Case: United States v. Maricopa County

2:12-cv-00981 | U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona

Filed Date: May 10, 2012

Closed Date: May 14, 2019

Clearinghouse coding complete

Case Summary

This lawsuit was the result of an investigation launched by the Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) in 2009 into the alleged targeting and unconstitutional treatment of Latinos by the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office. (The DOJ's initial inquiry apparently started in 2008, but the formal investigation opened with notice to the Sheriff's Office in March 2009.)The Sheriff's Office declined to cooperate in the investigation, leading the DOJ to file a a related lawsuit in S…

This lawsuit was the result of an investigation launched by the Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) in 2009 into the alleged targeting and unconstitutional treatment of Latinos by the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office. (The DOJ's initial inquiry apparently started in 2008, but the formal investigation opened with notice to the Sheriff's Office in March 2009.)

The Sheriff's Office declined to cooperate in the investigation, leading the DOJ to file a a related lawsuit in September 2010 against Maricopa County under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, seeking to compel the Sheriff's Office to provide the requested information. See PN-AZ-0002 in this Clearinghouse). Maricopa County settled that lawsuit in June 2011, and agreed to cooperate.

(Also, prior to this case, in 2007, a group of plaintiffs had filed a lawsuit, Melendres v. Arpaio, against the County of Maricopa, the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office, and Sheriff Joe Arpaio. (PN-AZ-0003 in this Clearinghouse). In 2013, the Melendres Court found the MCSO in violation of the Constitution, and entered a permanent injunction forbidding racial profiling.)

In this matter, DOJ released its findings letter reporting the results of the investigation on December 15, 2011. The letter reported that the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office (MCSO) was engaged in an unconstitutional pattern of policing. The DOJ found that the MSCO profiled Latinos, and unlawfully stoped, detained, and arrested Latinos. The DOJ also found that services in the Maricopa County Jail for people of limited English proficiency were insufficient or nonexistent. The DOJ found that a lack of policy to ensure constitutional policing underscored these problems.

On May 10, 2012, the DOJ filed this lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 14141 and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 against Maricopa County and the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office (MCSO) in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona. Specifically, the DOJ's complaint alleged that:

  • (1) the MSCO's policies and practices discriminated against Latino persons;
  • (2) the MSCO targeted Latino workers while enforcing state identity theft laws, resulting in the seizure of Latinos at worksites without reasonable suspicion;
  • (3) the MSCO's discriminatory law enforcements practices violated Title VI;
  • (4) the County's jails discriminated against limited English proficiency Latino prisoners in violation of Title VI;
  • (5) the County and MSCO were violating their Title VI contractual assurances; and
  • (6) the County and MSCO retaliated against persons in Maricopa County on the basis of their protected speech.

The DOJ requested injunctive and declaratory relief to stop Maricopa County's alleged practice of depriving Latino persons of their constitutional rights and to stop discrimination against Latinos in violation of Title VI.

The case was assigned to Chief Judge Roslyn O. Silver. On December 12, 2012, she denied Defendants' motion to dismiss the case, but granted the motion to dismiss the MCSO from the case, ruling the MCSO was not an entity that could sue or be sued.

On September 4, 2014, after lengthy discovery, proceedings were held before Judge Silver in which both parties informed the court that they would file dispositive motions. On October 27, the DOJ filed its motion for summary judgment, arguing that the Defendants were precluded by collateral estoppel from re-litigating the issue of whether the MSCO's traffic stops constituted a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The DOJ claimed that the issue had already been decided against the MSCO in Melendres v. Arpaio, where the MCSO was a defendant. 989 F. Supp. 2d 822 (D. Ariz. 2013) (PN-AZ-0003 in this Clearinghouse). On the same day, the Defendants made a cross-motion for summary judgment, arguing that neither Title VI nor § 14141 authorized this suit against Maricopa County. On June 15, 2015, Judge Silver granted the DOJ's motion with respect to the traffic stops and denied the Defendants' motion.

On July 15, 2015, Judge Silver ordered the parties to file a joint statement setting forth what issues remained for trial. In response, on July 17, the parties filed a joint motion to approve a settlement agreement regarding the second, fourth, and sixth claims for relief from the DOJ's complaint. The MSCO agreed to stop unconstitutionally enforcing state identity theft laws and to develop an anti-retaliation policy. On July 20, the DOJ moved to stay this action until the court in Melendres (PN-AZ-0003 in this Clearinghouse), in which the DOJ had recently intervened, found that the Defendants had maintained compliance with an injunction for three years. However, the Defendants argued this was inappropriate because when the DOJ moved to intervene in Melendres, it had represented that it would terminate the overlapping parts of this case if the intervention motion was granted. On September 2, 2015, Judge Silver granted the parties' joint motion to approve the settlement agreement with respect to the issues not covered by Melendres--worksite operations and retaliation--but otherwise dismissed the matter.

On December 30, 2015, Maricopa County appealed this case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

Over the next two years, little happened in the case as the parties awaited a decision from the appellate court.

