Case: Graves v. Arpaio

2:77-cv-00479 | U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona

Filed Date: June 16, 1977

Case Ongoing

Clearinghouse coding complete

Case Summary

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 the…

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 It remained in force until it was superseded by a stipulated Amended Judgment entered on January 10, 1995 after the plaintiffs moved to modify the judgment.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.

Summary Authors

Kristen Sagar (3/29/2009)

Nate West (10/22/2014)

Raul Noguera-McElroy (4/19/2019)

Chelsea Rinnig (1/14/2020)

Related Cases

U.S. v. Maricopa County, District of Arizona (1997)

People

For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4489862/parties/graves-v-penzone/


Judge(s)

Browning, William Docker (Arizona)

Carroll, Earl Hamblin (Arizona)

Rymer, Pamela Ann (California)

Sitver, Morton (Arizona)

Wake, Neil Vincent (Arizona)

Attorneys(s) for Plaintiff

Allen, Jennifer Linda (Arizona)

Balaban, Eric G. (District of Columbia)

Bendheim, Alice L. (Arizona)

Brizgys, Molly Patricia (Arizona)

Brody, Kathleen E. (Arizona)

Judge(s)

Browning, William Docker (Arizona)

Carroll, Earl Hamblin (Arizona)

Rymer, Pamela Ann (California)

Sitver, Morton (Arizona)

Wake, Neil Vincent (Arizona)

Attorneys(s) for Plaintiff

Allen, Jennifer Linda (Arizona)

Balaban, Eric G. (District of Columbia)

Bendheim, Alice L. (Arizona)

Brizgys, Molly Patricia (Arizona)

Brody, Kathleen E. (Arizona)

Desai, Sharad H. (Arizona)

Eber, Gabriel B. (District of Columbia)

Fathi, David Cyrus (District of Columbia)

Flood, Kelly Joyce (Arizona)

Francis, Carrie Marie (Arizona)

Hammond, Larry A. (Arizona)

Hill, Debra Ann (Arizona)

Jarvi, Theodore C. (Arizona)

Lieberman, Martin (Arizona)

Lyall, James Duff (Arizona)

Meyers, Diane M. (Arizona)

Morgan, Craig (Arizona)

Nguyen, Hanh (District of Columbia)

Pochoda, Daniel Joseph (Arizona)

Romero, Jason J. (Arizona)

Rosenbaum, David B. (Arizona)

Rubalcava, Christina Claire (Arizona)

Shelton, Patti James (Arizona)

U'Ren, Stephen A. (Arizona)

Winter, Margaret (District of Columbia)

Wulkan, Lawrence J. (Arizona)

Attorneys(s) for Defendant

Begley, William F. (Arizona)

Birnbaum, Gary L. (Arizona)

Cloman, Courtney Rachel (Arizona)

Conaway, Jessica Ann (Arizona)

Cronin, Mary Collins (Arizona)

Crown, Larry Jay (Arizona)

Dixon, Thomas (Arizona)

Flaggman, Sherle Rubin (Arizona)

Franco, Jorge (Arizona)

Glynn, Courtney Rachel (Arizona)

Hall, Norman Glenn (Arizona)

Iafrate, Michele Marie (Arizona)

Kaven, Brian (Arizona)

Lai, Anne (Arizona)

Liddy, Thomas P (Arizona)

Lordan, Thomas (Arizona)

Micheaels, John A. (Arizona)

Polson, Adam S. (Arizona)

Pringle, Andrew L. (Arizona)

Weeks, Phillip (Arizona)

Wilenchik, Dennis Ira (Arizona)

Other Attorney(s)

Clark, Stephen C. (California)

Expert/Monitor/Master

Kleinfeld, Andrew Jay (Alaska)

Documents in the Clearinghouse

Document

Docket [PACER]

Graves v. Penzone

Dec. 4, 2019 Docket

Opening Brief of Appellants Maricopa County (Arizona) Board of Supervisors and Maricopa County Sheriff's Office

Maricopa County Sheriff's Office v. Hart

U. S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Jan. 28, 1999 Pleading / Motion / Brief

Appellees' Responding Brief

Maricopa County Sheriff's Office v. Hart

U. S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Feb. 23, 1999 Pleading / Motion / Brief

Reply Brief of Appellants Maricopa County (Arizona) Board of Supervisors and Maricopa County Sheriff's Office

Maricopa County Sheriff's Office v. Hart

U. S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

March 16, 1999 Pleading / Motion / Brief

Memorandum

Hart v. Arpaio

U. S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

2 Fed.Appx. 867, 2001 U.S.App.LEXIS 1772

Jan. 25, 2001 Order/Opinion

Decision Without Published Opinion

Hart v. Arpaio

U. S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

248 F.3d 1171, 2001 U.S.App.LEXIS 13445

Jan. 25, 2001 Order/Opinion

ACLU Press Release: "ACLU Joins Lawsuit Over Conditions at Jail Run by Infamous Arizona Sheriff"

Hart v. Arpaio

No Court

Dec. 4, 2003 Press Release
1105

Report and Recommendation and Order

Hart v. Maricopa County Sheriff's Office

2005 U.S.Dist.LEXIS 22300

Sept. 30, 2005 Order/Opinion
1111

Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction Requiring Defendants to Allow Class Counsel Access to Class Members

Hart v. Maricopa County Sheriff's Office

Oct. 1, 2005 Pleading / Motion / Brief
1108

Defendants' Maricopa County Board of Supervisor's Objections to 9/30/05 Report and Recommendation and Motion for Protective Order and Request to Set Hearing/Oral Argument on Motion to Terminate

Hart v. Maricopa County Sheriff's Office

Oct. 17, 2005 Pleading / Motion / Brief

Resources

Title Description External URL

Finding the Civil Trial's Democratic Future After Its Demise

David Marcus

This is an appreciation of the scholarship of Professor Stephen Subrin. In includes a case study of Graves v. Arpaio: <br /> <br />My case study of Graves v. Arpaio, provided in this part, lays a f… July 1, 2015 http://scholars.law.unlv.edu/nlj/vol15/iss3/18/

Docket

See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4489862/graves-v-penzone/

Last updated May 12, 2022, 8 p.m.

ECF Number Description Date Link
2089

PACER
499

Notice (Other)

Nov. 14, 1991 PACER
500

Objection

Dec. 13, 1991 PACER
502

Reply to Response to Motion

Jan. 27, 1992 PACER
508

Remark

Jan. 27, 1992 PACER
501

Response

Feb. 9, 1992 PACER
503

Status Report

March 23, 1992 PACER
504

Motion for Miscellaneous Relief

April 9, 1992 PACER
505

Memorandum

April 9, 1992 PACER
506

Motion for Discovery

April 9, 1992 PACER
507

Notice of Hearing

April 9, 1992 PACER
509

Response to Motion

May 15, 1992 PACER
510

Memorandum

May 15, 1992 PACER
511

Response to Motion

May 15, 1992 PACER
512

Notice of Deposition

May 20, 1992 PACER
513

Notice of Deposition

May 20, 1992 PACER
514

Notice of Deposition

May 20, 1992 PACER
515

Notice of Deposition

May 20, 1992 PACER
516

Notice of Deposition

May 20, 1992 PACER
517

Notice of Deposition

May 20, 1992 PACER
518

Notice of Deposition

May 20, 1992 PACER
519

Notice of Deposition

May 20, 1992 PACER
520

Notice of Deposition

May 20, 1992 PACER
521

Notice of Deposition

May 20, 1992 PACER
522

Notice of Deposition

May 20, 1992 PACER
523

Motion for Miscellaneous Relief

May 20, 1992 PACER
524

Notice of Deposition

May 26, 1992 PACER
525

Notice of Deposition

May 26, 1992 PACER
526

Status Report

May 27, 1992 PACER
527

Memorandum

May 27, 1992 PACER
528

Supplement

May 27, 1992 PACER
529

Memorandum

May 27, 1992 PACER
530

Motion to Continue

May 28, 1992 PACER
531

Memorandum

May 28, 1992 PACER
532

ERRATA

June 1, 1992 PACER
533

Notice (Other)

June 2, 1992 PACER
534

Order

June 3, 1992 PACER
535

Notice of Deposition

June 5, 1992 PACER
536

Notice of Deposition

June 9, 1992 PACER
537

Notice of Deposition

June 9, 1992 PACER
538

Notice of Deposition

June 9, 1992 PACER
539

Response to Motion

June 16, 1992 PACER
540

Notice (Other)

June 19, 1992 PACER
541

Amended Document (NOT Motion/Complaint)

June 23, 1992 PACER
542

Memorandum

June 23, 1992 PACER
543

Memorandum

June 25, 1992 PACER
544

Transcript

July 15, 1992 PACER
545

Notice (Other)

July 31, 1992 PACER
546

Motion to Substitute Attorney

Aug. 14, 1992 PACER
547

Motion to Substitute Attorney

Aug. 14, 1992 PACER
548

Notice (Other)

Aug. 14, 1992 PACER
549

Certificate of Service

Aug. 14, 1992 PACER
550

Order

Aug. 17, 1992 PACER
551

Notice (Other)

Aug. 31, 1992 PACER
552

Memorandum

Aug. 31, 1992 PACER
553

Memorandum

Sept. 2, 1992 PACER
554

Supplement

Sept. 10, 1992 PACER
555

Supplement

Sept. 10, 1992 PACER
556

Response

Sept. 10, 1992 PACER
557

Notice (Other)

Sept. 14, 1992 PACER
558

Notice (Other)

Sept. 21, 1992 PACER
559

Motion to Substitute Attorney

Sept. 23, 1992 PACER
560

Order

Sept. 23, 1992 PACER
561

Transcript

Sept. 30, 1992 PACER
562

Motion for Miscellaneous Relief

Oct. 5, 1992 PACER
563

Affidavit

Oct. 5, 1992 PACER
564

Response

Oct. 19, 1992 PACER
565

Response

Oct. 19, 1992 PACER
566

Notice (Other)

Oct. 19, 1992 PACER
567

Order

Oct. 21, 1992 PACER
568

Motion for Hearing

Dec. 3, 1992 PACER
569

Reply to Response to Motion

Dec. 10, 1992 PACER
570

Notice (Other)

Dec. 11, 1992 PACER
571

Objection

Dec. 15, 1992 PACER
572

Objection

Dec. 23, 1992 PACER
573

Affidavit

Jan. 4, 1993 PACER
574

Supplement

Jan. 4, 1993 PACER
575

Stipulation

Jan. 13, 1993 PACER
576

Notice (Other)

Jan. 14, 1993 PACER
577

Order

Jan. 20, 1993 PACER
578

Notice (Other)

Feb. 1, 1993 PACER
579

Motion to Withdraw

March 5, 1993 PACER
580

Motion to Withdraw

March 10, 1993 PACER
581

Order

March 15, 1993 PACER
582

Status Report

March 24, 1993 PACER
583

Notice (Other)

June 8, 1993 PACER
584

Status Report

June 11, 1993 PACER
585

Status Report

Sept. 17, 1993 PACER
586

Notice (Other)

Dec. 1, 1993 PACER
587

Notice (Other)

Dec. 6, 1993 PACER
588

Certificate of Service

Dec. 6, 1993 PACER
589

Status Report

Dec. 7, 1993 PACER
590

Status Report

Feb. 10, 1994 PACER
591

Motion to Appoint Counsel

March 25, 1994 PACER
592

Notice of Hearing

March 25, 1994 PACER
593

Motion for Miscellaneous Relief

March 28, 1994 PACER
594

Minutes - Miscellaneous

March 30, 1994 PACER
599

Motion for Miscellaneous Relief

April 13, 1994 PACER
595

~Motion for Judgment

April 29, 1994 PACER
597

Minutes - Miscellaneous

May 4, 1994 PACER

State / Territory: Arizona

Case Type(s):

Jail Conditions

Key Dates

Filing Date: June 16, 1977

Case Ongoing: Yes

Plaintiffs

Plaintiff Description:

All pretrial detainees held in the Maricopa County Jail system.

Plaintiff Type(s):

Private Plaintiff

Attorney Organizations:

ACLU Affiliates (any)

ACLU National (all projects)

ACLU National Prison Project

Public Interest Lawyer: Yes

Filed Pro Se: No

Class Action Sought: Yes

Class Action Outcome: Granted

Defendants

Maricopa County Sheriff's Office (Maricopa), County

Maricopa County Board of Supervisors (Maricopa), County

Maricopa County (Maricopa), County

Defendant Type(s):

Jurisdiction-wide

Case Details

Causes of Action:

42 U.S.C. § 1983

Constitutional Clause(s):

Due Process

Cruel and Unusual Punishment

Availably Documents:

Trial Court Docket

Injunctive (or Injunctive-like) Relief

Non-settlement Outcome

Any published opinion

Outcome

Prevailing Party: Plaintiff

Nature of Relief:

Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement

Attorneys fees

Source of Relief:

Settlement

Form of Settlement:

Court Approved Settlement or Consent Decree

Amount Defendant Pays: $711,992.80

Order Duration: 1981 - 2019

Content of Injunction:

Other requirements regarding hiring, promotion, retention

Reporting

Recordkeeping

Monitoring

Goals (e.g., for hiring, admissions)

Issues

General:

Access to lawyers or judicial system

Administrative segregation

Assault/abuse by residents/inmates/students

Conditions of confinement

Disciplinary procedures

Food service / nutrition / hydration

Law library access

Library (non-law) access

Mail

Phone

Recreation / Exercise

Religious programs / policies

Restraints : physical

Sanitation / living conditions

Staff (number, training, qualifications, wages)

Suicide prevention

Totality of conditions

Visiting

Crowding:

Crowding / caseload

Medical/Mental Health:

Dental care

HIV/AIDS

Medical care, general

Medication, administration of

Mental health care, general

Suicide prevention

Tuberculosis

Type of Facility:

Government-run