Case 5:13-cv-00982-OLG Document 1 Filed 10/28/13 Page 1 of 16

IN TIlE UNITFI) STATFS I)ISTRICT COURT FOR IlL SI [RN DISTRI( T O[ I F\ S SAN ANTONIO I)IVISION

CLEOIATRA l)F LEON, NICOLE DIMETMAN, VICTOR HOLMES, and MARK I IIARISS 7

Plaintiffs,
V.

§ § § § § §
§ CIVILACTION NO.

RICK PERRY, in his official capacity as Governor of the State of Texas, GREG ABBOTT, in his official capacity as Texas Attorney General, GERARI) RICKHOFF, in his official capacity as Bexar County Clerk, and DAVID LAKEY, in his official capacity as Commissioner of the Texas I)epartment of State Health Services Defendants.

§ § § § § § § § § § § § §

lLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY ANI) INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
Plaintiffs Cleopatra De Leon, Nicole 1)imetrnan, Victor (“Vie”) I lolmes, and Mark

Phariss complain of I)efendants and allege:
I. INTRODUCTION

1.

This suit seeks to redress a grave deprivation of constitutional rights that directly

harms a discrete but substantial minority of United States citizens residing in the State of Texas. Any person has the legal right to marry another person of the opposite se. hut that right is denied to those citizens who wish to marry another person of the same sex. This unequal treatment of gay and lesbian citizens is based on longstanding prejudices. and it is repugnant to the United States Constitution. As the Linited States Supreme Court recently declared, “[t]he
PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT
105030373

Page

1

Case 5:13-cv-00982-OLG Document 1 Filed 10/28/13 Page 2 of 16

Constitutions guarantee of equality ‘must at the very least mean that a bare congressional desire to harm a politically unpopular group cannot’ justify disparate treatment of that group.
United 5ates v Windsor, 133 5. Ct. 2675. 2693 (2013) (quoting Dept. o!Agrie. v Moreno, 413

U.S. 528 (1973)). The constitutional guarantee of equality also protects against such disparate treatment when the desire to harm manifests itself in state legislation or state constitutional provisions. 2. The “freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal

rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.” Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. I, 12 (1967), Numerous Supreme Court cases recognize the important of marriage. It is “among associational rights this Court has ranked as ‘of basic important in our society,’” ML.B. v. S.L.J. 519 U.S. 102, 116(1996); it is a “freedom of personal choice” that is “one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment,” Cleveland Rd. o/Edue. v LaFleur. 414 U.S. 632. 639 (1974); and it is the “most important relation in life,” Zablocki v Redhail, 434 U.S. 374, 384 (1978) (quoting !Vfaynardv. Hill, 125 U.S. 190, 205 (1888)). Despite this, Texas not only forbids same-sex couples from enjoying the “vital personal right” of marriage, Texas’ Constitution expressly forbids Texas and its political subdivisions from “creat[ing] or recogniz[ingj any legal status identical or similar to marriage.” Tex. Const., art. 1,

§ 32.
3. This lawsuit is brought by Ibur citizens, each of whom wishes for the State of

Texas to allow and recognize their marriages, but the State of Texas will not—simply because Plaintiffs wish to be married to someone of the same sex. Two of the Plaintiffs served honorably in our nation’s armed forces, defending our freedoms. All of the Plaintiffs contribute to our nation’s well-being as productive and conscientious citizens. Yet the State of

PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT
I 05030373

Page 2

Case 5:13-cv-00982-OLG Document 1 Filed 10/28/13 Page 3 of 16

Texas denies them the same access to the institution of mamage, and its attendant benefits, enjoyed by every individual who wishes to marry a person of the opposite sex. The State of Texas has no justification for depriving Plaintiffs of their rights in this way. 4. In Texas, Plaintiffs cannot legally marry their partner before family, friends, and

society—a right enjoyed by citizens who wish to marry a person of the opposite sex. And should they become married in a state that has established marriage equality, Texas explicitly voids their marriage. There is no rational basis, much less a compelling government purpose, for Texas to deny Plaintiffs the same right to marry enjoyed by the majority of society. Accordingly, Plaintiffs petition this Court for a declaratory judgment that Article I,

§ 32 of the

Texas Constitution and corresponding statutes violate the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Plaintiffs also petition this Court for a permanent injunction enjoining Defendants from continuing to deprive Plaintiffs of their right to marry.
II. PARTIES

5.

