Case 1:16-cv-00415 Document 1 Filed 05/09/16 Page 1 of 16 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO ROBERT ELLISON, Plaintiff, vs. ‘THE ROOSEVELT COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, a political Sub-division existing under the laws of The State of New Mexico, THE ROOSEVELT COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE, a political sub-division of the State of New Mexico, MALIN PARKER Individually, JAVIER SANCHEZ, individually, Defendants No. CIVIL COMPLAINT-RECOVERY UNDER 42 U.S.C. §1983- VIOLATION OF DUE PROCESS LIBERTY INTEREST; VIOLATION OF FIRST AMENDMENT; RETALIATORY DISCHARGE; AND VIOLATION OF THE “WHISTLEBLOWER PROTECTION ACT” COMES NOW, Plaintiff ROBERT ELLISON, by and through his undersigned counsel Eric D. Dixon, Attorney and Counselor at Law, P.A., Portales, New Mexico, and for his claim states: PARTIES 1. Plaintiffis ar lent of Roosevelt County, New Mexico. 2. Defendant the Board of County Commissioners for Roosevelt County, is a political sub-division of the State of New Mexico which can be sued pursuant to §4-46-1 NMSA 1978 and is located in Roosevelt County New Mexico, is a personCase 1:16-cv-00415 Document 1 Filed 05/09/16 Page 2 of 16 within the meaning of 42 U.S.C.§1983, and acted under color of state law, local ordinance, custom, procedure, and/or policy to deny Plaintiff his constitutional rights and engaged in unconstitutional acts outlined in this Complaint. 3. Malin Parker, is an individual domiciled in Roosevelt County, New Mexico, and at all times pertinent he was the Sheriff of Roosevelt County, New Mexico. He isa final decision maker within the County of Roosevelt on personnel decisions under the rules and regulations of the County of Roosevelt and acted under color of state law, local ordinance, custom and/or policy and within the scope of his, duties, conspired with the other Defendants for the express purpose of denying Plaintiff his constitutional rights, and engaged in the unconstitutional acts as outlined in this Complaint. 4, Javier Sanchez is an individual domiciled in Roosevelt County, New Mexico, and at all times pertinent he was a Lieutenant of the Roosevelt County Sheriff's Office. He is a final decision maker within the County of Roosevelt on personnel decisions under the rules and regulations of the County of Roosevelt and acted under color of state law, local ordinance, custom and/or policy and within the scope of his duties, conspired with the other Defendants for the express purpose of denying Plaintiff his constitutional rights, and engaged in the unconstitutional acts as outlined in this Complaint.Case 1:16-cv-00415 Document 1 Filed 05/09/16 Page 3 of 16 VENUE 5. Venue lie within the Federal District Court of New Mexico, as Plaintiff's claims arise under the constitution and federal law as hereinafter more fully appears pursuant to 28U.S.C. §1391, JURISDICTION 6. Jurisdiction is conferred by 28 U.S. C. §§1331 and 1343. 7. Jurisdiction over the state claims is conferred by 28 U.S.C. §1367. COMMON FACTS 8. On March 24", 2016 Plaintiff arrested Julien Aranda for Aggravated assault upon a peace officer, battery upon a peace officer, assault upon a peace officer, resisting, evading or obstructing an officer, resisting, evading or obstructing an officer and traffic violations including turning signals and impeding traffic. During the stop and arrest Aranda continuously threatened Plaintiff’ life, the lives of his family. He stated he knew where Plaintiff lived and would come and kill Plaintiff. Julien Aranda was subsequently aggravated for aggravated assault (deadly weapon) and battery. 9. On March 24", 2016 while in the parking lot at the Roosevelt County Detention Center in Portales, New Mexico Deputy Sheriff Christopher Mc Casland told Plaintiff without prompting from Plaintiff and outside the normal scope and 3Case 1:16-cv-00415 Document 1 Filed 05/09/16 Page 4 of 16 course of his duties that he (Mc Casland) once had a detainee talk badly to him. Mc Casland stated he was transporting a male detainee in the back of his patrol vehicle and the male detainee called him names. Mc Casland said he was ‘employed by another law enforcement agency at the time. The detainee was hand cuffed but was not wearing a seat belt. The metal divider between the front and rear seats had a waffled metal grill which allowed the detainee to speak with the driver of the vehicle, Mc Casland waited for the detainee to place his head near the grill and then immediately slammed on the police vehicle’s breaks. This caused the detainee to smash his head into the grill and injure himself. Mc Casland laughed about the incident. Mc Casland said the detainee did not talk bad about him anymore after being slammed into the metal grill 10. On March 27", 2016 Julien Aranda spoke with Lieutenant Javier Sanchez about his arrest and complained that Plaintiff had used excessive force during the arrest. Aranda stated he was afraid because Plaintiff had pointed his weapon at him. Aranda stated the arm lock Plaintiff used against him was excessive. Sanchez did not bother to interview Plaintiff about these false allegations, nor even inform Plaintiff of the complaint all in violation of Roosevelt County policies and state law.Case 1:16-cv-00415 Document 1 Filed 05/09/16 Page 5 of 16 11, _ Javier Sanchez comes from a large family and is believed to have family/social connections with the Aranda family. 12, _ Javier Sanchez and Plaintiff spoke briefly about the Aranda traffic stop. Sanchez claimed that Plaintiff had made up the reasons for the stop even though the incident (besides Aranda blocking the roadway), was on video. Another Sheriff's Deputy by the name of Leslie Tibbs (a field training officer), agreed that Plaintiff had enough reasonable suspicion to stop Aranda based on him blocking traffic. Sanchez claimed that the whole traffic stop was not legal. 13. _ Javier Sanchez while a Roosevelt County Sheriff's Deputy arrested a mother of five in front of her five small children for alleged over-due library books despite Sanchez being told by a Portales police-man not to arrest the young woman on the stale bench warrant issued a year earlier from the Portales Municipal Court. The charges were dismissed after the woman spent a night in jail, Sanchez was almost immediately promoted to Lieutenant after making this bogus arrest. 14. On April 1 or 2, 2016 Plaintiff and Christopher McCasland spoke at the Eastern New Mexico Greyhound Arena parking lot. Plaintiff turned on his video and audio recorder during the conversation. Plaintiff spoke with Mc Casland about his statement to Plaintiff about “beating up” a detainee in the back of his 5Case 1:16-cv-00415 Document 1 Filed 05/09/16 Page 6 of 16 police vehicle while at another agency. He admitted against that he had intentionally smashed a detainee’s head while transporting him. Mc Casland stated he regretted what he did, but he was only a “rookie” and did not know any better. Mc Casland stated he told Plaintiff the information in confidence hinting that he believed Plaintiff would have kept it a secret. During this conversation Me Casland and Plaintiff spoke about Mc Casland’s dislike for Sheriff Malin Parker. Mc Casland stated that he did not talk badly but only spoke the truth. He also claimed to be “best friends” with Javier Sanchez. This conversation with Mc Casland was not part of Plaintiff's normal police duties. 15. On April 5", 2016 at approximately 4:00 p.m, Plaintiff spoke with Sheriff's Sat. Mark Morrison, Plaintiff explained to Morrison what Mc Casland had stated to Plaintiff about maliciously injuring a detainee while he was in the back of his patrol vehicle. Morrison stated he would bring it up with Sanchez. 16. On April 13", 2016 Plaintiff was meet at the door to the Sheriff's office by Javier Sanchez who gave Plaintiff papers releasing Plaintiff from employment at the Roosevelt County Sheriff's Office. A “performance report” was attached dated April 12", 2016. 17. _ Plaintiff was informed by Sanchez that he was being terminated because he was not “fitting in” with the department. Plaintiff informed Sanchez that there 6Case 1:16-cv-00415 Document 1 Filed 05/09/16 Page 7 of 16 was a recording on unit 100’s hard drive which has the audio and video of Mc Casland’s admission to a crime. Sanchez stated he would look into it but would not allow Plaintiff to show Sanchez the video. Plaintiff was escorted off the premises before he could get a copy of the audio/video. 18. The charges against Aranda are still pending in Magistrate Court and were in all respects proper and within the law. ividual associated 19. Plaintiff was terminated in retaliation for arresting an with Roosevelt County Sheriff's Lieutenant Javier Sanchez, or his extended family, to wit: Julian Aranda; making a report of improper conduct by another Sheriff's Deputy and refusing to “cover up” wrong doing in the Roosevelt County Sheriff's Office which has become a de facto requirement for working at the Office. The Sheriff Mailin Parker has hired and retained known dangerous individuals including Brian Encinias who has engaged in financial irresponsibility (home foreclosure 0-0905-CV-0200300149); physically abusing his child which resulted in his parental rights being suspended for a period of time in 2014 (D-0905-DM- 2007-0004) on December 29", 2013 Encinias threw Rhonda Sparks out of a vehicle to the ground which caused her injuries to her left side of her face and left knee. Encinias then drove off in the vehicle while intoxicated and later gave a false statement to the police claiming it was Ms. Sparks who had hit him, Despite 7Case 1:16-cv-00415 Document 1 Filed 05/09/16 Page 8 of 16 this background, Encinias has been employed and continues to be employed by the Roosevelt County Sheriff's office. 20.The Roosevelt County Sheriff Malin Parker has a policy, practice, routine and custom of failing to properly train, supervise and control Deputies in conducting “internal investigations” and actively ignoring wrongdoing as outlined herein. 21, Javier Sanchez lacked the training, experience, fairness and objectivity to . Sanchez provided a conduct any sort of “internal investigation” of Plaintit false and exaggerated attachment to his April 12, 2016 letter of termination falsely claiming “inconsistencies” in the traffic stop by Plaintiff. 22, Malin Parker the Roosevelt County Sheriff participated in and ratified and approved the actions of Javier Sanchez. 23. The Roosevelt County Board of County Commissioners through its Human Resources Administrator and County Manager, participated in and ratified, and approved the actions of Javier Sanchez. COUNT I-VIOLATION OF DUE PROCESS LIBERTY INTEREST COMES NOW, Plaintiff by and through his undersigned attorney and for Count - Violation of due process-liberty interest against Defendants, states:Case 1:16-cv-00415 Document 1 Filed 05/09/16 Page 9 of 16 24. The allegations contained above and below are incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in full. 25.In deciding to terminate Plaintiff, Defendants used information which they knew or should have known was false, misleading and/or incomplete, failed to properly investigate the allegations, and their conduct has stigmatized Plaintiff causing him to suffer serious damage to his reputation and standing and/or association in the Portales Community and outside in the community at large 26. The allegations that form the basis of his termination have caused and continue to cause Plaintiff to be stigmatized in the Portales community and the community at large by raising questions of his ability to perform the responsibilities of his profession and by creating the suspicion of improprieties surrounding his conduct, which allegations were misleading and false. 27 Plaintiff was never given an adequate opportunity to clear his name or to make a meaningful response to these charges at the time they were first made or at the time of his removal as Sheriff's Deputy. 