## Facts

- Eleven individuals of Mexican descent sued the City of Peoria, Arizona, and certain police officers and officials under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
- Plaintiffs included Mexican citizens lawfully present in the United States, lawful permanent residents, and at least one U.S. citizen.
- Plaintiffs alleged Peoria police stopped and detained persons of Mexican descent in public places and required identification or proof of lawful presence.
- Plaintiffs alleged that individuals lacking documentation were detained at the city jail for transfer to federal immigration authorities.
- Plaintiffs contended these stops were based on race and appearance and that local police lacked authority to enforce the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA).
- After a bench trial, the district court found no adopted pattern or practice of stopping persons of Mexican descent to enforce federal immigration law and found no Fourth Amendment violations or racial animus.
- The district court entered judgment for the City and the individual defendants; plaintiffs appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether state and local police have authority under federal and state law to arrest for violations of the criminal provisions of federal immigration law.
2. Whether the City and individual officers were liable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for alleged Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment violations arising from stops and detentions.
3. Whether plaintiffs were entitled to declaratory or injunctive relief to prevent future constitutional violations.

## Decision

- The Ninth Circuit affirmed the judgment for defendants.
- The court held state and local police may enforce the INA’s criminal provisions when state law authorizes such arrests and the enforcement does not conflict with federal policy.
- The court upheld the district court’s findings that plaintiffs failed to prove an unconstitutional municipal policy or custom and failed to prove individual constitutional violations.
- The court denied equitable relief because plaintiffs did not show ongoing or likely future constitutional violations.

## Legal Principles

- State and local officers may arrest for federal criminal immigration offenses (e.g., criminal provisions of the INA) if state law authorizes the arrest authority and enforcement does not conflict with federal objectives.
- Civil immigration enforcement (including deportation-related matters) is distinct from criminal immigration offenses and remains primarily a federal responsibility.
- Municipal liability under § 1983 requires proof that a constitutional violation resulted from an official policy, custom, or practice attributable to the municipality.
- A plaintiff seeking damages under § 1983 must prove an actual constitutional violation; disagreement with enforcement focus or unsupported allegations of profiling is insufficient.
- Injunctive or declaratory relief requires a showing of a real and immediate threat of future violations; failure to prove an unconstitutional practice defeats equitable claims.

## Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit recognized limited local authority to arrest for federal criminal immigration violations when permitted by state law and consistent with federal policy, and it affirmed judgment for the City and officers because plaintiffs did not prove unconstitutional stops, racial discrimination, or a municipal policy warranting damages or equitable relief.


Gonzales v. City of Peoria, 722 F.2d 468 (9th Cir. 1983)