Elsie Guerra 

1257 Encino Di 

Pleasanton, Te, 

Telephone: 830 

Plaintiffs in pro 

Elsie Guerra 

CAUSE NO: 

RECEIVED 

78064 

0-9169 APR 30 2020 

CL!Rlc, U.S. DISTfOU 

6tERN DISTRI)TEXAS 

DEPIJTY ClRi( UNITED STATES DISTRICTCOTJRT 

WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

FILED 

MAY122020 

CLERK US DISTRl1E 

WESTERN DISTRICT OFAS 

BY 

P1 intiff, ) Case No. 

SA20CA0536 XR 

vs. ) 

) COMPLAiNT FOR 

The City of Plen Lnton, Individually; Travis ) DAMAGES ARISING FROM 

Hall Jr., Johnny] uizar, Robert "Bobby' ) VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS 

Maldonado, Ben ifuentes ) (Title 42 U.S.C. § 1983-1986); BREACH OF 

) CONTRACT, BREACH OF FIDUCIARY 

D fendants )DUTY NEGLIGENCE. 

Jurisdic*i ifor this lawsuit arises under Title 28 U.S.C. § 1331, 1343; 42 U.S.C. § 

1983-1986, 1961 1966, and under the Constitution and laws of the United States. 

Discovery and Control Plan 

Discovery in this case is intended to be conducted under Level 3 pursuant to Texas Rules 

of CivilProcedur 190 and 190.3 

General Allegations and Summary of Lawsuit 

This laws it arises from the actions and the conspiracy of the defendants using legal 

processes and the ennination of employment as a Judge from the City ofPleasanton Municipal 

Court and for Pl& itiffs' exposure of corrupt, criminal, and subversive activities n key 

government offic s mainly inside the City of Pleasanton Texas Offices, Council chambers, and 

executive session nference rooms located in Pleasanton, Texas 78064. The consequences of 

these offenses, an the cover-ups, and the actions by the defendants in seeking to halt Plaintiff' 

exposure activitie include in several instances the conditions of which forced Defendants to 

breach an employ 'ent contract for not committing quotas, crimes and breaking Plaintiff oath as a lawfully sworn lunicipal Judge.. Defendants' actions combined civil and constitutional 

violations with fe onies, including obstruction ofjustice and inflicting harm against Plaintiff 

Elsie Guerra, a fo ncr Municipal Judge for the City of Pleasanton. Defendants terminated 

Plaintiff employn ent contract with the City of Pleasanton because she would not commit crimes as instructed by ti e City Manager Huizar at the direction of City Council members in their 

individual capacil es. The fact that the Plaintiff has a discrimination EEOC complaint pending is a separate indepei dent matter from these facts and allegations. 

In their veiled misuse of legal process to halt Plaintiffs exposure activities, Defendants 

have engaged in conspiracy inflicting harm upon Plaintiff. Defendants' acts violated civil and 

constitutional rigl$, under color of state law, violating federally protected rights. These 

violations create cause of action under the Civil Rights Act (Title 18 U.S.C. § 1983-1988);. 

Defendants by th nature of their actions lose all Soveign Immunity and the right to be defended 

with an Attorney aid for by Public and Taxpayer money during the commissions of felonies and 

Case 5:20-cv-00536-XR Document 5 Filed 05/12/20 Page 1 of 15
using the political system to subvert the Plaintiff exposure of federal violations and illegally 

requested quotas d to impose higher fines as in her authority as a Municipal Judge. 

Plaintiff h sought to make information known to the people and Defendants as part of 

her constitutional ghts and responsibilities, in an effort to cause Government personnel in their 

individual capaci to perform their legally required duties relating to such criminal activities, 

they have refused to correct the illegal activities. 

Venue 

Venue is bsed upon (a) the wrongful acts and harm inflicted upon Plaintiff Elsie Guerra 

while she was a rsident of the Western District of Texas and an employee of the City of 

Pleasanton; (b) Plasanton Texas being the place of incorporation of the City of Pleasanton and 

it's Officers; and c) harm occurring to interests located in Texas The City of Pleasanton and it's 

elected officials aid city employees acted in their individual capacities as an "enterprise", with 

paid employees, ofrganized for the purpose of handling all city issues both state and federally. 

The defendants cused actions to occur which affect matters in Texas and exercised and intend to 

exercise resource of the state of Texas. 

Plaintiffs 

Plaintiff E sie Guerra has resided in Pleasanton, Texas for the past 59 years and considers 

Texas her domicil and has an address of 1257 Encino Drive, Pleasanton, Texas 78064. Plaintiff 

is a former Appoi ted Municipal Judge for the City of Pleasanton for the past 18 years. Plaintiff 

has sought to mak known to the people and Defendants information on corrupt and criminal 

activities implicat ng people holding key government positions, and which are inflicting great 

harm upon nation and state interests to include residents of the City of Pleasanton, Texas. 

Defendants 

Defendant Johnn fluizar is a City Manager of Pleasanton, Texas, acting in his individual 

capacity and agai st written policies, federal and state laws, may be served at 108 Second Street, 

Pleasanton, Texas 78064. 

Defendant Travis all is the Current Mayor of Pleasanton, Texas, acting in his individual 

capacity and ag& st written policies, federal and state laws. May be served at 108 Second Street, 

Pleasanton, Texas 78064. 

Defendant Robe "Bobby" Maldonado is lead council for the City of Pleasanton, Texas, acting 

in his individual c pacity and against written policies, federal and state laws. May be served at 

310 S Saint Mary' Street, San Antonio, Texas 78205. 

Defendant Ben Si entes was council for the Plaintiff acting in his individual capacity and 

against written po icies, federal and state laws, negligence, breach of verbal contract, and breach 

of fiduciary duty. ay be served at 417 San Pedro Aye, San Antonio, Texas 78212 

Preliminary Statement 

Plaintiff E ie Guerra has sought to provide information to the people, and to petition 

government, for e purpose of reporting corrupt, criminal and subversive activities implicating 

people in key gov rnment positions. Plaintiff had discovered these criminal activities during her 

employment with he City of Pleasanton within the past two years. 

Plaintiff's fforts to report these matters to government personnel who had a duty to 

receive and act up n the federal crimes have been repeatedly blocked through sham legal 

processes, city co ncil meetings, executive sessions, violations of substantive and procedural due 

process by people nvolved in the judicial process. The defendants named in this action engaged 

in the latest misus of legal process to block the reporting of these corrupt, criminal and 

subversive activiti . The Defendants in a conspiracy violated federal law using the Municipal 

Courts to set quot S and in a requested effort from Johnny Huizar at the direction of city council 

to bring in more oney from fines and all citations issued to the citizens of Pleasanton. Huizar in an effort to offer aintiff more computers that were desperately needed and had been requested 

by Plaintiff to han le day to day activities was to bring in more money from fines, quotas 

illegally and hew uld arrange for computers. 