28. The actions of Defendants have limited and will limit Plaintiff's freedom to is field, and, in addition, take advantage of future employment opportunities in have caused him to suffer loss of professional reputation, humiliation and emotional distress.Case 1:16-cv-00415 Document 1 Filed 05/09/16 Page 10 of 16 29. Defendants have deprived Plaintiff of his liberty interest without affording him due process, in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, 30. Defendants are liable to Plaintiffs under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for compensatory damages. 31. The acts of Defendants were carried out intentionally, in total disregard of the rights of Plaintiff thereby entitling him to an award of punitive damages in a sufficient amount that will deter and punish them for engaging in such egregious unconstitutional conduct again 32. Asa direct and proximate cause of the aforementioned Defendants unconstitutional conduct, Plaintiff suffered mental anguish, mental stress, humiliation, nervousness, worry, stress, suffered a loss of wages, loss of benefits, further incurred loss of future wages, and loss of future benefits. Plai attorney's fees. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff asks for judgment against Defendants for compensatory damages; punitive damages; attorney's fees under 42 U.S.C. §1988; costs; pre- judgment and post-judgment interest; and for such further relief as the Court deems appropriate. 10Case 1:16-cv-00415 Document 1 Filed 05/09/16 Page 11 of 16 COUNT II-VIOLATION OF FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS COMES NOW, Plaintiff by and through his undersigned attorney and for Count II- Violation of First Amendment rights states: 33, The allegations above and below are incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in full herein. 34, Plaintiff engaged in constitutionally protected First Amendment activity in requesting an investigation of unlawful cover up and questioning Detention Center policies that would leave the Defendant County open to civil rights litigation, 35.Defendants terminated Plaintiff as a result of his exercise of his lawful First Amendment rights. 36. The termination was substantially motivated by Plaintiff's protected activities under the First Amendment. 37. Asa direct and proximate cause of the aforementioned Defendants unconstitutional conduct, Plaintiff suffered mental anguish, mental stress, humiliation, nervousness, worry, suffered a loss of wages, loss of benefits, loss of future wages, and loss of future benefits. Plaintiff further incurred attorney fees for which he seeks compensation aCase 1:16-cv-00415 Document 1 Filed 05/09/16 Page 12 of 16 38. The acts of Defendants were carried out intentionally, in total disregard of the rights of Plaintiff thereby entitling him to an award of punitive damages in a sufficient amount that will deter and punish them for engaging in such egregious unconstitutional conduct again. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff asks for judgment against Defendants for compensatory damages; punitive damages; attorneys fees under 42 U.S.C. §1983; costs; pre- judgment and post-judgment interest; and for such further and additional relief as the Court deems appropriate COUNT III-RETALIATORY DISCHARGE COMES NOW, Plaintiff by and through his undersigned attorney and for Count Ill- Retaliatory Discharge states: 39, The allegations above and below are incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in full herein. 40. Plaintiff has brought to Defendant's attention potential wrongful and illegal conduct involving an employee. 41. _ Plaintiff ordinary duties did not include bringing up claims of wrongful misconduct engaged by others before they were employed by the Roosevelt County Sheriff's office. 12Case 1:16-cv-00415 Document 1 Filed 05/09/16 Page 13 of 16 42. The Defendants in retaliation for Plaintiff reporting these activities terminated Plaintiff's employment. 43. Plaintiff's termination by Defendants was unlawful, in violation of public policy and retaliatory because Plaintiff had exercised his first Amendment rights and addressed manners of public concern unlawful conduct by one of his co- employees and refusing to “fit in” to the culture of covering up wrongful conduct, existing at the Roosevelt County Sheriff's office. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests that this Court award him compensatory damages for violation of his rights and award punitive damages against these Defendants in an amount sufficient to punish them for their unconstitutional conduct and to deter them and others from engaging in such misconduct in the future; award his costs and reasonable attorneys fees; pre-judgment and post-judgment interest; and for such further and additional relief as the Court deems appropriate. COUNT IV-VIOLATION OF THE “WHISTLEBLOWER PROTECTION ACT” COMES NOW, Plaintiff by and through his undersigned attorney and for Count Vill-Violation of the “Whistleblower Protection Act” §10-16 C-1 NMSA 1978 et seq. against the Defendants states: 44, The allegations contained above are incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in full herein 13Case 1:16-cv-00415 Document 1 Filed 05/09/16 Page 14 of 16 45. Plaintiff engaged in protected activity under the “Whistleblower Protection Act” as set forth above by among other things communicating to the Defendant or a third party information about an action or a failure to act that Plaintiff believed in good faith constituted an unlawful or improper act and objecting to or refusing to participate in an activity, policy or practice that constituted an unlawful or improper act, see paragraph 17 i through vi incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in full. 46. Plaintiff suffered a ret ory action because he engaged in protected activity. 47. A motivating factor in Plaintiff's terminated from his employment with Defendant was in retaliation for engaging in protected activity under the “Whistleblower Protection Act” as set forth above including properly arresting Julian Aranda who has ties to Javier Sanchez and/or his family; and for reporting on illegal activity of a fellow Sheriff's Deputy for activities occurring outside the Roosevelt County Sheriff's Office, 48, Plaintiff has been damaged as a result of Defendant's violation of the “Whistleblower Protection Act.” WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests judgment against Defendants for: Actual damages, 14Case 1:16-cv-00415 Document 1 Filed 05/09/16 Page 15 of 16 8B. Two times the amount of back pay with interest on the back pay and compensation for any special damage sustained as a result of the violation pursuant to §10-16C-4 A NMSA 1978. C. Litigation costs and reasonable attorney's fees pursuant to §10-16C-4 A. NMSA. 1978 DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURY. Comes Now, Plaintiff and makes demand for a trial before a jury on all such issues so determinable. 49. The Seventh Amendment (right to jury trial), applies to actions enforcing statutory rights, and requires a jury trial upon demand, if the statute creates legal rights and remedies, enforceable in an action for damages in the ordinary courts of law. 50. When Congress provides for enforcement of statutory rights in an ordinary civil action in the district courts, where there is obviously no functional justification for denying the jury trial right, a jury trial must be made available if the action involves rights and remedies of the sort typically enforced in an action at law. Curtis v. Loether, 415U.S.189,194-95, 94 S.Ct.1005, 1008, 39L. Ed. 2d 260 «ag74). 15Case 1:16-cv-00415 Document 1 Filed 05/09/16 Page 16 of 16 Respectfully Submitted: /s/ Eric D. Dixon Eric D. Dixon Attorney and Counselor at Law, P.A. 301 South Avenue A, Portales, New Mexico, 88130 (575) 359-1233 Facsimile: (575) 356-4946 Attorney for Plaintiff 16‘aad Glow nts) Case 1:16-cv-00445 yRpcuepy pls Fiep PS/09/16 Page 1 of 2 ‘The 1844 civil cover shet and the information contained hersin neither replace noe supplement the fing and sevice of pleadings o other papers a eguired by I, excep ae viet yh lexan rm sponed yh ail Contec fies Snes nape PA orgie or eas of hee oF Co ue Purpose of ntiatng the evil docket shes” ARE TNSTNUCTIONS OX NEXT PAGE OP THIS FORM) 1, @)_ PLAINTIFFS DEFENDANTS - Robert Blison ‘The Roosevelt County Board of County Commissioners, The Roosevelt County Sheriffs Office, Malin Parker, individually, and Javier Sanchez, individually (©) County of Residence of First Listed Plain Roosevelt County of Residence of int Listed Defendant Roosevelt (GXCEPT IN US, PLAINTIFF CASES) avUS PLAINTIF CASESONLY) THETHAGT OF LAND VOLVED! (6), Mer i ame es honey om om) eleo Bhan Atorhey and Coineaérat Caw, Ba 501 South Avenue A, Pores, NM, 83190, (675) 369-1233, TL. BASIS OF JURISDICTION (scan is Ove Buc Ow JI. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES (accon Xe Box Pip or Dery Caer Ob tnd On Bon fr fd 111 US. Covent 3 Feseal Quetn “ ‘roe er re oer ait (US. Gnome Nota Pay) CctsenoethiSite FL Inmdortvicpt Phe eta Tia Ceca Parr wong | rene Aaater Se wens ter See nmamsiefs 9293 Feden a6 os TV. NATURE OF SUIT (scan in Ove box oni) Cac rors RETREAT [BANKRUPTCY 7 OTPR STATO —] 2 110 anes PERSONALINIURY —_FERSONALINVURY [0 62s Due Reaes Sean [O22 Appel 28 USC ISK [2 ¥7s abe Chins Aa 5 tao lo io mae Bes enon iny topeny 21 Use| £23 Wind 1B sacar tam 1 USC 8 bboMiter act 31s Aue ret Proaictainiy [0 6r0er seuseis Sven 1 so Reansryof Overy [0 320 Amul Lit & Pascal [SERGE RTETS A] 9 310 ater ‘Efolocemen st lpne Snr Fens fareaoconyrhe 5 Li ened Baking Bis elated ‘sty (0 364 Aton esa oso dena 5 se Depratin (Griese Veer) — (1 345 Mais Product skit ComupOrsizatons 3 ssRexowey of Ovegament | ny PaRsONAL PROPERTY [5-TIOTaE Labo Sendace JETS THA TST) cs ato corte Cet sven Bowtie” Jo 20h Vets One Fn at fo wea bicktagrs» 13 Hocanesact¥ 11 1e0Seckind Suis | 355M Vee 171 Trin tang, [6172 sbrhtaagenent [91 ea DINCIDINW 40s) | HO Seer Cimdio” 5 i9sconnet Prout itty] 30 Otero ‘rope Dusngs [2 740Raiwny aber Aa | 865 RSD) 2 wher Stary Actions . 362 Fenn ay rode Laity ene Act 69 Eon Mar Mesa Migice a 290 Ger abe Litgnion 895 Fedom of tomaticn oar TSMC RIGIS ——PRRSISERFERTIONES|9 71 Sopp Reem [AEDERATTARSUMES] © Ae TIO Lang Conenaaten [E10 Other Cu igh | Hades Corp ince Sony het [BHD Tae US Pas? —] 2 w6 Abana 5 a Freie raat Verne os sev nen Dene bres) F388 Admin Procode B dooAanomernealtopery [oats Aner widuobities.[7 535 Deh Peay TATRATION Ps Sate Erotoyne oie: [5-4 Ntataton ator ssc nr wibtshies-|0 StOninman& oer [9 455 Oe mata ows: ssc etna 248 Biv IB Ssstvion Contin Conia V. ORIGIN (Pace one Ove Box ny %1 Original 2 Removedffom D3 Remandedfrom 4 Reinsatedor OF $ Transfred fiom 16 Mutiisct, Proceeding Ste Cov ‘pelts Court Reopened Arteria eon ESS Spe vm yas lng Oe ai ron nla Tel ‘VI. CAUSE OF ACTION énalon of Shot's deputy in etalton for exercising his Fst Amendment rights ad in oation of igh ‘VII. REQUESTED IN 17 CHECK IF THIS IS A CLASS ACTION DEMAND 5 "CHECK YES only if demanded in complaint: COMPLAINT: UNDER RULED, Cu 500,000.00 SRYDEMAND. Yer Ns VIL RELATED CASE(S) IF ANY, Geman ypog DOCKET NUMBER 05/09/2016 tsi Bric D. DixonJs4Rewene @ev ivi) Case 1:16-cv-00415 Document 1-1 Filed 05/09/16 Page 2 of 2 INSTRUCTIONS FOR ATTORNEYS COMPLETING CIVIL COVER SHEET FORM JS 44 ‘Authority For Civil Cover Sheet ‘The JS 44 evil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replaces nor supplements the flings and service of pleading or other papers as required by law, except as provided by local rules of court, This form, approved by the Judicial Conference ofthe United Stats in September 1974, is required for the use ofthe Clerk of Court for te purpose of initiating the civil docket sheet. Consequently, a civil cover sheet is submitted tothe Clerk of| Court for each civil complaint filed. The attorney filing a case should complete the form as follows: L(a) Plaintiff Defendants. Enter names (lst, firs, middle intial) of plaintiff and defendant, Ifthe plaintiff or defendant is @ government agency, use only the full name or standard abbreviations. Ifthe plaintiff or defendant is an official within & government agency, identify frst the agency’ and then the official, giving both name and ttle (®) County of Residence. For each civil case filed, except U.S. plaintiff cass, enter the name of he county where the firs listed plaintiff resides atthe time of filing, In US. plaintiff eases, enter the name ofthe county in which the first listed defendant resides atthe time of filing. (NOTE: In land condemnation cases, the county of residence ofthe "defendant" isthe location ofthe tact of land involved.) (©) Attorneys. Enter the firm name, address, telephone number, and atomey of reord. If there are several altomey; list them on an attachment, noting inthis section “(Gee attachment". M1, Jurisdiction, The basis of jurisdiction is set forth under Rule 8(2), FR.Cw-P., which requires that jurisdictions be shown in pleadings. Place an "X" in one ofthe boxes. Ithere is more than one bass of jurisdiction, preeedence is given in the order shown below. United States pliniff. (1) Jurisdiction based on 28 U.S.C. 1345 and 1348. Suis by agencies and officors of the Unite States ae included here. United States defendant. (2) When the plaintiff issuing the United States, its officers or agencies, place an "X" in this box. Federal question. (3) This tefers to suits under 28 U.S.C. 1331, where jurisdiction arses under the Constitution of the United States, an amendinent to the Constitution, an act of Congress ora treaty of the United States. In eases where the U.S. i party the U.S. plaintiff or defendant code takes precedence, and box 1 oF 2 should be marked Diversity of citizenship, (4) Ths refers to suits under 28 U.S.C. 1332, where partes ar citizens of different states, When Box 4 is checked, the citizenship of the different parties must be checked. (See Section Il below; NOTE: federal question actions take precedence over diversity eases.) IIL, Residence (citizenship) of Principal Parties. This section ofthe JS 44 isto be completed if diversity of citizenship was indicated above. Mark this section for each principal party. IV, Nature of Suit, Place an "X" in the appropriate box. IF he nature of suit cannot be determined, be sure the cause of action, in Section VI below, is sulfcient to enable the deputy clerk or the statistical clrk(s) in the Administrative Office to determine the nature of suit. Ifthe cause fits more than fone nature of suit, select the most definitive V. Origin, Place an "X" in one of the six boxes ‘Original Proceedings. (1) Cases which originate in the United States dstict cours Removed from State Court. (2) Proceedings initiated in state courts may be removed tothe distet courts under Title 28 U.S.C., Section 1441 ‘When the petition for removal is granted, check this box. Remanded from Appellate Court. (3) Check this box for eases remanded tothe distict court for further action. Use the date of remand as the filing date Reinstated or Reopened. (4) Check this box for cases reinstated or reopened inthe distrit court. Use the reopening date as the filing dat. ‘Transferred from Another District. (5) For eases transferred under Title 28 U.S.C. Section 1404(a). Do not use this for within district tansfers or ‘multiistrict litigation transfers. ‘Muhidistrict Litigation, (6) Check this box when a multidistrct case is transferred into the district under authority of Tile 28 U.S.C. Section 1407, ‘When this box is checked, donot check (5) above. VI. Cause of Action. Report the civil statute directly related tothe cause of action and give a bref description ofthe cause, Do not cite jurisdictional statutes unless diversity. Example: U.S. Civil Statute: 47 USC 553 Brief Description: Unauthorized reception of cable service VIL Requested in Complaint. Class Action. Place an "X" inthis box if you are filing a classaction under Rule 23, FR.CY.P. Demand, Tn this space enter the actual dollar amount being demanded or indicate ther demand, such asa preliminary injunction. Jury Demand, Cheek the appropriate box to indicate whether ot not a jury is being demanded. VII. Related Cases. This section ofthe 1S 44 is used to reference related pending cases, if any. If there are related pending cases, insert the docket ‘numbers and the corresponding judge names for such cases Date and Attorney Signature, Date and sign the civil cover sheet,