On August 23, 2018, three Maricopa County, Arizona residents who were referred to Maricopa County's Marijuana Diversion program filed this class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona. The plaintiffs sued Maricopa County and Treatment Assessment Screening Center, Incorporated, a private company, under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The plaintiffs, represented by the Civil Rights Corps and private counsel, sought injunctive and monetary relief, claiming violations of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. The plaintiffs alleged that the Maricopa County Attorney's Office and Treatment Assessment Screening Center jointly operated a marijuana possession diversion program that discriminated against the poor in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment, and led to unreasonable searches and seizures in violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. Specifically, the defendants were, under threat of felony prosecution, subject to longer terms of imprisonment, repeated drug tests and increased fee payments due to their inability to pay fees associated with the program. One class member individually sought injunctive relief to prevent Maricopa County from keeping her in the diversion program if she could not pay the fees associated with completing the program. The case was assigned to Judge James A. Teilborg but immediately reassigned to Judge Steven P. Logan.

On October 12, 2018, the case was reassigned to Judge James A. Soto. That same day, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on October 12, 2018, adding a third representative to the class.

In January 2019, the parties agreed to Magistrate Judge Jurisdiction and the case was assigned to Magistrate Judge Eric J. Markovich.

After the submission of the amended complaint, several defendants filed motions to dismiss the case with regards to the allegations leveled against them specifically. Magistrate Judge Eric J. Markovich denied all these motions in a June 18, 2019 order (2019 WL 2515950). He stated that the plaintiffs sufficiently pleaded the elements of a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim and that, because the violations of rights were ongoing, there is no statute of limitations concerns. As for the Treatment Assessment Screening Center, he stated that the group was not subject to qualified immunity because it was being sued as an organization, not in individual capacity. He also wrote that the County Attorney was eligible for suit because he oversaw what the plaintiffs allege is a discriminatory practice. He added that as a municipality, the County Attorney was not subject to sovereign immunity.

On September 23, 2019, the plaintiffs submitted a second amended complaint adding another representative to the class. Discovery is ongoing in the case.

Emma Holcomb - 10/17/2018
Ellen Aldin - 06/05/2020


compress summary