UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS 

EASTERN DIVISION 

JAMES AZIZ MAKOWSKI, 

 Plaintiff, 

v. 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; AND 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

(DHS), 

 Defendants. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

CASE NO: 12-CV-5265 

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT 

STATEMENT OF THE CASE 

1. This complaint arises from unlawful actions taken by the Department of 

Homeland Security (“DHS” or “the Department”) that caused James Aziz Makowski 

(“Plaintiff”) to be wrongfully detained in a maximum (then medium) security prison facility for 

approximately 70 days, often being locked in a cell for 19 hours a day and repeatedly subjected 

to strip searches. 

2. In particular, under the Privacy Act, DHS is required to maintain its records as to 

Plaintiff’s immigration and citizenship status with “such accuracy, relevance, timeliness, and 

completeness” so as to “assure fairness in any determination” the Department makes in 

exercising its immigration enforcement authority in reliance on those records. See 5 U.S.C. §§ 

552a(g)(1)(C) & (D), (e)(5). DHS’s failure to maintain its records in accordance with its legal 

obligations under the Privacy Act resulted in Immigration and Custom Enforcement (“ICE”) 

agents issuing an immigration detainer against Plaintiff on July 8, 2010, which resulted in his 

Case: 1:12-cv-05265 Document #: 74 Filed: 05/02/14 Page 1 of 16 PageID #:755
2

unlawful detention for 70 days. Plaintiff seeks to hold DHS liable for the actual damages he has 

suffered due to the Department’s violation of his rights under the Privacy Act, including lost 

wages and other pecuniary and economic harm. Plaintiff also seeks reasonable attorneys’ fees 

and litigation costs for having to bring this action. 5 U.S.C. §§ 552a(g)(4)(A) & (B). 

3. Pursuant to the Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”), 28 U.S.C. §§ 2671, et seq., 

Plaintiff further seeks to hold the United States liable for the damages he suffered because of the 

erroneous immigration detainer, which resulted in Plaintiff’s false imprisonment in a prison 

facility for approximately 70 days. Due to DHS’s and ICE’s tortious conduct, Plaintiff suffered 

damages including loss of liberty, emotional pain and suffering, lost wages, and attorneys’ fees 

and costs. 

4. Finally, Plaintiff seeks to amend records in the custody or control of DHS that 

pertain to him in order to accurately and consistently reflect his U.S. citizenship. 5 U.S.C. §§ 

552a(d)(3), (g)(1)(A). Plaintiff seeks reasonably attorney fees and other litigation costs for 

having to bring this claim, as permitted by statute. 5 U.S.C. § 552a(g)(2)(B). 

JURISDICTION AND VENUE 

5. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction of this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 

1331 because it arises under the laws of the United States. 

6. This Court has jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s Privacy Act claims pursuant to 5 

U.S.C. §§ 552a(g)(1), (g)(5). 

7. This Court has jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s FTCA claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 

1346(b). 

8. Venue is proper in this judicial district pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 552a(g)(5) because 

Plaintiff resides in the district. 

Case: 1:12-cv-05265 Document #: 74 Filed: 05/02/14 Page 2 of 16 PageID #:756
3

9. Venue is also proper in this judicial district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b)(2) 

and 1391(e)(1)(B) because a substantial part of the events and omissions giving rise to Plaintiff’s 

claims occurred in this district. 

10. Finally, venue is proper in this judicial district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 

1391(e)(1)(C) because Plaintiff resides in the district and the defendants are the United States 

and agencies of the United States. 

PARTIES 

11. Plaintiff, James Aziz Makowski, acquired U.S. citizenship at the age of one 

through his adoptive U.S. parents. Plaintiff entered the United States on an IR4 visa, which 

reflected that he was an orphan adopted by a U.S. citizen. The former Immigration and 

Naturalization Service (“INS”), now DHS, issued Plaintiff a certificate of his U.S. citizenship on 

March 6, 1989. 

12. Defendant DHS is obligated to maintain its records with the requisite accuracy, 

relevance, timeliness, and completeness, particularly because over 44 percent of the foreign-born 

population in the United States are U.S. citizens and the Department’s enforcement through 

immigration detainers has reached unprecedented heights with over 250,000 detainers issued 

each year. 

13. Defendant the United States of America is responsible for harm caused by 

investigative or law enforcement officers resulting from false imprisonment by DHS and ICE 

agents acting within the scope of their employment, in accordance with the law of the state 

where the act or omission occurred. In this case, DHS and ICE acted tortiously when they 

caused Plaintiff to be wrongfully detained in a prison facility for approximately 70 days. 

Case: 1:12-cv-05265 Document #: 74 Filed: 05/02/14 Page 3 of 16 PageID #:757
4

14. DHS and ICE employ investigative or law enforcement officers as defined by 28 

U.S.C. §§ 2680(h). 

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS 

A. Plaintiff’s U.S. Citizenship and Government Records 

15. Plaintiff was born on July 8, 1987 in Calcutta, India. Plaintiff’s U.S. citizen 

parents adopted him when he was one year old. Plaintiff entered the U.S. on an IR4 visa, which 

reflected that he was an orphan adopted by a U.S. citizen. See Ex. A. Soon after arrival, 

Plaintiff acquired U.S. citizenship through his parents. On March 6, 1989, the former INS, now 

DHS, issued Plaintiff a certificate of citizenship, which included his alien registration number. 

See Ex. B. Later that same year, Plaintiff’s parents sought and obtained written verification from 

INS that Plaintiff was a U.S. citizen. See Ex. C. DHS had an obligation to maintain records 

showing that Plaintiff is a U.S. citizen. 

16. Plaintiff has continuously lived in the United States since arriving as an infant. 

Plaintiff has had a U.S. passport since an early age and at all times relevant to this complaint had 

a current passport. See Ex. D. DHS has access to State Department records regarding issuance 

of U.S. passports. 

17. While in high school, Plaintiff decided to join the U.S. Marines. As part of the 

Marine’s application process, Plaintiff had to undergo an FBI background check. Based on 

information and belief, the FBI had record that Plaintiff was a U.S. citizen and continued to have 

record of his citizenship during all events relevant to this complaint. Plaintiff was accepted into 

the Marines in 2004, entered active duty on July 18, 2005, and was discharged in October 2006. 

DHS has access to FBI records regarding Plaintiff’s status as a U.S. citizen. 

Case: 1:12-cv-05265 Document #: 74 Filed: 05/02/14 Page 4 of 16 PageID #:758
5

18. On February 27, 2001, the Child Citizenship Act of 2000 (“CCA”) (8 U.S.C. § 

1431, INA § 320(a)) went in effect which, by operation of law, granted derivative U.S. 

citizenship to individuals such as the Plaintiff. Accordingly, even if Plaintiff’s parents had not 

filed for his citizenship, based on his birth date and recorded IR4 visa, ICE should have 

determined on the face of its electronic records that Plaintiff automatically became a U.S. citizen 

as of the effective date of the CCA. 

19. DHS’s records pertaining to Plaintiff likely continue to not accurately and 

consistently reflect his U.S. citizenship. In late 2012, a potential employer sought to verify 

Plaintiff’s citizenship using E-Verify, an electronic database managed by DHS and the Social 

Security Administration. The E-Verify system returned a Tentative Nonconfirmation response, 

meaning that Plaintiff’s status as a U.S. citizen could not be verified. See Ex. E. 

B. DHS’s Unlawful Arrests of Plaintiff 

20. In October 2009, Plaintiff was arrested in DuPage County, Illinois. Even though 

Plaintiff is a U.S. citizen, ICE lodged an unlawful immigration detainer against him. See Ex. F. 

While Plaintiff’s father posted bond, Plaintiff was told that he could not be released because of 

the immigration detainer. 

21. Before issuing the 2009 immigration detainer, ICE did not interview Plaintiff or 

allow him to submit evidence that he was a U.S. citizen. ICE never provided Plaintiff with a 

copy of the detainer and did not inform Plaintiff that a detainer had issued until Plaintiff sought 

to be released on bond. 

22. While in custody, Plaintiff spoke with someone by phone who Plaintiff believes 

was an ICE officer and explained that he was a U.S. citizen. Thereafter, the detainer was lifted, 

Case: 1:12-cv-05265 Document #: 74 Filed: 05/02/14 Page 5 of 16 PageID #:759
6

and Plaintiff was eventually released on bail. The ICE officer took no action to correct DHS 

records regarding Plaintiff’s citizenship. 

23. On July 7, 2010, Plaintiff was arrested by law enforcement in DuPage County, 

Illinois. 

24. On July 8, 2010, without ever interviewing Plaintiff, the ICE Chicago Field office 

issued an I-247 immigration detainer against Plaintiff to the DuPage County Jail. See Ex. G. 

The immigration detainer included Plaintiff’s alien registration number but inaccurately listed his 

nationality as “India.” INS and now DHS has not properly updated its records in over 20 years 

to accurately reflect that Plaintiff is a citizen of the United States. 

25. Prior to issuing the immigration detainer, ICE did not conduct a reasonable 

investigation into Plaintiff’s citizenship. ICE did not have probable cause to issue an immigration 

detainer against Plaintiff. Indeed, the immigration detainer that ICE issued against Plaintiff did 

not even purport that ICE had probable cause. The detainer states that DHS issued based on the 

mere fact that an“[i]nvestigation has been initiated” into whether Plaintiff was removable from 

the United States. Id. Yet, DHS instructed DuPage County Jail and any subsequent prison to 

treat the detainer like an arrest warrant. The detainer stated that federal law required DuPage 

County Jail to detain Plaintiff for 48-hours (excluding weekends and holidays) based solely on 

the immigration detainer. Id.

26. Had ICE reasonably investigated Plaintiff’s case, it would have discovered 

Plaintiff’s certificate of U.S. citizenship, U.S. passport, military records and/or social security 

number, among other evidence showing that Plaintiff is a U.S. citizen. Had ICE interviewed 

Plaintiff, Plaintiff would have confirmed his U.S. citizenship with his U.S. passport, Illinois 

Case: 1:12-cv-05265 Document #: 74 Filed: 05/02/14 Page 6 of 16 PageID #:760
7

driver’s license, and/or social security number. Similarly, had DHS and ICE maintained accurate 

records, those records would have reflected that Plaintiff is a U.S. citizen. 

27. On December 6, 2010, Plaintiff pleaded guilty to a drug offense and received a 

sentence of seven years with a recommendation that Plaintiff participate in the Illinois 

Department of Corrections’ (“IDOC”) “impact incarceration” program. Ex. H. The IDOC 

“impact incarceration” program is a 120-day boot camp that would allow Plaintiff to be released 

on parole once he successfully completed the boot camp. 

28. After sentencing, Plaintiff was transferred to the Stateville Correctional Center in 

Joliet, Illinois (“Stateville”) for processing into boot camp. ICE stations agents at Stateville in 

order to identify removable immigrants processed into the IDOC system. ICE had knowledge 

that an immigration detainer would automatically disqualify Plaintiff from boot camp. 

29. During processing, Plaintiff met with an ICE officer. The ICE officer asked 

Plaintiff where he was born. Plaintiff explained that he was born in India but was a U.S. citizen. 

Plaintiff provided the ICE officer with copies of his U.S. passport and social security card. The 

ICE officer inspected and copied these materials. Based on information and belief, the ICE 

agent was aware of Plaintiff’s immigration detainer but did nothing to cancel it and did not 

correct ICE’s records to reflect Plaintiff’s status as a U.S. citizen. 

30. Soon after processing, Plaintiff learned that he had been automatically 

disqualified from boot camp due to ICE’s wrongful detainer. Ex. I. Instead of being transferred 

into boot camp, Plaintiff was transferred from Stateville to the maximum security Pontiac 

Correctional Center (“Pontiac”) to serve prison time. Plaintiff suffered considerable emotional 

and psychological distress at the prospect of having to serve a seven-year prison sentence instead 

of the 120-day boot camp. He further suffered from anxiety and depression and, at times, ate 

Case: 1:12-cv-05265 Document #: 74 Filed: 05/02/14 Page 7 of 16 PageID #:761
8

only one meal a day while detained at Pontiac. He was often locked in a cell for 19 hours a day 

and repeatedly subjected to strip searches. 

31. Plaintiff remained at the maximum security Pontiac until late January 2011 

without ICE taking any action on his U.S. citizenship claim. 

32. In January 2011, Plaintiff’s father sought assistance from an attorney, Michael 

Byrne, to cancel the wrongful immigration detainer on Plaintiff’s behalf. Mr. Byrne first made 

phone calls to ICE headquarters in Chicago, but ICE refused to cancel the detainer. Mr. Byrne 

ultimately was required to go in person to ICE’s Chicago office to convince ICE to cancel the 

detainer. ICE canceled Plaintiff’s wrongful detainer on January 25, 2011. Ex. J. Once the ICE 

detainer was canceled, Plaintiff was transferred to the medium security Graham Correctional 

Center on February 9, 2011 for processing into boot camp. 

33. Plaintiff successfully finished the 120-day boot camp without incident and was 

released on July 20, 2011. In September 2011, Plaintiff began working as a network 

administrator. Had the wrongful immigration detainer not been lodged against Plaintiff, he 

would have completed the 120-day boot camp and been released on parole by mid-May 2011. 

Upon release, Plaintiff would have sought gainful employment immediately and, but for the 

detainer, would have started working prior to September 2011. 

C. DHS’s Violations of Plaintiff’s Privacy Act Rights 

34. The Privacy Act requires that an agency, such as DHS and ICE, maintain its 

records on individuals “with such accuracy, relevance, timeliness, and completeness as is 

reasonably necessary to assure fairness in any determination relating to the . . . rights . . . [of an] 

individual that may be made on the basis of such record . . . .” 5 U.S.C. § 552a(g)(1)(C); see 5 

U.S.C. § 552a(e)(5). On March 6, 1989, the former INS, now DHS, issued Plaintiff a certificate 

Case: 1:12-cv-05265 Document #: 74 Filed: 05/02/14 Page 8 of 16 PageID #:762
9

of U.S. citizenship. Later that year, Plaintiff’s parents sought and obtained from INS written 

verification of Plaintiff’s status as a U.S. citizen. In February 2001, Plaintiff would have derived 

citizenship by operation of law under the CCA, like thousands of other adopted lawful 

permanent residents. In addition, Plaintiff informed an ICE officer of his status as a U.S. citizen 

in October 2009 and again in December 2010. ICE nonetheless issued an unlawful detainer 

against Plaintiff in July 2010 and maintained that unlawful detainer until January 25, 2011. 

35. The Privacy Act does not permit DHS to exempt itself from its legal obligations 

under 5 U.S.C. §§ 552a(g)(1)(C), (e)(1) & (e)(5) or from any civil liabilities that may flow from 

DHS’s violation of Plaintiff’s rights under those subsections. See 5 U.S.C. §§ 552a(j) & (k). 

36. DHS’s failure to maintain their records in accordance with their legal obligations 

resulted in Plaintiff being held approximately 70 days in a prison facility due to a wrongful 

immigration detainer lodged against him. But for the violation, Plaintiff would have sought and 

gained employment earlier than he did upon being released from boot camp. 

37. As a result of Defendants’ violations of the Privacy Act, Plaintiff suffered lost 

wages and other pecuniary and economic harm. 

38. DHS’s records pertaining to Plaintiff likely continue to not accurately and 

consistently reflect his U.S. citizenship. In late 2012, a potential employer sought to verify 

Plaintiff’s citizenship using E-Verify, an electronic database managed by DHS and the Social 

Security Administration. The E-Verify system returned a Tentative Nonconfirmation response, 

meaning that Plaintiff’s status as a U.S. citizen could not be verified. See Ex. E. 

39. In December 2012, Plaintiff sent DHS a request to amend its records to accurately 

reflect his U.S. citizenship. Ex. K; 5 U.S.C. § 552a(d)(2). While DHS sent a letter 

Case: 1:12-cv-05265 Document #: 74 Filed: 05/02/14 Page 9 of 16 PageID #:763
10

acknowledging receipt of Plaintiff’s request, it failed to otherwise respond to Plaintiff’s request 

in violation of the Privacy Act. 5 U.S.C. § 552a(g)(1)(A). See Ex. L.

D. Government’s Violations of the Federal Tort Claims Act 

40. Prior to exercising its immigration enforcement authority, DHS has had the 

longstanding threshold obligation to establish an individual is not a U.S. citizen. See Woodby v. 

INS, 385 U.S. 276 (1961); 8 C.F.R. § 1240.8(c); Morales v. Chadbourne, 2014 WL 554478, at 

*10 (D. R.I. Feb. 14, 2014) (“[I]t is clearly established ‘that an ICE officer [does] not have the 

authority to detain or deport U.S. citizens.’”) (quoting Lyttle v. United States, 867 F. Supp.2d 

1256, 1281 (M.D. Ga. 2012)). A practical consequence of this legal obligation is that: “As a 

matter of law, ICE cannot assert its civil immigration enforcement authority to arrest and/or 

detain a [United States citizen].” Ex. M, Memorandum from John Morton, ICE Director, to Field 

Office Directors, Special Agents in Charge, and Chief Counsels, “Superseding Guidance on 

Reporting and Investigating Claims to United States Citizenship” (Nov. 19, 2009)) [hereinafter 

“Morton Memo”]. 

41. The Morton Memo and applicable law requires ICE agents to conduct a 

reasonable investigation into an individual’s citizenship before issuing an immigration detainer 

that instructs for detention pursuant to the detainer. If an individual makes a claim of U.S. 

citizenship, the Morton Memo requires ICE agents to investigate that claim, report the claim up 

the chain of command, and instructs against arresting or detaining such individual if there is 

probative evidence of U.S. citizenship. See id. 

42. The Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”), 28 U.S.C. § 2674, permits private parties 

to sue the United States for torts committed by persons acting on behalf of the federal 

Case: 1:12-cv-05265 Document #: 74 Filed: 05/02/14 Page 10 of 16 PageID #:764
11

government. Under the FTCA, the United States is liable for tort claims in the same manner and 

to the same extent as a private individual would be under the circumstances. 

43. DHS falsely imprisoned Plaintiff by issuing an unlawful immigration detainer 

absent probable cause and causing Plaintiff to be detained in a prison facility when he would 

have otherwise have participated in a less restrictive boot camp and would have been released 

approximately 70 days earlier. 

44. DHS knew or should have known that, as a result of its issuance and maintenance 

of an immigration detainer, Plaintiff would be, or it was substantially certain that Plaintiff would 

be, automatically disqualified from admission into boot camp and otherwise detained in a prison 

facility for the length of his seven year prison sentence. 

45. Prior to issuing the detainer, ICE did not interview Plaintiff or reasonably 

investigate Plaintiff’s status in order to establish probable cause to instruct for his arrest or 

continued detention pursuant to an immigration detainer. Even DHS’s incomplete electronic 

records, on their face, showed that Plaintiff would have derived U.S. citizenship through his 

adoptive parents in February 2001. Accordingly, DHS had more than sufficient probative 

evidence in its possession to trigger the Morton Memo’s mandate not to issue an immigration 

detainer. 

