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

Filing 32

ANSWER to 17 Amended Complaint by Maricopa, County of.(Irvine, Thomas)

Download PDF
United States of America v. Maricopa, County of et al Doc. 32 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Thomas K. Irvine (#006365) tirvine@polsinelli.com Cynthia R. Estrella (#017220) cestrella@polsinelli.com POLSINELLI SHUGHART, P.C. One E. Washington St., Ste. 1200 Phoenix, AZ 85004 Phone: (602) 650-2000 Fax: (602) 264-7033 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 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. Case No. 2:10-cv-01878-LOA SEPARATE ANSWER OF MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA TO PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT (Hon. Lawrence O. Anderson) Defendant Maricopa County, Arizona (hereinafter, "Maricopa County" or the "Board"), through counsel undersigned, for their Answer to Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint (hereinafter, "FAC") admit, deny and alleges as follows. Any allegation not expressly admitted herein is denied. INTRODUCTION 1. In response to Paragraph 1 of the FAC, Maricopa County states that the allegations contained in the FAC speak for themselves. 2. In response to Paragraph 2 of the FAC, Maricopa County states that federal law, regulations and the underlying contractual obligations all speak for themselves. 3. In response to Paragraph 3 of the FAC, Maricopa County denies the allegations of this paragraph generally and specifically denies that Plaintiff United States ("U.S.") has directed efforts since March 2009 to secure voluntary compliance of the Board. Maricopa County affirmatively avers that since learning of the Maricopa County Sheriff's 2741837.1 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Office's (hereinafter, "MCSO") noncompliance with the underlying requests and the U.S. declared its intent to sue, Maricopa County has directed MCSO to promptly comply with the requests of the U.S. and has offered the U.S. to assist by way of invoking the Board's subpoena power pursuant to A.R.S. 11-218. 4. In response to Paragraph 4 of the FAC, Maricopa County states that no factual allegation is made requiring a response. To the extent that a response is deemed necessary, this paragraph is denied. DEFENDANTS 5. In response to Paragraph 5 of the FAC, Maricopa County admits the allegations of this paragraph. 6. In response to Paragraph 6 of the FAC, Maricopa County states that under the Arizona Constitution, the sheriff is a county officer whose duties are to be fixed by statute. A.R.S. Const. Art. 12 4. The County Sheriff is in charge of the county jail, serves process and executes various law enforcement functions. A.R.S. 11-441. The Sheriff possesses no fiscal oversight responsibility that supplants the Board's fiduciary duties. See A.R.S. 11444. 7. In response to Paragraph 7 of the FAC, Maricopa County admits that Sheriff Arpaio is the duly elected Maricopa County Sheriff. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 8. 9. In response to Paragraph 8 of the FAC, proper jurisdiction is admitted. In response to Paragraph 9 of the FAC, Maricopa County states that this paragraph states a legal conclusion that requires no response. 10. In response to Paragraph 10 of the FAC, Maricopa County states the FAC speaks for itself. 11. In response to Paragraph 11 of the FAC, Maricopa County admits that Venue is proper in this Court. 2741837.1 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 12. FACTS In response to Paragraph 12 of the FAC, Maricopa County states that this paragraph states legal conclusions that require no response. To the extent that a response is deemed necessary, Maricopa County states that the legal authorities cited speak for themselves. 13. In response to Paragraph 13 of the FAC, Maricopa County states that this paragraph states legal conclusions that require no response. To the extent that a response is deemed necessary, Maricopa County states that the legal authorities cited speak for themselves. 14. In response to Paragraph 14of the FAC, Maricopa County states that this paragraph states legal conclusions that require no response. To the extent that a response is deemed necessary, Maricopa County states that the legal authorities cited speak for themselves. Maricopa County affirmatively alleges that until August, 2010, the U.S. chose not to deal with the recipient. 15. In response to Paragraph 15 of the FAC, Maricopa County admits that it is a recipient of federal financial assistance from DOJ. 16. In response to Paragraph 16 of the FAC, Maricopa County admits that it received the listed grants. 17. In response to Paragraph 17 of the FAC, Maricopa County states that it has provided funding from the grants described above to MCSO. 18. In response to Paragraph 18 of the FAC, Maricopa County admits that DOJ made the described grant. 19. In response to Paragraph 18 of the FAC, Maricopa County admits the allegations of this paragraph. 20. In response to Paragraph 20 of the FAC, Maricopa County states that the conditions and contractual assurances at issue speak for themselves. 21. In response to Paragraph 21 of the FAC, Maricopa County admits the allegations of this paragraph. 2741837.1 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2741837.1 22. In response to Paragraph 22 of the FAC, Maricopa County states that it does not possess adequate knowledge or information to reasonably admit or deny the allegations of this paragraph; the U.S. chose not to deal with Maricopa County. Accordingly, the allegations of this paragraph are deemed denied. 23. In response to Paragraph 23 of the FAC, Maricopa County denies that it received notification on March 10, 2009 of the described investigation. 24. In response to Paragraph 24 of the FAC, Maricopa County denies that it received the First Request on or about March 25, 2009 or that it was included in the alleged communication between the U.S. and MCSO. 25. In response to Paragraph 25 of the FAC, Maricopa County denies that it met with the U.S. in reference to this matter on April 30, 2009. Maricopa County further alleges that it was not invited to participate in the meeting at issue. 26. In response to Paragraph 26 of the FAC, Maricopa County states that it does not possess adequate knowledge or information to reasonably admit or deny the allegations of this paragraph. Accordingly, the allegations of this paragraph are deemed denied. 27. In response to Paragraph 27 of the FAC, Maricopa County denies that the U.S. sought additional information from the Board on the dates at issue. 28. In response to Paragraph 28 of the FAC, Maricopa County states that it does not possess adequate knowledge or information to reasonably admit or deny the allegations of this paragraph. Accordingly, the allegations of this paragraph are deemed denied. 29. In response to Paragraph 28 of the FAC, Maricopa County states that it was not present for the conference call at issue. Accordingly, Maricopa County does not possess adequate knowledge or information to reasonably admit or deny the allegations of this paragraph. Accordingly, the allegations of this paragraph are deemed denied. 30. In response to Paragraph 30 of the FAC, Maricopa County states that it does not possess adequate knowledge or information to reasonably admit or deny the allegations of this paragraph. Accordingly, the allegations of this paragraph are deemed denied. 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2741837.1 31. In response to Paragraph 31 of the FAC, Maricopa County states that it does not possess adequate knowledge or information to reasonably admit or deny the allegations of this paragraph. Accordingly, the allegations of this paragraph are deemed denied. 32. In response to Paragraph 32 of the FAC, Maricopa County states that it does not possess adequate knowledge or information to reasonably admit or deny the allegations of this paragraph. Accordingly, the allegations of this paragraph are deemed denied. 33. In response to Paragraph 33 of the FAC, Maricopa County states that it does not possess adequate knowledge or information to reasonably admit or deny the allegations of this paragraph. Accordingly, the allegations of this paragraph are deemed denied. 34. In response to Paragraph 34 of the FAC, Maricopa County states that it does not possess adequate knowledge or information to reasonably admit or deny the allegations of this paragraph. Accordingly, the allegations of this paragraph are deemed denied. 35. In response to Paragraph 35 of the FAC, Maricopa County admits receiving a written notification from the U.S., which speaks for itself. 36. In response to Paragraph 36 of the FAC, Maricopa County states that MCSO's referenced correspondence speaks for itself. 37. In response to Paragraph 37 of the FAC, Maricopa County states that its August 12, 2010 correspondence speaks for itself. Maricopa County admits that it directed MCSO to comply with DOJ investigators. Maricopa County affirmatively alleges that the U.S. chose not to deal with it concerning its investigation until this time and, therefore, has waived the right to penalize Maricopa County pursuant to Title VI. 38. In response to Paragraph 28 of the FAC, Maricopa County states that MCSO's response speaks for itself. 39. In response to Paragraph 39 of the FAC, Maricopa County generally admits the allegations of this paragraph. Maricopa County specifically avers that the Sheriff is responsible for the day-to-day operations of MCSO facilities and has control over MCSO staff. 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2741837.1 40. In response to Paragraph 40 of the FAC, Maricopa County states that it does not possess adequate knowledge or information to reasonably admit or deny the allegations of this paragraph. Accordingly, the allegations of this paragraph are deemed denied. 41. In response to Paragraph 41 of the FAC, Maricopa County states that it does not possess adequate knowledge or information to reasonably admit or deny the allegations of this paragraph. Accordingly, the allegations of this paragraph are deemed denied. 42. In response to Paragraph 42 of the FAC, Maricopa County states that this paragraph states a legal conclusion that requires no response. 43. In response to Paragraph 43 of the FAC, Maricopa County states that the communication at issue speaks for itself. FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF: DEFNDANTS' DENIAL OF ACCESS TO SOURCES OF INFORMATION VIOLATES TITLE VI AND ITS IMPLEMENTING REGULATIONS 44. In response to Paragraph 44 of the FAC, Maricopa County states that no factual allegation is made requiring a response. To the extent that a response is deemed necessary, all responses above are incorporated herein by this reference. 45. In response to Paragraph 45 of the FAC, Maricopa County admits that it receives federal financial assistance. 46. In response to Paragraph 46 of the FAC, Maricopa County denies that it has denied any access to investigators. Maricopa County further alleges that Sheriff Arpaio is in charge of the day-to-day operational issues of MCSO, its documents, personnel and facilities. 47. In response to Paragraph 47 of the FAC, Maricopa County states that this paragraph states a legal conclusion that requires no response, but affirmatively alleges that it is not in violation of Title VI or its regulations. SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF: DEFENDANTS' DENIAL OF ACCESS TO SOURCES OF INFORMATION VIOLATES THE TITLE VI ASSURANCES 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 48. In response to Paragraph 48 of the FAC, Maricopa County states that no factual allegation is made requiring a response. To the extent that a response is deemed necessary, all responses above are incorporated herein by this reference. 49. In response to Paragraph 49 of the FAC, Maricopa County states that federal law, regulations and the underlying contractual obligations all speak for themselves. 50. In response to Paragraph 50 of the FAC, Maricopa County denies the allegation that it has denied access to MCSO documents, facilities or other sources of information. Maricopa County affirmatively avers that it does not directly control MCSO's daily operations, personnel and facilities. Maricopa County affirmatively alleges that by choosing not to involve Maricopa County in its lengthy dealings with MCSO, the U.S. eliminated Maricopa County's ability to seek compliance from MCSO. 51. In response to Paragraph 51 of the FAC, Maricopa County states that this paragraph states a legal conclusion that requires no response. To the extent that a response is deemed necessary, Maricopa County denies the allegation that it has participated in any denial of access in violation of Title VI assurances. PRAYER FOR RELIEF 52. In response to Paragraph 52 of the FAC, Maricopa County states that this paragraph states a legal conclusion that requires no response. Furthermore, Maricopa County affirmatively avers that it has not denied any aspect of access sought by DOJ. AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES Maricopa County incorporates herein all affirmative defenses contained in Rule 8 and 12, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, that may apply but which are not currently known. Maricopa County will amend the pleadings to reflect affirmative defenses that may exist if discovery reveals the existence of the same. WHEREFORE, having fully answered Plaintiff's Complaint, Maricopa County prays for an Order: A. Dismissing the Complaint against Maricopa County and finding that Plaintiff take nothing thereby; 2741837.1 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2741837.1 B. C. For recovery of the costs and attorney fees; and Such other and further relief as the Court may deem proper and just. Dated this 6th day of October, 2010. POLSINELLI SHUGHART, P.C. By: s/ Thomas K. Irvine Thomas K. Irvine Cynthia R. Estrella One E. Washington St., Ste. 1200 Phoenix, AZ 85004 Phone: (602) 650-2000 Fax: (602) 264-7033 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2741837.1 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on October 6, 2010, I electronically transmitted the foregoing document to the U.S. District Court Clerk's Office by using the CM/ECF System for filing and transmittal of a Notice of Electronic Filing. Amin Aminfar: amin.aminfar@usdoj.gov Roy L. Austin: roy.austin@usdoj.gov Matthew Colangelo: matthew.colangelo@usdoj.gov Peter S. Gray: peter.gray2@usdoj.gov Laurie A. Gelman: laurie.gelman@usdoj.gov Michael M. Walker: Michael.Walker4@usdoj.gov L. Eric Dowell: Eric.Dowell@ogletreedeakins.com Kerry S. Martin: Kerry.Martin@ogletreedeakins.com Alec Hillbo: Alec.Hillbo@ogletreedeakins.com By: s/ Donna Kekar 9

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?