Casas v. Napolitano et al, (USCIS) complaint 12-cv-00104-raj w. dist. TX, El Paso citizenship claim filed 10-10-12
Case 7:12-cv-00104-RAJ Document 1 Filed 10/10/12 Page 1 of 13Jeanne Morales, Attorney1030 Andrews Hwy, Suite 215P.O. Box 11043Midland, TX 79702-8043Tel 432-682-8855Fax 432-682-8857 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS EL PASO DIVISION DANIEL CASAS, § § Plaintiff, § § vs. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 12-104 § JANET NAPOLITANO, in her official § capacity as Secretary of Homeland § Security of the United States; § JANE HOLL LUTE, in her official § capacity as Deputy Secretary for § Homeland Security; § ALEJANDRO MAYORKAS, in his § official capacity as Director of the § United States Citizenship and § Immigration Services; § ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., in his official § capacity as Attorney General of the § United States; and, § the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendants. § ORIGINAL COMPLAINTTO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT: NOW COMES DANIEL CASAS, hereinafter called Plaintiff, complaining ofand about Janet Napolitano, Jane Holl Lute, Alejandro Mayorkas, Eric H. Holder, Jr, andthe United States of America and for cause of action shows unto the Court the following:Page 1 of 13
Case 7:12-cv-00104-RAJ Document 1 Filed 10/10/12 Page 2 of 13 Really? Was it cognizable and sufficient under the INA? PARTIES AND SERVICE 1. Plaintiff Daniel Casas was adopted by his U.S. Citizen grandfather as aminor and given status as an LPR, with a classification as an IR7 at admission, accordingto an I-181 Memorandum of Creation of Record of Lawful Permanent Residence. He Irrelevant, incompetent, and immaterial. That iscurrently resides in Odessa, Texas. nothing but a processing form, not a formal decision! 2. The Defendant Janet Napolitano is the Secretary of Homeland Security ofthe United States, and as such she is the head of the Department of Homeland Securityand is responsible for setting and overseeing implementation of the policies andprocedures employed by the Department of Homeland Security and all its varioussubdivisions, including the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services. She issued in her official capacity only. 3. The Defendant Jane Holl Lute is the Department of Homeland Security’s ??????????Deputy Secretary. Deputy Secretary Lute is the chief operating officer in the Departmentof Homeland Security responsible for the day-to-day business and management of thethird largest department in the Federal government of the United States. She is sued inher official capacity only. 4. The Defendant Alejandro Mayorkas is the Director of the United StatesCitizenship and Immigration Services. Director Mayorkas leads the agency within theU.S. Department of Homeland Security charged with operating the largest immigrationsystem in the world. He is responsible for enhancing USCIS efforts to provide accurateand useful information to customers, grant immigration and citizenship benefits, promotean awareness and understanding of citizenship, and ensure the integrity of thePage 2 of 13
Case 7:12-cv-00104-RAJ Document 1 Filed 10/10/12 Page 3 of 13immigration system. He is sued in his official capacity only. 5. The Defendant Eric H. Holder, Jr. is the Attorney General of the UnitedStates, and as such he is the head of the Department of Justice and has certain statutoryauthority over policies and procedures employed by the Department of HomelandSecurity and all its various subdivisions, including the United States Citizenship andImmigration Services. Additionally, he represents the United States. He is sued in hisofficial capacity only. IF any BIA Precedent Decisions were being challenged, THEN the AG would be appropriate but that is not the case here. 6. The United States of America is also named as a Defendant. JURISDICTION 7. Jurisdiction lies under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question), 28 U.S.C. §1346(a)(2) (actions against officers of the United States), 28 U.S.C. § 1361 (Writ ofMandamus), 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201-2202 (Declaratory Judgment Act), 8 U.S.C. § 1503(denial of rights and privileges as a U.S. Citizen), and 5 U.S.C. §§ 701-702(Administrative Procedures Act). This Court may grant declaratory and injunctive reliefpursuant to 28 USC §§ 1361, 2202, and 5 USC § 702. This Court may award reasonableattorney fees and costs pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act, 5 USC § 504 and 28USC § 2412. Plaintiff has exhausted his administrative remedies. 8. Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391. Plaintiff’s usual residence is inOdessa, Texas which is within the jurisdiction of this Court. NATURE OF ACTION 9. It is imperative that the erroneous denial of Plaintiff’s N-600 Application What N-600 is that?Page 3 of 13
Case 7:12-cv-00104-RAJ Document 1 Filed 10/10/12 Page 4 of 13be reversed, his Certificate of Citizenship be issued and his United States Citizenshipunder the Child Citizenship Act of 2000 be recognized. FACTS as alleged by plaintiff 10. On or about November 4, 1996, Daniel Casas’ U.S. Citizen father1petitioned for him through the Immigration and Naturalization Service by filing form I-130. 11. On or about July 22, 1997, the petition was erroneously denied by theDirector of the Vermont Service Center. 12. After a notice of appeal of the decision, on or about August 18, 1997 theVermont Service Center approved the petition. 13. On or about September 28, 1997 the I-485 Application to Adjust Statuswas filed. 14. On or about November 18, 1997, an I-181 Memorandum of Creation ofRecord of Lawful Permanent Residence was created and the Master Index Copy wasfiled. According to the document, Daniel Casas was given status as an LPR, with aclassification as an IR7 at admission. This is consistent with the intent of Congress.21 Daniel Casas was adopted by his grandfather as a minor; the grandfather was a U.S. Citizen.2 “The Immigration and Nationality Act makes immediate relative status a special and weighty equity. TheCongress has accorded immediate relatives important dispensations not available to visa-preferenceapplicants. Section 201(a) of the Act exempts immediate relatives from the Act’s numerical limitations onimmigration. Further, section 245 of the Act which provides for adjustment of status, denies that benefit toaliens other than immediate relatives who after January 1, 1977, continue in or accept unauthorizedemployment prior to the filing of an application for adjustment of status. Section 245(c)(2). In view of thismost favorable status accorded by Congress, we believe it appropriate to accord greater weight toimmediate relative status than to visa-preference status when making discretionary determinations underthe Act.” Matter of Ibrahim, Int. Dec. 2866 (BIA 1981).Page 4 of 13
Case 7:12-cv-00104-RAJ Document 1 Filed 10/10/12 Page 5 of 13"The Service" referred to INS which ceased to exist on March 1, 2003. 15. The creation of the I-181 is in conjunction with the Service’s Operating Instructions. The Operating Instructions also indicate that: “Upon receipt, an application filed in person shall be reviewed to determine whether it has been properly filed (signed by applicant, correct fee submitted, and visa available), whether it is complete, and whether prima facie eligibility has been established. . . . If prima-facie eligibility is established, the applicant shall be interviewed on the same day, or shall be scheduled for an interview approximately sixty but no more than ninety days later.” Operating Instructions 245.2. There is no explanation in the record as to why the Operating Operationg Instructions are Instructions were ignored in regards to the length of time it took before the Adjustment of obsolete! Status interview took place3 (Petition date 28SEP97; I-181 date, 18NOV97; Interview date 23FEB99). 16. On or about February 23, 1999 the Adjustment of Status interview took place. The interviewer indicated that there were additional documents needed, and gave Daniel Casas until May 24, 1999 to submit the documents. 17. On or about March 19, 1999, (before the deadline for additional documents) the District Director in El Paso erroneously denied Daniel Casas’ application to adjust status; the denial was based on the supposition that the Daniel Casas might become a “public charge”. 18. As an initial matter, the language in the denial seems to indicate that the adjudicator was unclear of against whom the “Public Charge” measure was to be taken. The adjustment of status was sought by Daniel Casas, a male who at the time of the 3 The Supreme Court has stated that "[w]here the rights of individuals are affected, it is incumbent upon agencies to follow their own procedures." Morton v. Ruiz, 415 U.S. 199, 235, 94 S.Ct. 1055, 1074, 39 L.Ed.2d 270 (1974) Page 5 of 13