As a result of the underlying corrupt, criminal, and subversive activities, the documented 

efforts to block P1 intiffs' activities, including the latest misuse of legal process by the 

defendants, great arm has been inflicted upon city, state and national interests, directly as individuals in a P lic Corruption "enterprise". 

Over ape od of several years' plaintiff ("Guerra") discovered and documented patterns 

of corrupt and cii inal activities implicated in a series of emails, reports, requests to each 

Defendant to md e the City Manager Huizar owing over $12,000 in back rent to the City of 

Pleasanton. The P aintiff was blatantly asked to break state and federal law in her capacity as a Municipal Judge pointed by the City Council Defendants. Plaintiff also found the City 

Case 5:20-cv-00536-XR Document 5 Filed 05/12/20 Page 2 of 15
Manager and Cit$' Secretaiy had falsified their city applications concerning their criminal history 

which would hae made them unsuitable for employment. The listed Defendants used their 

positions to termnate Plaintiffs employment because of her knowledge and discriminated against 

her because she ifras in a position to within months retire with full benefits from the City of 

Pleasanton. Simi'ar issues with past employees who were male there was nothing done to the 

employee, but Plintiffs used their positions to discriminate and retaliate against Plaintiff because 

of her age,sex atd national origin. 

Several c rrupt schemes using legal process by members of the legal community were perpetrated agai st Guerra during the past two years in attempts to block his reporting of these 

criminal activitie . These schemes, using legal processes, were accompanied by violations of 

substantive and rocedural state and federal laws. The documented combination civil and 

constitutional vi lations were combined with criminal obstruction ofjustice and criminal 

retaliation agains Plaintiff, seeking to halt his exposure activities and to inflict great personal 

and financial h upon Plaintiff as part of the scheme. The Plaintiff contacted the Texas Ranger 

who was going t consult with the District Attorney office, but the City of Pleasanton Officials 

subverted this aft Pt and Plaintiff was advised her complaints were a federal offense. 

Plaintiff ired Ben Siflientes Attorney who misrepresented her with the EEOC complaint 

and investigation process. Sifuentes failed to submit accurate and timely information to the 

EEOC and left o t documents that would have changed the outcome of the investigation. 

Sifuentes also a ised Plaintiff after the investigation that there was no appeal process when 

there in fact was appeal process. Mr. Sifuentes obtained and received numerous correspondences om the EEOC investigators that should have been shared and given the 

Plaintiff the opp nity to respond and provide documentation, but they were never presented to 

Plaintiff. Mr. Si entes pushed Plaintiff to obtain evidence and documents through open records 

form the City of leasanton when it was his job to do so and he in fact had been paid to provide 

those services to efend the Plaintiffs rights. 

Gravity f Federal Offenses Associated With Defendants' Conduct 

In additio to the harm that their conduct would inflict upon Plaintiff, the defendants 

knew that their a ions would hinder or halt the exposure of the corrupt and criminal acts that 

Plaintiff sought report. They knew that they would be obstructing justice and inflicting harm 

upon a former M icipal Court Judge appointed by these individuals and witness to these 

activities. They ew the role played by the corruption of each Defendant as reported directly to 

them in emails, ports, documents and other writings. And they knew the effects upon the lives 

of people advers y affected by the corruption. These reported acts arise and are made possible 

by the effects of e criminal activities, the cover-ups, and the documented wrongful acts taken to 

block and silence Plaintiffs' constitutionally protected activities to do her job honestly and with 

integrity within e laws of the state and federal government. 

Defendan knew that the great harm inflicted upon city, state and national interests 

would continue that their sham to attempt to block Guerra and her sources from making 

known to the pub ic and to public officials the crimes that continue to inflict great harm upon 

many people and pon vital U.S. and City of Pleasanton interests, so instead they breached her 

employment con act to subvert her attempts to report criminal behavior and requests. 

Defendan again acted under color of state and federal law, knowing based upon fraud 

and a continuing nspiracy to impose on the Plaintiff in her capacity as Municipal Judge to 

impose illegal fin s and commit fraud upon citizens of Pleasanton to raise more money for the 

city general fund. The Defendant Maldonado with the City Manager and support of the listed 

Public Officials efendants pushed and bullied the Plaintiff to impose these illegal acts knowing 

they were against state and federal law and when she refused they terminated her employment 

contract and Pu sely avoided her lawful right to her retirement and insurance. Defendant 

Travis Hall Jr. w elected Mayor at the time of Defendants termination vote at council chambers 

open to the publi and he made the motion for her termination. However, as per election laws of 

Texas and federal election rules Mayor Hall was supposed to step down from council until it was official, and he w sworn in as mayor. The rules and laws are clear he can make no recommendations or votes during this time period; however he made the motion to terminate 

Plaintiff which p sed through council. 

Conduct Met Criteria For Conspiracy 

Reasonabl people, including ajuiy, could conclude that the defendants acted in a 

conspiracy, and tlat the sole purpose of the conspiracy was to halt Plaintiffs attempts to make 

known the informtion of criminal activities and to block Plaintiffs attempts to petition 

government relatiig to these crimes by eliminating her employment contract because she would 

not commit crime as requested by raising quotas and illegally imposing additional fmes she had 

not right to receiv. 

The facts itndicate that all defendants acted in a conspiracy among themselves, and with 

Case 5:20-cv-00536-XR Document 5 Filed 05/12/20 Page 3 of 15
persons unknown ho are directly or indirectly threatened by Plaintiffs' exposure activities. 

They engaged in ultiple predicate acts as part of a conspiracy, inflicting great harm upon 

Plaintiff and inflic ing harm upon interstate and international commerce. Combinin Civil Rights and Due Process Violations with Obstruction Of Justice 

The action by the defendants and the conspiracy combined civil and constitutional 

violations, and fra d, with criminal activities. The criminal activities included obstruction of 

justice, misprision of felonies, and inflicted great harm upon Plaintiff and witness to halt his 

exposure of these rimes against the United States. Their conduct violated numerous criminal 

statutes involving ifenses associated with obstruction ofjustice and inflicting harm upon 

Plaintiff and witn ses. Violating 'laintlff's Civil and Constitutional Rights Under Color Of State Law 

The defenc4ants violated Plaintiff's civil and constitutional rights under color of state law, 

in Texas, while acing in a conspiracy that involved criminal activities against the United States 

and the State of Txas. 

Predicate acts affecting interstate and foreign commerce and particularly aviation 

Each of th defendants knew that their actions impeded Plaintiffs' public-spirited 

attempts to expos and halt the corrupt and criminal activities that he had discovered. They knew 

that their actions ould block, directly and indirectly, Plaintiff-s reporting of corrupt and 

criminal acts asso iated with a long line of aviation grants and would aid and abet the 

continuation of th misconduct resulting in and that their actions affected interstate and 

international aviat on. Defendant violated Plaintiff's constitutional rights under the Petition Clause to petition 

government on mtters relating to the corrupt, criminal, and treasonous conduct that he had 

discovered. 

