2026.09.17 VERIFIED SPECIAL ACTION COMPLAINT.PDF

COPY
Dominic E. Draye, SBN 033012 SEP 17 2026
drayed@etlaw.com
NY CLERK OF THE GG URT
Matthew P. Hoxsie, SBN 034952 TR ERIOR
WO hoxsiem@gtlaw.com DEPUTY CLERK
Nicholas LeFevre, SBN 038881
FP
Nicholas.LeFevre@gtlaw.com
HO GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP
2375 East Camelback Road, Suite 800
KH Phoenix, AZ 85016
(602) 445-8000
on Attorneys for Plaintiff City of Tucson
(Additional Counsel Listed on Next Page)
oO
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF:ARIZONA
S| IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF MARICOPA
|
Se cv 20 26 - 0 38 g 99
City of Tucson; Maricopa County; Pima Case No.
Fe
VERIFIED SPECIAL ACTION
KF Plaintiffs, COMPLAINT
FF vs. (Special Action Petition for Declaratory
and Injunctive Relief Enjoining
HF State of Arizona; Kris Mayes, in her official Implementation and Enforcement of
FS capacity as the Arizona Attorney General; A.R.S. §§ 13-4296; 41-710.03)
Colonel Jeffrey Glover, in his official capacity
KH as Director of the Arizona Department of
Public Safety; Arizona Department of Public
HH
Safety; Ryan Thornell, in his official capacity
NO as Director of the Arizona Department of
Corrections; the Arizona Department of
ND Corrections; Elizabeth Alvarado-Thorson, in
her official capacity as Director of the Arizona
NY
Department of Administration; the Arizona
NH Department of Administration,
NH Defendants.
NH
HO
NO
No

Kimberly Hunley, SBN 019141
Samuel Emiliano Brown, SBN 027474 .
HNO PIMA COUNTY ATTORNEY’S OFFICE
32 North Stone Avenue, Suite 2100
WO Tucson, Arizona 85701
Telephone: (520) 724-5700
FF kimberly.hunle cao.pima.gov
sam.brown@pcao.pima.gov
A Attorneys for Plaintiff, Pima County
DBO
RACHEL H. MITCHELL
NN MARICOPA COUNTY ATTORNEY
Oo
By: Joseph J. Branco (Bar No. 031474)
oO Joseph I. Vigil (Bar No. 018677)
Deputy County Attorneys
S
brancoj@mcao.maricopa.gov
= vigilj@mcao.maricopa.gov
800 CIVIL SERVICES DIVISION .
BH
SUITE 225 West Madison Street
85016 Phoenix, Arizona 85003
TRAURIG ROAD, Telephone (602) 506-8541
OFFICES ARIZONA 445-8000
Facsimile (602) 506-4316
LAW GREENBERG CAMELBACK (602) ca-civilmailbox@mcao.maricopa.gov
HAAR
PHOENIX, MCAO Firm No. 00032000
EAST
Attorneys for Plaintiff Maricopa County
2375
—
Ce
5S
YW
ND =
NY
GoDNH
YY
FF
YN AA
YN oN

For their Verified Complaint, Plaintiffs the City of Tucson (“Tucson”), Pima County,
ND and Maricopa County allege as follows:
Ww PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
F&F 1. Plaintiffs support the creation of a process for people erroneously convicted in
nA Arizona courts to be made whole through compensation and additional support. For such te
DW people to be made whole under longstanding Court rules that align with constitutional
N principles, that process should be fair, just, speedy, and inexpensive.
fo 2. The Arizona Constitution states “[t]he powers of the government of the State of
Oo Arizona shall be divided into three separate departments, the Legislative, the Executive, and
10 the Judicial; and, except as provided in this Constitution, such departments shall be separate
11 and distinct, and no one of such departments shall exercise the powers properly belonging to
12 either of the others.” Ariz. Const. art. III.
800
SUITE 13 3. Article III establishes the boundaries of government authority. “Nowhere in the
85016
TRAURIG ROAD, 14 United States is this system of structured liberty more explicitly and firmly expressed than in
OFFICES ARIZONA 445-8000
CAMELBACK 15 Arizona.” Mecham v. Gordon, 156 Ariz. 297, 300 (1988).
LAW GREENBERG (602)
PHOENIX, 16 4, Yet despite the clear constitutional mandate, the Arizona Legislature
EAST
2375 17 overstepped its powers by enacting Senate Bill 1500 during the 2025 Legislative Session. '
18 5. Senate Bill 1500 creates a flawed system that invades matters constitutionally
19 assigned to the judiciary. More specifically, it forces courts to decide claims of innocence
20 outside normal post-conviction procedures and places local governments at risk of significant
21 financial liability without a fair chance to defend their interests.
22 6. Senate Bill 1500 seeks to usurp the constitutional power of the Arizona Supreme
23 Court to promulgate and enforce rules for Arizona courts by creating a statutory exception that
24 denies cities and counties the ability to intervene in these compensation claims thereby denying
25 them the right to due process and the privilege to defend oneself that is afforded any other
26 litigant under court rules.
27
' Senate Bill 1500 added A.R.S. § 13-4296 to the Arizona Criminal Code and § 41-710.03 to
28 Arizona’s State Government Code. This Complaint will continue to use “Senate Bill 1500”
for the sake of clarity.

7. The Arizona Constitution (“Constitution”), article VI, Section 5, empowers the
No Arizona Supreme Court “to make rules relative to all procedural matters in any court.”
WD 8. In 1940, Arizona became one of the first states to adopt Rule 24, granting parties
Ee the right (under sub-section 1) and the conditional privilege (under sub-section 2) to intervene
Hn in a legal matter affecting their interests. Arizona Rule of Civil Procedure, Rule 24, states in
part that a court “must permit anyone to intervene who:
ND
(1) has an unconditional right to intervene under a statute; or
Oo (2) claims an interest relating to the subject of the action, and is so situated that
oo disposing of the action in the person’s absence may as a practical matter impair
10 or impede the person’s ability to protect that interest, unless existing parties
ll adequately represent that interest.”
12 9. Article II, Section 4 of the Arizona Constitution provides “No person shall be
800
SUITE 13 deprived of . . . property without due process of law.” Although cities and counties may,
85016
TRAURIG ROAD, 14 arguably, not currently be considered “persons” for traditional due process analyses, the
OFFICES ARIZONA 445-8000
CAMELBACK 15 Arizona Supreme Court has enshrined the right to defend against the deprivation of property
LAW GREENBERG (602)
PHOENIX,
16 without due process in its rules, including but not limited to Ariz. R. Civ. Proc. Rule 1, Rule
EAST
2375 17 24, and Rule 59. Counties are bodies corporate. Ariz. Const. art. XII, Sec. 1; A.R.S. § 11-
18 202. Cities are also corporations. Ariz. Const. art. XIII, Sec. 3; A.R.S. § 9-101. The clear
19 judicial trend has been to treat corporations as persons in more and more circumstances. See
20 Citizens United v. F.C.C., 558 U.S. 310 (2010) and Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., 573
21 U.S. 682 (2014). Both counties and cities may be sued for money damages and, therefore,
22 have a right to defend themselves in such actions.
23 10. Senate Bill 1500 creates potential liability for Arizona cities and counties
24 pending the results of an erroneous conviction action. This liability qualifies as an “interest”
25 relating to the subject of that action and, pursuant to the rules adopted by the Arizona Supreme
26 Court, Plaintiffs cannot be barred from intervening in said actions provided they meet the
27 requirements set by Rule 24 of the Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure. Intervention under Rule
28 24 is primarily procedural in nature where it is used by a party as a means or method to help

protect its interests. State Comp. Fund of Arizona v. Fink, 224 Ariz. 611 (App. 2010).
WN 11. Article II, Section 13 of the Arizona Constitution provides “No law shall be
WO enacted granting to any citizen, class of citizens, or corporation other than municipal,
> privileges or immunities which, upon the same terms, shall not equally belong to all citizens
AN or corporations.” Plaintiffs Maricopa County and Pima County (“County Plaintiffs”) are not
KN municipal corporations. Accordingly, A.R.S. § 13-4296 (D) and (E) deprive County Plaintiffs
nN of the privilege to defend themselves against damages that other citizens, classes of citizens,
Oo and corporations enjoy.
oo 12. Asa result, this action seeks a declaratory judgment stating Senate Bill 1500
10 violates separation of powers as delineated in the Arizona Constitution. It further seeks to
i enjoin and prevent enforcement of Senate Bill 1500 given its constitutional infirmity.
12 PARTIES
800
SUITE 13 13. Tucson is an Arizona municipal corporation in Pima County, Arizona.
85016
TRAURIG ROAD, 14 14. Pima County is an Arizona county and political subdivision of the State of
OFFICES ARIZONA 445-8000
CAMELBACK 15 Arizona.
LAW GREENBERG (602)
PHOENIX, 16 15. | Maricopa County is an Arizona county and political subdivision of the State of
EAST
2375S 17 Arizona.
18 16. Defendant State of Arizona is the body politic that enacted Senate Bill 1500.
19 17. Defendant Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes is Arizona’s top law
20 enforcement official and is sued in her official capacity. Attorney General Mayes has
21 discretion to defend the constitutionality of Senate Bill 1500 under A.R.S. § 41-193(A)(2).
22 18. Defendant Colonel Jeffrey Glover is the director of the Arizona Department of
23 Public Safety (““AzDPS”) and is sued in his official capacity. Colonel Glover must expunge
24 and destroy biological samples when notified of an erroneous conviction under Senate Bill
25 1500. A.R.S. § 13-4296(N)(2). Notification further requires Colonel Glover to seal and
26 separate expunged records. A.R.S. § 13-4296(0).
27 19. Defendant AzDPS is a state agency established by A.R.S. § 41-1711(A). AZDPS
28 must expunge and destroy biological samples when notified of an erroneous conviction under

& Senate Bill 1500. A.R.S. § 13-4296(N)(2). Notification further requires AzDPS to seal and
HB separate expunged records. A.R.S. § 13-4296(O).
W 20. Defendant Ryan Thornell is the director of the Arizona Department of
B&B Corrections (“AzDOC”) and is sued in his official capacity. Director Thornell must seal and
WW separate expunged records when notified of an erroneous conviction under Senate Bill 1500.
A.R.S. § 13-4296(O).
NO
21. Defendant AzDOC is a state agency established by A.R.S. § 41-1602(A).
Oo AzDOC must seal and separate expunged records when notified of an erroneous conviction
0 under Senate Bill 1500. A.R.S. § 13-4296(O).
22. Defendant Elizabeth Alvarado-Thorson is the director of the Arizona
<)
Sl
Department of Administration (‘AzDOA”) and is sued in her official capacity. Director
i
EF > Alvarado-Thorson manages the Erroneous Convictions Fund created by Senate Bill 1500 and
800
Ss
SUITE FEO must pay individuals satisfying Senate Bill 1500’s flawed system. A.R.S. § 13-4296(M);
85016 ©)
TRAURIG ROAD, FEF ARS. § 41-710.03. Once paid, Director Alvarado-Thorson also oversees cities and counties
OFFICES ARIZONA 445-8000 i
CAMELBACK FEF 1 being forced to reimburse the Erroneous Convictions Fund based on proceedings they cannot
LAW GREENBERG (602)
PHOENIX,
FEF ©) fully participate in. A.R.S. § 13-4296(M).
EAST
Pn
2375 Fe 23. Defendant AzDOA is a state agency established by A.R.S. § 41-701(A).
+:
| AzDOA manages the Erroneous Convictions Fund created by Senate Bill 1500 and must pay
>
KH individuals satisfying Senate Bill 1500’s flawed system. A.R.S. § 13-4296(M); A.R.S. §
©
NO 41-710.03. Once paid, AZDOA also oversees cities and counties being forced to reimburse
HN the Erroneous Convictions Fund based on proceedings they cannot fully participate in. A.R.S.
NO § 13-4296(M).
NY © JURISDICTION AND VENUE
NY 24. This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to article VI, section 14 of the Arizona
NY od Constitution; A.R.S. §§ 12-123, 12-1801, 12-2021; and Rules 2(b)(1) and 6(a)(2) of the
NO Arizona Rules of Procedure for Special Actions. Tucson and County Plaintiffs seek a
©
NO declaration that Senate Bill 1500 is unconstitutional, believe Defendants are acting in excess
NH Co of their legal authority by effectuating Senate Bill 1500, and seek an injunction enjoining

Senate Bill 1500’s continued enforcement.
NN 25. Venue in this county is proper under A.R.S. § 12-401(16), (17) and Rule 6(a)(2)
Ww of the Arizona Rules of Procedure for Special Actions.
ke 26. A justiciable controversy exists because Tucson and County Plaintiffs face
WN significant financial liability under Senate Bill 1500. As of filing this lawsuit, both Tucson
ND and Maricopa County have pending cases brought under Senate Bill 1500. Tucson has two
pending cases with claimants collectively seeking damages in excess of $4,000,000; Maricopa
oOo County has four known pending cases with claimants collectively seeking damages in the
oOo ageregate amount well in excess of $5,000,000. Tucson and Maricopa County cannot
10 meaningfully participate in these cases and face legal consequences as a result.
1] 27. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants.
12 GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
800
SUITE 13 I. Introduction of Senate Bill 1500
85016
TRAURIG ROAD, 14 28. Senator David Farnsworth introduced Senate Bill 1500 early in the 2025
OFFICES ARIZONA 445-8000
CAMELBACK 15 Legislative Session.
LAW GREENBERG (602)
PHOENIX, 16 29. Titled “Permanency Placement; Grandparent; Priority,” the original bill gave
EAST
237S 17 grandparents greater priority during child welfare proceedings. S.B. 1500, 57th Leg., 1st Reg.
18 Sess. (Ariz. 2025) (available at: https://Awww.azleg.gov/legtext/57leg/1R/bills/SB
19 1500P.pdf).
20 30. The Arizona State Senate quickly passed the original version of Senate Bill 1500
21 and transmitted it to the Arizona House of Representatives for further consideration.
22 II. Livingston Strike-Everything Amendment
23 31. Once transmitted, Representative David Livingston proposed a strike-everything
24 amendment that changed Senate Bill 1500 from a child welfare bill to one that compensated
25 individuals wrongly convicted of a felony. Livingston Strike-Everything Amendment, S.B.
26 1500, 57th Leg., Ist Reg. Sess. (Ariz. 2025) (available at:
27 https://www.azleg.gov/legtext/57leg/1R/adopted/H. 1500 APPROPRIATIONS.PDEF).
28

= 32. Several government entities opposed the strike-everything amendment,
bw including the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office, the City of Goodyear, the Arizona Attorney
WwW General’s Office, the Pinal County Sheriff's Office, and the City of Yuma. Bill Positions Rep.,
BR S.B. 1500, 57th Leg, Ist Reg. Sess. (Ariz. 2025) (available at:
NW https://apps.azleg.gov/BillStatus/BillOverview/82930).
DH 33. | Organizations opposing the strike-everything amendment included the Arizona
NY Association of Counties and the League of Arizona Cities & Towns. Id.
Oo 34. The Maricopa County Attorney’s Office, when speaking before the Arizona
0 House of Representatives’ Committee on Appropriations, explained the strike-everything
GS amendment was problematic because it:
meet
—| a. Allowed individuals to file a claim against the state even when their
me NY conviction was overturned for technical reasons. Hearing on S.B. 1500
800
SUITE me WY Before the H. Comm. on Appropriations, 57th Leg., Ist Reg. Sess. (Ariz.
85016
TRAURIG ROAD, F&F Mar. 31, 2025) (available at: https://www.azleg.gov/
OFFICES ARIZONA 445-8000
CAMELBACK mm AW videoplayer/?eventID=2025031153&startStreamAt=963 (21:10)).
LAW GREENBERG (602)
PHOENIX, HD b. Shifted the burden of proof in a civil lawsuit from the plaintiff to the
EAST
2375 AN defendant. (/d. at 21:55).
GB c. Allowed individuals to bring a claim even when one count, among many,
wm
DO is reversed. (/d. at 22:15).
RO FD 35. This was not the only concern raised.
RO |§ 36. As first written, the strike-everything amendment stated successful claims would
ND NY be paid from Arizona’s Risk Management Fund.
NO WD 37. Several legislators worried the amendment’s financial obligations would deplete
HO F&F the Risk Management Fund and negatively impact the state budget. (Ud. at 19:07, 23:40,
NN nA 28:07).
NO NH 38. |The Arizona Department of Administration confirmed those worries and stated
NYO XY the Risk Management Fund could not support its current obligations—much less sustain any
wo on new ones. (/d. at 34:04).

