« 2016 | January | February | March | April | May | June | July | August | September | October | November | December | 2018 »
USA v. Arpaio (Criminal Contempt). USDOJ files a reply in support of its Dec. 15 motion for bench trial. ECF 63.
USA v. Arpaio (Criminal Contempt). Judge Bolton issues order setting Arpaio’s pretrial conference for Jan. 25, 2017 and directing Arpaio to attend the hearing. ECF 64.
USA v. Arpaio (Criminal Contempt). Arpaio files a reply in support of his Dec. 27 cross-motion for jury trial. ECF 66.
Melendres. Judge Snow issues two orders:
- order that he’s reviewed the Monitor's January 2, 2017 invoice, finds it reasonable, and directs Maricopa County to authorize payment (ECF 1922); and
- order rescheduling the pending status conference for Feb. 2, 2017. ECF 1924.
Judge Snow also issues an order addressing Arpaio et al’s pending motions for recusal and discovery as follows:
Pending before the Court are two related motions filed by Defendant Arpaio— Sheriff Arpaio’s Motion for Recusal of the Court and its Monitor (Doc. 1878) and Sheriff Arpaio’s related Motion for Leave to File Motion for Discovery (Doc. 1884). Although the Court has not yet ruled on either motion, the Court is informed that in his recent appeal, Sheriff Arpaio has requested that this Court be recused for the reasons set forth in Doc. 1878.
Prior to proceeding to rule on the above motions, the Court wishes to determine whether: (a) the Sheriff has appropriately raised this argument in his appeal in the absence of a ruling from the district court, and (b) if so, whether and to what extent, if any, this Court retains jurisdiction to rule on the two pending motions identified above. * * *
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that any parties who wish to address these questions file simultaneous briefs not to exceed ten pages on the two questions no later than Friday, January 27, 2017.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25(d), Paul Penzone, in his official capacity as Sheriff of Maricopa County, is substituted as Defendant in this action in place of Joseph M. Arpaio, in his official capacity as Sheriff of Maricopa County. The Clerk of Court is directed to change the caption accordingly and all parties are directed to file all future documents under the updated caption as referenced above.
ECF 1923.
Penzone lodges Notice re: Lodging Under Seal Information regarding Investigation. ECF 1926 (Notice); ECF 1925 (Sealed Lodged Proposed Info); ECF 1928 (sealed information as docketed).
Melendres. Judge Snow issues order directing clerk to file Penzone’s lodged document re: investigation under seal. ECF 1927. Thereafter, information is docketed as ECF 1928.
Arpaio-MCSO 2016 2nd Injunction Appeal. USDOJ and Maricopa County file motions for extension of time to file answer. No. 16-16663, Docs 17 (USDOJ) and 18 (Maricopa County). The USDOJ motion is approved - new deadline is Feb. 22. Maricopa County’s motion is “is not approved because Maricopa County is not reflected as an appellee.” Doc. 22
Arpaio-MCSO 2016 2nd Injunction Appeal. Plaintiffs file motion for extension of time to file answer. No. 16-16663, Doc 19. This is approved - new deadline is Feb. 22. Doc. 20.
Sands’ Appeal. Brian Sands files motion in 9th Circuit for extension of time to file opening brief until Feb. 26, 2017. No. 16-16659 Doc. 12. This motion is granted – briefs now due Feb. 27. Id. Doc. 13.
Melendres. Penzone files Notice re: Intent to Transfer Personnel to PSB (ECF 1930) and lodges sealed proposed information re: that transfer (ECF 1929). The information is later docketed as 1932.
Melendres. Judge Snow issues order directing clerk to file Penzone’s lodged document re: Personnel Transfer under seal. ECF 1931. Thereafter, information is docketed as ECF 1932.
Maricopa County 2016 2nd Injunction Appeal. Maricopa County files motion in 9th Circuit for extension of time to file opening brief until Feb. 24, 2017. No. 16-16661 Doc. 10. This motion is granted. Id. Doc. 11.
Melendres. Penzone files Motion to Extend Time to File Response to Court's January 13, 2017 Order (re: Arpaio’s recusal/discovery motions). ECF 1933.
USA v. Arpaio (Criminal Contempt). Judge Bolton presides over the scheduled pretrial conference. ECF 71 (Minutes of Proceeding); ECF 74 (Transcript; set for Apr. 24, 2017 release). Per the minutes, the USDOJ estimates the trial will take 3-4 days. See ECF 71. Judge Bolton continues the trial, per the parties’ request, until April. 25, 2017. Id.
Arpaio files a “supplement” to his Jan. 9 reply motion in support of jury trial. ECF 69.
Melendres. Judge Snow issues order granting Penzone's request for extension of time to file response to Court's Jan. 13 order - until Feb. 28. ECF 1934.
Arpaio et al files motion to extend time to file response to Court’s Jan. 13 order. ECF 1935.
Maricopa County also files motion to extend time to file response to Court’s Jan. 13 order. ECF 1936.
Arpaio files articles of incorporation for "The Joe Arpaio Action Fund" as an Arizona Nonprofit Corporation. See SOLICITATION: Sheriff Arpaio's New Dark Money Social Welfare Organization,” Arizona Politics, Mar. 14, 2017 (apparently first public report about Arpaio's new venture); see also filed articles (uploaded by Arizona Politics).
Melendres. Penzone files Notice of Objection re: Monitor's Class Remedial Matter Designations for IA 17-0036, 17-0050, and 17-0051. ECF 1937.
Judge Snow issues order granting various parties’ motions to extend time: “All Parties shall have up to and including February 28, 2017 to file briefing in response to the questions raised by the Court's January 13, 2017 Order .” ECF 1938.
Melendres. Penzone files Joint Motion to Continue February 2, 2017 Status Conference. ECF 1939.
Judge Snow issues order granting joint motion to continue, rescheduling the status conference for Mar. 2, 2017. ECF 1940.
Melendres. Judge Snow issues order setting forth a variety of issues related to Arpaio’s and Penzone’s Objections (ECF 1860; 1937) re: Monitor’s Class Remedial Matter Designations, to be discussed at the upcoming Mar. 2 status conference. ECF 1941.
USA v. Arpaio (Criminal Contempt). Judge Bolton issues an order denying Arpaio’s Motion to Seal Amended Response (filed as ECF 77, but not on docket). ECF 79.
Melendres. Penzone files Ex Parte Application for Substitution of Counsel for Sheriff Paul Penzone. ECF 1942.
Melendres. The Court Monitor files his Tenth Quarterly Report (along with comments from DOJ and MCSO). ECF 1943.
Judge Snow issues order granting Penzone’s Motion to Substitute Attorney: “Maricopa County Attorney William G. Montgomery, by and through Deputy County Attorney Joseph I. Vigil, is substituted in the place of Jones, Skelton & Hochuli P.L.C. attorneys John T. Masterson, Joseph J. Popolizio and Justin M. Ackerman as counsel of record for Sheriff Paul Penzone only, in his official capacity as Sheriff of Maricopa County.” ECF 1944.
Arpaio-MCSO 2016 2nd Injunction Appeal. Appellant Arpaio is substituted by Appellant Penzone (Doc. 25) and Attorneys Ackerman, Masterson, and Popolizio are substituted by Attorney Joseph Issac Vigil (Doc. 26).
Arpaio-MCSO 2016 2nd Injunction Appeal. The Ninth Circuit amends briefing schedule. Answering briefs (from USDOJ, Plaintiffs) now due May 23, 2017. No. 16-16663, Doc 27.
Melendres. Judge Snow issues order that he’s reviewed the Monitor's February 1, 2017 invoice, finds it reasonable, and directs Maricopa County to authorize payment. ECF 1946.
Penzone files Motion to Seal Document Information Regarding [a New] Investigation. ECF 1947 (motion); ECF 1948 (Sealed Lodged Proposed Information Regarding New IA Investigation).
Maricopa County 2016 2nd Injunction Appeal. Maricopa County files motion in 9th Circuit for extension of time to file opening brief until Mar. 31, 2017. No. 16-16661 Doc. 13. This motion is granted. Id. Doc. 14.
Melendres. Maricopa County files request to appear telephonically at the Mar. 20 hearing. ECF 1949.
Melendres. Judge Snow issues order granting Penzone’s Feb. 17 Motion to Seal info re: new IA investigation. ECF 1950. The information is then docketed, per this order. ECF 1951.
Melendres. Penzone files Joint Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to Judge Snow’s Jan. 17 (ECF 1953) order (regarding viability of Arpaio et al’s motion to recuse/motion for discovery). ECF 1953.
Judge Snow issues order granting Maricopa County’s Feb. 20 motion to appear telephonically at upcoming hearing. ECF 1954.
Sands’ Appeal. The Ninth Circuit modifies its prior briefing order – Sands’ brief now due March 23. No. 16-16659 Doc. 14.
Melendres. Penzone files
- Amended Joint Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to Judge Snow’s Jan. 17 (ECF 1923) order. ECF 1955
- Motion to Seal Document re: Personal Information Pertaining to Employees Subject to Transfer. ECF 1956 (Motion); ECF 1957 (Sealed Lodged Document).
- Notice and Request to Allow Sheriff Penzone to Provide Status Update at March 2, 2017. ECF 1958.
Judge Snow grants the Joint Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to Judge Snow’s Jan. 17 (ECF 1923) order (regarding viability of Arpaio et al’s motion to recuse/motion for discovery). ECF 1959.
Melendres. John Masterson files notice of appearance on behalf of Arpaio, Sheridan and Sousa. ECF 1960
Judge Snow issues order granting Penzone’s Feb. 23 Motion to Seal Info re: Employee Transfer. ECF 1961. The sealed info is thereafter docketed. ECF 1962.
USA v. Arpaio (Criminal Contempt). Judge Bolton issues order granting the USDOJ’s Dec. 15, 2016 motion for bench trial and denying Arpaio’s Dec. 25, 2016 motion for jury trial. ECF 83. See also Jacques Billeaud, AP, “Former Sheriff Joe Arpaio loses bid for jury trial in contempt case,” Arizona Republic, Mar. 2, 2017.
Melendres. Judge Snow presides over the scheduled status conference. ECF 1963 (Minute Entry - Text Only); ECF 1973 (Transcript - Release set for 6/1/2017).
Thereafter, he issues an order that, among other things, sets the next status conference for April 18, and …
“Not later than March 10, 2017 Sheriff Penzone will file his notice with the Court as to whether he intends to assert all or any part of the two pending motions (Docs. 1878 and 1884 ). By that same date counsel for former Sheriff Arpaio, former Chief Deputy Sheridan, and Lieutenant Sousa shall indicate whether his clients intend to assert standing to urge the motions in whole or in any part thereof. Any parties or non-parties asserting the right to urge the motions or parts thereof and the Plaintiffs and Plaintiff-Intervenor shall respond to the Court's January 13, 2017 inquiry (Doc. 1923 ) by March 28, 2017.If former Sheriff Arpaio, former Deputy Chief Sheridan or Lieutenant Sousa assert standing to bring the motions, they will bear the burden of establishing such standing. They shall file a brief in which they set forth the legal arguments which they believe establish such standing by March 23, 2017. Any party desiring to respond to such an assertion shall file their response by April 13, 2017. A reply, if any, shall be due on or before April 27, 2017. (See document for further details).”
ECF 1965.
Arpaio 2013 Appeal (of Permanent Injunction). The Ninth Circuit issues an order granting "Attorneys' fees in the amount of$396,815.34 and non-taxable expenses in the amount of$3,580.21, for a total of$400,395.55, are awarded in favor of Melendres and against Maricopa County (for appeal of permanent injunction). Nos. 13-16285 & 13-17238 (docketed in Melendres as ECF 1968.)
Melendres. Penzone files Notice to Court Regarding Availability of Independent Investigator by Paul Penzone. ECF 1971.
Melendres. Judge Snow issues an order setting Mar. 20 status conference for the independent investigator to update the Court on the status of the independent investigation. ECF 1975.
The Arizona Republic reports on Penzone's request for a $4.1 million budget increase, “to buy laptops, radios, computer server storage and 300 Tasers for the next budget year.” See Rebekah L. Sanders, “Maricopa County Sheriff Paul Penzone asks for $4 million budget increase,” Arizona Republic, Mar. 9, 2017.
Melendres. Arpaio, Sheridan, and Sousa files notice that they intend to assert standing (to assert motion to disqualify/motion for discovery filed when Arpaio was still in office). ECF 1976.
Penzone files notice that he does not intend to pursue the motion to disqualify/motion for discovery that was filed by Arpaio when he was still in office. ECF 1977.
Melendres. Penzone files Notice re: Filing Eleventh Quarterly Compliance Report (re: Permanent Injunction). ECF 1978.
Arpaio publicly launches (and begins fundraising for) his newly incorporated "Joe Arpaio Action Fund." See, e.g., SOLICITATION: Sheriff Arpaio's New Dark Money Social Welfare Organization,” Arizona Politics, Mar. 14, 2017; Megan Cassidy, “'I'm not retired': Joe Arpaio launches conservative non-profit,” Arizona Republic, Mar. 15, 2017; EJ Montini, “Arpaio solicits suckers for money,” Arizona Republic, Mar. 15, 2017.
Melendres. Penzone files Request for Clarification as to Scope of Hearing with Independent Investigator on March 20, 2017. ECF 1979.
Arpaio et al file Response to Penzone’s Request for Clarification. ECF 1980.
Melendres Plaintiffs file Response to Penzone’s Request for Clarification. ECF 1981.
Stephen Lemons publishes an article summarizing Arpaio's recent activities, including fundraising for his defense and his new action fund. See Stephen Lemons, “Arpaio Wants More of Your Money; Say It Isn't So, Joe (or Just Go Away)” Phoenix New Times, Mar. 16, 2017.
Melendres. Judge Snow issues order that he’s reviewed the Monitor's invoice dated March 3, 2017 for services rendered by the Monitor in February 2017, finds it reasonable, and directs Maricopa County to authorize payment. ECF 1983.
Judge Snow also issues an order (re: ECF 1979 , 1980 and 1981). ECF 1984. Per that order:
Pending before the Court is Sheriff Penzone’s Request for Clarification (Doc. 1979), Non-Party Civil Contemnors’ Response (Doc. 1980), and Plaintiff’s Response to Defendant Penzone’s Request for Clarification (Doc. 1981). After having reviewed the above documents, the Court believes that Plaintiffs have correctly stated the system by which all parties have been informed under seal of ongoing PSB investigations undertaken by the MCSO or the Monitor that relate to this investigation. Such status reports, however, are not provided in open court and are provided under seal and under strict confidentiality obligations. Thus, in the status conference set for Monday, March 20, 2017 with Mr. Giaquinto, the Court proposes to hear from Mr. Giaquinto a general report along the lines suggested by Sheriff Penzone regarding the numbers of investigations open, completed, or to be opened, as well as the specific numbers by which such investigations are identified. In this status conference however, Mr. Giaquinto shall not identify the principles or persons of interest involved in any of these investigations or provide other identifying information beyond the number by which the investigation is identified.
After this general status report, the Court proposes to discuss the merits and implementation of a system by which the Plaintiffs, Plaintiff-Intervenors and Defendants can be more regularly made aware by Mr. Giaquinto under seal of the more specific status of the investigations and/or potential disciplinary action as it relates to specific principals and persons of interest. Should any party, the specified non-parties or Mr. Giaquinto have any concerns with proceeding in this matter, they may raise such concerns at the status conference.
Penzone issues Notice re: Compliance Regarding Independent Investigator Dan Giaquinto. ECF 1985.
USA v. Arpaio (Criminal Contempt). Mark David Goldman files appearance on behalf of Arpaio. ECF 85.
Arpaio files Motion to Continue Trial (on grounds that Goldman has pre-existing commitment). ECF 86.
Melendres. Judge Snow presides over the scheduled status conference. Minute Entry (ECF 1986); Transcript (ECF tbd)
USA v. Arpaio (Criminal Contempt). USA files Opposition to Arpaio’s Mar. 17 Motion to Continue on various grounds including that Goldman was present in January when trial was set. ECF 87.
Judge Bolton issues order
- permitting Arpaio to file reply in support of motion to continue trial on or before Mar. 23; and
- denying Arpaio’s request to extend pretrial motions deadline and witness/exhibit disclosure lists (contained in motion to continue trial).
ECF 88.
USA v. Arpaio (Criminal Contempt). Arpaio files Motion to Seal Document. ECF 89. The document at issue is a Supplement In Support of Motion to Continue Trial. (docketed as ECF 101).
USA v. Arpaio (Criminal Contempt). Arpaio files Notice of Service of Subpoena to Maricopa County Sheriff's Office. ECF 91.
Melendres. Arpaio et al file Notice re: Brief Regarding Standing. ECF 1987.
USA v. Arpaio (Criminal Contempt). Arpaio files
- Reply in Support of his Mar. 17 Motion to Continue Trial. ECF 92.
- Notice of Errata re: Reply in Support filed earlier today. ECF 93.
- Notice of Errata re: yesterday’s Notice of Service of Subpoena. ECF 94.
Attorney Karen Clark files
- Notice of appearance on behalf of Tim Casey. ECF 95.
- Motion to Quash Subpoena issued to Tim Casey. ECF 96.
Sands’ Appeal. Sands files his Opening Brief. No. 16-16659 Doc. 15 (Brief); Doc. 16 (Record Excerpts).
USA v. Arpaio (Criminal Contempt). Judge Bolton issues order denying Arpaio’s Mar. 21. Motion to Seal (Supplement In Support of Motion to Continue Trial). Per the docket, “The Court's review of Defendant Arpaio's Supplement in Support of Second Motion to Continue does not disclose any privileged information nor can the Court discern any legal basis justifying the sealing. FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant's Motion to Seal, Defendant's Supplement in Support of Second Motion to Continue and this Order shall be placed on the public docket.” ECF 100.
Arpaio’s Mar. 20 Supplement In Support of Motion to Continue Trial (originally lodged under seal) is docketed, per Judge Bolten’s order noted above. ECF 101.
Arpaio files
- Motion to Preclude Testimony of Timothy Casey. ECF 97.
- Motion to Preclude Alleged "Victim" Testimony. ECF 98.
- Motion “to Clarify Background and History of the "Civil Contempt" Admission by Joseph M Arpaio. ECF 102.
- Motion to Continue Trial Motion for Continuance or to Exclude Documents Disclosed by the Government after March 1, 2017 by Joseph M Arpaio. ECF 103.
- Motion to “Prohibit the Introduction of Constitutionally Protected Campaign Statements by Joseph M Arpaio.” ECF 104.
- MOTION “for Hearing re: Voluntariness Hearing and Supplement In Support Of Defendant Arpaios Motion to “Clarify Background And History Of The Civil Contempt Admission.” ECF 105.
- Motion to Stay Proceedings (on grounds of appeal/pending attempt to recuse Judge Snow). ECF 106.
See also Jacques Billeaud, AP, “Former Sheriff Joe Arpaio wants to bar victims of immigration patrols from testifying at contempt trial,” Arizona Republic, Mar. 24, 2017; Jacques Billeaud, AP, “Ex-Sheriff Joe Arpaio wants his campaign comments barred at contempt trial,” Arizona Republic, Mar. 27, 2017;
Karen Clark files: additional attachments to Motion to Quash Subpoena as to Tim Casey. ECF 99.
Melendres. Judge Snow issues an order setting a “Sealed Telephonic Conference between the Court, Mr. Daniel Giaquinto and the parties to this action only for March 31, 2017.” ECF 1988.
Three parties file briefs in response to Judge Snow’s Jan. 13, 2017 order regarding Arpaio’s Motion to Disqualify/Motion for Discovery – i.e., “w]hether: (a) the Sheriff has appropriately raised [the recusal] argument in his appeal in the absence of a ruling from the district court, and (b) if so, whether and to what extent, if any, this Court retains jurisdiction to rule on the two pending motions identified above.”
USA v. Arpaio (Criminal Contempt). USA files Opposition to Arpaio's Motion to Continue Trial Motion for Continuance or to Exclude Documents Disclosed by the Government after March 1, 2017 (ECF 106). ECF 107.
Maricopa County forks over another $400,000 in attorney fees, thanks to Arpaio. This amount was paid to attorneys for Melendres plaintiffs after Arpaio/MCSO lost their appeal of Judge Snow’s injunctions. The amount due was negotiated between the parties after the Ninth Circuit held that fees must be paid. Rebekah L. Sanders, “Joe Arpaio racial-profiling lawsuit costs Maricopa County another $400K,” Arizona Republic, Mar. 28, 2017.
On the bright side, Penzone has eliminated the MCSO’s reliance on outside counsel, which is expected to save up to $1.5 million annually. See id.
Melendres. Penzone files information Regarding Transfer of Personnel Into Court Implementation Division and Bureau of Internal Oversight. ECF 1992 (Motion to Seal); ECF 1993 (Sealed Lodged Info re: proposed transfer).
Judge Snow grants this motion (ECF 1994), and the lodged information is docketed (ECF 1995).
USA v. Arpaio (Criminal Contempt). USA files:
- Opposition to Arpaio Motion to Continue Trial Motion for Continuance or to Exclude Documents Disclosed by the Government after March 1, 2017 (ECF 107);
- Opposition to Arpaio Motion to Prohibit the Introduction of Constitutionally Protected Campaign Statements (ECF 108);
- Opposition to Arpaio Motion to Preclude Alleged "Victim" Testimony (ECF 109); and
- Opposition to Arpaio Motion to Stay (pending resolution of recusal appeal) (ECF 110).
Melendres. Penzone files Notice of Compliance with Judge Snow's Mar. 28 Order (directing him to provide Independent Investigator Giaquinto with a copy of the order setting forth process for upcoming status conference). ECF 1998.
Judge Snow grants this motion (ECF 1994), and the lodged information is docketed (ECF 1995).
USA v. Arpaio (Criminal Contempt). USA files Opposition to Arpaio's Motion to Quash Subpoena to Tim Casey. ECF 111.
USA v. Arpaio (Criminal Contempt). Judge Bolton issues order denying Arpaio’s Mar. 17 Motion to Continue Trial. ECF 112.
USA files Opposition to Arpaio’s Mar. 24 Motion to Clarify Background and History of the "Civil Contempt" Admission & Motion for Hearing re: Voluntariness Hearing. ECF 113.
Arpaio files Notice of Eratta re: his Mar. 25 Motion for Hearing re: Hearing re: Voluntariness Hearing and Supplement In Support Of Defendant Arpaios Motion To Clarify Background And History Of The Civil Contempt Admission. ECF 114.
Melendres. Judge Snow presides over a sealed telephone conference. ECF 1997 Per the minutes:
"APPEARANCES: Andre Segura, Cecillia Wang and Brenda Furnish for Plaintiffs. Maureen Johnston for United States of America. Joseph Vigil and Stephanie Cherney for Defendant Paul Penzone. Richard Walker for Maricopa County. Daniel Giaquinto, Independent Investigative Authority, and Darryl Neier also present. (Court Reporter Charlotte Powers.) Hearing held 3:40 PM to 3:57 PM. This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry. (KFZ) (Entered: 04/03/2017)"
Maricopa County 2016 2nd Injunction Appeal. Maricopa County files its Opening Brief (Doc 14) and Record Excerpts (Doc 15).
USA v. Arpaio (Criminal Contempt). Jones Skelton files Application to Withdraw as Attorney for Arpaio (ECF 115) and Motion to Expedite Consideration of the Application (ECF 116). In this brief, the firm "only states that the request is made in "good cause" and that his withdrawal was "mandatory'' under an ethical rule." See Megan Cassidy, “Defense attorney for former Sheriff Joe Arpaio wants out of criminal trial,” Arizona Republic, Apr. 3, 2017.
Arpaio files:
- Jeffrey Sinclair Surdakowski’s notice of appearance on behalf of Arpaio. ECF 117.
USA v. Arpaio (Criminal Contempt). Judge Bolton issues order granting Jones Skelton’s Motion for Accelerated Consideration of Application to Withdraw, setting hearing for April 6. ECF 120.
Arpaio files:
- Reply in support of Motion for Continuance or to Exclude Documents Disclosed by the Government after March 1, 2017 (filed by Surdakowski). ECF 121.
- Emergency Motion for Extension of Time to File Certain Pretrial Motions (filed by McDonald/Jones Skelton). ECF 122.
- Reply in support of Motion to Preclude Alleged “Victim” Testimony (filed by McDonald). ECF 123
- Reply in Support of Motion to Stay Proceedings (pending resolution of recusal motion/appeal in Melendres) (filed by Surdakowski). ECF 124.
- Reply in Support of Motion to Exclude Arpaio’s Campaign Statements (filed by Goldman). ECF 125.
Penzone announces the closure of Tent City, "Maricopa County’s open-air jail notorious for hosting inmates wearing pink underwear in the blistering summer heat." Megan Cassidy, "Tent City, infamous home of inmates who wear pink underwear and major piece of Arpaio's legacy, is closing," Arizona Republic, Apr. 4, 2017; see also Stephen Lemons, "Sheriff Penzone Shutters Tent City, Which Is One Reason We Elected Him," Phoenix New Times, Apr. 4, 2017.
At the press conference announcing the closure, Penzone said (among other things):
"This facility is not a crime deterrent," Penzone intoned. "It is not cost-efficient. It is not tough on criminals. That may have been the intent when it was first opened ... but this facility became more of a circus atmosphere for the general public.
"Starting today, that circus ends, and these tents come down."
Id.
Seattle Operation. The Arizona Republic reports on Mike Zullo's attempted resurrection of the Dennis Montgomery-related allegations regarding the Obama Administration's alleged wiretapping of officials and public figures. In November 2014, Arpaio-MCSO's selected experts, former NSA officials, reviewed Montgomery's alleged "evidence" and determined that it was a fraud: "Kirk Wiebe and I are providing you a summary (attached) of our data and information analysis of alleged "key data" designed to prove the source's case. We have found that he is a complete and total FRAUD."
As noted by the Arizona Republic,
"But one of the men promoting the claim, Mike Zullo, the former head of Arpaio's volunteer Cold Case Posse, had disavowed it three years ago, according to emails that became exhibits in a federal court case against Arpaio.
What made Zullo change his mind about the allegations is not entirely clear. Zullo, who also headed the Sheriff's Office investigation into President Barack Obama's birth certificate, did not return calls or emails from The Arizona Republic requesting comment."
Richard Ruelas, “Conspiracy theory tries to connect Joe Arpaio, the Obama birth certificate and Trump's wiretap claims,” Arizona Republic, Apr. 4, 2017; see also Video, “Arpaio conspiracy theory finds new life thanks to Trump,” Arizona Republic, Apr. 4, 2017. See also Alex Kaplan, “Birthers And Fringe Outlets Claim NSA Documents Back Up Trump’s Wiretap Lie,” Media Matters, Mar. 20, 2017.
USA v. Arpaio (Criminal Contempt). Judge Bolton presides over the scheduled hearing. See Minutes of Proceeding (ECF 126); Transcript (ECF 141; Release of Transcript Restriction set for 7/24/2017). Per the minutes of proceedings, she issues orders:
- granting Jones, Skelton & Hochuli's Application to Withdraw as Counsel for Arpaio;
- granting Arpaio’s oral motion to extend deadline for filing reply in support of Motion to Preclude Testimony of Timothy Casey to April 10, 2017;
- granting Arpaio’s request to supplement his witness and exhibit lists prior to April 12, 2017;
- denying as moot Arpaio’s Emergency Motion to Continue Reply Deadlines for Certain Pretrial Motions;
- denying Arpaio’s [103] Motion for Continuance and granting -- in part -- motion to exclude documents disclosed after March 1. Per the Minutes: “
“IT IS ORDERED denying the request to continue trial and granting the request to exclude documents newly disclosed by the Government after March 1, 2017 with the exception of the three additional exhibits comprising of a total of 18 pages disclosed on March 15, March 22 and April 3. To the extent that exhibits previously produced were reproduced in a different form, the Court does not consider those exhibits to be the disclosure of a new exhibit.”
- setting hearing on Arpaio’s Motion to Stay Proceedings (pending resolution of recusal motion/appeal in Melendres) for April 12;
- regarding Arpaio’s Motion to Preclude Testimony of Timothy Casey, Judge Bolton notes that no hearing was requested; and
- regarding Arpaio’s Motion Requesting a Voluntariness Hearing, Judge Bolton “advises counsel that this a factual motion and will not be set for an oral argument but will be decided at trial.”
See also Stephen Lemons, "Arpaio's Criminal Defense and How Bill Montgomery Helped You Pay for Part of It (w/Update)," Phoenix New Times, Apr. 7, 2017; Megan Cassidy, “Former Sheriff Joe Arpaio's defense attorney officially cut loose,” Arizona Republic, Apr. 6, 2017.
Melendres. Penzone files Motion to Seal Document - Notice of Filing Quarterly Status Report. ECF 1999 (Motion); ECF 2000 (Lodged Quarterly Status Report).
USA v. Arpaio (Criminal Contempt). Dennis Ira Wilenchik files appearance on behalf of Arpaio. ECF 128.
Arpaio files:
- Fourth Motion to Continue Trial (ECF 129); and
- Motion to Dismiss or In Alternative, Motion for Jury Trial (ECF 130).
- Notice of Withdrawal of Mar. 24 Motion to Preclude Testimony of Timothy Casey (ECF 131).
See also Megan Cassidy, “Former MCSO Sheriff Joe Arpaio's new attorneys seek to dismiss or delay criminal contempt case,” Arizona Republic, Apr. 10, 2017.
Melendres. Judge Snow issues order granting Penzone's Apr. 7 Motion to Seal (ECF 2001), and the document is docketed (ECF 2002).
USA v. Arpaio (Criminal Contempt). Judge Bolton issues order denying Arpaio's Apr. 10 Motion to Dismiss:
"The Court has reviewed Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, or in the Alternative, Motion for Trial by Jury (Doc. 130). The motion will be denied for two reasons. First, the motion was filed after the deadline set by the Court for pre-trial motions. Second, the Court has already considered and ruled on the issues raised in Defendant’s motion. See Docs. 60 [Dec. 13, 2016 Order] and 83 [Mar. 1, 2017 Order].
IT IS ORDERED denying Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss or in the Alternative Motion for Trial by Jury (Doc. 130)."
ECF 132.
Arpaio files:
- Motion for Reconsideration of Order Denying Motion to Dismiss or in the Alternative for Jury Trial. ECF 133.
- Motion to Stay Proceedings to Allow Filing of Writ of Mandamus re Motion to Dismiss. ECF 134.
Melendres. Penzone files Stipulation Pertaining to Independent Investigator and Independent Disciplinary Authority Providing Bi-Monthly Updates to the Court, Monitors and Parties. ECF 2004.
USA v. Arpaio (Criminal Contempt). Judge Bolton presides over the scheduled hearing on Arpaio's motion to stay. See Minutes of Proceedings (ECF 136); Transcript (ECF 142; Release of Transcript Restriction set for 7/24/2017). Per the Minutes, Judge Bolton
- Denies Arpaio's Motion (106) to Stay Proceedings (pending resolution of recusal motions inMelendres); and
- Grants Arpaio's Fourth Motion (129) to continue trial - later ordering that trial is continued "to June 26, 2017, at 9:00 a.m. Trial will be held on June 26 through June 30, 2017, and July 5 through July 7, 2017."
- Notes that parties agree that this continuance renders Arpaio's Motion (124) to Stay Proceedings for filing of Petition for Writ moot.
ECF 136. See also Megan Cassidy, "Judge allows delay in Joe Arpaio's criminal trial," Arizona Republic, Apr. 12, 2017. See also Stephen Lemons, "Wilenchik Rides to Arpaio's Rescue, Scores Delay in Criminal Contempt Trial," Phoenix New Times, Apr. 12, 2017.
Arpaio files Amended Witness List - which includes, as a potential witness, US Attorney General Jeff Sessions. ECF 135. See also Megan Cassidy, “Former Sheriff Joe Arpaio wants Attorney General Jeff Sessions to testify as witness at contempt trial,” Arizona Republic, Apr. 12, 2017; Jacques Billeaud, “Joe Arpaio wants to call AG Jeff Sessions as witness at his contempt trial,” Associated Press/CBS5AZ, Apr. 14, 2017.
Melendres. Judge Snow issues order (pursuant to stipulation filed yesterday):
"IT IS HEREBY ORDERED directing Independent Disciplinary Authority Status Reports will be provided to the attorneys for the parties only on a monthly basis starting April 15, 2017; and directing Independent Investigator Status Reports will be provided to the attorneys for the parties only on a bi-monthly basis starting April 15, 2017.
ECF 2006.
Arpaio 2017 Petition for Writ of Mandamus. Arpaio files Petition for Writ of Mandumus in the Ninth Circuit (challenging Judge Bolton's order denying motion to dismiss and motion for jury trial). ECF 137-1 (Petition filed in Ninth Circuit). The petition is later assigned No. 17-71094.
USA v. Arpaio (Criminal Contempt). Arpaio files notice of service of Petition for Writ of Mandamus filed in the Ninth Circuit. ECF 137 (Notice).
Melendres. Judge Snow issues order that he’s reviewed the Court Monitor’s April invoice, finds it reasonable and directs Maricopa County to authorize payment.
DOJ files Response to Arpaio et al’s Statement on Standing (per Judge Snow’s March 2 (ECF 1965) Order). ECF 2008.
Plaintiffs file Response to Arpaio et al’s Statement on Standing (per Judge Snow’s March 2 (ECF 1965) Order). ECF 2009.
Melendres. Penzone files a joint Stipulation setting various target dates for implementation of the Early Intervention System (required by injunction). ECF 2010.
Melendres. Judge Snow presides over the scheduled status conference. See Minutes of Proceeding (ECF 2011 -Minute Entry/Text Only); Transcript (ECF 2014; Release of Transcript Restriction set for 7/18/2017).
The National Center for Police Defense, Inc., begins fundraising for Arpaio (this, in addition to continued fundraising by the non tax-exempt Sheriff Joe Legal Defense Fund.” See “BREAKING: Arpaio Finds A Tax Exempt Nonprofit For Supporters To Fund Legal Defense, Starts With $250K,” Arizona Politics, Apr. 18, 2017.
Arpaio 2017 Petition for Writ of Mandamus. The Ninth Circuit issues order re: this petition (No. 17-71094) that the petition "raises issues that warrant an answer; within 14 days after the date of this order, the real party in interest shall file an answer. The district court, within 14 days after the date of this order, may address the petition if it so desires. ECF 140.
Melendres. Judge Snow issues order requiring parties to submit a stipulation, by May 2, "as to a date within 90 days from the date of this Order by which the ASU studies will be verified, correctly completed and supervisory intervention begun with the appropriate employees." ECF 2013. He also sets next status conference for June 2. Id.
Melendres. Penzone files Notice Regarding Cancelling of Transfer of Personnel (Identified in Document 1992) Into Court Implementation Division. ECF 2016.
Melendres. Penzone files Motion to Seal Document re Transfer Personnel into Court Implementation Division (ECF 2018) and Sealed Lodged Proposed document re: same (ECF 2019).
Arpaio et al file Motion for Extension of Time to File Reply Brief in Support of Motion for Standing. ECF 2020.
Arpaio-MCSO 2016 2nd Injunction Appeal. The Ninth Circuit grants Penzone’s unopposed motion to dismiss the appeal as to himself (in his official capacity. Ninth Circuit, No. 16-16663, Doc 29.
Melendres. Judge Snow issues order granting Penzone’s Apr. 25 Motion to “Seal Defendant Paul Penzone's transfer of Lt. Frank McWilliams to the Court Implementation Division (CID).” ECF 2021; see also ECF 2022 (Sealed Information docketed)
Judge Snow also issues an order granting the parties’ Apr. 17 Stipulation (ECF 2010) Pertaining to Certain Early Intervention System Target Dates:
“The target date to have all components of EIS related to data input and infrastructure fully functional is June 1, 2017; The target date to have EIS operational and fully implemented, including completed policy publication, operations manual publication, fully functional EIS components, and completed training is November 1, 2017.”
ECF 2023.
Judge Snow also issues orders
- granting Arpaio et al’s Apr. 25 motion for extension of time to file reply brief on standing issue (ECF 2024); and
- rescheduling the next status conference for June 7 at 9 am (ECF 2025).
Sands’ Appeal. The Ninth Circuit issues amended briefing schedule for this appeal: “appellees shall file answering briefs on or before June 30, 2017; appellant may file an optional reply brief on or before August 14, 2017.” Ninth Circuit No. 16-16659, Doc. 20.
Arpaio-MCSO 2016 2nd Injunction Appeal. The Ninth Circuit issues amended briefing schedule for this appeal (appellees shall file answering briefs on or before June 30, 2017: “appellees shall file answering briefs on or before June 30, 2017; appellants may file optional reply briefs on or before July 31, 2017.” Ninth Circuit, No. 16-16663, Doc 30.
Maricopa County 2016 2nd Injunction Appeal. The Ninth Circuit issues amended briefing schedule for this appeal (appellees shall file answering briefs on or before June 30, 2017: “appellees shall file answering briefs on or before June 30, 2017; appellant may file an optional reply brief on or before July 31, 2017.” Ninth Circuit, No. 16-16661, Doc 30.
According to later reports, in spring 2017, President Trump asks "Attorney General Jeff Sessions whether it would be possible for the government to drop the criminal case against Arpaio, but [is] advised that would be inappropriate, according to three people with knowledge of the conversation. After talking with Sessions, Trump decide[s] to let the case go to trial, and if Arpaio [is] convicted, he [can] grant clemency."
“So the president wait[s], all the while planning to issue a pardon if Arpaio [is] found in contempt of court for defying a federal judge’s order to stop detaining people merely because he suspected them of being undocumented immigrants. Trump ['s], in the words of one associate, 'gung-ho about it.'”
See Philip Rucker and Ellen Nakashima, “Trump asked Sessions about closing case against Arpaio, an ally since ‘birtherism’,” Washington Post, Aug. 26, 2017.
On July 31, Arpaio will be convicted. On August 25, Trump will grant him a pardon.
Melendres. Penzone files motion for extension of time to file the court-ordered (ECF 2013) stipulation as to when the ASU studies will be verified, correctly completed and supervisory intervention begun with the appropriate employees. ECF 2026.
Arpaio 2017 Petition for Writ of Mandamus. USA files response to the Ninth Circuit’s Apr. 18 order. Ninth Circuit, No. 17-71094, Doc 5.
Melendres. Judge Snow issues order granting Penzone’s May 2 request for extension of time to file stipulation; new deadline is May 9. ECF 2027.
Arpaio 2017 Petition for Writ of Mandamus. Arpaio files reply to USA’s May 2 response to his Writ of Mandamus petition and a motion to file oversized reply. Ninth Circuit, No. 17-71094, Doc 6 (Reply); Doc 7 (motion to file oversize reply).
The (Republican-majority) Arizona Legislature votes to cut MCSO funding. See, e.g., Mary Jo Pitzi and Megan Cassidy, “Arizona lawmakers vote to strip gang-enforcement funding from Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office,” Arizona Republic, May 4, 2017; Sean Holstege, “They Didn't Treat Sheriff Joe Like This: MCSO's Penzone Calls State Cuts Partisan,” Phoenix New Times, May 4, 2017; see also EJ Montini, “Republican lawmakers side with criminal gangs over Democratic sheriff,” Arizona Republic, May 4, 2017.
Melendres. The Court-Appointed Monitor issues the ELEVENTH QUARTERLY REPORT, covering the last quarter during which Arpaio was Sheriff. ECF 2028.
Judge Snow issues an order that he’s reviewed the Court Monitor’s May 1, 2017 invoice, finds it reasonable, and directing Maricopa County to authorize payment of the invoice. ECF 2029.
Arpaio 2017 Petition for Writ of Mandamus. Arpaio files notice of errata (re: reply). Ninth Circuit, No. 17-71094, Doc 8.
Melendres. Penzone files joint stipulation addressing dates when (per ECF 2013) the ASU studies will be verified, correctly completed and supervisory intervention begun with the appropriate employees. ECF 2030.
Melendres. Judge Snow issues an order regarding the stipulation filed yesterday:
“…In reviewing that Stipulation it does appear that the parties have met in good faith and have been working together to develop the necessary quality assurance to re-run the ASU Second Annual Report and begin the supervisory interventions. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Sheriff's Office shall take the necessary steps as outlined in the Stipulation and further that the Sheriffs Office and ASU, by July 14, 2017, shall (1) conduct the 100-stop examination as described in paragraph A of the Stipulation; (2) re-run the ASU Second Annual Report using the "mapped beat" variable, as agreed to in the Stipulation; and (3) begin the supervisory interventions as agreed to by the parties.”
ECF 2031 (Docket entry quoted).
Melendres. Jones Skelton (via Masterson) files Motion fro Withdrawal as Attorney and Motion to Stay Briefing Schedule (in light of same) (ECF 2033) and motion to expedite. See also Motion to Expedite Consideration of [Motions]. ECF 2034.
Judge Snow issues order granting Jones Skelton's motion to expedite consideration of motions, requiring responses to be filed by May 16, and also granting stay of deadline for filing reply due today. ECF 2035.
Arpaio 2017 Petition for Writ of Mandamus. Mark David Goldman files notice of appearance on behalf of Arpaio. Ninth Circuit, No. 17-71094, Doc 9 (Notice of Appearance); Doc 10 (notation that Goldman is added to case).
Melendres. Stanley Young files NOTICE of Attorney Withdrawal of Lauren Pedley. ECF 2036.
Melendres. Cooper & Kirk (via Charles Cooper) files Motion to Withdraw as Attorney for Arpaio, Sheridan and Sousa. ECF 2037.
Plaintiffs file Response to Jones Skelton's May 11 motion to withdraw. ECF 2038.
Melendres. Judge Snow issues order
- granting Jones Skelton’s motion to withdraw “upon its filing with the Court written certification that it has provided each of its clients with a copy of this Order and notice that the deadline for any Reply they wish to file is June 7, 2017”
- requiring replies by non-parties (Arpaio, Sheridan, Sousa) to be filed by June 7, 2017;
- requiring Jones Skelton to provide the Court with the contact information for each of its clients for such future notifications of electronic filings as may be necessary;
- granting Cooper & Kirk’s motion to withdraw “its filing with the Court written certification that it has provided each of its clients with a copy of this Order and notice that the deadline for any reply they may wish to file is June 7, 2017.”
ECF 2039.
Jones Skelton files notice of compliance re: the court’s order issued today and request for modification of that order. ECF 2040.
Penzone gives a "100 Day" speech, outlining the MCSO's accomplishments since he took over on January 1, and setting forth goals for the future. See YouTube; see also Sean Holstege, “Sheriff Paul vs. Sheriff Joe: 7 Things Different About the New MCSO” Phoenix New Times, May 17, 2017; Megan Cassidy, “What Maricopa County Sheriff Paul Penzone says about his first 100 days,” Arizona Republic, May 18, 2017.
USA v. Arpaio (Criminal Contempt). Arpaio files Rule 12.3 Notice of Public Authority Defense. ECF 145.
Arpaio 2017 Petition for Writ of Mandamus. The Ninth Circuit issues order granting Arpaio’s motion to file oversize reply (“to the extent that [the motion” is necessary”) and denying Arpaio's petition for Writ of Mandamus:
“Petitioner has not demonstrated that this case warrants the intervention of this court by means of the extraordinary remedy of mandamus. Accordingly, the petition is denied. All other pending requests are denied.”
Ninth Circuit, No. 17-71094, Doc 11. See also AP, “Former Sheriff Joe Arpaio loses another bid for jury trial on contempt charge,” Arizona Republic, May 19, 2017.
Arpaio files emergency petition for rehearing en banc of today’s order denying his petition for Writ of Mandamus. Ninth Circuit, No. 17-71094, Doc 12.
Melendres. Cooper & Kirk files notice of compliance with the court’s order issued yesterday. ECF 2041.
Judge Snow issues order:
“Pursuant to Jones, Skelton, & Hochuli's Request to Modify the Court's Order to Provide contact information of Joseph M. Arpaio, Gerard Sheridan, and Joseph Sousa [ECF 2010], and good cause appearing, IT IS ORDERED that Jones, Skelton, & Hochuli shall have until May 24, 2017, to file with the Court contact information for Joseph M. Arpaio, Gerard Sheridan, and Joseph Sousa, if necessary. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that should Jones, Skelton, & Hochuli need to file with the Court contact information for Joseph M. Arpaio, Gerard Sheridan, or Joseph Sousa, it may do so under seal.”
ECF 2042.
Sousa files Notice of Withdrawal from and Abandonment of Motion to Recuse Court And For Discovery In Connection Therewith. In this notice, his attorney states as follows:
“I have reviewed the above numbered motions and responses, including the Brief of the United States regarding standing (Doc. 2008, filed April 14, 2017). I am cognizant of each lawyer’s individual responsibility under Rule 11, F.R.Civ.P. and under E.R.’s 3.1 and 3.3 of Rule 42 of the Rules of the Supreme Court of Arizona, to carefully consider the pleadings that a lawyer is going to sign and the positions a lawyer is going to urge as a client’s advocate. Each lawyer, it may be said, may reasonably reach a different conclusion when engaging in such an analysis and, in reaching my own conclusion, I express no views as to how others might resolve the same issues. I speak solely for my client and myself.
As Mr. Sousa’s new counsel, I am unable to both adhere to my duties under the Rules and seek to advance the positions urged in the two Motions by signing the Replies or urging the positions set-forth in the moving papers. Nor am I able to assert that he has standing with respect to the Motions. The principal argument made in favor of standing, with respect to Mr. Sousa, fell-away once he retired from the Sheriff’s Office. This occurred effective April 28, 2017. Therefore, Mr. Sousa respectfully withdraws from, and abandons, the positions urged by his former counsel on his behalf in Docs. 1987, 1884, and 1878 and places all interested parties on notice that he is no longer seeking any of the relief sought in those pleadings.”
ECF 2044; see also ECF 2043 (Stephen Dichter's notice of appearance on Sousa's behalf).
Arpaio-MCSO 2016 2nd Injunction Appeal. Sousa files notice of substitution of counsel. Ninth Circuit, No. 16-16663, Doc 31.
Knapp v. MCSO et al. Jonathan Knapp, the MCSO Sergeant whose discovery of 1,500 IDs in July 2015 led, due to their response to the discovery, to criminal contempt charges against Arpaio, Sheridan, Iafrate, and Bailey (see Timeline - Aug. 16, 2016), files a retaliation suit against the MCSO as well as multiple individuals, including Arpaio, Sheridan, Trombi, and Bailey. As set forth in the Complaint's introduction,
“This case is about employment retaliation experienced by Sergeant Jonathan L. Knapp of the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office after he provided truthful testimony as a witness in the Title VI discrimination case of Ortega Melendres v. Arpaio, 2:07-cv-02513-GMS-PHX related to identification materials in the County’s possession. Sergeant Knapp experienced retaliatory discipline, overlong IA investigations, denial of promotion, and denial of pay increases. Through five counts of federal statutory violations, Sergeant Knapp seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, compensatory damages against all defendants, with punitive damages claims against the individual Defendants.”
See Knapp v. Maricopa County et al, 2:17-cv-01509-BSB, ECF 1 (D. Ariz, filed May 18, 2017). See also Ray Stern, "Arpaio, MCSO Sued by Sergeant Whose Cache of 1,500 IDs Led to Contempt Charges," Phoenix New Times, May 25, 2017.
USA v. Arpaio (Criminal Contempt). The Ninth Circuit order denying Arpaio’s petition for Writ of Mandamus is docketed in the District Court. ECF 146.
Arpaio-MCSO 2016 2nd Injunction Appeal. Stephen Dichter is substituted for Jones Skelton attorneys (appearing on behalf of Arpaio and Sheridan). Ninth Circuit, No. 16-16663, Doc 32.
Arpaio-MCSO 2016 2nd Injunction Appeal. Sousa files motion to dismiss appeal as to himself. Ninth Circuit, No. 16-16663, Doc 33.
Arpaio 2017 SCOTUS Petition for Writ of Mandamus. Arpaio files Petition for Writ of Mandamus in the United States Supreme Court, along with a motion to expedite consideration of his petition. Supreme Court Docket, No. 16-422.
See also Ray Stern, "Ex-Sheriff Joe Arpaio Begs U.S. Supreme Court for Jury Trial in Criminal Contempt Case," Phoenix New Times, May 25, 2017.
Melendres. Mark David Goldman files Notice of Appearance on behalf of Arpaio and Sheridan. ECF 2045.
Megan Cassidy reports on the MCSO's tear-down of Arpaio's infamous Tent City. See Megan Cassidy,“60-foot tower, anyone? Maricopa County Sheriff's Office auctioning parts of Tent City,” Arizona Republic, May 24, 2017; see also video, “Maricopa County Sheriff's Office tears down Tent City Jail,” Arizona Republic, May 24, 2017 and picture gallery, “Tearing down Tent City Jail,” Arizona Republic, May 24, 2017
Sands’ Appeal. USA files motion to dismiss this appeal. Ninth Circuit No. 16-16659, Doc 21.
Arpaio-MCSO 2016 2nd Injunction Appeal. The Ninth Circuit grants Sousa’s motion to dismiss the appeal as to himself. Ninth Circuit, No. 16-16663, Doc 34.
USA v. Arpaio (Criminal Contempt). Casey files Motion to Quash as to Arpaio. ECF 147.
Arpaio 2017 Petition for Writ of Mandamus. The Ninth Circuit issues order that Arpaio's “emergency petition for panel rehearing is denied and the emergency petition for rehearing en banc is denied on behalf of the court,” and “[t]o the extent that they are not moot, all other requests contained in petitioner’s filing are denied.” Ninth Circuit, No. 17-71094, Doc 5.
Melendres. Penzone files Motion to be Released from Portion of Document [ECF 1208] Pertaining to Destruction of Materials Stored in Property. ECF 2046.
Karen Clark files Motion to Withdraw as Attorney for Timothy J Casey (ECF 2047) and Notice of Waiver of Electronic Service (ECF 2048).
Ralph Adams files Notice of Waiver of Electronic Service (on behalf of Casey). ECF 2049.
Sands’ Appeal. The Ninth Circuit issues an order that “the previous panel has retained jurisdiction of this appeal. Ninth Circuit No. 16-16659, Doc 22.
Arpaio-MCSO 2016 2nd Injunction Appeal. The Ninth Circuit issues an order that “the previous panel has retained jurisdiction of this appeal. Ninth Circuit, No. 16-16663, Doc 35.
Maricopa County 2016 2nd Injunction Appeal. The Ninth Circuit issues an order that “the previous panel has retained jurisdiction of this appeal. Ninth Circuit, No. 16-16661, Doc 20.
USA v. Arpaio (Criminal Contempt). Judge Bolton issues several orders today:
- Order denying Arpaio’s Mar. 24 motion to prohibit admission of his campaign statements. ECF 148.
- Order denying Arpaio’s Apr. 11 motion to reconsider the Court's denial of his motion to dismiss or for jury trial. ECF 149.
- Order denying Arpaio’s Mar. 24 motion to preclude victim testimony. ECF 151.
The Ninth Circuit's order denying Arpaio’s petition for rehearing (No. 17-71094) is docketed with the District Court. ECF 150.
Sands’ Appeal. Melendres Plaintiffs file motion to dismiss this appeal. Ninth Circuit No. 16-16659, Doc 25.
Arpaio-MCSO 2016 2nd Injunction Appeal. Melendres Plaintiffs file motion to dismiss Sheridan from this appeal. Ninth Circuit, No. 16-16663, Doc 38.
Melendres. Penzone files
- Motion to Seal Document Transfer of Personnel into Bureau of Internal Oversight and Professional Standards Bureau (ECF 2050) and sealed lodged proposed infor re: same. ECF 2051.
- Notice “Pertaining to Status of Paragraph 70 Fair and Impartial Policing Plan.” ECF 2052.
Arpaio 2017 SCOTUS Petition for Writ of Mandamus. Arpaio’s motion to expedite consideration of his petition for writ of mandamus is distributed for the June 22 conference. Supreme Court Docket, No. 16-422.
Melendres. Judge Snow issues an order that he’s reviewed the Court Monitor’s June 1, 2017 invoice, finds it reasonable, and directing Maricopa County to authorize payment of the invoice. ECF 2053.
Judge Snow also issues order granting Penzone’s June 5 motion to seal info re: “transfer of Detention Sergeant Katherine Malast to the Bureau of Internal Oversight and Lieutenant Juliane Spytma to the Professional Standards Bureau.” ECF 2054; see also ECF 2055 (sealed information as docketed).
Arpaio-MCSO 2016 2nd Injunction Appeal. Jones Skelton files notice of substitution of counsel for Arpaio and Sheridan. Ninth Circuit, No. 16-16663, Doc 39 (notice); Doc 40 (docket entry that Mark D. Goldman is substituted for the Jones Skelton attorneys).
Laurie Roberts reports on the (factually inaccurate) latest Arpaio legal fundraising plea. See Laurie Roberts, “Arpaio's latest fundraising plea? Give so he won't go to jail for life,” Arizona Republic, June 6, 2017. (The maximum sentence Arpaio could possibly receive is six months.)
Melendres. Judge Snow presides over the scheduled status conference. See Minutes of Proceeding (ECF 2056); Transcript (ECF 2064; Release of Transcript Restriction set for 9/6/2017).
Judge Snow issues order following the hearing. From the docket entry:
“Sheriff Paul Penzone's Motion [ECF 2046] is granted, pertaining to the relief requested and that portion of this Court's Order in [ECF 1208] staying destruction of property and evidence is no longer in effect. The Motion to Withdraw as Counsel of Record for non-party Timothy J. Casey [ECF 2047] is granted. Karen Clark and the law firm of Adams & Clark PC are withdrawn as counsel and the Clerk of Court is directed to remove Karen Clark from further electronic service in this matter. See order for additional details.”
ECF 2058.
Mark David Goldman files Notice of Appearance on behalf of Arpaio and Sheridan. ECF 2060.
Arpaio and Sheridan file Reply in Support of Brief regarding the Standing of Former Sheriff Arpaio and Former Chief Deputy Sheridan. ECF 2061; see also ECF 2062 (Notice of Errata re: 2061).
Arpaio-MCSO 2016 2nd Injunction Appeal. Sheridan files motion to extend time to file response to Melendres Plaintiffs’ motion to dismiss. Ninth Circuit, No. 16-16663, Doc 42.
Sands’ Appeal. Sands files
- Motions to extend time to files responses to the motions to dismiss filed by USA and Melendres Plaintiffs. See Ninth Circuit No. 16-16659, Doc 26 (re: USA motion) and 27 (re: Melendres Plaintiffs’ motion).
USA v. Arpaio (Criminal Contempt). Judge Bolton issues an order
- granting “in part and denying in part” Arpaio's Mar. 24 motion seeking to exclude evidence of his admission to civil contempt in the Melendres case – denying the motion as to Arapio’s admission of civil contempt in violating the injunction (i.e., the conduct at issue in the criminal case), but granting it as to other admissions (while noting that USA was not planning to introduce that information anyway); and
- denying Arpaio’s Mar. 24 motion requesting a voluntariness hearing.
ECF 152.
Arpaio lodges proposed trial subpoenas for the following witnesses: Special Agent Carey A. Crocker; U.S. Border Patrol Agent Bonilla; Chris Clem, Assistant Chief Patrol Agent, U.S. Border Patrol; Lt. Brian Jakowinicz, Maricopa County Sheriffs Office; Ms. Katrina S. Kane; U.S Border Patrol Agent McLellan; Sgt. Brett Palmer, Maricopa County Sheriffs Office; Ms. Perla Plata; United States Attorney General Jefferson Beauregard Sessions; Lt. Joseph Sousa, Maricopa County Sheriff's Office; Deputy Chief Russ Skinner, Maricopa County Sheriffs Office.
Sands’ Appeal. Sands files Response to Melendres Plaintiffs' June 2 Motion to Dismiss Appellant Brian Sands’ Appeal as Moot and Appellant Sand’s Motion for Vacatur if His Appeal is Deemed Moot. Ninth Circuit No. 16-16659, Doc 29.
The Ninth Circuit grants Sands' motion to extend time to file responses to the motions to dismiss. Id. Doc. 30.
Arpaio-MCSO 2016 2nd Injunction Appeal. The Ninth Circuit grants Sheridan’s motion to extend time to file responses to the motions to dismiss. Ninth Circuit, No. 16-16663, Doc 43.
USA v. Arpaio (Criminal Contempt). USA files “First Motion for Leave to Supplement Exhibit List.” ECF 154
Maricopa County 2016 2nd Injunction Appeal. Melendres Plaintiffs file Stipulated Motion to Extend Time to File Answering Brief (until Aug. 29). Ninth Circuit, No. 16-16661, Doc 21. This motion is granted on June 19. Doc. 26.
Sands’ Appeal. USA files Reply in Support of Its Motion to Dismiss Movant-Appellant Brian Sands’ Appeal as Moot and United States’ Response to Sands' June 8 Motion for Vacatur. Ninth Circuit No. 16-16659, Doc 35.
USA v. Arpaio (Criminal Contempt). Judge Bolton issues orders
- granting USA’s June 14 motion for leave to supplement exhibit list (ECF 160).
In the order denying Casey’s Motions to Quash, Judge Bolton finds that
- No attorney-client privilege extends to Mr. Casey’s communications with [Arpaio] as an individual because Mr. Casey represented Maricopa County and Defendant as the Sheriff. (ECF 159 at 2-3);
- ”Federal Rules of Evidence govern the admissibility of Mr. Casey’s testimony” (rather than state bar rules) (id. at 3); and
- ”[e]ven if the Federal Rules of Evidence did not govern, the Arizona Rules of Professional Conduct permit the disclosure of confidential matters pursuant to a court order.“ Id. at 4.
She also notes that Casey may raise evidentiary or ethical objections objections to specific questioning at trial. Id. at 3.
USA files the parties’ stipulation regarding authentication of multiple government proposed exhibits. ECF 158.
Melendres. Penzone files Motion to Modify Order [ECF 670] Pertaining to Community Engagement. ECF 2065. Essentially, Penzone seeks to have the duties of community engagement originally assigned to Arpaio (who refused on First Amendment grounds to perform these actions,” so Judge Snow had transferred them to the “Court-appointed Monitor and, to some extent, the Plaintiffs’ Counsel”) to be reassigned to the MCSO. Id. at 2.
USA v. Arpaio (Criminal Contempt). USA files
- Motion to Quash Subpoena of the U.S. Attorney General (i.e. Jeff Sessions). ECF 161.
See also AP, "Prosecutors oppose bid for Sessions testimony in Joe Arpaio case," as published on KTAR.com, June 20, 2017.
Melendres. Penzone files Notice of Filing of Twelfth Quarterly Status Report. ECF 2066.
In other news today, "Officials in metro Phoenix gave final approval Monday to $26 million in additional spending to cover the taxpayer costs of [the Melendres case -- i.e.,] a nearly 10-year-old racial profiling lawsuit that ultimately discredited then-Sheriff Joe Arpaio's immigration patrols. Taxpayers have already spent nearly $66 million on the case." See AP, "Officials approve $26 million in spending in profiling case involving Joe Arpaio," as published on ABC15.com, June 19, 2017.
USA v. Arpaio (Criminal Contempt). Judge Bolton issues an order directing Arpaio to respond to yesterday’s USA motion to quash subpoena of Jeff Sessions (USAG) no later than 5 PM on June 21, and directing the USA to file its reply no later than noon, June 23. ECF 164.
Arpaio files:
- Motion for Leave to File Motion to Strike United States Trial Memorandum. ECF 165.
- Motion for Leave to File Motion to Stay District Court Proceedings Pending Resolution of the [SCOTUS] Petition for Writ of Mandamus of Joseph M. Arpaio. ECF 166.
See also John Overall, "Arpaio lawyers think they found way to get him off the hook," KVOA.com, June 22, 2017 (reporting on Arpaio's motion to stay).
Sands’ Appeal. Melendres Plaintiffs file Reply in Support of Motion to Dismiss Brian Sands’s Appeal and Response to Sands’ June 13 Motion for Vacatur. Ninth Circuit No. 16-16659, Doc. 36.
USA v. Arpaio (Criminal Contempt). Arpaio files Response in Opposition to the USA’s June 19 Motion to Quash Defendant's Trial Subpoena to US Attonrney General Jefferson Beauregard Sessions. ECF 167.
USA files Response in Opposition to Arpaio’s June 20 Motion for Leave to File Motion to Strike USA’s Trial Motion. ECF 168.
USA v. Arpaio (Criminal Contempt). USA files
- Opposition to Arpaio’s June 20 Motion to Stay Pending Resolution of the [SCOTUS] Petition for Writ of Mandamus. ECF 170 (PDF).
- Reply in Support of its June 19 Motion to Quash Subpoena of the U.S. Attorney General [Jeff Sessions]. ECF 172 (PDF).
Arpaio files Motion for Leave to file Motion for Change of Venue. ECF 171 (PDF).
Sands’ Appeal. Sands files Reply to USA’s June 15 Response to his June 8 Motion for Vacatur. Ninth Circuit No. 16-16659, Doc. 39.
Arpaio-MCSO 2016 2nd Injunction Appeal. USA files Motion to Dismiss Nonparty Appellant Gerard A. Sheridan’s Appeal for Lack of Standing. Ninth Cir. 16-16663, Doc. 48.
Sheridan files Response to Melendres Plaintiffs’ June 2 Motion to Dismiss Movant-Appellant Sheridan’s Appeal. Ninth Cir. 16-16663, Doc. 50.
USA v. Arpaio (Criminal Contempt). USA files Opposition to Arpaio's June 22 Motion for Change of Venue. ECF 173 (PDF).
Arpaio 2017 SCOTUS Petition for Writ of Mandamus. The United States Supreme Court denies Arpaio's motion to expedite his Petition for Writ of Mandamus. See Supreme Court Docket, No. 16-422.
USA v. Arpaio (Criminal Contempt) Trial. Judge Bolton presides over Day 1 of Arpaio's criminal trial. See Minutes of Proceedings (ECF 177); Transcript (ECF 175 (am); ECF 176 (pm); Release of Transcript Restriction set for 9/25/2017). After opening statements, USA called Timothy Casey to testify.
For the best media reports of the day's proceedings, see
See also "Boots on the Ground" report from Brian Reilly, as published on The Fogbow here.
Melendres. Judge Snow issues minute order setting status conference for July 21. ECF 2067.
USA v. Arpaio (Criminal Contempt) Trial. Judge Bolton presides over Day 2 of Arpaio's criminal trial. See Minutes of Proceedings (ECF 179); Transcript (ECF 180 (am); ECF 181 (pm); Release of Transcript Restriction set for 9/26/2017). Per the minutes, witnesses today include Tim Casey (continued cross-exam from yesterday), Carey Crocker, Lisa Allen (Arpaio's former publicist), and MCSO Sgt. Dmitrius Whalen (who reportedly testified regarding individuals who were allegedly detained illegally after the 2011 Melendres injunction was issued).
For the best media reports of the day's proceedings, see
Judge Bolton issues order granting USA's June 19 Motion to Quash Subpoena of the U.S. Attorney General [Jeff Sessions] because (a) Arpaio failed to show extraordinary circumstances required to subpoena a high-level federal agency official and (b) Arpaio failed to argue or show that the current Attorney General has personal knowledge of the federal immigration policy during the 2011-2013 period at issue. ECF 178.
Sands’ Appeal. Sands files Reply to Melendres Plaintiffs June 20 Response to his June 13 Motion for Vacatur. Ninth Circuit No. 16-16659, Doc. 40.
Arpaio-MCSO 2016 2nd Injunction Appeal. Melendres Plaintiffs file Reply to Sheridan’s June 22 Response to their June 2 Motion to Dismiss. Ninth Cir. 16-16663, Doc. 51.
Arpaio 2017 SCOTUS Application for Stay. Arpaio files Application (17A26) for a stay of proceedings pending disposition of the petition for a writ of mandamus, submitted to Justice Kennedy. U.S. Supreme Court Docket No. 17A26.
USA v. Arpaio (Criminal Contempt) Trial.. Judge Bolton presides over Day 3 of Arpaio's criminal trial. USA's additional witnesses include Randy Murray, Brian Jakowinicz, and Michael Trowbridge. After USA rests, Defense begins presenting its case by calling Chris Clem to testify. See Minutes of Proceedings (ECF 187; Transcript (ECF 184 (am); ECF 185 (pm); Release of Transcript Restriction set for tbd).
For the best media reports of the day's proceedings, see
Arpaio files
- Reply in Support of his June 20 Motion to Strike USA’s Trial Brief. ECF 182
- Notice of Submission of Specific Objections and Counter-Designations re MacIntyre. ECF 183.
Melendres. Penzone files motion to seal Notice of Intent to Transfer Personnel into Professional Standards Bureau, Bureau of Internal Oversight and Court Implementation Division. ECF 2068 (Motion), ECF 2069 (Lodged Notice).
Judge Snow issues order granting Penzone’s motion to seal/notice. ECF 2070 (order); ECF 2071 (sealed notice as docketed).
USA v. Arpaio (Criminal Contempt) Trial. Judge Bolton presides over Day 4 of Arpaio's criminal trial. Defense witnesses today include Brian Jakowinicz, Border Patrol Agent Salvador Hernandez, Joseph Sousa. After Defense rests, USA announces it has no rebuttal witnesses. After a discussion in which Defense concedes that its June 20 Motion to Stay is now moot, Judge Bolton grants the motion to file motion to stay, then denies the motion to stay. After the parties discuss various evidence issues with the court and closing argument is set for July 6. See Minutes of Proceedings (ECF 190); Transcript (ECF 191 (am); ECF 192 (pm); Release of Transcript Restriction set for 9/28/2017).
For the best media reports of the day's proceedings, see
Arpaio files Motion for Acquittal re Statute of Limitations, Section 402. ECF 188.
Melendres. Plaintiffs files Response to Penzone’s June 16 Motion to Modify Document 670 [Injunction] Pertaining to Community Engagement. ECF 2072.
USA v. Arpaio (Criminal Contempt). Judge Bolton issues an order granting Arpaio's June 22 Motion to file Motion for Change of Venue and denying the Motion for Change of Venue. ECF 189.
Arpaio-MCSO 2016 2nd Injunction Appeal. Sheridan files Response to USA's June 22 Motion to Dismiss. Ninth Circuit No. 16-16663 Doc. 52.
USA v. Arpaio (Criminal Contempt). Judge Bolton issues order:
"ORDER as to Joseph M Arpaio: On June 29, 2017 [ECF 190] Defense counsel requested permission to file written objections to the Government's offer of Exhibits 37A through 37T.1 in lieu of making his objections orally. The request was granted, and Defense counsel was ordered to file the written objections prior to July 5, 2017. Defense counsel having filed no written objections, IT IS ORDERED admitting Exhibits 37A through 37T.1.
ECF 193.
Arpaio files
- Response to Minute Entry [ECF 190]. ECF 194.
- Notice of Submission of Specific Objections and Counter Designations re Defendants Prior Statements. ECF 195.
- Amended Notice of Submission of Specific Objections and Counter Designations re Defendants Prior Statements. ECF 196.
- Motion for Reconsideration [of ECF 193 Order admitting exhibits]. ECF 198.
Arpaio 2017 SCOTUS Application for Stay. The Supreme Court (Justice Kennedy) denies Arpaio's June 27 Application for a stay of proceedings pending disposition of the petition for a writ of mandamus, submitted to Justice Kennedy. U.S. Supreme Court Docket No. 17A26.
USA v. Arpaio (Criminal Contempt) Trial. Judge Bolton presides over closing arguments on Day 5 of the Arpaio criminal trial. See Minutes of Proceedings (ECF 199 (PDF)); Transcript (ECF 205; Release of Transcript Restriction set for 10/4/2017).
For the best media reports of the day's proceedings, see
The parties' witness and exhibit lists are filed:
Melendres. Judge Snow issues two orders:
- he’s reviewed the Monitor's July 2, 2017 invoice, finds it reasonable, and directs Maricopa County to authorize payment (ECF 2077); and
- “The Court has received and reviewed the 7/6/2017 letter from the independent investigator, Daniel G. Giaquinto. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED directing the parties to file a response in pleading format, if they wish to do so, on or before 7/13/2017.” (ECF 2076 (Docket Text Entry quoted)).
Penzone files Motion to Seal Document re: Transfer of Personnel into Professional Standards Bureau. ECF 2078 (Motio); ECF 2079 (Lodged Sealed Information).
Melendres. Penzone files Reply to Response to Motion to Modify Document 670 Pertaining to Community Engagement. ECF 2080.
Judge Snow issues order granting Penzone’s July 6 motion to seal information filed regarding Defendant Paul Penzone's transfer of Detention Officer Lieutenant David A. Schwartz to the Professional Standards Bureau (PSB). ECF 2081 (Order); ECF 2082 (Sealed information docketed).
Melendres. The parties file responses to Judge Snow’s July 6 order regarding July 6 letter from Independent Investigator Daniel Giaquinto:
- Plaintiffs Response – ECF 2084
- Penzone Response – ECF 2085
- Maricopa County Response – ECF 2086
Melendres. Judge Snow issues order regarding Letter dated 7/6/17, Daniel G. Giaquinto, Independent Investigator (posing question re power to determine appropriateness of investigation of retired individual):
“…The Court, in responding to the question does not wish to constrain the independent authority already afforded to Independent Investigator Giaquinto. If, in his sole judgment, "a responsible internal affairs unit within a police agency of the similar size to the MCSO," would consider whether the expense of an investigation is merited in light of the inability to impose any discipline on a former employee as one factor in determining whether an investigation should proceed, then he is already authorized to do so by the Order.”
ECF 2087.
Melendres. Sheridan (Wilenchik) files motion to substitute attorney. ECF 2088.
Melendres. Penzone file Notice Regarding Status of Early Identification System Stipulated Date Pursuant to Order at Document 2023. ECF 2089.
USA v. Arpaio (Criminal Contempt). The parties file their memoranda of law regarding the trial:
Melendres. Judge Snow presides over scheduled status conference. See Minutes of Proceeding (ECF 2090); Transcript (tbd).
USA v. Arpaio (Criminal Contempt). Judge Bolton denies, as moot, Arpaio's June 20 Motion to file Motion to Strike USA Trial Memorandum. ECF 208 (PDF): "The Motions are denied as moot. Because the evidence has now closed, arguments have concluded, and post-trial memoranda have been filed, the Court has no need to read the trial memorandum and will not consider it in making its decision."
Sands’ Appeal. The Ninth Circuit issues an order dismissing Sands' appeal and denying his Motion for Vacatur.
"Sands, as a non-party civil contemnor, lacks standing to appeal from the district court’s judgment because he has suffered no adverse legal consequences as a result of that judgment. See Union of Prof’l Airmen v. Alaska Aeronautical Indus., Inc., 625 F.2d 881, 884 (9th Cir. 1980). He has retired from the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office and therefore is not bound by any of the requirements the district court imposed on that office, and the district court declined to impose any personal financial liability on him. The speculative reputational harm he has posited is not sufficient to sustain his appeal, see St. Pierre v. United States, 319 U.S. 41, 43 (1943), and our dismissal of his appeal will preclude the application of collateral estoppel with respect to the district court’s civil contempt finding in any future litigation. See Envt’l Prot. Info. Ctr., Inc. v. Pac. Lumber Co., 257 F.3d 1071, 1076 (9th Cir. 2001) (“As collateral estoppel does not apply to an unappealable determination, simply holding a ruling unappealable eliminates any prospect of preclusion” (quoting Sea-Land Serv., Inc. v. Dep’t of Transp., 137 F.3d 640, 648 (D.C. Cir. 1998))). Additionally, the district court’s denial of his motion for summary judgment on the civil contempt charge is not reviewable. Banuelos v. Constr. Laborers’ Trust Funds for S. Cal., 382 F.3d 897, 902 (9th Cir. 2004).
Nor is vacatur appropriate in this case. In substance, Sands requests that we “line-edit the district court’s ruling” to vacate the portions finding him in contempt. See Nat. Res. Def. Council v. Gutierrez, 457 F.3d 904, 906 (9th Cir. 2006). But he has “no standing to challenge the district court’s legal rulings in the abstract.” Id.; see also Pac. Lumber, 257 F.3d at 1075 (“[C]ourts ‘review judgments, not statements in opinions’ . . . .” (quoting California v. Rooney, 483 U.S. 307, 311 (1987))). Accordingly, his request for “appellate excision of the district court’s ruling” that he committed civil contempt must be denied. Gutierrez, 457 F.3d at 906."
Ninth Circuit No. 16-16659, Doc. 41.
USA v. Arpaio (Criminal Contempt). GUILTY!! Joe Arpaio is convicted of criminal contempt. EDF 210 (PDF).
From Judge Bolton's conclusion:
"The evidence at trial proves beyond a reasonable doubt and the Court finds that Judge Snow issued a clear and definite order enjoining Defendant from detaining persons for further investigation without reasonable suspicion that a crime has been or is being committed; that Defendant knew of the order; and that Defendant willfully violated the order by failing to do anything to ensure his subordinates’ compliance and by directing them to continue to detain persons for whom no criminal charges could be filed. Because the Court finds that Defendant willfully violated an order of the court, it finds Defendant
guilty of criminal contempt.
IT IS ORDERED finding Defendant guilty of criminal contempt.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED setting Sentencing for October 5, 2017 at 10:00 a.m.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED directing the Probation Department to prepare a presentence investigation report."
Id. at 14.
USA v. Arpaio (Criminal Contempt).
Judge Bolton issues an order
- admitting Exhibit 183 offered by USA during trial, but sustaining sustaining Defense counsel's objection to the admission of Exhibit 38; and
- denying Defendant's oral Rule 29 Motion for Judgment of Acquittal (Doc. 186 ).
ECF 211 (PDF). Judge Bolton also issues an order setting a telephonic conference on August 3, 2017, at 9:00 a.m. ECF 212 (text only).
USA v. Arpaio (Criminal Contempt). Judge Bolton presides over the scheduled telephonic conference. Per the minutes from that conference, Judge Bolton issued the following orders:
- "If Defendant wishes to waive the presentence investigation report, ... a waiver, signed by both counsel and Defendant, shall be filed no later than August 10, 2017. If no waiver is filed, the presentence investigation report process will proceed. "
- "The parties are advised of General Order 15-12, which states that no more than 10 character letters shall be submitted by defense counsel in a criminal case, IT IS ORDERED that if the Government was intending to offer letters for sentencing the Government is also limited to 10 letters. All letters shall be submitted to the Court [not filed electronically] by September 29, 2017. "
- "IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that any motions for upward departure or downward departure and any sentencing memoranda shall be filed no later than September 29, 2017."
- "IT IS ORDERED that not later than September 29, 2017, the following information shall be filed with the Court: the name(s) of the witness(es) either party intends to call at sentencing and the number of other individuals each party intends to have make a statement at sentencing. Each party is limited to 10 individuals who will address the Court either by a statement or through testimony at sentencing."
ECF 213 (PDF).
Judge Bolton also issues an order denying Arpaio's July 5 Motion for Reconsideration (of order that Arpaio waived objections to various exhibits for failure to file timely response), concluding as follows:
"[Arpaio's] motion states that while counsel was aware of the minute entry stating that objections were due “prior to July 5, 2017” the discussion on the afternoon of Day 4 led counsel to believe he had until Wednesday to make any objection. The record is clear that that was never the case. The Court was explicit about the deadline and explained its importance so that the Court and counsel for both parties would know in advance of closing arguments what evidence was admitted and could properly prepare."
ECF 214 (PDF) (emphasis supplied).
Arpaio-MCSO 2016 2nd Injunction Appeal. The Ninth Circuit issues an order dismissing Sheridan from the appeal:
"Sheridan, a non-party civil contemnor, has incurred no personal liability, financial or otherwise, as a result of the district court’s judgment or finding of civil contempt. Although he originally was bound by the judgment insofar as it imposed obligations on the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office, where he was then employed, his subsequent retirement mooted that interest. Accordingly, he now lacks the necessary interest to maintain this appeal. See Union of Prof’l Airmen v. Alaska Aeronautical Indus., Inc., 625 F.2d 881, 884 (9th Cir. 1980).
The asserted harm to Sheridan’s reputation is insufficient to save his appeal from mootness. See Jackson v. Cal. Dep’t of Mental Health, 399 F.3d 1069, 1075 (9th Cir. 2005). First, Sheridan has no standing to “seek appellate excision of the district court’s ruling” that he committed civil contempt. Nat. Res. Def. Council v. Gutierrez, 457 F.3d 904, 906 (9th Cir. 2006) (order). Second, the district court’s criminal contempt referral, standing alone, carries no legal consequences, and Sheridan has since been dismissed from the criminal contempt proceedings on the ground that the statute of limitations has run. Third, the Arizona Peace Officer Standards and Training Board investigation, which arose from the criminal contempt referral, is an independent investigation whose resolution “depends on the unfettered choices made by independent actors not before the courts.” Leu v. Int’l Boundary Comm’n, 605 F.3d 693, 695 (9th Cir. 2010), quoting Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 562 (1992). Finally, to the extent Sheridan argues that the district court’s actions interfere with his ability to procure future employment, he has not identified “even one such job for which [he] has in fact applied.” Sandidge v. Washington, 813 F.2d 1025, 1026 (9th Cir. 1987).
Sheridan also lacks standing to seek recusal of the district judge and monitor since, for the reasons mentioned, he has no legally cognizable interest in the litigation at this point. Cf. United States v. Sciarra, 851 F.2d 621, 636 (3d Cir. 1988) (holding that non-party witnesses lacked standing to move for recusal of judge where there was “no pending action before [the judge] in which the rights of the [witnesses] [were] at issue”).
Accordingly, Sheridan’s appeal is moot and must be dismissed."
Ninth Circuit No. 16-16663 Doc. 57.
USA v. Arpaio (Criminal Contempt). Arpaio files Notice of Defendant's Waiver of Presentence Investigation Report. ECF 216 (PDF).
USA v. Arpaio (Criminal Contempt). Arpaio files:
- MOTION for New Trial Defendants Motion for New Trial and/or to Vacate the Judgment. ECF 217 (PDF).
- MOTION for Judgment of Acquittal. ECF 218.
Fox News reports that President Trump is seriously considering pardoning Arpaio. See Gregg Jarrett, "Trump 'seriously considering' a pardon for ex-Sheriff Joe Arpaio," Fox News Politics, Aug. 14, 2017; Matt Zapotosky, “Trump says he’s considering pardon for Joe Arpaio,” Washington Post, Aug. 14, 2017.
According to later reports, the "White House Counsel’s Office [begins] preparing the paperwork [for an Arpaio pardon] and communications staffers [start] drawing up talking points when Trump foreshadow[s] his intentions Aug. 15 by retweeting [the Aug. 14] Fox News story."
"Around the same time, Arpaio received a call from the White House Counsel’s Office asking whether he would accept a pardon if one were issued. He told the presidential lawyer that he would, according to Goldman." See Philip Rucker and Ellen Nakashima, "Trump asked Sessions about closing case against Arpaio, an ally since ‘birtherism’," Washington Post, Aug. 26, 2017.
During a 2020 campaign rally in Phoenix, President Trump hints that a pardon for Arpaio is forthcoming. See Jimmy Jenkins, “Trump Says Arpaio Will Be 'Just Fine,' Hints Again At Pardon,” KJZZ, Aug. 23, 2017.
See also “Trump Lashes Out at Media, and Hints at Pardon for Arpaio,” (Video) New York Times, Aug. 23, 2017; Simon Romero, "Sheriff No More, Arpaio Is Still a Polarizing Figure," New York Times, Aug. 23, 2017
THIS MORNING:
After a CBS news report indicating that Trump's advisors were recommending a delay in issuing a pardon, Arpaio attorney “Goldman wrote a two-page letter to White House Counsel Donald F. McGahn II, sent on Friday morning, saying, ‘Hopefully this is more fake news,’ and telling McGahn that a delay until after sentencing ‘would place Sheriff Arpaio in an untenable and unprecedented position.’” Philip Rucker and Ellen Nakashima, "Trump asked Sessions about closing case against Arpaio, an ally since ‘birtherism’," Washington Post, Aug. 26, 2017; see also Aug. 25, 2017 Letter from Mark Goldman to Donald McGann II.
McGann did not immediately reply. Id.
MIDDAY:
THIS EVENING:
“[A]t about 6:30 p.m. D.C. time, another lawyer in his office called Goldman’s co-counsel to double-check that Arpaio would accept a pardon. A few minutes later, an email arrived from the White House with a single page attachment: an ‘Executive Grant of Clemency’ for Arpaio signed by Trump in his thick, black script, complete with a golden Justice Department seal.” Philip Rucker and Ellen Nakashima, "Trump asked Sessions about closing case against Arpaio, an ally since ‘birtherism’," Washington Post, Aug. 26, 2017.
President Trump tweets to the world that he has issued a full and unconditional pardon to Arpaio. He elects to publicize his pardon by tweeting the news during the Hurricane Harvey crisis (because he assumed that there would be higher ratings then):
See Glenn Thrush and Julie Hirschfeld Davis, "Trump Timed Arpaio Pardon For ‘Ratings’ From Storm," New York Times, Aug. 28, 2017.
For local reports of the pardon, see, e.g., Megan Cassidy, et al, “President Donald Trump pardons former Sheriff Joe Arpaio,” AZ Republic, Aug. 25, 2017; Jimmy Jenkins, “President Trump Grants Pardon To Former Sheriff Joe Arpaio Of Arizona,” KJZZ, Aug. 25, 2017; Lindsay Moore and Joseph Flaherty “The Friday Surprise: Donald Trump Pardons Sheriff Joe Arpaio,” Phoenix New Times, Aug. 25, 2017.
See also Eric Tucker and Jacques Billeaud, “Trump Pardons ‘America’s Sheriff’ Arpaio, Convicted of Defying Judge,” Courthouse News Service, Aug. 25, 2017; Devlin Barrett and Abby Phillip, “Trump pardons former Arizona sheriff Joe Arpaio,” Washington Post, Aug. 26, 2017; Julie Hirschfeld Davis and Maggie Haberman, “Trump Pardons Joe Arpaio, Who Became the Face of Crackdown on Illegal Immigration,” New York Times, Aug. 25, 2017; NYTimes Editorial Board, “The Perils of a Pardon for Joe Arpaio,” New York Times, Aug. 24, 2017.
The Phoenix New Times tweets a long thread ...
This thread is later memorialized as a Twitter Moment:
USA v. Arpaio (Criminal Contempt). President Trump's pardon of Arpaio is docketed in this case as:
"Executive Grant of Clemency (Full and Unconditional Pardon) by President Donald J. Trump on 8-25-17 issued as to Joseph M. Arpaio for his conviction of Section 401(3), Title 18, United States Code (Docket No. 2:16-CR-1012-SRB) and for any other offenses under Chapter 21 of Title 18, United States Code that might arise, or be charged, in connection with Melendres v. Arpaio."
ECF 221 (PDF).
Arpaio files Motion for Vacatur and Dismissal with Prejudice (in light of pardon). ECF 220.
The Phoenix New Times publishes a "retrospective" of the month between Arpaio's conviction and pardon. See Lindsay Moore, “Joe Arpaio: The 26 Days From Conviction to Pardon,“ Phoenix New Times, Aug. 28, 2017.
USA v. Arpaio (Criminal Contempt). Judge Bolton issues an order
- vacating the October 5, 2017 sentencing and the September 29, 2017 deadline for filing sentencing memoranda, motions for departure, letters, and the names of witnesses to testify or make statements;
- ordering USA to not file any response to Arpaio's Aug. 14 Motions for New Trial and For a Judgment of Acquittal pending further Order of the Court; and
- setting oral argument on Arpaio's Aug. 28 Motion for Vacatur and Dismissal With Prejudice for Wednesday, October 4, 2017, at 10:00 a.m.
ECF 222.
Maricopa County 2016 2nd Injunction Appeal. USA and Melendres Plaintiffs file Answering Briefs with the Ninth Circuit:
- USA Brief: 16-16661, Doc 31 (brief); Doc 32 (Supplemental Record Excerpts).
- Melendres Plaintiffs Brief: Doc. 33 (Brief); Doc 24 (Supplemental Record Excerpts).
Maricopa County 2016 2nd Injunction Appeal. Maricopa County files an unopposed motion for extension of time to file its reply. 16-16661, Doc 36. This motion is granted on Sept. 9, giving Maricopa County until Sept. 29, 2017 to file its brief. Doc. 40.
The Maricopa County Board of Supervisors approve $1 million for the fund established in the Melendres case to compensate victims of Arpaio's/MCSO's unlawful detentions in violation of the 2011 injunction. See Rebekah L. Sanders and Megan Cassidy, “Maricopa County sets aside $1 million for payouts, expenses in ex-Sheriff Arpaio's case,” AZ Republic, Sept. 6, 2017.
USA v. Arpaio (Criminal Contempt). USA files its response to Arpaio's Aug. 28 Motion for Vacatur and Dismissal With Prejudice. In short (as stated in its introduction), the USA's response is:
"The President issued a “Full and Unconditional Pardon” to defendant Joseph M. Arpaio (“Defendant”), whom this Court found guilty of criminal contempt for willfully disobeying a preliminary injunction issued in a civil case. Having accepted the presidential pardon, Defendant now moves to vacate the verdict and all other orders and to dismiss this case with prejudice. ECF 220. A pardon issued before entry of final judgment moots a criminal case because the defendant will face no consequences that result from the guilty verdict. Accordingly, the government agrees that the Court should vacate all orders and dismiss the case as moot."
ECF 225 (PDF).
Several parties file motions to submit amici briefs asking the Court to reject Trump's pardon as unconstitutional on a variety of bases:
- MacArthur Justice Center Proposed Amicus Brief. ECF 223-1; see also ECF 224 (order re: local rules requirement); ECF 226 (additional submission in light of order).
- Free Speech for People and Coalition to Preserve, Protect and Defend Proposed Amici Brief. ECF 227-2.
- Protect Democracy Project Proposed Amicus Brief. ECF 228-1.
- Protect Democracy Project Proposed Supplemental Amicus Brief re: Appointment of Special Prosecutor. ECF 231-1.
- Erwin Chemerinsky, Michael E. Tigar, and Jane B. Tigar Proposed Amici Brief. ECF 230; see also ECF 229 (Motion to file brief).
See also Megan Cassidy, “Prosecutors abandon Joe Arpaio case, but lawyers across U.S. still fighting pardon,” AZ Republic, Sept. 11, 2017.
USA v. Arpaio (Criminal Contempt). Arpaio files a response in opposition to the various amici motions filed yesterday. ECF 232.
USA v. Arpaio (Criminal Contempt). Melendres Plaintiffs file motion to file Amici Brief. The proposed brief addresses why the Court should not vacate its prior rulings, despite the pardon. See ECF 233.1 (Proposed Brief)
USA v. Arpaio (Criminal Contempt). Judge Bolton issues an order requiring the USA to file a supplemental brief addressing Supreme Court and Federal Appellate Court precedent holding that a pardon does not erase or effect a conviction. ECF 234. From the order:
"... The cases that the Government and Defendant cite, however, speak only to the propriety of vacating any judgment entered prior to ordering dismissal. Judgment has not been entered here, thus suggesting that dismissal with prejudice is all that remains to be ordered. Defendant argues that vacatur should encompass the Court’s “verdict and other orders in this matter.” (Doc. 220, Def.’s Mot. for Vacatur and Dismissal with Prejudice (“Mot.”) at 4.) The Government appears to agree with Defendant, but furnishes no authority conferring so broad a scope to orders of vacatur issued under similar circumstances. (See Resp. at 4.)
Conversely, U.S. Supreme Court and Ninth Circuit case law suggest that a presidential pardon leaves intact the recipient’s underlying record of conviction. * * *
The Government’s Response does not sufficiently address this issue. Therefore, supplemental briefing is appropriate.
IT IS ORDERED that the Government file a Supplemental Response, not to exceed five pages in length, addressing the extent to which vacatur should be granted, if at all, given both the absence of an entry of judgment and the authority provided in this Order. The Government shall file and serve its Supplemental Response no later than September 21, 2017. Defendant may file a Reply."
Id. at 1-2.
Arpaio files Response to Melendres Plaintiffs' Sept. 13 Motion to File Amici Brief. ECF 235.
USA v. Arpaio (Criminal Contempt). USA files its Supplemental Response regarding Vacatur, per the Court's Sept. 14 order. ECF 236.
USA v. Arpaio (Criminal Contempt). Arpaio files his Reply to the USA's Sept. 21 Response. ECF 237.
USA v. Arpaio (Criminal Contempt). Oral argument on Arpaio's Aug. 28 Motion for Vacatur and Dismissal With Prejudice is scheduled for today per Judge Bolton's Aug. 29 order.
Last updated Sept. 25, 2017
| Be notified of page updates |
|
