United States of America v. Maricopa, County of et al

Filing 29

ANSWER to 17 Amended Complaint by Joseph M Arpaio, Maricopa County Sheriff's Office.(Martin, Kerry)

United States of America v. Maricopa, County of et al

Doc. 29

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
2415 East Camelback Road, Suite 800 Phoenix, Arizona 85016 [phone]

L. Eric Dowell, SBN 011458 Kerry S. Martin, SBN 023728 Alec Hillbo, SBN 020185 OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C., #00504800 2415 East Camelback Road, Suite 800 Phoenix, Arizona 85016 Telephone: [phone] [e-mail] [e-mail] [e-mail] Attorneys for Defendants Maricopa County Sheriff's Office and Joseph M. Arpaio IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA United States of America, Plaintiff , vs. Maricopa County, Arizona; Maricopa County Sheriff's Office; and Joseph M. Arpaio, in his official capacity as Sheriff of Maricopa County, Arizona, Defendants. Defendants Joseph M. Arpaio and the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office (together, "the MCSO Defendants") hereby respond to Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint as follows: INTRODUCTION 1. The allegations contained in paragraph 1 of the First Amended Complaint No. 2:10-cv-01878-GMS MCSO DEFENDANTS' ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.

are legal conclusions to which no response is required. 2. The allegations contained in paragraph 2 of the First Amended Complaint

are legal conclusions to which no response is required.

Dockets.Justia.com

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
2415 East Camelback Road, Suite 800 Phoenix, Arizona 85016 [phone]

3.

MCSO Defendants deny that they have refused to cooperate with the

United States' investigation of alleged national origin discrimination and further deny the remaining factual allegations contained in paragraph 3 of the First Amended Complaint. The remainder of paragraph 3 are legal conclusions to which no response is required. 4. The allegation contained in paragraph 4 of the First Amended Complaint is

a legal conclusion to which no response is required. DEFENDANTS 5. MCSO Defendants are without information or knowledge to form a belief

as to the truth of the allegations contained in paragraph 5 of the First Amended Complaint and, therefore, deny the same. 6. MCSO Defendants admit that MCSO is a law enforcement agency in MCSO Defendants admit that MCSO receives federal financial

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Maricopa County.

OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.

assistance. MCSO Defendants are without information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations contained in paragraph 6 of the First Amended Complaint and, therefore, deny the same. 7. MCSO Defendants admit that Joseph M. Arpaio is the Sheriff of Maricopa

County and that the Sheriff is the most senior official at MCSO. MCSO Defendants deny the remaining allegation contained in paragraph 7 of the First Amended Complaint. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 8. The allegation contained in paragraph 8 of the First Amended Complaint is

a legal conclusion to which no response is required, but to the extent a response is required MCSO Defendants deny the allegations. 9. The allegations contained in paragraph 9 of the First Amended Complaint

are legal conclusions to which no response is required, but to the extent a response is required MCSO Defendants deny the allegations. 10. The allegations contained in paragraph 10 of the First Amended Complaint

are legal conclusions to which no response is required.

2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
2415 East Camelback Road, Suite 800 Phoenix, Arizona 85016 [phone]

11.

MCSO Defendants admit that they are located in Arizona. The remaining

allegations contained in paragraph 11 of the First Amended Complaint are legal conclusions to which no response is required. FACTS 12. The allegations contained in paragraph 12 of the First Amended Complaint

are legal conclusions to which no response is required. 13. The allegations contained in paragraph 13 of the First Amended Complaint

are legal conclusions to which no response is required. 14. The allegations contained in paragraph 14 of the First Amended Complaint

are legal conclusions to which no response is required. 15. MCSO Defendants admit that MCSO receives federal financial assistance.

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

MCSO Defendants are without information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations contained in paragraph 15 of the First Amended Complaint and, therefore, deny the same. 16. MCSO Defendants are without information or knowledge to form a belief

OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.

as to the truth of the allegations contained in paragraph 16 of the First Amended Complaint and, therefore, deny the same. To the extent that this information is contained in public records, those records speak for themselves. 17. MCSO Defendants are without information or knowledge to form a belief

as to the truth of the allegation contained in paragraph 17 of the First Amended Complaint and, therefore, deny the same. MCSO Defendants further aver that the terms used in paragraph 17 are overly vague. 18. MCSO Defendants admit that MCSO receives federal financial assistance.