— 39. Nonetheless, the Committee on Appropriations adopted the strike-everything
HO amendment and passed Senate Bill 1500 out of committee.
WD 40. It did so because Representative Livingston indicated he would address funding
FF concerns with a later amendment. (See id. at 22:35, 23:00).
OHO 41. A later amendment did come. But far from addressing the overwhelming
DBO concerns with Senate Bill 1500, it only made them worse.
NY Ill. Powell Floor Amendment
eo 42. After the Committee on Appropriations, Senate Bill 1500 sat idle for over three
oOo months.
et O&O 43. Then, on the last day of the 2025 Legislative Session, Representative Khyl
| Powell offered an amendment that significantly changed the bill’s funding structure and its
NY procedures for resolving erroneous conviction claims. Powell Floor Amendment, S.B. 1500,
800 le
SUITE WY 57th Leg., Ist Reg. Sess. (Ariz. 2025) (available at: https://www.azleg.gov/legtext/
85016
TRAURIG ROAD, FSF 57leg/1R/adopted/H.1500FloorPOWELL_Merged.pdf).
OFFICES ARIZONA 445-8000
CAMELBACK vA 44. The Powell floor amendment was quickly rushed through Committee of the
LAW GREENBERG (602)
PHOENIX,
Whole and passed the House without public comment.
EAST ANAND
2375 45. It was then transmitted to the Senate for a final vote.
ww
Fe 46. While up for a final vote, Senator David Farnsworth—Senate Bill 1500’s
DO original sponsor—recognized the bill remained problematic even with the floor amendment.
RO ODO 47. To assuage those concerns, Senator Farnsworth stated, “I will be talking to
KR | people with concerns on this bill and [will] prepare necessary corrections for next session.”
DN NY Senate Floor Session, 57th Leg., 1st Reg. Sess. (Ariz. June 27, 2025) (available at:
KO WYO https://www.azleg.gov/videoplayer/?eventID=2025061058 (49:10)).
KH F&F 48. | Senator Farnsworth’s comments reflect the needed attention to the issues caused
PO nA by the bill, but they do not alleviate the slew of lawsuits filed immediately after Senate Bill
HN Dn 1500 became law.
NO NY 49. Indeed, as early as 12:01 a.m. on January 1, 2026, the Attorney General received
No oo its first erroneous conviction claim. Mary Jo Pitzl, Arizona may not have enough cash to

compensate those it has wrongfully imprisoned, Ariz. Cap. Times (Feb. 16, 2026),
WN https://azcapitoltimes.com/news/2026/02/16/arizona-may-not-have-enough-cash-to-
WW compensate-those-it-has-wrongfully-imprisoned/ .
F&F 50. These lawsuits seek to recover millions of dollars from Plaintiffs irrespective of
AW Senate Bill 1500 being later amended.
51. What’s more, any changes to Senate Bill 1500 may not even apply to pending
ND
lawsuits. See San Carlos Apache Tribe v. Superior Court ex rel. County of Maricopa, 193
Oo Ariz. 195, 205 (1999) (“[L]egislation may not disturb vested substantive rights by retroactively
Oo changing the law that applies to completed events.”).
10 52. Senate Bill 1500 narrowly passed the Arizona Senate by a 16-13 vote.
ll 53. | Arizona Governor Katie Hobbs signed Senate Bill 1500 on June 27, 2025.
12 54. Senate Bill 1500 became law on January 1, 2026.
800
SUITE 13 IV. Senate Bill 1500 as Enacted Law
85016
TRAURIG ROAD, 14 55. Senate Bill 1500 allows a claimant to “bring an action in superior court seeking
OFFICES ARIZONA 445-8000
CAMELBACK 15 compensation from [Arizona],” presuming the claimant can establish by a preponderance of
LAW GREENBERG (602)
PHOENIX, 16 the evidence they (1) were “convicted of a felony and subsequently incarcerated”; (2) “did not
EAST
237S 17 commit the crime or crimes for which” they were convicted; (3) “did not commit perjury,
18 fabricate evidence[,] or by [their] own conduct cause or bring about the conviction”; and (4)
19 have met one of three procedural requirements. A.R.S. § 13-4296(A)(1)-{4).
20 56. The procedural requirements under element four are: (a) “[t]he claimant was
21 pardoned based on innocence”; (b) “[t]he claimant’s judgment of conviction was reversed or
22 vacated and the charges were dismissed or the claimant was found not guilty on retrial”; or (c)
23 “(t]he claimant’s judgment of conviction was reversed or vacated and the claimant entered an
24 Alford plea or a plea of no contest, while maintaining a claim of innocence, after the conviction
25 was overturned, reversed[,] or vacated on direct appeal or postconviction review when the
26 claimant would otherwise have been entitled to a new trial.” A.R.S. § 13-4296(A)(4)(a){c).
27 57. A claimant must bring their claim within two years of (1) “[t]he claimant’s
28 conviction [being] overturned or vacated and the charges against the claimant [being]

dismissed, the claimant [being] found not guilty on retrial[,] or the claimant enter[ing] a plea
WN of no contest, whichever occurs later”; (2) “[t]he claimant [being] pardoned based on
WY innocence”; or (3) “January 1, 2026[,] if the claimant was convicted, incarcerated and released
F& from custody before January 1, 2026.” A.R.S. § 13-4296(C)(1)-{3).
OH 58. If aclaimant satisfies the four elements found in A.R.S. § 13-4296(A)(1)(4)
DBD and brings their claim within two years, the Attorney General must “respond within thirty days
NY [of] the claim” and “may include in the response a request that the court make findings of fact
Oo that a city or county employee committed harmful error or misconduct” that was “the
o proximate cause of the pardoning, reversal[,] or vacating of a conviction.” See A.RS.
10 § 13-4296(D), (E).
11 59. The term “harmful error” is not defined and does not appear anywhere else in
12 statute.
800
SUITE 13 60. “Misconduct” is also undefined but appears in other areas of Title 13. See, e.g.,
85016
TRAURIG ROAD, 14 A.R.S. § 13-3116 (“A person commits misconduct involving body armor by knowingly
OFFICES ARIZONA 445-8000
CAMELBACK 15 wearing or otherwise using body armor during the commission of any felony offense.”); see
LAW GREENBERG (602)
PHOENIX, 16 also Garibay v. Johnson in and for the County of Pima, 259 Ariz. 248, 257 (2025) (“We
EAST
237S 17 therefore hold that ‘misconduct’ in § 11-449 means an intentional violation of an applicable
18 rule, standard, or norm.”).
19 61. Both terms as used in Senate Bill 1500, “misconduct” and “harmful error,” are
20 incomplete and unintelligible and therefore unenforceable. See State ex rel. Brnovich v. City.
21 of Phoenix, 249 Ariz. 239, 248 (2020) (finding that the bond provision in A.R.S.
22 § 41-194.01(B)(2) was “incomplete and unintelligible and therefore unenforceable.”).
23 62. The Attorney General “has the burden of proof by a preponderance of the
24 evidence” when attempting to blame a city or county employee. A.R.S. § 13-4296(D).
25 63. The court further will order an evidentiary hearing and “shall notify the
26 appropriate city or county prosecuting agency” of the attempted blame shifting. A.R.S.
27 § 13-4296(E).
28
10

— 64. Once notified, the city or county has fourteen days to respond and otherwise
NHN cannot participate in the action. A.R.S. § 13-4296(E).
WY 65. Indeed, Senate Bill 1500 explicitly states a city or county “may not request to
FF intervene in the claimant’s action seeking compensation.” A.R.S. § 13-4296(E).
A 66. Ifthe Attorney General does not respond to the erroneous conviction claim, “the
DBD court shall enter an order granting the erroneous conviction” and can sua sponte “find by a
NF preponderance of the evidence that a city or county employee committed harmful error or
Fe misconduct.” A.R.S. § 13-4296(E).
oOo 67. Here too, contrary to Arizona Rule of Civil Procedure 24, an implicated city or
et CO county cannot intervene and must simply respond to the court’s finding—after the fact. A.R.S.
—|& § 13-4296(E).
NY 68. Successful claims are subject to a detailed compensation scheme outlined in
800 meme
SUITE WO A.RS. § 13-4296(F)HD.
85016
TRAURIG ROAD, FP 69. The estimated cost of each claim was $934,000. Joint Legis. Budget Comm.,
OFFICES ARIZONA 445-8000
CAMELBACK AW Fiscal Note H.B. 2813, 57th Leg., Ist Reg. Sess. (Ariz. 2025) (available at:
LAW GREENBERG (602)
wm
PHOENIX, DBO https://www.azleg.gov/legtext/57leg/1R/fiscal/HB2813.DOCX.pdf).
EAST
2375 HIT 70. Yet many of the claims filed to date far exceed that figure.
oO 71. |The Erroneous Convictions Fund, which Senate Bill 1500 separately created,
ww
Oo pays out successful claims. A.R.S. § 13-4296(M); A.R.S. § 41-710.03.
NO TD 72. AzDOA only pays out a claim when “sufficient monies are available” in the
KR |§ Erroneous Convictions Fund. A.R.S. § 13-4296(M).
LP Ne 73. There currently is only $3,000,000 in the Erroneous Convictions Fund—much
PO WD less than the estimated one-time cost of $4,500,000.
HN FP 74. AzDOA has not requested any additional money for Fiscal Year 2027. Arizona
LP HN Dep’t of Admin., FY 2027 Budget Request, 57th Leg., 2nd Reg. Sess. (Ariz. 2026) (available
NR at: https://doa.az.gov/sites/default/files/2025-09/F Y %202027%20Arizona%20
NN
NO Department%200f%20Administration%20Budget.pdf (PDF pg. 22)).
Oo ao
11

75. Once a claim is paid, a city or county must reimburse the Erroneous Convictions
Olle
Fund if “the court made findings of fact that a city [or county] employee committed harmful
BD error or misconduct.” See A.R.S. § 13-4296(M).
Re 76. Reimbursement must be made within fourteen or forty-five days, depending on
OH the payment type. A.R.S. § 13-4296(M).
77. Successful claims also entitle the claimant to a court “finding that the claimant
NHN
was erroneously convicted and, as a result, served a specific amount of time erroneously
Oo incarcerated.” A.R.S. § 13-4296(M).
oO 78. That finding accompanies an expungement order stating “the claimant’s
S associated convictions and arrests [must be] expunged from all applicable state and federal
= systems and the records sealed.” A.R.S. § 13-4296(N)(1).
79. AzDPS must “expunge and destroy any biological samples” upon receiving the
800
GDH
SUITE expungement order. A.R.S. § 13-4296(O).
85016
TRAURIG ROAD, BR 80. AzDOC must “seal and separate the expunged record from the department’s
OFFICES ARIZONA 445-8000
CAMELBACK records and may not make information related to the expunged conviction publicly available
LAW GREENBERG (602)
PHOENIX,
AAA through any department database” upon receiving the order. A.R.S. § 13-4296(O).
EAST
2375 = 81. The arresting and prosecuting agencies must “clearly identify in each agency’s
filed and electronic records that the claimant was erroneously convicted and that the arrest,
CH
charge, conviction[,] or adjudication and sentence are expunged and may not make any
Ww SF records ... available as a public record to any person except the claimant or the claimant’s
FT attorney.” A.R.S. § 13-4296(P).
NWN
DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF ALLEGATIONS
OSH
NY 82. An actual and substantial controversy exists between Plaintiffs and Defendants
YW BF as to their respective rights and duties. Tucson, Pima County, and Maricopa County contend
NY A Senate Bill 1500 is unconstitutional and unenforceable for reasons specified herein. Tucson,
A Pima County, and Maricopa County are informed and believe, and on that basis allege, that
NY
Defendants contend otherwise. Accordingly, declaratory relief is appropriate. See A.R.S.
oN
Mw § 12-1831-§ 12-1856.
12

— 83. If not enjoined by the Court, Defendants and their agents, representatives, and
YO employees, will implement Senate Bill 1500, which will result in irreparable injuries to
WY Tucson, Pima County, Maricopa County, and all Arizonans in the form of (i) forcing the
FF judiciary to decide claims of innocence outside normal post-conviction proceedings and (ii)
OO placing Tucson, Pima County, and Maricopa County at risk of significant financial liability
DH without a fair chance to defend their interests. There is no plain, speedy, or adequate remedy
NN at law for such injuries. Accordingly, injunctive relief is also appropriate.
Oo FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF
Declaratory Relief
oOo
(Violation of Ariz. Const. art. IJ—Encroachment)
ee OC 84. Tucson, Pima County, and Maricopa County reallege the above paragraphs as
| though fully set forth herein.
800 eS NYO 85. This Court has the power to declare the rights, status, and other legal relations
SUITE EEO W of Tucson, Pima County, Maricopa County, and Defendants pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-1831, et
85016
TRAURIG ROAD, FP
OFFICES 445-8000 rE seq.
ARIZONA
LAW GREENBERG CAMELBACK OH 86. “The ultimate goal of [a]rticle III is to ensure that one branch of government
(602)
PHOENIX, eR
EAST does not encroach upon or usurp the functions properly belonging to another branch.” State
ND
2375 v. Rios, 225 Ariz. 292, 298 (App. 2010). Encroachment occurs when “a legislative act
DH
‘unreasonably limits or hampers’ the judicial system in performing its function.” Jd. (quoting
ww
OO
Prentiss, 163 Ariz. at 84). Four factors guide the examination: “(1) the essential nature of the
RO FD
power being exercised; (2) the [I]egislature’s degree of control in exercising the power; (3) the
RO —|§ [Iegislature’s objective; and (4) the practical consequences of the action.” San Carlos Apache
NO NY
Tribe v. Superior Court, 193 Ariz. 195, 211 (1999).
NY WH 87. Post-conviction proceedings are a core judicial function.
NO FF
88. The legislature took substantial control of post-conviction proceedings by
NO OHO
passing Senate Bill 1500.
NO WN
89. The objectives and practical consequences of Senate Bill 1500 indicate the
NO NY
Arizona Legislature intended to control post-conviction proceedings and has done so.
BO ao
90. Accordingly, Senate Bill 1500 violates article III of the Arizona Constitution. -
13

— 91. Promulgating and enforcing court rules are a constitutional judicial function.
NH 92. The objectives and practical consequences of Senate Bill 1500 indicate the
WD Arizona Legislature intended to control court processes by prohibiting Plaintiffs from
FF intervening, defending, or appealing erroneous conviction claims pursuant to the ordinary
OH application of the rules of civil procedure or civil appellate procedure, or A.R.S.
§ 12-2101(A)(1).
ND
93. Permitting the Legislature to encroach upon the Judiciary’s constitutional
Oo authority to determine the rules that apply to civil proceedings in Arizona will deprive cities
o and counties of the very constitutional rights and privileges that intervention is meant to
Ss protect, including due process. Tucson, Pima County, and Maricopa County thus respectfully
= request a declaration from the Court stating Senate Bill 1500 violates article ITI of the Arizona
Constitution.
800
BH SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF
SUITE
85016 Declaratory Relief
TRAURIG ROAD, (Violation of Ariz. Const. art. I—Due Process; Equal Protection)
OFFICES ARIZONA 445-8000
CAMELBACK AaARE 94. County Plaintiffs reallege the above paragraphs as though fully set forth herein.
LAW GREENBERG (602)
PHOENIX, 95. The Arizona Constitution, article II, section 4 provides that “[nJo person shall
EAST
2375 be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.”
eA
96. Article II, Section 13 of the Arizona Constitution provides “No law shall be
FC enacted granting to any citizen, class of citizens, or corporation other than municipal,
W SF privileges or immunities which, upon the same terms, shall not equally belong to all citizens
YN fF or corporations.”
NY 97. Under the Arizona Constitution, the County Plaintiffs are not municipal
ONS
corporations, but they are corporations. Ariz. Const. art. XII, § 1; see also A.R.S. § 11-202.
YN
KF 98. Thus, while the County Plaintiffs may not be deemed “persons” or
N A “corporations” in every sense, Senate Bill 1500 violates due process of law, article II of the
NY A Constitution, by precluding those governmental entities from participating in a judicially
created process that ensures they have access to court proceedings through the implementation
YN eI
of the Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure, specifically, Rule 24 which grants affected parties
14

= the ability to intervene to protect their property interests in judicial actions.
HO 99. Arizona’s courts recognize that government entities are entitled to “the
WD protections Arizona law affords to any civil litigant” and “the Rules guarantee that civil cases
ee will be decided on the merits in accordance with principles of regularity and justice.” See
OHO Scottsdale Mem’! Health Sys., Inc. v. Maricopa Cnty. , 224 Ariz. 125, 136 (App. 2010).
100. Upon information and belief, no other statute precludes a specific class of
NN
putative litigants from intervening in a civil action under Rule 24 if they otherwise meet Rule
eo 24’s requirements.
o 101. Under Senate Bill 1500, after the Attorney General or the court decides that a
city or county must reimburse the fund based on a finding of harmful error or misconduct by
a city or county employee. The city or county has no right to contest the reimbursement, the
finding of erroneous conviction, or any other finding. Instead, a city or county may only
800
SUITE respond, in 14 days, as to whether the employee committed harmful error or misconduct that
85016
TRAURIG ROAD, was the proximate cause of the pardoning, reversal or vacating of the conviction by a
OFFICES ARIZONA 445-8000
CAMELBACK preponderance of the evidence.
LAW GREENBERG (602)
PHOENIX, — 102. Senate Bill 1500 does not provide adequate protections for the County Plaintiffs
EAST
2375S — as provided by the Arizona Supreme Court. Under the statute, while the Attorney General has
|e at least 30 days (or longer, if granted an extension) to develop facts proving harmful error or
F|- misconduct, a city or county has less than half that time (14 days) to respond (with no ability
NO to request an extension).
NV 103. In addition to the prohibition on cities and counties intervening to defend their
NY interests, the statute does not appear to provide cities or counties a right to appeal or any other
HN corrective process for cities or counties facing significant financial liability, contrary to A.R.S.
NY § 12-2101(A)(1).
NY 104. Accordingly, Senate Bill 1500 violates article II of the Arizona Constitution and
NY conflicts with principles of regularity and justice by precluding counties—putative litigants by
HO intervention—from defending their interests in these actions, depriving them of the same
no protections Arizona law affords to all other civil litigants.
15

105. The County Plaintiffs thus respectfully request a declaration from the Court
NWN stating Senate Bill 1500 violates article II of the Arizona Constitution.
Ww THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF
Declaratory Relief
&-
(Violation of Ariz. Const. art. 111—Irreconcilable Conflict)
NN 106. Tucson, Pima County, and Maricopa County reallege the above paragraphs as
NHN though fully set forth herein.
107. A violation of article III also occurs when a procedural statute irreconcilably
Oo conflicts with a procedural rule made under the judiciary’s rulemaking power. Seisinger v.
Oo Sibel, 220 Ariz. 85, 89 (2009).
10 108. Senate Bill 1500 irreconcilably conflicts with Rules 32.2 and 33.2 of the Arizona
11 Rules of Criminal Procedure because it does not include preclusion or consolidation
12 requirements.
800
SUITE 13 109. Preclusion and consolidation requirements are procedural in nature because they
85016
TRAURIG ROAD, 14 concern the time limits of post-conviction proceedings. State v. Fowler, 156 Ariz. 408, 413
OFFICES ARIZONA 445-8000
LAW GREENBERG CAMELBACK 15 (App. 1987).
1602)
PHOENIX,
16 110. Senate Bill 1500 also irreconcilably conflicts with Rule 24 of the Arizona Rules
EAST
2375 17 of Civil Procedure because it prevents cities and counties from intervening as a matter of right
18 in compensation claims.
19 111. Intervention is a procedural rule covered under the judiciary’s constitutional
20 rulemaking authority. State Comp. Fund v. Fink, 224 Ariz. 611, 614 (App. 2010).
21 112. Arizona’s courts recognize that government entities are entitled to “the
22 protections Arizona law affords to any civil litigant” and “the Rules guarantee that civil cases
23 will be decided on the merits in accordance with principles of regularity and justice.” See
24 Scottsdale Mem’! Health Sys., Inc., 224 Ariz. at 136.
25 113. Upon information and belief, no other statute precludes a specific class of
26 putative litigants from intervening in a civil action under Rule 24 if they otherwise meet Rule
27 24’s requirements.
28
16

— 114. Accordingly, Senate Bill 1500 violates article III of the Arizona Constitution and
NO conflicts with principles of regularity and justice by precluding cities and counties—putative
WO litigants by intervention—from defending their interests in these actions, depriving them of
FF the same protections Arizona law affords to all other civil litigants.
A 115. Severability does not apply because the Arizona Legislature would not have
HH passed Senate Bill 1500 without its restriction on intervention and control of post-conviction
proceedings.
oN
116. Tucson, Pima County, and Maricopa County thus respectfully request a
Oo declaration from the Court stating Senate Bill 1500 violates article III of the Arizona
Constitution.
FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
Injunctive Relief
— (Violations of Ariz. Const. art. ITN)
800
SUITE 117. Tucson, Pima County, and Maricopa County reallege the above paragraphs as
85016 DWABREBHRAS
TRAURIG ROAD, though fully set forth herein.
OFFICES ARIZONA 445-8000
118. This Court has the power to issue writs of injunction. A.R.S. § 12-1801, et seq.
LAW GREENBERG CAMELBACK (602)
PHOENIX, 119. Senate Bill 1500 violates separation of powers for the reasons set forth in this
EAST
2375 Complaint.
120. Absent an injunction, Defendants and their agents will implement and enforce
Se
Senate Bill 1500.
121. Absent an injunction, Plaintiffs will be irreparably harmed by Senate Bill 1500.
122. The balance of hardships and public interest favor Plaintiffs.
SSeS
123. Tucson, Pima County, and Maricopa County thus respectfully request the Court
preliminarily and permanently enjoin Defendants, including their agents, from taking any
YN
& further action to implement or enforce Senate Bill 1500.
YN
eouwakhk
oN
Mw
17

FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
Special Action Relief
WN
(Violations of Ariz. Const. art. IID)
WO
124. Tucson, Pima County, and Maricopa County reallege the above paragraphs as
-&
though fully set forth herein.
un
125. This Court has the power to decide original special actions. R. Pro. Special
DN
Action 2(b)(1), 10(a)(1)+{3).
SN
126. Senate Bill 1500 violates separation of powers for the reasons set forth in this
Oo
Complaint.
oO
127. Absent special action relief, Defendants and their agents will implement and
10
enforce Senate Bill 1500.
11 DISCOVERY TIER
800 12 This case qualifies for a Tier 3 designation as the potential damages against Tucson and
SUITE 13
County Plaintiffs exceed $300,000.
85016
TRAURIG ROAD, 14
OFFICES 445-8000 PRAYER FOR RELIEF
ARIZONA
LAW GREENBERG CAMELBACK (602) 15 WHEREFORE, Tucson, Pima County, and Maricopa County pray for:
PHOENIX,
EAST 16 A. — A declaration pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-1831 stating Senate Bill 1500 violates
2375 17
article III of the Arizona Constitution based on encroachment.
18
B. A declaration pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-1831 stating A.R.S. § 13-4296(D) and (E)
19
violate article II of the Arizona Constitution based on a denial of procedural due process and
20
equal protection.
21
Cc. A declaration pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-1831 stating Senate Bill 1500 violates
22
article III of the Arizona Constitution based on an irreconcilable conflict.
23
D. A declaration pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-1831 stating Senate Bill 1500 is void for
24
vagueness, and is also unenforceable as it is incomplete and unintelligible.
25
E. An injunction pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-1801, Arizona Rule of Civil Procedure
26 65, and other applicable law prohibiting Defendants from taking any action to implement or
27
enforce Senate Bill 1500.
28
18

— F, An award of attorneys’ fees and costs under A.R.S. §§ 12-348(A)(4), 12-341,
NY and 12-1840, the private attorney general doctrine. The private attorney general doctrine
WY] applies because the rights sought to be vindicated benefit a large number of people, require
FF private enforcement, and are of societal importance. See Arnold v. Ariz. Dep’t of Health Servs.,
OHO 160 Ariz. 593, 609 (1989), disagreed with on other grounds, Ansley v. Banner Health Network,
DBO 248 Ariz. 143 (2020).
NN G. Anaward of attorneys’ fees and costs under A.R.S. § 12-348.01.
Oo H. Such other relief as the Court deems just and proper under the circumstances.
oOo DATED this 17th day of September, 2026.
CO
meet GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP
KF
NY
800
mm
SUITE WO Dye b4
85016
TRAURIG ROAD, B&B Donic E. Draye
OFFICES ARIZONA 445-8000 mm
Matthew P. Hoxsie
CAMELBACK Un
LAW GREENBERG (602) Nicholas LeFevre
PHOENIX, DH Attorneys for Plaintiff City of Tucson
EAST om
2375 Ow NH PIMA COUNTY ATTORNEY’S OFFICE
CIVIL DIVISION
DB
wm
By: /s/ Kimberly Hunley (with permission)
wm Oo
Kimberly Hunley
NO FD Samuel E. Brown
Attorneys for Plaintiff; Pima County
RO |
RACHEL H. MITCHELL
KN NH
MARICOPA COUNTY ATTORNEY
PO WO
HP FP By: /s/ Joseph J. Branco (with permission)
Joseph J. Branco
NO vA Joseph I. Vigil
Attorneys for Plaintiff Maricopa County
NO
ND
NO
NO oo
19