UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 22-10174

Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. v. 4:18-cr-01695- JAS-EJM-1 DAVID KAPONE WILLIAMS; MARCELL DEMETRIUS GRAY; SHAWMAINE EUSTACE ARDELL OPINION MOORE; SAMUEL LEE BERRELLE RAKESTRAW III; MICHAEL ANTHONY WILLIAMS; KEANA NICOLE IWANKIW; CLIFFTON MARTINEZ; JERMAINE LAMAR MAXWELL; REGINALD COLE JOHNSON; TROY JERMAINE HOWELL; MARK ANTHONY HOLGUIN; TENELL MICHAEL MURE; LABARR MARTINEZ; DAVID GOROSAVE; BUFFIE ANN BRIDGES; DEZIRAE ALEXANDRIA MONTEEN,

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona James Alan Soto, District Judge, Presiding 2 UNITED STATES V. WILLIAMS

Argued and Submitted December 7, 2022 Phoenix, Arizona

Filed May 18, 2023

Before: Kim McLane Wardlaw and Patrick J. Bumatay, Circuit Judges, and Jack Zouhary, * District Judge.

Opinion by Judge Bumatay

SUMMARY **

Criminal Law

In a criminal case in which the government has charged 19 alleged members of the Western Hills Bloods with multiple offenses, the panel reversed the district court’s order disqualifying the entire District of Arizona U.S. Attorney’s Office and directing the Department of Justice to supply an attorney from outside Arizona to represent the government in pending motions, brought by 16 defendants, concerning misconduct allegations against one Assistant U.S. Attorney in the Arizona office. Addressing its jurisdiction over the interlocutory appeal, the panel held that disqualification of an entire U.S.

* The Honorable Jack Zouhary, United States District Judge for the Northern District of Ohio, sitting by designation. ** This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It has been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader. UNITED STATES V. WILLIAMS 3

Attorney’s Office warrants appellate review under the collateral order doctrine. The panel held that the district court’s sweeping disqualification order was an abuse of discretion. The panel wrote that based on separation-of-powers principles and the consensus among courts, disqualification of an entire U.S. Attorney’s Office is an extreme remedy—only appropriate in the most extraordinary circumstances. First, a district court must find a strong factual predicate for blanket disqualification. Second, a district court must determine that the U.S. Attorney's Office's continued representation of the government will result in a legal or ethical violation. These requirements mean a court must not only make specific findings against the accused prosecutors, but it must also determine that any misconduct or conflict so pervades the office that less intrusive remedies would be inadequate to safeguard against a legal violation. The panel held that the record does not support an officewide disqualification, and without any evidence of officewide involvement, it was pure speculation to conclude that any conflict or misconduct pervaded the entire U.S. Attorney’s Office. The panel also held that no clear violation of law or ethics supports an officewide disqualification. The panel wrote that the district court—whose decision to disqualify was informed, in part, by a comparison to an internal investigation of a private company—does not appear to have sufficiently appreciated the separation-of-powers concern. 4 UNITED STATES V. WILLIAMS

COUNSEL Krissa M. Lanham (argued), Assistant United States Attorney; Gary M. Restaino, United States Attorney for the District of Arizona; Office of the United States Attorney; Phoenix, Arizona; Shelle