor for Defendants. Parties present: Baldemar Velasquez and Jeff Stewart on behalf of Plaintiffs; Tahani Afaneh on behalf of Defendants. Interpreter Mauricio Fernandez de Cordova present and sworn. Opening Statements presented by counsel. Testimony taken: William Bautista−Morales; Edson Perez−Perez; Baldemar Velasquez; Jeff Stewart. Bench Trial adjourned until 6/17/2015 at 9:00 AM in Courtroom 209 before Judge Jack Zouhary. (Court Reporter: Angela Nixon.) Time: 7 hours. (D,L) (Entered: 06/16/2015)
Minutes of proceedings [non−document] before Judge Jack Zouhary. Bench Trial held on 6/17/2015. Counsel present: John Murray, Leslie Murray, Mark Heller, Michael Stewart, Eugenio Mollo for Plaintiffs; William Silvis, Colin Kisor for Defendants. Parties present: Baldemar Velasquez and Jeff Stewart on behalf of Plaintiffs; Tahani Afaneh on behalf of Defendants. Testimony taken: Corey Bammer,

Case: 3:09-cv-2865 As of: 04/04/2016 03:35 PM EDT 36 of 39

06/18/2015 06/18/2015 06/19/2015 06/23/2015
06/24/2015 06/25/2015 06/26/2015

David York, Robert Simon. Bench Trial adjourned until 6/18/2015 at 9:00 AM in Courtroom 209 before Judge Jack Zouhary. (Court Reporter: Angela Nixon.) Time: 7 hours. (D,L) (Entered: 06/18/2015)
233 Notice of Service of Subpoena to Appear and Testify at a Hearing or Trial in a Civil Action filed by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Subpoena served on Isaias Sanchez Montejo)(Heller, Mark) (Entered: 06/18/2015)
Minutes of proceedings [non−document] before Judge Jack Zouhary. Bench Trial held on 6/18/2015. Counsel present: John Murray, Leslie Murray, Mark Heller, Michael Stewart, Eugenio Mollo for Plaintiffs; William Silvis, Colin Kisor for Defendants. Parties present: Baldemar Velasquez and Jeff Stewart on behalf of Plaintiffs; Tahani Afaneh on behalf of Defendants. Testimony taken: Jose Montez−Ramirez, Kara Joyner, PhD., Bradley Shaver, Isaias Sanchez−Montejo. Bench Trial adjourned until 6/19/2015 at 9:30 AM in Courtroom 209 before Judge Jack Zouhary. (Court Reporter: Angela Nixon.) Time: 7 hours. (D,L) (Entered: 06/18/2015)
Minutes of proceedings [non−document] before Judge Jack Zouhary. Bench Trial held on 6/19/2015. Counsel present: John Murray, Leslie Murray, Mark Heller, Michael Stewart, Eugenio Mollo for Plaintiffs; William Silvis, Colin Kisor for Defendants. Parties present: Baldemar Velasquez and Jeff Stewart on behalf of Plaintiffs; Tahani Afaneh on behalf of Defendants. Interpreter Mauricio Fernandez de Cordova present and sworn. Testimony taken: Rosa Carillo−Vasquez, Rocio Saucedo−Carillo. Bench Trial adjourned until 6/23/2015 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 209 before Judge Jack Zouhary. (Court Reporter: Angela Nixon.) Time: 4 hours. (D,L) (Entered: 06/19/2015)
Minutes of proceedings [non−document] before Judge Jack Zouhary. Bench Trial held on 6/23/2015. Counsel present: John Murray, Leslie Murray, Mark Heller, Michael Stewart, Eugenio Mollo for Plaintiffs; William Silvis, Colin Kisor for Defendants. Parties present: Jeff Stewart on behalf of Plaintiffs; Tahani Afaneh on behalf of Defendants. Interpreter Ellen Donohue present and sworn. Testimony taken: Rolando Aboytes−Bermudez, Matthew Richardson, Maria Martinez−Castro, Julio Basaldua−Nueva. Plaintiffs rest. Government made oral motion pursuant to Federal Civil Rule 52(c). This Court declined to render any judgment until the close of the evidence. Defendants case begun. Testimony taken: Matthew Richardson, Dr. Brian Withrow. Bench Trial adjourned until 6/24/2015 at 9:00 AM in Courtroom 209 before Judge Jack Zouhary. (Court Reporter: Angela Nixon) Time: 6.5 hours(D,L) (Entered: 06/24/2015)
Minutes of proceedings [non−document] before Judge Jack Zouhary. Bench Trial held on 6/24/2015. Counsel present: John Murray, Leslie Murray, Mark Heller, Michael Stewart, Eugenio Mollo for Plaintiffs; William Silvis, Colin Kisor for Defendants. Parties present: Jeff Stewart on behalf of Plaintiffs; Tahani Afaneh on behalf of Defendants. Testimony taken: Dr. Brian Withrow, Alexander Chavez, Louis Rosenberg, Thomas Payne. Bench Trial adjourned until 6/25/2015 at 9:30 AM in Courtroom 209 before Judge Jack Zouhary. (Court Reporter: Angela Nixon) Time: 4 hours (D,L) (Entered: 06/24/2015)
Minutes of proceedings [non−document] before Judge Jack Zouhary. Bench Trial held on 6/25/2015. Counsel present: John Murray, Leslie Murray, Mark Heller, Michael Stewart, Eugenio Mollo for Plaintiffs; William Silvis, Colin Kisor for Defendants. Parties present: Tahani Afaneh on behalf of Defendants. Testimony taken: Mario Martinez. Defendant rests. Exhibits admitted into evidence. Government renewed oral motion pursuant to Federal Civil Rule 52(c). This Court declined to render any judgment until receipt of additional evidence and review of post trial briefing. Simultaneous Post Trial Briefs, limit of 20 pages, due no later than 7/31/2015 by 5:00 PM. (Court Reporter: Angela Nixon.) Time: 3 hours. (D,L) (Entered: 06/25/2015)
234 ORDER. Defendants are requested to promptly produce documents and information for the period 2010−14. See attached Order for categories of documents and information. If after a reasonable search Defendants determine any category of documents or information does not exist or cannot be located, counsel shall file a declaration detailing the scope of the search performed. By 7/2/15, Defendants'

