Daves v. Dall. Cnty.
| Decision Date | 28 December 2020 |
| Docket Number | No. 18-11368,18-11368 |
| Citation | 984 F.3d 381 |
| Parties | Shannon DAVES; Shakena Walston; Erriyah Banks; Destinee Tovar; Patroba Michieka; James Thompson, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated; Faith in Texas ; Texas Organizing Project Education Fund, Plaintiffs - Appellants Cross-Appellees v. DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS ; Ernest White, 194th; Hector Garza, 195th; Raquel Jones, 203rd; Tammy Kemp, 204th; Jennifer Bennett, 265th; Amber Givens-Davis, 282nd; Lela Mays, 283rd; Stephanie Mitchell, 291st; Brandon Birmingham, 292nd; Tracy Holmes, 363rd; Tina Yoo Clinton, Number 1; Nancy Kennedy, Number 2; Gracie Lewis, Number 3; Dominique Collins, Number 4; Carter Thompson, Number 5; Jeanine Howard, Number 6; Chika Anyiam, Number 7 Judges of Dallas County, Criminal District Courts, Defendants - Appellees Cross-Appellants Marian Brown; Terrie McVea; Lisa Bronchetti; Steven Autry; Anthony Randall ; Janet Lusk; Hal Turley, Dallas County Magistrates; Dan Patterson, Number 1; Julia Hayes, Number 2; Doug Skemp, Number 3; Nancy Mulder, Number 4; Lisa Green, Number 5; Angela King, Number 6; Elizabeth Crowder, Number 7; Carmen White, Number 8; Peggy Hoffman, Number 9; Roberto Canas, Jr., Number 10; Shequitta Kelly, Number 11 Judges of Dallas County, Criminal Courts at Law, Defendants - Appellees |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
Alec George Karakatsanis, Esq., Elizabeth Anne Rossi, Civil Rights Corps, Daniel Volchok, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr, L.L.P., Beth Neitzel, Washington, DC, Brandon Buskey, American Civil Liberties Union Foundation, New York, NY, Andrea Woods, American Civil Liberties Union Foundation, Criminal Law Reform Project, Brooklyn, NY, Kali Cohn, American Civil Liberties Union Foundation of Texas, Dallas, TX, Andre Segura, Trisha Trigilio, American Civil Liberties Union Foundation of Texas, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellant Cross-Appellee Shannon Daves.
Alec George Karakatsanis, Esq., Elizabeth Anne Rossi, Civil Rights Corps, Washington, DC, Brandon Buskey, American Civil Liberties Union Foundation, New York, NY, Andrea Woods, American Civil Liberties Union Foundation, Criminal Law Reform Project, Brooklyn, NY, Kali Cohn, American Civil Liberties Union Foundation of Texas, Dallas, TX, Andre Segura, Trisha Trigilio, American Civil Liberties Union Foundation of Texas, Houston, TX, for Plaintiffs-Appellants Cross-Appellees Shakena Walston, Erriyah Banks, Destinee Tovar, Patroba Michieka, and James Thompson.
Alec George Karakatsanis, Esq., Civil Rights Corps, Washington, DC, Brandon Buskey, American Civil Liberties Union Foundation, New York, NY, Kali Cohn, American Civil Liberties Union Foundation of Texas, Dallas, TX, Andrea Woods, American Civil Liberties Union Foundation, Criminal Law Reform Project, Brooklyn, NY, for Plaintiffs-Appellants Cross-Appellees Faith in Texas, and Texas Organizing Project Education Fund.
Jeffery T. Nobles, Katharine D. David, Benjamin R. Stephens, Husch Blackwell, L.L.P., Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellee Cross-Appellant Dallas County, Texas.
Kyle Douglas Hawkins, Natalie Deyo Thompson, Office of the Attorney General, Office of the Solicitor General, Eric Alan Hudson, Assistant Attorney General, Attorney General of Texas, Office of Special Litigation, Austin, TX, for Defendants-Appellees Cross-Appellants Ernest White, 194th, Hector Garza, 195th, Raquel Jones, 203rd, Tammy Kemp, 204th, Jennifer Bennett, 265th, Lela Mays, 283rd, Stephanie Mitchell, 291st, Tracy Holmes, 363rd, Gracie Lewis, Number 3, Dominique Collins, Number 4, Carter Thompson, Number 5, Jeanine Howard, Number 6, and Chika Anyiam, Number 7 Judges of Dallas County, Criminal District Courts.
Jeffrey Mark Tillotson, Tillotson Law, Dallas, TX, for Defendants-Appellees Cross-Appellants Amber Givens-Davis, 282nd, Brandon Birmingham, 292nd, Nancy Kennedy, Number 2, and Tina Yoo Clinton, Number 1.
Jeffery T. Nobles, Katharine D. David, Benjamin R. Stephens, Husch Blackwell, L.L.P., Houston, TX, for Defendants-Appellees Marian Brown, Terrie McVea, Lisa Bronchetti, Steven Autry, Anthony Randall, Janet Lusk, Hal Turley, Dallas County Magistrates, Dan Patterson, Number 1, Julia Hayes, Number 2, Doug Skemp, Number 3, Nancy Mulder, Number 4, Lisa Green, Number 5, Angela King, Number 6, Elizabeth Crowder, Number 7, Carmen White, Number 8, Peggy Hoffman, Number 9, Roberto Canas, Jr., Number 10, Shequitta Kelly, and Number 11 Judges of Dallas County, Criminal Courts at Law.
Jared Brandon Caplan, Bradley Arant Boult Cummings, L.L.P., Houston, TX, Rachel Ann Conry, Attorney, James Bradley Robertson, Bradley Arant Boult Cummings, L.L.P., Birmingham, AL, Candice Leigh Rucker, Mississippi Attorney General's Office, Jackson, MS, for Amici Curiae National Association Of Pretrial Service Agencies, Pretrial Justice Institute, and National Association For Public Defense.
Jeremy David Wright, Kator, Parks & Weiser, P.L.L.C., Austin, TX, for Amici Curiae Bruce Western, Brielle Bryan, Christopher Uggen, Christopher Wildeman, Christopher Muller, Devah Pager, John Hagan, Michael A. Stoll, John H. Laub, David J. Harding, Holly Foster, Sandra Susan Smith, Harry J. Holzer, Peter B. Edelman, Jeffrey Fagan, Kristin Turney, John J. Donohue, III, Jeffrey Morenoff, Bernard Harcourt, Paul Heaton, Jacob Goldin, Becky Pettit, Alexes Harris, Forrest Stuart, and Megan Stevenson.
Mary B. McCord, Esq., Georgetown University Law Center, Washington, DC, for Amici Curiae Current and Former Prosecutors, Department of Justice Officials, Law Enforcement Officials, and Judges.
Kellen Funk, Columbia University, School of Law, New York, NY, for Amicus Curiae National Law Professors of Criminal, Procedural, and Constitutional Law.
Before SOUTHWICK, GRAVES, and ENGELHARDT, Circuit Judges.
This is an interlocutory appeal from a preliminary injunction and related orders entered in a Section 1983 lawsuit. The claim is that state judges in Dallas, Texas, are unconstitutionally denying release to indigent arrestees who cannot pay the prescribed cash bail. The district court certified the suit as a class action and allowed three different categories of judges to be defendants. The district court determined that the Sheriff was not a proper defendant for Section 1983 purposes but did not yet dismiss her from the case. The district court held there was a likelihood of success by the Plaintiffs on their equal-protection and procedural-due-process claims and granted injunctive relief against the judges and the County.
With one exception, we agree with the district court that the Plaintiffs have standing. This suit was properly allowed to proceed against most of the judges and the County. As for the Criminal District Court Judges, though, we hold that they are not proper defendants because the Plaintiffs lack standing as to them and cannot overcome sovereign immunity. We also disagree with the district court and hold that the Sheriff can be enjoined to prevent that official's enforcement of measures violative of federal law. Finally, the district court was correct to conclude that Plaintiffs need not first pursue habeas corpus relief. We AFFIRM the injunction — with one revision that we will explain — and REMAND for further proceedings.
