1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

D. A., A.A., and Lucinda del Carmen 

Padilla-Gonzales, 

 

 Plaintiffs, 

 v.

The United States of America, Heartland 

Alliance for Human Needs and Human 

Rights, and Heartland Human Care Services, 

Inc.,

 Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 20-cv-3082

Hon. Martha M. Pacold

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED AS TO 

THOSE CLAIMS SO TRIABLE

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Plaintiffs D.A. and A.A. and their mother, Lucinda Padilla-Gonzales, by their attorneys, 

bring this complaint against the United States of America pursuant to the Federal Tort Claims 

Act (“FTCA”), 28 U.S.C. § 1346(b), and against Heartland Alliance for Human Needs and 

Human Rights and Heartland Human Care Services under the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. § 

794, 42 U.S.C. § 12102(1) and under state law, stating as follows:

INTRODUCTION

1. Siblings D.A. and A.A. and their mother, Lucinda Padilla-Gonzales, came to the 

United States desperate for help. Upon being taken into custody, however, federal agents and 

contractors working for the United States government subjected the family to treatment so harsh 

and deliberately cruel that it could be fairly described as torturous. This action seeks damages for 

that unlawful mistreatment. 

2. D.A. and A.A. fled Honduras for the United States with Lucinda in May 2018 to 

seek safety and asylum from political violence that had been directed against the family. D.A. 

Case: 1:20-cv-03082 Document #: 35 Filed: 09/30/20 Page 1 of 35 PageID #:157
2

and A.A.’s father, Luis Ardón-Castellanos, and their older brother, L.A., had already fled 

Honduras the month before.

3. When Lucinda and her children arrived in the United States, however, they were 

repeatedly mistreated by Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) agents who acted 

unlawfully and in violation of applicable regulations and policies. Out of a desire to deliberately 

inflict cruelty upon a Latino family from Central America, federal agents dragged 14-year-old 

D.A. and 5-year-old A.A. away from their mother, crying and screaming, and shipped them off 

to a shelter far away without telling Lucinda or her children about what was happening or where 

the children were going.

4. Federal agents did not promptly take action to reunite D.A. and A.A. with their 

father either, who was already in the United States and anxious to be reunited with his children. 

Instead, federal agents deliberately moved, detained, and isolated the children in Chicago, 

Illinois, hundreds of miles away from either of their parents, for more than a month.

5. Separating D.A. and A.A. from their parents inflicted immense trauma on the 

children and Lucinda. Federal agents conducted the separation and treated the children in a 

deliberately cruel manner in order to coerce Lucinda to give up her and D.A. and A.A.’s rights, 

including their asylum claims, and leave the United States.

6. For example, contrary to their mandatory obligations, after separating Lucinda 

and her children, federal agents then prevented them from having a single phone call with their 

mother, depriving the traumatized children and their mother of the opportunity to even hear the 

other’s voices; or to know the other was okay; or even alive. 

7. Once D.A. and A.A. arrived in Chicago, the government’s contractor, Defendants

Heartland Alliance for Human Needs and Human Rights and its subsidiary Heartland Human 

Case: 1:20-cv-03082 Document #: 35 Filed: 09/30/20 Page 2 of 35 PageID #:158
3

Care Services, Inc. (collectively “Heartland”), failed to accommodate the siblings’ symptoms of 

post-traumatic stress; subjected the traumatized children to a regimented existence in which they 

were denied basic features of childhood; deprived the siblings of all privacy; and even separated 

the two children from each other, for example prohibiting then five-year-old A.A. from hugging 

his older sister. This failure to accommodate the children’s evident disability further exacerbated 

their emotional trauma.

8. Federal agents also recklessly disregarded Lucinda’s physical safety and health 

during her detention. Agents confiscated crutches that a hospital in the United States had 

provided to help Lucinda recover from a leg injury, caused her to suffer a traumatic brain injury 

while being transported in a government vehicle, and ignored medical advice from doctors, 

deciding to “treat” her head injuries with ibuprofen despite doctors having recommended that she 

be cared for at a hospital.

9. Eventually, after more than two months and with the help of legal representation,

Lucinda was released from detention and reunited with her children. But the injuries that D.A., 

A.A., and Lucinda suffered as a result of the misconduct of federal agents were substantial. The 

mistreatment that they were forced to endure, described herein, was devastating, and the 

resulting harm continues to this day. 

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

10. This Court has jurisdiction over this claim for money damages against the United 

States pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1346(b)(1).

11. Plaintiffs have exhausted their FTCA claims. Plaintiffs filed all required 

administrative forms with each of the relevant agencies of the United States of America more 

Case: 1:20-cv-03082 Document #: 35 Filed: 09/30/20 Page 3 of 35 PageID #:159
4

than six months ago. There has been no final disposition of her administrative claims, and 

Plaintiffs now exercise the option to deem those claims denied pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2675(a).

12. The Court has jurisdiction over the claims against Heartland, pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 1331 and 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

13. A substantial portion of the acts and omissions giving rise to the claims occurred 

in this district. Venue is therefore appropriate under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391 and 1402(b). 

PARTIES

14. D.A. is a sixteen-year-old girl. At the time of the events described herein, she 

was fourteen years old. She is the daughter of Plaintiff Lucinda Padilla-Gonzales. 

15. A.A. is a seven-year-old boy. At the time of the events described herein, he was 

five years old. He is the son of Plaintiff Lucinda Padilla-Gonzales. 

16. Lucinda Padilla-Gonzales is the mother of D.A. and A.A. 

17. Defendant United States of America is a proper defendant under the FTCA. See 

28 U.S.C. §§ 1346(b), 2671, et seq. The United States is sued for the personal injuries of D.A., 

A.A., and Lucinda Padilla-Gonzales, caused by the wrongful acts or omissions of its employees, 

including employees of the Department of Health and Human Services’ Office of Refugee 

Resettlement (ORR) and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and its constituent units, 

Customs and Border Protection (CBP), Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), and 

United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), as well as the contractors that the 

agencies directly supervised. Those employees and contractors were acting within the scope of 

their employment under circumstances where the United States, if a private person, would be 

liable to Plaintiffs in accordance with the law of the place where the act or omission occurred. 

See 28 U.S.C. § 1246(b).

Case: 1:20-cv-03082 Document #: 35 Filed: 09/30/20 Page 4 of 35 PageID #:160
5

18. Defendants Heartland Alliance for Human Needs and Human Rights and its 

wholly owned subsidiary Heartland Human Care Services, Inc. (collectively “Heartland”) are

organizations located in Chicago that contract with the federal government to house 

“unaccompanied” foreign children. On information and belief, Heartland receives federal 

funding for its role in “shelter care and other related services for unaccompanied children” in 

ORR custody, and other projects.

1

ALLEGATIONS

A. D.A., A.A., and Lucinda come to the United States seeking asylum.

19. On the night of May 23, 2018, D.A. and A.A. entered the United States with their 

mother, Lucinda Padilla-Gonzales, seeking asylum from political violence in their native 

Honduras, along with other asylum seekers. Shortly after crossing the U.S. border, several CBP

officers approached the group and arrested them. The CBP officers loaded the group into a van 

without offering them food or water. They insulted Lucinda and her children, calling them liars 

and telling them that they were tired of immigrants, and questioned their motives for coming to 

the United States. The CBP officers also told the group that they would all lose their children. 

B. The government confines the family in an “icebox.”

20. CBP officers took Lucinda and her children to the Ysleta Port of Entry in El Paso, 

Texas. Once at this holding center, a federal officer searched Lucinda and confiscated all of her 

belongings, including her identification card, birth certificates, and 80 Mexican pesos. These 

belongings were never returned to Lucinda. 

1 See Department of Health and Human Services Office of the Inspector General, Office of 

Refugee Resettlement Unaccompanied Alien Children Grantee Review – Heartland, Report No. 

A-05-16-00038 (Sept. 2018), available at https://oig.hhs.gov/oas/reports/region5/51600038.asp

(last visited May 22, 2020) (detailing Heartland’s receipt of federal funds and contractor 

relationship with ORR and HHS).

Case: 1:20-cv-03082 Document #: 35 Filed: 09/30/20 Page 5 of 35 PageID #:161
6

21. The holding center they were taken to is commonly referred to by asylum seekers 

as a “hielera” (an “icebox,” in Spanish) because of the freezing cold temperatures. Lucinda, 

D.A., and A.A., who were still wet from crossing the river, were forced to sit, shivering, on 

concrete steps in the hielera. They were not given any blankets or jackets to protect them from 

the cold while they waited.

22. The family was held at Ysleta Port of Entry detention facility for approximately a 

day and a half. During this time in the holding cell, federal officers repeatedly insulted D.A., 

A.A., and Lucinda. They also told Lucinda that her children would be taken away from her, and 

that she would be deported. The federal agents also ignored Lucinda’s medical needs. Several 

days before arriving to the U.S.–Mexico border, Lucinda had fallen and hurt her leg, which was 

swollen and painful by the time the family crossed into the United States. After Lucinda 

complained about the pain and swelling, officers handcuffed her in front of her children and took 

her to a nearby hospital. At the hospital, she was given Ibuprofen to reduce the pain, her leg was 

wrapped in a cloth bandage, and she was provided with crutches. DHS officers, however, then 

confiscated her crutches and never returned them to her.

C. Federal agents separate D.A. and A.A. from their mother.

23. On approximately May 24, 2018, shortly after Lucinda returned from the hospital, 

she was taken by federal agents and told she was going to federal prison. For no apparent 

purpose other than to inflict pain and humiliation, the federal agents denied Lucinda an 

opportunity to explain anything to D.A. and A.A., or hug and kiss them goodbye. As the federal

agents took Lucinda away in handcuffs, fourteen-year-old D.A. and five-year-old A.A. screamed

and cried for their mother through a plexiglass divider.

24. The DHS agents who separated D.A. and A.A. from Lucinda knew that once A.A. 

and D.A. were separated from Lucinda, ICE and other federal agencies would be unable to 

Case: 1:20-cv-03082 Document #: 35 Filed: 09/30/20 Page 6 of 35 PageID #:162
7

properly track A.A. and D.A., or identify their relationship with either Lucinda, who remained in 

federal custody, or their father, who was not in custody. The agents further knew that A.A. and 

D.A. would not be able to communicate with their mother or father for days and/or weeks on 

end, and that A.A. and D.A. would be unable to be reunited with any family members for several 

weeks.

25. The DHS agents separated them anyway, and then used Lucinda’s isolation to 

torment and traumatize her, to coerce her to give up the asylum claims she had made on behalf of 

herself and her children and to accept deportation, and to coerce her to plead guilty to a criminal 

charge for unlawful entry. 

26. One of the DHS agents who first took the family into custody attempted to 

discourage Lucinda from expressing fear of returning to Honduras, threatening her that if she did

express such a fear, the government would take her children away. Additionally, after Lucinda 

and her children were separated, federal agents used the family’s separation to continue to coerce 

Lucinda: first, DHS agents told her that she would only be reunited with her children if she 

pleaded guilty to misdemeanor unlawful entry charges; then, immigration officers demanded that

she sign documents she did not understand, claiming they were required to reunite her with her 

children. Lucinda was later warned by others in the detention facility that those documents were 

actually a waiver of her asylum claims and an agreement to be deported.

D. D.A. and A.A. are sent to Chicago, rather than released to their father, Luis. 

27. After taking D.A. and A.A.’s mother from them, federal agents held the children 

in the Ysleta Port of Entry facility—the hielera—for another day. Then they took D.A. and A.A. 

to another detention center that was filled with unaccompanied children. The facility resembled 

a jail, and it was impossible to tell whether it was day or night.

Case: 1:20-cv-03082 Document #: 35 Filed: 09/30/20 Page 7 of 35 PageID #:163
8

28. D.A. asked to speak with her parents. She had a small piece of paper with phone 

numbers on it, and she showed it to the federal agents so that they would let her call her family. 

The agents said that she was not allowed to have the paper and they took it from her. They said 

she could not speak with her father.2

29. After about two days in this second facility, the children were taken to an airport, 

where they were placed on a commercial flight with two adults. D.A. asked the adults if they 

were being reunited with their parents, but the adults ignored her questions. They did not tell 

D.A. and A.A. where they were being taken. The children were terrified, anxious and unsure of 

whether or when they would see their parents again, and fearful about where they were being 

taken. When the flight landed, the adults told D.A. and A.A. that they were in Chicago.

30. There is no reason the children could not have been released to their father, Luis, 

who was in North Carolina. There was no basis to dispute his parentage, and in any event his 

paternity could have been quickly verified. Additionally, Luis made every attempt to cooperate 

with government officials. Yet, federal agents repeatedly, and without basis or explanation,

continued to delay releasing D.A. and A.A. to their father.

E. In Chicago, D.A. and A.A. are mistreated in the custody of Heartland 

Alliance.

31. After landing in Chicago, the two adults rented a van and drove the children to a 

detention facility for minors operated by Defendants Heartland Alliance for Human Needs and 

2

 As discussed below, DHS agents are subject to a consent decree that imposes a mandatory, 

non-discretionary duty on ICE to ensure that detained minors are allowed to have “contact with 

family members who were arrested with the minor.” DHS agents violated this mandatory duty by 

refusing to permit D.A. or A.A. to contact Lucinda.

Case: 1:20-cv-03082 Document #: 35 Filed: 09/30/20 Page 8 of 35 PageID #:164
9

Human Rights’ subsidiary, Heartland Human Care Services, in Chicago, believed to be named 

Casa Guadalupe. 

32. When D.A. and A.A. arrived at the Heartland facility, the children did not 

understand why they were there. Employees at the facility told them that their parents had 

committed crimes by bringing them to the United States, and that the separation was punishment 

for their crimes. During their time at the facility, the children heard at least one employee say 

ugly things about immigrants coming to the United States without permission, including 

comments about the children in their care. 

33. Upon arrival, employees at the Heartland facility immediately separated D.A. and 

A.A. from each other, and took them to different buildings, forbidding them from talking 

privately or even hugging beforehand. After separating the children, the employees took what 

belongings the children had. The children were given clothes from the facility.

34. After D.A. and A.A. were separated, their ability to see and talk with each other 

was highly restricted. They were held in separate buildings, and they were only permitted to see 

each other for short periods when children from the different buildings were scheduled to have 

recreation at the same time, which did not always happen. When the siblings did see each other, 

every minute of their interaction was supervised by staff. During these brief interactions, D.A. 

and A.A. were not allowed to speak privately, or allowed to make any physical contact, even to 

hug. 

35. After about a week at the facility, without contact with any other family, the 

children were finally permitted to talk to their father over the phone for short amounts of time. 

Staff at the facility prevented these conversations from being private, however. Instead, each 

time one of the children spoke with their father, a staff person was present and would listen. 

Case: 1:20-cv-03082 Document #: 35 Filed: 09/30/20 Page 9 of 35 PageID #:165
10

36. Even after that point, A.A. had difficulty placing regular calls and once was 

unable to speak to his father for a whole week. The children repeatedly asked to call other family 

members, but were forbidden from doing so. 

37. The children also asked to talk with their mother, but staff at the facility told them 

that they could not contact her. The children never spoke to Lucinda while they were in 

detention.

38. At the Heartland shelter, A.A. would cry at night and ask for his mom. When this 

happened, a woman told him that she was his new mom. The shelter staff also forced A.A. to 

take sleeping pills while he was at the shelter in order to get him to stop crying and to make him 

sleep. Shelter staff also punished him for crying by having his food taken away from him. A.A. 

lost weight while he was at the shelter. A.A. was also bullied by larger children at the shelter, 

and he was punished and confined in the shelter for an additional week after getting into a scuffle 

with another child. 

39. D.A. was housed in a room with three other girls. Their room was checked 

regularly, and staff at the facility would search their beds for contraband. Her interactions with 

the other girls were closely supervised and severely restricted. Staff at the facility forbid the 

girls from talking about their personal lives or their cases, preventing them from making personal 

connections with one another or becoming friends. 

40. The facility where D.A. and A.A. were confined was unsanitary. D.A. and A.A. 

were surrounded by other frightened and traumatized children, many of whom, having also 

arrived from overcrowded CBP detention facilities on the border, were sick with scabies, 

shingles, chickenpox, and tuberculosis. Indeed, while they were at the facility, D.A. became 

infested with lice. D.A. asked staff at the facility for lice treatment, but they ignored her, telling 

Case: 1:20-cv-03082 Document #: 35 Filed: 09/30/20 Page 10 of 35 PageID #:166
11

her she had dandruff. When D.A. combed her hair, however, there were bugs in the comb; D.A. 

observed that other children in the facility were provided lice treatment shampoo, but that facility 

staff specifically refused her request. D.A. felt that staff frequently treated her and other Central 

American children at the facility worse than others in their care. She received no treatment for 

the lice until after she was released from Heartland and reunited with her family.

41. Heartland failed to provide adequate educational services to D.A. and A.A, who 

were in the classroom very few hours a day, with almost no curriculum, and in combined 

classrooms with children whose ages ranged from 5 years old to 17 years old. 

42. The treatment D.A. and A.A. received at the Heartland shelter failed to take 

account of the trauma they had experienced fleeing Honduras and being separated from their 

mother, and instead exacerbated it. It is well known that families and children arriving in the 

United States from Central America are often severely emotionally traumatized by their 

experiences of persecution and violence in those countries, by their perilous journey to the 

United States, and by the abusive treatment at the hands of border and immigration officials once 

they arrive in this country. Indeed, having previously taken in numerous other minors who had 

crossed the border fleeing persecution and subsequently suffered trauma at the hands of border 

and immigration officials, Heartland was well aware that such trauma was common and required 

accommodation.

3

3 See Melissa Sanchez, et al., ProPublica, After Controversy, Heartland to Close Four Illinois 

Shelters for Immigrant Youth, available at: https://www.propublica.org/article/heartland-illinoisshelters-four-to-close-immigrant-youth (last visited May 22, 2020) (“‘[W]e cared for the influx 

of children who had been severely traumatized by the federal government’s practice of forcibly 

separating them from their parents at the border,’” [Heartland Human Care Services] executive 

director David Sinski wrote in the memo.”)

. 

Case: 1:20-cv-03082 Document #: 35 Filed: 09/30/20 Page 11 of 35 PageID #:167
12

43. It is further well known that children who are subject to these conditions suffer 

from post-traumatic stress disorder, generalized anxiety, and depression.4 Unless programs and 

detention conditions address these disabilities, traumatized children are prevented from taking 

advantage of basic services that are offered to unaccompanied children, such as the provision of 

a safe and non-traumatizing setting in which to sleep, play, learn, and develop in a health 

manner. On information and belief, the services and daily routines that Heartland creates for the 

children under its care are at least intended to facilitate and promote such basic, health features

of childhood, which are necessary for each child’s development. But the conditions that D.A. and 

A.A. experienced at Heartland, including regimented isolation and restriction from interacting 

with other children and restrictions that inhibit everyday human contact, are likely to exacerbate 

a traumatized child’s existing psychological conditions, impose further emotional trauma, and 

further inhibit their ability to take advantage of services centers like Heartland offer.

44. This was true of D.A. and A.A. They had fled their childhood homes under threat 

of death, were abruptly and traumatically separated from their mother just hours after arriving in 

a strange and unfamiliar country and were then isolated and confined in the Heartland facility’s 

strictly controlled setting for more than a month. These events were extraordinarily traumatizing, 

and manifested as anxiety and depression, among others. The conditions that Heartland imposed 

on D.A. and A.A. described herein, such as the regimented restrictions on the interaction of 

children, including siblings, failed to take account of these traumatic experiences, thereby 

imposing on D.A. and A.A. a living situation that further traumatized them and inhibited their 

4 See Notification of disabilities of persons targeted in Central American refugee raids and 

request for immediate modifications, Letter to DHS and DOJ from 241 Organizations (Jan. 

2016), available at https://law.yale.edu/sites/default/files/area/clinic/document/dhs_

doj_rehab_act_letter_-_2016.01.11_-_english.pdf (last visited May 22, 2020).

Case: 1:20-cv-03082 Document #: 35 Filed: 09/30/20 Page 12 of 35 PageID #:168
13

normal development and their ability to take advantage of the programming and services that 

Heartland offered to the children in custody.

45. Additionally, both children were further traumatized and injured when Heartland 

employees engaged in active disability discrimination as described herein. This included 

punishing of A.A. for crying and getting in a scuffle, and making hostile remarks to A.A. and 

D.A. regarding the precise traumatic events (their flight from Central America, apprehension at 

the border, and separation from their mother) to which both children had been exposed.

46. It was only on June 29, 2018, after more than a month of confinement, that the 

two children were finally allowed to be reunited with their father.

G. Defendants unnecessarily delay D.A. and A.A.’s reunification with their 

father.

47. Soon after D.A. and A.A. arrived at the Heartland facility, Luis was made aware 

that his children were being held in Chicago. He spoke repeatedly to a man named “Rafael,” who 

he believes was either a Heartland staff member or an ORR official. Anxious to be reunited with 

his children, Luis cooperated with Rafael’s every request.

48. Rafael eventually provided Luis a form to request the release of his children, 

which Luis filled out and returned immediately. After submitting the form, Luis did not hear 

back from anyone for days. When Luis was eventually contacted, the date he was told his 

children would be released was repeatedly delayed. In total, Defendants delayed the date of 

release for A.A. and D.A. by several weeks.

49. When the children were finally supposed to be released, Luis was suddenly told

that their release was contingent upon his paying for his children’s airfare and the airfare of a 

custodian to fly from Chicago. Desperate to be reunited with his children, Luis quickly paid 

more than a thousand dollars. 

Case: 1:20-cv-03082 Document #: 35 Filed: 09/30/20 Page 13 of 35 PageID #:169
14

50. Even after their father paid for airfare and cooperated with Rafael’s every request, 

however, A.A. and D.A’s release was delayed further. Luis received a call from Rafael claiming 

that A.A. and D.A. could not yet be returned because A.A, who was five years old at the time, 

had allegedly hit another child in the shelter where he was being held and was being “punished.”

51. On June 29, 2018, A.A. and D.A.’s isolation finally ended, more than a month 

after it began, when they were handed over to their father at the airport in Charlotte, North

Carolina. By that point, Defendants had needlessly separated the fourteen-year-old and the fiveyear-old from their parents for approximately five weeks.

H. The government mistreated Lucinda, who remained in its custody. 

52. Meanwhile, after Lucinda was separated from A.A. and D.A. on approximately 

May 24, 2018, federal agents took her to another facility. After arriving at the facility, Lucinda 

was forced to wait for approximately six hours in a freezing cold area, during which time she 

was tightly handcuffed. When she asked the agents to loosen them, they refused, and instead 

insulted her and told her that she had no right to ask for anything. The federal agents also told 

Lucinda that no matter what she said or did, she wouldn’t get out. At approximately 3:00 a.m., 

she was taken to the showers by federal agents. They ordered her to strip and to shower in cold 

water. Then they moved her to a cell, where she continued to shiver due to the low temperatures 

at the facility.

53. On June 4, 2018, Lucinda was found guilty of improper entry. She was sentenced 

to time served and one year of probation. 

54. Even though Lucinda had not been sentenced to any period of incarceration, she 

was not reunited with her children, sent to a family residential center, or released to join her 

family. Instead, federal agents continued to imprison her, transferring her to the West Texas 

Case: 1:20-cv-03082 Document #: 35 Filed: 09/30/20 Page 14 of 35 PageID #:170
15

Detention Facility in Sierra Blanca, Texas, which is operated by ICE. At this point, despite her 

repeated requests, she had still not heard from her children and did not know where they were.

I. The government recklessly causes Lucinda to suffer a traumatic brain 

injury.

55. Sometime later in June, in the middle of the night, several federal agents believed 

to be ICE agents came into Lucinda’s cell and told her that she was leaving. Lucinda thought that 

she was being released from detention and being reunited with her family. The agents, however, 

handcuffed her behind her back and shackled her ankles before loading her into the backseat of a 

government vehicle. No seatbelt was placed on her. Lucinda asked where she was being taken, 

but her questions were ignored. During transit, the driver suddenly slammed on the brakes. 

Lucinda, who was still handcuffed and shackled, could not use her arms to protect herself and

was thrown forward. She slammed headfirst directly into the metal bars that separated her from 

the federal agents. The sudden impact caused an injury to her head and upper body. She was in 

severe pain and began bleeding profusely. She told the agents she was lightheaded and needed to 

vomit, but her cries were ignored. 

56. Lucinda suffers the effects of this injury to this day.

57. The federal agents took no actions to respond to or even acknowledge Lucinda’s 

obvious injuries. When they arrived at their destination, Lucinda realized she was at an airport 

and was on the brink of being deported by airplane, without her children. She was taken from the 

vehicle by federal agents, and they attempted to deport her by forcing her onto the plane, even 

though she was bleeding from her head, and even though her children were not with her. Lucinda 

refused to get on the airplane and steadfastly indicated that she would not leave without her 

children. 

Case: 1:20-cv-03082 Document #: 35 Filed: 09/30/20 Page 15 of 35 PageID #:171
16

58. The federal agents returned Lucinda to the Sierra Blanca facility later that night. 

The next day, she was taken to the medical unit at the facility to address her head injury, and

medical providers indicated that she should be taken to a hospital. At the hospital, doctors 

examined her and indicated that she needed to return if her condition did not improve within a 

few days. Over the next several days Lucinda’s condition did not improve—she suffered

swelling, difficulty eating, vision problems, and even trouble navigating her detention area—but 

federal agents never returned her to the hospital. Instead, they merely gave her ibuprofen.

59. Aside from her lack of medical care, the conditions at the West Texas Detention 

Facility where Lucinda was held were miserable.5

 She was housed in a small detention pod with 

approximately one hundred other women, who had to clean the space themselves. Guards would 

turn the lights out around 11:00 p.m. and turn them on again around 4:30 a.m., and throughout 

the night they would purposefully turn lights on and off, and yell at detainees. Anything 

resembling consistent sleep was impossible. This compounded Lucinda’s traumatic brain injury, 

causing her significant pain. 

60. The family eventually was able to obtain the services of an immigration attorney 

for Lucinda. The attorney was able to secure a Credible Fear Interview for Lucinda on July 9, 

2018, which she passed. Finally, through further advocacy by the immigration attorney, on 

August 21, 2018, Lucinda was granted bond. She was released from immigration detention and 

5 In 2000, the Immigration and Nationality Act introduced the Performance Based National 

Detention Standards (PBNDS) for detention facilities, which ICE officers are required to follow

in their treatment of detainees. See U.S. IMMIGRATION & CUSTOMS ENF’T, 

PERFORMANCE-BASED NAT’L DET. STANDARDS 2011 (rev. ed. 2016) [Hereinafter 2016 

PBNDS] (the applicable version of the PBNDS at the time of the plaintiffs’ detention) [available 

at https://www.ice.gov/doclib/detention-standards/2011/pbnds2011r2016.pdf].

Case: 1:20-cv-03082 Document #: 35 Filed: 09/30/20 Page 16 of 35 PageID #:172
17

traveled to Charlotte, North Carolina, where she was finally reunited with Luis and her three 

children.

J. The trauma that D.A., A.A., and Lucinda suffered from Defendants’ 

misconduct continues to this day.

61. The trauma caused by the forced separation of D.A. and A.A. from their parents 

did not end, however. When Lucinda attempted to hug A.A. upon reuniting, he rejected her and 

told her that he hated her for abandoning him and that he never wanted to see her again. He 

asked why she left him. D.A., meanwhile, told Lucinda that after experiencing the separation 

from her mother and life in the shelter, she wished she had never been born.

62. D.A. keeps to herself and is closed off. When D.A. comes home from school, she 

often closes herself in her bedroom, pulls down the curtains and just wants to be alone.

63. A.A. was five years old when government employees forcibly separated him from 

his mother and sent him to the Heartland shelter. At the time he was completely toilet trained. 

Shortly after he was released from the Heartland shelter, however, A.A. began losing control of 

his bowel movements and frequently defecated and urinated himself. A.A. continues to have 

trouble with his bodily functions. He frequently urinates himself due to nervousness, especially 

when he is outside of the house. Since being released from the shelter in Chicago, he also has not 

been able to maintain a regular sleeping schedule, is particularly scared of being alone for any 

length of time, and he has hidden under tables out of fear from his experiences at the shelter. 

64. Lucinda still suffers greatly from her forced separation from her children. It is 

extremely difficult for her to talk about what happened to her and to her children during 

separation, and during her detention. She still has problems sleeping, and often wakes up in the 

middle of the night reaching for her children to make sure that they are still there. Memories of 

Case: 1:20-cv-03082 Document #: 35 Filed: 09/30/20 Page 17 of 35 PageID #:173
18

being forcibly separated from her children cause her severe stress and anxiety, overwhelming 

bouts of sadness and trauma, fear, and even loss of appetite for days at a time.

65. In addition, Lucinda still suffers pain from her head injury including vision 

problems, trouble reading, and bouts of forgetfulness that had not occurred before her head 

injury. 

K. The government separation and treatment of D.A. and A.A. from Lucinda 

was unlawful, violated numerous non-discretionary obligations on federal 

agents, and was done in order to coerce them into abandoning their 

legitimate immigration claims

66. Under long-standing legal obligations, imposed by regulations and by consent 

decree, federal agents who took custody of Lucinda and her children, subjected them to harsh 

and deliberately cruel treatment, and separated mother and children without any legitimate 

reason for doing so, violated multiple, non-discretionary duties that were designed to protect 

families, particularly D.A. and A.A. 

1. The separation and treatment of Plaintiffs violated DHS agents’ nondiscretionary obligations to D.A. and A.A. under the Flores consent 

decree

67. Among other things, DHS agents have a well-established legal obligation to 

ensure the prompt release of minors held in immigration custody and to favor preserving family 

unity whenever possible. See Flores v. Reno, CV 85-cv-4544, Dkt. No. 177 (C.D. Cal. July 24, 

2015); 8 C.F.R. § 1236.3. The Flores class action litigation, brought on behalf of minor children 

held in immigration detention, began in 1985 and resulted in a 1997 consent decree that remains 

binding on the United States. The decree also significantly limits the circumstances, duration, 

and manner of immigration detention of minor children, and requires DHS agents to prioritize 

the prompt release of detained minors.

Case: 1:20-cv-03082 Document #: 35 Filed: 09/30/20 Page 18 of 35 PageID #:174
19

68. The Flores consent decree applies to minors, like D.A. and A.A, who arrived in 

the United States to seek asylum with their parents. See Flores v. Lynch, 828 F.3d 898, 907-08 

(9th Cir. 2016) (holding that Flores decree “unambiguously applies to accompanied minors”); 

see also Bunikyte ex rel. Bunikiene v. Chertoff, No. A-07-CA-164-SS, 2007 WL 1074070, at *3 

(W.D. Tex. Apr. 9, 2007) (“[T]he Flores Settlement, by its terms, applies to all ‘minors in the 

custody’ of ICE and DHS, not just unaccompanied minors.”).

69. Flores also limits the time that accompanied minors may be held in immigration 

detention to twenty days, and requires that minors be released to a relative, legal guardian, or 

licensed program within five days of detention. Flores v. Reno, CV 85-4544-DMB-AGR, 2015 

WL 9915880, at *5 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 21, 2015); J.P. v. Sessions, 2019 WL 6723686, at *6 (C.D. 

Cal. Nov. 5, 2019).

70. DHS agents violated their obligations under the Flores consent decree and 8 

C.F.R. § 1236.3 by not prioritizing family unity, instead removing A.A. and D.A. from 

Lucinda’s care, and then failing to promptly reunify the children with their father.

71. Federal agents had no reason to believe that Lucinda was an unfit parent or 

otherwise an inappropriate caregiver for D.A. and A.A. And nothing about the decision to 

subject her to misdemeanor criminal prosecution (not challenged in this lawsuit) created any 

need or basis to violate the requirements of Flores that Lucinda, D.A., and A.A. remain together. 

Indeed, the misdemeanor prosecution was a pretext to separate the family and was done to 

punish Lucinda. The deliberate separation from their mother then left D.A. and A.A. as 

unaccompanied minors, 6 U.S.C. § 279.

72. And within hours of first apprehending the family, federal officials knew that the 

children’s father, Luis, could be contacted and was available and anxious to take them in and 

Case: 1:20-cv-03082 Document #: 35 Filed: 09/30/20 Page 19 of 35 PageID #:175
20

care for them. As such, in separating D.A. and A.A. from their mother, refusing to release them 

to their father, and then confining them in Chicago for more than a month, hundreds of miles 

from both their parents, the federal agents violated their non-discretionary obligations. 

73. The Flores consent decree also created standards for the treatment of minors 

while in federal custody and recognized the vulnerability of immigrant children detained without 

a parent or other legal guardian. The Flores consent decree includes a requirement that 

immigration officers hold minor children in facilities that provide (1) access to food and drinking 

water; (2) medical assistance in the event of emergencies; (3) toilets and sinks; (4) adequate 

temperature control and ventilation; (5) adequate supervision to protect minors from others; (6) 

separation from unrelated adults whenever possible; and (7) contact with family members who 

were arrested with the minor. 

74. DHS agents also violated Flores through the numerous forms of harsh and 

inexcusable treatment to which they subjected D.A. and A.A., as discussed above.

2. The separation and treatment of Plaintiffs violated DHS agents’ nondiscretionary obligations to Plaintiffs under various applicable 

regulations and other rules and standards

75. Consistent with Flores, 8 C.F.R. § 12236.3 impose a mandatory, nondiscretionary duty on ICE to prioritize release to family members—here D.A. and A.A.’s father, 

Luis—over refugee shelters or foster care. 

76. And likewise, Section 1.9 of the General Standards on Transport, Escort, 

Detention and Search (TEDS) states that “CBP will maintain family unity to the greatest extent 

operationally feasible, absent a legal requirement or an articulable safety or security concern that 

requires separation.” See Customs and Border Protection, National Standards on Transport, 

Escort, Detention, and Search 2015 [Hereinafter TEDS] available at

Case: 1:20-cv-03082 Document #: 35 Filed: 09/30/20 Page 20 of 35 PageID #:176
21

https://www.cbp.gov/document/directives/cbp-national-standards-transport-escort-detention-andsearch (last visited May 22, 2020). Section 5.6 of the TEDS on “Detention” states that 

“Generally, family units with juveniles should not be separated. When it is necessary to separate 

juveniles from the parent(s) and/or legal guardian(s), officers/agents must follow legal 

requirements and their operational office’s policies and procedures.” TEDS at 22. 

77. Because no legal requirement, safety or security concern required plaintiffs’ 

separation, these DHS officers violated this standard by separating D.A. and A.A. from Lucinda.

78. Indeed, in Ms. L. v. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Judge Sabraw 

addressed the family separation practices that Lucinda, D.A., and A.A. were subjected to and 

concluded that “nothing in federal law suggests that deterring immigration by indefinitely 

separating families once the parents have been transferred to immigration custody is a 

compelling or legitimate government objective.” 310 F. Supp. 3d 1133, 1142 (S.D. Cal. 2018).

79. In addition, as part of the separation of Lucinda, D.A. and A.A., federal agents

subjected Lucinda, D.A. and A.A. to harsh and deliberately cruel treatment, discussed above, that 

violated numerous mandatory, non-discretionary obligations the agents were required to follow. 

80. For example, DHS agents’ treatment of the family while in the hielera violated 

CBP’s internal policies and standards requiring that temperatures in holding centers be kept 

within a reasonable and comfortable range. CBP issued the TEDS National Standards in October 

of 2015, and CBP officers were required to abide by these standards during the period of 

plaintiffs’ detention. Section 4.6 of the TEDS “Hold Room Standards” states, “Under no 

circumstances will officers/agents use temperature controls in a punitive manner.” TEDS at 16 

(emphasis added). By subjecting plaintiffs to freezing cold temperatures deliberately in the

Case: 1:20-cv-03082 Document #: 35 Filed: 09/30/20 Page 21 of 35 PageID #:177
22

hielera, CBP officers violated this TEDS standard, as well as obligations under the Flores

consent decree. 

81. And Section 1.2 “Integrity and Professionalism” of the TEDS states that “CBP

employees must speak and act with the utmost integrity and professionalism. CBP employees 

must conduct themselves in a manner that reflects positively on CBP at all times.” TEDS at 4. 

Section 1.4 “Non-Discriminatory Policy” also states that “CBP employees must treat all 

individuals with dignity and respect. CBP employees will perform their duties in a nondiscriminatory manner, with respect to all forms of protected status under federal law, regulation, 

Executive Order, or policy, with full respect for individual rights including equal protection 

under the law, due process, freedom of speech, and religion, freedom from excessive force, and 

freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures.” Id. at 4. CBP officers violated these 

standards by insulting Lucinda and other immigration detainees, mocking them, and making 

derogatory and unprofessional comments about detainees.

82. Federal agents also violated mandatory, non-discretionary obligations in 

deliberately ignoring Lucinda’s obvious medical needs. 

83. Section 4.3 “General Detention Procedures” of the TEDS states that “[u]pon a 

detainee’s entry into any CBP hold room, officers/agents must ask detainees about, and visually 

inspect for any sign of injury, illness, or physical or mental health concerns and question the 

detainee about any prescription medications. Observed or reported injuries or illnesses should be 

communicated to a supervisor, documented in the appropriate electronic system(s) of record, and 

appropriate medical care should be provided or sought in a timely manner.” By failing to 

adequately inspect Lucinda for injury and confiscating her crutches, CBP officers violated this 

obligation.

Case: 1:20-cv-03082 Document #: 35 Filed: 09/30/20 Page 22 of 35 PageID #:178
23

84. ICE officers violated their non-discretionary obligations under the PBNDS when 

they failed to properly secure Lucinda while transporting her and recklessly caused her severe

head injury. Section 1.3 of the 2016 PBNDS addresses “Transportation (by Land),” and requires 

that transporting officers “shall comply” with requirements to “transport[] detainees in a safe and 

humane manner,” and that officers must ensure that “vehicles are equipped with seatbelts, [and] 

detainees are properly secured before the transport begins.” Id. at 38, 40. ICE officers violated 

their non-discretionary duties by failing to transport Lucinda in a humane fashion and failing to 

make sure that she was secure before the transport began. The reckless disregard for these nondiscretionary duties caused Lucinda’s head trauma and its long-lasting effects.

85. Section 4.3 of the PBNDS addresses “Medical Care” and requires that detainees 

“shall be able to request health services on a daily basis and shall receive timely follow-up” and 

“shall receive continuity of care from time of admission to time of transfer, release or removal.” 

After causing Lucinda’s head trauma, DHS agents failed to return Lucinda to the hospital as her 

doctor instructed. In doing so, they violated their non-discretionary duties to provide her 

continuity of care and timely follow-up on her injury.

86. The implementation of the separation policy intentionally against Lucinda and her 

children also violated the constitutional rights of Lucinda, D.A. and A.A. See C.M. v. United 

States, 2020 WL 1698191, at *7 (D. Ariz. Mar. 30, 2020) (finding that plaintiffs in a related 

family separation case had “plausibly alleged that the government’s separation of their families 

violated their constitutional rights.”)

87. First, it violated their constitutional right to family integrity. The Supreme Court 

has consistently recognized that the parent-child relationship is constitutionally protected, see, 

e.g., Quilloin v. Walcott, 434 U.S. 246, (1978); Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205, 231–233 

Case: 1:20-cv-03082 Document #: 35 Filed: 09/30/20 Page 23 of 35 PageID #:179
24

(1972); Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 399–401 (1923), and that it is constitutionally 

important for children to remain with their parents, see Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158, 

166 (1944) (“It is cardinal with us that the custody, care and nurture of the child reside first in the 

parents, whose primary function and freedom include preparation for obligation the state can 

neither supply nor hinder.”). These constitutional protections extend to citizens and non-citizens 

alike, even when confined by the government. Jacinto-Castanon de Nolasco v. U.S. Immigration 

& Customs Enforcement, 319 F. Supp. 3d 491, 500 (D.D.C. 2018).

88. Second, in tearing D.A. and A.A. from Lucinda, sending them nearly 1,500 miles 

away, refusing to inform Lucinda or D.A. and A.A. of each other’s whereabouts or well-being, 

depriving them of any means to communicate with one another, failing to have any system for 

tracking the children or ensuring that they would be reunited, and engaging in inordinate delays 

in reuniting the children with their father, federal agents also violated Plaintiffs’ substantive due 

process rights. 

89. Indeed, in M.s L, the district court concluded that the family separation practice 

Lucinda, D.A. and A.A. were subjected to likely violated parents and children’s substantive due 

process rights. 310 F. Supp. 3d at 1144–46 (“A practice of this sort implemented in this way is 

likely to be ‘so egregious, so outrageous, that it may fairly be said to shock the contemporary 

conscience,’ interferes with rights “‘implicit in the concept of ordered liberty[,]”’ and is so 

‘“brutal” and “offensive” that it [does] not comport with traditional ideas of fair play and 

decency.’”) (citations omitted); see also Jacinto-Castanon de Nolasco, 319 F. Supp. 3d at 502 

(“[N]othing in federal law suggests that deterring immigration by indefinitely separating families 

once the parents have been transferred to immigration custody is a compelling or legitimate 

government objective.”). 

Case: 1:20-cv-03082 Document #: 35 Filed: 09/30/20 Page 24 of 35 PageID #:180
25

90. Third, the separation and treatment of Lucinda, D.A., and A.A. additionally 

violated Plaintiff’s constitutional right to equal protection because it was motivated by 

discriminatory animus towards Latino immigrants of Central American origin in particular. DHS 

agents targeted Central American asylum seekers in particular for separation and harsh treatment 

as a means to deter them from pursuing legitimate immigration claims and deter Central 

American families from seeking asylum in the United States.

91. Indeed, other individuals subjected to the same harsh treatment and separation as 

Plaintiffs were disproportionately from Central America: more than 95 percent of the members 

in the Ms. L certified class are from Central American countries.

92. As with the fundamental right to family integrity, the constitutional right to equal 

protection under the law, and to freedom from invidious discrimination by the government on the 

basis of race or national origin has long been recognized as “extend[ing] to anyone, citizen or 

stranger, who is subject to the laws of a State,” even those not lawfully present. Plyler v. Doe, 

457 U.S. 202, 215 (1982) (emphasis removed).

93. Fourth, and relatedly, DHS agents also separated Lucinda from her children and 

subjected them to harsh and deliberately cruel treatment in order to impede her case for 

immigration protection in the United States, and thereby violated Plaintiffs’ procedural due 

process rights.

94. On more than one occasion immigration officers pressured Lucinda to sign away 

her rights and agree to be deported back to Honduras. Using family separation to threaten and 

coerce asylum seekers into giving up their immigration claims violates the existing nondiscretionary regulations and directives applicable to DHS and violates Plaintiffs’ procedural due 

process rights. See 8 C.F.R. § 235.4 (noting that an immigrant’s “decision to withdraw his or her 

Case: 1:20-cv-03082 Document #: 35 Filed: 09/30/20 Page 25 of 35 PageID #:181
26

application for admission must be made voluntarily[.]”); CBP Directive No. 3340-043; see also, 

Ms. L, 403 F. Supp. 3d 853, 865 (S.D. Cal. 2019) (finding that for a number of parents the 

coercion of family separation rendered their decision to withdraw applications for admission 

involuntary).

COUNT I

INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS

(United States of America)

95. The other paragraphs of this complaint are incorporated as if set forth here.

96. By engaging in the acts described in this Complaint, the federal employees, 

officials, and contractors referenced above engaged in extreme and outrageous conduct with an 

intent to cause, or a reckless disregard of the probability of causing, Plaintiffs D.A., A.A., and 

Lucinda to suffer severe emotional distress.

97. As a direct and proximate result of that conduct, Plaintiffs D.A., A.A., and 

Lucinda suffered severe emotional distress.

98. Under the Federal Tort Claims Act, the United States is liable to Plaintiffs D.A., 

A.A., and Lucinda for intentional infliction of emotional distress.

COUNT II

BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY

(United States of America)

99. The other paragraphs of this complaint are incorporated as if set forth here.

100. The federal employees, officials, and contractors referenced above were guardians 

of D.A. and A.A.

101. In turn, D.A. and A.A. were wards of the federal employees, officials, and 

contractors.

Case: 1:20-cv-03082 Document #: 35 Filed: 09/30/20 Page 26 of 35 PageID #:182
27

102. As guardians, these federal employees had a fiduciary relationship to D.A. and 

A.A. as children housed in federal facilities.

103. Among their obligations as guardians, the federal employees, officials, and 

contractors were obligated to act in the best interest of D.A. and A.A.

104. As described more fully throughout this complaint, however, these federal 

employees, officials, and contractors breached these fiduciary duties to D.A. and A.A.

105. As a direct and proximate result of those breaches D.A. and A.A. suffered severe 

emotional distress.

106. Under the Federal Tort Claims Act, the United States is liable to D.A. and A.A. 

for breach of fiduciary duty.

COUNT III

BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY

(Heartland)

107. The other paragraphs of this complaint are incorporated as if set forth here.

108. Heartland and its employees referenced above were guardians of D.A. and A.A.

109. In turn, D.A. and A.A. were wards of Heartland.

110. As guardians, Heartland and its employees had a fiduciary relationship to D.A. 

and A.A. as children housed in their facilities.

111. Among their obligations as guardians, Heartland and its employees were 

obligated to act in the best interest of D.A. and A.A.

112. As described more fully throughout this complaint, however, Heartland and its 

employees breached these fiduciary duties to D.A. and A.A.

113. As a direct and proximate result of those breaches D.A. and A.A. suffered severe 

emotional distress.

Case: 1:20-cv-03082 Document #: 35 Filed: 09/30/20 Page 27 of 35 PageID #:183
28

114. Under Illinois state law, the Heartland Defendants are liable to D.A. and A.A. for 

breach of fiduciary duty.

COUNT IV

NEGLIGENCE

(United States of America)

115. The other paragraphs of this complaint are incorporated as if set forth here.

116. The federal employees, officials, and contractors referenced above had a duty to 

Plaintiffs D.A., A.A., and Lucinda to act with ordinary care and prudence so as not to cause harm 

or injury to Plaintiffs, D.A., A.A., and Lucinda.

117. By engaging in the acts alleged herein, the federal officers referenced above failed 

to act with ordinary care and breached their duty of care owed to Plaintiffs D.A., A.A, and 

Lucinda.

118. As a direct and proximate result of the referenced conduct, Plaintiffs, D.A., A.A., 

and Lucinda suffered substantial damages.

119. Under the Federal Tort Claims Act, the United States is liable to Plaintiffs, D.A., 

A.A., and Lucinda for negligence.

COUNT V

NEGLIGENCE

(Heartland Alliance)

120. The other paragraphs of this complaint are incorporated as if set forth here.

121. Heartland and its employees referenced above had a duty to Plaintiffs D.A., A.A., 

and Lucinda to act with ordinary care and prudence so as not to cause harm or injury to 

Plaintiffs, D.A., A.A., and Lucinda.

122. By engaging in the acts alleged herein, Heartland and its employees failed to act 

with ordinary care and breached their duty of care owed to Plaintiffs D.A., and A.A.

Case: 1:20-cv-03082 Document #: 35 Filed: 09/30/20 Page 28 of 35 PageID #:184
29

123. As a direct and proximate result of the referenced conduct, Plaintiffs, D.A., A.A., 

and Lucinda suffered substantial damages.

124. Under Illinois state law Heartland is liable to Plaintiffs, D.A., A.A., and Lucinda

for negligence.

COUNT VI

NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION

(United States of America)

125. The other paragraphs of this complaint are incorporated as if set forth here.

126. Plaintiffs suffered damages from foreseeable misconduct of an employee 

supervised by the defendant.

127. The government’s employees in supervisory roles have a duty to properly 

supervise federal officers and to oversee their treatment of immigrants in their custody.

128. The blatant disregard for CBP ICE’s own internal policies and standards by 

officers also shows CBP and ICE management staff were negligent in their non-discretionary 

duties to supervise individual officers. 

129. The government’s negligent supervision proximately caused the unlawful conduct 

described herein, including the violation of non-discretionary, mandatory obligations imposed on 

the federal agencies that had custody of Lucinda, D.A., and A.A.

130. As a proximate result of this failure to supervise, Lucinda, D.A., and A.A. 

suffered the injuries described herein. 

131. Under the Federal Tort Claims Act, the United States is liable to Plaintiffs for 

negligent supervision.

COUNT VII

NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION

(Heartland)

132. The other paragraphs of this complaint are incorporated as if set forth here.

Case: 1:20-cv-03082 Document #: 35 Filed: 09/30/20 Page 29 of 35 PageID #:185
30

133. Plaintiffs suffered damages from foreseeable misconduct of one or more 

employees supervised by the Heartland Defendants.

134. Heartland and its employees in supervisory roles have a duty to properly 

supervise their agents and to oversee their treatment of immigrants in their care.

135. Heartland’s negligent supervision proximately caused the unlawful conduct 

described herein.

136. As a proximate result of this failure to supervise, Lucinda, D.A., and A.A. 

suffered the injuries described herein. 

137. Under Illinois state law, the Heartland Defendants are liable to plaintiffs for 

negligent supervision.

COUNT VIII

CONVERSION

(United States of America)

138. The other paragraphs of this complaint are incorporated as if set forth here.

139. Plaintiff had a legal right to property described in this complaint.

140. Federal employees, officials, and/or contractors intentionally interfered with that 

right.

141. The actions of the federal employees, officials, and/or contractors proximately 

caused Plaintiff to lose her property.

142. Under the Federal Tort Claims Act, the United States is liable to Plaintiffs for 

conversion.

COUNT IX

ABUSE OF PROCESS

(United States of America)

143. The other paragraphs of this complaint are incorporated as if set forth here.

Case: 1:20-cv-03082 Document #: 35 Filed: 09/30/20 Page 30 of 35 PageID #:186
31

144. The government’s employees, officials, and/or contractors abused legal processes 

within their control for the unlawful purposes of traumatizing Plaintiffs, coercing Plaintiffs to 

abandon their lawful claims to asylum, and deterring future migrants from seeking refuge in the 

United States. 

145. The government’s employees also abused the legal process by separating D.A. 

and A.A. from Lucinda and sending them to the Heartland shelter, rather than releasing them to 

their father.

146. Lucinda, D.A., and A.A. were injured by this misconduct, as described herein.

COUNT X

LOSS OF CONSORTIUM

(United States of America)

147. The other paragraphs of this complaint are incorporated as if set forth here.

148. Plaintiffs had a legal right to parent child consortium, which the government’s 

employees, officials, and/or contractors violated.

149. The substantial mental and physical injuries suffered by Plaintiffs continue to 

frustrate their ability to interact and communicate as a family.

150. Under the Federal Tort Claims Act, the United States is liable to Plaintiffs for 

their loss of consortium. 

COUNT XI

REHABILITATION ACT

(Heartland Alliance)

151. The other paragraphs of this complaint are incorporated as if set forth here.

152. At all times relevant to this Complaint, in light of the mental and emotional 

injuries created by their trauma, D.A. and A.A. were qualified individuals with a disability as 

defined in Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (“Rehabilitation Act”), 29 U.S.C. § 794, 

42 U.S.C. § 12102(1).

Case: 1:20-cv-03082 Document #: 35 Filed: 09/30/20 Page 31 of 35 PageID #:187
32

153. Heartland receives federal funding.

154. Under the Rehabilitation Act, no qualified individual with a disability may be 

excluded from participation in or be denied the benefits of the services, programs, or activities of 

a recipient of federal funding, or be subjected to discrimination by any such entity. 

155. To prevent discrimination, such recipients must make reasonable modifications to 

their policies, practices, or procedures when the modifications are necessary to avoid 

discrimination on the basis of disability, unless doing so would fundamentally alter the nature of 

the services provided by the entity.

156. Due to the symptoms caused by their trauma, D.A. and A.A. had impairments that 

substantially limited one or more major life activities, including thinking, sleeping, eating, 

learning, and safe play. As a result of these disabilities, they required the ability to interact and 

develop in a therapeutic setting that did not restrict basic human interaction including, physical 

touch, hugging of family members, phone calls with family and relatives, and personal 

conversation. At the Heartland shelter in Chicago, such accommodations could have been made 

without fundamentally altering the services that Heartland provided.

157. Even though it was well-known that children like D.A. and A.A. are disabled, the 

Heartland Defendants did not modify its programs and services to permit basic human 

interaction contact, and educational development, preventing D.A. and A.A. from participating 

in the programs and services offered at the shelter.

158. Heartland further actively discriminated against A.A. and D.A. because of their 

disabilities.

159. D.A. and A.A. were injured by the failure of Heartland to provide reasonable 

accommodation of their disabilities, as described herein.

Case: 1:20-cv-03082 Document #: 35 Filed: 09/30/20 Page 32 of 35 PageID #:188
33

COUNT XII

ASSAULT/BATTERY

(United States of America)

160. The other paragraphs of this complaint are incorporated as if set forth here.

161. By engaging in the acts described above, federal employees engaged in reckless 

conduct. 

162. Through that reckless conduct, federal employees caused Plaintiff Lucinda bodily 

injury.

163. Under the Federal Tort Claims Act, the United States is liable to Plaintiff Lucinda 

for assault/battery.

COUNT XIII

MEDICAL NEGLIGENCE

(United States of America)

164. The other paragraphs of this complaint are incorporated as if set forth here.

165. The federal employees, officials, and contractors referenced above had a duty to 

Plaintiff Lucinda to provide appropriate medical care.

166. By engaging in the acts alleged herein, the federal officers referenced above 

breached their duty of care owed to Plaintiff Lucinda.

167. As a direct and proximate result of the referenced conduct, Plaintiff Lucinda

suffered substantial damages.

168. Under the Federal Tort Claims Act, the United States is liable to Plaintiff Lucinda 

for medical negligence.

Case: 1:20-cv-03082 Document #: 35 Filed: 09/30/20 Page 33 of 35 PageID #:189
34

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

Plaintiffs respectfully demand as follows: 

(1) Compensatory damages; 

(2) Punitive damages;

(3) Attorneys’ fees and costs; and 

(4) Such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and appropriate.

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Plaintiff demands a trial by jury on any and all issues triable by a jury.

* * *

Case: 1:20-cv-03082 Document #: 35 Filed: 09/30/20 Page 34 of 35 PageID #:190
35

Dated: September 30, 2020 Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Sarah Grady 

Anand Swaminathan – anand@loevy.com

Sarah C. Grady – sarah@loevy.com

Stephen H. Weil – weil@loevy.com

Loevy & Loevy

311 N. Aberdeen Street 3rd Floor

Chicago, IL 60607

312-243-5900

/s/ Conchita Cruz

Conchita Cruz –

conchita.cruz@asylumadvocacy.org

Pro Hac Vice

Zachary Manfredi –

zachary.manfredi@asylumadvocacy.org

Pro Hac Vice

*Dennise Moreno

dennise.moreno@asylumadvocacy.org

Asylum Seeker Advocacy Project (ASAP)

228 Park Ave. S. #84810

New York, NY 10003

305.484.9260

*Pro Hac Vice motion forthcoming.

Counsel for Plaintiffs

Case: 1:20-cv-03082 Document #: 35 Filed: 09/30/20 Page 35 of 35 PageID #:191