UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA MAYTEE BUCKLEY, an individual, YVONNE PARMS, an individual, and LESLIE

PARMS, an individual, Plaintiffs VERSUS TOM SCHEDLER, in his official capacity as The Secretary of State of Louisiana, Defendant COMPLAINT INTRODUCTION 1. Plaintiffs bring this action to challenge the constitutionality of JUDGE ________________________ MAG. JUDGE __________________ CIVIL ACTION NO.:

Louisianas Congressional District 2 as a racial gerrymander in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. 2. Until recently, Louisiana was deemed a covered jurisdiction under the

Voting Rights Act of 1965. Accordingly, its congressional maps were subject to preclearance by the federal government. 3. In the name of avoiding retrogression, Louisiana has used Section 5 as a

justification to racially gerrymander congressional districts, specifically by packing African-American voters into Congressional District 2 and thereby diminishing their influence in surrounding districts. 4. On June 25, 2013, in Shelby County v. Holder, 570 U.S. ____, 133 S. Ct.

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

COMPLAINT 1

70916-0019/LEGAL27626678.4

Case 3:13-cv-00763-SDD-RLB Document 1

11/25/13 Page 1 of 12

in Section 4(b) of the Voting Rights Act is unconstitutional. As a result, Louisiana is no longer a covered jurisdiction for purposes of Section 5. 5. Louisiana can no longer seek refuge in Section 5 as an excuse to racially

gerrymander Congressional District 2. Drawn with race as its predominant purpose, this district cannot pass constitutional muster. 6. Plaintiffs seek a declaration that Louisianas Congressional District 2 is

invalid and an injunction prohibiting the Defendant from calling, holding, supervising, or taking any action with respect to Congressional elections based on the Congressional District 2 as it currently stands. PARTIES 7. Plaintiff Maytee Buckley is a United States citizen and registered voter in

the State of Louisiana. She currently resides in Congressional District 2. 8. Plaintiff Yvonne Parms is a United States citizen and registered voter in

the State of Louisiana. She currently resides in Congressional District 2. 9. Plaintiff Leslie Parms is a United States citizen and registered voter in the

State of Louisiana. He currently resides in Congressional District 2. 10. Defendant Tom Schedler, Louisianas Secretary of State, is the chief

election officer of the state. He, in his official capacity as Louisianas Secretary of State, is responsible for preparing and certifying the ballots for all elections, promulgating all election returns, and administering the election laws.

COMPLAINT 2

70916-0019/LEGAL27626678.4

Case 3:13-cv-00763-SDD-RLB Document 1

11/25/13 Page 2 of 12

JURISDICTION AND VENUE 11. This Court has jurisdiction to hear Plaintiffs claim pursuant to 42 U.S.C.

1983 and 1988, and 28 U.S.C. 1331, 1343(a)(3), and 1357. This Court has jurisdiction to grant declaratory relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2201 and 2202. 12. A three-judge district court is requested pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2284(a),

as Plaintiffs action challeng[es] the constitutionality of the apportionment of congressional districts in Louisiana. 13. Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. 1391(b). FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS 14. On April 13, 2011, the Louisiana State Legislature established

Louisianas six Congressional districts, set forth at La. Rev. Stat. 18:1276.1 (hereinafter 2011 Congressional Plan). 15. Between 2000 and 2010, Louisianas total population grew by 1.4 percent

from 4,468,976 to 4,533,372. Louisianas growth rate was far below the national growth rate of 9.7 percent over the same period. As a result, Louisiana lost one congressional district, reducing its delegation in the U.S. House of Representatives from seven members to six. 16. Before considering congressional redistricting plans in 2011, committees

in both houses of the Louisiana State Legislature established various guidelines to govern the redistricting process. 17. Those guidelines provided minimally acceptable criteria for

consideration of any redistricting plan, including: a. All redistricting plans shall comply with the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and the Fifteenth Amendment to the U.S.

COMPLAINT 3

70916-0019/LEGAL27626678.4

Case 3:13-cv-00763-SDD-RLB Document 1

11/25/13 Page 3 of 12

Constitution; Sections 2 and 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, as amended; and all other applicable federal and state law. b. All redistricting plans shall respect the recognized political boundaries and natural geography of this state, to the extent practicable. c. [D]ue consideration shall be given to, under the Senate rules, existing district alignments, and, under the House rules, traditional district alignments. 18. The end result of the redistricting process was the 2011 Congressional

Plan, which includes Congressional District 2, shown below.

