lawsuit against san juan county commission, sheriff

Upload: magdalena-wegrzyn

Post on 09-Oct-2015

698 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

DESCRIPTION

Somos Un Pueblo Unido officials announced Wednesday that they have filed a class-action lawsuit in federal court over what they claim was the illegal detention of three immigrants at the San Juan County Adult Detention Center.

TRANSCRIPT

  • 5/19/2018 Lawsuit against San Juan County Commission, sheriff

    1/18

    IN

    THE

    I]NITED

    STATES DISTRICT

    COTJRT

    FOR

    TIIE

    DISTRICT

    OF NEW

    MEXICO

    MONCERRATH

    GUTIERREZ, on his

    own behalf and on behalf of

    a class of

    similarly situated

    persons;

    RICARDO

    OLIVAS,

    on his own

    behalf

    and

    on

    behalf

    of

    a class

    of similarly

    situated

    persons;

    SUSANA

    PALACIOS-VALENCIA, on

    her

    own behalf and

    on behalf of a class of

    similarly

    situated

    persons;

    and

    SOMOS I]N

    PUEBLO UNIDO,

    Plaintiffs,

    vs.

    SAN

    ruAN COI.INTY

    BOARD OF

    COMMISSIONERS;

    and KEN

    CHRISTESEN,

    in his

    individual

    and

    official

    capacities,

    Defendants.

    No. CIV-14-

    CLASS

    ACTION COMPLAINT FOR

    DAMAGES

    FOR

    WOLATIONS

    OF CTYIL

    AND

    CONSTITUTIONAL

    RIGIITS A}[D

    FOR DECLARATORY

    AND INJI.]NCTTVE

    RELIEF

    Plaintiffs

    Moncerrath Gutierrez,

    Ricardo

    Olivas,

    Susana

    Palacios-Valencia

    and Somos

    Un

    Pueblo

    Unido

    (collectively,

    Plaintiffs ),

    by

    and

    through below-signed

    counsel,

    bring

    this

    Class

    Action Complaint

    for Damages for

    Violations

    of

    Civil

    and Constitutional

    Rights

    and

    for

    Declaratory

    and Injunctive Relief against

    Defendants San Juan

    County

    Board

    of

    Commissioners

    and Ken

    Christesen

    (collectively,

    Defendants ).

    Plaintiffs allege against

    Defendants upon

    knowledge

    as

    to themselves

    and

    allmatters

    of

    public

    record, and upon information

    and

    belief

    as

    to all

    other matters,

    as follows:

  • 5/19/2018 Lawsuit against San Juan County Commission, sheriff

    2/18

    L

    JURISDICTION

    AND VENUE

    l . This Court has

    jurisdiction

    over this

    action

    pursuant

    to

    2S

    U.S.C.

    $$

    133

    1

    and

    l3a3

    (a)(3)

    and

    (4).

    2.

    Venue is

    proper

    in this Court

    pursuant

    to 28

    U.S.C.

    $

    1391(b).

    II.

    PARTIES

    3.

    Moncerrath

    Gutierrez

    ( Gutierrez )

    is a resident of Farmington, New Mexico.

    Gutierrez brings

    this action on his own

    behalf

    and on behalf of a class of similarly situated

    persons.

    4.

    Ricardo Olivas

    ( Olivas ),

    also known

    as Ricardo

    Olivas

    Acosta, is

    a resident

    of

    Farmington,

    New

    Mexico.

    Olivas

    brings this action on his own behalf and

    on

    behalf of a class

    of similarly

    situated

    persons.

    5.

    Susana Palacios-Valencia

    ( Palacios )

    is

    a

    resident

    of

    Farmington,

    New

    Mexico.

    Palacios brings this

    action on her own behalf and on behalf of

    a

    class

    of similarly situated

    persons.

    6.

    Somos

    Un

    Pueblo

    Unido

    ( Somos )

    was founded in 1995 and has an active

    membership

    in ten

    New Mexico

    counties,

    including

    San Juan County. Somos

    is

    an

    organization

    dedicated

    to the

    protection

    of immigrants' civil

    rights.

    Since

    1995, Somos has been actively

    involved

    in advocacy,

    legislation,

    and

    working with municipalities

    and

    detention

    facilities for

    the

    protection of immigrants'

    rights. Somos

    brings

    this

    action

    on behalf

    of

    its

    members and the

    members of

    the class,

    for

    equitable relief

    only.

    The

    interests it

    seeks

    to

    protect

    are

    germane

    to

    its

    purpose,

    and

    its

    members would otherwise have

    standing

    to sue in their own right.

    2

  • 5/19/2018 Lawsuit against San Juan County Commission, sheriff

    3/18

    7.

    San Juan

    County Board of Commissioners

    ( San

    Juan County ) is

    a

    political

    subdivision

    of

    the

    State

    of New

    Mexico.

