Case 0:07-cv-01959-ADM-JSM Document 11-1 Filed 04/24/2007 Page 1 of 25

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA

)

CARLOS HILARJO ARIAS, DULCE MARIA HERNANDEZ ARJAS, DAVID COREA, FRANCISCO

) )

MUNOZ, JUAN MUNOZ, ALBIS MUNOZ, SAOMARA MuNOZ, JENNY MALDONALDO, TERESA DE JESUS GUERRERO, SANTIAGO CORONEL, FABIOLA

) ) )

CISNEROS, VICENTE CISNEROS ABONCE, ANDREAS VEGA, AUDREY MITHUN, ESAU

) )

ESTRADA, DANIRA MALDONALDO-HERNANDEZ, ROSA DE JESUS BARRAJAS ARRELLANO, RAUL

) ) CASE NO. 07CV1959

VELIZ, JR., WENSCELAO PADILLA GUZMAN,

)

JORGE ZELAYA, LEAH GARCIA, JAIME REYES,

)

MARLEN ALONSO SORIANO, ALEX JOSUE SORTO, )

RESCAROAMMSLAIEUXNES, OCLAIRLZATEEMOJLAAELNYNODADPRE,EOJZZO,,CSMMAEAARMRNTIAAUANGEEULELANEELADN,REAWAJAMIELMSILURAISEAYZMPAI,NEDA,))))

RAMOS CASTILLO, and, JOSE ERASMO MONTALVAN, the Consul of Honduras, as NEXT OF FRIEND TO FORTY UNKNOWN WILLMAR AREA RESIDENTS (A.KA. JOHN/JANE DOE ##1-40),

)
) ) PLAINTIFFS' ) AMENDED ) COMPLAINT FOR

) DECLARATORY AND

Plaintiffs,

) INJUNCTIVE RELIEF ) AND DAMAGES

)

UNITES STATES IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ) ENFORCEMENT DIVISION OF THE DEPARTMENT )

OF HOMELAND SECURITY; MICHAEL CHERTOFF, Secretary, Department of Homeland Security

) )

JULIE L. MYERS, Assistant Secretary of Homeland Security for Immigration and Customs Enforcement;

) )

JOHN P. TORRES, Director of Detention and Removal Operations, Immigration and Customs Enforcement;

) )

SCOTT BANIECKE, St. Paul Field Office Director for )

Detention and Removal Operation; JOHN DOE ICE

)

AGENTS ##1-30; JAMES A. KULSET, Willmar Police Department Chief of Police; and, JOHN DOE WILLMAR

) )

POLICE OFFICERS ##1-10,

)

)

_______________D_e_re_nd_a_n~_._________))

Case 0:07-cv-01959-ADM-JSM Document 11-1 Filed 04/24/2007 Page 2 of 25

INTRODUCTION

1.

This is a Complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief and damages filed by and

on behalf of the Plantiffs named herein challenging a series of raids involving warrantless

home searches in violation of the Plaintiffs Fourth Amendment rights and numerous other

constitutional violations engaged in by agents of the United States Immigration and

Customs Enforcement Division (ICE) of the Department of Homeland Security in Willmar,

Minnesota between AprillO -14,2007.

2.

This immigration action by ICE referred to as "Operation Crosscheck" involved

egregious violations of Plaintiffs' Fourth Amendment Rights in which ICE agents entered

and searched private homes without warrants or without the consent of the Plaintiffs,

detained and interrogated Plaintiffs in their homes based solely on the fact that they

appeared to be of Latino origin, all in violation ofthe Plaintiffs' Due Process and Equal

Protection rights under the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution.

3.

In addition, ICE agents conducted a campaign of terror and intimidation

throughout the city of Willmar by going to locations such as trailer parks and apartment

buildings that had known concentrations of Latino people and conducted unconstitutional

stops and detentions of individuals solely on the basis of their race or national origin, all in

violation of the Equal Protection rights under the Fifth Amendment of the United States

Constitution.

4.

These ICE raids were the product of racial and ethnic profiling at odds with the

fundamental premise of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fifth Amendment.

2

Case 0:07-cv-01959-ADM-JSM Document 11-1 Filed 04/24/2007 Page 3 of 25
5. Upon information and belief, these ICE raids in Willmar were authorized by Defendants and the other federal government officials at the highest levels of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and ICE.
6. Plaintiffs seek injunctive and declaratory relief to prevent such egregious , Minnesota on April 10- 14, 2007.
7. Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief to remedy violations of their constitutional and statutory rights.
JURISDICTION 8. This action arises under the Constitution of the United States, the Immigration and Nationality Act ("INA"), 8 U.S.C. §§ 1101 et seq., as amended by the Illegal Immigration reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 ("IIRIRA"), Pub. L. No. 104-208, 110 Stat. 1570. This Court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and 28 U.S.C. § 2241, art. I,§ 9, cl.2 of the United States Constitution ("Suspension Clause"), as detainees are presently in custody under color of authority of the United States. This Court may grant relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1651, 2201, 2002, 2241, and 2242 and Rule 57 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
VENUE
9. Venue lies in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391, the judicial district in which Defendants carried out immigration raids in the city of Willmar, where the events giving rise to the claims alleged herein occurred, and where some or all of Plaintiffs are being held.
3

Case 0:07-cv-01959-ADM-JSM Document 11-1 Filed 04/24/2007 Page 4 of 25
PARTIES
10. Plaintiff CARLOS IDLARIO ARIAS ("Plaintiff Arias") is a Latino male who is a resident of Willmar. At all times relevant to this suit, he was a resident of Willmar, Kandiyohi County, Minnesota.
11. Plaintiff DULCE MARIA HERNANDEZ ARIAS ("Plaintiff Hernandez") is a Latina female who is a resident of Willmar. At all times relevant to this suit, she was a resident of Willmar, Kandiyohi County, Minnesota.
12. Plaintiff DAVID COREA ("Plaintiff Corea") is a Latino male who is a resident of Willmar. At all times relevant to this suit, he was a resident of Willmar, Kandiyohi County, Minnesota,
13. Plaintiff FRANCISCO MUNOZ ("Plaintiff Munoz")") is a Latino male who is permanent resident of the United States and a native of Honduras. At all times relevant to this suit, he was a resident of Willmar, Kandiyohi County, Minnesota.
14. Plaintiff JUAN MUNOZ ("Plaintiff Munoz") is a Latino malewhoisa.resident of Willmar and a native of Honduras. At all times relevant to this suit, he was a resident of Willmar, Kandiyohi County, Minnesota.
15. Plaintiff ALBIS MUNOZ ("Plaintiff Munoz") is a Latino female who is a resident of Willmar and a native of Honduras. At all times relevant to this suit, he was a resident of Willmar, Kandiyohi County, Minnesota.
4

Case 0:07-cv-01959-ADM-JSM Document 11-1 Filed 04/24/2007 Page 5 of 25
16. PlaintiffSAOMARA MUNOZ ("Plaintiff Munoz") is a Latino female who is a resident of Willmar and a native of Honduras. She is currently pregnant. At all times relevant to this suit, she was a resident of Willmar, Kandiyohi County, Minnesota.
17. Plaintiff JENNY MALDONADO ("Plaintiff Maldonado") is a Latina female who is a resident of Willmar. At all times relevant to this suit, she was a resident of Willmar, Kandiyohi County, Minnesota.
18. Plaintiff TERESA DE JESUS GUERERO ("Plaintiff Guerero") is a Latina female who is a resident of Willmar. At all times relevant to this suit, she was a resident of Willmar, Kandiyohi County, Minnesota.
19. Plaintiff SANTIAGO CORONEL ("Plaintiff Coronel") is a Latino male who is a resident of Willmar. At all times relevant to this suit, he was a resident of Willmar, Kandiyohi County, Minnesota.
20. Plaintiff FABIOLA CISNEROS ("Plaintiff Cisneros") is a Latina female who is a resident of Willmar. At all times relevant to this suit, he was a resident of Willmar, Kandiyohi County, Minnesota.
21. Plaintiff VINCENTE CISNEROS ABONCE("Plaintiff Abonce") is a Latino male who is a resident of Willmar. At all times relevant to this suit, he was a resident of Willmar, Kandiyohi County, Minnesota.
22. Plaintiff ANDREAS VEGA ("Plaintiff Vega") is a Latina female who is a resident of Willmar. At all times relevant to this suit, she was a resident of Willmar, Kandiyohi County, Minnesota.
5

Case 0:07-cv-01959-ADM-JSM Document 11-1 Filed 04/24/2007 Page 6 of 25

23. Plaintiff AUDREY MITHVN ("PlaintiffMithun") is a Caucasian female who is native and citizen of the United States. At all times relevant to this suit, she was a resident
of Willmar, Kandiyohi County, Minnesota.

24. PlaintiffESAU ESTRADA ("Plaintiff Estrada") is a Latino male who is a
resident of Willmar. At all times relevant to this suit, he was a resident of Willmar,
Kandiyohi County, Minnesota.

25. PlaintiffDANIRA MALDONADO-HERNANDEZ ("Plaintiff Maldonado-
Hernandez") is a Latina female who is a resident of the Willmar and is Pregnant. At all times relevant to this suit, she was a resident of Willmar, Kandiyohi County, Minnesota.

26. Plaintiff ROSA DE JESUS BARRAJAS ARELLANO ("Plaintiff Arellano") is
a Latina female who is a resident of the Willmar. At all times relevant to this suit, she was a
resident of Willmar, Kandiyohi County, Minnesota.

27. Plaintiff RAUL VELIZ, JR. ("Plaintiff Veliz") is a Latino male who is a citizen
of the United States. At all times relevant to this suit, he was a resident of Willmar,
Kandiyohi Cou

28. Plai: male who is suit, he wa
29.
resident Kandi

:g............
;:E

A GUZMAN ("Plaintiff Guzman") is a Latino of the United States. At all times relevant to this

;J; rohi County, Minnesota.

0· 0
f~!i 'Plaintiff Zelaya") is a Latino male who is a

;:"":'"'" mt to this suit, he was a resident of Willmar,

"'"

6

Case 0:07-cv-01959-ADM-JSM Document 11-1 Filed 04/24/2007 Page 7 of 25
30. Plaintiff LEAH GARCIA ("Plaintiff Garcia") is a Latina female who is a resident of Willmar. At all times relevant to this suit, she was a resident of Willmar, Kandiyohi County, Minnesota.
31. Plaintiff JAIME REYES ("Plaintiff Reyes") is a Latino male who is a resident of Willmar. At all times relevant to this suit, he was a resident of Willmar, Kandiyohi County, Minnesota.
32. PlaintiffMARLEN ALONSO SORIANO ("Plaintiff Soriano") is a Latino male who is a resident of Willmar. At all times relevant to this suit, he was a resident of Willmar, Kandiyohi County, Minnesota.
33. Plaintiff ALEX JOSUE SORTO ("PlaintiffSorto") is a Latino male who is a resident of Willmar. At all times relevant to this suit, he was a resident of Willmar, Kandiyohi County, Minnesota.
34. Plaintiff ROSA SORTO LOPEZ ("Plaintiff Lopez") is a Latino female who is a resident of Willmar. At all times relevant to this suit, she was a resident of Willmar, Kandiyohi County, Minnesota.
35. Plaintiff MARIA ELENA AMAYA ("Plaintiff Amaya") is a Latino female who is a resident of Willmar. At all times relevant to this suit, she was a resident of Willmar, Kandiyohi County, Minnesota.
36. Plaintiff ERMENCIA MENDEZ ("Plaintiff Mendez") is a Latino female who is a resident of Willmar. At all times relevant to this suit, she was a resident of Willmar, Kandiyohi County, Minn.esota.
7

Case 0:07-cv-01959-ADM-JSM Document 11-1 Filed 04/24/2007 Page 8 of 25
37. Plaintiff MANUELA DE JESUS PINEDA ("Plaintiff Pineda") is a Latino female who is a resident of Wilhnar. At all times relevant to this suit, she was a resident of Willmar, Kandiyohi County, Minnesota.
38. Plaintiff SAMUEL ZELAYA ("Plaintiff Zelaya") is a Latino male who is a resident of Willmar. At all times relevant to this suit, he was a resident of Willmar, Kandiyohi County, Minnesota.
39. Plaintiff JOSE MANUEL RAMIREZ CALIX ("Plaintiff Calix") is a Latino male who is a resident of Willmar. At all times relevant to this suit, he was a resident of Willmar, Kandiyohi County, Minnesota.
40. Plaintiff ALEJANDRO CARTAGENA ("Plaintiff Cartagena") is a Latino male who is a resident of Willmar. At all times relevant to this suit, he was a resident of Willmar, Kandiyohi County, Minnesota.
41. Plaintiff WILLIAM RAMOS CASTILLO ("Plaintiff Castillo") is a Honduran male who is a resident of Willmar. At all times relevant to this suit, he was a resident of Willmar, Kandiyohi County, Minnesota.
42. Plaintiffs FORTY UNKNOWN WILLMAR AREA RESIDENTS (a.k.a. John/Jane Doe ##1-40) have been taken into custody by Immigration and Customs Enforcement ("ICE") and whose identities have not been established. Upon information and belief, their identities will be known following this action.
8

Case 0:07-cv-01959-ADM-JSM Document 11-1 Filed 04/24/2007 Page 9 of 25
43. Plaintiff CONSUL JOSE ERASMO MONTALVAN, Petitioners' Next Friend, is the Consul of Honduras for Illinois, Ohio, Indiana, Michigan, Iowa, Wisconsin, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Minnesota.
44. Defendants IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT DIVISION OF HOMELAND SECURITY ("Defendant ICE") and JULIE L. MYERS ("Defendant Myers"), in their official capacity, are charged with, among other things, administering the Executive Office of Immigration Review ("EOIR"). The EOIR conducts removal proceedings in immigration cases and decides administrative appeals of such cases.
45. Defendant, DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY ("Defendant DHS") is charged with, among other things, administering the United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement and implementing and enforcing the Immigration and Nationality Act. As such, it has decision-making authority over the matters alleged in this Petition and Plaintiffs' custody.
46. Defendant, IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT ("Defendant ICE") is a bureau of the United States Department of Homeland Security. Defendant ICE is charged with investigative and enforcement responsibilities of federal innnigration laws.
47. Defendant MICHAEL CHERTOFF ("Defendant Chertoff') is Secretary of the United States Department of Homeland Security. Defendant Chertoff is charged with the constitutional and lawful implementation of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § § 1101, et seq., and with the administration oflmmigration and Customs Enforcement. Defendant Chertoff is sued in his official capacity.
9

Case 0:07-cv-01959-ADM-JSM Document 11-1 Filed 04/24/2007 Page 10 of 25
48. Defendant JULIE L. MYERS ("Defendant Myers") is the Assistant of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Defendant Myers is charged with the constitutional and lawful implementation of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § § 1101, et seq., and with the administration of Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Defendant Myers is sued individually and in her official capacity.
49. Defendant JOHN P. TORRES ("Defendant Torres") is the Director of the Office of Detention and Removal for Immigration and Customs Enforcement. In this capacity, Defendant Torres is responsible for the apprehension, detention and removal of foreign nationals charged with violation of immigration law and the supervision of sworn law enforcement officers assigned to the Detention and Removal field offices, including the field office based in Minneapolis, Minnesota. Defendant Torres is sued in his official capacity.
50. Defendant, SCOTT BANIECKE, ("Defendant Baniecke") is the Field Office Director for the St. Paul Office of Detention and Removal, where Plaintiffs are or were being held and remain under his administrative authority. Defendant Baniecke is responsible for managing enforcement activities of ICE within the geographic boundarjes of Minnesota. Upon information and belief, Defendant Baniecke was personally involved and/or personally ordered or authorized the unlawful conduct of ICE agents alleged in the complaint. Defendant Baniecke is sued in his official capacity.
51. At all times relevant to the incidents complained of in this lawsuit, defendants JOHN DOE ICE AGENTS 1-30 were federal law enforcement agents employed by Defendants Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Defendants were empowered by law
10

Case 0:07-cv-01959-ADM-JSM Document 11-1 Filed 04/24/2007 Page 11 of 25
to execute searches and make arrests for violation of federal law. Defendants John Doe ICE agents 1-30 are sued individually and in their official capacity.
52. Defendant JAMES A. KULSET ("Defendant Kulset") is the Chief of Police for the City of Willmar Police Department. In this capacity Defendant Kulset possesses administrative authority regarding the employees and officers in this department. Upon information and belief, Defendant Kulset was personally involved and/or personally ordered or authorized members of his department to cooperate with ICE agents during the activities alleged in the complaint.
53. At all times relevant to the incidents complained of in this lawsuit, defendants JOHN DOE WILLMAR POLICE OFFICERS 1-10 were local law enforcement employed by the City of Willmar Police Department. Upon information and belief, Defendants were present at the scene of immigration activities conducted by ICE agents operating within the community of Willmar. Defendants John Doe Willmar Police Officers 1-1 0 are sued individually and in their official capacity.
FACTS 54. Between April10-14, 2007, all of the named Plaintiffs, with the exception of Raul Veliz, Jr. and Maria Elena Amaya, occupied homes forcibly entered by ICE agents. Plaintiffs submit that home invasions by ICE agents were nonconsensual, were performed without presentation of search or arrest warrants, and lacking both probable cause and exigent circumstances. (See Plaintiffs Affidavits attached as Exhibits 1-19).
11

Case 0:07-cv-01959-ADM-JSM Document 11-1 Filed 04/24/2007 Page 12 of 25
55. On April12, 2007, Willmar Police Cillef, James A. Kulset, willie attending a public community forum in Willmar, stated that the Willmar Police Department provided "logistical assistance and support" to immigration agents operating in the community. According to Defendant Kulset, "assistance and support" included identifying the location of Latino residences. Upon information and belief, Willmar Police Department officers further contributed to Operation Crosscheck by participating in raids and stops throughout the community (See Exhlbits 2, 4, 7, 14-17).
56. Defendants conducted these warrantless home searches by going to Plaintiffs' doors and knocking loudly on the doors and/or windows. (See generally Exhlbits 1-19) When asked by Plaintiffs' to identify themselves, Defendant ICE agents would falsely claim "It's the Police". (See Exhlbit 2, 7-8, 18 Paragraph 2). In several instances Plaintiffs
would open their doors slightly to see who was present, Defendant ICE agents would
burst through the door and push their way into Plaintiffs' homes without a reasonable manifestation of consent to enter.
57. In the case of Plaintiff Guzman, ICE agents broke through ills front door and entered ills home (See Exhlbit 4).
58.. In the case of Plaintiff Lopez, ICE agents were witnessed breaking a window and opening a door to gain access to the home (See Exhlbit 10).
59. In every known instance, Defendant ICE agents failed to produce search or arrest
warrants to Plaintiffs before entering their homes. In every known instance, no fewer than
6-8 ICE agents broke into Plaintiffs' homes and immediately detained all persons inside, and others they could find in the warrantless search of Plaintiffs homes.
12

Case 0:07-cv-01959-ADM-JSM Document 11-1 Filed 04/24/2007 Page 13 of 25
60. When Plaintiffs would ask Defendant ICE agents why they were in their homes, ICE agents would frequently state they were looking for a fugitive, but would not ever give the. name of the person they were allegedly looking for. (See Exhibit 3, 8,17, 19).
61. Once inside of the Plaintiffs homes, Defendant ICE agents went room to room throughout the homes, without any warrants, searching each room and requiring any persons that they found to come out of the room and go to a main area in the home where other ICE agents detained them.
62. In several instances, ICE agents entered bedrooms while Plaintiffs and their children were sleeping, waking them up by shining flashlights in their faces. (See Exhibits 1-3, 5, 7-8, 10-11, 15-16, 19). Plaintiffs' and their children were very scared and the children were often crying.
63. In the case ofPlaintiffMithun, Defendant ICE agents upon observing that she was white, never asked her for any identification. Instead, they simply ordered her out of her bedroom and into the living room where she was detained by ICE agents during the remainder of the raid and not allowed to leave the room.
64. The exact number of Plaintiffs taken into custody by Defendants is not specifically known. Based on interviews with members of the community and media reports, it appears that approximately 50 persons were seized.
65. All of the Plaintiffs, with the exception of Raul Veliz and Maria Elena Amaya, who were taken into custody were detained and arrested in their homes. Plaintiffs taken into custody are or were being held at detention facilities in Bloomington, MN, Hennepin County, Ramsey County, and Sherburne County. Plaintiffs are unclear as to the identity of
13

Case 0:07-cv-01959-ADM-JSM Document 11-1 Filed 04/24/2007 Page 14 of 25
other facilities being used to house detainees. According to media reports Defendants acknowledge that:
"Those who have been arrested likely will be taken to ICE offices in Bloomington for processing, then housed in surrounding county jails until they appear in court and are released or deported." 66. Plaintiffs submit that Defendants failed to make reasonable efforts to accommodate children of detainees. In the most egregious instances, nursing children of Plaintiffs have been and are continuing to be denied appropriate nourishment, leading to waning appetites. 67. On April12, 2007, at approximately 7:00AM, Plaintiff Raul Veliz, Jr., was stopped by an entire group of vehicles driven by ICE agents. (See Affidavit of Plaintiff Veliz attached as Exhibit 7). Just prior to being stopped by the vehicles, he had noticed that the vehicles drove by him and that the agents took notice of him while he drove his car. Mr. Veliz was never given any reason for why his vehicle was stopped by the ICE agents at the time that he was stopped. His car was completely surrounded by 7 to 8 ICE agents wearing guns and bullet proof vests and vehicles driven by ICE agents. Even after Mr. Veliz showed them a valid drivers license and told the agents that he was a United States citizen, ICE agents continued to detain him and question him for at least 15-20 minutes while ICE agents surrounded his vehicle. Mr Veliz also alleges that at one point during his interrogation, certain defendant ICE agents directed other ICE agents to go check the trailer home where they thought they saw Mr. Veliz exit. The ICE agents then went to that trailer home and began knocking on the door and looking in the windows. 68. On April12, 2007, at approximately 6:30AM, Plaintiff Maria Elena Amaya was working at the Jennie-0 turkey Store, where she had been employed for six years. She
14

Case 0:07-cv-01959-ADM-JSM Document 11-1 Filed 04/24/2007 Page 15 of 25
was instructed by a supervisor to stop work and go to the general manager's office. Inside she was confronted by a plainclothes man identifying himself as "immigration." She was told she was under arrest, but no arrest warrant had been provided. After insisting several time she held Temporary Protected Status, and that her work status for employment was therefore valid, the plainclothes immigration agent eventually relented and made a phone call to verify her information, including name and date of birth. The agent received confirmation, heard by Plaintiff Amaya, that Plaintiffs status remains valid, after which the . agent stated to Plaintiff and the general manager that no arrest would be happening today.
69. On information and belief, Plaintiffs have been or will be transported out of this District, and will be placed in removal proceedings. The practice of spiriting detainees out of the original District and into forums of convenience benefiting Defendants is consistent with similar raids conducted by ICE. This practice has been reviewed and halted by two United States District Courts: on December 13, 2006 in the District of Colorado, and, March 9, 2007 in the District of Massachusetts.
70. On information and belief, Defendants are using coercive methods of soliciting and obtaining waivers of rights and stipulated orders for removal, for the purpose of expediting removal of Plaintiffs out of the territorial borders of the United States. In some instances these deportations have already occurred, namely to Plaintiffs Corea and Cisneros. It is unknown under what conditions Plaintiffs have signed documents, nor if such documents have experienced substantive review by an immigration judge responsible for assuring Plaintiffs signed any such documents knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily.
CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS
15

Case 0:07-cv-01959-ADM-JSM Document 11-1 Filed 04/24/2007 Page 16 of 25
71. Plaintiffs claims set forth in the Counts below are brought by named Plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated persons, pursuant to Rule 23(a) and 23(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, against Defendants for injunctive and declaratory relief
72. The named Plaintiffs provisionally propose all Counts be certified on behalf of the following class: All persons arrested, detained, in custody, or deported of Honduran, Latin, or Hispanic origin or appearance and affected by immigration operations (aka "Operation Crosscheck") in and around the City of Willmar, MN on or about April I0-14, 2007, and who are within the formal jurisdiction and actual territory covered by Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents receiving direction from the Detention and Removal Operations Field Office, or similarly controlling authority, for the State of Minnesota.
73. Members of the proposed class are numerous to the extent that joinder of all members is impracticable.
74. The difficulties in contacting and communicating with members of the class who were or are being detained by ICE officials, or have been removed from the country by immigration officials, makes joinder of all class members impractical.
75. There are questions oflaw and fact that are common concerning, inter alia, whether Defendants have implemented, enforced, encouraged and/or sanctioned a policy, practice and/or custom of: (a) conducting warrantless and nonconsensual entries and searches of homes occupied by Latinos and in absence of probable cause and exigent circumstances, in violation of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution; and (b) stopping, detaining, investigating, searcbing and effecting seizures of persons and property in the absence of reasonable, articulable, and indivualized suspicion of unlawful
16

Case 0:07-cv-01959-ADM-JSM Document 11-1 Filed 04/24/2007 Page 17 of 25
activity or probable cause, in violation of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution; (c) denying Plaintiffs of the right to remain silent or of the right to seek counsel prior to answering, in violation of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution; (d) disparate application of the nation's laws experienced by Plaintiffs based on ethnicity, nationality, and!or skin color by Defendants conduct, in violation of the Fifth · and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution; (f) Plaintiffs the right to counsel while undergoing custodial interrogation, in violation of the Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution
76. These questions are common to the named Plaintiffs and to the membes of the proposed class because Defendants have acted and will continue ot act on grounds generally applicable to both the named Plaintiffs and proposed class members.
77. The claims of the named Plaintiffs are typical of the claims of the members of the proposed class.
78. The named Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the members of the proposed class.
79. The Plaintiffs are represented by counsel who are highly experienced in federal class action litigation involving the issues common the members of the proposed class.
80. The Defendants have acted on grounds generally applicable to the proposed class, thereby making appropriate final injuncting and corresponding declaratory relief with respect to the class as a. whole.
CLAIMS FOR RELIEF COUNT I- FOURTH AMENDMENT CONSTITUTIONAL CLAIMS
(CLASS ACTION AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS)
17

Case 0:07-cv-01959-ADM-JSM Document 11-1 Filed 04/24/2007 Page 18 of 25
81. Plaintiffs allege and incorporate by reference paragraphs 1-80. 82. On AprillO'h, 2007 ICE agents, with assistance provided by local law enforcement, conducted warrantless and nonconsensual entries, searches, and seizures of Plaintiffs' homes and persons in violation of the Plaintiffs' Fourth Amendment Rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution. 83. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants' warrantless and nonconsensual entries, searches, and seizures of homes and persons caused damages to Plaintiffs and their family members directly affected. Plaintiffs face continued irreparable harm by these constitutional violations. 84. Additionally, on April12, 2007, at approximately 7:00AM, Plaintiff Veliz's vehicle was unlawfully stopped by ICE agents without probable cause nor reasonable, articulable suspicion. Rather, the stop was initiated solely on the basis of Veliz's race or national origin, all in violation of Plaintiffs Fourth Amendment rights. 85. As a consequence of Defendants' warrantless and nonconsensual entries, searchees, and seizures, all evidence obtained thereby, including but not limited to statements and information gathered by ICE agents, is properly suppressed and prohibited from use in any government proceeding against Plaintiffs and/or their family members. 86. In violating Plaintiffs' Fourth Amendment Rights, Defendants' actions caused damages to Plaintiffs for which Plaintiffs seek relief.
COUNT II- FIFTH AMENDMENT DUE PROCESS CLAIMS (CLASS ACTION BROUGHT AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS) 87. Plaintiffs allege and incorporate by reference paragraphs 1-86.
18

Case 0:07-cv-01959-ADM-JSM Document 11-1 Filed 04/24/2007 Page 19 of 25
88. Defendants are liable for the conduct ofiCE agents who performed warrantless and nonconsensual entries, searches, and seizures during operations in the community of Willmar between April 10-14, 2007.
89. By taking Plaintiffs into custody without affording Plaintiffs' constitutional rights Defendants, in acting under color oflaw, have violated and continue to violate Plaintiffs' Fifth Amendment Rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution.
90. To the extent that Plaintiffs' detention is without basis in law or fact and violates common law principles of due process and the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution, Plaintiffs' detention creates a deprivation ofliberty without due process oflaw.
91. Plaintiffs allege that they have been damaged by these violations of their Fifth Amendment rights and that they continue to be irreparably harmed by these violations.
92. In violating Plaintiffs' Fifth Amendment Rights, Defendants' actions caused damages to Plaintiffs for which Plaintiffs seek relief.
COUNT III- FIFTH AMENDMENTPROTECTION AGAINST SELF INCRIMINATION AND RIGHT TO COUNSEL CLAIMS
(CLASS ACTION BROUGHT AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS)
93. Plaintiffs allege and incorporate by reference paragraphs 1-92. 94. On April 10-14, 2007 Defendants announced both publicly and to Plaintiffs detained by ICE agents that Defendants were searching for known criminal fugitives. 95. Upon entering Plaintiffs' homes neither with arrest warrants nor consent, ICE agents failed to apprise Plaintiffs of their rights to remain silent and to speak with an
19

Case 0:07-cv-01959-ADM-JSM Document 11-1 Filed 04/24/2007 Page 20 of 25
attorney prior to answering questions, as guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution.
96. Plaintiffs allege such violations of their Fifth Amendment Rights has caused and continues to impose irreparable harm.
97. In violating Plaintiffs' Fifth Amendment Rights, Defendants' actions caused damages to Plaintiffs for which Plaintiffs seek relief.
COUNT IV- SIXTH AMENDMENT RIGHT TO COUNSEL CLAIMS (CLASS ACTION BROUGHT AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS)
98. Plaintiffs allege and incorporate by reference paragraphs 1-97. 99. By denying Plaintiffs access to counsel or the means to obtain counsel in a prompt and effective manner, Defendants violated Plaintiffs' Sixth Amendment right to counsel. 100. To the extent questioning of Plaintiffs occurred during custodial interrogations, such interrogations violate the Plaintiffs' Sixth Amendment Rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution. 101. In violating Plaintiffs' Sixth Amendment Rights, Defendants' actions caused damages to Plaintiffs for which Plaintiffs seek·relief.
COUNT V- BIVENS CLAIM OF PLAINTIFF CARLOS HILARIO ARIAS (AGAINST DEFENDANTS BANIECKE, JOHN DOE ICE AGENTS 1-30), AND, 42 U.S.C. §1983 CLAIMS (AGAINST DEFENDANTS KULSET AND JOHN DOE
WILLMAR POLICE OFFICERS 1-10) . 102. Plaintiff Arias incorporates by reference each and every allegation contained in the preceding paragraphs as though fully set forth herein.
20

Case 0:07-cv-01959-ADM-JSM Document 11-1 Filed 04/24/2007 Page 21 of 25
103. In connnitting the acts complained herein, Defendants deprived Plaintiff Arias of certain constitutionally protected rights, including, but not limited to:
a. the right to be free from unlawful entries to and searches of his home and person without a valid warrant or voluntary consent and in the absence of probable cause and exigent circumstances; b. the right to be free from unlawful seizures of his person and effects without a valid warrant or voluntary consent and in he absence of probable cause and exigent circumstances; c. the right to be free from detentions without a lawful, reasonable and articulable suspicion of unlawful activity or probable cause; and d. the right to equal protection under the law, as guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution. I 04. Because these Defendants acted in clear violation of well-settled law, of which a reasonable person would have been aware, with regard to standards for home entry, search, seizure, questioning, and detention, they are not entitled to a good faith defense or official innnunity defense. I05. The actions of these Defendants were intentional, malicious, and reckless and showed a callous disregard of, or indifference to, the rights of the Plaintiff. I06. The actions of Defendants operating under color of authority provided by the Federal government creates a cause of action for damages against them in their individual capacities, pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents ofthe Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971).
21

Case 0:07-cv-01959-ADM-JSM Document 11-1 Filed 04/24/2007 Page 22 of 25
107. Similarly, the actions of Defendants operating under color of authority of local and state units of government, including but not limited to the Willmar Police Department, creates to a cause of action for damages in their individual capacities, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
108. As a direct and proximate result of the unlawful actions of these Defendants, Plaintiff Arias has suffered harm, in the form of, inter alia, outrage, humiliation, and emotional distress. Plaintiff Arias is entitled to compensatory and punitive damages in an amount to be determined at trial.
COUNT VI- BIVENS CLAIM OF PLAINTIFF DULCE MARIA HERNANDEZ ARIAS
(AGAINST DEFENDANTS BANIECKE, JOHN DOE ICE AGENTS 1-30), AND, 42 U.S.C. §1983 CLAIMS (AGAINST DEFENDANTS KULSET AND JOHN DOE
WILLMAR POLICE OFFICERS 1-10)
109. Plaintiff Arias incorporates by reference each and every allegation contained in the preceding paragraphs as though fully set forth herein.
110. In committing the acts complained herein, Defendants deprived Plaintiff Arias of certain constitutionally protected rights, including, but not limited to:
a. the right to be free from unlawful entries to and searches of her home and person without a valid warrant or voluntary consent and in the absence of probable cause and exigent circumstances; b. the right to be free from unlawful seizures of her person and effects without a valid warrant or voluntary consent and in the absent of probable cause and exigent circumstances;
22

Case 0:07-cv-01959-ADM-JSM Document 11-1 Filed 04/24/2007 Page 23 of 25
c. the right to be free from detentions without a lawful, reasonable and articulable suspicion of unlawful activity or probable cause; and d. the right to equal protection under the law, as guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution. 111. Because these Defendants acted in clear violation of well-settled law, of which a reasonable person would have been aware, with regard to standards for home entry, search, seizure, questioning, and detention, they are not entitled to a good faith defense or official immunity defense. 112. The actions of these Defendants were intentional, malicious, and reckless and showed a callous disregard of, or indifference to, the rights of the Plaintiff. 113. The actions of Defendants operating under color of authority provided by the Federal government creates a cause of action for damages against them in their individual capacities, pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents ofthe Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). 114. Similarly, the actions of Defendants operating under color of authority of local and state units of government, including but not limited to the Willmar Police Department, creates to a cause of action for damages in their individual capacities, pursuant to 42 U.S. C. § 1983. 115. As a direct and proximate result of the unlawful actions of these Defendants, Plaintiff Arias has suffered harm, in the form of, inter alia, outrage, humiliation, and emotional distress. Plaintiff Arias is entitled to compensatory and punitive damages in an amount to be determined at trial.
23

Case 0:07-cv-01959-ADM-JSM Document 11-1 Filed 04/24/2007 Page 24 of 25
COUNT VII- BIVENS CLAIM OF PLAINTIFF DAVID COREA (AGAINST DEFENDANTS BANIECKE, JOHN DOE ICE AGENTS 1-30), AND, 42 U.S.C. §1983 CLAIMS (AGAINST DEFENDANTS KULSET AND JOHN DOE
WILLMAR POLICE OFFICERS 1-10)
116. Plaintiff Corea incorporates by reference each and every allegation contained in the preceding paragraphs as though fully set forth herein.
117. In committing the acts complained herein, Defendants deprived Plaintiff Corea of certain constitutionally protected rights, including, but not limited to:
a. the right to be free from unlawful entries to and searches of his horne and person without a valid warrant or voluntary consent and in the absence of probable cause and exigent circumstances; b. the right to be free from unlawful seizures of his person and effects without a valid warrant or voluntary consent and in the absent of probable cause and exigent circumstances; c. the right to be free from detentions without a lawful, reasonable and articulable suspicion of unlawful activity or probable cause; and d. the right to equal protection under the law, as guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution. 118. Because these Defendants acted in clear violation of well-settled law, of which a reasonable person would have been aware, with regard to standards for horne entry, search, seizure, questioning, and detention, they are not entitled to a good faith defense or official immunity defense. 119. The actions of these Defendants were intentional, malicious, and reckless and showed a callous disregard of, or indifference to, the rights of the Plaintiff.
24

Case 0:07-cv-01959-ADM-JSM Document 11-1 Filed 04/24/2007 Page 25 of 25
120. The actions of Defendants operating under color of authority provided by the Federal government creates a cause of action for damages against them in their individual capacities, pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents ofthe Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971).
121. Similarly, the actions of Defendants operating under color of authority of local and state units of government, including but not limited to the Willmar Police Department, creates to a cause of action for damages in their individual capacities, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
122. As a direct and proximate result of the unlawful actions of these Defendants, Plaintiff Corea has suffered harm, in the form of, inter alia, outrage, humiliation, and emotional distress. Plaintiff Corea is entitled to compensatory and punitive damages in an amount to be determined at trial.
COUNT VIII- BIVENS CLAIM OF PLAINTIFF FRANCISCO MUNOZ (AGAINST DEFENDANTS BANIECKE, JOHN DOE ICE AGENTS 1-30), AND, 42 U.S.C. §1983 CLAIMS (AGAINST DEFENDANTS KULSET AND JOHN DOE
WILLMAR POLICE OFFICERS 1-10)
123. Plaintiff Munoz incorporates by reference each and every allegation contained in the preceding paragraphs as though fully set forth herein.
124. In committing the acts complained herein, Defendants deprived Plaintiff Munoz of certain constitutionally protected rights, including, but not limited to:
a. the right to be free from unlawful entries to and searches of his home and person without a valid warrant or voluntary consent and in the absence of probable cause and exigent circumstances;
25

 
 Case 0:07-cv-01959-ADM-JSM Document 14 Filed 04/25/2007 Page 1 of 45

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA Civil No. 07-1959 ADM/JSM

CARLOS ARIAS, et al.

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

v.

)

)

UNITED STATES IMMIGRATIONS AND )

CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT DIVISION OF )

THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND

)

SECURITY, et al.

)

)

Defendants.

)

RESPONSE OF FEDERAL DEFENDANTS

This is a civil rights action in which Plaintiffs seek an injunction, declaratory judgment and damages arising out of the conduct of Deportation Agents and their supervisors for having allegedly violated constitutional rights during Operation Cross Check, which concluded on Friday, 13, 2007. To justify injunctive relief, Plaintiffs claim while Agents were executing warrants of removal, the Agents entered private residences without consent, questioned individuals and arrested them without probable cause and an advise of their rights and counsel. Plaintiffs’ erroneously, however, rely on criminal law even though the warrants and apprehensions are civil. Similarly, Plaintiffs fail to establish standing and subject matter jurisdiction. A future injury is missing. Moreover, they have alternative remedies, including pursuit of their constitutional claims in pending removal proceedings. Moreover, they are unlikely to prevail on the merits and the public interest and balance of the harms do not favor

1

Case 0:07-cv-01959-ADM-JSM Document 14 Filed 04/25/2007 Page 2 of 45
granting an injunction. Therefore, the court should deny injunctive relief to these Plaintiffs who have different interests and claims. 1 I. The Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Amended Complaint.
On April 24, 2007, an Amended Complaint, Amended Motion for Temporary Restraining Order, Amended Memorandum in Support and were filed without prior notice to the Defendants or this Court.2 The filing was completed with less than four business hours before Defendant’s response was due. Defendants immediately notified Plaintiffs’ counsel that their agreement to maintain the status quo had not changed. Newly added parties that were not named or Hondurans with official papers when the agreement was reached would not be covered. Regardless of the sharp practice of Plaintiffs’ counsel to present one set of circumstance to the Court and opposing counsel at a status conference and change them at the eleventh hour, the Amended Motion for TRO does not set forth the terms or conditions of the requested restraining order. Likewise, the Proposed TRO Order was not amended.
The Proposed TRO Order contains the same requests for injunctive relief that are pleaded in the Amended Complaint. The Amended Plaintiffs request the following injunctive relief:
1Plaintiffs refer to “deportation.”Congress, however, jettisoned that term and replaced it with “removal” in 1996.
2Lest the Court believe they were minor amendments, the Amended Motion for TRO attached Sixteen Affidavits while the Complaint had three. Moreover, the complaint contained 85 paragraphs. The Amended Complaint contained 333 paragraphs. Similarly, the Amended Complaint seeks certification of a class. Para. 71-80.
2

Case 0:07-cv-01959-ADM-JSM Document 14 Filed 04/25/2007 Page 3 of 45
1. Prohibit further immigration enforcement proceedings or deportation actions against Plaintiffs during the pendency of the case;
2. Prohibiting the transfer of Plaintiffs out of Minnesota “until Plaintiffs have been afforded their full statutory and constitutional rights and opportunity to appear before an immigration court to raise their constitutional issues” and
3. Prohibiting Defendants from engaging in the allegedly unlawful, abusive and discriminatory acts identified in Counts I-VI, including specifically enjoining ICE from conducting warrantless searches.
Paragraphs 2, 3 & 7 of prayer for relief. Count I claims violation fo the Fourth Amendment arising out of warrantless searches and seizures. Count II claims a violation of the Fifth Amendment by taking Plaintiffs into custody without affording them unspecified constitutional rights. Count III claims violation of the Fifth Amendment alleging that Plaintiffs were not advised of their rights to remain silent and to an attorney. Count IV claims violation of the Sixth Amendment right of counsel during custodial interrogations.3 Count V is a Bivens action for damages generally alleging the Plaintiff Carlos Arias was a victim of violations identified in the previous paragraphs. Finally, Count VI is another Bivens action for damages by Plaintiff Dulce Arias who also claims to be a victim of the violations alleged in Counts I-IV.
3The First four counts are identified as part of the class action. 3

Case 0:07-cv-01959-ADM-JSM Document 14 Filed 04/25/2007 Page 4 of 45

II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND. A. Plaintiffs.4

All Plaintiffs have been processed and prepared for a hearing before an Immigration

Judge, who may reduce the bond and release them. The hearings have concluded or are

pending at this time unless the Plaintiff agreed to removal.. Each Plaintiff received an

opportunity to be represented by counsel at these

The First Plaintiff, Carlos Arias, is one of nine (9) Plaintiffs who have been placed

in IJ proceedings and appeared before an Immigration Judge after receiving an opportunity

for pro bono counsel.. They have been released pending another appearance.

Ten (10)

Plaintiffs are lawfully in the United States and were not arrested or placed in removal proceedings.5
Four (4) Plaintiffs were removed to Mexico on April 18, 2007.6

The balance of the Plaintiffs are not subject to removal.

B. Defendants.

While Defendants are assigned to Immigration and Customs Enforcement, they are

4The Amended Complaint added Plaintiffs. Defendants have not had an opportunity to investigate their backgrounds.
5Francisco Munoz, Vincente Cisneros Abonce, Audrey Mithun, Raul Veliz, Jr, Wenscelao Padilla Guzman, Jorge Zelaya, Leah Garcia, Jaime Reyes, Marlen Alonso Soriano and Albis Munoz.
6CORIA RODRIGUEZ, David, GUERRO DIEZ, Teresa, CORONEL GUERRERO, Santiago, CISCERNOS CARRENO, Fabiola.
4

Case 0:07-cv-01959-ADM-JSM Document 14 Filed 04/25/2007 Page 5 of 45
Deportation Agents. While they have authority to make criminal arrests, no such arrests were made during operation Cross check.
C. Operation Cross Check. "Operation Cross Check" targeted aliens with unexecuted Warrants of Removal or Deportation and other identified criminal aliens in Kandiyohi County Minnesota. Criminal aliens were foreign born and had criminal records. Second Declaration of Gay. Planning and execution of "Operation Cross Check" was conducted with approval of the Fugitive Operations Unit. Declaration of Berg and Second declaration of Gay.. Planning for the operation focused on the development of primary target lists, analysis of data, prioritization of targets, and the commencement of enforcement actions against removable aliens. Id. 4. Targets were selected based on reliable information from multiple sources; aliens with outstanding Warrants of Removal or Deportation, aliens that had possibly reentered the United States illegally after having been removed from the United States previously, and criminal aliens that were referred to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) by a Kandiyohi County probation officer. The probation officer informed ICE that most of the people that she supervised were born in foreign countries and were here illegally. Using the probation officer's information, criminal records, and various commercial databases a list of preliminary targets was compiled. Id. Officer Gay conducted part of the investigation that lead to compiling a list of targets. Declaration of Gay. 5. He found that six people had unexecuted warrants of removal,
5

Case 0:07-cv-01959-ADM-JSM Document 14 Filed 04/25/2007 Page 6 of 45
which made them fugitives. Additional targets were selected from criminal records. A Kandiyohi County Community Corrections Probation Officer had previously contacted me and her case load included foreign born individuals. Using that information I was able to find records in ICE databases regarding 24 individuals on the probation list for Kandiyohi County. The remaining targets without prior alien registration were selected based on a list of subjects provided by by Kandiyohi County and Willmar law enforcement agencies which were investigating forgery/ID theft. In addition, the severity of their criminal convictions was considered. At the same time ICE Office of Investigations' was investigating the fraudulent use of Puerto Rican birth certificates. Further verification of the grounds to target individuals was made using commercial database searches, which returned duplicate records for these persons. Finally, a target list was sent to the Willmar Police Department (WPD), Kandiyohi County Sheriff's Office (KCSO), and the Kandiyohi County Community Corrections Probation Office. Declaration of Gay.
In addition to investigating available information, on April 5, 2007, Officer Gay and his Supervisor Officer Peter Berg met with representatives of the Willmar Police Department, the Kandiyohi County Sherriff's Office and the Kandiyohi County Probation Department. During this meeting, ICE described "Operation Cross Check" and asked for assistance in correctly identifying addresses for the targets and to provide assistance during the arrest phase of the operation by guiding us to the targeted addresses. The probation officer confirmed that her probationers had reported birth in foreign countries and additional
6

Case 0:07-cv-01959-ADM-JSM Document 14 Filed 04/25/2007 Page 7 of 45
information. If there was specific information on people that were born in foreign countries and who had been charged with crimes, ICE would attempt to interview those persons to determine alienage and removability. Declaration of Berg.
During the April 5, 2007, briefing, the Willmar Police provided information on an ongoing case concerning forgery and identity theft involving Puerto Rican birth certificates. These Puerto Rican birth certificates were being bought and used by persons not born in the United States or Puerto Rico in an apparent attempt to gain unlawful employment and a new identity as a United States Citizen. The Willmar Police Department provided names of people that they knew to be foreign born reasonably believed were falsely using the Puerto Rican birth certificates. The use of fraudulent documents violates immigrations laws. Declaration of Berg.
. Operation Cross Check contemplated attempting interviews to assess alienage and removability. Declaration of Berg. These are known as knock-and-talk operations. ICE did not have search or criminal arrest warrants. Declaration of Gay. At the target addresses, Deportation officers would attempt to make contact and obtain consent to enter the residence from the occupants. Declaration of Berg.All of which part of ICE standard operating procedure. Operation Cross Check was not designed to enforce criminal laws. It was a civil enforcement operation.
For example, Plaintiff Fabiola Cisneros was targeted for an investigation into her immigration status due to her felony conviction for Wrongfully Obtaining Assistance and
7

Case 0:07-cv-01959-ADM-JSM Document 14 Filed 04/25/2007 Page 8 of 45
Identity Theft. Cisneros was convicted of stealing $22,050.16 by lying in her applications for taxpayer-funded medical assistance. Information was forwarded to ICE by the Kandiyohi County Sheriff's Department and Willmar Police Department as part of their investigation into the fraudulent use of US identification documents. The Willmar PD investigation revealed that Cisneros was born in Mexico. After confirming her address and locating it Officer Gay knocked on the door. Third Declaration of Gay.
Fabiola Cisneros opened the door within moments of knocking. I said to her in Spanish, "Somos la policia. Buscamos una persona. Puedo entrar?" (We are the police. We are looking for someone. May I come in?) Cisneros motioned her head up and down indicating yes, said "Si" (the Spanish word for yes), and stepped aside to allow the door to be opened. A Willmar Police Department Detective and I then entered the trailer, and I asked Cisneros to step into the front room of the trailer. An Deportation Agent followed into the trailer. Via radio I alerted the other members of the team that we had entered the trailer. The other team members then entered the trailer at various times after that, but I cannot say for sure who entered and exactly when. Declaration of Gay.
In Spanish, Officer Gay asked Cisneros if there were any others present in the trailer, and if we could look for other persons. ("Hay otras personas aqui? Vamos a buscar, OK?") Cisneros answered in Spanish that her husband and children were there, and that we could look. An ICE agent encountered Cisneros's husband, Vicente Cisneros-Abonce, coming out of the bedroom, and the ICE agent asked him to go to the front room where his wife was.
8

Case 0:07-cv-01959-ADM-JSM Document 14 Filed 04/25/2007 Page 9 of 45
A child was asleep on the couch in the front room; I do not recall if the child woke or not. The other team members checked the trailer for other adults, and none were found. ICE procedures provides for having all adults in a target house gather in a central room for the safety of all persons present, not just law enforcement officers. Declaration of Gay.
After gathering the adults, Officer Gay confirmed that the woman was Fabiola Cisneros. The Willmar Police Department Detective recalled Cisneros from his investigation, and the photo I had matched Cisneros. Cisneros confirmed that her name was Fabiola Cisneros. Cisneros's husband then stated that he was a lawful permanent resident of the US, and that he had filed a "Petition for Alien Relative" application (I-130) for Cisneros. This was confirmed by telephone with the ICE Law Enforcement Support Center. In spite of the approved I-130, Cisneros' felony conviction made her removable. Therefore, I informed Cisneros and her husband that she was under arrest for immigration violations. Cisneros was placed into handcuffs and removed from the home to a waiting transportation van. Declaration of Gay.
At no time did Cisneros or Vicente Cisneros-Abonce tell the deportation Agents to leave. Vicente Cisneros-Abonce several times retrieved various immigration documents that he believed relevant to the immigration status of Cisneros. An ICE agent always accompanied him to retrieve these documents. Fabiola Cisneros was the only individual placed in custody at the residence. Declaration of Gay. Pursuant to an Administrative order of removal, Fabiola Cisneros was Removed to Mexico on April 18, 2007. Exhibit 1.
9

Case 0:07-cv-01959-ADM-JSM Document 14 Filed 04/25/2007 Page 10 of 45
Operation Cross Check began on April 11 and concluded on April 14, 2007. The first two days of the operation resulted in 39 of the total 49 arrests. There was a significant reduction in arrests the last two days of the operation. Although there were some reports of people not answering doors the first two days, the teams reported many more addresses where no one answered the door during the last two days of the operation. If there was no contact at the target address the teams simply left and went on to the next address. Declaration of Berg.
As a team leader for Fugitive Operation team 2, Officer Gay did not see or otherwise become aware of any nonconsensual entry by any team member. Moreover, to the best of his knowledge, an adult with apparent authority consented to entry and search by members of the arrest teams at all target addresses where I was team leader or in a position to observe. Declaration of Gay.
D. Removal Proceedings Commenced when a Plaintiff was taken into Custody.
Although ICE did not have criminal arrest warrants, it had six Warrants for Arrest of Alien like the one for Carlos Arias. Exhibit 1. The procedures used after Carlos Arias was taken into custody were also used for all Plaintiffs taken into custody during Operation Cross check. The Warrant provided that Carlos Arias was to be taken into custody for violation of the Immigration laws. He was taken into custody on April 11, 2007. Thereafter, in accordance with the immigration procedures, he was examined by an officer other than the one who took Arias into custody. At that time, the officer decide whether to detain or release
10

Case 0:07-cv-01959-ADM-JSM Document 14 Filed 04/25/2007 Page 11 of 45
an alien on bond or person recognizance. Id. In addition, like Arias, aliens may request administrative review of the bond determination and their removal.
During the examination an alien is provided a Notice. Exhibit 2 at 3. The notice is in his native language and advises the alien of his rights to a hearing and counsel. In addition, the alien is provided a list of attorneys, including “Centro Legal,”who are the lead attorneys in this case. Id. Like Arias, the alien acknowledges receipt of this notice and an EOIR notice that again explains these rights. Id. at 5.
With regard to Carlos Arias and other Plaintiffs placed in immigration proceedings, a Notice to appear is issued. The notice advises the alien of the grounds on which the agency seeks to remove him. Exhibit 2 at 8. The notice has an advice of rights included. This advice warns that his statements may be used against him in the proceedings. He has a right to an Attorney, And describes the process of removal. Carlos Aris received this notice on the same day he was taken into custody. Exhibit 2 at 9. Arias’ bond was reduced and he was released on April 19, 2007. III. THE COURT LACKS JURISDICTION.
A. Plaintiffs fail to show a future injury, which is required to vest this Court with Jurisdiction under Article III of the U.S. Constitution.
The Constitution requires a concrete case or controversy to vest a federal court with jurisdiction. U.S. Const. Art. III § 2, cl. 1. Such a case or controversy requires that the plaintiff demonstrate a personal stake in the case, which is known as standing. A plaintiff must demonstrate: (1) an injury that is concrete, particularized, and actual or imminent rather
11

Case 0:07-cv-01959-ADM-JSM Document 14 Filed 04/25/2007 Page 12 of 45
than conjectural or hypothetical; (2) a causal connection between the injury and the challenged conduct, such that the injury may be fairly traceable to that conduct; and (3) a likelihood that the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision. Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560-61 (1992). Plaintiffs fail to demonstrate standing, which deprives this Court of jurisdiction or lack an irreparable injury and have alternative remedies. Consequently, the Complaint should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction or injunctive relief denied.
In Lyons, the Plaintiffs brought a civil rights action seeking declaratory, injunctive and damages for alleged violations of constitutional rights. Lyons, 461 U.S. at 97-8. The defendants were the City and four individual officers. the plaintiff alleged that his First, Fourth, Eighth and Fifth Amendment rights were violated during a traffic stop when officers placed him in a choke hold. Id. He alleged, “‘pursuant to the authorization, instruction and encouragement of defendant City of Los Angeles, regularly and routinely apply these choke holds in innumerable situations where they are not threatened by the use of any deadly force whatsoever.” Id., at 98. He sought injunctive relief prohibiting the use of choke holds and declaratory relief that they violated his rights. The District Court granted the relief. The Court of Appeals affirmed and the Supreme Court reversed holding that the plaintiff lacked standing. 7
7It is axiomatic that if standing is lacking, the plaintiff also failed to show an irreparable injury. Moreover, even if standing exists, a Plaintiff does not automatically demonstrate an irreparable injury.
12

Case 0:07-cv-01959-ADM-JSM Document 14 Filed 04/25/2007 Page 13 of 45

According to Lyons, standing requires that “The plaintiff must show that he ‘has

sustained or is immediately in danger of sustaining some direct injury’ as the result of the

challenged official conduct and the injury or threat of injury must be both ‘real and

immediate,’ not ‘conjectural’ or ‘hypothetical.’” Id. at 101-2 (citations omitted). However,

precedent showed that “‘[p]ast exposure to illegal conduct does not in itself show a present

case or controversy regarding injunctive relief ... if unaccompanied by any continuing,

present adverse effects.’” Id., at 102 quoting O'Shea v. Littleton, 414 U.S. 488, 495-96

(1974). O’Shea, involved the enforcement of criminal laws and it was presumed that the

Plaintiffs would be law abiding in the future and thereby avoid future injury. Lyons, 461

U.S. at 103. Likewise, in the instant case, the Court must presume that Plaintiffs will abide by the laws and thereby avoid future injury.8

In Lyons, the Court also examined precedent concerning a claim by a father that police

behavior that had resulted in the death of one son could result in the death of his other son,

who was similarly situated. Id. The Court, however, rejected such allegations as sufficient

for a plaintiff to establish standing.

Id., at 104-5. As in Lyons, the instant Plaintiffs

have failed to demonstrate standing, let alone irreparable injury.

Plaintiff’s allegation of a class action does not modify the analysis or result in

8There is also a presumption that law enforcement officers act within their authority and the law. See Reno v. American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Comm., 525 U.S. 471, 489-490(1999); Overton v. Bazzetta, 539 U.S. 126, 132 (2003)(“In civil rights action brought by prison inmate, burden is not on state to prove the validity of prison regulations at issue, but on inmate to disprove it.”).

