WILLIAM P. RING

 COCONINO COUNTY ATTORNEY 110 E. CHERRY AVENUE FLAGSTAFF, ARIZONA 86001-4627 (928) 679-8200 

1 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

WILLIAM P. RING 

Coconino County Attorney 

Rose Winkeler 

State Bar No. 025023 

Mandi Vuinovich 

State Bar No. 030851 

Deputy County Attorney 

110 E. Cherry Ave. 

Flagstaff, Arizona 86001 

(928) 679-8200 

rwinkeler@coconino.az.gov 

mvuinovich@coconino.az.gov

Attorney for County Defendants 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Mikkel Jordahl; Mikkel (Mik) Jordahl, 

P.C., 

 Plaintiffs, 

v. 

Mark Brnovich, Arizona Attorney 

General; Jim Driscoll, Coconino County 

Sheriff; Matt Ryan, Coconino County Jail 

District Board of Directors Member; Lena 

Fowler, Coconino County Jail District 

Board of Directors Member; Elizabeth 

Archuleta, Coconino County Jail District 

Board of Directors Member; Art Babbott, 

Coconino County Jail District Board of 

Directors Member; Jim Parks, Coconino 

County Jail District Board of Directors 

Member; all in their official capacities, 

 Defendants. 

Case No.: 3:17-cv-08263-PCT-DJH

ANSWER OF COUNTY 

DEFENDANTS COCONINO 

COUNTY SHERIFF AND JAIL 

DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS 

MEMBERS TO FIRST AMENDED 

COMPLAINT

Case 3:17-cv-08263-DJH Document 26 Filed 01/18/18 Page 1 of 16
WILLIAM P. RING

 COCONINO COUNTY ATTORNEY 110 E. CHERRY AVENUE FLAGSTAFF, ARIZONA 86001-4627 (928) 679-8200 

2 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8 and 12 require that a Defendant timely 

serve a Responsive Pleading, and when the pleading is an Answer, to respond to 

allegations made. As set forth in their Answer below, County Defendants; Coconino 

County Sheriff, Jim Driscoll (“Sheriff”); and the Coconino County Jail District Board of 

Directors Members (“Board of Directors”)(collectively “County Defendants”), by and 

through their attorneys, affirmatively state that they are nominal Parties to this litigation 

and their inclusion in this action is nominal only. Such being the case, County Defendants 

take no position with regard to the constitutionality of A.R.S. § 35-393.01. County 

Defendants will comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and orders of the 

Court entered into relative to this case. 

County Defendants, Sheriff and Board of Directors, Answer Plaintiffs’ First 

Amended Complaint as follows: 

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT 

1. County Defendants admit that pursuant to a recently enacted law, House Bill 

2617, A.R.S. § 35-393.01 (“HB 2617” or “the Act”), the State of Arizona requires 

government contractors to certify that they are not engaged in boycotts of Israel or 

territories controlled by Israel but County Defendants take no position on HB 2617 or the 

Act. 

Case 3:17-cv-08263-DJH Document 26 Filed 01/18/18 Page 2 of 16
WILLIAM P. RING

 COCONINO COUNTY ATTORNEY 110 E. CHERRY AVENUE FLAGSTAFF, ARIZONA 86001-4627 (928) 679-8200 

3 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

County Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a 

belief as to the truth that Mr. Jordahl is the sole owner of a law firm but otherwise have 

no reason to deny this allegation. 

County Defendants admit that in order to renew his contract, Mr. Jordahl would 

have to certify that his firm neither participates in a boycott of Israel nor affiliates with 

entities engaged in a boycott of Israel but County Defendants take no position on such 

certification. 

County Defendants admit that the law firm of Mr. Jordahal has contracted with the 

Coconino Jail District to provide legal services to incarcerated individuals. 

County Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a 

belief as to the truth with regard to Mr. Jordahl’s wants and fears about signing contracts 

or his participation in political boycotts. 

The allegations contained in the last sentence of paragraph 1 constitute a legal 

conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent that a response may be 

required, County Defendants state that they are nominal Parties to the matter and are 

without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the 

allegation and take no position on such certifications. 

JURISDICTION AND VENUE 

2. County Defendants admit that Plaintiffs have filed suit alleging declaratory and 

Case 3:17-cv-08263-DJH Document 26 Filed 01/18/18 Page 3 of 16
WILLIAM P. RING

 COCONINO COUNTY ATTORNEY 110 E. CHERRY AVENUE FLAGSTAFF, ARIZONA 86001-4627 (928) 679-8200 

4 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

injunctive relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 of the United States Code, but otherwise 

reiterate that they are nominal Parties to the matter and without knowledge or information 

sufficient to form a belief as to whether Plaintiffs’ civil rights have been violated or 

whether Plaintiffs are entitled to any relief under the statue. 

3. County Defendants admit that this matter presents a federal question within this 

Court’s jurisdiction under Article III, § 2 of the United States Constitution and 28 U.S.C. 

§§ 1331 and 1343 but reiterate that County Defendants are nominal Parties to the matter 

and without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to whether Plaintiffs’ 

civil rights have been violated or whether Plaintiffs are entitled to any relief under the 

statue. 

4. County Defendants admit that Plaintiffs seek declaratory relief pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202 but reiterate that County Defendants are nominal Parties to the 

matter and without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to whether 

Plaintiffs’ civil rights have been violated or whether Plaintiffs are entitled to any relief 

under the statue. 

5. County Defendants admit that this matter is properly venued in the United 

States District Court for the District of Arizona. 

PARTIES 

6. County Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a 

Case 3:17-cv-08263-DJH Document 26 Filed 01/18/18 Page 4 of 16
WILLIAM P. RING

 COCONINO COUNTY ATTORNEY 110 E. CHERRY AVENUE FLAGSTAFF, ARIZONA 86001-4627 (928) 679-8200 

5 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

belief with which to respond to the allegations of paragraph 6 but otherwise have no 

reason to deny that Plaintiff, Mikkel Jordahl, is a resident of Sedona, Arizona, and the 

sole owner of a professional corporation law firm. 

7. County Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a 

belief with which to respond to the first sentence of paragraph 7 but otherwise have no 

reason to deny that Plaintiff Mikkel (Mik) Jordahl, P.C. is an Arizona Corporation. 

County Defendants admit that for 12 years, Mikkel (Mik) Jordahl, P.C. has contracted 

with the Coconino County Jail District to provide legal advice to incarcerated individuals. 

8. County Defendants admit that Mark Brnovich is the Arizona Attorney General; 

that Mark Brnovich is the chief law enforcement officer of the State of Arizona; and that 

Mark Brnovich is sued in his official capacity. 

County Defendants admit that Mark Brnovich, in his capacity as Attorney 

General, has the authority pursuant to A.R.S. § 41-193(A)(2), to prosecute public 

officials and others for misappropriation of public monies under A.R.S. § 35-301. 

County Defendants deny allegations with regard to A.R.S. 41-194.01 to the extent 

that the statute applies to a county, city, or town. 

9. County Defendants admit to the statements of paragraph 9. 

10. County Defendants admit to the statements of paragraph 10. Defendant Sheriff 

reiterates that he is a nominal Party to this matter. 

11. County Defendants admit to the statements of paragraph 11. Defendant Ryan 

Case 3:17-cv-08263-DJH Document 26 Filed 01/18/18 Page 5 of 16
WILLIAM P. RING

 COCONINO COUNTY ATTORNEY 110 E. CHERRY AVENUE FLAGSTAFF, ARIZONA 86001-4627 (928) 679-8200 

6 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

reiterates that he is a nominal Party to this matter. 

12. County Defendants admit to the statements of paragraph 12. Defendant Fowler 

reiterates that she is a nominal Party to this matter. 

13. County Defendants admit to the statements of paragraph 13. Defendant 

Archuleta reiterates that she is a nominal Party to this matter. 

14. County Defendants admit to the statements of paragraph 14. Defendant 

Babbott reiterates that he is a nominal Party to this matter. 

15. County Defendants admit to the statements of paragraph 15. Defendant Parks 

reiterates that he is a nominal Party to this matter. 

STATEMENT OF FACTS 

The Act 

16. County Defendants admit to the statements of paragraph 16 but take no 

position on the Act. 

17. County Defendants admit to the statements of paragraph 17 but take no 

position on the Act. 

18. The allegations contained in paragraph 18 constitute a legal conclusion to 

which no response is required. To the extent that a response may be required, County 

Defendants state that they are nominal Parties to the matter and are without knowledge or 

information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations. 

Case 3:17-cv-08263-DJH Document 26 Filed 01/18/18 Page 6 of 16
WILLIAM P. RING

 COCONINO COUNTY ATTORNEY 110 E. CHERRY AVENUE FLAGSTAFF, ARIZONA 86001-4627 (928) 679-8200 

7 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

19. County Defendants admit to the statements of paragraph 19 but take no 

position on the legislative findings of HB 2617. 

20. County Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a 

belief as to the truth the allegations stated in paragraph 20. 

21. County Defendants admit to the statements of paragraph 21 but take no 

position on the Committee Report of HB 2617. 

Mr. Jordahl’s Boycott Participation 

22. County Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a 

belief as to the truth of the allegations stated in paragraph 22. 

23. County Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a 

belief as to the truth of the allegations stated in paragraph 23. 

24. County Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a 

belief as to the truth of the allegations stated in paragraph 24. 

25. County Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a 

belief as to the truth of the allegations stated in paragraph 25. 

26. County Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a 

belief as to the truth of the allegations stated in paragraph 26. 

27. County Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a 

belief as to the truth of the allegations stated in paragraph 27. 

Case 3:17-cv-08263-DJH Document 26 Filed 01/18/18 Page 7 of 16
WILLIAM P. RING

 COCONINO COUNTY ATTORNEY 110 E. CHERRY AVENUE FLAGSTAFF, ARIZONA 86001-4627 (928) 679-8200 

8 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

The Coconino County Jail District Contract 

28. County Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a 

belief with which to respond to the allegations in the first sentence of paragraph 28. 

County Defendants admit that Mr. Jordahl’s firm has contracted with Coconino County 

for 12 years to provide legal advice to incarcerated individuals regarding issues like 

conditions of confinement, civil rights, extradition, and habeas corpus. 

29. County Defendants admit to the statements in paragraph 29. 

30. County Defendants admit to the statements in paragraph 30. 

31. County Defendants admit to the statements in paragraph 31 but take no 

position on the Certificate Pursuant to A.R.S. § 35-393.01. 

32. County Defendants admit to the statements in paragraph 32. 

33. County Defendants admit to the statements in paragraph 33. 

34. County Defendants admit to the statements in paragraph 34. 

35. County Defendants admit to the statements in paragraph 35. 

36. County Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a 

belief with which to respond to the allegations of paragraph 36. 

37. County Defendants admit that Kathleen Levinson, Administrative Manager 

with the Coconino County Sheriff’s Office, signed a letter to Mr. Jordahl dated 

November 9, 2017, that requested Mr. Jordahl sign and notarize the enclosed agreements, 

which had approval from the Board of Supervisors; and that the letter stated “We look 

Case 3:17-cv-08263-DJH Document 26 Filed 01/18/18 Page 8 of 16
WILLIAM P. RING

 COCONINO COUNTY ATTORNEY 110 E. CHERRY AVENUE FLAGSTAFF, ARIZONA 86001-4627 (928) 679-8200 

9 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

forward to continuing our partnership.” County Defendants are without knowledge or 

information sufficient to form a belief with regard to the date Mr. Jordahl received the 

letter. 

38. County Defendants admit to the statements in paragraph 38. 

39. County Defendants admit to the statements in paragraph 39. 

40. County Defendants admit that Mr. Jordahl has not signed and returned the 

2017 agreement but lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief with which 

to respond to the allegations of paragraph 40 with regard to Mr. Jordahl’s reason for not 

doing so. County Defendants take no position on the Certificate Pursuant to A.R.S. § 35-

393.01. 

The Act’s Effects 

41. The allegation contained in the first sentence of paragraph 41 constitutes a 

legal conclusion to which no response is required. County Defendants take no position on 

the Certificate Pursuant to A.R.S. § 35-393.01. County Defendants are without 

knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations 

stated in the second sentence of paragraph 41. 

42. The allegation contained in the first sentence of paragraph 42 constitutes a 

legal conclusion to which no response is required. County Defendants take no position on 

the Certificate Pursuant to A.R.S. § 35-393.01. County Defendants are without 

Case 3:17-cv-08263-DJH Document 26 Filed 01/18/18 Page 9 of 16
WILLIAM P. RING

 COCONINO COUNTY ATTORNEY 110 E. CHERRY AVENUE FLAGSTAFF, ARIZONA 86001-4627 (928) 679-8200 

10 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the additional 

allegations stated in of paragraph 42. 

43. The allegation contained in the first sentence of paragraph 43 constitutes a 

legal conclusion to which no response is required. County Defendants take no position on 

the Certificate Pursuant to A.R.S. § 35-393.01. County Defendants are without 

knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the additional 

allegations stated in of paragraph 43. 

44. The allegation contained in the first sentence of paragraph 44 constitutes a 

legal conclusion to which no response is required. County Defendants take no position on 

the Certificate Pursuant to A.R.S. § 35-393.01. County Defendants are without 

knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the additional 

allegations stated in of paragraph 44. 

45. County Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a 

belief as to the truth of the allegations stated in of paragraph 45. 

46. County Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a 

belief as to the truth of the allegations stated in of paragraph 46. 

47. The allegation contained in paragraph 47 constitutes a legal conclusion to 

which no response is required. To the extent that a response may be required, County 

Defendants deny the allegation in paragraph 47 and reiterate that they are nominal Parties 

to this matter. 

Case 3:17-cv-08263-DJH Document 26 Filed 01/18/18 Page 10 of 16
WILLIAM P. RING

 COCONINO COUNTY ATTORNEY 110 E. CHERRY AVENUE FLAGSTAFF, ARIZONA 86001-4627 (928) 679-8200 

11 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

48. The allegations contained in paragraph 48 constitute a legal conclusion to 

which no response is required. To the extent that a response may be required, County 

Defendants deny the allegations in paragraph 48 and reiterate that they are nominal 

Parties to this matter. 

Cause of Action 

49. County Defendants incorporate by reference the Answers contained in the 

proceeding paragraphs of this Answer. 

50. County Defendants admit that Plaintiffs make references to the First 

Amendment as applied to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment. 

51. The allegations contained in paragraph 51 constitute a legal conclusion to 

which no response is required. 

52. The allegations contained in paragraph 52 constitute a legal conclusion to 

which no response is required. 

53. The allegations contained in paragraph 53 constitute a legal conclusion to 

which no response is required. 

54. The allegations contained in paragraph 54 constitute a legal conclusion to 

which no response is required. 

55. The allegations contained in paragraph 55 constitute a legal conclusion to 

which no response is required. 

Case 3:17-cv-08263-DJH Document 26 Filed 01/18/18 Page 11 of 16
WILLIAM P. RING

 COCONINO COUNTY ATTORNEY 110 E. CHERRY AVENUE FLAGSTAFF, ARIZONA 86001-4627 (928) 679-8200 

12 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

56. The allegations contained in paragraph 56 constitute a legal conclusion to 

which no response is required. 

57. The allegations contained in paragraph 57 constitute a legal conclusion to 

which no response is required. 

58. The allegations contained in paragraph 58 constitute a legal conclusion to 

which no response is required. 

Affirmative Defenses 

1. County Defendants Sheriff and Board of Directors affirmatively allege that they 

are not proper or necessary Parties to this matter, and their role in this action is nominal. 

2. County Defendants Sheriff and Board of Directors affirmatively allege that even 

if County Defendants are necessary Parties for purposes of injunctive relief, their role 

would remain nominal. 

3. County Defendants Sheriff and Board of Directors affirmatively allege that they 

are entitled to various privileges and immunities as provided by law; the full nature and 

extent of such privileges and immunities as applicable hereto are presently unknown to 

these Answering County Defendants, and these Answering County Defendants may seek 

leave of this Court to allow them to amend this Answer to insert the full nature and extent 

of such privileges and immunities when the same become fully ascertained and known. 

4. Additional facts may be revealed by future discovery which support affirmative 

Case 3:17-cv-08263-DJH Document 26 Filed 01/18/18 Page 12 of 16
WILLIAM P. RING

 COCONINO COUNTY ATTORNEY 110 E. CHERRY AVENUE FLAGSTAFF, ARIZONA 86001-4627 (928) 679-8200 

13 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

defenses available to, but unknown by, County Defendants Sheriff and Board of 

Directors. Accordingly, County Defendants Sheriff and Board of Directors hereby 

incorporate by this reference all applicable affirmative defenses pursuant to Rules 8 and 

12 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure as though set forth fully herein. 

Prayer for Relief 

1. County Defendants affirmatively allege that any relief requested by Plaintiffs is 

not available from County Defendants Sheriff and Board of Directors who are nominal 

Parties in this matter. 

2. Having fully answered Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint and having stated 

affirmative defenses, County Defendants request entry of judgment denying any and all 

relief that Plaintiffs have requested as to County Defendants Sheriff and Board of 

Directors, dismissing the First Amended Complaint and action stated therein as to County 

Defendants Sheriff and Board of Directors with prejudice, granting County Defendants 

Sheriff and Board of Directors reasonable costs and expenses of this action, including 

attorney fees if appropriate, and granting such further relief as the Court deems just and 

proper. 

Case 3:17-cv-08263-DJH Document 26 Filed 01/18/18 Page 13 of 16
WILLIAM P. RING

 COCONINO COUNTY ATTORNEY 110 E. CHERRY AVENUE FLAGSTAFF, ARIZONA 86001-4627 (928) 679-8200 

14 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 18th day of January, 2018. 

 WILLIAM P. RING 

 Coconino County Attorney 

 /s/ Rose Winkeler_______ 

 Rose Winkeler 

 Deputy County Attorney 

Case 3:17-cv-08263-DJH Document 26 Filed 01/18/18 Page 14 of 16
WILLIAM P. RING

 COCONINO COUNTY ATTORNEY 110 E. CHERRY AVENUE FLAGSTAFF, ARIZONA 86001-4627 (928) 679-8200 

15 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that on the 18th day of January, 2018, I electronically 

transmitted the attached document to the Clerk’s office using the CM/ECF System for 

filing and transmittal of a Notice of Electronic Filing to the following CM/ECF 

registrants: 

Kathleen E. Brody 

Darrell L. Hill 

ACLU Foundation of Arizona 

3707 N. 7th St., Ste. 235 

Phoenix, AZ 85014 

Telephone: (602) 650-1854 

kbrody@acluaz.org

dhill@acluaz.org

Brian Hauss 

Vera Eidelman 

Ben Wizner 

Speech, Privacy & Technology Project 

125 Broad St., 18th Floor 

New York, NY 10004 

Telephone: (212) 549-2500 

bhauss@aclu.org

veidelman@aclu.org

bwizner@aclu.org

ACLU Foundation 

Mark Brnovich 

Arizona Attorney General 

Drew C. Ensign 

Oramel H. (O.H.) Skinner 

Brunn (Beau) W. Roysden III 

Evan G. Daniels 

Assistant Attorneys General 

2005 N. Central Ave. 

Phoenix, AZ 85004 

Case 3:17-cv-08263-DJH Document 26 Filed 01/18/18 Page 15 of 16
WILLIAM P. RING

 COCONINO COUNTY ATTORNEY 110 E. CHERRY AVENUE FLAGSTAFF, ARIZONA 86001-4627 (928) 679-8200 

16 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

Telephone; (602) 542-5200 

Drew.Ensign@azag.gov

O.H.Skinner@azag.gov

Beau.Roysden@azag.gov

Evan.Daniels@azag.gov

/s/ Rose Winkeler__________________ 

Rose Winkeler, Deputy County Attorney 

Attorneys for County Defendants 

 I further certify that I caused a copy of the attached document to be mailed on the 

18th day of January, 2018 to: 

Honorable Diane J. Humetewa 

United States District Court 

Sandra Day O’Connor U.S. Courthouse, Ste. 623 

401 W. Washington St., SPC 58 

Phoenix, AZ 85003-2156 

/s/ Rose Winkeler__________________ 

Rose Winkeler, Deputy County Attorney 

Attorneys for County Defendants 

Case 3:17-cv-08263-DJH Document 26 Filed 01/18/18 Page 16 of 16