Case 2:11-cv-00225-SS Document 1 Filed 02/02/11 Page 1 of 15

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
__________________________________
)
MARIO CACHO and ANTONIO OCAMPO,
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
No. ______________
v.
)
)
SHERIFF MARIN N. GUSMAN, ORLEANS
)
PARISH SHERIFF,
)
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
)
Defendant.
)
___________________________________
)
PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL COMPLAINT
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

1. Mr. Mario Cacho and Mr. Antonio Ocampo, New Orleans reconstruction workers, hereby
file this civil rights complaint against Orleans Parish Sheriff Marlin N. Gusman because of his
policy and practice of holding them and other New Orleans residents for indefinite periods in his
jail without any legal authority and in violation of the United States Constitution and Louisiana
law. In addition to subjecting Plaintiffs to significant harms, including deprivation of liberty and
due process, false imprisonment, and negligent infliction of emotional distress, this policy and
practice continues to impose significant harms on the New Orleans community, the Orleans
Parish Sheriff’s Office, and the City of New Orleans.
2. Orleans Parish Sheriff Gusman’s policy and practice of submitting to “hold requests”
from Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) — also called “immigration

Page 1 of 15

 Case 2:11-cv-00225-SS Document 1 Filed 02/02/11 Page 2 of 15

holds” or “immigration detainers” — and holding individuals in indefinite detention on this basis
alone, represents a voluntary decision that violated Plaintiffs fundamental rights and harmed the
New Orleans Community. An ICE hold request provides no legal authority for Sheriff Gusman
to detain individuals beyond 48 hours after the resolution of traffic, municipal, and/or state
criminal charges. ICE makes these hold requests on the mere suspicion that an individual has
committed a civil immigration violation—a suspicion that is often based on racial profiling
alone.
3. In addition to violating the constitutional rights of and causing significant harm to the
Plaintiffs and New Orleans community members held pursuant to these hold requests, Orleans
Parish Sheriff Gusman’s decision to submit to all voluntary, hold requests and his
unconstitutional pattern and practice of unlawfully and indefinitely holding individuals beyond
the 48-hour expiration of the hold requests without lawful authority harms community
relationships with all law enforcement agencies, wastes scarce Orleans Parish Sheriff’s Office
resources, and causes economic and other harm to the City of New Orleans and the New Orleans
community.
4. As part of his unconstitutional policies and practices, Orleans Parish Sheriff Gusman
unlawfully held Plaintiff Cacho for on or about 164 days in Orleans Parish Prison. Despite filing
a grievance with Orleans Parish Prison officials requesting release, Mr. Cacho was only able to
secure his release from Orleans Parish Prison by filing a federal civil rights complaint with the
Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS’s) Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties. This
illegal detention deprived Mr. Cacho of his constitutional rights and caused him and his family
significant harms.

Page 2 of 15

 Case 2:11-cv-00225-SS Document 1 Filed 02/02/11 Page 3 of 15

5. As part of his unconstitutional policies and practices, Orleans Parish Sheriff Gusman
unlawfully held Plaintiff Ocampo for on or about 91 days in Orleans Parish Prison. Despite
filing repeated grievances within Orleans Parish Prison and requesting release directly from the
warden, Mr. Ocampo was only able to secure his release from Orleans Parish Prison after filing a
petition for writ of habeas corpus in federal district court. This illegal custody deprived Mr.
Ocampo of his constitutional rights and caused him and his family substantial harms.
6. Orleans Parish Sheriff Gusman’s decision to hold New Orleans residents in indefinite
detention on expired hold requests from ICE violates the Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth
Amendments to the U.S. Constitution and Louisiana law.
7. Orleans Parish Sheriff Gusman has continued this illegal policy and practice despite
regular complaints by directly affected individuals and community members since 2009, which
put him on notice that his actions were unconstitutional and harmful to the people of New
Orleans.
8. To vindicate their and the New Orleans community’s fundamental constitutional rights,
Mr. Cacho and Ocampo seek compensation for Orleans Parish Sheriff Gusman’s unconstitutional
deprivation of liberty and the significant resulting harms.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
9. This action arises under the Constitution and laws of the United States, including 42
U.S.C. § 1983, and the laws of the State of Louisiana. This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28
U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1343 and 1367.
10. Venue is proper in the Eastern District of Louisiana pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).
Defendant resides within the Eastern District of Louisiana, the Plaintiffs reside or resided within

Page 3 of 15

 Case 2:11-cv-00225-SS Document 1 Filed 02/02/11 Page 4 of 15

the district during the time the events giving rise to this action occurred, and the events giving
rise to this action occurred in the Eastern District of Louisiana.
PARTIES
11. Plaintiff Mario Cacho is an individual who Sheriff Gusman held in unlawful custody in
Orleans Parish Prison for on or about 164 days. At all times relevant to this complaint, Mr.
Cacho was a resident of New Orleans.
12. Plaintiff Antonio Ocampo is an individual who Sheriff Gusman held in unlawful custody
in Orleans Parish Prison for on or about 91 days. At all times relevant to this complaint, Mr.
Ocampo was a resident of New Orleans.
13. Defendant Marlin N. Gusman is the Sheriff of Orleans Parish, Louisiana. Defendant
Gusman is sued in his official capacity. Defendant Gusman operates the Orleans Parish Prison.
He is responsible for formulating policies that govern custody of all individuals held at Orleans
Parish Prison. He is also responsible for the acts and omissions of his agents and employees at
Orleans Parish Prison. Defendant Gusman has ultimate supervisory authority over Orleans
Parish Prison.
14. At all times relevant to this Complaint, Defendant Gusman acted or failed to act under
color of state law.
LEGAL FRAMEWORK
15. Orleans Parish Sheriff Gusman is the chief law enforcement officer for Orleans Parish.
16. Orleans Parish Sheriff Gusman has a voluntary policy and practice of submitting to hold
requests from ICE.1

1

The civil immigration laws of the United States are enforced by the Immigration and Customs
Enforcement Agency (ICE) of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). ICE engages in
its enforcement responsibilities through various actions. ICE may also seek judicial and
Page 4 of 15

 Case 2:11-cv-00225-SS Document 1 Filed 02/02/11 Page 5 of 15

17. Pursuant to his policy and practice of submitting to hold requests from ICE, Orleans
Parish Sheriff Gusman regularly holds New Orleans Community members in his custody after
his authority to hold them deriving from traffic, municipal, and/or state criminal charges has
concluded. This includes situations when the prosecutor has withdrawn the individual’s
municipal or state criminal charges; a judge has set a criminal bond, which the individual has
paid or is ready to pay; or the criminal court has ordered his release because the individual has
resolved all penalties for his charges.
18. During this additional detention time, Orleans Parish Sheriff Gusman holds individuals
solely pursuant to purported authority vested in him by hold requests from ICE.
19. ICE makes these hold requests to Sheriff Gusman on the mere suspicion that an
individual has committed a civil immigration violation— a suspicion that is often based on racial
profiling alone.
20. A hold request from ICE is a request— not a requirement— that a local official hold an
individual for up to 48 hours (excluding weekends and holidays). 8 C.F.R. § 287.7(a).
21. A hold request from ICE “advises” local officials that DHS may desire to initiate civil
immigration proceedings against an individual and/or assume custody of an individual.
22. A hold request from ICE provides no legal authority for a local official to detain an
individual beyond 48 hours (excluding Saturdays, Sundays, and federal holidays) after the
conclusion of lawful custody based on traffic, municipal, and/or state criminal charges.
23. ICE refers to these temporary hold requests as “immigration detainers” in an attempt to
analogize them to intrastate criminal detainers, but this is a misnomer. An intrastate criminal

administrative warrants to conduct investigations. ICE may also conduct investigations and
upon probable cause, arrest individuals it believes to have committed civil violations of the
Immigration and Nationality Act.
Page 5 of 15

 Case 2:11-cv-00225-SS Document 1 Filed 02/02/11 Page 6 of 15

“detainer” constitutes an arrest for criminal charges in another state. The criminal arrest on
which the criminal detainer is based requires a showing of probable cause, requires notice to the
individual on whom it is placed, and includes a process where the individual can challenge the
detainer. In contrast, a hold request from ICE does not include these basic safeguards to protect
fundamental rights. An ICE hold request does not constitute a criminal arrest and does not
require a showing of probable cause or any other standard of proof. Instead, a so-called
“immigration detainer” may be issued based on the mere suspicion that a person is a
“noncitizen.” Neither ICE nor the Sheriff is required to inform an individual when an
“immigration detainer” is placed upon them, and there is no process for an individual to contest
detention pursuant to these “immigration detainers” (hereinafter “hold requests” or “ICE hold
requests”).
24. A hold request from ICE does not allege or purport to determine whether the individual
possesses another valid immigration status or whether the person is eligible for immigration
relief.
25. A hold request from ICE is not reviewed by an immigration judge before it is submitted
to a local law enforcement agency and imposed on an individual.
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
A. PLAINTIFF MARIO CACHO
26. Plaintiff Mario Cacho completed his sentence for disturbing the peace, New Orleans
Municipal Code 54-405, on August 21, 2009.
27. Upon expiration of his criminal sentence, Orleans Parish Sheriff Gusman continued to
hold Plaintiff Cacho in his custody.

Page 6 of 15

 Case 2:11-cv-00225-SS Document 1 Filed 02/02/11 Page 7 of 15

28. After August 21, 2009, Orleans Parish Sheriff Gusman held Plaintiff Cacho based solely
on the purported authority of a hold request from ICE.
29. ICE originally made this hold request on July 31, 2009.
30. On August 25, 2009, ICE’s hold request to Sheriff Gusman regarding Plaintiff Cacho
expired.
31. ICE chose not to take custody of Plaintiff Cacho in order to issue an arrest warrant, which
would have required a showing of probable cause, on or before August 25, 2009.
32. Plaintiff Cacho remained in the custody of Orleans Parish Sheriff Gusman until on or
about February 5, 2010. Sheriff Gusman held Plaintiff Cacho in unlawful custody in Orleans
Parish Prison for on or about 164 days.
33. Between August 25, 2009 and the date of his release from the custody of the Orleans
Parish Sheriff, Plaintiff Cacho filed a written grievance to Orleans Parish Prison officials asking
to be released. Plaintiff Cacho gave this grievance to an official at Orleans Parish Prison.
34. Plaintiff Cacho did not receive any response to the written grievance that he filed.
35. Plaintiff Cacho also made numerous oral requests asking to be released to staff of the
Orleans Parish Prison.
36. On February 5, 2010, Plaintiff Cacho, through counsel, filed a complaint with the
Department of Homeland Security’s Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties (DHS-CRCL).
37. Following Plaintiff Cacho’s civil rights complaint, Orleans Parish Sheriff Gusman
released Plaintiff Cacho to ICE.
38. Upon information and belief, Plaintiff Cacho would have remained in Orleans Parish
Sheriff’s custody indefinitely if he had not taken legal action to defend his rights.

Page 7 of 15

 Case 2:11-cv-00225-SS Document 1 Filed 02/02/11 Page 8 of 15

39. Orleans Parish Sheriff Gusman’s actions failed to provide Plaintiff Cacho with due
process of law.
40. As a direct and proximate result of actions and omissions by Defendant Sheriff Gusman,
Plaintiff Cacho suffered loss of liberty.
41. As a reasonably foreseeable direct and proximate result of actions and omissions by
Orleans Parish Sheriff Gusman, Plaintiff Cacho suffered substantial damages including physical
pain and suffering, emotional distress and harm, embarrassment and other financial losses.
Plaintiff Cacho suffered significant emotional distress due to his continued detention without
legal basis and the fear that he would be detained indefinitely.
B. PLAINTIFF ANTONIO OCAMPO
42. Plaintiff Antonio Ocampo completed his concurrent sentence for two counts of simple
battery, La Rev. St. § 1435, on August 12, 2010.
43. Upon completion of his criminal sentence on August 12, 2010, Orleans Parish Sheriff
Gusman continued to hold Plaintiff Ocampo in his custody based solely on the purported
authority of a hold request from ICE.
44. ICE originally made this hold request on February 23, 2010.
45. On August 16, 2010, ICE’s hold request to Sheriff Gusman regarding Plaintiff Ocampo
expired.
46. ICE decided not to take custody of Plaintiff Ocampo in order to issue an arrest warrant,
which would have required a showing of probable cause, on or before August 16, 2010.
47. Plaintiff Ocampo remained in the custody of Orleans Parish Sheriff Gusman until
November 15, 2010. Sheriff Gusman held Plaintiff Ocampo in unlawful custody in Orleans
Parish Prison for on or about 91 days.

Page 8 of 15

 Case 2:11-cv-00225-SS Document 1 Filed 02/02/11 Page 9 of 15

48. Between August 16, 2010 and November 15, 2010, Plaintiff Ocampo filed approximately
five written complaints with Orleans Parish Prison officials asking to be released.
49. Plaintiff Ocampo gave each written complaint to an official at the Orleans Parish Prison.
50. Plaintiff Ocampo did not receive any response to the written grievances that he filed.
51. Plaintiff Ocampo also made numerous oral requests asking to be released to staff of the
Orleans Parish Prison.
52. On one occasion, Plaintiff Ocampo made an oral request for release to the Warden.
53. On November 12, 2010, Plaintiff Ocampo, through counsel, filed a petition for a writ of
habeas corpus. Ocampo v. Gusman, no. 10-4309, U.S. Dist. Ct. E.D. La.
54. On November 15, 2010, the Court granted Plaintiff Ocampo’s writ of habeas corpus and
ordered him released from Orleans Parish Sheriff Gusman’s custody.
55. Upon information and belief, Plaintiff Ocampo would have remained in Orleans Parish
Sheriff’s custody indefinitely if he had not taken legal action to defend his rights.
56. Orleans Parish Sheriff Gusman’s actions failed to provide Plaintiff Ocampo with due
process of law.
57. As a direct and proximate result of actions and omissions by Orleans Parish Sheriff
Gusman, Plaintiff Ocampo suffered loss of liberty.
58. As a reasonably foreseeable direct and proximate result of actions and omissions by
Orleans Parish Sheriff Gusman, Plaintiff Ocampo suffered substantial damages including
physical pain and suffering, emotional distress and harm, as well as embarrassment and other
financial losses. Throughout his months of unlawful detention, Plaintiff Ocampo suffered
extreme emotional distress with no sense of when his prolonged detention would end and he

Page 9 of 15

 Case 2:11-cv-00225-SS Document 1 Filed 02/02/11 Page 10 of 15

would be re-united with his family. Plaintiff Ocampo suffered great distress over each day he
was detained when he could not see his young child and be a part of his life.
C. LIABILITY OF ORLEANS PARISH SHERIFF GUSMAN
59. Orleans Parish Sheriff Gusman is responsible for establishing policies, procedures,
training, and practices that ensure that he only detains individuals that he has legal authority to
detain at the Orleans Parish Prison.
60. Pursuant to his authority as Sheriff, Orleans Parish Sheriff Gusman chose to adopt
policies and practices that include voluntarily submitting to hold requests from ICE.
61. As a consequence of Orleans Parish Sheriff Gusman’s decision to voluntarily submit to
hold requests from ICE, and his failure to release detained individuals after the hold requests
expire, Plaintiffs Cacho and Ocampo and many other individuals have been held in unlawful
custody.
62. Since at least 2009, Orleans Parish Sheriff Gusman has received notice on numerous
occasions that his policies and practices are leading to regular instances of excessive and
unlawful custody, including holding New Orleans community members long beyond the
expiration of the ICE hold requests.
63. On June 18, 2009, community members sent a letter to Sheriff Gusman documenting an
individual currently being unlawfully held in the Orleans Parish Prison based merely on an ICE
hold request. In a meeting in response to this letter, Sheriff Gusman acknowledged that ICE hold
requests do not allow him to detain an individual for more than 48 hours after the resolution of
their traffic, municipal, and/or state criminal charges. Nonetheless, subsequent to this meeting
Sheriff Gusman continued the practice of submitting to ICE hold requests and detaining
individuals in custody beyond the 48-hour expiration of these requests.

