Autogenerated text from PDF

11111111111111111
SUPERIOR COURT CALIFORNIA
COUNTY SAN FRANCISCO
Document Scanning Lead Sheet
Dec-27-2016 1:58
Case Number: CGC-16-556164
Filing Date: Dec-27-2016 1:54
Filed by: KALENE APOLONIO
Image: 05684124
COMPLAINT
CYNTHIA CERLETTI VS. VICKI HENNESSY
001 C05684124
Instructions:
Please place this sheet top the document scanned.
SUMMONS
(CITACION JUDICIAL)
NOTICE DEFENDANT:
(AVISO AL. DBfAIIDADO):
VICKI HENNESSY her Official Capacity Sheritf the City and
County San Francisco
YOU ARE BEING SUED PLAINTIFF:
(LO ESTA Dl!IIANDANDO DEWIANDANTli):
CYNTHIA CBRLETTI
The name and adcha the court Is:
(Elnomln ydllacddn cotte
es,: SAN FRANCISCO SUPERIOR
400 McCalister Street
San Francisco 94102
AiPi, :1:,
The name. addreA, and telephone number plalntlfla attorney, plalnliffwlthout attomey, Is:
(El namln, dl8ccldn ye/ nOmelD telMono del abogado de/ dtmandante, ode/ d8mandente que Ilene abogado, n):
Robert Patrick Sticht, P.0. Box 49457 Los Angeles 90049 (310) 889-19SO
DEC 2016
CLERK THE COUR~J
~ll-o
,:,
(Forp,oo/otieii, ollbii -.mon,. use Proof cir service siimmcmi (ionn POs-o10).j -ftW.6vjp
(Pam pn,eba en1n1ga esta cltall6n ,,. fonnul8do Proof Service summons. (POS-010)).
NOTICE THE PERSON SERVED: You 818 served lncllvkhaf delandanL the person sued under lhe flclllloul name (spedfy): behalf (apeclfy):
under:
CCP 418.10 (corpordon)
CCP 418.20 (defunct corporallon)
CCP 418.40 (asaoc:latlon parlnerahlp)
other (specif/): penana1 c1e11very (dateJ: oNS
CCP 418.80 (mlnoi)
CCP 418.70 (c:omervalee)
CCP 418.80 (aUlhorized person)
ROBERT PATRICK STICHT (SBN 138586)
Law Offices Robert Patrick Sticht
P.0. Box 49457
Los Angeles, 90049
Telephone:
(310) 889-1950
Facsimile:
(310) 889-1864
Email:
LORPS@verizon.net
Sterling Norris (SBN 040993)
JUDICIAL WATCH, INC. su!lor _krt ~P:renclleo
lomlP
Col.lltY OIi sen
Lit.C 2016
St.:LE:t:n;~::
2540 Huntington Drive, Suite 201
San Marino, 91108
Telephone:
(626) 287-4540
Facsimile:
(626) 237-2003
Email:
jw-West@judicialwatch.org
SUPERIOR COURT THE STATE CALIFORNIA
COUNTY SAN FRANCISCO
Case No.:CGC-16 5616
CYNTHIA CERLBITI,
Plaintiff,
VICKI HENNESSY, her Official Capacity Sheriff the City and County San
Francisco.
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY
AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
Defendant.
INTRODUCTION
Plaintiff CYNTHIA CERLETII, taxpayer and resident the City and County
San Francisco, California (CCSF) seeks enjoin Defendant VICKI ~BSSY, her
:CJ
Attorneys for Plaintiff
official capacity Sheriff the CCSF, and the San Francisco Sheriffs Department (SFSD)
from expending causing the expenditure taxpayer funds and taxpayer-financed resources
policies and/or practices that prohibit restrict SFSD personnel from sharing exchanging
immigration-related information with federal immigration law enforcement officials, including
information about the citizenship immigration status individuals the SFSDs custody and
information about the release individuals from 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 expenditmes taxpayer funds and taxpayer-financed
resources. Connerly Schwarzenegger, 146 Cal. App. 4th 739, 748-749, 751, (2007);
Connerly State Personnel Bd., Cal. App. 4th 16, 29-31 (2001); Torres City Yorba
Linda, Cal. App. 4th 1035, 1047 (1993); Green Obledo, Cal. 126, 145 (1981); Los
Altos Property Owners Assn. Hutcheon, Cal. App. 22, 27-30 (1977); Blair Pitchess,
Cal. 258,268 (1971); Irwin City ofManhattan Beach, Cal. 13, 18-20 (1966); Ahlgren Carr, 209 Cal. App. 248, 252-253 (1962); Gogerty Coachella Valley Junior College
Dist., Cal. 727, 730 (1962). Blair, the Supreme Court California noted that the mere
expending [of] the time the paid [public officials] performing illegal and unauthorized acts
constitute[s] unlawful use funds which could enjoined under section 526a.... Blair,
Cal.3d 268 (citation omitted). The Court also declared, immaterial that the amount the
illegal expenditures small that the illegal procedures actually permit saving tax funds.