    Pursuant to

    NMSA

    1978,

    $

    4-46-1,

    all

    suits

    or

    proceedings

    against

    a county

    are

    to

    be brought in the name of

    the

    board

    of county

    commissioners

    of that county. At all times

    material hereto,

    San Juan

    County was a

    governmental

    entity and

    local

    public

    body

    as those terms are

    defined

    in the

    New

    Mexico

    Tort Claims Act, NMSA

    1978,

    $$

    4l-4-3(B)

    and

    (C).

    Pursuantto

    NMSA

    1978,

    $$

    4-44-19,33-3-3 through 8,

    and

    33-3-13,

    San Juan County had

    a statutory obligation to

    provide

    for the confinement of

    prisoners

    incarcerated under

    the county's

    jurisdiction.

    San Juan County

    had a statutory obligation

    to

    appropriate funds and otherwise

    provide

    the

    necessary

    funding

    to

    maintain and operate

    a

    facility

    for the

    incarceration

    ofprisoners under

    thejurisdiction ofthe

    county.

    8.

    Ken Christesen

    ( Christesen ),

    upon

    information

    and

    belief,

    is

    now

    and

    at all

    times

    material hereto

    has been a

    resident

    of

    San

    Juan

    County,

    New

    Mexico.

    Since

    approximately January

    7,2011,

    Christesen has been the Sheriff of San

    Juan

    County. As San Juan

    County

    Sheriff, Christesen is responsible for the operation of the San Juan County Detention

    Center

    ( SJCDC ).

    In addition,

    at

    all times

    material hereto, Christesen was

    a

    law

    enforcement

    officer

    and

    public

    employee,

    and was

    acting

    within

    the scope

    of his duties

    as

    well

    as under

    color

    of

    law. He is

    sued

    both

    personally

    and

    in

    his

    official

    capacity.

    9.

    San Juan County and Christesen

    were

    responsible

    for

    the

    screening, hiring,

    training, monitoring,

    supervision

    and disciplining

    of

    subordinate employees

    of SJCDC,

    and

    were

    the

    authorities

    empowering SJCDC employees to

    incarcerate

    prisoners

    under the

    jurisdiction

    of

    San

    Juan County.

    San Juan

    County

    and

    Christesen

    were

    directly

    responsible

    for the

    policy-making

    activities and the supervision

    of

    subordinate officers

    of SJCDC.

    J

  • 5/19/2018 Lawsuit against San Juan County Commission, sheriff

    4/18

    10.

    San Juan

    County

    and Christesen,

    through their officials,

    agents, servants, and

    employees,

    were

    involved

    in

    and

    responsible

    for

    allthe

    acts

    hereinafter

    alleged. At

    alltimes

    material

    hereto, San Juan

    County

    and

    Christesen,

    individually and/or acting through their agents,

    officers

    and employees,

    acted in concert

    with

    one

    another and

    pursuant

    to

    a common

    plan

    and

    objective,

    and

    each of the Defendants is responsible

    for the acts and omissions of the other

    Defendants,

    and their agents, officers

    and employees,

    as

    co-conspirators, under

    the doctrine of

    respondeat

    superior, and under other doctrines of

    vicarious liability.

    m.

    BACKGROUND

    FACTS

    11.

    The Immigration and Customs

    Enforcement

    Division

    ( lCE )

    is

    a division of the

    United

    States

    Department

    of Homeland

    Security

    ( DHS ).

    ICE

    routinely

    issues administrative

    notices

    known as

    ICE

    Holds or

    Immigration

    Detainers,

    requesting

    that local law

    enforcement

    agencies

    take

    certain action with respect to

    persons

    in their custody

    who may

    be

    in

    violation

    of

    federal immigration

    law.

    12.

    These notices are

    issued

    on

    a standard

    form known as a Form l-247.

    Immigration

    Detainer-Notice

    of

    Action

    (hereinafter,

    lmmigration

    Detainer ). The Form

    l-247

    provides

    a

    blank for the institution or law enforcement

    agency to which it is directed and a

    blank

    for'Tllame

    of Alien,

    and is headed

    MAINTAIN

    CUSTODY OF ALIEN FOR

    A

    PERIOD

    NOT

    TO EXCEED 48

    HOURS.

    The

    face

    of

    the

    Form

    I-247

    lists four

    possible

    actions

    that the

    DHS

    has

    taken related

    to

    the

    person

    in

    the

    recipient's

    custody,

    including

    that

    ICE has

    [i]nitiated

    an

    investigation

    to determine

    whether this

    person is

    subject

    to removal

    from

    the

    United

    States ;

    [i]nitiated

    removal

    proceedings and

    served

    a

    Notice to Appear

    or other

    4

  • 5/19/2018 Lawsuit against San Juan County Commission, sheriff

    5/18

    charging

    document ; [s]erved

    a

    warrant of arrest for removal

    proceedings ;

    or

    [o]btained

    an

    order

    of deportation or removal from

    the

    United

    States

    for this person.

