Case 1:21-cv-00035-LO-IDD Document 1 Filed 01/12/21 Page 1 of 16 PageID# 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
ALEXANDRIA DIVISION

ABRAR OMEISH,
Case No.
Plaintiff,
Hon.:
v. Magistrate

SHERIFF STACEY ANN KINCAID, COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND

Sheriff, Fairfax County, in her official
capacity, only;

OFFICER J. PATRICK, Fairfax County

Police Department, in his individual
capacity, only; and,

Defendants.

Complaint

Plaintiff ABRAR OMEISH, by and through her attorneys, CAIR Legal Defense Fund

(“CAIR”), brings this action against Defendants SHERIFF STACEY ANN KINCAID,

Fairfax County Police Department and OFFICER J. PATRICK for violations of the First

and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and the Religious Land Use

and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 (“RLUIPA”), 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc et seq., pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and states as follows:

Introduction

1. Abrar Omeish is a lifelong resident of Fairfax County. She is one of three at-

large members on the Fairfax County School Board, representing the county’s 1.2 million

residents from all nine districts. She entered her term with over 161,000 county votes as the

1
 Case 1:21-cv-00035-LO-IDD Document 1 Filed 01/12/21 Page 2 of 16 PageID# 2

youngest ever elected to this role.

2. On March 5, 2019, Defendant J. Patrick of the Fairfax County Police

Department (“FCPD”) pulled Ms. Omeish over for turning right at a red light—a traffic

infraction. In the wake of this traffic stop, Defendant J. Patrick and other FCPD officers

inflicted a cascading set of injuries against Ms. Omeish.

3. Defendant Patrick pepper sprayed her at point blank range as she sat in her car

even though, as an internal investigation would later conclude, she clearly posed no threat of

harm. After Defendant Patrick maced her, he ripped Ms. Omeish out of her car and

handcuffed her, before other FCPD officers assaulted her and whisked her to jail where her

rights were once again senselessly violated.

4. At the jail, Defendant Fairfax County Sheriff’s Office and FCPD officers,

including Defendant Patrick, forced Ms. Omeish to remove her hijab—against her will and

after repeated protestations that she wore the scarf in accordance with her faith—in plain view

of the many male officers and detainees. Defendant Kincaid’s officers, with the help of FCPD

officers, then photographed Ms. Omeish without her hijab and uploaded that photograph to

a statewide database that is accessible to all law enforcement agencies in Virginia as well as

members of the public who request images contained in the database.

5. By photographing Ms. Omeish without her hijab and uploading that

photograph to a database, Defendant Kincaid memorialized the violation of Ms. Omeish’s

rights under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act in a manner that

perpetuates the RLUIPA violation that began on March 5, 2019 but continues to this day.

This action aims to remove Ms. Omeish’s image from this database and require Defendant

Kincaid to adopt RLUIPA-compliant photographing practices. It also aims to hold Defendant

2
 Case 1:21-cv-00035-LO-IDD Document 1 Filed 01/12/21 Page 3 of 16 PageID# 3

Patrick responsible for his outrageous use of excessive use of force against Ms. Omeish as she

sat in her car during a minor traffic stop.

Jurisdiction and Venue

6. This Court has original federal question jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claims of violations

of the United States Constitution and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act

of 2000 (“RLUIPA”), 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc et seq., pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

7. This Court has federal question jurisdiction, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1343 over

Plaintiff’s claims regarding the deprivation under color of state law of rights secured by the First

and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States and the laws of the United

States.

8. This Court has federal question jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claims of violations of her

rights against excessive force secured by the Fourth Amendment to the United States

Constitution.

9. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants because Defendants reside and

conduct business in the State of Virginia.

10. This Court has jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s constitutional claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983.

11. Plaintiff’s claims for declaratory and injunctive relief are authorized by 28 U.S.C. §§

2201 and 2202, 28 U.S.C. § 1343, by Rules 57 and 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,

and by the general, legal, and equitable powers of this Court.

12. Plaintiff’s claims for attorneys’ fees and costs are predicated upon 42 U.S.C. §§ 1988

and 2000cc‐2(d), which authorize the award of attorneys’ fees and costs to prevailing parties,

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and RLUIPA.

