Skip to content

Judicial Watch • Cerletti v Mirkarimi San Francisco ICE policy 549250

Cerletti v Mirkarimi San Francisco ICE policy 549250

Cerletti v Mirkarimi San Francisco ICE policy 549250

Page 1: Cerletti v Mirkarimi San Francisco ICE policy 549250

Category:

Number of Pages:11

Date Created:December 5, 2015

Date Uploaded to the Library:December 07, 2015

Tags:Mirkarimi, 5492501, Cerletti, contract, San, directive, taxpayer, sheet, Relief, rules, Judgment, FRANCISCO, Civil, complaint, policy, California, Property, defendant, plaintiff, COUNTY, Supreme Court, court, ICE


File Scanned for Malware

Donate now to keep these documents public!


See Generated Text   ∨

Autogenerated text from PDF

111111111111111111111111111111
SUPERIOR COURT CALIFORNIA
COUNTY SAN FRANCISCO
Document Scanning Lead Sheet
Dec-04-2015 10:57
Case Number: CGC-15-549250
Filing Date: Dec-04-2015 10:45
Filed by: ARLENE RAMOS
Juke Box: 001
Image: 05182602
COMPLAINT
CYNTHIA CERLETTI VS; ROSS MIRKARIMI
001C05182602
Instructions:
Please place this sheet top the document scanned.
SUM-100
SUMMONS
FORCOURrUSEONt.Y
fSOLOPARAUSOOI! UCORR)
(CITACION JUDICIAL)
NOTICE DEFENDANT:
(AVISO DEMANDADO):
ROSS MIRKARIMI, his Official Capacity Sheriff the City and
County San Francisco.
YOU ARE BEING SUED PLAINTIFF:
(LO ESTA DEMANDANDO DEMANDANTE):
CYNTHIA CERLEITI
NOTICE! You have been sued. The court may decltfe against you without your being heard unleaa you respond within days. Read the lnrormauon
below.
You have CALENDAR DAYS after lhla summons and legal papers are served you file written response lhls court and have copy
served the plalnUff. lalter phone call wDI not protect you. Your written response must proper legal form you want lhe court hear your
case. lhere may court form lhat you can use for your response. You can find these court forms and more lnformaUon the CDfomla Courts
OnDne Self-Help Center (www.coutfinfo.ca.govtsel/he~). your c:ounty law llbrary, the courthouse nearest you. you caMot pay the ftllng fee, ask
Iha court clerk for fee waiver form. you not file your response time, you may lose lhe case defaull, and your wages, money, and propeflY
may taken wllhout fllrlher wamtng from the court.
There are other legal raqultements. You may want call attorney rfghl away. you not know attorney, you may want call attorney
referral seNlce. you cannot afford attorney, you may ellglble for free legal seNlces from nonprofit legal services program, You can locale
lhese nonprofit groups the California Legal Servlcaa Web site (wwwJawhe.,califomfe.otp), the Cslifomla Courts Onllne Self.Help Center
(www.couttlnfo.ca.govltellh~). c:ontaclln11 your local court county bar assoclaUon. NOTE: The court has statutory Hen for waived fees and
costs any aelllement arbitration award $10,000 more civil caS. lhe courta llan must paid before the court wDI dismiss Iha case.
IAVISOI hsn demsndado. responde dent10 dtas. corte puede decldiren contra sin escuchar velSi6n. t.ea lntonnad6n
conUnuad6n.
Tlane DIAS CALENDARIO despufls que entteguen ests c:itaddn ypapeles legates para presentar uns mspuesta por esedtO esta
corte ybec:erque enttegue una cop/e demandante. Una calta una namatta telefOnlca protegen. respuesta por esatro Ilene que ester fonnelo legal i:onecto dean que procesen caso corte. poalble que bsya fonnulario que ustad pueda ussrpam teSpUeste.
Puede encontrsrestos fonnutelfos corte mds lnfonnad6n CenllO Ayuds las Cortes Cllfomls (Www.sucorte.ca.govJ.
blblloteca !eyes condado COlfe que quede mlscan:a. pueds pager cuote presentadOn, plda secretsdo colfe
que fonnUlstlo exenddn pago cuotes. presents respuesta llempo, puede perder caao porlncumpllmlento corte
podrd qultar sueldo, din810 blenea Bin mis edlfertem:le.
Hayollos teq11lsltos legales. recomendable llame abogodo lnmedlalamenta. c:onoce abogado, puede Hamer servido
rsmls/6n abogedos. puedtl pagsr sbogedo, pOSlble qua cumpla con tos requlsltos para obtaner S8tVldos legates gratultos
programtJ setVlt:loa legeles Bin fine dtJ lucto. Pueda enconttarestos grupos sin lines lucro sllio web Calilomla Legal SelVIC8s.
(Www.lawhelpcafffom!a.org}, CenllO Ayuda /as Codes Califomla. (Www.sucorla.ca.11ovJ ponldndose contacto con COrla
r:oteglo abogados locales. AVISO: Parlay. cotfe Ilene detecho (fJdamarlas cuotas los costos exontos porlmponerun gmvamen .soblf1
cualqulerl8CU[J8rlJC/dn $10,000 mis valor lf1Clblda medfantt1 scuerrlo una concesl6n 81b/tra/e caso derecho cMI. Tlane que
pagaret gravamen cotte antes que c:orte pueda desechar csso.
The name and addres!J the court Is:
(El nombre dfrecci6n carte es}:
SAN FRANCISCO SUPERIOR
400 McCalister Street
San Francisco, 94102
The name, address, and telephone number plaintiffs attorney, plaintiff without attomey, ls:
(El nombre, dlrecci6n nt}mero tet6fono def abogsdo dst demandsnte, det demandante que Uene abogado, es):
Robert Patrick Sticht, Box 49457 Los Angeles 90049 (310) 889-1950
DATE:
(Fecha)
DEC
,Deputy
Clerk; 2015
CLERK THE COUBJecretalio)
(Adjunto)
{For proof selVfce this summons, use Proof Service Summons (fonn POS-010).J
{Pt1ra prueba
flega .este cltal/6n use fonnutario Proor Service summons, (POS-010)).
NOTICE THE PERSON SERVED: You are served Individual defendant. the person sued under the fictitious name (specify): behalf (specify):
under:
CCP416.10(corporatlon)
CCP416.20(defunctcorporaUon) CCP 416.40 (assoelaUOn partnership) other (specify): personal delivery (dale):
SUMMONS
CCP 416.60 {minor)
CCP 416.70 (conservatee)
CCP 416.90 (authorized per0n)
Paot1of1
~~miuvils~ Tnrsr ....,.
LAW OFFICES ROBERT PATRICK.STICHT
P.O. BOX 49457
LOS ANGELES 90049
Superior Court California ounty San Francisco
310-889-1950
FAXNO.: 310-889-1864
Plaintiff CYNTHIA CERLETTI
SUPERIOR COURT CALIFORNIA, COUNIYOF SAN FRANCISCO
STREET AODRESS: 400 McCalister Street Room 103
TEIEPHCNENO.:
AnORNEYFOR tNamel:
llAltlNO ADDRESS
atYANOZIPCODE:
BRANCH NAMe:
DEC 2015
CLER
San Francisco 94102
Civic Center Courthouse
~--.;~~~~~~L-
CASE NAME: thia Cerletti Ross Mirkarimi, his Official aci Sheriff
CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET
Complex Case DnlgnaUon
Umlted
Counter
Jolnd~r
(Amount
demanded
Flied with first appearance defendant
$25,000 leas)
(Cal. Rules Court. rule 3.402)
Items 1-8 below must compfeted see lnstroctlons Check one box below for the case type that best descnbes this case:
Auto Tort
Contract
Provlslonally Complex Civil Litigation
Auto (22)
Breach contract/warranty (08) (CaL Rules Court. rules 3.40D-3.403)
Uninsured motorist (4B)
Rule 3.7.CO coUecllons (09)
Antitrust/Trade regulaUon (03)
Other PllPDIWD (Peraonal lnJury/Property
Other conecuons (09)
Construction defect (10)
Damage/Wrongful Death) Tort
Insurance coverage (18)
Mass tort (40)
IZJ
Unlimited
(Amount
demanded
exceeds $25,000)
Asbestos {04)
Produd DabUlly (24)
Medical malpractice (45) Other Pl/PDIWD (23)
Non-PUPDIWD (Other) Tort Business tort/unfair business practice (07) CMl rights (08) Defamation (13) Fraud (16) lnleDectual property (19) Profasslonal negDgence (25)
Other non-PllPDNVD tort (35)
!!!!J!loyment WrongftJI termlnaUon (36)
Otheremployment(15)
Olher conltad
Real Property
Eminent domarnnnverse
condemnaUon (14)
WrongM eviction (33)
Olher real property (26)
Unlawf11I Detainer
CommerdBI (31)
Rasldentlal (32)
Drugs (38)
Judicial Review Asset folfeltute (OS)
PeUUon Al: arbitration award {11) Writ mandate (02)
Securltlea DUgaUon (28)
Envltonmental/Toxlc tort (30)
Insurance coverage clalms arfs!ng from the
above Isled provlllonally compleX case
types (41)
Enforcement Judgment
Enforcement Judgment (20)
Mtscellaneous CIYll Complalnt
[l]
RIC0(27)
Other complaint (not specllied above) (42)
MlscePaneous Civil Petltlon
Partnership and corporate governance (21)
Other peUUon (not speclffed above) (43) This case not complex under rule 3.400 the Callfomla Rules Court. the case complex, mark the
factors requiring exceptional Judlcfal management
Large number separately represented parties
Large number witnesses Extensrve moUon practice raising difficult novel
Coordination with related actions pending one more courts
Issues that wHI time-consuming resolve other counties, states, countries, federal couit
SubstanUal amount documentary evidence
Substantial postjudgment judicial supervision
a.D Remedies sought (check that apply):
monetary b.[L} nonmonetary; declaratory Injunctive relief Number causes action (specify): One This case [lJ not class action suit. them any known related cases, file and serve noUce related case. (You may use form CM-015.J
Date:December3.201S
ROBERTPATRICKSTICHT OpunlUve
(tYPEORPRINfNAME)
IUi
EOFP.
ORATTORNEYFORPARTY)
NOT11;>E
Plaintiff must file this cover sheet with the first paper filed the action proceeding (except smaD dalms cases cases med
under the Probate Code, Family Code, Welfare and Institutions Code). (Cal Rules Court. rule 3.220.) Failure file may result sanctions.
File this cover sheet addition any cover sheet required local court rule. this case complex under rule 3.400 seq. the Callfomla Rules Court, you must serve copy this cover sheet all
other parties the action proceeding.
Unless this coUectlons case under rule 3.740 complex case, this cover sheet wlD used for statistical purposes onit-_,
:.:1:i:l:l~fCJ:J:
CM.oIOIRtv .Mf 1,2001J
CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET
Cal.Rllesc.f=-=~~~~l1
-c:mtnftlcaoov
INSTRUCTIONS HOW COMPLETE THE COVER SHEET
CM-010 Plaintiffs and Others Filing First Papers. you are filing first paper (for example. complaint) civil case, you must
complete and file, along with your first paper, the Civil Case Cover Sheet contained page This information will used compile
statistics about the types and numbers cases filed. You must complete items 1through6 the sheet. item you must check
one box for the case type that best describes the case. the case fits both general and more specific type case listed item
check the more specific one. the case has multiple causes action, check the box that best indicates the primary cause action. assist you completing the sheet, examples the cases that belong under each case type item are provided below. cover
sheet must filed only with your initial paper. Failure file cover sheet with the first paper filed civil case may subject party,
its counsel, both sanctions under rules 2.30 and 3.220 the California Rules Court. Parties Rule 3.740 Collections Cases. ucollections case under rule 3.740 defined action for recovery money
owed sum stated certain that not more than $25,000, exclusive interest and attorneys fees, arising from transaction
which property, services, money was acquired credit. collections case does not include action seeking the following: (1) tort
damages, (2) punitive damages, (3) recovery real property, (4) recovery personal property, (5) prejudgment writ
attachment. The identification case rule 3.740 collections case this form means that will exempt from the general
time-for-service requirements and case management rules, unless defendant files responsive pleading. rule 3.740 collections
case will subject the requirements for service and obtaining judgment rule 3.740. Parties Complex Cases. complex cases only, parties must also use the Civil Case Cover Sheet designate whether the
case complex. plaintiff believes the case complex under rule 3.400 the California Rules Court, this must indicated
completing the appropriate boxes items and plaintiff designates case complex, the cover sheet must served with the
complaint all parties the action. defendant may file and serve later than the time its first appearance joinder the
plaintiffs designation, counter-designation that the case not complex, or, the plaintiff has made designation, designation that
CASE TYPES AND EXAMPLES
the case complex.
Provisionally Complex Civil Litigation (Cal.
Auto Tort
Contract
Auto (22}-Personal Injury/Property
Breach Contract/Warranty (05)
Rules Court Rules 3.400-3.403)
Antitrust/Trade Regulation (03)
Damage/Wrongful Death
Breach Rental/lease
Construction Defect (10)
Uninsured Motorist (46) (if the
Contract (not unlawful detainer
Claims Involving Mass Tort (40)
case involves uninsured wrongful eviction)
Securities Litigation (28)
motorist claim subject
Contract/Warranty Breach-Seller
Envlronmentalfroxlc Tort (30)
arbitration, check this item
Plaintiff (not fraud negligence)
Insurance Coverage Claims
instead ofAuto)
Negligent Breach Contract/
(arising from provisionally complex
Other PUPD/WD (Personal Injury/
Warranty
case type listed above) (41)
Property Damage/Wrongful Death)
Other Breach Contract/Warranty
Enforcement Judgment
Tort
Collections (e.g., money owed, open
Enforcement Judgment (20)
Asbestos (04)
book accounts) {09)
Abstract Judgment (Out
Asbestos Property Damage
Collection Case-Seller Plaintiff
County)
Asbestos Personal Injury/
Other Promissory Note/Collections
Confession Judgment (nonWrongful Death
Case
Product Liability (not asbestos
Insurance Coverage (not provisionally
domestic relations)
Sister State Judgment
toxic/environmental) (24)
complex) (18)
Medical Malpractice (45)
Auto Subrogation
Administrative Agency Award
(not unpaid taxes)
Medical MalpracticeOther Coverage
Petition/Certification Entry
Physicians Surgeons
Other Contract {3n
Judgment Unpaid Taxes
Other Professional Health Care
Contractual Fraud
Other Enforcement Judgment
Malpractice
Other Contract Dispute
Case
Other Pl/PD/WO (23)
Real Property
Miscellaneous Civil Complaint
Premises Liability (e.g., slip
Eminent Domain/Inverse
RIC0(2n
and falQ
Condemnation {14)
Other Complaint (not specified
Intentional Bodily lnjur)r/PD/WD
Wrongful Eviction (33)
above)(42)
(e.g., assault, vandalism)
Other Real Property {e.g., quiet tiUe) (26)
Declaratory Relief Only
Intentional Infliction
Writ Possession Real Property
Injunctive Relief Only (nonEmotional Distress
Mortgage Foreclosure
harassment)
Negligent Infliction
Quiet Title
Mechanics Lien
Emotional Distress
Other Real Property (not eminent
Other Commercial Complaint
Other PUPO/WO
domain, landlordlrenant.
Case (non-tort/non-complex)
Non-Pl/PD/WO (Other) Tort
foreclosure)
Other Civil Complaint
Business Tort/Unfair Business
Unlawful Detainer
(non-torVnon-comp/ex)
Practice (07)
Commercial (31}
Mlscellaneous Civil Petition
Civil Rights (e.g., discrimination,
Residential (32)
Partnership and Corporate
false arrest) (not civil
Drugs (38) (if the case involves illegal
Governance (21)
harassment) (OB)
drugs, check this item; otherwise,
Other Petition (not specified
Defamation (e.g., slander, libel)
report Commercial Residential)
above) (43)
(13)
Judicial Review
Civil Harassment
Fraud (16)
Asset Forfeiture (05)
Workplace Violence
Intellectual Property {19)
Petition Re: Arbitration Award (11)
Elder/Dependent Adult
Professional Negligence (25)
Writ Mandate (02)
Abuse
Legal Malpractice
Writ-Administrative Mandamus
Election Contest
Other Professional Malpractice
Writ-Mandamus Limited Court
Petition for Name Change
(not medical legal)
Case Matter
Petition for Relief From Late
Other Non-Pl/PDIWD Tort (35)
Writ-other Limited Court Case
Claim
Employment
Review
Other Civil Petition
Wrongful Termination (36)
Other Judicial Review (39)
Other Employment (15)
Review Health Officer Order
Notice Appeal-Labor
Commissioner Appeals
CM-010 (Rev. July 2007}
CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET
ROBERT PATRICK STICHT (SBN 138586)
Law Offices Robert Patrick Sticht
P.O. Box 49457
Los Angeles, 90049
Telephone:
(310) 889-1950
Facsimile:
(310) 889-1864
Email:
LORPS@verizon.net
Sterling Norris (SBN 040993)
JUDICIAL WATCH, INC.
2540 Huntington Drive, Suite 201
San Marino, 91108
Telephone:
(626) 287-4540
Facsimile:
(626) 237-2003
Email:
jw-West@judicialwatch.org
Attorneys for Plaintiff
SUPERIOR COURT THE STATE CALIFORNIA
COUNTY SAN FRANCISCO
CYNTHIA CERLETTI,
Case No.:
Plaintiff,
ROSS MIRKARIMI, his Official Capicity Sheriff the City and County San
Francisco.
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY
AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
Defendant.
INTRODUCTION
Plaintiff CYNTHIA CERLETTI, taxpayer and resident the City and County
San Francisco, California seeks enjoin Defendant ROSS MIRKARIMI, his/her official
capacity Sheriff the City and County San Francisco, from expending causing the
expenditure taxpayer funds and taxpayer-financed resources implement, enforce, defend,
otherwise carry out March 13, 2015 policy directive prohibiting San Francisco Sheriffs
Department (SFSD) personnel from providing information U.S. Immigration and Customs
Enforcement (ICE) about the citizenship immigration status ofinmates the SFSDs
custody.
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
Jurisdiction this case founded Californias common law taxpayer standing
doctrine and Code Civil Procedure 526a, which grant California taxpayers the right sue
government officials prevent unlawful expenditures taxpayer funds and taxpayer-fmanced
resources. Connerly Schwarzenegger, 146 Cal. App. 4th 739, 748-749, 751, (2007);
Connerly State Personnel Bd., Cal. App. 4th 16, 29-31 (2001 Green Obledo, Cal.
126, 145 (1981); Los Altos Property Owners Assn. Hutcheon, Cal. App. 22, (1977);
Blair Pitchess, Cal.3d 258, 268 (1971), Ahlgren Carr, 209 Cal. App. 248, 252 (1962);
Silver Los Angeles, Cal. 39, 40-41 (1961). Blair, the Supreme Court California
noted that the mere expending [of] the time paid public officials performing illegal and
unauthorized acts constitute[s] unlawful use funds which could enjoined under section
526a. Cal.3d 268. The Court also declared that immaterial that the amount the
illegal expenditure small that the illegal procedure actually permits saving tax funds.
Id.
Venue this Court appropriate under Section 393 the Code Civil
Procedure Defendant official the City and Co~ty San Francisco and the taxpayer
funds issue are being expended the City and County San Francisco. Regents the
University ofCalifornia Karst, Cal. 529, 542 (1970) ([F]or the purposes venue, the
action arises the county where the agency spends the tax money that causes the alleged
injury.).
PARTIES
Plaintiff CYNTHIA CERLETTI citizen the State California and has paid
property and other local taxes the City and County San Francisco during the one-year period
prior the commencement this action.
Defendant ROSS MIRKARIMI the Sheriff the City and County San
Francisco, California, public officer and the head the SFSD. Sheriff the City and
County San Francisco, Defendant charged law with keeping the County jail and receiving
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
all prisoners committed jail competent authorities. S.F. Cal. Charter, 6.105. being
sued his official capacity only.
STATEMENT FACTS
The SFSD receives millions dollars taxpayer support annually order
fund its operations. Fiscal Year 2014-15, the SFSD was appropriated approximately $190
million from the City and County San Franciscos general fund finance its operations.
Fiscal Year 2015-16, the SFSD was appropriated nearly $200 million from the City and County San Franciscos general fund finance its operations. The City and County San
Franciscos adopted budget for Fiscal Year 2016-17 appropriates nearly $208 million the SFSD
from the general fund finance the SFSDs operations. The primary source funds for the City
and County San Franciscos general fund are property taxes and other local taxes such those
paid Plaintiff. March 13, 2015, Defendant issued policy directive All Personnel the
SFSD way inter-office correspondence, Reference No. 2015-036, entitled Immigration Customs Enforcement Procedures (ICE) Contact and Communications. According the
directive, SFSD policy that there shall limited contact and communication with ICE
representatives absent court issued warrant, signed court order, other legal requirement
authorizing ICE access. The directive continues:
SFSD staffshall not provide the following information access ICE
representatives:
citizenship/immigration status ofany inmate.
{emphasis added). information and belief, Defendant expended caused the expenditure
taxpayer funds and taxpayer-financed resources prepare and issue the March 13, 2015
directive, communicate the directive all SFSD personnel, and train SFSD personnel the
directives requirements. further information and belief, Defendant will likely expend
cause the expenditure additional taxpayer funds and taxpayer-financed resources
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
communicate the directive SFSD personnel, train SFSD personnel the directives
requirements, and implement, enforce, and otherwise carry out the directive.
Federal law expressly prohibits state local government officials from limiting
communication with ICE about persons citizenship immigration status. Specifically, Title
Section states, pertinent part:
(a) general
Notwithstanding any other provision Federal, State, local law, Federal,
State, local government entity official may not prohibit, any way
restrict, any government entity official from sending to, receiving from, the
Immigration and Naturalization Service information regarding the citizenship
immigration status, lawful unlawful, any individual.
Additional authority government entities
(b)
Notwithstanding any other provision Federal, State, local law, person
agency may prohibit, any way restrict, Federal, State, local government
entity from doing any the following with respect information regarding the
immigration status, lawful unlawful, any individual:
(1)
Sending such information to, requesting receiving such
information from, the Immigration and Naturalization
Service.
(2)
Maintaining such information.
(3)
Exchanging such information with any other Federal, State, local government entity. U.S.C. 1373(a) and (b). Similarly, Title Section 1644 states:
Notwithstanding any other provision Federal, State, local law, State
local government entity may prohibited, any way restricted, from sending receiving from the Immigration and Naturalization Service information
regarding the immigration status, lawful unlawful, alien the United
States. U.S.C. 1644. Immigration and Naturalization Service now known Immigration and
Customs Enforcement ICE.
10.
Defendants issuance the March 13, 2015 directive has generated opposition
within the government the City and County San Francisco, the SFSD, and the taxpayers and
residents the City and County San Francisco.
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF July 14, 2015, San Francisco Mayor Lee sent letter Defendant calling
11. Defendant rescind the directive: urge you rescind this policy immediately, the
interest public safety. Similarly, San Francisco Supervisor Mark Farrell challenged the
directive violating both city law and federal law removing the discretion provided law
enforcement officials when communicating with federal officials.
12. information and belief, Defendant expended caused the expenditure
additional taxpayer funds and taxpayer-financed resources defending the March 13, 2015
