1:11-cv-01240-JES-JAG # 1

Page 1 of 11

Monday, 27 June, 2011 05:28:05 PM Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS PEORIA DIVISION KENNETH BODDIE Plaintiff v. CITY OF PEORIA, ILLINOIS, an Illinois Local Governmental Entity, STEVEN SETTINSGAARD, Chief of Police of the Peoria Police Department, in His Individual Capacity, and HENRY HOLLING, City Manager of City of Peoria in His Individual Capacity, JIM ARDIS, Mayor of the City of Peoria, in His Individual Capacity Defendants COMPLAINT Now comes the Plaintiff, Ken Boddie, by Richard L. Steagall, his attorney, and complaining of the Defendants, City of Peoria, Illinois, an Illinois Local Governmental Entity, Steven Settinsgaard, Chief of Police of the Peoria Police Department, in His Individual Capacity, Henry Holling, City Manager of City of Peoria in His Individual Capacity, and Jim Ardis, Mayor of the City of Peoria in His Individual Capacity, for his claims states: I. Jurisdiction & Venue 1. Jurisdiction to hear plaintiffs claims under the Civil Rights Act of 1871, 42

E-FILED

11-1240 Jury Demand

U.S.C. 1983 is founded under 28 U.S.C. 1343 (a)(4). 2. Plaintiff is a resident of Peoria County, Illinois, the defendants are

1:11-cv-01240-JES-JAG # 1

Page 2 of 11

residents of Peoria County, Illinois, and the claim arose in Peoria County, Illinois. Venue 28 U.S.C. 1391 (a). The case is assigned to the Peoria Division of this court under Local Rule 40:1. 3. The incident complained of occurred on October 8, 2009 in the City of

Peoria, County of Peoria, and State of Illinois. II. The Parties 4. Plaintiff, Ken Boddie, is a Sergeant on the Peoria Police Department who

has been a City of Peoria Police Officer for 32 years and a Sergeant for 18 years since 1993. 5. Defendant, City of Peoria, Illinois is a an Illinois Local Governmental

Entity organized and existing as a home rule municipality under the laws of the State of Illinois. At all times material here, the City of Peoria was acting under color of state law. The City of Peoria is sued on two claims: A. A direct action under Section 1983 for the acts of the City of Peorias policy making agents in the scope of their authority as the human beings responsible for the policy of the City of Peoria, a governmental entity. An action for payment of any settlement or judgment for compensatory damages against the individual defendants acting in the scope of their employment for the City of Peoria under Section 9-102 of the Illinois Local Governmental Tort Immunity Act. 765 ILCS 10/9-102 (2008).

B.

5.

Defendant, Steven Settinsgaard, was at all times material here the Chief of

Police of the Peoria Police Department acting in the scope of his employment for the

1:11-cv-01240-JES-JAG # 1

Page 3 of 11

City of Peoria and under color of state law. He is sued in his Individual Capacity. 6. Defendant, Henry Holling, was at all times material here, the City

Manager of City of Peoria acting in the scope of his employment and under color of state law. He is sued in his Individual Capacity. 7. Defendant Jim Ardis, was at all times material, Mayor of the City of

Peoria, Illinois acting in the scope of his employment and under color of state law. He is sued in his Individual Capacity. III. The Incident 8. Boddie passed the examination for promotion to Lieutenant on the City of

Peoria Police Department and was placed in the list for hiring in the order set forth in the list as positions became available. A true copy of the Lieutenant List effective October 9, 2006 to October 8, 2009 is attached as Ex:1. A line is drawn through the five persons on that List who were hired as Lieutenant from October 9, 2006 to the year 2008. The City of Peoria hiring procedure is that established by the Illinois Municipal Code. The Board of Police and Fire Commissioners makes appointments of all member and officers of the police and fire departments. 65 ILCS 5/10-2.1-4 (2008). Promotions to open positions as officers of the police and fire departments are made in order of results of examination on a list of eligibles for positions for vacancies during the applicable period of the list. 65 ILCS 5/10-2.1-15 (2008); 65 ILCS 5/2.1-4 (2008); 65 ILCS 5/2.1-11 (2008). 9. There is no discretion on appointment of members and officers according 3

1:11-cv-01240-JES-JAG # 1

Page 4 of 11

to their placement on the list of those eligible for the Police Department members and Officers. When a vacancy in a position occurs, the person highest on the list of eligibles from the results of examination by the Board of Fire and Police Commissioners is the person who fills the vacant position. 10. In 2009, the first person on the Lieutenant hiring list before Boddie was

Robert Wagner. Wagner informed the Peoria Police Benevolent Board and Boddie that he would not accept the promotion. The hours were longer than the Sergeants hours, Wagner had younger children who he wanted to spend time with, he is relatively young and would have the opportunity for promotion to Lieutenant when his children were older. The result of Wagners decision was that Boddie was the person who would be hired as a Lieutenant in the next available opening for the remaining period of the List of Eligibles for the Lieutenant position when a vacancy occurred during the period toe List was applicable, which expired on October 8, 2009. 11. Robert Baer was promoted to Captain in March, 2008. Baer resided in

Chillicothe outside the City of Peoria limits. Chief Settinsgaard instructed Captain Baer that he had one year in which to set up a full time residence in the City of Peoria. The City residency requirement applies only to persons holding the rank of Captain or above. One Captain is excepted from this rule because he was residing outside the City when the rule was adopted and it was agreed he would be grandfathered as an exception to this rule. 12. If Captain Baer resigned his position as Captain, a Lieutenant would be

1:11-cv-01240-JES-JAG # 1

Page 5 of 11

promoted to fill Baers Captain position which would leave an opening for Lieutenant which Boddie would fill. 13. On March 20, 2009, Chief Settinsgaard with the approval of City Manager

Holling granted Captain Baer a six month extension on the deadline to establish residence in the City of Peoria. 14. The Promotional List for Lieutenant expired on October 8, 2009. The

Peoria Benevolent protested that this would jeopardize the promotion of those on the Lieutenants Promotion List and the Sergeants Promotion List as promotion of Boddie from Sergeant to Lieutenant would open the Sergeants position that Boddie would vacate to become Lieutenant. 15. Mayor Jim Ardis met with the Executive Board of the Peoria Police

Benvolent, which is the union collectively representing Peoria Police Officers, shortly after the announcement of the six month extension for Captain Baird was announced on March 20, 2009 and assured the Executive Board of the Peoria Police Benevolent that it would not affect the promotions of those on the Lieutenant and Sergeants List. 16. Captain Baird informed Chief Settinsgaard that he had established

residence in the City of Peoria in an apartment with his daughter who was in her 20s. Captain Bairds wife occupied the house in Chillicothe. 17. Chief Settinsgaard accepted Bairds explanation and he continued his

employment as a Captain until October 9, 2009 when he announced his retirement effective immediately, one day after the Lieutenant Promotional List expired.

1:11-cv-01240-JES-JAG # 1

Page 6 of 11

18.

The result of Chief Stettinsgaards acceptance of the claim of residency

with Captain Baers daughter and his knowledge of Baers impending retirement and acceptance of the retirement on October 9, 2009 one day after the Lieutenants Elgible List expired on October 8, 2009 was to deny Boddie the promotion to Lieutenant he was entitled to receive and the Executive Board of the Peoria Police Benevolent had been assured Boddie would receive which would open Boddies Sergeant position for the promotion of the highest on the Sergeants Elgibility List. It made no difference to Captain Baird whether his resignation was effective on October 8 or 9, 2009. 19. Chief Settinsgaard had stated to Lieutenants who were in the Captains

pool as those who expressed a desire to be promoted to Captain was called that the principal residence must be in Peoria without exception. 20. A Lieutenant was promoted to Captain in November and Richard Glover

was promoted to the rank of Sergeant when no Sergeants position was open immediately before expiration of the Sergeants List on November 4, 2009. A true copy of the Sergeants List is attached as Ex:2. Glover was demoted in January, 2010, but the result of his promotion before expiration of the List is that he had priority on any open Sergeants position over anyone on the new Sergeants List which replaced the List that expired just after November 4, 2009. 21. Boddie was denied the promotion he was entitled to receive on or before

October 7, 2009 because of the disparate treatment given Captain Baer, and Richard Glover who was promoted immediately before expiration of the Sergeants List on

1:11-cv-01240-JES-JAG # 1

Page 7 of 11

November 4, 2009. Boddie was not given the promotion after expiration of the Lieutenants Elgibility that Richard Glover received immediately before expiration of the Sergeants List on November 4, 2009. Chief Stettinsgaard fulfilled the representation to the Peoria Police Benevolent Executive Board that Captain Baers residency extension would not affect promotions from the existing Lieutenant and Sergeants Lists made by Mayor Ardis shortly after March 22, 2009 for the Sergeants position which had the representation about the Lieutenants List been followed would have left an open Sergeants position from Boddies promotion to Lieutenant -but did not fulfill that representation for Boddies promotion to Lieutenant. 22. The intentional denial of the promotion to Boddie was without any

rational basis and was instead based on preferential treatment given Captain Baer who was excepted from the Peoria Police Department Policy requiring command officers to reside within the limits of the City of Peoria and Richard Glover who received a promotion before expiration of the Sergeants List to give him seniority over the next open Sergeants position. B. 23. Constitutionally Protected Property Interest Boddies position on the Eligibility List for promotion to Lieutenant

expiring on October 8, 2009 is a legitimate claim of entitlement created by Sections 102.1-4, 2.1-11, and 2.1-11 of the Illinois Municipal Code 65 ILCS 5/10-2.1-15 (2008); 65 ILCS 5/2.1-4 (2008); 65 ILCS 5/2.1-11 (2008). 24. That statutory right is a form of property protected against deprivation

1:11-cv-01240-JES-JAG # 1

Page 8 of 11

without due process of law and equal protection of the laws by the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution. C. 25. Policy Making Agents of City of Peoria, Illinois for Police Promotions Mayor Ardis, City Manager Holling, and Chief Stettinsgaard are each

policy making agents of the City of Peoria for management of its Police Department and vacancies in offices of that Police Department. 26. Mayor Ardis, City Manager Holling, and Chief Settinsgaard each

personally participated in the decisions on the vacancies for Lieutenant and Sergeant and the exemption from Peoria Police Department Rules given Captain Baird that allowed him to keep the Captains position which would have been filled by Boddie on the Lieutenants List expiring on October 8, 2009 and the decision to promote Richard Glover to Sergeant before the Sergeants List expired on November 8, 2009. IV. Plaintiffs Claims A. Constitutional & Statutory Provisions Involved Constitution of the Unites States, Amendment XIV nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law nor deny any person equal protection of the laws. Civil Rights Act of 1871, 42 U.S.C. 1983 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, a citizen of the United States or any person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileged 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. 8

1:11-cv-01240-JES-JAG # 1

Page 9 of 11

B. 27.

Federal Claim The conduct of the City of Peoria through its policy making agents, Mayor

Ardis, City Manager Holling, and Chief Settinsgaard specifically alleged in Part III A acting as policy making agents of the City of Peoria as specifically alleged in Part III C in honoring Mayor Ardis representation to the Executive Board of the Peoria Police Benevolent that the extension of time given Captain Robert Baird to obtain residency in the City of Peoria on March 22, 2009 would not affect promotions from the Lieutenants List expiring on October 8, 2009 and the Sergeants List expiring on November 4, 2009 giving the promotion from the Sergeant to Richard Glover even though there were no open Sergeants positions and rejecting Mayor Ardis representation that the promotion to the open Lieutenant position would be made from the existing Lieutenants List is an irrational and wholly arbitrary executive decision denying Boddie his property interest as specifically alleged in Part III B in the Lieutenants Eligibility List contrary to the Fourteenth Amendment guaranty of equal protection of the laws. V. Relief Requested 28. As a direct and proximate result of the deprivation of Boddies property

interest without equal protection of the laws, Boddie has lost the income he would have earned as Lieutenant in the amount of $3,684.41 for the first year after his promotion, $8,120.53 the second year, $11,209.50 the third year, and retirement income $6,253.19 per year, for the remaining 30 years of his life, totaling $187, 595.70 of lost retirement income computed in terms of what can be purchased by 2011 dollars, for a total amount 9

1:11-cv-01240-JES-JAG # 1

Page 10 of 11

of $210,610.14 computed in terms of what can be purchased by 2011 dollars. Boddie is entitled to pre-judgment interest on the amount of past income lost; the amount earned from an award of future damages is offset by the declining purchasing power of the dollar that occurs in any growing economy and has occurred in the United States since before Independence. A true copy of the Excel spreadsheet containing the computation of damages is Ex:3. 29. Boddie is entitled to an injunction making him eligible for the next

available position as Lieutenant with damages in the amount of lost income and retirement through the date of appointment as Lieutenant placing him in the same position as he would have been had he been promoted to the vacant Lieutenants position on October 8, 2009 plus appropriate interest at market rates. 30. Boddie has has in the past and will in the future incur attorney's fees and

expenses in the prosecution of this action which he is entitled to recover as a prevailing plaintiff under 42 U.S.C. 1988. VII. Prayer for Relief Wherefore, Plaintiff, Kenneth Boddie, prays for judgment in his favor and against the Defendants, in the following particulars: 1. Against the Defendants, City of Peoria, an Illinois Local Governmental Entity, Steven Settingsgaard, in His Individual Capacity, Henry Holling in His Individual Capacity, and Jim Ardis in His Individual Capacity jointly and severally for compensatory damages in the amount of Two Hundred Ten Thousand Six Hundred Ten and Fourteen cents ($210, 610.14.) plus appropriate interest at market rates.

10

1:11-cv-01240-JES-JAG # 1

Page 11 of 11

2.

An injunction against Defendant, City of Peoria, Illinois, a Local Governmental Entity directing it and its authorized agents to making him eligible for the next available position as Lieutenant with damages in the amount of lost income and retirement through the date of appointment as Lieutenant placing him in the same position as he would have been had he been promoted to the vacant Lieutenants position on October 8, 2009 plus appropriate interest and market rates. An award of the reasonable attorneys fees, expenses, and expert witness fees incurred in prosecuting this action as a part of costs in favor of Plaintiff, Kenneth Boddie, and against the Defendants, City of Peoria, an Illinois Local Governmental Entity, Steven Settingsgaard, in His Individual Capacity, Henry Holling in His Individual Capacity, and Jim Ardis in His Individual Capacity PLAINTIFF DEMANDS A TRIAL BY JURY

3.

Respectfully submitted,

s/ Richard L. Steagall RICHARD L. STEAGALL Attorney for the Plaintiff, Kenneth Boddie

RICHARD L. STEAGALL RYAN S. McCRACKEN Nicoara & Steagall Commerce Bank Building 416 Main Street, Suite 815 Peoria, IL 61602 Tel: (309) 674-6085 Fax: (309) 674-6032 nicsteag@mtco.com

11

1:11-cv-01240-JES-JAG # 1-1

Page 1 of 1

Monday, 27 June, 2011 05:28:06 PM Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD

E-FILED

1:11-cv-01240-JES-JAG # 1-2

Page 1 of 1

Monday, 27 June, 2011 05:28:06 PM Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD

E-FILED

1:11-cv-01240-JES-JAG # 1-3

Page 1 of 1

Monday, 27 June, 2011 05:28:06 PM Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD

E-FILED

OJS 44 (Rev. 3/99)

1:11-cv-01240-JES-JAG # 1-4

Monday, 27 June, 2011 05:28:06 PM 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 Clerk, September 1974, Court, for the by law, except as provided by local rules of court. This form, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States inU.S. District is requiredILCD
use of the Clerk of Court for the purpose of initiating the civil docket sheet. (SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON THE REVERSE OF THE FORM.) I. (a) PLAINTIFFS Kenneth Boddie DEFENDANTS City of Peoria, Illinois, an Illinois Local Governmental Entity, Steven Settingsgaard, Chief of Police of the Peoria Police Department, in His Individual Capacity, Henry Holling, City Manager of the City of Peoria, in His Individual Capacity, Jim Ardis, Mayor of the City of Peoria, in His Individual Capacity County of Residence of First Listed (IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES ONLY)
N O TE: IN LAN D C O N D EM N ATIO N C ASES, U SE THE LO C ATIO N O F THE LAN D IN V O LV ED .

CIVIL COVER SHEET

Page 1 of 3

E-FILED

(b) County of Residence of First PEORIA (EXCEPT IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES)

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

RICHARD L. STEAGALL , NICOARA & STEAGALL 416 MAIN STREET, SUITE 815 PEORIA, IL 61602

Attorneys (If Known)

II. BASIS OF JURISDICTION

G 1 U.S. Government Plaintiff 2 U.S. Government Defendant

(Place an X in O ne Box O nly)

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

(For Diversity Cases Only)
DEF and O ne Box for D efendant) DEF

X 3 Federal Question (U.S. Government Not a Party) G 4 Diversity (Indicate Citizenship of Parties in Item III)

Citizen of This State

G 1

G1

Incorporated or Principal Place of Business In This State

G 4

G4

Citizen of Another State G 2

G2

Incorporated and Principal Place G 5 of Business In Another State Foreign Nation G 6

G5

Citizen or Subject of a Foreign Country

G 3

G3

G6

IV. NATURE OF SUIT

CONTRACT
G G G G G G G 110 120 130 140 150 Insurance M arine M iller Act N egotiable Instrument R ecovery of O verpayment & E nforcement of Judgment 151 M edicare Act 152 R ecovery of D efaulted Student Loans (Excl. V eterans) 153 R ecovery of O verpayment of V eterans Benefits 160 Stockholders Suits 190 O ther C ontract 195 C ontract Product Liability G G G G G G G G G

(Place an X in One Box Only)

TORTS
P E R SO N A L IN JU R Y 310 Airplane 315 Airplane Product Liability 320 Assault, Libel & Slander 330 Federal Employers Liability 340 M arine 345 M arine Product Liability 350 M otor V ehicle 355 M otor V ehicle Product Liability 360 O ther Personal Injury P E R SO N A L IN JU R Y G 362 Personal Injury M ed. M alpractice G 365 Personal Injury Product Liability G 368 Asbestos Personal Injury Product Liability P E R SO N A L P R O P E R T Y G 370 O ther Fraud G 371 Truth in Lending G 380 O ther Personal Property D amage G 385 Property D amage Product Liability

FORFEITURE/PENALTY
G G G G G G G G 610 Agriculture 620 O ther Food & D rug 625 D rug R elated Seizure of Property 21 U SC 630 Liquor Law s 640 R .R . & Truck 650 Airline R egs. 660 O ccupational Safety/Health 690 O ther G G

BANKRUPTCY
422 Appeal 28 U SC 158 423 W ithdraw al 28 U SC 157 G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G

OTHER STATUTES
400 State R eapportionment 410 Antitrust 430 Banks and Banking 450 C ommerce/IC C R ates/etc. 460 D eportation 470 R acketeer Influenced and C orrupt O rganizations 810 Selective Service 850 Securities/C ommodities/ Exchange 875 C ustomer C hallenge 12 U SC 3410 891 Agricultural Acts 892 Economic Stabilization Act 893 Environmental M atters 894 Energy Allocation Act 895 Freedom of Information Act 900 Appeal of Fee D etermination U nder Equal Access to Justice 950 C onstitutionality of State Statutes

PROPERTY RIGHTS
G G G 820 C opyrights 830 Patent 840 Trademark

G G G G

LABOR
G G G G G G 710 Fair Labor Standards G Act G 720 Labor/M gmt. R elations G G 730 Labor/M gmt.R eporting G & D isclosure Act 740 R ailw ay Labor Act 790 O ther Labor Litigation 791 Empl. R et. Inc. Security Act

SOCIAL SECURITY
861 862 863 864 865 HIA (1395ff) Black Lung (923) D IW C /D IW W (405(g)) SSID Title X V I R SI (405(g))

REAL PROPERTY
G G G G G G 210 Land C ondemnation 220 Foreclosure 230 240 245 290 R ent Lease & Ejectment Torts to Land Tort Product Liability All O ther R eal Property G G X G

CIVIL RIGHTS
441 V oting 442 Employment 443 Housing/ Accommodations 444 W elfare 440 O ther C ivil R ights

PRISONER PETITIONS
G 510 M otions to V acate Sentence Habeas C orpus: G 530 G eneral G 535 D eath Penalty G 540 M andamus & O ther G G 550 C ivil R ights 555 Prison C ondition

FEDERAL TAX SUITS

G 870 Taxes (U .S. Plaintiff or D efendant) G 871 IR S Third Party 26 U SC 7609

G 890 O ther Statutory Actions

V. ORIGIN
X 1 Original Proceeding

(PLACE AN X IN ONE BOX ONLY)

G 2 Removed from State Court G 3 Remanded from Appellate Court

Transferred from another district G 4 Reinstated or G 5 (specify) Reopened

G 6 Multidistrict Litigation

Appeal to District Judge from G 7 Magistrate Judgment

VI. CAUSE OF ACTION VII. REQUESTED IN COM PLAINT: VIII. RELATED CASE(S) IF ANY 6/27/11
D ATE

(C ite the U .S. C ivil Statute under w hich you are filing and w rite brief statement of cause. D o not cite jurisdictional statutes unless diversity.)

42 U .S.C . 1983

G CHECK IF THIS IS A CLASS ACTION

UNDER F.R.C.P. 23 (See instructions): JUDGE

DEMAND $ 210,610.00

CHECK YES only if demanded in complaint: X Y es No JURY DEMAND:

DOCKET NUMBER

s/Richard L. Steagall
SIG N ATU R E O F ATTO R N EY O F R EC O R D

1:11-cv-01240-JES-JAG # 1-4
F O R O F F IC E U SE O N L Y R EC EIPT # AM O U N APPLY IN G IFP

Page 2 of 3

JU D G E

M AG . JU D G E

JS 44 Reverse (Rev. 12/96)

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.C.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; 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 the nature of suit cannot be determined, be sure the cause of action, in Section IV below, is sufficient to enable the deputy clerk or the statistical clerks in the Administrative Office to determine the nature of suit. If the cause fits more than one nature of suit, select the most definitive. 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. 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. Appeal to District Judge from Magistrate Judgment. (7) Check this box for an appeal from a magistrate judges decision. VI. VII. Cause of Action. Report the civil statute directly related to the cause of action and give a brief description of the cause. 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 dollar amount (in thousands of dollars) 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.

1:11-cv-01240-JES-JAG # 1-4

Page 3 of 3