Melendres, et al. v. Arpaio, et al

Filing 2681

ORDER. IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiffs' and United States' Joint Motion for an Order to Show Cause 2610 is GRANTED. FURTHER ORDERED setting an in-person status conference on 8/27/2021 at 10:00 a.m. (AZ Time), in Courtroom 601, 401 West Washington Street, Phoenix, AZ 85003 before Chief Judge G Murray Snow. See attached Order for details. Signed by Chief Judge G Murray Snow on 8/12/2021. (KFZ)

1

WO

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9
10

Manuel de Jesus Ortega Melendres, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated; et
al.

No. CV-07-02513-PHX-GMS
ORDER

Plaintiffs,

11
12

and

13

United States of America,

14
Plaintiff-Intervenor,

15

v.

16

Paul Penzone, in his official capacity as
Sheriff of Maricopa County, Arizona; et al.

17

Defendants.

18
19
20
21
22
23

Pending before the Court is Plaintiffs’ and United States’ (collectively, “Plaintiffs”)
Joint Motion for an Order to Show Cause. (Doc. 2610.) For the following reasons, the
motion is granted.
DISCUSSION

24
25
26
27
28

I.

Legal Standard

A party may be held in civil contempt when, after receiving notice, it fails to take
all reasonable steps within its power to comply with a specific and definite judicial order.
18 U.S.C. § 401(3) (“A court of the United States shall have power to punish by fine or
imprisonment, or both, at its discretion, such contempt of its authority, and none other,

1

as . . . [d]isobedience or resistance to its lawful writ, process, order, rule, decree, or

2

command.”); In re Dual-Deck Video Cassette Recorder Antitrust Litig., 10 F.3d 693, 695

3

(9th Cir. 1993). A district court has “wide latitude in determining whether there has been

4

a contemptuous defiance of its order[s].” Stone v. City & Cnty. of San Francisco, 968 F.2d

5

850, 856 (9th Cir. 1992). The Ninth Circuit’s rule regarding contempt “has long been

6

whether defendants have performed ‘all reasonable steps within their power to insure

7

compliance’ with the court’s orders.” Id. (quoting Sekaquaptewa v. MacDonald, 544 F.2d

8

396, 404 (9th Cir. 1976)).

9

The moving party bears the initial burden of establishing by clear and convincing

10

evidence that the contemnors violated a specific and definite order of the Court. Donovan

11

v. Mazzola, 716 F.2d 1226, 1240 (9th Cir. 1983). The burden then shifts to the contemnors

12

to produce evidence explaining their noncompliance. Id. The contemnors must show that

13

they took every reasonable step to comply. Sekaquaptewa, 544 F.2d at 406.

14

II.

Analysis

15

Plaintiffs have met their initial burden of producing clear and convincing evidence

16

that Defendants Sheriff Paul Penzone and Maricopa County (collectively, “Defendants”)

17

violated a specific and definite court order.1 On July 26, 2016, the Court issued an

18

injunction (the “Second Order”) which required reforms to MCSO’s internal investigation

19

procedures. (Doc. 1765.) The Second Order requires the Sheriff to ensure that “all

20

allegations of employee misconduct, whether internally discovered or based on a civilian

21

complaint, are fully, fairly, and efficiently investigated,” id. ¶ 163, and that the Sheriff and

22

MCSO “conduct objective, comprehensive, and timely administrative investigations of all

23

allegations of employee misconduct,” id. ¶ 183. Specifically, investigators must complete

24

the administrative investigations “within 85 calendar days of the initiation of the

25
1

26
27
28

In addition to seeking initiation of civil contempt proceedings against Paul Penzone and
Maricopa County, Plaintiffs seek civil contempt proceedings against the Maricopa County
Sheriffs’ Office (“MCSO”). (Doc. 2610 at 3.) However, the Ninth Circuit Court of
Appeals previously found that MSCO was improperly named as a party in this action.
Melendres v. Arpaio, 784 F.3d 1254, 1260 (9th Cir. 2015). Accordingly, the Court only
considers whether civil contempt proceedings are appropriate as to Defendants Maricopa
County and Paul Penzone.
-2-

1

investigation (60 calendar days if within a Division).” Id. ¶ 204. Requests for extensions

2

of time must be approved by the Commander of the Professional Standards Bureau and

3

may only be granted if reasonable. Id.

4

Defendants have continually failed to complete their investigations in a timely

5

manner. The average closure of a case took 204 days in 2018, 499 days in 2019, and 552

6

days in 2020. (Doc. 2569 at 193.) These average closures far exceed the deadlines for

7

completion set forth in the Second Order and they are in gross violation of the state law.

8

See A.R.S. § 38-1110 (180-day time limit for completing an investigation). Further, the

9

Independent Monitor for the MCSO (the “Monitor”) found MSCO in non-compliance with

10

paragraph 204’s requirements in its November 2020 and February 2021 reports. (Docs.

11

2569, 2594.) In its November 2020 report, the Monitor found that, of the 65 administrative

12

misconduct investigations submitted for compliance review, only 11 investigations were

13

completed within the 60- or 85-day time frame and of the remaining 54 investigations, only

14

14 contained acceptable justification for extension of time. (Doc. 2569 at 203.) And in its

15

February 2021 report, the Monitor found that, of the 146 administrative misconduct

16

investigations submitted for compliance review, 74 investigations were completed within

17

the required time frame or contained an acceptable extension request and approval. (Doc.

18

2594 at 201.)

19

Defendants’ failures negatively impact the quality and efficacy of their

20

investigations.

As the Court observed in its December 18, 2020 order, delays in

21

investigation have the tendency to deny justice because the matter remains unresolved,

22

memories fade, and witnesses become unavailable. (Doc. 2576 at 2.) Most concerning,

23

MSCO policy provides that the appeals board “may dismiss [ ] discipline if it determines

24

that the [MCSO] did not make a good faith effort to complete the investigation within 180

25

calendar days.” Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office Policy and Procedures 16 (2020),

26

https://www.mcso.org/home/showpublisheddocument/586/637460590886200000. In the

27

past, MCSO purposefully exceeded this time limit to justify imposing no discipline or only

28

minor discipline. (Doc. 1677 ¶¶ 576–78.)

-3-

1

On June 3, 2021, the Court held a hearing on the joint motion. (Doc. 2655.) During

2

the hearing, the Court discussed its thoughts on Defendants’ response, which provided

3

Defendants’ justifications for noncompliance. The Court stated that, even if it accepted

4

everything in Defendants’ response as true, it would hold Sheriff Penzone in contempt.

5

(Doc. 2657 at 14.) Based on this observation, the Court offered Defendants the option to

6

concede liability and focus the order to show cause hearing on what remedies to impose.

7

Id. at 15. In a joint report following the hearing, Defendants stated they would not present

8

any further substantive merits defense and opted to focus on remedies. (Doc. 2663 at 2.)

9

Therefore, the show cause hearing, which the Court will set in a separate order, will focus

10

on contempt remedies.

11

Additionally, pursuant to the procedures previously set forth, the Court has selected

12

a management expert who will identify the sources of MCSO’s failure to comply with the

13

deadline for investigations in the Second Order and recommend remedial actions. The

14

Court has questions about details related to the engagement of the management expert,

15

which it will address with the parties in the status conference set in this Order.

16

Accordingly,

17

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ and United States’ Joint Motion

18
19
20
21

for an Order to Show Cause (Doc. 2610) is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED setting an in-person status conference on August
27, 2021 at 10:00 a.m. (AZ Time).
Dated this 12th day of August, 2021.

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

-4-