Justice Network Inc. v. Craighead Cnty.

Decision Date26 July 2019
Docket NumberNo. 17-3770,17-3770
Parties JUSTICE NETWORK INC., Plaintiff - Appellant v. CRAIGHEAD COUNTY; David Boling, Judge, in his individual and official capacity; Tommy Fowler, Judge, In his individual and official capacity; Bay, City of; Bono, City of; Brookland, City of; Caraway, City of; Cash, City of ; Egypt, City of ; Jonesboro, City of; Lake City, Arkansas; Monette, City of, Defendants - Appellees Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, Amicus on Behalf of Appellant(s)
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit

John T. Edwards, Randall J. Fishman, Attorney, Josef Horowitz, Kevin McCormack, Richard S. Townley, BALLIN & BALLIN, Memphis, TN, for Plaintiff - Appellant.

Jason E. Owens, JASON OWENS LAW FIRM, Conway, AR, for Defendant - Appellee Craighead County.

Robert Thomas James, Ashley N. Brown, Jennifer L. Merritt, ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE, Little Rock, AR, Patrick E. Hollingsworth, Assistant Attorney General, UNIVERSITY OF ARKANSAS SYSTEM, Office of General Counsel, Little Rock, AR, for Defendants - Appellees David Boling and Tommy Fowler.

John Lennon Wilkerson, ARKANSAS MUNICIPAL LEAGUE, Legal, North Little Rock, AR, for Defendants - Appellees City of Bay, City of Bono, City of Brookland, City of Caraway, City of Cash, City of Egypt, City of Lake City and City of Monette.

Ralph Charles Ohm, Hot Springs, AR, for City of Jonesboro.

Joseph D. Dell'Armi, VENABLE LLP, New York, NY, Jon M. Greenbaum, LAWYERS' COMMITTEE FOR CIVIL RIGHTS UNDER LAW, Washington, DC, for Amicus on Behalf of Appellant Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law.

Before SMITH, Chief Judge, KELLY and KOBES, Circuit Judges.

SMITH, Chief Judge.

The Justice Network Inc. (TJN) appeals from the district court’s1 dismissal of its 42 U.S.C. § 1983 suit against Judge David Boling, in his individual and official capacity; Judge Tommy Fowler, in his individual and official capacity; Craighead County, Arkansas; the City of Jonesboro; and the Cities of Bay, Bono, Brookland, Caraway, Cash, Egypt, Lake City, and Monette.2 The suit arises from Craighead County District Judges Boling and Fowler’s implementation of an Amnesty Program forgiving all fees that probationers owed to TJN for probation services. We hold that Judges Boling and Fowler are entitled to judicial immunity on TJN’s claims. Additionally, we hold that Judges Boling and Fowler are state government officials whose actions are not attributable to Craighead County or the City Defendants. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s dismissal of TJN’s § 1983 suit.

I. Background3

TJN is a private probation company, and it offers services to probation clients in Craighead County. Services offered to the probation clients include program and counseling coordination, public service work, random drug screening, curfew monitoring, or any other condition of probation ordered by the court. TJN also offers a variety of classes to its probation clients, including life skills, parenting skills, anger management, alcohol safety school, and drug offender school.

Since 1997, TJN has provided probation services to probation clients under the jurisdiction of the district and circuit courts of Craighead County. Since that time, it has also provided probation services to probation clients under the jurisdiction of the City Defendantscourts ("City Courts"). TJN’s Jonesboro branch employed 12 full-time employees, all residents of Craighead County.

From 1997 until February 3, 2017, all misdemeanor offenders who had been charged in Craighead County District Court ("District Court") or the City Courts, and who required probation services, were placed under TJN’s supervision. TJN contracted individually with each probation client. The Probation Fee Agreement set forth a $35 monthly fee for probation services and included a $15 monthly fee for the supervision of public service work (a typical condition of probation). A court order issued in conjunction with the Probation Fee Agreement directed each probation client to pay all probation supervision fees to TJN for each month of supervised probation.

If the probation client failed to abide by the probation order and failed to complete his or her court-ordered special conditions, TJN would file an affidavit with the court indicating what conditions were not completed. The Craighead County prosecutor and the judge would then countersign the affidavit. The judge of the District Court would order the probationer to pay restitution for all outstanding fees owed to TJN. The same process was followed in the City Courts, including the court order directing the probationer to pay fees to TJN. For cases pending in the District Court, the District Court would collect the fees that the probation clients owed to TJN and forward those funds to TJN. For cases pending in the City Courts, the City Courts would collect the fees that the probation clients owed and forward those funds to TJN. This system operated for nearly 20 years, from 1997 until 2016.

In early 2016, Judges Boling and Fowler were elected Craighead County District Judges. During the election, Judge Boling stated that if he were elected, he would end the use of TJN’s probation services in his court. Likewise, Judge Fowler stated during his campaign that he opposed the privatization of probation services.

On August 11, 2016, Judge Boling was reported in a local newspaper as stating "that he dismissed the case of one defendant on probation and ‘purged’ the remaining debt that had not paid." Compl. at 13, ¶ 81, Justice Network, Inc. v. Craighead Cty ., No. 3:17-cv-00169-JM (E.D. Ark. June 30, 2017), ECF No. 1. This "purged" debt included court costs and fees that the defendant owed to TJN pursuant to a contract between the defendant and TJN. On August 12, 2016, the local newspaper reported that Judge Boling said he would "consider nonpayment cases on a case-by-case basis." Id. at 14, ¶ 84.

