Farella v. Anglin
| Docket Number | 5:22-CV-5121 |
| Decision Date | 05 August 2023 |
| Parties | ABIGAIL FARELLA and LOGAN W. MURPHY, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated PLAINTIFFS v. DISTRICT JUDGE A.J. ANGLIN, GREGG PARISH, and JAY SAXTON DEFENDANTS |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Arkansas |
A. Plaintiffs' Arrest & Pretrial Incarceration .............................................................. 3
B. Arkansas Criminal Procedure .............................................................................. 5
A. Defendant Saxton ............................................................................................. 11
B. Defendant Anglin ............................................................................................... 13
A. Colorado River Abstention ................................................................................ 21
B. Younger Abstention ........................................................................................... 26
C. Brillhart Abstention ............................................................................................ 24
A. Legal Standard .................................................................................................. 28
B. Analysis ............................................................................................................. 29
Plaintiffs Abigail Farella and Logan W. Murphy, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, sue Defendants District Judge A.J. Anglin, Executive Director of Arkansas Public Defender Commission Greg Parrish, and Chief Benton County Public Defender Jay Saxton. Ms. Farella and Mr. Murphy allege that indigent criminal defendants possess a constitutional right to legal representation during the judicial officer's determination of bail and Defendants' failure to timely appoint counsel violates the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment. See Doc. 34. Plaintiffs seek injunctive and declaratory relief that would, in effect, require defense counsel's presence and participation in the bail determination for indigent defendants.
Now before the Court are Separate Defendants Parrish and Saxton's (“Public Defender Defendants”) Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 61) and Separate Defendant Anglin's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 47).[1] In support of dismissal, Defendants invoke sovereign immunity and abstention, as well as allege that the Amended Complaint fails to state a claim and omits indispensable parties.
For the below reasons, the Court DENIES Public Defender Defendants' Motion to Dismiss and DENIES Defendant Anglin's Motion to Dismiss.
A. Plaintiffs' Arrest & Pretrial Incarceration
On May 20, 2022, Bentonville Police Department officers arrested Plaintiff Abigail Farella for felony possession of a controlled substance, misdemeanor possession of drug paraphernalia, and misdemeanor shoplifting. She was transported to the Benton County Jail and placed in a cell. That same day, Bentonville officer Corporal Kevin Albert filed a sworn probable cause affidavit and reported that the State joined him in requesting bail be set at $2,500. Two days later, on May 22, Benton County District Court Judge Anglin conducted an initial hearing pursuant to Arkansas Rule of Criminal Procedure 8.1. Judge Anglin set Ms. Farella's bail at $10,000 cash or corporate surety; scheduled arraignment-Ms. Farella's next court date-for June 27, 2022; and found Ms. Farella indigent and appointed the public defender to represent her in subsequent proceedings.
Ms. Farella remained in jail until June 27, 2022, when Arkansas Circuit Court Judge Brad Karren entered a diversion order. The State agreed to drop the charges against Ms. Farella if she stayed out of trouble for the next 12 months. Judge Karren also entered an order vacating Ms. Farella's $10,000 bond and stating that “counsel for Defendant and Deputy Prosecutor Sharon Nowlin have agreed that a written promise to appear for future court dates is sufficient to assure Defendant's appearance at future court dates.”[2]
Bentonville Police arrested Plaintiff Logan W. Murphy on June 20, 2022, for felony fleeing and misdemeanor reckless driving. Bentonville Police submitted a sworn probable cause affidavit and reported that the State joined in requesting bail be set at $25,000. The next day, Judge Anglin conducted a bail hearing with Mr. Murphy. He set bail at $40,000 cash or corporate surety; set arraignment-Mr. Murphy's next court date-for July 25, 2022; and found Mr. Murphy indigent and appointed the public defender to represent him at future proceedings. It appears Mr. Murphy remained in jail through July 22, 2022, when he posted bail.[3]
Although counsel was appointed during the initial appearance, the Amended Complaint alleges that no attorney-prosecutor or defense counsel-was present during either Ms. Farella's or Mr. Murphy's bail hearing.
B. Arkansas Criminal Procedure
Under Arkansas law, “[a]n arrested person who is not released by citation or by other lawful manner shall be taken before a judicial officer without unnecessary delay.” Ark. R. Crim. P. 8.1. This is the “first appearance,” sometimes referred to as an “8.1 hearing” or “Rule 8.1 hearing.”
Arkansas Rule of Criminal Procedure 8.3 governs what must occur during the proceeding:
The primary purpose of the Rule 8.1 hearing is to “ensure that an arrested person hears directly from the judicial officer an explanation of the charges and his constitutional rights, particularly his right to counsel and his right to remain silent.” Landrum v. State, 328 Ark. 361, 372 (1997) (Newbern, J., dissenting). However, the judicial officer often incorporates several additional pretrial tasks into the hearing. First, the judicial officer often assesses indigency and, if appropriate, appoints counsel.[4] Second, in some circumstances, the judicial official conducts a pretrial release inquiry and sets bail if warranted.[5] Ark. R. Crim. P. 8.4, 8.5.
In Benton County, it appears that attorneys rarely (if ever) attend the Rule 8.1 hearing. Regardless, the prosecuting attorney may weigh in on the pretrial release inquiry. Rule 8.5 instructs the prosecuting attorney to make recommendations concerning “the advisability and appropriateness of pretrial release,” “the amount and type of bail bond,” and “the conditions, if any, which should be imposed on the defendant's release.” Id. 8.5(c). In practice, law enforcement and the State often join in requesting bail be set at a particular amount, according to the Amended Complaint.
Public defenders though, appointed during the Rule 8.1 hearing itself, never attend these proceedings in Benton County.
The Court's “‘continuing obligation' to assure that [it has] jurisdiction requires that [it] raise issues of standing and mootness sua sponte.” Seneca Res. Corp. v. Twp. of Highland, 863 F.3d 245, 252 (3d Cir. 2017).[6] It does so here to address mootness in the context of a putative class action. The Court concludes that Plaintiffs' claims fall within the inherently transitory exception to mootness and remain live.
“Article III of the United States Constitution limits the jurisdiction of the federal courts to actual, ongoing cases and controversies.” Ali v. Cangemi, 419 F.3d 722 723 (8th Cir. 2005) (en banc) (quoting Haden v. Pelofsky, 212 F.3d 466, 469 (8th Cir. 2000)). Generally, “[w]hen, during the course of litigation, the issues presented in a case lose their life because of the passage of time or a change in circumstances and a federal court can no longer grant effective relief, the case is considered moot.” Id. (cleaned up). However,...
To continue reading
Request your trial