Melendres et al v Sheridan et al

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
WO
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Manuel de Jesus Ortega Melendres, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated; et al.
Plaintiffs,
and
United States of America,
Plaintiff-Intervenor,
v.
Gerard A. Sheridan, in his official capacity
as Sheriff of Maricopa County, Arizona; et
al.
Defendants.
No. CV-07-2513-PHX-GMS
ORDER
I. Finality of Discipline Under Arizona State Law
At the March 12, 2026 status conference (Doc. 3418), the Court addressed
paragraph 228 of the Court’s Second Supplemental Injunctive Order, which states:
The Sheriff or his designee has the authority to rescind, revoke
or alter any disciplinary decision made by either the
Commander of the Professional Standards Bureau or the
appointed MCSO disciplinary authority so long as:
a. that decision does not relate to the Sheriff or his designee;
b. the Sheriff or his designee provides a thorough written and
reasonable explanation for the grounds of the decision as to
each employee involved;
c. the written explanation is placed in the employment files of
all employees who were affected by the decision of the Sheriff
Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 3448 Filed 04/01/26 Page 1 of 6

- 2 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
or his designee; and
d. the written explanation is available to the public upon
request.
(Doc. 1765 ¶ 228). The Court raised several concerns with the provision, noting that the
“paragraph might erroneously be read to conflict with state law concerning the finality of
the MCSO’s disciplinary decisions.” (Doc. 3422 at 4). The Court invited the parties to
comment on the following four questions:
(1) Does the Sheriff have the authority under state law to alter disciplinary decisions
that have become final under state law?
(2) Does ¶ 228 grant the Sheriff any additional authority not already provided under
state law?
(3) If the Sheriff alters any discipline imposed by a pre-determination hearing
officer, can the Monitor take into account such alteration when considering the
Sheriff’s compliance with his obligation to provide “consistently applied” and
“fair” discipline under Doc 1765 ¶ 219?
(4) Does the Sheriff have the authority to alter factual determinations that the MCSO
and/or the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office are required to disclose as
exculpatory or impeachment evidence under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83
(1963), and Arizona state law (e.g., A.R.S. §§ 38-1117, 1119)?
(Doc. 3422; Doc. 3425).
The parties, in their briefings submitted to the Court, disagreed on the first, third,
and fourth questions. (Doc. 3446; Doc. 3447). Nonetheless, the parties both agreed—
under their competing interpretations of the Sheriff’s authority to alter final disciplinary
decisions—that ¶ 228 does not provide the Sheriff with any additional authority to alter
any discipline that is not already provided for under state law. (Doc. 3446 at 5-6; Doc.
3447 at 9). The Court will therefore amend ¶ 228 to clarify that the Sheriff may only
rescind, revoke, or alter a disciplinary decision only when acting pursuant to his authority
under state law. The Court will keep ¶ 228’s procedural requirements—which require the
Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 3448 Filed 04/01/26 Page 2 of 6

- 3 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Sheriff or his designee to provide a thorough written and reasonable explanation for the
change in disciplinary decision, place that decision in the employment files of all
employees affected by the Sheriff’s decision, and provide that explanation to the public
upon request—in place.
The Monitor under his current authority may evaluate such decisions to assess
whether the Sheriff is consistently and fairly applying discipline within the MCSO. (Doc.
1765 ¶ 219). Defendants cite to the Arizona Court of Appeals’ decision in Hounshell v.
White to support their argument that the Court should not impose any additional “oversight
or limitations over the Sheriff’s authority to alter discipline on the basis that inconsistent
disciplinary might exist.” (Doc. 3447 at 10 (citing 220 Ariz. 1, 6, 202 P.3d 466, 471 (Ct.
App. 2008))). But neither the Sheriff nor the Board in Hounshell were subject to a federal
civil rights judgment based on the manipulation of their own disciplinary systems.
Paragraph 219 was originally necessitated, at least in part, due to the present Sheriff’s
unfair and inconsistent manipulation of the disciplinary process when he was Sheriff
Arpaio’s Chief Deputy. See Melendres v. Maricopa County, 897 F.3d 1217, 1222 (9th Cir.
2018) (Melendres IV). Now, of course, the Sheriff may alter discipline to ensure that it is
consistently and fairly applied. He may also alter discipline in a way that violates those
principles. (Doc. 3447 at 11). That is part of the reason that the current order allows the
Monitor to make such an assessment. The Defendants offer no persuasive argument that
the Court’s existing order in this respect should be changed.
The Court will withhold ruling on the first and fourth questions until such point as
these issues are presented to the Court as a live controversy in this case.
II. The Appointment of Ms. Jaffer as the Independent Investigator
Separately, at the March 25, 2026 status conference (Doc. 3438), the Court
discussed with the parties the appointment of Shaneeda Jaffer as an outside independent
investigator for IA 2026-0084, as well as any future investigations for which an outside
independent investigator is required. The Court also recognized that certain provisions in
the Court’s previous order appointing Ms. Jaffer as the independent investigator for IA
Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 3448 Filed 04/01/26 Page 3 of 6

- 4 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2025-0185 (e.g., Doc. 3191 ¶ 10) may conflict with Arizona state law and MCSO policy
regarding the confidentiality of ongoing internal affairs investigations. See, e.g., A.R.S. §
38-1109; MCSO Internal Investigation Policy GH-2 §§ 2(B), 21-23. It discussed with the
parties a different method for approving proposed new IA investigations, which will not
require any party to know the details of additional proposed investigations—in compliance
with Arizona law and MCSO policy—and received the approval of the parties in concept.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly,
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED amending Paragraph 228 of the Second
Supplemental Injunctive Order (Doc. 1765) as follows:
228. The Sheriff or his designee may rescind, revoke or alter a disciplinary
decision only when acting under his authority under state law, and only
where:
a. that decision does not relate to the Sheriff or his designee;
b. the Sheriff or his designee provides a thorough written and reasonable
explanation for the grounds of the decision as to each employee
involved;
c. the written explanation is placed in the employment files of all
employees who were affected by the decision of the Sheriff or his
designee; and
d. the written explanation is available to the public upon request.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED appointing Shaneeda Jaffer as an outside
independent investigator in this case for IA 2026-0084, as well as any future investigations
in which an outside independent investigator is required. In appointing Ms. Jaffer as the
outside independent investigator, paragraphs one through fifteen of Doc. 3191 are
incorporated and applicable to her subsequent investigations, subject to the further
revisions below. Furthermore, the Court’s previous orders describing the nature of Ms.
Jaffer’s position and detailing her access to MCSO attorney-client privileged and work-
Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 3448 Filed 04/01/26 Page 4 of 6

- 5 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
product documents as detailed in Doc. 3307 and Doc. 3334 remain applicable to Ms.
Jaffer’s continued appointment.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED amending Paragraph 1 of Doc. 3191 as follows:
1. The Monitor shall notify the Independent Investigator when a PSB
complaint has been assigned to her. The Monitor shall provide the
Independent Investigator with a copy of the PSB complaint and thereafter
provide no direction to the Independent Investigator.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED amending Paragraph 2 of Doc. 3191 as follows:
2. The Independent Investigator shall pursue all assigned matters
independently and shall receive cooperation and be provided with all
access to information from all parties, as provided by this Court’s orders.
The Independent Investigator shall have access to MCSO privileged and
work-product materials to the extent outlined in Doc. 3307 and Doc.
3334.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED amending Paragraph 9 of Doc. 3191 as follows:
9. The Monitor and the parties are directed to promptly comply with the
Independent Investigator’s requests for information. The Monitor and the
Independent Investigator may communicate to coordinate their
investigations. Nevertheless, each is independently responsible for their
respective jurisdiction set forth in this Order, and each should make
independent decisions within their own delegated responsibility. The
Monitor retains the same supervisory authority over the results of the
investigation, as he does over all other PSB investigations, but the
Monitor may not use information arising from the PSB investigation,
unless the Monitor independently uncovered the information in his own
inquiries and/or disclosed that information to the Independent
Investigator. To the extent the Independent Investigator receives
information that is subject to the attorney-client privilege or work-product
Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 3448 Filed 04/01/26 Page 5 of 6

- 6 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
protection, she shall not disclose such documents to the Monitor. To the
extent that the Independent Investigator is not sure whether documents in
her possession are protected by any attorney-client privilege or work-
product protection, she may raise the issue with the Court to clarify next
steps.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED amending Paragraph 10 of Doc. 3191 as follows:
10. To the extent that the Independent Investigator identifies other matters
that should be investigated or reinvestigated, the Independent Investigator
shall indicate to the Court, in writing, the subject of such investigation
and the likely principals. This writing shall define the scope of the
investigation and shall either be approved or disapproved by the Court.
If approved, the Court will direct the MCSO Professional Standards
Bureau to open an investigation file in the appropriate consecutive
numbers. The Court will subsequently lodge the Independent
Investigator’s correspondence to the Court under seal.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED directing Ms. Jaffer to comply with the amended
¶ 10 of Doc. 3191 regarding the three areas of additional investigation identified in her
correspondence with the parties and the Court on March 24, 2026.
Dated this 1st day of April, 2026.
Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 3448 Filed 04/01/26 Page 6 of 6