University of Michigan Law School
Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse
new search
view search results
page permalink
Case Name Parsons v. Ryan PC-AZ-0018
Docket / Court 2:12-cv-00601 ( D. Ariz. )
State/Territory Arizona
Case Type(s) Prison Conditions
Special Collection Post-PLRA enforceable consent decrees
Post-WalMart decisions on class certification
Solitary confinement
Attorney Organization ACLU Chapters (any)
ACLU National Prison Project
Prison Law Office
Case Summary
This case is a direct descendant of Gamez v. Ryan, docket number CV-10-2070-PHX-JWS (MEA). That case was dismissed with prejudice on March 21, 2012 after the district court judge determined that the third amended complaint added ... read more >
This case is a direct descendant of Gamez v. Ryan, docket number CV-10-2070-PHX-JWS (MEA). That case was dismissed with prejudice on March 21, 2012 after the district court judge determined that the third amended complaint added additional claims and plaintiffs that were not within the contemplation of the court at the time that it dismissed the second amended complaint.

On March 22, 2012, fourteen Arizona prisoners brought this suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona against the Arizona Department of Corrections (ADOC), under § 1983. Represented by the ACLU, the Prison Law Office, and private counsel, the plaintiffs sought both declaratory and injunctive relief, alleging that the ADOC deprived them of access to adequate health care and that even when prisoners were allowed access to treatment, they did not receive adequate care. They also alleged the defendants subjected prisoners in isolation to unconstitutional conditions. The case was assigned to Judge Neil Wake.

The defendants filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that the plaintiffs failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted, that the plaintiffs did not sufficiently exhaust administrative remedies, and that their claims were moot. The District Court denied the motion as to all three claims.

On March 6, 2013, Judge Wake granted the plaintiff's motion for class certification, finding that all the prerequisites for class certification had been met. The class included all prisoners who were subjected to any of the following practices: failure to provide timely access to health care; failure to provide timely emergency treatment; failure to provide necessary medication and medical devices; insufficient health care staffing; failure to provide care for chronic diseases and protection from infectious disease; failure to provide timely access to medically necessary specialty care; failure to provide timely access to basic dental treatment; practice of extracting teeth that could be saved by less intrusive means; failure to provide mentally ill prisoners medically necessary mental health treatment (i.e. psychotropic medication, therapy, and inpatient treatment); and/or failure to provide suicidal and self-harming prisoners basic mental health care. The class certification also included subclasses of prisoners who were held in isolation and suffered from any of the following practices: inadequate psychiatric monitoring because of chronic understaffing; use of chemical agents against inmates on psychotropic medications; lack of recreation; extreme social isolation; constant cell illumination; limited property; and/or insufficient nutrition. 289 F.R.D. 513.

On July 10, 2013, the defendants appealed the grant of class certification to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals because the class included all 33,000 prisoners in the ADOC. The following day, the defendants filed an Emergency Motion to Stay in the District Court, pending adjudication of the appeal. Judge Wake denied the defendants' emergency motion on August 9, 2013, weighing heavily the nature of the allegations and the potential risk to the plaintiffs. To mitigate the burden on the defendants and to conserve judicial resources, Judge Wake set firm parameters for the completion of discovery.

A three-judge panel in the Ninth Circuit affirmed the grant of class certification on June 5, 2014. 754 F.3d 657. The defendants petitioned for a rehearing en banc on July 3, 2014. The petition was denied on April 21, 2015.

On May 16, 2014, the defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, which was denied on August 7, 2014. 2014 WL 3887867. The defendants' primary argument was that the named plaintiffs received constitutionally adequate medical and dental care and therefore lacked standing. Judge Wake denied summary judgment on this point because the plaintiffs were not challenging care on any particular occasion, but exposure to the risk of harm stemming from inadequate policies and practices. The District Court also denied summary judgment on the conditions of solitary confinement claim. While the defendants argued that each particular practice or condition challenged was constitutional, the District Court stressed that the relevant issue was whether the totality of the conditions in the isolation units exposed the prisoners to a substantial risk of serious harm (a lack of social interaction and environmental stimulation).

On October 14, 2014, the parties filed a stipulation. The defendants agreed to remedy the ADOC health care system by meeting more than 100 performance measures, including particular screenings and procedures, staffing requirements, and the provision of interpreters for health services. The agreement also required the defendants to reform policies relating to prisoners with serious mental illnesses in isolation units. Modifications included increasing access to mental health treatment, increasing time spent outside of the cell, and restricting the use of pepper spray to a last resort in preventing serious injury or escape. Finally, the settlement provided for ongoing monitoring and oversight by the plaintiffs' lawyers. The parties consented to the exercise of jurisdiction by the District Court over disputes arising out of the stipulation, and agreed not to move to terminate the Stipulation for at least four years. The defendants agreed to pay $4.9 million in attorneys' fees and costs and up to $250,000 a year in reasonable fees for enforcement in the future.

On February 18, 2015, the stipulation was approved by Magistrate Judge David K. Duncan, who was assigned to oversee enforcement of the stipulation.

Between the confirmation of the stipulation in February 2015 and April 2016, there were many court-mediated discussions regarding the defendants’ fulfillment of the Stipulation. On May 20, 2016, the court ordered the defendants to submit a plan detailing how they were going to comply with certain stipulation measures they had failed to address. On May 27, 2016, the plaintiffs filed a motion for criminal investigation, arguing that the failure to provide adequate medical care and the reckless tolerance of those conditions is a felony that should be investigated by the F.B.I. and the the Department of Justice. This motion was denied, but was followed by another motion to enforce the stipulation on July 12, 2016.

Over the next two years, the plaintiffs filed several motions to enforce the stipulation and the defendants were ordered to submit several plans for correcting their non-compliance. Per court orders, the parties also met and conferred about once a month regarding the defendants’ compliance with the stipulation.

On July 25, 2017, the court ordered defendants to stop harassing and intimidating witnesses who provided information to the court. The plaintiffs’ counsel had previously been asked to notify the court about any allegations of retaliation that occurred in the prisons. There were several evidentiary hearings concerning these allegations.

On September 30, 2017, the court granted in part and denied in part several of the plaintiffs’ motions to enforce the stipulation. The court found the defendants to be in compliance with some of the performance measures but not with others.

On October 10, 2017, however, the court ordered that the defendants had been so substantially non-compliant that it considered imposing civil contempt. The court listed the performance measures the defendants had not properly complied with. Per the court’s instructions, by January 5, 2018 the defendants were required to file a list of instances of non-compliance during December 2017 and on January 9, 2018 the defendants had to show why the court should not impose sanctions of $1,000 per incident of non-compliance. After receiving several extensions to file this list, the defendants provided a partial list.

On June 22, 2018, the court issued several orders in an attempt to resolve the issues faced since the stipulation came into effect. First, the court found the defendants in civil contempt, determining 1,445 instances of violations of performance measures. The defendants were ordered to pay $1,445,000 in contempt fines. 2018 WL 3239691. Next, because there had been little progress made by the defendants’ multiple revised remediation plans, the court used its authority under the stipulation to require the defendants to hire outside experts to evaluate the continuing violations. The six categories to be evaluated were: pharmacy, intersystem transfers, access to care, diagnostic services, specialty care, chronic care, and infirmary care. The defendants were required to submit a list of two experts in each category to the court for evaluation and selection. 2018 WL 3238938. Additionally, the court granted in part and denied in part the defendants’ motion to terminate monitoring of certain performance measures. The court ordered the defendants to retain an expert to evaluate the monitoring process, ensuring the defendants would not overstate their compliance. 2018 WL 3238944. Further, the court ordered the defendants to reinstall the health needs request form boxes that had been removed from housing units in the prisons and to resume the previous process for collecting and logging prisoners’ health requests. 2018 WL 3083847. Finally, the court awarded the plaintiffs additional attorney’s fees in the amount of $1,259,991.98 for the work performed since the stipulation began. The case was also reassigned a few days later to Senior Judge Roslyn O Silver after Judge Duncan retired.

On September 28, 2018, the court again granted a motion filed by the plaintiffs to enforce parts of the stipulation and ordered the defendants to file a plan to address the non-compliance.