19.

Congressional District 2 includes parts of New Orleans, excluding the

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

COMPLAINT 4

70916-0019/LEGAL27626678.4

Case 3:13-cv-00763-SDD-RLB Document 1

11/25/13 Page 4 of 12

20.

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

more contorted than it had been under the prior congressional districting plan, adopted in 2001 (Former Congressional District 2). Former Congressional District 2 was relatively more compact and did not stretch west of Kenner or Jefferson Parish. Instead, it represented primarily one community: New Orleans. 21. Based on the 2010 Census, current Congressional District 2 has a total

African-American population of 62.9%. The African-American voting age population is 59.7%, and 61.6% of the Districts registered voters are African-American. 22. When enacted, Former Congressional District 2 had a total African-

American population of 64.8%, and an African-American voting age population of 60.3%. At that time, 60.7% of registered voters were African-American. 23. As both a qualitative and quantitative matter, Congressional District 2 is

not compact. Congressional District 2 also disregards key political subdivisions and geographical boundaries and subordinates other traditional districting principles. 24. The shape of Congressional District 2 is bizarre on its face. It snakes up

the Mississippi River in southeastern Louisiana, connecting western New Orleans with eastern and northern Baton Rouge. The District starts in New Orleans and Orleans Parish but stops short of the border with Jefferson Parish, leaving part of New Orleans and Metairie in Congressional District 1. It then follows the southern shore of the Mississippi River, hopping across the river to cut Kenner, St. Rose, and New Sarpy out of Congressional Districts 1 and 6 on the north shore. It continues up the Mississippi to include Gonzales, White Castle, Plaquemine, Addis, and Port Allen. The District makes a final jump back over the Mississippi to include eastern and northern Baton Rouge.

COMPLAINT 5

70916-0019/LEGAL27626678.4

Case 3:13-cv-00763-SDD-RLB Document 1

11/25/13 Page 5 of 12

25.

Congressional District 2s tortured shape further contorts the districts

around it. Congressional District 6 surrounds Congressional District 2 on three sides, appearing to shoot Congressional District 2 out of its cragged jaws like a crooked tongue. 26. One widely used measure of compactness is the Reock score, which

measures the ratio between the area of the district and the area of the smallest circle that can fit around the district. The Reock scale ranges from 0.0 to 1.0. Districts that have a lower Reock score are generally less compact than districts that have a higher Reock score. Congressional District 2 has a Reock score of 0.18. 27. The Reock score of Congressional District 2 is far worse than it had been

before the 2011 Congressional Plan. Former Congressional District 2 had a Reock score of 0.32, almost twice the score of the new district. 28. The Reock score of Congressional District 2 is also far worse than any

other district under the 2011 Congressional Plan: a. District 1: 0.46 b. District 3: 0.40 c. District 4: 0.34 d. District 5: 0.37 e. District 6: 0.38 The mean Reock score of all six congressional districts is 0.35, nearly double the score of Congressional District 2. 29. Congressional District 2 also violates the redistricting guidelines

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

COMPLAINT 6

70916-0019/LEGAL27626678.4

Case 3:13-cv-00763-SDD-RLB Document 1

11/25/13 Page 6 of 12

political boundaries and natural geography of Louisiana. Former Congressional District 2 included parts of two parishes: Orleans and Jefferson. Current Congressional District 2 includes parts of 10 parishes: Orleans Parish, Jefferson Parish, St. Charles Parish, St. John the Baptist Parish, St. James Parish, Assumption Parish, Ascension Parish, Iberville Parish, West Baton Rouge Parish, and East Baton Rouge Parish. Of these, only St. James Parish is located entirely in Congressional District 2. All of the other parishes are split between Congressional District 2 and neighboring districts. 30. Congressional District 2 also divides the cities of New Orleans and Baton

Rouge into multiple districts, further disregarding recognized political boundaries. 31. The 2011 Congressional Plan also violates the guideline that due

consideration shall be given to existing district alignments. Congressional District 2 includes portions of four different congressional districts drawn in 2001. 32. Congressional District 2 subordinates traditional redistricting criteria and

violates Louisianas redistricting guidelines because the Louisiana State Legislature was primarily motivated by race when it adopted the new boundaries for Congressional District 2. Between 2000 and 2010, the total population and the African-American population of New Orleans decreased. On information and belief, the Louisiana State Legislature cherry-picked African-American neighborhoods in New Orleans and Baton Rouge and packed them into one district. The result is a contorted congressional district based primarily--if not entirely--on race. 33. The decrease in African-American population in Congressional District 6,

which is adjacent to Congressional District 2, is further evidence of the Louisiana State Legislatures racial motivations. Former Congressional District 6 included Baton Rouge

COMPLAINT 7

70916-0019/LEGAL27626678.4

Case 3:13-cv-00763-SDD-RLB Document 1

11/25/13 Page 7 of 12

and has now been split between current Congressional Districts 2, 5, and 6. When enacted, former Congressional District 6 had a total African-American population of 33.6%, and an African-American voting age population of 31.7%. At that time, 28.1% of the registered voters were African-American. Current Congressional District 6 now has a total African-American Population of 23.6%--a decrease of almost ten percentage points--and an African-American voting age population of 21.5%. As of 2011, 20.1% of the registered voters in current Congressional District 6 were African-American--a decrease of eight percentage points. Current Congressional District 5, which includes parts of a number of former districts such as Congressional District 5 and Congressional District 6, also increased its African-American population, but the increase did not come from the parishes captured from former Congressional District 6. 34. As of the date of the enactment of the 2011 Congressional Plan,

Louisiana was considered a covered jurisdiction under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. 1973c. Accordingly, the 2011 Congressional Plan was subject to preclearance by either the United States Department of Justice or the United States District Court for the District of Columbia before it could take effect. 35. On June 2, 2011, the State of Louisiana submitted its submission under

Section 5 to the United States Department of Justice. 36. On June 25, 2013, the United States Supreme Court issued its opinion in

Shelby County v. Holder, 570 U.S. ____, 133 S. Ct. 2612 (2013), holding that the coverage formula provided in Section 4(b) of the Voting Rights Act is unconstitutional. As a result, the State of Louisiana is no longer a covered jurisdiction and need not meet preclearance requirements under Section 5.

COMPLAINT 8

70916-0019/LEGAL27626678.4

Case 3:13-cv-00763-SDD-RLB Document 1

11/25/13 Page 8 of 12

37.

Upon information and belief, Section 5 preclearance requirements were

used as a justification to pack African-American voters into the bizarrely-shaped Congressional District 2. 38. Race was the predominant consideration in the creation of Congressional

District 2. No other factor explains the tortured shape of this district, its failure to comply with traditional districting principles, its failure to comply with the Louisiana State Legislatures own redistricting guidelines, or the high concentration of AfricanAmerican voters in the district. 39. The predominant consideration of race with respect to Congressional

District 2 is not justified by a compelling state interest. 40. In particular, in the wake of Shelby County, Section 5 cannot justify the

use of race as a predominant factor in drawing congressional district lines. 41. Nor can Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 justify the use of race

as a predominant factor in drawing Congressional District 2. African-American voters in this district are able to elect candidates of their choice without constituting 59.7% of the District's voting age population. 42. Even if there were a compelling state interest to create and maintain

Congressional District 2 with race as the predominant factor, Congressional District 2 is not narrowly tailored to achieve that interest. There are other viable and constitutionally permissible alternatives to Congressional District 2.

COMPLAINT 9

70916-0019/LEGAL27626678.4

Case 3:13-cv-00763-SDD-RLB Document 1

11/25/13 Page 9 of 12

CAUSE OF ACTION Violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution 43. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference, as if fully set forth herein,

the allegations in paragraphs 1-42 above. 44. The Fourteenth Amendment of Section 1 of the United States

Constitution provides in relevant part: No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. 45. District 2. 46. The use of race as the predominant factor with respect to Congressional Race was the predominant factor in the creation of Congressional

District 2 is not narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest. 47. Accordingly, Congressional District 2 violates the Equal Protection

Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. 48. Plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at law other than the judicial relief

sought here. The failure to temporarily and permanently enjoin the conduct of elections based on Congressional District 2 will irreparably harm Plaintiffs by violating their constitutional rights. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs request that this Court: A. Convene a court of three judges pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2284(a);

COMPLAINT 10

70916-0019/LEGAL27626678.4

Case 3:13-cv-00763-SDD-RLB Document 1

11/25/13 Page 10 of 12

B.

