Case: Plaintiffs #1-21 v. The County of Suffolk

2:15-cv-02431 | U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York

Filed Date: April 29, 2015

Case Ongoing

Clearinghouse coding complete

Case Summary

This is a case about the Suffolk County Police Department’s failure to investigate and eliminate discriminatory patterns and practices such as targeting Latinos for traffic and pedestrian stops, stealing their personal property, and engaging in harassing behavior. On April 29, 2015, the plaintiffs, 20 Latino residents of Suffolk County, New York, filed this class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York. The plaintiffs sued the County of Suffolk, the Suffol…

This is a case about the Suffolk County Police Department’s failure to investigate and eliminate discriminatory patterns and practices such as targeting Latinos for traffic and pedestrian stops, stealing their personal property, and engaging in harassing behavior. On April 29, 2015, the plaintiffs, 20 Latino residents of Suffolk County, New York, filed this class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York. The plaintiffs sued the County of Suffolk, the Suffolk County Police Department, and various individual police officers and officials under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Represented by LatinoJustice PRLDEF and private counsel, the plaintiffs sought injunctive and declaratory relief as well as damages. The plaintiffs claimed the county and police department showed deliberate indifference to the plaintiffs’ rights by failing to remedy the practice of conducting race-based stops and searches in violation of the Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments.

The case was initially assigned to Judge Arthur D. Spatt. However, on April 11, 2018, Judge Spatt recused himself and the case was reassigned to Judge Joan M. Azrack and Magistrate Judge Gary R. Brown. Finally, on March 25, 2019, the case was reassigned to Judge William F. Kuntz, II, and Magistrate Judge Lois Bloom.

In their lawsuit, the plaintiffs alleged the police department failed to adopt reforms—such as implementing a system to collect traffic stop data and investigating complaints of officer misconduct in a timely manner—despite a settlement agreement that the Department of Justice entered into with the police department in 2013. The settlement resulted from a 2007 event where a group of teenagers in Suffolk County calling themselves the “Caucasian Crew” murdered an Ecuadorian immigrant. Following the murder, Latino residents began voicing complaints of discriminatory policing. In response, the U.S. Department of Justice and the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of New York began an investigation into the police department’s practices. The resulting limited settlement agreement outlined recommendations for new policies and procedures and was to remain in effect until the police department substantially complied with the agreement for at least one year. The Department of Justice had completed its most recent assessment report in December 2019 and found that the police department was not in substantial compliance with the settlement agreement.

While the Department of Justice conducted its investigation into the practices of the police department, a police officer named as a defendant in the plaintiff’s lawsuit both individually and in his official capacity was perpetrating a years-long scheme wherein he conducted race-based traffic stops and then stole money from the stopped drivers. In 2016, a jury found this officer guilty of theft and official misconduct and he was sentenced to three years in prison. The plaintiffs alleged that other officers in the police department perpetrated similar stop-and-rob schemes and that the county and police department failed to investigate and eliminate such discriminatory practices despite being aware of the department’s pattern of biased policing for years.

The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on May 18, 2015, to correct the spelling of a police officer defendant’s last name. The county, police department, and the individual defendants still employed by the police department filed an answer on November 4, 2015, and the officer in prison filed an answer on his own behalf on May 29, 2019. That officer also filed a crossclaim against the county and police department for failing to represent him in the lawsuit, and he filed a counterclaim against the plaintiffs. The county and police department filed an answer to that crossclaim on June 7, 2019, and the plaintiffs filed an answer to the counterclaim on June 19, 2019.

On October 14, 2015, Judge Spatt granted the plaintiffs’ motion to proceed anonymously, because the plaintiffs demonstrated reasonable fear of retaliation and harassment by police officers still employed by the police department. 138 F.Supp.3d 264. Judge Spatt also stayed discovery relating to the officer in prison until his criminal case was resolved. Judge Brown lifted the stay on July 26, 2016.

For the next five years, the parties engaged in discovery. Then, on July 15, 2020, the plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification for damages and injunctive relief. The plaintiffs sought to define the damages class as “all Latino or Latina persons who, from January 2012 to the date of a final judgment, were unlawfully ticketed, searched, arrested, or otherwise subject to unlawful police action, including the unlawful deprivation of personal property, following a vehicular or pedestrian stop or detention by an agent of the Suffolk County Police Department in the county of Suffolk.” The plaintiffs also sought injunctive relief in the form of a preliminary and permanent injunction requiring the police department to cease discriminatory conduct and adopt policies to prevent discriminatory conduct in the future. The plaintiffs sought to define the injunctive relief class as “[a]ll Latino or Latina persons who, at any time after January 2012, have been or in the future will be subject to a vehicular or pedestrian stop or detention by an agent of the Suffolk County Police Department in the county of Suffolk.” Judge Kuntz referred the motion for class certification to Judge Bloom.

Regarding the class certification motion, Judge Bloom filed a Report & Recommendation on March 12, 2021, finding the plaintiffs met the threshold requirements for class certification. 2021 WL 1255011. She recommended the plaintiffs’ class be certified for injunctive relief but not for monetary damages, because an injunction to reform the police department’s policies and practices would benefit the entire class whereas an award of damages would require an individual inquiry into the harm each plaintiff suffered. On April 5, 2021, Judge Kuntz adopted Judge Bloom’s Report & Recommendation and certified the injunctive class as the plaintiffs had sought. 2021 WL 1254408.

Along with their motion for class certification, the plaintiffs requested an adverse inference that the defendants failed to adequately collect and analyze traffic stop data in an effort to shield the police department’s practice and pattern of biased policing against Latinos. In the alternative, the plaintiffs requested a rebuttable presumption that the uncollected traffic stop data would have shown that race-based “traffic stops, searches, tickets, arrests, and/or wrongful deprivations of property” were part of the police department’s traffic-stop practices. In an order on August 5, 2021, Judge Kuntz denied the plaintiff’s request for an adverse inference, because the plaintiffs did not allege the defendants destroyed harmful evidence but only that they failed to collect evidence to avoid liability. However, Judge Kuntz granted the plaintiffs’ request for a rebuttable presumption that the uncollected data would have shown biased policing practices, explaining that the defendants should not be allowed to benefit from failing to maintain adequate records.

Meanwhile, on October 16, 2020, the police department, county, and all individual defendants not including the imprisoned officer filed a motion for summary judgment. 

Judge Kuntz issued an order regarding the motion for summary judgment on August 5, 2021. The defendants had asserted that the plaintiffs failed to show municipal liability under § 1983. Additionally, the defendants alleged that the DOJ could have initiated court action against the county in response to a breach of the settlement agreement, and so the Department of Justice’s choice not to initiate court action showed that no such breach occurred. First, Judge Kuntz noted that other factors, such as limited resources, affected which cases the Department of Justice pursued in court and held that the plaintiffs provided sufficient evidence to support a theory of ongoing biased policing practices stemming from the county’s policies. Second, Judge Kuntz denied the defendants’ motion for summary judgment concerning the county’s liability under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, because the plaintiffs showed sufficient evidence to support a theory that the county was aware of its discriminatory policies and showed deliberate indifference to the discriminatory practices that resulted. Third, the defendants moved for summary judgment concerning the supervisory liability of the police deputy chief and the police commissioner. Judge Kuntz denied the motion because the plaintiffs asserted the defendant supervisors received complaints of the discriminatory policing practices but failed to interview the complainants for almost six months. Judge Kuntz also rejected the defendants’ claim of qualified immunity for the supervisors because factual disputes existed about whether it was objectively reasonable for the defendant supervisors to believe their actions were lawful. Finally, Judge Kuntz held that the plaintiffs showed evidence of ongoing constitutional violations, rejecting the defendants' argument that the plaintiffs' rights were violated by only one individual officer no longer employed by the police department. He also granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss the imprisoned officer’s cross-claim against the county and police department for failing to provide him with representation, because defendants do not have a right to representation in civil suits.

As of March 3, 2022, the case is ongoing and the parties are preparing for trial.

Summary Authors

Laura Irei (11/11/2021)

People

For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4324349/parties/1-21-v-the-county-of-suffolk/


Judge(s)

Bloom, Lois S. (New York)

Kuntz, William Francis II (New York)

Attorneys(s) for Plaintiff

Alicea, James Robert (New York)

Bench, Zach (New York)

Brennan, Katherine Mallory Tosch (Texas)

Brown, Courtney M (New York)

Cartagena, Juan (New York)

Chin, Jackson (New York)

Cuevas Ingram, Joanna Elise (New York)

DiMaio, Elan K (New York)

Judge(s)

Bloom, Lois S. (New York)

Kuntz, William Francis II (New York)

Attorneys(s) for Plaintiff

Alicea, James Robert (New York)

Bench, Zach (New York)

Brennan, Katherine Mallory Tosch (Texas)

Brown, Courtney M (New York)

Cartagena, Juan (New York)

Chin, Jackson (New York)

Cuevas Ingram, Joanna Elise (New York)

DiMaio, Elan K (New York)

Edelman, Scott (New York)

Lamberg-Kafele, Heather (District of Columbia)

Lovin, Sam (New York)

Maer, Foster (New York)

Marcou, David Samuel (District of Columbia)

Miller, Atara (New York)

Mirdamadi, Michael Ehson (New York)

Olshansky, Barbara J. (New York)

Paslawsky, Alexandra (New York)

Perez, Jose-Luis (New York)

Segarra, Esperanza (New York)

Trasande, Nancy Milagros (New York)

Vargas-De Leon, Fulvia (New York)

Vasquez, Jorge Luis (New York)

Villaverde, Mark DAvid (California)

Attorneys(s) for Defendant

Furshpan, Daniel E (New York)

Kobos, Dana (New York)

Lopez, L Adriana (New York)

Mitchell, Brian C. (New York)

O'Donnell, Megan E (New York)

Spencer, Jessica M (New York)

Wood, Kyle O (New York)

Documents in the Clearinghouse

Document

2:15-cv-02431

Docket [PACER]

Sept. 7, 2021

Sept. 7, 2021

Docket
1 & 1-1

2:15-cv-02431

Complaint

April 29, 2015

April 29, 2015

Complaint
21

2:15-cv-02431

First Amended Complaint

May 18, 2015

May 18, 2015

Complaint
21

2:15-cv-02431

First Amended Complaint

May 18, 2015

May 18, 2015

Complaint
318

2:15-cv-02431

Report and Recommendation

Plaintiffs v. The County of Suffolk

March 12, 2021

March 12, 2021

Magistrate Report/Recommendation
319

2:15-cv-02431

Order

April 5, 2021

April 5, 2021

Order/Opinion
322

2:15-cv-02431

Memorandum & Order

Aug. 4, 2021

Aug. 4, 2021

Order/Opinion

Resources

Docket

See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4324349/1-21-v-the-county-of-suffolk/

Last updated June 8, 2022, 3:05 a.m.

ECF Number Description Date Link Date / Link
1

COMPLAINT against All Defendants Was the Disclosure Statement on Civil Cover Sheet completed -Yes,, filed by Plaintiffs #1-21. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet) (McMahon, Carol) (Entered: 05/04/2015)

1 Civil Cover Sheet

View on PACER

April 29, 2015

April 29, 2015

Clearinghouse
1

COMPLAINT against All Defendants Was the Disclosure Statement on Civil Cover Sheet completed -Yes,, filed by Plaintiffs #1-21. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet) (McMahon, Carol) (Entered: 05/04/2015)

1 Civil Cover Sheet

View on PACER

April 29, 2015

April 29, 2015

Clearinghouse
2

Summons Issued as to Scott Green, Podormer, Milagros Soto, Suffolk County Police Department, The County of Suffolk, Edward Webber. (McMahon, Carol) (Entered: 05/04/2015)

April 29, 2015

April 29, 2015

PACER
2

Summons Issued as to Scott Green, Podormer, Milagros Soto, Suffolk County Police Department, The County of Suffolk, Edward Webber. (McMahon, Carol) (Entered: 05/04/2015)

April 29, 2015

April 29, 2015

PACER
3

FILING FEE: $ 400.00, receipt number 4653087588 (McMahon, Carol) (Entered: 05/04/2015)

April 29, 2015

April 29, 2015

PACER
3

FILING FEE: $ 400.00, receipt number 4653087588 (McMahon, Carol) (Entered: 05/04/2015)

April 29, 2015

April 29, 2015

PACER
4

DISCLOSURE of Interested Parties by Plaintiffs #1-21. (McMahon, Carol) (Entered: 05/04/2015)

April 29, 2015

April 29, 2015

PACER
4

DISCLOSURE of Interested Parties by Plaintiffs #1-21. (McMahon, Carol) (Entered: 05/04/2015)

April 29, 2015

April 29, 2015

PACER
5

MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice by Zachary Joseph Bench(Receipt# 4653087589 - $150.00) by Plaintiffs #1-21. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit in Support, # 2 Proposed Order, # 3 Receipt) (McMahon, Carol) Modified on 5/4/2015 (McMahon, Carol). (Entered: 05/04/2015)

April 29, 2015

April 29, 2015

PACER
5

MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice by Zachary Joseph Bench(Receipt# 4653087589 - $150.00) by Plaintiffs #1-21. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit in Support, # 2 Proposed Order, # 3 Receipt) (McMahon, Carol) Modified on 5/4/2015 (McMahon, Carol). (Entered: 05/04/2015)

April 29, 2015

April 29, 2015

PACER
6

MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice by Heather P. Lamberg-Kafele (Receipt# 4653087589 - $150.00) by Plaintiffs #1-21. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit in Support, # 2 Proposed Order, # 3 Receipt) (McMahon, Carol) (Entered: 05/04/2015)

April 29, 2015

April 29, 2015

PACER
6

MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice by Heather P. Lamberg-Kafele (Receipt# 4653087589 - $150.00) by Plaintiffs #1-21. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit in Support, # 2 Proposed Order, # 3 Receipt) (McMahon, Carol) (Entered: 05/04/2015)

April 29, 2015

April 29, 2015

PACER
7

MOTION for Leave to File /Proceed Anonymously by Plaintiffs #1-21. (McMahon, Carol) (Additional attachment(s) added on 5/4/2015: # 1 Proposed Order) (McMahon, Carol). (Entered: 05/04/2015)

April 29, 2015

April 29, 2015

PACER
7

MOTION for Leave to File /Proceed Anonymously by Plaintiffs #1-21. (McMahon, Carol) (Additional attachment(s) added on 5/4/2015: # 1 Proposed Order) (McMahon, Carol). (Entered: 05/04/2015)

April 29, 2015

April 29, 2015

PACER
8

MEMORANDUM in Support re 7 MOTION for Leave to File /Proceed Anonymously filed by Plaintiffs #1-21. (McMahon, Carol) (Entered: 05/04/2015)

April 29, 2015

April 29, 2015

PACER
8

MEMORANDUM in Support re 7 MOTION for Leave to File /Proceed Anonymously filed by Plaintiffs #1-21. (McMahon, Carol) (Entered: 05/04/2015)

April 29, 2015

April 29, 2015

PACER
9

DECLARATION of Nancy M. Trasande in Support re 7 MOTION for Leave to File /Proceed Anonymously filed by Plaintiffs #1-21. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service) (McMahon, Carol) (Additional attachment(s) added on 5/6/2015: # 2 Exhibits - Part 1, # 3 Exhibits - Part 2, # 4 Exhibits - Part 3) (McMahon, Carol). (Entered: 05/04/2015)

April 29, 2015

April 29, 2015

PACER
9

DECLARATION of Nancy M. Trasande in Support re 7 MOTION for Leave to File /Proceed Anonymously filed by Plaintiffs #1-21. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service) (McMahon, Carol) (Additional attachment(s) added on 5/6/2015: # 2 Exhibits - Part 1, # 3 Exhibits - Part 2, # 4 Exhibits - Part 3) (McMahon, Carol). (Entered: 05/04/2015)

April 29, 2015

April 29, 2015

PACER
10

NOTICE of Appearance by Megan E. O'Donnell on behalf of John Doe Defendants(individually and in their official capacities), John Doe Defendants(individually and in their official capacity), Scott Green, Podormer, Milagros Soto, Suffolk County Police Department, The County of Suffolk, Edward Webber (aty to be noticed) (O'Donnell, Megan) (Entered: 05/06/2015)

May 6, 2015

May 6, 2015

PACER
10

NOTICE of Appearance by Megan E. O'Donnell on behalf of John Doe Defendants(individually and in their official capacities), John Doe Defendants(individually and in their official capacity), Scott Green, Podormer, Milagros Soto, Suffolk County Police Department, The County of Suffolk, Edward Webber (aty to be noticed) (O'Donnell, Megan) (Entered: 05/06/2015)

May 6, 2015

May 6, 2015

PACER
11

NOTICE of Appearance by Zach Bench on behalf of Plaintiffs #1-21 (aty to be noticed) (Bench, Zach) (Entered: 05/12/2015)

May 12, 2015

May 12, 2015

PACER
11

NOTICE of Appearance by Zach Bench on behalf of Plaintiffs #1-21 (aty to be noticed) (Bench, Zach) (Entered: 05/12/2015)

May 12, 2015

May 12, 2015

PACER
12

NOTICE of Appearance by Heather Lamberg-Kafele on behalf of Plaintiffs #1-21 (aty to be noticed) (Lamberg-Kafele, Heather) (Entered: 05/12/2015)

May 12, 2015

May 12, 2015

PACER
12

NOTICE of Appearance by Heather Lamberg-Kafele on behalf of Plaintiffs #1-21 (aty to be noticed) (Lamberg-Kafele, Heather) (Entered: 05/12/2015)

May 12, 2015

May 12, 2015

PACER
13

Letter by Plaintiffs #1-21 (Lamberg-Kafele, Heather) (Entered: 05/12/2015)

May 12, 2015

May 12, 2015

PACER
13

Letter by Plaintiffs #1-21 (Lamberg-Kafele, Heather) (Entered: 05/12/2015)

May 12, 2015

May 12, 2015

PACER
14

SUMMONS Returned Executed by Plaintiffs #1-21. Edward Webber served on 5/1/2015, answer due 5/22/2015. (Lamberg-Kafele, Heather) (Entered: 05/12/2015)

