Case: 13-16285, 06/09/2015, ID: 9567928, DktEntry: 82, Page 1 of 6

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MANUEL DE JESUS ORTEGA
MELENDRES; JESSICA QUITUGUA
RODRIGUEZ; DAVID RODRIGUEZ;
VELIA MERAZ; MANUEL NIETO, JR.;
SOMOS AMERICA,
Plaintiffs/Appellees,

No. 13-16285
No. 13-17238

District Court
No. 2:07-CV-02513-GMS

vs.
JOSEPH M. ARPAIO; MARICOPA
COUNTY SHERIFFS OFFICE,
Defendants/Appellants.
ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
JOSEPH M. ARPAIOS RESPONSE TO MARICOPA
COUNTYS PETITION FOR REHEARING AND
REHEARING EN BANC
Eileen Dennis GilBride, Bar #009220
JONES, SKELTON & HOCHULI, P.L.C.
2901 North Central Avenue, Suite 800
Phoenix, Arizona 85012
egilbride@jshfirm.com
(602) 263-1700
Attorneys for Defendants/Appellants
Joseph M. Arpaio and Maricopa
County Sheriffs Office

Case: 13-16285, 06/09/2015, ID: 9567928, DktEntry: 82, Page 2 of 6

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Page
CASES
Hounshell v. White,
220 Ariz. 1, 202 P.3d 466 (Ct. App. 2008) .......................................................1
STATUTES
A.R.S. 11-251 .....................................................................................................1
OTHER AUTHORITIES
Ariz. Const. art. XII, 1 .......................................................................................1
Ariz. Const. art. XII, 3 .......................................................................................1
Ariz. Const. art. XII, 4 .......................................................................................1

Case: 13-16285, 06/09/2015, ID: 9567928, DktEntry: 82, Page 3 of 6

For the reasons stated in the Countys Petition, Sheriff Arpaio agrees
with the County that the order to add the County as a party to this case is
unnecessary and improper. First, no party requested the addition or suggested it
was necessary to obtain relief. Defendants asked only for dismissal of the nonjural entity, Maricopa County Sheriffs Office, from the judgment [see Dkt.
#32-1, pp. 24-25; Dkt. #57-1, pp. 7-10], arguing that a judgment against a nonjural entity should not remain on the books. [Doc. #57-1, pp. 7-10.] Plaintiffs
agreed below and on appeal that MCSOs dismissal would have no practical
effect on the injunctions application to the Sheriffs office. [See Doc. #51-1,
pp. 24, 67-69.]
Second, it is inappropriate to add the County as a party in a case ordering
injunctive relief against the Sheriff in his official capacity, because neither the
County nor the Board of Supervisors has any authority over the Sheriffs law
enforcement activities. See Ariz. Const. art. XII, 1 (county is a body politic
and corporate), 3 (sheriff is a constitutionally-created, elected official), 4
(sheriffs duties are prescribed by law); A.R.S. 11-251 (detailing the scope of
the countys authority with no mention of authority over law enforcement);
Hounshell v. White, 220 Ariz. 1, 5-6, 202 P.3d 466, 470-71 (Ct. App. 2008)
(county has no statutory authority to discipline sheriffs deputies).

4203261.1

Case: 13-16285, 06/09/2015, ID: 9567928, DktEntry: 82, Page 4 of 6

Consequently, neither the Board nor the County has any ability to comply with
the injunctive relief ordered by the district court.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Sheriff Joseph M. Arpaio agrees with the
points raised in the Countys Petition for Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc. It
was neither necessary nor appropriate to order the County be added in to the
case as a defendant.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 9th day of June, 2015.
JONES, SKELTON & HOCHULI, P.L.C.

By /s/Eileen Dennis GilBride

Eileen Dennis GilBride
2901 North Central Avenue, Suite 800
Phoenix, Arizona 85012
Attorneys for Defendants/Appellants
Joseph M. Arpaio and Maricopa County
Sheriffs Office

2
4203261.1

Case: 13-16285, 06/09/2015, ID: 9567928, DktEntry: 82, Page 5 of 6

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
I certify that pursuant to Circuit Rule 35-4 or 40-1, the attached Response
to Petition for Panel Rehearing/Petition for Rehearing En Banc is:
__X__

Proportionately spaced, has a typeface of 14 points or more

and contains 292 words.

Signature

/s/ Eileen Dennis GilBride

Attorney for

Defendants-Appellants Joseph M. Arpaio and

Maricopa County Sheriffs Office

Date

June 9, 2015

3
4203261.1

Case: 13-16285, 06/09/2015, ID: 9567928, DktEntry: 82, Page 6 of 6

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that I electronically filed the foregoing Response to
Maricopa Countys Petition for Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc with the
Clerk of the Court for the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
by using the appellate CM/ECF system on the 9th day of June, 2015.
Participants in the case who are registered CM/ECF users will be served
by the appellate CM/ECF system.

/s/ Eileen Dennis GilBride

4
4203261.1