University of Michigan Law School
Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse
new search
view search results
page permalink
Case Name Doe v. Johnson [later Kelly] IM-AZ-0021
Docket / Court 4:15-cv-00250-DCB ( D. Ariz. )
State/Territory Arizona
Case Type(s) Immigration and/or the Border
Attorney Organization ACLU Chapters (any)
ACLU National (all projects)
American Immigration Council's Legal Action Center
Lawyers Comm. for Civil Rights Under Law
National Immigration Law Center
Case Summary
On June 8, 2015, civil detainees confined in a U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) "hold room" within the Tucson Sector of the U.S. Border Patrol filed this class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona, alleging violations of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth ... read more >
On June 8, 2015, civil detainees confined in a U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) "hold room" within the Tucson Sector of the U.S. Border Patrol filed this class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona, alleging violations of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). All plaintiffs were apprehended at or near the U.S. border with Mexico and then detained. The plaintiffs, represented by attorneys from the ACLU, the National Immigration Law Center, the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights, and the law firm Morrison & Foerster, sought declaratory and injunctive relief, alleging that they were subjected to inhumane and punitive conditions while being detained in holding cells.

On Aug. 14, 2015, the District Court (Senior Judge David C. Bury) granted plaintiffs' motion for expedited discovery. 2015 WL 5086291 (D. Ariz. 2015). On Aug. 28, plaintiffs moved for sanctions against defendants, asserting that defendants had violated discovery rules by destroying critical video evidence of unconstitutional conditions of confinement in the Tuscon Sector CBP facilities. On Sept. 28, 2015, Judge Bury granted plaintiffs' motion for sanctions in part. He found that defendants had caused spoliation of evidence and created prejudice against plaintiffs, because the destroyed videos contained the only visual evidence of conditions of confinement in these facilities. Consequently, Judge Bury ordered that defendants immediately produce all existing and retained video evidence of detainee holding areas that were the subject of this case. 2015 WL 13021467 (D. Ariz. 2015).

On Jan.11, 2016, Judge Bury certified the case as a class action. The class consisted of all individuals who at that time or in the future were detained for one or more nights at a Tuscon Sector CBP facility. 163 F.Supp.3d 630 (D. Ariz. 2016). The same day, Judge Bury issued another order granting in part and denying in part defendants' motion to dismiss, so that plaintiffs' APA claims were dismissed (on grounds that the challenged CBP conduct was not "final agency action") but so that plaintiffs' constitutional claims remained. 2016 WL 3484403 (D. Ariz. 2016).

On Jan. 28, 2016, Phoenix Newspapers, Inc., moved to intervene for the limited purpose of opposing defendants' Dec. 18, 2015 motion to seal various documents, and securing an order to unseal court records. Judge Bury granted that motion on June 26, 2016, holding that the public interest in access to the record outweighed the defendants' rationale for keeping the documents sealed. Rejecting the defendants' general reasons based on privacy and law enforcement, Judge Bury asked the defendants for a more specific showing of harm from the disclosure of any document not already covered by a protective order, and ordered the unsealing of several documents.

On Feb. 4, 2016, referring back to the Jan. 11 class certification order, Judge Bury ordered that "one or more nights" be understood to mean "more than 8 hours within the same calendar day."

On Mar. 10, 2016, plaintiffs filed a reply brief in support of their motion for a preliminary injunction. Plaintiffs argued that if defendants detained an immigrant for over eight hours in a calendar day, then defendants were obligated to provide minimum, constitutional care while that immigrant was in their custody.

On June 27, 2016, Judge Bury again amended the Jan. 11 order certifying the class, to include all individuals at that time or in the future who were detained at a Tuscon Sector CBP facility (regardless of duration). 2016 WL 8199309 (D. Ariz. 2016).

On July 21, 2016, Judge Bury denied defendants' June 21, 2016 motion for a protective order, mandating that defendants comply with procedures for asserting privileged information. 2016 WL 8199308 (D. Ariz. 2016).