Case: 3:09-cv-2865 As of: 04/04/2016 03:35 PM EDT 37 of 39

06/26/2015 07/08/2015 07/10/2015 07/10/2015 07/10/2015 07/10/2015 07/12/2015

counsel shall e−mail chambers, with a copy to all counsel, providing a reasonable time frame for document production. All documents shall be produced to Court and counsel simultaneously, except that documents containing information Defendants assert are protected from disclosure shall be produced to Court for in camera review. Post−trial briefs with proposed findings of facts and conclusions of law (not to exceed 20 pages) due by 7/31/15. See attached Order for briefing requirements. Failure to follow will result in Clerk striking the briefing. Judge Jack Zouhary on 6/26/15. (S,Na) (Entered: 06/26/2015)
235 Non−Appeal Transcript Order Form for proceedings held on June 16−19 and June 23−25 before Judge Jack Zouhary, Court Reporter: Angela Nixon. Requested completion date: July 10, 2015 filed by All Plaintiffs. (Murray, John) (Entered: 06/26/2015)
236 Transcript of Bench Trial, Volume 1, held on June 16, 2015 before Judge Jack Zouhary. To obtain a bound copy of this transcript please contact court reporter Angela Nixon at (419) 260−5259. [254 pages] Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Parties requesting that privacy information be redacted must file a notice of intent to redact with the court by 7/15/2015. Redaction Request due 7/29/2015. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 8/10/2015. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 10/6/2015. (N,A) (Entered: 07/08/2015)
237 Transcript of Bench Trial, Volume 2, held on June 17, 2015 before Judge Jack Zouhary. To obtain a bound copy of this transcript please contact court reporter Angela Nixon at (419) 260−5259. [277 pages] Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Parties requesting that privacy information be redacted must file a notice of intent to redact with the court by 7/17/2015. Redaction Request due 7/31/2015. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 8/10/2015. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 10/8/2015. (N,A) (Entered: 07/10/2015)
238 Transcript of Bench Trial, Volume 3, held on June 18, 2015, before Judge Jack Zouhary. To obtain a bound copy of this transcript please contact court reporter Angela Nixon at (419) 260−5259. [278 pages] Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Parties requesting that privacy information be redacted must file a notice of intent to redact with the court by 7/17/2015. Redaction Request due 7/31/2015. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 8/10/2015. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 10/8/2015. (N,A) (Entered: 07/10/2015)
239 Transcript of Bench Trial, Volume 4, held on June 19, 2015, before Judge Jack Zouhary. To obtain a bound copy of this transcript please contact court reporter Angela Nixon at (419) 260−5259. [99 pages] Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Parties requesting that privacy information be redacted must file a notice of intent to redact with the court by 7/17/2015. Redaction Request due 7/31/2015. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 8/10/2015. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 10/8/2015. (N,A) (Entered: 07/10/2015)
240 Transcript of Bench Trial, Volume 5, held on June 23, 2015, before Judge Jack Zouhary. To obtain a bound copy of this transcript please contact court reporter Angela Nixon at (419) 260−5259. [254 pages] Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Parties requesting that privacy information be redacted must file a notice of intent to redact with the court by 7/17/2015. Redaction Request due 7/31/2015. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 8/10/2015. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 10/8/2015. (N,A) (Entered: 07/10/2015)
241 Transcript of Bench Trial, Volume 6, held on June 24, 2015 before Judge Jack Zouhary. To obtain a bound copy of this transcript please contact court reporter

