Manuel De Jesus Ortega Melendr v. Joseph M. Arpaio, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 20120

Defendants Arpaio and the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office appeal a district court order granting partial, preliminary injunctive relief prohibiting detentions based solely on knowledge or reasonable belief that a person is unlawfully present.
Plaintiffs allege a custom, policy and practice of racial profiling of Latinos in Maricopa County, including stops, detentions, searches, and 'saturation patrols' tied to immigration enforcement.
Plaintiffs point to a 2006 ICE 287(g) agreement granting some local officers authority to enforce civil immigration laws, later narrowed in 2009 to jail context; they assert profiling occurred both before and after the modification.
Plaintiffs move for class certification for all Latinos stopped or detained in Maricopa County since January 2007; district court certified the class for the injunction.
District court granted partial summary judgment on Fourth Amendment grounds, enjoined detentions based solely on unlawful presence, and trial proceeded; final judgment had not yet been entered at the time of appeal.
The Ninth Circuit treats the appeal as limited to interlocutory review of a preliminary injunction and addresses only two pendent issues: standing to seek the Fourth Amendment injunction and class certification.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Standing to seek Fourth Amendment injunction	Plaintiffs show likelihood of repetition due to policy and pattern of stops.	Named plaintiffs lack credible, genuine threat of future stops, so no standing.	Plaintiffs have standing for Fourth Amendment injunction.
Class certification review for injunctive relief	Class certification necessary to review class-wide injunction.	Certification flawed; affects ability to review injunction.	Class certification review treated with restraint; remains for final judgment.

City of Los Angeles v. Cnty. of Kern, 581 F.3d 841 (9th Cir. 2009) (standing is jurisdictional for prospective relief)
Lyons, 461 U.S. 95 (U.S. 1983) (threat of repetition requires likelihood of recurrence)
Mayfield v. United States, 599 F.3d 964 (9th Cir. 2010) (two ways to show likelihood of recurrence; pattern of officially sanctioned conduct)
Armstrong v. Davis, 275 F.3d 849 (9th Cir. 2001) (standing for prospective relief; government policy)
Meredith v. Oregon, 321 F.3d 807 (9th Cir. 2003) (pendent jurisdiction principles for interlocutory review)
Hendricks v. Bank of Am., N.A., 408 F.3d 1127 (9th Cir. 2005) (scope of pendent jurisdiction; meaningful review principles)
Paige v. California, 102 F.3d 1035 (9th Cir. 1996) (class certification review related to injunctions)
Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7 (U.S. 2008) (four-factor test for preliminary injunction)
Zepeda v. INS, 753 F.2d 719 (9th Cir. 1983) (intertwined issues doctrine in review)