13

Case 0:07-cv-01959-ADM-JSM Document 14 Filed 04/25/2007 Page 14 of 45
standing. In John Does 1-100 v. Boyd, 613 F.Supp. 1514 (D.Minn. 1985) the plaintiff class claimed to be subjected to indiscriminate strip searches at a prison. Although, unlike Lyons the court noted that every inmate would be strip searched, the court ruled that the plaintiffs lacked standing and denied a motion to certify the class. Indeed, it pointed out that the plaintiffs must show that in the past they had repeatedly be subjected to the same treatment. Id. at 1528-29. As in Boyd, in Smook v. Minnehaha County, 457 F.3d 806 (8th Cir. 2006) ruled that standing did not exist to challenge searches of juveniles.
In Smook, the District Court had granted injunctive relief on a civil rights claim. It had ordered that the county juvenile detention center “may not, consistent with the Constitution, conduct future searches comparable to the search of Smook.” Id., at 816. The Court of Appeals reversed stating "a federal court may not entertain a claim by any or all citizens who no more than assert that certain practices of [juvenile detention officials] are unconstitutional." Smook, 457 F.3d at 816. Likewise, in the instant case, Plaintiffs do not allege that they will be subjected to warrantless arrests, searches or stops in the future. Absent such the alleged rights to due process, counsel and advice of rights do not vest standing let alone irreparable harm. Moreover, as argued below, aliens have another forum to press their claims; immigration proceedings and individual Bivens actions. Indeed, the cases cited by Plaintiffs do not hold differently.
14

Case 0:07-cv-01959-ADM-JSM Document 14 Filed 04/25/2007 Page 15 of 45
B. The Immigration and Naturalization Act as Amended Strips this Court of Jurisdiction and Vests it Exclusively in the Court of Appeals.
Section 1252(b) and (g) precludes subject matter jurisdiction except in the Court of
Appeals. Although Plaintiffs claim that arrests and searches were conducted in violation
of the Constitution, these claims arise from actions to commence removal proceedings or
execute removal orders against aliens. Consequently, subject matter jurisdiction is
controlled by 8 U.S.C. § 1252(g), which precludes any court from having jurisdiction to hear
any cause or claim arising from such action. Section 1252(g) provides:
Except as provided in this section and notwithstanding any other provision of law, no court shall have jurisdiction to hear any cause or claim by or on behalf of any alien arising from the decision or action of the Attorney General to commence proceedings, adjudicate cases, or execute removal orders against any alien under this chapter.
8 U.S.C. § 1252(g) . Elsewhere in the section Congress created exclusive jurisdiction in the
Court of Appeals. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(9). Consistent with Section 1252(g), subsection
(b)(9) also strips the District Courts of jurisdiction and makes the Court of Appeals the only
court with jurisdiction to resolve claims like those raised in this case :
Judicial review of all questions of law and fact, including interpretation and application of constitutional and statutory provisions, arising from any action taken or proceeding brought to remove an alien from the United States under this subchapter shall be available only in judicial review of a final order under this section. Except as otherwise provided in this section, no court shall have jurisdiction, by habeas corpus under section 2241 of Title 28, or any other habeas corpus provision, by section 1361 or 1651 of such title, or by any other provision of law (statutory or nonstatutory), to review such an order or such questions of law or fact.
8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(9). Essentially, 8 U.S.C. § 1252 creates a single procedure, that excludes
15

Case 0:07-cv-01959-ADM-JSM Document 14 Filed 04/25/2007 Page 16 of 45
the District Courts, to review alien claims challenging removal orders, their execution, or commencement of removal proceedings. Reno v. American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, et al., 525 U.S. 471 (1999)(hereinafter AAADC).
In AAADC, the Supreme Court held there is no judicial review unless judicial review is provided for in Section 242, 8 U.S.C. § 1252. There, the aliens had complained, and the Service had admitted, that proceedings had been commenced against the aliens because of their affiliation with an organization that supports terrorist activity. The aliens claimed selective prosecution in violation of their constitutional rights to free speech and freedom of association. The Supreme Court held that 8 U.S.C. § 1252(g) deprived the federal courts of jurisdiction over the aliens' suit, which challenged the commencement of proceedings against them.
8 U.S.C. § 1252(g) expressly applies to three discrete actions that the Attorney General may take: His "decision or action" to "commence proceedings, adjudicate cases, or execute removal orders." According to the Supreme Court, that section of the Act was designed to protect discretionary determinations by immigration officials, providing that if they are reviewable at all, they at least will not be made the bases for separate rounds of judicial intervention outside the streamlined process that Congress has designed in Section 242 of the Act. The Court stated:
[E]ven after all of the transitional cases have passed through the system, Section 242(g), as we interpret it[,] serves the continuing function of making it clear that those specified decisions and actions, which . . . some courts have held not to be included within the non-final-order review prohibition of [former Section 106], are covered by the "zipper" clause of Section 242(b)(9).
16

Case 0:07-cv-01959-ADM-JSM Document 14 Filed 04/25/2007 Page 17 of 45
Id. at 943. The Court made clear that the "zipper" clause is a "general jurisdictional limitation" which precludes judicial review unless the Act provides for it. The Supreme Court's construction of Section 242(g) and, more significantly, Section 242(b)(9), leads inexorably to the conclusion that for the instant case, the Act prohibits the types of collateral challenges to the Attorney General's decision to apprehend aliens in order to commence proceedings or to execute the removal orders at issue herein that the Plaintiffs assert in their Complaint.
While St. Cyr allowed district courts to exercise habeas corpus jurisdiction, the REAL ID Act modified that holding and stripped the District Courts of such jurisdiction. As a result, even if Plaintiffs argue that AAADC was limited by St. Cyr, they do not establish jurisdiction over the instant claims by aliens.
On May 11, 2005, Section 106(a) of REAL ID amended the INA's jurisdictional statute at 8 U.S.C. § 1252, to clarify that district courts lack jurisdiction, habeas or otherwise, to review any removal order for any alien, criminal or non-criminal. Nadarajah v. Gonzales, __ F.3d __, 2006 WL 686385, *5 (9th Cir. March 17, 2006); Enwonwu v. Gonzales, 438 F.3d 22, 33 (1st Cir. 2006); Ramirez-Molina v. Ziglar, 436 F.3d 508, 512 (5th Cir. 2006); Ishak v. Gonzales, 422 F.3d 22, 29 (1st Cir. 2005). The REAL ID Act expresses “Congress' clear intent to have all challenges to removal orders heard in a single forum (the courts of appeals).” Gittens v. Menifee, 428 F.3d 382, 383 (2d Cir. 2005)
As a result, Section 1252, which the Supreme Court in INS v. St. Cyr, 533 U.S. 289 (2001), found to preclude “judicial review” over criminal aliens’ removal orders, but not to
17

Case 0:07-cv-01959-ADM-JSM Document 14 Filed 04/25/2007 Page 18 of 45
preclude “habeas review” in district court, now clearly preludes all review in district court including habeas review. Specifically, Congress enacted new Section 242(a)(5) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(5), as amended by REAL ID Act § 106(a). This provision, which is entitled “Exclusive Means of Review,” states as follows:
Notwithstanding any other provision of law (statutory or nonstatutory), including section 2241 of title 28, United States Code, or any other habeas corpus provision, and sections 1361 and 1651 of such title, a petition for review filed with an appropriate court of appeals in accordance with this section shall be the sole and exclusive means for judicial review of an order of removal entered or issued under any provision of this Act . . . . 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(5) (emphasis added);Tostado v. Carlson, --- F.3d ----, 2007 WL 957529 (8th Cir. 2007); Martinez-Rosas v. Gonzales, 424 F.3d 926, 929 (9th Cir. 2005); see also 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(9), as amended by REAL ID Act § 106(a) (expressly repealing habeas corpus review of removal-related claims). Congress made these amendments effective immediately and applicable to any “final administrative order of removal, deportation, exclusion” that was “issued before, on, or after the date of enactment of this division.” REAL ID Act § 106(b). Martinez-Rosas, supra. Accordingly, Section 106(a)'s amendments apply to the instant case because they seek to stay the execution of removal orders "issued before . . . the date of enactment" of the REAL ID Act. C. Section 1252(f) Precludes Jurisdiction to Enjoin Immigration Operations
to Inspect, Apprehend, Examine, Exclude and Remove Aliens. While Section 1252(b) and (g) vest exclusive jurisdiction in the Courts of Appeal over claims by aliens regardless of the relief requested, the INA also discusses jurisdiction
18

Case 0:07-cv-01959-ADM-JSM Document 14 Filed 04/25/2007 Page 19 of 45
to enjoin immigration operations like the instant one. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(f) provides:
Regardless of the nature of the action or claim or of the identity of the party or parties bringing the action, no court (other than the Supreme Court) shall have jurisdiction or authority to enjoin or restrain the operation of the provisions of chapter 4 of Title II, as amended by the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, other than with respect to the application of such provisions to an individual alien against whom proceedings under such chapter [part] have been initiated. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(f)(1).9 Section 1252(f)(1) expressly encompasses any party, regardless of
whether or not the party is an alien. Consequently, Plaintiff is did not avoid its application
by naming Plaintiffs who were not aliens. Likewise, it includes actions for damages or any
other relief, such as a declaratory judgment, that may be combined with or be the equivalent
of a request for injunctive relief. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s did not avoid the jurisdiction
stripping provisions by seeking damages or declaratory relief. So long as the injunction
would enjoin operations in Chapter 4, Title II and the exception does not apply, this Court
lacks jurisdiction to issue an injunction.
When the Act was codified, Chapter 4, Title II became Part IV, Subchapter II of Title
9With regard to the Plaintiffs who subject to a prior order of removal, not only does 8 U.S.C. § 1252(f) preclude an injunction arising out of operations covered in 8 U.S.C. § 1221-31, it also precludes enjoining the removal of the alien. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(f) (2) provides:
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no court shall enjoin the removal of any alien pursuant to a final order under this section unless the alien shows by clear and convincing evidence that the entry or execution of such order is prohibited as a matter of law. Id. This provision balances the finality of removal orders against ensuring that the order is valid. Here, Plaintiffs do not claim that the entry or execution of a prior order was prohibited. Instead, they argue that the manner of execution violated their rights. Hence, the provision is inapposite.
19

Case 0:07-cv-01959-ADM-JSM Document 14 Filed 04/25/2007 Page 20 of 45
8 Chapter 12. Stated differently, Chapter 4 is found at 8 U.S.C. § 1221-1231. 8 U.S.C. § 1226 is entitled “Apprehension and detention of aliens.” Subsection (a) concerns arrest, detention and bond on a warrant of removal. It provides, “on a warrant issued by the Attorney General, an alien may be arrested and detained pending a decision on whether the alien is to be removed from the United States.” 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a). Subsection (c) concerns the detention of criminal aliens who have committed violations that would otherwise result in the alien being inadmissable to or deportable from the United States.8 U.S.C. § 1226(c).10
8 U.S.C. § 1227 concerns deportable aliens and generally describes the grounds for removing aliens who are found in the United States. Section 1228 concerns aliens who in addition to being removable pursuant to Section 1227 are subject to “expedited removal ... [for] committing aggravated felonies.” Procedures for initiating removal are contained in 8 U.S.C. § 1229 and include, inspection, apprehension, notice and representation by counsel.
Although Plaintiff’s claim that they have not been permitted access to attorneys, Section 1229 provides time to meet with an attorney and a list of pro bono attorneys who
108 U.S.C. § 1226 contains its own jurisdiction stripping provision, which is consistent with Section 1252(b), (g) and (f).. Subsection (e) provides, “The Attorney General's discretionary judgment regarding the application of this section shall not be subject to review. No court may set aside any action or decision by the Attorney General under this section regarding the detention or release of any alien or the grant, revocation, or denial of bond or parole.”
20

Case 0:07-cv-01959-ADM-JSM Document 14 Filed 04/25/2007 Page 21 of 45
are available11. 8 U.S.C. § 1229(b)(1), (2). In addition to provisions concerning representation by counsel 8 U.S.C. § 1252(f)
also precludes an injunction concerning, removal proceedings(8 U.S.C. § 1229a), adjustment of status (8 U.S.C. § 1229b), voluntary departure (8 U.S.C. § 1229c), Records of admission and departure (8 U.S.C. § 1230) and the detention and removal of aliens subject to a final order of removal (8 U.S.C. § 12231). All of Plaintiffs claims come within 8 U.S.C. § 1252(f) and jurisdiction to enter an injunction is precluded unless they come within the exception.
The exception in Section 1252(f) does not cover Plaintiff’s or their claims. Injunctions are precluded, “other than with respect to the application of such provisions to an individual alien against whom proceedings under such chapter [part] have been initiated.” This language exempts the Immigration Judge, BIA and Court of Appeals, who, as argued above, have exclusive jurisdiction pursuant to Section 1252(b) and (g). These Courts and administrative bodies apply the provisions of chapter 4 of Title II (8 U.S.C. § 1221-31) to individuals against whom proceedings are pending. As a result, the exception preserves a single procedure fro review, commencing with the Notice to Appear and concluding with a Petition for Review in the Court of Appeals. It does not vest the District Court with poser to enter an injunction. Instead, its purpose is to provide the remedy elsewhere for
11The right to an attorney in removal proceedings is statutory and is not a requirement of the Sixth Amendment. Infra..
21

Case 0:07-cv-01959-ADM-JSM Document 14 Filed 04/25/2007 Page 22 of 45
individuals in proceedings and abolish it for others.12 As a result, this Court lacks jurisdiction to enter an injunction. IV. PLAINTIFFS FAIL TO MEET THEIR BURDEN OF PROVING THE
ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS FOR A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER (TRO). Plaintiff, as the party seeking injunctive relief bears the full burden of proof as to each of the four factors identified in Dataphase Systems, Inc. v. C.L. Systems, Inc., 640 F.2d 109 (8th Cir. 1981)(en banc); Gelco Corp. v. Coniston Partners, 811 F.2d 414, 418 (8th Cir. 1987). The four factors are: (1) the threat of irreparable harm to the movant; (2) the balance between this harm and the injury that granting the injunction will inflict on other parties; (3) the probability that the movant will succeed on the merits; and (4) the public interest. Id., at 113; accord Medtronic, Inc. v. Gibbons, 527 F. Supp. 1085, 1090 (D. Minn. 1981), aff'd, 684 F.2d 565 (8th Cir. 1982). Courts are to apply the Dataphase factors to analyze requests for preliminary injunctions, as well as temporary restraining orders. S.B. McLaughlin & Co. v. Tudor Oaks Condominium Project, 877 F.2d 707, 708 (8th Cir. 1989); Jackson v. National Football League, 802 F. Supp. 226, 229 (D. Minn. 1992). An injunction is "a drastic and extraordinary remedy that is not to be routinely granted." Intel Corp. v. ULSI Systems Technology, Inc., 995 F.2d 1566, 1568 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Plaintiffs seeks a restraining order from “further immigration enforcement proceedings or deportation actions . . . until this Court has had the opportunity to hear and
12Preventing individuals other than aliens subject to proceedings from enjoining operations is consistent with rules of standing and limiting injunctive relief to those who are subject to removal.
22

Case 0:07-cv-01959-ADM-JSM Document 14 Filed 04/25/2007 Page 23 of 45
resolve [their] constitutional claims . . .” Plaintiff’s proposed Temporary Restraining order. The request, however, contradicts another request for injunctive relief. Plaintiff’s also
request an order preventing their transfer out of Minnesota “until they have been afforded . . . an opportunity to appear in immigration court to raise their constitutional issues.” Not only is there a conflict between the two requests, this Court lacks jurisdiction and Plaintiffs have an alternative remedy.
A. Plaintiffs fail to Demonstrate Irreparable Harm. Plaintiffs allege three irreparable injuries occurred during Operation Cross Check: 1) ICE agents violated the Fourth Amendment by entering homes without consent and searching them 2) the Sixth Amendment was violated when Plaintiffs did not receive an opportunity to consult with counsel before custodial interrogations and 3) some of Plaintiffs family members experienced “serious and continuing physical injury.” Memorandum in Support at 5-6. They erroneously claim that because they allege constitutional violations they have shown irreparable harm and support the argument by citing Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S. 347 (1976) and Planned Parenthood of Minnesota, Inc. v. Citizens for Community Action, 558 F.2d 861 (8th Cir. 1977). Memorandum in support at 5. Instead, these cases as well as settled law require a future harm. for a plaintiff to meet his burden of showing irreparable harm. Moreover, an alternative remedy renders the harm less than irreparable. The absence of a finding of irreparable harm is alone sufficient to deny an injunction. Modern Computer sys., Inc. v. Modern Banking Sys., Inc., 871 F.2d 734, 738 (8th Cir. 1989); Dataphase, 640 F.2d at 114 n.4. A threshold inquiry is whether the moving party
23

Case 0:07-cv-01959-ADM-JSM Document 14 Filed 04/25/2007 Page 24 of 45
has shown the threat of irreparable injury, Gelco corp. v. Coniston Partners. 811 F.2d 414, 418 (8th Cir. 1987). An injury that may be compensated by money damages is generally not irreparable unless the money is not available or the damages unquantifiable. BenYonatan v. Concordia College Corp., 863 F.Supp. 983, 986 (D.Minn. 1994). Here, Plaintiffs seek damages in addition to injunctive relief. Hence, the damages can be quantified. Moreover, there is no claim that the Defendants lack the resources to pay the damages. Not only will damages compensate for the alleged injuries, Plaintiffs fail to show an impending and irreparable harm.
2. Elrod and Planned Parenthood of Minnesota, require a future injury to demonstrate an irreparable injury.
In Elrod, 427 U.S. at 347, unlike the instant case, the plaintiffs were challenging a rule that applied to each of them. Not, as here, a set of circumstances that may demonstrate a violation of a rule. They were all fired or threatened with firing because of a partisan political affiliation or non affiliation, which implicated the First Amendment, which is not at issue here. Indeed, the holding is narrower than represented by Plaintiffs. Id. at 373 (“The loss of First Amendment freedoms, for even minimal periods of time, unquestionably constitutes irreparable injury.”) Moreover, unlike the instant case, the Court stated:
It is clear . . . that First Amendment interests were either threatened or in fact being impaired at the time relief was sought. [citation omitted]. Since such injury was both threatened and occurring at the time of respondents' motion and since respondents sufficiently demonstrated a probability of success on the merits, the Court of Appeals might properly have held that the District Court abused its discretion in denying preliminary injunctive relief
24

Case 0:07-cv-01959-ADM-JSM Document 14 Filed 04/25/2007 Page 25 of 45
Id.(emphasis added). Here, unlike Elrod, the alleged damage has occurred and is no longer threatening. Indeed, Plaintiffs seek damages for the alleged injury.
In Planned Parenthood of Minnesota, 558 F.2d at 861, a family planning organization sought to enjoin a mayor from enforcing zoning ordinances that were adopted after the organization had purchased a facility.13 The Court affirmed the District Court’s finding of irreparable injury stating, “Planned Parenthood would be irreparably injured if a preliminary injunction were not issued.” Id., at 866. Moreover, the Court found irreparable injury arose from “adverse effect on Planned Parenthood's business, coupled with the incalculable loss of revenue, ... Also the ordinance interfered with the exercise of its constitutional rights and the rights of its patients . . . .Finally, Planned Parenthood's good will was imperiled.” Id., at 866-67. In other words, contrary to Plaintiff’s memorandum, the irreparable injury was more than an alleged violation of law that had concluded, which is unlike the instant case.
Plaintiff’s citations do not escape the need to show a future injury to satisfy not only standing, but also the essential element of an irreparable injury. Hence, even if standing exists, which defendants contest, Plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate an irreparable injury. Moreover, an alternative remedy prevents an injury from satisfying the element of irreparable injury.
13As the opinion notes, the Court of Appeals applied a different standard than applicable in the first instance by the District Court. Id. at 866.
25

Case 0:07-cv-01959-ADM-JSM Document 14 Filed 04/25/2007 Page 26 of 45
2. Plaintiffs fail to show an irreparable injury because they have alternative remedies.
Plaintiffs, as their order for injunction relief suggests, may raise their claims in the pending immigration proceedings and have sought damages for the alleged violation of their rights.14 A plaintiff does not demonstrate irreparable harm where an alternative remedy exists. See Sampson v. Murray, 415 U.S. 61, 90 (1974) (available alternative remedies preclude required finding of irreparable injury) . Moreover, mere lapse of time and litigation expense do not constitute irreparable harm. See F.T.C. v. Standard Oil Co., 449 U.S. 232, 244 (1980). “The basic doctrine of equity jurisprudence that courts of equity should not act ... when the moving party has an adequate remedy at law and will not suffer irreparable injury if denied equitable relief.” Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 43-44 (1971). Hence, the cost and time necessary to use the alternative remedy do not establish irreparable harm. Here,
The INA states that “no court shall have jurisdiction to review ... any judgment regarding the granting of relief under section ... 240A.” INA § 242(a)(2)(B), 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B). “However, the REAL ID Act of 2005, Pub.L. No. 109-13, 119 Stat. 231, has added an additional jurisdictional provision to INA § 242. The new provision, INA § 242(a)(2)(D), codifies the Court of Appeals jurisdiction to review constitutional claims or
14While not every Plaintiff, Mithun, Veliz, and Fransico Munoz, is subject to removal, such Plaintiffs also fail to demonstrate irreparable harm from the continuation of removal proceedings against other Plaintiffs. Indeed, they show no harm and lack standing to prevent such proceedings.
26

Case 0:07-cv-01959-ADM-JSM Document 14 Filed 04/25/2007 Page 27 of 45
questions of law raised in petitions for review of decisions made by the Attorney General under INA § 240A and other sections.” Lopez v. Gonzales, 417 F.3d 934 (8th Cir. 2005) rev’d on other grounds ___ U.S. ___, 127 S.Ct. 625, 166 L.Ed.2d 462, 75 USLW 4013 ( 2006). The REAL ID Act “consolidated judicial review of matters pertaining to removal orders in the courts of appeal and expanded appellate jurisdiction to include review of “constitutional claims or questions of law.” Hanan v. Gonzales, 449 F.3d 834 (8th Cir. 2006). Unlike the plaintiff in Hanan, Plaintiffs raise constitutional claims that may be addressed by the Court of Appeals on direct appeal from the removal proceedings. see e.g., Munoz-Yepez v. Gonzales, 465 F.3d 347, 351 (8th Cir. 2006). Hence, Plaintiff’s who are subject to removal proceedings they have an alternative remedy in removal proceedings. Likewise, Plaintiffs who are subject to Final Orders of removal may move to reopen their removal proceedings and take advantage of an appeal to the Courts of Appeal.
Although generally aliens can not suppress evidence asserted to be procured in violation of the Fourth Amendment in removal proceedings, they are not without a remedy.15 INS v. Lopez-Mendoza, 468 U.S. 1032 (1984) [Fourth Amendment based exclusionary rule inapplicable to deportation proceedings]; Patel v. INS, 790 F.2d 720 (8th Cir. 1986); Matter of Sandoval, 17 I. & N. Dec. 70 (BIA 1979). According to the government, if there was a policy or widespread abuse, or an egregious Fourth Amendment violation that transgresses
15Even if the Court find that the immigration procedures do not allow the instant Plaintiffs to suppress evidence, these cases also stand for the proposition that such Plaintiffs are unlikely to succeed on the merits because they lack such a right.
27

Case 0:07-cv-01959-ADM-JSM Document 14 Filed 04/25/2007 Page 28 of 45
fundamental fairness, the exclusionary rule may apply. Lopez-Mendoza, 468 U.S. at 1050-51 and n. 5; Matter of Cervantes, 21 I & N. Dec. 351, at 353(BIA 1996). Moreove3r regardless of the Fourth Amendment, suppression may be urged under the Fifth Amendment. Matter of Garcia-Flores, 17 I. & N. Dec. 325 (BIA 1980). Indeed, coerced confessions may be suppressible. Navia-Duran v. INS, 568 F.3d 803 (1st Cir. 1977). Regarless of an alien’s likehood of success, Immigration Judges can and will entertain motions to suppress unlawfully obtained evidence in removal proceedings, meaning these aliens who will face an Immigration Judge have an alternative remedy and have not exhausted it.
With regard to Plaintiffs, who are neither subject to removal nor a prior order of removal, their own Pleadings identify an alternative remedy. Notwithstanding such Plaintiffs lack of a legal interest in removal proceedings, they have brought Bivens actions to secure their rights. Consequently, even though these Plaintiffs do not have the removal proceedings and appeal procedures available to them, they have sought an alternative remedy. Moreover, injunctive relief for past harms regardless of a Plaintiffs status as an alien.
B. The Balance of the Harms to Defendant and the Public Disfavor Injunctive Relief that Prevents Enforcement of the Laws.
Plaintiffs a argue that the alleged constitutional violations out weigh the harm associated with “delaying [removal proceedings] until Plaintiffs’ constitutional claims can be resolved.” Memorandum in support at 7. As demonstrated by their own pleading and
28

Case 0:07-cv-01959-ADM-JSM Document 14 Filed 04/25/2007 Page 29 of 45
the INA, They erroneously state that Plaintiffs’ are unable “to pursue any civil or criminal legal relief for . . .” the alleged violations. Id. Moreover, they cite Morrison v. Heckler, 602 F.Supp. 1482 (D.Minn. 1984) and Pacific Fronteir v. Pleasant Grove City, 414 F.3d 1221 (10th Cir. 2005), which are inapposite.
The balance of harm must tip decidedly toward the plaintiff to justify an injunction. General Mills, Inc. v. Kellogg, 824 F.2d 622, 624 (8th Cir. 1987); Allen v. State of Minnesota, 867 F.Supp. 853 (D.Minn. 1994). Here, the balance of the harms does not favor issuing an injunction.
Plaintiff’s showing of harm is hyperbole, can be rectified in alternative forums or damages and is based on inapposite significant harm. As with other cases cited by Plaintiffs, Pacific Fronteir, 414 F.3d at 1221, concerned a city ordinance that restrict Plaintiff’s First Amendment rights. There door to door salesmen claimed that their commercial speech rights were violated when required to post a bond and supply fingerprints to obtain a business license. Here, the First Amendment is not pleaded. Similarly, they do not allege that a regulatory change has infringed on any rights. With regard to the balance of harms, unlike the instant case, the bond and fingerprint requirement did not materially advance the city’s interests in tracking down tortfeasors. Id. at 1236-7. Here, the Plaintiffs do not allege violation of First Amendment rights and Defendants were executing valid warrants of removal and apprehending individuals with probable cause to believe the violated immigration laws.
29

Case 0:07-cv-01959-ADM-JSM Document 14 Filed 04/25/2007 Page 30 of 45
Unlike the instant case, Morrison, 602 F.Supp. at 1482, was properly a class action. Moreover, it sought to enjoin the imminent implementation of an administrative program arguing that the program did not comply with the authorizing amendment. Finally, the court found that the plaintiffs would be denied benefits required for “essential medical or nutritional child care needs.” While Plaintiffs claim that children are being deprived of a parent, they do not allege that the denial is a result of an ongoing or imminent program change. Consequently Morrison is inapposite.
Against Plaintiff’s alleged injury the Court should balance the injury to Defendants if the injunction is granted. In the instant case, the injury involves the continued knowing violation of the immigration laws, which among other things allows employers to take advantage of people illegally in the country. Moreover, limited government resources are expended on the illegally present aliens. A probation officer in Willmar was supervising 30 illegal immigrants. Finally, the government annually issues thousands of visas to Hispanic countries, but in an atmosphere of lax enforcement scoff laws gain a prize. Indeed, by enjoining removal proceedings, some Plaintiffs are put to a disadvantage.
One Plaintiff, a Honduran, has agreed to voluntary departure with safeguards. This option is time sensitive and will expire soon. By agreeing to voluntary departure under the applicable restrictions, this plaintiff will not have been removed. As a result, if he is found in the United States a second time, he retains the right to a full and complete hearing before removal. On the other hand, if he loses this opportunity, he also loses the right to the an immigration hearing.
30

Case 0:07-cv-01959-ADM-JSM Document 14 Filed 04/25/2007 Page 31 of 45
Importantly, Plaintiffs seek an injunction forbidding warrantless searches. But, the law allows for such searches. Individuals may consent to searches. Indeed, such searches are also justified by exigent circumstances, including protection of the law enforcement agents and the people in the vicinity. Hence, Plaintiff’s request for relief puts deportation officers at risk.
In balancing In the process of balancing the harm to the parties, if the harm to the defendant outweighs the irreparable injury to the movant, then the movant faces a heavy burden of demonstrating that she is likely to succeed on the merits. Jordano v. Steffen, 797 F.Supp. 886, 890 (D.Minn. 1992). Indeed, even if the harm is drastic, a plaintiff will not prevail where it is not likely they will prevail on the merits. Spring Water Dairy, Inc. v. Federal Intermediate Credit Bank of St. Paul, 625 F.Supp. 713, 721 (D.Minn. 1986)
C. It Is Improbable That Plaintiff Will Succeed on the Merits. Aliens and citizens are protected by the Constitution but the protections are different. Aliens are not entitled to enjoy all the advantages of citizenship. Mathews v. Diaz, 426 U.S. 67, 78 (1976). “For a host of constitutional and statutory provisions rest on the premise that a legitimate distinction between citizens and aliens may justify attributes and benefits for one class not accorded to the other; and the class of aliens is itself a heterogeneous multitude of persons with a wide-ranging variety of ties to this country.” Id. Although Plaintiff have not been charged with crimes, Plaintiffs erroneously cite criminal cases, whereas, the instant case is a civil matter.
31

Case 0:07-cv-01959-ADM-JSM Document 14 Filed 04/25/2007 Page 32 of 45
1. Plaintiffs are unlikely to prevail because they have not exhausted administrative remedies.
As stated previously, Plaintiffs that have an interest, though not standing, in the immigration proceedings that they seek to enjoin, have administrative forums that may consider their constitutional claims, grant relief and provide for an appeal the Board of Immigration appeals and Court of Appeals. See, . Lopez-Mendoza, 468 U.S. at 1032 (1984).; Matter of Cervantes, 21 I & N. Dec. at 353; Matter of Garcia-Flores, 17 I. & N. Dec. at 325 (Fifth Amendment). Regardless of an alien’s likelihood of success on such motions, Immigration Judges can and will entertain motions to suppress unlawfully obtained evidence in removal proceedings. Moreover, her decision is subject to appeal and can be reversed or affirmed in the Board of Immigration appeals or the Court of Appeals. None of the instant Plaintiffs, however, have exhausted these remedies, absent which they are unlikely to succeed on the merits in this case.
2. Plaintiffs for whom warrants were issued are subject to the fugitive disentitlement doctrine.
Those Plaintiffs taken into custody on a Warrant of Removal already have a final order of removal, and are required by statute to turn themselves in after the order of removal becomes administratively final. 8 U.S.C. 1253(a)(1)(D). If they failed to do so, they are fugitives from justice and the fugitive disentitlement doctrine applies. Matter of Barocio, 19 I. & N. Dec. 255, at 257 (BIA 1985); See Barnett v. Young Men's Christian Association, Inc., 268 F.3d 614 (8th Cir. 2001). The fugitive disentitlement doctrine has been applied to aliens since at least 1993, Bar-Levy v. U.S. Dept. of Justice, I.N.S., 990 F.2d 33 (2nd Cir.
32

Case 0:07-cv-01959-ADM-JSM Document 14 Filed 04/25/2007 Page 33 of 45
1993), and was very recently applied by that circuit to dismiss a petition for review. Gao v. Gonzalez, ___ F.3d ___, 2007 WL 829063 (2nd Cir., March 20, 2007). With respect to fugitives from federal court warrants, the fugitive disentitlement doctrine is codified at 28 U.S.C.A. 2466,. The elements are similar in this case.
Here, the Warrants were issued for five Plaintiffs, who are identified in Exhibit 3. these Plaintiffs failed to depart when ordered but remained in the United States, thereby, evading the jurisdiction of the Immigration Courts. The Fugitive disentitlement doctrine should preclude their claims.
3. Plaintiffs are unlikely to prevail on the merits because they have improperly joined Claims that do not arise From The Same Transaction Or Occurrence or containing Common Question Of Fact Or Law .
Rule 20(a), permits joinder where claims arise from, (1) same transaction or occurrence and (2) common question of law or fact, must be met for joinder to be allowed. Boyd v. Diebold, 97 F.R.D. 720, 723 (E. D. Mich. 1983). If the test for permissive joinder is not satisfied, a court, in its discretion, may sever the misjoined parties, so long as no substantial right will be prejudiced by the severance. Coughlin v. Rogers, 130 F.3d 1348, 1350 (9th Cir. 1997). Where misjoinder is found, it is appropriate and just, under Fed. R. Civ. P. 21, to drop all but the first named plaintiff. Id. The Court should sever and dismiss from this action all of the plaintiffs except for the lead plaintiff, Carlos Arias, because they cannot satisfy the joinder requirements of Rule 20.
33

Case 0:07-cv-01959-ADM-JSM Document 14 Filed 04/25/2007 Page 34 of 45
a. Plaintiffs are not properly joined because their claims do not arise out of the same transaction or occurrence.
The first prong of Rule 20 requires that plaintiffs assert a right arising out of the same transaction or occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences. Fed. E. Civ. P. 20(a). The “same transaction” or “series of transactions” requirement refers to similarity in the factual background of a claim. Heath v. Bell, 448 F. Supp. 416, 418 (M.D. Pa. 1977). “In ascertaining whether a particular factual situation constitutes a single transaction or occurrence for purposes of Rule 20, a case by case approach is generally pursued . . . .” Mosley v. General Motors Corp., 497 F.2d 1332, 1333 (8th Cir. 1974).
In Heath, several federal inmates alleged that the United States Parole Commission was applying its guidelines unlawfully. The court recognized that “the only connection among the claims is that they all involve decisions of the United States Parole Commission.” Heath, 448 F. Supp. at 418. In denying joinder under Rule 20, the court opined as follows:
[I]f two petitions were alleging that they were unlawfully denied parole because of their mutual involvement in a certain incident, that might be an appropriate case for joinder. However, the mere fact that a parole decision is involved is not enough of a connection to satisfy the same transaction requirement. Id. (footnote omitted). In Papagiannis v. Pontikis, 108 F.R.D. 177 (N.D. Ill. 1985), three plaintiffs alleged that they had been bilked by the defendants with respect to investments in oil wells. Each plaintiff had entered into a separate purchase contract, at a different time, as to a working interest on different wells on the same leasehold. Each plaintiff alleged violations of the same laws. The district court found that
34

Case 0:07-cv-01959-ADM-JSM Document 14 Filed 04/25/2007 Page 35 of 45
[t]hough the nature of the alleged misrepresentations to each investor was much the same, and that may reflect a pattern of conduct by defendants . . . nothing in the Complaint even hints at any linkage between the plaintiffs or between the making of the separate representations to each. Papagiannis, 108 F.R.D. at 178. The district court went on to find that plaintiffs’ claims did not involve the same transaction or occurrence, “for that characterization does not fairly apply to two victims’ wholly separate encounters with a confidence man simply because he follows the same routine in cheating each of them.” Id., at 179. Here, each Plaintiff’s separate encounters with Deportation officers or other defendants do not involve the same transaction. Consequently, even if there is a common question of law, which Defendants deny, the Plaintiffs are not properly joined in this action.16
b. Plaintiffs are not properly joined because there is no common question of fact or law.
Plaintiffs also fail to satisfy the second prong of the test for permissive joinder, which requires that there be a common question of law or fact. Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a). Although plaintiffs suggest, they do not allege, that USCIS engages in a policy of delay and they have not included, nor are there any, factual allegations that would support such a claim. As in Coughlin, “each applicant or petitioner presents a different factual situation. Therefore, each must receive personalized attention by the INS and, ultimately, by the Court.” Coughlin, 130 F. 3d at 1351. Thus, there can be no common question of fact.
16For similar reasons Plaintiffs will be unable to satisfy the requirements to maintain a class action. See F. R. Civ. P. 23.
35

Case 0:07-cv-01959-ADM-JSM Document 14 Filed 04/25/2007 Page 36 of 45
[A]lthough Plaintiffs’ claims are all brought under the Constitution and the Administrative Procedure Act, the mere fact that all Plaintiffs’ claims arise under the same general law does not necessarily establish a common question of law or fact. Clearly, each Plaintiff’s claim is discrete, and involves different legal issues, standards, and procedures. Indeed, even if Plaintiffs’ cases were not severed, the Court would still have to give each claim individualized attention. Therefore, the claims do not involve common questions of law or fact. Coughlin, 130 F.3d at 1351. As a result of the claims in this case, the Court will be in the same position as the Coughlin court.
c. Plaintiffs have not shown that joinder will promote trial convenience.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 20 is designed to promote trial convenience and to expedite the final determination of disputes. League to Save Lake Tahoe v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, 558 F.2d 914, 917 (9th Cir. 1977), citing Mosley, 497 F.2d at 1332. Joinder of the 59 plaintiffs in this case does not preserve judicial resources. Each of the plaintiffs’ applications is factually distinct. Joining them together does not expedite the resolution of this case, since each application requires individual attention.
Further, no substantial right will be prejudiced by severance. See Coughlin, 130 F. 3d at 1351, citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 21. Each plaintiff can initiate his or her own civil action asserting the same claims as are advanced in the instant case. In fact, an individual case likely would proceed more quickly than this one, which includes so many unrelated plaintiffs. Therefore, defendants request that the Court sever and dismiss all but the lead plaintiff.
36

Case 0:07-cv-01959-ADM-JSM Document 14 Filed 04/25/2007 Page 37 of 45
4. Plaintiffs are unlikely to prevail on their constitutional arguments. The United States Constitution confers on Congress the power to regulate matters relating to immigration. U.S. Const. art. 1, § 9, cl. 1. In addition, the Supreme Court has "repeatedly emphasized that ‘over no conceivable subject is the legislative power of Congress more complete than it is over' the admission of aliens." Fiallo v. Bell, 430 U.S. 787, 792 (1977) quoting Oceanic Navigation Co. v. Stranahan, 214 U.S. 320, 339 (1909). This broad grant of authority is exclusive to Congress. Galvan v. Press, 347 U.S. 522, 531-32 (1954). Congress authorized immigration agents to make warrantless arrests and searches in 8 U.S.C. § 1357. Among other things, Operation Cross Check included the execution of warrants of removal. Section 1357 provides, “Under regulations prescribed by the Attorney General, an officer or employee of the Service may carry a firearm and may execute and serve any order, warrant, subpoena, summons, or other process issued under the authority of the United States.” 8 U.S.C. § 1357(a). While executing warrants, aliens were also apprehended for violation of the immigration laws. With regard to arrests and questioning without warrants, Section 1357 provides: Any officer or employee of the Service authorized under regulations prescribed by the Attorney General shall have power without warrant– (1) to interrogate any alien or person believed to be an alien as to his right to be or to remain in the United States; (2) to arrest any alien who in his presence or view is entering or attempting to enter the United States in violation of any law or regulation made in pursuance of law regulating the admission, exclusion, expulsion, or removal
37

Case 0:07-cv-01959-ADM-JSM Document 14 Filed 04/25/2007 Page 38 of 45
of aliens, or to arrest any alien in the United States, if he has reason to believe that the alien so arrested is in the United States in violation of any such law or regulation and is likely to escape before a warrant can be obtained for his arrest, but the alien arrested shall be taken without unnecessary delay for examination before an officer of the Service having authority to examine aliens as to their right to enter or remain in the United States;
* * * (4) to make arrests for felonies which have been committed and which are cognizable under any law of the United States regulating the admission, exclusion, expulsion, or removal of aliens, if he has reason to believe that the person so arrested is guilty of such felony and if there is likelihood of the person escaping before a warrant can be obtained for his arrest, but the person arrested shall be taken without unnecessary delay before the nearest available officer empowered to commit persons charged with offenses against the laws of the United States; and
(5) to make arrests-(A) for any offense against the United States, if the offense is committed in the officer's or employee's presence, or (B) for any felony cognizable under the laws of the United States, if the officer or employee has reasonable grounds to believe that the person to be arrested has committed or is committing such a felony, if the officer or employee is performing duties relating to the enforcement of the immigration laws at the time of the arrest and if there is a likelihood of the person escaping before a warrant can be obtained for his arrest.
Id. Incident to the execution of warrants and apprehension of aliens, Operation cross check
resulted in searches. In this regard, Section 1357 provides:
Any officer or employee of the Service authorized and designated under regulations prescribed by the Attorney General, whether individually or as one of a class, shall have power to conduct a search, without warrant, of the person, and of the personal effects in the possession of any person seeking admission to the United States, concerning whom such officer or employee may have reasonable cause to suspect that grounds exist for denial of admission to the United States under this chapter which would be disclosed by such search.
38

Case 0:07-cv-01959-ADM-JSM Document 14 Filed 04/25/2007 Page 39 of 45
8 U.S.C. § 1357(c). 8 U.S.C. § 1357 is constitutional. In some instances, the authority of Deportation officials to conduct warrantless
interrogations has been limited to situations where such officials have a reasonable suspicion, based on specific articulable facts, that the person may be an alien who is illegally in the country. These factors include personal appearance and dress; nervous or erratic behavior; And whether the person is in an area believed to be populated by a fairly high concentration of illegal aliens. see United States v.. Hernandez-Rojas, 470 F.Supp. 1212 (D.C.N.Y., 1979).
Plaintiffs would have this Court apply criminal procedures to the execution of the civil warrants in this case. Plaintiffs claim that their Fourth Amendment Rights were violated by warrantless non-consenual Home searches. They rely on affidavits of three Plaintiffs and primarily cite two criminal cases, United States v. Parris, 17 F.3d 227 (8th Cir. 1994) and United States v. Chaidez, 906 F.2d 377 (8th Cir. 1990). While the substantive criminal law may help define the boundaries of consent, the criminal procedures and presumptions discussed in such cases and cited by Plaintiffs do not apply.
As the declarations of defendants demonstrate, consent is a factual dispute based on the totality of the circumstances at the time of the event giving rise to the cause of action. Consequently, there are thirty different claims that are not subject to joinder let alone a showing that each individual is likely to prevail on the merits. Moreover, although Plaintiffs seek to restrain all warrantless searches, they are not prohibited at law.
39

Case 0:07-cv-01959-ADM-JSM Document 14 Filed 04/25/2007 Page 40 of 45
The Fourth Amendment does not forbid warrantless searches or detentions during them. Instead, it permit reasonable searches and detentions. See Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 21-22 (1968). “It is apparent that in order to satisfy the “reasonableness” requirement of the Fourth Amendment, what is generally demanded of the many factual determinations that must regularly be made by agents of the government-whether the magistrate issuing a warrant, the police officer executing a warrant, or the police officer conducting a search or seizure under one of the exceptions to the warrant requirement-is not that they always be correct, but that they always be reasonable.” Illinois v. Rodriguez, 497 U.S. 177, 186 (1990). In Illinos v. Rodriguez, the Court stated:
Whether the basis for such authority exists is the sort of recurring factual question to which law enforcement officials must be expected to apply their judgment; and all the Fourth Amendment requires is that they answer it reasonably. The Constitution is no more violated when officers enter without a warrant because they reasonably (though erroneously) believe that the person who has consented to their entry is a resident of the premises, than it is violated when they enter without a warrant because they reasonably (though erroneously) believe they are in pursuit of a violent felon who is about to escape. Illinois v. Rodriguez, 497 U.S. 177, 188 (1990). Consistent with the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals has stated, The government may obtain consent for a warrantless search from the defendant or “from a third party who possesse[s] common authority over or other sufficient relationship to the premises or effects sought to be inspected. United States v. Czeck, 105 F.3d 1235, 1239 (8th Cir. 1997) quoting United States v. Matlock, 415 U.S. 164, 171 (1974). The Deportation agents were allowed to obtain consent
40

Case 0:07-cv-01959-ADM-JSM Document 14 Filed 04/25/2007 Page 41 of 45
for warrantless searches. Consequently, Plaintiffs are unlikely to prevail on their claims that warrantless searches should be enjoined.
5. Plaintiffs are unlikely to prevail on their Fourth Amendment Claim for alleged investigatory Stops and detentions.
One Plaintiff, Veliz, claims that on April 12, 2007, he was illegally stopped while driving his vehicle. He was not however, further detained or placed into removal proceedings. Indeed, the Complaint alleges that unlike other Plaintiffs, he was a lawful permanent resident. As a result, he has no connection or interest in or standing to enjoin removal proceedings or warrentless searches. It is unlikely he will prevail on an action for injunctive ro declaratory relief.
6. Plaintiffs are unlikely to prevail on their Fifth Amendment Claim for alleged violations of the Equal Protection clause.
Plaintiffs cite Lopez v. United States Immigration and Naturalization Service, 758 F.2d 1390 (10th Cir. 1985) to argue that Plaintiff’s were entitled to “Miranda” warnings before custodial interrogations. Lopez does not support their argument.
Lopez, involved the same form of action as the instant case. He complained that immigration agents could not seize his driver’s license at a time when he did not have his registration papers. Lopez, 758 F.2d at 1391. The plaintiff was a passenger in a car that was stopped by INS officers. When the plaintiff was unable to demonstrate that he was legally in the United States, he was taken into custody. The following day, he was released when an officer located the a file containing a petition that would legitimize the plaintiff’s
41

Case 0:07-cv-01959-ADM-JSM Document 14 Filed 04/25/2007 Page 42 of 45
presence in the United States. The INS returned the license, which resulted in Colorado initiating revocation proceedings and revoking the plaintiff’s license. Id. The plaintiff claimed that taking his license without a hearing violated due process. Id. at 1393. the court, however, held, “ the INS was not required to conduct a due process hearing either before or after confiscating identification papers that could assist his avoiding detection as an alien.” Id. at 1394 (emphasis added).
As this Court will surely do, the Lopez court set the table to analyze an alien’s procedural due process claim by stating:
In considering this contention, we note that aliens, even those lawfully within the country, do not have most of the constitutional rights afforded to citizens. They may be deported for considerations of race, politics, activities, or associations that the government could not punish them for if they were citizens. [citations omitted]. They may be arrested [pursuant ] to administrative warrant issued without an order of a magistrate. . . and held without bail. Id. , at 1393. citing Abel v. United States, 362 U.S. 217 (1960); Carlson v. Landon, 342 U.S. 524 (1952). Contrary to Plaintiffs’ use of Lopez to support their arguments, the court also noted that although an alien is entitled to protection of the Fifth and Sixth amendment when charged with a crime, which is not the case here. “That does not mean, [however] that an alien who has violated United States immigration laws is entitled to a hearing before the government may deprive him of an item of his personal property that would assist him in avoiding detection as an alien.” Id. As a result, Plaitniffs are unlikely to prevail on their
42

Case 0:07-cv-01959-ADM-JSM Document 14 Filed 04/25/2007 Page 43 of 45
Fifth Amendment claim. 7. Plaintiffs are unlikely to prevail on their Sixth Amendment Claim.
Although removal proceedings are civil proceedings and Plaintiffs were apprehended pursuant to civil warrants and authority, they argue the Arizona v. Roberson, 486 U.S. 675 (1988) “clearly states” that the Sixth Amendment right to counsel attaches to the instant interrogations. Plaintiff’s argument lacks merit.
In Roberson, a defendant was arrested at the scene of a burglary and given his Miranda rights. Roberson, 486 U.S. at 678. Three days later while the defendant was still detained a different officer questioned the defendant about a different burglary and obtained information incriminating the defendant in the burglary for which he had been arrested. Id. The Court held that the incriminating statement should be suppressed, but noted that officers “are free to inform the suspect of facts of the second investigation as long as sch communication does not constitute interrogation.” Id. at 687. Moreover, any further communication initiated by the suspect is valid. Id. Roberson was an extension of the Court’s holding in Miranda which does not apply in the instant case.
It is settled law in this jurisdiction that deportation proceedings are civil, and not criminal, in nature. [citation omitted]. Consequently, those Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights outlined in a Miranda-type warning are inapposite in the context of removal proceedings. Vasquez-Trujillo v. Gonzales 151 Fed.Appx. 509, 510-11 (9th Cir. 2005); See I.N.S. v. Lopez-Mendoza, 468 U.S. 1032, 1039-40 (1984). As a matter of law, Plaintiffs are unlikely to prevail on their Sixth Amendment claim.
43

Case 0:07-cv-01959-ADM-JSM Document 14 Filed 04/25/2007 Page 44 of 45
D. The Public Interest Favors Moving Forward with Removal Proceedings and Permitting Warrantless Searches.
In Lopez, 758 F.2d at 1392, the court identified the strong public interest in enforcement of immigration law, stating:
Congress has conferred upon the INS broad authority to address the problem of illegal aliens. It is a felony to make false statements in matters relating to immigration or to use falsely procured documentary evidence of citizenship. 18 U.S.C. § 1015. The Immigration and Nationality Act authorizes the INS to interrogate any alien or person believed to be an alien. 8 U.S.C. § 1357(a)(1). The Act permits INS officials to arrest aliens whom the officials have reason to believe are in violation of the immigration laws. Id. at § 1357(a)(2). The Act empowers INS officials to detain illegal aliens and permits the Attorney General to arrange for their deportation. Id. at § 1252. These provisions collectively reveal Congress' strong interest in effective enforcement of our immigration laws. The Supreme Court has recognized the significant public interest in the enforcement of immigration policies. Id. Moreover, unlike citizens, Congress requires an alien to carry evidence of his registration at all times. In addition to the public interest in the enforcement of immigration laws, there is also a public interest in the use of local government resources to support aliens illegally in the United States. These resources, such as probation offices are limited. Yet, illegal aliens were the subject of thirty probation files and the monitoring that accompanies such activity. Thus, the public has an interest in using its resources for their intended purpose, which does not include the supervision of persons who are illegally present in the United States.
44

Case 0:07-cv-01959-ADM-JSM Document 14 Filed 04/25/2007 Page 45 of 45
CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons and the additional reasons stated in oral argument, injunctive relief should be denied. For these reasons, the public interest is not served by issuing an injunction. Dated this 25 day of April 2007.
RACHEL K. PAULOSE United States Attorney
s/ Lonnie F. Bryan BY: LONNIE F. BRYAN Assistant U.S. Attorney Attorney ID Number 206635 600 U.S. Courthouse 300 S. Fourth Street Minneapolis, MN 55415 (612) 664-5600 Attorneys for Defendants
45

 
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA

CARLOS HILARIO ARIAS; VICENTE CISNEROS )

ABONCE, both individually and as ‘next friend’ for his )

minor children, E.C.A., V.C.A., JR., and J.C.A.; DULCE )

MARIA HERNANDEZ ARIAS; ROSA DE JESUS

)

BARRAJAS ARRELLANO; GRACIELA

)

BARRAGAN, both individually and as ‘next friend’ for )

her minor child, J.A.P.; JOSE MANUEL RAMIREZ )

CALIX;ALEJANDROCARTAGENA; WILLIAM

)

RAMOS CASTILLO; FABIOLA CISNEROS; ROSA )

NELY DUARTE; ESAU EDUARDO ESTRADA-

)

MENENDEZ; L.G., both individuallyand as ‘next friend’ )

for her minor child,A.G.;FRANCISGARCIA,both

)

individually and as ‘next friend’ for her minor child, O.B.; )

TERESA DE JESUS GUERRERO;WENSCELAO

)

PADILLA GUZMAN;TROY HASTINGS, both

)

individually and as ‘next friend’ for his minor child,

)

B.H.; JOCELINE SARAI LOPEZ, both individually and )

as ‘next friend’ for her minor child, J.M.;ROSA SORTO )

LOPEZ; ANA DANIRA MALDONADO-

)

HERNANDEZ; IRIS JANET MALDONADO, both

)

individually and as ‘next friend’ for her three minor

)

children, P.M., B.M., and E.M.; JENNY

)

MALDONADO, both individually and as ‘next friend’ )

for her minor child,S.D.M.; ERMENCIA MENDEZ; )

AUDREY MITHUN; BARBARA ANAHI MORENO; )

JAVIER MORENO, JOSEFA C. MONTALVO, both )

individually and as ‘next friend’ to her minor

)

grandchild,B.M.;ALBIS MUÑOZ; FRANCISCO

)

MUÑOZ, both individually and as ‘next friend’ for one )

minor child, I.M.; JUANMUÑOZ; SAOMARA

)

MUÑOZ; MANUELA DE JESUS PINEDA; JAIME )

REYES, bothindividually and as ‘next friend’ for his two )

minor children, D.R.B. and J.R.B.;MARLEN ALONSO )

SORIANO; ALEX JOSUE SORTO; ANDRES

)

MENENDEZ VEGA; RAUL VELIZ, JR.; DIGNA

)

MUNOZ XIOMARA; JORGE ZELAYA; SAMUEL )

ZELAYA; and JOSE ERASMO MONTALVAN,the )

Consul of Honduras, as ‘next friend’ to Honduran

)

Nationals,

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

v.

)

CIVIL NO. 07-CV-1959 ADM/JSM
PLAINTIFFS’ AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES

)

UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS )

ENFORCEMENT DIVISION OF THE DEPARTMENT )

OF HOMELAND SECURITY; UNITED STATES

)

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY;

)

MICHAEL CHERTOFF, Secretary of Department of )

Homeland Security; JULIE L. MYERS, Assistant

)

Secretary of Homeland Security for Immigration and )

Customs Enforcement; JOHN P. TORRES, Director of )

Detention and Removal Operations, Immigration and )

Customs Enforcement; SCOTT BANIECKE, St. Paul )

Field Office Director for Detention and Removal

)

Operation; PETER BERG, Supervisory Detention &

)

Deportation Officer, Detention and Removal; ALLEN )

GAY, Deportation Officer, Detention and Removal;

)

JOHN DOE ICE AGENTS ##1-30; JAMES A.

)

KULSET, Willmar Police Department Chief of Police; )

JOHN DOE WILLMAR POLICE OFFICERS ##1-10; )

REED SCHMIDT, Atwater Police Department Chief of )

Police; PAUL SCHMIDT, Atwater Police Officer; DAN )

HARTOG, Kandiyohi County Sheriff; JOHN DOE

)

KANDIYOHI SHERIFF’S DEPUTIES ##1-10; JANE )

DOE KANDIYOHI COUNTY PROBATION

)

OFFICIAL,

)

)

Defendants.