On December 7, 2016, the local newspaper reported that Judges "Fowler and Boling planned to implement an ‘Amnesty Program’ in January and February 2017." Id. at ¶ 86. "As part of that program, [Judges] Fowler and Boling met with probation offenders who had outstanding fines that were due, to discuss payment options." Id. at ¶ 87.

On January 26, 2017, the local newspaper reported that Judges Fowler and Boling had implemented a "temporary amnesty program," which "allow[ed] offenders who were delinquent on their payments to reset their payment plan." Id. at ¶ 88. The fees owed to TJN were summarily stricken from each new order of probation. Judges Boling and Fowler forgave the fees owed to TJN as part of the "Amnesty Program." Id. at ¶ 90. Judges Fowler and Boling also instituted a "Jail Credit" program. Id. at ¶ 91. This program forgave the costs owed to the court and fees owed to TJN in lieu of time served in prison. "[M]any of the probation clients given ‘Jail Credit’ were never incarcerated." Id. at 15, ¶ 93.

As a result of the Amnesty Program, and the consequent loss of revenue, TJN has ceased all operations in Craighead County and has been forced to terminate its 12 employees. TJN has suffered significant economic loss and will continue to sustain that loss in the future if the Amnesty Program continues.

TJN brought suit against Judges Boling and Fowler; Craighead County; and the City Defendants pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violations of the Contracts Clause, U.S. Const. art. I, § 10, and the Takings Clause, U.S. Const. amend. V. TJN also alleged violations of the Arkansas Constitution’s Takings Clause. See Ark. Const. art. II, § 22. TJN sought a declaratory judgment that the defendants effectuated a custom and policy of annulling fees owed by probation clients to TJN, in violation of Article 1, Section 10 and the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article 2, Section 17 and Article 2, Section 22 of the Arkansas Constitution. It also sought injunctive relief enjoining the defendants from executing a custom and policy of annulling fees owed by probation clients to TJN.

The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).

The district court granted the defendantsmotions to dismiss. First, the court found that Judges Boling and Fowler are entitled to absolute judicial immunity against all of TJN’s claims because "[u]nless judges act completely outside all jurisdiction, they are absolutely immune from suit when acting in their judicial capacity." Justice Network, Inc. v. Craighead Cty ., No. 3:17-cv-00169-JM, 2017 WL 5762397, at *2 (E.D. Ark. Nov. 28, 2017) (citing Martin v. Hendren, 127 F.3d 720, 721 (8th Cir. 1997) ). The court also noted, "In Arkansas, [a]ll courts of record, district courts, and city courts ... shall have the authority to suspend the imposition of sentences or the imposition of fines, or both, in all criminal cases pending before the courts unless specifically prohibited by law.’ " Id. (alteration and ellipsis in original) (quoting Ark. Code Ann. § 16-90-115 ). According to the district court, Arkansas law also provides that "[d]uring a period of ... probation, upon the petition of a probation officer or a defendant or upon the court’s own motion, a court may: (1) Modify a condition imposed on the defendant." Id. (alteration and ellipsis in original) (quoting Ark. Code Ann. § 16-93-312 ). The district court concluded that the judicial decisions "modifying, suspending or terminating the terms of probation, previously imposed by the Court, are judicial acts." Id. (citing John Chism Bail Bonds, Inc. v. Pennington , 656 F. Supp. 2d 929 (E.D. Ark. 2009) (finding the judge defendants were acting in a judicial capacity, and were entitled to absolute immunity, when they signed and enforced a court order disallowing "credit bonding")).

Second, the district court granted Craighead County and the City Defendantsmotions to dismiss because "[s]tate district court judges are state government officials and are not...

To continue reading

Request your trial
104 cases
  • Mahler v. Judicial Council of Cal.
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • 28 Julio 2021
    ...where declaratory relief is unavailable or a judge has violated a declaratory decree. (See Justice Network Inc. v. Craighead County (8th Cir. 2019) 931 F.3d 753, 763 ( Justice Network .)) "In other words, ‘judicial immunity [now] typically bars claims for prospective injunctive relief again......
  • Abundant Life Baptist Church of Lee's Summit v. Jackson Cnty.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of Missouri
    • 17 Mayo 2021
    ...act.’ " Rogers v. Gaston , No. 6:19-03346-CV-RK, 2020 WL 1694796, at *6 (W.D. Mo. Apr. 7, 2020) (quoting Justice Network Inc. v. Craighead Cty. , 931 F.3d 753, 764 (8th Cir. 2019) ). To determine whether a request for declaratory relief is moot, the Court must decide "whether the facts alle......
  • Reg'l Home Health Care, Inc. v. Azar
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of Iowa
    • 21 Septiembre 2020
    ...of the parties in anticipation of some future conduct , not simply to proclaim liability for a past act." Justice Network Inc. v. Craighead Cty. , 931 F.3d 753, 764 (8th Cir. 2019). By contrast, a complaint seeking " ‘a declaration of past liability’ ... does not satisfy the definition of ‘......
  • Heights Apartments, LLC v. Walz
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit
    • 5 Abril 2022
    ...there have been cases in this circuit in which such a cause of action has been asserted. See, e.g., Justice Network Inc. v. Craighead Cnty., 931 F.3d 753, 758 (8th Cir. 2019) (probation company brought suit against two judges, the county, and the city pursuant to § 1983 for violations of th......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT