You are on page 1of 2

Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1731 Filed 06/30/16 Page 1 of 2

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9
10

Manuel de Jesus Ortega Melendres, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated; et al.

12

and

13

United States of America,
Plaintiff-Intervenor,

14
15

v.

16

Joseph M. Arpaio, in his official capacity as
Sheriff of Maricopa County, Arizona; et al.

18

ORDER

Plaintiffs,

11

17

No. CV-07-2513-PHX-GMS

Defendants.

19

The Court is in receipt of Plaintiffs’ Request to Modify Process for Appointment

20

of Independent IA Authority (Doc. 1724) and Defendants’ response thereto (Doc. 1727).

21

For the following reasons, the Court denies Plaintiffs’ request.

22

As Defendants point out and Plaintiffs concede, Plaintiffs’ request is not timely.

23

Thus, the parties should come to the hearing on July 8 in compliance with the Court’s

24

previous instructions set forth in the Amended Order (Doc. 1717).

25

The Court appreciates Plaintiffs’ observation that giving the Court the opportunity

26

to choose between only two candidates for any one position may be too limiting in light

27

of the various attributes of the various candidates. Nevertheless, the Court previously

28

indicated to the parties that if the procedure “does not produce candidates acceptable to

Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1731 Filed 06/30/16 Page 2 of 2

1

the Court, the Court reserves the right to appoint persons of its own choosing.” (Doc.

2

1717 at 2.) Each party will thus submit to the Court only one candidate for each position.

3

Should the Court find neither candidate acceptable, the Court will not and does not feel

4

bound in any way, other than selecting qualified and neutral candidates, in exercising its

5

own selection. Thus, having been unaware of “the vetoes” as exercised by the parties, the

6

Court, in exercising its discretion, may designate a candidate that had been “vetoed” by

7

one of the parties. If it does so, that veto will not affect the selection.

8

If, in light of that, the parties wish to further discuss the selection procedure at the

9

July 8 hearing, they should nevertheless come to it having selected their candidates for

10

each of the two positions to be filled, having disclosed those candidates to the other side,

11

and having determined and informed the other side which candidates they would strike

12

and in what order they would strike them. Absent further order of the Court, no party

13

should disclose to the Court which side selected which candidates, or the identity of any

14

candidates vetoed by any party.

15

Dated this 30th day of June, 2016.

16
17
18

Honorable G. Murray Snow
United States District Judge

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

-2-