UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
ATLANTA DIVISION

MARIE JUSTEEN MANCHA, )

through her Next Friend Maria )

Christina Martinez, MARIA

)

CHRISTINA MARTINEZ,

)

RANULFO PEREZ,·MARIA

)

MARGARITA MORALES,

)

GLADIS ALICIA ESPITIA,

)

individually and on behalf of all )

others similarly situated, and

)

DAYID ROBINSON,

)

)

Plaintiffs, )

)

v.

)

)

IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS)

ENFORCEMENT, MICHAEL )

CHERTOFF, JULIE L. MYERS, )

MARCY FORMAN, KENNETH A.)

SMITH, GREGORY.L. WIEST, )

JOHN P. TORRES, JOHN MATA, )

and JOHN DOES 1-30,

)

)

Defendants. )

CASE NO. - - - -
COMPLAINT - CLASS ACTION

INTRODUCTION

1. This action challenges a series of raids conducted by federal

immigration authorities in Southeast Georgia over the course of at least two weeks

in September, 2006, that trampled on the constitutional rights of every person of

Hispanic descent unfortunate enough to get in the way. The campaign against the

Latino community was conducted ostensibly to locate certai~ named

"

"

undocumented workers who had previously been employed at the Crider poultry

facility in Stillmore, Georgia. However, the scope of the campaign went far"

beyond that. Casting the fundamental protections of the Fourth Amendment aside,

federal agents entered and searched private homes without any lawful authority to

do so, detained and interrogated people merely because they looked "Mexican,"

used excessive and wholly unnecessary force against some of the persons they

detained, and destroyed private property without cause. All of these

unconstitutional actions were taken in an effort to drive the Latino community out

of Southeast Georgia.

2. The raids were the product of racial and ethnic profiling at odds with

the fundamental premise of the Equal Protection Clause oftheXifth Amendment

and in conflict with the basic values this country was founded upon. The named

plaintiffs are U.S. citizens who were victimized by these unconstitutional actions

solely because they appeared to be "Mexican" to federal agents who failed to give

even lip service to the protections of the Constitution ,and their oath ofoffice.

3. Upon information and belief, the raids were authorized by federal

government officials at the highest levels of Immigration and Customs

Enforcement.

4. Plaintiffs seek injunctive and declaratory relief to prevent such

egregious unconstitutional actions from occurring again in their communities. The
2

named plaintiffs also seek damages under the Constitution for the injuries they have suffered.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE 5. Jurisdiction of the Court is predicated upon 28 U.S.C § 1331 (federal question jurisdiction), 28 U.S.C. § 1361 Gurisdiction to compel an officer to perform a duty owed to Plaintiffs), 28 U.S.C. § 1343 (civil rights and equal protection), and 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201-02 (Declaratory Judgment Act). 6. Venue is proper in this judicial district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391 (e)(1) because a defendant in this action resides·in this district.
PARTIES 7. PlaintiffNIARIE .T[]STEEN IVIANCHA ("Plaintiff Mancha") is a Latina teenager who is a native and citizen of the United States. At all times relevant to this suit,she was a resident of Reidsville, Tattnall County, Georgia. She appears in this suit through her Next Friend and mother Maria Christina Martinez.. 8. Plaintiff MARIA CHRISTINA MARTINEZ ("Plaintiff Martinez") is a Latina woman who is a native and citizen of the United States. At all times relevant to this suit, she was a resident of Reidsville, Tattnall County, Georgia. Plaintiff Martinez appears in this suit as both a plaintiff in her individual capacity and as Next Friend far her daughter, Plaintiff Marie Justeen Mancha, a minor
3

child. PlaintiffMartinez has the authority to act as Next Friend for Plaintiff
"
Mancha pursuant to Rule 17(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 9. Plaintiff RANULFO PEREZ ("Plaintiff Perez") is a Latino man who
is a native and citizen of the Unites States. At all times relevant to this suit, he was a resident of Adrian, Emanuel County, Georgia.
10. Plaintiff MARIA MARGARITA MORALES ("Plaintiff Morales") is a Latina woman who is a native and citizen of the United States. At all times relevant to this suit, she was a resident of Oak Park, Emanuel County,· Georgia.
11. Plaintiff GLADIS ALICIA ESPITIA ("Plaintiff Espitia") is a Latina woman who is a native and citizen of the United States. At all times relevant to this suit, she was a resident of Oak Park, Ernanuel County, Georgia.
12. Plaintiff DAVID ROBINSON ("Plaintiff Robinson") is a native and citizen of the United States. At all times relevant to this suit, he was a resident of Metter, Candler County, Georgia. ,
13. 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 immigration laws.
14. Defendant MICHAEL CHERTOFF ("Defendant Chertoff') is the . Secretary of the United States Department of Homeland Security. Defendant
4

Chertoff is charged with the constitutional and lawful implementation of the

Immigration arid Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. §§ 1101, et seq., and with the

. administration of Immigration and Customs Enforcement. He is sued in his

official capacity.

15. Defendant JULIE L. MYERS ("Defendant Myers") is the Assistant

Secretary of Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Defendant Myers is charged

with the constitutional and lawful implementation of the Imlnigration and

Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. §§ 1101, et seq., and with the administration of

Immigration and Customs Enforcement. She is sued in her official capacity.

16. Defendant MARCY FORMAN ("Defendant Forman") is the

Director of the Office of Investigations for Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

In this capacity, Defendant Forman is responsible for all aspects of the

investigative mission of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, including the

..

.

supervision of Special Agents,' Special Agent-in-Charge offices, and other field

offices. As such, she is responsible for the Atlanta-based Special Agent~in-Charge

Office and the Savannah-based field office of Immigration and Customs

Enforcement. She is sued in her official capacity.

17. Defendant KENNETH A. SMITH ("Defendant Smith") is the

Special Agent-in-Charge of the Special Agent-in-Charge Office oflmniigration

and Customs Enforcement based in Atlanta, Georgia. Defendant Smith is
5

responsible for the administration and management of all enforcement activities within the geographic boundaries of the Atlanta-based Special Agent-in-Charge Office. As such, he is responsible for the Savannah-based field office of Inimigration and Customs Enforcement. Defendant Smith is also responsible for the development, coordination, and implementation of enforcement strategies of Immigration and Customs Enforcement so as to ensure conformance with national policies and procedures within his territory. Defendant Smith is sued in his official capacity.
18. Defendant GREGORY WIEST ("Defendant Wiest") is the Resident Agent-in-Charge of the Savannah field office ofImmigration and Customs Enforcement. As Resident Agent-in-Charge, Defendant Wiest is responsible for managing enforcement activities within the geographic boundaries of the Savannah field office and is responsible for ensuring all enforcement activities of the Savannah field office are conducted pursuant to national policies and procedures. Upon information and belief, Defendant Wiest was personally involved in and/or personally ordered or authorized the incidents complained of in this lawsuit, and/or Defendant Wiest's improper customs and/or policies directly resulted in the deprivation of the constitutionaJ rights of Plaintiffs as set forth herein. Defendant Wiest is sued individually and in his official capacity.
6

19. Defendant JOHN P. TORRES ("Defendant Torres") is the Director of the Office of Detention and Removal for Immigration and Customs Enforcement. In this capacity, befendant Torres is responsible fo1;' the apprehension, detention, and removal of foreign nationals charged with violations 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 Atlanta, Georgia. Defendant Torres is sued in his official capacity.
20. Defendant JOHN MATA ("Defendant Mata") is the Director of the Atlanta-based field office 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 violations of immigration law within the geographic boundaries of the Atlanta-. based field office. Defendant Mata is sued in his official capacity.
21. At all times relevant to the incidents complained of in this lawsuit, DEFENDANTSJOHN DOES. 1-30 were federal law· enforcement agents employed by Defendant Immigration and Customs Enforcement. .Defendants were empowered by law to execute searches and make arrests for violations of federal law. Defendants John Does 1-30 are sued individually and in their official capacities.
7

22.. Plaintiffs are ignorant of the true names' of Defendants John Does 130 and therefore sue these Defendants by such fictitious names. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that each Defendant so named is responsible in some Inanner for the injuries and damages suffered by Plaintiffs as set forth. Plaintiffs will amend their complaint to state the true names of Defendants John Does 1-30 when they have been ascertained.
23. In committing the acts alleged in this 'complaint, Defendants John Does 1-30 were acting on behalf of Defendant ICE and within the course and scope of their employment as ICE agents. Furthermore, upon information and belief, Defendants John Does 1-30 were acting under the immediate supervision of Defendants Forman, Smith, Wiest, Torres, and NIata and pursuant to their policies, orders, and/or authorization.
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS Plaintiffs Mancha and Martinez
24. On a weekday morning in early September, 2006, Plaintiff Mancha, a tenth grade high school student, was getting ready for school. Hermother, Plaintiff Martinez, left their home in Reidsville, Georgia, to run an" errand.
25. After her mother had left, Plaintiff Mancha heard car doors slamming outside of her home. 'She believed it was her mother returning, so she went to the front door, unlocked the door, left it closed, and went back to her bedroom.
8

26. Shortly thereafter, Plaintiff Mancha heard voices coming from within the house. She left her bedroom, and, as she was walking down the hallway . towards the living room; she heard people yelling, "Police! Illegals!" When she reached the living room, she saw Defendants John Does 1-5 standing in the living room blocking the front door. Defendantlohn Doe 1 had his hand on his gun as if he was ready to take it out at any minute.
27. Plaintiff Mancha became extremely frightened because of the number of unknown men who had broken into her home and because at least one of them
a had visible gun.
28. PlaintiffMancha saw approximately five other agents on the stairs leading up to her front door and several more outside in her yard. In all, there were approximately 20-25 agents who had either entered or surrounded her home.
29. Defendants John Does 1-3 interrogated Plaintiff Mancha regarding whether there were other people in the house, whether her mother had worked for Crider Poultry and the reason she had quit, whether her mother was "Mexican," and whether her mother had "papers" or a green card. Plaintiff Mancha told the Defendants that her mother was born in Florida and, therefore, did not need a green card.
30. WheIl Plaintiff Mancha asked why Defendants were· inside of her home, Defendant John Doe 1 told her that they were looking for "illegals."
9

31. . .One of the Defendants declared to the other defendants that they would go to the gas station where they were sure to find a lot of "Mexicans." Plaintiff Mancha asked the Defendants if they were leaving, and one of them responded that they were going to be in the area "looking for the rest of them."
32. After approximately five minutes inside Plaintiffs' home, Defendants finally left without ever showing a warrant authorizing their presence therein.
33. Plaintiff Martinez returned home to find the Defendants coming from behind her home and leaving from her driveway in more than six vehicles. Plaintiff Martinez grew very concerned and immediately went to check on Plaintiff Mancha, her daughter.
. 34. Upon information and belief, Defendants lacked lawful authority for all detention and interrogation activities involving Plaintiff Mancha and did not have a warrant, probable cause and exigent circumstances, or consent to enter Plaintiffs' home.
35. As a result of Defendants' unlawfui actions, Plaintiffs Mancha and Martinez were traumatized, and both continue to suffer to this day. Plaintiff Perez
36. On or about September 5, 2006', Plaintiff Perez was standing next to his truck parked on his property in front of his home in Adrian, Georgia, when approximately six to eight vehicles drove into his yard and parked in such a
10

manner as to block the only entrance or exit to Plaintiff Perez' property. Approximately fifteen agents exited the vehicles. They immediately pulled their 'weapons and began to approach Plaintiff Perez and surround his home.
37. Believing the agents to be immigration officers, Plaintiff Perez hurriedly declared that he had "papers." Without even asking for Plaintiff Perez' name, Defendant John Doe 6 grabbed Plaintiff Perez by the front of his shirt, jammed his gun into Plaintiff Perez' side, and threw him against his truck. Defendant John Doe 6 then twisted Plaintiff Perez' arm around and held him so that he could not easily get away.
38. Defendant John Doe 6 told Plaintiff Perez to stay there and not to move. Defendant John Doe 6 held Plaintiff Perez in this uncomfortable position for approximately ten minutes.
39. Defendant John Doe 6 directed some of the other agents to go into Plaintiff Perez' home. Approximately three of the Defendants entered and searched Plaintiff Perez' home - without producing a warrant or asking for permISSIon. Approximately nine other agents searched around outside the home.
40. Plaintiff Perez repeatedly told Defendant John Doe 6 that he had "papers," but Defendant John Doe 6 would not respond. Instead of requesting that Plaintiff Perez produce his "papers," Defendant John Doe 6 continued to physically detain Plaintiff Perez.
11

41. At the end of this ten-minute period, Defendant John Doe 6 asked Plaintiff Perez ifhe had any weapons on him. Plaintiff Perez told Defendant John Doe 6 that he did not have any weapons and consented to a search for weapons on his person. Defendant John Doe 6 then asked Plaintiff Perez to show his "papers." Plaintiff Perez reached into his pocket, produced his driver's license and social security card, and gave them to Defendant John Doe 6. Defendant John Doe 6 finally released Plaintiff Perez' arm and went to his vehicle. A minute or two later, Defendant John Doe 6 returned with Plaintiff Perez' identification.
42. Defendant John Doe 6 told Plaintiff Perez that the Defendants were with "immigration" and had been sent by the federal government. He also told Plaintiff Perez that immigration would be in the area for another two weeks and suggested that Plaintiff Perez and his family go elsewhere during that time period so as to avoid any future incidents and entries to their home.
43. Defendants finally left after approximately thirty to forty minutes. 44. Upon information and belief, Defendants lacked lawful authority for . all detention, interrogatiOri, ana arrest activities involving Plaintiff Perez and did not have a warrant, probable cause and exigent circumstances, or consent to enter Plaintiff Perez's home.
12

JOiaintlj(yrlkforaies 45. On or about September 1, 2006, PlaintiffMorales was driving home
from work when she stopped at the post office in the town of Stillmore, Georgia. After she picked up her mail, she got back in her jeep and drove on Old Kenfield Road towards her·home.
46. Plaintiff Morales was driving behind a long line of approximately twelve vehicles when an unmarked car driven by Defendant John Doe 8 pulled to the side, allowing Plaintiff Morales' jeep to pass him. Defendant John Doe 8 then pulled in behind PlaintiffMorale,s.
. ' 47. All of the cars in front of Plaintiff Morales proceeded to stop in the middle of the road. Defendants John Doe 7 and John Doe 8 put on their blue, blinking hazard lights to signal that Plaintiff Morales should pull over. Plaintiff . Morales then stopped her jeep directly behind the vehicle of Defendant John Doe ' ·7, and Defendant John Doe 8 stopped his vehicle very closely behind that of Plaintiff Morales.
48. Defendants John Doe 7 and John Doe 8 thenproceeded to exit their vehicles and walk towards Plaintiff Morales' jeep. Plaintiff Morales remained inside her jeep, and Defendants John Doe 7 and John Doe 8 were standing next to the door of her jeep throughout their interrogation of Plaintiff Morales.
13

49. Defendant John Doe 8 immediately called Plaintiff Morales a "Mexican" and told her to get out of her jeep. Plaintiff Morales responded that she was born in Texas. Defendant John Doe 7 told her that if she was not "Mexican," then she had to prove it to them. Plaintiff Morales showed them her Georgia' driver's license. Defendant John Doe 7 declared that the driver's license was "false" and again ordered Plaintiff Morales out of her jeep. He then reached in through the open window, grabbed Plaintiff Morales , arm, and pulled her towards him..He repeatedly accused Plaintiff Morales of being a "Mexican" and ordered her out of her jeep: Defendants John Does 7 and 8 continued to interrogate her regarding her identification, her citizenship, where she was coming from, and where she was going. They falsely claimed that they had seen her in town motioning to "Mexicans," and repeatedly asked her whether she knew any "Mexicans." Plaintiff Morales insisted that her driver's license was not false and that she could take the Defendants to the Georgia State Patrol's office to prove to them that she was a citizen so that they would let her go.
50. Finally, Defendants John Doe 7 and John Doe 8 allowed Plaintiff Morales to leave the scene. However, they told Plaintiff Morales that she could not continue driving on that road in the direction she had been heading. They said it did not matter that she lived in that direction; they told her that she would not be able to continue down that road until after the agents had finished their business
14

and returned to the town of Stillmore. They also ordered her not to make any phone calls and not to tell anyone that "immigration" was in town.
51. Plaintiff Morales' unlawful detention lasted approximately fifteen to twenty minutes before Plaintiff Morales was forced to return to town in order to make her way home using an alternate route.
52. Upon information and belief, Defendants lacked lawful authority for all detention and interrogation activities involving Plaintiff Morales. Plaintiff Espitia
53. On or about September 2,2006, Plaintiff Espitia was inside her home in Oak Park, Georgia, visiting with members of her family when approximately eighteen vehicles drove into her yard and parked in her driveway and on either side of her home. Over twenty agents exited the vehicles and covered Plaintiff Espitia's yard.
54. Some of the Defendants began to handcuff and detain Plaintiff Espitia's family members who were outside in the yard, while other Defendants approached Plaintiff Espitia's home, knocked on the door, and yelled for someone to open the door. .At least one of the Defendants threatened to break down the door and throw "gas" inside the home if Plaintiff Espitia and herfamily did not comply with their orders.
15

55. PlaintifflEspitia·and her family members were very frightened and did not open the door. Several of Plaintiff Espitia's family members took the young children and ran to hide in a bedroom. The Defendants then forcefully broke through the front door, causing damage to the door frame and lock.
56. Many of the Defendants poured into Plaintiff Espitia's home and began to search through it. As they made their way through the home, some of the Defendants continued making threats to use"gas" in an effort to scare Plaintiff Espitia's family members out of the bedroom.
57. The Defendants did not identify themselves as "immigration" officers until after they had already forcefully entered the home, and they never produced a warrant authorizing their presence inside Plaintiffs home.
58. One oftheDefendants led one of Plaintiff Espitia's family members outside, and Plaintiff Espitia followed them. While Plaintiff Espitia was trying to console her family members, Defendant John Doe 9 approached her, took her hand, and pulled his handcuffs from his belt in an attempt to take her into custody. He did so without ever asking for Plaintiff Espitia's name or immigration status. Plaintiff Espitia told him that she had papers in her car to prove her citizenship.
59. Defendant John Doe 9 let go of Plaintiff Espitia's hand and allowed her to proceed to her car, but told her to open her car door slowly: Plaintiff Espitia complied with his demand and retrieved her social security card and gave it to the
16

Defendant. He left to 'verify its validity and eventually returned the card to Plaintiff Espitia and told her that she had a valid social security number.
60. Plaintiff Espitia then went back inside her home, where Defendant John Doe 10 thEm interrogated Plaintiff Espitia and some of her family members for approximately twenty minutes.
61. Upon information and belief, Defendants lacked lawful authority for all detention and interrogation activities involving Plaintiff Espitia and did not have a warrant, probable cause and exigent circumstances, or consent to enter Plaintiff Espitia's home.
62. Plaintiff Espitia was approximately six months pregnant at the time of this raid. As a result of Defendants' unlawful actions, Plaintiff Espitia was traumatized, and she continues to. suffer to this day. . PlaintiffRobinson
63. Plaintiff Robinson 9wnstwo trailer parks in the Metter, Georgia, area that were raided by ICE agents in early September, 2006. Plaintiff Robinson's trailer park located on Turkey Ridge Road ("Turkey Ridge Road Park") was raided on or about September 7.. His second trailer park located on Highway 46 ("Highway 46 Park") was raided on two separate occasions - once on or about September 3 and again on or about September 5.
17

64. The ICE agents involved in the raids forcefully broke into many of the trailers in Plaintiff Robinson's parks. The ICE agents caused intentional damage to at least one door and four windows in the Highway 46 Park. In the Turkey Ridge Road Park, the ICE agents ripped the skirting from the perimeter of a trailer and caused damage to the floorboards.
65. Upon information and belief, Defendants did not have warrants or other legal justification for their actions.
66. As a result of the unlawful and terrorizing actions of the ICE agents,
the tenants who rented from Plaintiff Robinson were so terrified that many . simply fled from the area.
CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS 67. All claims set forth in Counts I and II below are brought by named Plaintiffs Marie Justeen Mancha, Maria Christina Martinez, Ranulfo Perez, Maria Margarita Morales, and Gladis Alicia Espitia, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated person~, pursuant to Rule 23(a) and· 23(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, against Defendants for injunctive and declaratory relief. 68. The named Plaintiffs provisionally propose Counts I and II be certified on behalf of the following class: All persons of Mexican, Latin, or Hispanic origin or appearance who are within the formal jurisdiction and actual territory covered by Immigration

I

18

I .

and Customs Enforcement agents who are directed from the Special Agentin-Charge Office in Atlanta, Georgia. 69. Members of the proposed class number in the thousands so that joinder of all class members is impracticable. 70. The Count I claims of the proposed class representatives and those of the proposed class members raise common questions of law and fact concerning, inter alia, whether Defendants have implemented, enforced, encouraged and/or sanctioned a policy, practice and/or custom of: (a) entering and searching homes without valid warrants or-voluntary consent and in the absenc~ of probable cause and exigent circumstances, in violation of the Fourth Am~ndment to the United States Constitution; and (b) stopping, detaining, investigating, searching and effecting seizures 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. 71. The Count II claims of the· proposed class representatives and those of the proposed class members raise common questions oflaw and fact concerning; inter alia, whether Defendants have implemented, enforced, encouraged and/or sanctioned a policy, practice and/or custom of targeting the named Plaintiffs and class members for stops, detentions, investigations, searches and seizures on the
19

basis ofrace/ethnicity and/or national origin, in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
72. These questions are common to the named Plaintiffs and to the members of the proposed class because Defendants have acted and will continue to act on grounds generally. applicable to both the named Plaintiffs and proposed class. members.
73. The claims of the named Plaintiffs are typical of the claims of the members of the proposed class.
74. The named Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the members of the plaintiff class.
75. The Plaintiffs are represented by counsel who are highly experienced in federal class action litigation ipvolving civil rights issues.
76. The Defendants have acted on grounds generally applicable to the plaintiff class, thereby making appropriate final injunctive and corresponding declaratory relief with respect to the class as a whole.
CAUSES OF ACTION COUNT I: FOURTH AMENDMENT VIOLATIONS
(Class Action Against All Defendants) 77. Plaintiffs Mancha, Martinez, Perez, Morales, and Espitia incorporate by reference each and every.allegation contained in the preceding paragraphs as
20

though fully set forth herein.

78. Plaintiffs Mancha, Martinez, Perez, Morales, and Espitia bring this

claim for injunctive and declaratory relief on behalf of the proposed class against

Defendants to redress continuing and future violations of the Fourth Amendment to

the United States Constitution.

79. Upon information orbelief, Defendants have implemented, enforced,

encouraged and/or sanctioned a policy, practice and/or custom of: (a) entering and

searching homes without valid 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; and (b) stopping, detaining, investigating, searching

and effecting seizures 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.

80. As a result ofthe acts and/or omissions of the Defendants, the Fourth

Amendment rights of the named Plaintiffs to be ftee from unreasonable searches

and seizures and unlawful entries into their homes have been violated. Moreover,

numerous members of the plaintiff class have also been subjected to similar Fourth

Amendment violations.

81. The named Plaintiffs and those similarly situated will suffer

irreparable and repeated injury unless this Court orders equitable relief. Such
21

injury includes, inter alia, deprivation of their constitutionally protected rights under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Damages cannot adequately address the injuries suffered by the named Plaintiffs and the proposed class members.
82. Compelling the Defendants, their agents, employees and successors in office, and all persons acting in concert with them to comply with the dictates of the United States Constitution does not impose an improper or undue burden on the Defendants, their agents, employees, and successors in office, and others, and, in fact" it serves the public interest by ensuring compliance with well-established constitutional protections.
83. Plaintiffs are entitled to the issuance of a permanent injunction prohibiting Defendants from engaging in the unlawful, abusive, and discriminatory .practices alleged herein.
84. For reasons including, but not limited to, those stated herein, an actual dispute exists between Plaintiffs and the Defendants, which parties have genuine and opposing interest, which interests are direct and substantial, and of which a judicial determination will be final and conclusive. This dispute entitles Plaintiffs ,to a declaratory judgment that the Defendants' denial ofPlaintiffs ' Fourth Amendment rights and protections, including, but not limited to, the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures and the right to be free from unlawful
22

entries into one's home, i~ unconstitutional. Plaintiffs are also entitled to such other and further relief as may follow from the entry of such a declaratory judgment.
COUNT II: FIFTH AMENDMENT VIOLATIONS (Class Action Against All Defendants)
85.· Plaintiffs Mancha, Martinez, Perez, Morales, and Espitia incorporate by reference ·each and every allegation contained in the preceding paragraphs as though fully set forth herein.
86. Plaintiffs Mancha, Martinez, Perez, Morales, and Espitia bring this claim for injunctive and declaratory relief on behalf of the proposed class against Deftmdants to redress continuing and future violations of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
87. Defendants have implemented, enforced, encouraged and/or sanctioned a policy, practice and/or custom of targeting the named Plaintiffs and class members for stops, detentions~ investigations, searches and seizures on the . basis ofTace/ethnicity and/ornational origin, in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
88. As a result of the acts and/or omissions of the Defendants, the named Plaintiffs' rights to equal protection under the law as guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution have been violated.. Moreover,
23

numerous members of the plaintiff class have also been subjected to similar Fifth Amendment violations.
89. The named Plaintiffs and those similarly situated will suffer irreparable and repeated injury unless this Court orders equitable relief. Such injury includes, inter alia, deprivation of their constitutionally protected rights .under the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Damages cannot adequately address the injuries suffered by the named Plaintiffs and the proposed class members.
90. Compelling the Defendants, their agents, employees and successors in office, and all persons acting in concert with them to comply with the dictates of the United States Constitution does not impose an improper or undue burden on the Defendants, their agents, employees, and successors in office, and others, and, in fact, it serves the public interest by ensuring compliance with well-established constitutional protections.
91. Plaintiffs are entitled to the issuance of a permanent injunction prohibiting Defendants from engaging in the unlawful, abusive, and discriminatory practices alleged herein.
92. For reasons including, but not limited to, those stated herein, an actual dispute exists between Plaintiffs and the Defendants, which parties have genuine and opposing interest, which interests are direct and substantial, and of which a .
24

judicial determination will be final and conclusive. This dispute entitles Plaintiffs to a declaratory judgment that the Defendants' denial of Plaintiffs' Fifth . Amendment right to equal protection under the law is unconstitutional, as well as such other and further relief as may follow from the entry of such a declaratory judgment.
COUNT III: BIVENS CLAIM OF PLAINTIFF MANCHA (Against Defendants Wiest and John Does 1-5 and 11-25) 93. Plaintiff Mancha incorporates by reference each and every allegation contained in the preceding paragraphs as though fully set forth herein. 94. In doing theacts complained of, Defendants Wiest and John Does 1-5 and 11-25 deprived Plaintiff Mancha 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 without a valid warrant or voluntary consent and in the absence of probable cause and exigent circumstances; .
. .b~ the right to be free from detentions without a lawful, reasonable and articulable suspicion of unlawful activity or probable cause; and
c. the right to equal protection under the law,as guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
25

95. 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.
96. The actions of these Defendants were intentional, malicious, and reckless and showed a callous disregard of" or indifference to, the rights of the Plaintiff.
97. The actions of these Defendants give rise to a cause of action for damages against them in their individual capacities, pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents a/the Federal Bureau a/Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971).
98. As a direct and proximate result of the' unlawful actions of these Defendants, Plaintiff Mancha has suffered harm, in the form of, 'inter alia, outrage, humiliation, and emotional distress. Plaintiff Mancha is entitled to compensatory and punitive damages in an amount to be determined at trial.
COUNT IV: BIVENS CLAIM OF PLAINTIFF MARTINEZ -(Against Defendants-Wiesta-nd John Does-l-S-and-11-2S)
99. Plaintiff Martinez incorporates by reference each and every allegation contained in the preceding paragraphs as though fully set forth herein.
26

100. In doing the acts complained of, Defendants Wiest and John Does 1-5

and 11-25 deprived Plaintiff Martinez 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 without a valid warrant or voluntary consent and in the

,

,

absence of probable cause and exigent circumstances; and

b. the right to equal protection under the law, as guaranteed by the

Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

101. 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 and search, they are not entitled to a good faith defense or official

immunity defense.

102. The actions of these Defendants were intentional, malicious, reckless,

and showed a callous disregard of, or indifference to, the rights of the Plaintiff.

103. ,The actions of these Defendants give rise to a cause of action for

damages against them in their individual capacities, pursuant to Bivens v. Six

Unknown Named Agents a/the Federal Bureau a/Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971).

