Case 2:08-cv-00660-SRB Document 1 Filed 04/04/08 Page 1 of 25

1 Charles A. Blanchard, Bar No. 011401 Kevin B. Wein, Bar No. 022752
2 Steven J. Monde, Bar No. 024076 PERKINS COlE BROWN & BAIN P.A.
3 2901 N. Central Avenue, Suite 2000 Phoenix, AZ 85012-2788
4 Telephone: 602.351.8000
Facsimile: 602.648.7000 5 Email: CBlanchard(fperkinscoie.com
KW ein~"'erkinscoie.com
6 SMonde(qperkinscoie.com

7 Attorneys for Plaintiffs * Additional counsel listed on following page
8

9
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
10
DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
11

12
ANGEL LOPEZ-VALENZUELA and
13 ISAAC CASTRO-ARNTA,

14

Plaintiffs,

15

v.

No.
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

16 MARICOPA COUNTY; JOE ARPAIO, Maricopa County Sheriff, in his official
17 capacity; ANDREW THOMAS, Maricopa County Attorney, in his official capacity;
18 and BARAR RODRIGUEZ MUELL, Presiding Judge, Maricopa
19 County Superior Court, in her official capacity,
20
Defendants.
21

CLASS ACTION

22

23

24

25

26

Case 2:08-cv-00660-SRB Document 1 Filed 04/04/08 Page 2 of 25
1 Additional counsel:
2 Cecilia D. Wang*
Mónica M. RamÍrez* 3 Robin L. Goldfaden *
AMRICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNATION 4 . IMMIGRANTS' RIGHTS PROJECT
39 Drumm Street 5 San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 343-0775
6 Facsimile: (415) 395-0950 Email: cwang(åaclu.org
7 mramirez~acIú.org rgoldfaden~aclu.org
8
Cynthia Valenzuela *
9 Kristina Campbell, Bar No. 023139 MEXICAN AMRICAN LEGAL
10 DEFENSE AND EDUCATIONAL FUN 634 S. Spring Street, 11th Floor
11 Los Angeles, CA 90014 Telephone: (213) 629-2512
12 Facsimile: (213) 629-0266 Email: cvalenzuela(Ðmaldef.org
13 kcampbell~maldef.org 14 Daniel Pochoda, Bar No. 021979
ACLU FOUNATION OF ARZONA 15 P.O. Box 17148
Phoenix, AZ 85011-0148
16 Telephone: (602) 650-1854
Facsimile: (602) 650-1376
17 Email: dpochoda~acluaz.org 18 * Application for admission pro hac vice forthcoming
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

Case 2:08-cv-00660-SRB Document 1 Filed 04/04/08 Page 3 of 25

1 NATURE

OF

THE

CASE

2 Plaintiffs bring this proposed class action for declaratory, injunctive, and habeas

3 relief, challenging the constitutionality of an Arizona state constitutional amendment
4 known as Proposition 100 and its implementing statute and rules. Plaintiffs and proposed
5 class members are awaiting trial on criminal charges in Maricopa County and are being

6 held in custody without an individualized bail hearing as a result of the Proposition 100

7 laws. The Proposition 100 laws mark an unprecedented departure from other state and
8 federal bail provisions by making criminal defendants categorically ineligible for bail 9 based solely upon their alleged immigration status. As a result of the Proposition 100 10 laws, Plaintiffs and countless other similarly situated individuals have been deprived of 11 their freedom without individualized judicial determinations as to whether their pretrial 12 detention is necessary to guard against flght risk or danger to the community. This 13 lawsuit does not seek release of Plaintiffs from detention, but rather would require that an 14 individualized, fact-based, procedurally fair judicial determination of the need for pretrial 15 detention be made for Plaintiffs and those who are similarly situated, just as is done for 16 other criminal defendants.
17 INTRODUCTION

18 1. In November 2006, Arizona state voters approved a ballot measure known
19 as "Proposition 100," which amended the bail provision of the Arizona Constitution,

20 Aricle II, Section 22. Prior to passage of Proposition 100, Aricle II, Section 22
21 established a general presumption, subject to enumerated exceptions targeting particularly 22 serious offenses or other indicia of dangerousness, that all persons charged with criminal 23 offenses shall be eligible for baiL. Proposition 100 amended the Arizona Constitution to 24 provide that the state courts shall not set bail "(fJor serious felony offenses as prescribed
25 by the legislature if the person charged has entered or remained in the United States
26

-1-

Case 2:08-cv-00660-SRB Document 1 Filed 04/04/08 Page 4 of 25

1 ilegally and if the proof is evident or the presumption great as to the present charge"
2 (emphasis added). 3 2. The individual Plaintiffs are all persons who have been deprived of their

4 liberty based upon a finding of categorical ineligibilty for bail under Proposition 100 and

5 its implementing statutes and rules (collectively, "Proposition 100 laws"). Each of the

6 Plaintiffs has been jailed without any individualized determination as to whether pretrial

7 detention is necessary based upon flght risk or a danger to the community.

8 3. Through this action, Plaintiffs seek an individualized bail hearing at which
9 they may be considered for release, taking into account particularized facts about whether

10 or not release would pose an unacceptable risk of flght or danger to the community.
11 Plaintiffs also seek declaratory and injunctive relief as representatives of a class of

i 2 similarly situated individuals who, like Plaintiffs, have been held categorically ineligible

i 3 for pretrial release and deprived of an individualized bail hearing by the Proposition 100
14 laws.

15 4. The Proposition 100 laws are not narrowly tailored and do not serve any
16 compellng - or, indeed, legitimate - state interest. Defendants have a recognized interest 17 in pretrial deprivation of libert only to the extent that such deprivation is necessary to
18 protect the integrity of the judicial process (i.e., guarding against a genuine risk of flght) 19 or to protect the safety of the public (i.e., guarding against the release of a defendant who
20 is likely to harm people). An ordinary bail hearing allows a judicial officer to determine
21 whether these interests outweigh the right of a criminal defendant - charged but presumed

22 innocent - to remain at libert pending triaL. In making this determination, the judicial
23 officer weighs the facts known about the individual defendant before the court as they
24 pertain to whether release of that individual is likely to pose an unacceptable risk of flight 25 or danger. This is precisely the determination that would be made for Plaintiffs and those

26 they seek to represent, but for operation of

the Proposition 100 laws.

-2-

Case 2:08-cv-00660-SRB Document 1 Filed 04/04/08 Page 5 of 25
1 5. Under the Proposition 100 laws, however, no such individualized judicial
2 determination is made. Rather, the Proposition i 00 laws require the court to disregard
3 whether pretrial release is or is not warranted under the circumstances of the case. For 4 criminal defendants subject to the Proposition 100 laws, judicial officers are required to
5 ignore a host of relevant facts, such as longstanding, close family and community ties,
6 employment history, history of appearances, severity of the offense charged, and criminal
7 history or lack thereof. By way of example, under the Proposition 100 laws, an individual 8 with no criminal history who is a long-time Arizona resident, employed, and the parent of 9 U.S.-citizen children can be the subject of mandatory pretrial detention though charged
10 with a nonviolent offense such as shoplifting or perjury, while a repeat offender not
11 subject to Proposition 100 but charged with a far more serious crime is given a bail 12 hearing and the possibilty of release.
13 6. The Proposition 100 laws require pretrial detention of persons who pose no
14 risk of flght or danger and who would be eligible for release pending trial were an 15 ordinary bail hearing held. The Proposition 100 laws do not serve a constitutionally
16 permissible interest in pretrial detention and are unnecessary and excessive in relation to
17 any legitimate governmental purpose.
18 7. The categorical detention imposed by the Proposition 100 laws is, in intent
19 and effect, unlawful punishment.
20 8. The Proposition 100 laws are an unconstitutional attempt by state and
21 county government to regulate immigration. Under the U.S. Constitution, the federal
22 government has the exclusive power to determine whether a person has violated 23 immigration laws and to establish the consequences of such violations. Regulating
24 immigration violations - real or perceived - is not a legitimate function of the state
25 government of Arizona or of county governments in Arizona. 26
-3-

Case 2:08-cv-00660-SRB Document 1 Filed 04/04/08 Page 6 of 25

I 9. Moreover, on information and belief, the Proposition 100 laws result in the

2 incarceration of persons who are lawfully in the United States because of erroneous

3 determinations by state and county officers of questions of federal immigration law. The

4 Proposition 100 laws require Arizona state courts to make determinations as to past and 5 present immigration status, which are complex questions of federal law under the
6 Immigration and Nationality Act and immigration regulations.

7 10. The Proposition 100 laws require state court commissioners to make those
8 determinations about immigration status at very preliminary stages of a state criminal

9 prosecution, during a brief initial appearance. In Maricopa County, a criminal defendant

lOis not appointed counsel for purposes of the initial appearance despite the presence of and
11 advocacy by prosecuting attorneys seeking no-bail orders under the Proposition 100 laws.
12 Plaintiffs and members of the proposed class have been detained for an extended period of 13 time based solely upon the finding of non-eligibilty at the initial appearance.

i 4 i 1. The Proposition i 00 laws are based upon an unfair intent to discriminate
15 between one disfavored group and all others similarly situated. The Proposition 100 laws

16 violate the U.S. Constitution in numerous respects. By making persons who have

17 "entered or remained in the United States ilegally" categorically ineligible for bail, the

18 Proposition 100 laws violate the Due Process Clause of

the Fourteenth Amendment of

the

19 U.S. Constitution, the Excessive Bail Clause of the Eighth Amendment, the Fifth

20 Amendment prohibition against compelled self-incrimination, and the Sixth Amendment

21 right to counseL.

22 12. In addition, the Proposition 100 laws should be struck down under the
23 Supremacy Clause, U.S. Const. art. VI. The Proposition 100 laws are inconsistent with 24 the statutory and regulatory system of federal immigration law, conflct with federal 25 immigration law, and unconstitutionally infringe on the federal government's exclusive 26 authority over immigration.

-4-

Case 2:08-cv-00660-SRB Document 1 Filed 04/04/08 Page 7 of 25
1 JURISDICTION AND VENUE
2 13. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal
3 question) and 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (habeas corpus) over Plaintiffs' claims under the U.S. 4 Constitution and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The Court has authority to grant declaratory relief
5 under 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202.
6 14. Venue is proper in this District under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e). Plaintiffs sue the 7 Defendants in their official capacities as officers and employees of Maricopa County, 8 which is within this District. All of the events giving rise to this Complaint occurred
9 within this District. Plaintiffs are currently detained by the Defendants within this
11 PARTIES 10 District.
12 15. Plaintiff Angel Lopez-Valenzuela is currently detained at the Maricopa
13 County Durango Jail in Phoenix, Arizona pending trial on state criminal charges. He is in 14 custody as a result of an order finding that he "has entered or remained in the United
15 States ilegally" and denying him the opportunity to seek bail pursuant to the Proposition
16 100 laws. 17 16. Plaintiff Isaac Castro-Armenta is currently detained at the Maricopa County
18 Lower Buckeye Jail in Phoenix, Arizona pending trial on state criminal charges. He is in 19 custody as a result of an order finding that he "has entered or remained in the United
20 States ilegally" and denying him the opportunity to seek bail pursuant to the Proposition
21 100 laws. 22 17. Defendant Maricopa County is a county government within the state of
23 Arizona. As such, it is responsible for enforcement and implementation of the Proposition 24 100 laws against persons in criminal proceedings within its jurisdiction. Defendant 25 Maricopa County is responsible for the official decision to forbid the use of public funds
26
-5-

Case 2:08-cv-00660-SRB Document 1 Filed 04/04/08 Page 8 of 25

1 for the appointment of counsel for indigent criminal defendants at initial appearance

2 proceedings.

3 18. Defendant Joe Araio is the Sheriff of

Maricopa County, Arizona. As such,

4 he is the custodian of Plaintiffs and members of the proposed class. In his official

5 capacity, Defendant Araio is responsible for implementation of the Proposition 100 laws

6 by Maricopa County Sheriff s Department deputies and other officers. Defendant Araio

7 is sued in his official capacity.

8 19. Defendant Andrew Thomas is the County Attorney for Maricopa County,
9 Arizona. In his official capacity, he is responsible for the enforcement of the Proposition
10 100 laws within Maricopa County, where Plaintiffs and other members of the proposed 11 class are being detained pursuant to those laws. Defendant Thomas is sued in his official

i 2 capacity.

13 20. Defendant Barbara Rodriguez Mundell is the Presiding Judge of Maricopa
14 County Superior Court. In her official capacity, she has supervisory authority over the
15 Maricopa County pretrial services agency, which is responsible for interviewing criminal
16 defendants and otherwise gathering information relevant to bail eligibilty for the
17 Maricopa County courts. In her official capacity, Defendant Mundell also has
18 responsibilty for establishing rules and procedures for the pretrial services agency and for 19 the Maricopa County Superior Court. Defendant Mundell, therefore, is responsible for 20 aspects of implementing the Proposition 100 laws. Defendant Mundell is sued in her 21 official capacity as an administrator and supervisor of the Maricopa County court system,
23 FACTS 22 and not in her judicial capacity.

24 The Proposition 100 Laws

25 21. The Arizona Constitution provides that all persons who are charged with a
26 crime are eligible for bail, subject to certain exceptions. Ariz. Const. art. II § 22 ("Section

-6-

Case 2:08-cv-00660-SRB Document 1 Filed 04/04/08 Page 9 of 25

1 22"). Prior to November 2006, Section 22 provided that bail should be denied only if "the

2 proof (was) evident or the presumption great as to the present charge" and the charged
3 crime fell under one of three categories: (1) "capital offenses, sexual assault, sexual
4 conduct with a minor under fifteen years of age or molestation of a child under fifteen

5 years of age"; (2) "felony offenses committed when the person charged (had) already

6 (been) admitted to bail on a separate felony charge"; or (3) "felony offenses if

the person

7 charged pose(d) a substantial danger to any other person or the community, (and) if no

8 conditions of release which may be imposed (would) reasonably assure the safety of the
9 other person or the community(.)" Ariz. Const. art. II § 22(A)(1)-(3).
10 22. On November 7, 2006, Arizona voters approved Proposition 100, a ballot
11 measure that amended Section 22 of the Arizona Constitution to define a new group of 12 persons categorically ineligible for baiL. Section 22, as amended, does not permit an 13 individualized bail hearing for any person charged with a "serious felony offense" if the 14 person "has entered or remained in the United States ilegally" and "the proof is evident or 15 the presumption great as to the present charge." Ariz. Const. art. II § 22(A)(4). For such 16 persons, Section 22 categorically denies bail without regard to whether a judicial officer 17 would find that pretrial custody is necessary due to an individual's risk of flght or danger 18 to the community, the two constitutionally permissible bases for subjecting an individual 19 to pretrial detention.

20 23. Following the passage of Proposition 100, the Arizona legislature amended
21 the state bail statute, A.R.S. § 13-3961, to provide that for purposes of the new no-bail 22 provision, a "serious felony offense" includes "any class 1, 2, 3 or 4 felony or any

23 violation of § 28-1383." A.R.S. § 13-3961(A)(5)(b). This definition encompasses an
24 extremely large number of offenses, including many non-violent and even relatively
25 minor charges, such as shoplifting with a device, A.R.S. § 13-1805 (entering an
26 establishment with a container or device intended to faciltate shoplifting); theft, A.R.S. §

-7-

Case 2:08-cv-00660-SRB Document 1 Filed 04/04/08 Page 10 of 25

1 13-1802(E) (theft of property or services with a value of $3000 but less than $4000); 2 forgery, A.R.S. § 13-2002 (using fraudulent identification documents); perjury, A.R.S. § 3 13-2702 (making a false sworn statement believing it to be false); and simple possession
4 or use of a narcotic, A.R.S. § 13-3407. As a result of the Proposition 100 laws, bail is

5 categorically denied in cases in which bail would normally be granted.

6 24. On June 18, 2007, the Arizona legislature passed Senate Bil 1265, a further
7 amendment to A.R.S. § 13-3961, lowering the standard of proof required for the finding

8 that a defendant "has entered or remained in the United States ilegally." As amended,
9 Section 13-3961 provides that the State need only prove that the defendant "has entered or 10 remained in the United States ilegally" under a probable cause standard. A.R.S. § 13-
11 3961(A)(5). Prior to enactment of Senate Bil 1265, the Arizona Supreme Court had

i 2 issued an administrative order requiring the State to prove that a defendant had "entered or
13 remained in the United States ilegally" by a higher "proof evident, presumption great"

14 standard.

15 25. The effect of

Proposition 100 and A.R.S. § 13-3961, as amended, is to make

16 a person whom a county commissioner determines to "ha( ve) entered or remained in the

17 United States ilegally" subject to mandatory pretrial detention in a far greater category of

18 cases, and for far less serious charges, than a person who is determined not to meet that

i 9 definition. In Arizona, therefore, the critical decision as to whether a person is released on
20 bail, or is instead required to defend against charges while detained, often hinges upon a
21 state probable cause determination of past or present immigration status. As a result of 22 Proposition 100's categorical prohibition on bail, persons who pose no flght risk and no
23 danger to the community are detained pending trial, at great cost to taxpayers and to the 24 extreme detriment of those persons and their familes, simply because of their alleged 25 immigration status.
26

-8-

Case 2:08-cv-00660-SRB Document 1 Filed 04/04/08 Page 11 of 25

1 26. Prior to passage of Proposition 100, the Arizona bail statute already
2 accounted for the legitimate state governmental interests that may be considered in 3 making bail determinations. The statute explicitly states that in making custody

4 determinations, a judicial officer should be guided by three considerations: (1) assuring

5 the appearance of

the accused; (2) protecting against the intimidation of

witnesses; and (3)

6 protecting the safety of the victim, any other person, or the community. A.R.S. § 13-

7 3961(B).

8 27. In contrast, Proposition 100 categorically denies bail based on nothing more
9 than a probable cause determination of a person's past or present immigration status. i 0 Arizona state officials who supported Proposition 100 made it clear that their intent was to 11 target what they deemed to be "ilegal immigration," to punish perceived immigration 12 violations and to regulate immigration, a field of law enforcement that is committed to the 13 federal government under the U.S. Constitution and federal statutes. For example, the
14 chief sponsor of Proposition 100, Arizona House Representative Russell Pearce, stated 15 that Proposition 100 would "keep more violent criminals in jail, make our homes and
16 communities safer, and send a powerful message to ilegal aliens that their crimes wil not 17 go unpunished." One Arizona gubernatorial candidate stated publicly that Proposition
18 100 would "address(J one area that needs to be resolved in this fight to secure our borders
19 and reduce the level of crime in our neighborhoods."

20 28. Supporters of Proposition 100 did not point to any evidence that persons
21 "who have entered or remained in the United States ilegally" pose a greater flght risk or 22 danger to the community than persons who do not fit that definition. There were no 23 legislative hearings or expert witnesses that examined the suppositions of the law's
24 supporters.
25 29. In fact, studies have shown that non-U.S. citizens are no more likely than
26 U.S. citizens to commit crimes. See, e.g., Michael Kiefer, Migrant Rate of Crime Even

-9-

Case 2:08-cv-00660-SRB Document 1 Filed 04/04/08 Page 12 of 25

1 with Numbers, Ariz. Republic, Feb. 25, 2008 ("Despite public perception and stepped up

2 enforcement of immigration laws in recent months in Maricopa County, undocumented

3 immigrants are not charged with a disproportionate number of crimes in Maricopa

4 County.").

5 30. Studies have also shown that non-U.S. citizens do not pose a greater flght

6 risk than U.S. citizens in criminal cases. See Vera Institute of Justice, Testing Community

7 Supervision for the INS: An Evaluation of the Appearance Assistance Program (Aug. 1,

8 2000), available at http://ww.vera.org/publications/publications_5.asp?

9 publication_id=12.

10 31. The Proposition 100 laws cover an unprecedented number of criminal
11 offenses including many non-violent crimes, do not limit the period of pretrial

12 incarceration that may result from their application, and do not provide for basic

13 procedural protections for the criminal defendants.

14 The Impact of

the Proposition 100 Laws on Criminal Proceedings

15 32. The Proposition 100 laws result in violations of the U.S. Constitution at

16 several stages of criminal proceedings in Arizona including but not limited to: arrest,

17 booking, interviews conducted by pretrial services officers prior to the initial appearance

18 of a defendant in court, the initial appearance itself, and throughout the period of pretrial

19 detention.

20 33. After a Plaintiff class member is arrested, law enforcement officers are

21 required to complete a document known as "Form 4" or the "Release Questionnaire"

22 during the booking process. Pursuant to the Proposition 100 laws, the booking officer

23 must include information on the Form 4 as to whether the arrestee has "entered or

24 remained in the United States unlawfully." In order to complete the form, Arizona law

25 enforcement officers-including police officers and sheriffs deputies-interrogate

26 arrested, in-custody members of Plaintiff class about their immigration status without

-10-

Case 2:08-cv-00660-SRB Document 1 Filed 04/04/08 Page 13 of 25
1 providing the admonition that they have a right to remain silent or to consult with an
2 attorney. 3 34. After booking, criminal defendants remain in custody and are interviewed
4 by a pretrial services officer prior to appearing before a commissioner for an initial 5 appearance. Based upon the interview, the pretrial services officer provides the 6 commissioner with information concerning whether the defendant should be released on
7 baiL. Pursuant to Defendants' policies and practices implementing the Proposition 100 8 laws, county pretrial services officers under the supervision of Defendant Mundell are
9 required to question the accused about immigration status prior to the initial appearance at
10 which the bail determination is made. Criminal defendants are in custody during the 11 pretrial interview. Pretrial officers do not advise these members of the Plaintiff class that
12 they have a right to remain silent or a right to consult with counsel prior to answering
13 questions. 14 35. The questionnaire used by pretrial services officers in Maricopa County
15 demonstrates that the state law procedures implementing Proposition 100 are flawed by a 16 fundamental misunderstanding of federal immigration law. Pretrial services officers are 17 directed to ask a defendant, including members of the Plaintiff class, whether he or she is
18 a U.S. citizen. In the event that a defendant responds in the negative, the pretrial services
19 officer then asks the defendant to choose from the following immigration status
20 categories: "Undocumented"; "Current Valid Immigrant Visa"; "Current Valid Non21 immigrant Visa"; and "Other." The category "Undocumented" is not defined, nor is it a 22 term of art within the Immigration and Nationality Act ("INA"). Pretrial services officers 23 are given no training on the definition of the various immigration status categories in the 24 INA or in the questions they are required to ask. Moreover, immigration status involves 25 complex questions of federal law, is highly fact-dependent, and can change over time;
26 thus, an individual's self-reported status may be inaccurate.
-11-

Case 2:08-cv-00660-SRB Document 1 Filed 04/04/08 Page 14 of 25

1 36. In questioning members of the Plaintiff class regarding their immigration

2 status pursuant to the Proposition 100 laws, Arizona state officers - including Maricopa
3 County arresting and booking Sheriff deputies, and pretrial services officers - are likely to

4 elicit incriminating information with regard to both federal and state criminal law. For
5 example, questioning about immigration status could elicit statements admitting violations

6 of federal criminal law such as 8 U.S.C. § 1325 (ilegal entry) or 8 U.S.C. § 1326 (ilegal

7 re-entry). Officers' questions about immigration status are also likely to elicit

8 incriminating statements under Arizona state criminal laws, including laws under which

9 the person is being charged. Indeed, Defendants Araio and Thomas have arrested and
10 charged persons with human smuggling for "smuggling" themselves, A.R. S. § 13 - 2319, 11 forgery for using allegedly fraudulent identification documents, A.R.S. § 13-2002, and
12 possession of a weapon by a "prohibited person," which includes persons not lawfully in
13 the United States. A.R.S. § 13-3102. A defendant's immigration status is an element of 14 all of these offenses. 15 37. The decision to hold members of the Plaintiff class categorically ineligible
16 for bail under the Proposition 100 laws is first made at the initial appearance ("IA"). This
1 7 appearance occurs within 24 hours after a defendant is arrested and booked and is
18 presided over by a county commissioner, who is not a state court judge.

19 38. Under the Proposition 100 laws and relevant court rules, a member of the
20 Plaintiff class is not entitled to appointed counsel for the IA. Maricopa County expressly

2 i prohibits the use of public funds for this purpose, despite knowing that most of the

22 affected class members are indigent and the importance of the determination of bail status

23 at this critical stage of

the proceedings. Defendant Thomas, however, uses public funds to

24 have a prosecuting attorney present and to argue for detention based on the Proposition

25 100 laws. A class member may be held ineligible for bail pursuant to the Proposition 100

26 laws solely based on the representations of an attending deputy county attorney.

-12-

Case 2:08-cv-00660-SRB Document 1 Filed 04/04/08 Page 15 of 25

1 39. Because criminal defendants, including proposed class members, typically

2 do not meet with appointed counsel before their formal arraignment, such persons wil

3 often be detained for more than a week before they are even represented by counseL.
4 Moreover, members of the proposed class who are held ineligible for bail under the 5 Proposition 100 laws at the IA are not advised of their right to request a full evidentiary

6 hearing challenging the commissioner's decision to hold them without bond.

7 Consequently, members of

the proposed class effectively lack the abilty to challenge their

8 detention for a prolonged period.
9 40. The initial bail determination during the IA is a critical stage in the criminal
10 case for members of the Plaintiff class, given the serious consequences of a finding of
11 non-eligibilty for bail pursuant to the Proposition 100 laws. Pretrial detention has been
12 found to adversely affect case dispositions. Several empirical studies indicate that pretrial 13 detention leads to a higher likelihood that a defendant wil be convicted. See Stephanos 14 Bibas, Plea Bargaining Outside the Shadow of Trial, 117 HARV. L. REv. 2463 (2004); 15 Stevens H. Clarke & Susan T. Kurtz, Criminology: The Importance of Interim Decisions

16 to Felony Trial Court Dispositions, 74 J. CRIM. L. & CRIMINOLOGY 476, 502-05 (1983);

17 Patricia Wald, Pretrial Detention and Ultimate Freedom: A Statistical Study, 39 N.Y.U.

18 L. REv. 631, 632 (1964). Indeed, the Supreme Court has recognized that "(tJhere is

19 statistical evidence that persons who are detained between arrest and trial are more likely

20 to receive prison sentences than those who obtain pretrial release." Barker v. Wingo,

407

21 U.S. 514, 533 n.35 (1972).

22 41. Pursuant to Defendants' policies and practices implementing the Proposition
23 100 laws, even when a criminal defendant is represented by retained counsel at the initial 24 appearance, defense counsel is not permitted to confer with his or her client prior to the
25 pretrial services interview. Nor is defense counsel permitted to cross-examine prosecution 26 witnesses or to engage in any adversarial testing of the prosecution's position at IA on

-13-

Case 2:08-cv-00660-SRB Document 1 Filed 04/04/08 Page 16 of 25

1 whether the defendant "has entered or remained in the United States ilegally." Thus, 2 even when a criminal defendant has retained counsel for lA, a right provided under the 3 Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure, defense counsel is prevented under the Proposition 4 100 laws from protecting his or her client from being held ineligible for bail if the

5 prosecuting attorney alleges the client "has entered or remained in the United States
6 ilegally."

7 42. Under current Arizona law, in making the probable cause determination of

8 whether a defendant "has entered or remained in the United States ilegally," "a magistrate

9

judge or judicial officer at the time of

the person's initial appearance" is to consider:

10

(i) (w Jhether a hold has been placed on the arrested person by

the United States immigration and customs enforcement; (ii)

11

(a Jny indication by a law enforcement agency that the person

is in the United States ilegally; (iii) (w Jhether an admission

12

by the arrested person has been obtained by the court or a law

enforcement agency that the person has entered or remained in

13

the United States ilegally; (iv) (aJny information received

from a law enforcement agency pursuant to § 13-3906; (v)

14

(a Jny evidence that the person has recently entered or

remained in the United States ilegally; (vi) (aJny other

15

relevant information that is obtained by the court or that is

presented to the court by a party or any other person.

16

17 A.R.S. § 13-3961(C), (A)(5)(a) (as amended by Senate Bil 1265). These criteria are

18 vague and permit the categorical denial of bail based on nothing more than a bald

19 assertion at the initial appearance by a county prosecutor or law enforcement officer that

20 the defendant has "entered or remained in the country ilegally." 21 43. As interpreted by an intermediate state appellate court, the Arizona Rules of

22 Criminal Procedure, as revised on an emergency basis to implement Proposition 100,

23 permit either a prosecutor or a criminal defendant to request an evidentiary hearing on bail

24 subsequent to a no-bail decision at the IA. Ariz. R. Crim. P. 4.2(a)(7), 7.2(b), 7.4(a). The

25 rules provide that such a hearing must take place within seven days of the request. Ariz.

26 R. Crim. P. 7.4. However, despite these rules providing for an evidentiary hearing,

-14-

Case 2:08-cv-00660-SRB Document 1 Filed 04/04/08 Page 17 of 25

1 criminal defendants are effectively detained for prolonged periods of time under a no-bail

2 ruling made during the IA without benefit of counselor an opportunity to cross-examine

3 and present evidence. Pursuant to Defendants' policies and practices, the commissioner at
4 the IA does not inform criminal defendants of their right to seek an evidentiary hearing. 5 Nor do the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure require a criminal defendant to be so 6 informed. In Maricopa County, indigent criminal defendants usually do not meet with 7 appointed counsel, who could inform them of the right to an evidentiary hearing, until

8 arraignment, which often takes place up to seven days after the IA. Thus, Defendants'

9 policies and procedures deprive criminal defendants of the abilty to seek an, evidentiary
10 hearing for an extended period of time following the IA. Upon meeting with counsel, the

1 i defendant may be required to wait up to an additional seven days before having an

12 opportunity to challenge the State's evidence relating to immigration status during an
13 evidentiary hearing.
14 CLASS ALLEGATIONS
15 44. Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of themselves and all other persons

16 similarly situated pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and 23(b)(2). The

17 class, as proposed by Plaintiffs, consists of:

18

All persons who have been or wil be held ineligible for

release on bond by an Arizona state court in Maricopa County

19

pursuant to Section 22(A)( 4) of the Arizona Constitution and

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-3961

(A)(5).

20

21 45. Plaintiffs seek class certification because there are countless similarly

22 situated individuals in Maricopa County jails who are also being held in pretrial detention

23 without an individualized hearing under the Proposition 100 laws. Because of the

24 inherently transitory nature of pretrial detention and the logistical difficulties incarcerated 25 persons would face in bringing federal civil rights litigation, it is highly unlikely that

26

-15-

Case 2:08-cv-00660-SRB Document 1 Filed 04/04/08 Page 18 of 25

1 individual lawsuits would be successful in obtaining judicial review of the constitutional

2 claims being brought in this action.

3 46. The requirements of

Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure 23(a) and 23(b)(2) are

4 met in that the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable.

5 Plaintiffs are informed and believe that there are hundreds of persons each year who are or
6 wil be found ineligible for bail pursuant to the Proposition 100 laws. Individual lawsuits

7 challenging the constitutionality of the Proposition 100 laws would create an enormous
8 demand on federal judicial resources and could result in conflcting outcomes.

9 47. There are questions of law and fact common to the proposed class that
10 predominate over any questions affecting only the individually named Plaintiffs, including 11 but not limited to: whether the Proposition 100 laws as written, and as implemented by the 12 Defendants' policies and practices, violate the rights of the proposed class under the Due 13 Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, the excessive bail prohibition of the Eighth 14 Amendment, the Fifth Amendment self-incrimination clause, and the Sixth Amendment 15 guarantee of the right to counsel; and whether the Proposition 100 laws are preempted by

16 federal immigration law and should be struck down under the Supremacy Clause.
17 48. The claims of the named Plaintiffs are typical of the claims of the proposed

18 class. The named Plaintiffs, like all class members, have been held not to be eligible for

19 bail pursuant to the Proposition 100 laws, and are therefore subject to pretrial detention

20 pending resolution of their criminal cases, based solely upon a finding of probable cause

21 that they have "entered or remained in the United States ilegally" and without regard to

22 whether there are individual equities miltating in favor of or against release on conditions

23 based on flght risk or danger to the community.
24 49. The named Plaintiffs wil fairly and adequately represent the interests of all

25 members of the proposed class because they seek relief on behalf of the class as a whole

26 and have no interests antagonistic to other members of

the class.

-16-

Case 2:08-cv-00660-SRB Document 1 Filed 04/04/08 Page 19 of 25

1 50. Defendants have acted on grounds generally applicable to the class, thereby

2 making appropriate final injunctive relief with respect to the class as a whole.

3 DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF ALLEGATIONS
4 51. An actual and substantial controversy exists between Plaintiffs and

5 Defendants as to their respective legal rights and duties. Plaintiffs contend that

6 Defendants' actions violate the constitutional rights of

Plaintiffs and the proposed class.

7 52. In violating Plaintiffs' rights under the U.S. Constitution and federal

8 statutes, Defendants are acting under color of law.

9 53. The Proposition 100 laws, and Defendants' policies, practices and 10 procedures implementing them, have caused and wil continue to cause irreparable injury
11 to Plaintiffs and the proposed class.

12 54. Plaintiffs and the proposed class have no plain, speedy and adequate remedy
13 at law against the Proposition 100 laws and Defendants' policies, practices and procedures

14 implementing them.
15 CAUSES OF ACTION

16 COUNT

ONE

i 7 FOURTVIEOLEANTIOTNHOF SAUMBSETANNDTIVMEEDNUETPROCESS

18 55. The foregoing allegations are repeated and incorporated as though fully set
19 forth herein. 20 56. Plaintiffs and the proposed class have a libert interest in being free from 21 detention absent a criminal conviction. Specifically, Plaintiffs and the proposed class

22 have a libert interest in being eligible for release on bond pending resolution of the
23 criminal charges against them.
24 57. The Proposition 100 laws and Defendants' policies, practices and
25 procedures implementing them violate substantive due process because they are not
26 narrowly tailored and do not serve a compellng governmental interest.

-17-

Case 2:08-cv-00660-SRB Document 1 Filed 04/04/08 Page 20 of 25

1 58. The Proposition 100 laws and Defendants' policies, practices and
2 procedures implementing them result in an impermissibly punitive regime of pretrial

3 detention in violation of substantive due process.

4

COUNT

TWO

5

VIOLATION OF PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS

FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT

6

USE OF PROBABLE CAUSE STANDARD

7 59. The foregoing allegations are repeated and incorporated as though fully set
8 forth herein.

9 60. Defendants' policies, practices, and procedures in implementing the
10 Proposition i 00 laws result in no-bond decisions against Plaintiffs and the proposed class

i 1 based solely on a state court commissioner's finding that there is probable cause to believe

12 that they have "entered or remained in the United States ilegally." Use of

the "probable

13 cause" standard in this context violates the Due Process Clause.

14

COUNT

THREE

15 VIOLATION OF PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS

FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT
16 PROCEDURAL VIOLATIONS DURING INITIAL APPEARNCE

17 61. The foregoing allegations are repeated and incorporated as though fully set
18 forth herein. 19 62. Due process requires basic procedural protections at pretrial detention 20 hearings to ensure an accurate determination as to whether an individual criminal
21 defendant should be granted bail, including the right to counsel, the opportnity to testify 22 and to present evidence, the opportunity to cross-examine opposing witnesses, and the 23 requirement that the prosecution to make a sufficient showing that release on bail is not 24 warranted. Defendants 'policies, practices and procedures implementing the Proposition 25 100 laws do not comport with these due process requirements. 26

-18-

Case 2:08-cv-00660-SRB Document 1 Filed 04/04/08 Page 21 of 25

1 63. As implemented through Defendants' policies, practices, and procedures,
2 the Proposition 100 laws resulted in an initial no-bond decision against Plaintiffs and 3 members of the proposed class based solely on presentation of arguments and evidence

4 during an initial appearance.

5 64. Defendants have a policy, practice and procedure of conducting initial
6 appearances in criminal cases without participation of defense counseL. Thus, Plaintiffs 7 and members of the proposed class are held to be ineligible for bail pursuant to the 8 Proposition 100 laws without benefit of representation, in violation of the Due Process

9 Clause.

10 65. Immigration status is a complex issue governed by federal statutes and

i 1 regulations and is determined in federal administrative proceedings with myriad

12 procedural protections, as guaranteed by the Due Process Clause of

the Fifth Amendment.

13 Plaintiffs were found ineligible for release on bond on the basis of a state court probable

14 cause determination that they "entered or remained in the United States ilegally." That

15 determination was made without any of the procedural protections required under federal

16 immigration law.
17 COUNT FOUR
18 FIFTH AMENDMENT VIOLATION OF RIGHT AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION

19 66. The foregoing allegations are repeated and incorporated as though fully set
20 forth herein.

21 67. Defendants have a policy, practice and procedure of interrogating criminal
22 defendants in custody, including Plaintiffs and other members of the proposed class, about

23 their immigration and nationality status pursuant to the Proposition 100 laws without
24 advising Plaintiffs of their right to counseL. Those interrogations elicit incriminating
25 information from the accused. 26

-19-

Case 2:08-cv-00660-SRB Document 1 Filed 04/04/08 Page 22 of 25

1 68. Defendants then introduce Plaintiffs' statements against them during bond

2 proceedings and hold them without bond pursuant to the Proposition 100 laws.

3 69. In addition, custodial interrogations carried out pursuant to Defendants'

4 policies and practices under the Proposition 100 laws may be used against criminal
5 defendants such as Plaintiffs in their substantive criminal trials, where immigration status

6 is implicated in the elements of the charged offense.

7 70. These policies, practices and procedures violate the against self-

8 incrimination under the Fifth Amendment of

the U.S. Constitution.

9

COUNT

FIVE

10 VIOLATION OF RIGHT TO COUNSEL

SIXTH AMENDMENT

11 DENIAL OF RIGHT TO COUNSEL DURING INITIAL APPEARANCE

12 71. The foregoing allegations are repeated and incorporated as though fully set
13 forth herein.

14 72. Defendants have a policy, practice, and procedure of denying Plaintiffs and
15 other members of the proposed class the right to counsel during the initial appearance in
16 criminal proceedings, where findings as to immigration status under the Proposition 100

17 laws are made.
18 73. Initial appearances are a critical stage of criminal proceedings in Maricopa

19 County, as a holding of non-eligibilty for bail under the Proposition 100 laws results in

20 irretrievable loss of rights.

21 74. The foregoing policies, practices and procedures violate Plaintiffs' right to

the U.S. Constitution.

23 COUNT 22 counsel under the Sixth Amendment of

SIX

24 EIGHTH AMENDMENT VIOLATION OF EXCESSIVE BAIL CLAUSE

25 75. The Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides that "(eJxcessive

26 bail shall not be required." The Supreme Court has held that under the excessive bail

-20-

Case 2:08-cv-00660-SRB Document 1 Filed 04/04/08 Page 23 of 25

1 clause, a court may not impose bail conditions or impose pretrial conditions to punish a

2 criminal defendant for past acts. Bail may be imposed in order to ensure a defendant's

3 presence at triaL.

4 76. By denying bail categorically to all persons who "have entered or remained

5 in the United States ilegally," without regard to whether an individual person poses an

6 unacceptable flght risk, the Proposition 100 laws violate the Eighth Amendment

7 excessive bail clause.

8 77. The Proposition 100 laws constitute a blanket prohibition on bail for a far

9 greater range of offenses than any other state or federal bail statute. The Proposition 100
10 laws result in a categorical prohibition of bail for relatively minor offenses for which bail 11 would normally be set. This violates the Eighth Amendment principle that categorical 12 denial of bail is permitted only for "the most serious of crimes."

13

COUNT

SEVEN

14

VIOLATION OF THE SUPREMACY CLAUSE

15 78. The foregoing allegations are repeated and incorporated as though fully set
16 forth herein.

17 79. The power to regulate immigration is an exclusively federal power that
18 derives from the Constitution's grant to the federal government of the power to "establish
19 a uniform Rule of Naturalization," U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, cl. 4., and to "regulate
20 Commerce with foreign Nations." U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, cl. 3. In addition, the Supreme 21 Court has held that the federal governent's power to control immigration is inherent in 22 the nation's sovereignty. The Proposition 100 laws and the Defendants' policies, practices

23 and procedures implementing them usurp the federal government's exclusive power under
24 the U.S. Constitution to define the status of immigrants who are in the United States and
25 the legal consequences of being in any given status.
26

-21-

Case 2:08-cv-00660-SRB Document 1 Filed 04/04/08 Page 24 of 25

1

80. The Proposition 100 laws are preempted by federal law because the federal

2 government has occupied the field of immigration by enacting a comprehensive statutory

3 and regulatory scheme governing immigration, including the Immigration and Nationality

4 Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1101, et seq. ("INA").

5

81. The Proposition 100 laws are preempted by federal law because they

6 conflict with federal laws, regulations, policies and objectives defining the legal status of

7 immigrants and non-citizens and establishing the legal consequences of any given status.

8

82. The Proposition 100 laws, therefore, exceed the Defendants' lawful police

9 powers and violate the Supremacy Clause, U.S. Const. art. II, § 2.

10

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

11

WHEREFORE, in light of

the foregoing facts and arguments, Plaintiffs request that

12 the Court:

13

a. Assume jurisdiction over this matter;

14

b. Grant the petition for a writ of habeas corpus;

15

c. Order that Plaintiffs shall immediately be presented for a bail hearing before

16

an Arizona state court with proper jurisdiction, at which the provisions of

17

the Proposition 100 laws shall not apply;

18

d. Certify a class as described above, pursuant to Plaintiffs' forthcoming

19

motion for class certification;

20

e. Declare that the Proposition 100 laws are unconstitutional under the self-

21

incrimination clause of the Fifth Amendment, the Sixth Amendment's

22

clause establishing a right to counsel in criminal proceedings, the excessive

23

bail clause of the Eighth Amendment, and the Due Process Clause of the

24

Fourteenth Amendment;

25

f. Declare that the Proposition 100 laws are preempted by federal law and the

26

plenary power of Congress to regulate immigration;

-22-

Case 2:08-cv-00660-SRB Document 1 Filed 04/04/08 Page 25 of 25

1

g. Enjoin Defendants from enforcing the Proposition 100 laws;

2

h. Grant Plaintiffs' reasonable attorneys' fees, costs, and other expenses

3

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988; and

4

1. Grant such other relief as the Court may deem appropriate.

5
Dated: April 4, 2008
6
7

ACLU FOUNDATION IMMIGRANTS' RIGHTS PROJECT MEXICAN AMERICAN LEGAL DEFENSE AND EDUCATIONAL FUND

8

ACLU FOUNDATION OF ARIZONA

9

PERKNS COlE BROWN & BAIN P.A.

10

By: lsi Steven J. Monde

11

Charles A. Blanchard, Bar No. 011401

Kevin B. Wein, Bar No. 022752

12

Steven J. Monde, Bar No. 024076

2901 N. Central Avenue, Suite 2000

13

Phoenix, AZ 85012-2788

Telephone: 602.351.8000

14

Facsimile: 602.648.7000

15

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

-23-

 
 Case 2:08-cv-00660-SRB Document 257 Filed 06/10/11 Page 1 of 6

1

Cecillia D. Wang (admitted pro hac vice)

AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION

2

FOUNDATION

IMMIGRANTS’ RIGHTS PROJECT

3

39 Drumm Street

San Francisco, CA 94111

4

Telephone: (415) 343-0775

Facsimile: (415) 395-0950

5

Email: cwang@aclu.org

6

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

*Additional counsel listed on following page

7

8

9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
10 DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
11

12 ANGEL LOPEZ-VALENZUELA and

No. CV 08-660-PHX-SRB (ECV)

ISAAC CASTRO-ARMENTA,

13

Plaintiffs,

14

CLASS ACTION

v.

15

16

MARICOPA COUNTY; JOSEPH ARPAIO, Maricopa County Sheriff, in his

NOTICE OF APPEAL

official capacity; and BILL

17 MONTGOMERY, Maricopa County

Judge: Hon. Susan R. Bolton

Attorney, in his official capacity,

18

Defendants.

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

Case 2:08-cv-00660-SRB Document 257 Filed 06/10/11 Page 2 of 6

1 Additional counsel:

2

3

Nicholas Espiritu (admitted pro hac vice) MEXICAN AMERICAN LEGAL

4

DEFENSE AND EDUCATIONAL FUND

5

634 S. Spring Street, 11th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90014

6

Telephone: (213) 629-2512 Facsimile: (213) 629-0266

7 Email: nespiritu@maldef.org

8 Daniel Pochoda, Bar No. 021979

9

Anne Lai, Bar No. 330036* ACLU FOUNDATION OF ARIZONA

10

3707 N. 7th Street, Suite 235 Phoenix, AZ 85014

11

Telephone: (602) 650-1854 Facsimile: (602) 650-1376

12

Email: dpochoda@acluaz.org alai@acluaz.org

13 *Admitted pursuant to Ariz. Sup. Ct. R. 14 38(f)

15

Andre I. Segura (admitted pro hac vice) Tanaz Moghadam (admitted pro hac vice)

16

ACLU FOUNDATION IMMIGRANTS’ RIGHTS PROJECT

17

125 Broad Street New York, NY 10004-2400

18

Telephone: (212) 549-2660 Facsimile: (212) 549-2654

19

Email: asegura@aclu.org tmoghadam@aclu.org

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

David J. Bodney, Bar No. 006065 Kevin B. Wein, Bar No. 022752 STEPTOE & JOHNSON LLP 201 E. Washington St., Suite 1600 Phoenix, AZ 85004-2382 Telephone: (602) 257-5200 Facsimile: (602) 257-5299 Email: dbodney@steptoe.com
kwein@steptoe.com Lee David Stein Perkins Coie LLP 2901 North Central Avenue Suite 2000 Phoenix, AZ 85012-2788 Telephone: (602) 351-8000 Facsimile: (602) 648-7000 Email: Lstein@perkinscoie.com
Steven J. Monde, Bar No. 024076 272 Spring Hollow Lane Montpelier, VT 05602 Telephone: (802) 279-9445 Email: sjmonde@gmail.com

Case 2:08-cv-00660-SRB Document 257 Filed 06/10/11 Page 3 of 6

1

Notice is hereby given that Plaintiffs Angel Lopez-Valenzuela, Isaac Castro-

2 Armenta and the certified plaintiff class, by and through their undersigned attorneys,

3 hereby appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit from (1) the

4 District Court’s Order of March 29, 2011, granting Defendants’ Motion for Partial

5 Summary Judgment as to Counts One, Two, Three, Five and Six of Plaintiff’s Complaint;

6 and (2) the portion of the District Court’s Order of December 9, 2008, granting

7 Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Count Seven of Plaintiff’s Complaint (asserting a claim

8 under the Supremacy Clause). The foregoing rulings were incorporated in and entered as

9 a final judgment in this action on May 13, 2011.

10

11 Dated: June 10, 2011
12

ACLU FOUNDATION IMMIGRANTS' RIGHTS PROJECT

13

MEXICAN AMERICAN LEGAL DEFENSE

AND EDUCATIONAL FUND 14

ACLU FOUNDATION OF ARIZONA 15

PERKINS COIE LLP 16

STEPTOE & JOHNSON LLP 17

18

By: /s/ Cecillia D. Wang

19

Cecillia D. Wang (admitted pro hac vice) ACLU Foundation Immigrants’ Rights Project

20

39 Drumm Street San Francisco, CA 94111

21

Telephone: (415) 343-0775 Facsimile: (415) 395-0950

22

Email: cwang@aclu.org

23

Attorneys for Plaintiffs ANGEL LOPEZ-VALENZUELA

24

ISAAC CASTRO-ARMENTA

25 .
26

1

Case 2:08-cv-00660-SRB Document 257 Filed 06/10/11 Page 4 of 6

1

REPRESENTATION STATEMENT

2

Pursuant to Circuit Rule 3-2, plaintiffs Angel Lopez-Valenzuela and Isaac Castro-

3 Armenta provide the following information regarding the parties and their counsel:

4

Named Plaintiffs-Appellants:

5

Angel Lopez-Valenzuela and Isaac Castro-Armenta, on behalf of a certified class

6 Counsel for Plaintiffs-Appellants:
7

8

Cecillia D. Wang ACLU FOUNDATION

9

IMMIGRANTS’ RIGHTS PROJECT 39 Drumm Street

10

San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 343-0775

11

Facsimile: (415) 395-0950 Email: cwang@aclu.org

12

Andre I. Segura

13

Tanaz Moghadam ACLU FOUNDATION

14

IMMIGRANTS’ RIGHTS PROJECT 125 Broad Street

15

New York, NY 10004-2400 Telephone: (212) 549-2660

16

Facsimile: (212) 549-2654 Email: asegura@aclu.org

17

tmoghadam@aclu.org

18

Daniel Pochoda, Bar No. 021979 Anne Lai, Bar No. 330036

19

ACLU FOUNDATION OF ARIZONA 3707 N. 7th Street, Suite 235

20

Phoenix, AZ 85014 Telephone: (602) 650-1854

21

Facsimile: (602) 650-1376 Email: dpochoda@acluaz.org

22

alai@acluaz.org

23

Defendants-Appellees:

24

Maricopa County

Joseph M. Arpaio, Maricopa County Sheriff, in his official capacity

25

William G. Montgomery, Maricopa County Attorney, in his official capacity

26

2

Case 2:08-cv-00660-SRB Document 257 Filed 06/10/11 Page 5 of 6

1

Counsel for Defendants-Appellees Maricopa County and Joseph M. Arpaio:

2

Timothy James Casey

3

Drew Metcalf

Schmitt Schneck Smyth & Herrod PC

4

1221 E Osborn Rd

5

Ste 105

Phoenix, AZ 85014-5540

6

602-277-7000

7

Fax: 602-277-8663 Email: drewmetcalf@azbarristers.com

8

timcasey@azbarristers.com

9

Counsel for Defendant-Appellee William G. Montgomery:

10

Bruce P. White

11

Anne Cecile Longo

MCAO Division of County Counsel

12

222 N Central Ave

Ste 1100

13

Phoenix, AZ 85004-2926

602-506-5269

14

Fax: 602-506-6083

Email: whiteb@mcao.maricopa.gov

15

longoa@mcao.maricopa.gov

16

17 Dated: June 10, 2011

18

/s/ Cecillia D. Wang

Cecillia D. Wang (admitted pro hac vice)

19

ACLU Foundation Immigrants’ Rights Project

39 Drumm Street

20

San Francisco, CA 94111

Telephone: (415) 343-0775

21

Facsimile: (415) 395-0950

Email: cwang@aclu.org

22

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

23

ANGEL LOPEZ-VALENZUELA

ISAAC CASTRO-ARMENTA

24

25

26

3

Case 2:08-cv-00660-SRB Document 257 Filed 06/10/11 Page 6 of 6

1

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

2

I hereby certify that on June 10, 2011, I electronically transmitted the

3 attached Notice of Appeal and accompanying Representation Statement to the Clerk’s

4 Office using the CM/ECF System for filing and transmittal of a Notice of Electronic

5 Filing to the following CM/ECF registrants:

6 Timothy James Casey
7 Drew Metcalf Schmitt Schneck Smyth & Herrod PC
8 1221 E Osborn Rd Ste 105
9 Phoenix, AZ 85014-5540
10 Bruce P. White Maricopa County Attorney’s Office
11 Civil Division Phoenix, Arizona 85004
12 Lee David Stein
13 Perkins Coie LLP 2901 North Central Avenue
14 Suite 2000 Phoenix, AZ 85012-2788
15

Daniel Joseph Pochoda Anne Lai ACLU 3707 N. 7th Street, Suite 235 Phoenix, AZ 85014 David Jeremy Bodney Kevin B. Wein Steptoe & Johnson LLP Collier Ctr 201 E Washington St Ste 1600 Phoenix, AZ 85004-2382 Steven J. Monde, Bar No. 024076 272 Spring Hollow Lane Montpelier, VT 05602

16

17

18

19 I declare under penalty of perjury that the above is true and correct.
20

21

Dated: June 10, 2011

22

San Francisco, California

23

24

/s/ Cecillia D. Wang Cecillia D. Wang

25

26

4

 
 Case 2:08-cv-00660-SRB Document 264 Filed 07/14/11 Page 1 of 1

1

2

3

4

5

6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8

9 Angel Lopez-Valenzuela; Isaac Castro- )

Armenta,

)

10

)

Plaintiffs,

)

11

)

vs.

)

12

)

)

13 County of Maricopa, et al.,

)

)

14

Defendants.

)

)

15

)

No. CV08-0660-PHX-SRB ORDER

16

17 Pursuant to the Commissioner's Order filed July 8, 2011,
18 IT IS ORDERED granting a certificate of appealability as to all claims upon which
19 summary judgment was granted and as to the dismissal of Count Seven.
20

21 DATED this 14th day of July, 2011.
22

23

24

25

26

27

28

 
 Case 2:08-cv-00660-SRB Document 256 Filed 05/13/11 Page 1 of 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

)

)

Angel Lopez-Valenzuela;

)

Isaac Castro-Armenta,

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

v.

)

)

Maricopa County; Joseph Arpaio. )

Maricopa County Sheriff; William G. )

Montgomery, Maricopa County

)

Attorney,

)

)

Defendants,

)

)

JUDGMENT IN A CIVIL CASE CIV 08-660-PHX-SRB

Jury Verdict. This action came before the Coutr for a trial by jury. The issues have been tried and the jury has rendered its verdict.

XX Decision by Court. This action came for consideration before theCourt. The issues have been considered and a decision has been rendered.

IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that pursaunt to the Court's Order of May 13, 2011, judgment is hereby entered as follows: Count Four is dism issed without prejudice; Counts One, Two, Three, Fi ve, Six and Seven are dism issed. The Complaint and this action are hereby dismissed as to Counts One, Two, Three, Five, Six and Seven and dismissed without prejudice as to Count Four.

May 13, 2011 Date

RICHARD H. WEARE District Court Executive/Clerk

. s/ Ruth E. Williams By Ruth E. Williams
Deputy Clerk

 
 Case 2:08-cv-00660-SRB Document 246 Filed 03/29/11 Page 1 of 17

1

2

3

4

5

6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8

9 Angel Lopez-Valenzuela; Isaac Castro- )

Armenta,

)

10

)

Plaintiffs,

)

11

)

vs.

)

12

)

)

13 Maricopa County; Jose ph Arpaio,)

Maricopa County Sheriff, in his official )

14 capacity; William G. Montgom ery,)

Maricopa County Attorney, in his official)

15 capacity,

)

)

16

Defendants.

)

)

17

)

No. CV 08-660-PHX-SRB ORDER

18

19 The Court now considers Plaintiffs Angel Lopez-Valenzuela, Isaac Castro-Armenta,
20 and the certified class’s Motion for Sum mary Judgment (“Pls.’ MSJ”) (Doc. 203) and
21 Defendants Maricopa County and Joseph Arpaio’s Motion for Partial Sum mary Judgment
22 (“Defs.’ MSJ”) (Doc. 198), which has been joined by Defendant William Montgomery, in
23 his capacity as Maricopa County Attorney1. The Court heard oral argument on these Motions
24 on December 13, 2010. (See Doc. 232, Minute Entry.)
25

26

1 Defendants’ MSJ was joined by Defenda nt Richard Romley, who was then the

27 Maricopa County Attorney. (Doc. 204, Joinder at 1-2.) Defendant William Montgomery is

the current Maricopa County Attorney. ( See Doc. 235, Notice of Na me Change & 28 Substitution of Maricopa Cnty. Att’y.)

Case 2:08-cv-00660-SRB Document 246 Filed 03/29/11 Page 2 of 17

1 I. BACKGROUND

2

On November 2, 2006, Arizona voters approved a ballot m easure known as

3 Proposition 100, which was referred to the ballot by the Arizona Legislature and amended

4 the Arizona Constitution to provide that no bailmay be set “[f]or serious felony offenses as

5 prescribed by the legislature if the person charged entered or remained in the United States

6 illegally and if the proof is evident or the presumption great as to the present charge.” (Pls.’

7 Separate Statement of Facts in Supp. of Pls.’ MSJ (“PSOF”) ¶ 11 (citing Ariz. Const. art. II,

8 § 22(A)(4)); see also Defs.’ Statement of Facts in Supp. of Defs.’ MSJ (“DSOF”) ¶ 1.) 2

9 Proposition 100 began as House Bill 2389, which was introduced by then-Arizona State

10 Representative Russell Pearce. (PSOF ¶¶ 1-7.) As passed by the voters, Proposition 100 did

11 not contain a definition of “serious felony offense.” I(d. ¶ 6.) The Legislature had previously

12 passed House Bill 2580, defining “serious felony offense” for purposes of Proposition 100

13 as any Class 1, 2, 3, or 4 felony. I(d. ¶¶ 8, 10.) On April 3, 2007, the Arizona Supreme Court

14 issued an administrative order, stating that, in applying Proposition 100, the standard of proof

15 for a finding that a defendant ha s entered or rem ained in the United S tates unlawfully is

16 probable cause; that standard was later codified by statute. (Id. ¶ 59; DSOF ¶ 9.)

17

The Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office (“MCSO”) and Maricopa County Attorney’s

18 Office (“MCAO”) developed policies to implement Proposition 100. (PSOF ¶ 61.) While in

19 custody and without receiving a Miranda warning, arrestees are a sked to com plete a

20 questionnaire, which includes questions about legal status in the United States.Id(. ¶¶ 62-63,

21 65.) MCSO deputies appear and testify at Porposition 100 Initial Appearances (“IAs”), where

22 initial bail determ inations are made. (Id. ¶¶ 69-71.) At an IA, the judicial officer m ust

23 ascertain the defendant’s name and address, informthe defendant of the charges against him,

24

25 2 In this Order, the Court cites to the PSOF where the facts contained therein are
26 undisputed for purposes of thes e Motions or where the Court finds that the reference to

27

evidence in the fact is accurate, is accurately characterized, and supports the factual proposition offered by Plaintiffs. The Court cites to the DSOF where appropriate, but as the

28 DSOF is a less comprehensive document, citations to the PSOF are more frequent.

- 2 -

Case 2:08-cv-00660-SRB Document 246 Filed 03/29/11 Page 3 of 17

1 tell the defendant of his rights to counsel and to rem ain silent, appoint counsel if the

2 defendant is eligible, and determine whether bail is appropriate.See Segura v. Cunanan, 196

3 P.3d 831, 836 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2008). Although prior to Proposition 100, neither prosecutors

4 nor defense attorneys regularly appeared at IAs, after the passage of Proposition 100, the

5 Maricopa County Attorney’s Office (“MCAO”) began requiring prosecutors to cover IAs or

6 to be available to appear at IAs to make arguments when appropriate. (PSOF ¶¶ 79-81.) After

7 Proposition 100 took effect, the head of the Maricopa County agency charged with public

8 defender and other indigent defense services opined that appointed defense counsel was now

9 necessary at IAs. ( Id. ¶ 73.) However, Maric opa County made a policy determ ination to

10 prohibit the use of county funds to provide appointed counsel for indigent defendants at

11 Proposition 100 IAs and directed the county indigent defense agencies to stop having defense

12 counsel appear at IAs. (Id. ¶ 74.)3

13

Pursuant to several decisions of the Arizona Court of Appeals, detainees have a right

14 to request a prompt bond hearing, but they a re not routinely informed of this right during

15 their IAs. (Id. ¶ 96); see also Segura, 196 P.3d at 837-39, 841, 843; Simpson v. Owens, 85

16 P.3d 478, 491-92 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2004).Simpson/Segura hearings must be held within seven

17 days of the request. Ariz. R. Crim. P. 7.4(b). Judicial officers presiding over IAs do not issue

18 oral or written statem ents of reasons for holding defendants nonbondable. (PSOF ¶ 98.)

19 Defendants are not perm itted to see the evidence the MCSO subm its in support of the

20 Proposition 100 nonbondability finding, either at the IA or at a later bond hearing. ( Id. ¶

21 101.) Until the Arizona Supreme Court set the standard for determining whether a person

22 entered or remained in the United S tates at probable cause, a higher standard was being

23 applied at IAs. (Id. ¶ 59; DSOF ¶¶ 8-9.) Before the Arizona Supreme Court’s administrative

24 order was issued, Proposition 100 defendants who later had Simpson/Segura hearings

25 succeeded in obtaining bond 94% of the tim e. (PSOF ¶ 104.) Since the probable cause

26

27

3 The vast majority of criminal defendants in Maricopa County, as in many places, are

28 indigent. (Id. ¶ 76.)

- 3 -

Case 2:08-cv-00660-SRB Document 246 Filed 03/29/11 Page 4 of 17

1 standard was instituted, the prosecution has virtually a 100% success rate in obtaining and

2 upholding determinations of nonbondability. (Id. ¶ 105.)

3

Plaintiffs’ Complaint contains seven claims, six of which remain.4 Plaintiffs claimthat

4 Proposition 100 and its im plementing procedures are unconstitutional because they: (A)

5 violate the substantive due process guarantee of the Fourteenth Am endment (Count One);

6 (B) violate the procedural due process guarantee of the Fourteenth Amendment on account

7 of the probable cause standard (Count Two) andthe procedures at the IA (Count Three); (C)

8 violate the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination (Count Four); (D) violate the

9 Sixth Amendment right to counsel (Count Five); and (E) violate the Excessive Bail Clause

10 of the Eighth Amendment (Count Six). (See Compl. ¶¶ 55-77.) Plaintiffs seek declaratory and

11 injunctive relief, as well as attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988I.d(. at 22-

12 23.) Plaintiffs now move for summary judgment on Counts One, Tw o, Three, and Six, as

13 well as Count Five, in the alternative. (Pls.’ MSJ at 1-2.) Plaintiffs reserve Count Four for

14 trial. (Id. at 2 n.1.) Defendants Maricopa County and Sheriff Arpaio m ove for pa rtial

15 summary judgment on Counts One, Two, Three, Five, and Six. (Defs.’ MSJ at 1-2.)

16 II. LEGAL STANDARDS AND ANALYSIS

17

A. Summary Judgment Standard

18

The standard for summary judgment is set forth in Rule 56(c) of the Federal Rules of

19 Civil Procedure. Under Rule 56, summary judgment is properly granted when: (1) no genuine

20 issues of material fact remain; and (2) after viewing the evidence m ost favorably to the

21 non-moving party, the movant is clearly entitled to prevail as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ.

22 P. 56; Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23 (1986);Eisenberg v. Ins. Co. of N. Am,.

23 815 F.2d 1285, 1288-89 (9th Cir. 1987). A fact is “m aterial” when, under the governing

24 substantive law, it could affect the outcome of the case. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc,. 477

25 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). A “genuine issue” of material fact arises if “the evidence is such that

26

27

4 The Court previously dismissed Count Seven in an Order signe d by the Court on

28 December 8, 2008. (See Doc. 47, Dec. 8, 2008, Order at 10-14.)

- 4 -

Case 2:08-cv-00660-SRB Document 246 Filed 03/29/11 Page 5 of 17

1 a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party.” Id.

2

In considering a m otion for summary judgment, the court m ust regard as true the

3 non-moving party’s evidence, if it is supported by affidavits or other evidentiary ma terial.

4 Celotex, 477 U.S. at 324;Eisenberg, 815 F.2d at 1289. However, the non-moving party may

5 not merely rest on its pleadings; it must produce some significant probative evidence tending

6 to contradict the m oving party’s allegations, thereby creating a m aterial question of fact.

7 Anderson, 477 U.S. at 256-57 (holding that the plaintiff must present affirmative evidence

8 in order to defeat a properly supported motion for summary judgment); First Nat’l Bank of

9 Ariz. v. Cities Serv. Co., 391 U.S. 253, 289 (1968).

10

B. Facial Challenge vs. As-Applied Challenge

11

Plaintiffs challenge Proposition 100 both on its face and as applied to the members

12 of the certified class.5 (See Pls.’ MSJ at 15, 28.) “A facial challenge to a legislative Act is,

13 of course, the m ost difficult challenge to m ount successfully, since the challenger m ust

14 establish that no set of circum stances exists under which the Act would be valid.” United

15 States v. Salerno , 481 U.S. 739, 745 (1987). The Supreme Court later observed, in

16 considering a facial challenge, “[S]ome Members of the Court have criticized the Salerno

17 formulation, [but] all agree that a facial challenge must fail where a statute has a ‘plainly

18 legitimate sweep.’” Wash. State Grange v. Wash. StateRepublican Party, 552 U.S. 442, 449

19 (2008) (quoting Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702, 739-40 & n.7 (1997) (Stevens, J.,

20 concurring in judgments)). In deciding a facial challenge, courts “must be careful not to go

21 beyond the statute’s facial requirements and speculate about ‘hypothetical’ or ‘imaginary’

22 cases.” Id. at 449-50 (quoting United States v. Raines, 362 U.S. 17, 22 (1960)).

23

C. Substantive Due Process: Count One

24

The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Am endment provides: “[N]or shall any

25

26

5 The Court certified a class in this matter defined as follows: “[a]ll persons who have

27

been or will be ineligible for release on bond by an Arizona state court in Maricopa County pursuant to Section 22(A)(4) of the ArizonaConstitution and A.R.S. § 13-3961(A)(5).” (Dec.

28 8, 2008, Order at 19.)

- 5 -

Case 2:08-cv-00660-SRB Document 246 Filed 03/29/11 Page 6 of 17

1 State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” U.S. Const.

2 amend. XIV, § 1. To prevail on a claimfor a violation of the Due Process Clause, a plaintiff

3 must show (1) that the defendant deliberately abused his power without any reasonable

4 justification, in aid of any government interest or objective, and only to oppress, in a way that

5 shocks the conscience (substantive due process)or (2) that the defendant denied the plaintiff

6 a specific right protected by the federal constitution, without procedures ensuring fairness

7 (procedural due process). Sandin v. Conner , 515 U.S. 472, 483-484 (1995); Daniels v.

8 Williams, 474 U.S. 327, 331 (1986). Substantive due process rights are those that are not

9 otherwise constitutionally protected but are “so rooted in the traditions and conscience of our

10 people as to be ranked as fundamental” and “implicit in the concept of ordered liberty, such

11 that neither liberty nor justice would exist if [they] were sacrificed.” Glucksberg, 521 U.S.

12 at 721 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).

13

The Supreme Court established the standard for evaluating substantive due process

14 challenges to bail statutes inSalerno. See 481 U.S. at 746-47.Salerno sets forth two tests to

15 determine whether a bail statute imposes punishment before trial, which is unconstitutional,

16 or, instead, simply serves a regulatory purpose and is intended to ensure the appearance of

17 the person for trial. Id.; see also Bell v. Wolfish , 441 U.S. 520, 535-37 & n.16 (1979)

18 (explaining the policy behind the due process analysis of conditions or restrictions of pretrial

19 detention). “To determ ine whether a restriction on liberty constitutes im permissible

20 punishment or permissible regulation, we first look to legislative intent.”Salerno, 481 U.S.

21 at 747 (citing Schall v. Martin, 467 U.S. 253, 269 (1984)). If the legislature did not have an

22 express intent to punish, then “the punitive/regulatory distinction turns on whether an

23 alternative purpose to which [the restriction] may rationally be connected is assignable for

24 it, and whether it appears excessive in relation to the alternative purpose assigned [to i.”t]Id.

25 (internal quotation and citation omitted). In other words, where a legislature does not express

26 a punitive intent, a bail regulation can still be unconstitutional if it is excessive in relation to

27 a legitimate alternative purpose, such as flight risk or danger to the community.

28

1. Intent to Punish

- 6 -

Case 2:08-cv-00660-SRB Document 246 Filed 03/29/11 Page 7 of 17

1

Plaintiffs argue that “the effect and purpose of Proposition 100 is to jail defendants

2 as a punishment for past immigration violations, rather than to ensure their appearance at

3 trial.” (Pls.’ MSJ at 6.) Plaintiffs contend that the categorical bar to individua lized bail

4 determinations reflects an im proper legislative intent. ( Id. at 6-7.) In support of this

5 argument, Plaintiffs have submitted extensive evidence of the pertinent legislative history.

6 (See PSOF ¶¶ 12-27.) Although Proposition 100 was passed as a voter referendu,mthe Court

7 looks to the legislative record, as well as to statements made during the referendumdrive and

8 in election materials, in determining legislative intent.See City of Cuyahoga Falls v. Buckeye

9 Cmty. Hope Found., 538 U.S. 188, 196-97 (2003). Statem ents of legislators are not given

10 “controlling effect, but when the y are consistent with the statutory language and other

11 legislative history, they provide evidence of [the legislature’si]ntent.” Brock v. Pierce Cnty.,

12 476 U.S. 253, 263 (1986) (citing Grove City Coll. v. Bell , 465 U.S. 555, 567 (1984)).

13 Statements made by the sponsor of a piece of legislation “deserve[ ] to be accorded

14 substantial weight in interpreting [a] statute.” Fed. Energy Admin. v. Algonquin SNG, Inc.,

15 426 U.S. 548, 564 (1976) (citations omitted).

16

Plaintiffs point to num erous portions of the legislative record they claim indicate

17 “Proposition 100’s punitive nature.” (Pls.’ MSJ at 7-10.) During committee hearings on the

18 prospective law, several legislators m ade statements related to the goal of controlling

19 unauthorized immigration and securing the border. ( See, e.g., Doc. 188, Decl. I of Tyler

20 Cook (“Cook Decl. I”), Ex. A; Doc. 186, Decl. I of Sharon Breslin, Ex. A; Doc. 192, Decl.

21 II of Angela Liebl (“Liebl Decl. II”), Ex. AD; oc. 185, Decl. of Jesutine Breidenbach, Ex. A.)

22 Then-Representative Russell Pearce, the sponsor of the bill, m ade many statements that

23 suggest that his goal in drafting the legislation was to address the “serious problems in this

24 country with violent aliens.” (E.g., Liebl Decl. II, Ex. A at 3:22-23.) Mr. Pearce stated during

25 a House Judiciary Committee Meeting, “These people are not in our country legally and have

26 no roots, have committed a serious crime while violating our sovereignty and shouldn’t be

27 here in the first place. And y es, I think it rises to a different level than folks who commit

28 crimes . . . .” (Cook Decl. I, Ex. A at 5:7-10.) Plaintiffs assert that the anim ating purpose

- 7 -

Case 2:08-cv-00660-SRB Document 246 Filed 03/29/11 Page 8 of 17

1 behind Proposition 100 was to punish people who are in the country without authorization

2 for their previous crime of unlawfully entering or remaining in the United States, rather than

3 an appropriate bail consideration such as flight risk or dangerousness. (Pls.’ MSJ at 7.)

4

The Arizona Legislature ma de no form al findings regarding the purpose of

5 Proposition 100. The legislative histor y suggests that Proposition 100 m ay have been

6 motivated by a desire to punish for past crim es, but there is also evidence that le gislators

7 considered the issue of flight risk. For in stance, immediately after making the statement

8 quoted above, Mr. Pearce said, “We already have pretty good bail requirements, but again,

9 one of them is . . . flight risk[,]and this goes directly toward that flight risk, the issue relevant

10 to bondability.” (Cook Decl. I, Ex. A at 5:10-12s;ee also id.at 3:16-18 (Mr. Pearce: “[I]f you

11 are in this country illegally and commit a serious crime, . . . you are a flight risk, you’ve got

12 no roots, you can go home any day . . . .”).) During the same hearing, another legislator asked

13 Mr. Pearce, “[D]o you have any evidence to show that foreign nationals . . . pose more of a

14 flight risk than U.S. citizens?” (Id. at 4:7-9.) No one came forward at the time with evidence

15 to support his claim that people who are unlawfully present in the United States are

16 categorically more of a flight risk than people who are not unlawfully present, nor have

17 Defendants in this matter presented evidence to that effect. (See PSOF ¶¶ 32-40.) However,

18 the Court agrees with Defendants that the Arizona Legislature–unlike the United States

19 Congress–comprises “citizen legislators” who do not have access to the type of resources,

20 both in terms of money and staff, that federal legislators do. (See Mot. Hr’g Tr. 25:2-4, Dec.

21 13, 2010 (“Hr’g Tr.”).)

22

Defendants point to Mr. Pearce’s deposition testimony in this case as evidence of his

23 proper purpose in drafting and sponsoring Proposition 100. (Defs.’ Resp. to Pls.’ MSJ at 8.)

24 Mr. Pearce’s statements during his deposition regarding flight risk are contradicted by other

25 portions of the same deposition. In addition, the Court assigns significantly greater weight

26 to evidence fromthe legislative history that demonstrates the legislature’s purpose at the time

27 Proposition 100 was debated and referred to the voters than to the post hoc deposition

28 testimony of the law’s sponsor. ( See Docs. 180-82, Decl. of Andre I. Segura & Attach.

- 8 -

Case 2:08-cv-00660-SRB Document 246 Filed 03/29/11 Page 9 of 17

1 (“Segura Decl.”), Ex. E, Pearce Dep., vol. 1, 49:11-50:13; Segura Decl., Ex. F, Pearce Dep.,

2 vol. 2, 12:1-14, 25:12-22, 43:20-44:4, 86:3-12, 115:20-116:3.);cf. Gustafson v. Alloyd Co.,

3 Inc., 513 U.S. 561, 579 (1995) (“Material not available to the lawmakers is not considered,

4 in the normal course, to be legislative history.After-the-fact statements . . . are not a reliable

5 indicator of what Congress intended when it passed the law . . . .”);Wash. Cnty. v. Gunther,

6 452 U.S. 161, 176 n.16 (1981) (observing that the Supreme Court is “normally hesitant to

7 attach much weight to comments made [by legislators] after the passage of the legislation,”

8 and, because the statem ents at issue were contradictory, “giv[ing] them no weight at all”

9 (citation omitted)); Int’l Bhd. of Teamsters v. United States, 431 U.S. 324, 354 n.39 (1977)

10 (assigning “little if any weight” to after-the-fact statements of legislators).

11

The Court considers the m aterials and media to which voters were exposed to be

12 neutral on the question of punitive intent. Th e voter m aterials contained som e official

13 statements reflecting a punitive purpose, but ultimately the message was mixed.6 The official

14 voter information guide provided voters with four statements in favor of Proposition 100 and

15 one against. Mr. Pearce’s statem ent said, “Illegal aliens that com mit a crime [sic] are an

16 extremely difficult challenge for law enforcement and growing threat to our citizens. Large,

17 well-organized gangs of illegal aliens have flooded many neighborhoods with violence to the

18 point that Arizona now has the highest crime rate in the nation.” (Doc. 183, Decl. of Anne

19 Lai, Ex. EE at 1.) A candidate for governor subm itted a statement in favor of Proposition

20 100, saying, “This Ballot Measure addresses one area that needs to be resolved in this fight

21 to secure our borders and reduce the leve l of crime in our neighborhoods.” (Id. at 2.) The

22 voter pamphlet also discussed flight risk, though: “Illegal immigrants accused of committing

23 serious felonies in Arizona should not be allowed to make bail and flee the country before

24 standing trial for their crimes.” (Id. at 1.) Plaintiffs have subm itted news articles from the

25 pertinent time period, one of which describesProposition 100 as one of “a foursome of ballot

26

27

6 In considering a voter referendumsuch as this one, it is appropriate for courts to look

to voter materials as a means of assessing motive. See, e.g., Coal. for Econ. Equity v. Wilson,

28 122 F.3d 692, 696-98 (9th Cir. 1997).

- 9 -

Case 2:08-cv-00660-SRB Document 246 Filed 03/29/11 Page 10 of 17

1 measures aimed at curbing illegal immigration.” (Segura Decl., Ex. A at 1.)7 But other news

2 coverage addressed flight risk. (See id., Ex. B at 1 (“An illegal immigrant is, without a doubt,

3 a high [flight] risk because of the ability to com e in and go out of the country when they

4 please.”); id., Ex. D at 4 (Andrew Thomas: “Arizona has a tremendous problem with illegal

5 immigrants coming into the state, committing serious crimes, and then absconding and not

6 facing trial for their crimes, either because they jump bail after they are let out, or because,

7 when they are let out on bail, the federal government deports them.”).) The Court finds that

8 the voter materials and media coverage do not establish that Proposition 100 has a punitive

9 purpose.

10

Having reviewed the voluminous evidence submitted in this case, the Court finds that

11 the record as a whole does not support a finding that Proposition 100 was motivated by an

12 improper punitive purpose. While some statements by legislators relate to controlling illegal

13 immigration, other pieces of evidence show that Proposition 100’s purpose is regulatory.

14 Moreover, Proposition 100 was ultim ately approved by Arizona voters, so that reduces

15 somewhat the importance of the legislative record. Proposition 100 does not violateSalerno’s

16 first test.

17

2. Excessive in Relation to Legitimate Interest

18

The Court further concludes that Proposition 100 is not excessive in relation to the

19 government’s legitimate interest in controlling flight risk of people accused of certain

20 felonies. The Arizona legislature and Arizona voters m ade the logical assum ption that a

21 person who is unlawfully pres ent in the United S tates may not appear for trial. ( See, e.g.,

22 Cook Decl. I, Ex. A at 5:10-12; see also id. at 3:16-18 (Mr. Pearce: “[I] f you are in this

23 country illegally and commit a serious crime, . . . you are a flight risk, you’ve got no roots,

24 you can go home any day . . . .”).)

25

26

7 It is also proper for courts to look to contem poraneous media coverage when

27

considering the constitutionality of a voter referendum . See, e.g., City of L.A. v. Cnty. of Kern, 509 F. Supp. 2d 865, 876-80 (C.D. Cal. 2007),rev’d on other grounds, 581 F.3d 841

28 (9th Cir. 2009).

- 10 -

Case 2:08-cv-00660-SRB Document 246 Filed 03/29/11 Page 11 of 17

1

In Salerno, the Supreme Court upheld the federal Bail ReformAct (the “Act”) against

2 a substantive due process cha llenge, noting that the Act “lim its the circumstances under

3 which detention may be sought to the most serious of crimes.” 481 U.S. at 747 (analyzing

4 18 U.S.C. § 3142(f), which makes available a detention hearing if the case involves “crimes

5 of violence, offenses for which the sentence is life im prisonment or death, serious drug

6 offenses, or certain repeat offenders”). However, the Act focused on a different rationale for

7 holding a person nonbondable, namely “that no release conditions ‘will reasonably a ssure

8 . . . the safety of any other person and the com munity.’” Id. at 741 (quoting 18 U.S .C. §

9 3142(e)(1)). The parties agree that Proposition 100 is aim ed only at flight risk, not

10 dangerousness. (See Hr’g Tr. 6:5-9.)

11

Therefore, the analysis in Salerno concerning the scope of the Act’s reach is not

12 analogous to the instant m atter. See 481 U.S. at 747-51. Proposition 100 reaches a larger

13 number of crimes than the Act, but, given the goal of targeting flight risk, not dangerousness,

14 it is not excessive. The government has the burden of proof under the Act to demonstrate a

15 person’s dangerousness by clear and convincing evidence, but Proposition 100 is not

16 concerned with dangerousness, so a less stringent standard is also not excessive. Compare

17 A.R.S. § 13-3961(A)(5), with 18 U.S.C. § 3142(f)(2). Ultim ately, the Supreme Court in

18 Salerno concluded that the Act appropriately balanced the individual’s right to liberty with

19 the government’s compelling interest. 481 U.S. at 750-51. Likewise, the Court finds that

20 Arizona’s Proposition 100, like the Act, “focuses on a particularly acute problem in which

21 the [g]overnment interests are overwhelming.” Id. at 750.

22

For reasons discussed more fully below, the Court also concludes that the procedural

23 protections afforded to defendants subject to Proposition 100 keep it from being excessive

24 in relation to the goal of assuring appearance at trial. A defendant may move for a hearing

25 pursuant to Segura, 196 P.3d at 837-39, 841, 843, and Simpson, 85 P.3d at 491-92, and the

26 hearing must be conducted within seven days of the motion. See Ariz. R. Crim. P. 7.4(b). The

27 Arizona Court of Appeals has held that these hearings satisfy substantive due process

28 standards, and this Court agrees. See Segura, 196 P.3d at 843-44; Hernandez v. Lynch, 167

- 11 -

Case 2:08-cv-00660-SRB Document 246 Filed 03/29/11 Page 12 of 17

1 P.3d 1264, 1270-75 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2008); Simpson, 85 P.3d at 482-95. Like the Arizona

2 Court of Appeals, this Court finds “that Proposition 100 is a legitimate regulatory provision

3 ensuring that [unlawfully present aliens] accused of certain serious felonies appear to stand

4 trial and that it does not cast an unreasonably wide net.”Hernandez, 167 P.3d at 1270 (citing

5 Simpson, 85 P.3d at 486). 8 Therefore, no triable issues of fact remain. The Court grants

6 Defendants summary judgment on Count One of the Complaint.

7

D. Procedural Due Process: Counts Two and Three

8

Plaintiffs also move for summary judgment on their procedural due process claims,

9 Counts Two and Three. (Pls.’ MSJ at 17-19.) “When government action depriving a person

10 of life, liberty, or property survives substantive due pr ocess scrutiny, it m ust still be

11 implemented in a fair m anner. This requirem ent has traditionally been refe rred to as

12 ‘procedural’ due process.” Salerno, 481 U.S. at 746 (citing Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S.

13 319, 335 (1976)). The Court finds that Proposition 100 does not deprive Plaintiffs of their

14 procedural due process rights.

15

In Salerno, the Supreme Court emphasized the significant “procedural safeguards”

16 in place that permitted judges applying the Act to make an individualized determination in

17 each case. See id. at 742-43. The Act requires a prom pt, adversarial detention hearing,

18 wherein the detainee has the right to counsel, may testify on his own behalf, may “present

19 information by proffer or otherwise, and cross-exam ine witnesses who appear at the

20 hearing.” Id. at 751; see also 18 U.S.C. § 3142(f)-(g). The judicial officer m aking the

21 detention determination under the Act “is guided by statutorily enumerated factors, which

22 include the nature and the circum stances of the charges, the weight of the evidence, the

23 history and characteristics of the putative offender, and the danger to the community.”

24

25

8 Moreover, the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure give criminal trials priority over

civil trials in terms of timing and establish that defendants in custody are entitled to be tried

26 within 150 days of arraignment. See Ariz. R. Crim. P. 8.1(a), 8.2(a)(1). While this time limit

27

is subject to certain exceptions and exclusions, those extensions are largely within the control of the defendant. E.g., Ariz. R. Crim . P. 8.2(a)(3); 8.2(d); 8.4; 8.5. Therefore, pretrial

28 detention is, by its nature, relatively brief.

- 12 -

Case 2:08-cv-00660-SRB Document 246 Filed 03/29/11 Page 13 of 17

1 Salerno, 481 U.S. at 751-52 (citing 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g )). The judicial officer m ust issue

2 written findings of fact and a written statement of reasons if he or she decides to detain the

3 individual. Id. at 752 (citing 18 U.S.C. § 3142(i)). The governm ent must prove that a

4 defendant is a danger to the community by clear and convincing evidence, pursuant to the

5 Act. Id. (citing 18 U.S.C. § 3142(f)). A de termination of detention under the Act is

6 immediately appealable. 18 U.S.C. § 3142(c).

7

In Simpson, the Arizona Court of Appeals held that “at least most of the procedural

8 protections enunciated in Salerno” are necessary for a state bail provision to com ply with

9 procedural due process. 85 P.3d at 492. The issue here is whether defe ndants subject to

10 Proposition 100 must be afforded those protectionsat the IA or whether the right to move for

11 a Simpson/Segura hearing is sufficient to assure adequate procedural due process. The Court

12 finds that Simpson/Segura hearings provide enough process to protect the rights of people

13 subject to Proposition 100. An IA is, by its natur,ebrief, but a defendant who moves for a full

14 bail hearing has the right to counsel, m ay testify on his own behalf, m ay present other

15 evidence, and may cross-examine witnesses for the government. See Segura, 196 P.3d at 240.

16

The competing interests at stake are a defendants liberty and the government’s

need to ensure his presence for trial. On balance each of these interests is

17

protected by allowing a defendant to be held after an [IA] for a rea sonable

period of time while both parties are given the opportunity to prepare for a full

18

hearing on the no-bail determination.

19 Id. (citing Hernandez, 167 P.3d at 1272-75)). The Arizona Rules of Crim inal Procedure

20 require that any Simpson/Segura hearing be held “not later than seven days after filing of the

21 motion,” so any detention between an IA and a full hearing will be brief.See Ariz. R. Crim.

22 P. 7.4(b). Like in Salerno, “these extensive safeguards suffice to repel a facial challenge.”

23 481 U.S. at 752.

24

The Court also finds that the use of the probable cause standard does not violate

25 procedural due process. As discussed above, the Act applies the clear and convincing

26 standard only to determinations of dangerousness; a preponderance of the evidence standard

27 is applied to flight risk. See 18 U.S.C. § 3142(f)(2); United States v. Gebro, 948 F.2d 1118,

28 1121 (9th Cir. 1991) (“On a motion for pretrial detention, the government bears the burden

- 13 -

Case 2:08-cv-00660-SRB Document 246 Filed 03/29/11 Page 14 of 17

1 of showing by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant poses a flight risk, and by

2 clear and convincing evidence that the defendant poses a danger to the community.”(citing

3 United States v. Motamedi, 767 F.2d 1403, 1405 (9th Cir. 1985))). Clear and convincing is

4 a significantly higher standard than either probable cause or preponderance of the evidence.

5 The Court finds that the difference between a preponderance of the evidence sta ndard and

6 a probable cause standard does not amount to a procedural due process violation.

7

No genuine issue of m aterial fact rem ains as to whether Proposition 100 is

8 implemented in a fair m anner. See Salerno, 481 U.S. at 746 (citing Mathews, 424 U.S. at

9 335). Accordingly, Defendants are entitled to summary judgment on Counts Two and Three

10 of Plaintiffs’ Complaint.

11

E. Eighth Amendment: Count Six

12

The Eighth Amendment provides, “Excessive bail shall not be required.” U.S. Const.

13 amend. VIII, cl. 1. “This Clause, of course, saynsothing about whether bail shall be available

14 at all.” Salerno, 481 U.S. 752. The Salerno court observed that “‘the very language of the

15 [Eighth] Amendment fails to say that all arrests m ust be bailable.’” Id. at 754 (quoting

16 Carlson v. Landon, 342 U.S. 524, 545-46).

17

The only arguable substantive lim itation of the Bail Clause is that the

Government’s proposed conditions of release not be ‘excessive’ in light of the

18

perceived evil. . . . [T] o determine whether the Governm ent’s response is

excessive, we must compare that response against the interest the Government

19

seeks to protect by means of that response.

20 Id. The Court has already concluded that Proposition 100 is not excessive in relation to the

21 goal of ensuring that c riminal defendants appear for trial. The reasoning related to

22 substantive due process,supra, applies equally in the Eighth Amendment context. Cf. United

23 States v. Portes, 786 F.2d 758, 766 (7th Cir. 1985) (holding that the Eighth Aemndment does

24 not create a constitutional right to bail and that Congress and the sta tes may regulate bail

25 determinations); United States v. Moore, 607 F. Supp. 489, 493 (N.D. Cal. 1985) (observing

26 that, while “legislative determinations regarding the right to bail cannot be arbitrary,” the

27 Eighth Amendment does not prevent legislatures frommaking certain offenses nonbailable).

28 Therefore, Proposition 100 does not violate the Eighth Am endment, and Defendants are

- 14 -

Case 2:08-cv-00660-SRB Document 246 Filed 03/29/11 Page 15 of 17

1 entitled to summary judgment on Count Six of the Complaint.

2

F. Sixth Amendment: Count Five

3

In the alternative, Plaintiffs move for summary judgment on their Sixth Amendment

4 challenge to Maricopa County’s policy of not perm itting appointed defense counsel at

5 Proposition 100 IAs. (Pls.’ MSJ at 20.) Plaintiffs argue that “Proposition 100 fundamentally

6 changed the nature of [IAs] , making them more com plex and triggering the need for

7 counsel.” (Id.) The Supreme Court “has held that the right to counsel guaranteed by the Sixth

8 Amendment applies at the first appearance before a judicial officer at which a defendant is

9 told of the form al accusation against him and restrictions are im posed on his liberty.”

10 Rothgery v. Gillespie Cnty., 554 U.S. 191, 194 (2008) (citing Brewer v. Williams, 430 U.S.

11 387, 398-399 (1977); Michigan v. Jackson, 475 U.S. 625, 629 n.3 (1986)). The right to

12 counsel attaches when “a prosecution is com menced,” which can be marked by a “formal

13 charge, preliminary hearing, indictment, information, or arraignment.” Id. at 198 (internal

14 quotations and citations om itted). Once the right to counse l attaches, “counsel m ust be

15 appointed within a reasonable amount of time,” and the defendant “is entitled to the presence

16 of appointed counsel during any ‘critical stage’ of the postattachm ent proceedings.” Id. at

17 212. “[C]ritical stages [are] proceedings between an individual and agents of the State

18 (whether formal or informal, in court or out) that amount to trial-like confrontations, at which

19 counsel would help the accused in coping with legal problems or . . . meeting his adversary.”

20 Id. at 212 n.16 (internal quotations and citations omitted).

21

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals identif ied three factors “useful in determ ining

22 whether an event” is a critical stage:

23

First, if failure to pursue strategies or remedies results in a loss of significant

rights, then Sixth Am endment protections attach. Second, where skilled

24

counsel would be useful in helping the a ccused understand the legal

confrontation, we find that a critical stage exists. Third, the right to counsel

25

applies if the proceeding tests the merits of the accused’s case.

26 United States v. Bohn, 890 F.2d 1079, 1080-81 (9th Cir. 1989) (quoting Menefield v. Borg,

27 881 F.2d 696, 698-99 (9th Cir. 1989)). The Arizona Suprem e Court has he ld that, “[i]n

28 Arizona, an initial appearance is a proceeding at which a person is a dvised of his right to

- 15 -

Case 2:08-cv-00660-SRB Document 246 Filed 03/29/11 Page 16 of 17

1 counsel and steps are taken toward obtaining counsel for subsequent proceedings. Hence, no

2 right to an attorney exists at the initial appearance on the day of the arrest.” State v. Cook,

3 724 P.2d 556, 561 (1986).

4

The Court finds that Proposition 100 IAs are not critical stages of the prosecution. In

5 Arizona, an IA–even a Proposition 100 IA–is not a prelim inary hearing. An IA must take

6 place within 24 hours of an arrest. Ariz. R. Crim. P. 4.1(a). If the person was arrested without

7 a warrant, a complaint must be filed within 48 hours of the IA. Ariz. R. Crim. P. 4.1(b).

8

At the person’s [IA] the m agistrate must do certain presc ribed things,

including: ascertaining the defendant’s true name and address, informing the

9

defendant of the charges, informing the defendant of the right to counsel and

the right to remain silent, determining whether probable cause exists for the

10

purpose of release from custody, appointing counsel if the defendant is

eligible, and determining the release conditions, if any.

11

Segura, 196 P.3d at 836. No plea is entered at the IA. Cf. White v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 59,

12

60 (1963). If a complaint is filed after the IA, a preliminary hearing to determine probable

13

cause is held no later than 10 days after the IA if the defendant is in custody, unless the

14

defendant waives the hearing. Ariz. R. Crim. P. 5.3(a).

15

Thus, IAs are brief, administrative proceedings at which the defendants’ “failure to

16

pursue strategies or remedies” does not “result[] in a loss of significant rights.” Bohn, 890

17

F.2d at 1080. Moreover, the Court finds that “skilled counsel” is unnecessary to help “the

18

accused understand the legal confrontation” because the m atters at issue are largely

19

ministerial and, in fact, include the appointment of counsel if appropriate. See id. at 1081.

20

Finally, IAs do not “test[]the merits of the accused’s case.”Id. No genuine issue of material

21

fact remains as to Plaintiffs’ Sixth Amendment claim; Defendants are entitled to summary

22

judgment on Count 5 of the Complaint.

23

III. CONCLUSION

24

For the reasons stated above, the Court finds that no triable issues of fact remain as

25

to Counts One, Two, Three, Five, and Six of Plaintiffs’ Com plaint and grants Defendants

26

summary judgment on those five claims.

27

IT IS ORDEREDdenying Plaintiffs Angel Lopez-Valenzuela, Isaac Castro-Armenta,

28

- 16 -

Case 2:08-cv-00660-SRB Document 246 Filed 03/29/11 Page 17 of 17

1 and the certified class’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 203).

2

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED granting Defendants Maricopa County and Joseph

3 Arpaio’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Doc. 198). The Clerk is directed to enter

4 judgment in this matter in favor of Defendantswith respect to Counts One, Two, Three, Five,

5 and Six of the Complaint.

6

7

DATED this 29th day of March, 2011.

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 17 -

 
 Case 2:08-cv-00660-SRB Document 255 Filed 05/13/11 Page 1 of 4

1

2

3

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

4

5

6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8

9 Angel Lopez-Valenzuela; Isaac Castro- )

Armenta,

)

10

)

Plaintiffs,

)

11

)

vs.

)

12

)

)

13 Maricopa County; Jose ph Arpaio,)

Maricopa County Sheriff, in his official )

14 capacity; William G. Montgom ery,)

Maricopa County Attorney, in his official)

15 capacity,

)

)

16

Defendants.

)

)

17

)

No. CV 08-660-PHX-SRB ORDER

18

19

Pending before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Motion to Dism iss Count Four Without

20 Prejudice and Motion for Final Judgment (“MTD”) (Doc. 249).

21 I. BACKGROUND

22

Plaintiffs’ Complaint contains seven claims challenging Arizona’s Proposition 100,

23 one of which remains. Plaintiffs claim that Proposition 100 and its implementing procedures

24 are unconstitutional because they: (A) violate the substantive due process guarantee of the

25 Fourteenth Amendment (Count One); (B) violate the procedural due process guarantee of the

26 Fourteenth Amendment on account of the probable cause standard (Count Two) and the

27 procedures at the initial appearance (Count Three); (C) violate the Fifth Amendment right

28 against self-incrimination (Count Four); (D) violate the Sixth Amendment right to counsel

Case 2:08-cv-00660-SRB Document 255 Filed 05/13/11 Page 2 of 4

1 (Count Five); (E) violate the Excessive Bail Clause of the Eighth Amendment (Count Six);

2 and (F) violate the Supremacy Clause (Count Seven). (See Doc. 1, Compl. ¶¶ 55-82.) The

3 Court dismissed Count Seven in an Order signed by the Court on December 8, 2008. (See

4 Doc. 47, Dec. 8, 2008, Order at 10-14.) In an Order dated March 29, 2011 (the “Summary

5 Judgment Order”), the Court granted summary judgment in favor of Defendants on Counts

6 One, Two, Three, Five, and Six of the Complaint. (See Doc. 246, Summ. J. Order at 16-17.)

7 Unlike the facial challenges contained in their other claim s, Count Four targe ts the

8 implementation of Proposition 100. (Compl. ¶¶ 66-70.) Plaintiffs reserved Count Four for

9 trial. (Summ. J. Order at 4.) Plaintiffs now move to amend the Complaint to dismiss Count

10 Four, the only remaining claim in this action, without prejudice. (MTD at 1.) Plaintiffs also

11 seek entry of final judgment on Counts One, Two, Three, Five, Six, and Seven. (Id.)

12 II. LEGAL STANDARDS AND ANALYSIS

13

Plaintiffs move to dismiss Count Four without prejudice so that they can pursue an

14 appeal of the Summary Judgment Order. (MTD at 2.) Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

15 15(a), the Court may grant Plaintiffs leave to amend the Complaint in order to dismiss one

16 or more claims. See Hells Canyon Pres. Council v. United States Forest Serv,.403 F.3d 683,

17 689 (9th Cir. 2005). Rule 15(a) states that leave to amend a pleading “shall be freely given

18 when justice so requires.” Accord Foman v. Davis , 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962) (leave to

19 amend should be freely granted absent an apparent reason such as undue delay, bad faith,

20 dilatory motive, repeated failure to cure deficiencies, undue prejudice, and futility of

21 amendment); Moore v. Kayport Package Express, Inc., 885 F.2d 531, 538 (9th Cir. 1989)

22 (same).

23

Defendants argue that the Court should deny Plaintiffs leave to am end because a

24 dismissal without prejudice will lead to a lack of finality and the potential for “piecem eal

25 litigation.” (Defs.’ Resp. in Opp’n to MTD at 2.) Defendants a nalogize to a m otion for

26 judgment pursuant to Rule 54(b). (Id.) However, Rule 54(b) is implemented in situations in

27 which a party seeks a final judgment on certain claims or against certain defendants so that

28 an appeal can proceed, while another portion of the case continues in the district court.See

- 2 -

Case 2:08-cv-00660-SRB Document 255 Filed 05/13/11 Page 3 of 4

1 Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); see also Adonican v. City of L.A., 297 F.3d 1106, 1107-08 (9th Cir.

2 2002) (explaining that Rule 54(b) is the proper mechanism to obtain a judgment on some, but

3 not all, of the claims in a case before proceeding with the rest of the case).

4

Here, Plaintiffs do not seek appellate review of the Summary Judgment Order while

5 continuing to pursue Count Four. Instead, they state that they ma y or may not refile their

6 claim challenging the implementation of Proposition 100 after they pursue their appeal of the

7 Summary Judgment Order. (MTD at 3.) While there is som e overlap be tween the

8 considerations involved in a pplying Rules 15(a) and 54(b), Defendants’ analogy is

9 unpersuasive. Plaintiffs wish to forgo litigation on Count Four, not pursue it in the district

10 court while their other claims move through the court of appeals. A motion under Rule 15(a)

11 is the appropriate manner in which to do this.See Hells Canyon, 403 F.3d at 689 (explaining

12 that a Rule 41(a) voluntary dismissal of part of an action is properly labeled an amendment

13 under Rule 15 because Rule 41(a) only encompasses dismissal of an entire action or an entire

14 defendant).

15

A motion for voluntary dismissal should be granted “unless a defendant can show that

16 it will suffer some plain legal prejudice as a result.”Smith v. Lenches, 263 F.3d 972, 975 (9th

17 Cir. 2001) (citations om itted). “[L]egal prejudice means prejudice to som e legal interest,

18 some legal claim, some legal argument.” Id. at 976 (internal quotation and citation omitted).

19 Defendants have not shown that they will experience plain legal prejudice if the Court grants

20 Plaintiffs’ Motion. Defendants might be inconvenienced by a dsimissal without prejudice and

21 the possibility of future litigation of Count Four, but that does not justify denying Plaintiffs’

22 request to amend their Complaint in order to effectuate a voluntary dismissal of the one

23 remaining claim in this action. See Mechmetals Corp. v. Telex Computer Prods., Inc., 709

24 F.2d 1287, 1294 (9th Cir. 1983) (“The Supreme Court has stated that ‘the mere prospect of

25 a second lawsuit’ is not the type of prejudice that should prevent the district court from

26 granting voluntary dismissal without prejudice . . . .” (quotingCone v. W. Va. Pulp & Paper

27 Corp., 330 U.S. 212, 217 (1947)). The decision regarding how to proceed with this action

28 at both the district court and appellate court levels is Plaintiffs’ to make.

- 3 -

Case 2:08-cv-00660-SRB Document 255 Filed 05/13/11 Page 4 of 4

1

IT IS THEREFORE ORDEREDgranting Plaintiffs’ Motion to Dismiss Count Four

2 Without Prejudice and Motion for Final Judgment (Doc. 249).

3

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED directing the Clerk to enter judgm ent of dismissal

4 without prejudice as to Count Four and toenter final judgment on Counts One, Two, Three,

5 Five, Six, and Seven.

6

7

DATED this 13th day of May, 2011.

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 4 -

 
 Case: 2:08-cv-00660-SRB As of: 09/20/2013 08:25 AM MST 1 of 25
APPEAL,CLOSED,HABEAS,PPS
U.S. District Court DISTRICT OF ARIZONA (Phoenix Division) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 2:08−cv−00660−SRB

Lopez−Valenzuela et al v. Maricopa County et al Assigned to: Judge Susan R Bolton Case in other court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit, 11−16487 Cause: 28:2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Petitioner

Date Filed: 04/04/2008 Date Terminated: 05/13/2011 Jury Demand: None Nature of Suit: 530 Prisoner: Habeas Corpus (General) Jurisdiction: Federal Question

Angel Lopez−Valenzuela

represented by Cecillia D Wang ACLU − San Francisco, CA Immigrants Rights Project 39 Drumm St. San Francisco, CA 94111 415−343−0775 Fax: 415−395−0950 Email: cwang@aclu.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Lee David Stein Perkins Coie LLP 2901 North Central Avenue Suite 2000 Phoenix, AZ 85012−2788 602−351−8190 Fax: 602−648−7175 Email: lstein@perkinscoie.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Steven J Monde 272 Spring Hollow Ln. Montpelier, VT 05602 802−279−9445 Email: sjmonde@gmail.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Andre Segura ACLU − New York, NY 125 Broad St., 18th Fl. New York, NY 10004 212−549−2676 Email: asegura@aclu.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Anne Lai Attorney at Law 401 E Peltrason Dr., Ste. 3500 Irvine, CA 92697 203−432−3928 Fax: 203−432−1426 Email: alai@law.uci.edu TERMINATED: 07/05/2011 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Caroline Cincotta ACLU − San Francisco, CA

Case: 2:08-cv-00660-SRB As of: 09/20/2013 08:25 AM MST 2 of 25
Immigrants Rights Project 39 Drumm St. San Francisco, CA 94111 415−343−0781 Fax: 415−395−0950 Email: ccincotta@aclu.org TERMINATED: 03/30/2010 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Charles A Blanchard Perkins Coie Brown &Bain PA PO Box 400 Phoenix, AZ 85001−0400 602−351−8000 Fax: 602−648−7045 Email: CBlanchard@perkinscoie.com TERMINATED: 06/29/2009
Cynthia Valenzuela Dixon MALDEF 634 S Spring St 11th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90014 213−629−2512 Fax: 213−629−0266 Email: cvalenzuela@maldef.org TERMINATED: 01/28/2011 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Joseph Pochoda ACLU − Phoenix, AZ P.O. 17148 Phoenix, AZ 85011 602−650−1854 Fax: 602−650−1376 Email: dpochoda@acluaz.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
David Jeremy Bodney Steptoe &Johnson LLP − Phoenix, AZ Collier Cemter 201 E Washington St., Ste. 1600 Phoenix, AZ 85004−2382 602−257−5200 Fax: 602−257−5299 Email: dbodney@steptoe.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gladys Limon , MALDEF 634 S Spring St 11th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90014 213−629−2512 Fax: 213−629−0266 Email: glimon@maldef.org TERMINATED: 02/07/2011 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kevin B Wein Doyle Raizner LLP − Phoenix, AZ 2929 E Camelback Rd., Ste. 126 Phoenix, AZ 85016 480−447−2494 Fax: 480−685−5005

Case: 2:08-cv-00660-SRB As of: 09/20/2013 08:25 AM MST 3 of 25

Email: kwein@doyleraizner.com (Inactive) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kristina Michelle Campbell MALDEF 634 S Spring St 11th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90014 213−629−2512 Fax: 213−629−0266 Email: kcampbell@maldef.org TERMINATED: 08/13/2009 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Monica M Ramirez ACLU − San Francisco, CA Immigrants Rights Project 39 Drumm St. San Francisco, CA 94111 415−343−0778 Fax: 415−395−0950 Email: mramirez@aclu.org TERMINATED: 07/08/2009 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Nicholas David Espiritu MALDEF 634 S Spring St 11th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90014 213−629−2512 Fax: 213−629−0266 Email: nespiritu@maldef.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Robin Lisa Goldfaden ACLU − San Francisco, CA Immigrants Rights Project 39 Drumm St. San Francisco, CA 94111 415−343−0776 Fax: 415−395−0950 Email: rgoldfaden@aclu.org TERMINATED: 02/06/2009

Tanaz Moghadam ACLU − New York, NY 125 Broad St., 18th Fl. New York, NY 10004 212−284−7316 Fax: 212−549−2654 Email: tmoghadam@aclu.org TERMINATED: 09/19/2011 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Petitioner Isaac Castro−Armenta

represented by Cecillia D Wang (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Lee David Stein (See above for address)

Case: 2:08-cv-00660-SRB As of: 09/20/2013 08:25 AM MST 4 of 25
LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Steven J Monde (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Andre Segura (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Anne Lai (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/05/2011 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Caroline Cincotta (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/30/2010 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Charles A Blanchard (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/29/2009
Cynthia Valenzuela Dixon (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/28/2011 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Joseph Pochoda (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
David Jeremy Bodney (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gladys Limon , (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/07/2011 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kevin B Wein (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kristina Michelle Campbell (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/13/2009 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Monica M Ramirez (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/08/2009 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Nicholas David Espiritu (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robin Lisa Goldfaden (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/06/2009

Case: 2:08-cv-00660-SRB As of: 09/20/2013 08:25 AM MST 5 of 25

Tanaz Moghadam (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/19/2011 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Respondent Maricopa, County of
Respondent Joseph M Arpaio Maricopa County Sheriff (in his official capacity)
Respondent Andrew P Thomas Maricopa County Attorney (in his official capacity) TERMINATED: 05/21/2010
Respondent Barbara Rodriguez Mundell Presiding Judge, Maricopa County Superior Court (in her offical capacity) TERMINATED: 08/14/2009

represented by Drew Metcalf Schmitt Schneck Smyth &Herrod PC 1221 E Osborn Rd Ste 105 Phoenix, AZ 85014−5540 602−277−7000 Fax: 602−277−8663 Email: drewmetcalf@azbarristers.com TERMINATED: 07/18/2011 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Timothy James Casey Schmitt Schneck Smyth Casey &Even PC 1221 E Osborn Rd., Ste. 105 Phoenix, AZ 85014−5540 602−277−7000 Fax: 602−277−8663 Email: timcasey@azbarristers.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Drew Metcalf (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/18/2011 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Timothy James Casey (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Drew Metcalf (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/18/2011 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Timothy James Casey (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Charles Arnold Grube Office of the Attorney General − 1275 W Washington Phoenix, AZ 85007 602−542−8341

Case: 2:08-cv-00660-SRB As of: 09/20/2013 08:25 AM MST 6 of 25

Fax: 602−542−4385 Email: AdminLaw@azag.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Eryn Marie McCarthy Office of the Attorney General 1275 W Washington Phoenix, AZ 85007 602−542−7723 Fax: 602−542−4385 Email: adminlaw@azag.gov TERMINATED: 10/08/2008 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Rex Craig Nowlan Office of the Attorney General 1275 W Washington St Phoenix, AZ 85007−2926 602−542−8324 Email: rex.nowlan@azag.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Respondent
Richard M Romley Maricopa County Attorney, in his official capacity TERMINATED: 12/16/2010

represented by Bruce P White Maricopa County Attorney's Office Division of County Counsel 222 N Central Ave Ste 1100 Phoenix, AZ 85004 602−506−6173 Fax: 602−506−8567 Email: whiteb@mcao.maricopa.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Drew Metcalf (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/18/2011 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Timothy James Casey (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/21/2010 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Respondent
William G Montgomery Maricopa County Attorney, in his official capacity

represented by Anne Cecile Longo MCAO Division of County Counsel − 222 N Central Ave Ste 1100 Phoenix, AZ 85004−2926 602−506−5269 Fax: 602−506−6083 Email: longoa@mcao.maricopa.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Bruce P White (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed

# Docket Text

Case: 2:08-cv-00660-SRB As of: 09/20/2013 08:25 AM MST 7 of 25

04/04/2008 04/04/2008 04/04/2008 04/04/2008 04/08/2008 04/08/2008 04/08/2008
04/09/2008
04/09/2008 04/10/2008 04/11/2008 04/11/2008 04/11/2008

1 COMPLAINT. Filing fee received: $ 350.00, receipt number 09700000000001849290, filed by Angel Lopez−Valenzuela, Isaac Castro−Armenta. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet, # 2 Summons, # 3 Summons, # 4 Summons, # 5 Summons)(Monde, Steven) (Entered: 04/04/2008)
2 MINUTE ORDER: Due to an attorney case opening error, this case is now assigned to United States District Judge David G Campbell and is referred to United States Magistrate Judge Edward C Voss. Future filings should reflect the case number CV 08−660−PHX−DGC−ECV. This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry. (REK) (Entered: 04/07/2008)
1 PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus, filed by Angel Lopez−Valenzuela, Isaac Castro−Armenta. ADDITIONAL CORRECTIVE ENTRY DUE TO ATTORNEY SELECTING INCORRECT EVENT FOR INITIATING DOCUMENT.(REK) Modified on 4/7/2008 (REK, ). (Entered: 04/07/2008)
3 NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT: (REK) (Entered: 04/07/2008)
4 First MOTION for Admission Pro Hac Vice as to attorney Monica M. Ramirez by Angel Lopez−Valenzuela. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Proposed order for pro hac vice application of Monica Ramirez)(Ramirez, Monica) (Entered: 04/08/2008)
5 First MOTION for Admission Pro Hac Vice as to attorney Cecillia D. Wang by Angel Lopez−Valenzuela. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order for Pro Hac Vice Admission of Cecillia Wang)(Ramirez, Monica) (Entered: 04/08/2008)
6 ORDER REASSIGNING CASE. I hereby recuse myself from any further action in the above−captioned matter. ORDERED that this case be reassigned, by lot, to another Judge in the District of Arizona. FURTHER ORDERED that this matter has been reassigned to the Honorable Susan R. Bolton. All future pleadings and papers submitted for filing shall bear the following complete case number: CV−08−660−PHX−SRB (ECV). Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 4/8/2008. (LAD) (Entered: 04/08/2008)
7 ORDER the Clerk of Court must issue the summonses provided by plas' counsel. Plas' counsel is responsible for notifying dfts of the commencement of this action and either serving the summonses or requesting waivers of service of the summonses. Plas' counsel must include a copy of this order when either serving the summonses or requesting wiavers of service of the summonses. Dfts must timely answer the complaint/habeas corpus petition or otherwise respond by appropriate motion. This matter is referred to Magistrate Edward C. Voss pursuant to Rules 72.1 and 72.2 of the Local Rules of Civil Procedure for further proceedings. (See order for full details). Signed by Judge Susan R Bolton on 4/9/2008. (LAD) (Entered: 04/09/2008)
8 Summons Issued as to Maricopa County, Joe Arpaio, Andrew Thomas, Barbara Rodriguez Mundell. (Attachments: # 1 Arpaio Summons, # 2 Mundell Summons, # 3 Thomas Summons)(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: 04/09/2008)
9 First MOTION to Certify Class and Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support by Angel Lopez−Valenzuela, Isaac Castro−Armenta. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit A, # 2 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order)(Wein, Kevin) (Entered: 04/10/2008)
10 MOTION for Admission Pro Hac Vice as to attorney Robin Lisa Goldfaden on behalf of petitioners Angel Lopez−Valenzuela, and Isaac Castro−Armenta. (BAS, ) (Entered: 04/11/2008)
PRO HAC VICE FEE PAID. $ 100, receipt number PHX069969 as to Robin L Goldfaden. (BAS, ) (Entered: 04/11/2008)
11 ORDER pursuant to General Order 05−25 granting 10 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.

Case: 2:08-cv-00660-SRB As of: 09/20/2013 08:25 AM MST 8 of 25

04/15/2008 04/15/2008
04/15/2008 04/15/2008 04/15/2008 04/15/2008 04/17/2008 04/30/2008 04/30/2008
04/30/2008 05/14/2008 05/19/2008 05/19/2008 05/21/2008

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: 04/11/2008)
PRO HAC VICE FEE PAID. $ 200, receipt number PHX070067 as to Monica M Ramirez, Cecillia D Wang. (BAS, ) (Entered: 04/15/2008)
12 ORDER pursuant to General Order 05−25 granting 4 Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice; granting 5 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: 04/15/2008)
13 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Angel Lopez−Valenzuela, Isaac Castro−Armenta. Joe Arpaio served on 4/10/2008. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service re add'l docs served w/Complaint)(Monde, Steven) (Entered: 04/15/2008)
14 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Angel Lopez−Valenzuela, Isaac Castro−Armenta. Maricopa County served on 4/10/2008. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service re add'l docs served w/Complaint)(Monde, Steven) (Entered: 04/15/2008)
15 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Angel Lopez−Valenzuela, Isaac Castro−Armenta. Barbara Rodriguez Mundell served on 4/10/2008. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service re add'l docs served w/Complaint)(Monde, Steven) (Entered: 04/15/2008)
16 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Angel Lopez−Valenzuela, Isaac Castro−Armenta. Andrew Thomas served on 4/10/2008. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service re add'l docs served w/Complaint)(Monde, Steven) (Entered: 04/15/2008)
17 Notice re Constitutional Challenge to a State Statute Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 5.1(a)(1)(B) by Angel Lopez−Valenzuela, Isaac Castro−Armenta (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Wein, Kevin) (Entered: 04/17/2008)
18 STIPULATION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO ANSWER COMPLAINT by Angel Lopez−Valenzuela, Isaac Castro−Armenta, Maricopa County, Joe Arpaio, Andrew Thomas, Barbara Rodriguez Mundell. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Casey, Timothy) (Entered: 04/30/2008)
19 ORDER granting 18 STIPULATION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO ANSWER COMPLAINT. ORDERED that dfts Maricopa County, Maricopa County Sheriff Joseph Arpaio and Maricopa County Attorney Andrew P. Thomas shall have up to, and including, Wednesday, 5/14/08 to file their answer or pleading responsive to plas' complaint. Signed by Magistrate Judge Edward C Voss on 4/30/2008. (LAD) (Entered: 04/30/2008)
20 MOTION to Dismiss Party Honorable Barbara Rodriguez Mundell by Barbara Rodriguez Mundell. (McCarthy, Eryn) (Entered: 04/30/2008)
21 MOTION to Dismiss Case Pursuant to Rules 12(b)(1), (6) and (7) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure by Maricopa County, Joe Arpaio, Andrew Thomas. (Casey, Timothy) (Entered: 05/14/2008)
22 RESPONSE in Opposition re 9 First MOTION to Certify Class and Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support filed by Maricopa County, Joe Arpaio, Andrew Thomas. (Casey, Timothy) (Entered: 05/19/2008)
23 STIPULATION regarding Briefing Schedule by Angel Lopez−Valenzuela, Isaac Castro−Armenta. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Wein, Kevin) (Entered: 05/19/2008)
24 ORDER re 23 STIPULATION regarding Briefing Schedule: Plaintiffs may have until and including Friday, June 13, 2008 to respond to Defendants Motions to Dismiss; and Defendants may have until and including Friday June 27, 2008 to

Case: 2:08-cv-00660-SRB As of: 09/20/2013 08:25 AM MST 9 of 25

05/30/2008 06/04/2008
06/05/2008 06/10/2008 06/13/2008 06/13/2008 06/26/2008 06/27/2008 07/09/2008
07/14/2008 07/23/2008

reply in support of their Motions to Dismiss.. Signed by Magistrate Judge Edward C Voss on 5/21/08. (DMT, ) (Entered: 05/21/2008)
25 REPLY in Support re 9 First MOTION to Certify Class and Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support filed by Angel Lopez−Valenzuela. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Supplemental Declaration of Kevin Wein in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification)(Wang, Cecillia) (Entered: 05/30/2008)
26 ORDER as to 9 First MOTION to Certify Class, 21 MOTION to Dismiss and 20 MOTION to Dismiss Party Honorable Barbara Rodriguez Mundell: Motion Hearing set for 7/16/2008 at 10:00AM before Judge Susan R Bolton. FURTHER ORDERED withdrawing the reference to the Magistrate Judge in this case. All matters going forward shall remain with the District Judge for disposition as appropriate. Signed by Judge Susan R Bolton on 6/3/2008. (LAD) (Entered: 06/04/2008)
27 MOTION to Continue July 16, 2008 Hearing Date by Maricopa County, Joe Arpaio, Andrew Thomas. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Casey, Timothy) (Entered: 06/05/2008)
28 ORDER granting 27 Motion for Short Continuance of the July 16, 2008 Hearing Date. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Hearing will be rescheduled for 7/23/08 at 10:00 AM. Signed by Judge Susan R Bolton on 6/10/08.(MAW) (Entered: 06/10/2008)
29 RESPONSE in Opposition re 21 MOTION to Dismiss Case Pursuant to Rules 12(b)(1), (6) and (7) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure filed by Angel Lopez−Valenzuela. (Wang, Cecillia) (Entered: 06/13/2008)
30 RESPONSE in Opposition re 20 MOTION to Dismiss Party Honorable Barbara Rodriguez Mundell filed by Angel Lopez−Valenzuela, Isaac Castro−Armenta. (Wein, Kevin) (Entered: 06/13/2008)
31 REPLY in Support re 21 MOTION to Dismiss Case Pursuant to Rules 12(b)(1), (6) and (7) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure filed by Maricopa County, Joe Arpaio, Andrew Thomas. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Casey, Timothy) (Entered: 06/26/2008)
32 REPLY in Support re 20 MOTION to Dismiss Party Honorable Barbara Rodriguez Mundell filed by Barbara Rodriguez Mundell. (McCarthy, Eryn) (Entered: 06/27/2008)
33 MOTION to Strike re or in the Alternative Motion for Leave to File a Surreply in Response to Judge Mundell's Reply in Support of the Motion to Dismiss by Angel Lopez−Valenzuela, Isaac Castro−Armenta. (Attachments: # 1 [Proposed] Surreply in Response to Judge Mundell's Reply in Support of Motion to Dismiss, # 2 Text of Proposed Order [Proposed} Order regarding Motion to Strike or in the Alternative Motion for Leave to File a Surreply in Response to Judge Mundell's Reply in Support of the Motion to Dismiss)(Wein, Kevin) (Entered: 07/09/2008)
34 RESPONSE in Opposition re 33 MOTION to Strike re or in the Alternative Motion for Leave to File a Surreply in Response to Judge Mundell's Reply in Support of the Motion to Dismiss filed by Barbara Rodriguez Mundell. (McCarthy, Eryn) (Entered: 07/14/2008)
36 Minute Entry. Proceedings held before Judge Susan R Bolton: Motion Hearing held on 7/23/2008 This is the time set for Hearing re: Plaintiffs' Motion to Certify Class 9 , Defendant Mundell's Motion to Dismiss Party 20 and Defendant Arpaio and Thomas' Motion to Dismiss Case 21 . Argument presented re: Defendant Mundell's Motion to Dismiss Party 20 . IT IS ORDERED granting in part and denying in part Plaintiffs' Motion to Strike or in the Alternative Motion to File Sur−Reply 33 . Plaintiffs may file a sur−reply to Defendant Mundell's Motion. Argument presented re: Defendant Arpaio and Thomas' Motion to Dismiss Case 21 . IT IS ORDERED directing Plaintiffs' counsel Wang to file a Notice of Supplemental Authority without argument. Argument presented re: Plaintiffs' Motion to Certify Class 9 . IT IS ORDERED directing defense counsel Casey to file Supplemental Opposition within 30 days. IT IS ORDERED taking the above

Case: 2:08-cv-00660-SRB As of: 09/20/2013 08:25 AM MST 10 of 25

07/24/2008 07/25/2008 07/25/2008
08/08/2008
08/08/2008 08/22/2008
09/04/2008 09/11/2008 09/11/2008 10/08/2008 11/25/2008 12/09/2008
12/22/2008 12/23/2008 01/22/2009 02/06/2009

motions under advisement [9, 20 and 21]. (Court Reporter Kim Moll)(MAW) (Entered: 07/24/2008)
35 TRANSCRIPT DESIGNATION AND ORDER FORM by Angel Lopez−Valenzuela, Isaac Castro−Armenta for proceedings held on July 23, 2008 before Judge Susan R. Bolton. (Wein, Kevin) (Entered: 07/24/2008)
37 TRANSCRIPT DESIGNATION AND ORDER FORM by Maricopa County, Joe Arpaio, Andrew Thomas for proceedings held on 07/23/2008 before Judge Susan Bolton. (Casey, Timothy) (Entered: 07/25/2008)
38 Notice re Supplemental Authorities re Maricopa County Defendants' Motion to Dismiss by Angel Lopez−Valenzuela re 21 MOTION to Dismiss Case Pursuant to Rules 12(b)(1), (6) and (7) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (Wang, Cecillia) (Entered: 07/25/2008)
39 TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings re: Motion Hearing held on 7/23/08 before Judge Susan R Bolton. Court Reporter: Kim R Moll. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Redaction Request due 8/29/2008. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 9/8/2008. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 11/6/2008. (BAS, ) (Entered: 08/08/2008)
40 NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT (BAS, ) (Entered: 08/08/2008)
41 Notice re Notice of Supplemental Evidence Submitted By Defendants Maricopa County, Arpaio and Thomas by Maricopa County, Joe Arpaio, Andrew Thomas re 21 MOTION to Dismiss Case Pursuant to Rules 12(b)(1), (6) and (7) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Casey, Timothy) (Entered: 08/22/2008)
42 Notice re Withdrawal of Counsel by Angel Lopez−Valenzuela, Isaac Castro−Armenta (Wein, Kevin) (Entered: 09/04/2008)
43 RESPONSE to Notice of Supplemental Evidence Submitted by Defendants Maricopa County, Arpaio, and Thomas by Petitioner Angel Lopez−Valenzuela. (Wang, Cecillia) (Entered: 09/11/2008)
44 DECLARATION of Robert McWhirter re 43 Response to Notice of Supplemental Evidence Submitted by Defendants Maricopa County, Arpaio, and Thomas by Petitioner Angel Lopez−Valenzuela. (Wang, Cecillia) (Entered: 09/11/2008)
45 NOTICE of Attorney Substitution by Rex Craig Nowlan adding Rex Craig Nowlan and terminating Eryn M McCarthy for Barbara Rodriguez Mundell. (Nowlan, Rex) (Entered: 10/08/2008)
46 STATUS REPORT re Motion for Class Certification by Angel Lopez−Valenzuela. (Wang, Cecillia) (Entered: 11/25/2008)
47 ORDER granting Plas' 9 Motion to Certify Class; denying Dft Mundell's 20 Motion to Dismiss; granting in part the County Dfts' 21 Motion to Dismiss Case. (See document for full details). Signed by Judge Susan R Bolton on 12/8/2008.(LAD) (Entered: 12/09/2008)
48 ANSWER to 1 Complaint, by Maricopa County, Joe Arpaio, Andrew Thomas.(Casey, Timothy) (Entered: 12/22/2008)
49 ANSWER to 1 Complaint, by Barbara Rodriguez Mundell.(Nowlan, Rex) (Entered: 12/23/2008)
50 ORDER: Scheduling Conference set on 3/16/09 at 10:00 AM before Judge Susan R Bolton. Signed by Judge Susan R Bolton on 1/22/09. (MAW) (Entered: 01/22/2009)
51 Notice re Withdrawal of Counsel by Angel Lopez−Valenzuela (Goldfaden, Robin) (Entered: 02/06/2009)

Case: 2:08-cv-00660-SRB As of: 09/20/2013 08:25 AM MST 11 of 25

03/09/2009 03/13/2009 03/16/2009 03/16/2009 03/30/2009 03/30/2009 03/30/2009 04/20/2009 06/03/2009 06/04/2009 06/04/2009 06/04/2009 06/26/2009 07/02/2009 07/06/2009
07/08/2009 07/20/2009 07/20/2009 07/21/2009

52 REPORT re: Rule 26(f) Planning Meeting by Angel Lopez−Valenzuela. (Ramirez, Monica) (Entered: 03/09/2009)
53 Notice re Notice of Association of Counsel by Barbara Rodriguez Mundell (Grube, Charles) (Entered: 03/13/2009)
54 RULE 16 SCHEDULING ORDER: Discovery due by 12/18/2009. Dispositive motions due by 1/22/2010. Signed by Judge Susan R Bolton on 3/16/09. (LSP) (Entered: 03/16/2009)
55 Minute Entry. Proceedings held before Judge Susan R Bolton: Scheduling Conference held on 3/16/09. (Court Reporter Linda Schroeder)(MAW) (Entered: 03/16/2009)
56 Notice re Service of Plaintiffs' Rule 26 Initial Disclosure Statement by Angel Lopez−Valenzuela, Isaac Castro−Armenta (Monde, Steven) (Entered: 03/30/2009)
57 Notice re Notice of Service of Defendants' Rule 26(a)(1) Initial Disclosure Statement by Maricopa County, Joe Arpaio, Andrew Thomas (Casey, Timothy) (Entered: 03/30/2009)
58 Notice re Notice of Service of Initial Disclosures by Barbara Rodriguez Mundell (Grube, Charles) (Entered: 03/30/2009)
59 Notice re Notice of Service of the County Defendants' First Supplemental Rule 26(a)(1) Disclosure Statement by Maricopa County, Joe Arpaio, Andrew Thomas (Casey, Timothy) (Entered: 04/20/2009)
60 NOTICE of Appearance by Kevin B Wein on behalf of Angel Lopez−Valenzuela, Isaac Castro−Armenta (Wein, Kevin) (Entered: 06/03/2009)
61 Notice re Service of Plaintiff's First Set of Requests for Production and First Set of Interrogatories to Defendant Joseph Arpaio by Angel Lopez−Valenzuela, Isaac Castro−Armenta (Wein, Kevin) (Entered: 06/04/2009)
62 Notice re Service of Plaintiffs' First Set of Requests for Production and First Set of Interrogatories to Defendant Andrew Thomas by Angel Lopez−Valenzuela, Isaac Castro−Armenta (Wein, Kevin) (Entered: 06/04/2009)
63 Notice re Service of Plaintiffs' First Set of Requests for Production and First Set of Interrogatories to Defendant Maricopa County by Angel Lopez−Valenzuela, Isaac Castro−Armenta (Wein, Kevin) (Entered: 06/04/2009)
64 NOTICE of Attorney Substitution by Steven J Monde, Lee David Stein adding Lee David Stein and Steven J Monde for Angel Lopez−Valenzuela and Isaac Castro−Armenta (Monde, Steven) (Entered: 06/26/2009)
65 STIPULATION to Extend Time for the County Defendants to Respond to Plaintiffs' Discovery Requests by Maricopa County, Joe Arpaio, Andrew Thomas. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Casey, Timothy) (Entered: 07/02/2009)
66 ORDER pursuant to 65 Stipulation : defendants Maricopa County, Maricopa County Sheriff Joseph Arpaio, and Maricopa County Attorney Andrew P. Thomas shall have up to, and including, Monday, July 20, 2009 to file their responses to plaintiffs' discovery requests. Signed by Judge Susan R Bolton on 7/6/09. (DMT, ) (Entered: 07/06/2009)
67 NOTICE OF ATTORNEY SUBSTITUTION: Caroline Cincotta appearing for Angel Lopez−Valenzuela, Isaac Castro−Armenta. Attorney Monica M Ramirez terminated. (Ramirez, Monica) (Entered: 07/08/2009)
68 Notice re Notice of Service of Defendant Thomas' Responses to Plaintiffs' Discovery Requests by Andrew Thomas (Casey, Timothy) (Entered: 07/20/2009)
69 Notice re Notice of Service of Defendant Arpaio's Responses to Plaintiffs' Discovery Requests by Joe Arpaio (Casey, Timothy) (Entered: 07/20/2009)
70 STIPULATION (Second) to Extend Time for Defendant Mariopa County to Respond to Plaintiff's Discovery Requests by Maricopa County, Joe Arpaio, Andrew Thomas. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Casey, Timothy)

Case: 2:08-cv-00660-SRB As of: 09/20/2013 08:25 AM MST 12 of 25

07/28/2009 07/28/2009 07/29/2009 07/29/2009
07/31/2009 08/03/2009 08/05/2009
08/10/2009 08/11/2009 08/13/2009 08/14/2009
09/01/2009 09/01/2009 09/01/2009 09/11/2009 09/11/2009

(Entered: 07/21/2009)
71 ORDER granting 70 Stipulation: ORDERED that dft Maricopa County shall have up to and including 8/3/09 to file its responses to plas' discovery requests. Signed by Judge Susan R Bolton on 7/28/2009. (LAD) (Entered: 07/28/2009)
72 MOTION for Admission Pro Hac Vice as to attorney Caroline P. Cincotta by Angel Lopez−Valenzuela, Isaac Castro−Armenta. (Cincotta, Caroline) (Entered: 07/28/2009)
PRO HAC VICE FEE PAID. $ 50, receipt number PHX086893 as to Caroline Cincotta. (BAS) (Entered: 07/29/2009)
73 ORDER pursuant to General Order 05−25 granting 72 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: 07/29/2009)
74 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney by Angel Lopez−Valenzuela, Isaac Castro−Armenta. (Campbell, Kristina) (Entered: 07/31/2009)
75 Notice re Notice of Service of Defendant Maricopa County's Responses to Plaintiffs Discovery Requests by Maricopa County (Casey, Timothy) (Entered: 08/03/2009)
76 ORDER re 74 Notice of Withdrawal as Attorney: IT IS ORDERED that the Notice of Withdraw as Attorney will be denied within 3 days of the date of this order if counsel does not comply with the ECF Administrative Policies and Procedures Manual, Section II(G), specifically, subparagraph 1b. Signed by Judge Susan R Bolton on 8/5/09. (MAW) (Entered: 08/05/2009)
77 AMENDED MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney by Angel Lopez−Valenzuela (Campbell, Kristina) INCORRECT EVENT SELECTED. THIS ENTRY HAS BEEN MODIFIED FROM (other notice) TO (amended motion to withdraw as attorney)Modified on 8/11/2009 (ESL). (Entered: 08/10/2009)
78 STIPULATION of Dismissal As To Defendant Mundell by Isaac Castro−Armenta, Angel Lopez−Valenzuela. (Wang, Cecillia) (Entered: 08/11/2009)
79 ORDER granting 77 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. ORDERED, attorney Kristina M. Campbell be relieved as attorney of record for plas Angel Lopez−Valenzuela and Isaac Castro−Armenta. Signed by Judge Susan R Bolton on 8/12/2009. (LAD) (Entered: 08/13/2009)
80 ORDER pursuant to 78 Stipulation of Dismissal: Plas' claims against dft Mundell are hereby DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2). This dismissal is without any award of costs or attorneys' fees toany party. Signed by Judge Susan R Bolton on 8/13/2009. (LAD) (Entered: 08/14/2009)
81 Notice re Service of First Set of Requests for Admissions to Maricopa County by Isaac Castro−Armenta, Angel Lopez−Valenzuela (Wang, Cecillia) (Entered: 09/01/2009)
82 Notice re Service of First Set of Requests for Admissions to Defendant Andrew Thomas by Isaac Castro−Armenta, Angel Lopez−Valenzuela (Wang, Cecillia) (Entered: 09/01/2009)
83 Notice re Service of First Set of Requests for Admissions to Defendant Joe Arpaio by Isaac Castro−Armenta, Angel Lopez−Valenzuela (Wang, Cecillia) (Entered: 09/01/2009)
84 Notice re Notice of Service of Defendant Arpaio's Responses to Plaintiffs First Requests for Admissions by Joe Arpaio (Casey, Timothy) (Entered: 09/11/2009)
85 MOTION for Admission Pro Hac Vice as to attorney Gladys Limon on behalf of Isaac Castro−Armenta, and Angel Lopez−Valenzuela. (BAS) (Entered:

Case: 2:08-cv-00660-SRB As of: 09/20/2013 08:25 AM MST 13 of 25

09/11/2009 09/11/2009
09/17/2009 09/25/2009 09/28/2009
09/30/2009 09/30/2009 10/02/2009 10/02/2009 10/02/2009 10/05/2009 10/05/2009 10/08/2009 10/12/2009 10/12/2009 10/12/2009 10/12/2009

09/11/2009)
PRO HAC VICE FEE PAID. $ 50, receipt number PHX088408 as to Gladys Limon. (BAS) (Entered: 09/11/2009)
86 ORDER pursuant to General Order 05−25 granting 85 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: 09/11/2009)
87 Notice re Notice of Service of the County Defendants' Second Supplemental Rule 26 (a)(1) Disclosure Statement by Joe Arpaio, Maricopa County, Andrew Thomas (Casey, Timothy) (Entered: 09/17/2009)
88 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time (First Request) by Isaac Castro−Armenta, Angel Lopez−Valenzuela. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order)(Wein, Kevin) (Entered: 09/25/2009)
89 ORDER granting the Parties' Stipulated 88 Motion for Extension of Time. The parties must finally supplement all discovery, all exhibits to be used and all witnesses to be called at trial on or before 12/29/09. All discovery must be completed by 01/29/10. All dispositive motions shall be filed on or before 03/05/10. Signed by Judge Susan R Bolton on 09/28/09. (ESL) (Entered: 09/28/2009)
90 Notice re Notice of Service of Defendant Thomas' Responses to Plaintiffs' First Request for Admission by Andrew Thomas (Casey, Timothy) (Entered: 09/30/2009)
91 Notice re Notice of Service of Defendant Maricopa County's Responses to Plaintiffs' First Set of Requests for Admission by Maricopa County (Casey, Timothy) (Entered: 09/30/2009)
92 Notice re Service of Subpoena by Isaac Castro−Armenta, Angel Lopez−Valenzuela (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Acceptance of Service and Waiver of Service of Process)(Wein, Kevin) (Entered: 10/02/2009)
93 NOTICE of Deposition of Sheriff Joseph Arpaio. (Monde, Steven) (Entered: 10/02/2009)
94 NOTICE of Deposition of Deputy Chief Brian Sands. (Monde, Steven) (Entered: 10/02/2009)
95 NOTICE of Deposition of Lt. Pete Metzler, filed by Isaac Castro−Armenta, Angel Lopez−Valenzuela. (Wein, Kevin) (Entered: 10/05/2009)
96 NOTICE of Deposition of Sally Wells, filed by Isaac Castro−Armenta, Angel Lopez−Valenzuela. (Wein, Kevin) (Entered: 10/05/2009)
97 Notice re Notice of Service of the County Defendants' Third Supplemental Rule 26(a)(1) Disclosure Statement by Joe Arpaio, Maricopa County, Andrew Thomas (Casey, Timothy) (Entered: 10/08/2009)
98 Notice re Notice of Service of Defendant Thomas' First Supplemental Responses to Plaintiffs' First Set of Interrogatories by Andrew Thomas (Casey, Timothy) (Entered: 10/12/2009)
99 Notice re Notice of Service of Defendant Thomas' First Supplemental Responses to Plaintiffs' First Set of Request for Production by Andrew Thomas (Casey, Timothy) (Entered: 10/12/2009)
100 Notice re Notice of Service of the County Defendants' Fourth Supplemental Rule 26(a)(1) Disclosure Statement by Joe Arpaio, Maricopa County, Andrew Thomas (Casey, Timothy) (Entered: 10/12/2009)
101 Notice re Notice of Service of Subpoena by Isaac Castro−Armenta, Angel Lopez−Valenzuela (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Monde, Steven) (Entered:

Case: 2:08-cv-00660-SRB As of: 09/20/2013 08:25 AM MST 14 of 25

11/04/2009 11/06/2009 11/11/2009 11/25/2009 12/01/2009 12/01/2009 12/01/2009
12/02/2009 12/04/2009
12/04/2009 12/04/2009 12/04/2009 12/04/2009 12/04/2009 12/08/2009 12/08/2009 12/09/2009 12/14/2009

10/12/2009)
102 NOTICE of Deposition of Andrew Thomas, filed by Isaac Castro−Armenta, Angel Lopez−Valenzuela. (Wein, Kevin) (Entered: 11/04/2009)
103 Notice re Service of Subpoena by Isaac Castro−Armenta, Angel Lopez−Valenzuela (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Civil Subpoena and Acceptance and Waiver of Service)(Wein, Kevin) (Entered: 11/06/2009)
104 NOTICE of Deposition of Sally Wells, filed by Isaac Castro−Armenta, Angel Lopez−Valenzuela. (Wein, Kevin) (Entered: 11/11/2009)
105 NOTICE of Deposition of Sheriff Joseph Arpaio, filed by Isaac Castro−Armenta, Angel Lopez−Valenzuela. (Monde, Steven) (Entered: 11/25/2009)
106 MOTION for Admission Pro Hac Vice as to attorney Andre Segura on behalf of Isaac Castro−Armenta, and Angel Lopez−Valenzuela. (BAS) (Entered: 12/01/2009)
PRO HAC VICE FEE PAID. $ 50, receipt number PHX091138 as to Andre Segura. (BAS) (Entered: 12/01/2009)
107 ORDER pursuant to General Order 05−25 granting 106 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: 12/01/2009)
108 Notice re Notice of Service of Defendant Arpaio's Supplemental Responses to Plaintiffs' First Set of Requests for Production and First Set of Interrogatories by Joe Arpaio (Casey, Timothy) (Entered: 12/02/2009)
109 Notice re Service of 2nd Set of RFPs to Thomas by Isaac Castro−Armenta, Angel Lopez−Valenzuela (Cincotta, Caroline) Modified on 12/10/2009, DOCUMENT FILED IN ERROR. DOCUMENT RE−FILED AT 110 , (LSP). (Entered: 12/04/2009)
110 Notice re Service of 2nd Set of Interrogatories to Thomas by Isaac Castro−Armenta, Angel Lopez−Valenzuela (Cincotta, Caroline) (Entered: 12/04/2009)
111 Notice re Service of 2nd Set of RFPs to Arpaio by Isaac Castro−Armenta, Angel Lopez−Valenzuela (Cincotta, Caroline) (Entered: 12/04/2009)
112 Notice re Service of 2nd Set of RFAs to Arpaio by Isaac Castro−Armenta, Angel Lopez−Valenzuela (Cincotta, Caroline) (Entered: 12/04/2009)
113 Notice re Service of 2nd Set of RFAs to Thomas by Isaac Castro−Armenta, Angel Lopez−Valenzuela (Cincotta, Caroline) (Entered: 12/04/2009)
114 Notice re Service of 2nd Set of RFP to Maricopa County by Isaac Castro−Armenta, Angel Lopez−Valenzuela (Cincotta, Caroline) (Entered: 12/04/2009)
115 Notice re Notice of Service of the County Defendants' Fifth Supplemental Disclosure Statement by Joe Arpaio, Maricopa County, Andrew Thomas (Casey, Timothy) (Entered: 12/08/2009)
116 Notice re Second Set of Requests for Production to Defendant Andrew Thomas by Isaac Castro−Armenta, Angel Lopez−Valenzuela (Cincotta, Caroline) (Entered: 12/08/2009)
117 NOTICE of Deposition of Russell Pearce, filed by Isaac Castro−Armenta, Angel Lopez−Valenzuela. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Amended Subpoena)(Wein, Kevin) (Entered: 12/09/2009)
118 NOTICE of Deposition of Andrew Thomas (1st Amended) by Angel Lopez−Valenzuela and Isaac Castro−Armenta. (Wein, Kevin) Modified on 12/15/2009, DOCKET TEXT MODIFIED TO IDENTIFY CORRECT FILER,

Case: 2:08-cv-00660-SRB As of: 09/20/2013 08:25 AM MST 15 of 25

12/15/2009 12/16/2009
12/16/2009 12/16/2009 12/16/2009 12/17/2009 12/17/2009
12/21/2009 12/29/2009 01/06/2010 01/06/2010 01/06/2010 01/12/2010 01/12/2010 01/13/2010 01/14/2010 01/14/2010

(LSP). (Entered: 12/14/2009)
119 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time (Second Request) by Joe Arpaio, Isaac Castro−Armenta, Angel Lopez−Valenzuela, Maricopa County, Andrew Thomas. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Segura, Andre) (Entered: 12/15/2009)
120 ORDER: On December 15, 2009, a Stipulated Motion for Extension of Time (second request) was filed. IT IS ORDERED that the Stipulated Motion for Extension of Time will be denied within 3 days of the date of this order if counsel does not comply with the ECF Administrative Policies and Procedures Manual, Section II(G), specifically, subparagraph 1b. Signed by Judge Susan R Bolton on 12/16/09. (MAW) (Entered: 12/16/2009)
121 Notice re Service of Plaintiffs' First Supplemental Rule 26 Disclosure Statement by Isaac Castro−Armenta, Angel Lopez−Valenzuela (Wang, Cecillia) (Entered: 12/16/2009)
122 NOTICE of Deposition of Maricopa County Attorney's Office, filed by Isaac Castro−Armenta, Angel Lopez−Valenzuela. (Wang, Cecillia) (Entered: 12/16/2009)
123 NOTICE of Deposition of Maricopa County Sheriff's Office, filed by Isaac Castro−Armenta, Angel Lopez−Valenzuela. (Wang, Cecillia) (Entered: 12/16/2009)
124 Notice re Notice of Service of Defendant Thomas' Responses to Plaintiffs' Second Set of Requests for Admission by Andrew Thomas (Casey, Timothy) (Entered: 12/17/2009)
125 ORDER granting 119 Stipulated Motion for Extension of Time. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the parties must finally supplement all discovery, all exhibits to be used and all witnesses to be called at trial on or before 1/19/2010. All discovery must be completed by 2/12/2010. All dispositive motions shall be filed on or before 3/19/2010 [see Order for full details]. Signed by Judge Susan R Bolton on 12/17/09.(MAW) (Entered: 12/17/2009)
126 Notice re Service of Subpoena by Isaac Castro−Armenta, Angel Lopez−Valenzuela (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(Monde, Steven) (Entered: 12/21/2009)
127 NOTICE of Appearance by Anne Lai on behalf of Isaac Castro−Armenta, Angel Lopez−Valenzuela (Lai, Anne) (Entered: 12/29/2009)
128 Notice re Notice of Service of Defendant Arpaio's Responses to Plaintiffs' Second Set of Requests for Production and Second Set of Requests for Admissions by Joe Arpaio (Casey, Timothy) (Entered: 01/06/2010)
129 Notice re Notice of Service of Defendant Thomas' Responses to Plaintiffs' Second Set of Interrogatories and Second Set of Requests for Production by Andrew Thomas (Casey, Timothy) (Entered: 01/06/2010)
130 Notice re Notice of Service of Defendant Maricopa County's Response to Plaintiffs' Second Set of Request for Production by Maricopa County (Casey, Timothy) (Entered: 01/06/2010)
131 Notice re Notice of Service of Defendant Thomas' Second Supplemental Response to Plaintiffs' First Set of Interrogatories by Andrew Thomas (Casey, Timothy) (Entered: 01/12/2010)
132 Notice re Notice of Service of Defendant Arpaio's Second Supplemental Responses to Plaintiff's Discovery by Joe Arpaio (Casey, Timothy) (Entered: 01/12/2010)
133 Notice re Service of Discovery by Isaac Castro−Armenta, Angel Lopez−Valenzuela (Cincotta, Caroline) (Entered: 01/13/2010)
134 NOTICE of Deposition of MCAO, filed by Isaac Castro−Armenta, Angel Lopez−Valenzuela. (Cincotta, Caroline) (Entered: 01/14/2010)
135 NOTICE of Deposition of MCSO, filed by Isaac Castro−Armenta, Angel Lopez−Valenzuela. (Cincotta, Caroline) (Entered: 01/14/2010)

Case: 2:08-cv-00660-SRB As of: 09/20/2013 08:25 AM MST 16 of 25

01/14/2010
01/19/2010 01/19/2010 01/21/2010 01/25/2010 01/25/2010 02/05/2010 02/08/2010 02/12/2010 02/12/2010 02/16/2010
02/22/2010 02/23/2010 02/25/2010 03/12/2010
03/18/2010

136 Notice re Service of Second Amended Subpoena − Russell Pearce by Isaac Castro−Armenta, Angel Lopez−Valenzuela (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Ex. 1 − Affidavit of Service &2nd Amended Subpoena)(Wein, Kevin) (Entered: 01/14/2010)
137 Notice re Notice of Service of the County Defendants' Sixth Supplemental Rule 26(a)(1) Disclosure Statement by Joe Arpaio, Maricopa County, Andrew Thomas (Casey, Timothy) (Entered: 01/19/2010)
138 Notice re Service of Plaintiffs' Pretrial Disclosures Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(3) by Isaac Castro−Armenta, Angel Lopez−Valenzuela (Wang, Cecillia) (Entered: 01/19/2010)
139 Notice re Notice of Service of the County Defendants' Seventh Supplemental Rule 26(a)(1) Disclosure Statement by Joe Arpaio, Maricopa County, Andrew Thomas (Casey, Timothy) (Entered: 01/21/2010)
140 Notice re Notice of Service of the County Defendants' Eighth Supplemental Disclosure Statement by Joe Arpaio, Maricopa County, Andrew Thomas (Casey, Timothy) (Entered: 01/25/2010)
141 Notice re Notice of Service of Defendants Thomas and Arpaio's Supplemental Discovery Responses by Joe Arpaio, Andrew Thomas (Casey, Timothy) (Entered: 01/25/2010)
142 Notice re Notice of Service of Plaintiff's Amended Pretrial Disclosures by Isaac Castro−Armenta, Angel Lopez−Valenzuela (Wang, Cecillia) (Entered: 02/05/2010)
143 Notice re Notice of Service of the County Defendants' Rule 26(a)(3) Pretrial Disclosure Statement by Joe Arpaio, Maricopa County, Andrew Thomas (Casey, Timothy) (Entered: 02/08/2010)
144 Notice re Notice of Service of Defendants' Maricopa County, Thomas and Arpaio's Discovery Responses by Joe Arpaio, Maricopa County, Andrew Thomas (Casey, Timothy) (Entered: 02/12/2010)
145 Third MOTION for Extension of Time (Stipulated by All Parties) by Isaac Castro−Armenta, Angel Lopez−Valenzuela. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Wein, Kevin) (Entered: 02/12/2010)
146 ORDER granting 145 Third Motion for Extension of Time: Discovery due by 3/15/2010. Dispositive motions due by 4/19/2010. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that no further continuances will be granted [see Order for full details]. Signed by Judge Susan R Bolton on 2/16/10.(MAW) (Entered: 02/16/2010)
147 Notice re Service of Plaintiffs' Objections to Defendants' Rule 26(a)(3) Pretrial Disclosure Statement by Isaac Castro−Armenta, Angel Lopez−Valenzuela (Cincotta, Caroline) (Entered: 02/22/2010)
148 Notice re Amended Notice of Service of Plaintiffs' Objections to Defendants' Rule 26(a)(3) Pretrial Disclosure Statement by Isaac Castro−Armenta, Angel Lopez−Valenzuela (Cincotta, Caroline) (Entered: 02/23/2010)
149 Notice re Notice of Service of Defendants' Thomas and Arpaio's Supplemental Discovery Responses by Joe Arpaio, Andrew Thomas (Casey, Timothy) (Entered: 02/25/2010)
150 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time (Fourth Request) by Isaac Castro−Armenta, Angel Lopez−Valenzuela. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit A − Declaration of Timothy J. Casey, # 2 Exhibit Exhibit B − Letter from Casey to Irvine, # 3 Text of Proposed Order)(Wang, Cecillia) (Entered: 03/12/2010)
151 ORDER granting in part and denying in part the 150 Stipulated Motion for Extension of Time; Defendants may have until 4/14/10 to produce any documents responsive to earlier production requests discovered among the archived emails; the dispositive motion deadline remains 4/19/10. Signed by Judge Susan R Bolton on 3/18/10.(REW) (Entered: 03/18/2010)

Case: 2:08-cv-00660-SRB As of: 09/20/2013 08:25 AM MST 17 of 25

03/19/2010 03/24/2010 03/30/2010 03/31/2010 04/01/2010 04/02/2010 04/05/2010
04/07/2010 04/08/2010 04/14/2010 04/15/2010
05/18/2010

152 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney by Caroline Cincotta by Isaac Castro−Armenta, Angel Lopez−Valenzuela. (Cincotta, Caroline) (Entered: 03/19/2010)
153 ORDER: On March 19, 2010, Caroline Cincotta filed a Motion to Withdraw as Counsel for Plaintiffs. IT IS ORDERED that the Motion to Withdraw as Counsel will be denied within 3 days of the date of this order if counsel does not comply with the ECF Administrative Policies and Procedures Manual, Section II(G), specifically, subparagraph 1b. Signed by Judge Susan R Bolton on 3/24/10. (MAW) (Entered: 03/24/2010)
154 ORDER granting 152 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. Attorney Caroline Cincotta be relieved as attorney of record for Plaintiffs. Signed by Judge Susan R Bolton on 3/30/10.(KMG) (Entered: 03/30/2010)
155 Minute Order: Telephonic Discovery Dispute Hearing set for 4/5/2010 at 04:15 PM before Judge Susan R Bolton. This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry. (MAW) (Entered: 03/31/2010)
156 STIPULATION As To Admissibility of Documents Produced by Defendants by Joe Arpaio, Isaac Castro−Armenta, Angel Lopez−Valenzuela, Maricopa, County of, Andrew Thomas. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibits 1−15)(Wang, Cecillia) (Entered: 04/01/2010)
157 Notice re Service of Plaintiffs' Supplemental Pretrial Disclosures by Isaac Castro−Armenta, Angel Lopez−Valenzuela (Wang, Cecillia) (Entered: 04/02/2010)
158 Minute Entry. Proceedings held before Judge Susan R Bolton: Telephonic Discovery Dispute Hearing held on 4/5/2010 at the request of Plaintiffs' counsel re: request for production of documents. Discussion held.IT IS ORDERED directing defense counsel to e−mail Plaintiffs' counsel by 4/9/2010 advising either the date the Defendants served written responses or provide the written responses. Regarding Plaintiffs' request for archived e−mails, defense counsel is to contact Thomas Irvine by 4/14/2010 to obtain a realistic date by which these e−mails will be disclosed and submit a detailed stipulation for the Court's review. If defense counsel cannot obtain the information from Thomas Irvine, an order to show cause may issue as to why sanctions should not be imposed on the Defendants in this case for their failure to make timely disclosure. The Court will not extend the discovery deadline at this time as requested by the Plaintiffs until the Court reviews the above stipulation. (Court Reporter Elizabeth Lemke)(MAW) (Entered: 04/07/2010)
159 Notice re Notice of Service of Defendant Thomas' Fourth Supplemental Response to Plaintiffs' First Set of Requests for Production by Andrew Thomas (Casey, Timothy) (Entered: 04/07/2010)
160 STIPULATION (AMENDED) as to Admissibility of Documents Produced by Defendants by Isaac Castro−Armenta, Angel Lopez−Valenzuela. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Wang, Cecillia) (Entered: 04/08/2010)
161 STIPULATION re Extension of Discovery and Motions Deadline by Isaac Castro−Armenta, Angel Lopez−Valenzuela. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Wang, Cecillia) (Entered: 04/14/2010)
162 ORDER pursuant to 161 Stipulation: Defendants shall produce to Plaintiffs the archived emails of Maricopa County Sheriff's Office (MCSO) personnel, as described in the parties Stipulation, no later than June 1, 2010. Plaintiffs shall review the archived MCSO emails produced by the Defendants by June 15, 2010. The parties shall participate in a telephonic conference with the Court on 6/21/2010 at 04:30 PM. for the purpose of reporting on whether Plaintiffs intend to take additional limited discovery relating to the archived MCSO emails and to set the deadlines for any such discovery and for dispositive motions. Counsel shall initiate the conference call to the Court for telephonic conference. The April 19, 2010 deadline for dispositive motions is hereby vacated. Signed by Judge Susan R Bolton on 4/15/10. (MAW) (Entered: 04/15/2010)
163 MOTION to Substitute Attorney: for substitution of Bruce P. White in place of Timothy J. Casey by Andrew Thomas. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed

Case: 2:08-cv-00660-SRB As of: 09/20/2013 08:25 AM MST 18 of 25

05/21/2010
05/25/2010 05/26/2010 05/27/2010 05/27/2010 06/01/2010 06/01/2010
06/02/2010 06/21/2010
07/26/2010 07/26/2010 07/28/2010 08/10/2010

Order)(Casey, Timothy) (Entered: 05/18/2010)
164 ORDER − The Court having reviewed the 163 Motion to Substitute Counsel for Dft Richard M. Ronley Only, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Bruce P. White be substituted as cnsl only for Richard M. Romley, Maricopa County Atty, in this matter, replacing Timothy J. Casey. Mr. Casey shall remain as cnsl for Maricopa County and Joe Arpaio. Signed by Judge Susan R Bolton on 5/21/10. (SAT) (Entered: 05/21/2010)
165 MOTION for Extension of Time To Produce to Plaintiffs the Archived Emails of the MCSO by Joe Arpaio, Maricopa, County of. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Casey, Timothy) (Entered: 05/25/2010)
166 RESPONSE in Opposition re 165 MOTION for Extension of Time To Produce to Plaintiffs the Archived Emails of the MCSO filed by Isaac Castro−Armenta, Angel Lopez−Valenzuela. (Wang, Cecillia) (Entered: 05/26/2010)
167 MOTION for Admission Pro Hac Vice as to attorney Tanaz Moghadam by Isaac Castro−Armenta, Angel Lopez−Valenzuela. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Certificate of Good Standing)(Moghadam, Tanaz) (Entered: 05/27/2010)
168 REPLY in Support re 165 MOTION for Extension of Time To Produce to Plaintiffs the Archived Emails of the MCSO filed by Joe Arpaio, Maricopa, County of. (Casey, Timothy) (Entered: 05/27/2010)
PRO HAC VICE FEE PAID. $ 50, receipt number PHX097376 as to Tanaz Moghadam. (BAS) (Entered: 06/01/2010)
169 ORDER pursuant to General Order 05−25 granting 167 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: 06/01/2010)
170 ORDER granting 165 Defendants' Motion for Extension of Time to Produce to Plaintiffs the Archived Emails of the MCSO until June 30, 2010. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the first half of emails already reviewed be produced immediately. Signed by Judge Susan R Bolton on 6/2/10.(MAW) (Entered: 06/02/2010)
171 Minute Entry. Proceedings held before Judge Susan R Bolton: Telephonic Conference held on 6/21/2010 re: disclosure of e−mails. Plaintiff's counsel advises the Court the Defendants have complied with the Court's order to disclose the e−mails but requests the remainder of the boxes of e−mails be sent to Plaintiff's counsel directly at Defendants' expense. Discussion held. The Court will not grant Plaintiffs' request. Counsel are to consult regarding additional limited discovery related to the review of the e−mails and submit a stipulation by July 26, 2010, a stipulation regarding discovery and dispositive motions deadline. If counsel cannot reach an agreement, counsel are to request a conference before the Court. (Court Reporter Elizabeth Lemke)(MAW) (Entered: 06/22/2010)
172 STIPULATION Pursuant to Court's Order of June 21, 2010 by Joe Arpaio, Isaac Castro−Armenta, Angel Lopez−Valenzuela, Maricopa, County of, Richard M Romley. (Wang, Cecillia) (Entered: 07/26/2010)
173 Additional Attachments to Main Document re 172 Stipulation by Respondents Joe Arpaio, Maricopa, County of, Richard M Romley, Petitioners Isaac Castro−Armenta, Angel Lopez−Valenzuela. (Wang, Cecillia) (Entered: 07/26/2010)
174 ORDER pursuant to 172 Stipulation: It is hereby ORDERED that any dispositive motions be filed no later than August 27, 2010. Signed by Judge Susan R Bolton on 7/27/10. (LAD) (Entered: 07/28/2010)
175 NOTICE re Notice of Service of Plaintiffs' Second Supplemental Pretrial Disclosures Pursuant to Fed. R. CIV.P.26(a)(3) by Isaac Castro−Armenta, Angel Lopez−Valenzuela. (Wang, Cecillia) (Entered: 08/10/2010)

Case: 2:08-cv-00660-SRB As of: 09/20/2013 08:25 AM MST 19 of 25

08/26/2010 08/27/2010 08/27/2010 08/27/2010 08/27/2010
08/27/2010 08/27/2010 08/27/2010 08/27/2010 08/27/2010 08/27/2010 08/27/2010 08/27/2010

176 NOTICE of Change of Address by Anne Lai (Lai, Anne) (Entered: 08/26/2010)
177 MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages by Isaac Castro−Armenta, Angel Lopez−Valenzuela. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Wang, Cecillia) (Entered: 08/27/2010)
178 LODGED Proposed Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment re: 177 MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages. Document to be filed by Clerk if Motion to Leave to File or Amend is granted. Filed by Isaac Castro−Armenta, Angel Lopez−Valenzuela. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix Appendix A)(Wang, Cecillia) (Entered: 08/27/2010)
179 Separate Statement of Facts in Support of Plaintiffs' 203 Motion for Summary Judgment. Filed by Isaac Castro−Armenta, Angel Lopez−Valenzuela. (Wang, Cecillia) Modified on 9/15/2010 to change from Lodged Document to Statement and to correct document linkage. (MAP). (Entered: 08/27/2010)
180 DECLARATION of Andre I. Segura in Support of Plaintiffs' 203 Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Isaac Castro−Armenta, Angel Lopez−Valenzuela. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G, # 8 Exhibit H, # 9 Exhibit I, # 10 Exhibit J)(Wang, Cecillia) Modified on 9/15/2010 to change from Lodged to Declaration and to correct document linkage (MAP). (Entered: 08/27/2010)
181 Additional Attachments to Main Document re 180 Declaration of Andre I. Segura by Petitioners Isaac Castro−Armenta, Angel Lopez−Valenzuela. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit L, # 2 Exhibit M, # 3 Exhibit N, # 4 Exhibit O, # 5 Exhibit P, # 6 Exhibit Q, # 7 Exhibit R, # 8 Exhibit S, # 9 Exhibit T, # 10 Exhibit U)(Wang, Cecillia) Modified on 9/15/2010 (MAP). (Entered: 08/27/2010)
182 Additional Attachments to Main Document re 180 Declaration of Andre I. Segura by Petitioners Isaac Castro−Armenta, Angel Lopez−Valenzuela. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit W, # 2 Exhibit X, # 3 Exhibit Y, # 4 Exhibit Z, # 5 Exhibit AA, # 6 Exhibit BB, # 7 Exhibit CC, # 8 Exhibit DD)(Wang, Cecillia) Modified on 9/15/2010 (MAP). (Entered: 08/27/2010)
183 DECLARATION of Anne Lai in Support of Plaintiffs' 203 Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Isaac Castro−Armenta, Angel Lopez−Valenzuela. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A−MM)(Wang, Cecillia) Modified on 9/15/2010 to change from Lodged to Declaration and correct document linkage (MAP). (Entered: 08/27/2010)
184 DECLARATION of Gina Nyberg in Support of Plaintiffs' 203 Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Isaac Castro−Armenta, Angel Lopez−Valenzuela. (Wang, Cecillia) Modified on 9/15/2010 to change from Lodged to Declaration and correct document linkage (MAP). (Entered: 08/27/2010)
185 DECLARATION of Jesutine Breidenbach in Support of Plaintiffs' 203 Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Isaac Castro−Armenta, Angel Lopez−Valenzuela. (Wang, Cecillia) Modified on 9/15/2010 to change from Lodged to Declaration and correct document linkage (MAP). (Entered: 08/27/2010)
186 DECLARATION I of Sharon Breslin in Support of Plaintiffs' 203 Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Isaac Castro−Armenta, Angel Lopez−Valenzuela. (Wang, Cecillia) Modified on 9/15/2010 to change from Lodged to Declaration and correct document linkage (MAP). (Entered: 08/27/2010)
187 DECLARATION II of Sharon Breslin in Support of Plaintiffs' 203 Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Isaac Castro−Armenta, Angel Lopez−Valenzuela. (Wang, Cecillia) Modified on 9/15/2010 to change from Lodged to Declaration and correct document linkage (MAP). (Entered: 08/27/2010)
188 DECLARATION I of Tyler Cook in Support of Plaintiffs' 203 Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Isaac Castro−Armenta, Angel Lopez−Valenzuela. (Wang, Cecillia) Modified on 9/15/2010 to change from Lodged to Declaration and correct document linkage (MAP). (Entered: 08/27/2010)

Case: 2:08-cv-00660-SRB As of: 09/20/2013 08:25 AM MST 20 of 25

08/27/2010 08/27/2010 08/27/2010 08/27/2010 08/27/2010 08/27/2010 08/27/2010 08/27/2010 08/27/2010 08/27/2010 08/30/2010 08/31/2010 09/02/2010
09/03/2010

189 DECLARATION II of Tyler Cook in Support of Plaintiffs' 203 Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Isaac Castro−Armenta, Angel Lopez−Valenzuela. (Wang, Cecillia) Modified on 9/15/2010 to change from Lodged to Declaration and correct document linkage (MAP). (Entered: 08/27/2010)
190 DECLARATION of Jane Kunkel in Support of Plaintiffs' 203 Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Isaac Castro−Armenta, Angel Lopez−Valenzuela. (Wang, Cecillia) Modified on 9/15/2010 to change from Lodged to Declaration and correct document linkage (MAP). (Entered: 08/27/2010)
191 DECLARATION I of Angela Liebl in Support of Plaintiffs' 203 Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Isaac Castro−Armenta, Angel Lopez−Valenzuela. (Wang, Cecillia) Modified on 9/15/2010 to change from Lodged to Declaration and correct document linkage (MAP). (Entered: 08/27/2010)
192 DECLARATION II of Angela Liebl in Support of Plaintiffs' 203 Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Isaac Castro−Armenta, Angel Lopez−Valenzuela. (Wang, Cecillia) Modified on 9/15/2010 to change from Lodged to Declaration and correct document linkage (MAP). (Entered: 08/27/2010)
193 DECLARATION of Linda Rose in Support of Plaintiffs' 203 Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Isaac Castro−Armenta, Angel Lopez−Valenzuela. (Wang, Cecillia) Modified on 9/15/2010 to change from Lodged to Declaration and correct document linkage (MAP). (Entered: 08/27/2010)
194 DECLARATION of Jeanette Alvarado in Support of Plaintiffs' 203 Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Isaac Castro−Armenta, Angel Lopez−Valenzuela. (Wang, Cecillia) Modified on 9/15/2010 to change from Lodged to Declaration and correct document linkage (MAP). (Entered: 08/27/2010)
195 DECLARATION of Caroline Cincotta in Support of Plaintiffs' 203 Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Isaac Castro−Armenta, Angel Lopez−Valenzuela. (Wang, Cecillia) Modified on 9/15/2010 to change from Lodged to Declaration and correct document linkage (MAP). (Entered: 08/27/2010)
196 DECLARATION of Jana Ferguson in Support of Plaintiffs' 203 Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Isaac Castro−Armenta, Angel Lopez−Valenzuela. (Wang, Cecillia) Modified on 9/15/2010 to change from Lodged to Declaration and correct document linkage (MAP). (Entered: 08/27/2010)
197 DECLARATION of Beverly Markheim in Support of Plaintiffs' 203 Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Isaac Castro−Armenta, Angel Lopez−Valenzuela. (Wang, Cecillia) Modified on 9/15/2010 to change from Lodged to Declaration and correct document linkage (MAP). (Entered: 08/27/2010)
198 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment and Supporting Statement of Facts by Joe Arpaio, Maricopa, County of. (Attachments: # 1 Supplement, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Text of Proposed Order)(Casey, Timothy) (Entered: 08/27/2010)
199 RESPONSE in Opposition re 177 MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages filed by Joe Arpaio, Maricopa, County of. (Casey, Timothy) (Entered: 08/30/2010)
200 REPLY to Response to Motion re 177 MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages filed by Isaac Castro−Armenta, Angel Lopez−Valenzuela. (Wang, Cecillia) (Entered: 08/31/2010)
201 ORDER granting in part and denying in part Plaintiff's 177 Motion for Leave to File Exceed Page Limit; Plaintiffs and Defendants may each file memoranda not to exceed 25 pages for the motion and the response; Plaintiffs' reply shall not exceed the 11 page limit of Local Rule 7.2(e); Plaintiffs may have 10 days from the date of this order to file their motion within the page limitation authorized in this order. Signed by Judge Susan R Bolton on 9/2/10.(REW) (Entered: 09/02/2010)
202 Minute Order: Motion Hearing set for 11/29/2010 at 10:00AM before Judge Susan R Bolton re: 198 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment. This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry. (MAW) (Entered: 09/03/2010)

Case: 2:08-cv-00660-SRB As of: 09/20/2013 08:25 AM MST 21 of 25

09/10/2010 09/14/2010 09/27/2010 09/27/2010 09/27/2010 09/27/2010 10/01/2010 10/04/2010 10/04/2010 10/04/2010 10/06/2010
10/14/2010
10/14/2010
10/20/2010 10/22/2010

203 MOTION for Summary Judgment by Isaac Castro−Armenta, Angel Lopez−Valenzuela. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix A)(Wang, Cecillia) (Entered: 09/10/2010)
204 Joinder re 198 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment and Supporting Statement of Facts by Respondent Richard M Romley filed by Richard M Romley. (White, Bruce) (Entered: 09/14/2010)
205 RESPONSE to Motion re 198 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment and Supporting Statement of Facts filed by Isaac Castro−Armenta, Angel Lopez−Valenzuela. (Wang, Cecillia) (Entered: 09/27/2010)
206 RESPONSE to Defendants' Statement of Facts in Support of Motion for Partial Summary Judgment by Petitioners Isaac Castro−Armenta, Angel Lopez−Valenzuela. (Wang, Cecillia) (Entered: 09/27/2010)
207 DECLARATION of Walter A. Ewing re 205 Response to Motion for Partial Summary Judgment by Petitioners Isaac Castro−Armenta, Angel Lopez−Valenzuela. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Wang, Cecillia) (Entered: 09/27/2010)
208 DECLARATION of Anne Lai (II) re 205 Response to Motion for Partial Summary Judgment by Petitioners Isaac Castro−Armenta, Angel Lopez−Valenzuela. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Wang, Cecillia) (Entered: 09/27/2010)
209 NOTICE of Change of Address by Steven J Monde (Monde, Steven) (Entered: 10/01/2010)
210 NOTICE of Change of Address by Andre Segura (Segura, Andre) (Entered: 10/04/2010)
211 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 203 MOTION for Summary Judgment by Joseph M Arpaio, Maricopa, County of. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Casey, Timothy) (Entered: 10/04/2010)
212 REPLY to Response to Motion re 198 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment and Supporting Statement of Facts filed by Joseph M Arpaio, Maricopa, County of. (Casey, Timothy) (Entered: 10/04/2010)
213 ORDER granting the Unopposed 211 Motion for Extension of Time; that defendants Maricopa County and Joseph Arpaio, shall have up to, and including, Thursday, 10/14/10 to file their Response to Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 203), and that Plaintiffs shall have an extension of two (2) additional days to file their Reply in Support of their Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Judge Susan R Bolton on 10/06/10. (ESL) (Entered: 10/06/2010)
214 RESPONSE to Motion re 203 MOTION for Summary Judgment and CROSS−MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Joseph M Arpaio, Maricopa, County of. (Attachments: # 1 Supplement, # 2 Exhibit)(Casey, Timothy) Modified on 10/15/2010 (LSP). CORRECTION to include "Cross Motion for Summary Judgment". Modified on 10/26/2010 omitted text added (REW). (Entered: 10/14/2010)
215 *** DOCUMENT STRICKEN PURSUANT TO ORDER 230 *** MOTION to Strike Certain Declarations and Exhibits of Plaintiffs Filed in Support of Their Motion for Summary Judgment and Response to Defendants' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment by Joseph M Arpaio, Maricopa, County of. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Casey, Timothy) Modified on 11/17/2010 (LAD). (Entered: 10/14/2010)
216 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 203 MOTION for Summary Judgment by Isaac Castro−Armenta, Angel Lopez−Valenzuela. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Wang, Cecillia) (Entered: 10/20/2010)
217 ORDER granting Plaintiffs' 216 Motion for Extension of Time to File Reply; Plaintiffs' Reply in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment and any accompanying pleadings shall be filed on or before 11/1/10. Signed by Judge Susan R Bolton on 10/22/10.(REW) (Entered: 10/22/2010)

Case: 2:08-cv-00660-SRB As of: 09/20/2013 08:25 AM MST 22 of 25

10/25/2010 10/26/2010 10/27/2010 11/01/2010 11/01/2010 11/01/2010 11/01/2010
11/01/2010 11/03/2010 11/05/2010
11/05/2010
11/10/2010 11/16/2010
11/17/2010

218 Joinder re 214 MOTION for Summary Judgment by Respondent Richard M Romley filed by Richard M Romley. (White, Bruce) (Entered: 10/25/2010)
219 MOTION to Strike 214 MOTION for Summary Judgment ("Cross−Motion" for Summary Judgment on Count Four) by Isaac Castro−Armenta, Angel Lopez−Valenzuela. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Wang, Cecillia) (Entered: 10/26/2010)
220 RESPONSE to Motion re 219 MOTION to Strike 214 MOTION for Summary Judgment ("Cross−Motion" for Summary Judgment on Count Four) filed by Joseph M Arpaio, Maricopa, County of. (Casey, Timothy) (Entered: 10/27/2010)
221 REPLY to Response to Motion re 203 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Isaac Castro−Armenta, Angel Lopez−Valenzuela. (Wang, Cecillia) (Entered: 11/01/2010)
222 OBJECTION re 214 MOTION for Summary Judgment Objections to Defendants' Controverting Statement of Facts by Petitioners Isaac Castro−Armenta, Angel Lopez−Valenzuela. (Wang, Cecillia) (Entered: 11/01/2010)
223 DECLARATION of Anne Lai III re 203 MOTION for Summary Judgment by Petitioners Isaac Castro−Armenta, Angel Lopez−Valenzuela. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Wang, Cecillia) (Entered: 11/01/2010)
224 RESPONSE in Opposition re 215 MOTION to Strike Certain Declarations and Exhibits of Plaintiffs Filed in Support of Their Motion for Summary Judgment and Response to Defendants' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment filed by Isaac Castro−Armenta, Angel Lopez−Valenzuela. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Wang, Cecillia) (Entered: 11/01/2010)
225 MOTION for Leave to File Non−Electronic Legislative Records by Isaac Castro−Armenta, Angel Lopez−Valenzuela. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Wang, Cecillia) (Entered: 11/01/2010)
226 ORDER granting Plaintiffs' 225 Motion for Leave to File Legislative Records in Non−Electronic Form as listed in this order. Signed by Judge Susan R Bolton on 11/3/10.(REW) (Entered: 11/03/2010)
227 NOTICE re Filing and Service of Certified Legislative Records by Isaac Castro−Armenta, Angel Lopez−Valenzuela re 226 Order on Motion for Leave to File Legislative Records in Non−Electronic Form. (Wang, Cecillia) Modified on 11/8/2010 (LSP). CORRECTION from "Lodging" to "Filing". (Entered: 11/05/2010)
Remark: Four CDs received; Senate Judiciary March 28, 2005 HB 2389 &HCR 2028, Senate Judiciary March 20, 2006 HB 2580, Senate Floor May 4, 2006 HB 2580 and House Judiciary Comm: HB 2389, HCR 2028 (1/27/05) House Committee of the Whole: HCR 2028 (3/3/05) House Judiciary Committee: HB 2580 (2/2/06) House Committee of the Whole: HB 2580 (3/7/06) House Floor Session: SB 1265 (6/13/07) House Appropriations Committee: SB 1265 (6/7/07) House Committee of the Whole: SB 1265 (6/7/07). Stored as a permanent record in the Phoenix file room. This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry. (CAD) (Entered: 11/08/2010)
228 Joint MOTION to Continue Hearing Date by Isaac Castro−Armenta, Angel Lopez−Valenzuela. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Wang, Cecillia) (Entered: 11/10/2010)
229 ORDER granting the Stipulated 228 MOTION (Request) for Continuance of Hearing. The hearing on Defendants' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment previously scheduled for 11/29/10, will be rescheduled for 12/13/10 at 3:30 p.m.; that the Court will also hear Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment on 12/13/10 at 3:30 p.m.. Signed by Judge Susan R Bolton on 11/16/10. (ESL) (Entered: 11/16/2010)
230 ORDER striking 215 Dfts' Motion to Strike. Signed by Judge Susan R Bolton on 11/16/10.(LAD) (Entered: 11/17/2010)

Case: 2:08-cv-00660-SRB As of: 09/20/2013 08:25 AM MST 23 of 25

11/17/2010 12/13/2010
12/15/2010 12/15/2010 12/16/2010 01/25/2011
01/27/2011 01/28/2011 01/31/2011 01/31/2011
02/02/2011 02/03/2011 02/03/2011
02/03/2011

231 ORDER withdrawing 214 Cross−Motion for Summary Judgment; denying as moot 219 Motion to Strike Dfts' "Cross−Motion" for Summary Judgment on Count Four and Request for Expedited Ruling. Signed by Judge Susan R Bolton on 11/16/10.(LAD) (Entered: 11/17/2010)
232 Minute Entry. Proceedings held before Judge Susan R Bolton: Motion Hearing held on 12/13/2010. Argument held. IT IS ORDERED taking under advisement 198 Defendants' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and taking under advisement 203 Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment. (Court Reporter Elizabeth Lemke)(MAW) (Entered: 12/14/2010)
233 TRANSCRIPT REQUEST by Isaac Castro−Armenta, Angel Lopez−Valenzuela for proceedings held on 12/13/2010 before Judge Bolton.. (Wang, Cecillia) (Entered: 12/15/2010)
234 TRANSCRIPT REQUEST by Joseph M Arpaio, Maricopa, County of for proceedings held on 12/13/2010 before Judge Hon. Susan Bolton.. (Casey, Timothy) (Entered: 12/15/2010)
235 NOTICE re Name Change and Substitution of Maricopa County Attorney by Richard M Romley. (White, Bruce) (Entered: 12/16/2010)
236 NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT of Motion Hearing Proceedings held on 12/13/2010, before Judge Susan R Bolton. Court Reporter Elizabeth A Lemke. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER.. Redaction Request due 2/15/2011. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 2/25/2011. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 4/25/2011. (BAS) (Entered: 01/25/2011)
237 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney Cynthia Valenzuela Dixon by Isaac Castro−Armenta, Angel Lopez−Valenzuela. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Dixon, Cynthia) (Entered: 01/27/2011)
238 ORDER granting 237 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney, Attorney Cynthia Valenzuela Dixon relieved as attorney of record for plaintiffs. Signed by Judge Susan R Bolton on 1/28/11.(REW) (Entered: 01/28/2011)
239 MOTION for Admission Pro Hac Vice as to attorney Nicholas Espiritu by Isaac Castro−Armenta, Angel Lopez−Valenzuela. (Espiritu, Nicholas) (Entered: 01/31/2011)
240 NOTICE TO FILER OF DEFICIENCY re 239 MOTION for Admission Pro Hac Vice as to attorney Nicholas Espiritu filed by Angel Lopez−Valenzuela, Isaac Castro−Armenta. Description of deficiency: Certificate of Good Standing is more than 45 days old. Please see attached PDF for further information. (BAS) (Entered: 01/31/2011)
241 MOTION for Admission Pro Hac Vice as to attorney Nicholas Espiritu by Isaac Castro−Armenta, Angel Lopez−Valenzuela. (Espiritu, Nicholas) (Entered: 02/02/2011)
PRO HAC VICE FEE PAID. $ 50, receipt number PHX106109 as to Nicholas David Espiritu. This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry. (BAS) (Entered: 02/03/2011)
242 ORDER pursuant to General Order 05−25 terminating 239 Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice; granting 241 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: 02/03/2011)
243 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney by Isaac Castro−Armenta, Angel Lopez−Valenzuela. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Limon, Gladys) (Entered: 02/03/2011)

Case: 2:08-cv-00660-SRB As of: 09/20/2013 08:25 AM MST 24 of 25

02/07/2011 02/24/2011 03/29/2011
03/29/2011 03/29/2011
04/27/2011 04/27/2011 05/03/2011 05/03/2011 05/09/2011 05/10/2011 05/13/2011
05/13/2011
06/10/2011

244 ORDER granting 243 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney; Attorney Gladys Limon relieved as attorney of record for Plaintiffs. Signed by Judge Susan R Bolton on 2/7/11.(REW) (Entered: 02/07/2011)
245 NOTICE re Firm Name Change by Isaac Castro−Armenta, Angel Lopez−Valenzuela. (Stein, Lee) (Entered: 02/24/2011)
246 ORDER denying Plaintiffs Angel Lopez−Valenzuela, Isaac Castro−Armenta, and the certified class' 203 Motion for Summary Judgment; granting Defendants Maricopa County and Joseph Arpaio's 198 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment; the Clerk is directed to enter judgment in this matter in favor of Defendants with respect to Counts One, Two, Three, Five, and Six of the Complaint. Signed by Judge Susan R Bolton on 3/29/11.(REW) (Entered: 03/29/2011)
247 CLERK'S JUDGMENT, pursuant to the Court's Order of March 29, 2011, granting Defendants' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, judgment is hereby entered in favor of Defendants with respect to Counts One, Two, Three, Five and Six of the Complaint.(REW) (Entered: 03/29/2011)
248 ORDER: The Court having ruled on the pending dispositive motions; IT IS ORDERED setting a Bench Trial on Count 4 for June 14, 2011 at 9:00 a.m. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED setting Final Pretrial Conference for June 6, 2011 at 12:30 p.m. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Joint Proposed Pretrial Order shall be due on or before May 31, 2011. Signed by Judge Susan R Bolton on 3/29/11. (MAW) (Entered: 03/29/2011)
249 MOTION to Dismiss Counts/Claims : Count Four, MOTION for Judgment by Isaac Castro−Armenta, Angel Lopez−Valenzuela. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order, # 2 Proposed Form of Final Judgment)(Wang, Cecillia) (Entered: 04/27/2011)
250 *Addtional Attachment, Proposed First Amended Complaint (showing differences) re: 249 MOTION to Dismiss Count Four, filed by Isaac Castro−Armenta, Angel Lopez−Valenzuela. (Wang, Cecillia) *Modified from Lodged Document to Additional Attachment on 4/28/2011* (REW). (Entered: 04/27/2011)
251 RESPONSE in Opposition re 249 MOTION to Dismiss Counts/Claims : Count Four MOTION for Judgment filed by Joseph M Arpaio, Maricopa, County of. (Casey, Timothy) (Entered: 05/03/2011)
252 *Joinder in Defendants Maricopa County and Arpaio's 251 Response in Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion to Dismiss Count 4 Without Prejudice and Motion for Final Judgment by Respondent William G Montgomery. (Longo, Anne) *Modified to add document link on 5/4/2011* (REW). (Entered: 05/03/2011)
253 STIPULATION FOR CONTINUANCE OF BENCH TRIAL by Isaac Castro−Armenta, Angel Lopez−Valenzuela. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Wang, Cecillia) (Entered: 05/09/2011)
254 REPLY to Response to Motion re 249 MOTION to Dismiss Counts/Claims : Count Four MOTION for Judgment filed by Isaac Castro−Armenta, Angel Lopez−Valenzuela. (Wang, Cecillia) (Entered: 05/10/2011)
255 ORDER, granting Plaintiffs' 249 Motion to Dismiss Count Four Without Prejudice and Motion for Final Judgment; directing the Clerk to enter judgment of dismissal without prejudice as to Count Four and to enter final judgment on Counts One, Two, Three, Five, Six, and Seven. Signed by Judge Susan R Bolton on 5/13/11.(REW) (Entered: 05/13/2011)
256 CLERK'S JUDGMENT, pursuant to the Court's Order of May 13, 2011, judgment is hereby entered as follows: Count Four is dismissed without prejudice; Counts One, Two, Three, Five, Six and Seven are dismissed. The Complaint and this action are hereby dismissed as to Counts One, Two, Three, Five, Six and Seven and dismissed without prejudice as to Count Four.(REW) (Entered: 05/13/2011)
257 *NOTICE OF APPEAL to 9th Circuit, re: 256 Judgment, 255 Order, 247 Judgment, 246 Order, 47 Order by Isaac Castro−Armenta, Angel Lopez−Valenzuela. Filing fee received: $ 455.00, receipt number 0970−5436865.

Case: 2:08-cv-00660-SRB As of: 09/20/2013 08:25 AM MST 25 of 25

06/14/2011 07/05/2011 07/06/2011 07/11/2011
07/11/2011 07/13/2011 07/14/2011 07/14/2011 07/18/2011 09/16/2011 09/19/2011

(Wang, Cecillia) *Modified to add document numbers/links on 6/13/2011* (REW). (Entered: 06/10/2011)
258 U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Case Number 11−16487 for 257 Notice of Appeal. (Attachments: # 1 Notice of Docket Activity)(TLJ) (Entered: 06/14/2011)
259 *NOTICE of Withdrawal of Attorney Anne Lai by Isaac Castro−Armenta, Angel Lopez−Valenzuela. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Lai, Anne) *Modified from Motion on 7/6/2011* (REW). (Entered: 07/05/2011)
260 ORDER, pursuant to Local Rule, attorney Anne Lai is relieved as attorney of record for Plaintiff. Signed by Judge Susan R Bolton on 7/6/11. (REW) (Entered: 07/06/2011)
261 ORDER of USCA that this case is remanded to the district court for the limited purpose of granting or denying a certificate of appealability at the court's earliest convenience. If the district court issues a certificate of appealability, the court should specify which issue or issues meet the required showing. If the district court declines to issue a certificate, the court should state its reasons why a certificate of appealability should not be granted, and the clerk of the district court shall forward to this court the record with the order denying the certificate as to 257 Notice of Appeal, filed by Angel Lopez−Valenzuela, Isaac Castro−Armenta. (DMT) (Entered: 07/11/2011)
262 TRANSCRIPT REQUEST by Isaac Castro−Armenta, Angel Lopez−Valenzuela for proceedings held on 7/23/2008 &12/13/2010 before Judge BOLTON, (Wang, Cecillia) (Entered: 07/11/2011)
263 CERTIFICATE OF RECORD TRANSMITTED TO 9TH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS re 257 Notice of Appeal. (BAS) (Entered: 07/13/2011)
264 ORDER Granting CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY as to all claims upon which summary judgment was granted and as to the dismissal of Count Seven re: 257 Notice of Appeal. Signed by Judge Susan R Bolton on 7/14/11. (DMT) (Entered: 07/14/2011)
265 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney by Joseph M Arpaio, Maricopa, County of. (Attachments: # 1 Order)(Metcalf, Drew) (Entered: 07/14/2011)
266 ORDER, granting 265 Motion to Withdraw; attorney Drew Metcalf is relieved as co−counsel of record for Defendant Maricopa County and Defendant Joseph M Arpaio. Signed by Judge Susan R Bolton on 7/18/11.(REW) (Entered: 07/18/2011)
267 First MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney Tanaz Moghadam by Isaac Castro−Armenta, Angel Lopez−Valenzuela. (Moghadam, Tanaz) (Entered: 09/16/2011)
268 ORDER, granting 267 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. Attorney Tanaz Moghadam is relieved as attorney of record for Plaintiffs. Signed by Judge Susan R Bolton on 9/19/11.(REW) (Entered: 09/19/2011)