Case: 4:15-cv-00840-RWS Doc. #: 1 Filed: 05/27/15 Page: 1 of 12 PageID #: 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DIVISION

)

KELLEN POWELL, et al.

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

v.

)

)

THE CITY OF ST. ANN,

)

)

Defendant.

)

___________________________________ )

Case No. (Class Action)

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

Introduction

This case is about the City of St. Ann jailing some of its poorest people and the poorest

people in the St. Louis region because they cannot pay a small amount of money. Kellen Powell

was arrested on May 21, 2015 and iscurrently imprisoned by the City because he cannot afford to

pay the amount of money generically set by the City of St. Annand its police department.

In St. Ann, most people arrested for minor ordinance violations are released immediately

upon payment of a small cash bond. The amount of the bond ranges from $150-$350 depending

on the offense. If a person is charged with multiple offenses, the fixed amount for each offense

is added together to determine the total amount of cash required for release.Those arrestees who

are too poor to afford $150remain in jail because of their poverty for at least three days, at which

time St. Ann typically releases them for free.

On behalf of the many other arrestees subjected to the City’s unlawful and ongoing post-

arrest money-based detention scheme, the named Plaintiff challenges in this action the use of an

Case: 4:15-cv-00840-RWS Doc. #: 1 Filed: 05/27/15 Page: 2 of 12 PageID #: 2
unlawful generic bail that operates to detain only the most impoverished minor arrestees. The City’s policy has no place in modern American law.
By and through his attorneys and on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the named Plaintiff seeks in this civil action the vindication of his fundamental rights, injunctive relief assuring that his rights and the rights of the other Class members will not continue to be violated, and a declaration that the City’s conduct is unlawful.
Nature of the Action1 1. It is the policy and practice of the City of St. Ann to refuse to release ordinance violation arrestees from jail unless they pay a generically set “bond” amount. That amount is $150 for most ordinance violations and $300 for Driving While Suspended.2 Because this sum is set generically by reference to the alleged offense of arrest, no individualized factors are considered, and anyone who cannot afford to pay is held in jail until they see a judge, which can be more than a week. Plaintiff seeks declaratory, injunctive, and compensatory relief.
Jurisdiction and Venue 2. This is a civil rights action arising under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 28 U.S.C. § 2201, et seq., and the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343. 3. Venue in this Court is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391.
Parties
1 Plaintiff makes the allegations in this Complaint based on personal knowledge as to matters in which he has had personal involvement and on information and belief as to all other matters. 2 Felony and misdemeanor arrestees are not subject to the jurisdiction of the City of St. Ann and are instead processed according to policies adopted by the State of Missouri.
2

Case: 4:15-cv-00840-RWS Doc. #: 1 Filed: 05/27/15 Page: 3 of 12 PageID #: 3
4. Named Plaintiff Kellen Powell is a 33-year-old homeless resident of St. Louis County. He represents himself as an individual and a Class of similarly situated people all subject to the City’s post-arrest money-based detention scheme.
5. Defendant City of St. Ann is a municipal corporation organized under the laws of the State of Missouri. The City operates the St. Ann Police Department and the St. Ann Municipal Court.
Factual Background A. The Named Plaintiff’s Arrest 6. Kellen Powell is a 33 year old homeless citizen of St. Louis County. 7. Mr. Powell was arrested by St. Ann police on May 21, 2015. St. Ann court and St. Ann jail refuse to give out information confirming charges. Upon information and belief, Mr. Powell was charged with the failure to display a license plate and driving while suspended. He was arrested on these new charges. 8. Mr. Powell was taken to jail and told that he would be released if he paid cash to the City of St. Annin the amount of $300. He was told that he would be kept in jail until Thursday May 28, 2015 unless he paid $300. See Exhibit 1, Declaration of Kellen Powell. 9. Mr. Powell is indigent. He is employed part-time earning less than $300 per week at the time of his arrest. He does not own any real property. 10. Mr. Powell is currently homeless. 11. He has not been brought to court for an initial appearance. The earliest that Mr. Powell would be brought to court for a first appearance is May 28, 2015 nearly a week after his arrest. Pursuant to City policy, he must remain incarcerated because he is too poor to buy his freedom.
3

Case: 4:15-cv-00840-RWS Doc. #: 1 Filed: 05/27/15 Page: 4 of 12 PageID #: 4
B. The City’s Policies and Practices 12. The named Plaintiff would be released immediately by the City of St. Ann if he or a family member paid the amount of cash set by the City of St. Ann. 13. The treatment of the named Plaintiff and other Class members is caused by and is representative of the City’s post-arrest detention policies and practices. 14. As a matter of policy and practice, when the City of St. Ann Police Department makes an arrest for a minor ordinance violation, officers inform the arrestee at booking that the person will be released immediately if the person pays cash set by a predetermined amount.3 The arrestee is told that the arrestee will remain in jail if the arrestee is not able to make that payment. 15. An arrestee too poor to buy his way out of jail could wait more than a week to see a judge for a bond reduction if police officers do not decide to release him for free after three days as is the custom throughout St. Louis County. 16. After an arrest, City of St. Ann police do not deviate from their preset amount of a minimum $150 and maximum of $350 depending on the ordinance violation. 17. Unlike many other cities, the City of St. Ann does not allow post-arrest release on recognizance or with an unsecured bond (in which a person would be released by promising to pay the scheduled amount if the person later does not appear). Instead, City officials require that the cash payment amount be made up front. 18. The City of St. Ann has 13,000 residents and comprises 3.1 miles. The Police Department filed over 28,000 municipal ordinance violation cases in 2013. As of September of 2014, the City of St. Ann had over 14,000 outstanding warrants for arrest or approximately 1.1
3 Although commercial bail bonds are widely available in the St. Louis region, the City of St. Ann does not allow for their use. Thus, any person held by the City of St. Ann must pay the entire bond in order to buy her release.
4

Case: 4:15-cv-00840-RWS Doc. #: 1 Filed: 05/27/15 Page: 5 of 12 PageID #: 5
for every resident of the town. As a result of this high volume policing, St. Ann’s municipal court produces revenues of over $3,000,000 from court costs and fines.
19. Many of St. Ann’s minor ordinance violation arrestees are released soon after arrest upon payment of the scheduled amount of cash. Some remain detained for varying lengths of time until they or their families are able to borrow sufficient amounts of money or arrange for third-party payment. Others, like the named Plaintiff, who are too poor even to find anyone to pay the cash bond for them, are kept in jail until they are brought to court or until police decide to release them.
20. Because of St. Ann’s unusual and illegal policies, it is difficult for the public to obtain accurate details concerning how many impoverished St. Ann arrestees are unable to buy their release each week.
Class Action Allegations 21. The named Plaintiff brings this action, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, for the purpose of asserting the claims alleged in this Complaint on a common basis. 22. A class action is a superior means, and the only practicable means, by which the named Plaintiff and unknown Class members can challenge the City’s unlawful poverty-based post-arrest detention scheme. 23. This action is brought and may properly be maintained as a Class action pursuant to Rule 23(a)(1)-(4) andRule 23(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 24. This action satisfies the numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy requirements of those provisions. 25. The Plaintiff proposes one Class seeking declaratory and injunctive relief. The
5

Case: 4:15-cv-00840-RWS Doc. #: 1 Filed: 05/27/15 Page: 6 of 12 PageID #: 6
Declaratory and Injunctive Class is defined as: all arresteesunable to pay for their release pursuant to St. Ann’s preset bail amount who are or who will become in the custody of St. Ann.
A. Numerosity. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(1) 26. The City of St. Ann Police Department filed over 28,000 cases for ordinance violation offenses in 2014.4 Each arrestee is presented with the City’s standard cash bond choice of pay or jail. Arrestees are held in jail for varying lengths of time depending on how long it takes them to make the cash payment that the City requires for their release. 27. Some arrestees are able to pay for release immediately. Others are forced to wait a day or two days until they or family members can make the payment. Others are not able to pay or to find someone else to pay for them even after a few days. Still, others, as is the case for Mr. Powell, are held for a week without seeing a judge. 28. The number of current and future arrestees subjected to this policy if it is not enjoined is well over forty. B. Commonality. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(2). 29. The relief sought is common to all members of the Class, and common questions of law and fact exist as to all members of the Class. The named Plaintiff seeks relief concerning whether the City’s policies, practices, and procedures violate the rights of the Class members and relief mandating the City to change its policies, practices, and procedures so that the constitutional rights of the Class members will be protected in the future. 30. These common legal and factual questions arise from one central scheme and set of policies and practices: the City’s post-arrest detention schedule. The City operates this scheme openly and in materially the same manner every day. The material components of the scheme do not vary from Class member to Class member, and the resolution of these legal and
4 The City appears to have been on a similar pace of arrests in 2015, but final statistics are not yet publicly available.
6

Case: 4:15-cv-00840-RWS Doc. #: 1 Filed: 05/27/15 Page: 7 of 12 PageID #: 7
factual issues will determine whether all of the members of the class are entitled to the constitutional relief that they seek.
Among the most important, but not the only, common questions of fact are: • Whether St. Ann has a policy and practice of using a predetermined bail amount to determine the amount of money necessary to secure post-arrest release; • Whether St. Ann requires that scheduled amount of money to be paid up front before it will release a person from jail; • What standard post-arrest procedures St. Ann performs on ordinance violation arrestees.
31. Among the most important common question of law are: • Whether the practice of setting standard amounts of cash required up front to avoid post-arrest detention violates the Fourteenth Amendment’s due process and equal protection clauses.
C. Typicality. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(3). 32. The named Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the claims of the other members of the Class, and he has the same interests in this case as all other members of the Classes that he represents. Each of them suffers injuries from the failure of the City to comply with the basic constitutional provisions: they are each confined in jail because they could not afford to pay the City’s standardized cash bond amount. The answer to whether the City’s scheme of policies and practices isunconstitutional will determine the claims of the named Plaintiff and every other Class member. 33. If the named Plaintiff succeeds in the claim that the City’s policies and practices concerning post-arrest detention violate his constitutional rights, that ruling will likewise benefit every other member of the Class. D. Adequacy. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(4). 34. The named Plaintiff is an adequate representative of the Class because his interests in the vindication of the legal claims that he raises are entirely aligned with the interests
7

Case: 4:15-cv-00840-RWS Doc. #: 1 Filed: 05/27/15 Page: 8 of 12 PageID #: 8
of the other Class members, who each have the same basic constitutional claims. He is a
member of the Class, and his interests coincide with, and are not antagonistic to, those of the
other Class members.
35. There are no known conflicts of interest among members of the proposed Class,
all of whom have a similar interest in vindicating their constitutional rights in the face of their
unlawful treatment by their local government.
36. Plaintiffs are represented by attorneys from Equal Justice Under Law and
Archcity Defenders,5 who have experience in litigating complex civil rights matters in federal
court and extensive knowledge of both the details of the City’s scheme and the relevant
5ArchCity Defenders is a non-profit public interest law firm based in Saint Louis. It has represented the poor and homeless in municipal court cases for the past five years and is an expert on the ways in which Ferguson’s illegal practices and policies make and keep people poor. ArchCity Defenders also published an extensive report detailing similar practices and policies in the cities of Bel-Ridge and Florissant. The report is available at www.archcitydefenders.org.
Counsel from ArchCity Defenders was recently lead counsel in a case in the Eastern District of Missouri restricting the use of chemical munitions on peaceful protesters, is co-counsel on two federal class actions alleging the operation of debtors’ prisons in Ferguson and Jennings, Missouri, and is co-counsel in an additional nine state class action suits alleging the imposition of illegal fees and fines in various municipal courts in the St. Louis County region. Equal Justice Under Law is a non-profit civil rights organization based in Washington, D.C. The organization is funded in part by the Harvard Law School Public Service Venture Fund.
Counsel from Equal Justice Under Law was recently lead counsel in a landmark federal civil rights class action lawsuit against the City of Montgomery for engaging in similar practices. In that case, the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama issued a preliminary injunction condemning and forbidding the City’s similar jailing of impoverished people with unpaid debts, and the case was successfully settled after the City agreed to compensate the Plaintiffs and to the entry of an injunction reforming its entire municipal debt-collection regime. See Mitchell et al. v. City of Montgomery, 14-cv-186 (M.D. Ala. 2014).
Counsel was also the lead counsel in a recent similar challenge to the fixed “bail schedule” scheme employed by the City of Clanton, Alabama. See Varden et al. v. City of Clanton, 15-cv-34 (M.D. Ala 2015). Although that case is ongoing, the City of Clanton has agreed to end its use of a fixed cash bail system for new arrestees.
Counsel is also the lead counsel in two cases involving the treatment of impoverished people in St. Louis County municipal courts. See Jenkins et al. v. City of Jennings, 15-cv-252-CEJ (E.D. Mo. 2015); Fant et al. v. City of Ferguson, 15-cv-253-AGF (E.D. mo. 2015).
Counsel was also previously the lead attorney in a constitutional civil rights class action against the District of Columbia in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. See 1:13-cv-00686-ESH (D.D.C. 2013). In that litigation, undersigned counsel was responsible for investigating and building the complex constitutional claims against the District of Columbia, authoring the legal filings in the class action case, and negotiating a Memorandum of Understanding with the District of Columbia Attorney General that stayed the class action litigation and began to implement sweeping changes to the city’s policies and practices governing the civil forfeiture of property by the District’s Metropolitan Police Department—procedures that affect thousands of putative class members every year.
8

Case: 4:15-cv-00840-RWS Doc. #: 1 Filed: 05/27/15 Page: 9 of 12 PageID #: 9
constitutional and statutory law. 37. ArchCity Defenders and Equal Justice Under Law have extensive experience with
the functioning of the entire municipal court system in the St. Louis County region through their representation of numerous impoverished people in the Cities of St. Ann, Ferguson, Jennings, Pine Lawn, Wellston, Fenton, Beverly Hills, and other municipalities.
38. The efforts of Class counsel have so far included extensive investigation over a period of months, including numerous interviews with witnesses, court employees, jail inmates, families, attorneys practicing in municipal courts throughout the region, community members, statewide experts in the functioning of Missouri municipal courts, and national experts in constitutional law, post-arrest procedure, law enforcement, judicial procedures, criminal law, pretrial services, and jails.
39. Class counsel have also observed numerous courtroom hearings in municipalities across the region in order to compile a detailed understanding of state law and practices as they relate to federal constitutional requirements. Counsel have studied the way that these systems function in other cities in order to investigate the wide array of lawful options in practice for municipalities.
40. As a result, counsel have devoted enormous time and resources to becoming intimately familiar with the City’s scheme and with all of the relevant state and federal laws and procedures that can and should govern it.Counsel has also developed relationships with many of the individuals and families most victimized by the City’s practices.The interests of the members of the Class will be fairly and adequately protected by the Plaintiffs and their attorneys.
E. Rule 23(b)(2) 41. Class action status is appropriate because the City, through the policies, practices,
9

