Case: Graves v. Arpaio

This case is over four decades long. As a result, information and documents about the first twenty years of the case are limited because the case predates PACER.

In 1977, a group of pretrial detainees in Maricopa County Jail filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona against the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office and the County Board of Supervisors. Represented by Community Legal Services, the plaintiffs maintained that they were denied their constitutional rights related to overcrowding, medical care, living conditions, mental health care, access to legal materials, and access to courts and attorneys. A plaintiff class was subsequently certified. Before the trial date scheduled for December 10, 1980, the parties settled. In 1981, the parties entered into a Consent Decree that addressed issues with conditions in the county jail, ranging from limits on inmate populations, to improvements in food quality, to better healthcare services. It remained in force until it was superseded by a stipulated Amended Judgment entered on January 10, 1995 after the plaintiffs moved to modify the judgment.

In April 1998, the defendants moved to terminate the Amended Judgment in accordance with the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA), 18 U.S.C. § 3526(b). On September 10, 1998, the District Court denied the motion to terminate, and defendants appealed. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the denial of termination and remanded for further consideration in light of Gilmore v. California, which held that § 3526(b) of the PLRA was not unconstitutional. 2 Fed. App'x 867 (9th Cir. 2001).

On remand, the parties submitted briefs to the district court addressing those aspects of the Maricopa County Jail operations that potentially raised constitutional concerns covered by the Amended Judgment. Full evidentiary hearings were held by the district court in November 2003 and January 2004. In January 2005, the case was referred to Magistrate Judge Sitver, who issued a Report and Recommendation on September 30, 2005. 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22300 (D. Ariz. 2005). The ACLU of Arizona joined the case in 2005 as counsel as well.

On February 6, 2006, the Sheriff and County filed a writ of mandamus with the Ninth Circuit, requesting an order compelling the district court to rule on defendants' motion to terminate. The Ninth Circuit denied the writ on April 19, 2006 and the U.S. Supreme Court denied certiorari on October 2, 2006. Maricopa County Sheriff's Office v. U.S. Dist. Court for Dist. of Arizona, 127 S. Ct. 370 (2006).

On September 28, 2006, the District Court adopted the magistrate's report and recommendation, which, in part, called for the production of various documents by the defendants. 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 89545 (D. Ariz. 2006).

The District Court held an evidentiary hearing that started on August 12, 2008 and ran for several weeks, during which it considered the defendants' motion to terminate. On October 22, 2008, the court issued its Second Amended Judgment, which terminated part of the original judgment, but kept some of the previous injunctive rulings in effect. Specifically, the court refused to terminate the portions of the earlier judgment that dealt with crowding, sanitation, medication administration, classification procedures, medical care, mental health care, recreation and exercise, food, and record keeping. 2008 WL 4699770.

On November 21, 2008, the defendants sought appellate review of the Second Amended Judgment. On January 28, 2009, the court appointed experts to serve as independent evaluators of defendants' compliance with the medical and mental health provisions of the Second Amended Judgment. On April 7, 2010, because the defendants failed to comply with the Second Amended Judgment's medical and mental health requirements, the court issued an order requiring the parties to develop a proposed schedule for confirming defendants' full compliance by the end of 2010. On October 13, 2010, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the Second Amended Judgment. The Ninth Circuit subsequently denied the defendants' motion for rehearing en banc and reverted jurisdiction with the district court in April 2011.

On October 12, 2011, the parties stipulated that certain non-medical provisions of the Second Amended Judgment should be terminated and that other provisions should remain in effect. On April 24, 2012, defendants moved to terminate some provisions of the Second Amended Judgment, and the plaintiffs did not oppose the motion. On May 24, 2012, the defendants' motion was granted, and those provisions of the Second Amended Judgment that remained in effect were restated in a Third Amended Judgment. On August 9, 2013, because defendants disagreed with the status reports of the court-appointed monitors, defendants moved to terminate the Third Amended Judgment.

On September 30, 2014, after an evidentiary hearing, Judge Neil Wake issued an order denying defendants' motion to terminate the Third Amended Judgment. The Court declared that defendants must adopt certain policies regarding medical and mental health care and file with the Court a copy of each policy adopted. The Court further ordered that, by February 27, 2015, defendants must hire additional staff, provide more training, and make facility modifications. Additionally, the court ordered the defendants to collect and summarize data for a period of 180 days to show the extent they had complied with these provisions and to file a report of the data collected with the court. The court restated those provisions of the Third Amended Judgment that remained in effect and stated the additional prospective relief granted by the order in a Fourth Amended Judgment. The Court awarded plaintiffs attorneys fees incurred in defending against the motion to terminate. 48 F. Supp. 3d 1318.

In December 2014, the court amended its judgment and entered a Fourth Amended Judgment. In that amended judgment, the court only amended one of the plaintiffs' five requests to address alleged deficiencies in medical care. This provision addressed medical referrals and required that referred patients be seen face-to-face by a provider within 24 hours. 2014 WL 6983316.

The defendants began to produce documentation of plans to implement new procedures. In March 2015, the court granted the ACLU's motions for a total of $711,992.80 in attorneys' fees. Shortly after, all private counsel for the plaintiffs withdrew from the case and the ACLU National Prison Project took over entirely. That September, the defendants filed a report summarizing their compliance with the fourth amended judgment, including data to support each provision. The plaintiffs then conducted site visits and reviewed classmembers' medical records to evaluate the defendants' assertions. In April 2016, the plaintiffs responded to the report, alleging that the defendant's compliance was inadequate, and moved to enforce the judgment. Their calculations of the defendants' compliance was substantially lower than the defendants had calculated, and that defendants omitted instances of noncompliance by using faulty methodology. On February 17, 2017, the court heard oral arguments on the motion to enforce the judgment. On March 1, 2017, the court denied the plaintiff's motion. The court found the defendants in compliance with the majority of the provisions and not in compliance with ten of them. 2017 WL 782991.

The court subsequently granted the plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration of the decision. In July 2017, the defendants provided renewed data on their compliance and other corrective actions taken. In December 2017, the plaintiffs moved to enforce the judgment and for a permanent injunction. The plaintiffs specifically cited continued issues with providing necessary and adequate psychiatric care—specifically that the defendants placed individuals with psychiatric disabilities on extended segregation lockdowns as punishment despite the known detrimental effects of such treatment.

In the meantime, in March 2018, the defendants moved for sanctions against the plaintiffs. The court denied the motion in May.

On June 21, 2018, the court held oral arguments regarding the defendants' proof of compliance with the fourth amended judgment. The court subsequently requested a supplemental compliance report from the defendants and an additional reply from the plaintiffs. The defendants filed a supplemental report on July 13, 2018. The parties then battled over discovery as the plaintiffs requested motions to compel the defendants to cooperate. On August 22, 2018, the court denied the plaintiff's motion to enforce the fourth amended judgment, withholding judgment on the outstanding supplemental issues, but finding the defendants in compliance with the disputed provisions. This ruling also denied the plaintiff's motion to re-open discovery. 2018 WL 4006748.

On September 17, 2018, the plaintiffs filed the supplemental response to the remaining compliance provisions. In January 2019, the court found the defendants in compliance with additional provisions related to pretrial detainees with mental illness, including uses of force and involvement of mental health staff involvement in disciplinary actions. The court also requested that the defendants provide a plan to comply with requirements related to disciplinary isolation. 2019 WL 201412.

On May 20, 2019, the court requested a final compliance report, reminding the parties that the PLRA only required the defendants to comply with "minimum constitutional measures" and not every provision of the judgment. 2019 WL 2173678. On July 19, the defendants filed the final report. On August 30, 2019, the plaintiffs filed a motion to modify the revised fourth amended judgment. But on September 19, 2019, the court terminated the case and denied the plaintiff's request. The court held that the plaintiffs failed to show any change in facts or law that would merit modifying the judgment. The court also described that the defendants sufficiently complied with the judgment and that judicial oversight would not "be continued in perpetuity." The court held that the defendants met the minimum requirements that the constitution requires. 2019 WL 4535543.

The only outstanding issue the parties were litigating as of January 2020 was the issue of plaintiffs' remaining attorneys fees. The case is ongoing.