Plaintiff - Class Action

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

RONY CHAVEZ AGUILAR , )

)

on behalf of himself and all others )

similarly situated, )

)

Plaintiff, ) Case No. 17-cv-2296

)

v. ) COMPLAINT

)

U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ) CLASS ACTION

ENFORCEMENT CHICAGO FIELD )

OFFICE; GLENN TRIVELINE, Acting )

Director, Immigration and Customs )

Enforcement’s Chicago Field )

Office; JOHN F. KELLY, Security of )

Homeland Security; THOMAS HOMAN, )

Acting Director, Immigration and Customs )

Enforcement, )

)

in their official capacities, )

)

Defendants. )

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

1. This complaint presents a challenge to the policy and practice of U.S.

Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s Chicago Field Office (hereinafter “ICE” or “ICE

Chicago”) of detaining individuals prior to initiating removal proceedings against them (“pre-

removal proceedings detention”) without a prompt judicial determination of probable cause, an

opportunity to be heard before or concurrent with the initiation of detention, or an otherwise

prompt hearing before an immigration judge to understand the charges against them and their

due process rights. This violates the Fourth and Fifth Amendments to the United States

Constitution, as well as federal immigration law.

Case: 1:17-cv-02296 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/27/17 Page 1 of 12 PageID #:1

2

2. ICE Chicago has a policy and practice of arresting individuals without a warrant

approved by a judge, in order to subject them to detention in contract detention facilities in

Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Missouri, or Wisconsin, prior to initiating removal

proceedings. While the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) and basic Fourth and Fifth

Amendment protections require ICE to bring a warrantless arrestee “without necessary delay”

before an immigration judge, ICE consistently arrests individuals for days deciding whether to

place an individual into removal proceedings, and then another period of time (often lengthy)

before a Notice to Appear (NTA)1 is filed with the immigration court. It is only after the filing

of the NTA that removal proceedings are initiated (and even after removal proceedings are

initiated, it can often be weeks more before an individual actually appears before an immigration

judge).

3. During the pre-removal proceedings detention period, individuals are detained

without ICE providing a sworn, particularized statement of probable cause; without a prompt

determination of probable cause by a detached and neutral judicial officer; without a prompt

hearing before a judge to understand the charges against them, receive important advisals

regarding their due process rights (including representation by an attorney), and a review of their

continued custody.

4. ICE Chicago typically serves putative class members with an I-200 administrative

warrant at some point after the individual is brought into ICE custody. An ICE I-200

administrative warrant is not reviewed or approved by a detached and neutral judicial officer and

is not supported by a sworn, particularized showing of probable cause.

1 The NTA is the charging document for removal proceedings.


3

5. Named plaintiff, Rony Chavez Aguilar (“Plaintiff”), has been held in immigration

custody for 18 days in pre-removal proceedings detention, in violation of the Fourth and Fifth

Amendments and federal immigration laws. Removal proceedings have not been initiated

against him. Plaintiff’s detention has not been supported by a judicial determination of probable

cause. He has not been promptly brought before a judge. He has received no judicial explanation

of the charges against him, no advisals regarding his due process rights, and no review of his

continued detention.

6. Plaintiff’s predicament is not unique. ICE Chicago detains thousands of people

every year under similar circumstances. Plaintiff seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, on his

behalf and on behalf of other similarly situated individuals, who have been subjected to ICE

Chicago custody prior to the initiation of removal proceedings against them in violation of the

Fourth and Fifth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, as well as the INA.

JURISDICTION, NOTICE AND VENUE

7. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction of this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

1331 and 5 U.S.C. § 702 because it arises under the Constitution and laws of the United States

and Plaintiff seeks equitable relief for statutory and constitutional violations.

8. This Court has authority to grant declaratory relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201

and 2202, and Rule 57 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

9. This Court has authority to grant injunctive relief in this action pursuant to 5

U.S.C. §§ 702 & 706, and Rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

10. Venue is proper in this judicial district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2)

because a substantial part of the events and omissions giving rise to Plaintiff’s claims occurred,

and continue to occur, in this District.


4

11. Venue is proper in this judicial district because the individual with direct authority

to order release of the Plaintiff (i.e., the ICE Chicago Field Office Director) is located in this

District.