Id. (citation omitted).
Venue this Court appropriate under Section 393 the Code Civil
Procedure Defendant official the CCSF and the taxpayer funds issue are being
expended the CCSF. Regents ofthe University ofCa/ifomia 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 CERLEm citizen and taxpayer, and has paid property
and other local taxes the CCSF during the one-year period prior the commencement this
action.
Defendant VICKI HENNESSY the Sheriff the CCSF, public officer and the
head the SFSD. Sheriff the CCSF, Defendant charged law with keeping the County
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE REUEF
jail and receiving all prisoners committed jail ~ompetent authorities. S.F. Cal. Charter,
6.1 OS. Defendant being sued her official capacity only.
STATEMENT FACTS
The Government the United States has broad, undoubted power over the
subject immigration and the status aliens. Arizona United States, 132 Ct. 2492, 2498
(2012). This authority rests, part, the National Governments constitutional power
establish uniform Rule ofNaturalization, and its inherent power sovereign control
and conduct relations with foreign nations. Id. (internal citations omitted). Federal governance immigration and alien status extensive and complex. Id. 2499. enacting the following statute:
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. August 1996, Congress exercised its broad, undoubted power over immigration
u.s.c. 1644.
The term alien defined Title Section 101(a)(3) the U.S. Code and means
any person not citizen national the United States. Immigration and Naturalization
Service now known Immigration and Customs Enforcement ICE. September 1996, Congress again exercised its broad, undoubted power over
immigration enacting the following statute:
(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.
(b)
Additional authority government entities.
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
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 infonnation regarding the
immigration status, lawful unlawful, any individual:
{l)
(2)
(3)
Sending such information to, requesting receiving such
infonnation from, the Immigration and Naturalization Service.
Maintaining such information.
Exchanging such information with any other Federal, State,
Local government entity.
Obligation respond inquiries.
{c)
The Immigration and Naturalization Service shall respond inquiry
Federal, State, local government agency, seeking verify ascertain the
citizenship immigration status any individual within the jurisdiction the
agency for any purpose authorized law, providing the requested verification status information. u.s.c. 1373.
Section 1373 prohibits State and local government entities and officials from
taking action prohibit, any way restrict, the maintenance intergovernmental
exchange immigration status information, including through written unwritten policies
practices.
10.
The two statutes individually and collectively demonstrate that Congress has long
sought encourage full and open communication between state and local agencies and federal
immigration law enforcement officials and remove obstacles such communication aid
the enforcement federal immigration laws.
The legislative history Section 1373 confirms that the statute was intended
11. give State and local officials the authority communicate with the INS
regarding the presence, whereabouts, and activities illegal aliens. This section designed prevent any State local law, ordinance, executive order, policy,
constitutional provision, decision any Federal State court that prohibits any way restricts any communication between State and local officials and the
INS.
U.S. House Representatives Report, Immigration the National Interest Act 1995, (H.R.
2202), 1996, Rept 104-469, 277, https://www.congress.gov/l04/crpt/hrpt469/CRPT- 04hrpt469-ptl .pdf (accessed August 2016).
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
12.
The Senate Report accompanying Section 1373 also confirms this clear
congressional objective:
Effective immigration law enforcement requires cooperative effort between all
levels government. The acquisition, maintenance, and exchange
immigration-related information State and local agencies consistent with, and
potentially considerable assistance to, the Federal regulation immigration and
the achieving the purposes and objectives the Immigration and Nationality
Act.
Senate Report, Immigration Control and Financial Responsibility Act 1996, (S. 1664), 1996,
Rept. 104-249, 19, available https://www.congress.gov/104/crpt/srpt249/CRPT- 04srpt249 .pdf (accessed August 16, 2016).
13.
The Conference Report accompanying Section 1644 identical the House
Report accompanying Section 1373. See Conference Report, Personal Responsibility and Work
Opportunity Reconciliation Act 1996, (H.R. 3734), 383,
https://www.congress.gov/I 04/crpt/hrpt725/CRPT-104hrpt725.pdf.
14.
Other statutes reflect this same congressional objective. Title Section 1357
the U.S. Code, for example, authorizes the U.S. Attorney General enter into written agreements
with state local governments assist the enforcement federal immigration laws, but also
makes clear that such agreement required for the cooperation desired Congress:
Nothing this subsection shall construed require agreement under this
subsection order for any officer employee State political subdivision
ofa State-
(A) communicate with the Attorney General regarding the immigration
status any individual, including reporting knowledge that particular alien
not lawfully present the United States;
(B)
otherwise cooperate with the Attorney General the identification,
apprehension, detention, removal aliens not lawfully present the United
States. u.s.c. 1357(g)(I0).
15.
Another provision this same statute demonstrates Congress particular interest promoting information sharing between state and local law enforcement agencies and federal
immigration law enforcement officials about aliens arrested for controlled substance violations:
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
------------------------->v,
Detainer aliens for violation controlled substances laws. the case
alien who arrested Federal, State, local law enforcement official for
violation any law relating controlled substances, the official (or another
official)(
has reason believe that the alien may not have been lawfully admitted
the United States otherwise not lawfully present the United States,
(2)
expeditiously infonns appropriate officer employee the Service
authorized and designated the Attorney General the arrest and facts
concerning the status the alien, and
(3)
requests the Service determine promptly whether not issue
detainer detain the alien,
the officer employee the Service shall promptly determine whether not
issue such detainer. such detainer issued and the alien not otherwise
detained Federal, State, local officials, the Attorney General shall effectively
and expeditiously take custody the alien. u.s.c. 1357(d).
16.
[c]onsultation between federal and state officials important feature the immigration
system. Arizona United States,132 Ct. 2508. The Court also noted that Congress has
encouraged the sharing information about possible immigration violations. Id. (quoting
U.S.C. 1357(g)(IO)(A)). According the Court, examples such cooperation include
allow[ing] federal immigration officials gain access detainees held state facilities and
state officials responding requests for information about when alien will released from
their custody. Id. 2507 (internal citations omitted). its 2012 ruling Arizona, the U.S. Supreme Court confirmed that
II.
17.
The free exchange immigration-related information state and local agencies
remains federal priority, confirmed the current program and policies the federal
agencies responsible for immigration law enforcement the U.S. Department Homeland
Security (OHS) and its immigration components, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement
(ICE), U.S. Customs and Border Protection, and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services.
18. 2014, DHS changed its immigration enforcement program and policies
promote cooperation and information sharing state and local law enforcement officials
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
particularly regarding criminal aliens their custody. The change was prompted nwnber
enforcement obstacles including state and local law enforcement officials refusing cooperate
and communicate with ICE and issuing policies signing laws prohibiting such cooperation.
Specifically, November 20, 2014 memorandwn OHS Secretary Jeh Johnson directed ICE
discontinue its enforcement program known Secure Communities (also known
Comm) and replace with new program referred the Priority Enforcement Program PEP.11 Secretary Johnson further directed ICE take enforcement actions through the new
program only against criminal aliens the custody state and local law enforcement who have
been convicted particular, priority crimes, when alien poses danger national security. separate memorandum issued the same day entitled Policies for the Apprehension,
Detention and Removal ofUndocwnented Immigrants, Secretary Johnson set forth DHSs civil
immigration enforcement priorities.
19.
PEP targets criminal aliens the custody state and local law enforcement who
have been convicted the following priority offenses:
Priority 1(c), aliens convicted offense for which element was active
participation criminal street gang, defined U.S.C. 521(a);
Priority l(d), aliens convicted offense classified felony the convicting
jurisdiction, other than state local offense for which essential element was
the aliens immigration status;
Priority l(e), aliens convicted aggravated felony, defined section
10l(a)(43) the Immigration and Nationality Act U.S.C. 1101(a)(43);
Priority 2(a), aliens convicted three more misdemeanor offenses, other than
minor traffic offenses state local offenses for which essential element was
the aliens immigration status;
Priority 2(b), aliens convicted significant misdemeanor, defined
offense domestic violence; sexual abuse exploitation; burglary; unlawful
possession use firearm; drug distribution trafficking; driving under the
influence; another offense for which the individual was sentenced time
custody days more (and the sentence was not suspended sentence).
20.
Under PEP, two fonns may sent state and local law enforcement agencies.
Form I-247N (Request for Voluntary Notification Release Suspected Priority Alien)
requests state local law enforcement agency notify ICE pending release during the time
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
that priority alien custody under state local authority. The information enables ICE
take custody the alien, who poses danger public safety, before she released into the
community. Form 1-247D (Immigration Detainer- Request for Voluntary Action) requests
state local law enforcement agency voluntarily maintain custody alien for period hours beyond the time the alien otherwise would have been released. The continued
detention allows ICE additional time assume custody oftheindividual. ICE only issues
detainer when alien meets the criteria the list enforcement priorities and subject
final order removal there other probable cause that the alien removable.
III.
21.
The City and County San Francisco has declared City and County
Refuge. See S.F. Admin. Code ch. 12H.1. such, the CCSF has enacted number oflaws that
serve barriers obstacles federal civil immigration enforcement Indeed, the CCSF
imposes substantial restrictions sharing information with, and providing assistance to, federal
immigration law enforcement officials. Administrative Code Section 12H.2, entitled
Immigration Status, provides: department, agency, commission, officer, employee the City and County San Francisco shall use any City funds resources assist the enforcement Federal immigration law gather disseminate information regarding
release status individuals any other such personal information defined
Chapter 121 the City and County San Francisco unless such assistance
required Federal State statute, regulation, court decision.
S.F. Cal. Admin. Code 12H.2 (2016).
22.
(a)
Assisting cooperating, ones official capacity, with any investigation
conducted the Federal agency charged with enforcement the Federal
immigration law and relating alleged violations the civil provisions the
Federal immigration law, except permitted under Administrative Code Section
121.3.
This prohibition broadly written and expressly includes, but not limited to:
***
Requesting information about, disseminating information, ones
official capacity, regarding the release status any individual any other such
personal information defined Chapter 121, except permitted under
Administrative Code Section 121.3.
(c)
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
S.F. Cal. Admin. Code 12H.2(a) and (c).
23.
Personal information defined broadly and, addition individuals
release status, includes any confidential, identifying information about individual, including,
but not limited to, home work contact information, and family emergency contact
information. S.F. Cal. Admin. Code 12I.2. information and belief, citizenship and
immigration status constitutes identifying information about individual.
24. separate section oftbe Administration Code, entitled Restrictions Law
Enforcement Officials, prohibits officials from responding federal immigration officers
notification request. S.F. Cal. Admin. Code 12I.3(c). notification request defined non-mandatory request issued authorized federal immigration officer
local law enforcement official asking for notification the authorized
immigration officer individuals release from local custody prior the
release individual from local custody. Notification requests may also include
informal requests for release information the Federal agency charged with
enforcement oftbe Federal immigration law.
Id. 121.2.
25.
The only exception this prohibition notification request regarding alien
who has been convicted Violent Felony the past seven years, Serious Felony the
past five years, three separate, particular, serious violent felonies the past five years,
provided further that magistrate has also determined there currently probable cause believe
the alien guilty particular, serious violent felony and bas ordered the alien answer for
the offense. Id. 12I.3(d). Even the alien meets both these criteria, before responding
notification request, law enforcement officials also
shall consider evidence the individuals rehabilitation and evaluate whether the
individual poses public safety risk. Evidence rehabilitation other mitigating
factors consider includes, but not limited to, the individuals ties the
community, whether the individual has been victim any crime, the individuals
contribution the community, and the individuals participation social service rehabilitation programs.
Id.
26.
The section further limits the authority law enforcement officials
communicate with ICE:
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
Law enforcement officials shall not ... provide any individuals personal
infonnation federal immigration officer, the basis administrative
warrant, prior deportation order, other civil immigration document based solely alleged violations the civil provisions immigration laws.
S.F. Cal. Admin. Code 12I.3(e).
IV.
27.
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 CCSFs general fund finance its operations. Fiscal Year 2015-16, the
SFSD was appropriated nearly $200 million from the CCSFs general fund finance its
operations. The CCSFs 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 CCSFs general fund are property taxes and other local taxes such those paid Plaintiff.
28. March 13, 2015, then-SheriffRoss Mirkarimi issued directive All
Personnel the SFSD way ofan inter-office correspondence, Reference No. 2015-036,
entitled Immigration Customs Enforcement Procedures (ICE) Contact and Communications
(2015 Directive).
29.
According the 2015 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 2015 Directive expressly states
that SFSD staff shall not provide the following information access ICE representatives:
citizenship/immigration status any inmate;
access inmates jail;
access SFSD computers and/or databases;
SFSD logs;
booking and arrest documents;
release dates times;
home work contact information;
other non-public jail records information.
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
The 2015 Directive was, and is, part broader SFSD policy and practice restricting
nearly all, not all, information sharing with federal immigration law enforcement officials,
accordance with the Administrative Code provisions described above.
30. information and belief, taxpayer funds and taxpayer-financed resources were
expended prepare and issue the 2015 Directive, communicate the directive all SFSD
personnel, train SFSD personnel the directives requirements, and implement, enforce, and
otherwise carry out the directive.
31.
The issuance the 2015 Directive generated considerable opposition within the
government the CCSF, the SFSD, and the taxpayers and residents the CCSF, particularly
the aftermath the July 2015 shooting death Kathryn Steinle repeatedly-deported,
unlawfully present alien who had seven prior felony convictions and had recently been released
from SFSDs custody despite outstanding ICE request that detained. information and
belief, the SFSD expended additional taxpayer funds and taxpayer financed resources responding this opposition and defending the directive.
32.
SheriffMirkarimis term office expired January 2016, and Defendant
became Sheriff about that date. April 11, 2016, Defendant issued directive All
Personnel the SFSD way inter-office correspondence, Reference No. 2016-05
entitled Immigration and Custom Enforcement Procedure (ICE) Contact and Communication
(2016 Directive).
33.
The 2016 Directive states that revokes and replaces the 2015 Directive, but does
not state that SFSD personnel are free exchange information with ICE about persons
citizenship immigration status. Although the 2016 Directive lists several items information
that SFSD staff are authorized not authorized provide ICE, citizenship immigration
status not listed either category. Information SFSD staff are NOT authorized provide ICE
includes the following:
Access inmates jail
Access SFSD computers and/or data bases
SFSD logs
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
Booking and arrest documents
Release dates and times
Home work contact information
Faxed Form SFSD ICE Notification: rev. 3-2014
34.
The 2016 Directive also contains purported savings clause that states, This
memo does not limit staff from providing information required authorized state law,
including the reporting requirements for specific drug arrests pursuant California HS 11369,
and federal law. information and belief, California HS 11369 refers California Health
and Safety Code Section 11369, California law requiring that the appropriate agency the
United States having charge deportation matters notified whenever there reason
believe person arrested for certain offenses involving controlled substances may not
citizen. Also, information and belief, federal law does not refer Title United States
Code, Sections 1373 and 1644. Neither statute requires authorizes any information, including
citizenship immigration status, provided ICE; they only prohibit obstacles sharing such
information.
35.
The 2016 Directive also provides, All ICE notification requests for intended
release dates suspected undocumented immigrant inmates our custody are voluntary
nature, meaning the department whether notify pursuant request not.
further states that Defendant developing case case determination policy for voluntary
notification release. The directive then provides, All ICE Requests for Voluntary
Notification {DRS Form 1-2470 I-247N) will continue forwarded Administration
without action.
36. information and belief, the tenn notification request the 2016 Directive
intended have the same meaning that term defined Section 121.2 the Administrative
Code. Thus, the 2016 Directive restricts SFSD staff from communicating with ICE, formally
informally, the case all ICE notification requests, including requests about individuals
release from SFSDs custody.
37. addition, SFSD document dated April 18, 2016, entitled Comparison
Proposed Policies Regarding Response ICE Voluntary Notification Requests, explains that the
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
SFSD will only respond notification request the individual subject the request meets
specific criminal history threshold. the threshold met, the SFSD will consider evidence
mitigating factors before any release infonnation shared with ICE. addition, whether not
the ICE notification request honored, the individual will informed the notification
request and provided with information about social and legal services available for immigrants.
The Public Defenders Office will also informed the notification request.
38.
The April 18, 2016 document also states that Defendant personally reviewed
approximately ICE Voluntary Requests for Notification that were sent the San Francisco
Sheriffs Department over the course three months and found cases where review
criminal history triggered review Evidence Mitigating Factors. This demonstrates that
the 2016 Directives notification provision effective substantially restricting, not
prohibiting, SFSD staff from communicating with ICE. further demonstrates that SFSD
systematically acting way that conflicts with the policies priorities set the DHS
outlined above.
39.
The fact that the April 18, 2016 document identifies restrictions information
sharing not expressly contained the 2016 Directive demonstrates that Defendants policy and
practice broader than appears the face the directive. information and belief, the 2016
Directive was, and is, part broader SFSD policy and practice restricting nearly all, not
all, immigration-related information sharing with federal immigration law enforcement officials,
including information about citizenship immigration status and release information.
