Article Image

Sheriff Arpaio and County Attorney Thomas arrested Newspaper Publishers... and then...

Written by Subject: Arizona's Top News
III. Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, we AFFIRM the district court’s
dismissal of the claims against Thomas on absolute immunity
grounds and those against Arpaio on qualified immunity
grounds. We also AFFIRM the district court’s decision to
grant qualified immunity to Wilenchik regarding Plaintiffs’
equal protection claim against Wilenchik. We REVERSE,
however, the district court’s granting Wilenchik qualified
immunity as to Plaintiffs’ First Amendment, Fourth Amendment,
and malicious prosecution claims. We REMAND the
11As a final matter, Defendants filed a motion to strike the portion of
Plaintiffs’ reply brief that addressed the district court’s dismissal of Plaintiffs’
§ 1983 conspiracy claim. We do not consider new issues raised for
the first time in a reply brief. Eberle v. City of Anaheim, 901 F.2d 814, 818
(9th Cir. 1990). We therefore grant Defendants’ motion to strike.
LACEY v. MARICOPA COUNTY 7651
case to the district court with instructions to reconsider the
claims against Maricopa County and to proceed with the case
in a manner consistent with this opinion. Finally, we GRANT
Defendants’ motion to strike the portion of Plaintiffs’ reply
brief that addressed the district court’s dismissal of Plaintiffs’
§ 1983 conspiracy claim.
AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, AND
REMANDED.
The parties shall bear their owns costs on appeal.

Join us on our Social Networks:

 

Share this page with your friends on your favorite social network:


http://freedomsphoenix.thinkpenguin.com/