At the time of the briefing, Defendant Dallas County asserted that the Plaintiffs’ counsel had brought more than a dozen cases in different states challenging the requirement of money bail for indigent arrestees. Among these were five active cases in Texas: this one in Dallas County, one in Galveston County, and three in Harris County. A Harris County case resulted in three Fifth Circuit opinions that are significant to this appeal. Those opinions will be identified later and discussed throughout our analysis.
The suit before us was filed on January 21, 2018, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas. The statutory vehicle was 42 U.S.C. § 1983. An amended complaint was filed a little more than a week later. The Plaintiffs include six indigent individuals who were arrested from January 17 to January 19, 2018, and had allegedly been kept in jail in Dallas County because they could not afford to pay the required cash bail.
The appellate record shows that those arrested for criminal offenses in Dallas County are taken for an initial hearing before Dallas County Criminal District Court Magistrate Judges. At this hearing, a Magistrate Judge sets bail and considers whether to release the arrestee on a secured or unsecured bond. Seven Magistrate Judges are defendants; an affidavit states there are twenty in the county.
Additional defendants include Dallas County and its Sheriff, Marian Brown. Also sued are 17 Dallas County Criminal District Court Judges ("District Court Judges"), who handle felony offenses, and 11 judges of the Dallas County Criminal Courts at Law ("County Court Judges"), with jurisdiction over misdemeanor offenses. The District Court Judges appoint all the Magistrate Judges. TEX. GOV'T CODE § 54.301(a) ().
Both District Court and County Court Judges established a schedule for Magistrate Judges to use in deciding the amount of bail needed to release arrestees. The schedules were contained in broader guidelines for these proceedings. The schedules suggest specific bail amounts for corresponding offenses. For example, the misdemeanor guidelines’ schedule recommends Magistrate Judges set bail at $500 for all individuals arrested for Class B misdemeanor offenses, unless other "special circumstances" apply or "if the arrestee is on felony probation." Both guidelines state they are only recommendations. Further, in February 2018, the month after this suit was filed, the District Court Judges directed the Magistrate Judges to take an arrestee's ability to pay into consideration when setting bail, based...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Daves v. Dall. Cnty.
...terms of the injunction and with holdings regarding which of the Defendants would be subject to the injunction. Daves v. Dallas Cnty. , 984 F.3d 381 (5th Cir. 2020). That opinion was withdrawn as a result of the court's voting to rehear the appeal en banc. Daves v. Dallas Cnty. , 988 F.3d 8......
-
Russell v. Jones
...the Fourteenth Amendment.About six months later, a panel of this court released its decision in a similar case, Daves v. Dallas County , 984 F.3d 381 (5th Cir. 2020), vacated en banc , 22 F.4th 522 (5th Cir. 2022). In Daves , the panel held that the plaintiffs' 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims again......
-
Valentine v. Collier
...at 693 ).7 Scott v. Schedler , 826 F.3d 207, 211 (5th Cir. 2016) (quoting Peaches Entm't , 62 F.3d at 693 ).8 Daves v. Dallas Cty., Tex. , 984 F.3d 381, 397 (5th Cir. 2020).9 In re Abbott , 956 F.3d 696, 708 (5th Cir. 2020).10 Tex. Gov't Code Ann. § 493.006 (West).11 Aguilar v. Tex. Dep't o......
-
Summers v. Louisiana
... ... facts existing when the complaint is filed.” Daves ... v. Dallas Cnty., Texas, 984 F.3d 381, 392 (5th Cir ... 2020), reh'g en banc ... ...
-
Bail and bond issues
...pay in bad faith, or that no less restrictive alternative can reasonably meet the government’s compelling interest. Daves v. Dallas Cty., 984 F.3d 381, 412 (5th Cir. 2020). There is no fundamental substantive due process right to be free from wealth‑based detention. Daves, 984 F.3d at 413. ......
-
Bail and Bond Issues
...pay in bad faith, or that no less restrictive alternative can reasonably meet the government’s compelling interest. Daves v. Dallas Cty., 984 F.3d 381, 412 (5th Cir. 2020). There is no fundamental substantive due process right to be free from wealth-based detention. Daves, 984 F.3d at 413. ......