On December 11, 2018, the court appointed the outside expert to evaluate the defendants’ non-compliance and analyze the cause of it, following its order on June 22, 2018. While the parties had a disagreement on the scope of the expert engagement, including the scope of the information the expert could access, the court solved this dispute by ordering the defendants to allow the expert quite broad access to the documents and the personnel he needed to fulfill his obligation. 2019 WL 396930.

On January 11, 2019, the defendants filed the motion to terminate the monitoring and reporting of Maximum Custody Performance Measure which required the defendant to provide the isolated inmates out-of-cell time, including time for exercise and group-programming, claiming that they achieved the condition for termination by achieving most of the requirements. Plaintiffs objected to the motion, claiming that the defendant’s monitoring and reporting system was so unreliable that their self-reported findings could not support termination.

In January 2019, ADOC announced that they would change the healthcare provider from Corizon to another private company as of July 1, 2019. After this announcement, some of the plaintiffs received medical bills and collection notices that should have been paid by Corizon. Also, plaintiffs were concerned that the upcoming transition of health care provider would not be properly made because a jail in the other jurisdiction had reported that Corizon’s operation for the transition of health care provider was flawed and caused a serious problem in meeting the medical and mental care need in the facility. To ensure the appropriate transition of the healthcare provider, plaintiffs filed a motion to require the production of Health Care Transition Plan on March 4, 2019.

As of April 19, 2019, the litigation is still ongoing.

Jonathan Forman - 07/07/2013
Samantha Kirby - 10/28/2014
Hannah Basalone - 11/29/2018
Chiaki Nojiri - 04/19/2019


compress summary

- click to show/hide ALL -
Issues and Causes of Action
click to show/hide detail
Issues
Constitutional Clause
Cruel and Unusual Punishment
Due Process
Content of Injunction
Monitoring
Reporting
Defendant-type
Corrections
Jurisdiction-wide
General
Administrative segregation
Conditions of confinement
Counseling
Failure to train
Food service / nutrition / hydration
Loss or damage to property
Pepper/OC spray
Personal injury
Record-keeping
Recreation / Exercise
Restraints : chemical
Sanitation / living conditions
Solitary confinement/Supermax (conditions or process)
Staff (number, training, qualifications, wages)
Suicide prevention
Totality of conditions
Medical/Mental Health
Dental care
Hepatitis
Medical care, general
Medication, administration of
Mental health care, general
Self-injurious behaviors
Skin Infections
Suicide prevention
Tuberculosis
Untreated pain
Vision care
Wound care
Plaintiff Type
Private Plaintiff
Type of Facility
Government-run
Causes of Action 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Defendant(s) Arizona Department of Corrections
Plaintiff Description A class of Arizona prisoners who experienced deficiencies in the Department of Corrections health care system
Indexed Lawyer Organizations ACLU Chapters (any)
ACLU National Prison Project
Prison Law Office
Class action status sought Yes
Class action status granted Yes
Filed Pro Se No
Prevailing Party Plaintiff
Public Int. Lawyer Yes
Nature of Relief Attorneys fees
Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement
Source of Relief Settlement
Form of Settlement Court Approved Settlement or Consent Decree
Order Duration 2014 - n/a
Filing Year 2012
Case Ongoing Yes
Case Listing PC-AZ-0017 : Gamez v. Ryan (D. Ariz.)
Additional Resources
click to show/hide detail
  See this case at CourtListener.com (May provide additional documents and, for active cases, real-time alerts)
  Civil Rights Injunctions Over Time: A Case Study of Jail and Prison Court Orders
N.Y.U. Law Review
Date: May 2006
By: Margo Schlanger (Washington University Faculty)
Citation: 81 N.Y.U. L. Rev. 550 (2006)
[ Detail ] [ PDF ] [ External Link ]

  Judicial Policy Making and the Modern State: How the Courts Reformed America's Prisons
Book
Date: Jan. 1, 1998
By: Malcolm M. Feeley & Edward Rubin (UC Berkeley Boalt Hall School of Law & Vanderbilt School of Law Faculty Faculty)
Citation: (1998)
[ Detail ]