directive response these challenges, including sending lengthy response Mayor Lee,
issuing press release, and requesting hearing before the City and County San Francisco
Board Supervisors resolve the conflicts, provide clarity, and produce workable and fair
ordinance.
13. addition, about July 13, 2015, the San Francisco Deputy Sheriffs
Association (SFDSA), which represents the employment and professional interests
approximately 750 San Francisco Sheriffs Deputies, filed formal grievance over the directive:
Given that the Department unilaterally implemented these changes without
discussing the matter during its monthly labor-management meetings with the
Association, much less satisfied its meet and confer obligations with the SFDSA
... the Association hereby demands that the Department immediately rescind the
directives and comply with its statutory and contractual obligations meet and
confer good faith before seeking implement any changes longstanding
Department policies and procedures designed safeguard law abiding citizens.
14. information and belief, Defendant expended caused the expenditure yet
met more taxpayer funds and taxpayer-financed resources responding the SFDSAs grievance,
which, further information and belief, has not been resolved. Accordingly, Defendant will
likely expend cause the expenditure yet more taxpayer-funded time and resources
responding and resolving the grievance.
FIRST CAUSE ACTION
15.
Plaintiff incorporates paragraphs reference fully set forth herein
and further alleges follows:
16. actual and justiciable controversy has arisen and now exists between Plaintiff
and Defendant. Plaintiff contends that Defendants March 13, 2015 directive violates U.S.C.
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
1373and/or1644 prohibiting SFSD staff from providing information access ICE
representatives about the citizenship immigration status any inmate. infonnation and
belief, Defendant contends that the directive does not violate U.S.C. 1373 and/or 1644.
Plaintiff has been irreparably harmed and will continue irreparably harmed
17. Defendants expenditures taxpayer funds and taxpayer-financed resources the illegal
directive. infonnation and belief, these expenditures will continue unless the directive
declared unlawful.
18. judicial declaration pursuant California Code Civil Procedure 1060
necessary and appropriate that the parties may ascertain their respective legal rights and duties
with respect expenditures taxpayer funds and taxpayer-financed resources Defendants
illegal March 13, 2015 directive.
19.
Plaintiff also has adequate remedy law.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for the following relief against Defendant:
First Cause Action judgment declaring that Defendants March 13, 2015 directive violates U.S.C.
1373 and 1644 and illegal; injunction pennanently prohibiting Defendant from expending causing the
expenditure taxpayer funds taxpayer-financed resources implement, enforce, maintain,
defend, otherwise carry out the provisions the March 13, 2015 directive;
Costs suit herein;
Reasonable attorneys fees under the Private Attorney General Statute, Code
Civil Procedure 1021.5, the Common Fund Doctrine, and the Substantial Benefit Doctrine; and
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
Such other relief the Court deems just and proper.
Dated: December~, 2015
ROBERT PATRICK STICHT (SBN 138586)
Law Offices Robert Patrick Sticht
P.O. Box 49457
Los Angeles, 90049
Telephone: (310) 889-1950
Facsimile: (310) 889-1864
Email: LORPS@verizon.net
Sterling Norris (SBN 040993)
JUDICIAL WATCH, INC.
2540 Huntington Drive, Suite 201
San Marino, 91108
Telephone: (626) 287-4540
Facsimile: (626) 237-2003
Email: jw-West@judicialwatch.org
Attorneys for Plaintiff
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF