5:13-cv-00982 #1

7/27/2019 5:13-cv-00982 #1

1/18

IN TIlE UNITFI) STATFS I)ISTRICT COURTFOR IlL SI [RN DISTRI( T O[ I F\ S

SAN ANTONIO I)IVISION

CLEOIATRA l)F LEON, NICOLE DIMETMAN, VICTOR HOLMES, and MARKI7IARISS Plaintiffs, CIVILACTION NO.V.

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) INJUNCTIVERELIEF

Plaintiffs Cleopatra De Leon, Nicole 1)imetrnan, Victor (Vie) I lolmes, and MarkPhariss complain of I)efendants and allege:

I. INTRODUCTION1. 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 Sta te of Texas.Any person has the legal right to marry another person of the opposite se. hu t that right isdenied to those citizens who wish to marry another person of the same sex. This unequaltreatment of gay and lesbian citizens is based on longstanding prejudices. and it is repugnant tothe United States Constitution. As the Linited States Supreme Court recently declared, [t]he

PLAINTIFFS ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT Page 1105030373

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

7/27/2019 5:13-cv-00982 #1

2/18

Constitutions guarantee of equality must at the very least mean that a bare congressionaldesire 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, 413U.S . 528 (1973)). The constitutional guarantee of equality also protects against such disparatetreatment when the desire to harm manifests itself in state legislation or state constitutionalprovisions.

2. The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personalrights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men. Loving v. Virgin ia, 388 U.S . I,12 (1967), Numerous Supreme Court cases recognize the important of marriage. It is amongassociational 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 libertiesprotected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, Cleveland Rd. o/Edue. vLaFleur. 414 U.S. 632 . 639 (1974); and it is the most important relation in life, Zablocki vRedhail, 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 rightofmarriage, Texas Constitution expressly forbids Texas and its political subdivisions fromcreat[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 ofTexas to allow and recognize their marriages, bu t the State of Texas will notsimply becausePlaintiffs wish to be married to someone of the same sex. Two of the Plaintiffs servedhonorably in our nations armed forces, defending our freedoms. All of the Plaintiffscontribute to our nations well-being as productive and conscientious citizens. Yet the State of

PLAINTIFFS ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT Page 2I 05030373


7/27/2019 5:13-cv-00982 #1

3/18

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 ofTexas has no justification for depriving Plaintiffs of their rights in this way.

4. In Texas, Plaintiffs cannot legally marry their partner before family, friends, andsocietya right enjoyed by citizens who wish to marry a person of the opposite sex. Andshould they become married in a state that has established marriage equality, Texas explicitlyvoids their marr iage . 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 theTexas Constitution and corresponding statutes violate the Due Process and Equal ProtectionClauses of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Plaintiffs also petitionthis Court for a permanent injunction enjoining Defendants from continuing to deprivePlaintiffs of their right to marry.

II. PARTIES5. PlaintiffCleopatra Dc Leon is a Texas resident. She legally married Plaintiff

Nicole Dimetman in Massachusetts, and she wants the State of Texas to either recognize hermarriage or allow her to re-marry Plaintiff Dimetman in Texas.

6. PlaintiffNicole Dirnetman is a Texas resident. She legally married PlaintiffCleopatra Dc Leon in Massachusetts, and she wants the State of Texas to either recognize hermarriage or allow he r to re-marry Plaintiff Dc Leon in Texas.

7. PlaintiffMark Phariss is a Texas resident. He wants to marry his long-timepartner, Plaintiff Vie Holmes, in Texas.

8. Plaintiff Vie Holmes is a Texas resident. He wants to marry his long-timepartner, Plaintiff Mark Phariss, in Texas.



7/27/2019 5:13-cv-00982 #1

4/18

9. Defendants are Texas State officials, and Plaintiffs sue them in their officialcapacities.

10. Defendant Riek Perry is the Governor of the State of lexas, and Plaintiffs suehim in his official capacity. Plaintiffs will serve Governor Perry pursuant to the Federal Rulesof Civil Procedure.

11. Defendant Greg Abbott is the Attorney General of the State of Texas, andPlaintiffs sue him in his official capacity. Plaintiffs will serve Defendant Abbott pursuant to theFederal Rules of Civil Procedure.

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

13. Defendant David Lakey, M.D. is the commissioner of the Texas Department ofState Health Services, which includes the bureau of vital statistics, and Plaintiffs sue him in hisofficial capacity. Plaintiffs will serve Defendant Lakey pursuant to the Federal Rules of CivilProcedure.

III. JURISDICTION AND VENUE14. This case raises questions under the Constitution of the United States and 42

U.S.C. 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 inthis district and all Defendants reside in Texas. Venue is also proper in this Court because asubstantial part of the events giving rise to this claim occurred in this district.



7/27/2019 5:13-cv-00982 #1

5/18

IV . FACTUAL BACKGROUNI)A. fle Leon and Dinietnian

16. Dc Leon and Dimetman met in 2001. At the time, Dirnetman was running herown business and Dc Leon was working as a statistical analyst while also serving in the TexasAir National Guard. Dc Leon is a United States Air Force veteran; she was on active duty forfour years and served six years in the Air National Guard. She was honorably discharged afterten years of service.

17. Dc Leon and Dimetman started dating in September 2001. They have been in acommitted relationship since then. During this t ime, they supported one another while Dc Leonapplied to and completed graduate school and while Dimetman applied to and completed lawschool. Dimetman is now an attorney licensed to practice law in the State of Texas. Dc Leonand 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 oneanother, declaring their love and commitment before family, friends, and society. Because theylived in Texas, they were unable to marry in their home state. As a result, they incurredsignificant expense and traveled to Boston, Massachusetts, where they married on September11, 2009.

19. Dc Leon and Dimetman also wanted a family. In 2011, Dc Leon conceived, andin 2012, gave b irth to C. While Dc Leon is Cs biological parent, Dimetman adopted C. DcLeon and Dimetman incurred significant expenses to ensure that the State of Texas recognizedeach as Cs parent. They each dedicate countless hours raising, loving, nurturing, educating,and caring for C.

20. Dc Leon and Dimetmans marriage is recognized in the state of Massachusetts.It would also be recognized in California, Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia,



7/27/2019 5:13-cv-00982 #1

6/18

Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Jersey. New York, Rhode Island,Washington, and Vermont.

21. Their marriage is not recognized by the State of ixas.22, 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, asrequired 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 no t recognize their marriage for all purposes.

B. Holmes and Phariss24. Holmes and Phariss met in the spring of 1997. At the t ime, Holmes was in the

Air Force and stationed in San Antonio. Phariss was and remains an attorney licensed topractice law in Texas. They quickly developed a friendship that blossomed into a datingrelationship. On August 9, 1997, they went on their first date. They celebrate August 9 as theiranniversary.

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 th e A ir Force when he was eighteen, began a military program to become aphysicians assistant. After completing the program, Holmes became an off icer , and the AirForce stationed him in San Diego at the Naval Medical Center.

26. Because Phariss continued to live and work in Texas, he and Holmes started aneleven year period of extraordinary personal sacrifice to maintain and strengthen theirrelationship despite the distance between them. While Holmes was in San Diego, PharissPLAINTIFFS ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT Page 6105030373


7/27/2019 5:13-cv-00982 #1

7/18

would travel to see I lolmes every few weeks (1 lol mes was generally unable to leave SanDiego). 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) tosee 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 lastassignment was at Sheppard Air Force base in Wichita i:alls. I exas. During this time. Holmesand Phariss were able to see one another each weekend and on special occasions during theweek.

27 . Holmes honorably served our nation for nearly twenty-three years and retired asa Major at the end of 201 0. After eleven years traveling to see one another and maintain andstrengthen their relationship. I lolmes and Phariss were able to live together again.

28. On August 9. 2013. 1-lolmes and Phariss celebrated their sixteenth anniversary.29 . Holmes and Phariss want to marry one another and declare their love and

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

Texas. On October 3. 2013, holmes and Phariss applied Ior marriage licenses from the BexarCounty Clerk. The County ClerLs office refused to issue a marriage license because they are asame-sex couple.

31. If Holmes and Phariss were able to marry, the federal government wouldrecognize their marriage pursuant to the United States Supreme Courts decision in Windsor.



7/27/2019 5:13-cv-00982 #1

8/18

C. Texas Denies Same-Sex Couples the Right to Marry or to Attain Any of theRights Afforded Married heterosexual Couples.

32. [he lexas Constitution defines marriage as ihe union oF one man and onewoman. and ii prevents Texas and its political subdivisions from recognizing samesexmarriages. Tex. Consi.. art. 1 . 32. Not only does it prevent samesex couples from marrying.the Texas Constitution expressly lbrhids Texas and its political subdivisions 1mm creat[ing orrecogniz[ing] any legal status identical or similar to marriage. Id.

33 . Reflecting the Texas Constitution. the Texas Family Code prohibits countyclerks, including the Bexar County Clerk, from issuing marriage licenses to persons of thesame-sex. Tex. Family Code Ann. 2.001. The Texas Family Code requires the bureau ofvital statistics to prescribe the information required in a marriage license application, which islimited to heterosexual couples. id. 2.002.

34. The Texas Family Code also voids all same-sex marriages and all same-sex civilunions. Id. 6 .204 . Texas expressly denies same-sex couples from the right or claim to anylegal protection. benefit, or responsibility asserted as a result of a marriage between persons ofthe same sex or a civil union. Id. Thus. th e S ta te of icxas nullifies the rights, benefits, andresponsibilities that same-sex couples married in another jurisdiction would enjoy if they wereheterosexual.



7/27/2019 5:13-cv-00982 #1

9/18

P. Plaintiffs Inability to Mam Causes Substantial Harm.35. Texas constitutional and statutory provisions create a legal system in which civil

marriage is exclusively restricted to heterosexual couples. The Texas Constitution and variousstatutes den samesex couples the right to enter into a civil marriage.

36. Plaintiffs su lThred and continue to sufThr substantial and irreparable harm as aresult ot Texas refusal to recognize or allow samesex marriages. These harms include socialstigma. the loss ol federal rights, and the loss of state rights.

i. Plaintiffs suffer social stigma as a result of their inability to marry.37. 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 thanunmarried 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 permanenceof the married couples private relationship. Legallyrecognized marriages conler rights andresponsibilities that are no t available to unmarried couples.

38. Texas constitutional and statutory prohibitions against recognizing same-sexmarriages convey the States view that PlainiilYs relationships are of lesser value thanrelationships of heterosexuals and are unworthy of legal recognition and support. The Statesrefusal to recognize same-sex marriages is a very public rejection of Plaintiffs most significantrelationship, and it harms Plaintiffs, any children Plaintiffs have, and their families. The reftisalto recognize same-sex marriage also invites and facilitates private discrimination againsthomosexuals and promotes the view that their relationships and families are inferior.

39 . By prohibiting same-sex couples from marrying. Texas places same-sexcouples in an unstable position. demeans same-sex couples. humiliates tens of thousands ofchildren now being raised by same-sex couples, and instructs all [Statej officials. and indeed

PLAJNTIFFS ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUD(;MENT Page 9105030373


7/27/2019 5:13-cv-00982 #1

10/18

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-sexmarriages 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-sexmarriages by tell[ing] those couples. and all the world, that their otherwise valid marriagesare unworthy of [Texas] recognition. fit at 2693-94.

IL Plaintiffs inabffity to many affects numerous federal protections,benefits, and obligations.40. Texas refusal to pennit Plaintiffs to marry or recognize their out-of-state

marriage deprives Plaintiffs of numerous federal protections, benefits, and obligations that areavailable to married same-sex couples. See hi at 2683 (noting that over 1,000 federal lawsaddress marital or spousal status). These federal rights include, among others, having the samerights as heterosexual married couples in one anothers Social Security benefits, 42 U.S.C. 416, spousal privileges, seeking protections under the Family and Medical Leave Act 29U.S.C. 2612, and federal Medicaid benefits.

41. Same-sex couples residing in Texas cannot rely upon an out-of-state marriage toconfer federal protections, benefits, and obligations. Texas same-sex couples who many inanother state must contend with substantial uncertainty regarding whether the marriage will berecognized by the federal government for various purposes. For instance, while the InternalRevenue Service recently adopted a state of celebration rule in recognizing same-sexmarriages, Rev. Ruling 2013-17 (Aug. 30,2013), it is unclear what other federal agencies willfollow. In fact, the Department of Labor recently announced that FMLA will apply only tosame-sex couples that reside in states recognizing their marriage. See Dept. of Labor, Fact



7/27/2019 5:13-cv-00982 #1

11/18

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 DefendantAbbott advise him what, if any, actions the Texas Military Forces can take to comply with theDepartment ofDefenses policy of extending spousal and dependent benefits to same-sexcouples 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 couplesupon the death of a spouse, such as intestacy rights. See Tex. Probate Code 38.45. Thesurviving 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 theirhomestead upon the death their spouse. Tex. Const., art 16, 52. Same-sex couples cannotrely upon courts to equitably divide property as a heterosexual married couple can if theydivorce, and they are not entitled to a community property presumption. Tex. Family Code ft3.003.7.001,7.003. Nor can same-sex couples seek spousal maintenance if they separate ordivorce. Id. 8.051. Additionally, absent conferring power of attorney or other writtenagreement, Plaintiffs do not have the right to make health care decisions for one another whennecessary, and PlaintilTh do not have the right to make burial decisions and other decisionsregarding the disposition and handling of the remains of his or her spouse. Same-sex couplesalso 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 oflaw, are denying Plaintiffs the intangible and tangible benefits of being married.

PLAINTIFFS ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT Page II105030373


7/27/2019 5:13-cv-00982 #1

12/18

E. Texas Constitutional and Statutory lrovisions Banning Same-Sex MarriageAre Subject to Heightened Scrutin.

44 . Homosexuals ha e faced a long and painful history of societal and governmentsponsored discriminalion.

45. While their sexual orientation bears no relation to their ability to contribute tosociety, gay and lesbian individuals historically have been, and continue to be . the target ofpurposeful discrimination, including statesanctioned discrimination, due solely to their sexualorientation.

46 . Sexual orientation is immutable and fundamental to all individuals.47. Gay and lesbian individuals lack the political power to eliminate discriminatory

laws.48 . Because the samesex marriage prohibitions classify citizens based upon factors

that reflect prejudice and antipathy--a view that those in the burdened class are no t as worthyor deserving as others. (liv ofCichurne v Cleburne Living (Ii:. Inc.. 473 U.S. 432. 440

I 985). the prohibitions must pass heightened judicial scrutiny.F. Texas Refusal to Allow or Recognize Same-Sex Marria2e Does Not ServeAny Covernment Interest.

49 . Whether under a strict or heightened scrutiny analysis, or under the more lenientrational basis test, Texas prohibition of same-sex marriage does not bear any relation to alegitimate government purpose, much less an important or compelling governmental interest.Excluding same-sex couples from marriage does not lead to increased stability in marriagesbetween heterosexual couples. Permitting same-sex couples to marry does no t destabilizeheterosexual marriages.

50. Excluding same-sex couples from marriage does no t optimize the child-rearingenvironment of married heterosexuals. Children of same-sex marriages do not suffer any harmPLAINTIFFS ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT Page 12105030373


7/27/2019 5:13-cv-00982 #1

13/18

from having samesex paren s no r are such children more likely to become homosexual. Agreat deal of scientific research documents there is no cause-and-effect relationship betweenparents sexual orientation and childrens well-being. Press Release, American Academy ofPediatrics. American Academy of Pediatrics Supports Same (lender Civil Marriage (Mar. 212013).

V. REQUEST FOR DECLARATORY RELIEFCLAIM ONE: DUE PROCESS

5 1. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference paragraphs I through 50, supra. as if fully setforth herein.

52. The Texas Constitution and slatutes at issue in this case violate libertiesprotected by the Due Process Clause of Fourteenth Amendment to the United StatesConstitution. both on its face and as applied to Plaintiffs.

53. The Texas Constitution and statutes at issue here impinge on fundamentalliberties by denying same-sex couples the opportunity to marry and deprive them of therecognition of their out-of-state marriages. The State of Texas. through Defendants, refuses toallow same-sex couples to enter into the same officially sanctioned relationship as heterosexualindividuals. By denying samesex couples the right to marry and refi.ising to recognize theirout-of-state marriages, Texas stigmatizes same-sex couples, as well as their children andfamilies, and denies them the same dignity. respect. and stature aftbrded ollicially recognizedheterosexual family relationships.

PLAINTIFFS ORIGiNAL COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT Page 13105030373


7/27/2019 5:13-cv-00982 #1

14/18

CLAIM TWO: EQUAL PROTECTION54. Plainti us incorporate by relirence parauraphs I through 53. vupra. as if fully set

lorth herein.55. The Texas Constitution and statutes at issue here violate the Equal Protection

(lause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. both on its face and asapplied 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 denyingthat right, and the heneflis which come with that right, to same-sex couples. Because same-sexcouples are unable to marry, they are unequal in the eves of the law and their lhmilies aredenied the same respect as lrnilies of heterosexuals. By explicitly denying civil marriage tosame-sex couples. Texas ban on same-sex marriage discriminates on the basis of sexualorientation.

57. The disadvantage fexas imposes on samesex couples is the result of disapprovalor animus against a politically unpopular group. The Texas constitution and statutes at issue inthis lawsuit deny same-sex couples, but not others, the right to marry. Thus, the TexasConstitution and the statutes at issue in this case violate the Equal Protection Clause of theFourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution because they relegate homosexuals toa 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 theEqual Protection Clause because they discriminate on the basis of sex by distinguishingbetween heterosexual couples and same-sex couples. Thus. the limitation on civil marriage



7/27/2019 5:13-cv-00982 #1

15/18

depends upon an individual persons sex; a man who wishes to marry a man may not do sobecause 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. 198359. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 58, supru. as if fully set

forth herein.60. Insofar as Defendants, acting under color of state law. enforce Texas

constitutional and statutory terms denying Plaintiffs the right to marry, Defendants aredepriving and will continue to deprive Plaintiffs of numerous rights secured by the UnitedStates Constitution in violation of 42 U.S.C. 1983.

IRREPARABLE HARM61. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference paragraphs I through 60, supra, as if fully set

forth herein.62. 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 tosuffer the severe humiliation, emotional distress, pain, suffering, psychological harm, andstigma caused by the inability to marry the ones they love and have soc ie ty recognize theirmarriages.

63. Each day that Plaintiffs are denied the freedom to marry , or have their marriagerecognized by Texas, they suffer irreparable harm as a direct result of Defendants violation oftheir constitutional rights.

64. An actual and judicially cognizable controversy exists between Plaintiffs andDefendants regarding Texas refusal to allow or recognize same-sex marriage.



7/27/2019 5:13-cv-00982 #1

16/18

PRA\ 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

lexas statutes at issue in this case, as applied to Plaintilts. violate the l)ue Process and EqualProtection 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 Texasconstitutional and statutory provisions at issue herein;

c. Award Plaintiffs their reasonable costs. expenses, and attorneys lI.es; andd. For such other relief the Court deems proper. jus t and equitable.

Respectfully submitted,AKIN GIfMP STRAUSS HAUER & FELL) LLP

i d7 1 f /11/

- I___akChasno1Y(StN 04153500) /bchasnoffJakingump.corn / /Daniel McNeel Lane Jj4 (513N 0078A441Frank Stenger-Castro (SBN 19143500)fscastroakingurnp.corn300 Convent Street, Suite 1600San Antonio, Texas 78205Phone: (210) 281-7000Fax: (210) 224-2035

Attorneys for Plaintiffs



7/27/2019 5:13-cv-00982 #1

17/18

S 44 (Rev. 12/12) CIVIL COVER SHEETThe 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

rovided 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 theurpose of initiating the civil docket sheet. (SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON NEXT PAGE OF THIS FORM.)

. (a) PLAINTIFFS DEFENDANTS

(b) County of Residence of First Listed Plaintiff County of Residence of First Listed Defendant

(EXCEPT IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES) (IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES ONLY)

NOTE: IN LAND CONDEMNATION CASES, USE THE LOCATION OFTHE TRACT OF LAND INVOLVED.

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

I. BASIS OF JURISDICTION(Place an X in One Box Only) III. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES (Place an X in One Box for (For Diversity Cases Only) and One Box for Defendant

1 U.S. Government 3 Federal Question PTF DEF PTF D

Plaintiff (U.S. Government Not a Party) Citizen of This State 1 1 Incorporated orPrincipal Place 4

of Business In This State

2 U.S. Government 4 Diversity Citizen of Another State 2 2 Incorporated andPrincipal Place 5

Defendant (Indicate Citizenship of Parties in Item III) of Business In Another State

Citizen or Subject of a 3 3 Foreign Nation 6

Foreign Country

V. NATURE OF SUIT(Place an X in One Box Only)CONTRACT TORTS FORFEITURE/PENALTY BANKRUPTCY OTHER STATUTES

110 Insurance PERSONAL INJURY PERSONAL INJURY 625 Drug Related Seizure 422 Appeal 28 USC 158 375 False Claims Act

120 Marine 310 Airplane 365 Personal Injury - of Property 21 USC 881 423 Withdrawal 400 State Reapportionm

130 Miller Act 315 Airplane Product Product Liability 690 Other 28 USC 157 410 Antitrust

140 Negotiable Instrument Liability 367 Health Care/ 430 Banks and Banking

150 Recovery of Overpayment 320 Assault, Libel & Pharmaceutical PROPERTY RIGHTS 450 Commerce& Enforcement of Judgment Slander Personal Injury 820 Copyrights 460 Deportation

