Case 1:15-cv CG-N Document 1 Filed 02/24/15 Page 1 of 7

Similar documents
Case 1:14-cv CG-N Document 59 Filed 01/25/15 Page 1 of 6

COMPLAINT FOR DIVORCE

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DIVISION

Case: 1:06-cv JRA Doc #: 28 Filed: 05/08/09 1 of 9. PageID #: 220

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Case 0:15-cv WJZ Document 1-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/30/2015 Page 1 of 9. Exhibit A

Original - Court 1st copy - Defendant CASE NO. JUDICIAL DISTRICT

Case3:05-cv WHA Document1 Filed02/14/05 Page1 of 5

REVISED COMPLAINT. Gen. Stat c to warn residents of the towns of Woodbury and Bethlehem concerning a

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF IOWA CENTRAL DIVISION

3:18-cv SEM-TSH # 1 Page 1 of 14 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

Case: 2:16-cv ALM-EPD Doc #: 1 Filed: 03/02/16 Page: 1 of 9 PAGEID #: 1

Case 3:15-cv AKK Document 1 Filed 07/20/15 Page 1 of 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA COMPLAINT

Case 4:10-cv CW Document 1 Filed 10/13/10 Page 1 of 8

Case 1:16-cv Document 1 Filed 11/21/16 Page 1 of 10 PageID #: 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT STATE OF RHODE ISLAND COMPLAINT INTRODUCTION

PLAINTIFF AVA SMITH- THOMPSON S COMPLAINT AGAINST DEFENDANT SARA LEE CORPORATION

Case 6:18-cv AA Document 1 Filed 06/20/18 Page 1 of 10

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SHERMAN DIVISION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Roanoke Division

2:14-cv LPZ-RSW Doc # 21 Filed 05/08/14 Pg 1 of 10 Pg ID 235 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION

Case: 1:11-cv Document #: 1 Filed: 03/23/11 Page 1 of 9 PageID #:1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA. Plaintiffs, Case No.: VERIFIED COMPLAINT INTRODUCTION

Case 3:15-cv RGJ-KLH Document 38 Filed 11/25/16 Page 1 of 9 PageID #: 257 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

Case 3:17-cv DJH Document 3 Filed 02/06/17 Page 1 of 10 PageID #: 13

Case 5:09-cv JMH Document 1 Filed 10/26/2009 Page 1 of 10

Courthouse News Service

Case 9:15-cv DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/23/2015 Page 1 of 16 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR AUTAUGA COUNTY, ALABAMA

Case 2:10-cv HGB-ALC Document 1 Filed 04/20/10 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA JANET DELUCA CIVIL ACTION

Case 9:16-cv RLR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/15/2016 Page 1 of 6

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT, INJUNCTIVE RELIEF, AND WRONGFUL DEATH DAMAGES

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO

Case 1:18-cv JLK Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/22/2018 Page 1 of 3 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Orlando Division

Case 1:08-cv Document 1 Filed 10/07/2008 Page 1 of 8

NOTICE OF ELECTRONIC FILING

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF BUTTE UNLIMITED JURISDICTION

Case 0:10-cv KMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/10/2010 Page 1 of 7

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA. v. No. 2:06-cv ILRL-KWR

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Courthouse News Service

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN MILWAUKEE DIVISION. v. CASE NO. 15-CV-1588

Case 8:04-cv SCB-TBM Document 32 Filed 10/07/2005 Page 1 of 6

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF COUNTY STATE OF GEORGIA., ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. ) ), ) ) Defendant. )

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF PULASKI COUNTY, ARKANSAS COMPLAINT. Plaintiff Michael Landers, by and through his attorneys, for his

Case 5:16-cv RWS-CMC Document 1 Filed 01/29/16 Page 1 of 7 PageID #: 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF HAWAII CV

Case 5:15-cv SAC-KGS Document 1 Filed 08/06/15 Page 1 of 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS

Case 1:16-cv Document 1 Filed 11/21/16 Page 1 of 9 PageID #: 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT STATE OF RHODE ISLAND COMPLAINT INTRODUCTION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI SOUTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

Case: 1:17-cv MRB Doc #: 1 Filed: 02/14/17 Page: 1 of 24 PAGEID #: 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN MILWAUKEE DIVISION

Case 8:11-cv PJM Document 1 Filed 05/05/11 Page 1 of 11 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND

3:14-cv SEM-TSH # 1 Page 1 of 10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS SPRINGFIELD DIVISION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND

Case 3:18-cv Document 1 Filed 08/02/18 Page 1 of 35 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI WESTERN DIVISION

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE ELEVENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA

Case 1:13-cv MKB-RER Document 1 Filed 01/04/13 Page 1 of 12 PageID #: 1. Plaintiff, Defendants. REYES, M.J PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SACRAMENTO DIVISION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA. Plaintiff, for its complaint, by and through its attorney, alleges that:

Case 1:14-cv RGS Document 1 Filed 09/22/14 Page 1 of 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND

Case: 1:10-cv Document #: 143 Filed: 10/17/14 Page 1 of 3 PageID #:1018

Case 1:18-cv Document 1 Filed 04/26/18 Page 1 of 10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA

Introduction. Jurisdiction. Parties

Case 2:17-cv Document 1 Filed 03/17/17 Page 1 of 13 PageID #: 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA. Plaintiff, Number:

2:10-cv SB-BM Date Filed 10/06/10 Entry Number 1 Page 1 of 17

GRANDPARENT VISITATION FORM PACKET

Case3:13-cv NC Document1 Filed12/09/13 Page1 of 18

Case 1:15-cv WJM-MJW Document 1 Filed 08/17/15 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA

Case 1:15-cv KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/13/2015 Page 1 of 9

Case: 1:14-cv Document #: 1 Filed: 02/10/14 Page 1 of 15 PageID #:1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

)(

Case 3:15-cv FAB-MEL Document 29 Filed 09/28/15 Page 1 of 13 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO

Case 9:12-cv RC Document 1 Filed 08/13/12 Page 1 of 7 PageID #: 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA CHARLOTTE DIVISION. Case No. 3:18-CV FDW-DSC

Case 1:17-cv CSM Document 1 Filed 09/27/17 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NORTH DAKOTA WESTERN DIVISION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 1:06-cv VM-HBP Document 1 Filed 07/10/06 Page 1 of 9

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAI`I ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) COMPLAINT. Introduction

Case 2:17-cv Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 12/12/17 Page 1 of 10

Case 1:06-cv JJF Document 5 Filed 06/20/2006 Page 1 of 14 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA THIRD DIVISION

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF MADISON COUNTY. Case No.

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA CASE NO CP-23- COUNTY OF GREENVILLE. Sylvia Lockaby, Plaintiff, vs.

DO NOT FILL IN THE BLANKS AND RETURN THE COPY FOR FILING. TYPE A PETITION FOR SUBMISSION TO THE COURT.

Case 3:18-cv Document 1 Filed 03/15/18 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON TACOMA DIVISION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION

Case 2:13-cv MLCF-JCW Document 1 Filed 08/14/13 Page 1 of 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA COMPLAINT

Transcription:

Case 1:15-cv-00104-CG-N Document 1 Filed 02/24/15 Page 1 of 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA SOUTHERN DIVISION CARl D. SEARCY, v. Plaintiff, HON. DON DAVIS, individually and in his official capacity as Probate Judge for Mobile County, Alabama, Defendant. COMPLAINT AND REOUEST FOR PRELIMINARY AND PERMANENT INJUNCTIVE RELIEF COMES NOW the Plaintiff, Cari D. Searcy, by and through undersigned counsel, and files this her Complaint and Request for Injunctive Relief as follows: JURISDICTION AND VENUE 1. This matter is filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2201-2202 and 42 U.S.C. 1983 as a challenge to the Probate Court of Mobile County, Alabama's refusal to grant an unqualified adoption to the Plaintiff presumably under the guise of Ala. Code 30-1-19 (the so-called "Marriage Protection Act", Ala. Const. Amend. No. 774 (the so-called "Sanctity of Marriage Amendment" and the February 8, 2015, Order of the Alabama Chief Justice, Roy Moore. A copy of Judge Moore's Order is attached hereto as Exhibit "A." 2. This Court is a proper venue pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1331 (1 because the Defendant, Hon. Don Davis resides in this judicial district. Alternatively, venue is proper in this judicial

Case 1:15-cv-00104-CG-N Document 1 Filed 02/24/15 Page 2 of 7 district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1331(2 because "a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred" in this judicial district. 3. The Court possesses proper subject matter jurisdiction and personal jurisdiction over the parties. 4. The Plaintiff is an adult resident citizen of Mobile County, Alabama. 5. The acts and omissions complained of occurred in Mobile County, Alabama. Plaintiff's cause of action arose in Mobile County, Alabama. PARTIES 6. Plaintiff Cari D. Searcy is an adult resident citizen of both Alabama and the United States. As such, she is endowed with certain inalienable rights that include, among others, the right to be treated justly and equitably under the laws of the United States and of the State of Alabama. 7. Defendant Hon. Don Davis is an adult resident citizen of Mobile County, Alabama and is a citizen of the United States. Hon. Don Davis is the Judge of Probate for Mobile County, Alabama. As such, Hon. Don Davis is charged with upholding the laws and Constitution of the United States and the laws and Constitution of the State of Alabama. Hon. Don Davis is the Judge responsible for hearing and granting adoptions in Mobile County. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS 8. This Court held that the Alabama Sanctity Laws violate the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution. (Copies of the

Case 1:15-cv-00104-CG-N Document 1 Filed 02/24/15 Page 3 of 7 relevant Orders are attached hereto collectively as Exhibit "B". Of particular note, this Court has already held those laws to be unconstitutional in a case wherein the current Plaintiff was the Plaintiff. By continuing to enforce and uphold the now void Alabama Sanctity Laws, Hon. Don Davis is violating the Constitution of the United States and the laws of the State of Alabama. 9. This Court has also specifically enjoined the Defendant, Hon. Don Davis, from enforcing the Sanctity Laws, and the State of Alabama is enjoined from enforcing those laws as well. (Strawser v. Strange and Searcy v. Strange. Yet, Hon. Don Davis is continuing to enforce the remnants of those now void laws in violation of the constitutional rights of the Plaintiff. 10. The Plaintiff is married to Kimberly McKeand having been so since 2008 when Searcy and McKeand were married in California. K.S. was born to Kimberly McKeand in Mobile, Alabama on December 30, 2005. K.S. 's biological father is a adult citizen of the State of Florida named Mike. McKeand and Searcy becanle friends with Mike, and eventually it was decided that Mike would be a sperm donor and that McKeand would carry a child that would be raised by Searcy and McKeand. Mike was not listed as father of K.S. on the birth certificate, and Mike did not register as the father with the State of Alabama's putative father registry system. Mike did not contest the adoption, and in fact, Mike consents to the adoption and executed a waiver to that effect. Mike has waived all parental rights and he has terminated all rights as a parent to K.S. II. In reliance on this Court's Orders, the Plaintiff filed a. Petition for Adoption with the Probate Court of Mobile County on or about February 9~ 2015, seeking to adopt K.S. pursuant to Ala. Code 26-10A-27 (1975, which "[a]ny person may adopt his or her spouse's child according to the provisions of this chapter" subject to three exceptions and conditions that are inapplicable to this matter.

Case 1:15-cv-00104-CG-N Document 1 Filed 02/24/15 Page 4 of 7 12. Searcy and McKeand enjoy a close, loving, and stable relationship, and they have provided K.S. with a nurturing, supportive, and loving home environment since birth. Together, they attend to K.S. 's educational, physical, emotional, spiritual, and mental development. 13. Searcy and McKeand share in financial, medical, career, spiritual, and social decisions as a married couple. More importantly to this matter, the two jointly parent K.S. and they will continue to do so. K.S. views both as parents, and K.S. has only known Searcy and McKeand as his parents since birth. 14. There is no articulable reason why Searcy is not allowed to adopt K.S. other than the fact that she is a woman married to another woman. 15. In step-parent adoption petitions, Hon. Don Davis typically issues an interlocutory order 16. In the present matter, Hon. Don Davis did issue an interlocutory order, but it is materially different than what he issues in a heterosexual step-parent adoption situation. A redacted copy of the Interlocutory order is attached hereto as Exhibit "C." 17. As the Court can see, Hon. Don Davis has "qualified" his Interlocutory order specifically stating that "It is further ORDERED by the Court that this Decree is qualified in nature, and the Court will not issue a final adoption order until a final ruling is issued in the United States Supreme Court on the Marriage Act cases before it." 18. This current lawsuit challenges Hon. Don Davis's refusal to grant final adoption in the matter despite being specifically enjoined by this Court from enforcing the Sanctity Laws for any purpose. 19. As this Court is aware, this Court ordered that the Alabama Sanctity Laws were unconstitutional and that the laws were enjoined from enforcement as of February 9, 2015. The

Case 1:15-cv-00104-CG-N Document 1 Filed 02/24/15 Page 5 of 7 Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the expiration of the stay of February 9, 2015. Significantly, the Supreme Court of the United States upheld the same meaning that the Alabama Sanctity Laws became null and void on February 9, 2015. There can be no legitimate question on the issue, and Hon. Don Davis has no legitimate reason for continuing to abide by the fiction that the Alabama Sanctity Laws have any effect in Alabama. Quite simply, that issue has been decided, and there is no valid, legal reason why he is affirmatively delaying this adoption. In so doing, he is violating the legal rights of the Plaintiff, and, by extension, her family. COUNT 1 VIOLATIONS OF RIGHTS SECURED BY THE EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION (42 U.S.C. 1983 20. Plaintiff hereby re-alleges and incorporates by reference all allegations set forth In paragraphs 1-19 as if fully set forth herein. 21. All acts and omissions taken by Hon. Don Davis were done by Hon. Don Davis while acting under color of state law and had the effect of depriving the Plaintiff of rights secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States, specifically the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. 22. The treatment that Plaintiff has received is in retaliation for the exercise of her civil rights secured by the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. 23. Defendant Hon. Don Davis acts and omissions were intentional, malicious, willful, wanton, and in gross reckless disregard of Plaintiff's constitutional rights.

Case 1:15-cv-00104-CG-N Document 1 Filed 02/24/15 Page 6 of 7 COUNT 2 VIOLATIONS OF RIGHTS SECURED BY THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION (42 U.S.C. 1983 24. Plaintiff hereby re-alleges and incorporates by reference all allegations set forth in paragraphs 1-23 as if fully set forth herei n. 25. All acts and omissions taken by Hon. Don Davis were done by Hon. Don Davis while acting under color of state law and had the effect of depriving the Plaintiff of rights secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States, specifically the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. 26. The treatment that Plaintiff has received is in retaliation for the exercise of her civil rights secured by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. 27. Defendant Hon. Don Davis acts and omissions were intentional, malicious, willful, wanton, and in gross reckless disregard of Plaintiff's constitutional rights. WHEREFORE, the premises considered, the Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court enter an Order as follows: (a Enjoining Hon. Don Davis from enforcing, directly or indirectly the Alabama Sanctity Laws; (b Commanding Hon. Don Davis to grant the adoption sought in this matter without any further delay, and specifically commanding Hon. Don Davis; (c Striking Hon. Don Davis's "qualified" Interlocutory Order so as to treat Cari Searcy and this family the same way that he would a heterosexual family;

.. Case 1:15-cv-00104-CG-N Document 1 Filed 02/24/15 Page 7 of 7 (d Awarding compensatory, consequential, and other damages (including punitive damages if the Court deems it appropriate; (e Awarding the Plaintiff attorneys' fees, costs, and expenses associated with this lawsuit; (f Commanding Hon. Don Davis to end his discriminatory practices directed towards the Plaintiff and her family; (g To the extent the Court deems necessary, reaffirming its previous Orders in the Searcy v. Strange; Hedgepeth v. Probate Court of Mobile County; and Strawser v. Strange matters; (h Granting Preliminary Injunctive Relief commanding Hon. Don Davis to vacate his Interlocutory Order to the extent it is "qualified" upon a ruling from the Supreme Court at some unknown point in the future; (i Setting the issue of a preliminary injunction at the earliest convenient time once this Complaint is served as Plaintiff anticipates serving Hon. Don Davis with the Summons and Complaint the same day as the filing of this Complaint; (j Granting such other, further, and different relief as the Court deems appropriate David G. Kennedy ASB 1238-I72K The Kennedy Law Firm P.O. Box 556 Mobile, Alabama 36601 251-338-9805 david@kennedylawers.com ristine Hernandez ASB 8252-164H The Hernandez Firm, LLC P.O. Box 66174 Mobile, Alabama 36660 25 J -479- J 477 christi ne@hernandezlaw.comcastbiz.net The Defendant may be served by private process server as follows: Hon. Don Davis Judge of Probate Court for Mobile County, Alabama 151 Government Street Mobile, Alabama 36602