5/19/2018 Lawsuit against San Juan County Commission, sheriff
1/18
IN
THE
I]NITED
STATES DISTRICT
COTJRT
FOR
TIIE
DISTRICT
OF NEW
MEXICO
MONCERRATH
GUTIERREZ, on his
own behalf and on behalf of
a class of
similarly situated
persons;
RICARDO
OLIVAS,
on his own
behalf
and
on
behalf
of
a class
of similarly
situated
persons;
SUSANA
PALACIOS-VALENCIA, on
her
own behalf and
on behalf of a class of
similarly
situated
persons;
and
SOMOS I]N
PUEBLO UNIDO,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
SAN
ruAN COI.INTY
BOARD OF
COMMISSIONERS;
and KEN
CHRISTESEN,
in his
individual
and
official
capacities,
Defendants.
No. CIV-14-
CLASS
ACTION COMPLAINT FOR
DAMAGES
FOR
WOLATIONS
OF CTYIL
AND
CONSTITUTIONAL
RIGIITS A}[D
FOR DECLARATORY
AND INJI.]NCTTVE
RELIEF
Plaintiffs
Moncerrath Gutierrez,
Ricardo
Olivas,
Susana
Palacios-Valencia
and Somos
Un
Pueblo
Unido
(collectively,
Plaintiffs ),
by
and
through below-signed
counsel,
bring
this
Class
Action Complaint
for Damages for
Violations
of
Civil
and Constitutional
Rights
and
for
Declaratory
and Injunctive Relief against
Defendants San Juan
County
Board
of
Commissioners
and Ken
Christesen
(collectively,
Defendants ).
Plaintiffs allege against
Defendants upon
knowledge
as
to themselves
and
allmatters
of
public
record, and upon information
and
belief
as
to all
other matters,
as follows:
5/19/2018 Lawsuit against San Juan County Commission, sheriff
2/18
L
JURISDICTION
AND VENUE
l . This Court has
jurisdiction
over this
action
pursuant
to
2S
U.S.C.
$$
133
1
and
l3a3
(a)(3)
and
(4).
2.
Venue is
proper
in this Court
pursuant
to 28
U.S.C.
$
1391(b).
II.
PARTIES
3.
Moncerrath
Gutierrez
( Gutierrez )
is a resident of Farmington, New Mexico.
Gutierrez brings
this action on his own
behalf
and on behalf of a class of similarly situated
persons.
4.
Ricardo Olivas
( Olivas ),
also known
as Ricardo
Olivas
Acosta, is
a resident
of
Farmington,
New
Mexico.
Olivas
brings this action on his own behalf and
on
behalf of a class
of similarly
situated
persons.
5.
Susana Palacios-Valencia
( Palacios )
is
a
resident
of
Farmington,
New
Mexico.
Palacios brings this
action on her own behalf and on behalf of
a
class
of similarly situated
persons.
6.
Somos
Un
Pueblo
Unido
( Somos )
was founded in 1995 and has an active
membership
in ten
New Mexico
counties,
including
San Juan County. Somos
is
an
organization
dedicated
to the
protection
of immigrants' civil
rights.
Since
1995, Somos has been actively
involved
in advocacy,
legislation,
and
working with municipalities
and
detention
facilities for
the
protection of immigrants'
rights. Somos
brings
this
action
on behalf
of
its
members and the
members of
the class,
for
equitable relief
only.
The
interests it
seeks
to
protect
are
germane
to
its
purpose,
and
its
members would otherwise have
standing
to sue in their own right.
2
5/19/2018 Lawsuit against San Juan County Commission, sheriff
3/18
7.
San Juan
County Board of Commissioners
( San
Juan County ) is
a
political
subdivision
of
the
State
of New
Mexico.
Pursuant to
NMSA
1978,
$
4-46-1,
all
suits
or
proceedings
against
a county
are
to
be brought in the name of
the
board
of county
commissioners
of that county. At all times
material hereto,
San Juan
County was a
governmental
entity and
local
public
body
as those terms are
defined
in the
New
Mexico
Tort Claims Act, NMSA
1978,
$$
4l-4-3(B)
and
(C).
