Original Complaint
This document was uploaded by user and they confirmed that they have the permission to share it. If you are author or own the copyright of this book, please report to us by using this DMCA report form. Report DMCA
Overview
Download & View Original Complaint as PDF for free.
More details
- Words: 1,065
- Pages: 7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA Kristoffer J. Bonilla and John Thomas Wray, PLAINTIFFS v. Brenda Hurst, Director of the Orleans Parish Office of Marriage Licensing; Darlene W. Smith, State Registrar of Vital Records and Statistics; Dr. Rony Francola, Assistant Secretary for the Office of Public Health; Alan Levine, Secretary of the Department of Health and Hospitals; and James D. Caldwell, Attorney General, DEFENDANTS
Civil Action No. _____________ Number ____________ Section “____”, Mag. “_______”
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF NOW COME PLAINTIFFS, Kristoffer J. Bonilla and John Thomas Wray, both persons of the full age of majority, United States citizens, domiciled and residing in the State of Louisiana, who, with respect, represent: 1. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1331, this Court has jurisdiction over the action because it arises under the First, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the
United States Constitution and international treaties, including, but not limited to, the Charter of the United Nations, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. 2. On April 2, 2009, Petitioners applied for a marriage license at the Orleans Parish Marriage License Office and were denied. The clerk refused to issue a marriage license because both applicants were male and that Louisiana law (Article XII §15 of the Louisiana Constitution and Louisiana Civil Code Articles 89 and 3520) denies an individual the right to marry if he or she chooses a partner of the same sex. 3. Respondents’ refusal to grant the Petitioners a marriage license violates the substantive due process clause of the Fifth Amendment (as applied to Louisiana by the Fourteenth Amendment) by infringing on a fundamental liberty interest, the right to marry, without any compelling government interest. 4. Moreover, the supporting Louisiana provisions run afoul of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment by curtailing the right to marry based upon a religious interpretation of the nature and purpose of marriage itself. By failing to articulate a legitimate, compelling and secular interest for the restriction on marriage, the State has necessarily established a wholly
religious civil institution. Accordingly, Respondents’ appeal to the “sanctity” or religious tradition of marriage does not justify the State’s restriction; it unmasks an independent constitutional objection. 5. Additionally, the Louisiana laws violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Respondents issue marriage licenses in a discriminatory fashion. First, the law discriminates on the basis of sex by restricting men from marrying men and women from marrying women; the right to choose a partner, essential to a meaningful marriage, is encumbered because of the applicant’s sex. Second, it discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation by affecting the class of persons not exclusively attracted to members of the opposite sex. Accordingly, the only individuals who enjoy the right to marry are those exclusively attracted to members of the opposite sex. Neither rational basis nor substantial or compelling interest supports that limitation. Therefore, regardless of how the class affected is articulated, Louisiana law fails requisite Constitutional scrutiny. 6. Finally, international law, as expressed in the Preamble and Article I §3 to the U.N. Charter, Articles 2, 3, 6, 7, 12, 16 and 22 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Articles 17, 23, 25 and 26 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, proscribes the actions and laws prompting the instant action. As treaties ratified by the United
States Senate, these provisions supersede Louisiana’s marriage restriction. 7. Respondent Brenda Hurst is the Director of the Orleans Parish Office of Marriage Licensing and, as such, is the public official charged with reviewing applications for marriage licenses, insuring compliance with State regulation and issuing licenses to prospective couples. She is sued herein solely in her official capacity. 8. Respondent Darlene W. Smith is the Registrar of Vital Records and Statistics of the State of Louisiana. As Registrar Ms. Smith instructs and supervises local registrars by prescribing and furnishing vital statistic forms, including marriage license forms for use by licensing officials. In addition, she arranges and preserves all registered vital statistics licenses, including marriages, in a comprehensive State index. She is sued herein solely in her official capacity. 9. Respondent Rony Francola, M.D. is the Assistant Secretary of the Office of Public Health for the State of Louisiana. Upon information and belief, Dr. Francola reports to Respondent Levine and is the official responsible for prescribing and furnishing the forms for the application for the license to marry, the certificate of registry of marriage and the marriage certificate. He is sued herein only in his official capacity.
10. Respondent Alan Levine is the Louisiana Secretary for the Department of Health and Hospitals, responsible for enforcing Louisiana laws regulating the licensing of marriage through oversight and control of both the Office of Public Health and State Registrar of Vital Records and Statistics. He is sued herein solely in his official capacity. 11. Respondent James D. Caldwell is the Attorney General for the State of Louisiana. As the enforcement officer for the laws of the State, he bears ultimate responsibility and burden to justify Louisiana’s legal restrictions on the right to marry. He is sued herein solely in his official capacity.
WHEREFORE, Petitioners request the following relief: 1. That this Court, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2201 and Rule 57 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, order a speedy hearing and issue a declaratory judgment holding Art. XII, §15 of the Louisiana Constitution, Articles 89 and Article 3520 of the Louisiana Civil Code invalid because they are either unconstitutional, illegal under international law, or both. 2.
That this Court, pursuant to Rule 65(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, issue injunctive relief requiring Respondents to issue the Petitioners a marriage license and restraining Respondents from implementing, enforcing or applying the relevant Louisiana provisions. 3. That this Court, pursuant to Rule 81(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, grant relief previously available through the writ of mandamus to insure that parish clerks and other local officials throughout the State, in performing their duty to issue marriage licenses in their jurisdictions, do so without regard for either the sex or sexual orientation of either applicant. 4. That Petitioners be awarded costs; and 5. For such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and equitable.