)

INTRODUCTION
1. This is a Complaint for declaratory relief, injunctive relief and damages filed by and on behalf of Plaintiffs named herein challenging a series of raids involving warrantless home entries and searches in violation of the Plaintiffs’ Fourth Amendment rights and numerous other constitutional violations engaged in by agents of the United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement Division (“ICE”) of the Department of Homeland Security in and around Willmar, Minnesota, between April 10 – 14, 2007.
2. Codenamed “Operation Crosscheck”, this purported immigration action resulted in egregious violations of Plaintiffs’ Fourth and Fifth Amendment Rights. Specifically, ICE
2

agents entered and searched Plaintiffs’ private homes without warrants, without probable cause or exigent circumstances, and without the consent of the Plaintiffs, then detained, interrogated and in some cases arrested Plaintiffs in their homes. Furthermore, ICE agents and accompanying local and county law enforcement officers targeted homes occupied by residents of Latino origin, a pattern of conduct in violation of Plaintiffs’ Due Process and Equal Protection rights under the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution. Local law enforcement included the Kandiyohi County Sheriff’s Department, the City of Willmar Police Department, and in the case of Plaintiffs Barragan and her son, the City of Atwater Police Department.
3. In addition, Defendant ICE agents conducted a campaign of intimidation in and around the city of Willmar by identifying locations such as trailer parks and apartment buildings with known concentrations of Latino residents, then conducted unconstitutional stops and detentions of individuals based solely on the individual’s race or apparent national origin. Defendants thereby violated Plaintiffs’ Equal Protection Rights provided by the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution.
4. These raids were the calculated product of racial and ethnic profiling fundamentally at odds with the basic premises of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fifth Amendment and shock the conscience.
5. Upon information and belief, the techniques applied during the raids were organized and approved by Defendants and other federal government officials and were not the product of ad hoc decisions by field operatives. In short, U.S. Department of Homeland Security officials created and approved operations that willfully, knowingly, and/or recklessly disregarded Plaintiffs’ Constitutional protections. Furthermore, local and county officials collaborated closely with federal actors in organizing, planning, and executing the raids.
3

6. Plaintiffs seek injunctive and declaratory relief to prevent such egregious Constitutional violations from occurring again within the Federal District of Minnesota.
7. Plaintiffs seek declaratory relief, injunctive relief, and compensatory and punitive damages to remedy violations of their constitutional and statutory rights.
JURISDICTION 8. This action arises under the Constitution of the United States, and, the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”), 8 U.S.C. §§ 1101 et seq., as amended by the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (“IIRIRA”), Pub. L. No. 104208, 110 Stat. 1570. This Court retains jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and 28 U.S.C. § 2241, art. I, § 9, cl.2 of the United States Constitution (“Suspension Clause”), as detainees are presently in custody or otherwise controlled under color of authority of the United States. Consequently, this Court may grant relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1651, 2201, 2002, 2241, and 2242 and Rule 57 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
PARTIES
9. Plaintiff CARLOS HILARIO ARIAS (“Plaintiff Carlos Arias”) is a Latino male who is a resident of Willmar. At all times relevant to this suit he was a resident of Willmar, Kandiyohi County, Minnesota.
10. Plaintiff VINCENTE CISNEROS ABONCE (“Plaintiff Abonce”) is a Latino male and lawful permanent resident of the United States who is a resident of Willmar and the parent to three minor children, E.C.A., V.C.A., JR., and J.C.A., on whose behalf Plaintiff Abonce also sues as next friend. At all times relevant to this suit Plaintiff Abonce and his children were residents of Willmar, Kandiyohi County, Minnesota.
4

11. Plaintiff DULCE MARIA HERNANDEZ ARIAS (“Plaintiff Dulce Arias”) is a Latina female who is a resident of Willmar. At all times relevant to this suit she was a resident of Willmar, Kandiyohi County, Minnesota.
12. Plaintiff ROSA DE JESUS BARRAJAS ARELLANO (“Plaintiff Arellano”) is a Latina female who is a resident of Willmar. At all times relevant to this suit, she was a resident of Willmar, Kandiyohi County, Minnesota.
13. Plaintiff GRACIELA BARRAGAN (“Plaintiff Barragan”) is a Latina female and citizen of the United States who is a resident of Atwater and parent to a minor child, J.A.P., on whose behalf Plaintiff Barragan also sues as next friend. At all time relevant to this suit, Plaintiff Barragan and her child were residents of Atwater, Kandiyohi County, Minnesota. Additionally, at all times relevant to this suit she was pregnant.
14. Plaintiff JOSE MANUEL RAMIREZ CALIX (“Plaintiff Calix”) is a Latino male who is a resident of Willmar. At all times relevant to this suit he was a resident of Willmar, Kandiyohi County, Minnesota.
15. Plaintiff ALEJANDRO CARTAGENA (“Plaintiff Cartagena”) is a Latino male and lawful permanent resident of the United States who is a resident of Willmar. At all times relevant to this suit he was a resident of Willmar, Kandiyohi County, Minnesota.
16. Plaintiff WILLIAM RAMOS CASTILLO (“Plaintiff Castillo”) is a Honduran male who is a resident of Willmar. At all times relevant to this suit he was a resident of Willmar, Kandiyohi County, Minnesota.
5

17. Plaintiff FABIOLA CISNEROS (“Plaintiff Cisneros”) is a Latina female who is a resident of Willmar. At all times relevant to this suit she was a resident of Willmar, Kandiyohi County, Minnesota.
18. Plaintiff ROSA NELY DUARTE (“Plaintiff Duarte”) is a Latina female who is a resident of Willmar. At all time relevant to this suit she was a resident of Willmar, Kandiyohi County, Minnesota.
19. Plaintiff ESAU EDUARDO ESTRADA-MENENDEZ (“Plaintiff Estrada”) is a Latino male who is a resident of Willmar. At all times relevant to this suit he was a resident of Willmar, Kandiyohi County, Minnesota.
20. Plaintiff L.G. (“Plaintiff L.G.”) is a Latina female, a citizen of the United States who is a resident of Willmar and parent to a minor child, A.G., on whose behalf Plaintiff L.G. also sues as next friend. At all times relevant to this suit Plaintiff L.G. and her daughter were residents of Willmar, Kandiyohi County, Minnesota.
21. Plaintiff FRANCIS GARCIA (“Plaintiff Francis Garcia”) is a Latina female with Lawful Permanent Residency who is a resident of Willmar and parent to a minor child, O.B., on whose behalf Plaintiff Francis Garcia also sues as next friend. At all time relevant to this suit Plaintiff Francis Garcia and her son were residents of Willmar, Kandiyohi County, Minnesota.
22. Plaintiff TERESA DE JESUS GUERERO (“Plaintiff Guerero”) is a Latina female who is a resident of Willmar. At all times relevant to this suit, she was a resident of Willmar, Kandiyohi County, Minnesota.
6

23. Plaintiff WENSCELAO PADILLA GUZMAN (“Plaintiff Guzman”) is a Latino male with Temporary Protected Status, a native of Honduras, and resident of Willmar. At all times relevant to this suit he was a resident of Willmar, Kandiyohi County, Minnesota.
24. Plaintiff TROY HASTINGS (“Plaintiff Hastings”) is a Caucasian male and citizen of the United States who is a resident of Willmar and the parent of a minor child, B.H., on whose behalf Plaintiff Hastings also sues as next friend. At all times relevant to this suit Plaintiff Hastings and his child were residents of Willmar, Kandiyohi County, Minnesota.
25. Plaintiff JOCELINE SARAI LOPEZ (“Plaintiff Joceline Lopez”) is a Latina female and citizen of the United States who is a resident of Willmar and the parent of a minor child, J.M., on whose behalf Plaintiff Joceline Lopez also sues as next friend. At all times relevant to suit Plaintiff Lopez and her minor child were residents of Willmar, Kandiyohi County, Minnesota.
26. Plaintiff ROSA SORTO LOPEZ (“Plaintiff Rosa Lopez”) is a Latino female lawfully present in the United States and a resident of Willmar. At all times relevant to this suit she was a resident of Willmar, Kandiyohi County, Minnesota.
27. Plaintiff ANA DANIRA MALDONADO-HERNANDEZ (“Plaintiff Maldonado-Hernandez”) is a Latina female who is a resident of Willmar. At all times relevant to this suit she was a resident of Willmar, Kandiyohi County, Minnesota. Additionally, at all times relevant to this suit she was pregnant.
28. Plaintiff IRIS JANET MALDONADO (“Plaintiff Iris Maldonado”) is a Latina female who is a resident of Willmar and the parent of three minor children, P.M., B.M., and
7

E.M., on whose behalf Plaintiff Iris Maldonado also sues as next friend. At all times relevant to this suit Plaintiff Iris Maldonado and her three children were residents of Willmar, Kandiyohi County, Minnesota.
29. Plaintiff JENNY MALDONADO (“Plaintiff Jenny Maldonado”) is a Latina female who is a resident of Willmar and the parent of one minor child, S.D.M., on whose behalf Plaintiff Jenny Maldonado also sues as next friend. At all times relevant to this suit Plaintiff Jenny Maldonado and her child were residents of Willmar, Kandiyohi County, Minnesota.
30. Plaintiff ERMENCIA MENDEZ (“Plaintiff Mendez”) is a Latina female who is a resident of Willmar. At all times relevant to this suit she was a resident of Willmar, Kandiyohi County, Minnesota.
31. Plaintiff AUDREY MITHUN (“Plaintiff Mithun”) is a Caucasian female and citizen of the United States who is a resident of Willmar. At all times relevant to this suit she was a resident of Willmar, Kandiyohi County, Minnesota.
32. Plaintiff BARBARA ANAHI MORENO ("Plaintiff Barbara Moreno”) is a Latina female who is a resident of Willmar. At all times relevant to this suit, she was a resident of Willmar, Kandiyohi County, Minnesota.
33. Plaintiff JAVIER MORENO (“Plaintiff Javier Moreno”) is a Latino male who is a citizen of the United States and resident of Willmar. At all times relevant to this suit he was a resident of Willmar, Kandiyohi County, Minnesota.
34. Plaintiff JOSEFA MONTALVO (“Plaintiff Montalvo”) is a Latina female who is a resident of Willmar and the grandparent to one minor grandchild, B.M., on whose behalf
8

Plaintiff Montalvo also sues as next friend. At all times relevant to this suit Plaintiff Montalvo and her grandchild were residents of Willmar, Kandiyohi County, Minnesota.
35. Plaintiff ALBIS MUNOZ (“Plaintiff Albis Munoz”) is a Latino male who is a native of Honduras and resident of Willmar. At all times relevant to this suit he was a resident of Willmar, Kandiyohi County, Minnesota.
36. Plaintiff FRANCISCO MUNOZ (“Plaintiff Francisco Munoz”) is a Latino male who is a lawful permanent resident of the United States, native of Honduras, resident of Willmar, and parent to one minor child, I.M., on whose behalf Plaintiff Francisco Munoz also sues as next friend. At all times relevant to this suit Plaintiff Francisco Munoz and his child were residents of Willmar, Kandiyohi County, Minnesota.
37. Plaintiff JUAN MUNOZ (“Plaintiff Juan Munoz”) is a Latino male who is a native of Honduras and resident of Willmar. At all times relevant to this suit he was a resident of Willmar, Kandiyohi County, Minnesota.
38. Plaintiff SAOMARA MUNOZ (“Plaintiff Saomara Munoz”) is a Latina female who is a native of Honduras and resident of Willmar. At all times relevant to this suit she was a resident of Willmar, Kandiyohi County, Minnesota. Additionally, at all times relevant to this suit she was pregnant.
39. Plaintiff MANUELA DE JESUS PINEDA (“Plaintiff Pineda”) is a Latina female with Temporary Protected Status, native of Honduras, and resident of Willmar. At all times relevant to this suit she was a resident of Willmar, Kandiyohi County, Minnesota.
9

40. Plaintiff JAIME REYES (“Plaintiff Reyes”) is a Latino male who is a resident of Willmar and the parent of two minor children, D.R.B. and J.R.B., on whose behalf Plaintiff Reyes also sues as next friend. At all times relevant to this suit Plaintiff Reyes and his children were residents of Willmar, Kandiyohi County, Minnesota.
41. Plaintiff MARLEN ALONSO SORIANO (“Plaintiff Soriano”) is a Latina female who is a lawful permanent resident of the United States and resident of Willmar, MN. At all times relevant to this suit she was a resident of Willmar, Kandiyohi County, Minnesota.
42. Plaintiff ALEX JOSUE SORTO (“Plaintiff Sorto”) is a Latino male who is a citizen of the United States and resident of Willmar. At all times relevant to this suit he was a resident of Willmar, Kandiyohi County, Minnesota.
43. Plaintiff ANDRES MENENDEZ VEGA (“Plaintiff Vega”) is a Latino male who is a resident of Willmar. At all times relevant to this suit he was a resident of Willmar, Kandiyohi County, Minnesota.
44. Plaintiff RAUL VELIZ, JR. (“Plaintiff Veliz”) is a Latino male who is a citizen of the United States and resident of Willmar. At all times relevant to this suit he was a resident of Willmar, Kandiyohi County, Minnesota.
45. Plaintiff DIGNA MUNOZ XIOMARA (“Plaintiff Xiomara”) is a Latina female who is a resident of Willmar. At all times relevant to this suit she was a resident of Willmar, Kandiyohi County, Minnesota. Additionally, at all times relevant to this suit she was pregnant.
10

46. Plaintiff JORGE ZELAYA (“Plaintiff Jorge Zelaya”) is a Latino male with Temporary Protected Status in the United States, native of Honduras, and resident of Willmar. At all times relevant to this suit he was a resident of Willmar, Kandiyohi County, Minnesota.
47. Plaintiff SAMUEL ZELAYA (“Plaintiff Samuel Zelaya”) is a Latino male who is a resident of Willmar. At all times relevant to this suit he was a resident of Willmar, Kandiyohi County, Minnesota.
48. Plaintiff CONSÚL JOSE ERASMO MONTALVAN, ‘next friend’ to Honduran Nationals, is the Consul of Honduras for Illinois, Ohio, Indiana, Michigan, Iowa, Wisconsin, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Minnesota.
49. Defendant UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT DIVISION OF HOMELAND SECURITY (“Defendant ICE”) is a division of the United States Department of Homeland Security. Among other duties, Defendant ICE is charged with investigative and enforcement responsibilities of federal immigration laws within the territorial United States.
50. Defendant UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY (“Defendant DHS”) is charged with, among other things, administering the United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement and implementing and enforcing the Immigration and Nationality Act. As such, it has decision-making authority over the matters alleged in this complaint and Plaintiffs’ custody.
51. Defendant MICHAEL CHERTOFF (“Defendant Chertoff”) is Secretary of the United States Department of Homeland Security. Defendant Chertoff is charged with the
11

constitutional and lawful implementation of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § § 1101, et seq., and with the administration of Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Defendant Chertoff is sued in his official capacity.
52. Defendant JULIE L. MYERS (“Defendant Myers”) is the Assistant Secretary of Homeland Security. Defendant Myers is charged with, among other duties, administering the Executive Office of Immigration Review (“EOIR”). The EOIR conducts removal proceedings in immigration cases and decides administrative appeals of such cases. Defendant Myers is also charged with the constitutional and lawful implementation of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § § 1101, et seq., and with the administration of Defendant ICE. Defendant Myers is sued individually and in her official capacity.
53. Defendant JOHN P. TORRES (“Defendant Torres”) is the Director of the Office of Detention and Removal for Immigration and Customs Enforcement. In this capacity, Defendant Torres is responsible for the apprehension, detention, and removal of foreign nationals charged with violation of immigration law and the supervision of law enforcement officers assigned to the Detention and Removal field offices, including the field office based in Minneapolis, Minnesota. Defendant Torres is sued individually and in his official capacity.
54. Defendant SCOTT BANIECKE (“Defendant Baniecke”) is the Field Office Director for the St. Paul Office of Detention and Removal, where Plaintiffs are or were being held under his administrative authority. Defendant Baniecke is responsible for managing enforcement activities of ICE within the geographic boundaries of Minnesota. Upon information and belief, Defendant Baniecke was personally involved in and/or ordered, coordinated, and
12

authorized the unlawful conduct of ICE agents alleged in the complaint. Defendant Baniecke is sued individually and in his official capacity.
55. Defendant PETER BERG (“Defendant Berg”) is a Supervisory Detention & Deportation Officer for Detention and Removal for the St. Paul Office of Detention and Removal. In this capacity, amongst other duties Defendant Berg is responsible for overseeing the ICE Fugitive Operations Team operating for the St. Paul Office of Detention and Removal. Upon information and belief, Defendant Berg was personally involved in and/or personally contributed to coordinating and executing the unlawful conduct of ICE agents alleged in this complaint. Defendant Berg is sued individually and in his official capacity.
56. Defendant ALLEN GAY (“Defendant Gay”) is a Deportation Officer for the St. Paul Office for Detention and Removal. In this capacity, amongst other duties Defendant Gay is a member of the Fugitive Operations Team and is responsible for identifying, locating and arresting persons identified as present without proper admission to the United States. Upon information and belief, Defendant Gay was personally involved in and/or personally contributed to coordinating and executing the unlawful conduct of ICE agents alleged in this complaint. Defendant Berg is sued individually and in his official capacity.
57. At all times relevant to the incidents complained of in this lawsuit, defendants JOHN DOE ICE AGENTS NOS. 1-30 are or were federal law enforcement agents employed by Defendants ICE and DHS whose identities are at this time unknown to Plaintiffs. Defendants were empowered by law to execute searches and make arrests for violation of federal law. When and if the identities of Defendants John Doe ICE Agents Nos. 1-30 become known to Plaintiffs, Plaintiffs may amend this complaint to add said Agents as named Defendants.
13

58. Defendant JAMES A. KULSET (“Defendant Kulset”) is the Chief of Police for the City of Willmar Police Department. In this capacity Defendant Kulset possesses administrative authority regarding the employees and officers in this department. Upon information and belief, Defendant Kulset was personally involved in and/or personally ordered or authorized members of his department to cooperate with ICE agents during the unlawful activities alleged herein. Defendant Kulset is sued individually and in his official capacity.
59. At all times relevant to the incidents complained of in this lawsuit, defendants JOHN DOE WILLMAR POLICE OFFICERS Nos. 1-10 were local law enforcement employed by and serving the City of Willmar Police Department, whose identities are at this time unknown to Plaintiffs. Upon information and belief, Defendants were present at the scene and assisted in the immigration activities conducted by ICE agents operating within the community of Willmar. When and if the identities of Defendants JOHN DOE WILLMAR POLICE OFFICERS Nos. 1-10 become known to Plaintiffs, Plaintiffs may amend this complaint to add said Officers as named Defendants.
60. Defendant REED SCHMIDT (“Defendant Schmidt”) is the Chief of Police for the City of Atwater Police Department. In this capacity Defendant Schmidt possesses administrative authority regarding the employees and officers in this department. Upon information and belief, Defendant Schmidt was personally involved in and/or personally ordered or authorized members of his department to cooperate with ICE agents during the unlawful activities alleged herein concerning the city of Atwater, MN. Defendant Schmidt is sued individually and in his official capacity.
14

61. Defendant PAUL SCHMIDT (“Defendant Schmidt”) is an officer employed by and serving with the Atwater police force. Upon information and belief, Defendant Schmidt participated directly in ICE raid activities within the city of Atwater, MN. Defendant Schmidt is sued individually and in his official capacity.
62. Defendant DAN HARTOG (“Defendant Hartog”) is the Sheriff for the County of Kandiyohi. In this capacity Defendant Hartog possesses administrative authority regarding the employees and officers in his agency. Upon information and belief, Defendant Hartog was personally involved in and/or personally ordered or authorized members of his department to cooperate and participate with ICE agents during the unlawful activities alleged herein. Defendant Hartog is sued individually and in his official capacity.
63. At all times relevant to the incidents complained of in this lawsuit, defendants JOHN DOE KANDIYOHI SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT DEPUTIES Nos. 1-10 were law enforcement officers employed by and serving the County of Kandiyohi, whose identities are at this time unknown to Plaintiffs . Upon information and belief, Defendants assisted ICE agents in coordinating raid activities and/or were present at the scene of the unlawful conducted by ICE agents operating within the County of Kandiyohi. When and if the identities of Defendants JOHN DOE KANDIYOHI SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT DEPUTIES Nos. 1-10 become known to Plaintiffs, Plaintiffs may amend this complaint to add said Officers as named Defendants.
64. Defendant JANE DOE KANDIYOHI PROBATION OFFICER was a probation official employed by and serving the County of Kandiyohi, whose identity is at this time unknown to Plaintiffs. Upon information and belief, Defendant Jane Doe Probation Officer
15

compiled immigration information on or relating to Plaintiffs in this case based on their race and national origin, presented such information to ICE, and materially contributed to initiating and coordinating the unlawful actions of ICE agents. When and if the identity of Defendant JANE DOE KANDIYOHI PROBATION OFFICER becomes known to Plaintiffs, Plaintiffs may amend this complaint to add her as a named Defendant.
FACTS 65. Upon information and belief, Defendant Jane Doe Probation Officer of the Kandiyohi County Probation Service collected information regarding persons under her supervision who, in her determination, had been “born in foreign countries” and concluded were “here illegally.” Defendant Jane Doe Probation Officer next contacted ICE officials in Bloomington, MN, and presented a “dossier of foreigners” for their inspection. Following presentation of the dossier, ICE agents began to organize and coordinate the mass, unlawful warrantless home invasions complained of herein. 66. Upon information and belief, law enforcement officers from the City of Willmar Police Department and the Kandiyohi Sheriff’s Department accompanied ICE agents and participated in these actions. On April 12, 2007, Willmar Police Chief James A. Kulset, while attending a public community forum in Willmar, stated that the Willmar Police Department provided “logistical assistance and support” to immigration agents operating in the community. According to Defendant Kulset, “assistance and support” included directing ICE agents to the location of particular addresses within the community. 67. The Willmar Police Department and Kandiyohi County Sheriff’s Office were considerably more involved in the planning and execution of these raids in and around Willmar than Defendant Kulset publicly acknowledged. During the period between April 5 and April 10,
16

2007 several exchanges between officials from the City of Willmar Police Department, the Kandiyohi County Sheriff’s Department, the Kandiyohi County Community Corrections Probation Office, and ICE occurred in planning and coordinating the raids. Local law enforcement agencies participated in strategic planning in advance of the raids and provided additional human “targets” as part of an alleged identity theft investigation, then participated with ICE agents in the arrest phase of the operation. Follow-up contacts took place following the conclusion of operations.
68. From April 10-14, 2007, all named Plaintiffs, with the exception of Raul Veliz, Jr., occupied homes forcibly entered by ICE agents without warrants or consent in and around Willmar, MN. An unknown number of these warrantless searches also involved local and county law enforcement officers. Home invasions occurred without presentation of search or arrest warrants, lacked probable cause and exigent circumstances permitting entry, and were nonconsensual.
69. ICE agents also conducted warrantless, non-consensual home searches in the nearby community of Atwater, MN. Involved in this raid were two members of the Atwater Police Department, including the Chief of Police.
70. Immediately prior to Defendants’ unlawful entries, Plaintiffs’ heard unknown persons loudly yelling and banging on Plaintiffs’ doors, windows, and other areas on the outside of Plaintiffs’ homes. When asked by Plaintiffs’ to identify themselves, Defendant ICE agents falsely claimed, “It’s the Police!” or similar variations thereof.
71. In limited circumstances, and intending solely to determine the identity of those outside, some Plaintiffs slightly opened doors leading to the outside of the house. Seizing this
17

opportunity, Defendant ICE agents then forcibly burst through the door and shoved aside anyone proving an obstacle to entry.
72. Plaintiff Arias held the door closed while ICE agents attempted to push in the door. Nevertheless, Defendant ICE agents forced opened the door and, gesturing for their guns, forced Plaintiff Arias to step back.
73. Plaintiff L.G., a seventeen-year-old female, witnessed ICE agents forcing a door open to enter her home.
74. Plaintiff Guzman heard keys used to break through his front door and ICE agents entered his home.
75. Plaintiff Hastings was shoved out of the way by ICE agents forcing their way into his home.
76. Plaintiff Rosa Lopez witnessed ICE agents breaking a window and opening a door to gain access to her home.
77. Through his closed front door Plaintiff Vega told agents to remain outside while he dressed, but ICE agents entered through a closed door requiring force to gain entry.
78. ICE agents falsely told Plaintiff Samuel Zelaya they entered through “an open door.”
79. Once gaining unlawful warrantless and nonconsensual entries into the “target addresses” Defendants proceeded to conduct warrantless searches of Plaintiffs’ homes going room to room without Plaintiffs’ consent. These unlawful searches, or attempts to search, followed every unlawful home entry.
80. In every instance, ICE agents unlawfully entered Plaintiffs’ homes—accompanied by an undetermined number of local and county law enforcement officers—and unlawfully
18

searched the premises and unlawfully detained all persons inside. These detentions and arrests included the sixteen minor children named as Plaintiffs in this action.
81. When Plaintiffs asked Defendant ICE agents why they were in their homes, ICE agents frequently stated they were looking for a fugitive, but refused to give the name of the person they allegedly sought or named someone who no longer lived—or never lived—on the premises. In several instances Defendants refused to answer Plaintiffs’ requests for warrants, and in one case told a Plaintiff “we don’t need one; we are the authorities and can come into the house.”
82. Once inside Plaintiffs’ homes, Defendant ICE agents went room to room, searching each room, rooting through closets, dressers, beds, and generally leaving a mess of personal property in their wake. Any Latino persons found were brought to a central location in the home to be detained and interrogated by additional ICE agents. Latinos were then interrogated, often aggressively and invariably in handcuffs.
83. At no point were Plaintiffs advised that they had the right to remain silent or to speak to an attorney prior to ICE interrogations. Plaintiffs attempting to exercise their rights endured harsh and misleading treatment from ICE agents. An ICE agent told Plaintiff Samuel Zelaya, who was stating he wanted a lawyer before answering questions, “You’ll be able to speak to a lawyer, but in Honduras.” When Plaintiff Soriano declared that her relatives had a right to counsel, an ICE agent responded, “If you have money for a lawyer, go get one!”
84. Defendants took no precautions to preserve the dignity of persons dressed only in sleeping clothes. ICE agents required Plaintiff Dulce Arias to undress in front of them, refusing to give her privacy and watching as she disrobed. Later, the same ICE agents forced Plaintiff
19

Dulce Arias to dress her uncle, Plaintiff Carlos Arias, resulting in considerable embarrassment for both.
85. When alerted to specific health conditions Defendants refused precautions to protect the health of detainees. Plaintiff Vega showed Defendant ICE agents and officers medical information about his pending knee surgery; the officer responded he didn’t care and shackled Plaintiff Vega’s legs, wrists, and waist. Despite having been alerted by Plaintiff Jenny Maldonado of her nausea while transporting her to Bloomington with 12 other people, ICE agents refused to accommodate her, and she eventually vomited on herself.
86. Plaintiffs Barragan, Maldonado-Hernandez, Saomara Munoz, and Xiomara were pregnant. ICE agents took no precautions to maintain the health of these individuals or their unborn children.
87. Plaintiff Dulce Arias had suffered an ectopic pregnancy and, despite heavy bleeding, was denied use of the bathroom by ICE agents.
88. Plaintiffs Arrellano and Iris Maldonado were nursing their infants. ICE agents refused to make accommodations for Plaintiffs’ children. After her arrest and while in ICE custody, Plaintiff Maldonado continued to produce and leak breast milk. ICE agents refused her a change of clothes or the means to clean herself.
89. In several instances, ICE agents entered bedrooms while Plaintiffs and their children were sleeping, and woke them by shining flashlights in their faces. Plaintiffs and their children felt intentionally intimidated and frightened.
90. Children were often left bereft and crying, as when ICE agents physically grabbed and separated Plaintiff S.M. from his mother, and then, while yelling and intimidating the boy a short distance from his mother, demanded information about his father. Defendants failed to
20

make reasonable efforts to accommodate children of detainees. Plaintiff children now suffer from waning appetites, disrupted sleep, nightmares, and behavioral difficulties resulting from the loss of a parent and/or from the aggressive encounter with Defendants.
91. In the case of Plaintiff Mithun, Defendant ICE agents, after observing that she was white, neither asked for identification nor challenged her presence within the United States. Instead, they ordered her out of her bedroom and into the living room where she was detained by ICE agents during the remainder of the raid and forcibly returned to the room on one occasion.
92. Similarly, when encountering Plaintiff Hastings, a white male, Defendant ICE agents neither demanded identification nor challenged his presence within the United States. ICE agents entered Hastings’ home without his consent.
93. All Plaintiffs, with the exception of Raul Veliz, Jr., were detained and/or arrested in their homes. Plaintiffs taken into custody are or were being held at detention facilities in Bloomington, Hennepin County, Ramsey County, and Sherburne County. Several are now subject to removal proceedings; Plaintiff Cisneros has been deported, along with her daughter E.C. who holds United States citizenship.
94. On information and belief, Defendants used coercive methods to solicit and obtain waivers of rights and stipulated orders for removal for the purpose of expediting removal of certain Plaintiffs from the territorial borders of the United States.
95. On April 12, 2007, at approximately 7:00 AM, Plaintiff Raul Veliz, Jr., was stopped by a group of vehicles driven by ICE agents. Just prior to being stopped, he witnessed vehicles drive past with ICE agents inside taking notice of him as he drove past. Next, vehicles manned with 7 to 8 ICE agents wearing guns and bulletproof vests surrounded his car. ICE agents and Willmar Police officers failed to provide a basis for why Plaintiff Veliz’s vehicle was
21

stopped. Even after Plaintiff Veliz showed agents a valid driver’s license and made clearly known his United States citizenship, ICE agents nevertheless wrongfully detained and questioned him for 15-20 minutes while ICE vehicles surrounded his automobile. Referring to Plaintiff Veliz, an ICE agent instructed others to “find something on him.”
CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
COUNT I – FOURTH AMENDMENT CONSTITUTIONAL CLAIMS (AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS)
96. Plaintiffs allege and incorporate by reference paragraphs 1-95. 97. On April 10-14, 2007, Defendants ICE agents, with assistance provided by local law enforcement agencies, conducted warrantless and nonconsensual entries, searches, and seizures of Plaintiffs’ homes and persons in violation of the Plaintiffs’ Fourth Amendment Rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution. 98. Defendants’ warrantless and nonconsensual entries, searches, and seizures of homes, persons, and property caused damages to Plaintiffs and their family members. Plaintiffs face continued irreparable harm by these constitutional violations. 99. On April 12, 2007, at approximately 7:00 AM, Plaintiff Veliz’s vehicle was unlawfully stopped by ICE agents without probable cause or reasonable, articulable suspicion. Rather, the stop was initiated solely on the basis of Plaintiff Veliz’s race or national origin, all in violation of Plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment rights. 100. As a consequence of Defendants’ warrantless and nonconsensual entries, searches, and seizures, all evidence obtained thereby, including but not limited to statements and information gathered by ICE agents or other law enforcement agents, should be properly suppressed and prohibited from use in any government proceeding against Plaintiffs and/or their family members.
22

101. In violating Plaintiffs’ Fourth Amendment Rights, Defendants’ actions caused harm to Plaintiffs for which Plaintiffs seek compensatory and punitive damages and injunctive relief.
COUNT II– FIFTH AMENDMENT DUE PROCESS CLAIMS (AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS)
102. Plaintiffs allege and incorporate by reference paragraphs 1-101. 103. Defendants are liable for the conduct of ICE agents who performed warrantless and nonconsensual entries, searches, and seizures during operations in and around the community of Willmar, MN, from April 10-14, 2007. 104. By taking Plaintiffs into custody and questioning them without affording Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights, Defendants, in acting under color of law, have violated and continue to violate Plaintiffs’ Fifth Amendment Rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution. 105. To the extent that Plaintiffs’ detention occurred without basis in law or fact and violates common law principles of due process and the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution, Plaintiffs’ detention creates a deprivation of liberty without due process of law. 106. Such violations of their Fifth Amendment rights caused damages, and Plaintiffs continue to be irreparably harmed by these violations. 107. In violating Plaintiffs’ Fifth Amendment Rights, Defendants’ actions caused harm to Plaintiffs for which Plaintiffs seek compensatory and punitive damages and injunctive relief. COUNT III– FIFTH AMENDMENT PROTECTION AGAINST SELF INCRIMINATION
AND RIGHT TO COUNSEL CLAIMS (AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS)
108. Plaintiffs allege and incorporate by reference paragraphs 1-107.
23

109. On April 10-14, 2007 Defendants announced both publicly and to Plaintiffs detained by ICE agents that Defendants were searching for known criminal fugitives.
110. Upon entering Plaintiffs’ homes with neither arrest warrants nor consent, ICE agents failed to inform Plaintiffs of their rights to remain silent and to speak with an attorney prior to answering questions in a custodial interrogation, as guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution.
111. Such violations of their Fifth Amendment Rights have caused and continue to cause Plaintiffs irreparable harm.
112. In violating Plaintiffs’ Fifth Amendment Rights, Defendants’ actions caused harm to Plaintiffs for which Plaintiffs seek compensatory and punitive damages and injunctive relief.
COUNT IV– SIXTH AMENDMENT RIGHT TO COUNSEL CLAIMS (AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS)
113. Plaintiffs allege and incorporate by reference paragraphs 1-112. 114. By denying Plaintiffs access to counsel or the means to obtain counsel in a prompt and effective manner, Defendants violated Plaintiffs’ Sixth Amendment right to counsel. 115. To the extent questioning of Plaintiffs occurred during custodial interrogations, such interrogations violate the Plaintiffs’ Sixth Amendment Rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution. 116. As a consequence of Defendants’ Sixth Amendment violations all evidence obtained thereby, including but not limited to statements and information gathered by ICE agents or other law enforcement agents, should be suppressed and prohibited from use in any government proceeding against Plaintiffs and/or their family members.
24

117. In violating Plaintiffs’ Sixth Amendment Rights, Defendants’ actions caused harm to Plaintiffs for which Plaintiffs seek compensatory and punitive damages and injunctive relief.
COUNT V: BIVENS CLAIMS OF PLAINTIFFS AGAINST DEFENDANTS BANIECKE, BERG, GAY MYERS, TORRES, AND JOHN DOE ICE AGENTS ##1-30, AND,
42. U.S.C. §1983 CLAIMS AGAINST DEFENDANTS KULSET, HARTOG, JOHN DOE WILLMAR POLICE OFFICERS ##1-10, JOHN DOE KANDIYOHI DEPUTIES ##1-10, AND, JANE DOE PROBATION OFFICER 118. Plaintiffs above-named incorporate by reference each and every allegation contained in the preceding paragraphs as though fully set forth herein. 119. In committing the acts complained herein, Defendants deprived Plaintiffs of certain constitutionally protected rights, including, but not limited to: a. the right to be free from unlawful entries to their homes without a valid warrant, without voluntary consent manifest by the facts or implied by the circumstances, and absent either probable cause and exigent circumstances as guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution; b. the right to be free from unlawful searches of their homes and persons without a valid warrant, without voluntary consent manifest by the facts or implied by the circumstances, and absent either probable cause and exigent circumstances as guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution; c. the right to be free from unlawful seizures of their persons and effects without a valid warrant or voluntary consent and absent probable cause and exigent circumstances as guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution;
25

d. the right to be free from detentions without individual, reasonable and articulable suspicion of unlawful activity or probable cause as guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution;
e. The right against self-incrimination and the right to counsel as guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution;
f. the right to Equal Protection under the law, as guaranteed by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution; and
g. The right to assistance of counsel as guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution.
120. Because Defendants acted in clear violation of well-settled law with regard to standards for home entry, search, seizure, questioning, and detention of which a minimally competent law enforcement officer would have been aware, they are not entitled to a good faith defense or official immunity defense.
121. The actions of these Defendants were intentional, malicious, and/or reckless and showed a callous disregard of, or indifference to, the rights of the Plaintiffs.
122. The actions of Defendants operating under color of authority provided by the Federal government create a cause of action for damages against them in their individual capacities, pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971).
123. Similarly, the actions of Defendants operating under color of authority of local and state units of government, including but not limited to the Willmar Police Department and the Kandiyohi County Sheriff’s Department, create a cause of action for damages in their individual capacities, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
26

124. As a direct and proximate result of the unconstitutional actions of Defendants, Plaintiffs suffered harm, in the form of, inter alia, outrage, humiliation, and emotional and physical distress. Plaintiffs are entitled to compensatory and punitive damages in an amount to be determined at trial.
COUNT VI – FIFTH AMENDMENT AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT EQUAL PROTECTION CLAIMS (AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS)
125. Plaintiffs allege and incorporate by reference all preceding paragraphs. 126. The application of law by Federal actors in a discriminatory manner, when based upon arbitrary characteristics such as race and national origin, violates the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution. 127. Similarly, state actors engaged in discriminatory application of the law, when based upon arbitrary characteristics such as race and national origin, violate the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States. 128. Defendants’ actions as set forth herein violated Plaintiffs’ right to be free from discriminatory treatment as provided by the Equal Protection Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. 129. These violations of their Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment rights caused Plaintiffs damages, and Plaintiffs continue to be irreparably harmed by these violations. 130. In violating Plaintiffs’ Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment Rights, Defendants caused harm to Plaintiffs for which Plaintiffs seek compensatory and punitive damages and injunctive relief.
COUNT VII – STATUTORY CLAIMS 131. Plaintiffs allege and incorporate by reference all preceding paragraphs.
27

132. Defendants’ actions as set forth herein violate the Immigration and Nationality Act by denying Plaintiffs’ protections guaranteed by the Act.
133. In violating Plaintiffs’ protections guaranteed by the Immigration and Nationality Act, Defendants’ actions caused damages to Plaintiffs for which Plaintiffs seek relief.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs in all capacities respectfully request that this Court grant the following relief: A. Find, adjudge, and decree that the Defendants and each of them have committed the violations of law alleged herein. B. Permanently enjoin the Defendants and each of them from continuing to engage in each violation of law the Court shall find. C. Award to each Plaintiff such actual damages as the Court shall find each Plaintiff to have sustained as a proximate result of each violation of law the Court shall find. D. Award to each Plaintiff punitive or exemplary damages equal to or an appropriate multiple each Plaintiff’s actual damages. E. Award to Plaintiffs their costs of suit in bringing this action. F. Award to Plaintiffs their reasonable attorneys fees as the prevailing parties in this action. G. Award to Plaintiffs pre- and post-judgment interest as provided by law. H. Grant Plaintiffs all such other and further relief to which they are entitled, as is just and appropriate in these proceedings.
28

Dated: July 27, 2007
GP:2241897 v3

GRAY, PLANT, MOOTY, MOOTY & BENNETT, P.A.
s/Daniel R. Shulman Daniel R. Shulman (MN Bar #100651) 500 IDS Center 80 South Eighth Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: 612-632-3335 Facsimile: 612-632-4335
Gloria Contreras Edin (MN Bar # 0353255) CENTRO LEGAL, INC. 2610 University Avenue West Suite 450 Saint Paul, MN 55114 Telephone: 651-642-1890 Facsimile: 651-642-1875
Robert C. Long (MN Bar #0168452) UNGER LAW OFFICE Wells Fargo Center Suite 4700 90 South Seventh Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: 612-961-3805
Attorneys for Plaintiffs

29

 
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA

Carlos Hilario Arias, et al.,

Plaintiffs,
v.
United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement Division of the Department of Homeland Security, et al.,

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Civ. No. 07-1959 ADM/JSM

Defendants. ______________________________________________________________________________

Daniel R. Shulman, Esq. and Jennifer R. Coates, Esq., Gray Plant, Mooty, Mooty & Bennett, P.A., Minneapolis, MN, on behalf of Plaintiffs.

Ann Goering, Esq. and Erin E. Ische, Esq., Ratwik, Roszak & Maloney, P.A., Minneapolis, MN, on behalf of Dan Hartog, John Doe Kandiyohi Sheriff’s Deputies ##1-10, and Jane Doe Kandiyohi County Probation Official. ______________________________________________________________________________

This matter is before the undersigned United States District Judge on Defendants Dan

Hartog, John Doe Kandiyohi Sheriff’s Deputies ##1-10, and Jane Doe Kandiyohi County

Probation Official’s (“Defendants”) Motion for Rule 11 Sanctions [Docket No. 211]. On June

23, 2009, the Court granted Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment [Docket No. 178]. June

23, 2009 Order [Docket No. 209]. On July 28, 2009, Defendants filed the instant Motion

requesting sanctions against Plaintiffs’ attorneys Gray, Plant, Mooty, Mooty & Bennett, P.A. for

approximately $40,000 in costs, disbursements, and attorney fees incurred since November 20,

2008.

Rule 11 authorizes sanctions against attorneys who file pleadings and motions having no

legal or factual basis, or who take actions intended to harass, delay, or unnecessarily add to the

cost of litigation. Fed. R. Civ. P. 11. A motion for sanctions must be made separately, “but it

must not be filed or presented to the court if the challenged paper, claim, defense, contention, or

denial is withdrawn or appropriately corrected within 21 days after service or within another time the court sets.” Id.(c)(2). This requirement was added to the Rule to provide a “safe harbor” to allow opposing counsel to withdraw a filing before a court imposed a sanction. See Gordon v. Unifund CCR Partners, 345 F.3d 1028, 1029 (8th Cir. 2003); Fed. R. Cir. P. 11 Advisory Committee Notes (1993 Amendments). It is undisputed that Defendants have failed to follow the safe harbor procedure. Rule 11 motions failing to follow this procedure have routinely been dismissed in this district. See Mortice v. Providian Fin. Corp., 283 F. Supp. 2d 1084, 1087 (D. Minn. 2003); VanDanacker v. Main Motors Sales Co., 109 F. Supp. 2d 1045, 1055 (D. Minn. 2000); TRI, Inc. v. Boise Cascade Office Prod., Inc. and Honeywell, Inc., No. 00-1464, 2002 WL 31108190, at *7 (D. Minn. September 20, 2002).
Defendants argue the “unique fact situation” presented in this case warrants sanctions despite the failure to follow the safe harbor procedure. Defendants contend that they were unaware that Plaintiffs’ claim was meritless until they received Plaintiffs’ Memorandum in Opposition to Summary Judgment, and because there was not a 21 day interval between the filing of the Opposition and the grant of summary judgment, Defendants could not comply with the safe harbor provision. This is a specious argument. If Defendants sincerely felt Rule 11 sanctions were appropriate, a motion should have been served on Plaintiffs after receiving the Opposition. There was no necessity to await the Court’s ruling. Defendants waited over a month after the Court granted summary judgment to file the Motion, effectively giving Plaintiffs no ability to correct any offending documents.
Defendants’ argument that Plaintiffs were on notice that sanction would be sought also lacks merit. Sending a letter to opposing counsel in place of a formal Rule 11 Motion does not
2

satisfy the safe harbor provision. See Mortice, 283 F. Supp. 2d at 1087. Moreover, the letter in question begins by discussing settlement and then requests a stipulated dismissal. Goering Aff. [Docket No. 214] Ex. A. At no point does the letter inform Plaintiffs that Defendants intend to seek sanctions. The letter is plausibly read as settlement posturing. Additionally, if Defendants were serious about sanctions, they should have sought them shortly after the settlement request was rejected. If they had done so and Plaintiffs had ignored the safe harbor provision, sanctions might be procedurally warranted.
Finally, the Court does not believe that Plaintiffs pursued the action in an attempt to harass Defendants. This case arose out of exigent circumstances involving mass detentions in an immigration action. If the allegations were proven true, Plaintiffs were subject to serious civil rights violations. There were over 50 Plaintiffs, many of whom were not easily accessible. The difficulties in this case were also compounded by the complications inherent when there are questions of Plaintiffs’ citizenship status. After the initial furor subsided Gray, Plant, Mooty, Mooty & Bennett, P.A. took this case to help sort out these issues and pursue claims for the proper Plaintiffs. To sanction them based on the procedural and substantive record in this case is unwarranted.
3

Accordingly, based upon the foregoing, and all the files, records, and proceedings herein, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants Dan Hartog, John Doe Kandiyohi Sheriff’s Deputies ##1-10, and Jane Doe Kandiyohi County Probation Official’s Motion for Rule 11 Sanctions [Docket No. 211] is DENIED.

BY THE COURT:

Dated: September 2, 2009.

s/Ann D. Montgomery ANN D. MONTGOMERY U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE

4

 
 CASE 0:07-cv-01959-ADM-JSM Document 102 Filed 04/30/08 Page 1 of 38

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA

CARLOS HILARIO ARIAS; VICENTE CISNEROS )

ABONCE, both individually and as ‘next friend’ for his )

minor children, E.C.A., V.C.A., JR., and J.C.A.; DULCE )

MARIA HERNANDEZ ARIAS; ROSA DE JESUS

)

BARRAJAS ARRELLANO; GRACIELA

)

BARRAGAN, both individually and as ‘next friend’ for )

her minor child, J.A.P.; JOSE MANUEL RAMIREZ )

CALIX;ALEJANDROCARTAGENA; WILLIAM

)

RAMOS CASTILLO; FABIOLA CISNEROS; ROSA )

NELY DUARTE; ESAU EDUARDO ESTRADA-

)

MENENDEZ; L.G., both individuallyand as ‘next friend’ )

for her minor child,A.G.;FRANCISGARCIA,both

)

individually and as ‘next friend’ for her minor child, O.B.; )

TERESA DE JESUS GUERRERO;WENSCELAO

)

PADILLA GUZMAN;TROY HASTINGS, both

)

individually and as ‘next friend’ for his minor child,

)

B.H.; JOCELINE SARAI LOPEZ, both individually and )

as ‘next friend’ for her minor child, J.M.;ROSA SORTO )

LOPEZ; ANA DANIRA MALDONADO-

)

HERNANDEZ; IRIS JANET MALDONADO, both

)

individually and as ‘next friend’ for her three minor

)

children, P.M., B.M., and E.M.; JENNY

)

MALDONADO, both individually and as ‘next friend’ )

for her minor child,S.D.M.; ERMENCIA MENDEZ;

)

AUDREY MITHUN; BARBARA ANAHI MORENO; )

JAVIER MORENO, JOSEFA C. MONTALVO, both )

individually and as ‘next friend’ to her minor

)

grandchild,B.M.;ALBIS MUÑOZ; FRANCISCO

)

MUÑOZ, both individually and as ‘next friend’ for one )

minor child, I.M.; JUANMUÑOZ; SAOMARA

)

MUÑOZ; MANUELA DE JESUS PINEDA; JAIME

)

REYES, bothindividually and as ‘next friend’ for his two )

minor children, D.R.B. and J.R.B.;MARLEN ALONSO )

SORIANO; ALEX JOSUE SORTO; ANDRES

)

MENENDEZ VEGA; RAUL VELIZ, JR.; DIGNA

)

MUNOZ XIOMARA; JORGE ZELAYA; SAMUEL

)

ZELAYA; and JOSE ERASMO MONTALVAN,the

)

Consul of Honduras, as ‘next friend’ to Honduran

)

Nationals,

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

v.

)

CIVIL NO. 07-CV-1959 ADM/JSM
PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES

CASE 0:07-cv-01959-ADM-JSM Document 102 Filed 04/30/08 Page 2 of 38

)

UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS )

ENFORCEMENT DIVISION OF THE DEPARTMENT )

OF HOMELAND SECURITY; UNITED STATES

)

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY;

)

MICHAEL CHERTOFF, Secretary of Department of )

Homeland Security; JULIE L. MYERS, Assistant

)

Secretary of Homeland Security for Immigration and )

Customs Enforcement; JOHN P. TORRES, Director of )

Detention and Removal Operations, Immigration and )

Customs Enforcement; SCOTT BANIECKE, St. Paul )

Field Office Director for Detention and Removal

)

Operation; PETER BERG, Supervisory Detention &

)

Deportation Officer, Detention and Removal; ALLEN )

GAY, Deportation Officer, Detention and Removal;

)

JOHN DOE ICE AGENTS ##1-30; JAMES A.

)

KULSET, Willmar Police Department Chief of Police; )

JOHN DOE WILLMAR POLICE OFFICERS ##1-10; )

REED SCHMIDT, Atwater Police Department Chief of )

Police; PAUL SCHMIDT, Atwater Police Officer; DAN )

HARTOG, Kandiyohi County Sheriff; JOHN DOE

)

KANDIYOHI SHERIFF’S DEPUTIES ##1-10; JANE )

DOE KANDIYOHI COUNTY PROBATION

)

OFFICIAL,

)

)

Defendants.

)

INTRODUCTION
1. This is a Complaint for declaratory relief, injunctive relief and damages filed by and on behalf of Plaintiffs named herein challenging a series of raids involving warrantless home entries and searches in violation of the Plaintiffs’ Fourth Amendment rights and numerous other constitutional violations engaged in by agents of the United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement Division (“ICE”) of the Department of Homeland Security in and around Willmar, Minnesota, between April 10 – 14, 2007.
2. Codenamed “Operation Crosscheck”, this purported immigration action resulted in egregious violations of Plaintiffs’ Fourth and Fifth Amendment Rights. Specifically, ICE
2

CASE 0:07-cv-01959-ADM-JSM Document 102 Filed 04/30/08 Page 3 of 38
agents entered and searched Plaintiffs’ private homes without warrants, without probable cause or exigent circumstances, and without the consent of the Plaintiffs, then detained, interrogated and in some cases arrested Plaintiffs in their homes. Furthermore, ICE agents and accompanying local and county law enforcement officers targeted homes occupied by residents of Latino origin, a pattern of conduct in violation of Plaintiffs’ Due Process and Equal Protection rights under the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution. Local law enforcement included the Kandiyohi County Sheriff’s Department, the City of Willmar Police Department, and in the case of Plaintiffs Barragan and her son, the City of Atwater Police Department.
3. In addition, Defendant ICE agents conducted a campaign of intimidation in and around the city of Willmar by identifying locations such as trailer parks and apartment buildings with known concentrations of Latino residents, then conducted unconstitutional stops and detentions of individuals based solely on the individual’s race or apparent national origin. Defendants thereby violated Plaintiffs’ Equal Protection Rights provided by the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution.
4. These raids were the calculated product of racial and ethnic profiling fundamentally at odds with the basic premises of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fifth Amendment and shock the conscience.
5. Upon information and belief, the techniques applied during the raids were organized and approved by Defendants and other federal government officials and were not the product of ad hoc decisions by field operatives. In short, U.S. Department of Homeland Security officials created and approved operations that willfully, knowingly, and/or recklessly disregarded Plaintiffs’ Constitutional protections. Furthermore, local and county officials collaborated closely with federal actors in organizing, planning, and executing the raids.
3

CASE 0:07-cv-01959-ADM-JSM Document 102 Filed 04/30/08 Page 4 of 38
6. Plaintiffs seek injunctive and declaratory relief to prevent such egregious Constitutional violations from occurring again within the Federal District of Minnesota.
7. Plaintiffs seek declaratory relief, injunctive relief, and compensatory and punitive damages to remedy violations of their constitutional and statutory rights.
JURISDICTION 8. This action arises under the Constitution of the United States, and, the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”), 8 U.S.C. §§ 1101 et seq., as amended by the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (“IIRIRA”), Pub. L. No. 104208, 110 Stat. 1570. This Court retains jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and 28 U.S.C. § 2241, art. I, § 9, cl.2 of the United States Constitution (“Suspension Clause”), as detainees are presently in custody or otherwise controlled under color of authority of the United States. Consequently, this Court may grant relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1651, 2201, 2002, 2241, and 2242 and Rule 57 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
PARTIES
9. Plaintiff CARLOS HILARIO ARIAS (“Plaintiff Carlos Arias”) is a Latino male who is a resident of Willmar. At all times relevant to this suit he was a resident of Willmar, Kandiyohi County, Minnesota.
10. Plaintiff VINCENTE CISNEROS ABONCE (“Plaintiff Abonce”) is a Latino male and lawful permanent resident of the United States who is a resident of Willmar and the parent to three minor children, E.C.A., V.C.A., JR., and J.C.A., on whose behalf Plaintiff Abonce also sues as next friend. At all times relevant to this suit Plaintiff Abonce and his children were residents of Willmar, Kandiyohi County, Minnesota.
4

CASE 0:07-cv-01959-ADM-JSM Document 102 Filed 04/30/08 Page 5 of 38
11. Plaintiff DULCE MARIA HERNANDEZ ARIAS (“Plaintiff Dulce Arias”) is a Latina female who is a resident of Willmar. At all times relevant to this suit she was a resident of Willmar, Kandiyohi County, Minnesota.
12. Plaintiff ROSA DE JESUS BARRAJAS ARELLANO (“Plaintiff Arellano”) is a Latina female who is a resident of Willmar. At all times relevant to this suit, she was a resident of Willmar, Kandiyohi County, Minnesota.
13. Plaintiff GRACIELA BARRAGAN (“Plaintiff Barragan”) is a Latina female and citizen of the United States who is a resident of Atwater and parent to a minor child, J.A.P., on whose behalf Plaintiff Barragan also sues as next friend. At all time relevant to this suit, Plaintiff Barragan and her child were residents of Atwater, Kandiyohi County, Minnesota. Additionally, at all times relevant to this suit she was pregnant.
14. Plaintiff JOSE MANUEL RAMIREZ CALIX (“Plaintiff Calix”) is a Latino male who is a resident of Willmar. At all times relevant to this suit he was a resident of Willmar, Kandiyohi County, Minnesota.
15. Plaintiff ALEJANDRO CARTAGENA (“Plaintiff Cartagena”) is a Latino male and lawful permanent resident of the United States who is a resident of Willmar. At all times relevant to this suit he was a resident of Willmar, Kandiyohi County, Minnesota.
16. Plaintiff WILLIAM RAMOS CASTILLO (“Plaintiff Castillo”) is a Honduran male who is a resident of Willmar. At all times relevant to this suit he was a resident of Willmar, Kandiyohi County, Minnesota.
17. Plaintiff FABIOLA CISNEROS (“Plaintiff Cisneros”) is a Latina female who is a resident of Willmar. At all times relevant to this suit she was a resident of Willmar, Kandiyohi County, Minnesota.
5

CASE 0:07-cv-01959-ADM-JSM Document 102 Filed 04/30/08 Page 6 of 38
18. Plaintiff ROSA NELY DUARTE (“Plaintiff Duarte”) is a Latina female who is a resident of Willmar. At all time relevant to this suit she was a resident of Willmar, Kandiyohi County, Minnesota.
19. Plaintiff ESAU EDUARDO ESTRADA-MENENDEZ (“Plaintiff Estrada”) is a Latino male who is a resident of Willmar. At all times relevant to this suit he was a resident of Willmar, Kandiyohi County, Minnesota.
20. Plaintiff L.G. (“Plaintiff L.G.”) is a Latina female, a citizen of the United States who is a resident of Willmar and parent to a minor child, A.G., on whose behalf Plaintiff L.G. also sues as next friend. At all times relevant to this suit Plaintiff L.G. and her daughter were residents of Willmar, Kandiyohi County, Minnesota.
21. Plaintiff FRANCIS GARCIA (“Plaintiff Francis Garcia”) is a Latina female with Lawful Permanent Residency who is a resident of Willmar and parent to a minor child, O.B., on whose behalf Plaintiff Francis Garcia also sues as next friend. At all time relevant to this suit Plaintiff Francis Garcia and her son were residents of Willmar, Kandiyohi County, Minnesota.
22. Plaintiff TERESA DE JESUS GUERERO (“Plaintiff Guerero”) is a Latina female who is a resident of Willmar. At all times relevant to this suit, she was a resident of Willmar, Kandiyohi County, Minnesota.
23. Plaintiff WENSCELAO PADILLA GUZMAN (“Plaintiff Guzman”) is a Latino male with Temporary Protected Status, a native of Honduras, and resident of Willmar. At all times relevant to this suit he was a resident of Willmar, Kandiyohi County, Minnesota.
24. Plaintiff TROY HASTINGS (“Plaintiff Hastings”) is a Caucasian male and citizen of the United States who is a resident of Willmar and the parent of a minor child, B.H.,
6

CASE 0:07-cv-01959-ADM-JSM Document 102 Filed 04/30/08 Page 7 of 38
on whose behalf Plaintiff Hastings also sues as next friend. At all times relevant to this suit Plaintiff Hastings and his child were residents of Willmar, Kandiyohi County, Minnesota.
25. Plaintiff JOCELINE SARAI LOPEZ (“Plaintiff Joceline Lopez”) is a Latina female and citizen of the United States who is a resident of Willmar and the parent of a minor child, J.M., on whose behalf Plaintiff Joceline Lopez also sues as next friend. At all times relevant to suit Plaintiff Lopez and her minor child were residents of Willmar, Kandiyohi County, Minnesota.
26. Plaintiff ROSA SORTO LOPEZ (“Plaintiff Rosa Lopez”) is a Latino female lawfully present in the United States and a resident of Willmar. At all times relevant to this suit she was a resident of Willmar, Kandiyohi County, Minnesota.
27. Plaintiff ANA DANIRA MALDONADO-HERNANDEZ (“Plaintiff Maldonado-Hernandez”) is a Latina female who is a resident of Willmar. At all times relevant to this suit she was a resident of Willmar, Kandiyohi County, Minnesota. Additionally, at all times relevant to this suit she was pregnant.
28. Plaintiff IRIS JANET MALDONADO (“Plaintiff Iris Maldonado”) is a Latina female who is a resident of Willmar and the parent of three minor children, P.M., B.M., and E.M., on whose behalf Plaintiff Iris Maldonado also sues as next friend. At all times relevant to this suit Plaintiff Iris Maldonado and her three children were residents of Willmar, Kandiyohi County, Minnesota.
29. Plaintiff JENNY MALDONADO (“Plaintiff Jenny Maldonado”) is a Latina female who is a resident of Willmar and the parent of one minor child, S.D.M., on whose behalf Plaintiff Jenny Maldonado also sues as next friend. At all times relevant to this suit Plaintiff Jenny Maldonado and her child were residents of Willmar, Kandiyohi County, Minnesota.
7

CASE 0:07-cv-01959-ADM-JSM Document 102 Filed 04/30/08 Page 8 of 38
30. Plaintiff ERMENCIA MENDEZ (“Plaintiff Mendez”) is a Latina female who is a resident of Willmar. At all times relevant to this suit she was a resident of Willmar, Kandiyohi County, Minnesota.
31. Plaintiff AUDREY MITHUN (“Plaintiff Mithun”) is a Caucasian female and citizen of the United States who is a resident of Willmar. At all times relevant to this suit she was a resident of Willmar, Kandiyohi County, Minnesota.
32. Plaintiff BARBARA ANAHI MORENO ("Plaintiff Barbara Moreno”) is a Latina female who is a resident of Willmar. At all times relevant to this suit, she was a resident of Willmar, Kandiyohi County, Minnesota.
33. Plaintiff JAVIER MORENO (“Plaintiff Javier Moreno”) is a Latino male who is a citizen of the United States and resident of Willmar. At all times relevant to this suit he was a resident of Willmar, Kandiyohi County, Minnesota.
34. Plaintiff JOSEFA MONTALVO (“Plaintiff Montalvo”) is a Latina female who is a resident of Willmar and the grandparent to one minor grandchild, B.M., on whose behalf Plaintiff Montalvo also sues as next friend. At all times relevant to this suit Plaintiff Montalvo and her grandchild were residents of Willmar, Kandiyohi County, Minnesota.
35. Plaintiff ALBIS MUNOZ (“Plaintiff Albis Munoz”) is a Latino male who is a native of Honduras and resident of Willmar. At all times relevant to this suit he was a resident of Willmar, Kandiyohi County, Minnesota.
36. Plaintiff FRANCISCO MUNOZ (“Plaintiff Francisco Munoz”) is a Latino male who is a lawful permanent resident of the United States, native of Honduras, resident of Willmar, and parent to one minor child, I.M., on whose behalf Plaintiff Francisco Munoz also sues as
8

CASE 0:07-cv-01959-ADM-JSM Document 102 Filed 04/30/08 Page 9 of 38
next friend. At all times relevant to this suit Plaintiff Francisco Munoz and his child were residents of Willmar, Kandiyohi County, Minnesota.
37. Plaintiff JUAN MUNOZ (“Plaintiff Juan Munoz”) is a Latino male who is a native of Honduras and resident of Willmar. At all times relevant to this suit he was a resident of Willmar, Kandiyohi County, Minnesota.
38. Plaintiff SAOMARA MUNOZ (“Plaintiff Saomara Munoz”) is a Latina female who is a native of Honduras and resident of Willmar. At all times relevant to this suit she was a resident of Willmar, Kandiyohi County, Minnesota. Additionally, at all times relevant to this suit she was pregnant.
39. Plaintiff MANUELA DE JESUS PINEDA (“Plaintiff Pineda”) is a Latina female with Temporary Protected Status, native of Honduras, and resident of Willmar. At all times relevant to this suit she was a resident of Willmar, Kandiyohi County, Minnesota.
40. Plaintiff JAIME REYES (“Plaintiff Reyes”) is a Latino male who is a resident of Willmar and the parent of two minor children, D.R.B. and J.R.B., on whose behalf Plaintiff Reyes also sues as next friend. At all times relevant to this suit Plaintiff Reyes and his children were residents of Willmar, Kandiyohi County, Minnesota.
41. Plaintiff MARLEN ALONSO SORIANO (“Plaintiff Soriano”) is a Latina female who is a lawful permanent resident of the United States and resident of Willmar, MN. At all times relevant to this suit she was a resident of Willmar, Kandiyohi County, Minnesota.
42. Plaintiff ALEX JOSUE SORTO (“Plaintiff Sorto”) is a Latino male who is a citizen of the United States and resident of Willmar. At all times relevant to this suit he was a resident of Willmar, Kandiyohi County, Minnesota.
9

