Case 1:19-cv-00599-YK Document 1 Filed 04/08/19 Page 1 of 21

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

_______________________________
:
MARIA MARQUEZ, :
EDUIN ARTURO CAMBAR :
MATUTE, and :
MILTON FRANCISCO :
LOVOS MARQUEZ, :
:
Plaintiffs, : No.: 19-cv-_______________
:
v. :
:
COMMONWEALTH OF :
PENNSYLVANIA, and :
TROOPER LUKE MACKE, :
:
Defendants. :
_______________________________:

COMPLAINT

I. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
1. Plaintiffs in this civil rights action allege that a Pennsylvania state

trooper discriminated against them based on their perceived race, color, ethnicity,

or national origin in stopping and detaining them for the purpose of investigating

their immigration status.

2. The incident at issue is just one in a much larger pattern and practice

of discrimination and unlawful conduct by the Pennsylvania State Police (“PSP”)

against people based on their perceived race, color, ethnicity, or national origin.

1
 Case 1:19-cv-00599-YK Document 1 Filed 04/08/19 Page 2 of 21

3. These illegal detentions are part of an established pattern of

misconduct engaged in by Defendant Luke Macke (“Macke”) and other PSP

troopers, with the knowledge and tacit approval of their superiors at PSP.

4. Defendant Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (“Commonwealth”) and

its agency, PSP, along with supervisory officials, have been deliberately indifferent

to patterns of unlawful discrimination that violate the Fourth and Fourteenth

Amendments to the U.S. Constitution and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,

42 U.S.C. § 2000d, and have failed to take necessary and appropriate steps to

curtail the practice.

5. Plaintiffs Maria Marquez, Eduin Arturo Cambar Matute, and Milton

Francisco Lovos Marquez seek to vindicate their constitutional rights to be free

from discriminatory and/or groundless stops and unlawful detention on the basis of

their perceived race, color, ethnicity, or national origin. They also seek to vindicate

their constitutional right to be free from unlawful prolonged detention by state

actors who are prohibited from enforcing federal civil immigration law. Plaintiffs

seek compensation for their harms and losses.

6. Plaintiffs bring this action against the Commonwealth under Title VI

of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000d (“Title VI”), and against

Defendant Macke, under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, for violations of the Fourth and

Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.

2
 Case 1:19-cv-00599-YK Document 1 Filed 04/08/19 Page 3 of 21

II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE

7. This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this Complaint

under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343(a)(3)-(4).

8. Venue is proper in this Court under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) because the

events that gave rise to this Complaint occurred in or near Carlisle, Pennsylvania,

within the Middle District of Pennsylvania.

III. PARTIES
9. Plaintiff Maria Marquez is a Latina woman who resided in

Brentwood, NY at all times relevant hereto.

10. Plaintiff Eduin Arturo Cambar Matute is a Latino man who resided in

Brentwood, NY at all times relevant hereto. He is Ms. Marquez’s partner.

11. Plaintiff Milton Francisco Lovos Marquez is a Latino man. He is Ms.

Marquez’s adult son. He resided in Brentwood, NY at all times relevant hereto.

12. Defendant Commonwealth of Pennsylvania is a public entity that

receives federal funds and, accordingly, is subject to Title VI.

13. Defendant Macke was, at all times relevant hereto, employed by PSP

as a state trooper. At all times relevant to this Complaint, Defendant Macke acted

under color of state law. Plaintiffs sue Defendant Macke in his individual capacity.

3
 Case 1:19-cv-00599-YK Document 1 Filed 04/08/19 Page 4 of 21

IV. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

a. The Pennsylvania State Police

14. PSP is a law enforcement agency established and operating under the

laws of Pennsylvania.

15. The immigration “removal process is entrusted to the discretion of

the Federal Government.” Arizona v. United States, 567 U.S. 387, 409 (2012).

“Federal law specifies limited circumstances in which state officers may perform

the functions of an immigration officer,” including conducting civil immigration

arrests. Id. at 408 (citing 8 U.S.C. §§ 1357(g)(1), 1252c, 1324(c)). None of these

circumstances apply here.

16. Outside of these limited circumstances, federal law prohibits the

“unilateral decision of state officers to arrest an alien for being removable.” Id. at

410.

17. Consequently, PSP troopers are prohibited from unilaterally stopping

or detaining a person simply because they believe that person may be subject to

civil immigration enforcement.

18. PSP troopers also cannot lawfully prolong traffic stops beyond the

time necessary to address the underlying reason for the stop, typically a traffic

violation, unless they have independent reasonable suspicion or probable cause of

criminal activity, or some other legal authority to prolong the detention.

4
 Case 1:19-cv-00599-YK Document 1 Filed 04/08/19 Page 5 of 21

19. PSP has a duty to train troopers about the legal scope of their powers

to stop, detain, and arrest civilians. Under both Title VI and the U.S. Constitution,

that duty includes training PSP troopers to abide by federal law limits on their

authority.

20. PSP also has a duty to not be deliberately indifferent to illegal

discrimination when PSP troopers are impermissibly using perceived race, color,

ethnicity, or national origin as a basis to stop and/or detain an individual.

21. Prior to 2019, PSP did not have a policy directing or guiding troopers

on the limits of their authority to enforce immigration laws.

22. Prior to 2019, PSP did not provide troopers with any training on the

limits of their authority to enforce civil immigration laws.

23. Prior to 2017, PSP troopers were alleged to have engaged in ethnic

profiling of Latino motorists. See, e.g., Ramos, Jr. v. Trooper Justin M. Summa et

al., 5:16-cv-02765-JLS (E.D. Pa.); Bernstein v. Goldsmith et al., 5:15-cv-06099-

JLS (E.D. Pa.). And in 2017, a federal court judge suppressed evidence obtained

as a result of an unlawful traffic stop of a Latino man by a PSP trooper. U.S. v.

Payano, 2:17-cr-00238-RBS (E.D. Pa).

24. Additionally, beginning in 2017, PSP was aware of increased reports

of troopers engaging in ethnic profiling and immigration-law enforcement. The

increase corresponded with actions taken by the current administration to expand

5
 Case 1:19-cv-00599-YK Document 1 Filed 04/08/19 Page 6 of 21

immigration enforcement, which include an executive order issued in January 2017

and a Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) memorandum issued in

February 2017. The executive order expanded enforcement priorities so

extensively that, while it did not purport to eliminate all enforcement priorities, it

effectively did.1 This order, coupled with the DHS memorandum that rescinded

prior guidelines authorizing immigration agents to exercise discretion and not

detain or seek removal in particular circumstances, led to an increase in

immigration enforcement. 2

25. Although the presidential executive order and the DHS memorandum

did not apply directly to PSP troopers, the expansion of civil immigration

enforcement coincided with some PSP troopers engaging in a pattern and practice

of stopping people based on their perceived race, color, ethnicity, or national

origin, and prolonging stops to investigate immigration status.

1
Exec. Order No. 13768, No. 18, Reg. 8799 (Jan. 25, 2017),
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2017/01/30/2017-02102/enhancing-
public-safety-in-the-interior-of-the-united-states; see also, The End of Immigration
Enforcement Priorities Under the Trump Administration, American Immigration
Council (March 2018),
https://exchange.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/research/immigration-
enforcement-priorities-under-trump-administration
2
Memorandum from John Kelly, Enforcement of the Immigration Laws to Serve
the National Interest (February 20, 2017),
https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/17_0220_S1_Enforcement-of-
the-Immigration-Laws-to-Serve-the-National-Interest.pdf

6
 Case 1:19-cv-00599-YK Document 1 Filed 04/08/19 Page 7 of 21

26. Acting Deputy Commissioner of Operations James Degnan

acknowledged as much during his March 2019 testimony at a House Judiciary

Committee hearing. He testified that, “I think the landscape on immigration has

changed sir, on on a federal level and it has driven, again, most of the states to have

to take a look at how they address it.”3

27. Public reports documented some of PSP’s ethnic profiling and

immigration-law-enforcement activities, which included stops of both motorists

and pedestrians based on their Latino appearance. See Dale Russakoff and

Deborah Sontag, For Cops Who Want to Help ICE Crack Down on Illegal

Immigration, Pennsylvania Is a Free-For-All, ProPublica (April 12, 2018) (

“ProPublica”). 4 In their review of court records, ProPublica found that PSP

troopers were issuing significantly more citations to Latino motorists, and that they

were doing so in numbers that were disproportionate to Census population data.5

In many of these stops, the trooper’s investigative focus was exclusively on the

motorist’s immigration status, not some crime or vehicle code violation.

3
Informational meeting on Pennsylvania State Police Policy AR 7-14,
Pennsylvania House Judiciary Committee Hearing, March 20, 2019,
http://pahousegop.com/Video/Judiciary
4
Available at https://www.propublica.org/article/pennsylvania-immigration-ice-
crackdown-cops-free-for-all
5
Id.

7
 Case 1:19-cv-00599-YK Document 1 Filed 04/08/19 Page 8 of 21

28. ProPublica identified Defendant Macke as a PSP trooper whose stops

of Latino motorists had increased since early 2017, and documented his aggressive

questioning of motorists about their immigration status during numerous stops.6

29. Since 2017, PSP supervisory officials, including now Commissioner

Robert Evanchick, Acting Deputy Commissioner of Operations James Degnan, and

now Director of Basic Training Linette Quinn, knew that PSP troopers, including

Defendant Macke, had repeatedly overstepped their legal authority for the stated

purpose of enforcing federal civil immigration law and engaged in unilateral

immigration stops and/or detentions. In addition, PSP supervisory officials were

also aware that troopers, including Defendant Macke, had also repeatedly engaged

in stops and/or detentions on the basis of perceived race, color, ethnicity, or

national origin.

30. During a February 25, 2019, Pennsylvania House Appropriations

Committee budget hearing, Evanchick testified that “[a]bout a year and a half, two

years ago, it was brought to our attention that we did have some people who were

stopping individuals that were kind of creating an issue for us.”7

31. As Commissioner Evanchick testified, PSP has long known about the

problem. In June 2017, several concerned community members met with Quinn,

6
Id.
7
Pennsylvania House Appropriations Committee Budget Hearing, February 25,
2019, https://s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/pagopvideo/220398796.mp4
8
 Case 1:19-cv-00599-YK Document 1 Filed 04/08/19 Page 9 of 21

who at the time was one of the top command staff for Troop H (Troop H covers

five counties and includes the Carlisle barracks, which is where Defendant Macke

worked). They explained to her that troopers were engaging in discriminatory

stops and/or detentions of Latino community members based upon perceived race,

color, ethnicity, or national origin and for the stated purpose of enforcing civil

immigration law.

32. Quinn acknowledged the complained about practice, but justified it by

telling the gathering that it was a long-standing and widespread PSP practice across

Pennsylvania.

33. After learning that PSP had no policies or procedures to curtail this

troubling practice, community advocates pressed PSP supervisory officials and

their liaison from the Governor’s office to develop clear directives and training to

end PSP’s pattern and practice of discriminatory stops and detentions undertaken

to enforce civil immigration law.

34. Community advocates met multiple times with either PSP liaisons

from the Governor’s office or PSP supervisory officials to complain about the

ongoing immigration stops and to press PSP to issue clear guidance.

35. It was not until early 2019 that PSP issued a policy on trooper

engagement with foreign nationals, but the policy does not provide sufficient

guidance to stop troopers’ unlawful immigration enforcement activities.

9
 Case 1:19-cv-00599-YK Document 1 Filed 04/08/19 Page 10 of 21

36. Hence, more than two years after clear evidence emerged that PSP

troopers were engaging in unlawful discrimination and illegally enforcing federal

civil immigration laws, PSP still has not provided troopers with necessary guidance

and appropriate training to curtail these problems.

b. Stop and Detention of Plaintiffs

37. On April 9, 2017, Ms. Marquez was driving her sports utility vehicle

(“SUV”) from New York to visit family in Virginia.

38. Seated next to her was Mr. Cambar Matute, her partner of 5 years.

In the backseat sat her adult son, Mr. Lovos Marquez, and her two young

daughters, who at the time were ages 8 and 11.

39. While driving on Interstate 81 near Carlisle, Pennsylvania, Ms.

Marquez and Mr. Cambar Matute observed a police vehicle following them. It was

not until several minutes after they first noticed the police vehicle that the driver,

Defendant Macke, turned on his lights and signaled Ms. Marquez to pull over,

which she did promptly.

40. Defendant Macke approached the driver’s side door and told Ms.

Marquez that he had initiated the traffic stop because Ms. Marquez was speeding.

41. Defendant Macke requested Ms. Marquez’s driver’s license. While

Ms. Marquez was surprised that Defendant Macke did not ask for her registration

or insurance card as well, she promptly produced her driver’s license.

10
 Case 1:19-cv-00599-YK Document 1 Filed 04/08/19 Page 11 of 21

42. Instead of returning immediately to his patrol vehicle to verify Ms.

Marquez’s driver’s license and issue a citation, Defendant Macke asked Ms.

Marquez whether she had a “green card.” Ms. Marquez understood the request to

be for documentation demonstrating her immigration status.

43. While Ms. Marquez once again was surprised by this request, she felt

compelled to comply. She explained to Defendant Macke that she did not have a

green card, but that she did have a U.S. government-issued work permit that

authorized her to be employed, which she gave to Defendant Macke.

44. Even at this point Defendant Macke did not return to his patrol vehicle

to check on Ms. Marquez’s documents. Instead – and without explanation –

Defendant Macke turned his attention to the passengers.

45. Defendant Macke instructed Mr. Lovos Marquez, who was sitting in

the backseat, to roll down his window.

46. Defendant Macke began to interrogate Mr. Cambar Matute and Mr.

Lovos Marquez about their immigration status.

47. Defendant Macke asked Mr. Cambar Matute whether he was “legal or

illegal.”

48. Before Mr. Cambar Matute replied, Ms. Marquez asked Defendant

Macke why he was questioning the passengers about their immigration status.

11
 Case 1:19-cv-00599-YK Document 1 Filed 04/08/19 Page 12 of 21

49. Defendant Macke told her that the passengers had to show him their

“papers” and that it was “his right to ask for immigration papers.”

50. Mr. Cambar Matute asked Defendant Macke if he was an

“Immigration officer,” to which Defendant Macke replied that he was not.

51. Mr. Cambar Matute asked Defendant Macke why, then, he was

asking whether he was “legal or illegal.”

52. Defendant Macke explained that he was “working with Immigration”

and threatened to call Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”).

53. Mr. Cambar Matute and Mr. Lovos Marquez did not answer any

questions or provide documents, so Defendant Macke returned to his vehicle with

just Ms. Marquez’s documents.

54. About 10 to 20 minutes later, Defendant Macke returned to the SUV.

At this time, he again insisted that Mr. Cambar Matute and Mr. Lovos Marquez had

to answer his questions and show their “papers.”

55. Defendant Macke again threatened to call ICE if the two men did not

comply with his requests.

56. Mr. Cambar Matute and Mr. Lovos Marquez felt compelled to provide

a response.

57. While Mr. Lovos Marquez provided a response and produced his

Salvadoran passport, Mr. Cambar Matute did not provide a response about his

12
 Case 1:19-cv-00599-YK Document 1 Filed 04/08/19 Page 13 of 21

purported immigration status. Instead, Mr. Cambar Matute gave Defendant Macke

his Honduran identification card, his library card, and a bank card.

58. Defendant Macke told Mr. Cambar Matute that he had to produce a

“green card” or other document to demonstrate his immigration status, to which

Mr. Cambar Matute explained that the documents he gave Defendant Macke were

all he had with him at the time.

59. Defendant Macke returned to his patrol car for a second time, with the

two men’s identification documents.

60. After approximately another 10 to 20 minutes, Defendant Macke

returned to the SUV. He instructed Ms. Marquez to step outside. He then escorted

her to the rear of the SUV, where he began interrogating her.

61. Defendant Macke demanded to know how long Ms. Marquez had

lived in the United States, where she currently worked, how long she had worked

for her current employer, how old she was, where she was living, and to where she

was traveling with her family. Defendant Macke also asked her about Mr. Cambar

Matute and Mr. Lovos Marquez.

62. Even though none of Defendant Macke’s questions related to her

driving or any other alleged vehicle code violation, Ms. Marquez felt compelled to

respond.

13
 Case 1:19-cv-00599-YK Document 1 Filed 04/08/19 Page 14 of 21

63. While Defendant Macke interrogated Ms. Marquez behind the family

SUV, her daughters grew frightened and could be heard crying.

64. After Defendant Macke finished interrogating Ms. Marquez, he

ordered her to return inside the SUV and await further instruction.

65. About an hour after the initial stop, another PSP trooper, whose

identity is at this time unknown to Plaintiffs, arrived at the scene.

66. Defendant Macke and the second trooper approached Ms. Marquez’s

SUV and ordered Mr. Cambar Matute and Mr. Lovos Marquez out of the SUV,

placed them in handcuffs, and led them to separate patrol vehicles.

67. Only after the officers secured the two men in their vehicles did

Defendant Macke return to Ms. Marquez, whereupon he returned her documents

and gave her a citation for speeding.

68. When Ms. Marquez asked Defendant Macke why he was arresting her

partner and son, Defendant Macke told her it was because they “did not have

papers.”

69. Ms. Marquez’s daughters were crying in the backseat, traumatized by

the long stop and the arrest of their older brother and of Mr. Cambar Matute, who

is a father figure to them.

70. Defendant Macke and the other trooper transported Mr. Cambar

Matute and Mr. Lovos Marquez to the Carlisle barracks.

14
 Case 1:19-cv-00599-YK Document 1 Filed 04/08/19 Page 15 of 21

71. Mr. Cambar Matute and Mr. Lovos Marquez remained handcuffed for

about an hour until an ICE officer arrived.

72. During their detention at the barracks, Mr. Lovos Marquez asked to

use the bathroom several times.

73. After denying Mr. Lovos Marquez’s request several times, a trooper

removed Mr. Lovos Marquez’s handcuffs and permitted him to use the bathroom.

74. When Mr. Lovos Marquez returned from the bathroom, a trooper

placed the handcuffs back on him, but much more tightly. Mr. Lovos Marquez

understood this to be punishment for requesting to use the bathroom.

75. When an ICE officer finally arrived at the barracks, the ICE officer

did not question Mr. Cambar Matute and Mr. Lovos Marquez about their purported

immigration status.

76. Instead, the ICE officer fingerprinted them and then transported them

to the ICE field office in York, Pennsylvania, where they were processed.

77. By the time they were transported to York County Prison, it was

several hours after the traffic stop by Defendant Macke.

78. As a result of Defendant Macke’s actions, Mr. Cambar Matute and

Mr. Lovos Marquez were placed in removal proceedings and confined in ICE

custody at the York County Prison.

15
 Case 1:19-cv-00599-YK Document 1 Filed 04/08/19 Page 16 of 21

79. Mr. Cambar Matute was detained at York County Prison until April

17, 2017, when an Immigration Judge ordered him released on a $1,500 bond.

80. Mr. Lovos Marquez was detained at York County Prison until May 16,

2017, when an Immigration Judge ordered him released on a $6,000 bond.

81. As a result of the unlawful conduct described in the foregoing

paragraphs, Plaintiffs suffered substantial damages including emotional trauma and

distress, loss of enjoyment of life, and financial damages, some or all of which may

be permanent.

c. Violations of Plaintiffs’ Constitutional and Federally Protected Rights

82. Defendant Macke violated Ms. Marquez’s, Mr. Cambar Matute’s, and

Mr. Lovos Marquez’s rights to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures

under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution by

instituting a groundless or discriminatory stop on the basis of their perceived race,

color, ethnicity, or national origin; and by extending the stop beyond the time

reasonably necessary to resolve any alleged traffic violation.

83. Upon information and belief, Defendant Macke had observed the

family SUV and its occupants long enough to discern Plaintiffs’ race, color, and

Latino appearance.

84. Upon information and belief, Defendant Macke initiated the stop

because of Plaintiffs’ race, color, or Latino appearance.

16
 Case 1:19-cv-00599-YK Document 1 Filed 04/08/19 Page 17 of 21

85. Furthermore, Defendant Macke had no legitimate reason to believe

that there was legal cause to support these prolonged detentions.

86. Defendant Macke’s actions were impermissibly based on Plaintiffs’

perceived race, color, ethnicity, or national origin.

87. Defendant Macke extended the detention of Plaintiffs longer than was

necessary to effectuate any legitimate traffic stop purpose. He did so for the

purpose of unilateral civil immigration enforcement.

88. Doubts about Plaintiffs’ lawful presence in the United States, based

solely on their perceived race, color, ethnicity, or national origin, provided no legal

basis for Defendant Macke’s actions in stopping the Plaintiffs and unilaterally

extending their detentions thereafter.

89. Defendant Macke further unlawfully detained Plaintiff Marquez when

he told her to return to her SUV and wait for further instruction, indicating she was

not free to leave, and by waiting over an hour from the initial stop before issuing a

traffic citation to Ms. Marquez.

90. Moreover, and upon information and belief, federal officers did not

ask Defendant Macke to detain Ms. Marquez in order to facilitate her removal.

91. Defendant Macke was acting on behalf of PSP, an agency of the

Commonwealth, and a recipient of federal financial assistance, when he

17
 Case 1:19-cv-00599-YK Document 1 Filed 04/08/19 Page 18 of 21

discriminated against Plaintiffs by detaining them based on their race, color, or

national origin.

92. At all relevant times, PSP supervisory officials identified herein were

aware of Defendant Macke’s pattern of discriminatory conduct, were the

appropriate persons to remedy that discriminatory conduct, and were deliberately

indifferent to the pattern and practice of illegal conduct by failing to take

reasonable and necessary measures to curtail the problem.

93. At all relevant times, as described by the facts outlined above, the

conduct of the Defendants was in willful, reckless, and callous disregard of

Plaintiffs’ rights under federal law.

V. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

COUNT I
Plaintiffs v. Defendant Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
Title VI – Race and National Origin Discrimination

94. The foregoing allegations are re-alleged and incorporated herein by

reference.

95. The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and its agency, the PSP, are

public entities that receive federal financial assistance.

96. The Commonwealth violated Title VI by acting with deliberate

indifference to the risk and knowledge that PSP troopers, including Defendant

18
 Case 1:19-cv-00599-YK Document 1 Filed 04/08/19 Page 19 of 21

Macke, were discriminating on the basis of perceived race, color, ethnicity, or

national origin.

97. Because supervisory officials, including Acting Commissioner

Evanchick, Acting Deputy Commissioner Degnan, and Quinn were the appropriate

persons to address or remedy Defendant Macke’s discriminatory conduct, the

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania is liable to Plaintiffs for damages under Title VI

of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000d.

COUNT II
Plaintiffs v. Defendant Luke Macke
Unlawful Detention – Fourth Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment

98. The foregoing allegations are re-alleged and incorporated herein by

reference.

99. The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which applies to

state actors under the Fourteenth Amendment, prohibits “unreasonable searches

and seizures.” U.S. Const., amend. IV.

100. Defendant Macke unreasonably detained and extended the detention

of Plaintiffs without any lawful basis.

101. As such, Defendant Macke is liable to Plaintiffs for damages under 42

U.S.C. § 1983.

19
 Case 1:19-cv-00599-YK Document 1 Filed 04/08/19 Page 20 of 21

COUNT III
Plaintiffs v. Defendant Luke Macke
Unlawful Discrimination – Fourteenth Amendment

102. The foregoing allegations are re-alleged and incorporated herein by

reference.

103. The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the

United States Constitution guarantees all persons equal protections of the law.

104. Defendant Macke violated Plaintiffs’ right to equal protection of the

law under the Fourteenth Amendment by stopping and/or detaining Plaintiffs

based on their perceived race, color, ethnicity, or national origin.

105. As such, Defendant Macke is liable to the Plaintiffs for damages

under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

REQUESTED RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Ms. Marquez, Mr. Cambar Matute, and Mr.

Lovos Marquez respectfully request:

A. Actual and compensatory damages sufficient to make Plaintiffs

whole;

B. Punitive damages against Defendant Macke to punish him and

deter further wrongdoing;

C. Reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §

1988 and any other applicable law; and

20
 Case 1:19-cv-00599-YK Document 1 Filed 04/08/19 Page 21 of 21

D. Such other and further relief as may appear just and

appropriate.

/s/ Kathryn E. Deal /s/ Witold J. Walczak

Kathryn E. Deal* Witold J. Walczak
PA ID. No. 93891 PA ID. No. 62976
Mira Baylson* Vanessa L. Stine
PA ID. No. 209559 PA ID. No. 319569
Ellen L. Pierce* Golnaz Fakhimi*
PA ID. No. 318579 NY ID. No. 5063003
Jonathan Aronchick* AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES
PA. ID. No. 321244 UNION OF PENNSYLVANIA
AKIN GUMP STRAUSS HAUER & P.O. Box 60173
FELD LLP Philadelphia, PA 19102
Two Commerce Square (215) 592-1513
2001 Market Street, Suite 4100 vwalczak@aclupa.org
Philadelphia, PA 19103 vstine@aclupa.org
Telephone: 215.965.1200 gfakhimi@aclupa.org
kdeal@akingump.com
mbaylson@akingump.com
epierce@akingump.com /s/ Jonathan H. Feinberg
jaronchick@akingump.com Jonathan H. Feinberg
PA ID. No. 88227
KAIRYS, RUDOVSKY, MESSING,
/s/ Seth F. Kreimer FEINBERG & LIN LLP
Seth F. Kreimer The Cast Iron Building
PA. ID. No. 26102 718 Arch Street, Suite 501 South
3501 Sansom Street Philadelphia, PA 19106
Philadelphia, PA 19104 215-925-4400
(215) 898-7447 jfeinberg@krlawphila.com
skreimer@law.upenn.edu

*Petition pending for special admission to the bar of the Court

21
 Case 1:19-cv-00599-YK Document 1-1 Filed 04/08/19 Page 1 of 2
JS 44 (Rev. 06/17) 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

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania; Luke Macke
Maria Marquez; Eduin Arturo Cambar Matute; and Milton Francisco
Lovos Marquez.
(b) County of Residence of First Listed Plaintiff Suffolk Co., NY County of Residence of First Listed Defendant Dauphin
(EXCEPT IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES) (IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES ONLY)
NOTE: IN LAND CONDEMNATION CASES, USE THE LOCATION OF
THE TRACT OF LAND INVOLVED.

(c) Attorneys (Firm Name, Address, and Telephone Number) Attorneys (If Known)
Witold J. Walczak, ACLU-PA, 247 Ft. Pitt Blvd., Pittsburgh, PA, 15222,
412-681-7864; Vanesse Stine, ACLU-PA, P.O. Box 60173
Philadelphia, PA 19102, 215-592-1513. See attachment more attnys.

II. BASIS OF JURISDICTION (Place an “X” in One Box Only) III. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES (Place an “X” in One Box for Plaintiff
(For Diversity Cases Only) and One Box for Defendant)
’ 1 U.S. Government ’ 3 Federal Question PTF DEF PTF DEF
Plaintiff (U.S. Government Not a Party) Citizen of This State ’ 1 ’ 1 Incorporated or Principal Place ’ 4 ’ 4
of Business In This State

’ 2 U.S. Government ’ 4 Diversity Citizen of Another State ’ 2 ’ 2 Incorporated and Principal Place ’ 5 ’ 5
Defendant (Indicate Citizenship of Parties in Item III) of Business In Another State

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

Foreign Country
IV. NATURE OF SUIT (Place an “X” in One Box Only) Click here for: Nature of Suit Code Descriptions.
CONTRACT TORTS FORFEITURE/PENALTY BANKRUPTCY OTHER STATUTES
’ 110 Insurance PERSONAL INJURY PERSONAL INJURY ’ 625 Drug Related Seizure ’ 422 Appeal 28 USC 158 ’ 375 False Claims Act
’ 120 Marine ’ 310 Airplane ’ 365 Personal Injury - of Property 21 USC 881 ’ 423 Withdrawal ’ 376 Qui Tam (31 USC
’ 130 Miller Act ’ 315 Airplane Product Product Liability ’ 690 Other 28 USC 157 3729(a))
’ 140 Negotiable Instrument Liability ’ 367 Health Care/ ’ 400 State Reapportionment
’ 150 Recovery of Overpayment ’ 320 Assault, Libel & Pharmaceutical PROPERTY RIGHTS ’ 410 Antitrust
& Enforcement of Judgment Slander Personal Injury ’ 820 Copyrights ’ 430 Banks and Banking
’ 151 Medicare Act ’ 330 Federal Employers’ Product Liability ’ 830 Patent ’ 450 Commerce
’ 152 Recovery of Defaulted Liability ’ 368 Asbestos Personal ’ 835 Patent - Abbreviated ’ 460 Deportation
Student Loans ’ 340 Marine Injury Product New Drug Application ’ 470 Racketeer Influenced and
(Excludes Veterans) ’ 345 Marine Product Liability ’ 840 Trademark Corrupt Organizations
’ 153 Recovery of Overpayment Liability PERSONAL PROPERTY LABOR SOCIAL SECURITY ’ 480 Consumer Credit
of Veteran’s Benefits ’ 350 Motor Vehicle ’ 370 Other Fraud ’ 710 Fair Labor Standards ’ 861 HIA (1395ff) ’ 490 Cable/Sat TV
’ 160 Stockholders’ Suits ’ 355 Motor Vehicle ’ 371 Truth in Lending Act ’ 862 Black Lung (923) ’ 850 Securities/Commodities/
’ 190 Other Contract Product Liability ’ 380 Other Personal ’ 720 Labor/Management ’ 863 DIWC/DIWW (405(g)) Exchange
’ 195 Contract Product Liability ’ 360 Other Personal Property Damage Relations ’ 864 SSID Title XVI ’ 890 Other Statutory Actions
’ 196 Franchise Injury ’ 385 Property Damage ’ 740 Railway Labor Act ’ 865 RSI (405(g)) ’ 891 Agricultural Acts
’ 362 Personal Injury - Product Liability ’ 751 Family and Medical ’ 893 Environmental Matters
Medical Malpractice Leave Act ’ 895 Freedom of Information
REAL PROPERTY CIVIL RIGHTS PRISONER PETITIONS ’ 790 Other Labor Litigation FEDERAL TAX SUITS Act
’ 210 Land Condemnation ’ 440 Other Civil Rights Habeas Corpus: ’ 791 Employee Retirement ’ 870 Taxes (U.S. Plaintiff ’ 896 Arbitration
’ 220 Foreclosure ’ 441 Voting ’ 463 Alien Detainee Income Security Act or Defendant) ’ 899 Administrative Procedure
’ 230 Rent Lease & Ejectment ’ 442 Employment ’ 510 Motions to Vacate ’ 871 IRS—Third Party Act/Review or Appeal of
’ 240 Torts to Land ’ 443 Housing/ Sentence 26 USC 7609 Agency Decision
’ 245 Tort Product Liability Accommodations ’ 530 General ’ 950 Constitutionality of
’ 290 All Other Real Property ’ 445 Amer. w/Disabilities - ’ 535 Death Penalty IMMIGRATION State Statutes
Employment Other: ’ 462 Naturalization Application
’ 446 Amer. w/Disabilities - ’ 540 Mandamus & Other ’ 465 Other Immigration
Other ’ 550 Civil Rights Actions
’ 448 Education ’ 555 Prison Condition
’ 560 Civil Detainee -
Conditions of
Confinement
V. ORIGIN (Place an “X” in One Box Only)
’ 1 Original ’ 2 Removed from ’ 3 Remanded from ’ 4 Reinstated or ’ 5 Transferred from ’ 6 Multidistrict ’ 8 Multidistrict
Proceeding State Court Appellate Court Reopened Another District Litigation - Litigation -
(specify) Transfer Direct File
Cite the U.S. Civil Statute under which you are filing (Do not cite jurisdictional statutes unless diversity):
42 U.S.C. section 1983.
VI. CAUSE OF ACTION Brief description of cause:
Police misconduct
VII. REQUESTED IN ’ CHECK IF THIS IS A CLASS ACTION DEMAND $ CHECK YES only if demanded in complaint:
COMPLAINT: UNDER RULE 23, F.R.Cv.P. JURY DEMAND: ’ Yes ’ No
VIII. RELATED CASE(S)
(See instructions):
IF ANY JUDGE DOCKET NUMBER
DATE SIGNATURE OF ATTORNEY OF RECORD
04/08/2019 Witold J. Walczak
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY

RECEIPT # AMOUNT APPLYING IFP JUDGE MAG. JUDGE

Print Save As... Reset

JS 44 Reverse (Rev. 06/17) Case 1:19-cv-00599-YK Document 1-1 Filed 04/08/19 Page 2 of 2
INSTRUCTIONS FOR ATTORNEYS COMPLETING CIVIL COVER SHEET FORM JS 44
Authority For Civil Cover Sheet

The JS 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replaces nor supplements the filings and service of pleading or other papers as
required by law, except as provided by local rules of court. This form, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is
required for the use of the Clerk of Court for the purpose of initiating the civil docket sheet. Consequently, a civil cover sheet is submitted to the Clerk of
Court for each civil complaint filed. The attorney filing a case should complete the form as follows:

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

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

III. Residence (citizenship) of Principal Parties. This section of the JS 44 is to be completed if diversity of citizenship was indicated above. Mark this
section for each principal party.

IV. Nature of Suit. Place an "X" in the appropriate box. If there are multiple nature of suit codes associated with the case, pick the nature of suit code
that is most applicable. Click here for: Nature of Suit Code Descriptions.

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

Original Proceedings. (1) Cases which originate in the United States district courts.
Removed from State Court. (2) Proceedings initiated in state courts may be removed to the district courts under Title 28 U.S.C., Section 1441.
When the petition for removal is granted, check this box.
Remanded from Appellate Court. (3) Check this box for cases remanded to the district court for further action. Use the date of remand as the filing
date.
Reinstated or Reopened. (4) Check this box for cases reinstated or reopened in the district court. Use the reopening date as the filing date.
Transferred from Another District. (5) For cases transferred under Title 28 U.S.C. Section 1404(a). Do not use this for within district transfers or
multidistrict litigation transfers.
Multidistrict Litigation – Transfer. (6) Check this box when a multidistrict case is transferred into the district under authority of Title 28 U.S.C.
Section 1407.
Multidistrict Litigation – Direct File. (8) Check this box when a multidistrict case is filed in the same district as the Master MDL docket.
PLEASE NOTE THAT THERE IS NOT AN ORIGIN CODE 7. Origin Code 7 was used for historical records and is no longer relevant due to
changes in statue.

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

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

VIII. Related Cases. This section of the JS 44 is used to reference related pending cases, if any. If there are related pending cases, insert the docket
numbers and the corresponding judge names for such cases.

Date and Attorney Signature. Date and sign the civil cover sheet.