On May 7, 2018, the Court issued an opinion affirming the judgment. Judge Paul J. Watford held that sheriffs act as final policymakers for their respective counties on law-enforcement matters. Moreover, U.S.C. §12601 imposed liability on a governmental authority whose own official policy caused it to engage in “a pattern or practice of conduct by law enforcement officers” that deprived persons of federally protected rights. Because sheriffs are final policymakers for their counties, the policies they adopt are, in fact, the counties' policies. For this reason, Maricopa County should be held liable for their sheriffs' acts.

On June 21, 2018, Maricopa County filed a petition for panel rehearing and a petition for rehearing en banc, but the request was denied. On October 15, 2018, Maricopa County filed a petition for a writ of certiorari in the United States Supreme Court. Certiorari was denied on March 25, 2019. 139 S.Ct. 1373.

The parties jointly moved to terminate the settlement on May 9, 2019. The court ordered this termination on May 14, and the case has since been closed.

Summary Authors

Blase Kearney (5/14/2012)

John He (2/5/2016)

Gabriela Hybel (6/4/2017)

Daniele de Oliveira Nunes (10/19/2018)

Related Cases

Melendres v. Arpaio, District of Arizona (2007)

United States v. Maricopa County, District of Arizona (2010)

People

For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4133647/parties/united-states-v-maricopa-county-of/


Judge(s)

Anderson, Lawrence O. (Arizona)

Silver [Moore-Silver], Roslyn O. (Arizona)

Watford, Paul Jeffrey (California)

Attorneys(s) for Plaintiff

Aminfar, Amin (District of Columbia)

Austin, Roy L. (District of Columbia)

Buehler, Brian D. (District of Columbia)

Burke, Dennis K. (District of Columbia)

Caspar, Edward G. (District of Columbia)

Cheema, Puneet (District of Columbia)

Coe, Cynthia (District of Columbia)

Judge(s)

Anderson, Lawrence O. (Arizona)

Silver [Moore-Silver], Roslyn O. (Arizona)

Watford, Paul Jeffrey (California)

Attorneys(s) for Plaintiff

Aminfar, Amin (District of Columbia)

Austin, Roy L. (District of Columbia)

Buehler, Brian D. (District of Columbia)

Burke, Dennis K. (District of Columbia)

Caspar, Edward G. (District of Columbia)

Cheema, Puneet (District of Columbia)

Coe, Cynthia (District of Columbia)

Colangelo, Matthew B. (District of Columbia)

Gayle, Winsome (District of Columbia)

Gelman, Laurie (District of Columbia)

Gray, Peter S. (District of Columbia)

Kappelhoff, Mark (District of Columbia)

Killebrew, Paul (District of Columbia)

Mondino, Jennifer L. (District of Columbia)

Morse, Thomas Jackson (District of Columbia)

Mygatt, Timothy D (District of Columbia)

Perez, Sergio (District of Columbia)

Preston, Judith (Judy) C. (District of Columbia)

Shapiro, Avner (District of Columbia)

Smith, Jonathan Mark (District of Columbia)

Attorneys(s) for Defendant

Ackerman, Justin Michael (Arizona)

Connolly, Joel E. (Illinois)

Dysart, Robert L (Arizona)

Jirauch, Charles W. (Arizona)

Jones, William R. Jr. (Arizona)

Masterson, John T. (Arizona)

Owers, Roger Stephen (Arizona)

Popolizio, Joseph John (Arizona)

Vigil, Joseph (Arizona)

Voepel, Lori Lea (Arizona)

Walker, Richard K (Arizona)

Webb, Dan K. (Illinois)

Documents in the Clearinghouse

Document

Docket (PACER)

United States of America v. County of Maricopa

May 14, 2019 Docket
58

Joint Motion to Remove Case to the Inactive Docket and Stay Proceedings

U.S. v. Maricopa County

June 2, 2011 Pleading / Motion / Brief

Investigación de los Estados Unidos sobre la Oficina del Alguacil del Condado de Maricopa [Findings Letter (Spanish)]

No Court

Dec. 15, 2011 Findings Letter/Report

United States' Investigation of the Maricopa County Sheriffs Office

No Court

Dec. 15, 2011 Findings Letter/Report
1

Complaint

May 10, 2012 Complaint
56

Order

USA v. Maricopa County

915 F.Supp.2d 1073, 2012 WL 6742314

Dec. 12, 2012 Order/Opinion
379

Order

2015 WL 9266969

June 15, 2015 Order/Opinion
391-1

Order

United States of America v. Maricopa County

July 17, 2015 Order/Opinion
391

Joint Motion to Approve Settlement Agreement

United States of America v. Maricopa County

July 17, 2015 Pleading / Motion / Brief
391-2

Settlement Agreement

United States of America v. Maricopa County

July 17, 2015 Settlement Agreement

Resources

Title Description External URL

Interpreting Injustice: The Department of Homeland Security's Failure to Comply with Federal Language Access Requirements in Immigration Detention

Katherine Beck

This Comment analyzes how DHS and ICE are noncompliant with federal language access policy, EO 13166, and Title VI. In Part II, I provide a background legal framework on language access and national … April 1, 2017 https://harvardllr.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/16/2012/09/Beck_vol20.pdf

Docket

See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4133647/united-states-v-maricopa-county-of/

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

ECF Number Description Date Link
1

COMPLAINT, filed by United States of America (submitted by Winsome Gayle). (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit, # 4 Civil Cover Sheet)(REK) (Entered: 05/10/2012)

1 Exhibit

View on PACER

2 Exhibit

View on PACER

3 Exhibit

View on PACER

4 Civil Cover Sheet

View on PACER

May 10, 2012 RECAP
2

SUMMONS Submitted by United States of America (submitted by Winsome Gayle). (Attachments: # 1 Summons, # 2 Summons, # 3 Summons)(REK) (Entered: 05/10/2012)

1 Summons

View on PACER

2 Summons

View on PACER

3 Summons

View on PACER

May 10, 2012 PACER
3

This case has been assigned to the Honorable Lawrence O. Anderson. All future pleadings or documents should bear the correct case number: CV 12-00981-PHX-LOA. Magistrate Election form attached. (Attachments: # 1 Magistrate Consent Form)(REK) (Entered: 05/10/2012)

1 Magistrate Consent Form

View on PACER

May 10, 2012 PACER
4

Summons Issued as to Joseph M Arpaio, Maricopa County Sheriff's Office (c/o Clerk of the Board of Supervisors and c/o Joseph M. Arpaio), Maricopa, County of. (Attachments: # 1 Summons, # 2 Summons, # 3 Summons)(REK). *** IMPORTANT: When printing the summons, select "Document and stamps" or "Document and comments" for the seal to appear on the document. (Entered: 05/10/2012)

1 Summons

View on PACER

2 Summons

View on PACER

3 Summons

View on PACER

May 10, 2012 PACER
5

MOTION to Intervene as Plaintiff-Intervenor by Scott Huminski. (REW) (Entered: 05/10/2012)

May 10, 2012 PACER
6

ORDER that Plaintiff shall file its written election to either consent to magistrate-judge jurisdiction or elect to proceed before a United States district judge on or before Friday, May 25, 2012. See Order for Further Details. Signed by Magistrate Judge Lawrence O Anderson on 5/11/12. (MAP) (Entered: 05/11/2012)

May 11, 2012 PACER
7

SUMMONS Returned Executed by United States of America. Maricopa, County of served on 5/10/2012. (Gayle, Winsome) (Entered: 05/15/2012)

May 15, 2012 PACER
8

SUMMONS Returned Executed by United States of America. Maricopa County Sheriff's Office served on 5/11/2012. (Gayle, Winsome) (Entered: 05/15/2012)

May 15, 2012 PACER
9

* SUMMONS Returned Executed upon Maricopa County Sheriff's Office by service upon William Jones, Attorney, on 5/11/12 by United States of America. (Gayle, Winsome) * Modified to indicate who was served and date of service on 5/16/2012 (LAD). (Entered: 05/15/2012)

May 15, 2012 PACER
10

SUMMONS Returned Executed by United States of America. Joseph M Arpaio served on 5/11/2012. (Gayle, Winsome) (Entered: 05/15/2012)

May 15, 2012 PACER
11

ORDER as to 5 MOTION to Intervene: 1. That Plaintiff shall have until Tuesday, May 29, 2012, which includes three days for mailing, within which to file a Response to Movant's Motion to Intervene. 2. That Movant shall have ten days from the date Plaintiffs Response is filed, which includes three days for mailing, within which to file a Reply to Response to Movant's Motionto Intervene. 3. Further briefing will be issued after each Defendant's appearance has been made. However, Movant will only be allowed to file one reply to all Defendants' responses when filed. Signed by Magistrate Judge Lawrence O Anderson on 5/17/12. (LAD) (Entered: 05/18/2012)

May 18, 2012 PACER
12

Party Elects Assignment of Case to District Judge Jurisdiction. This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry. (MAP) (Entered: 05/21/2012)

May 21, 2012 PACER
13

Minute Order: Pursuant to Local Rule 3.8(a), a request has been received for a random reassignment of this case to a District Judge FURTHER ORDERED Case reassigned by random draw to Chief Judge Roslyn O. Silver. All further pleadings/papers should now list the following COMPLETE case number: CV 12-981-PHX-ROS. This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry. (MAP) (Entered: 05/21/2012)

May 21, 2012 PACER
14

MOTION for Clarification of 5/17/12 Order by Scott Huminski. (REW) (Entered: 05/24/2012)

May 24, 2012 PACER
15

RESPONSE in Opposition re 5 MOTION to Intervene filed by United States of America. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4)(Caspar, Edward) (Entered: 05/29/2012)

1 Exhibit 1

View on PACER

2 Exhibit 2

View on PACER

3 Exhibit 3

View on PACER

4 Exhibit 4

View on PACER

May 29, 2012 PACER
16

MOTION To Set Time for Filing Responsive Pleading (Expedited Ruling Requested) by Joseph M Arpaio, Maricopa County Sheriff's Office. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Masterson, John) (Entered: 05/31/2012)

1 Text of Proposed Order

View on PACER

May 31, 2012 PACER
17

*NOTICE of Appearance by Richard K Walker and Robert L Dysart on behalf of Maricopa, County of. (Walker, Richard) *Modified to add additional attorney to docket text on 6/1/2012 (TLJ). (Entered: 05/31/2012)

May 31, 2012 PACER
18

*First MOTION for Extension of Time to file Answer its Answer or Otherwise by Maricopa, County of. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Walker, Richard) *Modified to correct motion type on 6/1/2012 (TLJ). (Entered: 05/31/2012)

1 Text of Proposed Order

View on PACER

May 31, 2012 PACER
19

ORDER granting in part and denying in part 14 Motion for Clarification. No later than June 7, 2012, Movant shall file a reply in support of his motion to intervene. Defendants shall not file a response to the motion to intervene unless ordered by the Court. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED granting the 16 Motion to Set Time. Defendants Joseph M. Arpaio and Maricopa County Sheriff's Office shall have until June 8, 2012 to file a responsive pleading to Plaintiff's Complaint. Signed by Chief Judge Roslyn O Silver on 6/1/12.(CLB) (Entered: 06/01/2012)

June 1, 2012 RECAP
20

MOTION for Admission Pro Hac Vice as to attorney Joel E Connolly on behalf of Maricopa, County of. (BAS) (Entered: 06/01/2012)

June 1, 2012 PACER
21

MOTION for Admission Pro Hac Vice as to attorney Dan K Webb on behalf of Maricopa, County of. (BAS) (Entered: 06/01/2012)

June 1, 2012 PACER
22

ORDER pursuant to General Order 09-08 granting 20 Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice; granting 21 Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice. Per the Court's Administrative Policies and Procedures Manual, applicant has five (5) days in which to register as a user of the Electronic Filing System. Registration to be accomplished via the court's website at www.azd.uscourts.gov. (BAS)(This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no.pdf document associated with this entry.) (Entered: 06/01/2012)

June 1, 2012 PACER
23

MOTION to Intervene as Defendant by Jonathan Lee Riches. (LFIG) (Entered: 06/01/2012)

June 1, 2012 PACER
24

ORDER granting Defendant's 18 Motion for Extension of Time to Answer. Defendant Maricopa County, Arizona shall have until June 21, 2012 to file a responsive pleading to Plaintiff's Complaint. Signed by Chief Judge Roslyn O Silver on 6/4/12.(CLB) (Entered: 06/04/2012)

June 4, 2012 PACER
25

REPLY to Response to Motion re 5 MOTION to Intervene filed by Scott Huminski. (REW) (Entered: 06/07/2012)

June 7, 2012 PACER
26

NOTICE of Appearance by Lori Lea Voepel on behalf of Joseph M Arpaio, Maricopa County Sheriff's Office. (Voepel, Lori) (Entered: 06/08/2012)

June 8, 2012 PACER
27

MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages Motion to Exceed Page Limit for Defendants' Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss by Joseph M Arpaio, Maricopa County Sheriff's Office. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Voepel, Lori) (Entered: 06/08/2012)

1 Text of Proposed Order

View on PACER

June 8, 2012 PACER
28

LODGED Proposed Defendants' Rule 6(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss re: 27 MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages Motion to Exceed Page Limit for Defendants' Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss. Document to be filed by Clerk if Motion to Leave to File or Amend is granted. Filed by Joseph M Arpaio, Maricopa County Sheriff's Office. (Voepel, Lori) (Entered: 06/08/2012)

June 8, 2012 PACER
29

MOTION for Rule 11 Sanctions Against Intervenor Scott Huminski by Jonathan Lee Riches. (LAD) (Entered: 06/11/2012)

June 11, 2012 RECAP
30

RESPONSE to 15 Response in Opposition to Motion by Movant Jonathan Lee Riches. (Entitled "Response in Opposition to the USA's Motion Opposing Scott Huminski's Intervention;" same PDF as 29, redocketed to reflect response). (LAD) (Entered: 06/11/2012)

June 11, 2012 RECAP
31

LODGED Proposed Response to Motion to Dismiss (Entitled "Reply to Motion to Dismiss") re: 27 Motion to Exceed Page Limit for Defendants' Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss filed by Scott Huminski. Document to be filed by Clerk if Motion to Leave to File or Amend is granted. (LAD) (Entered: 06/11/2012)

June 11, 2012 PACER
32

RESPONSE in Opposition re 23 MOTION to Intervene filed by United States of America. (Caspar, Edward) (Entered: 06/13/2012)

June 13, 2012 RECAP
33

RESPONSE (entitled "Reply to Motion for Sanctions") to Motion re 29 MOTION for Sanctions filed by Scott Huminski. (KMG) (Entered: 06/13/2012)

June 13, 2012 PACER
34

ORDER granting 27 Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages and the Clerk shall file the motion lodged at Doc. 28. Signed by Chief Judge Roslyn O Silver on 6/18/12.(DMT) (Entered: 06/18/2012)

June 18, 2012 PACER
35

MOTION to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim by Joseph M Arpaio, Maricopa County Sheriff's Office. (DMT) (Entered: 06/18/2012)

June 18, 2012 RECAP
36

MOTION to Dismiss Party Defendant Maricopa County, Arizona by Maricopa, County of. (Walker, Richard) (Entered: 06/21/2012)

June 21, 2012 RECAP
37

* AMENDED MOTION to Dismiss Party Defendant, Maricopa County, Arizona by Maricopa, County of. (Walker, Richard) * Modified to correct event on 6/22/2012 (LAD). (Entered: 06/21/2012)

June 21, 2012 PACER
38

RESPONSE in Opposition re 35 MOTION to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim filed by United States of America. (Caspar, Edward) (Entered: 06/22/2012)

June 22, 2012 RECAP
39

First MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 37 MOTION to Dismiss Party Defendant, Maricopa County, Arizona by United States of America. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Caspar, Edward) (Entered: 06/26/2012)

1 Text of Proposed Order

View on PACER

June 26, 2012 PACER
40

ORDER granting the United States' 39 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response to 37 MOTION to Dismiss Party Defendant, Maricopa County, Arizona . The United States shall have to and including July 13, 2012 to file its response. Signed by Chief Judge Roslyn O Silver on 6/27/12.(CLB) (Entered: 06/27/2012)

June 27, 2012 RECAP
41

First MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply in Support of Motion to Dismiss by Joseph M Arpaio, Maricopa County Sheriff's Office. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Masterson, John) (Entered: 06/28/2012)

1 Text of Proposed Order

View on PACER

June 28, 2012 PACER
42

ORDER granting 41 Motion for Extension of Time to File Reply re 35 MOTION to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim - The deadline for Defendants Joseph M. Arpaio and Maricopa County Sheriff's Office to file their reply is extended to July 13, 2012. Signed by Chief Judge Roslyn O Silver on 6/28/12.(CLB) (Entered: 06/29/2012)

June 29, 2012 RECAP
43

RESPONSE in Opposition re 37 MOTION to Dismiss Party Defendant, Maricopa County, Arizona filed by United States of America. (Caspar, Edward) (Entered: 07/13/2012)

July 13, 2012 PACER
44

MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages for Reply in Support of Defendants' Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss by Joseph M Arpaio, Maricopa County Sheriff's Office. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Voepel, Lori) (Entered: 07/13/2012)

1 Text of Proposed Order

View on PACER

July 13, 2012 PACER
45

LODGED Proposed Reply in Support of Defendants' Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss re: 44 MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages for Reply in Support of Defendants' Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss . Document to be filed by Clerk if Motion to Leave to File or Amend is granted. Filed by Joseph M Arpaio, Maricopa County Sheriff's Office. (Voepel, Lori) (Entered: 07/13/2012)

July 13, 2012 PACER
46

ORDER granting Defendants Maricopa County Sheriff's Office and Joseph M Arpaio's 44 Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages; the Clerk shall file the Reply in Support of Defendants' Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss. Signed by Chief Judge Roslyn O Silver on 7/18/12.(REW) (Entered: 07/18/2012)

July 18, 2012 PACER
47

REPLY to Response to Motion re 35 MOTION to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim filed by Joseph M Arpaio, Maricopa County Sheriff's Office. (REW) (Entered: 07/18/2012)

July 18, 2012 PACER
48

First MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 37 MOTION to Dismiss Party Defendant, Maricopa County, Arizona by Maricopa, County of. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Walker, Richard) (Entered: 07/18/2012)

1 Text of Proposed Order

View on PACER

July 18, 2012 PACER
49

ORDER granting 48 Motion for Extension of Time to File Reply re 37 MOTION to Dismiss - Defendant Maricopa County, Arizona shall have until July 25, 2012 to file a reply in support of its motion to dismiss 37 . Signed by Chief Judge Roslyn O Silver on 7/20/12.(CLB) (Entered: 07/20/2012)

July 20, 2012 PACER
50

ORDER denying 5 Scott Huminski's Motion to Intervene; denying 23 Jonathan Lee Riches' Motion to Intervene and denying 29 Jonathan Lee Riches' Motion for Sanctions. Signed by Chief Judge Roslyn O Silver on 7/24/12.(LSP) (Entered: 07/25/2012)

July 25, 2012 PACER
51

MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages for when Filing its Reply to its Motion to Dismiss by Maricopa, County of. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Walker, Richard) (Entered: 07/25/2012)

1 Text of Proposed Order

View on PACER

July 25, 2012 PACER
52

LODGED Proposed Reply in Support of its Motion to Dismiss re: 51 MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages for when Filing its Reply to its Motion to Dismiss . Document to be filed by Clerk if Motion to Leave to File or Amend is granted. Filed by Maricopa, County of. (Walker, Richard) (Entered: 07/25/2012)

July 25, 2012 PACER
53

ORDER granting 51 Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages. TheClerk shall file the lodged proposed reply (Doc. 52). Signed by Chief Judge Roslyn O Silver on 7/26/12.(LSP) (Entered: 07/26/2012)

July 26, 2012 PACER
54

REPLY to Response to Motion re 37 MOTION to Dismiss filed by Maricopa, County of. (LSP) (Entered: 07/26/2012)

July 26, 2012 PACER
55

NOTICE OF ATTORNEY SUBSTITUTION: Edward Caspar appearing for United States of America. Attorney Winsome Gayle terminated. . (Caspar, Edward) (Entered: 09/20/2012)

Sept. 20, 2012 PACER
56

ORDER, the motion to dismiss filed by Maricopa County Sheriff's Office and Sheriff Joseph M Arpaio 35 is granted in part and denied in part; the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office is dismissed; Maricopa County's motion to dismiss 37 is denied. Signed by Chief Judge Roslyn O Silver on 12/11/12.(REW) (Entered: 12/12/2012)

Dec. 12, 2012 RECAP
57

ORDER SETTING SCHEDULING CONFERENCE - IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. (FRCP) 16 a Scheduling Conference is set for January 18, 2013 at 3:30 p.m. in Courtroom 604 at the Sandra DayO'Connor U.S. Courthouse, 401 West Washington, Phoenix, Arizona. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that at the Case Management Meeting the counsel/parties shall prepare a Proposed Case Management Plan and a Proposed Scheduling Order and shall file them with the Court, not less than ten days before the Scheduling Conference. Signed by Chief Judge Roslyn O Silver on 12/12/12. (CLB) (Entered: 12/12/2012)

Dec. 12, 2012 PACER
58

MOTION to Allow Electronic Filing by a Party Appearing Without an Attorney by Kenneth Koym. (BAH) (Entered: 12/19/2012)

Dec. 18, 2012 PACER
62

MOTION to File Amicus Curiae by Kenneth Koym. (Attachments: # 1 Attachment)(REW) (Entered: 01/03/2013)

1 Attachment

View on PACER

Dec. 18, 2012 PACER
63

LODGED Proposed Amicus Curiae Brief re: 62 MOTION to File Amicus Curiae. Document to be filed by Clerk if Motion to Leave to File or Amend is granted. Filed by Kenneth Koym. (REW) (Entered: 01/03/2013)

1 insert after 5th page

View on PACER

Dec. 18, 2012 PACER
59

MOTION for Reconsideration re 56 Order on Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim, Order on Motion to Dismiss Party,, by Maricopa, County of. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Webb, Dan) (Entered: 12/21/2012)

1 Proposed Order

View on PACER

Dec. 21, 2012 PACER
60

First MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer by Maricopa, County of. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Walker, Richard) (Entered: 12/24/2012)

1 Text of Proposed Order

View on PACER

Dec. 24, 2012 PACER
61

* MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer (Enlargement of Time to File Answer) by Joseph M Arpaio. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Masterson, John) *Modified to remove non-filer on 1/2/2013* (REW). (Entered: 12/28/2012)

1 Text of Proposed Order

View on PACER

Dec. 28, 2012 PACER
64

ORDER granting in part and denying in part Defendants' 60 Motion for Extension of Time to Answer. Defendants shall file an Answer no later than January 14, 2013. Signed by Chief Judge Roslyn O Silver on 1/7/13.(CLB) (Entered: 01/07/2013)

Jan. 7, 2013 PACER
65

REPORT of Rule 26(f) Planning Meeting by United States of America. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Caspar, Edward) (Entered: 01/08/2013)

1 Text of Proposed Order

View on PACER

Jan. 8, 2013 PACER
66

NOTICE of Errata re 65 Report of Rule 26(f) Planning Meeting by Plaintiff United States of America. (Caspar, Edward) (Entered: 01/09/2013)

Jan. 9, 2013 PACER
67

REPORT of Rule 26(f) Planning Meeting by United States of America. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Caspar, Edward) (Entered: 01/09/2013)

1 Text of Proposed Order

View on PACER

Jan. 9, 2013 PACER
68

ANSWER to 1 Complaint by Joseph M Arpaio.(Popolizio, Joseph) (Entered: 01/14/2013)

Jan. 14, 2013 PACER
69

ANSWER to 1 Complaint by Maricopa, County of.(Walker, Richard) (Entered: 01/14/2013)

Jan. 14, 2013 PACER
70

MEMORANDUM Defendant Arpaio's Separate Memorandum Regarding Limitations on Interrogatories and Depositions 67 Report of Rule 26(f) Planning Meeting by Defendant Joseph M Arpaio. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit Exhibit 2)(Popolizio, Joseph) (Entered: 01/16/2013)

1 Exhibit Exhibit 1

View on PACER

2 Exhibit Exhibit 2

View on PACER

Jan. 16, 2013 PACER
71

ORDER denying 58 Motion to Allow Electronic Filing ; denying 62 Motion to File Amicus Curiae Brief. Signed by Chief Judge Roslyn O Silver on 1/17/13.(CLB) (Entered: 01/17/2013)

Jan. 17, 2013 PACER
72

RESPONSE re 70 Memorandum, concerning discovery limitations by Plaintiff United States of America. (Caspar, Edward) (Entered: 01/17/2013)

Jan. 17, 2013 PACER
73

ORDER denying County's 59 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Chief Judge Roslyn O Silver on 1/18/13.(CLB) (Entered: 01/18/2013)

Jan. 18, 2013 PACER
74

Minute Entry for proceedings held before Chief Judge Roslyn O Silver: Scheduling Conference held on 1/18/2013. The Court will allow 45 depositions per side. If more are required, the parties shall file a joint statement reflecting why each witness has material information for which depositions are necessary. The Court will allow 25 interrogatories per side. The Court will sign the parties' proposed scheduling order. APPEARANCES: Edward Caspar and Sergio Perez for Plaintiff. Richard Walker, Dan Webb, John Masterson and Joseph Popolizio for Defendants. (Court Reporter Elaine Cropper.) Hearing held 3:41 PM to 4:09 PM. This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry. (LMR) (Entered: 01/18/2013)

Jan. 18, 2013 PACER
75

ORDER re 74 Scheduling Conference: IT IS ORDERED no later than January 25, 2013, the parties shall file and email to chambers mailbox a revised joint proposed scheduling order reflecting the discussion and the Court's orders at the January 18, 2013 Rule 16 Scheduling Conference. Signed by Chief Judge Roslyn O Silver on 1/23/13. (LAD) (Entered: 01/23/2013)

Jan. 23, 2013 PACER
76

LODGED Proposed CORRECTED PROPOSED SCHEDULING ORDER. Document to be filed by Clerk if Motion to Leave to File or Amend is granted. Filed by Joseph M Arpaio, Maricopa County Sheriff's Office, Maricopa, County of. (Popolizio, Joseph) (Entered: 01/24/2013)

Jan. 24, 2013 PACER
77

RULE 16 SCHEDULING ORDER: All Discovery due by 10/11/2013. Joint Status Report due by 10/18/2013. Interim Status Conference set for 10/25/2013 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 604, 401 West Washington Street, Phoenix, AZ 85003 before Chief Judge Roslyn O Silver. (See Order for details). Signed by Chief Judge Roslyn O Silver on 1/29/13. (CLB) (Entered: 01/30/2013)

Jan. 30, 2013 PACER
78

First MOTION for Extension of Time for Defendant Maricopa County to Serve their Initial Disclosure Statement by Maricopa, County of. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Walker, Richard) (Entered: 02/04/2013)

1 Text of Proposed Order

View on PACER

Feb. 4, 2013 PACER
79

ORDER granting Defendant's Unopposed 78 Motion to Enlarge Time. Defendant Maricopa County, Arizona, shall have to and including February 15, 2013 to serve its initial disclosure statement. Signed by Chief Judge Roslyn O Silver on 2/7/13.(CLB) (Entered: 02/07/2013)

Feb. 7, 2013 PACER
80

NOTICE re Service of Initial Disclosure by United States of America . (Caspar, Edward) (Entered: 02/08/2013)

Feb. 8, 2013 PACER
81

NOTICE re of Service of Defendants Maricopa County Sheriffs Office and Joseph M. Arpaio by Joseph M Arpaio, Maricopa County Sheriff's Office . (Popolizio, Joseph) (Entered: 02/08/2013)

Feb. 8, 2013 PACER
82

NOTICE re of Service of Defendant Maricopa County's Initial Disclosure Statement by Maricopa, County of . (Walker, Richard) (Entered: 02/15/2013)

Feb. 15, 2013 PACER
83

NOTICE re Service of Defendants' Maricopa County Sheriff's Office and Joseph Arpaio's First Supplemental Disclosure Statement by Joseph M Arpaio, Maricopa County Sheriff's Office . (Popolizio, Joseph) (Entered: 04/02/2013)

April 2, 2013 PACER
84

NOTICE re Service of United States' First Set of Interrogatories and Requests for Production to Defendant Arpaio by United States of America . (Caspar, Edward) (Entered: 04/17/2013)

April 17, 2013 PACER
85

NOTICE re Service of First Interrogatories and Requests for Production on Defendant Maricopa County by United States of America . (Caspar, Edward) (Entered: 05/01/2013)

May 1, 2013 RECAP
86

NOTICE re Discovery and Settlement by United States of America . (Caspar, Edward) (Entered: 06/03/2013)

June 3, 2013 RECAP
87

NOTICE re Filing a Statement of Interest in a Related Case by United States of America . (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B pt. 1, # 3 Exhibit B pt. 2)(Caspar, Edward) (Entered: 06/13/2013)

1 Exhibit A

View on PACER

2 Exhibit B pt. 1

View on PACER

3 Exhibit B pt. 2

View on PACER

June 13, 2013 RECAP
88

NOTICE re Service of Defendant Arpaio's partial response to Plaintiff's First Set of RFP by Joseph M Arpaio . (Popolizio, Joseph) (Entered: 06/20/2013)

June 20, 2013 PACER
89

NOTICE re of Service of Defendants First Supplemental Response to Plaintiff's First RFP by Joseph M Arpaio, Maricopa County Sheriff's Office . (Popolizio, Joseph) (Entered: 06/26/2013)

June 26, 2013 PACER
90

NOTICE re Service by Joseph M Arpaio, Maricopa County Sheriff's Office of Second Supplemental Response to Plaintiff's First Request for Production. (Popolizio, Joseph) (Entered: 06/28/2013)

June 28, 2013 PACER
91

NOTICE re Filing of First Supplemental Disclosures by United States of America . (Caspar, Edward) (Entered: 07/02/2013)

July 2, 2013 PACER
92

NOTICE re of Service of Defendant Maricopa County's Responses to Plaintiff's First Set of Discovery Requests by Maricopa, County of . (Walker, Richard) (Entered: 07/02/2013)

July 2, 2013 PACER
93

NOTICE re of Service of Defendant Sherriff Arpaio's Discovery Responses by Joseph M Arpaio, Maricopa County Sheriff's Office . (Masterson, John) (Entered: 07/03/2013)

July 3, 2013 RECAP
94

STATEMENT of Discovery Dispute (Joint) by Plaintiff United States of America. (Perez, Sergio) (Entered: 07/12/2013)

July 12, 2013 PACER
95

NOTICE re 4th Supplemental Responses to Ptf's First RFP by Joseph M Arpaio . (Popolizio, Joseph) (Entered: 07/15/2013)

July 15, 2013 PACER
96

NOTICE of Attorney Substitution by Richard K Walker. (Walker, Richard) (Entered: 07/16/2013)

July 16, 2013 PACER
97

NOTICE re Service of Dft. Arpaio's 5th Supplemental Response to Ptf's First RFP by Joseph M Arpaio . (Masterson, John) (Entered: 07/19/2013)

July 19, 2013 PACER
98

ORDER re 94 Statement filed by United States of America. IT IS ORDERED no later than July 24, 2013 Defendant Joseph M. Arpaio shall provide to the United States a firm deadline by which all responsive information will be produced. If that deadline is unacceptable to the United States, the parties shall immediately file a second joint statement containing each side's proposed deadline.Signed by Chief Judge Roslyn O Silver on 7/22/13. (CLB) (Entered: 07/22/2013)

July 22, 2013 RECAP
99

NOTICE re Regarding Defendant Arpaio's Discovery Production Date by Joseph M Arpaio re 98 Order. (Masterson, John) (Entered: 07/24/2013)

July 24, 2013 RECAP
100

NOTICE re of Service of Supplemental Responses to Request for Production by Maricopa, County of . (Walker, Richard) (Entered: 07/26/2013)

July 26, 2013 RECAP

State / Territory: Arizona

Case Type(s):

Policing

Key Dates

Filing Date: May 10, 2012

Closing Date: May 14, 2019

Case Ongoing: No

Plaintiffs

Plaintiff Description:

U.S. Department of Justice

Plaintiff Type(s):

U.S. Dept of Justice plaintiff

Attorney Organizations:

U.S. Dept. of Justice Civil Rights Division

Public Interest Lawyer: Yes

Filed Pro Se: No

Class Action Sought: No

Class Action Outcome: Not sought

Defendants

Maricopa County (Maricopa), County

Defendant Type(s):

Jurisdiction-wide

Law-enforcement

Case Details

Causes of Action:

34 U.S.C. § 12601 (previously 42 U.S.C. § 14141)

Title VI, Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000d et seq.

Constitutional Clause(s):

Due Process

Freedom of speech/association

Unreasonable search and seizure

Availably Documents:

Trial Court Docket

Complaint (any)

Injunctive (or Injunctive-like) Relief

Any published opinion

Outcome

Prevailing Party: Plaintiff

Nature of Relief:

Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement

Source of Relief:

Settlement

Form of Settlement:

Court Approved Settlement or Consent Decree

Order Duration: 2015 - 2017

Content of Injunction:

Discrimination Prohibition

Retaliation Prohibition

Warrant/order for search or seizure

Issues

General:

Conditions of confinement

Disparate Treatment

Failure to discipline

Failure to supervise

Failure to train

False arrest

Inadequate citizen complaint investigations and procedures

Language access/needs

Pattern or Practice

Racial profiling

Search policies

Transportation

Discrimination-basis:

Immigration status

Language discrimination

National origin discrimination

Race discrimination

Language:

Spanish

National Origin/Ethnicity:

Hispanic