LYTTLE v. The UNITED STATES OF AMERICA et al

Filing 44

AMENDED COMPLAINT against Dean Caputo, Dashanta Faucette, ICE Does 1-10, Robert Kendall, North Carolina Does 1-10, The UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, filed by Mark Daniel Lyttle. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A - Mark Lyttle Birth Certificate, # 2 Exhibit B - Mark Lyttle Adoption Records, # 3 Exhibit C - Dept of Homeland Security's Motion to Terminate Proceedings) (Reyes, Alexandria)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
CASE NO. 4:10-CV-142-D
MARK DANIEL LYTTLE,
Plaintiff,
v.
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR
VIOLATIONS OF THE FOURTH, FIFTH
AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS TO
THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION
(INCLUDING CLAIMS UNDER BIVENS V.
SIX UNKNOWN NAMED AGENTS OF
FEDERAL BUREAU OF NARCOTICS; 42
U.S.C. § 1983); FALSE ARREST AND
IMPRISONMENT; NEGLIGENCE;
INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF
EMOTIONAL DISTRESS

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2) and 21, Plaintiff Mark Daniel
Lyttle (“Plaintiff” or “Mr. Lyttle”) hereby files this Amended Complaint, and avers:
INTRODUCTION
1.

This civil rights action seeks injunctive relief and compensatory and punitive

damages as a result of the wrongful and illegal detention and deportation of Plaintiff Mark
Daniel Lyttle, a 33-year-old mentally disabled United States citizen born and raised in Rowan
County, North Carolina. Without any basis for believing Mr. Lyttle was not a United States
citizen, and indeed, with ample evidence that Mr. Lyttle was a U.S. citizen, officials from the
North Carolina Department of Correction referred him to ICE as an undocumented immigrant
whose country of birth was Mexico, despite the fact that Mr. Lyttle had never been to Mexico,
shared no Mexican heritage, spoke no Spanish, and did not claim to be from Mexico.
2.

Between October 28, 2008 and December 18, 2008, immigration officials and

agents of the Atlanta, Georgia District of the United States Immigration and Customs

2282016v1
2267042v1

Enforcement (“ICE”) Division, under the United States Department of Homeland Security
(“DHS”), unlawfully detained Mr. Lyttle at the Stewart Detention Center in Lumpkin, Georgia.
During two separate interrogations at which the questioning officer was aware that Mr. Lyttle
had mental disabilities, ICE dismissed and failed to investigate Mr. Lyttle’s repeated claims that
he was a U.S. citizen. ICE ultimately removed Mr. Lyttle to Reynosa, Mexico after an
administrative removal hearing in which he received no legal assistance.
3.

Mr. Lyttle’s illegal detention and deportation are the direct and foreseeable

consequence of official policies, patterns, practices, and customs that manifest not only
intentional discrimination based on race and ethnicity and a failure to recognize basic principles
of due process, but also a reckless disregard for human life and liberty. Although the U.S.
government has long been aware that its failure to implement due process protections in its
immigration detention and removal procedures results in unjust detention, unfair hearings and
illegal deportations, neither the Department of Justice nor the Department of Homeland Security,
Immigration and Customs Enforcement have rectified the shortcomings in their procedures and
policies, leaving U.S. citizens like Mr. Lyttle vulnerable to erroneous apprehension, detention
and deportation.
4.

The United States government lacks the authority to deport one of its citizens.

The Constitution vests certain rights in every individual born within our national borders, among
these the right to live in this country. It is the obligation of the government, both at the state and
federal level, to protect the liberty and security of its citizens. In this case, the government failed
to protect Mr. Lyttle, and individuals who lacked the proper training and oversight violated Mr.
Lyttle’s constitutional rights, causing Mr. Lyttle profound physical and psychological injuries.

-2-

JURISDICTION AND VENUE
5.

This civil rights action is brought pursuant to, inter alia, the Fourth, Fifth and

Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the Federal Tort
Claims Act (“FTCA”), 28 U.S.C. §§ 2671, et seq. and other state and federal laws for relief from
commission of tortious acts. This Court has jurisdiction over federal claims pursuant to the
constitutional provisions enumerated and 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and § 1343 (3) and (4), as they are
brought to redress deprivations of rights privileges and immunities secured by the United States
Constitution and by law. Jurisdiction is also proper pursuant to the Declaratory Judgment Act,
28 U.S.C. §§ 2201(a) and 2202. This Court has jurisdiction over the supplemental state claims
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367.
6.

Venue is proper in the Eastern District of North Carolina, under 28 U.S.C. §

1391(b), in that Defendants are located in this state and district, and a substantial part of the acts
and/or omissions giving rise to Plaintiff’s claim occurred in this district.
PARTIES
Plaintiff Mark Daniel Lyttle
7.

Mr. Lyttle is a 33-year-old United States citizen of Puerto Rican descent born on

August 2, 1977 in Rowan County, North Carolina. At age 7, Mr. Lyttle was removed from an
abusive environment, placed in foster care, and ultimately adopted by Thomas E. Lyttle and
Jeanne T. Lyttle. Mr. Lyttle was illegally deported to Mexico in December 2008 despite
numerous claims of U.S. citizenship, and forced to endure more than four months of living on
the streets and in the shelters and prisons of Mexico, Honduras, Nicaragua and Guatemala. Until
he was wrongfully deported, Mr. Lyttle had never traveled outside the United States. Mr. Lyttle
speaks no Spanish and has significant cognitive problems, bi-polar disorder, epilepsy and is
diabetic.

-3-

The United States of America, the ICE Defendants and the North Carolina Defendants
8.

Defendant United States of America is sued under the Federal Tort Claims Act for

the wrongful and tortious acts of its employees and agencies. The United States is implicated by
and through the actions, policies, patterns, practices and customs of DHS and/or ICE and its
policy-makers, agents and officers.
9.

Defendant Dashanta Faucette is or was at all times mentioned herein an

Immigration Enforcement Agent with ICE. Faucette is sued in her individual capacity.
10.

Defendant Dean Caputo is or was at all times mentioned herein an Immigration

Enforcement Agent with ICE. Caputo is sued in his individual capacity.
11.

Defendant Robert Kendall is or was at all times mentioned herein an Immigration

Enforcement Agent with ICE. Kendall is sued in his individual capacity.
12.

In addition to the foregoing ICE agents and officials, unknown named ICE agents

and officials are sued herein in their individual capacities under fictitious names as “ICE Does 110” because their true names, titles, capacities, and/or degree of responsibility for the acts
alleged herein are unknown to Plaintiff at this time. When Plaintiff ascertains this information,
he will amend this Complaint accordingly. ICE Does 1-10 include, but are not limited to, ICE
Officials and Supervisors, ICE Officers, and/or Immigration Enforcement Agents with ICE
(collectively, the “ICE Doe Defendants”). Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon
alleges, that the ICE Doe Defendants are legally liable to Plaintiff in some part for the wrongful
acts and omissions of which Plaintiff complains herein.
13.

Defendants Faucette, Caputo, Kendall and ICE Does 1-10 are hereafter

collectively referred to as the “ICE Defendants.”

-4-

14.

Defendant Marilyn Stephenson is or was at all times mentioned herein acting

under color of state law as an Admissions Technician with the North Carolina Department of
Correction (“DOC”). Stephenson is sued in her individual capacity.
15.

Defendant Mary Hines is or was at all times mentioned herein acting under color

of state law as a Case Analyst with the DOC. Hines is sued in her individual capacity.
16.

In addition to Defendants Stephenson and Hines, unknown named employees of

the North Carolina DOC are sued herein in their individual capacities under fictitious names as
“North Carolina Does 1-10” because their true names, capacities and/or degree of responsibility
for the acts alleged herein are unknown to Plaintiff at this time. When Plaintiff ascertains this
information, he will amend this Complaint accordingly. North Carolina Does 1-10 are or were at
all times mentioned herein employees of the North Carolina DOC. In this capacity, they are or
were responsible for the intake and processing of inmates upon arrival at DOC facilities, and the
welfare and administration of medical care to detainees while they were incarcerated in DOC
facilities. Thus, North Carolina Does 1-10 were the custodian(s) of Mr. Lyttle and responsible
for his care and well-being while an inmate at DOC facilities. Plaintiff is informed and believes,
and thereon alleges, that North Carolina Does 1-10 are legally liable to Plaintiff in some part for
the wrongful acts and omissions of which Plaintiff complains herein.
17.

Defendants Stephenson and Hines, and North Carolina Does 1-10 are hereafter

collectively referred to as the “North Carolina Defendants.”
18.

All of the Defendants acted in bad faith and contrary to established law and

principles of constitutional and statutory law.
19.

Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that each of the Defendants

caused, and is liable for the unconstitutional and unlawful conduct and resulting injuries by,

-5-

among other things, personally participating in said conduct or acting jointly with others who did
so; by authorizing, acquiescing or setting in motion policies, plans or actions that led to the
unlawful conduct; by failing or refusing with deliberate indifference to maintain adequate
supervision; and/or by ratifying the unlawful conduct taken by employees under their direction
and control. Defendants’ actions were taken pursuant to policies, customs or usages of ICE
and/or the North Carolina DOC.
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
Mark Lyttle’s Background
20.

Mark Daniel Lyttle was born in Salisbury, North Carolina on August 2, 1977.

[See Exhibit A, attached hereto (Birth Certificate of Mr. Lyttle).] Mr. Lyttle spent the first seven
years of his life in an abusive foster home environment before he was adopted by Tom and
Jeanne Lyttle on October 31, 1985. [See Exhibit B, attached hereto (adoption records).]
21.

Tom and Jeanne Lyttle initially raised Mark Lyttle in Rowan County, North

Carolina along with Mr. Lyttle’s three adopted siblings, later moving to and living briefly in
Florida and Virginia before settling again in North Carolina.
22.

Mr. Lyttle attended elementary school, but his mental and cognitive disorders led

to multiple and frequent commitments at various psychiatric hospitals. As a result of Mr.
Lyttle’s near constant institutionalization during his teenage years, Mr. Lyttle did not receive the
benefit of a high school education.
23.

As a result of his limited education and significant cognitive problems, Mr.

Lyttle’s reading comprehension and writing skills are severely limited. Mr. Lyttle speaks no
Spanish or any other second language. Mr. Lyttle is barely literate and continues to struggle with
basic reading and writing, visual processing, conceptualization skills and memory.

-6-

24.

Mr. Lyttle’s significant cognitive impairment has contributed to a diminished

capacity to comprehend everyday events. Mr. Lyttle has repeatedly been diagnosed with bipolar disorder. He has been taking medication to regulate his bi-polar disorder and control the
seizures connected to his chemical imbalance since he was an adolescent.
25.

During his teenage years, Mr. Lyttle became unable to obtain gainful employment

due to the limitations of his cognitive and psychological disorders.
26.

In the summer of 2008, Mr. Lyttle was a patient of Cherry Hospital in Goldsboro,

North Carolina – a psychiatric hospital operated by the State of North Carolina, Department of
Health and Human Services.
Mark Lyttle’s Arrest and Detention in North Carolina
27.

While a patient at Cherry Hospital for psychiatric treatment, Mr. Lyttle was

charged with inappropriately touching a female orderly. In 2008, Mr. Lyttle was arrested on the
charge of misdemeanor assault on a female under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-33. On or about August
14, 2008, Mr. Lyttle was sentenced to spend 100 days at Neuse Correctional Institution (“NCI”)
in Goldsboro, Wayne County, North Carolina.
28.

On or about August 22, 2008, Mr. Lyttle was booked into NCI to begin serving

his sentence for the misdemeanor crime. Due to Mr. Lyttle’s obvious cognitive disorder, Mr.
Lyttle was housed in NCI’s mental health ward.
29.

Pursuant to a memorandum drafted by the North Carolina Director of Prisons,

Boyd Bennett, dated June 6, 2007, certain NC Facilities, including NCI, were cooperating with
ICE enforcement agents by identifying inmates “believed to be foreign born and non-US
citizens.”
30.

Upon information and belief, Defendant Marilyn Stephenson identified Mr. Lyttle

for further investigation by ICE. Documents received from the DOC indicate that Defendant
-7-

Stephenson interviewed Mr. Lyttle on August 25, 2008 and input initial information into the
Offender Population Unified System (“OPUS”), a software management system used to record
the demographic information and criminal history of each individual in DOC custody.
31.

In doing so, Stephenson worked in conjunction with ICE’s Criminal Alien

Program (“CAP”).
32.

Upon information and belief, during Mr. Lyttle’s booking process, Defendant

Stephenson asked Mr. Lyttle a series of biographical questions, including a question regarding
his birthplace. Mr. Lyttle responded that he was born in North Carolina.
33.

However, upon information and belief, Defendant Stephenson noted on the intake

form that Mr. Lyttle was “Oriental” and that his citizenship was “Alien.” Upon information and
belief, Defendant Stephenson listed Mr. Lyttle’s birth country as “Mexico” despite the fact that
Mr. Lyttle had never been to Mexico, shared no Mexican heritage, and did not claim to be from
Mexico.
34.

ICE Agents interviewed Mr. Lyttle on September 2, 2008. After that time,

Defendant Mary Hines had further occasion to interview and treat Mr. Lyttle.
35.

Specifically, Defendant Hines, a case analyst, interviewed Mr. Lyttle on

September 17, 2008 and input further information into OPUS.
36.

As a direct and proximate result of the North Carolina Defendants’ false,

unfounded and unlawful misidentification of Mr. Lyttle, the Raleigh unit of CAP was notified
and an investigation into Mr. Lyttle’s citizenship was initiated.
37.

Mr. Lyttle was selected for interview by ICE under the CAP program solely on

the basis of his perceived race, ethnicity and national origin.

-8-

ICE Agents Interrogated Mr. Lyttle and Coerced Him Into Signing Documents
That Waived Important Legal Rights
38.

On or about August 25, 2008, Mr. Lyttle was given a form entitled “Non-

Mandatory Consular Notification” by which Mr. Lyttle was informed that “as a non-U.S. citizen
who has been committed to the North Carolina Department of Correction,” he was entitled to
have the consular office of his native country notified if he so elected.
39.

A few days later, on or about September 2, 2008, Mr. Lyttle was apprehended by

Defendant Robert Kendall while Mr. Lyttle was in the custody of the North Carolina DOC. That
same day, Mr. Lyttle was interrogated by Defendant Dashanta Faucette, an Immigration
Enforcement Agent with ICE.
40.

At the time of the interrogation, Defendant Faucette was aware that Mr. Lyttle

was cognitively impaired and that he had, among other things, bipolar disorder.
41.

Defendant Faucette’s handwritten notes indicate that Mr. Lyttle’s name was

assumed to be “Jose Thomas” and that Mr. Lyttle’s true name, Mark Daniel Lyttle, was simply
an alias. Defendant Faucette’s notes also erroneously stated that Mr. Lyttle’s country of
citizenship was “Mexico.”
42.

Defendant Faucette’s handwritten entries state that Mr. Lyttle’s home address was

100 Timberman Drive [sic.], Elizabeth City, N.C., 27909, which is the address for an assisted
living facility named Heritage Care, which caters to the elderly and individuals with mental and
cognitive disabilities.
43.

Defendant Faucette’s notes also state erroneously that Mr. Lyttle entered the

United States without permission at age 3.
44.

Defendant Faucette failed and refused to have a witness present at the

interrogation of Mr. Lyttle; thus, the signature block for the witness who should have been

-9-

present during Mr. Lyttle’s interrogation on September 2, 2008 was left blank on the “Record of
Sworn Statement in Affidavit Form.”
45.

When Defendant Faucette’s interview was concluded, Mr. Lyttle was not offered

an opportunity to review the contents of the entries written on the form by Defendant Faucette,
nor was Mr. Lyttle informed of what Defendant Faucette had written. Instead, Mr. Lyttle was
simply instructed to sign his name on a certain line. Despite Defendant Faucette’s unfounded
and erroneous assumption that Mr. Lyttle’s name was “Jose Thomas,” Mr. Lyttle signed his true
name, “Mark Lyttle.”
46.

Another handwritten form filled out by Defendant Faucette on or about

September 2, 2008 notes that Mr. Lyttle’s mother, “Jennie [sic.] Lyttle” was from Kentucky.
The same form contains a block labeled, “Narrative: Include details not shown above and
whether or not eligible for special status program,” in which Defendant Faucette wrote the words
“Mental Illness – Bipolar.”
47.

On or about September 4, 2008, Defendant Faucette or an ICE Defendant acting

on behalf of or at her direction, performed a search of the United States Department of Justice
Federal Bureau of Investigation Criminal Justice Information Services Division (the “CJISD”)
and other databases. Numerous records produced as a result of these computerized database
searches revealed that Mr. Lyttle was a U.S. citizen with a valid Social Security number.
Nowhere in the records produced as a result of the CJISD database search was there any mention
of “Jose Thomas” or Mr. Lyttle ever having used or been known by that name previously.
48.

The following day, on or about September 5, 2008, Defendant Faucette, ICE

Defendants Dean Caputo, Robert Kendall and/or other individual ICE Doe Defendants
performed computer database searches on Mr. Lyttle’s criminal history, revealing numerous

- 10 -

entries and notations indicating that Mr. Lyttle was a U.S. citizen with a valid Social Security
number affiliated with several minor variants of the name “Mark Lyttle” having been used, but
no mention of the name “Jose Thomas.”
49.

On or about September 5, 2008, ICE Defendant Dean Caputo signed a “Warrant

for Arrest of Alien” authorizing any officer delegated authority pursuant to Section 287 of the
Immigration and Nationality Act to take Mr. Lyttle into custody so that he might be processed
for removal as “an alien in the country in violation of the immigration laws.”
50.

Also on or about September 5, 2008, ICE Defendant Caputo signed a “Notice of

Intent to Issue Final Administrative Removal Order” in order to commence “removal
proceedings under section 238(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act.” According to
Defendant Caputo’s Notice of Intent to Issue Final Administrative Removal Order, it had already
been determined that Mr. Lyttle was “not a citizen or national of the United States” but rather “a
native of Mexico and a citizen of Mexico.” Under this Notice, Defendants Caputo and Faucette
had determined that Mr. Lyttle was “deportable under section 237(a)(2)(A)(iii) of the Act, 8
U.S.C. 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii), as amended, because [he had] been convicted of an aggravated
felony.”
51.

Ignoring the evidence of Mr. Lyttle’s citizenship, Defendant Caputo signed a

Notice of Custody Determination on or about September 5, 2008, whereby Mr. Caputo had
determined that Mr. Lyttle “shall be detained in the custody of the Department of Homeland
Security” pending a final determination by the immigration judge assigned to Mr. Lyttle’s case.
Defendant Caputo further noted on the Notice of Custody Determination that “[Mr. Lyttle] may
not request a review of this determination by an immigration judge because the Immigration and
Nationality Act prohibits [Mr. Lyttle’s] release from custody.”

- 11 -

52.

Also on September 5, 2008, Defendant Kendall signed a Form I-247 Immigration

Detainer, notifying North Carolina DOC that Mr. Lyttle was not to be released from custody
because ICE had determined that Mr. Lyttle was of Mexican nationality.
53.

Three days later, on September 8, 2008, ICE Defendant Faucette personally

served copies of the Notice of Intent to Issue Final Administrative Removal Order and Warrant
for Arrest of Alien on Mr. Lyttle at 12:05 p.m. and 12:10 p.m., respectively. Defendant Faucette
signed a portion of the Certificate of Service for the Notice of Intent stating that she served the
Notice on Mr. Lyttle personally, and likewise executed a Certificate of Service for the Warrant
for Arrest of Alien indicating personal service on Mr. Lyttle.
54.

Disregarding Mr. Lyttle’s mental disabilities and the substantial evidence of his

U.S. citizenship, Defendant Faucette coerced and manipulated Mr. Lyttle into signing a
statement admitting the allegations in the Notice of Intent to Issue Final Administrative Removal
Order, thereby waiving his legal rights to a removal hearing before an immigration judge. By
signing the waiver, Mr. Lyttle incorrectly acknowledged that he was a citizen of Mexico and that
he agreed to be voluntarily deported to Mexico, despite the fact that Mr. Lyttle was and is a
United States citizen. Mr. Lyttle did not understand what he was signing or that he unknowingly
consented to being deported to Mexico. Despite his serious and acknowledged mental
disabilities, Mr. Lyttle received no assistance from ICE agents -- or anyone else -- in attempting
to read or understand the form that he was coerced and manipulated into signing.
55.

Also on September 8, 2008, Defendant Faucette coerced Mr. Lyttle, whom she

knew to have cognitively disabilities, including bipolar disorder, into signing an
acknowledgment of the “Notice of Custody Determination” issued by Defendant Caputo on
September 5, 2008.

- 12 -

56.

Even where Mr. Lyttle was coerced, intimidated or deceived into signing a form

acknowledging that his name was “Jose Thomas,” Mr. Lyttle signed his name, “Mark Lyttle.”
57.

No reasonable basis existed to suspect or otherwise conclude that Mr. Lyttle was

not a United States citizen. In fact, the records available to the ICE Defendants contained
numerous references to Mr. Lyttle’s social security number, which could have easily been
verified against the Social Security Administration’s database, as well as numerous references to
Mr. Lyttle being an American citizen by birth.
58.

On information and belief, no ICE Agent made any effort to confirm the

information contained in the documents produced as a result of the database searches with the
Social Security Administration, the Department of Corrections, or any other public agency that
could verify Mr. Lyttle’s citizenship.
59.

Due to Mr. Lyttle’s obvious cognitive and developmental limitations, Mr. Lyttle

was barely able to read, much less comprehend, the documents presented to him by ICE
Defendants Faucette and Caputo. Mr. Lyttle had no knowledge or understanding of the
consequences of signing the forms presented to him by these ICE Defendants.
60.

Even though Mr. Lyttle responded to questions during his initial processing by the

North Carolina Defendants by stating that he was born in North Carolina, which he continued to
tell ICE Defendants Faucette and Caputo, neither the North Carolina Defendants nor the ICE
Defendants made any attempt to verify his citizenship. When efforts were made to search
records and databases, the information and personal data retrieved contained numerous
references to Mr. Lyttle’s U.S. citizenship.
61.

No attempt was made by any of the North Carolina Defendants nor any of the ICE

Defendants to contact Mr. Lyttle’s family, and no attempt was made to obtain Mr. Lyttle’s birth

- 13 -

certificate from North Carolina Vital Records. No effort was made by any Defendant to put Mr.
Lyttle in touch with a legal representative familiar with deportation proceedings to protect Mr.
Lyttle’s rights.
Mr. Lyttle’s Transfer To Stewart Detention Center To Await Removal
62.

Mr. Lyttle spent just over a month at NCI before being transferred to New

Hanover Correctional Center (“NHCC”) on or about September 23, 2008. Mr. Lyttle spent
approximately one week at the NHCC before being transferred to Greene Correctional Institution
(“GCI”), where he would serve the remainder of his term in the custody of the NC DOC.
63.

Mr. Lyttle had been scheduled to be released from GCI on or before October 26,

2008. Instead, on or about October 28, 2008, Mr. Lyttle’s detention was continued, and he was
delivered into ICE custody for transport to the Stewart Detention Center (“SDC”) in Lumpkin,
Georgia.
64.

SDC is a detention center operated by ICE Detention & Removal Operations

(“DRO”) pursuant an Inter-governmental Services Agreement (“IGSA”) with Stewart County,
Georgia, with whom ICE works to administer the SDC. ICE and Stewart County have
contracted with Corrections Corporation of America (“CCA”) to provide staffing and personnel
to house individuals who are waiting for their immigration status to be determined or who are
awaiting repatriation.
65.

On or about November 3, 2008, Mr. Lyttle was interrogated by ICE Agent David

Collado. Agent Collado recorded Mr. Lyttle’s sworn responses to the questions on the “Record
of Sworn Statement in Affidavit Form.” In that interrogation, Mr. Lyttle stated unequivocally
that he was a United States citizen, born on “08/02/1977 [in] Rowann [sic.] County NC,” and
repeatedly denied being a Mexican citizen.

- 14 -

66.

An un-served Notice of Intent to Issue Final Administrative Removal Order

accompanied Agent Collado’s interrogation form of Mr. Lyttle. Agent Collado’s Notice
accurately reflected that Mr. Lyttle was “a native of United States and a citizen of United States,”
but Agent Collado nonetheless proceeded to charge that Mr. Lyttle was deportable from the
United States on account of his criminal convictions.
67.

Agent Collado filled out an I-213 “Record of Deportable/Inadmissible Alien”

dated November 5, 2008, recounting the recent history of Mr. Lyttle’s misfortune, including the
events in North Carolina and a notation that Mr. Lyttle suffered from “a bipolar mental illness
condition.” Mr. Lyttle was never presented with a copy of this I-213, nor afforded an
opportunity to review its contents or have the entries in the form read to him.
68.

In light of the now documented sworn statements of Mr. Lyttle’s United States

citizenship, Agent Collado reclassified Mr. Lyttle’s case from an administrative removal to a
Notice to Appear (“NTA”).
69.

On or about November 5, 2008, ICE Agent Tracy Moten issued a formal Notice

to Appear to Mr. Lyttle. Despite the unequivocal claims of U.S. citizenship and the complete
lack of independent evidence supporting the charge that Mr. Lyttle was an undocumented
immigrant, Agent Moten charged Mr. Lyttle that he was “not a citizen or national of the United
States” but rather “a native of Mexico and a citizen of Mexico [who] arrived in the United States
at or near UNKNOWN PLACE, on or about 1980.”
The Hayes Memo
70.

On November 6, 2008, James T. Hayes, then-Director of DRO, issued a

memorandum to all ICE Field Office Directors, the subject line of which read, “Superseding
Guidance on Reporting and Investigating Claims to United States Citizenship” (the “Hayes

- 15 -

Memo”). As noted on its face, the Hayes Memo was issued in order to address ongoing
problems and deficiencies within ICE in its agents’ handling affirmative claims to U.S.
citizenship.
71.

The Hayes Memo commands “[a]ll officers who encounter an individual who

they have reason to believe is in the United States in violation of law . . . but who claims U.S.
citizenship, shall immediately notify the Field Office Director (‘FOD’) through their chain of
command. The FOD shall make the appropriate notification to DRO headquarters.”
72.

The Hayes Memo further requires that all “[i]nterviews with detainees making

claims to U.S. citizenship . . . will be recorded as sworn statements and include all questions
needed to complete all fields on a Form I-213. In addition, the sworn statement must include
probative questions designed to elicit information sufficient to allow an investigation of the
person’s claim of citizenship [including] vital records, family interviews, and other appropriate
investigative measures.”
73.

With regard to claims of U.S. citizenship made prior to the commencement of

formal removal proceedings, the FOD must consult with DRO headquarters and local Office of
Chief Counsel (“OCC”) to assess the sufficiency of the evidence supporting removal. Where a
claim of citizenship is made after the issuance of an NTA, “each OCC, in consultation with the
FOD, who where necessary, should consult with HQ DRO, will determine the most appropriate
course of action with respect to the disposition of the NTA and termination of the case, while
providing any necessary advice to the FOD as to changes to the individual’s custody conditions.”
74.

Under the Hayes Memo, each ICE FOD “shall ensure that all DRO employees in

their area of responsibility (inclusive of those state, local or tribal cross-trained 287(g) officers)
who are under their control, understand and adhere to this policy.”

- 16 -

75.

The Hayes Memo was superseded by a subsequent memorandum issued on

November 19, 2009 by Assistant Secretary John Morton (the “Morton Memo”), who circulated
the superseding guidance to not only all ICE FOD, but also all ICE Special Agents in Charge and
Chief Counsels.
76.

The Morton Memo substantially revised and expanded the obligations of ICE

agents and officers who learn of a claim to U.S. citizenship by a suspected alien, including, for
instance, involving Office of Investigations and Office of Principal Legal Advisor’s personnel to
evaluate the evidence in support of the claim to U.S. citizenship and to assess the evidence of
alienage. “In all cases, any uncertainty about whether the evidence is probative of U.S.
citizenship should weigh against detention.”
ICE Agents Disregarded Mr. Lyttle’s Claim Of U.S. Citizenship
And Violated The Clear Directives Of The Hayes Memo By
Coercing and Manipulating Mr. Lyttle Into Signing Additional Conflicting Statements
77.

On or about November 12, 2008, Mr. Lyttle was subjected to yet another

interrogation, this time by ICE Agent Marco Mondragon. Agent Mondragon recorded Mr.
Lyttle’s sworn responses to the questions on the “Record of Sworn Statement in Affidavit
Form.”
78.

During Agent Mondragon’s interrogation, Mr. Lyttle informed Agent Mondragon

that he was a U.S. citizen. Mr. Lyttle also provided answers to Agent Mondragon’s questions
that Agent Mondragon struck through and replaced with different answers, creating a conflicting,
inconsistent and factually inaccurate record.
79.

Agent Mondragon disregarded Mr. Lyttle’s claim of citizenship, the apparent

mental disabilities limiting Mr. Lyttle’s capacity to comprehend the gravity of the situation, and
the independent evidence of Mr. Lyttle’s citizenship.

- 17 -

80.

Agent Mondragon coerced and manipulated Mr. Lyttle into signing and initialing

the Affidavit affirming that his name was “Jose Thomas,” and that Mr. Lyttle’s father was a
citizen of Mexico who was also named “Jose Thomas.”
81.

On or about November 17, 2008, while in the custody of ICE and under the

supervision of the CCA as operators of SDC, Mr. Lyttle attempted to commit suicide by
ingesting 60 tablets of Glucophage, a medication provided to Mr. Lyttle by the SDC as treatment
for type 2 diabetes milletus. Mr. Lyttle was treated for toxic drug overdose at Doctors Hospital
Columbus, in Columbus, Georgia, and released after several days of monitoring and close
observation.
The Removal of Mr. Lyttle From The United States
82.

After his discharge from Doctors Hospital, Mr. Lyttle was transferred back to

SDC to await a hearing before Immigration Judge William A. Cassidy.
83.

On or about December 9, 2008, without any opportunity given to Mr. Lyttle to

present evidence on his own behalf, nor any opportunity given to Mr. Lyttle to review or
challenge the evidence purportedly proving his Mexican citizenship, Judge Cassidy issued an
“Order of the Immigration Judge” ordering that Mr. Lyttle, a United States citizen, be removed
to Mexico.
84.

Despite Mr. Lyttle’s acknowledged mental disabilities, the immigration judge

made no attempt to assess whether Mr. Lyttle was competent to proceed in his removal
proceedings unrepresented, or whether he was competent to waive his right to seek counsel to
represent him.
85.

On or about December 12, 2008, ICE Field Office Director Raymond Simonse or

an ICE official acting at Mr. Simonse’s direction performed an additional criminal background
search of Mr. Lyttle’s state records from North Carolina and Virginia and pulled electronic
- 18 -

records from various federal agencies. The December 12, 2008 database search once again
uncovered numerous references to Mr. Lyttle’s United States citizenship and his Social Security
Number.
86.

Three days later, in disregard of consistent and overwhelming record evidence of

Mr. Lyttle’s U.S. citizenship, ICE Director Simonse issued a Warrant of Removal/Deportation
declaring that Mr. Lyttle “[was] subject to removal/deportation from the United States, based
upon a final order by: an immigration judge.”
87.

The actions of the above-referenced ICE officials, including but not limited to

Defendants Kendall, Faucette and Caputo, in concert with the actions of Agents Collado, Moten,
and Mondragon and Director Simonse were taken pursuant to policies, patterns, practices or
customs of the DOC and/or ICE to:


Select inmates to detain, interrogate and deport based on their race and/or
ethnicity;



Unreasonably and unlawfully deny inmates who suffer from mental illness
and/or cognitive impairments adequate assistance to (1) understand the
nature of their rights during an interrogation; (2) prevent coercive and
manipulative tactics, and (3) ensure that any waiver of rights made by
these individuals is knowing, intelligent and voluntary, in violation of
applicable federal laws and regulations; and/or



Unreasonably and unlawfully detain, interrogate, transport and deport
individuals in violation of due process.

88.

The practices and procedures implemented by both ICE and the North Carolina

Defendants to process Mr. Lyttle, to determine that he was unlawfully present in the United
States, and to coerce him into signing documents containing inaccurate and contradictory
statements are part of a pattern, custom and habit by ICE and the North Carolina Defendants and

- 19 -

their personnel to presume foreign citizenship of inmates based on their race, ethnicity,
appearance and/or surname. These policies, patterns, practices and customs were knowingly
designed and implemented by supervisory and policy-making officers throughout ICE and the
North Carolina Defendants to target individuals based on their presumed alienage and race.
89.

Despite their knowledge of these illegal policies, patterns, practices and customs,

the supervisory and policy-making officers have not effectively disciplined, trained or otherwise
properly supervised the individuals who engaged in and furthered these policies, patterns,
practices and customs; have not effectively trained the North Carolina Defendants and ICE
agents with regard to the proper constitutional and statutory limits of the exercise of their
authority; and have endorsed the policies, patterns, practices and customs of same.
90.

The supervisory and policy-making officers have taken no effective action to

ensure that (1) the selection of inmates and detainees subject to interrogation, extended detention
and removal is not unreasonably and unlawfully based on their race and/or ethnicity; (2)
individuals who have cognitive impairment or mental illness(es) received adequate protection
and assistance to understand the nature of the situation, the scope of their rights during an
interrogation, and the gravity of the situation in order to prevent coercive and manipulative
interrogation tactics, and ensure that any waiver of rights made by such individuals is knowing,
informed and voluntary; and (3) individuals are not unreasonably and unlawfully interrogated,
detained, transported and deported in violation of due process.
91.

As a consequence of the aforementioned acts and omissions, ICE, the ICE

Defendants, and the North Carolina Defendants failed to undertake a reasonable and diligent
inquiry into the citizenship of Mr. Lyttle based upon readily available documentation. Instead,

- 20 -

ICE Defendants and the North Carolina Defendants deliberately discriminated against Mr. Lyttle
on the basis of his perceived race and/or ethnicity in violation of his constitutional rights.
92.

ICE personnel failed to adequately train and supervise the North Carolina

Defendants. ICE personnel failed to review records in the possession of the North Carolina
Defendants and ICE which clearly identify Mr. Lyttle as being born in the United States.
93.

Mr. Lyttle’s medical and criminal records show that he was unable to execute a

knowing, voluntary and intelligent waiver of his legal rights so as to admit that he was a Mexican
national, in effect consenting to removal to Mexico. The failure to examine and appreciate the
significance of official records reflects an indifference by ICE, the ICE Defendants, and the
North Carolina Defendants to the rights and well-being of Mr. Lyttle and is a further example of
intentional racial discrimination by these individuals which has become so commonplace under
the policies, patterns, practices and customs implemented by Defendants.
94.

Even if Mr. Lyttle had not been lawfully present in the United States -- which he

was -- the individuals who encountered, interrogated and processed Mr. Lyttle failed to make
even the slightest effort to confirm Mr. Lyttle’s claim to U.S. citizenship. Mr. Lyttle’s criminal
history and other readily-available records, some already in ICE’s possession, confirmed that Mr.
Lyttle was a U.S. citizen. The ICE Defendants’ and North Carolina Defendants’ failure to
adequately examine these records was a direct consequence of their intentional discrimination
and patently inadequate training and supervision that reflects a deliberate indifference by ICE
and the North Carolina Defendants to the rights and well-being of inmates who are of Latino or
Hispanic origin or are perceived to be racially/ethnically Latino, or as the North Carolina
Defendants noted, “Oriental.”

- 21 -

95.

As a direct and foreseeable consequence of the practices and procedures utilized,

Mr. Lyttle was placed by ICE personnel on a plane to Hidalgo, Texas on or about December 18,
2008. When the plane touched down, Mr. Lyttle was transported to the Mexican border, forced
to disembark and sent off on foot into Mexico, still wearing the prison-issued jumpsuit from
Stewart Detention Center.
Mr. Lyttle In Central America
96.

From the date of his illegal deportation, Mr. Lyttle spent the next four months in

Central America, alternatively homeless, staying in shelters, or imprisoned by national
authorities for lack of proper identification.
97.

When Mr. Lyttle was unlawfully removed from the United States and deported to

Mexico against his will, he spoke no Spanish, was completely unfamiliar with Mexico and had
approximately three dollars in his pocket.
98.

After eight days of begging, sleeping in the streets and trying to find shelter, Mr.

Lyttle attempted to cross back into the United States at the Hidalgo, Texas border crossing.
99.

On or about December 29, 2008, Mr. Lyttle was detained by ICE Agents at the

Hidalgo, Texas port of entry (“POE”).
100.

Mr. Lyttle repeatedly informed the ICE agents at the Hidalgo POE that he was a

U.S. citizen from North Carolina.
101.

While in ICE custody, ICE agents interrogated Mr. Lyttle in Spanish.

Traumatized and unable to understand any Spanish, Mr. Lyttle did not respond to the ICE
Defendants’ questioning.
102.

ICE agents then searched a computerized ICE database and found record of Mr.

Lyttle’s deportation earlier that month. ICE agents noted on the Form I-213 that Mr. Lyttle was

- 22 -

a “prior deported alien” and was to be “processed for expedited removal[,] returned to Mexico in
the custody of Mexican Immigration.”
103.

Mr. Lyttle was never provided a copy of the I-213 form, nor was he allowed to

review its contents or have the entries read to him.
104.

Having discounted and disregarded Mr. Lyttle’s claims to U.S. citizenship, ICE

agents transported Mr. Lyttle back to the custody of the Mexican Immigration officials.
105.

Mr. Lyttle spent the next 115 days wandering in Central America.

106.

In Mexico, Mr. Lyttle was eventually picked up by missionaries who arranged for

transportation to Mexico City and attempted to assist Mr. Lyttle by instructing him to find the
American embassy. Instead, upon arriving in Mexico City, Mexican Immigration officials
arrested Mr. Lyttle who, unable to prove his Mexican citizenship, deported Mr. Lyttle to
Honduras.
107.

Mr. Lyttle was placed in handcuffs and transported by bus to Honduras. In

Honduras, immigration officials arrested Mr. Lyttle and placed Mr. Lyttle in an immigration
camp. Ultimately, Mr. Lyttle was transferred from the Honduran immigration camp to a jail
housing criminals, where he suffered severe physical and mental abuse by the guards of the
prison.
108.

Mr. Lyttle was released from the Honduran jail only after public pressure and a

media campaign in Honduras exposed the harsh and inhumane treatment of Mr. Lyttle.
109.

Throughout his four-month odyssey, Mr. Lyttle would be arrested and

incarcerated in Mexico, Honduras, and Nicaragua on the grounds that he could not produce
evidence of his identity or citizenship.

- 23 -

110.

Ultimately, Mr. Lyttle found his way to Guatemala, where he managed to locate

the U.S. Embassy in Guatemala City. At the U.S. Embassy in Guatemala, Mr. Lyttle met with an
embassy employee who listened to Mr. Lyttle’s story.
111.

For the first time since he was initially misidentified as a Mexican national more

than six months earlier, an employee of the U.S. Embassy in Guatemala made the effort to verify
Mr. Lyttle’s claim to U.S. citizenship. Based on nothing more than the names of his brothers and
his birthplace, the embassy employee was able to locate Mr. Lyttle’s brothers, both of whom
serve in the U.S. military. Mr. Lyttle’s family arranged for copies of his adoption records to be
sent to the U.S. Embassy in Guatemala, and a passport was issued and printed to Mr. Lyttle
within 24 hours.
Mr. Lyttle’s Return Home To The United States
112.

Mr. Lyttle’s family scrambled to coordinate his return to the United States, wiring

funds to Mr. Lyttle and purchasing an airline ticket for his flight home. On April 22, 2009, more
than 4 months after being illegally deported, Mr. Lyttle boarded a plane in Guatemala City
bound for Nashville, Tennessee.
113.

Upon landing in Atlanta, Georgia to pass through customs, Mr. Lyttle was

stopped and again detained by ICE agents. Relying on records database search that identified
Mr. Lyttle as an alien with “a lengthy criminal history,” ICE Agents Charles Johnston and Brian
Keys detained and interrogated Mr. Lyttle.
114.

Mr. Lyttle repeatedly proclaimed his U.S. citizenship to ICE Agents Johnston and

Keys, recounting his ordeal in Mexico, Honduras, Nicaragua, and Guatemala -- all of which was
noted by Agent Johnston and/or Keys in the Form I-213, Record of Deportable/Inadmissible
Alien.

- 24 -

115.

Mr. Lyttle informed Agents Johnston and/or Keys that his brother had sent copies

of his adoption papers to the U.S. Embassy in Guatemala in order to verify Mr. Lyttle’s
citizenship and secure Mr. Lyttle a passport.
116.

During his interrogation, Agent Johnston asked Mr. Lyttle what documents he

presented to gain entry into the United States, and Mr. Lyttle replied, “I showed them my
American citizen passport and my ticket.”
117.

Agent Johnston discredited Mr. Lyttle’s passport stating that “You do not appear

to be admissible or have the required papers authorizing your admission to the United States.”
118.

That same day, April 22, 2009, copies of Mr. Lyttle’s adoption records and

passport were faxed to the ICE Defendants detaining Mr. Lyttle in Atlanta, including Agents
Johnston and Keys.
119.

On April 23, 2009, without taking any steps to verify Mr. Lyttle’s claims to U.S.

citizenship and without making any effort to locate Mr. Lyttle’s family members or
independently substantiate the validity of the adoption records or the passport issued by the
embassy in Guatemala, ICE Agents Johnston and Keys commenced new deportation proceedings
against Mr. Lyttle, seeking to have him removed from the United States once again.
120.

In filling out the form entitled “Notice and Order of Expedited Removal,” Agents

Johnston and Keys alleged that Mr. Lyttle was “not a citizen or national of the United States;
You are a native of Mexico and a citizen of Mexico.” ICE Agents Johnston and Keys further
alleged that Mr. Lyttle falsely presented himself as a U.S. citizen by using the passport issued by
the U.S. Embassy in Guatemala.
121.

Mr. Lyttle was detained for six days in Atlanta, faced with deportation and

removal from the United States for the third time in five months. During this time, Mr. Lyttle’s

- 25 -

family members became worried after Mr. Lyttle failed to arrive in Tennessee as planned. Mr.
Lyttle’s family contacted an attorney who located Mr. Lyttle and demanded his immediate
release.
122.

Mr. Lyttle was released from ICE custody on April 24, 2009.

123.

On April 28, 2009, the Department of Homeland Security filed a two-page motion

seeking to terminate the deportation efforts aimed at Mr. Lyttle, stating that “it was determined
that Respondent [Mr. Lyttle] was not a Mexican citizen, and, in fact, is a citizen of the United
States.” [See Department of Homeland Security’s Motion to Terminate Removal Proceedings at
2, attached hereto as Exhibit C.]
124.

To date, no government official has ever offered any explanation or apology to

Mr. Lyttle.
125.

As a direct and foreseeable consequence of his illegal detention and deportation,

Mr. Lyttle suffered and continues to suffer grievous physical and psychological injury.
CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution / Due Process)
(Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics)
(Against Defendants Robert Kendall, Dashanta Faucette, and Dean Caputo and ICE Doe
Defendants 1-10)
126.

Plaintiff realleges and incorporates herein by reference each and every allegation

contained in paragraphs 1 through 125 of this Complaint.
127.

By illegally, arbitrarily, and capriciously deporting Mr. Lyttle, a United States

citizen, to Mexico, ICE Defendants Kendall, Faucette, and Caputo deprived Mr. Lyttle of his
constitutional right to liberty without due process of law in violation of the Fifth Amendment to
the United States Constitution.

- 26 -

128.

ICE Defendants Kendall, Faucette, and Caputo knowingly and intentionally

denied Mr. Lyttle his constitutional right to due process by coercing him into signing false
statements, by intimidating Mr. Lyttle during the interrogation process, and by willfully
disregarding or covering up Mr. Lyttle’s mental disabilities.
129.

Defendants Kendall, Faucette, and Caputo violated Mr. Lyttle’s constitutional

rights when they deported or caused Mr. Lyttle to be deported without reasonable basis or lawful
authority.
130.

ICE Defendants Kendall, Faucette, and Caputo acted under color of law and acted

or purported to act in the performance of official duties under federal, state, county, or municipal
laws, ordinances, or regulations.
131.

The conduct of each of the ICE Defendants -- Robert Kendall, Dashanta Faucette,

and Dean Caputo, and each ICE Doe Defendant -- violated clearly established constitutional or
other rights of which these ICE Defendants knew, or of which a reasonable public official should
have known.
132.

These ICE Defendants’ actions, omissions, policies, patterns, practices and

customs, as complained of herein, were intentional and reckless and demonstrate a callous
disregard for, or deliberate indifference to, Mr. Lyttle’s personal safety, security, freedom and
civil and constitutional rights.
133.

These violations are compensable under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of

Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). As a direct and proximate result of the
unlawful actions of these Defendants, Mr. Lyttle has suffered economic damages and significant
physical and emotional harm.

- 27 -

SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution / Equal Protection)
(Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics)
(Against Defendants Robert Kendall, Dashanta Faucette, and Dean Caputo and ICE Doe
Defendants 1-10)
134.

Plaintiff realleges and incorporates herein by reference each and every allegation

contained in paragraphs 1 through 125 of this Complaint.
135.

By erroneously classifying Mr. Lyttle as an alien, and by coercing Mr. Lyttle into

making false admissions to being of Mexican descent, ICE Defendants Kendall, Faucette, and
Caputo deliberately and unconstitutionally discriminated against Mr. Lyttle on the basis of his
race and ethnicity so as to deny him equal protection of the law in violation of the Fifth
Amendment to the United States Constitution.
136.

ICE Defendants Kendall, Faucette, and Caputo and certain other named unknown

ICE Doe Defendants acted under color of law and acted or purported to act in the performance of
official duties under federal, state, county, or municipal laws, ordinances, or regulations. ICE
Defendants acted with the intent or purpose to discriminate against Mr. Lyttle.
137.

These ICE Defendants’ conduct violated clearly established constitutional or

other rights of which these ICE Defendants knew, or of which a reasonable public official should
have known.
138.

These ICE Defendants’ actions, omissions, policies, patterns, practices and

customs, as complained of herein, were intentional and reckless and demonstrate a callous
disregard for, or deliberate indifference to, Mr. Lyttle’s personal safety, security, freedom and
civil and constitutional rights.
139.

These violations are compensable under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of

Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). As a direct and proximate result of the

- 28 -

unlawful actions of these Defendants, Mr. Lyttle has suffered economic damages and significant
physical and emotional harm.
THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution)
(Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics)
(Against Defendants Robert Kendall, Dashanta Faucette, and Dean Caputo and ICE Doe
Defendants 1-10)
140.

Plaintiff realleges and incorporates herein by reference each and every allegation

contained in paragraphs 1 through 125 of this Complaint.
141.

By October 26, 2008, Mr. Lyttle had completed his entire sentence for the

misdemeanor crime that resulted in his incarceration in the NC Facilities. As a direct and
proximate result of the unlawful and unconstitutional conduct of ICE Defendants Kendall,
Faucette, and Caputo, Mr. Lyttle’s detention was continued well beyond the scheduled release
date of October 26, 2008.
142.

ICE Defendants Kendall, Faucette, and Caputo intentionally and unlawfully

detained Mr. Lyttle in violation of his constitutional right to be free from unreasonable seizures,
as guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
143.

These ICE Defendants acted under color of law and acted or purported to act in

the performance of official duties under federal, state, county, or municipal laws, ordinances, or
regulations.
144.

These ICE Defendants’ conduct violated clearly established constitutional or

other rights of which ICE Defendants knew, or of which a reasonable public official should have
known.
145.

These ICE Defendants’ actions, omissions, policies, patterns, practices and

customs, as complained of herein, were intentional and reckless and demonstrate a callous

- 29 -

disregard for, or deliberate indifference to, Mr. Lyttle’s personal safety, security, freedom and
civil and constitutional rights.
146.

These violations are compensable under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of

Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). As a direct and proximate result of the
unlawful actions of these Defendants, Mr. Lyttle has suffered economic damages and significant
physical and emotional harm.
FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(False Imprisonment)
(Federal Tort Claims Act)
(Against Defendant United States of America)
147.

Plaintiff realleges and incorporates herein by reference each and every allegation

contained in paragraphs 1 through 125 of this Complaint.
148.

ICE Defendants Kendall, Faucette, and Caputo, individually and as agents of the

United States of America, intentionally and unlawfully deprived Mr. Lyttle of his liberty by (1)
obtaining custody of Mr. Lyttle from the North Carolina Defendants, (2) holding and detaining
Mr. Lyttle, a United States citizen, in ICE custody for an appreciable period of time, and (3)
physically expelling Mr. Lyttle from the national borders of the United States.
149.

These ICE Defendants were acting as agents for ICE and the Department of

Homeland Security, and as agents of the United States of America when they committed these
acts.
150.

Mr. Lyttle never consented to ICE’s arrest, detention or deportation of him.

151.

As a direct and proximate result of these Defendants’ conduct, Mr. Lyttle has

suffered and continues to suffer damages in an amount to be proven at trial.
152.

Mr. Lyttle filed a claim with the Department of Homeland Security based on these

injuries in accordance with the Federal Tort Claims Act. More than six (6) months has passed

- 30 -

since Mr. Lyttle filed his FTCA claim with the Department of Homeland Security, and, to date,
Mr. Lyttle has received no response.
FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(Negligence)
(Federal Tort Claims Act)
(Against Defendant United States of America)
153.

Plaintiff realleges and incorporates herein by reference each and every allegation

contained in paragraphs 1 through 125 of this Complaint.
154.

ICE Defendants Kendall, Faucette, and Caputo, individually and as agents of the

United States of America, breached their duty of reasonable care by negligently acting or failing
to act in such a way that resulted in Mr. Lyttle’s wrongful detention and deportation by ICE,
which these Defendants knew or should have known posed a substantial risk of grave harm to
Mr. Lyttle.
155.

ICE Defendants Kendall, Faucette, and Caputo were negligent in performing their

duties and failed, neglected and/or refused to properly and fully discharge their responsibilities
by, among other things:


Failing to review readily available documentation, which stated that Mr.
Lyttle was born in the United States and possessed a valid Social Security
Number;



Failing to investigate Mr. Lyttle’s claims that he was born in Rowan County,
North Carolina;



Coercing and manipulating Mr. Lyttle into signing Form I-826, without
providing him an adequate opportunity to read the form or have the form read
to him;



Failing to provide Mr. Lyttle, who has mental illness and/or mental
deficiencies, with assistance to (1) understand his rights, (2) read and

- 31 -

understand Form 1-826, and (3) protect him from coercive interrogation
tactics;


Creating and/or sanctioning policies, patterns, practices and customs of
selecting inmates to detain, interrogate and deport based on their race and/or
ethnicity;



Failing to adequately train and supervise personnel performing immigration
duties; and


156.

Detaining, holding and deporting a United States citizen.

These ICE Defendants were acting as agents for ICE and the Department of

Homeland Security, and as agents of the United States of America when they committed these
acts.
157.

As a direct and proximate result of ICE Defendants’ conduct, Mr. Lyttle has

suffered and continues to suffer damages in an amount to be proven at trial.
158.

Mr. Lyttle filed a claim with the Department of Homeland Security based on these

injuries in accordance with the Federal Tort Claims Act. More than six (6) months have passed
since Mr. Lyttle filed his FTCA claim with the Department of Homeland Security, and, to date,
Mr. Lyttle has received no response.
SIXTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress)
(Federal Tort Claims Act)
(Against Defendant United States of America)
159.

Plaintiff realleges and incorporates herein by reference each and every allegation

contained in paragraphs 1 through 125 of this Complaint.
160.

ICE Defendants Kendall’s, Faucette’s, and Caputo’s willful acts constitute

outrageous conduct insofar as they were intended to cause Mr. Lyttle to be held in ICE custody,

- 32 -

interrogated without regard for his mental disabilities, and expelled from the national borders of
the United States.
161.

ICE Defendants Kendall, Faucette, and Caputo intended to cause Mr. Lyttle

emotional distress, and/or acted in reckless disregard of the likelihood of causing Mr. Lyttle
emotional distress, in committing these acts.
162.

These ICE Defendants were acting as agents for ICE and the Department of

Homeland Security, and as agents of the United States of America when they committed these
acts.
163.

As a direct and proximate result of ICE Defendants’ acts, Mr. Lyttle suffered and

continues to suffer severe mental anguish and emotional and physical distress.
164.

Mr. Lyttle has incurred and continues to incur medical expenses and other

damages in an amount to be proven at trial.
165.

Mr. Lyttle filed a claim with the Department of Homeland Security based on these

injuries in accordance with the Federal Tort Claims Act. More than six (6) months have passed
since Mr. Lyttle filed his FTCA claim with the Department of Homeland Security, and, to date,
Mr. Lyttle has received no response.
SEVENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution / Due Process)
(42 U.S.C. § 1983)
(Against North Carolina Defendants)
166.

Plaintiff realleges and incorporates herein by reference each and every allegation

contained in paragraphs 1 through 125 of this Complaint.
167.