    13. On information and

    belief, the

    vast majority of Immigration Detainers are issued

    with the first box checked

    ( [i]nitiated

    an

    investigation to

    determine

    whether

    this

    person

    is

    subject

    to removal from

    the

    United

    States ).

    On information and

    belief, ICE

    agents issue these

    Immigration

    Detainers

    without

    probable

    cause to believe a

    person

    is removable from

    the United

    States. The issuance of an Immigration Detainer does not

    indicate

    or establish that there has

    been any

    prior

    determination by

    ICE

    or any other entity

    as

    to the

    person's

    immigration

    status.

    On information and beliet

    ICE

    often issues Immigration Detainers in

    error on

    persons

    who are

    not

    subject

    to

    removal. ICE

    provides

    no meaningful

    way

    for a detainee to contest

    an

    Immigration

    Detainer

    that

    it

    has issued.

    14. The Immigration Detainer

    form

    requests,

    among

    other

    things, that the recipient

    [m]aintain

    custody of the subject for

    a

    period

    NOT TO EXCEED 48

    HOURS, excluding

    Saturdays, Sundays

    and holidays,

    beyond the time when the subject would have

    otherwise

    been

    released from

    your

    custody, to allow DHS

    to

    take custody of the

    subject.

    15. The

    issuance

    of

    an

    Immigration

    Detainer does not

    ensure that ICE will take

    any

    action

    to

    assume

    custody over a detainee.

    ICE may or may

    not

    come to

    pick

    up

    a

    detainee

    for

    whom it

    has

    issued

    an

    Immigration

    Detainer.

    16. An

    Immigration Detainer

    is not a

    judicial

    order or

    a

    warrant.

    Instead,

    an

    Immigration

    Detainer is nothing more

    than a request to a law enforcement agency or

    detention

    facility

    and is not legally enforceable.

    17.

    In

    the

    three

    years prior

    to the filing

    of

    this

    Complaint,

    ICE

    issued hundreds

    of

  • 5/19/2018 Lawsuit against San Juan County Commission, sheriff

    6/18

    Immigration Detainers to

    the Defendants through

    the

    SJCDC.

    According to Defendants,

    they

    have

    honored every

    Immigration

    Detainer that they have

    received.

    Defendants

    have

    a

    policy,

    practice

    and custom

    of detaining

    persons

    based

    solely on Immigration

    Detainers.

    18. Individuals

    detained

    by

    Defendants

    pursuant

    to

    these

    Immigration

    Detainers

    remain

    in

    the

    Defendants'

    Iegal

    and actual custody

    and Defendants

    are

    fully

    liable

    for their

    continued detention.

    19.

    The law has

    been

    clearly

    established throughout

    the time

    period

    encompassed

    by

    the claims asserted herein

    that Immigration

    Detainers

    are

    mere administrative

    requests

    and do

    not

    provide

    legal

    justification

    for

    the incarceration

    of individuals that

    ICE

    has asked

    to

    be

    detained.

    w.

    CLAIMS OF THE NAMED

    PLAINTIFFS

    20.

    Paragraphs

    I

    through

    19 above are incorporated

    herein

    by

    reference

    as if

    fully

    set

    forth in this

    paragraph.

    Claims of Moncerrath

    Gutierrez

    21. Gutierrez

    is 41

    years

    old

    and

    is a

    citizen

    of Mexico. He

    resides in Farmington,

    New Mexico and is employed

    as a

    pipeline

    construction

    worker.

    Prior

    to the incidents

    set

    forth

    below,

    he had never

    been arrested and has no

    criminal record.

    22. On

    July 6,2012,

    Gutierrez

    was

    stopped

    by a deputy

    sheriff employed

    by the

    San

    Juan

    County

    Sheriffs

    Department

    for

    failure

    to

    come

    to

    a

    complete stop

    at a

    stop sign.

    23. The deputy

    sheriffdetained

    Gutierrez

    and contacted ICE. Agents

    from

    ICE then

    appeared on the scene.

    6

  • 5/19/2018 Lawsuit against San Juan County Commission, sheriff

    7/18

    24.

    Gutierrez

    was

    taken into

    custody

    by

    the agents

    from ICE

    and transported to

    the

    SJCDC where

    he

    was booked and incarcerated.

    25. Gutierrez was detained

    by

    Defendants

    based

    on an Immigration

    Detainer

    issued

    by

    ICE on July

    6,2A12.

    That Immigration Detainer was directed

    to the SJCDC

    and states

    that

    the

    DHS

    has

    [i]nitiated

    an

    investigation to

    determine whether

    [Gutienez]

    is subject to

    removal

    from

    the United

    States.

    The Immigration Detainer further states:

    It

    is requested that

    you:

    Maintain

    custody

    of

    the

    subject

    for

    a

    period

    NOT TO EXCEED 48

    HOURS, excluding

    Saturdays, Sundays

    and

    holidays,

    beyond the time

    when

    the subject

    would

    have otherwise been

    released

    from

    your

    custody,

    to allow DHS

    to take custody of the

    subject.

    No

    basis

    was

    stated

    for

    the investigation and,

    on

    information and belief, the Immigration Detainer was not

    accompanied

    by an arrest warrant, statement of

    probable

    cause, removal

    or deportation order, or

    any

    other charging document.

    26.

    Gutierrez

    was

    incarcerated

    at the

    SJCDC

    for three

    days based on the

    Immigration

    Detainer.

    He was told that

    he

    could not

    be

    released

    because

    of the Immigration Detainer. He

    was

    not

    given

    any opportunity

    to

    contest the Immigration

    Detainer.

    He

    was

    not

    released

    until

    July

    9,

    2012, when he was released

    to

    the custody of ICE agents who transported him to an ICE

    holding

    facilify

    in Albuquerque.

    27.

    Defendants and their

    employees,

    agents and representatives had no valid reason

    for detaining

    Gutierrez.

    Rather, the detention

    of

    Gutierrez

    was

    undertaken

    pursuant

    to

    a blanket

    and

    indiscriminate

    policy

    of holding detainees

    pursuant

    to Immigration Detainers, in violation

    of

    well-settled constitutional

    law.

    28.

    Gutierrez suffered damages

    as

    a

    proximate

    cause of this unlawful detention,

    as

    set

    7

  • 5/19/2018 Lawsuit against San Juan County Commission, sheriff

    8/18

    forth

    below.

    Claims

    of

    Ricardo

    Olivas

    29. Olivas is 22

    years

    old and is a citizen

    of

    Mexico.

    He resides in

    Farmington,

    New

    Mexico

    and is self-employed

    as a landscaper

    and handyman.

    30.

    On

    July

    11,2014,

    Olivas

    was

    stopped

    by a

    police

    officer

    employed

    by

    the

    Farmington

    City

    Police.

    He

    was

    cited for not

    having registration

    on his work

    trailer

    and

    for

    not

    having a

    driver's

    license.

    3l.

    The

    police

    officer detained

    Olivas

    and

    contacted ICE.

    Agents

    from ICE then

    appeared on the scene.

    32.

    Olivas was taken

    into custody

    by the agents from ICE

    and

    ffansported

    to the

    SJCDC

    where

    he

    was booked

    and

    incarcerated.

    33.

    On

    information

    and belief,

    Olivas was detained

    by

    Defendants

    based on an

    Immigration Detainer issued by

    ICE.

    Olivas was

    incarcerated

    at

    the

    SJCDC

    for

    five days.

    He

    was

    told that he could not be released

    because

    of his immigration status.

    He was not

    given

    any

    opportunity to contest

    his

    detention

    or

    to

    post

    bond.

    He

    was

    not

    released

    until

    July 15,2014,

    when he

    was

    released to the custody

    of ICE

    agents

    who

    transported him

    to an ICE

    holding

    facility in Albuquerque.

    34.

    Defendants and their

    employees,

    agents and representatives

    had

    no valid reason

    for detaining Olivas.

    Rather,

    the detention

    of

    Olivas

    was

    undertaken

    pursuant

    to

    a

    blanket and

    indiscriminate

    policy

    of holding

    detainees pursuant

    to Immigration Detainers,

    in violation

    of

    well-settled

    constitutional law.

    35.

    Olivas suffered damages as

    a

    proximate

    cause of

    this unlawful

    detention, as

    set

    8

  • 5/19/2018 Lawsuit against San Juan County Commission, sheriff

    9/18

    forth below.

    Claims of

    Susana

    Palacios-Valencia

    36.

    Palacios is 4l

    years

    old and

    is a citizen of Mexico. She

    is

    resident of

    Farmington,

    New Mexico

    and

    is employed

    as

    a

    housekeeper.

    Prior to the incidents set forlh

    below,

    she had never been arrested and has no

    criminal

    record.

    37.

    On April

    13,2012,

    Palacios' brother

    was

    stopped

    by

    an

    officer with the

    Farmington

    City

    Police

    for

    a

    traffic

    violation while

    he was

    driving

    Palacios'

    vehicle. Palacios

    was called to

    the

    scene.

    Upon

    arrival, the

    police

    officer

    ran

    her

    information

    and informed her

    that

    she had

    an

    unpaid ticket

    on

    her record for not having

    proofofinsurance.

    The officer then

    detained Palacios and contacted ICE.

    38.

    Palacios

    was

    then

    transported to the SJCDC

    where she was booked

    and

    incarcerated.

    39.

    Palacios

    was

    detained by

    Defendants based on

    a request issued

    by

    ICE. That

    request was made on April

    14,2012

    through

    an Immigration Detainer. That Immigration

    Detainer

    was directed to the

    SJCDC

    and

    states that the DHS has

    [i]nitiated

    an investigation to

    determine

    whether

    [Valencia]

    is subject to

    removal

    from

    the

    United States. The Immigration

    Detainer

    further

    states: It is requested

    that

    you:

    Maintain custody of the subject for a

    period

    NOT

    TO

    EXCEED 48 HOURS, excluding Saturdays, Sundays and

    holidays,

    beyond the

    time

    when the subject

    would have

    otherwise been

    released from

    your

    custody,

    to

    allow

    DHS to take

    custody

    of the

    subject.

    No

    basis

    was

    stated

    for the investigation

    and,

    on

    information

    and

    belief,

    the

    Immigration

    Detainer

    was

    not accompanied

    by

    an arrest

    warrant,

    statement of

    probable

    cause,

    removal or deportation

    order,

    or any other charging

    document.

    9

  • 5/19/2018 Lawsuit against San Juan County Commission, sheriff

    10/18

    40.

    The following

    Monday,

    Palacios was

    taken before

    a localjudge

    and she

    advised

    the

    judge

    that

    she

    had

    been

    making

    payments on

    the

    citation

    but that there was

    still

    a

    balance

    owed.

    The

    judge

    allowed her to pay

    the

    balance

    due and

    owing

    and informed

    her that

    she

    would

    be

    released

    notwithstanding

    the

    Immigration

    Detainer.

    41.

    However, Palacios

    was

    not

    released

    but instead

    was

    retumed to

    the SJDC

    where

    she was

    kept

    incarcerated

    for an

    additional week

    based on

    the

    Immigration

    Detainer.

    She

    was

    not

    given

    any

    opportunity to

    contest the

    Immigration

    Detainer.

    42.

    Palacios was

    not

    released

    from the

    SJCDC

    until

    April

    23,2012

    when

    agents from

    ICE

    arrived

    at the

    SJCDC

    and Palacios

    was

    released into

    their

    custody.

    43.

    Defendants

    and their

    employees,

    agents and

    representatives

    had no valid

    reason

    for

    detaining Palacios

    based on the

    Immigration

    Detainer.

    Rather,

    the detention

    of Palacios

    was

    undertaken

    pursuant

    to a blanket

    and indiscriminate policy

    of holding

    detainees

    pursuant

    to

    Immigration

    Detainers,

    in violation

    of well-settled

    constitutional law.

    44.

    Palacios

    suffered

    damages

    as a

    proximate

    cause

    of this unlawful

    detention,

    as set

    forth

    below.

    v.

    CLASS ACTION

    ALLEGATIONS

    45.

    Paragraphs I

    through 44,above,

    are incorporated

    herein

    by

    reference

    as

    if fully

    set

    forth in this

    paragraph.

    46.

    The detentions to

    which Gutierrez, Olivas

    and Palacios were subjected were

    performed pursuant

    to

    the

    policies,

    practices

    and customs

    of

    Defendants

    of holding

    detainees

    solely

    based on

    Immigration

    Detainers.

    l0

  • 5/19/2018 Lawsuit against San Juan County Commission, sheriff

    11/18

    47.

    This

    civil

    action

    is

    brought by

    Plaintiffs on their own behalf and on

    behalf of

    a

    class

    of similarly

    situated

    persons,

    pursuant

    to Fed. R.

    Civ.

    P.

    23.

    The

    class

    for which Plaintiffs

    seek

    certification

    is defined

    as

    follows: all

    persons

    who, in the

    period

    from three

    years

    prior

    to

    the date of

    the filing of

    this Class

    Action

    Complaint

    to

    the

    present

    and

    continuing until

    this

    matter

    is adjudicated and

    the

    practices

    complained of herein cease,

    were detained at the SJCDC

    pursuant

    to

    an

    Immigration Detainer.

    48. Gutierrez, Olivas

    and

    Palacios

    are

    all members of the class they seek

    to represent,

    and have

    standing

    to

    bring

    this action because each was detained at the SJCDC

    pursuant

    to an

    Immigration

    Detainer,

    as set

    forth in

    more

    detail

    above. Somos

    has

    standing to bring the claims

    for injunctive

    and

    declaratory relief

    because

    the interests

    it

    seeks

    to

    protect

    are

    germane

    to its

    purpose, and its

    members would otherwise have standing

    to sue in their own right.

    49.

    Pursuant

    to Fed. R.

    Civ.

