Latin Americans of Japanese descent is suing the federal government, seeking damages allegedly stemming from the policy of deportation and internment of persons of Japanese descent residing in the U.S. during World War II. The Civil Liberties Act of 1988 included an apology and payments of $20,000 each to Japanese Americans interred during the war in such camps as Manzanar. This suit filed August 27, 1996 says the act's exclusion from compensation of persons who were not U.S. citizens or permanent residents at the time of their internment is unconstitutional.

 

 

 

Robin S. Toma 

320 West Temple Street 

Suite 1184 

Los Angeles, California 90012 

213/974-7640 

 

Paul L. Mills 

3435 Wilshire Boulevard 

Suite 2900 

Los Angeles, California 90010-2015 

213/381-7793 

 

Fred Okrand 

Mark D. Rosenbaum 

ACLU Foundation of Southern California 

1616 Beverly Boulevard 

Los Angeles, California 90026 

213/977-9500 

 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs 

 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

 

CARMEN MOCHIZUKI ALICIA 

NISHIMOTO and HENRY KOSHIO 

SHIMA, on behalf of themselves and 

all others similarly situated, 

 

Plaintiffs, 

 

vs. 

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

JANET RENO, in her official 

capacity as Attorney General DEDE 

GREENE Administrator of the Office 

of Redress Administration, in her 

official capacity and UNKNOWN 

U.S. GOVERNMENT AGENTS, 

 

Defendants. 

 

CIV. NO. 9659 8655L (Ex) 

 

CIVIL RIGHTS COMPLAINT FOR 

DECLARATORY INJUNCTIVE 

AND MONETARY RELIEF: CLASS 

ACTION 

 

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 

 

 

I. 

 

INTRODUCTION 

 

1. This is an action seeking relief for over 2,000 persons of Japanese descent whom the 

United States Government, during World War II, forcibly brought from Latin America. 

Despite the fact that there was never any credible evidence that they were a threat to their 

own countries or to the United States, they were unlawfully stripped of their citizenship 

papers, imprisoned in the United States, on the ground that they were illegal immigrants. 

The unstated purpose of this illegal program was to use them for prisoner exchange with 

Japan.  

 

2. The Civil Liberties Act of 1988 (50 U.S.C. app. Sec. 1989, as amended) ("CLA") was 

enacted in part, to remedy the injustices committed against persons of Japanese descent 

wrongfully relocated and interned by the United States government during World War II 

("Latin American Japanese"). Section 1989b-7(2)(A) of the CLA ("Eligibility Provision") 

excludes from eligibility persons who, at the time of their relocation or internment, were 

not citizens or permanent resident aliens of the United States of America. The United 

States of America ("U.S.A."), Reno, and Greene ("named defendants") have 

unconstitutionally, and in violation of international law, applied that exclusionary 

provision so as to deny Latin-American Japanese the benefits of the CLA.  

 

3. The CLA provides protection against future violations of, as well as restitution for past 

violations of, due process rights. Consequently, the Eligibility Provision of the CLA 

prejudices the due process rights of the Latin-American Japanese.  

 

4. Because the Eligibility Provision, as applied, denies redress to the Latin-American 

Japanese, they have suffered and continue to suffer mental anguish and humiliation, as 

well as deprivation of the monetary restitution provided for under the CLA. A declaration 

that the Eligibility Provision as applied to the Latin-American Japanese, violates the U.S. 

Constitution and international law, and an injunction that they be eligible for redress 

under the CLA, is necessary to restore full Fifth Amendment rights to the Latin-American 

Japanese.  

 

5. Furthermore, the mass arrests, deportations, and imprisonments, without hearings, of 

the Latin American Japanese, violated international law.  

 

6. Irrespective of whether or not plaintiffs are entitled to relief under the CLA, or under 

international law, they are entitled to relief directly under the U.S. Constitution.  

 

 

II. 

