SAYRE LEVITT, LLP Case Document 1 Filed 11/22/13 Page 1 of 18 Page ID #:15 Federico C. Sayre, Esq., (SBN: 67240) Adam Salamoff, Esq., (SBN: 193686) 531%"; 333 Civic Center Drive West w:77: a Santa Ana, California 92701 f: (714) 550?91 17 Telephone if; (714) 716-8445 Facsimile "1:3 3 Attorneys for DANIEL NORIEGA F. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA DANIEL NORIEGA, an individual; CASE NO: PSG (WW) I Filed: Plaintiff, COMPLAINT FOR: 1. BIVENS CLAIM To REDRESS CONSTITUTIONAL VIOLATIONS VS. 3 UNKNOWN FEDERAL AGENT OF IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS and DOES 1?10, FOR JURY inclusive, Defendants. PLAINTIFF DANIEL NORIEGA alleges and complains as follows: INTRODUCTION 1. This is a Bivens action to redress Fourth and Fifth Amendment constitutional Violations undertaken by yet to be identi?ed federal agents(s) employed by the United States Immigration Customs Enforcement (hereinafter agency. 1 Complaint for Damages Case Document 1 Filed 11/22/13 Page 2 of 18 Page ID #:16 JURISDICTION 2. Under US Const. art. 2, this Court has jurisdiction because the rights sought tmprotected and vindicated herein are secured by US. Const. amend IV and V. Jurisdiction is proper pursuant to 28 USC 1331 and Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 US. 388 (1971), and federal common law. 8 3. Defendants are properly before this Court because, with respect unlawful acts alleged herein, "a substantial part of the events upon which this action is based occurred in this distric 28 USC. 139l(b). PARTIES 4. Plaintiff DANIEL NORIEGA (hereinafter is and was a resident of the city of Anaheim, California. 5. Defendant UNKNOWN FEDERAL AGENT OF IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT (hereinafter is and was an employee and agent of ICE, which is a federal agency within the Department of Homeland Security. UNKNOWN FEDERAL AGENT OF IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEIVIENT is hereby sued in his individual capacity. 6. Defendants DOES 1 through 10 are officers, agents, or employees of ICE that either deprived the Plaintiff or otherwise infringed upon. the Plaintiff?s constitutional rights secured by the Fourth and Fifth Amendments of the United States Constitution. DOES 1 through 10 are in some manner responsible for the harm and deprivations of rights suffered by the Plaintiff DOES 1 through 10, in engaging in the conduct herein complained of, were at all times acting within the course and scope of their employment with ICE or in their capacity as an ICE agent. The precise identities of DOES 1 through 10 are currently unknown by the Plaintiff, but substitutions of those DOES will be sought once their identities have been ascertained. -2- Complaint for Damages Case Document 1 Filed 11/22/13 Page 3 of 18 Page ID #:17 7. On December 1, 2011, NORIEGA had taken his girlfriend?s son to Westmont Elementary School to drop him off. NORIEGA entered a parking lot next to the school and the child exited the vehicle. Another car was in front of the car occupied by NORIEGA. NORIEGA had not violated any laws, did not have any weapons, did not have any outstanding warrants, and had not engaged in any conduct that was dangerous to himself or anyone else. 8. All. of a sudden, a car quickly pulled up near NQRIEGA. The tires screeched as the vehicle came to an abrupt halt. The UFA, without any warning or instruction, without identifying himself as a federal agent or law enforcement of?cer, without any provocation whatsoever, and while wearing plain clothes, quickly exited his vehicle, pulled out a ?rearm as he approached NORIEGA, and ?red it at NORIEGA. 9. NORIEGA, startled, shocked, and scared for his life, drove around the vehicle that was in front of him and exited the parking lot to escape his unidenti?ed attacker that had tried to kill him. 10. NORIEGA had forgotten his cell phone at home and made his way to a nearby gas station where he used the business phone to call 9~1~1 to report the incident. 1 11. Within a short while, several law enforcement of?cers arrived at the gas station, including the UFA, seized person, put him in handcuffs, and placed him in the back of a vehicle. 12. The UFA and other ICE agents reviewed a photo and compared it to NORIEGA. Upon comparison, the federal agents shook their heads in a left to right manner demonstrating a ?no? or ?negative? response to their comparative assessment of whether NORIEGA was the person in the photo for whom they had been searching. -3, Complaint for Damages Case Document 1 Filed 11/22/13 Page 4 of 18 Page ID #:18 13. With full knowledge that NORIEGA was not the person for Whom ICE had been searching, and without any objective facts from which a reasonable of?cer could determine that probable cause existed, and for the included unlaw?Jl purpose of conducting a warrantless search of home, the UFA requested that local law enforcement authorities continue to arrest NORIEGA or, in the alternative, knowingly made false statements to local law enforcement authorities in order to cause arrest. 1 l4. NORIEGA was arrested and threatened with criminal prosecution for attempted murder of an ICE agent while law enforcement searched his vehicle and then unlawfully searched his home without a warrant. 15. Ultimately, NORIEGA was released, without any criminal charges having been ?led because Detective Faria, Badge No. 488, determined that there were insuf?cient grounds for making a criminal complaint against NORIEGA. Further, vehicle was released from the vehicle impound with all fees paid for by the Anaheim Police Department who additionally provided him with transpOrtation after he was released. FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF BI VENS CLAIM FOR VIOLATIONS OF FOURTH AND FIFTH AMENDMENT CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS [By Plaintiff Against Unknown Federal Agent Of Immigration And Customs Enforcement and Does 1 through 10] 16. NORIEGA hereby repeats, re?alleges and incorporates each and every allegation in the: foregoing paragraphs as through more fully set forth herein. Count 1 Violation of Fourth Amendment (Use of Deadly Force Without Cause and In the Absence of Provocation) 17. On December 1, 2011, a UFA and DOES 1?2, without provocation and without identifying himself as a federal agent or law enforcement officer, -4- Complaint for Damages Case Document 1 Filed 11/22/13 Page 5 of 18 Page ID #:19 while dressed in plain clothes, pulled out a ?rearm and shot at NORIEGA attempting to kill or hurt him. 18. The intentional use of deadly force against an unarmed law abiding citizen while the citizen was not engaged in any conduct that was dangerous to himself or anyzene else was an unreasonable seizure that was unlawful. Said seizure violated the Fourth Amendment and Constitutional Rights under the Fourth Amendment. 19. In undertaking the aforesaid conduct, the UFA acted with deliberate indifference to the health, safety, and welfare of NORIEGA. Objectively, a reasonable officer in the position would know that the use of deadly force, without provocation, upon a law abiding citizen would create a substantial risk of serious harm to the citizen. Subjectively, the training, general knowledge, and common sense provided the UFA with knowledge that a substantial risk of serious harm would befall NORTEGA if NORIEGA was shot by the UFA. With this knowledge of a substantial risk of harm, the UFA fired his gun at NORIEGA. 20. There is no quali?ed immunity for the conduct involving the use of deadly force. A person, including NORIEGA, has a Fourth Amendment Constitutional Right to be free in his person against unreasonable searches and seizures. This constitutional right was clearly established as of December 1, 2011. 21. As a result of the conduct, NORIEGA suffered a depravation and loss of civil rights and other injuries and damages for which he is entitled to compensation at trial in an amount according to proof. Count 2 Violation of Fourth Amendment (Arrest Without Probable Cause) 22. On December 1, 2011, the UFA and DOES 3~4 requested local law enforcement authorities to arrest NORIEGA or, in the alternative, the UFA knowingly made false statements to local law enforcement authorities that NORIEGA attempted to kill the UFA for the purpose of causing NORIEGA to be -5- Complaint for Damages Case Document 1 Filed 11/22/13 Page 6 of 18 Page ID #:20 arrested so that they could, amongst other things, search his home and his car. Because NORIEGA had not attempted to kill the UFA and had not provoked the UFA, there was no probable cause to arrest NORIEGA for attempted murder. 23. The request that NORIEGA be arrested or, alternatively, the false statements made by the UFA to bring about arrest was unlawful because there was no probable cause for the arrest. Said arrest/seizure violated the Fourth Amendment and Constitutional Rights under the Fourth Amendment. 24. Ingundertaking the aforesaid conduct, the UFA acted with deliberate indifference ?to Fourth Amendment Constitutional Rights to be free ?om an unreasonable seizure/arrest. Objectively, a reasonable officer in the position would know that requesting an arrest of, or making statement to bring about the arrest of, a law abiding citizen (without probable cause) would create a substantial risk of a depravation of constitutional rights secured by the Fourth Amendment. Subj ectively, the comparative assessment of NORIEGA to the photo, coupled with the training and general knowledge of law enforcement principles, provided the UFA with knowledge of the substantial risk that NORIEGA would suffer a depravation of his Fourth Amendment Constitutional Rights if he was arrested without probable cause. With this knowledge of a substantial risk that NORTEGA would suffer a depravation of his Fourth Amendment Constitutional Rights, the UFA requested that NORIEGA be arrested or made false statements to bring about arrest without probable cause. 25. There is no quali?ed immunity for the conduct involving the arrest of NORIEGA without probable cause. A person, including NORIEGA, has a Fourth Amendment Constitutional Right to be free in his person against unreasonable searches and seizures. This constitutional right was clearly established as of December 1, 2011. Complaint for Damages Case Document 1 Filed 11/22/13 Page 7 of 18 Page ID #:21 26. As a result of the conduct, NORIEGA suffered a depravation and loss of civil rights and other injuries and damages for which he is entitled to compensation at trial in an amount according to proof. Count 3 Violation of Fifth Amendment (Depravation of Property, 116. Motor Vehicle, Without Due Process of Law) 27. On December 1, 2011, the UFA and DOES 5-6 requested local law enforcement authorities to arrest NORIEGA or, in the alternative, the UFA knowingly made false statements to local law enforcement authorities that NORIEGA attempted to kill the UFA for the purpose of causing NORIEGA to be arrested so that they could, amongst other things, search his home and his car. Because NORIEGA had not attempted to kill the UFA and had not provoked the UFA, there was no probable cause to arrest NORIEGA for attempted murder. lack of access to his motor vehicle, or a depravation of the use and access to that piioperty, was a foreseeable consequence of his arrest. 28. The request that NORIEGA be arrested or, alternatively, the false statements made by the UFA to bring about arrest was unlawful because there was no probable cause for the arrest. Said arrest/seizure was foreseeably known to result in the depravation of the use and access to property, to wit his motor vehicle, in Violation of the Fifth Amendment and Constitutional Rights under the Fifth Amendment to not be deprived of his property without due process of law. 29. In undertaking the aforesaid conduct, the UFA acted with deliberate indifference to Fifth Amendment Constitutional Rights to not be deprived of motor vehicle without due process of law. Objectively, a reasonable of?cer in the position would know that requesting an arrest of, or making false statements to bring about the arrest of, a law abiding citizen (without probable cause) when the arrestee was the sole occupant of a motor vehicle, such would create a substantial risk of a depravation of property without due process of -7- Complaint for Damages Case Document 