    P. 23,

    Plaintiffs,

    individually and on behalf of the

    members

    of the

    class,

    seeks

    such relief

    as

    is

    just

    and equitable,

    including but not limited to:

    (i)

    Complete

    disclosure of all information

    within

    the

    possession,

    custody

    or

    control

    of

    Defendants

    concerning, relating to or involving

    the detentions complained

    of

    herein;

    (iD

    Judicial declaration

    that the detentions

    complained of herein

    are

    unlawful;

    (iii)

    Issuance of

    a

    permanent

    injunction

    prohibiting

    Defendants from engaging in the

    detentions

    complained of herein; and

    (iv)

    Judgment for compensatory

    and

    punitive

    damages to the fullest extent

    allowable

    by

    law from

    Defendants

    in

    favor

    of

    Gutierrez, Olivas,

    Palacios and the members

    of

    the

    class

    for

    personal

    and

    economic

    injury,

    and

    deprivation of statutory and/or common law

    rights resulting

    from

    Defendants'

    practices.

    1i

  • 5/19/2018 Lawsuit against San Juan County Commission, sheriff

    12/18

    50.

    Plaintiffs

    are

    unable to

    state

    precisely

    the size

    of

    the

    class.

    On information and

    belief,

    Plaintiffs allege that

    there are more than 200

    persons

    who were detained

    at

    the SJCDC

    pursuant to Immigration Detainers

    in

    the three

    years prior

    to the

    filing of

    this

    Complaint,

    and

    that

    number

    is continuing to increase. Thus, the class is sufficiently numerous

    that

    joinder

    of all

    members

    herein is impracticable. The exact number of class members

    will be ascertained

    through appropriate discovery,

    from records maintained by Defendants and their agents.

    51.

    Questions

    of

    law and fact are

    common to the claims of Plaintiffs

    and the members

    of the

    class,

    including

    but not

    limited to

    (1)

    whether

    SJCDC

    officers routinely

    detain

    persons

    pursuant

    to Immigration

    Detainers; and

    (2)

    whether Defendants'

    detention

    of

    persons pursuant

    to

    Immigration

    Detainers is in

    accordance with

    the Constitution.

    52.

    Defendants have

    acted

    or

    refused to act on

    grounds generally

    applicable to

    the

    class,

    thereby

    making

    appropriate

    final

    injunctive

    relief

    or corresponding declaratory

    relief with

    respect

    to the class as a

    whole.

    53.

    There is

    a

    well-defined

    community of

    interest

    amongst members

    of

    the

    class.

    The

    claims of the

    named

    Plaintiffs

    are typicalof the claims of the members of

    the

    class.

    The

    factual bases

    of Defendants' misconduct are common

    to

    all class

    members and represent

    a

    common

    policy

    and

    practice

    of detention

    pursuant

    to

    Immigration

    Detainers.

    Moreover,

    Plaintiffs'

    claims are based on

    the same legal

    theories

    as those

    of the class

    members.

    54.

    The named Plaintiffs

    will fairly

    and adequately

    protect

    the interests of the class.

    Plaintiffs

    are committed to

    prosecuting

    this action, and they have retained competent counsel

    experienced

    in civil

    litigation

    of this nature. Moreover,

    the

    interests of

    Plaintiffs

    are coincident

    with, and

    not antagonistic

    to, those

    of

    the other members

    of

    the class.

    l2

  • 5/19/2018 Lawsuit against San Juan County Commission, sheriff

    13/18

    55.

    The common

    questions

    of

    law and fact herein

    predominate

    over

    questions

    affecting

    any individual

    class

    member, and class action treatment

    provides

    a superior

    method

    for

    the

    fair

    and

    ef{icient adjudication ofthe

    controversy.

    56.

    At

    all times

    relevant to the acts alleged herein, and as to every cause of action

    asserted,

    Defendants

    acted fraudulently, oppressively, maliciously, and

    in knowing

    and

    conscious

    disregard of

    Plaintiffs'

    rights

    and

    the

    rights

    of

    class members, as

    outlined

    herein.

    vI.

    FIRST CAUSE OF

    ACTION

    (Civil

    Rights Violations

    Under

    42 U.S.C.

    $

    1983)

    57. Plaintiffs

    incorporate by reference

    into

    the

    first cause of action the

    allegations

    of

    paragraphs

    1

    through 56 above, as fully

    as

    if

    realleged and

    set

    forth

    herein.

    58.

    The

    above-described

    acts and omissions of Defendants

    were unreasonable,

    shocking

    to the conscience,

    and

    were committed intentionally, maliciously,

    willfully

    and/or with

    reckless

    or deliberate indifference,

    and in violation

    of

    the following clearly established

    constitutional

    rights

    of

    which

    a reasonable

    person

    would have

    been

    aware:

    (a)

    Plaintiffs'

    and class members'

    Fourth

    Amendment

    rights to

    be free

    from

    unreasonable searches

    and

    seizures;

    and

    (b)

    Plaintiffs'

    and class members'

    Fourteenth Amendment rights

    to

    substantive

    and

    procedural

    due

    process.