46. ICE’s failure to cancel the immigration detainer and otherwise comply with the 

Morton memo after Plaintiff presented a copy of his U.S. passport to an ICE officer at Stateville 

in December 2010 was unreasonable. 

47. As a result of ICE’s issuance of an immigration detainer absent probable cause, 

Plaintiff was unlawfully detained for approximately 70 days in a prison facility and delayed entry 

into boot camp. Plaintiff was often locked in a cell for 19 hours a day and subjected to strip 

Case: 1:12-cv-05265 Document #: 74 Filed: 05/02/14 Page 11 of 16 PageID #:765
12

searches. Plaintiff would have been held for longer than 70 days but for efforts made by his 

father and an attorney to get the detainer canceled. 

48. Had DHS and ICE not engaged in such tortious conduct, Plaintiff would have 

been released on parole in mid-May 2011 and would not have suffered lost wages as well as 

emotional, physical and psychological pain. 

FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF 

Against DHS 

(Privacy Act Violation, 5 U.S.C. §§ 552a(g)(1)(C) & (e)(5)) 

49. Plaintiff realleges paragraphs 1-48 as if set forth fully herein. 

50. Under the Privacy Act DHS is required to maintain its records as to Plaintiff’s 

immigration and citizenship status with “such accuracy, relevance, timeliness, and 

completeness” so as to “assure fairness in any determination” the Department makes in 

exercising its immigration enforcement authority in reliance on those records. See 5 U.S.C. §§ 

552a(g)(1)(C) & (D), (e)(5). 

51. Plaintiff acquired U.S. citizenship at the age of one. On March 6, 1989, DHS’s 

predecessor agency, INS, issued Plaintiff a certificate of U.S. citizenship. Likewise, Plaintiff 

obtained a U.S. passport at an early age and has had a current passport to the present. 

52. DHS’s failure to maintain records showing that Plaintiff is a U.S. citizen violates 

the Department’s legal obligations to maintain its records with such accuracy, relevance, 

timeliness, and completeness as required by 5 U.S.C. §§ 552a(g)(1)(C) & (e)(5). 

53. DHS’s failure to comply with its legal obligations under the Privacy Act caused 

Plaintiff an adverse effect. 5 U.S.C. § 552a(g)(1)(C). 

54. DHS’s failure to maintain its records with the requisite accuracy, relevance, 

timeliness, and completeness was intentional and willful within the meaning of 5 U.S.C. § 

Case: 1:12-cv-05265 Document #: 74 Filed: 05/02/14 Page 12 of 16 PageID #:766
13

552a(g)(4) and in flagrant disregard of Plaintiff’s rights insofar as it failed to correct its records 

in over 20 years to reflect Plaintiff’s U.S. citizenship despite being aware on several occasions 

that its records were inaccurate and that Plaintiff is a U.S. citizen. 

55. As a proximate result of DHS’s violations of Plaintiff’s rights under the Privacy 

Act, Plaintiff had a wrongful immigration detainer lodged against him, which resulted in him 

serving approximately 70 days in prison. Due to DHS’s unlawful conduct, Plaintiff suffered lost 

wages and other pecuniary and economic harm. 5 U.S.C. § 552a(g)(4)(A). 

 SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF 

Against the United States of America 

(FTCA Claim of False Imprisonment) 

56. Plaintiff realleges paragraphs 1-55 as if set forth fully herein. 

57. This claim is brought pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §§ 2671 et seq.

58. DHS and ICE are responsible for the acts of their agents, officers, servants, and 

employees under the doctrine of respondeat superior. 

59. DHS’s and ICE’s agents, officers, servants, and employees willfully and 

unlawfully restrained Plaintiff and deprived him of his liberty to move more freely. 

60. DHS’s and ICE’s agents’, officers’, servants’, and employees’ actions in issuing a 

detainer and causing Plaintiff to be detained in a maximum (then medium) security prison 

facility were unreasonable under the circumstances because they failed to establish probable 

cause to believe that Plaintiff committed an immigration violation. 

61. DHS’s and ICE’s agents’, officers’, servants’, and employees’ actions in 

continuing to maintain the immigration detainer even after Plaintiff met with an ICE officer at 

Stateville, explained that he was a U.S. citizen, and provided the officer with copies of his 

passport and social security card was also unreasonable. 

Case: 1:12-cv-05265 Document #: 74 Filed: 05/02/14 Page 13 of 16 PageID #:767
14

62. As a proximate and reasonably foreseeable result of the actions by DHS’s and 

ICE’s agents, officers, servants, and employees, Plaintiff suffered damages including 70 days of 

imprisonment, pain and suffering, mental, emotional, and psychological distress, and lost wages. 

In addition, because he has twice been subjected to unlawful immigration detainers, Plaintiff 

continues to fear that any contact with law enforcement may lead to another unlawful 

immigration detainer. 

THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF 

Against DHS 

(Privacy Act Violation, 5 U.S.C. §§ 552a(g)(1)(A)) 

63. Plaintiff realleges paragraphs 1-62 as if set forth fully herein. 

64. Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 552a(d)(2) of the Privacy Act, Plaintiff was permitted to 

seek amendment of all electronic records that pertain to him in the custody or control of DHS so 

that they accurately and consistently reflect his U.S. citizenship. 

65. In December 2012, Plaintiff sent a request to amend records to the DHS. 

66. In January 2013, DHS sent a letter acknowledging receipt of Plaintiff’s request. It 

failed to otherwise respond to Plaintiff’s request. 

67. Accordingly, DHS is in violation of 5 U.S.C. §§ 552a(d)(2) & (3). 

68. Plaintiff asks this Court to order DHS to amend all electronic records in its 

custody or control that pertain to Plaintiff to accurately and consistently reflect his U.S. 

citizenship. 5 U.S.C. § 552a(g)(2)(A).

Case: 1:12-cv-05265 Document #: 74 Filed: 05/02/14 Page 14 of 16 PageID #:768
15

PRAYER FOR RELIEF 

 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court: 

a. Issue an order holding DHS liable for Plaintiff’s damages resulting from violations of his 

rights under the Privacy Act, including but not limited to his lost wages other pecuniary 

and economic harm pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(g)(4)(A); 

b. Issue an order holding the United States liable for Plaintiff’s damages resulting from 

DHS’s and ICE’s false imprisonment, including but not limited to, loss of liberty, 

emotional distress, lost wages, and attorneys’ fees and costs; 

c. Issue an order requiring DHS to amend all electronic databases within its custody or 

control that contain records pertaining to Plaintiff to accurately reflect his U.S. 

citizenship pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 552a(g)(2)(A); 

d. Grant Plaintiff reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to 5 U.S.C. §§ 552a(g)(2)(B) 

& (4)(B), and other applicable law; and 

e. Grant such other relief as this Court deems just and proper. 

 Respectfully submitted this 2nd day of May, 2014, 

/s/ Kristen C. Klanow 

Geoffrey A. Vance 

Jocelyn D. Francoeur 

Kristen C. Klanow 

MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP

227 West Monroe Street 

Suite 4400 

Chicago, Illinois 60606 

Phone: (312) 372-2000 

 

Mark Fleming 

Charles Roth 

National Immigrant Justice Center 

208 S. LaSalle Street, Suite 1300 

Chicago, Illinois 60604 

Phone: (312) 660-1628

ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF JAMES AZIZ MAKOWSKI 

Case: 1:12-cv-05265 Document #: 74 Filed: 05/02/14 Page 15 of 16 PageID #:769
16

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

 I, Kristen Klanow, certify that I caused a true and exact copy of the foregoing to 

be filed and emailed via the Court’s ECF system to all counsel of record on May 2, 2014. 

/s/ Kristen C. Klanow 

DM_US 51723592-2.099731.0038 

Case: 1:12-cv-05265 Document #: 74 Filed: 05/02/14 Page 16 of 16 PageID #:770