Dixon v. City of St. Louis

• Decision Date: 17 February 2021
• Docket Number: Case No. 4:19-cv-0112-AGF
• Citation: Dixon v. City of St. Louis, Case No. 4:19-cv-0112-AGF (E.D. Mo. Feb 17, 2021)
• Parties: DAVID DIXON, et al. Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF ST. LOUIS, et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Missouri

DAVID DIXON, et al. Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF ST. LOUIS, et al., Defendants.

Case No. 4:19-cv-0112-AGF

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DIVISION

February 17, 2021

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

This matter is before the Court on Defendants' motions for judgment on the pleadings.ECF No. 166, 170.For the reasons set forth below, the motions will be denied.

BACKGROUND

Named PlaintiffsDavid Dixon, Jeffrey Rozelle, Aaron Thurman, and Richard Robards were detained in St. Louis jails because they were unable to afford bail.Defendants are the City of St. Louis, its Commissioner of Corrections Dale Glass, and its Sheriff Vernon Betts(together, the City) and several judges of the 22nd Circuit (the Judges).On January 28, 2019, Plaintiffs filed a class action complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 asserting that Defendants violated their constitutional rights to equal protection and substantive and procedural due process by detaining them after arrest without an opportunity to challenge the conditions of their release.Plaintiffs complain that a cash bond is routinely set without an individualized determination of factors such as the ability to pay, risk of flight, danger to the public, or less restrictive alternatives.The facts alleged in Plaintiffs complaint can be summarized as follows, though certain practices have evolved since that time, as discussed further below.

Plaintiffs' Complaint

When a person is arrested in the City of St. Louis, a bond commissioner employed by the City makes a recommendation to a duty judge to set bond to secure the arrestee's court appearance.In formulating the recommendation, the commissioner considers the charges and any prior convictions but does not inquire into the arrestee's ability to pay, risk of flight, or danger to the public; the duty judge then sets bond on the commissioner's recommendation.If an arrestee can afford to pay the cash bond in full, then the City will release him upon payment.If not, he remains detained until a first appearance, which is held within 48 hours of arrest and by videoconference from the jail.Plaintiffs allege that the sheriff's deputies who escort arrestees to their video hearings instruct them not to speak and specifically not to request a bond modification.

The judge reads the charges, states the bail amount pursuant to the commissioner's recommendation, and asks the arrestee whether he intends to retain counsel.The hearing lasts one to two minutes.Plaintiffs allege that, if an arrestee attempts to contest his bail amount, the judge informs him that he cannot request a modification until he obtains counsel and sets a motion hearing.For indigent individuals eligible for a public defender, that process takes approximately five weeks.Arrestees who do not qualify for a public defender but cannot afford to pay a private attorney often remain detained even longer.This period of incarceration often results in physical and mental health problems, loss ofemployment, eviction, and family separation.

Plaintiffs state that, even when arrestees receive the assistance of counsel on a motion for modification, the Judges' bail-setting practices remain constitutionally inadequate in that the Judges fail to consider an arrestee's financial circumstances or make specific findings as to alternative release conditions.

Plaintiffs request the following forms of relief:

1.A declaratory judgment that Defendants violate the Plaintiffs' and class members' rights by issuing detention orders without due process;

2.A declaratory judgment that Defendants violate the Plaintiffs' and class members' rights by operating a system of wealth-based detention that keeps them in jail because they cannot afford to pay monetary conditions of release, without an inquiry or findings concerning their ability to pay, the necessity of detention, and alternative release conditions;

3.A declaratory judgment that Plaintiffs and class members are entitled to an individualized hearing regarding release conditions and including:

a. Notice that financial information will be collected, and the significance thereof;

b. An individualized determination of the arrestee's ability to pay and how much;

c. An opportunity to be heard concerning one's ability to pay and the necessity of non-monetary release conditions, including an opportunity to present and rebut evidence and argue the issues;

d. Substantive findings by the court on the record as to why detention is warranted and why less restrictive alternatives are insufficient; and

e. Free legal counsel;

4.A declaratory judgment that the Sheriff and Commissioner of Corrections must not enforce any order requiring secured money bail or a monetary release condition that was imposed prior to an individualized hearing and that is not accompanied by a record reflecting the foregoing procedures and findings;5.An order permanently enjoining Defendants from operating and enforcing a system of wealth-based detention that keeps Plaintiffs and class members in jail because they cannot afford to pay monetary release conditions, without an inquiry or findings concerning their ability to pay, alternative release conditions, and the necessity of detention;

6.An order permanently enjoining Defendants from operating and enforcing pretrial detention without constitutionally valid process as described above; and

7.An order directing the Sheriff not to instruct arrestees to remain silent during their hearings.

Procedural History

Concurrent with their complaint, Plaintiffs filed a motion for temporary restraining order, which they later withdrew after Defendants agreed to hold Plaintiffs' bond hearings the next day in accordance with a revised version of Missouri Supreme Court Rule 33.01, then scheduled to take effect on July 1, 2019.This new version of the rule clarifies that a court cannot impose cash bail absent an individualized assessment of an arrestee's financial circumstances, flight risk, threat to public safety, and consideration of alternative release conditions.It further provides the right to a review hearing on the record within seven days and requires the court to make written findings supported by clear and convincing evidence.At the close of those hearings, two of the named Plaintiffs were released without bond, with other conditions.The other two did not receive any reduction in bond but were later released upon payment of bond by a third-party advocacy organization.

On February 21, 2019, Plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary injunction seeking to enjoin Defendants' practice of detaining arrestees who are unable to pay cash bailwithout an individualized hearing on their financial circumstances and the necessity of detention.In practical terms, consistent with the relief requested in their complaint, Plaintiffs sought to enjoin Jail Commissioner Glass from enforcing any bail order operating as a de facto order of detention based on an arrestee's ability to pay, unless such order reflected a hearing on the arrestee's financial circumstances and the court's consideration of less restrictive release conditions.

On March 1, 2019, Defendants filed motions to dismiss the case.The City Defendants asserted that they have no policy or custom of silencing arrestees in initial appearances and no authority to establish bail conditions.The Judges asserted theories of immunity and abstention.The Court denied both motions and granted Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction.Dixon v. City of St. Louis, 4:19-CV-0112-AGF, 2019 WL 2437026, at *1(E.D. Mo.June 11, 2019).On the City's motion to dismiss, the Court concluded that (1)Plaintiffs had sufficiently pleaded a claim for municipal liability by alleging an unofficial custom whereby sheriff's deputies instruct arrestees not to speak at their initial appearance¹ and (2) an injunction may be used to prohibit custodial officials from enforcing unconstitutional orders.Id. at *11.On the Judges' motion to dismiss, the Court concluded that (1) the Judges were not immune from suit because § 1983 permits declaratory relief against judicial officers and (2) the Younger abstention doctrine(restraining federal intervention in state court proceedings)² did not apply because the Court was not auditing Plaintiffs' criminal cases and Missouri state law failed to provide an adequate remedy for the inadequate bail hearing.Id. at 8-10.

Defendants appealed to the Eighth Circuit, which vacated the injunction and remanded the case with instructions for this Court to consider whether an injunction served the public interest in comity between the state and federal judiciaries, particularly in light of the new guidance in revised Missouri Rule 33.01.Dixon v. City of St. Louis, 950 F.3d 1052, 1056(8th Cir.2020).On remand, Plaintiffs renewed their motion for preliminary injunction(ECF No. 160) and updated the record with more recent evidence concerning Defendants' bail hearing practices, which Plaintiffs contend are still inadequate despite the rule change.Shortly thereafter, Defendants filed the present motions for judgment on the pleadings.³

DISCUSSION

Legal Standards

The Court reviews a motion for judgment on the pleadings under the same standard as a motion to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).Clemons v. Crawford, 585 F.3d 1119, 1124(8th Cir.2009).When considering a motion for judgment on the pleadings under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c), the Court must "accept as true all factual allegations set out in the complaint and must construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, drawing all inferences in his favor."Wishnatsky v. Rovner, 433 F.3d 608, 610(8th Cir.2006).Judgment on the pleadings is appropriate only when there is no dispute as to any material facts and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.Ashley Cty., Ark. v. Pfizer, Inc., 552 F.3d 659, 665(8th Cir.2009).The Court considers all facts alleged in the complaint as true to determine if the...