To the extent that specific grants are public records, these records speak for themselves. 19. MCSO Defendants admit that MCSO receives federal financial assistance.

To the extent that specific grants are public records, those records speak for themselves. 20. MCSO Defendants are without information or knowledge to form a belief

as to whether Maricopa County has signed contractual assurances regarding Title VI and 3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
2415 East Camelback Road, Suite 800 Phoenix, Arizona 85016 [phone]

the implementing regulations and, therefore, deny the same. MCSO Defendants deny the remaining allegations contained in paragraph 20 of the First Amended Complaint. 21. To the extent that the contractual assurances are public records, these

records speak for themselves. MCSO Defendants deny that they are required to provide DOJ with unfettered access to and the right to examine any and all records and sources of information without any limitations, at any time of its choosing. MCSO Defendants further deny the remaining allegations contained in paragraph 21 of the First Amended Complaint. 22. MCSO Defendants are without information or knowledge to form a belief

as to the exact parameters regarding the DOJ Civil Rights Division's preliminary inquiry and, therefore, denies the same. 23. MCSO Defendants admit that on or about March 10, 2009, MCSO

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.

Defendants were notified that DOJ was initiating an investigation, as contained in paragraph 23 of the First Amended Complaint. To the extent that the notification is a public record, this record speaks for itself. 24. MCSO Defendants admit that, on or about March 25, 2009, it received

Plaintiff's First Request for Documents. To the extent that the First Request is a public record, this record speaks for itself. MCSO Defendants further admit that discussions took place between Plaintiff and the MCSO Defendants to discuss the documents and information requested by Plaintiff. MCSO Defendants deny the remaining allegations contained in paragraph 24 of the First Amended Complaint. 25. MCSO Defendants admit that on or about April 30, 2009, MCSO

Defendants met with Plaintiff to discuss the investigation. MCSO Defendants deny the remaining allegations contained in paragraph 25 of the First Amended Complaint. 26. MCSO Defendants admit that on or about May 12, 2009, MCSO

Defendants provided Plaintiff with documents that were responsive to the First Request. MCSO Defendants deny the remaining allegations contained in paragraph 26 of the First Amended Complaint. 4

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
2415 East Camelback Road, Suite 800 Phoenix, Arizona 85016 [phone]

27.

MCSO Defendants admit that on or about May 12, May 20, and May 27,

2009, Plaintiff sought information regarding the status of its requests. MCSO Defendants deny the remaining allegations contained in paragraph 27 of the First Amended Complaint. 28. MCSO Defendants admit that on or about May 29, 2009, MCSO

Defendants informed Plaintiff that they would not provide DOJ with unfettered access to and the right to examine any and all records and sources of information without any limitations, at any time of its choosing. MCSO Defendants deny the remaining

allegations contained in paragraph 28 of the First Amended Complaint. 29. MCSO Defendants admit that on or about June 22, 2009, MCSO

Defendants informed Plaintiff that they would not provide DOJ with unfettered access to and the right to examine any and all records and sources of information without any limitations, at any time of its choosing. MCSO Defendants deny that they refuse to

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.

cooperate with DOJ and deny the remaining allegation contained in paragraph 29 of the First Amended Complaint. 30. MCSO Defendants admit that on or about July 7, 2009, Defendant Sheriff

Arpaio held a press conference. MCSO Defendants admit that Sheriff Arpaio stated that MCSO would not provide DOJ with unfettered access to and the right to examine any and all records and sources of information without any limitations, at any time of its choosing. MCSO Defendants deny that they refused to cooperate with DOJ and deny the remaining allegation contained in paragraph 30 of the First Amended Complaint. 31. MCSO Defendants admit that on or about July 16, 2009, MCSO

Defendants indicated that they would provide information regarding services to persons with limited English proficiency in the MCSO jail facilities. MCSO Defendants deny the remaining allegations contained in paragraph 31 of the First Amended Complaint. 32. MCSO Defendants admit that on or about August 12, 2009, MCSO

indicated that it would provide a position statement by October 2009. MCSO Defendants

5

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
2415 East Camelback Road, Suite 800 Phoenix, Arizona 85016 [phone]

admit that the position statement was not provided by October 2009 as the information was too voluminous to review by that date. 33. MCSO Defendants admit that on or about November 10, 2009, MCSO

indicated that it would provide a position statement by mid-December 2009. MCSO Defendants admit that the position statement was not provided by mid-December 2009 as the information was too voluminous to review by that date. 34. MCSO Defendants admit that on or about June 14, 2010 MCSO produced

an extensive position statement containing documents responsive to several of the requests in the First Request. MCSO Defendants deny the remaining allegations

contained in paragraph 34 of the First Amended Complaint. 35. MCSO Defendants admit that on or about August 3, 2010 they received

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

notification from Plaintiff informing MCSO Defendants that in its opinion they were not in compliance with Title VI. MCSO Defendants admit that Plaintiff requested

OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.

compliance by August 17, 2010. MCSO Defendants deny that they refuse to cooperate with DOJ and deny the remaining allegations contained in paragraph 35 of the First Amended Complaint. 36. investigation. MCSO Defendants deny that they refuse to cooperate in DOJ's MCSO Defendants admit that they refused to provide Plaintiff with

unfettered access to and the right to examine any and all records and sources of information without any limitations, at any time of its choosing. MCSO Defendants admits that on or about August 5, 2010, they requested a discussion with Plaintiff regarding the August 3 letter. 37. MCSO Defendants admit that on or about August 12, 2010, Maricopa

County directed MCSO to fully cooperate with DOJ in its Title VI inquiry. MCSO Defendants are without information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations contained in paragraph 37 of the First Amended Complaint and, therefore, deny the same.

6

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
2415 East Camelback Road, Suite 800 Phoenix, Arizona 85016 [phone]

38.

MCSO Defendants admit that MCSO responded to Maricopa County on or

about August 13, 2010. MCSO Defendants deny the remaining allegation contained in paragraph 38 of the First Amended Complaint. 39. MCSO Defendants are without information or knowledge to form a belief

as to the truth of the allegation contained in paragraph 39 of the First Amended Complaint concerning the conduct of Maricopa County. MCSO denies that it is

unwilling to provide requested documents and access to MCSO's facilities and staff. 40. MCSO Defendants admit that on or about August 24, 2010, MCSO met MCSO

with Plaintiff to discuss Plaintiff's investigation and requests for access.

Defendants deny that the United States' memorialization accurately summarizes that meeting. MCSO Defendants are without information or knowledge to form a belief as to the accuracy of Plaintiff's memorandum regarding the meeting and, therefore, deny the same. 41. MCSO Defendants deny that they refuse to cooperate with the

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.

investigation. MCSO Defendants admit they would not provide DOJ with unfettered access to and the right to examine any and all records and sources of information without any limitations, at any time of its choosing. 42. The allegations contained in paragraph 42 of the First Amended

Complaint are legal conclusions to which no response is required, however MCSO Defendants deny the underlying allegation that compliance cannot be achieved by voluntary means. 43. The allegations contained in paragraph 43 of the First Amended Complaint

are legal conclusions to which no response is required, however MCSO Defendants deny the underlying allegation MCSO Defendants are not in compliance with Title VI, its implementing regulations, and related contractual assurances.

7

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
2415 East Camelback Road, Suite 800 Phoenix, Arizona 85016 [phone]

FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF 44. MCSO Defendants reallege and incorporate by reference each and every

response set forth in paragraphs 1 through 43 as though fully set forth herein. 45. The allegations contained in paragraph 45 of the First Amended Complaint

are legal conclusions to which no response is required. 46. MCSO Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph 46 of the

First Amended Complaint. 47. MCSO Defendants deny the allegation contained in paragraph 47 of the

First Amended Complaint. SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF 48. MCSO Defendants reallege and incorporate by reference each and every

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

response set forth in paragraphs 1 through 47 as though fully set forth herein. 49. MCSO Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph 49 of the

OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.

First Amended Complaint. 50. MCSO Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph 50 of the

First Amended Complaint. 51. MCSO Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph 51 of the

First Amended Complaint. OTHER ALLEGATIONS 52. MCSO Defendants expressly deny any and all other allegations not

specifically addressed herein. PRAYER FOR RELIEF 53. MCSO Defendants deny that Plaintiff is entitled to any of the relief

requested in the prayer for relief contained in the First Amended Complaint. AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES MCSO Defendants hereby identify the following defenses to the claims in the First Amended Complaint. Identification of these defenses is not intended to shift the burden

8

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
2415 East Camelback Road, Suite 800 Phoenix, Arizona 85016 [phone]

of persuasion or production as required by law as to any claim contained in the First Amended Complaint:
1.

Plaintiff's claims are barred, in whole or in part, by their failure to state a

claim upon which relief may be granted.
2.

Plaintiff's claims are barred, in whole or in part, by the doctrines of

estoppel or res judicata.
3.

Plaintiff's claims are barred, in whole or in part, because the Court lacks

subject matter jurisdiction over the matters asserted in the First Amended Complaint.
4.

Plaintiff's claims are barred, in whole or in part, because Plaintiff cannot

establish an adverse impact.
5.

Plaintiff's claims are barred, in whole or in part, because MCSO

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Defendants have acted in good faith to comply with the laws.
6.

OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.

Plaintiff's claims are barred, in whole or in part, because MCSO

Defendants have legitimate, non-discriminator reasons for their actions.
7.

Plaintiff's claims are barred, in whole or in part, by the statute of

limitations.
8.

Plaintiff's claims are barred, in whole or in part, because the First Amended

Complaint was filed without exhausting all administrative or contractual procedures.
9.

MCSO Defendants reserve the right to add additional affirmative defenses

as discovery proceeds. WHEREFORE, having filed its Answer and Affirmative Defenses to Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint, MCSO Defendants request: A. That the First Amended Complaint be dismissed with prejudice, with

Plaintiff to take nothing thereby; B. That MCSO Defendants be awarded their reasonable attorneys' fees

incurred herein pursuant to Rule 11, 42 U.S.C. §12205, and any other statute or Court rule allowing for such recovery because Plaintiff's action is frivolous, unreasonable, or without foundation; 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
2415 East Camelback Road, Suite 800 Phoenix, Arizona 85016 [phone]

C. D.

That MCSO Defendants be awarded their costs herein; That MCSO Defendants be awarded post-judgment interest on the

foregoing amounts at the maximum rate permitted by law; and E. That MCSO Defendants be awarded such other and further relief as the

court deems just and proper.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 28th day of September, 2010. Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C. By s/Kerry S. Martin L. Eric Dowell Kerry S. Martin Alec Hillbo 2415 East Camelback Road, Suite 800 Phoenix, Arizona 85016 [e-mail] Kerr y . M a r t i n @ o g l e t r e e d e a k i n s . c o m [e-mail] Attorneys for Defendants Maricopa County Sheriff's Office and Joseph M. Arpaio

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.

10

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
2415 East Camelback Road, Suite 800 Phoenix, Arizona 85016 [phone]

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on the 28th day of September 2010, I electronically transmitted the attached document to the Clerk's Office using the ECF Systems for filing and transmittal of a Notice of Electronic Filing to the following ECF registrant: Thomas E. Perez Assistant Attorney General Dennis K. Burke United States Attorney Roy L. Austin, Jr. Matthew Colangelo Peter S. Gray Laurie A. Gelman Amin Aminfar U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20530 Michael M. Walker Assistant U.S. Attorney Two Renaissance Square 40 North Central Avenue, Suite 1200 Phoenix, AZ 85004-4408 Attorneys for the United States Thomas K Irvine Cynthia Renee Estrella Polsinelli Shughart PC 3636 N Central Avenue, Suite 1200 Phoenix, AZ 85012-1942 Attorneys for Maricopa County

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.

s/Kerry S. Martin

9213541.1 (OGLETREE)

11