CASE 0:07-cv-01959-ADM-JSM Document 102 Filed 04/30/08 Page 10 of 38
43. Plaintiff ANDRES MENENDEZ VEGA (“Plaintiff Vega”) is a Latino male who is a resident of Willmar. At all times relevant to this suit he was a resident of Willmar, Kandiyohi County, Minnesota.
44. Plaintiff RAUL VELIZ, JR. (“Plaintiff Veliz”) is a Latino male who is a citizen of the United States and resident of Willmar. At all times relevant to this suit he was a resident of Willmar, Kandiyohi County, Minnesota.
45. Plaintiff DIGNA MUNOZ XIOMARA (“Plaintiff Xiomara”) is a Latina female who is a resident of Willmar. At all times relevant to this suit she was a resident of Willmar, Kandiyohi County, Minnesota. Additionally, at all times relevant to this suit she was pregnant.
46. Plaintiff JORGE ZELAYA (“Plaintiff Jorge Zelaya”) is a Latino male with Temporary Protected Status in the United States, native of Honduras, and resident of Willmar. At all times relevant to this suit he was a resident of Willmar, Kandiyohi County, Minnesota.
47. Plaintiff SAMUEL ZELAYA (“Plaintiff Samuel Zelaya”) is a Latino male who is a resident of Willmar. At all times relevant to this suit he was a resident of Willmar, Kandiyohi County, Minnesota.
48. Plaintiff CONSÚL JOSE ERASMO MONTALVAN, ‘next friend’ to Honduran Nationals, is the Consul of Honduras for Illinois, Ohio, Indiana, Michigan, Iowa, Wisconsin, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Minnesota.
49. Defendant UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT DIVISION OF HOMELAND SECURITY (“Defendant ICE”) is a division of the United States Department of Homeland Security. Among other duties, Defendant ICE is charged with investigative and enforcement responsibilities of federal immigration laws within the territorial United States.
10

CASE 0:07-cv-01959-ADM-JSM Document 102 Filed 04/30/08 Page 11 of 38
50. Defendant UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY (“Defendant DHS”) is charged with, among other things, administering the United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement and implementing and enforcing the Immigration and Nationality Act. As such, it has decision-making authority over the matters alleged in this complaint and Plaintiffs’ custody.
51. Defendant MICHAEL CHERTOFF (“Defendant Chertoff”) is Secretary of the United States Department of Homeland Security. Defendant Chertoff is charged with the constitutional and lawful implementation of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. §§ 1101, et seq., and with the administration of Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Defendant Chertoff is sued in his official capacity.
52. Defendant JULIE L. MYERS (“Defendant Myers”) is the Assistant Secretary of Homeland Security. Defendant Myers is charged with, among other duties, administering the Executive Office of Immigration Review (“EOIR”). The EOIR conducts removal proceedings in immigration cases and decides administrative appeals of such cases. Defendant Myers is also charged with the constitutional and lawful implementation of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. §§ 1101, et seq., and with the administration of Defendant ICE. Defendant Myers is sued individually and in her official capacity.
53. Defendant JOHN P. TORRES (“Defendant Torres”) is the Director of the Office of Detention and Removal for Immigration and Customs Enforcement. In this capacity, Defendant Torres is responsible for the apprehension, detention, and removal of foreign nationals charged with violation of immigration law and the supervision of law enforcement officers assigned to the Detention and Removal field offices, including the field office based in Minneapolis, Minnesota. Defendant Torres is sued individually and in his official capacity.
11

CASE 0:07-cv-01959-ADM-JSM Document 102 Filed 04/30/08 Page 12 of 38
54. Defendant SCOTT BANIECKE (“Defendant Baniecke”) is the Field Office Director for the St. Paul Office of Detention and Removal, where Plaintiffs are or were being held under his administrative authority. Defendant Baniecke is responsible for managing enforcement activities of ICE within the geographic boundaries of Minnesota. Upon information and belief, Defendant Baniecke was personally involved in and/or ordered, coordinated, and authorized the unlawful conduct of ICE agents alleged in the complaint. Defendant Baniecke is sued individually and in his official capacity.
55. Defendant PETER BERG (“Defendant Berg”) is a Supervisory Detention & Deportation Officer for Detention and Removal for the St. Paul Office of Detention and Removal. In this capacity, amongst other duties Defendant Berg is responsible for overseeing the ICE Fugitive Operations Team operating for the St. Paul Office of Detention and Removal. Upon information and belief, Defendant Berg was personally involved in and/or personally contributed to coordinating and executing the unlawful conduct of ICE agents alleged in this complaint. Defendant Berg is sued individually and in his official capacity.
56. Defendant ALLEN GAY (“Defendant Gay”) is a Deportation Officer for the St. Paul Office for Detention and Removal. In this capacity, amongst other duties Defendant Gay is a member of the Fugitive Operations Team and is responsible for identifying, locating and arresting persons identified as present without proper admission to the United States. Upon information and belief, Defendant Gay was personally involved in and/or personally contributed to coordinating and executing the unlawful conduct of ICE agents alleged in this complaint. Defendant Berg is sued individually and in his official capacity.
57. At all times relevant to the incidents complained of in this lawsuit, defendants JOHN DOE ICE AGENTS NOS. 1-30 are or were federal law enforcement agents employed
12

CASE 0:07-cv-01959-ADM-JSM Document 102 Filed 04/30/08 Page 13 of 38
by Defendants ICE and DHS whose identities are at this time unknown to Plaintiffs. Defendants were empowered by law to execute searches and make arrests for violation of federal law. When and if the identities of Defendants John Doe ICE Agents Nos. 1-30 become known to Plaintiffs, Plaintiffs may amend this complaint to add said Agents as named Defendants.
58. Defendant JAMES A. KULSET (“Defendant Kulset”) is the Chief of Police for the City of Willmar Police Department. In this capacity Defendant Kulset possesses administrative authority regarding the employees and officers in this department. Upon information and belief, Defendant Kulset was personally involved in and/or personally ordered or authorized members of his department to cooperate with ICE agents during the unlawful activities alleged herein. Defendant Kulset is sued individually and in his official capacity.
59. At all times relevant to the incidents complained of in this lawsuit, defendants JOHN DOE WILLMAR POLICE OFFICERS Nos. 1-10 were local law enforcement employed by and serving the City of Willmar Police Department, whose identities are at this time unknown to Plaintiffs. Upon information and belief, Defendants were present at the scene and assisted in the immigration activities conducted by ICE agents operating within the community of Willmar. When and if the identities of Defendants JOHN DOE WILLMAR POLICE OFFICERS Nos. 1-10 become known to Plaintiffs, Plaintiffs may amend this complaint to add said Officers as named Defendants.
60. Defendant REED SCHMIDT (“Defendant Schmidt”) is the Chief of Police for the City of Atwater Police Department. In this capacity Defendant Schmidt possesses administrative authority regarding the employees and officers in this department. Upon information and belief, Defendant Schmidt was personally involved in and/or personally ordered or authorized members of his department to cooperate with ICE agents during the unlawful
13

CASE 0:07-cv-01959-ADM-JSM Document 102 Filed 04/30/08 Page 14 of 38
activities alleged herein concerning the city of Atwater, MN. Defendant Schmidt is sued individually and in his official capacity.
61. Defendant PAUL SCHMIDT (“Defendant Schmidt”) is an officer employed by and serving with the Atwater police force. Upon information and belief, Defendant Schmidt participated directly in ICE raid activities within the city of Atwater, MN. Defendant Schmidt is sued individually and in his official capacity.
62. Defendant DAN HARTOG (“Defendant Hartog”) is the Sheriff for the County of Kandiyohi. In this capacity Defendant Hartog possesses administrative authority regarding the employees and officers in his agency. Upon information and belief, Defendant Hartog was personally involved in and/or personally ordered or authorized members of his department to cooperate and participate with ICE agents during the unlawful activities alleged herein. Defendant Hartog is sued individually and in his official capacity.
63. At all times relevant to the incidents complained of in this lawsuit, defendants JOHN DOE KANDIYOHI SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT DEPUTIES Nos. 1-10 were law enforcement officers employed by and serving the County of Kandiyohi, whose identities are at this time unknown to Plaintiffs . Upon information and belief, Defendants assisted ICE agents in coordinating raid activities and/or were present at the scene of the unlawful conducted by ICE agents operating within the County of Kandiyohi. When and if the identities of Defendants JOHN DOE KANDIYOHI SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT DEPUTIES Nos. 1-10 become known to Plaintiffs, Plaintiffs may amend this complaint to add said Officers as named Defendants.
64. Defendant JANE DOE KANDIYOHI PROBATION OFFICER was a probation official employed by and serving the County of Kandiyohi, whose identity is at this
14

CASE 0:07-cv-01959-ADM-JSM Document 102 Filed 04/30/08 Page 15 of 38
time unknown to Plaintiffs. Upon information and belief, Defendant Jane Doe Probation Officer compiled immigration information on or relating to Plaintiffs in this case based on their race and national origin, presented such information to ICE, and materially contributed to initiating and coordinating the unlawful actions of ICE agents. When and if the identity of Defendant JANE DOE KANDIYOHI PROBATION OFFICER becomes known to Plaintiffs, Plaintiffs may amend this complaint to add her as a named Defendant.
FACTS 65. Upon information and belief, Defendant Jane Doe Probation Officer of the Kandiyohi County Probation Service collected information regarding persons under her supervision who, in her determination, had been “born in foreign countries” and concluded were “here illegally.” Defendant Jane Doe Probation Officer next contacted ICE officials in Bloomington, MN, and presented a “dossier of foreigners” for their inspection. Following presentation of the dossier, ICE agents began to organize and coordinate the mass, unlawful warrantless home invasions complained of herein. 66. Upon information and belief, law enforcement officers from the City of Willmar Police Department and the Kandiyohi Sheriff’s Department accompanied ICE agents and participated in these actions. On April 12, 2007, Willmar Police Chief James A. Kulset, while attending a public community forum in Willmar, stated that the Willmar Police Department provided “logistical assistance and support” to immigration agents operating in the community. According to Defendant Kulset, “assistance and support” included directing ICE agents to the location of particular addresses within the community. 67. The Willmar Police Department and Kandiyohi County Sheriff’s Office were considerably more involved in the planning and execution of these raids in and around Willmar
15

CASE 0:07-cv-01959-ADM-JSM Document 102 Filed 04/30/08 Page 16 of 38
than Defendant Kulset publicly acknowledged. During the period between April 5 and April 10, 2007 several exchanges between officials from the City of Willmar Police Department, the Kandiyohi County Sheriff’s Department, the Kandiyohi County Community Corrections Probation Office, and ICE occurred in planning and coordinating the raids. Local law enforcement agencies participated in strategic planning in advance of the raids and provided additional human “targets” as part of an alleged identity theft investigation, then participated with ICE agents in the arrest phase of the operation. Follow-up contacts took place following the conclusion of operations.
68. From April 10-14, 2007, all named Plaintiffs, with the exception of Raul Veliz, Jr., occupied homes forcibly entered by ICE agents without warrants or consent in and around Willmar, MN. An unknown number of these warrantless searches also involved local and county law enforcement officers. Home invasions occurred without presentation of search or arrest warrants, lacked probable cause and exigent circumstances permitting entry, and were nonconsensual.
69. ICE agents also conducted warrantless, non-consensual home searches in the nearby community of Atwater, MN. Involved in this raid were two members of the Atwater Police Department, including the Chief of Police.
70. Immediately prior to Defendants’ unlawful entries, Plaintiffs’ heard unknown persons loudly yelling and banging on Plaintiffs’ doors, windows, and other areas on the outside of Plaintiffs’ homes. When asked by Plaintiffs’ to identify themselves, Defendant ICE agents falsely claimed, “It’s the Police!” or similar variations thereof.
71. In limited circumstances, and intending solely to determine the identity of those outside, some Plaintiffs slightly opened doors leading to the outside of the house. Seizing this
16

CASE 0:07-cv-01959-ADM-JSM Document 102 Filed 04/30/08 Page 17 of 38
opportunity, Defendant ICE agents then forcibly burst through the door and shoved aside anyone proving an obstacle to entry.
72. Plaintiff Arias held the door closed while ICE agents attempted to push in the door. Nevertheless, Defendant ICE agents forced opened the door and, gesturing for their guns, forced Plaintiff Arias to step back.
73. Plaintiff L.G., a seventeen-year-old female, witnessed ICE agents forcing a door open to enter her home.
74. Plaintiff Guzman heard keys used to break through his front door and ICE agents entered his home.
75. Plaintiff Hastings was shoved out of the way by ICE agents forcing their way into his home.
76. Plaintiff Rosa Lopez witnessed ICE agents breaking a window and opening a door to gain access to her home.
77. Through his closed front door Plaintiff Vega told agents to remain outside while he dressed, but ICE agents entered through a closed door requiring force to gain entry.
78. ICE agents falsely told Plaintiff Samuel Zelaya they entered through “an open door.”
79. Once gaining unlawful warrantless and nonconsensual entries into the “target addresses” Defendants proceeded to conduct warrantless searches of Plaintiffs’ homes going room to room without Plaintiffs’ consent. These unlawful searches, or attempts to search, followed every unlawful home entry.
80. In every instance, ICE agents unlawfully entered Plaintiffs’ homes—accompanied by an undetermined number of local and county law enforcement officers—and unlawfully
17

CASE 0:07-cv-01959-ADM-JSM Document 102 Filed 04/30/08 Page 18 of 38
searched the premises and unlawfully detained all persons inside. These detentions and arrests included the sixteen minor children named as Plaintiffs in this action.
81. When Plaintiffs asked Defendant ICE agents why they were in their homes, ICE agents frequently stated they were looking for a fugitive, but refused to give the name of the person they allegedly sought or named someone who no longer lived—or never lived—on the premises. In several instances Defendants refused to answer Plaintiffs’ requests for warrants, and in one case told a Plaintiff “we don’t need one; we are the authorities and can come into the house.”
82. Once inside Plaintiffs’ homes, Defendant ICE agents went room to room, searching each room, rooting through closets, dressers, beds, and generally leaving a mess of personal property in their wake. Any Latino persons found were brought to a central location in the home to be detained and interrogated by additional ICE agents. Latinos were then interrogated, often aggressively and invariably in handcuffs.
83. At no point were Plaintiffs advised that they had the right to remain silent or to speak to an attorney prior to ICE interrogations. Plaintiffs attempting to exercise their rights endured harsh and misleading treatment from ICE agents. An ICE agent told Plaintiff Samuel Zelaya, who was stating he wanted a lawyer before answering questions, “You’ll be able to speak to a lawyer, but in Honduras.” When Plaintiff Soriano declared that her relatives had a right to counsel, an ICE agent responded, “If you have money for a lawyer, go get one!”
84. Defendants took no precautions to preserve the dignity of persons dressed only in sleeping clothes. ICE agents required Plaintiff Dulce Arias to undress in front of them, refusing to give her privacy and watching as she disrobed. Later, the same ICE agents forced Plaintiff
18

CASE 0:07-cv-01959-ADM-JSM Document 102 Filed 04/30/08 Page 19 of 38
Dulce Arias to dress her uncle, Plaintiff Carlos Arias, resulting in considerable embarrassment for both.
85. When alerted to specific health conditions Defendants refused precautions to protect the health of detainees. Plaintiff Vega showed Defendant ICE agents and officers medical information about his pending knee surgery; the officer responded he didn’t care and shackled Plaintiff Vega’s legs, wrists, and waist. Despite having been alerted by Plaintiff Jenny Maldonado of her nausea while transporting her to Bloomington with 12 other people, ICE agents refused to accommodate her, and she eventually vomited on herself.
86. Plaintiffs Barragan, Maldonado-Hernandez, Saomara Munoz, and Xiomara were pregnant. ICE agents took no precautions to maintain the health of these individuals or their unborn children.
87. Plaintiff Dulce Arias had suffered an ectopic pregnancy and, despite heavy bleeding, was denied use of the bathroom by ICE agents.
88. Plaintiffs Arrellano and Iris Maldonado were nursing their infants. ICE agents refused to make accommodations for Plaintiffs’ children. After her arrest and while in ICE custody, Plaintiff Maldonado continued to produce and leak breast milk. ICE agents refused her a change of clothes or the means to clean herself.
89. In several instances, ICE agents entered bedrooms while Plaintiffs and their children were sleeping, and woke them by shining flashlights in their faces. Plaintiffs and their children felt intentionally intimidated and frightened.
90. Children were often left bereft and crying, as when ICE agents physically grabbed and separated Plaintiff S.M. from his mother, and then, while yelling and intimidating the boy a short distance from his mother, demanded information about his father. Defendants failed to
19

CASE 0:07-cv-01959-ADM-JSM Document 102 Filed 04/30/08 Page 20 of 38
make reasonable efforts to accommodate children of detainees. Plaintiff children now suffer from waning appetites, disrupted sleep, nightmares, and behavioral difficulties resulting from the loss of a parent and/or from the aggressive encounter with Defendants.
91. In the case of Plaintiff Mithun, Defendant ICE agents, after observing that she was white, neither asked for identification nor challenged her presence within the United States. Instead, they ordered her out of her bedroom and into the living room where she was detained by ICE agents during the remainder of the raid and forcibly returned to the room on one occasion.
92. Similarly, when encountering Plaintiff Hastings, a white male, Defendant ICE agents neither demanded identification nor challenged his presence within the United States. ICE agents entered Hastings’ home without his consent.
93. All Plaintiffs, with the exception of Raul Veliz, Jr., were detained and/or arrested in their homes. Plaintiffs taken into custody are or were being held at detention facilities in Bloomington, Hennepin County, Ramsey County, and Sherburne County. Several are now subject to removal proceedings; Plaintiff Cisneros has been deported, along with her daughter E.C. who holds United States citizenship.
94. On information and belief, Defendants used coercive methods to solicit and obtain waivers of rights and stipulated orders for removal for the purpose of expediting removal of certain Plaintiffs from the territorial borders of the United States.
95. On April 12, 2007, at approximately 7:00 AM, Plaintiff Raul Veliz, Jr., was stopped by a group of vehicles driven by ICE agents. Just prior to being stopped, he witnessed vehicles drive past with ICE agents inside taking notice of him as he drove past. Next, vehicles manned with 7 to 8 ICE agents wearing guns and bulletproof vests surrounded his car. ICE agents and Willmar Police officers failed to provide a basis for why Plaintiff Veliz’s vehicle was
20

CASE 0:07-cv-01959-ADM-JSM Document 102 Filed 04/30/08 Page 21 of 38
stopped. Even after Plaintiff Veliz showed agents a valid driver’s license and made clearly known his United States citizenship, ICE agents nevertheless wrongfully detained and questioned him for 15-20 minutes while ICE vehicles surrounded his automobile. Referring to Plaintiff Veliz, an ICE agent instructed others to “find something on him.”
96. More specifically, the following events occurred at the following times and places with respect to the following Plaintiffs, as set forth more fully hereafter, and as required by the Memorandum Opinion and Order of the Court dated April 23, 2008, p. 18.
97. PLAINTIFFS VICENTE CISNEROS ABONCE AND HIS MINOR CHILDREN, E.C.A., V.C.A., JR., AND J.C.A.: At 5:30 a.m., on April 12, 2007, at 401 30th Street NW, Lot A-32, Willmar, MN 56201, ICE agents and other law enforcement officers identifying them selves as police officers, entered and searched Plaintiffs’ home without consent. They woke Plaintiffs’ sleeping children, handcuffed Plaintiffs’ wife without probable cause, forcibly took Mr. Abonce’s identification, and prevented anyone from leaving the premises.
98. PLAINTIFFS GRACIELA BARRAGAN AND HER MINOR CHILD, J.A.P.: At 10:30 a.m. on April 13, 2007, at 508 S. 2d Street, Atwater, MN 56209, ICE agents and other law enforcement officers banged on the front door, yelled “Police,” and entered the premises without permission or a warrant, where they aggressively interrogated and threatened to arrest Ms. Barragan. Among the officers was Atwater police deputy Paul Schmidt.
99. PLAINTIFF ALEJANDRO CARTAGENA: At 9 a.m. on April 10, 2007, at 1807 13th Street SE, Willmar, MN 56201, ICE agents and other law enforcement officers entered the premises without consent or a warrant. Plaintiff Cartagena was in bed when his nephew Jose Manuel Ramirez Calix came to his bedroom in the basement to wake him up and inform him that the police and ICE agents were in their home. He got out of bed and went to the main room. He
21

CASE 0:07-cv-01959-ADM-JSM Document 102 Filed 04/30/08 Page 22 of 38
saw three armed agents standing by the front door dressed in blue uniforms and vests. The officers asked where they keep their guns, Mr. Cartagena said they didn’t have anything like that there. He saw an officer at the dining room table and others searching the bedrooms. The officer at the dining room table told him to sit down and questioned him. The officer did not allow him to get up to get his documents, but directed another officer to go down to his bedroom for his documents, where they found his wallet. The officers knocked on the bedroom door of his stepson Samuel and brought him out to the dining room table. He heard Samuel ask the officer how they got in the house and asked about a warrant, the officer said “we don’t need one; we are the authorities and can come into the house.” He heard Samuel ask to speak to a lawyer. The officer told him he could speak to a lawyer, but in Honduras. The officers also aggressively questioned others in the house.
100. PLAINTIFFS LEAH GARCIA AND HER MINOR CHILD, A.G.: At 6 a.m. on April 11, 2007, at Lakeland Drive NE Lot #12, Willmar, MN 56201, plaintiff Garcia woke up when she heard a loud knock on her door and saw a bright light shining through her window. She went to the door and asked who it was; a male voice said “police.” She opened the door slightly and one of the officers forced open the door. Eight or nine ICE agents or other law enforcement officers came into the house. They wore police issue bullet proof vests and were armed. An officer told her to sit down, then asked her for her ID and when she got up to get it, he told her to sit back down. She did not feel free to leave. Agents did not show her a warrant. They searched the entire home, including her purse and wallet, and took her Minnesota ID, and her and her daughter’s social security cards. All of this occurred without consent or a warrant.
101. PLAINTIFF WENSCELAO PADILLA GUZMAN: At 6 a.m. on April 10, 2007, at 1009 Lake Avenue NW, Willmar, MN 56201, plaintiff Guzman woke up when he heard loud
22

CASE 0:07-cv-01959-ADM-JSM Document 102 Filed 04/30/08 Page 23 of 38
rapping on door and several windows, banging with fists and arms. He heard ICE agents yell “we know you’re in there cabrón” repeatedly. He stayed in his bed. He heard a radio crackling, and his phone rang. He then heard “we know you’re in there,” followed by what sounded like a key. The front door broke open, and ICE agents and other law enforcement officers came in, without consent or a warrant. Three agents came into his bedroom where the door had been closed. They shone a flashlight in his face, blinding him. They then pinned his arms behind his back and cuffed him with metal cuffs. They did not let him get changed out of his pajamas. Three agents lifted him off his bed and walked him into living room, where they made him sit in a chair against a wall. He saw agents searching his bedroom. Two agents went upstairs searching the rooms and making a lot of noise. An agent told him they had an order for his arrest, but had no papers in their hands or anywhere he could see. He asked them why, as he had no issues with the police. The agent responded that the computer told him there was an order for his arrest, but he told the agent to check his papers and work permit to show he had valid Temporary Protected Status. The agent went into his bedroom, got his wallet from his pants and brought it to the living room, opened it and took out his papers, and said it was expired. Plaintiff Guzman told him to look at the back where there is a sticker from immigration stating the card was currently valid. The officer picked up his cell phone and called someone, then told the other agent “Take off the cuffs”. The agent took off one cuff, but the other one got stuck and the agent jiggled the key, causing him pain. As the agents turned and left, one of the agents said, “The next time, you shouldn’t take so long to answer the door.”
102. PLAINTIFF TROY HASTINGS AND HIS MINOR CHILD, B.H.: At 10:30 a.m. on April 10, 2007, at 717 6th Street SE, Willmar, MN 56201, ICE agents and other law enforcement agents came to the premises, encountered plaintiff Hastings outside the house,
23

CASE 0:07-cv-01959-ADM-JSM Document 102 Filed 04/30/08 Page 24 of 38
identified themselves as police, and followed plaintiff Hastings into the house when he went inside, although they had neither a warrant not permission to enter. The officers told him they were looking for “Mauricio” and searched the house without consent before leaving.
103. PLAINTIFFS JOCELINE SARAI LOPEZ AND HER MINOR CHILD, J.M.: At 6:30 a.m. on April 10, 2007, at 717 6th Street SE, Willmar, MN 56201, three ICE agents or other law enforcement officers entered plaintiff Lopez’s bedroom where she was with her eight-month old baby. They entered without permission. One of them ran at plaintiff Lopez and yelled in her face, “Where is he? You know who, stop lying to me.” Another began searching the room, while the third guarded the door. The agent who yelled at her ran to her closet and started throwing all of her clothes on the floor. He said, “I can do whatever I want.” He tore the covers off the bed and yelled at her again. Other agents questioned and mocked her sister. One of the agents ordered plaintiff Lopez downstairs, where they interrogated her and her mother. The agents never produced a warrant or had consent to enter or search the premises.
104. PLAINTIFF ROSA SORTO LOPEZ: At 6:30 a.m. on April 13, 2007, at 423 Ann Street SE, Willmar, MN 56201, ICE agents and other law enforcement officers pounded on the door while continuously yelling, “Open the door!” Plaintiff Lopez went to the living room and saw a bright red light flash near her front door. At the same time she heard a loud breaking sound. She heard the window break beside the door. Someone then reached into the house through the broken window to open the door. Four agents or other law enforcement officers entered her house. One approached her, shown a light in her face, and began questioning her about who lived on the premises. At no time did the officers have consent or a warrant to enter the premises or search the premises.
24

CASE 0:07-cv-01959-ADM-JSM Document 102 Filed 04/30/08 Page 25 of 38
105. PLAINTIFF ERMENCIA MENDEZ: At 10:00 a.m. on April 10, 2007, at 1807 13th Street SE, Willmar, MN 56201, plaintiff Mendez returned to the premises from the grocery store, at which time she found ICE agents and other law enforcement officers had entered and searched the premises without consent or a warrant.
106. PLAINTIFF AUDREY MITHUN: At 8:00 a.m. on April 10, 2007, at 837 Olaf Avenue NW, Willmar, MN 56201, ICE agents and other law enforcement officers opened plaintiff Mithun’s bedroom door where she was with her granddaughter. Two agents entered the bedroom and told her to go into the living room and sit down. They told her they were looking for a fugitive, but did not give a name. They did not show a search warrant or otherwise demonstrate that they had consent or a legal right to enter and search the premises. She observed agents searching rooms, closets, the basement, and the back porch of the premises. While the agents were in the premises, she was required to remain in the living room and her freedom of movement was restrained.
107. PLAINTIFF JAVIER MORENO: At 7:20 a.m. on April 10, 2007, at plaintiff Moreno’s trailer home at 1400 Lakeland Drive NE, Lot 109, Willmar, MN 56201, plaintiff Moreno approached his home, where he saw six cars parked outside. Seven men exited from the vehicles and entered his trailer without consent or a warrant. The men were wearing body armor, had guns, and appeared to be holding weapons. When agents questioned him, plaintiff Moreno told him they had no right to be on his premises. After he left the premises, the agents remained and questioned his nine-year-old brother.
108. PLAINTIFFS JOSEFA C. MONTALVO AND HER MINOR GRANDCHILD, B.M.: At 7:20 a.m. on April 10, 2007, at the trailer home of plaintiff Javier Moreno, 1400 Lakeland Drive NE, Lot 109, Willmar, MN 56201, when plaintiff Montalvo, the grandmother of
25

CASE 0:07-cv-01959-ADM-JSM Document 102 Filed 04/30/08 Page 26 of 38
plaintiff Moreno, opened the trailer door to let her grandchildren out to go to school, an ICE agent pushed her aside and walked inside the mobile home without asking or receiving permission to enter or to search. After the children had left, an additional five to seven officers entered, all of them wearing guns. The officers searched the entire trailer home without consent or a warrant.
109. PLAINTIFFS FRANCISCO MUÑOZ AND HIS MINOR CHILD, I.M.: At 8:00 a.m. on April 10, 2007, at 836 Olaf Avenue NW, Willmar, MN 56201, an ICE agent entered plaintiff Munoz’s bedroom and awakened him by shining a flashlight in his face. He was then ordered to put on his clothes and go downstairs. He was not shown a search warrant and did not give consent to the entry. He saw approximately ten ICE agents in the living room interrogating people on the premises. He also was interrogated. All of this occurred without consent or a warrant to enter and search the premises.
110. PLAINTIFF MANUELA DE JESUS PINEDA: At 10:00 a.m. on April 10, 2007, at 1807 13th Street SE, Willmar, MN 56201, plaintiff Pineda entered her home after returning from the grocery store. ICE agents and other law enforcement officers were already in the home, which they had entered and searched without a warrant or consent.
111. PLAINTIFF MARLEN ALONSO SORIANO: At 11:00 a.m. on April 11, 2007, at 401 30th Street NW, Lot F2, Willmar, MN 56201, plaintiff Soriano came to the premises to pick up her minor nephew. As she approached the house, she observed a number of dark black cars parked outside. She honked for her nephew to come out, but another person, dressed like a civilian, came out and told her to wait. Her nephew subsequently came out to the car and informed her that immigration officials were in the house. She went into the house and saw eight people, dressed like civilians. She observed five people, including her sister-in-law, sitting
26

CASE 0:07-cv-01959-ADM-JSM Document 102 Filed 04/30/08 Page 27 of 38
handcuffed in their pajamas. Her sister-in-law had no undergarments, only a nightgown. Plaintiff Soriano asked an agent to let the people get dressed, but he would not respond. She then told the agent, “I want you to show me the order for deportation and the search warrant for the house.” The agent responded in a harsh voice, “I don’t have to answer your questions.” Another agent put and kept his hands on her to keep her from going further into the house. She told him, “I have a right to know why they are taking my family and the reason they were in the house,” and “These people have a right to a lawyer.” The agent laughed at her and said sarcastically, “If you have money, go contact a lawyer.” Plaintiff Soriano felt intimidated by the agent. He told her to leave. She left the house, but then went back to give her sister-in-law her new phone number. The agents would not let her back into the house. She then returned to her own house, at 928 Second Street SE, Willmar, MN 56201. Shortly after she returned, she heard a knock on her door. She opened the door and the agents who had just been at her sister-in-law’s home were now at her house. One of the agents started laughing and told the others, “It’s Marlen’s house.” Then approximately eight officers walked directly towards her, getting her to back up without touching her, and walked her into a corner of the house. The agents had neither a warrant nor consent to enter or search the premises. Four of the agents went upstairs, two to the basement. The agents searched her husband’s room, in the closet, and under the bed. Throughout the time the agents were in her house, she was not permitted to move from the corner into which they had walked her.
112. PLAINTIFF ALEX JOSUE SORTO: At 6:30 a.m. on April 13, 2007, at 423 Ann Street SE, Willmar, MN 56201, plaintiff Sorto was awakened when he hears someone yelling inside his house. He walked out of his bedroom and saw four officers in his living room and another officer outside. The officers had neither a warrant nor consent to enter or search the
27

CASE 0:07-cv-01959-ADM-JSM Document 102 Filed 04/30/08 Page 28 of 38
premises. Plaintiff Sorto saw his mother, Rosa, on the couch in apparent fear. One of the officers interrogated him and accused him of lying.
113. PLAINTIFF RAUL VELIZ, JR.: At 7:00 a.m. on April 12, 2007, at the Regency East Trailer Park, 1400 Lakeland Drive NE, Willmar, MN 56201, plaintiff Veliz was driving through the trailer park when he observed a white van, two gray Explorers, two gray standard vehicles, and one unmarked Willmar police car. He stopped at his mother’s trailer and then returned to his vehicle, at which time all of the other vehicles began to follow him. After he had driven about half a block, the following agents turned their police lights on and stopped him. Approximately seven or eight agents stepped out of the vehicles. They were armed, wearing guns in their holsters and bullet-proof vests. Plaintiff Veliz stayed in his car and two agents approached either side of the car, while another vehicle pulled in front of him and blocked his car. He was surrounded by six to seven ICE agents. There was also a car blocking the rear of his car. One agent approached his window and asked, “How important is our job to you?” He was not told why he had been stopped. Once he was surrounded, plaintiff Veliz had no ability to leave the scene. He was asked, “Are you legal?” When he responded that he was a citizen, the agents required that he show proof, which he did. The ICE agent questioning him ordered another agent to “Find something on him.” A Willmar undercover police officer approached the ICE agents and informed them that plaintiff Veliz had previously been stopped for having tinted windows on his vehicle. The undercover officer then told him that he was going to give him a ticket for having the tinted windows. The officer later told him that he was going to “Let it slide.” Plaintiff Veliz was detained and questioned for approximately half an hour before he was permitted to leave.
28

CASE 0:07-cv-01959-ADM-JSM Document 102 Filed 04/30/08 Page 29 of 38
114. PLAINTIFF JORGE ZELAYA: At 9:00 a.m. on April 10, 2007, at 1807 13th Street SE, Willmar, MN 56201, plaintiff Zelaya received a call at work from his stepfather telling him that ICE agents and other law enforcement officers had entered his family’s home. They entered without warrants or consent to enter or search. Plaintiff Zelaya left work and returned home, where he found agents searching the house.
115. PLAINTIFF ANDRES MENENDEZ VEGA: At 6:00 a.m. on April 11, 2007, at 315 Robert Street SE, Willmar, MN 56201, eight to ten ICE agents and other law enforcement officers arrived at plaintiff Vega’s home and surrounded it. They began pounding on the door, shouting “Police,” and shining flashlights in the windows. Plaintiff Vega opened the inside door and told the officers to wait while he put his pants on. When he returned, he found that some of the officers had forced open the locked outside door, and entered without consent. They put him against the wall and asked who lived there. About six more agents entered, again without a warrant or consent to enter or search the premises. They then began to search, while plaintiff Vega was restrained. The agents arrested everyone on the premises, including plaintiff Vega, and left the premises, with only plaintiff’s dog left behind. The dog was never seen again. At the Willmar police station, plaintiff Vega, an asylum applicant, asked to call his consulate, but was not given the opportunity for three days. When the officers left plaintiff Vega’s house, they did not secure the house. Everything inside was subsequently stolen and plaintiff’s Vega was also burglarized.
116. PLAINTIFFS FRANCES GARCIA AND HER MINOR CHILD, O.B.: At 6:00 a.m. on April 11, 2007, at 1400 Lakeland Drive NE, Lot 12, Willmar, MN 56201, agents entered plaintiff Garcia’s bedroom, woke her by pointing a flashlight in her face, told her to come to the living room, and then continued to shine a flashlight in her face and questioned her about her
29

CASE 0:07-cv-01959-ADM-JSM Document 102 Filed 04/30/08 Page 30 of 38
husband’s whereabouts. The agents had neither consent nor a warrant to enter or search the premises.
117. PLAINTIFF BARBARA ANAHI MORENO: At 7:00 a.m. on April 10, 2007, at 601 13th Street SW, Willmar, MN 56201, ICE agents and other law enforcement officers entered and searched the premises without permission or a warrant to do so. After searching the premises, the agents realized they were at the wrong location and left.
118. PLAINTIFFS D.R.B. AND J.R.B., MINOR CHILDREN OF DIEGO REYES: At 6:00 a.m. on April 10, 2007, at 401 30th Street NW, #19, Willmar, MN 56201, plaintiffs D.R.B. and J.R.B. were awakened when agents came to their parents’ trailer home. Their parents were awakened by loud knocking on the door of the trailer home. Their father asked who was there and a male voice said, “It’s the police.” When their father opened the door, five agents immediately entered, followed by three more. They were dressed in jeans and wearing jackets that read “ICE-Federal Agent.” Upon entering, the ICE agents said they were looking for “bad guys.” They had neither a warrant nor permission to enter or search the premises. After entry, the agents searched the house and then arrested their mother. At the time, D.R.B. was still nursing.
CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
COUNT I – FOURTH AMENDMENT CONSTITUTIONAL CLAIMS (AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS)
119. Plaintiffs allege and incorporate by reference paragraphs 1-118. 120. On April 10-14, 2007, Defendants ICE agents, with assistance provided by local law enforcement agencies, conducted warrantless and nonconsensual entries, searches, and seizures of Plaintiffs’ homes and persons in violation of the Plaintiffs’ Fourth Amendment Rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution.
30

CASE 0:07-cv-01959-ADM-JSM Document 102 Filed 04/30/08 Page 31 of 38
121. Defendants’ warrantless and nonconsensual entries, searches, and seizures of homes, persons, and property caused damages to Plaintiffs and their family members. Plaintiffs face continued irreparable harm by these constitutional violations.
122. On April 12, 2007, at approximately 7:00 AM, Plaintiff Veliz’s vehicle was unlawfully stopped by ICE agents without probable cause or reasonable, articulable suspicion. Rather, the stop was initiated solely on the basis of Plaintiff Veliz’s race or national origin, all in violation of Plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment rights.
123. As a consequence of Defendants’ warrantless and nonconsensual entries, searches, and seizures, all evidence obtained thereby, including but not limited to statements and information gathered by ICE agents or other law enforcement agents, should be properly suppressed and prohibited from use in any government proceeding against Plaintiffs and/or their family members.
124. In violating Plaintiffs’ Fourth Amendment Rights, Defendants’ actions caused harm to Plaintiffs for which Plaintiffs seek compensatory and punitive damages and injunctive relief.
COUNT II– FIFTH AMENDMENT DUE PROCESS CLAIMS (AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS)
125. Plaintiffs allege and incorporate by reference paragraphs 1-124. 126. Defendants are liable for the conduct of ICE agents who performed warrantless and nonconsensual entries, searches, and seizures during operations in and around the community of Willmar, MN, from April 10-14, 2007. 127. By taking Plaintiffs into custody and questioning them without affording Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights, Defendants, in acting under color of law, have violated and
31

CASE 0:07-cv-01959-ADM-JSM Document 102 Filed 04/30/08 Page 32 of 38
continue to violate Plaintiffs’ Fifth Amendment Rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution.
128. To the extent that Plaintiffs’ detention occurred without basis in law or fact and violates common law principles of due process and the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution, Plaintiffs’ detention creates a deprivation of liberty without due process of law.
129. Such violations of their Fifth Amendment rights caused damages, and Plaintiffs continue to be irreparably harmed by these violations.
130. In violating Plaintiffs’ Fifth Amendment Rights, Defendants’ actions caused harm to Plaintiffs for which Plaintiffs seek compensatory and punitive damages and injunctive relief. COUNT III– FIFTH AMENDMENT PROTECTION AGAINST SELF INCRIMINATION
AND RIGHT TO COUNSEL CLAIMS (AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS)
131. Plaintiffs allege and incorporate by reference paragraphs 1-130. 132. On April 10-14, 2007 Defendants announced both publicly and to Plaintiffs detained by ICE agents that Defendants were searching for known criminal fugitives. 133. Upon entering Plaintiffs’ homes with neither arrest warrants nor consent, ICE agents failed to inform Plaintiffs of their rights to remain silent and to speak with an attorney prior to answering questions in a custodial interrogation, as guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution. 134. Such violations of their Fifth Amendment Rights have caused and continue to cause Plaintiffs irreparable harm. 135. In violating Plaintiffs’ Fifth Amendment Rights, Defendants’ actions caused harm to Plaintiffs for which Plaintiffs seek compensatory and punitive damages and injunctive relief.
32

CASE 0:07-cv-01959-ADM-JSM Document 102 Filed 04/30/08 Page 33 of 38
COUNT IV– SIXTH AMENDMENT RIGHT TO COUNSEL CLAIMS (AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS)
136. Plaintiffs allege and incorporate by reference paragraphs 1-135. 137. By denying Plaintiffs access to counsel or the means to obtain counsel in a prompt and effective manner, Defendants violated Plaintiffs’ Sixth Amendment right to counsel. 138. To the extent questioning of Plaintiffs occurred during custodial interrogations, such interrogations violate the Plaintiffs’ Sixth Amendment Rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution. 139. As a consequence of Defendants’ Sixth Amendment violations all evidence obtained thereby, including but not limited to statements and information gathered by ICE agents or other law enforcement agents, should be suppressed and prohibited from use in any government proceeding against Plaintiffs and/or their family members. 140. In violating Plaintiffs’ Sixth Amendment Rights, Defendants’ actions caused harm to Plaintiffs for which Plaintiffs seek compensatory and punitive damages and injunctive relief.
COUNT V: BIVENS CLAIMS OF PLAINTIFFS AGAINST DEFENDANTS BANIECKE, BERG, GAY MYERS, TORRES, AND JOHN DOE ICE AGENTS ##1-30, AND,
42. U.S.C. §1983 CLAIMS AGAINST DEFENDANTS KULSET, HARTOG, JOHN DOE WILLMAR POLICE OFFICERS ##1-10, JOHN DOE KANDIYOHI DEPUTIES ##1-10, AND, JANE DOE PROBATION OFFICER 141. Plaintiffs above-named incorporate by reference each and every allegation contained in the preceding paragraphs as though fully set forth herein. 142. In committing the acts complained herein, Defendants deprived Plaintiffs of certain constitutionally protected rights, including, but not limited to:
33

CASE 0:07-cv-01959-ADM-JSM Document 102 Filed 04/30/08 Page 34 of 38
a. the right to be free from unlawful entries to their homes without a valid warrant, without voluntary consent manifest by the facts or implied by the circumstances, and absent either probable cause and exigent circumstances as guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution;
b. the right to be free from unlawful searches of their homes and persons without a valid warrant, without voluntary consent manifest by the facts or implied by the circumstances, and absent either probable cause and exigent circumstances as guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution;
c. the right to be free from unlawful seizures of their persons and effects without a valid warrant or voluntary consent and absent probable cause and exigent circumstances as guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution;
d. the right to be free from detentions without individual, reasonable and articulable suspicion of unlawful activity or probable cause as guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution;
e. The right against self-incrimination and the right to counsel as guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution;
f. the right to Equal Protection under the law, as guaranteed by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution; and
g. The right to assistance of counsel as guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution.
143. Because Defendants acted in clear violation of well-settled law with regard to standards for home entry, search, seizure, questioning, and detention of which a minimally
34

CASE 0:07-cv-01959-ADM-JSM Document 102 Filed 04/30/08 Page 35 of 38
competent law enforcement officer would have been aware, they are not entitled to a good faith defense or official immunity defense.
144. The actions of these Defendants were intentional, malicious, and/or reckless and showed a callous disregard of, or indifference to, the rights of the Plaintiffs.
145. The actions of Defendants operating under color of authority provided by the Federal government create a cause of action for damages against them in their individual capacities, pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971).
146. Similarly, the actions of Defendants operating under color of authority of local and state units of government, including but not limited to the Willmar Police Department and the Kandiyohi County Sheriff’s Department, create a cause of action for damages in their individual capacities, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
147. As a direct and proximate result of the unconstitutional actions of Defendants, Plaintiffs suffered harm, in the form of, inter alia, outrage, humiliation, and emotional and physical distress. Plaintiffs are entitled to compensatory and punitive damages in an amount to be determined at trial.
COUNT VI – FIFTH AMENDMENT AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT EQUAL PROTECTION CLAIMS (AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS)
148. Plaintiffs allege and incorporate by reference all preceding paragraphs. 149. The application of law by Federal actors in a discriminatory manner, when based upon arbitrary characteristics such as race and national origin, violates the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution.
35

CASE 0:07-cv-01959-ADM-JSM Document 102 Filed 04/30/08 Page 36 of 38
150. Similarly, state actors engaged in discriminatory application of the law, when based upon arbitrary characteristics such as race and national origin, violate the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States.
151. Defendants’ actions as set forth herein violated Plaintiffs’ right to be free from discriminatory treatment as provided by the Equal Protection Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.
152. These violations of their Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment rights caused Plaintiffs damages, and Plaintiffs continue to be irreparably harmed by these violations.
153. In violating Plaintiffs’ Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment Rights, Defendants caused harm to Plaintiffs for which Plaintiffs seek compensatory and punitive damages and injunctive relief.
COUNT VII – STATUTORY CLAIMS 154. Plaintiffs allege and incorporate by reference all preceding paragraphs. 155. Defendants’ actions as set forth herein violate the Immigration and Nationality Act by denying Plaintiffs’ protections guaranteed by the Act. 156. In violating Plaintiffs’ protections guaranteed by the Immigration and Nationality Act, Defendants’ actions caused damages to Plaintiffs for which Plaintiffs seek relief.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs in all capacities respectfully request that this Court grant the following relief: A. Find, adjudge, and decree that the Defendants and each of them have committed the violations of law alleged herein.
36

CASE 0:07-cv-01959-ADM-JSM Document 102 Filed 04/30/08 Page 37 of 38

B. Permanently enjoin the Defendants and each of them from continuing to engage in each violation of law the Court shall find.
C. Award to each Plaintiff such actual damages as the Court shall find each Plaintiff to have sustained as a proximate result of each violation of law the Court shall find.
D. Award to each Plaintiff punitive or exemplary damages equal to or an appropriate multiple each Plaintiff’s actual damages.
E. Award to Plaintiffs their costs of suit in bringing this action. F. Award to Plaintiffs their reasonable attorneys fees as the prevailing parties in this action. G. Award to Plaintiffs pre- and post-judgment interest as provided by law. H. Grant Plaintiffs all such other and further relief to which they are entitled, as is just and appropriate in these proceedings.

Dated: April 30, 2008

GRAY, PLANT, MOOTY, MOOTY & BENNETT, P.A.
s/Daniel R. Shulman Daniel R. Shulman (MN Bar #100651) 500 IDS Center 80 South Eighth Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: 612-632-3335 Facsimile: 612-632-4335
Gloria Contreras Edin (MN Bar # 0353255) CENTRO LEGAL, INC. 2610 University Avenue West Suite 450 Saint Paul, MN 55114 Telephone: 651-642-1890 Facsimile: 651-642-1875
37

CASE 0:07-cv-01959-ADM-JSM Document 102 Filed 04/30/08 Page 38 of 38 Robert C. Long (MN Bar #0168452) UNGER LAW OFFICE Wells Fargo Center Suite 4700 90 South Seventh Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: 612-961-3805 Attorneys for Plaintiffs
GP:2241897 v4
38

 
 CASE 0:07-cv-01959-ADM-JSM Document 105 Filed 05/16/08 Page 1 of 6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA

Carlos Hilario Arias; Vicente Cisneros Abonce, both individually and as "next friend for his minor children, E.C.A., V.C.A., Jr., and J.C.A.; Dulce Maria Hernandez Arias; Rosa De Jesus Barrajas Arrellano; Graciela Barragan, both individually and as "next friend" for her minor child, J.A.P.; Jose Manuel Ramirez Calix; Alejandro Cartagena; William Ramos Castillo; Fabiola Cisneros; Rosa Nely Duarte; Esau Eduardo Estrada-Menendez; L.G., both individually and as "next friend" for her minor child, A.G.; Francis Garcia, both individually and as "next friend" for her minor child, O.B.; Teresa De Jesus Guerrero; Wenscelao Padilla Guzman; Troy Hastings, both individually and as "next friend" for his minor child, B.H.; Joceline Sarai Lopez, both individually and as "next friend" for her minor child, J.M.; Rosa Sorto Lopez; Ana Danira Maldonado-Hernandez; Iris Janet Maldonado, both individually and as "next friend" for her three minor children, P.M., B.M., and E.M..; Jenny Maldonado, both individually and as "next friend" for her minor child, S.D.M.; Errnencia Mendez; Audrey Mithun; Barbara Anahi Moreno; Javier Moreno; Josefa C. Montalvo, both individually and as "next friend" to her minor grandchild, B.M.; Albis Munoz; Francisco Mufioz, both individually and as "next friend" for one minor child, I.M.; Juan Mufioz; Saomara Mufioz; Manuela De Jesus Pineda; Jaime Reyes, both individually and as "next friend" for his two minor children, D.R.B. and J.R.B.; Marlen Alonso Soriano; Alex Josue Sorto; Andres Mendendez Vega; Raul Veliz, Jr.; Digna Munoz Xiomara; Jorge Zelaya; Samuel Zelaya; and Jose Erasmo Montalvan, the Consul of Honduras, as "next friend" to Honduran Nationals,

Plaintiffs, 1
V.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

1 Although certain Plaintiffs have been dismissed from the case, the caption still reflects

their status as Plaintiffs.

SCANNED

MAY 16 ZOO& . \ \

U.S. DISTRICT COURT'r:JPLS

CASE 0:07-cv-01959-ADM-JSM Document 105 Filed 05/16/08 Page 2 of 6

United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement Division ofthe Department of Homeland Security; United States Department of Homeland Security; Michael Chertoff, Secretary of Department of Homeland Security; Julie L. Myers, Assistant Secretary of Homeland Security for Immigration and Customs Enforcement; John P. Torres, Director of Detention and Removal Operations, Immigration and Customs Enforcement; Scott Baniecke, St. Paul Field Office Director for Detention and Removal Operation; Peter Berg, Supervisory Detention & Deportation Officer, Detention and Removal; John Doe ICE Agents ##1-30; James A. Kulset, Willmar Police Department Chief of Police; John Doe Willmar Police Officers ##1-10; Reed Schmidt, Atwater Police Department Chief of Police; Paul Schmidt, Atwater Police Officer; Dan Hartog, Kandiyohi County Sheriff; John Doe Kandiyhoi County Sheriffs Deputies ##1-10; Jane Doe Kandiyohi County Probation Official,
Defendants.

Civ. No. 07-1959 ADM/JSM

Daniel R. Shulman, Esq., Gray Plant, Mooty, Mooty & Bennett, P.A., Minneapolis, MN, and Gloria Contreras Edin, Esq., Centro Legal, Inc., St. Paul, MN, argued on behalf of Plaintiffs.
Gjon Juncaj, Esq., and Arthur Rizer, Esq., Trial Attorneys, Office of Immigration Litigation, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., argued on behalf ofthe United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement Division ofthe Department of Homeland Security, and on behalf of Michael Chertoff, Julie L. Myers, John P. Torres, Scott Baniecke, Peter Berg, and Allen Gay, to the extent they are sued in their official capacities.
Lonnie F. Bryan, Esq., Assistant United States Attorney, Minneapolis, MN, argued on behalf of Michael Chertoff, Julie L. Myers, John P. Torres, Scott Baniecke, Peter Berg, and Allen Gay, to the extent they are sued in their individual capacities.
Jon K. Iverson, Esq., Iverson Reuvers, LLC, Bloomington, MN, argued on behalf of James A. Kulset, John Doe Willmar Police Officers ##1-1 0, Reed Schmidt, and Paul Schmidt.
Scott T. Anderson, Esq., Ratwik, Roszak & Maloney, P.A., Minneapolis, MN, argued on behalf of Dan Hartog, John Doe Kandiyohi Sheriffs Deputies ##1-10, and Jane Doe Kandiyohi County Probation Official.
2

CASE 0:07-cv-01959-ADM-JSM Document 105 Filed 05/16/08 Page 3 of 6
I. DISCUSSION On April 23, 2008, the undersigned United States District Judge issued an Order [Docket No. 100] addressing: (1) Defendants United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement Division ("ICE") of the Department of Homeland Security ("DHS"), Michael Chertoff ("Chertoff'), Julie L. Myers ("Myers"), John P. Torres ("Torres"), Scott Baniecke ("Baniecke"), Peter Berg ("Berg"), and Allen Gay's ("Gay") (ICE, Chertoff, Myers, Torres, Baniecke, Berg, and Gay in their official capacities are the "United States Defendants") Motion to Dismiss [Docket No. 77] Counts 1-N, VI, and VII of Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint [Docket No. 43]; (2) Defendants Myers, Torres, Baniecke, Berg, and Gay's (Myers, Torres, Baniecke, Berg, and Gay in their individual capacities are the "Bivens Defendants") Motion to Dismiss or For Summary Judgment [Docket No. 68] on Count V of the Amended Complaint; (3) Defendants James A. Kulset ("Kulset"), John Doe Willmar Police Officers ##1-10 (collectively, the "Willmar" Defendants), Reed Schmidt, and Paul Schmidt's (collectively, the "Atwater Defendants") (the Willmar Defendants and the Atwater Defendants collectively are the "City Defendants") Motion for Dismissal or for Summary Judgment [Docket No. 55]; and (4) Defendants Dan Hartog ("Hartog"), John Doe Kandiyohi County Sheriffs Deputies ##1-10, and Jane Doe Kandiyohi County Probation Officer's (collectively, the "Kandiyohi County Defendants") Motion to Dismiss or For Summary Judgment and their alternative Motion for Severance [Docket No. 60]. The April 23, 2008, Order, which is incorporated herein by reference, granted the United States Defendants' Motion to Dismiss; granted in part and denied in part the Bivens Defendants, the City Defendants, and the Kandiyohi County Defendants' Motions to Dismiss; and denied the Bivens Defendants, the City Defendants, and the Kandiyohi
3

CASE 0:07-cv-01959-ADM-JSM Document 105 Filed 05/16/08 Page 4 of 6
County Defendants' Motions for Severance. The Court postponed consideration of the alternative Motions for Summary Judgment so
that Plaintiffs could file an affidavit under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(f) explaining why they "cannot present facts essential to justifY [their] opposition" to the alternative motions for summary judgment. On April25, 2008, Plaintiffs' counsel filed an affidavit explaining that Plaintiffs need discovery to determine the circumstances ofthe alleged unconstitutional conduct that occurred when immigration and local law enforcement agents executed Operation Cross Check in Willmar and Atwater, Minnesota.
The Bivens Defendants, the City Defendants, and the County Defendants argue that affidavits in the record demonstrate the absence of any constitutional violations. They also argue they are entitled to qualified immunity. However, after reviewing Plaintiffs' Rule 56(f) affidavit, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have demonstrated a sufficient need for discovery to enable them to further specifY and support their claims. Much of the relevant evidence is in the exclusive possession of Defendants. Additionally, the Court notes that "[q]ualified immunity is usually raised by a motion for summary judgment after a limited amount of discovery has been conducted to determine whether defendants acted objectively in a reasonable manner and whether a plaintiff's rights were clearly established at the time of the alleged deprivation." Whisman v. Rinehart, 119 F.3d 1303, 1309 (8th Cir. 1997). At this stage of the litigation, the Court denies the Bivens Defendants, the City Defendants, and the Kandiyohi County Defendants' alternative Motions for Summary Judgment.
4

CASE 0:07-cv-01959-ADM-JSM Document 105 Filed 05/16/08 Page 5 of 6 II. CONCLUSION
Based upon the foregoing, and all the files, records, and proceedings herein, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Defendants Myers, Torres, Baniecke, Berg, and Gay's alternative Motion for Summary Judgment [Docket No. 68] is DENIED;
2. Defendants Kulset, John Doe Willmar Police Officers ##1-10, Reed Schmidt, and Paul Schmidt's alternative Motion for Summary Judgment [Docket No. 55] is DENIED; and
3. Defendants Hartog, John Doe Kandiyohi County Sheriffs Deputies ##1-10, and Jane Doe Kandiyohi County Probation Officer's alternative Motion for Summary Judgment [Docket No. 60] is DENIED.
5

CASE 0:07-cv-01959-ADM-JSM Document 105 Filed 05/16/08 Page 6 of 6

Dated: May 16,2008

BY THE COURT:
s/Ann D. Montgomery ANN D. MONTGOMERY U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE

6

 
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA

Carlos Hilario Arias; Vicente Cisneros Abonce, both individually and as “next friend” for his minor children, E.C.A., V.C.A., Jr., and J.C.A.; Dulce Maria Hernandez Arias; Rosa de Jesus Barrajas Arrellano; Graciela Barragan, both individually and as “next friend” for her minor child, J.A.P.; Jose Manuel Ramirez Calix; Alejandro Cartagena; William Ramos Castillo; Fabiola Cisneros; Rosa Nely Duarte; Esau Eduardo Estrada-Menendez; L.G., both individually and as “next friend” for her minor child, A.G.; Francis Garcia, both individually and as “next friend” for her minor child, O.B.; Teresa de Jesus Guerrero; Wenscelao Padilla Guzman; Troy Hastings, both individually and as “next friend” for his minor child, B.H.; Joceline Sarai Lopez, both individually and as “next friend” for her minor child, J.M.; Rosa Sorto Lopez; Ana Danira Maldonado-Hernandez; Iris Janet Maldonado, both individually and as “next friend” for her three minor children, P.M., B.M., and E.M..; Jenny Maldonado, both individually and as “next friend” for her minor child, S.D.M.; Ermencia Mendez; Audrey Mithun; Barbara Anahi Moreno; Javier Moreno; Josefa C. Montalvo, both individually and as “next friend” to her minor grandchild, B.M.; Albis Muñoz; Francisco Muñoz, both individually and as “next friend” for one minor child, I.M.; Juan Muñoz; Saomara Muñoz; Manuela de Jesus Pineda; Jaime Reyes, both individually and as “next friend” for his two minor children, D.R.B. and J.R.B.; Marlen Alonso Soriano; Alex Josue Sorto; Andres Menendez Vega; Raul Veliz, Jr.; Digna Munoz Xiomara; Jorge Zelaya; Samuel Zelaya; and Jose Erasmo Montalvan, the Consúl of Honduras, as “next friend” to Honduran Nationals,

Plaintiffs,
v.
United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement Division of the Department of Homeland Security; United States Department of Homeland Security;

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Civ. No. 07-1959 ADM/JSM

Michael Chertoff, Secretary of Department of Homeland Security; Julie L. Myers, Assistant Secretary of Homeland Security for Immigration and Customs Enforcement; John P. Torres, Director of Detention and Removal Operations, Immigration and Customs Enforcement; Scott Baniecke, St. Paul Field Office Director for Detention and Removal Operation; Peter Berg, Supervisory Detention & Deportation Officer, Detention and Removal; Allen Gay, Deportation Officer, Detention and Removal; John Doe ICE Agents ##1-30; James A. Kulset, Willmar Police Department Chief of Police; John Doe Willmar Police Officers ##1-10; Reed Schmidt, Atwater Police Department Chief of Police; Paul Schmidt, Atwater Police Officer; Dan Hartog, Kandiyohi County Sheriff; John Doe Kandiyohi County Sheriff’s Deputies ##1-10; and Jane Doe Kandiyohi County Probation Official,
Defendants. ______________________________________________________________________________
Daniel R. Shulman, Esq., Gray Plant, Monty, Monty & Bennett, P.A., Minneapolis, MN, and Gloria Contreras Edin, Esq., Centro Legal, Inc., St. Paul, MN, argued on behalf of Plaintiffs.
Gjon Juncaj, Esq., and Arthur Rizer, Trial Attorneys, Office of Immigration Litigation, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., argued on behalf of the United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement Division of the Department of Homeland Security, and on behalf of Michael Chertoff, Julie L. Myers, John P. Torres, Scott Baniecke, Peter Berg, and Allen Gay, to the extent they are sued in their official capacities.
Lonnie F. Bryan, Esq., Assistant United States Attorney, Minneapolis, MN, argued on behalf of Julie L. Myers, John P. Torres, Scott Baniecke, Peter Berg, and Allen Gay, to the extent they are sued in their individual capacities.
Jon K. Iverson, Esq., Iverson Reuvers, LLC, Bloomington, MN, argued on behalf of James A. Kulset, John Doe Willmar Police Officers ##1-10, Reed Schmidt, and Paul Schmidt.
Scott T. Anderson, Esq., Ratwik, Roszak & Maloney, P.A., Minneapolis, MN, argued on behalf of Dan Hartog, John Doe Kandiyohi County Sheriff’s Deputies ##1-10, and Jane Doe Kandiyohi County Probation Official. ______________________________________________________________________________
2

I. INTRODUCTION On January 9, 2008, the undersigned United States District Judge heard oral argument on: (1) Defendants United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement Division (“ICE”) of the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”), Michael Chertoff (“Chertoff”), Julie L. Myers (“Myers”), John P. Torres (“Torres”), Scott Baniecke (“Baniecke”), Peter Berg (“Berg”), and Allen Gay’s (“Gay”) (ICE, Chertoff, Myers, Torres, Baniecke, Berg, and Gay in their official capacities are the “United States Defendants”) Motion to Dismiss [Docket No. 77] Counts I-IV, VI, and VII of Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint [Docket No. 43]; (2) Defendants Myers, Torres, Baniecke, Berg, and Gay’s (Myers, Torres, Baniecke, Berg, and Gay in their individual capacities are the “Bivens Defendants”) Motion to Dismiss or For Summary Judgment [Docket No. 68]; (3) Defendants City of Willmar, James A. Kulset (“Kulset”), John Doe Willmar Police Officers ##1-10 (collectively, the “Willmar Defendants”), City of Atwater, Reed Schmidt, and Paul Schmidt’s (collectively, the “Atwater Defendants”) (the Willmar Defendants and the Atwater Defendants collectively are the “City Defendants”) Motion for Dismissal or for Summary Judgment [Docket No. 55]; and (4) Defendants Dan Hartog (“Hartog”), John Doe Kandiyohi County Sheriff’s Deputies ##1-10, and Jane Doe Kandiyohi County Probation Official’s (collectively, the “Kandiyohi County Defendants”) Motion to Dismiss or For Summary Judgment and their alternative Motion for Severance [Docket No. 60]. For the reasons set forth below, the United States Defendants’ Motion is granted, the Bivens Defendants’ Motion is granted in part and denied in part, the City Defendants’ Motion is granted in part and denied in part, and the Kandiyohi County Defendants’ Motion is granted in part and denied in part.
3

II. BACKGROUND The following facts relevant to Plaintiffs’ claims are taken from the Second Amended Complaint, except where noted otherwise. Plaintiffs’ factual allegations are assumed to be true for the purpose of the Rule 12(b)(6) motions to dismiss filed by Defendants. Hamm v. Groose, 15 F.3d 110, 112 (8th Cir. 1994). The Court will separately address the facts relevant to the alternative motions for summary judgment. A. Parties 1. Plaintiffs Plaintiffs Carlos Hilario Arias (“Carlos Arias”), Vicente Cisneros Abonce (“Abonce”), Dulce Maria Hernandez Arias (“Dulce Arias”), Rosa de Jesus Barrajas Arrellano (“Arrellano”), Jose Manuel Ramirez Calix (“Calix”), Alejandro Cartagena (“Cartagena”), William Ramos Castillo (“Castillo”), Fabiola Cisneros (“Cisneros”), Rosa Nely Duarte (“Duarte”), Esau Eduardo Estrada-Menendez (“Estrada-Menendez”), L.G., Francis Garcia (“Garcia”), Teresa de Jesus Guerrero (“Guerrero”), Wenscelao Padilla Guzman (“Guzman”), Joceline Sarai Lopez (“Lopez”), Rosa Sorto Lopez (“Rosa Lopez”), Ana Danira Maldonado-Hernandez (“MaldonadoHernandez”), Iris Janet Maldonado (“Iris Maldonado”), Jenny Maldonado, Ermencia Mendez (“Mendez”), Barbara Anahi Moreno (“Barbara Moreno”), Javier Moreno (“Javier Moreno”), Josefa C. Montalvo (“Montalvo”), Albis Muñoz, Francisco Muñoz, Juan Muñoz, Saomara Muñoz, Manuela de Jesus Pineda (“Pineda”), Jaime Reyes (“Reyes”), Marlen Alonso Soriano (“Soriano”), Alex Josue Sorto (“Sorto”), Andres Menendez Vega (“Vega”), Raul Veliz, Jr. (“Veliz”), Digna Munoz Xiomara (“Xiomara”), Jorge Zelaya, and Samuel Zelaya are persons of Latin-American origin who during all relevant times were residents of the City of Willmar in
4

Kandiyohi County, Minnesota. Am. Compl. ¶¶ 9-12, 14-23, 25-30, 32-47. Plaintiffs Troy Hastings (“Hastings”) and Audrey Mithun (“Mithun”) are Caucasian. Id.
¶¶ 24, 31. During all relevant times Hastings and Mithun were residents of Willmar. Id. ¶¶ 24, 31.
Abonce is the parent of three minor children, E.C.A., V.C.A., Jr., and J.C.A. Id. ¶ 10. L.G. is the parent of a minor child, A.G. Id. ¶ 20. Francis Garcia is the parent of a minor child, O.B. Id. ¶ 21. Hastings is the parent of a minor child, B.H. Id. ¶ 24. Joceline Sarai Lopez is the parent of a minor child, J.M. Id. ¶ 25. Iris Maldonado is the parent of three minor children, P.M., B.M., and E.M. Id. ¶ 28. Jenny Maldonado is the parent of a minor child, S.D.M. Id. ¶ 29. Montalvo is the grandparent of a minor child, B.M. Id. ¶ 34. Francisco Muñoz is the parent of one minor child, I.M. Id. ¶ 36. Reyes is the parent of two minor children, D.R.B. and J.R.B. Id. ¶ 40. These children were also residents of Willmar. Id. ¶¶ 10, 20-21, 24-25, 28-29, 34, 36, 40.
Plaintiff Graciela Barragan (“Barragan”) is a female of Latin-American origin who is the parent of a minor child, J.A.P. Id. ¶ 13. During all relevant times, Barragan and J.A.P. were residents of the City of Atwater in Kandiyohi County, Minnesota. Id. ¶ 13.
Barragan, L.G., Hastings, Joceline Lopez, Mithun, Javier Moreno, Sorto, and Veliz, are citizens of the United States (collectively, the “Citizen Plaintiffs”). Id. ¶¶ 13, 20, 24-25, 31, 33, 42, 44.
Abonce, Cartagena, Francis Garcia, and Soriano, are lawful permanent residents of the United States. Id. ¶¶ 10, 15, 21, 41. Guzman, Pineda, and Jorge Zelaya, have temporary protected status. Id. ¶¶ 23, 39, 46. Rosa Lopez is lawfully present in the United States (Abonce,
5

Cartagena, Francis Garcia, Soriano, Guzman, Pineda, Jorge Zelaya, and Rosa Lopez collectively are the “Legal-Alien Plaintiffs”). Id. ¶ 26.
Castillo, Albis Muñoz, Francisco Muñoz, Juan Muñoz, Saomara Muñoz, Pineda, and Jorge Zelaya are native Hondurans (collectively, the “Honduran Nationals”). Id. ¶¶ 16, 35-39, 46. Jose Erasmo Montalvan (“Montalvan”) is the Consúl of Honduras for Illinois, Ohio, Indiana, Michigan, Iowa, Wisconsin, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Minnesota. Id. ¶ 48. Montalvan appears as the “next friend” of the Honduran Nationals. Id. ¶ 48.
2. Defendants Chertoff is the Secretary of the United States Department of Homeland Security. Id. ¶ 51. Myers is the Assistant Secretary of Homeland Security. Id. ¶ 52. Torres is the Director of the Office of Detention and Removal for ICE. Id. ¶ 53. Baniecke is the Field Office Director for the St. Paul Office of Detention and Removal. Id. ¶ 54. Baniecke manages ICE’s enforcement activities in Minnesota. Id. ¶ 54. Berg is a Supervisory Detention and Deportation Officer in ICE’s St. Paul Office of Detention and Removal. Id. ¶ 55. Gay is a Deportation Officer in ICE’s St. Paul Office of Detention and Removal. Id. ¶ 56. Kulset is the Chief of Police for the City of Willmar Police Department. Id. ¶ 58. Reed Schmidt is the Chief of Police for the City of Atwater Police Department. Id. ¶ 60. Paul Schmidt is an Atwater police officer. Id. ¶ 61. Hartog is the Sheriff of Kandiyohi County. Id. ¶ 62. B. Operation Cross Check In the spring of 2007, Defendant Jane Doe Kandiyohi County Probation Officer determined that certain persons under her supervision had been born in foreign countries and were here illegally. Id. ¶¶ 2, 65. After the probation officer notified ICE officials in
6

Bloomington, Minnesota, ICE agents began to plan a civil immigration enforcement operation, known as “Operation Cross Check.” Id. ¶ 65. Between April 5 and April 10, 2007, officials from the City of Willmar Police Department, the Kandiyohi County Sheriff’s Department, and the Kandiyohi County Community Corrections Probation Office participated in the strategic planning of Operation Cross Check. Id. ¶ 67.
ICE agents implemented Operation Cross Check from April 10-14, 2007, in Willmar and Atwater, Minnesota. Id. ¶¶ 68-69. ICE agents forcibly entered homes occupied by Plaintiffs, with the exception of Veliz and Montalvan, and conducted warrantless, non-consensual searches. Id. ¶¶ 68-69.1 The agents entered some homes under false pretenses, claiming they were the police. Id. ¶ 70. The ICE agents detained the Latino Plaintiffs in a central room in each home, placed them in handcuffs, and aggressively interrogated them regarding their identification and presence in the United States. Id. ¶ 82. The ICE Agents neither requested identification from nor challenged the presence of Mithun and Hastings, who are Caucasian. Id. ¶¶ 91-92. The ICE agents did not advise the detained Plaintiffs of their right to remain silent and to speak with an attorney. Id. ¶ 83. The ICE agents required Plaintiffs dressed in night clothes to change in front of the agents and they did not take precautions to assure the health of Plaintiffs with medical conditions. Id. ¶¶ 84-88. The agents refused to accommodate Arrellano and Iris Maldonado, who were nursing their children. Id. ¶ 88.
The ICE agents arrested Plaintiffs in their homes and took some Plaintiffs into custody. Id. ¶ 93. The ICE agents coerced some of those Plaintiffs into waiving their rights and
1 Neither Veliz nor Montalvan alleges a forcible entry or a non-consensual search. 2d Am. Compl. ¶¶ 48, 68. However, for convenience the Court will refer to “Plaintiffs” when discussing claims premised on the immigration raids.
7

stipulating to removal from the territorial borders of the United States. Id. ¶ 94. For example, ICE agents deported Cisneros and her minor daughter, E.C., who is an American citizen. Id. ¶ 93.
On April 12, 2007, at approximately 7:00 a.m., ICE agents wearing guns and bulletproof vests, and Willmar police officers, stopped a motor vehicle that Veliz was driving. Id. ¶ 95. After Veliz provided a valid driver’s license and stated that he is a United States citizen, the ICE agents detained and questioned him for approximately 20 minutes. Id. ¶ 95. One ICE agent instructed others to “find something” on Veliz. Id.
Willmar police officers and the Kandiyohi County Sheriff’s Department assisted the ICE agents in executing Operation Cross Check in Willmar, Minnesota. Id. ¶¶ 66, 80. Two members of the Atwater Police Department assisted with the execution of Operation Cross Check in Atwater, Minnesota. Id. ¶ 69.
Plaintiffs initiated this litigation on April 19, 2007. Compl. [Docket No. 1]. In the Second Amended Complaint, filed on July 27, 2007, Plaintiffs allege that: (1) Defendants violated the Fourth Amendment by committing unreasonable searches and seizures; (2) Defendants violated the Fifth Amendment by depriving them of their liberty without due process of law; (3) Defendants violated Plaintiffs’ Fifth Amendment right to counsel and their right against forced self-incrimination; (4) Defendants violated Plaintiffs’ Sixth Amendment right to counsel; (5) Defendants violated Plaintiffs’ right to equal protection under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment; and (6) Defendants violated the Immigration and Nationality Act (“the INA”), 8 U.S.C. § 1101, et seq. Plaintiffs seek damages, declaratory relief, and injunctive relief.
8

III. DISCUSSION A. Relevant Standards of Review
1. Subject Matter Jurisdiction Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure states that a party may move to dismiss a complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. “Because jurisdiction is a threshold question, the court may look outside the pleadings in order to determine whether subject matter jurisdiction exists.” Green Acres Enters., Inc. v. United States, 418 F.3d 852, 856 (8th Cir. 2005). 2. Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that a party may move to dismiss a complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). In considering a motion to dismiss, the pleadings are construed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, and the facts alleged in the complaint must be taken as true. Hamm, 15 F.3d at 112; Ossman v. Diana Corp., 825 F. Supp. 870, 879-80 (D. Minn. 1993). Any ambiguities concerning the sufficiency of the claims must be resolved in favor of the nonmoving party. Ossman, 825 F. Supp. at 880. Under Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, pleadings “shall contain a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” A pleading must contain “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 1974 (2007). 3. Motion for Summary Judgment Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(c) provides that summary judgment shall issue “if the
9

pleadings, the discovery and disclosure materials on file, and any affidavits show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c); see Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986); Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 252 (1986); Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). On a motion for summary judgment, the Court views the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Ludwig v. Anderson, 54 F.3d 465, 470 (8th Cir. 1995). The nonmoving party may not “rest on mere allegations or denials, but must demonstrate on the record the existence of specific facts which create a genuine issue for trial.” Krenik v. County of Le Sueur, 47 F.3d 953, 957 (8th Cir. 1995). B. The Bivens Defendants’ Motions
1. Subject Matter Jurisdiction The Bivens Defendants argue that two provisions of the INA divest this Court of subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ Bivens claims for damages.
a. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(9) The Bivens Defendants argue that 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(9) divests this Court of subject matter jurisdiction over the Bivens claims for damages asserted by twelve Plaintiffs who are parties to removal proceedings. Bivens Defs.’ Reply Mem. [Docket No. 94] at 2 n.2. The twelve Plaintiffs are Carlos Arias, Dulce Arias, Arrellano, Calix, Guerrero, Duarte, EstradaMenendez, Iris Maldonado, Jenny Maldonado, Maldonado-Hernandez, Juan Muñoz, and Samuel Zelaya (collectively, the “Removal-Proceeding Plaintiffs”). Bivens Defs.’ Mem. in Supp. of Mot. to Dismiss [Docket No. 74] at 11 n.10, Exs. 1-4, 7-14. Section 1252(b) sets forth requirements for judicial review of an order of removal.
10

Section 1252(b)(9) states that: Judicial review of all questions of law and fact, including interpretation and application of constitutional and statutory provisions, arising from any action taken or proceeding brought to remove an alien from the United States under this subchapter shall be available only in judicial review of a final order under this section. Except as otherwise provided in this section, no court shall have jurisdiction . . . to review such an order or such questions of law and fact.
Other provisions in § 1252 provide that an alien seeking judicial review of a final order of removal must file a petition for review in the appropriate court of appeals. 8 U.S.C. §1252(a)(2)(D) and (a)(5). The Supreme Court has “described § 1252(b)(9) as a ‘zipper clause.’ Its purpose is to consolidate ‘judicial review’ of immigration proceedings into one action in the court of appeals, but it applies only ‘[w]ith respect to review of an order of removal under subsection (a)(1).’” INS v. St. Cyr, 533 U.S. 289, 313 (2001) (quoting Reno v. American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, 525 U.S. 471, 483 (1999)).
Plaintiffs argue § 1252(b)(9) is inapplicable because their damages claims are collateral to orders of removal, rather than challenges to orders of removal. Plaintiffs rely on the First Circuit’s decision in Aguilar v. U.S. ICE, 510 F.3d 1 (2007). The plaintiffs in Aguilar were undocumented aliens who were detained by ICE agents after an immigration raid on a leather goods factory in Massachusetts. Id. at 5-6. The Aguilar plaintiffs sued ICE agents and other federal actors for violating their constitutional and statutory rights, including the right to counsel and the right of family integrity. Id. at 7. The plaintiffs sought injunctive and declaratory relief. Id. The Aguilar plaintiffs appealed the district court’s order granting ICE’s motion to dismiss. The district court found that it was divested of subject matter jurisdiction by § 1252(b)(9).
On appeal, the First Circuit held that the words “arising from” in § 1252(b)(9) do not encompass “claims that are independent of, or wholly collateral to, the removal process. Among
11

others, claims that cannot effectively be handled through the available administrative process fall within that purview.” Id. at 11. The Aguilar court held that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the plaintiffs’ right-to-counsel claims. Id. at 13-14. However, the court held that § 1252(b)(9) did not bar plaintiffs’ claim that ICE agents interfered with their right of family integrity by removing them from their children before childcare arrangements could be made. Id. at 19. The Aguilar court stated that “[t]he issue of family integrity is completely irrelevant to the mine-run of issues that will be litigated in removal proceedings, and the claims have no bearing on the aliens’ immigration status.” Id. Nevertheless, the Aguilar court ultimately concluded that the plaintiffs’ family integrity claims should be dismissed for failure to state a substantive due process claim. Id. at 21-22.
In the instant case, the Removal-Proceeding Plaintiffs are asserting Bivens claims for damages arising from unreasonable searches and seizures prohibited by the Fourth Amendment, arbitrary detention and right-to-counsel claims under the Fifth Amendment, Sixth Amendment right-to-counsel claims, and selective enforcement in violation of the Equal Protection Clause. The Court finds that § 1252(b)(9) operates to bar these claims because they directly “aris[e] from an[] action taken or proceeding brought to remove an alien from the United States.” Unlike the family integrity claims in Aguilar, Plaintiffs’ claims are common in removal proceedings and could directly impact Plaintiffs’ immigration status. “Ultimately, allowing aliens to ignore the channeling provisions of section 1252(b)(9) and bring [these] claims directly in the district court would result in precisely the type of fragmented litigation that Congress sought to forbid.” Aguilar, 510 F.3d at 13-14. Accordingly, this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to consider the claims of the Removal-Proceeding Plaintiffs.
12

b. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(g)
The Bivens Defendants also contend this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over all
of Plaintiffs’ claims in this lawsuit because 8 U.S.C. § 1252(g) provides:
Except as provided in this section and notwithstanding any other provision of law (statutory or nonstatutory), including section 2241 of title 28, United States Code, or any other habeas corpus provision, and sections 1361 and 1651 of such title, no court shall have jurisdiction to hear any cause or claim by or on behalf of any alien arising from the decision or action by the Attorney General to commence proceedings, adjudicate cases, or execute removal orders against any alien under this chapter.
Plaintiffs respond that § 1252(g)2 is inapplicable because their claims do not arise out of a
decision to commence proceedings, adjudicate cases, or execute removal orders.
The Supreme Court in Reno v. AADC held that the scope of § 1252(g) is narrow:
The provision applies only to three discrete actions that the Attorney General may take: her “decision or action” to “commence proceedings, adjudicate cases, or execute removal orders.” There are of course many other decisions or actions that may be part of the deportation process—such as the decisions to open an investigation, to surveil the suspected violator, to reschedule the deportation hearing, to include various provisions in the final order that is the product of the adjudication, and to refuse reconsideration of that order.
It is implausible that the mention of three discrete events along the road to deportation was a shorthand way of referring to all claims arising from deportation proceedings. . . .
525 U.S. at 484. The AADC Court ultimately held that a “[selective-enforcement] challenge to
the Attorney General’s decision to ‘commence proceedings’ . . . falls squarely within § 1252(g),”
and therefore § 1252(g) operated to bar judicial review of the claim. Id. at 945.
The Bivens Defendants argue that § 1252(g) precludes exercise of jurisdiction over each
2 As another district court has noted, “the proscription of § 1252(g) against judicial review of ‘decision[s] or action[s] by the Attorney General,’ rather than ‘the Attorney General or the Secretary of Homeland Security,’ is somewhat outdated and incongruent.” Kaur v. Chertoff, 489 F. Supp. 2d 52, 61 n.11 (D.D.C. 2007). In analyzing § 1252(g), the Court will refer interchangeably to the Attorney General and the DHS Secretary.
13

Plaintiff’s Bivens claim. Because the Removal-Proceeding Plaintiffs have now been dismissed from the case, the Court will consider only whether § 1252(g) bars jurisdiction over the claims of the Citizen Plaintiffs, the Legal-Alien Plaintiffs, and Cisneros and Castillo, who were both deported through expedited removal proceedings because they are aggravated felons (Cisneros and Castillo are the “Removed Plaintiffs”).3
The Bivens Defendants correctly argue that § 1252(g) does not apply unless: (1) the cause or claim is asserted by or on behalf of any alien; and (2) the cause or claim arises from the Attorney General’s decision or action to commence proceedings, adjudicate cases, or execute removal orders against any alien. Regarding the first requirement, the Bivens Defendants argue that all of Plaintiffs’ Bivens claims are by or on behalf of the Removal-Proceeding Plaintiffs and the Removed Plaintiffs. The Bivens Defendants rely on the fact that the First Amended Complaint lists each Plaintiff’s Bivens claim in a separate count, whereas the Second Amended Complaint contains one count entitled “Bivens Claims of Plaintiffs . . . .” Compare 1st Am. Compl. [Docket No. 11] with 2d Am. Compl. Based on this consolidation of the Bivens claims into one count, the Bivens Defendants argue Plaintiffs have “dismissed the separate Bivens claims brought by each individual Plaintiff.” Bivens Defs.’ Mem. in Supp. of Mot. to Dismiss at 12.
However, although the Second Amended Complaint asserts a single Bivens count, the language of Count V does not support the Bivens Defendants’ argument that Plaintiffs are only
3 The Bivens Defendants assert that Arrellano has already been removed. Bivens Defs.’ Mem. in Supp. of Mot. to Dismiss at 10 n.9. However, they also assert that Arrellano is in pending removal proceedings. Id. at 11 n.10. Until the record is clarified, this Court will assume Arrellano is a party to a pending removal proceeding and has not yet been deported.
14

asserting Bivens claims on behalf of the Removal-Proceeding and Removed Plaintiffs. Paragraph 119 states that “Defendants deprived Plaintiffs of certain constitutionally protected rights.” Paragraph 124 states that “[a]s a direct and proximate result of the unconstitutional actions of Defendants, Plaintiffs suffered harm . . . .” The natural interpretation of this language is that Defendants deprived each Plaintiff of his or her constitutional rights, and, as a result, each Plaintiff suffered harm. Accordingly, the Court reads Count V as asserting each Plaintiff’s individual Bivens claims. The Bivens Defendants do not dispute that this Court has jurisdiction over Bivens claims asserted by the Citizen Plaintiffs and the Legal-Alien Plaintiffs.
The Court finds it has no jurisdiction over the Removed Plaintiffs. The Fifth Circuit in Humphries v. Various Fed. INS Employees, 164 F.3d 936, 943 (5th Cir. 1999) held that the phrase “arising from” in § 1252(g) should be evaluated along a sliding scale:
At one end of that spectrum we find claims clearly not included within the definition of ‘arising from,’ i.e., those claims with no more than a weak, remote, or tenuous connection to a “decision or action by the Attorney General to commence proceedings, adjudicate cases, or execute removal orders.”
. . . At the other end of the spectrum we find claims that clearly are included within the definition of ‘arising from,’ i.e., those claims connected directly and immediately with a “decision or action by the Attorney General to commence proceedings, adjudicate cases, or execute removal orders.” The Humphries court held that § 1252(g) barred a removed plaintiff’s retaliatory exclusion claim because the “decision to place Humphries in exclusion proceedings appears to provide the most direct, immediate, and recognizable cause of Humphries’ injury.” Id. at 945. The court held that § 1252(g) did not bar Humphries’ claim of involuntary servitude because the claim arose from conduct that occurred before the Attorney General commenced removal proceedings, adjudicated
15

Humphries’ case, or executed a removal order. Id. at 944. Section 1252(g) did not bar Humphries’ claim of mistreatment while in detention because “these claims bear no more than a remote relationship to the Attorney General’s decision to ‘execute [Humphries’] removal order.’” Id. (alteration retained).
In the instant case, the Removed Plaintiffs’ claims arise from conduct that was a direct result of the DHS Secretary’s decision to commence removal proceedings against them because of their status as aliens convicted of aggravated felonies. A finding that ICE agents violated the Removed Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights could cast doubt on the legitimacy of their removal proceedings. For example, Plaintiffs have alleged that “Defendants used coercive methods to solicit and obtain waivers of rights and stipulated orders for removal for the purpose of expediting removal of certain Plaintiffs . . . .” 2d Am. Compl. ¶ 94. This claim arises directly from the DHS Secretary’s decision to adjudicate expedited removal proceedings and execute removal orders for the Removed Plaintiffs. The Court finds that § 1252(g) bars review of the Removed Plaintiffs’ claims. If Cisneros and Castillo believed they were coerced into agreeing to expedited removal proceedings, they could have filed a petition for review in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b).
2. Whether a Bivens Remedy Should Be Implied In Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), the Supreme Court held that a cause of action for money damages can be inferred directly from the Fourth Amendment. However, the Supreme Court has identified two situations in which a Bivens remedy is unavailable. The first is “when defendants show that Congress has provided an alternative remedy which it explicitly declared to be a substitute for recovery
16

directly under the Constitution and viewed as equally effective.” Carlson v. Green, 446 U.S. 14, 18-19 (1980) (emphasis in original). The second is where there are “special factors counseling hesitation in the absence of affirmative action by Congress.” Id. at 18 (quoting Bivens, 403 U.S. at 396).
The Bivens Defendants argue that the Removal-Proceeding Plaintiffs and the Removed Plaintiffs do not have a cause of action under Bivens. It is unnecessary to address this argument because the Court has dismissed the claims of these Plaintiffs for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The Bivens Defendants concede that the Citizen Plaintiffs and the Legal-Alien Plaintiffs may bring a cause of action under Bivens on their own behalf, but not on behalf of the Removal-Proceeding Plaintiffs and the Removed Plaintiffs. Bivens Defs.’ Reply Br. at 10. The Court has already concluded that the Citizen Plaintiffs and the Legal-Alien Plaintiffs have asserted their own individual Bivens claims. Therefore, the Court finds that the Citizen and Legal-Alien Plaintiffs may assert a cause of action under Bivens.
3. The Bivens Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim a. Inadequate Notice
The Bivens Defendants contend that the Second Amended Complaint lacks specificity to allow the named federal officers and ICE agents to prepare a defense on the merits. In particular, the Bivens Defendants argue that Plaintiffs should have alleged facts regarding the specific address, date, and time that ICE agents committed actions that violated each Plaintiff’s constitutional rights. Bivens Defs.’ Mem. in Supp. of Mot. to Dismiss at 25-26. This Court agrees. Plaintiffs have alleged that “[f]rom April 10-14, 2007, all named Plaintiffs, with the exception of Raul Veliz, Jr., occupied homes forcibly entered by ICE agents without warrants or
17

consent in and around Willmar, MN.” 2d Am. Compl. ¶ 68. This general allegation does not provide sufficient detail regarding each Plaintiff’s claims. Over fifty Plaintiffs have asserted claims in this action. This is not a class action. Therefore, each Plaintiff must provide sufficient notice so that a Defendant can prepare a defense to that Plaintiff’s allegations. An identification of a five-day time period and an assertion that Defendants violated Plaintiffs’ rights at undisclosed locations in Willmar and Atwater is inadequate to notify each Defendant of the claim(s) he or she must defend against. Plaintiffs are required to amend the Second Amended Complaint by specifying the date, time, location, and clear description of the conduct that forms the factual basis for their claims.
b. Personal Involvement of the Named Federal Officers The Bivens Defendants also argue that the Second Amended Complaint fails to sufficiently allege that they were liable as supervisors for the alleged constitutional violations of the ICE agents. “Unless [a] plaintiff pleads an ‘affirmative link’ between the supervisor’s “personal participation, his exercise of control or direction, or his failure to supervise,’ dismissal is appropriate.” Bellecourt v. United States, 784 F. Supp. 623, 633 (D. Minn. 1992) (quoting McKay v. Hammock, 730 F.2d 1367, 1374 (10th Cir. 1984)). The Second Amended Complaint alleges that Baniecke, Berg, and Gay were personally involved and personally contributed to coordinating and executing the unconstitutional activities that occurred during the Willmar immigration raids. Id. ¶¶ 54-56. These allegations are sufficient to state a claim against them. The allegations against Myers and Torres amount to a description of their positions and duties, and an allegation, “[u]pon information and belief, [that] the techniques applied during the raids were organized and approved by Defendants and other federal government officials and
18

were not the product of ad hoc decisions by field operatives. In short, U.S. [DHS] officials created and approved operations that willfully . . . disregarded Plaintiffs’ Constitutional protections.” 2d Am. Compl. ¶ 5. Under the liberal notice pleading standard Rule 8 of the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure, the Court finds these allegations, coupled with the alleged constitutional violations, adequately state that Myers and Torres created or acquiesced in an unconstitutional policy under which ICE agents forcibly entered homes without probable cause.
c. Plaintiffs’ Sixth Amendment Claims The Bivens Defendants argue that the Citizen and Legal-Alien Plaintiffs’ Sixth Amendment right-to-counsel claims must be dismissed because no criminal charges have been filed against them. See Texas v. Cobb, 532 U.S. 162, 167-68 (2001) (noting that Sixth Amendment right to counsel does not attach until a prosecution is commenced). By failing to respond to this argument, Plaintiffs have conceded dismissal of their Sixth Amendment claims.
D. Plaintiffs’ Miranda Claims The Bivens Defendants also argue for dismissal of any damages claims premised on the failure of ICE agents to provide Miranda warnings to the Citizen and Legal-Alien Plaintiffs. The Eighth Circuit has clearly held that litigants cannot recover money damages “based on a violation of the Miranda safeguards.” Hannon v. Sanner, 441 F.3d 635, 636 (8th Cir. 2006). Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ Miranda claims are dismissed. 4. The Bivens Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment The Bivens Defendants argue they should be granted summary judgment because there is no evidence they were personally involved in the constitutional violations alleged in the Second
19

Amended Complaint.4 In support of summary judgment, the Bivens Defendants rely on their Declarations. Gay Decl. [Docket No. 69]; Berg Decl. [Docket No. 70]; Myers Decl. [Docket No. 71]; Torres Decl. [Docket No. 72]; and Baniecke Decl. [Docket No. 73]. Myers, Torres, and Baniecke state they were not in Willmar when the raids occurred, and they assert they did not have knowledge of a policy that caused the constitutional violations alleged by Plaintiffs. Myers Decl. ¶¶ 2, 5; Torres Decl. ¶¶ 5-6; Baniecke Decl. ¶¶ 3, 5-6. Gay avers he talked to Veliz on April 12, 2007, but did not require Veliz to stop his car. Gay Decl. ¶ 4.
In response, Plaintiffs assert that summary judgment is inappropriate because they have not had an opportunity to conduct discovery. Defendants are correct that Plaintiffs have not complied with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(f). “Under the rule, one who claims a need for additional discovery must file an affidavit stating the reasons they cannot sufficiently establish the existence of a material factual dispute.” Adams v. Resolution Trust Corp., 731 F. Supp. 352, 358 n.10 (D. Minn. 1990). Although Plaintiffs have failed to comply with Rule 56(f), the Court will grant them an opportunity to file a Rule 56(f) affidavit. After reviewing Plaintiffs’ Rule 56(f) affidavit, the Court will decide the Bivens Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment. C. The United States Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Counts I-IV, VI, and VII
1. Claims for Money Damages Plaintiffs seek money damages from ICE, DHS, and Chertoff, Myers, Torres, Baniecke,
4 The Bivens Defendants assert that qualified immunity shields them from discovery. However, they do not make any substantive arguments in support of a qualified immunity defense. Bivens Defs.’ Mem. in Supp. of Mot. to Dismiss at 23-30.
20

Berg, and Gay in their official capacities.5 The United States Defendants argue this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ claims for money damages against the United States because Plaintiffs have failed to exhaust their administrative remedies, as required by the Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”). In response, Plaintiffs argue seeking administrative remedies would be futile.
Although the parties address the FTCA, that statute is inapplicable. The FTCA waives the United States’ sovereign immunity for certain state law torts committed by federal officers:
The district courts . . . shall have exclusive jurisdiction of civil actions on claims against the United States, for money damages . . . for [certain torts committed by] any employee of the Government while acting within the scope of his office or employment, under circumstances where the United States, if a private person, would be liable to the claimant in accordance with the law of the place where the act or omission occurred. 28 U.S.C. § 1346(b)(1). The Supreme Court has “consistently held that § 1346(b)’s reference to the ‘law of the place’ means law of the State—the source of substantive liability under the FTCA.” FDIC v. Meyer, 510 U.S. 471, 478 (1994). Plaintiffs assert claims under the United States Constitution and the INA. Plaintiffs do not assert any state law claims. Therefore, the FTCA cannot apply to waive the United States’ sovereign immunity to Plaintiffs’ claims for money damages. Plaintiffs have not identified any statutory authority for their money damages claims against the United States Defendants. The Supreme Court has not recognized an implied Bivens cause of action against federal agencies for damages arising from employees’ constitutional torts. Id. at 484-86. Therefore this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’
5 Claims against a federal officer in his official capacity are suits against the United States Government. Hutchinson v. United States, 677 F.2d 1322, 1327 (9th Cir. 1982).
21

claims for money damages against the United States Defendants. 2. Claims for Injunctive Relief Plaintiffs seek unspecified injunctive relief against constitutional violations of the type
alleged in the Second Amended Complaint. 2d Am. Compl. at 28. The United States Defendants argue these claims must be dismissed because Plaintiffs lack standing. Article III of the Constitution states that the judicial power of the United States extends only to certain cases or controversies. A plaintiff must allege that he “has sustained or is immediately in danger of sustaining some direct injury.” Massachusetts v. Mellon, 262 U.S. 447, 488 (1923). “The injury or threat of injury must be both real and immediate, not conjectural or hypothetical.” O’Shea v. Littleton, 414 U.S. 488, 494 (1974) (quotations omitted). “Past exposure to illegal conduct does not in itself show a present case or controversy regarding injunctive relief . . . if unaccompanied by any continuing, present adverse effects.” Id. at 495-96.
The leading case establishing the requirement of standing for injunctive relief is the Supreme Court’s decision in City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95 (1983). Lyons alleged that Los Angeles police officers applied a chokehold on him without provocation. Id. at 97-98. Lyons further claimed it was the police department’s policy to regularly apply chokeholds. Id. at 98. Lyons sought damages and injunctive relief against the use of chokeholds except for situations where a person threatens the immediate use of deadly force. Id. at 98. The Supreme Court held that Lyons lacked standing to pursue injunctive relief because his allegations did “nothing to establish a real and immediate threat that he would again be stopped for a traffic violation, or for any other offense, by an officer or officers who would illegally choke him into unconsciousness without any provocation or resistance on his part.” Id. at 105. The Lyons
22

Court stated that even if Los Angeles had a policy that authorized officers to use chokeholds without provocation, “Lyons would have to credibly allege that he faced a realistic threat from the future application of the City’s policy.” Id. at 106 n.7.6
In the instant case, Plaintiffs seek injunctive relief to prevent ICE agents from violating their constitutional rights during future immigration raids. At least one district court has rejected almost identical claims for lack of standing. In Mancha v. ICE, No. 1:06-CV-2650, 2007 WL 4287766, at *1 (N.D. Ga. Dec. 5, 2007), the plaintiffs “allege[d] that ICE agents entered their homes without warrants and detained them without probable cause because of their ethnicity.” The Mancha court held that the plaintiffs lacked standing for injunctive relief because “the Plaintiffs have not shown a real and immediate threat of future harm. At best, they have alleged facts showing a past injury. The allegations with respect to a policy of discriminating against Latinos do not allege a future injury that is imminent and concrete enough for judicial consideration.” Id. at *2.
Like the fact pattern of Mancha, Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint alleges a past injury. Plaintiffs have not asserted any facts that show a likelihood that Plaintiffs will again be targeted by ICE agents who will violate Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights. Instead, Plaintiffs argue that their likelihood of future injury is satisfied by their allegations that the immigration raids in Willmar are part of an ongoing national initiative by ICE, pursuant to a policy developed at “the top levels of the current Administration.” Pls.’ Opp’n to U.S. Defs.’ Mot. to Dismiss [Docket No. 85] at 14. However, assuming arguendo that future immigration raids will be similar to
6 Most of the authorities relied on by Plaintiffs to support injunctive relief were decided before Lyons.
23

Operation Cross Check, Plaintiffs still have not alleged any facts demonstrating a realistic threat that they will again be the target of the enforcement effort. The Court finds that the alleged threat of future harm to these Plaintiffs is too speculative and remote for Plaintiffs to assert claims for injunctive relief. D. The City Defendants’ Motions
1. Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs have asserted claims against the City Defendants under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which provides that: Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State . . . subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured . . . . “To state a claim under section 1983, a plaintiff must set forth facts that allege an action performed under color of state law that resulted in a constitutional injury.” Springdale Educ. Ass’n v. Springdale Sch. Dist., 133 F.3d 649, 651 (8th Cir. 1998). Under the Supreme Court’s decision in Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658, 690-92 (1978), a governmental entity cannot be held liable under § 1983 merely because its employees committed unconstitutional acts. Instead, a governmental entity is liable under § 1983 only if its “custom or policy caused the deprivation of the right protected by the constitution or federal law.” Angarita v. St. Louis County, 981 F.2d 1537, 1546 (8th Cir. 1992). Therefore, “a plaintiff seeking to impose such liability is required to identify either an official municipal policy or a widespread custom or practice that caused the plaintiff’s injury.” Springdale Educ. Ass’n, 133 F.3d at 651.
24

a. Individual-Capacity Claims I. Failure to Serve the John Doe Willmar Police Officers
The City Defendants argue that the unnamed John Doe Willmar Police Officers must be dismissed because they have not been properly served in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m). City Defs.’ Mem. in Supp. of Mot. to Dismiss [Docket No. 57] at 22-23. However, dismissal of the John Doe Willmar Police Officers “is proper only when it appears that the true identity of the defendant cannot be learned through discovery or the court’s intervention.” Munz v. Parr, 758 F.2d 1254, 1257 (8th Cir. 1985). Because the parties have not conducted any discovery, the Court denies the City Defendants’ motion for dismissal of the John Doe Willmar Police Officers on the basis of lack of service.
ii. Claims Against the City Defendants The City Defendants contend that Plaintiffs’ individual-capacity § 1983 claims against them must be dismissed. As a threshold matter, the Court must consider whether § 1983 even applies in this case. The City Defendants assert they were assisting ICE agents in enforcing the immigration laws. City Defs.’ Mem. in Supp. of Mot. to Dismiss at 16-18. Congress has addressed this situation in 8 U.S.C. § 1357, which “specifically empower[s] the Attorney General . . . to contract with state and local agencies for assistance in enforcing immigration laws and incarcerating illegal aliens.” United States v. Vasquez-Alvarez, 176 F.3d 1294, 1300 (10th Cir. 1999). A formal agreement is unnecessary for a state or local officer “to communicate with the Attorney General regarding the immigration status of any individual . . . or otherwise to cooperate with the Attorney General in the identification, apprehension, detention, or removal of aliens not lawfully present in the United States.” 8 U.S.C. § 1357(g)(10). “In performing a
25

function under this subsection, an officer or employee of a State or political subdivision of a State shall be subject to the direction and supervision of the Attorney General.” 8 U.S.C. § 1357(g)(3). Significantly, Congress has provided that “[a]n officer or employee of a State or political subdivision of a State acting under color of authority under this subsection, or any agreement entered into under this subsection, shall be considered to be acting under color of Federal authority for purposes of determining the liability, and immunity from suit, of the officer or employee in a civil action brought under Federal or State law.” 8 U.S.C. § 1357(g)(8).
The Second Amended Complaint alleges that the City Defendants assisted in the planning and execution of Operation Cross Check, which is a DHS operation implemented by ICE. Although the City Defendants apparently assume that § 1983 applies, it is difficult to discern how their participation in Operation Cross Check occurred under color of state law. Instead, it appears from Plaintiffs’ allegations that the City Defendants acted under color of federal authority pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1357(g)(8). If so, then Plaintiffs’ § 1983 claims should be construed as Bivens claims. See Buonocore v. Harris, 65 F.3d 347, 359 (4th Cir. 1995) (quoting district court’s statement that “because [deputy sheriff] was acting pursuant to federal authority, he took on the rights and obligations of a federal officer”); Ellis v. Blum, 643 F.2d 68, 83 n.17 (2d Cir. 1981) (“The mere fact that the federal agents happen to be state officials does not, without more, convert every intentional deviation from the federal path into an action under color of state law.”); Askew v. Bloemker, 548 F.2d 673, 677 (7th Cir. 1976) (stating that “the mere assertion that one is a state officer does not necessarily mean that one is acting under color of state law”). Although the parties have not briefed the issue, Congress’s statutory directive in § 1357(g)(8) is clear. Accordingly, assuming Plaintiffs’ allegations are true, the Court finds that
26

the City Defendants were acting under color of federal authority. The City Defendants argue that the allegations against Kulset, the John Doe Willmar
Police Officers, Reed Schmidt, and Paul Schmidt do not adequately state a claim for relief. The Second Amended Complaint alleges that Kulset and Reed Schmidt “[were] personally involved in and/or personally ordered or authorized members of [their] department[s] to cooperate with ICE agents during the unlawful activities alleged herein.” 2d Am. Compl. ¶¶ 58, 60. Paul Schmidt is alleged to have “participated directly in ICE raid activities within the City of Atwater.” 2d Am. Compl. ¶ 61. Plaintiffs allege the John Doe Willmar Police Officers “were present at the scene and assisted in the immigration activities conducted by ICE agents operating within . . . Willmar.” Id. ¶ 59.
In short, Plaintiffs have alleged that ICE agents violated the Constitution by, inter alia, forcibly entering homes without warrants and without consent, and that the City Defendants knowingly assisted ICE agents in these violations. Although these allegations are cursory, the Court finds they satisfy the liberal notice pleading standard of Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Court rejects the City Defendants’ argument that the potential availability of a qualified immunity defense imposes a heightened pleading requirement on Plaintiffs. See Doe v. Cassel, 403 F.3d 986, 989 (8th Cir. 2005) (concluding that heightened pleading standard does not apply in analogous § 1983 suits because “[t]he only permissible heightened pleading requirements in civil suits are those contained in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or those in federal statutes enacted by Congress”). As the Eighth Circuit has stated, “qualified immunity is an affirmative defense, which will be upheld on a 12(b)(6) motion only when the immunity is established on the face of the complaint.” Whisman v. Rinehart, 119 F.3d 1303, 1309 (8th Cir.
27

1997). Nothing on the face of Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint demonstrates that the City Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity.7
However, to the extent Plaintiffs are asserting that Kulset and Reed Schmidt are liable as supervisors, the Court finds Plaintiffs’ allegations fail to state a claim. Under 8 U.S.C. § 1357(g)(3), any Willmar or Atwater officers who assisted ICE in executing Operation Cross Check did so under “the direction and supervision of the Attorney General.” Because officers of the federal government supervised the Willmar and Atwater police officers during Operation Cross Check, Kulset and Reed Schmidt cannot be liable as supervisors.
Finally, the City Defendants argue Plaintiffs have not sufficiently stated a conspiracy claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 or 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3). As discussed above, 42 U.S.C. § 1983 does not apply because the City Defendants were acting under color of federal authority pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1357. Therefore, the Court will analyze whether Plaintiffs have sufficiently pleaded a civil conspiracy claim under § 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3). To plead a conspiracy under § 1985(3), Plaintiffs must allege and prove: “(1) the existence of a civil conspiracy; (2) that the purpose of the conspiracy was to deprive [them] either directly or indirectly of [their] civil rights; (3) that a conspirator did an act in furtherance of the object of the conspiracy; and (4) damages, shown by demonstrating . . . the deprivation of a civil right.” Mettler v. Whitledge, 165 F.3d 1197, 1206 (8th Cir. 1999). “[A]llegations of conspiracy must be pleaded with sufficient specificity and factual support to suggest a meeting of the minds directed toward an
7 The Court notes that “[q]ualified immunity is usually raised by a motion for summary judgment after a limited amount of discovery has been conducted to determine whether defendants acted objectively in a reasonable manner and whether a plaintiff’s rights were clearly established at the time of the alleged deprivation.” Whisman, 119 F.3d at 1309.
28

unconstitutional action.” Nelson v. City of McGehee, 876 F.2d 56, 59 (8th Cir. 1989) (quotation omitted). For § 1985(3) to apply, “there must be some racial, or perhaps otherwise class-based, invidiously discriminatory animus behind the conspirators’ action.” Griffin v. Breckenridge, 403 U.S. 88, 102 (1971).
Construed liberally, the Second Amended Complaint alleges that the City Defendants, the County Defendants, and ICE agents conspired to deprive Plaintiffs of their constitutional rights to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures, and that the conspirators were motivated by the fact that almost all Plaintiffs are Latinos. The conspirators committed overt acts when they executed the allegedly unreasonable searches and seizures. The Court finds these allegations are sufficient to defeat the City Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss.
b. Official-Capacity Claims Although the City Defendants do not address the full implication of 8 U.S.C. § 1357(g), the Court finds that the statute bars Plaintiffs’ Monell claims against the City Defendants in their official capacities. Plaintiffs seek to hold the City Defendants liable in their official capacities for assisting ICE in implementing Operation Cross Check, which is a federal immigration initiative executed pursuant to federal policy. The City Defendants’ assistance falls squarely within the ambit of § 1357(g). Accordingly, the City Defendants are considered to be acting under color of federal authority and under the supervision of the Attorney General and the DHS Secretary.8 Therefore, Plaintiffs cannot assert a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Monell claim because the City Defendants were not acting under color of state law, and they were not the final policymakers
8 As with 8 U.S.C. § 1252(g), § 1357’s reference to “the Attorney General” rather than to the “Attorney General or the DHS Secretary” is outdated.
29

regarding Operation Cross Check. Alternatively, even if § 1357(g) does not apply, Plaintiffs have still failed to allege a city policy that was the moving force behind the alleged constitutional violations. Plaintiffs’ claims arise from the federal policies embodied in the planning and implementation of Operation Cross Check, and not from any city or county policies. 2d Am. Compl. ¶ 5. The Court grants the City Defendants’ motion to dismiss the official-capacity Bivens claims against them.
2. Motion for Summary Judgment The City Defendants argue they should be granted summary judgment based on the affidavits Plaintiffs attached to the First Amended Complaint and based on declarations ICE officials Berg and Gay filed in opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order. Plaintiffs’ affidavits generally describe ICE agents’ warrantless, non-consensual entries into Plaintiffs’ homes. First Am. Compl. Exs. 1-19. The affidavits do not reference local law enforcement officers. Berg and Gay submitted declarations stating that ICE agents executed the “knock-and-talk” method during Operation Cross Check. Berg states he received no reports of “anything other than consensual entries and consensual searches into residences.” Berg Decl. [Docket No. 19] ¶ 8. Gay states that he is not aware of any non-consensual entries. Gay Decl. [Docket No. 21] ¶ 8. He also avers that ICE informed local agencies that “this was an ICE operation, and that the local agencies were only being relied upon for assistance.” Id. ¶ 6. Gay avers that ICE planned to do knock-and-talks only on residences where deportable aliens lived. Id. ¶ 5. The City Defendants argue Plaintiffs’ affidavits and Berg and Gay’s declarations demonstrate the limited involvement of the City Defendants in Operation Cross Check.
30

Plaintiffs again aver that they need discovery to develop the evidence in support of their claims. The City Defendants have not argued that Plaintiffs should have filed a Rule 56(f) affidavit. Nevertheless, the Court will order Plaintiffs to file a Rule 56(f) affidavit addressing the proposed discovery and how it will enable them to demonstrate a genuine issue of material fact. The Court will rule on the City Defendants’ summary judgment motion at that time. E. The Kandiyohi County Defendants’ Motions
1. Motion to Dismiss The Kandiyohi County Defendants contend that Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint does not allege any specific facts regarding the unconstitutional conduct of the Kandiyohi County Defendants. Plaintiffs allege that: (1) Kandiyohi County Sheriff Hartog “was personally involved in and/or personally ordered or authorized members of his department to cooperate and participate with ICE agents during the unlawful activities alleged herein;” (2) John Doe Kandiyohi County Sheriff’s Department Deputies “assisted ICE agents in coordinating raid activities and/or were present at the scene of the unlawful conduct by ICE agents operating within the County of Kandiyohi”; and (3) Jane Doe Kandiyohi County Probation Officer “compiled immigration information on the basis of Plaintiffs’ race and national origin and presented it to ICE.” 2d Am. Compl. ¶¶ 62-64. For the reasons stated above regarding the City Defendants, the Court finds these allegations adequately state Bivens claims that each individual Kandiyohi County Defendant participated in conduct that led to violations of Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights, such as the right against unreasonable searches and seizures. Similarly, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have adequately stated 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3) conspiracy claims against the Kandiyohi County
31

Defendants. However, Plaintiffs have failed to state supervisory-liability claims against Hartog because under 8 U.S.C. § 1357(g)(3), the Kandiyohi County Defendants were acting under the supervision of ICE agents. Plaintiffs’ official-capacity claims against the County Defendants are dismissed because the County Defendants’ activities in support of Operation Cross Check were under color of federal authority pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1357(g)(8).
Finally, the Court will grant Plaintiffs leave to properly serve process on Kandiyohi County regarding Plaintiffs’ claims against the John Doe and Jane Doe Kandiyohi County Defendants. See Kraemer v. St. Croix Mgmt. Co., Civ. No. 02-284, 2002 WL 31718426, at *2 (D. Minn. Nov. 21, 2002) (discussing service of process on John Doe defendants).
2. Motion for Summary Judgment The Kandiyohi County Defendants argue they should be granted summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity. The Kandiyohi County Defendants have submitted the affidavits of Sheriff Hartog [Docket No. 63], Chief Deputy Randy Kveene (“Kveene”) [Docket No. 64], Officer Ross Ardoff (“Ardoff”) [Docket No. 66], and Probation Officer Serena Robak (“Robak”) [Docket No. 65]. Hartog asserts that before April 5, 2007, an ICE agent contacted him to set up a meeting regarding an upcoming operation (Operation Cross Check). Hartog Aff. ¶ 2. Hartog told Kveene to meet with the ICE agents and provide assistance. Id. ¶ 3. Hartog avers the only other communication he received regarding Operation Cross Check was when an ICE agent called to thank Hartog for his department’s assistance. Id. ¶ 4. Kveene asserts he attended a meeting with ICE agents on April 5, 2007. Kveene Aff. ¶¶ 2-3. Kveene recalls that Gay, a second ICE agent, and two members of the Willmar Police Department were present. Id. The ICE agents stated they needed help locating the addresses on
32

their list of targets, and they needed a place to interview and prepare the transport of anyone detained during Operation Cross Check. Id. ¶ 4. Kveene authorized two officers to assist ICE agents with navigation, and he allowed ICE agents to use the Kandiyohi County jail to interview detainees. Id. ¶¶ 4, 6. Kveene avers ICE agents did not inform him of the techniques that would be used during Operation Cross Check, nor did he have any input into the list of targets. Id. ¶ 5.
Ardoff states he attended a meeting on April 10, 2007, that included twelve ICE agents, members of the Willmar Police Department, and others. Ardoff Aff. ¶ 3. During the four days of Operation Cross Check, Ardoff assisted the ICE agents in locating the targeted addresses, and he maintained the perimeter at each address while ICE agents performed knock-and-talks. Id. Aff. ¶¶ 4-5. Ardoff states he followed ICE agents’ instructions. Id. ¶¶ 4-5. Ardoff states he did not observe any unconstitutional behavior by the ICE agents. Id. ¶ 5. Finally, Ardoff avers he was not “involve[d] at any time with any initial entry into any premises whatsoever.” Id.
Robak states that in March 2007, Gay contacted her and provided her with a list of deportable aliens with criminal convictions that ICE had compiled for Operation Cross Check. Robak Aff. ¶¶ 2-3. Gay asked Robak to determine if the addresses on the list were current. Id. ¶ 3. Robak reviewed the list and notified Gay that certain addresses were no longer current. Id. ¶ 4. Robak avers she did not provide any immigration information to ICE agents. Id. ¶¶ 4-5.
Based on these affidavits, the County Defendants argue they are entitled to summary judgment because there is no evidence they violated any Plaintiff’s constitutional rights, and they are entitled to qualified immunity because they were entitled to reasonably rely on the instructions of the ICE agents. In response, Plaintiffs assert they need discovery “to ascertain the exact parameters of Kandiyohi County defendants’ involvement” in the unconstitutional
33

conduct. Pls.’ Opp’n to County Defs.’ Mot. to Dismiss [Docket No. 87] at 31. Again, Plaintiffs have failed to comply with Rule 56(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Court will grant Plaintiffs leave to file a Rule 56(f) affidavit explaining how discovery will enable them to demonstrate a genuine issue of material fact. After reviewing Plaintiffs’ Rule 56(f) affidavit, the Court will rule on the County Defendants’ Motion for summary judgment. F. Severance
The Bivens Defendants, the City Defendants, and the County Defendants have requested that Plaintiffs’ claims be severed. Rule 20(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allows plaintiffs to join together in one action “if they assert any right to relief jointly, severally, or in the alternative with respect to or arising out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences; and any question of law or fact common to all plaintiffs will arise in the action.” The standard for joinder of defendants is similar. Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a)(2). Rule 21 provides that “[o]n motion or on its own, the court may at any time, on just terms, add or drop a party. The Court may also sever any claim against a party.”
At this early stage of the litigation, the Court denies without prejudice the requests to sever. The issue of severance will be revisited when it is determined which claims will survive for trial.
34

IV. CONCLUSION Based upon the foregoing, and all the files, records, and proceedings herein, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. Defendants United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement Division of the
Department of Homeland Security, Michael Chertoff (“Chertoff”), Julie L. Myers (“Myers”), John P. Torres (“Torres”), Scott Baniecke (“Baniecke”), Peter Berg (“Berg”), and Allen Gay’s (“Gay”) Motion to Dismiss [Docket No. 77] Counts IIV, VI, and VII of Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint [Docket No. 43] is GRANTED; 2. The claims against the following Defendants are DISMISSED: the Department of Homeland Security, and Chertoff, Myers, Torres, Baniecke, Berg, and Gay in their official capacities; 3. Defendants Myers, Torres, Baniecke, Berg, and Gay’s Motion to Dismiss [Docket No. 68] Count V of the Amended Complaint is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART; 4. The claims of the following Plaintiffs are DISMISSED: Carlos Hilario Arias, Dulce Maria Hernandez Arias, Rose de Jesus Barrajas Arrellano, Jose Manuel Calix, William Ramos Castillo, Fabiola Cisneros, Teresa de Jesus Guerrero, Rosa Nely Duarte, Esau Eduardo Estrada-Menendez, Iris Janet Maldonado, Jenny Maldonado, Ana Danira Maldonado-Hernandez, Juan Muñoz, and Samuel Zelaya; 5. Defendants City of Willmar, James A. Kulset (“Kulset”), John Doe Willmar
35

Police Officers ##1-10 (collectively, the “Willmar Defendants”), City of Atwater, Reed Schmidt, and Paul Schmidt’s (collectively, the “Atwater Defendants”) (the Willmar Defendants and the Atwater Defendants collectively are the “City Defendants”) Motion for Dismissal [Docket No. 55] is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART; 6. Plaintiffs’ claims arising out of Defendants’ failure to provide Miranda warnings and Defendants’ alleged violations of the Sixth Amendment’s right to counsel are DISMISSED; 7. The claims against the following Defendants are DISMISSED: the City of Willmar, the City of Atwater, and Kulset, Reed Schmidt, and Paul Schmidt in their official capacities; 8. Defendants Dan Hartog (“Hartog”), John Doe Kandiyohi County Sheriff’s Deputies ##1-10, and Jane Doe Kandiyohi County Probation Officer’s (collectively, the “Kandiyohi County Defendants”) Motion to Dismiss [Docket No. 60] is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART; 9. The claims against Hartog in his official capacity are DISMISSED; 10. The Bivens Defendants, the City Defendants, and the Kandiyohi County Defendants’ alternative motions to sever are DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE; 11. By April 30, 2008, Plaintiffs’ counsel must file affidavits addressing why Plaintiffs cannot present facts in opposition to the Bivens Defendants, the City Defendants, and the Kandiyohi County Defendants’ alternative motions for
36

summary judgment. The Court does not anticipate that additional briefing of the summary judgment motions will be necessary. If the affidavits raise issues requiring briefing, the Court will notify counsel.

BY THE COURT:

Dated: April 23, 2008.

s/Ann D. Montgomery ANN D. MONTGOMERY U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE

37

 
 CASE 0:07-cv-01959-ADM-JSM Document 233 Filed 11/24/09 Page 1 of 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA Civil No. 07-1959 ADM/JSM

CARLOS ARIAS, et al.

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

v.

)

)

UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION AND )

CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT DIVISION OF )

THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND

)

SECURITY, et al,

)

)

Defendants.

)

ORDER OF REENTRY

Based on the Order of Remand, issued by the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals issued on August 11, 2009 and appearing at Docket # 219, and the time for filing a Petition for Certiorari having concluded, for good cause shown, it is hereby,
ORDERED that the Memorandum and Opinion issued July 17, 2009, and appearing at Docket # 210 is and shall be entered as if fully set forth herein on this date.
Dated this 24th day of November 2009.

s/Ann D. Montgomery
______________________________ The Honorable Ann D. Montgomery United States District Judge

 
 Arias v. United States Immigration and Customs..., Not Reported in Fed....

2008 WL 11349709 Only the Westlaw citation is currently available.
United States District Court, D. Minnesota. Carlos Hilario ARIAS; Vicente Cisneros Abonce, both individually and as “next friend for his minor
children, E.C.A., V.C.A., Jr., and J.C.A.; Dulce Maria Hernandez Arias; Rosa De Jesus Barrajas Arrellano; Graciela Barragan, both individually and as “next friend” for her minor child, J.A.P.; Jose Manuel Ramirez Calix; Alejandro Cartagena; William Ramos Castillo; Fabiola Cisneros; Rosa Nely Duarte; Esau Eduardo Estrada-Menendez; L.G., both individually and as “next friend” for her
minor child, A.G.; Francis Garcia, both individually and as “next friend” for her minor child, O.B.; Teresa De Jesus Guerrero; Wenscelao Padilla Guzman; Troy Hastings, both individually and as “next friend” for his minor child, B.H.; Joceline Sarai Lopez, both individually and as “next friend” for her minor child, J.M.; Rosa Sorto Lopez; Ana Danira Maldonado-Hernandez; Iris Janet Maldonado, both individually and as “next friend” for her three minor children, P.M., B.M., and E.M.; Jenny Maldonado, both individually and as “next friend” for her minor child, S.D.M.; Ermencia Mendez; Audrey Mithun; Barbara Anahi Moreno; Javier Moreno; Josefa C. Montalvo, both individually and as “next friend” to her minor grandchild, B.M.; Albis Muñoz; Francisco Muñoz, both individually and as “next friend” for one minor child, I.M.; Juan Muñoz; Saomara Muñoz; Manuela De Jesus Pineda; Jaime Reyes, both individually and as “next friend” for his two minor
children, D.R.B. and J.R.B.; Marlen Alonso Soriano; Alex Josue Sorto; Andres Mendendez Vega; Raul Veliz, Jr.; Digna Munoz Xiomara; Jorge Zelaya; Samuel Zelaya; and Jose Erasmo Montalvan, the Consul of Honduras, as “next
friend” to Honduran Nationals, Plaintiffs,1 v.
UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT DIVISION OF the DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY; United States Department of Homeland Security;
Michael Chertoff, Secretary of Department of Homeland Security; Julie L. Myers, Assistant Secretary of Homeland Security for Immigration and Customs Enforcement; John P. Torres, Director of Detention and Removal Operations, Immigration and Customs Enforcement; Scott
1

Baniecke, St. Paul Field Office Director for Detention and Removal Operation; Peter Berg, Supervisory Detention & Deportation Officer, Detention and Removal; Allen Gay, Deportation Officer, Detention and Removal; John Doe ICE Agents ##1-30; James A. Kulset, Willmar Police Department Chief of Police; John Doe Willmar Police Officers ##1-10; Reed Schmidt, Atwater Police Department Chief of Police; Paul Schmidt, Atwater Police Officer; Dan Hartog, Kandiyohi
County Sheriff; John Doe Kandiyhoi County Sheriff’s Deputies ##1-10; Jane Doe Kandiyohi
County Probation Official, Defendants.
Civ. No. 07-1959 ADM/JSM |
Signed 06/19/2008
Attorneys and Law Firms
Daniel R. Shulman, Esq., Gray Plant, Mooty, Mooty & Bennett, P.A., Minneapolis, MN, and Gloria Contreras Edin, Esq., Centro Legal, Inc., St. Paul, MN, argued on behalf of Plaintiffs.
Gjon Juncaj, Esq., and Arthur Rizer, Esq., Trial Attorneys, Office of Immigration Litigation, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., argued on behalf of the United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement Division of the Department of Homeland Security, and on behalf of Michael Chertoff, Julie L. Myers, John P. Torres, Scott Baniecke, Peter Berg, and Allen Gay, to the extent they are sued in their official capacities.
Lonnie F. Bryan, Esq., Assistant United States Attorney, Minneapolis, MN, argued on behalf of Michael Chertoff, Julie L. Myers, John P. Torres, Scott Baniecke, Peter Berg, and Allen Gay, to the extent they are sued in their individual capacities.
Jon K. Iverson, Esq., Iverson Reuvers, LLC, Bloomington, MN, argued on behalf of James A. Kulset, John Doe Willmar Police Officers ##1-10, Reed Schmidt, and Paul Schmidt.
Scott T. Anderson, Esq., Ratwik, Roszak & Maloney, P.A., Minneapolis, MN, argued on behalf of Dan Hartog, John Doe Kandiyohi Sheriff’s Deputies ##1-10, and Jane Doe Kandiyohi County Probation Official.

Arias v. United States Immigration and Customs..., Not Reported in Fed....

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
ANN D. MONTGOMERY, U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE
I. INTRODUCTION *1 The matters before the Court for consideration are Plaintiffs’ Request for Rule 54(b) Certification [Docket No. 104] and Defendants Julie Myers (“Myers”), John Torres (“Torres”), and Scott Baniecke’s (“Baniecke”) May 30, 2008, letter [Docket No. 111] request to file a motion for reconsideration of this Court’s May 16, 2008, Order [Docket No. 105] denying their motion for summary judgment. For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiffs’ certification request is denied, and Myers, Torres, and Baniecke’s reconsideration request is denied. The Court stays Plaintiffs’ claims against Myers, Torres, and Baniecke.
II. DISCUSSION
The facts of this case are set forth in the Court’s Orders of April 23, 2008 [Docket No. 100], and May 16, 2008. Therefore, only a brief description is provided here. From April 10 to April 14, 2007, agents of the Immigrations and Customs Enforcement Division of the Department of Homeland Security (“ICE”) and local law enforcement officers conducted a civil immigration enforcement operation—Operation Cross Check—in Willmar and Atwater, Minnesota. Plaintiffs allege that ICE and local law enforcement agents targeted them because of their race, forcibly entered their homes under false pretenses, and conducted warrantless, non-consensual searches.
2

A. Rule 54(b) Certification Plaintiffs request that this Court certify as a final judgment the May 16, 2008, Order to the extent it dismisses the claims of Carlos Hilario Arias, Dulce Maria Hernandez Arias, Rosa de Jesus Barrajas Arrellano, Jose Manuel Calix, William Ramos Castillo, Fabiola Cisneros, Teresa de Jesus Guerrero, Rosa Nely Duarte, Esau Eduardo Estrada-Menendez, Iris Janet Maldonado, Jenny Maldonado, Ana Danira Maldonado-Hernandez, Juan Muñoz, and Samuel Zelaya (collectively the “Removal-Proceeding Plaintiffs”). Rule 54(b) provides in relevant part that “when multiple parties are involved, the court may direct entry of a final judgment as to one or more, but fewer than all ... parties only if the court expressly determines that there is no just reason for delay.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b). “[I]t is up to the sound discretion of the district court to determine when it should direct that a final judgment be entered under Rule 54(b).” Harris v. Sec’y, U.S. Dep’t of the Army, 119 F.3d 1313, 1320 (8th Cir. 1997). Certifications “ ‘under Rule 54(b) should neither be granted routinely nor as an accommodation to counsel.’ ” Guerrero v. J.W. Hutton, Inc., 458 F.3d 830, 833 (8th Cir. 2006) (quoting Hardie v. Cotter & Co., 819 F.2d 181, 182 (8th Cir. 1987)). Instead, a court should enter a final judgment under Rule 54(b) only when there is “some danger of hardship or injustice through delay which could be alleviated by immediate appeal.” Burlington N. R.R. Co. v. Bair, 754 F.2d 799, 800 (8th Cir. 1985) (quotation omitted).
The Removal-Proceeding Plaintiffs argue that Rule 54(b) certification is appropriate because they “have issues unique to them that they would like to raise on appeal ... which cannot be asserted in Immigration Court and which [they] should be permitted to raise immediately with the appellate court.” Req. for R. 54(b) Certification at 2. After reviewing the parties’ submissions regarding Rule 54(b) certification, the Court finds that the circumstances do not warrant entry of a final judgment as to the Removal-Proceeding Plaintiffs. Although the Removal-Proceeding Plaintiffs’ immigration status presents unique legal issues, they have not identified a danger of hardship or prejudice that would result from their inability to take an immediate appeal. Presumably the Removal-Proceeding Plaintiffs would like to appeal to the Eighth Circuit before the removal proceedings conclude. However, some of the Removal-Proceeding Plaintiffs have been deported, and a Rule 54(b) certification would not delay pending removal proceedings. Fed. Employees’ May 27, 2008, Letter [Docket No. 109]. Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ request for Rule 54(b) certification is denied.

Arias v. United States Immigration and Customs..., Not Reported in Fed....

B. Reconsideration *2 Myers, Torres, and Baniecke request leave under Local Rule 7.1(g) to file a motion for reconsideration of the May 16, 2008, Order denying their alternative Motion for Summary Judgment. “Motions to reconsider are prohibited except by express permission of the Court, which will be granted only upon a showing of compelling circumstances.” Local R. 7.1(g).
Plaintiffs’ Third Amended Complaint [Docket No. 102]2 asserts Bivens3 claims against five federal officers and unknown John Doe ICE agents. Myers is the Assistant Secretary for the Department of Homeland Security, U.S. ICE. Myers Decl. [Docket No. 71] ¶ 1. She is the highest-ranking official within ICE and she oversees all the divisions within ICE, including the Office of Detention and Removal Operations (“DRO”). Id. Torres is the Director of Detention and Removal Operations with national supervisory authority over DRO operations. Torres Decl. [Docket No. 72] ¶¶ 1, 4. Baniecke is the Field Office Director with supervisory authority for DRO operations in North Dakota, South Dakota, Minnesota, Iowa, and Nebraska. Baniecke Decl. [Docket No. 73] ¶ 1. Plaintiffs have also sued Peter Berg (“Berg”), the Assistant Field Office Director in ICE’s Bloomington, Minnesota, office, and Allen Gay (“Gay”), Senior Field Training Officer for Detention and Removal in ICE’s Bloomington office. Berg Decl. [Docket No. 70]; Gay Decl. [Docket No. 69].
Except for describing the positions and duties of Myers and Torres, the Third Amended Complaint does not allege that these individuals participated in the execution or planning of the Willmar and Atwater raids. 3d Am. Compl. ¶¶ 52-54. Instead, Plaintiffs allege:
Upon information and belief, the techniques applied during the raids were organized and approved by Defendants and other federal government officials and were not the product of ad hoc decisions by field operatives. In short, U.S. Department of Homeland Security officials created and approved operations that willfully,
3

knowingly, and/or recklessly

disregarded

Plaintiffs’

Constitutional protections.

3d Am. Compl. ¶ 5. Plaintiffs allege that Baniecke was personally involved in or authorized the conduct of the ICE agents during the Willmar and Atwater raids. Id. ¶ 54.
Myers, Torres, and Baniecke4 argued for summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity. They submitted declarations stating that: (1) they did not personally participate in the planning or execution of Operation Cross Check in Willmar and Atwater, Minnesota; and (2) they neither adopted nor acquiesced in a policy, custom, or practice that would have resulted in the constitutional violations Plaintiffs allege. Myers Decl.; Torres Decl.; Baniecke Decl. Based on Plaintiffs’ Rule 56(f) Affidavit [Docket No. 101] addressing their need for discovery, this Court denied summary judgment for Myers, Torres, and Baniecke. 3d Am. Compl. ¶ 54.
*3 Myers, Torres, and Baniecke request leave to file a motion for reconsideration on the basis that their declarations demonstrate they were not personally involved in the planning or execution of the Willmar and Atwater raids, and other declarations filed in this action have identified the federal employees—Berg and Gay—who were responsible for planning and implementing the raids. Myers, Torres, and Baniecke argue that subjecting them to discovery “will result in ‘social costs’ the qualified immunity doctrine is meant to prevent.” May 30, 2008, Letter.
At this stage of the litigation, the Court denies Myers, Torres, and Baniecke’s request for leave to file a motion for reconsideration. However, based on the current record, the Court will stay Plaintiffs’ claims against them pending discovery from Berg, Gay, and local law enforcement officers regarding the planning and execution of the Willmar and Atwater raids. “[T]here is no respondeat superior liability under Bivens.” Estate of Rosenberg v. Crandell, 56 F.3d 35, 38 (8th Cir. 1995). Instead, a plaintiff must plead and prove an “ ‘affirmative link’ between the supervisor’s ‘personal participation, his exercise of control or direction, or his failure to supervise.’ ” Bellecourt v. United States, 784 F. Supp. 623, 633 (D. Minn. 1992) (quoting McKay v. Hammock, 730 F.2d 1367, 1374 (10th Cir. 1984)). Thus, to establish the liability of Myers, Torres, or Baniecke, Plaintiffs must

Arias v. United States Immigration and Customs..., Not Reported in Fed....

demonstrate that: (1) their constitutional rights were violated during the raids; and (2) Myers, Torres, or Baniecke, authorized the alleged unlawful conduct of the ICE agents or created or acquiesced in a policy that resulted in the unlawful conduct.
Based on Myers, Torres, and Baniecke’s supervisory positions and their declarations that they neither authorized unlawful conduct nor personally participated in the planning or execution of the Willmar and Atwater raids, the Court finds that Plaintiffs must first obtain discovery from Berg, Gay, and others regarding the circumstances of the Willmar and Atwater raids. If the discovery from other parties suggests that Myers, Torres, and Baniecke authorized or are otherwise liable for the alleged unconstitutional conduct during the Willmar and Atwater raids, Plaintiffs can move to dissolve the stay and obtain discovery from Myers, Torres, and Baniecke. If discovery from other parties does not provide a basis for the liability of Myers, Torres, and Baniecke, the Court will grant their motion for summary judgment.

III. CONCLUSION
Based upon the foregoing, and all the files, records, and proceedings herein, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiffs’ Request for Rule 54(b) Certification [Docket No. 104] is DENIED;
2. Defendants Myers, Torres, and Baniecke’s request for leave to file a motion for reconsideration [Docket No. 111] is DENIED; and
3. Plaintiffs’ claims against Myers, Torres, and Baniecke are STAYED pending discovery regarding the circumstances of the Willmar and Atwater immigration raids. Plaintiffs may not depose or obtain written discovery from Myers, Torres, and Baniecke until the Court authorizes such discovery.
All Citations
Not Reported in Fed. Supp., 2008 WL 11349709

Footnotes

1

Although certain Plaintiffs have been dismissed from the case, the caption still reflects their status as Plaintiffs.

2

Although Plaintiffs label their Third Amended Complaint as their Second Amended Complaint, they filed a Complaint

[Docket No. 1] and two Amended Complaints [Docket Nos. 11 and 43].

3

In Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), the Supreme Court

held that a cause of action for money damages against federal agents can be inferred directly from the Fourth

Amendment.

4

Berg and Gay were included in the summary judgment motion, but they do not request leave to file a motion for

reconsideration.

4

 
 Arias v. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Div...., Not Reported in...

2009 WL 2171037 Only the Westlaw citation is currently available.
United States District Court, D. Minnesota. Carlos Hilario ARIAS; Vicente Cisneros Abonce, both individually and as “next friend for his minor
children, E.C.A., V.C.A., Jr., and J.C.A.; Dulce Maria Hernandez Arias; Rosa De Jesus Barrajas Arrellano; Graciela Barragan, both individually and as “next friend” for her minor child, J.A.P.; Jose Manuel Ramirez Calix; Alejandro Cartagena; William Ramos Castillo; Fabiola Cisneros; Rosa Nely Duarte; Esau Eduardo Estrada–Menendez; L.G., both individually and as “next friend” for her
minor child, A.G.; Francis Garcia, both individually and as “next friend” for her minor child, O.B.; Teresa De Jesus Guerrero; Wenscelao Padilla Guzman; Troy Hastings, both individually and as “next friend” for his minor child, B.H.; Joceline Sarai Lopez, both individually and as “next friend” for her minor child, J.M.; Rosa Sorto Lopez; Ana Danira Maldonado–Hernandez; Iris Janet Maldonado, both individually and as “next friend” for her three minor children, P.M., B.M., and E.M..; Jenny Maldonado, both individually and as “next friend” for her minor child, S.D.M.; Ermencia Mendez; Audrey Mithun; Barbara Anahi Moreno; Javier Moreno; Josefa C. Montalvo, both individually and as “next friend” to her minor grandchild, B.M.; Albis Muñoz; Francisco Muñoz, both individually and as “next friend” for one minor child, I.M.; Juan Muñoz; Saomara Muñoz; Manuela De Jesus Pineda; Jaime Reyes, both individually and as “next friend” for his two minor
children, D.R.B. and J.R.B.; Marlen Alonso Soriano; Alex Josue Sorto; Andres Mendendez Vega; Raul Veliz, Jr.; Digna Munoz Xiomara; Jorge Zelaya; Samuel Zelaya; and Jose Erasmo Montalvan, the Consul of Honduras, as “next
friend” to Honduran Nationals, Plaintiffs,1 v.
UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT DIVISION OF the DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY; United States Department of Homeland Security;
Michael Chertoff, Secretary of Department of Homeland Security; Julie L. Myers, Assistant Secretary of Homeland Security for Immigration and Customs Enforcement; John P. Torres, Director of Detention and Removal Operations, Immigration and Customs Enforcement; Scott
1

Baniecke, St. Paul Field Office Director for Detention and Removal Operation; Peter Berg, Supervisory Detention & Deportation Officer,
Detention and Removal; John Doe ICE Agents1–30; James A. Kulset, Willmar Police Department Chief of Police; John Doe Willmar Police Officers1–10; Reed Schmidt, Atwater Police
Department Chief of Police; Paul Schmidt, Atwater Police Officer; Dan Hartog, Kandiyohi
County Sheriff; John Doe Kandiyhoi County Sheriff’s Deputies1–10; Jane Doe Kandiyohi
County Probation Official, Defendants.2 Civ. No. 07–1959 ADM/JSM.
Attorneys and Law Firms
Jennifer R. Coates, Esq., Gray Plant, Mooty, Mooty & Bennett, P.A ., Minneapolis, MN, argued on behalf of Plaintiffs.
Lonnie F. Bryan, Esq., Assistant United States Attorney, Minneapolis, MN, argued on behalf of Defendants Julie L. Myers, John P. Torres, Scott Baniecke, Peter Berg, Allen Gay, and John Doe ICE Agents1–30. Jon K. Iverson, Esq., Iverson Reuvers, LLC, Bloomington, MN, argued on behalf of James A. Kulset, John Doe Willmar Police Officers1–10, Reed Schmidt, and Paul Schmidt.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
ANN D. MONTGOMERY, District Judge.
I. INTRODUCTION
*1 On June 23, 2009, the undersigned United States District Judge heard oral argument on the Motion by Defendants Peter Berg (“Berg”), Allen Gay (“Gay”), Julie

Arias v. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Div...., Not Reported in...

L. Myers (“Myers”), John P. Torres (“Torres”), Scott R. Baniecke (“Baniecke”) and John Doe ICE Agents1–30 (collectively the “Federal Defendants”) for Summary Judgment and Dismissal [Docket No. 187] and the Motion by Defendants James A. Kulset (“Kulset”), Reed Schmidt (“Chief Schmidt”), Paul Schmidt (“Officer Schmidt”) (collectively the “Schmidts”), and John Doe Willmar Police Officers1–10 (collectively the “Willmar/Atwater Defendants”) for Summary Judgment [Docket No. 189]. This case arises from actions taken by Defendants during “Operation Crosscheck,” an immigration enforcement effort that occurred in Willmar, Minnesota from April 10–14, 2007. Operation Crosscheck was conducted by members of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) and local and county law enforcement. At its inception, the suit was brought by 56 plaintiffs against a number of defendants. Currently only three plaintiffs, Graciela Barragan Cardenas3 (“Cardenas”), her minor son, J.A.P., and Raul Veliz (“Veliz”) (collectively “Plaintiffs”), remain. For the reasons set forth below, the Federal Defendants’ Motion is granted in part and denied in part, and the Willmar/Atwater Defendants’ Motion is granted.
II. BACKGROUND4 Plaintiffs allege that Defendants violated their Fourth Amendment rights during two separate incidents. In the first incident, Veliz alleges that he was illegally stopped by ICE agents and a Willmar undercover police officer.2d Am. Compl. [Docket No. 102] ¶ 113. The second incident occurred when ICE agents and other law enforcement officers entered the Cardenas home without a warrant or her consent. Id. ¶ 98.
A. The Veliz Incident On April 12, 2007, at 7:00 a.m., Veliz left his residence in his car when he saw a number of white SUVs with eagles painted on them in the street. Federal Defendants Exhibits [Docket No. 199] Ex. 49 (Veliz Dep.) at 26. He passed the vehicles to go to his mother’s house to get money so he could purchase breakfast for her. Id. at 29. After leaving his mother’s house, he saw the vehicles again, and one of the drivers signaled to Veliz to take the right of way and turn. Id. at 32. The lead vehicle then pulled behind Veliz, turned on its lights, and stopped Veliz. Id. at 35. Another vehicle pulled in front of Veliz to block his
2

exit. Id. at 50. Veliz recognized the driver of the second car as a local law enforcement officer. Id. at 11. The law enforcement officers got out of their cars and approached Veliz. Id at 52.
An officer asked Veliz to provide identification, and Veliz gave the officer his Minnesota driver’s license. Id. The officer did not immediately verify Veliz’s identity and stated that he believed Veliz was from Mexico. Id. at 53. Veliz stated that he was originally from Texas, and the officer told him to prove it by naming all the schools he attended and the names of his principals and teachers. Id. at 21. The officer also asked Veliz to provide a birth certificate and social security card. Id. at 55. Veliz heard an ICE agent tell a local police officer to run Veliz’s record in the hopes of finding “something” that would allow them to “take him in.” Id. at 19–20. The officer found that Veliz had an outstanding repair ticket that required Veliz to prove that he had removed tinting from his car windows. Id. at 93–94. Apparently, the officers were satisfied that Veliz had removed the tinting, released him with a warning, and he was not taken into custody. Id. at 67–68, 94. The duration of the stop and questioning of Veliz was approximately fifteen to twenty minutes. Id. at 41, 64, 98.
B. The Cardenas Incident *2 At 10:15 a..m. on April 13, 2007, Cardenas woke up to the sound of loud knocking, the doorbell ringing, men yelling, and banging on the windows. Federal Defendant Ex. 44 (Cardenas Dep.) at 15–16. Cardenas looked out of her windows and saw men in black clothing surrounding her house. Id. at 17. The noise awoke her son J.A.P ., age six, who began crying. Cardenas put J.A.P. in the bathroom with the family dog. Id. at 18–19. After leaving the bathroom, she heard voices in the house and then entered the living room where five armed men were present. Id. at 24. Cardenas asked the men what they wanted, and they told her they were police officers with arrest warrants. Id. at 25–26. The officers asked repeatedly for permission to search the home, and Cardenas repeatedly denied these requests. Id. at 40–43.
Cardenas alleges that the officers became aggressive, commented on her tattoos, threatened her with arrest, and falsely stated that her fiancé gave them permission to search. Id. at 41–46. Officer Schmidt arrived about fifteen minutes into the incident; his father, Chief Schmidt, did

Arias v. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Div...., Not Reported in...

not arrive until the conclusion of the incident. Id. at 87, 90. The officers left Cardenas’s home after approximately 45 minutes of requesting consent to search. J.A .P. remained in the bathroom for the entire time the officers were there. Id. at 48. Cardenas never gave the officers permission to enter her home. Id. at 21.
III. DISCUSSION

Defendants. See Pretrial Scheduling Order [Docket No. 129]. Defendants responded to Plaintiffs interrogatories, providing the names of the individual officers and agents, and Plaintiffs moved to amend their Complaint. See Mot. to Am. Compl. [Docket No. 130]. In that Motion, Plaintiffs requested leave to add a class of plaintiffs to challenge the pattern and practice of some Defendants but did not seek leave to replace the Doe Defendants with the names of actual officers. Mem. in Supp. of Mot. to Am. Compl. [Docket No. 132]. Because Plaintiffs have failed to identify the Doe Defendants, even though they had access to this information at the close of Phase I discovery, these Defendants are dismissed.

A. Summary Judgment Standard Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(c) provides that summary judgment shall issue “if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c); see Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986); Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 252 (1986); Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). On a motion for summary judgment, the Court views the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Ludwig, 54 F.3d at 470. The nonmoving party may not “rest on mere allegations or denials, but must demonstrate on the record the existence of specific facts which create a genuine issue for trial.” Krenik v. County of Le Sueur, 47 F.3d 953, 957 (8th Cir.1995).
B. The Doe Defendants There are 40 John Doe Defendants remaining in this case. “When, as here, a party is ignorant of defendants’ true identit[ies], it is unnecessary to name them until their identity can be learned through discovery.” Maclin v. Paulson, 627 F.2d 83, 87 (7th Cir.1980). However, “the Doe fiction may only be used until such time as the actual identities can be learned.” Kemper Ins. Cos. Inc. v. Federal Express Corp., 115 F.Supp.2d 116, 125 (D.Mass.2000). Plaintiffs have had over two years since the filing of the Complaint to conduct discovery and serve interrogatories to determine the identities of the Doe
3

C. Qualified Immunity *3 The remaining Defendants argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity on Plaintiffs Fourth Amendment claims. The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials from “liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982). A court must determine both whether the defendant violated a constitutional right and if that right was clearly established. Pearson v. Callahan, 129 S.Ct. 808, 816, 818 (2009). To determine whether a particular right was clearly established, it must be viewed in a particularized, relevant sense: “The contours of the right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that right.” Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 639–40 (1987). “The relevant, dispositive inquiry in determining whether a right is clearly established is whether it would be clear to a reasonable officer that his conduct was unlawful in the situation he confronted.” Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194, 202 (2001). “Whether a given set of facts entitles the official to summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds is a question of law.” Greiner v. City of Champlin, 27 F.3d 1346, 1352 (8th Cir.1994). “Defendants will not be immune if, on an objective basis, it is obvious that no reasonably competent officer would have concluded that the defendant should have taken the disputed action.” Winters v. Adams, 254 F.3d 758, 766 (8th Cir.2001).

Arias v. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Div...., Not Reported in...

1. Immunity for Berg, Myers, Torres, Baniecke, & Kulset A supervisor may not be held liable for the constitutional violations of a subordinate under a respondeat superior theory. Boyd v. Knox, 46 F.3d 966, 968 (8th Cir.1995). A supervisor is only liable when “he directly participates in a constitutional violation or if a failure to properly supervise and train the employee caused a deprivation of constitutional rights.” Andrews v. Fowler, 98 F.3d 1069, 1078 (8th Cir.1996). Each “Government official, his or her title notwithstanding, is only liable for his or her own misconduct.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009).
At the time of Operation Crosscheck, Berg was a Supervisory Detention and Deportation Officer in ICE’s St. Paul, Minnesota office and was a supervisor charged with implementing Operation Crosscheck. Federal Defendants Ex. 41 (Berg Dep.) at 8. Berg was not present during the incident at Cardenas’s house or the stop of Veliz’s vehicle. See id. at 97–100; Ex. 42 (Gay Dep.) at 99. Myers is Assistant Secretary for the Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and the highest ranking ICE official. Myers Aff. [Docket No. 71] ¶ I. Myers had no personal involvement with any Plaintiff. Id. ¶ III. Torres is Director for Detention and Removal Operations for ICE and in that capacity has supervisory authority over detention and removal actions. Torres Aff. [Docket No. 72] ¶¶ I, IV. Torres also had no personal involvement with any Plaintiff. Id. ¶ II. Baniecke is Field Office Director for ICE in St. Paul and was responsible for ensuring that Operation Crosscheck, a national program, was implemented in Willmar according to protocol. Baniecke Aff. [Docket No. 73] ¶ II. He, too, had no direct contact with Plaintiffs. Id. ¶ III. Kulset is Chief of Police for the City of Willmar and was not present during either incident at issue. Kulset Aff. [Docket No. 192] ¶¶ 1, 3. Because none of these five Defendants was present or engaged in the alleged misconduct, they are entitled to qualified immunity.
2. Immunity for Officer Schmidt and Chief Schmidt *4 Neither Officer Schmidt nor Chief Schmidt was present during the vehicle stop of Veliz.5 Both officers were present, however, at the Cardenas residence. The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides:
4

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated, and no Warrant shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized. U.S. Const. amend. IV. “It is a ‘basic principle of Fourth Amendment law that searches and seizures inside a home without a warrant are presumptively unreasonable.’ “ Brigham City, Utah v. Stuart, 547 U.S. 398, 403 (2006) (quoting Groh v. Ramirez, 540 U.S. 551, 559 (2004)) (internal quotations omitted). There are, however, exceptions to this rule including “situations in which voluntary consent has been obtained, either from the individual whose property is searched ... or from a third party who possesses common authority over the premises.” Illinois v. Rodriguez, 497 U.S. 177, 181 (1990) (citation omitted). For purposes of qualified immunity, it is clearly established that officers violate the Fourth Amendment when they enter a home without a warrant absent consent or exigent circumstances. Guite v. Wright, 147 F.3d 747, 750 (8th Cir.1998). The Schmidts do not claim they received consent or exigent circumstances existed. Rather, they argue that they entered the house after the ICE agents had already gained entry, were unaware that Cardenas had not given her consent, and, therefore, it was reasonable for them to assume, upon arriving at a house in which law enforcement officers were already present, that the officers had lawfully gained entry. It is undisputed that both Schmidts arrived well after law enforcement had entered Cardenas’s house. Cardenas Dep. at 87, 90. Additionally neither Schmidt was aware of how the ICE agents gained entry into the home or heard if Cardenas granted or denied consent to enter. Reed Schmidt Aff. [Docket No. 195] ¶¶ 5, 6; Paul Schmidt Aff. [Docket No. 196] ¶¶ 5–7.
To satisfy the “reasonableness” requirement of the Fourth Amendment “what is generally demanded of the many factual determinations that must regularly be made by agents of the government ... is not that they always be correct, but that they always be reasonable.” Rodriguez, 497 U.S. at 185. This situation is analogous to the facts in Groh. In Groh, the line officers entered the premises of the defendant based on the erroneous belief that the team leader had obtained a valid warrant. 540 U.S. at 556. The Court found that it was reasonable for the officers to rely

Arias v. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Div...., Not Reported in...

on their superior officer and did not need to examine the warrant themselves. Id. (citing Ramirez v. Butte–Silver Bow County, 298 F.3d 1022, 1028 (9th Cir.2002)). In the instant case, it was reasonable for the Schmidts, arriving at the Cardenas residence after ICE agents were already inside and having no indication Cardenas had not provided consent, to believe that they were entering the property lawfully.6 The Willmar/Atwater Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment is granted.

immunity defense based on a reasonable reliance theory similar to the Schmidts because his testimony that he received consent shows his direct involvement with the alleged illegal entry. The testimony was that he did not enter the house after other agents had already gained entry, but rather because of Cardenas’s consent. Cardenas’s contrary testimony creates a question of fact for the jury.8

3. Immunity for Gay

IV. CONCLUSION

*5 Gay argues that he is entitled to immunity for the Veliz incident because he did not participate in the alleged illegal stop. The Court agrees. While Gay was a member

Based upon the foregoing, and all the files, records, and proceedings herein, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

of the caravan that was present before Veliz was stopped, he did not personally stop Veliz. Federal Defendants Ex. 42 (Gay Dep.) at 95. At the time when Veliz was stopped by ICE agents,7 Gay was attempting to serve an arrest warrant at a target address. Id. at 94. There is no

1. Defendants James A. Kulset, Reed Schmidt, Paul Schmidt, and John Doe Willmar Police Officers1–10’s Motion for Summary Judgment [Docket No. 189] is GRANTED;

indication that Gay was involved in the alleged illegal stop.

2. Defendants Peter Berg, Allen, Gay, Julie L. Myers, John P. Torres, Scott R. Baniecke and John Doe ICE

Gay next argues that he is entitled to immunity for the Cardenas incident because, although he was present, he was not personally involved in the alleged

Agents1–30’s Motion for Summary Judgment and Dismissal [Docket No. 187] is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART; and

unconstitutional conduct. Gay testified that when he arrived at the Cardenas residence, he received a phone call. Id. at 98. Because of this phone call, he does not believe he knocked on Cardenas’s door, but cannot recall

3. The sole remaining claim is Plaintiffs Graciela Barragan (Cardenas) and J.A.P.’s alleged illegal entry claim against Defendant Allen Gay.

with certainty. Id. However, even if Gay did not knock on

the door or was not the first person to ask Cardenas for consent to enter the home, he testified that Cardenas gave

All Citations

him consent to enter her home. Id. at 98, 149. Cardenas disputes that she gave consent to anyone to enter her

Not Reported in F.Supp.2d, 2009 WL 2171037

home. Cardenas Dep. at 21. Gay cannot rest on a qualified

Footnotes

1

Although certain Plaintiffs have been dismissed from the case, the caption still reflects their status as Plaintiffs.

2

Although certain Defendants have been dismissed from the case, the caption still reflects their status as Defendants.

3

Cardenas has married since the Complaint was filed and has taken her husband’s name.

4

On a motion for summary judgment, the Court views the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving

party. Ludwig v. Anderson, 54 F.3d 465, 470 (8th Cir.1995).

5

Arias v. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Div...., Not Reported in...

5

Veliz, Cardenas, and J.A.P. were not targets of Operation Crosscheck. The majority of the Equal Protection Claims

challenge the design and implementation of Operation Crosscheck. Veliz alleges that he was targeted on account of

his race, and so states a cognizable Equal Protection Claim. However because the Schmidts were not involved in the

Veliz stop, the Schmidts are entitled to summary judgment on that claim.

6

Because Cardenas does not allege any facts that would create a cognizable Equal Protection violation, summary

judgment is appropriate on that claim as well. See n. 5.

7

Gay testified that Veliz was not stopped by law enforcement, but rather followed the law enforcement vehicles

around the trailer park and stopped of his own volition. Gay Dep. at 94. Because Gay has moved for summary

judgment, the Court takes the facts in the light most favorable to Veliz and assumes he was stopped by ICE agents

for purposes of this motion only.

8

Because Cardenas does not allege any facts that would create a cognizable Equal Protection violation, however,

summary judgment is appropriate for Gay on that claim. See nn. 5, 6.

6

 
 Arias v. Myers, Not Reported in Fed. Supp. (2009)

2009 WL 10678149 Only the Westlaw citation is currently available.
United States District Court, D. Minnesota.
Carlos Hilario ARIAS, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
Julie L. MYERS, Assistant Secretary of Homeland Security for Immigration and Customs Enforcement, et al., Defendants.
Civil No. 07–1959 (ADM/JSM) |
Signed 01/21/2009
Attorneys and Law Firms
Daniel R. Shulman, Jason J. Stover, Jennifer R. Coates, Gray Plant Mooty, Mooty & Bennett, PA, David L Shulman, Law Office of David L. Shulman PLLC, Minneapolis, MN, Gloria Contreras Edin, Edin Consulting, Inc, Inver Grove Heights, MN, Rachel E Bengtson–Lang, Robert C. Long, Long & Associates, LLC, St. Paul, MN, for Plaintiffs.
Gjon Juncaj, US Dept of Justice Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Gregory G. Brooker, Lonnie F. Bryan, United States Attorney’s Office, Minneapolis, MN, Jon K. Iverson, Pamela F. Whitmore, Iverson Reuvers, LLC, Stephanie A. Angolkar, Bloomington, MN, for Defendants.
ORDER
JANIE S. MAYERON, United States Magistrate Judge
*1 The above matter came on before the undersigned on Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File Fourth Amended Complaint [Docket No. 130]. Daniel R Shulman, Esq., Gloria Contreras Edin, Esq., and Prairie A. Bly, Esq. appeared on behalf of plaintiff; Lonnie F Bryan, Esq. appeared on behalf of defendants Julie L Myers, John P Torres, Scott Baniecke, Peter Berg, Allen Gay and the John Does ICE Agents (“USA Defendants”); Stephanie Angolkar, Esq. appeared on behalf of defendants James
1

A. Kulset, Paul Schmidt, Reed Schmidt, and John Doe Willmar Police Officers ##1–10 (“Willmar Defendants”); Ann R. Goering appeared on behalf of defendants Dan Hartog, Jane Doe Kandiyohi County Probation Official and John Doe Kandiyohi Sheriffs Deputies ##1–10 (“Kandiyohi Defendants”).
The Court, being duly advised in the premises, upon all of the files, records, and proceedings herein, and for the reasons stated on the record at the hearing, now makes and enters the following Order.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File Fourth Amended Complaint [Docket No. 130] is DENIED.
MEMORANDUM
Plaintiffs move this Court for an order permitting them to amend their complaint to add class allegations against all current defendants,1 and adding back in dismissed defendants United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement Division of Homeland Security (“ICE”), United States Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”); and Michael Chertoff, Secretary of DHS. See Affidavit of Daniel R. Shulman, proposed Fourth Amended Complaint (“Prop. Fourth Am. Compl.”), ¶¶ 33–35, Counts I and II. The Court denies this motion.
I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND The present action was initiated in April 2007 in response to raids by the United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) that took place on April 10–14, 2007 in Willmar and Atwater, Minnesota. On April 24, 2007, plaintiffs amended their Complaint and added class allegations on behalf all persons of Hispanic, Honduran, Latin origin or appearance who were arrested, detained, in custody, or deported and affected by immigration operations that took place in Wilmar, Minnesota on or about April 10–14, 2007. See Plaintiffs’ Amended

Arias v. Myers, Not Reported in Fed. Supp. (2009)
Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief and Damages [Docket No. 11], ¶¶ 71–80.
*2 On July 27, 2007, plaintiffs amended their Amended Complaint and dropped the class allegations. See Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief and Damages [Docket No. 43] (“Second Amended Complaint”). Subsequently, all defendants brought several dispositive motions, and on April 23, 2008, District Court Judge Ann Montgomery issued an Order and Memorandum granting in part and denying in part these various motions [Docket No. 100]. On April 30, 2008, plaintiffs filed a third complaint—this new complaint also lacked any class allegations. See Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief and Damages (“Third Amended Complaint”) [Docket No. 102].
Plaintiffs now seek to amend their Complaint to add class allegations against all defendants, and previously dismissed defendants ICE, DHS and Chertoff on behalf of a class “[p]ersons of Latino origin who reside in the state of Minnesota.” Prop. Fourth Am. Compl., ¶¶ 33–35, 103, Counts I and II. Specifically, plaintiffs have alleged that they should be able to purse class allegations against these defendants because:
Defendants have implemented, enforced, encouraged and/or sanctioned a policy, practice and/or custom of:
(a) entering and searching homes or residences of persons of Latino origin in the state of Minnesota without valid judicial warrants or voluntary consent and in the absence of probable cause and exigent circumstances in violation of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution;
(b) stopping, detaining, investigating, searching and effecting seizures of persons of Latino origin in the state of Minnesota in the absence of a reasonable articulable suspicion of unlawful activity or probable cause in violation of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution; and
(c) identifying and targeting locations with known concentrations of Latino residents and conducting unconstitutional stops and detentions of individuals based solely on the individual’s race or apparent national origin in violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.
Prop. Fourth Am. Compl. ¶ 104.
2

Plaintiffs seek a permanent injunction prohibiting defendants from engaging in the unlawful and abusive practices alleged in the proposed Fourth Amended Complaint, and a declaratory judgment that the acts alleged by plaintiffs denied them their rights under the Fourth, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. Prop. Fourth Am. Compl. ¶¶ 120, 122, 132, 134.
In the proposed Fourth Amended Complaint, plaintiffs allege raids all over the country in 2007 and from February 2008 to September 2008, including in Minneapolis, Minnesota as late as September 2008. Prop. Fourth Am. Compl., ¶ 114. In addition, in support of their motion, plaintiffs allege that other raids occurred in Austin, Minnesota on May 30–31, 2007; throughout the country on other dates in 2007; in Shakopee and Jackson Heights, Minnesota on June 21–22, 2008; and in St. Paul, Minnesota on July 25, 2008. See Declaration of Gloria Contreras Edin (“Contreras Decl.”), Ex. 1 (Documentation of Residential Immigration Enforcement Operations by Centro Legal, Inc.).
The deadline for amending pleadings to add claims or parties was October 1, 2008. See Pretrial Scheduling Order. Plaintiffs brought the present motion for leave to filed a Fourth Amended Complaint to add back the class allegations on October 1, 2008, the last day to file motions to amend pleadings.
The case is currently in Phase I, which is designed to address discovery and motion practice relating to the individual defendants’ claims of qualified immunity. Pretrial Scheduling Order [Docket No. 129]. Pursuant to this schedule, fact discovery bearing on qualified immunity is to be completed by March 1, 2009, and expert discovery is to be completed by May 1, 2009. Fact depositions of the plaintiffs were to be completed by November 30, 2008. See Amended Order dated October 27, 2008 [Docket No. 150].
II. ANALYSIS *3 Rule 15(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that leave to amend pleadings “shall be freely given when justice so requires.” The determination as to whether to grant leave to amend is entrusted to the sound discretion of the trial court. See, e.g., Niagara of Wisconsin Paper Corp. v. Paper Indus. Union Mgmt. Pension Fund, 800 F.2d 742, 749 (8th Cir. 1986) (citation

Arias v. Myers, Not Reported in Fed. Supp. (2009)
omitted). The Eighth Circuit has held that “[a]lthough amendment of a complaint should be allowed liberally to ensure that a case is decided on its merits, ... there is no absolute right to amend.” Ferguson v. Cape Girardeau County, 88 F.3d 647, 650–1 (8th Cir. 1996) (citing Thompson–El v. Jones, 876 F.2d 66, 67 (8th Cir. 1989); Chesnut v. St. Louis County, 656 F.2d 343, 349 (8th Cir. 1981)). Under Rule 15(a), a district court should deny leave to amend “only in those limited circumstances in which undue delay, bad faith on the part of the moving party, futility of the amendment, or unfair prejudice to the non–moving party can be demonstrated.” Roberson v. Hayti Police Dep’t, 241 F.3d 992, 995 (8th Cir. 2001); see also United States ex rel. Gaudineer & Comito v. Iowa, 269 F.3d 932, 936 (8th Cir. 2001) (“[D]enial of leave to amend may be justified by ‘undue delay, bad faith on the part of the moving party, futility of the amendment or unfair prejudice to the opposing party.’ ”) (quoting Sanders v. Clemco Indus., 823 F.2d 214, 216 (8th Cir. 1987)).
This Court concludes that the current federal defendants Julie Myers, John Torres and Scott Baniecke in their individual capacities (described by Judge Montgomery in her April 23 and May 16, 2008 Orders [Docket Nos. 100, 105] as the “Bivens Defendants”); County Defendants (Kandoyohi County officials in their individual capacities); and City Defendants (Willmar and Atwater officials in their individual capacities) would be prejudiced and the case would be greatly delayed if plaintiffs were permitted to add the class allegations at this point. The Court reaches this conclusion for several reasons. First, plaintiffs’ attempt to re-assert class action claims at this juncture creates a “moving target” for all defendants to focus their defenses. In particular, on April 24, 2007, plaintiffs amended their Complaint and added class allegations; they then amended their Amended Complaint on July 27, 2007, and dropped the class allegations; and they did not include class claims in their April 30, 2008 amendment to the Second Amended Complaint, despite the additional alleged raids that took place on May 30–31, 2007 in Austin, Minnesota and throughout the country in 2007. See Amended Complaint [Docket No. 11], ¶¶ 71–101; Second Amended Complaint [Docket No. 43]; Third Amended Complaint [Docket No. 102]; Contreras Decl., Exs. 1, 2.
Second, none of class allegations or factual support for these allegations (i.e. the affidavits attached to the Contreras Decl. as Exhibit 2) have anything to do with the County Defendants or City Defendants. Rather, the focus of these allegations are on the alleged conduct of ICE and
3

the Bivens Defendants. Prop. Fourth Am. Compl., ¶ 114. Indeed, plaintiffs’ counsel conceded at the hearing that neither the County Defendants nor the City Defendants had any control over the alleged continuing raids by ICE. Further, there is nothing before this Court to suggest that the County Defendants or City Defendants are continuing to engage in raids with ICE. If plaintiffs were permitted to pursue their class allegations, the County Defendants and City Defendants would be forced to incur significant time, expense and efforts defending and attending to issues having nothing to do with them.
Third, as the County Defendants and City Defendants pointed out, plaintiffs had asserted in opposition to defendants’ motions to sever, (Docket Nos. 57, 62, 74), that severance was not appropriate because the claims against the County Defendants and City Defendants arose out of the same events and transactions. See Docket Nos. 84, 86, 87. Here, where the class allegations do not involve the County Defendants or City Defendants, the rationale relied upon by plaintiffs for keeping these defendants in this case under the joinder provisions of Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a)2 falls apart. Plaintiffs should not be able to argue that these local defendants are properly in the case because their activities arose out of the same events and transactions that took place over the course of 4 days in Willmar and Atwater, and then having succeeded in making such an argument, move to significantly expand the suit to allege events that (a) have not occurred, and (b) have nothing to do with these local defendants.
*4 Fourth, a class complaint will greatly expand the discovery, motion practice and as such, the expense involved in addressing class allegations and will significantly delay resolution of the case. Where, as here, there is not a sufficient nexus between the class claims and the claims against the County Defendants and City Defendants, there is not a sufficient basis to justify the expense and delay as to those defendants.3
For all the reasons stated above, this Court denies plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to File a Fourth Amended Complaint.
All Citations
Not Reported in Fed. Supp., 2009 WL 10678149

Arias v. Myers, Not Reported in Fed. Supp. (2009)
Footnotes

1

The current defendants are: Julie Myer, Assistant Secretary of DHS; John Torres, Director of Office of Detention and

Removal for ICE; Scott Banieke, Field Director for St. Paul Office of Detention and Removal for ICE; Peter Berg,

Supervisory Detention and Deportation Officer for St. Paul Office of Detention and Removal for ICE; Allen Gay,

Deportation Officer for St. Paul Office of Detention and Removal for ICE; John Doe ICE agents; James Kulset, Chief of

Police for the City of Willmar Police Department; John Doe Willmar Police Officers; Reed Schmidt, Chief of Police for

City of Atwater Police Department; Paul Schmidt, Police Officer with Atwater Police Department; Dan Hartog, Sheriff

for the County of Kandiyohi; and John Doe Kandiyohi Sheriff Department Deputies. If the motion to amend were

granted, plaintiffs have stated in the proposed Fourth Amended Complaint that ICE, DHS, and Chertoff would only

be added for “the Class Action Claims.” See Affidavit of Daniel R. Shulman, proposed Fourth Amended Complaint

(“Prop. Fourth Am. Compl.”), ¶¶ 33–35.

2

Rule 20(a)(2) provides for the joinder of defendants “if any right to relief is asserted against them jointly, severally,

or in the alternative with respect to or arising out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or

occurrences.”

3

While this Court has not based its decision on futility, it does have significant reservations as to whether class claims

could survive dispositive motion practice. As worded, the class counts (Counts I and II), are directed to all

defendants (city, county and federal), yet plaintiffs have offered no factual allegations in the proposed complaint or

via affidavits to support class actions against the County Defendants and City Defendants. See Prop. Fourth Am.

Compl., ¶¶ 111–135. Additionally, Judge Montgomery dismissed the United States Defendants (ICE, DHS, and

Chertoff, Myers, Torres, Baniecke, Berg and Gray) in their official capacities on several grounds including that

plaintiffs had failed to make out a claim for injunctive relief against these defendants. In light of Judge

Montgomery’s decision that plaintiffs lacked standing to assert claims of injunctive relief (including her reliance on

Mancha v. ICE, No. 1:06–CV–2650, 2007 WL 4287766 (N.D. Ga. Dec. 5, 2007)), the Court questions whether Judge

Montgomery would find that a cause of action for injunctive relief can now be stated when none of the proposed

class members have experienced any real and tangible harm, much less imminent threat of future harm. The Court

recognizes that Judge Montgomery stated that “the alleged threat of future harm to these Plaintiffs is too

speculative and remote for Plaintiffs to assert claims for injunctive relief,” (Docket No. 100, p. 24), and that plaintiffs

may be offering the affidavits and statistics about other raids in Minnesota and elsewhere in the country to show

that their fears are not speculative. But the fact is there are no allegations or evidence before this Court to show

that any named plaintiff has continued to be “raided.” Rather, as plaintiffs’ counsel indicated at the hearing, the

proposed class is made up of those who have yet to be subjected to any raids, i.e., people who fear they will be

subjected to raids based on their ethnicity.

4

 
 CaSe: 0:07-cv-1959 As Of: 02/17/2013 07:11 PM CST 1 of 54
APPEAL,CLOSED,CV
U.S. District Court District of Minnesota (DMN) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 0:07−cv−01959−ADM−JSM

Arias et al v. United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement Division of the Department of Homeland Security et al Assigned to: Judge Ann D. Montgomery Referred to: Magistrate Judge Janie S. Mayeron
Case in other court: USCA 8th Circuit, 08−02528
Cause: Immigration and Nationality Act
Plaintiff

Date Filed: 04/19/2007 Date Terminated: 02/02/2010 Jury Demand: Both Nature of Suit: 890 Other Statutory Actions Jurisdiction: Federal Question

Carlos Hilario Arias TERMINATED: 04/23/2008

represented by Daniel R Shulman Gray Plant Mooty Mooty &Bennett, PA 80 S 8th St Ste 500 Mpls, MN 55402 612−632−3000 Fax: 612−632−4444 Email: daniel.shulman@gpmlaw.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Gloria Contreras Edin The Law Office of Gloria Contreras Edin, PLLC 569 Payne Ave St Paul, MN 55130 651−771−0019 Email: gloria@contrerasedinlaw.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jason J Stover Gray Plant Mooty Mooty &Bennett, PA 80 S 8th St Ste 500 Mpls, MN 55402 612−766−8727 Fax: 612−766−1600 Email: jason.stover@FaegreBD.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Matthew S Ebert United States Department of Justice 450 5th St NW Ste 6400 Washington, DC 20001 202−616−0219 Fax: 202−514−8742 Email: matthew.ebert@usdoj.gov TERMINATED: 11/05/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY

Robert C Long Larkin Hoffman Daly &Lindgren Ltd 7900 Xerxes Ave S Ste 1500 Mpls, MN 55431−1194 952−896−3232 Fax: 952−842−1779 Email: rlong@larkinhoffman.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

CaSe: 0:07-cv-1959 As Of: 02/17/2013 07:11 PM CST 2 of 54

Plaintiff Dulce Maria Hernandez Arias TERMINATED: 04/23/2008
Plaintiff David Corea TERMINATED: 07/31/2007

David L Shulman Law Office of David L. Shulman PLLC 1005 Franklin Ave W Ste 3 Mpls, MN 55405 612−870−7410 Fax: 612−870−7462 Email: davidshulman@a−d−law.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Travis C Thompson Centro Legal, Inc 2610 University Ave W Ste 450 INACTIVE St Paul, MN 55114 651−642−1890 Fax: 651−642−1875 Email: traviscthompson@gmail.com TERMINATED: 06/03/2008 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Daniel R Shulman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gloria Contreras Edin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jason J Stover (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Matthew S Ebert (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/05/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY
Robert C Long (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
David L Shulman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Travis C Thompson (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/03/2008 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Daniel R Shulman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gloria Contreras Edin (See above for address)

CaSe: 0:07-cv-1959 As Of: 02/17/2013 07:11 PM CST 3 of 54

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jason J Stover (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Matthew S Ebert (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/05/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY

Robert C Long (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

David L Shulman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Francisco Munoz both individually and as "next friend" for one minor children, I.M. TERMINATED: 12/04/2008

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

Gloria Contreras Edin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jason J Stover (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Matthew S Ebert (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/05/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY

Rachel E Bengtson−Lang 940 Charles Ave St Paul, MN 55104 612−743−8136 Email: Querida42Luna@hotmail.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Robert C Long (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

David L Shulman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Travis C Thompson (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/03/2008 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

CaSe: 0:07-cv-1959 As Of: 02/17/2013 07:11 PM CST 4 of 54

Plaintiff Juan Munoz TERMINATED: 04/23/2008
Plaintiff Albis Munoz

represented by Daniel R Shulman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gloria Contreras Edin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jason J Stover (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Matthew S Ebert (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/05/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY
Robert C Long (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
David L Shulman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Travis C Thompson (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/03/2008 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Daniel R Shulman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gloria Contreras Edin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jason J Stover (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jennifer R Coates Gray Plant Mooty Mooty &Bennett, PA 80 S 8th St Ste 500 Mpls, MN 55402 612−632−3409 Fax: 612−632−4409 Email: jennifer.coates@gpmlaw.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Matthew S Ebert (See above for address)

CaSe: 0:07-cv-1959 As Of: 02/17/2013 07:11 PM CST 5 of 54

TERMINATED: 11/05/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY

Rachel E Bengtson−Lang (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Robert C Long (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

David L Shulman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Travis C Thompson (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/03/2008 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Saomara Munoz

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

Gloria Contreras Edin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jason J Stover (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jennifer R Coates (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Matthew S Ebert (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/05/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY

Rachel E Bengtson−Lang (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Robert C Long (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

David L Shulman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Travis C Thompson (See above for address)

CaSe: 0:07-cv-1959 As Of: 02/17/2013 07:11 PM CST 6 of 54

TERMINATED: 06/03/2008 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Jenny Maldonaldo both individually and as "next friend" for her minor children, S.D.M. TERMINATED: 04/23/2008

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

Gloria Contreras Edin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jason J Stover (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Matthew S Ebert (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/05/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY

Robert C Long (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

David L Shulman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Travis C Thompson (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/03/2008 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Teresa de Jesus Guerrero TERMINATED: 04/23/2008

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

Gloria Contreras Edin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jason J Stover (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Matthew S Ebert (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/05/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY

Robert C Long (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

CaSe: 0:07-cv-1959 As Of: 02/17/2013 07:11 PM CST 7 of 54

David L Shulman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Travis C Thompson (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/03/2008 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Santiago Coronel TERMINATED: 07/31/2007

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

Gloria Contreras Edin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jason J Stover (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Matthew S Ebert (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/05/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY

Robert C Long (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

David L Shulman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Travis C Thompson (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/03/2008 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Fabiola Cisneros TERMINATED: 04/23/2008

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

Gloria Contreras Edin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jason J Stover (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Matthew S Ebert (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/05/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY

CaSe: 0:07-cv-1959 As Of: 02/17/2013 07:11 PM CST 8 of 54

Plaintiff Vicente Cisneros Abonce both individually and as "next friend" for his minor children, E,C,A,, V.C.A., and J.C.A.
Plaintiff Andres Menendez Vega

Robert C Long (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
David L Shulman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Travis C Thompson (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/03/2008 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Daniel R Shulman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gloria Contreras Edin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jason J Stover (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jennifer R Coates (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Matthew S Ebert (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/05/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY
Rachel E Bengtson−Lang (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert C Long (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
David L Shulman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Travis C Thompson (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/03/2008 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Daniel R Shulman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

CaSe: 0:07-cv-1959 As Of: 02/17/2013 07:11 PM CST 9 of 54

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Gloria Contreras Edin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jason J Stover (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jennifer R Coates (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Matthew S Ebert (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/05/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY

Rachel E Bengtson−Lang (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Robert C Long (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

David L Shulman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Travis C Thompson (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/03/2008 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Audrey Mithun

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

Gloria Contreras Edin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jason J Stover (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jennifer R Coates (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Matthew S Ebert (See above for address)

CaSe: 0:07-cv-1959 As Of: 02/17/2013 07:11 PM CST 10 of 54

TERMINATED: 11/05/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY

Rachel E Bengtson−Lang (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Robert C Long (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

David L Shulman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Travis C Thompson (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/03/2008 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Esau Eduardo Estrada−Mendez TERMINATED: 04/23/2008

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

Gloria Contreras Edin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jason J Stover (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Matthew S Ebert (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/05/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY

Robert C Long (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

David L Shulman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Travis C Thompson (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/03/2008 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Ana Danira Maldonado−Hernandez TERMINATED: 04/23/2008

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

Gloria Contreras Edin

CaSe: 0:07-cv-1959 As Of: 02/17/2013 07:11 PM CST 11 of 54

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

Matthew S Ebert (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/05/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY

Robert C Long (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

David L Shulman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Travis C Thompson (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/03/2008 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Rosa De Jesus Barrajas Arrellano TERMINATED: 04/23/2008

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

Gloria Contreras Edin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jason J Stover (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Matthew S Ebert (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/05/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY

Robert C Long (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

David L Shulman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Travis C Thompson (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/03/2008 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Raul Veliz, Jr.

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

CaSe: 0:07-cv-1959 As Of: 02/17/2013 07:11 PM CST 12 of 54

Gloria Contreras Edin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jason J Stover (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jennifer R Coates (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Matthew S Ebert (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/05/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY

Rachel E Bengtson−Lang (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Robert C Long (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

David L Shulman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Travis C Thompson (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/03/2008 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Wenscelao Padilla Guzman

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

Gloria Contreras Edin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jason J Stover (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jennifer R Coates (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Matthew S Ebert (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/05/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY

CaSe: 0:07-cv-1959 As Of: 02/17/2013 07:11 PM CST 13 of 54

Plaintiff Jorge Zelaya TERMINATED: 04/23/2008
Plaintiff L. G. both individually and as "next friend" for her minor children, A.G.

Rachel E Bengtson−Lang (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert C Long (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
David L Shulman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Travis C Thompson (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/03/2008 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Daniel R Shulman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gloria Contreras Edin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jason J Stover (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Matthew S Ebert (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/05/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY
Robert C Long (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
David L Shulman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Travis C Thompson (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/03/2008 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Daniel R Shulman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gloria Contreras Edin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

CaSe: 0:07-cv-1959 As Of: 02/17/2013 07:11 PM CST 14 of 54

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jason J Stover (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jennifer R Coates (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Matthew S Ebert (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/05/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY

Rachel E Bengtson−Lang (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Robert C Long (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Travis C Thompson (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/03/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

David L Shulman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Jaime Reyes both individually and as "next friend" for his two minor children, D.R.B. and J.R.B.

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

Gloria Contreras Edin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jason J Stover (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jennifer R Coates (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Matthew S Ebert (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/05/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY

Rachel E Bengtson−Lang

CaSe: 0:07-cv-1959 As Of: 02/17/2013 07:11 PM CST 15 of 54

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

Robert C Long (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

David L Shulman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Travis C Thompson (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/03/2008 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Marlen Alonso Soriano

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

Gloria Contreras Edin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jason J Stover (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jennifer R Coates (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Matthew S Ebert (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/05/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY

Rachel E Bengtson−Lang (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Robert C Long (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

David L Shulman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Travis C Thompson (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/03/2008 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff

CaSe: 0:07-cv-1959 As Of: 02/17/2013 07:11 PM CST 16 of 54

Jose Erasmo Montalvan the Consul of Honduras, as next of friend to Honduran Nationals

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

Gloria Contreras Edin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jason J Stover (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jennifer R Coates (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Matthew S Ebert (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/05/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY

Rachel E Bengtson−Lang (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Robert C Long (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

David L Shulman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Travis C Thompson (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/03/2008 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Alex Josue Sorto TERMINATED: 06/05/2009

represented by Daniel R Shulman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Gloria Contreras Edin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jason J Stover (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Matthew S Ebert (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/05/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY

CaSe: 0:07-cv-1959 As Of: 02/17/2013 07:11 PM CST 17 of 54

Rachel E Bengtson−Lang (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Robert C Long (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

David L Shulman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Lonnie F Bryan United States Attorney's Office 300 S 4th St Ste 600 Minneapolis, MN 55415 612−664−5600 Fax: 612−664−5788 Email: lonnie.bryan@usdoj.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Travis C Thompson (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/03/2008 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Rosa Sorto Lopez

represented by Daniel R Shulman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Gloria Contreras Edin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jason J Stover (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jennifer R Coates (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Matthew S Ebert (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/05/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY

Rachel E Bengtson−Lang (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Robert C Long (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

David L Shulman

CaSe: 0:07-cv-1959 As Of: 02/17/2013 07:11 PM CST 18 of 54

(See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Travis C Thompson (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/03/2008 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Maria Elena Amaya TERMINATED: 07/31/2007

represented by Daniel R Shulman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

David L Shulman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Travis C Thompson (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/03/2008 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Ermencia Mendez

represented by Daniel R Shulman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Gloria Contreras Edin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jason J Stover (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jennifer R Coates (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Matthew S Ebert (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/05/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY

Rachel E Bengtson−Lang (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Robert C Long (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

David L Shulman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Travis C Thompson (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/03/2008

CaSe: 0:07-cv-1959 As Of: 02/17/2013 07:11 PM CST 19 of 54

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Manuela de Jesus Pineda

represented by Daniel R Shulman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Gloria Contreras Edin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jason J Stover (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jennifer R Coates (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Matthew S Ebert (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/05/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY

Rachel E Bengtson−Lang (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Robert C Long (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

David L Shulman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Travis C Thompson (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/03/2008 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Samuel Zelaya

represented by Daniel R Shulman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Gloria Contreras Edin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jason J Stover (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jennifer R Coates (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

CaSe: 0:07-cv-1959 As Of: 02/17/2013 07:11 PM CST 20 of 54

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Matthew S Ebert (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/05/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY

Rachel E Bengtson−Lang (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Robert C Long (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

David L Shulman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Travis C Thompson (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/03/2008 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Jose Manuel Ramirez Calix TERMINATED: 04/23/2008

represented by Daniel R Shulman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Gloria Contreras Edin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jason J Stover (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Matthew S Ebert (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/05/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY

Robert C Long (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

David L Shulman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Travis C Thompson (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/03/2008 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Alejandro Cartagena

represented by Daniel R Shulman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

CaSe: 0:07-cv-1959 As Of: 02/17/2013 07:11 PM CST 21 of 54

Plaintiff
William Ramos Castillo TERMINATED: 04/23/2008

Gloria Contreras Edin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jason J Stover (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jennifer R Coates (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Matthew S Ebert (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/05/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY
Rachel E Bengtson−Lang (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert C Long (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
David L Shulman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Travis C Thompson (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/03/2008 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Daniel R Shulman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY
Gloria Contreras Edin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jason J Stover (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Matthew S Ebert (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/05/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY
Robert C Long (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

CaSe: 0:07-cv-1959 As Of: 02/17/2013 07:11 PM CST 22 of 54

Plaintiff Graciela Barragan both individually and as "next friend" for her minor children, J.A.P.
Plaintiff Rosa Nely Duarte TERMINATED: 04/23/2008

David L Shulman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Travis C Thompson (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/03/2008 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Daniel R Shulman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY
Gloria Contreras Edin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jason J Stover (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jennifer R Coates (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Matthew S Ebert (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/05/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY
Rachel E Bengtson−Lang (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert C Long (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
David L Shulman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Travis C Thompson (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/03/2008 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Daniel R Shulman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY
Gloria Contreras Edin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

CaSe: 0:07-cv-1959 As Of: 02/17/2013 07:11 PM CST 23 of 54

Jason J Stover (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Matthew S Ebert (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/05/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY

Robert C Long (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

David L Shulman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Travis C Thompson (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/03/2008 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Francis Garcia both individually and as "next friend" for her minor children, O.B.

represented by Daniel R Shulman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Gloria Contreras Edin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jason J Stover (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jennifer R Coates (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Matthew S Ebert (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/05/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY

Rachel E Bengtson−Lang (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Robert C Long (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

David L Shulman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Travis C Thompson

CaSe: 0:07-cv-1959 As Of: 02/17/2013 07:11 PM CST 24 of 54

(See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/03/2008 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Troy Hastings both individually and as "next friend" for his minor children, B. H.

represented by Daniel R Shulman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Gloria Contreras Edin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jason J Stover (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jennifer R Coates (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Matthew S Ebert (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/05/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY

Rachel E Bengtson−Lang (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Robert C Long (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

David L Shulman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Travis C Thompson (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/03/2008 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Joceline Sarai Lopez both individually and as "next friend" for her minor children, J.M.

represented by Daniel R Shulman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Gloria Contreras Edin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jason J Stover (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jennifer R Coates

CaSe: 0:07-cv-1959 As Of: 02/17/2013 07:11 PM CST 25 of 54

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

Matthew S Ebert (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/05/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY

Rachel E Bengtson−Lang (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Robert C Long (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

David L Shulman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Travis C Thompson (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/03/2008 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Iris Janet Maldonado both individually and as "next friend" for her three minor children, P.M., B.M., and E.M. TERMINATED: 04/23/2008

represented by Daniel R Shulman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY
Gloria Contreras Edin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jason J Stover (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Matthew S Ebert (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/05/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY

Robert C Long (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

David L Shulman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Travis C Thompson (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/03/2008 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff

represented by

CaSe: 0:07-cv-1959 As Of: 02/17/2013 07:11 PM CST 26 of 54

Josefa C. Montalvo both individually and as "next friend" for her minor grandchildren, B.M.

Daniel R Shulman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Gloria Contreras Edin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jason J Stover (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jennifer R Coates (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Matthew S Ebert (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/05/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY

Rachel E Bengtson−Lang (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Robert C Long (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

David L Shulman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Travis C Thompson (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/03/2008 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Barbara Anahi Moreno

represented by Daniel R Shulman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Gloria Contreras Edin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jason J Stover (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jennifer R Coates (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

CaSe: 0:07-cv-1959 As Of: 02/17/2013 07:11 PM CST 27 of 54

Matthew S Ebert (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/05/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY

Rachel E Bengtson−Lang (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Robert C Long (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

David L Shulman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Travis C Thompson (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/03/2008 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Javier Moreno

represented by Daniel R Shulman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Gloria Contreras Edin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jason J Stover (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jennifer R Coates (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Matthew S Ebert (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/05/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY

Rachel E Bengtson−Lang (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Robert C Long (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

David L Shulman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Travis C Thompson

CaSe: 0:07-cv-1959 As Of: 02/17/2013 07:11 PM CST 28 of 54

(See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/03/2008 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Digna Munoz Xiomara TERMINATED: 06/05/2009

represented by Daniel R Shulman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Gloria Contreras Edin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jason J Stover (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Matthew S Ebert (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/05/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY

Rachel E Bengtson−Lang (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Robert C Long (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

David L Shulman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Lonnie F Bryan (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Travis C Thompson (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/03/2008 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V.
Defendant
United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement Division of the Department of the Homeland Security TERMINATED: 04/23/2008

represented by Gjon Juncaj US Dept of Justice Office of Immigration Litigation PO Box 878 Ben Franklin Station INACTIVE Washington, DC 20044 202−307−8514 Fax: 202−233−0397 Email: gjon.juncaj@usdoj.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

CaSe: 0:07-cv-1959 As Of: 02/17/2013 07:11 PM CST 29 of 54

Lonnie F Bryan (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Michael Chertoff Secretary, Department of Homeland Security TERMINATED: 04/23/2008

represented by Gjon Juncaj (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Lonnie F Bryan (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Julie L Myers Assistant Secretary of Homeland Security for Immigration and Customs Enforcement

represented by Gjon Juncaj (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Gregory G Brooker United States Attorney's Office 300 S 4th St Ste 600 Minneapolis, MN 55415 612−664−5600 Fax: 612−664−5788 Email: greg.brooker@usdoj.gov

Lonnie F Bryan (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
John P Torres Director of Detention and Removal Operations, Immigration and Customs Enforcement

represented by Gjon Juncaj (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Gregory G Brooker (See above for address)

Lonnie F Bryan (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Scott Baniecke St. Paul Field Office Director for Detention and Removal Operations

represented by Gjon Juncaj (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Gregory G Brooker (See above for address)

Lonnie F Bryan (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant John Doe ICE Agents ##1−30

represented by Lonnie F Bryan (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

CaSe: 0:07-cv-1959 As Of: 02/17/2013 07:11 PM CST 30 of 54

Defendant James A. Kulset Willmar Police Department Chief of Police
Defendant John Doe Willmar Police Officers ##1−10
Defendant Peter Berg Supervisory Detention &Deportation Officer, Detention and Removal
Defendant Allen Gay Deportation Officer, Detention and

represented by Jon K Iverson Iverson Reuvers Condon 9321 Ensign Ave S Bloomington, MN 55438 952−548−7204 Fax: 952−548−7210 Email: jon@irc−law.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lonnie F Bryan (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Pamela F Whitmore Iverson Reuvers, LLC 9321 Ensign Ave S Bloomington, MN 55438 952−548−7211 Fax: 952−946−1501 Email: pwhitmore@iversonlaw.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Stephanie A Angolkar Iverson Reuvers Condon 9321 Ensign Ave S Bloomington, MN 55438 952−548−7200 Fax: 952−548−7210 Email: stephanie@irc−law.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Jon K Iverson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lonnie F Bryan (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Pamela F Whitmore (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Stephanie A Angolkar (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Gjon Juncaj (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lonnie F Bryan (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Gjon Juncaj (See above for address)

CaSe: 0:07-cv-1959 As Of: 02/17/2013 07:11 PM CST 31 of 54

Removal

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Lonnie F Bryan (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Dan Hartog Kandiyohi County Sheriff TERMINATED: 06/23/2009

represented by Erin E Benson Ratwik, Roszak &Maloney PA 730 2nd Ave S Ste 300 Mpls, MN 55402 612−339−0060 Fax: 612−339−0038 Email: eeb@ratwiklaw.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Rachel E Bengtson−Lang (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ann R Goering Ratwik Roszak &Maloney, PA 730 2nd Ave S Ste 300 Mpls, MN 55402 612−339−0060 Fax: 612−339−0038 Email: arg@ratwiklaw.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Joseph J Langel Ratwik Roszak &Maloney 730 2nd Ave S Ste 300 Mpls, MN 55402 612−339−0060 Fax: 612−339−0038 Email: jjl@ratwiklaw.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Lonnie F Bryan (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Scott T Anderson Rupp, Anderson, Squires &Waldspurger 527 Marquette Avenue South, Suite 1200 Minneapolis, MN 55402 612−436−4300 Fax: 612−436−4340 Email: scott.anderson@raswlaw.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Jane Doe Kandiyohi County Probational Official TERMINATED: 06/23/2009

represented by Ann R Goering (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Erin E Benson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

CaSe: 0:07-cv-1959 As Of: 02/17/2013 07:11 PM CST 32 of 54

Defendant John Doe Kandiyohi Sheriffs Deputies ##1−10 TERMINATED: 06/23/2009
Defendant Paul Schmidt Atwater Police Officer
Defendant Reed Schmidt Atwater Police Department Chief of Police

Joseph J Langel (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lonnie F Bryan (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Scott T Anderson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ann R Goering (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Erin E Benson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Joseph J Langel (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lonnie F Bryan (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Scott T Anderson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Jon K Iverson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lonnie F Bryan (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Pamela F Whitmore (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Stephanie A Angolkar (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Jon K Iverson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lonnie F Bryan (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

CaSe: 0:07-cv-1959 As Of: 02/17/2013 07:11 PM CST 33 of 54

Defendant
United States Department of Homeland Security TERMINATED: 04/23/2008

Pamela F Whitmore (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Stephanie A Angolkar (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Gjon Juncaj (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lonnie F Bryan (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 04/19/2007
04/19/2007 04/19/2007 04/19/2007 04/19/2007
04/19/2007
04/19/2007 04/20/2007 04/20/2007 04/20/2007 04/24/2007

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT against all defendants ( Filing fee $ 350 receipt number 40012579.) assigned to Judge Ann D Montgomery per Master List and referred to Magistrate Judge Janie S Mayeron, filed by Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit(s)# 2 Civil Cover Sheet)(kt) (Entered: 04/19/2007)
2 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order by Plaintiffs. (kt) (Entered: 04/19/2007)
3 MEMORANDUM in Support re 2 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order filed by all plaintiffs. (kt) (Entered: 04/19/2007)
4 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Plaintiffs re 3 Memorandum in Support of Motion, 1 Complaint, 2 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order (kt) (Entered: 04/19/2007)
Summons Issued as to United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement Division of the Department of Homeland Security, Michael Chertoff, Julie L Myers, John P Torres, Scott Baniecke, John Doe ICE Agents ##1−30. (kt) (Entered: 04/19/2007)
5 NOTICE of Appearance by Lonnie F Bryan on behalf of United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement Division of the Department of Homeland Security, Michael Chertoff, Julie L Myers, John P Torres, Scott Baniecke, John Doe ICE Agents ##1−30 (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Bryan, Lonnie) (Entered: 04/19/2007)
TEXT ENTRY for telephone conference call proceedings held before Judge Ann D. Montgomery held on 4/19/2007 re: handling of TRO. (GS) Modified text on 4/24/2007 (kt). (Entered: 04/24/2007)
6 NOTICE of Appearance by Jason J Stover on behalf of all plaintiffs (Stover, Jason) (Entered: 04/20/2007)
7 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Plaintiffs re 6 Notice of Appearance (Stover, Jason) Modified text on 8/1/2007 (Moralez, Vickie). (Entered: 04/20/2007)
TEXT ENTRY for proceedings held before Judge Ann D. Montgomery : Scheduling Conference held on 4/20/2007 by conference call. (GS) (Entered: 04/24/2007)
8 AMENDED MEMORANDUM in Support re 9 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order filed by all plaintiffs. (Edin, Gloria) Modified on 4/25/2007 (GJS). Modified link on 4/25/2007 (gjs). (Entered: 04/24/2007)

CaSe: 0:07-cv-1959 As Of: 02/17/2013 07:11 PM CST 34 of 54

04/24/2007
04/24/2007 04/24/2007
04/24/2007
04/25/2007 04/25/2007 04/25/2007 04/25/2007

9 Amended MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order by Francisco Munoz, Juan Munoz, Albis Munoz, Saomara Munoz, Jenny Maldonaldo, Teresa de Jesus Guerrero, Santiago Coronel, Carlos Arias, Fabiola Cisneros, Vicente Cisneros Abonce, Andreas Vega, Audrey Mithun, Esau Estrada, Danira Maldonaldo−Hernandez, Rosa De Jesus, Barrajas Arrellano, Raul Veliz, Jr, Wenscelao Padilla Guzman, Dulce Maria Hernandez, Jorge Zelaya, Leah Garcia, Jaime Reyes, Marlen Alonso Soriano, Jose Erasmo Montalvan, United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement Division of the Department of Homeland Security, Michael Chertoff, Julie L Myers, John P Torres, Scott Baniecke, John Doe ICE Agents ##1−30, David Corea. (Edin, Gloria) (Entered: 04/24/2007)
10 AMENDED NOTICE of Hearing on Motion 2 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order, 9 Amended MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order: Motion Hearing set for 4/26/2007 11:00 AM in Minneapolis − Courtroom 14W before Judge Ann D. Montgomery. (Edin, Gloria) (Entered: 04/24/2007)
11 AMENDED COMPLAINT against all defendants, filed by Francisco Munoz, Juan Munoz, Albis Munoz, Saomara Munoz, Jenny Maldonaldo, Teresa de Jesus Guerrero, Santiago Coronel, Carlos Arias, Fabiola Cisneros, Vicente Cisneros Abonce, Andreas Vega, Audrey Mithun, Esau Estrada, Danira Maldonaldo−Hernandez, Rosa De Jesus, Barrajas Arrellano, Raul Veliz, Jr, Wenscelao Padilla Guzman, Dulce Maria Hernandez, Jorge Zelaya, Leah Garcia, Jaime Reyes, Marlen Alonso Soriano, Jose Erasmo Montalvan, United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement Division of the Department of Homeland Security, Michael Chertoff, Julie L Myers, John P Torres, Scott Baniecke, John Doe ICE Agents ##1−30, David Corea. (Attachments: # 1 Amended Complaint Part II# 2 Amended Complaint Part III# 3 Affidavits as Exhibits to Amended Complaint# 4 Affidavits continued)(Edin, Gloria) Modified on 4/26/2007 (gjs). (Entered: 04/24/2007)
12 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Francisco Munoz, Juan Munoz, Albis Munoz, Saomara Munoz, Jenny Maldonaldo, Teresa de Jesus Guerrero, Santiago Coronel, Carlos Arias, Fabiola Cisneros, Vicente Cisneros Abonce, Andreas Vega, Audrey Mithun, Esau Estrada, Danira Maldonaldo−Hernandez, Rosa De Jesus, Barrajas Arrellano, Raul Veliz, Jr, Wenscelao Padilla Guzman, Dulce Maria Hernandez, Jorge Zelaya, Leah Garcia, Jaime Reyes, Marlen Alonso Soriano, Jose Erasmo Montalvan, United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement Division of the Department of Homeland Security, Michael Chertoff, Julie L Myers, John P Torres, Scott Baniecke, John Doe ICE Agents ##1−30, David Corea For amended documents (Edin, Gloria) (Entered: 04/24/2007)
13 AMENDED NOTICE of Hearing on Motion 9 Amended MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order: Motion Hearing set for 4/26/2007 11:00 AM in Minneapolis − Courtroom 13W before Judge Ann D. Montgomery. (Edin, Gloria) (Entered: 04/25/2007)
14 RESPONSE re 9 Amended MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order filed by United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement Division of the Department of Homeland Security, Michael Chertoff, Julie L Myers, John P Torres, Scott Baniecke, John Doe ICE Agents ##1−30. (Bryan, Lonnie) (Entered: 04/25/2007)
15 LR7.1 WORD COUNT COMPLIANCE CERTIFICATE by United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement Division of the Department of Homeland Security, Michael Chertoff, Julie L Myers, John P Torres, Scott Baniecke, John Doe ICE Agents ##1−30 re 14 Response, filed by United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement Division of the Department of Homeland Security, Michael Chertoff, Julie L Myers, John P Torres, Scott Baniecke, John Doe ICE Agents ##1−30. (Bryan, Lonnie) (Entered: 04/25/2007)
16 EXHIBIT re 14 Response, Exhibit 1 by United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement Division of the Department of Homeland Security, Michael Chertoff, Julie L Myers, John P Torres, Scott Baniecke, John Doe ICE Agents ##1−30 filed by United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement Division of the Department of Homeland Security, Michael Chertoff, Julie L Myers, John P Torres, Scott Baniecke, John Doe ICE Agents ##1−30. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit(s) part 2)(Bryan, Lonnie) (Entered: 04/25/2007)

CaSe: 0:07-cv-1959 As Of: 02/17/2013 07:11 PM CST 35 of 54

04/25/2007
04/25/2007
04/25/2007 04/25/2007 04/25/2007 04/25/2007
04/25/2007 04/25/2007 04/25/2007 04/26/2007

17 EXHIBIT re 14 Response, Exhibit 2 by United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement Division of the Department of Homeland Security, Michael Chertoff, Julie L Myers, John P Torres, Scott Baniecke, John Doe ICE Agents ##1−30 filed by United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement Division of the Department of Homeland Security, Michael Chertoff, Julie L Myers, John P Torres, Scott Baniecke, John Doe ICE Agents ##1−30. (Bryan, Lonnie) (Entered: 04/25/2007)
18 EXHIBIT re 14 Response, Exhibit 3 by United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement Division of the Department of Homeland Security, Michael Chertoff, Julie L Myers, John P Torres, Scott Baniecke, John Doe ICE Agents ##1−30 filed by United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement Division of the Department of Homeland Security, Michael Chertoff, Julie L Myers, John P Torres, Scott Baniecke, John Doe ICE Agents ##1−30. (Bryan, Lonnie) (Entered: 04/25/2007)
19 Declaration of Peter Berg in Support of 14 Response, filed by United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement Division of the Department of Homeland Security, Michael Chertoff, Julie L Myers, John P Torres, Scott Baniecke, John Doe ICE Agents ##1−30. (Bryan, Lonnie) (Entered: 04/25/2007)
20 Declaration of Allen Gay in Support of 14 Response, filed by United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement Division of the Department of Homeland Security, Michael Chertoff, Julie L Myers, John P Torres, Scott Baniecke, John Doe ICE Agents ##1−30. (Bryan, Lonnie) (Entered: 04/25/2007)
21 Declaration of Allen Gay in Support of 14 Response, filed by United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement Division of the Department of Homeland Security, Michael Chertoff, Julie L Myers, John P Torres, Scott Baniecke, John Doe ICE Agents ##1−30. (Bryan, Lonnie) (Entered: 04/25/2007)
22 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by James A. Kulset, John Doe Willmar Police Officers ##1−10, United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement Division of the Department of Homeland Security, Michael Chertoff, Julie L Myers, John P Torres, Scott Baniecke, John Doe ICE Agents ##1−30 re 14 Response,, 19 Declaration in Support,, 17 Exhibit,, 21 Declaration in Support,, 20 Declaration in Support,, 18 Exhibit,, 15 LR7.1 Word Count Compliance Certificate,, 16 Exhibit,, (Bryan, Lonnie) (Entered: 04/25/2007)
Amended Summons Issued as to James A. Kulset, John Doe Willmar Police Officers ##1−10, United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement Division of the Department of Homeland Security, Michael Chertoff, Julie L Myers, John P Torres, Scott Baniecke, John Doe ICE Agents ##1−30. (akl) (Entered: 04/25/2007)
23 NOTICE of Appearance by Jon K Iverson on behalf of James A. Kulset, John Doe Willmar Police Officers ##1−10 (Iverson, Jon) (Entered: 04/25/2007)
24 RESPONSE in Opposition re 9 Amended MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order, 2 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order filed by James A. Kulset, John Doe Willmar Police Officers ##1−10. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Iverson, Jon) (Entered: 04/25/2007)
25 TEXT ENTRY − Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Ann D. Montgomery : Motion Hearing held on 4/26/2007 re 9 Amended MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order filed by Scott Baniecke, Michael Chertoff, Carlos Arias, Dulce Maria Hernandez, David Corea, Francisco Munoz, Juan Munoz, Albis Munoz, Saomara Munoz, Jenny Maldonaldo, Teresa de Jesus Guerrero, Santiago Coronel, Fabiola Cisneros, Vicente Cisneros Abonce, Andreas Vega, Audrey Mithun, Esau Estrada, Danira Maldonaldo−Hernandez, Rosa De Jesus, Barrajas Arrellano, Raul Veliz, Jr., Wenscelao Padilla Guzman, Jorge Zelaya, Leah Garcia, Jaime Reyes, Marlen Alonso Soriano, Jose Erasmo Montalvan, United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement Division of the Department of Homeland Security, Julie L Myers, John P Torres, John Doe ICE Agents ##1−30. Motion was argued and DENIED. No order will be issued. (Court Reporter Tim Willette) (GS) (Entered: 04/26/2007)

CaSe: 0:07-cv-1959 As Of: 02/17/2013 07:11 PM CST 36 of 54

05/16/2007 05/16/2007 05/16/2007 05/22/2007 06/07/2007 06/08/2007 06/18/2007 06/18/2007
06/18/2007 06/18/2007
06/19/2007
07/02/2007 07/10/2007 07/10/2007

26 TRANSCRIPT of Hearing on Plaintiff's Motion for Temporary Restraining Order held on 4/26/07 before Judge Ann D Montgomery. Court Reporter: Timothy J Willette. (43pgs) FILED CONVENTIONALLY (kt) (Entered: 05/16/2007)
27 ANSWER to Amended Complaint by James A. Kulset, John Doe Willmar Police Officers ##1−10.(Iverson, Jon) (Entered: 05/16/2007)
28 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by James A. Kulset, John Doe Willmar Police Officers ##1−10 re 27 Answer to Amended Complaint (Iverson, Jon) (Entered: 05/16/2007)
29 NOTICE of Pretrial Conference set for 6/22/2007 09:45 AM in Minneapolis − Courtroom 8E before Magistrate Judge Janie S. Mayeron. Signed by Magistrate Judge Janie S. Mayeron on 5/22/07. (Attachments: # 1 Consent Form)(kt) (Entered: 05/22/2007)
30 ORDER: The Rule 16 Pretrial Conference scheduled on June 22, 2007, at 9:45 a.m. is cancelled. Signed by Magistrate Judge Janie S. Mayeron on 6/7/07. (jam) (Entered: 06/08/2007)
Summons Reissued as to Michael Chertoff, Julie L Myers, John P Torres, Scott Baniecke. (jam) (Entered: 06/08/2007)
31 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer re 11 Amended Complaint,,, by United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement Division of the Department of Homeland Security, Michael Chertoff, Julie L Myers, John P Torres, Scott Baniecke, John Doe ICE Agents ##1−30. (Bryan, Lonnie) (Entered: 06/18/2007)
32 MEMORANDUM in Support re 31 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer re 11 Amended Complaint,,, filed by United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement Division of the Department of Homeland Security, Michael Chertoff, Julie L Myers, John P Torres, Scott Baniecke, John Doe ICE Agents ##1−30. (Attachments: # 1 LR7.1 Word Count Compliance Certificate)(Bryan, Lonnie) (Entered: 06/18/2007)
33 AFFIDAVIT of Lonnie F. Bryan in SUPPORT OF 31 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer re 11 Amended Complaint,,, filed by United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement Division of the Department of Homeland Security, Michael Chertoff, Julie L Myers, John P Torres, Scott Baniecke, John Doe ICE Agents ##1−30. (Bryan, Lonnie) (Entered: 06/18/2007)
34 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement Division of the Department of Homeland Security, Michael Chertoff, Julie L Myers, John P Torres, Scott Baniecke, John Doe ICE Agents ##1−30 re 33 Affidavit in Support of Motion,, 32 Memorandum in Support of Motion,, 31 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer re 11 Amended Complaint,,, (Bryan, Lonnie) (Entered: 06/18/2007)
35 ORDER that the Untied States shall be, and hereby is, granted an extension of time to respond to the Complaint of Plaintiff to July 10, 2007.United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement Division of the Department of Homeland Security answer due 7/10/2007; Michael Chertoff answer due 7/10/2007; Julie L Myers answer due 7/10/2007; John P Torres answer due 7/10/2007; Scott Baniecke answer due 7/10/2007. Signed by Magistrate Judge Janie S. Mayeron on 6/18/07. (JMH) (Entered: 06/19/2007)
36 NOTICE OF HEARING ON MOTION Motion Hearing set for 9/7/2007 09:00 AM in Minneapolis − Courtroom 13W before Judge Ann D. Montgomery. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Bryan, Lonnie) (Entered: 07/02/2007)
37 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction or, in the alternative, for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted by United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement Division of the Department of Homeland Security, Michael Chertoff, Julie L Myers, John P Torres, Scott Baniecke. (Juncaj, Gjon) (Entered: 07/10/2007)
38 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement Division of the Department of Homeland Security, Michael Chertoff,

CaSe: 0:07-cv-1959 As Of: 02/17/2013 07:11 PM CST 37 of 54

07/23/2007
07/26/2007 07/26/2007 07/26/2007 07/27/2007 07/27/2007 07/30/2007 09/10/2007 09/10/2007 09/14/2007 09/14/2007 09/14/2007 09/14/2007
09/14/2007

Julie L Myers, John P Torres, Scott Baniecke re 37 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction or, in the alternative, for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted (Juncaj, Gjon) (Entered: 07/10/2007)
39 AMENDED NOTICE of Hearing on Motion 37 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction or, in the alternative, for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted: Motion Hearing set for 11/9/2007 09:00 AM in Minneapolis − Courtroom 13W before Judge Ann D. Montgomery. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Bryan, Lonnie) (Entered: 07/23/2007)
40 JOINT STIPULATION Re: Amended Complaint (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit(s) A (Amended Complaint Filed under seal )# 2 Certificate of Service)(Shulman, Daniel) Modified text on 7/26/2007 (vem). (Entered: 07/26/2007)
41 AMENDED COMPLAINT For Declaratory and Injunctive Relief and DamagesJ filed by Plaintiffs against named Defendants FILED UNDER SEAL RECEIVED IN CLERK'S OFFICE 7/26/07 (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Shulman, Daniel) Additional attachment(s) added on 7/27/2007 (vem) (Entered: 07/26/2007)
42 JOINT STIPULATION To Enlarge Time (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Bryan, Lonnie) Modified TEXT on 7/27/2007 (vem). (Entered: 07/26/2007)
43 AMENDED COMPLAINT for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief and Damages filed on behalf of all plaintiffs against all defendants, filed by Carlos Arias. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Shulman, Daniel) (Entered: 07/27/2007)
Amended Summons Issued as to Peter Berg, Allen Gay, Dan Hartog, Paul Schmidt, Reed Schmidt. (akl) (Entered: 07/27/2007)
44 ORDER: that the stipulation is granted and the Defendants shall have until September 25, 2007, to respond re 42 Stipulation . Signed by Magistrate Judge Janie S. Mayeron on 7/30/07. (jam) Modified on 7/31/2007 (vem). (Entered: 07/30/2007)
45 Joint and Separate ANSWER to Amended Complaint by Dan Hartog, Jane Doe Kandiyohi County Probational Official, John Doe Kandiyohi Sheriffs Deputies ##1−10. (Anderson, Scott) (Entered: 09/10/2007)
46 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Dan Hartog, Jane Doe Kandiyohi County Probational Official, John Doe Kandiyohi Sheriffs Deputies ##1−10 re 45 Answer to Amended Complaint (Anderson, Scott) (Entered: 09/10/2007)
47 Atwater's ANSWER to Amended Complaint by Paul Schmidt, Reed Schmidt. DOCUMENT FILED IN ERROR − WILL REFILE CERT OF SER ONLY(Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service) (Iverson, Jon) Modified on 9/14/2007 (jam). (Entered: 09/14/2007)
48 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Paul Schmidt, Reed Schmidt re 47 Answer to Amended Complaint (Iverson, Jon) (Entered: 09/14/2007)
49 NOTICE of Appearance by Travis C Thompson on behalf of all plaintiffs (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Thompson, Travis) (Entered: 09/14/2007)
50 DOCUMENT FILED IN ERROR − this filing gave incorrect answer due dates on Paul and Reed Smith to be refiled. SUMMONS Returned Executed by Carlos Hilario Arias. Peter Berg served on 8/13/2007, answer due 9/4/2007; Allen Gay served on 8/13/2007, answer due 9/4/2007; Dan Hartog served on 8/21/2007, answer due 9/10/2007; Paul Schmidt served on 8/15/2007, answer due 9/6/2007; Reed Schmidt served on 8/15/2007, answer due 9/6/2007; Julie L Myers served on 9/10/2007, answer due 10/1/2007; John P Torres served on 9/10/2007, answer due 10/1/2007. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Thompson, Travis) Modified on 9/14/2007 (gjs). (Entered: 09/14/2007)
51 DOCUMENT FILED IN ERROR − SUMMONS Returned Executed by Carlos Hilario Arias. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit of Service # 2 Certificate of Service)(Thompson, Travis) Modified on 9/14/2007 (gjs). (Entered: 09/14/2007)

CaSe: 0:07-cv-1959 As Of: 02/17/2013 07:11 PM CST 38 of 54

09/14/2007 09/19/2007
09/21/2007 10/19/2007 10/19/2007 10/19/2007 10/19/2007
10/19/2007
10/19/2007 10/19/2007 10/19/2007 10/19/2007 10/19/2007 10/19/2007

52 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Carlos Hilario Arias. (Thompson, Travis) (Entered: 09/14/2007)
53 AMENDED NOTICE of Hearing on Motion 37 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction or, in the alternative, for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted : Motion Hearing set for 12/3/2007 09:00 AM in Minneapolis − Courtroom 13W before Judge Ann D. Montgomery. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Bryan, Lonnie) (Entered: 09/19/2007)
54 Amended ANSWER to Amended Complaint by James A. Kulset, John Doe Willmar Police Officers ##1−10. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service) (Whitmore, Pamela) (Entered: 09/21/2007)
55 Joint MOTION to Dismiss , or in the alternative, Summary Judgment by James A. Kulset, John Doe Willmar Police Officers ##1−10, Paul Schmidt, Reed Schmidt. (Whitmore, Pamela) (Entered: 10/19/2007)
56 NOTICE OF HEARING ON MOTION 55 Joint MOTION to Dismiss , or in the alternative, Summary Judgment : Motion Hearing set for 12/3/2007 09:00 AM in Minneapolis − Courtroom 13W before Judge Ann D. Montgomery. (Whitmore, Pamela) (Entered: 10/19/2007)
57 MEMORANDUM in Support re 55 Joint MOTION to Dismiss , or in the alternative, Summary Judgment filed by James A. Kulset, John Doe Willmar Police Officers ##1−10, Paul Schmidt, Reed Schmidt. (Attachments: # 1 LR7.1 Word Count Compliance Certificate)(Whitmore, Pamela) (Entered: 10/19/2007)
58 AFFIDAVIT of Pamela J. Whitmore in SUPPORT OF 55 Joint MOTION to Dismiss , or in the alternative, Summary Judgment filed by James A. Kulset, John Doe Willmar Police Officers ##1−10, Paul Schmidt, Reed Schmidt. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit(s) A# 2 Exhibit(s) B# 3 Exhibit(s) C)(Whitmore, Pamela) (Entered: 10/19/2007)
59 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by James A. Kulset, John Doe Willmar Police Officers ##1−10, Paul Schmidt, Reed Schmidt re 55 Joint MOTION to Dismiss , or in the alternative, Summary Judgment, 58 Affidavit in Support of Motion, 57 Memorandum in Support of Motion, 56 Notice of Hearing on Motion (Whitmore, Pamela) (Entered: 10/19/2007)
60 MOTION to Dismiss and/or Motion for Summary Judgment, or Motion to Sever by Dan Hartog, Jane Doe Kandiyohi County Probational Official, John Doe Kandiyohi Sheriffs Deputies ##1−10. (Anderson, Scott) (Entered: 10/19/2007)
61 NOTICE OF HEARING ON MOTION 60 MOTION to Dismiss and/or Motion for Summary Judgment, or Motion to Sever : Motion Hearing set for 12/3/2007 09:00 AM in Minneapolis − Courtroom 13W before Judge Ann D. Montgomery. (Anderson, Scott) (Entered: 10/19/2007)
62 MEMORANDUM in Support re 60 MOTION to Dismiss and/or Motion for Summary Judgment, or Motion to Sever filed by Dan Hartog, Jane Doe Kandiyohi County Probational Official, John Doe Kandiyohi Sheriffs Deputies ##1−10. (Anderson, Scott) (Entered: 10/19/2007)
63 AFFIDAVIT of Dan Hartog in SUPPORT OF 60 MOTION to Dismiss and/or Motion for Summary Judgment, or Motion to Sever filed by Dan Hartog, Jane Doe Kandiyohi County Probational Official, John Doe Kandiyohi Sheriffs Deputies ##1−10. (Anderson, Scott) (Entered: 10/19/2007)
64 AFFIDAVIT of Randy Kveene in SUPPORT OF 60 MOTION to Dismiss and/or Motion for Summary Judgment, or Motion to Sever filed by Dan Hartog, Jane Doe Kandiyohi County Probational Official, John Doe Kandiyohi Sheriffs Deputies ##1−10. (Anderson, Scott) (Entered: 10/19/2007)
65 AFFIDAVIT of Serena Robak in SUPPORT OF 60 MOTION to Dismiss and/or Motion for Summary Judgment, or Motion to Sever filed by Dan Hartog, Jane Doe Kandiyohi County Probational Official, John Doe Kandiyohi Sheriffs Deputies ##1−10. (Anderson, Scott) (Entered: 10/19/2007)

CaSe: 0:07-cv-1959 As Of: 02/17/2013 07:11 PM CST 39 of 54

10/19/2007 10/19/2007
10/19/2007 10/19/2007 10/19/2007 10/19/2007 10/19/2007 10/19/2007 10/19/2007
10/19/2007 10/19/2007
10/19/2007 10/19/2007

66 AFFIDAVIT of Ross Ardoff in SUPPORT OF 60 MOTION to Dismiss and/or Motion for Summary Judgment, or Motion to Sever filed by Dan Hartog, Jane Doe Kandiyohi County Probational Official, John Doe Kandiyohi Sheriffs Deputies ##1−10. (Anderson, Scott) (Entered: 10/19/2007)
67 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Dan Hartog, Jane Doe Kandiyohi County Probational Official, John Doe Kandiyohi Sheriffs Deputies ##1−10 re 63 Affidavit in Support of Motion, 65 Affidavit in Support of Motion, 66 Affidavit in Support of Motion, 62 Memorandum in Support of Motion, 64 Affidavit in Support of Motion, 60 MOTION to Dismiss and/or Motion for Summary Judgment, or Motion to Sever, 61 Notice of Hearing on Motion (Anderson, Scott) (Entered: 10/19/2007)
68 MOTION to Dismiss or, MOTION for Summary Judgment by Peter Berg, Allen Gay, Julie L Myers, John P Torres and Scott Baniecke. (Bryan, Lonnie) Modified text on 10/26/2007 (dch). (Entered: 10/19/2007)
69 Declaration of Allen Gay in Support of 68 MOTION to Dismiss or MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Peter Berg, Allen Gay, John P Torres, Julie L. Myers and Scott Baniecke. (Bryan, Lonnie) Modified text on 10/26/2007 (dch). (Entered: 10/19/2007)
70 Declaration of Peter Berg in Support of 68 MOTION to Dismiss or MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Peter Berg, Allen Gay, Julie L Myers, John P Torres, Scott Baniecke. (Bryan, Lonnie) (Entered: 10/19/2007)
71 Declaration of Julie L. Myers in Support of 68 MOTION to Dismiss or MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Peter Berg, Allen Gay, Julie L Myers, John P Torres, Scott Baniecke. (Bryan, Lonnie) (Entered: 10/19/2007)
72 Declaration of John P. Torres in Support of 68 MOTION to Dismiss or MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Peter Berg, Allen Gay, Julie L Myers, John P Torres, Scott Baniecke. (Bryan, Lonnie) (Entered: 10/19/2007)
73 Declaration of Scott R. Baniecke in Support of 68 MOTION to Dismiss or MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Peter Berg, Allen Gay, Julie L Myers, John P Torres, Scott Baniecke. (Bryan, Lonnie) (Entered: 10/19/2007)
74 MEMORANDUM in Support re 68 MOTION to Dismiss or MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Peter Berg, Allen Gay, Julie L Myers, John P Torres, Scott Baniecke. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service # 2 Exhibit(s) 1# 3 Exhibit(s) 2# 4 Exhibit(s) 3# 5 Exhibit(s) 4# 6 Exhibit(s) 5# 7 Exhibit(s) 6# 8 Exhibit(s) 7# 9 Exhibit(s) 8# 10 Exhibit(s) 9# 11 Exhibit(s) 10# 12 Exhibit(s) 11# 13 Exhibit(s) 12# 14 Exhibit(s) 13# 15 Exhibit(s) 14# 16 Exhibit(s) 15, part 1# 17 Exhibit(s) 15, part 2)(Bryan, Lonnie) (Entered: 10/19/2007)
75 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Peter Berg, Allen Gay, Julie L Myers, John P Torres, Scott Baniecke re 72 Declaration in Support, 74 Memorandum in Support of Motion,, 68 MOTION to Dismiss or MOTION for Summary Judgment, 69 Declaration in Support, 70 Declaration in Support, 73 Declaration in Support, 71 Declaration in Support (Bryan, Lonnie) (Entered: 10/19/2007)
76 LR7.1 WORD COUNT COMPLIANCE CERTIFICATE by Dan Hartog, Jane Doe Kandiyohi County Probational Official, John Doe Kandiyohi Sheriffs Deputies ##1−10 re 62 Memorandum in Support of Motion, filed by Dan Hartog, Jane Doe Kandiyohi County Probational Official, John Doe Kandiyohi Sheriffs Deputies ##1−10. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Anderson, Scott) (Entered: 10/19/2007)
77 MOTION to Dismiss Counts I−IV, VI, and VII by Peter Berg, Allen Gay, United States Department of Homeland Security, United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Michael Chertoff, Julie L Myers, John P Torres, Scott Baniecke. (Juncaj, Gjon) (Entered: 10/19/2007)
78 MEMORANDUM in Support re 77 MOTION to Dismiss Counts I−IV, VI, and VII filed by Peter Berg, Allen Gay, United States Department of Homeland Security, United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Michael Chertoff, Julie L Myers, John P Torres, Scott Baniecke. (Attachments: # 1 LR7.1 Word Count Compliance Certificate # 2 Exhibit(s))(Juncaj, Gjon) (Entered: 10/19/2007)

CaSe: 0:07-cv-1959 As Of: 02/17/2013 07:11 PM CST 40 of 54

10/19/2007 10/25/2007 10/25/2007 10/26/2007
10/31/2007 12/20/2007 12/20/2007 12/20/2007 12/20/2007 12/20/2007
12/20/2007
12/20/2007 12/28/2007 12/28/2007

79 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Peter Berg, Allen Gay, United States Department of Homeland Security, United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Michael Chertoff, Julie L Myers, John P Torres, Scott Baniecke re 78 Memorandum in Support of Motion, 77 MOTION to Dismiss Counts I−IV, VI, and VII (Juncaj, Gjon) (Entered: 10/19/2007)
80 NOTICE of Appearance by David L Shulman on behalf of all plaintiffs (Shulman, David) (Entered: 10/25/2007)
81 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Vicente Cisneros Abonce re 80 Notice of Appearance on behalf of all plaintiffs (Shulman, David) (Entered: 10/25/2007)
82 AMENDED NOTICE of Hearing on Motion 68 MOTION to Dismiss or MOTION for Summary Judgment, 37 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction or, in the alternative, for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted : Motion Hearing set for 1/9/2008 09:00 AM in Minneapolis − Courtroom 13W before Judge Ann D. Montgomery. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Bryan, Lonnie) (Entered: 10/26/2007)
83 AMENDED NOTICE of Hearing on Motion 55 Joint MOTION to Dismiss , or in the alternative, Summary Judgment : Motion Hearing set for 1/9/2008 09:00 AM in Minneapolis − Courtroom 13W before Judge Ann D. Montgomery. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Iverson, Jon) (Entered: 10/31/2007)
84 MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 68 MOTION to Dismiss or MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by all plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 LR7.1 Word Count Compliance Certificate)(Shulman, Daniel) (Entered: 12/20/2007)
85 MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 77 MOTION to Dismiss Counts I−IV, VI, and VII filed by all plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 LR7.1 Word Count Compliance Certificate)(Shulman, Daniel) (Entered: 12/20/2007)
86 MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 55 Joint MOTION to Dismiss , or in the alternative, Summary Judgment filed by all plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 LR7.1 Word Count Compliance Certificate)(Shulman, Daniel) (Entered: 12/20/2007)
87 MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 60 MOTION to Dismiss and/or Motion for Summary Judgment, or Motion to Sever filed by all plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 LR7.1 Word Count Compliance Certificate)(Shulman, Daniel) (Entered: 12/20/2007)
88 DECLARATION of Gloria Contreras Edin in Opposition to 55 Joint MOTION to Dismiss , or in the alternative, Summary Judgment, 68 MOTION to Dismiss or MOTION for Summary Judgment, 77 MOTION to Dismiss Counts I−IV, VI, and VII, 60 MOTION to Dismiss and/or Motion for Summary Judgment, or Motion to Sever filed by all plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit(s) 1# 2 Exhibit(s) 2, Part 1# 3 Exhibit(s) 2, Part 2# 4 Exhibit(s) 2, Part 3# 5 Exhibit(s) 2, Part 4# 6 Exhibit(s) 2, Part 5# 7 Exhibit(s) 3)(Shulman, Daniel) (Entered: 12/20/2007)
89 DECLARATION of Kelly W. Hoversten in Opposition to 55 Joint MOTION to Dismiss , or in the alternative, Summary Judgment, 68 MOTION to Dismiss or MOTION for Summary Judgment, 77 MOTION to Dismiss Counts I−IV, VI, and VII, 60 MOTION to Dismiss and/or Motion for Summary Judgment, or Motion to Sever filed by all plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit(s) 1)(Shulman, Daniel) (Entered: 12/20/2007)
90 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Carlos Hilario Arias re 87 Memorandum in Opposition to Motion, 88 Declaration in Opposition,, 84 Memorandum in Opposition to Motion, 89 Declaration in Opposition, 85 Memorandum in Opposition to Motion, 86 Memorandum in Opposition to Motion [Filed on behalf of all Plaintiffs] (Shulman, Daniel) (Entered: 12/20/2007)
91 REPLY re 87 Memorandum in Opposition to Motion filed by Dan Hartog, Jane Doe Kandiyohi County Probational Official, John Doe Kandiyohi Sheriffs Deputies ##1−10. (Anderson, Scott) (Entered: 12/28/2007)
92 LR7.1 WORD COUNT COMPLIANCE CERTIFICATE by Dan Hartog, Jane Doe Kandiyohi County Probational Official, John Doe Kandiyohi Sheriffs Deputies

CaSe: 0:07-cv-1959 As Of: 02/17/2013 07:11 PM CST 41 of 54

12/28/2007 12/28/2007 12/28/2007 12/28/2007 12/31/2007 01/09/2008
02/05/2008 04/23/2008
04/25/2008

##1−10 re 91 Reply filed by Dan Hartog, Jane Doe Kandiyohi County Probational Official, John Doe Kandiyohi Sheriffs Deputies ##1−10. (Anderson, Scott) (Entered: 12/28/2007)
93 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Dan Hartog, Jane Doe Kandiyohi County Probational Official, John Doe Kandiyohi Sheriffs Deputies ##1−10 (Anderson, Scott) (Entered: 12/28/2007)
94 REPLY re 68 MOTION to Dismiss or MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Peter Berg, Allen Gay, Julie L Myers, John P Torres, Scott Baniecke. (Attachments: # 1 LR7.1 Word Count Compliance Certificate # 2 Exhibit(s) 16# 3 Exhibit(s) 17# 4 Exhibit(s) 18, part 1# 5 Exhibit(s) 18, part 2# 6 Exhibit(s) 18, part 3# 7 Exhibit(s) 18, part 4# 8 Exhibit(s) 19# 9 Exhibit(s) 20# 10 Exhibit(s) 21)(Bryan, Lonnie) (Entered: 12/28/2007)
95 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Peter Berg, Allen Gay, Julie L Myers, John P Torres, Scott Baniecke re 94 Reply, (Bryan, Lonnie) (Entered: 12/28/2007)
96 REPLY to Response to Motion re 77 MOTION to Dismiss Counts I−IV, VI, and VII filed by Peter Berg, Allen Gay, United States Department of Homeland Security, United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Michael Chertoff, Julie L Myers, John P Torres, Scott Baniecke. (Attachments: # 1 LR7.1 Word Count Compliance Certificate # 2 Certificate of Service)(Juncaj, Gjon) (Entered: 12/28/2007)
97 REPLY re 55 Joint MOTION to Dismiss , or in the alternative, Summary Judgment filed by James A. Kulset, John Doe Willmar Police Officers ##1−10, Paul Schmidt, Reed Schmidt. (Attachments: # 1 LR7.1 Word Count Compliance Certificate # 2 Certificate of Service)(Iverson, Jon) (Entered: 12/31/2007)
98 TEXT ENTRY for proceedings held before Judge Ann D. Montgomery : Motion Hearing held on 1/9/2008 re 55 Joint MOTION to Dismiss or in the alternative Summary Judgment filed by Reed Schmidt, James A. Kulset, John Doe Willmar Police Officers ##1−10, Paul Schmidt, 68 MOTION to Dismiss or MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Scott Baniecke, John Doe ICE Agents ##1−30, John P Torres, United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Peter Berg, Michael Chertoff, Julie L Myers, Allen Gay, United States Department of Homeland Security, 77 MOTION to Dismiss Counts I−IV, VI, and VII filed by Scott Baniecke, John P Torres, Peter Berg, United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Michael Chertoff, Julie L Myers, Allen Gay, United States Department of Homeland Security, 60 MOTION to Dismiss and/or Motion for Summary Judgment, or Motion to Sever filed by John Doe Kandiyohi Sheriffs Deputies ##1−10, Jane Doe Kandiyohi County Probational Official, Dan Hartog. All motions taken under advisement. (Court Reporter Dawn Hansen) (GS) (Entered: 01/09/2008)
99 NOTICE OF ATTORNEY APPEARANCE/SUBSTITUTION for Carlos Hilario Arias (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Long, Robert) (Entered: 02/05/2008)
100 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER granting 77 Motion to Dismiss Counts I−IV, VI, and VII of Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint; granting in part and denying in part 55 Motion to Dismiss; granting in part and denying in part 60 Motion to Dismiss; granting in part and denying in part 68 Motion to Dismiss Count V of the Amended Complaint; deferring ruling on 68 Motion for Summary Judgment, by April 30, 2008, Plaintiffs' counsel must file affidavits addressing why Plaintiffs cannot present facts in opposition to the Bivens Defendants, the City Defendants, and the Kandiyohi County Defendants' alternative motions for summary judgment. The Court does not anticipate that additional briefing of the summary judgment motions will be necessary. If the affidavits raise issues requiring briefing, the Court will notify counsel(Written Opinion). Signed by Judge Ann D. Montgomery on 04/23/2008. (tlu) (Entered: 04/23/2008)
101 AFFIDAVIT of Daniel R. Shulman (filed on behalf of all plaintiffs) by Carlos Hilario Arias. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Shulman, Daniel) (Entered: 04/25/2008)

CaSe: 0:07-cv-1959 As Of: 02/17/2013 07:11 PM CST 42 of 54

04/30/2008 04/30/2008 04/30/2008 05/16/2008
05/16/2008 05/27/2008 05/27/2008 05/27/2008 05/27/2008 05/30/2008 06/02/2008
06/06/2008 06/06/2008 06/10/2008 06/19/2008

102 AMENDED COMPLAINT (SECOND) on behalf of all plaintiffs against all defendants, filed by Carlos Hilario Arias. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service) (Shulman, Daniel) (Entered: 04/30/2008)
103 LETTER TO DISTRICT JUDGE by Carlos Hilario Arias on behalf of all plaintiffs. (Shulman, Daniel) (Entered: 04/30/2008)
104 MOTION for Order to Request for Rule 54(b) Certification (filed on behalf of all plaintiffs) by Carlos Hilario Arias. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Shulman, Daniel) (Entered: 04/30/2008)
105 ORDER that: 1. Defendants Myers, Torres, Baniecke, Berg, and Gay's alternative Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED; 2. Defendants Kulst, John Doe Willmer Police Officers ##1−10, Reed Schmidt, and Paul Schmidt's alternative Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED; and 3. Defendants Hartog, John Doe Kandiyohi County Sheriff's Deputies ##1−10, and Jane Doe Kandiyohi County Probation Officer's alternative Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED. Signed by Judge Ann D. Montgomery on 5/16/08. (jam) QC'd by JME. (Entered: 05/16/2008)
106 LETTER to Counsel of Record from Judge Ann D. Montgomery. (jam) QC'd by JME. (Entered: 05/16/2008)
107 LETTER TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE by Dan Hartog, Jane Doe Kandiyohi County Probational Official, John Doe Kandiyohi Sheriffs Deputies ##1−10. (Anderson, Scott) (Entered: 05/27/2008)
108 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Dan Hartog, Jane Doe Kandiyohi County Probational Official, John Doe Kandiyohi Sheriffs Deputies ##1−10 re 107 Letter to Magistrate Judge (Anderson, Scott) (Entered: 05/27/2008)
109 LETTER TO DISTRICT JUDGE by Peter Berg, Allen Gay, Julie L Myers, John P Torres, Scott Baniecke. (Bryan, Lonnie) (Entered: 05/27/2008)
110 LETTER TO DISTRICT JUDGE by James A. Kulset, John Doe Willmar Police Officers ##1−10, Paul Schmidt, Reed Schmidt. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Iverson, Jon) (Entered: 05/27/2008)
111 LETTER TO DISTRICT JUDGE by Julie L Myers, John P Torres, Scott Baniecke. (Brooker, Gregory) (Entered: 05/30/2008)
112 NOTICE OF ATTORNEY APPEARANCE/SUBSTITUTION for Francisco Munoz, Albis Munoz, Saomara Munoz, Alex Josue Sorto, Rosa Sorto Lopez, Ermencia Mendez, Manuela de Jesus Pineda, Samuel Zelaya, Alejandro Cartagena, Graciela Barragan, Francis Garcia, Vicente Cisneros Abonce, Troy Hastings, Joceline Sarai Lopez, Josefa C. Montalvo, Barbara Anahi Moreno, Javier Moreno, Andres Menendez Vega, Digna Munoz Xiomara, Audrey Mithun, Raul Veliz, Jr, Wenscelao Padilla Guzman, L. G., Jaime Reyes, Marlen Alonso Soriano, Jose Erasmo Montalvan (Attachments: # 1 Cover Letter)(Edin, Gloria) (Entered: 06/02/2008)
113 NOTICE of Appearance by Joseph J Langel on behalf of Dan Hartog, Jane Doe Kandiyohi County Probational Official, John Doe Kandiyohi Sheriffs Deputies ##1−10 (Langel, Joseph) (Entered: 06/06/2008)
114 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Dan Hartog, Jane Doe Kandiyohi County Probational Official, John Doe Kandiyohi Sheriffs Deputies ##1−10 re 113 Notice of Appearance (Langel, Joseph) (Entered: 06/06/2008)
115 LETTER TO DISTRICT JUDGE by Peter Berg, Allen Gay, Julie L Myers, John P Torres, Scott Baniecke. (Attachments: # 1 Arias Immigration Decision, # 2 Castro−Gutierrez Immigration Decision, # 3 Ortega Immigration Decision, # 4 Vasquez−Ortiz Immigration Decision)(Bryan, Lonnie) (Entered: 06/10/2008)
116 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER denying 104 Plaintiffs' Request for Rule 54(b) Certification; Defendants Myers, Torres, and Banieckes request for leave to file a motion for reconsideration 111 is DENIED; and Plaintiffs claims against Myers, Torres, and Baniecke are STAYED pending discovery regarding the circumstances of the Willmar and Atwater immigration raids. Plaintiffs may not

CaSe: 0:07-cv-1959 As Of: 02/17/2013 07:11 PM CST 43 of 54

06/19/2008 06/20/2008 06/23/2008 07/11/2008 07/15/2008 08/05/2008 08/06/2008 08/08/2008 08/08/2008
08/14/2008
08/15/2008

depose or obtain written discovery from Myers, Torres, and Baniecke until the Court authorizes such discovery. Signed by Judge Ann D. Montgomery on 06/19/2008. (tlu) (Entered: 06/19/2008)
117 ORDER FOR PRETRIAL CONFERENCE: Pretrial Conference set for 8/18/2008 09:30 AM in chambers in Room 710, 180 E 5th Street, 7th Floor, St Paul, MN before Magistrate Judge Janie S. Mayeron. Signed by Magistrate Judge Janie S. Mayeron on 06/19/08. (Attachments: # 1 Consent Form)(LPH) (Entered: 06/19/2008)
118 NOTICE OF APPEAL TO 8TH CIRCUIT as to 100 Order on Motion to Dismiss, Order on Motion for Summary Judgment, 105 Order, by Peter Berg, Allen Gay, Julie L Myers, John P Torres, Scott Baniecke. (Attachments: # 1 COA − Form A, # 2 COA − Form B, # 3 Certificate of Service)(Bryan, Lonnie) Modified text on 6/23/2008 (RJL). (Entered: 06/20/2008)
119 LETTER TO DISTRICT JUDGE by Peter Berg, Allen Gay, Julie L Myers, John P Torres, Scott Baniecke. (Bryan, Lonnie) (Entered: 06/23/2008)
120 TRANSMITTAL OF APPEAL LETTER TO U. S. COURT OF APPEALS, 8TH CIRCUIT, Re: Notice of Appeal to 8th Circuit, 118 . cc: All Counsel. (RJL) (Entered: 07/11/2008)
121 USCA Case Number 08−2528 for 118 Notice of Appeal to 8th Circuit, filed by Peter Berg, Scott Baniecke, John P Torres, Julie L Myers, Allen Gay. (akl) (Entered: 07/21/2008)
122 ANSWER to Amended Complaint by Peter Berg, Allen Gay. (Bryan, Lonnie) (Entered: 08/05/2008)
123 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Peter Berg, Allen Gay re 122 Answer to Amended Complaint (Bryan, Lonnie) (Entered: 08/06/2008)
124 SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT of Rule 26(f) Planning Meeting by James A. Kulset, John Doe Willmar Police Officers ##1−10, Peter Berg, Allen Gay, Dan Hartog, Jane Doe Kandiyohi County Probational Official, John Doe Kandiyohi Sheriffs Deputies ##1−10, Paul Schmidt, Reed Schmidt, Julie L Myers, John P Torres, Scott Baniecke, John Doe ICE Agents ##1−30. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Bryan, Lonnie) Modified on 8/11/2008 (lph). (Entered: 08/08/2008)
125 PLAINTIFFS' Rule 26(f) DISCOVERY PLAN by Francisco Munoz, Albis Munoz, Saomara Munoz, Alex Josue Sorto, Rosa Sorto Lopez, Ermencia Mendez, Manuela de Jesus Pineda, Samuel Zelaya, Alejandro Cartagena, Graciela Barragan, Francis Garcia, Vicente Cisneros Abonce, Troy Hastings, Joceline Sarai Lopez, Josefa C. Montalvo, Barbara Anahi Moreno, Javier Moreno, Andres Menendez Vega, Digna Munoz Xiomara, Audrey Mithun, Raul Veliz, Jr, Wenscelao Padilla Guzman, L. G., Jaime Reyes, Marlen Alonso Soriano, Jose Erasmo Montalvan. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Shulman, Daniel) Modified on 8/11/2008 (lph). (Entered: 08/08/2008)
126 REPORT of Rule 26(f) Planning Meeting by Francisco Munoz, Albis Munoz, Saomara Munoz, James A. Kulset, John Doe Willmar Police Officers ##1−10, Alex Josue Sorto, Rosa Sorto Lopez, Ermencia Mendez, Manuela de Jesus Pineda, Samuel Zelaya, Alejandro Cartagena, Graciela Barragan, Francis Garcia, Vicente Cisneros Abonce, Troy Hastings, Joceline Sarai Lopez, Josefa C. Montalvo, Barbara Anahi Moreno, Javier Moreno, Andres Menendez Vega, Digna Munoz Xiomara, Peter Berg, Allen Gay, Dan Hartog, Jane Doe Kandiyohi County Probational Official, John Doe Kandiyohi Sheriffs Deputies ##1−10, Paul Schmidt, Reed Schmidt, Audrey Mithun, Raul Veliz, Jr, Wenscelao Padilla Guzman, L. G., Jaime Reyes, Marlen Alonso Soriano, Jose Erasmo Montalvan, John Doe ICE Agents ##1−30. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Bryan, Lonnie) (Entered: 08/14/2008)
127 REPORT of Rule 26(f) Planning Meeting by Francisco Munoz, Albis Munoz, Saomara Munoz, James A. Kulset, John Doe Willmar Police Officers ##1−10, Alex Josue Sorto, Rosa Sorto Lopez, Ermencia Mendez, Manuela de Jesus Pineda, Samuel Zelaya, Alejandro Cartagena, Graciela Barragan, Francis Garcia, Vicente

CaSe: 0:07-cv-1959 As Of: 02/17/2013 07:11 PM CST 44 of 54

08/18/2008 08/27/2008 10/01/2008
10/01/2008
10/01/2008 10/01/2008 10/01/2008 10/01/2008
10/01/2008

Cisneros Abonce, Troy Hastings, Joceline Sarai Lopez, Josefa C. Montalvo, Barbara Anahi Moreno, Javier Moreno, Andres Menendez Vega, Digna Munoz Xiomara, Peter Berg, Allen Gay, Dan Hartog, Jane Doe Kandiyohi County Probational Official, John Doe Kandiyohi Sheriffs Deputies ##1−10, Paul Schmidt, Reed Schmidt, Audrey Mithun, Raul Veliz, Jr, Wenscelao Padilla Guzman, L. G., Jaime Reyes, Marlen Alonso Soriano, Jose Erasmo Montalvan, John Doe ICE Agents ##1−30. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Bryan, Lonnie) (Entered: 08/15/2008)
128 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Janie S. Mayeron: Initial Pretrial Conference held on 8/18/2008. Pretrial Scheduling Order to be issued. (jdf) (Entered: 08/25/2008)
129 PRETRIAL SCHEDULING ORDER: Amended Pleadings due by 10/1/2008. Discovery due by 3/1/2009. Motions (non−disp) due 5/15/2009. Motions (disp) due by 8/1/2009. Signed by Magistrate Judge Janie S. Mayeron on 8/27/08. (RLR) Modified date on 9/5/2008 (RLR). (Entered: 08/27/2008)
130 MOTION for Leave to File and Serve Fourth Amended Complaint by Francisco Munoz, Albis Munoz, Saomara Munoz, Alex Josue Sorto, Rosa Sorto Lopez, Ermencia Mendez, Manuela de Jesus Pineda, Samuel Zelaya, Jose Manuel Ramirez Calix, Alejandro Cartagena, Graciela Barragan, Francis Garcia, Vicente Cisneros Abonce, Troy Hastings, Joceline Sarai Lopez, Josefa C. Montalvo, Barbara Anahi Moreno, Javier Moreno, Andres Menendez Vega, Digna Munoz Xiomara, Audrey Mithun, Raul Veliz, Jr, Wenscelao Padilla Guzman, L. G., Jaime Reyes, Marlen Alonso Soriano, Jose Erasmo Montalvan. (Shulman, Daniel) (Entered: 10/01/2008)
131 NOTICE by Francisco Munoz, Albis Munoz, Saomara Munoz, Alex Josue Sorto, Rosa Sorto Lopez, Ermencia Mendez, Manuela de Jesus Pineda, Samuel Zelaya, Alejandro Cartagena, Graciela Barragan, Francis Garcia, Vicente Cisneros Abonce, Troy Hastings, Joceline Sarai Lopez, Josefa C. Montalvo, Barbara Anahi Moreno, Javier Moreno, Andres Menendez Vega, Digna Munoz Xiomara, Audrey Mithun, Raul Veliz, Jr, Wenscelao Padilla Guzman, L. G., Jaime Reyes, Marlen Alonso Soriano, Jose Erasmo Montalvan re 130 MOTION for Leave to File and Serve Fourth Amended Complaint [Noticeof Motion for Leave to Serve and File Fourth Amended Complaint] (Shulman, Daniel) (Entered: 10/01/2008)
132 MEMORANDUM in Support re 130 MOTION for Leave to File and Serve Fourth Amended Complaint filed by all plaintiffs. (Shulman, Daniel) (Entered: 10/01/2008)
133 AFFIDAVIT of Daniel R. Shulman in SUPPORT OF 130 MOTION for Leave to File and Serve Fourth Amended Complaint filed by all plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 DOCUMENT FILED IN ERROR: SEE REFILED EXHIBIT. Exhibit(s) 1)(Shulman, Daniel) Modified on 10/2/2008 (kt). (Entered: 10/01/2008)
134 Declaration of Gloria Contreras Edin in Support of 130 MOTION for Leave to File and Serve Fourth Amended Complaint filed by all plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit(s) 1, # 2 Exhibit(s) Exhibit 2 − Part 1, # 3 Exhibit(s) Ex 2 Part 2, # 4 Exhibit(s) Ex 2 Part 3)(Shulman, Daniel) (Entered: 10/01/2008)
135 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Francisco Munoz, Albis Munoz, Saomara Munoz, Alex Josue Sorto, Rosa Sorto Lopez, Ermencia Mendez, Manuela de Jesus Pineda, Samuel Zelaya, Alejandro Cartagena, Graciela Barragan, Francis Garcia, Vicente Cisneros Abonce, Troy Hastings, Joceline Sarai Lopez, Josefa C. Montalvo, Barbara Anahi Moreno, Javier Moreno, Andres Menendez Vega, Digna Munoz Xiomara, Audrey Mithun, Raul Veliz, Jr, Wenscelao Padilla Guzman, L. G., Jaime Reyes, Marlen Alonso Soriano, Jose Erasmo Montalvan re 133 Affidavit in Support of Motion, 130 MOTION for Leave to File and Serve Fourth Amended Complaint, 131 Notice (Other), Notice (Other), Notice (Other), 132 Memorandum in Support of Motion, 134 Declaration in Support, (Shulman, Daniel) (Entered: 10/01/2008)
136 EXHIBIT re 133 Affidavit in Support of Motion (Substituted Exhibit 1 to Affidavit of Daniel R. Shulman) by all plaintiffs filed by all plaintiffs. (Shulman, Daniel) (Entered: 10/01/2008)

CaSe: 0:07-cv-1959 As Of: 02/17/2013 07:11 PM CST 45 of 54

10/01/2008
10/02/2008 10/21/2008 10/22/2008 10/22/2008 10/22/2008 10/22/2008 10/22/2008 10/22/2008 10/22/2008 10/22/2008
10/22/2008

137 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Francisco Munoz, Albis Munoz, Saomara Munoz, Alex Josue Sorto, Rosa Sorto Lopez, Ermencia Mendez, Manuela de Jesus Pineda, Samuel Zelaya, Alejandro Cartagena, Graciela Barragan, Francis Garcia, Vicente Cisneros Abonce, Troy Hastings, Joceline Sarai Lopez, Josefa C. Montalvo, Barbara Anahi Moreno, Javier Moreno, Andres Menendez Vega, Digna Munoz Xiomara, Audrey Mithun, Raul Veliz, Jr, Wenscelao Padilla Guzman, L. G., Jaime Reyes, Marlen Alonso Soriano, Jose Erasmo Montalvan re 136 Exhibit Substituted Exhibit 1 to Affidavit of Daniel R. Shulman (Shulman, Daniel) (Entered: 10/01/2008)
138 NOTICE of Appearance by Ann R Goering on behalf of Jane Doe Kandiyohi County Probational Official, John Doe Kandiyohi Sheriffs Deputies ##1−10 (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Goering, Ann) (Entered: 10/02/2008)
139 NOTICE of Appearance by Stephanie A Angolkar on behalf of James A. Kulset, John Doe Willmar Police Officers ##1−10, Paul Schmidt, Reed Schmidt (Angolkar, Stephanie) (Entered: 10/21/2008)
140 MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 130 MOTION for Leave to File and Serve Fourth Amended Complaint filed by Dan Hartog, Jane Doe Kandiyohi County Probational Official, John Doe Kandiyohi Sheriffs Deputies ##1−10. (Goering, Ann) (Entered: 10/22/2008)
141 AFFIDAVIT of Ann R. Goering in OPPOSITION TO 130 MOTION for Leave to File and Serve Fourth Amended Complaint filed by Dan Hartog, Jane Doe Kandiyohi County Probational Official, John Doe Kandiyohi Sheriffs Deputies ##1−10. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit(s) A, # 2 Exhibit(s) B)(Goering, Ann) (Entered: 10/22/2008)
142 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Dan Hartog, Jane Doe Kandiyohi County Probational Official, John Doe Kandiyohi Sheriffs Deputies ##1−10 re 140 Memorandum in Opposition to Motion, 141 Affidavit in Opposition to Motion, (Goering, Ann) (Entered: 10/22/2008)
143 RESPONSE in Opposition re 130 MOTION for Leave to File and Serve Fourth Amended Complaint filed by Peter Berg, Allen Gay, United States Department of Homeland Security, United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Michael Chertoff, Julie L Myers, John P Torres, Scott Baniecke. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Juncaj, Gjon) (Entered: 10/22/2008)
144 MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 130 MOTION for Leave to File and Serve Fourth Amended Complaint filed by James A. Kulset, John Doe Willmar Police Officers ##1−10, Paul Schmidt, Reed Schmidt. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Angolkar, Stephanie) (Entered: 10/22/2008)
145 MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 130 MOTION for Leave to File and Serve Fourth Amended Complaint filed by Peter Berg, Allen Gay, Julie L Myers, John P Torres, Scott Baniecke. (Attachments: # 1 LR7.1 Word Count Compliance Certificate, # 2 Exhibit(s) 1, # 3 Exhibit(s) 2, # 4 Certificate of Service)(Bryan, Lonnie) (Entered: 10/22/2008)
146 LR7.1 WORD COUNT COMPLIANCE CERTIFICATE by James A. Kulset, John Doe Willmar Police Officers ##1−10, Paul Schmidt, Reed Schmidt re 144 Memorandum in Opposition to Motion, filed by James A. Kulset, John Doe Willmar Police Officers ##1−10, Paul Schmidt, Reed Schmidt. (Angolkar, Stephanie) (Entered: 10/22/2008)
147 LR7.1 WORD COUNT COMPLIANCE CERTIFICATE by Peter Berg, Allen Gay, United States Department of Homeland Security, United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Michael Chertoff, Julie L Myers, John P Torres, Scott Baniecke re 143 Response in Opposition to Motion, filed by Peter Berg, Allen Gay, United States Department of Homeland Security, United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Michael Chertoff, Julie L Myers, John P Torres, Scott Baniecke. (Juncaj, Gjon) (Entered: 10/22/2008)
148 ORDER regarding Depositions. Signed by Magistrate Judge Janie S. Mayeron on 10/22/2008. (MMP) (Entered: 10/22/2008)

CaSe: 0:07-cv-1959 As Of: 02/17/2013 07:11 PM CST 46 of 54

10/22/2008 10/27/2008 10/29/2008 10/29/2008
11/03/2008 11/05/2008 11/07/2008 11/07/2008 11/10/2008 11/10/2008 11/10/2008 12/02/2008 12/02/2008 12/03/2008 01/21/2009 02/24/2009 02/24/2009 02/24/2009 02/24/2009

149 Minute Entry: Telephone conference regarding depositions held before Magistrate Judge Janie S. Mayeron on 10/21/2008. Separate Order to issue. (MMP) (Entered: 10/22/2008)
150 AMENDED ORDER re: the scheduling and taking of depositions. Signed by Magistrate Judge Janie S. Mayeron on 10/27/08. (LPH) (Entered: 10/27/2008)
151 SECOND AMENDED ORDER re: the scheduling and taking of depositions. Signed by Magistrate Judge Janie S. Mayeron on 10/29/08. (LPH) (Entered: 10/30/2008)
152 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Janie S. Mayeron: Motion Hearing held on 10/29/2008 re 130 MOTION for Leave to File and Serve Fourth Amended Complaint. Order to issue. (Court Reporter Deb Beauvais) (LPH) (Entered: 10/31/2008)
153 LETTER TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE by Peter Berg, Allen Gay, Julie L Myers, John P Torres, Scott Baniecke. (Bryan, Lonnie) (Entered: 11/03/2008)
154 NOTICE of Withdrawal as Attorney by Matthew S Ebert (kt) QC'd jam (Entered: 11/05/2008)
155 STIPULATION to Dismiss Plaintiffs by Dan Hartog, Jane Doe Kandiyohi County Probational Official, John Doe Kandiyohi Sheriffs Deputies ##1−10. (Goering, Ann) (Entered: 11/07/2008)
156 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Dan Hartog, Jane Doe Kandiyohi County Probational Official, John Doe Kandiyohi Sheriffs Deputies ##1−10 re 155 Stipulation (Goering, Ann) (Entered: 11/07/2008)
157 STIPULATION to Dismiss Plaintiffs by Dan Hartog, Jane Doe Kandiyohi County Probational Official, John Doe Kandiyohi Sheriffs Deputies ##1−10. (Goering, Ann) (Entered: 11/10/2008)
158 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Dan Hartog, Jane Doe Kandiyohi County Probational Official, John Doe Kandiyohi Sheriffs Deputies ##1−10 (Goering, Ann) (Entered: 11/10/2008)
159 ORDER re 157 Stipulation. Signed by Judge Ann D. Montgomery on 11/10/2008. (gs) (Entered: 11/10/2008)
160 STIPULATION of Dismissal (Fransisco Munoz) by Dan Hartog, Jane Doe Kandiyohi County Probational Official, John Doe Kandiyohi Sheriffs Deputies ##1−10. (Goering, Ann) (Entered: 12/02/2008)
161 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Dan Hartog, Jane Doe Kandiyohi County Probational Official, John Doe Kandiyohi Sheriffs Deputies ##1−10 re 160 Stipulation of Dismissal (Fransisco Munoz) (Goering, Ann) (Entered: 12/02/2008)
162 ORDER re 160 Stipulation of Dismissal filed by John Doe Kandiyohi Sheriffs Deputies ##1−10, Jane Doe Kandiyohi County Probational Official, Dan Hartog. Signed by Judge Ann D. Montgomery on 12/3/2008. (GS) (Entered: 12/03/2008)
163 ORDER denying 130 Motion for Leave to File Fourth Amended Complaint. Signed by Magistrate Judge Janie S. Mayeron on 1/21/09. (LPH) (Entered: 01/21/2009)
164 MOTION for Protective Order by Peter Berg, Allen Gay. (Bryan, Lonnie) (Entered: 02/24/2009)
165 NOTICE OF HEARING ON 164 MOTION, at a date and time to be determined (Bryan, Lonnie) Modified text and link on 2/25/2009 (jam). (Entered: 02/24/2009)
166 MEMORANDUM in Support re 164 MOTION for Protective Order filed by Peter Berg, Allen Gay. (Attachments: # 1 LR7.1 Word Count Compliance Certificate)(Bryan, Lonnie) (Entered: 02/24/2009)
167 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Peter Berg, Allen Gay re 165 Notice of Hearing on Motion, 164 MOTION for Protective Order, 166 Memorandum in Support of Motion (Bryan, Lonnie) (Entered: 02/24/2009)

CaSe: 0:07-cv-1959 As Of: 02/17/2013 07:11 PM CST 47 of 54

02/25/2009 02/25/2009 02/25/2009 02/25/2009
02/25/2009
02/25/2009 03/02/2009 03/13/2009 03/18/2009 03/18/2009 05/07/2009 05/07/2009 05/07/2009 05/07/2009 05/07/2009 05/07/2009

168 MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 164 MOTION for Protective Order filed by all plaintiffs. (Shulman, Daniel) (Entered: 02/25/2009)
169 AFFIDAVIT of Daniel R. Shulman in OPPOSITION TO 164 MOTION for Protective Order filed by all plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit(s) 1 and 2)(Shulman, Daniel) (Entered: 02/25/2009)
170 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Carlos Hilario Arias re 168 Memorandum in Opposition to Motion, 169 Affidavit in Opposition to Motion [Filed on behalf of All Plaintiffs] (Shulman, Daniel) (Entered: 02/25/2009)
171 MEMORANDUM by Dan Hartog, Jane Doe Kandiyohi County Probational Official, John Doe Kandiyohi Sheriffs Deputies ##1−10 re 164 MOTION for Protective Order filed by Dan Hartog, Jane Doe Kandiyohi County Probational Official, John Doe Kandiyohi Sheriffs Deputies ##1−10. (Attachments: # 1 LR7.1 Word Count Compliance Certificate)(Goering, Ann) (Entered: 02/25/2009)
172 AFFIDAVIT of Ann R. Goering in SUPPORT OF 164 MOTION for Protective Order and in Opposition to Extension of Discovery Deadline filed by Dan Hartog, Jane Doe Kandiyohi County Probational Official, John Doe Kandiyohi Sheriffs Deputies ##1−10. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit(s) Exhibits A−I)(Goering, Ann) (Entered: 02/25/2009)
173 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Dan Hartog, Jane Doe Kandiyohi County Probational Official, John Doe Kandiyohi Sheriffs Deputies ##1−10 re 172 Affidavit in Support of Motion, 171 Memorandum, (Goering, Ann) (Entered: 02/25/2009)
174 AMENDED NOTICE of Hearing on Motion 164 MOTION for Protective Order : Motion Hearing set for 3/13/2009 03:30 PM in Courtroom 6B (STP) before Magistrate Judge Janie S. Mayeron. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Bryan, Lonnie) (Entered: 03/02/2009)
175 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Janie S. Mayeron: Motion Hearing held on 3/13/2009 re 164 MOTION for Protective Order filed by Peter Berg, Allen Gay. Order to issue. (LPH) (Entered: 03/17/2009)
176 ORDER denying 164 Motion for Protective Order as set forth in the order. Signed by Magistrate Judge Janie S. Mayeron on 3/18/09. (LPH) (Entered: 03/18/2009)
177 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Janie S. Mayeron: Telephone Conference held on 3/18/2009. (LPH) (Entered: 03/18/2009)
178 MOTION for Summary Judgment by Dan Hartog, Jane Doe Kandiyohi County Probational Official, John Doe Kandiyohi Sheriffs Deputies ##1−10. (Goering, Ann) (Entered: 05/07/2009)
179 NOTICE OF HEARING ON MOTION 178 MOTION for Summary Judgment : Motion Hearing set for 6/23/2009 09:00 AM in Courtroom 13W (MPLS) before Judge Ann D. Montgomery. (Goering, Ann) (Entered: 05/07/2009)
180 MEMORANDUM in Support re 178 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Dan Hartog, Jane Doe Kandiyohi County Probational Official, John Doe Kandiyohi Sheriffs Deputies ##1−10. (Attachments: # 1 LR7.1 Word Count Compliance Certificate)(Goering, Ann) (Entered: 05/07/2009)
181 AFFIDAVIT of Dan Hartog in SUPPORT OF 178 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Dan Hartog, Jane Doe Kandiyohi County Probational Official, John Doe Kandiyohi Sheriffs Deputies ##1−10. (Goering, Ann) (Entered: 05/07/2009)
182 AFFIDAVIT of Randy Kveene in SUPPORT OF 178 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Dan Hartog, Jane Doe Kandiyohi County Probational Official, John Doe Kandiyohi Sheriffs Deputies ##1−10. (Goering, Ann) (Entered: 05/07/2009)
183 AFFIDAVIT of Ross Ardoff in SUPPORT OF 178 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Dan Hartog, Jane Doe Kandiyohi County Probational Official, John Doe Kandiyohi Sheriffs Deputies ##1−10. (Goering, Ann) (Entered:

CaSe: 0:07-cv-1959 As Of: 02/17/2013 07:11 PM CST 48 of 54

05/07/2009 05/07/2009 05/07/2009
05/08/2009 05/08/2009 05/08/2009 05/08/2009 05/08/2009 05/08/2009 05/08/2009 05/08/2009 05/08/2009 05/08/2009 05/08/2009

05/07/2009)
184 Second AFFIDAVIT of Serena Robak in SUPPORT OF 178 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Dan Hartog, Jane Doe Kandiyohi County Probational Official, John Doe Kandiyohi Sheriffs Deputies ##1−10. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit(s))(Goering, Ann) (Entered: 05/07/2009)
185 AFFIDAVIT of Ann Goering in SUPPORT OF 178 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Dan Hartog, Jane Doe Kandiyohi County Probational Official, John Doe Kandiyohi Sheriffs Deputies ##1−10. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit(s))(Goering, Ann) (Entered: 05/07/2009)
186 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Dan Hartog, Jane Doe Kandiyohi County Probational Official, John Doe Kandiyohi Sheriffs Deputies ##1−10 re 179 Notice of Hearing on Motion, 183 Affidavit in Support of Motion, 185 Affidavit in Support of Motion, 180 Memorandum in Support of Motion, 178 MOTION for Summary Judgment, 181 Affidavit in Support of Motion, 182 Affidavit in Support of Motion, 184 Affidavit in Support of Motion. (Goering, Ann) (Entered: 05/07/2009)
187 MOTION to Dismiss and, MOTION for Summary Judgment by Peter Berg, Allen Gay, Julie L Myers, John P Torres, Scott Baniecke. (Bryan, Lonnie) (Entered: 05/08/2009)
188 NOTICE OF HEARING ON MOTION 187 MOTION to Dismiss and MOTION for Summary Judgment : Motion Hearing set for 6/23/2009 09:00 AM in Courtroom 13W (MPLS) before Judge Ann D. Montgomery. (Bryan, Lonnie) (Entered: 05/08/2009)
189 MOTION for Summary Judgment by James A. Kulset, John Doe Willmar Police Officers ##1−10, Paul Schmidt, Reed Schmidt. (Angolkar, Stephanie) (Entered: 05/08/2009)
190 NOTICE OF HEARING ON MOTION 189 MOTION for Summary Judgment : Motion Hearing set for 6/23/2009 09:00 AM in Courtroom 13W (MPLS) before Judge Ann D. Montgomery. (Angolkar, Stephanie) (Entered: 05/08/2009)
191 MEMORANDUM in Support re 189 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by James A. Kulset, John Doe Willmar Police Officers ##1−10, Paul Schmidt, Reed Schmidt. (Attachments: # 1 LR7.1 Word Count Compliance Certificate)(Angolkar, Stephanie) (Entered: 05/08/2009)
192 AFFIDAVIT of James Kulset in SUPPORT OF 189 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by James A. Kulset, John Doe Willmar Police Officers ##1−10, Paul Schmidt, Reed Schmidt. (Angolkar, Stephanie) (Entered: 05/08/2009)
193 AFFIDAVIT of Tim Manuel in SUPPORT OF 189 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by James A. Kulset, John Doe Willmar Police Officers ##1−10, Paul Schmidt, Reed Schmidt. (Angolkar, Stephanie) (Entered: 05/08/2009)
194 AFFIDAVIT of Terry Albers in SUPPORT OF 189 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by James A. Kulset, John Doe Willmar Police Officers ##1−10, Paul Schmidt, Reed Schmidt. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit(s) A)(Angolkar, Stephanie) (Entered: 05/08/2009)
195 AFFIDAVIT of Reed Schmidt in SUPPORT OF 189 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by James A. Kulset, John Doe Willmar Police Officers ##1−10, Paul Schmidt, Reed Schmidt. (Angolkar, Stephanie) (Entered: 05/08/2009)
196 AFFIDAVIT of Paul Schmidt in SUPPORT OF 189 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by James A. Kulset, John Doe Willmar Police Officers ##1−10, Paul Schmidt, Reed Schmidt. (Angolkar, Stephanie) (Entered: 05/08/2009)
197 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by James A. Kulset, John Doe Willmar Police Officers ##1−10, Paul Schmidt, Reed Schmidt re 190 Notice of Hearing on Motion, 192 Affidavit in Support of Motion, 191 Memorandum in Support of Motion, 193 Affidavit in Support of Motion, 196 Affidavit in Support of Motion, 189 MOTION for Summary Judgment, 195 Affidavit in Support of Motion, 194

CaSe: 0:07-cv-1959 As Of: 02/17/2013 07:11 PM CST 49 of 54

05/08/2009 05/08/2009
05/08/2009 06/03/2009 06/03/2009 06/03/2009 06/03/2009
06/04/2009 06/11/2009

Affidavit in Support of Motion. (Angolkar, Stephanie) (Entered: 05/08/2009)
198 MEMORANDUM in Support re 187 MOTION to Dismiss and MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Peter Berg, Allen Gay, Julie L Myers, John P Torres, Scott Baniecke. (Attachments: # 1 LR7.1 Word Count Compliance Certificate)(Bryan, Lonnie) (Entered: 05/08/2009)
199 EXHIBIT re 198 Memorandum in Support of Motion, 187 MOTION to Dismiss and MOTION for Summary Judgment by Peter Berg, Allen Gay, Julie L Myers, John P Torres, Scott Baniecke filed by Peter Berg, Allen Gay, Julie L Myers, John P Torres, Scott Baniecke. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Ehibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit 5, # 6 Exhibit 6, # 7 Exhibit 7, # 8 Exhibit 8, # 9 Exhibit 9, # 10 Exhibit 10, # 11 Exhibit 12, # 12 Exhibit 13, # 13 Exhibit 14, # 14 Exhibit 15, # 15 Exhibit 16, # 16 Exhibit 17, # 17 Exhibit 18, # 18 Exhibit 19, # 19 Exhibit 20, # 20 Exhibit 21, # 21 Exhibit 22, # 22 Exhibit 23, # 23 Exhibit 24, # 24 Exhibit 25, # 25 Exhibit 26, # 26 Exhibit 27, # 27 Exhibit 28, # 28 Exhibit 29, # 29 Exhibit 30, # 30 Exhibit 31, # 31 Exhibit 32, # 32 Exhibit 33, # 33 Exhibit 34, # 34 Exhibit 35, # 35 Exhibit 36, # 36 Exhibit 37, # 37 Exhibit 38, # 38 Exhibit 39, # 39 Exhibit 40, # 40 Exhibit 41, # 41 Exhibit 42, # 42 Exhibit 43, # 43 Exhibit 44, # 44 Exhibit 45, # 45 Exhibit 46, # 46 Exhibit 47, # 47 Exhibit 48, # 48 Exhibit 49, # 49 Exhibit 50, # 50 Exhibit 51, # 51 Exhibit 52, # 52 Exhibit 53, # 53 Exhibit 54, # 54 Exhibit 55, # 55 Exhibit 56, # 56 Exhibit 57, # 57 Exhibit 58, # 58 Exhibit 59, # 59 Exhibit 60)(Bryan, Lonnie) (Entered: 05/08/2009)
200 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Peter Berg, Allen Gay, Julie L Myers, John P Torres, Scott Baniecke re 187 MOTION to Dismiss and MOTION for Summary Judgment, 198 Memorandum in Support of Motion, 199 Exhibit, 188 Notice of Hearing on Motion. (Bryan, Lonnie) (Entered: 05/08/2009)
201 STIPULATION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFFS by James A. Kulset, John Doe Willmar Police Officers ##1−10, Alex Josue Sorto, Digna Munoz Xiomara, Peter Berg, Allen Gay, Dan Hartog, Jane Doe Kandiyohi County Probational Official, John Doe Kandiyohi Sheriffs Deputies ##1−10, Paul Schmidt, Reed Schmidt, Scott Baniecke, John Doe ICE Agents ##1−30. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Bryan, Lonnie) (Entered: 06/03/2009)
202 MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 187 MOTION to Dismiss and MOTION for Summary Judgment, 189 MOTION for Summary Judgment, 178 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by all plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 LR7.1 Word Count Compliance Certificate)(Shulman, Daniel) (Entered: 06/03/2009)
203 AFFIDAVIT of Jennifer R. Coates in OPPOSITION TO 187 MOTION to Dismiss and MOTION for Summary Judgment, 189 MOTION for Summary Judgment, 178 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by all plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit(s) Index, # 2 Exhibit(s) A, # 3 Exhibit(s) B, # 4 Exhibit(s) C, # 5 Exhibit(s) D)(Shulman, Daniel) (Entered: 06/03/2009)
204 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Albis Munoz, Saomara Munoz, Alex Josue Sorto, Rosa Sorto Lopez, Ermencia Mendez, Manuela de Jesus Pineda, Samuel Zelaya, Alejandro Cartagena, Graciela Barragan, Francis Garcia, Vicente Cisneros Abonce, Troy Hastings, Joceline Sarai Lopez, Josefa C. Montalvo, Barbara Anahi Moreno, Javier Moreno, Andres Menendez Vega, Digna Munoz Xiomara, Audrey Mithun, Raul Veliz, Jr, Wenscelao Padilla Guzman, L. G., Jaime Reyes, Marlen Alonso Soriano, Jose Erasmo Montalvan re 202 Memorandum in Opposition to Motion, 203 Affidavit in Opposition to Motion. (Shulman, Daniel) (Entered: 06/03/2009)
205 ORDER dismissing plaintiffs Digna Munoz and Alex Sorto re 201 Stipulation. Signed by Judge Ann D. Montgomery on 6/4/2009. (GS) Added text on 6/5/2009 (RLR). (Entered: 06/04/2009)
206 REPLY re 202 Memorandum in Opposition to Motion, filed by James A. Kulset, John Doe Willmar Police Officers ##1−10, Paul Schmidt, Reed Schmidt. (Attachments: # 1 LR7.1 Word Count Compliance Certificate, # 2 Certificate of Service)(Angolkar, Stephanie) (Entered: 06/11/2009)

CaSe: 0:07-cv-1959 As Of: 02/17/2013 07:11 PM CST 50 of 54

06/12/2009 06/23/2009
06/23/2009 06/23/2009 07/17/2009
07/20/2009 07/23/2009 07/28/2009 07/28/2009 07/28/2009 07/28/2009 07/28/2009 07/28/2009

207 REPLY re 202 Memorandum in Opposition to Motion, filed by Peter Berg, Allen Gay, Julie L Myers, John P Torres, Scott Baniecke, John Doe ICE Agents ##1−30. (Attachments: # 1 LR7.1 Word Count Compliance Certificate, # 2 Certificate of Service)(Bryan, Lonnie) (Entered: 06/12/2009)
208 TEXT ENTRY for proceedings held before Judge Ann D. Montgomery: Motion Hearing held on 6/23/2009 re 187 MOTION to Dismiss and MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Peter Berg, Scott Baniecke, John P Torres, Julie L Myers, Allen Gay, 189 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Reed Schmidt, James A. Kulset, John Doe Willmar Police Officers ##1−10, Paul Schmidt, 178 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by John Doe Kandiyohi Sheriffs Deputies ##1−10, Jane Doe Kandiyohi County Probational Official, Dan Hartog. Motions taken under advisement. (Court Reporter Tim Willette) (GS) (Entered: 06/23/2009)
209 ORDER granting 178 Defendants Dan Hartog, John Doe Kandiyohi Sheriffs Deputies ##1−10, and Jane Doe Kandiyohi County Probation Official's Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Judge Ann D. Montgomery on 06/23/2009. (TLU) (Entered: 06/23/2009)
NOTICE to USCA of subsequent filing in a civil case, Re: Order on Motion for Summary Judgment 209 . (RLR) (Entered: 06/23/2009)
210 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER granting in part and denying in part 187 Defendants Peter Berg, Allen Gay, Julie L. Myers, John P. Torres, Scott R. Baniecke and John Doe ICE Agents ##1−30's Motion to Dismiss/Motion for Summary Judgment; granting 189 Defendants James A. Kulset, Reed Schmidt, Paul Schmidt, and John Doe Willmar Police Officers ##1−10's Motion for Summary Judgment (Written Opinion). Signed by Judge Ann D. Montgomery on 07/17/2009. (TLU) (Entered: 07/17/2009)
NOTICE to USCA of subsequent filing in a civil case, Re: Order on Motion to Dismiss, Order on Motion for Summary Judgment 210 . (RLR) (Entered: 07/20/2009)
217 ORDER of USCA re: this interlocutory appeal is now moot, as to 118 Notice of Appeal to 8th Circuit, filed by Peter Berg, Scott Baniecke, John P Torres, Julie L Myers, Allen Gay (received electronically from COA). (jam) (Entered: 07/30/2009)
211 MOTION for Sanctions by Dan Hartog, Jane Doe Kandiyohi County Probational Official, John Doe Kandiyohi Sheriffs Deputies ##1−10. (Goering, Ann) (Entered: 07/28/2009)
212 NOTICE OF HEARING ON MOTION re 211 MOTION for Sanctions − date &time to be determined. (Goering, Ann) Modified link &text on 7/29/2009 (lph). (Entered: 07/28/2009)
213 MEMORANDUM in Support re 211 MOTION for Sanctions filed by Dan Hartog, Jane Doe Kandiyohi County Probational Official, John Doe Kandiyohi Sheriffs Deputies ##1−10. (Goering, Ann) (Entered: 07/28/2009)
214 AFFIDAVIT of Ann Goering in SUPPORT OF 211 MOTION for Sanctions filed by Dan Hartog, Jane Doe Kandiyohi County Probational Official, John Doe Kandiyohi Sheriffs Deputies ##1−10. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit(s) A)(Goering, Ann) (Entered: 07/28/2009)
215 LR7.1 WORD COUNT COMPLIANCE CERTIFICATE by Dan Hartog, Jane Doe Kandiyohi County Probational Official, John Doe Kandiyohi Sheriffs Deputies ##1−10 re 213 Memorandum in Support of Motion filed by Dan Hartog, Jane Doe Kandiyohi County Probational Official, John Doe Kandiyohi Sheriffs Deputies ##1−10. (Goering, Ann) (Entered: 07/28/2009)
216 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Dan Hartog, Jane Doe Kandiyohi County Probational Official, John Doe Kandiyohi Sheriffs Deputies ##1−10 re 211 MOTION for Sanctions, 213 Memorandum in Support of Motion, 212 Notice of Hearing on Motion, 215 LR7.1 Word Count Compliance Certificate, 214 Affidavit in Support of Motion (Goering, Ann) (Entered: 07/28/2009)

CaSe: 0:07-cv-1959 As Of: 02/17/2013 07:11 PM CST 51 of 54

08/04/2009 08/11/2009 08/17/2009
08/17/2009
08/17/2009
08/26/2009 08/26/2009

218 AMENDED PRETRIAL SCHEDULING ORDER: Discovery due by 3/10/2010. Motions (non−disp) due 4/1/2010. Motions (disp) due by 6/1/2010. Ready for trial due by 8/1/2010. Signed by Magistrate Judge Janie S. Mayeron on 8/4/09. (LPH) (Entered: 08/04/2009)
219 USCA JUDGMENT re: remand this case to the district court with instructions for it to reenter its July 17, 2009, order granting summary judgment to appellants, as to 118 Notice of Appeal to 8th Circuit, filed by Peter Berg, Scott Baniecke, John P Torres, Julie L Myers, Allen Gay (received electronically from COA). (Attachments: # 1 Cover Letter)(jam) (Entered: 08/13/2009)
220 MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 211 MOTION for Sanctions filed by Vicente Cisneros Abonce, Maria Elena Amaya, Carlos Hilario Arias, Dulce Maria Hernandez Arias, Rosa De Jesus Barrajas Arrellano, Graciela Barragan, Jose Manuel Ramirez Calix, Alejandro Cartagena, William Ramos Castillo, Fabiola Cisneros, David Corea, Santiago Coronel, Rosa Nely Duarte, Esau Eduardo Estrada−Mendez, L. G., Francis Garcia, Teresa de Jesus Guerrero, Wenscelao Padilla Guzman, Troy Hastings, Joceline Sarai Lopez, Rosa Sorto Lopez, Iris Janet Maldonado, Ana Danira Maldonado−Hernandez, Jenny Maldonaldo, Ermencia Mendez, Audrey Mithun, Jose Erasmo Montalvan, Josefa C. Montalvo, Barbara Anahi Moreno, Javier Moreno, Albis Munoz, Francisco Munoz, Juan Munoz, Saomara Munoz, Manuela de Jesus Pineda, Jaime Reyes, Marlen Alonso Soriano, Alex Josue Sorto, Andres Menendez Vega, Raul Veliz, Jr, Digna Munoz Xiomara, Jorge Zelaya, Samuel Zelaya. (Attachments: # 1 LR7.1 Word Count Compliance Certificate)(Coates, Jennifer) (Entered: 08/17/2009)
221 AFFIDAVIT of Jennifer R. Coates in OPPOSITION TO 211 MOTION for Sanctions filed by Vicente Cisneros Abonce, Maria Elena Amaya, Carlos Hilario Arias, Dulce Maria Hernandez Arias, Rosa De Jesus Barrajas Arrellano, Graciela Barragan, Jose Manuel Ramirez Calix, Alejandro Cartagena, William Ramos Castillo, Fabiola Cisneros, David Corea, Santiago Coronel, Rosa Nely Duarte, Esau Eduardo Estrada−Mendez, L. G., Francis Garcia, Teresa de Jesus Guerrero, Wenscelao Padilla Guzman, Troy Hastings, Joceline Sarai Lopez, Rosa Sorto Lopez, Iris Janet Maldonado, Ana Danira Maldonado−Hernandez, Jenny Maldonaldo, Ermencia Mendez, Audrey Mithun, Jose Erasmo Montalvan, Josefa C. Montalvo, Barbara Anahi Moreno, Javier Moreno, Albis Munoz, Francisco Munoz, Juan Munoz, Saomara Munoz, Manuela de Jesus Pineda, Jaime Reyes, Marlen Alonso Soriano, Alex Josue Sorto, Andres Menendez Vega, Raul Veliz, Jr, Digna Munoz Xiomara, Jorge Zelaya, Samuel Zelaya. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit(s) A −C)(Coates, Jennifer) (Entered: 08/17/2009)
222 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Vicente Cisneros Abonce, Maria Elena Amaya, Carlos Hilario Arias, Dulce Maria Hernandez Arias, Rosa De Jesus Barrajas Arrellano, Graciela Barragan, Jose Manuel Ramirez Calix, Alejandro Cartagena, William Ramos Castillo, Fabiola Cisneros, David Corea, Santiago Coronel, Rosa Nely Duarte, Esau Eduardo Estrada−Mendez, L. G., Francis Garcia, Teresa de Jesus Guerrero, Wenscelao Padilla Guzman, Troy Hastings, Joceline Sarai Lopez, Rosa Sorto Lopez, Iris Janet Maldonado, Ana Danira Maldonado−Hernandez, Jenny Maldonaldo, Ermencia Mendez, Audrey Mithun, Jose Erasmo Montalvan, Josefa C. Montalvo, Barbara Anahi Moreno, Javier Moreno, Albis Munoz, Francisco Munoz, Juan Munoz, Saomara Munoz, Manuela de Jesus Pineda, Jaime Reyes, Marlen Alonso Soriano, Alex Josue Sorto, Andres Menendez Vega, Raul Veliz, Jr, Digna Munoz Xiomara, Jorge Zelaya, Samuel Zelaya re 221 Affidavit in Opposition to Motion, 220 Memorandum in Opposition to Motion. (Coates, Jennifer) (Entered: 08/17/2009)
223 REPLY to Response to Motion re 211 MOTION for Sanctions filed by Dan Hartog, Jane Doe Kandiyohi County Probational Official, John Doe Kandiyohi Sheriffs Deputies ##1−10. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Ische, Erin) (Entered: 08/26/2009)
224 LR7.1 WORD COUNT COMPLIANCE CERTIFICATE by Dan Hartog, Jane Doe Kandiyohi County Probational Official, John Doe Kandiyohi Sheriffs Deputies ##1−10 re 223 Reply to Response to Motion filed by Dan Hartog, Jane Doe Kandiyohi County Probational Official, John Doe Kandiyohi Sheriffs Deputies ##1−10. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Ische, Erin) (Entered:

CaSe: 0:07-cv-1959 As Of: 02/17/2013 07:11 PM CST 52 of 54

09/02/2009 10/02/2009
10/15/2009
10/15/2009 10/15/2009
10/15/2009 10/15/2009
10/16/2009 11/24/2009 12/28/2009 12/28/2009 12/28/2009 12/28/2009 01/06/2010 01/06/2010
01/06/2010
01/06/2010

08/26/2009)
225 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER denying 211 Defendants' Motion for Sanctions (Written Opinion). Signed by Judge Ann D. Montgomery on 09/02/2009. (TLU) (Entered: 09/02/2009)
226 MANDATE of USCA the formal mandate is hereby issued in the above−styled matter, as to 118 Notice of Appeal to 8th Circuit, filed by Peter Berg, Scott Baniecke, John P Torres, Julie L Myers, Allen Gay (received electronically from COA). (jam) (Entered: 10/07/2009)
227 DOCUMENT FILED IN ERROR−Premature−BILL OF COSTS (Cardenas) by John Doe Willmar Police Officers ##1−10, James A. Kulset, Paul Schmidt, Reed Schmidt. (Angolkar, Stephanie) Modified text on 10/16/2009 (MGV). (Entered: 10/15/2009)
228 AFFIDAVIT in Support re 227 Bill of Costs (cardenas). (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit(s))(Angolkar, Stephanie) (Entered: 10/15/2009)
229 DOCUMENT FILED IN ERROR − Premature−BILL OF COSTS (Veliz) by John Doe Willmar Police Officers ##1−10, James A. Kulset, Paul Schmidt, Reed Schmidt. (Angolkar, Stephanie) Modified text on 10/16/2009 (MGV). (Entered: 10/15/2009)
230 AFFIDAVIT in Support re 229 Bill of Costs (Veliz). (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit(s))(Angolkar, Stephanie) (Entered: 10/15/2009)
231 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by John Doe Willmar Police Officers ##1−10, James A. Kulset, Paul Schmidt, Reed Schmidt re 228 Affidavit in Support, 230 Affidavit in Support, 229 Bill of Costs, 227 Bill of Costs. (Angolkar, Stephanie) (Entered: 10/15/2009)
232 LETTER TO CLERK'S OFFICE from Stephanie Angolkar re: Bill of Costs. (Angolkar, Stephanie) (Entered: 10/16/2009)
233 ORDER re 219 USCA Judgment,. Signed by Judge Ann D. Montgomery on 11/24/2009. (GS) (Entered: 11/24/2009)
234 BILL OF COSTS by John Doe Willmar Police Officers ##1−10, James A. Kulset, Paul Schmidt, Reed Schmidt. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit(s) Exhibits (Cardenas), # 2 Certificate of Service)(Angolkar, Stephanie) (Entered: 12/28/2009)
235 AFFIDAVIT in Support re 234 Bill of Costs. (Angolkar, Stephanie) (Entered: 12/28/2009)
236 BILL OF COSTS by John Doe Willmar Police Officers ##1−10, James A. Kulset, Paul Schmidt, Reed Schmidt. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit(s) Exhibits (Veliz), # 2 Certificate of Service)(Angolkar, Stephanie) (Entered: 12/28/2009)
237 AFFIDAVIT in Support re 236 Bill of Costs. (Angolkar, Stephanie) (Entered: 12/28/2009)
238 BILL OF COSTS by Dan Hartog, Jane Doe Kandiyohi County Probational Official, John Doe Kandiyohi Sheriffs Deputies ##1−10. (Goering, Ann) (Entered: 01/06/2010)
239 AFFIDAVIT of Ann Goering re 238 Bill of Costs by Dan Hartog, Jane Doe Kandiyohi County Probational Official, John Doe Kandiyohi Sheriffs Deputies ##1−10. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit(s) 1, # 2 Exhibit(s) 2, # 3 Exhibit(s) 3, # 4 Exhibit(s) 4, # 5 Exhibit(s) 5)(Goering, Ann) Modified on 1/7/2010 (kt). (Entered: 01/06/2010)
240 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE re 238 BILL OF COSTS, 239 AFFIDAVIT by Dan Hartog, Jane Doe Kandiyohi County Probational Official, John Doe Kandiyohi Sheriffs Deputies ##1−10 (Goering, Ann) Modified on 1/7/2010 (kt). (Entered: 01/06/2010)
241 BILL OF COSTS by Dan Hartog, Jane Doe Kandiyohi County Probational Official, John Doe Kandiyohi Sheriffs Deputies ##1−10. (Goering, Ann) (Entered:

CaSe: 0:07-cv-1959 As Of: 02/17/2013 07:11 PM CST 53 of 54

01/06/2010 01/06/2010 01/29/2010
02/02/2010
02/03/2010 03/19/2010 03/19/2010 03/19/2010 03/19/2010 05/03/2010

01/06/2010)
242 AFFIDAVIT of Ann Goering re 241 Bill of Costs by Dan Hartog, Jane Doe Kandiyohi County Probational Official, John Doe Kandiyohi Sheriffs Deputies ##1−10. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit(s) 1, # 2 Exhibit(s) 2, # 3 Exhibit(s) 3, # 4 Exhibit(s) 4, # 5 Exhibit(s) 5)(Goering, Ann) Modified on 1/7/2010 (kt). (Entered: 01/06/2010)
243 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE re 241 BILL of Costs, 242 AFFIDAVIT by Dan Hartog, Jane Doe Kandiyohi County Probational Official, John Doe Kandiyohi Sheriffs Deputies ##1−10 (Goering, Ann) Modified text on 1/7/2010 (kt). (Entered: 01/06/2010)
244 STIPULATION of Dismissal by Javier Moreno, Fabiola Cisneros, Iris Janet Maldonado, Marlen Alonso Soriano, John P Torres, Jaime Reyes, Teresa de Jesus Guerrero, Graciela Barragan, Albis Munoz, Carlos Hilario Arias, Francis Garcia, Manuela de Jesus Pineda, Barbara Anahi Moreno, Esau Eduardo Estrada−Mendez, Jose Erasmo Montalvan, William Ramos Castillo, Saomara Munoz, Juan Munoz, Wenscelao Padilla Guzman, Vicente Cisneros Abonce, Francisco Munoz, Rosa De Jesus Barrajas Arrellano, Jose Manuel Ramirez Calix, Alejandro Cartagena, Ermencia Mendez, Maria Elena Amaya, Allen Gay, Julie L Myers, Rosa Nely Duarte, Jenny Maldonaldo, Santiago Coronel, L. G., Joceline Sarai Lopez, Josefa C. Montalvo, Rosa Sorto Lopez, Digna Munoz Xiomara, Audrey Mithun, Ana Danira Maldonado−Hernandez, Andres Menendez Vega, David Corea, Scott Baniecke, Troy Hastings, Samuel Zelaya, Raul Veliz, Jr, Peter Berg, Alex Josue Sorto, Jorge Zelaya, Dulce Maria Hernandez Arias. (Bryan, Lonnie) (Entered: 01/29/2010)
245 ORDER re 244 Stipulation of Dismissal,,, filed by Francis Garcia, Javier Moreno, Joceline Sarai Lopez, Scott Baniecke, Rosa De Jesus Barrajas Arrellano, Jorge Zelaya, Carlos Hilario Arias, Peter Berg, Rosa Nely Duarte, Troy Hastings, Marlen Alonso Soriano, Vicente Cisneros Abonce, Wenscelao Padilla Guzman, Jaime Reyes, Allen Gay, Samuel Zelaya, Iris Janet Maldonado, Manuela de Jesus Pineda, L. G., Rosa Sorto Lopez, John P Torres, Albis Munoz, Graciela Barragan, Raul Veliz, Jr., Ana Danira Maldonado−Hernandez, Julie L Myers, Jenny Maldonaldo, Saomara Munoz, Andres Menendez Vega, Josefa C. Montalvo, Audrey Mithun, Juan Munoz, David Corea, Esau Eduardo Estrada−Mendez, Fabiola Cisneros, Jose Manuel Ramirez Calix, Teresa de Jesus Guerrero, Digna Munoz Xiomara, William Ramos Castillo, Dulce Maria Hernandez Arias, Alex Josue Sorto, Ermencia Mendez, Santiago Coronel, Jose Erasmo Montalvan, Barbara Anahi Moreno, Alejandro Cartagena, Francisco Munoz, Maria Elena Amaya, ORDER DISMISSING CASE. Signed by Judge Ann D. Montgomery on 2/2/2010. (GS) (Entered: 02/02/2010)
246 JUDGMENT (Attachments: # 1 Civil Notice − appeal, # 2 Civil−8th Circuit Pre−Hearing Conference Notice)(akl) (Entered: 02/03/2010)
247 COST JUDGMENT in favor of John Doe Willmar Police Officers ##1−10, James A. Kulset, Paul Schmidt, Reed Schmidt against Raul Veliz, Jr (Attachments: # 1 Taxation of Costs Summary)(TP) (Entered: 03/19/2010)
248 COST JUDGMENT in favor of John Doe Willmar Police Officers ##1−10, James A. Kulset, Paul Schmidt, Reed Schmidt against Graciela Barragan (Attachments: # 1 Taxation of Costs Summary)(TP) (Entered: 03/19/2010)
249 COST JUDGMENT in favor of Jane Doe Kandiyohi County Probational Official, John Doe Kandiyohi Sheriffs Deputies ##1−10, Dan Hartog against Graciela Barragan and J.A.P. (Attachments: # 1 Taxation of Costs Summary)(TP) (Entered: 03/19/2010)
250 COST JUDGMENT in favor of Jane Doe Kandiyohi County Probational Official, John Doe Kandiyohi Sheriffs Deputies ##1−10, Dan Hartog against Raul Veliz, Jr (Attachments: # 1 Taxation of Costs Summary)(TP) (Entered: 03/19/2010)
251 SATISFACTION OF JUDGMENT re 247 Cost Judgment, 248 Cost Judgment by Graciela Barragan, Raul Veliz, Jr. (Shulman, Daniel) (Entered: 05/03/2010)

CaSe: 0:07-cv-1959 As Of: 02/17/2013 07:11 PM CST 54 of 54

05/12/2010 05/12/2010

252 SATISFACTION OF JUDGMENT re 249 Cost Judgment by Dan Hartog, John Doe Kandiyohi Sheriffs Deputies ##1−10, Jane Doe Kandiyohi County Probational Official. (Goering, Ann) (Entered: 05/12/2010)
253 SATISFACTION OF JUDGMENT re 250 Cost Judgment by Dan Hartog, John Doe Kandiyohi Sheriffs Deputies ##1−10, Jane Doe Kandiyohi County Probational Official. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Goering, Ann) (Entered: 05/12/2010)