COMPLAINT – 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT ... - NOLA.com

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA 

MAYTEE BUCKLEY, an individual, 

YVONNE PARMS, an individual, and 

LESLIE PARMS, an individual, 

CIVIL ACTION NO.: 

Plaintiffs 

VERSUS 

TOM SCHEDLER, in his official capacity as 

The Secretary of State of Louisiana, 

JUDGE ________________________ 

MAG. JUDGE __________________ 

Defendant 

COMPLAINT 

INTRODUCTION 

1. Plaintiffs bring this action to challenge the constitutionality of 

Louisiana’s Congressional District 2 as a racial gerrymander in violation of the Equal 

Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. 

2. Until recently, Louisiana was deemed a covered jurisdiction under the 

Voting Rights Act of 1965. Accordingly, its congressional maps were subject to 

preclearance by the federal government. 

3. In the name of avoiding retrogression, Louisiana has used Section 5 as a 

justification to racially gerrymander congressional districts, specifically by packing 

African-American voters into Congressional District 2 and thereby diminishing their 

influence in surrounding districts. 

4. On June 25, 2013, in Shelby County v. Holder, 570 U.S. ____, 133 S. Ct. 

2612 (2013), the United States Supreme Court held that the coverage formula provided 

COMPLAINT – 1 

70916-0019/LEGAL27626678.4 

Case 3:13-cv-00763-SDD-RLB Document 1 11/25/13 Page 1 of 12

in Section 4(b) of the Voting Rights Act is unconstitutional. As a result, Louisiana is no 

longer a covered jurisdiction for purposes of Section 5. 

5. Louisiana can no longer seek refuge in Section 5 as an excuse to racially 

gerrymander Congressional District 2. Drawn with race as its predominant purpose, this 

district cannot pass constitutional muster. 

6. Plaintiffs seek a declaration that Louisiana’s Congressional District 2 is 

invalid and an injunction prohibiting the Defendant from calling, holding, supervising, 

or taking any action with respect to Congressional elections based on the Congressional 

District 2 as it currently stands. 

PARTIES 

7. Plaintiff Maytee Buckley is a United States citizen and registered voter in 

the State of Louisiana. She currently resides in Congressional District 2. 

8. Plaintiff Yvonne Parms is a United States citizen and registered voter in 

the State of Louisiana. She currently resides in Congressional District 2. 

9. Plaintiff Leslie Parms is a United States citizen and registered voter in the 

State of Louisiana. He currently resides in Congressional District 2. 

10. Defendant Tom Schedler, Louisiana’s Secretary of State, is the chief 

election officer of the state. He, in his official capacity as Louisiana’s Secretary of State, 

is responsible for preparing and certifying the ballots for all elections, promulgating all 

election returns, and administering the election laws. 


70916-0019/LEGAL27626678.4 


JURISDICTION AND VENUE 

11. This Court has jurisdiction to hear Plaintiffs’ claim pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 

§§ 1983 and 1988, and 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1343(a)(3), and 1357. This Court has 

jurisdiction to grant declaratory relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202. 

12. A three-judge district court is requested pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2284(a), 

as Plaintiffs’ action “challeng[es] the constitutionality of the apportionment of 

congressional districts” in Louisiana. 

13. Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). 

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS 

14. On April 13, 2011, the Louisiana State Legislature established 

Louisiana’s six Congressional districts, set forth at La. Rev. Stat. §18:1276.1 (hereinafter 

“2011 Congressional Plan”). 

15. Between 2000 and 2010, Louisiana’s total population grew by 1.4 percent 

from 4,468,976 to 4,533,372. Louisiana’s growth rate was far below the national growth 

rate of 9.7 percent over the same period. As a result, Louisiana lost one congressional 

district, reducing its delegation in the U.S. House of Representatives from seven 

members to six. 

16. Before considering congressional redistricting plans in 2011, committees 

in both houses of the Louisiana State Legislature established various guidelines to 

govern the redistricting process. 

17. Those guidelines provided “minimally acceptable criteria” for 

consideration of any redistricting plan, including: 

a. “All redistricting plans shall comply with the Equal Protection Clause of the 

Fourteenth Amendment and the Fifteenth Amendment to the U.S. 


70916-0019/LEGAL27626678.4 


Constitution; Sections 2 and 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, as amended; 

and all other applicable federal and state law.” 

b. “All redistricting plans shall respect the recognized political boundaries and 

natural geography of this state, to the extent practicable.” 

c. “[D]ue consideration shall be given to,” under the Senate rules, “ existing 

district alignments,” and, under the House rules, “traditional district 

alignments.” 

18. The end result of the redistricting process was the 2011 Congressional 

Plan, which includes Congressional District 2, shown below. 

19. Congressional District 2 includes parts of New Orleans, excluding the 

western suburbs, and weaves around to Baton Rouge, capturing its western and northern 

neighborhoods. 


70916-0019/LEGAL27626678.4 


20. The shape of Congressional District 2, as redrawn in 2011, is significantly 

more contorted than it had been under the prior congressional districting plan, adopted in 

2001 (“Former Congressional District 2”). Former Congressional District 2 was 

relatively more compact and did not stretch west of Kenner or Jefferson Parish. Instead, 

it represented primarily one community: New Orleans. 

21. Based on the 2010 Census, current Congressional District 2 has a total 

African-American population of 62.9%. The African-American voting age population is 

59.7%, and 61.6% of the District’s registered voters are African-American. 

22. When enacted, Former Congressional District 2 had a total African- 

American population of 64.8%, and an African-American voting age population of 

60.3%. At that time, 60.7% of registered voters were African-American. 

23. As both a qualitative and quantitative matter, Congressional District 2 is 

not compact. Congressional District 2 also disregards key political subdivisions and 

geographical boundaries and subordinates other traditional districting principles. 

24. The shape of Congressional District 2 is bizarre on its face. It snakes up 

the Mississippi River in southeastern Louisiana, connecting western New Orleans with 

eastern and northern Baton Rouge. The District starts in New Orleans and Orleans 

Parish but stops short of the border with Jefferson Parish, leaving part of New Orleans 

and Metairie in Congressional District 1. It then follows the southern shore of the 

Mississippi River, hopping across the river to cut Kenner, St. Rose, and New Sarpy out 

of Congressional Districts 1 and 6 on the north shore. It continues up the Mississippi to 

include Gonzales, White Castle, Plaquemine, Addis, and Port Allen. The District makes 

a final jump back over the Mississippi to include eastern and northern Baton Rouge. 


70916-0019/LEGAL27626678.4 


25. Congressional District 2’s tortured shape further contorts the districts 

around it. Congressional District 6 surrounds Congressional District 2 on three sides, 

appearing to shoot Congressional District 2 out of its cragged jaws like a crooked 

tongue. 

26. One widely used measure of compactness is the Reock score, which 

measures the ratio between the area of the district and the area of the smallest circle that 

can fit around the district. The Reock scale ranges from 0.0 to 1.0. Districts that have a 

lower Reock score are generally less compact than districts that have a higher Reock 

score. Congressional District 2 has a Reock score of 0.18. 

27. The Reock score of Congressional District 2 is far worse than it had been 

before the 2011 Congressional Plan. Former Congressional District 2 had a Reock score 

of 0.32, almost twice the score of the new district. 

28. The Reock score of Congressional District 2 is also far worse than any 

other district under the 2011 Congressional Plan: 

a. District 1: 0.46 

b. District 3: 0.40 

c. District 4: 0.34 

d. District 5: 0.37 

e. District 6: 0.38 

The mean Reock score of all six congressional districts is 0.35, nearly double the score 

of Congressional District 2. 

29. Congressional District 2 also violates the redistricting guidelines 

established by the Louisiana State Legislature. It does not respect the recognized 


70916-0019/LEGAL27626678.4 


political boundaries and natural geography of Louisiana. Former Congressional 

District 2 included parts of two parishes: Orleans and Jefferson. Current Congressional 

District 2 includes parts of 10 parishes: Orleans Parish, Jefferson Parish, St. Charles 

Parish, St. John the Baptist Parish, St. James Parish, Assumption Parish, Ascension 

Parish, Iberville Parish, West Baton Rouge Parish, and East Baton Rouge Parish. Of 

these, only St. James Parish is located entirely in Congressional District 2. All of the 

other parishes are split between Congressional District 2 and neighboring districts. 

30. Congressional District 2 also divides the cities of New Orleans and Baton 

Rouge into multiple districts, further disregarding recognized political boundaries. 

31. The 2011 Congressional Plan also violates the guideline that “due 

consideration shall be given to existing district alignments.” Congressional District 2 

includes portions of four different congressional districts drawn in 2001. 

32. Congressional District 2 subordinates traditional redistricting criteria and 

violates Louisiana’s redistricting guidelines because the Louisiana State Legislature was 

primarily motivated by race when it adopted the new boundaries for Congressional 

District 2. Between 2000 and 2010, the total population and the African-American 

population of New Orleans decreased. On information and belief, the Louisiana State 

Legislature cherry-picked African-American neighborhoods in New Orleans and Baton 

Rouge and packed them into one district. The result is a contorted congressional district 

based primarily--if not entirely--on race. 

33. The decrease in African-American population in Congressional District 6, 

which is adjacent to Congressional District 2, is further evidence of the Louisiana State 

Legislature’s racial motivations. Former Congressional District 6 included Baton Rouge 


70916-0019/LEGAL27626678.4 


and has now been split between current Congressional Districts 2, 5, and 6. When 

enacted, former Congressional District 6 had a total African-American population of 

33.6%, and an African-American voting age population of 31.7%. At that time, 28.1% 

of the registered voters were African-American. Current Congressional District 6 now 

has a total African-American Population of 23.6%--a decrease of almost ten percentage 

points--and an African-American voting age population of 21.5%. As of 2011, 20.1% of 

the registered voters in current Congressional District 6 were African-American--a 

decrease of eight percentage points. Current Congressional District 5, which includes 

parts of a number of former districts such as Congressional District 5 and Congressional 

District 6, also increased its African-American population, but the increase did not come 

from the parishes captured from former Congressional District 6. 

34. As of the date of the enactment of the 2011 Congressional Plan, 

Louisiana was considered a covered jurisdiction under Section 5 of the Voting Rights 

Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1973c. Accordingly, the 2011 Congressional Plan was subject to 

preclearance by either the United States Department of Justice or the United States 

District Court for the District of Columbia before it could take effect. 

35. On June 2, 2011, the State of Louisiana submitted its submission under 

Section 5 to the United States Department of Justice. 

36. On June 25, 2013, the United States Supreme Court issued its opinion in 

Shelby County v. Holder, 570 U.S. ____, 133 S. Ct. 2612 (2013), holding that the 

coverage formula provided in Section 4(b) of the Voting Rights Act is unconstitutional. 

As a result, the State of Louisiana is no longer a covered jurisdiction and need not meet 

preclearance requirements under Section 5. 


70916-0019/LEGAL27626678.4 


37. Upon information and belief, Section 5 preclearance requirements were 

used as a justification to pack African-American voters into the bizarrely-shaped 

Congressional District 2. 

38. Race was the predominant consideration in the creation of Congressional 

District 2. No other factor explains the tortured shape of this district, its failure to 

comply with traditional districting principles, its failure to comply with the Louisiana 

State Legislature’s own redistricting guidelines, or the high concentration of African- 

American voters in the district. 

39. The predominant consideration of race with respect to Congressional 

District 2 is not justified by a compelling state interest. 

40. In particular, in the wake of Shelby County, Section 5 cannot justify the 

use of race as a predominant factor in drawing congressional district lines. 

41. Nor can Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 justify the use of race 

as a predominant factor in drawing Congressional District 2. African-American voters 

in this district are able to elect candidates of their choice without constituting 59.7% of 

the District's voting age population. 

42. Even if there were a compelling state interest to create and maintain 

Congressional District 2 with race as the predominant factor, Congressional District 2 is 

not narrowly tailored to achieve that interest. There are other viable and constitutionally 

permissible alternatives to Congressional District 2. 


70916-0019/LEGAL27626678.4 


CAUSE OF ACTION 

Violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution 

43. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference, as if fully set forth herein, 

the allegations in paragraphs 1-42 above. 

44. The Fourteenth Amendment of Section 1 of the United States 

Constitution provides in relevant part: “No State shall make or enforce any law which 

shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any 

State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor 

deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” 

45. Race was the predominant factor in the creation of Congressional 

District 2. 

46. The use of race as the predominant factor with respect to Congressional 

District 2 is not narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest. 

47. Accordingly, Congressional District 2 violates the Equal Protection 

Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. 

48. Plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at law other than the judicial relief 

sought here. The failure to temporarily and permanently enjoin the conduct of elections 

based on Congressional District 2 will irreparably harm Plaintiffs by violating their 

constitutional rights. 

PRAYER FOR RELIEF 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs request that this Court: 

A. Convene a court of three judges pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2284(a); 


70916-0019/LEGAL27626678.4 


B. Declare that Congressional District 2 under the 2011 Congressional Plan is a 

racial gerrymander in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth 

Amendment; 

C. Issue a permanent injunction enjoining Defendant from enforcing or giving 

any effect to the boundaries of Congressional District 2 as drawn in the 2011 Congressional 

Plan, including an injunction barring Defendant from conducting any elections for the 

United States House of Representatives based on Congressional District 2; 

D. Hold hearings, consider briefing and evidence, and otherwise take actions 

necessary to determine and order a valid plan for new congressional districts in the State of 

Louisiana; and 

E. Grant such other or further relief the Court deems to be appropriate, including 

but not limited to an award of Plaintiffs’ attorneys’ fees and reasonable costs. 

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED: 

/s/ Christopher L. Whittington 

CHRISTOPHER L. WHITTINGTON 

Bar Roll No.: 22184 

P. O. Box 3035 

Baton Rouge, LA 70821-3035 

Telephone: (225) 346-8777 

Facsimile: (225) 346-0009 

Email: chris@whittingtonlawfirm.com 


70916-0019/LEGAL27626678.4 



70916-0019/LEGAL27626678.4 


JS 44 (Rev. 12/12) 

CIVIL COVER SHEET 

The JS 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replace nor supplement the filing and service of pleadings or other papers as required by law, except as 

provided by local rules of court. This form, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is required for the use of the Clerk of Court for the 

purpose of initiating the civil docket sheet. (SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON NEXT PAGE OF THIS FORM.) 

I. (a) PLAINTIFFS DEFENDANTS 

(b) County of Residence of First Listed Plaintiff 

(EXCEPT IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES) 

County of Residence of First Listed Defendant 

(IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES ONLY) 

NOTE: IN LAND CONDEMNATION CASES, USE THE LOCATION OF 

THE TRACT OF LAND INVOLVED. 

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

II. BASIS OF JURISDICTION (Place an “X” in One Box Only) 

III. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES (Place an “X” in One Box for Plaintiff 

(For Diversity Cases Only) and One Box for Defendant) 

’ 1 U.S. Government ’ 3 Federal Question PTF DEF PTF DEF 

Plaintiff (U.S. Government Not a Party) Citizen of This State ’ 1 ’ 1 Incorporated or Principal Place ’ 4 ’ 4 

of Business In This State 

’ 2 U.S. Government ’ 4 Diversity Citizen of Another State ’ 2 ’ 2 Incorporated and Principal Place ’ 5 ’ 5 

Defendant (Indicate Citizenship of Parties in Item III) of Business In Another State 

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

Foreign Country 

IV. NATURE OF SUIT (Place an “X” in One Box Only) 

CONTRACT TORTS FORFEITURE/PENALTY BANKRUPTCY OTHER STATUTES 

’ 110 Insurance PERSONAL INJURY PERSONAL INJURY ’ 625 Drug Related Seizure ’ 422 Appeal 28 USC 158 ’ 375 False Claims Act 

’ 120 Marine ’ 310 Airplane ’ 365 Personal Injury - of Property 21 USC 881 ’ 423 Withdrawal ’ 400 State Reapportionment 

’ 130 Miller Act ’ 315 Airplane Product Product Liability ’ 690 Other 28 USC 157 ’ 410 Antitrust 

’ 140 Negotiable Instrument Liability ’ 367 Health Care/ ’ 430 Banks and Banking 

’ 150 Recovery of Overpayment ’ 320 Assault, Libel & Pharmaceutical PROPERTY RIGHTS ’ 450 Commerce 

& Enforcement of Judgment Slander Personal Injury ’ 820 Copyrights ’ 460 Deportation 

’ 151 Medicare Act ’ 330 Federal Employers’ Product Liability ’ 830 Patent ’ 470 Racketeer Influenced and 

’ 152 Recovery of Defaulted Liability ’ 368 Asbestos Personal ’ 840 Trademark Corrupt Organizations 

Student Loans ’ 340 Marine Injury Product ’ 480 Consumer Credit 

(Excludes Veterans) ’ 345 Marine Product Liability LABOR SOCIAL SECURITY ’ 490 Cable/Sat TV 

’ 153 Recovery of Overpayment Liability PERSONAL PROPERTY ’ 710 Fair Labor Standards ’ 861 HIA (1395ff) ’ 850 Securities/Commodities/ 

of Veteran’s Benefits ’ 350 Motor Vehicle ’ 370 Other Fraud Act ’ 862 Black Lung (923) Exchange 

’ 160 Stockholders’ Suits ’ 355 Motor Vehicle ’ 371 Truth in Lending ’ 720 Labor/Management ’ 863 DIWC/DIWW (405(g)) ’ 890 Other Statutory Actions 

’ 190 Other Contract Product Liability ’ 380 Other Personal Relations ’ 864 SSID Title XVI ’ 891 Agricultural Acts 

’ 195 Contract Product Liability ’ 360 Other Personal Property Damage ’ 740 Railway Labor Act ’ 865 RSI (405(g)) ’ 893 Environmental Matters 

’ 196 Franchise Injury ’ 385 Property Damage ’ 751 Family and Medical ’ 895 Freedom of Information 

’ 362 Personal Injury - Product Liability Leave Act Act 

Medical Malpractice ’ 790 Other Labor Litigation ’ 896 Arbitration 

REAL PROPERTY CIVIL RIGHTS PRISONER PETITIONS ’ 791 Employee Retirement FEDERAL TAX SUITS ’ 899 Administrative Procedure 

’ 210 Land Condemnation ’ 440 Other Civil Rights Habeas Corpus: Income Security Act ’ 870 Taxes (U.S. Plaintiff Act/Review or Appeal of 

’ 220 Foreclosure ’ 441 Voting ’ 463 Alien Detainee or Defendant) Agency Decision 

’ 230 Rent Lease & Ejectment ’ 442 Employment ’ 510 Motions to Vacate ’ 871 IRS—Third Party ’ 950 Constitutionality of 

’ 240 Torts to Land ’ 443 Housing/ Sentence 26 USC 7609 State Statutes 

’ 245 Tort Product Liability Accommodations ’ 530 General 

’ 290 All Other Real Property ’ 445 Amer. w/Disabilities - ’ 535 Death Penalty IMMIGRATION 

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 

Proceeding State Court 

VI. CAUSE OF ACTION 

’ 3 Remanded from 

Appellate Court 

’ 4 Reinstated or 

Reopened 

’ 5 Transferred from 

Another District 

(specify) 

Cite the U.S. Civil Statute under which you are filing (Do not cite jurisdictional statutes unless diversity): 

Brief description of cause: 

’ 6 Multidistrict 

Litigation 

VII. REQUESTED IN 

COMPLAINT: 

VIII. RELATED CASE(S) 

IF ANY 

DATE 

’ CHECK IF THIS IS A CLASS ACTION 

UNDER RULE 23, F.R.Cv.P. 

(See instructions): 

DEMAND $ 

JUDGE 

SIGNATURE OF ATTORNEY OF RECORD 

CHECK YES only if demanded in complaint: 

JURY DEMAND: ’ Yes ’ No 

DOCKET NUMBER 

FOR OFFICE USE ONLY 

RECEIPT # AMOUNT Case 3:13-cv-00763-SDD-RLB APPLYING IFP Document 1-1 JUDGE 11/25/13 Page MAG. 1 of JUDGE 2

JS 44 Reverse (Rev. 12/12) 

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) 

(b) 

(c) 

II. 

III. 

IV. 

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. 

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.) 

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)". 

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.) 

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. 

Nature of Suit. Place an "X" in the appropriate box. If the nature of suit cannot be determined, be sure the cause of action, in Section VI below, is 

sufficient to enable the deputy clerk or the statistical clerk(s) in the Administrative Office to determine the nature of suit. If the cause fits more than 

one nature of suit, select the most definitive. 

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

Original Proceedings. (1) Cases which originate in the United States 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. (6) Check this box when a multidistrict case is transferred into the district under authority of Title 28 U.S.C. Section 1407. 

When this box is checked, do not check (5) above. 

VI. 

VII. 

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 

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. 

Case 3:13-cv-00763-SDD-RLB Document 1-1 11/25/13 Page 2 of 2

AO 440 (Rev. 06/12) Summons in a Civil Action 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

for the 

__________ District of __________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Plaintiff(s) 

) 

) 

v. Civil Action No. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Defendant(s) 

) 

SUMMONS IN A CIVIL ACTION 

To: (Defendant’s name and address) 

A lawsuit has been filed against you. 

Within 21 days after service of this summons on you (not counting the day you received it) — or 60 days if you 

are the United States or a United States agency, or an officer or employee of the United States described in Fed. R. Civ. 

P. 12 (a)(2) or (3) — you must serve on the plaintiff an answer to the attached complaint or a motion under Rule 12 of 

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The answer or motion must be served on the plaintiff or plaintiff’s attorney, 

whose name and address are: 

If you fail to respond, judgment by default will be entered against you for the relief demanded in the complaint. 

You also must file your answer or motion with the court. 

CLERK OF COURT 

Date: 

Signature of Clerk or Deputy Clerk 


AO 440 (Rev. 06/12) Summons in a Civil Action (Page 2) 

Civil Action No. 

PROOF OF SERVICE 

(This section should not be filed with the court unless required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 (l)) 

This summons for (name of individual and title, if any) 

was received by me on (date) . 

’ I personally served the summons on the individual at (place) 

on (date) 

; or 

’ I left the summons at the individual’s residence or usual place of abode with (name) 

, a person of suitable age and discretion who resides there, 

on (date) 

, and mailed a copy to the individual’s last known address; or 

’ I served the summons on (name of individual) , who is 

designated by law to accept service of process on behalf of (name of organization) 

on (date) 

; or 

’ I returned the summons unexecuted because ; or 

’ Other (specify): 

. 

My fees are $ for travel and $ for services, for a total of $ . 

I declare under penalty of perjury that this information is true. 

Date: 

Server’s signature 

Printed name and title 

Server’s address 

Additional information regarding attempted service, etc:

COMPLAINT – 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT ... - NOLA.com

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?