Carter v. City of Montgomery

• Citation: 473 F.Supp.3d 1273
• Decision Date: 17 July 2020
• Docket Number: Case No. 2:15-cv-555-RCL
• Parties: Aldaress CARTER, individually and for a class of similarly situated persons, Plaintiff, v. The CITY OF MONTGOMERY, et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Middle District of Alabama

473 F.Supp.3d 1273

Aldaress CARTER, individually and for a class of similarly situated persons, Plaintiff,

v.The CITY OF MONTGOMERY, et al., Defendants.

Case No. 2:15-cv-555-RCL

United States District Court, M.D. Alabama, Northern Division.

Signed July 17, 2020

Alexandria Parrish, George Daniel Evans, The Evans Law Firm, P.C., Birmingham, AL, Brian Hardingham, Pro Hac Vice, Leslie Bailey, Pro Hac Vice, Public Justice, Oakland, CA, Maurine Cambria Evans, The Evans Law Firm PC, Birmingham, AL, Toby J. Marshall, Terrell Marshall Law Group PLLC, Seattle, WA, for Plaintiff.

Robert David Segall, Shannon Lynn Holliday, Richard Hamilton Gill, Copeland Franco Screws & Gill, PA, Kimberly Owen Fehl, City Attorney's Office, Michael D. Brymer, City of Montgomery Legal Dept, Montgomery, AL, for Defendant The City of Montgomery.

Micheal Stewart Jackson, Webster, Henry, Lyons, Bradwell, Cohan & Black, PC, Montgomery, AL, for Defendant Branch D. Kloess.

Jonathan Griffith, Larry Stephen Logsdon, Michael Leon Jackson, Wesley Kyle Winborn, Wallace Jordan Ratliff & Brandt, LLC, Birmingham, AL, Wilson F. Green, Fleenor & Green LLP, Tuscaloosa, AL, for Defendant Judicial Correctional Services, Inc.

CORRECTED MEMORANDUM OPINION

Royce C. Lamberth, United States District Judge For years, the Municipal Court in Montgomery, Alabama engaged in a systemic practice of jailing traffic offenders for failing to pay fines without inquiring into their ability to pay. In carrying out that system, the Municipal Court deprived offenders of their due process and equal protection rights not to be incarcerated for their poverty. Bearden v. Georgia , 461 U.S. 660, 672–73, 103 S.Ct. 2064, 76 L.Ed.2d 221 (1983). This case concerns the liability of the City of Montgomery and its contractors for their involvement in this system.

The City of Montgomery entered a contract on behalf of itself and its Municipal Court with Judicial Correction Services, Inc. ("JCS").¹ Under the contract, JCS supervised misdemeanor probation for those on Municipal Court-ordered probation from June 2009 through June 2014. The City also contracted with Branch D. Kloess to serve as a part-time public defender in the Municipal Court.

Plaintiff Aldaress Carter served probation with JCS when he was unable to pay his traffic tickets. After Mr. Carter missed probation appointments and failed to make payments, JCS petitioned the Municipal Court to revoke his probation. Without assessing his ability to pay, the Municipal Court "commuted" Mr. Carter's fines to jail time and imprisoned him. Mr. Kloess represented Mr. Carter at his commutation hearing but was not physically in the courtroom for the hearing.

Mr. Carter spent four days in the city jail. He earned a $50 credit against his fines for each day of incarceration and was released when his mother borrowed money to pay the balance of his fines.

Mr. Carter sued the City, JCS, its parent company CHC, and Kloess on behalf of himself and a purported class of similarly situated individuals. His operative complaint seeks damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and two state law causes of action.

The City (ECF No. 252), CHC (ECF No. 255), JCS (ECF No. 258), and Mr. Kloess (ECF No. 263) moved for summary judgment against Mr. Carter under Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Their motions present seven major questions:

1. Does the Rooker-Feldman doctrine deny the Court jurisdiction to hear Mr. Carter's claims?

2. Does Humphrey v. Heck deny Mr. Carter a cause of action under § 1983 ?

3. Is CHC liable for JCS's actions?

4. Are defendants potentially liable under § 1983 ?

5. Did Mr. Carter validly state a claim for false imprisonment under Alabama law?

6. Are Mr. Carter's claims time barred?

7. Are any of the defendants entitled to qualified or quasi-judicial immunity?

For the reasons discussed below, the Court holds that:

1. The Rooker-Feldman doctrine denies the Court jurisdiction to hear Mr. Carter's unjust enrichment claim but not his § 1983 and false imprisonment claims;

2. Humphrey v. Heck does not deny Mr. Carter a cause of action under § 1983 ;

3. CHC is not liable for JCS's actions;

4. Defendants are potentially liable under § 1983, except that JCS and the City are not liable for conspiracy, JCS is not liable for failing to inform Mr. Carter of his rights, and the City is not liable for harms arising from the so-called "window procedure" or for harms arising before it was on notice of JCS's practices;

5. Mr. Carter states a valid claim for false imprisonment under Alabama law, but only for imprisonment following his commutation hearing;

6. Mr. Carter's claims are not time barred; and,

7. None of the defendants are entitled to qualified or quasi-judicial immunity.

Upon consideration of the motions, briefs, statements and counter-statement of uncontested facts, and evidentiary submissions, as well as all other papers of record, the Court will:

• grant the City's motion as to Counts Three and Seven, grant the City's motion as to Counts One, Five, and Nine for all events before July 16, 2012, grant the City's motion as to Counts One and Nine for all claims alleging a conspiracy between the City and JCS and for claims basing liability solely on the JCS-City contract, grant the City's motion as to Count One for all claims related to operation of the magistrates’ windows in the Municipal Court, and deny the City's motion as to Counts One, Five, and Nine in all other respects;

• grant CHC's motion;

• grant JCS's motion as to Counts Four, Six, Eight, and Twelve, grant JCS's motion as to Counts Two and Ten for all claims alleging a conspiracy between the City and JCS, grant JCS's motion as to Count Two for all claims alleging that JCS failed to inform Mr. Carter of his rights, grant JCS's motion as to Count Two for all claims alleging that JCS unlawfully charged probation fees, grant JCS's motion as to Count Fourteen for any claims arising from arrest or detention before commutation, and deny JCS's motion as to Counts Two, Six, Ten, and Fourteen in all other respects; and,

• deny Mr. Kloess's motion.

A separate order accompanies this memorandum opinion.

I. BACKGROUND

A. Factual Background²

1. Fines and Probation in Montgomery

(i) The Municipal Court

The City has a Municipal Court to adjudicate misdemeanors and traffic offenses. Ala. Code §§ 12-12-32, 12-12-51, 12-14-1. The Municipal Court is part of the state judiciary, see Ala. Const. art. VI, § 145, so the City cannot control proceedings in the Municipal Court, see Ala. Const. art. III, § 42 (c). But the City appoints the judges, Ala. Code § 12-14-30 ; the mayor appoints the presiding judge, id. , and the mayor may remit fines and costs payable to the City, id. at § 12-14-15. And the City must "provide appropriate facilities and necessary supportive personnel for the municipal court and may provide for probation services, clerks and municipal employees designated as magistrates." Id. at § 12-14-2. The City must also provide indigent defense in its Municipal Court. Id. at § 12-14-9. At the same time, the Municipal Court sets its own internal procedures, including those for processing traffic tickets.

During the time JCS operated probation service in Montgomery, the Municipal Court processed traffic tickets in one of two ways. When a person received a traffic ticket, the ticket required him to appear in the Municipal Court on a given date. See Nixon Dep. 42:16–23 (Apr. 18, 2014) (ECF No. 73-1) ("2014 Nixon Dep."). If the offense had a pre-set (scheduled) fine, court staff directed the appearing defendant to a magistrate's window. Id. at 45:16–21. The defendant could plead not guilty and receive a hearing before a judge or could plead guilty and pay the fine. Id. at 46:11–47:3; see also Ala. R. Jud. Admin. 20. If the offense did not have a scheduled fine, court staff required the defendant to appear before a judge. 2014 Nixon Dep. 52:1–6. Once the defendant pleaded or was found guilty, the Municipal Court imposed a fine.

If a defendant could not afford to pay his fine, the Municipal Court could offer the defendant more time to pay. For small fines, Municipal Court policy authorized a magistrate to grant a thirty-day extension for fines of up to $250. 2014 Nixon Dep., Ex. 11. For defendants with higher fines or who needed more time to pay, the Municipal Court made payment plans available through JCS probation, id. , purportedly under its statutory power to suspend a sentence and place a defendant on probation for up to two years, see Ala. Code § 12-14-13. A magistrate could place certain defendants — those who owed less than $1,500 and who were either not already on probation with JCS or in good standing with JCS — on JCS probation pursuant to a general order.³ 2014 Nixon Dep., Ex. 11; see also id. at 140:13–16. The Municipal Court required defendants who could not pay a fine of more than $1,500 to appear before a judge. Id. at Ex. 11; see also id. at 151:1–7, 12–23.

(ii) JCS Probation

JCS provided for-profit probation services for courts throughout Alabama. Ray Dep. 57:19–21 (ECF No. 73-3).

During the years at issue here, the City contracted with JCS to provide probation to Municipal Court offenders. City Evid., Ex. 11, 12; Carter Evid., Ex. 13 at 2. Their contract ran for an initial term of one year arid automatically renewed for subsequent one-year terms unless either party gave notice that it would not renew. City Evid., Ex. 12 at 5. The City's contract with JCS controlled the terms under which JCS could provide probation. For example, it provided that JCS must maintain case files on probationers and specified a maximum staff-to-probationer ratio. Id. at 3. The contract, though, did not facially require the Municipal Court to use JCS for probation services. And other than a provision that mandates JCS to "supervise indigent cases when determined by the [Municipal] Court" without charging probation fees, the contract is silent as to indigency determinations. Id. at 2.

JCS does not charge courts or cities for their probation. Id....