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.).

Download PDF
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: (202) 305-1062 Facsimile: (202) 305-7000 19 Email: Francesca.M.Genova@usdoj.gov 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: (202) 305-1062 Francesca.M.Genova@usdoj.gov 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

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?