Manuel De Jesus Ortega Melendr v. Maricopa County
815 F.3d 645
9th Cir.2016Background
- Plaintiffs sued Sheriff Arpaio (official capacity), Maricopa County, and the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office (MCSO) alleging racially discriminatory traffic stops and immigration-related enforcement.
- Parties stipulated to dismiss Maricopa County without prejudice, reserving the right to rejoin it later if necessary to obtain complete relief.
- After a bench trial, the district court entered a permanent injunction and supplemental remedial orders directing MCSO reforms (monitoring, training, documentation, early identification system).
- On appeal in Melendres II, this Court affirmed most of the injunction but held MCSO is a non-jural entity under Arizona law and ordered Maricopa County substituted for MCSO as the defendant.
- Nearly a year after the district orders (2011–2014), Maricopa County filed a notice of appeal (May 15, 2015) challenging those district-court orders; the Ninth Circuit concluded the notice was untimely and dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the appeal is timely under 28 U.S.C. § 2107 and Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A) | Timeliness requirement applies; appellees rely on deadline | County argued appeal was timely because filed within 30 days of this Court’s Melendres II opinion | Appeal untimely; dismissal for lack of jurisdiction |
| Whether substitution of Maricopa County post-appeal creates equitable excuse to file late | Plaintiffs: substitution remedied non-jural party issue; no equitable exception | County: substitution made it a party only via Melendres II, so it lacked opportunity to appeal earlier | Court rejected equitable exception; Bowles bars creating equitable exceptions to jurisdictional deadlines |
| Whether exceptions to Rule 4 apply | Plaintiffs: no applicable exceptions | County: argued unfairness; did not invoke Rule 4 enumerated exceptions | No Rule 4 exceptions apply; County failed to meet burden to invoke jurisdiction |
| Whether county liability/obligations make substitution unfair | Plaintiffs: county previously agreed it could be rejoined; sheriff’s acts can impose county liability | County: claimed lack of control over sheriff and sought to avoid affirmative mandates | Court noted Monell/McMillian principles; substitution was lawful and county bound; lack of control is relevant to contempt, not jurisdiction |
Key Cases Cited
- Melendres v. Arpaio, 784 F.3d 1254 (9th Cir. 2015) (appellate decision affirming injunction and ordering Maricopa County substituted for MCSO)
- Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205 (2007) (federal courts may not create equitable exceptions to jurisdictional deadlines)
- Browder v. Director, Dept. of Corrections, 434 U.S. 257 (1978) (timely filing requirement for appeals is mandatory and jurisdictional)
- Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 (1978) (municipal liability under § 1983 for governmental policy)
- McMillian v. Monroe County, 520 U.S. 781 (1997) (sheriff’s actions can constitute county policy for § 1983 liability)
- Braillard v. Maricopa County, 232 P.3d 1263 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2010) (concluding MCSO is a non-jural entity and cannot be sued)