On Aug. 2, 2016, Judge Bury granted in part and denied in part defendants' Dec. 18, 2015 motion to partially seal plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction. Subsequently, on Aug. 17, 2017, plaintiffs filed a partially-redacted brief in support of their motion for a preliminary injunction.

On Nov. 14-15, 2016, the Court held a hearing, and on Nov. 18, Judge Bury issued an order granting plaintiffs' motion for the preliminary injunction. He found that plaintiffs had established a likelihood of success on the merits of their constitutional claims, because violation of a constitutional right would constitute irreparable injury. Judge Bury stated that if defendants held detainees long enough for detainees to need to sleep, then defendants must maintain conditions of confinement adequate for the detainees' physical needs during that time (as there was no security rationale overriding this obligation). 2016 WL 8188563 (D. Ariz. 2016). Defendants moved for reconsideration on Dec. 2, which Judge Bury denied on Jan. 3, 2017. He did, though, clarify that the twelve-hour confinement period began when a detainee arrived at a CBP station. 2017 WL 467238 (D. Ariz. 2017).

On Dec. 27, 2016, Judge Bury extended the deadlines for discovery to be due by June 30, 2017, dispositive motions by July 31, 2017, and a joint proposed pretrial order by Aug. 30, 2017.

On Jan. 9, 2017, plaintiffs moved for sanctions against defendants for civil contempt, alleging violation of the court's Aug. 14, 2015 and Sept. 28, 2015 orders mandating that defendants produce relevant video evidence. Plaintiffs alleged that defendants had failed to preserve from destruction videos of the Tuscon Center hold rooms, and had failed to inform plaintiffs or the Court of this problem. Defendants responded on Feb. 3.

On Mar. 2, 2017, both parties filed notices to appeal to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, from Judge Bury's Nov. 18, 2016 and Jan. 3, 2017 orders. The 9th Circuit, on Mar. 3, opened two new dockets, Nos. 17-15381 and 17-15383, and set a briefing schedule. The 9th Circuit then set a mediation hearing for Mar. 20, but on that date, the Court declined to include the case in its mediation program.

Back in the District Court, on Mar. 13, 2017, Judge Bury granted in part and denied in part plaintiffs' Jan. 9, 2017 motion for sanctions against defendants for civil contempt. Judge Bury found that defendants had failed to take all reasonable steps within their power to preserve video evidence. While some violations were not good-faith or reasonable interpretations of court orders, however, other violations were merely technical or de minimis. Judge Bury ordered defendants to improve certain aspects of their data archiving, to meet with plaintiffs about their progress, and to pay plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and costs incurred in connection with this data discovery. Defendants responded on Mar. 20, stating that they were now either in compliance or on track to being in compliance with all requirements of the Court's Mar. 13 order.

In the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, on Mar. 30, 2017, plaintiffs filed their brief on cross-appeal. Plaintiffs acknowledged that the District Court had correctly recognized the detainees' due process rights to medical care, beds, and personal hygiene. Nevertheless, plaintiffs argued, the District Court had erred as a matter of law by allowing CBP to deny detainees medical screenings and prescriptions by trained personnel, to deprive detainees of beds when held overnight, and to provide merely body wipes in lieu of showers. Defendants submitted their brief on cross-appeal on Apr. 27. They argued that the detainees' due process rights did not include sleeping mats for all detainees after twelve hours, and that the District Court had not abused its discretion in the terms of the preliminary injunction, considering the unique challenges faced by the Tuscon Sector Border Patrol. Plaintiffs filed another brief on cross-appeal on May 25, and the defendants filed a reply brief on June 8. The 9th Circuit (Judges Tallman, Callahan, and Ezra) held oral argument on Oct. 16. As of Oct. 2017, the Court had not yet issued an order.

In the District Court, on Apr. 13, 2017, defendants followed up on the Mar. 13 civil contempt order. Defendants informed Judge Bury of potential corruption and gaps in relevant video recordings, and maintained that these were good-faith errors and that defendants were working to fix them. Also on Apr. 13, defendants moved to stay the District Court proceedings until the 9th Circuit ruled on the parties' cross-appeals of the District Court's preliminary injunction order. On Apr. 26, the plaintiffs opposed this motion to stay, and the defendants replied on May 3.

On May 25, 2017, Judge Bury granted in part and denied in part the motion to stay. Only expert discovery was stayed, while all other discovery was to proceed. Judge Bury stated:
The hardship and inequity falls decidedly on the Plaintiffs. Staying this discovery, suspends not only resolution of the case but puts the Plaintiff at an evidentiary disadvantage. It creates a chronic state of evidentiary suspension, with any end in sight being totally dependent on the Government’s ability to correct a problem which it has been unable or unwilling to correct for over a year.


Discovery was still underway as of late 2017.

This case is ongoing in both the district court and the court of appeals.

Frances Hollander - 10/04/2015
Ava Morgenstern - 12/02/2017


compress summary

- click to show/hide ALL -
Issues and Causes of Action
click to show/hide detail
Issues
Constitutional Clause
Due Process
Defendant-type
Law-enforcement
General
Access to lawyers or judicial system
Assault/abuse by staff
Bathing and hygiene
Conditions of confinement
Confinement/isolation
Food service / nutrition / hydration
Over/Unlawful Detention
Placement in detention facilities
Sanitation / living conditions
Immigration/Border
Border police
Constitutional rights
Detention - conditions
Undocumented immigrants - rights and duties
Medical/Mental Health
Medical care, general
Plaintiff Type
Private Plaintiff
Type of Facility
Government-run
Causes of Action Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 551 et seq.
Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201
Ex parte Young (federal or state officials)
Defendant(s) U.S. Border Patrol
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
U.S. Department of Homeland Security
Plaintiff Description Detainees in the Tucson sector of Customs and Border Protection
Indexed Lawyer Organizations ACLU Chapters (any)
ACLU National (all projects)
American Immigration Council's Legal Action Center
Lawyers Comm. for Civil Rights Under Law
National Immigration Law Center
Class action status sought Yes
Class action status granted Yes
Prevailing Party Plaintiff
Public Int. Lawyer Yes
Nature of Relief Preliminary injunction / Temp. restraining order
Attorneys fees
Source of Relief Litigation
None yet
Order Duration 2016 - n/a
Case Ongoing Yes
Additional Resources
click to show/hide detail
  Challenging Unconstitutional Conditions in CBP Detention Facilities
www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org
Date: Jun. 12, 2017
By: American Immigration Council
[ Detail ] [ External Link ]

  Doe v. Johnson: Challenge to Deplorable Detention Conditions in U.S. Customs & Border Protection Facilities
www.nilc.org
Date: Sep. 1, 2016
By: National Immigration Law Center (NILC)
[ Detail ] [ External Link ]

  Unconstitutional Conditions in CBP Detention Facilities Challenged in Class Action Lawsuit
www.lccr.com
Date: Jun. 8, 2015
By: Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights of the San Francisco Bay Area
[ Detail ] [ External Link ]

  Doe v. Johnson
www.acluaz.org
Date: Jun. 8, 2015
By: American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Arizona
[ Detail ] [ External Link ]

Docket(s)
4:15-cv-00250-DCB (D. Ariz.)
IM-AZ-0021-9000.pdf | Detail
Date: 05/26/2017
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
General Documents
Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief - Class Action [ECF# 1]
IM-AZ-0021-0001.pdf | Detail
Date: 06/08/2015
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification; Memorandum of Points and Authorities [ECF# 4]
IM-AZ-0021-0002.pdf | Detail
Date: 06/08/2015
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Order (2015 WL 5086291) (D. Ariz.)
IM-AZ-0021-0020.pdf | WESTLAW | Detail
Date: 08/14/2015
Source: Westlaw
Plaintiffs' Motion for Sanctions [ECF# 56]
IM-AZ-0021-0003.pdf | Detail
Date: 08/28/2015
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Order [ECF# 64] (2015 WL 13021467) (D. Ariz.)
IM-AZ-0021-0004.pdf | WESTLAW | Detail
Date: 09/28/2015
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Order Approving Stipulation and Protective Order [ECF# 68] (D. Ariz.)
IM-AZ-0021-0005.pdf | Detail
Date: 10/01/2015
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Order [ECF# 117] (163 F.Supp.3d 630) (D. Ariz.)
IM-AZ-0021-0006.pdf | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Date: 01/11/2016
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Order [ECF# 118] (163 F.Supp.3d 630) (D. Ariz.)
IM-AZ-0021-0007.pdf | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Date: 01/11/2016
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Motion of Phoenix Newspapers, Inc. to Intervene for the Limited Purpose of Opposing Defendants' Motion to Seal and Securing an Order to Unseal Court Records [ECF# 124]
IM-AZ-0021-0008.pdf | Detail
Date: 01/28/2016
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Order [ECF# 127] (D. Ariz.)
IM-AZ-0021-0009.pdf | Detail
Date: 02/04/2016
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Plaintiffs' Reply in Support of Motion for Preliminary Injunction [ECF# 145]
IM-AZ-0021-0010.pdf | Detail
Date: 03/10/2016
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Order Amending Class Definition [ECF# 173] (2016 WL 8199309) (D. Ariz.)
IM-AZ-0021-0012.pdf | WESTLAW | Detail
Date: 06/27/2016
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Order [ECF# 186] (2016 WL 8199308) (D. Ariz.)
IM-AZ-0021-0013.pdf | WESTLAW | Detail
Date: 07/21/2016
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Order [ECF# 189] (D. Ariz.)
IM-AZ-0021-0014.pdf | Detail
Date: 08/02/2016
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Brief in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction [ECF# 206]
IM-AZ-0021-0015.pdf | Detail
Date: 08/17/2016
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Order [ECF# 244] (2016 WL 8188563) (D. Ariz.)
IM-AZ-0021-0016.pdf | WESTLAW | Detail
Date: 11/18/2016
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Order [ECF# 261] (2017 WL 467238) (D. Ariz.)
IM-AZ-0021-0017.pdf | WESTLAW | Detail
Date: 01/03/2017
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Plaintiffs' Motion for Civil Contempt [ECF# 265]
IM-AZ-0021-0018.pdf | Detail
Date: 01/09/2017
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Order [ECF# 285] (D. Ariz.)
IM-AZ-0021-0019.pdf | Detail
Date: 03/13/2017
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Brief for Plaintiffs-Appellants-Cross-Appellees [Ct. of App. ECF# 15]
IM-AZ-0021-0021.pdf | Detail
Date: 03/30/2017
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Defendants-Appellees-Cross-Appellants' Brief [Ct. of App. ECF# BL-32]
IM-AZ-0021-0028.pdf | Detail
Date: 04/27/2017
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Response and Reply Brief for Plaintiffs-Appellants-Cross-Appellees [Ct. of App. ECF# BL-21]
IM-AZ-0021-0026.pdf | Detail
Date: 05/25/2017
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Order [ECF# 298] (D. Ariz.)
IM-AZ-0021-0022.pdf | Detail
Date: 05/25/2017
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Defendants-Appellees-Cross-Appellants' Reply Brief [Ct. of App. ECF# BL-29]
IM-AZ-0021-0027.pdf | Detail
Date: 06/08/2017
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Judges Bury, David C. (D. Ariz.)
IM-AZ-0021-0004 | IM-AZ-0021-0005 | IM-AZ-0021-0006 | IM-AZ-0021-0007 | IM-AZ-0021-0009 | IM-AZ-0021-0012 | IM-AZ-0021-0013 | IM-AZ-0021-0014 | IM-AZ-0021-0016 | IM-AZ-0021-0017 | IM-AZ-0021-0019 | IM-AZ-0021-0020 | IM-AZ-0021-0022 | IM-AZ-0021-9000
Plaintiff's Lawyers Balassone, Elizabeth Gilmore (California)
IM-AZ-0021-0001 | IM-AZ-0021-0002 | IM-AZ-0021-0003 | IM-AZ-0021-0010 | IM-AZ-0021-0015 | IM-AZ-0021-0018 | IM-AZ-0021-0021 | IM-AZ-0021-0026 | IM-AZ-0021-9000
Brill, Sophia M. (District of Columbia)
IM-AZ-0021-0026
Brody, Kathleen E. (Arizona)
IM-AZ-0021-0018 | IM-AZ-0021-0021 | IM-AZ-0021-0026 | IM-AZ-0021-9000
Cekola, James J. (California)
IM-AZ-0021-0018 | IM-AZ-0021-0021 | IM-AZ-0021-9000
Colella, Abigail L. (New York)
IM-AZ-0021-0021 | IM-AZ-0021-0026
Coles, Kevin Martin (California)
IM-AZ-0021-0001 | IM-AZ-0021-0002 | IM-AZ-0021-0003 | IM-AZ-0021-0010 | IM-AZ-0021-0015 | IM-AZ-0021-9000
Cortina, Samuel Christopher (California)
IM-AZ-0021-9000
Creighton, Emily J. (District of Columbia)
IM-AZ-0021-0001 | IM-AZ-0021-0002 | IM-AZ-0021-0003 | IM-AZ-0021-0015 | IM-AZ-0021-9000
Crow, Melissa E. (District of Columbia)
IM-AZ-0021-0001 | IM-AZ-0021-0002 | IM-AZ-0021-0003 | IM-AZ-0021-0010 | IM-AZ-0021-0015 | IM-AZ-0021-0018 | IM-AZ-0021-0021 | IM-AZ-0021-0026 | IM-AZ-0021-9000
de Ganon, Pieter S
IM-AZ-0021-0001 | IM-AZ-0021-0002 | IM-AZ-0021-0003 | IM-AZ-0021-0010 | IM-AZ-0021-0015 | IM-AZ-0021-0018 | IM-AZ-0021-0021 | IM-AZ-0021-0026 | IM-AZ-0021-9000
Della-Piana, Elisa (California)
IM-AZ-0021-0021 | IM-AZ-0021-0026 | IM-AZ-0021-9000
Esposito, Robert (California)
IM-AZ-0021-0018 | IM-AZ-0021-0021 | IM-AZ-0021-0026 | IM-AZ-0021-9000
Furnish, Brenda Munoz (Arizona)
IM-AZ-0021-0018 | IM-AZ-0021-0021 | IM-AZ-0021-0026 | IM-AZ-0021-9000
Hughes, Lena H. (District of Columbia)
IM-AZ-0021-0021 | IM-AZ-0021-0026
Joaquin, Linton (California)
IM-AZ-0021-0001 | IM-AZ-0021-0002 | IM-AZ-0021-0003 | IM-AZ-0021-0010 | IM-AZ-0021-0015 | IM-AZ-0021-0018 | IM-AZ-0021-0021 | IM-AZ-0021-0026 | IM-AZ-0021-9000