Case: 4:15-cv-00840-RWS Doc. #: 1 Filed: 05/27/15 Page: 10 of 12 PageID #: 10
and procedures that make up itspost-arrest detention scheme has acted in the same unconstitutional manner with respect to all class members. The City of St. Ann has created and applied a simple scheme of post-arrest detention and release: it charges a minimum of $150 for every ordinance violation arrestee and $350 for each driving while suspended. The City releases those who can pay and detains those who cannot. The detained arrestees are either released pursuant to police policy of typically releasing detainees for free after three days. Otherwise, arrestees are eventually taken to court on one of the two days per month that St. Ann conducts court.
42. The Class therefore seeks declaratory and injunctive relief to enjoin the City from continuing in the future to detain impoverished arrestees who cannot afford cash payments. Because the putative Class challenges the City’s scheme as unconstitutional through declaratory and injunctive relief that would apply the same relief to every member of the Class, Rule 23(b)(2) certification is appropriate and necessary.
43. Injunctive relief compelling the City to comply with these constitutional rights will similarly protect each member of the Class from being subjected to the City’s unlawful policies and practices. A declaration and injunction stating that the City cannot use a fixed cash “bail schedule” that jails indigent arrestees but frees arrestees with financial means would provide relief to every member of the Class. Therefore, declaratory and injunctive relief with respect to the Class as a whole is appropriate.
44. Plaintiff seeks the following relief and hereby demands a jury in this cause for all matters so appropriate.
Claims for Relief Count One: Defendant City of St. Ann Violates Plaintiff’s Rights By Jailing Him Because He Cannot Afford A Cash Payment Prior to a First Court Appearance.
10

Case: 4:15-cv-00840-RWS Doc. #: 1 Filed: 05/27/15 Page: 11 of 12 PageID #: 11
45. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the allegations in paragraphs 1-45.
46. The Fourteenth Amendment’s due process and equal protection clauses have long
prohibited imprisoning a person because of the person’s inability to make a monetary payment.
Defendant St. Ann violates Plaintiff’s rights by placing and keeping him in jail when he cannot
afford to pay the amount of cash set by the generic fixed bail “schedule” used by St. Ann.
Request for Relief
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff and the other Class members request that this Court issue the
following relief:
a. A declaratory judgment that the Defendant City violates the named Plaintiff’s and Class members’ constitutional rights by jailing them and keeping them in jail when they cannot pay a generically set amount of money to secure release after an arrest;
b. An order and judgment preliminarily and permanently enjoining Defendant St. Ann from enforcing the unconstitutional post-arrest money-based detention policies and practices against the named Plaintiff and the Class of similarly situated people that he represents;
c. A judgment individually compensating the individual named Plaintiff for the damages that he suffered as a result of the City’s unconstitutional and unlawful conduct, including damages resulting fromhis confinement in jail;
d. An order and judgment granting reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988, and any other relief this Court deems just and proper.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Thomas B. Harvey Thomas B. Harvey MO61734 Executive Director and Co-Founder
_/s/ Michael-John Voss________________ Michael-John Voss (MBE #61742) Co-Founder and Managing Attorney
ArchCity Defenders 812 N. Collins St. Louis, MO 63102 (314) 482-3342 (314) 621-8107 tharvey@archcitydefenders.org
11

Case: 4:15-cv-00840-RWS Doc. #: 1 Filed: 05/27/15 Page: 12 of 12 PageID #: 12 _/s/ Alec Karakatsanis_______________ Alec Karakatsanis (E.D.Mo. Bar No. 999294DC) Co-Founder Equal Justice Under Law 916 G Street, NW Suite 701 Washington, DC 20001 (202)-681-2409 alec@equaljusticeunderlaw.org Attorneys for Plaintiffs
12

 
 Case: 4:15-cv-00840-RWS Doc. #: 11-1 Filed: 09/02/15 Page: 1 of 2 PageID #: 104
AGREEMENT TO SETTLE ALL NON-EQUITABLE CLAIMS COME NOW the undersigned parties by and through their respective legal counsel and, for good and valuable consideration, enter into this Agreement to settle all non-equitable claims in Case No. 4:15-cv-840-RWS, Kellen Powell v. City of St. Ann, now pending in the U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Missouri (the "Lawsuit"). WHEREAS the named Plaintiff Kellen Powell filed the Lawsuit related to time spent in the custody of the City of St. Ann, Missouri, after an arrest for traffic offenses, alleging that the City had a policy which unlawfully kept him in the custody of the City because he could not afford to post a cash bond pursuant to an established schedule; and WHEREAS the City of St. Ann denies such allegations and any liability for the claims raised herein; and WHEREAS, the parties enter into this Agreement and a separate agreement concerning the equitable claims for declaratory and injunctive relief to resolve this case efficiently, NOW, THEREFORE, the parties agree to the following: 1. The parties have addressed all claims for declaratory and injunctive relief as set out in their separate agreement. The City of St. Ann agrees to pay named Plaintiff Kellen Powell the sum of $10,000.00 as a “Class Representative Fee.” The City will make the foregoing payment to Kellen Powell within 30 days after the date on which this Agreement has been signed by all parties. Plaintiff Kellen Powell and his undersigned attorneys, ArchCity Defenders and Equal Justice Under Law, hereby waive claims for attorney's fees to the extent described in the aforesaid separate agreement regarding equitable claims. 2. The City of St. Ann does not, in making or performing this Agreement, concede or admit liability for any claim or allegation made in the Lawsuit.

Case: 4:15-cv-00840-RWS Doc. #: 11-1 Filed: 09/02/15 Page: 2 of 2 PageID #: 105
3. The named Plaintiff agrees to the dismissal of all non-equitable claims with prejudice subject only to the continuing jurisdiction of the Court to enforce this Agreement and to resolve the equitable claims. The named Plaintiff agrees that his heirs, personal representatives, successors, and assigns shall be bound by this Agreement and have the same obligations and rights with respect to the terms of this Agreement. The named Plaintiff further agrees not to amend the Complaint in the Lawsuit with regard to non-equitable claims or to bring any other non-equitable action against the City of St. Ann for any relief which was or could have been sought in the Lawsuit.

/s/ Steven W. Garrett Steven W. Garrett MBE 27756
/s/ Carl J. Lumley Carl J. Lumley MBE 32869
Counsel for the City of St. Ann

/s/ Thomas B. Harvey Thomas B. Harvey (MBE #61734) /s/ Alec Karakatsanis Alec Karakatsanis (E.D.Mo. Bar No. 999294DC)
Counsel for Kellen Powell

Case: 4:15-cv-00840-RWS Doc. #: 11-2 Filed: 09/02/15 Page: 1 of 6 PageID #: 106
AGREEMENT TO SETTLE ALL EQUITABLE CLAIMS COME NOW the undersigned parties and, for good and valuable consideration, enter into this Agreement regarding Case No. 4:15-cv-00840-RWS, Kellen Powell v. City of St. Ann, now pending in the U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Missouri (the "Lawsuit"). WHEREAS the named Plaintiff Kellen Powell filed the Lawsuit while he was in the custody of the City of St. Ann after an arrest for traffic offenses, alleging that the City had a policy which unlawfully kept him in the custody of the City because he could not afford to post a cash bond pursuant to an established schedule for each alleged offense; and WHEREAS the City of St. Ann denies such allegations and any liability for the claims raised herein; and WHEREAS, the Lawsuit is currently stayed to allow for settlement discussions; and WHEREAS, the parties enter into this Agreement in an effort to resolve this case efficiently, NOW, THEREFORE, the parties agree to the following: 1. The parties agree to seek, when and as needed, the continued stay of the Lawsuit for up to a period of one year as provided herein. The parties have entered into a separate agreement to resolve the non-equitable claims brought in the Lawsuit and agree to comply with that agreement. Plaintiff and the undersigned counsel, ArchCity Defenders and Equal Justice Under Law have agreed to waive all claims for attorney's fees incurred through the date of the signing of this Agreement unless the parties are forced to litigate the equitable claims raised in this lawsuit. Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel reserve the right seek recovery for any and all fees incurred prior to the signing of this agreement and for any and all work associated with further

Case: 4:15-cv-00840-RWS Doc. #: 11-2 Filed: 09/02/15 Page: 2 of 6 PageID #: 107
negotiation or litigation of Plaintiff's claims in the Lawsuit should Defendant breach the agreement or should further adversarial litigation of this case become necessary.
2. The parties agree to the following Declaration of the law, and shall request its inclusion in the final judgment in the Lawsuit:
The use of a secured bail schedule to set the conditions for release of a person in custody after arrest for an offense that may be prosecuted by St. Ann implicates the protections of the Equal Protection Clause when such a schedule is applied to the indigent. No person may, consistent with the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, be held in custody after an arrest because the person is too poor to post a monetary bond. If the government generally offers prompt release from custody after arrest upon posting a bond pursuant to a schedule, it cannot deny prompt release from custody to a person because the person is financially incapable of posting such a bond. See Pierce v. Velda City, 4:15-cv-570-HEA (Doc. 16). 3. The named Plaintiff and his undersigned counsel agree to notify counsel for the City of St. Ann upon the discovery of any perceived breach of this agreement, or any future judgment which incorporates this agreement, to give the City of St. Ann a reasonable amount of time to cure such alleged breach. Defendant agrees that on a weekly basis its police chief shall certify to its city attorney as to compliance with the provisions of this Agreement regarding pretrial detentions. Defendant further agrees to report any breach of the agreement to Counsel for Plaintiffs and to take related corrective action as soon as practicable but such time shall not exceed four hours after the police chief, city administrator or city attorney of the City learns of the breach. Plaintiff agrees to seek relief from the Court for such alleged breach only after Defendant's failure to cure within a reasonable time. Upon such breach, the Plaintiff reserves the right to move to dissolve the stay and to seek the entry of the equitable relief sought in the Complaint.

Case: 4:15-cv-00840-RWS Doc. #: 11-2 Filed: 09/02/15 Page: 3 of 6 PageID #: 108
4. The City of St. Ann agrees to abide by the following procedures for an initial
period of one year, subject to provisions herein for early termination and subsequent
incorporation into judgment unless and until otherwise ordered by the Court:
a. Except as provided herein, the City of St. Ann and all of its officers, employees, and agents will not utilize secured money bail for persons in the custody of the City on arrest, either without a warrant or on the initial warrant issued, for any violation that may be prosecuted by the City.
b. The City of St. Ann and all of its officers, employees, and agents will offer every person in the custody of the City on arrest, either without a warrant or on the initial warrant issued, for any violation that may be prosecuted by the City, release from the custody of the City on recognizance or on an unsecured bond as soon as practicable after booking, subject to the application of Section 67.315 RSMo regarding custody of intoxicated persons. The only exception to this provision is such persons as are brought before the court within 24 hours of arrest for potential imposition of conditions for release including the posting of secured money bond in cases involving intentionally assaultive or threatening conduct or for a determination that release must be denied to prevent danger to a victim, the community or any other person under applicable constitutional standards, provided that no person will be denied pretrial release because of their individual inability to make a monetary payment.1 Persons who violate conditions of release shall be subject to such actions as determined by the court pursuant to applicable law without regard to any additional procedures set forth herein.
c. The City of St. Ann will notify all arrestees in writing upon release of the time, date, and place at which they are required to appear in court, if any.
d. The City of St. Ann will request the most recent address and contact information for any arrestees, and will update that information in any court file or record.
e. The City will comply with the following principles for subsequent proceedings after the release of a person arrested without a warrant or on an initial warrant or after the issuance of a summons or citation for an offense that does not involve a custodial arrest: i. If the person does not appear for a court hearing as required, the City will send a letter by first class mail notifying the person that they missed their court date and providing a new court date. The City may also attempt to contact the person by telephone or text message to inform or remind the person about their court date.
1 For the purposes of this agreement, the term “secured” bond means a monetary sum that must be paid or posted as a precondition of release from custody. The term “recognizance” means a person’s release upon their promise to appear in court at a later date. The term “unsecured” bond does not require any up-front payment and is defined as a monetary sum that a person agrees to pay later if the person fails to appear as required without good cause.

Case: 4:15-cv-00840-RWS Doc. #: 11-2 Filed: 09/02/15 Page: 4 of 6 PageID #: 109
ii. If the person does not appear at the subsequent court date discussed in (i), the City's municipal court shall repeat the process set forth in (i) at least once and may, in its discretion, include in such communications a warning that a warrant may be issued for the person’s arrest. The City will notify the person of the potential issuance of a warrant by first class mail and, in its discretion, by phone or text message. With such notification, the City will inform the person that they can avoid issuance of the warrant by appearing at the new court date as directed in the letter.
iii. If after actions described in (ii) the person fails to appear at a subsequent proceeding, and the court has provided the warning regarding potential issuance of an arrest warrant, the City's municipal court may, in its discretion, issue a warrant and the City may arrest the person. Upon arrest, the City will release the person on unsecured bond with notice of a court date.
iv. If after actions described in (i), (ii), and (iii) the person fails to appear at a subsequent proceeding, the City's municipal court may, in its discretion, issue a warrant and the City may arrest the person. Upon arrest, the City may detain the person in custody without bond for up to 24 hours so that the person may be brought before a judge for the consideration of their underlying case and, if further proceedings are necessary, for individualized consideration of detention or conditions of release, including secured money bond, provided that no person will be denied pretrial release because of their individual inability to make a monetary payment.
v. At any time after any non-appearance, the City may take appropriate and lawful steps under state law to convert any unsecured bond into a money judgment.
f. The City of St. Ann will not hold an arrestee in its custody for another municipality on charges prosecuted in a municipal court for more than 10 hours.
g. St. Ann police will not impound a car owned by a person arrested on charges of violations of an ordinance so long as the arrestee designates a licensed driver who will immediately take possession of the car and remove it from the scene of arrest, unless such car is to be held for investigation or evidence.
5. The parties agree that, shortly after the claims and issues in this case were brought
to the attention of the City of St. Ann, the City and its counsel acted quickly and responsibly with
the Plaintiffs’ counsel, without admitting any fault or liability, to put in place a system of post-
arrest release that complies with the foregoing requirements, which Plaintiff agrees complies
with the United States Constitution.

Case: 4:15-cv-00840-RWS Doc. #: 11-2 Filed: 09/02/15 Page: 5 of 6 PageID #: 110
6. As indicated above, the parties currently agree that the foregoing procedures shall apply for a period of one year, to enable the parties to evaluate efficacy and fairness. However, each party reserves the right to provide notice to the other party that it believes modifications should be made to the foregoing procedures. If the parties cannot reach agreement upon such modifications within 60 days of such notice, then either party may provide notice of termination of this agreement, whereupon the named Plaintiff may seek to lift the stay in the Lawsuit and an immediate ruling on his Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction and the City shall not oppose such request to lift the stay although it may proceed to fully litigate the merits of Plaintiff's claims. Unless a party provides such notice of termination on or before the completion of the one-year period (as it may be extended to complete any pending 60-day negotiation period), the parties agree to move the Court to issue an injunction requiring compliance with paragraphs 2, 3 and 4 (as modified if applicable) and in connection with such finalization of this settlement Plaintiff and the undersigned counsel ArchCity Defenders and Equal Justice Under Law will waive any and all claims for recovery of attorney's fees in the Lawsuit.
7. The parties agree to jointly support a continuing stay of the Lawsuit consistent with the foregoing provisions, and to work together in good faith to meet any concerns identified by the Court. If applicable under paragraph 6, the parties agree to submit a proposed judgment consistent herewith to the Court, on condition that if the Court is not willing to issue such judgment consistent herewith, then such proposal shall be void and they shall thereupon confer in good faith to attempt to address the Court’s concerns while still effectuating the intent and approach of this Agreement. If the Court does not issue orders and judgment with the consent of

Case: 4:15-cv-00840-RWS Doc. #: 11-2 Filed: 09/02/15 Page: 6 of 6 PageID #: 111
the parties after such additional efforts, then upon notice from either party to the other, this Agreement shall be void and the parties shall resume litigation of all claims and defenses herein.

/s/ Steven Garrett.___________ Steven W. Garrett MBE 27756
/s/ Carl Lumley Carl J. Lumley MBE 32869
Counsel for the City of St. Ann

/s/ Thomas B. Harvey Thomas B. Harvey (MBE #61734) /s/ Alec Karakatsanis Alec Karakatsanis (E.D.Mo. Bar No. 999294DC)
Counsel for Kellen Powell

 
 Case: 4:15-cv-00840-RWS Doc. #: 13 Filed: 09/03/15 Page: 1 of 4 PageID #: 119

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION

)

KELLEN POWELL et al.,

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

v.

)

)

THE CITY OF ST. ANN,

)

)

Defendant.

)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~)

Case No. 4:15-cv-840-RWS (Class Action)

ORDER

Based on the representations of the Parties, the Court orders the following:

1. The Plaintiffs' non-equitable claims are hereby dismissed with

prejudice subject only to the continuing jurisdiction of the Court to enforce the

settlement agreements and over the aforesaid equitable claims.

2. The Parties' motion for the entry of a stay in this matter for a period

of 12 months is granted.

3. On or before 12 months from the date of this Order, the parties are

directed to either file the joint motion and proposed consent judgement set forth in

their agreement or a notice to the Court seeking a dissolve of the stay.

4. During the period of the stay, the Parties are ordered to comply with the

terms of the Settlement Agreement, the terms of which are as follows:

a. The named Plaintiff and his undersigned counsel agree to notify counsel for the City of St. Ann upon the discovery of any perceived breach of this agreement, or any future judgment which incorporates this agreement, to give the City of St. Ann a reasonable amount of time to cure such alleged breach. Defendant agrees that on a weekly

Case: 4:15-cv-00840-RWS Doc. #: 13 Filed: 09/03/15 Page: 2 of 4 PageID #: 120
basis its police chief shall certify to its city attorney as to compliance with the provisions of this Agreement regarding pretrial detentions. Defendant further agrees to report any breach of the agreement to Counsel for Plaintiffs and to take related corrective action as soon as practicable but such time shall not exceed four hours after the police chief, city administrator or city attorney of the City learns of the breach. Plaintiff agrees to seek relief from the Court for such alleged breach only after Defendant's failure to cure within a reasonable time. Upon such breach, the Plaintiff reserves the right to move to dissolve the stay and to seek the entry of the equitable relief sought in the Complaint.
b. The City of St. Ann agrees that:
The use of a secured bail schedule to set the conditions for release of a person in custody after arrest for an offense that may be prosecuted by City of St. Ann implicates the protections of the Equal Protection Clause when such a schedule is applied to the indigent. No person may, consistent with the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, be held in custody after an arrest because the person is too poor to post a monetary bond. If the government generally offers prompt release from custody after arrest upon posting a bond pursuant to a schedule, it cannot deny prompt release from custody to a person because the person is financially incapable of posting such a bond.
c. City of St. Ann agrees to abide by the following procedures for an initial period of one year, subject to provisions herein for early termination and subsequent incorporation into judgment unless and until otherwise ordered by the Court: 1. Except as provided herein, the City of St. Ann and all of its officers, employees, and agents will not utilize secured money bail for persons in the custody of the City on arrest, either without a warrant or on the initial warrant issued, for any violation that may be prosecuted by the City. 11. The City of St. Ann and all of its officers, employees, and agents will offer every person in the custody of the City on arrest, either without a warrant or on the initial warrant issued, for any violation that may be prosecuted by the City, release from the custody of the City on recognizance or on an unsecured bond as soon as practicable after booking, subject to the application of Section 67.315 RSMo regarding custody of intoxicated persons. The only exception to this provision is such persons as are brought before the court within 24 hours of arrest for potential imposition of conditions for release including the posting of secured money bond in cases

Case: 4:15-cv-00840-RWS Doc. #: 13 Filed: 09/03/15 Page: 3 of 4 PageID #: 121
involving intentionally assaultive or threatening conduct or for a determination that release must be denied to prevent danger to a victim, the community or any other person under applicable constitutional standards, provided that no person will be denied pretrial release because of their individual inability to make a monetary payment. 1 Persons who violate conditions of release shall be subject to such actions as determined by the court pursuant to applicable law without regard to any additional procedures set forth herein. iii. The City of St. Ann will notify all arrestees in writing upon release of the time, date, and place at which they are required to appear in court, if any. 1v. The City of St. Ann will request the most recent address and contact information for any arrestees, and will update that information in any court file or record. v. The City will comply with the following principles for subsequent proceedings after the release of a person arrested without a warrant or on an initial warrant or after the issuance of a summons or citation for an offense that does not involve a custodial arrest:
1. If the person does not appear for a court hearing as required, the City will send a letter by first class mail notifying the person that they missed their court date and providing a new court date. The City may also attempt to contact the person by telephone or text message to inform or remind the person about their court date.
2. If the person does not appear at the subsequent court date discussed in (1 ), the City's municipal court shall repeat the process set forth in (1) at least once and may, in its discretion, include in such communications a warning that a warrant may be issued for the person's arrest. The City will notify the person of the potential issuance of a warrant by first class mail and, in its discretion, by phone or text message. With such notification, the City will inform the person that they can avoid issuance of the warrant by appearing at the new court date as directed in the letter.
1 For the purposes of this agreement, the term "secured" bond means a monetary sum that must be paid or posted as a precondition of release from custody. The term "recognizance" means a person's release upon their promise to appear in court at a later date. The term "unsecured" bond does not require any up-front payment and is defined as a monetary sum that a person agrees to pay later if the person fails to appear as required without good cause.

Case: 4:15-cv-00840-RWS Doc. #: 13 Filed: 09/03/15 Page: 4 of 4 PageID #: 122
3. If after actions described in (2) the person fails to appear at a subsequent proceeding, and the court has provided the warning regarding potential issuance of an arrest warrant, the City's municipal court may, in its discretion, issue a warrant and the City may arrest the person. Upon arrest, the City will release the person on unsecured bond with notice of a court date.
4. If after actions described in (1), (2), and (3) the person fails to appear at a subsequent proceeding, the City's municipal court may, in its discretion, issue a warrant and the City may arrest the person. Upon arrest, the City may detain the person in custody without bond for up to 24 hours so that the person may be brought before a judge for the consideration of their underlying case and, if further proceedings are necessary, for individualized consideration of detention or conditions of release, including secured money bond, provided that no person will be denied pretrial release because of their individual inability to make a monetary payment.
5. At any time after any non-appearance, the City may take appropriate and lawful steps under state law to convert any unsecured bond into a money judgment.
VI. The City of St. Ann will not hold an arrestee in its custody for another municipality on charges prosecuted in a municipal court for more than 10 hours.
vii. St. Ann police will not impound a car owned by a person arrested on charges of violations of an ordinance so long as the arrestee designates a licensed driver who will immediately take possession of the car and remove it from the scene of arrest, unless such car is to be held for investigation or evidence.

 
 Case: 4:15-cv-00840-RWS Doc. #: 42 Filed: 05/04/18 Page: 1 of 5 PageID #: 165 '

JN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOUIU
EASTERN DIVISION

KELLEN POWELL. et al.,

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

vs.

)

)

CITY OF ST. ANN,

)

)

Defendant.

)

Consent ,Judgment

COME NOW Plaintiffu, by and through Counsel, and Defendant City of St. Ann,

Missouri ("City,.), by and through Counsel, and jointly stipulate, as follows:

1. During the term of tbis Consent Judgment, the City of St. Ann agrees to abide by

the following te1ms:

a. Except as provided herein, the City of St. Ann and all of ifa o:fficers, employees, and agents will not utilize secured money bail for persons in the custody ofthe City on arrest, eithe1: without a warrant or on the initial warrant issued, for any violation that may be prosecuted by the City.
b. The City of St Ann and all of its officers, employees, and agents will offer every person in the custody of the City on arrest, either without a warrant or on the initial wal'rant issued, for any violation that may be prosecuted by the City> release from 1he custody ofthe City on recognizance or on an unsecured bond as soon as practicable after booking, subject to the ~plication of Seotion 67.315 RSMo regarding custody of intoxicated persons. The only exception to this provision is such persons as are brought befol'e the court within 24 hours of arrest for })Qtential imposition of conditions for tel.ease including th.e posting of secured1 money bond for cha1-ges l"esulting .from assaultive conducf

1 As used herein, the tenn "seemed" bond means a monetary sum that must be paid or posted as a precondition ofrelease from custody. The term "tecogniza11ce" means a pei:son's release upon his 01· her promise to appear in comt at a later date. The term "unsecured" bond does not require any up-front payment and is defined as·a monetary sum that a person agrees to pay late1· if the pe1·so11 fails to appear as required without good ca.use.
2 Assaultive conduct as lJsed herein, shall mean conduct that falls within tb.e scope of offenses charged pursuant to Cbapte1· 215, of the St. Ann Municipal Code ("Offenses Against the Person"), as the same may be amended 01· superseded, and/01· Chapter 565 RSMo ("Oftenses Against the Person"), as 1he same may be amended or supe1'Seded.

Case: 4:15-cv-00840-RWS Doc. #: 42 Filed: 05/04/18 Page: 2 of 5 PageID #: 166
or for a determination that release must be denied to prevent danger to a victim, the community or any other person under applicable constitutional standards, provided that no person will be denied pretrial release because of his or her individual inability to make a monetary payinent. A warrant and conditions for release, including the posting of a secured bond and applicable constitutional standards, shall be completed by the Judge within 24 hours of m:rest. Upon issuance of a warrant the Municipal Judge shall detennine the type ofbonds and conditions fol' release once in custody. Upon the request of a persont the Judge shall hold an incligency heaiing, either by person, via vldeo conference 01· telephone, within 24 hours to determine an individuaPs inability to make a monetat'Y payment. Persons who violate conditions of release shall be subject to such actions as determined by the comt pursuant to appJicahle law without regard to any additional procedures set forth he1-ein. c. The City of St. Ann will notify all an-estees in writing upon release from custody of the time, date, and place at whiclt they are required to appear in co\U't, and consistent with Mfosom1 Su_preme Court Rules: (1) information on how to find the standards of indigency as well as the approved fo1m from the Missouri Supreme Comt to assert the same; (2) the schedule of fu1es for the charged violation if it is subject to the Court1s Violations Bureau; (3) .how to obtain onHne access to case info1mation; (4) illfol'mation on how to set up text message or telephone call reminders for court dates; (5) information on how to update address and contam :in:funnation with the com1; and (6) notification that they are required to appear in comt on. the scheduled comt date even if they do not have the funds to pay at the time ofthe comt date.3 d. The City will comply with the following with respect to subsequent proceedings after a citation was issued with. an arrest, 01· the release of a person. arrested after the initial traffic stop.
i. For either: (1) a citation issued with no an:est; or (2) an initial at'J.'est without a warrant fo1· an offense that requires finge1p.rinililg, the City ·shall process and release the person on a citation, wl1ich will include providing a.ll ofthe information set forth in Section 2(c) above, except as othe1wise provided in Section 2(b) above.
ii. If a person released on a citation fails to appear in court on the noticed oomt date as p1'0vided in Subsection d(i), a summons to appear in court will be sent via mail to the last known address of the person. The sumtnons will notify the person that if they do not appear at the couit date set forth in. the summons, a warrant may be issued for the
person's arrest. The summons wi11 also provide the info1mation set
forth in Section 2{c) above. iii. If a person summoned to appear fails to do so, a wai'l'ant may issue for
the person's arrest and an unsecul'ed bond shall be set with applicable
3 fn the event that a pei·son is released from custody with.out chatge> this provision shall not apply. However, if charges are subsequently issued then the information set fo1th in this Subsection will be provided at the time siich person is pi·ovided with Wl'itten notice of the issuance of a charge.
2

Case: 4:15-cv-00840-RWS Doc. #: 42 Filed: 05/04/18 Page: 3 of 5 PageID #: 167

conditions as pexmitted unde1· state law and as set fo1-th in Missom·i

Supreme Court Rules. Upon execution ofthe warrant and the arrest of

the person, the person shall be i-eleased on the unsecmed bond without

unreasonable dela.y and fa accordance wlth the Missouri Sup1·eme

Court Rules related to same. Any person. who has failed to appear in

response to a summons and who has a warrant (setting an unsecuxed

bond) out for his or her arrest consistent with the provisions of this

Subsection, may present themselves to the City's Police Department

24 hours a day, at which time they will be promptly pl'ocessed and allowed to leave on an unsecured bond with a court date.4 The City's

Municipal Couit will approve dates that can be given by the City>s

correctional officers to those that present themselves voluntarily

consistent with this Subsection.
m iv. If aft~1he City has taken the aotions set forth this Section 2(d)(i-ili)

a person fail8 to appear at a subsequent proceeding on an unsecured

bond, the City's Municipal Couit may, in its discretion, issue a warrant

and set a secured bo:nd and such warrant may subsequently be

executed and the person arrested. Upon an:est, the person may be

. detained consistent with the Missoul'l Stipreine Court Rules 37.04 and

37.65 as amended or superseded, as well as Sections 479.360 and

544.170 RSMo as amended 01· superseded.

v. Nothing herein shall prevent a person who would be eligible for

release under either a recognizance bond or an unsecured bond from

requesting a hearing before the Municipal Judge fo:r consideratlon of

alternate conditions for pre"trial release from custody.

.

e, Any person who fails to appear in couii afte1· l'elease on a secured, unsecured

01· recognizance bond. 01· otherwise violates the conditions of release, shall be

mailed a notice of a. motion fo1· l?ond fo1feiture setting forth a date, time and
tP place at which they are requited appear in court. The notice shall state that

the bond wm be forfeited and a new warrant wiil be issued ifthe person fails

to appear, and provide all the information required p1U'suant to Section 2(c)

above.

f. At any time after any non--appearance, the City may take approp1'iate and

lawful steps under state law to convert any 1msecured bond mto a money

judgmentJ to be collected tlu·ough civil means.

g. The City of St. Ann will contact any agency that has a warrant out for au

arrestee jn its custody within four hom'S of being 1-erufy to release such pm'Son,

and shall thereafter release any such arrestee that is being held solely on

charges to be prosecuted in municipal court for 1he shorter of: (1) receiving

notification from the other ageooy that they will not be collecting the person

on their warrant; (2) four hou1·s of being ready to t'Clease the person if the

4Nothing herein shall prevent a persoll wl10 would be eligible for release on an unsecured bond from requesting a hearing be:fure the Municipal Judge to request alteinat-e conditions for release. In such event, the Municipal Court will comply with all procedures and time 1·estrictlons established by applicable Mlssouti Supreme Cmu:t Rules and State Statutes.

3

Case: 4:15-cv-00840-RWS Doc. #: 42 Filed: 05/04/18 Page: 4 of 5 PageID #: 168
other agency does not respond to attempts to make contact; or (3) 24 hours if . the other agency indicates that they will be collecting the person on. their wan·ant, but subsequently do not come to the City. h. St. Ann police will not impound a cm· owned by a person al'rested on charges of violations of an ordinance so long as the ar1·ootee designates a licensed drivei· who will immedfotely take possessiOll. ofthe car and remove itfrom the scene of m:rest, unless such car is to be held for investigation 01· evidence. 2. Anytime after two years from t1w date hereof either party may petition the Court seeking to dissolve this Consent Judgment, which shall be dissolved unless the non-moving pat'ty objects on the basis that there has been a material violation of the terms of this Consent Judgment. 'This Court will extend the term of this Consent Judgment fo1· a further year, in the event that the non-moving party establishes there has been a material violation ofthe terms of this Consent Judgment by tli.e moving party. 3. In the event that the term ofthis Consruit Judgment is extended for an additional yea1· pursuant to Section 3 above, then anytime after the additional year ends, either patty may again petition the Court to seek to dissolve this Consent Judgment} which shall be dissolved unless the nonMmoving party objects on the basis that there has been a mate1·ial violation of the terms of tbis Consent Judgment during the extended period. In the event of subsequent material violations of tb.ts Consent Judgment, the patties will follow the procedures set forth herein and the Consen~ Judgment shall be extended for additional one year terms, as applicable. 4. Following the dissolution of this Consent Judgment, St. Ann agrees to continue: (1) to ensure that indigent persons arrested are afforded. the necessary protections under the law; and (2) to comply with applicable state and federal laws peitaining to the setting of conditions upon pre--trial release from c\.1stody. ·
SO ORDERED:
4

Case: 4:15-cv-00840-RWS Doc. #: 42 Filed: 05/04/18 Page: 5 of 5 PageID #: 169

Respectfully submitted.

a_(/ CURTIS; HEINZ, GARRETT & O,KEEFE, P.c.

By:

-~~~t~?''lleL-Lve:~

. l' ~
.Garrett

·

7756~>

Ca# J. Lt1mley #32869MO

· Edwru:d Sluys #60471MO
130 S:. Betti.i11ton:1 Suite200

)

Clayton, MO 63105

sgacrett@chgolaw.com

clumley@chgolaw.com

esluys@ohgolaw.com (3~4) 725M878_8 (Telephone)

(:114)•725-8789 (Fax)

. .Attorneysfar Defe'ndant

By:-L.ft~·~~"-:. $~_,,,,__-==-_
Blalrn A. Strode, #68422MO
Arab.City Defenders 1i10 Locust·St
St. Louis, MO 63103
Phone: 85.5-724-2489
l?ax: 314-925.-1307
bstrode@archoitydefenders.org

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
A copy of the above and foregoing was served upon the following via the Court's .electronic notification system this 2ND day of May, 2018 to all parties ofrecord.

5 .,

 
 Case: 4:15-cv-840 As of: 11/15/2018 03:08 PM CST 1 of 4
U.S. District Court Eastern District of Missouri (St. Louis) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 4:15−cv−00840−RWS

CLOSED

Powell v. The City of St. Ann Assigned to: District Judge Rodney W. Sippel Cause: 28:1331 Federal Question: Other Civil Rights
Plaintiff

Date Filed: 05/27/2015 Date Terminated: 05/04/2018 Jury Demand: Plaintiff Nature of Suit: 440 Civil Rights: Other Jurisdiction: Federal Question

Kellen Powell

represented by Blake Alexander Strode ARCHCITY DEFENDERS 440 N. 4th St. Suite 390 St. Louis, MO 63102 855−724−2489 x1015 Fax: 314−925−1307 Email: bstrode@archcitydefenders.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael−John Voss ARCHCITY DEFENDERS 440 N. 4th St. Suite 390 St. Louis, MO 63102 855−724−2489 x2 Fax: 855−724−2479 x2 Email: mjvoss@archcitydefenders.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Nathaniel Richard Carroll ARCHCITY DEFENDERS 440 N. 4th St. Suite 390 St. Louis, MO 63102 855−724−2489 Fax: 314−925−1307 Email: ncarroll@archcitydefenders.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Thomas B. Harvey ARCHCITY DEFENDERS 440 N. 4th St. Suite 390 St. Louis, MO 63102 314−482−3342 Fax: 314−925−1307 Email: tharvey@archcitydefenders.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Defendant The City of St. Ann

represented by Steven W. Garrett CURTIS, HEINZ, GARRETT & O'KEEFE

Case: 4:15-cv-840 As of: 11/15/2018 03:08 PM CST 2 of 4
130 S. Bemiston Avenue Suite 200 St. Louis, MO 63105−1951 314−725−8788 Fax: 314−725−8789 Email: sgarrett@chgolaw.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 05/27/2015
05/27/2015 05/27/2015 05/27/2015 05/27/2015 05/27/2015 05/28/2015 05/28/2015 05/28/2015 05/29/2015
09/02/2015
09/02/2015
09/03/2015

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT against defendant Kellen Powell with receipt number 0865−4883422, in the amount of $400 Non−Jury Demand,, filed by Kellen Powell. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit, # 2 Attachment, # 3 Attachment, # 4 Attachment, # 5 Attachment, # 6 Text of Proposed Order, # 7 Affidavit, # 8 Civil Cover Sheet)(Harvey, Thomas) (Entered: 05/27/2015)
2 MOTION to Certify Class by Plaintiff Kellen Powell. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Alec Karakatsanis)(CSG) (Entered: 05/27/2015)
3 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order by Plaintiff Kellen Powell. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(CSG) (Entered: 05/27/2015)
4 MEMORANDUM in Support of Motion re 3 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order filed by Plaintiff Kellen Powell. (CSG) (Entered: 05/27/2015)
5 MOTION to Waive the Security for Injunction Bond by Plaintiff Kellen Powell. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Kellen Powell)(CSG) (Entered: 05/27/2015)
6 MEMORANDUM To Court Regarding Contact With Opposing Counsel and Notice of TRO Hearing by Plaintiff Kellen Powell. (Harvey, Thomas) (Entered: 05/27/2015)
7 MOTION to Withdraw Motion for Temporary Restraining Order by Plaintiff Kellen Powell. (Harvey, Thomas) (Entered: 05/28/2015)
8 NOTICE of Settlement Discusssions by Kellen Powell (Harvey, Thomas) (Entered: 05/28/2015)
Case Opening Notification: Judge Assigned: U.S. District Judge Rodney W. Sippel. (MRC) (Entered: 05/29/2015)
9 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER OF STAY:IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion to withdraw the motion for temporary restraining order [# 7 ] is granted, the motion for temporary restraining order [# 3 ] is withdrawn, and the motion to waive security [# 5 ] is denied as moot. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this case is stayed until August 3, 2015, to permit the parties to engage in settlement negotiations. By no later than August 3, 2015, the parties shall either notify the Court of settlement or file a joint memorandum regarding the status of the case. Signed by District Judge Rodney W. Sippel on 5/29/15. (JWD) (Entered: 05/29/2015)
10 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the parties shall show cause in writing within ten (10) days of the date of this Order why this case should not be dismissed with prejudice and/or sanctions should not issue for the parties' refusal to comply with my May 29, 2015 Order. The parties may file a stipulation of dismissal in lieu of a response to this Show Cause Order by no later than ten (10) days from the date of this Order.. Signed by District Judge John A. Ross on 9/2/15. (LGK) (Entered: 09/02/2015)
11 Joint MOTION to Stay Case and Dismissal by Plaintiff Kellen Powell. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Settlement Agreement of Non−equitable claims, # 2 Exhibit Settlement Agreement for equitable claims, # 3 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order for Stay and Dismissal)(Harvey, Thomas) (Entered: 09/02/2015)
12 RESPONSE TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE Jointly Filed by Counsel for Plaintiff and Defendant by Plaintiff Kellen Powell. (Harvey, Thomas) (Entered: 09/03/2015)

Case: 4:15-cv-840 As of: 11/15/2018 03:08 PM CST 3 of 4

09/03/2015
09/02/2016 09/06/2016 10/25/2016 10/26/2016 12/01/2016 12/02/2016 01/03/2017 01/04/2017 02/02/2017 03/22/2017
04/10/2017 04/11/2017 06/05/2017
06/13/2017

13 ORDER − Based on the representations of the Parties, the Court orders the following: 1. The Plaintiffs' non−equitable claims are hereby dismissed with prejudice subject only to the continuing jurisdiction of the Court to enforce the settlement agreements and over the aforesaid equitable claims. 2. The Parties' motion for the entry of a stay in this matter for a period of 12 months is granted. 3. On or before 12 months from the date of this Order, the parties are directed to either file the joint motion and proposed consent judgement set forth in their agreement or a notice to the Court seeking a dissolve of the stay. 4. During the period of the stay, the Parties are ordered to comply with the terms of the Settlement Agreement, the terms of which are as follows: (See order for full details) Signed by District Judge Rodney W. Sippel on 9/3/15. (KJS) (Entered: 09/03/2015)
14 Consent MOTION to Continue Stay by Defendant The City of St. Ann. (Garrett, Steven) (Entered: 09/02/2016)
15 Docket Text ORDER: Re: 14 Consent MOTION to Continue Stay filed by The City of St. Ann; GRANTED − SO ORDERED. Signed by District Judge Rodney W. Sippel on 9/6/16. (KJS) (Entered: 09/06/2016)
16 Consent MOTION to Continue STAY by Defendant The City of St. Ann. (Garrett, Steven) (Entered: 10/25/2016)
17 Docket Text ORDER: Re: 16 Consent MOTION to Continue STAY by The City of St. Ann; GRANTED − SO ORDERED. Signed by District Judge Rodney W. Sippel on 10/26/16. (KJS) (Entered: 10/26/2016)
18 Consent MOTION to Continue Stay, by Defendant The City of St. Ann. (Garrett, Steven) Modified on 12/2/2016 (CAR). (Entered: 12/01/2016)
19 Docket Text ORDER: Re: 18 Consent MOTION to Continue Stay, filed by The City of St. Ann; ORDERED GRANTED. Signed by District Judge Rodney W. Sippel on 12/2/16. (CAR) (Entered: 12/02/2016)
20 Consent MOTION to Continue stay by Defendant The City of St. Ann. (Garrett, Steven) (Entered: 01/03/2017)
21 Docket Text ORDER: Re: 20 Consent MOTION to Continue the stay up to and including February 2, 2017, by Defendant The City of St. Ann ; ORDERED GRANTED. Signed by District Judge Rodney W. Sippel on 1/4/17. (KXS) (Entered: 01/04/2017)
22 Consent MOTION to Continue Stay, MOTION to Stay by Defendant The City of St. Ann. (Garrett, Steven) (Entered: 02/02/2017)
23 Docket Text ORDER: Re: 22 Consent MOTION to Continue Stay, MOTION to Stay by Defendant The City of St. Ann. (Garrett, Steven) filed by The City of St. Ann. SO ORDERED; For good cause shown, the stay is continued up to, and including, April 7, 2017. Signed by District Judge Rodney W. Sippel on 3/22/17. (ARL) (Entered: 03/22/2017)
24 Consent MOTION to Stay by Defendant The City of St. Ann. (Garrett, Steven) (Entered: 04/10/2017)
25 Docket Text ORDER: Re: 24 Consent MOTION to Stay filed by The City of St. Ann; ORDERED GRANTED. Signed by District Judge Rodney W. Sippel on 4/11/17. (CAR) (Entered: 04/11/2017)
26 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER : IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the parties shall show cause in writing within ten (10) days of the date of this Order why this case should not be dismissed for the parties refusal to comply with my September 3, 2015 Order. No additional extensions of time will be granted absent good cause shown. Failure to timely comply with this Order will result in a dismissal of this action without further notice. Show Cause Response due by 6/15/2017. Signed by District Judge Rodney W. Sippel on 6/5/17. (ARL) (Entered: 06/05/2017)
27 RESPONSE TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE Dated June 5, 2017 by Defendant The City of St. Ann filed by Defendant The City of St. Ann. (Garrett, Steven) (Entered: 06/13/2017)

Case: 4:15-cv-840 As of: 11/15/2018 03:08 PM CST 4 of 4

06/14/2017
06/30/2017 07/05/2017 07/31/2017 08/14/2017 08/17/2017 01/24/2018
01/25/2018 01/25/2018 01/26/2018
02/08/2018 03/21/2018 04/16/2018
05/02/2018 05/04/2018

28 ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Show Cause Order dated June 5, 2017, is deemed satisfied and the parties shall either file their settlement papers or a joint request for status conference by July 7, 2017, and this case remains stayed pending further Order of this Court. Signed by District Judge Rodney W. Sippel on 6/14/17. (CAR) (Entered: 06/14/2017)
29 REPORT TO COURT ORDER re 28 Order, and Joint Request for Status Conference by Plaintiff Kellen Powell. (Harvey, Thomas) (Entered: 06/30/2017)
30 ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this case is set for a status conference on July 31, 2017, at 2:00 p.m. in the chambers of the undersigned. Signed by District Judge Rodney W. Sippel on 7/5/17. (CAR) (Entered: 07/05/2017)
31 ORDER: Status Conference set for 1/26/2018 10:00 AM in Chambers before District Judge Rodney W. Sippel.. Signed by District Judge Rodney W. Sippel on 7/31/17. (LGK) (Entered: 07/31/2017)
32 ENTRY of Appearance by Nathaniel Richard Carroll for Plaintiff Kellen Powell. (Carroll, Nathaniel) (Entered: 08/14/2017)
33 ENTRY of Appearance by Blake Alexander Strode for Plaintiff Kellen Powell. (Strode, Blake) (Entered: 08/17/2017)
34 ORDER : IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the status conference in this matter is reset from Friday, January 26, 2018 to Tuesday, January 30, 2018 at 10:00 a.m. in my chambers. Signed by District Judge Rodney W. Sippel on 1/24/16. (ARL) (Entered: 01/24/2018)
35 Consent MOTION to Continue Status Conference by Defendant The City of St. Ann. (Garrett, Steven) (Entered: 01/25/2018)
36 ENTRY of Appearance by Michael−John Voss for Plaintiff Kellen Powell. (Voss, Michael−John) (Entered: 01/25/2018)
37 ORDER : IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion to continue status conference 35 is granted, and the status conference is reset to February 8, 2018, at 11:00 a.m. in the chambers of the undersigned. Signed by District Judge Rodney W. Sippel on 1/26/18. (ARL) (Entered: 01/26/2018)
38 ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this case is set for a status conference on March 21, 2018, at 2:00 p.m. in the chambers of the undersigned. Signed by District Judge Rodney W. Sippel on 2/8/18. (ARL) (Entered: 02/08/2018)
39 ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this case is set for a status conference on April 25, 2018, at 11:00 a.m. in the chambers of the undersigned. Signed by District Judge Rodney W. Sippel on 3/21/2018. (CAR) (Entered: 03/21/2018)
40 ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the status conference in this matter is reset from Wednesday, April 25, 2018 to Monday, April 30, 2017 at 11:00 a.m. in my chambers. Signed by District Judge Rodney W. Sippel on 4/16/18. (ARL) (Entered: 04/16/2018)
41 MEMORANDUM by Defendant The City of St. Ann. (Attachments: # 1 Consent Judgment)(Garrett, Steven) (Entered: 05/02/2018)
42 CONSENT JUDGMENT. Signed by District Judge Rodney W. Sippel on 5/4/2018. (CAR) (Entered: 05/04/2018)