Case 3:18-cv-01770-B Document 1 Filed 07/09/18 Page 1 of 13 PageID 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION

MARK HUGHES and CORY §

HUGHES §
Plaintiffs, §

v. § 3:18-cv-1770
CIVIL ACTION NO. ______
§
CITY OF DALLAS, TEXAS, DALLAS § JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
POLICE DEPARTMENT, §
§

Defendants. §
§

PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL COMPLAINT

TO THE HONORABLE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT:

NOW COMES Mark Hughes and Cory Hughes, Plaintiffs, complaining of Defendants City

of Dallas, Texas ("the “City”), Dallas Police Department (“DPD”) and for cause would show the

Honorable Court as follows:

NATURE OF THE ACTION

1. This is an action brought by the Plaintiffs against the City of Dallas, Texas for

suppression of the right to bear arms, free speech, unlawful arrest and unlawful detention under

the color of law in violation of Plaintiffs’ individual rights under the First, Second, Fourth and

Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution and in violation of their civil rights

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

2. Plaintiffs allege that the City of Dallas, Texas, Mayor Mike Rawlings

(“Rawlings”), Chief of Police David Brown ("Brown") and the Dallas City Council (collectively

Plaintiffs’ Original Complaint 1 | Page

 Case 3:18-cv-01770-B Document 1 Filed 07/09/18 Page 2 of 13 PageID 2

referred herein as the "Policymakers") had a duty, but failed to implement and/or enforce policies,

practices and procedures for the Dallas Police Department that respected Plaintiffs’ constitutional

rights. For these civil rights violations and other causes of action discussed herein, Plaintiffs seek

answers and compensation for their damages and the wrongful detention of Mark Hughes and Cory

Hughes.

PARTIES

3. Plaintiff Mark Hughes is a citizen of the United States and a resident of Mansfield,

Texas.

4. Plaintiff Cory Hughes is a citizen of the United States and a resident of Mansfield,

Texas.

5. Defendant, the City of Dallas (“Defendant City”), is and was at all relevant times

mentioned, a municipality duly organized and existing under the laws of Texas. Defendant City’s

Police Department, Dallas Police Department (“DPD”), is an official subdivision of Defendant

City, and all officers employed by the DPD are employees of Defendant City.

6. Defendant City was at all times mentioned engaged in owning, operating,

maintaining, managing and doing business as DPD, and in the business of public safety for the

residents of Dallas, Dallas County.

7. The City of Dallas operates the Dallas Police Department (“DPD”). The City of

Dallas funds and operates the DPD, which, along with the Dallas City Council, the Dallas City

Manager, Dallas Mayor Rawlings and Chief Brown are responsible for the implementation of the

police department’s budget, policies, procedures, practices, and customs, as well as the acts and

omissions, challenged by this suit. The DPD is also responsible for preventive, investigative, and

enforcement services for all citizens of The City of Dallas.

Plaintiffs’ Original Complaint 2 | Page

 Case 3:18-cv-01770-B Document 1 Filed 07/09/18 Page 3 of 13 PageID 3

8. Service of Process may be had on the CITY OF DALLAS by serving its City

Attorney, Thomas Perkins, at Dallas City Hall, 1500 Marilla Street, Room 7DN, Dallas, TX

75201-6622. The other Defendants may be served in accordance with Rule 5 of the Federal Rules

of Civil Procedure.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

9. Jurisdiction exists in this court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343 as this

action is brought under, inter alia, the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution and 42

U.S.C. §1983, to redress the deprivation of rights, privileges and immunities guaranteed to

Plaintiffs by constitutional and statutory provisions. Plaintiffs further invoke the supplemental

jurisdiction of this court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367 to adjudicate pendent claims arising under

the laws of the State of Texas.

10. Venue is appropriate in the United States District Court; Northern District of Texas,

Dallas Division, since Dallas County is the location of the events made the basis of this cause of

action.

11. Plaintiffs timely filed a notice of claim with the City.

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

12. On Thursday, July 7, 2016, Mark and Cory Hughes attended an anti-police brutality

rally in Dallas, Texas after the shooting death of licensed gun-holder Philando Castile and unarmed

Alton Sterling.

13. In protest of the shooting death of Philando Castile, Mark Hughes brought his

long-gun with him to the protest as a symbol that African American men had the right to exercise

their Second Amendment privileges without fear of being gunned down.

Plaintiffs’ Original Complaint 3 | Page

 Case 3:18-cv-01770-B Document 1 Filed 07/09/18 Page 4 of 13 PageID 4

14. The Hughes Brothers participated in the peaceful rally without incident along

with roughly 800 other people that marched from Belo Garden Park, up Commerce Street

towards El Centro. The rally was also attended by several other counter-protesters who were also

openly displaying firearms during the protest.

15. Upon arrival, Mark Hughes presented his weapon to a nearby law enforcement

officer who met Mark and briefly inspected the weapon. After which Mark joined the protesters

and was seen with the weapon during plaintiff, Cory Hughes’, speech at the rally and continually

during the course of the march with the weapon held over his shoulder attached to a gun strap.

16. At about 8:45 p.m. the protesters had begun to disperse. However, approximately

ten minutes later, shots rang out. Hearing the shots Cory Hughes immediately found his brother

Mark and told him to turn his rifle over to police officers on the scene so that Mark would not

be mistaken as the shooter. Mark turned his rifle in to an officer received a receipt and a

business card with contact information to retrieve his rifle the following day. This exchange

was captured by a cellphone recording. The Hughes brothers then began to assist to the Dallas

Police Department by helping people evacuate the area safely.

17. Around 10:52pm, the Dallas Police Department tweeted out a photo of Mark

Hughes holding his AR-15 rifle, declaring with the caption “This is our suspect! Please help us

find him!”

18. Mark was headed towards his car when he received a phone call that he had

been identified as the suspect involved in the shooting by DPD. Mark immediately went to a

small group of police officers and turned himself. The officer placed him under arrest,

confiscated his shirt and car keys and drove him to police headquarters.

Plaintiffs’ Original Complaint 4 | Page

 Case 3:18-cv-01770-B Document 1 Filed 07/09/18 Page 5 of 13 PageID 5

19. After hearing of his brother’s arrest Cory Hughes traveled to the police

headquarters as well. Upon his arrival he was also detained for questioning.

20. Both Cory and Mark Hughes were interrogated without proper Miranda warnings.

An attorney, hired by their family, presented himself to the police department in asked to speak

with the two brothers. He was denied access. After each men denied any involvement in the

shooting and passed forensic testing, they were placed in a police vehicle and driven back to the

downtown area where they were released. However, DPD retained possession of Mark Hughes’

gun, keys and shirt.

21. Post identifying Mark Hughes as the suspect in the shooting of five police

officers remained posted on DPD social media accounts for the next two months.

22. For the next five months DPD repeatedly rebuffed request by Mark Hughes

that his gun and other items be returned to him.

COUNT I
UNLAWFUL SEIZURE OF A PERSON
42 U.S.C. § 1983

23. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 76 as if fully set forth

herein.

24. Dallas Police officers, acting under color of law, unlawfully detained Plaintiffs

Mark Hughes and Cory Hughes without probable cause, or reasonable suspicion that any violation

or crime had been committed. Those actions violated Plaintiffs’ rights to due process, to equal

protection, and give rise to Plaintiffs’ claims pursuant to the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution

of the United States and 42. U.S.C. § 1983, and their counterparts in the Texas Constitution.

25. The City of Dallas violated Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights to due process, equal

Plaintiffs’ Original Complaint 5 | Page

 Case 3:18-cv-01770-B Document 1 Filed 07/09/18 Page 6 of 13 PageID 6

protection, and not to be detained without probable cause or reasonable suspicion when the

Defendants arrested and wrongfully detained Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs were placed in handcuffs and

arrested, despite not committing a penal offense or being suspected of committing a crime, and

despite defendant having significant evidence that plaintiffs were not involved in the nights

shooting including the fact that Mark Hughes’ weapon was turned over to law enforcement

immediately after shooting began, Mark introduced himself to law enforcement upon arrival and

participated with law enforcement in helping protest participants to safety.

26. Plaintiffs did not pose an immediate threat to the safety of the defendants or others.

Plaintiffs were not actively resisting arrest or attempting to evade arrest by flight. The officer’s

conduct was objectively unreasonable, resulted from a lack of training, and comported with the

City of Dallas’ illegal de facto policies.

27. As a result, Plaintiffs suffered injuries, which resulted directly from their wrongful

detention, and/or seizure that was objectively unreasonable and violation of clearly established

law.

COUNT II

(Section 1983-4th Amendment Property Seizure)

28. Plaintiff adopts by reference all factual allegations contained above. This is a

federal civil rights claim flowing from the unlawful seizure of Plaintiffs personal property, in

violation of the Plaintiffs Fourth Amendment right to be free of such seizure absent well

established, lawful justification, none of which existed on July 7, 2016.

29. All officers involved were acting pursuant to and within their discretionary

authority when they detained Plaintiff, restricted his movement, cleared him of any involvement

Plaintiffs’ Original Complaint 6 | Page

 Case 3:18-cv-01770-B Document 1 Filed 07/09/18 Page 7 of 13 PageID 7

with the arrested subject, and deprived him of his property without lawful cause or due process of

law. Thus they were acting under color of law, though their actions were not in conformity with

the law. It is that nonconformity and its departure from clearly established law that is the basis of

this Count.

30. There were no agency (DPD or City) produced guidelines or other restrictions

controlling the conduct of Defendants and fellow officers on the date of the encounter with

Plaintiff, as it relates to the seizure of a lawfully carried and possessed firearm. However, the

applicable state statutes and clearly established Fourth Amendment seizure law (which all officers

are deemed to know) forbade the seizure and retention undertaken by Defendants. The property

seized was not in that class of objects which the police may confiscate without consent and without

a warrant, and the seizure was meaningful, consequential and significant.

31. Because the Defendants and the City believe that their seizure of Plaintiff’s

property constituted no violation of law or policy, declaratory relief is appropriate in order to

correct the City’s and its employees’ misperception.

Wherefore, Plaintiff demands judgment against the individually named Defendants for violating

Plaintiffs federally protected constitutional right to be free from a warrantless, unlawful seizure of

lawfully possessed private property, and that they be found individually liable for those damages

naturally and normally flowing from said seizure, to include nominal damages and a declaration

that the Defendants violated Plaintiffs constitutional right to be free from such abuse of police

power. In addition, Plaintiff seeks such legal or equitable remedy or remedies as this court may

Plaintiffs’ Original Complaint 7 | Page

 Case 3:18-cv-01770-B Document 1 Filed 07/09/18 Page 8 of 13 PageID 8

provide for the illegal acts of Defendants, to include costs and attorney fees of this action, and

further demands a trial by jury on all matters so triable.

COUNT III (City of Dallas)

(Negligent Training)

32. Plaintiff adopts and realleges all preceding factual allegations as if fully set forth

herein. This is a species of Fourth Amendment claim based upon the woefully inadequate training

and supervision of the officers of DPD.

33. In light of the duties assigned to officers of the Dallas Police Department,

encounters with armed citizens are both predictable and frequent in nature.

34. Agents of the DPD have represented they believe their officers committed no

wrongdoing when they seized and retained the long-gun of Mark Hughes and other personal items,

though none were contraband, evidence, fruits of a crime or otherwise subject to seizure under any

law. The pervasiveness, consistency and uniformity of this view demonstrates deliberate

indifference to the rights of citizens to lawfully possess firearms and other property without

subjective or arbitrary interference by the police.

35. The need for more or different training is so obvious, and the inadequacy so likely

to result in the violation of constitutional rights, that the policymakers of the City can reasonably

be said to have been deliberately indifferent to the need. In that event, the failure to provide proper

training may fairly be said to represent a policy for which the city is responsible, and for which

the city may be held liable if it actually causes injury.

Plaintiffs’ Original Complaint 8 | Page

 Case 3:18-cv-01770-B Document 1 Filed 07/09/18 Page 9 of 13 PageID 9

36. The need for fundamental 4th Amendment training with regard to the lawful and

unlawful possession of firearms and weapons is readily apparent.

37. It cannot be known how extensive and pervasive the misconduct is separate and

apart from the case which exposed it. However, there is nothing in the present record that reveals

any indication that the search and seizure of Plaintiff’s property was anything other than proper

and justified. It thus remains the apparent policy of the City and repetition is likely to produce the

same result.

38. The policy of deliberate indifference proximately caused the seizure and retention

of Plaintiff’s property, which seizure and retention were significant and far from inconsequential

or harmless.

Wherefore, Plaintiff seeks nominal damages and declaratory relief for the unconstitutional seizure

and retention of his property. He seeks a declaration that the actions of the officers violated both

federal and state law and such damages and relief as this court may award, together with the

recovery of his court costs and attorney’s fees.

COUNT IV (CITY-Conversion/Trespass)

39. Plaintiff realleges all factual allegations stated above (to include compliance with

all statutory conditions precedent) as if fully set forth herein. This claim is for the taking of

Plaintiffs firearm and other personal property without legal authority, which claim sounds in both

Plaintiffs’ Original Complaint 9 | Page

 Case 3:18-cv-01770-B Document 1 Filed 07/09/18 Page 10 of 13 PageID 10

common law conversion and trespass, those torts being essentially interchangeable in the present

case.

40. Plaintiff admits that the initial “seizure” of his property was lawful as he turned

over his weapon in order to avoid any indication of involvement with the ongoing shooting taking

place at the time. However, the seizure and retention of Plaintiffs personal property (the gun, car

keys, shirt), were arbitrary, subjective, wrongful and tortious.

41. The private property seized from Plaintiff was neither evidence, contraband, fruits

of a crime or otherwise seizable under any established law, and constituted a wrongful taking, a

trespass on such property and a conversion.

42. As alleged above, Plaintiff was compelled to go to the police station to retrieve that

property of his which the police had no authority or lawful cause to seize in the first instance. He

was humiliated, intimidated, fearful, embarrassed and angry at having to do so. He, like many

African-American males, have a historical and cultural apprehension of the police, who he believes

treats African-Americans, particularly males, with suspicion and disparate harshness.

43. There was no rational basis nor necessity for the five month retention of Plaintiff’s

property. It is Plaintiffs belief that most, if not all, police officers view a black male with a weapon-

even a lawfully possessed- as a threat. Thus, Plaintiff was treated extra-legally, which is to say

outside of and in spite of the law. Furthermore, his property was returned five months later in no

materially different way than it could have been returned the day before. It was a palpable

collective show of police power and authority.

44. Plaintiff has suffered at least nominal damages in having to surrender, by a clear

demonstration of official authority, show of force, and explicit demand, his property to agents of

Plaintiffs’ Original Complaint 10 | Page

 Case 3:18-cv-01770-B Document 1 Filed 07/09/18 Page 11 of 13 PageID 11

the Dallas Police Department in what he sees as a raw abuse of discretion and power. That was an

interference with his property rights that the State of Texas has demonstrated an express

willingness to protect.

COUNT V

Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress

The actions of defendants in arresting plaintiffs without reasonable suspicion or probable cause,

in detaining and interrogating and subjecting plaintiffs to irrelevant, hostile and harassing

questioning was done intentionally, wantonly, willfully, maliciously, wrongfully and with such

extreme and outrageous character as to cause the severe emotional distress suffered by plaintiffs.

DAMAGES

45. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 86 as if fully set forth

herein. Defendants’ acts and/or omissions were a proximate cause of the following Injuries

suffered by Plaintiffs:

a. Actual damages;

b. Pain and suffering;

c. Mental anguish and emotional distress suffered by Plaintiffs;

d. Pre- and post-judgment interest;

e. Attorney’s fees and costs of suit; and

f. Such other and further relief as this Honorable Court deems just and proper.

COSTS AND ATTORNEY FEES

46. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 79 as if fully set forth

herein. Plaintiffs are entitled to an award of attorney fees and costs under 42 U.S.C. § 1988(b). As

such, Plaintiffs request the Court to award costs and attorney’s fees incurred in Plaintiffs’

Plaintiffs’ Original Complaint 11 | Page

 Case 3:18-cv-01770-B Document 1 Filed 07/09/18 Page 12 of 13 PageID 12

prosecution of this litigation.

CONDITIONS PRECEDENT

47. Plaintiffs reserve their rights to plead and prove the damages to which they are

entitled to at the time of trial. All conditions to Plaintiffs’ recovery have been performed or have

occurred.

TRIAL BY JURY

48. Plaintiffs have paid a jury fee and demands trial by jury.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Plaintiffs pray that Defendants be cited to

appear and answer herein; that upon final trial hereof Plaintiffs have and recovers judgment from

Defendants; actual damages, exemplary damages, pre-judgment interest at the legal rate; interest

on said judgment at the legal rate; costs of court; and such other and further relief, both general

and special, at law and in equity, to which Plaintiffs may show themselves justly entitled.

Respectfully submitted,

By: /s/ S. Lee Merritt________

S. LEE MERRITT
State Bar No. PA 314891
MERRITT LAW FIRM, LLC
1910 Pacific Ave Suite 11500
Dallas, TX. 75201
888-647-3041
888-339-2050 – fax
slm@merrittatlaw.com

By: _____________________
ANGEL BROWN REVELES
State Bar No. TX 24077528
BROWN REVELES LAW GROUP PLLC

Plaintiffs’ Original Complaint 12 | Page

 Case 3:18-cv-01770-B Document 1 Filed 07/09/18 Page 13 of 13 PageID 13

1910 Pacific Ave Suite 8000

Dallas, TX. 75201
469-249-2239
469-442-0124 – fax
angel@brownreveleslawgroup.com

ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS

Plaintiffs’ Original Complaint 13 | Page

JS 44 (Rev. 06/17) CIVIL COVER
Case 3:18-cv-01770-B Document SHEET
1-1 Filed 07/09/18 Page 1 of 2 PageID 14
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

Mark Hughes City of Dallas, Texas
Cory L. Hughes Dallas Police Department
(b) County of Residence of First Listed Plaintiff Tarrant County County of Residence of First Listed Defendant Dallas County
(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)

Merritt Law Firm, LLC 1910 Pacific Ave. Suite 11500

Dallas, TX 75021
888-647-3041
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) Click here for: Nature of Suit Code Descriptions.
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 ’ 835 Patent - Abbreviated ’ 460 Deportation
Student Loans ’ 340 Marine Injury Product New Drug Application ’ 470 Racketeer Influenced and
(Excludes Veterans) ’ 345 Marine Product Liability ’ 840 Trademark Corrupt Organizations
’ 153 Recovery of Overpayment Liability PERSONAL PROPERTY LABOR SOCIAL SECURITY ’ 480 Consumer Credit
of Veteran’s Benefits ’ 350 Motor Vehicle ’ 370 Other Fraud ’ 710 Fair Labor Standards ’ 861 HIA (1395ff) ’ 490 Cable/Sat TV
’ 160 Stockholders’ Suits ’ 355 Motor Vehicle ’ 371 Truth in Lending Act ’ 862 Black Lung (923) ’ 850 Securities/Commodities/
’ 190 Other Contract Product Liability ’ 380 Other Personal ’ 720 Labor/Management ’ 863 DIWC/DIWW (405(g)) Exchange
’ 195 Contract Product Liability ’ 360 Other Personal Property Damage Relations ’ 864 SSID Title XVI ’ 890 Other Statutory Actions
’ 196 Franchise Injury ’ 385 Property Damage ’ 740 Railway Labor Act ’ 865 RSI (405(g)) ’ 891 Agricultural Acts
’ 362 Personal Injury - Product Liability ’ 751 Family and Medical ’ 893 Environmental Matters
Medical Malpractice Leave Act ’ 895 Freedom of Information
REAL PROPERTY CIVIL RIGHTS PRISONER PETITIONS ’ 790 Other Labor Litigation FEDERAL TAX SUITS Act
’ 210 Land Condemnation ’ 440 Other Civil Rights Habeas Corpus: ’ 791 Employee Retirement ’ 870 Taxes (U.S. Plaintiff ’ 896 Arbitration
’ 220 Foreclosure ’ 441 Voting ’ 463 Alien Detainee Income Security Act or Defendant) ’ 899 Administrative Procedure
’ 230 Rent Lease & Ejectment ’ 442 Employment ’ 510 Motions to Vacate ’ 871 IRS—Third Party Act/Review or Appeal of
’ 240 Torts to Land ’ 443 Housing/ Sentence 26 USC 7609 Agency Decision
’ 245 Tort Product Liability Accommodations ’ 530 General ’ 950 Constitutionality of
’ 290 All Other Real Property ’ 445 Amer. w/Disabilities - ’ 535 Death Penalty IMMIGRATION State Statutes
Employment Other: ’ 462 Naturalization Application
’ 446 Amer. w/Disabilities - ’ 540 Mandamus & Other ’ 465 Other Immigration
Other ’ 550 Civil Rights Actions
’ 448 Education ’ 555 Prison Condition
’ 560 Civil Detainee -
Conditions of
Confinement
V. ORIGIN (Place an “X” in One Box Only)
’ 1 Original ’ 2 Removed from ’ 3 Remanded from ’ 4 Reinstated or ’ 5 Transferred from ’ 6 Multidistrict ’ 8 Multidistrict
Proceeding State Court Appellate Court Reopened Another District Litigation - Litigation -
(specify) Transfer Direct File
Cite the U.S. Civil Statute under which you are filing (Do not cite jurisdictional statutes unless diversity):
First, Second, Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution and 42 U.S.C. Section 1983
VI. CAUSE OF ACTION Brief description of cause:
Civil Rights Violations
VII. REQUESTED IN ’ CHECK IF THIS IS A CLASS ACTION DEMAND $ CHECK YES only if demanded in complaint:
COMPLAINT: UNDER RULE 23, F.R.Cv.P. JURY DEMAND: ’ Yes ’ No
VIII. RELATED CASE(S)
(See instructions):
IF ANY JUDGE DOCKET NUMBER
DATE SIGNATURE OF ATTORNEY OF RECORD
July 9, 2018
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY

RECEIPT # AMOUNT APPLYING IFP JUDGE MAG. JUDGE

Print Save As... Reset

JS 44 Reverse (Rev. 06/17)
Case 3:18-cv-01770-B Document 1-1 Filed 07/09/18 Page 2 of 2 PageID 15
INSTRUCTIONS FOR ATTORNEYS COMPLETING CIVIL COVER SHEET FORM JS 44
Authority For Civil Cover Sheet

The JS 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replaces nor supplements the filings 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 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. Consequently, a civil cover sheet is submitted to the Clerk of
Court for each civil complaint filed. The attorney filing a case should complete the form as follows:

I.(a) Plaintiffs-Defendants. Enter names (last, first, middle initial) of plaintiff and defendant. If the plaintiff or defendant is a government agency, use
only the full name or standard abbreviations. If the plaintiff or defendant is an official within a government agency, identify first the agency and
then the official, giving both name and title.
(b) County of Residence. For each civil case filed, except U.S. plaintiff cases, enter the name of the county where the first listed plaintiff resides at the
time of filing. In U.S. plaintiff cases, enter the name of the county in which the first listed defendant resides at the time of filing. (NOTE: In land
condemnation cases, the county of residence of the "defendant" is the location of the tract of land involved.)
(c) Attorneys. Enter the firm name, address, telephone number, and attorney of record. If there are several attorneys, list them on an attachment, noting
in this section "(see attachment)".

II. Jurisdiction. The basis of jurisdiction is set forth under Rule 8(a), F.R.Cv.P., which requires that jurisdictions be shown in pleadings. Place an "X"
in one of the boxes. If there is more than one basis of jurisdiction, precedence is given in the order shown below.
United States plaintiff. (1) Jurisdiction based on 28 U.S.C. 1345 and 1348. Suits by agencies and officers of the United States are included here.
United States defendant. (2) When the plaintiff is suing the United States, its officers or agencies, place an "X" in this box.
Federal question. (3) This refers to suits under 28 U.S.C. 1331, where jurisdiction arises under the Constitution of the United States, an amendment
to the Constitution, an act of Congress or a treaty of the United States. In cases where the U.S. is a party, the U.S. plaintiff or defendant code takes
precedence, and box 1 or 2 should be marked.
Diversity of citizenship. (4) This refers to suits under 28 U.S.C. 1332, where parties are citizens of different states. When Box 4 is checked, the
citizenship of the different parties must be checked. (See Section III below; NOTE: federal question actions take precedence over diversity
cases.)

III. Residence (citizenship) of Principal Parties. This section of the JS 44 is to 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 there are multiple nature of suit codes associated with the case, pick the nature of suit code
that is most applicable. Click here for: Nature of Suit Code Descriptions.

V. Origin. Place an "X" in one of the seven boxes.

Original Proceedings. (1) Cases which originate in the United States district courts.
Removed from State Court. (2) Proceedings initiated in state courts may be removed to the district 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 cases remanded to the district 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 in the district court. Use the reopening date as the filing date.
Transferred from Another District. (5) For cases transferred under Title 28 U.S.C. Section 1404(a). Do not use this for within district transfers or
multidistrict litigation transfers.
Multidistrict Litigation – Transfer. (6) Check this box when a multidistrict case is transferred into the district under authority of Title 28 U.S.C.
Section 1407.
Multidistrict Litigation – Direct File. (8) Check this box when a multidistrict case is filed in the same district as the Master MDL docket.
PLEASE NOTE THAT THERE IS NOT AN ORIGIN CODE 7. Origin Code 7 was used for historical records and is no longer relevant due to
changes in statue.

VI. Cause of Action. Report the civil statute directly related to the cause of action and give a brief description of the cause. Do not cite jurisdictional
statutes unless diversity. Example: U.S. Civil Statute: 47 USC 553 Brief Description: Unauthorized reception of cable service

VII. Requested in Complaint. Class Action. Place an "X" in this box if you are filing a class action under Rule 23, F.R.Cv.P.
Demand. In this space enter the actual dollar amount being demanded or indicate other demand, such as a preliminary injunction.
Jury Demand. Check the appropriate box to indicate whether or not a jury is being demanded.

VIII. Related Cases. This section of the JS 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.