Odonnell v. Harris Cnty.

• Decision Date: 16 December 2016
• Docket Number: CIVIL ACTION NO. H–16–1414
• Citation: 227 F.Supp.3d 706
• Parties: Maranda Lynn ODONNELL, et al., On behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS, et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of Texas

227 F.Supp.3d 706

Maranda Lynn ODONNELL, et al., On behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs,

v.HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS, et al., Defendants.

CIVIL ACTION NO. H–16–1414

United States District Court, S.D. Texas, Houston Division.

Signed December 16, 2016

Alec Karakatsanis, Elizabeth Anne Rossi, Civil Rights Corps, Washington, DC, Lexie Giselle White, Neal S. Manne, Susman Godfrey LLP, Houston, TX, Michael Gervais, Susman Godfrey L.L.P., New York, NY, Rebecca Bernhardt, Susanne Ashley Pringle, Texas Fair Defense Project, Austin, TX, for Plaintiffs.

James G. Munisteri, Katharine Davenport David, Michael A. Stafford, Gardere Wynne Sewell LLP, Melissa Lynn Spinks, Harris County Attorney's Office, Michael Paul Fleming, Michael P. Fleming & Associates, P.C., John Ellis O'Neill, John R. Keville, Robert Lawrence Green, III, Sheryl Anne Falk, Winston and Strawn LLP, Houston, TX, for Defendants.

MEMORANDUM AND OPINION

Lee H. Rosenthal, Chief United States District Judge

The plaintiffs, Maranda Lynn ODonnell, Robert Ryan Ford, and Loetha McGruder, sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, challenging Harris County's postarrest detention policies. They alleged that the Harris County Sheriff and sixteen Harris County Criminal Courts at Law Judges promulgate policies that violate the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the United States Constitution by detaining people arrested for misdemeanor offenses who are unable to pay a financial bail bond much longer than those financially able to pay. The result is allegedly a "wealth-based detention system" of jailing misdemeanor defendants only because they cannot pay secured financial bail. (Docket Entry No. 54 ¶ 125). The plaintiffs seek injunctive and declaratory relief against the County and—to the extent that they are State, not County, actors—against the Sheriff and the sixteen Harris County Judges, sued in their official and personal capacities. The plaintiffs also seek declaratory relief against five Harris County Hearing Officers, also sued both in their official and personal capacities.

On May 19, 2016, Ms. ODonnell filed this civil-rights class-action lawsuit initially suing Harris County, Sheriff Ron Hickman, and the five Harris County Hearing Officers.¹ She sued on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated individuals. (Docket Entry No. 3).² Mr. Ford and Ms. McGruder filed their suits on May 21, 2016. (Civil No. 16–1436, Docket Entry No. 1). The court consolidated the cases in August 2016. (Docket Entry No. 41). The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on August 31, 2016, adding the sixteen Harris County Criminal Courts at Law Judges as defendants.³ (Docket Entry No. 54). Harris County, the County Judges, the Hearing Officers, and the Sheriff have moved to dismiss. (Docket Entry Nos. 80, 83–85). The plaintiffs responded, (Docket Entry Nos. 92–95), and the defendants replied, (Docket Entry Nos. 98, 100, 102, 106).

Based on the pleadings; the motions, responses, and replies; the record; the applicable law; and the oral arguments of counsel on the motions presented in lengthy hearings held on August 18 and November 28, 2016,⁴ the court grants in part and denies in part the defendants' motions to dismiss. The court dismisses the personal-capacity claims against Sheriff Hickman and the County Judges. The court also dismisses the official-capacity claim against the Hearing Officers. The Hearing Officers did not move to dismiss the claims against them in their personal capacities. Those claims proceed. The court denies the motions to dismiss the claims against Sheriff Hickman and the County Judges in their official capacities, and the court denies the motion to dismiss the claim against Harris County.

The reasons for these rulings are explained below.

I. Background

Harris County is one of the most populous counties in the United States. Multiple overlapping authorities coordinate and control pretrial procedures in the County. The parties sharply dispute basic facts and figures about the timing of pretrial procedures that can result in release pending a dismissal or guilty plea; the number of misdemeanor arrestees detained because they cannot pay bail at or near the time of booking; the sources of authority governing bail procedures; and the entities or persons operating under that authority. Taking the plaintiffs' plausible factual allegations as true for purposes of these motions⁵ shows that bail procedures are administered in Harris County as described below.

A. The Sources of Bail Regulation

The Texas Constitution requires that "[a]ll prisoners shall be bailable by sufficient sureties, unless for capital offenses, when the proof is evident," and it forbids "[e]xcessive bail." TEX. CONST. art. I, §§ 11, 13. The Texas Code of Criminal Procedure states that "[t]he amount of bail to be required in any case is to be regulated by the court, judges, magistrate or officer taking the bail." TEX. CODE CRIM. PRO. art. 17.15. In exercising this authority, five rules apply:

1. The bail shall be sufficiently high to give reasonable assurance that the undertaking will be complied with.

2. The power to require bail is not to be so used as to make it an instrument of oppression.

3. The nature of the offense and the circumstances under which it was committed are to be considered.

4. The ability to make bail is to be regarded, and proof may be taken upon this point.

5. The future safety of a victim of the alleged offense and the community shall be considered.

Id. (emphasis added). The Texas Code permits release of defendants accused of certain misdemeanors after only a citation. Id. , art. 14.06.⁶

In 1987, after litigation over the unequal application of bail amounts in Harris County, the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas entered an agreed final judgment known as the Roberson order. See Roberson v. Richardson , Agreed Final Judgment, Civil No. 84–2974 (S.D. Tex. Nov. 25, 1987).⁷ The Roberson order required the County Criminal Courts at Law to "implement and maintain a bond schedule for all misdemeanor offenses within their jurisdiction." Id . at 4. The bond schedule had to "establish the initial amounts of bail required in each type or category of offense." Id. Judicial officers had the authority "to order the accused released on personal bond or released on other alternatives to prescheduled bail amounts." Id. County Judges had to "direct the Pretrial Services Agency to make every effort to insure that sufficient information is available at the time of the hearings required herein for the Judicial Officer to determine an accused's eligibility for a personal bond or alternatives to prescheduled bail amounts."Id. Hearings to "set bail and review the accused's suitability for release on an alternative to prescheduled bail amounts" were to occur "as soon as a Judicial Officer is available after the accused is placed in a jail operated by or under the authority of the Sheriff of Harris County." Id. at 2. The Roberson court agreed to enter additional orders if "a particular arresting agency shows a pattern of failing to produce accused persons for the hearings required within 24 hours of arrest." Id. at 3.

The Roberson order also substantially repeated the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure by requiring that "bail determinations shall be according to the following criteria":

1. The bail shall be sufficiently high to give reasonable assurance that the undertaking will be complied with;

2. The nature of the offense for which Probable Cause has been found and the circumstances under which the offense was allegedly committed are to be considered, including both aggravating and mitigating factors for which there is reasonable ground to believe shown, if any;

3. The ability to make bail is to be regarded, and proof may be taken upon this point;

4. The future safety of the victim may be considered, and if this be a factor, release to a third person should also be considered; and

5. The Judicial Officer shall also consider the accused's employment history, residency, family affiliations, prior criminal record, previous court appearance performance and any outstanding bonds.

Id. at 3 (emphasis added).

The Texas Government Code permits County Judges to "adopt rules consistent with the Code of Criminal Procedure ... for practice and procedure in the courts. A rule may be adopted by a two-thirds vote of the judges." TEX. GOV'T CODE § 75.403(f). On March 7, 2016, the Harris County Criminal Courts at Law Judges, sitting en banc and voting by two-thirds majority, adopted the current Harris County Criminal Courts at Law Rules of Court. These Rules of Court contain a misdemeanor bail schedule, set out as Rule 9. Current Rule 4.2.3.1. provides that "[t]he initial bail amount may be changed on motion of the court, the hearing officer, or any party subject to the following criteria":

4.2.3.1.1. the bail shall be sufficiently high to give reasonable assurance that the defendant will comply with the undertaking;

4.2.3.1.2. the nature of the offense for which probable cause has been found and the circumstances under which the offense was allegedly committed are to be considered, including both aggravating and mitigating factors for which there is reasonable ground to believe shown, if any;

4.2.3.1.3. the ability to make bail is to be regarded, and proof may be taken upon thispoint;

4.2.3.1.4. the future safety of the victim and the community may be considered, and if this is a factor, release to a third person should also be considered; and

4.2.3.1.5. the criminal law hearing officer shall also consider the employment history, residency, family affiliations, prior criminal record, previous court appearance performance, and any outstanding bonds of the accused.

Id. , Rule 4.2.3 (emphasis added). The current Harris County Rules of Court require that "all law enforcement officials in Harris County shall cause the pretrial detainees in their respective custody, who have been charged with a class...