FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MANUEL DE JESUS ORTEGA

MELENDRES; JESSICA QUITUGUA

RODRIGUEZ; DAVID RODRIGUEZ;

VELIA MERAZ; MANUEL NIETO, JR.;

SOMOS AMERICA,

Plaintiffs-Appellees,

v.

JOSEPH M. ARPAIO; MARICOPA

COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE,

Defendants-Appellants.

No. 13-16285

D.C. No.

2:07-cv-02513-

GMS

MANUEL DE JESUS ORTEGA

MELENDRES; JESSICA QUITUGUA

RODRIGUEZ; DAVID RODRIGUEZ;

VELIA MERAZ; MANUEL NIETO, JR.;

SOMOS AMERICA,

Plaintiffs-Appellees,

v.

JOSEPH M. ARPAIO; MARICOPA

COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE,

Defendants-Appellants.

No. 13-17238

D.C. No.

2:07-cv-02513-

GMS

OPINION
2 MELENDRES V. ARPAIO

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the District of Arizona

G. Murray Snow, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted

December 3, 2014—San Francisco, California

Filed April 15, 2015

Before: J. Clifford Wallace, Susan P. Graber,

and Marsha S. Berzon, Circuit Judges.

Opinion by Judge Wallace

SUMMARY*

Civil Rights

The panel affirmed in part and vacated in part the district

court’s permanent injunction and remanded in an action

against Sheriff Joseph M. Arpaio and the Maricopa County

Sheriff’s Office alleging that defendants have a custom,

policy and practice of racially profiling Latino drivers and

passengers, and of stopping them pretextually under the

auspices of enforcing federal and state immigration-related

laws.

The panel first held that the Maricopa County Sheriff’s

Office, a non-jural entity under Arizona state law, improperly

* This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It has

been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader.
MELENDRES V. ARPAIO 3

was named as a party in the action. The panel ordered that

Maricopa County be substituted as a party in lieu of the

Sheriff’s Office and also that on remand, the district court

may consider dismissal of Sheriff Arpaio in his official

capacity because an official-capacity suit is, in all respects

other than name, to be treated as a suit against the entity.

Addressing the defendants’ sufficiency of the evidence

argument, the panel held the district court did not clearly err

in finding that defendants’ unconstitutional policies extended

beyond the saturation patrol context. Moreover, the panel

held that the district court did not err in holding that the

named plaintiffs had standing to assert the claims of absent

class members who were stopped during non-saturation

patrols. For the same reasons, the panel held that there was

no error in the district court’s class certification order. 

The panel held that the injunction was not overbroad

simply because it included non-saturation patrols. The panel

further upheld specific provisions of the injunction pertaining

to corrective training and supervision procedures and

provisions requiring specific data collection and videorecording of traffic stops. The panel additionally held that

most of the provisions dealing with the scope of the appointed

Monitor’s assessment authority were narrowly tailored to

remedying the specific constitutional violations.

The panel held that the provisions of the injunction which

broadlyrequire the appointed Monitor to consider the internal

investigations and reports of officer misconduct created a

problem to the extent that such internal investigations and

reports were unrelated to the constitutional violations found

by the district court. The panel held that these provisions

were not narrowly tailored to addressing the relevant
4 MELENDRES V. ARPAIO

violations of federal law. The panel therefore vacated those

particular provisions and ordered the district court to tailor

them so as to address only the constitutional violations at

issue in this case.

COUNSEL

Eileen Dennis GilBride (argued), Jones, Skelton & Hochuli,

P.L.C., Phoenix, Arizona; Timothy Casey and James

Williams, Schmitt, Schneck, Smyth, Casey & Even, P.C.,

Phoenix, Arizona; Thomas Purcell Liddy, Deputy County

Attorney, Maricopa County Attorney’s Office, Phoenix,

Arizona, for Defendants-Appellants.

Stanley Young (argued), Hyun S. Byun, and Priscilla G.

Taylor, Covington & Burling LLP, Redwood Shores,

California; Tammy Albarran, Covington & Burling LLP, San

Francisco, California; Dan Pochoda and James Lyall, ACLU

Foundation of Arizona, Phoenix, Arizona; Andre Segura,

ACLU Foundation Immigrants’ Rights Project, New York,

New York; Jorge Martin Castillo, Mexican American Legal

and Educational Fund, Los Angeles, California; Cecillia D.

Wang, ACLU Foundation Immigrants’ Rights Project, San

Francisco, California; Anne Lai, Irvine, California, for

Plaintiffs-Appellees.
MELENDRES V. ARPAIO 5

OPINION

WALLACE, Senior Circuit Judge:

In a previous opinion in this case, we affirmed the district

court’s post-trial preliminary injunction against Sheriff

Joseph M. Arpaio and the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office

(individually, Sheriff Arpaio and MCSO; collectively,

Defendants), which prohibitedDefendants from detaining any

individual “based only on knowledge or reasonable belief,

without more, that the person is unlawfully present within the

United States.” See Melendres v. Arpaio, 695 F.3d 990, 994

(9th Cir. 2012) (Melendres I). In this opinion, we address

Defendants’ appeal from the district court’s more

comprehensive permanent injunction. We have jurisdiction

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm in part, and we

vacate and remand in part.

I.

The background facts of this case may be found in greater

detail in Melendres I. The facts relevant to the arguments

made in the present appeal are as follows. Manuel de Jesus

Ortega Melendres; David and Jessica Rodriguez; Manuel

Nieto, Jr.; VeliaMeraz; the organization Somos America; and

the class of individuals the named plaintiffs represent

(collectively, Plaintiffs) brought a class action for declaratory

and injunctive relief, alleging that Defendants have a

“custom, policy and practice” of racially profiling Latino

drivers and passengers, and of stopping them pretextually

under the auspices of enforcing federal and state

immigration-related laws. Id. at 994–95. Plaintiffs alleged

that Defendants’ discriminatory policy extended to the poststop investigatory process, resulting in longer and more
6 MELENDRES V. ARPAIO

burdensome detentions for Latinos than for non-Latinos.

These policies, according to Plaintiffs, violated federal

constitutional and statutory law. Id.

It was alleged that Defendants implemented this policy

primarily during “saturation patrols,” or “crime suppression

sweeps,” in which Defendant officers would “saturat[e]” a

particular area and “sweep[]” it, looking for violations of

federal civil immigration laws and state immigration-related

laws. Id. at 994. Indeed, each of the named individual

plaintiffs, except for David and Jessica Rodriguez, was

stopped by defendant officers during a saturation patrol. The

district court ultimately certified a plaintiff class

encompassing “[a]ll Latino persons who, since January 2007,

have been or will be . . . stopped, detained, questioned or

searched by [Defendants’] agents while driving or sitting in

a vehicle on a public roadway or parking area in Maricopa

County, Arizona,” regardless of whether such persons were

stopped, detained, questioned, or searched as part of a

saturation patrol. Id. at 995 (alteration in original). At trial,

the vast majority of evidence focused on Defendants’ use of

race during saturation patrols, although some evidence

indicated that Defendants’ policies and practices extended to

regular, non-saturation patrols.

After a bench trial, the district court concluded that

Defendants employed an unconstitutional policy of

considering race as a factor in determining where to conduct

patrol operations, in deciding whom to stop and investigate

for civil immigration violations, and in prolonging the

detentions of Latinos while their immigration status was

confirmed. The court found that these unconstitutional

policies applied to both saturation and non-saturation patrol

activities. As a result, the district court permanently enjoined
MELENDRES V. ARPAIO 7

Defendants from (1) “detaining, holding or arresting Latino

occupants of vehicles in Maricopa County based on a

reasonable belief, without more, that such persons are in the

country without authorization”; (2) “using race or Latino

ancestry” as a factor in deciding whether to stop any vehicle

with a Latino occupant, or in deciding whether a vehicle

occupant was in the United States without authorization;

(3) “detainingLatino occupants of vehicles stopped for traffic

violations for a period longer than reasonably necessary to

resolve the traffic violation in the absence of reasonable

suspicion that any of them have committed or are committing

a violation of federal or state criminal law”; (4) “detaining,

holding or arresting Latino occupants of a vehicle . . . for

violations of the Arizona Human Smuggling Act without a

reasonable basis for believing that, under all the

circumstances, the necessary elements of the crime are

present”; and (5) “detaining, arresting or holding persons

based on a reasonable suspicion that they are conspiring with

their employer to violate the Arizona Employer Sanctions

Act.”

The injunction became effective immediately. However,

the district court stated it would confer with the parties about

the need for additional injunctive relief, given Defendants’

history of being “aggressively responsive” to a majority of

the Maricopa County electorate in pursuing law enforcement

efforts against “unauthorized residents.” Such efforts had

resulted in violations of the district court’s preliminary

injunction. The court suggested that additional injunctive

relief should address Defendants’ failure to have a “clear

policy” about conducting saturation patrols and “other

enforcement efforts” in a race-neutral manner, as well as

Defendants’ failure to monitor and keep proper records

regarding whether officers were “engaging in racially-biased
8 MELENDRES V. ARPAIO

enforcement” during saturation patrols. The district court told

the parties that it expected them to submit a “consent decree”

if they could agree on all terms necessary to resolve the

matter; however, if they could not reach an agreement on “all

particulars,” theywere to submit a “proposed consent decree”

that denoted each point of agreement and disagreement.

After two months of negotiation, the parties submitted a

document titled “Parties’ Joint Report Regarding Status of

Consent DecreeNegotiations” (Joint Report) which contained

provisions upon which the parties agreed, designated byblack

font, and those upon which they disagreed, designated by red

or blue font. The Joint Report’s terms did not distinguish

between saturation and non-saturation patrols. At the

evidentiary hearing on the Joint Report, the district court

recognized that the parties had not arrived at a true “consent

decree” but rather had produced a “general framework

throughwhich [the court could enter]supplemental injunctive

relief” by resolving the parties’ remaining “significant

disagreements.” Following that hearing, and using the Joint

Report as a framework, the district court entered a

supplemental permanent injunction. This injunction required

Defendants, among other things, to increase training, improve

traffic-stop documentation, develop an early identification

system for racial profiling problems, enhance supervision and

evaluation of MCSO deputies, and improve reporting of

misconduct complaints. The supplemental injunction also

directed the appointment of an independent Monitor to assess

and report on Defendants’ implementation of the original and

supplemental injunctions. As with the parties’ Joint Report,

the court’s injunctive provisions were not limited to

saturation patrols, but rather applied across the board to all

law enforcement activity within the MCSO.
MELENDRES V. ARPAIO 9

On appeal, Defendants raise two main challenges to the

district court’s permanent and supplemental injunction orders.

First, they challenge the scope of the injunction insofar as it

applies to Defendants’ conduct outside saturation patrols.

Defendants maintain that insufficient evidence supported the

court’s finding that Defendants’ constitutional violations

occurred during regular, non-saturation patrols.Also, because

the district court rejected David and Jessica Rodriguez’

constitutional claims, and because the Rodriguezes were the

only named plaintiffs stopped outside a saturation patrol,

Defendants argue that the Rodriguezes lack standing to bring

the constitutional claims on behalf of unnamed class

members similarly stopped outside of a saturation patrol.

Accordingly, Defendants argue that the injunction should be

vacated as it applies to regular patrol activities, and that the

Plaintiff class should be partially decertified and limited to

Latino vehicle occupants stopped, detained, searched, or

questioned “during a saturation patrol.” Second, Defendants

challenge several terms of the injunction as being broader

than necessary to cure the constitutional violations found by

the district court.

II.

The district court’s findings are reviewed for clear error

and its legal conclusions are reviewed de novo. Saltarelli v.

Bob Baker Grp. Med. Trust, 35 F.3d 382, 384–85 (9th Cir.

1994). The scope and terms of the district court’s injunction,

however, are reviewed for an abuse of discretion. See LambWeston, Inc. v. McCain Foods, Ltd., 941 F.2d 970, 974 (9th

Cir. 1991) (“A district court has considerable discretion in

fashioning suitable relief and defining the terms of an

injunction. Appellate review of those terms is

correspondinglynarrow” (internal quotation marks omitted)).
10 MELENDRES V. ARPAIO

III.

Before we reach the merits of the injunctions, we first

address Defendants’ threshold argument that MCSO is not a

proper party before the court. Early in this litigation,

Defendants moved the district court to dismiss MCSO on the

ground that it was a non-jural entity—that is, it lacked

separate legal status from the County and therefore was

incapable of suing or being sued in its own name. When the

district court ruled on that motion, Arizona law was unsettled

on this issue and, given the lack of consensus among the state

and lower federal courts, the district court refused to dismiss

MCSO as a non-jural entity. Later, the Arizona Court of

Appeals clarified that MCSO is, in fact, a non-jural entity.

Braillard v. Maricopa Cnty., 232 P.3d 1263, 1269 (Ariz. Ct.

App. 2010). After Braillard, it is now clear that MCSO has

improperly been named as a party in this action.

We therefore order that Maricopa County be substituted

as a party in lieu of MCSO. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 21

(“Misjoinder of parties is not a ground for dismissing an

action. On . . . its own, the court may at any time, on just

terms, add or drop a party”). On remand, the district court

may consider dismissal of Sheriff Arpaio in his official

capacity because “an official-capacity suit is, in all respects

other than name, to be treated as a suit against the entity.”

Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S. 159, 166 (1985); see also Ctr.

For Bio-Ethical Reform, Inc. v. L.A. Cnty. Sheriff Dep’t,

533 F.3d 780, 799 (9th Cir. 2008) (dismissing a duplicative

official-capacity defendant).
MELENDRES V. ARPAIO 11

IV.

We now turn to the merits of the injunctions. We first

address Defendants’ sufficiency of the evidence argument.

Defendants contend that, although the evidence supports the

district court’s findings and conclusions with respect to

constitutional violations during saturation patrols, the

evidence is insufficient to sustain the court’s findings and

conclusions that Defendants’ unconstitutional policies

extended beyond the context of saturation patrols.

Although the evidence largely addressed Defendants’ use

of race during saturation patrols, the district court did not

clearly err in finding that Defendants’ policy applied acrossthe-board to all law enforcement decisions—not just those

made during saturation patrols. For example, the district court

cited Sheriff Arpaio’s own testimony stating that MCSO

“continue[d] to engage in immigration enforcement even

though not using saturation patrols to do so.” Sheriff Arpaio

testified that, despite an eight-month suspension in

“immigration sweeps,” “[w]e’re still doing crime suppression

concentrating on the drug traffic” in which “we continue to

enforce the illegal immigration laws.” Moreover, the district

court pointed to multiple instances of deputy sheriffs’

testimony in which it was confirmed that at least some MCSO

deputies “continue[] to investigate the identity and

immigration status of persons it detains during [all] vehicle

stops” irrespective of whether they occur during a saturation

patrol. Although there is more evidence in the record

regarding MCSO’s practices during saturation patrols, we

hold that the district court did not clearly err in finding that

Defendants’ unconstitutional policies extended beyond the

saturation patrol context.
12 MELENDRES V. ARPAIO

V.

We now turn to Defendants’ argument that the named

plaintiffs lacked standing to represent the claims of unnamed

class members who were stopped, detained, or searched

outside of a saturation patrol effort.

The parties agree the Rodriguezes were the “only named

plaintiffs who were stopped outside of a saturation patrol.”

Defendants argue that none of the evidence presented on the

Rodriguez stop establishes a Fourth or Fourteenth

Amendment violation, much less a pattern or practice of

MCSO’s violating the Fourteenth Amendment. Therefore,

Defendants argue, no named plaintiff has standing to assert

the claims related to stops outside saturation patrols. They

thus ask us to decertify partially the class and vacate the

injunction “as to all activities outside of saturation patrols.”

The difficulty with Defendants’ argument is that it

conflates standing and class certification. Although both

concepts “aim to measure whether the proper party is before

the court to tender the issues for litigation, . . . [t]hey spring

from different sources and serve different functions.”

1 WILLIAM B. RUBENSTEIN, NEWBERG ON CLASS ACTIONS

§ 2:6 (5th ed.). Standing is meant to ensure that the injury a

plaintiff suffers defines the scope of the controversy he or she

is entitled to litigate. Class certification, on the other hand, is

meant to ensure that named plaintiffs are adequate

representatives of the unnamed class. Unfortunately, when

courts have found a disjuncture between the claims of named

plaintiffs and those of absent class members, they have not

always classified the disjuncture consistently, some referring

to it as an issue of standing, and others as an issue of class

certification. Id. Nor is the distinction always easy to discern.
MELENDRES V. ARPAIO 13

Even the Supreme Court has apparently applied both

approaches inconsistently. Id.; see also Gratz v. Bollinger,

539 U.S. 244, 263 n.15 (2003) (observing the “tension” in the

Court’s prior cases as to whether the similarity of injuries

suffered by the named plaintiff and the unnamed class

members is “appropriately addressed under the rubric of

standing or adequacy”).

The “standing approach” treats dissimilarities between the

claims of named and unnamed plaintiffs as affecting the

“standing” of the named plaintiff to represent the class. In

other words, if there is a disjuncture between the injuries

suffered by named and unnamed plaintiffs, courts applying

the standing approach would say the disjuncture deprived the

named plaintiff of standing to obtain relief for the unnamed

class members. See, e.g., Blum v. Yaretsky, 457 U.S. 991,

999–1002 (1982). The “class certification approach,” on the

other hand, “holds that once the named plaintiff demonstrates

her individual standing to bring a claim, the standing inquiry

is concluded, and the court proceeds to consider whether the

Rule 23(a) prerequisites for class certification have been

met.” NEWBERG ON CLASS ACTIONS § 2:6.

We adopt the class certification approach. This approach

has been embraced several times (though not always) by the

Supreme Court, and is the one adopted by “most” other

federal courts to have addressed the issue. Id.; see, e.g., Sosna

v. Iowa, 419 U.S. 393, 397–403 (1975); Novella v.

Westchester Cnty., 661 F.3d 128, 149–50 & n.24 (2d Cir.

2011); Prado-Steiman ex rel. Prado v. Bush, 221 F.3d 1266,

1279–80 (11th Cir. 2000) (a court must first determine

whether “at least one named class representative has Article

III standing,” then “question whether the named plaintiffs

have representative capacity, as defined by Rule 23(a), to
14 MELENDRES V. ARPAIO

assert the rights of others” (internal quotation marks

omitted)); Fallick v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 162 F.3d 410,

423 (6th Cir. 1998); Cooper v. Univ. of Tex. at Dallas, 482 F.

Supp. 187, 191 (N.D. Tex. 1979).

For example, in Sosna, the Supreme Court held that

[a] named plaintiff in a class action must

show that the threat of injury in a case . . . is

“real and immediate,” not “conjectural” or

“hypothetical.” . . . This conclusion [that

plaintiff had standing] does not automatically

establish that appellant is entitled to litigate

the interests of the class she seeks to

represent, but it does shift the focus of

examination from the elements of

justiciability to the ability of the named

representative to “fairly and adequately

protect the interests of the class.”

419 U.S. at 402–03 (emphasis added, citations and internal

quotation marks omitted). Under the class certification

approach, therefore, “any issues regarding the relationship

between the class representative and the passive class

members—such as dissimilarity in injuries suffered—are

relevant only to class certification, not to standing.”

NEWBERG ON CLASSACTIONS § 2:6;see also Gen. Tel. Co. of

Sw. v. Falcon, 457 U.S. 147, 155–61 (1982) (treating

dissimilarities in injuries between named and unnamed

plaintiffs as an issue of class certification under Rule 23(a)

rather than one of standing). Stated differently,

“[r]epresentative parties who have a direct and substantial

interest have standing; the question whether they may be

allowed to present claims on behalf of others who have
MELENDRES V. ARPAIO 15

similar, but not identical, interests depends not on standing,

but on an assessment of typicality and adequacy of

representation.” 7AA CHARLES ALAN WRIGHT ET AL.,

FEDERAL PRACTICE & PROCEDURE § 1785.1 (3d ed.).

In the present case, Defendants do not dispute that the

individually named plaintiffs, including the Rodriguezes, had

individual standing to bring their own claims under the

Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. Moreover, the

Rodriguezes did not lose their individual standing simply

because the district court resolved their constitutional claims

in Defendants’ favor. See Equity Lifestyle Props., Inc. v.

Cnty. of San Luis Obispo, 548 F.3d 1184, 1189 n.10 (9th Cir.

2008) (“The jurisdictional question of standing precedes, and

does not require, analysis of the merits”). Defendants argue

only that no named plaintiff has “standing” to represent the

claims of unnamed plaintiffs stopped during a non-saturation

patrol. But this argument raises the question of class

certification—i.e., whether the named plaintiffs are adequate

representatives of the claims of the unnamed plaintiffs—not

a question of standing. See Falcon, 457 U.S. at 156–58 & nn.

13, 15 (holding that named plaintiff must prove “much more

than the validity of his own claim”; the individual plaintiff

must show that “the individual’s claim and the class claims

will share common questions of law or fact and that the

individual’s claim will be typical of the class claims,”

explicitly referencing the “commonality” and “typicality”

requirements of Rule 23(a)).

Under the class certification approach, or the standing

approach for that matter, the named plaintiffs in this case,

with or without the Rodriguezes, are adequate representatives

because the named plaintiffs’ claims do not “implicate a

significantly different set of concerns” than the unnamed
16 MELENDRES V. ARPAIO

plaintiffs’ claims. Gratz, 539 U.S. at 265; see also id. at 263,

265 (holding that “[r]egardless of whether the requirement is

deemed one of adequacy or standing, it is clearly satisfied in

this case” because “the University’s use of race in

undergraduate transfer admissions does not implicate a

significantly different set of concerns than does its use of race

in undergraduate freshman admissions”); Falcon, 457 U.S. at

156 (named plaintiffs can adequatelyrepresent claims that are

“fairly encompassed by the named plaintiff’s claims”

(internal quotation marks omitted)). In determining what

constitutes the same type of relief or the same kind of injury,

“we must be careful not to employ too narrow or technical an

approach. Rather, we must examine the questions

realistically: we must reject the temptation to parse too finely,

and consider instead the context of the inquiry.” Armstrong

v. Davis, 275 F.3d 849, 867 (9th Cir. 2001).

In this case, MCSO’s practices during saturation patrols,

determined by the district court to be unconstitutional, do not

raise “a significantly different set of concerns” from the same

practices instituted during regular patrols. Gratz, 539 U.S. at

265. Although Defendants may be right that “the purpose and

procedures for saturation patrols departed from MCSO’s

normal traffic enforcement policies,” the operative “set of

concerns” is the constitutional violations flowing from

MCSO’s policies that the district court found to apply across

the board to all traffic stops, not just to those conducted

during saturation patrols. That is, whether the stop takes place

as part of a saturation patrol or a routine traffic patrol, the

constitutional concerns are the same because MCSO’s

policies, the district court found, have been applied to both

situations. See Falcon, 457 U.S. at 159 n.15 (“If [a defendantemployer] used a biased testing procedure to evaluate both

applicants for employment and incumbent employees, a class
MELENDRES V. ARPAIO 17

action on behalf of every applicant or employee who might

have been prejudiced by the test clearly would satisfy the . . .

requirements of [Federal] Rule [of Civil Procedure] 23(a)”).

Our view is not changed by Defendants’ reliance on

Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343 (1996). In Lewis, a class of

Arizona state prisoners alleged that the prison denied them

their right of access to the courts. Id. at 346. Two of the class

representatives alleged that they were denied access because

they were illiterate, and the prisons violated their rights by

failing to provide services to assist them. See id. at 356. After

trial, the district court found actual injury only on the part of

one illiterate plaintiff. Id. at 358. The Court held that this

injury could not confer standing upon that plaintiff to request

relief for others who were denied access for other reasons,

e.g., because they did not speak English or were in lockdown.

See id. The Court wrote: “If the right to complain of one

administrative deficiency automatically conferred the right to

complain of all administrative deficiencies, any citizen

aggrieved in one respect could bring the whole structure of

state administration before the courts for review. That is of

course not the law.” Id. at 358 n.6.

However, in Lewis the concerns of the named plaintiffs

differed so significantly from the concerns of the unnamed

plaintiffs that a remedy redressing the named plaintiffs’

injury could not redress that of the unnamed plaintiffs, even

though, in general terms, the stated injury (denial of access to

the courts) was the same. For example, if the district court

were to order accommodations for illiteracy to resolve the

injury of the named plaintiffs, it would do nothing to redress

the concerns of those unnamed plaintiffs who were literate

but could not speak English or were in lockdown. Lewis

therefore stands for the proposition that even where named
18 MELENDRES V. ARPAIO

and unnamed plaintiffs state the same general constitutional

injury, if the remedy sought by the named plaintiffs would

not redress the injury of the unnamed plaintiffs, the claims

raise a “significantly different set of concerns” that

consequently makes the named plaintiffs inadequate

representatives of the unnamed plaintiffs’ claims. Gratz,

539 U.S. at 265.

That is not the situation in this case. Here, the district

court found the same challenged practice and constitutional

injury in and outside of saturation patrols. See supra, Part IV.

As Lewis recognized, a “systemwide violation” would justify

“systemwide relief.” 518 U.S. at 359. There, systemwide

relief was inappropriate because only one small injury had

been shown (inadequate library access for the illiterate) by

contrast to the harm alleged (denial of all access to the

courts). Id. But here, as stated above, the district court found

systemwide violations, warranting systemwide relief.

Moreover, contrary to Defendants’ argument, Lewis’s

“holding regarding the inappropriateness of systemwide relief

. . . [did] not rest upon the application of standing rules.” Id.

at 360 n.7.

In sum, the district court did not err in holding that the

named plaintiffs had standing to assert the claims of absent

class members who were stopped during non-saturation

patrols. For the same reasons, there is no error in the district

court’s class certification order.

VI.

Finally, we address Defendants’ argument that various

terms of the supplemental injunction are overbroad. Plaintiffs

first argue that Defendants waived their overbreadth issue
MELENDRES V. ARPAIO 19

because, at the direction of the district court, the parties

“attempted to develop a proposed consent decree and

submitted a joint document that showed Defendants’

agreement with the majority of the remedies they now

challenge.” Thus, Plaintiffs assert that “Defendants consented

below to almost all the remedies ordered by the District Court

and have therefore waived their argument on appeal.”

However, the parties’ Joint Report was not a consent decree.

Indeed, when asking the parties to submit a proposed order,

the district court said several times that the proposed order

was not a “consent decree” and stated that Defendants’

participation would not affect their appeal. Defendants then

orally reiterated their intent to appeal and preserved that right

in the Joint Report itself. Therefore, Defendants did not waive

their objections to the injunctive provisions challenged here.

We have long held that injunctive relief “must be tailored

to remedy the specific harm alleged.” Lamb-Weston, Inc.,

941 F.2d at 974. An injunction against state actors “must

directly address and relate to the constitutional violation

itself,” Milliken v. Bradley, 433 U.S. 267, 282 (1977), and

must not “require more of state officials than is necessary to

assure their compliance with the constitution,” Gluth v.

Kangas, 951 F.2d 1504, 1509 (9th Cir. 1991) (internal

quotation marks omitted).

Nevertheless, the district court has broad discretion in

fashioning a remedy. Sharp v. Weston, 233 F.3d 1166, 1173

(9th Cir. 2000). Indeed, a district court is permitted to order

“‘relief that the Constitution would not of its own force

initially require if such relief is necessary to remedy a

constitutional violation.’” Id., quoting Toussaint v. McCarthy,

801 F.2d 1080, 1087 (9th Cir. 1986). Therefore, an injunction

exceeds the scope of a district court’s power only if it is
20 MELENDRES V. ARPAIO

“aimed at eliminating a condition that does not violate the

Constitution or does not flow from such a violation.”

Milliken, 433 U.S. at 282. For example, in Sharp, we affirmed

detailed injunctive provisions such as private visiting rooms

and educational opportunities for individuals subject to civil

commitment. 233 F.3d at 1173. Although the lack of such

amenities did not itself violate the Constitution, the district

court could order them to cure the facility’s “underlying

constitutional violation” of inadequate mental health

treatment. Id. Similarly, in Gluth, we upheld a comprehensive

injunction requiring a prison to provide specific office

supplies to incarcerated plaintiffs to remedy the prison’s

unconstitutional denial of access to the courts. 951 F.2d at

1510.

Moreover, we have held that the enjoined party’s “history

of noncompliance with prior orders can justify greater court

involvement than is ordinarily permitted.” Sharp, 233 F.3d at

1173. We afford “special deference” to the terms of a trial

judge’s injunction where, as here, that judge has had “years

of experience with the [case] at hand.” Id.(internal quotation

marks omitted). “The district court, which has first-hand

experience with the parties and is best qualified to deal with

the flinty, intractable realities of day-to-day implementation

of constitutional commands, must be given a great deal of

flexibility and discretion in choosing the remedy best suited

to curing the violation.” United States v. Yonkers Bd. of

Educ., 29 F.3d 40, 43 (2d Cir. 1994) (internal quotation

marks omitted).

Defendants first argue that the injunction is overbroad

because it impermissibly extends to non-saturation patrol

operations. This is simply another iteration of the arguments

we rejected above. For the reasons already discussed, the
MELENDRES V. ARPAIO 21

injunction is not overbroad simply because it applies to nonsaturation patrols. The district court’s finding that

Defendants’ unconstitutional policy extended office-wide

throughout the MCSO was supported by evidence in the

record. Furthermore, Defendants’ proposed distinction

between the two types of patrols is artificial and ultimately

immaterial. From Plaintiffs’ perspective, it makes no

difference which internal label the MCSO assigns to any

given traffic patrol operation; the constitutional injury

suffered as a result of Defendants’ policy is the same when

applied, as the district court found, during both types of

operations.

Defendants also challenge specific provisions of the

injunction, arguing that they are overbroad because they are

“not limited to curing the constitutional violations resulting

from the [traffic] patrols.” Defendants begin with the

injunction’s training directives. The injunction provides that

Defendants must conduct twelve hours of training on racial

profiling to all deputies and posse members within 240 days,

and at least six hours annually thereafter. Defendants must

also provide additional training on the Fourth Amendment.

However, these challenged provisions “directly address and

relate to the constitutional violation[s]” found by the district

court. Milliken, 433 U.S. at 282. They address MCSO’s

racially discriminatory targeting of Latinos for traffic stops

and MCSO’s unjustified prolongation of traffic stops. The

evidence demonstrated to Judge Snow’s satisfaction that

MCSO gave virtually no training on racial profiling and

otherwise provided erroneous training that led to

constitutional violations. There is evidence that some MCSO

deputies and supervisors lacked basic knowledge of

constitutional requirements, and that MCSO took no steps to

evaluate personnel for racial profiling or to discipline
22 MELENDRES V. ARPAIO

personnel who engaged in racial profiling. The district court

did not abuse its discretion in ordering these corrective

training and supervision procedures in order to redress the

constitutional violations it found here.

Defendants next challenge the injunctive provisions

requiring specific data collection concerning and videorecording of traffic stops. Again, these measures “directly

address and relate to the constitutional violation[s]” found by

the district court. Id. They allow the district court to monitor

whether MCSO deputies are complying with the court’s

orders and constitutional requirements. Although requiring

state actors to implement recordkeeping systems to aid in

judicial monitoring is typically disfavored, it is necessary in

this case because of Defendants’ record of spoliating

evidence. As stated above, the enjoined party’s “history of

noncompliance with prior orders can justify greater court

involvement than is ordinarily permitted.” Sharp, 233 F.3d at

1173. Moreover, we have upheld data collection and analysis

requirements in prior cases raising similar issues. See, e.g.,

Nicacio v. INS, 797 F.2d 700, 706 (9th Cir. 1985) (upholding

injunction requiring INS to record particularized grounds for

motorist stops in order to prevent future racial profiling),

overruled in part on other grounds by Hodgers-Durgin v. de

la Vina, 199 F.3d 1037, 1045 (9th Cir. 1999) (en banc).

Courts in our sister circuits have done likewise. See, e.g.,

Floyd v. City of N.Y., 959 F. Supp. 2d 668, 685 (S.D.N.Y.

2013) (ordering body-worn video cameras for police

department patrol officers in spite of “financial,

administrative, and other costs”). We hold that the district

court did not abuse its discretion in requiring the datacollection and recording measures at issue here.
MELENDRES V. ARPAIO 23

Defendants next argue that the district court abused its

discretion in granting expansive assessment authority to a

“Monitor,” which is “a person or team of people selected to

assess and report on Defendants’ implementation of the

[injunction].” Defendants concede that it is “not the

Monitor’s appointment that is overbroad,” but rather the

scope of the Monitor’s authority to evaluate “everything” in

the MCSO, including “disciplinary outcomes for any

violations of departmental policy, and whether any Deputies

are the subject of repeated misconduct Complaints, civil suits,

or criminal charges, including for off-duty conduct.” We will

uphold these provisions unless they are “aimed at eliminating

a condition that does not violate the Constitution or does not

flow from such a violation.” Milliken, 433 U.S. at 282.

In context, most of the provisions dealing with the scope

of the Monitor’s assessment authority are aimed at

eliminating the constitutional violations found by the district

court and therefore do not constitute an abuse of discretion.

The district court’s injunction requires the Monitor to

perform “outcome assessments” to gauge MCSO’s

compliance with the court’s order and the “effectiveness of

the reforms.” In performing these assessments, the Monitor

“shall” take into account eleven enumerated “performancebased metrics and trends.” Defendants first attack the metric

of “misconduct Complaints” as being unrelated to the

constitutional violations at issue. However, the Monitor’s

authorization is limited to considering only the prevalence of

“civilian Complaints regarding biased policing or unlawful

detentions and arrests by MCSO Patrol Operation deputies.”

This provision is therefore narrowlytailored to remedying the

specific constitutional violations at issue and is not an abuse

of discretion.
24 MELENDRES V. ARPAIO

However, the metrics dealing with internal investigations

and reports of officer misconduct create a problem to the

extent theyare unrelated to the constitutional violations found

by the district court. The injunction broadly requires the

Monitor to consider the “disciplinary outcomes for any

violations of departmental policy” and to assess whether

Deputies are subject to “civil suits or criminal charges . . . for

off-duty conduct.” These provisions are not narrowly tailored

to addressing only the relevant violations of federal law at

issue here. For example, if an officer commits spousal abuse,

or clocks in late to work, or faces a charge of driving under

the influence of alcohol in another state while on vacation,

such conduct may amount to violations of departmental

policy; it may subject officers to civil or criminal charges; but

it has no bearing on the constitutional rights at stake here. We

therefore vacate these particular provisions and order the

district court to tailor them so as to address only the

constitutional violations at issue. See Milliken, 433 U.S. at

282. However, we affirm all of the other provisions of the

injunction as within the discretion of the district court.

AFFIRMED IN PART AND VACATED AND

REMANDED IN PART. Each party shall bear its own costs

on appeal.