1 Filed 11/22/13 Page 8 of 18 Page ID #:22 law and constitutional rights secured by the Fifth Amendment. Subjectively, the comparative assessment of NORIEGA to the photo, coupled with the training and general knowledge of law enforcement principles, provided the UFA with knowledge of the substantial risk that NORIEGA would suffer a depravation of his Fifth Amendment Constitutional Right to due process if he was arrested without probable cause and his motor vehicle was impounded as a result. With this knowledgetgof a substantial risk that NORIEGA would suffer a depravation of property without due process of law in Violation of his Fifth Amendment Constitutional Rights, the UFA requested that NORIEGA be arrested or made false statements to bring about arrest without probable cause and the attending depravation of his property (116, motor vehicle) Without due process of law. 30. There is no quali?ed immunity for the conduct involving the depravation of property without due process of law. A person, including NORIEGA, has a Fifth Amendment Constitutional Right to not be deprived of property without due process of law. This constitutional right was clearly established as of December 1, 2011. 31. As? a result of the conduct, NORIEGA suffered a depravation and loss of civil rights and other injuries and damages for which he is entitled to compensation at trial in an amount according to proof. - Count 4 Violation of Fifth Amendment (Depravation of Liberty Due to Involuntary Confinement) 32. On December 1, 2011, the UFA and DOES 7-8 requested local law enforcement authorities to arrest NORIEGA or, in the alternative, the UFA knowingly made false statements to local law enforcement authorities that NORIEGA attempted to kill the UFA for the purpose of causing NORIEGA to be arrested and involuntarily con?ned so that they could, amongst other things, search his home and his car. Because NORIEGA had not attempted to kill the UFA and . -8- Complaint for Damages Case Document 1 Filed 11/22/13 Page 9 of 18 Page ID #:23 had not provoked the UFA, there was no probable cause to arrest NORIEGA for attempted murder. involuntary con?nement was a foreseeable consequence of his arrest. 33. The request that NORIEGA be arrested or, alternatively, the false statements made by the UFA to bring about arrest was unlawful because there was no probable cause for the arrest. Said arrest/seizure was foreseeably known to result in the depravation of liberty interest (thorough his involuntary con?nement) in violation of the Fifth Amendment and Constitutional Rights under the Fifth Amendment. 34. In undertaking the aforesaid conduct, the UFA acted with deliberate indifference Fifth Amendment Constitutional Rights to not be deprived of liberty without due process of law. Objectively, a reasonable of?cer in the position would know that requesting an arrest of, or making false statements to bring about the arrest of, a law abiding citizen (without probable cause) would create a substantial risk of a depravation of liberty without due process of law and of constitutional rights secured by the Fifth Amendment. Subjectively, the comparative assessment of NORIEGA to the photo, coupled with the training and general knowledge of law enforcement principles, provided the UFA with knowledge of the substantial risk that NORIEGA would suffer a depravation of his Fifth Amendment Constitutional Right to liberty if he was arrested without probable cause. With this knowledge of a substantial risk that NORIEGA wopld suffer a depravation of liberty without due process of law in Violation of his Fifth Amendment Constitutional Rights, the UFA requested that NORIEGA be arrested or made false statements to bring about arrest without probable cause and the attending depravation of his liberty without due process of law. 35. There is no quali?ed immunity for the conduct involving the depravation of liberty without due process of law. A person, -9- Complaint fer Damages Case Document 1 Filed 11/22/13 Page 10 of 18 Page ID #:24 including NORIEGA, has a Fifth Amendment Constitutional Right to not be deprived of liberty without due process of law. This constitutional right was clearly established as of December 1, 2011. 36. A53 result of the conduct, NORIEGA suffered a depravation and loss of civil rights and other injuries and damages for which he is entitled to compensation at trial in an amount according to proof. Count 5 Violation of Fourth Amendment (Unlawful Warrantless Search of Residence) 37. On December 1, 2011, a UFA and DOES 9~10, searched or caused the search of home without a search warrant. 38. The intentional warrantless search of a law abiding citizen?s home, without a justifiable exception, was an unreasonable search that was unlawful. Said search violated the Fourth Amendment and Constitutional Rights under the Fourth Amendment. 39. Infundertaking the aforesaid conduct, the UFA acted with deliberate indifference to fourth amendment constitutional right to avoid having his home searched without a valid warrant supported by probable cause. Objectively, a reasonable of?cer in the position would know that a warrantiess search of a law abiding citizen?s home would create a substantial risk of a Fourth Amendment violation. Subjectively, the training, general knowledge, and common sense provided the UFA with knowledge that a depravation of constitutional rights would occur by executing a warrantiess search of an individuals? home. With this knowledge of a substantial risk of harm, home was searched by the UFA, or persons at the behest of the UFA in violation of the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution and rights under the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution. 40. Tliere is no quali?ed immunity for the conduct involving the warrantiess search of home. A person, including NORIEGA, has a -10.. Complaint for Damages Case Document 1 Filed 11/22/13 Page 11 of 18 Page ID #:25 Fourth Amendment Constitutional Right to be free from unreasonable searches of his home without a warrant. This constitutional right was clearly established as of December 1, 2011. 41. As a result of the conduct, NORIEGA suffered a depravation and loss of civil rights and other injuries and damages for which he is entitled to compensation at trial in an amount according to proof. Counts 1 through 5 (Punitive Damages) 42. Defendant UFA and Does 1 through 10, in depriving NORIEGA of his Fourth and Fifth Amendment Constitutional Rights to be free from unreasonable searches and to not be deprived of property or liberty without due process of law, intended NORIEGA to be deprived of these Constitutional Rights and safeguards and, given that these rights were clearly established at the time of the violations, the UFA acted despicably with a willful and conscious disregard of rights and his safety and subjected him to cruel and unjust hardship. -11- Complaint for Damages Case Document 1 Filed 11/22/13 Page 12 of 18 Page ID #:severally, against all the defendants: 1. PRAYER Wherefore, the PLAJNTIFF demands the following relief, jointly and General damages in an amount to be proven at trial; Special damages in an amount to be proven at trial; Damages for loss of earnings according to proof; Punitive Damages Pie-judgment interest to the extent permitted by law; For costs of suit incurred herein; Attorney fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1988; and For such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper. Dated: November 20, 2013 SAYRE LEVITT, LLP Federico C. Sayre, Esq. Adam Salamoff Esq. Attorneys for Plaintiff DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Plaintiff hereby demands a trial by jury in the above?entitled action. Dated: November 20, 2013 SAYRE LEVITT, LLP Fedeiico C. Sayie, Esq. Adam Salamoff, Esq. Attorneys for Plaintiff -12- Complaint for Damages Case Document 1 Filed 11/22/13 Page 13 of 18 Page ID #:27 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL COVER SHEET I. PLAINTIFFS Check box if you are representing yourself DANIEL NORIEGA. an individual; DEFENDANTS (Check box if you are representing yourself Dr); and DOES 1~1 0. inclusive. UNKNOWN FEDERAL AGENT OF IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS County of Residence of First Listed Plaintiff Orange (EXCEPT IN v.5. PLAINTIFF CASES) County of Residence of First Listed Defendant (IN us. PLAINTIFF CASES ONL Y) Orange Attorneys (Firm Name, Address and Telephone Number) if you are representing yourself, provide the same information. Federico C. Sayre. Esq., SAYRE LLP 333 Civic Center Drive West, Santa Ana, CA 92701. (714)550-9117. Attorneys (Firm Name, Address and Telephone Number) If you are' representing yourself, provide the same information. II. BASIS OF JURISDICTION (Place an in one box only.) 1. US. Government Plaintiff 2. U.S. Government Defendant 3. Federal Question (U.S. Government Not a Party) Diversity (indicate Citizenship of Parties In item lil) IV. ORIGIN (Place an in one box onEy.) Otiginai Proceeding l3] 2. Removed from State Court ill. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES- For Diversity Cases Only (Place an in one box for piaintiff and one for defend antincorporated or Principal Place Citizen ef?ng State 1 1 of Business in this State 4 Citizen ofAnoti?Ier State 2 2 Incorporated and Principal Place 5 El 5 of Business in Another State Citizen or Subject of a . . Foreign Country 3 a 3 Foreign Nation 6 6 . 6. Multi- 3. Remanded from I: 4. Relnstated or 5.Transferred from Another I: District Appellate Court Reopened District (5139(1in Litigatign v. REQUESTED IN COMPLAINT: 3URY DEMAND: Yes No CLASS ACTION under F.R.CV.P. 23: [:lYes No (Check "Yes" only if demanded in complaint.) MONEY DEMANDED IN COMPLAINT: According to PFOOI VI. CAUSE OF ACTION (Cite the U.S. Civil Statute under which you are ?iing and write a brief statement of cause. Do not cite jurisdictionai statutes uniess diversity.) BIVENS CLAIM TO REDRESS CONSTITUTIONAL VIOLATIONS Vli. NATURE OF SUIT (Place an in one box oniy). STAT-U ml] ru?lIHLWa-Lw .K . . .. tram In: 375 False Claims Act 110 lnsurance 240 Torts to tend :62 I{Ilat?i?alization Habeas Corpus: 820 Copyrights 400 State CI 120 Marine 2ft5 Tort Product pp ca I 463 Alien Detainee CI 330 Patent Reapportionment Llabli'ty CI 465 Other SiOMotions to Vacate - 130 Miller Act 290 Ail Other Real Immigration Actions Sentence 840 Trademark 410 Antitrust Proper: .. I3 5306 - . enera 430 Banks and Banking 14? Negotiable -- Instrument 535 Death Penalty 861 i395 450 Commerce/KC I ff) [3 Rate-sec- attains snipe. [3 - . 862 Black Lung (923} 460 Deportation Enforcement of 315 Airplane El 371 Truthin Lending [j 540 Mandamus/Other 863 470 Racketeerin?w Judgment Product Liability 380 Other Personal 550 Civil Rights [3 864 XVI enced 8: Corrupt Org. 151 @edicare Act $20 Sssault, Libel Property Damage 555 Prison Condition 865 RSI (405 . an er 480 Consumer CTEdlt 152 Recovery of 330 Fed. Employers 385dPropEertg [Damage 560 Civii Detainee 490 Cabie/Sat'iV Bafa?'ggdl?tludfm . Pm *a Congitionsof .. can 6. at. 2: Con nement - .r . 870 Taxes U. 5. Plaintiff or [3 850 153 Recovery of mar!? ct [j 422 Appeal 28 Defendantg El Overpayment of r? USC158 625 Drug Related El an IRS Third Party 25 usc CI 890 Other Statutory Vet. Bene?ts 423 Withdrawal 23 Seizure of Property 21 7609 Actions 150 Stockhoiders. [l 350 MotorVehicle (55157 usc 88} [j 891 Agricuitural Acts Suits .. ?2 [3.690 Other ro re I I . 893 Environmental 190 Other MDOtherCIth Rights Matters Contract ?ggther Personal 5 441 Voting DA 710 Fair Labor Standards ii: Free 0?90 *n 0- Cl 195 Contract El 362dPersonallnjury? El 442 Employment 7201. Ptoduct Liability Me Malpratice lations 895 Arb't?atm" 195 Franchise 365 Personal Iniury- 4'43 ?9 gmwm?m Product Liability El Accomodatlons 740 Railway Labor Act 899 Admin. Procedures 367 Health Care/ 4"}5 W'th . . 751 Famli and Medical ActIReviewoprpeal of 210Land I3 Phannaceutical Leave Atty Agency DECISIOH Condemnation Personal Injury Employment 220 Foreclosure Liabili 445 American With 7.90 Other Labor - - Litigation 95? 