Defendants Marilyn Stephenson and Mary Hines, and North Carolina Does 1-10,

in their individual capacities, deprived Mr. Lyttle of his constitutional right to liberty and
deprived him of this liberty without due process of law as guaranteed by the Fifth and Fourteenth

- 33 -

Amendments to the United States Constitution by causing and/or participating in the illegal,
arbitrary, and capricious deportation of Mr. Lyttle, a United States citizen, to Mexico. The North
Carolina Defendants caused and/or participated in Mr. Lyttle’s deportation without reasonable
basis or lawful authority.
168.

The North Carolina Defendants acted under color of law and acted or purported to

act in the performance of official duties under federal, state, county or municipal laws,
ordinances or regulations.
169.

The conduct of the North Carolina Defendants violated clearly established

constitutional or other rights, of which Defendants knew, or of which a reasonable public official
should have known.
170.

The actions, omissions, policies, patterns, practices and customs of these

Defendants, complained of herein, were intentional, reckless, and show a callous disregard for,
or deliberate indifference to Mr. Lyttle’s personal safety, security, freedom and civil and
constitutional rights.
171.

These violations are compensable pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. As a direct and

proximate result of these Defendants’ conduct, Mr. Lyttle has suffered economic damages and
significant physical and emotional harm.
EIGHTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution / Equal Protection)
(42 U.S.C. § 1983)
(Against North Carolina Defendants)
172.

Plaintiff realleges and incorporates herein by reference each and every allegation

contained in paragraphs 1 through 125 of this Complaint.
173.

Defendants Marilyn Stephenson and Mary Hines, and North Carolina Does 1-10,

in their individual capacities, unconstitutionally discriminated against Mr. Lyttle on the basis of

- 34 -

his race and ethnicity so as to deny him equal protection of the law as guaranteed by the
Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and his liberty by causing or
participating in the illegal deportation of Mr. Lyttle.
174.

The North Carolina Defendants acted under color of law and acted or purported to

act in the performance of official duties under federal, state, county or municipal laws,
ordinances or regulations. The North Carolina Defendants acted with the intent or purpose to
discriminate against Mr. Lyttle.
175.

The conduct of the North Carolina Defendants violated clearly established

constitutional or other rights, of which Defendants knew, or of which a reasonable public official
should have known.
176.

The acts, omissions, policies, patterns, practices and customs of these Defendants

complained of herein were intentional, reckless, and show a callous disregard for, or deliberate
indifference to Mr. Lyttle’s personal safety, security, freedom and civil and constitutional rights.
177.

These violations are compensable pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. As a direct and

proximate result of these Defendants’ conduct, Mr. Lyttle has suffered economic damages and
significant physical and emotional harm.
NINTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution)
(42 U.S.C. § 1983)
(Against North Carolina Defendants)
178.

Plaintiff realleges and incorporates herein by reference each and every allegation

contained in paragraphs 1 through 125 of this Complaint.
179.

Defendants Marilyn Stephenson and Mary Hines, and North Carolina Does 1-10,

in their individual capacities, violated Mr. Lyttle’s right under the Fourth Amendment to the

- 35 -

United States Constitution to be free from an unreasonable seizure by a government official, by
causing or participating in the illegal deportation of Mr. Lyttle.
180.

The North Carolina Defendants acted under color of law and acted or purported to

act in the performance of official duties under federal, state, county or municipal laws,
ordinances or regulations. The North Carolina Defendants acted with the intent or purpose to
discriminate against Mr. Lyttle.
181.

The conduct of the North Carolina Defendants violated clearly established

constitutional or other rights, of which Defendants knew, or of which a reasonable public official
should have known.
182.

The acts, omissions, policies, patterns, practices and customs of these Defendants

complained of herein were intentional, reckless, and show a callous disregard for, or deliberate
indifference to Mr. Lyttle’s personal safety, security, freedom and civil and constitutional rights.
183.

These violations are compensable pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. As a direct and

proximate result of these Defendants’ conduct, Mr. Lyttle has suffered economic damages and
significant physical and emotional harm.
TENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(False Arrest and Imprisonment)
(Against North Carolina Defendants)
184.

Plaintiff realleges and incorporates herein by reference each and every allegation

contained in paragraphs 1 through 125 of this Complaint.
185.

Defendants Marilyn Stephenson and Mary Hines, and North Carolina Does 1-10,

unlawfully and maliciously deprived Mr. Lyttle of his liberty by (1) placing him in an
Immigration Hold without a legal basis to do so; and (2) physically delivering Mr. Lyttle into the

- 36 -

custody of ICE at the expiration of Mr. Lyttle’s sentence. Mr. Lyttle never consented to the
immigration hold or detention by ICE.
186.

As a direct and proximate result of the North Carolina Defendants’ conduct, Mr.

Lyttle has suffered and continues to suffer damages in an amount to be proven at trial.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment against all Defendants, and each of them, as
follows:
1.

For general damages against the United States, ICE Defendants, inclusive of each

ICE Doe Defendant, and the North Carolina Defendants, jointly and severally, in an amount to
be proven at trial;
2.

For special damages against the United States, ICE Defendants, inclusive of each

ICE Doe Defendant, and the North Carolina Defendants, jointly and severally, in an amount to
be proven at trial;
3.

For punitive and exemplary damages against the individual ICE Defendants,

inclusive of each ICE Doe Defendant, and the North Carolina Defendants, jointly and severally,
in an amount to be proven at trial;
4.

For reasonable costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988

and any other applicable law;
6.

For injunctive relief that the Court deems just and proper; and

7.

For such other relief as the Court deems just and proper.
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Plaintiff demands a trial by jury on any and all issues triable by a jury.

- 37 -

Respectfully submitted this 25th day of May, 2011.
TROUTMAN SANDERS LLP
/s/ Alexandria J. Reyes
MICHAEL E. JOHNSON
Georgia Bar No. 395039
[e-mail]
BRIAN P. WATT
Georgia Bar No. 741841
[e-mail]
ALEXANDRIA J. REYES
Georgia Bar No. 428936
[e-mail]
Bank of America Plaza, Suite 5200
600 Peachtree Street, N.E.
Atlanta, Georgia 30308-2216
[phone] Tel
[phone] Fax

With Co-Counsel:
MCKINNEY & JUSTICE, P.A.
/s/ Jeremy L. McKinney
JEREMY L. MCKINNEY
N.C. Bar No. 23318
ANN MARIE DOOLEY
N.C. Bar No. 33895
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
910 North Elm Street
Post Office Box 1800
Greensboro, North Carolina 27402
Telephone [phone]
Facsimile 336.275.6045
Cooperating Attorneys for the American Civil
Liberties Union of North Carolina Legal Foundation
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION
OF NORTH CAROLINA LEGAL FOUNDATION
/s/ Katherine Lewis Parker
KATHERINE LEWIS PARKER
NC Bar No. 36263

- 38 -

Legal Director, American Civil Liberties Of
North Carolina Legal Foundation
Post Office Box 28004
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
[e-mail]

AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION
IMMIGRANTS’ RIGHTS PROJECT
/s/ Judy Rabinovitz
JUDY RABINOVITZ
American Civil Liberties Union Foundation
Immigrants’ Rights Project
125 Broad Street, 18th Floor
New York, NY 10004
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
[e-mail]

- 39 -

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on May 25, 2011, I electronically filed the preceding Amended
Complaint with the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system which will automatically send
email notification of such filing to all parties of record.

TROUTMAN SANDERS LLP
/s/ Alexandria J. Reyes
MICHAEL E. JOHNSON
Georgia Bar No. 395039
[e-mail]
BRIAN P. WATT
Georgia Bar No. 741841
[e-mail]
ALEXANDRIA J. REYES
Georgia Bar No. 428936
[e-mail]
Bank of America Plaza, Suite 5200
600 Peachtree Street, N.E.
Atlanta, Georgia 30308-2216
[phone] Tel
[phone] Fax

- 40 -