Plaintiff Cleopatra Dc Leon is a Texas resident. She legally married Plaintiff

Nicole Dimetman in Massachusetts, and she wants the State of Texas to either recognize her marriage or allow her to re-marry Plaintiff Dimetman in Texas. 6. Plaintiff Nicole Dirnetman is a Texas resident. She legally married Plaintiff

Cleopatra Dc Leon in Massachusetts, and she wants the State of Texas to either recognize her marriage or allow her to re-marry Plaintiff Dc Leon in Texas. 7. Plaintiff Mark Phariss is a Texas resident. He wants to marry his long-time

partner, Plaintiff Vie Holmes, in Texas.
8.

Plaintiff Vie Holmes is a Texas resident. He wants to marry his long-time

partner, Plaintiff Mark Phariss, in Texas.
PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT 105030373 Page 3

Case 5:13-cv-00982-OLG Document 1 Filed 10/28/13 Page 4 of 16

9. capacities. 10.

Defendants are Texas State officials, and Plaintiffs sue them in their official

Defendant Riek Perry is the Governor of the State of lexas, and Plaintiffs sue

him in his official capacity. Plaintiffs will serve Governor Perry pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 11. Defendant Greg Abbott is the Attorney General of the State of Texas, and

Plaintiffs sue him in his official capacity. Plaintiffs will serve Defendant Abbott pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 12. Defendant Gerard Rickhoff is the County Clerk of Bexar County, Texas, and

Plaintiffs sue him in his official capacity. Plaintiffs will serve Defendant Rickhoff pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 13. Defendant David Lakey, M.D. is the commissioner of the Texas Department of

State Health Services, which includes the bureau of vital statistics, and Plaintiffs sue him in his official capacity. Plaintiffs will serve Defendant Lakey pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
III. JURISDICTION AND VENUE

14. U.S.C.

This case raises questions under the Constitution of the United States and 42

§ 1983 and, thus, this Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, 1343(a)(3)

and (4). 2201, and 2202.
15.

Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C.

§ 1391 because Defendant Rickhoff resides in

this district and all Defendants reside in Texas. Venue is also proper in this Court because a substantial part of the events giving rise to this claim occurred in this district.

PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT
105030373

Page 4

Case 5:13-cv-00982-OLG Document 1 Filed 10/28/13 Page 5 of 16

IV.

FACTUAL BACKGROUNI)

A. 16.

fle Leon and Dinietnian

Dc Leon and Dimetman met in 2001. At the time, Dirnetman was running her

own business and Dc Leon was working as a statistical analyst while also serving in the Texas Air National Guard. Dc Leon is a United States Air Force veteran; she was on active duty for four years and served six years in the Air National Guard. She was honorably discharged after ten years of service. 17.
Dc Leon and Dimetman started dating in September 2001. They have been in a

committed relationship since then. During this time, they supported one another while Dc Leon applied to and completed graduate school and while Dimetman applied to and completed law school. Dimetman is now an attorney licensed to practice law in the State of Texas. Dc Leon and Dimetman continue to share finances, live together, and have a loving, stable relationship. 18. As people in love often do, Dc Leon and Dimetman wanted to marry one

another, declaring their love and commitment before family, friends, and society. Because they lived in Texas, they were unable to marry in their home state. As a result, they incurred significant expense and traveled to Boston, Massachusetts, where they married on September 11, 2009. 19.
Dc Leon and Dimetman also wanted a family. In 2011, Dc Leon conceived, and

in 2012, gave birth to C. While Dc Leon is C’s biological parent, Dimetman adopted C. Dc Leon and Dimetman incurred significant expenses to ensure that the State of Texas recognized each as C’s parent. They each dedicate countless hours raising, loving, nurturing, educating,
and caring for C.

20.

Dc Leon and Dimetman’s marriage is recognized in the state of Massachusetts.

It would also be recognized in California, Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia,
PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT 105030373
Page 5

Case 5:13-cv-00982-OLG Document 1 Filed 10/28/13 Page 6 of 16

Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Jersey. New York, Rhode Island, Washington, and Vermont. 21. 22, Their marriage is not recognized by the State of ixas. Texas’ constitution and statutes prevented Dc Leon and Dimetman from

marrying in Texas. 23. If Texas allowed Dc Leon and Dimetman to marry or recognized their out-of-

state marriage, the federal government would recognize their marriage for all purposes, as required by the United States Supreme Court decision in United Stales v Windsor. 133 5. Ct. 2675 (June 26, 201 3). As a result of Texas’ constitutional and statutory provisions, however, the federal government does not recognize their marriage for all purposes.
B. Holmes and Phariss

24.

Holmes and Phariss met in the spring of 1997. At the time, Holmes was in the

Air Force and stationed in San Antonio. Phariss was and remains an attorney licensed to practice law in Texas. They quickly developed a friendship that blossomed into a dating relationship. On August 9, 1997, they went on their first date. They celebrate August 9 as their anniversary. 25. After dating for several months, Holmes and Phariss started living together.

Their relationship and love for one another continued to grow. While living together, Holmes, who joined the Air Force when he was eighteen, began a military program to become a physician’s assistant. After completing the program, Holmes became an officer, and the Air Force stationed him in San Diego at the Naval Medical Center. 26. Because Phariss continued to live and work in Texas, he and Holmes started an

eleven year period of extraordinary personal sacrifice to maintain and strengthen their relationship despite the distance between them. While Holmes was in San Diego, Phariss
PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT 105030373
Page 6

Case 5:13-cv-00982-OLG Document 1 Filed 10/28/13 Page 7 of 16

would travel to see I lolmes every few weeks (1 lol mes was generally unable to leave San Diego). The Air Force re-assigned Holmes to the Keesler Medical Center in Biloxi,
Mississippi. and Holmes and Phariss began commuting every other week (sometimes more) to see one another. The Air Force later stationed Holmes at the Air Force base in Little Rock.

Arkansas. and he and Phariss were able to see each other nearly every weekend. [loimes’ last assignment was at Sheppard Air Force base in Wichita i:alls. ‘I exas. During this time. Holmes
and Phariss were able to see one another each weekend and on special occasions during the

week.
27. Holmes honorably served our nation for nearly twenty-three years and retired as

a Major at the end of 201 0. After eleven years traveling to see one another and maintain and strengthen their relationship. I lolmes and Phariss were able to live together again. 28. 29.

On August 9. 2013. 1-lolmes and Phariss celebrated their sixteenth anniversary.
Holmes and Phariss want to marry one another and declare their love and

commitment to one another before family, tI’iends, and society. 30. Texas’ constitution and statutes prevented Holmes and Phariss from marrying in

Texas. On October 3. 2013, holmes and Phariss applied I’or marriage licenses from the Bexar County Clerk. The County ClerLs office refused to issue a marriage license because they are a same-sex couple. 31. If Holmes and Phariss were able to marry, the federal government would

recognize their marriage pursuant to the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Windsor.

PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT
105030373

Page 7

Case 5:13-cv-00982-OLG Document 1 Filed 10/28/13 Page 8 of 16

C.

Texas Denies Same-Sex Couples the Right to Marry or to Attain Any of the Rights Afforded Married heterosexual Couples. [he lexas Constitution defines marriage as ihe union oF one man and one

32.

woman. and ii prevents Texas and its political subdivisions from recognizing same—sex marriages. Tex. Consi.. art. 1
.

32. Not only does it prevent same—sex couples from marrying.

the Texas Constitution expressly lbrhids Texas and its political subdivisions 1mm creat[ing or recogniz[ing] any legal status identical or similar to marriage.” Id.
33.

Reflecting the Texas Constitution. the Texas Family Code prohibits county

clerks, including the Bexar County Clerk, from issuing marriage licenses to persons of the same-sex. Tex. Family Code Ann.

§ 2.001. The Texas Family Code requires the bureau of

vital statistics to prescribe the information required in a marriage license application, which is limited to heterosexual couples. id.
34.

§ 2.002.

The Texas Family Code also voids all same-sex marriages and all same-sex civil

unions. Id.

§ 6.204. Texas expressly denies same-sex couples from the right or claim to any

legal protection. benefit, or responsibility asserted as a result of a marriage between persons of the same sex or a civil union.” Id. Thus. the State of icxas nullifies the rights, benefits, and responsibilities that same-sex couples married in another jurisdiction would enjoy if they were
heterosexual.

PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT
105030373

Page 8

Case 5:13-cv-00982-OLG Document 1 Filed 10/28/13 Page 9 of 16

P. 35.

Plaintiffs’ Inability to Mam Causes Substantial Harm.

Texas’ constitutional and statutory provisions create a legal system in which civil

marriage is exclusively restricted to heterosexual couples. The Texas Constitution and various statutes den same—sex couples the right to enter into a civil marriage.
36.

Plaintiffs su lThred and

continue

to sufThr substantial and irreparable harm as a
social

result ot Texas refusal to recognize or allow same—sex marriages. These harms include

stigma. the loss ol federal rights, and the loss of state rights.
i.
37.

Plaintiffs suffer social stigma as a result of their inability to marry. Marriage plays a unique and central social, legal, and economic role in American

society. Marriage is a valued social institution, and married couples are treated differently than unmarried couples. Being married reflects the commitment that a couple makes to one another. and represents a public, legal acknowledgment of the value. legitimacy. depth. and permanence

of the married couple’s private relationship. Legally—recognized marriages conler rights and
responsibilities that are not available to unmarried couples.

38.

Texas’ constitutional and statutory prohibitions against recognizing same-sex

marriages convey the State’s view that PlainiilYs’ relationships are of lesser value than relationships of heterosexuals and are unworthy of legal recognition and support. The State’s refusal to recognize same-sex marriages is a very public rejection of Plaintiffs’ most significant relationship, and it harms Plaintiffs, any children Plaintiffs have, and their families. The reftisal to recognize same-sex marriage also invites and facilitates private discrimination against homosexuals and promotes the view that their relationships and families are inferior. 39. By prohibiting same-sex couples from marrying. Texas “places same-sex

couples in an unstable position.” “demeans” same-sex couples. “humiliates tens of thousands of children now being raised by same-sex couples,” and “instructs all [Statej officials. and indeed
PLAJNTIFFS’ ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUD(;MENT 105030373 Page 9

Case 5:13-cv-00982-OLG Document 1 Filed 10/28/13 Page 10 of 16

all persons with whom same-sex couples interact, including their own children, that their [relationship] is less worthy than the [relationship] of others.” United States v. Windsor, 133 S. Ct 2675,2694-96(2013). Similarly, by refusing to recognize the validity of same-sex marriages legally performed in other states. Texas treats those unions as second-class marriages. mndermin[ing] both the public and private significance of state-sanctioned same-sex marriages” by “tell[ing] those couples. and all the world, that their otherwise valid marriages are unworthy of [Texas’] recognition.” fit at 2693-94. IL 40. Plaintiffs’ inabffity to many affects numerous federal protections, benefits, and obligations.