104. As a direct and proximate result of the unl~wful actions of these

Defendants, Plaintiff Martinez has suffered harm, in the form of, inter alia, outrage

27

and emotional distress. Plaintiff Martinez is entitled to compensatory and punitive damages in. an amount to be determined at trial.
COUNT V: BIVENS CLAIM OF PLAINTIFF PEREZ· , (Against Defendants Wiest and John Does 6 and 11-24) 105. Plaintiff Perez incorporates by reference each and every allegation contained in the preceding paragraphs as though fully set forth herein. 106. In doing the acts complained of, Defendants Wiest and John Does 6 and 11-24 deprived Plaintiff Perez 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 without a valid warrant or voluntary consent and in the . absence of probable cause· and exigent circumstances;
b. the right to be free from detentions without a lawful, reasonable and articulable suspicion of unlawful activity or probable cause;
c. the right to be free from arrest without probable cause; as - guaranteed bythe Fourth Amendment to the United States . Constitution;
d. the right to be free from the use of excessive force, as guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution; and
28

e. the right to equal protection under the law, as guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
107. 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, detention, arrest and use of force, they are not entitled to a good faith defense or official immunity defens.e.
108. The actions of these Defendants were intentional, malicious, and reckless and showed a callous disregard of, or indifference to, the rights of the Plaintiff.
109. The actions of these Defendants give rise to a cause of action for damages against them in their individual capacities, pursuant to B,ivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents a/the Federal Bureau a/Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971).
110. As a direct and proximate result of the unlawful actions of these . Defendants, Plaintiff Perez has suffered harm, in the form of, inter alia, outrage, humiliation, and emotional distress. Plaintiff Perez is entitled to compensatory and punitive damages in an amount to be determined at trial.
COUNT VI: BIVENS CLAIM OF PLAINTIFF MORALES (Against Defendants Wiest and John Does 7-8)
111. Plaintiff Morales incorporates by reference each and every allegation contained in the preceding paragraphs as though fully set forth herein.
29

112. In doing the acts complained of, Defendants Wiest and John Does 7-8 deprived Plaintiff Morales of certain constitutionally protected rights, including, .but not limited to:
a. the right to be free from detentions without a lawful, reasonable and articulable suspicion of unlawful activity or probable cause; and
b. the right to equal protection under the law, as guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
113. 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 seizure, questioning, and detention, they are not entitled to a good faith defense or official immunity defense.
114. The actions of these Defendants were intentional, malicious, and . reckless and showed a callous disregard of, or indifference to, the rights of the Plaintiff.
115. The actions of these Defendants give rise to a cause of action for damages against them in their individual capacities, pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents a/the Federal Bureau a/Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971).
116: As a direct and proximate result of the unlawful actions of these Defendants, Plaintiff Morales has suffered harm, in the form of, inter alia, outrage,
30

humiliation, and emotional distress. Plaintiff Morales is entitled to compensatory and punitive d~mages in an amount to be determined at trial.
COUNT VII: BIVENS CLAIM OF PLAINTIFF ESPITIA (Against Defendants Wiest and John Does 9-30)
117. Plaintiff Espitia incorporates by reference each and every allegation contained in the preceding paragraphs as though fully set forth herein.
118. In doing the acts complained of, Defendants Wiest and John Does 930 deprived Plaintiff Espitia of certain constitutionally protected rights, including, but not limitedto:
a. the right to be free from unlawful entries to and searches of her home without a valid warrant or voluntary consent and in the absence of probable cause and exigent circumstances;
b. the right to be free from detentions without a lawful, reasonable and articulable suspicion of unlawful activity or probable cause;
c. the right to be free from the use of excessive force, as guaranteed by the Fourth Amendmlmtto the United States Constitution;'
d. the right to be free from unreasonable seizures of property, as guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution; and
31

e. the right to equal protection under the law, as guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
119. 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, use of force, and detention, they are not entitled to a good faith defense or official immunity defense.
120. The actions of these Defendants were intentional, malicious, and reckless and showed a callous disregard of, or indifference to, the rights of the Plaintiff.
121. The actions of these Defendants give rise to a cause of action for damages against them in their individual capacities, pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents a/the Federal Bureau a/Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971).
122. As a direct and proximate result of the unlawful actions of these Defendants, Plaintiff Espitia has suffered harm, in the form of, inter alia, outrage, humiliation, property damage and emotional distress. Plaintiff Espitia is entitled to actual, compensatory and punitive damages in an amount to be determined at trial.
COUNT VIII: .BIVENS CLAIM OF PLAINTIFF ROBINSON (Against Defendants Wiest and John Does 11-30)
123. Plaintiff Robinson incorporates by reference each and every allegation contained in the preceding paragraphs as though fully set forth herein.
32

124. In doing the acts complained of, Defendants Wiest and John Does 1130 deprived Plaintiff Robinson of his constitutionally protected right to be free from unreasonable seizures of property, as guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
125. 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, and use of force, they are not entitled to a good faith defense or official immunity defense.
126. The actions of these Defendants were intentional, malicious, and reckless and showed a callous disregard of, or indifference to, the rights of the Plaintiff.
127. The actions of these Defendants give rise to a cause of action for damages against them in their individual capacities, pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown NamedAgents a/the Federal Bureau a/Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971).
128. As a direct and proximate result of the unlawful actions of these Defendants, Plaintiff Robinson has suffered property damage. Plaintiff Perez is entitled to actual, compensatory and punitive damages in an amount to be determined at trial.
33

PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray this Court: 1. Award Plaintiffs Mancha, Martinez, Perez, Morales, Espitia, and Robinson actual, compensatory, and punitive damages for violations of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution; 2. Award Plaintiffs Mancha, Martinez, Perez, Morales, and Espitia actual, compensatory, and punitive damages for violations of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution; 3. Certify this case as a class action in accordance with Rule 23(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure with respect to the claims set forth in Counts I .and II; 4. . Issue a Declaratory Judgment with respect to the claims set forth in Count I declaring that the actions of Defendants as set forth above violated the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution; 5. Issue a Declaratory Judgment with respect to the claims set forth in Count II declaring that the actions of Defendants as set forth above violated the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution; 6. With respect to the claims set forth in Count I, issue an order . permanently enjoining Defendants, their agents, employees, and successors in
34

office and all others acting in concert with them from engaging in the unlawful, abusive and discriminatory actions as set forth above;
7. With respect to the claims set forth in Count II, issue an order permanently enjoining Defendants, their agents, employees, and successors in . office and all others acting in concert with them from engaging in the unlawful, abusive and discriminatory actions as set forth above;
8. .Award Plaintiffs costs of this action; 9. Award Plaintiffs pre- and post-judgment interest, as permitted by law; :. 10. Award Plaintiffsreasonable attorneys' fees with respect to their claims set forth in Counts I and II; 11. Grant Plaintiffs other such relief as the Court deems appropriate and just.
35

Respectfully submitted this i st day of November, 2006.
Mary C. Bauer
, GABar No. ~42213
Kelley M. Bruner Pro Hac Vice, AL Bar No. 8115-K74B Rhonda Brownstein Pro Hac Vice, AL Bar No. 3193-064R Morris Dees Pro Hac Vice, AL Bar. No. 7003-E50M
IMMIGRANT JUSTICE PROJECT SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER
400 Washington Avenue Montgomery, Alabama 36104 334-956-8200 334-956-8481 (fax)
Paul L. Hoffman Pro Hac Vice, CA Bar No. 071244
SCHONBRUN DESIMONE SEPLOW
HARRIS & HOFFMAN LLP 723 Ocean Front Walk Venice, California 90291 (310) 396-0731 (310) 399-7040 (fax)
Brian Spears GA Bar No. 670112
.LAW OFFICE OFBRlAN·SPEARS
1126 Ponce de Leon Avenue, NE Atlanta, Georgia 30306 (404) 872-7086 (404) 892-1128 (fax)
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
By:e#V

 
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
ATLANTA DIVISION

MARIE JUSTEEN MANCHA, )

through her Next Friend Maria )

Christina Martinez, MARIA

)

CHRISTINA MARTINEZ,

)

RANULFO PEREZ, MARIA

)

MARGARITA MORALES,

)

GLADIS ALICIA ESPITIA,

)

individually and on behalf of all )

others similarly situated, and

)

DAVID ROBINSON,

)

)

Plaintiffs, )

)

v.

)

)

IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS )

ENFORCEMENT, MICHAEL )

CHERTOFF, JULIE L. MYERS, )

MARCY FORMAN, KENNETH A. )

SMITH, GREGORY L. WIEST, )

JOHN P. TORRES, JOHN MATA, )

and JOHN DOES 1-30,

)

)

Defendants.)

CASE NO. 1:06-CV-2650 - TWT
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT CLASS ACTION

INTRODUCTION

1. This action challenges a series of raids conducted by federal

immigration authorities in Southeast Georgia over the course of at least two weeks

in September, 2006, that trampled on the constitutional rights of every person of

Hispanic descent unfortunate enough to get in the way. The campaign against the

1

Latino community was conducted ostensibly to locate certain suspected undocumented workers who had previously been employed at the Crider poultry facility in Stillmore, Georgia. However, the scope of the campaign went far beyond that. Casting the fundamental protections of the Fourth Amendment aside, federal agents entered and searched private homes without warrants or any other lawful authority to do so, detained and interrogated people merely because they looked “Mexican,” used excessive and wholly unnecessary force against some of the persons they detained, and destroyed private property without cause. All of these unconstitutional actions were taken in an effort to drive the Latino community out of Southeast Georgia.
2. The raids were the product of racial and ethnic profiling at odds with the fundamental premise of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fifth Amendment and in conflict with the basic values upon which this country was founded. The named plaintiffs are U.S. citizens who were victimized by these unconstitutional actions solely because they appeared to be “Mexican” to federal agents who failed to give even lip service to the protections of the Constitution and their oath of office.
2

3. Upon information and belief, the raids were authorized by federal government officials at the highest levels of the bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
4. Plaintiffs seek injunctive and declaratory relief to prevent such egregious unconstitutional actions from occurring again in their communities. The named plaintiffs also seek damages under the Constitution for the injuries they have suffered.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE 5. Jurisdiction of the Court is predicated upon 28 U.S.C § 1331 (federal question jurisdiction), 28 U.S.C. § 1361 (jurisdiction to compel an officer to perform a duty owed to Plaintiffs), 28 U.S.C. § 1343 (civil rights and equal protection), and 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201-02 (Declaratory Judgment Act). 6. Venue is proper in this judicial district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391 (e)(1) because a defendant in this action resides in this district.
PARTIES 7. Plaintiff MARIE JUSTEEN MANCHA (“Plaintiff Mancha”) is a Latina teenager who is a native and citizen of the United States. At all times relevant to this suit, she was a resident of Reidsville, Tattnall County, Georgia.
3

She appears in this suit through her Next Friend and mother Maria Christina Martinez.
8. Plaintiff MARIA CHRISTINA MARTINEZ (“Plaintiff Martinez”) is a Latina woman who is a native and citizen of the United States. At all times relevant to this suit, she was a resident of Reidsville, Tattnall County, Georgia. Plaintiff Martinez appears in this suit as both a plaintiff in her individual capacity and as Next Friend for her daughter, Plaintiff Marie Justeen Mancha, a minor child. Plaintiff Martinez has the authority to act as Next Friend for Plaintiff Mancha pursuant to Rule 17(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
9. Plaintiff RANULFO PEREZ (“Plaintiff Perez”) is a Latino man who is a native and citizen of the Unites States. At all times relevant to this suit, he was a resident of Adrian, Emanuel County, Georgia.
10. Plaintiff MARIA MARGARITA MORALES (“Plaintiff Morales”) is a Latina woman who is a native and citizen of the United States. At all times relevant to this suit, she was a resident of Oak Park, Emanuel County, Georgia.
11. Plaintiff GLADIS ALICIA ESPITIA (“Plaintiff Espitia”) is a Latina woman who is a native and citizen of the United States. At all times relevant to this suit, she was a resident of Oak Park, Emanuel County, Georgia.
4

12. Plaintiff DAVID ROBINSON (“Plaintiff Robinson”) is a native and citizen of the United States. At all times relevant to this suit, he was a resident of Metter, Candler County, Georgia.
13. 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 immigration laws.
14. Defendant MICHAEL CHERTOFF (“Defendant Chertoff”) is the 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. He is sued in his official capacity.
15. Defendant JULIE L. MYERS (“Defendant Myers”) is the Assistant Secretary of 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. She is sued in her official capacity.
5

16. Defendant MARCY FORMAN (“Defendant Forman”) is the Director of the Office of Investigations for Immigration and Customs Enforcement. In this capacity, Defendant Forman is responsible for all aspects of the investigative mission of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, including the supervision of Special Agents, Special Agent-in-Charge offices, and other field offices. As such, she is responsible for the Atlanta-based Special Agent-in-Charge Office and the Savannah-based field office of Immigration and Customs Enforcement. She is sued in her official capacity.
17. Defendant KENNETH A. SMITH (“Defendant Smith”) is the Special Agent-in-Charge of the Special Agent-in-Charge Office of Immigration and Customs Enforcement based in Atlanta, Georgia. Defendant Smith is responsible for the administration, management and conduct of all investigative and enforcement activities within the geographic boundaries of the Atlanta-based Special Agent-in-Charge Office. As such, he is responsible for the Savannahbased field office of Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Defendant Smith is also responsible for the development, coordination, and implementation of enforcement strategies of Immigration and Customs Enforcement so as to ensure conformance with national policies and procedures within his territory. Defendant Smith is sued in his official capacity.
6

18. Defendant GREGORY WIEST (“Defendant Wiest”) is the Resident Agent-in-Charge of the Savannah field office of Immigration and Customs Enforcement. As Resident Agent-in-Charge, Defendant Wiest is responsible for the administration, management and conduct of all investigative and enforcement activities within the geographic boundaries of the Savannah field office and is responsible for ensuring that all enforcement activities of the Savannah field office are conducted pursuant to national policies and procedures. Defendant Wiest is sued individually and in his official capacity.
19. 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 violations 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 Atlanta, Georgia. Defendant Torres is sued in his official capacity.
20. Defendant JOHN MATA (“Defendant Mata”) is the Director of the Atlanta-based field office 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
7

violations of immigration law within the geographic boundaries of the Atlantabased field office. Defendant Mata is sued in his official capacity.
21. At all times relevant to the incidents complained of in this lawsuit, DEFENDANTS JOHN DOES 1-30 were federal law enforcement agents employed by Defendant Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Defendants were empowered by law to execute searches, conduct interrogations and detentions and make arrests for violations of federal immigration law. Defendants John Does 130 are sued individually and in their official capacities.
22. Plaintiffs are ignorant of the true names of Defendants John Does 130 and therefore sue these Defendants by such fictitious names. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that each Defendant so named is responsible in some manner for the injuries and damages suffered by Plaintiffs as set forth. Plaintiffs will amend their complaint to state the true names of Defendants John Does 1-30 when they have been ascertained.
23. In committing the acts alleged in this complaint, Defendants John Does 1-30 were acting on behalf of Defendant ICE and within the course and scope of their employment as ICE agents. Furthermore, upon information and belief, Defendants John Does 1-30 were acting under the immediate supervision of
8

Defendants Myers, Forman, Smith, Wiest, Torres, and Mata and pursuant to their policies, orders, and/or authorization.
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS Plaintiffs Mancha and Martinez
24. On a weekday morning in early September, 2006, Plaintiff Mancha, a tenth grade high school student, was getting ready for school. Her mother, Plaintiff Martinez, left their home in Reidsville, Georgia, to run an errand.
25. After her mother had left, Plaintiff Mancha heard car doors slamming outside of her home. She believed it was her mother returning, so she went to the front door, unlocked the door, left it closed, and went back to her bedroom.
26. Shortly thereafter, Plaintiff Mancha heard voices coming from within the house. She left her bedroom, and, as she was walking down the hallway towards the living room, she heard people yelling, “Police! Illegals!” When she reached the living room, she saw Defendants John Does 1-5 standing in the living room blocking the front door. Defendant John Doe 1 had his hand on his gun as if he was ready to take it out at any minute.
27. Plaintiff Mancha became extremely frightened because of the number of unknown men who had broken into her home and because at least one of them had a visible gun.
9

28. Plaintiff Mancha saw approximately five other agents on the stairs leading up to her front door and several more outside in her yard. In all, there were approximately 20-25 agents who had either entered or surrounded her home.
29. Defendants John Does 1-3 interrogated Plaintiff Mancha regarding whether there were other people in the house, whether her mother had worked for Crider Poultry and the reason she had quit, whether her mother was “Mexican,” and whether her mother had “papers” or a green card. Plaintiff Mancha told the Defendants that her mother was born in Florida and, therefore, did not need a green card.
30. When Plaintiff Mancha asked why Defendants were inside of her home, Defendant John Doe 1 told her that they were looking for “illegals.”
31. One of the Defendants declared to the other defendants that they would go to the gas station where they were sure to find a lot of “Mexicans.” Plaintiff Mancha asked the Defendants if they were leaving, and one of them responded that they were going to be in the area “looking for the rest of them.”
32. After approximately five minutes inside Plaintiffs’ home, Defendants finally left without ever showing a warrant authorizing their presence therein.
33. Plaintiff Martinez returned home to find the Defendants coming from behind her home and leaving from her driveway in more than six vehicles.
10

Plaintiff Martinez grew very concerned and immediately went to check on Plaintiff Mancha, her daughter.
34. Upon information and belief, Defendants lacked lawful authority for all detention and interrogation activities involving Plaintiff Mancha and did not have a warrant, probable cause and exigent circumstances, or consent to enter Plaintiffs’ home.
35. As a result of Defendants’ unlawful actions, Plaintiffs Mancha and Martinez were traumatized, and both continue to suffer to this day. Plaintiff Perez
36. On or about September 5, 2006, Plaintiff Perez was standing next to his truck parked on his property in front of his home in Adrian, Georgia, when approximately six to eight vehicles drove into his yard and parked in such a manner as to block the only entrance or exit to Plaintiff Perez’ property. Approximately fifteen agents exited the vehicles. They immediately pulled their weapons and began to approach Plaintiff Perez and surround his home.
37. Believing the agents to be immigration officers, Plaintiff Perez hurriedly declared that he had “papers.” Without even asking for Plaintiff Perez’ name, Defendant John Doe 6 grabbed Plaintiff Perez by the front of his shirt, jammed his gun into Plaintiff Perez’ side, and threw him against his truck.
11

Defendant John Doe 6 then twisted Plaintiff Perez’ arm around and held him so that he could not easily get away.
38. Defendant John Doe 6 told Plaintiff Perez to stay there and not to move. Defendant John Doe 6 held Plaintiff Perez in this uncomfortable position for approximately ten minutes.
39. Defendant John Doe 6 directed some of the other agents to go into Plaintiff Perez’ home. Approximately three of the Defendants entered and searched Plaintiff Perez’ home – without producing a warrant or asking for permission. Approximately nine other agents searched around outside the home.
40. Plaintiff Perez repeatedly told Defendant John Doe 6 that he had “papers,” but Defendant John Doe 6 would not respond. Instead of requesting that Plaintiff Perez produce his “papers,” Defendant John Doe 6 continued to physically detain Plaintiff Perez.
41. At the end of this ten-minute period, Defendant John Doe 6 asked Plaintiff Perez if he had any weapons on him. Plaintiff Perez told Defendant John Doe 6 that he did not have any weapons and Defendant John Doe 6 proceeded to search Plaintiff Perez for weapons on his person. Defendant John Doe 6 then asked Plaintiff Perez to show his “papers.” Plaintiff Perez reached into his pocket, produced his driver’s license and social security card, and gave them to Defendant
12

John Doe 6. Defendant John Doe 6 finally released Plaintiff Perez’ arm and went to his vehicle. A minute or two later, Defendant John Doe 6 returned with Plaintiff Perez’ identification.
42. Defendant John Doe 6 told Plaintiff Perez that the Defendants were with “immigration” and had been sent by the federal government. He also told Plaintiff Perez that immigration would be in the area for another two weeks and suggested that Plaintiff Perez and his family go elsewhere during that time period so as to avoid any future incidents and entries to their home.
43. Defendants finally left after approximately thirty to forty minutes. 44. Upon information and belief, Defendants lacked lawful authority for all detention, interrogation, and arrest activities involving Plaintiff Perez and did not have a warrant, probable cause and exigent circumstances, or consent to enter Plaintiff Perez’s home. Plaintiff Morales 45. On or about September 1, 2006, Plaintiff Morales was driving home from work when she stopped at the post office in the town of Stillmore, Georgia. After she picked up her mail, she got back in her jeep. Plaintiff Morales had her windows down because it was hot and her air conditioner was not working.
13

46. Plaintiff Morales turned right onto Old Kenfield Road towards her home, after waiting for a long line of cars to turn left in front of her onto Old Kenfield Road.
47. Plaintiff Morales was driving behind this long line of vehicles when an unmarked car driven by Defendant John Doe 8 pulled over to the left-hand side of the road, allowing Plaintiff Morales’ jeep to pass him. Defendant John Doe 8 then pulled in directly behind Plaintiff Morales.
48. All of the cars in front of Plaintiff Morales proceeded to stop in the middle of the two-lane road, forcing Plaintiff Morales to stop as well. As Plaintiff Morales was coming to a stop, Defendant John Doe 8 (driving the vehicle directly behind her) and Defendant John Doe 7 (driving the vehicle directly in front of her) put on their blue, blinking hazard lights. At this point Plaintiff Morales felt that she was being pulled over by the Defendants. Plaintiff Morales stopped her jeep directly behind the vehicle of Defendant John Doe 7, and Defendant John Doe 8 stopped his vehicle very closely behind that of Plaintiff Morales. Plaintiff Morales’ jeep was blocked in by the vehicles of Defendants John Doe 7 and John Doe 8 and, at that point, Plaintiff Morales was unable to leave.
49. Defendants John Doe 7 and John Doe 8 then proceeded to exit their vehicles and walk towards Plaintiff Morales’ jeep. Plaintiff Morales remained
14

inside her jeep, and Defendants John Doe 7 and John Doe 8 were standing next to the door of her jeep throughout their interrogation of Plaintiff Morales.
50. Defendant John Doe 8 immediately called Plaintiff Morales a “Mexican” and told her to get out of her jeep. Plaintiff Morales responded that she was born in Texas. Defendant John Doe 8 told her that if she was not “Mexican,” then she had to prove it to them. Plaintiff Morales showed them her Georgia driver’s license. The Defendant declared that the driver’s license was “false” and again ordered Plaintiff Morales out of her jeep. He then reached in through the open window, grabbed Plaintiff Morales’ arm, and pulled her towards him. He repeatedly accused Plaintiff Morales of being a “Mexican” and ordered her out of her jeep. The Defendant continued to interrogate her regarding her identification, her citizenship, where she was coming from, and where she was going. The Defendant falsely claimed that they had seen her in town motioning to “Mexicans,” and repeatedly asked her whether she knew any “Mexicans.” Plaintiff Morales insisted that her driver’s license was not false and that she could take the Defendants to the Georgia State Patrol’s office to prove to them that she was a citizen so that they would let her go.
51. As Defendant John Doe 8 interrogated Plaintiff Morales regarding her citizenship and asked her to prove that she was not “Mexican,” Defendant John
15

Doe 7 continuously whispered things to Defendant John Doe 8, leading Plaintiff Morales to believe that Defendant John Doe 8 was taking direction from Defendant John Doe 7.
52. Plaintiff Morales wanted to leave but did not believe that she was permitted to leave while Defendants John Doe 7 and John Doe 8 interrogated her. Moreover, Plaintiff Morales was not physically able to leave in her car due to Defendants John Doe 7 and John Doe 8 blocking her in.
53. Defendants John Doe 7 and John Doe 8 finally allowed her to leave the scene; however, Defendant John Doe 8 told Plaintiff Morales that she could not continue driving on that road in the direction she had been heading. He said it did not matter that she lived in that direction; he told her that she would not be able to continue down that road until after the agents had finished their business and returned to the town of Stillmore. Defendant John Doe 8 also ordered her not to make any phone calls and not to tell anyone that “immigration” was in town.
54. Plaintiff Morales’ unlawful detention lasted approximately fifteen to twenty minutes before Plaintiff Morales was forced to return to town in order to make her way home using an alternate route.
55. Upon information and belief, Defendants lacked lawful authority for all detention and interrogation activities involving Plaintiff Morales.
16

56. Defendant Wiest was either Defendant John Doe 7 or John Doe 8, and thus personally participated in the unlawful detention and interrogation of Plaintiff Morales. Defendant Wiest also failed to stop and/or correct the unlawful acts of the other Defendant involved in the detention and interrogation of Plaintiff Morales. Plaintiff Espitia
57. On or about September 2, 2006, Plaintiff Espitia was inside her home in Oak Park, Georgia, visiting with members of her family when approximately eighteen vehicles drove into her yard and parked in her driveway and on either side of her home. Over twenty agents, including Defendant Wiest, exited the vehicles and covered Plaintiff Espitia’s yard.
58. Some of the Defendants began to handcuff and detain Plaintiff Espitia’s family members who were outside in the yard, while other Defendants approached Plaintiff Espitia’s home, knocked on the door, and yelled for someone to open the door. At least one of the Defendants threatened to break down the door and throw “gas” inside the home if Plaintiff Espitia and her family did not comply with their orders.
59. Plaintiff Espitia and her family members were very frightened and did not open the door. Several of Plaintiff Espitia’s family members took the young
17

children and ran to hide in a bedroom. The Defendants then forcefully broke through the front door, causing damage to the door frame and lock.
60. Many of the Defendants poured into Plaintiff Espitia’s home and began to search through it. As they made their way through the home, some of the Defendants continued making threats to use “gas” in an effort to scare Plaintiff Espitia’s family members out of the bedroom.
61. The Defendants did not identify themselves as “immigration” officers until after they had already forcefully entered the home, and they never produced a warrant authorizing their presence inside Plaintiff’s home.
62. One of the Defendants led one of Plaintiff Espitia’s family members outside, and Plaintiff Espitia followed them. While Plaintiff Espitia was trying to console her family members, Defendant John Doe 9 approached her, took her hand, and pulled his handcuffs from his belt in an attempt to take her into custody. He did so without ever asking for Plaintiff Espitia’s name or immigration status. Plaintiff Espitia told him that she had papers in her car to prove her citizenship.
63. Defendant John Doe 9 let go of Plaintiff Espitia’s hand and allowed her to proceed to her car, but told her to open her car door slowly. Plaintiff Espitia complied with his demand and retrieved her social security card and gave it to the
18

Defendant. He left to verify its validity and eventually returned the card to Plaintiff Espitia and told her that she had a valid social security number.
64. Plaintiff Espitia then went back inside her home, where Defendant John Doe 10 interrogated Plaintiff Espitia and some of her family members for approximately twenty minutes.
65. Upon information and belief, Defendants lacked lawful authority for all detention and interrogation activities involving Plaintiff Espitia and did not have a warrant, probable cause and exigent circumstances, or consent to enter Plaintiff Espitia’s home.
66. Plaintiff Espitia was approximately six months pregnant at the time of this raid. As a result of Defendants’ unlawful actions, Plaintiff Espitia was traumatized, and she continues to suffer to this day. Plaintiff Robinson
67. Plaintiff Robinson owns two trailer parks in the Metter, Georgia, area that were raided by ICE agents in early September, 2006. Plaintiff Robinson’s trailer park located on Turkey Ridge Road (“Turkey Ridge Road Park”) was raided on or about September 7. His second trailer park located on Highway 46 (“Highway 46 Park”) was raided on two separate occasions – once on or about September 3 and again on or about September 5.
19

68. The ICE agents involved in the raids forcefully broke into many of the trailers in Plaintiff Robinson’s parks. The ICE agents caused intentional damage to at least one door and four windows in the Highway 46 Park. In the Turkey Ridge Road Park, Defendant Wiest and other ICE agents ripped the skirting from the perimeter of a trailer and caused damage to the floorboards.
69. Upon information and belief, Defendants did not have warrants to enter the homes or other legal justification for their actions.
70. As a result of the unlawful and terrorizing actions of the ICE agents, the tenants who rented from Plaintiff Robinson were so terrified that many simply fled from the area.
71. On October 31, 2006, almost two months after the raids at issue in this case, ICE agents visited a store in Stillmore, Georgia, that sells mostly Mexican food products and caters to the Latino community. The agents demanded to see the store’s business license and the store employee’s documentation of citizenship.
72. Upon information and belief, ICE agents have also made two separate demands for documents relating to the legal status of Crider employees since the September 2006 raids, indicating that ICE is still targeting the Southeast Georgia communities.
CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS
20

73. All claims set forth in Counts I and II below are brought by named Plaintiffs Marie Justeen Mancha, Maria Christina Martinez, Ranulfo Perez, Maria Margarita Morales, and Gladis Alicia Espitia, 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.
74. The named Plaintiffs provisionally propose Counts I and II be certified on behalf of the following class:
All persons of Mexican, Latin, or Hispanic origin or appearance who are within the formal jurisdiction and actual territory covered by Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents who are directed from the Special Agentin-Charge Office in Atlanta, Georgia. 75. Members of the proposed class number in the thousands so that joinder of all class members is impracticable. 76. The Count I claims of the proposed class representatives and those of the proposed class members raise common questions of law and fact concerning, inter alia, whether Defendants have implemented, enforced, encouraged and/or sanctioned a policy, practice and/or custom of: (a) entering and searching homes without valid 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; and (b) stopping, detaining, investigating, searching and effecting seizures in the absence of a reasonable, articulable suspicion of unlawful
21

activity or probable cause, in violation of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
77. The Count II claims of the proposed class representatives and those of the proposed class members raise common questions of law and fact concerning, inter alia, whether Defendants have implemented, enforced, encouraged and/or sanctioned a policy, practice and/or custom of targeting the named Plaintiffs and class members for stops, detentions, investigations, searches and seizures on the basis of race/ethnicity and/or national origin, in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
78. These questions are common to the named Plaintiffs and to the members of the proposed class because Defendants have acted and will continue to act on grounds generally applicable to both the named Plaintiffs and proposed class members.
79. The claims of the named Plaintiffs are typical of the claims of the members of the proposed class.
80. The named Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the members of the plaintiff class.
81. The Plaintiffs are represented by counsel who are highly experienced in federal class action litigation involving civil rights issues.
22

82. The Defendants have acted on grounds generally applicable to the plaintiff class, thereby making appropriate final injunctive and corresponding declaratory relief with respect to the class as a whole.
CAUSES OF ACTION COUNT I: FOURTH AMENDMENT VIOLATIONS
(Class Action Against All Defendants) 83. Plaintiffs Mancha, Martinez, Perez, Morales, and Espitia incorporate by reference each and every allegation contained in the preceding paragraphs as though fully set forth herein. 84. Plaintiffs Mancha, Martinez, Perez, Morales, and Espitia bring this claim for injunctive and declaratory relief on behalf of the proposed class against Defendants to redress continuing and future violations of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. 85. Upon information or belief, Defendants have implemented, enforced, encouraged and/or sanctioned a policy, practice and/or custom of targeting people who appear to be of Mexican, Latino or Hispanic descent or appearance and: (a) entering and searching their homes without valid 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; and (b) stopping, detaining, investigating, searching and effecting seizures in the absence of a reasonable,
23

articulable suspicion of unlawful activity or probable cause in violation of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
86. The Defendants continue to implement, enforce, encourage, and/or sanction this unconstitutional policy, practice and/or custom against similarly situated persons of Mexican, Latino, or Hispanic descent or appearance throughout the United States. See Ex. A (Declarations filed with Amended Complaint in Arias et al. v. ICE, Case No. 0:07-cv-01959-ADM-JSM (D. Minn. filed April 19, 2007), alleging similar unconstitutional actions by ICE in Willmar, Minnesota, in April 2007); Ex. B (news articles reporting similar conduct by ICE since September 2006 in Marin, California; New Bedford, Massachusetts; Aurora, Colorado; Long Island, New York; Austin, Texas; Willmar, Minnesota); Ex. C (Declarations filed Matter of Jose del Trancito Contreras Cueva, Removal Proceedings, Case A# 72723-383, regarding January 2007 ICE arrests in Baltimore, Maryland).
87. Because the Plaintiffs cannot avoid being of Mexican, Latino, or Hispanic descent or appearance, and because the Defendants continue to implement their unconstitutional policy, practice, and/or custom, the Plaintiffs and those similarly situated are faced with a real and substantial threat of future injury if an injunction is not issued to stop the Defendants’ continuing conduct.
24

88. As alleged in paragraphs 71 and 72, supra, Defendant ICE agents have returned to Southeast Georgia since the initial raids took place in September 2006, targeting a store selling Mexican products for investigation and requesting verification of the legal status of the employees at the Crider facility.
89. As a result of the acts and/or omissions of the Defendants, the Fourth Amendment rights of the named Plaintiffs to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures and unlawful entries into their homes have been violated. Moreover, numerous members of the plaintiff class have also been subjected to similar Fourth Amendment violations.
90. The named Plaintiffs and those similarly situated will suffer irreparable and repeated injury unless this Court orders equitable relief. Such injury includes, inter alia¸ deprivation of their constitutionally protected rights under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Damages cannot adequately address the injuries suffered by the named Plaintiffs and the proposed class members.
91. Compelling the Defendants, their agents, employees and successors in office, and all persons acting in concert with them to comply with the dictates of the United States Constitution does not impose an improper or undue burden on the Defendants, their agents, employees, and successors in office, and others, and, in
25

fact, it serves the public interest by ensuring compliance with well-established constitutional protections.
92. Plaintiffs are entitled to the issuance of a permanent injunction prohibiting Defendants from engaging in the unlawful, abusive, and discriminatory practices alleged herein.
93. For reasons including, but not limited to, those stated herein, an actual dispute exists between Plaintiffs and the Defendants, which parties have genuine and opposing interest, which interests are direct and substantial, and of which a judicial determination will be final and conclusive. This dispute entitles Plaintiffs to a declaratory judgment that the Defendants’ denial of Plaintiffs’ Fourth Amendment rights and protections, including, but not limited to, the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures and the right to be free from unlawful entries into one’s home, is unconstitutional. Plaintiffs are also entitled to such other and further relief as may follow from the entry of such a declaratory judgment.
COUNT II: FIFTH AMENDMENT VIOLATIONS (Class Action Against All Defendants)
94. Plaintiffs Mancha, Martinez, Perez, Morales, and Espitia incorporate by reference each and every allegation contained in the preceding paragraphs as though fully set forth herein.
26

95. Plaintiffs Mancha, Martinez, Perez, Morales, and Espitia bring this claim for injunctive and declaratory relief on behalf of the proposed class against Defendants to redress continuing and future violations of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
96. Upon information or belief, Defendants have implemented, enforced, encouraged and/or sanctioned a policy, practice and/or custom of targeting the named Plaintiffs and class members for stops, detentions, investigations, searches and seizures on the basis of race/ethnicity and/or national origin, in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
97. The Defendants continue to implement, enforce, encourage, and/or sanction this unconstitutional policy, practice and/or custom against similarly situated persons of Mexican, Latino, or Hispanic descent or appearance throughout the United States. See Ex. A (Declarations filed with Amended Complaint in Arias et al. v. ICE, Case No. 0:07-cv-01959-ADM-JSM (D. Minn. filed April 19, 2007), alleging similar unconstitutional actions by ICE in Willmar, Minnesota, in April 2007); Ex. B (news articles reporting similar conduct by ICE since September 2006 in Marin, California; New Bedford, Massachusetts; Aurora, Colorado; Long Island, New York; Austin, Texas; Willmar, Minnesota); Ex. C (Declarations filed
27