Defendant sought to block Plaintiff's exposure of crimes against the State of Texas, City 

Government, The nited States through violations of federally protected rights: Defendants' 

conduct: 

Blocked e reporting of these criminal activities by using their executive rights to avoid 

exposure to citize s, state and federal officials. 

Violated laintiff's right to the First Amendment petition clause by attacking her 

exercise of this ii t through a sham and not allowing Plaintiff the right to speak for herself in 

executive session hen other employees in the same circumstances are allowed to sit in 

executive session o speak up for themselves. 

Violated deral criminal statutes relating to blocking or inflicting harm upon Plaintiff. 

VIolated ederal criminal statutes by acting to block Plaintiffs reporting of criminal 

activities. 

Violated ederal criminal statutes and state laws by not reporting to federal or state 

officials the crimi al activities they discovered from Plaintiff's writings. 

Guarant d Protection Against Consequences Of Their Unlawful Corrupt 

Activities 

Defendan knew that Plaintiff's legal rights, protections, and defenses have been 

terminated by cv level of the Texas judicial system and that these due process violations. This 

termination by a ate judge through (a) direct acts consisting of orders barring Plaintiff the right 

to state and feder court access as guaranteed to all other citizens, including murders, terrorists, 

and other felons; d (b) through documented violations of large numbers of relevant substantive 

protections "guar teed" by the laws and Constitution of the United States; and (c) denial of 

eveiy relevant p cedural due process right, protection and defense. In this way, the defendants 

felt confident tha their civil and constitutional violations, and felony obstruction ofjustice and 

felony retaliation gainst Plaintiff would be protected in the coUrts. 

COUNT ONE 

iolation of CivlJ Rights: Title 42 U.S.C. Section 1983-1985) 

Plaintiff r peats and realleges all preceding paragraphs by reference, as if fully stated in 

this Count. 

All defen ants directly and indirectly violated, and aided and abetted the violations, of 

plaintifF=s civil d constitutional rights under color of state law occurring in the states of Texas. 

By these acts th violated Title 42 U.S.C. Sections 19S3-1985. Defendants failed to allow 

Plaintiff an aven to defend herself after being terminated then falsified the documents to the 

Case 5:20-cv-00536-XR Document 5 Filed 05/12/20 Page 4 of 15
EEOC investiga4Drs stating Plaintiff termination was for job performance but in fact there never was any reprimaids or any job issues ever for Plaintiff that were negative and in fact Plaintiff 

had received a recent raise. Defendants Huizar, Hall, and Maldonado manipulated the system and 

falsified the info ation to EEOC violating Plaintiffs rights. 

COUNT TWO 

(Cons iracy To Interfere With Civil Rights, Title 42 U.S.C. Section 1985,) 

Plaintiff peats and realleges all preceding paragraphs by reference, as if stated fully in 

this Count. 

All defen ants violated Title 42 U.S.C. Section 1985, by entering into a conspiracy to 

violate plaintifl civil rights. Defendants Hall, Huizar and Maldonado went outside the adopted rules of the City fPleasanton and acted as individually by making the motion to terminate 

Plaintiff when H I had no right to make that motion, then Huizar and Maldonado who is the 

legal counsel for e City manipulated the system by not allowing Plaintiff the right to defend 

herself or presen her facts and case to council in executive session as they allow other city employees to do. Recent complaints against Hall, Huizar and Maldonado they were allowed in 

executive sessio and allowed to defend the complaints against them. These actions interfere 

with Plaintiffi ci il rights. 

COUNT THREE 

(Negligence) 

P1 ntiff repeats and alleges Defendant Siflientes neglected his duties as her hired 

attorney to repres nt her in her EEOC Complaint. Defendant committed negligence to Plaintiff. as a direct and pr ximate result of that negligence, Plaintiffs have been injured and suffered 

damages within e Jurisdictional limits of this Court. 

Defendan Sifuentes took the case for Plaintiff but failed to properly represent her and 

failed to disclose f submit all the proper documentation to the EEOC Investigators. Siflientes 

also advised Plai tiff that no appeal for the EEOC violations existed when in fact Plaintiff later 

learned she did h ye the option to appeal their decision with the additional information that 

Attorney Sifuent omitted and left out. This information would have made the difference in her 

position of discri ination and would have significantly affected the outcome of the EEOC 

complaint. Defen ant Sifuentes also communicated with EEOC on numerous occasions but never made the P intiff aware of any of these letters for conversations which will be shown in 

submitted exhibi . Defendant Sifuentes had an obligation to Plaintiff to represent her fairly and 

judiciously which he failed to do which will be shown in exhibits. Plaintiff additionally filed 

open records requ ts and obtained all documents for Attorney Sifuentes as he failed to obtain 

any documents or perform his duties as her hired attorney. 

COUNT FOUR 

(Iitentional Violation and Deprivation of Common Law Torts) 

Plaintiff r4eats and realleges all preceding paragraphs by reference, as if stated fully in 

this Count. 

All defendants intntionally perpetrated torts and other wrongful acts against plaintiff, and aided 

and abetted such ''rongful acts, knowingly inflicting great harm upon plaintiff. 

COUNT FIVE 

(Violation of Constitutional Rights and Protections) 

Plaintiff re eats and realleges all preceding paragraphs by reference, as if stated fully in 

this Count. All de endants, directly and indirectly, violated plaintiffi=s rights and protections under the First an Fifth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, including the right to petition 

government, to fr speech, to report criminal and treasonous acts in government offices, and the 

protections again being deprived of liberty and property without and in violation of due 

process. Defendan s acted in conjunction to violate Plaintiffs rights to defend her self against 

accusations for he job performance. 

COUNT SIX 

(Fraud Against Plaintiff) 

Plaintiff re eats and realleges all preceding paragraphs by reference, as if stated fully in 

this Count. 

All defendnts engaged in a pattern of fraud against plaintiff and entered a conspiracy by 

their positions to d so, which inflicted great and irreparable harm upon Plaintiff. The fraud was perpetrated throug affidavits filed in State and Federal Courts, executive session meetings, 

unlawful off-site n$eetings, stating as facts what they knew to be false, and then seeking to have 

it enforced in othei states and through the court system. Defendants used the system to not allow 

Plaintiff the right t protect herself or attend meetings as they have done with other City 

Employees who wre in the same or similar positions. 

COUNT SEVEN 

Case 5:20-cv-00536-XR Document 5 Filed 05/12/20 Page 5 of 15
With Plaintiff's Right To Petition Government) 

and realleges all preceding paragraphs by reference, as if stated fully in 

this Count. 

Defendant violated Plaintiff's first amendment right to petition government, as Plaintiff 

sought to report th criminal activities to government officials and agencies. 