THE PARTIES

12. Plaintiff Rony Chavez Aguilar is a United States citizen. Defendants have no

jurisdiction and are without legal authority to arrest, detain, or subject Plaintiff to removal

proceedings. Nevertheless, Plaintiff has been subjected to mandatory detention prior to initiation

of removal proceedings.

13. Defendant Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s Chicago Field Office is

responsible for enforcing immigration laws in its six state area of responsibility, which covers

Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Missouri, and Wisconsin. ICE Chicago and its agents are

responsible for the policies and practices related to the arresting and detaining individuals for

prosecution in removal proceedings within its area of responsibility.

14. Defendant Glenn Triveline is the Acting Director for the ICE Chicago Field

Office. Acting Director Triveline is responsible for the development and implementation of ICE

Chicago’s policies and practices related to arresting and detaining individuals for prosecution in

removal proceedings. He is sued in his official capacity.

15. Defendant John F. Kelly is Secretary for the U.S. Department of Homeland

Security. Secretary Kelly has responsibility, amongst other things, over the policies and practices

of ICE related to arresting and detaining individuals for prosecution in removal proceedings. He

is sued in his official capacity.

16. Defendant Thomas Homan is the Acting Director of ICE. Acting Director Homan

is responsible for the development and implementation of ICE’s policies and practices related to


5

arresting and detaining individuals for prosecution in removal proceedings. He is sued in his

official capacity.

LEGAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

17. Pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1357(a)(2), ICE agents have authority to make warrantless

arrests based on, among other requirements, having probable cause the individual that an

individual is in violation of immigration laws, so long as the individual is “taken without

unnecessary delay for examination” before an immigration judge. 8 U.S.C. § 1357(a)(2); Arias

v. Rogers, 676 F.2d 1139, 1142-43 (7th Cir. 1982). ICE Chicago never brings an individual

within 48 hours before an immigration judge subsequent to a warrantless arrest, in violation of

the statute and the Fourth Amendment. Gerstein v. Pugh, 420 U.S. 103 (1975); County of

Riverside v. McLaughlin, 500 U.S. 44 (1991).

18. At some point after entering ICE Chicago physical custody, ICE agents generally

serve members of the putative class with an I-200 administrative immigration warrant. Ex. A. An

I-200 administrative warrant is not reviewed or approved by a detached and neutral judicial

officer and is not otherwise supported by a sworn, particularized showing of probable cause. Id.;

8 C.F.R. § 287.5(e)(2) (listing a wide range of supervising ICE enforcement officers who issue I-

200 administrative warrants); Gerstein, 420 U.S. at 112-13 (requiring judicial finding of

probable cause to justify arrest, either through a warrant issued before arrest or prompt judicial

determination afterward); County of Riverside, 500 U.S. at 57 (absent extraordinary

circumstances post-arrest judicial determination of probable cause must be within 48 hours). ICE

regulations permit ICE officers authority to hold an individual for 48 hours after assuming

physical custody in order to investigate and determine whether to initiate removal proceedings. 8

C.F.R. § 287.3. Even after ICE Chicago issues a charging document pertinent to removal


6

proceedings (known as the NTA), ICE Chicago does not immediately file charges with the

immigration court. Rather, it has a policy and practice of waiting an additional indeterminate

amount of time before filing the NTA with the immigration court. It is only after the filing of the

NTA that removal proceedings are initiated. Even after proceedings are initiated, it can be

weeks before an individual receives an initial appearance before an immigration judge.

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

19. Rony Chavez Aguilar at all times relevant to this case has been a U.S. citizen.

20. Plaintiff was born in Guatemala on September 17, 1984. Raquel Aguilar is his

biological mother.

21. Plaintiff entered the United States in 1991 as a Lawful Permanent Resident

(LPR).

22. Raquel Aguilar became a U.S. citizen through naturalization on May 13, 1999.

23. At the time of Ms. Aguilar’s naturalization, Plaintiff was a LPR, 14 years old, and

in his mother’s legal and physical custody.

24. By operation of law, Plaintiff became a U.S. citizen on February 27, 2001. 8

U.S.C. § 1431(a).

25. Since Plaintiff is a U.S. citizen, ICE has no jurisdiction or lawful authority to

arrest, detain, or otherwise subject Plaintiff to removal proceedings.

26. In January 2017, ICE issued an immigration detainer to a Kentucky law

enforcement agency (LEA) requesting that the LEA hold Plaintiff after its authority had expired

so ICE Chicago could assume physical custody.

27. On March 9, 2017, the Kentucky LEA held Plaintiff on the ICE detainer so ICE

Chicago could assume physical custody.


7

28. ICE Chicago assumed physical custody of Plaintiff on or around March 9, 2017.

Since that date, ICE Chicago has detained Plaintiff at its contract facility, the Boone County Jail,

Kentucky.

29. Over the past 18 days, Plaintiff has been issued two different NTAs and was

mailed an I-200 administrative warrant.

30. ICE Chicago has not filed an NTA against Plaintiff with the immigration court.

31. ICE Chicago did not obtain a judicial warrant to arrest Plaintiff; has not provided

a sworn, particularized statement of probable cause; has not promptly brought him before a

detached and neutral judicial officer for a probable cause hearing; or has not brought him before

a judge to understand the charges against him and receive important advisals regarding his due

process rights, amongst other procedural protections.

CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS

32. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 (b)(2), Rony Chavez Aguilar, seeks to represent a

class consisting of:

All persons who are or will be detained under the authority of ICE within the

Chicago Area of Responsibility for over 48 hours, where ICE has not initiated

removal proceedings by filing a Notice to Appear with the immigration court and

have not brought the individual for a hearing before an immigration judge or other

detached and neutral judicial officer, and has not initiated another form of

removal proceedings.

33. The Plaintiff Class seeks declaratory and injunctive relief to eliminate or remedy

Defendants’ application of arrest and detention policies, practices, acts, and omissions that are

depriving them of their liberty in violation of the statute and their rights under the U.S.

Constitution.


8

34. The proposed Class is numerous. On any given day, ICE Chicago detains over

1,000 individuals in its contract detention facilities throughout the six-state area of responsibility,

of which a significant percentage on any given day would be class members.

35. Joinder of all class members is impracticable. ICE Chicago is continuously

making arrests or otherwise detaining individuals without prompt initiation of removal

proceedings throughout it sprawling six-state area of responsibility. The membership of the class

changes constantly and is inherently transitory.

36. All individuals who would fall within the class definition have been equally

subjected to ICE’s pre-removal proceedings arrest and detention policies, practices, acts, and

omissions resulting in the unlawful deprivation of their liberty in violation of their rights. There

are questions of law and facts common to all class members, including but not limited to:

• Whether Defendants exceed their statutory authority and otherwise violate

class members’ constitutional rights by detaining them for over 48 hours

without a judicial warrant or bringing them before an immigration judge or

other detached and neutral judicial officer for a hearing to determine probable

cause; and

• Whether Defendants exceed their statutory authority and otherwise violate

class members’ constitutional rights by detaining them without a prompt

hearing before an immigration judge or other judicial officer to understand the

charges against them, receive advisals regarding their due process rights,

receive an automatic custody review, amongst other procedural protections.

37. Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the claims of the class as a whole, because the

Plaintiff and class members have been similarly detained without a judicial warrant; have not

been brought promptly (i.e., within 48 hours) before a detached and neutral judicial officer for a

probable cause hearing; have not been brought promptly before a judge to understand the charges

against them, receive important advisals regarding their due process rights, and receive a custody

review, amongst other procedural protections.


9

38. Defendants have acted and intend to act in a manner adverse to the rights of the

proposed class, making final injunctive and declaratory relief appropriate with respect to the

class as a whole.

39. Plaintiff and the class he seeks to represent have been directly injured by the

Defendants’ statutory and constitutional violations in the application of pre-removal proceedings

arrest and detention policies, practices, acts and omissions and are at risk of future harm from

continuation of these policies, practices, acts and omissions.

40. Plaintiff will fairly and adequately represent the interests of the Class. Plaintiff’s

legal claims are typical to all members of the proposed Class. Plaintiff has no interests separate

from those of the Class, and seeks no relief other than the relief sought on behalf of the class.

41. Plaintiff’s counsel is experienced in class action, civil rights, and immigrants’

rights litigation. Plaintiff’s counsel will fairly and adequately represent the interests the Class.

FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF

Violations of Immigration and Nationality Act

(Administrative Procedures Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 706(2)(A)-(D))

42. Plaintiff repeats and realleges all the allegations above and incorporates them by

reference here.

43. Defendants’ policy and practice of arresting and detaining Plaintiff and putative

class members (hereinafter “Plaintiffs”) without a judicial warrant and without presenting them

“without unnecessary delay for examination” before an immigration judge or other judicial

officer violates and is otherwise in excess of Defendants’ authority under the Immigration and

Nationality Act. 8 U.S.C. § 1357(a)(2); Arias v. Rogers, 676 F.2d 1139, 1142-43 (7th Cir. 1982).


10

44. Defendants’ unlawful policies and practices have caused and are causing

Plaintiffs significant prejudice by depriving them of their liberty and exercise of their statutory

and constitutional due process rights.

45. Defendants’ policies and practices of arresting and detaining Plaintiffs prior to the

initiation of removal proceedings exceeds the Defendants’ statutory authority in violation of 5

U.S.C. §§ 706(2)(A)-(D).

46. As a proximate result of Defendants’ statutory violations, Plaintiffs are suffering

and will continue to suffer a significant deprivation of their liberty without due process of law.

Plaintiffs have no plain, adequate or complete remedy at law to address the wrongs described

herein. The injunctive and declaratory relief sought by Plaintiffs is necessary to prevent

continued and future irreparable injury.

SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(Violation of the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution)


reference here.

48. Defendants’ policies and practice of arrest and continued detention of Plaintiffs

without a judicial warrant and without providing a prompt hearing before an immigration judge

or other detached and neutral judicial officer to determine whether Defendants have probable

cause unreasonably deprive Plaintiffs of their liberty in violation of the Fourth Amendment.

49. As a proximate result of Defendants’ unconstitutional arrest and detention

policies, practices, acts, and omissions, Plaintiffs are suffering and will continue to suffer an

unreasonable deprivation of their liberty without any legal recourse. Plaintiffs have no plain,

adequate or complete remedy at law to address the wrongs described herein. The injunctive and


11

declaratory relief sought by Plaintiffs is necessary to prevent continued and future irreparable

injury.

THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(Violation of Due Process Clause of Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution)


reference here.

51. Defendants’ policies and practice of continued detention of Plaintiffs without a

judicial determination of probable cause and prompt hearing before an immigration judge to

understand the charges against them, their due process rights, and have their continued custody

reviewed causes Plaintiffs to suffer significant pain and suffering and substantial prejudice

without affording them an opportunity to be heard in violation of the Due Process Clause of the

Fifth Amendment.

52. As a proximate result of Defendants’ unconstitutional detention policies,

practices, acts, and omissions, Plaintiffs are suffering and will continue to suffer a significant

deprivation of their liberty without due process of law. Plaintiffs have no plain, adequate or

complete remedy at law to address the wrongs described herein. The injunctive and declaratory

relief sought by Plaintiffs is necessary to prevent continued and future injury.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court:

a. Issue an order certifying this action to proceed as a class action pursuant to Rule 23 of the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure;

b. Appoint the undersigned as class counsel pursuant to Rule 23(g) of the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure;


12

c. Issue a judgment declaring that Defendants’ arrest and detention policies, practices, acts,

and omissions described herein as applied to the Plaintiffs are unlawful and exceed

Defendants’ constitutional and statutory authority in violation of 5 U.S.C. §§

706(2)(A)—(D);

d. Issue a judgment declaring that Defendants’ arrest and detention policies, practices, acts,

and omissions described herein are unlawful and violate Plaintiffs’ rights under the

Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution;

e. Issue a judgment declaring that Defendants’ detention policies, practices, acts, and

omissions described herein are unlawful and violate Plaintiffs’ rights under the Fifth

Amendment to the United States Constitution;

f. Permanently enjoin Defendants, their subordinates, agents, employees, and all others

acting in concert with them from subjecting Plaintiffs to these statutory violations and

unconstitutional arrest and detention policies, practices, acts and omissions described

herein, and issue injunctive relief sufficient to rectify those statutory and constitutional

violations; and

g. Grant such other relief as this Court deems just and proper.

