FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 15-17558 Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. v. 2:12-cv-00981-ROS COUNTY OF MARICOPA, Arizona, Defendant-Appellant, OPINION and PAUL PENZONE,* in his official capacity as Sheriff of Maricopa County, Arizona, Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona Roslyn O. Silver, Senior District Judge, Presiding Argued and Submitted September 15, 2017 San Francisco, California Filed May 7, 2018 * Paul Penzone is the current Sheriff of Maricopa County and has, therefore, been automatically substituted for his predecessor, Joseph M. Arpaio. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(d). 2 UNITED STATES V. COUNTY OF MARICOPA Before: Ronald M. Gould, Richard C. Tallman, and Paul J. Watford, Circuit Judges. Opinion by Judge Watford SUMMARY** Civil Rights The panel affirmed the district court’s summary judgment in favor of the United States, which brought this action to halt racially discriminatory policing policies concerning traffic stops instituted by Joseph Arpaio, the former Sheriff of Maricopa County, Arizona. The panel held that Sheriff Arpaio acted as a final policymaker for the County. The panel further held that because the traffic-stop policies at issue fell with the scope of a sheriff’s law-enforcement duties, Arpaio acted as a final policymaker for Maricopa County when he instituted those policies. The panel held that Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and 34 U.S.C. § 12601 authorized policymaker liability. The panel further held that the proper standard for determining which employees have the power to establish an entity’s “official policy” under Title VI and 34 U.S.C. § 12601 is the standard that governs under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The panel concluded that Maricopa County was liable for ** This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It has been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader. UNITED STATES V. COUNTY OF MARICOPA 3 violations of Title VI and § 12601 stemming from its own official policies. Finally the panel held that when Arpaio adopted the racially discriminatory traffic-stop policies at issue, he acted as a final policymaker for the County, and the district court correctly held the County liable for the violations of Title VI and § 12601 caused by those policies. The panel held that the district court properly applied issue preclusion to bar the County from relitigating the lawfulness of Arpaio’s traffic-stop policies because the County was bound by prior adverse findings. See Melendres v. Arpaio, 695 F.3d 990 (9th Cir. 2012). COUNSEL Richard K. Walker (argued), Walker & Peskind PLLC, Scottsdale, Arizona, for Defendant-Appellant. Elizabeth Parr Hecker (argued) and Thomas E. Chandler, Attorneys; Gregory B. Friel, Deputy Assistant Attorney General; Civil Rights Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C.; for Plaintiff-Appellee. 4 UNITED STATES V. COUNTY OF MARICOPA OPINION WATFORD, Circuit Judge: The United States brought this action to halt racially discriminatory policing policies instituted by Joseph Arpaio, the former Sheriff of Maricopa County, Arizona. Under Arpaio’s leadership, the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals