University of Michigan Law School
Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse
new search
view search results
page permalink
Case Name Doe v. Johnson [later Kelly, Nielsen] IM-AZ-0021
Docket / Court 4:15-cv-00250-DCB ( D. Ariz. )
State/Territory Arizona
Case Type(s) Immigration and/or the Border
Special Collection Post-WalMart decisions on class certification
Attorney Organization ACLU Affiliates (any)
American Immigration Council's Legal Action Center
Lawyers Comm. for Civil Rights Under Law
National Immigration Law Center
Case Summary
This is a class action about conditions of confinement in the "hold rooms" used by the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) for short-term detention of noncitizens apprehended near the border. The case deals with all the hold rooms in the Tucson Sector, which consists of nine "stations" ... read more >
This is a class action about conditions of confinement in the "hold rooms" used by the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) for short-term detention of noncitizens apprehended near the border. The case deals with all the hold rooms in the Tucson Sector, which consists of nine "stations" covering most of Arizona and accounted for 18% of all border patrol apprehensions along the U.S.-Mexico border in 2014. Most recently, the District Court entered a comprehensive opinion finding conditions unconstitutional.

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 of Arizona, the National Immigration Law Center, American Immigration Council, 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.

As expedited discovery proceeded, the plaintiffs moved in August 2015 for sanctions against defendants, asserting that defendants had violated discovery rules by destroying critical video evidence of unconstitutional conditions of confinement in the Tucson Sector CBP facilities. On Sept. 28, 2015, Judge Bury granted the plaintiffs' motion for sanctions in part. He found that defendants had caused spoliation of evidence and created prejudice against the 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 December 4, 2015, the plaintiffs filed a motion for a preliminary injunction, seeking an immediate order for improved conditions in the hold rooms. Briefing on the motion was stayed for a short time until the resolution of the class action and motion to dismiss issues.

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). A few weeks later, Judge Bury shifted the wording slighting, ordering that "one or more nights" be understood to mean "more than 8 hours within the same calendar day." And 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).

The same day as he granted certification of the class, Judge Bury issued another order granting in part and denying in part the defendants' motion to dismiss. The plaintiffs' APA claims were dismissed (on grounds that the challenged CBP conduct was not "final agency action"), but their constitutional claims remained. 2016 WL 3484403 (D. Ariz. 2016).

Once the class was certified and the motion to dismiss denied, briefing continued on plaintiffs' request for a preliminary injunction.

The defendants sought to seal various court documents, but Phoenix Newspapers, Inc., moved to intervene for the limited purpose of opposing that motion. Judge Bury granted intervention 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.

The preliminary injunction issue finally got to a hearing on Nov. 14-15, 2016; on Nov. 18, Judge Bury granted a preliminary injunction. He found that the plaintiffs had established a likelihood of success on the merits of their constitutional claims and that 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). The 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 Jan. 9, 2017, the plaintiffs moved for sanctions against the 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. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants had failed to preserve from destruction videos of the Tucson Center hold rooms, and had failed to inform the plaintiffs or the Court of this problem. The 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 the defendants for civil contempt. 2017 WL 7520602. Judge Bury found that the 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, other violations were merely technical or de minimis. Judge Bury ordered the defendants to improve certain aspects of their data archiving, to meet with plaintiffs about their progress, and to pay the 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, the plaintiffs filed their brief on cross-appeal. The plaintiffs acknowledged that the District Court had correctly recognized the detainees' due process rights to medical care, beds, and personal hygiene. Nevertheless, the 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. The 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. The 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.

In the District Court, on Apr. 13, 2017, the defendants followed up on the Mar. 13 civil contempt order. The 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, the 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 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.
On Dec. 22, 2017, the Ninth Circuit (Judges Tallman, Callahan, and Ezra) affirmed the District Court's Nov. 18 preliminary injunction order. 878 F.3d 710. (The order had required defendants to provide detainees after 12 hours with mats and blankets, but not beds, showers, or medical care provided by medical professionals.) The opinion, written by Judge Callahan, found that the District Court had not abused its discretion in the limited preliminary injunction. According to the opinion, the District Court had broad discretion to craft this remedy to balance the detainees' constitutional rights with the government's interests.

On Feb. 5, 2018, the plaintiffs petitioned the Ninth Circuit for a rehearing en banc. Plaintiffs argued that the Ninth Circuit's Dec. 22 decision conflicted with prior decisions of that court and the Supreme Court on (1) whether civil detainees' right to adequate medical care encompasses a right to screening conducted by properly trained individuals supervised by medical professionals, and (2) whether, having found the existence of constitutional violations, a district court may decline to fully remedy them based on government expense. However, on Mar. 13, the Ninth Circuit denied the rehearing petition. The Ninth Circuit mandate issued, putting into effect the judgment of its Dec. 22 decision.

On May 4, 2018, the plaintiffs filed a sealed proposed motion for partial summary judgment. The clerk was to file the motion if the plaintiffs' motion to seal is granted. Throughout the rest of 2018, the parties litigated what evidence would be permitted in the motion for summary judgment and whether exhibits would be sealed. When this was resolved (by an order granting in part and denying in part the defendants' motion to seal) the clerk filed the plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment.

The plaintiffs sought summary judgment on the issue of the defendants' obligation to provide beds. The plaintiffs asserted that civil pretrial detainees must be provided beds or mattresses raised off of the floor if held for any period requiring sleep and that "anything less, including floor mats, is a violation of their Fifth Amendment Due Process rights.” Further, the plaintiffs argued that the use of floor mats led to overcrowding and unsanitary conditions that are “reprehensible and dehumanizing.” The plaintiffs contended that there are no disputed facts precluding partial summary for their claim that civil detainees are constitutionally entitled to beds.

On March 15, 2019, Judge Bury issued an order denying the plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment. 2017 WL 7520603. Judge Bury held that Ninth Circuit case law does not support plaintiffs' request for judgment as a matter of law that providing floor mats rather than raised beds is an unconstitutional practice. Judge Bury concluded the court was to consider the severity and duration of the conditions, along with the operational needs of the detention facility, to determine whether these conditions constituted objective deprivation of the constitutional right to humane shelter. Judge Bury determined that this was a fact-intensive inquiry and could not be properly made on the summary judgment record.

Judge Bury ordered a 13-day bench trial set for January 13, 2020. For the remainder of 2019, the parties litigated various issues in preparation for trial. Beginning on January 13, 2020, the parties participated in a seven-day bench trial. On February 19, 2020, Judge Bury issued the court's finding of fact and conclusions of law, finding in favor of plaintiffs and against the defendants. 2020 WL 813774. Judge Bury concluded that the defendants' holding facilities were designed for short-term holds, "lasting hours not days." Judge Bury found that the conditions of extended confinement in defendants' holding facilities were "substantially worse than detainees face upon commitment to either a civil immigration detention facility or even a criminal detention facility, like a jail or prison." Accordingly, Judge Bury concluded that extended confinement in these facilities did not advance the government's legitimate interest in immigration enforcement and resulted in conditions, including detainees' inability to sleep for several nights, that were "presumptively punitive" and violated the Constitution.

Based on these conclusions and finding of fact, Judge Bury issued an order enjoining defendants from holding detainees considered to be "processing complete" for longer than 48 hours unless defendants provide "conditions of confinement that meet basic human needs for sleeping in a bed with a blanket, a shower, food that meets acceptable dietary standards, potable water, and medical assessments performed by a medical professional." Judge Bury adopted a "no longer than 48 hour" rule to accommodate logistic difficulties of transporting detainees after they are processed. Judge Bury maintained that anything beyond 48 hours forced CBP to perform the role of other civil immigration detention agencies and thus required it to provide the conditions of confinement standard at the facilities of other agencies.

On April 17, 2020, the court entered an order for a permanent injunction, setting minimum standards with respect to detention length, available care, and compliance. The permanent injunction adopted many of the same standards as both the preliminary injunction and proposed permanent injunction. The court required defendants to collect and maintain data about each individual's time in the detention center, provide that data to the plaintiffs on a quarterly basis for a two-year period, and allow plaintiffs to request class access visits on a quarterly basis for two years. Further, the defendants were also ordered to conduct internal compliance evaluations and provide them to plaintiffs.

The Court gave the defendants 90 days to attain compliance with the order. It also retained jurisdiction to reopen the case and enforce the permanent injunction and action. On September 11, 2020, two months following the defendants' third and final monthly status report, the plaintiffs filed a report alleging noncompliance. However, the court declined to act on the plaintiffs' report and instead noted on November 18, 2020, that the court's jurisdiction over the permanent injunction was to be narrow and only could be invoked if clear and convincing evidence of noncompliance were shown.

Defendants filed appeals as to both the court's finding and the permanent injunction, and plaintiffs filed cross-appeals to each. On November 10, 2020, defendants voluntarily dismissed their appeal, after which plaintiffs also dismissed their cross-appeals on November 18, 2020. The case remained on the district court docket for overseeing compliance with the injunction. As of March 5, 2021, however, there was no additional activity on the docket.

Frances Hollander - 10/04/2015
Ava Morgenstern - 03/19/2018
Aaron Gurley - 02/24/2020
Matthew Feng - 03/04/2021


compress summary

- click to show/hide ALL -
Issues and Causes of Action
click to show/hide detail
Issues
Constitutional Clause
Due Process
Content of Injunction
Preliminary relief granted
Recordkeeping
Reporting
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 Affiliates (any)
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
Filed Pro Se No
Prevailing Party Plaintiff
Public Int. Lawyer Yes
Nature of Relief Preliminary injunction / Temp. restraining order
Attorneys fees
Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement
Source of Relief Litigation
Order Duration 2020 - n/a
Filed 06/08/2015
Case Ongoing Yes
Additional Resources
click to show/hide detail
  See this case at CourtListener.com (May provide additional documents and, for active cases, real-time alerts)
  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 ]

Court Docket(s)
D. Ariz.
03/04/2021
4:15-cv-00250-DCB
IM-AZ-0021-9000.pdf | Detail
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
General Documents
D. Ariz.
06/08/2015
Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief - Class Action [ECF# 1]
IM-AZ-0021-0001.pdf | Detail
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
D. Ariz.
06/08/2015
Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification; Memorandum of Points and Authorities [ECF# 4]
IM-AZ-0021-0002.pdf | Detail
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
D. Ariz.
08/14/2015
Order [ECF# 51] (2015 WL 5086291)
IM-AZ-0021-0020.pdf | WESTLAW | Detail
Source: Westlaw
D. Ariz.
08/28/2015
Plaintiffs' Motion for Sanctions [ECF# 56]
IM-AZ-0021-0003.pdf | Detail
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
D. Ariz.
09/28/2015
Order [ECF# 64] (2015 WL 13021467)
IM-AZ-0021-0004.pdf | WESTLAW | Detail
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
D. Ariz.
10/01/2015
Order Approving Stipulation and Protective Order [ECF# 68]
IM-AZ-0021-0005.pdf | Detail
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
D. Ariz.
01/11/2016
Order [ECF# 117] (163 F.Supp.3d 630)
IM-AZ-0021-0006.pdf | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
D. Ariz.
01/11/2016
Order [ECF# 118] (163 F.Supp.3d 630)
IM-AZ-0021-0007.pdf | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
D. Ariz.
01/28/2016
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
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
D. Ariz.
02/04/2016
Order [ECF# 127]
IM-AZ-0021-0009.pdf | Detail
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
D. Ariz.
03/10/2016
Plaintiffs' Reply in Support of Motion for Preliminary Injunction [ECF# 145]
IM-AZ-0021-0010.pdf | Detail
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
D. Ariz.
06/27/2016
Order Amending Class Definition [ECF# 173] (2016 WL 8199309)
IM-AZ-0021-0012.pdf | WESTLAW | Detail
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
D. Ariz.
07/21/2016
Order [ECF# 186] (2016 WL 8199308)
IM-AZ-0021-0013.pdf | WESTLAW | Detail
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
D. Ariz.
08/02/2016
Order [ECF# 189]
IM-AZ-0021-0014.pdf | Detail
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
D. Ariz.
08/17/2016
Brief in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction [ECF# 206]
IM-AZ-0021-0015.pdf | Detail
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
D. Ariz.
11/18/2016
Order [ECF# 244] (2016 WL 8188563)
IM-AZ-0021-0016.pdf | WESTLAW | Detail
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
D. Ariz.
01/03/2017
Order [ECF# 261] (2017 WL 467238)
IM-AZ-0021-0017.pdf | WESTLAW | Detail
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
D. Ariz.
01/09/2017
Plaintiffs' Motion for Civil Contempt [ECF# 265]
IM-AZ-0021-0018.pdf | Detail
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
D. Ariz.
03/13/2017
Order [ECF# 285] (2017 WL 7520602)
IM-AZ-0021-0019.pdf | WESTLAW | Detail
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
U.S. Court of Appeals
03/30/2017
Brief for Plaintiffs-Appellants-Cross-Appellees [Ct. of App. ECF# 15]
IM-AZ-0021-0021.pdf | Detail
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
U.S. Court of Appeals
04/27/2017
Defendants-Appellees-Cross-Appellants' Brief [Ct. of App. ECF# BL-32]
IM-AZ-0021-0028.pdf | Detail
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
U.S. Court of Appeals
05/25/2017
Response and Reply Brief for Plaintiffs-Appellants-Cross-Appellees [Ct. of App. ECF# BL-21]
IM-AZ-0021-0026.pdf | Detail
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
D. Ariz.
05/25/2017
Order [ECF# 298] (2017 WL 7512896)
IM-AZ-0021-0022.pdf | WESTLAW | Detail
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
U.S. Court of Appeals
06/08/2017
Defendants-Appellees-Cross-Appellants' Reply Brief [Ct. of App. ECF# BL-29]
IM-AZ-0021-0027.pdf | Detail
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
U.S. Court of Appeals
12/22/2017
Opinion [Ct. of App. ECF# BL-44] (2017 WL 6545103)
IM-AZ-0021-0029.pdf | WESTLAW | Detail
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
U.S. Court of Appeals
02/05/2018
Petition for Panel Rehearing on Rehearing en Banc
IM-AZ-0021-0030.pdf | Detail
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
D. Ariz.
03/15/2019
Order [ECF# 383] (2019 WL 1227217)
IM-AZ-0021-0031.pdf | WESTLAW | Detail
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
D. Ariz.
02/19/2020
Findings of Fact and Conclussions and Law [ECF# 482] (2020 WL 813774)
IM-AZ-0021-0032.pdf | WESTLAW | Detail
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
D. Ariz.
04/17/2020
Order for: Permanent Injunction [ECF# 494]
IM-AZ-0021-0033.pdf | Detail
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
D. Ariz.
11/18/2020
Order [ECF# 518]
IM-AZ-0021-0034.pdf | Detail
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
show all people docs
Judges Bury, David C. (D. Ariz.) show/hide docs
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-0021-0031 | IM-AZ-0021-0032 | IM-AZ-0021-0033 | IM-AZ-0021-0034 | IM-AZ-0021-9000
Callahan, Consuelo Maria (Ninth Circuit) show/hide docs
IM-AZ-0021-0029
Plaintiff's Lawyers Atoyama−Little, Akari (California) show/hide docs
IM-AZ-0021-9000
Balassone, Elizabeth Gilmore (California) show/hide docs
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-0021-0030 | IM-AZ-0021-9000
Bernwanger, Bree (California) show/hide docs
IM-AZ-0021-9000
Borja, Aleyda Yvette (Arizona) show/hide docs
IM-AZ-0021-9000
Brill, Sophia M. (District of Columbia) show/hide docs
IM-AZ-0021-0026 | IM-AZ-0021-0030
Brody, Kathleen E. (Arizona) show/hide docs
IM-AZ-0021-0018 | IM-AZ-0021-0021 | IM-AZ-0021-0026 | IM-AZ-0021-9000
Cekola, James J. (California) show/hide docs
IM-AZ-0021-0018 | IM-AZ-0021-0021 | IM-AZ-0021-9000
Colella, Abigail L. (New York) show/hide docs
IM-AZ-0021-0021 | IM-AZ-0021-0026
Coles, Kevin Martin (California) show/hide docs
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) show/hide docs
IM-AZ-0021-9000
Creighton, Emily J. (District of Columbia) show/hide docs
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) show/hide docs
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 show/hide docs
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-0021-0030 | IM-AZ-0021-9000
Della-Piana, Elisa (California) show/hide docs
IM-AZ-0021-0021 | IM-AZ-0021-0026 | IM-AZ-0021-9000
Douglas, John Sebastiano (California) show/hide docs
IM-AZ-0021-9000
Esposito, Robert (California) show/hide docs
IM-AZ-0021-0018 | IM-AZ-0021-0021 | IM-AZ-0021-0026 | IM-AZ-0021-0030 | IM-AZ-0021-9000
Furnish, Brenda Munoz (Arizona) show/hide docs
IM-AZ-0021-0018 | IM-AZ-0021-0021 | IM-AZ-0021-0026 | IM-AZ-0021-9000
Huerta, Alvaro M. (California) show/hide docs
IM-AZ-0021-9000
Hughes, Lena H. (District of Columbia) show/hide docs
IM-AZ-0021-0021 | IM-AZ-0021-0026
Joaquin, Linton (California) show/hide docs
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) show/hide docs
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) show/hide docs
IM-AZ-0021-0021 | IM-AZ-0021-0026 | IM-AZ-0021-0030
Lieberman, Martin (Arizona) show/hide docs
IM-AZ-0021-9000
Londen, Jack W. (California) show/hide docs
IM-AZ-0021-9000
Lopez, Victoria (Arizona) show/hide docs
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) show/hide docs
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) show/hide docs
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-0021-0030 | IM-AZ-0021-9000
Maynard, Deanne (District of Columbia) show/hide docs
IM-AZ-0021-0021 | IM-AZ-0021-0026 | IM-AZ-0021-0030
McElhinny, Harold J. (California) show/hide docs
IM-AZ-0021-0001 | IM-AZ-0021-0002 | IM-AZ-0021-0003 | IM-AZ-0021-0010 | IM-AZ-0021-0015 | IM-AZ-0021-9000
Peard, William Bradford (Arizona) show/hide docs
IM-AZ-0021-9000
Pochoda, Daniel Joseph (Arizona) show/hide docs
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) show/hide docs
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) show/hide docs
IM-AZ-0021-0021 | IM-AZ-0021-0026 | IM-AZ-0021-9000
Sallomi, Megan (California) show/hide docs
IM-AZ-0021-0021 | IM-AZ-0021-0026 | IM-AZ-0021-9000
Sigel, James R. (California) show/hide docs
IM-AZ-0021-0021 | IM-AZ-0021-0026 | IM-AZ-0021-0030
Silva, Travis (California) show/hide docs
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 show/hide docs
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-0021-0030 | IM-AZ-0021-9000
Tumlin, Karen C. (California) show/hide docs
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
Walters, Karolina Joanna (District of Columbia) show/hide docs
IM-AZ-0021-9000
Wee, Christine Keeyeh (Arizona) show/hide docs
IM-AZ-0021-9000
Defendant's Lawyers Celone, Michael Anthony (District of Columbia) show/hide docs
IM-AZ-0021-9000
Davila, Yamileth G. (District of Columbia) show/hide docs
IM-AZ-0021-9000
Fabian, Sarah B. (District of Columbia) show/hide docs
IM-AZ-0021-0027 | IM-AZ-0021-0028 | IM-AZ-0021-9000
Fishman, Dillon (District of Columbia) show/hide docs
IM-AZ-0021-9000
Kisor, Colin A. (District of Columbia) show/hide docs
IM-AZ-0021-9000
Masetta−Alvarez, Katelyn (District of Columbia) show/hide docs
IM-AZ-0021-9000
Parascandola, Christina B. (District of Columbia) show/hide docs
IM-AZ-0021-0027 | IM-AZ-0021-0028 | IM-AZ-0021-9000
Peachey, William Charles (District of Columbia) show/hide docs
IM-AZ-0021-0027 | IM-AZ-0021-0028
Readler, Chad Andrew (District of Columbia) show/hide docs
IM-AZ-0021-0027 | IM-AZ-0021-0028
Sheffield, Carlton F. (District of Columbia) show/hide docs
IM-AZ-0021-9000
Shieh, Woei-Tyng Daniel (District of Columbia) show/hide docs
IM-AZ-0021-9000
Silvis, William C. (District of Columbia) show/hide docs
IM-AZ-0021-9000
Vuong, Sarah Lake (District of Columbia) show/hide docs
IM-AZ-0021-9000
Other Lawyers Bodney, David Jeremy (Arizona) show/hide docs
IM-AZ-0021-0008 | IM-AZ-0021-9000

- click to show/hide ALL -

new search
view search results
page permalink

- top of page -