COUNT EIGHT 

(Fraudulen and Intentional Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage) 

Plaintiff re eats and realleges all preceding paragraphs by reference, as if fully stated in 

this Count. 

All defen4nts directly and indirectly interfered with plaintiffs prospective economic 

advantage and lawiful rights to enjoy her job position without fear of retribution to speak up when 

unlawful or crimil*l requests are made by her superiors as a right of any citizen of the United 

States. 

COuNT NINE 

(Ngligent Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage) 

Plaintiff reeats and realleges all preceding paragraphs by reference, as if fully stated in 

this Count. 

All defend ts negligently interfered with plaintiff=s prospective economic advantage. 

Plaintiff was in th process of retiring and obtaining health benefits and because of that was in 

part of the reason or her termination and discrimination against Plaintiff. 

COUNT TEN 

(Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress) 

Plaintiff re eats and realleges all preceding paragraphs by reference, as if fully stated in 

this Count. 

All defend ts intentionally inflicted upon plaintiff Guerra emotional distress through 

fraud, conspiracy, d violation of civil and constitutional rights as they manipulated the system 

causing the Plain s termination, loss of income, health benefits, and her live plants to die that were part of her p nts funerals which were in her office as they did not allow her in the 

building while on dministrative duty and causing her pain and suffering by taking away her 

insurance for her I ver medical treatments. Police Officers later brought Plaintiffs plants to her 

house which all h r office belongings were put into the Police Evidence Storage for no apparent reason. COUNT ELEVEN 

(Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress) 

Plaintiff re eats and realleges all preceding paragraphs by reference, as if stated fully in 

this Count. 

As a result of the above acts, Plaintiff Guerra suffered negligent infliction of emotional 

distress during th time frame covered by this Complaint. 

COUNT TWELVE 

(Violation of Constitutional Due Process) 

Plaintiff re eats and realleges all preceding paragraphs by reference, as if stated fully in 

this Count. 

All defend ts knowingly and repeatedly violated plaintiffs' right to procedural and 

substantive due p cess. Defendants did not allow Plaintiff to defend herself or rebut any claims as to her job empl yment status or corrective action, which none were identified as Plaintiff was given a raise up t her termination. 

COUNT THIRTEEN 

(Invasion of Privacy) 

Plaintiff r eats and realleges all preceding paragraphs by reference, as if stated fully in 

this Count. 

All defen ts repeatedly engaged in acts violating Plaintiffs' privacy and enjoyment of 

lawfully obtained ghts to be free from persuasion, bullying, implications to commit fraud and 

illegal crimes tow d the residents of Pleasanton as a Municipal Judge. Defendants terminated 

Plaintiffs position with no attached reprimands, counseling's, or any negative job performances, 

in fact up to and or to her termination she was given praises and raise in monies. Plaintiff was told she was off f r administrative duty and never given a reason for her termination just 

received a letter i the mail. 

COUNT FOURTEEN 

(Conspiracy) 

Case 5:20-cv-00536-XR Document 5 Filed 05/12/20 Page 6 of 15
Plaintiff r eats and realleges all preceding paragraphs by reference, as if stated fully in 

this Count. 

All defend ts engaged in a conspiracy with each other and people unknown to inflict 

harm upon Plainti for the purpose of halting the exposure of corrupt and criminal activities. 

Plaintiff had meet ngs with Huizar which were recorded that indicate she was not being 

terminated but p1 ed on Administrative duty, then later fired in a letter sent to her home not 

listing a reason. COUNT FIFTEEN 

(Breach of Contract and Breach of Fiduciary Duty) 

Plaintiff r eats and realleges all preceding paragraphs by reference, as if stated fully in 

this Count. 8. Plai tiffs reallege and incorporate by reference the preceding paragraphs for all 

purposes the sam as if set forth herein verbatim. 

Defendant owed Plaintiff a fiduciary duty. The duty was owed, among other reasons, 

because of a speci I relationship with the City of Pleasanton as an appointed official based upon 

their justifiable t and confidence that included a trust that Defendants would care for her and 

do no harm to her and not put their profits in Municipal Courts over the safety and employment 

rights for Plainti Defendants breached and betrayed that trust. That fiduciary duty required 

Defendants, amo other things, to: 

1. be open and ho est with Plaintiff and to be honest with all who inquired about the ongoing 

business relations ip and appointed office Plaintiff was entitled to. 

2. Refrain from s rificing Plaintiffs legal rights to not be forced to break the law through higher 

fines and quotas a d not be able to enjoy the agreed terms and fiduciary duty owed to Plaintiff. 

3. Make reasonab e use of the confidence Plaintiff placed in Defendants; 

4. Act in the ulm t good faith and exercise the most scrupulous honesty toward Plaintiff; 

5. Fully and fairl disclose all important information to Plaintiff concerning the proposed 

agreements and t disclose to city council and elected officials in written and verbal agreements. 

Defendant breached their fiduciary duties to Plaintiff, as a direct and proximate result of 

that breach, Plain ffs have been injured and suffered damages within the Jurisdictional limits of 

this Court. 

Defendant Sifuentes took the case for Plaintiff but failed to properly represent her and 

failed to disclose f submit all the proper documentation to the EEOC Investigators. Sifuentes 

also advised Plai if that no appeal for the EEOC violations existed when in fact Plaintiff later 

learned she did h e the option to appeal their decision with the additional information that 

Attorney Sifiiente omitted and left out. This information would have made the difference in her 

position of discri ination and would have significantly affected the outcome of the EEOC 

complaint. Defen ant Sifuentes also communicated with EEOC on numerous occasions bUt never made the Pt ntiff aware of any of these letters for conversations which will be shown in 

submitted exhibi . Defendant Siflientes had an obligation to Plaintiff to represent her fairly and 

judiciously which he failed to do which will be shown in exhibits. 

We also r ognize the existence of an informal fiduciary duty that arises from a moral, 

social, domestic, r purely personal relationship of trust and confidence. See Cathey, 167 S.W.3d 

at 331; As ociated Indem. Corp. v. CAT Contracting, Inc., 964 S.W.2d 276, 287 (Tex. 

1998); see also S lumberger Tech. Corp., 959 S.W.2d at 176. However, in order to give full 

force to contracts we do not create such a relationship lightly. Schlumberger Tech. Corp., 959 

S.W.2d at To imp se an informal fiduciary duty in a business transaction, the special relationship 

of trust and confi ence must exist prior to, and apart from, the agreement made the basis of the 

suit. Cathey, 167 .W.3d at 331, which this petition proves existed. The elements of a breach of 

fiduciary duty cla m are: (1) a fiduciary relationship between the plaintiff and defendants; (2) the 

defendant must h ye breached his fiduciary duty to the plaintiff; and(3) the defendant's breach 

must result in inj ryto the plaintiff or benefit to the defendant as in this case. The breac has been consistent on both levels as material breach of contracts and breach 

of fiduciary duty hen The City of Pleasanton elected officials have neglect in management and 

misrepresented d concealed information from the public that resulted in financial and loss of use of employme t agreement and appointment damages to Plaintiff. 

All defen ts engaged in a breach of contract with each other and people unknown to 

inflict harm upon laintiff for the purpose of halting the exposure of corrupt and criminal 

activities by brea hing an employment contract in an appointment as Municipal Judge for the 

City of Pleasanto for Plaintiffs refusal to break federal and state law with quotas and unlawful 

higher fines impo ed as instructed by City Council to City Manager Huizar directly to Plaintiff 

Additionally, De ndants used Plaintiffs age, her sex, and decimated against her because she was months away fro retirement and health benefits and gave no valid reason for her termination. 

COUNT SIXTEEN 

(42 U. .C. § 1983Violation of Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments) 

Plaintiff reby incorporates all other paragraphs of this Complaint as if fully set forth 

Case 5:20-cv-00536-XR Document 5 Filed 05/12/20 Page 7 of 15
herein. 42 U.S.C. 1983 provides that: Eveiy person, who under color of any statute, ordinance, 

regulation, custo or usage of any state or territory or the District of Columbia subjects or causes to be subj ted any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction 

thereof to the dep Ovation of any rights, privileges or immunities secured by the constitution and 

law shall be liabl to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other appropriate 

proceeding for re ss. Plaintiff in this action is a citizen of the United States for purposes of 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

All individual Dc ndants to this claim, at all times relevant hereto, were acting under the color 

of state law in th r capacity as City Manager for the City of Pleasanton and City Officials and 

their acts or omis ions were conducted within the scope of their official duties or employment. 

At the time of the omplained of events, Plaintiff had the clearly established Constitutional right 

to be free from iolation of due process under the Fourteenth Amendment and the Fourth 

Amendment. Def dants also violated the federal election laws and made motions and voted on items they had no right to do. Defendants acted outside policy, laws and federal rules to violate 

Plaintiffs fourth d fourteenth amendments. 

Any reaso able person or employee of the City of Pleasanton knew or should have 

known of these ri ts at the time of the complained of conduct as they were clearly established at 

that time. Individ al Defendants violated Plaintiffs Fourteenth Amendment rights to be free from 

malicious actions without due process when they worked in concert to prevent her from due 

process and rights afforded to him and any employee of Pleasanton and other damages and losses as described he n entitling him to compensatory and special damages, in amounts to be 

determined at trial As a further result of the Defendants' unlawful conduct, Plaintiff has incurred 

special damages, including medically related expenses and may continue to incur further 

medically or othe special damages related expenses, in amounts to be established at trial. On 

information and lief, Plaintiff has suffered lost future earnings and impaired earnings 

capacities from e not yet fully ascertained by Defendants' conduct, as described above, was intended to and d d inflict severe mental and emotional distress upon Plaintiff and her family. 

Plaintiff is further entitled to attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to 42U.S.C. § 1988, pre-judgment 

interest and costs as allowable by federal law. There may also be special damages for lien 

interests. 

In additio to compensatory, economic, consequential and special damages, Plaintiff is 

entitled to punitiv damages against each of the individually named Defendants under 42 U.S.C. 

§ 1983, in that th actions of each of these individual Defendants have been taken maliciously, 

willfully or with a reckless or wanton disregard of the constitutional rights of Plaintiff. 

Defendant violated Plaintiff Fourth Amendment rights by seizing her property without a warrant or legal rocess from her City Office and placing into the City of Pleasanton Police 

Storage Vault wit out a hearing, warrants or any legal process or Plaintiffs rights to privacy. 

DAMAGES DEMANDED FROM DEFENDANTS 

Plaintiff d mands fmm defendants, damages, punitive damages, costs, and any potential 

damages, reinstat ment of employment, back pay, retirement and health benefits owed to her, 

future attorney fe s, and whatever other relief is provided by ajury and the court. 

Request for Disclosure 

Plaintiff h filed this request to the City of Pleasanton and Defendants for discovery 

Pursuant to Texas ules of Civil Procedure 194, you are hereby once again requested to disclose 

within fifty days er date of service of this Request, the information and the material described 

in Rule 194.2(a) t mugh (i).More specifically, you are requested to disclose: 

(a) The correct n es of the parties to the lawsuit; 

(b) The name, ad ss and telephone number of any potential parties; 

(c) Legal theories d in general the factual basis of Defendants' claims or defenses; 

(d) All city polici s, Human Resources Manuals, employment handbooks regarding terminating 

employment with ppointed officials, amount of public money used to pay Maldonado as an Attorney for the ity ofPleasanton since his first day of employment to current date. 

(e) The name, ad ess and telephone number of persons having knowledge of 

relevant facts and a brief statement of each identified person's connection with the 

case; 

(0 For any testify ng expert: 

(1) the expert's n e, address and telephone number; 

(2) the subject m er on which the expert will testify; 

(3) the general su stance of the expert's mental impressions and opinions and a brief summary f the basis for them, or, if the expert is not retained by, 

employed, or oth ise subject to the control of the responding party, 

Documents reflec ing such information; 

(4) if the expert is retained by, employed, or otherwise subject to the control 

of the respondi g party: 

(5) All docume ts that pertain to Plaintiff employment records. 

(A) all documen , tangible things, reports, models or data compilations that have been provided 

to, reviewed or fo the expert in anticipation of the expert's testimony; and 

(B) the expert's c rrent resume and bibliography. 

Case 5:20-cv-00536-XR Document 5 Filed 05/12/20 Page 8 of 15
(g) Any 

(h) Any 

(i) Any 

For the I lawsuit, Plaintif 

following: 

(a) all damages 

(b) Reasonable 

(c) Pre-judgmen 

(d) Co: 

(e) Exempl 

(f) Such other ai 

Are justly entitli 

Plaintiff will pr 

ajury trial. Plaii a later date. 

Dated: 

Se 

I hereby certif' 

Plaintiff will ele 

Marshalls Offic 

dee-b 

indemnity and insuring agreements; 

settlement agreements relating to this case; and 

witness statements. 

