Manuel de Jesus Ortega Melendres; Jessica Quitugua Rodriguez; David Rodriguez; Velia Meraz; Manuel Nieto, Jr.; Somos America, Plaintiffs-Appellees,
Maricopa County, Defendant-Appellant, United States of America, Intervenor-Plaintiff-Appellee, and Joseph M. Arpaio, Defendant.
and Submitted March 15, 2018 San Francisco, California
from the United States District Court No. 2:07-cv-02513-GMS
for the District of Arizona G. Murray Snow, District Judge,
Richard Walker (argued), Walker & Peskind PLLC,
Scottsdale, Arizona, for Defendant-Appellant.
Segura (argued), ACLU Foundation of Texas, Houston, Texas;
Kathleen E. Brody and Brenda Muñoz Furnish, ACLU
Foundation of Arizona, Phoenix, Arizona; Cecilia D. Wang and
Katrina L. Eiland, ACLU Foundation, San Francisco,
California; Stanley Young, Covington & Burling LLP,
Redwood Shores, California; Anne Lai, Irving, California;
Julia Gomez, Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational
Fund, Los Angeles, California; for Plaintiffs-Appellees.
M. Gore (argued), Acting Assistant Attorney General; Thomas
E. Chandler, Attorney; Appellate Section, Civil Rights
Section, United States Department of Justice, Washington,
D.C.; for Intervenor-Plaintiff-Appellee.
Before: J. Clifford Wallace, Susan P. Graber, and Marsha S.
Berzon, Circuit Judges.
panel affirmed the district court's second supplemental
injunction and victim compensation order in a class action
alleging that the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office
racially profiled Latino drivers and passengers under the
guise of enforcing federal and state immigration laws.
panel noted that there have been multiple appeals in this
case and that the district court entered its second
supplemental injunction after discovering that the
Sheriff's Office had deliberately violated the
court's previous injunction and committed new
panel held that the district court did not abuse its
discretion in formulating the terms of the second
supplemental injunction, intended to remedy defendants'
misconduct and protect plaintiffs' constitutional rights.
The panel was satisfied that the challenged provisions flowed
from Sheriff Office's violations of court prior orders,
constitutional violations, or both. The panel rejected the
County's contention that it was not a proper party to
this action because the Sheriff's Office and its sheriff
do not act on behalf of the County. The panel noted that it
had already-thrice-rejected this argument. Finally, the panel
rejected the County's contention that it had no authority
under Arizona law, Arizona Revised Statute §
11-981(A)(2), to fund compliance with an injunction that
arises from willful misconduct. The panel held that even
assuming, without deciding that the County's
interpretation of the Arizona statute was correct, a state
statute prohibiting payment for valid federal court-ordered
remedies does not excuse a defendant from complying with
those remedies. In addition, the panel noted that the statute
that the County cited would, at most, prevent payment from
insurance or self-insurance funds. The County failed to
explain how this law would preclude it from using other types
of funds to comply with the district court's orders, such
as those it uses to fund its normal operations.
WALLACE, CIRCUIT JUDGE.
County appeals from the district court's second
supplemental injunction and victim compensation order. We
have jurisdiction under ...