151 Medicare Act 330 Federal Employers Product Liabi lity 830 Patent 470 Racketeer Influence

152 Recovery of Defaulted Liability 368 Asbestos Personal 840 Trademark Corrupt Organizatio

Student Loans 340 Marine Injury Product 480 Consumer Credit

(Excludes Veterans) 345 Marine Product Liability LABOR SOCIAL SECURITY 490 Cable/Sat TV 153 Recovery of Overpayment Liability PERSONAL PROPERTY 710 Fair Labor Standards 861 HIA (1395ff) 850 Securities/Commod

of Veterans Benefits 350 Motor Vehicle 370 Other Fraud Act 862 Black Lung (923) Exchange

160 Stockholders Suits 355 Motor Vehicle 371 Truth in Lending 720 Labor/Management 863 DIWC/DIWW (405(g)) 890 Other Statutory Acti

190 Other Contract Product Liability 380 Other Personal Relations 864 SSID Title XVI 891 Agricultural Acts

195 Contract Product Liability 360 Other Personal Property Damage 740 Railway Labor Act 865 RSI (405(g)) 893 Environmental Matt

196 Franchise Injury 385 Property Damage 751 Family and Medical 895 Freedom of Informa

362 Personal Injury - Product Liability Leave Act ActMedical Malpractice 790 Other Labor Litigation 896 Arbitration

REAL PROPERTY CIVIL RIGHTS PRISONER PETITIONS 791 Employee Retirement FEDERAL TAX SUITS 899 Administrative Proc

210 Land Condemnation 440 Other Civil Rights Habeas Corpus: Income Security Act 870 Taxes (U.S. Plaintiff Act/Review or Appe

220 Foreclosure 441 Voting 463 Alien Detainee or Defendant) Agency Decision

230 Rent Lease & Ejectment 442 Employment 510 Motions to Vacate 871 IRSThird Party 950 Constitutionality of

240 Torts to Land 443 Housing/ Sentence 26 USC 7609 State Statutes

245 Tort Product Liability Accommodations 530 General

290 All Other Real Property 445 Amer. w/Disabilities - 535 Death Penalty IMMIGRATION

Employment Other: 462 Naturalization Application 446 Amer. w/Disabilities - 540 Mandamus & Other 465 Other Immigration

Other 550 Civil Rights Actions

448 Education 555 Prison Condition

560 Civil Detainee -

Conditions of

Confinement

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

1 OriginalProceeding

2 Removed fromState Court

3 Remanded fromAppellate Court

4 Reinstated orReopened

5 Transferred fromAnother District(specify)

6 MultidistrictLitigation

VI. CAUSE OF ACTION

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

Brief description of cause:

VII. REQUESTED INCOMPLAINT:

CHECK IF THIS IS A CLASS ACTIONUNDER RULE 23, F.R.Cv.P.

DEMAND $ CHECK YES only if demanded in complaint

JURY DEMAND: Yes No

VIII. RELATED CASE(S)IF ANY

(See instructions):JUDGE DOCKET NUMBER

DATE SIGNATURE OF ATTORNEY OF RECORD

FOR OFFICE USE ONLY

RECEIPT # AMOUNT APPLYING IFP JUDGE MAG. JUDGE

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

Cleopatra De Leon, Nicole Dimetman, Victor Holmes and Mark Phariss

Travis

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

Rick Perry, Greg Abbott, Gerard Rickhoff, David Lakey

Travis

42 U.S.C. 1983; Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution

Constitutional challenge to Texas' ban on same-sex rights.

0/28/2013 Barry A. Chasnoff, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP

Print Save As... Reset

5:13-cv-982

7/27/2019 5:13-cv-00982 #1

18/18

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 o

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, us

only the full name or standard abbreviations. If the plaintiff or defendant is an official within a government agency, identify first the agency andthen 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 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 lan

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, noin 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 "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 amendm

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 tak

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 diversitycases.)

III. Residence (citizenship) of Principal Parties. This section of the JS 44 is to be completed if diversity of citizenship was indicated above. Marksection for each principal party.

IV. 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,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 th

one nature of suit, select the most definitive.

V. 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 fili

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 o

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 140

When this box is checked, do not check (5) above.

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 jurisdictionstatutes 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 docketnumbers and the corresponding judge names for such cases.

Date and Attorney Signature. Date and sign the civil cover sheet.

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

Documents

5:13-cv-00982 #1