 

JURISDICTION 

 

7. This Court has jurisdiction over plaintiffs' claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1331 and 

1361 and the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2201 et seq. The claims in this 

action arise under the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution.  

 

8. Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1391(e).  

 

 

III. 

 

PARTIES 

 

 

Plaintiffs 

 

9. Carmen Mochizuki, 64 years of age, is a United States citizen, and a resident of the 

County of Los Angeles. Ms. Mochizuki was a citizen of Peru, was raised there and living 

there with her family, when, in 1943, in a scheme initiated, orchestrated, and financed by 

the U.S.A., Ms. Mochizuki was, without any due process or legal justification, 

transported without her consent or intention, to the United States. There, she was 

imprisoned in an Immigration and Naturalization Service detention camp in Crystal City, 

Texas.  

 

10. Without any due process or legal justification, Ms. Mochizuki remained imprisoned 

until December, 1945.  

 

11. Ms. Mochizuki applied for redress under the Civil Liberties Act of 1988, and received 

a letter of denial citing the provisions of the statute to the effect that she was ineligible 

because she was not a United States citizen or permanent resident alien at the time of her 

imprisonment.  

 

12. Alice Nishimoto, 63 years of age, is a United States citizen, and a resident of the 

County of Los Angeles. Ms. Nishimoto was a citizen of Peru and was living there with 

her family when, in 1943, in a scheme initiated, orchestrated, and financed by the United 

States Government, Ms. Nishimoto was, without any due process or legal justification, 

transported without her consent or intention, to the United States. There, she was 

imprisoned in an Immigration and Naturalization Service detention camp in Crystal City, 

Texas.  

 

13. Henry Toshio Shima, 73 years of age, is a United States citizen, and a resident of Los 

Angeles County. Mr. Shima was born in Peru and living there with his family, when, in 

1943, in a scheme initiated, orchestrated, and financed by the United States Government, 

Mr. Shima was, without any due process or legal justification, transported without his 

consent or intention, to the United States. There, he was imprisoned in Immigration and 

Naturalization Service detention camps in Kennedy, Texas, Kooskia, Idaho, and Crystal 

City, Texas until 1946. Defendants  

 

14. Defendant U.S.A., through its Congress and President, enacted and administers me 

CLA, and is responsible for the abduction and imprisonment of the Latin American 

Japanese.  

 

15. Defendant Janet Reno is the Attorney General of the United States and heads the 

Department of Justice, which administers the CLA. Under the CLA, she is responsible for 

identifying, locating, and paying compensation to each "eligible individual."  

 

16. Defendant Dede Greene is administrator of the Office of Redress Administration 

which, under the CLA, notifies individuals of their potential eligibility and verifies their 

claims.  

 

17. Defendants Unknown U.S. Government Agents ("Agents") carried out the abduction 

and imprisonment of the Latin American Japanese under the direction of the U.S.A.  

 

 

IV. 

 

ACTION ALLEGATIONS 

 

18. Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, 

pursuant to Rule 23(a) and (b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. For purposes of 

enjoining defendants' unconstitutional policy and practice, plaintiffs represent a class of 

persons defined as follows:  

 

19. All persons of Japanese descent, deported from Latin American countries without 

hearings, interned by the U.S. Government in the United States without hearings, and 

ineligible for redress under the Civil Liberties Act of 1988 solely on the basis of CLA 

Sec. 1989b-7(2)(A)'s requirement that, at the time of their internment, those eligible for 

redress must have been United States citizens, or permanent resident aliens of the United 

States.  

 

20. The members of the class defined in the foregoing paragraph, estimated to number 

2,000 or more, are so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable.  

 

21. There are questions of law and fact common to the members of the plaintiff class. 

These common questions include the following:  

 

22. Whether the Eligibility Provision of the Civil Liberties Act of 1988, Sec. 1989b-7(2), 

as applied to the members of the class, which limits eligibility for due process on the 

basis of United States citizenship, or status as a permanent resident alien of the United 

States, violates their equal protection rights under the 5th Amendment to the United 

States Constitution on the basis of alienage;  

 

23. Whether the international law rights of the Latin American Japanese were violated by 

their forcible deportation to, and imprisonment in, the United States during World War II;  

 

24. Whether the international law rights of the Latin American Japanese were violated by 

their exclusion from redress under the Eligibility Provision,  

 

25. Whether the due process rights of the Latin American Japanese under the U.S. 

Constitution were violated by their abduction and imprisonment by the U.S.A. during 

World War II.  

 

26. The claims of the named plaintiffs are typical of the claims of the members of the 

class in that Plaintiffs Carmen Mochizuki, Alice Nishimoto, and Henry Shima, are 

persons of Japanese descent, who were deported from a Latin American country, without 

hearings, forcibly brought to the United States without their consent or intention, and 

imprisoned, without hearings, in United States internment camps, as a direct, intended, 

and foreseeable result of the United States Government's orchestration, direction, and 

financing of a scheme to arrest and deport, without hearings, Latin-Americans of 

Japanese descent. As a consequence, Plaintiffs were deprived of their homes, their jobs, 

their property, their reputations, and their family relationships, and were imprisoned in 

United States internment camps, to be exchanged for United States citizens held prisoner 

in foreign countries.  

 

27. The named plaintiffs will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class. 

Plaintiffs have no interest that is now or may be potentially antagonistic to the interests of 

the class. Plaintiffs are represented by Robin S. Toma, Paul L. Mills, Fred Okrand, Legal 

Director Emeritus of the ACLU Foundation of Southern California, and Mark D. 

Rosenbaum, Legal Director of the foundation. Counsel for plaintiffs are well-established 

public interest attorneys and law firms with extensive experience in litigating federal 

court class action cases involving federal civil rights claims.  

 

28. Inconsistent or varying adjudications with respect to individual members of the class, 

e.g., that the CLA unconstitutionally denies some members of the class redress, but 

constitutionally denies it to others, would establish incompatible standards of conduct for 

Defendants.  

 

29. Adjudications with respect to individual members of the class, e.g., that they were not 

unconstitutionally denied benefits under the CLA, would, as a practical matter, be 

dispositive of the interests of the other members not parties to the adjudications, or 

substantially impair or impede their ability to protect their interest.  

 

30. Defendants have acted on grounds generally applicable to the class, =,, denying all 

members eligibility for redress under the Eligibility Provision, thereby making 

appropriate final injunctive relief or corresponding declaratory relief with respect to the 

class as a whole.  

 

31. The common questions of law and fact predominate, and class treatment is superior to 

other available methods.  

 

 

FACTS 

 

A. The Deportation and Internment Program  

 

32. Prior to United States entry into World War II, Defendants U.S.A. and Agents 

concluded an agreement, with certain Latin-American Governments and their authorized 

agents, to arrest and intern Latin-American Japanese in the event of war.  

 

33. After United States entry into World War II, Defendants U.S.A. and Agents, in 

cooperation with certain Latin-American governments and their authorized agents, 

implemented a program for arresting Latin-American Japanese in their countries, 

deporting them, and interning them in the United States.  

 

34. Before, during, and after the program of Latin-American Japanese deportation and 

internment, the United States Government had no reliable evidence of planned or 

contemplated acts of sabotage, subversion, or espionage by the Plaintiffs.  

 

35. Anti-Latin-American Japanese propaganda in Latin America was planned and 

authorized by Defendants U.S.A. and Agents.  

 

36. Anti-Latin-American Japanese propaganda in Latin America was radio broadcast on 

instructions from, and in cooperation with, Defendants U.S.A. and Agents.  

 

37. Lists of Latin-American Japanese to be deported from Latin America were generated 

and implemented by Defendants U.S.A. and Agents.  

 

38. Blacklists of Latin-American Japanese businesses in Latin America were generated 

by Defendants U.S.A. and Agents, and Latin-American Japanese on those blacklists were 

boycotted by Defendants U.S.A. and Agents, and by others in cooperation with 

Defendants U.S.A. and Agents.  

