Source: http://www.scribd.com/doc/96476468/Marty-Atencio-case-MCSO-Motion-to-Dismiss
Timestamp: 2015-06-03 18:49:44
Document Index: 242796585

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 14141', '§14141', '§ 14141', '§ 2000', '§ 42', '§ 11']

P. 1Marty Atencio case | MCSO Motion to DismissMarty Atencio case | MCSO Motion to DismissRatings: (0)|Views: 43|Likes: 0Published by julie_rose3104More info:Categories:Types, Business/Law, Court FilingsPublished by: julie_rose3104 on Jun 09, 2012Copyright:Attribution Non-commercialAvailability:Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.download as PDF, TXT or read online from ScribdFlag for inappropriate content|Add to collectionSee moreSee lesshttps://www.scribd.com/doc/96476468/Marty-Atencio-case-MCSO-Motion-to-Dismiss06/09/2012pdftextoriginal 12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728
2865269.1
William R. Jones, Jr., Bar #001481John T. Masterson, Bar #007447Joseph J. Popolizio, Bar #017434Lori L. Voepel, Bar #015342JONES, SKELTON & HOCHULI, P.L.C.2901 North Central Avenue, Suite 800Phoenix, Arizona 85012Telephone: (602) 263-1700Fax: (602) 200-7801wjones@jshfirm.com jmasterson@jshfirm.com jpopolizio@jshfirm.comlvoepel@jshfirm.comAttorneys for Defendants Maricopa CountySheriff’s Office and Joseph M. Arpaio
United States of America,Plaintiff,v.Maricopa County, Arizona; Maricopa CountySheriff’s Office; and Joseph M. Arpaio, in hisofficial capacity as Sheriff of MaricopaCounty, Arizona,Defendants.NO. CV12-00981-PHX-ROS
DEFENDANTS’ RULE 12(b)(6)MOTION TO DISMISS
Defendants Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office and Joseph Arpaio(Defendants), through undersigned counsel, respectfully request the Court to dismissMaricopa County Sheriff’s Office (MCSO) as a Defendant because it is a nonjural entityincapable of suing or being sued. Defendants also request dismissal of Plaintiff’sdisparate impact claims in Counts III, IV and V because the Complaint fails to set forth asufficient statistical basis for those claims. Dismissal of the Title VI claims in Counts IVand V is also required to the extent they allege discrimination based upon language, whichis not a “proxy” for national origin. Count VI (alleged retaliation against “critics”) shouldalso be dismissed, as it fails to state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 14141 and the First
Amendment. Lastly, the request for injunctive relief relating to jail operations, posseoperations, supervision, oversight and MCSO’s “response to crimes of sexual violence”must be dismissed because such remedies are unavailable as a matter of law. This Motionis supported by the attached Memorandum of Points and Authorities and the Complaint.
PLAINTIFF’S ALLEGATIONS.
The Complaint alleges that Defendants have engaged in three categories of unlawful conduct: (1) a pattern or practice of discriminatory and otherwiseunconstitutional law enforcement actions against Latinos in Maricopa County; (2)discriminatory jail practices against Latino prisoners with limited English language skills;and (3) a pattern or practice of retaliatory actions against perceived critics of MCSOactivities. (Complaint ¶6). Plaintiff alleges that this conduct violates the FirstAmendment, Fourth Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment to the United StatesConstitution; the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, 42 U.S.C. §14141 (§ 14141); Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000d to 2000d-7(Title VI); the Title VI implementing regulations issued by the United States Departmentof Justice, 28 C.F.R. §§ 42.101 to 42.112 (Title VI Regulations); and Title VI contractualassurances. (Complaint ¶7). Plaintiff seeks declaratory and injunctive relief “to remedyDefendants’ violations of the law and to ensure that MCSO implements sustainablereforms establishing police and jail practices that are constitutional.” (Id. ¶8).
THE MARICOPA COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE MUST BE DISMISSEDBECAUSE IT IS A NONJURAL ENTITY WITHOUT THE CAPACITY TOSUE OR BE SUED.A.
Controlling Federal and State Authority Establishes That MCSO LacksCapacity to Sue or Be Sued.
The capacity of a municipal entity such as the MCSO to sue or be sued isdetermined “by the law of the state where the court is located ….” Fed. R. Civ. P.17(b)(3). Governmental entities such as MCSO have no inherent power and possess onlythose powers and duties delegated to them by their enabling statutes.
See Schwartz v.
Superior Court , 186 Ariz. 617, 619, 925 P.2d 1068, 1070 (App. 1996). Thus, agovernmental entity may be sued only if the state legislature has so provided.
See Kimballv. Shofstall
, 17 Ariz. App. 11, 13, 494 P.2d 1357, 1359 (1972).It is well established that MCSO is a nonjural entity without the capacity tosue or be sued.
Braillard v. Maricopa County
, 224 Ariz. 481, 487, 232 P.3d 1263, 1269(App. 2010);
Wilson v. Maricopa County
, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 28021, 2005 WL3054051, at *2 (D. Ariz. 2005) (dismissing MCSO because it is not a jural entity separatefrom Maricopa County);
see also Gotbaum v. City of Phoenix
, 617 F. Supp. 2d 878, 886(D. Ariz. 2008) (because neither the Arizona legislature nor the City has stated that thePhoenix Police Department is a separate jural entity, it is merely a subpart of the City of Phoenix, which cannot sue or be sued). In
Braillard , the Arizona Court of Appeals statedthat its holding is consistent with the “consensus among Arizona federal decisions thatcity police departments generally are nonjural entities.”
Braillard further noted,“[a]lthough A.R.S. § 11-201(A)(1) provides that counties have the power to sue and besued through their boards of supervisors, no Arizona statute confers such power on MCSOas a separate legal entity.”
Id .No entity other than the legislature can confer jural status on MCSO.Indeed, MCSO cannot even convey jural status upon itself by admitting such capacity incourt proceedings.
Payne v. Arpaio
, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 110553, 2009 WL3756679, 4 (D. Ariz. 2009)). As a matter of law, MCSO must be dismissed.
Title VI Does Not Create A Capacity To Sue Or Be Sued.
The Complaint seemingly alleges that MCSO has the capacity to be suedbecause it “receives financial assistance from the United States Department of Justice(DOJ), both directly and as a subrecipient of Maricopa County.” (Complaint ¶¶10, 152-159). The Complaint fails, however, to specifically identify any law that would createcapacity on the part of a nonjural entity simply because that entity receives federal funds.To the extent Plaintiff believes otherwise, it is likely confusing jurisdiction and capacity.Even if a court would otherwise have jurisdiction over an entity, that entity cannot be sued
More From This UserPaul Penzone for Sheriff endorsement listjulie_rose3104Gilbert Police Report: JT Ready Murder-Suicide (107 pages)julie_rose3104Lawsuit: DoJ vs. Arpaiojulie_rose3104Doc 002julie_rose3104Doc 002julie_rose3104Letters to Governor Jan Brewer (a sample)julie_rose3104Judge Bolton Ruling on Immigration Lawjulie_rose3104Shapiro Murder Investigation: Read Court Paperworkjulie_rose3104Arizona Governor Brewer's Letter to President Obama 012612julie_rose3104Jerice Hunter / Search Warrant Reportjulie_rose3104Jerice Hunterjulie_rose3104FireworksTypesLegalAzjulie_rose3104Goodyear-Pendleton-Invjulie_rose3104Fiesta_Bowl_Final_Publicjulie_rose3104031511-ahcccs-summaryjulie_rose3104Loughner Search Warrantjulie_rose3104Del Taco Complaint -- EEOC vs. Gala AZ Holdingsjulie_rose3104borderpatroljulie_rose3104sb1070counterclaim56pagejulie_rose3104sb1070counterclaimjulie_rose3104Sebelius letter 012511julie_rose3104AZ 10 RCB Road Closure Gridjulie_rose3104Loughner Timelinejulie_rose3104Map 1 - 2010 Parade Routejulie_rose3104