Case 3:16-cv-00132-DCG Document 3 Filed 05/03/16 Page 1 of 16

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS EL PASO DIVISION

CARINA CANAAN and LEVI LANE,

Plaintiffs, v.

CITY OF EL PASO,

Defendant.

§
§
§
§ Civil Action No. I 1..- CV'- l'3Z.
§ § § JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

ORIGINAL COMPLAINT

1. Like nearly one-quarter of their fellow El Pasoans, Plaintiffs Carina Canaan and Levi

Lane live in poverty. Nonetheless, when Ms. Canaan and Mr. Lane were unable to pay traffic fines

owed to the City of El Paso, they were given just one repayment option - jail. Ms. Canaan was

jailed twice due to her indigency, including while pregnant. She still owes outstanding debt that she

is unable to pay, and lives in fear of further incarceration. Mr. Lane spent twenty-three days in jail

due to his indigency, losing his job. Ms. Canaan and Mr. Lane bring this action to challenge the City

of El Paso's unconstitntional debt collection policies and practices, which discriminate against

Plaintiffs and other poor people in violation of the U.S. Constitntion, longstanding U.S. Supreme

Court case law, and other federal and state law.

2. The City of El Paso ("Defendant") has unconstitntionally adopted, maintained, and

enforced policies and practices that require poor individuals to pay 25% of all fines owed for Class C

misdemeanors, the lowest level of wrongdoing, before they may qualify for payment plans (the

"25% Upfront Policy''). Last year alone, Defendant resolved nearly 34,000 cases involving debtors

who could not pay their fines to go to jail, while refusing to provide them with information about

other options.

3. Under long-standing constitntional law, a municipality cannot jail poor debtors

merely because they are unable to pay criminal fees or fines. Before imposing a jail sentence, the

1

Case 3:16-cv-00132-DCG Document 3 Filed 05/03/16 Page 2 of 16

government must provide debtors with both notice and opportunity either to ask for a

determination of indigency, excusing them from repayment, or to select an alternative option like

community service or a reasonable payment plan. Defendant's 25% Up front Policy disregards these

well-established protections.

4. For those indigent defendants unaware of their t-ights and unable to pay their fines,

the practical effect of the 25% Upfront Policy is to automatically convert Class C misdemeanor fines

into jail time. As a result, poor El Pasoans are either sentenced to a modern day's debtors' prison or

coerced into paying fines that they cannot afford in order to avoid incarceration.

5. The City of El Paso seemingly adopted this policy, and disregarded constitutionally

required protections, in order to fully maximize revenue. In 2015, Defendant procured almost $19

million in fines and court costs - one of its most substantial general revenue sources and a

shocking amount in a county where nearly a quarter of the population lives in poverty.

6.

Community members, organizations, the media, and state lawmakers have put

Defendant's policymakers on notice that its policies and practices fail to give poor debtors proper

notice or the opportunity to avoid jail through alternative payment options. Nonetheless, Defendant

has failed to take adequate steps to ensure that El Pasoans no longer face the threat of jail time

simply for being poor.

7. In addition to Defendant's failure to repeal the 25% Upfront Policy, Defendant's

employees repeatedly and systematically inform poor debtors that they must either pay their fines in

full, pay 25% of their fines upfront to qualify for a payment plan, or go to jail. Indeed, this is

precisely what Plaintiffs were told.

8. Moreover, Defendant's unlawful actions are intentional, the result of an agreement

between Defendant and municipal court staff to intentionally violate debtors' due process rights in

order to coerce the maximum payment on outstanding traffic fines.

2

Case 3:16-cv-00132-DCG Document 3 Filed 05/03/16 Page 3 of 16
9. Through its policies, practices, illegal agreements, and improper training and supervision, Defendant is violating the Due Process and Equal Protection rights of Ms. Canaan, Mr. Lane, and people across El Paso too poor to pay a significant portion of their debt upfront under the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution in conjunction with the Civil Rights
Act of 1871 (42 U.S.C. § 1983), and the Texas Constitution.
I 0. Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Court vindicate their constitutional rights. Ms. Canaan seeks an injunctive order prohibiting Defendant from jailing her, and persons like her, for the inability to pay, and other injunctive relief. Mr. Lane seeks compensation for the past violations of his constitutional rights, as well as other relief.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE II. The Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 because the action arises under the Constitution and laws of the United States. The Court additionally has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1343(a)(3) and (4) because this action seeks to redress the deprivation, under color of state law, of Plaintiffs' civil rights and to recover damages and secure equitable or other relief for the violation of those rights. 12. The Court has supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs' state law claims because they are so related to the federal claims within the Court's original jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or controversy under Article III of the United States Constitution. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). 13. Venue is proper in this judicial district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1) because Defendant is located in this district, and under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2) because all of the events giving rise to Plaintiffs' claims occurred in this district.
PARTIES 14. Plaintiff Carina Canaan is a married mother of two young children and resides in El Paso County, Texas. She has worked at a number of low-income jobs across El Paso, never earning
3

Case 3:16-cv-00132-DCG Document 3 Filed 05/03/16 Page 4 of 16
more than $8 per hour. Ms. Canaan's husband works temporary jobs when he is able to, but his employment is sporadic at best. As a result, their family lives near the federal poverty level. One day, Ms. Canaan dreams of becoming a nurse, as she is passionate about helping her fellow El Pasoans.
15. Plaintiff Levi Lane is a twenty-three year old man who lives in El Paso County, Texas. At the time of his incarceration, Mr. Lane had no savings, owed significant student loan debt, was working at a pet food distribution company earning $9 an hour, assisted with the care of his brother, who had physical disabilities, and lived at or near the federal poverty level.
16. Defendant City of El Paso, Texas is a municipality organized under the laws of the State of Texas.
17. Defendant's City Council adopted and approved the 25% Upfront Policy. It recently considered the policy in detail and decided to neither repeal nor amend its policy. It further relies upon the City Manager, who in turn is assisted by the clerk of the municipal court and the clerk's staff, to promulgate and enforce the policy. The City Council has the power to direct and control the City Manager, as well as the power to hire and fire him. By law, it further gives the City Manager the power to direct and supervise the administration of all departments, offices, and agencies of the City of El Paso, including the municipal clerk and courts. Under this authority, Defendant's City Manager, with the help of the municipal court clerk, promulgates the 25% Upfront Policy; and all of Defendant's employees, including its court clerks, are acting and trained to act pursuant to the policy.
18. Defendant may be served with process by serving its mayor, clerk, secretary, or treasurer at 300 N. Campbell, El Paso, Texas 79901, or wherever they may be found. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 40)(2); Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code§ 17.024(b).
4

Case 3:16-cv-00132-DCG Document 3 Filed 05/03/16 Page 5 of 16
STATEMENT OF FACTS Defendant's 25% Up&ont Policy and How It Affects Poor El Pasoans
19. On April 6, 2006, Defendant instituted and promulgated its 25% Upfront Policy, thereby mandating that:
Municipal Court payment plans will carry the following schedule for payment, after completion of the required application:
25% of the fine is required upfront at the time the plan is requested(;] 50% is required on the 30'" day of the payment plan~] 75% is required on the 60"' day of the payment plan~ and] 100% is required on the 90"' day of the payment plan[.] 20. Under this policy, which is an official administrative directive, Defendant denies those El Pasoans too poor to pay 25% of their outstanding fines upfront equal access to reasonable alternative options to dispose of their debt. 21. The effect of the 25% Upfront Policy is twofold for El Paso's poor. First, for those who are too poor to either pay their fines or qualify for a payment plan, Defendant brings to bear the breadth of its governmental power to give improper information to debtors and send them to jail. Second, the 25% Up front Policy creates a chilling effect on poor debtors' ability to assert their constitutional rights; instead, afraid of incarceration, poor debtors are coerced into paying fines that they cannot, in fact, afford. The Debt CoUection Process for Class C Misdemeanor Fines 22. The 25% Up front Policy is an official policy and plays a prominent role throughout the debt collection process. Defendant's municipal clerk staff send official notices to debtors that prominendy display the policy, inform them they must pay a minimum 25% of the debt, and fail to provide other information or options apart from jail. Moreover, TV screens in Defendant's municipal courts display and reinforce this message to all who enter.
5

Case 3:16-cv-00132-DCG Document 3 Filed 05/03/16 Page 6 of 16
23. When a debtor accrues a fine or fee based on a traffic ticket, Defendant's Municipal Court Clerk issues a notice to tbe debtor informing her to pay it or come to the court on a specific date. Defendant's clerks include the amount of the fine due, along witb a bold-faced notice stating that, "If a payment plan is needed, you must pay 25% of the amount due; otherwise payment in full is expected."
24. Defendant ensures its message reaches debtors before they come to tbe court. It notifies those debtors who do attempt to fill out an Application for Extension of Time for Payment of Fine, Court Costs, and Fees in capitalized bold font, that "25% INITIAL PAYMENT PER VIOLATION ~MUST BE PAID." Defendant does not notify debtors of otber options.
25. If, prior to their appearance dates, debtors call Defendant's municipal clerk staff in order to inquire into tbeir options for satisfying tbeir fines, Defendant's court staff informs them that tbey must either: (1) pay tbe fines in full; (2) apply for a payment plan by filling out an application and paying 25% of their outstanding fines upfront; or (3) face jail time. Defendant's municipal clerks and tbeir staff thus enforce the 25% Upfront Policy, and tbey have been trained to advise tbat the only options for a debtor are to pay a minimum of 25% upfront or go to jail. Defendant's municipal clerk staff do not inform debtors that tbey have the option to seek any other relief.
26. So, any person who receives a notice from Defendant who cannot afford 25% of a fine can expect to go to jail on that date. For Ms. Canaan and JVIr. Lane, the amount due was significant- more than $1,000 was due upfront.
27. Unsurprisingly, many poor debtors choose not to appear. For tbese debtors, a warrant is issued for their arrest.
28. Each warrant notice issued by Defendant shows tbe total amount of all accurnluated fines and fees, and informs the debtors - once again - that if they want to avoid jail, they must
6

Case 3:16-cv-00132-DCG Document 3 Filed 05/03/16 Page 7 of 16
pay 25% upfront. Though each notice prominently informs the debtors how and where they may pay their fines, there is no mention of the debtors' right to assert their indigency or access other options.
29. Because Defendant's municipal court staff consistently publicizes the 25% Upfront Policy and systematically fails to inform debtors of any alternatives, many indigent debtors decide not to appear at their trials for fear of incarceration. As a result, between 2014 and 2015, Defendant's clerks sent out over 64,000 post-trial notices.
30. Meanwhile, Defendant prominently displays its 25% Upfront Policy on a rotating loop on television screens throughout its courts, ensuring debtors quickly see it.
31. If Defendant's officers subsequently arrest the debtor on an outstanding traffic warrant, the arresting officer takes the debtor to jail, where Defendant's employees deprive her of her liberty for 24-48 hours before she even receives a chance to set foot in the municipal court. Debtors also receive an additional $64 to $97 in court costs and warrant fees added to their outstanding fines for each ticket.
32. Ultimately, poor debtors are jailed for a period of time calculated at the rate of $100 per day for fines they could not pay in the first place.
33. Accordingly, Defendant's 25% Upfront Policy disregards well-established constitutional protections. For those indigent defendants unaware of their rights and unable to pay their fines, the practical effect of the 25% Upfront Policy and improper training and supervision of Defendant's employees is to automatically convert Class C misdemeanor fines into jail time. Defendant's 25% Upfront Policy is the moving force behind Defendant's unconstitutional practices. Failure to Reform, Despite Notice ofConstitutional Concerns
34. Defendant's policymakers are well aware that their 25% Upfront Policy, agreement to use due process violations to coerce payment, and inadequate training and supervision, violate the
7

Case 3:16-cv-00132-DCG Document 3 Filed 05/03/16 Page 8 of 16
rights of indigent El Pasoans. Nonetheless, Defendant has exhibited deliberate indifference to correcting these known constitutional failings by refusing to make any effort at real reform. Instead, after recent public uproar about its practices, Defendant doubled-down on its efforts to advertise the 25% Upfront Policy.
35. In 2015, news media exposed some of the constitutional failings in Defendant's debt collection process. Soon after, a number of community organizations joindy delivered a letter to each of Defendant's City Council members further informing Defendant of these issues.
36. In early 2016, Defendant's City Council directed its City Manager and Municipal Clerk to review El Paso's debt collection process. The Municipal Clerk presented a series of recommendations for reforming the collections process on January 19,2016, which the City Council adopted that day. However, Defendant's policymakers refused to repeal the unlawful 25% Upfront Policy or to improve tJ:aining or supervision of Defendant's personnel. Oddly, the recommendations focused on increasing debtors' knowledge of Defendant's current unconstitutional policies and procedures.
37. After Defendant failed to adequately address its unconstitutional debt collection practices, state Senator Jose Rodriguez sent a letter to Defendant, voicing his concerns as a representative of the people of El Paso. Still, Defendant's policymakers have refused to reform its 25% Upfront Policy, change its practice of misinforming debtors about their options, or provide adequate training or supervision to its employees about educating the public.
38. As illustrated by the facts set forth above, Defendant's City Council, City Manager, and Municipal Clerk have actual notice that the 25% Upfront Policy, along with their practices and training, is unconstitutional. But they are also aware of the significant revenue collected by Defendant through the coercive collection of outstanding traffic fines, and have thus agreed to continue enforcement of the 25% Upfront Policy.
8

Case 3:16-cv-00132-DCG Document 3 Filed 05/03/16 Page 9 of 16
Injury to Ms. Canaan 39. Ms. Canaan is a married mother of two who dreams of becoming a nurse. However,
despite her best efforts, Ms. Canaan has struggled to pursue that dream due to financial hardships and her immediate needs to provide for herself and her family. She has worked at a number of lowincome jobs across El Paso, never earning more than $8 per hour, and lives near the federal poverty level.
40. Among her financial hardships are more than forty traffic tickets from Defendant since 2007. Of those fines and fees, however, only five actually related to moving violations. The remaining thirty-five directly stemmed from Ms. Canaan's indigency, such as fines for driving with an expired license, inability to afford insurance, or inability to maintain her vehicle registration. In total, Defendant claimed that Ms. Canaan owed more than $10,000.
41. Defendant's employees arrested Ms. Canaan on two occasstons as a result of warrants issued after Ms. Canaan failed to appear to pay her fines. In 2011, Defendant jailed Ms. Canaan for two days because she was unable to pay $5,416 in Class C misdemeanor fines. Two years later, in 2013, Defendant again incarcerated Ms. Canaan for nineteen days because she was unable to pay $4,571.24 in Class C misdemeanor fines. At the time of her second detention, Ms. Canaan was pregnant with her first child.
42. Prior to both arrests and detentions, acting pursuant to the 25% Upfront Policy, Defendant's agreement with its employees to violate debtors' due process rights, and/or Defendant's failure to adequately train its staff, Defendant's employees repeatedly informed Ms. Canaan that her only options were to pay her fines in full, pay 25% to qualify for a payment plan, or go to jail. Defendant's employees refused to inform Ms. Canaan that she might have the option to assert her indigency or request alternative sentencing that did not require her to pay 25% upfront. None of Defendant's employees ever inquired into Ms. Canaan's ability to pay her fines or the
9

Case 3:16-cv-00132-DCG Document 3 Filed 05/03/16 Page 10 of 16
reasons she failed to pay. Nor did any of Defendant's employees ever consider Ms. Canaan's ability to satisfy her outstanding fines through alternative means like community service.
43. As a result, Ms. Canaan did the only thing she had been led to believe she could, she pled guilty to each charge and went to jail.
44. Defendant caused Ms. Canaan to suffer psychological damage, humiliation, mental anguish, lost wages, and emotional injury as a result of the prolonged incarceration.
45. Ms. Canaan still has three outstanding warrants - all direcdy related to her indigency- for inability to pay traffic tickets. Despite her best efforts, Ms. Canaan remains unable to pay her outstanding fines and cannot qualify for the 25% Upfront Policy. Because of this, she cannot keep her vehicle registration or license plates up to date and drives with an expired liscense, all of which present imminent cause for Defendant's police officers to pull her over. Still, she must continue to drive to make money, buy groceries, take her children to the doctor, and generally support her family. Defendant will arrest her and put her in jail soon. Ms. Canaan therefore faces a real and immediate threat that Defendant will stop, arrest, and send her to jail because of her inability to pay those fines. Injury to Mr. Lane
46. In or about late April of 2014, Mr. Lane had no savings. He had been working fulltime for approximately four months at a pet food distribution company earning $9 an hour, and lived in an apartment with his brother, who had a number of physical disabilities. lVIr. Lane tried to assist his brother as best he could, even though Mr. Lane was living at or near the federal poverty level and from paycheck to paycheck.
47. Among other expenses, Mr. Lane was trying to pay off a student loan burden of more than $20,000. He had incurred his student loans while completing an associates degree.
10

Case 3:16-cv-00132-DCG Document 3 Filed 05/03/16 Page 11 of 16
Despite having completed all the relevant course work, Nlr. Lane never received his diploma because he was financially unable to make his final tuition payments.
48. Mr. Lane also faced the burden of seventeen traffic warrants. Of the seventeen outstanding warrants, however, only three were related to moving violations. The remaining fourteen directly stemmed from Nlr. Lane's indigency, largely related to a financial inability to maintain vehicle registration and insurance. In total, Defendant claimed Mr. Lane owed more than $4,300.
49. In 2014, Defendant's employees arrested Mr. Lane on warrants issued as a result of his inability to pay his fines. Mr. Lane subsequently spent twenty-four days in jail merely because of his inability to pay those flnes, causing him to lose his job and causing emotional distress.
50. Prior to his arrest, Mr. Lane had called Defendant's municipal court clerks on several occasions to inquire into his options to resolve his debt. However, acting pursuant to the 25% Upfront Policy, Defendant's agreement with its employees to violate debtors' due process rights, and Defendant's failure to adequately train its staff, Defendant's employees repeatedly informed Mr. Lane that his only options were to pay his fines in full, pay 25% to qualify for a payment plan, or go to jail. Defendant's employees refused to inform Mr. Lane that he might have the option to assert his indigency or request alternative sentencing that did not require him to pay 25% upfront. None of Defendant's employees ever inquired into Mr. Lane's ability to pay his flnes or the reasons he failed to pay. Nor did any of Defendant's employees ever consider Mr. Lane's ability to satisfy his outstanding flnes through alternative means like community service.
51. Mr. Lane did the only thing Defendant had led him to believe he could - he pled guilty to each charge and went to jail.
11

Case 3:16-cv-00132-DCG Document 3 Filed 05/03/16 Page 12 of 16
52. As a result, Defendant caused Mr. Lane to lose his job. Defendant also caused Mr. Lane to suffer psychological damage, humiliation, mental anguish, lost wages, and emotional injury as a result of the prolonged incarceration.
CAUSES OF ACTION I. Violations of the Right to Due Process Under the Federal Constitution. 42 U.S.C. § 1983 53. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations in paragraphs 1-52 above. 54. Under the Due Process Clause, a governmental entity like the City of El Paso is required to provide both notice and opportunity for a determination of a debtors' indigency prior to depriving individuals of their liberty for failure to pay fine-only Class C misdemeanors. Through its 25% Upfront Policy and/or failure to properly train its employees, Defendant deprived Plaintiffs of this due process by unnecessarily coercing them into jail without inquiring into their reasons or ability to pay. Thus, Defendant offered Plaintiffs no other option than to either pay in full or go to jail. This is a violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Defendant's 25% Upfront Policy and/or failure to adequately train and supervise are the moving forces behind these violations. 55. Further, by enacting and maintaining its 25% Upfront Policy, and refusing to properly train and supervise its employees, Defendant has been deliberately indifferent to its denial of due process to indigent debtors, including Ms. Canaan and Mr. Lane. II. Conspiracy to Violate the Right to Due Process Under the Federal Constitution. 42 U.S.C. § 1983 56. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations in paragraphs 1-52 above. 57. Defendant and its employees aod/or agents have entered into an agreement to intentionally violate due process rights in order to increase Defendant's revenue streams from traffic violations. Specifically, Defendant and its employees and/or agents have agreed to intentionally
12

Case 3:16-cv-00132-DCG Document 3 Filed 05/03/16 Page 13 of 16
refuse to inform low-income debtors of their rights, and to intentionally refuse to properly inquire into a debtors' financial inability to pay their fines and/or the debtors' reasons for failing to pay. Defendant and its employees and/or agents knew this was and is a violation of due process requirements, and formed the agreement with the specific intent of violating those due process rights as a coercive mechanism in Defendant's debt collection efforts. As a direct result of this illegal agreement, Defendant violated Plaintiffs' constitutional rights to due process.
III. Violations of the Right to Equal Protection Under the Federal Constitution, 42 U.S.C. § 1983 58. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations in paragraphs 1-52 above. 59. Defendant creates two separate and unequal economic classes with its 25% Upfront Policy and inadequate training and supervision. The first class includes individuals who can afford to pay 25% or more of their outstanding fines upfront, who therefore benefit from payment plan options and do not go immediately to j~il. At the same time, Defendant makes second class citizens out of indigent people like Ms. Canaan and Mr. Lane by denying them equal access to payment plan options on a level afforded to more affluent El Pasoans. The Equal Protection Clause prohibits the unequal treatment of people based upon their inability to pay fines because they are indigent. Defendant's 25% Upfront Policy and/or failure to adequately train and supervise its employees are the moving forces behind these violations. 60. Defendant further violated Plaintiffs' rights under the Equal Protection Clause because it used unduly harsh and discriminatory debt collection schemes against Plaintiffs. Defendant's 25% Upfront Policy and/or failure to adequately train and supervise its employees are the moving forces behind these violations. 61. Defendant's policymakers are aware- or should be aware- to the risk that its 25% Upfront Policy discriminated against poor debtors based on economic status and would result in an incarceration-for-credit scheme that was unduly harsh for indigent debtors. Nonetheless, they have
13

Case 3:16-cv-00132-DCG Document 3 Filed 05/03/16 Page 14 of 16
refused to change or otherwise address these policies even though they have no good reason to maintain them. In doing so, Defendant has been deliberately indifferent to its unduly harsh debt collection scheme and to the injuries it has caused to Plaintiffs.
IV. Violations of the Right to Equal Protection Under the Texas Constitution
62. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations in paragraphs 1-52 above. 63. Under Sections 13, 18, and 19 of Article I of the Texas Constitution, Plaintiffs have rights against excessive fines, imprisonment for debt, and the deprivation of liberty and disfranchisement without due course of the law. Further, the Texas Equality of Rights provision is an addition to Texas' standard equal rights provision and was added to the state's Bill of Rights in 1979. Sec Tex. Const. art. I, sec. 3. As such, it provides greater protection than standard federal equal protection rights. Under color of state law, Defendant deprived Plaintiffs of these protections through their actions described above.
REQUEST FOR RELIEF Declaratocy and Injunctive Relief 64. Plaintiffs seek declaratory relief because Defendant violated their rights under the federal and state constitutions, as described above. 65. Defendants continue to maintain their illegal policies, practices, and inadequate training and supervision. As a result, Ms. Canaan, who has outstanding warrants for her arrest on failure-to-pay grounds, and who continues to be financially unable to pay those fines, continues to face a real and immediate risk of further deprivations of her federal and state constitutional rights. 66. Ms. Canaan therefore seeks an injunction permanendy enjoining Defendants and their agents, employees, and/or any other persons or entities acting on their behalf from further enforcing the 25% Upfront Policy. Ms. Canaan further seeks an injunction preventing Defendant from violating her constitutional rights and the rights of those sirniliarly situated and requiring
14

Case 3:16-cv-00132-DCG Document 3 Filed 05/03/16 Page 15 of 16
Defendant to design and implement new training and supervision policies to ensure that such violations do not continue in El Paso.
67. Both Mr. Lane and Ms. Canaan further seek a declaratmy judgment declaring the 25% Upfront Policy invalid under long-standing federal and state law.
Damages 68. The actions of Defendant caused Mr. Lane to suffer damages, including unnecessarily spending numerous days in jail and losing his job, and considerable emotional distress and mental anguish. 69. Mr. Lane is entided to compensatory and exemplary damages for Defendant's violation of his constitutional rights.
Attorneys' Fees 70. As a result of Defendant's conduct, Plaintiffs had to retain counsel to protect their
rights. Plaintiffs will also expend reasonable costs and fees. Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988, Plaintiffs
ask that the Court award them reasonable attorneys' fees, costs, and expenses. JURY DEMAND
71. Plaintiffs respectfully demand a jury trial on their individual damages claims and all other matters which may be tried to a jury.
PRAYER 72. Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court grant the following relief: a. Enter a judgment declaring that Defendant's policies, practices, training, supervision, acts, and ommissions described herein are unlawful and violated Plaintiffs' rights under the Constitution and laws of the United States; b. Permanendy enjoin Defendants, their subordinates, agents, employees, successors, and all others acting in concert with them, from subjecting Plaintiffs and others similarly situated to the unconstitutional and unlawful practices described above, including its policies, training, and supervision;
15

Case 3:16-cv-00132-DCG Document 3 Filed 05/03/16 Page 16 of 16
c. Award compensatory and exemplary damages to lYir. Lane for psychological damage, humiliation, mental anguish, lost wages, and emotional distress, suffered as a result of Defendant's unconstitutional policies, practices, and acts;
d. Grant Plaintiffs their reasonable attorneys' fees, expenses, and costs pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988; and
e. Issue such other relief, legal and equitable, general and specific, to which Plaintiffs are justly entitled.
Dated: April 20, 2016. Respectfully submitted, By: Is/ William B. Jacobi William B. Jacobi State Bar No. 24085395 Mimi Marziani State Bar No. 24091906 Wayne Krause Yang State Bar No. 24032644 TEXAS CIVIL RIGHTS PROJECT 1317 E. Rio Grande El Paso, TX 79902 (915) 532-3799 [phone] (915) 532-8892 [fax] ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS
16

 
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS EL PASO DIVISION

CARINA CANAAN and LEVI LANE, Plaintiffs,
v.
CITY OF EL PASO, Defendant.

§ § § § § EP-16-CV-00132-DCG § § § §

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Before the Court is Defendant City of El Paso's ("Defendant") "Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to

Dismiss" (ECF No.6) ("Defendant's Motion to Dismiss") filed on June 6, 2016; therein,

Defendant moves to dismiss Plaintiffs Carina Canaan ("Canaan") and Levi Lane's ("Lane")

(collectively "Plaintiffs") "Original Complaint" (ECF No. 3) ("Complaint"). The Complaint

asserts causes of action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that Defendant violated long-standing

constitutional law. On June 20, Plaintiffs filed a Response to Defendant's Motion (ECF No.9)

("Plaintiffs' Response"). On December 9, the Court held a hearing on Defendant's Motion to

Dismiss, where the parties, by and through their counsel, presented additional arguments.

Also before the Court is Plaintiffs' "Motion for Leave to File Their First Amended

Complaint" (ECF No. 30) ("Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to Amend") filed on December 30,

2016. Defendant filed a response thereto (ECF No. 31) on January 6, 2017. Plaintiffs followed

with a Reply (ECF No. 32) on January 10.

For the reasons that follow, the Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART

Defendant's Motion to Dismiss. Further, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to

Amend; however, the Court will allow Plaintiffs to file an amended complaint consistent with

this opinion.

I. BACKGROUND1

This case arises from Defendant City of El Paso's allegedly unconstitutional debt

collection policies and practices for Class C misdemeanor fines in connection with traffic tickets. Compl.1f~ 1-2, ECF No.3. On April6, 2006, Defendant promulgated an administrative

directive [hereinafter, "25% Upfront Policy"] signed by the then city manager and municipal

court clerk that provides:

In accordance with the model collection program required under Senate Bill 1863, Municipal Court payment plans will carry the following schedule for payment, after completion of the required application:

25% of the fine is required upfront at the time the payment plan is requested 50% is required on the 30th day of the payment plan 75% is required on the 60th day of the payment plan 100% is required on the 90th day of the payment plan.
Def.'s Mot. to Dismiss at 5, ECF No. 6;2 id., Ex. A, ECF No. 6-1; see also Compl. ~ 19.

Plaintiffs allege that if, before their appearance dates, debtors call Defendant's municipal clerk

staff in order to inquire into their options for satisfying their fines, the staff informs them that

they must "(1) pay the fines in full; (2) apply for a payment plan by filling out an application and paying 25% of the outstanding fine upfront; or (3) face jail time." Compl. ~ 25. They aver that the staff systematically fails to inform debtors of any other available options. Id ~~ 25, 29.