    59.

    The

    above-described

    acts and

    omissions

    of

    Defendants

    were motivated

    by

    evil

    motive

    and intent, and

    involved recklessness and callous indifference to Plaintiffs' and class

    members'

    federally

    protected

    rights,

    justifuing

    an award

    of

    punitive

    damages.

    6A.

    Prior to the acts and omissions alleged herein, Defendants

    failed to

    properly

    l3

  • 5/19/2018 Lawsuit against San Juan County Commission, sheriff

    14/18

    create,

    adopt, inculcate

    and ensure compliance

    with

    appropriate

    policies

    and

    procedures

    for

    corrections officers

    and supervisory

    personnel

    employed by them;

    failed to

    properly

    train,

    monitor,

    supervise

    and discipline corrections officers

    and supervisory

    personnel

    employed by

    them, and

    failed to otherwise

    institute

    and

    ensure

    compliance

    with adequate

    procedures

    and

    policies

    that

    would

    protect

    the

    rights

    of Plaintiffs

    and class members. These

    acts and omissions

    were

    direct

    and

    proximate

    causes of the

    injuries

    complained

    of by Plaintiffs

    herein,

    as set

    forth

    below.

    61.

    Defendants

    maintained

    a custom or

    policy

    which

    permitted

    or condoned the

    foregoing

    violations

    of Plaintiffs'

    and class

    members'

    constitutional

    rights.

    62.

    The

    acts and

    omissions of

    the Defendants as set

    forth

    above

    were

    undertaken

    under color

    of state

    law

    and

    operated to deprive Plaintiffs and

    the members of the class

    of their

    federal

    rights.

    Defendant

    San Juan

    County

    is liable

    for

    damages

    proximately

    caused by

    these

    acts

    and

    omissions.

    Defendant Christesen

    is liable

    in

    his

    individual

    and

    official

    capacities

    for

    damages

    proximately

    caused

    by these

    acts

    and omissions.

    63.

    As

    a

    direct

    and

    proximate

    cause of Defendants'

    violations of

    their constitutional

    rights,

    Plaintiffs and

    members of the class

    suffered damages as set

    forth

    below.

    YIL

    SECOND

    CAUSE OF

    ACTION

    (Declaratory

    and Inj

    u nctive

    Relief)

    64.

    Plaintiffs

    incorporate

    by

    reference

    into

    their

    second

    cause

    of action the allegations

    of

    paragraphs I through

    63 above, as

    fully

    as

    if

    realleged and set

    forth

    herein.

    65.

    Plaintiffs,

    on behalf of themselves

    and

    the

    members of

    the class, seek ajudgment

    declaring

    that Defendants

    must

    cease

    the activities

    described herein and

    permanently

    enjoining

    14

  • 5/19/2018 Lawsuit against San Juan County Commission, sheriff

    15/18

    Defendantsfromanyfurtherdetentionspursuanttolmmigrationdetainers.

    66.

    Specifically'

    Plaintiffs

    seek

    a

    judgment

    declaring

    that:

    a.ImmigrationDetainersarerequestsandnotmandatoryorders,anddonot

    provide

    any

    legal

    authority

    for

    Defendants

    to

    detain

    anyone

    identified

    in

    such

    lmmi

    gration

    Detainers

    ;

    b.ThedetentionofanypersonbasedsolelyonanlmmigrationDetaineris

    prohibited

    by

    the

    Fourth

    Amendment;

    c.ThedetentionofanypersonbasedsolelyonanlmmigrationDetaineris

    prohibited

    by

    the

    Fourteenth

    Amendment'

    6T,Plaintiffsalsoseekajudgmentenforcingthefollowinginjunctivereliefagainst

    Defendants:

    a.RequiringDefendantstoimmediatelyreleaseanypersonheldin

    Defendants'

    custody

    based

    on

    an

    Immigration

    Detainer;

    b'

    Enjoining

    Defendants

    from

    detaining

    any

    person

    in

    their

    custody

    in

    the

    future

    based

    on

    an

    Immigration

    Detainer;

    c'RequiringDefendantstoadoptaclear'writtenpolicystatingthat

    Immigration

    Detainers

    are

    requests

    only

    and

    that

    the

    SJCDC

    will

    not

    honor

    such

    requests;

    and

    d.RequiringDefendantstotrainandsuperviseallstaffwithrespecttothe

    non-enforcement

    of

    Immigration

    Detainers'

    68.Theconstitutionalviolationsallegedhereinarisefromofficialpoliciesand

    pfacticessanctionedbyDefendants.TheharmswhichthePlaintiffsandthemembersofthe

    l5

  • 5/19/2018 Lawsuit against San Juan County Commission, sheriff

    16/18

    class have

    sustained

    are

    directly

    traceable

    to these

    officially

    sanctioned

    policies

    and

    procedures.