Prayer and Relief Request 

Ding reasons, Plaintiff request that upon final trial or other disposition of this e and recover judgment against Defendants jointly and severally for the 

id necessary attorney's fees or future Attorney fees; 

and post-judgment interest as provided by law; s of court; 

ry damages; and 

I further relief, at law or in equity, to which Plaintiffs 

each count during the discovery phase which will suffice to move the court to 

will submit evidence and exhibits to the court including audio recordings at 

Plaintiff Pro 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE on Aprit$ 2020,! filed the foregoing with the Clerk of Court hand carried. 

riically submit a copy upon all defendants pripr to being served by the US 

QOL* (W 4 h'd 1i 

Elsie Guerra 

-ProSe , 2 G UERRA V CITY OF PLEA SANTON 

Case 5:20-cv-00536-XR Document 5 Filed 05/12/20 Page 9 of 15
Sifuentes, Jr, 

Denton Naval 

417 San Pedn 

San Antonio, 

Re: EEO( 

Chart 

Resp 

Dear Mr. Sift 

Thari 

assessment o 

employer has 

Alter 

investigation 

21, 2019 prec 

job performa: 

employment. 

or disability 

views that t 

Notice of Ri 

Commission 

court within I 

within the sta 

sue in federal 

U.S. JUAL EMPLOY1ENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION 

San Antonio Field Office 

5410 Fredericksburg Road, Suite 200 

San Antonio, TX 78229-3555 

Intake Infonnation Group: (800) 669-4000 

Intake Information Group TFY: (800) 669-6820 

San Antonio Direct Dial: (210) 640-7530 

FAX (210)281-2522 

Website: www.eeocgov 

en M D Rocha Bernal & Zech 

Avenue 

X78212 

Charge: 451-2019-00688 

ng Party: Elsie Guerra 

ident: CITY OF PLEASANTON 

Jr.: 

you for the additional information you submitted in response to our preliminary 

the evidence. We want to assure you that all the evidence submitted by you and the 

een considered in our review of your client's case. 

review of the additional information you provided, it remains our assessment that further s unlikely to result in a violation of the statutes we enforce. As explained in our October 

rtermination letter, the evidence indicates Respondent was unhappy with Charging Party's 

ce and therefore believed it had a legitimate nondiscriminatory reason to terminate her 

rhe available information does not support a conclusion that Charging Party's sex, age, race 

'ere factors in your client's employment experiences. While we realize that you have firm 

e evidence supports your position your client was discriminated against, the final 

must comport with our interpretation of the available evidence and the laws we enforce. 

y, we decline to take further action on the charge. Please find enclosed Dismissal and 

that represents a final determination by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity 

C) and describes your client's right to pursue the matter by filing a lawsuit in federal 

(90) days of receipt of the dismissal notice. If you or your client fail to file a lawsuit 

ninety (90) day period following receipt of our dismissal notice, your client's right to 

will expire and cannot be restored by EEOC. 

Date 

Enclosure: D smissal 

cc: 

Elsie Guerra 

1257 Encino r. Pleasanton, TX 78064 

and Notice of Rights 

Sincerely, 

-_1,I_ 9i2)12v 

Norma Guzman 

Enforcement Manager 

SAFO DCL 2020 

Case 5:20-cv-00536-XR Document 5 Filed 05/12/20 Page 10 of 15
EEOCFom 181 (11/16) U.S EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION 

1 1 DISMISSAL AND NOTICE OF RIGHTS 

To: Elsie Guerra From: San Antonio Field Office 

1257 Encino Dr. 5410 FrederIcksburg Rd 

Pleasanton, TX 8064 Suite 200 

San Antonio, TX 78229 

[J n behalf of person(s) aggrieved whose identity is 

ONFIDENTIAL (29 CFR 16Of. 7(a)) 

EEOC Charge No. EEOC Representative Telephone No. 

De Anna M. Hayward, 

451-2019-00688 Federal Investigator (210) 281-7650 

THE EEOC IS CLOSI G ITS FILE ON THIS CHARGE FOR THE FOLLOWING REASON: 

The facts a eged in the charge fail to state a claim under any of the statutes enforced by the EEOC. 

Your allega ons did not involve a disability as defined by the Americans With Disabilities Act. 

The Respo dent employs less than the required number of employees or is not otherwise covered by the statutes. 

Your thaq was not timely filed with EEOC; in other words, you waited too long after the date(s) of the alleged discriminati n to file your charge 

The EEOC issues the following determination: Based upon its investigation, the EEOC is unable to conclude that the 

information obtained establishes violations of the statutes. This does not certify that the respondent is in compliance with 

the statute . No finding is made as to any other issues that might be construed as having been raised by this charge. 

The EEOC as adopted the findings of the state or local fair employment practices agency that investigated this charge. 

[J Other (brie ystate) 

- NOTICE OF SUIT RIGHTS - 

(See the additional information attached to this fonn.) 

Title VII, the Americats with Disabilities Act, the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act, or the Age Discrimination in EmIoyment Act: This will be the only notice of dismissal and of your right to sue that we will send you. You may file a lawsuit gainst the respondent(s) under federal law based on this charge in federal or state court. Your 

lawsuit must be filed 1lTHIN 90 DAYS of your receipt of this notice; or your right to sue based on this charge will be 

lost. (The time limit for riling suit based on a claim under state law may be different.) 

Equal Pay Act (EPA): 

I EPA suits must be filed in federal or state court within 2 years (3 years for willful violations) of the 

alleged EPA underpayrent. This means that backpay due for any violations that occurred more than 2 years (3 years) before you file suit my not be collectible. 

Enclosures(s) 

cc: Clarissa M. R 

Denton Nava 

2517 N. Main 

San Antonio, 

Rocha Bernal & Zech 

78212 

On behalf of the Commission 

vcks, / /8/rn O 

Ira (Date Mailed) 

Director 

Ben Sifuentes, Jr. 

Ben M. Sifuentes, Jr., P.C. 

417 SAN PEDRO AVENUE 

San Antonio, TX 78212 

Case 5:20-cv-00536-XR Document 5 Filed 05/12/20 Page 11 of 15
Enclosure with EEOC 

Form 161 (11116) 

If 

INFORMATION RELATED TO FILING SUIT 

UNDER THE LAWS ENFORCED BY THE EEOC 

(This information relates to filing suit In Federal or State court under Federal law. also plan to sue claiming violations of State law, please be aware that time limits and other 

provisions of State law may be shorter or more limited than those described below.) 

PRIVATE SUIT RIGTs Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA), or the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA): 

in order to pursue t is matter further, you must file a lawsuit against the respondent(s) named in the charge within 90 days of the dat you receive this Notice. Therefore, YOU should keep a record of this date. Once this 90- day period is over, our right to sue based on the charge referred to in this Notice will be lost. If you intend to consult an attorney you should do so promptly. Give your attorney a copy of this Notice, and Its envelope, and tell him or her the date ou received it. Furthermore, in order to avoid any question that you did not act in a timely manner, it is prude t that your suit be filed within 90 days of the date this Notice was malledto you (as indicated where the Notice is signed) or the date of the postmark, if later. 

Your lawsuit may b fiIed in U.S. District Court or a State court of competent jurisdiction. (Usually, the appropriate State court is the 9 neral civil trial court.) Whether you file in Federal or State court is a matter for you to decide after talking to your attorney. Filing this Notice is not enough. You must file a "complaint" that contains a short statement of the fa ts of your case which shows that you are entitled to relief. Courts often require that a copy of 

your charge must b attached to the complaint you file in court. If so, you should remove your birth date from the charge. Some court will not accept your complaint where the charge includes a date of birth. Your suit may include 

any matter alleged i the charge or, to the extent permitted by court decisions, matters like or related to the matters alleged in the charg . Generally, suits are brought in the State where the alleged unlawful practice occurred, but in 

some cases can be brought where relevant employment records are kept, where the employment would have been, or where the espondent has its main office. if you have simple questions, you usually can get answers from the office of the cler of the court where you are bringing suit, but do not expect that office to write your complaint or make legal strate y decisions for you. 

PRIVATE SUIT RIGFTS - Equal Pay Act (EPA): 

EPA suits must be filed in court within 2 years (3 years for willful violations) of the alleged EPA underpayment: back 

pay due for vioIatiors that occurred more than 2 years (3 years) before you file suit may not be collectible. For example, if you wer underpaid under the EPA for work performed from 7/1/08 to 12/1/08, you should file suit before 7/1/10 - not 12/1/10 -- in order to recover unpaid wages due for July 2008. This time limit for filing an EPA suit is separate fronl the 90-day filing period under Title VII, the ADA, GINA or the ADEA referred to above. Therefore, if you aIs plan to sue under Title VII, the ADA, GINA or the ADEA, in addition to suing on the EPA claim, suit must be lIed within 90 days of this Notice within the 2- or 3-year EPA back pay recovery period. 

ATTORNEY REPRESNTATION Title VII, the ADA or GINA: 

If you cannot afford r have been unable to obtain a lawyer to represent you, the U.S. District Court having jurisdiction in your case may, in imited circumstances, assist you in obtaining a lawyer. Requests for such assistance must be made to the U.S. Dis rict Court in the form and manner it requires (you should be prepared to explain in detail your efforts to retain an at orney). Requests should be made well before the end of the 90-day period mentioned above, because such reque ts do relieve you of the requirement to bring suit within 90 days. 

ATTORNEY REFERRL AND EEOC ASSISTANCE -- All Statutes: 

You may contact the EOC representative shown on your Notice if you need help in finding a lawyer or if you have any questions about your egal rights, including advice on which U.S. District Court can hear your case. if you need to inspect or obtain a co y of information in EEOC's file on the charge, please request it promptly in writing and provide your charge number s shown on your Notice). While EEOC destroys charge files after a certain time, all charge files 

are kept for at least 6 months after our last action on the case.. Therefore, if you file suit and want to review the charge file, please make yo r review request within 6 months of this Notice. (Before filing suit, any request should be made within the next 0 days.) IF YOL FILE SUIT, PLEASE SEND A COPY OF YOUR COURT COMPLAINT TO THIS OFFICE. 

Case 5:20-cv-00536-XR Document 5 Filed 05/12/20 Page 12 of 15
NOTICE OF RI( HTS 4.JNDER TUE ADA AMENDMENTS ACT OF 2008 (ADAAA): The ADA was 

amended, effective January 1, 2009, to broaden the definitions of disability to make it easier for individuals to 

be covered under ie ADA/ADAAA. A disability is still defined as (1) a physical or mental impairment that 

substantially limits one or more major life activities (actual disability); (2) a record of a substantially limiting 

impairment; or (3) eing regarded as having a disability. However, these terms are redefined, and it is easier to 

be covered under t e new law. 

"Actual" disabffit' or a "record of" a disability (note: if you are pursuing a failure to accommodate claim 

you must meet th standards for either "actual" or "record of" a disability): 

) The llmitatio .s from the impairment no longer have to be severe or significant for the impairment to 

be considered substantially limiting. ) In addition to activities such as performing manual tasks, walking, seeing, hearing, speaking, breathing, 

learning, thinJ ing, concentrating, reading, bending, and communicating (more examples at 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(i)), " riajor life activities" now include the operation of major bodily functions, such as: 

functions of he immune system, special sense organs and skin; normal cell growth; and digestive, 

genitourinary, bowel, bladder, neurological, brain, respiratory, circulatory, cardiovascular, endocrine, 

hemic, lymph tic, musculoskeletal, and reproductive functions; or the operation of an individual organ within a body ystem. 

> Only one maj 'r life activity need be substantially limited. 

> With the cxc ption of ordinary eyeglasses or contact lenses, the beneficial effects of "mitigating measures" ( .g., hearing aid, prosthesis, medication, therapy, behavioral modifications) are not 

considered in determining if the impairment substantially limits a major life activity. 

> An impairmei t that is "episodic" (e.g., epilepsy, depression, multiple sclerosis) or "in remission" (e.g., 

cancer) is a di ability if it would be substantially limiting when active. 

> An impairmei t may be substantially limiting even though it lasts or is expected to last fewer than six 

months. 

"Regarded as" co erage: 

> An individual can meet the definition of disability if an employment action was taken because of an 

actual or pe ceived impairment (e.g., refusal to hire, demotion, placement on involuntary leave, 

termination, e :clusion for failure to meet a qualification standard, harassment, or denial of any other term, 

condition, or rivilege of employment). 

> "Regarded as' coverage under the ADAAA no longer reqiires that an impairment be substantially 

limiting, or th t the employer perceives the impairment to be substantially limiting. 

> The employer has a defense against a "regarded as" claim only when the impairment at issue is objectively 

BOTH transit ry (lasting or expected to last six months or less) AND minor. 

> A person is n t able to bring a failure to accommodate claim !f the individual is covered only under the 

"regarded as" lefinition of "disability." 

Note: Although t e amended ADA states that the definition of disability "shall be construed broadly" and 

"should not deman extensive analysis," some courts require specificity in the complaint explaining how an 

impairment substa4 tially limits a major life activity or what facts indicate the challenged employment action 

was because of the mpairmenL Beyond the initial pleading stage, some courts will require specific evidence 

to establish disabi ity. For more information, consult the amended regulations and appendix, as well as 

explanatory publica ions, available at http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/disability_regulations.cfin. 

Case 5:20-cv-00536-XR Document 5 Filed 05/12/20 Page 13 of 15
- 

US EQUAL EQ(MENT OPPORdNITY COMMISSION 

SAN ANTONIO FIELD OFFICE 5410 FREDERICKSBURG ROAD SUITE 200 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER SAN ANTONiO, TX 78229-3555 

Elsie Guerra 1257 Encino Dr. 

Pleasantoh, TX 78064 

"8:s4'rei pcb:2 

Case 5:20-cv-00536-XR Document 5 Filed 05/12/20 Page 14 of 15
JS44 (Rev.06/l7) CIVIL COVER SHEET 

provided 

The JS 44 

by 

civil 

local cover sheet and th intbrmation contained herein neither replace nor supplement the filing and service of pleadings or other papers as required by law, except as purpose of initiating 

rules of court. 1iis fbrm, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September1974, is required for the use of the Clerk of Court for the the civil dockCt sheet. (SEE1NSTRUCTIONSONNEXTPAGE OF THIS FORM.) 