1 The following facts are derived from Plaintiffs' Complaint. See Compl. When reviewing a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), a court generally accepts well-pleaded facts as true and construes the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. See Gines v. D.R Horton, Inc., 699 F.3d 812, 816 (5th Cir. 2012); see also Part liLA, infra ("Facts Outside the Complaint").
2 Because Defendant has not numbered the pages of its Motion to Dismiss, all citations herein to the Motion refer to the ECF page numbers printed at the top of the pages.
-2-

Plaintiffs live at or near the federal poverty level. /d. ~~ 1, 14, 46. Canaan received more than forty traffic tickets from Defendant since 2007. /d.~ 40. In total, she owed more than $10,000 in fmes. /d. She was arrested on two occasions as a result of warrants issued for failing to appear or pay her Class C misdemeanor fines; she was jailed for two days in 2011 and nineteen days in 2013. Id ~ 41. Prior to her arrest, Defendant's employees repeatedly informed her that her only options were to pay her fines in full, pay 25% to qualify for payment plans, or go to jail. /d. ~ 42. She was not informed that she could assert her indigency or request alternative sentencing that did not require her to pay 25% upfront. Id As a result, Canaan did the only thing she had been led to believe she could, she pled guilty to each charge and went to jail. /d. ~ 43.
Plaintiff Lane received seventeen traffic warrants. Compl. ~ 48. In total, he owed more than $4,300 in fines. ld In 2014, he was arrested and jailed for twenty-four days for failure to pay those fmes. /d.~ 49. Prior to his arrest, he telephoned Defendant's municipal court clerks on several occasions to inquire about his options to resolve his debt, but Defendant's employees repeatedly informed him that his only options were to pay his fines in full, pay 25% to qualify for a payment plan, or go to jail. Id ~50. Defendant's employees refused to inform Mr. Lane that he might have the option to assert his indigency or request alternative sentencing that did not require him to pay 25% upfront. /d. As a result, Lane did the only thing Defendant had led him to believe he could-he pled guilty to each charge and went to jail. /d. ~ 51.
Plaintiffs assert three claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and one under Texas law. Id. ~~ 53-63. Specifically, under § 1983, Plaintiffs assert claims for: (1) violations of their Fourteenth Amendment Due Process rights; (2) conspiracy to violate Fourteenth Amendment Due Process rights; and (3) violations of their Equal Protection rights. /d. ~~ 52--61. Plaintiffs also assert a
-3-

claim for violations of their Equal Protection rights under the Texas Constitution. ld. ~~ 62-63. Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as damages and attorneys' fees. Id ~~ 64-70.
On June 6, 2016, Defendant filed the instant Motion challenging Plaintiffs' § 1983 claims. Specifically, Defendant argues:
As a matter of law, the City [of El Paso] cannot be liable under §1983 for a policy of, allegedly, wrongfully jailing criminal defendants based upon discretionary decisions made by elected municipal judges, who are public officers acting in their judicial capacity over whom the City [of El Paso] has no control or influence. Def.'s Mot. to Dismiss at 2. Plaintiffs filed their Response to Defendant's Motion. Pls.' Resp. The Court held a hearing, where the parties, by and through their respective counsel, presented further arguments regarding Defendant's Motion to Dismiss. See Order Setting Hr'g, ECF No. 22; Mins. of Civil Proceedings, ECF No. 28.
II. LEGAL STANDARD Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) allows a party to seek dismissal of a claim for "failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted." See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). On a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, a court generally accepts well-pleaded facts as true and construes the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. See Gines, 699 F.3d at 816. A viable complaint must include "enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Bell At/. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). To meet this "facial plausibility" standard, a plaintiff must "plead[ ] factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). The Court's task, then, is "to determine whether the plaintiff has stated a legally cognizable claim that is plausible, not to evaluate the plaintiffs likelihood of
-4-

success." Doe ex rei. Magee v. Covington Cty. Sch. Dist., 615 F.3d 849, 854 (5th Cir. 2012) (en bane) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).
III. DISCUSSION A. Facts Outside the Complaint
As a preliminary matter, the Court first addresses what facts and evidence are properly before the Court on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion. "It is well-established that, in deciding whether to grant a motion to dismiss, a district court may not 'go outside the complaint.'" Rodriguez v. Rutter, 310 F. App'x 623, 626 (5th Cir. 2009) (per curiam) (unpublished) (quoting Scanlan v. Texas A&M Univ., 343 F.3d 533, 536 (5th Cir. 2003)). There is generally only one recognized exception to that rule: "[a] district court may consider documents attached to the motion to
dismiss ifthey are referred to in the plaintiff's complaint and are central to the plaintiff's claim."
Id (emphasis added). Defendant has attached numerous documents to its Motion that are not referenced in the
Complaint. Among these are a municipal court standing order that allegedly supersedes the 25% Upfront Policy, copies of commitment orders, and judicial dockets. See, e.g., Def.'s Mot. to Dismiss, Ex. B, ECF No. 6-1. Plaintiffs argue that their pleadings "make no mention of these documents, and to consider them on this Motion to Dismiss would require the Court to consider facts not included in the pleadings." Pis.' Resp. at 7. The Court agrees. Documents not referred to in the complaint cannot be considered, and, therefore, the Court disregards these documents for purposes of the Rule 12(b)(6) Motion. However, the administrative directive detailing the 25% Upfront Policy, see Def.'s Mot. to Dismiss, Ex. A, is referenced in the Complaint and central to Plaintiffs' claim, and therefore falls within the exception to the general rule prohibiting
-5-

the Court from considering documents attached to the Motion. See Rodriguez, 310 F. App'x at 626. B. Plaintiffs'§ 1983 Claims
"To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must first show a violation of the Constitution or of federal law, and then show that the violation was committed by someone acting under color of state law." Atteberry v. Nocona Gen. Hosp., 430 F.3d 245,252-53 (5th Cir. 2005); see also Doe ex rei. Magee, 615 F.3d at 866-67 ("We have stated time and again that without an underlying constitutional violation, an essential element of municipal liability is missing." (internal quotation marks, brackets, and citation omitted)). As we will see, with respect to their federal due process claims, Plaintiffs have failed to allege the violation of a constitutional right actionable under § 1983.
The Complaint generally alleges that Defendant's 25% Upfront Policy disregards "longstanding constitutional law" that "a municipality cannot jail poor debtors merely because they are unable to pay criminal fees or fines," Compl. ~ 3, and that "the practical effect of the 25% Upfront Policy is to automatically convert Class C misdemeanor fines into jail time," id ~ 4. See also Pis.' Resp. at 13 ("It is not only judges within the scope of their authority, but the government with its enactments, that must offer due process in order to avoid imprisoning indigent debtors for nonpayment of fines." (citing Tate v. Short, 401 U.S. 395, 399-400 (1971))).
As these allegations facially relate to a line of decisions where the Supreme Court provided guidance on what constitutional dictates are implicated when a court sentences an indigent defendant to imprisonment for failure to pay a fine-the Court pauses to briefly discuss them. They are: Williams v. lllinois, 399 U.S. 235 (1970), Tate, 401 U.S. 395, and Bearden v. Georgia, 461 U.S. 660 (1983). Under Williams, "[a] sentencing court cannot constitutionally
-6-

enhance the jail sentence of an indigent person beyond the statutory maximum because he cannot afford to pay a fine." United States v. Altamirano, 11 F.3d 52, 53 (5th Cir. 1993) (citing Williams, 399 U.S. at 242-43)). "Williams was followed and extended in Tate," Bearden, 461 U.S. at 664, where the Court held that "a state cannot convert a fine imposed under a fine-only statute into a jail term solely because the defendant cannot pay," Altamirano, 11 F.3d at 53 (citing Tate, 401 U.S. at 399). The rule of Williams and Tate is, therefore, that "if the State determines a fine ... to be the appropriate and adequate penalty for the crime, it may not thereafter imprison a person solely because he lacked the resources to pay it." Bearden, 461 U.S. at 667-68. "[T]he Court expanded this principle in Bearden," holding that a "court cannot revoke probation for failure to pay a fine unless it finds that probationer willfully refused to pay, that probationer did not make sufficient bona fide efforts legally to acquire adequate financial resources, or that another sanction would not serve the state's interests in punishment and deterrence." Altamirano, 11 F.3d at 53 (citing Bearden, 461 U.S. at 672).
These decisions impose a constitutional duty on a sentencingjudge to inquire into a defendant's indigency before imprisoning him for failure to pay a fine. See United States v. Scales, 639 F. App'x 233, 240 (5th Cir. 2016) (per curiam) (unpublished) (Bearden "require[s] a court to 'inquire into the reasons for the failure to pay' before revoking probation." (quoting United States v. Payan, 992 F.2d 1387, 1396 (5th Cir. 1993))); Gipson v. Texas, 383 S.W.3d 152, 156 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012) ("Bearden ... sets forth a mandatoryjudicial directive that requires a trial court to (1) inquire as to a defendant's ability to pay and (2) consider alternatives to imprisonment if it finds that a defendant is unable to pay." (emphasis added)).3
3 See also De Luna v. Hidalgo Cty., 853 F. Supp. 2d 623, 641, 648 (S.D. Tex. 2012) (analyzing Williams, Tate, and Bearden to state that "the absence of any inquiry into a defendant's indigency unless
the defendant 'raises' it of his or her own accord does not provide the process due" and finding "the JPs/Magistrates, before issuing ... a Class C commitment order, do not consider whether the defendant
-7-

Moreover, in response to these decisions,4 Texas Legislature amended various provisions
ofthe Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, inter alia, to require sentencing judges to inquire into
a defendant's indigency before sentencing him to jail for defaulting in the discharge of a
judgment.5 See Burton v. Goodlett, 480 F.2d 983, 985 (5th Cir. 1973) ("We were interested to
see what the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals did with Tate's case when it came back on
remand. That Court pointed out that the Texas Legislature had provided 'alternative means' for
the collection of fines and costs from indigents subject to such penalties." (citing Ex parte Tate,
471 S.W.2d 404 (Tex. Crim. App. 1971) (citing, among others, the statute now renumbered as
Tex. Code Crim. P. 45.046))); De Luna, 853 F. Supp. 2d at 644 ("[l]t is clear that this provision
was a response to the Supreme Court's decision in Tate. Further, it tracks the constitutional
requirements enunciated in Bearden.").
Turning to the parties' specific arguments here, the Court observes that in its Motion to
Dismiss, Defendant does not individually address each claim (i.e., federal due process claim;
federal due process conspiracy claim; federal equal protection claim; and Texas equal protection
can pay the fines or whether the defendant has made a good faith effort to satisfy them, or offer alternative sentencing, unless the defendant directly raises his or her inability to pay with the JP and/or arraigning Magistrate").
4 See, e.g., Tate, 401 U.S. at 400-01 ("It is unnecessary for us to canvass the numerous alternatives to which the State by legislative enactment--{)r judges within the scope of their authoritymay resort in order to avoid imprisoning an indigent beyond the statutory maximum for involuntary nonpayment of a fine or court costs. Appellant has suggested several plans, some of which are already utilized in some States, while others resemble those proposed by various studies. The State is free to choose from among the variety of solutions already proposed and, of course, it may devise new ones." (quoting Williams, 399 U.S. at 244-45) (emphasis added)).
5 See Tex. Code Crim. P. Art. 45.046(a) ("When a judgment and sentence have been entered against a defendant and the defendant defaults in the discharge of the judgment, the judge may order the
defendant confined in jail until discharged by law ifthe judge at a hearing makes a written determination
that: (I) the defendant is not indigent and has failed to make a good faith effort to discharge the fine and costs; or (2) the defendant is indigent and: (A) has failed to make a good faith effort to discharge the fines and costs under Article 45.049; and (B) could have discharged the fines and costs under Article 45.049 . without experiencing any undue hardship." (emphasis added)).
-8-

claim) asserted in the Complaint, nor does it challenge the sufficiency of Plaintiffs' factual allegations for each claim. Instead, Defendant broadly argues that "[a]s a matter of law, the City [ofEl Paso] cannot be liable under §1983," Def. Mot. to Dismiss at 2, and seeks dismissal on that basis. Plaintiffs, on the other hand, primarily address their federal due process claims, but
not their equal protection claims. See Pis. Resp. at 10-11. Accordingly, for purposes of
Defendant's Motion to Dismiss, the Court will address only Plaintiffs' federal due process claims6-i.e., "violations of the right to due process under the federal Constitution. 42 U.S.C. § 1983," Compl. ~~52-55, and "conspiracy to violate the right to due process under the federal Constitution," id. ~~56-57-but not the remaining claims.
Defendant characterizes Plaintiffs' constitutional claims as "solely concem[ing] jailing," Def.'s Mot. to Dismiss at 11, and argues that Plaintiffs have "failed to show that their incarceration was in any way related to the [25% Upfront Policy]," id at 15. Pointing to Texas Code of Criminal Procedure 45.046, Defendant contends that Plaintiffs were jailed "either because the municipal judge found that they were not indigent (and failed to note the same on the docket sheets). Or, they were jailed without the municipal judge holding an indigent status hearing, in violation of state law." /d. at 5-6. "Either way," Defendant posits, "no§ 1983 liability was created for the City," because "all relevant decisions [regarding incarceration] were made by a municipal judge acting in his judicial capacity." /d. at 6, 15.7
6 Further, both federal due process claims are based on the same alleged constitutional violation.
Compare Compl. 'if 54 ("Defendant offered Plaintiffs no other option than to either pay in full or go to jail.
This is a violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment."), with id ~56 ("Specifically, Defendant and its employees and/ or agents have agreed to intentionally refuse to inform low-income debtors oftheir rights, and to intentionally refuse to properly inquire into a debtors' financial inability to pay their fines and/ or the debtors' reasons for failing to pay.").
7 See Whisenant v. City ofHaltom City, 106 F. App'x 915,917 (5th Cir. 2004) (per curiam) (unpublished) ("The City cannot be liable under § 1983 for having a 'policy' of wrongfully incarcerating
-9-

Plaintiffs respond that their claims are not "related to any judicial action or inaction," Pls.' Resp. at 9, and that "as pleaded in the Complaint, the conduct underlying Plaintiffs' claims occurs long before involvement by any judge," id. at 6; see also id. at 5 ("Plaintiffs have made no allegations of misconduct on the part of any El Paso municipal court judge. In fact, the word "judge" does not even appear in Plaintiffs' Complaint."). The Complaint pleads that:
If, prior to their appearance dates, debtors call Defendant's municipal clerk staff in order to inquire into their options for satisfying their fines, Defendant's court staff informs them that they must either: (1) pay the fines in full; (2) apply for a payment plan by filling out an application and paying 25% of their outstanding fines upfront; or (3) face jail time. Compl. ~ 25. But "Defendant's employees refused to inform [Plaintiffs] that [they] might have the option to assert her indigency or request alternative sentencing that did not require [them] to pay 25% upfront." Id. ~~ 42, 50; see also id ~ 29 ("Defendant's municipal court staff ... systematically fails to inform debtors of any alternatives."); id. ~ 22 ("fail to provide other information or options apart from jail"); id ~ 3 ("to ask for a determination of indigency"); id ~ 54 ("a determination of a debtors' indigency"). Plaintiffs allege that this refusal by Defendant's employees or municipal clerk staff to further inform Plaintiffs violated their due process rights. ld ~ 3 ("Before imposing a jail sentence, the government must provide debtors with both notice and opportunity either to ask for a determination ofindigency, excusing them from repayment, or to select an alternative option like community service or a reasonable payment plan. Defendant's 25% Upfront Policy disregards these well-established protections."). Thus, Plaintiffs' alleged constitutional violation rests on the legal theory that prior to their court appearance (i.e., pre-appearance/pre-trial), Defendant had a constitutional duty to inform Plaintiffs (and reciprocally, Plaintiffs had a constitutional right to be informed by Defendant) that
indigent defendants because the relevant decisions were made by a municipal judge acting in his judicial capacity.").
-10-

they had alternative options, in particular, an indigency determination. See Pis.' Resp. at 14 ("At the core of the Complaint is their claim that El Paso - through its 25% Upfront Policy and the misinformation provided by its nonjudicial employees - deprived them of proper notice before they would ever reach a judge that they have a right to raise their inability to pay and offer relevant financial information."); Hr'g Tr. at 28:22-29:2 ("what this complaint is alleging is ... about the city['s] active steps. And as the claim says, the city takes intentional action to ... refuse to inform the plaintiffs of any other option outside the 25 percent policy."); id. at 32:2333:1 ("The violation is the plaintiff not having adequate information prior to his hearing to assert the ability to pay ... in a proper manner.").
The Court's research revealed no authority-binding or otherwise-that imposes such a constitutional duty on a city. Plaintiffs, however, argue that Turner v. Rogers, 564 U.S. 431 (2011), supports their legal theory. Pis.' Resp. at 14; see also Hr'g Tr. 33:23-39:18 (counsel's colloquy regarding Turner). In Turner, at a contempt hearing before a state court, Turner was found to be in contempt of court and was sentenced to twelve months' incarceration for failing to comply with a child support order; he did not receive counsel at the hearing. 564 U.S. at 436-38. The question before the Court was whether the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause requires a State to provide counsel at a civil contempt hearing to an indigent noncustodial parent "potentially faced with such incar~eration" for failing to comply with a child support order. Turner, 564 U.S. at 435,441. The Court answered:
We consequently hold that the Due Process Clause does not automatically require the provision of counsel at civil contempt proceedings to an indigent individual who is subject to a child support order, even if that individual faces incarceration (for up to a year). In particular, that Clause does not require the provision of counsel where the opposing parent or other custodian (to whom support funds are owed) is not represented by counsel and the State provides alternative procedural safoguards equivalent to those we have mentioned (adequate notice of the
-11-

importance ofability to pay, fair opportunity to present, and to dispute, relevant information, and court findings).
!d. at 448 (second emphasis added). The Court is unpersuaded that Turner supports Plaintiffs' legal theory. Turner involved
an indigent's right to counsel in a civil contempt hearing for failure to pay court-ordered child
support, and the Court there took care to limit the scope of its holding to the facts of the case.
See 564 U.S. at 442 ("We must decide whether the Due Process Clause grants an indigent
defendant, such as Turner, a right to state-appointed counsel at a civil contempt proceeding,
which may lead to his incarceration." (emphasis added)), at 444 ("We here consider an indigent's right to paid counsel at such a contempt proceeding." (emphasis added)). 8 Plaintiffs do not cite
any authority, and the Court finds none, that has interpreted Turner to require a governmental
entity, such as a city, to give notice of the importance of ability to pay before a court, sitting in a criminal case, may incarcerate a defendant for failure to pay a fine or restitution.9 Moreover,
courts have declined to apply or extend Turner to factual circumstances beyond those in Turner.
See, e.g., Jones v. Buckner, 963 F. Supp. 2d 1267, 1278-79 (N.D. Ala. 2013) ("Turner dealt with
a civil contempt hearing, whereas this case deals with a paternity adjudication."); Gordy v.
Gordy, Civ. A. No. CV612-059, 2012 WL 3912790, at *1 (S.D. Ga. Aug. 21, 2012) ("Turner,
which was not even a § 1983 action, does not assist him. . . . Turner supplies no foundational
support for [the plaintiffs]§ 1983 action here."), report and recommendation adopted, 2012 WL
8 See also Turner, 564 U.S. at 449 ("We do not address civil contempt proceedings where the
underlying child support payment is owed to the State, for example, for reimbursement of welfare funds paid to the parent with custody. Those proceedings more closely resemble debt-collection proceedings. The government is likely to have counsel or some other competent representative. And this kind of proceeding is not before us. Neither do we address what due process requires in an unusually complex case where a defendant can fairly be represented only by a trained advocate." (internal quotation marks and citations omitted)).
9 At the hearing, Plaintiffs argued that De Luna supports their legal theory. See Hr'g Tr. 29:2230:02,30:12-19. The Court has examined that case, but found no such support.
-12-

3911880 (S.D. Ga. Sept. 6, 2012); Castanias v. Lipton, Civ. A. No. 11-296-HJW-JGW, 2012 WL 1391921, at *6 (S.D. Ohio Apr. 20, 2012) ("Turner is also factually distinguishable from this case because it was an appeal from a finding of contempt, not a separate § 1983 action. It is questionable, therefore, whether Turner may properly provide the foundation for a § 1983 claim."), report and recommendation adopted, 2012 WL 4006420 (S.D. Ohio Sept. 12, 2012); Harris v. Corbett, Civ. A. No. 12-01,2014 WL 580150, at *7 (W.D. Pa. Feb. 12, 2014) (dismissing plaintiff's § 1983 claim based on allegation that his due process rights were violated when he was not appointed counsel to represent him at his contempt proceeding (citing Turner)); Norman v. Greenwood Cty. SheriffOffice, Civ. A. No. 8:13-1245-TMC, 2013 WL 5439175, at *1 (D.S.C. Sept. 27, 2013) (dismissing §1983 claim based on allegation that plaintiff had a due process right to be represented by a counsel in a civil contempt proceeding before a state family court (citing Turner)).
Consequently, the Court finds that, with respect to their federal due process claims, see Compl. ,, 52-57, Plaintiffs' Complaint does not allege a constitutional violation actionable under § 1983, and therefore Plaintiffs' § 1983 claims fail to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Accordingly, Plaintiffs' § 1983 must be dismissed. See Doe ex rei. Magee, 675 F.3d at 852-53, 855, 869 (finding that plaintiff failed to allege the violation of a constitutional right because defendant, a public school, had no constitutional duty to do that which defendant allegedly failed to do and on that basis, affirming lower court's dismissal of her suit under§ 1983); Kinzie v. Dallas Cty. Hosp. Dist., 106 F. App'x 192, 194-95 (5th Cir. 2003) (per curiam) (unpublished) (affirming lower court's dismissal of plaintifrs § 1983 complaint, stating "[plaintiff] also argues that he alleged that [defendant's] established policy of inadequate training and supervision and its customs caused violations of his constitutional rights. However, those
-13-

arguments deal with whether [defendant] is liable, which is immaterial because no constitutional violations occurred"). B. Plaintiffs' Remaining Claims
As noted above, Plaintiffs also assert a § 1983 claim violations of their Equal Protection rights under the federal Constitution and a claim for violations of their Equal Protection rights under the Texas Constitution. Compl. ~~ 58-63. Because Defendant's Motion to Dismiss does not specifically address these claims, the Court will let these claims stand and survive the Motion. C. Plaintiffs' Motionfor Leave to Amend Complaint
The Court has reviewed Plaintiffs' proposed "First Amended Complaint" (ECF No. 301). With respect to their federal due process claims, the proposed amended complaint fails to cure the above-discussed deficiency of the original Complaint, as the amended complaint makes plain that Plaintiffs primarily rely on Turner. Cf Pis.' Reply to Ders Resp. to Mot for Leave to Amend at 3-5 (arguing that "Plaintiffs' reliance on Turner v. Rogers is not futile"), ECF No. 32. Therefore, granting Plaintiffs leave to amend would be futile. Accordingly, the Court denies Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to Amend as to Plaintiffs' federal due process claims. See Stripling v. Jordan Prod Co., 234 F.3d 863, 872-73 (5th Cir. 2000) ("It is within the district court's discretion to deny a motion to amend if it is futile.... [W]e ... apply the same standard of legal sufficiency as applies under Rule 12(b)(6)." (internal quotation marks and citations omitted)).
However, it appears that in the proposed amended complaint, for their federal equal protection claims, Plaintiffs allege additional facts not found in their original Complaint. Further, with respect to their state law claims, Plaintiffs retitled their claim to add due process violation under the Texas constitution. Compare Compl.at 10 ("IV. Violations of the Right to
-14-

Equal Protection Under the Texas Constitution"), with First Am. Compl. at 18 ("IV. Violations ofthe Right to Due Process and Equal Protection Under the Texas Constitution"). Accordingly, the Court will permit Plaintiffs to file an amended complaint for these two claims only.
IV. CONCLUSION For the forgoing reasons, with respect to Plaintiffs' federal due process claims, the Complaint fails to state a claim under § 1983. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant City ofEl Paso's Motion to Dismiss (ECFNo. 6) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. Specifically, the Motion is GRANTED as to Plaintiffs' § 1983 claims for "violations of the right to due process under the federal Constitution," and "conspiracy to violate the right to due process under the federal Constitution," which are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE, and the Motion is DENIED as to Plaintiffs' § 1983 claim for violation of their Equal Protection rights under the federal Constitution and state law claim for violation of their Equal Protection rights under the Texas Constitution. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs' "Motion for Leave to File Their First Amended Complaint" (ECF No. 30) is DENIED. IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that Plaintiffs MAY FILE by January 20,2017, an amended complaint consistent with this Memorandum Opinion and Order to assert their equal protection claims as contained in their proposed amended complaint (ECF No. 30-1). So ORDERED and SIGNED this Jl!:.day of January 2017.
-15-

 
 Case 3:16-cv-00132-DCG Document 34 Filed 01/20/17 Page 1 of 22

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
EL PASO DIVISION

CARINA CANAAN and LEVI LANE,

Plaintiffs, v.

CITY OF EL PASO,

Defendant.

§ § § § Civil Action No. 16-cv-132 § § § JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT1

1. The City of El Paso (“Defendant”) intentionally and deceitfully denies poor El

Pasoans, including Carina Canaan and Levi Lane (“Plaintiffs”), fair notice of the issues to be

determined at their hearings for failure to pay and an opportunity to present a meaningful defense

prior to their incarcerations at those hearings. As a result, the Plaintiffs, and tens of thousands like

them, have been wrongly incarcerated for their inability to pay outstanding fines, costs, and/or

special expenses owed to Defendant (collectively, “Municipal Debt”). In 2015 alone, 34,000 poor El

Pasoans who could not pay their fines went to jail without receiving a fundamentally fair

opportunity to present a defense based on their indigency.

2. This case is not about municipal judges. It is about the city officials whose policies

and actions rob the poor of their personal freedom — their liberty — simply because they are poor.

3. In the manner detailed below, Defendant’s policymakers have unconstitutionally

adopted, maintained, and enforced policies and practices that require all individuals, including the

poorest, to pay 25% of all fines owed for low-level, Class C misdemeanors before they may qualify

for payment plans (the “25% Upfront Policy”) on their Municipal Debt. On its face, the 25%

Upfront Policy denies the substantial benefit of payment plans to those El Pasoans who cannot

afford to pay a quarter of their fines upfront due to their poverty.

1 Plaintiffs file this Amended Complaint without a motion for leave because the Court has already granted leave to do so. See Jan. 13, 2017, Order 15, ECF No. 33.
1

Case 3:16-cv-00132-DCG Document 34 Filed 01/20/17 Page 2 of 22
4. Moreover, in order to enforce the 25% Upfront Policy, Defendant repeatedly, deceitfully, and systematically misinforms poor El Pasoans that they can satisfy Municipal Debt in just three ways: pay their fines in full; pay 25% of their fines upfront to qualify for a payment plan; or be forced to sit out their fines in jail after arrest on outstanding warrants. Thus, Defendant intentionally and deceitfully misleads poor El Pasoans into believing that the issue of their ability to pay Municipal Debt is not relevant at their preincarceration hearings, despite the U.S. and Texas Constitutions’ longstanding prohibition against imprisoning poor debtors purely for their inability to pay. These Texans, who are without the benefit of counsel, traverse the municipal court system facing adversarial proceedings against Defendant — which is the prosecutorial entity, the party that benefits from the debt collection, and the entity with the power to set the policies and procedures for that collection — while Defendant is simultaneously misleading those same Texans into believing that their inability to pay is not a relevant issue at their hearings. Defendant thereby deceptively denies those Texans adequate notice that ability to pay is in fact the critical issue to be determined at their hearings if they are to avoid incarceration, thereby denying Municipal Debtors a meaningful opportunity to defend against their incarceration for failure to pay. Defendant further intentionally conceals alternative policies and procedures that those individuals could use to seek relief outside of a monetary payment to Defendant.
5. Thus, Defendant enforces its 25% Upfront Policy through a coercive campaign of misinformation that actively misinforms Municipal Debtors of the issues to be determined at their hearing upon their arrest. The 25% Upfront Policy thereby creates a chilling effect on poor debtors’ ability to prepare a proper defense prior to their incarceration for failure to pay.
6. The entirely forseeable result, of course, is that indigent defendants who owe Municipal Debt to the City of El Paso (“Municipal Debtors”) are forced to either come up with money they do not have or they are actively misled that their inabilty to pay is not a relevant issue at
2

Case 3:16-cv-00132-DCG Document 34 Filed 01/20/17 Page 3 of 22
their predetention hearings. Municipal Debtors therefore do not have a fair opportunity to assert a defense to their incarceration for failure to pay and end up being forced to sacrifice their liberty in order to pay off their Municipal Debt. This, unfortunately, is the intended result driving Defendant’s practice of misinforming poor criminal defendants — to create a climate of fear among Municipal Debtors wishing to avoid incarceration in order to coerce monetary payments out of Municipal Debtors, like Plaintiffs, notwithstanding the obvious risk that many indigent El Pasoans will be unlawfully deprived of their personal freedoms.
7. In sum, Defendant has, under the power granted to Defendant by Texas state law to create the policies and procedures for the collection and enforcement of Municipal Debt in the El Paso Municipal Courts, promulgated the facially unconstitutional 25% Upfront Policy, which denies the substantial benefit of payment plan options to those El Pasoans who cannot afford to pay 25% of their fines upfront solely based on their poverty.
8. Moreover, in order to enforce that 25% Upfront Policy, Defendant employs an intentional and deceitful campaign of misinformation designed to deprive Municipal Debtors of adequate notice of the issues to be determined at their preincarceration hearings and an opportunity to present a fair defense to those issues. The resulting chill on Municipal Debtors’ ability to prepare a defense against incarceration creates a predictable and systematic deprivation of any fundamentally fair opportunity to present a defense based on indigency prior to incarceration, which works — as intended — to coerce monetary payments on Class C misdemeanors from even the poorest members of society.
9. Further, Defendant intentionally conceals established policies and procedures, that are specific to the City of El Paso, for Municipal Debtors to seek options through the El Paso Municipal Courts that do not require monetary payment in order to satisfy Municipal Debt. Indeed, Defendant purposefully places numerous obstacles to obtaining that information, including
3

Case 3:16-cv-00132-DCG Document 34 Filed 01/20/17 Page 4 of 22
intentional and deceitful misrepresentations that the only options to satisfy Municipal Debt are found in the 25% Upfront Policy.
10. It is this system that violates Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights and forms the basis of this action. These due process violations are only exacerbated by the fact that the party actively misleading the Municipal Debtor is the adversarial party with a stake in the collection of monetary payments.
11. Defendant adopted this policy, and disregarded constitutionally required protections, in bad faith in order to fully maximize revenue, despite clear federal and state caselaw that such a policy violates Municipal Debtors’ rights. In 2015, Defendant procured almost $19 million in fines and court costs — one of its most substantial general revenue sources and a shocking amount in a county where nearly a quarter of the population lives in poverty.
12. Like nearly one-quarter of their fellow El Pasoans, Plaintiffs Carina Canaan and Levi Lane live in poverty. When Ms. Canaan and Mr. Lane were unable to pay traffic fines owed to Defendant, Defendant employed unconstitutional collections practices that intentionally misled Plaintiffs into believing that their ability to pay would not be a relevant issue at their judicial hearings by repeatedly, deceitfully, and systematically misinforming Plaintiffs’ that their only options in El Paso were to either pay in full, pay 25% upfront to qualify for a payment plan, or face incarceration in order to sit out the fines. In doing so, Defendant actively misled Plaintiffs to believe that they had just two options — monetary payment of their fines or jail.
13. Ms. Canaan was jailed twice due to her indigency, including while pregnant. She still owes outstanding Municipal Debt that she is unable to pay, and lives in fear of further incarceration. Mr. Lane spent twenty-three days in jail due to his indigency, losing his job. Ms. Canaan and Mr. Lane bring this action to challenge Defendant’s unconstitutional policies and practices in enforcing the collection of Municipal Debt through its active and intentional campaign of misinformation,
4

Case 3:16-cv-00132-DCG Document 34 Filed 01/20/17 Page 5 of 22
which is in violation of the Texas Constitution, longstanding U.S. Supreme Court case law, and other federal and state laws.
14. Community members, organizations, the media, and state lawmakers have put Defendant’s policymakers on notice that its policies and practices fail to give poor Municipal Debtors proper notice or the opportunity to avoid jail through a fundamentally fair opportunity to assert a defense based on indigency. Nonetheless, Defendant has continued to enforce these policies and procedures and will continue to do so, until and unless it receives a court order to the contrary. Therefore, there is no doubt that Defendant’s unlawful actions are intentionally and deliberately indifferent to the known violations of Municipal Debtors’ due process and equal protection rights. Defendant remains indifferent to these violations in order to coerce maximum monetary payments on outstanding Municipal Debt.
15. In summary, through its policies, practices, and improper training and supervision, Defendant is violating the Due Process and Equal Protection rights of Ms. Canaan, Mr. Lane, and thousands of other El Pasoans who are too poor to pay a significant portion of their Municipal Debt upfront, under the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution in conjuntion with the Civil Rights Act of 1871 (42 U.S.C. § 1983), and the Texas Constitution.
16. Plaintiffs bring this action to vindicate their constitutional rights. Ms. Canaan and Mr. Lane both seek a declaratory judgment that Defendant’s practices in enforcing and collecting Plaintiffs’ Municipal Debt violated their constitutional rights.
17. Ms. Canaan seeks an injunctive order preventing Defendant from engaging in this unlawful conduct in the future in order to ensure these violations cease in El Paso. Specifically, Ms. Canaan seeks an order requiring Defendant to implement constitutional policies and training to ensure that Defendant (1) ceases intentionally misleading poor Municipal Debtors into believing that they have no defense based on inability to pay, (2) ceases deceitfully misleading Municipal Debtors
5

Case 3:16-cv-00132-DCG Document 34 Filed 01/20/17 Page 6 of 22
as to the issues to be determined upon arrest for their outstanding warrants, (3) ceases enforcing its unconstitutional requirement that Municipal Debtors pay 25% upfront to qualify for a payment plan, and (4) ensures that Defendant publishes its policies and procedures for community service, payment plans, and indigency hearings in a manner reasonably calculated to inform the public of the procedures available to pursue them.
18. Mr. Lane seeks compensation for the past violations of his constitutional rights. JURISDICTION AND VENUE
19. The Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 because the action arises under the Constitution and laws of the United States. The Court additionally has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1343(a)(3) and (4) because this action seeks to redress the deprivation, under color of state law, of Plaintiffs’ civil rights and to recover damages and secure equitable or other relief for the violation of those rights.
20. The Court has supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ state law claims because they are so related to the federal claims within the Court’s original jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or controversy under Article III of the United States Constitution. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).
21. Venue is proper in this judicial district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1) because Defendant is located in this district, and under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2) because all of the events giving rise to Plaintiffs’ claims occurred in this district.
PARTIES 22. Plaintiff Carina Canaan is a married mother of two young children and resides in El Paso County, Texas. She has worked at a number of low-income jobs across El Paso, never earning more than $8.50 per hour. Ms. Canaan’s husband works temporary jobs when he is able to, but his employment is sporadic at best. As a result, their family lives near the federal poverty level. Ms.
6

Case 3:16-cv-00132-DCG Document 34 Filed 01/20/17 Page 7 of 22
Canaan dreams of becoming a nurse one day, as she is passionate about helping her fellow El Pasoans.
23. Plaintiff Levi Lane is a twenty-three year old man who lives in El Paso County, Texas. At the time of his incarceration, Mr. Lane had no savings, owed significant student loan debt, was working at a pet food distribution company earning $9 an hour, and assisted with the care of his brother, who had physical disabilities. He also lived at or near the federal poverty level.
24. Defendant City of El Paso, Texas is a municipality organized under the laws of the State of Texas.
25. Defendant is the prosecutor in the enforcement of Municipal Debt, the party standing to benefit from the collection of that unpaid Municipal Debt, and the governmental entity with the statutory power and duty to adopt rules, regulations, policies, and procedures concerning the enforcement and collection of that same Municipal Debt in the El Paso Municipal Courts. Pursuant to this power, Defendant’s City Council adopted and approved the 25% Upfront Policy, including its policy of actively misinforming Municipal Debtors of the issues to be determined if they are arrested on outstanding warrants for failure to pay, as well as concealing from Municipal Debtors the policies and procedures Defendant enacted, as required by State and federal law, to provide Municipal Debtors with options outside monetary payments on their Municipal Debt. Defendant recently considered the 25% Upfront Policy in detail and decided to neither repeal nor amend its policy. Defendant further relies upon the City Manager, who in turn is assisted by the City Clerk and/or Municipal Court Clerk (collectively the “Municipal Clerk”) and the Municipal Clerk’s staff, to promulgate and enforce these policies. The City Council has the power to direct and control the City Manager, as well as the power to hire and fire him. By law, it further gives the City Manager the power to direct and supervise the administration of all departments, offices, and agencies of the City of El Paso, including the Municipal Clerk and courts. Under this authority,
7

Case 3:16-cv-00132-DCG Document 34 Filed 01/20/17 Page 8 of 22
Defendant’s City Manager, with the help of the Municipal Clerk, promulgates the 25% Upfront Policy; and all of Defendant’s employees, including its court clerks, are acting and trained to act pursuant to the policy.
26. Defendant may be served with process by serving its mayor, clerk, secretary, or treasurer at 300 N. Campbell, El Paso, Texas 79901, or wherever they may be found. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(j)(2); Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 17.024(b). Defendant has appeared in this action and is represented by Counsel.
STATEMENT OF FACTS Defendant’s 25% Upfront Policy and How It Affects Poor El Pasoans
27. On April 6, 2006, Defendant instituted and promulgated its 25% Upfront Policy, thereby mandating that:
Municipal Court payment plans will carry the following schedule for payment, after completion of the required application:
25% of the fine is required upfront at the time the plan is requested[;] 50% is required on the 30th day of the payment plan[;] 75% is required on the 60th day of the payment plan[; and] 100% is required on the 90th day of the payment plan[.] 28. The effect of the 25% Upfront Policy, which is an official administrative directive, is twofold for El Paso’s poor. First, for those who are too poor to either pay their fines or qualify for a payment plan, Defendant brings to bear the breadth of its governmental power to actively misinform Municipal Debtors that they have no option but to meet the monetary demands of the 25% Policy or go to jail to sit out their fines, thereby actively misleading them to believe that their ability to pay is not a relevant issue at their preincarceration hearings, and as a result denying Municipal Debtors of a meaningful opportunity to present a defense on that issue prior to their incarceration. As a result, the 25% Upfront Policy creates a chilling effect on Municipal Debtors’ ability to prepare a proper defense prior to incarceration; instead, afraid of incarceration, indigent
8

Case 3:16-cv-00132-DCG Document 34 Filed 01/20/17 Page 9 of 22
debtors are coerced into paying fines that they cannot, in fact, afford. Second, the 25% Upfront Policy provides an illusory payment plan option for those Municipal Debtors too poor to pay 25% of their Municipal Debt upfront, thereby creating a disparate treatment of, and invidious discrimination against, poor El Pasoans by discriminating against them and creating two unequal classes, purely based on their poverty. The Debt Collection Process for Class C Misdemeanor Fines
29. The 25% Upfront Policy is an official policy and plays a prominent role throughout the Municipal Debt collections process. Defendant’s municipal clerk staff send official notices to Municipal Debtors that prominently display the policy and actively mislead Municipal Debtors that they must pay a minimum 25% of the debt, pay in full, or face jail. Moreover, TV screens in Defendant’s municipal courts display and reinforce this deliberate, false, and misleading message to all who enter.
30. Defendant ensures its misinformation campaign reaches Municipal Debtors before they come to the court. When a Municipal Debtor accrues a fine or fee based on a traffic ticket, Defendant’s Municipal Clerk issues a notice to the Municipal Debtor informing him or her to pay it or come to the court on a specific date. Defendant’s clerks include the amount of the fine due, along with a bold-faced notice stating that, “If a payment plan is needed, you must pay 25% of the amount due; otherwise payment in full is expected.”
31. Moreover, Defendant notifies those Municipal Debtors who do attempt to fill out an Application for Extension of Time for Payment of Fine, Court Costs, and Fees in capitalized bold font, that “25% INITIAL PAYMENT PER VIOLATION MUST BE PAID.”
32. If, prior to their appearance dates, Municipal Debtors call Defendant’s municipal clerk staff in order to inquire into their options for satisfying their Municipal Debt, Defendant’s municipal clerks and their staff have been trained to actively and intentionally mislead those
9

Case 3:16-cv-00132-DCG Document 34 Filed 01/20/17 Page 10 of 22
Municipal Debtors that the only options provided by the City of El Paso for a Municipal Debtor are to pay in full, pay a minimum of 25% upfront, or to sit out the fines in jail for failing to pay. In doing so, Defendant intentionally creates a chilling effect on Municipal Debtors’ opportunity to prepare a defense against incarceration based on their indigency. Defendant does so in the hopes of coercing maximum monetary payments on Municipal Debt.
33. Moreover, aside from a publicly prominent display of the requirements of the 25% Upfront Policy, Defendant has not published its policies and procedures for seeking options outside of the demands of the 25% Upfront Policy in any manner reasonably calculated to give Municipal Debtors notice of those procedures.
34. So, any Municipal Debtors who receive a notice from Defendant who cannot afford at least 25% of a fine are intentionally misled to believe that they can expect to go to jail if they appear at the Municipal Court. For Ms. Canaan and Mr. Lane, the amount due was significant — more than $1,000 was due upfront from each.
35. Unsurprisingly, many poor Municipal Debtors choose not to appear at their trials for fear of incarceration. For these Municipal Debtors, a warrant is issued for their arrest.
36. Each warrant notice issued by Defendant shows the total amount of all accumulated fines and fees, and informs the debtors — once again — that if they want to avoid arrest under the warrant, “it will be necessary for you to immediately post the required bond.” The notice further informs Municipal Debtors that if they would like to set their “delinquent citation” for a court hearing they “must” first “post the required bond.” It is clear from the warrant notification that the bond is equivalent to the outstanding Municipal Debt owed for the offense underlying the warrant.
37. In addition to the warrant, Defendant’s municipal court staff consistently publicizes the 25% Upfront Policy, thereby actively misleading Municipal Debtors into believing that they must pay their Municipal Debt in order to avoid arrest. Many indigent Municipal Debtors, therefore,
10

Case 3:16-cv-00132-DCG Document 34 Filed 01/20/17 Page 11 of 22
decide not to answer their warrant for fear of incarceration. As a result, between 2014 and 2015, Defendant’s clerks sent out over 64,000 post-trial notices.
38. Meanwhile, Defendant prominently displays its 25% Upfront Policy on a rotating loop on television screens throughout its courts, ensuring that all Municipal Debtors who do appear at the Municipal Court quickly see it.
39. If Defendant’s officers subsequently arrest a Municipal Debtor on an outstanding warrant, either for failure to appear at trial or failure to pay Municipal Debt, the arresting officer takes the Municipal Debtor to jail, where Defendant’s employees deprive her of her liberty for 24-48 hours before she even receives a chance to set foot in the municipal court. Municipal Debtors also receive an additional $64 to $97 in court costs and warrant fees added to their outstanding fines for each ticket.
40. Ultimately, poor debtors who are simply unable to meet Defendant’s coercive demands for monetary payment do exactly what Defendant actively misleads them to believe is their only option: they plead guilty to the charges against them, do not prepare or assert any defense, and are jailed for a period of time calculated at the rate of $100 per day for fines they could not pay in the first place.
41. Accordingly, Defendant’s 25% Upfront Policy disregards well-established Texas constitutional protections. Indeed, Defendant’s adopted policies and procedures for the collection of Municipal Debt in fact actively work to deny Municipal Debtors of knowledge of the issues to be determined at their hearings prior to their incarceration for failure to pay and to deny Municipal Debtors the ability to prepare a proper defense to that potential incarceraton. Thus, for those indigent, unrepresented individuals who are unable to pay their fines, the effect of the 25% Upfront Policy and improper training and supervision of its employees is to create a chilling effect on those Municipal Debtors’ ability to prepare a defense of their constitutional rights and to,
11

Case 3:16-cv-00132-DCG Document 34 Filed 01/20/17 Page 12 of 22
predictably, lead to many Municipal Debtors being unconstitutionally incarcerated as a matter of course. Defendant’s 25% Upfront Policy is the moving force behind Defendant’s unconstitutional practices. Failure to Reform, Despite Notice of Constitutional Concerns
42. Defendant’s policymakers are well aware that their 25% Upfront Policy, use of due process violations to coerce payment, and inadequate training and supervision, violate the rights of indigent El Pasoans. Nonetheless, Defendant has exhibited deliberate indifference to correcting these known constitutional failings by refusing to make any effort at real reform despite knowledge of the obvious risk that those Municipal Debtors who Defendant intentionally misleads into believing they have no defense to their incarceration will be incarcerated solely by reason of their indigency. Instead, after recent public uproar about its practices, Defendant doubled-down on its efforts to advertise the 25% Upfront Policy.
43. In 2015, news media exposed some of the constitutional failings in Defendant’s Municipal Debt collections process. Soon after, a number of community organizations jointly delivered a letter to each of Defendant’s City Council members further informing Defendant of these issues.
44. In early 2016, Defendant’s City Council directed its City Manager and Municipal Clerk to review El Paso’s Municipal Debts collection process. The Municipal Clerk presented a series of recommendations for reforming the collections process on January 19, 2016, which the City Council adopted that day. However, Defendant’s policymakers refused to repeal the unlawful 25% Upfront Policy or to improve training or supervision of Defendant’s personnel. Oddly, the recommendations focused on increasing Municipal Debtors’ knowledge of Defendant’s current unconstitutional policies and procedures.
12

Case 3:16-cv-00132-DCG Document 34 Filed 01/20/17 Page 13 of 22
45. After Defendant failed to adequately address its unconstitutional collections practices, state Senator José Rodríguez sent a letter to Defendant, voicing his concerns as a representative of the people of El Paso. Still, Defendant’s policymakers have refused to reform its 25% Upfront Policy, change its practice of actively and intentionally misleading Municipal Debtors about the issues that will be addressed at their hearings, or provide adequate training or supervision to its employees.
46. As illustrated by the facts set forth above, Defendant’s City Council, City Manager, and Municipal Clerk have actual notice that the 25% Upfront Policy, along with their practices and training, is unconstitutional. Accordingly, Defendant is well-aware that it does not have in place adequate procedures to assure that a Municipal Debtor receives a fundamentally fair determination of, and an opportunity to present a defense on, the issue to be determined prior to their incarceration – whether the Municipal Debtor is able to pay their Municipal Debt. Nonetheless, Defendant is also aware of the significant revenue collected through the coercive collection of outstanding traffic fines, and has thus agreed to continue enforcement of the 25% Upfront Policy. Injury to Ms. Canaan
47. Ms. Canaan is a married mother of two who dreams of becoming a nurse. However, despite her best efforts, Ms. Canaan has struggled to pursue that dream due to financial hardships and her immediate needs to provide for herself and her family. She has worked at a number of lowincome jobs across El Paso, never earning more than $8.50 per hour, and lives near the federal poverty level.
48. Among her financial hardships are more than forty traffic tickets from Defendant since 2007. Of those fines and fees, however, only five actually related to moving violations. The remaining thirty-five directly stemmed from Ms. Canaan’s indigency, such as fines for driving with
13

Case 3:16-cv-00132-DCG Document 34 Filed 01/20/17 Page 14 of 22
an expired license, inability to afford insurance, or inability to maintain her vehicle registration. In total, Defendant claimed that Ms. Canaan owed more than $10,000.
49. Defendant’s employees arrested Ms. Canaan on two occassions as a result of warrants issued after Ms. Canaan failed to appear to pay her fines. In 2011, Ms. Canaan was incarcerated for two days because she was unable to pay $5,416 in Class C misdemeanor fines. Two years later, in 2013, Ms. Canaan was again incarcerated for nineteen days because she was unable to pay $4,571.24 in Class C misdemeanor fines. At the time of her second detention, Ms. Canaan was pregnant with her first child.
50. Prior to both arrests and detentions, Defendant’s employees repeatedly, deceitfully, and intentionally misinformed Ms. Canaan that her only options were to pay her fines in full, pay 25% to qualify for a payment plan, or face going to jail to sit out her fines pursuant to outstanding warrants. Defendant’s employees thereby actively worked to create a chilling effect on Ms. Canaan’s knowledge of her right to a defense against incarceration based on indigency, and her corresponding ability to prepare and assert that defense, by intentionally misleading her into believing that her indigency was not a relevant issue before the sentencing court. Defendant further intentionally misled Ms. Canaan as to the policies and procedures available in the El Paso Municipal Court for seeking options to satisfy Municipal Debt that do not require monetary payment. Defendants employees were acting pursuant to the 25% Upfront Policy and/or Defendant’s failure to adequately train its staff. Ms. Canaan did not have the professional legal skill to protect herself against the misinformation dissementated by Defendant’s municipal court staff and, because of her indigency, Ms. Canaan could not afford counsel to protect her rights. Instead, Defendant deceitfully and fraudulently concealed the issues to be determined at the hearing prior to Ms. Canaan’s incarceration. Defendant did so in a bad faith effort to harass Ms. Canaan into making monetary payment on her Municipal Debt.
14

Case 3:16-cv-00132-DCG Document 34 Filed 01/20/17 Page 15 of 22
51. As a result, at the hearing after her arrest, Ms. Canaan did the only thing Defendant intentionally misled her into believing that she could: she prepared no defense of indigency against incarceration and she simply pled guilty to each charge and went to jail.
52. Defendant caused Ms. Canaan to suffer psychological damage, humiliation, mental anguish, lost wages, and emotional injury as a result of this denial of due process and equal protection rights.
53. Ms. Canaan still has three outstanding warrants — all directly related to her indigency — for inability to pay traffic tickets. Defendant issued these tickets to Ms. Canaan years after her prior arrests and detention. Despite her best efforts, Ms. Canaan remains unable to pay her outstanding fines and cannot qualify for the 25% Upfront Policy. Because of this, she cannot keep her vehicle registration or license plates up to date and drives with an expired liscense, all of which present imminent cause for Defendant’s police officers to pull her over. Still, she must continue to drive to make money, buy groceries, take her children to the doctor, and generally support her family. Ms. Canaan therefore faces a real and immediate threat that Defendant will stop, arrest, and subject her to its unconstitutional debt collections practices. Injury to Mr. Lane
54. In or about late April of 2014, Mr. Lane had no savings. He had been working fulltime for approximately four months at a pet food distribution company earning $9 an hour, and lived in an apartment with his brother, who had physical disabilities. Mr. Lane tried to assist his brother as best he could, even though Mr. Lane was living at or near the federal poverty level and from paycheck to paycheck.
55. Among other expenses, Mr. Lane was trying to pay off a student loan burden of more than $20,000. He had incurred his student loans while completing an associates degree.
15

Case 3:16-cv-00132-DCG Document 34 Filed 01/20/17 Page 16 of 22
Despite having completed all the relevant course work, Mr. Lane never received his diploma because he was financially unable to make his final tuition payments.
56. Mr. Lane also faced the burden of seventeen traffic tickets. Of the seventeen outstanding tickets, however, only three were related to moving violations. The remaining fourteen directly stemmed from Mr. Lane’s indigency, largely related to a financial inability to maintain vehicle registration and insurance. In total, Defendant claimed Mr. Lane owed more than $4,300.
57. In 2014, Defendant’s employees arrested Mr. Lane on warrants issued as a result of his inability to pay his fines. Mr. Lane subsequently spent twenty-four days in jail merely because of his inability to pay those fines, causing him to lose his job and causing emotional distress.
58. Prior to his arrest, Mr. Lane had called Defendant’s municipal court clerks on several occasions to inquire into his options to resolve his debt. However, acting pursuant to the 25% Upfront Policy and/or Defendant’s failure to adequately train its staff, Defendant’s employees repeatedly, deceitfully, and intentionally misinformed Mr. Lane that his only options were to pay his fines in full, pay 25% to qualify for a payment plan, or face going to jail to sit out his fines pursuant to the outstanding warrants. In fact, Defendant’s employees on at least one occasion told Mr. Lane that Defendant no longer provided payment plans at all. Defendant thereby actively worked to create a chilling effect on Mr. Lane’s knowledge of his right to a defense against incarceration based on indigency, and his corresponding ability to prepare and assert that defense, by intentionally misleading him into believing that his indigency was not a relevant issue before the sentencing court. Defendant’s employees further actively and intentionally misled Mr. Lane as to the policies and procedures available in the El Paso Municipal Court for seeking options to satisfy Municipal Debt that do not require monetary payment. Mr. Lane did not have the professional legal skill to protect himself against the misinformation dissemintated by Defendant’s municipal court staff and, because of his indigency, Mr. Lane could not afford counsel to protect his rights. Instead, Defendant
16

Case 3:16-cv-00132-DCG Document 34 Filed 01/20/17 Page 17 of 22
deceitfully and fraudulently concealed the issues to be determined at the hearing prior to Mr. Lane’s incarceration. Defendant did so in a bad faith effort to harass Mr. Lane into making monetary payment on his Municipal Debt.
59. As a result, at the hearing after his arrest, Mr. Lane did the only thing Defendant intentionally misled him into believing that he could: he prepared no defense of indigency against incarceration and he simply pled guilty to each charge and went to jail.
60. As a result, Defendant caused Mr. Lane to lose his job. Defendant also caused Mr. Lane to suffer psychological damage, humiliation, mental anguish, lost wages, and emotional injury as a result of the denial of his due process and equal protection rights.
61. There are currently no ongoing state judicial proceedings against Mr. Lane. CAUSES OF ACTION
I. Violations of the Right to Due Process Under the Texas Constitution
62. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations in paragraphs 1-61 above. 63. Under the Texas Due Course of Law Clause, the principle of due process requires fundamental fairness by the City in all of its dealings with those accused of crimes. Accordingly, a governmental entity like the City of El Paso is required to provide both notice and opportunity for a fundamentally fair determination of a debtors’ ability to pay prior to depriving individuals of their liberty for failure to pay fine-only Class C misdemeanors. Through its 25% Upfront Policy and/or failure to properly train its employees, Defendant deprived Plaintiffs of this due process by intentionally misleading Plaintiffs as to the issues to be resolved at the adversarial proceeding prior to their incarceration. In doing so, Defendant deceitfully, intentionally, and fraudulently misled Plaintiffs as to the issues at stake in the proceedings in a deliberate attempt to coerce them into payment for fear of seemingly inevitable incarceration. Defendant further intentionally concealed from Plaintiffs the policies and procedures available in El Paso to satisfy Municipal Debt without
17

Case 3:16-cv-00132-DCG Document 34 Filed 01/20/17 Page 18 of 22
monetary payments. Thus, Plaintiffs, who were indigent defendants unrepresented by counsel, were forced to traverse the municipal court system in the face of a campaign of intentionally misleading information from a municipal court staff that is one and the same with the prosecution and the party that stands to benefit from the collection of monetary payments on fines. This policy not only denied Plaintiffs’ of proper notice and opportunity to present a defense prior to their incarceration, but actually deliberately misled them regarding their right to a defense based on indigency and ability to prepare and assert that defense, all in violation of the Due Course of Law Clause of the Texas Constitution.
64. Defendant, through its policymakers, knew or should have known, and was and continues to be deliberately indifferent to, the obvious fact that some indigent Municipal Debtors, like Plaintiffs, would be denied fair notice of the issues to be determined at their pre-incarceration hearings, would not prepare or present a defense based on their inability to pay, and would therefore be unconstitutionally incarcerated solely because they were indigent. Nonetheless, Defendant pursued this intentional campaign of misinformation pursuant to, and in order to enforce, its 25% Upfront Policy. Accordingly, the 25% Upfront Policy and/or failure to adequately train and supervise its employees are the moving forces behind these violations.
III. Violations of the Right to Equal Protection Under the Federal Constitution, in conjunction with 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and the Texas
Equality of Rights Provision of the Texas Constitution 65. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations in paragraphs 1-61 above. 66. Defendant intentionally creates two separate and unequal classes with its 25% Upfront Policy and inadequate training and supervision. The first class includes individuals who can afford to pay 25% or more of their outstanding fines upfront, and who therefore benefit from the option of a payment plan to satisfy Municipal Debt. At the same time, Defendant offers an illusory option of payment plans to indigent people like Ms. Canaan and Mr. Lane who are unable to pay
18

Case 3:16-cv-00132-DCG Document 34 Filed 01/20/17 Page 19 of 22
25% of their Municipal Debt in order to qualify. Defendant, through its 25% Upfront Policy, therefore creates a disparate impact on, and invidious discrimination against, poor El Pasoans who are effectively excluded from equal access to payment plan options solely based on their economic status. The Equal Protection Clause prohibits the unequal treatment of people based upon their inability to pay fines because they are indigent. Defendant’s 25% Upfront Policy and/or failure to adequately train and supervise its employees are the moving forces behind these violations.
67. Defendant further violated Plaintiffs’ rights under the Equal Protection Clause because it used unduly harsh and discriminatory debt collection schemes against Plaintiffs. Defendant’s 25% Upfront Policy and/or failure to adequately train and supervise its employees are the moving forces behind these violations.
68. Defendant’s policymakers are or should be aware of the risk that its 25% Upfront Policy discriminated against poor debtors based on economic status and would result in an incarceration-for-credit scheme that was unduly harsh—and indeed unconstitutional—for indigent debtors. Nonetheless, Defendant has refused to change or otherwise address these policies even though it has no good reason to maintain them. In doing so, Defendant has been deliberately indifferent to its unduly harsh debt collection scheme and to the injuries it has caused to Plaintiffs.
REQUEST FOR RELIEF Declaratory and Injunctive Relief 69. Plaintiffs seek declaratory relief because Defendant violated their rights under the federal and state constitutions, as described above. 70. Defendant continues to maintain its illegal policies, practices, procedures, and inadequate training and supervision. Defendant further continues to enforce these unconstitutional policies, practices, and procedures against the same class of indigent Municipal Debtors, and in the same manner, as Defendant did against Plaintiffs. As a result, Ms. Canaan, who has outstanding
19

Case 3:16-cv-00132-DCG Document 34 Filed 01/20/17 Page 20 of 22
warrants for her arrest on failure-to-pay grounds, and who continues to be financially unable to pay those fines, continues to face a real and immediate risk of further deprivations of her federal and state constitutional rights.
71. Ms. Canaan therefore seeks an injunction preventing Defendant from engaging in this unlawful conduct in the future and, in order to ensure these violations cease in El Paso, an order requiring Defendant to implement constitutional policies and training to ensure that Defendant (1) ceases intentionally misleading poor Municipal Debtors into believing that they have no defense based on inability to pay, (2) ceases deceitfully misleading Municipal Debtors as to the issues to be determined upon arrest for their outstanding warrants, (3) ceases enforcing its unconstitutional requirement that Municipal Debtors pay 25% upfront to qualify for a payment plan, and (4) ensures that Defendant publishes its policies and procedures for community service, payment plans, and indigency hearings, in a manner reasonably calculated to give notice of those procedures.
72. Both Mr. Lane and Ms. Canaan further seek a declaratory judgment declaring the 25% Upfront Policy, as well as the other rules, practices, and procedures that result in the taking of Municipal Debtors’ liberty, as described above, invalid under long-standing federal and state law.
Damages 73. The actions of Defendant caused Mr. Lane to suffer damages, including unnecessarily spending numerous days in jail and losing his job, and considerable emotional distress and mental anguish. 74. Mr. Lane therefore seeks compensatory and exemplary damages for Defendant’s violations of his constitutional civil rights by refusing Mr. Lane equal opportunity to enjoy the benefits of a payment plan merely because of his economic status.
20

Case 3:16-cv-00132-DCG Document 34 Filed 01/20/17 Page 21 of 22
Attorneys’ Fees
75. As a result of Defendant’s conduct, Plaintiffs had to retain counsel to protect their
rights. Plaintiffs will also continue to expend reasonable costs and fees. Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §
1988, Plaintiffs ask that the Court award them reasonable attorneys’ fees, costs, and expenses.
JURY DEMAND
76. Plaintiffs respectfully demand a jury trial on their individual damages claims and all
other matters which may be tried to a jury.
PRAYER
77. Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court grant the following relief:
a. Enter a judgment declaring that Defendant’s policies, practices, training, supervision, acts, and omissions in its Municipal Debt collections efforts, as described herein, are unlawful and violated Plaintiffs’ rights under the Constitution and laws of the United States and the State of Texas;
b. Permanently enjoin Defendants, their subordinates, agents, employees, successors, and all others acting in concert with them, from subjecting Plaintiffs and other similarly situated Municipal Debtors to the unconstitutional and unlawful practices described above, including its policies, training, and supervision;
c. Award compensatory and exemplary damages to Mr. Lane for psychological damage, humiliation, mental anguish, lost wages, and emotional distress, suffered as a result of Defendant’s unconstitutional policies, practices, and acts;
d. Grant Plaintiffs their reasonable attorneys’ fees, expenses, and costs pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988; and
e. Issue such other relief, legal and equitable, general and specific, to which Plaintiffs are justly entitled.
Dated: January 20, 2017.
Respectfully submitted,
By: /s/ William B. Jacobi William B. Jacobi State Bar No. 24085395 Mimi Marziani State Bar No. 24091906
21

Case 3:16-cv-00132-DCG Document 34 Filed 01/20/17 Page 22 of 22
TEXAS CIVIL RIGHTS PROJECT 1317 E. Rio Grande El Paso, TX 79902 (915) 532-3799 [phone] (915) 532-8892 [fax]
Enrique Moreno State Bar No. 14430500
THE LAW OFFICES OF ENRIQUE MORENO 701 Magoffin Ave. El Paso, TX 79901
(915) 533-9977 [phone] (915) 533-0033 [fax]
Lynn Coyle State Bar No. 24050049 Christopher Benoit State Bar No. 24068653
THE LAW OFFICES OF LYNN COYLE, P.L.L.C. 2515 N. Stanton El Paso, TX 79902
(915) 532-5544 [phone] (915) 532-5566 [fax]
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on January 20, 2017, a true copy of this document was electronically filed with the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF filing system, which will send notification of the filing to Defendant’s attorney of record in this case, William M. McKamie, McKamie Krueger, LLP, 941 Proton Road, San Antonio, TX 78258.
/s/ William B. Jacobi___________ William B. Jacobi
22

 
 Case 3:16-cv-00132-DCG Document 41 Filed 04/25/17 Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS EL PASO DIVISION

CARINA CANAAN and LEVI LANE,
Plaintiffs,
v.
CITY OF EL PASO,
Defendant.

§ § § § EP-16-CV-00132-DCG § § § § § §

ORDER

Presently before the Court is Defendant City ofEl Paso's ("Defendant") "Rule 12(B)

Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint" (ECF No. 35) ("Motion") filed on

February 3, 2017. Plaintiffs Carina Canaan ("Canaan") and Levi Lane's ("Lane") (collectively

"Plaintiffs") filed a "Response to Defendant's Rule 12(b) Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs First

Amended Complaint" (ECF No. 36) ("Response") on February 17, and Defendant followed by

filing a "Reply To Plaintiffs' Response To Defendant's Rule 12(B) Motion To Dismiss

Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint" (ECF No. 37) on February 24,2017. The Court has

carefully considered the parties' briefs and arguments therein. Having done so, the Court is of

the view that Defendant's Motion should be DENIED.

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Defendant City ofEl Paso's ("Defendant") "Rule

12(B) Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint" (ECF No. 35) is DENIED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Defendant's answer to the Plaintiffs' "First Amended Complaint" (ECF No. 34) is due within 14 days after the entry of this Order. 1

1 Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(a)(4) ("Unless the court sets a different time, serving a motion under this rule alters these periods as follows: ... if the court denies the motion ... , the responsive pleading must be served within 14 days after notice of the court's action.").

Case 3:16-cv-00132-DCG Document 41 Filed 04/25/17 Page 2 of 2
So ORDERED and SIGNED this 27-aay of April2017.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
-2-

 
 Case 3:16-cv-00132-DCG Document 59 Filed 12/11/17 Page 1 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS EL PASO DIVISION

CARINA CANAAN and LEVI LANE,

§

§

Plaintiffs,

§

v.

§

§

CITY OF EL PASO,

§

§

Defendant.

§

EP-16-CV-00132-DCG

ORDER

Pending before the Court are four motions: (a) two discovery motions, namely,

Defendant City of El Paso's ("Defendant") "Motion for Protective Order" (ECF No. 54), filed on

November 27, 2017, and Plaintiffs Carina Canaan and Levi Lane's (collectively "Plaintiffs")

"Opposed Motion to Compel and Opposed Motion for Leave to File Out-of-Time Discovery

Motion" (ECF No. 58) (hereinafter "Motion to Compel"), filed on December 6, 2017; (b)

Defendant's "No Evidence and Traditional Motion for Summary Judgment" (ECF No. 57)

(hereinafter "Motion for Summary Judgment"), filed on December 4, 2017; and (c) Plaintiffs'

"Opposed Motion to Modify by Continuance of All Dates, Including Trial" (ECF No. 56)

(hereinafter "Motion to Continue Trial") filed on December 4, 2017.

The Court issued a Scheduling Order (ECF No. 21) on November 16, 2016. Later, on

May 24, 2017, at the parties' request, the Court issued an Amended Scheduling Order (ECF No.

46), wherein the Court vacated certain deadlines in the initial Scheduling Order (items numbered

7 through 15), including the trial setting, and in lieu thereof, set new deadlines. According to the Amended Scheduling Order, this case is currently set for a jury trial on March 19, 2018; further,

that Order set forth the following relevant deadlines:

• discovery: October 9, 20 17;

Case 3:16-cv-00132-DCG Document 59 Filed 12/11/17 Page 2 of 3
• motions to continue trial date: October 9, 2017; • discovery-related motions: October 23, 2017; and • dispositive motions: November 20, 2017. The initial Scheduling Order remained in force in all other respects, including the instructions set forth therein. Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgement and Plaintiffs' Motion to Continue Trial were filed after the above-mentioned deadlines. Plaintiffs indicate that the parties agreed to continue the deadline for dispositive motions from November 20, 2017, to December 4, 2017, and the deadline for motions to continue trial from October 9, 2017, to December 4, 2017. Mot. to Continue Trial~ 7, ECF No. 56. The initial Scheduling Order however states: Only changes to the items numbered 8, 9, 11, 14, and 15 require leave of Court and will be considered following an appropriate motion; however, the parties are required to file notice with the Court indicating the deadlines of any mutually agreed changes to the items numbered below. A change in any deadline contained herein will not extend any other deadlines unless those deadlines are specifically extended by order of the Court. Scheduling Order at 1 (boldface in original), ECF No. 21. In that Order, the items numbered as 8 and 11 were the deadlines for motions to continue trial and for dispositive motions, respectively. Therefore, the parties were required to seek leave of Court to alter these deadlines as amended in the Amended Scheduling Order. This the parties failed to do. Consequently, Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgement and Plaintiffs' Motion to Continue Trial are untimely. The Court denies these motions. Likewise, the parties' discovery motions are untimely; the item numbered 9 in the initial Scheduling Order is the deadline for discovery-related motions, the modification of which also required leave of Court. The parties agreed, without seeking leave of Court, to continue that deadline to November 27, 2017. Moreover, they agreed to continue the discovery deadline to
-2-

Case 3:16-cv-00132-DCG Document 59 Filed 12/11/17 Page 3 of 3
October 3 1, 2017. Mot. to Continue Trial~ 7. Altho ugh the parties need not seek leave of Co urt to continue discovery by agreement, " there wi ll be no intervention by the Court except in extraordinary circumstances, and no trial settin g w ill be vacated because of information obtained in post-deadline discovery." Am. Scheduling Order at I, ECF No. 46. Find ing no extraordinary circumstances, the Court also denies the discovery mo tio ns.
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Defendant C ity ofE I Paso's "Motion for Pro tective Order" (ECF No. 54) and "No Evidence and Traditional Motion for Summary Judgment" (ECF No. 57) are DENIED.
IT IS MOREOVER ORDERED that Plainti ffs Carina Canaan and Levi Lane ' s '·Opposed Motion to Modify by Continuance of All Dates, Including T rial" (ECF No. 56) and " Opposed Motion to Compel and Opposed Motion for Leave to Fil e Out-of-Time Discovery Motion" (ECF No. 58) are DENIED.
. rrh
So ORDERED and SIGNED thas __LL day of December 2017.
C. GU DERRAMA UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
-3-

 
 Case 3:16-cv-00132-DCG Document 75 Filed 05/23/18 Page 1 of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS EL PASO DIVISION

CARINA CANAAN and LEVI LANE, Plaintiffs,
v.
CITY OF EL PASO, Defendant.

§ § § § § EP-16-CV-132-DCG § § § §

JOINT STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL OF ALL CLAIMS
TO THE HONORABLE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE: NOW COMES Plaintiffs Carina Canaan and Levi Lane and Defendant City ofEl
Paso file this stipulation agreeing to the Dismissal of this case with prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(l)(A)(ii). This stipulation is filed in conjunction with an executed settlement agreement reached by the parties, which is attached. The parties agree to bear their own costs and fees.
1. This case is not a class action, and a receiver has not been appointed. 2. This action is not governed by any statute of the United States that requires an
order of the court for dismissal of this cause.

Case 3:16-cv-00132-DCG Document 75 Filed 05/23/18 Page 2 of 3
3. Neither Plaintiff has dismissed an action based on or including the same claim or claims as those presented in this suit.
DATED May 22,2018
Respectfully submitted,
NATALIA M. CORNELIO Illinois State Bar No. 6289267 Western District, Admitted TEXAS CIVIL RIGHTS PROJECT 405 N. Main Street Houston, Texas 77003 natalia@texascivilrigbtsproject.org Phone: 832-767-3560 ext. 160
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS
~:tJ:!ze&~
McKAMIE KRUEGER, LLP 401 E. Sonterra Blvd., Suite 375 San Antonio, Texas 78258 Phone: 210.546.2122 mick@mckamiekrueger.com ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT

Case 3:16-cv-00132-DCG Document 75 Filed 05/23/18 Page 3 of 3
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE All parties of records are electronically notified of this filing via CMECF.
/s/ Natalia M. Cornelio NATALIA M CORNELIO

 
 Electronic Privacy Information Center v. Presidential Advisory..., 878 F.3d 371 (2017)

878 F.3d 371 United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia
Circuit.
ELECTRONIC PRIVACY INFORMATION CENTER, Appellant v.
PRESIDENTIAL ADVISORY COMMISSION ON ELECTION INTEGRITY, et al., Appellees
No. 17-5171 |
Argued November 21, 2017 |
Decided December 26, 2017
Synopsis Background: Public-interest organization brought action against Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity, the Commission’s Vice Chair, and other entities and officials, alleging violations of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). The United States District Court for the District of Columbia, No. 1:17-cv-01320, Colleen Kollar–Kotelly, J., 2017 WL 3141907, denied organization’s request for preliminary injunction to prohibit the defendants from collecting voter data unless and until they completed a privacy impact assessment as allegedly required by the E-Government Act. Organization appealed.
Holdings: The Court of Appeals, Karen LeCraft Henderson, Circuit Judge, held that:
organization did not suffer an informational injury that would support its claim to have Article III standing to seek preliminary injunction;
organization did not suffer an organizational injury that would support its claim to have Article III standing to seek preliminary injunction; and
even if organization had suffered informational or organizational injury, it would not be redressed by preliminary injunction ordering Commission to stop collecting personal voter data.
Affirmed.
1

Williams, Senior Circuit Judge, filed opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment.
Procedural Posture(s): Interlocutory Appeal; Motion for Preliminary Injunction.
*374 Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, (No. 1:17-cv-01320)
Attorneys and Law Firms
Marc Rotenberg, Washington, DC, argued the cause for the appellant. Alan Butler was with him on brief.
Daniel Tenny, Attorney, United States Department of Justice, argued the cause for the appellees. Mark B. Stern, Attorney, was with him on brief. Elizabeth J. Shapiro, Attorney, entered an appearance.
Lawrence J. Joseph was on brief for the amicus curiae Eagle Forum Education & Legal Defense Fund in support of the appellees.
Before: Henderson, Circuit Judge, and Williams and Ginsburg, Senior Circuit Judges.
Opinion
Opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment filed by Senior Circuit Judge Williams.
Karen Lecraft Henderson, Circuit Judge:
By executive order issued in May 2017, the President established the Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity (Commission). Exec. Order No. 13799, 82 Fed. Reg. 22389 (May 11, 2017). The Commission is a temporary and “solely advisory” body charged with studying the integrity of federal elections. Id. § 3. In keeping with that objective but lacking any authority to demand information, the Commission “requested” that each state and the District of Columbia provide the Commission with certain “publicly-available voter roll data.” Joint Appendix (JA) 51.
The Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC)—a nonprofit organization whose stated mission is “to focus public attention on emerging privacy and civil liberties issues”—sued the Commission and other entities and

Electronic Privacy Information Center v. Presidential Advisory..., 878 F.3d 371 (2017)

officials, claiming violations of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. § 706. Pl.’s Second Am. Compl. (Compl.), Dkt. No. 33 at 2, 12-13.1 EPIC sought a preliminary injunction to prohibit the defendants from collecting voter data unless and until they complete a privacy impact assessment as allegedly required by the E-Government Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107-347, § 208(b), 116 Stat. 2899, 2921-22 (Dec. 17, 2002). The district court denied preliminary injunctive relief. EPIC v. Presidential Advisory Comm’n on Election Integrity, 266 F.Supp.3d 297, 2017 WL 3141907 (D.D.C. July 24, 2017). The court concluded (inter alia) that EPIC has standing, id. at *6-*10, 266 F.Supp.3d at 308–15, but is unlikely to succeed on the merits because under the APA neither the Commission nor any other defendant constitutes an “agency” that the court can enjoin to produce an assessment, id. at *11-*13, 266 F.Supp.3d at 315–19.
*375 On an interlocutory basis, EPIC appeals the denial of a preliminary injunction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1). We agree with the district court that EPIC is unlikely to succeed on its APA claims. But we reach that conclusion for a different reason from the one the district court identified. See Parsi v. Daioleslam, 778 F.3d 116, 126 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (“Ordinarily, a court of appeals can affirm a district court judgment on any basis supported by the record, even if different from the grounds the district court cited.”). Specifically, we uphold the denial of a preliminary injunction because EPIC has not shown a substantial likelihood of standing. See Food & Water Watch, Inc. v. Vilsack, 808 F.3d 905, 913 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (“A party who fails to show a ‘substantial likelihood’ of standing is not entitled to a preliminary injunction.” (quoting Obama v. Klayman, 800 F.3d 559, 568 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (opinion of Williams, J.))).2
I. BACKGROUND
In 2002, the Congress passed the E-Government Act to streamline government use of information technology “in a manner consistent with laws regarding protection of personal privacy, national security, records retention, access for persons with disabilities, and other relevant laws.” E-Government Act § 2(b)(11). Section 208 of the Act, entitled “Privacy Provisions,” states that “[t]he purpose of this section is to ensure sufficient protections for the privacy of personal information as agencies implement citizen-centered electronic Government.” Id. §
2

208(a). To promote that purpose, section 208 requires an “agency” to conduct, review and, “if practicable,” publish a privacy impact assessment before it collects “information in an identifiable form permitting the physical or online contacting of a specific individual, if identical questions have been posed to, or identical reporting requirements imposed on, 10 or more persons.” Id. § 208(b)(1). A party with standing can make a claim under that provision for relief under the APA’s direction to courts to “compel agency action unlawfully withheld,” 5 U.S.C. § 706(1), and to “set aside agency action ... not in accordance with law,” id. § 706(2)(A).
In May 2017, the President established the Commission as a “solely advisory” body. Exec. Order No. 13799, § 3. He charged it with studying and submitting a report about the “integrity of” and “vulnerabilities in” the voting systems and procedures used in federal elections. Id. Thirty days after the Commission submits its report, it will cease to exist. Id. § 6.
In June 2017, Kris Kobach—Secretary of State of Kansas and Vice Chair of the Commission—wrote a letter to the chief election officer of each state and the District of Columbia. Each letter “request[ed]” that the addressee
provide to the Commission the publicly-available voter roll data for [your state], including, if publicly available under the laws of your state, the full first and last names of all registrants, middle names or initials if available, addresses, dates of birth, political party (if recorded in your state), last four digits of social security *376 number if available, voter history (elections voted in) from 2006 onward, active/inactive status, cancelled status, information regarding any felony convictions, information regarding voter registration in another state, information regarding military status, and overseas citizen information.
JA 61-62. Each letter stated that “any documents” a state submits to the Commission “will also be made available to the public,” JA 62, but Kobach clarified in district court that “the Commission intends to de-identify” any voter

Electronic Privacy Information Center v. Presidential Advisory..., 878 F.3d 371 (2017)

data it receives so that “the voter rolls themselves will not be released to the public,” JA 52. As far as the record shows, only Arkansas has submitted any data and it “has been deleted without ever having been accessed by the Commission.” JA 235.
EPIC filed its complaint in July 2017, naming as defendants the Commission, Kobach and other entities and officials.3 As relevant here, the complaint raised two related claims. Count One alleged “unlawful agency action,” i.e., that the defendants “initiate[d] collection of voter data” without first “creating, reviewing, and publishing a privacy impact assessment” under the E-Government Act. Compl. 12 (capitalization altered). Count Two alleged “agency action unlawfully withheld,” i.e., that the defendants “have failed to create, review, and/or publish a privacy impact assessment for [their] collection of voter data, as required by” the E-Government Act. Id. at 12-13 (capitalization altered). EPIC asked the district court to remedy the alleged violations by (inter alia) “halt[ing] collection of personal voter data” and ordering the defendants “to promptly conduct a privacy impact assessment prior to the collection of personal voter data.” Id. at 15.
EPIC later moved for a preliminary injunction. It asked the district court to prohibit the defendants “from collecting state voter data prior to the completion of a privacy impact assessment.” Mem. in Support, Dkt. No. 35-1 at 41. The court denied the motion. EPIC, 266 F.Supp.3d at 319–20, 2017 WL 3141907, at *14. Based on the available evidence, the court held (inter alia) that EPIC has standing, id. at 308–15, 2017 WL 3141907 at *6-*10, but that the Commission lacks “ ‘substantial independent authority’ ” and so is not “an ‘agency’ for purposes of the APA,” id. at 315, 2017 WL 3141907 at *11 (quoting Citizens for Responsibility & Ethics in Washington v. Office of Admin., 566 F.3d 219, 222 (D.C. Cir. 2009)). The court was also unpersuaded that any other defendant likely to be involved in collecting voter data is an agency under the APA. Id. at 316–19, 2017 WL 3141907 at *12-*13. Accordingly, the court concluded, EPIC “has not demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits.” Id. at 319, 2017 WL 3141907 at *13.
II. ANALYSIS
“The judicial Power” of the federal courts extends only to “Cases” and “Controversies,” U.S. CONST. art. III, § 2,
3

cl. 1, “and there is no justiciable case or controversy unless the plaintiff has standing,” West v. Lynch, 845 F.3d 1228, 1230 (D.C. Cir. 2017) (citing Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env’t, 523 U.S. 83, 102, 118 S.Ct. 1003, 140 L.Ed.2d 210 (1998)). To establish standing, the plaintiff *377 must show (1) it has suffered a “concrete and particularized” injury (2) that is “fairly traceable to the challenged action of the defendant” and (3) that is “likely” to be “redressed by a favorable decision,” i.e., a decision granting the plaintiff the relief it seeks. Id. (quoting Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560-61, 112 S.Ct. 2130, 119 L.Ed.2d 351 (1992)).
The plaintiff bears the burden of establishing all three elements of standing. Lujan, 504 U.S. at 561, 112 S.Ct. 2130. The “manner and degree of evidence required” depends on the “stage[ ] of the litigation.” Id. In the context of a preliminary injunction motion, we require the plaintiff to “show a ‘substantial likelihood’ of standing” “under the heightened standard for evaluating a motion for summary judgment.” Food & Water Watch, 808 F.3d at 912-13 (quoting Klayman, 800 F.3d at 568 (opinion of Williams, J.)); see Nat’l Wildlife Fed’n v. Burford, 835 F.2d 305, 328 (D.C. Cir. 1987) (Williams, J., concurring and dissenting). Thus, the plaintiff cannot “rest on ... mere allegations, but must set forth by affidavit or other evidence specific facts” that, if “taken to be true,” demonstrate a substantial likelihood of standing. Lujan, 504 U.S. at 561, 112 S.Ct. 2130 (internal quotation omitted).
“Because ‘standing is not dispensed in gross’ but instead may differ claim by claim,” “we address seriatim” EPIC’s likelihood of standing on each of its two APA claims. West, 845 F.3d at 1235 (quoting Davis v. FEC, 554 U.S. 724, 734, 128 S.Ct. 2759, 171 L.Ed.2d 737 (2008)). We conclude that EPIC has not made the requisite showing on either claim.4 To simplify the analysis, we start with Count Two.
A. FAILURE TO PRODUCE PRIVACY IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Count Two alleges “agency action unlawfully withheld,” namely, the defendants’ failure to produce a privacy impact assessment under the E-Government Act. Compl. 12-13 (capitalization altered). EPIC asserts that this inaction causes it two types of injury: (1) “informational injury” through the lack of an assessment to which the

Electronic Privacy Information Center v. Presidential Advisory..., 878 F.3d 371 (2017)

law allegedly entitles it, Appellant’s Reply Br. 4; and (2) “[o]rganizational ... injury” in that the inaction conflicts with EPIC’s mission “to focus public attention on emerging privacy and civil liberties issues,” id. at 5 (internal quotation omitted).5 As relief for the inaction, EPIC asks that the defendants be ordered “to promptly conduct a privacy impact assessment prior to the collection of personal voter data.” Compl. 15. We conclude that EPIC lacks standing to obtain such relief because it has suffered no cognizable informational or organizational injury. We analyze and reject those two asserted types of injury in turn without necessarily agreeing that they are in fact analytically separate here. Indeed, as will be seen, EPIC identifies no organizational harm unrelated to its alleged *378 informational injury. See infra pp. 378–79.

Section 208, a “Privacy Provision[ ]” by its very name, declares an express “purpose” of “ensur[ing] sufficient protections for the privacy of personal information as agencies implement citizen-centered electronic Government.” E-Government Act § 208(a). As we read it, the provision is intended to protect individuals—in the present context, voters—by requiring an agency to fully consider their privacy before collecting their personal information. EPIC is not a voter and is therefore not the type of plaintiff the Congress had in mind. Nor is EPIC’s asserted harm—an inability to “ensure public oversight of record systems,” Appellant’s Reply Br. 9—the kind the Congress had in mind. Instead, section 208 is directed at individual privacy, which is not at stake for EPIC.

1. Informational injury
Following FEC v. Akins, 524 U.S. 11, 118 S.Ct. 1777, 141 L.Ed.2d 10 (1998), “we have recognized that a denial of access to information can,” in certain circumstances, “work an ‘injury in fact’ for standing purposes,” Am. Soc’y for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals v. Feld Entm’t, Inc., 659 F.3d 13, 22 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (Feld) (internal quotation omitted). To carry its burden of demonstrating a “sufficiently concrete and particularized informational injury,” the plaintiff must show that “(1) it has been deprived of information that, on its interpretation, a statute requires the government or a third party to disclose to it, and (2) it suffers, by being denied access to that information, the type of harm Congress sought to prevent by requiring disclosure.” Friends of Animals v. Jewell, 828 F.3d 989, 992 (D.C. Cir. 2016); see Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, ––– U.S. ––––, 136 S.Ct. 1540, 1549, 194 L.Ed.2d 635 (2016) (“judgment of Congress” is “important” to “whether an intangible harm,” including informational harm, “constitutes injury in fact”).
We need not consider the first component of the requirement for informational injury because EPIC does not satisfy the second: it has not suffered the type of harm that section 208 of the E-Government Act seeks to prevent. Indeed, EPIC is not even the type of plaintiff that can suffer such harm. See Friends of Animals, 828 F.3d at 992 (whether “plaintiff suffers the type of harm Congress sought to remedy” sometimes depends on whether “Congress, in mandating disclosure, sought to protect individuals or organizations like” plaintiff).
4

2. Organizational injury
For similar reasons, EPIC has suffered no organizational injury. Under Havens Realty Corp. v. Coleman, 455 U.S. 363, 102 S.Ct. 1114, 71 L.Ed.2d 214 (1982), “an organization may establish Article III standing if it can show that the defendant’s actions cause a ‘concrete and demonstrable injury to the organization’s activities’ that is ‘more than simply a setback to the organization’s abstract social interests.’ ” Feld, 659 F.3d at 25 (quoting Havens, 455 U.S. at 379, 102 S.Ct. 1114). “Our case law, however, establishes two important limitations on the scope of standing under Havens.” Id. First, the plaintiff must show that the defendant’s “action or omission to act injured the organization’s interest.” People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals v. USDA, 797 F.3d 1087, 1094 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (PETA) (internal quotation and brackets omitted). Second, the plaintiff must show that it “used its resources to counteract that harm.” Id. (internal quotation omitted). EPIC’s assertion of organizational standing fails twice over.
EPIC’s sole theory of organizational injury is that the defendants’ failure to produce a privacy impact assessment injures *379 its interest in using the information contained in the assessment “to focus public attention on emerging privacy and civil liberties issues.” Appellant’s Reply Br. 5 (internal quotation omitted). As we have discussed, however, section 208 of the E-Government Act does not confer any such informational interest on EPIC. EPIC cannot ground organizational injury on a non-existent interest. See Feld, 659 F.3d at 24-25 (abstract social interest does not give

Electronic Privacy Information Center v. Presidential Advisory..., 878 F.3d 371 (2017)

rise to organizational injury).
It follows that any resources EPIC used to counteract the lack of a privacy impact assessment—an assessment in which it has no cognizable interest—were “a self-inflicted budgetary choice that cannot qualify as an injury in fact.” Feld, 659 F.3d at 25 (internal quotation omitted). EPIC’s evidence of expenditures only reinforces the point. It relies exclusively on the declaration of an EPIC “Law Fellow” who before and during this lawsuit submitted Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests to (inter alia) the Commission and the Department of Justice (DOJ).6 JA 236-37. EPIC offers no “specific facts” demonstrating that the lack of an assessment caused it to submit the requests, Lujan, 504 U.S. at 561, 112 S.Ct. 2130 (internal quotation omitted); see Appellant’s Reply Br. 5-6, 10, so we can only speculate. Speculation is ordinarily fatal to standing, DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Cuno, 547 U.S. 332, 344, 126 S.Ct. 1854, 164 L.Ed.2d 589 (2006) (it cannot establish injury); West, 845 F.3d at 1237-38 (it cannot establish causation or redressability), and that is the case here. EPIC’s wide-ranging FOIA requests sought information about (inter alia) DOJ’s data-collection efforts under the National Voter Registration Act; DOJ’s legal views about the Commission’s authority; and various potentially privileged government communications. An assessment would not likely disclose such information. See E-Government Act § 208(b)(1)(C), (b)(2)(B). Presumably, then, EPIC would have made similar FOIA requests even if the defendants had produced an assessment.7
In short, not only does EPIC have no cognizable interest in a privacy impact assessment but the resources it spent were not even demonstrably attributable to the lack of an assessment. It has suffered no organizational injury, much less an injury caused by the defendants.
B. ATTEMPTING TO COLLECT VOTER DATA WITHOUT FIRST PRODUCING PRIVACY IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Count One alleges “unlawful agency action,” namely, the defendants’ attempted *380 collection of voter data without first producing a privacy impact assessment under the E-Government Act. Compl. 12 (capitalization altered). As relief for this asserted violation, EPIC asks that the defendants be ordered “to halt collection of personal voter
5

data.” Id. at 15. We again conclude that it lacks standing to obtain such relief.
To repeat, EPIC is not a voter. And as far as the record shows, it has no traditional membership, let alone members who are voters. Unsurprisingly, then, it does not claim standing on behalf of any voter whose data is likely to be collected. See supra note 5. Instead, in seeking to halt collection of voter data, it advances the same theories of informational and organizational standing that it asserts in seeking to compel a privacy impact assessment. We see no reason to “accept[ ] a repackaged version” of those “failed theor[ies].” Clapper v. Amnesty Int’l USA, 568 U.S. 398, 416, 133 S.Ct. 1138, 185 L.Ed.2d 264 (2013). As explained above, EPIC has suffered no informational or organizational injury from the defendants’ failure to produce an assessment. A fortiori, it has suffered no informational or organizational injury from the defendants’ attempt to collect voter data without first producing an assessment.
Moreover, halting collection of voter data would not “likely” redress any informational or organizational injury, even had EPIC suffered one. Lujan, 504 U.S. at 561, 112 S.Ct. 2130 (“[I]t must be likely, as opposed to merely speculative, that the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision.” (internal quotation omitted)); West, 845 F.3d at 1235 (“The key word is ‘likely.’ ”). Assuming arguendo that the Commission or another defendant is an agency subject to the E-Government Act, it need not prepare a privacy impact assessment unless it plans to collect information. E-Government Act § 208(b)(1)(A). Accordingly, ordering the defendants not to collect voter data only negates the need (if any) to prepare an assessment, making it less likely that EPIC will obtain the information it says is essential to its mission of “focus[ing] public attention on emerging privacy and civil liberties issues.” Appellant’s Reply Br. 5 (internal quotation omitted).
* * * * *
The doctrines of informational and organizational standing do not derogate from the elemental requirement that an alleged injury be “concrete and particularized.” Lujan, 504 U.S. at 560, 112 S.Ct. 2130; see Akins, 524 U.S. at 24-25, 118 S.Ct. 1777 (informational); Havens, 455 U.S. at 379, 102 S.Ct. 1114 (organizational). On this record, EPIC’s asserted injuries do not meet that requirement. Because EPIC does not show a substantial likelihood of standing to press its claims that the defendants have violated the E-Government Act, we affirm the district court’s denial of a preliminary injunction.

Electronic Privacy Information Center v. Presidential Advisory..., 878 F.3d 371 (2017)

So ordered.
Williams, Senior Circuit Judge, concurring in part and concurring in the judgment:
Because it “has not suffered the type of harm that § 208 of the E-Government Act seeks to prevent,” Maj. Op. at 378, EPIC has failed to allege a legally cognizable injury-in-fact. So I agree that EPIC lacks standing. But given that EPIC claims only organizational standing and “identifies no organizational harm unrelated to its alleged informational injury,” id., I see no need for any separate discussion of “organizational injury.” Id. at 378–80. Nor, indeed, do I see any need for a separate discussion of EPIC’s alternative reformulation of its merits claim as an objection to *381 defendants’ effort to collect data without previously filing a Privacy Impact Statement (“PIA”). id. at 379–80.
* * *
As an organization, EPIC has in principle two potential paths to establish standing: “associational,” on behalf of its members, and “organizational,” on behalf of itself. Before us, it doesn’t renew the associational standing claim made in district court. That leaves only organizational standing. For those purposes, of course, it must establish an injury that qualifies under Article III, along with the requisite causation and redressability. See, e.g., PETA v. U.S. Department of Agriculture, 797 F.3d 1087, 1106 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (Millett, J., dubitante).
To establish organizational standing, EPIC asserts only a single injury: that the defendants’ omissions have caused it to go without information—the contents of a PIA—that it could use to educate the public.

Where an organization’s only asserted injury is an informational one, we have not engaged in a separate analysis of informational and organizational injury. See, e.g., Friends of Animals v. Jewell, 828 F.3d 989, 992 (D.C. Cir. 2016) (addressing organization’s claim of informational injury as such). If an organization’s only claimed injury is informational, additional discussion of the same facts under the “organizational” rubric will not clarify the court’s reasoning.
In cases where the plaintiff claims organizational injuries of various types (including informational ones), we have analyzed the informational injury as such and the other alleged injuries as organizational. See, e.g., Am. Soc. for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals v. Feld Entm’t, Inc., 659 F.3d 13, 22 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (rejecting organization’s claim of informational standing, id. at 22-24, and its claims that Feld’s use of chains and bullhooks afforded organizational standing by fostering, plaintiffs argued, “a public impression that these practices are harmless,” id. at 24-28). My guess—only a guess—is that the practice arose because organizations found informational injury a comparatively easy way to show standing.
But organizational standing is merely the label assigned to the capacity in which the organization contends it has been harmed; it is not a separate type of injury. In its capacity as an organization, EPIC has alleged one harm, packaged as two theories (perhaps in the hope that such packaging will increase the odds of success). There is no need for us to accept that packaging; doing so is a step away from, not towards, legal clarity.
All Citations
878 F.3d 371

Footnotes

1

EPIC’s complaint also alleged violations of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. app. 2, and the Fifth Amendment’s Due

Process Clause. Those claims are not before us because EPIC presents no argument about them. See N.Y. Rehab. Care Mgmt., LLC

v. NLRB, 506 F.3d 1070, 1076 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (party forfeits argument by failing to brief it or by mentioning it only “in the most

skeletal way” (internal quotation omitted)).

2

Because EPIC has not met its burden with respect to standing, we do not consider whether any of the defendants constitutes an

agency under the E-Government Act or the APA. Nor do we consider the preliminary injunction factors other than EPIC’s

likelihood of success. A plaintiff unlikely to have standing is ipso facto unlikely to succeed, Food & Water Watch, 808 F.3d at 913;

Klayman, 800 F.3d at 565, 568 (opinion of Williams, J.); and when the plaintiff is unlikely to succeed, “there is no need to consider

the remaining factors,” Greater New Orleans Fair Hous. Action Ctr. v. HUD, 639 F.3d 1078, 1088 (D.C. Cir. 2011).

6

Electronic Privacy Information Center v. Presidential Advisory..., 878 F.3d 371 (2017)

3

The complaint also named Vice President Michael Pence; Charles Herndon, Director of White House Information Technology; the

Executive Office of the President; the Office of the Vice President; the Department of Defense; the General Services

Administration; the Executive Committee for Presidential Information Technology; and the United States Digital Service.

4

We owe no deference to the district court’s contrary conclusion. O’Hara v. Dist. No. 1-PCD, 56 F.3d 1514, 1522 (D.C. Cir. 1995) (to

extent preliminary injunction decision “hinges on questions of law,” we review it de novo (internal quotation omitted)); see Teton

Historic Aviation Found. v. Dep’t of Def., 785 F.3d 719, 724 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (per curiam) (standing is question of law to be

assessed de novo).

5

In district court, EPIC also advanced a theory of “associational standing.” Reply in Support, Dkt. No. 39 at 19-23. The court

rejected it, EPIC, 266 F.Supp.3d at 305–10, 2017 WL 3141907 at *4-*6, and EPIC does not renew it here, Appellant’s Reply Br. 2

n.2 (“associational standing” is “not related to any issue on appeal”). We therefore do not consider it. See Scenic Am., Inc. v.

Dep’t of Transp., 836 F.3d 42, 53 n.4 (D.C. Cir. 2016) (party forfeits theory of standing if it fails to advance any argument about it).

6

In its rebuttal oral argument, EPIC contended that it has organizational standing not only because of the FOIA requests but

because it “contacted the state secretaries to warn them that [an assessment] had not been completed” and because it

“launched an internet-based campaign to alert voters that their information was not being protected.” Oral Arg. Recording

30:28-30:59. EPIC did not advance that contention in its briefs or even during the opening portion of its oral argument. It thereby

forfeited the contention, the merits of which we decline to consider. See Coal. of Battery Recyclers Ass’n v. EPA, 604 F.3d 613,

623 (D.C. Cir. 2010) (argument raised “for the first time during rebuttal oral argument” is “forfeited”).