 

39. The transportation of the deported Plaintiffs to the United States was paid for by 

Defendants U.S.A. and Agents, via transport facilities provided by Defendants U.S.A. 

and Agents.  

 

40. Defendants U.S.A. and Agents confiscated passports and identity documents of the 

deported Plaintiffs during their transportation to the United States.  

 

41. Upon the arrival of the deported Plaintiffs into the United States, Defendants U.S.A. 

and Agents declared them to be illegal immigrants on the grounds mat they had no 

passports, visas, or other documentation.  

 

42. After arrival in the United States, the Plaintiffs were not granted individual hearings 

to determine their status as enemies of the United States, or as illegal immigrants in the 

United States. Between April 1942 and April 1945, Defendants U.S.A. and Agents 

confined approximately 2,300 Plaintiffs in internment camps in the United States.  

 

 

B. The Civil Liberties Act of 1988 

 

43. The Civil Liberties Act of 1988, 50 App. Sec. 1989, as amended, was enacted by the 

United States Congress. The purposes of the CLA are to "(1) acknowledge the 

fundamental injustice of the evacuation, relocation, and internment of United States 

citizens and permanent resident aliens of Japanese ancestry during World War II, (2) 

apologize on behalf of the people of the United States for the evacuation, relocation, and 

internment of such citizens and permanent resident aliens; (3) provide for a public 

education fund to finance efforts to inform the public about the internment of such 

individuals so as to prevent the recurrence of any similar event; (4) make restitution to 

those individuals of Japanese ancestry who were interned; . . . (6) discourage the 

occurrence of similar injustices and violations of civil liberties in the future; and (7) make 

more credible and sincere any declaration of concern by the United States over violations 

of human rights committed by other nations."  

 

44. Section 1989b-7(2) defines those eligible for restitution for relocation and 

confinement during World War II as "any individual of Japanese ancestry who is living 

on the date of the enactment of this Act and who during the evacuation, relocation, and 

internment period [December 7, 1941 to June 30, 1946] (A) was a United States citizen or 

a permanent resident alien."  

 

 

C. Denial of Redress to the Japanese Latin-American  

 

45. Each of the named plaintiffs, and approximately 300 class members, have been 

denied redress by Defendants, on the basis of the Eligibility Provision.  

 

46. The class members were, and are, situated similarly to, and treated differently than, 

United States citizens and permanent residents of the United States of Japanese descent, 

who were relocated and confined during World War II.  

 

47. The Eligibility Provision as applied to Plaintiffs directly contradicts the CLA's stated 

purposes, i.e., to discourage me occurrence of similar injustices and violations of civil 

liberties in the future; to make restitution to those individuals of Japanese ancestry who 

were interned; and to make more credible and sincere any declaration of concern by the 

United States over violations of human rights committed by other nations.  

 

48. Defendants' denial of benefits under the Eligibility Provision, as applied to the class 

members, for the injuries caused to them through their relocation and confinement during 

World War II by Defendants U.S.A. and Agents has, does, and will continue to, cause 

Plaintiffs to suffer injury to their equal protection rights under the 5th Amendment to the 

United States Constitution.  

 

49. Defendants' denial of benefits under the CLA to the class members, for the injuries to 

them through their relocation and confinement during World War II by Defendants 

U.S.A. and Agents directly has, does, and will continue to cause the class members great 

mental and emotional anguish and humiliation, as well as to deprive them of monetary 

restitution.  

 

50. The Eligibility Provision as applied by Defendants against the Plaintiffs is both harsh 

and oppressive.  

 

51. The Eligibility Provision as applied to the class members by Defendants, 

intentionally, purposefully, and invidiously discriminates against Plaintiffs on the basis of 

their alienage.  

 

52. Plaintiffs will continue to suffer injury to their Fifth Amendment equal protection 

rights if the denial of Plaintiffs' restitution is not enjoined.  

 

53. Plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at law. Only the relief requested will redress 

plaintiffs' injuries.  

 

54. Members of the class, including the named Plaintiffs, have applied to the Office of 

Redress Administration for redress under the CLA. They were denied on the stated 

ground that the Eligibility Provision excludes them. Exhaustion of administrative 

remedies by all other class members is futile.  

 

 

V. CAUSES OF ACTION 

 

First Cause of Action 

 

55. Plaintiffs incorporate paragraphs 1 through paragraph 54 herein as though set forth in 

full.  

 

56. The Eligibility Provision, as applied to the class members, violates their right to equal 

protection under the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution.  

 

 

Second Cause of Action 

 

57. Irrespective of whether the Eligibility Provision, when applied to class members, 

violates their right to equal protection under the Fifth Amendment, the actions of 

Defendants U.S.A. and Agents were committed in violation of treaties to which 

Defendant U.S.A. is, and was, a party, and of international law. These violations include, 

but are not limited to: (i) Defendants U.S.A. and Agents' forced deportation of class 

members from their home countries to the United States; and (ii) Defendants U.S.A. and 

Agents' use of class members, from countries that were not at war with Japan, as 

prisoners for exchange with Japan.  

 

58. As a proximate result of such acts by Defendants U.S.A. and Agents, Plaintiffs have 

been severely damaged and (i) have been deprived, and are continuing to be deprived, 

and have lost the value of their homes and businesses, and (ii) incurred personal harm, 

extreme and severe emotional anguish. Plaintiffs will seek leave of the Court to determine 

the amount of said damages, according to proof, at the time of trial.  

 

59. The aforementioned acts of defendants were willful, wanton, malicious, and 

oppressive, and therefore justify the award of punitive damages.  

 

 

Third Cause of Action 

 

60. Plaintiffs incorporate paragraph 1 through paragraph 54 herein as though set forth in 

full.  

 

61. Irrespective of whether plaintiffs are entitled to relief under the Civil Liberties Act of 

1988, or under international law, Plaintiffs are entitled to relief directly under the due 

process clause of the 5th Amendment to the United States Constitution.  

 

62. As a proximate result of such acts by Defendants U.S.A. and Agents, Plaintiffs have 

been severely damaged and (i) have been deprived, and are continuing to be deprived, 

and have lost the value of their homes and businesses, and (ii) incurred personal harm, 

extreme and severe emotional anguish. Plaintiffs will seek leave of the Court to determine 

the amount of said damages, according to proof, at the time of trial.  

 

63. The aforementioned acts of defendants were willful, wanton, malicious, and 

oppressive, and therefore justify the award of punitive damages.  

 

 

VI. 

 

RELIEF 

 

WHEREFORE, plaintiffs request that this Court:  

 

64. Declare that 50 U.S.C. app. Sec. 1989b-7(2)(A), as applied to the members of the 

class, violates their right to equal protection under the Fifth Amendment to the United 

States Constitution;  

 

65. Declare that the acts of Defendants U.S.A. and Agents during World War II, as stated 

herein, violated Plaintiffs' rights under the U.S. Constitution, and international law and 

treaties;  

 

66. Declare that 50 U.S.C. app. Sec. 1989b-7(2)(A), as applied to the members of the 

class, violates their rights under international law and treaties;  

 

67. Enjoin Defendants U.S.A., Reno, and Greene, to grant eligibility for all appropriate 

benefits under the Civil Liberties Act of 1988 to all members of the class denied 

eligibility under the Eligibility Provision, who would otherwise be eligible;  

 

68. Grant plaintiffs costs of suit and attorneys fees, and  

 

69. Grant such other further relief as this court deems just and proper.  

 

 

Dated: August 27, 1996 

 

By: /s/ 

ROBIN S. TOMA 

 

By: /s/ 

PAUL L. MILLS 

 

By: /s/ 

FRED OKRAND 

 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs