Graff v. Aberdeen Enters., II, Inc.
| Decision Date | 12 March 2021 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 17-CV-606-TCK-JFJ |
| Parties | CARLY GRAFF, et al., Plaintiffs, v. ABERDEEN ENTERPRIZES, II, Inc., et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Oklahoma |
Before the Court is Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint. (Doc. 226). Plaintiffs filed a Response to said motion (Doc. 268), and Defendants filed a Reply (Doc. 292). The definitive question presented is whether this Court has subject matter jurisdiction over Defendants who administer a statutorily created operating fund that is partially sourced, pursuant to state law, by certain categories of statutorily-authorized fines and fees? Although this issue is raised in the instant motion, it is also raised by every other defendant in this case in separate Motions to Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint. See Docs. 226, 227, 228, 230, 231, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238, and 239.
Plaintiffs are eight individuals that, at some point, became subject to criminal sentences which included a component for payment of fees, costs and/or fines. The Defendants are a collection of entities with differing involvement along a spectrum from the point of sentencing to events occasioned by the Plaintiffs' failure to comply with the financial obligations of their sentences. Defendant Aberdeen Enterprizes, II, Inc's ("Aberdeen") involvement in this spectrum relates solely to an Oklahoma statute which allows Oklahoma county sheriffs to enter into a "private contract" for the purposes of locating and notifying persons of outstanding failure-to-pay warrants and permits the private contractor to accept payment of the outstanding amounts and remit the payments to the court clerk.1 See Okla. Stat. tit. 19, § 514.4 (A), (B) and (E); Second Amended Complaint (Doc. 212), Exhibit "A," Agreement for Collection ("Agreement"), at p. 1. Aberdeen does not seek, issue, execute or recall warrants. Rather, Aberdeen collects amounts already owed which have been identified by county officials and notes whether a person has or has not paid amounts due.
The Plaintiffs allege concern over the possibility of arrest based upon their failure (or anticipated failure) to pay the fees, costs and/or fines component of their criminal sentences. Plaintiffs allege one of two possible scenarios: (1) a hearing should have been, but was not, conducted to determine whether they have the financial means to pay fees, costs and/or fines connected with their criminal sentences or (2) their circumstances have changed such that a hearing regarding their inability to pay should be conducted.
When an individual fails to pay fees, costs and/or fines connected to their criminal sentence, a county/court official may seek a warrant for nonpayment. See Second Amended Complaint (Doc. 212), ¶ 5, p. 6. The judges sign the warrants, which are executed by the respective sheriffs. See Id., ¶¶ 5, 64 and 65, pp. 6 and 29. Aberdeen's involvement occurs after nonpayment and after warrants are issued and relates to efforts to collect outstanding amounts through, for example, payment plans. See Id., ¶¶ 5 and 51, p. 6 and 25.2 The thirty percent (30%) fee added toany outstanding amount owed is set by Oklahoma statute. See Id., ¶ 5, p. 6; Okla. Stat. tit. 19, § 514.5 (A). A person's ability to pay the outstanding fees, costs and/or fines is an issue left to courts. See Okla. Ct. Crim. App. R. 8.1 - 8.4.
A. Overview of State Law
Plaintiffs target thousands of past and future discretionary state court decisions and ask this Court to step into the shoes of the state courts, adjudicate their affirmative defense of indigence, and declare portions of their convictions and sentences invalid.3 In all state court criminal proceedings, certain costs, fees, and fines are assessed against a defendant at the time of sentencing. These costs, fees, and fines are all part of the sentence imposed upon a criminal defendant. State v. Ballard, 868 P.2d 738, 741 (Okl.Cr. 1994); see also Okla. Stat. tit. 28, § 101; State v. Claborn, 870 P.2d 169, 171-75 (Okl.Cr. 1994). The collection of costs, fees, and fines is a mandatory duty expressly placed upon the judiciary acting through the district courts and their court clerks. See e.g. Okla. Stat. tit. 28, §§ 151-153; Okla. Stat. tit. 28, § 162; Okla. Stat. tit. 20, §§ 1313.2- 1313.5. As the state's highest court with exclusive jurisdiction in criminal matters, the Legislature charged the Court of Criminal Appeals with developing procedural rules to be followed by lower courts in the collection of costs, fees, and fines in criminal cases. Okla. Const. art. 7, § 4; Okla. Stat. tit. 22, § 983(D). These rules are found within Rule 8.1 through Rule 8.8. Rule 8.1 et seq., Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch. 18, Appx. (2018). Although they are promulgated by the appellate court, these rules have the force of statute. Okla. Stat. tit. 22, § 1051(b).
In addition to the authority vested in the Court of Criminal Appeals, the Oklahoma Supreme Court exercises significant authority over the collection of fines and costs by virtue of their general superintendent control over all inferior courts, Okla. Const. art. 7, § 4, and express statutory authority to institute a cost collection program. Okla. Stat. tit. 28, § 151(D). Pursuant to these powers, on January 13, 2011, the Chief Justice issued the following mandate: (Doc. 99-35) (emphasis added). Section 514.4 authorizes the use of private vendors to notify persons of outstanding warrants issued for failure to pay costs and fines in any criminal case.4 Okla. Stat. tit. 19, § 514.4(F). As indicated by the plain language of the statute, sheriffs have the option of contracting with such vendors directly or assigning their rights to do so to the statewide association of county sheriffs.
Pursuant to Section 514.4, a number of private vendors have contracted with the Sheriffs' Association. Defendant Aberdeen is one of many vendors. These vendors do not serve every county in the state. While the Sheriffs' Association and the specific vendor may be the parties to each individual contract for services, the Association does not have unlimited ability to retain such vendors. As a practical matter, the Oklahoma Supreme Court retains some measure of ability to reject the use of any particular vendor by virtue of the absolute control they maintain over the Oklahoma Court Information Systems (OCIS) - for it is only the Court through its AdministrativeDirector that approves and monitors those vendors that are given access to the OCIS system in order to participate in the cost collection program. Rule 5, Rules for Management of the Oklahoma Court Information System, Title 20, Ch. 18, Appx. 2 (2018); (Doc. 212-1), Contract, p. 3. The vendors retained pursuant to Section 514.4 do not come into play in every criminal case within their respective counties and, even when they do, the circumstances of those cases vary.
Except in cases where the defendant has been sentenced to a term of imprisonment, upon imposition of Judgment and Sentence a court shall determine whether a defendant has the ability to immediately satisfy any fines and costs imposed upon him. If unable to satisfy the full amount at the time Judgment and Sentence is rendered, a court may consider whether a defendant is able to pay the amounts owed though installments. Rule 8.1, 8.3, Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch. 18, Appx. (2018). If a defendant is unable to pay even in installments, a court may waive or suspend payment of costs, fees, and fines. Rule 8.5, Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch. 18, Appx. (2018).5 It is here that a defendant has the first of two opportunities to appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeals from a trial court's determination regarding costs, fees, and fines by taking a direct appeal from the Judgment and Sentence. Rule 8.8(A), Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch. 18, Appx. (2018).
Because costs, fees, and fines are part of the penalty imposed in a criminal proceeding, a defendant remains under the jurisdiction of the district court until such time as the amounts ordered are paid in full. Okla. Stat. tit. 22, § 983. An offender's cost, fine, and fee obligations must beperiodically reviewed, as financial ability to pay is not a static condition. Smith v. State, 155 P.3d 793, 795 (Okl.Cr. 2007). To that end, when installment payments are ordered, a court may also order the defendant to periodically appear before the court. Rule 8.3, Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch. 18, Appx. (2018). At any point in the cost review process, a court retains the discretion to (1) excuse missed installment payments; (2) temporarily suspend installment payments; or (3) waive payment of the costs, fees, and fines imposed if it appears that a defendant, because of poverty or physical disability, is unable to pay. Rule 8.4, 8.5, Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch. 18, Appx. (2018). A criminal defendant who makes a good faith effort to participate in the review process by making installment payments and periodic court appearances, or at least reporting to the court when he is unable to do so, should find himself in good stead with the court.
As with any other stage of the criminal proceedings, a court has the power to compel the attendance of persons who have disobeyed an order of the court through issuance of a bench warrant. Okla. Stat. tit. 22, §§ 454-463. In the context of costs, fines, and fee collections, a bench warrant may be issued for a defendant's failure to appear as directed and/or failure to comply with...
To continue reading
Request your trial