Cain v. City of New Orleans

• Decision Date: 03 February 2017
• Docket Number: CIVIL ACTION NO. 15-4479 SECTION "R" (2)
• Parties: ALANA CAIN, ET AL. v. CITY OF NEW ORLEANS, ET AL.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Louisiana

ALANA CAIN, ET AL. v. CITY OF NEW ORLEANS, ET AL.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 15-4479 SECTION "R" (2)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

February 3, 2017

ORDER AND REASONS

Plaintiffs Alana Cain, Ashton Brown, Reynaud Variste, Reynajia Variste, Thaddeus Long, and Vanessa Maxwell filed this civil rights putative class action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 seeking to declare the manner in which the Orleans Parish Criminal District Court collects post-judgment court costs from indigent debtors unconstitutional and other relief. Plaintiffs appeal from the Magistrate Judge's denial of their motion for leave to amend their complaint. For the following reasons, plaintiffs' appeal is granted in part and denied it part.

I. BACKGROUND

A. Factual Allegations

Plaintiffs allege that the defendants maintain an unconstitutional scheme of jailing indigent criminal defendants and imposing excessive bail amounts for nonpayment "offenses" in an effort to collect unpaid court costs. According to plaintiffs, the Criminal District Court maintains an internal "Collections Department," informally called the "fines and fees" department, that oversees the collection of court debts from former criminal defendants. The "typical" case allegedly proceeds as follows.

When a person is charged with a crime, the Criminal District Court judges first determine whether the criminal defendant is legally "indigent," which means they qualify for appointment of counsel through the Orleans Public Defenders under Louisiana Revised Statutes § 15:175 (2016). According to plaintiffs, 85% of the criminal defendants in Orleans Parish are legally indigent.¹ With assistance of counsel, the defendants either plead guilty to their criminal charges or proceed to trial. If convicted, the criminal defendants must appear before a judge for sentencing.

At sentencing, in addition to imposing a term of imprisonment or probation, the judge may assess various "court costs" against the defendants. These costs may include restitution to any victim, a statutory fine, fees, or other costs imposed at the judge's discretion. According to plaintiffs, the discretionary assessments "fund the District Attorney's office, the Public Defender, and the Court," which rely on these collections "to fund theiroperations and pay employee salaries and extra benefits."² Plaintiffs allege that the Criminal District Court judges impose court costs without inquiring into the criminal defendants' ability to pay.³

If the criminal defendants cannot immediately pay in full, the judges allegedly direct them to the Collections Department. There, an employee allegedly imposes, at his discretion and without inquiring into a defendant's ability to pay, a payment schedule—usually requiring a certain amount per month.⁴ Collections Department employees also allegedly warn defendants that failure to pay the monthly amount, in full, will result in their arrests. Plaintiffs contend that Collections Department employees refuse to accept anything less than full payment.⁵

When criminal defendants fail to pay, a Collections Department employee allegedly issues a pre-printed warrant for the defendant's arrest by forging a judge's signature.⁶ According to plaintiffs' allegations, the Collections Department often issues these warrants "years after a purportednonpayment," and the warrants are "routinely issued in error" or without regard to a debtor's indigence.⁷

Plaintiffs also allege that each Collections Department arrest warrant is "accompanied by a preset $20,000 secured money bond required for release."⁸ According to plaintiffs' allegations, the amount a debtor must pay to satisfy the $20,000 secured money bond is often more than all of the debtor's outstanding court costs.⁹ Plaintiffs allege that this "automatic $20,000 secured money bond" is motivated by defendants' financial interest in state court arrestees' paying for their release.¹⁰ Plaintiffs contend that the Criminal District Court judges collect 1.8% of each bond, while the Orleans Parish District Attorney's office, the Orleans Public Defenders' office, and the Orleans Parish Sheriff each collect 0.4% of each bond.¹¹

Plaintiffs allege that when criminal defendants are arrested for nonpayment, they are "routinely told" that to be released from prison, they must pay for the $20,000 secured money bond, the entirety of their outstanding court debts, or some other amount "unilaterally determine[d]"by the Collections Department.¹² As a result, these indigent debtors allegedly "languish" in prison "indefinite[ly]" because they cannot afford to pay any of the foregoing amounts.¹³ Although "arrestees are eventually brought to court," plaintiffs allege that defendants "have no set policy or practice" regarding how long arrestees must wait for a hearing.¹⁴ According to plaintiffs, indigent debtors "routinely" spend a week or more in prison.¹⁵ Plaintiffs allege that some arrestees, with help from family and friends, pay for their release without ever having a hearing and thus have "no opportunity to contest the debt or the jailing."¹⁶

When criminal defendants are brought to court, the judges allegedly send them back to prison if they are unable to pay their debts or release them "on threat of future arrest and incarceration" if they do not promptly pay the Collections Department.¹⁷ The judges allegedly hold these brief "failure-to-pay hearings" without providing the debtors notice of the critical issues or considering the debtors' ability to pay.¹⁸

Plaintiffs contend that these practices are unconstitutional under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments.

B. Plaintiffs

The named plaintiffs in the First Amended Complaint are six persons who were defendants in the Orleans Parish Criminal District Court—Alana Cain, Ashton Brown, Reynaud Variste, Reynajia Variste, Thaddeus Long, and Vanessa Maxwell.¹⁹ During the criminal proceedings, Criminal District Court judges appointed counsel from the Orleans Public Defenders to represent each of the named plaintiffs, except Reynaud Variste, during their criminal proceedings.²⁰ Thus, the court must have determined that Cain, Brown, Reynajia Variste, Long, and Maxwell were legally indigent under Louisiana Revised Statutes § 15:175.²¹ Reynaud Variste appears to have retained private counsel.²²

With the assistance of counsel, all of the named plaintiffs pleaded guilty to their respective criminal charges, including theft,²³ battery,²⁴ drug possession,²⁵ "simple criminal damage,"²⁶ and disturbing the peace.²⁷ At plaintiffs' sentencings, the presiding judges imposed terms of imprisonment, which were often suspended, and terms of active or inactive probation. In addition, the judges assessed various court costs against plaintiffs, including restitution, fines, and/or discretionary fees and costs.²⁸ At some point, all of the named plaintiffs were subsequently arrested for failing to pay outstanding court costs on a warrant issued by the court's Collections Department.

C. Claims in the First Amended Complaint

Plaintiffs filed this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging violations of their Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights, and violationsof Louisiana tort law.²⁹ The First Amended Complaint named the following defendants: (1) The City of New Orleans, (2) Orleans Parish Criminal District Court (OPCDC), (3) Orleans Parish Sheriff Marlin Gusman, (4) Clerk of Court Arthur Morrell, (5) Judicial Administrator Robert Kazik, and (6) thirteen individual judges of the Orleans Parish Criminal District Court (the Judges). In their original and First Amendment complaints, plaintiffs primarily alleged claims against, and sought relief from, "Defendants" as a group, without distinguishing between different actors. The Court previously summarized plaintiffs' claims as follows:

(1) Defendants' policy of issuing and executing arrest warrants for nonpayment of court costs is unconstitutional under the Fourth Amendment and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment;

(2) Defendants' policy of requiring a $20,000 "fixed secured money bond" for each Collections Department warrant (issued for nonpayment of court costs) is unconstitutional under the DueProcess Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment;

(3) Defendants' policy of indefinitely jailing indigent debtors for nonpayment of court costs without a judicial hearing is unconstitutional under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment;

(4) Defendants' "scheme of money bonds" to fund certain judicial actors is unconstitutional under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. To the extent defendants argue this scheme is in compliance with Louisiana Revised Statutes §§ 13:1381.5 and 22:822, governing the percentage of each surety bond that judicial actors receive, those statutes are unconstitutional;

(5) Defendants' policy of jailing indigent debtors for nonpayment of court costs without any inquiry into their ability to pay is unconstitutional under the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment;

(6) Defendants' policy of jailing and threatening to imprison criminal defendants for nonpayment of court debts is unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause of theFourteenth Amendment because it imposes unduly harsh and punitive restrictions on debtors whose creditor is the State, as compared to debtors who owe money to private creditors;

(7) Defendants' conduct constitutes wrongful arrest under Louisiana law; and

(8) Defendants' conduct constitutes wrongful imprisonment under Louisiana law.

In the First Amended complaint, Plaintiffs' request for relief sought: (1) declaratory judgements that "the Defendants'" actions violate plaintiffs' Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights; (2) an order enjoining "the Defendants" from enforcing the purportedly unconstitutional policies; (3) money damages for named plaintiffs; and (4) attorney's fees under §1983.

After a round of motions, all claims against the City of New...