3
 Case 1:21-cv-00035-LO-IDD Document 1 Filed 01/12/21 Page 4 of 16 PageID# 4

13. Venue is proper under 42 U.S.C. § 1391 as to all Defendants because Defendants

operate within the geographical boundaries of the State of Virginia, and the substantial part of

the acts described herein occurred within this District.

Plaintiff

14. Plaintiff, Abrar Omeish, is a Muslim resident of Fairfax County, Virginia,

who was pepper-sprayed, arrested, and denied the ability to wear a hijab in custody after an

officer stopped her vehicle for making a right turn at a red light.

Defendant Sued in Official Capacity, Only

15. Defendant Kincaid is the county official that leads Fairfax County Sheriff’s

Office, a municipal corporation, duly organized, and carrying on governmental functions in

Fairfax County. Defendant Kincaid is responsible for establishing policies, practices, and

customs for the Fairfax County Sheriff’s Office, including the processing of detainees in her

custody. Defendant Kincaid’s principal office is located at 4100 Chain Bridge Road, Fairfax,

VA 22030, where Defendant processes Fairfax County custodial bookings. Defendant

Kincaid is being sued in her official capacity, only.

Defendants Sued in Official Individual Capacities, Only

16. Defendant J. Patrick is a Police Officer at the Fairfax County Police

Department. Defendant Patrick unlawfully and maliciously pepper-sprayed and arrested

Plaintiff for turning right at a red light. Defendant is being sued in his individual capacity,

only.

Nature of this Action

17. This is an action for declaratory and injunctive relief arising under the First and

Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, the Religious Land Use

4
 Case 1:21-cv-00035-LO-IDD Document 1 Filed 01/12/21 Page 5 of 16 PageID# 5

and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 (“RLUIPA”), and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff seek

costs and attorneys’ fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988.

18. Fairfax County Sheriff’s Office is an “institution” within the meaning of 42

U.S.C. § 2000cc‐1(a) and 42 U.S.C. § 1997.

19. Defendant Fairfax County Sheriff’s Office willfully violated Ms. Omeish’s

rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States

and RLUIPA denied her the ability to wear her hijab while in custody in accordance with her

sincerely-held religious belief.

20. Defendant Patrick willfully violated Ms. Omeish’s right under the Fourth and

Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States when they unlawfully

pepper-sprayed and arrested Plaintiff.

Factual Background

21. Abrar Omeish is a Muslim woman who wears a hijab in public and with her

face completely visible.1 The wearing of hijab is central to Ms. Omeish’s faith.

22. Ms. Omeish’s faith requires her to wear hijab at all times when she is in mixed

gendered spaces outside of her immediate family. Ms. Omeish’s religious beliefs are deeply

rooted in Islamic texts and teachings. Her hijab is a pillar of her religious practice and integral

to her identity as a Muslim woman.

23. Appearing in public without hijab or being photographed without wearing

hijab and having that photo available to the public is a serious breach of Ms. Omeish’s faith

1
Hijab is a headscarf Muslim women wear in order to cover their hair and neck when they are in
public places. It is an expression of modesty and a visible manifestation of their faith.

5
 Case 1:21-cv-00035-LO-IDD Document 1 Filed 01/12/21 Page 6 of 16 PageID# 6

and a deeply humiliating and defiling experience in conflict with her sincerely-held religious

beliefs. Ms. Omeish has not been in public without her hijab since she was a young child.

24. On March 5, 2019, Ms. Omeish was driving to a campaign event in support

of her candidacy for Fairfax County School Board. On her way to the campaign event,

Defendant Patrick of the Fairfax County Police Department stopped Ms. Omeish near the

intersection of Gallows Road and Columbia Pike. In accordance with her religious beliefs,

Ms. Omeish was wearing hijab when she was pulled over.

25. Defendant Patrick approached Ms. Omeish’s vehicle and demanded her

driver’s license and vehicle registration, claiming that she failed to stop before turning right at

a red traffic light.

26. Ms. Omeish inquired about why she had been pulled over and calmly

expressed her view to Patrick that the traffic stop was unwarranted.

27. In response, Defendant Patrick became aggressive, demanding that Ms.

Omeish either provide her license and registration or he would take her into custody.

28. Ms. Omeish communicated to Defendant Patrick that he did not have to talk

to her in such an aggressive manner.

29. Defendant Patrick then began repeatedly yelling at Ms. Omeish to get out of

her car, unholstered his pepper spray, and pointed it at Ms. Omeish’s face.

30. Ms. Omeish responded by stating, over and over again, that she would give

Defendant Patrick her license and registration.

31. Defendant Patrick ignored Ms. Omeish’s pleas to deescalate the situation and

allow her to provide him with her license and registration. Instead, he grabbed Ms. Omeish,

attempting to forcibly remove her from her car.

6
 Case 1:21-cv-00035-LO-IDD Document 1 Filed 01/12/21 Page 7 of 16 PageID# 7

32. Nonetheless, Defendant Patrick continued his attempts to force Ms. Omeish

out of her car.

33. Shaking and fearing for her safety, Ms. Omeish attempted to record

Defendant Patrick’s use of force with her cellphone, while continuing to state she would

provide him with her license.

34. Defendant Patrick maced Ms. Omeish, forced her out of her car, shoved her

against the car, forced her to remove her jacket, and handcuffed her. Defendant Patrick also

separated Ms. Omeish from her cell phone—which he knew was recording the incident—and

placed it far away from both of them in an attempt to prevent Ms. Omeish from recording the

incident.

35. This use of force was illegal and violated Ms. Omeish’s constitutional rights

as well as Fairfax County’s own law enforcement policies.

36. An internal investigation of Defendant Patrick’s use of force against Ms.

Omeish would later conclude that the officer’s actions were “improper and in violation of

departmental regulations.” In a letter to Ms. Omeish outlining the results of this investigation,

Chief of Police Edwin Roessler explained that she “did not pose any factual imminent threat

of danger” to the officer. In fact, Mr. Roessler’s review of the incident identified “at least 16

clearly stated offers of compliance to the officer…prior to his deploying OC spray on you.”

As a consequence of Defendant Patrick’s violations, Mr. Roessler assured Ms. Omeish that

“appropriate personnel actions have taken place,” though those personnel actions remain

unknown.

37. After Defendant Patrick pepper sprayed Ms. Omeish and forcibly removed

her from her vehicle, four additional officers arrived on the scene. Those officers continued

7
 Case 1:21-cv-00035-LO-IDD Document 1 Filed 01/12/21 Page 8 of 16 PageID# 8

to force Ms. Omeish against her vehicle and aggressively searched her body.

38. An officer demanded Ms. Omeish spread her legs and kicked Ms. Omeish’s

leg forcing her to lose her balance.

39. When Ms. Omeish lost her balance, a male officer stomped on Ms. Omeish’s

foot and then placed his full weight on her leg.

40. The other officers grabbed Ms. Omeish, slammed her against the car as they

held various parts of her body in place, forcing Ms. Omeish into a position that was

excruciatingly painful.

41. Following the illegal excessive force and intrusive search, an ambulance

arrived to treat Ms. Omeish and remove remnants of the pepper spray from her eyes.

42. Officers then forced Ms. Omeish into a police car and proceeded to search her

car and her belongings.

43. Defendant Patrick, along with fellow officers, arrested Ms. Omeish and

transported her to Fairfax County Adult Detention Center (ADC).

44. Upon arrival, Sergeant Williams, and other agents of Defendant Kincaid,

searched Ms. Omeish and Defendant Patrick commented, “what about that thing whatever it

is on her head?”

45. Later on, as Defendant Kincaid’s agents processed Ms. Omeish, a county

agent and Defendant Patrick instructed Ms. Omeish to stand in a square and ordered her to

remove her hijab.

46. Ms. Omeish explained the significance of her religious head covering and how

removing it publicly would violate her faith. But the officers ignored her pleas. “You really

don’t have a choice,” an officer stated.

8
 Case 1:21-cv-00035-LO-IDD Document 1 Filed 01/12/21 Page 9 of 16 PageID# 9

47. A male officer ordered her to remove her hijab. “My wife is Muslim. I get it.

But you have no choice.”

48. Ms. Omeish began to sob and insisted that she be processed in a private place

and by a female officer.

49. When Ms. Omeish finally met with a female officer, she again explained she

could not remove her hijab and asked to keep it on.

50. The officer refused Ms. Omeish’s request, and ordered her to remove her

hijab, explaining that if she did not remove it, it would be removed against her will.

51. Reluctantly, involuntarily, and against her sincerely-held religious beliefs, Ms.

Omeish unpinned her hijab and a female officer removed it from her head. As Ms. Omeish

stood there without her hijab, she could see male detainees and male officers make eye contact

her.

52. Ms. Omeish was sobbing and shaking, feeling humiliated and degraded by the

stress of being forced to remove her hijab against her sincerely-held religious beliefs.

53. Defendant Kincaid, by and through her agents and in accordance with

Defendant Kincaid’s policies and practices, photographed Ms. Omeish without her hijab.

54. Defendant Kincaid, by and through her agents and in accordance with

Defendant Kincaid’s policies and practices, uploaded that picture to the Central Criminal

Image System (“CCIS”) owned and operated by Virginia State Policy (“VSP”).

55. Ms. Omeish’s image without her hijab is still available to law enforcement

agencies as well to members of the public who request it.

56. The reason Defendant Kincaid photographed Ms. Omeish without hijab is

because VSP has established requirements regarding all images of arrestees that local law

9
 Case 1:21-cv-00035-LO-IDD Document 1 Filed 01/12/21 Page 10 of 16 PageID# 10

enforcement agencies in Virginia take and upload to CCIS. Many of those image

requirements are technical and regard lighting, equipment, and background. However,

though Virginia law does not mandate it, VSP has a practice and custom of requiring law

enforcement agencies in Virginia to photograph arrestees without any head coverings, even

when individuals are wearing such coverings for religious purposes.

57. Shortly after photographing Ms. Omeish, Defendant Kincaid released Ms.

Omeish. She would later plead no contest to two minor traffic infractions and paid a small

fine.

58. Defendant Kincaid and her employees and agents prohibited Ms. Omeish

from wearing her religious headscarf pursuant to the Sheriff’s Office custom, practice, and

official policy. Instead, Defendant Kincaid forced Abrar to remove her hijab in full view of

male officers and male detainees.

Count I

Violation of The Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons

Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc

59. Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges the foregoing paragraphs, as though fully set

forth herein.

60. RLUIPA provides, in relevant part, that: “No government shall impose a

substantial burden on the religious exercise of a person residing in or confined to an institution,

as defined in section 1997 of this title, even if the burden results from a rule of general

applicability, unless the government demonstrates that imposition of the burden on that

person- (1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and (2) is the least

restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc-

10
 Case 1:21-cv-00035-LO-IDD Document 1 Filed 01/12/21 Page 11 of 16 PageID# 11

1(a)(1)-(2).

61. Plaintiff is a “person” as defined under the RLUIPA.

62. At all relevant times, Plaintiff was confined to an institution when the events

transpired.

63. Plaintiff’s wearing of a hijab is a sincerely-held religious belief.

64. At all relevant times, Defendants were covered under the term “Government”

as defined under the RLUIPA. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc- 5(4)(A)(i)-(iii).

65. At all relevant times, Fairfax County Adult Detention Center where the

immediate events transpired, oversee by Defendant Kincaid, is a federally funded

“institution” as defined under the RLUIPA (42 U.S.C. § 2000cc-1(a)).

66. Defendant’s acts or omissions, policies, and customs, while Plaintiff was

confined by Defendant Kincaid substantially burdened her religious exercise of wearing hijab

in mixed gendered spaces.

67. Defendants’ acts or omissions, policies, and customs, do not further a

compelling government interest in identifying arrestees. A photograph of a person’s face

sufficiently identifies arrestees. For example, with regards to passports, the United States

Department of State allows persons to wear religious head coverings in their passport pictures

so long as their faces remain visible.

68. Furthermore, other police departments—including the New York Police

Department (NYPD)—allow Muslim women to maintain their hijab while being

photographed.

69. Defendants’ acts or omissions, policies, and customs, are not the least

restrictive means of furthering a compelling government interest. Defendant Kincaid could

11
Case 1:21-cv-00035-LO-IDD Document 1 Filed 01/12/21 Page 12 of 16 PageID# 12

have, but did not, provided Ms. Omeish with the opportunity to be photographed in a private

room in the presence of only female officers. Defendant Kincaid could have, but did not,

photograph Ms. Omeish with her hijab and retained the same ability to identify Ms. Omeish

as they had from the picture taken without her hijab.

70. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ wrongful acts and omissions,

Plaintiff has sustained damages, and has suffered and continues to suffer mental anguish,

physical and emotional distress, humiliation, and embarrassment.

71. Plaintiff respectfully requests this Honorable Court to enter a judgment in

favor of Plaintiff, and against Defendants, for damages in whatever amount Plaintiff is found

to be entitled; preliminary injunctive relief followed by a permanent injunction; declaratory

judgment; costs and attorneys’ fees wrongfully incurred to bring this action; and any other

damages, including punitive damages as provided by applicable law.

Count II

Violation of The First Amendment to the United States Constitution

(42 U.S.C. § 1983)

72. Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges the foregoing paragraphs, as though fully set

forth herein.

73. 42 U.S.C. § 1983 provides:

Civil action for deprivation of rights:

Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom,
or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or
causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within
the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or
immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party
injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for
redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act
or omission taken in such officer's judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not

12
Case 1:21-cv-00035-LO-IDD Document 1 Filed 01/12/21 Page 13 of 16 PageID# 13

be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was

unavailable.

74. Under the First Amendment, Plaintiff has the right to freely exercise her

religion.

75. 42 U.S.C. § 1983 prohibits any person acting under color of state law, custom,

or usage, to deprive a citizen of rights secured by the Constitution.

76. Defendants, at all relevant times herein, were acting under color of state law.

77. Defendants’ deprived Plaintiff of her right to freely exercise her religion by

depriving her of her hijab while she was in Defendants’ custody. Defendants stripped Ms.

Omeish of her hijab and photographed, even though photographing her without hijab did not

further Defendants’ interests in creating records by which Plaintiff could later be identified.

78. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983,

Plaintiff has sustained damages, and has suffered and continues to suffer mental anguish,

physical and emotional distress, humiliation, and embarrassment.

79. Plaintiff respectfully requests this Honorable Court to enter a judgment in favor

of Plaintiff, and against Defendants, for damages in whatever amount Plaintiff is found to be

entitled; preliminary injunctive relief followed by a permanent injunction; declaratory

judgment; costs and attorneys’ fees wrongfully incurred to bring this action; and any other

damages, including punitive damages as provided by applicable law.

Count III

Violation of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution

(42 U.S.C. § 1983)

80. Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges the foregoing paragraphs, as though fully set

forth herein.

13
Case 1:21-cv-00035-LO-IDD Document 1 Filed 01/12/21 Page 14 of 16 PageID# 14

81. 42 U.S.C. § 1983 provides:

Civil action for deprivation of rights:

Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation,
custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia,
subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other
person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights,
privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable
to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper
proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial
officer for an act or omission taken in such officer's judicial capacity,
injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated
or declaratory relief was unavailable.
82. Under the Fourth Amendment, Plaintiff has the right to be free of unreasonable

searches and seizures.

83. Defendant Patrick’s decision to pepper spray Ms. Omeish was not objectively

reasonable. Defendant Patrick pulled Ms. Omeish’s vehicle over because he believed she

committed a minor traffic infraction: turning right at a red light.

84. Ms. Omeish also never posed a threat to Defendant Patrick, never did anything

that could be interpreted as posing a threat to Defendant Patrick, and repeatedly stated her

willingness to comply with Defendant Patrick’s request to provide him with her license and

registration.

85. Rather than pepper spray Ms. Omeish, Defendant Patrick could have allowed

Plaintiff to provide him with her license and registration and issue her a traffic ticket.

86. 42 U.S.C. § 1983 prohibits any person acting under color of state law, custom,

or usage, to deprive a citizen of rights secured by the Constitution.

87. Defendants, at all relevant times herein, were acting under color of state law.

88. Defendants’ deprived Plaintiff of her right to be free of unreasonable searches

and seizures. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983,

14
Case 1:21-cv-00035-LO-IDD Document 1 Filed 01/12/21 Page 15 of 16 PageID# 15

Plaintiff has sustained damages, and has suffered and continues to suffer mental anguish,

physical and emotional distress, humiliation, and embarrassment.

89. Plaintiff respectfully requests this Honorable Court to enter a judgment in favor

of Plaintiff, and against Defendants, for damages in whatever amount Plaintiff is found to be

entitled; preliminary injunctive relief followed by a permanent injunction; declaratory

judgment; costs and attorneys’ fees wrongfully incurred to bring this action; and any other

damages, including punitive damages as provided by applicable law.

Prayer for Relief

90. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests that this Honorable Court enter judgement

in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendants, on each and every county in this Complaint, and

enter an Order awarding the following relief:

A. An injunction ordering Fairfax County Police Department to implement a

policy change prohibiting Defendants from taking booking photographs of

Muslim women without their hijab;

B. An injunction ordering Defendants to destroy Plaintiff’s booking photographs

taken with her hijab;

C. An injunction ordering Defendants to take every step, including, but not limited

to, instructing other persons or agencies given access to Plaintiff’s booking

photographs to destroy all copies of Plaintiff’s booking photographs;

D. Issue judgment in Plaintiff’s favor on all causes of action alleged herein

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the

U.S. Constitution;

E. An award of compensatory and punitive damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983;

15
Case 1:21-cv-00035-LO-IDD Document 1 Filed 01/12/21 Page 16 of 16 PageID# 16

F. An award of attorneys’ fees, costs and expenses predicated upon 42 U.S.C. §§

1988 and 2000cc‐2(d), which authorize the award of attorneys’ fees and costs

to prevailing parties, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and RLUIPA; and

G. Any further relief to which Plaintiff is entitled or that this Honorable Court

deems just and proper.

Jury Demand

NOW COMES Plaintiff, by and through her undersigned counsel, and hereby

demands a trial by jury of the above-referenced causes of action.

Respectfully submitted,

CAIR NATIONAL LEGAL DEFENSE FUND

By: s/ Lena Masri

Lena Masri (VA # 93291)
lmasri@cair.com
Gadeir Abbas (VA # 81161) α β
gabbas@cair.com
Justin Sadowsky
jsadowsky@cair.com

453 New Jersey Ave SE

Washington, DC 20003
Telephone: (202) 742-6420

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

β Licensed in VA, not in DC. Practice limited

to federal matters.
Dated: January 12, 2020

16
JS 44 (Rev. 10/20) Case 1:21-cv-00035-LO-IDDCIVIL COVER
Document SHEET
1-1 Filed 01/12/21 Page 1 of 2 PageID# 17
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 DEFENDANTS
Abrar Omeish Fairfax County Sheriff Stacey Ann Kincaid, Fairfax County
Officer Patrick
(b) County of Residence of First Listed Plaintiff Fairfax County County of Residence of First Listed Defendant Fairfax County
(EXCEPT IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES) (IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES ONLY)
NOTE: IN LAND CONDEMNATION CASES, USE THE LOCATION OF
THE TRACT OF LAND INVOLVED.

(c) Attorneys (Firm Name, Address, and Telephone Number) Attorneys (If Known)
See attachment Unknown, Office of the County Attorney, 12000
Government enter Parkway Suite 549, Fairfax, VA 22035
II. BASIS OF JURISDICTION (Place an “X” in One Box Only) III. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES (Place an “X” in One Box for Plaintiff
(For Diversity Cases Only) and One Box for Defendant)
1 U.S. Government ✖ 3 Federal Question PTF DEF PTF DEF
Plaintiff (U.S. Government Not a Party) Citizen of This State 1 1 Incorporated or Principal Place 4 4
of Business In This State

2 U.S. Government 4 Diversity Citizen of Another State 2 2 Incorporated and Principal Place 5 5
Defendant (Indicate Citizenship of Parties in Item III) of Business In Another State

Citizen or Subject of a 3 3 Foreign Nation 6 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 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
V. ORIGIN (Place an “X” in One Box Only)
✖ 1 Original 2 Removed from
Proceeding State Court
VI. CAUSE OF ACTION
TORTS
PERSONAL INJURY PERSONAL INJURY
310 Airplane 365 Personal Injury -
315 Airplane Product Product Liability
Liability 367 Health Care/
320 Assault, Libel & Pharmaceutical
Slander Personal Injury
330 Federal Employers’ Product Liability
Liability 368 Asbestos Personal
340 Marine Injury Product
345 Marine Product Liability
Liability PERSONAL PROPERTY
350 Motor Vehicle 370 Other Fraud
355 Motor Vehicle 371 Truth in Lending
Product Liability 380 Other Personal
360 Other Personal Property Damage
Injury 385 Property Damage
362 Personal Injury - Product Liability
Medical Malpractice
CIVIL RIGHTS PRISONER PETITIONS
x 440 Other Civil Rights Habeas Corpus:
441 Voting 463 Alien Detainee
442 Employment 510 Motions to Vacate
443 Housing/ Sentence
Accommodations 530 General
445 Amer. w/Disabilities - 535 Death Penalty
Employment Other:
446 Amer. w/Disabilities - 540 Mandamus & Other
Other ✖ 550 Civil Rights
448 Education 555 Prison Condition
560 Civil Detainee -
Conditions of
Confinement
3 Remanded from
Appellate Court
Cite the U.S. Civil Statute under which you are filing (Do not cite jurisdictional statutes unless diversity):
42 USC 1983, 42 USC 2000cc
Excessive force, unlawful removal of hijab
Foreign Country
Click here for: Nature of Suit Code Descriptions.
FORFEITURE/PENALTY BANKRUPTCY OTHER STATUTES
625 Drug Related Seizure 422 Appeal 28 USC 158 375 False Claims Act
of Property 21 USC 881 423 Withdrawal 376 Qui Tam (31 USC
690 Other 28 USC 157 3729(a))
400 State Reapportionment
PROPERTY RIGHTS 410 Antitrust
820 Copyrights 430 Banks and Banking
830 Patent 450 Commerce
835 Patent - Abbreviated 460 Deportation
New Drug Application 470 Racketeer Influenced and
840 Trademark Corrupt Organizations
LABOR 880 Defend Trade Secrets 480 Consumer Credit
710 Fair Labor Standards Act of 2016 (15 USC 1681 or 1692)
Act 485 Telephone Consumer
720 Labor/Management SOCIAL SECURITY Protection Act
Relations 861 HIA (1395ff) 490 Cable/Sat TV
740 Railway Labor Act 862 Black Lung (923) 850 Securities/Commodities/
751 Family and Medical 863 DIWC/DIWW (405(g)) Exchange
Leave Act 864 SSID Title XVI 890 Other Statutory Actions
790 Other Labor Litigation 865 RSI (405(g)) 891 Agricultural Acts
791 Employee Retirement 893 Environmental Matters
Income Security Act FEDERAL TAX SUITS 895 Freedom of Information
870 Taxes (U.S. Plaintiff Act
or Defendant) 896 Arbitration
871 IRS—Third Party 899 Administrative Procedure
IMMIGRATION 26 USC 7609 Act/Review or Appeal of
462 Naturalization Application Agency Decision
465 Other Immigration 950 Constitutionality of
Actions State Statutes
4 Reinstated or 5 Transferred from 6 Multidistrict 8 Multidistrict
Reopened Another District Litigation - Litigation -
(specify) Transfer Direct File

VII. REQUESTED IN CHECK IF THIS IS A CLASS ACTION DEMAND $ CHECK YES only if demanded in complaint:
COMPLAINT: UNDER RULE 23, F.R.Cv.P. JURY DEMAND: ✖ Yes No
VIII. RELATED CASE(S)
(See instructions):
IF ANY JUDGE DOCKET NUMBER
DATE SIGNATURE OF ATTORNEY OF RECORD
1/12/2020 /s/ Lena F. Masri
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY

RECEIPT # AMOUNT APPLYING IFP JUDGE MAG. JUDGE

 Case 1:21-cv-00035-LO-IDD Document 1-1 Filed 01/12/21 Page 2 of 2 PageID# 18
JS 44 Reverse (Rev. 10/20)

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.
(b) 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.)
(c) 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)".

II. 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.)

III. 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.

IV. Nature of Suit. Place an "X" in the appropriate box. If there are multiple nature of suit codes associated with the case, pick the nature of suit code
that is most applicable. Click here for: Nature of Suit Code Descriptions.

V. Origin. Place an "X" in one of the seven 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.
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 – Transfer. (6) Check this box when a multidistrict case is transferred into the district under authority of Title 28 U.S.C.
Section 1407.
Multidistrict Litigation – Direct File. (8) Check this box when a multidistrict case is filed in the same district as the Master MDL docket.
PLEASE NOTE THAT THERE IS NOT AN ORIGIN CODE 7. Origin Code 7 was used for historical records and is no longer relevant due to
changes in statue.

VI. 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.

VII. 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.

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.