Source: https://pl.scribd.com/document/179952905/patty-vs-usa-pdf
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 12:26:21+00:00

Document:
In the wake of the duo of Supreme Court cases that numerous academics conflate as “Twiqbal,” the “short plain statement” requirement of Rule 8 has been superceded, or at least supplemented, by one requiring a “plausible” allegation. See e.g., Twiqbal: A Political Tool, 37 J. Legisl. 200 (2012). Although it is surprising that the Government would act in the ways that are detailed herein, the facts, if proven to be true, certainly satisfy that pleading requirement. Nevertheless, the Twiqbal requirements necessitate this rather fulsome factual pleading.
In this case. Six Unknown Fed. Plaintiff STEVEN CRAIG PATTY is a law-abiding citizen of Aledo. Houston. 3. in accordance with the FTCA. He may be served at his office at 515 Rusk.2 He took over that job in August of 2011. Peña is the head of the Houston office of the DEA. Consequently.S. or ratified the constitutional violations set forth herein. wrecked. -2- . and Patty’s commercial truck was riddled with bullet holes..Case 4:13-cv-03173 Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 10/29/13 Page 2 of 16 when the government’s plans went awry. the names of all of the federal agents involved in the various violations of Craig Patty’s constitutional rights are not known. which had betrayed him. instead of apologizing to this law abiding citizen and paying for the damage to his property and his business. Accordingly. participated in. Patty files this suit to obtain justice for these wrongdoings. 388 (1971). Parties 2. JOHN DOE 6 2 Bivens v. Defendant United States of America [hereinafter “USA”] is the first named Defendant in this case. and his driver killed inside the truck. Javier F. the government. Peña is personally liable under Bivens and its progeny for the federal common law constitutional torts alleged herein. the “United States” is vicariously liable for the tortious conduct of its federal agents and those in concert with them whose acts are imputable to the Government. Texas. actually turned on him. 5. 4.seq. Harris County. 28 U. Some of the acts and omissions giving rise to this suit were done by federal agents. including inter alia employees of the federal Drug Enforcement Administration [“DEA”] acting within the course and scope of their employment for the Government. Mr. et.” JOHN DOES 1-5 are the individual federal officers subordinate to Mr. In July 2011 he started a trucking business known as Craig Thomas Expeditors.C. Texas. as in Bivens. they are named as “John Does. § 2671. Narcotics Agents. 403 U. Peña who authorized.S.
to use Patty’s commercial property. His address is presently unknown. Under Bivens. acting under color of state law.S. conspired and collaborated with federal agents. Harris County. who authorized or otherwise sanctioned the violation of Craig Patty’s constitutional rights. Plaintiff Patty has no ability. his business assets. is personally liable under § 1983. Texas is a governmental entity. Because this was an undercover operation. He. acting in the course and scope of his employment. and his employee/driver. an employee of Harris County. However. in the furtherance of government objectives. on the occasion in question. Detective Mark Reynolds and other unknown and unnamed agents acting under color of state law and within the course and scope of their employment. once their identities are learned through discovery. without formal discovery from this Court. for unauthorized purposes and activities. This state subdivision is liable for the federal constitutional torts alleged herein pursuant to 42 U. Harris County is vicariously liable for Detective Reynolds’ constitutionally tortious behavior. to learn their identities. JOHN DOES 7-12 are the other individual state and county officers who. in November of 2011. authorized. once their identities are learned -3- . D. participated in. they are liable for constitutional torts in their individual capacities. but every effort will be made to learn his address and serve him with a copy of this lawsuit.Case 4:13-cv-03173 Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 10/29/13 Page 3 of 16 is the highest federal official in Washington. It is a named Defendant because. Plaintiff Patty has no way. without formal discovery from this Court. Patty will seek leave to amend his pleadings and name them properly as defendants. 6. too. Texas. or ratified the unlawful and unreasonable conduct set forth herein. to learn their identities.C. 7. Because this was an undercover operation gone horribly wrong. § 1983. However. 8. Detective Mark Reynolds was.C.
S. venue is permissible in this District pursuant to 28 U. actually quite simple.S. § 1367. Patty will seek leave to amend his pleadings and name them properly as defendants. is also conferred by 28 U. Satisfaction of Conditions Precedent for FTCA Claims 11. 50-year old Craig Patty decided that it was time to open his own business. 10. Jurisdiction and Venue 9.C. 1402(b). § 1346(b). within the 180-day period established by 28 U. and the John Doe state actors. 2013. The amount in controversy is substantially in excess of Seventy-Five Thousand Dollars ($75. The facts of this case are.C.C. The claim was denied by letter from the U. In July of 2011. this suit has been timely filed. who are liable under the § 1983 theory.S. §§ 1331 and/or 1343. Therefore. albeit astonishing. § 2672.000). Jurisdiction over the § 1983 claims against Harris County. After denial of that claim.C. Detective Reynolds. after spending approximately 15 years working for Alcon Laboratories in North Texas. Plaintiff Patty filed the administrative claim required by 28 U. Jurisdiction of the FTCA claims against the USA is conferred by 28 U. § 2401(b) and set out in the letter.S. and to capitalize on the prosperity -4- .C.S. Facts This suit has been necessitated by virtue of the following facts. The Court may also have supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U. exclusive of interest and costs. Prior to the filing of this suit. §§ 1391.S. Department of Justice dated July 8. “Timing is Everything” 12.C. Jurisdiction over the Bivens claims against Defendant Peña and the John Doe federal officers is conferred by 28 U.S. §§ 1331 and/or 1343. Many of the actions giving rise to this cause of action happened within this District.C.Case 4:13-cv-03173 Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 10/29/13 Page 4 of 16 through discovery.S.
Mr. Craig Patty bought his second truck. The first was that DEA Agent Javier Peña. Patty and his father Thomas started their own little trucking company called Craig Thomas Expeditors. Texas. who. 14. In August of 2011. (b) the transportation of those drugs over the highways of Texas. was arrested for tossing a tire through the window of a Goodyear store in downtown Houston. A sting operation which involves (a) the deliberate planting of illegal drugs in a vehicle. was promoted from his job in Puerto Rico to head up the Houston office of the DEA. unbeknownst to Patty. a red 2006 Kenworth T600 in September of that same year. Peña’s Plan 15. or ratified. the entire sting operation. had a long history of arrests. it is alleged that the Drug Task Force officers named herein arranged for Chapa to have a clean record and orchestrated his hiring by Patty. Patty checked Chapa’s record with the Department of Transportation [“DoT’]. That same month his driver Lopez was sharing a room with Chapa at a truck driver seminar in Fort Worth. 13. Through Lopez. including one for cocaine possession. Webb County. On information and belief. (c) the use and compensation of a confidential informant like Chapa. and (d) the surreptitious misappropriation of a private citizen’s property for police work. The record was free of criminal convictions. Chapa approached Craig about being hired to drive the second red Kenworth. it is alleged on information and belief that Javier Peña personally approved of. a law enforcement officer whose roots run to Laredo. He purchased a truck and hired a man named Joe Lopez to drive it. in the Rio Grande Valley. including the use of Patty’s property -5- .Case 4:13-cv-03173 Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 10/29/13 Page 5 of 16 brought by oil and gas domestic shale development including that from the Eagle Ford Shale areas of South Texas. simply does not happen without the approval of the head of the DEA office in Houston. Therefore. The second is that a man named Lawrence Chapa. two things happened that would change Craig Patty’s life.
the government agents. Consequently. officers of the Drug Task Force arranged for Lawrence Chapa to drive Patty’s truck to Rio Grande City. then that person(s) would also be a proper party defendant with personal liability for such constitutional torts.” 17. and. Texas. IF the involvement of Patty’s property was sanctioned by Senior DEA and/or DoJ officials in Washington. Therefore. this pleading refers to all law enforcement officers participating in this operation. Texas. in cooperation with other unknown and unidentified actors. Sheriff’s office. As noted in ¶ 5 supra. instead of pursuing Patty’s legitimate business interests. set up a “sting” operation. although Patty was paying Chapa’s salary. Lawrence Chapa was actually working in an undercover sting operation for the Drug Task Force. or was shortly about. to become. Unbeknownst to Craig Patty. in September of 2011 when he bought the red Kenworth truck. acting in collaboration with Detective Reynolds and other personnel from the Harris County. The plan was straight out of a dramatic television script. collectively as the “Drug Task Force. and paying for the gas. named herein as JOHN DOE 6. decided to try to catch some bad guys from the Mexican Zeta drug cartel.Case 4:13-cv-03173 Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 10/29/13 Page 6 of 16 and employee in violation of his Fourth and Fifth Amendment Rights. The bad guys were smuggling illegal drugs from Mexico into Texas. Chapa told Patty that he was having the truck repaired in Houston for a return drive to -6- . Peña and the unknown federal agents. perhaps. To do this. in furtherance of their plan for the sting. On or about November 21. Agent Peña is personally liable under Bivens and its progeny. Lawrence Chapa was either already. a “confidential informant” for the DEA and its law enforcement compatriots in the Drug Task Force. Mr. For convenience purposes. providing the truck for him to drive. 16. 18. 2011. whether federal or state. operating via a High-Intensity Drug Trafficking Area Task Force [hereinafter “Drug Task Force”].
uneventful. other illegal narcotics or contraband. 19. We apologize for the language. where it was loaded up with marijuana. perhaps. When the red Kenworth arrived in Houston. On information and belief it is alleged that the truck was “precleared” by agents working on the Drug Task Force sting operation. by all appearances. The footage clearly depicted the license plate of Patty’s truck. Wild West” 20. the truck was intercepted in Northwest Houston by outlaws from the Zeta cartel. believing that he had cooperated with Chapa and the Task Force. However. and Lawrence Chapa was shot eight times and killed. driving in three sport utility vehicles. But the officers of the Drug Task Force were outwitted by the Mexican drug lords. this is what really happened. he drove it to Rio Grande City instead. and a major media event on the evening news. In fact. might seek retribution. On Monday afternoon. and. of course. November 21.Case 4:13-cv-03173 Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 10/29/13 Page 7 of 16 California. nor confiscated. At that point. Lawrence Chapa’s drive from South Texas to Houston was. -7- 3 . For example. Patty’s red truck was wrecked and riddled with bullet holes. An undercover Harris County Sheriff’s Deputy was wounded. KTRK ran a six and a half minute story on the shooting. nor searched. on orders of his Drug Task Force handlers. 21. 2011. the Task Force officers would swoop in and make arrests. all Hell broke loose.3 The plan for the sting was for Lawrence Chapa to rendezvous with the bad guys so that a transfer of the illegal drugs could be made. It was a major fiasco. making him fear. that his identity would be discovered by the Zeta cartel and that they. Shoot-Out in the “Wild. with great respect for the Court. An intense fire-fight ensued. so that it was neither stopped.
under the facts set forth herein.” said Javier Peña. 23. Detective Reynolds’ words and conduct are imputable. blood-stained truck removed from the scene of the crime. -85 4 . What the Drug Task Force decided to do instead was to deputize Harris County detective Mark Reynolds.” Reported in chron. But in an interview with Houston Chronicle reporter Dane Schiller a few months later. or that he would be charged a daily storage fee.5 to play the role of “bad cop. and having had the truck shot to smithereens by banditos and cops alike. Patty’s truck. Peña or other federal agents that may have been authorizing or directing him in this regard. Drug Enforcement Administration’s Houston Division. “Curioser and curioser” Alice muttered. he commented on the shooting incident as follows: “We are not going to tolerate these types of thugs out there using their weapons like the Wild Wild West. Patty alleges that. to compensate him for the economic and other losses suffered by his business and his family. Peña himself said absolutely nothing to Craig Patty.Case 4:13-cv-03173 Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 10/29/13 Page 8 of 16 “Curioser and Curioser”4 22. and to provide police protection against any retaliation by the Zetas. “We are going after them. the new head of the U. the head of the DEA office in Houston would have been apologetic. Mr. But they did exactly the opposite. One would have thought that. 2012). Patty does not object to the DEA “going after” the bad guys. as the events surrounding her in Wonderland became ever more surreal.” He started by telling Patty that he had to arrange to have his own bullet-ridden. But the Constitution requires that it do so with its own vehicles and its own assets and its own employees. 24. having commandeered an innocent citizen’s property for a government sting operation. at minimum to the United States.com (March 20. and. as factually appropriate. Reason would have seemed to dictate that they would act with all deliberate speed to repair or replace Mr. to Mr. 25. Mr.S.
-9- . When the law enforcement officials learned about this device.” It is akin to a black box that records the locations where the truck has been. 28. when the Government was unable to retrieve the tracking information. He scratched out the search warrant provisions about his home. Patty produced the data from the black box because he was threatened by the Drug Task Force officers if he did not do so. Because this data would undoubtedly contain information about the location of the Mexican drug lords stash in Rio Grande City. They feared potential retaliation from the same people who had just gunned down his driver. Detective Reynolds demanded that Patty sign a search warrant. Patty ultimately had to take money out of his 401K retirement funds to pay to have the bullet holes and other physical damage to his truck repaired and to have the blood and other stains removed from the cab.Case 4:13-cv-03173 Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 10/29/13 Page 9 of 16 26. Amazingly. Patty’s truck contained a tracking device known as a “Tele a Tracker. (or Mexico). However. it was not without significant misgivings and fears. three of whom are now being prosecuted by the State of Texas for “capital murder. and for how long. and threatened him with seizure of his truck and trailer if he did not cooperate. the search warrant that was tendered included authorization to search the Pattys’ home. the disclosure of this information made Patty extremely concerned for the safety of his wife and family. The Government never paid to have Craig Patty’s truck repaired. under additional threats and duress from Detective Reynolds. Patty had little choice but to cooperate with the authorities. Just as the Supreme Court itself acknowledged in Bivens. Consequently. Mr. The insurance company took the position that the damage was caused by “unauthorized” or “illegal” activity. Patty provided them with emails containing detailed information as to where the truck had been. but agreed to let them search his truck. Therefore. Nor did his insurance company.” The Aftermath 29. 27.
described infra. In his FTCA administrative claim. Thus.456 in business interruption economic damages resulting from that delay. The CONSTITUTION of the United States was written and ratified in 1789. under our system of justice. which necessarily include those for the invasion of his privacy and constitutional rights. Patty’s truck was out of service for approximately 100 days.483. But the non-economic. Rather. liberty and pursuit of happiness” by ordinary citizens. 31.350. the Committee acknowledged that the elements of damages could include not only the “actual physical damage” but also the “pain. The total economic damages are easily quantifiable.532.Case 4:13-cv-03173 Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 10/29/13 Page 10 of 16 30. they weave a tapestry of protections -10- . 33.10. That’s where the Bill of Rights comes in. Our Precious Constitutional Rights 32. 93-588. In the Senate Report that accompanied the 1974 amendments to § 1280(h) of the FTCA. the total amount of damages sought in the FTCA claim was – for both economic losses and “personal injuries” – $1. at p. suffering and humiliation” of citizens whose rights were trampled by over-zealous federal narcotics agents. SEN.000 for such “personal injury” damages. REPORT No. 93rd Congress. Together. It laid out a structure for the government of the new nation. In his FTCA claim. But what it did not do was place limitations on the power of that government to intrude into the peaceful lives of its citizens. they are committed to the sound discretion of the trier of fact. Patty sought $1. intangible damages that flow from such outrageous conduct by the Government are not readily capable of mathematical computation. The first ten amendments to the CONSTITUTION. 2.10. he provided documentation of $66.532. 1st Session. commonly known as the “Bill of Rights” contains safeguards to prevent unwarranted intrusions by the government into the “life. They are $133.
that: “The right of the people to be secure in their persons. attract bullets from “cops and robbers” alike. and it certainly does not permit federal agents to use a man’s truck as a decoy that might. 36. extending protections and providing remedies that are designed to safeguard and preserve them. papers. trampled Patty’s Fourth Amendment rights. 37. 35. and the services of his employee. 6 Griswold v. Connecticut. The Fourth Amendment provides. houses. 34. but it does reflect the Framers’ judgment that the new government cannot intrude into private citizens’ lives. The Third Amendment protects the people against having soldiers involuntarily “quartered” in their homes. The Drug Task Force’s intentional seizure of Patty’s red truck and use of it for its own purposes. in part. . The courts have been their guardians.6 the Supreme Court held that its “penumbra” extends a right of privacy.” In Griswold. the insurance premiums he paid to protect his valuable business property with no process and no compensation whatsoever. -11- . The Fifth Amendment provides that the government shall not take or use a citizen’s private property without “due process” and “just compensation. indirectly.S. and effects. not only to one’s home. and did here. and his gas. but it does not authorize federal agents to bring them onto or into private property without just cause. The Second Amendment safeguards the rights of Americans to have guns. It says nothing about secretly putting a government agent or contractor into one’s truck. against unreasonable searches and seizures. shall not be violated. . 381 U. 483-84 (1965). . and even.” The Drug Task Force took Patty’s truck. 479.Case 4:13-cv-03173 Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 10/29/13 Page 11 of 16 that should be precious to every American. but also to his person and personal affairs. and its actions which put him and his family at risk for recriminations from dangerous criminals.
intentional “abuse of process” and other delictual conduct. The Supreme Court never really named the new constitutional tort that it created in Bivens. The “torts” at issue herein are the federal common law “constitutional torts” recognized in Bivens and other alleged unlawful. i. federal agents must still respect the private lives and property and rights of innocent citizens like Craig Patty. planned. 93-253. when the Congress passed Pub. § 2674. and must still follow the rule of law. $1. in 1974. not only by providing a vehicle for compensation. The facts chronicled herein show – a severe. Under the Federal Tort Claims Act the United States Government is liable “in the same manner and to the same extent as a private individual” except. FIRST: TORT CLAIMS AGAINST USA. 93rd Congress. as follows: 40.S.Case 4:13-cv-03173 Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 10/29/13 Page 12 of 16 Deterring Violations of Constitutional Rights 38.S.e.532. 39. that its liability is capped at the amount of the presuit administrative claim. amending 28 U. They support three major legal claims. 1st Session.C. 93-588. But. unreasonable conduct herein. The Supreme Court’s Bivens decision in 1971 demonstrates that.483. even in an arena that is so important to our society as fighting the importation of illegal drugs. Theories of Recovery The foregoing factual allegations are hereby incorporated herein by reference. § 2680(h) to make the government vicariously liable for such actions by federal “investigative or law enforcement officers” it used the phrase “abuse of process.C.. They transcend words and legal -12- . 28 U.” SEN.L. and it has no exposure for prejudgment interest or punitive damages. REPORT No.10. but also by deterring unlawful conduct via the specter of personal liability with potential punitive damages to be assessed by the officers’ fellow citizens from the jury box. The federal common law constitutional tort recognized in this case is a remedy that is designed to protect those rights.
SECOND: CONSTITUTIONAL TORTS BY FEDERAL AGENTS. 388 (1971)(Federal agents’ violations of Fourth Amendment rights gives rise to common law constitutional tort liability of individual agents). Carlson. Mr. It has not been entirely subsumed into the FTCA. exemplary or punitive damages may be assessed. -13- 7 . the Officers knowingly and intentionally misappropriated Patty’s property without either due process or just compensation. as the Supreme Court held in Carlson. 446 U.S.S. 43. that renders the United States vicariously liable for such torts when they are committed by “investigative or law enforcement officers. Bivens v. 14. and unreasonably violated his privacy and seized his property in violation of the Fourth Amendment. Under Bivens7 and its progeny. Moreover. Carlson v. Green. Rather. Peña and the unknown individual federal agent defendants. 228 (1979)(Violation of Fifth Amendment due process rights cognizable under Bivens tort theory).L. Passman.” Supra FN 6. Under the Bivens theory of recovery against the individual officers. The cause of action for violations of these “constitutional torts” is determined under federal common law.” Rather. and the individual agents do not have that statutory immunity from suit.). 93-253 amendments to § 2680.S.L. Davis v. the FTCA and Bivens claims are “parallel and complementary. as noted above. because the goal of the courts in recognizing this cause of action was to deter unlawful behavior by federal offices. are personally liable for their intentional “constitutional torts. but do not insulate the individual officers from personal liability. 403 U.” In this case. 442 U. Six Unknown Fed. 42.” which is the phrase used by Congress in the 1974 Pub. the best label that one could put on them is “abuse of process.” 41. supra. Plaintiff is entitled to a jury trial. 20 (1980)(Held: 1974 amendments to FTCA provide a “complementary” cause of action against the Government for violation of Eighth Amendment rights. Pub. Narcotics Agents.Case 4:13-cv-03173 Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 10/29/13 Page 13 of 16 concepts like “negligence” and “conversion. in violation of the Fifth Amendment. named for the present as JOHN DOES 1-6.
The remaining $1.000 is for “personal injury” claims.532.S.532. and they did subject Craig Patty “to the deprivation of .S. suffering and humiliation” as described above. under all theories of recovery herein. For notice pleading purposes. Texas. Patty’s administrative claim pursuant to the FTCA claimed total damages in the amount of $1. § 1983.” 42 U. including “pain. in the unlawful manner specified herein to violate Patty’s Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights.10. suit is brought against Harris County.” Because they acted within the course and scope of their employment by Harris County. Accordingly. Of those. rights [and] privileges secured by the Constitution and laws.C. not to exceed Five Million Dollars ($5. Damages 45. Exemplary: Neither the United States nor Harris County are liable for punitive damages. including repairs of the truck and business interruption damages.10 are for economic damages. pursuant to 42 U. -14- . both the federal and state officer defendants are liable for exemplary or punitive damages in their individual capacities. the county itself is liable under § 1983.seq.350. $133. jointly and severally.000). Detective Reynolds. from all defendants.000. provides a cause of action against state entities and agents that is parallel to the constitutional tort liabilities of federal agents under Bivens and its progeny. These state agents also conspired and collaborated with federal agents. .Case 4:13-cv-03173 Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 10/29/13 Page 14 of 16 44. Suit is brought for same. et. He seeks those same actual damages. § 1983.C. . 46. Plaintiff suggests that the Jury should assess exemplary damages of at least three times the actual damages sought or awarded. AND OTHERS ACTING “UNDER COLOR OF STATE LAW. However. Actual: As noted above.483. and the John Doe 6-12 defendants were acting “under color of state law” within the meaning of this section. and against these individual officers. THIRD: DEPRIVATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS AND CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTIONS BY HARRIS COUNTY.
and the § 1983 claims against the individual state actor defendants are triable by Jury. THE VICKERY LAW FIRM /s/ Arnold Anderson Vickery Arnold Anderson (Andy) Vickery Texas Bar No.532. d. However. and pursuant to Rule 38. Peña and the other federal agents. Respectfully submitted.C. P. not to exceed the greater of three times the actual damages sought or awarded. jointly and severally.. The FTCA claims against the United States “shall be tried by the court without a jury. c. and Awarding pre-judgment interest on the Bivens and § 1983 claims. a Final Judgment be entered by this Court in his favor and against each Defendant as its liability shall appear. § 2402. R. and that upon the final trial of this case. and such other and further relief as is just and proper under the findings of the trier of fact and the law in this case. costs.” 28 U. as follows: a. Awarding exemplary damages. as authorized by Rule 39(c). Plaintiff hereby demands trial by Jury of those claims.S. Plaintiff also suggests that the Court should try the § 1983 claims against Defendant Harris County non-jury. FED. or $5. -15- . Awarding actual damages in the amount of $1. Because of this.10 against all defendants.000 against the individual defendants. Awarding Plaintiff his attorney’s fees and costs under the § 1983 theory. the Court may choose to empanel an “advisory jury” to provide it with guidance regarding the disposition of the claims against the governmental entities. Plaintiff prays that Defendants be cited to appear and answer herein. WHEREFORE. 20571800 Attorney in Charge b. CIV.000. the Bivens claims against Mr.Case 4:13-cv-03173 Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 10/29/13 Page 15 of 16 Jury Trial Demanded 47.483.
O. Suite 888 (77024) P.com Co-Counsel for Plaintiffs -16- . TX 77210-4340 Telephone: 713-526-1100 Facsimile: 713-523-5939 Email: andy@justiceseekers.com Counsel for Plaintiffs Mark Bennett Texas Bar No.com Email: fred@justiceseekers. Shepherd Texas Bar No. 24033056 10000 Memorial Dr. 00792970 BENNETT & BENNETT 735 Oxford Street Houston. TX 77007 Telephone: 713-224-1747 Email: mb@ivi3. Box 4340 Houston..Case 4:13-cv-03173 Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 10/29/13 Page 16 of 16 Fred H.

References: v. 
 § 2671
 § 1983
 § 1983
 § 1367
 § 1346
 § 1983
 § 2672
 § 1983
 § 2401
 § 1280
 v. 
 § 2674
 § 2680
 v. 
 v. 
 § 2680
 v. 
 § 1983
 § 1983
 § 1983
 § 1983
 § 1983
 § 2402
 § 1983
 § 1983