UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION - CINCINNATI, OHIO

ILE
AUG 3 1 zoor

IVAN MUNOZ MARTINEZ (A88 922 314)
-and-
ESMERELDA T. BERMUDEZ (A88 922 404)

CASE NO.:
JUDGE: 1 DLOJl
MAGISTRATE JUDGE: 1. HOGAti

Individually and on behalf of 120 John and Jane Does--whose identities are Itht known at the present time-and who were arrested in Butler County, Ohio on August 28, 2007 and who are currently being detained at various detention centers in Southern District of Ohio,
Petitioners/Plaintiffs,
v.
MR. MICHAEL CHERTOFF U.S. Department of Homeland Security Washington, D.C. 20528
and-
JULIE MEYERS, ASST. SECRETARY U.S. Department of Homeland Security Washington, D.C. 20528
-and-
MR. RICHARD WILKINS District Director (ICE) U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Services 550 Main Street, Room 4-001 Cincinnati, Ohio 45202
-and-

EMERGENCY PETITION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS, WRIT OF MANDAMUS, COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND MOTION FOR A STAY OF REMOVAL

_-_ .......- .. .. - - - - - - -

1
- - - - - - .- -----_ ..-_.

MR. TODD SMITH Immigration and Customs Enforcement 50 W. Broad St. Suite 306 Columbus, Ohio 43215 -andMR. RICHARD K. JONES 705 Hanover Street Hamilton, OH 45011,
Respondents/Defendants.
For their cause of action, Petitioners state as follows: PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
1. This is an action for declaratory and injunctive relief and/or a writ of habeas corpus and/or a writ of mandamus, declaring as illegal and unconstitutional the attempt to summarily remove over one hundred twenty (120) people arrested on or around August 28, 2007 in the Southern District of Ohio, and to obtain review of the Department of Homeland Security's (DHS) release of the Petitioners on bond, and for a stay of removal pending determination of these claims by this honorable Court. Petitioners seek an immediate order preventing DHS from removing those arrested without the ability to consult with counsel. Petitioners also seek an order preventing DHS from removing Petitioners from this area.
2. For some time now, a local Sheriff, acting as the mouth piece of a powerful local politician, has been engaged in a campaign that blames all the problems of the country, including crimes, on what he calls "illegal aliens." As the result of this insidious campaign, his deputies have begun to infringe on the constitutional rights of all who
2

look or sound "foreign." The overt intimidation by the Sheriff and covert pressure by a powerful politician in the area, who is apparently orchestrating all of the Sheriffs actions, finally culminated in the arrest of 160 people in Butler County, in the Southern District of Ohio, by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). 20 of the detainees were turned over to the Sheriff for his efforts, and the rest are being held by the DHS. Since these arrests the Sheriff has given many news conferences taking credit for the events of August 28, 2007 in Butler County. Unless both the Sheriff and DHS are temporarily and permanently enjoined, petitioners will suffer irreparable harm. 3. This action arises under the United States Constitution, the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, as amended (the "Act"), 8 U.S.C. § 1101 et seq., and the Administrative Procedure Act ("APA"), 5 U.S.C. § 701 et seq., the Mandamus Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1361 et seq., the All Writs Act 28 U.S.C. § 1651, et seq., and the Declaratory Judgment Act 28 U.S.C. § 2201, et seq., 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 and 1983. Subject matter jurisdiction is based upon 28 U.S.c. § 1331,28 U.S.C. § 2241 et seq., the APA and 29 U.S.C. § 2241 et seq., the Declaratory Judgment Act 28 U.S.C. § 2201, et seq., and the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651. Portions of this action also arise under Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
VENUE
4. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, venue lies in the Southern District of Ohio because a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to this cause of action occurred here.
3

PARTIES 5. Petitioners, Ivan Munoz Martinez and Esmerelda T. Berumudez, in their individual
capacities and as the representatives of 120 other John & Jane Does were arrested and are being held in various parts of greater Cincinnati. Petitioners have standing to bring this action on their own behalf and on behalf of unnamed Petitioners because their grievances fall within the zone of interests protected or regulated by the statutory provision or constitutional guarantee invoked in this action. Bennett v. Spear, 520 U.S. 154, 163, 117 S.Ct. 1154 (1997). 6. Respondent, Michael Chertoff, is the Secretary of the United States Department of Homeland Security (hereinafter "DHS"). 7. Respondent Chertoff is generally charged with the enforcement of the Immigration and Nationality Act, and is further authorized to delegate such powers and authority to subordinate employees ofDHS. 8. This action is brought against Respondent in his official capacity only. See generally, 8 U.S.C. § 1103 (a). 9. Respondent, Julie Meyers, is the Assistant Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security and is in charge of all of the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement for the Department of Homeland Security ("DHS") in the United States. 10. This action is brought against Respondent in her official capacity only. 11. Respondent, Richard Wilkins, is the District Director of all of the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement for the Department of Homeland Security ("DHS") in Ohio. 12. Respondent Wilkins is generally charged with arrest and enforcement of Immigration and Nationality Act in the Southern District of Ohio.
4

13. This action is brought against the Respondent in his official capacity only. 14. Respondent, Todd Smith, is the Director of Detention and Removal Office located in
Columbus, Ohio. 15. Respondent Smith is generally charged with detaining and removing non-citizens. 16. This action is brought against the Respondent in his official capacity only. 17. Respondent, Richard Jones, is the Sheriff of Butler County, Ohio. He has usurped the
federal immigration law. 18. This action is brought against the Respondent in his official capacity only.
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION FEDERAL REGULATION OF IMMIGRATION
19. The power to regulate immigration is unquestionably an exclusively federal power that derives from the Constitution's grant to the federal government of the power to "establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization," U.S. Const. Art. I, § 8, cL 4., and to "regulate Commerce with Foreign Nations," Id., c1. 3. In addition, the Supreme Court has held that the federal government's power to control immigration is inherent in the nation's sovereignty.
20. Pursuant to its exclusive power over matters of immigration, the federal government has established a comprehensive system of laws, regulations, procedures, and administrative agencies that determine, subject to judicial review, whether and under what conditions a given individual may enter, stay in, and work in the United States.
21. In addition to provisions that directly regulate immigrants' entry and behavior, the federal immigration laws also include provisions directed at other classes of
5

individuals, such as those who employ or assist immigrants. Thus, the comprehensive federal immigration scheme includes sanctions, documentation, and anti-discrimination provisions directly applicable to employers, as well as a criminal and civil scheme applicable to those who assist individuals who are not lawfully in the United States. 22. The federal government has also chosen to allow certain categories of non-citizens and certain individual non-citizens, to remain in the United States, even though such noncitizens may not have valid immigrant (permanent) or non-immigrant (temporary) status and/or may be removable under the federal Immigration and Nationality Act ("INA"), 8 U.S.C. § 1101 et seq. 23. Federal laws and policies aimed at reducing illegal immigration include safe harbor and other provisions regarding the appropriate reach of such laws. For example, employers who have complied in good faith with the employment documentation procedures set forth in the INA have an affirmative defense to liability under the INA's employersanctions scheme. 24. These laws, procedures, and policies created by the federal government regulate immigration and confer rights in a careful balance reflecting the national interest. 25. Article VI, Section 2, ofthe United States Constitution provides:
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every state shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution of Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
26. The Supremacy Clause mandated that federal law preempts any state regulation of any area over which Congress has expressly or impliedly exercised exclusive authority or which is constitutionally reserved to the federal government.
6