Matter of Jose del Trancito Contreras Cueva, Removal Proceedings, Case A# 72723-383, regarding January 2007 ICE arrests in Baltimore, Maryland).
98. Because the Plaintiffs cannot avoid being of Mexican, Latino, or Hispanic descent or appearance, and because the Defendants continue to implement their unconstitutional policy, practice, and/or custom, the Plaintiffs and those similarly situated are faced with a real and substantial threat of future injury if an injunction is not issued to stop the Defendants’ continuing conduct.
99. As alleged in paragraphs 71 and 72, supra, Defendant ICE agents have returned to Southeast Georgia since the initial raids took place in September 2006, targeting a store selling Mexican products for investigation and requesting verification of the legal status of the employees at the Crider plant.
100. As a result of the acts and/or omissions of the Defendants, the named Plaintiffs’ rights to equal protection under the law as guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution have been violated. Moreover, numerous members of the plaintiff class have also been subjected to similar Fifth Amendment violations.
101. The named Plaintiffs and those similarly situated will suffer irreparable and repeated injury unless this Court orders equitable relief. Such injury includes, inter alia¸ deprivation of their constitutionally protected rights
28

under the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Damages cannot adequately address the injuries suffered by the named Plaintiffs and the proposed class members.
102. Compelling the Defendants, their agents, employees and successors in office, and all persons acting in concert with them to comply with the dictates of the United States Constitution does not impose an improper or undue burden on the Defendants, their agents, employees, and successors in office, and others, and, in fact, it serves the public interest by ensuring compliance with well-established constitutional protections.
103. Plaintiffs are entitled to the issuance of a permanent injunction prohibiting Defendants from engaging in the unlawful, abusive, and discriminatory practices alleged herein.
104. For reasons including, but not limited to, those stated herein, an actual dispute exists between Plaintiffs and the Defendants, which parties have genuine and opposing interest, which interests are direct and substantial, and of which a judicial determination will be final and conclusive. This dispute entitles Plaintiffs to a declaratory judgment that the Defendants’ denial of Plaintiffs’ Fifth Amendment right to equal protection under the law is unconstitutional, as well as
29

such other and further relief as may follow from the entry of such a declaratory judgment.
COUNT III: BIVENS CLAIM OF PLAINTIFF MANCHA (Against Defendants John Does 1-5 and 11-25)
105. Plaintiff Mancha incorporates by reference each and every allegation contained in the preceding paragraphs as though fully set forth herein.
106. In doing the acts complained of, Defendants John Does 1-5 and 11-25 deprived Plaintiff Mancha 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 without a valid warrant or voluntary consent and in the absence of probable cause and exigent circumstances, as guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution;
b. the right to be free from detentions without a lawful, reasonable and articulable suspicion of unlawful activity or probable cause, as guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution; and
c. the right to equal protection under the law, as guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
30

107. 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.
108. The actions of these Defendants were intentional, malicious, and reckless and showed a callous disregard of, or indifference to, the rights of the Plaintiff.
109. The actions of these Defendants give rise to 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).
110. As a direct and proximate result of the unlawful actions of these Defendants, Plaintiff Mancha has suffered harm, in the form of, inter alia, outrage, humiliation, and emotional distress. Plaintiff Mancha is entitled to compensatory and punitive damages in an amount to be determined at trial.
COUNT IV: BIVENS CLAIM OF PLAINTIFF MARTINEZ (Against Defendants John Does 1-5 and 11-25)
111. Plaintiff Martinez incorporates by reference each and every allegation contained in the preceding paragraphs as though fully set forth herein.
31

112. In doing the acts complained of, Defendants John Does 1-5 and 11-25 deprived Plaintiff Martinez 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 without a valid warrant or voluntary consent and in the absence of probable cause and exigent circumstances, as guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution; and
b. the right to equal protection under the law, as guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
113. 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 and search, they are not entitled to a good faith defense or official immunity defense.
114. The actions of these Defendants were intentional, malicious, reckless, and showed a callous disregard of, or indifference to, the rights of the Plaintiff.
115. The actions of these Defendants give rise to 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).
32

116. As a direct and proximate result of the unlawful actions of these Defendants, Plaintiff Martinez has suffered harm, in the form of, inter alia, outrage and emotional distress. Plaintiff Martinez is entitled to compensatory and punitive damages in an amount to be determined at trial.
COUNT V: BIVENS CLAIM OF PLAINTIFF PEREZ (Against Defendants John Does 6 and 11-24)
117. Plaintiff Perez incorporates by reference each and every allegation contained in the preceding paragraphs as though fully set forth herein.
118. In doing the acts complained of, Defendants John Does 6 and 11-24 deprived Plaintiff Perez 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 without a valid warrant or voluntary consent and in the absence of probable cause and exigent circumstances, as guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution;
b. the right to be free from detentions without a lawful, reasonable and articulable suspicion of unlawful activity or probable cause, as guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution;
33

c. the right to be free from arrest without probable cause, as guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution;
d. the right to be free from the use of excessive force, as guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution; and
e. the right to equal protection under the law, as guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
119. 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, detention, arrest and use of force, they are not entitled to a good faith defense or official immunity defense.
120. The actions of these Defendants were intentional, malicious, and reckless and showed a callous disregard of, or indifference to, the rights of the Plaintiff.
121. The actions of these Defendants give rise to 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).
122. As a direct and proximate result of the unlawful actions of these Defendants, Plaintiff Perez has suffered harm, in the form of, inter alia, outrage,
34

humiliation, and emotional distress. Plaintiff Perez is entitled to compensatory and punitive damages in an amount to be determined at trial.
COUNT VI: BIVENS CLAIM OF PLAINTIFF MORALES (Against Defendants Wiest and John Doe 7/8)
123. Plaintiff Morales incorporates by reference each and every allegation contained in the preceding paragraphs as though fully set forth herein.
124. In doing the acts complained of, Defendants Wiest and John Doe 7/ 8 deprived Plaintiff Morales of certain constitutionally protected rights, including, but not limited to:
a. the right to be free from detentions without a lawful, reasonable and articulable suspicion of unlawful activity or probable cause, as guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution; and
b. the right to equal protection under the law, as guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
125. 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 seizure, questioning, and detention, they are not entitled to a good faith defense or official immunity defense.
35

126. The actions of these Defendants were intentional, malicious, and reckless and showed a callous disregard of, or indifference to, the rights of the Plaintiff.
127. The actions of these Defendants give rise to 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).
128. As a direct and proximate result of the unlawful actions of these Defendants, Plaintiff Morales has suffered harm, in the form of, inter alia, outrage, humiliation, and emotional distress. Plaintiff Morales is entitled to compensatory and punitive damages in an amount to be determined at trial.
COUNT VII: BIVENS CLAIM OF PLAINTIFF ESPITIA (Against Defendants John Does 9-30)
129. Plaintiff Espitia incorporates by reference each and every allegation contained in the preceding paragraphs as though fully set forth herein.
130. In doing the acts complained of, Defendants John Does 9-30 deprived Plaintiff Espitia 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 without a valid warrant or voluntary consent and in the absence of probable cause and exigent circumstances, as
36

guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution; b. the right to be free from detentions without a lawful, reasonable and articulable suspicion of unlawful activity or probable cause, as guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution; c. the right to be free from the use of excessive force, as guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution; d. the right to be free from unreasonable seizures of property, as guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution; and e. the right to equal protection under the law, as guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution. 131. 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, use of force, and detention, they are not entitled to a good faith defense or official immunity defense.
37

132. The actions of these Defendants were intentional, malicious, and reckless and showed a callous disregard of, or indifference to, the rights of the Plaintiff.
133. The actions of these Defendants give rise to 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).
134. As a direct and proximate result of the unlawful actions of these Defendants, Plaintiff Espitia has suffered harm, in the form of, inter alia, outrage, humiliation, property damage and emotional distress. Plaintiff Espitia is entitled to actual, compensatory and punitive damages in an amount to be determined at trial.
COUNT VIII: BIVENS CLAIM OF PLAINTIFF ROBINSON (Against Defendants John Does 11-30)
135. Plaintiff Robinson incorporates by reference each and every allegation contained in the preceding paragraphs as though fully set forth herein.
136. In doing the acts complained of, Defendants John Does 11-30 deprived Plaintiff Robinson of his constitutionally protected right to be free from unreasonable seizures of property, as guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
137. 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
38

home entry, search, seizure, and use of force, they are not entitled to a good faith defense or official immunity defense.
138. The actions of these Defendants were intentional, malicious, and reckless and showed a callous disregard of, or indifference to, the rights of the Plaintiff.
139. The actions of these Defendants give rise to 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).
140. As a direct and proximate result of the unlawful actions of these Defendants, Plaintiff Robinson has suffered property damage. Plaintiff Perez is entitled to actual, compensatory and punitive damages in an amount to be determined at trial.
39

PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray this Court: 1. Award Plaintiffs Mancha, Martinez, Perez, Morales, Espitia, and Robinson actual, compensatory, and punitive damages for violations of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution; 2. Award Plaintiffs Mancha, Martinez, Perez, Morales, and Espitia actual, compensatory, and punitive damages for violations of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution; 3. Certify this case as a class action in accordance with Rule 23(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure with respect to the claims set forth in Counts I and II; 4. Issue a Declaratory Judgment with respect to the claims set forth in Count I declaring that the actions of Defendants as set forth above violated the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution; 5. Issue a Declaratory Judgment with respect to the claims set forth in Count II declaring that the actions of Defendants as set forth above violated the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution; 6. With respect to the claims set forth in Count I, issue an order permanently enjoining Defendants, their agents, employees, and successors in
40

office and all others acting in concert with them from engaging in the unlawful, abusive and discriminatory actions as set forth above;
7. With respect to the claims set forth in Count II, issue an order permanently enjoining Defendants, their agents, employees, and successors in office and all others acting in concert with them from engaging in the unlawful, abusive and discriminatory actions as set forth above;
8. Award Plaintiffs costs of this action; 9. Award Plaintiffs pre- and post-judgment interest, as permitted by law; 10. Award Plaintiffs reasonable attorneys’ fees with respect to their claims set forth in Counts I and II; 11. Grant Plaintiffs other such relief as the Court deems appropriate and just. Respectfully submitted this 14th day of June, 2007.
41

/s/ Mary C. Bauer___________ Mary C. Bauer GA Bar No. 142213 Kelley M. Bruner Pro Hac Vice, AL Bar No. 8115-K74B Rhonda Brownstein Pro Hac Vice, AL Bar No. 3193-064R Morris Dees Pro Hac Vice, AL Bar No. 7003-E50M Arlen Benjamin-Gomez Pro Hac Vice, NY Bar Genesis Fisher Pro Hac Vice, NY Bar IMMIGRANT JUSTICE PROJECT SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER 400 Washington Avenue Montgomery, Alabama 36104 334-956-8200 334-956-8481 (fax)
Paul L. Hoffman Pro Hac Vice, CA Bar No. 071244 SCHONBRUN DESIMONE SEPLOW HARRIS & HOFFMAN LLP 723 Ocean Front Walk Venice, California 90291 (310) 396-0731 (310) 399-7040 (fax)
Brian Spears GA Bar No. 670112 LAW OFFICE OF BRIAN SPEARS 1126 Ponce de Leon Avenue, NE Atlanta, Georgia 30306 (404) 872-7086 (404) 892-1128 (fax)
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
42

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE WITH LOCAL RULE 7.1(D) As required by Local Rule 7.1(d), I hereby certify that this brief was prepared using the Times New Roman font, in a 14-point size.
Dated: June 14, 2007 s/ Mary Bauer, Esq.__________

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on June 14, 2007, a true and correct copy of the foregoing FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT was filed electronically and served by mail on anyone unable to accept electronic filing. Notice of this filing will be sent by e-mail to all parties by operation of the Court s electronic filing system or by mail to anyone unable to accept electronic filing. Parties may access this filing through the court s CM/ECF System.
Dated: June 14, 2007
s/ Mary Bauer, Esq.__________

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
ATLANTA DIVISION

MARIE JUSTEEN MANCHA through her Next Friend Maria Christina Martinez, et al.,
Plaintiffs, v.
IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT, et al.,
Defendants.

CIVIL ACTION FILE NO. 1:06-CV-2650-TWT

ORDER

This is a civil rights case. It is beforethe Court on four different motions. For the reasons stated below, the Defendant’sMotion to Dismiss [Doc. 148] is DENIED; the Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to File Third Amended Complaint [Doc. 152] is GRANTED; the Defendant’s Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to Plaintiffs’ Motion to File a Third Am ended Complaint [Doc. 153] is GRANTED; and the Defendant’s Motion for Protective Order Staying Discovery on the FTCA and the Bivens Claims [Doc. 150] is DENIED.

T:\ORDERS\06\Mancha\mtd3twt.wpd

I. Background This case arises out of an immigrati on enforcement operation. In September 2006, United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), conducted a series of immigration raids in southeast Georgia. The raids targeted illegal aliens that allegedly had been working at a poultry plant in Stillmore, Georgia. The Plaintiffs, though, are United States citizens that in one way or the other got caught up in the raids. The Plaintiffs say that, in the search for illegal aliens, ICE agents committed intentional torts against them and violated their constitutional rights. In the Second Amended Complaint, the Plaintiffs assert Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) claims against the Defendant United States of America. The FTCA claims are for false imprisonment, assault, battery, and trespass. The Plaintiffs also assert Bivens1 claims against the Defendants John Does 1-30. The John Does were federal law enforcement agents employed by ICE. The “Plaintiffs are ignorant of the true names of Defendants John Does 1-30and therefore sue these Defendants by such fictitious names.” (Second Am. Compl. ¶ 22.) The Bivensclaims are for violation of the Plaintiffs’ rights under the Fourth and Fifth Am endments to the United States Constitution.

1Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971).

T:\ORDERS\06\Mancha\mtd3twt.wpd

-2-

The Defendant United States of Ameri ca now m oves to dism iss all of the Plaintiffs’ claims. The Defendant says that the FTCA claim s should be dism issed because the Plaintiffs failed to exhaust their administrative remedies, the claims fall under the discretionary function exception, and the Plaintiffs fail to state viable tort claims under Georgia law. The De fendant says that the Bivens claims should be dismissed because the claims are against unidentified John Does. There are also three other pending motions that are related to the Defendant’s motion to dismiss. The Plaintiffs move for leave to file a Third Amended Complaint. The Defendant moves for an extension of time to respond to the Plaintiffs’ Motion to File a Third Amended Complaint. And the Defendant moves for a protective order staying all discovery on the FTCA claims and the Bivens claims.
II. Motion to Dismiss Standard A complaint should be dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6) only where it appears that the facts alleged fail to state a “plausible”claim for relief. BellAtlantic v. Twombly, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 1965-66 (2007); Fed.R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). A complaint may survive a motion to dismiss for failure to state a calim, however, even ifit is “improbable” that a plaintiff would be able to prove those f acts; even if the possibility of recovery is extremely “remote and unlikely.” Twom bly, 127 S. Ct. at 1965 (citations and quotations omitted). In ruling on a motion to dismiss, the court must accept the facts

T:\ORDERS\06\Mancha\mtd3twt.wpd

-3-

pleaded in the complaint as true and construe them in the light most favorable to the

plaintiff. See Quality Foods de Centro America, S.A. v. Latin American Agribusiness

Dev. Corp., S.A. , 711 F.2d 989, 994-95 (11th Cir. 1983); see also Sanjuan v.

American Bd. of Psychiatry and Neurology, Inc., 40 F.3d 247, 251 (7th Cir. 1994)

(noting that at the pleading stage, the plaintiff “receives the benefit of imagination”).

Generally, notice pleading is all that isrequired for a validcomplaint. SeeLombard’s,

Inc. v. Prince Mfg., Inc., 753 F.2d 974, 975 (11th Cir. 1985), cert. denied, 474 U.S.

1082 (1986). Under notice pleading, the plaintiff need only give the defendant fair

notice of the plaintiff’s claim and the grounds upon which it rests. See Erickson v.

Pardus, 127 S. Ct. 2197, 2200 (2007) (citing Twombly, 127 S. Ct. at 1964).

III. Discussion

A. Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies

The Defendant says that the FTCA cl aims should be dism issed because the

Plaintiffs failed to exhaust their administrative remedies. The FTCA generally waives

the sovereign immunity of the United Statesfor tort claims. The FTCA provides that:

[T]he district courts . . . shall have have exclusive jurisdiction of civil actions on claims against the United States, for money damages . . . for injury or loss of property, or personal injury or death caused by the negligent or w rongful act or om ission of a ny employee of t he 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.

T:\ORDERS\06\Mancha\mtd3twt.wpd

-4-

28 U.S.C. § 1346(b)(1). But exhaustion of administrative remedies is a prerequisite to filing a FTCA claim. The FTCA provides that “[a]n action shall not be instituted upon a claim against the United States for money dam ages . . . unless the claim ant shall have first presented the claim to the appropriate Federal agency and his claim have been finally denied by the agency . . . .” 28 U.S.C. § 2675(a). “The failure of an agency to make final disposition of a claim within six months after it is filed shall . . . be deemed a final denial of the claim for purposes of this section.” Id.
The Plaintiffs, however, properly exhausted their adm inistrative remedies before filing the FTCA claims. The Plai ntiffs’ original co mplaint was filed on November 1, 2006. In the original com plaint, the Plaintiffs asserted Bivens claims against Defendants John Does 1-30 and claims for injunctive and declaratory relief against Defendants ICE, Mi chael Chertoff, Julie L. Myers, Marcy Form an, and Kenneth A. Smith.2 The Plaintiffs did not assert nay FTCA claims or name the United States as a Defendant. Then from January 18, 2007, until March 19, 2007, the Plaintiffs say that they filed administrative claims with ICE. The Plaintiffs say that ICE did not make a final diposition of their claim s within six m onths, and so on October 4, 2007, the Plaintiffs moved for leave to file a Second Amended Complaint.

2The claims for injunctive and declaratory erlief were later dismissed. [Doc. 97.]

T:\ORDERS\06\Mancha\mtd3twt.wpd

-5-

The motion was granted. The Plaintiffs, for the first time, now assert FTCA claims and name the United States as a Defendant. Exhaustion of administrative remedies is a prerequisite to filing a FTCA claim. The Plaintiffs satisfied this prerequisite by waiting to amend their complaint until after their administrative claims were finally denied by ICE. Cf. Braud v. Transport Serv. Co., 445 F.3d 801, 804 (5th Cir. 2006) (“[A]mendments that add a defendant ‘co mmence’ the civil action as to the added party.”).
The Defendant says that the case l aw clearly establishes that the “Plaintiffs’ approach of initiating a lawsuit, then exhausting their administrative remedies, then attempting to add FTCA claims to the suit must fail.” (Mot. to Dismiss, at 7.) But almost all of the cases th at the Defendant cites are distinguishable. Those cases involved plaintiffs that asserted FTCA claims in the original complaint and then tried to amend the complaint after exhausting th eir administrative remedies. See, e.g. , Sparrow v. United States Postal Serv., 825 F. Supp. 252, 255 (E.D. Cal. 1993). That approach is clearly prohibited by the FTCA because it involves filing a FTCA claim before exhaustion of adm inistrative remedies. The Plaintiffs did not take that approach in this case. The Defendant cites only one case that addressed similar facts. See Boatwright v. Chipi, No. CV207-38, 2008 WL 819315, *15 (S.D. Ga. Mar. 26, 2008). But the reasoning in that case is not consistent with the text or purpose of the

T:\ORDERS\06\Mancha\mtd3twt.wpd

-6-

exhaustion prerequisite, and so the case is not persuasive. The Defendant also says that the Second Am ended Complaint should relate back to the da te of the original complaint, at which point the Plaintiffs had not exhausted their adm inistrative remedies. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(c)(1). But the Second Amended Complaint does not meet the requirements for relation-back. See Wayne v. Jarvis, 197 F.3d 1098, 110204 (11th Cir. 1999). Therefore, the Plaintiffs properly exhausted their administrative remedies before filing their FTCA claims.
B. Discretionary Function Exception The Defendant says that the FTCA cl aims should be dism issed because the claims fall under the discretionary function exception. Although the FTCA generally waives the sovereign immunity of the United States for tort claims, the FTCA also contains several exceptions. These exceptions retract the FTCA’s general waiver of sovereign immunity. One exception is th e discretionary function exception. The discretionary function exception provides that: The provisions of this chapter and section 1346(b) [the general waiver of sovereign immunity] shall not apply to– (a) Any claim . . . based upon the exercise or performance or the failure to exercise or perform a discretionary function or duty on the part of a federal agency or an em ployee of the Government, whether or not the discretion involved be abused.

T:\ORDERS\06\Mancha\mtd3twt.wpd

-7-

28 U.S.C. § 2680(a). Another exception is the intentional torts exception. Before

1974, the intentional torts exception provided that:

The provisions of this chapter and section 1346(b) [the general waiver of sovereign immunity] shall not apply to–

. . . .

(h) Any claim arising out of assault, battery, false imprisonment, false arrest, malicious prosecution, a buse of process, libel, slander, misrepresentation, deceit, or interference with contract rights.

28 U.S.C. § 2680(h) (1970). But in 1974 Congress amended the FTCA by tacking on

a proviso to deal with abuses committed by federal investigative and law enforcement

officers. The law enfo rcement proviso rest ricts the scope of the intentional torts

exception and affirmatively waives sovereign immunity for several specified torts.

The intentional torts exception, along withthe law enforcement proviso, now provides

that:

The provisions of this chapter and section 1346(b) [the general waiver of sovereign immunity] shall not apply to–

. . . .

(h) Any claim arising out of assault, battery, false imprisonment, false arrest, malicious prosecution, a buse of process, libel, slander, misrepresentation, deceit, or interference with contract rights: Provided, That, with regard to acts or om issions of in vestigative or law enforcement officers of the United Sat tes Government, the provisions of this chapter and section 1346(b) [t he general waiver of sovereign immunity] shall apply to any claim arising . . . out of assault, battery, false imprisonment, false arrest, abuse of process, or m alicious

T:\ORDERS\06\Mancha\mtd3twt.wpd

-8-

prosecution. For the purpose of this subsection, “investigative or law enforcement officer” means any offi cer of the United States wh o is empowered by law to execute searches, to seize evidence, or to make arrests for violations of Federal law. 28 U.S.C. § 2680(h). The Defendant says that the FTCA claims fall under the discretionary function exception–which retracts sovereign immunity–because the claims are based upon the exercise of a discretionary function on the part of ICE agents. But the Plaintiffs say that the FTCA claims for false imprisonment, assault, and battery fall under the law enforcement proviso–which affirmatively waives sovereign immunity–because the claims involve acts of investigative or law enforcement officers. The Defendant does not dispute that those claims fall under the law enforcement proviso, but instead says that the Plaintiffs m ust first overcome the “threshold hurdle” of the discretionary function before relying on the law enforcement proviso. But the Eleventh Circuit has explicitly rejected th e Defendant’s ar gument and held that where “the [law enforcement] proviso applies to waive sovereign immunity, the exception to waiver contained in [the discretionary function exception] is of no effect. To the extent of any conflict, the later enacted and more specfic [law enforcement]proviso trumps the earlier and m ore general [discretionary function exception] , as Congress clearly intended that it would.” Nguyen v. United States , 556 F.3d 1244, 1260 (11th Cir.

T:\ORDERS\06\Mancha\mtd3twt.wpd

-9-

2009). Therefore, the FTCA claims for false imprisonment, assault, and battery, do not fall under the discretionary function exception.
This does not, however, resolve all of the FTCA claims in this case. In addition to false im prisonment, assault, and battery , the Plaintiffs assert FTCA claim s for trespass. Trespass is not included on the list of specified torts contained in the law enforcement proviso. It must, therefore, be decided whether the FTCA claims for trespass fall under the discretionary function. There is “two-part test for determining whether the government’s conduct falls within the scope ofthe discretionary function exception.” Autery v. United States, 992 F.2d 1523, 1526 (11th Cir. 1993). The first question is “whether the challenged act or omission violated a mandatory regulation or policy that allowed no judgment or choice.” Id. The second question is whether the “challenged actions are the kind of c onduct ‘that t he discretionary function exception was designed to shield.’” Id.at 1527 (quotingUnited States v. Gaubert, 499 U.S. 315, 332 (1991)).
The Plaintiffs have alleged facts that, if true, establish that the governm ent’s conduct violated a mandatory regulation orpolicy that allowed no judgment or choice. The Plaintiffs say that ICE agents came to their homes to search for illegal alie ns. And, for every search, the Plaintiffs say that ICE agents entered their homes without producing a warrant, without asking for pe rmission, and without exigent

T:\ORDERS\06\Mancha\mtd3twt.wpd

-10-

circumstances. (Second Am. Compl. ¶¶ 37, 47, 68, 72.) If those allegations are true, then the government’s conduct not only constituted trespass, but it also violated the Plaintiffs’ Fourth Am endment rights to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. That the governm ent’s conduct allegedly violated the Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights means that the conduct was not discretionary. “There is no reason to believe that Congress ever intended to commit to an agency’s discretion the question of whether or not to act constituti onally. The law . . . is that adherence to constitutional guidelines is not discretionary; it is mandatory.” Rosas v. Brock, 826 F.2d 1004, 1008 (11th Cir. 1987).3 Therefore, to the extentthat the Plaintiffs’ FTCA claims for trespass involve unconstitutional conduct, the claims do not fall under the discretionary function exception.
The Defendant says that, if any of the FTCA claims fall under the discretionary function exception, the Court lacks subjectmatter jurisdiction over those claims. See Cohen v. United States , 151 F.3d. 1338, 1340 (11th Cir. 1998). The Defendant, therefore, says that the Court should treat this motion as a factual attack on subject matter jurisdiction. “Factual attacks . . . challenge the existence of subject matter

3Although the court in Rosas was interpreting the Disaster Relief Act of 1975, the phrase “discretionary function” has essentially the same meaning in that statute as it does in the FTCA. SeeSt. Tammany Parish v. Federal Emergency Mgmt. Agency, 556 F.3d 307, 319 (5th Cir. 2009) (noting thatthe relevant language of the statutes is identical and that courts give both statutes the same interpretation).

T:\ORDERS\06\Mancha\mtd3twt.wpd

-11-

jurisdiction in fact, irrespective of the pleadings, and matters outside the pleadings, such as testimony and affidavits ar e considered.” Lawrence v. Dunbar , 919 F.2d 1525, 1529 (11th Cir. 1990) (internal quotation m arks omitted). This would m ean looking beyond the Plaintiffs’ com plaint and deciding whether, in fact, the government’s conduct violated a m andatory regulation or policy that allowed no judgment or choice. In this case, th at means deciding whether the governm ent’s conduct violated the Plainti ffs’ constitutional rights. But it is not clear that the Defendant actually treated this m otion as a factual attack. When discussing the circumstances of the trespass, the Defenda nt said that, “[a]ccepting solely for the purposes of this argument Plaintiffs’ allegations which assert the lack of a warrant, probable cause, exigent circumstances, or consent to enter, . . . the susceptibility of the operation to policy analysis [m eans that] the manner in which the federal agents carried out their search [falls under the discretionary function exception].” (Mot. to Dismiss, at 17.) This language suggests that his motion should be treated as a factual attack and that the allegations should be accepted as true. See Hughes v. United States, 110 F.3d 765, 768 n.1 (11th Cir. 1997) (similar facts). Even if the Defendant had more clearly raised a factual attack , a factual determ ination of whether the government’s conduct violated the Plain tiffs’ constitutional rights would likely implicate the merits of the Plaintiffs’ FTCA claims for trespass. In that situation,

T:\ORDERS\06\Mancha\mtd3twt.wpd

-12-

“well established precedent requires [a court], inruling on a motion to dismiss, to find that jurisdiction exists and deal with the objection as a direct attack on the merits of the plaintiff’s case.” Garcia v. Copenhaver, Bell & Assocs. M.D.’s, P.A., 104 F.3d 1256, 1258 (11th Cir. 1997).
C. Viable Tort Claims Under Georgia Law The Defendant says that the Plaintiffs fail to state viable tort claim s under Georgia law. The FTCA does not itself provi de the substantive law for tort claim s against the United States. Instead, liabilityis determined “in accordance with the law of the place where the act or om ission occurred.” 28 U.S.C. § 1346(b). And the “United States shall be liable . . . in the same manner and to th e same extent as a private individual under like circumstances, but shall not be liable for interest prior to judgment or for punitive dam ages.” 28 U.S.C. § 2674. The acts in this case occurred in Georgia, and so the question is whether the Plaintiffs have stated viable claims for false imprisonment, assault, battery, and trespass, under Georgia law. The Plaintiffs hav e alleged facts that, if true, establish that the ICE agents committed the torts of false im prisonment, assault, battery, and trespass, under Georgia law. The Defendant’s arguments to the contrary should not be considered on a motion to dismiss. For example, the Defendant says that “[i]n regard to the assault and battery claims of [Plaintiff]Perez, [deposition testimony] discloses that a younger

T:\ORDERS\06\Mancha\mtd3twt.wpd

-13-

male who was with Perez, reached into the truck, pulled out a carpenter square, held it with both hands as officers, in full uniform and clearly identified as ICE agents approached.” (Mot. to Dism iss, at 19.) But this argum ent requires the Court to consider matters outside the pleadings. This argument, along with similar arguments made by the Defendant on this issue, is more properly considered on a m otion for summary judgment. Therefore, the Plaintiffshave adequately stated viable tort claims under Georgia law.
D. Unidentified John Does The Defendant says that the Bivens claims should be dismissed because the claims are against unidentified John Does. Btuthe Plaintiffs have since filed a Motion for Leave to File Third Am ended Complaint. [Doc. 152.] The Proposed Third Amended Complaint identifies the John Does by their actual names, and so the real issue is whether allow the amendment. See Graham v. Medtronic, Inc., No. 6:06-cv948-Orl-19JGG, 2006 WL 2194012, *2 (M.D. Fla. Aug. 2, 2006). Rule 15(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that leave to amend “shall be freely given when justice so requires.” However, leave to amend may be denied where there has been undue delay or where the amendment would be futile. Espey v. Wainwrigh,t734 F.2d 748, 750 (11th Cir. 1984); Burger King Corporation v. Weaver, 169 F.3d 1310, 1319 (11th Cir. 1999).

T:\ORDERS\06\Mancha\mtd3twt.wpd

-14-

The Defendant says that leave to amend should be denied because the Proposed Third Amended Complaint does not adequately plead Bivens claims, and, therefore, the amendment would be futile. The Defendant’s m ain objection is that, for m any allegations, the Plaintiffs fail to specificallyidentify which agent was responsible. For example, the Plaintiffs say that “six to egiht vehicles drove into [Plaintiff Perez’]yard and parked in such a manner as to block the only entrance or exit to Plaintiff Perez’ property. Approximately fifteen agents exited the vehicles. They immediately pulled their weapons and began to approach Plaintiff Perez and surround his hom e.” (Proposed Third Am. Compl. ¶ 68.) Then “[w]ithout even asking for Plaintiff Perez’ name, one of the agents grabbed Plaintiff Perez by the front of his shirt, jammed his gun into Plaintiff Perez’ side, and threw him against his truck.” (Id. ¶ 69.) The Plaintiffs do not specifically identify which agent jammed a gun into Plaintiff Perez’ side, but instead say that “Defendant s Jeremy Blankley, Larry Orton, Marc Stressinger, Phillip Scott, Michael Nelson, Evan Katz, and Charles Hicks personally participated in and were responsible for the detenti on, interrogation, and arrest activities involving Plaintiff Perez.” (Id. ¶ 76.)
The fact that the Defendants are coll ectively accused does not mean that the Proposed Third Amended Complaint fails to adequately plead Bivens claims. Kyle K. v. Chapman, 208 F.3d 940, 944 (11th Cir. 2000). For most of the allegations, “the

T:\ORDERS\06\Mancha\mtd3twt.wpd

-15-

complaint can be fairly readto aver that all defendants are responsible for the alleged conduct.” Id. It is true that some allegations, such as the allegation by Plaintiff Perez that “one of the agents” jammed a gun into his side, could have only been committed by one Defendant. But for those allegations, itis possible, even if unlikely, that all of the Defendants are responsible for the a lleged conduct under a failure to intervene theory of liability. Cf. Byrd v. Clark, 783 F.2d 1002, 1007 (11th Cir. 1986) (“If a police officer, whether supervisory or not, fails or refuses to intervene when a constitutional violation such as an unprovokedbeating takes place in his presence, the officer is directly liable under Section 1983.”). Moreover, the only discovery in this case so far has been the deposition of one ICE agent. The Defendant has resisted all of the other attem pts at discovery by the Pl aintiffs. To require that the Plaintiffs specifically indicate how each Defendant is responsible for each allegation at this point in the litigation is not necessary. “Moer specificity can be developed as the case proceeds.” Kyle K., 208 F.3d at 944. Therefore, the Plaintiffs should be granted leave to file a Third Amended Complaint.
There are two remaining motions to discuss. The Defendant has a motion for an extension of time to respond to the Pl aintiffs’ Motion to File a Third Amended Complaint. The Defendant’s motion is gr anted, and so its response is considered timely. The Defendant also has a motion for a protective order staying all discovery

T:\ORDERS\06\Mancha\mtd3twt.wpd

-16-

on the FTCA claims and the Bivens claims. The Defendant’s m otion is denied as moot.
IV. Conclusion For the reasons stated above, the Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss [Doc. 148] is DENIED; the Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to File Third Amended Complaint [Doc. 152] is GRANTED; the Defendant’s Motion for Extension of Tim e to Respond to Plaintiffs’ Motion to File a Third Amended Complaint [Doc. 153] is GRANTED; and the Defendant’s Motion for Protective Order Staying Discovery on the FTCA and the Bivens Claims [Doc. 150] is DENIED. SO ORDERED, this 31 day of March, 2009.
/s/Thomas W. Thrash THOMAS W. THRASH, JR. United States District Judge

T:\ORDERS\06\Mancha\mtd3twt.wpd

-17-

 
 CaseC1a:s0e6-1c:v0-60-2c6v-5002-6T5W0T-TWTDocDuomceunmte1n5t22-29 FFilieledd0046/1/149/0/2900P8ageP1agoef 414of 43

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
ATLANTA DIVISION

MARIE JUSTEEN MANCHA, )

through her Next Friend Maria )

Christina Martinez, MARIA

)

CHRISTINA MARTINEZ,

)

RANULFO PEREZ, MARIA

)

MARGARITA MORALES,

)

GLADIS ALICIA ESPITIA,

)

and

)

DAVID ROBINSON,

)

)

Plaintiffs, )

)

v.

)

)

)

THE UNITED STATES OF

)

AMERICA, LEO FORD,

)

WILLIAM WARD HUNTER, )

SCOTT MCCORMACK,

)

KARL MULLER,

)

DON PLYBON,

)

GREGORY RICKS,

)

HYG JEONG (aka JEANNIE )

YOO),

)

JEREMY BLANKLEY,

)

LARRY ORTON,

)

MARC STRESSINGER,

)

PHILLIP SCOTT,

)

MICHAEL NELSON,

)

EVAN KATZ,

)

CHARLES HICKS,

)

BARRY SANDS,

)

GREGORY L. WIEST,

)

F/N/U AKERS,

)

JOSEPH BRIM,

)

TALBERT CRAPPS (aka BERT )

CASE NO. 1:06-CV-2650 - TWT
THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT

CaseC1a:s0e6-1c:v0-60-2c6v-5002-6T5W0T-TWTDocDuomceunmte1n5t22-29 FFilieledd0046/1/149/0/2900P8ageP2agoef 424of 43

CRAPPS),

)

F/N/U HARDIN,

)

RICHARD MCMANAWAY,

)

BRIAN ROBINSON,

)

MARK ROBINSON,

)

HOWELL C. TAYLOR III (aka )

TREY TAYLOR),

)

THOMAS WEST (aka TOM WEST)

ROBERT JAMES (aka ROB ) )

JAMES),

)

DAVID CASIMIRO,

)

ROBERT RODRIGUEZ

)

HENRY COOK,

)

JEFFREY COOPER,

)

PAUL CRISWELL,

)

DANIEL CUTTS,

)

CRAIG HANNAH,

)

STEVE MICHAELS,

)

KEVIN POLK,

)

WILLIAM ROSS (aka BILL ROSS))

ANDREA ROUBAL,

)

JOHN VANEK, and

)

JOHNNY WALTON,

)

)

Defendants.

)

INTRODUCTION

1. This action challenges a series of raids conducted by federal

immigration authorities in Southeast Georgia over the course of at least two weeks

in September, 2006, that trampled on the constitutional rights of every person of

Hispanic descent unfortunate enough to get in the way. The campaign against the

Latino community was conducted ostensibly to locate certain suspected

undocumented workers who had previously been employed at the Crider poultry

2

CaseC1a:s0e6-1c:v0-60-2c6v-5002-6T5W0T-TWTDocDuomceunmte1n5t22-29 FFilieledd0046/1/149/0/2900P8ageP3agoef 434of 43
facility in Stillmore, Georgia. However, the scope of the campaign went far beyond that. Casting the fundamental protections of the Fourth Amendment aside, federal agents entered and searched private homes without warrants or any other lawful authority to do so, detained and interrogated people merely because they looked “Mexican,” used excessive and wholly unnecessary force against some of the persons they detained, and destroyed private property without cause. All of these unconstitutional actions were taken in an effort to drive the Latino community out of Southeast Georgia.
2. The raids were the product of racial and ethnic profiling at odds with the fundamental premise of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fifth Amendment and in conflict with the basic values upon which this country was founded. The named plaintiffs are U.S. citizens who were victimized by these unconstitutional actions solely because they appeared to be “Mexican” to federal agents who failed to give even lip service to the protections of the Constitution and their oath of office.
3. Upon information and belief, the raids were authorized by federal government officials at the highest levels of the bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
4. Plaintiffs seek damages under the Constitution and under the Federal Tort Claims Act for the injuries they have suffered.
3

CaseC1a:s0e6-1c:v0-60-2c6v-5002-6T5W0T-TWTDocDuomceunmte1n5t22-29 FFilieledd0046/1/149/0/2900P8ageP4agoef 44of 43
JURISDICTION AND VENUE 5. Jurisdiction of the Court is predicated upon 28 U.S.C § 1331 (federal question jurisdiction), 28 U.S.C. § 1361 (jurisdiction to compel an officer to perform a duty owed to Plaintiffs), 28 U.S.C. § 1343 (civil rights and equal protection), and 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201-02 (Declaratory Judgment Act). 6. Venue is proper in this judicial district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391 (e)(1) because a defendant in this action resides in this district.
PARTIES 7. Plaintiff MARIE JUSTEEN MANCHA (“Plaintiff Mancha”) is a Latina teenager who is a native and citizen of the United States. At all times relevant to this suit, she was a resident of Reidsville, Tattnall County, Georgia. She appears in this suit through her Next Friend and mother Maria Christina Martinez. 8. Plaintiff MARIA CHRISTINA MARTINEZ (“Plaintiff Martinez”) is a Latina woman who is a native and citizen of the United States. At all times relevant to this suit, she was a resident of Reidsville, Tattnall County, Georgia. Plaintiff Martinez appears in this suit as both a plaintiff in her individual capacity and as Next Friend for her daughter, Plaintiff Marie Justeen Mancha, a minor child. Plaintiff Martinez has the authority to act as Next Friend for Plaintiff Mancha pursuant to Rule 17(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
4

CaseC1a:s0e6-1c:v0-60-2c6v-5002-6T5W0T-TWTDocDuomceunmte1n5t22-29 FFilieledd0046/1/149/0/2900P8ageP5agoef 454of 43
9. Plaintiff RANULFO PEREZ (“Plaintiff Perez”) is a Latino man who is a native and citizen of the United States. At all times relevant to this suit, he was a resident of Adrian, Emanuel County, Georgia.
10. Plaintiff MARIA MARGARITA MORALES (“Plaintiff Morales”) is a Latina woman who is a native and citizen of the United States. At all times relevant to this suit, she was a resident of Oak Park, Emanuel County, Georgia.
11. Plaintiff GLADIS ALICIA ESPITIA (“Plaintiff Espitia”) is a Latina woman who is a native and citizen of the United States. At all times relevant to this suit, she was a resident of Oak Park, Emanuel County, Georgia.
12. Plaintiff DAVID ROBINSON (“Plaintiff Robinson”) is a native and citizen of the United States. At all times relevant to this suit, he was a resident of Metter, Candler County, Georgia.
13. Defendant UNITED STATES OF AMERICA is a sovereign national and exists under the Constitution of the United States of America and the laws enacted by the United States Congress. Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE) is, and at all times relevant to this lawsuit was, an agency of the Department of Homeland Security, organized and existing under the laws of the United States.
14. At all times relevant to the incidents complained of in this lawsuit, DEFENDANT LEO FORD was a federal law enforcement agent employed by
5

CaseC1a:s0e6-1c:v0-60-2c6v-5002-6T5W0T-TWTDocDuomceunmte1n5t22-29 FFilieledd0046/1/149/0/2900P8ageP6agoef 464of 43
the Defendant United States of America through its agency, Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
15. At all times relevant to the incidents complained of in this lawsuit, DEFENDANT WILLIAM WARD HUNTER was a federal law enforcement agent employed by the Defendant United States of America through its agency, Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
16. At all times relevant to the incidents complained of in this lawsuit, DEFENDANT SCOTT MCCORMACK was a federal law enforcement agent employed by the Defendant United States of America through its agency, Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
17. At all times relevant to the incidents complained of in this lawsuit, DEFENDANT KARL MULLER was a federal law enforcement agent employed by the Defendant United States of America through its agency, Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
18. At all times relevant to the incidents complained of in this lawsuit, DEFENDANT DON PLYBON was a federal law enforcement agent employed by the Defendant United States of America through its agency, Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
19. At all times relevant to the incidents complained of in this lawsuit, DEFENDANT GREGORY RICKS was a federal law enforcement agent
6

CaseC1a:s0e6-1c:v0-60-2c6v-5002-6T5W0T-TWTDocDuomceunmte1n5t22-29 FFilieledd0046/1/149/0/2900P8ageP7agoef 474of 43
employed by the Defendant United States of America through its agency, Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
20. At all times relevant to the incidents complained of in this lawsuit, DEFENDANT JEANNIE YOO was a federal law enforcement agent employed by the Defendant United States of America through its agency, Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
21. At all times relevant to the incidents complained of in this lawsuit, DEFENDANT JEREMY BLANKLEY was a federal law enforcement agent employed by the Defendant United States of America through its agency, Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
22. At all times relevant to the incidents complained of in this lawsuit, DEFENDANT LARRY ORTON was a federal law enforcement agent employed by the Defendant United States of America through its agency, Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
23. At all times relevant to the incidents complained of in this lawsuit, DEFENDANT MARC STRESSINGER was a federal law enforcement agent employed by the Defendant United States of America through its agency, Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
24. At all times relevant to the incidents complained of in this lawsuit, DEFENDANT PHILLIP SCOTT was a federal law enforcement agent employed
7

CaseC1a:s0e6-1c:v0-60-2c6v-5002-6T5W0T-TWTDocDuomceunmte1n5t22-29 FFilieledd0046/1/149/0/2900P8ageP8agoef 484of 43
by the Defendant United States of America through its agency, Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
25. At all times relevant to the incidents complained of in this lawsuit, DEFENDANT MICHAEL NELSON was a federal law enforcement agent employed by the Defendant United States of America through its agency, Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
26. At all times relevant to the incidents complained of in this lawsuit, DEFENDANT EVAN KATZ was a federal law enforcement agent employed by the Defendant United States of America through its agency, Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
27. At all times relevant to the incidents complained of in this lawsuit, DEFENDANT CHARLES HICKS was a federal law enforcement agent employed by the Defendant United States of America through its agency, Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
28. At all times relevant to the incidents complained of in this lawsuit, DEFENDANT BARRY SANDS was a federal law enforcement agent employed by the Defendant United States of America through its agency, Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
29. At all times relevant to the incidents complained of in this lawsuit, DEFENDANT GREGORY L. WIEST was a federal law enforcement agent
8

CaseC1a:s0e6-1c:v0-60-2c6v-5002-6T5W0T-TWTDocDuomceunmte1n5t22-29 FFilieledd0046/1/149/0/2900P8ageP9agoef 494of 43
employed by the Defendant United States of America through its agency, Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
30. At all times relevant to the incidents complained of in this lawsuit, DEFENDANT F/N/U AKERS was a federal law enforcement agent employed by the Defendant United States of America through its agency, Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
31. At all times relevant to the incidents complained of in this lawsuit, DEFENDANT JOSEPH BRIM was a federal law enforcement agent employed by the Defendant United States of America through its agency, Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
32. At all times relevant to the incidents complained of in this lawsuit, DEFENDANT BERT CRAPPS was a federal law enforcement agent employed by the Defendant United States of America through its agency, Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
33. At all times relevant to the incidents complained of in this lawsuit, DEFENDANT F/N/U HARDIN was a federal law enforcement agent employed by the Defendant United States of America through its agency, Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
34. At all times relevant to the incidents complained of in this lawsuit, DEFENDANT RICHARD MCMANAWAY was a federal law enforcement
9

CaseC1a:s0e6-1c:v0-60-2c6v-5002-6T5W0T-TWTDocDuomceunmte1n5t22-29 FFilieledd0046/1/149/0/2900P8ageP1a0geof1404of 43
agent employed by the Defendant United States of America through its agency, Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
35. At all times relevant to the incidents complained of in this lawsuit, DEFENDANT BRIAN ROBINSON was a federal law enforcement agent employed by the Defendant United States of America through its agency, Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
36. At all times relevant to the incidents complained of in this lawsuit, DEFENDANT MARK ROBINSON was a federal law enforcement agent employed by the Defendant United States of America through its agency, Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
37. At all times relevant to the incidents complained of in this lawsuit, DEFENDANT TREY TAYLOR was a federal law enforcement agent employed by the Defendant United States of America through its agency, Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
38. At all times relevant to the incidents complained of in this lawsuit, DEFENDANT TOM WEST was a federal law enforcement agent employed by the Defendant United States of America through its agency, Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
39. At all times relevant to the incidents complained of in this lawsuit, DEFENDANT ROB JAMES was a federal law enforcement agent employed by
10

CaseC1a:s0e6-1c:v0-60-2c6v-5002-6T5W0T-TWTDocDuomceunmte1n5t22-29 FFilieledd0046/1/149/0/2900P8ageP1a1geof1414of 43
the Defendant United States of America through its agency, Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
40. At all times relevant to the incidents complained of in this lawsuit, DEFENDANT DAVID CASIMIRO was a federal law enforcement agent employed by the Defendant United States of America through its agency, Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
41. At all times relevant to the incidents complained of in this lawsuit, DEFENDANT ROBERT RODRIGUEZ was a federal law enforcement agent employed by the Defendant United States of America through its agency, Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
42. At all times relevant to the incidents complained of in this lawsuit, DEFENDANT HENRY COOK was a federal law enforcement agent employed by the Defendant United States of America through its agency, Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
43. At all times relevant to the incidents complained of in this lawsuit, DEFENDANT JEFFREY COOPER was a federal law enforcement agent employed by the Defendant United States of America through its agency, Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
44. At all times relevant to the incidents complained of in this lawsuit, DEFENDANT PAUL CRISWELL was a federal law enforcement agent
11

CaseC1a:s0e6-1c:v0-60-2c6v-5002-6T5W0T-TWTDocDuomceunmte1n5t22-29 FFilieledd0046/1/149/0/2900P8ageP1a2geof1424of 43
employed by the Defendant United States of America through its agency, Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
45. At all times relevant to the incidents complained of in this lawsuit, DEFENDANT DANIEL CUTTS was a federal law enforcement agent employed by the Defendant United States of America through its agency, Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
46. At all times relevant to the incidents complained of in this lawsuit, DEFENDANT CRAIG HANNAH was a federal law enforcement agent employed by the Defendant United States of America through its agency, Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
47. At all times relevant to the incidents complained of in this lawsuit, DEFENDANT STEVE MICHAELS was a federal law enforcement agent employed by the Defendant United States of America through its agency, Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
48. At all times relevant to the incidents complained of in this lawsuit, DEFENDANT KEVIN POLK was a federal law enforcement agent employed by the Defendant United States of America through its agency, Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
49. At all times relevant to the incidents complained of in this lawsuit, DEFENDANT BILL ROSS was a federal law enforcement agent employed by
12

CaseC1a:s0e6-1c:v0-60-2c6v-5002-6T5W0T-TWTDocDuomceunmte1n5t22-29 FFilieledd0046/1/149/0/2900P8ageP1a3geof1434of 43
the Defendant United States of America through its agency, Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
50. At all times relevant to the incidents complained of in this lawsuit, DEFENDANT ANDREA ROUBAL was a federal law enforcement agent employed by the Defendant United States of America through its agency, Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
51. At all times relevant to the incidents complained of in this lawsuit, DEFENDANT JOHN VANEK was a federal law enforcement agent employed by the Defendant United States of America through its agency, Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
52. At all times relevant to the incidents complained of in this lawsuit, DEFENDANT JOHNNY WALTON was a federal law enforcement agent employed by the Defendant United States of America through its agency, Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
EXHAUSTION OF AMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES 53. Plaintiffs presented timely administrative claims under the Federal Tort Claims Act with the Department of Homeland Security, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2675(a).
13

CaseC1a:s0e6-1c:v0-60-2c6v-5002-6T5W0T-TWTDocDuomceunmte1n5t22-29 FFilieledd0046/1/149/0/2900P8ageP1a4geof144of 43
54. The United States neither approved nor denied the claims within the six months after United States’ receipt of the claims. Plaintiffs’ suit is timely filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2675(a).
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS Plaintiffs Mancha and Martinez
55. On a weekday morning in early September, 2006, Plaintiff Mancha, a tenth grade high school student, was getting ready for school. Her mother, Plaintiff Martinez, left their home in Reidsville, Georgia, to run an errand.
56. After her mother had left, Plaintiff Mancha heard car doors slamming outside of her home. She believed it was her mother returning, so she went to the front door, unlocked the door, left it closed, and went back to her bedroom.
57. Shortly thereafter, Plaintiff Mancha heard voices coming from within the house. She left her bedroom, and, as she was walking down the hallway towards the living room, she heard people yelling, “Police! Illegals!” When she reached the living room, she saw at least five agents standing in the living room blocking the front door. One agent had his hand on his gun as if he was ready to take it out at any minute.
14

CaseC1a:s0e6-1c:v0-60-2c6v-5002-6T5W0T-TWTDocDuomceunmte1n5t22-29 FFilieledd0046/1/149/0/2900P8ageP1a5geof1454of 43
58. Plaintiff Mancha became extremely frightened because of the number of unknown men who had broken into her home and because at least one of them had a visible gun.
59. Plaintiff Mancha saw approximately five other agents on the stairs leading up to her front door and several more outside in her yard. In all, there were approximately 20-25 agents who had either entered or surrounded her home.
60. An agent interrogated Plaintiff Mancha regarding whether there were other people in the house, whether her mother had worked for Crider Poultry and the reason she had quit, whether her mother was “Mexican,” and whether her mother had “papers” or a green card. Plaintiff Mancha told the Defendants that her mother was born in Florida and, therefore, did not need a green card.
61. When Plaintiff Mancha asked why Defendants were inside of her home, one of the agents told her that they were looking for “illegals.”
62. One of the Defendants declared to the other defendants that they would go to the gas station where they were sure to find a lot of “Mexicans.” Plaintiff Mancha asked the Defendants if they were leaving, and one of them responded that they were going to be in the area “looking for the rest of them.”
63. After approximately five minutes inside Plaintiffs’ home, Defendants finally left without ever showing a warrant authorizing their presence therein.
15

CaseC1a:s0e6-1c:v0-60-2c6v-5002-6T5W0T-TWTDocDuomceunmte1n5t22-29 FFilieledd0046/1/149/0/2900P8ageP1a6geof1464of 43
64. Defendants Leo Ford, William Ward Hunter, Scott McCormack, Karl Muller, Don Plybon, Gregory Ricks and Jeannie Yoo personally participated in and were responsible for the unlawful actions at the home of Plaintiffs Mancha and Martinez.
65. Plaintiff Martinez returned home to find the Defendants coming from behind her home and leaving from her driveway in more than six vehicles. Plaintiff Martinez grew very concerned and immediately went to check on Plaintiff Mancha, her daughter.
66. Defendants lacked lawful authority for all detention and interrogation activities involving Plaintiff Mancha and did not have a warrant, probable cause and exigent circumstances, or consent to enter Plaintiffs’ home.
67. As a result of Defendants’ unlawful actions, Plaintiffs Mancha and Martinez were traumatized, and both continue to suffer to this day. Plaintiff Perez
68. On or about September 5, 2006, Plaintiff Perez was standing next to his truck parked on his property in front of his home in Adrian, Georgia, when approximately six to eight vehicles drove into his yard and parked in such a manner as to block the only entrance or exit to Plaintiff Perez’ property. Approximately fifteen agents exited the vehicles. They immediately pulled their weapons and began to approach Plaintiff Perez and surround his home.
16

CaseC1a:s0e6-1c:v0-60-2c6v-5002-6T5W0T-TWTDocDuomceunmte1n5t22-29 FFilieledd0046/1/149/0/2900P8ageP1a7geof1474of 43
69. Believing the agents to be immigration officers, Plaintiff Perez hurriedly declared that he had “papers.” Without even asking for Plaintiff Perez’ name, one of the agents grabbed Plaintiff Perez by the front of his shirt, jammed his gun into Plaintiff Perez’ side, and threw him against his truck. The agent then twisted Plaintiff Perez’ arm around and held him so that he could not easily get away.
70. The agent told Plaintiff Perez to stay there and not to move. The agent held Plaintiff Perez in this uncomfortable position for approximately ten minutes.
71. The agent then directed some of the other agents to go into Plaintiff Perez’ home. Approximately three of the Defendants entered and searched Plaintiff Perez’ home – without producing a warrant or asking for permission. Approximately nine other agents searched around outside the home.
72. Plaintiff Perez repeatedly told the agent that he had “papers,” but the agent would not respond. Instead of requesting that Plaintiff Perez produce his “papers,” the agent continued to physically detain Plaintiff Perez.
73. At the end of this ten-minute period, the agent asked Plaintiff Perez if he had any weapons on him. Plaintiff Perez told the agent that he did not have any weapons and the agent proceeded to search Plaintiff Perez for weapons on his person. The agents then asked Plaintiff Perez to show his “papers.” Plaintiff Perez
17

CaseC1a:s0e6-1c:v0-60-2c6v-5002-6T5W0T-TWTDocDuomceunmte1n5t22-29 FFilieledd0046/1/149/0/2900P8ageP1a8geof1484of 43
reached into his pocket, produced his driver’s license and social security card, and gave them to the agent. The agent finally released Plaintiff Perez’ arm and went to his vehicle. A minute or two later, the agent returned with Plaintiff Perez’ identification.
74. The agents told Plaintiff Perez that the Defendants were with “immigration” and had been sent by the federal government. He also told Plaintiff Perez that immigration would be in the area for another two weeks and suggested that Plaintiff Perez and his family go elsewhere during that time period so as to avoid any future incidents and entries to their home.
75. Defendants finally left after approximately thirty to forty minutes. 76. Defendants Jeremy Blankley, Larry Orton, Marc Stressinger, Phillip Scott, Michael Nelson, Evan Katz, and Charles Hicks personally participated in and were responsible for the detention, interrogation, and arrest activities involving Plaintiff Perez. 77. Defendants lacked lawful authority for all detention, interrogation, and arrest activities involving Plaintiff Perez and did not have a warrant, probable cause and exigent circumstances, or consent to enter Plaintiff Perez’s home. Plaintiff Morales 78. On or about September 1, 2006, Plaintiff Morales was driving home from work when she stopped at the post office in the town of Stillmore, Georgia.
18

CaseC1a:s0e6-1c:v0-60-2c6v-5002-6T5W0T-TWTDocDuomceunmte1n5t22-29 FFilieledd0046/1/149/0/2900P8ageP1a9geof1494of 43
After she picked up her mail, she got back in her jeep. Plaintiff Morales had her windows down because it was hot and her air conditioner was not working.
79. Plaintiff Morales turned right onto Old Kenfield Road towards her home, after waiting for a long line of cars to turn left in front of her onto Old Kenfield Road.
80. Plaintiff Morales was driving behind this long line of vehicles when an unmarked car driven by ICE agents pulled over to the left-hand side of the road, allowing Plaintiff Morales’ jeep to pass him. ICE agents then pulled in directly behind Plaintiff Morales.
81. All of the cars in front of Plaintiff Morales proceeded to stop in the middle of the two-lane road, forcing Plaintiff Morales to stop as well. As Plaintiff Morales was coming to a stop, an ICE agent, believed to be Robert Rodriguez (driving the vehicle directly behind her) and another ICE agent, believed to be Gregory Wiest (driving the vehicle directly in front of her) put on their blue, blinking hazard lights. At this point Plaintiff Morales felt that she was being pulled over by the Defendants. Plaintiff Morales stopped her jeep directly behind the vehicle of Agent Wiest, and Agent Rodriguez stopped his vehicle very closely behind that of Plaintiff Morales. Plaintiff Morales’ jeep was blocked in by the vehicles of Agent Wiest and Agent Rodriguez and, at that point, Plaintiff Morales was unable to leave.
19

CaseC1a:s0e6-1c:v0-60-2c6v-5002-6T5W0T-TWTDocDuomceunmte1n5t22-29 FFilieledd0046/1/149/0/2900P8ageP2a0geof2404of 43
82. Agent Wiest and Agent Rodriguez then proceeded to exit their vehicles and walk towards Plaintiff Morales’ jeep. Plaintiff Morales remained inside her jeep, and Agent Wiest and Agent Rodriguez were standing next to the door of her jeep throughout their interrogation of Plaintiff Morales.
83. Agent Rodriguez immediately called Plaintiff Morales a “Mexican” and told her to get out of her jeep. Plaintiff Morales responded that she was born in Texas. Agent Rodriguez told her that if she was not “Mexican,” then she had to prove it to them. Plaintiff Morales showed them her Georgia driver’s license. The Defendant declared that the driver’s license was “false” and again ordered Plaintiff Morales out of her jeep. He then reached in through the open window, grabbed Plaintiff Morales’ arm, and pulled her towards him. He repeatedly accused Plaintiff Morales of being a “Mexican” and ordered her out of her jeep. The Defendant continued to interrogate her regarding her identification, her citizenship, where she was coming from, and where she was going. The Defendant falsely claimed that they had seen her in town motioning to “Mexicans,” and repeatedly asked her whether she knew any “Mexicans.” Plaintiff Morales insisted that her driver’s license was not false and that she could take the Defendants to the Georgia State Patrol’s office to prove to them that she was a citizen so that they would let her go.
20

CaseC1a:s0e6-1c:v0-60-2c6v-5002-6T5W0T-TWTDocDuomceunmte1n5t22-29 FFilieledd0046/1/149/0/2900P8ageP2a1geof2414of 43
84. As Agent Rodriguez interrogated Plaintiff Morales regarding her citizenship and asked her to prove that she was not “Mexican,” Agent Wiest continuously whispered things to Agent Rodriguez, leading Plaintiff Morales to believe that Agent Rodriguez was taking direction from Agent Wiest.
85. Plaintiff Morales wanted to leave but did not believe that she was permitted to leave while Agent Wiest and Agent Rodriguez interrogated her. Moreover, Plaintiff Morales was not physically able to leave in her car due to Agent Wiest and Agent Rodriguez blocking her in.
86. Agent Wiest and Agent Rodriguez finally allowed her to leave the scene; however, Agent Rodriguez told Plaintiff Morales that she could not continue driving on that road in the direction she had been heading. He said it did not matter that she lived in that direction; he told her that she would not be able to continue down that road until after the agents had finished their business and returned to the town of Stillmore. Agent Rodriguez also ordered her not to make any phone calls and not to tell anyone that “immigration” was in town.
87. Plaintiff Morales’ unlawful detention lasted approximately fifteen to twenty minutes before Plaintiff Morales was forced to return to town in order to make her way home using an alternate route.
88. Upon information and belief, Defendants lacked lawful authority for all detention and interrogation activities involving Plaintiff Morales.
21

CaseC1a:s0e6-1c:v0-60-2c6v-5002-6T5W0T-TWTDocDuomceunmte1n5t22-29 FFilieledd0046/1/149/0/2900P8ageP2a2geof2424of 43
Plaintiff Espitia 89. On or about September 2, 2006, Plaintiff Espitia was inside her home
in Oak Park, Georgia, visiting with members of her family when approximately eighteen vehicles drove into her yard and parked in her driveway and on either side of her home. Over twenty agents exited the vehicles and covered Plaintiff Espitia’s yard.
90. Some of the agents began to handcuff and detain Plaintiff Espitia’s family members who were outside in the yard, while other agents, including Defendant Sands approached Plaintiff Espitia’s home, knocked on the door, and yelled for someone to open the door. At least one of the agents threatened to break down the door and throw “gas” inside the home if Plaintiff Espitia and her family did not comply with their orders.
91. Plaintiff Espitia and her family members were very frightened and did not open the door. Several of Plaintiff Espitia’s family members took the young children and ran to hide in a bedroom. The agents then forcefully broke through the front door, causing damage to the door frame and lock.
92. Many of the agents poured into Plaintiff Espitia’s home and began to search through it. As they made their way through the home, some of the agents continued making threats to use “gas” in an effort to scare Plaintiff Espitia’s family members out of the bedroom.
22

CaseC1a:s0e6-1c:v0-60-2c6v-5002-6T5W0T-TWTDocDuomceunmte1n5t22-29 FFilieledd0046/1/149/0/2900P8ageP2a3geof2434of 43
93. The agents did not identify themselves as “immigration” officers until after they had already forcefully entered the home, and they never produced a warrant authorizing their presence inside Plaintiff’s home.
94. One of the agents led one of Plaintiff Espitia’s family members outside, and Plaintiff Espitia followed them. While Plaintiff Espitia was trying to console her family members, one of the agents approached her, took her hand, and pulled his handcuffs from his belt in an attempt to take her into custody. He did so without ever asking for Plaintiff Espitia’s name or immigration status. Plaintiff Espitia told him that she had papers in her car to prove her citizenship.
95. The agent let go of Plaintiff Espitia’s hand and allowed her to proceed to her car, but told her to open her car door slowly. Plaintiff Espitia complied with his demand and retrieved her social security card and gave it to the Defendant. He left to verify its validity and eventually returned the card to Plaintiff Espitia and told her that she had a valid social security number.
96. Plaintiff Espitia then went back inside her home, where another agent interrogated Plaintiff Espitia and some of her family members for approximately twenty minutes.
97. Defendants lacked lawful authority for all detention and interrogation activities involving Plaintiff Espitia and did not have a warrant, probable cause and exigent circumstances, or consent to enter Plaintiff Espitia’s home.
23

CaseC1a:s0e6-1c:v0-60-2c6v-5002-6T5W0T-TWTDocDuomceunmte1n5t22-29 FFilieledd0046/1/149/0/2900P8ageP2a4geof244of 43
98. Defendants Gregory L. Wiest, Joseph Brim, F/N/U Akers, Bert Crapps, F/N/U Hardin, Scott McCormack, Richard McManaway, Don Plybon, Brian Robinson, Mark Robinson, Barry Sands, Trey Taylor, Tom West, Rob James, Marc Stressinger, Phillip Scott, Michael Nelson, Evan Katz, Charles Hicks, David Casimiro, and Robert Rodriguez personally participated in and were responsible for the detention and interrogation activities involving Plaintiff Espitia.
99. Plaintiff Espitia was approximately six months pregnant at the time of this raid. As a result of Defendants’ unlawful actions, Plaintiff Espitia was traumatized, and she continues to suffer to this day. Plaintiff Robinson
100. Plaintiff Robinson owns two trailer parks in the Metter, Georgia, area that were raided by ICE agents in early September, 2006. Plaintiff Robinson’s trailer park located on Turkey Ridge Road (“Turkey Ridge Road Park”) was raided on or about September 7. His second trailer park located on Highway 46 (“Highway 46 Park”) was raided on two separate occasions – once on or about September 3 and again on or about September 5.
101. The ICE agents involved in the raids forcefully broke into many of the trailers in Plaintiff Robinson’s parks. The ICE agents caused intentional damage to at least one door and four windows in the Highway 46 Park. In the Turkey Ridge
24

