Skip to main content

Appellate Section - Police Misconduct (Civil Cases)

Briefs and Opinions

  • Chiaverini v. City of Napoleon (S. Ct.) - Amicus
    • The court of appeals erred in holding that a single valid charge automatically defeats a Fourth Amendment malicious-prosecution claim
    Document Date 
    Supreme Court Decision, available at 2024 WL 3056034 06/20/24
    Brief as Amicus 02/07/24
  • Gonzalez v. Trevino (S. Ct.) - Amicus
    • The general requirement that a plaintiff must plead and prove the absence of probable cause is a limit on constitutional retaliatory-arrest damages claims, not the First Amendment itself
    • The court of appeals imposed unwarranted restrictions on the form of proof necessary to qualify for Nieves’s “similarly situated individuals” exception
    • Nieves’s general no-probable-cause requirement applies to all Section 1983 retaliatory-arrest claims
    Document Date 
    Supreme Court Decision, available at 2024 WL 3056010 06/20/24
    Brief as Amicus 12/18/23
  • Thompson v. Clark (S. Ct.) - Amicus
    • Petitioner asserts a Fourth Amendment claim most analogous to the common-law tort of malicious prosecution
    • A Section 1983 claim challenging a seizure pursuant to legal process should include a favorable-termination requirement
    • A termination may be “favorable” to the plaintiff even if it lacks affirmative indications of innocence
    Document Date 
    Supreme Court Decision, reported at 142 S. Ct. 1332 04/04/22
    Brief as Amicus 06/11/21
  • Torres v. Madrid (S. Ct.) - Amicus
    • The application of restraining physical force can effect a temporary seizure even if the subject does not yield
    • This Court should vacate the decision below and remand for further proceedings
    Document Date 
    Supreme Court Decision, reported at 141 S. Ct. 989 03/25/21
    Brief as Amicus 02/07/20
  • Maricopa County v. Melendres (S. Ct.) - Respondent
    • Certiorari is not warranted to review the court of appeals’ conclusion that Arizona sheriffs are policymakers for their counties concerning law enforcement
    • Certiorari is also not warranted to review petitioner’s contention that it cannot be required to fund the relief in this case on the theory that Arizona law bars funding remedies for willful or intentional misconduct
    • Petitioner’s argument that the Second Supplemental Injunction constituted an abuse of discretion does not warrant this Court’s review
    Document Date 
    Certiorari Denied, reported at 140 S. Ct. 96 10/07/19
    Opposition to Certiorari 04/10/19
  • Maricopa County v. United States (S. Ct.) - Respondent
    • The petition should be denied because the questions presented appear to lack ongoing practical significance for petitioner in this case
    • Three of the six counts in the United States’ complaint (Counts 2, 4, and 6) have been settled
    • Petitioner fulfilled the terms of the settlement agreement with respect to Count 4
    • The United States has also proposed terminating the settlement agreement regarding Counts 2 and 6 — the only settlement agreement for which the district court retains jurisdiction — because it believes that petitioner has complied with all terms of that agreement. If that agreement is terminated, then the issue of petitioner’s liability with respect to the settled counts will be moot
    Document Date 
    Certiorari Denied, reported at 139 S. Ct. 1373 03/25/19
    Opposition to Certiorari 02/15/19
  • United States v. Puerto Rico (1st Cir.) - Appellee
    • The text of the bankruptcy stay provisions, 11 U.S.C. 362 and 922, and this Court’s practice under PROMESA require that this appeal be stayed pending resolution of Puerto Rico’s petition for adjustment of debts
    Document Date 
    Response to Court Order to Show Cause 10/09/18
  • Sheridan v. Melendres (S. Ct.) - Respondent
    • The court of appeals correctly dismissed the appeal, and its decision does not conflict with any decision of this Court or another court of appeals
    • Section 1988(b) provides that in a proceeding to enforce Section 1983, “the court, in its discretion, may allow the prevailing party, other than the United States, a reasonable attorney’s fee as part of the costs”
    • The court of appeals determined that it was appropriate to award attorney’s fees incurred defending petitioner’s appeal, when petitioner had “disobeyed the injunction entered in the underlying litigation” and then “actively inserted himself into the litigation by appealing the contempt finding in the hope of clearing his name,” relying in part on the common practice of assessing civil contemnors attorney’s fees
    Document Date 
    Certiorari Denied, reported at 138 S. Ct. 2674 06/25/18
    Brief in Opposition 05/22/18
  • Melendres v. Maricopa County (9th Cir.) - Intervenor/Appellee
    • This court has already held that the County is a proper party in this case
    • State law cannot and does not require this court to vacate the injunction
    Document Date 
    Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 897 F.3d 1217 07/31/18
    Brief as Intervenor/Appellee 08/29/17
  • Melendres v. Penzone (9th Cir.) - Appellee
    • MCSO can appeal any decision of the CPA to the district court
    • The district court properly granted the CPA limited decision-making authority over MCSO’s complaint intake and routing processes and investigative training
    • Sheridan’s petition for rehearing does not identify any part of the record or any points of law that the court overlooked or misapprehended
    • The panel properly concluded reputational injury does not meet Article III requirements
    • None of Sheridan’s alleged harms are sufficiently concrete, traceable to the court’s orders, or remediable by court action
    • Sheridan has not shown the “exceptional circumstances” necessary for a nonparty appeal
    • Sheridan lacks standing to challenge the second permanent injunction
    • Sheridan lacks standing to appeal the denial of recusal
    Document Date 
    Brief as Intervenor-Appellee 08/21/23
    Court of Appeals Order 10/24/17
    Response to Petition for Panel Rehearing 10/13/17
    Court of Appeals Order 08/03/17
    Motion to Dismiss 06/22/17
  • Melendres v. Sands (9th Cir.) - Appellee
    • This appeal is moot
    • Sands cannot establish any basis on which he has a legally cognizable interest in the outcome of this appeal simply because he was found in civil contempt
    • There are no collateral legal consequences that save Sands’ appeal from mootness
    • Vacatur is not warranted here, where Sands was not entitled to review of his contempt finding and the case is moot as to him but not others
    Document Date 
    Court of Appeals Order 07/27/17
    Reply to Response to Motion to Dismiss and Response to Motion for Vacatur 06/15/17
    Motion to Dismiss 05/25/17
  • United States v. County of Maricopa (9th Cir.) - Appellee
    • The district court correctly held that the County is liable under Section 14141 and Title VI for the unconstitutional policies and conduct of Sheriff Arpaio and the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office
    • The County is liable under, and bound by, the findings of unlawful discrimination in Melendres
    Document Date 
    Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 889 F.3d 648 05/07/18
    Brief as Appellee 09/16/16
  • Kingsley v. Hendrickson (S. Ct.) - Amicus
    • The Court should adopt an objective standard, similar to that governing excessive force claims falling under the Fourth Amendment, which examines whether the force was used for the purpose of punishment or, instead, if the use of force was reasonably related to and proportional to a legitimate governmental objective
    • The court had adequately instructed the jury, and therefore the judgment of the court of appeals should be affirmed
    Document Date 
    Supreme Court Decision, reported at 135 S. Ct. 2466 06/22/15
    Brief as Amicus 03/17/15
  • United States v. Diaz-Castro (1st Cir.) - Plaintiff-Appellee
    • The Court should dismiss Diaz-Castro's appeals because it lacks jurisdiction over the appeals and the appeals present no substantial question
    • The Court should deny his motion for a preliminary injunction pending appeal as moot and because it fails to satisfy the four-factor test for injunctions
    Document Date 
    Court of Appeals Decision 01/17/14
    Motion to Dismiss 12/20/13
    Response to Motion Seeking Injunction Pending Appeal 12/20/13
  • Powers v. City of New Orleans (5th Cir.) - Intervenor/Appellee
    • The consent decree does not interfere with any cognizable contract rights and that it does not violate local civil service rules
    • The decree is valid, and that there are no changed circumstances which could justify granting the City's motion to vacate the decree
    • The City knew about the issues it now raises, including the cost of an unrelated settlement to remedy prison conditions and alleged wrongdoing by Sal Perricone, a former Assistant United States Attorney involved in negotiating the police department decree, well before the decree was entered
    • The decree does not violate the Fair Labor Standards Act and that the involvement of Perricone, who resigned before the decree was finalized, did not affect the negotiation of the decree
    Document Date 
    Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 783 F.3d 570 04/15/15
    Brief as Intervenor-Appellee 11/03/14
    Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 731 F.3d 434 09/27/13
    Brief as Appellee 07/11/13
  • In re Grand Jury Subpoena (5th Cir.) -- Appellee
    • This is an appeal from the denial of a motion to quash a grand jury subpoena
    Document Date 
    Brief as Appellee (filed under seal) 3/11/09
  • United States v. City of Detroit (6th Cir.) -- Appellee
    • The district court correctly denied the Coalition's motion to intervene as of right
    • The Coalition is not entitled to permissive intervention
    Document Date 
    Dismissed 01/24/05
    Brief as Appellee 04/07/04
  • United States v. City of Los Angeles (9th Cir.) -- Appellee
    • Community groups and private individuals are not entitled to intervene in a case in order to enforce the consent decree entered between the United States and the City of Los Angeles resolving allegations of systemic police misconduct
    Document Date 
    Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 288 F.3d 391 04/22/02
    Brief as Appellee 07/27/01
  • United States v. City of Los Angeles (9th Cir.) -- Appellee
    • Court of Appeals should deny the police union's motion for a stay pending its appeal of the district court's denial of its motion to intervene in the case between the United States and the City of Los Angeles regarding the operations of the Los Angeles Police Department
    • Police union was not entitled to intervene in case to challenge consent decree between the United States and City of Los Angeles to resolve allegations of systemic police misconduct when the consent decree imposed no obligations upon the union or its members and did not affect officers' collective bargaining rights
    Document Date 
    Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 288 F.3d 391 04/22/02
    Brief as Appellee 06/04/01
    Court of Appeals Denial of Stay, unpublished  04/16/01
    Opposition to Stay 03/22/01
  • United States v. City of Los Angeles (9th Cir.) -- Appellee
    • Police union lacked standing to bring independent action seeking injunction against entry of a consent decree in a separate case between the United States and the City of Los Angeles regarding the operations of the Los Angeles Police Department.
    Document Date 
    Court of Appeals Decision, unpublished 04/22/02
    Brief as Appellee 05/30/01
  • Stevenson v. District of Columbia Metropolitan Police Department (D.C. Cir.) -- Intervenor
    • District court properly refused to order the United States to disclose internal documents regarding an ongoing investigation of police misconduct
    Document Date
    Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 248 F.3d 1187 05/01/01
    Brief as Intervenor 12/28/00

Browse Briefs by Category

Access to Justice
Affirmative Action
Americans with Disabilities Act and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act
Constitutionality of Federal Statutes
Employment Discrimination (Race, National Origin, Sex, and Religion)
Equal Credit Opportunity Act
Equal Protection Clause
Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act
Institutionalized Persons
Police Misconduct (Civil Cases)
Religion Cases
Servicemember Cases
Third Party Intervention in Civil Rights Cases
Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

Updated June 25, 2024