May 12, 2015

May 12, 2015

PACER
14

SUMMONS Returned Executed by Plaintiffs #1-21. Edward Webber served on 5/1/2015, answer due 5/22/2015. (Lamberg-Kafele, Heather) (Entered: 05/12/2015)

May 12, 2015

May 12, 2015

PACER
15

SUMMONS Returned Executed by Plaintiffs #1-21. Milagros Soto served on 5/1/2015, answer due 5/22/2015. (Lamberg-Kafele, Heather) (Entered: 05/12/2015)

May 12, 2015

May 12, 2015

PACER
15

SUMMONS Returned Executed by Plaintiffs #1-21. Milagros Soto served on 5/1/2015, answer due 5/22/2015. (Lamberg-Kafele, Heather) (Entered: 05/12/2015)

May 12, 2015

May 12, 2015

PACER
16

SUMMONS Returned Executed by Plaintiffs #1-21. Podormer served on 5/1/2015, answer due 5/22/2015. (Lamberg-Kafele, Heather) (Entered: 05/12/2015)

May 12, 2015

May 12, 2015

PACER
16

SUMMONS Returned Executed by Plaintiffs #1-21. Podormer served on 5/1/2015, answer due 5/22/2015. (Lamberg-Kafele, Heather) (Entered: 05/12/2015)

May 12, 2015

May 12, 2015

PACER
17

SUMMONS Returned Executed by Plaintiffs #1-21. Suffolk County Police Department served on 5/1/2015, answer due 5/22/2015. (Lamberg-Kafele, Heather) (Entered: 05/12/2015)

May 12, 2015

May 12, 2015

PACER
17

SUMMONS Returned Executed by Plaintiffs #1-21. Suffolk County Police Department served on 5/1/2015, answer due 5/22/2015. (Lamberg-Kafele, Heather) (Entered: 05/12/2015)

May 12, 2015

May 12, 2015

PACER
18

SUMMONS Returned Executed by Plaintiffs #1-21. The County of Suffolk served on 5/1/2015, answer due 5/22/2015. (Lamberg-Kafele, Heather) (Entered: 05/12/2015)

May 12, 2015

May 12, 2015

PACER
18

SUMMONS Returned Executed by Plaintiffs #1-21. The County of Suffolk served on 5/1/2015, answer due 5/22/2015. (Lamberg-Kafele, Heather) (Entered: 05/12/2015)

May 12, 2015

May 12, 2015

PACER
19

Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply and Answer by Milagros Soto, Suffolk County Police Department, The County of Suffolk, Edward Webber. (O'Donnell, Megan) (Entered: 05/12/2015)

May 12, 2015

May 12, 2015

PACER
19

Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply and Answer by Milagros Soto, Suffolk County Police Department, The County of Suffolk, Edward Webber. (O'Donnell, Megan) (Entered: 05/12/2015)

May 12, 2015

May 12, 2015

PACER
20

ORDER granting 19 Motion for an extension of time to file opposition papers to the motion to proceed anonymously, and that a stay be granted to answer the complaint until such time as the motion is decided; and to notify the Court that Suffolk County will not provide Sgt. Scott Greene with a defense and he must obtain his own legal counsel. Request granted. Attorney Megan E. O'Donnell terminated for deft Sgt Scott Greene. So Ordered by Judge Arthur D. Spatt on 5/13/2015. (Coleman, Laurie) (Entered: 05/13/2015)

May 13, 2015

May 13, 2015

PACER
20

ORDER granting 19 Motion for an extension of time to file opposition papers to the motion to proceed anonymously, and that a stay be granted to answer the complaint until such time as the motion is decided; and to notify the Court that Suffolk County will not provide Sgt. Scott Greene with a defense and he must obtain his own legal counsel. Request granted. Attorney Megan E. O'Donnell terminated for deft Sgt Scott Greene. So Ordered by Judge Arthur D. Spatt on 5/13/2015. (Coleman, Laurie) (Entered: 05/13/2015)

May 13, 2015

May 13, 2015

PACER
21

AMENDED COMPLAINT against John Doe Defendants(individually and in their official capacities), John Doe Defendants(individually and in their official capacity), Scott Green, Milagros Soto, Suffolk County Police Department, The County of Suffolk, Edward Webber, Bridgett Dormer, filed by Plaintiffs #1-21. (Attachments: # 1 Redline Version of Amended Complaint, # 2 Notice of Filing First Amended Complaint) (DiMaio, Elan) (Entered: 05/18/2015)

1 Redline Version of Amended Complaint

View on PACER

2 Notice of Filing First Amended Complaint

View on PACER

May 18, 2015

May 18, 2015

Clearinghouse
21

AMENDED COMPLAINT against John Doe Defendants(individually and in their official capacities), John Doe Defendants(individually and in their official capacity), Scott Green, Milagros Soto, Suffolk County Police Department, The County of Suffolk, Edward Webber, Bridgett Dormer, filed by Plaintiffs #1-21. (Attachments: # 1 Redline Version of Amended Complaint, # 2 Notice of Filing First Amended Complaint) (DiMaio, Elan) (Entered: 05/18/2015)

1 Redline Version of Amended Complaint

View on PACER

2 Notice of Filing First Amended Complaint

View on PACER

May 18, 2015

May 18, 2015

Clearinghouse
22

NOTICE of Appearance by Katherine Mallory Tosch Brennan on behalf of Plaintiffs #1-21 (aty to be noticed) (Brennan, Katherine) (Entered: 05/27/2015)

May 27, 2015

May 27, 2015

PACER
22

NOTICE of Appearance by Katherine Mallory Tosch Brennan on behalf of Plaintiffs #1-21 (aty to be noticed) (Brennan, Katherine) (Entered: 05/27/2015)

May 27, 2015

May 27, 2015

PACER
23

SUMMONS Returned Executed by Plaintiffs #1-21. Scott Green served on 5/19/2015, answer due 6/9/2015. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit of Service of Complaint, # 2 Affidavit of Service of Amended Complaint) (Lamberg-Kafele, Heather) (Entered: 06/02/2015)

June 2, 2015

June 2, 2015

PACER
23

SUMMONS Returned Executed by Plaintiffs #1-21. Scott Green served on 5/19/2015, answer due 6/9/2015. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit of Service of Complaint, # 2 Affidavit of Service of Amended Complaint) (Lamberg-Kafele, Heather) (Entered: 06/02/2015)

June 2, 2015

June 2, 2015

PACER
24

Letter MOTION for Extension of Time to File opposition papers to the Plaintiffs' motion to proceed anonymously, Letter MOTION to Stay an answer to the complaint until the motion is decided by Scott Green. (Coleman, Laurie) (Entered: 06/09/2015)

June 8, 2015

June 8, 2015

PACER
24

Letter MOTION for Extension of Time to File opposition papers to the Plaintiffs' motion to proceed anonymously, Letter MOTION to Stay an answer to the complaint until the motion is decided by Scott Green. (Coleman, Laurie) (Entered: 06/09/2015)

June 8, 2015

June 8, 2015

PACER
25

Letter Requesting Briefing Schedules by Plaintiffs #1-21 (Lamberg-Kafele, Heather) (Entered: 06/11/2015)

June 11, 2015

June 11, 2015

PACER
25

Letter Requesting Briefing Schedules by Plaintiffs #1-21 (Lamberg-Kafele, Heather) (Entered: 06/11/2015)

June 11, 2015

June 11, 2015

PACER
26

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Plaintiffs #1-21 re 25 Letter (Lamberg-Kafele, Heather) (Entered: 06/11/2015)

June 11, 2015

June 11, 2015

PACER
26

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Plaintiffs #1-21 re 25 Letter (Lamberg-Kafele, Heather) (Entered: 06/11/2015)

June 11, 2015

June 11, 2015

PACER
27

ORDER Re: 25 Letter to amend the briefing schedule. Request to amend the briefing schedule with regard to the Plaintiff's motion to proceed anonymously is granted. So Ordered by Judge Arthur D. Spatt on 6/11/2015. c/m to pro se deft Scott Greene via fcm. (Coleman, Laurie) Modified on 6/11/2015 to indicate c/m. (Coleman, Laurie). (Entered: 06/11/2015)

June 11, 2015

June 11, 2015

PACER
27

ORDER Re: 25 Letter to amend the briefing schedule. Request to amend the briefing schedule with regard to the Plaintiff's motion to proceed anonymously is granted. So Ordered by Judge Arthur D. Spatt on 6/11/2015. c/m to pro se deft Scott Greene via fcm. (Coleman, Laurie) Modified on 6/11/2015 to indicate c/m. (Coleman, Laurie). (Entered: 06/11/2015)

June 11, 2015

June 11, 2015

PACER
28

ORDER Re: 24 Motion for extension of time and 24 motion to stay; Request for an extension of time to respond to the Plaintiff's motion to proceed anonymously is granted in accordance with the briefing schedule consented to by the parties on 6/11/15. The stay of the deadline to file an answer is applicable to the Defendant Greene. The Defendant Greene is directed to file a status report within thirty days of receiving this order explaining in detail his efforts to obtain an attorney and his financial circumstances. So Ordered by Judge Arthur D. Spatt on 6/11/2015. c/m to Pro Se Deft Scott Greene via fcm. (Coleman, Laurie) (Entered: 06/11/2015)

June 11, 2015

June 11, 2015

PACER
28

ORDER Re: 24 Motion for extension of time and 24 motion to stay; Request for an extension of time to respond to the Plaintiff's motion to proceed anonymously is granted in accordance with the briefing schedule consented to by the parties on 6/11/15. The stay of the deadline to file an answer is applicable to the Defendant Greene. The Defendant Greene is directed to file a status report within thirty days of receiving this order explaining in detail his efforts to obtain an attorney and his financial circumstances. So Ordered by Judge Arthur D. Spatt on 6/11/2015. c/m to Pro Se Deft Scott Greene via fcm. (Coleman, Laurie) (Entered: 06/11/2015)

June 11, 2015

June 11, 2015

PACER
29

AFFIDAVIT/DECLARATION in Opposition re 7 MOTION for Leave to File /Proceed Anonymously filed by Bridgett Dormer, Milagros Soto, Suffolk County Police Department, The County of Suffolk, Edward Webber. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Memorandum in Opposition) (O'Donnell, Megan) (Entered: 06/26/2015)

June 26, 2015

June 26, 2015

PACER
29

AFFIDAVIT/DECLARATION in Opposition re 7 MOTION for Leave to File /Proceed Anonymously filed by Bridgett Dormer, Milagros Soto, Suffolk County Police Department, The County of Suffolk, Edward Webber. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Memorandum in Opposition) (O'Donnell, Megan) (Entered: 06/26/2015)

June 26, 2015

June 26, 2015

PACER
30

LETTER (undated) from Scott A. Greene to Judge Spatt Re: Requesting assistance in obtaining an attorney and inquiring about an Article 78 Hearing if it pertains to this case. (Coleman, Laurie) (Entered: 07/14/2015)

July 14, 2015

July 14, 2015

PACER
30

LETTER (undated) from Scott A. Greene to Judge Spatt Re: Requesting assistance in obtaining an attorney and inquiring about an Article 78 Hearing if it pertains to this case. (Coleman, Laurie) (Entered: 07/14/2015)

July 14, 2015

July 14, 2015

PACER
31

ORDER - Given the potential for undue prejudice to Greene and his importance to the Plaintiffs case, the Court views a stay of this case pending the outcome of Greenes criminal case as warranted. However, the Court is reluctant to order a stay of this action without hearing from the parties. Accordingly, if the Plaintiffs object to a stay, they may file a letter brief no long than five pages on or before July 31, 2015. If the Defendants wish to respond to the Plaintiffs letter brief, they may respond in a letter brief no longer than five pages on or before August 12, 2015. If the parties fail to so respond, the Court will order a stay of this matter pending the outcome of the criminal case against the Defendant Greene. The Clerk of the Court is directed to send a copy of this Order to the pro se Defendant Greene by certified mail. So Ordered by Judge Arthur D. Spatt on 7/21/2015. c/m to pro se Defendant via certified mail return receipt requested. (Coleman, Laurie) (Main Document 31 replaced on 7/21/2015 and docket text modified on 7/21/15 to reflect the Defendant's have until 8/12/15 to respond to the Plaintiff's letter brief not 8/3/15 as previously indicated. This Order remains the same in all other respects). (Coleman, Laurie). (Entered: 07/21/2015)

July 21, 2015

July 21, 2015

PACER
31

ORDER - Given the potential for undue prejudice to Greene and his importance to the Plaintiffs case, the Court views a stay of this case pending the outcome of Greenes criminal case as warranted. However, the Court is reluctant to order a stay of this action without hearing from the parties. Accordingly, if the Plaintiffs object to a stay, they may file a letter brief no long than five pages on or before July 31, 2015. If the Defendants wish to respond to the Plaintiffs letter brief, they may respond in a letter brief no longer than five pages on or before August 12, 2015. If the parties fail to so respond, the Court will order a stay of this matter pending the outcome of the criminal case against the Defendant Greene. The Clerk of the Court is directed to send a copy of this Order to the pro se Defendant Greene by certified mail. So Ordered by Judge Arthur D. Spatt on 7/21/2015. c/m to pro se Defendant via certified mail return receipt requested. (Coleman, Laurie) (Main Document 31 replaced on 7/21/2015 and docket text modified on 7/21/15 to reflect the Defendant's have until 8/12/15 to respond to the Plaintiff's letter brief not 8/3/15 as previously indicated. This Order remains the same in all other respects). (Coleman, Laurie). (Entered: 07/21/2015)

July 21, 2015

July 21, 2015

PACER
32

Letter by Plaintiffs #1-21 (DiMaio, Elan) (Entered: 07/31/2015)

July 31, 2015

July 31, 2015

PACER
32

Letter by Plaintiffs #1-21 (DiMaio, Elan) (Entered: 07/31/2015)

July 31, 2015

July 31, 2015

PACER
33

REPLY in Support re 7 MOTION for Leave to File /Proceed Anonymously filed by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of K. Mallory Brennan, # 2 Brennan Decl. Ex. 1, # 3 Brennan Decl. Ex. 2, # 4 Brennan Decl. Ex. 3, # 5 Brennan Decl. Ex. 4, # 6 Declaration of Foster Maer, # 7 Maer Decl. Ex. 1, # 8 Declaration of Irma Solis, # 9 Proposed Order, # 10 Certificate of Service) (Trasande, Nancy) (Entered: 07/31/2015)

July 31, 2015

July 31, 2015

PACER
33

REPLY in Support re 7 MOTION for Leave to File /Proceed Anonymously filed by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of K. Mallory Brennan, # 2 Brennan Decl. Ex. 1, # 3 Brennan Decl. Ex. 2, # 4 Brennan Decl. Ex. 3, # 5 Brennan Decl. Ex. 4, # 6 Declaration of Foster Maer, # 7 Maer Decl. Ex. 1, # 8 Declaration of Irma Solis, # 9 Proposed Order, # 10 Certificate of Service) (Trasande, Nancy) (Entered: 07/31/2015)

July 31, 2015

July 31, 2015

PACER
34

Letter regarding the stay of discovery by Bridgett Dormer, Milagros Soto, Suffolk County Police Department, The County of Suffolk, Edward Webber (O'Donnell, Megan) (Entered: 08/12/2015)

Aug. 12, 2015

Aug. 12, 2015

PACER
34

Letter regarding the stay of discovery by Bridgett Dormer, Milagros Soto, Suffolk County Police Department, The County of Suffolk, Edward Webber (O'Donnell, Megan) (Entered: 08/12/2015)

Aug. 12, 2015

Aug. 12, 2015

PACER
35

NOTICE of Appearance by Jessica M. Spencer on behalf of John Doe Defendants(individually and in their official capacities), John Doe Defendants(individually and in their official capacity), Bridgett Dormer, Milagros Soto, Suffolk County Police Department, The County of Suffolk, Edward Webber (aty to be noticed) (Spencer, Jessica) Modified on 8/21/2015 to remove Scott Green. (Mahon, Cinthia). (Entered: 08/21/2015)

Aug. 21, 2015

Aug. 21, 2015

PACER
35

NOTICE of Appearance by Jessica M. Spencer on behalf of John Doe Defendants(individually and in their official capacities), John Doe Defendants(individually and in their official capacity), Bridgett Dormer, Milagros Soto, Suffolk County Police Department, The County of Suffolk, Edward Webber (aty to be noticed) (Spencer, Jessica) Modified on 8/21/2015 to remove Scott Green. (Mahon, Cinthia). (Entered: 08/21/2015)

Aug. 21, 2015

Aug. 21, 2015

PACER
36

ORDER - For the foregoing reasons, the Court grants the 7 Plaintiffs motion to proceed anonymously and sua sponte stays discovery of this matter solely with respect to the Defendant Greene pending the outcome of his criminal case. The parties are directed to submit a proposed protective order to Judge Brown within thirty days of the date of this Order which provides for the limited disclosure of the Plaintiffs identities and limits discovery as to the Defendant Greene. If the parties fail to reach an agreement, the Court respectfully refers the matter to Judge Brown to issue a protective order that is consistent with this Order. Once a protective order is in place, discovery should commence consistent with this Order. So Ordered by Judge Arthur D. Spatt on 10/14/2015. c/m to Pro Se Deft Scott Greene. (Coleman, Laurie) (Entered: 10/14/2015)

Oct. 14, 2015

Oct. 14, 2015

RECAP
36

ORDER - For the foregoing reasons, the Court grants the 7 Plaintiffs motion to proceed anonymously and sua sponte stays discovery of this matter solely with respect to the Defendant Greene pending the outcome of his criminal case. The parties are directed to submit a proposed protective order to Judge Brown within thirty days of the date of this Order which provides for the limited disclosure of the Plaintiffs identities and limits discovery as to the Defendant Greene. If the parties fail to reach an agreement, the Court respectfully refers the matter to Judge Brown to issue a protective order that is consistent with this Order. Once a protective order is in place, discovery should commence consistent with this Order. So Ordered by Judge Arthur D. Spatt on 10/14/2015. c/m to Pro Se Deft Scott Greene. (Coleman, Laurie) (Entered: 10/14/2015)

Oct. 14, 2015

Oct. 14, 2015

RECAP
71

LETTER dated 1/4/2017 from Pro Se Office to Pro Se Litigant re The enclosed letter is being returned to you without docketing or consideration for the following reasons: Papers cannot be filed without indicating that they have been served on all the parties in your action. (Coleman, Laurie) (Entered: 01/05/2017)

Jan. 4, 2017

Jan. 4, 2017

PACER
71

LETTER dated 1/4/2017 from Pro Se Office to Pro Se Litigant re The enclosed letter is being returned to you without docketing or consideration for the following reasons: Papers cannot be filed without indicating that they have been served on all the parties in your action. (Coleman, Laurie) (Entered: 01/05/2017)

Jan. 4, 2017

Jan. 4, 2017

PACER

Electronic ORDER denying without prejudice Defendant Greene's 70 Motion to Appoint Counsel and for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis. The Defendant Greene's motion is insufficient because it does not provide financial information. The Pro Se Office is respectfully directed to mail a copy of this order along with form AO 239 to the Defendant Greene. The Defendant Greene is granted leave to refile the motions with the completed form. So Ordered by Judge Arthur D. Spatt on 1/11/2017. (Fell, Christopher)

Jan. 11, 2017

Jan. 11, 2017

PACER

Electronic ORDER denying without prejudice Defendant Greene's 70 Motion to Appoint Counsel and for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis. The Defendant Greene's motion is insufficient because it does not provide financial information. The Pro Se Office is respectfully directed to mail a copy of this order along with form AO 239 to the Defendant Greene. The Defendant Greene is granted leave to refile the motions with the completed form. So Ordered by Judge Arthur D. Spatt on 1/11/2017. (Fell, Christopher)

Jan. 11, 2017

Jan. 11, 2017

PACER
73

MOTION to Appoint Counsel, MOTION to Stay proceedings until defendant is appointed counsel or if needed compel the court to have defendant produced for any and all proceedings, MOTION to Compel a list of the plaintiff's names be provided to the defendant. Filed by Scott Greene. (Attachments: # 1 Mailing Envelope) (Coleman, Laurie) . (Entered: 01/18/2017)

Jan. 13, 2017

Jan. 13, 2017

PACER
73

MOTION to Appoint Counsel, MOTION to Stay proceedings until defendant is appointed counsel or if needed compel the court to have defendant produced for any and all proceedings, MOTION to Compel a list of the plaintiff's names be provided to the defendant. Filed by Scott Greene. (Attachments: # 1 Mailing Envelope) (Coleman, Laurie) . (Entered: 01/18/2017)

Jan. 13, 2017

Jan. 13, 2017

PACER
72

LETTER dated 1/17/2017 from Pro Se Office to Pro Se Litigant Scott Greene re The enclosed letter is being returned without docketing or consideration. Papers cannot be filed without indicating that they have been served on all the parties in your action. (Coleman, Laurie) (Entered: 01/18/2017)

Jan. 17, 2017

Jan. 17, 2017

PACER
72

LETTER dated 1/17/2017 from Pro Se Office to Pro Se Litigant Scott Greene re The enclosed letter is being returned without docketing or consideration. Papers cannot be filed without indicating that they have been served on all the parties in your action. (Coleman, Laurie) (Entered: 01/18/2017)

Jan. 17, 2017

Jan. 17, 2017

PACER
74

LETTER MOTION dated 1/7/2017 from Scott A. Greene to Judge Brown re : to be present at depositions of plaintiffs (or to be provided copies of each deposition); and to be provided with the names of the plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Mailing Envelope) (Coleman, Laurie) (Main Document 74 replaced on 1/27/2017) (Coleman, Laurie). Modified on 3/17/2017 (McMorrow, Karen). (Entered: 01/27/2017)

Jan. 26, 2017

Jan. 26, 2017

PACER
74

LETTER MOTION dated 1/7/2017 from Scott A. Greene to Judge Brown re : to be present at depositions of plaintiffs (or to be provided copies of each deposition); and to be provided with the names of the plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Mailing Envelope) (Coleman, Laurie) (Main Document 74 replaced on 1/27/2017) (Coleman, Laurie). Modified on 3/17/2017 (McMorrow, Karen). (Entered: 01/27/2017)

Jan. 26, 2017

Jan. 26, 2017

PACER
75

MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis by Scott Greene. (Attachments: # 1 Mailing Envelope) (Coleman, Laurie) (Entered: 02/08/2017)

Feb. 3, 2017

Feb. 3, 2017

PACER
75

MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis by Scott Greene. (Attachments: # 1 Mailing Envelope) (Coleman, Laurie) (Entered: 02/08/2017)

Feb. 3, 2017

Feb. 3, 2017

PACER

Motions terminated, docketed incorrectly: 75 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis filed by Scott Greene. Document is an affidavit in support of 70 . (McMorrow, Karen)

Feb. 3, 2017

Feb. 3, 2017

PACER

Motions terminated, docketed incorrectly: 75 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis filed by Scott Greene. Document is an affidavit in support of 70 . (McMorrow, Karen)

Feb. 3, 2017

Feb. 3, 2017

PACER

Electronic ORDER denying without prejudice 73 Defendant Greene's Motion to Appoint Counsel and Motion to Stay. The Defendant Greene's motion is insufficient because it does not provide any financial information. The Pro Se Office is respectfully directed to mail a copy of this order along with form AO 239 to the Defendant Greene. The Defendant Greene is granted leave to refile the motions with the completed form. So Ordered by Judge Arthur D. Spatt on 2/6/2017. (Fell, Christopher)

Feb. 6, 2017

Feb. 6, 2017

PACER

Electronic ORDER denying without prejudice 73 Defendant Greene's Motion to Appoint Counsel and Motion to Stay. The Defendant Greene's motion is insufficient because it does not provide any financial information. The Pro Se Office is respectfully directed to mail a copy of this order along with form AO 239 to the Defendant Greene. The Defendant Greene is granted leave to refile the motions with the completed form. So Ordered by Judge Arthur D. Spatt on 2/6/2017. (Fell, Christopher)

Feb. 6, 2017

Feb. 6, 2017

PACER
76

MOTION to compel/Letter respectfully submitted to request that the Court So Order the attached proposed order authorizing the release of Scott Greene's Grand Jury minutes. Filed by The County of Suffolk (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) (Lopez, L. Adriana) Modified on 3/10/2017 (McMorrow, Karen). (Entered: 03/09/2017)

March 9, 2017

March 9, 2017

PACER
76

MOTION to compel/Letter respectfully submitted to request that the Court So Order the attached proposed order authorizing the release of Scott Greene's Grand Jury minutes. Filed by The County of Suffolk (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) (Lopez, L. Adriana) Modified on 3/10/2017 (McMorrow, Karen). (Entered: 03/09/2017)

March 9, 2017

March 9, 2017

PACER

ELECTRONIC ORDER denying without prejudice 76 Motion to Compel. The application is denied without prejudice to renewal after the County makes the appropriate application before the Suffolk County court. Only upon denial of such application may the County renew this application. A copy of this order shall be served on pro se defendant and proof of service filed with the court forthwith. Ordered by Magistrate Judge Gary R. Brown on 3/15/2017. (Meehan, James)

March 15, 2017

March 15, 2017

PACER

ELECTRONIC ORDER denying without prejudice 76 Motion to Compel. The application is denied without prejudice to renewal after the County makes the appropriate application before the Suffolk County court. Only upon denial of such application may the County renew this application. A copy of this order shall be served on pro se defendant and proof of service filed with the court forthwith. Ordered by Magistrate Judge Gary R. Brown on 3/15/2017. (Meehan, James)

March 15, 2017

March 15, 2017

PACER

ELECTRONIC ORDER re 74 . Plaintiffs are hereby directed to respond to defendant Scott Greene's letter motion, DE 74, by close of business March 25, 2017. To the extent that co-defendants wish to file a response as well, such response shall be filed by the same deadline. Plaintiffs are to serve a copy of this Order on pro se defendant Greene and file an affidavit of service forthwith. Ordered by Magistrate Judge Gary R. Brown on 3/20/2017. (Meehan, James)

March 20, 2017

March 20, 2017

PACER

ELECTRONIC ORDER re 74 . Plaintiffs are hereby directed to respond to defendant Scott Greene's letter motion, DE 74, by close of business March 25, 2017. To the extent that co-defendants wish to file a response as well, such response shall be filed by the same deadline. Plaintiffs are to serve a copy of this Order on pro se defendant Greene and file an affidavit of service forthwith. Ordered by Magistrate Judge Gary R. Brown on 3/20/2017. (Meehan, James)

March 20, 2017

March 20, 2017

PACER
77

LETTER dated 3/15/2017 from Scott Greene to Judge Brown re Defendant writes to inquire about the status of the courts decision on his request for appointment of counsel. (Attachments: # 1 Mailing Envelope) (Coleman, Laurie) (Entered: 03/22/2017)

March 20, 2017

March 20, 2017

PACER
77

LETTER dated 3/15/2017 from Scott Greene to Judge Brown re Defendant writes to inquire about the status of the courts decision on his request for appointment of counsel. (Attachments: # 1 Mailing Envelope) (Coleman, Laurie) (Entered: 03/22/2017)

March 20, 2017

March 20, 2017

PACER
78

Letter from K. Mallory Brennan of Shearman & Sterling LLP to Magistrate Judge Gary R. Brown RE: Plaintiffs' Response to Letter Motion filed by Defendant Scott Greene on January 27, 2017 (Dkt. 74) by Plaintiffs #1-21 (Brennan, Katherine) (Entered: 03/24/2017)

March 24, 2017

March 24, 2017

PACER
78

Letter from K. Mallory Brennan of Shearman & Sterling LLP to Magistrate Judge Gary R. Brown RE: Plaintiffs' Response to Letter Motion filed by Defendant Scott Greene on January 27, 2017 (Dkt. 74) by Plaintiffs #1-21 (Brennan, Katherine) (Entered: 03/24/2017)

March 24, 2017

March 24, 2017

PACER
79

MOTION for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery / Stipulation Regarding Proposed Extension of Fact Discovery Cut-Off Date by Plaintiffs #1-21. (Brennan, Katherine) (Entered: 04/05/2017)

April 5, 2017

April 5, 2017

PACER
79

MOTION for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery / Stipulation Regarding Proposed Extension of Fact Discovery Cut-Off Date by Plaintiffs #1-21. (Brennan, Katherine) (Entered: 04/05/2017)

April 5, 2017

April 5, 2017

PACER

Case Details

State / Territory: New York

Case Type(s):

Policing

Key Dates

Filing Date: April 29, 2015

Case Ongoing: Yes

Plaintiffs

Plaintiff Description:

Twenty Latino residents of Suffolk County, New York, who experienced racial profiling by Suffolk County police officers.

Plaintiff Type(s):

Private Plaintiff

Attorney Organizations:

LatinoJustice PRLDEF

Public Interest Lawyer: Yes

Filed Pro Se: No

Class Action Sought: Yes

Class Action Outcome: Granted

Defendants

The County of Suffolk (Suffolk), County

Suffolk County Police Department (Suffolk), County

Defendant Type(s):

Jurisdiction-wide

Law-enforcement

Case Details

Causes of Action:

42 U.S.C. § 1983

Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201

Title VI, Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000d et seq.

Constitutional Clause(s):

Due Process

Due Process: Procedural Due Process

Equal Protection

Unreasonable search and seizure

Availably Documents:

Trial Court Docket

Complaint (any)

Outcome

Prevailing Party: None Yet / None

Nature of Relief:

None yet

Source of Relief:

None yet

Issues

General:

Failure to discipline

Failure to supervise

Failure to train

Inadequate citizen complaint investigations and procedures

Pattern or Practice

Racial profiling

Record-keeping

Search policies

Discrimination-basis:

Immigration status

National origin discrimination

Race discrimination

National Origin/Ethnicity:

Hispanic