CaseC1a:s0e6-1c:v0-60-2c6v-5002-6T5W0T-TWTDocDuomceunmte1n5t22-29 FFilieledd0046/1/149/0/2900P8ageP2a5geof2454of 43
Road Park, Defendant Wiest and other ICE agents ripped the skirting from the perimeter of a trailer and caused damage to the floorboards.
102. Defendants did not have warrants to enter the homes or other legal justification for their actions.
103. Defendants Gregory L. Wiest, Jeremy Blankley, Larry Orton, Marc Stressinger, Phillip Scott, Michael Nelson, Evan Katz, Charles Hicks, Henry Cook, Jeffrey Cooper, Bert Crapps, Paul Criswell, Daniel Cutts, Craig Hannah, Scott McCormack, Richard McManaway, Steve Michaels, Karl Muller, Don Plybon, Kevin Polk, Gregory Ricks, Bill Ross, Andrea Roubal, Barry Sands, Trey Taylor, Johnny Walton, Tom West, Marc Stressinger, Phillip Scott, Michael Nelson, Evan Katz, Charles Hicks, David Casimiro, John Vanek and Rob James personally participated in and were responsible for the unlawful actions related to Mr. Robinson’s property.
104. As a result of the unlawful and terrorizing actions of the ICE agents, the tenants who rented from Plaintiff Robinson were so terrified that many simply fled from the area.
105. On October 31, 2006, almost two months after the raids at issue in this case, ICE agents visited a store in Stillmore, Georgia, that sells mostly Mexican food products and caters to the Latino community. The agents demanded to see the store’s business license and the store employee’s documentation of citizenship.
25

CaseC1a:s0e6-1c:v0-60-2c6v-5002-6T5W0T-TWTDocDuomceunmte1n5t22-29 FFilieledd0046/1/149/0/2900P8ageP2a6geof2464of 43
106. Upon information and belief, ICE agents have also made two separate demands for documents relating to the legal status of Crider employees since the September 2006 raids, indicating that ICE is still targeting the Southeast Georgia communities.
COUNT I BIVENS CLAIM OF PLAINTIFF MANCHA (Against Defendants Leo Ford, William Ward Hunter, Scott McCormack,
Karl Muller, Don Plybon, Gregory Ricks and Jeannie Yoo 107. Plaintiff Mancha incorporates by reference each and every allegation contained in the preceding paragraphs as though fully set forth herein. 108. In doing the acts complained of, Defendants Leo Ford, William Ward Hunter, Scott McCormack, Karl Muller, Don Plybon, Gregory Ricks and Jeannie Yoo deprived Plaintiff Mancha 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 without a valid warrant or voluntary consent and in the absence of probable cause and exigent circumstances, as guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution;
b. the right to be free from detentions without a lawful, reasonable and articulable suspicion of unlawful activity or probable cause, as
26

CaseC1a:s0e6-1c:v0-60-2c6v-5002-6T5W0T-TWTDocDuomceunmte1n5t22-29 FFilieledd0046/1/149/0/2900P8ageP2a7geof2474of 43
guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution; and c. the right to equal protection under the law, as guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution. 109. 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. 110. The actions of these Defendants were intentional, malicious, and reckless and showed a callous disregard of, or indifference to, the rights of the Plaintiff. 111. The actions of these Defendants give rise to 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). 112. As a direct and proximate result of the unlawful actions of these Defendants, Plaintiff Mancha has suffered harm, in the form of, inter alia, outrage, humiliation, and emotional distress. Plaintiff Mancha is entitled to compensatory and punitive damages in an amount to be determined at trial. COUNT II: BIVENS CLAIM OF PLAINTIFF MARTINEZ (Against Defendants Leo Ford, William Ward Hunter, Scott McCormack, Karl Muller, Don Plybon, Gregory Ricks and Jeannie Yoo
27

CaseC1a:s0e6-1c:v0-60-2c6v-5002-6T5W0T-TWTDocDuomceunmte1n5t22-29 FFilieledd0046/1/149/0/2900P8ageP2a8geof2484of 43
113. Plaintiff Martinez incorporates by reference each and every allegation contained in the preceding paragraphs as though fully set forth herein.
114. In doing the acts complained of, Defendants Leo Ford, William Ward Hunter, Scott McCormack, Karl Muller, Don Plybon, Gregory Ricks and Jeannie Yoo deprived Plaintiff Martinez 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 without a valid warrant or voluntary consent and in the absence of probable cause and exigent circumstances, as guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution; and
b. the right to equal protection under the law, as guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
115. 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 and search, they are not entitled to a good faith defense or official immunity defense.
116. The actions of these Defendants were intentional, malicious, reckless, and showed a callous disregard of, or indifference to, the rights of the Plaintiff.
28

CaseC1a:s0e6-1c:v0-60-2c6v-5002-6T5W0T-TWTDocDuomceunmte1n5t22-29 FFilieledd0046/1/149/0/2900P8ageP2a9geof2494of 43
117. The actions of these Defendants give rise to 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).
118. As a direct and proximate result of the unlawful actions of these Defendants, Plaintiff Martinez has suffered harm, in the form of, inter alia, outrage and emotional distress. Plaintiff Martinez is entitled to compensatory and punitive damages in an amount to be determined at trial.
COUNT III: BIVENS CLAIM OF PLAINTIFF PEREZ (Against Defendants Jeremy Blankley, Larry Orton, Marc Stressinger, Phillip
Scott, Michael Nelson, Evan Katz, and Charles Hicks) 119. Plaintiff Perez incorporates by reference each and every allegation contained in the preceding paragraphs as though fully set forth herein. 120. In doing the acts complained of, Defendants Jeremy Blankley, Larry Orton, Marc Stressinger, Phillip Scott, Michael Nelson, Evan Katz, and Charles Hicks deprived Plaintiff Perez 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 without a valid warrant or voluntary consent and in the absence of probable cause and exigent circumstances, as guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution;
29

CaseC1a:s0e6-1c:v0-60-2c6v-5002-6T5W0T-TWTDocDuomceunmte1n5t22-29 FFilieledd0046/1/149/0/2900P8ageP3a0geof3404of 43
b. the right to be free from detentions without a lawful, reasonable and articulable suspicion of unlawful activity or probable cause, as guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution;
c. the right to be free from arrest without probable cause, as guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution;
d. the right to be free from the use of excessive force, as guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution; and
e. the right to equal protection under the law, as guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
121. 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, detention, arrest and use of force, they are not entitled to a good faith defense or official immunity defense.
122. The actions of these Defendants were intentional, malicious, and reckless and showed a callous disregard of, or indifference to, the rights of the Plaintiff.
30

CaseC1a:s0e6-1c:v0-60-2c6v-5002-6T5W0T-TWTDocDuomceunmte1n5t22-29 FFilieledd0046/1/149/0/2900P8ageP3a1geof3414of 43
123. The actions of these Defendants give rise to 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).
124. As a direct and proximate result of the unlawful actions of these Defendants, Plaintiff Perez has suffered harm, in the form of, inter alia, outrage, humiliation, and emotional distress. Plaintiff Perez is entitled to compensatory and punitive damages in an amount to be determined at trial.
COUNT IV: BIVENS CLAIM OF PLAINTIFF ESPITIA (Against Defendants Gregory L. Wiest, Joseph Brim, Akers, Bert Crapps, Hardin, Scott McCormack, Richard McManaway, Don Plybon, Brian Robinson, Mark Robinson, Barry Sands, Trey Taylor, Tom West, Rob James, Marc Stressinger, Phillip Scott, Michael Nelson, Evan Katz, Charles Hicks, David Casimiro, and Robert Rodriguez)
125. Plaintiff Espitia incorporates by reference each and every allegation contained in the preceding paragraphs as though fully set forth herein.
126. In doing the acts complained of, Defendants Gregory L. Wiest, Joseph Brim, Bert Crapps, Hardin, Scott McCormack, Richard McManaway, Don Plybon, Brian Robinson, Mark Robinson, Barry Sands, Trey Taylor, Tom West, Rob James, Marc Stressinger, Phillip Scott, Michael Nelson, Evan Katz, Charles Hicks, and David Casimiro deprived Plaintiff Espitia 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 without a valid warrant or voluntary consent and in the
31

CaseC1a:s0e6-1c:v0-60-2c6v-5002-6T5W0T-TWTDocDuomceunmte1n5t22-29 FFilieledd0046/1/149/0/2900P8ageP3a2geof3424of 43
absence of probable cause and exigent circumstances, as guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution; b. the right to be free from detentions without a lawful, reasonable and articulable suspicion of unlawful activity or probable cause, as guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution; c. the right to be free from the use of excessive force, as guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution; d. the right to be free from unreasonable seizures of property, as guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution; and e. the right to equal protection under the law, as guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution. 127. 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, use of force, and detention, they are not entitled to a good faith defense or official immunity defense.
32

CaseC1a:s0e6-1c:v0-60-2c6v-5002-6T5W0T-TWTDocDuomceunmte1n5t22-29 FFilieledd0046/1/149/0/2900P8ageP3a3geof3434of 43
128. The actions of these Defendants were intentional, malicious, and reckless and showed a callous disregard of, or indifference to, the rights of the Plaintiff.
129. The actions of these Defendants give rise to 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).
130. As a direct and proximate result of the unlawful actions of these Defendants, Plaintiff Espitia has suffered harm, in the form of, inter alia, outrage, humiliation, property damage and emotional distress. Plaintiff Espitia is entitled to actual, compensatory and punitive damages in an amount to be determined at trial.
COUNT V BIVENS CLAIM OF PLAINTIFF ROBINSON (Against Defendants Gregory L. Wiest, Jeremy Blankley, Larry Orton, Marc Stressinger, Phillip Scott, Michael Nelson, Evan Katz, Charles Hicks, Henry Cook, Jeffrey Cooper, Bert Crapps, Paul Criswell, Daniel Cutts, Craig Hannah, Scott McCormack, Richard McManaway, Steve Michaels, Karl Muller, Don Plybon, Kevin Polk, Gregory Ricks, Bill Ross, Andrea Roubal, Barry Sands, Trey Taylor, Johnny Walton, Tom West, Marc Stressinger, Phillip Scott, Michael Nelson, Evan Katz, Charles Hicks, David Casimiro, and Rob James)
131. Plaintiff Robinson incorporates by reference each and every allegation contained in the preceding paragraphs as though fully set forth herein.
132. In doing the acts complained of, Defendants Gregory L. Wiest, Jeremy Blankley, Larry Orton, Marc Stressinger, Phillip Scott, Michael Nelson, Evan Katz, Charles Hicks, Henry Cook, Jeffrey Cooper, Bert Crapps, Paul
33

CaseC1a:s0e6-1c:v0-60-2c6v-5002-6T5W0T-TWTDocDuomceunmte1n5t22-29 FFilieledd0046/1/149/0/2900P8ageP3a4geof344of 43
Criswell, Daniel Cutts, Craig Hannah, Scott McCormack, Richard McManaway, Steve Michaels, Karl Muller, Don Plybon, Kevin Polk, Gregory Ricks, Bill Ross, Andrea Roubal, Barry Sands, Trey Taylor, Johnny Walton, Tom West, Marc Stressinger, Phillip Scott, Michael Nelson, Evan Katz, Charles Hicks, David Casimiro, and Rob James deprived Plaintiff Robinson of his constitutionally protected right to be free from unreasonable seizures of property, as guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
133. 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, and use of force, they are not entitled to a good faith defense or official immunity defense.
134. The actions of these Defendants were intentional, malicious, and reckless and showed a callous disregard of, or indifference to, the rights of the Plaintiff.
135. The actions of these Defendants give rise to 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).
136. As a direct and proximate result of the unlawful actions of these Defendants, Plaintiff Robinson has suffered property damage. Plaintiff Perez is
34

CaseC1a:s0e6-1c:v0-60-2c6v-5002-6T5W0T-TWTDocDuomceunmte1n5t22-29 FFilieledd0046/1/149/0/2900P8ageP3a5geof3454of 43
entitled to actual, compensatory and punitive damages in an amount to be determined at trial.
COUNT VI: FEDERAL TORT CLAIMS ACT--TRESPASS (Against Defendant United States of America by Plaintiffs Mancha, Perez,
Martinez, Espitia, and Robinson) 137. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference each and every allegation contained in the preceding paragraphs as though fully set forth herein. 138. At all times relevant to this action, agents, officials and other personnel were acting in their official capacity under the authority of DHS and ICE, and, therefore, under the authority of the United States of America. 139. Defendant United States unlawfully abused the property of Plaintiffs Mancha, Perez, Martinez, Espitia, and Robinson by invading their property without permission or justification. 140. Defendant’s abuse of the property of Plaintiffs Mancha, Perez, Martinez, Espitia, and Robinson as alleged in the preceding paragraphs constituted unlawful trespass against those plaintiffs. 141. Defendant’s actions as alleged above were intentional. 142. Defendant United States is not entitled to any defense, statutory or otherwise, in that the acts or omissions of Defendant United States were not discretionary functions and were not performed in good faith.
35

CaseC1a:s0e6-1c:v0-60-2c6v-5002-6T5W0T-TWTDocDuomceunmte1n5t22-29 FFilieledd0046/1/149/0/2900P8ageP3a6geof3464of 43
143. As a proximate result of the Defendant’s actions, Plaintiffs Mancha, Perez, Martinez, Espitia, and Robinson suffered substantial damages, for which they seek monetary relief pursuant to the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2671.
144. Under the laws of Georgia, a private person would be liable to plaintiffs for these acts or omissions. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1346(b), the United States is liable to Plaintiffs for their damages arising from the commission of these acts or omissions. COUNT VII: FEDERAL TORT CLAIMS ACT—FALSE IMPRISONMENT
(Against Defendant United States of America by Plaintiffs Mancha, Morales, Perez, and Espitia) 145. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference each and every allegation contained in the preceding paragraphs as though fully set forth herein. 146. At all times relevant to this action, agents, officials and other personnel were acting in their official capacity under the authority of DHS and ICE, and, therefore, under the authority of the United States of America. 147. Defendants' actions as alleged above unlawfully deprived Plaintiffs Mancha, Morales, Perez and Espitia of their personal liberty without justification. 148. Defendants’ actions in unlawfully detaining Plaintiffs Mancha, Morales, Perez and Espitia and depriving them of their personal liberty constituted false imprisonment.
36

CaseC1a:s0e6-1c:v0-60-2c6v-5002-6T5W0T-TWTDocDuomceunmte1n5t22-29 FFilieledd0046/1/149/0/2900P8ageP3a7geof3474of 43
149. Defendant United States is not entitled to any defense, statutory or otherwise, in that the acts or omissions of Defendant United States were not discretionary functions and were not performed in good faith.
150. As a proximate result of the Defendant’s actions, Plaintiffs Mancha, Morales, Perez and Espitia suffered substantial damages, for which they seek monetary relief pursuant to the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2671.
151. Under the laws of Georgia, a private person would be liable to Plaintiffs for this act or omission. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1346(b), the United States is liable to Plaintiffs for their damages arising from the commission of these acts or omissions.
COUNT VIII: FEDERAL TORT CLAIMS ACT—ASSAULT (Against Defendant United States of America by Plaintiffs Mancha, Morales
Perez, and Espitia) 152. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference each and every allegation contained in the preceding paragraphs as though fully set forth herein. 153. At all times relevant to this action, agents, officials and other personnel were acting in their official capacity under the authority of DHS and ICE, and, therefore, under the authority of the United States of America. 154. By its actions as alleged above, Defendant caused Plaintiffs Mancha, Morales, Perez, and Espitia to apprehend a violent injury from Defendant’s unlawful actions.
37

CaseC1a:s0e6-1c:v0-60-2c6v-5002-6T5W0T-TWTDocDuomceunmte1n5t22-29 FFilieledd0046/1/149/0/2900P8ageP3a8geof3484of 43
155. Defendant’s actions as alleged above were intentional and malicious. 156. Defendant’s actions as alleged above constituted tortious assault. 157. Defendant United States is not entitled to any defense, statutory or otherwise, in that the acts or omissions of Defendant United States were not discretionary functions and were not performed in good faith. 158. As a proximate result of the Defendant’s actions, Plaintiffs Mancha, Morales, Perez and Espitia, suffered substantial damages, for which they seek monetary relief pursuant to the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2671. 159. Under the laws of Georgia, a private person would be liable to Plaintiffs for these acts or omissions. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1346(b), the United States is liable to Plaintiffs for their damages arising from the commission of these acts or omissions.
COUNT IX: FEDERAL TORT CLAIMS ACT—BATTERY (Against Defendant United States of America by Plaintiffs Morales, Perez,
and Espitia) 160. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference each and every allegation contained in the preceding paragraphs as though fully set forth herein. 161. At all times relevant to this action, agents, officials and other personnel were acting in their official capacity under the authority of DHS and ICE, and, therefore, under the authority of the United States of America.
38

CaseC1a:s0e6-1c:v0-60-2c6v-5002-6T5W0T-TWTDocDuomceunmte1n5t22-29 FFilieledd0046/1/149/0/2900P8ageP3a9geof3494of 43
162. By its actions as alleged above, Defendant intentionally and maliciously inflicted offensive and unwanted physical violence against Plaintiffs Morales, Perez and Espitia.
163. Defendant’s actions as alleged above constituted battery. 164. Defendant United States is not entitled to any defense, statutory or otherwise, in that the acts or omissions of Defendant United States were not discretionary functions and were not performed in good faith. 165. As a proximate result of the defendant’s actions, Plaintiffs Morales, Perez and Espitia suffered substantial damages, for which they seek monetary relief pursuant to the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2671. 166. Under the laws of Georgia, a private person would be liable to Plaintiffs for these acts or omissions. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1346(b), the United States is liable to Plaintiffs for their damages arising from the commission of these acts or omissions.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray this Court:
39

CaseC1a:s0e6-1c:v0-60-2c6v-5002-6T5W0T-TWTDocDuomceunmte1n5t22-29 FFilieledd0046/1/149/0/2900P8ageP4a0geof4404of 43
1. Award Plaintiffs Mancha, Martinez, Perez, Espitia, and Robinson
actual, compensatory, and punitive damages for violations of the Fourth
Amendment to the United States Constitution;
2. Award Plaintiffs Mancha, Martinez, Perez, and Espitia actual,
compensatory, and punitive damages for violations of the Fifth Amendment to the
United States Constitution;
3. Award Plaintiffs monetary damages for claims arising under the
Federal Tort Claims Act;
4. Award Plaintiffs costs of this action;
5. Award Plaintiffs pre- and post-judgment interest, as permitted by law;
and
6. Grant Plaintiffs other such relief as the Court deems appropriate and
just. Respectfully submitted this 19th day of June, 2008.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Mary C. Bauer Mary C. Bauer GA Bar No. 142213 Daniel Werner NY SBRA 3969839 Mónica Ramírez Pro Hac Vice, FL Bar No. 0711861 IMMIGRANT JUSTICE PROJECT SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER Southern Poverty Law Center
40

CaseC1a:s0e6-1c:v0-60-2c6v-5002-6T5W0T-TWTDocDuomceunmte1n5t22-29 FFilieledd0046/1/149/0/2900P8ageP4a1geof4414of 43
233 Peachtree Street, Suite 2150 Atlanta, GA 30303 Phone: 404-521-6700 Fax: 404-221-5849 Kelley M. Bruner Pro Hac Vice, AL Bar No. 8115-K74B Rhonda Brownstein Pro Hac Vice, AL Bar No. 3193-064R Morris Dees Pro Hac Vice, AL Bar No. 7003-E50M SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER 400 Washington Avenue Montgomery, Alabama 36104 334-956-8200 334-956-8481 (fax)
41

CaseC1a:s0e6-1c:v0-60-2c6v-5002-6T5W0T-TWTDocDuomceunmte1n5t22-29 FFilieledd0046/1/149/0/2900P8ageP4a2geof4424of 43
Paul L. Hoffman Pro Hac Vice, CA Bar No. 071244 SCHONBRUN DESIMONE SEPLOW HARRIS & HOFFMAN LLP 723 Ocean Front Walk Venice, California 90291 (310) 396-0731 (310) 399-7040 (fax) Brian Spears GA Bar No. 670112 LAW OFFICE OF BRIAN SPEARS 1126 Ponce de Leon Avenue, NE Atlanta, Georgia 30306 (404) 872-7086 (404) 892-1128 (fax) Attorneys for Plaintiffs
42

CaseC1a:s0e6-1c:v0-60-2c6v-5002-6T5W0T-TWTDocDuomceunmte1n5t22-29 FFilieledd0046/1/149/0/2900P8ageP4a3geof4434of 43
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE WITH LOCAL RULE 7.1(D) As required by Local Rule 7.1(d), I hereby certify that this brief was prepared using the Times New Roman font, in a 14-point size. Dated: June 19, 2008 s/ Mary Bauer, Esq.__________
43

Case 1:06-cv-02650-TWT Document 229 Filed 04/14/09 Page 44 of 44
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on April 14, 2009, a true and correct copy of the foregoing was filed electronically and served by mail on any previously-served unable to accept electronic filing. Notice of this filing will be sent by e-mail to all previously-served parties by operation of the Court’s electronic filing system or by mail to any previously-served party unable to accept electronic filing. Parties may access this filing through the court’s CM/ECF System.
s/ Daniel Werner
1

 
 Case 1:06-cv-02650-TWT Document 104 Filed 03/27/08 Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
ATLANTA DIVISION

MARIE JUSTEEN MANCHA through her Next Friend Maria Christina Martinez, et al.,
Plaintiffs, v.
IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT, et al.,
Defendants.

CIVIL ACTION FILE NO. 1:06-CV-2650-TWT

ORDER This is a civil rights action. It is before the Court on the Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification [Doc. 24]. The motion seeks to certify a class with respect to the relief sought in Counts I and II of the Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint. Those claims have since been dismissed. Ther efore, the Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification [Doc. 24] is DENIED as moot. SO ORDERED, this 24 day of March, 2008.

/s/Thomas W. Thrash THOMAS W. THRASH, JR. United States District Judge

T:\ORDERS\06\Mancha\certifytwt.wpd

 
 Case: 1:06-cv-2650 As of: 02/19/2013 10:58 PM EST 1 of 31
4months,CLOSED,PROTO
U.S. District Court Northern District of Georgia (Atlanta) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:06−cv−02650−TWT

Mancha et al v. Immigration and Customs Enforcement et al Assigned to: Judge Thomas W. Thrash, Jr Cause: 28:1343 Violation of Civil Rights
Plaintiff

Date Filed: 11/01/2006 Date Terminated: 07/31/2009 Jury Demand: None Nature of Suit: 440 Civil Rights: Other Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Defendant

Marie Justeen Mancha through her Next Friend Maria Christina Martinez

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

George Brian Spears Law Office of Brian Spears 1126 Ponce de Leon Avenue Atlanta, GA 30306 404−872−7086 Fax: 404−892−1128 Email: Bspears@mindspring.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Mary C. Bauer Southern Poverty Law Center−AL 400 Washington Avenue Montgomery, AL 36104 334−956−8200 Email: mbauer@splcenter.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Monica Ann Ramirez Southern Poverty Law Center 400 Washington Avenue Montgomery, AL 36104 334−956−8200 Email: monica.ramirez@splcenter.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Arlen S. Benjamin−Gomez Southern Poverty Law Center−Atl Suite 2150 233 Peachtree Street, NE Atlanta, GA 30303 334−956−8200 Email: abenjamingomez@splcenter.org TERMINATED: 10/25/2007

Genesis R.A.C. Fisher Southern Poverty Law Center

Case: 1:06-cv-2650 As of: 02/19/2013 10:58 PM EST 2 of 31

400 Washington Avenue Montgomery, AL 36104 334−956−8200 Email: genesis.fisher@splcenter.org TERMINATED: 06/18/2008

James Melvin Knoepp Southern Poverty Law Center−Atl Suite 2150 233 Peachtree Street, NE Atlanta, GA 30303 404−221−5836 Email: jim.knoepp@splcenter.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kelley Bruner Southern Poverty Law Center−Atl Suite 2150 233 Peachtree Street, NE Atlanta, GA 30303 334−956−8200 Email: kbruner@splcenter.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michelle R. Lapointe Southern Poverty Law Center−Atl Suite 2150 233 Peachtree Street, NE Atlanta, GA 30303 404−521−6700 Email: michelle.lapointe@splcenter.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Morris S. Dees Southern Poverty Law Center 400 Washington Avenue Montgomery, AL 36104 334−956−8200 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Paul L. Hoffman Schonbrun DeSimone Deplow Harris &Hoffman 723 Ocean Front Walk Venice, CA 90291 310−396−0731 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Rhonda Brownstein Southern Poverty Law Center 400 Washington Avenue Montgomery, AL 36104 334−956−8200 Email: rhonda.brownstein@splcenter.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Maria Christina Martinez

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

George Brian Spears

Case: 1:06-cv-2650 As of: 02/19/2013 10:58 PM EST 3 of 31

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

Mary C. Bauer (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Monica Ann Ramirez (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Arlen S. Benjamin−Gomez (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/25/2007

Genesis R.A.C. Fisher (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/18/2008

James Melvin Knoepp (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kelley Bruner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michelle R. Lapointe (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Morris S. Dees (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Paul L. Hoffman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Rhonda Brownstein (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Ranulfo Perez

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

George Brian Spears (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Mary C. Bauer (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Monica Ann Ramirez

Case: 1:06-cv-2650 As of: 02/19/2013 10:58 PM EST 4 of 31

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

Arlen S. Benjamin−Gomez (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/25/2007

Genesis R.A.C. Fisher (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/18/2008

James Melvin Knoepp (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kelley Bruner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michelle R. Lapointe (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Morris S. Dees (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Paul L. Hoffman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Rhonda Brownstein (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Maria Margarita Morales

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

George Brian Spears (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Mary C. Bauer (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Monica Ann Ramirez (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Arlen S. Benjamin−Gomez (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/25/2007

Genesis R.A.C. Fisher (See above for address)

Case: 1:06-cv-2650 As of: 02/19/2013 10:58 PM EST 5 of 31

TERMINATED: 06/18/2008

James Melvin Knoepp (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kelley Bruner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michelle R. Lapointe (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Morris S. Dees (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Paul L. Hoffman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Rhonda Brownstein (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Gladis Alicia Espitia individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, and

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

George Brian Spears (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Mary C. Bauer (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Monica Ann Ramirez (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Arlen S. Benjamin−Gomez (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/25/2007

Genesis R.A.C. Fisher (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/18/2008

James Melvin Knoepp (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kelley Bruner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 1:06-cv-2650 As of: 02/19/2013 10:58 PM EST 6 of 31

Michelle R. Lapointe (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Morris S. Dees (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Paul L. Hoffman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Rhonda Brownstein (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff David Robinson

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

George Brian Spears (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Mary C. Bauer (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Monica Ann Ramirez (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Arlen S. Benjamin−Gomez (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/25/2007

Genesis R.A.C. Fisher (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/18/2008

James Melvin Knoepp (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kelley Bruner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michelle R. Lapointe (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Morris S. Dees (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Paul L. Hoffman (See above for address)

Case: 1:06-cv-2650 As of: 02/19/2013 10:58 PM EST 7 of 31
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Rhonda Brownstein (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Defendant Immigration and Customs Enforcement TERMINATED: 04/14/2009
Defendant Michael Chertoff TERMINATED: 04/14/2009
Defendant Julie L. Myers TERMINATED: 04/14/2009
Defendant Marcy Forman TERMINATED: 04/14/2009
Defendant Denneth A. Smith TERMINATED: 04/14/2009

represented by Gjon Juncaj U.S. Department of Justice P.O. Box 878, Ben Franklin Station 529 14th Street NW NPR 1148−02 Washington, DC 20044 202−307−8514 Email: gjon.juncaj@usdoj.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
George Brian Spears (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Gjon Juncaj (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
George Brian Spears (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Gjon Juncaj (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
George Brian Spears (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Gjon Juncaj (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
George Brian Spears (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Gjon Juncaj (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
George Brian Spears

Case: 1:06-cv-2650 As of: 02/19/2013 10:58 PM EST 8 of 31

(See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant Gregory L. Wiest

represented by Jean M. Cunningham U.S. Department of Justice P.O. Box 7146, Ben Franklin Station 1425 New York Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20044 202−616−4164 Fax: 202−616−4314 Email: jean.cunningham@usdoj.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sharon Douglas Stokes Office of United States Attorney 75 Spring Street, S.W. 600 United States Courthouse Atlanta, GA 30303 404−581−6301 Email: sharon.stokes@usdoj.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

George Brian Spears (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

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

Glenn S. Greene U.S. Department of Justice Torts Branch, Civil Division P.O. Box 7146, Ben Franklin Station Washington, DC 20044 202−616−4143 Email: glenn.greene@usdoj.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
John P. Torres TERMINATED: 04/14/2009

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

George Brian Spears (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
John Mata TERMINATED: 04/14/2009

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

George Brian Spears (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant

Case: 1:06-cv-2650 As of: 02/19/2013 10:58 PM EST 9 of 31

John Does 1−30 TERMINATED: 04/14/2009

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

George Brian Spears (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant United States of America

represented by Alonzo H. Long Office of United States Attorney Northern District of Georgia 75 Spring Street, S.W. 600 United States Courthouse Atlanta, GA 30303 404−581−6067 Email: alonzo.long@usdoj.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Lynn Dee Moffa The Van Winkle Law Firm 111 N. Market Street Asheville, NC 28801 828−771−2596 Email: lthesing@yahoo.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant Robert Rodriguez

Defendant Leo Ford

Defendant William Ward Hunter

Defendant Scott McCormack

Defendant Karl Muller

Defendant Don Plybon

Defendant Gregory Ricks

Defendant
Hyg Jeong also known as Jeannie Yoo

Defendant Jeremy Blankley

Defendant

Case: 1:06-cv-2650 As of: 02/19/2013 10:58 PM EST 10 of 31
Larry Orton
Defendant Marc Stressinger
Defendant Phillip Scott
Defendant Michael Nelson
Defendant Evan Katz
Defendant Charles Hicks
Defendant Barry Sands
Defendant F/N/U Akers
Defendant Joseph Brim
Defendant Talbert Crapps also known as Bert Crapps
Defendant F/N/U Hardin
Defendant Richard McManaway
Defendant Brian Robinson
Defendant Mark Robinson
Defendant Howell C. Taylor, III also known as Trey Taylor
Defendant Thomas West also known as Tom West
Defendant

Case: 1:06-cv-2650 As of: 02/19/2013 10:58 PM EST 11 of 31
Robert James also known as Rob James
Defendant David Casimiro
Defendant Henry Cook
Defendant Jeffrey Cooper
Defendant Paul Criswell
Defendant Daniel Cutts
Defendant Craig Hannah
Defendant Steve Michaels
Defendant Kevin Polk
Defendant William Ross also known as Bill Ross
Defendant Andrea Roubal
Defendant John Vanek
Defendant Johnny Walton

Date Filed 11/01/2006
11/01/2006 11/01/2006

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT filed and summon(s) issued. Consent form to proceed before U.S. Magistrate and pretrial instructions provided. ( Filing fee $ 350 receipt number 557596.), filed by Maria Margarita Morales, Gladis Alicia Espitia, David Robinson, Marie Justeen Mancha, Maria Christina Martinez, Ranulfo Perez. (Attachments: # 1 Summons # 2 Civil Cover Sheet)(fap) Please visit our website at http://www.gand.uscourts.gov to obtain Pretrial Instructions. (Entered: 11/02/2006)
2 APPLICATION for Admission of Kelley Bruner Pro Hac Viceby Plaintiffs.Filing Fee received $150.00, Receipt #557599. (dr) (Entered: 11/03/2006)
3 APPLICATION for Admission of Rhonda Brownstein Pro Hac Viceby Plaintiffs.Filing Fee received $150.00, Receipt #557598. (dr) (Entered: 11/03/2006)

Case: 1:06-cv-2650 As of: 02/19/2013 10:58 PM EST 12 of 31

11/01/2006 11/06/2006 11/07/2006 11/07/2006 11/07/2006 12/04/2006
12/14/2006 12/18/2006
12/28/2006 12/29/2006 01/04/2007
01/04/2007 01/04/2007 01/05/2007 01/08/2007 01/09/2007 01/17/2007 01/24/2007

4 APPLICATION for Admission of Morris S. Dees Pro Hac Viceby Plaintiffs.Filing Fee received $150.00, Receipt #557597. (dr) (Entered: 11/03/2006)
5 Summons Issued as to Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Michael Chertoff, Julie L. Myers, Marcy Forman, Gregory L. Wiest, John P. Torres, John Mata, U.S. Attorney and U.S. Attorney General (dr) (Entered: 11/07/2006)
6 ORDER granting 2 Application for Admission Pro Hac Vice for Kelley Bruner . Signed by Judge Thomas W. Thrash Jr. on 11/7/06. (dr) (Entered: 11/08/2006)
7 ORDER granting 3 Application for Admission Pro Hac Vice for Rhonda Brownstein . Signed by Judge Thomas W. Thrash Jr. on 11/7/06. (dr) (Entered: 11/08/2006)
8 ORDER granting 4 Application for Admission Pro Hac Vice for Morris Dees. Signed by Judge Thomas W. Thrash Jr. on 11/7/06. (dr) (Entered: 11/08/2006)
9 APPLICATION for Admission of Paul L. Hoffman Pro Hac Viceby Maria Margarita Morales, Gladis Alicia Espitia, David Robinson, Marie Justeen Mancha, Maria Christina Martinez, Ranulfo Perez.Filing Fee received $150.00, Receipt #558817. (dr) (Entered: 12/08/2006)
10 ORDER granting 9 Application for Admission Pro Hac Vice for Paul Hoffman . Signed by Judge Thomas W. Thrash Jr. on 12/14/06. (dr) (Entered: 12/15/2006)
11 NOTICE by Maria Margarita Morales, Gladis Alicia Espitia, David Robinson, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Marie Justeen Mancha, Maria Christina Martinez, Ranulfo Perez of Service of Summons (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Affidavits of Service)(Spears, George) (Entered: 12/18/2006)
12 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer and Consolidate Deadline for Filing Defendants' Response to Plaintiffs' Complaint with Brief In Support by Gregory L. Wiest. (Stokes, Sharon) (Entered: 12/28/2006)
13 STATUS REPORT Joint Statement Regarding Class Communications by Marie Justeen Mancha. (Bauer, Mary) (Entered: 12/29/2006)
14 ORDER granting 12 Motion for Extension of Time to Answer re 1 Complaint,, Immigration and Customs Enforcement Answer due 3/1/2007; Michael Chertoff Answer due 3/1/2007; Julie L. Myers Answer due 3/1/2007; Marcy Forman Answer due 3/1/2007; Denneth A. Smith Answer due 3/1/2007; Gregory L. Wiest Answer due 3/1/2007; John P. Torres Answer due 3/1/2007; John Mata Answer due 3/1/2007; John Does 1−30 Answer due 3/1/2007 . Signed by Judge Thomas W. Thrash Jr. on 1/3/07. (ss) (Entered: 01/04/2007)
NOTICE of TELECONFERENCE Hearing: Hearing set for 1/5/2007 04:00 PM before Judge Thomas W. Thrash Jr., government counsel originate call. (ss) (Entered: 01/04/2007)
15 MOTION for Extension of Time File Class Certification Motion with Brief In Support by Marie Justeen Mancha. (Bauer, Mary) (Entered: 01/04/2007)
16 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Thomas W. Thrash Jr.: Status Conference held on 1/5/2007. (Court Reporter Traci Walker.)(kt) (Entered: 01/08/2007)
17 Notice for Leave of Absence for the following date(s): 3/8/07 − 3/20/07, by George Brian Spears. (Spears, George) (Entered: 01/08/2007)
Clerks Notation re 17 Leave of Absence 3/8/07 − 3/20/07, by George Brian Spears. The Court will not require Mr. Spears appearance on these dates. (ss) (Entered: 01/09/2007)
18 ORDER granting 15 Motion for Extension of Time through 3/2/07 for plaintiff to file Motion for Class Certification. . Signed by Judge Thomas W. Thrash Jr. on 1/16/07. (ss) (Entered: 01/17/2007)
19 NOTICE of Appearance by Gjon Juncaj on behalf of all defendants (Juncaj, Gjon) (Entered: 01/24/2007)

Case: 1:06-cv-2650 As of: 02/19/2013 10:58 PM EST 13 of 31

01/24/2007 02/27/2007
03/02/2007 04/14/2007 04/16/2007
04/16/2007 04/16/2007 04/16/2007 04/17/2007 04/18/2007 04/18/2007 04/19/2007 04/27/2007

20 NOTICE of Appearance by Jean M. Cunningham on behalf of Gregory L. Wiest (Cunningham, Jean) (Entered: 01/24/2007)
21 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response to Complaint, to file Reponse to Response, and to file Motion for Class Certification with Brief In Support by Maria Margarita Morales, Gladis Alicia Espitia, David Robinson, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Michael Chertoff, Julie L. Myers, Marcy Forman, Denneth A. Smith, Gregory L. Wiest, John P. Torres, John Mata, John Does 1−30, Marie Justeen Mancha, Maria Christina Martinez, Ranulfo Perez. (Spears, George) Additional attachment(s) added on 3/2/2007 (dr). (Entered: 02/27/2007)
22 ORDER granting 21 Motion for Extension of Time until 4/15/07 for defendants to serve responses to complaint; plaintiffs shall serve their responses to defendants' responses to complaint by 6/14/07; plaintiffs shall serve their Motion for Class Certification by 4/16/07. Signed by Judge Thomas W. Thrash Jr. on 3/2/07. (dr) (Entered: 03/05/2007)
23 Unopposed MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages with Brief In Support by Gregory L. Wiest. (Cunningham, Jean) (Entered: 04/14/2007)
24 MOTION to Certify Class with Brief In Support by Maria Margarita Morales, Gladis Alicia Espitia, Marie Justeen Mancha, Maria Christina Martinez, Ranulfo Perez. (Attachments: # 1 Brief Brief in Support of Motion# 2 Exhibit Declaration of Marie Justeen Mancha# 3 Exhibit Declaration of Maria Christina Martinez# 4 Exhibit Declaration of Ranulfo Perez# 5 Exhibit Declaration of Gladis Alicia Espitia# 6 Exhibit Declaration of Maria Margarita Morales# 7 Exhibit Declaration of Mary Bauer, Esquire)(Brownstein, Rhonda) (Entered: 04/16/2007)
25 DOCUMENT FILED IN ERROR − MOTION to Dismiss or in the Alternative for Summary Judgment with Brief In Support by Gregory L. Wiest. (Attachments: # 1 Brief in Support of Motion to Dimiss or in the Alternative for Summary Judgment# 2 Affidavit in Support of Motion# 3 Statement of Material Facts in Support of Motion)(Cunningham, Jean) Modified on 4/17/2007 (dr). (Entered: 04/16/2007)
26 MOTION to Dismiss Counts I and II of Complaint with Brief In Support by Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Michael Chertoff, Julie L. Myers, Marcy Forman, Denneth A. Smith, Gregory L. Wiest, John P. Torres, John Mata. (Attachments: # 1 Brief Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion to Dismiss)(Juncaj, Gjon) (Entered: 04/16/2007)
27 MOTION to Dismiss, or in the alternative, MOTION for Summary Judgment by Gregory L. Wiest. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support# 2 Affidavit# 3 Statement of Material Facts)(dr) −−Please refer to http://www.gand.uscourts.gov to obtain the Notice to Respond to Summary Judgment Motion form contained on the Court's website.−− (Entered: 04/17/2007)
Notification of Docket Correction re 25 MOTION to Dismiss which is FILED IN ERROR. For correct entry refer to 27 MOTION to Dismiss, MOTION for Summary Judgment. (dr) (Entered: 04/17/2007)
28 Notice for Leave of Absence for the following date(s): 5/17/07−5/21/07, 7/3/07−7/12/07, 8/2/07−8/7/07, 9/27/07−10/1/07, 10/31/07−11/5/07, by George Brian Spears. (Spears, George) (Entered: 04/18/2007)
29 ORDER granting 23 Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages. Signed by Judge Thomas W. Thrash Jr. on 4/17/07. (dr) (Entered: 04/19/2007)
Clerks Notation re 28 Leave of Absence 5/17/07−5/21/07, 7/3/07−7/12/07, 8/2/07−8/7/07, 9/27/07−10/1/07, 10/31/07−11/5/07, by George Brian Spears. The Court will not require an appearance by G. Spears on these dates. (ss) (Entered: 04/19/2007)
30 MOTION for Relief From Local Rules 16.1, 16.2, and 26.1 and Stay of Responsive Briefing of Plaintiffs' Class Certification Request with Brief In Support by Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Michael Chertoff, Julie L. Myers, Marcy Forman, Denneth A. Smith, Gregory L. Wiest, John P. Torres, John Mata, John Does 1−30. (Attachments: # 1 Brief In Support of Motion for Relief From Local

Case: 1:06-cv-2650 As of: 02/19/2013 10:58 PM EST 14 of 31

05/01/2007
05/01/2007
05/01/2007
05/14/2007 05/14/2007 05/16/2007 05/22/2007 05/24/2007
05/24/2007 05/25/2007 06/14/2007 06/14/2007 06/14/2007 06/14/2007 06/14/2007
06/14/2007

Rules 16.1, 16.2, 26.1, and Stay of Responsive Class Cert. Briefing)(Juncaj, Gjon) (Entered: 04/27/2007)
31 ORDER granting 30 Motion for Relief From Local Rules 16.1, 16.2, and 26.1 and STAYED pending resolution of 27 Motion to Dismiss, Motion for Summary Judgment; responsive briefing to 24 Motion to Certify Class is STAYED pending resolution of defendants' dispositive motions. Signed by Judge Thomas W. Thrash Jr. on 4/30/07. (dr) (Entered: 05/02/2007)
32 APPLICATION for Admission of Arlen S. Benjamin−Gomez Pro Hac Viceby Maria Margarita Morales, Gladis Alicia Espitia, David Robinson, Marie Justeen Mancha, Maria Christina Martinez, Ranulfo Perez.Filing Fee received $150.00, Receipt #564482. (dr) (Entered: 05/09/2007)
33 APPLICATION for Admission of Genesis R.A.C. Fisher Pro Hac Viceby Maria Margarita Morales, Gladis Alicia Espitia, David Robinson, Marie Justeen Mancha, Maria Christina Martinez, Ranulfo Perez.Filing Fee received $150.00, Receipt #564481. (dr) (Entered: 05/09/2007)
34 ORDER granting 33 Application for Admission Pro Hac Vice for Genesis Fisher. Signed by Judge Thomas W. Thrash Jr. on 5/14/07. (dr) (Entered: 05/15/2007)
35 ORDER granting 32 Application for Admission Pro Hac Vice for Arlen Benjamin−Gomez. Signed by Judge Thomas W. Thrash Jr. on 5/14/07. (dr) (Entered: 05/15/2007)
36 MOTION for Clarification re: 31 Order on Motion for Relief, with Brief In Support by Marie Justeen Mancha. (Attachments: # 1 Brief)(Bauer, Mary) (Entered: 05/16/2007)
37 RESPONSE in Opposition re 36 MOTION for Clarification re: 31 Order on Motion for Relief, filed by Gregory L. Wiest. (Cunningham, Jean) (Entered: 05/22/2007)
38 RESPONSE re 36 MOTION for Clarification re: 31 Order on Motion for Relief, filed by Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Michael Chertoff, Julie L. Myers, Marcy Forman, Denneth A. Smith, Gregory L. Wiest, John Mata. (Juncaj, Gjon) (Entered: 05/24/2007)
Submission of 27 MOTION to Dismiss, MOTION for Summary Judgment, submitted to District Judge Thomas W. Thrash. (dr) (Entered: 05/24/2007)
Notification of Docket Correction re Submission to District Judge re 27 Motion to dismiss, Motion for Summary Judgment. Response due 6/14/07. (dr) (Entered: 05/25/2007)
Submission of 36 MOTION for Clarification re: 31 Order, submitted to District Judge Thomas W. Thrash. (dr) (Entered: 06/14/2007)
39 MOTION to Strike 27 MOTION to Dismiss MOTION for Summary Judgment Motion to Strike Affidavit with Brief In Support by Marie Justeen Mancha. (Attachments: # 1 Brief)(Bauer, Mary) (Entered: 06/14/2007)
40 MOTION for Relief Pursuant to Rule 56(f) with Brief In Support by Marie Justeen Mancha. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit)(Bauer, Mary) (Entered: 06/14/2007)
41 RESPONSE re 26 MOTION to Dismiss Counts I and II of Complaint filed by Marie Justeen Mancha. (Bauer, Mary) (Entered: 06/14/2007)
42 AMENDED COMPLAINT against all defendants, filed by Marie Justeen Mancha. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit # 2 Exhibit # 3 Exhibit)(Bauer, Mary) Please visit our website at http://www.gand.uscourts.gov to obtain Pretrial Instructions. (Entered: 06/14/2007)
43 Certificate of Service by Marie Justeen Mancha re 40 MOTION for Relief Pursuant to Rule 56(f) (Bauer, Mary) Modified text (no caption) on 6/15/2007 (dr). (Entered: 06/14/2007)

Case: 1:06-cv-2650 As of: 02/19/2013 10:58 PM EST 15 of 31

06/14/2007 06/14/2007 06/14/2007 06/28/2007 06/28/2007 06/28/2007 06/28/2007 06/29/2007 07/02/2007 08/02/2007
08/02/2007 08/17/2007 08/22/2007 09/04/2007

44 RESPONSE in Opposition re 27 MOTION to Dismiss MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Maria Margarita Morales. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Morales Declaration)(Bauer, Mary) (Entered: 06/14/2007)
45 Response to Statement of Material Facts re 27 MOTION to Dismiss MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Maria Margarita Morales. (Bauer, Mary) (Entered: 06/14/2007)
46 Statement of Material Facts re 27 MOTION to Dismiss MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Maria Margarita Morales. (Bauer, Mary) Modified duplicative wording on 6/15/2007 (dr). (Entered: 06/14/2007)
47 STIPULATION to Withdraw Filings by Maria Margarita Morales, Gladis Alicia Espitia, David Robinson, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Michael Chertoff, Julie L. Myers, Marcy Forman, Denneth A. Smith, Gregory L. Wiest, John P. Torres, John Mata, Marie Justeen Mancha, Maria Christina Martinez, Ranulfo Perez. (Cunningham, Jean) (Entered: 06/28/2007)
48 First MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response to First Amended Complaint with Brief In Support by Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Michael Chertoff, Julie L. Myers, Marcy Forman, Denneth A. Smith, Gregory L. Wiest, John P. Torres, John Mata. (Cunningham, Jean) (Entered: 06/28/2007)
49 NOTICE of Appearance by Glenn S. Greene on behalf of Gregory L. Wiest (Greene, Glenn) (Entered: 06/28/2007)
50 RESPONSE re 48 First MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response to First Amended Complaint filed by Maria Margarita Morales, Gladis Alicia Espitia, David Robinson, Marie Justeen Mancha, Maria Christina Martinez, Ranulfo Perez. (Brownstein, Rhonda) (Entered: 06/28/2007)
51 REPLY to Response to Motion re 48 First MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response to First Amended Complaint filed by Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Michael Chertoff, Julie L. Myers, Marcy Forman, Denneth A. Smith, Gregory L. Wiest, John P. Torres, John Mata. (Cunningham, Jean) (Entered: 06/29/2007)
52 ORDER granting 48 Motion for Extension of Time until 8/2/07 for defendants to file responses to 42 Amended Complaint. Signed by Judge Thomas W. Thrash Jr. on 7/2/07. (dr) (Entered: 07/03/2007)
53 MOTION for Summary Judgment on Count VI of First Amended Complaint with Brief In Support by Gregory L. Wiest. (Attachments: # 1 Brief in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment# 2 Exhibit 1 (Affidavit of Gregory L. Wiest)# 3 Exhibit 2 (Affidavit of Robert Rodriguez)# 4 Statement of Material Facts)(Cunningham, Jean) −−Please refer to http://www.gand.uscourts.gov to obtain the Notice to Respond to Summary Judgment Motion form contained on the Court's website.−− Modified text on 8/3/2007 (dr). (Entered: 08/02/2007)
54 MOTION to Dismiss Counts I and II of First Amended Complaint with Brief In Support by Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Michael Chertoff, Julie L. Myers, Marcy Forman, Denneth A. Smith, Gregory L. Wiest, John P. Torres, John Mata. (Attachments: # 1 Brief Memorandum In Support of Motion to Dismiss)(Juncaj, Gjon) (Entered: 08/02/2007)
55 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time re: 53 MOTION for Summary Judgment, 54 MOTION to Dismiss Counts I and II of First Amended Complaint by Maria Margarita Morales, Gladis Alicia Espitia, David Robinson, Marie Justeen Mancha, Maria Christina Martinez, Ranulfo Perez. (Brownstein, Rhonda) (Entered: 08/17/2007)
56 ORDER granting 55 Motion for Extension of Time. Plaintiffs are giving an additional 14 days to respond to dfts' 53 MOTION for Summary Judgment, 54 MOTION to Dismiss Counts I and II of First Amended Complaint. Signed by Judge Thomas W. Thrash Jr. on 8/22/07. (vs) (Entered: 08/23/2007)
57 RESPONSE in Opposition re 54 MOTION to Dismiss Counts I and II of First Amended Complaint filed by Maria Margarita Morales, Gladis Alicia Espitia,

Case: 1:06-cv-2650 As of: 02/19/2013 10:58 PM EST 16 of 31

09/10/2007 09/10/2007
09/10/2007
09/10/2007 09/10/2007 09/12/2007 09/21/2007
09/25/2007 09/27/2007 10/01/2007
10/02/2007 10/02/2007 10/02/2007 10/02/2007 10/03/2007 10/03/2007
10/03/2007

Marie Justeen Mancha, Maria Christina Martinez, Ranulfo Perez. (Brownstein, Rhonda) (Entered: 09/04/2007)
58 UNOPPOSED MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages with Brief In Support by Maria Margarita Morales. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order proposed order)(Bauer, Mary) Modified text on 9/11/2007 (dr). (Entered: 09/10/2007)
59 MOTION for Relief pursuant to Rule 56(f) with Brief In Support by Maria Margarita Morales. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit Attorney affidavit# 2 Brief Memorandum in Support)(Bauer, Mary) Modified relief/text on 9/11/2007 (dr). (Entered: 09/10/2007)
60 MOTION to Strike portions of Gregory Wiest's and Robert Rodriguez' Affidavits re 53 MOTION for Summary Judgment with Brief In Support by Maria Margarita Morales. (Attachments: # 1)(Bauer, Mary) Modified text on 9/11/2007 (dr). (Entered: 09/10/2007)
61 Response to Statement of Material Facts re 53 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Maria Margarita Morales. (Bauer, Mary) (Entered: 09/10/2007)
62 RESPONSE re 53 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Maria Margarita Morales. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit 1# 2 Statement of Material Facts Statement of Additional Material Facts)(Bauer, Mary) (Entered: 09/10/2007)
63 ORDER granting 58 Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages. Signed by Judge Thomas W. Thrash Jr. on 9/12/07. (dr) (Entered: 09/13/2007)
64 REPLY to Response to Motion re 54 MOTION to Dismiss Counts I and II of First Amended Complaint filed by Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Michael Chertoff, Julie L. Myers, Marcy Forman, Denneth A. Smith, Gregory L. Wiest, John P. Torres, John Mata, John Does 1−30. (Juncaj, Gjon) (Entered: 09/21/2007)
Submission of 54 MOTION to Dismiss Counts I and II of First Amended Complaint, submitted to District Judge Thomas W. Thrash. (dr) (Entered: 09/25/2007)
65 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Responsive Papers with Brief In Support by Gregory L. Wiest. (Cunningham, Jean) (Entered: 09/27/2007)
66 ORDER granting 65 Motion for Extension of Time extension of time through 10/02/07 for defendant to respond re 60 MOTION to Strike portions of affidavits, 53 MOTION for Summary Judgment, 59 MOTION for Relief pursuant to Rule 56(f), 62 Response to Motion. Signed by Judge Thomas W. Thrash Jr. on 10/01/07. (ss) (Entered: 10/01/2007)
67 REPLY BRIEF re 53 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Gregory L. Wiest. (Cunningham, Jean) (Entered: 10/02/2007)
68 Response to Statement of Material Facts re 53 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Gregory L. Wiest. (Cunningham, Jean) (Entered: 10/02/2007)
69 RESPONSE in Opposition re 60 MOTION to Strike portions of affidavits filed by Gregory L. Wiest. (Cunningham, Jean) (Entered: 10/02/2007)
70 RESPONSE in Opposition re 59 MOTION for Relief pursuant to Rule 56(f) filed by Gregory L. Wiest. (Cunningham, Jean) (Entered: 10/02/2007)
71 MOTION for Leave to File Sur−reply with Brief In Support by Maria Margarita Morales. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order)(Bauer, Mary) (Entered: 10/03/2007)
72 DOCUMENT FILED IN ERROR − MOTION to Amend 1 Complaint, with Brief In Support by Marie Justeen Mancha. (Attachments: # 1 Brief Memo in Support of Motion to Amend# 2 Exhibit Proposed Amended Complaint)(Bauer, Mary) Modified on 10/4/2007 (dr). (Entered: 10/03/2007)
73 MOTION for Discovery with Brief In Support by Marie Justeen Mancha. (Attachments: # 1 Brief Memo in Support of Motion for Limited Discovery and Late Service)(Bauer, Mary) (Entered: 10/03/2007)

Case: 1:06-cv-2650 As of: 02/19/2013 10:58 PM EST 17 of 31

10/04/2007 10/04/2007
10/05/2007 10/12/2007 10/16/2007 10/16/2007 10/17/2007
10/17/2007 10/18/2007 10/18/2007 10/22/2007 10/22/2007 10/22/2007 10/22/2007
10/23/2007 10/24/2007 10/25/2007

Notification of Docket Correction re 72 MOTION to Amend 1 Complaint which is FILED IN ERROR with an incorrect PDF attachment. Document will be refiled by attorney. (dr) (Entered: 10/04/2007)
74 MOTION to Amend 42 Amended Complaint with Brief In Support by Maria Margarita Morales, Gladis Alicia Espitia, David Robinson, Marie Justeen Mancha, Maria Christina Martinez, Ranulfo Perez. (Attachments: # 1 Brief in support of motion to amend# 2 Proposed Second Amended Complaint# 3 Exhibit A# 4 Exhibit B# 5 Exhibit C# 6 Exhibit D# 7 Text of Proposed Order)(Brownstein, Rhonda) (Entered: 10/04/2007)
75 ORDER granting 71 Motion for Leave to File Sur−Reply in Opposition; sur−reply brief due 10/12/07. Signed by Judge Thomas W. Thrash Jr. on 10/4/07. (dr) (Entered: 10/05/2007)
76 SUR−REPLY in Opposition to 53 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Maria Margarita Morales. (Bauer, Mary) Modified text on 10/15/2007 (dr). (Entered: 10/12/2007)
77 Notice for Leave of Absence for the following date(s): 12/24/07−1/11/08, 3/7/08−3/17/08, by George Brian Spears. (Spears, George) (Entered: 10/16/2007)
78 REPLY to Response to Motion re 60 MOTION to Strike portions of affidavits filed by Marie Justeen Mancha. (Bauer, Mary) (Entered: 10/16/2007)
79 APPLICATION for Admission of Ramirez, Monica Ann Pro Hac Vice (Application fee $ 150, receipt number 1382119)by Gladis Alicia Espitia. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Order for Admission)(Spears, George) (Entered: 10/17/2007)
80 REPLY to Response to Motion re 59 MOTION for Relief pursuant to Rule 56(f) filed by Marie Justeen Mancha. (Bauer, Mary) (Entered: 10/17/2007)
81 MOTION to Withdraw Mary C. Bauer as Attorneyby Marie Justeen Mancha. (Attachments: # 1Proposed Order)(Bauer, Mary) Modified attachement on 10/19/2007 (dr). (Entered: 10/18/2007)
APPROVAL by Clerks Office re: 79 APPLICATION for Admission of Ramirez, Monica Ann Pro Hac Vice (Application fee $ 150, receipt number 1382119). Attorney Monica Ann Ramirez for Plaintiffs added. (cdg) (Entered: 10/18/2007)
Submission of 53 MOTION for Summary Judgment, 59 MOTION for Relief pursuant to Rule 56(f), 60 MOTION to Strike portions of affidavits, submitted to District Judge Thomas W. Thrash. (dr) (Entered: 10/22/2007)
82 RESPONSE in Opposition re 74 MOTION to Amend 42 Amended Complaint MOTION to Amend 42 Amended Complaint filed by Gregory L. Wiest. (Cunningham, Jean) (Entered: 10/22/2007)
83 RESPONSE re 73 MOTION for Discovery filed by Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Michael Chertoff, Julie L. Myers, Marcy Forman, Denneth A. Smith, Gregory L. Wiest, John P. Torres, John Mata. (Juncaj, Gjon) (Entered: 10/22/2007)
84 RESPONSE re 74 MOTION to Amend 42 Amended Complaint MOTION to Amend 42 Amended Complaint filed by Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Michael Chertoff, Julie L. Myers, Marcy Forman, Denneth A. Smith, Gregory L. Wiest, John P. Torres, John Mata. (Juncaj, Gjon) (Entered: 10/22/2007)
86 ORDER granting 79 Application of Monica A. Ramirez for Admission Pro Hac Vice. Signed by Judge Thomas W. Thrash Jr. on 10/23/07. (vs) (Entered: 10/24/2007)
85 ORDER GRANTING 53 Motion for Summary Judgment on Count VI of Plaintiffs' First Amended Class Action Complaint. Signed by Judge Thomas W. Thrash Jr. on 10/23/2007. (sjk) (Entered: 10/24/2007)
87 ORDER granting 81 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. Attorney Arlen S. Benjamin−Gomez terminated. Signed by Judge Thomas W. Thrash Jr. on 10/24/07. (dr) (Entered: 10/26/2007)

Case: 1:06-cv-2650 As of: 02/19/2013 10:58 PM EST 18 of 31

11/06/2007 11/06/2007
11/06/2007 11/06/2007 11/08/2007 11/08/2007 11/09/2007 11/16/2007
11/19/2007 11/26/2007 11/28/2007 11/30/2007 12/05/2007
12/12/2007 12/14/2007 01/30/2008 02/06/2008 02/07/2008

88 MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages with Brief In Support by Marie Justeen Mancha. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Bauer, Mary) (Entered: 11/06/2007)
89 DOCUMENT FILED IN ERROR − MOTION for Reconsideration re 85 Order on Motion for Summary Judgment with Brief In Support by Marie Justeen Mancha. (Attachments: # 1 Brief)(Bauer, Mary) Modified on 11/7/2007 (dr). (Entered: 11/06/2007)
90 REPLY to Response to Motion re 73 MOTION for Discovery filed by Marie Justeen Mancha. (Bauer, Mary) (Entered: 11/06/2007)
91 MOTION for Reconsideration or 85 Order on Motion for Summary Judgment, or in the alternative, MOTION for Appeal under 1292(b) by Marie Justeen Mancha. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support)(dr) (Entered: 11/07/2007)
92 REPLY BRIEF re 74 MOTION to Amend 42 Amended Complaint MOTION to Amend 42 Amended Complaint Regarding Federal Defendants filed by Marie Justeen Mancha. (Bauer, Mary) (Entered: 11/08/2007)
93 REPLY BRIEF re 74 MOTION to Amend 42 Amended Complaint MOTION to Amend 42 Amended Complaint Regarding Defendant Weist filed by Marie Justeen Mancha. (Bauer, Mary) (Entered: 11/08/2007)
Submission of 73 MOTION for Discovery, 74 MOTION to Amend 42 Amended Complaint, submitted to District Judge Thomas W. Thrash. (dr) (Entered: 11/09/2007)
94 ORDER granting Plaintiff Margarita Morales' Motion to Exceed Page Limits for her Memorandum in Support of 91 MOTION for Reconsideration of 85 Order, MOTION for Appeal under 1292(b) filed by Marie Justeen Mancha Signed by Judge Thomas W. Thrash, Jr on 11/15/07. (dr) (Entered: 11/16/2007)
Clerks Notation re 77 Leave of Absence 12/24/07−1/11/08, 3/7/08−3/17/08, by George Brian Spears. The Court will not require an appearance by Mr. Spears on these dates. (ss) (Entered: 11/19/2007)
95 RESPONSE in Opposition re 91 MOTION for Reconsideration re 85 Order on Motion for Summary JudgmentMOTION for Appeal under 1292(b) filed by Gregory L. Wiest. (Cunningham, Jean) (Entered: 11/26/2007)
Submission of 88 MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages, submitted to District Judge Thomas W. Thrash. (dr) (Entered: 11/28/2007)
96 ORDER granting 88 Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages. Signed by Judge Thomas W. Thrash, Jr on 11/30/07. (dr) (Entered: 12/04/2007)
97 OPINION AND ORDER granting 54 Motion to Dismiss Counts I and II of the Amended Class Action Complaint; the request for declaratory and injunctive relief in Counts I and II are DISMISSED without prejudice. Signed by Judge Thomas W. Thrash, Jr on 12/3/07. (dr) (Entered: 12/05/2007)
98 REPLY BRIEF re 91 MOTION for Reconsideration re 85 Order on Motion for Summary JudgmentMOTION for Appeal under 1292(b) filed by Marie Justeen Mancha. (Bauer, Mary) (Entered: 12/12/2007)
Submission of 91 MOTION for Reconsideration re 85 Order on Motion for Summary Judgment, MOTION for Appeal under 1292(b), submitted to District Judge Thomas W. Thrash. (dr) (Entered: 12/14/2007)
99 MOTION Status Conference with Brief In Support by Marie Justeen Mancha. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit Exhibit B)(Bauer, Mary) (Entered: 01/30/2008)
100 Notice for Leave of Absence for the following date(s): 03/27−08−04/01/08, 5/16/08−5/20/08, by George Brian Spears. (Spears, George) (Entered: 02/06/2008)
Clerks Notation re 100 Leave of Absence 03/27−08−04/01/08, 5/16/08−5/20/08, by George Brian Spears. The Court will not require an appearance by G. Spears on these dates. (ss) (Entered: 02/07/2008)

Case: 1:06-cv-2650 As of: 02/19/2013 10:58 PM EST 19 of 31

02/19/2008 02/22/2008 02/26/2008 03/13/2008 03/27/2008 03/27/2008 03/27/2008 03/27/2008 03/27/2008
03/27/2008 03/27/2008
03/31/2008 03/31/2008
04/08/2008 04/09/2008 04/11/2008
04/11/2008 04/14/2008

