Cain v. City of New Orleans, CIVIL ACTION NO. 15–4479

• Decision Date: 13 December 2017
• Docket Number: CIVIL ACTION NO. 15–4479
• Parties: Alana CAIN, et al. v. CITY OF NEW ORLEANS, et al.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Louisiana

281 F.Supp.3d 624

Alana CAIN, et al.
v.
CITY OF NEW ORLEANS, et al.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 15–4479

United States District Court, E.D. Louisiana.

Signed December 13, 2017

281 F.Supp.3d 627

William Patrick Quigley, Loyola New Orleans College of Law, New Orleans, LA, Alec George Karakatsanis, Durham, NC, Anna Lise Lellelid, LaBas Law Offices, APLC, Lafayette, LA, Christine Elizabeth Hanley, Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe, LLP, Seattle, WA, David P. Fuad, Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe, LLP, Los Angeles, CA, Hsiwen Lo, Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe, LLP, Irvine, CA, Judy Kwan, Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe, LLP, San Francisco, CA, Jonathan Phillip Guy, Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe, LLP, Hallie Nodgaard Ryan, Jon M. Greenbaum, Mateya Beth Kelley, Washington, DC, for Alana Cain, et al.

Dennis J. Phayer, Celeste Brustowicz, Christopher Kent Tankersley, Elizabeth A. Doubleday, Burglass & Tankersley, L.L.C., Metairie, LA, for City of New Orleans, et al.

SECTION "R" (2)

ORDER AND REASONS

SARAH S. VANCE, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

281 F.Supp.3d 628

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, challenging the manner in which the Orleans Parish Criminal District Court collects post-judgment court debts from indigent criminal defendants. Before the Court are the parties' cross-motions for partial summary judgment.¹ These motions turn on justiciability, the constitutionality of defendants' debt collection practices, and the constitutionality of the legislative framework that vests both judicial and executive power in the judges of the Orleans Parish Criminal District Court. For the following reasons, the Court grants in part and denies in part each motion.

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiffs are former criminal defendants in the Orleans Parish Criminal District Court (OPCDC). Each named plaintiff pleaded guilty to various criminal offenses between 2011 and 2014.² All named plaintiffs, except Reynaud Variste, were appointed counsel.³ The Court previously dismissed Reynaud Variste's and Long's claims for equitable relief.⁴ Thus, only Cain, Brown, Reynajia Variste, and Maxwell have live claims for equitable relief.

The remaining defendants are OPCDC Judges Laurie A. White, Tracey Flemings–Davillier, Benedict Willard, Keva Landrum–Johnson, Robin Pittman, Byron C. Williams, Camille Buras, Karen K. Herman, Darryl Derbigny, Arthur Hunter, Franz Zibilich, and Magistrate Judge Harry Cantrell (collectively, the Judges); OPCDC Judicial Administrator Robert Kazik; and Orleans Parish Sheriff Marlin Gusman.

A. Fines and Fees Imposed by OPCDC

The Judges impose various costs on convicted criminal defendants at their sentencing. First, the Judges may impose a fine, which is divided evenly between OPCDC and the District Attorney (DA). La. Rev. Stat. § 15:571.11(D). Second, the Judges may order a criminal defendant to pay restitution to victims. La. Code Crim. Proc. art. 883.2. Third, the Judges impose various fees that go to OPCDC:

• A mandatory $5 fee, La. Rev. Stat. § 13:1381.4(A)(1) ;

• Additional fees up to $500 on a misdemeanant and $2,500 on a felon, id. § 13:1381.4(A)(2) ;

• Court costs up to $100, id. § 13:1377(A);

• A fee of $14 for the Indigent Transcript Fund, id. § 13:1381.1(B), which "compensate[s] court reporters for the preparation of all transcripts for indigent defendants," id. § 13:1381.1(A); and

• Additional costs under

281 F.Supp.3d 629

Louisiana Code of Criminal Procedure Article 887(A) for the Indigent Transcript Fund.⁵

Fourth, the "court costs" imposed by Judges also include fees that go to other entities, such as the Orleans Public Defender, the DA, and the Louisiana Supreme Court.⁶ After sentencing, OPCDC may further assess criminal defendants for the costs of drug treatment and drug testing. La. Rev. Stat. § 13:5304.

Separately, the Sheriff collects a 3% fee on bail bonds secured by commercial sureties. Id. § 22:822(A)(2). Sixty percent of this fee, or 1.8% of the bonds, goes to OPCDC. Id. §§ 22:822(B)(3), 13:1381.5(B)(2)(a).

As a result of their criminal convictions, the named plaintiffs were assessed fines and fees ranging from $148 (imposed on Long) to $901.50 (imposed on Cain).⁷ Cain pleaded guilty to felony theft on May 30, 2013.⁸ At sentencing, the court stated that payment of fines and fees was a special condition of probation.⁹ The court directed Cain to make the first $100 payment at the courthouse on July 8, 2013, and stated, "[e]ven if you don't have the money, you have to come here to the courtroom ... for an extension."¹⁰ The court later ordered Cain to pay $1,800 in restitution.¹¹

Brown received a 90–day suspended sentence after pleading guilty to misdemeanor theft on December 16, 2013.¹² The court imposed $500 in fees: $146 for the Judicial Expense Fund, $100 for the Indigent Transcript Fund, $234 in court costs, and a $20 special assessment for the DA.¹³ As with Cain, the court instructed Brown to make his first $100 payment at the courthouse on January 13, 2014.¹⁴ The judge told Brown that if he could not pay on that date, he should go to the judge's courtroom and request an extension.¹⁵

Reynajia Variste was sentenced to two years of probation after she pleaded guilty to aggravated battery on October 21, 2014.¹⁶ Variste was assessed fees in the amount of $886.50: $286.50 in court costs, $200 for the Indigent Transcript Fund, and $400 for the Judicial Expense Fund.¹⁷ The judge warned Variste that "[f]ailure to make those payments will result in contempt of Court proceedings."¹⁸

Vanessa Maxwell was sentenced to eighteen months imprisonment for battery and six months for simple criminal damage after pleading guilty on March 6, 2012.¹⁹ Maxwell was assessed $191.50 in court costs, although the judge did not specify this amount at sentencing.²⁰

281 F.Supp.3d 630

B. The OPCDC Budget

The Judges manage the budget of OPCDC.²¹ From 2012 through 2015, the court's revenue ranged from $7,567,857 (in 2012) to $11,232,470 (in 2013).²² Some of this revenue could be used only for specified purposes and went into a restricted fund; unrestricted revenue went into OPCDC's Judicial Expense Fund, which is the general operating fund for court operations.²³ See La. Rev. Stat. § 13:1381.4. The Judges exclusively control this fund and may use it "for any purpose connected with, incidental to, or related to the proper administration or function of the court or the office of the judges thereof." Id. § 13:1381.4(C). They may not use it to supplement their own salaries. Id. § 13:1381.4(D). Most money for salaries and benefits of OPCDC employees (apart from the Judges) comes from the Judicial Expense Fund.²⁴

From 2012 through 2015, the Judicial Expense Fund's annual revenue was approximately $4,000,000.²⁵ Roughly half of this revenue came from other governmental entities, especially the City of New Orleans.²⁶ About $1,000,000 came from bail bond fees, and another $1,000,000 from fines and other fees.²⁷ Since at least 2013, all fines and fees revenue has gone to the Judicial Expense Fund.²⁸

C. OPCDC's Debt Collection Practices

All named plaintiffs were subject to OPCDC's debt collection practices. At least until September 18, 2015, the Judges delegated authority to collect court debts to the Collections Department, which the Judges and Administrator Kazik jointly instructed and supervised.²⁹ The Collections Department created payment plans for criminal defendants, accepted payments, and granted extensions.³⁰ Some Judges also delegated authority to the Collections Department to issue alias capias warrants against criminal defendants who failed to pay court debts.³¹

Before the Collections Department issued these alias capias warrants, its agents were trained to send two form letters to criminal defendants who had missed payments.³² The first letter stated: "Recently, at your sentencing in court, you were given probation. At such time the Judge instructed you, that as a condition of probation you were to report to our office and make arrangements to pay your fines that are now delinquent." The letter also directed its recipient to appear at the court "to resolve this matter" by a given date. "Failure to comply with the conditions of probation," the letter warned, "will result in your immediate arrest."³³ The second letter stated: "Unless arrangements are

281 F.Supp.3d 631

made with [the collections agent] or payment is received in full within 72 hours[,]... we will request your immediate arrest."³⁴

The Collections Department then checked court dockets to determine whether the court had granted an extension on or accepted a payment toward an individual's court debts.³⁵ The Collections Department also checked probation and local jail records.³⁶ If these checks revealed no reason for an individual's failure to pay, the Collections Department issued an alias capias...