40. information and belief, Defendant expended taxpayer funds and taxpayer-
financed resources revoking and replacing the 2015 Directive. information and belief,
Defendant also expended additional taxpayer funds and taxpayer-financed resources preparing
and issuing the 2016 Directive, communicating the directive all SFSD personnel, training
SFSD personnel the directives requirements, and implementing, enforcing, and otherwise
canying out the directive. further information and belief, Defendant also expended taxpayer
funds and taxpayer-financed resources preparing and issuing the April 18, 2016 document,
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
distributing the document the San Francisco Board Supervisors, and coordinating with
members the Board Supervisors and others the document.
41.
The issuance the 2016 Directive caused confusion and generated opposition
from the immigrant rights advocacy community within the CCSF. about April 25, 2016,
for example, prominent immigrant rights advocacy group claimed that the 2016 Directive
allows SFSD personnel respond ICE notification requests circumstances beyond those
allowed the CCSF Administrative Code. information and belief, Defendant expended
additional taxpayer funds and taxpayer-financed resources defending and explaining the 2016
Directive and responding this and other challenges the directive.
FIRST CAUSE ACTION
(Express Preemption- U.S.C. 1373 and 1644)
42.
Plaintiff incorporates paragraphs reference fully set forth herein
and further alleges follows:
43. actual and justiciable controversy has arisen and now exists between Plaintiff
and Defendant. Plaintiff contends Defendants policies and practices substantially restricting,
not prohibiting, SFSD personnel from sharing information with federal immigration law
enforcement officials are expressly preempted U.S.C. 1373 and/or 1644 and, result,
are illegal. information and belief, Defendant contends that her policies and practices are not
expressly preempted U.S.C. 1373 and/or 1644 and are not illegal.
44.
Plaintiff has been irreparably banned and will continue irreparably harmed Defendants expenditures taxpayer funds and taxpayer-fmanced resources her illegal
policies and practices. infonnation and belief, these expenditures will continue unless the
policies and practices are declared unlawful.
45. 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 policies and practices.
46.
Plaintiff also has adequate remedy law.
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
SECOND CAUSE ACTION
(Implied Preemption Obstacle Purpose and Objectives Congress)
47.
Plaintiff incorporates paragraphs reference fully set forth herein
and further alleges follows:
48. actual and justiciable controversy has arisen and now exists between Plaintiff
and Defendant. Plaintiff contends that Defendants policies and practices substantially restricting, not prohibiting, SFSD personnel from sharing information with federal immigration law
enforcement officials are impliedly preempted because they stand obstacles the
accomplishment and execution the full pmposes and objectives Congress and, result,
are illegal. infonnation and belief, Defendant contends that her policies and practices are not
impliedly preempted and are not illegal.
49.
Plaintiff has been irreparably banned and will continue irreparably banned Defendants expenditures taxpayer funds and taxpayer-financed resources her illegal
policies and practices. information and belief, these expenditures will continue unless the
policies and practices are declared unlawful.
50. 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 policies and practices.
51.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for the following relief against Defendant:
Plaintiff also has adequate remedy law.
FIRST CAUSE ACTION judgment declaring that Defendants policies and practices sharing
infonnation with federal immigration law enforcement officials are expressly preempted
U.S.C. 1373 and 1644 and are illegal; injunction permanently prohibiting Defendant from expending causing the
expenditure taxpayer funds taxpayer-financed resources implement, enforce, maintain,
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
defend, otherwise carry out the policies and practices;
Costs suit herein;
Reasonable attomeys fees under the Private Attorney General Statute, Code
Civil Procedure 1021.S, the Common Fund Doctrine, and the Substantial Benefit Doctrine; and
Such other relief the Court deems just and proper.
SECOND CAUSE AClION judgment declaring that Defendants policies and practices sharing
information with federal immigration law enforcement officials are impliedly preempted and are
illegal; injunction permanently prohibiting Defendant from expending causing the
expenditure oftaxpayer funds taxpayer-financed resources implement, enforce, maintain,
defend, otherwise carry out the policies and practices;
Costs suit herein;
Reasonable attorneys fees under the Private Attorney General S1atute, Code
Civil Procedme 1021.S, the Common Fund Doctrine, and the Substantial Benefit Doctrine; and
Such other relief the Court deems just and proper.
Dated: December 23, 2016
ROBERT PATRICK STICHT (SBN 138S86)
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, California 91108
Telephone: (626) 287-4S40
Facsimile: (626) 237-2003
Email: jw-West@judicialwatcb.org
COMPLAINT llOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCIIVE RELIEF
~~(lfllfflr~----
lOlf cxutr,-QNLY su!~ lromiP
LA.WOfflCES ROBBR.T PATRICK STICHT
P.O. BOX4MS7
LOS ANGBLBS 90049
IELl!PHONINO.:
ATIORNIYFal
310-889-1950
FAXNO.: 310-889-1864
Plaintiff CYNTHIA CBRLBTT.1
ERIORCOURTOF CALIFORNIA.COUNTY
marADDAE11:
Count) San lranclaco
Utt;
SAN FRANCISCO
400 McCalister Street Room 103 2016
c~R OF~HE couRT
MAUOADORIR
!!co~CA!!:!!!~941!!02!2------------1
Civic Center
1-_cnv-..!!MD!!lliZIPIUCCIDll:!ll~S!:!lan!!!!F~rancu~!!! Courthouse
av:
,,111
..,
mll--oaputy C18fk
CAIENAM:
Cerletti Vicki
CML CASE COVER SHEET
IZJ
Un1m1tec1
(Amount her Official
Complex caae Designation
Umll8cl
(Amount
demanded
$25.000 leae)
d1111111ded
exceedl $25,000)
Counter Jo1nc1er
Flied with find appearance defendant
(Cal Ru111 Court. rule
JUDGE:
ltema 1-6 below must
188 Check one bCllx below for the case type that beat deacrlbea this case:
Pnw1a1ona1J Complex ClvR LltlgaUon
Contract
AutvTort
Auto C22>
Bntact1 otcontrlC:INMnantr (08)
Unlnlured mololllt (48)
Rule 3.740 collectfons (08)
Olher PUPDMD ....._... lnJmy/Property
Olhercallec:llona (09) Death) Tort
Insurance coverage (18)
A1be1t01 C04>
Olher c:on1rac:t (37)
Product lllbllilJ (24)
Real Propert,
Medical malpmdlce (45)
emtnent domalnllnver8e
OlherPIJPOMID (23)
condemnallon (14)
B!!!.-PflPDtWD (Other) Tort
Wrongful evlcllon (31) Bustnea tort/unfair business prac11ce (07)
Olhar 1881 praperly (28)
Civil rtghll (08)
Unlawful Detainer
ceramat1on c13>
eommen:1ar (31>
Fraud (18)
ResldenUal (32)
1111e11ea1ua1pnipe,tyc19>
Drup(38>
P8181onlf nagBgence (25)
Judk:lal Review
Other non-P11PDN11D tort (35)
AUet rorlellura (05) IINlnt
tongfu1 l8rmlnaUon (3)
Olher
Petition 19: arbllratlon .n1 (11)
Writ manc1e1e (DZ)
Olher Udlclal lllvlew
(Cat. Rula Court. ndea MGM.AU) Antltrult/Tnlde raau1a11on (03) Conllrudlon dafec:l (10) ,.... tort  Secur1Ues 1111aauon  env1ronmen1avrox1c tort (30) above listed pnw onally complei from lhe
Insurance oove:z dalma arfllng
case
types(41)
Enforcement Judgment
Enrorcament ot)udgment (20)
Complalnt
Mlecellaneoua Clvll
RIC0(27)
Other complaint (nol .,,acllled ebcM) (42)
Mlscellaneous Clvll Plllltlon
Partnerahlp anc1 CDll)Clrate governance (21>
Other petlllon (not apeo/lled abow) (43)
IZJ This caae not complex under rule 3.400 the Callfomla Rules Court. the case complex, mark the
factors requiring exceptional judldal management
Large number aeparately represanted par1iea
Larga number ofwltnesaes
Extensive mo6on pndce raising difficult novel
Coordination with related acUona pending one mol8 cour1s
iNues that wil time-coneuming raaolve other counties, 8latea, countries, fedentl court
Substantial amount documenlary evidence
Substantlll poatjudgmentjudicial supervision
a.D Remedies sought (chec/c a/I that apply):
monetary b.[ZJ nonmonelary: declaratory lnjunclive reBef Number cauaea action (specify}: Two This case not class aclfon suit. lfthent ara any known related caaea, flla and serve nollca related case. (You may use fonn CM-tJ1S.)
,.,
1ZJ
(i, ~Ja2nl~CICSDCHT DPunillve
;;..
~..c.r?c0v .L~~
Plalnlllf nut file thla eover lheet with the flrlt paper filed lhe action proceeding (except email claims caNt caaes ffled
under the Probate Code. Family Code, Nelfale and lnstiluliona Code). (Cal. Rules Court, rule 3.220.) FaBURt ffle may result l8lldlon8.
FDe 1h11 caver sheet addlUon any cover sheet raqulrad local court rule. 1h11 c:ase complex under rule 3.400 eeq. the Cellbnla RulN Court. you mull serve copy this cover lheet all
othar parlles the action proceeding.
Unless 1h18 colledlona CBN under rule 3.740 complex caae, this cover lheet WIii mad for 8tatlallcal purpoaea
CML CASE COYER SHEET
...
INSTRUCTIONS HOW COMPLETE THE COVER SHEET
CM-010 Plalntlffs and Olhera FUlng Fl..t Papena. you are fllfng lrllt paper (fDr example. complaint) civil case, you muat
complele and Ille. along with your firlt paper, the Civil Cue Coww Sheet contained page Thia lnfonnaUon wll uaec:l compile
atatlallca about the typea and numbers C8IN flied. You fflUlt complete llem8 through the sheet. llam you must check
one box for the cue type that best delcrlbae the cue. the caae Ila both and more apeclffo type oaae liated item
chec:k the more apaclllc one. the C8l8 has mulllple causes action, check the box that beat Indicates the primary cauae ac:tion. 8lllll you cxmpletlng the ahaet, axamples the caaea that belong under each cue type 11am are pnwfded below. cover
sheet muat flied only wllh your lnlUal paper. Fallure fill! cover lheet wllh the lllt paper flied clvll cue may IUbject party,
Ill counsel, bolh l8nCllons under rulaa 2.30 and 3.220 the callfomla Rules Court. Parllaa Rule 3.740 Collectlona ea.... co11ect1ons cue under rule 3.740 defined action for recavery money
OWlld eum lllal8d certain that not more than $26,000. exclullve lnterNt and attorneya fees, arising from transacflon
which property, aervlcel, money was acquired credit. oollecllona cae doaa not lnc1Ude aclfon 888lclng the following: (1) tort
clamar,ea, (2) punlllve damagaa, (3) recove,y real property, (4) recovery peraonal property, (6) pnaJudgment writ
attachment. The ld8ldllicalfon cue rule 3.740 GOllecllons cue thla form means that wlU exempt from the general
llme-for-Nlvlca raqajramns and caae management rules. unlela dlfandant flies 181pOnslve pleading. rule 3.740 colledlons
case wDI IUbJecl the raqul181118nls for service and obtaining judgment rule 3.740. Partin Complex Caaa. ccmplax C11111 only, parties must also usa lhe C/111 Case Cover Sheet designate whether the
case complex. plalntfff beHevaa the cue complex under Nie 3.400 the Callfomla Rules Court, thll must Indicated
complallng the appapllale baxaa Items Ind plalnfllf dNlgnates oase complex, the oovar ahael muat aerved with the
complelnt partias the acllon. darandant may file and serve later lhan the time Ill find appamance jolnder the
plalntlfta dallgnallan, counter-clallgnallan that the case not complex, or, the plalnUff has made deelgnalion, dellgnation that
the case c:amplex.
CASE TYPES AND EXAMPLES
Conlract
BnNlch ContractNVananty (08)
Bleacfl Renta11Le118
Contract (nol rdlwfil delurer
or~~
eon==-,~, Britach Connet/
Warranty
Olher Bntach COntrldNVananty
Collaclfonl (e.g., fflCIIIY owad, open
book accounlll) (DI)
Collec:lon Cella Ballar Plalnllf
Olher Promlaaoiy NotelCollec:tiona
Cae
Insurance Covalqe (notp,Dlltlonaly
comp/eJt) (11)
Auto 8ubrogllllon
Olher Coverage
Olhar Contract (37)
Contractual Ftaucl
Other Connet Dllpul8
RNIPrope,ty
EmJnent DomatnnlMHIMI
Condemnation (14)
Wrongful Evlcllon (33)
other Real Properly (e,t.. quiet Ille) (28)
Writ PoNeulon Real Praperty
Mortgage Forac:IOIUllt
Quiet Tltllt
Other Real Property (not eminent
ctomu,. landbdltnanl,
fcndoalnJ
Unlawful Detainer
Commercial (31)
Raalclenllel (32)
Dlllgs (38) (lhe oaae
inwDlwa..,
dnlos. check 1111a ltm; ofll8Mfse.
,eport COmmen:1111 Resldenlllll)
JudlclalRavlaw
Aallt Forfellwa (05)
Pellllon Re:AlbltrallonAward (11)
Writ Mandala (02)
Wril-Admlillilrall.e Mandamus
WII-Mandamua Llmled Court
CaeMaaar
Wrlt-Olher Llmllecl Coult ca.
Review
Olher Judldal Review (SI)
Review Haallh Offlaar On1er
Nollce ofAppe........,
Commtploner Appull
CML CASE COVER SHEET