101 RESPONSE re 99 MOTION Status Conference filed by Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Michael Chertoff, Julie L. Myers, Marcy Forman, Denneth A. Smith, Gregory L. Wiest, John P. Torres, John Mata. (Juncaj, Gjon) (Entered: 02/19/2008)
102 REPLY to Response to Motion re 99 MOTION Status Conference filed by Marie Justeen Mancha. (Bauer, Mary) (Entered: 02/22/2008)
103 ORDER denying 91 Motion for Reconsideration, denying 91 Motion for Appeal under 1292(b). Signed by Judge Thomas W. Thrash, Jr on 2/25/08. (dr) (Entered: 02/27/2008)
Submission of 99 MOTION Status Conference, submitted to District Judge Thomas W. Thrash. (dr) (Entered: 03/13/2008)
104 ORDER denying as moot 24 Motion to Certify Class. Signed by Judge Thomas W. Thrash, Jr on 3/24/08. (dr) (Entered: 03/28/2008)
105 ORDER denying 36 Motion for Clarification. Signed by Judge Thomas W. Thrash, Jr on 3/24/08. (dr) (Entered: 03/28/2008)
106 ORDER denying as moot 60 Motion to Strike as it relates to Wiest's motion for summary judgment. Signed by Judge Thomas W. Thrash, Jr on 3/24/08. (dr) (Entered: 03/28/2008)
107 ORDER denying 73 Motion for Discovery, granting 99 Motion for Status Conference. Signed by Judge Thomas W. Thrash, Jr on 3/24/08. (dr) (Entered: 03/28/2008)
108 ORDER granting in part and denying in part 74 Motion to Amend Amended Complaint; denied with respect to any effort to reassert claims against Defendant Weist that have been dismissed, and granted with respect to the motion to add the United States and the proposed claims under the Federal Tort Claims Act. Signed by Judge Thomas W. Thrash, Jr on 3/24/08. (dr) (Entered: 03/28/2008)
109 ORDER denying 59 Motion for Relief pursuant to Rule 56(f). Signed by Judge Thomas W. Thrash, Jr on 3/24/08. (dr) (Entered: 03/28/2008)
110 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT against all defendants, filed by Maria Margarita Morales, Gladis Alicia Espitia, David Robinson, Marie Justeen Mancha, Maria Christina Martinez, Ranulfo Perez. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D)(dr) Please visit our website at http://www.gand.uscourts.gov to obtain Pretrial Instructions. (Entered: 03/31/2008)
111 NOTICE of Hearing: Status Conference set for 4/11/2008 09:30 AM before Judge Thomas W. Thrash Jr., in Chambers 2188. (ss) (Entered: 03/31/2008)
Remark re 111 Notice of Hearing. Paper notices have been mailed to M. Deea and P. Hoffman. There will be no further paper mailings from the Court. Counsel should register for electronic notification or make arrangement to receive notices from local counsel. (ss) (Entered: 03/31/2008)
112 NOTICE of Appearance by Alonzo H. Long on behalf of United States of America (Long, Alonzo) (Entered: 04/08/2008)
113 Summons Issued as to United States of America (dr) (Entered: 04/09/2008)
114 Minute Entry for Status Conference held on 4/11/2008 held before Judge Thomas W. Thrash, Jr: Court heard from cnsl on Pltf's requested disc time table and a shortening of the response by dfts to the amdcmplt. This Court will allow disc to begin immediately for 4 months. The Court declined to shorten the resp time by the dfts as to the amdcmplt. Mr. Spears or Ms. Bauer to prepare and present order to Court after review as to form by defense cnsl. (Court Reporter Susan Baker.)(kt) (Entered: 04/11/2008)
115 Summons Issued as to United States of America, U.S. Attorney and U.S. Attorney General (summonses issued 4/9/08 attached) (dr) (Entered: 04/14/2008)
116 PROPOSED ORDER Plaintiffs Motion for Status Conference. (Brownstein, Rhonda) (Entered: 04/14/2008)

Case: 1:06-cv-2650 As of: 02/19/2013 10:58 PM EST 20 of 31

04/16/2008
04/22/2008 04/22/2008 04/22/2008
04/23/2008 04/24/2008 04/28/2008 04/29/2008 04/30/2008 05/02/2008 05/02/2008 05/02/2008 05/02/2008 05/05/2008 05/06/2008 05/08/2008 05/16/2008 05/16/2008
05/20/2008 05/21/2008

117 ORDER that discovery shall begin immediately and shall continue for a period of 4 months; Plaintiff's request to shorten the time period for the USA to respond to the Second Amended Complaint is denied. Signed by Judge Thomas W. Thrash, Jr on 4/16/08. (dr) (Entered: 04/17/2008)
118 Return of Service Executed by Marie Justeen Mancha. United States of America served on 4/18/2008, answer due 6/17/2008. (Bauer, Mary) (Entered: 04/22/2008)
119 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE of discovery requests by Marie Justeen Mancha.(Bauer, Mary) (Entered: 04/22/2008)
120 NOTICE re 117 Order, Accordingly the discovery deadline is 8/18/08, summary judgment motions due 9/8/08 if no summary judgment motions filed, the proposed PTO due 9/18/08, Clerk to submit if parties have not filed a motion for summary judgment or proposed PTO. (ss) (Entered: 04/22/2008)
121 Return of Service Executed by Marie Justeen Mancha. Marie Justeen Mancha served on 4/18/2008, answer due 6/17/2008. (Bauer, Mary) (Entered: 04/23/2008)
122 DEPOSITION of United States of America taken on May 7, 2008 by Marie Justeen Mancha.(Bauer, Mary) (Entered: 04/24/2008)
123 Notice for Leave of Absence for the following date(s): 6/23/08−7/3/08, by George Brian Spears. (Spears, George) (Entered: 04/28/2008)
Clerks Notation re 123 Leave of Absence 6/23/08−7/3/08, by George Brian Spears. The Court will not require an appearance on these dates by G. Spears. (ss) (Entered: 04/29/2008)
124 Notice for Leave of Absence for the following date(s): July 11, 2008 through July 21, 2008, by Alonzo H. Long. (Long, Alonzo) (Entered: 04/30/2008)
125 MOTION for Protective Order and Entry, MOTION to Stay Temporarily of Deposition Noticed Pursuant To Rule 30 (b) (6) with Brief In Support by United States of America. (Long, Alonzo) (Entered: 05/02/2008)
Clerks Notation re 124 Leave of Absence July 11 − 21, 2008, by Alonzo H. Long. The Court will not require an appearance by A. Long on these dates. (ss) (Entered: 05/02/2008)
126 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE of Discovery Materials by Maria Margarita Morales.(Bauer, Mary) (Entered: 05/02/2008)
127 Amended NOTICE to Take Deposition of U.S./ICE filed by Marie Justeen Mancha (Bauer, Mary) (Entered: 05/02/2008)
128 ORDER granting in part and denying in part 125 Motion for Protective Order; denying 125 Motion to Stay. Signed by Judge Thomas W. Thrash, Jr on 5/5/08. (ss) (Entered: 05/05/2008)
129 SECOND AMENDED NOTICE to Take Deposition of United States of America filed by Marie Justeen Mancha (Bauer, Mary) (Entered: 05/06/2008)
130 TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings held on 4/11/08 before Judge Thomas W. Thrash, Jr. Court Reporter: Susan Baker. (dr) (Entered: 05/09/2008)
131 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Notice of serving discovery documents by Marie Justeen Mancha.(Bauer, Mary) (Entered: 05/16/2008)
132 APPLICATION for Admission of Daniel Werner Pro Hac Viceby Maria Margarita Morales, Gladis Alicia Espitia, David Robinson, Marie Justeen Mancha, Maria Christina Martinez, Ranulfo Perez.Filing Fee received $150.00, Receipt #577623. (dr) (Entered: 05/20/2008)
133 NOTICE OF REQUIREMENT TO FILE ELECTRONICALLY pursuant to Standing Order 04−01 as to George Brian Spears re 132 APPLICATION for Admission of Daniel Werner Pro Hac Vice. (dr) (Entered: 05/20/2008)
APPROVAL by Clerks Office re: 132 APPLICATION for Admission of Daniel Werner Pro Hac Vice. Attorney Daniel Werner for Maria Margarita Morales,

Case: 1:06-cv-2650 As of: 02/19/2013 10:58 PM EST 21 of 31

05/23/2008 06/05/2008 06/11/2008 06/11/2008
06/11/2008 06/13/2008 06/13/2008 06/13/2008 06/13/2008 06/13/2008 06/13/2008 06/13/2008 06/13/2008 06/13/2008 06/17/2008 06/18/2008 06/18/2008
06/19/2008
06/19/2008

Gladis Alicia Espitia, David Robinson, Marie Justeen Mancha, Maria Christina Martinez and Ranulfo Perez added. (cdg) (Entered: 05/21/2008)
134 ORDER granting 132 Application for Admission Pro Hac Vice for Daniel Werner. Signed by Judge Thomas W. Thrash, Jr on 5/23/08. (dr) (Entered: 05/23/2008)
135 NOTICE of Change of Address for Monica Ann Ramirez, counsel for Marie Justeen Mancha (Ramirez, Monica) (Entered: 06/05/2008)
136 NOTICE of Appearance by Lynn Dee Thesing on behalf of United States of America (Thesing, Lynn) (Entered: 06/11/2008)
137 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE of Discovery Materials by Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Michael Chertoff, Julie L. Myers, Marcy Forman, Denneth A. Smith, Gregory L. Wiest, John P. Torres, John Mata, United States of America, Robert Rodriguez.(Thesing, Lynn) (Entered: 06/11/2008)
138 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE for Plaintiffs' Fourth Request to Produce by Maria Margarita Morales, Gladis Alicia Espitia, David Robinson, Marie Justeen Mancha, Maria Christina Martinez, Ranulfo Perez.(Ramirez, Monica) (Entered: 06/11/2008)
139 NOTICE to Take Deposition of David Casimiro filed by Marie Justeen Mancha (Bauer, Mary) (Entered: 06/13/2008)
140 NOTICE to Take Deposition of Leo Ford filed by Marie Justeen Mancha (Bauer, Mary) (Entered: 06/13/2008)
141 NOTICE to Take Deposition of Jeremy Blankley filed by Marie Justeen Mancha (Bauer, Mary) (Entered: 06/13/2008)
142 NOTICE to Take Deposition of Barry Sands filed by Marie Justeen Mancha (Bauer, Mary) (Entered: 06/13/2008)
143 NOTICE to Take Deposition of Kenneth Smith filed by Marie Justeen Mancha (Bauer, Mary) (Entered: 06/13/2008)
144 NOTICE to Take Deposition of John Shofi filed by Marie Justeen Mancha (Bauer, Mary) (Entered: 06/13/2008)
145 NOTICE to Take Deposition of Phillip Warfield filed by Marie Justeen Mancha (Bauer, Mary) (Entered: 06/13/2008)
146 NOTICE to Take Deposition of Gary Lang filed by Marie Justeen Mancha (Bauer, Mary) (Entered: 06/13/2008)
147 MOTION to Withdraw Genesis R.A.C. Fisher as Attorneyby Marie Justeen Mancha. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Proprosed Order Granting Motion to Withdraw)(Fisher, Genesis) (Entered: 06/13/2008)
148 MOTION to Dismiss with Brief In Support by United States of America. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit # 1 and # 2, # 2 Exhibit # 3 thru # 5)(Long, Alonzo) (Entered: 06/17/2008)
149 ORDER granting 147 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. Attorney Genesis R.A.C. Fisher terminated. Signed by Judge Thomas W. Thrash, Jr on 6/18/08. (dr) (Entered: 06/18/2008)
150 MOTION for Protective Order (1) Staying Discovery on the FTCA Claims and (2) Staying or Limiting Discovery on the Bivens Claims with Brief In Support by United States of America. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum of Law, # 2 Exhibit A, # 3 Exhibit B, # 4 Exhibit C, # 5 Exhibit D, # 6 Exhibit E, # 7 Exhibit F)(Thesing, Lynn) (Entered: 06/18/2008)
151 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Of Discovery Materials by Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Michael Chertoff, Julie L. Myers, Marcy Forman, Denneth A. Smith, Gregory L. Wiest, John P. Torres, John Mata, United States of America, Robert Rodriguez.(Thesing, Lynn) (Entered: 06/19/2008)
152 MOTION for Leave to File Third Amended Complaint with Brief In Support by Marie Justeen Mancha. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Third Amended Complaint, #

Case: 1:06-cv-2650 As of: 02/19/2013 10:58 PM EST 22 of 31

06/24/2008 06/26/2008 07/01/2008 07/07/2008 07/08/2008 07/08/2008
07/10/2008 07/11/2008 07/11/2008 07/11/2008 07/14/2008 07/15/2008 07/16/2008

2 Brief)(Bauer, Mary) Modified event/text on 6/20/2008 (dr). (Entered: 06/19/2008)
153 MOTION for Extension of Time To Respond To Plaintiffs' Motion To File A Third Amended Complaint by United States of America. (Thesing, Lynn) (Entered: 06/24/2008)
154 Notice for Leave of Absence for the following date(s): July 14−25, 2008, by Lynn Dee Thesing. (Thesing, Lynn) (Entered: 06/26/2008)
Clerks Notation re 154 Leave of Absence July 14−25, 2008, by Lynn Dee Thesing. The Court will not require an appearance by L. Thesing on these dates. (ss) (Entered: 07/01/2008)
155 RESPONSE in Opposition re 148 MOTION to Dismiss filed by Maria Margarita Morales, Gladis Alicia Espitia, David Robinson, Marie Justeen Mancha, Maria Christina Martinez, Ranulfo Perez. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1: FTCA administrative claims, # 2 Exhibit 2: FTCA exhaustion letter)(Werner, Daniel) (Entered: 07/07/2008)
156 MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages with Brief In Support by Maria Margarita Morales, Gladis Alicia Espitia, David Robinson, Marie Justeen Mancha, Maria Christina Martinez, Ranulfo Perez. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Werner, Daniel) (Entered: 07/08/2008)
157 RESPONSE in Opposition re 150 MOTION for Protective Order (1) Staying Discovery on the FTCA Claims and (2) Staying or Limiting Discovery on the Bivens Claims filed by Maria Margarita Morales, Gladis Alicia Espitia, David Robinson, Marie Justeen Mancha, Maria Christina Martinez, Ranulfo Perez. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1: May 16, 2008 EMail − Bauer to Long, # 2 Exhibit 2: May 22, 2007 EMail −− Long to Bauer, # 3 Exhibit 3: May 27, 2008 EMail −− Long to Bauer, # 4 Exhibit 4: May 28, 2008 EMail −− Bauer to Long, # 5 Exhibit 5: May 30, 2008 EMail −− Long to Bauer, # 6 Exhibit 6: June 4, 2008 EMail −− Thesing to Bauer, # 7 Exhibit 7: June 10, 2008 EMail −− Bauer to Thesing, et al., # 8 Exhibit 8: June 11, 2008 EMail −− Bauer to Long, et al., # 9 Exhibit 9: June 13, 2008 letter −− Bauer to Long, # 10 Exhibit 10: June 16, 2008 letter −− Nahmias/Long to Bauer, # 11 Exhibit 11: June 17, 2008 EMail −− Bauer to Long, # 12 Exhibit 12: June 17, 2008 letter −− Bauer to Long/Thesing, # 13 Exhibit 13: June 18, 2008 Bauer to Stokes, et al.)(Werner, Daniel) (Entered: 07/08/2008)
158 ORDER granting 156 Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages. Signed by Judge Thomas W. Thrash, Jr on 7/9/08. (dr) (Entered: 07/10/2008)
159 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Plaintiffs' Fifth Request for Production by Maria Margarita Morales, Gladis Alicia Espitia, David Robinson, Marie Justeen Mancha, Maria Christina Martinez, Ranulfo Perez.(Ramirez, Monica) (Entered: 07/11/2008)
160 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE of Discovery Materials (Response to Plaintiffs' Fourth Request fo Production of Documents) by United States of America.(Thesing, Lynn) (Entered: 07/11/2008)
161 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Plaintiffs Mancha, Martinez, Espitia, Robinson, and Perez' First Set of Interrogatories by Gladis Alicia Espitia, David Robinson, Marie Justeen Mancha, Maria Christina Martinez, Ranulfo Perez.(Ramirez, Monica) (Entered: 07/11/2008)
162 RESPONSE in Opposition re 153 MOTION for Extension of Time To Respond To Plaintiffs' Motion To File A Third Amended Complaint filed by Maria Margarita Morales, Gladis Alicia Espitia, David Robinson, Marie Justeen Mancha, Maria Christina Martinez, Ranulfo Perez. (Werner, Daniel) (Entered: 07/14/2008)
163 PROPOSED CONSENT ORDER Extension of Discovery Period. (Stokes, Sharon) (Entered: 07/15/2008)
164 CONSENT ORDER extending deadlines. Pretrial Order due by 12/18/2008. Discovery ends on 11/18/2008. Summary Judgment Motions due by 12/8/2008. Signed by Judge Thomas W. Thrash, Jr on 7/16/08. (dr) (Entered: 07/17/2008)

Case: 1:06-cv-2650 As of: 02/19/2013 10:58 PM EST 23 of 31

07/24/2008 07/25/2008 08/11/2008
08/11/2008 08/11/2008 08/11/2008 08/13/2008 08/14/2008
08/14/2008 08/14/2008 08/15/2008 08/15/2008 08/21/2008 08/21/2008
08/22/2008 08/24/2008

165 MOTION for Extension of Time to Reply to all Pending Responses filed by Plaintiffs by United States of America. (Long, Alonzo) (Entered: 07/24/2008)
166 ORDER granting 165 Motion for Extension of Time thru 8/11/08 for Defendant to reply or respond to all pending matters filed by Plaintiff. Signed by Judge Thomas W. Thrash, Jr on 7/25/08. (dr) (Entered: 07/28/2008)
167 REPLY BRIEF re 150 MOTION for Protective Order (1) Staying Discovery on the FTCA Claims and (2) Staying or Limiting Discovery on the Bivens Claims MOTION for Protective Order (1) Staying Discovery on the FTCA Claims and (2) Staying or Limiting Discovery on the Bivens Claims filed by United States of America. (Thesing, Lynn) (Entered: 08/11/2008)
168 REPLY to Response to Motion re 148 MOTION to Dismiss filed by United States of America. (Long, Alonzo) (Entered: 08/11/2008)
169 REPLY BRIEF re 153 MOTION for Extension of Time To Respond To Plaintiffs' Motion To File A Third Amended Complaint filed by United States of America. (Thesing, Lynn) (Entered: 08/11/2008)
170 RESPONSE in Opposition re 152 MOTION for Leave to File Third Amended Complaint filed by United States of America. (Thesing, Lynn) (Entered: 08/11/2008)
171 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE of Defendant's Response to Plaintiffs' Fifth Request for Production of Documents by United States of America.(Thesing, Lynn) (Entered: 08/13/2008)
Submission of 150 MOTION for Protective Order (1) Staying Discovery on the FTCA Claims and (2) Staying or Limiting Discovery on the Bivens Claims MOTION for Protective Order (1) Staying Discovery on the FTCA Claims and (2) Staying or Limiting Discovery on the Bivens Claims, 153 MOTION for Extension of Time To Respond To Plaintiffs' Motion To File A Third Amended Complaint, 148 MOTION to Dismiss, submitted to District Judge Thomas W. Thrash. (dr) (Entered: 08/14/2008)
172 MOTION for Leave to File Sur−Reply with Brief In Support by Marie Justeen Mancha. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Bauer, Mary) (Entered: 08/14/2008)
173 RESPONSE in Opposition re 172 MOTION for Leave to File Sur−Reply filed by United States of America. (Long, Alonzo) (Entered: 08/14/2008)
174 REPLY to Response to Motion re 172 MOTION for Leave to File Sur−Reply filed by Marie Justeen Mancha. (Attachments: # 1 Brief)(Bauer, Mary) (Entered: 08/15/2008)
175 MOTION for Leave to File Sur−reply with Brief In Support by Marie Justeen Mancha. (Attachments: # 1 Brief, # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Bauer, Mary) (Entered: 08/15/2008)
176 MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages with Brief In Support by Maria Margarita Morales, Gladis Alicia Espitia, David Robinson, Marie Justeen Mancha, Maria Christina Martinez, Ranulfo Perez. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Ramirez, Monica) (Entered: 08/21/2008)
177 Memorandum In Support 180 Motion to Compel by Maria Margarita Morales, Gladis Alicia Espitia, David Robinson, Marie Justeen Mancha, Maria Christina Martinez, Ranulfo Perez. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A through L, # 2 Exhibits M through O)(Ramirez, Monica) Modified event/text on 8/25/2008 (dr). Modified related doc on 9/4/2008 (dr). (Entered: 08/21/2008)
179 ORDER granting 176 Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages. Signed by Judge Thomas W. Thrash, Jr on 8/22/08. (dr) (Entered: 08/25/2008)
178 REPLY to Response to Motion re 152 MOTION for Leave to File Third Amended Complaint filed by Marie Justeen Mancha. (Bauer, Mary) (Entered: 08/24/2008)

Case: 1:06-cv-2650 As of: 02/19/2013 10:58 PM EST 24 of 31

08/25/2008 09/02/2008 09/03/2008 09/10/2008 09/11/2008 09/11/2008 09/12/2008
09/12/2008 09/12/2008 09/13/2008
09/17/2008 09/19/2008 09/24/2008 09/25/2008
09/26/2008 09/26/2008 09/26/2008

180 MOTION to Compel Requests for Production by Maria Margarita Morales, Gladis Alicia Espitia, David Robinson, Marie Justeen Mancha, Maria Christina Martinez, Ranulfo Perez. (Ramirez, Monica) (Entered: 08/25/2008)
Submission of 152 MOTION for Leave to File Third Amended Complaint, submitted to District Judge Thomas W. Thrash. (dr) (Entered: 09/02/2008)
Submission of 172 MOTION for Leave to File Sur−Reply, submitted to District Judge Thomas W. Thrash. (dr) (Entered: 09/03/2008)
Submission of 175 MOTION for Leave to File Sur−reply, submitted to District Judge Thomas W. Thrash. (dr) (Entered: 09/10/2008)
181 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Defendant's Responses to First Interrogatories of plaintiffs Mancha, Martinez, Perez, Espitia, and Robinson by United States of America.(Long, Alonzo) (Entered: 09/11/2008)
182 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response to 180 First Motion to Compel by United States of America. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Thesing, Lynn) Modified related doc on 9/12/2008 (dr). (Entered: 09/11/2008)
183 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Defendant's First Continuing Interrogatories and Defendant's First Continuing Requests to Produce on plaintiffs Mancha, Martinez, Perez, Espitia, and Morales by United States of America.(Long, Alonzo) (Entered: 09/12/2008)
185 ORDER granting 172 Motion for Leave to File a Sur−Reply in Opposition to Defendant's Reply in Support of Motion to Dismiss on or before 8/19/08. Signed by Judge Thomas W. Thrash, Jr on 9/12/08. (dr) (Entered: 09/15/2008)
186 ORDER granting 175 Motion for Leave to File a Sur−Reply in Opposition to Defendant's Reply in Support of its Motion for Protective Order. Signed by Judge Thomas W. Thrash, Jr on 9/12/08. (dr) (Entered: 09/15/2008)
184 MOTION to Compel Defendants' Appearance at Oral Depositions with Brief In Support by Maria Margarita Morales, Gladis Alicia Espitia, David Robinson, Marie Justeen Mancha, Maria Christina Martinez, Ranulfo Perez. (Attachments: # 1 Brief Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion to Compel Defendants' Appearance at Oral Depositions, # 2 Exhibit Exhibit 1)(Ramirez, Monica) (Entered: 09/13/2008)
187 Notice for Leave of Absence for the following date(s): December 22, 2008 thru January 5, 2009, by Alonzo H. Long. (Long, Alonzo) (Entered: 09/17/2008)
Clerks Notation re 187 Leave of Absence December 22, 2008 thru January 5, 2009, by Alonzo H. Long. The Court will not require an appearance by A. Long on these dates. (ss) (Entered: 09/19/2008)
188 Notice for Leave of Absence for the following date(s): 10/15/08−10/17/08; 10/24/08−10/27/08; 11/3/08−11/4/08; 12/11/08−12/12/08; 12/30/08−1/6/09, by George Brian Spears. (Spears, George) (Entered: 09/24/2008)
189 MOTION for Leave to File Substituted Proposed Third Amended Complaint with Brief In Support by Maria Margarita Morales, Gladis Alicia Espitia, David Robinson, Marie Justeen Mancha, Maria Christina Martinez, Ranulfo Perez. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A: Substituted proposed Third Amended Complaint, # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Werner, Daniel) (Entered: 09/25/2008)
190 RESPONSE in Opposition re 180 MOTION to Compel Requests for Production filed by United States of America. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A−M, # 2 Exhibit N)(Thesing, Lynn) (Entered: 09/26/2008)
191 MOTION for Protective Order s with Brief In Support by United States of America. (Attachments: # 1 Brief, # 2 Exhibit A−M, # 3 Exhibit N)(Thesing, Lynn) (Entered: 09/26/2008)
192 MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages by United States of America. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Thesing, Lynn) (Entered: 09/26/2008)

Case: 1:06-cv-2650 As of: 02/19/2013 10:58 PM EST 25 of 31

10/01/2008 10/02/2008 10/06/2008 10/08/2008 10/14/2008
10/21/2008 10/21/2008
10/22/2008 10/27/2008 10/30/2008 10/30/2008 10/30/2008 10/30/2008
10/30/2008
11/05/2008

193 RESPONSE in Opposition re 184 MOTION to Compel Defendants' Appearance at Oral Depositions filed by United States of America. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A thru J)(Long, Alonzo) (Entered: 10/01/2008)
Submission of 182 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response to Plaintiffs' First Motion to Compel, submitted to District Judge Thomas W. Thrash. (dr) (Entered: 10/02/2008)
Clerks Notation re 188 Leave of Absence 10/15/08−10/17/08; 10/24/08−10/27/08; 11/3/08−11/4/08; 12/11/08−12/12/08; 12/30/08−1/6/09, by George Brian Spears. The Court will not require an appearance by G. B. Spears on these dates. (ss) (Entered: 10/06/2008)
194 ORDER granting 182 Motion for Extension of Time. Defendant is granted an additional ten days to file its brief in response to 180 Motion to Compel, response shall be filed by 9/26/2008. Signed by Judge Thomas W. Thrash, Jr on 10/7/2008. (gar) (Entered: 10/08/2008)
195 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to File Responses with Brief In Support by Maria Margarita Morales, Gladis Alicia Espitia, David Robinson, Marie Justeen Mancha, Maria Christina Martinez, Ranulfo Perez. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order (Stipulated proposed order))(Werner, Daniel) (Entered: 10/14/2008)
196 MOTION for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery by Marie Justeen Mancha. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Bauer, Mary) (Entered: 10/21/2008)
197 STIPULATED ORDER granting 195 Motion for Extension of Time until 10/30/08 for Defendant's Response to 189 MOTION for Leave to File Substituted Proposed Third Amended Complaint, Plaintiffs' Reply to 193 Response in Opposition to Motion, Plaintiffs' Reply to 190 Response in Opposition to Motion, Plaintiffs' Opposition to 191 MOTION for Protective Order. Signed by Judge Thomas W. Thrash, Jr on 10/21/08. (dr) (Entered: 10/22/2008)
198 CONSENT ORDER granting 196 Motion for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery; Discovery ends on 2/18/2009. Signed by Judge Thomas W. Thrash, Jr on 10/22/08. (dr) (Entered: 10/23/2008)
Submission of 192 MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages, submitted to District Judge Thomas W. Thrash. (dr) (Entered: 10/27/2008)
199 REPLY to Response to Motion re 184 MOTION to Compel Defendants' Appearance at Oral Depositions filed by Marie Justeen Mancha. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Bauer, Mary) (Entered: 10/30/2008)
200 RESPONSE in Opposition re 189 MOTION for Leave to File Substituted Proposed Third Amended Complaint filed by United States of America. (Thesing, Lynn) (Entered: 10/30/2008)
201 MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages [Doc. 200] by United States of America. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Thesing, Lynn) (Entered: 10/30/2008)
202 REPLY BRIEF re 180 MOTION to Compel Requests for Production filed by Maria Margarita Morales, Gladis Alicia Espitia, David Robinson, Marie Justeen Mancha, Maria Christina Martinez, Ranulfo Perez. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A: Ramirez Email, # 2 Exhibit B: Plaintiffs' proposed Protective Order, # 3 Exhibit C: Protective Order comparison)(Werner, Daniel) (Entered: 10/30/2008)
203 RESPONSE in Opposition re 191 MOTION for Protective Order s filed by Maria Margarita Morales, Gladis Alicia Espitia, David Robinson, Marie Justeen Mancha, Maria Christina Martinez, Ranulfo Perez. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A: Ramirez email, # 2 Exhibit B: Plaintiffs' proposed Protective Order, # 3 Exhibit C: Protective Order comparison)(Werner, Daniel) (Entered: 10/30/2008)
Submission of 180 MOTION to Compel Requests for Production, 184 MOTION to Compel Defendants' Appearance at Oral Depositions, submitted to District Judge Thomas W. Thrash. (dr) (Entered: 11/05/2008)

Case: 1:06-cv-2650 As of: 02/19/2013 10:58 PM EST 26 of 31

11/12/2008 11/12/2008
11/13/2008 11/13/2008 11/17/2008 11/17/2008 11/19/2008 11/19/2008 11/19/2008 11/20/2008
11/21/2008 12/01/2008 12/12/2008 12/24/2008 12/30/2008
12/31/2008 01/19/2009 01/20/2009

204 MOTION for Protective Order with Brief In Support by Marie Justeen Mancha. (Attachments: # 1 Brief, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit, # 4 Exhibit, # 5 Exhibit, # 6 Exhibit)(Bauer, Mary) (Entered: 11/12/2008)
205 Initial Disclosures by Marie Justeen Mancha. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A− Witness List, # 2 Exhibit C− Document List, # 3 Exhibit 1, # 4 Exhibit 2, # 5 Exhibit 3, # 6 Exhibit 4, # 7 Exhibit 5, # 8 Exhibit 6, # 9 Exhibit 7, # 10 Exhibit 8, # 11 Exhibit 9, # 12 Exhibit 10, # 13 Exhibit 11, # 14 Exhibit 12)(Ramirez, Monica) (Entered: 11/12/2008)
206 Initial Disclosures by United States of America.(Long, Alonzo) (Entered: 11/13/2008)
207 PRELIMINARY REPORT AND DISCOVERY PLAN filed by Marie Justeen Mancha. (Bauer, Mary) (Entered: 11/13/2008)
208 REPLY to Response to Motion re 191 MOTION for Protective Order s filed by United States of America. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit (Declaration of Counsel))(Thesing, Lynn) (Entered: 11/17/2008)
209 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE of Plaintiffs' Responses to Defendant's Continuing Interrogatories and Requests to Produce by Marie Justeen Mancha.(Ramirez, Monica) (Entered: 11/17/2008)
Submission of 201 MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages [Doc. 200], submitted to District Judge Thomas W. Thrash. (dr) (Entered: 11/19/2008)
210 MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages with Brief In Support by Marie Justeen Mancha. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Bauer, Mary) (Entered: 11/19/2008)
211 REPLY to Response to Motion re 189 MOTION for Leave to File Substituted Proposed Third Amended Complaint filed by Marie Justeen Mancha. (Bauer, Mary) (Entered: 11/19/2008)
212 ORDER granting Plaintiff's 210 Motion To Exceed Page Limits ForPlaintiffs' Reply In Support Of Their Motion For Leave To Substitute ProposedThird Amended Complaint. Signed by Judge Thomas W. Thrash, Jr. on 11/20/08. (dfb) (Entered: 11/20/2008)
Submission of 189 MOTION for Leave to File Substituted Proposed Third Amended Complaint, 191 MOTION for Protective Order, submitted to District Judge Thomas W. Thrash. (dr) (Entered: 11/21/2008)
213 RESPONSE in Opposition re 204 MOTION for Protective Order filed by United States of America. (Long, Alonzo) (Entered: 12/01/2008)
214 REPLY BRIEF re 204 MOTION for Protective Order filed by Marie Justeen Mancha. (Bauer, Mary) (Entered: 12/12/2008)
Submission of 204 MOTION for Protective Order, submitted to District Judge Thomas W. Thrash. (dr) (Entered: 12/24/2008)
215 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE re Plaintiffs Supplemental Responses to Defendants First Continuing Request to Produce by Maria Margarita Morales, Gladis Alicia Espitia, David Robinson, Marie Justeen Mancha, Maria Christina Martinez, Ranulfo Perez.(Werner, Daniel) Modified caps on 12/31/2008 (dr). (Entered: 12/30/2008)
216 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Plaintiffs Espitia and Perez' Supplemental Responses to Defendant's First Continuing Interrogatories by Maria Margarita Morales.(Ramirez, Monica) (Entered: 12/31/2008)
217 Notice for Leave of Absence for the following date(s): 3/20−3/21/2009; 3/27−3/28/2009; 4/16−4/19/2009; 5/17−5/20/2009; 7/10−7/13/2009, by George Brian Spears. (Spears, George) (Entered: 01/19/2009)
218 NOTICE Of Filing by United States of America re 213 Response in Opposition to Motion (Long, Alonzo) (Entered: 01/20/2009)