230 Rent Lease& 368 ASbESt-os 791a I State Statutes Ejectment 443 Education I3 Securzgga?ee 2. nc. FOR orncs use ONLY: Case Number: SACV13-01839 PSG (DFMX) CIVIL COVER SHEET Page 1 of 3 Case Document 1 Filed 11/22/13 Page 14 of 18 Page ID #:28 UNITED STATES COURT, CENTRAL OF CALIFORNIA COVER SHEET Vlil. VENUE: Your answers to the questions below wili determine the division of the Court to which this case will roost iikeiy be initially assigned. This initial assignment is subject to change, in accordance with the Court's Genera? Orders, upon review by the Court of your Complaint or Notice of Removal. Question A: Was this case removed from state court? Yes No if "no, go to Question B. if "yes," checlihthe box to the right that appiies, enter the corresponding division in response to Question D, below, and skip to Section ix. Riverside or San Bernardino Los Angeles Western Venture, Santa Barbara, or San tuis Obispo Western [3 Orange Southern Eastern Question B: is the United States, or one of its agencies or employees, a party to this action? Yes No If "no, go to Question C. if "yes," check the box to the right that applies, enter the corresponding division in response to Question D, beiow, and skip to Section IX. ?tr- Los Angeles [1 Los Angeles Western Ventura, Santa Barbara, or San Luis Venture, Santa Barbara, or San Luis Obispo Obispo Western Orange [53] Orange Southern Riverside or San Sernardino Riverside or San Bernardino Eastern Other [3 Other Western of claims arose' 2 or more answers in Column (5.1. Is either of the following true? If so, check the one that applies: only 1 answer in Colurnn and no answers in Column Your case wiil initially be assigned to the SOUTHERN Enter "Southetn" in response to Question D, below. If none applies, answer question C2 to the right. . 16' th immt? ?4325 assist-tongue ?is; a El Indicate the location in which a we C.2. is either of the following true? If so, check the one that applies: 2 or more answers in Column only 3 answer in Coiumn and no answers in Column Your case wiil initiaily be assigned to the EASTERN Enter "Eastern" in response to Question D, below. if none applies, go to the box below. Your case will initially be assigned to the Enter "Western" in response to Question 9 below. SOUTHERN 5% COVER SHEET Page 2 of 3 Case Document 1 Filed 11/22/13 Page 15 of 18 Page ID #:29 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL COVER SHEET CASES: Has this action been previousiy?ied in this court and dismissed, remanded or closed? IE NO [3 YES If yes, list case number(s): lX(b). RELATED CASES: Have any cases been previously filed in this court that are related to the present case? NO [3 YES If yes, list case numberls): Civil cases are deemed related if a previously fiied case and the present case: (Check all boxes that apply) a A. Arise from the same or ciosely related transactions, happenings, or events; or B. Call for determination of the same or substantialiy related or similar questions of law and fact; or C. For other reasons would entail substantial duplication of labor if heard by differentjudges; or D. Involve the same patent, trademark or copyright; agd one of the factors identi?ed above in a, or also is present. A. X. SIGNATURE OF ATTORNEY (OR SELF-REPRESENTED LITIGANT): I 1 agar-m DATE: November22,2013 I a Notice to CounseilParties: The (IV-71 (35?44) Civil over Sheet and the information contained herein neither seplace nor suppiernent the ?ling and service of pieadings or other papers as required by law. This form, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is required pursuant to Local Rule 3-1 is not filed but is used by the Clerk of the Court for the purpose of statistics, venue and initiating the civil docket sheet. (For more detaiied instructions, see separate instructions sheet). Key to Statisticai codes relating to Sociai Security Cases: Nature of Suit Code 861 862 863 863 864 855 Abbreviation HIA BL DIWW SSID RSI Substantive Statement of Cause of Action All claims for health insurance bene?ts (Medicare) under Title 18, Part A, of the Sociai Security Act, as amended. Also, include claims by hospitals, skilled nursing facilities, etc, for certi?cation as providers of services under the program. (42 U.S.C. 193591503? Ail claims for "Biack Lung" bene?ts under Title 4, Part 8, of the Federal Coal Mine Heaith and Safety Act of1969. (30 