Daves v. Dall. Cnty.
| Decision Date | 07 January 2022 |
| Docket Number | No. 18-11368,18-11368 |
| 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., Washington, DC, Brandon Buskey, American Civil Liberties Union Foundation, New York, NY, Kali Cohn, American Civil Liberties Union Foundation, Dallas, TX, Andre Segura, Trisha Trigilio, American Civil Liberties Union of Texas, Houston, TX, Andrea Woods, American Civil Liberties Union Foundation, Criminal Law Reform Project, Brooklyn, NY, 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, Kali Cohn, American Civil Liberties Union Foundation, Dallas, TX, Andre Segura, Trisha Trigilio, American Civil Liberties Union of Texas, Houston, TX, Andrea Woods, American Civil Liberties Union Foundation, Criminal Law Reform Project, Brooklyn, NY, 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, 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.
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, and Shequitta Kelly, Number 11 Judges of Dallas County, Criminal Courts at Law.
Judd Edward Stone, II, Office of the Attorney General, Office of the Solicitor General, William Francis Cole, Esq., Lanora Christine Pettit, Natalie Deyo Thompson, Office of the Attorney General of Texas, Office of the Solicitor General, 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, Dominique Collins, Number 4, Carter Thompson, Number 5, Jeanine Howard, Number 6, and Chika Anyiam, Number 7 Judges of Dallas County, Criminal District Courts.
Judd Edward Stone, II, Office of the Attorney General, Office of the Solicitor General, Austin, TX, Jeffrey Mark Tillotson, Tillotson Law, Dallas, TX, for Defendants-Appellees/Cross-Appellants Amber Givens-Davis, 282nd and Brandon Birmingham, 292nd.
Judd Edward Stone, II, Office of the Attorney General, Office of the Solicitor General, Austin, TX, Jeffrey Mark Tillotson, Tillotson Law, Dallas, TX, for Defendants-Appellees/Cross-Appellants Nancy Kennedy, Number 2 and Tina Yoo Clinton, Number 1.
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, and Michael A. Stoll, 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.
Thomas Phillip Brandt, Laura Dahl O'Leary, John Francis Roehm, III, Esq., Fanning Harper Martinson Brandt & Kutchin, P.C., Dallas, TX, for Amici Curiae Texas Association of Counties and Texas Conference of Urban Counties.
Brianne Jenna Gorod, Constitutional Accountability Center, Washington, DC, for Amicus Curiae Constitutional Accountability Center.
Jay Remington Schweikert, Cato Institute, Washington, DC, for Amici Curiae Americans for Prosperity Foundation, Cato Institute, Clause 40 Foundation, Due Process Institute, and Shon Hopwood.
Thomas Royal Phillips, Janet Martini Himmel, Mary Margaret Steinle, Baker Botts, L.L.P., Austin, TX, for Amicus Curiae Conference of Chief Justices.
Patrick B. McIntire, Oats & Marino, Lafayette, LA, for Amicus Curiae Mark T. Garber.
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.
Paul M. Kerlin, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, L.L.P., Jonathan L. Marcus, Esq., Reed Smith, L.L.P., Washington, DC, for Amicus Curiae Clergy and Religious Leaders.
Alisa Philo, Erin Helene Flynn, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Div - Appellate Section, Washington, DC, for Amicus Curiae United States of America.
Kellen Funk, Columbia University, School of Law, New York, NY, for Amicus Curiae National Law Professors of Criminal, Procedural, and Constitutional Law.
Lindsay Claire Harrison, Jenner & Block, L.L.P., Washington, DC, for Amicus Curiae American Bar Association.
Before Owen, Chief Judge, and Jones, Smith, Stewart, Dennis, Elrod, Southwick, Haynes, Graves, Higginson, Costa, Willett, Ho, Duncan, Engelhardt, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.*
Leslie H. Southwick, Circuit Judge, joined by Owen, Chief Judge,† and Jones, Smith, Elrod, Ho, Duncan, Engelhardt, and Wilson, Circuit Judges:
This opinion partially resolves an interlocutory appeal of a preliminary injunction. Not everything in this opinion is unfinished, though. Two rulings now are to VACATE the preliminary injunction and REMAND for limited purposes. Our final resolution of remaining issues will follow the remand.
The United States District Court, Northern District of Texas, certified this suit as a class action challenging the bail system in Dallas County, Texas. According to the Plaintiffs, indigent arrestees are subjected to an unconstitutional "system of wealth-based detention." The claimed constitutional violation is that secured money bail is imposed without procedural safeguards or substantive findings that less intrusive conditions of release are inadequate to meet the state's interests in pretrial detention.
Our decision today does not reach the merits. We are at an earlier and required stage in the analysis applicable to litigation in federal court. Are there appropriate parties in the case to allow the validity of bail practices in Dallas County to be determined? Does a legal doctrine apply that instructs federal courts not to intervene? Members of this court have different understandings on how to resolve these threshold issues, but the importance of the Plaintiffs' claims is not among the disputes. Separate opinions can at times seem to be talking past each other. All of us have sought to avoid that.
The district court issued a preliminary injunction that required "notice, an opportunity to be heard and submit evidence within 48 hours of arrest, and a reasoned decision by an impartial decision-maker." Daves v. Dallas Cnty. , 341 F. Supp. 3d 688, 697 (N.D. Tex. 2018) (quoting ODonnell v. Harris Cnty. , 892 F.3d 147, 163 (5th Cir. 2018) ). Almost all parties exercised their right to bring interlocutory appeals or cross-appeals. See 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1). A panel of this court affirmed most of the injunctive relief but disagreed with certain 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 834 (5th Cir. 2021).
The district court issued the injunction without first ruling on several motions that presented significant threshold questions, including abstention, judicial and legislative immunity, and standing. Pretermitting rulings on the motions may have resulted...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Russell v. Jones
...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 against county district-court judges in that case were......
-
Diamond Serv.es Corp. v. Curtin Mar. Corp.
...seek relief under the Declaratory Judgment Act. Plaintiff also fails to connect the harm alleged to any action or inaction by Curtin. Daves, 22 F.4th at 542 (indicating a “plaintiff must ‘personal injury fairly traceable to the defendant's allegedly unlawful conduct and likely to be redress......
-
Summers v. Louisiana
...984 F.3d 381, 392 (5th Cir. 2020), reh'g en banc granted, order vacated, 988 F.3d 834 (5th Cir. 2021), and on reh'g en banc, 22 F.4th 522 (5th Cir. 2022) Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 569 n.4 (1992)). “To have Article III standing, a plaintiff must show an injury in fact that is......
-
Schultz v. Alabama
...than a wealthier person' is reviewed for a rational basis." (quoting Doyle v. Elsea, 658 F.2d 512, 518 (7th Cir. 1981))), abrogated by Daves, 22 F.4th 522; Smith v. Parole Comm'n, 752 F.2d 1056, 1059 (5th Cir. 1985) (same); Doyle, 658 F.2d at 518 (evaluating a claim that indigents spend mor......
-
Prisoners' Rights
...from secured bail imposed with sole purpose of detention created by state law), overruled on other grounds by Daves v. Dallas County, 22 F.4th 522 (5th Cir. 2022); Eichwedel v. Chandler, 696 F.3d 660, 675 (7th Cir. 2012) (liberty interest in previously earned good conduct credits created by......
-
ABSTAINING FROM ABSTENTION: WHY YOUNGER ABSTENTION DOES NOT APPLY IN 42 U.S.C [section] 1983 BAIL LITIGATION.
...and practice "is not properly reviewed by criminal proceedings in the state"). Notably, the Fifth Circuit in Daves v. Dallas County, 22 F.4th 522, 548 (2022) stated that after remand it would "take a fresh look at Younger" and "reevaluate [its] own precedent" after remand, so ODonnell may n......
-
EQUITY'S FEDERALISM.
...797 (5th Cir. 2020) (motions panel); ODonnell v. Salgado, 913 F.3d 479 (5th Cir. 2019) (motions panel). (199) See Daves v. Dall. Cnty., 22 F.4th 522, 548 (5th Cir. 2022). The cases concern allegations of illegal detention and arbitrary process in the setting of criminal bail. The practices ......
-
ABSTAINING EQUITABLY.
...882 F.3d 763, 766 (9th Cir. 2018). (14) Walker v. City of Calhoun, 901 F.3d 1245, 1255 (11th Cir. 2018). (15) Daves v. Dallas Cnty., 22 F.4th 522 (5th Cir. (16) Id. at 548. (17) Id. (18) Sprint Commc'ns, Inc. v. Jacobs, 571 U.S. 69 (2013). (19) Id. at 72-73. (20) Id. at 73. (21) Id. at 77 (......