Docket(s)
2:12-cv-601 (D. Ariz.)
PC-AZ-0018-9000.pdf | Detail
Date: 12/17/2018
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
General Documents
Lawsuit Charges Arizona Prison Officials with Failing to Provide Adequate Health Care, Inhumane Use of Solitary Confinement
PC-AZ-0018-0003.pdf | Detail
Date: 03/06/2012
Class Action Complaint for Injunctive and Declaratory Relief [ECF# 1]
PC-AZ-0018-0001.pdf | Detail
Date: 03/22/2012
Order [Denying Motion to Dismiss] [ECF# 175] (D. Ariz.)
PC-AZ-0018-0002.pdf | Detail
Date: 10/10/2012
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Declaration of Craig Haney, Ph.D., J.D. [ECF# 240-1]
PC-AZ-0018-0032.pdf | Detail
Date: 11/09/2012
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Order [Granting Class Certification] (289 F.R.D. 513) (D. Ariz.)
PC-AZ-0018-0004.pdf | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Date: 03/05/2013
Source: Westlaw
Expert Report of Craig Haney, Ph.D., J.D. [ECF# 1104]
PC-AZ-0018-0023.pdf | External Link | Detail
Date: 11/07/2013
Confidential Report of Robert L. Cohen, M.D. [ECF# 1104]
PC-AZ-0018-0005.pdf | External Link | Detail
Date: 11/08/2013
Confidential Report of Todd Randall Wilcox, M.D., M.B.A., C.C.H.P.-A [ECF# 1104]
PC-AZ-0018-0008.pdf | External Link | Detail
Date: 11/08/2013
Expert Report of Pablo Stewart, M.D. [ECF# 1104]
PC-AZ-0018-0011.pdf | External Link | Detail
Date: 11/08/2013
Confidential Expert Report of Jay Shulman, DMD, MA, MSPH [ECF# 1104]
PC-AZ-0018-0016.pdf | External Link | Detail
Date: 11/08/2013
Expert Report of Eldon Vail [ECF# 1104]
PC-AZ-0018-0020.pdf | External Link | Detail
Date: 11/08/2013
Expert Report of Brie Williams, M.D., M.S. [ECF# 1104]
PC-AZ-0018-0025.pdf | External Link | Detail
Date: 11/08/2013
Supplemental Expert Report of Pablo Stewart, M.D. [ECF# 1104]
PC-AZ-0018-0012.pdf | External Link | Detail
Date: 12/09/2013
Supplemental Expert Report of Brie Williams, M.D., M.S. [ECF# 1104]
PC-AZ-0018-0026.pdf | External Link | Detail
Date: 12/09/2013
Confidential Rebuttal Report of Robert L. Cohen, M.D. [ECF# 1104]
PC-AZ-0018-0006.pdf | External Link | Detail
Date: 01/31/2014
Confidential Rebuttal Report of Todd Randall Wilcox, M.D., M.B.A., C.C.H.P.-A [ECF# 1104]
PC-AZ-0018-0009.pdf | External Link | Detail
Date: 01/31/2014
Rebuttal Expert Report of Pablo Stewart, M.D. [ECF# 1104]
PC-AZ-0018-0013.pdf | External Link | Detail
Date: 01/31/2014
Confidential Rebuttal Report of Jay Shulman, DMD, MA, MSPH [ECF# 1104]
PC-AZ-0018-0017.pdf | External Link | Detail
Date: 01/31/2014
Rebuttal Declaration of Eldon Vail [ECF# 1104]
PC-AZ-0018-0021.pdf | External Link | Detail
Date: 01/31/2014
Rebuttal Report of Craig Haney, J.D. Ph.D. [ECF# 1104]
PC-AZ-0018-0024.pdf | External Link | Detail
Date: 01/31/2014
