Zuranski v. Anderson

• Decision Date: 05 March 1984
• Docket Number: No. H 84-56.,H 84-56.
• Citation: 582 F. Supp. 101
• Parties: Walter M. ZURANSKI, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Orval W. ANDERSON, Individually and in his capacity as Judge of the Lake County Court, Division III, et al, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of Indiana

582 F. Supp. 101

Walter M. ZURANSKI, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Orval W. ANDERSON, Individually and in his capacity as Judge of the Lake County Court, Division III, et al, Defendants.

No. H 84-56.

United States District Court, N.D. Indiana, Hammond Division.

March 5, 1984.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Myrna Hart, Project Justice & Equality, Donald J. Evans, Calumet Chapter — Indiana Civ. Liberties Union, Valparaiso, Ind., for plaintiff.

Arthur Thaddeus Perry, Deputy Atty. Gen., Linley E. Pearson, Atty. Gen., Indianapolis, Ind., Robert Deloney, Gary, Ind., Raymond L. Szarmach, East Chicago, Ind., John A. Dull, Crown Point, Ind., for defendants.

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

KANNE, District Judge.

This case discloses an instance where an Indiana state court judge, through indifference, ignored Indiana law and caused an improper sentence to be imposed upon an indigent traffic offender. In addition to the initial regular 60 day jail sentence he imposed, the state court judge directed that the indigent traffic offender pay a fine and costs of $450.00 by a further term of imprisonment to be served after the regular sentence at $10.00 per day.

Before acting on behalf of the indigent traffic offender, a legal assistance agency waited until the regular sentence was concluded and the improper sentence had commenced. Then they sought of the federal court, not the release of the indigent from jail, but rather that the federal court oversee all further sentencings in the state court and prevent any similar improper sentences.

The basic and fundamental issue presented is whether the Indiana state court system should be afforded an opportunity to review and supervise the sentencing practices of a state court judge or be preempted in that activity by the federal courts.

Based on the facts in this case and as indicated by the following order, plaintiff's initial recourse with regard to improperly imposed sentences rests with the Indiana state court system and its review and supervisory mechanisms — not with the federal courts.

With consent of counsel, the Court proceeded on February 9, 1984, with submission of evidence and hearing on plaintiff's Petition for Preliminary Injunction, plaintiff's Petition for Class Certification and defendants' Motion to Dismiss or in the Alternative for Summary Judgment as to plaintiff's claims for relief. The court orally announced its ruling in open court on February 10, 1984. This written Memorandum of Decision follows.

The Court first sets forth the facts disclosed by the evidence and the pleadings.

The named plaintiff, Walter M. Zuranski is a twenty-year old, white male with a ninth grade education. He has been intermittently employed as a mechanic and cook. Plaintiff at the critical time in question, December 20, 1983, had little money of his own and qualified for indigent status.

The defendant, Orval W. Anderson, is the judge of a state court described as the "Lake County Court, Division III." Under Indiana law, as a county court judge in the Indiana state judicial system he has jurisdiction over traffic offenses, small claims, misdemeanors and Class D felonies. The defendant Judge Anderson is empowered to impose sentences of imprisonment and assess fines and costs.

The plaintiff was initially stopped for a traffic violation in September of 1983. He was given a ticket for driving with a suspended license and resisting law enforcement, i.e., fleeing a police officer. He signed the ticket promising to appear in court to answer the traffic charges. Plaintiff, however, signed the name of his brother to the ticket. Plaintiff thereafter left to seek his fortune in California. Upon returning to visit his grandfather approximately two months later, he was arrested on an outstanding warrant on November 15, 1983.

Following the plaintiff's overnight incarceration, the plaintiff's sister and a friend posted a $500.00 cash bond after being advised by the clerk that the bond would be used to satisfy any fine and costs. The plaintiff was released on recognizance on November 16, 1983.

On December 20, 1983, plaintiff appeared for trial on the traffic charge before the defendant Judge Anderson. The testimony of the plaintiff and the transcript of the proceedings indicate that plaintiff was advised of his constitutional rights including his right to counsel. Plaintiff waived his constitutional rights including his right to the appointment of a public defender. He thereafter entered a plea of guilty to driving with a suspended license, was convicted of said offense, and a second charge of resisting law enforcement was dismissed.

The defendant Judge Anderson then sentenced the plaintiff to 60 days in jail, and noting that a $500.00 cash bond had been posted, fined the plaintiff $409.00 and taxed costs in the sum of $41.00. The fine and cost was calculated by the sentencing judge to be the amount of cash bond of $500.00 less the $50.00 administrative fee.

After imposing the fine the defendant Judge Anderson failed to inquire as to the indigency status of Mr. Zuranski. At no time during the proceeding did the plaintiff advise the defendant judge that he was without funds to pay any fine and costs.

Immediately thereafter the plaintiff was taken into custody and commenced serving the regular imposed sentence of 60 days.

Thereupon the plaintiff's friend, rather than permit the cash bond to be used to satisfy the plaintiff's fine and costs, demanded of the court clerk that the bond money be returned. The clerk complied and the $450.00 ($500.00 less an administrative fee of $50.00) was returned to the friend.

Through subsequent clerical action, the fine and costs were then entered on plaintiff's record as unpaid and his commitment order directed that he serve out the $450.00 fine and costs at $10.00 per day.

After commencing his regular sentence, plaintiff contacted his sister with regard to his potential period of incarceration for nonpayment of fine and costs. Plaintiff's sister made a number of inquiries through jail personnel and the staff of the defendant Judge Anderson concerning her brother's status. She, as did the plaintiff, initially questioned whether the fine must be served at $5.00 a day or $10.00 per day.

On or about January 10, 1984, plaintiff's sister, on behalf of the plaintiff, contacted one of plaintiff's present counsel, Ms. Hart, of Project Justice and Equality, a legal assistance agency.

Ms. Hart and Project Justice and Equality were made aware of the fact that plaintiff was indigent and was to commence incarceration for nonpayment of fine and costs in nine days. During that nine day period Project Justice and Equality took no action in any court to secure plaintiff's release upon completion of his regular term of imprisonment.

Plaintiff completed the regular 60 day sentence (less 30 days good time credit) on January 19, 1984. He commenced serving his imprisonment for nonpayment of fine and costs on January 20, 1984.

On January 27, 1984, 17 days after they were notified of the potential improper sentence (10 days prior to the commencement of said sentence and 7 days after the plaintiff began serving the sentence for nonpayment of his fine and costs) Project Justice and Equality had still not requested any court to order the plaintiff's release from custody. They did, however, on January 27, 1984, file this action in federal court seeking injunctive relief against future actions, declaratory relief, damages and class certification.

On January 28, 1984, after the filing of the writ of habeas corpus in state court, the plaintiff was finally released from custody.

At the time of the hearing on this matter there were no prisoners in the Lake County Jail serving sentences for nonpayment of fines and costs.

The single incident involving the plaintiff shows indifference and inefficient procedures which allowed an indigent to be imprisoned for failure to pay fine and costs. Even given the failure of the judge to determine the indigency status of Mr. Zuranski, action by and on behalf of the plaintiff subsequent to the sentencing should have alerted the defendant judge to the potential commencement of an improper sentence. Apparently where a defendant's indigency is made known to him the defendant judge generally does suspend fines and costs.

Having set forth the facts the Court now examines the plaintiff's claims for relief.

A transcendent issue in this case is one of federal jurisdiction. Those who seek to invoke the jurisdiction of the federal courts must satisfy the threshold requirement imposed by Article III of the United States Constitution by alleging an actual case or controversy. City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, ___ U.S. ___, 103 S.Ct. 1660, 75 L.Ed.2d 675 (1983).

This issue of jurisdiction will be reviewed first by focusing on Mr. Zuranski's standing to maintain this action on his own behalf. Plaintiff's individual request for equitable relief is examined first with regard to those claims based on violation of state law and then with regard to those claims based on federal question.

Turning to the state claims the plaintiff seeks equitable relief alleging the defendant Judge Anderson violated Indiana state law and the Indiana Constitution.¹

The defendant Judge Anderson is an official of the State of Indiana. Pruitt v. Kimbrough, 536 F.Supp. 764 (N.D.Ind. 1982), aff'd, 705 F.2d 462 (7th Cir.1983); Blackwell v. Cook, 570 F.Supp. 474 (N.D. Ind.1983). Plaintiff's allegations concern action by the state court judge in his official capacity, to-wit: imposition of sentence following conviction.

A claim that a state official violated state law in carrying out his official responsibilities is a claim against the state that is protected by the Eleventh Amendment. Pennhurst State School & Hospital v. Halderman, ___ U.S. ___, 104 S.Ct. 900, 79 L.Ed.2d 67 (1984). Also, in the Pennhurst case, the Court, 104 S.Ct. at page 919, stated: "W...