Kenney, Mary (District of Columbia)
IM-AZ-0021-0001 | IM-AZ-0021-0002 | IM-AZ-0021-0003 | IM-AZ-0021-0010 | IM-AZ-0021-0015 | IM-AZ-0021-0018 | IM-AZ-0021-0021 | IM-AZ-0021-0026 | IM-AZ-0021-9000
Leitch, Bryan J. (District of Columbia)
IM-AZ-0021-0021 | IM-AZ-0021-0026
Lopez, Victoria (Arizona)
IM-AZ-0021-0001 | IM-AZ-0021-0002 | IM-AZ-0021-0003 | IM-AZ-0021-0010 | IM-AZ-0021-0015 | IM-AZ-0021-9000
Lyall, James Duff (Arizona)
IM-AZ-0021-0001 | IM-AZ-0021-0002 | IM-AZ-0021-0003 | IM-AZ-0021-0010 | IM-AZ-0021-0015 | IM-AZ-0021-9000
Mayer, Colette Reiner (California)
IM-AZ-0021-0001 | IM-AZ-0021-0002 | IM-AZ-0021-0003 | IM-AZ-0021-0010 | IM-AZ-0021-0015 | IM-AZ-0021-0018 | IM-AZ-0021-0021 | IM-AZ-0021-0026 | IM-AZ-0021-9000
Maynard, Deanne (District of Columbia)
IM-AZ-0021-0021 | IM-AZ-0021-0026
McElhinny, Harold J. (California)
IM-AZ-0021-0001 | IM-AZ-0021-0002 | IM-AZ-0021-0003 | IM-AZ-0021-0010 | IM-AZ-0021-0015 | IM-AZ-0021-9000
Pochoda, Daniel Joseph (Arizona)
IM-AZ-0021-0001 | IM-AZ-0021-0002 | IM-AZ-0021-0003 | IM-AZ-0021-0010 | IM-AZ-0021-0015 | IM-AZ-0021-0018 | IM-AZ-0021-0021 | IM-AZ-0021-9000
Preciado, Nora (California)
IM-AZ-0021-0001 | IM-AZ-0021-0002 | IM-AZ-0021-0003 | IM-AZ-0021-0010 | IM-AZ-0021-0015 | IM-AZ-0021-0018 | IM-AZ-0021-0021 | IM-AZ-0021-0026 | IM-AZ-0021-9000
Reichlin-Melnick, Aaron (District of Columbia)
IM-AZ-0021-0021 | IM-AZ-0021-0026 | IM-AZ-0021-9000
Sallomi, Megan (California)
IM-AZ-0021-0021 | IM-AZ-0021-0026 | IM-AZ-0021-9000
Sigel, James R. (California)
IM-AZ-0021-0021 | IM-AZ-0021-0026
Silva, Travis (California)
IM-AZ-0021-0001 | IM-AZ-0021-0002 | IM-AZ-0021-0003 | IM-AZ-0021-0010 | IM-AZ-0021-0015 | IM-AZ-0021-9000
Stoupe, Louise Carita
IM-AZ-0021-0001 | IM-AZ-0021-0002 | IM-AZ-0021-0003 | IM-AZ-0021-0010 | IM-AZ-0021-0015 | IM-AZ-0021-0018 | IM-AZ-0021-0021 | IM-AZ-0021-0026 | IM-AZ-0021-9000
Tumlin, Karen C. (California)
IM-AZ-0021-0001 | IM-AZ-0021-0002 | IM-AZ-0021-0003 | IM-AZ-0021-0010 | IM-AZ-0021-0015 | IM-AZ-0021-0018 | IM-AZ-0021-0021 | IM-AZ-0021-0026 | IM-AZ-0021-9000
Defendant's Lawyers Celone, Michael Anthony (District of Columbia)
IM-AZ-0021-9000
Davila, Yamileth G. (District of Columbia)
IM-AZ-0021-9000
Fabian, Sarah B. (District of Columbia)
IM-AZ-0021-0027 | IM-AZ-0021-0028 | IM-AZ-0021-9000
Fishman, Dillon (District of Columbia)
IM-AZ-0021-9000
Kisor, Colin A. (District of Columbia)
IM-AZ-0021-9000
Parascandola, Christina B. (District of Columbia)
IM-AZ-0021-0027 | IM-AZ-0021-0028 | IM-AZ-0021-9000
Peachey, William Charles (District of Columbia)
IM-AZ-0021-0027 | IM-AZ-0021-0028
Readler, Chad A. (District of Columbia)
IM-AZ-0021-0027 | IM-AZ-0021-0028
Sheffield, Carlton F. (District of Columbia)
IM-AZ-0021-9000
Shieh, Woei-Tyng Daniel (District of Columbia)
IM-AZ-0021-9000
Vuong, Sarah Lake (District of Columbia)
IM-AZ-0021-9000
Other Lawyers Bodney, David Jeremy (Arizona)
IM-AZ-0021-0008 | IM-AZ-0021-9000

- click to show/hide ALL -

new search
view search results
page permalink

- top of page -