United States of America v. State of California et al

Filing 152

NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL of 150 Opposition to Motion by All Plaintiffs (Attachments: # 1 [DISREGARD - TO BE REFILED AS SEPARATE DOCKET ENTRY] Corrected Brief) (Gray, Kathryne) Modified on 5/23/2018 (Benson, A.).

1

CHAD A. READLER
Acting Assistant Attorney General

2
MCGREGOR SCOTT
3 United States Attorney
4

AUGUST FLENTJE
5 Special Counsel
6 WILLIAM C. PEACHEY
7 Director
8 EREZ REUVENI
Assistant Director
9
10 DAVID SHELLEDY
Civil Chief, Assistant United States Attorney
11
LAUREN C. BINGHAM
12 JOSEPH A. DARROW
13 JOSHUA S. PRESS
FRANCESCA GENOVA
14 Trial Attorneys
United States Department of Justice
15
Civil Division
Office of Immigration Litigation
16
District Court Section
17
P.O. Box 868, Ben Franklin Station
Washington, DC 20044
18
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
19
Email: [e-mail]
20
Attorneys for the United States of America
21
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
22
23 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
NO. 2:18–CV–00490-JAM-KJN
Plaintiff,
24
v.
PLAINTIFF’S BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF
25
PERMISSIVE INTERVENTION OF COUNTY
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al.,
OF ORANGE
26
Defendants.
Judge: Hon. John A. Mendez
27
28

1

Plaintiff the United States of America supports County of Orange and Sandra Hutchens,

2 Sheriff-Coroner for the County of Orange’s (“Orange County”) permissive intervention in this matter
3 pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(b). Permissive intervention is allowed in the interest of
4

efficiency when a party “has a claim or defense that shares with the main action a common question of

5
6
7

law or fact.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(b)(1)(B).
The claims of Orange County share common legal and factual issues with those brought by the

8 United States, and the United States supports the permissive intervention of Orange County. Orange
9 County presents four unique interests in this case that we think warrant permissive intervention.
10

First, SB 54 and AB 103 uniquely impact and direct the actions of local government agencies

11
12

like Orange County. See Cal. Gov’t Code § 7282(d) (“law enforcement official” subject to SB 54

13 cooperation restrictions means “any local agency or officer of a local agency authorized to enforce
14 criminal statute . . . or to operate jails or to maintain custody of individuals in jails”); § 7282(e) (“local
15 agency” subject to SB 54 cooperation restrictions means “any city, county, city and county, special
16
district, or other political subdivision of the state”); 7284.4(a) (“California law enforcement agency”
17
barred from cooperation “means a state or local law enforcement agency” but “does not include the
18
19 Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation”); § 12532 (AB 103 inspection regime applies to
20 “county, local, or private locked detention facilities”). Indeed, AB 103 purports to regulate Orange
21

County’s contractual relationships with the federal government. Id. § 12532; see Proposed Complaint,

22
ECF 59-2, ¶ 42. Given that Orange County is the direct subject of these laws, we think permissive
23
24
25

intervention is warranted.
Second, Orange County also has a unique perspective on the impact of SB 54 on the release of

26 aliens with criminal convictions to the public and into a local community in California. Given that
27

California claims that public safety is served by SB 54, it makes sense to also hear Orange County’s

28
Plaintiff’s Brief in Support of Intervention of Orange County

1

1
2

perspective.
Third, Orange County has identified a valid concern with losing federal grant funds based on

3 being required to apply SB 54. See Proposed Complaint, ECF 59-2, ¶¶ 9-10; Mot. to Intervene of
4

County of Orange, ECF 59, at 1-2. A similar concern has formed the basis for other litigation around

5
6
7

the country and in the State.
Fourth, Orange County maintains that the Attorney General of California has threatened it with

8 civil or criminal liability if it cooperates with federal immigration enforcement. Mot. to Intervene, ECF
9 59, at 11.
10

In sum, Orange County has a unique interest in this case as the laws’ direct subject, which

11
12

warrants permissive intervention. As another governmental unit with its own set of concerns, it is in a

13 unique position from both parties and the other group of proposed intervenors. Given that permissive
14 intervention is appropriate, we do not think it is necessary to address intervention as of right.
15
16

For the foregoing reasons, the United States supports Orange County’s permissive intervention
in this matter.

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Plaintiff’s Brief in Support of Intervention of Orange County

2

1

DATED: May 22, 2018

CHAD A. READLER
Acting Assistant Attorney General

2
MCGREGOR SCOTT
United States Attorney

3
4

AUGUST FLENTJE
Special Counsel

5
6

WILLIAM C. PEACHEY
Director

7

EREZ REUVENI
Assistant Director

8
9

DAVID SHELLEDY
Civil Chief, Asst. United States Attorney

10
11

LAUREN C. BINGHAM
JOSEPH A. DARROW
JOSHUA S. PRESS
FRANCESCA GENOVA

12
13
14

/s/ Francesca Genova
FRANCESCA GENOVA
Trial Attorneys
United States Department of Justice
Civil Division
Office of Immigration Litigation
District Court Section
P.O. Box 868, Ben Franklin Station
Washington, DC 20044
Phone: [phone]
[e-mail]

15
16
17
18
19
20
21

Attorneys for the United States of America

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Plaintiff’s Brief in Support of Intervention of Orange County

3

1
2

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on May 22, 2018, I electronically transmitted the foregoing document to

3 the Clerk’s Office using the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California’s Electronic
4

Document Filing System (ECF), which will serve a copy of this document upon all counsel of record.

5
6
7
8

By: /s/ Francesca Genova
FRANCESCA GENOVA
Trial Attorney
United States Department of Justice
Civil Division

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Plaintiff’s Brief in Support of Intervention of Orange County

4