Supreme Court Report

Supreme Court of the United States · Official docket →

Maricopa County, Arizona v. United States

Paid petition · United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, No. 15-17558 · judgment May 7, 2018


Certiorari denied · March 25, 2019
Pre-decision estimate: 3% cert probability

Before the decision, well below the 4.1% base rate, with no standout signals pointing toward a grant.

Questions presented

In McMillian v. Monroe County, Alabama, 520 U.S. 781 (1997), this Court held that counties cannot be liable in actions brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for the actions of sheriffs acting in their law enforcement capacities, unless the sheriffs are found to have been acting as “policymakers” for the counties within the meaning of Monell v. Dept. of Social Services of the City of New York, 436 U.S. 658 (1978). Here, the Ninth Circuit has misconstrued Arizona law to find sheriffs to be policymakers for Arizona’s counties in the area of law enforcement, took the unprecedented step of applying that concept to claims arising under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000d, and the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, 34 U.S.C. § 12601, and the held Maricopa County (“the County”) bound by findings in a collateral case from which the County had been dismissed years before trial and entry of judgment in that case. The questions presented are:

  1. Under Arizona law, as evaluated or mandated by McMillian, are Arizona’s sheriffs “final policymakers” for their respective counties with respect to matters of law enforcement?

  2. Can “policymaker liability” properly be engrafted onto Title VI and § 12601?

  3. Can courts, consistent with due process, apply nonmutual, offensive issue preclusion to bind a party to findings in a case when there is no evidence that another party remaining in that case had identical

Counsel of record

For petitioner
Richard K. Walker
Walker & Peskind, PLLC

For respondent
Noel John Francisco
Jones Day

Case

Conference history
Distributed for 1 conference

Proceedings

  1. Mar 25 2019
    Petition DENIED.
  2. Mar 06 2019
    DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 3/22/2019.
  3. Feb 28 2019
    Reply of petitioner Maricopa, County, Arizona filed.
  4. Feb 15 2019
    Brief of respondent United States of America in opposition filed.
  5. Jan 14 2019
    Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is further extended to and including February 15, 2019.
  6. Jan 11 2019
    Motion to extend the time to file a response from January 16, 2019 to February 15, 2019, submitted to The Clerk.
  7. Dec 07 2018
    Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is further extended to and including January 16, 2019.
  8. Dec 06 2018
    Motion to extend the time to file a response from December 17, 2018 to January 16, 2019, submitted to The Clerk.
  9. Nov 13 2018
    Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including December 17, 2018.
  10. Nov 09 2018
    Motion to extend the time to file a response from November 16, 2018 to December 17, 2018, submitted to The Clerk.
  11. Nov 09 2018
    Response to motion from petitioner Maricopa, County of, et al. filed.
  12. Oct 15 2018
    Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due November 16, 2018)