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

racial gerrymander in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment; C. Issue a permanent injunction enjoining Defendant from enforcing or giving

any effect to the boundaries of Congressional District 2 as drawn in the 2011 Congressional Plan, including an injunction barring Defendant from conducting any elections for the United States House of Representatives based on Congressional District 2; D. Hold hearings, consider briefing and evidence, and otherwise take actions

necessary to determine and order a valid plan for new congressional districts in the State of Louisiana; and E. Grant such other or further relief the Court deems to be appropriate, including

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

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

/s/ Christopher L. Whittington CHRISTOPHER L. WHITTINGTON Bar Roll No.: 22184 P. O. Box 3035 Baton Rouge, LA 70821-3035 Telephone: (225) 346-8777 Facsimile: (225) 346-0009 Email: chris@whittingtonlawfirm.com

COMPLAINT 11

70916-0019/LEGAL27626678.4

Case 3:13-cv-00763-SDD-RLB Document 1

11/25/13 Page 11 of 12

COMPLAINT 12

70916-0019/LEGAL27626678.4

Case 3:13-cv-00763-SDD-RLB Document 1

11/25/13 Page 12 of 12

JS 44 (Rev. 12/12)

CIVIL COVER SHEET

The JS 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replace nor supplement the filing and service of pleadings or other papers as required by law, except as provided by local rules of court. This form, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is required for the use of the Clerk of Court for the purpose of initiating the civil docket sheet. (SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON NEXT PAGE OF THIS FORM.)

I. (a) PLAINTIFFS
Maytee Buckley, Yvonne Parms and Leslie Parms
(b) County of Residence of First Listed Plaintiff

DEFENDANTS
Tom Schedler
County of Residence of First Listed Defendant
NOTE:

East Baton Rouge Parish

East Baton Rouge Parish

(EXCEPT IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES)

(IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES ONLY) IN LAND CONDEMNATION CASES, USE THE LOCATION OF THE TRACT OF LAND INVOLVED.

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

Christopher L. Whittington P. O. Box 3035 Baton Rouge, LA 70821 (225) 346-8777

Attorneys (If Known)

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

1 U.S. Government Plaintiff U.S. Government Defendant 3 Federal Question (U.S. Government Not a Party) Diversity (Indicate Citizenship of Parties in Item III)

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

(For Diversity Cases Only) PTF Citizen of This State 1 Citizen of Another State Citizen or Subject of a Foreign Country 2 3 DEF 1 2 3 and One Box for Defendant) PTF DEF Incorporated or Principal Place 4 4 of Business In This State Incorporated and Principal Place of Business In Another State Foreign Nation 5 6 5 6

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

CONTRACT 110 Insurance 120 Marine 130 Miller Act 140 Negotiable Instrument 150 Recovery of Overpayment & Enforcement of Judgment 151 Medicare Act 152 Recovery of Defaulted Student Loans (Excludes Veterans) 153 Recovery of Overpayment of Veterans Benefits 160 Stockholders Suits 190 Other Contract 195 Contract Product Liability 196 Franchise REAL PROPERTY 210 Land Condemnation 220 Foreclosure 230 Rent Lease & Ejectment 240 Torts to Land 245 Tort Product Liability 290 All Other Real Property TORTS PERSONAL INJURY 310 Airplane 315 Airplane Product Liability 320 Assault, Libel & Slander 330 Federal Employers Liability 340 Marine 345 Marine Product Liability 350 Motor Vehicle 355 Motor Vehicle Product Liability 360 Other Personal Injury 362 Personal Injury Medical Malpractice CIVIL RIGHTS 440 Other Civil Rights 441 Voting 442 Employment 443 Housing/ Accommodations 445 Amer. w/Disabilities Employment 446 Amer. w/Disabilities Other 448 Education PERSONAL INJURY 365 Personal Injury Product Liability 367 Health Care/ Pharmaceutical Personal Injury Product Liability 368 Asbestos Personal Injury Product Liability PERSONAL PROPERTY 370 Other Fraud 371 Truth in Lending 380 Other Personal Property Damage 385 Property Damage Product Liability PRISONER PETITIONS Habeas Corpus: 463 Alien Detainee 510 Motions to Vacate Sentence 530 General 535 Death Penalty Other: 540 Mandamus & Other 550 Civil Rights 555 Prison Condition 560 Civil Detainee Conditions of Confinement FORFEITURE/PENALTY 625 Drug Related Seizure of Property 21 USC 881 690 Other BANKRUPTCY 422 Appeal 28 USC 158 423 Withdrawal 28 USC 157 PROPERTY RIGHTS 820 Copyrights 830 Patent 840 Trademark LABOR 710 Fair Labor Standards Act 720 Labor/Management Relations 740 Railway Labor Act 751 Family and Medical Leave Act 790 Other Labor Litigation 791 Employee Retirement Income Security Act SOCIAL SECURITY 861 HIA (1395ff) 862 Black Lung (923) 863 DIWC/DIWW (405(g)) 864 SSID Title XVI 865 RSI (405(g)) OTHER STATUTES 375 False Claims Act 400 State Reapportionment 410 Antitrust 430 Banks and Banking 450 Commerce 460 Deportation 470 Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations 480 Consumer Credit 490 Cable/Sat TV 850 Securities/Commodities/ Exchange 890 Other Statutory Actions 891 Agricultural Acts 893 Environmental Matters 895 Freedom of Information Act 896 Arbitration 899 Administrative Procedure Act/Review or Appeal of Agency Decision 950 Constitutionality of State Statutes

FEDERAL TAX SUITS 870 Taxes (U.S. Plaintiff or Defendant) 871 IRSThird Party 26 USC 7609

IMMIGRATION 462 Naturalization Application 465 Other Immigration Actions

V. ORIGIN (Place an X in One Box Only)

1 Original Proceeding 2 Removed from State Court 3 Remanded from Appellate Court 4 Reinstated or Reopened 5 Transferred from Another District
(specify)

6 Multidistrict Litigation

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

VI. CAUSE OF ACTION Brief description of cause:

42 U.S.C. Section 1983

Unconstitutionality of congressional district

DEMAND $ CHECK YES only if demanded in complaint: Yes No JURY DEMAND: DOCKET NUMBER

CHECK IF THIS IS A CLASS ACTION VII. REQUESTED IN UNDER RULE 23, F.R.Cv.P. COMPLAINT: VIII. RELATED CASE(S) (See instructions): IF ANY JUDGE
DATE FOR OFFICE USE ONLY RECEIPT # AMOUNT

SIGNATURE OF ATTORNEY OF RECORD

/s/ Christopher L. Whittington

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

Print

Save As...

Reset

JS 44 Reverse (Rev. 12/12)

INSTRUCTIONS FOR ATTORNEYS COMPLETING CIVIL COVER SHEET FORM JS 44

Authority For Civil Cover Sheet
The JS 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replaces nor supplements the filings and service of pleading or other papers as required by law, except as provided by local rules of court. This form, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is required for the use of the Clerk of Court for the purpose of initiating the civil docket sheet. Consequently, a civil cover sheet is submitted to the Clerk of Court for each civil complaint filed. The attorney filing a case should complete the form as follows: I.(a) Plaintiffs-Defendants. Enter names (last, first, middle initial) of plaintiff and defendant. If the plaintiff or defendant is a government agency, use only the full name or standard abbreviations. If the plaintiff or defendant is an official within a government agency, identify first the agency and then the official, giving both name and title. County of Residence. For each civil case filed, except U.S. plaintiff cases, enter the name of the county where the first listed plaintiff resides at the time of filing. In U.S. plaintiff cases, enter the name of the county in which the first listed defendant resides at the time of filing. (NOTE: In land condemnation cases, the county of residence of the "defendant" is the location of the tract of land involved.) Attorneys. Enter the firm name, address, telephone number, and attorney of record. If there are several attorneys, list them on an attachment, noting in this section "(see attachment)". Jurisdiction. The basis of jurisdiction is set forth under Rule 8(a), F.R.Cv.P., which requires that jurisdictions be shown in pleadings. Place an "X" in one of the boxes. If there is more than one basis of jurisdiction, precedence is given in the order shown below. United States plaintiff. (1) Jurisdiction based on 28 U.S.C. 1345 and 1348. Suits by agencies and officers of the United States are included here. United States defendant. (2) When the plaintiff is suing the United States, its officers or agencies, place an "X" in this box. Federal question. (3) This refers to suits under 28 U.S.C. 1331, where jurisdiction arises under the Constitution of the United States, an amendment to the Constitution, an act of Congress or a treaty of the United States. In cases where the U.S. is a party, the U.S. plaintiff or defendant code takes precedence, and box 1 or 2 should be marked. Diversity of citizenship. (4) This refers to suits under 28 U.S.C. 1332, where parties are citizens of different states. When Box 4 is checked, the citizenship of the different parties must be checked. (See Section III below; NOTE: federal question actions take precedence over diversity cases.) Residence (citizenship) of Principal Parties. This section of the JS 44 is to be completed if diversity of citizenship was indicated above. Mark this section for each principal party. Nature of Suit. Place an "X" in the appropriate box. If the nature of suit cannot be determined, be sure the cause of action, in Section VI below, is sufficient to enable the deputy clerk or the statistical clerk(s) in the Administrative Office to determine the nature of suit. If the cause fits more than one nature of suit, select the most definitive. Origin. Place an "X" in one of the six