University of Michigan Law School
Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse
new search
page permalink
Case Name Doe v. Arpaio JC-AZ-0007
Docket / Court CV 2004-009286 ( State Court )
State/Territory Arizona
Case Type(s) Jail Conditions
Case Summary
In 2004, a female inmate filed a class-action lawsuit in the Superior Court of Arizona, Maricopa County, challenging the Maricopa County Sheriff's unwritten policy that required a court order to allow the transport of an inmate for the purpose of obtaining an abortion. The unwritten policy at issue ... read more >
In 2004, a female inmate filed a class-action lawsuit in the Superior Court of Arizona, Maricopa County, challenging the Maricopa County Sheriff's unwritten policy that required a court order to allow the transport of an inmate for the purpose of obtaining an abortion. The unwritten policy at issue prohibited transportation of inmates offsite for elective medical procedures. The Sheriff applied that policy to women seeking abortions and as a result, would only transport women for non-therapeutic abortions if ordered by the court and if the inmate made complete financial arrangements for the procedure and for transportation costs. Plaintiff, who was represented by the ACLU, challenged the policy as violating a woman's Fourteenth Amendment right to choose to have an abortion, as articulated by Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973).

The Superior Court (Judge Barry C. Schneider) granted Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and enjoined the Sheriff and the County from enforcing the policy as applied to inmates seeking abortions. Doe v. Arpaio, 2005 WL 2173988 (Ariz.Super. Aug 25, 2005) (NO. CV 2004-009286). The Sheriff and the County appealed.

The Arizona Court of Appeals affirmed, finding that the policy was not reasonably related to the County's professed neutral objectives and was therefore invalid. Doe v. Arpaio, 150 P.3d 1258 (Ariz.App. Div. 1 2007).

On December 21, 2007, the Sheriff and County filed a petition for a writ of certiorari. On March 24, 2008, certiori was denied.

However, Sheriff Arpaio continued to require women to obtain a court order before an abortion. In August 2008, the ACLU asked the court to hold Arpaio in contempt. In the course of settlement negotiations in this matter, Arpaio shifted tactics and began insisting that inmates who seek abortions must pay upfront for transportation and security costs. Inmates requiring transportation for other medical care were not charged for transport either before or after receiving services.

As a result, in July 2009, the ACLU challenged this prepayment policy and asked the court to prevent Arpaio from enforcing this new obstacle to care. On October 20, 2009, the court ruled that Arpaio could no longer require inmates seeking abortion care to prepay their transportation and security costs before they can obtain an abortion. The case is now closed.

Dan Dalton - 01/15/2008
Averyn Lee - 06/09/2019


compress summary

- click to show/hide ALL -
Issues and Causes of Action
click to show/hide detail
Issues
Affected Gender
Female
Constitutional Clause
Due Process
Equal Protection
Freedom of speech/association
Content of Injunction
Discrimination Prohibition
Defendant-type
Corrections
General
Abortion
Medical/Mental Health
Reproductive health care (including birth control, abortion, and others)
Plaintiff Type
Private Plaintiff
Type of Facility
Government-run
Causes of Action 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Defendant(s) Maricopa County
Maricopa County Sheriff's Office
Plaintiff Description All female inmates in the Maricopa County Jail who seek transportation to an outside facility for an abortion.
Class action status sought Yes
Class action status granted Unknown
Filed Pro Se No
Prevailing Party Plaintiff
Public Int. Lawyer Yes
Nature of Relief Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement
Source of Relief Litigation
Order Duration 2005 - n/a
Filing Year 2004
Case Ongoing No
Additional Resources
click to show/hide detail
  DOE V. ARPAIO
Date: Mar. 1, 2010
By: ACLU
[ Detail ] [ External Link ]

  GENESEE VALLEY CHAPTER -- TAKING ON THE TOUGHEST SHERIFF
Date: Jan. 27, 2010
By: Scott Forsyth (ACLU of New York)
[ Detail ] [ External Link ]

Docket(s)
CV2004-009286 (State Trial Court)
JC-AZ-0007-9000.pdf | Detail
Date: 06/15/2006
General Documents
Minute Entry [re: Order Granting Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment and Denying Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment] (2005 WL 2173988)
JC-AZ-0007-0001.pdf | WESTLAW | Detail
Date: 08/23/2005
Opinion (150 P.3d 1258)
JC-AZ-0007-0002.pdf | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Date: 01/23/2007
Source: Google Scholar
show all people docs
Judges Burke, Edward O. Court not on record show/hide docs
JC-AZ-0007-9000
Downie, Margaret H. (State Appellate Court) show/hide docs
JC-AZ-0007-0002
Ehrlich, Susan A. (State Appellate Court) show/hide docs
JC-AZ-0007-0002
Irvine, Thomas K. Court not on record show/hide docs
JC-AZ-0007-0002
Plaintiff's Lawyers Amiri, Brigitte A. (New York) show/hide docs
JC-AZ-0007-0002
Anderson, Susan (Arizona) show/hide docs
JC-AZ-0007-0001 | JC-AZ-0007-9000
Camp, Susan Talcott (New York) show/hide docs
JC-AZ-0007-0002
Chandrasekhar, Charua A. (New York) show/hide docs
JC-AZ-0007-0002
Freeman, Susan M. (Arizona) show/hide docs
JC-AZ-0007-0002
McAllister-Nevins, Jennifer (New York) show/hide docs
JC-AZ-0007-0002
Reddin, Jane E. (Arizona) show/hide docs
JC-AZ-0007-0001
Defendant's Lawyers Hable, Susan L. (Arizona) show/hide docs
JC-AZ-0007-0001
Knight-Click, Stasy D. (Arizona) show/hide docs
JC-AZ-0007-0002
Manhart, Daryl (Arizona) show/hide docs
JC-AZ-0007-0002
Vigil, Joseph (Arizona) show/hide docs
JC-AZ-0007-0001 | JC-AZ-0007-9000

- click to show/hide ALL -

new search
page permalink

- top of page -