Case: 3:09-cv-2865 As of: 04/04/2016 03:35 PM EDT 38 of 39

07/20/2015
07/31/2015 07/31/2015 07/31/2015 09/10/2015 09/18/2015
09/29/2015 09/30/2015
09/30/2015 10/19/2015 02/24/2016 02/24/2016

Angela Nixon at (419) 260−5259. [146 pages] Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Parties requesting that privacy information be redacted must file a notice of intent to redact with the court by 7/20/2015. Redaction Request due 8/3/2015. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 8/12/2015. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 10/12/2015. (N,A) (Entered: 07/12/2015)
242 Transcript of Bench Trial, Volume 7, held on June 25, 2015 before Judge Jack Zouhary. To obtain a bound copy of this transcript please contact court reporter Angela Nixon at (419) 260−5259. [116 pages] Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Parties requesting that privacy information be redacted must file a notice of intent to redact with the court by 7/27/2015. Redaction Request due 8/10/2015. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 8/20/2015. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 10/19/2015. (N,A) (Entered: 07/20/2015)
243 Post Trial Brief filed by Farm Labor Organizing Committee, AFL−CIO, Ohio Immigrant Worker Project. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2)(Stewart, Michael) (Entered: 07/31/2015)
244 Post Trial Brief filed by United States Border Patrol, United States Department of Homeland Security. (Silvis, William) Modified on 8/4/2015 to correct text (B,TM). (Entered: 07/31/2015)
245 DUPLICATE Post Trial Brief filed by United States Border Patrol, United States Department of Homeland Security. (Silvis, William) Modified on 8/4/2015 pleading appears to be duplicate of 244 (B,TM). (Entered: 07/31/2015)
NOTICE [non−document] of Telephone Conference set for 9/17/15 at 2:00 PM (EDT) before Judge Jack Zouhary. This Court will provide the call−in information prior to the conference. (S,Na) (Entered: 09/10/2015)
246 Order and Notice of Party Dismissal. Phone Status held on 9/17/2015. See Order regarding remaining Plaintiffs and Defendant. This Court will provide Plaintiffs' counsel an "attorney's eyes only" review of the new in camera documents. Plaintiffs' counsel may conduct such review in the courtroom of the Honorable Jack Zouhary (Courtroom 209). Judge Jack Zouhary on 9/18/2015. (30 mins)(D,L) (Entered: 09/18/2015)
NOTICE [non−document] of Telephone Conference set for 9/30/15 at 10:00 AM before Judge Jack Zouhary. At that time, counsel instructed to call the District Court conference line. (S,Na) (Entered: 09/29/2015)
247 Motion to compel discovery AND Motion for sanctions filed by Plaintiff Farm Labor Organizing Committee, AFL−CIO. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 − Federal Defendants' Responses and Objections to PLaintiffs' First Set of Requests for Production of Documents, # 2 Exhibit 2 − Federal Defednants' Responses and Objections to Plaintiffs' Second Set of Requests For Production of Documents, Second Set of Interrogatories and Requests for Admission)(Murray, Leslie). AddedMotion for sanctions on 10/1/2015 (M,L). (Entered: 09/30/2015)
248 ORDER. Phone Status held on 9/30/15. Defendant's response to Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel and for Sanctions 247 due by 10/19/15 (10−page limit). No written reply or oral hearing unless requested by Court. (15 min) Judge Jack Zouhary on 9/30/15. (S,Na) (Entered: 09/30/2015)
249 Opposition to 247 Motion to compel discovery and for SanctionsMotion for sanctions filed by United States Border Patrol. (Kisor, Colin) (Entered: 10/19/2015)
250 Order denying 247 Motion to compel discovery AND Motion for sanctions. See Order for details. Judge Jack Zouhary on 2/24/2016.(D,L) (Entered: 02/24/2016)
251 Memorandum Opinion and Order. The eight CBP encounters over a period of 6 years that were the focus of testimony at trial do not support the allegation that CBP has a policy or custom of racial profiling and unlawful seizures. Plaintiffs have not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that Defendant committed any

Case: 3:09-cv-2865 As of: 04/04/2016 03:35 PM EDT 39 of 39

02/24/2016

constitutional violations, or that any of the alleged violations were the result of Defendant's custom or policy. This Court finds in favor of Defendant on all claims. Judge Jack Zouhary on 2/24/2016. (D,L) (Entered: 02/24/2016)
252 Judgment Entry. This Court having contemporaneously filed its Memorandum Opinion and Order 251 , finds in favor of Defendant on all claims. This Court enters final judgment for Defendant and orders this case is dismissed. Judge Jack Zouhary on 2/24/2016. (D,L) (Entered: 02/24/2016)