Pursuantto
NMSA
1978,
$$
4-44-19,33-3-3 through 8,
and
33-3-13,
San Juan County had
a statutory obligation to
provide
for the confinement of
prisoners
incarcerated under
the county's
jurisdiction.
San Juan County
had a statutory obligation
to
appropriate funds and otherwise
provide
the
necessary
funding
to
maintain and operate
a
facility
for the
incarceration
ofprisoners under
thejurisdiction ofthe
county.
8.
Ken Christesen
( Christesen ),
upon
information
and
belief,
is
now
and
at all
times
material hereto
has been a
resident
of
San
Juan
County,
New
Mexico.
Since
approximately January
7,2011,
Christesen has been the Sheriff of San
Juan
County. As San Juan
County
Sheriff, Christesen is responsible for the operation of the San Juan County Detention
Center
( SJCDC ).
In addition,
at
all times
material hereto, Christesen was
a
law
enforcement
officer
and
public
employee,
and was
acting
within
the scope
of his duties
as
well
as under
color
of
law. He is
sued
both
personally
and
in
his
official
capacity.
9.
San Juan County and Christesen
were
responsible
for
the
screening, hiring,
training, monitoring,
supervision
and disciplining
of
subordinate employees
of SJCDC,
and
were
the
authorities
empowering SJCDC employees to
incarcerate
prisoners
under the
jurisdiction
of
San
Juan County.
San Juan
County
and
Christesen
were
directly
responsible
for the
policy-making
activities and the supervision
of
subordinate officers
of SJCDC.
J
5/19/2018 Lawsuit against San Juan County Commission, sheriff
4/18
10.
San Juan
County
and Christesen,
through their officials,
agents, servants, and
employees,
were
involved
in
and
responsible
for
allthe
acts
hereinafter
alleged. At
alltimes
material
hereto, San Juan
County
and
Christesen,
individually and/or acting through their agents,
officers
and employees,
acted in concert
with
one
another and
pursuant
to
a common
plan
and
objective,
and
each of the Defendants is responsible
for the acts and omissions of the other
Defendants,
and their agents, officers
and employees,
as
co-conspirators, under
the doctrine of
respondeat
superior, and under other doctrines of
vicarious liability.
m.
BACKGROUND
FACTS
11.
The Immigration and Customs
Enforcement
Division
( lCE )
is
a division of the
United
States
Department
of Homeland
Security
( DHS ).
ICE
routinely
issues administrative
notices
known as
ICE
Holds or
Immigration
Detainers,
requesting
that local law
enforcement
agencies
take
certain action with respect to
persons
in their custody
who may
be
in
violation
of
federal immigration
law.
12.
These notices are
issued
on
a standard
form known as a Form l-247.
Immigration
Detainer-Notice
of
Action
(hereinafter,
lmmigration
Detainer ). The Form
l-247
provides
a
blank for the institution or law enforcement
agency to which it is directed and a
blank
for'Tllame
of Alien,
and is headed
MAINTAIN
CUSTODY OF ALIEN FOR
A
PERIOD
NOT
TO EXCEED 48
HOURS.
The
face
of
the
Form
I-247
lists four
possible
actions
that the
DHS
has
taken related
to
the
person
in
the
recipient's
custody,
including
that
ICE has
[i]nitiated
an
investigation
to determine
whether this
person is
subject
to removal
from
the
United
States ;
[i]nitiated
removal
proceedings and
served
a
Notice to Appear
or other
4
5/19/2018 Lawsuit against San Juan County Commission, sheriff
5/18
charging
document ; [s]erved
a
warrant of arrest for removal
proceedings ;
or
[o]btained
an
order
of deportation or removal from
the
United
States
for this person.
13. On information and
belief, the
vast majority of Immigration Detainers are issued
with the first box checked
( [i]nitiated
an
investigation to
determine
whether
this
person
is
subject
to removal from
the
United
States ).
On information and
belief, ICE
agents issue these
Immigration
Detainers
without
probable
cause to believe a
person
is removable from
the United
States. The issuance of an Immigration Detainer does not
indicate
or establish that there has
been any
prior
determination by
ICE
or any other entity
as
to the
person's
immigration
status.
On information and beliet
ICE
often issues Immigration Detainers in
error on
persons
who are
not
subject
to
removal. ICE
provides
no meaningful
way
for a detainee to contest
an
Immigration
Detainer
that
it
has issued.
14. The Immigration Detainer
form
requests,
among
other
things, that the recipient
[m]aintain
custody of the subject for
a
period
NOT TO EXCEED 48
HOURS, excluding
Saturdays, Sundays
and holidays,
beyond the time when the subject would have
otherwise
been
released from
your
custody, to allow DHS
to
take custody of the
subject.
15. The
issuance
of
an
Immigration
Detainer does not
ensure that ICE will take
any
action
to
assume
custody over a detainee.
ICE may or may
not
come to
pick
up
a
detainee
for
whom it
has
issued
an
Immigration
Detainer.
16. An
Immigration Detainer
is not a
judicial
order or
a
warrant.
Instead,
an
Immigration
Detainer is nothing more
than a request to a law enforcement agency or
detention
facility
and is not legally enforceable.
17.
In
the
three
years prior
to the filing
of
this
Complaint,
ICE
issued hundreds
of
5/19/2018 Lawsuit against San Juan County Commission, sheriff
6/18
Immigration Detainers to
the Defendants through
the
SJCDC.
According to Defendants,
they
have
honored every
Immigration
Detainer that they have
received.
Defendants
have
a
policy,
practice
and custom
of detaining
persons
based
solely on Immigration
Detainers.
18. Individuals
detained
by
Defendants
pursuant
to
these
Immigration
Detainers
remain
in
the
Defendants'
Iegal
and actual custody
and Defendants
are
fully
liable
for their
continued detention.
19.
The law has
been
clearly
established throughout
the time
period
encompassed
by
the claims asserted herein
that Immigration
Detainers
are
mere administrative
requests
and do
not
provide
legal
justification
for
the incarceration
of individuals that
ICE
has asked
to
be
detained.
w.
CLAIMS OF THE NAMED
PLAINTIFFS
20.
Paragraphs
I
through
19 above are incorporated
herein
by
reference
as if
fully
set
forth in this
paragraph.
Claims of Moncerrath
Gutierrez
21. Gutierrez
is 41
years
old
and
is a
citizen
of Mexico. He
resides in Farmington,
New Mexico and is employed
as a
pipeline
construction
worker.
Prior
to the incidents
set
forth
below,
he had never
been arrested and has no
criminal record.
22. On
July 6,2012,
Gutierrez
was
stopped
by a deputy
sheriff employed
by the
San
Juan
County
Sheriffs
Department
for
failure
to
come
to
a
complete stop
at a
stop sign.
23. The deputy
sheriffdetained
Gutierrez
and contacted ICE. Agents
from
ICE then
appeared on the scene.
6
5/19/2018 Lawsuit against San Juan County Commission, sheriff
7/18
24.
Gutierrez
was
taken into
custody
by
the agents
from ICE
and transported to
the
SJCDC where
he
was booked and incarcerated.
25. Gutierrez was detained
by
Defendants
based
on an Immigration
Detainer
issued
by
ICE on July
6,2A12.
That Immigration Detainer was directed
to the SJCDC
and states
that
the
DHS
has
[i]nitiated
an
investigation to
determine whether
[Gutienez]
is subject to
removal
from
the United
States.
The Immigration Detainer further states:
It
is requested that
you:
Maintain
custody
of
the
subject
for
a
period
NOT TO EXCEED 48
HOURS, excluding
Saturdays, Sundays
and
holidays,
beyond the time
when
the subject
would
have otherwise been
released
from
your
custody,
to allow DHS
to take custody of the
subject.
No
basis
was
stated
for
the investigation and,
on
information and belief, the Immigration Detainer was not
accompanied
by an arrest warrant, statement of
probable
cause, removal
or deportation order, or
any
other charging document.
26.
Gutierrez
was
incarcerated
at the
SJCDC
for three
days based on the
Immigration
Detainer.
He was told that
he
could not
be
released
because
of the Immigration Detainer. He
was
not
given
any opportunity
to
contest the Immigration
Detainer.
He
was
not
released
until
July
9,
2012, when he was released
to
the custody of ICE agents who transported him to an ICE
holding
facilify
in Albuquerque.
27.
Defendants and their
employees,
agents and representatives had no valid reason
for detaining
Gutierrez.
Rather, the detention
of
Gutierrez
was
undertaken
pursuant
to
a blanket
and
indiscriminate
policy
of holding detainees
pursuant
to Immigration Detainers, in violation
of
well-settled constitutional
law.
28.
Gutierrez suffered damages
as
a
proximate
cause of this unlawful detention,
as
set
7
5/19/2018 Lawsuit against San Juan County Commission, sheriff
8/18
forth
below.
Claims
of
Ricardo
Olivas
29. Olivas is 22
years
old and is a citizen
of
Mexico.
He resides in
Farmington,
New
Mexico
and is self-employed
as a landscaper
and handyman.
30.
On
July
11,2014,
Olivas
was
stopped
by a
police
officer
employed
by
the
Farmington
City
Police.
He
was
cited for not
having registration
on his work
trailer
and
for
not
having a
driver's
license.
3l.
The
police
officer detained
Olivas
and
contacted ICE.
Agents
from ICE then
appeared on the scene.
32.
Olivas was taken
into custody
by the agents from ICE
and
ffansported
to the
SJCDC
where
he
was booked
and
incarcerated.
33.
On
information
and belief,
Olivas was detained
by
Defendants
based on an
Immigration Detainer issued by
ICE.
Olivas was
incarcerated
at
the
SJCDC
for
five days.
He
was
told that he could not be released
because
of his immigration status.
He was not
given
any
opportunity to contest
his
detention
or
to
post
bond.
He
was
not
released
until
July 15,2014,
when he
was
released to the custody
of ICE
agents
who
transported him
to an ICE
holding
facility in Albuquerque.
34.
Defendants and their
employees,
agents and representatives
had
no valid reason
for detaining Olivas.
Rather,
the detention
of
Olivas
was
undertaken
pursuant
to
a
blanket and
indiscriminate
policy
of holding
detainees pursuant
to Immigration Detainers,
in violation
of
well-settled
constitutional law.
35.
Olivas suffered damages as
a
proximate
cause of
this unlawful
detention, as
set
8
5/19/2018 Lawsuit against San Juan County Commission, sheriff
9/18
forth below.
Claims of
Susana
Palacios-Valencia
36.
Palacios is 4l
years
old and
is a citizen of Mexico. She
is
resident of
Farmington,
New Mexico
and
is employed
as
a
housekeeper.
Prior to the incidents set forlh
below,
she had never been arrested and has no
criminal
record.
37.
On April
13,2012,
Palacios' brother
was
stopped
by
an
officer with the
Farmington
City
Police
for
a
traffic
violation while
he was
driving
Palacios'
vehicle. Palacios
was called to
the
scene.
Upon
arrival, the
police
officer
ran
her
information
and informed her
that
she had
an
unpaid ticket
on
her record for not having
proofofinsurance.
The officer then
detained Palacios and contacted ICE.
38.
Palacios
was
then
transported to the SJCDC
where she was booked
and
incarcerated.
39.
Palacios
was
detained by
Defendants based on
a request issued
by
ICE. That
request was made on April
14,2012
through
an Immigration Detainer. That Immigration
Detainer
was directed to the
SJCDC
and
states that the DHS has
[i]nitiated
an investigation to
determine
whether
[Valencia]
is subject to
removal
from
the
United States. The Immigration
Detainer
further
states: It is requested
that
you:
Maintain custody of the subject for a
period
NOT
TO
EXCEED 48 HOURS, excluding Saturdays, Sundays and
holidays,
beyond the
time
when the subject
would have
otherwise been
released from
your
custody,
to
allow
DHS to take
custody
of the
subject.
No
basis
was
stated
for the investigation
and,
on
information
and
belief,
the
Immigration
Detainer
was
not accompanied
by
an arrest
warrant,
statement of
probable
cause,
removal or deportation
order,
or any other charging
document.
9
5/19/2018 Lawsuit against San Juan County Commission, sheriff
10/18
40.
The following
Monday,
Palacios was
taken before
a localjudge
and she
advised
the
judge
that
she
had
been
making
payments on
the
citation
but that there was
still
a
balance
owed.
The
judge
allowed her to pay
the
balance
due and
owing
and informed
her that
she
would
be
released
notwithstanding
the
Immigration
Detainer.
41.
However, Palacios
was
not
released
but instead
was
retumed to
the SJDC
where
she was
kept
incarcerated
for an
additional week
based on
the
Immigration
Detainer.
She
was
not
given
any
opportunity to
contest the
Immigration
Detainer.
42.
Palacios was
not
released
from the
SJCDC
until
April
23,2012
when
agents from
ICE
arrived
at the
SJCDC
and Palacios
was
released into
their
custody.
43.
Defendants
and their
employees,
agents and
representatives
had no valid
reason
for
detaining Palacios
based on the
Immigration
Detainer.
Rather,
the detention
of Palacios
was
undertaken
pursuant
to a blanket
and indiscriminate policy
of holding
detainees
pursuant
to
Immigration
Detainers,
in violation
of well-settled
constitutional law.
44.
Palacios
suffered
damages
as a
proximate
cause
of this unlawful
detention,
as set
forth
below.
v.
CLASS ACTION
ALLEGATIONS
45.
Paragraphs I
through 44,above,
are incorporated
herein
by
reference
as
if fully
set
forth in this
paragraph.
46.
The detentions to
which Gutierrez, Olivas
and Palacios were subjected were
performed pursuant
to
the
policies,
practices
and customs
of
Defendants
of holding
detainees
solely
based on
Immigration
Detainers.
l0
5/19/2018 Lawsuit against San Juan County Commission, sheriff
11/18
47.
This
civil
action
is
brought by
Plaintiffs on their own behalf and on
behalf of
a
class
of similarly
situated
persons,
pursuant
to Fed. R.
Civ.
P.
23.
The
class
for which Plaintiffs
seek
certification
is defined
as
follows: all
persons
who, in the
period
from three
years
prior
to
the date of
the filing of
this Class
Action
Complaint
to
the
present
and
continuing until
this
matter
is adjudicated and
the
practices
complained of herein cease,
were detained at the SJCDC
pursuant
to
an
Immigration Detainer.
48. Gutierrez, Olivas
and
Palacios
are
all members of the class they seek
to represent,
and have
standing
to
bring
this action because each was detained at the SJCDC
pursuant
to an
Immigration
Detainer,
as set
forth in
more
detail
above. Somos
has
standing to bring the claims
for injunctive
and
declaratory relief
because
the interests
it
seeks
to
protect
are
germane
to its
purpose, and its
members would otherwise have standing
to sue in their own right.
49.
Pursuant
to Fed. R.
Civ.
P. 23,
Plaintiffs,
individually and on behalf of the
members
of the
class,
seeks
such relief
as
is
just
and equitable,
including but not limited to:
(i)
Complete
disclosure of all information
within
the
possession,
custody
or
control
of
Defendants
concerning, relating to or involving
the detentions complained
of
herein;
(iD
Judicial declaration
that the detentions
complained of herein
are
unlawful;
(iii)
Issuance of
a
permanent
injunction
prohibiting
Defendants from engaging in the
detentions
complained of herein; and
(iv)
Judgment for compensatory
and
punitive
damages to the fullest extent
allowable
by
law from
Defendants
in
favor
of
Gutierrez, Olivas,
Palacios and the members
of
the
class
for
personal
and
economic
injury,
and
deprivation of statutory and/or common law
rights resulting
from
Defendants'
practices.
1i
5/19/2018 Lawsuit against San Juan County Commission, sheriff
12/18
50.
Plaintiffs
are
unable to
state
precisely
the size
of
the
class.
On information and
belief,
Plaintiffs allege that
there are more than 200
persons
who were detained
at
the SJCDC
pursuant to Immigration Detainers
in
the three
years prior
to the
filing of
this
Complaint,
and
that
number
is continuing to increase. Thus, the class is sufficiently numerous
that
joinder
of all
members
herein is impracticable. The exact number of class members
will be ascertained
through appropriate discovery,
from records maintained by Defendants and their agents.
51.
Questions
of
law and fact are
common to the claims of Plaintiffs
and the members
of the
class,
including
but not
limited to
(1)
whether
SJCDC
officers routinely
detain
persons
pursuant
to Immigration
Detainers; and
(2)
whether Defendants'
detention
of
persons pursuant
to
Immigration
Detainers is in
accordance with
the Constitution.
52.
Defendants have
acted
or
refused to act on
grounds generally
applicable to
the
class,
thereby
making
appropriate
final
injunctive
relief
or corresponding declaratory
relief with
respect
to the class as a
whole.
53.
There is
a
well-defined
community of
interest
amongst members
of
the
class.
The
claims of the
named
Plaintiffs
are typicalof the claims of the members of
the
class.
The
factual bases
of Defendants' misconduct are common
to
all class
members and represent
a
common
policy
and
practice
of detention
pursuant
to
Immigration
Detainers.
Moreover,
Plaintiffs'
claims are based on
the same legal
theories
as those
of the class
members.
54.
The named Plaintiffs
will fairly
and adequately
protect
the interests of the class.
Plaintiffs
are committed to
prosecuting
this action, and they have retained competent counsel
experienced
in civil
litigation
of this nature. Moreover,
the
interests of
Plaintiffs
are coincident
with, and
not antagonistic
to, those
of
the other members
of
the class.
l2
5/19/2018 Lawsuit against San Juan County Commission, sheriff
13/18
55.
The common
questions
of
law and fact herein
predominate
over
questions
affecting
any individual
class
member, and class action treatment
provides
a superior
method
for
the
fair
and
ef{icient adjudication ofthe
controversy.
56.
At
all times
relevant to the acts alleged herein, and as to every cause of action
asserted,
Defendants
acted fraudulently, oppressively, maliciously, and
in knowing
and
conscious
disregard of
Plaintiffs'
rights
and
the
rights
of
class members, as
outlined
herein.
vI.
FIRST CAUSE OF
ACTION
(Civil
Rights Violations
Under
42 U.S.C.
$
1983)
57. Plaintiffs
incorporate by reference
into
the
first cause of action the
allegations
of
paragraphs
1
through 56 above, as fully
as
if
realleged and
set
forth
herein.
58.
The
above-described
acts and omissions of Defendants
were unreasonable,
shocking
to the conscience,
and
were committed intentionally, maliciously,
willfully
and/or with
reckless
or deliberate indifference,
and in violation
of
the following clearly established
constitutional
rights
of
which
a reasonable
person
would have
been
aware:
(a)
Plaintiffs'
and class members'
Fourth
Amendment
rights to
be free
from
unreasonable searches
and
seizures;
and
(b)
Plaintiffs'
and class members'
Fourteenth Amendment rights
to
substantive
and
procedural
due
process.
59.
The
above-described
acts and
omissions
of
Defendants
were motivated
by
evil
motive
and intent, and
involved recklessness and callous indifference to Plaintiffs' and class
members'
federally
protected
rights,
justifuing
an award
of
punitive
damages.
6A.
Prior to the acts and omissions alleged herein, Defendants
failed to
properly
l3
5/19/2018 Lawsuit against San Juan County Commission, sheriff
14/18
create,
adopt, inculcate
and ensure compliance
with
appropriate
policies
and
procedures
for
corrections officers
and supervisory
personnel
employed by them;
failed to
properly
train,
monitor,
supervise
and discipline corrections officers
and supervisory
personnel
employed by
them, and
failed to otherwise
institute
and
ensure
compliance
with adequate
procedures
and
policies
that
would
protect
the
rights
of Plaintiffs
and class members. These
acts and omissions
were
direct
and
proximate
causes of the
injuries
complained
of by Plaintiffs
herein,
as set
forth
below.
61.
Defendants
maintained
a custom or
policy
which
permitted
or condoned the
foregoing
violations
of Plaintiffs'
and class
members'
constitutional
rights.
62.
The
acts and
omissions of
the Defendants as set
forth
above
were
undertaken
under color
of state
law
and
operated to deprive Plaintiffs and
the members of the class
of their
federal
rights.
Defendant
San Juan
County
is liable
for
damages
proximately
caused by
these
acts
and
omissions.
Defendant Christesen
is liable
in
his
individual
and
official
capacities
for
damages
proximately
caused
by these
acts
and omissions.
63.
As
a
direct
and
proximate
cause of Defendants'
violations of
their constitutional
rights,
Plaintiffs and
members of the class
suffered damages as set
forth
below.
YIL
SECOND
CAUSE OF
ACTION
(Declaratory
and Inj
u nctive
Relief)
64.
Plaintiffs
incorporate
by
reference
into
their
second
cause
of action the allegations
of
paragraphs I through
63 above, as
fully
as
if
realleged and set
forth
herein.
65.
Plaintiffs,
on behalf of themselves
and
the
members of
the class, seek ajudgment
declaring
that Defendants
must
cease
the activities
described herein and
permanently
enjoining
14
5/19/2018 Lawsuit against San Juan County Commission, sheriff
15/18
Defendantsfromanyfurtherdetentionspursuanttolmmigrationdetainers.
66.
Specifically'
Plaintiffs
seek
a
judgment
declaring
that:
a.ImmigrationDetainersarerequestsandnotmandatoryorders,anddonot
provide
any
legal
authority
for
Defendants
to
detain
anyone
identified
in
such
lmmi
gration
Detainers
;
b.ThedetentionofanypersonbasedsolelyonanlmmigrationDetaineris
prohibited
by
the
Fourth
Amendment;
c.ThedetentionofanypersonbasedsolelyonanlmmigrationDetaineris
prohibited
by
the
Fourteenth
Amendment'
6T,Plaintiffsalsoseekajudgmentenforcingthefollowinginjunctivereliefagainst
Defendants:
a.RequiringDefendantstoimmediatelyreleaseanypersonheldin
Defendants'
custody
based
on
an
Immigration
Detainer;
b'
Enjoining
Defendants
from
detaining
any
person
in
their
custody
in
the
future
based
on
an
Immigration
Detainer;
c'RequiringDefendantstoadoptaclear'writtenpolicystatingthat
Immigration
Detainers
are
requests
only
and
that
the
SJCDC
will
not
honor
such
requests;
and
d.RequiringDefendantstotrainandsuperviseallstaffwithrespecttothe
non-enforcement
of
Immigration
Detainers'
68.Theconstitutionalviolationsallegedhereinarisefromofficialpoliciesand
pfacticessanctionedbyDefendants.TheharmswhichthePlaintiffsandthemembersofthe
l5
5/19/2018 Lawsuit against San Juan County Commission, sheriff
16/18
class have
sustained
are
directly
traceable
to these
officially
sanctioned
policies
and
procedures.
69.
Plaintiffs
and members of the class do not
have a
plain,
adequate, speedy,
or
complete
remedy
at law to
address
the wrongs
alleged in this
Complaint,
and
they
will
suffer
irreparable injury
as
a
result
of
Defendants' misconduct
unless
injunctive
and
declaratory
relief
is
granted.
Plaintiffs and members of the class
are
in realand immediate danger
of sustaining
future,
direct
injury as
a
result of Defendants'
official
policies
and
practices
that are ongoing
at
the time
of this
suit.
70.
No cognizable burden will
be
placed
on Defendants by requiring that no
detentions
be allowed
pursuant
to Immigration
Detainers.
The
public
interest
would
be
greatly
enhanced
by enforcement
of
policies
and
praetices
which
adhere
to the requirements
of the state
and federal Constitutions. Absent injunctive relief, there is no
guarantee
that the Defendants
will cease their illegal
policies
and
practices
as
alleged herein.
71. By reason
of the
foregoing, Plaintiffs
and members of the class are entitled
to
declaratory
and injunctive reliefas set forth above.
vIII.
DAMAGES
72.
Paragraphs
I through 70, above, are incorporated herein by reference
as
iffully
set forth
in this
paragraph.
73.
As
a
direct
and
proximate result
of the
wrongful
and
unlawfulactions
of
Defendants,
described
above, Gutierrez, Olivas, Palacios and the members
of
the
class
were
injured and
have
suffered and continue
to
suffer damages, including
but not
limited
to distress,
anguish, suffering, humiliation,
costs,
fees, loss
of
liberty,
deprivation
of
constitutional
rights,
l6
5/19/2018 Lawsuit against San Juan County Commission, sheriff
17/18
and
other incidental,
consequential,
and
special
damages.
74.
The
above-described
acts
and omissions
of
Christensen were
motivated
by evil
motive and intent,
and
involved
recklessness
and
callous indifference
to Gutierrez',
Olivas',
Palacios'
and
class
members'
federally
protected
rights,
justifuing
an award of
punitive
damages
against
Christensen
in his individual
capacity,
for
the
purpose
of
punishment
and
to deter
others
from the commission
of
like
offenses.
WHEREFORE,
Plaintiffs,
on behalf
of
themselves,
and on behalf
of the
members
of the
class represented
herein, respectfully pray
for
and demand
judgment
against
the Defendants
as
follows:
(a)
For
judgment
against Defendants
for
compensatory damages,
special
damages,
consequential
damages
and
incidental
damages
under
any or
all of the
causes
of action,
in an
amount to
be determined
at the
trial
of this
cause;
(b)
For
judgment
declaring
the rights
of the
parties,
as set forth
herein;
(c)
For
injunctive
relief, as
set
forth herein;
(d)
For
reasonable
attomeys'
fees
and costs incurred
herein;
(e)
For
pre-judgment
and
post-judgment
interest
in
amounts
to
be determined
according
to
law;
(0
For
an award
of
punitive
and exemplary
damages
against Defendant
Christensen
in his
individual capacity,
in an
amount
to be
determined
at the trial
of this
cause;
and
(g)
For
such
other
and
furlher
relief
as
the Court
deems
just
and
proper.
t7
5/19/2018 Lawsuit against San Juan County Commission, sheriff
18/18
Respectfu
Ily
submitted,
ROTHSTEIN, DONATELLI, HUGIIES,
DAHLSTROM,
SCHOENBIJRG
&
BIEIWENU,
LLP
/s/ John C. Bienvenu
John C. Bienvenu
Mark H. Donatelli
Kristina
Martinez
Brendan
K.
Egan
Post
Office Box
8180
Santa
Fe,
New Mexico
87504-8180
(505)
e88-8004
(505)
982-0307
(fax)
Attorneys
for
Plaintffi and the Class
l8
Top Related