I. (a) PLAINTIFFS DEFENDANTS 

Elsie Guerra City of Pleasanton, et al, Individually Travis Hall Jr., Johnny Huizar, 

Robert Maldonado, Ben Sifuentes. 

(b) County of Residence ofF st Listed Plaintiff Atascosa County of Residence of First Listed Defendant Atascosa (RICE TIN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES) (IN US PL4INTJFFCASESONLY) 

NOTE: INLAND CONDEMNATION CASES, USE THE LOCATION OF THE TRACT OF LAND INVOLVED. (c) Attorneys (Firm Name, Add s.c. and Telephone Number) 

Pro-Se SA2OCA0536 

IL BASIS OFJURISDIC ION1piacean "I In OneBoxOnly) HI, CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES (Place an "XInOneBoxforPlamliff 

13 (For Diversity Cases Only) and One Box forDfendan() 1 U.S. Government 3 Federal Question PIT DEF PTF DEF Plaintiff (U.S (ovemmentNotaParty) Citizen of This State 13 1 0 1 IncorporatedorPrincipal Place 13 4 13 4 of Business In This State 13 2 U.S. 

Defendant 

Government 0 4 Diversity Citizen of Mother State 13 2 0 2 Incorporated and Principal Place Cl 5 0 5 (Indicate Citizenship of Parties In Rem Ill) of Business In Another State 

Citizen or Subject of a 0 3 0 3 Foreign Nation 0 6 Cl 6 IV. NATURE OF SUIT (Pt ran $lWO In One Box Only) Click here for: Nature n Suit Code escriytions. 

. pff 11(lrHpsrJf4TtTrRSwI Cl 110 Insurance ERSONAL INJURY PERSONAL INJURY 0 625 Drug Related Seizure 0 422 Appeal 28 USC 158 0 375 False Claims Act Ci Cl l20Marine 130 Miller Act 

0 

0 

lOAirplane 13 365Peisonallnjury - ofproperty2lUSC88l 0423 Withdrawal 0 376QuiTain(31 USC 15 Airplane Product Product Liability 0 690 Other 28 USC 157 3729(a)) 13 140 Negotiable lnsttument Liability Cl 367 Health Care! 0 400 State Reapportionment tPROPERRGHTS 0 150 Recovery of Overpayment 133 .0 Ajsault Libel & Pharmaceutical 3410 AnIitrut 820 Copyrights 

& Enforcement of Judgment Slander Personal Injury 0 Cl 430 Banks and Banking 

0 151 Medicare Act Cl 3 0 Federal Employers' Product Liability 830 Patent 0 450 Commerce 152 Recovery of Defaulted Liability Cl 368 Asbestos Personal 835 Patent - Abbreviated 0 460 Deportation Student Loans Cl 3 0 Marine Injury Product New Drug Application 470 Racketeer Influenced and (Excludes Veterans) 0 5 Marine Product Liability Cl 153 Recovery of Overpayment 840 Trademarlc Comipt Organizations Liability PERSONAL PROPERTY 3480 Consumer Credit Cl ofVeteran'sBenefits 03 )MotorVehicle Ci 3700therFraud Cl 7l0FairLaborStandards Cl 861 HIA(l395ff) 0490 Cable/Sat TV Cl 160 Stockholders' Suits Cl 3 5 Motor Vehicle Cl 371 Truth in Lending Act Cl 862 Black Lung (923) Cl 850 Securities/Commodities! 

0 190 Other Contract Product Liability Ci 380 Other Personal 0 720 Labor/Management 13 863 DIWC/DIWW (405(g)) Exchange CI 195 Contract Product Liability CII 1 Other Personal Property Damage Relations Cl 864 SSID Title XVI Cl 890 Other Statutory Actions 196 Franchise 

0 

Injury Cl 385 Property Damage Cl 740 Railway Labor Act 13 865 RSI (405(g)) 0 891 Agricultural Acts 3 2Personallnjury- ProdiictLiability Cl l5lFarnilyandMedkal Cl 893EnvircaunentalMatteis Medical MaIactice Leave Act 

3790 Other Labor Litigation Cl 791 Employee Retirement 

0 895 Freedom of Information 

Act 13 896 Axbitratin 

IsilA F. ]fG1S PRRF1fl1ONSt Cl 210 Land Condemnation 134 0 Other Civil Rights Habeas Corpus: Cl 870 Taxes (U.S. Plaintiff Cl 220 Foreclosure 04 1 Voting Ci 463 Alien Detainee Income Security Act or Defendant) CI 899 Administrative Procedure 13 13 230 Rent Lease & Ejectment 0 4 2 Employment Cl 510 Motions to Vacate Cl 811 IRSThird Party Act/Review or Appeal of 240 Torts to Land Cl 4 3 Housing! Sentence 0 26 USC 7609 Agency Decision 245 Tort Product Liability Accommodations Cl 530 General 0 . Cl 950 Constitutionality of 290 All Other Real Property 04 5 Amer. w/Disabilit es - Ci 535 Death Penalty State Statutes 13462 Naturalization Application Employment Otber 

134 6 Amer. w/Diarbilities - 13 540 Mandamus & Other 13465 Other Immigration Other Cl 550 Civil Rights Actions 0 4 Education Cl 555 Prison Condition Cl 560 Civil Detainee - Conditions of 

Confinement 

V. ORIGIN (P/ocean "X"InOne oxOnly) Xl Original 

Proceeding Cl 2 Remove 

State Co 

from 13 3 Remanded from 0 4 Reinstated or C) 5 Transfen'ed from 0 6 Multidistrict Cl 8 Multidistrict t Appellate Court Reopened Another District Litigation - Litigation - 

(speclfi') Transfer Direct File 

VI, CAUSE OF ACTION 

VII. REQUESTED IN 

COMPLAINT: 

the U.S. Civil Statute under which you are filing (Do not cite juristlic#onulswtetes unless diveini(y): IMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES ARISING FROM VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS (litle 42 U.S.C. 1983-1986) F f description of cause: IMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES ARISING FROM VIOLATION OF CML RIGHTS (Title 42 U.S.C. § 1983-1986); R 

CHECK IF THIS ISA CLASS ACTION DEMAND $ CHECK YES only if demanded in complaint: UNDER RULE 23, F.R.Cv.P. over I million JURY DEMAND: Yes CIN0 

VIII. RELATED CASE(S) I IF ANY (See instructions): 

E _______________________DOCKET NUMBER rwrnf. A\ I .cr(ThrAT1riTTflPNnVflWPnf'Cmfl 

IR OFFICE USE ONLY 

RECEIPT# AMO APPLYING IF? I MAO. JUDGE M J 

Case 5:20-cv-00536-XR Document 5 Filed 05/12/20 Page 15 of 15