Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-01822/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-01822-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Personal Injury

---

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

DAVID AUBLE, et al.,

Plaintiffs, 

vs.

MARICOPA COUNTY, a public entity;

MARICOPA COUNTY SHERIFF’S

OFFICE, a division of Maricopa County;

JOSEPH M. ARPAIO, Maricopa County

Sheriff; NEWMARK HOLDINGS I, LLC,

a foreign limited liability corporation d/b/a

AMAZING JAKE’S FUN & FOOD; and

TEHRAN RYLES; et al.,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 08-1822-PHX-MHM

AMENDED ORDER

On November 3, 2008, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss Maricopa County

Sheriff’s Office (“MCSO”) on the grounds that it is a non-jural entity incapable of being

sued. (Dkt. #5). Plaintiff responds that MCSO is a political subdivision amenable to suit.

(Dkt. #11). For the reasons stated below, this Court certifies this question to the Arizona

Supreme Court pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-1861 and Arizona Supreme Court Rule 27. See

Binford v. Rhode, 116 F.3d 396, 400 (9th Cir. 1997); Torres v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.,

867 F.2d 1234, 1237-39 (9th Cir.1989).

I. WHETHER MCSO IS A POLITICAL SUBDIVISION

Defendants move the Court to dismiss MCSO as a defendant, arguing that it lacks the

capacity to be sued under Arizona law. (Dkt. #5). Plaintiffs, in their response, cite to several

Case 2:08-cv-01822-MHM Document 39 Filed 10/14/09 Page 1 of 6
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

MCSO does not specifically address Plaintiffs’ assertions, instead making the

following general averment: “All of the power and authority is held by the Sheriff himself.

Instead of a political entity, in truth the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office is a group of

buildings located at various places in Maricopa County. It is a short hand phrase for

referring to the Sheriff and his deputies.” (Dkt. #14).

- 2 -

lawsuits in which MCSO has been involved, either as a plaintiff or defendant. (Dkt. #11).

Plaintiffs also point out that MCSO “has an annual budget of millions, a staff numbering in

the thousands, and the responsibility for creating and implementing policies and procedures

dealing with the maintenance of the jails, the incarceration of approximately ten thousand

inmates, and the care of those inmates.” (Id.). Plaintiffs further allege that MCSO has its

own bank account, routinely retains its own legal counsel, and holds an insurance policy

separate from other divisions of Maricopa County. (Id.). 

According to Plaintiffs, “MCSO is related to and yet separate from Maricopa County

and Sheriff Arpaio” and “exists with the purpose of discharging many functions of local

government as required by the [Arizona] Constitution and other law: the care, custody, and

control of inmates and pre-trial detainees within the Maricopa County jails.” (Id.).

Additionally, “MCSO has a prescribed area in which it has jurisdiction and in which it

operates,” including “the unincorporated parts of the County.” (Id.). Finally, “the fact that

MCSO possesses the authority for subordinate self-government by officers and entities

selected by it manifests itself in the complex hierarchy it maintains to perform its duties.”

(Id.).1

 Thus, Plaintiffs argue, MCSO is a public entity as defined by A.R.S. § 12-820(6).

(Id.)

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17(b) provides that the capacity of a party to sue and

be sued is determined by the law of the state in which the court is located. Fed.R.Civ.P.

17(b). Arizona law specifically provides that the power to sue and be sued is vested in

counties, their board of supervisors, agents, and officers acting under their authority. A.R.S.

§ 11-201(A) (2008). The enumerated officers of each county include a “sheriff,” but not a

sheriff’s office. A.R.S. § 11-401(A). Although these statutes stand for the proposition that

Case 2:08-cv-01822-MHM Document 39 Filed 10/14/09 Page 2 of 6
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 -

Maricopa County and its sheriff may be sued, they do not specifically authorize MCSO to

be sued.

Nonetheless, it appears that MCSO may be sued if it qualifies as a public entity under

A.R.S. § 12-820(6). See Carey v. Maricopa County, 602 F. Supp. 2d 1132, 1143 (D. Ariz.

2009) (Silver, J.) (noting that, under Arizona law, public entities are liable for acts and

omissions of their employees). The definition of a public entity includes any political

subdivision of Arizona. A.R.S. § 12-820(6) (2008). Thus, although MCSO is not listed as

an entity that may be sued under A.R.S. § 11-201(A), the capacity of MCSO to be sued

depends on whether or not MCSO qualifies as a political subdivision.

The Court can find no Arizona case law resolving this issue. The Court notes,

however, that MCSO has been amenable to suit, as both a plaintiff and defendant, in

numerous state court actions. See, e.g. Maricopa County Sheriff's Office v. Maricopa County

Employee Merit Sys. Comm’n, 211 Ariz. 219 (2005); W. Valley View, Inc. v. Maricopa

County Sheriff’s Office, 216 Ariz. 225 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2007); Patterson v. Maricopa County

Sheriff’s Office, 177 Ariz. 153 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1993). Moreover, in W. Valley View, 216

Ariz. 225, even though the Arizona Court of Appeals did not take up the issue of whether

MCSO is a political subdivision, MCSO was described in the case caption as a political

subdivision. In addition, in Flanders v. Maricopa County, which, like this case, involved a

§ 1983 claim, MCSO was also captioned as a political subdivision. 203 Ariz. 368 (Ariz. Ct.

App. 2002). There, the issue of whether MCSO is a non-jural entity was raised, but the

Arizona Court of Appeals declined to consider the issue because it was raised too late; the

court urged “counsel to resolve questions of proper parties and ‘jural’ entities at the outset

of a case rather than after the verdict.” Id. at 379 n.11.

There is no consensus within the District of Arizona as to whether MCSO is a political

subdivision amenable to suit. Williams v. Tempe, 2006 WL 798701, at *3 (D. Ariz. 2006)

(Teilborg, J.). In Wilson v. Maricopa County, the district court declined to hold that MCSO

is a political subdivision capable of being sued. 2005 WL 3054051, at *1 (D. Ariz. 2005)

(Campbell, J.). The court held that the proposition that MCSO is a political subdivision is

Case 2:08-cv-01822-MHM Document 39 Filed 10/14/09 Page 3 of 6
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 -

too broad, “particularly when the Arizona Legislature specifically has stated that the County

is a political subdivision with authority to sue and be sued and has not made the same

declaration with respect to MCSO.” Id. See also Ekweani v. Maricopa County Sheriff’s

Office, 2009 WL 976520, at *2 (D. Ariz. 2009) (Martone, J.) (declining to find that MCSO

is a political subdivision because “[a]lthough the Arizona legislature specifically designated

the county as a political subdivision with authority to sue and be sued, it did not make the

same designation with respect to MCSO. . .”). 

On the other hand, in Agster v. Maricopa County, No. CV-02-1686-PHX-JAT (March

3, 2005 Order) (Teilborg, J.), the court refused to dismiss MCSO as a non-jural entity from

the case, which, like this one, involved a § 1983 claim. In addition, in De Jesus Ortega

Melendres v. Arpaio, this Court allowed MCSO to be sued. 598 F. Supp. 2d 1025, 1039 (D.

Ariz. 2009). There, however, MCSO was subject to suit as a “program or activity” receiving

federal funds under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000d. Id.

As stated above, there is no consensus within the District of Arizona on the issue of

whether MCSO is a political subdivision under Arizona law. The position that MCSO is not

a political subdivision appears to be at odds with the fact that Arizona courts have allowed

MCSO to be sued as a political subdivision in several cases. More importantly, although

MCSO has been sued and captioned a political subdivision in various state court cases, the

Arizona courts have not directly considered the precise issue. For these reasons, this Court

is reluctant to rule on this novel question of state law without first seeking an indication from

the Arizona courts. Accordingly, in an abundance of caution, this Court will certify the

following question to the Arizona Supreme Court pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-1861 and Rule 27

of the Arizona Rules of Supreme Court: whether, under Arizona law, the Maricopa County

Sheriff’s Office is a political subdivision capable of being sued? 

This Court respectfully requests that the Arizona Supreme Court exercise its

discretionary authority under Arizona Supreme Court Rule 27 to accept and decide this

question. This Court’s phrasing of the question should not restrict the Arizona Supreme

Court's consideration of the problems and issues involved. If the Arizona Supreme Court

Case 2:08-cv-01822-MHM Document 39 Filed 10/14/09 Page 4 of 6
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 -

declines certification this Court will resolve the issue according to its understanding of

Arizona law.

The Clerk of this Court is directed to file with the Arizona Supreme Court an original

and six certified copies of this order and a list of the counsel appearing in this matter along

with their addresses and telephone numbers. See Ariz. S. Ct. R. 27(a)(3)(C), (a)(4). The

Arizona Supreme Court may supplement the record in any way it believes appropriate to

enable it to answer the certified questions. See Ariz. S. Ct. R. 27(a)(5). Any court fees and

costs incurred in state proceedings shall be paid equally by both parties. See Ariz. S. Ct. R.

27(a)(3)(D).

Until the Arizona Supreme Court resolves the issue, or otherwise declines to certify

the question, MCSO will remain a named defendant in this action. MCSO is granted leave

to re-urge its motion once the Arizona Supreme Court resolves the issue or declines

certification.

Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED certifying a question of Arizona law to the Arizona

Supreme Court.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED dismissing without prejudice Defendant Maricopa

County Sheriff’s Office Motion to Dismiss, (Dkt. #5), and granting it leave to re-urge the

motion once the Arizona Supreme Court has certified the above-stated question or otherwise

declines certification.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED directing the Clerk of the Court to attach a copy of

the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona’s docket sheet to this Order.

/ / / 

Case 2:08-cv-01822-MHM Document 39 Filed 10/14/09 Page 5 of 6
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

- 6 -

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED directing the Clerk of the Court to send six certified

copies of this Order to the Arizona Supreme Court pursuant to Arizona Supreme Court Rule

27. 

DATED this 14th day of October, 2009.

Case 2:08-cv-01822-MHM Document 39 Filed 10/14/09 Page 6 of 6