27. The power to regulate immigration is exclusively federal power. 28. The conduct of the local Sheriff to regulate immigration in the Southern District of
Ohio is per se unconstitutional and he should be permanently enjoined from harassing and arresting people who look or sound foreign.
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION VIOLATION OF DUE PROCESS, PROCEDURAL DEFECT
29. Petitioners incorporate by reference the allegation in Paragraphs 1-28 as if fully set forth herein.
30. The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees petitioners certain fundamental rights. The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that no state may "deprive any person of life, liberty or property, without due process of law; nor deny any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the law," United States Constitution Amendment XIV § 1. (emphasis added). The United States Supreme Court has consistently interpreted this provision to apply to all people present in the United States, whether they were born here, immigrated here through legal means, or violated federal law to enter the country. See Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. at 210, 102 S.Ct. 2382 (1982 )(holding that "whatever his status under the immigration laws, an alien is surely a 'person' in any ordinary sense of that term. Even aliens, whose presence in this country is unlawful, have long been recognized as 'persons' guaranteed due process of law by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments"). The anonymous PlaintiffslPetitioners are persons entitled to due
7

process under Plyler, and they seek to vindicate rights guaranteed them under the federal constitution. Therefore, they have standing to sue in this court. 31. The conduct of the local Sheriff and ICE has clearly denied the Petitioners the rights guaranteed under the Constitution ofthe United States. 32. Petitions are entitled to preliminary and permanent injunction against the local Sheriff from being harassed and persecuted without due process of law. 33. Petitioners are entitled to a writ of habeas corpus because they are being detained in violation of their rights.
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION VIOLATION OF EQUAL PROTECTION
34. Petitioners incorporate by reference Paragraphs 1 through 33 of this petition as if fully stated herein.
35. The egregious policies of the local politician carried out by the Butler County Sheriff has created a profound sense of fear and foreboding in the Southern District of Ohio where people have even sought refuge in churches.
36. The policy of terror by the local politicians, as carried out by the Butler County Sheriff, has created a linage classification that includes petitioners and numerous other individuals lawfully present in the United States and denies those individuals rights and privileges which it grants to those outside the class.
37. These inhumane and cruel policies are invalid under the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution.
8

- ---------------
38. As the result of the current and threatened violations of their fundamental right to equal protection, petitioners are entitled to declaratory and injunctive relief and to a writ of habeas corpus. FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION VIOLATION OF 18 U.S.C. §§1981 and 1983
39. Petitioners incorporate by reference Paragraphs 1 though 38 of this petition as if fully stated herein.
40. The fundamental right to contract and to full and equal benefit of all laws is codified under 42 U.S.C. § 1981, as amended by Section 101 of the Civil Rights Act of 1991.
41. Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1981, "All persons within the jurisdiction of the United States shall have the same right in every state and territory to make and enforce contracts, sue, be parties, give evidence, and to the full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of persons and property as is enjoyed by white citizens, and shall be subject to like punishment, pains, penalties, taxes, licenses, and exactions of every kind, and to no other."
42. Section 1981 prohibits discrimination under the color of law based on alienage and race.
43. Congress deliberately used "all persons" instead of "citizens" in order to reflect the language of the recently ratified Fourteenth Amendment that extended the guarantee of equal protection under the laws to "any person within the jurisdiction of the United States."
44. Petitioners are entitled to the protections and benefits afforded by Section 1981, including Petitioners categorized as "illegal aliens."
9

45. By creating two classes of citizens in the Southern District of Ohio, Petitioners and those who look and sound foreign are denied rights protected under 42 U.S.C. § 1981.
FIFfH CAUSE OF ACTION EXERCISE OF POLICE POWER
46. Petitioners incorporate by reference Paragraphs 1 though 45 of this petition as if fully stated herein.
47. In the exercise of the police power for the purpose of preserving the public health, safety and morals, a legislative body may limit the enjoyment of personal liberty and property, subj ect to constitutional limitations and judicial review.
48. The Constitution of the United States places well established limitations on the exercise of the police power; namely, it must not be unreasonable, unduly oppressive or patently beyond the necessities of the case, and the means which it employs must have a real and substantial relation to the objects sought to be attained.
49. The exercise of police power, may not exceed constitutional limitations. 50. The Sheriffs deputies in the Southern District of Ohio have abrogated the power of
Congress; they drive around town arresting "foreign" looking and sounding individuals. 51. Respondents' unconstitutional conduct has created such a climate of fear that people have even sought refuge in churches. 52. As the result of Respondents' conduct, Petitioners are entitled to declaratory and injunctive relief.
10

SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION RELIEF UNDER THE MANDAMUS ACT 53. Petitioners incorporate paragraphs I through 52 as if fully set forth herein. 54. Petitioners have a claim for mandamus relief under 28 U.S.C. §1361 which provides the authority to compel the agency to perform a duty owed to them. 55. Respondents have failed to adjudicate Petitioners' applications for bond in accord with the governing statute, regulations, and case law.
SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION VIOLATION OF THE SUSPENSION CLAUSE, THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE:
AND ARTICLE III OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION
56. Petitioners incorporate paragraphs I through 55 as if fully set forth herein. 57. Petitioners are entitled, under the Suspension Clause, the Due Process Clause of the 5th
Amendment, and Separation of Powers principles embodied in Article III to a review of illegal detention in habeas corpus proceedings as a matter of constitutional right, without regard to any statutory authorization. 58. Denial of habeas review of Petitioners' writ constitutes a violation of the Suspension Clause, the Due Process Clause, and Article III of the United States Constitution. 59. If the Petitioners are deported prior to a decision by this Court on this Complaint for declaratory relief and their petition for writ of habeas corpus, this action would become moot because "[d]eparture from the United States of a person who is the subject to deportation proceedings subsequent to the taking of an appeal but prior to a decision therefore shall constitute a withdrawal of the appeal, and initial decision in the case shall be fmal to the same extent as though no appeal had taken." 8 C.F.R.§ 1003.4; the

~~ ~~-~--~--~---~--------

11

Petitioners would be unable to obtain a hearing or adjudication on the merits of their claim. 60. Petitioners are being subjected to an unlawful, arbitrary and unconstitutional restrain of their liberty to travel, work, and reside in the United States; they are being denied due process by the Respondents' refusal of the Defendants to grant them a bond hearing on the merits of their request for relief from deportation. 61. Respondents' actions are unconstitutional because Petitioners who have U.S. citizen family members were denied notice and a hearing to consider the implications of their removal on their U.S. citizen spouses and children.
EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION VIOLATION OF INTERNATIONAL LAW
62. Petitioners' deportation, in light of the extreme hardship and irreparable harm that would result to their family, violates. principles of customary international law. Specifically, Petitioners' deportation would violate fundamental principles of customary international law that affords special protection to the family and prohibits arbitrary expulsion.
63. Many of the Petitioners have lived in the U.S. for many years. They have U.S. citizen children. If they are deported, they would likely be separated from their family forever because they would be ineligible to ever return to the United States.
64. Petitioners' removal constitutes interference with their human rights under international law. "The right to be free from arbitrary interference with family life and from arbitrary expUlsion are human rights that are part of customary international law that
12
_ - - - - - - - ...................•..

must be followed by the U.S." Maria v. McElroy, 68 F.Supp.2d 206, 233 (E.D.N.Y. 1999). 65. The courts have recognized that customary international law, and particularly international human rights law is part of the law of the Unites States. Maria, 68 F.Supp.2d at 33; Mojica v. Reno, 970 F.Supp. 130, 147 (E.D.N.Y. 1997). This principle was articulated by Chief Justice Marshall, who wrote that U.S. courts are "bound by the law of nations, which is part of the law of the land." Nereide, 13 U.S. (9 Cranch) 388, 423(1815). Paquete Habana, 175 U.S. 677, 700 (1900), similarly held that U.S. courts were to apply the law of nations as federal law. More recently, the Supreme Court has directed federal courts to apply international norms as part of federal common law in a series of expropriation cases commencing with Banco Nacionalde Cuba v. Sabbatino, 376 U.S. 398 (1964). 66. As the Second Circuit held in Filartiga, international human rights standard unquestionably form a part of the domestic common law:
The law of nations forms and integral part of the common law, and a review of the history surrounding the adoption of the Constitution demonstrate that it became a part of the common law of the United States upon the adoption ofthe Constitution, 630 F.2d at 886. U.S. courts have consistently held that customary international law prohibitions are justiciable in U.S. courts. See, e.g., Kadic v. Karadzic, 70 F.3d 232 (2d Cir. 1995), cert. den. 116 S.CT. 2524 (1996); Filartiga v. Pena-Irala, 630 F.2d 876 (2d Cir. 1980). See also Restatement (Third) of the Foreign Relations Law of the United States § 703, Reporter's Note 7, citing Rodriguez-Fernandez v. Wilkenson, 505 F. Supp. 787 (D. Kan. 1980), hereinafter "Restatement (Third)."
13

67. The Second Circuit has established the standard for ascertaining customary international law: In Filartiga, the Court held that, "International law may be ascertained by consulting the works of international law scholars, by the general usage and practice of nations, or by judicial decisions recognizing and enforcing that law." 630 F.2d at 880, citing United States v. Smith, 18 U.S. (5 Wheat.) 153, 160-61 (1820). Customary international law is not stagnant: "(C)ourts must interpret international law not as it was in 1789, but as it has evolved and exists among the nations of the world today." Filartiga, 630 F.2d at 881.

REQUEST FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

68. Petitioners incorporate paragraphs 1 through 67 as if fully set forth herein.

69. To obtain preliminary injunctive relief or temporary restraining order, the Petitioners

must demonstrative the following: (1) they will suffer irreparable injury if injunctive

relief is not granted; (2) such harm to the plaintiffs outweighs the harm that a grant of

injunctive relief would inflict on the defendants; (3) they have a likelihood of success

on the merits; and (4) the public interest will not be adversely affected by the granting

of injunctive relief. Here, while the information provided by ICE has been sparse, it is

clear even from what little is known that the four factors uniformly favor Petitioners,

and accordingly, their motion should be granted.

A.

TRANSFER WOULD DEPRIVE PETITIONERS OF THEIR

THEIR RIGHT TO BE REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL

OF THEIR CHOICE

Although the government has wide discretion to transfer immigration detainees, it

cannot transfer detainees in violation of their statutory or constitutional rights. See LaDuke

14

v. Nelson, 762 F.2d 1318, 1325 (9th Cir. 1985), amended by, 796 F.2d 309 (9th Cir. 1986) ("[T]he executive branch has no discretion with which to violate constitutional rights."). As courts have made clear, due process "mandates that [an alien] is entitled to counsel of his own choice at his own expense under the terms of the Immigration and Nationality Act." Rios-Berrios v. INS, 776 F.2d 859, 862 (9th Cir. 1985). Indeed, courts have "consistently emphasized the critical role of counsel in deportation proceedings. l Baires v. INS, 856 F.2d 89, 91 n.2 (9th Cir. 1988); see Rios-Berrios, 776 F.2d at 863 (alien's right to counsel is "fundamental"); cf Lozada v. INS, 857F.2d 10, 13 (1 st Cir. 1988) (recognizing limited due process right to effective assistance of counsel in a deportation proceeding).
Here, the circumstances surrounding the massive raid have severely constrained Petitioners' ability to seek out and retain attorneys of their choice. Moreover, even if access was unlimited, because of the sheer number of Petitioners detained, their need for legal representation cannot be effectively absorbed by the surrounding legal community without sufficient time and a high degree of mobilization and coordination. Transferring such a massive group of individuals to a remove and unfamiliar location that most likely has even less of an ability to accommodate the legal representation needs of such a large group would greatly compound the problem and effectively deprive Petitioners of their right to counsel. See Louis v. Meissner, 530 F. Supp. 924, 926-27 (S.D. Fla. 1981) (transportation from "relatively advantageous location" to obtain legal representation and translators to remove area violated right to counsel); see all Rios-Berrios, 776 F.2d at 863 (finding that transfer was a key factor undermining petitioner's right to counsel).
Under the INA, an individual in a removal proceeding "shall have the privilege ofbeing represented (at no expense to the Government) by such counsel, authorized to practice in such proceedings, as he shall choose." 8 U.S.C. §1362.
15

Additionally, to the extent Petitioners have pre-existing attorney-client relationships with

local attorneys, transfer would obviously interfere with those relationships and deprive

Petitioners of their right to counsel. See Committee of Central American Refugees v. INS, 795 F.2d 1434, 1439 (9th Cir. 1986), amended by 807 F.2d 769 (9th Cir. 1986) ("The key

factor present in each of these cases showing a constitutional deprivation is the existence of

an established, on-going attorney-client relationship.") Louis, 530 F. Supp. At 929 (transfer

of refugees whose attorneys had filed notices of appearance on their behalf "constitutes a

direct and substantial interference with an ongoing attorney-client relationship"), see also

Garcia-Guzman v. Reno, 65 F. Supp. 2d 1077, 1090 (N.D. Cal. 1999).

B.

TRANSFER WOULD DEPRIVE PETITIONERS OF THEIR

RIGHT TO A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT

EVIDENCE ON THEIR OWN BEHALF IN REMOVAL

PROCEEDINGS

Under §240(b)(4) of the INA, Petitioners are guaranteed a reasonable opportunity to

present evidence in their own behalf in removal proceedings. 8 U.S.C. §1229(a). If

Petitioners are transported out of the District for removal proceedings, their right under

§240(b)(4) essentially vanishes. While perhaps in theory a detainee far removed from her

city of residence may be able to gather documents and evidence on her behalf, the practical

reality is that transfer would effectively render §240(b)(4) meaningless to Petitioners.

Without local community ties and the aid of friends and relatives, Petitioners would be

hard-pressed to collect the evidence they would be able to access if they were to remain in

this District. See La Franca v. INS, 413 F.2d 686 698 n.9) ("Ordinarily the better

procedure would be to hold the hearing in the district of the alien's residence or place of

arrest. Obviously it should not be held in a district so far removed from his residence or

place of arrest as to deprive him of a fair hearing."). Moreover, just as with the availability

16

of legal representation, the mass movement of detainees to a different locale would quickly

sap any resources that might be helpful in gathering evidence remotely if only several

individuals were involved. See generally Amanda Masters, Case Note, Is Procedural Due

Process in a Remote Processing Center a Contradiction in Terms -- Gandarillas-Zambrana

v. Board ofImmigration, 57 Ohio St. L.J. 999, 1012 (1996) (citing La Franca and noting

that cases suggest that when detainee is transferred to small, remote town, she is deprived

of"access to counsel, evidence, witnesses, and thus procedural due process.").

C.

TRANSFER WOULD DEPRIVE PETITIONERS OF THEIR

RIGHT TO A BOND HEARING PURSUANT TO 8 C.F.R. §236.1(c)

To the extent Petitioners are entitled to a bond hearing pursuant to §236.1 (c) to

determine eligibility for release on bond, transfer to another jurisdiction would severely

hamper such right. As noted above, transfer of such a large group of detainees to a remote,

unfamiliar jurisdiction to which the detainees have no local ties or community relationships

constrains their ability to obtain adequate representation and effectively navigate through

administrative proceedings. Indeed, with little, if any, access to documents and other

evidence located in or around their place of residence, Petitioners' right to a bond hearing

would be vacuous. Moreover, transfer would in all likelihood create delays in

administratively processing Petitioners and providing them with the requisite bond

hearings. Finally, in the event they are granted release, Petitioners would find themselves

in a remote location from which it would be difficult for them to return. Accordingly,

rather than being transported to an unfamiliar location immediately after being seized at

their workplace, Petitioners should be promptly afforded the bond hearings to which they

are entitled in this District.

17

STAY OF REMOVAL 70. Petitioners incorporate paragraphs 1 through 69 as if fully set forth herein. 71. Petitioners further request that a stay of deportation be granted so that their claim for
relief may be heard on the merits. The Seventh Circuit has required an alien seeking a stay to demonstrate:
(1) a likelihood of success on the merits; (2) that irreparable harm would occur if a stay had not been granted; (3) that the potential harm to the movant outweighs the harm to the opposing party if the stay is not granted; (4) that the granting of the stay would serve the public interest. Sofinet v. INS, 188 F.3d 703, 706 (7th Cir. 1999). In Bejjani v. INS 271 F.3d 670, 687 (6th Cir. 2001), the Court held that a stay of deportation is proper when an alien is likely to prevail on the merits, when the harms caused by the alien's removal would be substantial, although not irreparable, when the harms greatly outweigh any inconvenience to legacy INS, and when the public interest is served by ensuring that the INS complies with the law. Petitioners meet each and every requirement. 72. First, stays of deportation have been granted when an alien has a "better than negligible chance of success on the merits." See, Sofinet, 188 F.3d 703 at 707 (stating that, for the purpose of stays of deportation, the minimum threshold for likelihood of success on the merits is "a low one. "). This issue can not be determined until Counsel has had ample opportunity to meet and ascertain each detainee's case. 73. Second, irreparable harm would certainly occur if a stay is not granted. As noted above, if Petitioners are deported, many will be forced to return to a life without their
18

spouses and children. The "potential harm" to the Petitioners of finding themselves in such dire straits certainly outweighs any potential harm to government caused by a momentary delay in Petitioners' departure while their claim is fairly and fully adjudicated on the merits. 74. Lastly, granting the stay of removal will serve the public interest by ensuring that people in the Petitioners' situations have an opportunity to be heard on the merits of their cases before being deported to another country.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Petitioners respectfully request that this Court: 1. Assume jurisdiction over the matter; 2. Issue a Writ, whether in the nature of Mandamus or otherwise, directing the
Department of Romeland Security to set bond for all detainees; 3. Issue a writ of habeas corpus directing Respondents to show cause why
Petitioners' detention should not be vacated as contrary to law and why they should not be discharged from the restraint of liberty now imposed on them by Defendants; 4. Enjoin Respondent Jones from usurping federal laws for political gain; 5. Enjoin DRS from removing Petitioners from this area; 6. Award reasonable attorneys' fees to the Petitioners; 7. Grant the Petitioner a Stay of Removal; and 8. Grant any and all further relief as this Court deems just and appropriate.
19 ....._._-_...._ . _ - - - - - - -

Dated this 31 st day of August, 2007.
Respectfully submitted,
~ ~ ----------
FIROOZ T. NAMEI (0018615) Attorney for Petitioners McKinney & Namei Co., LPA Ratio et Fides 15 E Eighth St. Cincinnati, Ohio 45202 Phone: (513) 721-0200 Fax: (513) 632-5898 firooz@zoomtown.com
Of Counsel, Mark Nesbit President of Ohio Chapter of American Immigration Lawyer's Association Nesbit Law Firm 447 East Main Street Suite 200 Columbus, Ohio 43215 (614) 586-1310 (614) 586-1313 fax Mark@Nesbitlawfrrm.com
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that a true and accurate copy of the forgoing document was served this 31st day of August, 2007, to the U.S. Attorney by hand delivery and to the following persons via ordinary U.S. Mail, postage prepaid:
MR. MICHAEL CHERTOFF, U.S. Department of Homeland Security Washington, D.C. 20528
- and-
20

MR. TODD SMITH Immigration and Customs Enforcement 50 W. Broad St. Suite 306 Columbus, Ohio 43215
- and-
MR. RICHARD WILKINS, District Director U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Department of Homeland Security 550 Main Street, Room 4-001 Cincinnati, Ohio 45202
-and-
MR. GREGORY C. LOCKHART U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Ohio 221 East Fourth Street Suite 400 Cincinnati, Ohio 45202
- and-
JULIE MEYERS, ASST. SECRETARY U.S. Department of Homeland Security Washington, D.C. 20528
-and-
MR. RICHARD K. JONES 705 Hanover Street Hamilton, OH 45011

~------
Firooz T. Namei (0018615)

21

 
 Case 1:07-cv-00722-SJD-TSH Document 9 Filed 09/10/2007 Page 1 of 6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION AT CINCINNATI

IVAN MUÑOZ MARTINEZ, et al., Petitioners/Plaintiffs,
v. MR. MICHAEL CHERTOFF, et al.,
Respondents/Defendants.

:

Case No. 1:07-cv-722

:

:

Judge: Dlott

:

:

Magistrate Judge: Hogan

:

:

:

:

PLAINTIFF-INTERVENOR’S MOTION FOR A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

Now comes Plaintiff-Intervenor, Koch Foods of Cincinnati, LLC (Koch Foods), by and

through counsel, and respectfully moves this Court for a temporary restraining order and preliminary

injunction preventing the defendants from facilitating the removal or deportation of any of the Koch

Foods Workers who were arrested, until the Plaintiff-Intervenor’s attorneys have had a reasonable

opportunity to interview them to determine if they possess information that is favorable and material

to Koch Foods’ defense in any criminal prosecution that may arise out of the government’s

investigation.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Martin S. Pinales MARTIN S. PINALES (Ohio Bar No. 0024570) CANDACE C. CROUSE (Ohio Bar No. 0072405) Sirkin, Pinales & Schwartz LLP 105 West Fourth Street, Suite 920 Cincinnati, Ohio 45202 Telephone: (513) 721-4876 Telecopier: (513) 721-0876 mpinales@sirkinpinales.com ccrouse@sirkinpinales.com

Attorneys for Plaintiff-Intervenor, Koch Foods

Case 1:07-cv-00722-SJD-TSH Document 9 Filed 09/10/2007 Page 2 of 6
MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT I. BACKGROUND
Koch Foods of Cincinnati, LLC (Koch Foods), is a limited liability company and wholly owned subsidiary of Koch Meat Co., Inc., located in Fairfield, Ohio that specializes in poultry processing. On August 28, 2007, the United States Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) executed a search warrant at the Koch Foods’ facility in Fairfield, Ohio and arrested more than160 workers. ICE has publically stated that all workers who were arrested have been identified as illegal immigrants. While Koch Foods has cooperated with the authorities in this investigation and complied with the laws relating to the hiring of workers, it has been told that criminal charges may nevertheless be filed. The investigation is ongoing.
On August 31, 2007, an Emergency Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, Writ of Mandamus, Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief, and Motion for a Stay of Removal, was filed in the above-captioned case by two of the detained workers and on behalf of the other detained workers. This Court held a hearing on August 31, 2007 and an informal agreement was reached between the parties that no detained workers would be immediately deported or moved to a jail outside of the Greater Cincinnati area.
On September 4, 2007, Koch Foods delivered a letter to AUSA Jeb Terrien, requesting the names and locations of the detained workers so that Koch Foods could interview them in order to determine whether they have information that is material and favorable to Koch Foods in a criminal prosecution.
On September 6, 2007, AUSA Terrien provided counsel with a list of names and locations of the detained workers. (Ex. E to Motion to Intervene, Letter). The list made clear that the
2

Case 1:07-cv-00722-SJD-TSH Document 9 Filed 09/10/2007 Page 3 of 6
government has already violated the informal agreement reached by the parties in this case by moving several detained workers to the Seneca County Jail, more than three hours north of Cincinnati. AUSA Terrien also advised that at least some of the detained workers could be deported by DHS as early as Tuesday, September 11, 2007. II. ARGUMENT
Preliminary injunctive relief is appropriate under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65 where: 1) there is a likelihood of plaintiff’s success on the merits; 2) the plaintiff will suffer irreparable harm without the injunction; 3) issuance of the injunction would not cause substantial harm to others; and 4) the injunction would serve the public interest. See Chabad of S. Ohio & Congregation Lubavitch v. City of Cincinnati, 363 F.3d 427, 432 (6th Cir. 2004). “[T]he four considerations applicable to preliminary injunctions are factors to be balanced and not prerequisites that must be satisfied. These factors simply guide the discretion of the court; they are not meant to be rigid and unbending requirements.” In re Eagle-Pincher Industries, Inc., 963 F.2d 855 (6th Cir. 1992) (citations omitted). Further, no single factors is dispositive of the outcome and a court may view each factor in light of the compelling circumstances of the case. See Frisch’s Restaurant v. Shoney’s Inc., 759 F.2d 1261 (6th Cir. 1985).
Intervenor-Plaintiffs are likely to prevail on the merits because the law is clear that the government must provide potential criminal defendants with the opportunity to interview illegal immigrant witnesses who are facing deportation to determine if they possess information that is favorable and material to the defense. In United States v. Valenzuela-Bernal, the Supreme Court held that “the immigration policy adopted by Congress justifies the prompt deportation of illegalalien witnesses upon the Executive’s good-faith determination that they possess no evidence
3

Case 1:07-cv-00722-SJD-TSH Document 9 Filed 09/10/2007 Page 4 of 6
favorable to the defendant in a criminal prosecution.” 458 U.S. 858, 872 (1982) (Emphasis added). “[P]rompt deportation deprives the defendant of an opportunity to interview the witnesses to determine precisely what favorable evidence they possess.” Id. at 873. Furthermore, facilitation of an illegal alien’s voluntary departure from the United States is equivalent to involuntary deportation. See United States v. McLernon, 746 F.2d 1098, 1121 (6th Cir. 1984). Counsel must be given sufficient opportunity to interview witnesses before the government facilitates their departure from the United States. See id.
It cannot be disputed that in the absence of preliminary injunctive relief, Intervenor-Plaintiffs will suffer irreparable harm. This element weighs heavily in favor of granting the requested relief. Koch Foods has recently learned that in spite of the informal agreement reached between Plaintiffs and Defendants in this case on August 31, 2007, the government is going to begin deporting detained workers as soon as September 11, 2007. While Koch Foods received a list of names and locations of the detained workers on September 9, 2007, it will be impossible for Koch Foods’ attorneys to interview these people before the government facilitates their deportation starting September 11, 2007. Most of the detained workers do not speak fluent English and Koch Foods will have to hire interpreters. Furthermore, many of the detained workers are represented by attorneys or are in the process of retaining attorneys and Koch Foods will have to find out who represents each worker and contact the attorneys before they can even begin interviewing the workers.
In light of the fact that the government is going to begin facilitating the deportation of these workers in a matter of days, Koch Foods certainly does not have a fair opportunity to interview the 160 workers before they are forced to leave the country. Furthermore, Koch Foods can not be certain that when the government interviewed the detained workers, it sought to elicit information that is
4

Case 1:07-cv-00722-SJD-TSH Document 9 Filed 09/10/2007 Page 5 of 6
not only favorable to the prosecution, but also to Koch Foods. If the detained employees are deported to locations beyond the range of compulsory process
without giving Koch Foods the opportunity to determine whether these workers are material and favorable witnesses, Koch Food’s right to a fair trial and right to present evidence in its defense will be violated.
Issuance of the preliminary injunction will not cause substantial harm to others and will serve the public’s interest in preserving a potential criminal defendant’s constitutional rights. III. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Koch Foods respectfully requests that the Court grant the preliminary injunctive relief requested herein.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Martin S. Pinales MARTIN S. PINALES (Ohio Bar No. 0024570) CANDACE C. CROUSE (Ohio Bar No. 0072405) Sirkin, Pinales & Schwartz LLP 105 West Fourth Street, Suite 920 Cincinnati, Ohio 45202 Telephone: (513) 721-4876 Telecopier: (513) 721-0876 mpinales@sirkinpinales.com ccrouse@sirkinpinales.com Attorneys for Plaintiff-Intervenor, Koch Foods
5

Case 1:07-cv-00722-SJD-TSH Document 9 Filed 09/10/2007 Page 6 of 6 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing document has been served upon Jan Holtzman, Esq. and Jeb Terrien, Esq. Assistant United States Attorneys, via fax and personal delivery and Firooz T. Namei, via the Court’s electronic filing system on the 7th day of September, 2007.
/s/ Martin S. Pinales MARTIN S. PINALES (Ohio Bar No. 0024570) CANDACE C. CROUSE (Ohio Bar No. 0072405)
6

 
 Case: 1:07-cv-00722-SJD-TSH Doc #: 23 Filed: 09/21/07 Page: 1 of 2 PAGEID #: 174

UNITED STATE DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION

IVAN MUNOZ MARTINEZ, et al.,

Case No. 1:07CV722

Plaintiffs, v.

Judge Dlott Magistrate Judge Hogan

MICHAEL CHERTOFF, et al.,

NOTICE OF DISMISSAL

Defendants.

Now come plaintiffs Ivan Munoz Martinez and Esmerelda T. Bermudez, by and

through counsel, and dismiss their claims in this action without prejudice

pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41. No answer has been served by any defendant at

this time.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Constance M. Pillich ________________________________ Constance M. Pillich Webb & Pillich LLC 7815 Cooper Road Suite A Cincinnati OH 45242 Tel: (513) 792-9322/Fax: (513) 985-9322 Email: cpillich@webbpillich.com Counsel for Ivan Munoz Martinez and Esmerelda T. Bermudez

Case: 1:07-cv-00722-SJD-TSH Doc #: 23 Filed: 09/21/07 Page: 2 of 2 PAGEID #: 175

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a true and accurate copy of the foregoing document was served upon the below listed attorneys by ordinary US Mail and via the clerk’s electronic case filing this 19 September 2007.

/s/ Constance M. Pillich _________________________________________

Firooz Taghi Namei McKinney & Namei Co LPA - 1 15 East Eighth St. Cincinnati, OH 45202
Attorney for 120 John and Jane Does

Martin Stanley Pinales Sirkin, Pinales & Schwartz - 1 105 West Fourth Street Cincinnati, OH 45202 Attorney for Intervenor Koch Foods

Candace C Crouse Sirkin Pinales & Schwartz 920 Fourth & Race Tower 105 West Fourth Street Cincinnati, OH 45202 Attorney for Intervenor Koch Foods

Dan Lee Ferguson Butler County Prosecuting Attorney - 1 315 High Street 11th Floor Hamilton, OH 45011 Attorney for Sheriff Jones

Jan Martin Holtzman Department of Justice - 1 Atrium II 221 E Fourth Street Suite 400 Cincinnati, OH 45202 Attorney for Secretary, Department of Homeland Security; Assistant Secretary, US Department of Homeland Security; District Director, ICE US Citizenship and Immigration Services; Todd Smith Immigration and Customs Enforcement; and Richard K Jones as Sheriff of Butler County

Gerald Francis Kaminski US Attorney 221 E. Fourth Street Suite 400 Cincinnati, OH 45202 Attorney for Department of Homeland Security Secretary and Undersecretary

 
 Case: 1:07-cv-00722-SJD-TSH Doc #: 24 Filed: 10/19/07 Page: 1 of 2 PAGEID #: 176

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION AT CINCINNATI

IVAN MUÑOZ MARTINEZ, et al.,

:

CASE NO. 1:07-cv-722

Petitioners/Plaintiffs,

:

:

JUDGE DLOTT

v.

:

:

MAGISTRATE JUDGE HOGAN

:

MR. MICHAEL CHERTOFF, et al.,

:

MOTION TO DISMISS

Respondents/Defendants

:

WITHOUT PREJUDICE

______________________________________________________________________________

Now come Plaintiffs, by and through counsel, pursuant to Civ R. 41(a), and respectfully

move this honorable Court to dismiss this action without prejudice. This action may have

become moot by the removal of some of the Plaintiffs from the country and the voluntary

withdrawal of others from this action.

Respectfully Submitted,

/s/ Firooz T. Namei
FIROOZ T. NAMEI (0085754)
Attorney for Petitioners
McKinney & Namei Co., LPA Ratio et Fides 15 East 8th Street
Cincinnati, Ohio 45202
(513) 721-0200
(513) 632-5898 Fax

1

Case: 1:07-cv-00722-SJD-TSH Doc #: 24 Filed: 10/19/07 Page: 2 of 2 PAGEID #: 177
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a true and accurate copy of the foregoing was served via ordinary U.S. Mail, postage pre-paid, upon the Assistant U.S. Attorney, this 19th day of October, 2007.
/s/ Firooz T. Namei FIROOZ T. NAMEI (0085754) Attorney for Petitioners McKinney & Namei Co., LPA Ratio et Fides 15 East 8th Street Cincinnati, Ohio 45202 (513) 721-0200 (513) 632-5898 Fax
2

 
 CasCe:a1se:071:-0c7v--c0v0-702027-2S2J-SDJ-TDS-THSHDoc #D:o2c9umFeilnetd2: 410/29F/i0le7dP1a0g/1e9:/120o0f71 PPAaGgEe I1Do#f:2243

UKITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION AT CINCINNATl

IVAN Ml.TNOZ MARTINEZ, et al., Petitioners/Plaintiffs.
v.

CASE NO. 1:07-cv-722 JUDGEDLOTT MAGISTRATE JUDGE HOGAN

MR. MICHAEL CHERTOFF, et al., Respondents/Defendants

MOTION TO DISMISS WITHOUT PREJUDICE

Now come Plaintiffs, by and through counsel, pursuant to Civ R. 4l(a), and respectfully move this honorable Court to dismiss this action without prejudice. This action may have become moot by the removal of some of the Plaintiffs from the country and the voluntary withdrawal of others from this action.

Respectfully Submitted,

Is! Firooz T. Name!
FIROOZ T. NAME! (0085754) Attorney for Petitioners McKinney & Namei Co., LPA Ratio et /'Ides 15 East gth Street
Cincinnati, Ohio 45202 (513) 721-0200 (513) 632-5898 Fax

1

 
 Case: 1:07-cv-00722-SJD-TSH As of: 07/13/2012 01:23 PM EDT 1 of 5
U.S. District Court Southern District of Ohio (Cincinnati) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:07−cv−00722−SJD−TSH

CLOSED

Martinez et al v. Secretary, Department of Homeland Security et Date Filed: 08/31/2007

al

Date Terminated: 09/27/2007

Assigned to: Chief Judge Susan J. Dlott

Jury Demand: None

Referred to: Magistrate Judge Timothy S Hogan

Nature of Suit: 530 Habeas Corpus

Cause: 8:1105(a) Aliens: Habeas Corpus to Release INS Det (General)

Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Defendant

Plaintiff

Ivan Munoz Martinez Individually and on behalf of 120 John and Jane Does − whose identities are not known at the present time − and who were arrested in Bulter County on 8/28/07 and who are currently being detained at various detention centers in Southern District of Ohio

represented by Constance M Pillich Webb &Pillich LLC 4225 Malsbary Road Suite 206 Cincinnati, OH 45242 513−792−9322 Fax: 513−985−9322 Email: cpillich@webbpillich.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Firooz Taghi Namei McKinney &Namei Co LPA − 1 15 East Eighth St. Cincinnati, OH 45202 513−721−0200 Email: firooz@zoomtown.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Esmerelda T Bermudez Individually and on behalf of 120 John and Jane Does − whose identities are not known at the present time − and who were arrested in Bulter County on 8/28/07 and who are currently being detained at various detention centers in Southern District of Ohio

represented by Constance M Pillich (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Firooz Taghi Namei (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Intervenor Plaintiff Koch Foods of Cincinnati LLC

represented by Martin Stanley Pinales Strauss &Troy The Federal Reserve Building 150 E. Fourth Street Cincinnati, OH 45202 513−621−2120 Fax: 513−241−8259 Email: mspinales@strausstroy.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Candace C Crouse Strauss &Troy The Federal Reserve Building

Case: 1:07-cv-00722-SJD-TSH As of: 07/13/2012 01:23 PM EDT 2 of 5
150 E. Fourth Street Cincinnati, OH 45202 513−621−2120 Fax: 513−241−8259 Email: cccrouse@strausstroy.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Defendant Secretary, Department of Homeland Security
Defendant Assistant Secretary, US Department of Homeland Security
Defendant District Director, ICE US Citizenship and Immigration Services
Defendant Todd Smith Immigration and Customs Enforcement, in his official capacity
Defendant

represented by Jan Martin Holtzman Department of Justice − 1 Atrium II 221 E Fourth Street Suite 400 Cincinnati, OH 45202 513−684−3711 Email: jan.holtzman@usdoj.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gerald Francis Kaminski US Attorney 221 E. Fourth Street Suite 400 Cincinnati, OH 45202 513−684−3711 Email: gerald.kaminski@usdoj.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Jan Martin Holtzman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gerald Francis Kaminski (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Jan Martin Holtzman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gerald Francis Kaminski (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Jan Martin Holtzman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gerald Francis Kaminski (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 1:07-cv-00722-SJD-TSH As of: 07/13/2012 01:23 PM EDT 3 of 5

Richard K Jones in his official capacity

represented by Jan Martin Holtzman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Dan Lee Ferguson Butler County Prosecuting Attorney − 1 315 High Street 11th Floor Hamilton, OH 45011 513−887−3478 Fax: 513−887−3748 Email: fergusondl@butlercountyohio.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 08/31/2007
08/31/2007 08/31/2007
08/31/2007 08/31/2007 08/31/2007
09/07/2007
09/07/2007 09/07/2007 09/10/2007
09/10/2007 09/10/2007

# Docket Text
1 EMERGENCY PETITITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS, WRIT OF MANDAMUS, COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF, AND MOTION FOR A STAY OF REMOVAL filed by Plaintiffs Ivan Munoz Martinez and Esmerelda T Bermudez against Defendants Richard K Jones, Secretary, Department of Homeland Security, Assistant Secretary, US Department of Homeland Security, District Director, ICE, and Todd Smith.(Filing fee $ 350.) (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet) (scot1, ) (Entered: 08/31/2007)
Filing fee: $ 350, receipt number 435434 (scot1, ) (Entered: 08/31/2007)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Susan J. Dlott : Hearing held on 8/31/2007. Parties to prepare a notice and distribute notice to any and all of the INS detainees advising them that there are Cincinnati attorneys who will give them free legal assistance (Court Reporter Julie Wolfer (Official).) (wam, ) (Entered: 08/31/2007)
2 Summons Issued as to Richard K Jones. (scot1, ) Additional attachment(s) added on 8/31/2007 (scot1, ). (Entered: 08/31/2007)
Notice of Correction re 2 Summons Issued: Incorrect PDF originally attached by Clerk. Clerk reattached correct PDF. (scot1, ) (Entered: 08/31/2007)
3 Summons Issued as to Ivan Munoz Martinez, Secretary, Department of Homeland Security, Assistant Secretary, US Department of Homeland Security, District Director, ICE, Todd Smith, U.S. Attorney and U.S. Attorney General (scot1, ) (Entered: 08/31/2007)
4 Emergency MOTION to Intervene by Koch Foods of Cincinnati LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A (Complaint)# 2 Exhibit B (Search Warrant)# 3 Exhibit C (Newspaper Article)# 4 Exhibit D (Letter)# 5 Exhibit D (Letter)) (Crouse, Candace) (Entered: 09/07/2007)
5 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction by Intervenor Plaintiff Koch Foods of Cincinnati LLC. (Crouse, Candace) (Entered: 09/07/2007)
6 NOTICE of Appearance by Martin Stanley Pinales Intervenor Plaintiff Koch Foods of Cincinnati LLC (Pinales, Martin) (Entered: 09/07/2007)
7 MOTION for Hearing by Plaintiffs Ivan Munoz Martinez, Esmerelda T Bermudez. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Ex. 1, Affidavit of Ismael Gonzalez−Ocampo# 2 Exhibit Ex. 2, List of Free Legal Services Providers# 3 Exhibit Ex. 3, ICE Transfer Standards# 4 Exhibit Ex. 4, Notice of Appearance) (Namei, Firooz) (Entered: 09/10/2007)
Notice of Correction re 5 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction: Document is a two part motion that also included a Motion for TRO. Attorney to refile same PDF as a Motion for TRO. (scot1, ) (Entered: 09/10/2007)
8 RESPONSE to Motion re 5 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction Federal Defendants' Memorandum Regarding Standing of Proposed Intervenor to Seek an

Case: 1:07-cv-00722-SJD-TSH As of: 07/13/2012 01:23 PM EDT 4 of 5

09/10/2007 09/10/2007
09/10/2007
09/11/2007 09/11/2007 09/11/2007 09/11/2007 09/13/2007 09/13/2007
09/15/2007 09/15/2007 09/17/2007 09/18/2007 09/19/2007 09/19/2007

