Melendres, et al. v. Arpaio, et al

Case Number: 2:2007cv02513
Filed: December 12, 2007
Court: Arizona District Court
Office: Phoenix Division Office
Presiding Judge: Mary H Murguia
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights: Other
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Other Civil Rights
Jury Demanded By: Defendant

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed#Document Text
August 19, 2016 1792 Opinion or Order of the Court ORDER re Criminal Contempt: Pursuant to Rule 42(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, the Court requests that the United States Attorney for the District of Arizona, John M. Leonardo, or his designee(s), prosecute this matter. If the U nited States Attorney declines the appointment he should so inform the Judge to whom the criminal contempt matters arising from this case are referred, so that an additional assignment to a prosecuting attorney may be made if that Judge deems it a ppropriate. Fed. R. Crim. P. 42(a)(2). The Court retains its jurisdiction over this civil case and the resulting continued supervision of the Defendants and directs that only the criminal contempt proceedings initiated by this Order be randomly assigned to another Judge within the District of Arizona. In light of this Court's referral, the assigned Judge shall determine and state to the Defendants the time and place of the trial, and allow the Defendants a reasonable time to pre pare a defense pursuant to Rule 42(a). IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that pursuant to Rule 42(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, the Court refers Sheriff Joseph M. Arpaio, Chief Deputy Gerard Sheridan, Captain Steven R. Bailey, and Attorney Michelle M. Iafrate to another Judge of this Court to determine whether they should be held in criminal contempt for the matters detailed above. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED directing the Clerk of Court to refer the criminal contempt proceedi ngs, by random lot, to another Judge in the District of Arizona. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED directing the Clerk of Court to promptly notify the United States Attorney for the District of Arizona regarding this Order. Signed by Judge G Murray Snow on 8/19/16. [Please Note: Criminal Case CR-16-1012-PHX-JJT opened.](SJF)
July 26, 2016 1765 Opinion or Order of the Court SECOND AMENDED SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL PERMANENT INJUNCTION/JUDGEMENT ORDER - Within six months of the entry of this Order, the Monitor, in consultation with the Community Advisory Board, will develop and implement a program to promote awareness throug hout the Maricopa County community about the process for filing complaints about the conduct of MCSO employees. Within three months of the effective date of this Order, the Sheriff shall ensure that the MCSO Compliance Division promulgates detailed protocols for the preservation and production of documents requested in litigation. Within two months of the entry of this Order, the Sheriff shall ensure that all employees are briefed and presented with the terms of the Order, along with relevant background information about the Court's May 13, 2016 Findings of Fact, (Doc. 1677 ), upon which this Order is based. See document for details. Signed by Judge G Murray Snow on 7/25/16. (EJA)
July 22, 2016 1760 Opinion or Order of the Court AMENDED SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL PERMANENT INJUNCTION/JUDGEMENT ORDER (This amended order is to correct two issues: (1) the paragraph numbering, and (2) the structure of the headings on pp. 54 and 63. Otherwise, the content remains the same). See Order for Full Details. Signed by Judge G Murray Snow on 7/22/16. (MAP)
July 20, 2016 1748 Opinion or Order of the Court SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL PERMANENT INJUNCTION/ JUDGEMENT ORDER. See Document for Full Details. Signed by Judge G Murray Snow on 7/20/16. (MAP)
May 13, 2016 1677 Opinion or Order of the Court FINDINGS OF FACT AND ORDER SETTING A HEARING: Sheriff Arpaio, Chief Deputy Sheridan, Chief Sands, and Lieutenant Sousa are in civil contempt on Count One of the Order to Show Cause. Sheriff Arpaio is in civil contempt on Count Two of the Order t o Show Cause. Sheriff Arpaio and Chief Deputy Sheridan are in civil contempt on Count Three of the Order to Show Cause. Counsel for Plaintiff class and counsel for Defendants may each file a 30-page memorandum, if they wish to do so, no la ter than noon on May 27, 2016. Counsel for Chief Sands and counsel for the County may each file a 10-page memorandum, if they wish to do so, no later than noon on May 27, 2016. The Department of Justice may file a 20-page memorandum, if they wish to do so, no later than noon on May 27, 2016. The Court will further discuss the appropriate relief to be entered in a hearing set for May 31, 2016 at 9:00 a.m. in Courtroom 602, Sandra Day OConnor U.S. Federal Courthouse, 401 W. Washington St., Phoenix, Arizona 85003-2151. It will shortly thereafter enter any applicable orders and determine if it will refer any matters for criminal contempt. See Order for additional details. Signed by Judge G Murray Snow on 5/13/16. (SJF)
January 5, 2016 1603 Opinion or Order of the Court ORDER that the Motion for Summary Judgment of Retired Executive Chief Brian Sands (Doc. 1214 ) is DENIED. Signed by Judge G Murray Snow on 1/5/2016.(KMG)
April 29, 2014 684 Opinion or Order of the Court ORDER granting 681 Defendants' Request to Clarify/Modify Order of April 17, 2014. Signed by Judge G Murray Snow on 4/29/2014. (See Order for details)(ALS)
April 17, 2014 680 Opinion or Order of the Court ENFORCEMENT ORDER: The Sheriff need not sign, but will immediately disseminate the summary attached as Exhibit A to this Order to all MCSO personnel. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED setting a Status Conference for May 7, 2014 at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom 60 2, Sandra Day OConnor U.S. Federal Courthouse, 401 W. Washington St., Phoenix, Arizona 85003-2151. If this Order has not been fully implemented, Sheriff Arpaio's attendance will be required and he may be subject to questioning by the Court. Signed by Judge G Murray Snow on 4/17/2014. (See attached Order for details) (ALS)
April 4, 2014 670 Opinion or Order of the Court AMENDMENTS TO THE SUPPLEMENTAL PERMANENT INJUNCTION/JUDGMENT ORDER - At the status conference held on March 24, 2014, and in a previous order (Doc. 663 App. A) this Court proposed amendments to the Supplemental Permanent Injunction/Judgment Order ( Doc. 606 ). The parties were given an opportunity to respond in writing and at the April 2, 2014, status conference. As a result of those conferences, the Court orders the following amendments to the Supplemental Permanent Injunction/Judgment Order (Doc. 606). Signed by Judge G Murray Snow on 4/4/2014. (See Document for full details.)(KMG)
March 17, 2014 656 Opinion or Order of the Court ORDER setting a Status Conference for March 24, 2014 at 9:00 AM in Courtroom 602, 401 West Washington Street, Phoenix, AZ 85003 before Judge G Murray Snow. Counsel for all parties are required to attend as are Sheriff Arpaio and Chief Deputy Sheridan. Signed by Judge G Murray Snow on 3/17/2014. (LFIG)
October 2, 2013 606 Opinion or Order of the Court SUPPLEMENTAL PERMANENT INJUNCTION/JUDGMENT ORDER - that the Court's injunction of December 23, 2011 is made permanent. The Court's injunction of May 24, 2013 shall remain permanent. For removal of doubt, both the December 23, 2011 injuncti on and the May 24, 2013 injunction shall survive the termination of this Order until and unless specifically dissolved or modified by the Court or an appellate court of competent jurisdiction. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this Order is an appealable f inal judgment. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment accordingly. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this Court retains jurisdiction over this case for the purposes of implementing this Order. Signed by Judge G Murray Snow on 10/2/2013. (See PDF for full details.)(KMG)
May 24, 2013 579 Opinion or Order of the Court FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - that Plaintiffs are entitled to injunctive relief necessary to remedy the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment violations caused by MCSO's past and continuing operations. The MCSO is thus permanently enjoined from: 1. 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. 2. Following or enforcing its LEAR policy against any L atino occupant of a vehicle in Maricopa County. 3. Using race or Latino ancestry as a factor in determining to stop any vehicle in Maricopa County with a Latino occupant. 4. Using race or Latino ancestry as a factor in making law enforcement decision s with respect to whether any Latino occupant of a vehicle in Maricopa County may be in the country without authorization. 5. Detaining Latino occupants of vehicles stopped for traffic violations for a period longer than reasonably necessary to resol ve 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. 6. Detaining, holding or arresting Latino occupants of a vehicle in Maricopa County for vi olations 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. 7. Detaining, arresting or holding persons based on a reasonable suspicion that t hey are conspiring with their employer to violate the Arizona Employer Sanctions Act. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED setting a hearing at which the above matters will be discussed for Friday, June 14, 2013 at 9:30 a.m. in Courtroom 602, Sandra Day O'Connor U.S. Federal Courthouse, 401 W. Washington St., Phoenix, Arizona 85003-2151. Signed by Judge G Murray Snow on 5/24/2013. (KMG)
July 3, 2012 542 Opinion or Order of the Court ORDER affirming that the trial will proceed on July 19, 2012 at 8:30 a.m., as scheduled. Signed by Judge G Murray Snow on 7/3/12. (LFIG)
June 19, 2012 537 Opinion or Order of the Court ORDER The Court is in receipt of Plaintiffs' letter dated June 14, 2012. After considering that letter the Court concludes that further action by the Court is necessary. In light of the following facts and the pending trial date, the Court wil l schedule a conference to determine whether further proceedings will be necessary before trial. On June 17, 2010, the Steptoe Attorneys withdrew from the case with the Courts permission, and attorneys from the Redwood Shores, California office of Co vington & Burling LLP (the "Covington Attorneys") were substituted for them. (Doc. 313). When the Covington Attorneys were substituted for the Steptoe Attorneys, the Court considered whether withdrawing from the case was appropriate under 2 8 U.S.C. § 455(a). This statute requires that "[a]ny justice judge, or magistrate of the United States shall disqualify himself [or herself] in any proceeding in which his [or her] impartiality might reasonably be questioned." 28 U.S. C. § 455(a) (2006). The Court is disinclined to proceed with this matter without providing all parties the opportunity to take whatever action they deem necessary to represent the interests of their respective clients given the above informatio n. Because such actions could conceivably take more time than is currently available before trial, and involve additional or supplemental proceedings, the Court wishes to confer with the parties concerning any actions they may wish to take in light of the above information. The Court will therefore contact the parties and set a status conference in this matter. Signed by Judge G Murray Snow on 6/19/2012. (KMG)
December 23, 2011 494 Opinion or Order of the Court ORDER: Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 413 ) is granted in part and denied in part. Summary judgment is granted with regards to Plaintiffs Jessika and David Rodriguez's underlying claims under Claim Two and Claim Three, whic h are hereby dismissed. Summary judgment is denied with regards to the underlying claims of Plaintiffs Melendres, Nieto, and Meraz under Claim Two and Claim Three. Defendants' motion for summary judgment is denied with regards to Claim One and C laim Four. Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification (Doc. 420 ) is granted. The litigation is certified as a class action, with the following defined class for the purposes of the equal protection claim: All Latino persons who, since Januar y, 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. Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Claim One and Claim Four (Doc. 421 ) is denied. Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment on Claim Two and Claim Three (Doc. 490 ) is denied in part as it relates to the underlying claims, and granted in part as it relates to futu re enforcement actions of the MCSO. Defendants' Motion for Leave to File Sur-Reply (Doc. 469 ) is dismissed as moot. MCSO and all of its officers are hereby enjoined from detaining any person based only on knowledge or reasonable belief, without more, that the person is unlawfully present within the United States, because as a matter of law such knowledge does not amount to a reasonable belief that the person either violated or conspired to violate the Arizona human smuggling statute, or any other state or federal criminal law. Signed by Judge G Murray Snow on 12/23/11.(SJF)
December 9, 2011 482 Opinion or Order of the Court ORDER, A hearing on motions 413 , 416 , 420 , 421 , 469 is scheduled for Thursday, December 22, at 10:00 a.m. This Order supplements the Court's previous order discussing issues are to be the subject of oral argument Doc. 477 The parties should be prepared to discuss, or address in their supplemental briefing, the following two issues: 1) Defendants have argued that the class should not be certified in part because it is overbroad. Parties have been asked to discuss whether Martinez -Medina v. Holder, ___ F.3d ___, ___ 2011 WL 855791 at *6 (9th Cir. 2001) suggests that Defendants would receive qualified immunity for any Fourth Amendment damages claim prior to the issuance of the decision. Parties are hereby further asked to b e prepared to discuss whether civilians stopped after the decision in Martinez-Medina would be able to make valid Fourth Amendment claims for damages. If they believe such claims would not be barred by qualified immunity, parties should be prepared to discuss whether certifying a class as to the Fourth Amendment claims would deny those potential Plaintiffs the right to recover such damages. 2) Further, parties are asked to address whether, should no Fourth Amendment class be certified, the Court may issue injunctive relief for the Fourth Amendment claims in light of United States v. Arizona, 641 F.3d 339 (9th Cir. 2011). Signed by Judge G Murray Snow on 12/9/2011. (KMG)
December 1, 2011 480 Opinion or Order of the Court *** STRICKEN PER MINUTE ORDER 481 *** ORDER - Pending before the Court are Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 413), Plaintiffs Renewed Motion for Sanctions, (Doc. 416), Plaintiffs' Renewed Motion for Class Certification (Doc. 420), Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Doc. 421), and Defendants' Motion for Leave to File Sur-Reply. (Doc. 469). A hearing on these motions is scheduled for Thursday, December 22, at 10:00 a.m. The parties have been informe d that the Court would request supplemental briefing on identified issues prior to oral argument. This Order identifies the topics on which the Court desires supplemental briefing and is issued pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 56(f). Shou ld parties wish to discuss other issues, they are free to do so. However, the oral argument is scheduled to last only two hours. Each party will receive one hour total for argument, and the above-mentioned issues are of principal interest to the Court. (See document for full details). Signed by Judge G Murray Snow on 11/30/11. (LAD) Modified on 12/1/2011 (LAD).
March 31, 2011 409 Opinion or Order of the Court ORDER - that Defendants shall file by April 12, 2011 any motion for a protective order demonstrating "compelling reasons" why Plaintiffs should be compelled to file documents it has received from Defendants under seal in conjunction with it s dispositive motion. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that should no such motion be filed Plaintiffs may then publicly file the documents it has received from Defendants in conjunction with its case dispositive motion. FURTHER ORDERED that if Defendants have t imely filed such a motion and the Court has not ruled on the motion prior to the deadline for filing case dispositive motions established in this matter, Plaintiffs shall lodge such documents and any parts of any motion based upon them under seal, pe nding the Court's ruling on Defendants' motion. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants will provide Plaintiffs with a privilege log of all documents in the carve-out that have been withheld because they constitute privileged communications relating to this matter by May 31, 2011. Signed by Judge G Murray Snow on 3/31/11. (KMG)
November 23, 2010 386 Opinion or Order of the Court ORDER denying Defendants' Motion for An Order To Show Cause and Allowing Defendants' Leave to Take Additional Discovery (Doc. 337). FURTHER ORDERED denying as moot Maricopa County's Motion to Strike Sheriff's Motion For Order to Show Cause and For Leave to Take Additional Discovery (Doc. 350). Signed by Judge G Murray Snow on 11/23/10.(KMG)
March 2, 2010 279 Opinion or Order of the Court ORDER granting in part and denying in part 247 Motion to Compel. (See document for further details). Signed by Judge G Murray Snow on 3/1/10.(LAD)
February 12, 2010 261 Opinion or Order of the Court ORDER - IT IS ORDERED granting Plas 227 Motion for Sanctions to the extent that Dfts have destroyed stat sheets that were in existence or came intoexistence after 7/21/2008 with the appropriate adverse inference(s) to be drawn to be determined afte r discovery closes. FURTHER ORDERED that by 3/4/2010 Dfts shall provide items to Plas as described within this order. FURTHER ORDERED setting a Status Conference for 3/19/2010 at 9:30 a.m. FURTHER ORDERED that Plas may redepose Sheriff Arpaio concern ing the contents of his immigration file not previously provided to Plas. Dfts will pay the cost for the court reporter and will pay the reasonable costs incurred by one of Plas' cnsl to prepare for and take the deposition. Signed by Judge G Murray Snow on 2/11/10. (See order for details)(SAT)
October 28, 2009 208 Opinion or Order of the Court ORDER - IT IS ORDERED granting the United States' 199 Motion for Leave to File Amicus Curiae Memorandum of Law; FURTHER ORDERED granting Dfts' 197 Motion for Protective Order and its 198 Motion for Expedited Ruling on the Motion. Signed by Judge G Murray Snow on 10/28/09. (SAT)
August 24, 2009 155 Opinion or Order of the Court ORDER that the Motion 90 for Judgment on the Pleadings of Dfts Arpaio and the MCSO is DENIED. FURTHER ORDERED that Plas' Motion 93 for Class Certification is DENIED without prejudice to its being reasserted once the issue of standing is resolved. FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion 97 for Leave to File Surreply and to Strike of Dfts Arpaio and the MCSO is DENIED. Signed by Judge G Murray Snow on 8/21/09.(KMG, )
August 13, 2009 154 Opinion or Order of the Court ORDER denying 105 Motion to Stay; denying 134 Motion for Leave to File a Supplemental Brief. (See document for further details). Signed by Judge G Murray Snow on 8/13/2009. (LAD)
July 15, 2009 138 Opinion or Order of the Court ORDER granting 63 Motion for Recusal. Signed by Judge Mary H Murguia on 7/15/09. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED directing that the Clerk reassign this case to another judge in the District of Arizona by random lot. (KSP)
February 10, 2009 60 Opinion or Order of the Court 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)
September 30, 2008 38 Opinion or Order of the Court 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)
September 5, 2008 25 Opinion or Order of the Court 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)

Access additional case information on PACER

Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.

Access this case on the Arizona District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Melendres, et al. v. Arpaio, et al
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?