Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-02816/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-02816-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 950
Nature of Suit: Constitutionality of State Statutes
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

1 In We Are America/Somos America Coalition of Arizona v. Maricopa Co.

Bd. of Supervisors, 386 Fed.Appx. 726 (9th Cir. 2010), the Ninth Circuit affirmed

this court’s dismissal of the claims of six Mexican nationals who were arrested and

detained pursuant to the “Maricopa Migrant Conspiracy Policy,” which is at the

center of this lawsuit. The Ninth Circuit held that this court “correctly

determined that it lacked jurisdiction under Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 91

S.Ct. 746, 27 L.Ed.2d 669 (1971), to consider the claims” of such plaintiffs. Id.

at 727. Finding, however, that this court “erred . . . in concluding that Younger

abstention barred it from considering the organizational and taxpayer claims[,]”

the Ninth Circuit remanded for this court to “determine whether the organizational

and taxpayer plaintiffs have standing to pursue their claims.” Id. This court

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

We Are America/Somos America, )

Coalition of Arizona, et al. )

)

Plaintiffs, ) No. CIV-06-2816-PHX-RCB

)

vs. ) O R D E R

)

Maricopa County Board of )

Supervisors, et al. )

)

Defendants. ) )

Currently pending before the court is “The Maricopa County

Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss the Claims of the Organizational and

Taxpayer Plaintiffs” (Doc. 68), filed in accordance with this

court’s prior order.1 It has been approximately three and a half

Case 2:06-cv-02816-DJH Document 71 Filed 04/11/11 Page 1 of 5
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

ordered that “any motions directed to the standing issue” were to be “filed not

later than November 8, 2010.” Doc. 67. Hence, the pending defense motion was

filed. Also in accordance with that order, plaintiffs timely filed and served

their response. No reply was filed though. 

- 2 -

years since the filing of the amended complaint. Additionally,

Andrew Thomas, who was originally named as a defendant in his

official capacity as Maricopa County Attorney, is no longer serving

in that capacity. Thus, it is possible that this case has become

moot; and if so, this court would lack subject matter jurisdiction. 

The court will, therefore, require supplemental briefing on that

issue. 

Background

The Amended Complaint (“the complaint”) filed on October 12,

2007, alleges that “defendants have embraced a policy and practice

to arrest, detain, and punish non-smuggler migrants for conspiring

to transport themselves through Maricopa County” (“the Policy”). 

Am. Compl. (Doc. 45) at ¶ 1. The complaint further alleges that

“[d]efendants’ sole legal basis for said policy and practice is an

ultra vires interpretation of Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-2319, a statute

enacted to impose criminal penalties on professional smugglers who

transport migrants not authorized to be in the United States under

federal law.” Id. As the complaint alleges “[m]ost recently, on

or about September 26, 2007, defendants arrested and detained about

. . . (27) individuals pursuant to the . . . Policy.” Id. at 20, 

¶ 43 (emphasis added). 

The complaint names eight defendants. The first is the

Maricopa County Board of Supervisors (“the County Board”), which

allegedly “has acquiesced in, condoned, and through local tax

revenues financed the adoption and implementation of the . . .

Case 2:06-cv-02816-DJH Document 71 Filed 04/11/11 Page 2 of 5
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

- 3 -

Policy.” Id. at 9, ¶ 16. Next, the complaint names as defendants

Fulton Brock, Don Stapley, Andrew Kunasek, Max W. Wilson, and Mary

Rose Wilcox, as “members” of the County Board, who are being “sued

in their official capacities[.]” Id. at 9, ¶ 17. Joseph Arpaio

is also being sued in his “official capacity[]” as “the Maricopa

County Sheriff” who, “as such[,] is vested with the legal authority

and duty to enforce the Arizona Criminal Code, including Ariz. Rev.

State. § 13-2319.” Id. at 10, ¶ 19. 

The eighth defendant which the complaint names is Andrew

Thomas, who at the time of filing, was the Maricopa County Attorney

and “[a]s such” was “responsible for the enforcement of the Arizona

Criminal Code, including prosecuting violations of Ariz. Rev. Stat.

§ 13-2319.” Id. at 9, ¶ 18. Since the filing of the complaint,

however, after the resignation of Mr. Thomas, in accordance with

FED.R.CIV.P. 25(d), Richard M. Romley, serving as Interim Maricopa

County Attorney, was substituted for defendant Thomas. See also

Substitution Order (Doc. 65). The pending defense motion was filed

on November 8, 2010, six days after the Maricopa County Attorney

election. 

Thereafter, on December 16, 2010, Deputy County Attorney White

filed a “Notice of Name Change and Substitution of Maricopa County

Attorney,” notifying the court that “William G. Montgomery is now

the Maricopa County Attorney, and should be substituted for

Defendant Richard M. Romley.” Doc. at 70:21-22. Despite the

foregoing, the defendants’ motion is brought on behalf of every

defendant except the Maricopa County Attorney, whether by name or

position. See Mot. (Doc. 68) at 1:5-6; and 19-23. 

. . .

Case 2:06-cv-02816-DJH Document 71 Filed 04/11/11 Page 3 of 5
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

- 4 -

Discussion

“If the controversy is moot, both the trial and appellate

courts lack subject matter jurisdiction, see [North Carolina v.]

Rice, 404 U.S. [244,] 246, 92 S.Ct. 402, [30 L.Ed.2d 413 (1971)],

and the concomitant ‘power to declare the law’ by deciding the

claims on the merits.” In re Burrell, 415 F.3d 994, 998 (9th Cir.

2005). That is because if a case is moot there is no longer a live

controversy as Article III of the United States Constitution

requires. Indeed, “Article III requires that a live controversy

persist throughout all stages of the litigation.” See Gator.com

Corp. v. L.L. Bean, Inc., 398 F.3d 1125, 1129-30 (9th Cir. 2005)

(emphasis added) (citing Steffel v. Thompson, 415 U.S. 452, 459 n.

10, 94 S.Ct. 1209, 39 L.Ed.2d 505 (1974) (“an actual controversy

must be extant at all stages of review, not merely at the time the

complaint is filed”)). “Hence, the district court must, either sua

sponte or at the request of the parties, evaluate the issue[] of 

. . . mootness.” San Luis & Delta Mendota Water Authority v. U.S.

Dep’t of Interior, 637 F.Supp.2d 777, 786 (E.D.Cal. 2008) (citing,

inter alia, Grupo Dataflux v. Atlas Global Group, 541 U.S. 567,

593, 124 S.Ct. 1920, 158 L.Ed.2d 866 (2004) (“It is the obligation

of both district court and counsel to be alert to jurisdictional

requirements.”)) 

Based upon the foregoing, the court hereby ORDERS that no

later than twenty (20) days from the date hereof the defendants

shall file and serve a supplemental brief on the issue of whether

this action has become moot. Additionally, within that same time

frame defendant Montgomery shall advise the court as to whether or

not he is joining in “The Maricopa County Defendants’ Motion to

Case 2:06-cv-02816-DJH Document 71 Filed 04/11/11 Page 4 of 5
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

- 5 -

Dismiss the Claims of the Organizational and Taxpayer Plaintiffs”

(Doc. 68). 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a responsive memoranda, if any, as

well as a reply memoranda, if any, shall be filed and served and in

all ways comply with the Rules of Practice of the United States

District Court for the District of Arizona.

DATED this 11th day of April, 2011.

Copies to counsel of record

Case 2:06-cv-02816-DJH Document 71 Filed 04/11/11 Page 5 of 5