Injunction filed by Defendants Secretary, Department of Homeland Security, Assistant Secretary, US Department of Homeland Security, District Director, ICE, Todd Smith. (Kaminski, Gerald) (Entered: 09/10/2007)
9 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order by Intervenor Plaintiff Koch Foods of Cincinnati LLC. (Crouse, Candace) (Entered: 09/10/2007)
10 Supplemental Memorandum Supporting re 5 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction, 4 Emergency MOTION to Intervene by Koch Foods of Cincinnati LLC, 9 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order filed by Intervenor Plaintiff Koch Foods of Cincinnati LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A (Pinales Affidavit# 2 Exhibit B (Reisen Affidavit)) (Crouse, Candace) (Entered: 09/10/2007)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Susan J. Dlott : Motion Hearing held on 9/7/2007 re 5 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction/TRO filed by Koch Foods of Cincinnati LLC. Matter taken under advisement. (Court Reporter Jodie Perkins (Official).) (wam, ) Modified docket text on 9/11/2007 (scot1, ). (Entered: 09/10/2007)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Susan J. Dlott : Motion Hearing held on 9/10/2007 re 7 EMERGENCY MOTION for Evidentiary Hearing. (Court Reporter Julie Wolfer (Official).) (wam, ) Modified docket text on 9/11/2007 (scot1, ). (Entered: 09/11/2007)
11 MOTION to Take Deposition from Ivan Munoz Martinez and Esmerelda T. Bermudez by Defendant Richard K Jones. (Ferguson, Dan) (Entered: 09/11/2007)
12 NOTICE of Appearance by Dan Lee Ferguson Defendant Richard K Jones (Ferguson, Dan) (Entered: 09/11/2007)
13 NOTICE by Defendant Richard K Jones re 11 MOTION to Take Deposition from Ivan Munoz Martinez and Esmerelda T. Bermudez 9/21/2007 at 10:00p.m. (Ferguson, Dan) (Entered: 09/11/2007)
14 NOTICE of Hearing on Motion 11 MOTION to Take Deposition from Ivan Munoz Martinez and Esmerelda T. Bermudez : Motion Hearing set for 9/17/2007 at 2:00 PM in chambers before Judge Susan J. Dlott. (wam, ) (Entered: 09/13/2007)
15 RESPONSE to Motion re 7 MOTION for Hearing MEMORANDUM OF LAW REGARDING THE APPLICATION OF THE REAL ID ACT OF 2005 TO PLAINTIFF GONZALEZ−OCAMPOS CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGE TO HIS STIPULATED ORDER OF REMOVAL filed by Defendants Secretary, Department of Homeland Security, Assistant Secretary, US Department of Homeland Security, District Director, ICE, Todd Smith. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit In Removal Proceedings# 2 Exhibit Stipulated Request for Removal Order) (Kaminski, Gerald) (Entered: 09/13/2007)
16 PRETRIAL MEMORANDUM by Plaintiffs Ivan Munoz Martinez, Esmerelda T Bermudez. (Namei, Firooz) (Entered: 09/15/2007)
17 MOTION to Amend/Correct 16 Pretrial Memorandum by Plaintiffs Ivan Munoz Martinez, Esmerelda T Bermudez. (Namei, Firooz) (Entered: 09/15/2007)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Susan J. Dlott : Motion Hearing held on 9/17/2007 re 11 MOTION to Take Deposition from Ivan Munoz Martinez and Esmerelda T. Bermudez filed by Richard K Jones. (Court Reporter Jodie Perkins (Official).) (wam, ) (Entered: 09/17/2007)
18 ORDER granting 17 Motion to supplement memorandum with Sixth Circuit decision. Signed by Judge Susan J. Dlott on 9/18/07. (wam, ) (Entered: 09/18/2007)
19 [FORMER DOC. 19] NOTICE of Appearance by Constance M Pillich Plaintiffs Ivan Munoz Martinez, Esmerelda T Bermudez (Pillich, Constance) Modified on 9/20/2007 to remove PDF (mg1, ). (Entered: 09/19/2007)
20 [FORMER DOC. 20] NOTICE of Voluntary Dismissal by Plaintiffs Ivan Munoz Martinez, Esmerelda T Bermudez (Pillich, Constance) Modified on 9/20/2007 to remove PDF (mg1, ). (Entered: 09/19/2007)

Case: 1:07-cv-00722-SJD-TSH As of: 07/13/2012 01:23 PM EDT 5 of 5

09/20/2007 09/20/2007 09/20/2007 09/21/2007 09/21/2007 10/19/2007 10/22/2007
10/26/2007 10/29/2007

Notice of Correction re [FORMER DOC. 19] Notice of Appearance and [FORMER DOC. 20] Notice of Voluntary Dismissal: Documents were unsigned. Attorney to refile with signed PDFs. (mg1, ) (Entered: 09/20/2007)
21 NOTICE of Appearance by Constance M Pillich Plaintiffs Ivan Munoz Martinez, Esmerelda T Bermudez (Pillich, Constance) (Entered: 09/20/2007)
22 [FORMER DOC. 22] NOTICE of Voluntary Dismissal by Plaintiffs Ivan Munoz Martinez, Esmerelda T Bermudez (Pillich, Constance) Modified to remove PDF on 9/21/2007 (scot1, ). (Entered: 09/20/2007)
Notice of Correction re [FORMER DOC. 22] Notice of Voluntary Dismissal: PDF was unsigned. Attorney to refile. (scot1, ) (Entered: 09/21/2007)
23 NOTICE of Voluntary Dismissal by Plaintiffs Ivan Munoz Martinez, Esmerelda T Bermudez (Pillich, Constance) (Entered: 09/21/2007)
24 MOTION to Dismiss by Plaintiffs Ivan Munoz Martinez, Esmerelda T Bermudez.Responses due by 10/19/2007 (Namei, Firooz) (Entered: 10/19/2007)
25 RESPONSE to Motion re 24 MOTION to Dismiss Federal Defendants' Notice of Non−Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion to Dismiss this Lawsuit Without Prejudice filed by Defendants Secretary, Department of Homeland Security, Assistant Secretary, US Department of Homeland Security, District Director, ICE, Todd Smith. (Kaminski, Gerald) (Entered: 10/22/2007)
26 NOTICE by Defendant Richard K Jones of Non−Opposition of Motion to Dismiss (Ferguson, Dan) (Entered: 10/26/2007)
27 TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings (Hearing) held on August 31, 2007 before Judge Susan J. Dlott. Court Reporter: Julie Wolfer (Official).

NOTICE RE: REDACTION OF TRANSCRIPTS: Within 5 business days of this filing, each party shall inform the Court, by filing a Notice of Redaction, of the party's intent to redact personal data identifiers from the electronic transcript of the court proceeding. The policy is located on our website at www.ohsd.uscourts.gov (Forms − Electronic Availability of Transcripts). Please read this policy carefully.

10/29/2007

For a complete copy of a transcript, please contact the Court Reporter or the Clerk's Office. (scot1, ) (Entered: 10/29/2007)
28 TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings (Motions Hearing) held on September 10, 2007 before Judge Susan J. Dlott. Court Reporter: Julie Wolfer (Official).

NOTICE RE: REDACTION OF TRANSCRIPTS: Within 5 business days of this filing, each party shall inform the Court, by filing a Notice of Redaction, of the party's intent to redact personal data identifiers from the electronic transcript of the court proceeding. The policy is located on our website at www.ohsd.uscourts.gov (Forms − Electronic Availability of Transcripts). Please read this policy carefully.

10/29/2007

For a complete copy of a transcript, please contact the Court Reporter or the Clerk's Office. (scot1, ) (Entered: 10/29/2007)
29 ORDER granting 24 Motion to Dismiss without prejudice. Signed by Judge Susan J. Dlott on 10/26/07. (wam1, ) (Entered: 10/29/2007)