7

This fact readily distinguishes PETA, 797 F.3d 1087, on which EPIC relies. There, at the dismissal stage, PETA sufficiently alleged

that the USDA’s failure to apply Animal Welfare Act regulations to birds caused PETA “to undertake ... extensive efforts”—and to

spend more than $10,000—investigating cruelty to birds and submitting animal-protection complaints under alternative local,

state and federal laws. Id. at 1096; see id. at 1093-97. Here, “under the heightened standard for evaluating a motion for summary

judgment,” Food & Water Watch, 808 F.3d at 912, EPIC has not established any equivalently direct causal link between the

defendants’ inaction and EPIC’s own expenditures.

7

 
 Case 3:16-cv-00132-DCG Document 75-1 Filed 05/23/18 Page 1 of 72

Case 3:16-cv-00132-DCG Document 75-1 Filed 05/23/18 Page 2 of 72

Case 3:16-cv-00132-DCG Document 75-1 Filed 05/23/18 Page 3 of 72

Case 3:16-cv-00132-DCG Document 75-1 Filed 05/23/18 Page 4 of 72

Case 3:16-cv-00132-DCG Document 75-1 Filed 05/23/18 Page 5 of 72

Case 3:16-cv-00132-DCG Document 75-1 Filed 05/23/18 Page 6 of 72

Case 3:16-cv-00132-DCG Document 75-1 Filed 05/23/18 Page 7 of 72

Case 3:16-cv-00132-DCG Document 75-1 Filed 05/23/18 Page 8 of 72

Case 3:16-cv-00132-DCG Document 75-1 Filed 05/23/18 Page 9 of 72

Case 3:16-cv-00132-DCG Document 75-1 Filed 05/23/18 Page 10 of 72

Case 3:16-cv-00132-DCG Document 75-1 Filed 05/23/18 Page 11 of 72

Case 3:16-cv-00132-DCG Document 75-1 Filed 05/23/18 Page 12 of 72

Case 3:16-cv-00132-DCG Document 75-1 Filed 05/23/18 Page 13 of 72
(/) ()
Home Page (/) Custom Search
Home (//www.elpasotexas.gov) ▸ Municipal Courts
915-212-0215
MUNICIPAL COURTS
Browse Department (/) Home (//www.elpasotexas.gov/municipal-courts) Citation & Warrant Search (https://public.fce.elpasotexas.gov/fullcourtweb/start.do) Pay Citation & Warrant Online (https://www.citepayusa.com/payments/welcome.do?court=elPASOtx) Defendants Rights (//www.elpasotexas.gov/municipal-courts/defendants-rights) Jury Services (//www.elpasotexas.gov/municipal-courts/jury-services) Parking Citations (//www.elpasotexas.gov/municipal-courts/parking-citations) Judiciary (//www.elpasotexas.gov/municipal-courts/judiciary) Arraignment (//www.elpasotexas.gov/municipal-courts/judiciary/arraignment) Municipal Judges (//www.elpasotexas.gov/municipal-courts/judiciary/municipal-judges) Judicial Procedures (//www.elpasotexas.gov/municipal-courts/judiciary/judicial-procedures) Juvenile Procedures (//www.elpasotexas.gov/municipal-courts/judiciary/juvenile-procedures)
Community Service (//www.elpasotexas.gov/municipal-courts/community-service) Court Stats (//www.elpasotexas.gov/municipal-courts/court-stats) Court Docket List (https://public.fce.elpasotexas.gov/fullcourtweb/start.do) Court Processes FAQ (//www.elpasotexas.gov/municipal-courts/court-processes) Defensive Driving FAQ (//www.elpasotexas.gov/municipal-courts/defensive-driving) Fines and Payments (//www.elpasotexas.gov/municipal-courts/Ònes-and-payments) Forms (//www.elpasotexas.gov/municipal-courts/forms) Red Light Enforcement (//www.elpasotexas.gov/municipal-courts/red-light) Directory (//www.elpasotexas.gov/municipal-courts/directory)
MUNICIPAL COURTS
IN OBSERVANCE OF MEMORIAL DAY OUR OFFICES WILL BE CLOSED ON MONDAY, MAY 28, 2018
EN OBSERVACIÓN DE MEMORIAL DAY NUESTRAS OFICINAS ESTARÁN CERRADAS LUNES, 28 DE MAYO, 2018
______________________________________________________________________________________________________ The mission of the Municipal Courts Department is to provide impartial and equitable access to justice in a courteous, professional, and eÕcient manner to the El Paso Community so they can resolve their cases.a a aa
915-212-0215
The El Paso Municipal Court is a court of record which handles Class C misdemeanors and civil parking citations issued within the city limits. The El Paso Municipal Court of Appeals hears appeals Òled from the El Paso Municipal Courts.
The judges and sta× of El Paso Municipal Court recognize that for most people their impression of the justice system is derived from their experience in municipal courts. We hold ourselves responsible, and are held responsible by the citizens of El Paso, for treating the thousands of people who appear before the Court each year with dignity, impartiality, equity, courtesy and eÕciency. ____________________________________________________________________________________________________ Please contact the court ata915-212-0215 if you would like to request an ADA accommodation. ____________________________________________________________________________________________________ Forageneralaquestion or concerns emailaDefendants@elpasotexas.gov (mailto:defendants@elpasotexas.gov?subject=Questions/Concerns). To request a Payment Plan emailaPaymentplans@elpasotexas.gov (mailto:Paymentplans@elpasotexas.gov? subject=Payment%20Plan%20Request). To request Defensive Driving emailaDefensivedriving@elpasotexas.gov (mailto:Defensivedriving@elpasotexas.gov? subject=Defensive%20Driving%20Request).a
Please provide a copy of your Texas drivers license with your request.

Case 3:16-cv-00132-DCG Document 75-1 Filed 05/23/18 Page 14 of 72

810 E Overland Ave 810 E Overland Ave, El Paso, TX 79901
View larger map

Save

Map data ©2R0e1p8oGrtoaomglaep, IeNrrEoGr I

a
El Paso Municipal Court video arraignment

Location Information Important Phone Numbers
LOCATION INFORMATION
Main Office: 810 E. Overland (https://goo.gl/maps/uqYeu) Monday - Friday: 7:00 A.M. – 6:00 P.M.
915-212-0215 Calls accepted from 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM

(https://goo.gl/maps/sgEyx)

Northeast: 9600 Dyer Monday - Friday: 7:00

A.M.

–

5:30

P.M.

Pebble Hills: 10780-A Pebble Hills (https://goo.gl/maps/JiopC) (inside Pebble Hills Regional Command Center)
Monday - Friday: 8:00 A.M. – 5:30 P.M.
West Side: 4801 Osborne (https://goo.gl/maps/j6oHC) (inside Westside Regional Command Center)
Monday - Friday: 8:00 A.M. – 5:30 P.M.

Mission Valley: 9011 Escobar

(https://goo.gl/maps/18zHR)

(inside Mission Valley Monday - Friday: 8:00

Regional Command A.M. – 5:30 P.M.

Center)

IMPORTANT PHONE NUMBERS

Calls taken 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM aMonday - Friday

El Paso Municipal Court Phone Directoryaa

Municipal Court Main Number:

915-212-0215

Main Fax:

915-212-0216

WarrantsCMaains(eOp3en:1246/-7c):av-001329-1D5-2C12G-0221Document 75-1

Warrants Fax:aa

915-212-0219

Court 1:

915-212-0222

Court 2:

915-212-0223

Court 3:

915-212-0224

Court 4:

915-212-0225

Court 5:

915-212-0226

Appeals:

915-212-0227

Jail Cases:

915-212-0228

Sentencing and Compliance Main:

915-212-0229

Sentencing and Compliance Fax:a

915-212-0217

City Prosecutors Main:

915-212-0230

City Prosecutors Fax:

915-212-0218

Fine Collection and Disbursement Fax:a 915-212-0220

TDY Line:

915-212-0231

Payment Plans/Collections:

915-212-0232

Filed 05/23/18

Page 15 of 72

a

(https://www.citepayusa.com/payments/welcome.do?

(https://public.fce.elpasotexas.gov/fullcourtweb/start.do)a

court=elPASOtx)

(//www.elpasotexas.gov/municipal-courts/court-processes)

MUNICIPAL COURTS
JUDICIARY (//www.elpasotexas.gov/municipal-courts/judiciary) - Arraignment (//www.elpasotexas.gov/municipal-courts/judiciary/arraignment) - Municipal Court of Appeals (//www.elpasotexas.gov/municipal-clerk/court-of-appeals) - Municipal Judges (//www.elpasotexas.gov/municipal-courts/judiciary/municipal-judges) - Judicial Procedures (//www.elpasotexas.gov/municipal-courts/judiciary/judicial-procedures) - Juvenile Procedures (//www.elpasotexas.gov/municipal-courts/judiciary/juvenile-procedures) a Customer Survey (//www.elpasotexas.gov/municipal-courts/customer-survey)
HELPFUL LINKS
TOOLS FOR SELF REPRESENTED LITIGANTS (http://www.txcourts.gov/programs-services/self-help/self-represented-litigants/) a El Paso Police Department (//www.elpasotexas.gov/police-department) El Paso County Case Records Search (http://casesearch.epcounty.com/PublicAccess/default.aspx) El Paso County Judge Directory (http://www.epcounty.com/councilofjudges/courtdirectory.htm) Judicial/Courts Directory ( http://www.txcourts.gov/judicial-directory.aspx) OÕce of Court Administration (http://www.txcourts.gov/oca.aspx ) Texas Statutes (http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/) TX Department of Public Safety (https://www.dps.texas.gov/) TX DPS Surcharges (https://www.txsurchargeonline.com/(S(xinx4ppuntkciz5phadmÓ4f))/default.aspx) TxDOT (http://www.txdot.gov/ ) Red Light Tickets (https://www.photonotice.com/)
(//WWW.ELPASOTEXAS.GOV/MUNICIPAL-COURTS/TRANSLATE)
Departments (//www.elpasotexas.gov/departments) Residents (//www.elpasotexas.gov/residents) Business (//www.elpasotexas.gov/economic-development) Visitors (//www.elpasotexas.gov/visitors) Meetings (//www.elpasotexas.gov/meetings) Online Services (//www.elpasotexas.gov/online-services) Contact Us (//www.elpasotexas.gov/contact)
Accessibility (//www.elpasotexas.gov/ada) Disclaimer (//www.elpasotexas.gov/disclaimer) Link Policy (//www.elpasotexas.gov/link-policy) Privacy Policy (//www.elpasotexas.gov/privacy-policy) Security Policy (//www.elpasotexas.gov/security-policy) Webmail (https://owa.elpasotexas.gov/)

© 2018 CiCtyaosf Eel P3a:s1o 6-cv-00132-DCG Document 75-1
CONNECT WITH US
$name (http://www.facebook.com/elpasotexasgov) $name (http://twitter.com/#!/ElPasoTXGov) $name (https://www.youtube.com/cityofelpasotx) Instagram (https://www.instagram.com/iam_elpaso/)

Filed 05/23/18

Page 16 of 72

EL PASO CITY HALL
300 N. Campbell El Paso, Texas 79901 (915) 212-0000 or 3-1-1 Directions to City Hall (https://www.google.com/maps/place/300+N+Campbell+St,+El+Paso,+TX+79901/@31.762095,-106.484746,17z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m2!3m1!1s0x8 OPERATIONAL HOURS
Mon-Fri | 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

Case 3:16-cv-00132-DCG Document 75-1 Filed 05/23/18 Page 17 of 72
(/) ()
Home Page (/) Custom Search
Home (//www.elpasotexas.gov) ▸ Municipal Courts (//www.elpasotexas.gov/municipal-courts) ▸ Defendants Rights
915-212-0215
MUNICIPAL COURTS
Browse Department (/) Home (//www.elpasotexas.gov/municipal-courts) Citation & Warrant Search (https://public.fce.elpasotexas.gov/fullcourtweb/start.do) Pay Citation & Warrant Online (https://www.citepayusa.com/payments/welcome.do?court=elPASOtx) Defendants Rights (//www.elpasotexas.gov/municipal-courts/defendants-rights) Jury Services (//www.elpasotexas.gov/municipal-courts/jury-services) Parking Citations (//www.elpasotexas.gov/municipal-courts/parking-citations) Judiciary (//www.elpasotexas.gov/municipal-courts/judiciary) Arraignment (//www.elpasotexas.gov/municipal-courts/judiciary/arraignment) Municipal Judges (//www.elpasotexas.gov/municipal-courts/judiciary/municipal-judges) Judicial Procedures (//www.elpasotexas.gov/municipal-courts/judiciary/judicial-procedures) Juvenile Procedures (//www.elpasotexas.gov/municipal-courts/judiciary/juvenile-procedures)
Community Service (//www.elpasotexas.gov/municipal-courts/community-service) Court Stats (//www.elpasotexas.gov/municipal-courts/court-stats) Court Docket List (https://public.fce.elpasotexas.gov/fullcourtweb/start.do) Court Processes FAQ (//www.elpasotexas.gov/municipal-courts/court-processes) Defensive Driving FAQ (//www.elpasotexas.gov/municipal-courts/defensive-driving) Fines and Payments (//www.elpasotexas.gov/municipal-courts/Ònes-and-payments) Forms (//www.elpasotexas.gov/municipal-courts/forms) Red Light Enforcement (//www.elpasotexas.gov/municipal-courts/red-light) Directory (//www.elpasotexas.gov/municipal-courts/directory)
DEFENDANTS RIGHTS
Rights of Defendants If you received a citation from the El Paso Police Department you are entitled to certain rights.
You have the right to see the complaint or citation that has been Òled with the court. You have the right to a trial by jury, but you may waive the right to a trial by jury and be tried by the court. You have the right to represent yourself or be represented by an attorney. You have the right to remain silent however you may waive this right and discuss your case with a city prosecutor in an e×ort to dispose of your case without a trial.
General Information This information provides basic information relative to law governing procedures concerning traÕc cases.
The El Paso Municipal Court clerks are not allowed to give legal advice. You are urged to review the applicable laws and to consult an attorney of your choice for further information or answers to speciÒc legal questions.
You have the right to a trial by a jury and to be represented by an attorney of your choice, or to represent yourself.
TraÕc o×enses, generally, are punishable by a Òne of not more than $200.00 and all costs of court.
Disclaimer: The law is constantly changing and there may be times when the information on this web site will not be current. This information is provided for general informational purposes only and is not intended as legal advice. This information is not a comprehensive treatment of the subject and is not a substitute for advice from an attorney.

Case 3:16-cv-00132-DCG Document 75-1 Filed 05/23/18 Page 18 of 72

a

(https://www.citepayusa.com/payments/welcome.do?

(https://public.fce.elpasotexas.gov/fullcourtweb/start.do)a

court=elPASOtx)

(//www.elpasotexas.gov/municipal-courts/court-processes)

HELPFUL LINKS
TOOLS FOR SELF REPRESENTED LITIGANTS (http://www.txcourts.gov/programs-services/self-help/self-represented-litigants/) a El Paso Police Department (//www.elpasotexas.gov/police-department) El Paso County Case Records Search (http://casesearch.epcounty.com/PublicAccess/default.aspx) El Paso County Judge Directory (http://www.epcounty.com/councilofjudges/courtdirectory.htm) Judicial/Courts Directory ( http://www.txcourts.gov/judicial-directory.aspx) OÕce of Court Administration (http://www.txcourts.gov/oca.aspx ) Texas Statutes (http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/) TX Department of Public Safety (https://www.dps.texas.gov/) TX DPS Surcharges (https://www.txsurchargeonline.com/(S(xinx4ppuntkciz5phadmÓ4f))/default.aspx) TxDOT (http://www.txdot.gov/ ) Red Light Tickets (https://www.photonotice.com/)
(//WWW.ELPASOTEXAS.GOV/MUNICIPAL-COURTS/TRANSLATE)
Departments (//www.elpasotexas.gov/departments) Residents (//www.elpasotexas.gov/residents) Business (//www.elpasotexas.gov/economic-development) Visitors (//www.elpasotexas.gov/visitors) Meetings (//www.elpasotexas.gov/meetings) Online Services (//www.elpasotexas.gov/online-services) Contact Us (//www.elpasotexas.gov/contact)
Accessibility (//www.elpasotexas.gov/ada) Disclaimer (//www.elpasotexas.gov/disclaimer) Link Policy (//www.elpasotexas.gov/link-policy) Privacy Policy (//www.elpasotexas.gov/privacy-policy) Security Policy (//www.elpasotexas.gov/security-policy) Webmail (https://owa.elpasotexas.gov/)
© 2018 City of El Paso CONNECT WITH US
$name (http://www.facebook.com/elpasotexasgov) $name (http://twitter.com/#!/ElPasoTXGov) $name (https://www.youtube.com/cityofelpasotx) Instagram (https://www.instagram.com/iam_elpaso/)
EL PASO CITY HALL 300 N. Campbell El Paso, Texas 79901 (915) 212-0000 or 3-1-1 Directions to City Hall (https://www.google.com/maps/place/300+N+Campbell+St,+El+Paso,+TX+79901/@31.762095,-106.484746,17z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m2!3m1!1s0x8 OPERATIONAL HOURS Mon-Fri | 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

Case 3:16-cv-00132-DCG Document 75-1 Filed 05/23/18 Page 19 of 72
(/) ()
Home Page (/) Custom Search
Home (//www.elpasotexas.gov) ▸ Municipal Courts (//www.elpasotexas.gov/municipal-courts) ▸ Community Service
915-212-0215
MUNICIPAL COURTS
Browse Department (/) Home (//www.elpasotexas.gov/municipal-courts) Citation & Warrant Search (https://public.fce.elpasotexas.gov/fullcourtweb/start.do) Pay Citation & Warrant Online (https://www.citepayusa.com/payments/welcome.do?court=elPASOtx) Defendants Rights (//www.elpasotexas.gov/municipal-courts/defendants-rights) Jury Services (//www.elpasotexas.gov/municipal-courts/jury-services) Parking Citations (//www.elpasotexas.gov/municipal-courts/parking-citations) Judiciary (//www.elpasotexas.gov/municipal-courts/judiciary) Arraignment (//www.elpasotexas.gov/municipal-courts/judiciary/arraignment) Municipal Judges (//www.elpasotexas.gov/municipal-courts/judiciary/municipal-judges) Judicial Procedures (//www.elpasotexas.gov/municipal-courts/judiciary/judicial-procedures) Juvenile Procedures (//www.elpasotexas.gov/municipal-courts/judiciary/juvenile-procedures)
Community Service (//www.elpasotexas.gov/municipal-courts/community-service) Court Stats (//www.elpasotexas.gov/municipal-courts/court-stats) Court Docket List (https://public.fce.elpasotexas.gov/fullcourtweb/start.do) Court Processes FAQ (//www.elpasotexas.gov/municipal-courts/court-processes) Defensive Driving FAQ (//www.elpasotexas.gov/municipal-courts/defensive-driving) Fines and Payments (//www.elpasotexas.gov/municipal-courts/Ònes-and-payments) Forms (//www.elpasotexas.gov/municipal-courts/forms) Red Light Enforcement (//www.elpasotexas.gov/municipal-courts/red-light) Directory (//www.elpasotexas.gov/municipal-courts/directory)
COMMUNITY SERVICE
a
MISSION
The mission of the El Paso Municipal Court Community Service Program is to provide meaningful community service projects as alternative sentencing for Class C misdemeanor convictions, to serve as a deterrent to recidivism and to promote responsible civic behavior from participants in the program.
a
OUR GOALS
1. Refer Class C o×enders to assignments at host agencies where their labor hours will beneÒt the community and help the o×enders reconnect with the community.
2. Recruit and maintain a wide variety of governmental and non-proÒt host agencies geographically distributed across the city. 3. Assign o×enders to host agencies close to their home or work so as to encourage successful completion of assignments. 4. Ensure community service work sites are safe for o×enders and conducive for performing community service. 5. Provide comprehensive educational classes, workshops and life skills classes; including alcohol, tobacco awareness and drug
prevention classes. 6. Ensure compliance with judicial orders for community service by monitoring cases. 7. Treat all o×enders fairly and with dignity.
COMMUNITY SERVICE PROCEDURES
Client must contact the community service oÕce in order for the procedures of the program to be explained and to receive a referral to the agency where they will perform community service and a timesheet where clients will record community service hours served. At the time of conviction and sentencing, the client requests community service from the El Paso Municipal Court Judge. If the judge approves the community service assignment, the client obtains the order from the judge. Please note: Adult community service is contingent upon being found indigent by the judge. Client calls the community service oÕce (915) 212-0229 to speak to the sentencing coordinator or a representative.

The sCenatesnecin3g :c1oo6rd-icnavt-o0r o0r1re3pr2es-eDntCatiGve wilDl reofecruclmienetsntot a7w5o-r1k siteFsuilpeedrvis0o5r, /w2h3o w/1ill8set uPpaa gwoerk2sc0heodufle7, d2iscuss
hours of operation, reporting location and dress code requirements. Students may not work after 7:00 pm during the week (Mon-Fri). Clients will report to assigned work site supervisor. Supervisor will verify client identiÒcation and community service referral form. Clients may work either full days or a minimum of four-hour shifts, depending on the availability of the client and/or requirements of the work site. Clients will report at the end of the day or shift to the Supervisor to verify and sign timesheet. Clients must submit their timesheet to the community service oÕce on or before the due date.
a
EL PASO MUNICIPAL COURT COMMUNITY SERVICE DRESS CODE
The Community Service program enforces a strict dress code designed for the safety of the clients. Those who do not comply will be sent home when they report for service.a
The client must wear appropriate clothing and be well groomed when reporting to the work site. Comfortable shoes are required and must cover the entire foot. The following are not allowed: high heels, slippers, sandals or shoes of any kind without backs. Tank tops, muscle shirts, shirts with obscene or derogatory pictures or phrases are NOT allowed. Shirts/blouses must cover torso entirely. No exposed midri×s allowed. Shorts, cut-o×s, sweat pants, low-cut jeans, halter-tops, crop tops, skirts or dresses are NOT allowed. Jean-type or khaki pants worn with a belt are preferred. No gang related items or gang colors allowed. Hats are recommended for protection from the sun. Caps are to be worn properly and may not have obscene or derogatory pictures or phrases. Sunglasses and sunscreen are recommended strongly.
a
ABOUT THE MUNICIPAL COURT COMMUNITY SERVICE PROGRAM
The City of El Paso, other governmental agencies and non-proÒt community agencies participate in the Municipal Court Community Service Program to provide meaningful work to individuals who have been assigned community service hours by a municipal court judge. In turn, the hours served provide a labor source to these agencies which beneÒts the community.
In addition, El Paso Municipal Court Judges and sta×, MADD (Mothers Against Drunk Driving), and U.S. Customs and Border Patrol, provide presentations to juveniles on issues such as: “Underage Drinking”, “TraÕc Safety, Theft and Drug TraÕcking. Presentations are held every two months. The Municipal Court also participates in Teen Court which provides education about the juvenile justice system, including community service and life skills classes.
a

a

(https://www.citepayusa.com/payments/welcome.do?

(https://public.fce.elpasotexas.gov/fullcourtweb/start.do)a

court=elPASOtx)

(//www.elpasotexas.gov/municipal-courts/court-processes)

HELPFUL LINKS
TOOLS FOR SELF REPRESENTED LITIGANTS (http://www.txcourts.gov/programs-services/self-help/self-represented-litigants/) a El Paso Police Department (//www.elpasotexas.gov/police-department) El Paso County Case Records Search (http://casesearch.epcounty.com/PublicAccess/default.aspx) El Paso County Judge Directory (http://www.epcounty.com/councilofjudges/courtdirectory.htm) Judicial/Courts Directory ( http://www.txcourts.gov/judicial-directory.aspx) OÕce of Court Administration (http://www.txcourts.gov/oca.aspx ) Texas Statutes (http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/) TX Department of Public Safety (https://www.dps.texas.gov/) TX DPS Surcharges (https://www.txsurchargeonline.com/(S(xinx4ppuntkciz5phadmÓ4f))/default.aspx) TxDOT (http://www.txdot.gov/ ) Red Light Tickets (https://www.photonotice.com/)
(//WWW.ELPASOTEXAS.GOV/MUNICIPAL-COURTS/TRANSLATE)
Departments (//www.elpasotexas.gov/departments) Residents (//www.elpasotexas.gov/residents) Business (//www.elpasotexas.gov/economic-development) Visitors (//www.elpasotexas.gov/visitors) Meetings (//www.elpasotexas.gov/meetings) Online Services (//www.elpasotexas.gov/online-services) Contact Us (//www.elpasotexas.gov/contact)
Accessibility (//www.elpasotexas.gov/ada)

DiscClaiamseer (/3/w:1ww6.-eclpva-s0ot0ex1a3s.2go-vD/dCiscGlaimDer)ocument 75-1
Link Policy (//www.elpasotexas.gov/link-policy) Privacy Policy (//www.elpasotexas.gov/privacy-policy) Security Policy (//www.elpasotexas.gov/security-policy) Webmail (https://owa.elpasotexas.gov/)

Filed 05/23/18

Page 21 of 72

© 2018 City of El Paso CONNECT WITH US
$name (http://www.facebook.com/elpasotexasgov) $name (http://twitter.com/#!/ElPasoTXGov) $name (https://www.youtube.com/cityofelpasotx) Instagram (https://www.instagram.com/iam_elpaso/)

EL PASO CITY HALL
300 N. Campbell El Paso, Texas 79901 (915) 212-0000 or 3-1-1 Directions to City Hall (https://www.google.com/maps/place/300+N+Campbell+St,+El+Paso,+TX+79901/@31.762095,-106.484746,17z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m2!3m1!1s0x8 OPERATIONAL HOURS
Mon-Fri | 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

Case 3:16-cv-00132-DCG Document 75-1 Filed 05/23/18 Page 22 of 72
(/) ()
Home Page (/) Custom Search
Home (//www.elpasotexas.gov) ▸ Municipal Courts (//www.elpasotexas.gov/municipal-courts) ▸ Court Processes FAQ
915-212-0215
MUNICIPAL COURTS
Browse Department (/) Home (//www.elpasotexas.gov/municipal-courts) Citation & Warrant Search (https://public.fce.elpasotexas.gov/fullcourtweb/start.do) Pay Citation & Warrant Online (https://www.citepayusa.com/payments/welcome.do?court=elPASOtx) Defendants Rights (//www.elpasotexas.gov/municipal-courts/defendants-rights) Jury Services (//www.elpasotexas.gov/municipal-courts/jury-services) Parking Citations (//www.elpasotexas.gov/municipal-courts/parking-citations) Judiciary (//www.elpasotexas.gov/municipal-courts/judiciary) Arraignment (//www.elpasotexas.gov/municipal-courts/judiciary/arraignment) Municipal Judges (//www.elpasotexas.gov/municipal-courts/judiciary/municipal-judges) Judicial Procedures (//www.elpasotexas.gov/municipal-courts/judiciary/judicial-procedures) Juvenile Procedures (//www.elpasotexas.gov/municipal-courts/judiciary/juvenile-procedures)
Community Service (//www.elpasotexas.gov/municipal-courts/community-service) Court Stats (//www.elpasotexas.gov/municipal-courts/court-stats) Court Docket List (https://public.fce.elpasotexas.gov/fullcourtweb/start.do) Court Processes FAQ (//www.elpasotexas.gov/municipal-courts/court-processes) Defensive Driving FAQ (//www.elpasotexas.gov/municipal-courts/defensive-driving) Fines and Payments (//www.elpasotexas.gov/municipal-courts/Ònes-and-payments) Forms (//www.elpasotexas.gov/municipal-courts/forms) Red Light Enforcement (//www.elpasotexas.gov/municipal-courts/red-light) Directory (//www.elpasotexas.gov/municipal-courts/directory)
COURT PROCESSES FAQ
QUESTIONS ABOUT ARRAIGNMENT QUESTIONS ABOUT TRIAL HEARINGS QUESTIONS REGARDING A DRIVER'S SAFETY COURSE FOR THE DISMISSAL OF A CITATION QUESTIONS REGARDING THE TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY POINT SYSTEM QUESTIONS ABOUT PAYMENT PLANS QUESTIONS ABOUT ARREST WARRANTS QUESTIONS ABOUT SURCHARGES QUESTIONS ABOUT OMNI (DRIVER'S LICENSE RENEWAL) HOLDS QUESTIONS ABOUT SCOFFLAW (VEHICLE REGISTRATION) HOLD QUESTIONS ABOUT PARKING CITATIONS QUESTIONS ABOUT COMMUNITY SERVICE QUESTIONS ON HOW TO SEARCH FOR CITATIONS & WARRANTS ONLINE QUESTIONS ON HOW TO USE THE COURT DOCKET
QUESTIONS ABOUT ARRAIGNMENT
- What is an arraignment hearing? The arraignment is your Òrst appearance before a judge. It is the Court date the oÕcer assigned to you when your ticket was issued. The
date is at the top of your ticket, above your signature, where you promised to appear on that date and time.
- What happens at the arraignment hearing? The arraignment hearing is for the judge to explain the charges against you, to explain your rights and options to you and to take your
plea on the charges for which you were cited by the oÕcer. aTypical sequence of events at arraignment:
1. You will appear at 9600 Dyer, pass through security and into the courtroom. 2. You will remove your hat and sunglasses. 3. You will turn o× your cell phone.

4.CYoausweill s3ig:n1i6n w-citvh -th0e0b1ail3i×2. a-aaDaaaaaCG Document 75-1 Filed 05/23/18 Page 23 of 72
5. The judge will call you forward to the judge’s bench by name. 6. The City Prosecutor and the Court Interpreter will also be at the judge’s bench. 7. If you need the Spanish interpreter, please greet the interpreter and ask for assistance. 8. The judge will advise you of the charge(s) against you. 9. The judge will explain your rights and options. 10. The judge will ask you how you how you would like to plea on the violations: Not Guilty, Guilty or No Contest. 11. You may ask the judge if you qualify for a driver’s safety course for the dismissal of your ticket. 12. You may show the city prosecutor and the judge proof of compliance for citations such as Failure to Maintain Financial
Responsibility, Registration/Inspection Sticker, Driver’s License and equipment violations such as a broken headlight or turn signal. The prosecutor will review your documents and make a motion to the judge. The judge will rule on whether or not to accept your proof of compliance. 13. You may plea guilty, no contest, or ask for community service in lieu of your Òne. If you plead no contest or requested community service, you will be set for court at a later date downtown at 810 East Overland. 14. If you are unable to attend your arraignment hearing, you must Òll out and turn in aaWaiver of Arraignment and Other Rights form (/~/media/Òles/coep/municipal clerk/muni court - forms/waiver of arraignment and other rights.ashx?la=en)atoaany court location before the scheduled Arraignment Court date.
- Will the arraignment judge listen to my testimony about why I am not guilty of the charge? No. Unless you are providing proof of compliance for the charges listed above, the arraignment judge will not listen to your testimony
about why you are not guilty. That occurs at the trial, not at the arraignment. If you want to present testimony to support your innocence of the charge, the arraignment judge will record your Not Guilty plea and
your request for a trial will be entered into the record. Later, when the trial is heard at the downtown court, the issuing oÕcer will present his or her testimony against you to the trial judge or
jury and you will present your testimony as to your innocence to the trial judge or jury. - The arraignment judge did not listen to my testimony. Why? That seems rude. The issuing oÕcer is not present at your arraignment hearing to present the case against you. Testimony is received by the trial judge or
the jury, not by the arraignment judge. The arraignment judge is there to advise you of the charges against you, advise you of your rights, and to take your plea. You will have the opportunity to question the oÕcer and to testify on your behalf at the trial. - What is video arraignment?- Step by step video
VIDEO ARRAIGNMENT HOURS: 8:00 AM - 10:45 AM & 1:00 PMa- 2:45 PM (Monday - Friday)
El Paso Municipal Court video arraignment
Video arraignment is a way to appear for your arraignment by video conference. It allows citizens to attend their scheduled arraignment hearing at one of the Court’s neighborhood substations, listed below. These locations may be closer to your home or your work. aVideo arraignment is a “green friendly” alternative to in person arraignment since you may not need to drive as far to appear before the judge. It is quick and easy once you arrive at the substation.
Substation Arraignment Hours: 8:00 am - 10:45 am & 1:00 pm - 2:45 pm 10780 Pebble Hills - Pebble Hills Command OÕces 9011 Escobar - Mission Valley Command OÕces 4801 Osborne - Westside Command OÕces - How can I use video arraignment?
1. On the date of your arraignment, please check in with a cashier at any of the three Court Bond OÕce locations between 8:00 AM - 10:45 AM and 1:00 PM - 2:45 PM, Monday - Friday
2. The Court sta× member will activate the system.1.aa The Court sta× member will activate the system. The judge will hear a ring, alerting that you are waiting. You will see the judge on screen and the judge will see you. You will be able to listen to the judge and speak to the judge. aaa The Judge will address you. You will be able to present proof of compliance to the city prosecutor and the judge on the projector next to the computer screen. aaa Examples of proof of compliance are your driver’s license, inspection/registration proof, proof of failure to maintain Ònancial responsibility, proof of repair of broken headlight, turn signal, etc. Please make sure to bring this proof of compliance with you to your video arraignment.
a a3.aOnce the judge has Ònalized your hearing, see the cashier. The cashier will give you the documents resulting from your hearing.

- May ICreascsheedu3le:m1y6a-rcravig-n0m0e1nt3h2ea-rDingC? G Document 75-1 Filed 05/23/18 Page 24 of 72
No, arraignments may not be rescheduled. However, you do have options.
1. You may waive the arraignment and request a regular trial date beforeayour arraignment date. You must Òll out a Waiver of Arraignment and Other Rights (/~/media/Òles/coep/municipal clerk/muni court - forms/waiver of arraignment and other rights.ashx?la=en) and submit it to any Bond OÕce.
2. You may pay the citation in full and request a trial date. If the judge Ònds you not guilty at trial or the case is dismissed, a refund will be issued to you for the amount the judge authorizes.
3. You may hire an attorney
- I missed my arraignment hearing. Now what? If you miss your arraignment, a Pre-Warrant hearing will automatically be set.
- This hearing is to give you one last chance to speak with the judge before a warrant is issued for your arrest. - The Pre-Warrant hearing notice will be sent to your house stating the date and time of your next court date. Court will be held at
810 E. Overland, El Paso TX, 79901.
You may waive your Pre-Warrant hearing and request a regular trial date. You must Òll out a Waiver of Arraignment and Other Rights (/~/media/Òles/coep/municipal clerk/muni court - forms/waiver of arraignment and other rights.ashx?la=en) form and submit it to any bond oÕce before your Pre-Warrant hearing date.
- I missed my Pre-Warrant Hearing, now what? When you received the citation, you promised to appear at your arraignment hearing. If you fail to appear as promised, a Pre-Warrant
Hearing will be scheduled for you before a warrant is issued for your arrest. If you fail to appear to your Pre-Warrant hearing, the judge may issue a warrant. If a warrant is issued, you can be arrested by the El Paso Police Department or other law enforcement agencies.
If you missed your Pre-Warrant Hearing and a warrant has been issued please visit 810 E. Overland for your options.
(return to top)
QUESTIONS ABOUT TRIAL HEARINGS
- How will I receive notice of my trial date? You will receive notice by mail at the address you gave to the issuing oÕcer when he issued you the ticket. Typically you will receive the
notice 11 to 30 days before the trial date.
- What happens at a trial in Municipal Court? 1. You arrive at Municipal Court and pass security. You may not bring any Òrearms of any kind into the courthouse. You may not bring knives or other weapons. 2. You go into the courtroom and check in with the baili×. 3. You turn o× your cell phone. Cell phones may not ring in the courtroom. If your cell phone rings, you may be Òned by the judge. 4. The baili× checks o× your name, showing you are present. 5. The Judge arrives. aEveryone removes hats and sunglasses. Everyone rises. 6. The judge allows everyone to sit down. 7. The judge may make an announcement explaining how proceedings are handled in his or her Court. 8. The judge may make an announcement explaining legal rights and options to all present, or the judge may do this individually to each defendants when each case is called. 9. The Judge or the Court Deputy calls each case by the defendant’s last name.
10. The defendant comes forward to the Judge’s bench, when called. If you have an attorney, your attorney comes with you. 11. It may be crowded at the Judge’s bench. The City Prosecutor, the issuing oÕcer, the baili×, you, and your attorney will be there,
if you have an attorney. Also, witnesses may be there who are appearing for the prosecution or for you, the defense. 12. The Judge explains the charge(s) and your rights, if not already explained. 13. The Judge may present an option for you to take a driver’s safety course, if you are qualiÒed to do so, for the dismissal of the
case. 14. The City Prosecutor and the issuing oÕcer, , supported by any witnesses, present the case against you. 15. You may question the issuing oÕcer and any other witnesses. 16. You present your case, your testimony supporting youra “side of the story.” You present any physical evidence you have. You
present any supporting witnesses. 17. The judge weighs the evidence presented by both sides. 18. The City Prosecutor also may present a motion to dismiss the case to the judge after listening to your evidence. 19. The judge issues a ruling as to guilty, not guilty. 20. If you are found guilty, the judge assesses the Òne or the community service hours to be served. 21. You move to the right of the judge’s bench to speak with the Court Deputy. 22. The Court Deputy gives you the case documents showing the judge’s ruling. 23. If you are found not guilty, you celebrate at home. 24. If you are found guilty, the Court Deputy will give you a case slip to take to the cashier to pay your Òne or to set up a payment
plan. 25. A Court clerk is stationed in the lobby to assist you if you have questions.
- I missed my trial hearing. What are my options? If you missed your hearing, the judge may have issued an arrest warrant for you. You can be arrested by an El Paso Police Department
OÕcer or other law enforcement oÕcer.
Please visit 810 E Overland to see what your options are.
- Why do I have to pay court costs/state fees if I did not have a trial, but only paid the citation or requested defensive driving? Court costs are fees that apply to all convictions, whether or not a trial is held. The court is required to collect them.a Below is a link toaa
list of the Court Costs and where the funds go.
aaa -a Court Costsaon or after September 1, 2015 (/~/media/Òles/coep/municipal clerk/muni court Òles/2015_court_costs.ashx?la=en)
(return to top)
QUESTIONS REGARDING A DRIVER'S SAFETY COURSE FOR THE DISMISSAL OF A CITATION
- Why would I consider taking a driver's safety course? Some people decide to take a driver’s safety course for the dismissal of a citation because:

1.CUpaosnesuc3ce:1ss6fu-l ccovm-p0le0ti1on3o2f a-lDl reCquGiremDenots,ctuhemcaesenist d7is5m-is1sed.Filed 05/23/18 Page 25 of 72
2. State law does not allow insurance companies to use the ticket against drivers in assessing insurance rates. 3. Attentive participation instructs drivers on safe driving practices that can save life, limb and property.
- Who is eligible to take a driver's safety course, by right? You are eligible to take a driver’s safety course if:
1.aYou have a valid Texas Driver’s License, are active military, or military family with a valid driver’s license
2.aYouahave notataken a driver’s safety course for the dismissal of a citation in the last 12 months.
3.aYou were not traveling more than 25 miles over the speed limit.
4.aYou do not have a Commercial Driver’s License.
5.aYou plead guilty or no contest to the violation.
- How can I, an adult, request a driving safety course, by right? 1. You will have to secure approval from the court on or before your arraignment date or Pre-Warrant hearing before you take the course. 2. If you are an adult, you may secure approval by: - Requesting the driving safety course in person at any bond oÕce location - Mailing your request to 810 E Overland, El Paso TX, 79901 - Filling out a plea declarationaform (/~/media/Òles/coep/municipal clerk/deferment form october 2005.ashx?la=en) and sending it by email toaDefensivedriving@elpasotexas.gov (mailto:Defensivedriving@elpasotexas.gov? subject=Defensive%20Driving%20Request) - Filling out aaplea declarationaform (/~/media/Òles/coep/municipal clerk/deferment form october 2005.ashx?la=en)aand faxing it to (915) 212-0216 - Or in person at the scheduled arraignment hearing
3. You are required to pay to the Court the required court costs and administrative fee imposed for the driver's safety course. 4. You must request the certiÒed driver record, form 3A from The Texas Department of Public Safety
(https://txapps.texas.gov/tolapp/txldrcdr/TXDPSLicenseeManager? utm_source=texasgov&utm_medium=records_LDR&utm_campaign=driver_2015). The payment is made to the DPS and the driver record is submitted to the Court. 5. You must pay and attend a (TDLR) Texas Department of Licensing and Regulation certiÒed defensive driving class of your choice. CertiÒcate will be mailed 2-3 weeks after completion. The Court may not recommend any TDLR certiÒed classes. 6. You must submit the TDLR CertiÒcate of Completion, 3A certiÒed driver record from the Texas Department of Public Safety, and proof of insurance to any Bond OÕce Location on or before the end of your 90 day deferral.
You will receive a CertiÒcate of Receipt from the court clerk acknowledging all paperwork was received the day you submit your paperwork.
- How can I, as a juvenile, request a drivers safety course? If you are a juvenile, you must appear at your arraignment, with your parent(s) or legal guardian, before the judge.a State law requires
this. The intent is to make sure the juvenile and the parent or legal guardian understand the charge against the juvenile and the options available.
- May I take a Driver's Safety Course if I do not have a Texas license, but I do have an out of state driver's license? If you have an out of state driver’s license, you may request a driver’s safety course from the judge at your arraignment hearing or from
the judge at your trial hearing. If you live out of town, you may submit a motion to the judge. The judge will decide whether or not to grant your request.
- What if I miss my 90 day deadline to turn in my proof of Defensive Driving completion? 1. If you miss your due date, you will be scheduled, automatically, for a Show Cause Hearing before the judge. This is a requirement of State law. 2. You do not need to do anything. The Court will automatically schedule the Show Cause Hearing. 3. However, if your address has changed, please contact the Court by fax at 915-212-0216, by email at Defendants@elpasotexas.gov (mailto:Defendants@elpasotexas.gov), or in person at any of our Bond OÕces and supply the new address. 4. You will be notiÒed by mail of your Show Cause Hearing date and time.
- What happens at a Show Cause Hearing for Driver's Safety Cases? 1. At the Show Cause Hearing you will explain to the judge why you missed the due date. 2. The judge will decide whether or not to grant you more time to complete the course, or if the judge will enter the guilty Ònding against you and assess a Òne. 3. If you do not appear at your show cause hearing, the judge may enter a guilty Ònding against you, assess a Òne, and a PreCapias Warrant hearing will be sent to you by mail. If you do not attend the Pre-Capias Hearing, a capias warrant will be issued and you may be arrested.
(return to top)
QUESTIONS REGARDING THE TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY POINT SYSTEM
- I received a letter from the Texas Department of Public Safety about points against my driving record and Ònes. Please explain. Courts in Texas relay conviction Òndings to the Texas Department of Public Safety (DPS). DPS assesses points and imposes State fees
according to their prescribed formula. Visit theaaTexas Department of Public Safety website (http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/DriverLicense/drp.htm)afor more information on the points and fee formula.
(return to top)
QUESTIONS ABOUT PAYMENT PLANS
- I want to pay my ticket, but I do not have all the money. How can I request a payment plan? The El Paso Municipal Court Judges allow a liberal payment plan policy for defendants who respond on time for their citations. Anyone
may request a 180 day payment plan, as long as you request one prior to your arraignment date or your trial date.
A 180-day payment plan may be requested by Òlling out a Payment Plan application and returning it in person, by email at Paymentplans@elpasotexas.gov (mailto:Paymentplans@elpasotexas.gov?subject=Payment Plan Request), or by mail to 810 E. Overland, El Paso, TX 79901.a You may request an indigency hearing before the judge to explain your Ònancial situation if you are unable to adhere to the payment plan requirements.a

If yOovueralCraenarde,sqEuel Pesa3tsion:1gTea6xp-aacsy,vm79-e90n0t01p.1la3n 2or-aDndCaGn indiDgenoccy uhemariengnbtu7t c5ur-r1entlyFhialveedan0ac5ti/v2e 3wa/1rr8ant yPouamguest g2o6in opefrs7on2to 810 E.
Los jueces de la corte municipal de El Paso permiten una política de plan de pago para los acusados que responden a tiempo para sus citaciones. Cualquiera puede solicitar un plan de pago de 180 días, siempre y cuando se solicite antes de la fecha de presentación de cargos o la fecha de prueba.
Se puede solicitar un plan de pago de 180 días llenando una solicitud del Plan de pago y devolviéndola en persona, por correo electrónico a Paymentplans@elpasotexas.gov (mailto:Paymentplans@elpasotexas.gov?subject=Payment Plan Request), o por correo a 810 E. Overland, El Paso, TX 79901. Puede solicitar una audiencia de indigencia ante el juez para explicar su situación Ònanciera si no puede cumplir con los requisitos del plan de pago.
Si está solicitando un plan de pago o una audiencia de indigencia, pero actualmente tiene una orden de detención activa, debe ir en persona al 810 E. Overland, El Paso Texas, 79901.
- I have a payment plan, but I cannot pay o× my ticket in 180 days. What should I do? If you are unable to pay, you may contact us at 915-212-0232 during the hours of 8:00 a.m.- 5:00 p.m. (MST) Monday - Friday to set up a
hearing with a Judge. Your options include community service, in lieu of the Òne on your case.
To request a hearing, submit a written request to the Court or appear at the downtown Court, 810 East Overland.
If you do not pay o× your Òne in 180 days and you do not request a hearing before the judge, you will be set for a Pre-Capias Hearing. If you do not attend, a capias warrant will be issued and you may be arrested.
Si no puede pagar, puede contactarnos al 915-212-0232 durante el horario de 8:00 a.m.- 5:00 p.m. (MST) de lunes a viernes para programar una audiencia con un juez. Sus opciones incluyen servicio comunitario, en lugar de la multa en su caso.
Para solicitar una audiencia, envíe una solicitud por escrito al Tribunal o comparezca ante el Tribunal del centro, 810 East Overland.
Si no cancela su multa en 180 días y no solicita una audiencia ante el juez, se le asignará una audiencia Pre-Capias. Si no asiste, se emitirá una orden de captura y usted puede ser arrestado.
- I have a warrant because I did not appear at arraignment or trial as I promised to do. May I have a payment plan? Yes. aYou must go in person to 810 E. Overland to request a payment plan.
If you believe you are indigent or unable to pay the Òne in full, you may request an indigency hearing before the judge. On a case-bycase basis, the judge will determine whether or not you are indigent or whether or not to grant you a payment plan.
Sí. Debe ir en persona al 810 E. Overland para solicitar un plan de pago.
Si cree que es indigente o no puede pagar la multa en su totalidad, puede solicitar una audiencia de indigencia ante el juez. Caso por caso, el juez determinará si usted es indigente o si le otorgará o no un plan de pago
(return to top)
QUESTIONS ABOUT ARREST WARRANTS
- Why do I have an arrest warrant? You may have committed one of the following:
- You failed to appear as promised at your scheduled arraignment or trial hearing. - You failed to fulÒll your sentencing requirements, such as payment of the Òne, completion of community service, or compliance
with other court ordered judgments.
- Can I be arrested if I have an active arrest warrant? Yes. You can be arrested by the El Paso Police Department or other law enforcement agencies.
- Are there other consequences for having an arrest warrant, aside from the possibility of arrest? Yes, there are additional consequences:
- Texas Residents:aIn accordance with State Law, Texas residents who fail to appear in court or fail to pay or satisfy an ordered judgment as required by law may have their driver’s license suspended, denied renewal of their driver’s license by the Texas Department of Public Safety Omni (http://www.texasfailuretoappear.com/index.php) program, and be assessed an additional fee.
- Out of State Residents:aIn accordance with the states’ Non-Resident Violator’s Compact Agreement, Texas Department of Public Safety may notify the driver’s licensing department of your state of any outstanding arrest warrants. Driver’s license suspension proceedings may be initiated against you.
- Vehicle owners with active arrest warrants may be denied the registration of their vehicles in El Paso County until the warrant is recalled. The City has an interlocal agreement with the El Paso County Tax Assessor to deny registration to owners with active arrest warrants.
- People with active arrest warrants may face obstacles in enlisting in military service and in securing or sustaining employment.
- How can I Ònd out if I have an active arrest warrant?
- To conÒrm whether or not an arrest warrant or capias pro Òne has been issued, you may call the Court’s Warrant OÕce, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week: 915-212-0221. It will be necessary for you to provide the clerk with your name, any aliases, including maiden names and nicknames, your date of birth, and the citation number, if possible.a
- Search your citation online at Citation & Warrant Search (https://public.fce.elpasotexas.gov/fullcourtweb/start.do).a
- What can I do to get the arrest warrant recalled?
- You may post a cash bond at any bond oÕce, by mail at 810 E. Overland, El Paso, TX 79901, by phone at 915-212-0232, or on-line (https://www.citepayusa.com/payments/welcome.do?court=elPASOtx).
- You may contact a bail bond company to post a surety bond. - You may contact an attorney. - You may submit a motion to the Judge. - You may appear at 810 Overland.

- IfCyoausaere u3n:a1bl6e -tocpva-y0, y0o1u m3a2y-rDeqCueGst an Dindoigcenucmy heeanritng7. Y5o-u1mayFcoilmeedto0th5e/d2o3w/n1to8wn MPuanicgipeal 2Co7urot aft 78120 E. Overland to request the indigency hearing. The judge will determine whether or not you are indigent and will inform you of nonmonetary options available.a
(return to top)
QUESTIONS ABOUT SURCHARGES
- What does it mean when I have a surcharge? You may have been convicted of the following o×enses:
- You have been convicted on a charge of "No Driver's license" or "Failure to Maintain Financial Responsibility" (no insurance) - You have six or more points on your driver record.
The Texas Department of Public Safety can assess charges to an individual based on certain traÕc o×enses. DPS should notify you by mail each time a surcharge is added to your driver record. For more information on surcharges go to the Texas Department of Public Safety (http://www.dps.texas.gov/DriverLicense/drp.htm)aweb-site.
If convicted of a second charge of FTMFR (no insurance), DPS will suspend your driver's license. For more information on suspensions/revocations, please check the TxDPS (http://www.dps.texas.gov/DriverLicense/sr22InsuranceCertiÒcate.htm)aweb-site:
If you are unable to pay your surcharges contact the Texas Department of Public Safety and ask about their Indigency Program (http://www.dps.texas.gov/DriverLicense/IndigencyProgram.htm).

(return to top)
QUESTIONS ABOUT OMNI (DRIVER'S LICENSE RENEWAL) HOLDS
- How can I remove the Omni hold? In order to remove an Omni hold with El Paso Municipal Court, all warrants must be resolved and a $30 fee for each violation obtaining
the Omni hold must be paid.
Once the fee is paid, it may take up to 10 days for the Texas Department of Public Safety to update the hold removal.
If you receive a hold for New Mexico or Arizona, you must wait 10 working days after your warrant has been resolved in order to request a Release Letter from the El Paso Municipal Court.
- How do I know if I have an Omni hold? You can visit the Texas Failure to Appear website (http://www.texasfailuretoappear.com/search.php) to look up any Omni holds you
may have.
- Why do i have an Omni hold? As authorized by Chapter 706 of the Texas Transportation Code (http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/TN/htm/TN.706.htm), The El
Paso Municipal Court has a contract with the OmniBase Services of Texas (http://www.omnibase.com) to deny the renewal of the driver's license of a person who fails to appear for a complaint/citation or fails to pay a violation as ordered by the court.
(return to top)
QUESTIONS ABOUT SCOFFLAW (VEHICLE REGISTRATION) HOLD
- How can I remove the ScoÖaw hold? In order to remove the ScoÖaw hold you must visit any of the El Paso Municipal Court bond oÕces and bring the following items:
1. Vehicle Registration Renewal Notice (Current Year) or Inquiry Receipt obtained at the County Tax Assessor’s OÕce 2. Asset Recovery Collections System (A.R.C.S) Form 3. Copy of a State Issued Drivers License or a government issued identiÒcation card for all drivers listed on the registration from
All warrants must be resolved and any warrants resolved in the last 90 days from the date of the ScoÖaw Release request will have a $20.00 fee added to the violation(s).
A minimum of a $20.00 fee for each violation may need to be paid before a ScoÖaw Release is issued.
- How do I know if I have a ScoÖaw hold on my registration? When you go to the County Tax Assessor to register your vehicle, they will hand you an Asset Recovery Collections System (A.R.C.S) Form
informing you El Paso Municipal Court has a ScoÖaw hold.
- What is a ScoÖaw hold According to the Transportation Code Sec. 702.003 (http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/TN/htm/TN.702.htm): The County Tax
Assessor may refuse to register a motor vehicle if the County Tax Assessor receives information from the El Paso Municipal Court stating that the owner of the vehicle has an outstanding warrant for failure to appear or failure to pay a Òne involving a traÕc violation.
El Paso Municipal Court may impose an additional $20 fee to each outstanding warrant a person has on a traÕc violation. The additional fee is used to reimburse the County Tax Assessor for its expenses for providing the services.
(return to top)
QUESTIONS ABOUT PARKING CITATIONS
- What are the parking citation Ònes?

PARKING VIOLATION FINE SCHEDULE - E×ective 01/23/12

EXPIRED METER BUFFER ZONE PARK IN MORE THAN 1 METER SPACE PARK ON BUS OR TAXI STAND AIRPORT LIMOUSINE ZONE HOTEL ZONE - PARKING OTHER OVERTIME LOAD ZONE-AIRPORT/OVER 3 MIN/UNATTENDED LOAD ZONE (GENERAL) - OVER 30 MIN

$ 25.00 $ 25.00 $ 25.00 $ 25.00 $ 25.00 $ 25.00 $ 25.00 $ 25.00 $ 25.00

LOADINCG aZOsNeE (3CO:1M6M-. cVEvH-IC0L0E)1- 3OV2E-RD30CMGIN $D25o.0c0ument 75-1

OVER 18 INCHES FROM CURB

$ 25.00

LOADING ZONE/NOT COMMERCIAL VEHICLE

$ 25.00

PARK WITHIN 30 FT. OF STOP SIGN

$ 25.00

PARKING - FUNERAL ZONE

$ 25.00

RESERVED PARKING SPACE

$ 25.00

AIRPORT-CONTRARY TO SIGNS OR MARKINGS

$ 25.00

AIRPORT-LOADING IN FRONT OF TERMINAL

$ 25.00

ALLEY-GENERAL TRAFFIC DIST/FIVE POINTS

$ 25.00

AIRPORT-WEST OF TERMINAL W/O AUTHORITY $ 25.00

POLICE/POLICE MOTORCYCLE ZONE

$ 25.00

BACK-IN ANGLED PARKING ONLY

$ 55.00

DOUBLE PARKING

$ 55.00

PARK ON WRONG SIDE OF STREET

$ 55.00

RESIDENTIAL PARKING ZONE (NO PERMIT)

$ 55.00

NO PARKING ZONE

$ 55.00

PARKING ON SIDEWALK

$ 55.00

PARKING - EASEMENT

$ 55.00

PARKING IN FRONT OF DRIVEWAY

$ 55.00

PARK WITHIN 20 FT. OF CROSSWALK

$ 55.00

PARK WITHIN 15 FT. OF FIRE HYDRANT

$ 55.00

PARKING ON MEDIAN

$ 55.00

PARK ON A BRIDGE

$ 55.00

IN ALLEYS CONTRARY TO SIGN

$ 55.00

CONTRARY TO ANGLE PARKING SIGNS

$ 55.00

ALONGSIDE/OPPOSITE STREET EXCAVATION

$ 55.00

NEWS MEDIA ZONE

$ 55.00

INSPECTION ZONE

$ 55.00

COVERED METER

$ 55.00

IN VIOLATION OF SIGN/ADJACENT TO SCHOOL $ 55.00

IN VIOLATION OF SIGN/NARROW STREET

$ 55.00

IN VIOLATON OF SIGN/ONE-WAY STREET

$ 55.00

TEMPORARY NO PARKING ZONE

$ 55.00

ADJACENT TO SAFETY ZONE

$ 55.00

YELLOW CURB MARKINGS

$ 55.00

PARKING IN DESIGNATED BIKE LANES

$ 55.00

VIOLATION OF STREET CLEANING/CONSTRUCTION $ 55.00

VIOLATION OF OFFICIAL SIGN PROHIBITING PARKIN$G55.00

PARKING ON CITY PROPERTY

$ 100.00

R-O-W WASHING/REPAIRING VEHICLE

$ 100.00

FIRE LANE

$ 150.00

HAZARDOUS/CONGESTED PLACE

$ 150.00

WITHIN INTERSECTION

$ 150.00

PARKING PROHIBITED/OVERSIZE

$ 225.00

ACCESSIBLE PARKING PERMIT ZONE/NO PERMIT $ 275.00

ACCESSIBLE PARKING PERMIT ZONE/BLOCKED $ 275.00

Filed 05/23/18

Page 28 of 72

ALL FINES ARE SUBJECT TO CHANGE
Delinquency Fees: All Ònes increase by $10.00 for every 30 days the citation is delinquent, up to a maximum of $60.00 in delinquency fees per violation. The delinquency fees are added on to the amount of the original Ònes in the listings above.
- How do I get a hearing on my parking citation? The person charged with a parking or stopping o×ense shall have the right to an instant hearing for the purpose of determining the
issue of liability for the charged o×ense. Section 12.85.030 of the Municipal Code requires that such right to a hearing shall be exercised by appearing in person before a hearing oÕcer within fourteen days from the date of the citation, between the hours of 8:30 a.m. to 12:45 p.m. and 2:00 p.m. to 5:15 p.m., Monday through Friday.
Hearings may be requested as follows:
In person:
El Paso Municipal Court
810 E. Overland
El Paso, Texas 79901
By phone:a(915) 212-5804
It is possible that you might get a recording. Please leave a message and the Deputy Court Clerk will return your call. Please include the citation # and the date the citation was issued.
By mail:
El Paso Municipal Court
810 E. Overland
El Paso, Texas 79901
Please include the original citation, if possible. If not, include the citation # and the date of issuance.
By fax:a(915) 212-0216
Please include a copy of the citation if possible. If not, include the citation # and the date of issuance.

- I no loCngaersoewn3t:h1e6ve-hcicvle-0fo0r a1n3ou2t-stDanCdinGg parDkinogccuitamtioen.nWth7at5ca-n1I doF? iled 05/23/18 Page 29 of 72
The El Paso Municipal Court receives vehicle registration information from the Texas Department of Transportation. At the time the vehicle registration request was submitted from the Court to TxDOT, your name appeared as the last registered owner of the vehicle. If you have received notice regarding a parking citation(s) issued to a vehicle that you no longer own and which you did not own at the time of the issuance of the citation(s), please provide the following (where applicable):
A copy of the invoice showing the vehicle was traded in, including the license plate number. A copy of the invoice showing the vehicle was purchased after the citation was issued, including the license plate number. A copy of the record from the Texas Department of Transportation showing that ownership has been transferred and the date
thereof; or A copy of the Vehicle Transfer NotiÒcation Form after it has been processed by the Texas Department of Transportation. The form
is available at the Texas Department of Transportation and the oÕce of the local County Tax Assessor-Collector. It also is available on line through the TxDOT web sitea asa F (http://txdmv.gov/reports-and-data/doc_download/954-vtr-346-texas-motorvehicle-transfer-notiÒcation)orm TR346 (http://txdmv.gov/reports-and-data/doc_download/954-vtr-346-texas-motor-vehicletransfer-notiÒcation)ain the Vehicle Registration category.
- I received a parking citation while I was serving as a juror in a court proceeding. What can I do? Please submit your citation either in person or by mailaand the conÒrmation of juror service received from the Court. The hearing oÕcer
will review the documents. If all is in order, the citation will be dismissed.
- What are the procedures at the hearing?
Hearing Procedures:
The purpose of the hearing is to determine liability or non-liability for the o×ense charged. The hearing oÕcer will make this determination based upon a preponderance of the evidence presented at the hearing, after giving due weight to all presumptions and prima facie evidence established by law. The hearing will be recorded on audio tape and is to be conducted in a calm, courteous manner, respectful of both the vehicle owner and the hearing oÕcer.
Appear at the date and time of your scheduled hearing.
Bring a copy of the citation issued to you.
Bring all documents you would like the hearing oÕcer to consider, including, but not limited to:
photographs aÕdavits auto title, transfer of title and registration documents placards authorizing parking in spaces reserved for the disabled receipts
Findings: After considering the evidence presented, the hearing oÕcer can Ònd the vehicle owner:
1. Dismissed/ Not Liable for the O×ense: If you are found not to be liable for the o×ense, the case against you will be dismissed.
2. Liable for the O×ense: If you are found to be liable for the o×ense, the full Òne amount for the citation will be assessed. The hearing oÕcer has no latitude to reduce the Òne amount.
- What do I do if I receive a citation for parking in a handicap zone? What do I do if I receive a citation for parking in a handicapped zone, but I am a person for whom the State has issued a disability
parking placard or I was transporting a person for whom the State has issued a disabled parking placard?
Documents Presented at the Hearing: If a citation was issued for parking in a zone reserved for the disabled or if a disabled person was being transported at the time the citation was issued, the person to whom the disabled parking placard is issued is required to appear to give testimony. If this person is unable to appear, a sworn aÕdavit is acceptable in place of testimony,aalong withathe handicapped placard and placard application form.
By Mail: Persons who are authorized to park in a space reserved for the disabled, but who forget to display their placard, resulting in a citation, have the option of presenting their cases via mail.
The following must be submitted in order for review:
1. The citation. 2. A sworn aÕdavit explaining the facts. 3. A copy of the placard, placard application form and driver’s license or ID card.
*All submissions are subject to the review of the hearing oÕcer.
- Why did a collection agency contact me about some outstanding parking tickets? The City of El Paso has a contract with Delgado, Acosta, Spencer, Linebarger & Perez, LLP Attorneys at Law for the collections of
delinquent Municipal Court Ònes and fees. Please call the Court during regular business hours for questions regarding speciÒc citations or the citations listed against the vehicle plate shown as registered to you.
- Why was my vehicle booted or impounded? The law allows the booting or impoundment of vehicles having 3 (three) or more delinquent parking citations.
- How can I gain release of my vehicle after it has been booted or impounded? Payment:
The registered owner of an immobilized or impounded vehicle, or other authorized person may secure release of the vehicle by paying the total amount of the Òne, any late fees for each delinquent citation, including any arrest warrants against the owner of the vehicle for Class C misdemeanors, a $ 50.00 boot fee, transportation costs incurred by the city, towing and storage fees. These charges may be paid at any bond oÕce location, checks will not be accepted.
The towing and storage fees are:

RCeTgaouwslae-r$S33iz6e:.91V16e(hP-oiccllivece-wD0ite0hpia1nr3tCmi2tey-nLDtimImCitpsGo:und,Dmousct uhamveeanyetllo7w5s-li1p meFanilinegdPo0lic5e/D2e3pa/r1tm8entPdidaagneinv3e0ntooryfo7f t2he car)
Daily Storage Fees - $12.21/ day AÕdavit - $6.00
Trucks: Tow - Varies by size Daily Storage Fees - $15.00
Boot Hearing:
The registered owner of an immobilized or impounded vehicle shall have the right to a prompt post-immobilization hearing (“boot hearing”) before the hearing oÕcer. The boot hearing shall be held within 24 hours following the written request therefore, excluding Saturdays, Sundays, and City of El Paso holidays, at the Municipal Court, 810 E. Overland, El Paso, Texas 79901. The issue to be determined at the boot hearing is whether the immobilization was authorized by law. The determination of the hearing oÕcer at the boot hearing is Ònal. If the hearing oÕcer Ònds that the owner of the vehicle is not liable for any of the citations, a release order for the vehicle will be issued.
- I received a parking citation while I was serving as a juror in a court proceeding. What can I do? Bring the paper citation and your jury summons letter to 810 E. Overland and see a cashier to have the citation dismissed.
(return to top)
QUESTIONS ABOUT COMMUNITY SERVICE
- How do I request community service in lieu of Òne payment? You may request community service when you appear before the judge at arraignment or at trial. The judge will decide whether or not
to grant your request.
Puede solicitar el servicio comunitario cuando comparezca ante el juez en la lectura de cargos o en el juicio. El juez decidirá si concede o no su solicitud.
- How many hours of community service must I complete? The judge will decide how many hours you must perform.
El juez decidirá cuántas horas debe realizar.
- Where will I perform the community service? Court sta× will work with you to Ònd a community service site close to your home or work. We have many host agencies throughout the
community.
El personal de la corte trabajará con usted para encontrar un sitio de servicio comunitario cerca de su casa o trabajo. Tenemos muchas agencias anÒtrionas en toda la comunidad.
- What kind of community service will I perform? Court sta× will work with you to Ònd a suitable assignment for your skills and abilities.a You will be expected to show up when
scheduled, dress appropriately for the assignment and follow instructions respectfully.
El personal de la corte trabajará con usted para encontrar una asignación adecuada para sus habilidades. Se le require que se presente cuando se le indique, se vista apropiadamente para la tarea y siga las instrucciones respetuosamente.
(return to top)
QUESTIONS ON HOW TO SEARCH FOR CITATIONS & WARRANTS ONLINE
- How do I search for a citation or warrant with my name? 1. Go toaCitationa&aWarrantaSearch (https://public.fce.elpasotexas.gov/fullcourtweb/start.do) 2. Click on Log In 3. Go to the upper left hand side of the screen and click on Searches 4. Select CaseaSearches- By Party 5. Enter Last and First Namea 6. Enter Date of Birth

- How do I search for a citation or warrant by citation number?
1. Go toaCitationa&aWarrantaSearch (https://public.fce.elpasotexas.gov/fullcourtweb/start.do) a 2. Click on Log In 3. Click on Searches- Select CitationaSearch 4. Enter citation number without any dashes

a a a a a a a a a a a

a a a a a a a a a a

- How do I search for a parking violation? 1. Go toaCitationa&aWarrantaSearch (https://public.fce.elpasotexas.gov/fullcourtweb/start.do) 2. Click on Log In 3. Click on Searches 4. SelectaCase Searches- By Party 5. Enter vehicle plate number for Last Name
- Can I pay a citations or warrants online? Yes. If you know your citation number go toaPay Citation & Warrant Online (https://www.citepayusa.com/payments/welcome.do?
court=elPASOtx).

Case 3:16-cv-00132-DCG Document 75-1 Filed 05/23/18 Page 31 of 72

a a

aa

- Can I download instructions on how to use the citation and warrant search? Yes just click onaDownload Instructions (/~/media/Òles/coep/municipal clerk/muni court - documents/online how to use citation
search.ashx?la=en)
(return to top)
QUESTIONS ON HOW TO USE THE COURT DOCKET
- How do I view the court docket list?
1. Go toaCitation & Warrant Search (https://public.fce.elpasotexas.gov/fullcourtweb/mainMenu.do) 2. Click on Log In 3. Click on Scheduling and select Monthly Court Calendar 4. Go to Court Calendar Parameters and select the + box 5. Input the information you would like to view: Such as Attorney name 6. Click Retrieve 7. The only month displayed will be theaone that was selected in Step 5 8. Click on the court day you wish to view to see the list of cases set for that
day 9. The docket will appear for the day that was selected
- Can I download instructions on how to view the docket list?
Yes. You can click onaDownload Instructions (/~/media/Òles/coep/municipal clerk/muni court - documents/how to view online docket.ashx?la=en).
(return to top)
(//WWW.ELPASOTEXAS.GOV/MUNICIPAL-COURTS/TRANSLATE)
Departments (//www.elpasotexas.gov/departments) Residents (//www.elpasotexas.gov/residents) Business (//www.elpasotexas.gov/economic-development) Visitors (//www.elpasotexas.gov/visitors) Meetings (//www.elpasotexas.gov/meetings) Online Services (//www.elpasotexas.gov/online-services) Contact Us (//www.elpasotexas.gov/contact)
Accessibility (//www.elpasotexas.gov/ada) Disclaimer (//www.elpasotexas.gov/disclaimer) Link Policy (//www.elpasotexas.gov/link-policy) Privacy Policy (//www.elpasotexas.gov/privacy-policy) Security Policy (//www.elpasotexas.gov/security-policy) Webmail (https://owa.elpasotexas.gov/)
© 2018 City of El Paso CONNECT WITH US
$name (http://www.facebook.com/elpasotexasgov) $name (http://twitter.com/#!/ElPasoTXGov) $name (https://www.youtube.com/cityofelpasotx) Instagram (https://www.instagram.com/iam_elpaso/)
EL PASO CITY HALL 300 N. Campbell El Paso, Texas 79901 (915) 212-0000 or 3-1-1 Directions to City Hall (https://www.google.com/maps/place/300+N+Campbell+St,+El+Paso,+TX+79901/@31.762095,-106.484746,17z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m2!3m1!1s0x8 OPERATIONAL HOURS Mon-Fri | 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

Case 3:16-cv-00132-DCG Document 75-1 Filed 05/23/18 Page 32 of 72
(/) ()
Home Page (/) Custom Search
Home (//www.elpasotexas.gov) ▸ Municipal Courts (//www.elpasotexas.gov/municipal-courts) ▸ Fines and Payments
915-212-0215
MUNICIPAL COURTS
Browse Department (/) Home (//www.elpasotexas.gov/municipal-courts) Citation & Warrant Search (https://public.fce.elpasotexas.gov/fullcourtweb/start.do) Pay Citation & Warrant Online (https://www.citepayusa.com/payments/welcome.do?court=elPASOtx) Defendants Rights (//www.elpasotexas.gov/municipal-courts/defendants-rights) Jury Services (//www.elpasotexas.gov/municipal-courts/jury-services) Parking Citations (//www.elpasotexas.gov/municipal-courts/parking-citations) Judiciary (//www.elpasotexas.gov/municipal-courts/judiciary) Arraignment (//www.elpasotexas.gov/municipal-courts/judiciary/arraignment) Municipal Judges (//www.elpasotexas.gov/municipal-courts/judiciary/municipal-judges) Judicial Procedures (//www.elpasotexas.gov/municipal-courts/judiciary/judicial-procedures) Juvenile Procedures (//www.elpasotexas.gov/municipal-courts/judiciary/juvenile-procedures) Community Service (//www.elpasotexas.gov/municipal-courts/community-service) Court Stats (//www.elpasotexas.gov/municipal-courts/court-stats) Court Docket List (https://public.fce.elpasotexas.gov/fullcourtweb/start.do) Court Processes FAQ (//www.elpasotexas.gov/municipal-courts/court-processes) Defensive Driving FAQ (//www.elpasotexas.gov/municipal-courts/defensive-driving) Fines and Payments (//www.elpasotexas.gov/municipal-courts/Ònes-and-payments) Forms (//www.elpasotexas.gov/municipal-courts/forms) Red Light Enforcement (//www.elpasotexas.gov/municipal-courts/red-light) Directory (//www.elpasotexas.gov/municipal-courts/directory)
FINES AND PAYMENTS
a Payments Speeding Fines >1/1/14 Fines <1/1/14
PAYMENTS
PAYMENT METHODS
Many adults choose to pay the Òne prior to a court appearance. aIf you would like to do so, please follow the steps below.a The forfeiture of the cash bond that will be posted in your case satisÒes the Òne and costs. You do not need to do anything more.a You have the right to a new trial in this case. You must make your motion for a new trial not later than the 20th day after you post your full payment.a If you make the motion for a new trial, the Court shall grant your motion and will schedule you for a trial. MAKE YOUR PAYMENT: Adults may deliver payment to the Court in one of two ways.

BidreinngCtiÒyaocaustrieopna.3yYm:o1eun6mt,-awcyivtNh-Oi0Tde0pna1tyiÒ3ac2acitt-iaoDtnio,CninGfporerasnoDonthotoecrapuneymrCsooenun.rttlo7ca5ti-o1n. ThFe ipleersdon0w5h/o2r3ec/e1iv8ed thPe caitgateion3m3usot fbe7p2resent with
Mail your payment to the Court at: Municipal Court 810 E Overland El Paso, Tx. 79901 PAYMENT METHODS: El Paso Municipal Court accepts:
Cash Personal checks Money orders Cashier checks Debit cards Credit cards PAY BY PHONE:
PAYMENT BY CHECK, MONEY ORDER, OR CASHIER'S CHECK: Make your check, money order, or cashier's check payable toaCity of El Pasoain the full amount due. Write your ticket number on the payment along with your driver’s license number and date of birth. RETURNED CHECK FEE: A $ 30.00 fee will be charged on all returned checks ADDRESS CHANGE: Please identify any address change. All Court correspondence will be set to the address you provided to the oÕcer, unless an address change has been Òled with the Court. PAYMENT BY MAJOR CREDIT CARD: We accept Visa, MasterCard and Discover cards. To pay by credit card, bring your credit card with identiÒcation to any Court locationor pay online (https://www.citepayusa.com/payments/welcome.do?court=elPASOtx).
PAY ONLINE
Pay Citation & Warrant Online (https://www.citepayusa.com/payments/welcome.do?court=elPASOtx)
PAYMENT PLAN REQUESTS - 212-0232
Paymentplans@elpasotexas.gov (mailto:Paymentplans@elpasotexas.gov?subject=Payment Plan Request) Requesting a Payment Plan: If you would like to request a 180 day payment plan, you must Òll out a state-mandated application.aaYou may request one in person at 810 E. Overland, El Paso, TX 79901 or any of our bond oÕce locations, by email (mailto:Paymentplans@elpasotexas.gov? subject=Payment Plan Request),aoraÒll out the applicationaANDaPlea belowaand submitato the same address-information on the application.a Itawill be reviewed and veriÒed- the request must be received before your court appearance or arraignment date.aONLYathe person who received the citation or an attorney licensed to practice in Texas may request the extension.a If you are unable to pay, you may contact us at 915-212-0232 during the hours of 8:00 a.m.-5:00 p.m. (MST) to set up a hearing with a judge. Your options include community service, in lieu of the Òne on you case. Please indicate that you wish to plead guilty or no contest. File a change of address form with the court if your address has changed since the receipt of the citation. a Additional $25.00 Payment Fee:a State law requires the Court to add a fee of $25.00 per violation when a person requests to pay a Òne or state fees over a period of time rather than immediately.aThe $25.00 fee will be added on the 31staday from the date of conviction. If you pay your Òne within the Òrst 30 days, the time payment fee will not apply.aHowever, on the 31staday, the $25.00 fee will be applied to each violation if any amount of your Òne remains unpaid. The State of Texas operates on a point system which may add surcharges to the cost of your driver's license:aTo see how this could a×ect you please check the TXDPS web-site (http://www.dps.texas.gov).a -aApplication for Payment Extension (/~/media/Òles/coep/municipal clerk/muni court - forms/application for payment plan 072017.ashx?la=en) -aPlea (/~/media/Òles/coep/municipal clerk/2010_04_plea.ashx?la=en) a DPS - Driver's Licenses

IDfecpoanCrvtiamctseendetoon3f aP:1ucbh6laic-rgcSeavfoe-ft0"yN0wo1ilDl3aridv2de-ra'DssluiCcrecGnhsaer"geoDrto"oFoacbiltuuarimen taeodMnriavtien7rt'sa5ilni-c1eFinnsaenF. cFiioalrleRadelissp0too5nfs/si2buir3lcith/ya1"r(g8neos,inpPsleuaarasgenceceh)e,3cthk4ethToeefxTaX7sD2PS web-
site: Click Here (http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/DriverLicense/drp.htm)
If convicted of a second charge of FTMFR (no insurance), DPS will suspend your driver's license. For more information on suspensions/revocations, please check the TX DPS web-site: Click Here (http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/DriverLicense/sr22InsuranceCertiÒcate.htm)

INSTRUCTIONS FOR JUVENILES - 212-0229
SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS FOR JUVENILES:
If you are under 17 years of ages State law requires that you appear, with a parent or legal guardian, before a judge at your arraignment or at trial prior to paying your Òne. Do not mail the Òne payment due, until after you appear before a judge. Payments sent for juvenile defendants prior to the juvenile’s appearance in Court will not be accepted.a Art. 45.057, CCP (h):a A child and parent required to appear before the court have an obligation to provide the court in writing with the current address and residence of the child. A violation of this subsection may result in arrest and is a class C misdemeanor.
Click here to learn more about Juvenile Procedures (//www.elpasotexas.gov/municipal-courts/judiciary/juvenile-procedures)

LATE PAYMENTS
Partial and Late Payments
If you have not plead on all charges shown on the ticket by the appearance date, you may expect an arrest warrant to be issued and aa$50.00 warrant feeato be added to your Òne upon activation of warrant. If your vehicle has been booted, a $50.00 boot fee will be added to the total amount owed on your delinquent parking citations.
Persons or vehicles in custody
If you are in the custody of law enforcement oÕcers or your vehicle has been booted or stored by law enforcement oÕcers, checks willaNOTabe accepted for the payment of your Òne or the posting of bond. You must pay in full by cash, money order, cashier's check, credit card, or you must post a bail bond or surety bond.

WARRANTS & COLLECTIONS FEES
Warrant or Boot Fees:a
If an arrest warrant has been issued on the violation, a $50.00 warrant fee will be added upon activation of warrant. If a vehicle has been booted, a $50.00 boot fee will be added. If a vehicle has been towed and stored, additional fees will be charged by the towing company.
Collection Agency Fees:
If a commitment or warrant is not paid within 60 calendar days from the date it is activated, it will be placed with the City's collection agency. If a parking citation is not paid within 75 days from the date of issuance it will be placed with the City’s collection agency.
In compliance with the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, Chapter 103, Article 103.0031(b), once the commitment, warrant, or parking citation is placed with the City's collection agency, an additional 30% collection fee will be added to the amount owed on the case. For example, if the Ònes and court costs on the case total $100, once the case is placed with collection agency, the amount owed will rise 30% to $130 total.

SPEEDING

SPEEDING TICKETS

Regular Zone

(Non-School or Non-Construction Zone)

E×ective January 1, 2014

Miles Over LimitaTotal

1

$ 124.10

2

$ 128.10

3

$ 132.10

4

$ 136.10

5

$ 140.10

6

$ 144.10

7

$ 148.10

8

$ 152.10

9

$ 156.10

10

$ 160.10

11

$ 168.10

12

$ 176.10

13

$ 184.10

14

$ 192.10

15

$ 200.10

16

$ 208.10

17

$ 216.10

18

$ 224.10

19

$ 232.10

20

$ 240.10

School Zone Only
E×ective January 1, 2014

Miles Over LimitaTotal

1

$ 153.10

2

$ 161.10

3

$ 169.10

4

$ 177.10

5

$ 185.10

6

$ 193.10

7

$ 201.10

8

$ 209.10

9

$ 217.10

10

$ 225.10

11

$ 237.10

12

$ 249.10

13

$ 261.10

14

$ 273.10

15

$ 285.10

16

$ 297.10

17

$ 309.10

18

$ 321.10

19

$ 323.85

20 or more $ 323.85

21

C$a2s52e.103:16-cv-00132-DCG

22

$ 264.10

23

$ 276.10

24

$ 288.10

25 or more $ 298.85

a

Document 75-1

Filed 05/23/18

Page 35 of 72

a Construction Zone Only

*Note: Workers must be present.

E×ective January 1, 2014

Miles Over LimitaTotal

1

$ 149.10

2

$ 157.10

3

$ 165.10

4

$ 173.10

5

$ 181.10

6

$ 189.10

7

$ 197.10

8

$ 205.10

9

$ 213.10

10

$ 221.10

11

$ 237.10

12

$ 253.10

13

$ 269.10

14

$ 285.10

15

$ 301.10

16

$ 317.10

17

$ 333.10

18

$ 349.10

19

$ 365.10

20

$ 381.10

21

$ 405.10

22

$ 429.10

23

$ 453.10

24

$ 477.10

25 or more $ 498.60

a

FINES >1/1/14

School and Construction Zone

*Note: Workers must be present.

E×ective January 1, 2014

Miles Over LimitaTotal

1

$ 182.10

2

$ 198.10

3

$ 214.10

4

$ 230.10

5

$ 246.10

6

$ 262.10

7

$ 278.10

8

$ 294.10

9

$ 310.10

10

$ 326.10

11

$ 350.10

12

$ 374.10

13

$ 398.10

14

$ 422.10

15

$ 446.10

16

$ 470.10

17

$ 494.10

18

$ 518.10

19

$ 523.60

20 or more $ 523.60

FINE SCHEDULE AFTER JAN 1 2014
EL PASO MUNICIPAL COURT BOND FINE SCHEDULE
Below is a list of the most common violations. If your violation does not appear here, please call 915-212-0215, between 8:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. Please note that these amounts apply to cases paid before arraignment or trial and are subject to acceptance by the judge. At arraignment or trial, the judge of the court in which your case is docketed may Òne you within the Òne range stipulated by law. Please be advised that the Òne amount may be higher than the bond amounts shown here.
* On violations occurring in a construction zone when workers are present, please call 915-212-0215 for the correct amount. * On moving violations occurring in a school zone, bond amounts increase by $25.00. * On moving violations causing an accident, bond amounts increase by $ 50.00.
* E×ective January 1, 2014 ALL FINES INCREASED BY $2.00

Alcohol and Tobacco

Public Intoxication

$ 107.00

Alcohol Detectable

$ 327.00

Open Container in Vehicle $ 226.00

Open Container in Urban District

$ 227.00

Minor in Possession of Alcohol

$ 127.00

Minor in Possession of Tobacco

$ 127.00

a

Animal Control Violations

Animal Not ConÒned

$ 97.00

Animal Registration

$ 92.00

Animal Vaccination

$ 102.00

a

Building Code Violations

Building Permit/None

$ 322.00

Remodel Without Permit $ 322.00

a

Miscellaneous

Assault – Simple

$ 227.00

BonÒre/Rubbish

$ 112.00

Criminal Mischief

$ 277.00

Curfew: Can not be paid

prior to appearance before $ 152.00

the Judge

Common TraÕc Violations

Backing Vehicle Unsafely $ 145.10

Cell Phone Violation

$ 116.10

Changing Lanes – Failure to Signal

$ 160.10

Changing Lanes Unsafely $ 160.10

Changing Lanes

Unsafely/Causing an

$ 210.10

Accident

Commercial Driving License Violations

$ 127.00

Cutting through Property $ 145.10

Defective Equipment/Headlight

$ 130.00

Defective Equipment/Brake or Stop Light

$ 130.00

Defective Equipment/MuÖer

$ 130.00

Defective Equipment/Seatbelt

$ 145.00

Defective Equipment/Tail $ 130.00 Light

Defective Equipment/Windshield

$ 130.00

Defective Vehicle Emission $ 145.10

Disregarding an OÕcer

$ 160.10

Disregard Barricade

$ 145.10

Case Disorderly Conduct3:16-c$v1-707.000132-DCG

Failure to Identify

$ 277.00

Littering/Dumping

$ 327.00

In Park after Hours

$ 107.00

Parking on the Sideyard $ 177.00

Possession of Drug Paraphernalia

$ 177.00

Possession of Fireworks $ 176.00

Theft Under $100.00

$ 227.00

Urinating in Public

$ 112.00

a

Water Violations

Watering on Wrong Day $ 147.00

Watering on Wrong Time $ 122.00

Water Running onto Street $ 122.00

Document 75-1

Filed 05/23/18DrivePr’saLgiceens3e 6Vioolaftio7n2s (Exp. NOL; No NOL)

$ 127.00

Driving on Median or Shoulder Lane

$ 145.10

Driving while using cellphone

$ 116.10

Driving Without Headlights $ 145.10

Driving with Bright Lights $ 145.10

Exhibition of Speed/Accel $ 150.10

Failure to Control Speed $ 160.10

Failure to Control Speed/Causing an Accident

$ 210.10

Failure to Give Information/After Accident

$ 210.10

Failure to Maintain Financial

Responsibility (FTMFR) 1st $ 277.00

o×ense

Failure to Maintain Financial

Responsibility (FTMFT) 2nd $ 488.00

o×ense

Failure to Signal Lane Change

$ 160.10

Failure to Signal Turn

$ 160.10

Failure to Obey TraÕc Control Device

$ 145.10

Failure to Yield Right of Way at Controlled Intersection

$

185.10

Failure to Yield Right of Way

at Controlled Intersection/Causing

$ 235.10

Accident

Failure to Yield Right of Way Before Making Left Turn

$

160.10

Failure to Yield Right of Way

Before Entering From

$ 160.10

Private Driveway

Following Too Closely

$ 160.10

Following Too Closely/Causing

An

Accident

$

210.10

Impeding TraÕc

$ 145.10

Incorrect Left or Right Turn $ 145.10

Incorrect Left or Right

$ 195.10

Turn/Causing an Accident

Jaywalking

$ 65.00

Left Turn from Wrong Lane $ 160.10

ModiÒed Lights

$ 159.00

ModiÒed MuÖer

$ 145.00

Motor Carrier Safety Violations

$ 260.10

Motor Vehicle Dealer License Violation

$ 112.00

Motor Vehicle Inspection Sticker

$ 145.00

No Seatbelt/Driver

$ 145.10

No Seatbelt/Passenger over 15 years of age

$ 145.10

No Seat Belt/Child 5 to 17 years of age

$ 259.10

No Child Safety Seat: 2 to 4 years of age

$ 259.35

No Child Safety Seat: Under 2 years of age

$ 259.35

Overtaking a School

$ 624.10

Bus/Loading or Unloading

Pass in School Zone

$ 210.00

Passing in No Pass Zone $ 145.10

Pedestrian/Walk Against Pedestrian Control Sign

$ 87.00

Racing

$ 210.10

Red Light Violation

$ 185.10

Red Light Violation Causing Accident

$ 235.10

Registration/No or Expired Motor Vehicle Plates

$ 112.00

Registration/Out of Town Unregistered Vehicle

$ 277.00

Speeding: Fines Vary

a

According to Speed.

Stop Sign

$ 185.10

Stop Sign/Causing Accident $ 235.10

Case 3:16-cv-00132-DCG
a
FINES <1/1/14

Document 75-1

Filed 05/23/18StradPdlaingg Lean3es7 of 72 $ 160.10

Truck Route Violations

$ 145.10

FINE SCHEDULE BEFORE JAN 1 2014
EL PASO MUNICIPAL COURT BOND FINE SCHEDULE
Below is a list of the most common violations. If your violation does not appear here, please call 915-212-0215, between 8:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. Please note that these amounts apply to cases paid before arraignment or trial and are subject to acceptance by the judge. At arraignment or trial, the judge of the court in which your case is docketed may Òne you within the Òne range stipulated by law. Please be advised that the Òne amount may be higher than the bond amounts shown here.
* On violations occurring in a construction zone when workers are present, please call 915-212-0215 for the correct amount. * On moving violations occurring in a school zone, bond amounts increase by $25.00. * On moving violations causing an accident, bond amounts increase by $ 50.00.
* E×ective December 1, 2005

Alcohol and Tobacco

Public Intoxication

$ 105.00

Alcohol Detectable

$ 325.00

Open Container in Vehicle $ 224.00

Open Container in Urban $ 225.00 District

Minor in Possession of Alcohol

$ 125.00

Minor in Possession of Tobacco

$ 125.00

a

Animal Control Violations

Animal Not ConÒned

$ 95.00

Animal Registration

$ 90.00

Animal Vaccination

$ 100.00

a

Building Code Violations

Building Permit/None

$ 320.00

Remodel Without Permit $ 320.00

a

Miscellaneous

Assault – Simple

$ 225.00

BonÒre/Rubbish

$ 110.00

Criminal Mischief

$ 275.00

Curfew: Can not be paid

prior to appearance before $ 150.00

the Judge

Disorderly Conduct

$ 175.00

Failure to Identify

$ 275.00

Littering/Dumping

$ 325.00

In Park after Hours

$ 105.00

Parking on the Sideyard $ 175.00

Possession of Drug Paraphernalia

$ 175.00

Possession of Fireworks $ 174.00

Theft Under $50.00

$ 225.00

Urinating in Public

$ 110.00

a

Water Violations

Watering on Wrong Day $ 145.00

Watering on Wrong Time $ 120.00

Water Running onto Street $ 120.00

Common TraÕc Violations

Backing Vehicle Unsafely $ 143.10

Cell Phone Violation

$ 114.10

Changing Lanes – Failure to Signal

$ 158.10

Changing Lanes Unsafely $ 158.10

Changing Lanes

Unsafely/Causing an

$ 208.10

Accident

Commercial Driving License Violations

$ 125.00

Cutting through Property $ 143.10

Defective Equipment/Headlight

$ 128.00

Defective Equipment/Brake or Stop Light

$ 128.00

Defective Equipment/MuÖer

$ 128.00

Defective Equipment/Seatbelt

$ 143.00

Defective Equipment/Tail Light

$ 128.00

Defective Equipment/Windshield

$ 128.00

Defective Vehicle Emission $ 143.10

Disregarding an OÕcer

$ 158.10

Disregard Barricade

$ 143.10

Driver’s License Violations (Exp. NOL; No NOL)

$ 125.00

Driving on Median or Shoulder Lane

$ 143.10

Driving while using cellphone

$ 114.10

Driving Without Headlights $ 143.10

Driving with Bright Lights $ 143.10

Exhibition of Speed/Accel $ 148.10

Failure to Control Speed $ 158.10

Failure to Control Speed/Causing an Accident

$ 208.10

Failure to Give

$ 208.10

Information/After Accident

Failure to Maintain Financial

Responsibility (FTMFR) 1st $ 275.00

o×ense

Failure to Maintain Financial

Responsibility (FTMFT) 2nd $ 486.00

o×ense

Failure to Signal Lane Change

$ 158.10

Failure to Signal Turn

$ 158.10

Failure to Obey TraÕc Control Device

$ 143.10

Failure to Yield Right of Way at Controlled Intersection

$

183.10

Failure to Yield Right of Way

at Controlled Intersection/Causing

$ 233.10

Accident

Failure to Yield Right of Way Before Making Left Turn

$

158.10

Case 3:16-cv-00132-DCG Document 75-1 Filed 05/23/18FailuPreatogYeield3R8ighotfof7W2ay

Before Entering From

$ 158.10

Private Driveway

Following Too Closely

$ 158.10

Following Too Closely/Causing

An

Accident

$

208.10

Impeding TraÕc

$ 143.10

Incorrect Left or Right Turn $ 143.10

Incorrect Left or Right Turn/Causing an Accident

$ 193.10

Jaywalking

$ 65.00

Left Turn from Wrong Lane $ 158.10

ModiÒed Lights

$ 157.00

ModiÒed MuÖer

$ 143.00

Motor Carrier Safety Violations

$ 258.10

Motor Vehicle Dealer License Violation

$ 110.00

Motor Vehicle Inspection Sticker

$ 143.00

No Seatbelt/Driver

$ 143.10

No Seatbelt/Passenger over 15 years of age

$ 143.10

No Seat Belt/Child 5 to 17 $ 257.10 years of age

No Child Safety Seat: 2 to 4 years of age

$ 257.35

No Child Safety Seat: Under 2 years of age

$ 257.35

Overtaking a School Bus/Loading or Unloading

$ 233.10

Pass in School Zone

$ 208.00

Passing in No Pass Zone $ 143.10

Pedestrian/Walk Against Pedestrian Control Sign

$ 85.00

Racing

$ 208.10

Red Light Violation

$ 183.10

Red Light Violation Causing $ 233.10 Accident

Registration/No or Expired Motor Vehicle Plates

$ 110.00

Registration/Out of Town Unregistered Vehicle

$ 275.00

Speeding: Fines Vary According to Speed.

a

Stop Sign

$ 183.10

Stop Sign/Causing Accident $ 233.10

Straddling Lanes

$ 158.10

Truck Route Violations

$ 143.10

a

a

(https://www.citepayusa.com/payments/welcome.do?

(https://public.fce.elpasotexas.gov/fullcourtweb/start.do)a

court=elPASOtx)

(//www.elpasotexas.gov/municipal-courts/court-processes)

HELPFUL LINKS
TOOLS FOR SELF REPRESENTED LITIGANTS (http://www.txcourts.gov/programs-services/self-help/self-represented-litigants/) a El Paso Police Department (//www.elpasotexas.gov/police-department) El Paso County Case Records Search (http://casesearch.epcounty.com/PublicAccess/default.aspx) El Paso County Judge Directory (http://www.epcounty.com/councilofjudges/courtdirectory.htm) Judicial/Courts Directory ( http://www.txcourts.gov/judicial-directory.aspx) OÕce of Court Administration (http://www.txcourts.gov/oca.aspx ) Texas Statutes (http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/) TX Department of Public Safety (https://www.dps.texas.gov/) TX DPS Surcharges (https://www.txsurchargeonline.com/(S(xinx4ppuntkciz5phadmÓ4f))/default.aspx) TxDOT (http://www.txdot.gov/ ) Red Light Tickets (https://www.photonotice.com/)
(//WWW.ELPASOTEXAS.GOV/MUNICIPAL-COURTS/TRANSLATE)

DepCartamseents3(:/1/w6w-wc.vel-p0a0so1te3x2as-.DgoCv/dGeparDtmoecnutsm) ent 75-1
Residents (//www.elpasotexas.gov/residents) Business (//www.elpasotexas.gov/economic-development) Visitors (//www.elpasotexas.gov/visitors) Meetings (//www.elpasotexas.gov/meetings) Online Services (//www.elpasotexas.gov/online-services) Contact Us (//www.elpasotexas.gov/contact)

Filed 05/23/18

Page 39 of 72

Accessibility (//www.elpasotexas.gov/ada) Disclaimer (//www.elpasotexas.gov/disclaimer) Link Policy (//www.elpasotexas.gov/link-policy) Privacy Policy (//www.elpasotexas.gov/privacy-policy) Security Policy (//www.elpasotexas.gov/security-policy) Webmail (https://owa.elpasotexas.gov/)

© 2018 City of El Paso CONNECT WITH US
$name (http://www.facebook.com/elpasotexasgov) $name (http://twitter.com/#!/ElPasoTXGov) $name (https://www.youtube.com/cityofelpasotx) Instagram (https://www.instagram.com/iam_elpaso/)

EL PASO CITY HALL
300 N. Campbell El Paso, Texas 79901 (915) 212-0000 or 3-1-1 Directions to City Hall (https://www.google.com/maps/place/300+N+Campbell+St,+El+Paso,+TX+79901/@31.762095,-106.484746,17z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m2!3m1!1s0x8 OPERATIONAL HOURS
Mon-Fri | 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

Case 3:16-cv-00132-DCG Document 75-1 Filed 05/23/18 Page 40 of 72

Case 3:16-cv-00132-DCG Document 75-1 Filed 05/23/18 Page 41 of 72

Case 3:16-cv-00132-DCG Document 75-1 Filed 05/23/18 Page 42 of 72

Case 3:16-cv-00132-DCG Document 75-1 Filed 05/23/18 Page 43 of 72

Case 3:16-cv-00132-DCG Document 75-1 Filed 05/23/18 Page 44 of 72

Case 3:16-cv-00132-DCG Document 75-1 Filed 05/23/18 Page 45 of 72

Case 3:16-cv-00132-DCG Document 75-1 Filed 05/23/18 Page 46 of 72

Case 3:16-cv-00132-DCG Document 75-1 Filed 05/23/18 Page 47 of 72

Case 3:16-cv-00132-DCG Document 75-1 Filed 05/23/18 Page 48 of 72

Case 3:16-cv-00132-DCG Document 75-1 Filed 05/23/18 Page 49 of 72

Case 3:16-cv-00132-DCG Document 75-1 Filed 05/23/18 Page 50 of 72

Case 3:16-cv-00132-DCG Document 75-1 Filed 05/23/18 Page 51 of 72

Case 3:16-cv-00132-DCG Document 75-1 Filed 05/23/18 Page 52 of 72

Case 3:16-cv-00132-DCG Document 75-1 Filed 05/23/18 Page 53 of 72

Case 3:16-cv-00132-DCG Document 75-1 Filed 05/23/18 Page 54 of 72

Case 3:16-cv-00132-DCG Document 75-1 Filed 05/23/18 Page 55 of 72

Case 3:16-cv-00132-DCG Document 75-1 Filed 05/23/18 Page 56 of 72

Case 3:16-cv-00132-DCG Document 75-1 Filed 05/23/18 Page 57 of 72

Case 3:16-cv-00132-DCG Document 75-1 Filed 05/23/18 Page 58 of 72

Case 3:16-cv-00132-DCG Document 75-1 Filed 05/23/18 Page 59 of 72

Case 3:16-cv-00132-DCG Document 75-1 Filed 05/23/18 Page 60 of 72

Case 3:16-cv-00132-DCG Document 75-1 Filed 05/23/18 Page 61 of 72

Case 3:16-cv-00132-DCG Document 75-1 Filed 05/23/18 Page 62 of 72

Case 3:16-cv-00132-DCG Document 75-1 Filed 05/23/18 Page 63 of 72

Case 3:16-cv-00132-DCG Document 75-1 Filed 05/23/18 Page 64 of 72

Case 3:16-cv-00132-DCG Document 75-1 Filed 05/23/18 Page 65 of 72

Case 3:16-cv-00132-DCG Document 75-1 Filed 05/23/18 Page 66 of 72

Case 3:16-cv-00132-DCG Document 75-1 Filed 05/23/18 Page 67 of 72

Case 3:16-cv-00132-DCG Document 75-1 Filed 05/23/18 Page 68 of 72

Case 3:16-cv-00132-DCG Document 75-1 Filed 05/23/18 Page 69 of 72

Case 3:16-cv-00132-DCG Document 75-1 Filed 05/23/18 Page 70 of 72

Case 3:16-cv-00132-DCG Document 75-1 Filed 05/23/18 Page 71 of 72

Case 3:16-cv-00132-DCG Document 75-1 Filed 05/23/18 Page 72 of 72

 
 Case: 3:16-cv-132 As of: 03/19/2019 02:41 PM CDT 1 of 9
U.S. District Court [LIVE] Western District of Texas (El Paso) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 3:16−cv−00132−DCG

CLOSED

Canaan et al v. City Of El Paso Assigned to: Judge David C Guaderrama Demand: $100,000 Cause: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act
Plaintiff
Carina Canaan

Date Filed: 04/20/2016 Date Terminated: 05/29/2018 Jury Demand: Plaintiff Nature of Suit: 440 Civil Rights: Other Jurisdiction: Federal Question
represented by Mimi M.D. Marziani Texas Civil Rights Project 1405 Montopolis Drive Austin, TX 78741 512−474−5073 x108 Fax: 512−474−0726 Email: mimi@texascivilrightsproject.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Natalia M. Cornelio 405 Main Street Houston, TX 77002 832−767−3650 Fax: 832−554−9981 Email: natalia@texascivilrightsproject.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Peter B. Steffensen Texas Civil Rights Project 1405 Montopolis Drive Austin, TX 78741 512−474−5073 x101 Fax: 512−474−0726 Email: psteff@gmail.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Christopher Benoit Law Office of Lynn Coyle, PLLC 2515 N Stanton El Paso, TX 79902 915−532−5544 Email: chris@coylefirm.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Enrique Moreno The Law Offices of Enrique Moreno 701 Magoffin Ave. El Paso, TX 79901−2507 (915) 533−9977 Fax: (915) 533−0033 Email: emoreno@morenolaw.us ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lynn A. Coyle The Law Office of Lynn Coyle, PLLC 2515 N. Stanton St. El Paso, TX 79902 (915) 532−5544

Case: 3:16-cv-132 As of: 03/19/2019 02:41 PM CDT 2 of 9

Fax: (915) 532−5566 Email: lynn@coylefirm.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Porscha Brown Paso del Norte Civil Rights Project 1317 E. Rio Grande Ave. El Paso, TX 79902 915−532−3799 ext. 16 Fax: 915−532−8892 Email: Porscha@TexasCivilRightsProject.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Wayne Krause Yang Texas Legal Services Center 2101 S IH 35 Frontage Rd. Austin, TX 78702 (512) 637−5566 Fax: (512) 477−6576 Email: WYang@tlsc.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

William Brian Jacobi Texas Civil Rights Project 1317 E. Rio Grande Avenue El Paso, TX 79902 512−758−2214 Email: jacobi@texascivilrightsproject.org TERMINATED: 07/05/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Levi Lane

represented by Mimi M.D. Marziani (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Natalia M. Cornelio (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Peter B. Steffensen (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Christopher Benoit (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Enrique Moreno (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Lynn A. Coyle (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Porscha Brown (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Wayne Krause Yang

Case: 3:16-cv-132 As of: 03/19/2019 02:41 PM CDT 3 of 9
(See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
William Brian Jacobi (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/05/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Defendant City Of El Paso

represented by Adolfo Ruiz Denton Navarro Rocha Bernal & Zech 2517 N. Main San Antonio, TX 78212 210−227−3243 Fax: 210−225−4481 Email: adolfo.ruiz@rampage−sa.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Anelisa Benavides City Attorney's Office 300 N. Campbell, Second Floor El Paso, TX 79901 915−212−0033 Fax: 915−212−0034 Email: BenavidesAX1@elpasotexas.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Maria Guadalupe Martinez El Paso City Attorney's Office 300 N. Campbell Street, 2nd Floor El Paso, TX 79901−1196 (915) 212−0033 Email: martinezmg@elpasotexas.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Oscar Guillermo Gabaldon , Jr El Paso City Attorney's Office P.O. Box 1890 El Paso, TX 79950 915−212−1120 Email: gabaldonog@elpasotexas.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
William M. McKamie Taylor Olson Adkins Sralla & Elam LLP 13750 San Pedro, Ste 555 San Antonio, TX 78232 (210)546−2122 Fax: 210/546−2130 Email: mmckamie@toase.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Laura Gordon City Attorney's Office City of El Paso Two Civic Center Plaza 9th Floor

Case: 3:16-cv-132 As of: 03/19/2019 02:41 PM CDT 4 of 9
El Paso, TX 79901 Fax: 915/541−4550 Email: gordonlp@elpasotexas.gov TERMINATED: 12/07/2016
Sue Ann Gregory McKamie Krueger LLP 941 Proton Road San Antonio, TX 78258 (210) 546−2122 Fax: 210/546−2130 Email: sue@mckamiekrueger.com TERMINATED: 09/29/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 04/20/2016
04/20/2016
04/20/2016 04/22/2016
05/03/2016 05/03/2016 05/03/2016 05/03/2016 06/06/2016 06/20/2016 06/20/2016 06/20/2016 06/30/2016 06/30/2016

# Docket Text
1 MOTION to Proceed in forma pauperis by Carina Canaan, Levi Lane. (Attachments: # 1 Memo in Support Application to Proceed in Forma Pauperis, # 2 Memo in Support Application to Proceed in Forma Pauperis, # 3 Brief Original Complaint, # 4 Civil Cover Sheet Civil Cover Sheet, # 5 Proposed Order Proposed Order)(Jacobi, William) (Entered: 04/20/2016)
Case Assigned to Judge David C Guaderrama. CM WILL NOW REFLECT THE JUDGE INITIALS AS PART OF THE CASE NUMBER. PLEASE APPEND THESE JUDGE INITIALS TO THE CASE NUMBER ON EACH DOCUMENT THAT YOU FILE IN THIS CASE. (jg1) (Entered: 04/21/2016)
If ordered by the court, all referrals will be assigned to Magistrate Judge Castaneda (jg1) (Entered: 04/21/2016)
Remark: "All parties shall comply with the Standing Orders of Judge David C. Guaderrama located at http://www.txwd.uscourts.gov/Rules/StandingOrders/default.asp#elpaso" (mc4) (Entered: 04/22/2016)
2 ORDER GRANTING 1 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis Signed by Judge David C Guaderrama. (mc4) (Entered: 05/03/2016)
3 ORIGINAL COMPLAINT, filed by Carina Canaan, Levi Lane.(mc4) (Entered: 05/03/2016)
4 Summons Issued as to the Mayor, City Of El Paso. (mc4) (Entered: 05/03/2016)
5 Summons Issued as to Laura Gordon, City Attorney's Office, City Of El Paso. (mc4) (Entered: 05/03/2016)
6 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction by City Of El Paso. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Gabaldon, Oscar) (Entered: 06/06/2016)
7 NOTICE of Attorney Appearance by Lynn A. Coyle on behalf of Carina Canaan, Levi Lane. Attorney Lynn A. Coyle added to party Carina Canaan(pty:pla), Attorney Lynn A. Coyle added to party Levi Lane(pty:pla) (Coyle, Lynn) (Entered: 06/20/2016)
8 NOTICE of Attorney Appearance by Lynn A. Coyle on behalf of Carina Canaan, Levi Lane (Coyle, Lynn) (Entered: 06/20/2016)
9 Response in Opposition to Motion, filed by Carina Canaan, Levi Lane, re 6 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction filed by Defendant City Of El Paso (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Krause Yang, Wayne) (Entered: 06/20/2016)
10 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Carina Canaan, Levi Lane as to Laura P. Gordon, City Attorney's Office, City Of El Paso served on 6/1/2016, answer due 6/22/2016. (mc4) (Entered: 06/30/2016)
11 Request for U.S. Marshals Service Expenses in Pauper Case (mc4) (Entered: 06/30/2016)

Case: 3:16-cv-132 As of: 03/19/2019 02:41 PM CDT 5 of 9

07/01/2016 08/04/2016 08/08/2016
08/09/2016 08/10/2016 08/15/2016 08/22/2016 09/15/2016 10/10/2016 11/16/2016
11/16/2016 11/16/2016
11/18/2016 11/23/2016
11/30/2016
12/06/2016 12/09/2016

12 Acknowledgment of Service returned by USMS re:Carina Canaan. City Of El Paso served on 5/20/2016, answer due 6/20/2016. (em) (Entered: 07/01/2016)
13 MOTION to Set Aside to Abate Discovery by City Of El Paso. (Gabaldon, Oscar) (Entered: 08/04/2016)
14 Response in Opposition to Motion, filed by Carina Canaan, Levi Lane, re 13 MOTION to Set Aside to Abate Discovery filed by Defendant City Of El Paso (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit EMAIL FROM DAVID BARR TO BRIAN JACOBI, # 2 Proposed Order PROPOSED ORDER)(Jacobi, William) (Entered: 08/08/2016)
15 Scheduling Recommendations/Proposed Scheduling Order by Carina Canaan, Levi Lane. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Jacobi, William) (Entered: 08/09/2016)
16 REPLY to Response to Motion, filed by City Of El Paso, re 13 MOTION to Set Aside to Abate Discovery filed by Defendant City Of El Paso (Gabaldon, Oscar) (Entered: 08/10/2016)
17 ORDER DENYING 13 Motion to Abate Discovery. Signed by Judge David C Guaderrama. (mc4) (Entered: 08/16/2016)
18 Pretrial Disclosures Rule 26(a) Initial Disclosures by City Of El Paso. (Gabaldon, Oscar) (Entered: 08/22/2016)
19 ADR Report Filed − by Carina Canaan, Levi Lane(Jacobi, William) (Entered: 09/15/2016)
20 NOTICE of Attorney Appearance by William M. McKamie on behalf of City Of El Paso. Attorney William M. McKamie added to party City Of El Paso(pty:dft) (McKamie, William) (Entered: 10/10/2016)
21 SCHEDULING ORDER: Pretrial Conference set for 10/12/2017 02:00 PM before Judge David C Guaderrama, Jury Selection set for 10/16/2017 09:00AM before Judge David C Guaderrama, Jury Trial set for 10/16/2017 09:00 AM before Judge David C Guaderrama, Amended Pleadings due by 1/16/2017, Discovery due by 5/16/2017, Joinder of Parties due by 1/16/2017, Dispositive Motions due by 6/30/2017,. Signed by Judge David C Guaderrama. (mc4) (Entered: 11/16/2016)
22 ORDER SETTING, Set Motion Hearing for 6 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction ( Motion Hearing set for 12/9/2016 10:00 AM before Judge David C Guaderrama,). Signed by Judge David C Guaderrama. (mc4) (Entered: 11/16/2016)
23 Opposed MOTION for Leave to File Defendant City of El Paso's First Supplement to Defendant's Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss by City Of El Paso. (Attachments: # 1 Defendant City of El Paso's First Supplement to Defendant's Rule12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss, # 2 Proposed Order)(Gregory, Sue) (Entered: 11/16/2016)
24 ADVISORY TO THE COURT by City Of El Paso. (McKamie, William) (Entered: 11/18/2016)
25 Response in Opposition to Motion, filed by Carina Canaan, Levi Lane, re 23 Opposed MOTION for Leave to File Defendant City of El Paso's First Supplement to Defendant's Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendant City Of El Paso (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Jacobi, William) (Entered: 11/23/2016)
26 REPLY to Response to Motion, filed by City Of El Paso, re 23 Opposed MOTION for Leave to File Defendant City of El Paso's First Supplement to Defendant's Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendant City Of El Paso (Gregory, Sue) (Entered: 11/30/2016)
27 NOTICE of Extended Leave of Absence by City Of El Paso (Benavides, Anelisa) (Entered: 12/06/2016)
28 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge David C Guaderrama: Motion Hearing held on 12/9/2016 re 6 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction filed by City Of El Paso. Motion taken under advisement. Written Order forthcoming (Minute entry documents are not available electronically.). (Court Reporter Kathleen Supnet.)(mc4) (Entered: 12/09/2016)

Case: 3:16-cv-132 As of: 03/19/2019 02:41 PM CDT 6 of 9

12/16/2016 12/30/2016 01/06/2017 01/10/2017 01/12/2017
01/12/2017 01/20/2017 02/03/2017 02/17/2017 02/24/2017 03/24/2017 03/30/2017 04/06/2017
04/25/2017

29 ADR Report Filed − by Carina Canaan, Levi Lane(Jacobi, William) (Entered: 12/16/2016)
30 MOTION for Leave to File First Amended Complaint by Carina Canaan, Levi Lane. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit First Amended Complaint, # 2 Proposed Order)(Jacobi, William) (Entered: 12/30/2016)
31 Response in Opposition to Motion, filed by City Of El Paso, re 30 MOTION for Leave to File First Amended Complaint filed by Plaintiff Levi Lane, Plaintiff Carina Canaan (Gregory, Sue) (Entered: 01/06/2017)
32 REPLY to Response to Motion, filed by Carina Canaan, Levi Lane, re 30 MOTION for Leave to File First Amended Complaint filed by Plaintiff Levi Lane, Plaintiff Carina Canaan (Jacobi, William) (Entered: 01/10/2017)
33 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART 6 Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction; and ORDER DENYING 30 Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint. Plaintiffs MAY FILE by January 20, 2017 an Amended Complaint consistent with this Memorandum Opinion and Order to assert their equal protection claims as contained in their proposed amended complaint (ECF No. 30−1). Signed by Judge David C Guaderrama. (mc4) (Entered: 01/12/2017)
Text Order MOOTING 23 Motion for Leave to File Supplement To Defendants Rule 12(B)(6) Motion To Dismiss, in view of the Court's Memorandum Opinion and Order 33 , entered by Judge David C Guaderrama. (This is a text−only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.)(wk) (Entered: 01/12/2017)
34 AMENDED COMPLAINT against City Of El Paso amending, filed by Carina Canaan, Levi Lane.(Jacobi, William) (Entered: 01/20/2017)
35 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim First Amended Complaint, MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction First Amended Complaint by City Of El Paso. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A−Administrative Directive, # 2 Exhibit B−Senate Bill 1863, # 3 Exhibit C−Official Web Pages)(Gregory, Sue) (Entered: 02/03/2017)
36 Response in Opposition to Motion, filed by Carina Canaan, Levi Lane, re 35 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim First Amended Complaint MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction First Amended Complaint filed by Defendant City Of El Paso (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Jacobi, William) (Entered: 02/17/2017)
37 REPLY to Response to Motion, filed by City Of El Paso, re 35 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim First Amended Complaint MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction First Amended Complaint filed by Defendant City Of El Paso (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit D − 2015 Standing Order)(Gregory, Sue) (Entered: 02/24/2017)
38 Opposed MOTION to Stay Motion for Limited Stay of Depositions Pending Disposition of the Rule 12(b) Motion to Dismiss the First Amended Complaint and For Expedited Consideration by City Of El Paso. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Gregory, Sue) (Entered: 03/24/2017)
39 Response in Opposition to Motion, filed by Carina Canaan, Levi Lane, re 38 Opposed MOTION to Stay Motion for Limited Stay of Depositions Pending Disposition of the Rule 12(b) Motion to Dismiss the First Amended Complaint and For Expedited Consideration filed by Defendant City Of El Paso (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Proposed Order)(Jacobi, William) (Entered: 03/30/2017)
40 REPLY to Response to Motion, filed by City Of El Paso, re 38 Opposed MOTION to Stay Motion for Limited Stay of Depositions Pending Disposition of the Rule 12(b) Motion to Dismiss the First Amended Complaint and For Expedited Consideration filed by Defendant City Of El Paso (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A−Excerpt from Plaintiffs' Third Settlement Demand, # 2 Exhibit B−Defendant's First Supplemental Objections and Responses to Plaintiffs' Second Set of Interrogatories and Requests for Production)(Gregory, Sue) (Entered: 04/06/2017)
41 ORDER DENYING 35 Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint. Defendant's answer to the Plaintiffs' "FirstAmended Complaint" (ECF No.

Case: 3:16-cv-132 As of: 03/19/2019 02:41 PM CDT 7 of 9

04/25/2017 04/26/2017 05/09/2017 05/10/2017 05/24/2017 05/24/2017
05/24/2017 05/25/2017 06/22/2017 06/26/2017 06/30/2017 07/05/2017
07/05/2017 07/18/2017 09/29/2017 10/17/2017 11/27/2017 11/28/2017

34) is due within 14 days after the entry of this Order. Signed by Judge David C Guaderrama. (mc4) (Entered: 04/25/2017)
Text Order DENYING AS MOOT 38 Motion to Stay entered by Judge David C Guaderrama. See 41 Order, ECF No. 41. (This is a text−only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (wk) (Entered: 04/25/2017)
42 NOTICE of Vacation by City Of El Paso (Benavides, Anelisa) (Entered: 04/26/2017)
43 Original ANSWER to 34 Amended Complaint by City Of El Paso.(Gregory, Sue) (Entered: 05/09/2017)
44 Agreed MOTION to Extend Scheduling Order Deadlines by Carina Canaan, Levi Lane. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Jacobi, William) (Entered: 05/10/2017)
45 Joint MOTION for Protective Order by City Of El Paso. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Ruiz, Adolfo) (Entered: 05/24/2017)
46 AMENDED SCHEDULING ORDER: Pretrial Conference set for 3/15/2018 02:00 PM before Judge David C Guaderrama, Jury Trial set for 3/19/2018 09:00 AM before Judge David C Guaderrama, Discovery due by 10/9/2017, Dispositive Motions due by 11/20/2017,. Signed by Judge David C Guaderrama. (em) (Entered: 05/24/2017)
ORDER GRANTING IN PART 44 Motion to Extend Scheduling Order Deadlines pursuant to Amended Scheduling Order. Signed by Judge David C Guaderrama. (em) (Entered: 05/24/2017)
47 ORDER GRANTING 45 Joint Motion for Protective Order. Signed by Judge David C Guaderrama. (mc4) (Entered: 05/25/2017)
48 ADR Report Filed − by Carina Canaan, Levi Lane(Jacobi, William) (Entered: 06/22/2017)
49 MOTION to Appear Pro Hac Vice by William Brian Jacobi ( Filing fee $ 100 receipt number 0542−9726532) by on behalf of Carina Canaan, Levi Lane. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Jacobi, William) (Entered: 06/26/2017)
50 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney by Carina Canaan, Levi Lane. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Jacobi, William) (Entered: 06/30/2017)
Text Order GRANTING 49 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice. Pursuant to our Administrative Policies and Procedures for Electronic Filing, the attorney hereby granted to practice pro hac vice in this case must register for electronic filing with our court within 10 days of this order. Entered by Judge David C Guaderrama. (This is a text−only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (wk) (Entered: 07/05/2017)
Text Order GRANTING 50 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. Entered by Judge David C Guaderrama. (This is a text−only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (wk) (Entered: 07/05/2017)
51 NOTICE Certificate of Unavailability Letter by City Of El Paso (Gregory, Sue) (Entered: 07/18/2017)
52 NOTICE of Attorney Appearance by William M. McKamie on behalf of City Of El Paso (McKamie, William) (Entered: 09/29/2017)
53 TRANSCRIPT REQUEST by Carina Canaan for proceedings held on 12/9/16. Proceedings Transcribed: Pre−trial proceedings. Court Reporter: Kathleen Supnet. (mc4) (Entered: 10/20/2017)
54 Opposed MOTION for Protective Order by City Of El Paso. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C)(Ruiz, Adolfo) (Entered: 11/27/2017)
55 Response in Opposition to Motion, filed by Carina Canaan, Levi Lane, re 54 Opposed MOTION for Protective Order filed by Defendant City Of El Paso (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit 5, # 6 Exhibit 6, # 7 Exhibit 7)(Cornelio, Natalia) (Entered: 11/28/2017)

Case: 3:16-cv-132 As of: 03/19/2019 02:41 PM CDT 8 of 9

12/04/2017 12/04/2017 12/06/2017 12/11/2017 12/11/2017 12/14/2017
12/21/2017 12/22/2017 12/26/2017 01/08/2018
02/01/2018 03/08/2018 03/09/2018 03/21/2018

56 Opposed MOTION to Continue by Carina Canaan, Levi Lane. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Exhibit Parties' Agreement to extend deadline to file motion for continuance)(Cornelio, Natalia) (Entered: 12/04/2017)
57 MOTION for Summary Judgment by City Of El Paso. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G, # 8 Exhibit H, # 9 Exhibit I, # 10 Exhibit J, # 11 Exhibit K, # 12 Exhibit L, # 13 Exhibit M)(Ruiz, Adolfo) (Entered: 12/04/2017)
58 Opposed MOTION to Compel Production of Documents by Carina Canaan, Levi Lane. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Exhibit 1, # 3 Exhibit 2, # 4 Exhibit 3)(Cornelio, Natalia) (Entered: 12/06/2017)
59 ORDER DENYING 54 Defendant Motion for Protective Order; DENYING 56 Plaintiff's Motion to Continue; DENYING 57 Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment; DENYING 58 Plaintiff's Motion to Compel. Signed by Judge David C Guaderrama. (em) (Entered: 12/11/2017)
60 RESPONSE to Motion, filed by City Of El Paso, re 56 Opposed MOTION to Continue filed by Plaintiff Levi Lane, Plaintiff Carina Canaan (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit BV, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D−1, # 5 Exhibit D−2, # 6 Exhibit E, # 7 Exhibit F−1, # 8 Exhibit F−2, # 9 Exhibit G)(Ruiz, Adolfo) (Entered: 12/11/2017)
61 Opposed MOTION for Leave to File Motion for Leave to File Amended No Evidence and Traditional Motion for Summary Judgment by City Of El Paso. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Amended Motion for Summary Judgment, # 2 Exhibit Defendant's Undisputed Facts, # 3 Exhibit A, # 4 Exhibit B, # 5 Exhibit C, # 6 Exhibit D, # 7 Exhibit E, # 8 Exhibit F, # 9 Exhibit G, # 10 Exhibit H, # 11 Exhibit I, # 12 Exhibit J, # 13 Exhibit K, # 14 Exhibit L, # 15 Exhibit M, # 16 Exhibit A, # 17 Exhibit B, # 18 Exhibit C, # 19 Exhibit D, # 20 Exhibit E, # 21 Exhibit F, # 22 Exhibit G, # 23 Exhibit H)(Ruiz, Adolfo) (Entered: 12/14/2017)
62 Response in Opposition to Motion, filed by Carina Canaan, Levi Lane, re 61 Opposed MOTION for Leave to File Motion for Leave to File Amended No Evidence and Traditional Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Defendant City Of El Paso (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Cornelio, Natalia) (Entered: 12/21/2017)
63 ADR Report Filed − Jointly by City Of El Paso (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)(Ruiz, Adolfo) (Entered: 12/22/2017)
64 ORDER DENYING 61 Motion for Leave to File Amended No Evidence and Traditional Motion for Summary Judgment; Vacating in Part the Court's Order Doc. 59; Granting Doc.58, Granting in Part Doc.56; and Amending Scheduling Order deadlines; further directive incorporated in this Order. Signed by Judge David C Guaderrama. (em) (Entered: 12/26/2017)
65 SECOND AMENDED SCHEDULING ORDER: Pretrial Conference reset for 6/7/2018 02:00 PM before Judge David C Guaderrama, Jury Selection reset for 6/11/2018 09:00AM before Judge David C Guaderrama, Jury Trial reset for 6/11/2018 09:00 AM before Judge David C Guaderrama, Discovery due by 2/9/2018, Dispositive Motions due by 3/9/2018. FURTHER DIRECTIVES WITHIN ORDER. Signed by Judge David C Guaderrama. (mc4) (Entered: 01/08/2018)
66 NOTICE Certificate of Unavailability by City Of El Paso (Benavides, Anelisa) (Entered: 02/01/2018)
67 MOTION for Summary Judgment by City Of El Paso. (Attachments: # 1 Supplement, # 2 Exhibit A, # 3 Exhibit B, # 4 Exhibit C, # 5 Exhibit D, # 6 Exhibit E, # 7 Exhibit F, # 8 Exhibit G, # 9 Exhibit H, # 10 Exhibit I, # 11 Exhibit J, # 12 Exhibit K, # 13 Exhibit L, # 14 Exhibit M)(McKamie, William) (Entered: 03/08/2018)
68 NOTICE of Attorney Appearance by Peter B. Steffensen on behalf of Carina Canaan, Levi Lane. Attorney Peter B. Steffensen added to party Carina Canaan(pty:pla), Attorney Peter B. Steffensen added to party Levi Lane(pty:pla) (Steffensen, Peter) (Entered: 03/09/2018)
69 Joint MOTION to Stay Ruling regarding Motion for Summary Judgment and Response; Notice of Settlement; Motion for Short Continuance of Pretrial and Trial

Case: 3:16-cv-132 As of: 03/19/2019 02:41 PM CDT 9 of 9

03/22/2018
03/22/2018 03/22/2018 03/23/2018 04/23/2018 04/24/2018 05/08/2018 05/23/2018 05/29/2018

Date during finalization of settlement by Carina Canaan, Levi Lane. (Cornelio, Natalia) (Entered: 03/21/2018)
70 ORDER GRANTING 69 Joint Motion to Stay Consideration of Motion for Summary Judgment for 45 days Pending Finalization of Settlement Agreement. Pretrial Conference and Trail are VACATED and RESET. Signed by Judge David C Guaderrama. (mc4) (Entered: 03/22/2018)
Reset Hearings: Pretrial Conference reset for 7/26/2018 02:00 PM before Judge David C Guaderrama. Jury Selection/Trial reset for 7/30/2018 09:00AM before Judge David C Guaderrama. (mc4) (Entered: 03/22/2018)
71 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 67 MOTION for Summary Judgment , 70 Order on Motion to Stay by Carina Canaan, Levi Lane. (Cornelio, Natalia) (Entered: 03/22/2018)
Text Order GRANTING 71 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply entered by Judge David C Guaderrama. (This is a text−only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (je) (Entered: 03/23/2018)
72 NOTICE of Settlement Submitted Jointly with Defendant City of El Paso by Carina Canaan, Levi Lane (Steffensen, Peter) (Entered: 04/23/2018)
73 ORDER re 72 Notice of Settlement filed by Levi Lane, Carina Canaan. Signed by Judge David C Guaderrama. (mc4) (Entered: 04/24/2018)
74 NOTICE of Change of Address by William M. McKamie (McKamie, William) (Entered: 05/08/2018)
75 STIPULATION of Dismissal by Carina Canaan, Levi Lane. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix, # 2 Proposed Order)(Cornelio, Natalia) (Entered: 05/23/2018)
76 ORDER DISMISSING CASE. All pending Motions, if any, are DENIED as MOOT.. Signed by Judge David C Guaderrama. (mc4) (Entered: 05/29/2018)