Pierre Genevier
423 East 7th Street (RM 528)
Los Angeles, CA 90014
Ph.: (213) 622-1508
Emails: p_genevier@yahoo.com,
pierre.genevier@laposte.net
Complaint under 42 USC 1983 for
deprivation of civil rights, 1985 (2&3) for conspiracy, common law
conspiracy, and negligence.
United States District Court For the
Central District
California Western Division
Pierre Genevier
(Plaintiff) |
Civil Action
VS
| No:_____________
|
Complaint for damages
Jury
Trial demanded on count 1,2,3
Mr. Edouardo Aguirre, in his individual and professional
capacities,
Mr. Robert Looney, in his individual and professional
capacities,
Mrs. Janie Lee, in her individual and professional capacities,
Mr. Earl Dotson, in his individual and professional capacities,
Mr. Mahoney, in his individual and professional capacities,
Mrs. Sue Amstrong, in her individual and professional capacities,
INS-duty-attorney, in his individual and professional
capacities,
INS-manager, in her/his individual and professional capacities,
Mrs. Sara Robinson, in her individual and professional capacities,
Mr. Gary Klausner, in his individual capacity,
Mr. Ronald Mendoza, in his individual capacity,
Mr. John Castello, in his individual capacity,
Mr. Robert C. Campbell, in his individual capacity,
Mr. Lawrence Bolton, in his individual capacity,
Mr. Brice Yokomizo, in his individual and professional capacities,
Mrs. Becerra in her individual and professional capacities
Mr. Jerry Lemons, in his individual and professional capacities,
Mrs. Monique Nollner, in her individual and professional
capacities,
Mrs. Silvia Diaz, in her individual and professional capacities,
Mrs. Pauline Riley, in her individual and professional capacities
Mrs. Roza Mirzoyan, in her individual and professional capacities,
Dr. Kathy Alston, in her professional capacity,
United States, public entity,
Los Angeles County, public entity.
(Defendants)
Introduction.
This action arises out of deprivation of
civil rights, out of Defendants’ conspiracy to defraud plaintiff Pierre
Genevier and to deprive him of his rights and safety, and out of negligence.
The cause of action brought are (1)
violation of 42 USC sec 1983, (2) violation of 42 USC sec. 1985 (2&3)
(conspiracy), (3) common law conspiracy, (4) gross negligence.
Jurisdiction
1. Jurisdiction of this court arises under 42 USC sec 1983
(deprivation of civil rights), 42 USC sec. 1985 (2&3) (conspiracy to
interfere with civil rights), 28 USC 1367 (a), 28 USC 1346 (b) (negligence).
2. Jurisdiction of this court for the pendent claims is authorized
by F.R. Civ. P. 18 (a), and arises under the doctrine of pendent jurisdiction
as set forth in United Mine Workers v. Gibbs, 382 US 715 (1966).
Parties
3. Plaintiff, Pierre Genevier, who resides at 423 E 7th
street (RM 528),
Los Angeles, CA 90014
DHS employees (formerly INS employees)
4. Defendant, Mr. Edouardo Aguirre, USCIS commissioner (at the
time of the facts). [Professional Address (PA): Embassy of The
United States of America, Serano 75, 28006 Madrid, SPAIN].
5. Defendant, Mr. Robert Looney, Director of the Los Angeles
Asylum office (at the time of the facts). [PA: District
Director, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Box 12, American Embassy,
120-122 Wireless Road, Bangkok 10330 Thailand].
6. Defendant, Mrs. Janie Lee , ‘INS’ immigration attorney. [PA:
DHS-Office of the District Counsel, 606 South Olive Street, Room 800, Los
Angeles, CA 90014].
7. Defendant, Mr. Earl Dotson, ‘INS’ (DHS) deportation officer. [PA:
DHS-USICE, 300 North Los Angeles Street, RM 7621, Los Angeles, CA 90012].
8. Defendant, Mr. Mahoney, status verifier. [PA:
DHS-USCIS Los Angeles District Office, 300 North Los Angeles Street, Los
Angeles, CA 90012].
9. Defendant, Mrs. Sue Amstrong, Deputy Director of the INS Office
of Internal Audit (at the time of the facts). [PA: DHS, Washington, DC
20528].
10. Plaintiff is ignorant of the true name of the
‘INS-duty-Attorney he met at the end of September 2002 mentioned herein as (do)
INS-duty-attorney, and therefore refers to this employee by such fictitious
name. Address unknown.
11. Plaintiff is ignorant of the true name of the ‘INS’ manager
who studied his complaint of employee misconduct mentioned herein as (do) INS-manager,
and therefore refers to this employee by such fictitious name.
Assistant US attorney and Federal Judge
12. Defendant, Mrs. Sara Robinson, Assistant US Attorney. [PA:
US Attorney office, Civil Division, 300 North Los Angeles Street, 7th
floor, Los Angeles, CA 90012].
13. Defendant, Mr. Gary Klausner, Federal Judge. [PA:
Roybal Federal Building, Courtroom 850, 255 East Temple Street, Los Angeles CA
90012].
State of California Department of social
services employees
14. Defendant, Mr. Mendoza, DSS-LA Presiding Judge. [PA:
Department of Social Services, 811 Wilshire Blvd, suite 1118, Los Angeles,
CA90017].
15. Defendant, Mr. Castello, DSS Chief Administrative Law Judge. [PA:
Department of Social Services, 744 P Street, Sacramento CA 95814-5512].
16. Defendant, Mr. Robert C. Campbell, DSS Assistant General
Counsel (at the time of facts). [PA: Department of Finances, State
Capitol, Room 1145, Sacramento CA 95814].
17. Defendant, Mr. Lawrence Bolton, DSS General Counsel. [PA:
Department of Social Services, 744 P Street, Sacramento CA 95814-5512].
Los Angeles County (LAC)
18. Defendant, Mr. Brice Yokomizo, Director of the Los Angeles
County Department of Public Social Services (DPSS). [PA:
Department of Public Social Services, 12860 Crossroads, Park Way south, City of
Industry, CA 91746].
19. Defendant, Mrs. Becerra, Director of Wilshire Special District
(at the time of the facts). [PA: DPSS Metro North District, 2601
Wilshire Blvd, Los Angeles CA 90057].
20. Defendant, Mr. Lemons, Supervisor at DPSS Metro North
District. [PA: DPSS Metro North District, 2601 Wilshire Blvd, Los Angeles CA
90057].
21. Defendant, Mrs. Monique Nollner, Rancho Park Deputy Director
(at the time of the facts). [PA: Gain Program Division, 3220 Rosemead
Bld, El Monte, CA 91731].
22. Defendant, Mrs. Silvia Diaz, Director of the State Hearing
unit. [PA: DPSS State Hearing Section, 3833 S. Vermont Ave., Los Angeles
CA 90037]
23. Defendant, Mrs. Pauline Riley, DPSS compliance unit head (at
the time of the facts). [Retired, employer (DPSS) refused to give
her personal address].
24. Defendant, Mrs. Roza Mirzoyan, DPSS eligibility worker (at the
time of the facts). [PA: DPSS Metro North District, 2601
Wilshire Blvd, Los Angeles CA 90057].
25. Defendant, Dr. Kathy Alston, doctor at Hubert Humphrey Health
Center. [PA: Hubert Humphrey Health Center, 5850 S. Main Street, Los
Angeles CA 90003].
Public agencies
26. Defendant, United States of America: (DHS,
Washington, DC 20528) (DHS-USCIS
Los Angeles District Office and DHS-USICE,
300 North Los Angeles Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012) (DHS-Office of the
District Counsel, 606 South Olive Street, Room 800, Los Angeles, CA 90014) (Los
Angeles US Attorney office, 312 North Spring street, Los Angeles CA 90012).
27. Defendant, Los Angeles County: [500 West Temple
street, Los Angeles CA 90012].
Facts.
28. Plaintiff is a native
citizen of France who entered the United States on April 16, 2002, on the visa
waiver program, and then applied for political asylum to obtain the protection
guaranteed to refugees (and to obtain indirectly a legal decision from the US
justice that could help him to obtain justice against France). The LA ‘INS’ Asylum office transferred the
case to the Immigration Court on July 16 2002, and during the 08/27/02 hearing,
the immigration judge re-set the hearing date to 01/23/03.
Facts
related to the delivery of social services (refugee benefits RCA,)
From
9/5/02 to 2/4/03.
29. On September 5, 2002, plaintiff applied for Los Angeles County
General Relief benefits, and as part of the application, was directed to the
INS office to obtain a verification of his immigration status. On the same day, defendant (Mahoney),
identified plaintiff as a ‘refugee’, which entitled plaintiff to
reside in the US for an indefinite period of time (exh. 1.1).
30. On September 25, 2002, plaintiff applied for Refugee Cash
Assistance
benefits and his application was approved effective the same day,
but (a) certain benefits associated with the refugee status were denied,
(b) the DPSS did not follow the procedure set up with the INS to ask and
obtain the date the refugee status was granted (form G845), (c) the cash
benefit and medical protection were eventually and incorrectly
terminated 2 months later on 11/30/02, and (d) the DPSS pretended that plaintiff
was not a refugee anymore on 12/01/02 (exh. 2.3).
31. On November 14 2002, one day after several status verifiers
confirmed verbally the validity of the initial verification of status (exh.
1.1), plaintiff contested the denial and early termination of the refugee
benefits and soon after the allegations concerning the termination of his
refugee status in a request for hearing at the administrative court.
32.On or about February 4 2003, administrative law judge Tolentino
rendered a decision mostly in plaintiff favor confirming (certifying) his
refugee status (exh. 3.1), and granting various additional refugee benefits
(cash benefits, housing assistance,).
Facts
related to the immigration proceeding and employees misconduct complaints
From
09/05/02 to 10/28/03.
33. At about the same time, end of September 2002, plaintiff went
to present his refugee verification of status at the Immigration Court. The Clerk Supervisor told him that it was
not unusual that an asylum seeker receives his refugee status after his case
had been transferred to the Immigration Court, and asked him to inquire
about the steps to be taken to have his case closed at the ‘INS’ counsel
office.
34. On or about September 30, October 31 and November 13 2002,
plaintiff
presented his verification of status to defendants
(INS-duty-Attorney, Looney, Dotson, Lee) to have his case closed, and to obtain
both the date his asylum was granted and another document stating his refugee
status. These defendants pretended
directly or indirectly (orally or in writing) that defendant (Mahoney) had made
a mistake in reading the record, and that they could not see on the computer
or record where the status verifier had seen that plaintiff had been given the
refugee status (exh. 2.1-2.2).
35. But, on November 13 2002, these statements or
allegations were contradicted by several status verifiers who confirmed
verbally to plaintiff that he had been given the refugee status and that
they even had the date at which the refugee status was granted.
36. It seems that after November 14 2002, date at
which the plaintiff filed his complaint against the social services and wrote
to the press and media to explain that he had been granted the refugee status
(and before December 1 2004), the INS record was changed (corruptly altered),
because defendant (Mahoney) eventually said that plaintiff was no longer listed
as a refugee (or more precisely that the refugee status was ‘imputed
incorrectly’) on December 1st 2002, see exh. 2.3.
37. On or about January 14 2003, plaintiff filed a complaint of
employee misconduct at the INS office of internal audit to denounce the
contradicting statements made on his refugee status, and the apparent illegal
(and unmotivated) alteration of INS record.
38. On January 23 2003, the immigration court ignored that
plaintiff had
already been given the refugee status, and, based on a
recommendation of
defendant (Lee, INS lawyer), denied asylum to plaintiff although
he was sick and could not attempt the hearing.
39. On April 25 2003, defendant (Armstrong, office of internal
audit)
responded that she had transferred the case to an INS-manager
(without specifying which manager, see exh. 7.1). Defendant (INS-manager concerned) never responded to the
complaint, never denied the validity of the initial verification of status
(listing plaintiff as a refugee), and never terminated the refugee status
pursuant 8 CFR 207.9.
40. Instead the INS Refugee center accepted plaintiff
documents (verification of status, administrative decision certifying the
refugee status,) as evidences of his refugee status, and issued a
refugee employment authorization card
on December 15 2004 (exh. 6.1, 1.2, 6.2).
41. In October 2003, plaintiff sent a letter to defendant
(Aguirre, USCIS Commissionaire at the time) to point out the problem he had and
to obtain a clarification concerning the unfair change of position on his
refugee status, but he did not received any appropriate response (see
7.2). [42 reserved]
Facts
related to the compliance with Judge Tolentino’s decision
from
02/04/03 to 08/25/03.
43. On or about March 1 2003, defendant (Los Angeles County) DPSS
employees refused to fully comply with judge Tolentino’s decision
dated
February 4 2003 and again pretended that plaintiff was not a
refugee.
44. On or about March 2 2003, plaintiff filed a rehearing request
at the
CA DSS rehearing unit to ask for a confirmation that
administrative law judge Tolentino’s decision was correct when it certified
plaintiff refugee status (and also to contest the judge’s opinion on the
opening of homeless letters issue). On
April 17 2004, the rehearing unit (defendant Campbell) confirmed that the
administrative decision was conformed to the law (exh. 3.2).
45. At the end of March 2003, defendant (Mahoney, status verifier)
issued –at the request of LA County DPSS, it appears - an altered verification
of status were the word ‘refugee’ had been erased and the employment
authorization date had been added (exh.
4.4).
46. Between March 1 and May 02 2003, the DPSS issued 2 ‘late’
notices of action (compliance report, exh. 4.1, 4.2) denying most of the
benefits granted by Judge Tolentino’s decision, refused to file a petition at
the superior court as required by law
(ccp. 1094.5,), accepted and used the altered verification of
status to support its allegations that plaintiff was not a refugee, and asked
plaintiff to file a new request for hearing on the same immigration status
issue [which iss forbidden (MPP art. 22.078.31)].
47. On May 2 2003, Judge Mendoza wrote a letter in which he
refused to force the DPSS to comply with judge Tolentino’s decision, and
accepted the altered verification of status to justify the re-determination of
plaintiff refugee status (exh. 5.2). He
also misrepresented the MPP compliance
procedure (asked plaintiff to contact the DPSS,) and the facts (pretended
that plaintiff had not contact the DPSS and the INS,), and did not follow the MPP procedure.
48. On May 15 2003, plaintiff complained about his response to the
CA DSS management, and on May 28 2 2003, Judge Castello responded to this
complaint (exh.5. 2). He misrepresented
several important facts, pretended that the DPSS had ‘substantially’
complied with Judge Tolentino’s decision, used the altered verification of
status as valid document, and asked plaintiff to file a new hearing request on
the immigr. status issue, a compliance issue.
49. On July 2 2003, defendant (Becerra, Wislshire Special District
Director)
terminated plaintiff General Relief supposedly because he was not
an ‘eligible alien’ (exh. 4.3).
50. On July 11 2003, plaintiff sent a new complaint to CADSS
management and the Governor underlying the issues of his case, the wrong
interpretations and misrepresentations in Judge Castello’s and Mendoza’s
letters.
51. On October 2 2003, defendant (Campbell) responded to plaintiff
letters and maintained Judge Castello’s point of view except that he gave an
additional month of RCA (exh. 5.3). He also misrepresented some facts and
procedures, and accepted an altered verification of status to justify his point
of view that plaintiff refugee status had been re-determined. [52-55
reserved].
Facts
related to the civil complaints, the Assistant US attorney statements and
Federal
judge decisions from 02/04/04 to 01/05/05.
56. On February 4 2004, plaintiff filed a complaint for damages
(for intentional misrepresentations and suppression of fact) at the LA
Superior Court against the USCIS (or DHS), the LA County DPSS, and the
California Department of Social Services.
[57-res.]
58. Defendant (Robinson) stated in her pleadings that plaintiff
was not a
refugee and not even a legal alien; pretended that
the complaint concerned only one employee, Dotson, who works on the same floor
as her in the federal building, and that the status verifier and the Nebraska
refugee center made a mistake, which they denied or never confirmed;
misrepresented the facts and the wrongdoings; and of course, refused to respond
to the discovery questions although she had contradicted plaintiff facts.
59. On January 6 2005, defendant (Klausner) denied plaintiff’s
motion to sanction defendant (Robinson) for her injurious and threatening
statements (on plaintiff immigration status) on the ground that there was no
evidence that plaintiff was a refugee or even a legal alien.
60. The district court dismissed the claim for ‘Deceit,
misrepresentation, suppression of facts and punitive damage’ against the
LACDPSS on a FRCP 12 (6) motion to dismiss (not a summary judgment),
and the second complaint against the DHS on a FRCP 12 (1) motion do dismiss
because of the 28 USC 2860 (h) immunity for misrepresentation, which does not
prevent this new complaint whose subject matter (causes of action, claims for
negligence, 42 USC 1983,) is different and many (if not most) of the facts are new.
And the Appeal Court gave plaintiff the possibility to re-file his complaint
against the State of California at the State Court [61-
66 reserved].
Facts
related to the opening and stealing of letters at the DPSS and others
difficulties with the DPSS from 09/05/02 to 04/31/05 and the health related
problems.
67. From September 2002 to October 2003, the DPSS Civic Center
opened and stole several of plaintiff letters.
According to the clerk handing the letters to the homeless (and to what
plaintiff could see), almost all the homeless letters were opened.
68. In November 2002, plaintiff complained about the opening and
stealing
of his letters in his request for hearing, but judge Tolentino
refused to address this issue in his 02/04/03 decision because he thought he
did not have any jurisdiction for this problem (exh. 3.1).
69. From October 2003 to January 2005, the DPSS Rancho Park
District stole and delayed the delivery of several of plaintiff letters. DPSS told plaintiff that they would
investigate the problem, but he never received any response concerning the
investigation or any apology.
70_In August 2004 plaintiff GR was terminated on the computer, but
no written explanation was given until defendant (Yokomizo) pretended in
January 05 that the GR computer termination was due to the lack of
recertification (plaintiff never received the recertification document as the
previous year and was not asked to fill them out before August 24 2004).
71_ In November 2004, defendant (Nollner) threatened plaintiff to
terminate his GR if did not participate in a vocational assessment although
plaintiff job search plan had been accepted by the Work Source; and although
the DPSS contractor did not have the competence to evaluate plaintiff
qualification. She also threatened plaintiff to deduct dollar for dollar the
housing assistance the Work Source started paying in 08/2004 (about $75/
month).
72_ In January 2005, defendant (Yokomizo) responded to plaintiff
complaint letter (exh. 8.1), but he lied about what happen at the Rancho Park
district and ignored the important issues addressed in plaintiff letters. Then on January 27, 05 (exh. 8.2), he used
an inappropriate MPP regulation article to threaten and force plaintiff to
participate in the vocational assessment.
73. In early March 2005, plaintiff became very sick and was put on
disability by the DPSS Doctor, but the GROW workers ignored this disability to
try to force plaintiff to attend a Grow appointment and try to terminate his GR
for missing the appointment. The
problem was corrected on April 28 2005 (exh. 8.3) after Plaintiff wrote several
letters to the Board of supervisors and filed a criminal complaint to the FBI,
US Attorney ...
74. On July 5 2005, Defendant (Alston) misrepresented plaintiff
serious symptoms, and ignored his blood test results and the urgency of his
situation to prevent him from being treated rapidly by an appropriate doctor.
75_ As a result of the wrongdoings (described in the facts no
28-75 and explanations 80-153), plaintiff suffered the following prejudice and
injury:
(a)
He lost several months of basic social
benefits necessary to survive (including housing assistance, cash benefits,
medical protection,); he was sent in the street more than 17 times since
08/2002; he was forced to sleep in the street and in indecent homeless shelters
for many months [with a great risk of catching the tuberculosis or other
serious diseases, of being robed or even being killed (plaintiff was threatened
to be killed by another homeless for refusing to buy a small bottle of water
for 25 cents!)]; his food stamp were unfairly terminated 3 weeks in September
2003; he lost $70 in September 2004 (because of the computer termination of his
GR) and almost lost his room [the rent was due on the 4th, the date
he usually received his GR]; his GR was unfairly diminished by about $21 in
January 2005 [again the lowering of plaintiff GR by about $21 created him great
problems, particularly when at the same time the Work Source stopped paying the
housing assistance without notice and valid reason in early February 2005(his
GR is $220 and his rent is $260, any GR decrease makes it difficult to stay in
his room)];
(b)
he
had no place to cook and to store food since 08/2002 and became sick regularly
(he also started having chest pain and frequent severe headaches and nausea in
October 2004; he eventually was put on disability in early March 2005, and a
recent blood test pointed out obvious cardiovascular problems and serious risks
of heart attack, but he still was unable to see an appropriate doctor rapidly);
he was unfairly threatened constantly to see his benefits terminated (to be
sent in the street) and to see his refugee status changed, and constantly
harassed while his case was pending at the court.
(c)
These various problems also made it
impossible for plaintiff to find an appropriate job and to resettle in the US,
and forced him to complain over and over again to try to clarify the situation
(problems with his refugee status that is a matter of life an death), to denounce
the dishonest behavior of the different civil servants, and to avoid being sent
in the street [estimated damages: wages loss $720 000, loss of years of life
expectancy $780 000, and psychological damages $20 000]. Finally, he never obtained a legal decision
stating his grant of asylum that could have helped him to obtain justice
against France for the persecutions he suffered there (the estimated damages he
suffered in France is $1 000 000). [76-79 reser.].
Count 1. Violation of 42 USC Sec. 1983
(Civil action for deprivation of civil
rights)
(Due
process, equal opportunity, freedom from cruel and unusual punishment,
freedom
from discrimination, right to life, right to privacy)
80. Plaintiff, pro se (1), repeats and realleges and incorporates by references the
allegations in paragraphs 1 through 75 above with the same force and effect as
if herein set forth.
(1)
Pro se complaints must be held to a less stringent standard than formal
pleadings drafted by attorneys. [Bach v. Scott, ND Ill. 1973, 357 F. Supp.
1125. Federal civil procedure 657.511].
81_ Defendants [Dotson,
Lee, Looney, INS-duty-attorney, Mahoney, Amstrong, INS-manager (3), Aguirre, Mendoza, Castello, Campbell,
Bolton, Robinson, in their individual capacities, and Los Angeles County
(4)] were acting under color of law (2) and were ‘persons’ for the purpose of
1983 liability.
(2) The
actions of government officer or employees are under color of law if they are
in some way related to the performance of official duties. (3) Acting
chief of immigration and naturalization office of Government of Commonwealth of
Northern Mariana Islands was “person” under 1983 for purpose of suit against
him in his individual capacity. De Nieve v. Reyes, CA 9 (N. Mariana Islands)
1992 966 F. 2d 480. (4) Counties
and other local Governments –while “persons” for the purpose of 1983 liability
in the sense that they can be sued do not enjoy the defense of absolute and
qualified immunity that are available to human defendants sued in their
individual capacities. Holloway v. Bush, Ca 6 (Ohio) 200, 220 F. 3d 767.
82. Defendants (Dotson,
Lee, Looney, INS-duty-attorney, Mahoney, Amstrong, INS-manager, Aguirre,
Robinson, Mendoza, Castello, Campbell, Bolton in their individual
capacities, and Los Angeles County) violated rights protected by the constitution or created by
federal statues:
(a)_The due process:
i)_in
the immigration proceeding: because of the misrepresentations on plaintiff
status, the effort to unfairly maintain the immigration proceeding, the effort
to prevent a LA Superior court judge from addressing plaintiff problems, and
the inappropriate response to the complaint of employee misconduct from the INS
manager and audit office, plaintiff did not have a fair trial, a fair
immigration proceeding in a timely fashion; ii) in the administrative
proceeding: because of the misrepresentations, the corrupt use of an altered
document, and the refusal to follow the procedures, plaintiff did not have a
fair trial and a fair administrative proceeding; and iii) in the civil
proceeding: plaintiff was robed from the minimum social benefits, was sent
constantly in the street, was harassed and threatened, was forced to complain
over and over at the administrative court and at the INS, so it was impossible
for plaintiff to prepare an appropriate civil complaint and to find a lawyer
that could have done it, and when he did present his complaint for
misrepresentation, defendant (Robinson) misrepresented the wrongdoings and
refused to do the discovery, so
plaintiff did not have a fair access to justice and a fair trial on
the part he presented;
[It takes several months or even years to
prepare and present a complaint like this one for someone who is not a lawyer,
and who is sent in the street constantly or live in difficult condition. To follow the right format, to list the facts
in a concise and orderly manner, to stress the important elements of the
complaint, to find or make the proper references to the law and the legal
authority, etc. Because of the statute
of limitations and the almost impossibility to find a lawyer for a poor
(particularly on such a case, plaintiff was asked $10 000 to start working on
the case), the probability to present this complaint in time is therefore very
small. One of plaintiff appeals was even dismissed because he could not pay the
fee and was not given the possibility to file a motion to proceed in forma
pauperis, one cannot have a fair trial or possibly properly file or maintain a
complaint in such difficult situation or living conditions]
(b)_Equal opportunity to find work:
The
wrongdoings made it impossible for plaintiff to find an appropriate job by
sending him in the street constantly, by harassing and threatening him
constantly, by forcing him to complain over and over on the same issues (he had
to try clarify the problem with his refugee status, a matter of life and death
that also determines his capacity to stay and work in the US), by maintaining a
doubt about his status and keeping incorrect information on the INS record
during 3 years;
(c)_Deprivation of privileges associated with the refugee status:
The
misrepresentations of plaintiff status, a fraudulent/altered document, and
violation of regulation and procedures were used to terminate plaintiff
benefits (RCA, GR), and to avoid complying with the administrative decision,
and resulted in the loss of social benefits, of the possibility to resettle in
the US, and of the protection and priviliedge given to refugees;
(d)_Freedom from cruel and unusual punishment guaranteed by the 8
amendment of the constitution:
Defendants
simply tortured plaintiff, subjected him to cruel and unusual punishment when
they sent him in the street constantly, maintained a doubt on his refugee
status, a matter of life and death, (‘one day you are dead, the other you are
not dead, etc.’), they made him sick constantly with extremely difficult living
condition; and when the LAC forced plaintiff to attend to the vocational
assessment, it subjected him to a degrading treatment (they do not have the
qualification to evaluate plaintiff competence), and it is a degrading
treatment to force someone to take inappropriate tests without his consent;
(e)_The Freedom from discrimination:
The
wrongdoings were partly due to plaintiff French nationality; the press and
media would have reported his unusual grant of asylum -as they did in 2001 for
another Frenchman- if the wrongdoings had not taken place; and it also
appears that the catholic charity thought that it was not good publicity for
the ‘catholic’ faith to help a refugee from France, a catholic country, since
it denied the housing assistance; plaintiff was therefore discriminated based
on his nationality.
(f)_The right to life:
The
objective was/is clearly to make plaintiff sick to death by sending him
the street constantly, forcing him to live in indecent shelters, threatening
him constantly and putting him at risk to be killed; to attempt to kill him by
ignoring the fact that the refugee status is a matter of life and death (given
only to prevent an alien from being killed or tortured or hurt if return to his
country); and to kill him with a heart attack by misrepresenting his symptoms
to prevent him from being treated rapidly for heart problems;
[A 45 years old male with a 230
cholesterol level has 8% of having a heart attack within a year, and this
statistics does not take into consideration the aggravating factors in
plaintiff case (frequent chest pain, bad diet, high stress, medical history,),
so plaintiff walks the street with a very high chance of having a heart attack,
which one of the doctors plaintiff saw confirmed verbally!]
(g)_ Right to privacy: when DPSS opened plaintiff (and other
homeless) mail, and stole or delayed the delivery of his mail, it violated
plaintiff right to privacy.
83_ These violations of civil rights were caused by defendants’ (Dotson, Lee, Looney, INS-duty-attorney,
Mahoney, Amstrong, INS-manager, Aguirre, Robinson) conduct and followings overt acts:
(a)
the misrepresentations of plaintiff status
and of the INS record situation [see no 34, 58; violation of Civ. Code 1709, GC
822.2], and the effort to unfairly maintain the proceeding at the immigration
court and obstruct an immigration proceeding [no 34; viol. of PC 182, 18 USC
1512 (c) (2)],
(b)
the negligence when ‘they’ did not use the regulation 8 CFR 207.9
giving the possibility to the INS District Director to terminate a refugee
status (if they really thought that an error was made) or simply did not stop
(or asked the employees concerned to stop) harassing plaintiff with lies and
threats, and did not to correct the ‘INS’ record; and when ‘they’ (Amstrong,
INS-manager, Aguirre) refused to address the issues of plaintiff complaint of
employees misconduct, ignored the grave wrongdoings (illegal alteration of
record and document, violation of PC 182…) that took place at the INS,
neglected to prevent the harm and the conspiracy (viol. 42 USC 1986), and did
not forward the case to the FBI as required in case of criminal wrongdoings (no
39, 41, obstruction to justice PC 182,);
(c)
the apparent corrupt alteration of the INS record (no 36; viol. of
18 USC 1512 (c) (1), 1519), the corrupt issuance of an altered verification of
status [viol. 18 USC 1546,], and the constant effort to maintain a doubt on plaintiff refugee status
and therefore about his right to remain in this country by refusing to
investigate and clarify plaintiff difficulties to intimidate and
threaten plaintiff to discourage him
from complaining about the obvious wrongdoings [no 34, 58; viol. 18 USC 1512
(b) 3); PC 136.1 (a) (2)] ,
(d)
the obstruction to justice in the civil proceeding (PC 182), when
Sara Robinson misrepresented the facts, and the wrongdoings (although plaintiff
refugee status had been confirmed by their colleagues from DHS Nebraska refugee
center, certified by a California administrative law judge and never terminated
by the INS district director with 8 CFR 207.9); the refusal to explain what
happened or to discuss the issues of the case (through an ADR procedure)
although they knew plaintiff’s living conditions were/are extremely difficult.
84_ Defendants (Dotson, Lee, Looney, INS-duty-attorney,
Mahoney, Amstrong, INS-manager, Aguirre, Robinson) conduct and acts caused plaintiff injuries described in no
75.
85_ The violations of civil rights described in 82 were also caused
by defendants’ (Mendoza, Castello, Campbell, Bolton) conduct and following overt acts:
(a)
the misrepresentation of plaintiff status,
of facts and of MPP procedures (no 47,48,51; viol. GC 822.2 because they are
guilty of corruption and malice);
(b)
the negligence when they violated MPP art.
22.078.6, 22.078.61, 22.078.62 related to the compliance with an administrative
decision and art 22.078.31 related to filing a new hearing on a compliance
issue; when they ‘accepted’ and ‘used’ of an
altered verification of status ‘knowing it to be altered’ [viol.
of 18 USC 1546]; and when they misrepresented the facts…;
(c)
the effort to maintain a doubt on
plaintiff refugee status and therefore about his right to remain in this
country (to intimidate him and threaten him), and the obstruction to justice
[in the immigration proceeding and in the administration proceeding, PC 182; 18
USC 1512 (c) (2)] when they refused to force the DPSS to present its critic at
the LA Superior Court.
(d)
Defendant Bolton was negligent when he
refused to encourage his employees and the DPSS to follow the procedure, and he
neglected to prevent the wrongdoing (viol. 42 USC 1986).
86_ Defendants (Mendoza, Castello, Campbell (5), Bolton) conduct and acts caused plaintiff injuries described in no 75.
(5) Suit
under 1983 against individual officers in their individual capacity for
violation of the constitution do not implicate sovereign immunity [Miranda B…
v. Kitzhaber (9th Circ. 2003) 328
F3.d
1181,1190]
87_ The violations of civil rights described in 82 were also
caused by defendant’s (LA County) conduct and following over acts:
(a)
the misrepresentations of plaintiff
immigration status (no 30, 46, 49, 99; viol. of GC 822.2 because they were
guilty of corruption and malice);
(b)
the negligence when they repeatedly
refused to follow several MPP regulation articles and procedures, and civil
procedures 1094.5 (see no 135) and when they ‘accepted’ and ‘used’
an altered verification of status ‘knowing it to be altered’ (viol. of
18 USC 1546);
(c)
the effort to maintain a doubt on
plaintiff refugee status or obstruction to justice (viol. PC182) (to maintain a
doubt about plaintiff right to remain in this country to intimidate and
threaten him, and steal him his benefits) when they refused to present their
critics to the LA Superior Court that could have ruled on the validity of the
fraudulent document used and plaintiff immigration status issue (and ended
plaintiff problems, see no 46);
(d)
the opening of plaintiff (and other
homeless) mail (no 67; violation of 18 USC 1702), and stealing (or delaying the
delivery) of his mail (no 69; violation of 18 USC 1704);
(e)
the misrepresentations of plaintiff
symptoms and reason for coming to the Hubert Humphrey facility to prevent
plaintiff from being treated properly and rapidly by an appropriate doctor (no
74; viol. GC 822.2, and negligence).
88_ Defendant [Los Angeles County (6)] conduct and acts caused plaintiff
injuries described in no 75.
(6) A
local Governing body is liable for systemic injuries that result not so much
from conduct of any single individual, but from the interactive behavior of
several government officials, each of whom may be acting in good faith. Knowledge that the official policy is
constitutionally infirm may not be necessary to establish liability [Chalmers
v. City of Los Angeles (9th Circ. 1985) 762 F. 2d 753, 758]. Here the court will note that even though
there are systemic injuries resulting from the interactive behavior of several
government officials, the defendants did not act in good faith, see no 106.
The court will also note that
deprivation of civil rights of asylum seeker seems to be common practice at the
DHS (see exh. 7.3).
89_ The action is timely for the following reasons:
(a)
Code Civ. Proc. 335.1 provide that
personal injury actions are governed by a 2 years statute of limitations;
[misrepresentation is governed by a 3 years statute of limitation CCP 338 (d)].
(b)
the ‘discovery rule’ states that the
limitation begins to run once a plaintiff has knowledge of the critical facts,
in this case the critical fact is the INS Nebraska refugee center
issuance of plaintiff refugee employment authorization card in December 2004
confirming that plaintiff was never re-determined by the INS (less than 1 years
from today’s date); and for some wrongdoings related to the administrative
decision, the ‘final status’ of the administrative law judge decision in
February 2004 (less than 2 years from today).
(c)
the ‘continuing violation theory’,
which applies to action under 1983 [Palmer v. Board of Education of community
Unit School 201-U, Will County, Ill. CaA7 (Ill.) 1995, 46 F. 3d 682], allows
plaintiff to seek relief for event outside of the limitation period when the
recent wrongdoings are clearly the continuation of earlier ones not within the
limitation period, which is the case here.
Wherefore, plaintiff
prays judgment against defendants (Dotson, Lee, Looney, INS-attorney, INS-manager, Aguirre, Amstrong,
Mahoney, Robinson, Mendoza, Castello, Campbell, Bolton in their individual
capacities, and Los Angeles County) for violation of 42 USC 1983: 1) for general damages (wage loss,) in the
sum of $ 720 000 increasing by $20 000 (-any benefit or salary plaintiff may
receive) every month until the dispute is resolved; 2) For special
damages for loss of earning capacity, loss of years of life expectancy, and
psychological damage in the sum of $1 800 000; 3) For Cost of suits
incurred herein; or such other and further relief as the court may deem
proper. [90-94 reserved].
Count 2. Violation of 42 USC sec. 1985
(2&3)
[conspiracy (7) to interfere with civil rights]
[2)
obstructing justice, intimidation of parties, witness, 3) Deprivation of civil
rights]
(7) To
state a claim under Section (s) 1985 (3) a plaintiff must allege the existence
of 1) a conspiracy, 2) a conspiratorial purpose to deprive a person or class of
persons, directly or indirectly, of the equal protection of the laws or of the
equal privileges and immunity under the laws, 3) an overt act in furtherance of
the conspiracy, and 4) either (a) an injury to person or property, or (b) a
deprivation of constitutionally protected rights or privilege. See Griffin v. Breckenridge, 403 US 88, 102
(1971). See note 47, Infra, re a
class-based animus.
95. Plaintiff repeats and realleges and incorporates by references
the
allegations in paragraphs 1 through 89 above with the same force
and effect as if herein set forth.
96. Defendants [Dotson,
Lee, Looney, INS-duty-attorney, Mahoney, Amstrong, INS-manager (8), Mendoza,
Castello, Campbell (10), Robinson (9), Lemons, Becerra, Nollner, Mirzoyan,
Riley, Diaz, Yokomizo in their individual capacities,] conspired to interfere with plaintiff
civil rights, to obstruct justice, to intimidate plaintiff, and to deprive
plaintiff from his civil rights.
(8)
Federal officials can be sued under civil rights conspiracy statue. Baird v.
Haith, D. Md.
1988,
724 F. Supp. 367. Federal officials may
be sued in their personal capacities under 1985.
Kauffman
v. US.. Ed. Wis. 1993, 840 F. Supp. 641. Conspiracy. (9) Assistant US attorney who allegedly communicated with
prosecutors in another district in an attempt generally to prevent Drug
Enforcement Administration (DEA) special agent from testifying in any court
case were not entitled to absolute prosecurial immunity in agent’s civil rights
action; attorneys were not performing advocacy in connection with a criminal
prosecution. Maye V. Reno, DDC 2002,
231 F. Supp. 2d 332. (10) Suit against state officials for alleged
improper administration of Montana Workers’ compensation Act in deprivation of
plaintiffs’ Fourteenth Amendment was not bared by the 11th amendment
to the extend plaintiffs sought relief against state officials in their
individual capacities. Blay Lock v.
Schwinder, Ca 9 (Mont.) 1988, 862 F. 2d 1352.
97. The conspiratorial purpose was multiple:
(a)
Hate against a poor, an
alien (11) and a refugee (they wanted to rob plaintiff of his refugee benefits
to physically hurt him, to make plaintiff unfairly lose his refuge status and
the possibility to obtain justice against France, to make it impossible for
plaintiff to find an appropriate job and to resettle in the US);
(b)
to cover some of their colleagues civil
servants wrongdoings [the opening of almost all the homeless
letters is a felony, the possible ignorance that plaintiff had been given the
refugee status before August 27 2002 by the immigration judge and Lee is also a
felony in this case,];
(c)
discrimination based on nationality [it
is very rare to see a French refugee, so the press and media would have
reported plaintiff grant of asylum without these wrongdoings like they did 2
years earlier for another Frenchman; one of the wrongdoing objectives was
therefore to discriminate plaintiff because of his French nationality to
discourage the press and media from discussing plaintiff proposals (see
also 111 (a) 3) and cases issues].
(11)
Alien are protected under this section (1986) and 1985 of this title creating a
cause of action against a person who refuses to aid preventing a commission of
conspirational wrongs. [Vietnamese Fishermen’s Ass’n v. Knights of Klu Klux
Klan, S.D Tex 1981, 518 F. Supp. 993].
98. The scheme of the conspiracy (12) was:
(a)
to ignore that plaintiff had been granted
refugee status or to ignore the evidences of plaintiff refugee
status [including the INS record listing him as a refugee, the verification of
status dated 09/05/02, Judge Tolentino’s administrative decision and even
plaintiff refugee employment authorization card dated 12/15/04,];
(b)
to refuse to close the case at the
immigration court (or to maintain the proceeding) to have the immigration judge
unfairly deny the asylum, to avoid giving plaintiff any other document listing
him as a refugee (like the G845 form), to deprive plaintiff of his refugee
benefits to sent him in the street as often as possible, and to harass him as
much as possible (with misrepresentations, negligence, threats,) to make it
impossible for him to defend himself, to obtain justice, to find a job and to
resettle in the US;
(c)
to avoid presenting the case to the
appropriate authority [INS District Director who can use 8 CFR 207.9 to
terminate the refugee status (if an error was really made), Superior Court
judge who could have evaluated the altered verification of status and exposed
plaintiff status errors and the criminal behavior mentioned here (to corruptly
issue and use an altered immigration
document is a crime 18 USC 1512, 1546,)], and to avoid investigating the INS
employees wrongdoings that lead to this ‘madness’ or to conduct the
discovery that would have pointed out the wrongdoings.
(12) The
conspiracy can be inferred from conduct and need not to be proved by evidence
of an express agreement [Scott v. Ron (9th Circ. 1998) 140 F. 3d
1275, 1284, cert. Denied, 526 US. 1033 (1999)].
99_ Defendant (Mr. Lemons) committed the following overt acts in
furtherance of the conspiracy:
(a) He
was negligent and obstructed justice [viol. 1714 (a), PC 182] when he did not
follow the normal MPP procedure requiring to ask the INS status verifier office
the date the refugee status was granted (with the G845 form); and when he
unfairly terminated plaintiff refugee benefits too early (8 months after
plaintiff entry date in the US instead of 8 months after his refugee status was
granted, no 30); and (b) he misrepresented plaintiff refugee status
based on a phone call with the INS (viol. GC822.2, exh. 2.3).
100_ Defendants (Dotson,
Looney, Lee, INS-duty-attorney, Amstrong, INS-Manager, Robinson) committed the following overt acts in
furtherance of the conspiracy: see no 83.
101_ Defendants (Riley,
Diaz, Mirzoyan, Becerra)
committed the following overt acts in furtherance of the conspiracy:
(a)
they ignored the administrative law judge
decision certifying plaintiff refugee status to
continue
to pretend that plaintiff did not have the refugee status (viol. GC 822.2);
(b)
they were negligent when they violated
several MPP regulation articles]; they asked defendant (Mahoney) to issue an
altered verification of status, which he did (violation of 18 USC 1512,) and
they ‘accepted’ and ‘used’ this altered document ‘knowing
it to be altered’ to justify the denial of benefits (viol. of 18 USC
1546), etc. (see no 135);
(c)
they interfered in an immigration
proceeding and obstructed justice when they refused to criticize the
administrative decision at the superior court as required by the regulation
(viol. Civ. cod. 1094.5, PC 182,).
102. Defendants (Mendoza,
Castello, Campbell) committed
the following overt acts in furtherance of the conspiracy: see no 85.
103_ Defendants (Nollner, Yokomizo) committed the following overt
acts in furtherance of the conspiracy:
(a) they
were negligent when they did not follow the MPP regulation to unfairly diminish
plaintiff GR in January 2005 (see 135), (b) they harassed plaintiff
while his complaint was pending at the Federal court by threatening him
constantly to terminate his benefits for no valid reason (viol. PC 136.1, 18
USC 1512); and by refusing to investigate and correct the problems of the
employees under their responsibility who stole or delayed the distribution of
plaintiff letters to send him written termination of his GR; and (c) subjected
plaintiff to a degrading treatment when they forced him to attend the
vocational assessment.
104_ Defendants (Dotson,
Lee, Looney, INS-duty-attorney, INS-manager,
Mahoney, Amstrong, Mendoza, Castello, Campbell, Sara Robinson, Lemons,
Becerra, Nollner, Mirzoyan, Riley, Diaz, Yokomizo in their individual
capacities) conduct
and overt acts caused plaintiff injuries (see no 75), deprived him from his
constitutionally rights and privilege (see count 1, no 82), obstructed justice,
attempted to intimidate and threaten plaintiff by pretending that his documents
were invalid to discourage him from asking for justice (no 82).
105_ The action is timely for the following reasons:
(a)
Code Civ. Proc. 335.1 provide that
personal injury actions are governed by a 2 years statute of
limitations;
[misrepresentation is governed by a 3 years statute of limitation CCP 338 (d)];
(b)
the ‘discovery rule’ states that the
limitation begins to run once a plaintiff has knowledge of the critical facts,
in this case the critical fact is the INS refugee center issuance of
plaintiff refugee employment authorization card in December 2004 (less than 1
year from today date) because it was the confirmation of defendants misrepresentations;
and for some wrongdoings related to the administrative decision, the final status of the administrative decision
02/2004.
(c)
the ‘continuing violation theory’
allows plaintiff to seek relief for event outside of the limitation period
(recent wrongdoings were clearly the continuation of earlier ones at the end of
2002).
106. Defendants are liable for the wrongdoings [for
misrepresentation because they were motivated by ‘corruption and actual
malice, such as a conscious intent to deceive, vex,
annoy or harm injured party in his or her business (Schonfeld v. City of
Vallejo 1974)’ see no 75, for negligence because of the
obvious forseability of the risk see 128,]; and defendants are subject to punitive damage because they are
guilty of corruption, malice and oppression [their despicable conduct subjected
plaintiff over and over,[see no 75, (13)] to cruel and unjust hardship in conscious disregard of his
rights].
(13)
Even after plaintiff presented his complaint at the civil court and was run into
by a car that broke his right elbow, they made no effort to discuss the issues
of the case through an ADR procedure although the damage increases very
rapidly. They knew the GR is limited to 9 months out a 12 months period, and
wanted to send plaintiff in the street to hurt him as much as possible and to
win the case without having to discuss the issues. They forced plaintiff to write pleadings although it is obvious
that the grave wrongdoings are independent from plaintiff will and he made
effort to resolve the problems. The
State of California could have easily asked the court to remand the case to the
State court, and the LA County defended a position that is not even supported
by the California DOJ since the CADSS had used the same arguments as the LACDPSS
and then changed its position after plaintiff opposition to the motion to
dismiss [moreover, the LACDPSS was already found liable for misrepresentation
in the social services area]. Finally, in March 05 after plaintiff was put on
disability they continued to try to terminate his GR to send him in the
street!
Wherefore, plaintiff
prays judgment (for violation of 42 USC 1985) against defendants (Dotson, Lee, Looney, INS-duty-attorney,
INS-manager, Mahoney, Amstrong, Mendoza, Castello, Campbell, Sara Robinson,
Lemons, Becerra, Nollner, Mirzoyan, Riley, Diaz, Yokomizo in their individual
capacities): 1)
for general damages in the sum of $ 720 000 increasing by $20 000 (- any
benefit an salary plaintiff may receive) every month until the dispute is resolved;
2) For special damages for loss of earning capacity, loss of years of life
expectancy, and psychological damage in the sum of $1 800 000; 3) for punitive
damages; 4) for Cost of suits incurred herein; or such other and further relief
as the court may deem proper. [reserved
107 - 109]
Count 3.
Common law conspiracy.
110. Plaintiff repeats and realleges and incorporates by
references the allegations in paragraphs 1 through 106 above with the same
force and effect as if herein set forth.
111. Defendants (Looney,
Dotson , Lee, INS-duty-Attorney, Mahoney, Amstrong, INS-manager, Lemons,
Becerra, Nollner, Mirzoyan, Riley, Diaz, Yokomizo, Mendoza, Castello, Campbell,
Robinson, Klausner in their individual capacities) (a) had an object to be accomplished:
i) to
make the plaintiff unfairly loose his refugee status, the associated refugee
social benefits, and the possibility to obtain justice against France and to
resettle in the US; ii) to cover their and their colleagues wrongdoings;
iii) to discourage the press and media from discussing publicly
plaintiff case – including the wrongdoings of their colleagues and his
proposals submitted to the international community, the 65-age limit proposal
for country leader that could have prevented the war in Iraq, and the computer
project proposal to improve the transfer and integration of statistical data at
the worldwide level;
(b) had
an agreement on the object or course of action:
i)_to
ignore that plaintiff had been granted the refugee status (to
maintain the immigration proceeding and have the immigration judge unfairly
deny the asylum), to ignore the evidences of his refugee status and the legal
procedures to express their concern or critics (8 CFR 207.9, MMP, ccp. 1094.5,
) to avoid that the appropriate authority asks for a discovery, simply
rules on the issues, and exposes the wrongdoings, ii) to make it
impossible for plaintiff to defend himself and complain properly and to find an
appropriate job by sending him in the street constantly; and iii) to make him
sick to death by forcing him in the street, in indecent homeless shelter and
without possibility to cook and store food.
c)_ performed one or more unlawful overt acts [see no 83, 85, 99, 101, 103,
below]; and (d) caused Pierre
Genevier damages that were a direct result of these acts (see no 75).
112. The first step in the conspiracy (14) was taken by defendant (Lemons) when he
did not ask the INS status verifier office for the date the refugee status was
granted with the G845 form to steal plaintiff several months of RCA benefits and
to avoid that plaintiff obtains both a new document confirming that he was
granted the refugee status, and the date he was granted this refuge status (see
overt act in no 99).
(14) It is
possible that the conspiracy started earlier; if the date plaintiff was granted
asylum is earlier than August 27 2002, date of the immigration court hearing,
then the immigration judge and the INS lawyer, Lee, knew it and hide it to
unfairly maintain the proceeding and prevent plaintiff from receiving the
refugee benefits.
113. Then, defendants (Dostson, Lee, Looney, INS-duty-attorney) misrepresented the
INS record situation and plaintiff immigration status (see overt
acts in 83). They had no authority to
say that an error was made on plaintiff refugee status, and did not ask the INS
District Director to use his authority to point out an error and to terminate
the refugee status with 8 CFR 207.9 (if they really thought an error was
made).
114._ Then, defendants (Mirzoyan, Riley, Diaz, ) asked defendant
(Mahoney) to issue an altered verification of status where the word refugee was
erased (exh. 4.4), which he did; they ‘accepted’ and ‘used’ this
altered document ‘knowing it to be
altered’ (viol 18 USC 1546) to avoid complying with judge Tolentino’s
administrative decision (to deny benefits, exh. 4.1-2) and refused to present
their critics at the Superior Court. See overt acts in no 101.
115. In July 2003, defendant (Becerra) continued to pretend that
plaintiff was not a refugee and was a ineligible alien to terminate his GR
despite Judge Tolentino’s decision (see overt acts in no 101).
116. From May to October 2003, Defendants (Mendoza, Castello,
Campbell)
misrepresented facts and procedures, were negligent, and accepted
and used the altered verification of status to deny plaintiff several months of
RCA benefits; to obstruct justice and to cover the DPSS and INS employees
wrongdoings. See overt act in no 85.
117_ From February 03 to February 04, defendants (Amstrong,
INS-Manager) were negligent, obstructed justice and neglected to prevent the
violation of plaintiff civil rights when they ignored the grave wrongdoings
described in the complaint of employees misconduct, (illegal alteration of
record and document, violation of PC 182…), they did not ask the INS district
director to use 8 CFR 207.9 to terminate plaintiff refugee status (or simply
did not do it themselves, if an error was really made); or did not ask the INS
employee to stop harassing plaintiff with lies and threats and to correct the
INS record; and they did not inform the FBI of the criminal wrongdoings.
118_ After February 2004, defendant (Robinson) was negligent and
obstructed justice when she did not do the appropriate investigation on
plaintiff complaint to avoid pointing out the obvious INS employees
wrongdoings, and she misrepresented the facts described in the complaint, the
wrongdoings that took place, and plaintiff immigration status. She also tried
to intimidate and threaten plaintiff. See also no 83.
119_ From October 03 to March 05 defendant (Nollner, Yokomizo)
continued (or let their employees continue) to harass and threaten plaintiff
while his complaint was pending at the federal court although plaintiff
repeatedly asked Yokomizo and other LAC or DPSS managers to relieve him from
his obligation to avoid any form of retaliation for the law suit, and they were
negligent (see also no 103, 135, 69-73).
120_ And finally, in early 01/05, in the last overt act of the
conspiracy, defendant (Klausner) ignored the evidences of plaintiff refugee
status to refuse to sanction Sara Robinson although at the same time, the DHS,
the defendant, accepted plaintiff documents as evidences of his refugee
status and issued a refugee employment authorization card (15).
He did not address plaintiff refugee status issue with a limited
discovery on the subject, for example, to avoid pointing out the INS employees
wrongdoings. He obstructed justice
(viol. PC 182), harassed plaintiff (viol. 18 USC 1512,) and tried to intimidate
and threaten plaintiff (viol. 18 USC 1512,).
(15) Again
A valid refugee employment authorization card is an evidence of legal
status and even of refugee status, in fact it is its primary
role, to give an evidence of the official alien immigration status! It
is always possible that an error was made or that a crime was committed (that
the verification of status was issued for money for example), but if an error
were made or if a crime were committed, the DHS or INS had all the ‘tools’
to correct this error (8 CFR 207.9), and to prosecute this crime (FBI). If it did not use these tools although it
was clearly informed, it is because no error was made and no crime was
committed, there were only grave wrongdoings (including misrepresentations)
from some INS employees, and Judge Klausner could have easily asked for a
limited discovery on the issue to end the conspiracy, he did not.
121 Defendants conduct and over acts caused plaintiff grave
injuries described in no 75.
122_ The action is timely for the following reasons:
(a)
Code Civ. Proc. 338 (a) provides that
actions for conspiracy to defraud are governed by a 3 years statute of
limitations (all the facts took place within this 3 years limitation).
(b)
the cause of action based on civil
conspiracy accrues on the date of the commission of the last overt act in
pursuance of the conspiracy (in this case early 2005).
123. The
defendants were informed of the conspiracy, are experienced professional (even
high level legal experts for most of them who know the importance of
‘procedure’ and ‘authority’), and unlike Judge Tolentino, Mr. Christian, DHS
Nebraska refugee Center director, and the status verifiers at first, they
deliberately chose to participate in the conspiracy; they are liable and
subject to punitive damages (see 106).
Wherefore, plaintiff
prays judgment against defendants (Looney, Dotson , Lee, INS-duty-Attorney, Lemons, Becerra, Nollner,
Yokomizo, Mirzoyan, Riley, Diaz, INS-manager, Mahoney, Amstrong, Mendoza,
Castello, Campbell, Robinson, Klausner in their individual capacities) for common law conspiracy: 1) for
general damages (wage losses,) in the sum of $ 720 000 increasing by $20 000 (-
any benefit or salary plaintiff may receive) every month until the dispute is
resolved; 2) for special damages for loss of earning capacity, loss of
years of life expectancy, and psychological damage in the sum of $1 800 000; 3)
for punitive damages; 4) for Cost of suits incurred herein; or such
other and further relief as the court may deem proper. [124 reserved].
Count 4. Reserved for negligence
(until 6 months after presentment, claims
filed on 9/19/05 and 9/22/05)
125. Plaintiff repeats and realleges and incorporates by
references the allegations in paragraphs 1 through 123 above with the same
force and effect as if herein set forth.
126. Defendant, United States (including DHS formerly INS) owed a
duty to process asylum application honestly and promptly [it accepted this duty
in signing 1951 Geneva Refugee convention].
And, Defendant, Los Angeles County, owed a duty to deliver honestly and
promptly all social services or benefits to eligible clients, the DPSS was
created for this purpose (helping the poor), and the County health facilities
to treat patient honestly.
127. Defendants (United States, Los Angeles County) employees owed
a duty to act according to the standard of ordinary care [civ. Code 1714 (a)]
(applying to anyone including immigration employees, social workers),
defendants management owed a duty to supervise and control the work of its
employees, and to conduct proper investigations on its employees obvious
wrongdoings (through its INS audit office for example). Defendants must follow and respect the
various regulations, procedures, and statutes (MPP, California Manual of
Policies and Procedures, CFR, civil and crim. codes).
128_ The California Supreme Court identified a number of factors
that courts should consider in determining whether or not an exception to the
general duty to exercise ordinary care [Civ. Code 1714 (a)] should be made, and
here the facts described in the complaint clearly confirm that this case is not
an exception since they confirm the existence of defendants duty (16).
(16) (a)
The forseability of harm to plaintiff was obvious; not only the refugee status
is matter of life and death, but it is associated with the most basic
social benefits necessary to survive, so it was obvious that by
depriving plaintiff of these basics benefits he would be (physically) hurt and
put in extremely difficult situation even a life threatening situation after
the many years of persecution he suffered.
(b) The
degree of certainty that plaintiff has been injured is also obvious; plaintiff
has been sent in the street more than 16 times since 09/02, was forced to sleep
in the street or in indecent shelters for months, could not find an appropriate
job and became sick regularly because of the negligence.
(c ) The
connection between the defendants conduct and the injury suffered is also
obvious since the lies on plaintiff status, the violation of the regulation and
state and federal statute resulted in the termination of plaintiff benefits and
created all plaintiff difficulties;
(d) The
moral blame attached to defendants conduct is also obvious since it is
defendants’ responsibility to prevent such problem. The regulations were made
precisely to prevent these problems.
And here there was an obvious intent to deceive plaintiff and to harm
injured him in his ‘business’ (life), their conduct was despicable and
must be discouraged.
(e) It
is important to try to prevent future similar harm by pointing out of
defendants obvious violations of laws and regulation.
(f) The
extend of the burden on the defendants caused by the imposition of a duty to
exercise care is insignificant because again the regulations were made to
prevent these problems and it is the role of the USCIS and the DPSS to follow
these regulation and to respect the law.
129. Defendants’ presumption of negligence arises mostly out of
violations of statutes (violation of the regulations, procedures and state and
federal statues). Moreover, the harm
resulted from types of occurrences these statutes were designed to prevent,
and plaintiff was a member of class (poor, refugees,) these statutes were
designed to protect.
130_ Defendants (Lee, Looney, Mr. Dotson, INS-duty-Attorney)
violated states statutes and federal regulations:
(a)
when they misrepresented the situation of
the INS record and plaintiff refugee status (viol. of CC 1709, GC 822.2 because
they were guilty of corruption and malice);
(b)
when they unfairly refused to close
plaintiff immigration case or maintained a court proceeding (violation of PC
182);
(c)
And if they were convinced that an error
was made by the status verifier or in inputting the INS record, they still
should have asked the INS district director to use his authority granted by 8
CFR 207.9 to point out this error and terminate plaintiff refugee status [this
statue was clearly designed to prevent this type of problem because the refugee
status is a matter of life and death, and it is normal to give the possibility
to point out an error only to the Director].
See also 83.
131_ Defendant (Mahoney) violated criminal status when he
corruptly issued an altered verification of status (18 USC 1512, 1546), and he
indirectly obstructed justice because this document was used to prevent the
presentation of the situation to a judge of the Superior Court (viol. PC 182,).
132. Defendant (Armstrong) had the responsibility to report the
INS employees criminal conduct to the FBI, and instead she ignored the
seriousness of the problems described (the issuance and use of an altered
verification of status is a crime according to 18 USC 1512, 1546), and refused
to clarify the problems although there were an administrative proceeding going
on, she obstructed justice (PC 182).
And of course, defendant (INS manager), who received the complaint never
responded to it although again an administrative and immigration proceeding was
going on, obstructed justice and neglected to prevent the wrongdoings (viol. 42
USC 1986), and the covered the INS employees wrongdoings.
133. In October 2003,
these grave errors became gross negligence when defendant (Aguirre)
ignored plaintiff’s letter asking for precisions on these problems and
contradictions, and for a correction of the problems, and responded
inappropriately, he obstructed justice (viol. of PC 182,) he was negligent when
let his employees ignore the procedure 8 CFR 207.9, and neglected to prevent
the harm caused to plaintiff (count 1, 2 …, viol. 42 USC 1986,).
134. Defendant (Robinson) had the responsibility to investigate
properly the obvious wrongdoings (misrepresentations of plaintiff status,
alteration of documents,), but instead she misrepresented the facts and
wrongdoings described, tried to intimidate and threaten plaintiff with her
defamatory statements (viol. 18 USC 1512, PC 136.1), and relied blindly on one of her client
employees statements [since she stated that the plaintiff was not a refugee and
not even a legal alien while at exactly the same time the DHS
Nebraska refugee center (her client) accepted plaintiff evidences of his
refugee status, and issued a refugee employment authorization cad on December
15 2004 (exh. 6.2, 1.2)]. She obstructed justice (viol.
PC 182, 18 USC 1512…).
135_ Defendant (Los Angeles County) employees constantly and
repeatedly violated articles described in the MPP regulation and federal
statues, and refused to follow the MPP and civ. code procedures:
(a) They
did not follow the procedure requiring them to ask the INS status verifiers
office for the date the refugee status was granted (form G845).
(b) They
did not pay the appropriate number of months of RCA benefits as Judge Tolentino
pointed out. And after the volag refused to give the housing assistance it
should have given according to MPP art. 69.203.01, they did not correct the
problem as they should have done according to MPP. Art. 69.203.27 and 28 (and
to the judge decision).
(c) They
did not issue the compliance report with the 30 days limit period (violation of
MPP art. 22.078.2), and did not fully comply with the decision (viol. MPP art.
22.069.123).
(d) They
did not point out on their compliance report that plaintiff had the possibility
to complain about the compliance at the CADSS if he did not agree (violation of
MPP art. 22.078.22).
(e) They
refused to follow the appropriate procedure to criticize judge Tolentino ‘s
decision (violation of code of civil procedure 1094.5) and asked plaintiff to
file a new complaint on a compliance issue which is in violation of MPP
22.078.31). And therefore they obstructed justice in an administrative and
immigration proceeding (viol. PC 182, 18 USC 1512).
(f) They
accepted and used an altered verification knowing it to be altered (viol. 18
USC 1546).
(g) They
incorrectly pretended that the Work Source payments (for housing assistance)
should be deducted dollars for dollars and did manipulate the computer to
deduct about $20 from 01 to 03/05 although the regulation explains that these
payments should not be counted as income and not deducted (violation of MPP
art. 44-111.454).
(h) They
used an inappropriate regulation article (41-414.2) and threatened plaintiff to
force him to attend the vocational assessment (degrading treatment, exh.: 8.2).
(i) They
violated criminal statutes (18 USC 1702, 03 and 08) when they opened (or delay
of the delivery of letters), or stole plaintiff and other homeless letters.
(j) Dr.
Alston misrepresented plaintiff symptoms and reasons for coming for a
consultation when she stated that he came for headaches to prevent him from
being treated rapidly by an appropriate doctor for his cardiovascular problems.
(k) They
threatened and harassed plaintiff constantly while his case was pending at the
civil court (viol. 18 USC 1513), and this with the total support of the LA
County management (Legal Department, Board of Supervisor,).
(l)
Yokomizo neglected to prevent the wrongdoings and deprivation of civil rights
(viol. 42 USC 1986).
136. As the result of those breaches and negligence from
defendants (US, LA County), which were the proximate causes of Pierre Genevier
harm and damages, the plaintiff suffered a grave prejudice see no 75.
137. This action for negligence is timely for the following
reasons:
(a) According
to the discovery rule, the 2 years statute of limitation [code civ proc. 335.1]
accrues when plaintiff is aware of the critical facts; here the critical facts
is the issuance by the INS Nebraska refugee center of plaintiff refugee
employment authorization card in December 15 2004, and for some
wrongdoings (related to the administrative decision) the final status of the
administrative decision February 2004 (les than 2 years from today);
(b) It
appears also that the grave errors and contradictory statements on his refugee
status (from Mr. Looney, Mrs. Lee, Mr. Dotson or the status verifiers) became gross
negligence when defendant Aguirre refused to respond to plaintiff complaint
of employee misconduct and letter at the end of October 2003 (less than 2 years
from today’s date);
(c ) the ‘continuing
violation theory’ allows plaintiff to seek relief for event outside of the
limitation period (recent wrongdoings were clearly the continuation of earlier
ones at the end of 2002);
(d)
action against health care provider based
on negligence accrues by the earliest of either (1) 3 years of the date of the
injury or (2) 1 year after plaintiff discovers, …, the injury (ccp 340 .5]
(e)
finally, defendant (Robinson) - who had
the responsibility to investigate the complaint and to respond to it-,
obviously tried to hide the nature of the wrongdoings to the justice, District
Court, which may also toll the status of limitation (17), if need be]. [138-149
reserved].
(17)
In Zeleznik v. United States, 770 F. 2d 20, 23 (3d Cir. 1985), the court noted
in dictum: “When the government actively conceals its own wrongdoings by
misrepresentation, there may be equitable treasons for tolling the status of
limitations.
Wherefore, plaintiff
prays judgment for negligence against defendants (United States, Los Angeles
County): 1) for general damages (wage losses,) in the sum of $ 720 000
increasing by $20 000 (- any benefit or salary plaintiff may receive) every
month until the dispute is resolved; 2) for special damages for loss of earning
capacity, loss of years of life expectancy, and psychological damage in the sum
of $1 800 000; 3) for Cost of suits incurred herein; or such other and further
relief as the court may deem proper.
Dated: October , 2005
By:______________
Pierre Genevier
Exhibits.
(41 pages)
Exh. 1: Verification of status listing the
plaintiff as a refugee (1.1, 1 page double sided, 2 pages), refugee employment
authorization card issued on December 15 2004 (1.2, 1 p). Exh. 2:
Response from Mr. Looney dated October 31 2002 (2.1, 1 p.), response made on
November 13 2002 by the Deportation officer (2.2, 1 page), note from Mr. Lemons
dated December 2 2002 (2.3,1 p.). Exh.
3: Decision of Judge Tolentino
dated February 5 2003 (3.1, 6 p.), rehearing unit decision dated April 17 2003
(3.2, 1 p.). Exh. 4: Notice of action dated 03/13/03 (4.1, 1 p.),
notice of action dated 04/02/03 (4.2, 1 p.), notice of action terminating GR
(4.3, 1 p.), altered verification of status sent at the end of March (4.4, 3
p.). Exh. 5: Letter from Judge
Mendoza dated May 2 2003 (5.1, 1 p.), Letter from Judge Castello dated June 6
2003 (5.2, 2 p.), letter from Mr. Campbell dated October 2003 (5.3, 5 p.). Exh.
6: Request for additional evidence (6.1, 2 p), refugee employment
authorization card issued on December 15 2004 (6.2, 1 p.). Exh. 7: Response sent by this INS
office of internal audit (7.1, 1 page), response sent by the customer service
office (7.2, 1 p), article on DHS civil rights violations against asylum
seekers (7.3, 3 p.). Exh 8 :
Letter dated January 6 2005 (8.1,2p.), faxed letter dated January 27 2005 (8.2,
3 p.), letter dated April 28 2005 (8.3,
1 p.), Dr. Alston referral notice (8.4, 1 p.).