Case 7:12-cv-00104-RAJ Document 1 Filed 10/10/12 Page 6 of 13February 23, 1999 interview was 13 years, 6 months and 7 days old. Yet the adjudicatorrefers to “ . . . the applicant and her spouse . . . ” in one sentence, and utilizes a malepronoun to refer to the applicant in another sentence. 19. The denial was in error because it is clear that the adjudicator relied oninformation that members of the applicant’s family had been receiving food stamps.However, the receipt of public benefits by others in the family cannot be imputed ontothe intended immigrant. Perales et al v. Reno et al, 48 F.3d 1305 (2nd Cir. 1995) (As ageneral rule, the receipt of AFDC benefits by a member of the legalization applicantsfamily is not attributed to the applicant for purposes of determining the likelihood thatthe applicant will become a public charge). See also Letter, Slattery, Asst. Comm.,Legalization, reprinted in 65 No. 10 Interpreter Releases 234, 235 (Mar. 14, 1988)(Public cash assistance does not include food stamps . . . ). 20. The denial rendered by the adjudicator did not utilize the traditional testapplied by the Service to determine whether an alien is likely to become a public charge;that is, “a prediction based on the totality of the alien’s circumstances” as presented in theindividual case. Matter of Perez, 15 I&N Dec. 136 (BIA 1974). The facts were thatDaniel Casas was a minor, and his father was legally and morally required to supporthim, regardless of whether or not Daniel adjusted status. The use of food stamps bymembers of Daniel’s family was not going to be affected by “having another mouth” tofeed, because Daniel was already his family’s responsibility. 21. A public charge determination4 is prospective, and if circumstances arelikely to improve, that should be considered. “. . . everything in the statutes, the4 It should be noted that a review of the instructions for the current Affidavit of Support form shows that“Any intending immigrant who will, upon admission, acquire U.S. citizenship under section 320 of the The pertinent details needed in order to reach thatPage 6 of 13 issue are conspicuously absent from this Complaint!
Case 7:12-cv-00104-RAJ Document 1 Filed 10/10/12 Page 7 of 13legislative comments, and prior decisions point to one conclusion, that Congress intendsthat an applicant for a visa be excluded who is without sufficient funds to supporthimself, who has no one under any obligation to support him, and whose chances ofbecoming self-supporting decrease as time passes.” Matter of Vindman, 16 I&N, Page131 (R.C. 1977) (Interim Decision #2563). But Daniel Casas had someone who wasobligated to support him, and as Daniel achieved adulthood, he was more likely to beable to contribute to his own support, thus reducing the likelihood that he would becomea public charge. You cannot lose what you never had. 22. The denial contains a substantive defect that renders it unreliable for Bizarre assertion bythe purposes of showing that Daniel Casas lost the status as an LPR (obtained on counsel - the mere dataabout November 18, 1997), with a classification as an IR7 at admission. The public entry of the classificationcharge ground can be waived by the posting of a bond under INA 213, and the sought doesadjudicator5 was required to inform Daniel Casas of the waiver. Matter of A-, 19 I&N not equate to grant anyDec. 867, (Comm. 1988) (Preliminarily, we note that the director erred when he denied status.the application pursuant to section 212(a)(15) because he did not inform the applicant Form I-690 pertains tothat she could apply for a waiver of her ground of exclusion. The Service regulations temporary residence instate that “[i]f an alien is excludable on grounds which may be waived as set forth in this legalization applications,paragraph, he or she shall be advised of the procedures for applying for a waiver of NOT I-130s.grounds of excludability on Form I-690.” 8 C.F.R. § 245a.2(k)(2) (1988). SectionImmigration and Nationality Act, as amended by the Child Citizenship Act of 2000 (CCA)” does not needform I-864, Affidavit of Support. Although not determinative, this language brings in question the denial ofthe adjudicator.5 Immigration Judges are also required to inform an applicant of the waiver; see In re Ulloa, 22 I&N Dec.725 (BIA 1999).Page 7 of 13
Case 7:12-cv-00104-RAJ Document 1 Filed 10/10/12 Page 8 of 13212(a)(15) of the Act is a ground of exclusion that may be waived pursuant to section245A(d)(2)(B)(i) of the Act. . . Failure to advise the applicant is a reversible error.) 23. The Decision on Application for Status as Permanent Resident was mailedcertified mail to Defendant himself; according to 8 CFR §103.5a(c)(2) “in the case of aminor under 14 years of age, service shall be made upon the person with whom theincompetent or the minor resides; whenever possible, service shall also be made on thenear relative, guardian, committee, or friend.” Service of the Decision was improper, asDefendant was only 13 years old at the time. 24. The erroneous denial (both substantive and procedural) and the improperservice show that the denial recorded on the I-181 had no effect. Therefore, Defendantremained admitted as a Lawful Permanent Resident. ???????????????????????? 25. On February 27, 2001, the Child Citizenship Act of 2000 went into effect.On that day (when Defendant was 15 years, 6 months and 11 days old) he became a U.S.Citizen by operation of law, by virtue of having been admitted as a Lawful Permanent No actual LPR status was granted. I-485 wasResident and residing with his U.S. Citizen father. denied and it is unclear if: the I-130 was approved or even if it could have been. The issue of the validity of the familial adoption was not actually addressed in this Compliant. Was it reached in USCIS Decision(s)? CLAIMS FOR RELIEF WRIT OF MANDAMUS 26. Plaintiff seeks a Writ of Mandamus, mandating that Defendants properlyadjudicate his citizenship issue and issue his Certificate of Citizenship. In all this grandstanding, there is no mention of an N-600 having ever been filed or adjudicated by USCIS. The issue of the validity of the familial adoption would be critical. Also, as this is supposedly an I-485 adjustment case, there is NO indication of a valid lawful entry on a visa that would allow for any adjustment of status. Lastly, among the alleged "facts", what is his date of birth,Page 8 of 13 date of "adoption", or date of admission as an LPR (not the date a clerk entered data on a processing form)?
Case 7:12-cv-00104-RAJ Document 1 Filed 10/10/12 Page 9 of 13 DECLARATORY JUDGMENT 27. Plaintiff has been denied rights and privileges claimed as a Citizen of the United States, within the meaning of 8 U.S.C. §1503, by virtue of the denial of his Application for a Certificate of Citizenship. This denial may be challenged in a declaratory action under 28 U.S.C. § 2201 in federal court pursuant to INA § 360(a), 8 U.S.C. § 1503(a). Therefore, Plaintiff is entitled to bring a declaratory judgment action, seeking a declaration that he is, indeed, a United States Citizen, under 8 U.S.C. §1503. REVIEW OF ADVERSE AGENCY ACTION 28. Plaintiff also seeks review of the final, adverse agency action, denial of his What N-600? N-600 Application, and refusal to issue a Certificate of Citizenship under the Administrative Procedure Act, (“APA”). Plaintiff urges that said denial is arbitrary, capricious, and contrary to law, within the meaning of the APA. See, 5 U.S.C. §703:This Complaint fails tothe show existence of Form and venue of proceeding. The form of proceeding forany reviewable agencyaction. Was an N-600 judicial review is the special statutory review proceeding relevant toever filed and denied?The real thing that was the subject matter in a court specified by statute or, in the absence ordenied was the I-485 inadequacy thereof, any applicable form of legal action, includingadjustment and it isunclear if the I-130 was actions for declaratory judgments or writs of prohibitory orapproved or denied. mandatory injunction or habeas corpus, in a court of competent jurisdiction. If no special statutory review proceeding is applicable, the action for judicial review may be brought against the United States, the agency by its official title, or the appropriate officer. Except to the extent that prior, adequate, and exclusive opportunity for judicial review is provided by law, agency action is subject to Page 9 of 13
Case 7:12-cv-00104-RAJ Document 1 Filed 10/10/12 Page 10 of 13 judicial review in civil or criminal proceedings for judicial enforcement.See also, 5 U.S.C. §706: Scope of review. To the extent necessary to decision and when presented, the reviewing court shall decide all relevant questions of law, interpret constitutional and statutory provisions, and determine the meaning or applicability of the terms of an agency action. The reviewing court shall —— (1) compel agency action unlawfully withheld or unreasonably delayed; and (2) hold unlawful and set aside agency action, findings, and conclusions found to be —— (A) arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law ... ARGUMENT 29. Since all of the Defendants participate in Homeland Security Departmentfunctions regarding United States immigration and citizenship, the Defendants will becollectively referred to as the Homeland Security Department. 30. In this case, the Homeland Security Department has ignored the relevantlaw, and has denied Plaintiff’s N-600 Application, and refused to issue his Certificate ofCitizenship. 31. The relevant statute is 8 U.S.C. § 1431: § 1431. Children born outside the United States and residing permanently in the United States; conditions under which citizenshipPage 10 of 13
Case 7:12-cv-00104-RAJ Document 1 Filed 10/10/12 Page 11 of 13 automatically acquired (a) A child born outside of the United States automatically becomes a citizen of the United States when all of the following conditions have been fulfilled: (1) At least one parent of the child is a citizen of the United States, whether by birth or naturalization. (2) The child is under the age of eighteen years. (3) The child is residing in the United States Did the alleged adoptive in the legal and physical custody of the citizen USC parent (biological parent pursuant to a lawful admission for permanent grandparent) meet the 2- residence. year requirements of custody and residence with (b) Subsection (a) of this section shall apply to the alleged "adopted" child? a child adopted by a United States citizen parent if the child satisfies the requirements applicable to adopted children under section 1101(b)(1) of this title. Of particular importance is Paragraph (3); it should be noted that Congress couldhave easily utilized language that stated that the child had to already be adjusted to thestatus as a permanent resident, but they did not. Instead, congress employed languagethat indicated that if the child was lawfully admitted for the purpose of permanentresidence, then that was sufficient given adherence to the other requirements. 32. Plaintiff avers that when the Service issued the I-181 Memorandum ofCreation of Record of Lawful Permanent Residence was created and the Master IndexCopy was filed, that he was then lawfully admitted for the purpose of permanentresidence. And when the purported denial had not effect, he remained lawfully admittedPage 11 of 13
Case 7:12-cv-00104-RAJ Document 1 Filed 10/10/12 Page 12 of 13for the purpose of permanent residence until the effective date of the Child CitizenshipAct of 2000, and thus became a U.S. Citizen automatically. 33. On information and belief, the Homeland Security Department allowsadjudicators to deny applications that may present complications in the minds ofadjudicators, but as to which there is insufficient basis for denial of the applications toobtain a Certificate of Citizenship. Absent discrepancies in the evidence, where a claimof derivative citizenship has reasonable support, it will not be rejected. See Murphy v.INS, 54 F.3d 605 (9th Cir. 1995) The muddled unsupported assertions by Counsel are NOT reasonable. 34. The denial of his application to adjust status by the Homeland SecurityDepartment before his deadline to submit additional documents and the recent reluctance ?????????? USCISon the part of the Service to issue his Certificate leaves the Plaintiff in the position ofhaving to live without the proof of citizenship that he needs and is entitled to as a United That is the point at issue and it is not proven! INA 291 places the burden on theStates citizen. intending immigrant and his petitioner. INA 341 places burden on USC claimant. 35. The Defendants’ policy, pattern, and practice also has a chilling effectupon similarly situated citizens who have their applications to adjust status andapplications for Certificates of Citizenship denied by the Homeland Security Departmentwithout hearings in which such citizens may meet demands for additional evidence to In order to obtain an adjudication of the question ofsupport their status as United States Citizens. ones citizenship, that claimant must come forward with proof via an APPLICATION. There has been NO mention of filing an N-600, merely an I-485 denial. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Plaintiff, Daniel Casasrespectfully prays that the Defendants be cited to appear and answer herein; and thatHonorable Court set aside the denial of Plaintiff’s N-600 Application for a Certificate ofPage 12 of 13
Case 7:12-cv-00104-RAJ Document 1 Filed 10/10/12 Page 13 of 13Citizenship. Plaintiff further urges the Court to issue a Declaratory Judgment, declaringhim to be a U.S. Citizen. Plaintiff also requests a permanent injunction, restraining andenjoining Defendant Napolitano et al, from not issuing the Certificate of Citizenship.Plaintiff also urges that the Court issue a Writ of Mandamus, mandating that Defendantsappropriately adjudicate his citizenship issue. Finally, Plaintiff also urges that the Courtrequire Defendants to pay Plaintiff’s costs, and reasonable attorneys fees, and grant suchother and further relief as the Court may consider appropriate or to which the Plaintiffmay be entitled at law or in equity. Respectfully submitted, By: /s/Jeanne Morales Jeanne Morales Texas Bar No. 24002640 Jeanne Morales, Attorney 1030 Andrews Hwy, Suite 215 P.O. Box 11043 Midland, Texas 79702-8043 Tel. (432) 682-8855 Fax. (432) 682-8857 Attorney for PlaintiffPage 13 of 13
Case 7:12-cv-00104-RAJ Document 1-1 Filed 10/10/12 Page 1 of 1 tsJS 44 (Rev. 12/07) CIVIL VtEI SñI1I The JS 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replace nor supplement the filing and service of pleadings or other papers as required by law, except as provided by local rules ofcourt. This form, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is required for the use of the Clerk of Court for the purpose of initiating the civil docket sheet. (SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON THE REVERSE OF THE FORM.) I. (a) PLAINTIFFS DEFENDANTSDaniel Casas Janet Napolitano, Jane Holl Lute, Alejandro Mayorkas, Eric H. Holder, Jr., and The United States of America (b) County of Residence of First Listed Plaintiff Ector County of Residence of First Listed Defendant Washington DC (EXCEPT IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES) (IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES ONLY) NOTE: IN LAND CONDEMNATION CASES, USE THE LOCATION OF THE LAND INVOLVED. (c) Attorneys (Firm Name, Address, and Telephone Number) Attorneys (If Known)Jeanne Morales, Attorney 432-682-8855 Attorney General Eric H. Holder, Jr.P.O. Box 11043, Midland, TX 79702 II. BASIS OF JURISDICTION (Place an "X" in One Box Only) CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES(Placean "X" in One Box for Plaintiff (For Diversity Cases Only) and One Box for Defendant) o 1 U.S. Government 3 3 Federal Question PTF DEF PTF DEF Plaintiff (U.S. Government Not a Party) Citizen of This State 13 1 13 1 Incorporated or Principal Place 13 4 13 4 of Business In This State 2 U.S. Government 13 4 Diversity Citizen of Another Slate 13 2 3 2 Incorporated and Principal Place 13 5 3 5 Defendant of Business In Another State (Indicate Citizenship of Parties in Item Ill) Citizen or Subject of a 13 3 13 3 Foreign Nation 13 6 13 6 Foreign Country IV NATITPI1 1W SITIT ivi., ;,, e-s.. n L s TORJ . FORFEE!PF2IALTY BANKRUPTCY OTIDIR STATUTES I 0 110 Insurance PERSONAL INJURY PERSONAL INJURY 0 610 Agriculture 0 422 Appeal 28 USC 158 0 400 State Reapportionment o 120 Marine 3 310 Airplane 0 362 Personal Injury - 0 620 Other Food & Drug 0 423 Withdrawal 0 410 Antitrust 0 130 Miller Act 0 315 Airplane Product Med. Malpractice 0 625 Drag Related Seizure 28 USC 157 3 430 Banks and Banking 0 140 Negotiable Instrument Liability 0 365 Personal Injury . of Property 21 USC 881 0 450 Commerce 0 150 Recovery of Overpayment 0 320 Assault, Libel & Product Liability 0 630 Liquor Laws PROPERTY RIGH1 0 460 Deportation &EnforcementofJudgment Slander 0 368 Asbestos Personal 13 640 R.R. & Truck 0 820 Copyrights 0 470 Racketeer Influenced and 0 151 Medicare Act 13 330 Federal Employers Injury Product 13 650 Airline Regs. 3 830 Patent Corrupt Organizations 0 152 Recovery of Defaulted Liability Liability 0 660 Occupational 11 840 Trademark 0 480 Consumer Credit Student Loans 0 340 Marine PERSONAL PROPERTY Safety/Health 0 490 Cable/Sat TV (ExcI. Veterans) 13 345 Marine Product 0 370 Other Fraud 11 690 Other 0 810 Selective Service o 153 Recovery of Overpayment Liability 0 371 Truth in Lending L&BOR) SOCIAL SECURITY 13 850 Securities/Commodities! 0 . of Veterans Benefits 350 Motor Vehicle 13 380 Other Personal 0 710 Fair Labor Standards 13 861 HIA (t 395ff) Exchange 0 160 Stockholders Suits 0 355 Motor Vehicle Property Damage Act 13 862 Black Lung (923) 0 875 Customer Challenge 0 190 Other Contract Product Liability 13 385 Property Damage 13 720 Labor/Mgmt. Relations 0 863 DIWC/DIWW (405(g)) 12 USC 3410 0 195 Contract Product Liability 13 360 Other Personal Product Liability 0 730 Labor/Mgmt.Reporting 0 864 SSID Title XVI 0 890 Other Statutory Actions 0 196 Franchise Injury & Disclosure Act 0 p:? RE,%.tJFtffitER. RII?iS .PRISONER PETITIONS 13 740 Railway Labor Act 13 865 RSI (4O5(g)) VEAL TAX.SUITS 13 891 Agricultural Acts 892 Economic Stabilization Act o 210 Land Condemnation 13 441 Voting 0 510 Motions to Vacate 13 790 Other Labor Litigation 0 870 Taxes (U.S. Plaintiff 0 893 Environmental Matters 0 220 Foreclosure 13 442 Employment Sentence 13 791 EmpI. Ret. Inc. or Defendant) 0 894 Energy Allocation Act 0 230 Rent Lease & Ejectment 13 443 Housing! Habeas Corpus: Security Act 0 871 IRSThird Party 13 895 Freedom of Information 0 240 Torts to Land Accommodations 0 530 General 26 USC 7609 Act 13 245 Tort Product Liability 0 444 Welfare 0 535 Death Penalty IMMIGRATION 0 900Appeal of Fee Determination 0 290 All Other Real Property 0 445 Amer. w!Disabilities - 13 540 Mandamus & Other 0 462 Naturalization Application Under Equal Access Employment 0 550 Civil Rights 0 463 Habeas Corpus - to Justice 0 446 Amer. w/Disabilities - 0 555 Prison Condition Alien Detainee 13 950 Constitutionality of Other 0 465 Other Immigration State Statutes X 440 Other Civil Rights Actions V. ORIGIN (Place an "X" in One Box Only) Appeal to District I Original Proceeding 0 2 Removed from State Court 3 Remanded from 0 4 Reinstated or Transferred from another district 6 Multidistrict from Magistrate Appellate Court Reopened Litigation (specify) Judgment Cite the U.S. Civil Statute under which you are filing (Do not cite jurisdictional statutes unless diversity): 28 U.S.C. 1331:28 U.S.C. 1346: 28 U.S.C. 1361: 28 U.S.C. 2201-2202: 8 U.S.C. 1503: 5.U.S.C. 701-70 VI. CAUSE OF ACTION Brief description of cause: VII. REQUESTED IN 0 CHECK IF THIS IS A CLASS ACTION DEMAND $ CHECK YES only if demanded in complaint: COMPLAINT: U1IDER F.R.C.P. 23 JURY DEMAND: 13 Yes I No VIII. RELATED CASE(S) (See instructions): IF ANY JUDGE DOCKET NUMBER DATE SIGNATURE OF ATTORNEY OF RECORD 10/10/2012 Is! Jeanne Morales FOR OFFICE USE ONLY RECEIPT # AMOUNT APPLYING 1FF JUDGE MAG. JUDGE