Cain v. City of New Orleans
| Decision Date | 21 April 2016 |
| 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 |
William Patrick Quigley, Loyola Law School Clinic, Anna Lise Lellelid-Douffet, Law Office of Anna Lellelid, LLC, Emily Faye Ratner, Emily Faye Ratner, Attorney at Law, New Orleans, LA, Alec George Karakatsanis, Equal Justice Under Law, Washington, DC, for Alana Cain, et al.
Adam J. Swensek, Cherrell Simms Taplin, Churita H. Hansell, City Attorney'S Office, Sharonda R. Williams, Fishman Haygood, Blake J. Arcuri, Freeman Rudolph Matthews, Timothy R. Richardson, Usry, Weeks & Matthews, New Orleans, LA, Dennis J. Phayer, Celeste Brustowicz, Christopher Kent Tankersley, Elizabeth A. Doubleday, Burglass & Tankersley, L.L.C., Inemesit U. O'Boyle, James McClendon Williams, Matthew Arthur Sherman, Chehardy, Sherman, Ellis, Murray, Recile, Stakelum & Hayes, LLP, Metairie, LA, for City of New Orleans, et al.
ORDER AND REASONS
Named plaintiffs Alana Cain, Ashton Brown, Reynaud Variste, Reynajia Variste, Thaddeus Long, and Vanessa Maxwell filed this civil rights 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. According to plaintiffs, the Criminal District Court and other, related actors maintain a policy of jailing criminal defendants who fail to pay their court costs solely because of their indigence.1
The "judicial defendants" move the Court to dismiss this case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.2 Although defendants concede that this Court has subject matter jurisdiction over plaintiffs' constitutional claims arising under section 1983, they argue that the facts and circumstances presented here demand the Court's abstaining from jurisdiction.3 For the following reasons, the Court denies the motion.
In this section 1983 civil rights lawsuit, plaintiffs allege, on behalf of themselves and those similarly situated, that the City of New Orleans, the Orleans Parish Criminal District Court, its judges and judicial administrator, and Orleans Parish Sheriff Marlin Gusman maintain an unconstitutional scheme of jailing indigent criminal defendants and imposing excessive bail amounts for nonpayment "offenses" in an effort to collect unpaid court courts. 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," meaning they qualify for appointment of counsel through the Orleans Public Defenders under Louisiana Revised Statutes § 15:175. According to plaintiffs, eight-five percent of the criminal defendants in Orleans Parish are legally indigent.4 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 at the Criminal District Court for sentencing.
At sentencing, in addition to imposing a term of imprisonment or probation, the court may assess against the criminal defendants various "court costs." 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 their operations and to pay employee salaries and extra benefits."5 Plaintiffs allege that the Criminal District Court judges impose court costs without inquiring into the criminal defendants' ability to pay.6
If the criminal defendants cannot immediately pay in full immediately, the Criminal District Court judges direct them to the Collections Department, or "fines and fees." There, a Collections Department employee imposes, at his discretion and without inquiring into a defendant's ability to pay, a payment schedule—usually requiring a certain amount per month.7 Collections Department employees also warn the defendants that failure to pay the monthly amount, in full, will result in their arrests. Collections Department employees refuse to accept anything less than full payment.8
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 name.9 According to plaintiffs, the Collections Department often issues these warrants "years after a purported nonpayment," and the warrants are "routinely issued in error" or without regard to a debtor's indigence.10
Plaintiffs also allege that each Collections Department arrest warrant is "accompanied by a preset $20,000 secured money bond required for release."11 According to plaintiffs, defendants' unwavering adherence to this "automatic $20,000 secured money bond" requirement results from defendants' financial interest in state-court arrestees' paying for their release.12 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.13
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.14 As a result, these indigent debtors "languish" in prison "indefinite[ly]" because they cannot afford to pay any of the foregoing amounts.15 Although "arrestees are eventually brought to court," the Sheriff, the Criminal District Court, and the judges "have no set policy or practice" regarding how long arrestees must wait for a hearing. According to plaintiffs, indigent debtors "routinely" spend a week or more in prison.16 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."17
When criminal defendants are brought to court, the Criminal District Court 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.18 At these brief "failure-to-pay hearings," the judges do not consider the debtors' abilities to pay.19
Plaintiffs contend that these practices are unconstitutional and have created "a local debtors' prison" in Orleans Parish.20
The named plaintiffs in the First Amended Complaint are six individuals who were defendants in the Orleans Parish Criminal District Court—Alana Cain, Ashton Brown, Reynaud Variste, Reynajia Variste, Thaddeus Long, and Vanessa Maxwell.21 The facts pertaining to the named plaintiffs, as alleged in their complaint, are as follows.
The Criminal District Court appointed counsel from the Orleans Public Defenders to represent each of the named plaintiffs, except Reynaud Variste, during their criminal proceedings.22 Thus, the court must have determined Cain, Brown, Reynajia Variste, Long, and Maxwell to be legally indigent under Louisiana Revised Statutes § 15:175.23 Reynaud Variste appears to have retained private counsel.24
With the assistance of counsel, all of the named plaintiffs pleaded guilty to their respective criminal charges, which include theft,25 battery,26 drug possession,27 "simple criminal damage,"28 and disturbing the peace.29 At plaintiffs' sentencings, the presiding judges imposed terms of imprisonment, which were often suspended, as well as terms of active or inactive probation. In addition, the judges assessed against plaintiffs various court costs—whether restitution, fines, and/or discretionary fees and costs.30 At some point, all of the named plaintiffs were arrested for failing to pay outstanding court costs.
For example, plaintiffs allege that on one occasion, Alana Cain explained to a Collections Department supervisor that she could not satisfy the full amount of her expected monthly payment. The Collections Department supervisor warned Cain that if she could not afford her monthly payment, he would issue a warrant for her arrest.31 In March 2015, Cain was arrested for failing to pay her court debts.32 Jail staff told Cain that her bail was set at "a $20,000 secured bond pursuant to standard policy" and that "there was no way to find out when her court date would be."33 When Cain eventually attended a hearing, the presiding judge told her that "if she ever missed a payment again, she would have to spend 90 days in jail."34 The judge did not inquire into Cain's ability to meet the monthly payments imposed by the Collections Department.
According to plaintiffs, in July and August 2015, Ashton Brown spent twenty-nine days in prison solely because of unpaid debts stemming from a 2013 conviction.35 When Brown finally received a hearing on the issue of his nonpayment, the presiding judge refused to release Brown, "unless he paid at least $100."36 Because Brown could not afford to pay, the judge set another hearing for several days later and warned Brown "that he would be kept in jail unless he got a family member to pay."37 Eventually, Brown's family "scrape[d] together $100," and Brown was released.38 Collections Department employees have since threatened arrest and jail time if Brown does not continue making monthly payments.39
Reynaud Variste was allegedly arrested for nonpayment in January 2015 when police "stormed [Variste's] home with assault rifles and military...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ross v. Franklin Cnty. Dep't of Soc. Servs.
... ... Edwards v. City of Goldsboro, 178 F.3d 231, 244 (4th Cir.1999). However, "[a]t bottom, a plaintiff must nudge ... ...
-
Ballard v. Hendl
... ... 2012). 42. Id ... ( Home Builders Ass'n , Inc ... v ... City of Madison , 143 F.3d 1006, 1010 (5th Cir. 1998)). 43. Id ... 44. Id ... 45. Ambraco , Inc ... A ., 717 F.3d 377, 382 (5th Cir. 2013) (citing Exxon Mobil , 544 U.S. at 284). 63. Cain v ... City of New Orleans , 186 F. Supp. 3d 536, 552 (E.D. La. 2016) (citing Weaver v ... Tex ... ...
-
Hill v. Town of Valley Brook
... ... Ferate, Courtney Jo Davis Powell, Shannon F. Davies, Spencer Fane LLP, Oklahoma City, OK, for Defendants Town of Valley Brook, Lewis Nieman, Stephen Haynes, Michael Stamp. ORDER ... See, e.g., Cain v. New Orleans , 186 F. Supp. 3d 536, 553 (E.D. La. 2016) (finding challenges to the enforcement ... ...
-
Lee v. Denoux
... ... because they had an Page 10 identity of interest with the originally named officer and the City so that notice could be inferred. Id. Thus, as to the arresting officers, the court of appeal ... Thus, they say that the claim is barred by Heck ... They cite Cain v. City of New Orleans , 186 F. Supp. 3d 536, 548 (E.D. La. 2016). There, however, the district ... ...