U.S.C. 923 Ail claims flied by insused workess for insurance bene?ts under Titie 2 of the Social Security Act, as amended; plus all claims ?led for child's insurance bene?ts based on disability. (42 U.S.C. 405 Ail claims ?led for widows or widowers insurance benefits based on disability under Title 2 of the Social Security Act, as amended. (42 U.S.C. 405 All claims for suppiementai security income payments based upon ?led under 16 of the Social Security Act, as amended. All ciairns for retirement (old age) and survivors bene?ts under Title 2 of the Social Security Act, as amended. (42 U.S.C. 405 (IV-71 (11113) CIVIL COVER SHEET Page 3 of 3 Case Document 1 Filed 11/22/13 Page 16 of 18 Page ID #:30 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT TO UNITED STATES JUDGES This case has been assigned to District Judge Philip S. Gutierrez and the assigned Magistrate Judge is Douglas P. McCormick The case number on all documents ?led with the Court should read as follows: SACV13-01839 PSG (DFMX) 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. Clerk, U. S. District Court November 22, 2013 By M. Barr Date Deputy Clerk NOTICE TO COUNSEL A copy of this notice must be served with the summons and complaint on all defendants (if a removal action is ?led, a copy of this notice must be served on all plaintijj?s). Subsequent documents must be ?led at the following location: Western Division Southern Division Eastern Division 312 N. Spring Street, GB 411 West Fourth St, Ste 1053 3470 Twelfth Street, Room 134 Los Angeles, CA 90012 Santa Ana, CA 92701 Riverside, CA 92501 Failure to file at the proper location will result in your documents being returned to you. (08/13) NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT TO UNITED STATES JUDGES Case Document 1 Filed 11/22/13 Page 17 of 18 Page ID #:31 c. A0 440 (Rev. 06/12) Summons in a Civil Action UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT for the Central District of California DANIEL NORIEGA, an individual; Plainri?Ts) v. 3 Civil Action No. UNKNOWN FEDERAL AGENT OF IMMIGRATEON AND CUSTOMS and DOES 1?10, inclusive, Defendarzt(s) q. IN A CIVIL ACTION TO: (Defendant '5 name and address) A lawsuit has been ?led against you. Within 21 days after service of this summons on you (not counting the day you received it) or 60 days if you are the United States or a United States agency, or an of?cer or employee of the United States described in Fed. R. Civ. P. 12 (20(2) or (3) you must serve on the plaintiff an answer to the attached complaint or a motion under Rule l2 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The answer or motion must be served on the plaintiff or plaintiff?s attorney, Whose name and a dress are Federico C. Sayre, ESQ- SAYRE LEVETT, LLP 333 Civic Center Drive West Santa Ana. CA 92701 Tel: (714) 5509117 Fax: If you fail to respond, judgment by default will be entered against you for the relief demanded in the complaint. You also must ?le your answer or motion with the court. em 22 "z?til Date: Case Document 1 Filed 11/22/13 Page 18 of 18 Page ID #:32 A0440 (Rev. 06/12) Summons in a Civil Action (Page 2} Civil Action No. PROOF OF SERVICE (This section should not be?led with the court unless required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 This summons for (name of individual and title, ifany) was received by me on (date) I personally served the summons on the individual at (place) on (date) or I left the summons at the individual?s residence or usual place of abode with (name) a person of suitable age and discretion who resides there, on (date) and mailed a copy to the individual?s last known address; or I served the summons on (name of individual) ,who is designated by law to accept service of process on behalf of (name of organization) on (date) or Cl I returned the summons unexecuted because or l3 Other (specify): My fees are for travel and for services, for a total of 000 I declare under penalty of perjury that this information is true. Date: Server ?5 Signature Printed name and title Server ?3 address Additional information regarding attempted service, etc: