Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-01993/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-01993-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28:2201 Declaratory Judgment

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Gila River Indian Community, a

federally recognized Indian Tribe, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

United States of America, 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV10-1993 PHX-DGC

CV10-2017 PHX DKD

CV10-2138 PHX MHB

(Consolidated)

ORDER

Arizona Governor Janice Brewer moves to file a brief in support of Plaintiff City of

Glendale as amicus curiae. Doc. 82. The Court will grant the motion.

A district court has broad discretion to accept amicus filings, and may even appoint

amici sua sponte. Hoptowit v. Ray, 682 F.2d 1237, 1245, 1260 (9th Cir. 1982), abrogated

on other grounds by Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472 (1995). “[T]he classic role of [an]

amicus curiae [is] assisting in a case of general public interest, supplementing the efforts of

counsel, and drawing the court’s attention to law that escaped consideration.” Miller-Wohl

Co. v. Comm’r of Labor & Indus., 694 F.2d 203, 204 (9th Cir. 1982); accord Funbus

Systems, Inc. v. California Pub. Utils. Comm’n., 801 F.2d 1120, 1125 (9th Cir. 1986). In

deciding whether to grant amicus status to a government actor, the court may consider

whether the amicus will help advise the court of the government’s position on relevant issues

of law in the case. See Hoptowit, 682 F.2d at 1620. There is no rule requiring an amicus to

be disinterested. Id.; accord Funbus Systems, 801 F.2d at 1125.

The Governor seeks to inform the Court about the legal position of the executive

Case 2:10-cv-01993-DGC Document 90 Filed 12/14/10 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 2 -

branch of the State of Arizona with regard to Defendant’s action. Doc. 82. The Court has

previously granted permissive intervention to the Arizona Legislature, represented by several

legislative leaders. Doc. 77. The Court concludes that affording the State’s chief executive

an opportunity to address issues relevant to the State is also appropriate.

IT IS ORDERED:

1. The motion to file an amicus brief (Doc. 82) is granted. The brief lodged at

Doc. 83 shall become part of the record.

2. Defendants may file a response to the amicus brief by January 14, 2011.

Governor Brewer may file a reply by January 28, 2011. The response shall

not exceed 10 pages in length, and the reply shall not exceed 5 pages in length.

DATED this 14th day of December, 2010.

Case 2:10-cv-01993-DGC Document 90 Filed 12/14/10 Page 2 of 2