Page 10 of 15

 Case 2:11-cv-00225-SS Document 1 Filed 02/02/11 Page 11 of 15

64. On November 15, 2010, this Court ordered Sheriff Gusman to release Plaintiff Ocampo
from unlawful custody after holding Ocampo for on or about 91 days on the basis of an expired
hold request from ICE.
65. On January 18, 2011, the New Orleans’ Workers Center for Racial Justice filed a request
for public records relating to Defendant Gusman’s practices and policies regarding immigration
detainers pursuant to the Public Records Act of Louisiana, La. Rev. Stat. §44:1 et seq. By law,
Sheriff Gusman should have responded to this request within 3 days, or by January 21, 2011. To
date, Sheriff Gusman has failed to provide a response of any kind.
66. Upon information and belief, Sheriff Gusman has not established any policies,
procedures, guidance or training regarding the Orleans Parish Prison’s legal obligation to release
individuals held on the purported authority of an ICE hold request no later than 48 hours after
they are otherwise eligible for release.
67. Orleans Parish Sheriff Gusman’s actions failed to provide Plaintiffs with due process of
law. In some cases, Sheriff Gusman’s decision to submit to these hold requests has prevented
individuals from getting their day in court for underlying traffic, municipal, and/or criminal
charges.
68. At all times relevant to this complaint, by continuing to hold individuals in custody
without lawful authority, Orleans Parish Sheriff Gusman acted in willful, reckless, and callous
disregard of Plaintiffs’ rights under federal and state law.
69. The costs related to holding Plaintiffs and other individuals solely pursuant to ICE hold
requests have been borne by the Orleans Parish Sheriff’s Office alone, contributing to its
excessive budget shortfalls. The City of New Orleans has no legal or contractual obligation to
pay Orleans Parish Sheriff’s Office costs related to a per diem fee for individuals held pursuant

Page 11 of 15

 Case 2:11-cv-00225-SS Document 1 Filed 02/02/11 Page 12 of 15

to ICE hold requests. Upon information and belief, the City of New Orleans did not pay such
costs related to the incarceration of Plaintiffs or other similarly situated individuals held solely
pursuant to ICE hold requests. The State of Louisiana has no legal or contractual obligation to
pay Orleans Parish Sheriff’s Office costs related to a per diem fee for individuals held pursuant
to temporary ICE hold requests. Upon information and belief, the State of Louisiana did not pay
such costs related to Plaintiffs and has not paid costs related to other individuals held solely
pursuant to ICE hold requests. The U.S. DHS has no legal or contractual obligation to pay
Orleans Parish Sheriff’s Office costs related to a per diem fee for individuals held pursuant to
ICE hold requests. Upon information and belief, the U.S. DHS did not pay such costs related to
Plaintiffs and has not paid costs related to other individuals held solely pursuant to ICE hold
requests.
FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF
FOURTH, FIFTH, AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS
42 U.S.C. § 1983 (DEPRIVATION OF LIBERTY; DUE PROCESS)
70. The foregoing allegations are incorporated by reference.
71. In committing the acts complained of herein, Defendant Gusman acted under color of
state law to deprive plaintiffs of liberty without legal authority, in violation of their right to be
free from unreasonable search and seizures and their right to due process of law.
72. Defendant Gusman’s procedures, policies, customs, and practices including his
deliberately indifferent failure to establish adequate procedures, policies, supervision, and
training, caused Plaintiffs’ injuries and violations of their constitutional rights.
73. As a direct and proximate cause of the violations of constitutional rights by the
Defendant, Plaintiffs suffered general and special damages as alleged in this Complaint and are

Page 12 of 15

 Case 2:11-cv-00225-SS Document 1 Filed 02/02/11 Page 13 of 15

entitled to compensatory damages, attorney’s fees, and costs pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988, and
any other relief the Court deems just.
SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF
FALSE IMPRISONMENT, LA. CIV. CODE ART. 2315
74. The foregoing allegations are incorporated by reference.
75. Plaintiffs Cacho and Ocampo bring this claim for damages resulting from their false
imprisonment by Orleans Parish Sheriff Gusman.
76. Orleans Parish Sheriff Gusman acted to unlawfully and unreasonably detain the Plaintiffs
Cacho and Ocampo against their will and consent and without legal authority.
77. In detaining plaintiffs without lawful authority, Orleans Parish Sheriff Gusman acted with
malice, gross negligence, and/or reckless disregard.
78. Plaintiffs Cacho and Ocampo suffered injury as a result of Orleans Parish Sheriff
Gusman’s actions.
79. Orleans Parish Sheriff Gusman is liable to Plaintiffs Cacho and Ocampo for
compensatory damages, and all other damages allowed by law.
THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF
NEGLIGENCE, LA CIV. CODE ART. 2316
80. The foregoing allegations are incorporated by reference.
81. Orleans Parish Sheriff Gusman owed a duty of care to Plaintiffs during the time of their
incarceration in Orleans Parish Prison.
82. By committing the aforementioned acts and omissions, Orleans Parish Sheriff Gusman
negligently breached his duty of care to Plaintiffs, which directly and proximately resulted in the
injuries and damages, including emotional distress that Plaintiffs allege herein.

Page 13 of 15

 Case 2:11-cv-00225-SS Document 1 Filed 02/02/11 Page 14 of 15

83. The injuries suffered by Plaintiffs Cacho and Ocampo were a reasonably foreseeable
result of Orleans Parish Sheriff Gusman’s conduct.
84. Plaintiffs Cacho and Ocampo suffered severe emotional injury as a result of Orleans
Parish Sheriff Gusman’s actions.
85. Orleans Parish Sheriff Gusman is liable to Plaintiffs Cacho and Ocampo for
compensatory damages, and all other damages allowed by law.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, in light of the foregoing facts and arguments, Plaintiffs request that this Court
take the following actions:
A. Declare that Defendant Gusman’s detention of individuals named in an ICE hold request
for more than 48 hours beyond the termination of any detention authority based on
traffic, municipal, and/or state criminal charges, is an egregious violation of the rights
enshrined in the United States Constitution;
B. Award Plaintiffs compensatory damages, and all other damages allowed by law;
C. Grant Plaintiffs’ reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988 and
any other applicable law;
D. Award Plaintiffs pre-judgment interest and post-judgment interest on any award of
damages to the extent permitted by law; and
E. Grant such other relief as the Court deems just and proper.
JURY DEMAND
F. Plaintiffs request a trial by jury.

Page 14 of 15

 Case 2:11-cv-00225-SS Document 1 Filed 02/02/11 Page 15 of 15

Respectfully submitted this 2nd day of February 2011,
s/ Jennifer J. Rosenbaum
_______________________________
Jennifer J. Rosenbaum, Trial Attorney
Admitted to Practice in the Eastern District of Louisiana
La. Bar No. 31946
NEW ORLEANS WORKERS’ CENTER FOR RACIAL JUSTICE
217 N. Prieur St.
New Orleans, LA 70112
Telephone: (504) 309-5165
Facsimile: (504) 309-5205
jjrosenbaum@nowcrj.org
Linton Joaquin
Pro Hac Vice Motion Pending
California Bar no. 73547
Joaquin@nilc.org
Karen C. Tumlin
Pro Hac Vice Motion Pending
California Bar no. 234691
Tumlin@nilc.org
Melissa S. Keaney
California Bar no. 265306
Pro Hac Vice Motion Pending
Keaney@nilc.org
NATIONAL IMMIGRATION LAW CENTER
3435 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 2850
Los Angeles, CA 90010
Telephone: (213) 639-3900
Facsimile: (5213) 639-3911

Page 15 of 15