Rebuttal Expert Report of Brie Williams, M.D., M.S. [ECF# 1104]
PC-AZ-0018-0027.pdf | External Link | Detail
Date: 01/31/2014
Confidential Supplemental Report of Robert L. Cohen, M.D. [ECF# 1104]
PC-AZ-0018-0007.pdf | External Link | Detail
Date: 02/24/2014
Second Supplemental Expert Report of Pablo Stewart, M.D. [ECF# 1104]
PC-AZ-0018-0014.pdf | External Link | Detail
Date: 02/24/2014
Confidential Supplemental Expert Report of Jay Shulman, DMD, MA, MSPH [ECF# 1104]
PC-AZ-0018-0018.pdf | External Link | Detail
Date: 02/24/2014
Supplemental Report of Eldon Vail [ECF# 1104]
PC-AZ-0018-0022.pdf | External Link | Detail
Date: 02/24/2014
Confidential Supplemental Report of Todd Randall Wilcox, M.D., M.B.A., C.C.H.P.-A [ECF# 1104]
PC-AZ-0018-0010.pdf | External Link | Detail
Date: 04/02/2014
Opinion [9th Circuit Court of Appeals] (754 F.3d 657)
PC-AZ-0018-0031.pdf | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Date: 06/05/2014
Source: Google Scholar
Order [Denying Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment] [ECF# 1065] (2014 WL 3887867) (D. Ariz.)
PC-AZ-0018-0029.pdf | WESTLAW | Detail
Date: 08/07/2014
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Third Supplemental Expert Report of Pablo Stewart, M.D
PC-AZ-0018-0015.pdf | External Link | Detail
Date: 08/29/2014
Second Confidential Supplemental Expert Report of Jay Shulman, DMD, MA, MSPH
PC-AZ-0018-0019.pdf | External Link | Detail
Date: 08/29/2014
Stipulation
PC-AZ-0018-0028.pdf | External Link | Detail
Date: 10/14/2014
Source: Plaintiffs' counsel
Order [ECF# 1458] (D. Ariz.)
PC-AZ-0018-0038.pdf | Detail
Date: 02/25/2015
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Order [ECF# 2373] (D. Ariz.)
PC-AZ-0018-0034.pdf | Detail
Date: 10/10/2017
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Reporter's Transcript of Proceedings
PC-AZ-0018-0033.pdf | Detail
Date: 12/20/2017
Order and Judgment of Civil Contempt [ECF# 2898] (2018 WL 3239691) (D. Ariz.)
PC-AZ-0018-0035.pdf | WESTLAW | Detail
Date: 06/22/2018
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Order [ECF# 2900] (2018 WL 3238944) (D. Ariz.)
PC-AZ-0018-0036.pdf | WESTLAW | Detail
Date: 06/22/2018
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Order [ECF# 2902] (2018 WL 3239692) (D. Ariz.)
PC-AZ-0018-0037.pdf | WESTLAW | Detail
Date: 06/22/2018
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
show all people docs
Judges Duncan, David K. (D. Ariz.) [Magistrate] show/hide docs
PC-AZ-0018-0034 | PC-AZ-0018-0035 | PC-AZ-0018-0036 | PC-AZ-0018-0037 | PC-AZ-0018-0038
Noonan, John T. Jr. (Ninth Circuit) show/hide docs
PC-AZ-0018-0031
Reinhardt, Stephen Roy (Ninth Circuit) show/hide docs
PC-AZ-0018-0031
Wake, Neil Vincent (D. Ariz.) show/hide docs
PC-AZ-0018-0002 | PC-AZ-0018-0004 | PC-AZ-0018-0029
Watford, Paul Jeffrey (Ninth Circuit) show/hide docs
PC-AZ-0018-0031
Plaintiff's Lawyers Abela, Maya S. (Arkansas) show/hide docs
PC-AZ-0018-0033
Ahlers, James A (Arizona) show/hide docs
PC-AZ-0018-0001 | PC-AZ-0018-9000
Alewelt, Jennifer (Arizona) show/hide docs
PC-AZ-0018-0001 | PC-AZ-0018-9000
Amiri, Amir Q. (California) show/hide docs
PC-AZ-0018-0028
Barr, Daniel C. (Arizona) show/hide docs
PC-AZ-0018-0001 | PC-AZ-0018-0028 | PC-AZ-0018-9000
Brantley, Kevin (California) show/hide docs
PC-AZ-0018-0028
Calderon, Sophia Helena (California) show/hide docs
PC-AZ-0018-9000
Du Mee, Matthew B (Arizona) show/hide docs
PC-AZ-0018-0001 | PC-AZ-0018-0028 | PC-AZ-0018-9000
Durkin, Brenna (Arizona) show/hide docs
PC-AZ-0018-0028
Eidenbach, Kristin T (Arizona) show/hide docs
PC-AZ-0018-0001 | PC-AZ-0018-0028 | PC-AZ-0018-0033 | PC-AZ-0018-9000
Fathi, David Cyrus (District of Columbia) show/hide docs
PC-AZ-0018-0001 | PC-AZ-0018-0020 | PC-AZ-0018-0021 | PC-AZ-0018-0022 | PC-AZ-0018-0023 | PC-AZ-0018-0024 | PC-AZ-0018-0028 | PC-AZ-0018-0033 | PC-AZ-0018-9000
Fettig, Amy (District of Columbia) show/hide docs
PC-AZ-0018-0001 | PC-AZ-0018-0020 | PC-AZ-0018-0021 | PC-AZ-0018-0022 | PC-AZ-0018-0023 | PC-AZ-0018-0024 | PC-AZ-0018-0028 | PC-AZ-0018-0033 | PC-AZ-0018-9000
Flood, Kelly Joyce (Arizona) show/hide docs
PC-AZ-0018-0020 | PC-AZ-0018-0021 | PC-AZ-0018-0022 | PC-AZ-0018-0023 | PC-AZ-0018-0024 | PC-AZ-0018-9000
Freeman, Taylor (Texas) show/hide docs
PC-AZ-0018-0028
George, Warren E. Jr. (California) show/hide docs
PC-AZ-0018-0028
Gerlicher, Amelia Morrow (Alaska) show/hide docs
PC-AZ-0018-0028 | PC-AZ-0018-9000
Gray, John H (Arizona) show/hide docs
PC-AZ-0018-0001 | PC-AZ-0018-0028 | PC-AZ-0018-9000
Hardy, Alison (California) show/hide docs
PC-AZ-0018-0001 | PC-AZ-0018-0020 | PC-AZ-0018-0021 | PC-AZ-0018-0022 | PC-AZ-0018-0028 | PC-AZ-0018-9000
Hosseini, Ilham A (California) show/hide docs
PC-AZ-0018-9000
Kader, Sarah Eve (Arizona) show/hide docs
PC-AZ-0018-0028 | PC-AZ-0018-9000
Kendrick, Corene Thaedra (California) show/hide docs
PC-AZ-0018-0001 | PC-AZ-0018-0020 | PC-AZ-0018-0021 | PC-AZ-0018-0022 | PC-AZ-0018-0023 | PC-AZ-0018-0024 | PC-AZ-0018-0028 | PC-AZ-0018-0033 | PC-AZ-0018-9000
Kiernan, David C (California) show/hide docs
PC-AZ-0018-9000
Levinson, Dara (California) show/hide docs
PC-AZ-0018-0028
Lyall, James Duff (Arizona) show/hide docs
PC-AZ-0018-0001 | PC-AZ-0018-0020 | PC-AZ-0018-0021 | PC-AZ-0018-0022 | PC-AZ-0018-0023 | PC-AZ-0018-0024 | PC-AZ-0018-0028 | PC-AZ-0018-9000
Mamedova, Kamilla (New York) show/hide docs
PC-AZ-0018-0028 | PC-AZ-0018-9000
Messina, Jennifer K (New York) show/hide docs
PC-AZ-0018-0028 | PC-AZ-0018-9000
Mitchell, Caroline N. (California) show/hide docs
PC-AZ-0018-0001 | PC-AZ-0018-0028 | PC-AZ-0018-9000
Norman, Sara Linda (California) show/hide docs
PC-AZ-0018-0001 | PC-AZ-0018-0020 | PC-AZ-0018-0021 | PC-AZ-0018-0022 | PC-AZ-0018-0023 | PC-AZ-0018-0024 | PC-AZ-0018-0028 | PC-AZ-0018-9000
Peters, Jerica Lyn (Arizona) show/hide docs
PC-AZ-0018-0028
Pochoda, Daniel Joseph (Arizona) show/hide docs
PC-AZ-0018-0001 | PC-AZ-0018-0020 | PC-AZ-0018-0021 | PC-AZ-0018-0022 | PC-AZ-0018-0023 | PC-AZ-0018-0024 | PC-AZ-0018-0028 | PC-AZ-0018-9000
Quereshi, Ajmel (District of Columbia) show/hide docs
PC-AZ-0018-0020 | PC-AZ-0018-0021 | PC-AZ-0018-0022 | PC-AZ-0018-0023 | PC-AZ-0018-0024 | PC-AZ-0018-0028 | PC-AZ-0018-9000
Rauh, Sarah (California) show/hide docs
PC-AZ-0018-9000
Rico, Jose De Jesus (Arizona) show/hide docs
PC-AZ-0018-0028
Ripke, Jill L (Arizona) show/hide docs
PC-AZ-0018-0001 | PC-AZ-0018-9000
Roberts, Douglas (California) show/hide docs
PC-AZ-0018-0001 | PC-AZ-0018-9000
Ross, Jessica Janespar (Arizona) show/hide docs
PC-AZ-0018-0028
Ryerson, Thomas D (Arizona) show/hide docs
PC-AZ-0018-0001 | PC-AZ-0018-9000
Specter, Donald H. (California) show/hide docs
PC-AZ-0018-0001 | PC-AZ-0018-0020 | PC-AZ-0018-0021 | PC-AZ-0018-0022 | PC-AZ-0018-0023 | PC-AZ-0018-0024 | PC-AZ-0018-0028 | PC-AZ-0018-9000
Suh, Eun Ae (Texas) show/hide docs
PC-AZ-0018-9000
Szanto, Ruth (Arizona) show/hide docs
PC-AZ-0018-0001 | PC-AZ-0018-9000
Varma, Asim (Arizona) show/hide docs
PC-AZ-0018-0028 | PC-AZ-0018-9000
Wilkes, John Laurens (Texas) show/hide docs
PC-AZ-0018-0028 | PC-AZ-0018-9000
Defendant's Lawyers Acedo, Nicholas Daniel (Arizona) show/hide docs
PC-AZ-0018-0028 | PC-AZ-0018-9000
Bojanowski, Timothy J (Arizona) show/hide docs
PC-AZ-0018-0028 | PC-AZ-0018-9000
Cloman, Courtney Rachel (Arizona) show/hide docs
PC-AZ-0018-9000
Fletcher, Ashlee B (Arizona) show/hide docs
PC-AZ-0018-0028 | PC-AZ-0018-9000
Gottfried, Michael Evan (Arizona) show/hide docs
PC-AZ-0018-0028 | PC-AZ-0018-9000
Hesman, Ashlee (Arizona) show/hide docs
PC-AZ-0018-0033
Horne, Thomas C. (Arizona) show/hide docs
PC-AZ-0018-0028
Lee, Jacob B. (Arizona) show/hide docs
PC-AZ-0018-0028
Love, Rachel (Arizona) show/hide docs
PC-AZ-0018-0028 | PC-AZ-0018-0033 | PC-AZ-0018-9000
Orcutt, Anne Marie (Arizona) show/hide docs
PC-AZ-0018-0028 | PC-AZ-0018-9000
Rand, Lucy Marie (Arizona) show/hide docs
PC-AZ-0018-0028 | PC-AZ-0018-9000
Struck, Daniel Patrick (Arizona) show/hide docs
PC-AZ-0018-0028 | PC-AZ-0018-0033 | PC-AZ-0018-9000
Valenti, Richard Michael (Arkansas) show/hide docs
PC-AZ-0018-0033
Watanabe, Katherine Emiko (Arizona) show/hide docs
PC-AZ-0018-9000
Wieneke, Kathleen L (Arizona) show/hide docs
PC-AZ-0018-0028 | PC-AZ-0018-9000
Zuerlein, Ashley Brook (Arizona) show/hide docs
PC-AZ-0018-9000
Other Lawyers Matthews, Warren W. (Alaska) show/hide docs
PC-AZ-0018-0003

- click to show/hide ALL -

new search
view search results
page permalink

- top of page -