Date _________________________ _
____________________________ Kristoffer J. Bonilla, pro se
____________________________ John Thomas Wray, pro se
1
Civil Action No. _____________ Number ____________ Section “____”, Mag. “_______”
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF NOW COME PLAINTIFFS, Kristoffer J. Bonilla and John Thomas Wray, both persons of the full age of majority, United States citizens, domiciled and residing in the State of Louisiana, who, with respect, represent: 1. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1331, this Court has jurisdiction over the action because it arises under the First, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the
United States Constitution and international treaties, including, but not limited to, the Charter of the United Nations, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. 2. On April 2, 2009, Petitioners applied for a marriage license at the Orleans Parish Marriage License Office and were denied. The clerk refused to issue a marriage license because both applicants were male and that Louisiana law (Article XII §15 of the Louisiana Constitution and Louisiana Civil Code Articles 89 and 3520) denies an individual the right to marry if he or she chooses a partner of the same sex. 3. Respondents’ refusal to grant the Petitioners a marriage license violates the substantive due process clause of the Fifth Amendment (as applied to Louisiana by the Fourteenth Amendment) by infringing on a fundamental liberty interest, the right to marry, without any compelling government interest. 4. Moreover, the supporting Louisiana provisions run afoul of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment by curtailing the right to marry based upon a religious interpretation of the nature and purpose of marriage itself. By failing to articulate a legitimate, compelling and secular interest for the restriction on marriage, the State has necessarily established a wholly
religious civil institution. Accordingly, Respondents’ appeal to the “sanctity” or religious tradition of marriage does not justify the State’s restriction; it unmasks an independent constitutional objection. 5. Additionally, the Louisiana laws violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Respondents issue marriage licenses in a discriminatory fashion. First, the law discriminates on the basis of sex by restricting men from marrying men and women from marrying women; the right to choose a partner, essential to a meaningful marriage, is encumbered because of the applicant’s sex. Second, it discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation by affecting the class of persons not exclusively attracted to members of the opposite sex. Accordingly, the only individuals who enjoy the right to marry are those exclusively attracted to members of the opposite sex. Neither rational basis nor substantial or compelling interest supports that limitation. Therefore, regardless of how the class affected is articulated, Louisiana law fails requisite Constitutional scrutiny. 6. Finally, international law, as expressed in the Preamble and Article I §3 to the U.N. Charter, Articles 2, 3, 6, 7, 12, 16 and 22 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Articles 17, 23, 25 and 26 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, proscribes the actions and laws prompting the instant action. As treaties ratified by the United
States Senate, these provisions supersede Louisiana’s marriage restriction. 7. Respondent Brenda Hurst is the Director of the Orleans Parish Office of Marriage Licensing and, as such, is the public official charged with reviewing applications for marriage licenses, insuring compliance with State regulation and issuing licenses to prospective couples. She is sued herein solely in her official capacity. 8. Respondent Darlene W. Smith is the Registrar of Vital Records and Statistics of the State of Louisiana. As Registrar Ms. Smith instructs and supervises local registrars by prescribing and furnishing vital statistic forms, including marriage license forms for use by licensing officials. In addition, she arranges and preserves all registered vital statistics licenses, including marriages, in a comprehensive State index. She is sued herein solely in her official capacity. 9. Respondent Rony Francola, M.D. is the Assistant Secretary of the Office of Public Health for the State of Louisiana. Upon information and belief, Dr. Francola reports to Respondent Levine and is the official responsible for prescribing and furnishing the forms for the application for the license to marry, the certificate of registry of marriage and the marriage certificate. He is sued herein only in his official capacity.
10. Respondent Alan Levine is the Louisiana Secretary for the Department of Health and Hospitals, responsible for enforcing Louisiana laws regulating the licensing of marriage through oversight and control of both the Office of Public Health and State Registrar of Vital Records and Statistics. He is sued herein solely in his official capacity. 11. Respondent James D. Caldwell is the Attorney General for the State of Louisiana. As the enforcement officer for the laws of the State, he bears ultimate responsibility and burden to justify Louisiana’s legal restrictions on the right to marry. He is sued herein solely in his official capacity.
WHEREFORE, Petitioners request the following relief: 1. That this Court, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2201 and Rule 57 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, order a speedy hearing and issue a declaratory judgment holding Art. XII, §15 of the Louisiana Constitution, Articles 89 and Article 3520 of the Louisiana Civil Code invalid because they are either unconstitutional, illegal under international law, or both. 2.
That this Court, pursuant to Rule 65(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, issue injunctive relief requiring Respondents to issue the Petitioners a marriage license and restraining Respondents from implementing, enforcing or applying the relevant Louisiana provisions. 3. That this Court, pursuant to Rule 81(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, grant relief previously available through the writ of mandamus to insure that parish clerks and other local officials throughout the State, in performing their duty to issue marriage licenses in their jurisdictions, do so without regard for either the sex or sexual orientation of either applicant. 4. That Petitioners be awarded costs; and 5. For such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and equitable.
Date _________________________ _
____________________________ Kristoffer J. Bonilla, pro se
____________________________ John Thomas Wray, pro se
1
Related Documents
Original Complaint
May 2020 2
Original Wal-mart Complaint
August 2019 15
Thomas Hannon Original Complaint
May 2020 4
19910313a Federal Express Original Complaint
June 2020 6
Original
April 2020 23