Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_77-cv-00479/USCOURTS-azd-2_77-cv-00479-16/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

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 

Fred Graves, Isaac Popoca, on their own 

behalf and on behalf of a class of all pretrial 

detainees in the Maricopa County Jails, 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

Joseph Arpaio, Sheriff of Maricopa County; 

Andrew Kunasek, Mary Rose Wilcox, 

Denny Barney, Steve Chucri, and Clint L. 

Hickman, Maricopa County Supervisors, 

Defendants.

No. CV-77-00479-PHX-NVW

ORDER 

Before the Court is the Motion of Osborn Maledon, P.A. to Withdraw as Counsel 

of Record for Plaintiffs (Doc. 2321). 

The Motion states, “Osborn Maledon intends, by withdrawing from this case, to 

complete the substitution of counsel that began when Stinson Leonard Street LLP 

(‘Stinson Leonard’) noticed its appearance on July 2, 2015 (Dkt. 2319) and further on 

July 7, 2015 (Dkt. 2320).” (Doc. 2321.) It also states, “Because of the unique nature of 

this case, counsel are unable to notify the clients of their motion to withdraw.” (Id.) The 

Motion is supported by current counsel Sharad H. Desai’s certification that members of 

the Plaintiff class have not been notified because it would be impracticable to do so, but 

Mr. Desai is satisfied “that the interests of all class members will be well served and in no 

way disadvantaged by Osborn Maledon’s withdrawal in light of the continued 

participation of other counsel for the Plaintiff class.” (Doc. 2321-1.) 

Case 2:77-cv-00479-NVW Document 2322 Filed 07/23/15 Page 1 of 3
- 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 

“No attorney shall be permitted to withdraw or be substituted as attorney of record 

in any pending action except by formal written order of the Court, supported by written 

application setting forth the reasons therefor together with the name, last known 

residence and last known telephone number of the client.” LRCiv 83.3(b). In other 

words, substitution of counsel is accomplished by seeking court approval for the 

substitution, not by filing a notice of appearance by new counsel followed by a motion to 

withdraw by current counsel. Moreover, an application for substitution must set forth 

reasons for the substitution. This Motion does not. 

Further, the Motion does not consider that class counsel must be appointed by the 

Court upon consideration of certain factors. In appointing class counsel, a court must 

consider, among other things, the work counsel has done in identifying or investigating 

potential claims in the action, counsel’s experience and knowledge, and “any other matter 

pertinent to counsel’s ability to fairly and adequately represent the interest of the class.” 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g)(1). 

Appointment of Plaintiffs’ current counsel was given thorough consideration. 

After two years considering, and at least three status conferences discussing, whether 

Osborn Maledon needed to be appointed as class counsel to assist or replace then-class 

counsel Theodore C. Jarvi, Plaintiffs moved for appointment of Debra Hill of Osborn 

Maledon, P.A., and Margaret Winter of the ACLU National Prison Project as class 

counsel. (Doc. 1212.) The motion included declarations and detailed information 

regarding the qualifications of Ms. Hill and Ms. Winter pursuant to Rule 23(g)(1). On 

April 1, 2008, Judge Earl Carroll granted Plaintiffs’ motion and terminated representation 

by Mr. Jarvi, but Defendants’ time to respond to the motion for appointment had not 

expired. (Doc. 1221.) On April 8, 2008, Defendants moved for reconsideration of the 

appointment Order to permit them to file a response. (Doc. 1231.) Following transfer of 

the case to the undersigned judge on April 10, 2008, the Court considered Defendants’ 

arguments opposing the appointment and reaffirmed the appointment Order on April 16, 

2008. (Doc. 1239.) 

Case 2:77-cv-00479-NVW Document 2322 Filed 07/23/15 Page 2 of 3
- 3 - 

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 

For the next seven years, Osborn Maledon and the ACLU National Prison Project 

represented Plaintiffs through extensive evidentiary hearings and achievement of 

significant improvement in conditions in the Maricopa County Jail. The ACLU National 

Prison Project took the lead regarding conditions related to pretrial detainees’ medical 

and mental health care, and Osborn Maledon was primarily responsible for conditions 

related to housing, safety, sanitation, nutrition, recreation, and discipline. By May 2012, 

all of the nonmedical provisions of the court-ordered prospective relief were terminated. 

On September 30, 2014, the Court found that Defendants had not shown that 

certain constitutional violations related to medical and mental health care had been 

corrected, and it ordered Defendants to adopt specific policies and procedures, fully 

implement those policies and procedures, and collect data to show compliance. (Doc. 

2283.) By September 15, 2015, Defendants must file a report of the data collected and 

summarized in compliance with the Order. The Order anticipates that Defendants “will 

demonstrate that prospective relief no longer remains necessary to correct any current and 

ongoing violation of Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights, and Court-ordered relief may be 

terminated before the PLRA permits another motion to terminate.” (Doc. 2283 at 59-60.) 

Thus, it is very late in this case, and probably unnecessary, to substitute new 

counsel for Osborn Maledon. If Plaintiffs need representation in addition to that provided 

by the ACLU National Prison Project, it would be extremely inefficient to rely on new 

counsel rather than those who have represented these clients for more than seven years. 

Moreover, there is no apparent reason that Osborn Maledon cannot continue 

representation for a few more months. 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Motion of Osborn Maledon, P.A. to 

Withdraw as Counsel of Record for Plaintiffs (Doc. 2321) is denied. 

Dated this 23rd day of July, 2015. 

Neil V. Wake

United States District Judge

Case 2:77-cv-00479-NVW Document 2322 Filed 07/23/15 Page 3 of 3