- 9th Circuit Oral Argument scheduled – December 15, 2022:
The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has scheduled Oral Argument in this civil rights lawsuit for February 7, 2023 at the Sandra Day O’Conner Courthouse in Phoenix, AZ. Live video streaming of the hearing should be available here. More details regarding the Appeal, including access to the briefs and other legal documents, are available here. If the link to the above scheduled hearing doesn’t work, (seems to change on a daily basis) you can access the 9th circuit’s calendar page here and look for hearings scheduled on February 7th in Phoenix, AZ at the Sandra Day O’Conner courthouse.
- 9th Circuit Appeal documents – March 2022 – present:
A page linking to the 9th circuit court of appeals documents after the case was dismissed at summary judgment by the district court.
- Summary Judgment related documents – June 2021 – January 2022:
A page linking to Summary Judgment documents from all parties along with the district court order ruling in favor of gov’t defendanrs
- Disclosure/Discovery – 2019-2021:
A page linking to disclosure/discovery from all parties (incomplete)
- District Court: Protective Order – 17 June 2020:
The court grants the federal defendants request for a protective order regarding the disclosure of documentation the federal defendants deem to be ‘law enforcement sensitive’
- Federal Defendant’s 2nd Supplemental Mandatory Discovery Response – 17 June 2020
- Court Order: Case Management Scheduling Order – 15 May 2020:
Court order setting deadlines for expert witness testimony, completion of discovery, dispositive motions, etc.
- Plaintiff’s 1st Supplemental Disclosure Statement – 01 May 2020:
Plaintiff adds CBP Agent Mike Dunn to the list of individuals who may have discoverable information. Agent Dunn is the agent featured in this letter to the federal defendant’s attorney late last year. In addition, plaintiff discloses ~28 additional text documents and videos.
- Joint Case Management Plan – 21 April 2020:
A joint case management plan submitted by all parties that lays out the basis for the lawsuit, proposed timelines, discovery plan, etc.
- Court Order Regarding County Motion To Dismiss – 03 April 2020:
A court order that drops former Sheriff Nanos from the lawsuit, drops current Sheriff Napier from Count IV as being redundant to the Pima County Board of Supervisors and drops injunctive and declaratory relief for the 1A claim in Count I along with county defendants other than Sheriff Deputy Roher and Kunze. Otherwise, the lawsuit counts remain largely intact including prospective injunctive and declaratory relief for any 4A violations.
- Court Order Regarding Rule 16 Case Management Conference – 03 April 2020:
A court order establishing May 12, 2020 as the date for the pretrial scheduling conference along with necessary preparations prior to the conference.
- Federal Defendant’s First Supplemental Mandatory Discovery Response – 25 March 2020:
Supplementary mandatory disclosures by the federal defendants that identify additional agents and documents material to the lawsuit. The defendants have failed to release much of the documentation under a claim of being law enforcement sensitive despite several of them, or versions, already being in the public domain through FOIA requests and litigation.
- Roadblock Harassment Letter – 31 December 2019:
A letter to the attorney for the federal defendants notifying him of ongoing harassment at the SR-86 CBP roadblock
- Preservation Letter to Federal Defendants – 05 December 2019:
A letter sent to the Assistant U.S. Attorney representing the federal defendants notifying him to preserve all documents and electronically stored information relevant to the case
- Federal Defendant’s Mandatory Initial Discovery Responses – 01 November 2019
- Plaintiff’s MIDP Disclosure Statement to Federal Defendants – 31 October 2019
- Federal Defendants’ Answer Lawsuit Complaint – 02 October 2019:
The federal defendants through the U.S. Attorney’s office respond to the lawsuit’s 2nd amended complaint with a mix of denials, admissions, partial admissions and lack of knowledge to form a belief.
- Federal Defendants’ Motion For Extension of Time To Respond To Second Amended Complaint – 11 September 2019:
The U.S. Attorney for the District of Arizona seeks permission from the court to delay responding to the complaint until the end of the month due to difficulties in coordinating it’s response with multiple government agencies.
- County Defendant’s Reply To Plaintiff’s Response to Defendant’s Partial Motion To Dismiss – 16 August 2019:
Pima County’s reply to plaintiff’s objection to the county’s partial motion to dismiss
- Plaintiff’s Response To County Defendant’s Partial Motion To Dismiss – 02 August 2019
- County Defendant’s Answer – 05 July 2019:
Pima County’s response to plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint. Here’s a document that combines the Second Amended Complaint with the County’s response. The County’s response appears in red.
- Court Order – 01 July 2019:
Court order denying Pima County’s Motion for a time extension to file an answer to plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint.
- County Defendant’s Partial Motion To Dismiss – 25 June 2019:
Pima County’s motion to dismiss the retaliatory arrest and unlawful seizure claims along with several of the official and individual capacity failure to supervise/train claims and unlawful policy and practices claim
- Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint – 11 June 2019:
An amended complaint that adds the DHS, USCBP, USBP, DHS Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen, USCBP Commissioner Kevin McAleenan, USBP Chief Carla Provost & Tucson Sector Chief Patrol Agent Rodolfo Karisch as defendants to the lawsuit for purposes of declaratory and injunctive relief and brings a claim of false imprisonment against the United States of America.
- Court order authorizing the filing of the 2nd Amended Complaint – 05 June 2019:
After several months of failed settlement negotiations with the Pima County defendants, the Tucson District Court grants permission to file the 2nd Amended complaint that adds several federal defendants to the lawsuit.
- County Defendants’ Response To Plaintiff’s Motion To File 2nd Amended Complaint – 14 January 2019:
Defendants response indicating they have no objections to the filing of an amended complaint
- Motion For Leave To Amend Complaint – 31 December 2018:
A request to file an amended complaint that adds federal defendants to the lawsuit. Exhibit A contains the proposed changes to the current complaint.
- Joint Case Management Report Court Order – 19 November 2018:
The court order setting out the initial schedule and discovery timeline for the lawsuit.
- Settlement Conference Court Order – 19 November 2018:
A court order referring the lawsuit for a settlement conference in late January 2019.
- Joint Case Management Plan – 06 November 2018:
A case management plan filed with the court by both parties that lays out the outstanding legal issues in the case from the perspective of both sides and a rough timeline for motions, discovery and trial.
- County Defendant’s Initial Disclosure Statement – 28 September 2018:
The defendant’s mandatory initial disclosure statement indicating the legal basis for their defense, along with known witnesses and material documents
- CBP Denial of Federal Tort Claim – 24 September 2018:
As expected, USCBP formally denies the federal tort claim filed against them six months ago. This opens the door to file a lawsuit against the federal agency.
- Plaintiff’s Initial Disclosure Statement to County Defendants – 10 September 2018:
The plaintiff’s mandatory initial disclosure statement indicating the legal basis for their defense, along with known witnesses and material documents
- County Defendant’s Answer to Amended Complaint – 31 August 2018:
The defendant’s response to the amended complaint.
- Affidavit of Service – 10 July 2018:
Amended affidavit of service to the Pima County Board of Supervisors by a licensed process server. Very similar documents were served on the remaining defendants.
- Summons – 03 July 2018:
Amended summons served on the Pima County Board of Supervisors by a licensed process server. Similar documents were served on the remaining defendants.
- First Amended Complaint – 02 July 2018:
A fine tuning of the factual allegations, the cause of action and a dropping of the Bivens Claim against the federal agents in their individual capacity
- Lawsuit Complaint – 09 April 2018:
With legal assistance, Checkpoint USA has filed a lawsuit against various government agencies and employees in Pima County, Arizona and U.S. Customs and Border Protection for violations of his rights associated with Operation Stonegarden and the federal roadblock that’s been operating along SR-86 in Southern Arizona near milepost 145 for over ten years.
- Federal Tort Claim – 22 March 2018:
Before filing a lawsuit against the United States government for a federal tort, claimants are required by the Federal Tort Claim Act to first give notice of the incidents giving rise to the federal tort to the offending agency. As can be seen in the federal tort claim that Checkpoint USA recently filed with the Tucson Sector Headquarters of U.S. Customs & Border Protection, Checkpoint USA has quite a few incidents to discuss that give rise to this particular federal tort.
- Notice of Claim – 24 September 2017:
AZ law requires individuals to give government agencies/agents a 60 day heads up regarding any legal claims they have against them before being allowed to file a lawsuit. This is CPUSA’s legally mandated Notice of Claim regarding his unlawful detention and arrest by PCSD Deputy Ryan Roher at a USCBP roadblock on April 10, 2017 along with similar incidents dating back several years.