Date: March 27, 2017 Respectfully Submitted:

___s/ Mark Fleming_________

Mark Fleming

Charles Roth

NATIONAL IMMIGRANT JUSTICE CENTER

208 S. LaSalle Street, Suite 1300

Chicago, IL 60604

(tel) 312-660-1370

(fax) 312-660-1500

[email protected]

[email protected]


Form I-200 (Rev. 09/16)

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Warrant for Arrest of Alien

File No. ________________

Date: ___________________

To: Any immigration officer authorized pursuant to sections 236 and 287 of the

Immigration and Nationality Act and part 287 of title 8, Code of Federal

Regulations, to serve warrants of arrest for immigration violations

I have determined that there is probable cause to believe that ____________________________

is removable from the United States. This determination is based upon:

the execution of a charging document to initiate removal proceedings against the subject;

the pendency of ongoing removal proceedings against the subject;

the failure to establish admissibility subsequent to deferred inspection;

biometric confirmation of the subject’s identity and a records check of federal

databases that affirmatively indicate, by themselves or in addition to other reliable

information, that the subject either lacks immigration status or notwithstanding such status

is removable under U.S. immigration law; and/or

statements made voluntarily by the subject to an immigration officer and/or other

reliable evidence that affirmatively indicate the subject either lacks immigration status or

notwithstanding such status is removable under U.S. immigration law.

YOU ARE COMMANDED to arrest and take into custody for removal proceedings under the

Immigration and Nationality Act, the above-named alien.

__________________________________________ (Signature of Authorized Immigration Officer)

__________________________________________ (Printed Name and Title of Authorized Immigration Officer)

Certificate of Service

I hereby certify that the Warrant for Arrest of Alien was served by me at __________________________ (Location)

on ______________________________ on _____________________________, and the contents of this (Name of Alien) (Date of Service)

notice were read to him or her in the __________________________ language. (Language)

________________________________________ __________________________________________ Name and Signature of Officer Name or Number of Interpreter (if applicable)

______________

(Printed Name and Title)

SAMPLE

Case: 1:17-cv-02296 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 03/27/17 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:13

ILND 44 (Rev. 07/13/16) CIVIL COVER SHEET The JS 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replace nor supplement the filing and service of pleadings or other papers as required by law, except as provided by local rules of court. This form, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is required for the use of the Clerk of Court for the purpose of initiating the civil docket sheet. (SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON NEXT PAGE OF THIS FORM.)

I. (a) PLAINTIFFS DEFENDANTS

(b) County of Residence of First Listed Plaintiff County of Residence of First Listed Defendant (EXCEPT IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES) (IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES ONLY)

NOTE: IN LAND CONDEMNATION CASES, USE THE LOCATION OF THE TRACT OF LAND INVOLVED.

(c) Attorneys (Firm Name, Address, and Telephone Number) Attorneys (If Known)

II. BASIS OF JURISDICTION (Place an “X” in One Box Only) III. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES (Place an “X” in One Box for Plaintiff (For Diversity Cases Only) and One Box for Defendant)

1 U.S. Government 3 Federal Question PTF DEF PTF DEF Plaintiff (U.S. Government Not a Party) Citizen of This State 1 1 Incorporated or Principal Place 4 4

of Business In This State

2 U.S. Government 4 Diversity Citizen of Another State 2 2 Incorporated and Principal Place 5 5 Defendant (Indicate Citizenship of Parties in Item III) of Business In Another State

Citizen or Subject of a 3 3 Foreign Nation 6 6 Foreign Country

IV. NATURE OF SUIT (Place an “X” in One Box Only)CONTRACT TORTS FORFEITURE/PENALTY BANKRUPTCY OTHER STATUTES

110 Insurance PERSONAL INJURY PERSONAL INJURY 625 Drug Related Seizure 422 Appeal 28 USC 158 375 False Claims Act 120 Marine 310 Airplane 365 Personal Injury - of Property 21 USC 881 423 Withdrawal 376 Qui Tam (31 USC 130 Miller Act 315 Airplane Product Product Liability 690 Other 28 USC 157 3729 (a)) 140 Negotiable Instrument Liability 367 Health Care/ 400 State Reapportionment 150 Recovery of Overpayment 320 Assault, Libel & Pharmaceutical PROPERTY RIGHTS 410 Antitrust & Enforcement of Judgment Slander Personal Injury 820 Copyrights 430 Banks and Banking 151 Medicare Act 330 Federal Employers’ Product Liability 830 Patent 450 Commerce 152 Recovery of Defaulted Liability 368 Asbestos Personal 840 Trademark 460 Deportation

Student Loans 340 Marine Injury Product 470 Racketeer Influenced and 345 Marine Product Liability LABOR SOCIAL SECURITY Corrupt Organizations (Excludes Veterans)

153 Recovery of Liability PERSONAL PROPERTY 710 Fair Labor Standards 861 HIA (1395ff) 480 Consumer Credit Veteran’s Benefits 350 Motor Vehicle 370 Other Fraud Act 862 Black Lung (923) 490 Cable/Sat TV

160 Stockholders’ Suits 355 Motor Vehicle 371 Truth in Lending 720 Labor/Management 863 DIWC/DIWW (405(g)) 850 Securities/Commodities/ 190 Other Contract Product Liability 380 Other Personal Relations 864 SSID Title XVI Exchange 195 Contract Product Liability 360 Other Personal Property Damage 740 Railway Labor Act 865 RSI (405(g)) 890 Other Statutory Actions 196 Franchise Injury 385 Property Damage 751 Family and Medical 891 Agricultural Acts

362 Personal Injury - Product Liability Leave Act 893 Environmental Matters Medical Malpractice 790 Other Labor Litigation 895 Freedom of Information

REAL PROPERTY CIVIL RIGHTS PRISONER PETITIONS 791 Employee Retirement FEDERAL TAX SUITS Act 210 Land Condemnation 440 Other Civil Rights 510 Motions to Vacate Income Security Act 870 Taxes (U.S. Plaintiff 896 Arbitration 220 Foreclosure 441 Voting Sentence or Defendant) 899 Administrative Procedure 230 Rent Lease & Ejectment 442 Employment Habeas Corpus: 871 IRS—Third Party Act/Review or Appeal of 240 Torts to Land 443 Housing/ 530 General 26 USC 7609 Agency Decision 245 Tort Product Liability Accommodations 535 Death Penalty 950 Constitutionality of 290 All Other Real Property 445 Amer. w/Disabilities

540 Mandamus & Other IMMIGRATION State Statutes

Employment 550 Civil Rights 462 Naturalization Application 446 Amer. w/Disabilities

555 Prison Condition 463 Habeas Corpus -

Other 560 Civil Detainee - Alien Detainee 448 Education Conditions of (Prisoner Petition)

Confinement 465 Other Immigration Actions

V. ORIGIN (Place an “X” in One Box Only) 1 Original

Proceeding

VI. CAUSE OF ACTION (Enter U.S. Civil Statute under which you are filing and write a brief statement of cause.)

VII. Previous Bankruptcy Matters (For nature of suit 422 and 423, enter the case number and judge for any associated bankruptcy matter previously adjudicated by a judge ofthis Court. Use a separate attachment if necessary.)

VIII. REQUESTED INCOMPLAINT:

CHECK IF THIS IS A CLASS ACTION UNDER RULE 23, F.R.Cv.P.

DEMAND $ CHECK YES only if demanded in complaint:

JURY DEMAND: Yes No IX. RELATED CASE(S)

IF ANY(See instructions):

JUDGE DOCKET NUMBER

X. This case (check one box) Is not a refiling of a previously dismissed action is a refiling of case number previously dismissed by Judge DATE SIGNATURE OF ATTORNEY OF RECORD

Multidistrict 8 Litigation -

Direct File 2 Removed from

State Court 3 Remanded from

Appellate Court 4 Reinstated or

Reopened

Transferred from Another District (specify)

5 Multidistrict

6 Litigation- Transfer

Rony Chavez Aguilar Immigration and Customs Enforcement Chicago Field Office; Glenn Triveline, Acting Director, ICE Chicago Field Office; John F. Kelly, Secretary of Homeland Security; Thomas Homan, Acting Director, ICE, in their official capacities

Mark Fleming, National Immigrant Justice Center, 208 S. LaSalle Street, Suite 1300Chicago, IL 60604(tel) 312-660-1628

APA & Constitutional violations re Defendants' arrest and detention of Plaintiff

■

03/27/2017 s/ Mark Fleming

Case: 1:17-cv-02296 Document #: 1-2 Filed: 03/27/17 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:14

Documents

Plaintiff - Class Action