Case 2:11-cv-00899-WKW-CSC Document 1 Filed 10/19/11 Page 1 of 15

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
NORTHERN DIVISION

LINDA SMITH and JOJi-Th'I DOE, on behalf

- -

of themselves and all others similarly situated,

.

7 'lED

tc A II :

r

.

T ':nTiCTD I

Plaintiffs,

Civil Action File No.

REESE McKINNEY, JR., Probate Judge of Montgomery County, in his official capacity and as representative of the class of probate judges in the State of Alabama similarly situated,
Defendant.

dl—cv— 89
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT This is a class action brought by Plaintiff Linda Smith, a United States citizen, and Plaintiff John Doe, a Mexican citizen, on behalf of themselves and a class of all couples unable to obtain a marriage license in Alabama because one or both of its members is undocumented. Plaintiffs Smith and Doe have lived together in a committed relationship for over nine years and now wish to marry. Plaintiff Doe provides companionship and critical financial support to his fiancée, a United States citizen, and his family, including the two children and grandchild that he and his fiancée care for. The couple desires to express their love for and commitment to one another by getting married and obtaining the economic, emotional, and psychological benefits of marriage. 2. But solely because Plaintiff Doe is undocumented, he and his fiancée cannot exercise their fundamental right to marry, a right that is guaranteed under the United States Constitution to all persons regardless of immigration status.

Case 2:11-cv-00899-WKW-CSC Document 1 Filed 10/19/11 Page 2 of 15
Defendant McKinney, Jr., acting as the Probate Judge of Montgomery County, has adopted, and implements and enforces, a policy that categorically denies a marriage license to any couple where one or both of its members is undocumented. Defendant's policy requires non-citizens of the United States who are seeking to obtain a marriage license to provide proof of their legal presence in the United States through a green card, visa, or similar immigration document. Defendant's policy also requires all applicants to provide a Social Security card in order to obtain a marriage license - a requirement that undocumented persons cannot satisfy. Defendant's policy acts to bar all undocumented persons from obtaining a marriage license in Montgomery County. Moreover, Defendant's policy acts to bar all persons, including United States citizens, whose intended spouse is undocumented from obtaining a marriage license.
4. Defendant's policy is not required by any federal or state law, including the recently passed law known as "HB 56", and indeed, conflicts with guidance issued by Alabama's Attorney General.
Defendant McKinney, Jr.'s policy is indicative of the policies and practices of 54 other probate judges in Alabama that purposefully or effectively prohibit undocumented persons or persons whose intended spouse is undocumented from obtaining a marriage license. Defendant McKinney, Jr.'s policy, and similar policies of the class of probate judges in which he is sought to represent, directly interferes with Plaintiffs' fundamental right to marry and right to equa' protection under the law, as guaranteed under the United States Constitution. This litigation is brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief, and costs and attorneys' fees and expenses as provided under 42 U.S.C. § 1988.
PARTIES
Named P1aintfJ's/C1ass Representatives
'1

Case 2:11-cv-00899-WKW-CSC Document 1 Filed 10/19/11 Page 3 of 15
6. Plaintiff Linda Smith ("Ms. Smith") is a citizen of the United States and is currently a resident of Alabama. Ms. Smith is 37 years old, not currently married, and wholly unrelated to John Doe by blood. Ms. Smith has an original Social Security card, original certified copy of her Alabama birth certificate, and Alabama government-issued picture identification. She meets all the lawful requirements under Alabama law to be issued a marriage license. Plaintiff Smith sues on her own behalf and on behalf of those similarly situated.
7. Plaintiff John Doe is a Mexican national who currently lives in Alabama. He is 39 years old, not currently married, and wholly unrelated to Linda Smith by blood. John Doe and Linda Smith have lived together in a committed relationship since 2002, and lived in Alabama since 2005. John Doe does not have a Social Security number and cannot show proof of his legal presence in this country. He is ineligible to receive a marriage license in Montgomery County because he does not have proof of his legal presence in the United States and does not have a Social Security card due to his immigration status.
John Doe does have several forms of identification, including a Mexican passport, a birth certificate, a Mexican consulate identification, and other identification issued by the Mexican government. Plaintiff Doe meets all the lawful requirements under Alabama law to be issued a marriage license. Plaintiff Doe sues on his own behalf and on behalf of those similarly situated.
Named Defendant/Class Representative 9. Defendant Reese McKinney, Jr. is the Probate Judge of Montgomery County. In that position, he is responsible for, among other things, the issuance of marriage licenses. Ala. Code § 3 0-1-9, 22-9A-17(b). He maintains an office at the Montgomery County Courthouse Annex I, 100 South Lawrence Street, Montgomery, Alabama. Defendant McKirmey, Jr. is sued

Case 2:11-cv-00899-WKW-CSC Document 1 Filed 10/19/11 Page 4 of 15
in his official capacity and as a representative of a class of all probate judges in Alabama with a policy that has the effect of categorically denying marriage licenses to a couple, where one or both of the individuals is undocumented.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE 10. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 because this action arises under the U.S. constitution and laws of the United States, and pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1343 because this action seeks to redress the deprivation, under color of state law, of Plaintiffs' civil rights and to secure equitable or other relief for the violation of those rights. 11. This Court has jurisdiction to grant declaratory relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2201 and 2202, and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 57. 12. This Court has personal jurisdiction over the Defendant who is located in the Middle District of Alabama. 13. Venue is proper in the Middle District of Alabama pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) in that Defendant McKinney, Jr. resides within the Middle District of Alabama, and "a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim[sI occurred" within this District and Division.
CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS Plaintiff Class Allegations
14. Plaintiffs Smith and Doe bring this suit on their own behalf and on behalf of all persons in Alabama that desire to obtain a marriage license, where the person or the person's intended spouse is undocumented.
ri

Case 2:11-cv-00899-WKW-CSC Document 1 Filed 10/19/11 Page 5 of 15
15. Numerosity: The proposed class is so numerous and geographically dispersed that joinder of all members of this class is impracticable. Although the precise size of the class cannot be determined at this time, statistical evidence shows that the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable. Alabama is home to an estimated 100,000— 200,000 immigrants without lawful status. Pew Hispanic Center, A Portrait of Unauthorized Immigrants in the United States, April 14, 2009, at 13, http://pewhispanic.org/files/reports/107.pdf . The class also includes future members whose names are not known pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(1).
16. Commonality: There are questions of law and fact common to all plaintiff class members, including whether a policy or practice that has the purpose or effect of categorically denying marriage licenses to couples where one or both of its members is undocumented violates the plaintiff class members' fundamental right to marry as guaranteed by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, and violates the plaintiff class members' rights to Equal Protection as guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
17. Typicality: The claims asserted by Plaintiffs Smith and Doe are typical of the claims of all members of the proposed plaintiff class because the policies and practices challenged in this action apply with the same force to Plaintiffs Smith and Doe as they do to all other members of the class. The entire plaintiff class will benefit from the relief sought.
18. Adequacy of Representation: Plaintiffs Smith and Doe will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class. Both Plaintiff Smith and Plaintiff Doe possess a strong personal interest in the subject matter of this lawsuit and the claims raised. They are represented by experienced counsel with expertise in class action litigation and litigation involving the

Case 2:11-cv-00899-WKW-CSC Document 1 Filed 10/19/11 Page 6 of 15
constitutional rights of immigrants. Counsel has the legal knowledge and resources to fairly and adequately represent the interests of all class members in this action.
19. This case may be maintained as a class action under Rule 23(b)(2) because in enforcing policies that have the effect or purpose of categorically denying marriage licenses to couples where one or both of the parties is undocumented, the Defendant has acted and refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the class. Accordingly, final injunctive and declaratory relief is appropriate to the class as a whole.
Defendant Class Allegations 20. Plaintiffs also bring this action as a defendant class action under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2). Plaintiffs seek to certify a defendant class represented by Defendant McKinney, Jr. in his official capacity as Probate Judge of Montgomery County. The proposed defendant class consists of all Alabama probate judges whose policy or practices have the purpose or effect of categorically denying marriage licenses to couples where one or both of them are undocumented. 21. Numerosity: The number and geographic dispersion of defendant class members makes their joinder impractical. The proposed class includes probate judges from approximately 55 of Alabama's 67 counties whose offices confirmed via telephone that it is their policy and/or practice to deny a marriage license to persons who are undocumented pursuant to a requirement that applicants provide proof of legal status, or pursuant to a requirement that applicants provide Social Security cards without exception. Members of the proposed defendant class are located throughout the State of Alabama, with some members in each of the three federal judicial districts in Alabama. 22. Commonality: This suit poses questions of law and fact that are common to the proposed defendant class representative, Defendant McKinney, Jr., and the proposed class

Case 2:11-cv-00899-WKW-CSC Document 1 Filed 10/19/11 Page 7 of 15
members that he would represent. These include whether a policy or practice that has the purpose or effect of categorically denying marriage licenses to couples where one or both of its members is undocumented violates the plaintiff class members' fundamental right to marry as guaranteed by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, and whether such a policy or practice violates the plaintiff class members' rights to Equal Protection as guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
23. Typicality: The defenses of Defendant McKinney, Jr. will be typical of the defenses of the proposed defendant class. Defendant McKinney, Jr., and all of the other members of the proposed class operate under the same state statutory framework. As a probate judge in Alabama, Defendant McKiimey, Jr., is responsible for the issuance of marriage licenses. Ala. Code § S 30-1-9, 22-9A-17(b). In this action challenging whether a policy or practice that has the purpose or effect of categorically denying marriage licenses to couples where one or both of its members is undocumented, the defenses asserted by Defendant McKiimey, Jr. will be based on legal and factual theories that are applicable to the entire proposed defendant class.
24. Adequacy of Representation: Defendant McKinney, Jr. will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the proposed defendant class. His position as the Probate Judge of Montgomery County places him in the same position with respect to this challenge as all of the other probate judges in the proposed defendant class. Because the policy and practice of Defendant McKinney, Jr. with respect to the issuance of marriage licenses to undocumented persons are substantially the same as the other 54 probate judges in Alabama who fall within the proposed defendant class, Defendant McKinney, Jr. will be able to adequately represent the proposed class. On information and belief, Defendant McKinney, Jr. has no interests antagonistic to or in conflict with the interests of other members of the proposed class, and as
7

Case 2:11-cv-00899-WKW-CSC Document 1 Filed 10/19/11 Page 8 of 15
Probate Judge of Montgomery County, he is qualified and competent to represent the proposed defendant class.
FACTS Issuance of Marriage Licenses in Alabama 25. In Alabama, no person may marry without a license. Ala. Code § 30-1-9. 26. The requirements for marriage licenses are set forth in chapter 1 of title 30 in the Alabama Code. The only restrictions set forth in this chapter are for persons under the age of 16, Ala. Code § 30-1-4, and for persons under the age of 18 whose parents or guardians do not consent. Ala. Code § 30-1-5. 27. Ala. Code § 22-9A-17 requires the probate judge to prepare and forward a completed marriage license form to the Bureau of Vital Statistics. The probate judge shall complete it "upon the basis of information obtained from the parties to be married." Ala. Code § 22-9A- 17(b). There is no requirement that identification be submitted or that the information on the form be verified. 28. A probate judge's issuance of a marriage license is a ministerial, not judicial, act. 29. Alabama law does not condition issuance of a marriage license upon proof of legal residency or any other proof of immigration status. Neither the Code of Alabama nor the Alabama Constitution requires marriage license applicants to provide proof of legal presence in the United States to secure a marriage license. 30. The Alabama Attorney General has explicitly stated that "a marriage license can be issued to an applicant who is not a United States citizen." Opinion of the Attorney General to the Honorable Pam Wilson, Acting Judge of Probate, Fort Payne, Alabama, dated July 13, 2004, No. 2004-176, 2004 Ala. AG LEXIS 125.
8

Case 2:11-cv-00899-WKW-CSC Document 1 Filed 10/19/11 Page 9 of 15
31. No provision of the Code of Alabama or the Alabama Constitution requires marriage license applicants to provide proof of their legal presence in the United States in order to secure a marriage license.
32. Alabama Code § 30-3-194(c) states that "the Social Security number of both parties to the marriage shall be collected by those parties issuing a marriage license and shall appear on the license and certificate sent to the Office of Vital Statistics." Ala. Code § 3 0-3194(c).
33. In 2008, the Alabama Attorney General issued an opinion that addressed whether a Social Security number is a required element for a person to receive a marriage license. The Office of the Attorney General concluded that a "social security number is not a required element for a person to receive a marriage license." Opinion of the Attorney General to the Honorable Luke Cooley, Houston County Judge of Probate, dated June 25, 2008, No. 2008-100, 2008 Ala. AG LEXIS 70. The Attorney General's Office instructed probate offices to allow persons without a Social Security number to submit an affidavit to the probate office attesting to the fact that he or she was never issued a Social Security number. Id. at *11.
Obtaining a Marriage License in Montgomery County 34. The Montgomery County Probate Office lists the requirements to obtain a marriage license on its website, which are appended to this Complaint as Exhibit A and incorporated herein. 35. Under the heading, "Requirements For Persons 18 years or older," the website reads: "Non-citizens of the United States must provide proof of legal presence in the United States in the form of valid immigration documents or passport." Marriage Licenses, http://www.mc-ala.org/ElectedOfficials/ProbateJudge/ProbateDivisions/Licenses/Pages/Marriag

Case 2:11-cv-00899-WKW-CSC Document 1 Filed 10/19/11 Page 10 of 15
eLicenses.aspx (last accessed October 4, 2011). The website continues, Each applicant must provide one of the following: 1. An official Picture ID (passport, military ID, State issued ID, Driver's License). 2. An original certified copy of the state issued birth certificate (hospital copy not acceptable) and original social security card. 3. U. S. Government issued Immigration Services Picture ID Card (green card, visa, alien resident card, etc.).
36. Plaintiff Doe is a non-citizen of the United States and cannot satisfy Defendant's requirements to obtain a marriage license in Montgomery County because he does not have proof of his legal presence or a Social Security card.
37. Without a validly issued marriage license, Plaintiffs cannot marry one another. Plaintiffs' Intent to Marry
38. Plaintiffs have resided together for over nine years in a committed relationship. With the money he earns working construction, John Doe pays the rent and utilities at their home. He also helps to pay for the clothes and basic needs of Linda's children.
39. John Doe and Linda Smith want to express their love for and commitment to one another by getting married and obtaining official sanction for their family from the State. Plaintiffs are also anxious to marry to solemnize their relationship and to obtain the economic, emotional, and psychological benefits for their family that inure from marriage.
40. Although Plaintiffs understand that their marriage will not entitle John Doe to immediate legal status in the United States, Defendant's unlawful policy - and similar policies by probate judges state-wide - effectively acts to bar Plaintiffs from petitioning for legal status for John Doe as a spouse of a United States citizen.
41. Defendant's policy and practice requiring that John Doe provide proof of his legal presence and provide a Social Security card, a requirement that he cannot possibly meet because
10

Case 2:11-cv-00899-WKW-CSC Document 1 Filed 10/19/11 Page 11 of 15
he is undocumented, denies Plaintiffs their fundamental right to marry in violation of the Due Process Clause and their right to Equal Protection under the United States Constitution.
Plaintiffs' Attempt to Obtain a Marriage License 42. On October 5, 6, 11, and 12, 2011, a representative for Linda Smith and John Doe called probate offices in Alabama to inquire whether Plaintiffs Smith and Doe could obtain a marriage license. The Montgomery County Probate Office, along with 54 other probate offices in Alabama, confirmed that they would not issue a marriage license to the couple because John Doe is undocumented and/or could not produce a Social Security number. 43. In essence, any attempt by Plaintiffs to obtain a marriage license in Montgomery County, and in nearly every county in Alabama, would be futile.
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION Fourteenth Amendment Substantive Due Process Clause;
42 U.S.C. 1983 (Plaintiffs, and those similarly situated, against Defendant, and those similarly situated)
44. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations of the preceding paragraphs as though set forth at length herein.
45. By requiring Plaintiff Doe and other members of the class who are not United States citizens to present proof of their legal presence in the United States and/or a Social Security card, Defendant McKinney, Jr. and defendant class members substantially and directly interferes with Plaintiffs' and other class members' fundamental right to marry.
46. The policies of Defendant McKinney, Jr. and defendant class members absolutely prevent non-U.S. citizens such as John Doe, and other plaintiff class members, who are undocumented from getting married.
11

Case 2:11-cv-00899-WKW-CSC Document 1 Filed 10/19/11 Page 12 of 15
47. Defendant McKinney, Jr.'s policy and defendant class members' similar policies absolutely prevent persons such as Linda Smith and other plaintiff class members, from marrying non-U.S. citizens who are undocumented.
48. Defendant McKinney, Jr.'s policy, and defendant class members' similar policies, is not narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling government interest, and cannot meet any level of scrutiny.
49. The policy adopted by Defendant McKinney, Jr., and similar policies adopted by the defendant class members, violates Plaintiffs' and class members' constitutional right to due process under the Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.
50. Plaintiffs move for relief on this claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 as an action seeking to redress the deprivation of statutory rights under the color of law.
51. Plaintiffs, and the class they seek to represent, are entitled to declaratory relief, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2201 and 2202, and injunctive relief against Defendant McKinney, Jr., and the defendant class members.
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection Clause;
42 U.S.C. 1983 (Plaintiffs, and those similarly situated, against Defendant, and those similarly situated)
52. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations of the preceding paragraphs as though set forth at length herein.
53. The policies adopted, implemented, and enforced by Defendant McKinney, Jr. and defendant class members require a non-U.S. citizen who applies for a marriage license to produce proof of his/her legal presence in the United States and/or Social Security card as a condition of obtaining a marriage license.
12

Case 2:11-cv-00899-WKW-CSC Document 1 Filed 10/19/11 Page 13 of 15
54. These policies deny undocumented persons like John Doe, and other plaintiff class members, of the equal protection of laws in that it deprives them of the fundamental right to marry solely because of their alienage.
55. Defendant's policy, and the similar policies of the defendant class members, denies persons like Linda Smith, and other plaintiff class members, their right to equal protection of laws in that it deprives them of the fundamental right to marry solely because of the alienage of their intended spouse.
56. The policy adopted by Defendant McKinney, Jr., and the defendant class members, is not narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling state-government interest, and cannot meet any level of scrutiny.
57. The policy adopted by Defendant McKinney, Jr., and the defendant class members, violates the Plaintiffs' and plaintiff class members' constitutional right to equal protection of the law in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
58. Plaintiffs move for relief on this claim directly under the Constitution and pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 as an action seeking to redress the deprivation of statutory rights under the color of state law.
59. Plaintiffs, and the class they seek to represent, are entitled to declaratory relief, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § S 2201 and 2202, and injunctive relief against Defendant McKinney, Jr., and the defendant class members.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, in light of the foregoing, Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court: (a) Assume jurisdiction over this matter;
13

Case 2:11-cv-00899-WKW-CSC Document 1 Filed 10/19/11 Page 14 of 15
(b) Certify this case as a bilateral class action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23; including certifying a Rule 23(b)(2) plaintiff class consisting of all persons in Alabama who desire to obtain a marriage license, where the person or the person's intended spouse is undocumented; and a Rule 23(b)(2) defendant class, to be represented by Defendant McKinney, Jr., and consisting of all probate judges in Alabama whose policy or practice has the purpose or effect of categorically denying a marriage license to a couple where one or both of its members is undocumented;
(e) Declare, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2201 and 2202 and 42 U.S.C. § 1983, that Defendant's policy, and the policies of the defendant class members, requiring non-U.S. citizens to provide proof of their legal presence in the United States and/or to provide a Social Security card in order to obtain a marriage license is void and unenforceable because it violates the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment;
(d) Enjoin Defendant, and the defendant class members, from enforcing any regulation, policy, or practice that hinders the ability of individuals to enter into marriage solely because one or both of the persons who desire to marry lacks legal presence in the United States;
(e) Grant Plaintiffs' costs of suit, and reasonable attorneys' fees and expenses pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988; and
(f) Grant such other relief as the Court deems just and proper.
14

Case 2:11-cv-00899-WKW-CSC Document 1 Filed 10/19/11 Page 15 of 15

Dated: October 19, 2011

Res ectfully su
Lue1tei
On behalf of Attorneys for Plaint ffs
Mary Bauer (ASB- 1181 -R76B) Samuel Brooke (ASB-1 172-L6OB) SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER 400 Washington Ave. Montgomery, Alabama 36104 T: (334) 956-8200 F: (334) 956-8480 mary.bauersplcenter.org samuel.brookesplcenter.org
Daniel Werner* (GSB-422070) James Knoepp* (GSB-366241) SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER 233 Peachtree St., NE, Suite 2150 Atlanta, Georgia 30303 T: (404)521-6700 F: (404)221-5857 daniel.wernersplcenter.org Jim.knoeppsplcenter.org
*Motion for admission pro hac vice forthcoming
Freddy Rubio (ASB-5403-D62R) Rubio Law Firm, P.C. 438 Can Avenue, Suite 1 Birmingham, AL 35209 T: (205) 443-7858 frubio@rubiojlrm.com
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS

15

Case 2:11-cv-00899-WKW-CSC Document 1-1 Filed 10/19/11 Page 1 of 4

Case 2:11-cv-00899-WKW-CSC Document 1-1 Filed 10/19/11 Page 2 of 4

Case 2:11-cv-00899-WKW-CSC Document 1-1 Filed 10/19/11 Page 3 of 4

Case 2:11-cv-00899-WKW-CSC Document 1-1 Filed 10/19/11 Page 4 of 4

 
 Case 2:11-cv-00899-WKW-CSC Document 12 Filed 10/21/11 Page 1 of 17

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
NORTHERN DIVISION

LINDA SMITH and JOHN DOE, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,

Plaintiffs, v.

Civil Action File No.

REESE MCKINNEY, JR., Probate Judge of Montgomery County, in his official capacity and as representative of the class of probate judges in the State of Alabama similarly situated,
Defendant.

2:11-cv-00899-CSC
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT CLASS ACTION

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT 1. This is a class action brought by Plaintiff Linda Smith, a United States citizen, and Plaintiff John Doe, a Mexican citizen, on behalf of themselves and a class of all couples unable to obtain a marriage license in Alabama because one or both of its members is undocumented. Plaintiffs Smith and Doe have lived together in a committed relationship for over nine years and now wish to marry. Plaintiff Doe provides companionship and critical financial support to his fiancée, a United States citizen, and his family, including the two children and grandchild that he and his fiancée care for. The couple desires to express their love for and commitment to one another by getting married and obtaining the economic, emotional, and psychological benefits of marriage. 2. But solely because Plaintiff Doe is undocumented, he and his fiancée cannot exercise their fundamental right to marry, a right that is guaranteed under the United States Constitution to all persons regardless of immigration status.

1

Case 2:11-cv-00899-WKW-CSC Document 12 Filed 10/21/11 Page 2 of 17
3. Defendant McKinney, Jr., acting as the Probate Judge of Montgomery County, has adopted, and implements and enforces, a policy that categorically denies a marriage license to any couple where one or both of its members is undocumented. Defendant’s policy requires non-citizens of the United States who are seeking to obtain a marriage license to provide proof of their legal presence in the United States through a green card, visa, or similar immigration document. Defendant’s policy also requires all applicants to provide a Social Security card in order to obtain a marriage license – a requirement that undocumented persons cannot satisfy. Defendant’s policy acts to bar all undocumented persons from obtaining a marriage license in Montgomery County. Moreover, Defendant’s policy acts to bar all persons, including United States citizens, whose intended spouse is undocumented from obtaining a marriage license.
4. Defendant’s policy is not required by any federal or state law, including the recently passed law known as “HB 56”, and indeed, conflicts with guidance issued by Alabama’s Attorney General.
5. Defendant McKinney, Jr.’s policy is indicative of the policies and practices of 41 other probate judges in Alabama that purposefully or effectively prohibit undocumented persons or persons whose intended spouse is undocumented from obtaining a marriage license. Defendant McKinney, Jr.’s policy, and similar policies of the class of probate judges in which he is sought to represent, directly interferes with Plaintiffs’ fundamental right to marry and right to equal protection under the law, as guaranteed under the United States Constitution. This litigation is brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief, and costs and attorneys’ fees and expenses as provided under 42 U.S.C. § 1988.
PARTIES Named Plaintiffs/Class Representatives
2

Case 2:11-cv-00899-WKW-CSC Document 12 Filed 10/21/11 Page 3 of 17
6. Plaintiff Linda Smith (“Ms. Smith”) is a citizen of the United States and is currently a resident of Alabama. Ms. Smith is 37 years old, not currently married, and wholly unrelated to John Doe by blood. Ms. Smith has an original Social Security card, original certified copy of her Alabama birth certificate, and Alabama government-issued picture identification. She meets all the lawful requirements under Alabama law to be issued a marriage license. Plaintiff Smith sues on her own behalf and on behalf of those similarly situated.
7. Plaintiff John Doe is a Mexican national who currently lives in Alabama. He is 39 years old, not currently married, and wholly unrelated to Linda Smith by blood. John Doe and Linda Smith have lived together in a committed relationship since 2002, and lived in Alabama since 2005. John Doe does not have a Social Security number and cannot show proof of his legal presence in this country. He is ineligible to receive a marriage license in Montgomery County because he does not have proof of his legal presence in the United States and does not have a Social Security card due to his immigration status.
8. John Doe does have several forms of identification, including a Mexican passport, a birth certificate, a Mexican consulate identification, and other identification issued by the Mexican government. Plaintiff Doe meets all the lawful requirements under Alabama law to be issued a marriage license. Plaintiff Doe sues on his own behalf and on behalf of those similarly situated.
Named Defendant/Class Representative 9. Defendant Reese McKinney, Jr. is the Probate Judge of Montgomery County. In that position, he is responsible for, among other things, the issuance of marriage licenses. Ala. Code §§ 30-1-9, 22-9A-17(b). He maintains an office at the Montgomery County Courthouse Annex I, 100 South Lawrence Street, Montgomery, Alabama. Defendant McKinney, Jr. is sued
3

Case 2:11-cv-00899-WKW-CSC Document 12 Filed 10/21/11 Page 4 of 17
in his official capacity and as a representative of a class of all probate judges in Alabama with a policy that has the effect of categorically denying marriage licenses to a couple, where one or both of the individuals is undocumented.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE 10. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 because this action arises under the U.S. Constitution and laws of the United States, and pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1343 because this action seeks to redress the deprivation, under color of state law, of Plaintiffs’ civil rights and to secure equitable or other relief for the violation of those rights. 11. This Court has jurisdiction to grant declaratory relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202, and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 57. 12. This Court has personal jurisdiction over the Defendant who is located in the Middle District of Alabama. 13. Venue is proper in the Middle District of Alabama pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) in that Defendant McKinney, Jr. resides within the Middle District of Alabama, and “a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim[s] occurred” within this District and Division.
CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS Plaintiff Class Allegations
14. Plaintiffs Smith and Doe bring this suit on their own behalf and on behalf of all persons in Alabama that desire to obtain a marriage license, where the person or the person’s intended spouse is undocumented.
4

Case 2:11-cv-00899-WKW-CSC Document 12 Filed 10/21/11 Page 5 of 17
15. Numerosity: The proposed class is so numerous and geographically dispersed that joinder of all members of this class is impracticable. Although the precise size of the class cannot be determined at this time, statistical evidence shows that the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable. Alabama is home to an estimated 100,000 – 200,000 immigrants without lawful status. Pew Hispanic Center, A Portrait of Unauthorized Immigrants in the United States, April 14, 2009, at 13, http://pewhispanic.org/files/reports/107.pdf. The class also includes future members whose names are not known pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(1).
16. Commonality: There are questions of law and fact common to all plaintiff class members, including whether a policy or practice that has the purpose or effect of categorically denying marriage licenses to couples where one or both of its members is undocumented violates the plaintiff class members’ fundamental right to marry as guaranteed by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, and violates the plaintiff class members’ rights to Equal Protection as guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
17. Typicality: The claims asserted by Plaintiffs Smith and Doe are typical of the claims of all members of the proposed plaintiff class because the policies and practices challenged in this action apply with the same force to Plaintiffs Smith and Doe as they do to all other members of the class. The entire plaintiff class will benefit from the relief sought.
18. Adequacy of Representation: Plaintiffs Smith and Doe will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class. Both Plaintiff Smith and Plaintiff Doe possess a strong personal interest in the subject matter of this lawsuit and the claims raised. They are represented by experienced counsel with expertise in class action litigation and litigation involving the
5

Case 2:11-cv-00899-WKW-CSC Document 12 Filed 10/21/11 Page 6 of 17
constitutional rights of immigrants. Counsel has the legal knowledge and resources to fairly and adequately represent the interests of all class members in this action.
19. This case may be maintained as a class action under Rule 23(b)(2) because in enforcing policies that have the effect or purpose of categorically denying marriage licenses to couples where one or both of the parties is undocumented, the Defendant has acted and refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the class. Accordingly, final injunctive and declaratory relief is appropriate to the class as a whole.
Defendant Class Allegations 20. Plaintiffs also bring this action as a defendant class action under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2). Plaintiffs seek to certify a defendant class represented by Defendant McKinney, Jr. in his official capacity as Probate Judge of Montgomery County. The proposed defendant class consists of all Alabama probate judges whose policy or practices have the purpose or effect of categorically denying marriage licenses to couples where one or both of them are undocumented. 21. Numerosity: The number and geographic dispersion of defendant class members makes their joinder impractical. The proposed class includes probate judges from approximately 42 of Alabama’s 67 counties whose offices confirmed via telephone that it is their policy and/or practice to deny a marriage license to persons who are undocumented pursuant to a requirement that applicants provide proof of legal status, or pursuant to a requirement that applicants provide Social Security cards without exception. Members of the proposed defendant class are located throughout the State of Alabama, with some members in each of the three federal judicial districts in Alabama. 22. Commonality: This suit poses questions of law and fact that are common to the proposed defendant class representative, Defendant McKinney, Jr., and the proposed class
6

Case 2:11-cv-00899-WKW-CSC Document 12 Filed 10/21/11 Page 7 of 17
members that he would represent. These include whether a policy or practice that has the purpose or effect of categorically denying marriage licenses to couples where one or both of its members is undocumented violates the plaintiff class members’ fundamental right to marry as guaranteed by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, and whether such a policy or practice violates the plaintiff class members’ rights to Equal Protection as guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
23. Typicality: The defenses of Defendant McKinney, Jr. will be typical of the defenses of the proposed defendant class. Defendant McKinney, Jr., and all of the other members of the proposed class operate under the same state statutory framework. As a probate judge in Alabama, Defendant McKinney, Jr., is responsible for the issuance of marriage licenses. Ala. Code §§ 30-1-9, 22-9A-17(b). In this action challenging whether a policy or practice that has the purpose or effect of categorically denying marriage licenses to couples where one or both of its members is undocumented, the defenses asserted by Defendant McKinney, Jr. will be based on legal and factual theories that are applicable to the entire proposed defendant class.
24. Adequacy of Representation: Defendant McKinney, Jr. will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the proposed defendant class. His position as the Probate Judge of Montgomery County places him in the same position with respect to this challenge as all of the other probate judges in the proposed defendant class. Because the policy and practice of Defendant McKinney, Jr. with respect to the issuance of marriage licenses to undocumented persons are substantially the same as the other 41 probate judges in Alabama who fall within the proposed defendant class, Defendant McKinney, Jr. will be able to adequately represent the proposed class. On information and belief, Defendant McKinney, Jr. has no interests antagonistic to or in conflict with the interests of other members of the proposed class, and as
7

Case 2:11-cv-00899-WKW-CSC Document 12 Filed 10/21/11 Page 8 of 17
Probate Judge of Montgomery County, he is qualified and competent to represent the proposed defendant class.
FACTS Issuance of Marriage Licenses in Alabama 25. In Alabama, no person may marry without a license. Ala. Code § 30-1-9. 26. The requirements for marriage licenses are set forth in chapter 1 of title 30 in the Alabama Code. The only restrictions set forth in this chapter are for persons under the age of 16, Ala. Code § 30-1-4, and for persons under the age of 18 whose parents or guardians do not consent. Ala. Code § 30-1-5. 27. Alabama Code § 22-9A-17 requires the probate judge to prepare and forward a completed marriage license form to the Bureau of Vital Statistics. The probate judge shall complete it “upon the basis of information obtained from the parties to be married.” Ala. Code § 22-9A-17(b). There is no requirement that identification be submitted or that the information on the form be verified. 28. A probate judge’s issuance of a marriage license is a ministerial, not judicial, act. 29. Alabama law does not condition issuance of a marriage license upon proof of legal residency or any other proof of immigration status. Neither the Code of Alabama nor the Alabama Constitution requires marriage license applicants to provide proof of legal presence in the United States to secure a marriage license. 30. The Alabama Attorney General has explicitly stated that “a marriage license can be issued to an applicant who is not a United States citizen.” Opinion of the Attorney General to the Honorable Pam Wilson, Acting Judge of Probate, Fort Payne, Alabama, dated July 13, 2004, No. 2004-176, 2004 Ala. AG LEXIS 125.
8

Case 2:11-cv-00899-WKW-CSC Document 12 Filed 10/21/11 Page 9 of 17
31. No provision of the Code of Alabama or the Alabama Constitution requires marriage license applicants to provide proof of their legal presence in the United States in order to secure a marriage license.
32. Alabama Code § 30-3-194(c) states that “the Social Security number of both parties to the marriage shall be collected by those parties issuing a marriage license and shall appear on the license and certificate sent to the Office of Vital Statistics.” Ala. Code § 30-3194(c).
33. In 2008, the Alabama Attorney General issued an opinion that addressed whether a Social Security number is a required element for a person to receive a marriage license. The Office of the Attorney General concluded that a “social security number is not a required element for a person to receive a marriage license.” Opinion of the Attorney General to the Honorable Luke Cooley, Houston County Judge of Probate, dated June 25, 2008, No. 2008-100, 2008 Ala. AG LEXIS 70. The Attorney General’s Office instructed probate offices to allow persons without a Social Security number to submit an affidavit to the probate office attesting to the fact that he or she was never issued a Social Security number. Id. at *11.
Obtaining a Marriage License in Montgomery County 34. The Montgomery County Probate Office lists the requirements to obtain a marriage license on its website, which are appended to this Complaint as Exhibit A and incorporated herein. 35. Under the heading, “Requirements For Persons 18 years or older,” the website reads: “Non-citizens of the United States must provide proof of legal presence in the United States in the form of valid immigration documents or passport.” Marriage Licenses, http://www.mc-ala.org/ElectedOfficials/ProbateJudge/ProbateDivisions/Licenses/Pages/Marriag
9

Case 2:11-cv-00899-WKW-CSC Document 12 Filed 10/21/11 Page 10 of 17
eLicenses.aspx (last accessed October 4, 2011). The website continues, Each applicant must provide one of the following: 1. An official Picture ID (passport, military ID, State issued ID, Driver's License). 2. An original certified copy of the state issued birth certificate (hospital copy not acceptable) and original social security card. 3. U. S. Government issued Immigration Services Picture ID Card (green card, visa, alien resident card, etc.).
36. Plaintiff Doe is a non-citizen of the United States and cannot satisfy Defendant’s requirements to obtain a marriage license in Montgomery County because he does not have proof of his legal presence or a Social Security card.
37. Without a validly issued marriage license, Plaintiffs cannot marry one another. Plaintiffs’ Intent to Marry
38. Plaintiffs have resided together for over nine years in a committed relationship. With the money he earns working construction, John Doe pays the rent and utilities at their home. He also helps to pay for the clothes and basic needs of Linda’s children.
39. John Doe and Linda Smith want to express their love for and commitment to one another by getting married and obtaining official sanction for their family from the State. Plaintiffs are also anxious to marry to solemnize their relationship and to obtain the economic, emotional, and psychological benefits for their family that inure from marriage.
40. Although Plaintiffs understand that their marriage will not entitle John Doe to immediate legal status in the United States, Defendant’s unlawful policy – and similar policies by probate judges state-wide – effectively acts to bar Plaintiffs from petitioning for legal status for John Doe as a spouse of a United States citizen.
41. Defendant’s policy and practice requiring that John Doe provide proof of his legal presence and provide a Social Security card, a requirement that he cannot possibly meet because
10

Case 2:11-cv-00899-WKW-CSC Document 12 Filed 10/21/11 Page 11 of 17
he is undocumented, denies Plaintiffs their fundamental right to marry in violation of the Due Process Clause and their right to Equal Protection under the United States Constitution.
Plaintiffs’ Attempt to Obtain a Marriage License 42. On October 5, 6, 11, and 12, 2011, a representative for Linda Smith and John Doe called probate offices in Alabama to inquire whether Plaintiffs Smith and Doe could obtain a marriage license. The Montgomery County Probate Office, along with 41 other probate offices in Alabama, confirmed that they would not issue a marriage license to the couple because John Doe is undocumented and/or could not produce a Social Security number. 43. Since the filing of this suit, several probate offices have represented in the media that they will now issue a marriage license to an applicant who is undocumented and/or cannot produce a Social Security number. Plaintiffs have not, however, received written confirmation of these new policies. 44. In essence, any attempt by Plaintiffs to obtain a marriage license in Montgomery County, and in an overwhelming majority of counties in Alabama, would be futile.
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION Fourteenth Amendment Substantive Due Process Clause;
42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Plaintiffs, and those similarly situated, against Defendant, and those similarly situated)
45. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations of the preceding paragraphs as though set forth at length herein.
46. By requiring Plaintiff Doe and other members of the class who are not United States citizens to present proof of their legal presence in the United States and/or a Social Security card, Defendant McKinney, Jr. and defendant class members substantially and directly interferes with Plaintiffs’ and other class members’ fundamental right to marry.
11

Case 2:11-cv-00899-WKW-CSC Document 12 Filed 10/21/11 Page 12 of 17
47. The policies of Defendant McKinney, Jr. and defendant class members absolutely prevent non-U.S. citizens such as John Doe, and other plaintiff class members, who are undocumented from getting married.
48. Defendant McKinney, Jr.’s policy and defendant class members’ similar policies absolutely prevent persons such as Linda Smith and other plaintiff class members, from marrying non-U.S. citizens who are undocumented.
49. Defendant McKinney, Jr.’s policy, and defendant class members’ similar policies, is not narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling government interest, and cannot meet any level of scrutiny.
50. The policy adopted by Defendant McKinney, Jr., and similar policies adopted by the defendant class members, violates Plaintiffs’ and class members’ constitutional right to due process under the Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.
51. Plaintiffs move for relief on this claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 as an action seeking to redress the deprivation of statutory rights under the color of law.
52. Plaintiffs, and the class they seek to represent, are entitled to declaratory relief, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202, and injunctive relief against Defendant McKinney, Jr., and the defendant class members.
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection Clause;
42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Plaintiffs, and those similarly situated, against Defendant, and those similarly situated)
53. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations of the preceding paragraphs as though set forth at length herein.
12

Case 2:11-cv-00899-WKW-CSC Document 12 Filed 10/21/11 Page 13 of 17
54. The policies adopted, implemented, and enforced by Defendant McKinney, Jr. and defendant class members require a non-U.S. citizen who applies for a marriage license to produce proof of his/her legal presence in the United States and/or Social Security card as a condition of obtaining a marriage license.
55. These policies deny undocumented persons like John Doe, and other plaintiff class members, of the equal protection of laws in that it deprives them of the fundamental right to marry solely because of their alienage.
56. Defendant’s policy, and the similar policies of the defendant class members, denies persons like Linda Smith, and other plaintiff class members, their right to equal protection of laws in that it deprives them of the fundamental right to marry solely because of the alienage of their intended spouse.
57. The policy adopted by Defendant McKinney, Jr., and the similar policies of the defendant class members, is not narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling state-government interest, and cannot meet any level of scrutiny.
58. The policy adopted by Defendant McKinney, Jr., and the similar policies of the defendant class members, violates the Plaintiffs’ and plaintiff class members’ constitutional right to equal protection of the law in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
59. Plaintiffs move for relief on this claim directly under the Constitution and pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 as an action seeking to redress the deprivation of statutory rights under the color of state law.
13

Case 2:11-cv-00899-WKW-CSC Document 12 Filed 10/21/11 Page 14 of 17
60. Plaintiffs, and the class they seek to represent, are entitled to declaratory relief, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202, and injunctive relief against Defendant McKinney, Jr., and the defendant class members.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, in light of the foregoing, Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court: (a) Assume jurisdiction over this matter; (b) Certify this case as a bilateral class action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23;
including certifying a Rule 23(b)(2) plaintiff class consisting of all persons in Alabama who desire to obtain a marriage license, where the person or the person’s intended spouse is undocumented; and a Rule 23(b)(2) defendant class, to be represented by Defendant McKinney, Jr., and consisting of all probate judges in Alabama whose policy or practice has the purpose or effect of categorically denying a marriage license to a couple where one or both of its members is undocumented; (c) Declare, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202 and 42 U.S.C. § 1983, that Defendant’s policy, and the policies of the defendant class members, requiring non-U.S. citizens to provide proof of their legal presence in the United States and/or to provide a Social Security card in order to obtain a marriage license is void and unenforceable because it violates the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment; (d) Enjoin Defendant, and the defendant class members, from enforcing any regulation, policy, or practice that hinders the ability of individuals to enter into
14

Case 2:11-cv-00899-WKW-CSC Document 12 Filed 10/21/11 Page 15 of 17
marriage solely because one or both of the persons who desire to marry lacks legal presence in the United States; (e) Grant Plaintiffs’ costs of suit, and reasonable attorneys’ fees and expenses pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988; and (f) Grant such other relief as the Court deems just and proper.

Dated: October 21, 2011

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Mary Bauer

.

Mary Bauer

On behalf of Attorneys for Plaintiffs

Mary Bauer (ASB-1181-R76B) Samuel Brooke (ASB-1172-L60B) SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER 400 Washington Ave. Montgomery, Alabama 36104 T: (334) 956-8200 F: (334) 956-8481 mary.bauer@splcenter.org samuel.brooke@splcenter.org

Daniel Werner* (GSB-422070) James Knoepp* (GSB-366241) SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER 233 Peachtree St., NE, Suite 2150 Atlanta, Georgia 30303 T: (404) 521-6700 F: (404) 221-5857 daniel.werner@splcenter.org jim.knoepp@splcenter.org

*Motion for admission pro hac vice pending

Freddy Rubio (ASB-5403-D62R) Rubio Law Firm, P.C.

15

Case 2:11-cv-00899-WKW-CSC Document 12 Filed 10/21/11 Page 16 of 17 438 Carr Avenue, Suite 1 Birmingham, AL 35209 T: (205) 443-7858 F: (205) 443-7853 frubio@rubiofirm.com ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS
16

Case 2:11-cv-00899-WKW-CSC Document 12 Filed 10/21/11 Page 17 of 17

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on the 21st day of October, 2011, a true and exact copy of the foregoing was served by United States mail, postage prepaid, addressed as follows:

Reese McKinney, Jr. Montgomery County Courthouse Annex I 100 South Lawrence Street, Third Floor Montgomery, AL 36104

/s/ Mary Bauer

.

Mary Bauer

On behalf of Attorneys for Plaintiffs

Mary Bauer (ASB-1181-R76B) Samuel Brooke (ASB-1172-L60B) SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER 400 Washington Ave. Montgomery, Alabama 36104 T: (334) 956-8200 F: (334) 956-8481 mary.bauer@splcenter.org samuel.brooke@splcenter.org

Daniel Werner* (GSB-422070) James Knoepp* (GSB-366241) SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER 233 Peachtree St., NE, Suite 2150 Atlanta, Georgia 30303 T: (404) 521-6700 F: (404) 221-5857 daniel.werner@splcenter.org jim.knoepp@splcenter.org

*Motion for admission pro hac vice pending

Freddy Rubio (ASB-5403-D62R) Rubio Law Firm, P.C. 438 Carr Avenue, Suite 1 Birmingham, AL 35209 T: (205) 443-7858 F: (205) 443-7853 frubio@rubiofirm.com ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS

17

Case 2:11-cv-00899-WKW-CSC Document 12-1 Filed 10/21/11 Page 1 of 4

Case 2:11-cv-00899-WKW-CSC Document 12-1 Filed 10/21/11 Page 2 of 4

Case 2:11-cv-00899-WKW-CSC Document 12-1 Filed 10/21/11 Page 3 of 4

Case 2:11-cv-00899-WKW-CSC Document 12-1 Filed 10/21/11 Page 4 of 4

 
 Case: 2:11-cv-00899-WKW-CSC As of: 02/11/2014 10:34 PM CST 1 of 4
CLOSED,CSC_ClerkC
U.S. District Court Alabama Middle District (Montgomery) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 2:11−cv−00899−WKW−CSC

Smith et al v. McKinney Assigned to: Chief Judge William Keith Watkins Referred to: Honorable Judge Charles S. Coody Cause: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act
Plaintiff

Date Filed: 10/19/2011 Date Terminated: 12/02/2011 Jury Demand: None Nature of Suit: 440 Civil Rights: Other Jurisdiction: Federal Question

Linda Smith on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated

represented by Daniel Werner Southern Poverty Law Center 233 Peachtree St.. NE, Suite 2150 Atlanta, GA 30303 404−521−6700 Email: daniel.werner@splcenter.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

James M Knoepp Southern Poverty Law Center 233 Peachtree Street NE, Ste 2150 Atlanta, GA 30303 404−221−5836 Fax: 404−221−5857 Email: jim.knoepp@splcenter.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Mary C Bauer Southern Poverty Law Center 400 Washington Ave Montgomery, AL 36104 334−956−8200 Fax: 334−956−8481 Email: mary.bauer@splcenter.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Samuel J Brooke Southern Poverty Law Center 400 Washington Avenue Montgomery, AL 36104 334−956−8200 Fax: 334−956−8481 Email: samuel.brooke@splcenter.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sigfredo Rubio Rubio Law Firm, PC 438 Carr Ave − Ste 1 Birmingham, AL 35209 205−443−7858 Fax: 205−443−7853 Email: frubio@rubiofirm.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
John Doe on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated

represented by Daniel Werner (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:11-cv-00899-WKW-CSC As of: 02/11/2014 10:34 PM CST 2 of 4

James M Knoepp (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mary C Bauer (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Samuel J Brooke (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sigfredo Rubio (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V.
Defendant
Reese McKinney, Jr. Probate Judge of Montgomery County, in his official capacity and as representative of the class of probate judges in the State of Alabama similarly situated

represented by Henry Lewis Gillis Thomas Means Gillis &Seay PC 3121 Zelda Court PO Drawer 5058 Montgomery, AL 36106 334−270−1033 Fax: 334−260−9396 Email: hlgillis@meansgillislaw.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Frederic Allen Bolling Thomas Means Gillis &Seay PC 505 20th Street North Suite 400 Birmingham, AL 35203 205−328−7915 Fax: 205−214−6160 Email: fabolling@tmgslaw.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Tyrone Carlton Means Means Gillis Law LLC P.O. Box 5058 Montgomery, AL 36103−5058 334−270−1033 Fax: 334−260−9396 Email: tcmeans@meansgillislaw.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 10/19/2011
10/19/2011 10/19/2011

# Docket Text
1 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT against Reese McKinney, Jr (Filing fee $ 350.00 receipt number 4602020290), filed by Linda Smith, John Doe. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Receipt)(br, ) (Entered: 10/20/2011)
2 MOTION for Leave to Proceed Under a Pseudonym by John Doe. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(br, ) (Entered: 10/20/2011)
3 BRIEF/MEMORANDUM in Support re 2 MOTION for Leave to Proceed Under a Pseudonym filed by John Doe. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Heidi Beirich, # 2 Declaration of John Doe)(br, ) (Entered: 10/20/2011)

Case: 2:11-cv-00899-WKW-CSC As of: 02/11/2014 10:34 PM CST 3 of 4

10/19/2011 10/20/2011 10/20/2011 10/20/2011 10/20/2011 10/20/2011 10/20/2011 10/21/2011 10/21/2011 10/21/2011 10/21/2011 10/25/2011
10/27/2011 10/27/2011 10/27/2011 10/28/2011 11/09/2011 11/10/2011 11/10/2011

4 Summons Issued; summons and complaint returned to counsel for personal service of Reese McKinney, Jr. (br, ) Modified on 10/20/2011 to correct file date (br, ). (Entered: 10/20/2011)
NOTICE of Assignment to Magistrate Judge mailed to counsel for John Doe, Linda Smith (br, ) (Entered: 10/20/2011)
5 Notice of Deficiency requiring filing of Corporate Disclosure/Conflict Statement sent to Linda Smith, John Doe. Corporate Disclosures due by 10/31/2011. (Attachments: # 1 Corporate Conflict Standing Order)(br, ) (Entered: 10/20/2011)
6 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Linda Smith, John Doe. Reese McKinney, Jr served by personal service 10/19/2011, answer due 11/9/2011. (br, ) (Entered: 10/20/2011)
7 ORDER granting 2 Motion for Leave to Proceed Under a Pseudonym, without prejudice to the defendants to object at the time their answers are filed. Signed by Honorable Judge Charles S. Coody on 10/20/2011. (br, ) (Entered: 10/20/2011)
8 Corporate/Conflict Disclosure Statement by John Doe, Linda Smith. (Brooke, Samuel) (Entered: 10/20/2011)
9 Corporate/Conflict Disclosure Statement by John Doe, Linda Smith. (Brooke, Samuel) (Entered: 10/20/2011)
10 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice by John Doe, Linda Smith. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Good Standing, # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Brooke, Samuel) (Entered: 10/21/2011)
11 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice by John Doe, Linda Smith. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Good Standing, # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Brooke, Samuel) (Entered: 10/21/2011)
12 AMENDED COMPLAINT Class Action against All Defendants, filed by Linda Smith, John Doe. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Original Pleading)(Brooke, Samuel) (Entered: 10/21/2011)
13 PRO HAC VICE Filing fees for DANIEL WERNER and JAMES M. KNOEPP received re 10 and 11 Motions to Appear Pro Hac Vice: $100.00, receipt number 4602020313. (dmn) (Entered: 10/21/2011)
14 ORDER that the Motions for Admission Pro Hac Vice (Docs. 10 and 11 ) be and are hereby GRANTED and Attorneys James M. Knoepp and Daniel Werner be and are hereby ADMITTED to appear before this Court pro hac vice to represent the plaintiffs in this action. Counsel shall file a notice of appearance with the court. Signed by Honorable Judge Charles S. Coody on 10/25/2011. (dmn) (Entered: 10/25/2011)
15 NOTICE of Appearance by Daniel Werner on behalf of All Plaintiffs (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Werner, Daniel) (Entered: 10/27/2011)
16 NOTICE of Appearance by Henry Lewis Gillis on behalf of Reese McKinney, Jr (Gillis, Henry) (Entered: 10/27/2011)
***Attorney Tyrone Carlton Means, and Frederic Allen Bolling added for Reese McKinney, Jr. (dmn) (see Doc. 16 for pdf) (Entered: 10/27/2011)
17 NOTICE of Appearance by James M Knoepp on behalf of John Doe, Linda Smith (Knoepp, James) (Entered: 10/28/2011)
18 MOTION for Leave to File Out−of−Time by Reese McKinney, Jr. (Gillis, Henry) (Entered: 11/09/2011)
19 Notice of Deficiency requiring filing of Corporate Disclosure/Conflict Statement sent to Reese McKinney. Corporate Disclosures due by 11/21/2011. (Attachments: # 1 Corporate Conflict Standing Order)(br, ) (Entered: 11/10/2011)
NOTICE of Assignment to Magistrate Judge mailed to counsel for Reese McKinney, Jr (br, ) (Entered: 11/10/2011)

Case: 2:11-cv-00899-WKW-CSC As of: 02/11/2014 10:34 PM CST 4 of 4

11/10/2011 11/10/2011 11/15/2011 11/21/2011 12/01/2011 12/02/2011

20 ORDER granting 18 Motion for Extension of Time; the time for the defendant to file a responsive pleading is EXTENDED to December 12, 2011. Signed by Honorable Judge Charles S. Coody on 11/10/2011. (br, ) (Entered: 11/10/2011)
Reset Deadlines: Answer due from Reese McKinney, Jr 12/12/2011. (br, ) (Entered: 11/10/2011)
21 Corporate/Conflict Disclosure Statement by Reese McKinney, Jr re 19 Notice of Deficiency requiring filing of Corporate Disclosure/Conflict Statement. (Gillis, Henry) (Entered: 11/15/2011)
22 Case reassigned to Chief Judge William Keith Watkins and Honorable Judge Charles S. Coody. Honorable Judge Charles S. Coody no longer assigned to the case as presiding judge. (br, ) (Entered: 11/21/2011)
23 NOTICE by John Doe, Linda Smith Notice of Dismissal (Bauer, Mary) (Entered: 12/01/2011)
24 CLERK'S NOTICE of Voluntary Dismissal pursuant to the 23 Notice of Dismissal filed by the Plaintiffs on 12/1/2011, this case has been closed and removed from the docket of this court. (dmn, ) (Entered: 12/02/2011)