Allen v. Edwards

• Decision Date: 12 March 2021
• Docket Number: NO. 2019 CA 0125,2019 CA 0125
• Citation: 322 So.3d 800
• Parties: Joseph ALLEN, Steven Ayres, Ashley Hurlburt, Rory Kevin Gates, James Howard, Demarcus Morrow, Rodney Waller, Keith Arcement, Frederick Bell, Genaro Cruz Gomez, Sam Ybarra, Michael Carter, & James Park, on Behalf of Themselves & All Others Similarly Situated v. John Bel EDWARDS in His Official Capacity as Governor of the State of Louisiana, Zita Jackson Andrus, Chris L. Bowman, Flozell Daniels, Jr., Thomas D. Davenport, Jr., Patrick J. Fanning, W. Ross Foote, Katherine E. Gilmer, Michael C. Ginart, Jr., Frank Holthaus, Donald W. North, & Moses Junior Williams, in Their Official Capacities as Members of the Louisiana Public Defender Board, & James T. Dixon, Jr., in His Official Capacity as the Louisiana State Public Defender
• Court: Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US

322 So.3d 800

Joseph ALLEN, Steven Ayres, Ashley Hurlburt, Rory Kevin Gates, James Howard, Demarcus Morrow, Rodney Waller, Keith Arcement, Frederick Bell, Genaro Cruz Gomez, Sam Ybarra, Michael Carter, & James Park, on Behalf of Themselves & All Others Similarly Situated

v.John Bel EDWARDS in His Official Capacity as Governor of the State of Louisiana, Zita Jackson Andrus, Chris L. Bowman, Flozell Daniels, Jr., Thomas D. Davenport, Jr., Patrick J. Fanning, W. Ross Foote, Katherine E. Gilmer, Michael C. Ginart, Jr., Frank Holthaus, Donald W. North, & Moses Junior Williams, in Their Official Capacities as Members of the Louisiana Public Defender Board, & James T. Dixon, Jr., in His Official Capacity as the Louisiana State Public Defender

NO. 2019 CA 0125

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, First Circuit.

Judgment Rendered: MARCH 12, 2021

Thomas P. Owen, Jr., Kathryn W. Munson, John P. D'Avello, Metairie, Louisiana, Counsel for Appellants, John Bel Edwards in his Official Capacity as Governor of the State of Louisiana, Zita Jackson, Andrus, Chris L. Bowman, Flozell, Daniels, Jr., Thomas D. Davenport, Jr., Patrick J. Fanning, W. Ross Foote, Katherine E. Gilmer, Michael C. Ginart, Jr., Frank Holthaus, Donald W. North, & Moses Junior Williams, in their Official Capacities as Members of the Louisiana Public Defender Board; and James T. Dixon, Jr., in his Official Capacity as the Louisiana State Public Defender

Mark A. Cunningham, New Orleans, Louisiana -and-, Jon Greenbaum, Pro Hac Vice, Washington, District of Columbia, Counsel for Appellees, Joseph Allen, Steven Ayres, Ashley Hurlburt, Rory Kevin, Gates, James Howard, Demarcus Morrow, Rodney, Waller, Keith Arcement, Frederick Bell, Genaro Cruz, Gomez, Sam Ybarra, Michael, Carter, & James Park, on, Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated

Chloe M. Chetta, New Orleans, Louisiana, Counsel for Amici Curiae American Conservative Union Foundation Nolan Center for Justice, CATO Institute, Freedomworks Foundation, The James Madison Institute, R Street Institute, Innocence Project New Orleans, The Innocence Project, National Legal Aid & Defender Association, and Public Defender Service for the District of Columbia

BEFORE: WHIPPLE, C.J., GUIDRY, THERIOT, CHUTZ, AND WOLFE, JJ.

WOLFE, J.

This is an appeal by John Bel Edwards, in his official capacity as Governor of the State of Louisiana, Zita Jackson Andrus, Chris L. Bowman, Flozell Daniels, Jr., Thomas D. Davenport, Jr., Patrick J. Fanning, W. Ross Foote, Katherine E. Gilmer, Michael C. Ginart, Jr., Frank Holthaus, Donald W. North, and Moses Junior Williams, in their official capacities as appointed members of the Louisiana Public Defender Board, and James T. Dixon, Jr., as the Louisiana State Public Defender (collectively, "defendants"), seeking review of a district court judgment granting a motion for class certification filed by plaintiffs, Steven Ayres, Keith Arcement, Frederick Bell, Michael Carter, and James Park (collectively, "plaintiffs"). For the following reasons, we reverse the judgment of the district court.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On February 6, 2017, plaintiffs instituted this action with the filing of a Verified Petition for Class Certification and for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief ("Petition") against defendants. The Petition named as plaintiffs thirteen individuals who purport to represent a class of persons similarly situated, i.e ., those "charged with non-capital offenses in Louisiana, and have had counsel appointed to represent them because they cannot afford the services of an attorney." Plaintiffs subsequently filed a First Amended Petition for Class Certification and for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief ("Amended Petition") on September 19, 2017, removing six of the thirteen originally named plaintiffs.¹

On behalf of the putative class, plaintiffs complain in their Amended Petition that the public defense system in Louisiana fails to provide effective representation to the poor and that indigent defendants will be denied the right to counsel until and unless the structural limitations of the public defender system are removed. According to plaintiffs, these structural limitations include, "acute lack of resources, endemic conflicts of interest, lack of independence, unreasonably high workloads, and lack of supervision, [all of which] create an impenetrable barrier to effective representation." Elaborating on these alleged "structural issues," plaintiffs argue:

Each of them is indigent and facing charges which could, in most cases, lead to their imprisonment for years or decades. Each has had an attorney appointed to represent them in court, but the representation they are receiving fails to meet minimum constitutional or professional ethical standards by any measure. Many never had a confidential meeting with their attorneys. Some have met their attorneys only in passing. None of the attorneys have spoken with their clients in a meaningful way about their defenses or the strength of the case against their client, identified and secured favorable witnesses and evidence, filed appropriate pretrial motions, or provided a voice for their clients in court. Many of them have been deprived of even basic information about the charges against them or the expectations for trial. Their experiences are not unique and the product of the structural barriers to effective representation in Louisiana.

Moreover, plaintiffs contend, "Louisiana does not have a public defense system that is effective statewide; that the traditional markers of effective representation, such as meaningful adversarial testing of the prosecution's case, timely and confidential consultation with clients, and appropriate case investigation, are either absent from public defender services or significantly compromised; and that judicial intervention is needed to remove the structural barriers to the right to counsel. Without this court's intervention, [p]laintiffs will continue to face and suffer irreparable injury and prejudice."

Generally, plaintiffs assert a Section 1983² claim for injunctive and declaratory relief for violations of the rights to effective assistance of counsel under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution; a Section 1983 claim for injunctive and declaratory relief for violations of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution; and a claim for injunctive and declaratory relief for violations of their rights to due process and counsel under Louisiana Constitution Article I, §§ 2, 3, and 13.³ Specifically, plaintiffs contend and pray for:

An injunction prohibiting [d]efendants from failing to: (1) provide effective representation for the poor when they are facing charges with criminal offenses punishable by imprisonment, including, without limitation, meaningful adversarial testing of the charges, the pressing of necessary motions, timely and confidential consultation with clients, and appropriate case investigation; (2) remove the structural barriers to effective representation in Louisiana including, without limitation, lack of resources, unreasonably high attorney workloads, conflicts of interest, lack of supervision, lack of independence, and critical understaffing; and (3) enforce mandatory statewide standards and guidelines that require public defender services to be provided in a manner that is uniformly fair and consistent throughout the state;

An order of appointment for a monitor to supervise compliance with the injunctions and orders of this [c]ourt until such time as the [c]ourt determines that [d]efendants have: (1) implemented a state-wide public defense system that will continue to provide effective representation for the poor when they are charged with criminal offenses punishable by imprisonment; (2) removed the structural barriers to effective representation including, without limitation, lack of resources, unreasonably high attorney workloads, conflicts of interest, lack of supervision, lack of independence, and critical understaffing; and (3) implemented and enforce mandatory statewide standards and guidelines that require public defender services to be provided in a manner that is uniformly fair and consistent throughout the [s]tate;

A declaration that (1) the traditional markers of effective representation, such as meaningful adversarial testing of the charges, the pressing of necessary motions, timely and confidential consultation with clients, and appropriate case investigation, are either absent from the delivery of public defender services in Louisiana or significantly compromised on a system wide basis; (2) judicial intervention is needed to remove the structural barriers to effective representation in Louisiana including, without limitation, lack of resources, unreasonably high attorney workloads, conflicts of interest, lack of supervision, lack of independence, and critical understaffing.

In response to plaintiffs’ Petition, defendants filed declinatory and peremptory exceptions asserting the objections of lack of subject matter jurisdiction, no cause of action, and no right of action. Defendants further answered the Petition asserting various affirmative defenses, including the defense of qualified immunity under Section 1983.⁴ These exceptions were overruled by the district court with defendants subsequently seeking this court's review of the ruling; however, this court denied defendants’ application for supervisory review. Allen v. Edwards, 2017-1581 (La. App. 1st Cir. 2/6/18), 2018 WL 735362 (unpublished writ action).

Following plaintiffs’ Amended Petition, defendants again raised and reasserted the objections of lack of subject matter jurisdiction, no cause of action, and no right of action, which were substantively similar to defendants’ prior exceptions. Furthermore, defendants filed a motion for partial summary judgment, contending there were no material issues of fact that plaintiffs are not entitled to...