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

Filing 64

RESPONSE to Motion re 63 MOTION to Dismiss Case without prejudice filed by Joseph M Arpaio, Maricopa County Sheriff's Office. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Popolizio, Joseph)

Download PDF
E,XHIBiT i trÆ Joxãs, SrcEmox t HocruuLl, PL.C. 29flI NOBTH CENTBAI AVENOE WIITIAM B. JONES, JR, TET.EPH0NE: (602) SUITE 2t3.1714 8(lfl PHoEN¡x, ARrzoilA 8501 2 F¡x: (602Ì 200.780.| Pro¡¡r: E.MArt : wJoNEs@JsHHRM.corvl (0021 283-1700 Fax: (602) 651.75s9 WWW,JS fI TIRM.CO M JOHN T, MASTEßSON TETEPHoNE: {6021 263.7330 F¡x: (0021200'7848 E'MAr[: JMASTERS0N@Jsfi fl RM.c0tul JoSEPH J. Popottzro Tereprorue: {602) 263'l 741 F¡x: (602) 200-7876 E.MArt: JPoPor.rzto@JsHFtRM.coM July 28, 2011 Mr. Sergio Percz U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division Special Litigation Section Patrick Hetry Building 601 D Street, N'W Washington, D.C. 2057 9-0001 Re: U.S. v. MCSO, et al. CV10.10878-PHX-GMS Dear Mr. Perez: I have received your July 27,2011 letter in which you indicated that the Maricopa County Sheriff s Office (MCSO) is in substantial compliance under the June 2,2011 Agreement. Thank you for your cooperation throughout this process and your acknowledgment of substantial compliance under the Agreement, As the parties to the Agreement are the United States and Sheriff Joseph M, Arpaio, the United States' acknowledgment of the MCSO's substantial compliance under the Agreement is, in fact, an acknowledgment that Sheriff Arpaio is in substantial compliance under the Agreement, As you are aware, the parties agreed that substantial compliance, as defined in the Agreement, is the prerequisite for the dismissal of the above-referenced action. Judge Snow's June 6,2011 Order changed the parties'agreed mechanism of dismissal, as you well know. Under his Order, Judge Snow witt dismiss the action on August 2,2011 unless the United States files a motion to set aside dismissal. With its acknowledgement of substantial compiiance, however, no basis exists for the United States to prevent dismissal of the action. The acknowledgement of substantial compliance is, therefore, an acknowledgment that the United States will not be filing a motion to posþone the dismissal of the action pursuant to Judge Snow's Order, Accordingly, we look forward to Judge Snowos order dismissing this action on August 2,2011, 2602'784.t /oxns, SxELTot{ €¡ HocuuLI, PL.C. Mr. Sergio Percz July 28, 2011 Page2 In addition, your letter refers to the "Settlement Agreement." Please note that the June 2, 2011 Agreement to which you refer, and under which Sheriff Arpaio has substantially complied, is neither entitled "settlement agreement," nor does the word "settlement" appear anywhere in the Agreement. Moreover, although we concur that the substantial compliance under the Agreement resolves the claims in the instant action, the resolution of those claims is not a resolution on the merits, but rather a dismissal of disputed claims, short of their adjudication. No flat refusal of access to documents, facilities, and/or staff occurred. Rather, any initial limitation of access to documents, facilities and staff resulted from the rightful questioning of the scope and propriety of the United States' investigation. Nevertheless, despite the parties' differences, we are delighted that substantial will occur shortly. We look forward to the swift conclusion of the United States' underlying Title VI investigation. compliance has occurred, and that dismissal of this action Please call me IIPljas 2602784,1 with any questions or comments. Thanks again.

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?