boxes. Original Proceedings. (1) Cases which originate in the United States district courts. Removed from State Court. (2) Proceedings initiated in state courts may be removed to the district courts under Title 28 U.S.C., Section 1441. When the petition for removal is granted, check this box. Remanded from Appellate Court. (3) Check this box for cases remanded to the district court for further action. Use the date of remand as the filing date. Reinstated or Reopened. (4) Check this box for cases reinstated or reopened in the district court. Use the reopening date as the filing date. Transferred from Another District. (5) For cases transferred under Title 28 U.S.C. Section 1404(a). Do not use this for within district transfers or multidistrict litigation transfers. Multidistrict Litigation. (6) Check this box when a multidistrict case is transferred into the district under authority of Title 28 U.S.C. Section 1407. When this box is checked, do not check (5) above. Cause of Action. Report the civil statute directly related to the cause of action and give a brief description of the cause. Do not cite jurisdictional statutes unless diversity. Example: U.S. Civil Statute: 47 USC 553 Brief Description: Unauthorized reception of cable service Requested in Complaint. Class Action. Place an "X" in this box if you are filing a class action under Rule 23, F.R.Cv.P. Demand. In this space enter the actual dollar amount being demanded or indicate other demand, such as a preliminary injunction. Jury Demand. Check the appropriate box to indicate whether or not a jury is being demanded.

(b)

(c)

II.

III.

IV.

V.

VI.

VII.

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

Case 3:13-cv-00763-SDD-RLB Document 1-1

11/25/13 Page 2 of 2

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

for the

Middle District of Louisiana __________ District of __________

Maytee Buckley, Yvonne Parms and Leslie Parms

Plaintiff(s)

v.
Tom Schedler

Defendant(s)

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

Civil Action No.

SUMMONS IN A CIVIL ACTION To: (Defendants name and address)

Tom Schedler Louisiana Secretary of State 8585 Archives Ave. Baton Rouge, LA 70809

A lawsuit has been filed against you. Within 21 days after service of this summons on you (not counting the day you received it) or 60 days if you are the United States or a United States agency, or an officer or employee of the United States described in Fed. R. Civ. P. 12 (a)(2) or (3) you must serve on the plaintiff an answer to the attached complaint or a motion under Rule 12 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The answer or motion must be served on the plaintiff or plaintiffs attorney, whose name and address are:
Christopher L. Whittington P. O. Box 3035 Baton Rouge, LA 70821

If you fail to respond, judgment by default will be entered against you for the relief demanded in the complaint. You also must file your answer or motion with the court.

CLERK OF COURT

Date:
Signature of Clerk or Deputy Clerk

Case 3:13-cv-00763-SDD-RLB Document 1-2

11/25/13 Page 1 of 2

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

Civil Action No. PROOF OF SERVICE (This section should not be filed with the court unless required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 (l)) This summons for (name of individual and title, if any) was received by me on (date)
Tom Schedler, Louisiana Secretary of State

I personally served the summons on the individual at (place) on (date) I left the summons at the individuals residence or usual place of abode with (name) , a person of suitable age and discretion who resides there, on (date) , and mailed a copy to the individuals last known address; or , who is on (date) I returned the summons unexecuted because Other (specify): . My fees are $ for travel and $ for services, for a total of $ . ; or ; or ; or

I served the summons on (name of individual) designated by law to accept service of process on behalf of (name of organization)

0.00

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

Date:
Servers signature

Christopher L. Whittington
Printed name and title

835 Louisiana Ave., Baton Rouge, LA 70802

Servers address

Additional information regarding attempted service, etc:

Print

Case 3:13-cv-00763-SDD-RLB Document 1-2

Save As...

11/25/13 Page 2 of 2

Reset