Texas’ refusal to pennit Plaintiffs to marry or recognize their out-of-state

marriage deprives Plaintiffs of numerous federal protections, benefits, and obligations that are available to married same-sex couples. See hi at 2683 (noting that over 1,000 federal laws address marital or spousal status). These federal rights include, among others, having the same rights as heterosexual married couples in one another’s Social Security benefits, 42 U.S.C. 416, spousal privileges, seeking protections under the Family and Medical Leave Act 29 U.S.C. § 2612, and federal Medicaid benefits. 41. Same-sex couples residing in Texas cannot rely upon an out-of-state marriage to

§

confer federal protections, benefits, and obligations. Texas same-sex couples who many in another state must contend with substantial uncertainty regarding whether the marriage will be recognized by the federal government for various purposes. For instance, while the Internal Revenue Service recently adopted a “state of celebration” rule in recognizing same-sex marriages, Rev. Ruling 2013-17 (Aug. 30,2013), it is unclear what other federal agencies will follow. In fact, the Department of Labor recently announced that FMLA will apply only to same-sex couples that reside in states recognizing their marriage. See Dept. of Labor, Fact
PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT 103030373 Page 10

Case 5:13-cv-00982-OLG Document 1 Filed 10/28/13 Page 11 of 16

Sheet #28F: Qualifying Reasons for Leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act (Aug. 2013). And, on September 5, 2013. Major General John K Nichols requested that Defendant Abbott advise him what, if any, actions the Texas Military Forces can take to comply with the

Department of Defense’s policy of extending spousal and dependent benefits to same-sex couples without violating the Texas Constitution and Texas statutes.
ilL Plaintiffs’ inability to marry affects numerous state-law protections, benefits, and obligations.

42.

Texas’ refusal to marry or recognize Plaintiffs’ marriage also denies Plaintiffs

many state4aw benefits. Plaintiffs cannot claim statutory protections afforded married couples
upon the death of a spouse, such as intestacy rights. See Tex. Probate Code § 38.45. The

surviving spouse could not file a wrongful death suit if a spouse is killed. Tex. Cit Prac. & Rem. Code § 71.004. Same-sex couples cannot claim protections to the partition of their homestead upon the death their spouse. Tex. Const., art 16, § 52. Same-sex couples cannot rely upon courts to equitably divide property as a heterosexual married couple can if they divorce, and they are not entitled to a community property presumption. Tex. Family Code ft 3.003.7.001,7.003. Nor can same-sex couples seek spousal maintenance if they separate or divorce. Id.

§ 8.051. Additionally, absent conferring power of attorney or other written

agreement, Plaintiffs do not have the right to make health care decisions for one another when necessary, and PlaintilTh do not have the right to make burial decisions and other decisions regarding the disposition and handling of the remains of his or her spouse. Same-sex couples also cannot claim spousal privileges to avoid testiing against one another. Tex. R. Evid. 504. 43. Thus, the Texas Constitution and statutes and Defendants, acting under color of

law, are denying Plaintiffs the intangible and tangible benefits of being married.

PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT 105030373

Page II

Case 5:13-cv-00982-OLG Document 1 Filed 10/28/13 Page 12 of 16

E.

Texas’ Constitutional and Statutory lrovisions Banning Same-Sex Marriage Are Subject to Heightened Scrutin. Homosexuals ha e faced a long and painful history of societal and government—

44.

sponsored discriminalion. 45. While their sexual orientation bears no relation to their ability to contribute to

society, gay and lesbian individuals historically have been, and continue to be. the target of purposeful discrimination, including state—sanctioned discrimination, due solely to their sexual orientation. 46. 47. laws. 48. Because the same—sex marriage prohibitions classify citizens based upon factors Sexual orientation is immutable and fundamental to all individuals. Gay and lesbian individuals lack the political power to eliminate discriminatory

that reflect prejudice and antipathy-—-a view that those in the burdened class are not as worthy or deserving as others.” (‘liv of Cichurne v Cleburne Living (‘Ii:. Inc.. 473 U.S. 432. 440 I 985). the prohibitions must pass heightened judicial scrutiny. F. 49. Texas’ Refusal to Allow or Recognize Same-Sex Marria2e Does Not Serve Any Covernment Interest. Whether under a strict or heightened scrutiny analysis, or under the more lenient

rational basis test, Texas’ prohibition of same-sex marriage does not bear any relation to a legitimate government purpose, much less an important or compelling governmental interest. Excluding same-sex couples from marriage does not lead to increased stability in marriages between heterosexual couples. Permitting same-sex couples to marry does not destabilize heterosexual marriages. 50. Excluding same-sex couples from marriage does not optimize the child-rearing

environment of married heterosexuals. Children of same-sex marriages do not suffer any harm
PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT
105030373

Page 12

Case 5:13-cv-00982-OLG Document 1 Filed 10/28/13 Page 13 of 16

from having same—sex paren s nor are such children more likely to become homosexual. “A great deal of scientific research documents there is no cause-and-effect relationship between parents sexual orientation and children’s well-being.” Press Release, American Academy of Pediatrics. American Academy of Pediatrics Supports Same (lender Civil Marriage (Mar. 21
2013).

V.

REQUEST FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF CLAIM ONE: DUE PROCESS

5 1. forth herein. 52.

Plaintiffs incorporate by reference paragraphs I through 50, supra. as if fully set

The Texas Constitution and slatutes at issue in this case violate liberties

protected by the Due Process Clause of Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. both on its face and as applied to Plaintiffs. 53.

The Texas Constitution and statutes at issue here impinge on fundamental

liberties by denying same-sex couples the opportunity to marry and deprive them of the recognition of their out-of-state marriages. The State of Texas. through Defendants, refuses to allow same-sex couples to enter into the same officially sanctioned relationship as heterosexual individuals. By denying same—sex couples the right to marry and refi.ising to recognize their out-of-state marriages, Texas stigmatizes same-sex couples, as well as their children and families, and denies them the same dignity. respect. and stature aftbrded ollicially recognized heterosexual family relationships.

PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGiNAL COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT 105030373

Page 13

Case 5:13-cv-00982-OLG Document 1 Filed 10/28/13 Page 14 of 16

CLAIM TWO: EQUAL PROTECTION 54. lorth herein. 55. The Texas Constitution and statutes at issue here violate the Equal Protection Plainti us incorporate by relirence parauraphs I through 53. vupra. as if fully set

(‘lause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. both on its face and as applied to Plaintiffs.

56.

Texas’ constitutional and statutory law restricts civil marriage to heterosexuals.

Same-sex couples are therefore unable to marry persons of their choice, Thus, Texas law treats similarly-situated people differently by permitting heterosexual couples to marry, but denying that right, and the heneflis which come with that right, to same-sex couples. Because same-sex couples are unable to marry, they are unequal in the eves of the law and their lhmilies are denied the same respect as lärnilies of heterosexuals. By explicitly denying civil marriage to same-sex couples. Texas’ ban on same-sex marriage discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation. 57. The disadvantage fexas imposes on same—sex couples is the result of disapproval

or animus against a politically unpopular group. The Texas constitution and statutes at issue in this lawsuit deny same-sex couples, but not others, the right to marry. Thus, the Texas Constitution and the statutes at issue in this case violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution because they relegate homosexuals to a disfavored legal status, thereby creating a category of “second class citizens.” 58. The Texas Constitution and the statutes at issue in this case also violate the

Equal Protection Clause because they discriminate on the basis of sex by distinguishing between heterosexual couples and same-sex couples. Thus. the limitation on civil marriage

PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT
105030373

Page 14

Case 5:13-cv-00982-OLG Document 1 Filed 10/28/13 Page 15 of 16

depends upon an individual person’s sex; a man who wishes to marry a man may not do so because he is a man, and a woman may not marry a woman because she is a woman.
CLAIM THREE: VIOLATION OF 42 tJ.S,C.

§

1983

59. forth herein. 60.

Plaintiffs incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 58, supru. as if fully set

Insofar as Defendants, acting under color of state law. enforce Texas’

constitutional and statutory terms denying Plaintiffs the right to marry, Defendants are depriving and will continue to deprive Plaintiffs of numerous rights secured by the United States Constitution in violation of 42 U.S.C.

§

1983.

IRREPARABLE HARM

61. forth herein. 62.

Plaintiffs incorporate by reference paragraphs I through 60, supra, as if fully set

Plaintiffs are severely and irreparably harmed by Texas’ prohibition of same-sex

marriages and Texas’ refusal to recognize same-sex marriages legally performed in other states. By way of example, Plaintiffs are denied their constitutional rights to marry and are forced to suffer the severe humiliation, emotional distress, pain, suffering, psychological harm, and stigma caused by the inability to marry the ones they love and have society recognize their marriages. 63. Each day that Plaintiffs are denied the freedom to marry, or have their marriage

recognized by Texas, they suffer irreparable harm as a direct result of Defendants’ violation of their constitutional rights. 64. An actual and judicially cognizable controversy exists between Plaintiffs and

Defendants regarding Texas’ refusal to allow or recognize same-sex marriage.

PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT
105030373

Page 15

Case 5:13-cv-00982-OLG Document 1 Filed 10/28/13 Page 16 of 16

PR A\ FR
\VHEREIORE. Plaintiffs respectfull\ request that the Court enler an Order including or

directing the fidloing relief: a. Issue declaratory judgment that Article 1.

§ 32 ol’ the Texas Constitution and the

l’exas statutes at issue in this case, as applied to Plaintilts. violate the l)ue Process and Equal Protection Clauses ol the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States
Constitution

and

42

U.S.C.

§ 1983;
b. Issue a permanent injunction barring enforcement or application of Texas’

constitutional and statutory provisions at issue herein; c. d. Award Plaintiffs their reasonable costs. expenses, and attorneys lI.es; and For such other relief the Court deems proper. just and equitable. Respectfully submitted, AKIN GIfMP STRAUSS HAUER & FELL) LLP
i

7

1

f

/1

d

1/
I

___akChasno1Y(StN 04153500) / bchasnoffJakingump.corn Jj4 (513N 0078A441 Daniel McNeel Lane

/

/

Frank Stenger-Castro (SBN 19143500) fscastroakingurnp.corn 300 Convent Street, Suite 1600 San Antonio, Texas 78205 Phone: (210) 281-7000 Fax: (210) 224-2035

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT
105030373

Page 16

JS 44 (Rev. 12/12)

Case 5:13-cv-00982-OLG Document 1-1 Filed 10/28/13 Page 1 of 2 5:13-cv-982

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
Cleopatra De Leon, Nicole Dimetman, Victor Holmes and Mark Phariss
(b) County of Residence of First Listed Plaintiff

DEFENDANTS
Rick Perry, Greg Abbott, Gerard Rickhoff, David Lakey
County of Residence of First Listed Defendant
NOTE:

Travis

Travis

(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)
Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP, 300 Convent, Suite 1600 San Antonio, TX 78205, (210) 281-7000

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

’ 2

’ 4

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 Veteran’s 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 IRS—Third 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. 1983; Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution Constitutional challenge to Texas' ban on same-sex rights.
DEMAND $

’ 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

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

SIGNATURE OF ATTORNEY OF RECORD

10/28/2013
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY RECEIPT # AMOUNT

Barry A. Chasnoff, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP
APPLYING IFP JUDGE MAG. JUDGE

Print

Save As...

Reset

JS 44 Reverse (Rev. 12/12)

Case 5:13-cv-00982-OLG Document 1-1 Filed 10/28/13 Page 2 of 2
Authority For Civil Cover Sheet

INSTRUCTIONS FOR ATTORNEYS COMPLETING CIVIL COVER SHEET FORM JS 44

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.