Case: 1:06-cv-2650 As of: 02/19/2013 10:58 PM EST 27 of 31

01/22/2009 01/26/2009 02/03/2009 02/04/2009 02/04/2009 02/05/2009
03/31/2009
03/31/2009 03/31/2009 04/06/2009 04/06/2009 04/10/2009
04/14/2009

Clerks Notation re 217 Leave of Absence 3/20−3/21/2009; 3/27−3/28/2009; 4/16−4/19/2009; 5/17−5/20/2009; 7/10−7/13/2009, by George Brian Spears. The Court will not require an appearance by B. Spears on these dates. (ss) (Entered: 01/22/2009)
219 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Amended Responses to Defendant's First Continuing Interrogatories by Gladis Alicia Espitia.(Ramirez, Monica) (Entered: 01/26/2009)
220 MOTION for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery by Marie Justeen Mancha. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Bauer, Mary) (Entered: 02/03/2009)
221 CONSENT ORDER granting 220 Motion for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery; Discovery ends on 2/18/2009. Signed by Judge Thomas W. Thrash, Jr on 2/4/09. (dr) (Entered: 02/04/2009)
222 MOTION to Correct 220 MOTION for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery by Marie Justeen Mancha. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Bauer, Mary) Modified on 2/5/2009 (dr). (Entered: 02/04/2009)
223 CONSENT ORDER granting 222 Motion to Correct, the discovery period shall be extended for a period of 4 months; additional dealines for the filing of summary judgment and the pretrial order as set for in the Court's 4/22/08 order are similarly extended consistent with the Local Rules. Signed by Judge Thomas W. Thrash, Jr on 2/5/09. (dr) (Entered: 02/05/2009)
224 ORDER granting in part and denying in part 180 Motion to Compel, granting in part and denying in part 191 Motion for Protective Order; the motions are granted as to the blanket protection order contained in Exhibit A to the motion; granting 182 Motion to Compel. Signed by Judge Thomas W. Thrash, Jr on 3/31/09. (dr) (Entered: 03/31/2009)
225 PROTECTIVE ORDER Signed by Judge Thomas W. Thrash, Jr on 3/31/09. (dr) (Entered: 03/31/2009)
226 ORDER denying 148 Motion to Dismiss, denying 150 Motion for Protective Order, granting 152 Motion for Leave to File, granting 153 Motion for Extension of Time. Signed by Judge Thomas W. Thrash, Jr on 3/31/09. (dr) (Entered: 03/31/2009)
227 ORDER denying 184 Motion to Compel, denying 189 Motion for Leave to File, granting 192 Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages, granting 201 Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages. Signed by Judge Thomas W. Thrash, Jr on 4/6/09. (dr) (Entered: 04/07/2009)
228 ORDER granting in part and denying in part 204 Motion for Protective Order; GRANTED to prohibit any discovery into the immigration status of witnesses and DENIED in all other respects. Signed by Judge Thomas W. Thrash, Jr on 4/6/09. (dr) (Entered: 04/07/2009)
ORAL ORDER SETTING DISCOVERY SCHEDULE after ruling on pending motions: Discovery ends on 8/6/2009. Summary Judgment Motions due by 8/26/2009. If no summary judgment motion are filed the Proposed Pretrial Order due by 9/8/2009. by Judge Thomas W. Thrash, Jr on 4/10/09. (ss) (Entered: 04/10/2009)
229 Third AMENDED COMPLAINT against United States of America, Leo Ford, William Ward Hunter, Scott McCormack, Karl Muller, Don Plybon, Gregory Ricks, Hyg Jeong, Jeremy Blankley, Larry Orton, Marc Stressinger, Phillip Scott, Michael Nelson, Evan Katz, Charles Hicks, Barry Sands, Gregory L. Wiest, F/N/U Akers, Joseph Brim, Talbert Crapps, F/N/U Hardin, Richard McManaway, Brian Robinson, Mark Robinson, Howell C. Taylor, III, Thomas West, Robert James, David Casimiro, Robert Rodriguez, Henry Cook, Jeffrey Cooper, Paul Criswell, Daniel Cutts, Craig Hannah, Steve Michaels, Kevin Polk, William Ross, Andrea Roubal, John Vanek, and Johnny Walton, filed by Maria Margarita Morales, David Robinson, Marie Justeen Mancha, Maria Christina Martinez, Ranulfo Perez, Gladis Alicia Espitia.(Werner, Daniel) Please visit our website at http://www.gand.uscourts.gov to obtain Pretrial Instructions. Modified on

Case: 1:06-cv-2650 As of: 02/19/2013 10:58 PM EST 28 of 31

04/23/2009
04/27/2009 04/28/2009 05/04/2009 05/05/2009 05/05/2009
05/05/2009 05/08/2009 05/13/2009 05/13/2009 05/15/2009 05/22/2009 05/22/2009 05/22/2009 05/26/2009

4/15/2009 to add Espitia as co−filer and correct defendants, per pleading (alc). (Entered: 04/14/2009)
230 MOTION for Leave to File Fourth Amended Complaint with Brief In Support by Maria Margarita Morales, Gladis Alicia Espitia, David Robinson, Marie Justeen Mancha, Maria Christina Martinez, Ranulfo Perez. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1: April 9, 2009 Letter −− Werner to Long, # 2 Exhibit 2: Proposed Fourth Amended Complaint, # 3 Exhibit 3: Comparison −− Third Amended Complaint with Proposed Fourth Amended Complaint)(Werner, Daniel) Modified relief on 4/24/2009 (dr). (Entered: 04/23/2009)
231 Notice for Leave of Absence for the following date(s): July 6−10, 2009, by Alonzo H. Long. (Long, Alonzo) (Entered: 04/27/2009)
232 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer re 229 Amended Complaint,,, by United States of America. (Long, Alonzo) (Entered: 04/28/2009)
233 Summons Issued as to Karl Muller, Don Plybon, Craig Hannah. (dr) (Entered: 05/05/2009)
Clerks Notation re 231 Leave of Absence July 6−10, 2009, by Alonzo H. Long. The Court will not require an appearance by A. Long on these dates. (ss) (Entered: 05/05/2009)
234 Summons Issued as to Gregory L. Wiest, Robert Rodriguez, Leo Ford, William Ward Hunter, Scott McCormack, Gregory Ricks, Hyg Jeong, Jeremy Blankley, Larry Orton, Marc Stressinger, Phillip Scott, Michael Nelson, Evan Katz, Charles Hicks, Barry Sands, Joseph Brim, Talbert Crapps, Richard McManaway, Brian Robinson, Mark Robinson, Howell C. Taylor, III, Thomas West, Robert James, David Casimiro, Henry Cook, Jeffrey Cooper, Paul Criswell, Daniel Cutts, Steve Michaels, Kevin Polk, William Ross, Andrea Roubal, John Vanek, Johnny Walton. (dr) (Entered: 05/06/2009)
235 ORDER granting 232 Motion for Extension of Time to Answer 229 Third Amended Complaint; United States of America Answer due 5/12/2009. Signed by Judge Thomas W. Thrash, Jr on 5/5/09. (dr) (Entered: 05/06/2009)
236 RESPONSE in Opposition re 230 MOTION for Leave to File Fourth Amended Complaint filed by United States of America. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(Long, Alonzo) (Entered: 05/08/2009)
237 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer Nunc Pro Tunc by United States of America. (Long, Alonzo) (Entered: 05/13/2009)
238 ANSWER to 229 Amended Complaint by United States of America. Discovery ends on 10/13/2009.(Long, Alonzo) Please visit our website at http://www.gand.uscourts.gov to obtain Pretrial Instructions. (Entered: 05/13/2009)
239 ORDER granting 237 Motion for Extension of Time to Answer Third Amended Complaint nunc pro tunc to 5/12/09. Signed by Judge Thomas W. Thrash, Jr on 5/15/09. (dr) (Entered: 05/18/2009)
240 NOTICE of Appearance by James Melvin Knoepp on behalf of Maria Margarita Morales, Gladis Alicia Espitia, David Robinson, Marie Justeen Mancha, Maria Christina Martinez, Ranulfo Perez (Knoepp, James) (Entered: 05/22/2009)
241 NOTICE of Appearance by Michelle R. Lapointe on behalf of Maria Margarita Morales, Gladis Alicia Espitia, David Robinson, Marie Justeen Mancha, Maria Christina Martinez, Ranulfo Perez (Lapointe, Michelle) (Entered: 05/22/2009)
242 REPLY BRIEF re 230 MOTION for Leave to File Fourth Amended Complaint filed by Maria Margarita Morales, Gladis Alicia Espitia, David Robinson, Marie Justeen Mancha, Maria Christina Martinez, Ranulfo Perez. (Werner, Daniel) (Entered: 05/22/2009)
243 Return of Service Executed by Maria Margarita Morales, Gladis Alicia Espitia, David Robinson, Marie Justeen Mancha, Maria Christina Martinez, Ranulfo Perez. Joseph Brim served on 5/11/2009, answer due 6/1/2009. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Werner, Daniel) (Entered: 05/26/2009)

Case: 1:06-cv-2650 As of: 02/19/2013 10:58 PM EST 29 of 31

05/26/2009 05/26/2009 05/26/2009 05/26/2009 05/26/2009 05/26/2009 05/26/2009 05/26/2009 05/26/2009 05/26/2009 05/26/2009 05/26/2009 05/26/2009 05/26/2009

244 Return of Service Executed by Maria Margarita Morales, Gladis Alicia Espitia, David Robinson, Marie Justeen Mancha, Maria Christina Martinez, Ranulfo Perez. Henry Cook served on 5/11/2009, answer due 6/1/2009. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Werner, Daniel) (Entered: 05/26/2009)
245 Return of Service Executed by Maria Margarita Morales, Gladis Alicia Espitia, David Robinson, Marie Justeen Mancha, Maria Christina Martinez, Ranulfo Perez. Jeffrey Cooper served on 5/11/2009, answer due 6/1/2009. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Werner, Daniel) (Entered: 05/26/2009)
246 Return of Service Executed by Maria Margarita Morales, Gladis Alicia Espitia, David Robinson, Marie Justeen Mancha, Maria Christina Martinez, Ranulfo Perez. Paul Criswell served on 5/11/2009, answer due 6/1/2009. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Werner, Daniel) (Entered: 05/26/2009)
247 Return of Service Executed by Maria Margarita Morales, Gladis Alicia Espitia, David Robinson, Marie Justeen Mancha, Maria Christina Martinez, Ranulfo Perez. Daniel Cutts served on 5/11/2009, answer due 6/1/2009. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Werner, Daniel) (Entered: 05/26/2009)
248 Return of Service Executed by Maria Margarita Morales, Gladis Alicia Espitia, David Robinson, Marie Justeen Mancha, Maria Christina Martinez, Ranulfo Perez. Leo Ford served on 5/7/2009, answer due 5/27/2009. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Werner, Daniel) (Entered: 05/26/2009)
249 Return of Service Executed by Maria Margarita Morales, Gladis Alicia Espitia, David Robinson, Marie Justeen Mancha, Maria Christina Martinez, Ranulfo Perez. Robert James served on 5/11/2009, answer due 6/1/2009. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Werner, Daniel) (Entered: 05/26/2009)
250 Return of Service Executed by Maria Margarita Morales, Gladis Alicia Espitia, David Robinson, Marie Justeen Mancha, Maria Christina Martinez, Ranulfo Perez. Hyg Jeong served on 5/7/2009, answer due 5/27/2009. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Werner, Daniel) (Entered: 05/26/2009)
251 Return of Service Executed by Maria Margarita Morales, Gladis Alicia Espitia, David Robinson, Marie Justeen Mancha, Maria Christina Martinez, Ranulfo Perez. Don Plybon served on 5/11/2009, answer due 6/1/2009. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Werner, Daniel) (Entered: 05/26/2009)
252 Return of Service Executed by Maria Margarita Morales, Gladis Alicia Espitia, David Robinson, Marie Justeen Mancha, Maria Christina Martinez, Ranulfo Perez. Mark Robinson served on 5/11/2009, answer due 6/1/2009. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Werner, Daniel) (Entered: 05/26/2009)
253 Return of Service Executed by Maria Margarita Morales, Gladis Alicia Espitia, David Robinson, Marie Justeen Mancha, Maria Christina Martinez, Ranulfo Perez. Robert Rodriguez served on 5/7/2009, answer due 5/27/2009. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Werner, Daniel) (Entered: 05/26/2009)
254 Return of Service Executed by Maria Margarita Morales, Gladis Alicia Espitia, David Robinson, Marie Justeen Mancha, Maria Christina Martinez, Ranulfo Perez. Johnny Walton served on 5/11/2009, answer due 6/1/2009. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Werner, Daniel) (Entered: 05/26/2009)
255 Return of Service Executed by Maria Margarita Morales, Gladis Alicia Espitia, David Robinson, Marie Justeen Mancha, Maria Christina Martinez, Ranulfo Perez. Jeremy Blankley served on 5/11/2009, answer due 6/1/2009. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Werner, Daniel) (Entered: 05/26/2009)
256 Return of Service Executed by Maria Margarita Morales, Gladis Alicia Espitia, David Robinson, Marie Justeen Mancha, Maria Christina Martinez, Ranulfo Perez. Talbert Crapps served on 5/11/2009, answer due 6/1/2009. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Werner, Daniel) (Entered: 05/26/2009)
257 Return of Service Executed by Maria Margarita Morales, Gladis Alicia Espitia, David Robinson, Marie Justeen Mancha, Maria Christina Martinez, Ranulfo Perez. Kevin Polk served on 5/11/2009, answer due 6/1/2009. (Attachments: # 1

Case: 1:06-cv-2650 As of: 02/19/2013 10:58 PM EST 30 of 31

05/29/2009 05/29/2009 05/29/2009 05/29/2009 05/29/2009 05/29/2009 05/29/2009 05/29/2009 05/29/2009 05/29/2009 05/29/2009 05/29/2009 06/17/2009 06/19/2009

Certificate of Service)(Werner, Daniel) (Entered: 05/26/2009)
Submission of 230 MOTION for Leave to File Fourth Amended Complaint, submitted to District Judge Thomas W. Thrash. (dr) (Entered: 05/29/2009)
258 Return of Service Executed by Maria Margarita Morales, Gladis Alicia Espitia, David Robinson, Marie Justeen Mancha, Maria Christina Martinez, Ranulfo Perez. Scott McCormack served on 5/12/2009, answer due 6/1/2009. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Werner, Daniel) (Entered: 05/29/2009)
259 Return of Service Executed by Maria Margarita Morales, Gladis Alicia Espitia, David Robinson, Marie Justeen Mancha, Maria Christina Martinez, Ranulfo Perez. Richard McManaway served on 5/12/2009, answer due 6/1/2009. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Werner, Daniel) (Entered: 05/29/2009)
260 Return of Service Executed by Maria Margarita Morales, Gladis Alicia Espitia, David Robinson, Marie Justeen Mancha, Maria Christina Martinez, Ranulfo Perez. Steve Michaels served on 5/11/2009, answer due 6/1/2009. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Werner, Daniel) (Entered: 05/29/2009)
261 Return of Service Executed by Maria Margarita Morales, Gladis Alicia Espitia, David Robinson, Marie Justeen Mancha, Maria Christina Martinez, Ranulfo Perez. Karl Muller served on 5/12/2009, answer due 6/1/2009. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Werner, Daniel) (Entered: 05/29/2009)
262 Return of Service Executed by Maria Margarita Morales, Gladis Alicia Espitia, David Robinson, Marie Justeen Mancha, Maria Christina Martinez, Ranulfo Perez. Gregory Ricks served on 5/12/2009, answer due 6/1/2009. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Werner, Daniel) (Entered: 05/29/2009)
263 Return of Service Executed by Maria Margarita Morales, Gladis Alicia Espitia, David Robinson, Marie Justeen Mancha, Maria Christina Martinez, Ranulfo Perez. Barry Sands served on 5/12/2009, answer due 6/1/2009. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Werner, Daniel) (Entered: 05/29/2009)
264 Return of Service Executed by Maria Margarita Morales, Gladis Alicia Espitia, David Robinson, Marie Justeen Mancha, Maria Christina Martinez, Ranulfo Perez. Howell C. Taylor, III served on 5/12/2009, answer due 6/1/2009. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Werner, Daniel) (Entered: 05/29/2009)
265 Return of Service Executed by Maria Margarita Morales, Gladis Alicia Espitia, David Robinson, Marie Justeen Mancha, Maria Christina Martinez, Ranulfo Perez. Thomas West served on 5/12/2009, answer due 6/1/2009. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Werner, Daniel) (Entered: 05/29/2009)
266 Return of Service Executed by Maria Margarita Morales, Gladis Alicia Espitia, David Robinson, Marie Justeen Mancha, Maria Christina Martinez, Ranulfo Perez. Gregory L. Wiest served on 5/12/2009, answer due 6/1/2009. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Werner, Daniel) (Entered: 05/29/2009)
267 Return of Service Executed by Maria Margarita Morales, Gladis Alicia Espitia, David Robinson, Marie Justeen Mancha, Maria Christina Martinez, Ranulfo Perez. William Ward Hunter served on 5/7/2009, answer due 5/27/2009. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Werner, Daniel) (Entered: 05/29/2009)
268 Emergency MOTION for Discovery For Leave to Exceed Ten Depositions with Brief In Support by Maria Margarita Morales, Gladis Alicia Espitia, David Robinson, Marie Justeen Mancha, Maria Christina Martinez, Ranulfo Perez. (Werner, Daniel) (Entered: 05/29/2009)
Submission of 268 Emergency MOTION for Discovery For Leave to Exceed Ten Depositions, submitted to District Judge Thomas W. Thrash. (dr) (Entered: 06/17/2009)
269 Notice for Leave of Absence for the following date(s): 7/31−8/3; 8/6−8/7; 8/28−9/2; 9/18−9/21; 10/2−10/6; 10/1510/20; 10/23; 11/4−11/9; 11/20−11/23, by George Brian Spears. (Spears, George) (Entered: 06/19/2009)

Case: 1:06-cv-2650 As of: 02/19/2013 10:58 PM EST 31 of 31

06/23/2009
07/31/2009 07/31/2009 07/31/2009

Clerks Notation re 269 Leave of Absence 7/31−8/3; 8/6−8/7; 8/28−9/2; 9/18−9/21; 10/2−10/6; 10/1510/20; 10/23; 11/4−11/9; 11/20−11/23, by George Brian Spears. The Court will not require an appearance by B. Spears on these dates. (ss) (Entered: 06/23/2009)
270 Unopposed MOTION to Dismiss by Maria Margarita Morales, Gladis Alicia Espitia, David Robinson, Marie Justeen Mancha, Maria Christina Martinez, Ranulfo Perez. (Knoepp, James) (Entered: 07/31/2009)
Clerk's Entry of Dismissal pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P.41(a)(1)(ii) (dr) (Entered: 08/03/2009)
Civil Case Terminated. (dr) (Entered: 08/03/2009)

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
ATLANTA DIVISION

MARIE JUSTEEN MANCHA, et al., Plaintiffs,
v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al.,
Defendants.

) ) ) )
) Civil Case No. 1:06-cv-2650-
) ) ) ) )

STIPULATION FOR COMPROMISE SETTLEMENT AND RELEASE OF FEDERAL TORT CLAIMS ACT CLAIMS PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 2677

It is hereby stipulated by and :Oetween the undersigned

plaintiffs (meaning any person, other than the defendant, signing

this agreement, whether or not a party to this civil action), and

the United States of America, by and through their respective

attorneys, as follows:

1. The parties do hereby agree to settle and compromise each

and every claim of any kind, whether !mown or unknown, arising

directly or indirectly from the acts or omissions that gave rise to

the above-captioned action under the terms and coDditions set forth

in this Settlement Agreement.

2. The United States of America agrees to pay the sum of

Thirty-Five Thousand Doi

($35,000.00), which sum shall be in

full settlerrent a::-td satisfaction of any and all claims, demands,

rights, aDd causes of actioD whatsoever :<dnd and nature, arisir.g

from, and by reason of any and a~~ known and unknown, foreseen and

unforeseen bodi and persona~ inj

, damage to property and the

conseque:1ces thereof, resu~ting, and to result, from the sub~ect

matter of this settlement, including any claims for wrongful death,

for which plaintiffs or their guardians, heirs, executors,

administrators, or assigns, and each of them, now have or may

fter acquire against the United States of America, its agents,

serva:1ts, and employees.

3. Plaintiffs and their guardians, heirs, executors,

administrators or a

hereby agree to accept the sums set forth

in this Stipulat

for Compromise Settlement in full settlement

and satisfaction of any and all claims, demands, rights, and causes

of action of whatsoever kind and nature, i_ncluding cla~"'llS for

wrongful death,

ing from, and by reason of any and all known

and unknown, fo1::eseen and unforeseen bodily and personal i_n~uries,

damage to property and the consequences thereof which they may have

or hereafter acquire against the United States of America, its

agents, servants and employees on account of the same subject

matter that gave rise to the above-captioned action, including any

future claim or lawsuit of any ki.r~d or type whatsoever, whether

known or unknown, and whether for compensatory or exemplary damages

or any other rel

Plaintiffs

thei"' guardians, heirs,

executors, administrators or assigns further agree to reimburse,

indemnify and hold harmless the United States of America, its

agents, servants, and employees from and against any and all such

causes of action, claims, liens, rights, or subrogated or

Page 2 of 7

contribution interests incident to or resulting from further

litigation or the prosecution of claims by plaintiffs or

r

guardians, ~eirs, executors, administrators or assigns against any

third party or

t the United States, including claims for

wrongful death.

4. It is expressly agreed between Plaintiffs and the United

States that any and 1 discovery obligations of any party to

lawsuit which have not heretofore been satisfied are hereby

extinguished. Pl

iffs and the United States mutually agree to

this provision to

litate settlement and with full knowledge

that material not provided as the result of this provision may

contain information which could possibly be viewed as adverse to

~he party in possession, as it relates to the claims or defenses in

this suit.

5. Plaintif expressly agree that, as a condition of

settlement, all claims in this action brought under any authority

other than the Federal Tort ClaiEJs Act, including specifically

those claims brought under authority of Bi.vens v. Six Unknown

Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971}, are hereby withdrawn, and Plaintiffs

shall iiiLTediately cause their attorneys to exec;Jte and file with

the court such documents as shall be necessary to effectuate the

withdrawal and di ssal, with prejudice, of said claiEJs.

6. Plaintiffs ag:::ee that, within thirty (3 0} days of the

execution of this ag:::eement, they will cause their atto:::neys to

execute and file with the court such documents as shall be

necessary to cause this action to be dismissed with prejudice from

Page 3 of 7

the docket of the court.

7.

s stip~lation for compromise settlement is not, is in

no way intended to be, and should not be construed as, an admission

of liabil y or fault on the part of the United States, its agents,

servants, or employees, and it is specifically denied that they are

liable to

ffs. Th:!_s settlement is entered :'_nto by all

parties for the purpose of compromi

disputed claims under the

Federal Tort Claims l'.ct and avoiding the expenses and risks of

further

ion.

B. It is also agreed, by and among the parties, ~hat

respective parties will each bear

r own costs, fees,

expenses and that any attorney's fees owed by the plaintiffs will

be paid out of the settlement arnount and not in addition thereto.

9. It is also understood !Jy and among the partc.es tha::

attorney's fees for services rendered in connection with this

action

be paid pursuant to

28, United States Code,

Section 2678, and shall not exceed 25 r centum of the amount

the co:rcpro:r,ise settlement.

10. The persons signing this Settlement Agreement warrant and

represent that they possess full authority to bind the persons on

whose behalf they are signing to the terms of the settlement. In

the event any plaintiff is a minor or a legally incompetent adult,

the

must obtair: Court approval of the settlemer:t at

their

Plaintiffs agree to obtain such approval in a

timely manner: time being of the essence. Plaintiffs further agree

that the :Jnited Sta::es may void this entire set~lemen;: a;: s

Page 4 of 7

option in the event

ntiffs fail to obtain such Court approval

or in the event such approval is not obtained in a timely manner.

11. Payment of the settlement amount will be made by

government v1ire trans as per the following instructions:

A. Funds will be sent by wire to:

1. Colunbus Bank and Trust (ABA# 061100606)

B. For the Benefit of:

1. Sterling Bank (ABA/ACCT# 062203997)

4121 Carmichael Rd #100

Montgomery, AL 36106

(334) 244-4437
c. For the further Benefit of:

1. Southern Poverty Law Center, Inc.

400 Washington Ave.

Montgo:rcery, AL 36104

Trust Account (ACCT# 03301133)

It specifically

that within five (5) days of

date

that all required signatures have been affixed to this Settlement

Agreement, counsel for the United States shall cause to be

conpleted and delivered to the Department of the Treasury such

docu:rcents as are necessary to initiate the processes of ef

the above transfer.

agree ~ha~ Five Thousand Dollars

($5,000.00) of the settlement amount shall be paid to

i

counsel for costs expended in the litigation and that Thirty

Thousand Dollars ($30,000.00) shall paid to Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs

counsel agrees c.o distribute the settlerr,ent proceeds arr,ong

Page 5 of 7

and to obtain a dismissal of the above-captioned action

with

, costs, and

expenses.

12. The terms of this Agreement are contractual, not a mere

recital, and shall be binding upon and inure to the bene

of

Plaintiffs

Defendant.

13. The parties agree that this Stipulation for Compromise

Settlement

Release, including all the terms and conditions of

this compromise settlemen~ and any additional agreements relating

thereto,

be made public in ~heir entirety, and the

iffs

expressly consent to sucn release and disclos:.1re pursuant to 5
u.s.c. § 552a (b).

14. If Defendant fails to carry out or rescind any action

specified by the terms of this Agreement for any reason not

attributed to the acts or conduct of Plainti

the exclusive

remedy will be an action in federal court for enforcement this

Agreement.

15. It is contemplated that this Stipulation may be executed

in several counterparts, with a separate signature page for each

party. All such counterparts and signature pages, together, shall

be deemed to be one document.

16. The parties understand that this Agreement contains the

entire

between Plaintiffs and Defendant, that no prOI:tise

or inducement has been made except as set forth herein, and that no

representations, oral or othenlise, between Plaintiffs and

Defendant, or their respective counsel, not included

, shall

Page 6 of 7

be of any force and effect.

Execute~ z_of'-- day of JtvU,~

(~

I

Alonz~H. Long, Assistant U.S. Attorney Counsel for the United States of America, Defendant

Executed this

day of

Marie Justeen Mancha, Plaintiff

Executed this

day of

~aria Christina Martinez, Plaint

Executed this

day of

Ranulfo Perez, Plaintiff

Executed this

day of

Maria Margarita Morales, Plaintiff

Executed this

day of

Gladis Alicia Espitia, Plai~tiff

Executed tl:is

day of

David Robinson, Plaintiff

Executed this

day of

Daniel Werner, Esq. Counsel for Plaintiffs

Page 7 of 7

' 2009.
t 2009. ' 2009. ' 2009. ' 2009. 1 2009. 1 2009. ' 2009.

•

be of any force and effect.

Executed thi.s.

cf

Alonzo H. Long, Assistant U.S. Attorney Counsel for the United States of America, Defendant
Executed this day of

Marie Justeen Mancha, Plaintiff

Executed this

day of

Maria Christina Martinez, Plaintiff

Executed this

day of

Ranulfo Perez, Plaintiff

Executed this

day of

Maria Margarita Morales, Plaintiff

Executed this

day of

Gladis Alicia Espitia, Plaintiff
Executed this 2<J day of j l.lf)e_
LkwJL~
David Robinson, Plaintiff

1 2009. 1 2009. 1 2009. 1 2009. 1 2009. 1 2009. 1 2009.

Page 7 of 7

•

be of any force and effect. Executed this

Alonzo H. Long, Assistant U.S. Attorney Counsel for the United States of America, Defendant
Executed this day of

Marie Justeen Mancha, Plaintiff

Executed this

day of

Maria Christina Martinez, Plaintiff

Executed this

day of

Ranulfo Perez, Plaintiff

Executed this

day of

Maria Margarita Morales, Plaintiff

~ay Executed tl:cis

ofJ·0vJ<-...

' 2009. ' 2009. ' 2009. ' 2009. ' 2009.

Executed this

day of

David Robinson, Plaintiff Executed this day of

Daniel Werner, Esq. Counsel for Plaintiffs

Pe.ge 7 of 7

' 2009. ' 2009.

be of any force and effect. Executed thi.s

Alonzo H. Long, Assistant U.S. Attorney Counsel for the United States of America, Defendant
Executed this day of

' 2009.

Marie Justeen Mancha, Plaintiff

Executed this day of

, 2009.

'-fl\w#""'~~k~ Maria Christina Martinez, Pl~tif.f-~c-~~d"n~

Executed this day of

, 2009.

Ranulfo Perez, Plaintiff Executed this day of

' 2009.

Maria Margarita Morales, Plaintiff Executed this day of

' 2009.

Gladis Alicia Espitia, Plaintiff Executed this day of

' 2009.

David Robinson, Plaintiff Executed this day of

' 2009.

Daniel Werner, Esq. Counsel for Plaintiffs

Page 7 of

be of any force and effect. Executed this

2009.

Alonzo H. Long, Assistant U.S. Attorney Counsel for the United States of America, Defendant

Executed this

day of

---'(Y"I~

~~ .~..bloQ./YJ . Nn ooo hc..-
Matie Justeen Mancha, Plaintiff

Executed this

day of

yl)I\.Q_, d ;;:z.

, 2009.
, 2oo9.

Maria Christina Martinez, Plaintiff

Executed this

day of

' 2009.

Ranulfo Perez, Plaintiff

Executed this

day of

' 2009.

Maria Margarita Morales, Plaintiff

Executed this

day of

' 2009.

Gladis Alicia Espitia, Plaintiff

Executed this

day of

' 2009.

David Robinson, Plaintiff

Executed this

day of

' 2009.

Daniel Werner, Esq. Counsel for Plaintiffs

7 of 7

be of any Executed

and effect. day c:f

Alonzo H. Long, Assistant U.S. Attorney Counsel for the United States of America, Defendant

Executed this

day of

, --'){)()Q ..... ...--
' 2009.

Executed this

day of

, 2009.

Executed this

day of

' 2009.

Executed this

day of

Mtui"' ~fA~k kiamk5
MaJCia ~arita Morales, Plaintiff Executed this r:!JI,;il.day of :rv,:~e.

' 2009. , 2009.

Executed this

day of

, 2009.

Executed this

day of

' 2009.

Page 7 of 7

be of any force and effect.

Alonzo H. Long, Assistant U.S. Attorney Counsel for the United States of America, Defendant

Executed this

day of

Marie Justeen Mancha, Plaintiff

Executed this

day of

Maria Christina Martinez, Plaintiff

Executed this

day of

R~erez, Plaintiff

a;). Executed this

day of

J"W'lC.

Maria Margarita Morales, Plaintiff

Executed this

day of

Gladis Alicia Espitia, Plaintiff

Executed this

day of

2009.
' 2009. ' 2009. ' 2009. ' 2009. ' 2009. ' 2009.

Executed this

day of

Daniel Werner, Esq. Counsel for Plaintiffs

Page 7 of 7

' 2009.