    69.

    Plaintiffs

    and members of the class do not

    have a

    plain,

    adequate, speedy,

    or

    complete

    remedy

    at law to

    address

    the wrongs

    alleged in this

    Complaint,

    and

    they

    will

    suffer

    irreparable injury

    as

    a

    result

    of

    Defendants' misconduct

    unless

    injunctive

    and

    declaratory

    relief

    is

    granted.

    Plaintiffs and members of the class

    are

    in realand immediate danger

    of sustaining

    future,

    direct

    injury as

    a

    result of Defendants'

    official

    policies

    and

    practices

    that are ongoing

    at

    the time

    of this

    suit.

    70.

    No cognizable burden will

    be

    placed

    on Defendants by requiring that no

    detentions

    be allowed

    pursuant

    to Immigration

    Detainers.

    The

    public

    interest

    would

    be

    greatly

    enhanced

    by enforcement

    of

    policies

    and

    praetices

    which

    adhere

    to the requirements

    of the state

    and federal Constitutions. Absent injunctive relief, there is no

    guarantee

    that the Defendants

    will cease their illegal

    policies

    and

    practices

    as

    alleged herein.

    71. By reason

    of the

    foregoing, Plaintiffs

    and members of the class are entitled

    to

    declaratory

    and injunctive reliefas set forth above.

    vIII.

    DAMAGES

    72.

    Paragraphs

    I through 70, above, are incorporated herein by reference

    as

    iffully

    set forth

    in this

    paragraph.

    73.

    As

    a

    direct

    and

    proximate result

    of the

    wrongful

    and

    unlawfulactions

    of

    Defendants,

    described

    above, Gutierrez, Olivas, Palacios and the members

    of

    the

    class

    were

    injured and

    have

    suffered and continue

    to

    suffer damages, including

    but not

    limited

    to distress,

    anguish, suffering, humiliation,

    costs,

    fees, loss

    of

    liberty,

    deprivation

    of

    constitutional

    rights,

    l6

  • 5/19/2018 Lawsuit against San Juan County Commission, sheriff

    17/18

    and

    other incidental,

    consequential,

    and

    special

    damages.

    74.

    The

    above-described

    acts

    and omissions

    of

    Christensen were

    motivated

    by evil

    motive and intent,

    and

    involved

    recklessness

    and

    callous indifference

    to Gutierrez',

    Olivas',

    Palacios'

    and

    class

    members'

    federally

    protected

    rights,

    justifuing

    an award of

    punitive

    damages

    against

    Christensen

    in his individual

    capacity,

    for

    the

    purpose

    of

    punishment

    and

    to deter

    others

    from the commission

    of

    like

    offenses.

    WHEREFORE,

    Plaintiffs,

    on behalf

    of

    themselves,

    and on behalf

    of the

    members

    of the

    class represented

    herein, respectfully pray

    for

    and demand

    judgment

    against

    the Defendants

    as

    follows:

    (a)

    For

    judgment

    against Defendants

    for

    compensatory damages,

    special

    damages,

    consequential

    damages

    and

    incidental

    damages

    under

    any or

    all of the

    causes

    of action,

    in an

    amount to

    be determined

    at the

    trial

    of this

    cause;

    (b)

    For

    judgment

    declaring

    the rights

    of the

    parties,

    as set forth

    herein;

    (c)

    For

    injunctive

    relief, as

    set

    forth herein;

    (d)

    For

    reasonable

    attomeys'

    fees

    and costs incurred

    herein;

    (e)

    For

    pre-judgment

    and

    post-judgment

    interest

    in

    amounts

    to

    be determined

    according

    to

    law;

    (0

    For

    an award

    of

    punitive

    and exemplary

    damages

    against Defendant

    Christensen

    in his

    individual capacity,

    in an

    amount

    to be

    determined

    at the trial

    of this

    cause;

    and

    (g)

    For

    such

    other

    and

    furlher

    relief

    as

    the Court

    deems

    just

    and

    proper.

    t7

  • 5/19/2018 Lawsuit against San Juan County Commission, sheriff

    18/18

    Respectfu

    Ily

    submitted,

    ROTHSTEIN, DONATELLI, HUGIIES,

    DAHLSTROM,

    SCHOENBIJRG

    &

    BIEIWENU,

    LLP

    /s/ John C. Bienvenu

    John C. Bienvenu

    Mark H. Donatelli

    Kristina

    Martinez

    Brendan

    K.

    Egan

    Post

    Office Box

    8180

    Santa

    Fe,

    New Mexico

    87504-8180

    (505)

    e88-8004

    (505)

    982-0307

    (fax)

    Attorneys

    for

    Plaintffi and the Class

    l8