Case Document 1 Filed 06/19/13 Page 1 of 27 Page ID PETER J. ELIASBERG, SBN 189110 1 Xehasberg aclu~sc.0r_ A HILAN A ULANA THAM, SBN 237841 73 :3 2 1 PETER BIBRI G, SBN 22 981 a; 3 b1b111%gE acIu-sc.org .ENNIA PASQUARELLA, SBN 263241 - 4 aclu?scer CL FO ATION SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA '2 . 5 1313 W. 81h Street LosAngeles CA 90017 1 3: 6 1311011612132 977?9500 1 7 13) 977?5299 1 BARRETT S. LITT, SBN 45527 8 131111 11111aw.00m LIND AYE. BATTLES, SEN 262862 9 1ba111es 11111aw.com KAYE, CLANE BEDNARSKI LITT 10 234 Colorado Blvc1., Ste. 230 Pasadena, CA 91101 11 Telephene: 626) x1. 12 Facsnn?e: 26) 844-7670 Attorneys for Plaintiffs 1-3 (0011111111 ed. on next page) 14 15 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL GERARDO GONZALEZ, onobehalf of CASE NO. 17 himself and. others similarly Situated. COMPLAINT FOR INJ UN CTIVE 18 P1ain1iffs, AND DECLARATORY RELIEF AND PETITION FOR WRIT OF 19 vs. HABEAS CORPUS 20 IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT, an entIty; JOHN 21 MORTON, In Ins Cf?elal capaCIty; . DAVID MARIN, 1111115 of?CIaleapaCI?gy 2?2 DAVID C. PALMATIER, 111s of?oaf capa011y, 24 Defendants. 25 26 27 28 Case 2:Document 1 Filed 06/19/13 Page 2 of 27 Page ID CHRIS NEWMAN, SBN 255616 newman _nd10n.0r JESSICA (ARP, 277347 jka]. 11dlon.01' NA 1 NAL DA LABORER ORGANIZING NETWORK 675 S. Park Street, State Los Angeles, Cahforma 90057 Telephone: 213) 380-2214 1321051111116: 13) 380-2787 Case 2:Document 1 Filed 06/19/13 Page 3 of 27 Page ID JURISDICTION AND VENUE 1. This case challenges Immigration and Customs Enforcement?s practice of issuing immigration holds, also known as immigration detainers, to individuals in the custody of federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies without probable cause to believe the individuals are removable in violation of the Fourth Amendment. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1331 and Article of the U.S. Constitution. It has authority to grant declaratory relief under 28 U.S.C. 2201 and 2202, and injunctive relief under 5 U.S.C. 702. Alternatively, this Court has subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 2241, as the issuance of an immigration hold places Plaintiff in the concurrent custody of ICE. Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. 1391(b)(2). INTRODUCTION 2. individual for 48 hours, excluding weekends and holidays, beyond the time he or An immigration hold is a request that an LEA continue to detain an she would otherwise be released from criminal custody, giving ICE extra time to investigate whether he or she is subject to removal and assume physical custody. Because immigration holds purport to authorize two to five days of imprisonment unrelated to the initial criminal custody, they effectively cause a new seizure, and. must be supported by probable cause to believe the individual so detained is subject to detention and removal. And yet, in practice, ICE has a pattern of not requiring its agents to establish probable cause before issuing immigration holds. On the contrary, ICE routinely begins to investigate whether an individual is subject to removal only after he or she has been subjected to additional detention under the immigration hold, or after he or she is in physical custody. When it comes to immigration holds, mantra is: Detain?rst, investigate Eater. As a result, issuance of holds violates the Fourth Amendment by restraining and depriving individuals of their liberty without probable cause. 3. Nationally, between ?scal year 2008 and the beginning of fiscal year 2012, 1 Case 2:Document 1 Filed 06/19/13 Page 4 of 27 Page ID ICE issued immigration holds seeking the prolonged incarceration of nearly one million people. In 2012 alone, ICE sought the prolonged incarceration of 36,450 people in the custody of law enforcement agencies within area of jurisdiction for Los Angeles by issuing immigration holds. 4. person is subject to removal has restrained and deprived of their liberty thousands issuance of immigration holds without probable cause to believe that a of peOple who are not actually removable, including American citizens and lawful permanent residents without criminal convictions that would render them removable. 5. who is presently subject to an immigration hold while incarcerated in a Los Plaintiff Gerardo Gonzalez, Jr. is one such person. He is a U.S.~born citizen Angel es County jail. Because ICE does not require that its agents establish probable cause before issuing immigration holds, ICE placed a hold on Plaintiff Gonzalez. Upon information and belief, ICE placed the hold solely because a LEA officer mistakenly wrote at booking that Plaintiff was born in Mexico, despite his testimony that he was born in California and ample evidence at disposal that Plaintiff Gonzalez is in. fact a US. citizen, who was born in Pacoima, California. 6. declaratory and inj unctive relief under the Fourth Amendment for ongoing Plaintiff Gonzalez seeks on behalf of himself and the proposed class violations of their rights, or, in the alternative, habeas corpus relief. PARTIES 7. was born in. Pacoima, California. Mr. Gonzalez is a resident of Los Angeles, Plaintiff Gerardo Gonzalez, Jr. is a 23-year-old United States citizen, who California. He is currently detained awaiting trial in the North County Correctional Facility of the Les Angeles Countyjails in Castaic, California. ICE has lodged an immigration hold against him. Plaintiff Gonzalez seeks injunctive and declaratory relief on behalf of himself and the proposed class, as described below. Case 2:13Document 1 Filed 06/19/13 Page 5 of 27 Page ID 8. and responsible for overseeing and enforcing federal laws governing Defendant ICE is a component of the Department of Homeland Security border control, customs, trade and immigration, including its immigration detainer practices. 9. immigration detainer policy for ICE and its subdivisions, including the application Defendant John Morton is the Director of ICE. Director Morton establishes 0f detainer regulations and approval of the use of the Form I-247 detainer. Plaintiff sues Director Morton in his official capacity. 10. Defendant David Marin is the Acting Field Office Director for the Los Angeles District of ICE, which has responsibility for the counties of Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, Ventura, Santa Barbara, and San Luis Obispo. Acting FOD Marin has ultimate responsibility for all immigration detainers issued from the Los Angeles Field Of?ce, including any and all sub? of?ces. Based on information and belief, the Los Angeles Field Of?ce (including any and all sub-offices) is listed as the principal ICE custodian on detainers issued out of its area of responsibility. Plaintiff sues Mr. Marin in his of?cial capacity. 11. Service Center of ICE. Chief Pahnatier oversees the issuance of Defendant David C. Palmatier is the Unit Chief for the Law Enforcement immigration holds out of the LESC pursuant to law enforcement inquiries throughout the United States. Based on information and belief, LESC is listed as the ICE custodian on detainers issued from the LESC and is listed as emergency custodian for detainers issued from ICE Field Offices, including Los Angeles. Plaintiff sues Chief Palmatier in his of?cial capacity.1 Plaintiff believes that each of the three individual Defendants currently hold their respective positions. Should any one of the named Defendants no longer hold their position, their successor is automatically substituted as a party under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25(d). 3 Case 2:Document 1 Filed 06/19/13 Page 6 of 27 Page ID STATEMENT OF FACTS Immigration Detainers, also Known as ?Immigration Holds? or Holds? 12. Communities? (or the purpose of which is to identify individuals In 2008, ICE launched a national data?sharing program called ?Secure possibly subject to removal by sharing ?ngerprints gathered by the federal, state, and local criminal justice systems with the federal system. Under S- Comm, any ?ngerprints taken by criminal law enforcement agencies are automatically run through ICE and FBI databases. Upon receiving the transmittal, ICE agents in Law Enforcement Support Center and/ or the relevant ICE Field Office may send the arresting law enforcement agency a Form 3) 01' 1?247, known as an ?immigration detainer, 1mmi gration hold,? or hold,? requesting that the person be held in custody for immigration purposes after his or her criminal custody ends. 13. enforcen?lent agency that seeks custody of an alien presently in the custody The purpose of an immigration detainer is to ?advise another law of that agency, for the purpose of arresting and removing the alien. The detainer is a request that such agency advise prior to release of the alien, in order for to arrange to assume custody, in situations when gaining immediate physical custody is either impracticable or impossible.? Id. In addition, the immigration detainer requests that the LEA hold the alien for a period of no more than 48 hours excluding Saturdays, Sundays, and holidays ?beyond the time when the subject would have otherwise been released from your custody.? 8 C.F.R. 287.7(d) (emphasis added). Over a weekend, this period of additional detention can last up to five days. Immigration detainers are not warrants or court orders, and they are not issued or approved by judicial of?cers; instead, they may be issued by a wide variety of of?cers, including irmnigration enforcement agents and deportation of?cers. Id. 4 Case Document 1 Filed 06/19/13 Page 7 of 27 Page ID #:10 1 14. Immigration detainers are issued on various grounds. The face of the current 2 Form I-247 lists four possible bases for ICE to issue the hold, including that ICE 3 has ?[dletermined that there is reason to believe the individual is an alien subject to 4 removal from the United States;? ?[i]nitiated removal proceedings and served a 5 Notice to Appear or other charging document,? with the charging document 6 attached; ?[s]erved a warrant of arrest for removal proceedings,? with the warrant 7 attached; or ?[o]btained an order of deportation or removal from the United States 8 for this person.? 9 15. The ICE agent may check a box next to one of these four grounds to indicate 10 the basis for the hold. 11 1.6. Prior to December 21, 2012, the Form 1?247 listed ?[ijnitiated an 12 investigation to determine whether this person is subject to removal from the 13 United States? as the ?rst of four grounds for placing a detainer. When ICE 14 modified. the Form on December 21, 2012, it replaced the ?initiated an 1.5 investigation? language with that there is reason to believe the 16 individual is an alien subject to removal from the United States.? 17 17. Upon information and belief, although ICE changed the language on the 18 detainer form, it did not change the process by which it assesses whether to issue a 1.9 detainer. ICE still routinely fails to perform an adequate investigation before 20 issuing detainers using the current Form just as it did under the previous 21 form. Therefore, when ICE issues a detainer and checks the box marked either 22 ?[i]nitiated an investigation to determine whether this person is subject to removal 23 from the United States? or ?[d]etermined that there is reason to believe the 24 individual is an alien subject to removal from the United States,? it does so to 25 begin an investigation to determine whether the person is subject to removal not 26 after having done an investigation. Often, ICE does not actually investigate until 27 the subject is transferred to physical custody. Indeed, in a recent federal 28 lawsuit regarding the wrongful detention of another US. citizen on an immigration 5 Case 2:13Document 1 Filed 06/19/13 Page 8 of 27 Page ID #:11 detainer, attorney told the district court that ICE uses detainers as ?a stop gap measure. . . to give ICE time to investigate and determine whether somebody?s an alien, and/or subject to removal, before local law enforcement releases that person from custody.? Oral Argument Transcript, ECF #79, Galarza v. No. 10-06815 (ED. Pa. Jan. 10, 2012). 18. detainers using both the previous and current versions of the Form. 1. 9. Between October 2009 and February 2013, the ICE Los Angeles Field Office checked the box on the previous 1?247 Form for ?[i]nitiated an investigation Upon information and belief, since December 21, 2012, ICE has issued to determine whether this person is subject to removal from the United States? and on the current 1?247 Form for ?[d]etermined that there is reason to believe the individual is an alien subject to removal from the United States? on approximately 73 percent of the holds it issues. On an additional 9 percent of holds, it failed to specify any basis on which the hold was issued. 20. to be imprisoned for an additional two to five days after they should be released. ICE agents know and intend that these detainers will cause the subjects Yet in practice, ICE agents routinely issue immigration holds without probable cause to believe that the subjects are removable from the United States. An 1?247 Form with the ?initiated an investigation? or ?reason to believe? box checked is not necessarily supported by an investigation and prior determination by ICE as to the person?s immigration status. ICE also does not require that agents have probable cause to believe a person is removable from the United. States before issuing an I- 247 Form with the boxes checked for an administrative arrest warrant or a Notice to Appear or other charging document, nor does ICE require that administrative arrest warrants or Notices to Appear be issued by judicial officers. 21. individual. ICE agent after reviewing electronic ICE and FBI records triggered by a Upon information and belief, the decision to place a detainer is made by an person?s fingerprints, as well as booking information from the LEA. In general, 6 Case 2:13Document 1 Filed 06/19/13 Page 9 of 27 Page ID #:12 practice is to issue detainers without crosschecking this information or inquiring into discrepancies to confirm whether a person is in fact removable, performing an adequate review of the available files and databases, or interviewing the subject. ICE routinely treats inconclusive or ambiguous evidence of removability as sufficient reason to issue a detainer. For example, ICE routinely places detainers on lawful permanent residents prior to any criminal conviction that could make them removable, and on allegedly foreign-born subjects solely because a database query fails to return affirmative evidence of the person?s immigration status. 22. Due to failure to require ICE agents to have probable cause before issuing a detainer and common errors in immigration databases, ICE commonly issues immigration detainers in error on persons who are not subject to removal, such as United States citizens and lawful permanent residents who are not subject to removal. According to own data, between fiscal year 2008 and the beginning of fiscal year 2012, ICE issued nearly one million detainers to LEAs nationwide. Of these, it issued 28,489 detainers against lawful permanent residents ?green card? holders), 20,281 of whom had no record of any criminal conviction for which they could be removable. According to the same data, ICE issued 834 detainers against US. citizens. Upon information and belief, this number only represents a fraction of the US. citizens who receive immigration holds because many, if not most, have no recourse to meaningfully challenge their detainer and inform ICE while in custody on the detainer that they are US. citizens. 23. been the subject of litigation and has been widely reported. For example, in Nationwide, the fact that ICE places detainers on United States citizens has November 2008, ICE placed a detainer on Ernesto Galarza, a 34-year?old U.S.- born citizen, resulting in his three-?day imprisonment without probable cause. Galarza v. 2012 WL 1080020 (ED. Pa., March 30, 2012). ICE twice 7 Case 2:13Document 1 Filed 06/19/13 Page 10 of 27 Page ID #:13 placed a hold on Ada Morales, a naturalized U.S. citizen, ?rst in 2004 and then in 2009, resulting in her prolonged detention. Complaint at 3, 15, Morales v. Cltaclboame, No. (D.R.I. ?led Apr. 24, 2012). In 2007, ICE placed a hold on Conway Wiltshire, a naturalized U.S. citizen, and subsequently held him for three months in immigration custody. Complaint at 3-5, v. United States, No. 09-4745 (ED. Pa. ?led Oct. 1.6, 2009). In 2008, ICE placed a hold on Mark a U.S.?born citizen, despite his repeated statements that he was born in the U.S., resulting in his prolonged. incarceration 51 days beyond his release date. Complaint, v. United States of America, No. (MD. Ga. Oct. 13, 2010). See William Finnegan, The Deportation Machine: A citizen trapped in the system, THE NEW YORKER, Apr. 29, 2013. See also, e. g, Complaint, v. Holder et al., No. l2-cv?05265 (ND. 111. ?led July 3, 2012) (ICE placed hold on U.S. citizen prolonging his incarceration for approximately two additional months); Complaint at 5, Castillo v. Swarslci, No. (WD. Wa. ?led Nov. 13, 2008) (ICE placed hold on naturalized U.S. citizen and detained him in immigration custody for 226 days before acknowledging that he was a citizen). 24. citizens and non-removable lawful permanent residents. For example, in The ICE Los Angeles Field Office also often lodges detainers against U.S. November 2011, the Los Angeles Field Of?ce placed a hold on Romy Campos, a l9-year~old U.S.?born woman who is a dual citizen with the United States and Spain, simply because an electronic record showed she once entered the country on her Spanish passport years prior when traveling alone as a minor. ICE issued a detainer in spite of other evidence at its disposal. that conclusively demonstrated her U.S. citizenship. Due to the immigration hold, Ms. Campos was unable to post bail to secure her release from criminal custody and was detained by the Los Angeles Sheriff?s Department for two days beyond her release date on the immigration hold despite her repeated protestations that she was an American 8 Case Document 1 Filed 06/19/13 Page 11 of 27 Page ID #:14 1 citizen. 2 25. Also in November 2011, the Los Angeles Field Office placed a hold on 3 Antonio Montejano, a 40-year-old U.S.-born citizen, in spite of evidence at its 4 disposal that would have demonstrated his citizenship, including his declaration 5 when booked into local police and Sheriff?s custody that he was born in Los 6 Angeles, California, evidence in the immigration system that he sponsored his wife ?7 for her green card on account of his citizenship, and evidence that he possesses a 8 U.S. passport. Due to the immigration hold, the Santa Monica Police Department 9 refused to allow him to post bail to secure his release from criminal custody and 1.0 the Los Angeles Sheriff?s Department detained him for two days beyond his 11 release date on the immigration hold despite his repeated protestations that he was 12 an American citizen. 13 26. provides no meaningful way for a detainee to contest the immigration 14 hold lodged against him or her. Rather, a detainee typically must wait to be finally 1.5 transferred to immigration custody before he or she will have an opportunity to 16 demonstrate that he or she is not in fact removable and/or that he or she should 1?7 have been released. 18 The Impact of Immigration Detainers 19 27. Immigration detainers can significantly impact the custody and criminal 20 proceedings of their subjects. 21 28. Pretrial detainees subject to immigration detainers may stay in LEA custody 22 far longer than they otherwise would, due solely to the detainer. For example, on 23 average, inmates in the Los Angeles County jails with immigration holds lodged 24 against them spend on average 20.6 days longer in jail than inmates without 25 immigration holds. This difference occurs even though a disproportionately large 26 share of these inmates are classified as low custody, meaning they are likely being 27 held pretrial on low level non-violent offenses and thus are, on average, better 28 candidates for pretrial release or other diversion programs than other inmates in the 9 Case 2:13Document 1 Filed 06/19/13 Page 12 of 27 Page ID #:15 jails who do not have immigration holds. 29. detainers often prevent pretrial inmates from posting bail on their criminal charges, Within the jurisdiction of the ICE Los Angeles Field Office, immigration either because an LEA will not permit inmates to post bail if there is an immigration hold present (a practice that is also unlawful) or because inmates recognize that if they post bail to secure their release from criminal custody, they will be transferred to ICE custody, where they could be subject to removal or mandatory detention and may lose the opportunity to contest the criminal charges against them. 30. example, preventing an inmate from accepting a plea contingent on participation in An immigration detainer can affect the disposition of a criminal case by, for diversion programs, remedial courses or payment of. a fee, if the inmate believes he will subsequently be transferred to ICE custody and will be unable to comply with the terms of the agreement. 31. classi?cations or eligibility for work programs. For example, under California An immigration detainer can also affect an inmate?s prison or jail Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation regulations, an immigration detainer affects a prisoner?s classification score and affects where he or she is housed. According to these regulations, prisoners with immigration holds may not be housed in Level One minimum?security facilities, and therefore, many are sent to CDCR facilities out of state. CDCR regulations also prevent inmates with immigration detainers from participating in or bene?ting from early release, vocational, educational, and substance abuse programs, and immigration holds are considered as a factor in deciding whether to recommend the recall of an inmate?s commitment and medical parole. 32. subject for an additional 48 hours, excluding weekends and holidays, beyond his or Because the Form 1?247 requests that an LEA maintain custody of the her release date, an inmate with an immigration detainer generally will spend two 10 Case 2:13Document 1 Filed 06/19/13 Page 13 of 27 Page ID #:16 to five days more in LEA custody after the time when he or she would otherwise have been released. 33. Field Of?ce have policies or practices of complying with all immigration holds Federal, state, and local LEAs within the jurisdiction of the ICE Los Angeles issued to individuals in their physical custody and continuing to detain those individuals for 48 hours, excluding weekends and holidays, beyond the time they would otherwise be released from criminal custody.2 Plaintiff ?s Allegations Gerardo Gonzalez, Jr. 34. Gerardo Gonzalez, Jr. was born at home in Pacoima, California, and is thus a US. citizen. He is twenty?three years old. See Exhibit A, Birth Certificate. 35. juvenile and later as an adult. Records of his prior arrests all indicate that he was. Plaintiff Gonzalez has been arrested on numerous occasions, first as a born in California. His probation record indicates that he is a US. citizen. 36. arrests indicate that he was born in California and is a US. citizen. In particular, Upon information and belief, FBI records of each of Plaintiff Gonzalez?s the FBI ?ngerprint form that an completes and sends to the FBI at the time an arrestee is booked into custody includes the detainee?s place of birth and citizenship.3 Plaintiff Gonzalez?s fingerprints, as well as his FBI number, would trigger these records, and would have been available to the ICE agent making the detainer determination. 2 The only federal, state, or local LEA within the jurisdiction of the Los Angeles Field Office known to have a policy to limit its compliance with immigration holds is the Los Angeles Police Department, which complies with all immigration holds except those involving individuals who have no prior felony convictions, are not documented gang members, and. have no open criminal charges aside from certain misdemeanor charges with bails of $4,999 or less and certain Vehicle Code violation charges with hail of $2,499 or less. 3 See FBI Fingerprint Form, available at ll Case 2:13Document 1 Filed 06/19/13 Page 14 of 27 Page ID #:17 37. arrested Plaintiff Gonzalez on a felony charge of possession of methamphetamines. On December 27, 2012, the Los Angeles Police Department Since his arrest, he has been detained in LAPD and Los An geles Sheriff?s Department custody while he awaits resolution of his criminal case. 3 8. eligible for release on bail. The parole hold expired on or around May 2013, and Until May 2013, Plaintiff Gonzalez was subject to a parole hold and not he is now eligible for release on bail at $95,000. 39. incorrectly wrote on Plaintiff Gonzalez?s booking record that he was born in Upon information and belief, at booking, an LAPD or an LASD employee Mexico, despite Plaintiff Gonzalez?s statement that he was born in California. 40. On January 1, 2013, ICE placed an immigration detainer on Plaintiff Gonzalez. 41. To his knowledge, Plaintiff Gonzalez has never been interviewed by or had any contact with ICE. 42. Neither ICE nor the LASD informed Plaintiff Gonzalez that ICE had placed a detainer on him and neither served him with a copy of the detainer. Plaintiff Gonzalez only learned that ICE had lodged an immigration detainer against him when his girlfriend attempted to post'bail shortly after his parole hoid eXpired, and a bail bondsman told her that he had an immigration hold. 43. hold, Plaintiff Gonzalez delayed posting bail and continued his next court After his criminal defense attorney confirmed that he had an immigration appearance to provide time to get theimmigration hold lifted. If Plaintiff Gonzalez posts bail, he will be subject to unlawful detention for up to 5 days on the sole authority of the immigration hold and possibly subject to further unlawful detention by ICE. If Plaintiff Gonzalez proceeds with his criminal case while subject to an immigration hold, he risks being convicted and sentenced to state prison, where the immigration hold is likely to impact the facility where he is sent, his prison classification, and access to remedial programs. 12 Case Document 1 Filed 06/19/13 Page 15 of 27 Page ID #:18 1 CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS 2 44. Plaintiff Gonzalez seeks class-wide injunctive and declaratory relief, under 3 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and 4 45. The preposed class is de?ned as all persons who are or will be (1) detained 5 in the custody of a federal, state, or local law enforcement agency (2) 6 have an immigration hold placed on them by the ICE Los Angeles Field Office, 7 and (3) are or will be detained by a federal, state or local LEA on the sole authority 8 of the immigration hold when they become eligible for release from criminal 9 custody. 10 Numerosity 1.1 46. The class meets the numerosity requirement of Rule According to 12 ICE data, it issued nearly one million immigration detainers between fiscal year 13 2008 and the start of fiscal year 2012. 14 47. According to ICE data, between October 2009 and February 2013, the ICE 15 Los Angeles Field Office issued 125,331 detainers. In 201.2, the ICE Los Angeles 16 Field Office issued 36,450 detainers. In 2011, it issued 44,574 detainers. And in 17 2010, it issued. 37,207 detainers. 18 48. Between October 2009 and February 2013, the ICE Los Angeles Field 19 Office checked the box on the previous 1-247 Form for ?initiated an investigation? 20 and on the current 1-247 Form for ?determined there is reason to believe? on i 21 approximately 73 percent of the detainers it issued. 22 49. Within the jurisdiction of the ICE Los Angeles Field Of?ce, nearly all 23 individuals subject to immigration detainers are detained by the federal, state, or 24 local LEA beyond the time they are otherwise eligible for release. 25 50. Joinder of all class members is impractical. As ICE continuously lodges 26 immigration detainers against individuals in custody and assumes physical custody 27 of those held on detainers, the membership of the class changes continuously. The 28 inclusion within the class of future inmates also makes joinder of all members 13 Case 2:13Document 1 Filed 06/19/13 Page 16 of 27 Page ID #:19 impracticable. Commonality 51. The class meets the commonality requirement of Rule Questions of law and fact presented by the named plaintiff are common to other members of the class. The common questions of fact or law that unite the claims of the class include the following: '1 Whether ICE has a practice of issuing immigration detainers without determining whether there is probable cause to believe that the person subject to the detainer is removable? Whether that practice, which results in class members being detained in federal, state or local jails after they are otherwise entitled to release, violates the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution? Typicality 52. The claims of Plaintiff Gonzalez are typical of those of the class as a whole. Both Mr. Gonzalez and the membersof the proposed class are subject to an immigration hold and they allege that ICE has a practice of issuing these holds without determining that there is probable cause to believe that they are removable, and that this practice violates either the Fourth or Fifth Amendments. Adequacy of Representation 53. requirements of Rule Plaintiff Gonzalez is presently in the custody of the Plaintiff Gonzalez is an adequate class representative and thus meets the ICE has issued an immigration hold without making a determination that there is probable cause to believe that he is removable, and he will be detained by LASD on the sole authority of the immigration hold when he becomes eligible for release from criminal custody. He has no con?ict of interest with other class members, will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class, and understands his responsibilities as a class representative. 54. Plaintiff Gonzalez is represented by highly qualified and experienced l4 Case 2:13- Document 1 Filed 06/19/13 Page 17 of 27 Page ID #:20 counsel: The ACLU of Southern California, the National Day Laborer Organizing Network and Litt, Estuar Kitson, who, as elaborated below, are all highly experienced in cases of this type and subject-matter. In particular, all of Plaintiff?s counsel also serve as counsel in a federal class action, Roy, er at. v. County of Los Angeles, CV 12?9012 (CD. Cal. filed Oct. 19, 2012), brought on behalf of current and former inmates of the Los Angeles County jails who are or were detained on an immigration hold. 55. Peter Eliasberg, is the Legal Director of the ACLU Foundation of Southern Plaintiffs? coulead counsel on behalf of the ACLU of Southern California, California. Since its founding in 1923, the ACLU of Southern California has been litigating a broad variety of civil rights cases, including prisoners? rights cases. Attorney Eliasberg has been lead counsel or coulead counsel in numerous federal civil rights class actions in the Central District of California as well as eo?counsel on a federal habeas petition on behalf of Susan McDougal. He has been lead counsel. in civil rights matters before the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, the California Supreme Court, and the United States Supreme Court, and has argued cases before both the California and the US. Supreme Courts. Since 2009, Bliasberg has served as co-lead class counsel for all the inmates in Los Angeles County Jails in Rutherford 12. Been and in 2012 was named co-lead counsel for all the inmates in Men?s Central Jail and Twin Towers in Rosa's 12. Been, a federal class action in this Court. In addition, co~counse1 Jennifer Pasqu arella, Peter Bibring, and Ahilan Arulanantham all have experience serving as class counsel in large civil rights cases litigated in federal court. 56. Network (NDLON), Chris Newman, ,is the Legal Director of the National Day Plaintiffs? co~lead counsel on behalf of the National Day Laborer Organizing Laborer Organizing Network. Since its founding in 2001 NDLON has litigated a variety of constitutional and civil rights cases. Attorney Newman currently serves as co-counsel in the civil rights class action Valle Del Sol v. Whiting, No.10-01061 15 Case Document 1 Filed 06/19/13 Page 18 of 27 Page ID #:21 1 (D. Ariz. filed May 17, 2010). He has also been counsel in constitutional and civil 2 rights matters before the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth and Eleventh 3 Circuits, including Hispanic Interest Coalition of Alabama 12. Bentley, No. 4 14535 (1lth Cir), as well as the Central District of California. In addition, Jessica 5 Karp, staff attorney at NDLON, has experience serving as counsel in civil rights 6 class action Vaite Del Sol v. Whiting, and has been counsel in constitutional and 7 civil rights matters before the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth and 8 Eleventh Circuits. 9 57. Plaintiffs? co-lead counsel on behalf of Kaye, McLane, Bednarski Litt, 10 Barrett S. Litt, specializes in complex civil rights litigation, particularly civil rights 11 class actions, and has extensive experience handling jail matters. The law 12 enforcement or jail/prison class actions in which he has been named class counsel 13 in certified. classes are listed below. (Where there is a reported decision, the 14 citation is provided.) 15 Matti?Ethnic Immigrant Worker Network 12. City of Los Angeles, Case No.: 16 CV 07-3072 AHM (class action for injunctive relief and damages 17 for challenging the assault on a lawful immigrant rights rally in 18 MacArthur Park on May 1, 2007: Matti-Ethnic Immigrant Worker Network 19 v. City ofLos Angeles, 24 F.R.D. 621 (CD. Cal. 2007) (certifying class). 20 Williams v. Block, Case No.: (CD. Cal.) and related 21 cases (a series of county jail overdetention and strip search cases, settled for 22 $27 million and a complete revamp of jail procedures); Streit v. County of 23 Los Angeies, 236 F.3d 552, 556 (9th Cir. 2001) (finding that sheriff is a 24 county actor and referring, at fn. 2, to the concurrent, unreported reversal of 25 the denial of class certification by the district court). 26 Craft County ofSan Bernardino, N0. EDCV05-00359 SGL (CD. Cal.) 27 (certified class action against the Sheriff of San Bernardino County for 28 blanket strip searches of detainees, arrestees, and persons ordered released 16 Case Document 1 Filed 06/19/13 Page 19 of 27 Page ID #:22 1 from custody; partial summary judgment decided for plaintiffs; $25.5 2 million settlement approved April 1; 2008); Craft 12. County of Son 3 Bernardino, 468 F.Supp.2d 1172 (CD. Cal. 2006) (approving class 4 settlement). 5 Lopez 12. Youngbtood, No. LJO (DLBX) (ED. Cal.) (class 6 action against Kern County; California, for unlawful pre-arraignment and 7 post-release strip searches and strip searches not conducted in private; class 8 certi?cation and summary judgment on liability granted; settlement 9 approved in 2011for class fund of approximately $7 million); Lopez 12. 10 Youngbtood; 2009 WL 909817 (ED. Cal. Apr. 1; 2009). 11 Byimm 12. District of Colombia, No. 02-956 (RCL) (D.D.C.) (class action 12 against the District of Columbia for overdetentions and blanket strip 13 searches of pretrial jail detainees after they have been ordered released from 14 custody; final approval of $12 million settlement occurred January 2006); 15 Byimm v. Dist. 214 F.R.D. 27 (D.D.C. 2003) (certifying class) 16 Barnes 12. District of Columbia, No: 06-315 (RCL) (D.D.C.) (class action 17 against District of Columbia for continuing to both over-?detain and strip 18 search post?release inmates despite settlement in Bynum, supra; class 19 certification granted; partial summary judgment granted plaintiffs and 20 remaining issues to be set for trial); Barnes v. Dist. of Columbia, 242 F.R.D. 21 113 (D.D.C. 2007) (certifying class)] 22 Johnson v. District ofCotumbia; Case No. 02-2364 (RMC) (D.D.C.) (class 23 action against the District of Columbia and United States Marshals for 24 blanket strip searches of arrestees initially taken to jail without reasonable 25 suspicion and not involved in drug or violent activity; judgment for 26 defendant on appeal); Johnson. v. Dist. ofCoZmnbia; 248 F.R.D. 46 (D.D.C. 27 2008) (certifying class). 28 3" Jones v. Murphy; Case No. CCB 05 CV 1287 (D. Md.) (class action 17 Case 2:13Document 1 Filed 06/19/13 Page 20 of 27 Page ID #:23 challenging overdetentions and illegal strip searches in Central Booking in Baltimore, MD, jail; class certi?cation granted in part and denied in part; summary judgment motions pending); Jones 12. Murphy, 256 F.R.D. 519 (D. Md. 2009) (certifying class). Gail Marie HarringtomWiseZy, et at. v. State of California, et al., Superior Court Case No. BC 227373 (backseatter x~ray searches of Visitors to California prisons Without reasonable suspicion; class certification granted; stipulated injunction entered; case currently pending to sort out procedural issues preliminary to appeal or settlement) 58. Mr. Litt has authored articles on law enforcement related class certification issues. See ?Class Certification in Police/Law Enforcement Cases,? Civil Rights Litigation and Attorney ?s Fee Ammo! Handbook, V01. 18, Ch. 3, West Publishing 2002; ?Obtaining Class Attorney?s Fees,? Civii Rights Litigation and Attorney is Fee Annual Handbook, V01. 26, Ch. 15, West Publishing 2010. 59. or omitted to act, on grounds generally applicable to the class, thereby making Plaintiffs meet the requirement of Rule as Defendants have acted, equitable relief appropriate with respect to the class as a whole. CLAIMS First Cause of Action: Fourth Amendment Violation (Unlawful Seizure) 60. Plaintiff incorporates the allegations of the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 61. As set forth above, Defendants? issuance of immigration holds causes Plaintiff and other class members prejudice by unreasonably taking away, limiting, and otherwise impacting their liberty without probable cause to believe they are removable in Violation of the Fourth Amendment. Second Cause of Action: Fifth Amendment Violation (Unreasonable Over?detention) l8 case 2:13Document 1 Filed 06/19/13 Page 21 of 27 Page ID #:24 62. Plaintiff incorporates the allegations of the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 63. This cause of action is brought as an alternative to the first cause of action, in the event the court rules that the Fourth Amendment is not available to challenge the detention of Plaintiff and other class members on the basis of an immigration hold. 64. Plaintiff and other class members prejudice by unreasonably taking away, limiting, As set forth above, Defendants? issuance of immigration holds causes and otherwise impacting their liberty in violation of their due process right to be released within a reasonable time after the initial reason for their detention has ended. Third Cause of Action: Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus 65. set forth herein. 66. in the event the court rules that the only vehicle for relief is by writ of habeas Plaintiff incorporates the allegations of the preceding paragraphs as if fully This claim for relief is brought as an alternative to the first claim for relief, corpus. 67. for the purposes of 28 U.S.C. 2241. 68. situated results in detention that violates the Fourth Amendment or, alternatively, The issuance of an immigration detainer places Plaintiff in federal custody The issuance of an immigration detainer against Plaintiff and those similarly the Fifth Amendment. 69. class. Plaintiff seeks to pursue a representative action to represent the proposed 19 Case 2:13Document 1 Filed 06/19/13 Page 22 of 27 Page ID #:25 relief: Dated: June 19, 2013 PRAYER FOR RELIEF Wherefore, Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court grant the following Enjoin Defendants, their subordinates, agents, employees, and all others acting in concert with them from issuing an immigration hold without first determining that there is probable cause to I believe the subject is removable; Issue an injunction ordering Defendants, their subordinates, agents, employees, and all others acting in concert with them to rescind any existing immigration holds and reissue them only if they first determine that there is probable cause to believe the person is removable; Enter a judgment declaring that Defendants? detention of Plaintiff and other members of the preposed class solely on the basis of an immigration hold not supported by probable cause violates the Fourth Amendment; Award Plaintiffs andother members of the proposed class reasonable attorneys? fees and costs; and Grant any other relief that this Court may deem fit and proper. Respectfully submitted, By: IFER PAS QUARELLA LU Foundation of Southern California 20 Case Document 1 Filed 06/19/13 Page 23 of 27 Page ID #:26 5k f' i I 89-570975 DELAYED REGISTRATION OF BIRTH 31033 STATE FILE STATE OF CALIFORNIA am 0 NMAE o; IIB no mm mm] Gerardo Gonzalez. Jr. . . 2 SE): 3 . mm um. YEAR 4 NAME OF (on on on omen reason ?mamas nus amml f'?3 male 1989 'Violeta Zapata 5a RACE 0F slam?"05mm. 5mm. uumain. $53 CIIY on TOWN lac count? 50 STATE .. I I I. a rgg_ home-12912 Louvre Street 1 Pacowma ,Los Angeles Ca11forn1a 5- 6A. NAME OF {swam I63 MIDDLE 18c usr {mum 3. Gerardo Gonza1ez, Sr. {sun 03 mum-a mummy -- - 33. {fume in. 9 1mm 0F DAY. YEAR 1 3.. Mexico . . white . 4-21-1972 1cm. NAME OF {0mm ?06" - "05 Sandra 2- . t. a- Ivonne - .S1erra Zapata :3 13%; I MOTHER H. mm as roam? counrmri 12 "More. 12A ETHNICITY 13. DATE OF DAY. YEM -, Mexico - . whi te Mexican 1-254970 manta? UNDER I gamma; - -. . - 15;! AM 0M1 PA?tr? cumnwa n" 4' FER-10M Wu? "It SYATE- .- mason mose mm 15mm" MEWS "Ni CONRECT (.K?dm - asthma magenta mm - 36. DATE {Stage}, - - mg? one 0F DEATH1 tan STAYE me NUMBER - Wkme - 61% meg. - - - - I HEREBY CEHIIFY UNDER 0F PERJURYH THE Aapy? STAIEMEHTS Am: -. nu; AND YHA: I Hno FERSONAL OF THIS 8mm I AT we TIME 01?- occunnzuqe 1 . . . . i-Ejf FIRST -- 196. HHSON wuqse mm is Emmet) mum i 19c act or mama - coumnnomi - c. AFFIDAVIT ?Hm? 199. 5mm 192.5. 4? :31an an. 1. H4 bun-h. - a; an?? ham 0.9 . QATAR. . I HEREBY ceanrv unnan Pmme orgrimuafrg-mi? ms Ana-3mm AND C?anamrma mm HAD PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE or THIS BIRTH AT we we :93 mg .rouowzua masonPres-byter-i an Hespita] of Van Nuys SECOND . 6N RE GP 98350:; unsung" ma Is ENTERED IN arm I 20051656 or nasal?: .- . Nonqui-rth Certificate Clerl?mmvu 21 200. one smu'eo' act-350$ or reason our-mm - 1/29/9; 151'? Va?bwen St "Van'Nuys - my Jet. "w .. . .I . TYPE - 3" QME Onl?uw. I *89'7 -- g?v. DOCUMENIS. 2m (chi 1d brouth to talizafter- -- I: gig DATE or am?! On AGE . *3 NAME as amen ?we or momma 8?1?89 Pacoima;Caiifornia Gerardo Gonza1e2 SandraF 5 DOCUMENTS ?OFF-ICE 05' sure 24? was REGISTERE . . . I maeav cenmv man no man cemmcue ms am: mum 0N me nusmove me mama ms am: Renew-r130 mm mun THE Sm?: REGISTRAR . . REGISTRAR Emma suasrmm?tes me FACTSAS roam we magmas assume! ?r 0F {Inn 7.901 roam 5?33; gme__oe_c1.1_1romw panama?: or page REGSIRAR WW 35. - 55This :13 in cmmy that um; (lmzumenl Is a {we come! the allacmi mama mad with the Clmkcomm 8.MCCORMACK Registmr-Hecor?er??ounly Cierk x? Egg Km This mp3: nut valid nu hordm? displaying 1hr. and Signaturv leu Clmli. 43-? - . Xx? ?xtsw?ie?atitsew- nugSuva-I gig I j: 153%; 32.. "w 535321} "9 Case Document 1 Filed 06/19/13 Page 25 of 27 Page ID #:28 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT TO UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE FOR DISCOVERY This case has been assigned to District Judge Gary A. Feess and the assigned discovery Magistrate Judge is Andrew J. Wistri ch. The case number on all documents ?led with the Court should read as follows: 4416 GAF (AJWX) Pursuant to General Order 05-07 of the United States District Court for the Central District of California, the Magistrate Judge has been designated to hear discovery related motions. All discovery related motions should be noticed on the calendar of the Magistrate Judge NOTICE TO COUNSEL A copy of this notice must be served with the summons and compiaint on defendants (if a removai action is filed, a copy of this notice must be served on piaintiffs). Subsequent documents must be ?led at the foiiowing location: estern Division Southern Division Eastern Division 312 N. Spring St., Rm. 6-8 411 West Fourth St., Rm. 1-053 3470 Twelfth St., Rm. 134 Los Angeles, CA 9001 2 Santa Ana, CA 92701 451 6 Riverside, CA 92501 Failure to file at the proper location will result in your documents being returned to you. CV-18 (03i06) NOTICE OF TO UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE FOR DISCOVERY Case Document 1 Filed 06/19/13 Page 26 of 27 Page ID #:29 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL coven SHEET eseit' behalfro 1 AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT, an entity; JOHN MORTON, in his of?cial capacity; in his of?cial capacity; DAVID C. PALMATIER, in his official capacity Attorneys (Firm Name, Address and Telephone Number. If you are representing yourself, provide same.) Peter J. ACLU Foundation of Southern California 1313 W. 8th St., Los Angeles, CA 9001? (213) 977?9500 Attorneys (If Known) II. BASIS OF JURISDICTION (Place an in one box only.) El US. Government Plaintiff [5?2 US. Government Defendant 3 Federal Question (US. Government Not a Party) 4 Diversity (Indicate Citizenship ofl?arties in item Ill) Citizen ofThis State Citizen of Another State [32 Citizen or Subject ofa Foreign Country 3 DEF El 1 C12 C33 Incorporated or Principal Place OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES - For Diversity Cases Only (Place an in one box for plaintiffand one for defendant.) PTF DEF D4 D4 ofBusiness in this State Incorporated and Principal Place E3 5 US of Business in Another State Foreign Nation U6 ?36 IV. ORIGIN (Place an in one box only.) in? 1 Original Proceeding 2 Removed from State Court Ci 3 Remandcd from Appellate Court [3 4 Reinstated or Reopened l3 5 Transferred from another district (specify): El 6 Multi? 7 Appeal to District District Judge from Litigation Magistrate Judge V. REQUESTED IN COMPLAINT: JURY DEMAND: Cl Yes [No (Check ?Yes? Only if demanded in complaint.) CLASS ACTION under F.R.C.P. 23: No 13 MONEY DEMANDED IN COMPLAINT: VI. CAUSE OF ACTION (Cite the US. Civil Statute under which you are filing and writea brief statement ofcause. Do not citejurisdictional statutes unless diversity.) Fourth Fifth Amendment, US. Constitution; 28 U.S.C. Sectiori 2241. VII. NATURE OF SUIT (Place an in one box only.) 3:1: STATUTES 1?3480 [3490 El 810 [1850 875 890 [950 State Reapportionment Antitrust Banks and Banking CommercerlCC Ratesr?etc. Deportation Racketeer In?uenced and Corrupt Organizations Consumer Credit Cablcr'Sat TV Selective Service Securitiesr?Cotnmoditiesr Exchange Customer Challenge 12 USC 3410 Other Statutory Actions Agricultural Act Economic Stabilization Act Enviromnental Matters Energy Allocation Act Freedom ofinfo. Act Appeal of Fee Determi- nation tJnder Equal Access to Justice Constitutionality of State Statutes 2. El 110 insurance E3 l20 Marine El l30 Miller Act l40 El 150 Recovery of Overpayment d: Enforcement of Judgment Medicare Act Recovery of Defaulted Student Loan (Excl. Veterans) Recovery of Overpayment of Veteran?s Benefits Stockholders? Suits Other Contract Contract Product Liability [It 196 Franchise 3 REAL: El 2l0 Land Condemnation El 220 Foreclosure Cl 230 Rent Lease Ejectment i2] 240 Torts to Land Cl 245 Tort Product Liability Cl 290 All Other Real Property EllSl E3152 [3l53 [3160 E3190 E3195 PERSONAL INJURY El 3 10 Airplane El 3l5 Airplane Product Liability Assault, Libel Slander Fed. Employers? Liability Marine Marine Product Liability Motor Vehicle Motor Vehicle Product Liability Other Personal Injury Personal Injury? Med Malpractice Personal Injury- Product Liability Asbestos Personal Injury Product .. Liability. GRA TI ON Cl 462 Naturalization Application Cl 463 l-labeas Corpus- Alien Detainee Cl 465 Other Immigration Actions l3 320 CI 330 El 340 345 D350 8355 ?3360 ?3362 E3365 E3368 PERSONA PROPERTY 370 Other Fraud {Ii Truth in Lending El 380 Other Personal Preperty Damage El 385 Property Damage . . . 422 Appeal 28 USC 158 D423 Withdrawal 28 Users? . . Cl 441 Voting 442 Employment 443 HousingIAcco? minodatiorrs Welfare American with Disabilities - Employment American with Disabilities - Other Other Civil Rights Cl 444 El 445 El 446 91440 630 640 Cl 650 660 El 690 PETITIONS .. trianuCaari Motions to Vacate Sentence I-Iabeas Corpus General Death Penalty Mandamus! Other Civil Rights Agriculture Other Food Drug Drug Related Seizure of Property 21 USC 881 Liquor Laws RR. Truck Airline Regs Occupational Safety llrlealth Other 710 Fair Labor Standards Act 8720 Laborr'Mgmt. Relations [3730 Reporting Disclosure Act El 740 Railway Labor Act [Ii 790 Other Labor Litigation oral Empl. Ret. Inc. . .. . Security Ant. .. . [3820 Copyrights E3 830 Patent 340..Tnsisnart. . . . . corset-Slim airy. [3861 immerse) E3862 Black Lung (923) [3 863 Diwcroiww (405(3)) use: 3311) Title 13.865 .. .. .. E3 370 Taxes (US. Plaintiff or Defendant) [3 871 IRS?Third Party 26 USC 7609 FOR OFFICE USE ONLY: AFTER THE FRONT SIDE OF FORM (IV-71, COMPLETE THE INFORMATION REQUESTED BELOW. Case Number: CV41 (ones) CIVIL COVER SHEET Page i of 2 Case Document 1 Filed 06/19/13 Page 27 of 27 Page ID #:30 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL COVER SHEET CASES: Has this action been previously filed in this court and dismissed, remanded or closed? til/No Cl Yes ll'yes, list case number(s): RELATED CASES: Have any cases been previously filed in this court that are related to the present case? Cl No til/Yes If yes, list case number(s): Civil cases are deemed related ifa previously filed case and the present case: (Check all boxes that apply) WA. Arise from the same or closely related transactions, happenings, or events; or Call for determination ofthe same or substantially related or similar questions oflaw and fact; or C. For other reasons would entail substantial duplication oflabor ifheard by differentjudges; or {3 D. Involve the same patent, trademark or copyright, and one ofthe factors identi?ed above in a, or also is present. IX. VENUE: (When completing the following information, use an additional sheet if necessary.) List the County in this District; California County outside ofthis District; State if other than California; or Foreign Country, in which EACH named plaintiff resides. Cl Check here if the government, its agencies or employees is a named plaintiff lfthis box is checked, go to item County in this District:* California County outside oftlris District; State, if other than California; or Foreign Country County of Los Angeles List the County in this District; California County outside ot?this District; State if other than California; or Foreign Country, in which named defendant resides. Ell Check here ifthe government, its agencies or employees is a named defendant. lfthis box is checked, go to item Count in this District? California County outside oftlris District; State, if other than California; or Forei Country 3? 8 List the County in this District; California County outside ofthis District; State if other than California; or Foreign Country, in which EACH claim arose. Note: In land condemnation eases, use the location ofthe tract ofland involved. County in this District? California County outside ofthis District; State, ifotlrer than California; or Foreign Country County ofLos Augeles Les Angelcs, Orange, San Bernardiuo, Riverside, Ventura, Santa Barbara, or San Luis Obispo Counties Note: in land condemnation cases. use the location ofthe tract ofland involved X. SIGNATURE OF ATTORNEY (OR PRO PER): Date Notice to The CV-?i?l (IS-44) il {?ver Sheet and the information contained herein neither replace nor supplement the filing and service ofpleadings orother papers as required by law. This form, approved the Judicial Conference ofthe United States in September 1974, is required pursuant to Local Rule is not filed but is used by the Clerk ofthe Court for the purpose ofstatistics, ventre and initiating the civil docket sheet. (For more detailed instructions, see separate instructions sheet.) Key to Statistical codes relating to Social Security Cases: Nature ofSuit Code Abbreviation Substantive Statement of Cause ofAction 861 HIA All claims for health insurance benefits (Medicare) under Title 18, Part A, ofthe Social Security Act, as amended. Also, include claims by hospitals, skilled nursing facilities, etc., for certification as providers of services under the program. (42 U.S.C. 862 BL All claims for "Black Lung? bene?ts under Title 4, Part B, ofthe Federal Coal Mine Health and Safety Act of 1969. (30 U.S.C. 923) 863 DIWC All claims filed by insured workers for disability insurance benefits under Title 2 oftlte Social Security Act, as amended; plus all claims ?led for child?s insurance benefits based on disability. (42 U.S.C. 405(g)) 863 DIWW All claims ?led for widows or widowers insurance benefits based on disability under Title 2 ofthe Social Security Act, as amended. (42 U.S.C. 405(g)) 864 All claims for supplemental security income payments based upon disability filed under Title 16 ofthe Social Secttrity Act, as amended. 865 All claims for retirement (old age) and survivors benefits under Title 2 ofthe Social Security Act, as amended. (42 U.S.C. (OSIOS) CIVIL COVER SHEET Page 2 of2