Case: Melendres v. Arpaio

2:07-cv-02513 | U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona

Filed Date: Dec. 12, 2007

Case Ongoing

Clearinghouse coding complete

Case Summary

On December 12, 2007, a group of plaintiffs filed this lawsuit in United States District Court for the District of Arizona against the County of Maricopa and the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office (MCSO), as well as Sheriff Joe Arpaio. The plaintiffs sought to represent a class of Latino persons who have been or will be stopped, detained, interrogated, or searched by the Sheriff or his agents in moving or parked vehicles in Maricopa County. They alleged claims under the Fourth Amendment (search a…

On December 12, 2007, a group of plaintiffs filed this lawsuit in United States District Court for the District of Arizona against the County of Maricopa and the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office (MCSO), as well as Sheriff Joe Arpaio. The plaintiffs sought to represent a class of Latino persons who have been or will be stopped, detained, interrogated, or searched by the Sheriff or his agents in moving or parked vehicles in Maricopa County. They alleged claims under the Fourth Amendment (search and seizure) and Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection) to the U.S. Constitution; Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964; and the Arizona state constitution. The plaintiffs were represented by private pro bono attorneys, the American Civil Liberties Union (both local and national), and the Mexican American Legal Defense Fund. The United States Department of Justice (Civil Rights Division and local U.S. Attorneys) appeared in the case as amicus, explaining that they had a sharp interest in the matter because of its separate civil rights lawsuit against the County, United States v. Maricopa County, PN-AZ-0001 in this Clearinghouse. The plaintiffs sought declaratory and injunctive relief against the defendants, claiming that defendants have engaged in a widespread pattern and practice of racial profiling and racially or ethnically discriminatory treatment in "enforcing" federal immigration laws against Latino persons without regard for actual citizenship or immigration status.

The plaintiffs alleged that defendants have launched a series of "crime suppression sweeps" to target Latino persons for investigation of immigration status, using pretextual and unfounded stops, racially motivated questioning, searches, and/or baseless arrests. These sweeps include a volunteer "posse" that help to carry out defendants' policies and practices. Defendants had claimed authority under a limited agreement with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). However, plaintiffs allege that the ICE agreement prohibits these practices, because the agreement only allows for questioning of immigration status once someone is suspected of violating a state or federal law more severe than a traffic offense. The plaintiffs further allege that defendants' pattern and practice of racial profiling goes beyond these "sweeps" to include widespread, everyday targeting and mistreatment of drivers and passengers in Maricopa County who appear to be Latino. The plaintiffs allege that Latino drivers and passengers are stopped at higher rates, treated more intrusively, and detained longer than similarly situated Caucasian drivers and passengers (even within the same vehicle). The plaintiffs also allege that defendants have set up a "hotline" for "tips" on illegal immigrants, which they allege invites individuals to equate race with immigration status. Finally, the plaintiffs allege a failure to train personnel and volunteers adequately and to promulgate appropriate policies to prevent infringement of plaintiffs' rights. Allegedly, the Sheriff made many public statements about his intent to "go after illegals" and said publicly that physical appearance was basis to question someone about their immigration status.

On July 15, 2009, the court (Judge Mary H. Murgia) granted the defendants' motion for recusal. The defendants claimed that only the day after Judge Murgia ruled against them did they become aware that Judge Murgia's (identical twin) sister was the President and CEO of the National Council of La Raza (NCLR); they argued that accordingly, Judge Murgia must recuse herself. On the one hand, the court found that the motion was untimely, that the defendants had not shown any evidence of the court's bias, and that her sister's position was not enough to compel recusal. On the other, however, the court found that NCLR's "Stop the Hate" online campaign, which contains articles that are highly disparaging of these defendants and which takes a strong stand on disputed legal and factual matters in this case (and which contain pictures of the judge's identical twin sister) might lead the public to question Judge Murgia's impartiality, and that she should recuse herself in this close call. Melendres v. Arpaio, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 65069, 2009 WL 2132693 (D. Ariz. July 15, 2009). The case was reassigned to Judge G. Murray Snow.

On August 13, 2009, Judge Snow denied the County's motion to stay proceedings pending DOJ investigations. Melendres v. Maricopa County, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 75364, 2009 WL 2515618 (D. Ariz. Aug. 13, 2009). On October 13, 2009, the court approved a joint motion and stipulation of plaintiffs and defendant Maricopa County to dismiss Maricopa County without prejudice.

On December 23, 2011, the court issued an order denying summary judgment and sending the case to trial in large part. Based on the few statistical sheets that were available, the court held that the finder of fact may draw the following inferences from the statistic sheets that MCSO shredded: that they would have suggested officers involved in special operations did not follow a "zero tolerance" policy requiring them to stop all traffic offenders; that they would have included a significantly higher number of arrests in the categories "Illegal Alien turned over to ICE/LEAR" and/or "Suspected Illegal Alien arrested on state charges" than records documenting ordinary patrol activity. Based on the recovered emails, the court found that the finder of fact could draw the following inferences from emails that MCSO irretrievably purged: that MCSO maintained a file of citizen complaints making requests for special operations; that MCSO conducted operations in areas named in the complaints; and that at least some of the citizen communications complained about "Mexicans," "day laborers," or "illegal immigrants" but did not provide a description of any criminal activity. Melendres v. Arpaio, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 148187 (D. Ariz. Dec. 23, 2011).

On the same day, the court certified the class of "all Latino persons who, since January 2007, have been or will be in the future, stopped, detained, questioned, or searched by MCSO agents while driving or sitting in a vehicle on a public roadway or parking area in Maricopa County, Arizona." The court also enjoined MCSO and its officers from detaining any person only because they believe or know that the person is unlawfully present in the United States. Ortega-Melendres v. Arpaio, 836 F. Supp. 2d 959 (D. Ariz. 2011). The Maricopa County Sheriff's Office filed an interlocutory appeal with the Ninth Circuit. Later, on September 25, 2012, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the District court's order. De Jesus Ortega Melendres v. Arpaio, 695 F.3d 990 (9th Cir. Ariz. 2012).

In the meantime, the matter proceeded to a bench trial, held in July and August 2012. On May 24, 2013, Judge Snow issued a 142-page decision finding for the plaintiffs. The court found the plaintiffs entitled to injunctive relief to remedy the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment violations caused by the Sheriff's Office past and continuing operations, and entered a permanent injunction forbidding the MCSO from:

  • detaining, holding or arresting Latino occupants of vehicles in Maricopa County based on a reasonable belief, without more, that such persons are in the country without authorization;
  • following or enforcing its LEAR policy against any Latino occupant of a vehicle in Maricopa County;
  • using race or Latino ancestry as a factor in determining to stop any vehicle in Maricopa County with a Latino occupant;
  • using race or Latino ancestry as a factor in making law enforcement decisions with respect to whether any Latino occupant of a vehicle in Maricopa County may be in the country without authorization;
  • detaining Latino occupants of vehicles stopped for traffic violations for a period longer than reasonably necessary to resolve the traffic violation in the absence of reasonable suspicion that any of them have committed or are committing a violation of federal or state criminal law;
  • detaining, holding or arresting Latino occupants of a vehicle in Maricopa County for violations of the Arizona Human Smuggling Act without a reasonable basis for believing that, under all the circumstances, the necessary elements of the crime are present; and
  • detaining, arresting or holding persons based on a reasonable suspicion that they are conspiring with their employer to violate the Arizona Employer Sanctions Act.
  • The defendant appealed this decision, along with the denial of their initial motion to dismiss (Docket No. 13-16285).

    The parties negotiated a consent decree to ensure the Maricopa Sheriff's Office complied with the court's findings of facts for the plaintiffs. On October 2, 2013, after hearing the terms on which the parties could and could not agree, the court (Judge Snow) issued an order making the previous injunctions permanent and establishing the methods for compliance. The order required the Sheriff's Office to create a unit to aid in compliance and a system for identifying problematic behavior and provided for an independent monitor to ensure compliance. It further demanded that all of the Sheriff's policies and procedures conform to the US and AZ constitutions and laws, that the monitor review any of the Sheriff's immigration-related policies and practices, that all officers receive training on nondiscriminatory policing, that the Sheriffs create an accountable system for documenting traffic stops including dash-cam recording, that all complaints are brought forward and addressed, and that the Sheriffs get involved in the community to rebuild public trust.

    The Sheriffs appealed this order as well (Docket No. 13-17238), and it was consolidated with their previous appeal.

    On April 4, and October 10, 2014, the court issued orders amending the permanent injunction, giving the Monitor, rather than the Sheriff's Office, the community outreach responsibility to serve as a liaison between the public and the Sheriff's Office. The second of the orders amended the injunction to allow for body-mounted cameras as opposed to dash mounted cameras, for the purpose of recording traffic stops.

    On September 11, 2014, the court (Judge Snow) awarded attorneys' fees and costs to the plaintiffs, as the prevailing party in a civil rights case, totaling $4,439,241.66. The court retained jurisdiction of this action for all purposes until such time as the defendants have achieved full and effective Compliance and maintained such compliance for no less than three years.

    On February 12, 2015, Judge Snow entered an order for an evidentiary hearing to address whether MCSO committed contempt of the court. This order was in response to a 2013 video released of Sheriff Arpaio telling his officers to disregard the court's order requiring them to track the race and ethnicity of the individuals they stopped. Further videos were retrieved showing officers had detained people against the court's earlier orders and that these officers had been unlawfully taking detainees possessions.

    On April 15, 2015, Justice John Wallace for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded Judge Snow's May 24, 2013 permanent injunction. He held that the the named plaintiffs were adequate class representatives and the district court had not abused its discretion. He found the requirement within the permanent injunction that monitors consider "disciplinary outcomes for any violation of department policy" and assess whether deputies should be subject to "civil suits or criminal charges for off-duty conduct" was overbroad. 784 F.3d 1254

    The United States moved to intervene based on the "general public importance" of the matter. Judge Snow granted the motion on August 13, 2015. The United States's intervenor complaint cited violations of 42 USC § 14141(b) and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. It sought equitable and injunctive relief.

    On August 26, 2015, Judge Snow issued an order amending the supplemental permanent injunction. In response to the defendants' appeal of the initial supplemental permanent injunction, the Ninth Circuit affirmed all provisions except for those allowing the Monitor to consider MCSO's discipline for "any violations of department policy" and whether any deputies were repeatedly party to any "complaints, civil suits, or criminal charges, including for off-duty conduct." After the Ninth Circuit's ruling, Judge Snow narrowed the Monitor's considerations to only include violations pursuant to this particular case and injunction.

    Meanwhile, in a related case filed by the Department of Justice in 2012, Judge Silver for the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona, settled certain issues but required the DOJ to pursue further relief within this case. (PN-AZ-0001 in this Clearinghouse).

    The parties then litigated evidentiary issues for several months. On May 13, 2016, Judge Snow issued a Finding of Fact holding defendants in civil contempt of the court and setting a hearing date for May 31, 2016. 2016 WL 2783715. Based on the Finding of Fact, the court found that the defendants' had failed to implement the court's preliminary injunction, failed to disclose thousands of relevant discovery items, and deliberately violated court orders. These actions harmed the plaintiff class, impeded litigation, and led to a trial that did not adequately address plaintiffs' constitutional rights. Judge Snow therefore issued an amended supplemental permanent injunction on July 22, 2016. The Injunction required MCSO to investigate all allegations of employee misconduct related to the issues in this case; implement misconduct related training, develop a civilian complaint intake, implement transparency measures, and ensure document preservation and production. It further demanded that all policies, procedures, protocols, training materials, and other relevant materials remain subject to review and comment by the compliance Monitor implemented in the first supplemental permanent injunction. 2016 WL 3965949.

    In November 2016, Paul Penzone defeated Joe Arpaio in the Arizona election for Sheriff. On January 13, 2017, the court replaced Penzone as the named defendant for the case.

    Prior to the change in defendant, Judge Snow issued an order on August 19, 2016 referring Sheriff Arpaio to a randomly selected judge for criminal proceedings to determine whether he should be held in criminal contempt for:

  • Violation of the court's December 23, 2011, preliminary injunction;
  • failure to disclose all relevant materials for the investigation; and
  • his intentional failure to preserve and produce required records as directed in the court's April 23, 2015, order.
  • The criminal proceedings continued separately to this case.

    On July 31, 2017, District Judge Susan R. Bolton issued an order finding Sheriff Arpaio guilty of criminal contempt. 2017 WL 3268180. The court found that Judge Snow’s preliminary injunction was clear and spelled out that detaining persons past the time sufficient to conduct a criminal investigation was a violation of their Fourth Amendment rights and that Sheriff Arpaio had to cease the practice immediately. Further, the court found that Sheriff Arpaio had the requisite knowledge of the order and that, based on public statements demonstrating flagrant disregard for the order, he had willfully violated the preliminary injunction order. On August 14, 2017, Sheriff Arpaio filed a motion for a new trial, and/or that the verdict be vacated, arguing that he was wrongfully denied a trial by jury. On that same date, he also filed a motion for a judgment of acquittal. After President Trump issued an Executive grant of clemency to Joe Arpaio on August 28, 2017, he filed an additional motion to vacate the verdict. Subsequently, the court dismissed the first two motions with prejudice, reserving only the motion to vacate the verdict.

    On October 19, 2017, Judge Bolton denied Sheriff Arpaio's motion to vacate the verdict, insofar as it sought relief beyond dismissal with prejudice. 2017 WL 4839072. The court held that although the presidential pardon spared Sheriff Arpaio from any punishment that otherwise might have been imposed, it did not "revise the historical facts" of the case. Thus, the judgment of conviction was maintained. Sheriff Arpaio appealed this decision to the Ninth Circuit. On April 17, 2018, the Ninth Circuit issued an order appointing a special prosecutor to defend the district court’s decision. United States v. Arpaio, 887 F.3d 979 (9th Cir. 2018). The role of the “special prosecutor” under the order was limited to providing briefing and argument to the merits panel. A judge of the appeals court sua sponte called for a vote on whether to rehear en banc the order appointing a special prosecutor. Rehearing en banc was denied. On October 25, 2018, the Court stayed briefing in this case to allow the Solicitor General to consider whether to file certiorari in the Supreme Court of the United States. On January 1, 2019, the Solicitor General determined that the government would not seek certiorari in the Supreme Court and the appeals court reinstated a briefing schedule. Thus, the appeal in the contempt proceedings is still pending.

    Meanwhile, in the district court, the parties continued litigating over legal fees. Although they went to mediation, this was unsuccessful. On March 3, 2017, the Ninth Circuit ordered Maricopa County to pay $400,395.55 to the plaintiffs to cover legal fees. On March 1, 2018, the Ninth Circuit ordered that an employee of Maricopa County pay the plaintiffs $52,877.42 in additional attorneys' fees for work performed on a motion to dismiss the employee's appeal of the district court's order finding that he had committed civil contempt for violating the injunction.

    In 2017, the Monitor noted that MCSO had completed the delivery of misconduct investigations training. As of November 2018, the Monitor noted steady improvement in the quality of internal investigations, particularly since completion of the training.

    On May 24, 2018, MCSO published its Third Traffic Stop Annual Report. The Monitor noted issues with the underlying data due to a lack of quality control procedures with MCSO’s contracted vendor responsible for the various analyses. MCSO has since contracted with a new vendor. Despite the Monitor's concerns with the data, the Report found that the issue of racial differences in post-stop outcomes is systemic and cannot be attributed only to a small number of deputies. The Report did, however, identify several deputies which were outliers when compared to their geographic peers and MCSO is working to address those outliers.

    The Monitor continues to oversee the MCSO's compliance with the multiple supplemental injunctive relief orders entered. The plaintiffs have filed a supplemental motion for attorneys' fees incurred from June 1, 2016, through August 31, 2017, in the total amount of $1,237,192.10. On April 12th, 2019 the court granted plaintiff attorney's fees in the amount of $747,836.24.

    In mid-June of 2019, the Independent Investigator, assigned in the Second Amended Second Permanent Injunction/Judgment Order, announced that he had completed his duties and that he was no longer needed to investigate MCSO affairs. In January of 2020 he submitted a letter to the judge charting the work he did and notifying him that he would be available to the court if he was required to testify.

    The Maricopa County Sheriff continues to submit reports to the court and the case is ongoing as of June 8th, 2020.

    Summary Authors

    Emily Goldman (3/2/2013)

    Benjamin St. Pierre (11/20/2014)

    Gabriela Hybel (4/13/2017)

    Eva Richardson (1/25/2019)

    Jack Hibbard (6/8/2020)

    Related Cases

    United States v. Maricopa County, District of Arizona (2012)

    People

    For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4132339/parties/melendres-v-penzone/


    Judge(s)

    Berzon, Marsha Siegel (California)

    Bolton, Susan Ritchie (Arizona)

    Graber, Susan (Oregon)

    Murguia, Mary Helen (Arizona)

    Snow, G. Murray (Arizona)

    Tallman, Richard C. (Washington)

    Tashima, Atsushi Wallace (California)

    Wallace, John Clifford (California)

    Attorneys(s) for Plaintiff

    Albarran, Tammy (California)

    Arellano, Casey (Arizona)

    Judge(s)

    Berzon, Marsha Siegel (California)

    Bolton, Susan Ritchie (Arizona)

    Graber, Susan (Oregon)

    Murguia, Mary Helen (Arizona)

    Snow, G. Murray (Arizona)

    Tallman, Richard C. (Washington)

    Tashima, Atsushi Wallace (California)

    Wallace, John Clifford (California)

    Attorneys(s) for Plaintiff

    Albarran, Tammy (California)

    Arellano, Casey (Arizona)

    Bendor, Joshua David R. (Arizona)

    Bodney, David Jeremy (Arizona)

    Brizgys, Molly Patricia (Arizona)

    Brody, Kathleen E. (Arizona)

    Byrnes, Andrew Carl (California)

    Byun, Hyun Sik (California)

    Campbell, Kristina Michelle (California)

    Castillo, Jorge Martin (California)

    Cataldo, Simon Joseph (District of Columbia)

    Chanin, James B. (California)

    Chien, Stephen C. (California)

    Cincotta, Caroline (California)

    Dodson, Priscilla G. (District of Columbia)

    Flood, Kelly Joyce (Arizona)

    Furnish, Brenda Munoz (Arizona)

    Gallagher, Lesli Rawles (California)

    Goldfaden, Robin Lisa (California)

    Gomez Hernandez, Julia Alejandra (California)

    Hartman-Tellez, Karen J. (Arizona)

    Hernandez, Isaac Pasaret (Arizona)

    Hickey, Kevin Joseph (California)

    Huddleston, Kathryn Lynn (Arizona)

    Hults, David (California)

    Jacobs, Rebecca Ariel (California)

    Kappelhoff, Mark (District of Columbia)

    Keller, John Dixon (District of Columbia)

    Kozinets, Peter Shawn (Arizona)

    Lai, Anne (Arizona)

    Lieberman, Martin (Arizona)

    Limon, Gladys (California)

    Lockwood, Aaron James (Arizona)

    Lyall, James Duff (Arizona)

    Moffa, Luis R. Jr. (New Jersey)

    Morin, Michelle L. (California)

    Pace, Julie A. (Arizona)

    Pedley, Lauren Elizabeth (California)

    Pochoda, Daniel Joseph (Arizona)

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

    Ramirez, Nancy A. (California)

    Ramírez, Mónica M. (California)

    Sadasivan, Bhanu K. (California)

    Salgado, Victor R (District of Columbia)

    Segura, Andre Ivan (New York)

    Steilen, Matthew James (California)

    Vidutis, Nida (California)

    Wang, Cecillia D (California)

    Wee, Christine Keeyeh (Arizona)

    Young, Stanley (California)

    Attorneys(s) for Defendant

    Ackerman, Justin Michael (Arizona)

    Branco, Joseph James (Arizona)

    Brandon, Maria R. (Arizona)

    Casey, Timothy James (Arizona)

    Cooper, Charles Justin (District of Columbia)

    Danneman, Dale A (Arizona)

    Dowell, Leigh Eric (Arizona)

    Elston, Diana Jean (Arizona)

    Fry, John Michael (Arizona)

    Garner, Deborah L. (Arizona)

    GilBride, Eileen Dennis (Arizona)

    Goldman, Mark David (Arizona)

    Hartsig, Charitie L. (Arizona)

    Hillbo, Alec R. (Arizona)

    Iafrate, Michele Marie (Arizona)

    Jirauch, Charles W. (Arizona)

    Kennedy, Simon Peter (Arizona)

    Kirk, Michael W. (District of Columbia)

    Liddy, Thomas P (Arizona)

    Martin, Kerry Scott (Arizona)

    Masterson, John T. (Arizona)

    Mathis, Casson N. (Arizona)

    Mayr, Vincent Rene (Arizona)

    McDonald, Andrew Melvin Jr. (Arizona)

    Metcalf, Drew (Arizona)

    Mitchell, Barry D. (Arizona)

    Moberly, Michael D. (Arizona)

    Palmer, Brian Joseph (Arizona)

    Popolizio, Joseph John (Arizona)

    Rapp, Christopher Thomas (Arizona)

    Reeves, Harold S. (District of Columbia)

    Schwab, Douglas Arthur (Arizona)

    Selden, David A. (Arizona)

    Stack, Thomas George (Arizona)

    Stein, Lee David (Arizona)

    Surdakowski, Jeffrey Sinclair (Arizona)

    Tivorsak, Linda Kim (Arizona)

    Uglietta, Ann Thompson (Arizona)

    Vigil, Joseph (Arizona)

    Walker, Richard K (Arizona)

    Wilenchik, Dennis Ira (Arizona)

    Williams, James Lawrence (Arizona)

    Other Attorney(s)

    Aftergut, Dennis (California)

    Bassin, Ian (District of Columbia)

    Bowman, Locke E. III (Illinois)

    Cabou, Jean-Jacques (Arizona)

    Calderon, Ernest (Arizona)

    Caspar, Edward G. (District of Columbia)

    Cheema, Puneet (District of Columbia)

    Coe, Cynthia (District of Columbia)

    Farley, Alexis Margaret (Arizona)

    Fein, Ronald A (Massachusetts)

    Florence, Justin (District of Columbia)

    Glass, Nancy (District of Columbia)

    Hamilton, April Marie (Arizona)

    Hammond, Larry A. (Arizona)

    Harwood, Ann Elizabeth (Arizona)

    Johnston, Maureen (District of Columbia)

    Jung, Je Yon (District of Columbia)

    Killebrew, Paul (District of Columbia)

    Kimmins, Lynnette C (Arizona)

    Klayman, Larry (District of Columbia)

    May, Katherine Elizabeth (Arizona)

    Milovic, Maya (Arizona)

    Mondino, Jennifer L. (District of Columbia)

    Moseley, Jonathon Alden (District of Columbia)

    Mygatt, Timothy D (District of Columbia)

    OGara, Rosaleen Tobin (Arizona)

    O'Gara, Rosaleen Tobin (Arizona)

    Patrie, Aparna (District of Columbia)

    Perez, Sergio (District of Columbia)

    Piccarreta, Michael L (Arizona)

    Renne, Louise H. (California)

    Scharff, Spencer Garrett (Arizona)

    Shapiro, David M. (Illinois)

    Smith, Jonathan Mark (District of Columbia)

    Spector, Phil (Massachusetts)

    Strange, Elizabeth A. (Arizona)

    Swindle, Shane R. (Arizona)

    Woods, Terrence P (Arizona)

    Expert/Monitor/Master

    Aminfar, Amin (District of Columbia)

    Austin, Roy L. (District of Columbia)

    Gayle, Winsome (District of Columbia)

    Warshaw, Robert S. (New Hampshire)

    Documents in the Clearinghouse

    Document

    2:16-cr-01012

    Docket

    USA v. Arpaio

    April 6, 2018

    April 6, 2018

    Docket

    2:07-cv-02513

    Docket [PACER]

    Melendres v. Penzone

    June 8, 2020

    June 8, 2020

    Docket
    18

    2:07-cv-02513

    First Amended Complaint

    July 16, 2008

    July 16, 2008

    Complaint
    25

    2:07-cv-02513

    Order

    2008 WL 4174918

    Sept. 5, 2008

    Sept. 5, 2008

    Order/Opinion
    39

    2:07-cv-02513

    Defendants' Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint

    Ortega v. Arpaio

    Sept. 24, 2008

    Sept. 24, 2008

    Pleading / Motion / Brief
    36

    2:07-cv-02513

    Order

    2008 WL 4446696

    Sept. 29, 2008

    Sept. 29, 2008

    Order/Opinion
    48

    2:07-cv-02513

    Response in Opposition to Defendants' Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint

    Oct. 14, 2008

    Oct. 14, 2008

    Pleading / Motion / Brief
    60

    2:07-cv-02513

    Order

    598 F.Supp.2d 1025

    Feb. 10, 2009

    Feb. 10, 2009

    Order/Opinion
    138

    2:07-cv-02513

    Order

    2009 WL 2132693

    July 15, 2009

    July 15, 2009

    Order/Opinion
    147

    2:07-cv-02513

    Order

    July 27, 2009

    July 27, 2009

    Order/Opinion

    Resources

    Docket

    See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4132339/melendres-v-penzone/

    Last updated May 31, 2022, 3:09 a.m.

    ECF Number Description Date Link Date / Link
    1

    COMPLAINT. Filing fee received: $ 350.00, receipt number 09700000000001606323, filed by Manuel Ortega Melendres.(Moffa, Louis) (Entered: 12/12/2007)

    Dec. 12, 2007

    Dec. 12, 2007

    RECAP

    Pro Hac Vice Fee Paid

    Dec. 12, 2007

    Dec. 12, 2007

    PACER
    2

    Notice re Civil Cover Sheet by Manuel Ortega Melendres (Moffa, Louis), DOCUMENT FILED IN ERROR, ATTORNEY NOTICED TO REFILE WITH CORRECT PDF DOCUMENT, Modified on 12/14/2007 (LSP). (Entered: 12/12/2007)

    Dec. 12, 2007

    Dec. 12, 2007

    PACER

    Notice of Judge Assignment

    Dec. 12, 2007

    Dec. 12, 2007

    PACER
    3

    MOTION for Admission Pro Hac Vice as to attorney Louis R. Moffa Jr. by Manuel Ortega Melendres. (Moffa, Louis) (Entered: 12/12/2007)

    Dec. 12, 2007

    Dec. 12, 2007

    PACER

    PRO HAC VICE FEE PAID. $ 100, receipt number PHX065702 as to Louis R Moffa, Jr. (BAS, )

    Dec. 12, 2007

    Dec. 12, 2007

    PACER
    4

    ORDER pursuant to General Order 05-25 granting 3 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: 12/12/2007)

    Dec. 12, 2007

    Dec. 12, 2007

    PACER
    5

    Notice re Summons to Joseph M. Arpaio by Manuel Ortega Melendres (Moffa, Louis) (Entered: 12/12/2007)

    Dec. 12, 2007

    Dec. 12, 2007

    PACER
    6

    Notice re Summons to Maricopa County, Arizona by Manuel Ortega Melendres (Moffa, Louis) (Entered: 12/12/2007)

    Dec. 12, 2007

    Dec. 12, 2007

    PACER

    This case has been assigned to the Honorable Mary H. Murguia. All future pleadings or documents should bear the correct case number: CV 07-2513-PHX-MHM. (REK)

    Dec. 12, 2007

    Dec. 12, 2007

    PACER
    7

    Notice re Magistrate Consent Form (REK) (Entered: 12/13/2007)

    Dec. 12, 2007

    Dec. 12, 2007

    PACER
    8

    Summons Issued as to Maricopa County, Joseph M. Arpaio. (Attachments: # 1 Maricopa)(REK). *** IMPORTANT: You must select "Document and stamps" or "Document and comments" on the print screen in order for the court seal to appear on the summons you print. (Entered: 12/13/2007)

    1 Maricopa

    View on PACER

    Dec. 13, 2007

    Dec. 13, 2007

    PACER
    9

    NOTICE TO FILER OF DEFICIENCY re 1 Complaint filed by Manuel de Jesus Ortega Melendres. Description of deficiency: The following required document was not attached: Civil Cover Sheet. (REK) (Entered: 12/13/2007)

    Dec. 13, 2007

    Dec. 13, 2007

    PACER
    10

    SUMMONS Returned Executed by Manuel de Jesus Ortega Melendres. Joseph M. Arpaio served on 12/13/2007. (Moffa, Louis) (Entered: 12/14/2007)

    Dec. 14, 2007

    Dec. 14, 2007

    PACER
    11

    SUMMONS Returned Executed by Manuel de Jesus Ortega Melendres. Maricopa County served on 12/13/2007. (Moffa, Louis) (Entered: 12/14/2007)

    Dec. 14, 2007

    Dec. 14, 2007

    PACER
    12

    MOTION to Dismiss Case Defendants Arpaio and Maricopa County's Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss by Maricopa County, Joseph M. Arpaio. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Casey, Timothy) Modified on 1/7/2008, DOCUMENT NOT IN COMPLIANCE WITH LRCiv 7.1(c). ATTORNEY NOTICED, (LSP). (Entered: 01/03/2008)

    1 Text of Proposed Order

    View on PACER

    Jan. 3, 2008

    Jan. 3, 2008

    RECAP
    13

    ANSWER to Complaint by Maricopa County, Joseph M. Arpaio.(Casey, Timothy) (Entered: 01/04/2008)

    Jan. 4, 2008

    Jan. 4, 2008

    PACER
    14

    RESPONSE in Opposition re 12 MOTION to Dismiss Case Defendants Arpaio and Maricopa County's Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss MOTION to Dismiss Case Defendants Arpaio and Maricopa County's Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss filed by Manuel de Jesus Ortega Melendres. (Moffa, Louis) (Entered: 01/21/2008)

    Jan. 21, 2008

    Jan. 21, 2008

    PACER
    15

    NOTICE of Attorney Substitution by Julie A Pace (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order to Notice of Substitution of Counsel with Client Consent)(Pace, Julie) (Entered: 04/18/2008)

    1 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order to Notice of Substitution of Counsel with

    View on PACER

    April 18, 2008

    April 18, 2008

    PACER
    16

    ORDER re 15 NOTICE of Attorney Substitution - that Ballard Spahr Andrews & Ingersoll, LLP ("Ballard Spahr") is withdrawn as counsel of record for Pla and that in its place be substituted attorneys David J. Bodney and Peter Kozinets with Steptoe & Johnson, LLP ("Steptoe & Johnson") in this action. Signed by Judge Mary H Murguia on 5/1/08. (KMG) (Entered: 05/02/2008)

    May 2, 2008

    May 2, 2008

    PACER
    17

    MOTION to Amend/Correct Complaint by Manuel de Jesus Ortega Melendres. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Bodney, David) (Entered: 07/16/2008)

    1 Exhibit A

    View on PACER

    2 Text of Proposed Order

    View on PACER

    July 16, 2008

    July 16, 2008

    PACER
    18

    LODGED Proposed First Amended Complaint re: 17 MOTION to Amend/Correct Complaint. Document to be filed by Clerk if Motion to Leave to File or Amend is granted. Filed by Manuel de Jesus Ortega Melendres. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A-D)(Bodney, David) (Entered: 07/16/2008)

    1 Exhibit A-D

    View on PACER

    July 16, 2008

    July 16, 2008

    PACER
    19

    RESPONSE in Opposition re 17 MOTION to Amend/Correct Complaint filed by Maricopa County, Joseph M. Arpaio. (Casey, Timothy) (Entered: 07/28/2008)

    July 28, 2008

    July 28, 2008

    PACER
    20

    REPLY in Support re 17 MOTION to Amend/Correct Complaint filed by Manuel de Jesus Ortega Melendres. (Kozinets, Peter) (Entered: 08/07/2008)

    Aug. 7, 2008

    Aug. 7, 2008

    PACER
    21

    MOTION for Admission Pro Hac Vice as to attorney Nancy Anne Ramirez on behalf of Manuel de Jesus Ortega Melendres. (BAS, ) (Entered: 08/14/2008)

    Aug. 14, 2008

    Aug. 14, 2008

    PACER

    Pro Hac Vice Fee Paid

    Aug. 14, 2008

    Aug. 14, 2008

    PACER

    PRO HAC VICE FEE PAID. $ 100, receipt number PHX074544 as to Nancy Anne Ramirez. (BAS, )

    Aug. 14, 2008

    Aug. 14, 2008

    PACER
    22

    ORDER pursuant to General Order 05-25 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: 08/14/2008)

    Aug. 14, 2008

    Aug. 14, 2008

    PACER
    23

    Minute Order: The Court ORDERS setting this matter for oral argument re: Defendants' Motion to Dismiss 12 and Plaintiffs' Motion to Amend/Correct Complaint 17 on Wednesday, September 24, 2008 at 3:30 p.m. before Judge Mary H Murguia. [This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry.](KSP) (Entered: 08/29/2008)

    Aug. 29, 2008

    Aug. 29, 2008

    PACER
    24

    MOTION to Intervene by Aggrieved and Irreparably Injured Class of United States and Phoenix Citizens. (KMG) (Entered: 09/05/2008)

    Sept. 3, 2008

    Sept. 3, 2008

    PACER
    25

    ORDER signed by Judge Mary H Murguia on 9/5/08. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED granting Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint. (Dkt.#17); IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying Defendants 12 (b)(6) Motion to Dismiss as moot. (Dkt.#12).IT IS FURTHER ORDERED vacating the Motion Hearing set on September 24, 2008 at 3:30 p.m. (KSP) (Entered: 09/05/2008)

    Sept. 5, 2008

    Sept. 5, 2008

    RECAP
    26

    FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT against Joseph M. Arpaio, Maricopa County Sheriff's Office, and Maricopa County; Party John Does terminated, filed by Manuel de Jesus Ortega Melendres, Jessica Quitugua Rodriguez, David Rodriguez, Velia Meraz, Manuel Nieto, Jr. and Somos America (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A - D)(ESL) (Entered: 09/08/2008)

    1 Exhibit A - D

    View on PACER

    Sept. 5, 2008

    Sept. 5, 2008

    RECAP
    27

    Notice re Summons in a Civil Case by David Rodriguez, Velia Meraz, Manuel Nieto, Jr, Somos America, Manuel de Jesus Ortega Melendres, Jessica Quitugua Rodriguez re 26 Amended Complaint, (Kozinets, Peter) (Entered: 09/09/2008)

    Sept. 9, 2008

    Sept. 9, 2008

    RECAP
    28

    Summons Issued as to Maricopa County Sheriff's Office. (REK). *** IMPORTANT: You must select "Document and stamps" or "Document and comments" on the print screen in order for the court seal to appear on the summons you print. (Entered: 09/09/2008)

    Sept. 9, 2008

    Sept. 9, 2008

    RECAP
    29

    SUMMONS Returned Executed by David Rodriguez, Velia Meraz, Manuel Nieto, Jr, Somos America, Manuel de Jesus Ortega Melendres, Jessica Quitugua Rodriguez. Maricopa County Sheriff's Office served on 9/10/2008. (Kozinets, Peter) (Entered: 09/11/2008)

    Sept. 11, 2008

    Sept. 11, 2008

    RECAP
    30

    RESPONSE in Opposition re 24 MOTION to Intervene Pursuant to FRCP Rule 22 and FRCP Rule 24 filed by David Rodriguez, Velia Meraz, Manuel Nieto, Jr, Somos America, Manuel de Jesus Ortega Melendres, Jessica Quitugua Rodriguez. (Hernandez, Isaac) (Entered: 09/19/2008)

    Sept. 19, 2008

    Sept. 19, 2008

    PACER
    31

    MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages for Defendants' Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint by Maricopa County Sheriff's Office, Maricopa County, Joseph M. Arpaio. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Casey, Timothy) (Entered: 09/24/2008)

    1 Text of Proposed Order

    View on PACER

    Sept. 24, 2008

    Sept. 24, 2008

    PACER
    32

    LODGED Proposed Defendants' Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint re: 31 MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages for Defendants' Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages for Defendants' Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint. Document to be filed by Clerk if Motion to Leave to File or Amend is granted. Filed by Maricopa County Sheriff's Office, Maricopa County, Joseph M. Arpaio. (Casey, Timothy) (Entered: 09/24/2008)

    Sept. 24, 2008

    Sept. 24, 2008

    PACER

    Pro Hac Vice Fee Paid

    Sept. 24, 2008

    Sept. 24, 2008

    PACER
    33

    First MOTION for Admission Pro Hac Vice as to attorney Monica M. Ramirez by Manuel de Jesus Ortega Melendres. (Ramirez, Monica) (Entered: 09/24/2008)

    Sept. 24, 2008

    Sept. 24, 2008

    PACER
    34

    First MOTION for Admission Pro Hac Vice as to attorney Robin L. Goldfaden by Manuel de Jesus Ortega Melendres. (Goldfaden, Robin) (Entered: 09/24/2008)

    Sept. 24, 2008

    Sept. 24, 2008

    PACER

    PRO HAC VICE FEE PAID. $ 100, receipt number PHX075918 as to Monica M Ramirez. (BAS, )

    Sept. 24, 2008

    Sept. 24, 2008

    PACER

    PRO HAC VICE FEE PAID. $ 100, receipt number PHX075919 as to Robin Lisa Goldfaden. (BAS, )

    Sept. 24, 2008

    Sept. 24, 2008

    PACER
    35

    ORDER pursuant to General Order 05-25 granting 33 Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice; granting 34 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: 09/24/2008)

    Sept. 24, 2008

    Sept. 24, 2008

    PACER
    36

    ORDER granting 31 the defendants Joseph M. Arpaio, Maricopa County, and the Maricopa County Sheriffs Office leave to file their Reply memorandum in a form not to exceed twenty (20) pages. Signed by Judge Mary H. Murguia on 09/26/08.(MHM) (Entered: 09/29/2008)

    Sept. 29, 2008

    Sept. 29, 2008

    PACER
    37

    Joinder re 30 Response in Opposition to Motion, by Defendants Maricopa County Sheriff's Office, Maricopa County, Joseph M. Arpaio filed by Maricopa County Sheriff's Office, Maricopa County, Joseph M. Arpaio. (Casey, Timothy) (Entered: 09/29/2008)

    Sept. 29, 2008

    Sept. 29, 2008

    PACER
    39

    Rule 12(b)(6) MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint by Maricopa County Sheriff's Office, Maricopa County, Joseph M. Arpaio. (REW, ) (Entered: 10/02/2008)

    Sept. 29, 2008

    Sept. 29, 2008

    PACER
    38

    ORDER denying Bill Stoller and the Aggrieved and Irreparably Injured Class of United States and Phoenix Citizens' Motion 24 to Intervene Under Rule 22 and24 Fed. R. Civ. P. Motion to Intervene. Signed by Judge Mary H Murguia on 9/29/08.(KMG) (Entered: 09/30/2008)

    Sept. 30, 2008

    Sept. 30, 2008

    RECAP
    40

    NOTICE OF INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL to 9th Circuit as to 38 Order on Motion to Intervene by Aggrieved and Irreparably Injured Class of United States and Phoenix Citizens. (KMG, ) Modified on 10/9/2008 (NOTE: Construed as a Notice of Appeal rather than an Interlocutory Appeal ... See doc#44) (KMG, ). (Entered: 10/07/2008)

    Oct. 6, 2008

    Oct. 6, 2008

    PACER
    41

    OBJECTION re 38 Order on Motion to Intervene by Intervenor Aggrieved and Irreparably Injured Class of United States and Phoenix Citizens. (LAD) (Entered: 10/08/2008)

    Oct. 6, 2008

    Oct. 6, 2008

    PACER
    42

    MOTION for Rehearing And Resubmission of Motion to Intervene, MOTION for Issuance of Subpoena for Ray Stern and Possibly Others by Aggrieved and Irreparably Injured Class of United States and Phoenix Citizens. (same pdf as document 41 ) (LAD) (Entered: 10/08/2008)

    Oct. 6, 2008

    Oct. 6, 2008

    PACER
    43

    Mail Returned as Undeliverable. Mail sent to Aggrieved and Irreparably Injured Class of United States and Phoenix Citizens. Reason for return: Return to Sender, Not Deliverable as Addressed, Unable to Forward. Document number 36 . (LAD) (Entered: 10/09/2008)

    Oct. 6, 2008

    Oct. 6, 2008

    PACER
    44

    NOTICE OF APPEAL to 9th Circuit, as to 38 Order on Motion to Intervene by Aggrieved and Irreparably Injured Class of United States and Phoenix Citizens. (NOTE: same pleading as document #40)(KMG) (Entered: 10/09/2008)

    Oct. 6, 2008

    Oct. 6, 2008

    PACER
    45

    ORDER entered by Judge Mary H. Murguia on 10/14/08. Motions for reconsideration under Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e) are disfavored and only appropriate if the court "(1) is presented with newly discovered evidence, (2) committed clear error or the initial decision was manifestly unjust, or (3) if there is an intervening change in controlling law." School Sist. No. 1J, Multnomah County v. Acands, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993), cert. denied, 114 S.Ct. 2742 (1994). Having considered Stoller's request, the Court denies the Motion. No new evidence has been presented, the law regarding intervention remains stable and, because Stollers attempt to intervene lacks all merit, the previous Order could in no sense be considered manifestly unjust. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED denying Stollers Motion for Rehearing And Resubmission of Motion to Intervene. (Dkt.#42.) IT IS FURTHER ORDERED directing the Parties that a stay will not be issued during the pendency of appeal and the case shall proceed as scheduled. (KSP)[This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no.pdf document associated with this entry.] (Entered: 10/14/2008)

    Oct. 14, 2008

    Oct. 14, 2008

    PACER
    46

    CERTIFICATE OF RECORD TRANSMITTED TO 9TH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS re 44 Notice of Appeal (KMG) (Entered: 10/14/2008)

    Oct. 14, 2008

    Oct. 14, 2008

    PACER
    47

    Notice of Appeal Notification Form; Notice of Appeal and copy of docket sheet transmitted to Ninth Circuit and all parties re 44 Notice of Appeal (KMG) (Entered: 10/14/2008)

    Oct. 14, 2008

    Oct. 14, 2008

    PACER
    48

    RESPONSE in Opposition re 39 MOTION to Dismiss Case (Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint) filed by David Rodriguez, Velia Meraz, Manuel Nieto, Jr, Somos America, Manuel de Jesus Ortega Melendres, Jessica Quitugua Rodriguez. (Kozinets, Peter) (Entered: 10/14/2008)

    Oct. 14, 2008

    Oct. 14, 2008

    PACER
    49

    MOTION for Hearing or Conference re: Rule 16 Conference by David Rodriguez, Velia Meraz, Manuel Nieto, Jr, Somos America, Manuel de Jesus Ortega Melendres, Jessica Quitugua Rodriguez. (Kozinets, Peter) (Entered: 10/14/2008)

    Oct. 14, 2008

    Oct. 14, 2008

    PACER
    51

    Mail Returned as Undeliverable. Mail sent to Aggrieved and Irreparably Injured Class of United States and Phoenix Citizens. Reason for return: Not Deliverable as Addressed. Unable to Forward. Document number 36. (SAT) (Entered: 10/21/2008)

    Oct. 20, 2008

    Oct. 20, 2008

    PACER
    50

    Ninth Circuit Case Number 08-17270 for 44 Notice of Appeal. (ESL ) (Entered: 10/21/2008)

    Oct. 21, 2008

    Oct. 21, 2008

    PACER
    52

    RESPONSE to Motion re 49 MOTION for Hearing or Conference re: Rule 16 Conference filed by Maricopa County Sheriff's Office, Maricopa County, Joseph M. Arpaio. (Casey, Timothy) (Entered: 10/23/2008)

    Oct. 23, 2008

    Oct. 23, 2008

    PACER
    53

    Mail Returned as Undeliverable. Mail sent to Aggrieved and Irreparably Injured Class of United States and Phoenix Citizens. Reason for return: Not Deliverable as Addressed, Unable to Forward. Document number 44, 46, 47. (LAD) (Entered: 10/27/2008)

    Oct. 24, 2008

    Oct. 24, 2008

    PACER
    54

    REPLY in Support re 49 MOTION for Hearing or Conference re: Rule 16 Conference filed by David Rodriguez, Velia Meraz, Manuel Nieto, Jr, Somos America, Manuel de Jesus Ortega Melendres, Jessica Quitugua Rodriguez. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Kozinets, Peter) (Entered: 11/03/2008)

    1 Exhibit A

    View on PACER

    Nov. 3, 2008

    Nov. 3, 2008

    PACER
    55

    ORDER of 9th Circuit: Within 21 days from the date of entry of this order, appellant shall file a motion with this court to proceed in forma pauperis, pay $455.00 to the district court as the docketing and filing fees for this appeal and provide proof of payment to this court or otherwise show cause why this appeal should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. If appellant fails to comply, the appeal will be dismissed. Appeal case number 08-17270, as to 44 Notice of Appeal filed by Aggrieved and Irreparably Injured Class of United States and Phoenix Citizens (DNH) (Entered: 11/21/2008)

    Nov. 21, 2008

    Nov. 21, 2008

    PACER
    56

    Minute Order: The Court ORDERS setting this matter for oral argument re: Defendants' Motion to Dismiss 39 on Wednesday, January 14, 2009 at 3:00 p.m. before Judge Mary H Murguia. [This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry.](KSP) (Entered: 12/19/2008)

    Dec. 19, 2008

    Dec. 19, 2008

    PACER
    57

    Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Mary H Murguia. Court Reporter: Merilyn Sanchez. Appearances: Daniel Pochoda, Kristina Campbell, David Bodney, Peter Kozinets for the plaintiffs. Tim Casey for the defendants. Oral argument re: Defendants' Motion to Dismiss held on 1/14/09. IT IS ORDERED taking this matter under advisement. [This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry.](KSP) (Entered: 01/14/2009)

    Jan. 14, 2009

    Jan. 14, 2009

    PACER
    58

    MANDATE of 9th Circuit (Certified Copy), dismissing appeal for failure to respond to the order of this court dated 11/19/08. This order constitutes the mandate of this court; case number 08-17270, as to 44 Notice of Appeal filed by Aggrieved and Irreparably Injured Class of United States and Phoenix Citizens (Attachments: # 1 nda)(DMT, ) (Entered: 01/15/2009)

    1 nda

    View on PACER

    Jan. 15, 2009

    Jan. 15, 2009

    PACER
    59

    Mail Returned as Undeliverable. Mail sent to The Aggrieved and Irreparably Injured Class of United States and Phoenix Citizens. Reason for return: Return to Sender/ Not Deliverable as Addressed/ Unable to Forward. Document number 58. (REK) (Entered: 01/23/2009)

    Jan. 22, 2009

    Jan. 22, 2009

    PACER
    60

    ORDER denying 39 Motion to Dismiss Case; denying as moot 49 Motion for Hearing. Signed by Judge Mary H Murguia on 2/10/09.(KSP) (Entered: 02/10/2009)

    Feb. 10, 2009

    Feb. 10, 2009

    RECAP
    61

    ORDER Rule 16 Case Management Conference set for 3/12/2009 04:00 PM before Judge Mary H Murguia. Signed by Judge Mary H Murguia on 2/11/09. (TLJ) (Entered: 02/13/2009)

    Feb. 13, 2009

    Feb. 13, 2009

    PACER
    62

    Defendants' ANSWER to 26 Amended Complaint, by Maricopa County Sheriff's Office, Maricopa County, Joseph M. Arpaio.(Casey, Timothy) (Entered: 02/20/2009)

    Feb. 20, 2009

    Feb. 20, 2009

    PACER
    63

    MOTION for Recusal by Maricopa County Sheriff's Office, Maricopa County, Joseph M. Arpaio. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Casey, Timothy) (Entered: 02/23/2009)

    1 Exhibit

    View on PACER

    2 Text of Proposed Order

    View on PACER

    Feb. 23, 2009

    Feb. 23, 2009

    RECAP
    64

    Notice re of Service of Discovery on Defendants Maricopa County Sheriff's Office and Maricopa County by David Rodriguez, Velia Meraz, Manuel Nieto, Jr, Somos America, Manuel de Jesus Ortega Melendres, Jessica Quitugua Rodriguez (Kozinets, Peter) (Entered: 02/25/2009)

    Feb. 25, 2009

    Feb. 25, 2009

    RECAP
    65

    REPORT re: Rule 26(f) Planning Meeting by David Rodriguez, Velia Meraz, Manuel Nieto, Jr, Somos America, Manuel de Jesus Ortega Melendres, Jessica Quitugua Rodriguez. (Kozinets, Peter) (Entered: 02/26/2009)

    Feb. 26, 2009

    Feb. 26, 2009

    RECAP
    66

    Minute Order: The Court ORDERS vacating the Rule 16 Scheduling Conference set March 12, 2009 at 4:00 p.m. before Judge Mary H. Murguia pending ruling on Defendant's Motion for Recusal. [This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry.](KSP) (Entered: 03/06/2009)

    March 6, 2009

    March 6, 2009

    PACER
    67

    Notice re Notice of Service of Defendants' Rule 26(a)(1) Initial Disclosure Statement by Maricopa County Sheriff's Office, Maricopa County, Joseph M. Arpaio (Casey, Timothy) (Entered: 03/11/2009)

    March 11, 2009

    March 11, 2009

    PACER
    68

    AMENDED ANSWER to 26 Amended Complaint, by Maricopa County Sheriff's Office, Maricopa County, Joseph M. Arpaio. (Casey, Timothy) (Entered: 03/11/2009)

    March 11, 2009

    March 11, 2009

    PACER
    69

    Notice re NOTICE OF SERVICE OF PLAINTIFFS RULE 26(a)(1) INITIAL DISCLOSURE STATEMENT by David Rodriguez, Velia Meraz, Manuel Nieto, Jr, Somos America, Manuel de Jesus Ortega Melendres, Jessica Quitugua Rodriguez (Kozinets, Peter) (Entered: 03/11/2009)

    March 11, 2009

    March 11, 2009

    PACER
    70

    RESPONSE in Opposition re 63 MOTION for Recusal filed by David Rodriguez, Velia Meraz, Manuel Nieto, Jr, Somos America, Manuel de Jesus Ortega Melendres, Jessica Quitugua Rodriguez. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit Declaration of Aaron J. Lockwood)(Kozinets, Peter) (Entered: 03/12/2009)

    1 Affidavit Declaration of Aaron J. Lockwood

    View on PACER

    March 12, 2009

    March 12, 2009

    RECAP
    71

    Notice re Notice of Service of Defendants' First Supplemental Rule 26(a)(1) Disclosure Statement by Maricopa County Sheriff's Office, Maricopa County, Joseph M. Arpaio (Casey, Timothy) (Entered: 03/16/2009)

    March 16, 2009

    March 16, 2009

    PACER
    72

    Notice re Notice of Service of Defendants' Second Supplemental Disclosure by Maricopa County Sheriff's Office, Maricopa County, Joseph M. Arpaio (Casey, Timothy) (Entered: 03/17/2009)

    March 17, 2009

    March 17, 2009

    PACER
    73

    REPLY in Support re 63 MOTION for Recusal filed by Maricopa County Sheriff's Office, Maricopa County, Joseph M. Arpaio. (Casey, Timothy) (Entered: 03/23/2009)

    March 23, 2009

    March 23, 2009

    PACER
    74

    REPLY in Support re 63 MOTION for Recusal Amended Reply Memorandum in Support of Defendants' Motion for Recusal filed by Maricopa County Sheriff's Office, Maricopa County, Joseph M. Arpaio. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Casey, Timothy) (Entered: 03/23/2009)

    1 Exhibit

    View on PACER

    March 23, 2009

    March 23, 2009

    RECAP
    75

    Notice re Notice of Service of Defendants' Third Supplemental Disclosure Statement by Maricopa County Sheriff's Office, Maricopa County, Joseph M. Arpaio (Casey, Timothy) (Entered: 03/27/2009)

    March 27, 2009

    March 27, 2009

    PACER
    76

    Notice re Notice of Service of Defendant MCSO's Discovery Responses to Plaintiff's Discovery by Maricopa County Sheriff's Office, Maricopa County, Joseph M. Arpaio (Casey, Timothy) (Entered: 03/27/2009)

    March 27, 2009

    March 27, 2009

    PACER
    77

    STIPULATION To Extend Time By Which Defendant Maricopa County May Answer And Respond to Plaintiffs' Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents by Maricopa County Sheriff's Office, Maricopa County, Joseph M. Arpaio. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Casey, Timothy) (Entered: 03/27/2009)

    1 Text of Proposed Order

    View on PACER

    March 27, 2009

    March 27, 2009

    PACER
    78

    ORDER granting 77 Stipulation: ORDERED granting dft Maricopa County an extension of time, until and including 4/10/09, to answer or otherwise respond to plas' interrogatories and request for production propounded on dft Maricopa County. Signed by Judge Mary H Murguia on 4/2/2009. (LAD) (Entered: 04/06/2009)

    April 6, 2009

    April 6, 2009

    PACER
    79

    Notice re Notice of Service of Defendants' Fourth Supplemental Disclosure Statement by Maricopa County Sheriff's Office, Maricopa County, Joseph M. Arpaio (Casey, Timothy) (Entered: 04/09/2009)

    April 9, 2009

    April 9, 2009

    PACER
    80

    Notice re Notice of Service of Defendant MCSO's First Supplemental Responses to Plaintiffs' First Set of Requests for Production of Documents and Things by Maricopa County Sheriff's Office, Maricopa County, Joseph M. Arpaio (Casey, Timothy) (Entered: 04/09/2009)

    April 9, 2009

    April 9, 2009

    PACER
    81

    STIPULATION To Extend Time By Which Defendant Maricopa County May Answer And Respond to Plaintiffs' Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents - Second Request by Maricopa County Sheriff's Office, Maricopa County, Joseph M. Arpaio. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Casey, Timothy) (Entered: 04/10/2009)

    1 Text of Proposed Order

    View on PACER

    April 10, 2009

    April 10, 2009

    PACER
    82

    ORDER granting 81 Stipulation. Defendant Maricopa County is granted an extension of time, until and including April 24, 2009, to answer or otherwise respond to Plaintiffs Interrogatories and Request for Production propounded on defendant Maricopa County. Signed by Judge Mary H Murguia on 4/13/09. (KSP) (Entered: 04/15/2009)

    April 15, 2009

    April 15, 2009

    PACER
    83

    Notice re of Service of Plaintiffs' First Supplemental Disclosure Statement by David Rodriguez, Velia Meraz, Manuel Nieto, Jr, Somos America, Manuel de Jesus Ortega Melendres, Jessica Quitugua Rodriguez (Kozinets, Peter) (Entered: 04/15/2009)

    April 15, 2009

    April 15, 2009

    PACER
    84

    MOTION to Substitute Attorney: Defendant Maricopa County's Application for and Notice of Substitution of Counsel with Client Consent by Defendant Maricopa County. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 to Application for and Notice of Substitution of Counsel, # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Moberly, Michael) INCORRECT EVENT SELECTED, THIS ENTRY HAS BEEN MODIFIED FROM APPLICATION to MOTION TO SUBSTITUTE ATTORNEY Modified on 4/21/2009 (ESL, ). (Entered: 04/20/2009)

    1 Exhibit 1 to Application for and Notice of Substitution of Counsel

    View on PACER

    2 Text of Proposed Order

    View on PACER

    April 20, 2009

    April 20, 2009

    PACER
    85

    Notice re Notice of Service of Defendant MCSO's Third Supplemental Responses to Plaintiffs' First Set of Requests for Production and First Supplemental and Amended Answer to Interrogatory No. 16 of Plaintiffs' First Set of Interrogatories by Maricopa County Sheriff's Office (Casey, Timothy) (Entered: 04/21/2009)

    April 21, 2009

    April 21, 2009

    PACER
    86

    Notice re Notice of Service of Defendants' Fifth Supplemental Disclosure Statement by Maricopa County Sheriff's Office, Maricopa County, Joseph M. Arpaio (Casey, Timothy) (Entered: 04/21/2009)

    April 21, 2009

    April 21, 2009

    PACER
    87

    ORDER - Pursuant to 84 Motion/Application for and Notice of Substitution of Counsel, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Schmitt, Schneck, Smyth & Herrod, P.C. is withdrawn as cnsl of record for Dft Maricopa County only, and that in its place shall be substituted Ryley, Carlock & Applewhite in this action. FURTHER ORDERED that all future pleadings, notices correspondence, and other papers should be served on Dft Maricopa County's substituted cnsl at the following address: Michael D. Moberly, John M. Fry, Ryley Carlock & Applewhite, 1 North Central Avenue, Suite 1200, Phoenix, AZ 85004-4417. Attys Michael D Moberly and John Michael Fry added for dft Maricopa County and atty Timothy James Casey terminated. Signed by Judge Mary H Murguia on 4/20/09.(SAT) (Entered: 04/22/2009)

    April 22, 2009

    April 22, 2009

    PACER
    88

    Notice re Notice of Service of Defendant Arpaio's Discovery Requests upon Plaintiffs by Joseph M. Arpaio (Casey, Timothy) (Entered: 04/22/2009)

    April 22, 2009

    April 22, 2009

    PACER
    89

    STIPULATION to Extend Time by Which Defendant May Answer and Respond to Plaintiffs' First Set of Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents (Third Request) by Maricopa County. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Fry, John) (Entered: 04/23/2009)

    1 Text of Proposed Order

    View on PACER

    April 23, 2009

    April 23, 2009

    PACER
    90

    MOTION for Judgment on the Pleadings by Maricopa County Sheriff's Office, Joseph M. Arpaio. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Casey, Timothy) (Entered: 04/27/2009)

    1 Text of Proposed Order

    View on PACER

    April 27, 2009

    April 27, 2009

    PACER
    91

    Notice re Notice of Service of Defendants Arpaio and MCSO's Sixth Supplemental Disclosure Statement by Maricopa County Sheriff's Office, Joseph M. Arpaio (Casey, Timothy) (Entered: 04/28/2009)

    April 28, 2009

    April 28, 2009

    PACER

    Case Details

    State / Territory: Arizona

    Case Type(s):

    Policing

    Key Dates

    Filing Date: Dec. 12, 2007

    Case Ongoing: Yes

    Plaintiffs

    Plaintiff Description:

    All Latino persons who, since January 2007, have been or will be in the future, stopped, detained, questioned or searched by MCSO agents while driving or sitting in a vehicle on a public roadway or parking area in Maricopa County, Arizona.

    Plaintiff Type(s):

    Private Plaintiff

    U.S. Dept of Justice plaintiff

    Attorney Organizations:

    ACLU Affiliates (any)

    ACLU National (all projects)

    MALDEF

    U.S. Dept. of Justice Civil Rights Division

    Public Interest Lawyer: Yes

    Filed Pro Se: No

    Class Action Sought: Yes

    Class Action Outcome: Granted

    Defendants

    County of Maricopa (Maricopa), County

    Maricopa County Sherriff's Office (Maricopa), County

    Defendant Type(s):

    Law-enforcement

    Jurisdiction-wide

    Case Details

    Causes of Action:

    42 U.S.C. § 1983

    State law

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

    Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201

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

    Constitutional Clause(s):

    Unreasonable search and seizure

    Equal Protection

    Availably Documents:

    Trial Court Docket

    Complaint (any)

    Monetary Relief

    Injunctive (or Injunctive-like) Relief

    Non-settlement Outcome

    Any published opinion

    Outcome

    Prevailing Party: Plaintiff

    Nature of Relief:

    Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement

    Attorneys fees

    Damages

    Source of Relief:

    Litigation

    Amount Defendant Pays: 4,892,514.63

    Order Duration: 2013 - None

    Content of Injunction:

    Preliminary relief denied

    Discrimination Prohibition

    Develop anti-discrimination policy

    Provide antidiscrimination training

    Implement complaint/dispute resolution process

    Reporting

    Monitor/Master

    Recordkeeping

    Monitoring

    Issues

    General:

    Aggressive behavior

    Disparate Impact

    Disparate Treatment

    Excessive force

    Failure to discipline

    Failure to supervise

    Failure to train

    False arrest

    Language access/needs

    Loss or damage to property

    Over/Unlawful Detention

    Pattern or Practice

    Placement in detention facilities

    Racial profiling

    Records Disclosure

    Search policies

    Transportation

    Discrimination-basis:

    National origin discrimination

    Language:

    Spanish

    Type of Facility:

    Government-run

    Immigration/Border:

    Constitutional rights

    Detention - procedures

    Undocumented immigrants - state and local regulation

    National Origin/Ethnicity:

    Hispanic