Allen v. Leis

• Decision Date: 19 June 2001
• Docket Number: No. C-1-00-261.,C-1-00-261.
• Parties: Anthony ALLEN, Plaintiff, v. Simon L. LEIS, Jr., et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of Ohio

154 F.Supp.2d 1240

Anthony ALLEN, Plaintiff, v. Simon L. LEIS, Jr., et al., Defendants.

No. C-1-00-261.

United States District Court, S.D. Ohio, Western Division.

June 19, 2001.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Stephen R. Felson, Robert Brand Newman, Newman & Meeks Co LPA, Cincinnati, OH, for Plaintiff.

Elise W. Porter, Darrell M. Pierre, Jr., Ohio Attorney General, Columbus, OH, for Intervenor.

Shannon M. Reynolds, Hamilton County Prosecuting Attorney, C. Joseph McCullough, Hamilton County Prosecutor, Civil Unit, Cincinnati, OH, for Defendants.

ORDER

SPIEGEL, Senior District Judge.

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff's Motion to Certify the Class (doc. 7); Defendants' Response (doc. 15), to which Plaintiff did not file a Reply; Plaintiff's Motion for a Preliminary Injunction (doc. 8); Defendants' Response (doc. 15); Plaintiff's Reply (doc. 19); the Ohio Attorney General's Notice of Intervention and Motion to Extend the Time to File a Response Motion to Plaintiff's Motion for a Preliminary Injunction (doc. 17); Intervenor Attorney General's Post-Hearing Brief in Support of Ohio Revised Code § 341.06 (doc. 22); Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (doc. 18); and Plaintiff's Response (doc. 19), to which Defendants did not file a Reply.

In addition, the Court held a Hearing in this matter on Thursday, May 10, 2001 (doc. 21).

The Complaint in this case asserts a constitutional challenge to Hamilton County's application of an Ohio state statute, which allegedly permits counties and sheriff's offices throughout the state to be reimbursed by prisoners and criminal offenders for the government's confinement costs and booking fees (see doc. 1). See also Ohio Rev.Code § 341.06. The County Defendants have moved this Court for an entry of summary judgment in their favor as a matter of law (see doc. 18). We conclude that there exist genuine issues of material fact which prevents this Court from finding in favor of the County Defendants as a matter of law, and, therefore, this matter will be permitted to proceed forward to a trial on the merits.

Accordingly, for the reasons set forth below, the Court hereby DENIES Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (doc. 18), and a status conference is hereby SCHEDULED in this matter for the Parties in this case on Tuesday, June 19, 2001, at 3:00 P.M.

An outline of the Court's discussion of Ohio Revised Code Section 341.06 is as follows:

                  I. BACKGROUND .............................................................1246
                     A. An Introduction to the Parties and the Complaint ....................1246
                        1. The Parties ......................................................1246
                        2. The Complaint ....................................................1246
                     B. Factual History .....................................................1247
                        1. Section 341.06 ...................................................1247
                        2. The Attorney General's Opinion Letter ............................1248
                        3. The Hamilton County "Pay-for-Stay" Program .......................1248
                        4. Plaintiff's Arrest, Incarceration, and Book-in-Fee ...............1250
                     C. Procedural History ..................................................1251
                        1. Introduction .....................................................1251
                        2. The Intervenor Attorney General ..................................1252
                     D. The May 10, 2001 Hearing ............................................1252
                        1. Plaintiff's Motion for a Preliminary Injunction ..................1252
                        2. Compensatory and Punitive Damages ................................1253
                        3. The Intellitect Corporation ......................................1253
                        4. Waiver and Refund ................................................1253
                        5. Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification .......................1254
                 II. THE STANDARD OF REVIEW .................................................1254
                III. DISCUSSION .............................................................1254
                     A. Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment .............................1254
                        1. Introduction .....................................................1254
                        2. Defendants' Arguments ............................................1255
                        3. Plaintiff's Arguments ............................................1255
                        4. The Intervenor's Arguments .......................................1257
                     B. The Court's Analyses ................................................1258
                        1. Introduction to the Parties' Claims and Defenses .................1258
                        2. Count I of the Complaint .........................................1259
                        3. Qualified Immunity ...............................................1261
                        4. Eleventh Amendment Immunity ......................................1262
                 IV. THE COURT'S CONSTITUTIONAL REVIEW ......................................1264
                     A. Introduction ........................................................1264
                     B. The Fourteenth Amendment ............................................1265
                        1. Pretrial Detainees ...............................................1265
                        2. The Procedural Due Process Clause ................................1266
                        3. The Equal Protection Clause ......................................1268
                     C. The Fourth Amendment ................................................1271
                        1. Introduction .....................................................1271
                        2. The County Defendants "Seized" Plaintiff's Funds .................1271
                        3. Defendants' "Seizure" May Have Been Unreasonable .................1273
                     D. Case of James Daniel Good Realty and The Matthews' Test .............1273
                        1. United States v. James Daniel Good Realty ........................1273
                        2. Matthews v. Eldrige ..............................................1275
                        3. Case of Good and the Matthews' Test Favor Plaintiff ..............1277
                     E. Ohio Revised Code Section 341.06, As Applied by Defendants ..........1278
                        1. The Pay-for-Stay Program May Be Unconstitutional .................1278
                        2. Any Signed Releases or Waivers May Be Invalid ....................1279
                        3. Defendants' Post-Deprivation Procedures Are Inadequate ...........1279
                     F. Ohio Revised Code Section 341.06 May Be Unconstitutional ............1281
                        1. Introduction .....................................................1281
                        2. Section 341.06 May Not Provide Adequate Due Process ..............1281
                        3. The Uniformity Clause of the Ohio Constitution ...................1283
                

                  V. THE PULLMAN ABSTENTION DOCTRINE ........................................1284
                     A. Introduction ........................................................1284
                     B. Railroad Comm'n of Texas v. Pullman Co. .............................1284
                     C. The Pullman Doctrine May Not Be Applicable in this Case .............1285
                 VI. CONCLUSION .............................................................1285
                

I. BACKGROUND

A. An Introduction To The Parties And The Complaint

1. The Parties

On April 5, 2001, Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, filed a Class Action Complaint against Defendants (doc. 1). In his Complaint, Plaintiff seeks actual and punitive damages, as well as injunctive and other equitable relief, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, against Defendants for the alleged "violation of the rights of Plaintiff and all other class members under the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, as applied to the States by the Fourteenth Amendment," in levying the cost of confinement fees upon all pretrial detainees, regardless of their innocence or guilt (Id.). The proposed class consists of all persons whose funds were confiscated before conviction under the Hamilton County Pay-for-Stay Program (Id.).

In the case at bar, Plaintiff Anthony Allen was a resident of Cincinnati, Ohio at the time of his arrest in July of 1999, and was also the sole owner of the $ 30.00 cash currency that was taken by the County Defendants under its "Pay-for-Stay" Program (Id.). The Pay-for-Stay Program was allegedly promulgated and enacted pursuant to Ohio Revised Code § 341.06, also known as the "Prisoner Reimbursement Policy" (Id.).

Defendant Simon L. Leis, Jr. is the duly elected and qualified Sheriff of Hamilton County, Ohio, and is believed to be one of the principal promulgators of the Pay-for-Stay Program, which results in the allegedly "unconstitutional" levying of pretrial cost of confinement fines upon prisoners, such fines are known as "Book-in-Fees" (Id.). Defendant Leis has been sued in his official capacity only (Id.).

Defendants Tom Neyer and John Dowlin, at all relevant times hereto, were and are duly elected and qualified members of the Board of County Commissioners for Hamilton County, Ohio, and are believed to be one of the principal promulgators of the Pay-for-Stay Program which results in the levying of Book-in-Fee fines upon pretrial detainees (Id.). This Court takes judicial notice that Defendants Neyer and Dowlin are sued in both their official and individual capacities and are considered to be duly elected and qualified members of the Board of County Commissioners (Id.).

In addition, pursuant to Rule 25(d)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Todd Portune is automatically substituted for Defendant-Commissioner Bob Bedinghaus in his official capacity only, since he has succeeded Mr. Bedinghaus in public office as a newly-elected member of the Hamilton County Board of County Commissioners. However, Plaintiff's claims against Defendant Bedinghaus, in his individual capacity, are not necessarily affected by the succession in public office of now Defendant-Commissioner Todd Portune.

2. The Complaint

On April 5, 2000, Plaintiff filed...