Odonnell v. Harris Cnty.
| Decision Date | 14 February 2018 |
| Docket Number | No. 17-20333,17-20333 |
| Citation | 882 F.3d 528 |
| Parties | Maranda Lynn ODONNELL, Plaintiff–Appellee v. HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS; Eric Stewart Hagstette; Joseph Licata, III; Ronald Nicholas; Blanca Estela Villagomez; Jill Wallace ; Paula Goodhart ; Bill Harmon; Natalie C. Fleming; John Clinton; Margaret Harris; Larry Standley ; Pam Derbyshire; Jay Karahan ; Judge Analia Wilkerson; Dan Spjut ; Judge Diane Bull; Judge Robin Brown; Donald Smyth; Jean Hughes, Defendants–Appellants Loetha Shanta McGruder; Robert Ryan Ford, Plaintiffs–Appellees v. Harris County, Texas; Jill Wallace ; Eric Stewart Hagstette; Joseph Licata, III; Ronald Nicholas; Blanca Estela Villagomez, Defendants–Appellants |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
Alec George Karakatsanis, Esq., Elizabeth Anne Rossi, Civil Rights Corps, Arpit Kumar Garg, Daniel Volchok, Seth Paul Waxman, WilmerHale, L.L.P., Washington, DC, Rebecca Bernhardt, Austin, TX, Michael Gervais, New York, NY, Neal Manne, Alexandra Giselle White, Krisina Janaye Zuniga, Houston, TX, Susman Godfrey, L.L.P., for Plaintiffs–Appellees.
Susanne Ashley Pringle, Texas Fair Defense Project, Austin, TX, for Plaintiffs–Appellees Loetha Shanta McGruder, Robert Ryan Ford.
Stacy R. Obenhaus, Dallas, TX, Katharine D. David, Philip J. Morgan, Mike Anthony Stafford, Houston, TX, Gardere Wynne Sewell, L.L.P., for Defendants–Appellants Harris County, Texas, Eric Stewart Hagstette, Joseph Licata, III, Ronald Nicholas, Blanca Estela Villagomez, Jill Wallace.
Charles Justin Cooper, Michael Kirk, William C. Marra, John David Ohlendorf, Harold Reeves, Cooper & Kirk, P.L.L.C., Washington, DC, Sheryl Anne Falk, John R. Keville, Attorney, John E. O'Neill, Winston & Strawn, L.L.P., Houston, TX, for Defendants–Appellants Paula Goodhart, Bill Harmon, Natalie C. Fleming, John Clinton, Margaret Harris, Larry Standley, Pam Derbyshire, Jay Karahan, Judge Analia Wilkerson, Dan Spjut, Judge Diane Bull, Judge Robin Brown, Donald Smyth, Jean Hughes.
Murray Jules Fogler, Esq., Attorney, Fogler, Brar, Ford, O'Neil & Gray, L.L.P., Houston, TX, for Amicus Curiae Harris County Sheriff Ed Gonzalez, in his official capacity.
Katherine R. Goldstein, Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy, L.L.P., New York, NY, Nicole Wignall DeBorde, Esq., Bires, Schaffer & DeBorde, Houston, TX, Michelle Simpson Tuegel, Hunt & Tuegel, P.L.L.C., Waco, TX, for Amicus Curiae National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers.
Scott A. Keller, Solicitor, Office of the Solicitor General for the State of Texas, Joseph David Hughes, Assistant Solicitor General, Office of the Attorney General, Office of the Solicitor General, Austin, TX, for Amici Curiae State of Texas, State of Arizona, State of Hawaii, State of Kansas, State of Louisiana, State of Nebraska.
Paul D. Clement, Edmund Gerard LaCour, Jr., Andrew Lawrence, Kirkland & Ellis, L.L.P., Washington, DC, for Amici Curiae American Bail Coalition, Professional Bondsmen of Texas, Professional Bondsmen of Harris County.
Thomas Royal Phillips, Janet Martini Himmel, Morgan Mallory Menchaca, Mary Margaret Roark, Evan A. Young, Attorney, Baker Botts, L.L.P., Austin, TX, for Amicus Curiae Conference of Chief Justices.
George Allan Van Fleet, Van Fleet, L.P., Houston, TX, for Amicus Curiae Darrell W. Jordan.
Mary B. McCord, Esq., Georgetown University Law Center, Washington, DC, for Amici Curiae District and State's Attorneys, State Attorneys General, United States Attorneys, Assistant United States Attorneys, Department of Justice Officials.
Ilya Shapiro, Esq., Cato Institute, Washington, DC, for Amicus Curiae Cato Institute.
Elizabeth Bonnie Wydra, Chief Counsel, Constitutional Accountability Center, Washington, DC, for Amicus Curiae Constitutional Accountability Center.
Bradley S. Phillips, Munger, Tolles & Olson, L.L.P., Los Angeles, CA, for Amicus Curiae Law Enforcement and Corrections Officials.
Carter Glasgow Phillips, Sidley Austin, L.L.P., Washington, DC, for Amici Curiae Texas Public Policy Foundation, R Street Institute.
Jared Brandon Caplan, Houston, TX, James Bradley Robertson, Birmingham, AL, Jeffrey William Sheehan, Nashville, TN, Bradley Arant Boult Cummings, L.L.P., for Amici Curiae National Association of Pretrial Service Agencies, Pretrial Justice Institute, National Association for Public Defense, New York Association of Pretrial Service Agencies, Minnesota Association of Pretrial Service Agencies, Prison Policy Initiative, Incorporated, Drug Policy Alliance.
Linda A. Klein, American Bar Association, Chicago, IL, for Amicus Curiae American Bar Association.
Jonathan Lee Marcus, Esq., Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, L.L.P., Washington, DC, for Amici Curiae Texas Baptists Christian Life Commission, Texas Catholic Conference of Bishops, Archbishop Joseph A. Fiorenza, Rabbi Samuel E. Karff, Reverend William A. Lawson, Right Reverend C. Andrew Doyle, Reverend Michael Rinehart.
Samuel Jacob Brooke, Southern Poverty Law Center, Immigrant Justice Project, Montgomery, AL, for Amici Curiae American Civil Liberties Union Foundation, American Civil Liberties Union of Texas, Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, Southern Poverty Law Center.
Before CLEMENT, PRADO, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.
Maranda ODonnell and other plaintiffs (collectively, "ODonnell") brought a class action suit against Harris County, Texas, and a number of its officials—including County Judges,1 Hearing Officers, and the Sheriff (collectively, the "County")—under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. ODonnell alleged the County’s system of setting bail for indigent misdemeanor arrestees violated Texas statutory and constitutional law, as well as the equal protection and due process clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. ODonnell moved for a preliminary injunction, and the County moved for summary judgment. After eight days of hearings, at which the parties presented numerous fact and expert witnesses and voluminous written evidence, the district court denied the County’s summary judgment motion and granted ODonnell’s motion for a preliminary injunction. The County then applied to this court for a stay of the injunction pending appeal, but the motion was denied, and the injunction went into effect. Before this court now is the County’s appeal, seeking vacatur of the injunction and raising numerous legal challenges.
For the reasons set forth, we affirm most of the district court’s rulings, including its conclusion that ODonnell established a likelihood of success on the merits of its claims that the County’s policies violate procedural due process and equal protection. We disagree, however, with the district court’s analysis in three respects: First, its definition of ODonnell’s liberty interest under due process was too broad, and the procedures it required to protect that interest were too onerous. Second, it erred by concluding that the County Sheriff can be sued under § 1983. Finally, the district court’s injunction was overbroad. As a result, we will dismiss the Sheriff from the suit, vacate the injunction, and order the district court to modify its terms in a manner consistent with this opinion.
We need not conduct an exhaustive review of the facts. The district court’s account is expansive: It comprised over 120 pages of factual findings, including not only the specific details of the County’s bail-setting procedures, but also the history of bail and recent reform attempts nationwide.
Bail in Texas is either secured or unsecured. Secured bail requires the arrestee to post bond either out of the arrestee’s pocket or from a third-party surety (often bail bondsmen, who generally require a 10% non-refundable premium in exchange for posting bond). Unsecured bail, by contrast, allows the arrestee to be released without posting bond, but if he fails to attend his court date and/or comply with any nonfinancial bail conditions, he becomes liable to the County for the bail amount. Both secured and unsecured bail may also include nonfinancial conditions to assure the detainee’s attendance at future hearings.
The basic procedural framework governing the administration of bail in Harris County is set by the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure and local rules promulgated by County Judges. See Tex. Gov’t Code § 75.403(f). When a misdemeanor defendant is arrested, the prosecutor submits a secured bail amount according to a bond schedule established by County Judges. See Harris County Criminal Courts at Law Rule 9 (hereinafter , "Local Rule"). Bonds are then formally set by Hearing Officers and County Judges. Tex. Code. Crim. Pro. art. 2.09, 17.15. Hearing Officers are generally responsible for setting bail amounts in the first instance. This often occurs during the arrestee’s initial probable cause hearing, which must be held within 24 hours of arrest. Tex. Code Crim. Pro. art. 17.033 ; Local Rule 4.2.1.1. County Judges review the Hearing Officers’ determinations and can adjust bail amounts at a "Next Business Day" hearing. Local Rule 4.3.1.
The Hearing Officers and County Judges are legally proscribed from mechanically applying the bail schedule to a given arrestee. Instead, the Texas Code requires officials to conduct an individualized review based on five enumerated factors, which include the defendant’s ability to pay, the charge, and community safety. Tex. Code of Crim. Pro. art. 17.15. The Local Rules explicitly state the schedule is not mandatory. They also authorize a similar, individualized assessment using factors which partially overlap with those listed in the Code. Local Rule 4.2.4. Hearing Officers and County Judges sometimes receive assessments by Pretrial Services, which interviews the detainees prior to hearings, calculates the detainees flight and safety risk based on a point system, and then makes specific recommendations regarding bail.2
Despite these formal requirements, the district court found that, in practice, County procedures were dictated by an unwritten custom and practice that was marred by gross inefficiencies, did not...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Schultz v. State
...according to a bail schedule. ODonnell v. Harris Cty., Texas , 251 F.Supp.3d 1052, 1088 (S.D. Tex. 2017), aff'd as modified , 882 F.3d 528 (5th Cir. 2018), and aff'd as modified sub nom. ODonnell v. Harris Cty. , 892 F.3d 147 (5th Cir. 2018).25 Like the Cullman County bail schedule, the Har......
-
Nat'l Ass'n v. Trump, Civil Action No. 17–1907 (JDB)
...] equitable relief," Crawford v. Silette, 608 F.3d 275, 278 (5th Cir. 2010), including injunctive relief, see ODonnell v. Harris County, 882 F.3d 528, 537 (5th Cir. 2018) (noting that a district court's injunction is reviewed for abuse of discretion). In light of this discretion, it strains......
-
Daves v. Dall. Cnty.
...pay money bail, resulting in the "outright elimination of secured money bail for indigent misdemeanor arrestees." ODonnell v. Harris Cnty. , 882 F.3d 528, 546 (5th Cir. 2018), withdrawn and replaced by ODonnell v. Harris Cnty. , 892 F.3d 147, 163 (5th Cir. 2018) (" ODonnell I "). This court......
-
Daves v. Dall. Cnty.
...to the system of setting bail for misdemeanor arrestees in Harris County (in which Houston is located). See ODonnell v. Harris Cnty., 882 F.3d 528 (5th Cir. 2018), withdrawn and superseded on panel reh'g, 892 F.3d 147 (5th Cir. 2018) (ODonnell I); see also ODonnell v. Goodhart, 900 F.3d 220......
-
ACCUSED AND UNCONVICTED: FLEEING FROM WEALTH-BASED PRETRIAL DETENTION.
...1245, 1260 (11th Cir. 2018) (quoting Pugh v. Rainwater, 572 F.2d 1053, 1057, 1058 (5th Cir. 1978)). (117) See ODonnell v. Harris Cty., 882 F.3d 528, 541 (5th Cir. 2018), withdrawn, 892 F.3d 147 (5th Cir. (118) See Walker, 901 F.3d at 1260 (quoting Bearden, 461 U.S. at 661); ODonnell, 892 F.......